Theory & Practice of the Sokolsky Opening

The Sokolsky Opening

l.b4 in Theory & Practice

by

Jerzy Konikowski
&
Marek Soszynski

2009
Russell Enterprises, Inc.
Milford, CT USA
 The Sokolsky Opening
l.b4 in Theory & Practice

by Jerzy Konikowski & Marek Soszynski

© Copyright 2009

Russell Enterprises, Inc.

All Rights Reserved. No part of this book may be used, reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any manner or form
whatsoever or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the express written
permission from the publisher except in the case of brief quotations
embodied in critical articles or reviews.

ISBN: 978-1-888690-65-1

Published by:
Russell Enterprises, Inc.
PO Box 5460
Milford, CT 06460 USA

http://www.chesscafe.com
info @chesscafe.com

Cover design by Janel Lowrance

Editing and Proofreading: Hanon Russell and Mark Donlan
Production: Mark Donlan

Printed in the United States of America

 Table of Contents

Preface 7
Acknowledgments 8
Selected English Bibliography 8
The Name 9
Signs & Symbols 10
Playing the Sokolsky II
Introduction 14

Chapter I l .b4 aS 26

Game l Sokolsky-Luik, Minsk 1 957 32

Game 2 Agrest-Andersson, Umea 2003 34
Game 3 Katalymov-Simagin, Tashkent 1 95 8 35

Chapter 2 l .b4 c6 37
Chapter 2A l .b4 c6 2 . .1lb2 38
Chapter 2B l .b4 c6 2.e3 44

Game 4 Campora-Anguix Garrido, Canete 1 994 47

Game 5 Lukovski-Hespers, Bad Wildungen 2004 49
Game 6 Katalymov-Sakharov, corr 1 988 51
Game 7 Rudenkov-Strugath, Minsk I 96I 53
Game 8 Steffens-Pajeken, Germany 2000 55

Chapter 3 l.b4 e6 58
Chapter 3 A l.b4 e 6 2.1cl f6 .1lb2 3.bS b6 63
Chapter 3B l.b4 e6 2.�f6 .1lb2 3.bS a6 66
Chapter 3C l.b4 e6 2.�f6 .1lb2 3.bS c6 69
Chapter 3D l .b4 e6 2.�f6 Jlb2 3.bS Ae7 73

Game 9 Sokolsky-Byvshev, USSR I 95I 74

Game IO Sokolsky-Usov, Odessa I 960 77
Game II Sokolsky-Szukszta, Polanica Zdroj I 958 78
Game l 2 Sokolsky-Andreev, corr 1 960 80
Game l 3 Sokolsky- Keres, Moscow 1 950 82
Game l 4 Schiffier- Kaba Klein, Binz Ruegen 1 950 84
Game l 5 Zielke-Howe, Kiel 2006 86
Game 1 6 Sokolsky-Chekhover, Leningrad 1 93 8 88
Game l 7 Sokolsky-Weinblatt, Odessa 1 949 91
Game l 8 Bemstein-Seidman, New York 1 959 92
Game 1 9 Sasonow-Kamenski, corr 1 962 94
Game 20 Klavins-Randviir, Vilnius 1 955 96
Game 2 1 Sokolsky-Shagalov ich, M insk 1 959 98
Game 22 Pommerel-Bankw itz, email 1 984 1 00
Game 23 Sokolsky-Abz irko, Odessa 1 943 101

Chapter 4 t.b4 dS 2 .1}.b2 4)f6

• 1 03
Chapter 4A t.b4 dS 2 . .1}.b2 �d6 1 07
Chapter 4B t .b4 dS 2 .1}.b2 .il.fS
• 1 13

Game 24 Katalymov-Mnatsakan ian, Soch i 1 969 1 20

Game 25 Sokolsky-Csaszar, corr 1 95 8 1 22
Game 26 Lorenc-Navratil, Czech ia 200 1 1 24
Game 27 Lapshun-Gravel, Montreal, 2004 1 25
Game 28 Bessat-Lombard, La Fere 2006 1 27
Game 29 Sokolsky-Villard, K iev 1 95 5 1 28
Game 30 Bums-Bennett, Wanganu i 2005 1 30
Game 3 1 Lal ic-G ia idz i, Athens 1 992 131
Game 32 Maletzk i-Rauscher, Naumburg 2002 1 32
Game 3 3 Sch iffler-Goers, Soemmerda 1 950 1 34
Game 34 Sokolsky-Roman ish in, Lvov 1 947 1 36

Chapter 5 t.b4 4)f6 2 . .1}.b2 g6 138

Game 3 5 Ret i-Capablanca, New York 1 924 1 50

Game 3 6 Radshenko-Shap ir o, Krasnodar 1 955 1 52
Game 37 Behn icke-Kon ikowski, Dortmund 1 995 1 54
Game 3 8 Frombach-Overbeck, Dortmund 2003 1 55
Game 39 Sokolsky-Kholmov, K iev 1 954 1 58
Game 40 Sokolsky-Lil ienthal, K iev 1 954 1 60
Game 4 1 Sokolsky-Kogan, Odessa 1 949 1 62
Game 42 Sokolsky-Solovjev, M insk 1 957 1 63
Game 43 Sokolsky-Pelz, M insk 1 96 1 1 65
Game 44 Katalymov-Bakhtiar, Tashkent 1 959 1 67
Game 45 Sokolsky-K irilov, M insk 1 957 1 69

Chapter 6 t.b4 fS 171

Game 46 Sch iller-Schm idt, Le ipz ig 1 950 1 77

Game 47 Jalo-Kesk inen, Hels ink i 1 992 1 79
Game 48 Sokolsky-Luk in, corr 1 960 181
Game 49 Katalymov-Kondratiev, M insk 1 962 1 82

Chapter 7 t.b4 eS 2 .i}.b2 f6 3.a3

• 1 84

Game 50 Valenta-Ruckschloss, Banska St iavn ica 2006 1 87

Game 5 1 Capablanca-Pedroso, Sao Paulo 1 927 1 87

4
Chapter 7A l .b4 e5 2.J1,b2 f6 3.b5 1 89

Game 52 Volke-Kupreichik, Minsk 1 994 1 96

Game 53 Sokolsky-Golovko, corr 1 960 1 97
Game 54 Sokolsky-Zhukhovitsky, Kiev 1 945 1 99
Game 5 5 Sokolsky-Kan, Omsk 1 943 20 1
Game 56 Kilpatrick-Bryson, corr 1 978 203
Game 57 Sokolsky-Livshitz, Minsk 1 956 206
Game 5 8 Sokolsky-Kotov, Leningrad 1 93 8 208

Chapter 78 l .b4 e5 2.J1,b2 f6 3.e4 209

Game 59 Sokolsky-Lisenkov, Zwenigorod 1 95 1 224

Game 60 Danielian-Vardanian, Yerevan 1 996 226
Game 6 1 Katalymov-Estrin, Moscow 1 964 227
Game 62 Katalymov-Estrin, Minsk 1 962 229
Game 63 Sokolsky-Estrin, Baku 1 95 8 23 1
Game 64 Schiffier-Skirl, Leipzig 1 950 232
Game 65 Jensen-Labahn, corr 1 99 1 233
Game 66 Tartakower-Colle, Bartfeld 1 926 235
Game 67 Goljak-Lilienthal, Moscow 1 962 236

Chapter 8 t .b4 e5 2.Jl.b2 d6 239

Game 68 Cemy-Cominetti, Teplice 2006 246

Game 69 Agrest-Aldobasic, Umea 2003 247
Game 70 Miralles-Bologan, France 2003 249
Game 7 1 H ubner-Asplund, Jerusalem 1 967 250
Game 72 Sokolsky-Nei, USSR 1 955 25 1
Game 73 Miralles-Seret, Belfort 1 983 254
Game 74 Sokolsky-Flohr, Moscow 1 953 255
Game 75 Sokolsky-Mnatsakanian, Vladimir 1 960 257
Game 76 Katalymov-Suetin, Moscow 1 959 258
Game 77 Katalymov-Liberson, Rostov 1 960 260
Game 78 Sokolsky-Lavdansky, Vladimir 1 960 26 1
Game 79 Sokolsky-Persitz, corr 1 968 262
Game 80 Sokolsky-Samarian, corr 1 95 8 264

Chapter 9 l.b4 e5 2.J1,b2 e4 266

Game 8 1 Gilgevich-Voitech, Minsk 1 960 27 1

Game 82 Frosinos-Kanellopoulos, Patras 200 1 273

Chapter 1 0 l.b4 e 5 2.J1,b2 J1, x b4 3.Jl.xe5 �f6 4.c4 274

Game 83 Jamieson-Kuenitz, Gibraltar 2006 283

5
Game 84 Zuse-Werner, Germany I 995 284
Game 85 Schiefelbusch-Gorzinski, Dortmund 2005 286
Game 86 Katalymov-Giterman, Novgorod I 96I 288
Game 87 Nevednichy-Parligras, Curtea de Arges 2002 289
Game 88 Miralles-Spiridonov, Bulgaria• 1 985 29I
Game 89 Sokolsky-Anishchenko, Minsk I 959 292
Game 90 Arkeii-Gallagher, London I 986 294

Chapter II l .b4 e5 2.Jlb2 Jl x b4 3.Jlxe5 �f6 4.�f3 296

Game 9I Zielinska-Nodorp, Hamburg 2005 302

Game 92 Markowski-Pedzich, Poland I 994 3 04
Game 93 Campora-German, Buenos Aires I 995 3 05
Game 94 Mus-Mitrus, corr I 992 3 07
Game 95 Althoff-Mueller, Kaufungen 2003 3 09

Afterword 3I 2
Index of Games 3I 3

6
 Preface

Weird and wacky or safe and sound? The Sokolsky Opening is both. S o meti mes
the play is truly deviant - both sides' initial few moves all on the a-b-c files and
the first pieces exchanged a pair of rooks - at other ti mes l .b4 beco mes merely a
roundabout route to a respectable English, Reti, King's Indian or reversed French
position.

Grand masters such as Keith Arkell, Christian Bauer, Daniel Hugo Campora,
Vlasti mil Hort, Bent Larsen, G illes Miralles, and Marek Vokac have used l .b4 in
tourna ment games on more than one occasion. And if we include all relevant
ga mes involving an early b2-b4, not just on move one, then we can expand the
list to include the top-class players Tigran Petrosian, Boris Spassky, Vassily
S myslov in part icular, and quite a few more. (And if we further include si multa­
neous and casual games with l .b4 we can add Vassily Ivanchuk, Bobby Fischer,
and Jose Capablanca.) Clearly, this is not an opening to dis miss lightly. But it
deserves more theoretical coverage than was currently available, which is the
point of this book.

When we started to syste matize our coverage of the Sokolsky Opening we must
ad mit that we were taken aback by the nu mber of possible transpositions (which
for one thing makes an index of variations i mpractical - see our Introduction
instead). We have drawn attention to the varieties of move order, and to many of
the transpositions both within and between the chapters and ga mes, but could not
possibly manage the m all. Moreover, the deeply nested variations gave rise to
formatting proble ms when converting fro m digital to print media. The disk and
book versions should have all and exactly the same lines (and assess ments and
co mments); however, the arrangement and nu mbering of subvariations may be
very d ifferent.

Finally, a word about the most recent ite m in the Selected English Bibliography,
namely Play 1 b4! by Yury Lapshun and Nick Conticello. We did not have sight
of it until May 2008, by which ti me we had virtually co mpleted all our analysis
for the present work. Twenty-six of our illustrative ga mes (nineteen with Alexey
Sokolsky or Boris Kataly mov as white) happened to be in their selection of main
ga mes too. However, very little in their book pro mpted us to change our own
content; in fact we mention Lapshun and Conti cello only in Chapter I 0, although
a few of Lapshun 's ga mes already appeared in our draft book.

Jerzy Konikowski
Marek Soszynski
March 2009

7
 Acknowledgments

We express our thanks to those who helped us in our work on l .b4; in particular
Mike Donnelly, Keith Escott, Joey Stewart, and not least Marek Trokenheim who
maintains the www. algonet.se/�marek website devoted to the opening.

Selected English Bibliography

•

De Firmian, Botsford's Modern Chess Openings 1 4th E dition [ MC0 1 4] ,

Batsford, 2000
Dunnington, Winning Unorthodox Openings, Everyman, 2000
Harding, Dynamic W hite Openings, Chess Digest, 1 989
Ivanov, Orangutan, Russian Chess House, 2003
Kasparov et al, Botsford Chess Openings 2 [BC02], Batsford, 1 989
Lapshun and Conticello, Play 1 b4!, Everyman, 2008
Levy, 1 b4 Sokolsky Opening, Chess Player, 1 977
Nunn et al, Nunn s Chess Openings [NCO] , Everyman, 1 999
Santasiere, The Futuristic Chess Opening: Santasiere 's Folly, A l l - Star
Printing, 1 966
Soko1sky, Pawns in Action, Chess Player, 1 976
Soltis, 1 P-QN4, Chess Digest, 1 972
Wall, The Orangutan, Chess Enterprises, 1 989

Some ot her works are referred to at the start of Chapter 2.

A special mention should be made here of three online articles, entirely devoted
to the Sokolsky Opening, by Tim Harding in "The Kibitzer" series of his (June,
July, September 2003) on the ChessCafe website.

The ChessCafe Archives: The Kibitzer

Sokolsky's principal work on l .b4 never appeared in full in an English version,

although for Western readers there was a German translation the year after the
Russian original.

Sokolsky, Die Ero.ffnung 1. b2-b4, Schach-Archiv, 1964

8
 The Name

You would think that there could be no better place to start a history of the no­
menclature of l .b4 (I P-QN4 in descriptive notation) than with the man said to
be the originator of the move, the Canadian-born Joseph Hunt ( 1 85 1 - 1 920). Un­
fortunately, we haven 't been able to unearth any of Dr. Hunt's games nor what
else he might have done to merit the move being called Hunt's Opening.

l .b4 became known as the Englisch Opening after the Austrian, Berthold Englisch
( 1 85 1 - 1 897) had success with it. As late as the 1 930s it was being called the
Hunter-Englisch Game or similar misrenderings like the Hunter-English Open­
ing, or lazily grouped among the "irregular" games, which still happens to this
day.

The greatest impact with the opening was made by Savielly Tartakower ( 1 887-
1956). He played the move as early
• as 1 9 1 1 , but it was his defeat of Richard Reti
in 1 924 and his then calling the opening the Orangutan that really caught the
imagination. Tartakower explained that "the climbing movement of the pawn to
b4 and then b5 is reminiscent of that inventive animal." He did not call the open­
ing for an ape because it "leads to a hairy game" as later wits quipped.

Partly on account of Tartakower 's sometime Polish citizenship, plus the fact that
the mirror-version l .d4 b5 had already acquired the tag of Polish Defense, l .b4
was also known as the Polish Attack.

Meanwhile the American, Anthony Santasiere ( 1 904- 1 977) was an enthusiast of

1 .4Jf 3 d5 (or 1 . . .4Jf 6) 2 . b4, which he named S a n tasiere's Folly, although
Alexander Alekhine had played it on a couple of occasions previously.

If Tartakower made the greatest splash, it was Sokolsky who swam deepest. The
major theoretical influence on l .b4 was, and still is, the Soviet player, Alexey
Sokolsky ( 1 908- 1 969). Not only did he use the opening on dozens of occasions ­
many more than Tartakower - and defeat strong players with it, but he also wrote
at length about it. For this reason it is wholly appropriate for l .b4 to be known as
the Sokolsky Opening.

9
 Signs & Symbols

l -0 White won
0- l Black won
�-� draw
! strong move
!! excellent move
? poor move
?? blunder
!? interesting move
?! dubious move
equal game
;!; White stands slightly better
� Black stands slightly better
± White is clearly better
+ Black is clearly better
+- White has a decisive advantage
-+ Black has a decisive advantage
00 unclear position
with compensation for material
1:::. with the threat or idea of
+:t with counterplay
t with the initiative
-+ with an attack
X captures
0 better is
� inferior is
+ check
# checkmate
corr correspondence game
simul simultaneous exhibition game

10
 Playing the Sokolsky

Although the coverage of this book is biased in favor of White, the assessments
are meant to be realistic for both sides. To discover White's and Black's best
lines, or the ones that would suit you the most, you wi ll have to refer to the
analytical chapters and illustrative games and do some serious study. If you take
them together, the main lines in each chapter can form the basis of a complete
repertoire for White. What we will do in this section, though, is to gather together
a few observations and suggestions to give you a quick, practical overview in
case you want to play the Sokolsky Opening right away, maybe in internet or
other casual games, leaving the hard work of researching variations and strate­
gies for later, after you have gained a little experience with the opening.

Typically, White plans to continue with the queenside expansion that he started
with l .b4, while keeping the center closed if possible and the kingside quiet.
White's desired piece placement involves one bishop on b2 and, after e2 - e3 , one
on e2 ; one knight on f3 and, after c2-c4, one on c3 . Usually, the white queen goes
to c2 or b3 while the king castles kings ide or stays in the center. Obviously, this is
an idealized situation. Very often White will want to (or have to) adopt a slightly
or very different configuration. Everything depends on Black's reaction. Let us
be a little more specific about the possible early play. . .

The widely recommended l .b4 e 5 2 . .ilb2 .ll xb4 3 . .ilxe5 .:£\f6 undoubtedly poses
White the greatest challenges, so no wonder it is the main line, but the variations
are complex and interweaving and it is often unclear precisely how to proceed for
maximum effect - with either color (Introduction, and Chapters I 0 and II ). If
White requires a quick fix, then we recommend that he avoids an early c2-c4 and
simply gets castled as quickly as possible, as in the main line of Chapter 1 1 .
White also has the ruse of playing 4 . .lle 5-b2 immediately, at this moment a vol­
untary retreat, in order to give inexperienced Black players the opportunity to get
confused by the move order.

Black, following l .b4 e5 2 . .llb 2 .Q.xb4, must be prepared for 3.f4, the sharp
Kucharkowski-Meybohm Gambit. However, we don 't recommend it for White
since it is well answered by 2 . . . d6. Moreover, Black can avoid the gambit alto­
gether by changing his sequence of moves to 2 . . ..:£\£6 3 . .ll x e5 .ilxb4, as explained
in the Introduction.

After l .b4 e5 2 . .llb 2 f6, the obj ectively best line for White is 3 .b5 (Chapter 7 A).
However, 3 .e4 remains an attractive option because of the clear attacking possi­
bilities - even though Black goes a pawn up after 3 . . . ..1lxb4 and should be fine if
he knows the theory (Chapter 7B).

II
 Playing the Sokolsky

Generally speaking, the more "normal" continuations in which Black organizes

himself along the lines of the King's Indian Defense for instance (Chapter 5), or
the London System (Chapters 2B, 4 and 4B), or the Dutch Defense (Chapters 6
and 8), should pose no particular problems to White. Presumably Black will be
familiar with his chosen setup from his use of it in other contexts (against l .b3 or
l .c4 too, for example), but White goes unpunished for his choice of opening
move, and can make the usual progress involved in mainstream closed-opening
positions.

Specific anti-Sokolsky systems such as l .b4 c6 2 . .1lb2 �b6 or 2 . . . a5 (Chapter

2A), and l .b4 d5 2 . .1lb2 �d6 (Chapter 4A), are over-rated, in our opinion. Hav­
ing said that, there are some special tricks that White must employ when facing
them. In addition, after l .b4 d5 we show that ifWhite varies with 2 . .£lf3, 2 . . . �d6
may be met with 3.c4!? (Chapter 4B); while after l .b4 c6 2.l.tb2 �b6 we draw
attention to the odd-looking 3 .l.tc3!? (Game 5).

If Black replies impulsively to l .b4, hoping for improvisation by both sides, he

will be disappointed. For example, l .b4 b5 2.a4 (Introduction) and l .b4 a5 2.b5
(Chapter 1 ) are fairly unpromising for Black; while l .b4 c5 (Introduction) usu­
ally leaves Black with a backward or isolated d-pawn after 2.bxc5 and so on -
White can also transpose to the Sicilian Wing Gambit by 2.e4.

Maybe the simplest way for Black to take White down a less-trodden path is to
play l .b4 e5 2 . .1lb2 e4 (Chapter 9), which is better than its reputation, and not the
subject of much analysis; but White has opportunities for creativity in this line
too.

Finally, while the subject matter of this book is the immediate l .b2-b4, let us see
what happens if the move is postponed. Presumably White delays it because he is
concerned about 1 . . .e5, which is the commonest reply to l .b4; so he plays l ..£lf3
first. The drawback is that Black may immediately go l . . .c5, or l . . .g6, not to
mention l . . . a5, which makes 2.b4 questionable.

Anyway, let us have a quick look at some delayed b-pawn advances and where
they may transpose in our book:

A) l ..£lf3 d5 (or l . . . .£lf 6) 2.b4 is Santasiere 's Folly (already mentioned in

our section on The Name). Higher-rated players are more likely to play
2.b4 against l . . . .£lf6 than l . . .d5; very highly rated players are unlikely to
be playing the Folly at all. See Chapters 4B and 5 .

B ) l . .£lf3 .£lf6 2.c4 g6 3.b4 has been used b y many strong players including
Viktor Korchnoi, Robert Kempinski and originally Richard Reti . See
Chapter 5, and Games 35 and 36.

12
 The Sokolsky Opening

C) 1 .4Jf3 4Jf6 2 .g3 g6 3 .b4 was very success ful for Nigel Davies for in­
stance and, as so often with an early b2-b4, Vassily • Smyslov. The fur­
ther 3 . . . ..1lg7 4 . ..1lb2 0-0 5.c4 goes into Game 3 5 .

This book, packed with fresh analysis and 95 illustrative games, clearly sho ws
that White has nothing to fear in the Sokolsky Opening and in fact can look for­
ward to a re warding albeit complex or unusual struggle. There 's no need to d well
on the usual platitudes applied interchangeably to unorthodox openings, like "a
good psychological choice to get your opponent into unfamiliar te rritory." The
Sokolsky, othe rwise kno wn as the Orangutan or the Polish Attack, is an indepen­
dent opening whose merits are due to chess analysis not psychoanalysis. l .b4 is
sound, the re futations don 't work, assessments are disputed, printed theory till
no w has been inadequate, White 's aims are clear, and the practitioners have been
world class. So what are you waiting for? Get out there and hit your opponents
with the b-pa wn !

13
 Introduction

l.b4 The above are regarded as Black's best

alternatives to l . . .e5.

Most of the remainder may transpose

to those chapters, but are otherwise
weaker and/or rarer:

A) l . . .a6 2 . ..Q..b 2 (2.a3!?) 2 . . . <£Jc6 (2 . . . d5

3.e3 e6 4.a3 <tlf6 5 .<tlf3 Jl.d6 6.d4 0-0
7.Ad3 <tlbd7 8.<£lbd2 <tlb6 9.c4 dxc4
1 0.<tlxc4 <tlxc4 1 1 ...1lxc4 and White can
prepare the advance of the e-pawn with
active play) 3.a3 e5

With his first move White indicates a

concrete game plan based on active
queenside play. He will have a space
advantage on that side of the board,
which could later facilitate operations
in the center or even on the kingside.
So the move could actually still lead the
game in all sorts of directions.

t .. es
.

Generally speaking, in this opening

Black seeks counterplay on the oppo­
site wing, but he does have a range of
possibilities open to him. l . . .e5 is the
main line. It occupies the center and at
the same time attacks White's advanced
pawn. l . . .e5 is played almost as often
as all the alternatives put together, but
of course we must investigate them too.
l . . .a5 Chapter 1 ;
l . . .c6 Chapter 2 ;
l . . .e6 Chapter 3 ;
l . . .d5 Chapter 4 ;
l . . .<tlf6 Chapter 5 ;
1 . . .f5 Chapter 6 ;
l . . .d6 2.Jl.b2 e 5 Chapter 8.
1) 4.c4 d6 5.e3 <tlf6 6.d4 exd4 7.exd4
d5 8.<£lf3 Jl.g4 9.c5 ..lle7 10.<£lbd2 0-0
1 l .Ad3 Jl.h5 1 2 . 0-0 .ilg6 1 3 . Jl. e 2
(worth considering is 1 3 . .ilxg6!? hxg6
14.<tle5 with the more active position)
13 . . . <£le4 14.<£le5 <tlxe5 1 5 .dxe5 <tlxd2
16.'lfi'xd2 f6 1 7 .e6 Jl.f5 1 8 .'lfi'e3 'lfi'c8
19.!He1 .ilxe6? (correct is 19 . . . �xe6!)
20 . ..1ld3 �f7 2 1 ...1lxh7 E! h8 22.�d3 +­
Djukic-Grigorian, Budva 1 967;
2) 4.e4 <tlf6 5.<tlc3 d5 6.exd5 <tlxd5
7 ...1lc4 <tlxc3 8.A.xc3 .ild6 9.<tle2 0-0
10.0-0 Jl.£5 1 1 .<tlg3 Jl.g6= Parra-Abarca
Grau, Santiago de Chile 2004;
B) l . . .<tlc6 Grigorian Variation 2.b5

14
 The Sokolsky Opening
1) 2 . . . .£\d4 3.e3 .£\f5
a) 4 . .ll.b 2 d6 5 .e4 .£lfh6 6.d4 f5 7 . .£\d2
fxe4 8 . .£\xe4 .£lf6 9.Ad3 .£\f7 10 . .£\f3 e6
1 1 . 0-0 .ll. e 7 1 2 . c4 0-0 1 3 . � c 2 h6
14 . .£\g3 b6 1 5 JH e 1 ± Haralambof­
Madan, Tel Aviv 1 964;
b) 4 . e 4 .£\d4 (4 . . . .£ld6 5 . .£\ c 3 c6
6 . .£lf3 ;; ) 5 . c3 .£le6 6 . d4 d5 7 .exd5
(7.e5 !?) 7 .. :ii1t x d5 8 . .£\f3 .£\f6 9 . .ll. e 2
�d8 10.0-0 g6 1 1 ...1lc4 .ll.g7 1 2 J�e1 0-
0 13 . .£\e5 .£le8 14.�b3 with a positional
advantage to White who is already
threate n i n g to take o n f7, Kopp­
Poulsen, IECG 2004;
2) 2 . . . .£\e5
a) 3 . d4 .£lg6 4 . e 3 e5 5 . Ab2 exd4
6.�xd4 .£\f6 7 . .£\d2 d5 8 . .£\gf3 .ll. e 7
9 . .ll.e 2 0-0 1 0 .0-0 .£\e8 1 l .�a4 Ae6
12 . .£\d4 White is more actively placed
and has the plan ! H 1 -d 1 and c2-c4,
Ziese-Larsson, corr 1 995;
b) 3 . .ll.b 2 d6 (3 ... .£\c4!?) 4.e3 .£lf6 5.c4
g6 6.d4 .£\ed7 7 . .£\f3 .ll. g 7 8 . �o2 ;;
Lien-Andersen, Oslo 2005 ;
3) 2 . . . .£la5 3.e4 (playable too is 3.e3 c6
4.c4 e6 5 . .ll.b 2 etc.) 3 . . . c6 4 . .£lf3 cxb5
5 . .ll.x b5 e6 6.0-0 �b6 7.�e2 a6 8 . .ll.d 3
4Jc6 9.c3 g6 10 . .£\a3 �c7 1 l . e5 b5
12 . .£\c2 .llg7 1 3 . § e 1 with a positional
advantage to White who can consider
15
a2-a4 or Ad3-e4 and d2-d4, Pilczuk­
Nowakowski, corr 1 99 1 ;
C) 1 . . . .£lh6 The Kamiewski Variation
2 . .ll.b 2
1) 2 . . .f6
a) 3 . e4 c6 4 . Ac4 .£la6 5 .a3 ( 5 . b5!?)
5 . . . .£\c7 6 . .£lc3 e6 7 . .£\f3 d5 8 . ..1lb3 .ll.e7
9 . d4 0-0 1 0 . 0-0 planning § fl -e 1 or
�d1 -e2 and § a 1 -d1 with good pros­
pects for White;
b) 3.c4 e6 4.b5 a6 5 .a4 axb5 6.axb5
§ xa 1 7.Axa1 d5 8.e3 .£\f7 9 . .£\f3 Ae7
10 . .£\c3 ( 1 0.�c2 0-0 1 l .Ad3 f5 1 2 .0-
o;;) 1 0 . . . 0-0 l l .cxd5 exd5 1 2 . ..1le2
( 1 2 .�b3!?) 12 . . . .£\e5 1 3 .0-0 c6 14.�c2
.£\xf3+ ( 1 4 . . . .£lbd7 1 5 . .£ld4 ± ) 1 5 . ..1lxf3
.£\d7 1 6 . b x c 6 b x c6 1 7 . .£la4 .£\ e 5
1 8 . ..1le2 and White threatens ..lla 1 -d4
controlling the c5-square, with a small
positional advantage;
c) 3.d4 transposes to Sergeeva-E.Paehtz
in the notes below;
2) Upon the extravagant Tuebingen
Variation 2 . . . § g8 it is probably best to
develop like so: 3.c4 d6 (3 . . . e6 4.b5 ;; )
4.e3 e5 5 . .£\c3 g5 6.d4 exd4 7.exd4
.ll.g7 8.Ad3 .£1f5 9 . .£lge2 etc.;
D) l . . . h6 2 . Ab2 b6 3 .e3 .ll.b7 4 . .£\f3
d6
 Introduction
1) 5 .d4 e6 6.c4 4Je7 7 . .1le2 (7 . .1ld3!?)
7 . . . a6 8.0-0 4Jd7 9.4Jbd2 g5 1 0.d5 e5
1 1 . 4J e 1 .ll g 7 1 2 .i�k2 h5 1 3 . f4 g4
1 4 . 4Je4 � Myslowski-Trocme, Paris
1 994;
2) 5 .c4 e5 6.d4 e4 7.4Jfd2 4Jf6 (7 .. .f5??
8 .'�' h 5 + � ) 8 . 4Jc3 d5 9 . cxd5 4Jxd5
1 0.a3 4Jxc3 1 1 ..1lxc3 .lld6 1 2 . .1lc4 ;!; ;
E) 1 . . .g6 (This move could well lead to
positions in Chapter 5, which deals with
1 . . . 4Jf6) 2 . .1lb2
1) 2 . . .f6 3.c4 .llg7 4.e3 4Jh6 5 .4Jf3 e5
6.d4 (6.4Jc3 0-0 7 . .1le2 intending d2-
d4 is good for White) 6 . . . e4 7.4Jfd2 f5
8 . .1le2 'lff e 7 9 .'lflb3 4Jc6 1 0 .b5 4Jd8
1 1 .4Jc3 c6 1 2 .a4 with a positional ad­
vantage to White, who can bring his
dark-squared bishop into play on a3 ,
Schoenwaelder-Schwarz, Dortmund
2003 ;
2) 2 . . . 4Jf6 3 .4Jf3 .llg7 4.c4 0-0 5.e3
transposes to Chapter 5 ;
F ) 1 . . .4Ja6 2 .b5 (2.a3!?) 2 . . . 4Jc5 3.d4
4Je6
1) 4.c4 c6 5.4Jc3 (5.a4!?) 5 . . . 4Jf6 6.e3
(not 6 . e4 'lfla5 !?) 6 . . . g6 7 . 4Jf3 .ll g 7
8 . .1ld3 0-0 9 . 0-0 d5 1 0 . b x c6 bxc6
16
1 1 .4Je5 and now 1 1 . . . c 5 i s met by
1 2 . 4Jc6 'lffc7 1 3.cxd5 with the advan­
tage since 1 3 . . . 4Jxd5?? 14.4Jxd5 'lf!xc6
1 5 .4Jxe7+ wins the queen;
2) 4.e4 d6 5 . f4 (the line 5 .4Jf3 4Jf6
6 . .1ld3 g6 7.0-0 .llg7 8.h3 intending
.llc 1 -e3 is also a good option) 5 . . . c5
6.d5 4Jc7 7 . .1lb2 4Jf6 8.4Jd2 e6
a) 9.dxe6 4Jxe6 10.f5 4Jc7 1 l .c4 g6
1 2 .g4 with the better chances;
b) 9.c4 .lle7 10.4Jgf3 0-0 1 1 ..1ld3 4Jh5
1 2 .g3 exd5 1 3 . cxd5 f5 1 4 . 0-0 fxe4
1 5 .4Jxe4 4Jf6 16.'lf!b3 4Jxe4 17 . .1lxe4
.llf5 18.E!fe1 'lffd7 1 9.a4 .llf6= ;
G) l . . . g5 2 . .1l b 2 ( 2 . d4 h6 3 . e4 [ 3 . c4
.ll g 7 4 . e 3 4Jf6 5 . 4Jc 3 d5 6 . 4Jf3 0-0
7 .'lflb3 c6 8 . .1lb2 ;!; ] 3 . . . .1lg7 4 . c3 a 5
5 . b 5 d 5 6 . e 5 .ll f5 7 . .1l d 3 .ll x d 3
8 .'lf!xd3 e 6 9 . 4Je 2 4Je7 1 0 . 0-0 4Jd7
1 1 . 4Jg3 fol lowed by 4Jg3 -h5 w ith
the better position) 2 . . . 4Jf6 3 . c4 c 5
4 . b 5 ( 4 . b x c 5 ! ? must be stronger)
4 . . . a6 5 . a4 axb5 6.axb5 E! xa 1 7 . .1lxa1
.ll g 7 8 . 4J c 3 0-0 9 . e 3 e6 1 0 . 4Jge2
( 1 0 . 4J f3 ! ? g4 1 1 . 4J e 5 ;!; ) 1 0 . . . d5
1 1 . 4Jg3 d4 1 2 . 4Ja4 b6 13 . .1ld3 e 5
1 4 . 0-0 E! e8 1 5 . .1lf5 4Jbd7 1 6.d3 .ll b 7
1 7 . e4 4Jf8 18 . .1lb2 4Jg6 1 9 . .1lc 1 4Jf4
2 0 . 4J e 2 'lf!c7 2 l .g3 Here B l ack of­
fered up the knight 2 1 . ./ifth8 2 2 .gxf4
exf4 2 3 . f3 E! g8 24.�h1 .llf8 2 5 . E! g 1
.lld 6 26.'lf!fl E! g7 27.h4 h 6 28.hxg5
hxg5 29.'lflh3+ and White won eas­
i ly, Welling-Haukenfrers, Richmond
2004;
H) 1 . . . c5 The Birmingham Gambit - but
don't ask us which Birmingham. 2.bxc5
(2 .b5 d5 is good for Black; 2.e4 trans­
poses to the Sicilian Wing Gambit [ l .e4
c5 2.b4 etc.], as does 2.d4 cxb4 3 .e4,
and 2.4Jf3 cxb4 3.a3 bxa3 4.e4)
 The Sokolsky Opening
1) 2 .. .'l!i'a5 3.-tlc3 (3.Ab2!?; Sokolsky
recommends 3.c4 �xc5 4.e3 .£\f6 5 . .£\f3
g6 6.Ab2 Ag7 7 . .£\c3 d6 8.d4 �a5
9.Ad3 ;!; ) 3 . . . .£\a6 4 . ..Q.b2 .£\xc5 5.e3 g6
6.4Jd5 f6 7.Ac3 .£\d3+ 8 . .1lxd3 �xd5
9.�f3 �e6? (9 . . . �xf3!? is required)
1 O . .£\e2 d6 1 1 . ..Q.b5+ 'it'f7 12 . .£\d4 with
a positionally won game, Pohl-Kohn,
Ulm 1 995;
2) 2 ... e5 3 . ..Q.b2 (3.e3 ..Q.xc5 4 . ..Q.b2 .£\c6
5 . 4Jf3 d6 transp o s e s ; !!!:3 . d4 e x d4
4:�xd4 d5!?) 3 . . . 4Jc6
a) 4.e3 (White may play this to avoid
4.4Jf3 e4!?) 4 . . . ..Q.xc5 transposes;
b) 4 . .£\f3 ..Q.xc5 (4 . . . e4!? can become
very complex 5 . .£\ e 5 [5 . .£\d4 �f6
(5 . . . .1l x c 5 6 . 4Jb3 [ !!!:6 . .£\ x c6 �b6!)
6 ... Af8 7.c4=) 6.e3 Axc5 oo ] 5 . . . ..Q.xc5
6.e3=) 5 .e3 (of course not 5 . .£\xe5??
.ll xf2+ 6.'it'xf2 �b6+ forking king and
bishop; nor 5.e4? �b6)
(i) 5 . . . d6 6.Ab5 (6.d4 �b6 7 . ..Q.c3 ..Q.b4
8.a3 Axc3+ 9 . .£\xc3 .£\f6=) 6 . . . .£\ge7
7.0-0 0-0 8.d4 �b6 9.c4 with active
play;
(ii) 5 . . . �b6 6 . ..Q.xe5 .£\xe5 7 . .£\xe5 .£\f6
8 . .Q.e2 0 - 0 9 . 0- 0 d6 1 0 . .£\c4 �c6
l l .d4 ± ;
(iii) 5 . . . �e7 6 . ..Q.b5 (6.c4!?) 6 . . . f6 7.0-0
e4 (7 . . . a6 8 . ..Q.c4 b5 9 . ..Q.b3 L::. 1 0.d4 ± )
8.4Jd4 ..Q.xd4 9 . .1lxd4 .£\xd4 1 0.exd4
17
�b4 l l . .£\ c 3 � x d4 1 2 . .£\ x e 4 .£\e7
1 3 . !! e l 0-0 1 4 . c3 �e5 1 5 . �b3 + ±
Sokolsky-Topov, corr 1 956;
( i v ) 5 . . . f6 6 . d4 (6 . ..Q.e2 d5 7 . 0 - 0 =
Sviridov [not Sveshnikov]-Pantaleev,
Havirov 1 968) 6 . . . exd4 (6 . . . �b6 7 .Ac3
..Q.b4 8.d5 t) 7.exd4 �b6 8.dxc5 �xb2
9 . .£\bd2 �b4 1 O . .llc 4 �xc5 1 1 ..£\e4!
�a5+ 1 2 .c3 ± ;
I) l . . .b6 2 . ..Q.b2
1 ) 2 . . . .1lb7 3 . e 3 (not to be recom­
mended is 3.-tlf3 e6 4.g3 4Jf6 5.b5 d5
6.Ag2 c6 7.a4 a6 with good play for
B l ack) 3 . . . .£\f6 (the position after
3 . . . d6 4.d4 e6 5 . .£\f3 .£\f6 6.c4 d5 7.c5
is better for White, Belliard-Potter,
Lugano 1 968) 4 . .£\f3 c5 5 .b5 g6 6.d4
(6.c4 ..Q.g7 7 . .1le2 0-0 8. 0-0 d5 9.�b3
a6 1 0.a4 axb5 1 l .axb5 � xa 1 1 2 . ..Q.xa1
.£\bd7 1 3 .d3 �c7 14 . .£\bd2 � a8 with
more or less equal chances) 6 . . . Ag7
7.dxc5 bxc5 8.c4 0-0 9.Ae2 d5 1 0.0-0
a6 1 l .a4 .£\bd7 1 2 .�c2 dxc4 1 3 . .£\bd2
a x b 5 1 4 . a xb5 .£\b6 1 5 . .£\xc4 � x a 1
16.�xa1 .£\xc4 17.Axc4 White's posi­
tion is better since the black pawn on
c5 appears weaker than its counterpart
on b5;
2) 2 . . . c5 3 . bxc5 bxc5 4.e3 ( 4 . c4!?)
4 . . . d5 5 . .£\f3 .£\f6 6.c4
 Introduction
a) 6 . . . <iJbd7 7.cxd5 <iJxd5 8.<iJa3 e6
9.Ab5 a6 1 0 ...1la4 !!b8 1 1 .!!b1 f6 12.0-0
..lle7 1 3 . <iJc4 0-0 1 4.d3 <iJ7b6 1 5 . ..1lb3
<iJxc4 16 . ..1lxc4 <iJb6 17 . ..1lb3 Black's
weakness on c5 leaves him in the infe­
rior position;
b) 6 . . . e6? 7.cxd5 exd5 8 . ..1lxf6 �xf6
9.<iJc3 d4 10.exd4 cxd4 1 1 . ..1lb5+ ..lld7
1 2:{1i'e2 + ..ll e 7 1 3 . <iJd5 �d6 1 4 . !! c l
<iJc6 1 5 .�c4 !!d8 16.0-0 leaves Black
in a difficult situation; e.g., 1 6 . . . 0-0
1 7 . ..1l x c 6 ..ll x c 6 1 8 . <iJ x e 7 + � x e 7
1 9.�xc6 +- ;
J) l . . .b5
1) 2 . ..1lb2 ..llb7 3.a4 (3.<iJf3 a5!) 3 . . . bxa4
4 . c4 e6 5 . !! xa4 <iJf6 6.e3 ..ll e 7 7 .<iJf3
0-0 8 . ..1le2 and after castling White can
organize pressure down the a-file;
2) 2.a4 immediately is the most direct
method 2 . . . bxa4 3 . <iJf3 ( 3 . c4!? ..ll b 7
4.!! xa4 it ) 3 . . . ..1lb7 4.e3 e6 5 . ..1lb2 <iJf6
6 . !! xa4 <iJc6 7 . b 5 <iJb4 8 . c 3 <iJbd5
9 . ..1le2 <iJb6 1 0 . !! a 1 c6 l l . c4 cxb5
1 2 .cxb5 .llb4 1 3 .�b3 �e7 14.0-0 0-0
1 5 .!!cl ..lld 5 16.�d1 next is <iJb1 -c3
with a good position since Black has a
problem with his a-pawn;
3) 2 .e3 a6 3 . ..1lb2 e6 4.a4 ( 4.a3 <iJf6
5.<iJf3 ..llb7 6.c4 bxc4 7 . ..1lxc4 c5 8.bxc5
..ll x c5 9.d4 ..lle7 1 0.<iJbd2 0-0 1 1 .0-0
<iJc6 1 2 . ..1ld3 it ) 4 . . . ..1lb7 5 .axb5 axb5
6.!! xa8 ..ll x a8 7.<iJf3 <iJf6 8.c3 c6 9 . ..1le2
..lle7 1 0.0-0 0-0 1 1 .d3 d6 1 2.<iJbd2 e5
1 3 .�b3 and after !! fl-a1 White has
good prospects;
K) l . . .f6
1) 2 . ..1lb2 <iJh6 (2 . . . e5!?, transposing to
Chapter 7, must be better) 3 . d4 <iJf7
4.e3 e6 5 .b5 .lle7 6.<iJf3 d5 7.c4 0-0
18
8 . ..1ld3 (8.<iJbd2 a6 9.a4 axb5 1 0.axb5
!! xa 1 1 1 .�xaH) 8 . . . dxc4 9 . ..1lxc4 a6
1 0 . a4 axb5 1 1 . axb5 !! xa 1 1 2 . ..1lxa1
iii'd6 1 3 . 0-0 <iJd7 14.�b3 <iJb6 1 5 . ..1ld3
<iJd5 1 6.�c2 f5 17 . ..1lc4 .lld7 18.<iJc3
g5 1 9.h3 h5 20.e4 g4 2 1 .hxg4 hxg4
22 .<iJe5 with the advantage as Black's
king is exposed, Sergeeva-E.Paehtz,
Elista 1 998;
2) 2 . e4 e5 3 . ..1lc4 c6 (3 . . . ..1lxb4 4.c3
..lla 5 5.d4 <iJc6 6.<iJf3 exd4 7.0-0 with
the initiative for the pawns) 4 . <iJc3
..ll x b4 5 . ..1l x g8 !! x g8 6 . � h 5 + �f8
7 . <iJ g e 2 ! ? ( n o t h i n g i s g a i n e d b y
7.�xh7 ..ll x c3 8.dxc3 � f7 9.�h5+ g6
10.i!:Yh7+ !! g7 1 1 .�h4 d5 1 2 .<iJe2 b6
1 3 . 0-0 ..lla6 14.!!e1 <iJd7 with a good
game for B l ack) 7 . . . h6 8 . 0-0 �e8
9.�h4 d6 10.f4 with compensation for
the pawn;
3) 2 .d4 e6 3.a3 d5 4.<iJf3 a5 5 .b5 <iJd7
6.c4 dxc4 7.e4 <iJb6 8.<iJbd2 c3 9.<iJc4
.
<iJxc4 10 . ..1lxc4 <iJh6 1 1 .�b3 and there 's
no doubt about White's advantage.
2 . .Q.b2
In accord with the whole point of the
opening, White develops his bishop
down the long dark diagonal. The move
2 .a2-a3 is far less popular and not our
recommendation, likewise the immedi­
ate 2.b4-b5!?, although both moves may
lead to positions we do cover. For ex­
ample, after l .b4 e5 2.a3 d5 3 . ..1lb2,
3 . . . �d6 transposes to the main line in
Chapter 4A, 3 .. .f6 to the main line in
Chapter 7, and 3 . . . e4 to the notes in the
Marshali-Reshevsky game in Chapter
9.
White should avoid the bizarre 2 . ..1la3?!
<iJf6 3.b5?! A very old game continued
 The S ok olsky Opening
3 . . . Axa3 4 . .£Jxa3 d5 5 .c3 c6 6.e3 �a5
7.�b3 a6, with advantage to Black,
Rabs on-Pierce, Bright on CC 1 880.
2 ••• .Q. x b4
Exchanging the b-pawn for the e-pawn
sh ould be in White's fav or since it gives
him a central pawn maj ority and in­
creases the sc ope of his dark-squared
bish op . H owever, Black c ounts on a
devel opment advantage and on m obi­
lizing his forces aggressively.
Let's l ook at other p ossibilities :
2 . . .f6 Chapter 7 ;
2 . . . d6 Chapter 8 ;
2 . . . e 4 Chapter 9.
Other m oves are relatively unp opular:
A) 2 . . . Ad6
1) 3.c4 c6 (White gains a te mp o on the
main lines after 3 . . . Axb4 4.Axe5) 4.e3
(4.c5 .11.c7 5 . .£lf3 �e7 6 . .£Ja3!?) 4 . . . .£Jf6
5.a3 �e7 6 . .£Jc3 .11.c7 7 . .11.e 2 d6 8 . .£Jf3
.llg4 9.h3 .11.h 5 10.d4 e4 1 1 ..£Jd2 .11. x e2
12.�xe2 .£Jbd7 1 3 . 0-0 0-0 with m ore
or less equal chances, Melich-Shiber,
Ceske Budej ovice 1 995;
2) 3.b5 c6 4.a4 a6
19
a) 5 .e3 axb5 6.axb5 ! hal 7 . .11. x a1 .£Jf6
8 . c4 0 - 0 9 . .£Jf3 E! e8 1 0 . .£Jc3 .11. c 7
1 1 ..11. e 2 d5 1 2 . cxd5 cxd5 1 3 . d4 e4
1 4 . .£Jd2 .11. a 5 1 5 .0-0 .11. x c3 1 6 . .11. x c3
�c7 17:�a1 b6 18.E!c1 .11.e6 1 9 . .11.b4
White's clear p ositi onal advantage c on­
sists in his p ossessi on of the c-file and
the bish op-pair, Grecescu-Ibinceanu,
Ti mis oara 1 999;
b) Worth c onsidering is 5 . c4!? axb5
6.axb5 E! xa1 7 . .11. x a1 cxb5 8.cxb5 and
Black's d6-bish op interferes with his
own queenside devel opment;
3) 3.e3 �e7 4.b5 .£Jf6 5.c4 b6 6 . .£Jf3
c5 7.�c2 (7 . .11.e 2!?) 7 . . . e4 8 . .11. xf6 gxf6
9 . .£Jg1 (l ooking m ore active is 9 . .£Jh4!?
�e6 10 . .£Jc3 .11.b 7 1 1 .d3 f5 1 2 . dxe4
fxe4 1 3.E!d1 .11.e 5 14 ..£Jd5 a6 1 5.a4 etc.)
9 . . . .11. b 7 10 . .£Je2 a6 1 1 . .£Jbc3 axb5
1 2.cxb5 .11.e 5 1 3 .g3 E! a5 14.a4 d5 with
g ood play, G outi oudi-Papad ouraki,
Greece 2002;
4) 3 . .£lf3 f6 4.b5 b6 5.e3 c6 6.c4 c5
7 . .11.e 2 (7 . .£Jh4!) 7 . . . a6 8.a4 g5 9 . .£Jc3
.11.b 7 1 0 . 0-0 e4 1 1 ..£Je1 ( 1 1 ..£lxg5!?)
1 1 . . ..£Je7 1 2 .d4 ( 1 2.f3!? opening the f­
fi l e , l ooks str ong) 1 2 . . . .£Jf5 1 3 . d5
( 1 3 .dxc5!) 1 3 ... �e7 1 4 . .11.h 5+ with a
w on p os i t i on , S kaug-Mart i n s e n ,
Fredrikstad 2003 ;
 Introduction
B) 2 . . :�e7
1) 3.c4 g6 (3 . . .'�xb4 4 . ..1lxe5 d6 5 . .llc 3
�xc4 6 . e 3 a5) 4 . b 5 ..ll g 7 5 . e 3 4Jf6
6.4Jc3 c6 7.4Jf3 0-0 8.d4 e4 9.4Jd2 d5
1 0 . a4 !! d8 1 1 . .ll a 3 ! ? (Katalymov­
I.Zaitsev, Odessa 1 972 continued 1 1 .a5
4Jbd7 1 2 .a6 c5 13 . .lla 3 �e8 14.dxc5
d4 1 5 .axb7 .ll xb7 16.exd4 e3 17.4Jb3
exf2 + 18.\t>xf2 4Je5 1 9 . �e2 4Jfg4+
20.'it>g1 !! xd4 2 1 .4:\xd4 !! d8 22.4Jc2
.ll f3 2 3 . � e 1 .ll h 6 2 4 . 4Jd 5 .ll x d 5
2 5 . cxd5 !! xd5 2 6 . h 3 4:\ e 3 27.4:\xe3
4Jf3 + 2 8 . \t>f2 4:\xe1 2 9 . 4:\ xd5 'l1Ye5
30.!! xe1 'l1Yf5+ 3 1 .\t>g1 'li1/xd5 32.\t>h2
and White went on to win, but there is
no need to follow such a complex, risky
line of play) l l . . . 'l1Ye8 1 2 .'l1Yc2 4Jbd7
1 3 . ..1le2 with an obvious queenside
space advantage;
2) 3.a3 g6 (3 . . . f5 4 . e4 it ) 4 . d4 ( 4.f4
.llg7 5 . 4Jf3 d6 6.fxe5 dxe5 7 . e4 4Jf6
8 . ..1lb 5 + c 6 9 . -'l.d 3 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 it )
4 . . . ..1lg7 5 .dxe5 (after 5 .d5 d6 6.e3 f5
7 . c4 4Jd7 8 . 4Jd 2 4Jgf6 9 . ..1le2 0-0
1 0 . 4Jgf3 h6 1 1 .'l1Yb3 �h7 Black has
good prospects on the kings ide, De Cat­
Andersen, Germany 1 989) 5 . . . ..1lxe5
6.4Jc3 d6 7.4Jf3 4Jf6 8.4:\xe5 dxe5 9.e4
0-0 1 0.-'l.d3 -'l.e6 1 1 . 0-0 4Jc6 1 2 .'l1Yd2
4Jh5 1 3 . 4Je2 preparing f2-f4 with ac­
tive kingside play;
20
C) 2 . . . d5 3 . .ll x e5 (3.b5 .lld6 [3 . . .f6,
Chapter 7A] 4.e3 4Jf6 5.c4 0-0 6.cxd5
4:\xd5 7 .4Jc3 .lle6 8.4Jf3 4Jd7=) 3 . . . 4Jc6
(there 's no point in playing 3 . . . f6?
4 . .llb 2 4Jc6 5 .b5 4Je5 6.d4 4Jf7 7.e3
.llf5 8.4Jf3 .llg4 9 . .lle 2 ..llb 4+ 10.4Jc3
4Je7 1 1 .0-0 0-0 1 2 .a3 .lld6 1 3 .h3 .llf5
1 4.a4 Black has no compensation for
the pawn, Fedotova-Aytav, Eskisehir
2004) 4 . .llb 2 4:\xb4 5 .a3 4Jc6 (5 . . . 4Ja6
6.e3 c6 [6 . . . 4Jf6 7.4Jf3 .lld6 8.c4 0-0
9 . 4Jc3 c6 10 . .ll e 2 dxc4 1 1 .-'l.xc4 b5
12 . .lle 2 .llg4 1 3 .h3 ..Q.h5 14.0-0 'l1Yd7
1 5 .d4 !! fe8 16.a4 it ] 7.c4 4Jc7 8.4Jf3
4J f6 9 . 4Jc 3 -'l.e7 1 0 . c x d 5 4J c x d 5
1 1 .-'l.e2 0-0 1 2 .0-0 .lle6 1 3 .'l1Yc2 White
has slightly better chances due to the
possibility of erecting a pawn center
with d2-d4 and e3-e4) 6.e3 4Jf6 7.4Jf3
1 ) 7 . . . .ll g 4 8 . -'l.e 2 -'l.d6 9 . d3 0 - 0
1 0.4Jbd2 b 5 1 l .c4 ( 1 1 .0-0 a 5 ! with ac­
tive play) 1 l . . . b x c 4 1 2 . dxc4 !! b8
1 3 . -'l.xf6 'li1/xf6 1 4 . cxd5 4Je5 1 5 . 0-0
�h6 1 6.g3!? (or 16.h3 .ll x h3 17.gxh3
�xh3 18.4Jg5 4Jf3+ 19.4:\dxf3 'l1Yg4+
20.�h1 'l1Yh5+ with perpetual check)
16 . . . 'l1Yh5 17.!! e U ;
2) 7 . . . .lld6 8.c4 0-0
a) 9.cxd5 4:\xd5 10 . .llc4 .lle 6 1 1 .'l1Yc2
!! e8 1 2 . 0-0 a6 1 3 . d4 4Jf6 14 . .ll x e6
!! xe6 1 5 . 4Jbd2 !! e8 1 6 . !! ac l 'l1Ye7
 The Sokolsky Opening
17.4Jc4 !! ad8 18.�b3 ;!; Trokenheim­
Pfaumann, corr 1 99 1 ;
b) 9.4Jc3 Ae6 1 0.cxd5 4::l x d5 1 1 ...1le2
�d7 1 2 .0-0 !! ad8 with equality;
3) 7 . . . a6 8.c4 dxc4 9.Axc4 Ag4 1 0.d4
(10.�b3!) 1 0 . . . ..1le7 1 1 .4Jc3 0-0 1 2 .0-0
4Ja7 1 3 . h3 Ah5 1 4 . !! c l c6 1 5 . ..1le2
4Jb5 1 6 . � b 3 !! b8 1 7 . 4J a4 �d5
18 .�xd5 4::l xd5 1 9 . 4::l c 5 4Jf6 2 0 . g4
.ll g6 2 1 . 4::l e 5 !! fd8 2 2 .4::l x g6 (White
disregards the tactical blow 2 2 . 4::l x a6
bxa6 2 3 . 4::l xc6 p e rhaps because it
could get messy after 2 3 . . . ..1lxa3 !?)
2 2 . . . hxg6 2 3 . a4 4Jc7 2 4 . !! c 2 ..ll x c5
25.!! xc5 !! d 5 2 6 . !! fc l !! e8 2 7 . Af3
White has the bishop-pair, reached a
better endgame, and went on to win,
Lippmann- S chwabe, B ad Homburg
2005 ;
4) 7 . . . ..1le 7 8 . c4 ..ll g 4 ! = Yu d o v i c h
BC02 ;
D) 2 . . . �f6 3.4Jc3
1) 3 . . . c6
a) 4.b5 d5 5 .e3 Ac5 6.!!b1 4Jh6 7 .h3
0-0 8. 4Jf3 a6 9 . bxc6 bxc6 1 0 . !! g 1
( 1 0 . 4::l x d 5 ! c x d 5 1 1 . ..1l x e 5 � e 7
1 2 . ..1lxb8 ± ) 1 0 . . . ..1lf5 1 l . g4 ..ll e 4
1 2 . 4::l x e4 d x e 4 1 3 . 4::l x e 5 ± Menzei­
Palmowski, Rheinhausen 1 998;
21
b) 4.4Je4 �g6 5 .4::lg 3 .ll x b4 6 . ..1lxe5 d6
7 . ..1lb2 4Jf6 8.!!b1 ..1la5 9.4Jf3 0-0 1 0.e3
4::l e 4 1 1 . 4::l xe4 � x e 4 1 2 . ..1ld3 �d5
1 3 . 0-0 ..llg4=;
2) 3 ... ..1lxb4 4.4Jd5 �d6 5 .4Jxb4 �xb4
6 . ..1lxe5 4Jf6 (6 .. .f6 7 . ..1lxc7 d6 8.c3 �c5
9 . A xb8 !! x b8 1 0 . �b 3 ± ) 7 . ..1l x c 7
(7 . ..ll xf6 gxf6 8.g3 4Jc6 9 . ..llg 2 ± ) 7 . . . d6
8 . A x b8 ( 8 . c 3 � c 5 9 . A x b 8 !! x b8
1 0 .4::lf3 0-0 1 1 .e3 ;!; ) 8 . . . !! xb8 9.e3 0-0
1 0 . 4Jf3 Ae6 l l . ..lle 2 and White is a
pawn up;
E) 2 . . . b6
1) 3.a3 d6 (3 . . . 4Jc6 4.e3 d6 5 . c4 aS
6 . 4Jc 3 a x b4 7 . a x b4 !! x a 1 8 . ..1l x a 1
4::l xb4?? 9 . �a 4 + ..ll d 7 1 0 . � xb4 +­
G o u l i aros Anton i ad i s - S ko u l i k a s ,
Greece 2002) 4.c4 4Jf6 5 . e 3 Ab7 6.4Jf3
Ae7 7.d4 e4 (7 . . . exd4 8.4::l xd4 4Jbd7
9.Ae2 0-0 10.0-0 a5 1 1 .4Jc3 4Je5 1 2 .f4
4Jg6 1 3 .Af3 ± ) 8.4Jfd2 0-0 9.4Jc3 !! e8
1 0.�c2 ..llf8 1 Ule2 with the plan of
0-0, !! a 1 -e 1 and f2-f3 with central ac­
tivity;
2) 3 . ..1lxe5 4::lc6 4 . ..1lb2 4::l xb4 5 .4::lf3 4::lf6
6.e3 Ab7 7.c4 Ae7 8.a3 4Jc6 9.d4 0-0
1 0 . .ll d 3 d5 1 1 . 4Jbd2 4Ja5 1 2 .cxd5
4::l x d5 1 3 . 0-0 c5 with mutual chances,
although Black should be wary of where
White's bishops are pointing;
3) 3.b5 d6
a) 4.e4 .llb 7 5.4Jc3 4Jf6 6.d3 .lle 7 7 .4Jf3
0-0 8 . ..1le2 a6 9.a4 axb5 1 0.axb5 !! xa1
1 1 .�xa1 4Jbd7 1 2 .0-0 4Jc5=;
b) 4.c4 ..llb 7 5.4Jc3 4Jf6 6.d3 Ae7 7.e4
a6 8.a4 axb5 9.axb5 !! xa1 1 0 .�xa1
4Jbd7 1 1 .4Jf3 4Jc5 12 ...1le2 4Jh5 1 3.g3
0-0 1 4.0-0 fS � ;
F) 2 . . . 4Jc6 3 .b5 4Jd4 4.e3
 Introd uction

1) 4 . . . .£JfS S . .11 x eS d6 (S . . . dS 6 . .£Jf3 .£Jf6
7.c4 dxc4 8 . .11 x c4 g6 9:�b3 �e7 10.0-
0 .11 d 7 1 1 . d4 .11 g 7 1 2 . .11 x c 7 +­
Poschmann-Solovay, California 1 994)
6 . .11b 2 .£Jf6 7 ..£lf3 .11e 6 8 . .11e 2 Ae7 9.0-
0 0-0 1 0.d3 dS 1 1 .c4 c6 1 2 . a4 E!. e8
1 3 . .£lbd2 �c7 1 4 . E!. c 1 with an extra
pawn in a s uperior position, Schippers­
K uipers, Netherlands 2002;
(In any case, B l ack can sidestep the
K M G i f he w i s h e s by l . b 4 e S
2 . .11. b 2 .£Jf6!? when White has little
better than to transpose back to the
main l i n e with 3 .AxeS, and so on,
since 3 .a3 d6 loses a tempo compared
to lines and s ubvariations in Chapter
5.):

2) 4 . . . .£Je6 S . .11 x e S d6 (S . . . .11 d 6? !

6 . .11 x d6 cxd6 7 . c4 .£Jf6 8 . .£lc3 0-0
9 . Ae 2 b6 1 0 . d4 Ab7 1 1 . d S .£Jc7
12 . .£lf3 a6 1 3 .a4 axbS 1 4 .axbS �e7
1 S .0-0 Black has no compensation for
the pawn deficit and is losing, Behle­
Brennecke, Bergisch Gladbach 2002)
6 . .11.b 2 .lld7 7 . .£lf3 .£JgS?! (if 7 . . . .£Jf6!?
8.d4) 8 . .£lxgS �xgS 9.�f3 c6 1 0.a4 .£Jf6
1 1 .�g3 �xg3 1 2.hxg3 cxbS 1 3 . .11. x bS
.ll x bS 14.axbS a6 1S . .£lc3 .lle 7 1 6.�e2
�d7 1 7.bxa6 bxa6 18.E!.a2 with a won A ) 4.fxe5 dxeS S . .ll x eS .£Jf6 6 . .£lf3
ending, Djakov-Paiva, Dos Hermanas
2004; 1) 6 . . . 0-0 7 . .£lc3 .£Jg4 8 . .11.£4 .£Jc6 with a
good game;
G) 2 . . . .£Jf6 avoids the complications of
the KMG (see below) then 3 . .11. x eS 2) 6 . . . .£Jc6 7 . .ll b 2 0 - 0 8 . e 3 .£Jg4
( 3 . b S .ll c S sets the trap : 4 . A x e S ? (8 . . . Ag4 9 . .11. e 2 .£Je4 1 0 . .11. d 3 �e7
[a 4.e3] 4 . . . Axf2 + S .�xf2 .£Jg4+::r:) 1 1 . 0-0 .£JgS � Jensen-Gilde, Sottr um
3 . . . .ll xb4 etc. transposes to the main line 2005) 9 . .£lc3 E!. e8 1 0 . .11b S �e7 1 1 ..1ld3
of 2 . . . Axb4 3.AxeS .£Jf6; � c S 1 2 . 0- 0 .£l x e 3 1 3 . d x e 3 E!. x e 3
1 4 . .£l a 4 E!. x d 3 + 1 S . .£l x c S .ll x c S +
H) 2 . . . cS Wolfer ts Gambit 3.bxcS AxeS 1 6.�h 1 E!. xd 1 1 7 . E!. axd1 f6 1 8 . E!. fe 1
(3 . . . .£Jc6 transposes to l .b4 cS 2.bxcS �f7 1 9 . .£Jd4 .£l x d4 2 0 . .11. xd4 .ll d 6
eS 3 ..1lb2 .£Jc6 above) 4 . .11. x eS f6 S . .llg 3 2 1 ..11.£2 bS Black has reached a s upe­
(S . .Ilb2? �b6 -+ ) s . . . .£Je7 6.e3 0-0 7.d4 rior endgame and went on to win,
.llb6 8 . .11.d 3 dS 9 . .£le2 ± . Gretencord-Keller, DESC 2004;

B) After 4 . .£lf3 .£Jc6 S .fxeS dxeS 6 . .£!xeS

.£!xeS 7 . .11. x eS .£Jf6 8.e3 0-0 Black has a
Best, as indicated b y practice. developmental pl us.

3 . f4 leads to the K uch arko w s k i ­

Meybohm Gambit (KMG), which after
the best reply 3 . . . d6! favors B lack. A normal, developmental move.

22
 The Sokolsky Opening
4.c4 Chapter 1 0. A vigorous move, and
the most popular;
4.c3 is also Chapter 1 0;
4.e3 normally transposes to the other
lines we consider;
4 . .£lb2 also normally transposes;
If 4 . .£lc3, 4 . . . .£la5 or 4 . . . c6 avoids any
5.-'i.xf6 �xfq 6 . .£ld5 trickery.
4 {:)c6
•••
Developing with tempo. Other moves :
A) 4 . . . 0-0, Chapter II ;
B) 4 . . . d6 5 .-'i.b2
1) 5 . . . 0-0 6.e3 c5 (6 . . . �g4 7.Ae2 c6
8.0-0 .£lbd7 9 . c4 !! eS 1 0 . d 3 �e7
l l .<tlc3 d5=) 7.Ae2 .£lc6 8.0-0 ..Q.g4
9.c4 d5 10.cxd5 (1 0.h3 ..ll xf3 l l .Axf3
dxc4 1 2 .a3 ..Q.a5 1 3 . �a4 �d6 1 4 . ..1lxc6
-'i.c7 with a sharp position, Ljubojevic­
COMP Leonardo Maestro, Zuerich
1988) 10 . . . .£lxd5 l l .�c2 �e7 1 2 .a3
-'i.a5 13.!!cl b6 1 4 . .£lc3 <tlxc3 1 5 .dxc3
!!adS 1 6 . !! d 1 !! xd1 + 1 7 . !! xd 1 !! dS
18 . .1:! xdS+ �xdS 19 .c4 Ah5 20.Ad3 (or
20.�e4) White has slightly better pros­
pects as his bi shops are better than
Black's;
2) 5 . . ..£lc6 6.e3
23
a) 6 . . . M5 7 . ..Q.e2 'I!Je7 8.0-0 d5 (S. . . Q-0!?)
9.c4 dxc4 10 . ..Q.xc4 0-0 1 1 ..£lc3 !! adS
1 2.d4 ..Q.a3 1 3 . ..Q.xa3 '1!1xa3 14.!!c1 !!feS
1 5 .'1!1b3 �xb3 1 6.Axb3 <tla5 17.Ac2
A x c 2 1 S . !! x c 2 .£lc6 1 9 . !! b 1 !! bS
20.r.ftfl r.ftfS 2 l .!!cb2 with considerable
queenside pressure, Dutschak-Klenk,
Germany 1 989;
b) 6 . . . Ag4 7.Ae2 0-0 S.a3 ..lla 5 9.0-0
.£ld7 1 0.d4 d5 1 1 .c4 .£le7 1 2 .h3 ..llh 5
1 3.'1!1b3 c6 14.Ac3 Axc3? ( o 1 4 . . . !!bS)
1 5 .<tlxc3 dxc4 1 6.'1!1xc4 ( 1 6.'1!1xb7!?)
16 . . . .£lb6 17. �c5 .£led5 1S . .£lxd5 '1!1xd5
19.!!fc1 �xc5 20.!! xc5 Axf3 2 l .Axf3
f5 2 2 .g3 .£ld7 2 3 . !! c2 .£lf6 2 4 . !! b 1
!! abS 25.!!cb2 and Black loses a pawn
w i thout compensation, We s s e l ­
Nehmdahl, Kiel 1 992;
c) 6 . . . 0-0 7.a3 Aa5 S.c4 Ag4 9.Ae2
Ae6 10.0-0 d5 1 l .�c2 dxc4 12 . .£lg5
g6 1 3 .<tlxe6 fxe6 14.Axc4 �d6 1 5 .d4
a6 1 6 . .£lc3 b5 17 .Ae2 !! adS 1S . ..Ilf3
.£le7 1 9 . .£l e 2 .£lfd5 2 0 . .£lg3 .£lf6
2 l .!!adl ..llb6 22 .e4 with a clear posi­
tional advantage, Lueders-Krueger,
Freudenstadt 1 996;
C) 4 . . . d5
1) 5 .e3 c5 (if 5 . . . Ad6 White can con­
sider 6.Ag3!? l:i. 7.Ah4; 5 . . . 0-0 trans­
poses to Chapter 1 1 ) 6.c3 Aa5 7 .Ab5+
 Introduction
<£\bd7 8.0-0 a6 9.!:l.. x d7+ !:l.. xd7 1 0.d3
!:l..c7 1 l .�b3 !:J..c6 1 2 .<£\bd2 b5 1 3 .d4
c4 1 4 .1tx c7 � x c7 1 5 . � a 3 �e7
1 6.�xe7+ 'it>xe7 17.<£\e5 Ae8 18.f!fe 1
<tle4 1 9 . <£\xe4 dxe4 20.f3 f6 2 1 .<£lg4
with approximate equality, Althoff­
P.Wolff, Kaufungen 2003 ;
2) 5.c3 !:l..e7 6.!:l.. xf6 !:l.. xf6 7.d4 0-0 8.e3
!:l..f5 9.!:l..d3 �d7 10.0-0 <£\c6 1 l .�c2
<£\e7 1 2 . <£\bd2 c5 1 3 .!:l.. xf5 (also pos­
sible is 1 3 .dxc5!? !:l.. x d3 14.�xd3 f! ac8
1 5 .<£\e4 �f5 16.<£\xf6+ �xf6 17.�d4
�c6 1 8 . f! ab 1 f! c7 1 9 . f! fd 1 White
threatens c3-c4 with excellent chances)
1 3 . . . <£\ x f5 1 4 . d x c 5 f! ac8 1 5 . f! ad 1
(Bosboom - Van Blitterswijk, Wijk aan
Zee 2000, continued 1 5 . <£ld4 <£\h4
16.g3 <£\g6 17.<£\2b3 Ae7 and Black had
achieved equality) 1 5 . . . <£lh4 16.<£\xh4
lt x h 4 1 7 . <£\b 3 �e6 1 8 . f! d3 f! fd8
19.f!fd1 Ae7 20.�d2 !:l.. x c5 2 l .f! xd5
f! xd5 2 2 . �xd5 �xd5 23.f! xd5 Ab6
24.f!d7 f! xc3 25.f! xb7 h6 26.f!d7 with
a n extra pawn.
5.Jl,b2 0-0
5 . . . d5 will transpose to lines considered
in Chapter II .
6.g3
24
This fianchetto is as yet very rare, but
we think that is unjustified as it gives
White entirely reasonable chances.
Hugely more popular are 6.c4 (trans­
posing to lines in Chapter I 0) and 6.e3
(examined in Chapter II ).
6 ... d5 7.Ag2
7 ... �e8
7 . . . Ae6 8.0-0 Ae7 9.d3 �d7 1 0 . f! e 1
f! ad8 1 1 .<£\bd2 f! fe8 1 2 .f!b1 b6 1 3 .c3
a5 1 4.�c2 h6 1 5 .<£lb3 Af5 16.<£\bd4
<£\xd4 1 7 . <£\xd4 Ah7 Viloria-Gomez,
Barranquilla I 999. A complex position
has arisen. White went on to win by ex­
ploiting positional errors.
8.0-0 Jld6
A) 8 . . . !:l..f5 9.e3=;
B) Hollas-Hestad, Trondheim 2004,
went 8 . . . !:J..g 4 9.a3 !:J.. e 7 1 0 . d3 �d7
1 1 . <£\bd2 Ah3 1 2 .c4 !:l.. x g2 1 3 . 'it>xg2
f! ed8 14.�b3 d4 1 5 . f! ad1 <£\g4 1 6.h3
<£\ge5 17.<£\e1 f5 18.f4 <£\g6 (or 18. . . <£la5
1 9.�c2 <£\ec6 20.<£\ef3 with the idea of
§ fl -e 1 , e2-e3 opening up the center
with active play) 19.<£ldf3 !:J..f6 20.<£\c2
 The Sokolsky Opening
.
f1e8 2 l .l:'!fe l f1e7 22 .e4 and White has
achieved a clear plus.
9.d3 {)e5 10.{)bd2 Jtg4 l l . ftbl
ftb8 12.h3 {) xf3+
Weak is 1 2 . . . Ah5? 1 3 . .£l x e 5 A x e S
14.Axe5 f1xe5 1 5 .g4 Ag6 16.f4 win­
ning a piece.
1 3 . {) x f3 j't x f3 1 4 . j't x f3 .11. e 5
1 5 . .Q.xe5 ftxe5 16.ttct tte7 17.c4
d x c4 1 8 . tt x c4 c5 1 9 . ftfd l b6
20.a4
White has a small positional advantage.
He can plan to force through a4-a5 and
d3-d4 to break up Black 's queenside
pawn structure. Note how the white
bishop contro l s several important
squares in the opponent's position.
Summary: We hope that the Introduc­
tion familiarizes you with the subject
matter of our work, which comprises
eleven main chapters of analysis. Our
25
aim has been to cover the main tactical
and strategic plans after l .b4 so that,
after full and careful study, you will be
able to advance the b-pawn with confi­
dence in your own games, having made
an i n formed c h o i c e fro m among
White 's options. However, we must
highlight a key aspect. It's hard for
White to achieve an early plus after
l .b4; often White won 't gain an advan­
tage until the middlegame or even the
endgame. That's why it's so important
to examine the illustrative games for
typical plans and maneuvers resulting
from this opening. In particular the rel­
evant games of S o k o l sky and
Katalymov - real virtuosos of l .b4 -
ought to be known and understood.
We can't promise no errors in our analy­
ses. If you spot mistakes or omissions,
please direct them to us through the
publisher. You will at least have shown
evidence of independent thinking -
similar to the independent thinking re­
quired to play l .b4!
 Chapter 1
l.b4 aS
Grandmaster Ludek Pachman in his
Modern Chess Theory mischievously
suggested this very line. Its aim is to
initiate action on the wing where White
expected to dictate the play. However,
Sokolsky considered the move to be a
waste of tempo that merely helped the
white pawn on to b5 .
2.bS
2 . . . c6
The dynamic way to deal with the prob­
lem of White 's advanced pawn.
Other plans for Black are:
A) 2 . . . d6 3 . .1lb2 4Jf6
1) 4.e3 g6 5.d4 .llg7 6.4Jf3 0-0 7.c4
a) 7 . . . c5 8.4Jc3 cxd4 (8 . . . 4Jbd7 is pos­
s i b l y better) 9 . e x d4 vt!c7= B C 0 2
1 0 . .1ld3 ( 1 0 . .1le2 Game I : Sokolsky­
Luik, Minsk 1 957) 10 . . . 4Jbd7 1 1 .0-0 e5
( 1 1 . . .4Jb6!?) 1 2 . E!. e 1 E!. e8 1 3 . E!. c l b6
14.4Je4 (after 1 4.4Jd5 4Jxd5 1 5 .cxd5
vtld8 16.E!.c6 Black can try the gambit
1 6 . . . e4!? 17 . .1lxe4 4Jf6, which isn't
26
clear) 1 4 . . .4Jxe4 15 . .1lxe4 .Q..b7 with
mutual chances;
b) 7 . . . Ag4 8 . h 3 .llx f3 9 . vtl x f3 c6
1 0 . 4Jd 2 vtlc7 1 1 . E!. c l ; Z i e s c h e ­
Palmiotto, core 1 968;
2) 4.g3 e5 5 . .1lg2 g6 6.c4 .llg7 7.4Jc3
4Jbd7 8.4Ja4 (after 8.4Jf3 0-0 9.0-0 4Jc5
1 0.d3 E!. e8 1 1 .vtlc2 .llf5 1 2. E!. ad1 vtlc8
1 3 .4Jg5 h6 1 4 . 4Jge4 4Jfxe4 1 5 .dxe4
.lle6 16.4Jd5 .ll x d5 1 7.cxd5 b6 White
didn 't succeed in breaking down the
black position and the game later ended
in a draw, Hort-Wittmann, Germany
1 980) 8 . . . 0-0 9.vt!c2 E!. e8 1 0.e3 4Jh5
1 1 . 4Je2 f5 1 2 . 0-0 e4 1 3 . .1lxg7 4Jxg7
14.f3 exf3 1 5 . .1lxf3 4Je6 1 6 . .1ld5 White
is better due to the weaker position of
Black's king, Lielmezs-Tamashiro,
IECG 2003 ;
B) 2 . . . e6 3 . .Q..b 2 4Jf6
1) 4.c4 b6 ( 4 . . . d5 5.cxd5 vtlxd5 6.4Jc3
�d8 7.g3 .lle 7 8.Ag2 0-0 9.4Jf3 4Jbd7
10.E!.cl ; ) 5 .4Jf3 !J..e7 6.g3 .llb7 7 . .1lg2
0-0 8.0-0 c5 9.bxc6 dxc6 10.4Jc3 vtlc7
l l .vtlb3 4Jbd7 1 2 . E!. fcl E!. fc8 1 3 . E!. ab1
E!. ab8 14.d4 with active queenside play.
Black failed to solve his positional prob­
lems and went on to lose, Ree-Dahlin,
Cracow 1 964;
2) 4.e3 d5 5 .4Jf3 4Jbd7 6.c4 (6.a4 c5
7.c4 b6 8.d3 .Q..b7 9.4Jbd2 .Q..d6 1 0 . .Q..e 2
0-0 1 1 .0-0 �e7 transposes to Game 1 3)
6 . . . .1ld6 7.4Jc3 0-0 8.d4 dxc4 (8 . . . .1lb4
9 . a 3 .ll x c 3 + 1 0 . .Q.. x c3 4Je4 1 1 . .1lb2
4Jdf6 1 2 .E!. c U ) 9 . .1lxc4 4Jb6 1 0 . .1ld3
a4 1 l .a3 4Jfd5 1 2 .4Je4 f5 1 3.4Jc5 vtle7
1 4.�c2 E!. f6 1 5 .4Je5 4Jd7 16.E!.c1 E!. h6
reaching a complex position. We think
 The Sokolsky Opening
White has slightly better chances be­
cause of B l ack ' s undeveloped
queenside and his need to protect the
a4-pawn;
C) 2 . . .4Jf6 (Actually more popular than
2 . . . c6)
1) 3 . .ilb2
a) 3 . . . g6 4 . e 4 (also possible is the
fianchetto 4.g3 .ilg7 5 . .ilg2 0-0 6.c4 d6
7 . 4Jc 3 e 5 8 . d 3 4Jbd7 9 . 4Ja4 § e8
10.'l!i'c2 § b8 1 l .e3 b6 1 2 . 4Je2 ..Q.b7
13 . .ilxb7 § xb7 1 4 . e4 4Jf8 1 5 . 4Jac3
<tle6 16.0-0 �d7 17.!!ae 1 c5 1 8.bxc6
�xc6 19.a4 �d7 20.f4 with attacking
potential on the kingside, Akesson­
Emst, Skelleftea 1 999) 4 . . . d6 5 .c4 Ag7
6.'l!i'c2 0-0 7.4Jc3 c6 8.4Jf3 e5 9 . .ile2
<tlbd7 1 0. 0-0 4Jh5 1 l . § ad1 c5 1 2 .g3
<tlb6 1 3.4Je1 Ah3 14.4Jg2 'l!i'g5 1 5 .d3
f5 16.exf5 gxf5 17 . .ilf3 § ae8 1 8 . ..Q.cl
�g6 19 . .ilxb7 without Black having
compensation for the pawn, Campora­
Teran Alvarez, Santiago 1 995;
b) 3 . . .e6 4.4Jf3 .ile7 (4 ... d5!? 5 .e3 trans­
poses to 2 . . . e6 lines) 5.e3 b6 6.c4 0-0
7 ..ild3 h6 8.0-0 .ilb7 9.4Jc3 d5 1 0.cxd5
exd5 1 l .a4 4Jbd7 1 2 .�c2 4Jc5 13 . .ilf5
!! e8 1 4 . d4 4Jcd7 1 5 . 4J e 5 4J x e 5
16.dxe5 4Jd7 1 7 . e6 fxe6 ( 1 7 . . . 4Jf8
18.exf7+ �xf7 1 9 . !! ad1 ± ) 18 . ..Q.xe6+
27
'itt h 8 1 9 .4Jxd5 ..Q.xd5 20 . ..Q.xd5 !! a7
2 l ..ilf7 !! f8 22 . .ilxg7+! �xg7 23.'l!i'g6+
1 -0, because 23 . . . �h8 24.'l!i'xh6 • is
mate, Sternik-Lowry, email 200 1 ;
c) 3 . . . d6 4.e3 transposes to Lielmezs­
Tamashiro in the notes above;
d) 3 . . . c6 4 . e 3 ( 4 . c4 transposes to
Kuipers-Schenkeveld in the notes be­
low) 4 . . . d5 transposes to the main line;
2) 3.e3 Game 2: Agrest-B.Andersson,
Umea 2003 ;
3) 3.a4
a) 3 . . . e5 4 . ..Q.b2 d6 5 .d3 g6 6.g3 .llg7
7 . .ilg2 0-0 8.4Jf3 c6 9.c4 .ilg4 1 0.h3
.ild7 1 1 .0-0 4Jh5 1 2 .e4 c5 1 3.4Jc3 .ile6
14 . ..Q.c1 h6 1 5 . .ild2 �h7 16.!!bl 4Jd7
1 7.4Jd5 4Jb6 18.4Jxb6 �xb6 19.4Jh4
..Q.f6 20.4Jf5 4Jf4 (20 . . . ..Q.g5!?) 2 l .gxf4
gxf5 22 .�h5 with a promising attack,
Valenta-Docekal, Liberec 2003 ;
b) 3 . . . b6 4 . .ilb2 e6 5 .e3 .ilb7 6. 4Jf3
Ae7 7 . .ile2 d5 8.d3 0-0 9.0-0 4Jbd7
1 0 . 4Jbd2 § c8 1 l .c4 § e8 1 2 .4Jd4 c5
1 3 .bxc6 ( 1 3 .4J4b3 e5 14.cxd5 4Jxd5
1 5 . 4Jc4 .ilf8 16 . .ilg4 ;!; Olsen-Nj aa,
Vadsoe 2004) 13 . . . .ilxc6 14.4Jxc6 !! xc6
1 5 . cxd5 4Jxd5 16.d4 4Jb4 17.'l!i'b3 !! c7
1 8 . .ilb5 �a8 1 9 . !! ac l !! ec8 20. 4Jc4
�b7 2 l .f3 4Jf6 22.e4 with a positional
advantage to White who has more room
to maneuver;
D) 2 . . . c5
1) 3.e3 4Jf6 4.c4 (4 . ..Q.b2 e6 5 .4Jf3 b6
6 . ..Q.e2 .ilb7 7.d3 d6 8.4Jbd2 4Jbd7 9.0-
0 ..Q.e7 10.c4= has been reached in sev-
eral games) 4 . . . e6 5 .4Jf3 b6 6 . .ilb2 ..Q.b7
7 . .lle 2 d5 (7 . . . .ile7 8.4Jc3 d6 9.�c2
4Jbd7 1 0.d3 0-0 1 1 .0-0 § c8 1 2 .4Jd2
�c7 1 3 . f4 ..Q.d8 1 4.g4 h6 1 5 .h4 4Jh7
1 6 . g 5 with the kingside in itiative,
Franke-D. Hansen, Gemuend 1 999)
 l .b4 a5
8. 0-0 .£lbd7 9:�c2 .lld6 10.cxd5 exd5
1 1 ..£lh4 g6 1 2 . f4 �e7 13 . .£lf3 0-0-0
14 ..£ld4 .£lb8 15 . .£lc3! t! he8 16.t!acl
with the initiative;
2) 3 . .llb 2 d5 4.e3 b6 5 . .£lf3 .llb7 6.c4
.£1£6 7.cxd5 ..ll x d5 8 . .£lc3 .llb7 9 . .llc4
(9 . ..Q.e2 !? is also reasonable) 9 . . . e6
1 0 . 0-0 .ll e 7 1 l .d4 0-0 1 2 . t! e 1 t! a7
1 3 . .£le5 ..lld6 14. 'lttc 2 cxd4 1 5 .exd4 and
White has greater freedom of move­
ment, Raue-Eberth, Germany 2003 ;
3) 3.c4 b6 4 . .£lc3 .llb7 5 .e4 e5 6.d3 d6
7 . .ll e 3 .£ld7 8 . f3 .ll e 7 9 . 'ltfd2 .£lf8
1 0 . .£lge2 .£le6 1 l .g3 h6 1 2 . ..1lg2 .£lf6
1 3 . 0-0-0 'ltfc7 1 4 . h4 and w ith the
queenside more or less blocked, White
has the better chances on the other side,
De Visser-Schot, corr 1 989;
E) 2 . . . e5 3 . .llb 2
l ) After 3 .. .f6 4.e4 .llc 5 5 . .£lf3 (5.f4!?)
5 . . . .£le7 6.Ac4 d6 7.d4 .llb6 8.0-0 .llg 4
9.c3 .£ld7 1 0.a4 g5 1 1 ..£lbd2 .llh 5 1 2 .h3
.llf7 1 3 . .ll x f7+ 'tt> x f7 14 . .£lc4 the black
king doesn't look secure, and indeed
White went on to w i n , Etmans­
Mostertman, Dieren 2004;
2) 3 . . . d6= BC02 4.e3 (4.c4 transposes
to l . b4 e5 2 . .ll b 2 d6 3 . c4 a5 4.b5,
Chapter 8)
28
a) 4 . . . g6 5 . .£lf3 (the alternatives merit
a look: 5 . d4 ! ? ; 5 . f4!?) 5 . . . Ag7 6 . c4
.£le7 7.'ltfc2 .£ld7 8.d4 0-0 9 . .lle 2 b6
1 0 . 0-0 .llb 7 1 l . t! d 1 f6 1 2 . .£lc3 \t>h8
1 3 . .lla 3 'ltte 8 1 4 .c5 dxc5 1 5 .dxc5 c6
16 . .£le4 bxc5 17 . .f:lxc5 .f:lxc5 18.�xc5 ±
G i m eno H i gueras-F erron Garc i a ,
Mislata 2004;
b) 4 . . . .llf5 5 .c4 .£lf6 6 . .£lf3 .£lbd7 7.d4
e4 8 . .£lfd 2 h 5 9 . .£lc3 ( 9 . h4 d 5 oo
Stejskal-Zeithamt, Czechia 1 996) 9 . . . h4
1 0.h3 planning �d1 -c2 and 0-0-0, so
White has the better chances;
c) 4 . . . b6 5 .d3 Ab7 6.c4 .£ld7 7 . .£lc3
.£lgf6 8 . .£lf3 �e7 9 . .lle 2 0-0-0 1 0.0-0
(10.e4!? .£lc5 1 1 .0-0 h6 1 2 . .£ld5 is also
reasonable for White) 10 . . . h6 1 l .d4 e4
1 2 . .£ld2 t! e8 1 3 .�a4 with the attack­
ing plan .£ld2-b3, Ab2-a3 and c4-c5;
d) 4 . . . .£ld7 5.c4 .£lgf6 6 . .£lf3 �e7 7 . .£lc3
c6 8 . .lle 2 g6 9.a4 .llg 7 1 0.0-0 0-0 1 l .d4
t! e8 1 2 .dxe5 dxe5 1 3 . .lla 3 c5 1 4 .e4
.£lb6 1 5 .h3 .llf8 16.Ab2 t! d8 17.'lttc 2
White has more room to maneuver, and
his main thought will be to prepare a
timely .£lc3-d5 , Stemik-Sokanski, corr
1 994;
e) 4 . . . .£lf6 5 . .£lf3 .llg4 6.Ae2 .lle7 7.0-0
.£lbd7 8.c4 0-0 9.d4 e4 10 ..£lfd2 Axe2
l l . 'ltf x e 2 t! e8 1 2 . f3 ! ? ( 1 2 . .£lc3 d5
1 3 . t! fcl .llb4 1 4 . .f:lxd5 .f:lxd5 1 5 .cxd5
.ll x d2 1 6 . 'ltt x d2 ;E Labahn-Chlaifer,
Germany 1 994) 12 . . . exf3 1 3 .'ltt xf3 with
a positional advantage, which is in­
creased after .£lb1 -c3 and e3-e4;
F) 2 . . . b6
1) 3.c4 .llb7 4 . .£lc3 .f:lf6 5 . .£lf3 g6 6 . .llb 2
.ll g 7 7 . e 3 0-0 8 . .ll e 2 d6 9 . 0- 0 e 5
1 0 .d4 e 4 l l . .£ld2 t! e8 1 2 .'ltt c 2 (more
active is 1 2 .c5!? Game 3 : Katalymov­
S imagin, Tashkent 1 9 5 8 ) 1 2 . . . �e7
1 3 .t! ael preparing f2-f3, with the bet­
ter prospects;
 The Sokolsky Opening
2) 3.e3 .llb7 4.Ab2 d6 5 . .£:\f3 e5 6.c4
f5 7 . .£:lc3 (7.d4!? e4 8 . .£:\fdU ) 7 . . . .£:lf6
8.'lii'c 2 g6 9.0-0-0 c6 1 0.d4 e4 1 1 ..£:\g5
�e7 1 2 .bxc6 .£:\xc6 1 3 .d5 .£:\e5 14 . .£:\e6
§c8 1 5 .'lii'b 3 .£:\fd7 16.f4 exf3 17.gxf3
.lla6 (17 . . . .£:\xf3 18.<it'b1 l:>. 19.e4 leaves
the f3 -knight a bit stranded, but i s
B lack 's best option) 1 8 . .£:\ b S .ll x b5
19.'lii'x b5 § g8 20 . .lle 2 Ah6 2 1 .f4 .£:lt7
22.h4 .£:\d8 2 3 . -'l.f3 <it'f7 24.<it'b1 +­
Welling-De Rooij , Den Bosch 1 992 ;
3) 3.Ab2 .£:\f6 4 . .£:\f3 .llb7 5.e3
a) 5 ... g6 6.d4 d6 7.Ad3 .llg7 8 . .£:\bd2
4Jbd7 9 . .£:\c4 0-0 1 0.'tfi'e2 .£:\e4 1 1 .0-0
�e8 1 2 . § ad 1 e5 1 3 . d x e 5 d x e 5
1 4 . .llxe4 .ll x e4 1 5 . .1la3 .£:\c5 1 6 . .ll x c5
bxc5 17.a4 and Black's weak pawn on
c5 gives White the better chances,
Poley-N. Sanchez, Condom 2002;
b) 5 . . . e6 6.-'l.e2 Ae7 7 . 0-0 0-0 8 . c4
d6 9 . 'lii' c 2 § e8 1 0 . .£:\c3 Af8 1 1 . d4
4Jbd7 1 2 . § fd 1 'lii' c 8 1 3 . § a c 1 c 5
14 .bxc6 .ll x c6 1 5 .'lii' b 1 �b8 1 6.h3 e5
1 7 . .ll a 3 ± Kalashn ikov-Korni enko,
Novokuznetsk 2003 ;
G) 2 . . . d5
1) 3 . .llb2 c5 4.e3 .£:\d7 (4 . . . c4 5.d3 cxd3
6 . .ll x d3 ± ) 5 ..£:\f3 .£:\gf6 6.Ae2 e6 7.0-0
.lld6 8.c4 dxc4 9 . .£:la3 .£:\b6 10.�c2 0-0
29
1 1 . .£:\ x c4 .£:\ x c4 1 2 . .ll xc4 'lii' c 7 (not
1 2 . . . b6 1 3 . .£:lg5 ! g6 1 4 . 'lii' c 3 Ae7
1 5 . .£:\e4 <it'g7 1 6.d3 .llb7 17.§ad1 with
obvious pressure) 1 3 . § ac l with the
more favorable position;
2) 3.a4 Af5 4 . .1lb2 ( 4 . .£:\f3 .£:\f6 5.e3 e6
6.Ab2 is also possible) 4 . . . .£:\d7 5 .e3 c5
(5 . . . e5!?) 6.c4 .£:\gf6 7.d3 dxc4 (7 .. .'�c7?
8 . cxd5 0-0-0 9 . e4 Ag6 1 0 . .£:\f3 e6
1 1 .dxe6 fxe6 1 2 . .£:\bd2 ± Van Splunter­
Broekmeulen, Hengelo 2000) 8.dxc4
'lii' c 7 9 . .1ld3 .ll x d 3 1 0 . 'lii' xd3 0-0-0
11 . .£:\f3 e6 1 2 .'lii'c 2 Ad6 1 3 . .£:\bd2 <it'b8
and in this otherwise equal position,
White still has the choice of where to
place his king;
3) 3.d4 .£:\f6 4.e3 Af5 5 .Ab2 (5 .Aa3!?
in the hope of exchanging his inferior
bishop, looks logical for White) 5 . . . e6
6 . .£:\f3 .lld6 7 . .lle 2 0-0 8.0-0 .£:\bd7 9.c4
d x c 4 1 0 . -'1. x c 4 § e8 1 1 . .£:\ c 3 .£:\b6
12 . .1le2 .£:\bd5 1 3 .a3 �e7 1 4 . .£:\xdS
exd5 1 5 . a4 § ad8 1 6.'lii'b 3 .£:\e4 17.-'l.a3
Ag4 1 8 . § fe 1 .ll x f3 19 . .1lxd6 § xd6
20 ..1lxf3 .£:\d2 2 1 .'lii'd 1 .£:\xf3+ 22.�xf3
�e4 2 3 . 'lii' x e4 dxe4 2 4 . § e c l § d7=
Konieczny-Obuchowski, Poland 200 1 .
3.e3
Opening up a path for a bishop to de­
fend the pawn.
Another possibility is 3.c4:
A) 3 ... .£:\f6 4.Ab2 e6 5 .e3 Ae7 6.Ad3
0-0 7.�c2 g6 8.h4 (the conventional
8 . .£:\f3!? must be stronger) 8 . . . d5 9 . .£:\a3
.£:\bd7 1 0 . h 5 .£:\xh5 1 1 . § xh5 .ll x a3
( 1 l . . .gxh5 12 . .ll x h7 # ) 12 . .1lxa3 gxh5
1 3 .Axf8 ( 1 3 .Axh7+ 'it'g7 1 4 . Axf8+
.£:\ x f8 1 5 . A d 3 �f6 1 6 . § b 1 e 5 +Z )
1 3 . . . .£:\ x f8 1 4 . .£:\f3 Ad7 1 5 . 'it' e 2
 l .b4 a5
( 1 5 . �b2!?) 1 5 . . . cxb5 1 6 . c xb5 '/ii' f6
17.!!h1 e5 with the advantage, Kuipers-
Schenkeveld, Hengelo 2002;
B) 3 . . . d5 4 . bxc6 bxc6 5 . cxd5 cxd5
6.4Jf3 e6 7.e3 Ad6 8.Ab2 4Jf6 9.Ab5+
..lld7 1 0.4Jc3 0-0 1 1 .a4 Axb5 1 2 .4Jxb5
4Jc6 1 3 . 0-0 !! e8 14.!!cl 4Jb4 1 5 .4Je5
4Je4 1 6.d3 4Jc5 (16 .. .f6?? 17.4Jc6 4Jxc6
1 8 . !! xc6 �d7 1 9 .�c2 !! ac8 20 . !! c 1
..llc 5 1 - 0, Nguyen Thai Sinh-Nguyen
Due Hoa, Dong Thap 2003) 17.4Jxd6
'/ii' x d6 1 8 . Ad4 4Jba6 1 9 . ..1lxc5 4Jxc5
( 1 9 ... �xe5 20.d4 �f5 2 1 .'/ii'dU ) 20.d4
4Je4 2 1 .f3 4Jg5 22.!!c6 '/ii'a 3 23.'/ii' c l
�><cl (23 ... '/ii' x a4 24.h4 ± ) 24.!!fxcl f6
2 5 . 4Jd3 White 's control of the c-file
should lead to a favorable ending;
C) 3... ~b6
1) 4.4Jc3 e6 5 .e3 4Jf6 (5 . . . cxb5 6.cxb5
'/ii' c 7 7.4Jf3 b6 8 . ..1lb2 f6 9 . !! c l '/ii'd8
1 0 . 4Ja4 Ab7 1 1 .Ad4 Ac5 1 2 .Axc5
bxc5 1 3 .4Jxc5 +- De Visser-Keesman,
Haarlem 2000) 6.4Jf3 d5 7 ...1lb2 ..lle7
8.bxc6 bxc6 9.!!b1 '/ii' c7 10 . ..1le2 0-0
1 1 .0-0 it White plans �d1 -c2 and § fl -
cl;
2) 4.e3 4Jf6 ( 4 . . . d5 5 . 4Jc3 4Jf6 6.4Jf3
..llf5 7 .Aa3 it ) 5 .4Jf3 g6 6.Ab2 ..llg7
7.d4 cxb5 8.cxb5 (8.c5!?) 8 . . . d6 9.4Jc3
30
0-0 10.Ae2 4Jbd7 1 1 .0-0 '/ii'd8 1 2 .4Jd2
White's better development gives him
a slight advantage.
3 ... dS
3 . . . 4Jf6 4.4Jf3 g6 5 .Ab2 ..llg7 6.a4 0-0:
A) 7.c4 cxb5 8.cxb5 d5 9 . ..1le2 4Jbd7
10.d4 4Je4 1 1 .'/ii'b 3 4Jb6 1 2.4Jbd2 ..lle 6
1 3 .0-0. g5 1 4 . !! fd 1 !! c8 1 5 . '/ii' a 3 h6
16.4Jxe4 dxe4 17.4Jd2 ..lld 5 (17 .. .f5!?)
1 8.!!ac1 '/ii'd7 19.4Jb3 ..Q..c4? (necessary
was 19 . . . 4Jc4 or 1 9 . . . �d6) 20.4Jc5 �d5
2 1 ...1lxc4 4Jxc4 22.�b3 b6 (22 . . . 4Jb6
23.'/ii' x d5 4Jxd5 24.4Jxb7 +- ) 23.!! xc4
!! fd8 2 4 . !! dc 1 b x c 5 2 5 . '/ii' c 2 § b8
26.!! xc5 +- Kooi-Neukirch, Dresden
2004;
B) 7.d4 d5 8.4Jbd2 4Je4 9.c4 4Jxd2
1 0.4Jxd2 dxc4 1 l .Axc4 c5 1 2 .4Jb3 b6
1 3 . 0-0 ..Q..b7 14.'/ii'c 2 e6? ( o 14 . . . cxd4)
1 5 .!! ad1 ( 1 5 .dxc5!) 15 . . . cxd4 1 6 . ..1lxd4
Axd4 17.!! xd4 '/ii'g5 18.f4 '/ii'f6 19.!!fd1
Black's queenside development prob-
lems give White a positional advantage,
Vukovic-Bogavac, Belgrade 2005 .
4 .Q.b2 4)f6
.
Mobilizing the pieces is better than ad-
vancing the a-pawn. 4 . . . a4 5 .c4 4Jf6
 The Sokolsky Opening
6.bxe6 bxe6 7 . .1lxf6 gxf6 S.exd5 exd5
(S . . . ilh d 5 9 . <tle 3 � a 5 1 0 . <tlf3 e 5
1 1 . � e 2 it ) 9 . <tl e 3 �a 5 ( 9 . . . e 6 ! ? )
1 0 . .1lb 5 + .Q. d 7 1 l . .§ b 1 e6 1 2 . �g4
(12 .<£\ge2!?) 12 . . . <tle6 1 3 . <tlf3 a3:
A) 1 4 . 0-0 h 5 1 5 . �g3 .§ h6 1 6 . <tld4
<t\ x d4 1 7 . e x d4 .§ g6 1 S . � e 3 .§ eS
19 . .1lxd7+ 'it>xd7 20 . .§b5 �aS 2 1 ..§fb1
Black's exposed king gives White the
advantage, J.Fischer-Gerusel, Germany
1 992 ;
B) 1 4 . <tld4! <tl e 5 1 5 . .ilxd7+ <t\ x d7
16.<£\xe6! <tle5 ( 1 6 . . . fxe6 1 7 .�xe6+
.ll e 7 1 S . <t\ x d 5 � e 5 19 . .§ b7 �d6
2 0 . <£\e7 + \fldS 2 1 . � x d6 .ll xd6
2 2 . <£\xaS +- ) 1 7 .�h5 <tld3+ 1 S .'it>e2
<t\b4 19.<£\xfS +- .
In the Sokolsky Black often selects a
kingside fianchetto.
5 . . . e6 and now a choice:
A) 6.d4 .ll e 7 7 . a4 0-0 S . .ild3 exb5
9. axb5 <tlg4 1 0 . 0- 0 f5 1 l . e 4 <tld7
1 2.�b3 <tldf6 1 3 .h3 <tlh6 14.<tle3 <tlf7
15 . .§fcl b6 (In Jenneborg-van Rooijen,
IECG 2004, Black chose an aggressive
plan on the kingside, but White easily
countered on the other wing 15 . . . 'it>hS
16.e5 g5 1 7 . <tla4 <tle4 1 S . <tlb6 .§ a7
19.<£\xeS �xeS 20.b6 .§ aS 2 1 .e6 .llb4
2 2.e7 �d7 23 . .§ a4 \flg7 24 . .1la3 .ll x a3
25 .�xa3 �d6 26.�b2 .§ feS 27 . .§e5
<tlf6 2S . .§ ax a 5 .§ x a 5 2 9 . .§ x a 5 <tld7
30.E!b5 leaving Black a pawn down in
a lost position) 1 6.<£\a4! (also good, but
slightly less so, is 1 6.e5 bxe5 17.dxe5
.ll x e5 1 S.<t\xd5 <t\xd5 19 . .§ xe5 .ll b7
20 . .§ ac l ) 1 6 . . . dxe4 1 7 . .1lxe4 <tld5
1S . .Ilxd5 exd5 19.<tle5 <tlxe5 20.dxe5
E!bS 2 1 ..1ld4 leaves B lack in a difficult
31
situat i o n ; e . g . , 2 l . . . f4 2 2 . e4 .ll e 6
23 . .§ e6 .llf7 24 . .1lxb6 .§ xb6 25.<£\xb6
dxe4 26.e6 .lle S 27 . .§d1 �bS 2S.<tld7
�aS 29.�e4 +- ;
B) 6.a4 .llb4 7.e3 .lle7 S.d4 0-0 9.<tlbd2
.ll d 7 1 0 . .1ld3 e x b 5 1 l . a x b 5 �eS
1 2 . �b3 <tle4 1 3 . 0-0 f5 1 4 . .Q.a3 a4
1 5.�b2 .§a5 16.e4 dxe4 17 . .ilxe7 �xe7
(giving up material doesn 't change
Black's fate: 1 7 . . . exd3 1S . .ilxfS �xfS
19.b6 .§b5 20.�cl .§ xb6 2 1 .<£\e5 .llb 5
22.<£\xe4 fxe4 23.�e7 .§e6 24.�a5 .lle4
25.<£\xe6 <t\xe6 26.�xa4 +- Hlavacek­
van Rooijen, IECG 2004) 1S . .Ilxe4 <tld6
1 9 . �b4 b6 20 . .§ xa4 .ll x b5 2 l . .§ xa5
bxa5 2 2 .�a3 <tle6 2 3 . .1lxb5 <t\xb5
24.�a2 Black's weak, attackable pawns
on aS and e6 give White the advantage;
C) 6.e4 <tlbd7 7.<tle3 !J..e7 S . .lle 2=.
6.c4 .ilg7 7.cxd5 cxd5
8.-'\.e2
This normal move is best. White gains
nothing from S . �e2 0-0 9 . d4 .ll f5
1 0 . .1ld3 -'1. x d 3 1 l . � x d 3 <t\bd7
1 2 .<tlbd2 <tlb6 1 3 . 0-0 .§eS 14 . .§ acl e6
1 5 . .1la3 .§ eS 1 6 . .§ xeS �xeS 17 . .§ c l
�aS 1 S . .§ e 2 .§eS 19.!J..e 5 <tlfd7=.
8 . . . 0-0 9.0-0 .ilg4 10.d3 � bd7
ll.�bd2 �b6 12.a4 Etac8 13.�b3
 l .b4 a5
White intends �dl -d2 and E!.al-cl with
the better- l ooking p o s i t i o n . A fter
1 3 . .£lb3 Black doesn 't succeed with
1 3 . . . .£lc5 14 . .£lxc5 �xc5 1 5 . .lla 3 �c7
1 6 . E!. c l �d8 1 7 . E!. xc8 .ll x c8 1 8.�c2
E!. e8 19.E!.cl when White controls the
c-file.
S u m mary: We agree with Sokolsky
that the misguided l . . .a7-a5 is better for
White. If the white b-pawn is an annoy­
ance to Black, the black a-pawn is an
irrelevance to White.
Game l
Sokolsky-Luik
Minsk 1 957
l .b4 aS 2.bS �f6 3 ..Q.b2 d6 4.e3
• 12 . . . .1lf5!? Not 1 2 . . ..1ld7?! which inter­
g6 S .d4 Ag7 6.�f3 o-o 7 .c4 cS
8.�c3 cxd4 9.exd4 tJ/c7 10.Ae2
10 . .lld 3 is analyzed in Chapter 1 .
10 •.. J}.e6 l l . �d2
White protects the c-pawn by develop­
ing naturally. He delays l l . d5 as it
would leave a hole on c5 for a black
knight, at the moment...
l l . . . Jl,h6
Endangering the c-pawn by threatening
one of its defenders. Peyrat-Joly, France
32
1 99 1 , went l l . . .E!. c8 1 2 .d5 .llf5 1 3 .g4
.£le4 14 . .£ldxe4 .llxe4 1 5.0-0 g5 16.�d2
.ll g 6 1 7 . � xg5 .£ld7 1 8 . .£la4 .Q. x b 2
1 9 . .£l x b 2 a4 2 0 . h4 f6 2 l .�d2 .£le5
2 2 . h 5 .ll e 8 2 3 . f4 a 3 2 4 . fx e 5 axb2
25 .�xb2 �c5+ 26.'iti>h2 with an advan­
tage that was turned into a victory.
1 2.dS
White pushes the pawn after all. An al­
ternative was 1 2 . E!. c l !? and now Black
can't play 1 2 . . . .ll x d2+ 1 3.�xd2 .ll xc4??
14 . .£ld5! .£lxd5 1 5 . .ll x c4 as White will
gain material.
12 .•. ..Q.c8
feres with knight development.
13.0-0 �bd7 14.�de4 ..Q.g7
After 14 . . . .£lxe4 1 5 . .£lxe4 .£lc5 1 6.�d4
f6 17 . .£lxc5 �xc:5 18.�xc5 dxc5 19.f4
.ll£5 20.E!.adl White plans .lle 2-d3, and
has the better prospects due to greater
space.
The variation 1 5 . . . .£lxe4 1 6 . .£lxe4 .ll x b2
1 7 .�xb2 b6 1 8 . §. ad l .£lc5 19 . .£lxc5
�xc5 20.§.d4 sending the rook to the
kingside, is better for White.
16.1aael tJ/aS 17.Ad3?
17. �c2!? unpins the queen.
17.•. ~e5?
Black misses 17 . . . .£lxe4! 18.E!. xe4 .£le5
19 . .lle 2 A£5 with active play.
 The Sokolsky Opening
Intending f2-f4.
18 .. �b4 19.a3 �b3?
. 25 . . . exd6
A mistake allowing an elegant combi­
nation. After 19 . . . �xc4 20 . ..1lxc4 �xc4
2 l . f! xe7 �h4 2 2 . h 3 ..ll. d 7 2 3 . f! fe l
White i s more active. Alternatively
19 . . . Ah6!? 2 0 . f4 �b3 2 1 . ..1l. e 2
(2 l .f! xe5!? dxe5 22 .�ge2 is similar to
what happens in the game) 2 1 . . . ..1lg4
threatens a defender of the c4-pawn.
20.E! xe5!
First the knight is removed, then the
queen can be trapped.
20 ... dxe5 21.�ge2?!
Apparently good, but not entirely con­
vincing. White should consider a couple
of alternatives:
A) 2 1 . �c e 4 ! ? � x e 4 ( 2 1 . . . � x d 5
22 . .£\c5 +- ) 22 .�xe4 ..Q..£5 23.�c5 Axd3
24.�xb3 Axfl 25 .'it>xfl axb3 26.�b4
with the advantage, but is it enough for
the full point?
B) 2 1 . f! b l ! ? e4 2 2 . �c x e 4 � x e 4
2 3 . .£\xe4 � a 2 ( 2 3 . . . ..1l x b 2 2 4 . f! xb2
�xa3 25.f!a2 �b3 26.�c5 +- ) 24.�c3
33
�b3 (24 . . . .1lxc3 25.�xc3 f6 26.Ac2 +- )
25.d6 with good winning chances; e.g.,
1) 25 . . . ..Q..f5 26 . ..1l.xf5 gxf5 27.dxe7 f! fe8
28.�d5 -'\.xb2 29.f! xb2
a) 29 . . . iltxa3 30.iltg5+ 'it>h8 3 l .�f6+
'it>g8 3 2 . f! b l �d3 3 3 . f! e l ilt x c 4
34.�e5 +- ;
b) 29 . . . �xc4 30.�f6+ 'it>h8 3 1 .�h6 +- ;
2) 25 . . . e6 26.�cl f! d8 27.Aal f! xd6
2 8 . f! xb3 a x b 3 2 9 . -'l.fl +- ; 2 6 . �d5
..ll x b 2 2 7 . f! x b 2 �xa3 2 8 . �h 6 ! f5
2 9 . �e 7 + 'it>f7 3 0 . ilt x h 7 + 'it>e8
3 l .�d5 +- .
2 1 . . . e4??
Black should go 2 l . . . ..llf5! 22 .�c l Ah6
23.f4 ..ll x d3 (23 . . . ..1lxf4?? 24.f! xf4 +- )
24.�xb3 Axfl 25 .'it>xfl ..ll. x f4 26.�e2
axb3 27.g3 Ah6 28.�xe5 �g4 with
counterplay.
22.�cl J}.h6
23.f4! e3
If 23 . . . exf3 24.�xb3 ..ll. x d2 25 .�xd2
fxg2 26.'it>xg2 White is a piece up.
24. �e2 Jl.g4 25.E!f3!
The other rook is offered up too.
 l .b4 a5

25 ... j't x f3 26.gxf3 .£\h5 27 .£\ xb3

• For other continuations see Chapter 1 .
.£\ xf4 28.�d1 axb3 29.Jtfl §adS
30. � x b3 3 . . . g6 4.J}.b2 Jtg7 5 . .£\f3 0-0 6.c4
b6
White has a material advantage, and can
now proceed to simplify the position. An alternative is 6 . . . d5!? 7.d4.

30 e6
••.
7 .d4 d 6 8 . .£\ c 3 e6

31 . .£\e2 9.g3

More active is 3 l .<be4!? 9 . Ae 2 i s very reasonab l e , but the

A) 3 l . . .f5 32.<£Jf6+ � xf6 33 .Axf6 �f8 fianchetto is more aggressive.
34 . .!le5 e2 35 . .!lxe2 <bxe2+ 36.\t>fl <bf4
37.d6 +- ; 9 J}.b7 1 0 . J}.g 2 .£\ bd7 1 1 . 0 - 0
. . •

f!b8 1 2.a4 f!e8 ( 1 2 . . . <be4!?) 1 3 . �c2

B) 3 l . . .Ag7 32 . .!lxg7 'it>xg7 (32 . . . e2 .11. f 8 1 4 . f!ac1 f!c8 1 5 . f!fdl c 5
33.�c3 +- ) 33 .�xe3 exd5 34.<bc5 b6 16.dxc5
35.�xf4 bxc5 36.b6 dxc4 37 . .!lxc4 +- .
From a positional point of view, the line
31 exd5 32 .£\ xf4 J}. x f4 33.cxd5
.•• • 1 6.bxc6!? .!lxc6 17.<bb5 looks stronger
f!fe8 34.J}.e2 Jte5 35.J}.xe5 f! xe5 because the game move gives Black
36.f4 f!exd5 37.�xe3 �f8 38.a4! access to c5.

White prepares a passed a-pawn. 16 .£\ xc5 17 . .£\e5 .11. xg2 18.�xg2
.•.

�c7 19 . .£\c6
38 . . . §e8 39. �a3+ �g8 40.J}.fl
f!d4 41.a5 f! x f4 42.a6 1-0 An active placement for the knight, al­
though not for long.
Game 2
Agrest-B.Andersson 19 ... �b7 20 . .£\e2 .£\fd7 21 .f3 e5?
Umea 2003
Black leaves a hole on d5 . 2 l . . .f5!? looks
1 .b4 a5 2.b5 .£\f6 3.e3 better.

34
 The Sokolsky Opening

2 2.e4 �b8 23.� xb8 E! x b8 24.�c3 Game 3

f6 25.�d5 �f7 26.E!al Katalymov-Simagin
Tashkent 1 958
Now begins a typical regrouping of
forces. l .b4 a5 2.b5 b 6 3.c4 Ab7 4.�c3
�f6 5 . � f3 g6 6.Ab2 Ag7 7 .e3
26 . . . Ag7 27 .E!a3 E!ed8 28.Acl
0-0 8.Ae2 d6 9.0-0 e5 10.d4 e4
§d7 29.Ae3 f5
1 1 .�d2 E!e8

At last Black tries something on the

12.c51?
kingside, but it's too late.

30.exf5 gxf5 Violently opening the center. The quiet

1 2 . �c2 is dealt with in Chapter 1 .
30 ... �xf5? 3 l .�xf5 gxf5 32.<�jxb6 � xb6
33 . .1.txc5 +- . 1 2. . . dxc5 13.dxc5 bxc5

31.Jl.xc5 dxc5 Obviously c5-c6 mustn't be allowed.

Worse is 3 l . . .bxc5 32 .�d2. 1 4 . � a4 � bd 7 1 5 . �b3 �e7

16.�cl c4
32.E!ad3 <i!i'f8?

Sli ghtly more resi stant, maybe, i s The c5-pawn is indefensible: 16 . . . M8

32. . .'<t>h8!? 33.{)xb6! � xd3 34.�xd3 e4 1 7 . {)a x c 5 {) x e S 1 8 . {) x c 5 'l!1 x c 5
35.fxe4 fxe4 36.�fl although White is 19.'l!1xc5 .ilxc5 2 0 . .ilxf6 w ith the better
clearly better. ending.

17 . .1lxc4 �g4?

Or 33 . . . � xb6 34.� xd7 �e6 3 5 . � c7 Black wrongly imagines he can mount

§b8 36.�dd7 winning. a successful attack on White 's king.
Correct was 17 . . . {)b6!
34 . � x d 3 E! x b6 3 5 . �d8+ �e8
36.� xb6 e4 37.E!d8 1-0 18.J}. xg7 �d6

35
 l .b4 aS

White is also better after 1 8 . . .'<t'xg7 Black will have to give up material to
1 9.-'l.e2 <£ldf6 20:iii'c 3. stop the pawn.

19.g3 � xg7 20:�dl! 32 .£) x e4 33 .£) a4 Ia x h4 34.b6

••• •

Now Black can't avoid the exchange of
queens and thus the neutralization of his
attack.
20 .£)de5 21.'1!\'xd6 cxd6 22 .Q.e2
•••
.£)g5?
After 34 . . . !!hS!, Black could probably
equalize; e.g., 3S .f�h2 (3S .!!bl?? !!gS+
wins) 3S ... !!bS 36.a3 !!b3 etc.
35.}abl?
•

.£)f3+ 23 .Q.xf3 exf3 24 .£)d4 }aac8

• •

25.Iaacl h5 26 .£)b6 lac5

•
Black allows the loss of a pawn, as his
other options are poor. If 26 . . . !! xc l
27. !! xcl <£leS 28.!!c7 and Black's po­
sition is hard to defend.
27.}a xc5 dxc5 28 .£)b3 h4 29.gxh4
•
Not 29.h3? hxg3 ! 30.fxg3 (30.hxg4??
g2 3 1 . !! d l !! h8 mating) 30 . . . f2 +
3 l . !! xf2 <£lxf2 3 2 .'<t>xf2 with the ad­
vantage.
29 }ah8 30.h3 .£)f6 31 .£) xc5 .Q.e4
••• •
White should try 3S.<£lc3! with winning
chances.
35 ••• }ah8
3S .. .fS! practically traps White's king.
3 6 . b7 (otherw i s e W h i te fac e s
36 . . . <£l x h 3 + 3 7 . '<t> h 2 <£lgS + 3 8 . '<t>g3
!! x a4 3 9 . b7 !! g4 + 4 0 . '<t>h 2 <£le4
4 l .b8� !! g2+ 42.'<t>h3 <£lgS+ 43.'<t>h4
!! g4 * ) 36 . . . <£l x h 3 + 3 7 . '<t>h2 <£lgS +
38.'<t>g3 !!g4+ 39.'it'h2 !! h4+ 40.'<t>gl
!!g4+ 4 1 . 'ifi>h2 is drawn ( 4 1 .'<t>fl ?? <£lh3
42.'it>el !!gl + -+ ).
36.}ab5

But not 3 6 . b7? <£l x h 3 + 3 7 . '<t>h 2

(37.'ifi>fl?? <£lf4! -+ ) 3 7 . . . <£lxf2+ 38.'<t>g3
<£l e 4 + 3 9 . 'ifi>f4 <£ld2 4 0 . b8� !! x b8
4 l . !! xb8 f2 queening.

36 .£) x h 3 + 3 7 . � h 2 .£) x f 2 +
• • •

3 8 . �g3 .£) e4 + 3 9 . � x f3 ± f 5
40.}a xa5??

A terrible error. 40.b7! !! b8 4 l .'<t>f4

<£ld6 42.!!b6 <£lxb7 43.<£lcS +- .
32 .£) xe4?!
•

40 ••• }ah2 0-1

3 2 . <£lc4 is more accurat e ; e . g . ,
3 2 . . . !! x h4 3 3 . <£ld6 AdS 3 4 . b6 and Checkmate is inescapable.

36
 Chapter 2
l.b4 c6
The Outflank Variation. With this move
Black prepares . . . 'ifi'd8-b6 (and/or . . . a7-
a5 as in Chapter 1 ). White usually re­
plies 2 . .1lc l-b2 (Chapter 2A) or 2.e2-
e3 (Chapter 2B).
The popularity of 1 . . . c6 has been main­
tained down the years through its pro­
motion by various authors.
• Burgess, 1 0 1 Chess Opening Sur­
prises,Gambit Publications, 1 998
• Hard i n g , The Refutation o f the
Sokolsky?, Chess, May 1 973
• Palliser, Beating Unusual Chess
Openings, Everyman, 2006
It's hard to understand why l . . . c6
should be so well thought of, expect for
the significant fact that some ofWhite's
best lines require him to gambit a pawn.
Nowadays Tim Harding no longer trusts
in any refutation of the Sokolsky Open­
ing.
2.c4
2.a4 e5!
37
2 ... d5
This is the typical reaction, but others
are good too :
A) 2 . . . e5
1) 3 . .!lb2 d6 transposes to l . b4 e5
2.Ab2 d6 3.c4 c6, Chapter 8;
2) 3 . b5 cxb5 (=3 . . . d5 4 . cxd5 cxd5)
4.cxb5 d5 5 . .1lb2 .ll d6 (5 .. .£6 6.e3=)
6.g3 !i::J e 7 7.!i::Jf3 e4 (7 . . . !i::Jd7!?) 8.!i::Jd4
0-0 9.Ag2 'ifi'b6=;
B) 2 . . . !i::Jf6 3 . .1lb2 d5 4.e3 .llg4 (4 . . . e6
5 .b5 transposes to Chapter 3C, i.e., l .b4
e6 2 . .1lb2 !i::Jf6 3.b5 c6 4.c4 d5 5 .e3)
5 .!i::Jf3 e6 6.a3 !i::Jbd7 7.h3 .!lh5 8.b5 h6
9.a4 .lld6 10.d4 0-0 1 l .c5 Ac7 1 2 . .lle 2
!! e8 1 3 .0-0 !i::J e 4 with shared chances;
C) 2 ... 'ifi'b6 3:�b3 a5 (The ten-year-old
Nigel Short played 3 . . . !i::J f6 4.e3 !i::J a6
5 .a3 g6 6.Ab2 .!lg7 7.!i::Jf3 0-0 8 . .!le2
d6 9 . 0-0 it Petherick - Short, London
1 975) 4.bxa5 (4.b5!?) 4 .. .'�i'xa5 5 .!i::Jc 3
!i::Jf6 6.!i::Jf3 e5 7.g3 (another plan is 7.e3
D. 8.Ae2, 9.0-0) 7 . . . e4 8. !i::J d 4 �e5
9. !i::J c 2 !i::J a 6 10 . .1lg2 .ll c 5 1 1 . 0-0 0-0
reaching a complex position;
D) Note that 2 . . . a5 3 .b5 (best) trans­
poses to l .b4 a5 2 .b5 c6 3 .c4, which is
a subvariation of Chapter I .
3.cxd5
Or White can try to maintain the ten­
sion by delaying the capture: 3.e3 e5
4 ..1lb2 f6 5 .a3 (5 .b5 .!le6 6.cxd5 cxd5
7.!i::Jf3 Ad6 8.Ae2 !i::Je 7 9 . .!la3 .!lxa3
 l .b4 c6

1 0 . 4Jxa3 a6 1 1 . 0-0 0-0 oo ) 5 . . . .1le6 14 .4Jxc4 dxc4 1 5 . .1lc2 4Jd5=.

6.cxd5 cxd5 7.d4 e4 8.4Je2 f5 9.4Jf4
.llf7 1 0.h4 ( 1 0 . .ilb5+ 4Jc6 1 1 .4Jc3 g5 14 dxc4 1S.�f3
•••

1 2 .4Jfe2 4Jf6 1 3 . 0-0 [ 1 3 .h4 g4 14.4Jf4

.ild6 1 5 . g3 oo ] 1 3 . . . .ild6 1 4 . f4 exf3 1 5 . .ila3 .ilxa3 16.E! xa3 "f!e7 1 7 :�cl
1 5 J ! x f3 oo ) 1 0 . . . 4Jf6 1 1 . 4Jc 3 .ll d 6 E!fd8=.
1 2 :�b3 4Jbd7 1 3 .g3 0-0 1 4 . .ile2 (or
14 . .ll h 3 g6 1 5 . 4Ja4 �e7 1 6 . 0-0 oo 1S ••• '12/c7 16.Jla3
Sjoberg-Rytshagov, Gothenborg 1 997)
14 . . . E!c8 1 5 .E!c1 4Jb6 and Black stands 16.E!fcl .ilxe5 17.dxe5 "f!/xe5 18."f!/xb7
well. 4Jg4 now simply 19.g3 rather than the
complications of 1 9.h3 �h2+ 20.�f1
3 .•• cxdS 4 . .Q.b2 �f6 s.�f3 .ll c 6! 2 l .bxc6 "f!h 1 + oo ( 2 l . . . E! b8 is
possible now or later).
5.e3 .ilf5 6.4Jf3 e6 7.b5 4Jbd7 8.4Jd4
(8 . .ile2 Ad6=) 8 . . . .llg6 9.f4 4Jc5 1 0.d3 16 . . . .Q. x a3 17.E! x a3 �
.ild6 with active play.
White can exert pressure on the c-pawn
s . . . e6 6.bS .Q.e7 7 .e3 o-o 8.�c3 starting E!fl-c1 etc.
�bd7 9.d4
S u mmary: 2 .c2-c4 isn't as popular as
White wants to maintain central con­ 2 . .1lcl -b2 (Chapter 2A), and Black has
several ways to equalize. White must
trol. Black achieved good play in De
be prepared for 2 . . . a7-a5 in particular.
Visser-Etmans, corr 1 989: 9 . .ile2 e5
1 0.d3 .lld6 1 l .�c2 �e7 1 2 .a4 a6.
Chapter 2A
9 ... .Q.d6 10.-'ld3 �b6
1 .b4 c6 2 .Q.b2 •

1 0 . . . e5 1 l .dxe5 4Jxe5 1 2.4Jxe5 .ilxe5=.

White sticks to his guns and plays the
natural and obvious move.
1 1 .0-0 -'ld7 12.a4 E!c8

2 . . . '12/b6

Harding said "?" Burgess said " ! " -

everything depends on their assessment

of the position after 7 . .ll x b 1 .

2 . . . a 5 (Watch out for possible transpo­

sitions to Chapter I which deals with
l . . .a7-a5):

A) 3 .b5 The Schuehler Gambit 3 ... cxb5

(3 . . . d6 4.c4 .ild7 5 .e3 e5 6.4Jc3 4Jf6
13.~e5 ~c4 14.Jl_xc4 7.d4 exd4 8."f!/xd4 .lle7 9.4Jf3 0-0 1 0.a3

38
 The Sokolsky Opening
.ite6 1 l ..ite2 4Jbd7 1 2 . 4Ja4 d5 1 3.cxd5
Axd5 14.0-0 -'\.xf3 1 5 .gxf3 c5 1 6:�c3
.tlb6 1 7 . 4Jxb6 �xb6 18 . .11 c 4 � ad8
19.'it>h1 � d6 20.�g1 -+ Holz auf der
Heide- Stegner, Leipzig 1 99 5 ) 4 . e4
(4.e4 is about twice as popular as the
inferior 4.e3)
1) 4 . . . �b6
a) 5.-tlf3 e6 6 . .lld 4! (less dynamic is
6.d4 4Jf6 7 . .lld 3 d5 8.e5 4Jfd7 9.0-0
.tlc6 1 0.�e2 b4 1 l .�e3 .lle 7 1 2 .�f4
h6 1 3.�g4 g6 14.4Jbd2 �c7 1 5 . � acl
?Jb6 1 6 . c 3 4Ja4 Yl - Yl , T h e s i n g ­
Loedding, Germany 2 004) 6 . . . � c 6
7 . -tlc3 b4 8 . 4Je 5 � c 7 9 . 4Jb5 �d8
1 0 . 'li¥h5 g6 ( 1 0 . . . 4Jh6 1 1 . 4Jc4 � a6
12.-tlcd6+ .11 x d6 1 3 . .ilxg7 +- ) 1 1 .4Jxg6
fxg6 1 2.�f3 winning the rook on h8;
b) Also good is 5 . 4Jc3!?; e.g., 5 . . . b4
6.-tld5 �c5 7 . 4Jf3 4Ja6 8 . .ll d4 �d6
9.-tle5 with a powerful initiative;
2) 4 . . . b4 5 .a3 (5.Ac4!?)
a) 5 . . . 4Ja6 6.4Jf3 e6 7.axb4 axb4
(i) 8 . .itc4 d6 9.0-0 4Jf6 1 0 . .ll xf6 ( 10.e5!?
seems stronger) 1 0 . . . gxf6 ( 1 0 . . . �xf6
1 l . .Q. b 5 + Ad7 1 2 . .il x d 7 + 'ift x d7
13.d4 it ) l l . c3 .ild7 1 2 . cxb4 4Jxb4
1 3 .-tlc3 .ll e 7 1 4 . � b 1 4J c 6 1 5 . d4
(15.� xb7 is possible because 1 5 . . . 4Ja5
runs into 1 6.� xd7! 'it>xd7 17 .Ab5+ 'it>c8
18.�a4 ± ) 15 . . . 0-0 1 6.d5 4Ja5 17.dxe6
39
fx e 6 ( 1 7 . . . 4J x c 4 1 8 . e x d7 � x d7
1 9 . �d5 ± ) 1 8.Aa2 'it>h8 1 9 . 4Jd4 d5?
( c. 19 . . . �c8) 20.exd5 exd5 2 l .Axd5
White is c learly better because of
B l ack ' s s e p arated p a w n s , Vo lke­
Wegner, Germany 1 993 ;
(ii) 8.c4 d6 9.d4 4Jf6 1 0.4Jbd2 .lle7
1 l .Ad3 0-0 1 2 .0-0 4Jd7 1 3.4Jb3 'f!c7
1 4.�e2 e5 1 5 .c5 dxc5 1 6 . dxc5 .llf6
( 1 6 . . . 4J d x c 5 1 7 . 4J x c 5 .ll x c 5
1 8 . -'\.xeS oo ) 1 7 . � fc l 4Jdb8 1 8 . .ll c 4
4J c 6 1 9 . .ll d 5 A e 6 20 . .ll x e 6 Yl - Yl ,
B o s b o om - L angeweg, Netherlands
2000;
b) 5 . . . bxa3 Game 4 : Campora-Anguix
Garrido, Canete 1 994;
c) 5 . . . 'ii¥b 6 6.d4 (6.4Jf3 e6 7 . .llc4 is a
reasonable alternative) 6 . . . 4Jf6 7.e5
4Jd5 8.Ac4 (8.4Jf3 e6 9.4Jbd2 bxa3
1 0 .Axa3 Axa3 1 l .� xa3 0-0 1 2 .c4 4Jb4
1 3 .c5=) 8 . . . 4Jf4 ( o 8 . . . bxa3 9.-'\.xa3
�c6) 9 . �f3 b x a 3 10 . .il x f7 + 'it>d8
( 1 0 . . . 'it>xf7 1 l .�xf4+ 'it>e8 1 2 . .ilxa3 it )
1 l ..ilc3 4Je6 ( 1 1 . . . a 2 1 2 .4Jd2 4Je6
1 3.Axe6 �xe6 1 4.d5 �g6 1 5 . � xa2 ± )
1 2.Axe6 �xe6 1 3 . � xa3 a4 14.4Jh3 h6
1 5 . 0- 0 B l ac k ' s undeve l o p e d and
uncastled state means he is clearly
worse, B ormann-Woelfelschneider,
corr 1 989;
d) 5 . . . 4Jc6 6.axb4 (6.d4!? is possible
whenever White wants) 6 . . . 4J x b4
7 . A a 3 4J c 6 8 . 4Jc 3 4Jf6 9 . 4J f3 d 6
1 0 . � b 1 g6 1 l .Ac4 Ag7 1 2 . 0-0 0-0
1 3 . � e 1 4Jd7 14.d4 4Jb6 1 5 .Ae2 .ilg4
1 6.4Jb5 � Dziei-Mus, corr 1 99 1 ;
B ) 3 . a 3 axb4 ( 3 . . . �b6 transposes to
the main line) 4 . axb4 � xa 1 5 . .ilxa1
�b6 6.e3 �xb4 (6 . . . d5 7.b5 !?) 7.c4
4Jf6 8.4Jf3 White is a pawn down but
he has the more comfortable develop-
ment.
3.a3
 l .b4 c6
The overwhelming choice. It's hard to
disagree with protecting the p awn.
3 . .1lc3!? Game 5: Lukovski-Hespers,
Bad Wildungen 2004.
3 . . . a5
Black proceeds with the theme of this
l i n e - the break up of White ' s
queenside.
A) 3 . . . dS 4.c4 (4.e3 is commonest and
transposes to Chirpii-Geanta in the
notes to Chapter 2B) 4 . . . .llfS S .cS 'f!c7
6 . .£lf3 .£ld7 7.d3 eS 8 . .£lbd2 .lle7 9.e4
.lle 6 10.d4 .llf6 1 l .exdS cxdS 1 2 .dxeS
.£\xeS 13 . .£\xeS AxeS 14 . .11 b S+ �e7
1S . .IlxeS 'fixeS+ 16 . .1le2 .£lf6 1 7 . 0-0
� hd8 1 8 . .£lf3 'f!c7 19.'lli'd4 Black's iso­
lated d-pawn gives White a positional
advantage;
B) 3 . . . cS 4 . .£lc3 ( 4.bxcS! 'f!xb2? S . .£lc3
next comes 6 . � a 2 which traps the
queen) 4 . . . cxb4 S . .£\dS 'lli' d6 6 . .£lxb4
.£lc6 7.�b1 .£\xb4 8.axb4 b6 9.e3 Ab7
1 0 . .£lf3 .£lf6 1 1 ..1le2 g6 1 2 . h3 .ll g 7
1 3 . 0-0 0-0 14.c4 it Stemik- Brzoza, corr
1 994.
4.c4
Undoubtedly the strongest move.
40
A) 4 . e 3 a xb4 S . .ll d 4! 'lli' c 7 (but not
S . . . cS? 6 . .11 x cS! 'fixeS 7 . a xb4 'lli' x b4
8 . � x a 8 +- ) 6 . a x b4 ( 6 . .£lf3 ! ? b x a 3
7 . .£lxa3 .£la6 8 . .£lc4 � ) 6 . . . �xa1 7 . .11 x a1
eS 8.bS d6 (8 . . . dS!?) 9 . .£lc3 .£lf6 1 0 . .£lf3
( 1 0 . e 4 ! ? ) 1 0 . . . .11 e 7 1 1 . .1l e 2 .£lbd7
1 2 .0-0 0-0 13 . .1lb2 � e8 1 4 .'f!a1 dS
1S . .£la4 .11d6 1 6.h3 cxbS (o 1 6 . . . cS!?)
1 7 . .1lxbS? ( o 1 7 . .£l c 3 ! ? b4 1 8 . .£\bS
'lli' b 8 1 9 . .£l x d 6 'f! x d 6 20 . .1lbS � )
1 7 . . . 'lli' x c2 1 8 . .£\xeS .£\xeS 1 9 . .11 x e8
.£lf3+! 20.�h1 (20.gxf3 'f!g6+ 2 1 .�h1
'ff h S +- ) 20 . . . 'ff g 6 ( 2 0 . . . .11 x h 3 ! ?
2 1 . 'lli' b 1 A x g 2 + 2 2 . 'ift x g 2 .£l h 4 +
2 3 . � g 1 'lli' c 8 2 4 . f3 'ff h 3 2 S . � f2
.11 g 3 +- ) 2 1 ..11 xf6 gxf6?? (B lack wins
with 2 1 . . . 'f! h S ! t h r e at e n i n g
2 2 . . . Axh3 +- ) 2 2 . .£lb6 .£lh4 2 3 . � g 1
A e 6 2 4 . A d7 .£\ fS 2 S . 'f! e 1 ( i f
2 S . ..ll x e6? .£lg3 + 26.'it'h2 .£\fl + B lack
is rescued through perpetual check)
2 S . . . .I1c7 26 . .11 x e6 fx e6 27 . .£la4 +­
Navin-Braschi, Kochin 2004;
B) 4 . c3?! This not uncommon .move
looks like a panic reaction, but perhaps
Black's queen becomes almost as mis­
placed as White 's dark-squared bishop.
1) 4 . . . .£lf6 S . .£lf3 dS 6.d4= and if6 . . . .11fS
7 . .£lh4!?;
2) 4 . . . cS S . .£lf3 ( � S . 'lli'b 3 .£lf6) S . . . axb4
6.cxb4 cxb4 7.Ad4 'lli'c7 8.axb4 � xa 1
9 . .1lxa1 =;
3) 4 ... eS S.e3 .£lf6 6.c4 d6 7 . .£lc3 o o and
if 7 . . . axb4 8 . .£la4!
4 ••. axb4
After 4 . . . d6, White has two main pos­
sibilities :
A) 5.~c3
 The Sokolsky Opening

1) 5 . . . 4Jf6 6.b5 g6 7 . .§ b l (7. 4Jf3 !?) 2 ) 5 . . . axb4 6. axb4 .§ xa l 7.Axal e 5

7 . :/it'd8 8.g3 (8.e3!?) 8 . . . ltg7 9.�g2
. 8.e3 .!1e6 9 .4Jf3 4Jd7 1 0 . 4Jg5 .!1f5??
0-0 1 0 . 4Jf3 ;!; NCO 10 . . . d5 l l .bxc6 ( 1 0 . . . d5=) 1 l .c5 +- Durez-Bilquez, St.
bxc6 1 2 .0-0 .lla 6 1 3 .cxd5 cxd5 1 4.d3 Quentin 2002.
<bc6 1 5 .�a4 .§ c8 16 . .§fc1 e6 17.4Jd1
'iii' d 7 1 8 . �c 3 h6 1 9 . � x a 5 4J x a 5
20.'iii'x a5 .§ xc l 2 l . .§ xc l �b5 22 .�xb5
.ll xb5 23 . .§ b l .ll d 7 2 4 . 4Je 3 .§ a 8
25 .4Jc2 White 's advantage was only
enough for an eventual draw, Yudasin­
Epishin, New York, 1 990;

2) 5 . . . axb4 6. 4Ja4 �aS (The queen

should retreat to c7 or d8) 7.axb4 �xb4?
(Again, the queen should retreat) 8 . .llc 3
'lit'xc4 9 . 4Jb6 .§ x a l l O . � x a l �b3
( 1 0 . . . 'iii' e 6 1 1 . e 3 +- ) 1 1 . 4J xc8 4Jf6 5.c51
1 2.<bf3 �d7 ( 1 2 . . . e5 13.e3 +- ) 1 3.4Jd4
1 -0, Stemik-Ciesla, corr 1 993 ; This little tactic neutralizes Black's
threats.
B) 5:~b3
5 . . . 'lflc7

Best, as proven by practice:

A) 5 . . . �xc5?? 6. axb4 'lit'xb4 7 . .§ xa8

�xb2 8 . .§ xb8 +- Melzig-Grueneschild,
Schloss Schney 2003 ;

B) 5 . . . '/it'bS 6.e3 ti'a4 7.'/it'cl 4Ja6 8.d4

1) 5 . . . e5 6.4Jf3 (6.e3 !?) 6 . . . .llg4 7.e3
.ll xf3 8.gxf3 4Jd7 9.�e2 4Jc5 1 0.�c3
a) 10 . . . 4Je6 1 1 .0-0 4Jf6 1 2 .�hl .lle7
1 3 .d3 0-0 1 4 . 4Jd2 4Jd7 1 5 . .§ g 1 d5
16.c5 �b5 17.f4 d4 oo Zuse-Fritsch,
Germany 1 994;
b) 10 . . . 4Ja4 1 l .�c2 4Jxb2 1 2 .'/it'xb2
axb4 1 3 . axb4 .§ xa l 1 4 .�xa l �xb4
( .:::::. 14 . . . .!1e7) 1 5 .�a8+ �e7 1 6. 4Jc3
and then 17.0-0 is much better for White
despite the pawn deficit;
e5 ( o 8 . . . d6 9.axb4 '/it'xb4+ 10.4JdU )
9.axb4 '/it'xb4+ 1 0.�c3 (10.4Jd2! +- D.
l l ..llc 3 trapping the queen) 1 0 . . . '/it'b3
1 1 .4Jd2 ti'd5 1 2 . 4Jgf3 exd4 1 3 . exd4
�e6+ 14 . .1le2 4Je7 1 5 .4Jc4 4Jd5 16.0-
0 Ae7 1 7 . .§ e 1 0-0 1 8.�d3 ( o 18.4Jb6!
.£\xb6 1 9 . .!1xa6 'iit'f6 20.d5 +- ) 18 . . . '/it'g4
19 . .£\e3 4Jxe3 20.'/it'xe3 .ili6 2 l .h3 'lit'h5
22.'/it'f4 4Jxc5 23.dxc5 (also winning is
23 . .§ xa8 4Jxd3 24.�c7 .£\xel 25 . .llx e1)
23 ... .ll x c3 24 . .§ xa8 Axel 25 .4Jxe1 +­
Lewis-Jenks, Boumemouth 200I ;
C) 5 . . . '/it'd8 6.axb4 .§ xa l 7 . .!1xa1

41
 l .b4 c6

1) 7 . . . b6 8.e3 d6 9.'lik2 bxc5 1 0.bxc5 7 . . . dS

d5 1 1 ..:£\f3 .:£\d7 1 2 . .:£\e5 (simple devel­
opment with 1 2 . .1le2 !? is preferable)
12 . . . .:£\xeS 1 3.Axe5 .:£\f6 14.�a4 .llb7
1 5 .Ae2 e6 16.d4 Ae7 1 7 . .:£\c3 �a8?
18.0-0 (18.�xa8+! Axa8 1 9.'ifi>d2 0-0
2 0 J ! a 1 leaves B lack with a pitiful
bishop) 1 8 . . . 0-0 19.�b1 .:£\d7 20 . .1lg3
White is more active, Querol Sora­
Hernando Wilson, Aragon 2005 ;
2) 7 . . . e6 8.e3 .:£\f6 9 . .:£\f3 b6 IO.�a4 ;t
Durez-Mauron, St. Quentin 2002 ;
3) 7 . . . d5 8.e3 Af5 9 . .:£\f3 e6 1 0.Ae2
.:£\f6 1 1 . 0-0 .ll e 7 1 2 . .:£\c3 0-0 1 3 . d4
( 1 3 . .:£\h4 !?) 1 3 . . . �c7 1 4 . .:£\a4 .:£\bd7
1 5 .�b3 � a8 1 6 . .1lb2 �b8 17.�cl h6
1 8.b5 cxb5 19 . .1lxb5 .:£\e4 20 . .1lxd7
�xd7 2 1 ..:£\b6 �c7 22.�al . Here Black
wanted to quickly force through . . . e6-
e5 to counter White's activity and mis-
takenly p l ayed 22 . . . f6? and after
23 . .:£\xdS! �d7 (23 . . . exd5 24.�xd5+
'ifi>h8 2 5 . � x f5 +- ) 24 . .:£\xe7+ �xe7
25.�a7 was left a pawn down, Gorzel­
Hille, Germany 1 992;
Black has several options:
A) 7 . . . d6 8 . .:£\f3 ( � s . �a4; 8.e3 b5
9 . .:£\f3 .ll g 4 10 . .1le2 .:£\d7= MC0 1 4,
Nekrasov-Lyuborsky, USSR 1 970; 8.d4
e5 transposes to the notes below [7 . . . e5
8 . d4 d6 etc . ] ) 8 . . . .:£\d7 9 . d4 .:£\gf6
10 . .:£\c3 b6 1 l .cxd6 exd6 1 2.b5 ( 1 2.e4!?
.lle 7 13 . .1ld3 0-0 1 4 .0-0 ;t ) 12 . . . .1le7
1 3 . bxc6 �xc6 14.e3 0-0 1 5 . .1lb5 �c7
1 6.0-0 .llb7 17.�e2 d5 18 . .1lb2 .llb4
19 . .:£\a2 .lld6 20.�cl ;t White should try
to exchange the dark-squared bishops
(e.g., by �e2-d3 and .llb 2-a3!) leaving
Black with the passive light-squared
bishop, Kim-Abbasi far, Moscow 2004;
B) 7 . . . b6 8.e3

6.a x b4 � xal 7.Jtxal

;t NCO. The section of Nunn s Chess

Openings dealing with l .b4 was writ­
ten by John Nunn himself.

42
 The Sokolsky Opening

1) 8 . . . .1la6 be complex, but White 's control of e5

a) 9 . .1lxa6 .£Jxa6 10.�a4 �b7 1 l .cxb6
�xb6 1 2 . .£Jf3 e6 1 3 . 0-0 .£Jf6 14 . .£Ja3
(14 . .1ld4!?) 1 4 . . . .1lxb4 1 5 . .1ld4 �b7
16.E!.a1 ( 1 6. E!. b 1 !?) 1 6 . . . .1le7 1 7 . .£Jc4
4Jc7 1 8 . � a 7 � x a 7 1 9 . E!. x a 7 .£J b 5
20.E!.a8+ .lld 8 2 1 ..1lb6 ± Cemousek­
Laciner, Baku 2002;
b) Interesting is 9 . .£Jf3 .ll xfl 1 0.<�xfl
4Ja6 1 1 . �a4 �b7 1 2 . c x b6 � x b6
13 . .1ld4 �b7 1 4 . .£Jc3 .£Jxb4 1 5 .�e2
with more than sufficient compensation
for the pawn;
2) After 8 . . . bxc5 9.bxc5 .£Jf6 10 . .£Jf3
Aa6 1 1 . A e 5 �b7 1 2 . .£J c 3 A x f1
13 .�xf1 .£Ja6 1 4 . d4 � White could
castle by hand (g2-g3 and �f1 -g2) but
what 's B l ack to do w ith h i s own
kingside? Weak would b e : 14 . . . d6
15 .cxd6 exd6 1 6 . .1lxf6 gxf6 17.�a4 ± ;
3) 8 . . . d6 9 . .£Ja3 bxc5 1 0 .bxc5 dxc5
1 1 ..£lf3 .£ld7 12 . .£Jc4 oo Bosboom-Ernst,
Dieren 1 999;
gives him good chances;
b) Wilk-Organisciak, Ustrzyki Dolne
1 996, went: 10 . .£Jd2 .lle7 1 1 ..£Jgf3 .£Jd7
1 2 .cxd6 .ll x d6 1 3 .b5 .£Jgf6 1 4 .bxc6
bxc6 1 5 .�c2 e4 1 6 . .£Je5 (16 . .£Jxe4??
.£Jxe4 1 7 .�xe4 �a 5 + -+ ) 16 . . . .ild5
1 7 . .£Jxd7 �xd7 1 8 . .£Jc4 .ll x c4 19 . .1lxc4
�c7 20.g3 �a5+ 21 . .1lc3 �h5 22 . .1le2
�h3 23.Af1 �e6 24.Ad2 .lle7 25.Ag2
0-0 26.0-0 E!. c8 27.E!.c1 c5 28 . .1lb4 c4
29 . .1lxe7 'if!xe7 30 . .1lh3 E!.c7 3 l .�a4 c3
32.'iffb 3 g5 33.E!. xc3 winning the pawn
and eventually the game;
2) 9 . . . exd4 10.exd4 .£Jf6 1 1 ..£Jc3 .lle7
1 2 . .£Jf3 0-0 1 3 . Ad3 (or of course
1 3 . ..\le2!?) 13 . . . Ag4 14.0-0 .£Jbd7 1 5 .h3
Ah5 16.E!.e1 E!. e8 17.E!.e3 .6. 1 8.�e 1
with pressure;
E) 7 . . . .£Ja6 8. �b3 (8 . .1lc3 d6 9 .d4 .£Jf6=
Watson) 8 . . . d6 9.e3 oo .
8.{)f3

C ) 7 . . . .£lf6 8 . .1l x f6 ( 8 . e 3 Game 6 :

8.e3 usually transposes.
Katalymov- S akharov, Kiev 1 9 6 2 )
8 . . exf6 9 . d4 d 6 1 0 .e3 b 6 1 l .cxb6
.

�xb6 1 2 . � a 4 .ll a 6 1 3 . .£J c 3 .ll xf1

14.�xfl �a6+ 1 5 .�xa6 .£Jxa6 1 6.b5
cxb5 17 . .£J x b 5 �d7 1 8 . .£Je2 Ae7
19 . .£lec3 E!. b8 20.�e2 .£Jc7 2 1 ..£Jxc7
'lixc7 22 . .£ld5+ �d7 23.E!.a1 E!.b7 24.g4
White was able to tum his endgame
advantage into a w i n , J . Larsen­
O.Nielsen, Denmark 1 980;

D) 7 ... e5 8.d4 d6 9.e3

1) 9 . . . .lle6
a) 10 . .£Jf3 dxc5 1 1 .bxc5 ( 1 1 .dxc5 !?)
l l . . .exd4 1 2 .exd4 .£Jf6 13 . .1ld3 .lle 7
14.0-0 0-0 1 5 .E!.e1 .£Jbd7 16 . .£Jbd2 E!.a8
17.�b1 .6. 18 . .£Jc4 oo The position may
8 . . . {)d7
This prepares . . . e7-e5, which ought to
be enough for near equality. Weaker is
8 . . .Af5 9.e3 .£Jf6 1 0 . ..\le5 'if!c8 1 1 ..£Jc3

43
 l .b4 c6
4Jbd7 1 2 :�a4 e6 1 3 .Ae2 Ae7 1 4.0-0
0-0 1 5 .d4 .ll.e 4 16 ..1l.g3 ..ll xf3 1 7 . .1l.xf3
4Je8 18.�a1 White stands better be­
cause of h i s contro l of the a-fi l e ,
Tumurbator-Kerr, Nice 1 974.
9.d4
White should of course impede Black's
e-pawn. Passive is 9.e3 4Jgf6 (or the
obvious 9 . . . e5!?):
A) 1 0 . ..1le2 g6 (10 . . . e5!?) 1 1 .0-0 Ag7
1 2 .4Jc3 e5 1 3 .d4 e4 1 4.4Jd2 0-0 1 5 .b5
4Je8 1 6.b6 �d8 1 7.i1h4 f5 18.g3 g5
with a kingside attack, Megy-Coutton,
Cannes 1 995;
B) 1 0:�c2 g6 ( 1 0 ... e5 !?) 1 l .d4 .ll.g7
1 2 . ..1ld3 0-0 1 3 .0-0 e5 1 4 .dxe5 4Jg4
1 5 .4Jbd2 4Jdxe5 16 . ..1le2 ( 1 6.h3 4Jxf3+
1 7 . 4J x f3 4Je5 1 8 . 4J x e 5 A x e 5 = )
16 . . . M5 17.ih4 with both sides active,
Drel inkiewicz - B ernard, Bydgoszcz
1 976.
9 g6 10.e3 .slg7 l l .{)bd2 {)h6
••.
12.jle2 0-0 13.0-0
13 . . . e5
The thematic move, bringing Black's
pieces to life.
44
1 3 . . . f5 1 4 . 4Jg 5 4Jf6 1 5 . �b 3 4Jf7
1 6.4Jxf7 � xf7 17.4Jf3 § f8 18 . ..1lb2 'it>h8
1 9.b5 cxb5 20.Axb5 Ae6 2 l .� a 1 4Je4
22 . ..1ld3 �b8 23.�a7 White's queenside
control g i v e s h i m the advantage,
Sander-Clemens, Germany 1 989.
14.4)xe5
1 4.e4!? is worth further analysis.
14 {) xe5 1 5.dxe5 j}_ xe5 16 . .slxe5
••.
� x e 5 1 7 . � a l f6 1 8 . {) f3 �c7
19.�c3 .Q.g4 20.E{al
White commands the a-file and stands
more actively.
S u m m ary: 2 . .1l.c1 -b2 is the logical and
consistent move of this opening.
Chapter 28
l.b4
The positions in this section could also
be reasonably reached from the Reti and
the English Openings, for example:
1 .4Jf3 d5 2 . c4 c6 3.e3 4Jf6 4.b4!? Ag4
(but watch out for 4 . . . e5!?) 5 .Ab2 etc.
l . . . c6
l . . .d5 2.e3 4Jf6 3.c4 c6 4.Ab2 trans­
poses.
2.e3
If not at move two, White is highly
likely to be playing this at move three,
four or five, so there will be a lot of
transpositional possibilities in this sec-
tion.
2 ••• d5
 The Sokolsky Opening
A) 2 . . : �b6 Game 7 : Rudenkov­
Strugath, Minsk 1 96 1 ;
B) 2 . . . b5 Not entirely bad. 3.a4 .a.b7
4 . .:£\f3 a6 5.c4 (5.d4!?) 5 . . . bxc4 6 . .ilxc4
e6 7:�b3 it BC02 7 .. :�·b6 8 . .ila3 d5
9 . .ile2 a5 1 0 . b 5 .il x a 3 ( 1 0 . . . c 5 ! ?)
l l .iii'x a3 cxb5 1 2 .axb5 4Jd7 13.d4 4Je7
14.0-0 ± Harding-Linklater, corr 1 989.
3,.Q.b2
3.a4!? Myers BC02.
3 .Q.fS
...
Black sets up a London System type of
structure. This can also be seen in Chap­
ters 4 and 4B. Other plans are:
A) 3 . . ..:£\f6 4.c4 ( 4.4Jf3 invites 4 . . . ..1lg4)
1) 4 . . . 4Jbd7 5 .4Jf3 e6 6.b5 .a.d6 7.4Jc3
0-0 8.d4 dxc4
a) 9 . .Q. x c 4 c x b 5 1 0 . ..1l x b 5 iii' b 6
1l .!!bU ;
b) 9.bxc6? �b6 1 0.cxb7 ..ll x b7 l l .!!bl
.Q.e4 (or 1 l . . :�a5 + ) 1 2 .4Jxe4 4Jxe4
13 ..ilc3 iii'c 6 1 4 . �c2 4Jxc3 1 5 .iii' x c3
E!fb8 16.!! xb8+ !! xb8 +- ;
2) 4 . . . .ilg4 5 .iii'b 3 (5.4Jf3 e6 6.a3 ..lld6
7 . .Q.e2 4Jbd7 8 . 4Jc 3 !! c8 = J u l i a-
45
Airando, Buenos Aires 2002) 5 . . . e6
6.h3 ..llh 5 7.4Jc3 (7.4Je2 dxc4 8.t1'xc4
4Jd5= BC02 ; Miralles-Van der Wiel,
Montpellier 1 985) 7 . . . 4Jbd7 8.d4 a6
(8 . . . a 5 ! ? ) 9 . c 5 ..ll e 7 1 0 . 4Jge2 0-0
(10 . . . g5 Game 8: Steffens-Paj eken,
Germany 2000) 1 1 . 4Jf4 b6 1 2 .4Jxh5
4Jxh5 13 . .ile2 (13 ...1ld3 a5 14.a3 axb4
1 5 . a x b 4 !! x a 1 + 1 6 . .a. x a 1 e 5 = )
1 3 . . . 4Jhf6 1 4.0-0 a 5 1 5 .a3 "i/!c7
a) 16."i/!c2 !! fb8 17.!!fb1 bxc5 18.bxc5
!!b7 (18 . . . e5!?) 1 9 . .a.c1 !! ab8 20 . .ila6
!! xb 1 2 l . !! xb 1 White has the better
chances on account of Black's weak
pawn on a5 ;
b) 16.f4!? (to stop . . . e6-e5) 1 6 . . . !!fb8
1 7 .iii' c 2 bxc5 1 8.bxc5 !! b7 1 9 . !! fb 1
!! ab8 2 0 ..a. c 1 it ;
3) 4 . . . .a.f5 is the most popular move in
this position. 5 .4Jf3 e6 transposes to the
main line;
B) 3 . . ."i/!b6 4.a3
1) 4 . . . 4Jd7 5 . 4Jf3 4Jgf6 6 . c4 dxc4
7 . .a.xc4 e6 8 : �b3 ..ll e 7 9 . 4Jc 3 a5
10.4Ja4 iii'd8 1 l .b5 cxb5 12 . ..1lxb5 0-0
1 3 . 0-0 4Jb6 1 4 . 4Jxb6 iii' x b6 1 5 . ..1ld4
.ilc5 1 6 . .a.xf6 gxf6 17.d4 .ile7 18.!!ab1
a4 1 9 .iii' d 3 White has slightly better
chances because of Black's weakened
kingside, Chirpii-Geanta, Eforie Nord
2002 ;
 l .b4 c6

2) 4 . . . a5 5.b5!? .£Jf6 (5 . . . cxb5 6 . .£Jc3 ± ) 3 .b5 c6 4.c4 d5 5 .e3) 5 . . . .£Jbd7 6 . .£Jf3

6.a4 �e7 7.�e2 0-0 8. 0-0 a5 9.a3 axb4
10.axb4 � xa1 1 l .�xa1 �c7 1 2.d4 .£Je4
1 3 . .£Jbd2 .£Jxd2 1 4.�xd2 f5 1 5 .�c3 b5
1 6 . � a 1 .ll b 7 1 7 . � a 3 � a8 1 8 : i;;i< a 2
White 's control o f the a-file gives him
s l i ghtly b etter c h an c e s , Krueger­
Zimmermann, Pinneberg 2005 . His
strategy can be to prepare e3-e4 with
.£Jf3-d2 and f2-f3.

a) 6 . . . �f5 7 . .£Jf3 .£Jbd7 8.-'l.e2 h6 9.0-0

e6 10.c4 �d6 1 l .d4 dxc4 1 2 .-'l.xc4 0-0
13 . .£Jbd2 �c7 14.�e2 .£Je4 15 . .£Jxe4
�xe4 1 6.h3 .£Jf6 1 7 . .£Jd2 Ag6 18.�cl
.£Jd5 19 . .£Jc4 �h 2 + 2 0 . 'ifil h 1 ifi'b8
2 l . �a 3 � d8 2 2 . b6 .£Jb4 2 3 . ifi'b 3
( o 2 3 . f4 � g 3 24 . .£Je5 ± ) 2 3 . . . �d6
24 . .£Jxd6 �xd6 25.�c5 .£Jd5 26.� xa5
gaining a pawn, Alekseev-Novitzkij, St.
Petersburg 2000;
b) 6 . . . .1lg4 7.f3 .lld7 (7 . . . .1lf5!?) 8 . .£Ja3 4 ... e6
�c7 9.c4 e5 1 0:�b3 .lle 7 1 l .�cl d4
1 2 .exd4 exd4 1 3 .�xd4 0-0 14 . .ild3 Also seen is 4 . . . .£Jd7 and now:
.lld6 1 5 .b6 (White needn't be optimis­
tic about the c o m p l i c ati o n s after A) 5.c4 dxc4 6 . ..\lxc4 e6 7 . .£Jd4 .£Jb6
1 5 . .ilxf6 gxf6 1 6 . .ilxh7+ 'ifilxh7 17.b6 8 . .£Jxf5 exf5 9.�b3 �g5 10.0-0 �xb4
� e8+ oo ) 1 5 . . . ifi'd8 1 6.c5 � e8+ 17 . .£Je2
1 l .f4 �g6 1 2 . � f3 .£Jf6 1 3 . � g3 ifi'h6
.il e 5 1 8 . 0 - 0 �f5 1 9 . .£J c 2 .il x d 3
14. ifi'c2 (14.�g5!?) 1 4 . . . .£Jg4
20.�xd3 ± Hirth-Semkov, Wuerzburg
1 992;
1) 1 5 .h3 �h4 16.�f3 .£Jf6 ( 1 6 . . . .£Jh6
3) 4 . . . .£Jf6 5 .c4 .llg4 6 . .£Jf3 dxc4 7 . .ilxc4 1 7 . ..\l x g 7 � g8 1 8 . ..\l x h6 � x h 6
e6 8 . 0-0 a5 9 . ..1ld4 ifi'c7 1 0 . b5 c 5 1 9 .�xf5 ± ) 1 7 . ifi'xf5 0 - 0 1 8 . g3 ifi'h5
l l .�b2 .£Jbd7 1 2 .a4 Ad6 ( 1 2 . . . .£Je5?? 1 9 .�xh5 .£Jxh5 2 0 . g4 .£Jf6 2 1 . ..\lxf6
1 3 . .il x e 5 ifi' x e 5 1 4 . .£J x e 5 � x d 1 gxf6 2 2 . 'ifilf2 � ad8 2 3 . 'ifile 2 B lack 's
1 5 . � xd 1 l -0 , Gul iyev-Stephenson, kingside i s weakened, so White is
Baku 1 999) 1 3 .h3 .ilxf3 14. ifirxf3 0-0 slightly better;
1 5 . .£Ja3 � ad8=;
2) 1 5 . ..\lxf7+? 'ifilxf7 16.�xf5+ .£Jf6 17.e4
C) 3 . . . e6 4.c4 .£Jf6 5 .c5 (5.b5 transposes ifi'h5?? (after 17 . . . .£Jc4 White 's attack is
to Chapter 3C, i.e., l .b4 e6 2 . ..\lb2 .£Jf6 busted) 18.� xg7+! 'ifile8 1 9.�e6+ 'ifilf8

46
 The Sokolsky Opening
20.'iii' x f6+ �e8 2 1 . 4Jc3 !! d8 2 2 . !!g5
Ac5 + 2 3 . � h 1 l -0, J . Adams-Gold,
Dunedin 1 999;
B) 5 . Ae2 4Jgf6 6 . d3 ..Q.g4 ( 6 . . . e5
7.4Jxe5 ltxb4+ 8 . 4Jd2 0-0 9 . 4J x d7
'lii'xd7 10.0-0=) 7.4Jbd2 e6 8.a3 4Jb6
9.c4 dxc4 1 0 . dxc4 .ll e 7 1 1 .h3 .ll f5
(1 1 . . . .1lxf3 1 2 . .1l x f3 0-0 1 3 . 'iii' c 2 ;!; )
12.c5
1) 12 . . . 4Jc8 1 3 .4Je5 0-0 1 4 .4Jdf3 �c7
1 5 .0-0 !!d8 1 6 . .1ld4 ( 1 6.�b3!?) 1 6 . . . a6
17.4Jg5 .llg6 18 . .1ld3 .ll x d3 (18 . . . 4Jd7?
19.Axg6 4Jxe5 20 . .1lxh7+ +- S .Hansen
-Nickel, Neumuenster 200 1 ) 1 9.4Jxd3
<i:Jd5 20.4Je4 with the more active posi­
tion;
2) After 1 2 . . . 4Jbd5 1 3 . 0-0 ( 1 3 . g4!?)
13 ... 0-0 14 .4Jc4, White looks better.
;.c4 .£)f6 6.b5 dxc4
6 . . . Ad6 7.4Jh4!?.
7.Jlxc4 -'l.e7 8.a4 0-0 9.0-0 cxb5
10.axb5 -'ld3
10 . . . 'iii'c7 1 l .�e2 4Jbd7 1 2 .!!cl !! fc8:
A) 13.4Jd4 4Jg4 14.f4 ;�; ;
B) 13.h3 4Jb6 1 4 . .1ld3 Axd3 1 5 .'fii' x d3
�d8 16.!! xc8 �xc8 17 . .1ld4 oo ;
47
C) 1 3 .4Ja3 'iii' d8 1 4 . d4 .llg 4 1 5 .h3=
Heinola-Korhonen, Vantaa 1 984.
l l . .il, x d3 t\' x d3 12 . .£)c3 � bd7
13 . .ila3 Jlxa3 14.�xa3 a5 1 5.bxa6
� x a6 16.�b3 �b8 17.t\'bl t\' xbl
18.�fxbl
18 ... b6 19.<i!lfl <i!lf8 20.<i!le2 �baS
2 1.d4 �a3 22.h3 h6 23.<i!ld3 <i!le7
24.e4 <i!ld8 25.�xa3 � xa3 26.�d2
.£)e8 27 . .£)c4
Black has less room to operate and must
always look out for d4-d5, which would
create a dangerous passed pawn, Ree­
Bemstein, Netanya 1 96 8 .
S u m m ary: Following l . . .c7-c6 White
has three promising lines. The most
popular is 2 . .Q.cl -b2, although 2 .e2-e3
can lead to similar or even identical
positions.
Game 4
Campora-Anguix Garrido
Canete 1 994
l .b4 c6 2.-'l.b2 a5 3.b5 cxb5 4.e4
b4 5.a3 bxa3
Other lines are dealt with in Chapter 2A.
6.� xa3
 l .b4 c6
6 . . . d6
A) If 6 . . . <tlc6 then 7 . .)1c4 e6 (7 . . . d6
8.<£lf3 <tlf6 9.i1i'e2 Ag4 10.d4 White has
an active position in return for the
pawn) 8.<£lb5 d6 (8 . . . d5? 9.exd5 exd5
1 0 .i1i'e2+ <tlge7 l l .Axd5 ± ) 9.<tlf3
1) 9 . . . <£lge7 1 0.i1i'e2 <tlg6 1 1 . 0-0 e5?
( l l . . . ..ll d 7 1 2 . ..1la3!?) 1 2 . <£lg5 �xg5
( 1 2 . . . <£lf4 1 3 . i1i'f3 �xg5 [ 1 3 . . . .)1e6
1 4.<tlxe6 <tlxe6 1 5 .d4!) 14.<£lc7+ �d8
1 5 . <tlxa8 transposes) 1 3 . <£lc7+ �d8
1 4 . <tl x a 8 <tlf4 1 5 . i1i'f3 ± B ormann­
Bendig, corr 1 990;
2) 9 . . .<£la7 IO.<tlxa7 f! xa7 l l ...lld4 b6
1 2 .�bl f! b7 1 3 . ..1la6 f! b8 1 4 . .1lxc8
�xc8 1 5 .�b5+ White regains the pawn
and has the better position, Adam­
Hoehne, corr 1 98 1 ;
B) 6 . . . <£lf6 7.e5 <tld5 8.<£lf3 <tlc6 9 . .1lc4
with the i n i t i ative ; e . g . , 9 . . . <£lb6
IO . ..Il x f7 + ! � x f7 l l . <tl g 5 + 'it>e8
( l l . . .'it>g6 1 2 .�f3! �xg5 1 3 .h4+ 'it>g6
1 4 . h 5 + �h6 1 5 .i1i'f4+ g5 1 6 . hxg6+
'it>xg6 17.f!h3 soon mating) 1 2 .�f3 (or
Wh ite can throw a check in first :
1 2 .i1i'h5+ g6 1 3 .i1i'f3 etc . ) 1 2 . . . i1i'c7
1 3.<£lb5 �b8 1 4.�f7+ �d8 1 5 .0-0 and
Black is in a mess.
48
7.d4 e6 8 . .Q.d3 �f6 9.�e2 .Q.e7
10.0-0 �c6 1 V�h1
White prepares to attack. A more posi­
tional approach, on the other wing, is
l l .<tlb5 0-0 12 . ..1la3 d5 ( 1 2 . . .b6!?) 13.e5
<tle8 14.c3 ..ll x a3 1 5 . f! xa3 b6 ( 1 5 .. .f6
1 6 . i1i'c 2 g6 1 7 . f4 [ 1 7 . Axg6?! hxg6
1 8 . i1i' x g 6 + <tlg7 1 9 . c4 oo ) 1 7 . . . b6
18.f!bl ll. 19.c4 1i5 ) 16.i1i'c2 h6 17.f!bl
with queenside pressure.
l l . . . �b4
Simply 1 1 . . .0-0!? right away.
1 2 . .Q. b 5 + .Q.d7 1 3 .c 3 .Q. x bS
14.� x b5 �c6
14 . . . <£la6!? ll. 1 5 . . . <£lc7.
White can think of d4-d5 which will
eventually benefit White 's bishop not
Black's.
1 5 ... 0-0 1 6.c4 � b4
The knight doesn 't have much of a fu­
ture here. Black should try to exchange
it. 16 . . . <£la7!?; e.g., 17.<tlxa7 f! xa7 18.d5
�c7 1 9.i1i'd4 b6 20.f4 f! c8 2 l .e5 <tle8
22.f!acl a4 Black's king looks safe, and
he has queenside counterplay.
17.d5 exdS
If 1 7 ... e5 18.f4!.
18.exd5 �d7 19.Eta3!
The rook switches flanks because the
attack is worth more than a pawn.
19 ... ~bxd5 20.1;!{3
 The Sokolsky Opening

B) 22 . . . 4Je8 2 3 . 4Jf5 f6 24.�g4 4Jc5

25.E!el Ad8 26.h4 .... .

2 3 . 4) fS � e6 2 4 . 'li\'h4 }a fe8
2S.� xe7+

25.E!g3! is more decisive; e.g., 25 . . . �h8

26.4Jxg7 4Jxg7 27 . .1lxf6 Axf6 28:l!i'xf6
E!g8 29.4Jxd6 E! af8 30.E!el +- .

2S ..• 'li\' x e7 26. }a xf6

Or 26 . .11. x f6!?.
20 ... �b6?

26 gxf6 27 . .Q.xf6 'li\'d7?

•••

Not the stiffest resistance. Black should

try 20 . . . !:Hc8!?
27 . . . �f8 is necessary but then comes
28.4Jc7 +- .
A) 2 l . c x d 5 � x b 5 2 2 .<�) f5 Ad8
(22 . . . E k7 2 3 .' l!i'a l ! ) 2 3 . A x f6 A x f6 28.f4 4)f8 29. 'li\'gS+ 1 -0
24.4Jxd6 ± ;
2 9 . . . 4Jg6 3 0 . �h6 w i th mate next
B) 2 l .�e2 4Jc7 ( 2 1 . . . E: k5!? 2 2 . .Q.d4 move.
E:i x b5 2 3 . c x b 5 oo ) 2 2 . 4Jf5 4Je6
23.4Jxe7+ �xe7 24 . .Q.xf6 gxf6 25.f!dl Game S
(2 5 . E! h3 ! ? ) 2 5 . . . E!c5 2 6 . 4J xd6 E! e 5 Lukovski-Hespers
27.E!g3+ 'tt>h8 28.�d2 a 4 and Black is Bad Wildungen 2004
doing well enough.
l.b4 c6 2 . .Q.b2 'li\'b6 3 .Q.c3l?•

21.'li\'d4
This rarity looks contrived, but White's
2 1 .4Jf5!? is strong. reasoning is that the bishop can usefully
stay on c3 longer than the queen can
21. •• {:)a4 usefully stay on b6.

2 1 . . .d5!? Black will have three pawns The normal move is 3.a3 for which see
for the knight, but it's not enough be­ Chapter 2A.
cause his pieces are uncoordinated; e.g.,
22.�xb6 E! fc8 23.�e3 E! xc4 24.4Jf5 3 . . . dS
Eie4? 25 .�g5 E!g4 26.4Jh6+ +- .
Theres no clear punishment for White's
22 . .Q.al 4)cS third move: 3 . . . e6 (3 . . . 4Ja6 4.a3) 4.e3
4Jf6 5.a3 d5 6.d3 oo .
A) 22 .. JHc8 2 3 . 4Jf5 E!c5 2 4 . 4J xg7
�xg7 25J!xf6 +- ; 4.e3 -'l.fS

49
 l .b4 c6
4 . . . -tld7 5.f4!? puts a stop to Black's plan
of . . . e7-e5 .
One possible line is 5.a4!? e5 6 . .1lxe5
�xb4 7.-tlf3 .tld7 8.-'l.c3 �d6 9.-'l.e2
.tlgf6 1 0 . -tld4 .ll g6 1 l .f4 c5 1 2 . -tlb5
�b8 1 3 . 0-0 a6 14 . .£15a3 .ll d6 1 5 .-'l.f3
0-0 16.Axf6 .t\xf6 17.-tlc3 d4 18.-tld5
.tlxd5 1 9.-'l.xdS .!:! d8 20.�f3 and Black
has problems with his b-pawn.
s . . . .£ld7 6 . .£ld4
The knight could go the other way like
so : 6.-tlh4 .llg6 7.f4!?
6 .•. J;tg6 7.f4 e6 8.a4 a6
Black declines the pawn to be had from
8 . . . ..ll x b4 . Maybe he was uncertain
about the complications after 9.a5 �c5
10.a6!? -'txc3 l l .axb7.
9.-'te2 .£)gf6
It's too late for 9 . . . Axb4? because o f
1 0 . a 5 �c5 1 1 . -tlxe6! fxe6 1 2 . .1lxg7
-'txc2 1 3 .�cl and White will win the
exchange. Note how the bishop on e2
prevents . . . �xe3+.
10.0-0 .Q.e7
50
Here 10 . . . .1lxb4!? becomes possible
again, leaving White to try to justify the
pawn deficit.
l l .fS exfS 12 . .£) xfS .Q.xfS 13.E! xfS
g6?
Black weakens this wing, intending to
castle on the other wing, even though
White's pawns are already advanced on
the queenside. Black should consider
1 3 . . . -'l.xb4!? once more.
14.aS �c7 1S.E!f2 E!g8 16.d3
1 6.�fl .tle4 17 . .!:! xf7 wins one pawn
and threatens another, but the game
move aids development.
16 . . . 0-0-0 17 . .£)d2 E!df8 18.�fl
�d6 19.E!d1 �e6
20.e41 hS
Black has to hurry up with an attack.
No good is 20 . . . dxe4 2 l .dxe4 .t\xe4?
2 2 . -tl x e 4 � x e 4 2 3 . -'t x a 6 ! b x a 6
24.�xa6+ �d8 25.�a8+ �c7 26.�a7+
forcing mate.
21 .h3 h4 22.E{e1 dxe4 23 . .£) xe4?
A mistake that ought to have been pun-
ished. 23.dxe4!
 The Sokolsky Opening

23 ••• /i) xe4? 14 . . . h4 15 . .ilf2 e6 16.0-0 Ae7 17.4Jc3

h3 18.g4 with active play, Annegam­
Black missed 23 . . . 4Jd5 24 . .ild2 f5=. Renner, Husum 2002;

24.d x e4 .!}.d6 2 S .!}.c4 ( 2 5 . Ag4!?)

• 2) 9 . . . 4Jbd7
2S :{!\•e7 26.E{ xf7 E{ x f7 27:#f1 xf7
•• a) 10.d4 4Je4 l l ..lld3 4Jdf6 1 2 .4Je5 ;!;
grs 28:#f1 xe7 Jl,xe7 29.eS 1::. 1 3 . f3 ;
b ) 1 0 . .il e 2 .ilxf3 l l .Axf3 e5 1 2 . 0-0
The bishop-pair and extra pawn mean .ile7 1 3 .d3 0-0 14 .4Jd2 4Ja6 1 5 .�b3
White should win this ending. E!b8 16.Ac3 .lld8 17 . .1le2 �e7 18.d4
e x d4 1 9 ..llxd4 4Jc7 2 0 . E! a l 4Je6
29 gS 30 .!}.e6 �c7 3l.E{dt ladS
•.• •
2 Ule5 .ll c7 22.�b2 4Jd7 23 . .ilxc7 ;!;
32.-'l.g4 b6 White can plan action down the a-file
and/or the centralization of his knight,
32 . . . c5 33.bxc5 4:lxc5 34.E! xd8 .ll xd8 Rebber-Horstmann, Reckl inghausen
35 .'�fl +- . 2000;

3 3 . <it' f l b x a S 34. b x a S 'i) f8 B) 8 . . . d6 9.d4 4Jbd7 1 0.4Jf3 e5 1 l..ll c4

3S.E{ xd8 � x d8 ( l l . d x e 5 4J x e 5 1 2 . 4J x e 5 d x e 5
1 3 .4JdU Ivanov) 1 1 . . . .ile7 1 2 .dxe5
35 . . . .1l.xd8 36 . .ilf5 4Jd7 37.'it>e2 +- . 4J x e 5 1 3 . 4J x e 5 d x e 5 1 4 . 0 - 0 .ilg4
15. �b3 0-0 16.4Jc3 .ilh5 17 .4Je2 E! d8
36.Ae2 1-0
18.4Jg3 Ag6 19.E!dl 4Jd7 Y2-Y2, Bott­
Brehm, Wuerzburg 1 987 20.e4 ;!; .
Game 6
Katalymov-Sakharov
9./i)c3
corr 1 988

l.b4 c6 2.Jl,b2 'l!\'b6 3.a3 aS 4.c4

a x b4 S . c S ! 'l!\'c7 6 . a x b4 la x a l
7.Axal 'i)f6 8.e3

8.Axf6, Chapter 2A.

8 ... g6

B l ack d e c i d e s to d i rectly o p p o s e
White 's dark-squared bishop.

A) 8 . . . d5 9.4Jf3 .ilg4 9 ••• -'l.g7?!

1) 9 . . . Af5 10.Ae5 �d8 1 1 .4Jd4 Ag6 The drawback of this automatic move
12.Ae2 4Jbd7 1 3 . .ilg3 h5 ( 1 3 . . . e5!?) is that it permits White to spoil Black's
14.f4 (White should instead prepare for pawn structure. 9 . . . d5! first would be
the inevitable . . . h5-h4 by 1 4 . 4Jf3 !?) desirable.

51
 l .b4 c6

10.�e41 0-0 Or of course 22.!!bl !?; 22.l:!al i!1fxb4

23.l:!a8 i!i'f8 is less clear.
1 0 . . .ll)h5 l l ...Q.e2!
22 ... cs 23.�c2
ll.J}. xf6 Jl.xf6

White has a positional advantage after

l l . . .exf6 1 2.<�)d6 f5 1 3 .4::l f3.

12.� xf6+ exf6 13.�f3 d6 14. �at

�e7

1 4 . . . dxc5 1 5 .bxc5:

A) 15 . . .4Jd7 16.d4 b6 17.cxb6 i!i'xb6

18.Ad3 with better play for White;

B ) 1 5 . . . i!1te7 1 6 : �c3 ;t ( � 1 6 . d4 b5 23 ••• ,£id7

1 7 . cxb6 �b4+ 1 8 . 4Jd2 c5 1 9 . dxc5?
!!d8 =i= ). Allowing the white queen onto c 7 .
23 . . . i!1td6 24.i!1txd6 !! xd6 25.!!al with
1 S.cxd6 � x d6 16.�d41 a clear endgame advantage.

2 4 . � c 7 1 Et a S 2 S . Et a l E{ x a l +
26.� xal b6 27.�c2 �e6

Black has more or less consolidated his

position, but the b-pawn remains a
weakness.

28.�el C/}g7 29.h3 -'ta8 30 .Q.f3 •

.Q. x f3 31.� xf3 �dS 32.d4 c x d4?

32 . . . c 4 ! ? 3 3 . i!i'c6 4Jf6 3 4 . i!i' xb6 c 3

3 5 . i!i'c7 ii1t b 3 T h e advanced c-pawn
An exchange of queens would favor
gives Black good chances.
White because he ' d be the one to com­
mand the a-file with a rook.

t6 ... �e7 17.J}.e2 E{d8 18.�f4 JUS

19.0-0 .Q.e4 Black hopes the pawn offer will relieve
the pressure.
1 9 . . . i!1te4 20.i!i'c7 +- .
34.�xf4 �eS 3S.�g5 f6 36.�g3
20.�d4 fS 2 1.d3 Jl.dS 22.b5 �a2

52
 The Sokolsky Opening
36 .. :i�i'e4 37.i!i'f4 f5 (37 . . :l!i'xf4 38.exf4
4Jc4 39. �f1 ± ) 38.f3 i!i'xf4 39 .exf4 ± .
37.f4 .£)c4 38.fS .£)d2?
This allows White a quick forced win.
38 . i!i'a7 39.fxg6 hxg6 40 . .£lf5 + �f7
. .
41.4Jd6+ 4Jxd6 42.i!i'xd6 In the long run
this endgame is lost for Black. Probably
best is 38 . . . .£le5!?.
39 . .£)e6+ � f7 40. �c7+ lif}e8
4t.�d8+ liflf7 42.�{8 # 1-0
Game 7
Rudenkov-Strugath
Minsk 1 96 1
NB We've also seen this game variously
referred to as Rudenko- Stugach (or
Strugach or Strupatsch), corr 1 98 8 .
l . b4 c 6 2.e3 �b6
2 . . . d5 and 2 . . . b5, Chapter 2B.
3.a3 aS
3 . . d5 4.j';tb2 transposes to Chirpii­
.
Geanta in the notes to Chapter 2B.
4.b5!
53
A sharp and promising gambit.
4 . j';tb 2 a x b4 5 . ..1ld4 i!i'c7 (5 . . . c 5 ?
6.j';txc5! ± ) 6.axb4 � xa1 7 . ..1lxa1 =.
4 . . . cxbS
Also played are:
A) 4 . . . 4Jf6; e.g., 5 .c4 d5 6 . .£lc3 e6 7.d4
dxc4 8 . ..1lxc4 "?t/c7 9 . .£lf3 ..lld7 10.i!i'b3
a4 1 l .�c2 ( 1 1 . 4Jxa4 cxb5 1 2 . ..1lxb5
� x a4 13 . ..1lxa4 i!i'a5 + 1 4 . ..1ld2 �xa4
1 5 .i!fxb7 oo ) 1 l . . .cxb5 1 2 .4Jxb5 ..ll x b5
13 . ..1lxb5+ 4Jc6 14.0-0 White will gain
the a-pawn with the advantage;
B) 4 . . . g6 5 . ..1lb2!?;
C) 4 . . . d5
1) 5.c4 4Jf6 6.4Jc3 transposes to 4 . . . .£lf6
5.c4 etc.;
2) 5 .bxc6 bxc6 6.c4 4Jf6 7 . 4Jc3 e6
8.4Jf3 ..ll e 7 9 . � b 1 i!i'd8 1 0 . ..1le2 0-0
1 1 .0-0 4Jbd7 1 2 .d4 dxc4 13 . ..1lxc4 c5
14.4Je5 4Jxe5 1 5 .dxe5 "?t/xd1 16.� xd1
.£ld7 17.f4 �b8 1 8 . ..1lb5 � d8 19.�b2
.£lf8 20.� xd8 ..ll xd8 2 l .�d2 ..lle7 22.a4
..ll b7 23 . ..1la3 ;!; C . B auer-Isik, Kerner
2007;
3) � 5 . .£lf3 .
S .£)c3 b4
•
Black wants to stay a pawn up. Sticker­
Werner, Ladenburg 1 992, went 5 . . . .£lf6
6 . .£lxb5 (6 . ..1lxb5 e6 7.�b1 .£lc6 8 . .£lf3
..ll e 7 9 . ..1lb2 ;!; P o ley-Daure l l e , St.
Lorrain 2005) 6 ... d6 7.c4 g6 8 . � b 1
..llg7 9 . ..1le2 0-0 10.a4 .£la6 1 1 ...1la3 itrc6
1 2 . .£lf3 .£lc5 13.0-0 �d8 14.d4 with the
better chances.
 l .b4 c6

6.a x b4 t\' x b4 7.Aa3 ( ;�; BC02) 17.�b2 �b7 1 8 . .1lxg7 �xb2 19.Axb2
7 �b6
••• f6 20 . ..Q.b5 with the advantage;

B) 10 . . . bxc4 l l ...Q.xc4! e6 (l l . . .ii1txc4

1 2 . � c l +- ) 1 2 . .£l e 5 'ii1t b 7 1 3 . A x f8
e x d 5 1 4 . � b l �c7 1 5 . .11. xg7 d x c 4
16.'ii1tf3 +- .

Even better is 1 2 .<tlxf7! bxc4 ( 1 2 . . . 'it>xf7

1 3 .�h5+ g6 14.�f3+ .£lf6 1 5 .�xf6+
'<Tte8 1 6 . ..1l x f8 +- ) 1 3 . <tl x h 8 � x d 5
1 4 . ..11 x c4 ii1txg2 ( 1 4 . . . �xc4 1 5 .�cl +- )
1 5 .�h5+ g6 1 6.ii1fxh7 �xh l + 17 . .1lfl
Axa3 18.�xg8+ '<Tte7 19.'ii1t x c8 +- .
8 . � b l !? �e6? ( o 8 . . . �d8) 9. <£lf3 d6
1 2 ... d6
1 O.<tld4 'ii11g6 l l .<i:ld5! ( l l .Ad3 �xg2
12 . ..1le4 'ii11h 3 1 3 .'ii11e 2 <tlf6 oo Bennett­
1 2 . . . <£lh6 1 3 . ..Q.xf8 � xf8 1 4 . .£lb6 +- .
Gibbons, Auckland 1 996) l l . . .'it> d8
1 2 .' �e2 <tld7 1 3 . �c4 <tlc5 1 4 . ..11 x c5
dxc5 1 5 . <£lf4 �d6 1 6 . � x f7 <tlf6
1 7 . .£lde6+ .il x e 6 1 8 . .£l x e 6 + 'it>c8
1 9.<£lxf8 +- .

8 ... �c6 9.c4

B etter i s 9 . e4 ! ? <tla6 (9 . . . e6??

10 . .ilb5! +- ) 10 . .£le2 etc.

9 ..• b5?

Black completely neglects his kingside 13 .£)b6

•

development.
Sokolsky awarded this an exclamation
10 .£)f3 e6
• mark. But it's an ordinary move com­
pared to 1 3 .c5! dxe5 14 . .11. x b5+ '<Ttd8
Too late. 1 5 .c6 <tlxc6 1 6 . .11. x c6 ii1txc6 1 7 . ..1lxf8
exd5 18 . ..11 xg7 +- .
A) 1 0 . . . �b7 l l .cxb5! �xd5 1 2 .�c2
�b7 ( 1 2 . . . ..1lb7 1 3 .�c7 +- ) 1 3 . � c l n ... }aa7
'<Ttd8 14 . ..1lc5 'it>e8 (White was threat-
ening 1 5 . ..1lb6+ '<Tte8 1 6.�xc8+ �xc8 A) 1 3 . . . � x b6 1 4 . ii1t x f7 + '<Ttd8
17.�xc8 # ) 15 . ..1ld4 <tlc6 16.bxc6 �xc6 1 5 .�xf8+ +- ;

54
 The Sokolsky Opening

B) 13 . . . dxe5 14.-'txf8 '<t'xf8 1 5.�xa8 e4 Opening up the position benefits the

16.'lli"g3 "iii" x a8 17."iii"c7 +- ; player with the bishop-pair.

C) If not 1 3 . . . � a7, Black's least worst 25 . . . d x c5?

line is probably 1 3 . . . b4 14 . .1lxb4 � a6
15.4Jxc8 "iii" xf3 etc. Now the roof caves in.

14.'�xf7+ 26.fxe5 4)g8

14.4Jxf7 "iii" xf3 1 5.gxf3 � xf7 1 6.�xc8 b4 26 . . . �e4 27 . .1lg2 +- .

1 7 .llb2 is similar.
.

27.e6 4)df6
14 .. .'�xf7 15.4) xf7 � x f7 16.4) xc8
b4 27 . . . �f8 28.4Jxc5 .ll x c5 29.� xc5+ '<t'd6
30.� cxa5 +- .
The material is level, but Black's pieces
are passively placed. 28 . {) x c 5 .Q. x c 5 29 . � x c 5 + �d6
3 0 . � a x a 5 �e7 3 1 . -'l. e S �d8
17 . .Q.b2 �d8 18.4)b6 32.�cb5 � xb5 33.� xb5 1-0

Game 8
Steffens-Pajeken
Germany 2000

l .b4 d5

l . . .c6 2.e3 d5 3.-'tb2 4Jf6 4.c4 trans­

poses.

2 . e 3 4)f6 3 . c4 c 6 4 . .Q.b2 .Q.g4

5.'�b3 e6 6.h3 Ah5 7.4)c3 4)bd7
18 ... �b7 19.4)a4 8.d4 a6 9.c5 .Q.e7 10.4)ge2 g5

Now that Black's passed pawns are ef­

fectively blocked, White needs only to
prepare a central pawn break. 1 9.c5!?

19 ... {)d7 20.g3 4) gf6 21 . .Q.h3 e5

B l ack w e akens h i s l i ght s q u are s .

2 l . . .'it>e7 i s more solid.

22.<ifle2 .Q.e7 23.f4 �c7 24.�hcl

�e8 25.c51

55
 l .b4 c6
S ince White seems committed to a
queenside advance, B l ack commits
himself to a kingside advance, even
before seeing the precise destination of
White ' s king. The normal move is
1 0 . . . 0-0, Chapter 28.
l l . a4 Jlg6 1 2 . 4) g3 h 5 1 3 .Q.e2
•
�c7
14.b51?
White allows himself this advance be-
cause of the closed center.
14 axb5 (14 . . . e5!?) 15.axb5 § xal+
•••
t6.Jlxal h4 17.4)fl e5
This typical move had been coming.
17 . . . b6!?
18.4)d2 e4?!
Closing the center is good for White as
he will get to the a-file first and be able
to target the b7-pawn.
1 8 . . . exd4 19.exd4 0-0 20.0-0 §. a8, or
1 8 . . . 0-0 strai ghtaw ay, w i t h equal
chances.
1 9 . �a4! Jl h 5 2 0 . � a 8 + 4) b8 ?
2 1 .b6!
56
White achieves his dream position in
the Sokolsky Opening: far-advanced
queenside pawns and total control of the
a-file.
21 �c8 22.4)b3 j}_ xe2 23.4) xe2
.••
g4
It's hard to come up with a viable de­
fense. 23 .. .'�d7 24 . .£!a5 .£!a6 25 .�xb7+
� x b7 26 . .£l x b7 .£!b4 2 7 . 0 - 0 §. b 8
(27 . . . §. a8 28.Ac3 'iti'c8 29.Axb4 'iti'xb7
30 . .£lc1 §. a4 [30 . . . .£ld7 3 1 . .£lb 3 +- ]
3 1 . .£lb3 §. xb4 32 . .£!a5+ +- ) 28.Ac3
.£ld3 29 . .£la5 with a win in the long
run .
This piece actually started life on gI .
24 ••• �d7 25.� xb7+
Or of course 25 . .£lxb7!?.
25 ••• � x b7 26.4) x b7
White 's extra pawn i s a protected
passed pawn that gives him a winning
advantage.
26 §g8 27. 4) f4 4) e8 28.h x g4
•••
§ x g4 2 9 . 0 - 0 .Q.g5 3 0 . 4) h 3 f5
The Sokolsky Opening

31 . .ilc3 �c8 32.4)a5 4)g7 33.4)b3

4) e 6 34 .Q.d2 f4 3 5 . e x f4 .Q. x f4
•

36 . .Q. x f4 4) x f4 3 7 . 4) x f4 .§ x f4
38 . .§al h3 39 . .§a7 .§g4 40.g3 e3
4 1 . f x e3 .§ x g3 + 4 2 . �h 2 .§ x e3
43.4)a5 .§e4

43 . . . f! a3 44.E!c7+ 'it'd8 45.<£:\b7+ +- .

44 . .§ c 7 + �d8 4 5 . 4) b7 + �e8
46.4)d6+ 1-0

57
 Chapter 3
l .b4 e6
Black probably or possibly intends a
Queen's Indian Defense setup (with a
queenside fianchetto, etc), which can be
achieved by various move orders. So be
forewarned that there are lots of trans­
positional possibilities, and we cannot
possibly flag them all. l . . . .£Jf6 2 . .1lb2
e6 transposes; l . . . b6 etc . may also
transpose; even 1 . . .d5 could transpose;
e.g., 2 . .1lb2 .£lf6 3.e3 e6 4.b5 goes into
the main line.
2 . .11,b 2 4)f6
The normal developing move, and by
far the most popular.
A) 2 . . . �h4 3.a3 f5
1) 4.e3 .£Jf6 5 .c4 .£le4 6 . .£lh3
a) 6 . . . !!g8 7.d3 .£Jf6 8 . .£ld2 .lle 7 9 . .1le2
.£lg4 10.0-0 d6 1 l .d4 .£lc6 1 2 .�c2 e5
1 3 .b5 .£ld8 1 4 . .£lf3 �f6 1 5 .dxe5 dxe5
16 . .£Jf4 .£lf7 1 7 . h3 .£lgh6 1 8 . .£ld3 +-
Kucharkowski-Stemik, corr 1 996;
b) 6 . . . a5 7.d3 .£Jf6 8 . .£ld2 axb4 9.axb4
!! x a 1 1 0 . � x a 1 d 5 ( 1 0 . . . .1l x b4??
1 l .�a8 +- )
58
( i) 1 1 ..1lc3 c6 ( 1 1 . . . .lle 7 1 2 . �a8 .£lfd7
1 3 . .1lxg7 !!g8 1 4 . .1lc3 +- ) 1 2 . .£lf3 �h6
1 3 .�a5 with a big advantage;
(ii) If White tries to win a piece by
1 1 . .1l x f6? he w i l l c o m e unstuc k :
1 1 . . . � x f6 1 2 . �a8 .ll x b4 1 3 . � x b8
( 1 3 .d4 0-0 14.�xb8 f4 + ) 1 3 . . . �a 1 +
1 4 . �e2 0-0 1 5 .�xc7 �c 1 ! 1 6 . .£lb3
�e 1 + 1 7 . �f3 � d 1 + 1 8 . �f4 e 5 +
1 9.�xe5 !! e8+ 20.�xd5 .lle6+ 2 l .�d4
�xb3 and White is lost;
(iii) 1 1 ..£lf4!? L::.. 1 2.�a8;
2) 4 . .£lf3 �h6 5 .c4 .£Jf6 6 . .£lc3 .lle7 7.e3
0-0 8.d4 d6 9 . .1ld3 .lld7 1 0 . 0-0 .£Jc6
1 1 .e4! ± Krasny-Ziese, corr 1 999;
3) 4.g3! �h6 5 ..1lg2 White fianchettoes
his own light-squared bishop before
Black can fianchetto his;
B) 2 . . . b6
1) 3 . .£lf3 f5 4.e3 .£Jf6 5 .b5 a5 6.c4 .llb7
7 . .1le2 .lle7 8.0-0 0-0 9.d4 .£le4 10.�c2
d6 1 1 . .£l c 3 .£l x c 3 1 2 . .1l x c 3 .£ld7
1 3 . !! fd 1 �e8 14 . .£ld2 �g6 1 5 . .1lf3
.ll xf3 16 . .£lxf3 .£lf6 17.a4 .£le4 18 . .1lb2
�g4 19 . .£le 1 �h5 20.f3 .£Jf6 2 1 ..£ld3
g5? (B lack is okay after 2 1 . . . .£ld7
22 . .£lf4 �h6 23.d5 .£lc5 24.dxe6 .£lxe6
25 . .£ld5 !! ae8) 22.!!acl g4 (22 . . . .£ld7
2 3 . c 5 ! dxc5 24.dxc5 .£lxc5 2 5 . .£lxc5
.ll x c5 26.�c3 +- ) 23 . .£lf4 �f7 24.d5 e5
2 5 . .£le6 !! fc8 26.�xf5 gxf3 27.gxf3
�h8 2 8 . � h 1 �h5 2 9 . � x h 5 .£l x h 5
30.f4 + - Steinbacher-Just, Germany
2003 ;
2) 3.e3 f5?! (3 . . . .£lf6 4.b5 transposes to
Chapter 3 A ) 4 . �h 5 + �e7 (4 . . . g6?
5 .�f3 +- ) 5.�f3 c6 6.b5 .llb7 7.�g3
 The Sokolsky Opening

4Jf6 8.4Jf3 d6 9 . .ll.d 3 4Jbd7 1 0.bxc6 A) 4 . 4Jf3 Ad6 S . e3 4Jbd7 6 . c4 c6

.llxc6 1 1 .4Jd4 �c7 1 2 .0-0 4JcS 1 3 . f3 7.4Jc3 0-0
�f7 14.4Jc3 4Jxd3 1 S.cxd3 ± I.K.rueger­
Olschok, Pinneberg 2005 ; 1) 8.�c2 .§ e8 9.d4 ;t Ivanov;

C) 2 . . . c6 2) 8 . .ll.e 2 �e7 9 . !! c 1 dxc4 10 . .ll. x c4

1) 3.e3 4Jf6 4.bS!? (4.a3 aS=) 4 . . . cxbS
5.-ll x bS �b6 6.a4 Ae7 (after 6 . . . .ll.c S
7 . .1lxf6 gxf6 8.4Jc3 a6 9 . .ll.d 3 B lack
stands worse because of his weakened
kingside; 6 . . . a6 7 . .ll.d 4!?) 7.Aa3 Axa3
8.4Jxa3 a6 9 . .ll.d3 dS 10.f4 4Jc6 1 1 .4Jf3
0-0 1 2 . 0-0 .ll. d 7 1 3 . c3 4JaS 1 4 . 4JeS
White is slightly more active and could
go on the offensive with ! H1 -f3-h3;
4Jb6 ( 1 0 . . . a S ! ) 1 l . Ae2 aS 1 2 .bxaS
!! xaS 1 3.�b3 4Jbd7 14.a4 4JcS 1 5 .�c2
eS with excel lent play, Hasanova­
Pertlova, Pardubice 2006;
B) 4.e3 aS!? (White appears comfort­
able after 4 . . . cS 5 .bxc5 .ll. x cS 6.4Jf3
0-0 7 .c4 4Jc6 8.d4);

2) 3.4Jf3 4Jf6 (in internet games you

may see 3 . . . h6 4.e3 �b6 S .a3 aS 6.bS ! ;
e.g., 6 . . . cxbS 7 . .ll.d4 with the advan­
tage) 4 . a 3 a S (4 . . . dS S . e 3 4Jbd7
6.c4=) S .bS!? (after S .bxaS �xaS 6.e3
d5 7 . .1le2 4Jbd7 8. 0-0 .ll. d6 B lack has
a promising position) S . . . cxbS 6.e3 b4
7 . .1le2 4J c 6 8 . 0 - 0 d S 9 . c 3 b x a 3
10 .4Jxa3 Ae7 1 1 .4JbS ii5 White plans
to open up the long dark diagonal by
c3-c4; 3 ... dS

D) 2 . . . a6 3.e4 4Jc6 (3 . . . d6 4.4Jf3 4Jf6
5.4Jc3 .ll e7 6.d4 0-0 7 .Ad3 ;t ) 4.a3
'iit'h4 S .4Jc3 bS 6.4Jf3 �d8 (6 . . . �g4
7.d4 ;t ) 7.d4 4Jce7 8 . .ll.d 3 d6 9.0-0 ±
Wall-Luv2Play, internet 2006;
This is the most popular move in this
precise position; most other moves we
analyze elsewhere:
A) 3 . . . b6, Chapter 3A;

E) 2 .. .fS etc., is likely to transpose to B) 3 . . . a 6 ( C h apter 3 B ) 4 . a4 d5

positions in Chapter 6.
It is more in the spirit of this opening to
advance the pawn than to protect it.
� 3.a3 dS (3 . . . bS!? shows another rea­
son why White should play 3.b4-bS):
( 4 . . . axbS, Chapter 3B) 5 .e3 (transposes
to Game 9) S . . . c5 6. 4Jf3 Ad6 7 . c4
4Jbd7 8 . .ll. e 2 transposes to the main
line, i.e., 7 . . . Ad6 7 . .ll.e 2 a6 8.a4;
C) 3 ... cS 4.c4 (4.e3 d5 transposes to the
main line) 4 . . . b6 (4 . . . d5 S.e3 transposes
to 3 . . . dS 4.e3 c5 5.c4 in the notes be­
low) 5.e3 .ll.b7 6.4Jf3 d6 7 . .ll.e 2 a6 8.a4

59
 l .b4 e6

.tlbd7 9.0-0 A.e7 1 0.-tlc3 0-0 l l .�c2 C) 4 . . . b6 5 . -tlf3 Ab7 transposes to

�c7 1 2 . d 3 a x b 5 1 3 . a x b 5 ! h a l
14.E! xal E! a8 1 5 .E! xa8+ ..ll x a8=;
D) 3 . . . c6, Chapter 3C;
E) 3 ... .Q.e7, Chapter 3D;
Game 1 5 ;
D) 4 . . . ..1le7 5 .-tlf3 0-0 6.c4 .tlbd7 7.�c2
b6 8 . ..1le2 Ab7 9 . d3 dxc4 1 0 . dxc4
..ll e 4= NCO; Luneau-Klovans, Bad
Liebenzell 1 996;

F) 3 ... a5 transposes to Chapter I . E) 4 . . . c6 5.a4, Chapter 3C.

4.e3

4.a4 .tlbd7 ( 4 . . . a6 5 .e3 transposes to

Game 9) 5 . e3 ..llb4 6 . ..1le2 e5 7 .-tlf3
�e7 8.0-0 e4 9.-tld4 0-0 1 0 . f3 �e5
l l ...llc 3 ..lld6 ( l l . . .Axc3 1 2.-tlxc3 .tlc5
1 3 . � e l � ) 1 2 . f4 �e8 1 3 . � e l
( 1 3 .-tlf5!?) 1 3 . . . -tlc5 14.�g3 � Pierre­
Yousuf, chesshere.com 2006.

4 ... c5

Challenging the key central squares is

Black's best plan.
A) 4 . . . .Q.d6 5 . c4 ( 5 . -tlf3 Game 20)
5 ... -tlbd7 6.-tlf3 0-0
1) 7.d4 dxc4 8 . .1lxc4 E! e8 (8 . . . �e7!? 1:::.
9 . . . e5) 9.0-0 .tlf8 10.-tlbd2 .tlg6 1 l .�b3
<tld5 1 2 .a4 ( 1 2 . e4!?) 12 . . . b6 1 3 .g3 .Q.f8
14.E!fcl .Q.b7 1 5 . ..1ld3 .tlf6 16.�c2 E! c8
1 7 . -tle5 with a positional advantage,
Fichte-Radczewski, Baunatal 2000;
2) Drelinkiewicz-Fichtl, Wroclaw 1 97 1 ,
went 7.-tlc3 �e7 8.cxd5 exd5 9.�b3
c6 1 0 .Ae2 .tlc5 l l .�c2 .Q.d7 1 2 .a4
E! fe8 1 3 . 0 - 0 E! a c8 1 4 . b x c 6 b x c6
1 5 . ..1la3 Ag4 1 6 . d4 .tlce4 1 7 .Axd6
�xd6 18.E!fcl . White is better because
of the weak c -pawn, and if . . . c6-c5 then
the d-pawn becomes weak;
B) 4 . . . a6 Game 9: Sokolsky-Byvshev,
USSR 1 95 1 ;
5.c4 As this occurs in the main line too,
transpositions are possible:
A) 5 . . . Ae7 6.-tlf3 0-0 7 . .Q.e2 (7.a4!?)
7 . . . -tlbd7 8.0-0
1) 8 . . . b6 The most logical plan, prepar­
ing to develop the last minor piece 9.d4
(9.a4!?) 9 . . . A.b7 10.-tlbd2 E! c8 l l .E! c l
cxd4 1 2.exd4 dxc4 1 3.-tlxc4 <tld5 14.g3
E! c7 1 5 .-tlfd2 f5 16.Af3 �b8 17.�e2
E!f6 18.-tle5 .t\xe5 19.dxe5 E!f8 20.-tlb3
E! fc8 2 1 . -tld4 f! xc l 2 2 . f! xc l f! xc l +
2 3 . ..\l x c l �c8 2 4 . .Q.b2 �d7 2 5 . a4
..llc 5=;
2) 8 . . . -tle4 9.-tlc3 ..llf6 10.�b3 .tlxc3
l l . d x c 3 ( l l . ..ll x c 3 ! ? � ) l l . . . .tlb6
1 2 . E! fd l �c7 1 3 . a4 dxc4 14 . ..1lxc4
.t\xc4 1 5 .�xc4 b6 16.e4 Ab7 17.Acl
E! fd8 (17 . . . a6 1 8.Ae3 E! fd8 � ) 1 8 . ..1le3

60
 The Sokolsky Opening
E!xdl + 19.Ei xdl E!d8 (19 . . . a6!?) 20.E!d2
Eid7 21 .<iftfl �c8 22.E! xd7 'i!t'xd7 23.'<t>e2
a5? (23 . . . '<t>f8!?=) 24.�d3 (24.bxa6 Ac6
25.'i!t'd3 �c7 is less clear) 24 . . . �xd3+
25.'it'xd3 h6 26.<tK:l2 .Q.d8? ( o 26 . . . .Q.e5)
27 . .Q.f4 f5 28.f3 '<t>f7 29 . .£lc4 fxe4+
30.fxe4 Aa8 3 1 .Ab8 with a won end­
ing because the b-pawn w i l l fal l ,
Bulcourf-Oiivares, Acasusso 1 99 1 .
B) Or 5 . . . .£lbd7 6.a4 (6 . .£lf3 transposes
to the main line) 6 . . . b6 7 . .£lf3 .Q.b7
8 . .Q. e 2 Ae7 9 . 0- 0 0 - 0 1 0 . d3 �c7
1 1 ..£lbd2 .£lg4 1 2 .h3 .IU6 1 3 . d4 .£lh6
14.cxd5 exd5 1 5 .�c2 !J..e7 16.dxc5 ;t;
Nadanian-Guzkowska, Polanica Zdroj
1 996.
A) 5 . . .Ad6 6.c4 .£lbd7 is a simple trans­
position;
B) 5 . . . b6 6.g3!? !J..d6 7.Ag2 Ab7 8.0-0
.£\bd7 9.c4=.
6.c4 Jl,d6
The most active placing of the bishop,
supporting a possible . . . e6-e5 .
A) The immediate 6 . . . dxc4 is better for
White: 7.!J.. x c4 !J..d6 8.a4 0-0 9.0-0 e5
61
1 0.d3 �e7 1 1 ..£lbd2 !J..c7 1 2.�c2 .£lb6
1 3 . Ei fc l Ag4 1 4 . !J.. b 3 ± Torok­
Rajcsanyi, Hungary 2003 ;
B) 6 . . . Ae7, Chapter 3D.
7.d3
A) 7.Ae2 can of course transpose to the
main line, and has the plus of not im­
mediately committing the d-pawn.
1) 7 . . . 0-0 8.0-0 b6 (for 8 . . . �e7 with the
idea of . . . e6-e5 see Game 1 1 : Sokolsky­
Szukszta, Polanica Zdroj 1 958) 9.a4
!J..b7
a) 10.a5 bxa5 ( 1 0 . . . dxc4?! Game 1 2 :
Sokolsky-Andreev, corr 1 960) l l .cxd5
exd5 1 2.�a4 Ac7 1 3.Ac3 a6 14.Axa5
axb5 1 5 .�xb5 !J.. a 6 1 6 .!J.. x c7 Axb5
1 7 . .1l x d8 E! x a l 1 8 . !J.. x f6 E! x b l
( 1 8. . . .ll x e2 19.!J.. x al !J.. xfl 20.'<t>xfl ± )
1 9 . Ei x b l !J.. x e 2 2 0 . !J.. e 7 E! e8=
Sokolsky;
b) 10.d4 E!c8 ( 1 0 . . . �e7!? is similar to
the mainline) l l ..£lbd2 cxd4 1 2.exd4
.£le4 1 3 . .£lxe4 dxe4 1 4 . .£le5 !J.. x e 5
1 5 .dxe5 .£l c 5 1 6.Aa3 �g5 1 7 . .1lxc5
E! xc5 (17 . . . e3 18.Af3 .ll xf3 1 9 .�xf3
E! xc5 20.�xe3=) 18.�d7 Aa8 19.�xa7
e3 20.f3 E! xe5 2 l .�xb6 �f4 22.c5 Eih5
Levin-Peralta, Dos Hermanas 2 004
23.�d6! e5 24.g3 Ei g5 25.'iftg2 ± ;
2) 7 . . . a6 8.a4 b6 (8 . . . axb5 leads to po­
sitions of the type in Chapter 3B) 9.d4
(9.d3 transposes to 9.d3 covered in the
notes to Game 1 0) 9 . . . !J..b7 (9 . . . �c7
Game 1 0 : Sokol sky-U sov, Odessa
1 960) 10 . .£lbd2 0-0 1 1 .0-0 �e7 intend­
ing . . . E! f8-d8 and . . . e6-e5 with equal
chances;
3) 7 . . . �c7 8.d3 dxc4 9.dxc4 b6 10.0-0
.Q.b7 1 1 .h3 0-0 12 . .£lbd2 E! ad8 1 3.�c2
 l .b4 e6
�e5 1 4 .�xe5 Axe5 1 5 .Axe5 �xe5
16.Af3 Aa8 17.a4 Eld6 18.Axa8 El xa8
19.Elad1 Eld7? (19 . . . El ad8! 20.�f3 �e4
2 l . El xd6 El xd6 22.�e2 h6=) 20.�f3
�c7 2 1 . El x d7 �xd7 2 2 . El d 1 �f6
23.�d3 White is better as he has gained
control of the d- file, Kasper-Heinrich,
Spree 1 997;
B) 7.a4 0-0 8.Ae2 (8.d3 b6 9.Ae2 Ab7
10.0-0 f1e7 1 l .�bd2 transposes to the
main line) 8 . . . b6 9. 0-0 transposes to
7.Ae2 0-0 8.0-0 b6 9.a4.
7 ... 0-0 8.�bd2
More flexible is 8.Ae2 deciding later
where to place the b -knight.
8 ... b6 9.Ae2 Ab7 10.0-0 t/1e7
This frees d8 for a rook and places the
queen on its natural square. 10 . . . f1c7
1 1 .Elc1 with d3-d4 to come, could em­
barrass the black queen.
l l .a4
Or 1 1 . �c2 first.
ll ••. E{ad8
1 l . . . a 5 Game 1 3 : Sokol sky-Keres,
Moscow 1 950.
62
12.a5 j},b8 13. t/1c2
1 3 . a xb6 a x b6 1 4 . � c 2 e5 1 5 . e 4
( 1 5 .cxd5 �xd5 16.Elad1 transposes to
the 1 4 . c x d 5 subvariat i o n b e l o w )
1 5 . . . dxe4 1 6.dxe4 �h5 1 7.g3 g6 trans­
poses to the main line.
13 ... e5
1 3 . . . El fe8 1 4 . El fd 1 f1d6 1 5 . a6 .ilc8
1 6.�fl Ac7 17.d4 �e7 18.�e5 �b8
19.dxc5 bxc5 20.Elac1 .ilb6 2 l ...lla 3 �
Franke-Fischbach, Gemuend 1 999.
14.e4
Perhaps the best way to press for an
advantage. 14.cxd5 �xd5 1 5 .axb6 axb6
1 6 . El ad1 �b4 1 7 .�b3 'it'h8 1 8 .�c4
f5 oo .
14 ... dxe4
If 14 . . . d4, 1 5 .�e 1 followed by g2-g3
and f2-f4 with good prospects for a
kingside attack.
1 5 . d x e4 � h 5 16.g3 g6 17.a x b6
axb6 18.�b1
White will reposition both knights.
18 ...f5 19.�fd2 fxe4
A) 1 9 . . .£4 20.�c3 is better for White;
B) 19 . . . �g5 shows the downside of
�f3-d2, but can be answered by 20.Af3
( ::!: 20.h4 f1h6) 20 . . .f4 2 l .Ela3 oo .
20.� xe4 �df6 21.�bc3
Black is okay on 2l .Af3 Axe4 22 . .1l.xe4
�xe4 23.f1xe4 �f6 24:l!Je2 �d7.
 The Sokolsky Opening
21 ... .£) xe4 22 . .£) xe4 .£)g7 23.-tlc3
4)e6 24 . .£)d5 J}. x d5 25.cxd5 .£)d4
2 6 . J}. x d4 e x d4 2 7 . Jtc4 J}. d 6
28.E{fel
Despite the opposite-colored bishops,
White is slightly better.
Summary: In this line White achieves
only a minimal advantage - sufficient
if Black plays inaccurately. Games 9 to
1 3 , all five with Sokolsky himself as
White, will repay study.
Chapter 3A
l.b4 e6
Of course 1 . . . �f6 2.-'l.b2 e6 transposes.
2.Jl.b2 .£lf6 3.b5 b6
The main theme of this section is the
development of Black's light-squared
bishop down the long open diagonal,
which is feasible through various move
orders; e.g., 3 . . . ..1le7 4.e3 b6 5.f4 0-0
6.4Jf3 .llb7 (which is how Game 1 4
starts) transposes to 3 . . . b6 4.e3 .Q.b7
5.f4 .lle7 6.�f3 0-0.
4.e3
63
4.g3!? ..llb7 5.4Jf3 ..lle7 6 ...1lg2 o-o 7.0-0
c6 8.c4 d5= Jamieson-McGowan, Oban
2005 .
4 •.. J}.b7
The normal developing move. An inter­
esting departure is 5.f4 :
A ) 5 . . . .1l.e7 6.�f3 0-0 7 . .1l.e2 d 6 8.0-0
�bd7 9.a4 a5 1 0 .�d4 §. c8 1 l .�c6
( 1 1 . -'l.f3 Game 1 4 : S c h i ffler-Kaba
Klein, Binz-Ruegen 1 950) 1 1 . . . .1l.xc6
1 2 .bxc6 4Jc5 ( 1 2 . . . �b8 1 3 .-'l.b5 �e8
1 4 . �f3 d5 1 5 . c4 dxc4 [ 1 5 . . . �x c6?
16.cxd5 �xd5 17.§.cl +- ] 16.§.cl with
the advantage) 1 3 .-'l.b5 with the better
chances;
B) 5 . . . a6 6 . a4 a x b 5 7 . a x b 5 §. x a 1
8.Axa1 d 5 9.�f3 �bd7 1 0.-'l.e2 -'l.d6
1 1 .0-0 0-0 is level, but White can try
1 2 :-ll1e 1 !?;
C) 5 . . . c5 6.�f3 d5 7 . ..1le2 �bd7 8.0-0
.ll.d6
1) 9 . � e 1 0-0 1 0 .�e5 �c7 1 l .d4!?
(1 1 .�xd7 �xd7=) 1 l . . .cxd4 1 2 .exd4
� x c 2 1 3 . -'t c 3 -'l. x e 5 1 4 . fx e 5 �e4
1 5 .§.f3
 l .b4 e6
a) 1 S .. :iiila 4 16.�b4 E! fc8 17.E!b3 aS
18.�c3 �xc3 1 9 .�xc3 E! c7 20.-'td3
E! ac8 2 l..ll b2 fS?? ( o 2 l . ..�f8) 22.exf6
� x f6 2 3 . 'liif x e 6 + �h8 2 4 . 'iiil xb6 +­
Mitov-Barwinski, corr 1 98 3 ;
b ) 1 S . . . �xc3 1 6 . �xc3 (threatening
.lle 2-d3) 16 . . . 'iiilg6 17.'iiilh4 � ;
2) 9 . c4 0-0 (9 . . . 'iiil c 7 1 0 .cxdS exdS
1 1 .�h4 0-0 1 2 . �fS E! fe8=) lO.�eS a6
1 1 . a4 axbS 1 2 .axbS E! xa l 1 3 .-'txal
'liil c 7 1 4 . � xd7 � x d7 1 S . ..Ilf3 E! a8
1 6.-'tb2 dxc4 17.'iiilc 2 ..ltxf3 18.E! xf3 eS
19.'iiilc 3 followed by �b1 -a3xc4 with
pretty good chances.
5 . . . .Q.e7
Black gets on with completing kings ide
development.
A) S . . . dS Game 1 5 : Zielke-Howe, Kiel
2006;
B) S . . . cS!? 6 . .1le2 dS 7.0-0 �bd7 8.d3
..ltd6 9.�bd2 'liifc 7= Ribli.
6.c4
6.�e2 0-0 7 . 0-0 d S ! MC0 1 4 8 . d3
(8.a4!?) 8 . . . cS 9.�bd2 �bd7 1 0.c4 Ad6
1 1 . E! e l 'iiil c 7= MC0 1 4 ; Miles-Ribli,
London 1 984.
64
6 . . . 0-0 7 . .Q.e2 d6
A) 7 . . . dS Game 1 6 : S o k o l sky­
Chekhover, Leningrad 1 93 8 ;
B) 7 . . . cS 8. 0-0 dS 9 .cxdS (9 . a4 trans­
poses to the variations in Game 1 6,
i . e . , 7 . . . dS 8.a4 cS 9.0-0 etc. ) 9 . . . exd5
1 0 .d4 �bd7 1 1 .�h4 E! e8 1 2 .�fS ..ltf8
1 3 .�d2 g6 1 4 .�g3 E! c8 1 5 .'iiil a 4 'liif c7
1 6 . dxcS bxcS 1 7 . E! fc l Ag7 1 8 . E! c2
'iiil b 8 1 9 . E! ac l with an active position
and good pressure against the hang­
ing p aw n s , Johan s s o n - S eger, corr
1 989;
C) 7 ... c6 8.a4 'iiilc7 9.0-0 E! d8 1 0 .h3
( o 1 0 . �c 3 !?) 1 0 . . . d6 1 l . d4 �bd7
1 2 .�c3 dS 1 3 . �d2 E! ac8 14.'iiilb l .11£8
l S .E! cl 'iiilb8 and after . . . c6-cS Black
will be level, Labahn-Kuris, Berlin
1 990.
8.0-0
The obvious safety m o v e . Tabor­
Kane, corr 1 99 5 , went 8.d4 cS 9 . �c3
d5 1 0 . 0-0 �bd7 1 l .a4 aS 1 2 . bxa6
.ll x a 6 1 3 . � b S �e4 1 4 . E! b l �d6
1 S .cxdS �xbS? (better is l S . . . exdS
1 6 . �c3 Axe2 1 7 .'iiil x e2, although it is
still good for White) 1 6 . axbS Ab7
1 7 .dxe6 fxe6 1 8 . -'tc4 and B lack is at
a clear disadvantage because of his e­
pawn.
8 . . . c5
Black fights for control of the center.
A) 8 . . . c6 9 . a4 aS (if 9 . . . �bd7 then
10.bxc6 Axc6 1 1 .�c3 preparing a4-aS
with 'liif c 1 - c 2 and E! f1 - b l ; 9 . . . dS
lO.cxdS cxdS l l .'iiilb 3=)
 The Sokolsky Opening

looks stronger) 1 0 .d3 ( 1 0 . .£\c3 f! e8

1 l .d4 �f8 1 2 .i*c2 g6 1 3 . f! fd1 i*c8
1 4.e4 with a space advantage, Guziec­
Lozinski, corr 1 99 1 ) 10 . . . §e8 1 1 . .£\bd2
..llf8 1 2 .�c2 g6 1 3 .d4 ..llg7 14.f!ac l aS
1 5 . ..1la3 ..ll£8 16.§fd1 i*c8 17 . .£\b3 .ll.e4
1 8.i*c3 §b8 19.c5 .£\d5 20.i*d2 with a
positional advantage due to B lack 's
p a s s i ve ly-placed p i e c e s , Sternik­
Lozinski, corr 1 99 1 .

9.d3

1) 1 0 . d4 cxb5 1 l . c xb5 ( 1 l .axb5 !?)

1 1 . . .4Jbd7 1 2 . 4Jbd2 f! c8 1 3.i*b3 .£\d5
14.4Jc4 .£\b4 1 5 .f! acl �xf3 16.�xf3 d5
17.4:ld2 § x c l 1 8 . f! x c 1 i*b8 1 9 . e4
{19.g3!? so that upon e3-e4 the black
queen isn't allowed to come to f4)
19 . . . i*f4 20.f!d1 dxe4 2 l ...ll x e4 f! c8
22.g3 i*b8 23 . .£\c4 .£\f6 24 . .1l.g2 .£\fd5
Bl ack has maintained equality,
K.Mueller-Padros Simon, corr 1 987;
2) 10.bxc6 .£\xc6 l l .i*b3 .£\e4 1 2 .d4
4Jb4 1 3 . .£\bd2 i*d7 1 4 . .£\xe4 ..ll x e4
a) 1 5 . f! fc l i*b7 16 . .£\e 1 f! ac8 17.f3
.ilc6 18 . .£\d3 d5 1 9 . .£\eS dxc4 20.�xc4
.ild5 2 l .e4 ..ll x c4 22 . .£\xc4 § fd8 and
Black stands well;
b) 15 . ..1lc3 d5 16 . .£\eS i*b7 17.f3 ..llc 2
18.i*b2 f6 19.�xb4 axb4 20:�xc2 fxe5
21 .dxe5 i*c7 22.f4 �c5 � ;
This is the start of our flexible plan, al­
lowing White to play on either wing.
9 . .£\c3 .£\bd7 10.a4 a6 1 l .d3 maintains
the tension (the immediate exchange
1 l .bxa6 f! xa6 followed by 1 2 .d3 .£\b8
1 3 . i*b3 .£\c6 1 4 . .£\bS �d7 1 5 . ..1lc3
f! aa8 transposes) 1 l . . .axb5 12 . .£\xbS
(after 1 2 . axb5 § xa l 1 3 . � x a 1 �c7
14.i*a4 § a8 1 5 .i*b3 d5 the position is
more or less equal) 12 . . . .£\b8 1 3.i*b3
.£\c6 14.�c3 i*d7 1 5.f!fbl §a6 16 . .£\d2
f! fa8 1 7 . ..1lf3 dS oo .
9 ••• 4)bd7 10.4)fd2 dS
1 0 . . . e5 (weakens d5) 1 1 . .£\c3 . Now
White is better and can consider ..lle2-f3.
l l .f4 4) e8 12.A.f3 4)d6 13. 4)c3
4)f6

3) 1 0 . 4Jc3 d5 1 l .d4 { 1 l . f! c 1 !? dxc4

12 . ..1lxc4 c5 1 3 .d3 .£\bd7 14:�e2 i*c7
1 5 . f! fd 1 �d6 1 6 . h 3 ;!; ) 1 1 . . . c x b 5
12 .cxb5 .£\bd7 1 3 . f! c 1 f! c8 1 4 .'&i'b3
-'l.d6 1 5 .�a3 i*e7 16 . ..1lxd6 �xd6
17 . ..1ld3 .£\e4 (17 . . . e5!?) 18 . .£\e2 White's
s light advantage consists in him having
the better bishop;

B) 8 . . . 4Jbd7 9.a4 (9.d3 a6 1 0.a4 trans­

poses) 9 . . . a6 (9 . . . c5 intending . . . d6-d5

65
 l .b4 e6
14.'lte2
Also possible is 1 4.e4 dxe4 ( 1 4 . . . d4?
1 5 . <£l e 2 with e4-e5 coming, wins)
1 5 .dxe4 <£ld7 1 6.<£leU .
14 . . . 'ltc7 1S.a4 !!fd8 16.aS
White has everything under control and
has good prospects.
S u m mary: Here too, White's typical
left-wing attack (a2-a4-a5) gives him
active play and good prospects. 5.f4 (in
place of the normal 4.<£lf3) is definitely
worth investigating.
Chapter 3D
l .b4 e6
l . . .<£lf6 2 . Ab2 e6 transposes; l . . . d5
2.Ab2 <£lf6 3.e3 e6 4.b5 transposes to
3.b5 d5 4.e3 etc.
2.J).b2 4)f6 3.bS a6
Black wants to resolve the situation on
the queenside right away. 3 . . . d5 (Chap­
ter 3) 4.e3 c5 (4 . . . a6 5 .a4 axb5 6.axb5
Ei x a 1 7 . ..1lxa1 transposes to the main
line) 5 .<£lf3 <£lbd7 6.c4 ..lld6 7 . .ile2 a6
8.a4 axb5 9.axb5 Ei xa1 10.Axa1 0-0
transposes.
4.a4
Obviously, White must support his b -
pawn. White can also try the rarer 4.c4:
A) 4 . . . axb5 5 .cxb5 d5 (5 . . . c6 6.a4 cxb5
7.axb5 Ei xa 1 8.Axa1 d5 transposes to
4.a4 axb5 5.axb5 Eixa1 6.Axa1 c6 7.c4
etc . ) 6.e3 Ad7 7 . a4 c6 8.<£lc3 Ae7
9 . <£lf3 0-0 1 0 .Ae2 <£le8 1 1 .0-0 <£ld6
66
1 2 .ti'b3 c5 1 3 .d3 ti'b6 1 4 .ti'd1 Af6
1 5 .ti'd2 f:k8 16.<£ld1
1 ) 1 6 . . . .ilxb2 1 7 . <£lxb2 ti'a5 18. ti'c2
ti'd8 19.!Hb1 b6 20.ti'd1 <£lb7 2 1 .<£ld2
ti'f6 22 .e4 dxe4 (22 . . . Axb5! ) 23.<£lxe4
ti'd8 24 . ..1lf3 .ile8?? (if 24 . . . Eia7 25.<£lc4
gives White an obvious positional ad­
vantage) 2 5 . <£lf6+ ti'xf6 26.Axb7 +­
Genne-Wick, Lenzerheide 2006;
2) In B lack's favor is 1 6 . . . A x b 5 ! ?
1 7 . .ilxf6 ( 1 7 . a x b 5 ? fi x a 1 1 8 . A x a l
.ilxal + ) 1 7 . . . gxf6 1 8.ti'c3 fi xa4;
B) 4 . . . d5 5 .e3 dxc4 (5 . . . c6 6.a4 trans­
poses to Wessel - Wink in the notes to
C h apter 3 C ) 6 . a4 ! ? ( 6 . A x c 4 a x b 5
7 . A x b 5 + A d 7 i s fi ne for B l ack)
6 ... axb5 7.axb5 fi xa1 8.Axa1 oo .
4 . . . axbS
Opening the a-file is often advantageous
for White as he gets to control it first,
so Black sometimes delays the capture.
A) 4 ... c5 5 .e3 d5 6.<£lf3 transposes to
Game 1 0;
B) 4 . . . ..1le7 5 .e3 0-0 6.<£lf3 axb5 7.axb5
fi xa 1 8.Axa1 d5 9 . d4 (9 . c4 is also
p l ayed) 9 . . . c5 1 0 . d x c 5 <£le4
( 1 0 . . . Axc5!?) 1 1 . <£lbd2 ti'a5 1 2 .Ae2
 The Sokolsky Opening
.lld7 (weak is 1 2 . . . .£lc3? 13 . .£lb3! �b4
14:iii' d 2 .£la2 1 5 .�xb4 .£lxb4 1 6.�d2
leaving B lack 's b-knight in trouble)
1 3 . 0-0 -'\. x b 5 1 4 . -'\. x b 5 � x b 5
( o 1 4 . . . .£lxd2 1 5 . .£lxd2 'tii' x b5 16.�g4
g6 17.'iii'd4 f6 18.!!b1 �c6=) 1 5 . .£lxe4
dxe4 1 6 . 'iii' d 4 -'\.f6 1 7 . 'tii' xe4 -'\. x a 1
1 8 . !! x a 1 ( 1 8 . .£lg5 !? g 6 1 9 . !! x a 1 � )
1 8 . . . 'tii' x c 5 1 9 . 'iii' xb7 'tii' x c 2 2 0 . h 3
(20 . .£ld4!? was stronger according to
S okolsky) 20 . . . �c6 2 l . !! a7 �xb7
22.!! xb7 .£lc6 Yi-Yi, Sokolsky-Geller,
Kiev 1 957.
5.axb5 E{ x a l 6 . .Q.xal d5
Sokolsky: "With his pressure on the
long diagonal and possible operations
on the queenside, White's prospects are
by no means worse."
A different plan for Black involves chal­
lenging the b-pawn 6 . . . c6:
A) 7.e3
1) 7 . . . d5 8 . .£lf3 (8.c4 .£lbd7 9 . .£lf3 trans­
poses) 8 . . . .£lbd7 9.c4 �a5 1 0 . .£lc3 .£lb6
(10 . . . -'td6!? looks more natural) 1 l .bxc6
(l l .cxd5 cxd5 1 2 . ..Q.e2 ..Q.d6 1 3.0-0 0-0
14.'iii'b 1 ..Q.d7 1 5 .e4 ..Q.e7 16 . .1ld3 g6 oo
Diener-Efimov, corr 1 980s) 1 l . . .bxc6
12 . .£le5 ..Q.d7 13 . ..Q.e2 ..Q.d6 14.f4 0-0
15.0-0 !!a8 Since Black has taken con­
trol of the a-file, White goes into ac­
tion on the other wing 1 6 . g4 ! ..Q.e8
17.'iii'e 1 .£la4 18 . .£lxa4 �xa4 1 9.g5 .£le4
20.d3 ..Q.b4 2 1 .�h4 .£ld6 22.�f2 �c2
23 ..ilg4 'tii' x f2+ 24.�xf2 dxc4 25 . .£lxc4
4::lxc4 26.dxc4 c5 27 . ..Q.e5 !! a2+ 28.�g3
.ila4 29.!!a1 Yi-Yi, Spassky-Smyslov,
USSR 1 960;
2) 7 . . . cxb5 8.-'\.xb5 �a5 9 . .£lc3 -'\.b4
(9 . . . .£le4? 10 . .£lxe4 'tii' x b5 1 1 ...Q.xg7 !! g8
67
1 2 . .£lf6 + �d8 1 3 . .£lxg8 ..Q. x g7
1 4 . �g4 +- ) 1 O . .£lge2 0-0 1 1 . 0-0 d5
1 2 .'iii'b 1 ..Q.d7 'i' Valpa-Viejo, www.play
chess.de 2003 ;
B) 7.c4 cxb5 8.cxb5 d5 9.e3 .£lbd7
1) 10 . .£lf3 ..Q.d6 1 1 ..£lc3 ( 1 1 .d4 Game
1 4 : Sokolsky-Weinblatt, Odessa 1 949)
1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2 . ..Q.e2 .£lb6 1 3 . .£la4 ..Q.d7
14 . .£lxb6 �xb6 15 . ..Q.xf6 gxf6 16.'tii'a 4
!! c8 17.0-0 e5 18.'iii'h4 �d8 1 9.�h5
..Q.e6 20 . .£lh4 e4 (20 . . . ..Q.f8!?=) 21 . ..Q.g4
�d7 22.-'\.f5 .ilxf5 23 . .£lxf5 ..Q.f8 24.f3
!! c 2 2 5 . fx e 4 d x e 4 2 6 . 'iii' g 4 + ±
Sokolsky-Masseev, corr 1 967;
2) 1 0 . f4!? .£le4 ll . .£lf3 �a5 12 . .£lc3
.£ldf6 1 3 .�c l ( o 1 3 .'iii' a 4!?) 13 . . . -'ta3
1 4 . -'\.b 2 -'\. x b 2 1 5 . 'tii' x b 2 .£l x c 3 'i'
Giselbrecht-Saitsev, Nordskaane 1 990.
6 . . ..ile7 7.e3 d5 transposes to the next
note (7 . . . -'te7).
7.e3
7 . .£lf3 ..Q.e7 8.e3 transposes to 7.e3 -'\.e7
8 . .£lf3.
7 . . . c5
A) 7 . . . ..Q.e7 8 . .£lf3 .£lbd7 9.c4 (9 . ..Q.e2
Game 1 8 : Bemstein-Seidman, USA
1 959) 9 . . . 0-0 10 . .£lc3
1) 10 . . . c5!? 1 1 .d3 �c7 1 2 . ..Q.e2 b6 13.0-0
..Q.b7 1 4 . ..Q.b2 !! a8 1 5 . �c2 !! a7 16.!!a1
�b8 with more or less equal chances;
2) 1 0 . . . .£lb6 Game 1 9 : S asonow­
Kamenski, corr 1 962;
3) 1 0 . . . c6 1 1 ...Q.e2 .£lb6!? 1 2.cxd5 cxd5
1 3 .0-0=;
 l .b4 e6
B) 7 . . . c6 transposes to 6 . . . c6 7.e3 d5;
C) 7 . . . .a.d6 8.4Jf3 4Jbd7 transposes to
Game 2 0 : Klavins-Randviir, U S S R
1 95 5 .
8.�f3 -'\.d6 9.c4 0-0
9 . . . 4Jbd7
A) 10.d3 0-0 1 1 ..a.e2 b6 1 2.0-0 trans­
poses back to the main line;
B) Sokolsky mentioned 10.d4 as a pos­
sibility, but it turns out disappointingly.
1 0 . . . 0-0:
1) 1 1 .4Jbd2 b6 12 . .a.d3 .a.b7 1 3 . 0-0
'ft!c7 14 . .a.b2 f!. a8 � ;
2 ) 1 l . c x d 5 c x d4 1 2 . d x e 6 ..ll b 4 +
1 3 . 4Jbd2 fxe6 1 4 . ..1lc4 4Jb6 1 5 . 'ftlb3
..ll x d2+ 16.4Jxd2 Bendig-Geiger, corr
2004, now simply 16 . . . 4Jxc4 with the
advantage;
3) 1 1 .4Jc3 �a5 1 2 .�a4 �c7 1 3.�b3
cxd4 1 4 . 4Jxd4 4Jc5 + Falk-Reichert,
Siemianowice Slaskie 1 966.
10 . .il.e2 � bd7 1 1 .0-0 b6
1 1 . . . d x c 4 Game 2 1 : S o k o l sky-
Shagalovich, Minsk 1 959.
68
12.d3 -'\.b7 13.�bd2 '11/ c7
t4.h3!
Taking the pawn out of the firing line.
1 4 . .11b 2 involves a pawn sac 1 4 . . . dxc4
1 5 .4Jxc4 ..ll xf3 16.gxf3 ..ll x h2+ 17.'it'g2
..Q.d6 18.d4 cxd4 (18 . . . 4Jd5!?) 1 9.'ft!xd4
..llc 5 20.�h4 ..lle7 2 l .Ad3 h6 (stron­
ger was 2 1 . . .g6!) 22.f!.g1 4Jd5?? Loses.
Any rook move w o u l d be better.
23.'it'h 1 ! 1 -0, Sokolsky-Shifman, corr
1 94 8 2 3 . . . Jl x h 4 2 4 . f!. x g 7 + 'it'h8
25.f!.h7+ 'it'g8 26. f!. h8 # .
14... ~as
1 4. . ...1le7!? The idea i s for the bishop to
go to f6 (when it's vacated) to challenge
White 's dominance of the a l - h8 diago­
nal.
15 . .Q.b2 E!a7 t6.'11/c 2 '11/ b 8 17.E!at
E! x al + 18 .il.xal '11/ aS 19.-'\.c3 h6
•
Black can't prevent �c2-b2 . 19 . . . 'ft!a3
20.4Jb1 'ft!a8 2 l .'ft!b2.
20.'11/ b 2
White 's pieces are optimally placed, but
at the same time Black is safe and se-
cure; the chances are equal.
 The Sokolsky Opening
Summary: In this line we recommend
the solid 1 4.h3! since the pawn offer
with 14.Ab2 leads to uncertainties.
Chapter 3C
l.b4 e6 2.j}.b2 �f6 3.b5 c6
Similarly to the previous section (Chap­
ter 3B featuring 3 . . . a6) Black wants to
get rid of the white b-pawn in order to
mobilize the queenside.
4.a4
4.c4
A) 4 . . . cxb5 5.cxb5
1) 5 . . . a6 6.e3 (6.a4!?) 6 . . . axb5 7.Axb5
Ae7 8..£lf3 0-0 9.0-0 d6 1 0.a4 Ad7
l l ..£lc3 .£Ja6 1 2 .d4 .£lc7 1 3 : �b3 Axb5
14 . .£Jxb5 .£Jxb5 1 5 .�xb5 b6 16.Ac3
4Jd5 17.Ad2 �b8 18.E!fb1 f5 1 9 . .£le 1
l::i c8 20.a5 with a clear positional ad­
vantage, Laine-Bluett, Haifa 1 976;
2) 5 ... d5 6.e3 �e7 (6 . . . ..1ld6!? 7.d4 0-0
8 . .lld3 .£Jbd7 9 . .£lf3=) 7 . .£lf3 0-0 8.�e2
.lld7 9.0-0 a6 10.a4 axb5 1 l .axb5 E! xa1
12 . .ll xa1 Ae8 1 3 . .£lc3 .£Jbd7 14.d4 .£Jb6
15.�b3 .£Jfd7 16.Ab2 f5 17.Aa3 .£Jf6
18.f!a1 .£Je4 19.Axe7 �xe7 20 . .£Jxe4
69
fxe4 2 1 ..£le5 �f6 2 2 . E! fl h5 Ruhle­
Hendry, Bad Wildbad 1 993 23.f3!? with
the better position;
B) 4 . . . d5 5 .e3
1) 5 . . . Ae7
a) 6.�e2 0-0
(i) 7.f4 .£Jbd7 8 . .£lf3 �b6 9.a4 a6 10.a5
�d8 1 l .b6 .£Jc5 1 2 .0-0 .£Jce4 1 3 .d3
.£Jd6 14.c5! Sealing the queenside like
this constricts Black's further develop­
ment 14 . . . .£Jf5 1 5 .�c1 .£Jg4 16.e4 .£Jh4?
(16 . . . .£Jfe3 17.f!e1 ± ) 17 . .£lxh4 .£lxh2
18.'it>xh2 ..ll x h4 1 9.�e3 f5 20.e5 and
Black has no compensation for the
piece, Junghaenel-Assmann, Germany
200 1 ;
(ii) 7 . .£lf3 dxc4 8.a4!? a6 9.Axc4 axb5
10.axb5 E! xa1 1 1 ...1lxa1 transposes to
E . Pedersen-B . S orensen, Denmark
1 9 9 4 , w h i c h continued 1 1 . . . c x b 5
1 2 .Axb5 Ad7 1 3 :�a4 �b6 1 4 . .£lc3
E!c8 1 5.Axd7 .£lbxd7 16.0-0 .£Jc5 Y2-Y2;
b) 6 . .£Jc3 0-0 7 . .£lf3 .£Jbd7 8.Ae2
(i) 8 . . . �c7 9 . E! c 1 c5 1 0 . cxd5 exd5
1 1 . 0-0 ..ll d 6 1 2 . h3 E! e8 1 3 . f! e 1 b6
1 4 . d4 c4 1 5 . �c 2 .£Jf8 1 6 . a4 .£Jg6
17.E!a1 .£Je7 1 8 ...1la3 �f5 1 9.�b2 .£Je4
20 . ..1l x d 6 � x d 6 2 1 . .£l x e4 A x e 4
22.E!ecl E!ac8 23.a5 .£Jf5 24.axb6 axb6
25.E!a7 E!e6? ( o 25 . . . �g6) 26 . .£Jg5 E!f6
 l .b4 e6
27.4Jxe4 and White went on to win,
Skaug-Blomkvist, Fredrikstad 2002;
(ii) 8 . . . 4Jb6 9.d3 .1ld7 10.0-0 E k8 1 1 .a4
d x c 4 1 2 . d x c 4 c x b 5 1 3 . c x b 5 4Jc4
1 4 . A xc4 E! x c4 1 5 . 4J e 5 ;t S chulze­
Frieser, Germany 1 995;
2) 5 ... Ad6 6.4Jf3 0-0 7 . .!1e2 dxc4
a) 8.a4 a6 9.Axc4 (9.4Ja3!?) 9 . . . fJe7
(9 . . . axb5 10.axb5 E! xa1 1 l .Axa1 cxb5
1 2 .Axb5 4Jc6 1 3 . 0-0 Ad7 14.4Jc3 e5
1 5 .d3 �b6 oo ) 10.0-0 e5 1 1 .d3 cxb5
1 2 .axb5 4Jbd7 1 3.bxa6 bxa6 14.4Jbd2
.llb7 1 5 .�e2 a5 16.E!fcl a4 17.E!ab1
a3 1 8 ...Q.a1 E!fb8 19.e4 4Jc5 20.d4 exd4
(20 . . . 4Jcxe4?? 2 1 .dxe5 +- Teichmann­
Solomon, Melbourne 2002) 2 l .e5 a2
22.f!b5 ..Q.xf3 23.f! xb8+ f! xb8 24.4Jxf3
E!b1 25.E!fl ± ;
b) 8 . ..Q.xc4 cxb5 9 . .!1xb5 a6 1 0.Ae2 b5
1 1 . 0-0 4Jbd7 1 2 .d3 4Jc5 1 3 .4Jc3 b4
14.4Ja4 4Jxa4 1 5 .�xa4 Ad7=;
C) 4 . . .Ae7 5.e3 (5.a4!? transposes to
4.a4 Ae7 5.c4) 5 . . . 0-0 6.4Jf3
1) 6 . . . b6 7.Ae2 cxb5 8.cxb5 d5 9.0-0
.llb7 10.a4 4Jbd7 1 1 .4Jc3 E! c8 1 2 .d4
Ab4 1 3 . �b 3 A a 5 1 4 . E! fc 1 4Je4
( 1 4 . . . 4Je8?? 15 . .1la3 +- Herm-Donkoff,
Karlsruhe 2003) 1 5 . 4Ja 2 intending
4Ja2-b4 with good chances;
2) 6 . . . d5 7.a4
70
a) 7 . . . a6 8 . 4Jc3 4Jbd7 9 . .1le2 dxc4
1 0.Axc4 axb5 1 1 .axb5 E! xa1 1 2 .�xa1
cxb5 1 3.4Jxb5 4Jc5 1 4.0-0 with more
freedom of action;
b) 7 . . . cxb5 8.cxb5 a6 9.4Jc3 4Je4 1 0.d3
4Jxc3 1 1 .Axc3 4Jd7 1 2 . .1le2 ..Q.f6 1 3 .d4
axb5 14.axb5 E! xa1 1 5 .�xaU ;
c) 7 . . . 4Jbd7=;
D) 4 . . . Ac5
1) 5 . e3 0-0 6 . 4Jf3 d5 7 .�c2 4Jbd7
8 . cxd5 cxd5 9 . .1le2 b6 1 0 . 0-0 .ll b7
l l . d4 .ll d 6 1 2 . .1la3 �e7 1 3 . .1lxd6
� x d 6 1 4 . 4Jc 3 E! fc 8 1 5 . �b 2 E! c7
1 6 . E! fc 1 E! ac8 1 7 . .1ld3 4Je4 1 8. 4Je2
White is more active because ofBiack's
passive bishop;
2) 5.d4 .llb 4+ 6.Ac3 �a5 7.�d2 Axc3
a) 8.�xc3 �xc3+ 9.4Jxc3 d5 1 0.e3 0-0
1 1 .4Jf3 4Jbd7 ( 1 1 . . .a6 1 2 .bxc6 4Jxc6
1 3 .c5 ± ) 1 2 .a4 a6 1 3.bxc6 bxc6 14.E!b1
White has the better position and can
continue with Af1 -d3 and �e1 -d2;
b) 8 . 4J x c 3 0-0 9 . e 3 d5 1 0 . 4Jf3 a6
1 1 .bxc6 4Jxc6 1 2 .c5 b6 1 3 . cxb6 �xb6
14 . .1le2 .lld7 1 5 .0-0 it .
4 ... a6
Black is determined to eliminate the b­
pawn.
A) 4 . . . d5 5 .e3
1) 5 . . ..1le7 6.4Jf3
a) 6 . . . .1ld7 7 . c4 dxc4 8.Axc4 cxb5
9.axb5 0-0 1 0.�c2 4Jd5 1 1 . 0-0 ..Q.f6
1 2 .d4 �c7 1 3 .�e2 E! c8 14.4Jbd2 �d8
1 5.E!fcl Ae8 16.g3 4Jd7 17.e4 4J5b6
1 8 . e 5 .ll g 5? ( o 1 8 . . . 4Jxc4 1 9 . 4Jxc4
..Q.e7) 1 9 . 4Jxg5 �xg5 2 0 . 4Je4 �d8
2 1 . 4Jd6 E! c7 22 . .1lb3 E! x c 1 +
23.E!xcl +- Schoppmeyer-Muschalle,
Loehne 1 97 1 ;
 The Sokolsky Opening

b) 6 . . . 0-0 7.c4 transposes to 4.c4 Ae7

5.e3 0-0 6.<tlf3 d5 7.a4;

2) 5 . . . a6 6.c4 axb5 (6 . . . ..\ld6 7.<tlf3=)

7.cxd5 exd5 8.axb5 !! xa1 9.Axa1 Ad6
10.<tlf3 ( 1 0.f4!?) 10 . . . 0-0 1 l .bxc6 <tlxc6
(1 1 . . .bxc6!?) 1 2 . .lle 2 �e7 1 3.�b3 <tle4
14.�xd5 <tlb4 1 5 .'�b3 <ticS (if 1 5 . . . ..\le6
16.�b2) 16.�c4 .lle 6 17:�c3 f6 1 8.0-
0 <tlb3 1 9 . .llc4 (or 1 9.'lii'b 2!?) 1 9 . . . <tlxa1
(probably better is 1 9 . . . !! c8 20 . .ll x e6+
�xe6 2 l . <tlg 5 oo ) 20 . .ll x e 6 + � x e 6
2l .�xa1 !! c8 22.<tlc3 leaving White a
pawn up, Wessel-Wink, Germany 1 989;
3) 5 . . . Ad7 6.c4
a) 6 . . . ..\ld6 7 . d4 dxc4 8 . .1lxc4 �e7
9 . <tld2 e5 1 0 . <tlgf3 e x d4 ( 1 0 . . . e4
l l .<tle5 i!i ) 1 l . A x d4 h6 1 2 . 0-0 c 5
1 3 . ..\lb2 Ae6 14.Ad3 <tlbd7 1 5 .e4 Ac7
16.e5 <tlg4 1 7 . !! e 1 ± Kus-Gondko ,
Kolobrzeg 200 1 ;
b) 6 . . . a6 7.<tlc3 Ae7 8.<tlf3 0-0 9.Ae2
dxc4 10 . ..\l x c 4 �b6 1 1 . 0 -0 a x b 5
12.axb5 !! xa1 1 3 . ..1lxa1 cxb5 1 4.<tlxb5
!!c8 1 5 .d3 <tla6 1 6 . .lld4 i!i ;
4) 5 . . . .lld6 6.<tlf3 (6.f4!?) 6 . . . 0-0 7 . .lle 2
.£lbd7 (7 . . . a6 8.c4 axb5 9.axb5 !! xa 1
10 . ..\lxa1 dxc4 1 1 ..ll x c4 .lld7 1 2 .bxc6
Axc6 1 3 . ..1le2 <tlbd7 14.0-0 �c7 1 5 .h3
!!b8 16.<tld4 e5 17 .<tlxc6 bxc6 1 8.d3
.£lc5 1 9 . <tld 2 <tld5 2 0 . �c 2 <tlb4
21. �c4 ;!; Melhorn- Schweizer, corr
200 1 ) 8.d4 (8.c4 e5 =i= ) 8 . . . c5 9.0-0 b6
10 .c4 dxc4 1 l .<tlbd2 cxd4 1 2 .<tlxc4
Ac7 1 3 . <tl xd4 Ab7 1 4 . Af3 .ll x f3
(14 . . . ..\lxh2 + 1 5 .�h 1 ! ) 1 5 .�xf3 e5?
(Black is still worse but at least gets a
pawn from 1 5 . . . Axh2+ 1 6.�h1 Ac7
17 ..£lc6) 16.4Jc6 �e8 17.-lii'f5 ± Fichte­
Poetsch, Bad Zwesten 2003 ;
B) 4 . . . �b6 5 .e3 a6 6.c4 axb5 7.axb5
!!xa1 8 . .1lxa1 d5
1 ) 9.bxc6 bxc6 10.cxd5 cxd5 1 1 .<tlf3
..lle7 1 2 . .lle 2 ..lld7 1 3 . 0-0 0-0 14.<tlc3
<tlc6 1 5 . -lii' b 1 !! b8 1 6 . � xb6 !! x b6
17.!!b1 !! xb 1 + 18.<tlxb1 h6 with an
equal ending, Seitner-Moesl, Germany
1 997;
2) 9.cxd5 cxd5 (9 . . . exd5 10 . ..\lxf6 gxf6
1 l .<tlc3 i!i ) 1 0 . <tlf3 ( 1 0 . f4!?) 1 0 . . . .lle 7
1 1 ..lle 2 <tlbd7 1 2 .0-0 0-0 1 3.�c2 ..lld6
14.!!cl ;!; Black still has to develop his
light-squared bishop;
C) 4 . . . g6
1) 5.e4 ..llg7 6.e5 <tld5 7.c4 <tle7 8.f4
(8.<tlf3 d6 9.�cU ) 8 . . . 0-0 9.<tlf3 d6
1 0 . d4 d x e 5 1 l . fx e 5 ( o 1 l . d x e 5 !?)
11 ... c5 1 2.dxc5 'tii' x d1 + 1 3 .�xd1 !!d8+
14.�c2 <tld7 1 5 . ..1ld4 <tlf5 16 . ..1lf2 <tlxe5
17.<tlxe5 .ll x e5 18.<tlc3 Ad7 19.!!d1
Ae8 20.!! xd8 !! xd8= Streit-T.Richter,
Germany 2002;
2) 5.c4 ..llg7 6.d4 0-0 7.e3 !! e8 8.<tlf3
d5 9 . .lle 2 <tlbd7 1 0.<tlbd2 a6 1 1 .0-0
axb5 1 2 . a xb5 !! x a 1 1 3 . � x a 1 �c7
14.!!cl <tle4 1 5 .<tlxe4 dxe4 16.<tld2 f5
1 7 .g3 c 5 1 8 . <tlb3 b6 1 9 . !! d 1 Ab7
2 0 . dx c 5 .ll x b2 2 l . c x b6! ( 2 l . � x b 2
<tl x c 5 2 2 . <tl x c 5 b x c 5 2 3 . � d 2 i!i
S chwi chtenberg- G u l l a , Griesheim

71
 l .b4 e6
2003) 2 1 . . . .ll. x a 1 ( 2 1 . . . <tl x b6
22.�xb2 +- ) 22.bxc7 +- ;
D) 4 . . ..1l.e7 5.e3 (5.c4 d5 6.e3 0-0 7.<tlf3
transposes to 4.c4 ..lle7 5 .e3 0-0 6.<tlf3
d5 7.a4)
1) 5 . . . 0-0 6.c4 cxb5 7.cxb5 a6 8.<tlf3
a x b 5 9 . ..1l x b 5 ( 9 . a x b 5 ! ? ) 9 . . . <tld5
10.<tlc3 <tlxc3 1 1 ...1lxc3 d5 1 2 . 0-0 ..lld7
1 3.'li1/b3 ..\lxb5 1 4.axb5 E! xa1 1 5 . E! xa1
b6 16.E!a7 White's control of the a-file
gives him the advantage, Van Esbroeck­
Reichel, email 1 993 ;
2) 5 . . . cxb5 6.axb5 b6 7.<tlf3 0-0 8 . .1l.e2
..ll b 7 9 . 0-0 d5 1 0 . d4 <tle4 1 1 .<tlbd2
<tl x d 2 1 2 . � x d 2 a6 1 3 . b x a 6 <tl x a6
14.E!fc l ..llb4 1 5 .c3 ..lld6 16 . ..\ld3 g6
17.�e2 <tlc7 18.E! xa8 <tlxa8 19.e4 dxe4
20 . ..\lxe4 ..llxe4 2 1 .�xe4 .ll.c7? (2l . . .b5!)
2 2 . c4 ! �b8 2 3 . E! a 1 E! e8 2 4 . d5 e 5
(24 . . . e x d 5 2 5 . �d4 +- ) 2 5 . 'li1/h4 b5
26.c5 +- Buss-Esposito, USA 1 989;
E) 4 . . . cxb5 5.axb5
1) 5 . . . a5 6.c4 d5 7.e3 dxc4 8 . ..1lxc4
<tlbd7 9.<tlf3 <tlb6 1 0 . ..1le2 Ad6 1 1 .0-0
0-0 1 2 .<tlc3 e5 1 3 .d3 �e7 1 4 . <£la4
<tlfd5=;
2) 5 ... b6 6.e3 d5 7.c4 <tlbd7 8.<tlf3 Ab7
9.d4 .ll.b 4+ 1 0.Ac3 ..\lxc3+ 1 1 .<tlxc3
72
�c7 1 2.E!a4 0-0 1 3 . .1l.e2 a6 14.0-0 <tle4
1 5 .<tlxe4 dxe4 1 6.<tld2 axb5 17.cxb5
e5=;
3) 5 ... ..\lc5 6.e3 d5 7.d4 .llb 4+ 8.<£ld2
(8.c3!?) 8 . . . <£le4 9. <tlgf3 0-0 1 0 . ..\ld3
<tld6 1 1 . 0 -0 f5 1 2 . <tlb 3 ± Greer­
J.Phllips, USA 1 980;
4) 5 . . . ..1le7 6 . c4 0-0 7 . e3 d5 8 . <tlf3
<tlbd7 9 . ..\l e 2 d x c 4 1 0 . ..\l x c 4 <tlb6
1 1 . ..\l e 2 ..ll d 7 1 2 . 0-0 'li1/c7 1 3 . �b3
E! fc8=;
F) 4 . . . ..Q.b4 Game 2 2 : Pommerei­
Bankwitz, email 1 984 .
5.c4 axb5
5 . . . ..1lc 5 ! ? Rare and unanalyzed 6 . e 3
0-0:
A) 7.<tlf3 d6 8 ...\le2 e5 9.0-0
1 ) 9 . . . E! e8 1 0 . d4 e x d4 1 l . <tl x d4
( 1 l .exd4 .itb4 1 2 .<tlc3 axb5 1 3 .axb5
E! xa1 14 . ..1lxa1 d5=) 1 l . . . axb5 1 2 .axb5
E! xa 1 1 3 .Axa1 followed by <tlb1 -d2
and the slightly better game;
2) 9 . . . e4 10.<tld4 d5 1 1 .<tlb3 .ll.e7 1 2 .d3
dxc4 1 3 . dxc4 a x b 5 1 4 . a xb5 E! x a 1
1 5 . ..1lxa1 �xd1 16.E! xd1 <tlbd7 17.<tlc3
<tl c 5 1 8 . <tl x c 5 ..ll x c 5 1 9 . <tl a4 ..ll e 7
20 . ..1ld4 ;!; ;
B) 7.d4 Ab4+ 8 . ..1lc3 .ll. x c3+ 9.<tlxc3
�a5 10.E!cl axb5 1 l .axb5 d5 12 . .1l.d3
dxc4 1 3 . ..1lxc4 cxb5 14 . .itxb5 .ll. d7
1 5 .�b3 E! c8 1 6 . <tlge2 <tle4 1 7 .Ad3
<tlxc3 1 8.<tlxc3 b5=.
6.axb5
The normal reaction.
 The Sokolsky Opening
6.cxb5 d5 7.e3 ..lle7 8.<£lf3 0-0 9.<£lc3
c5 1 0 . Ad3 <i:lbd7 1 1..-'t b l b6 1 2 . d4
..ll b7 1 3 . 0-0 h6 1 4 . �d3 .§ e8 1 5 .<£le5
c4 1 6 . �c 2 <i:lf8 1 7 . f4 <£\6d7 1 8 . .§ f3
f5 1 9 . ..1la3 <i:l x e 5 2 0 . fx e 5 ..ll x a 3
2 1 . .§ xa3 Kuhn-Conrad, Germany 2000
2 l . . .�e7=.
6....§xal 7,j}_xal 'ita5 8 ..£)c3
White 's first eight moves have been
confined to the a-b-c-files.
8 ... .Q.b4 9 .e3 d S 1 0 . � f3 � bd7
1 1 . b x c6 b x c6 1 2 . � d4 .Q. b 7
13 . .Q.e2 0-0 14.0-0 � c S 1S:�·c2 eS
16.�f3 laeS
17.d4
White can go in for some tacti c s :
17.<£\xe5 .§ xe5 18.d4 etc.
17 ...exd4 18.� xd4 �fe4 19.� xe4
dxe4 20.labl
Ploss-Eiler, Austria 1 994. White has the
better prospects because of various
threats involving the long dark diago­
nal; e.g., 2 1 .<£\xc6 ..ll x c6 22.�b2.
Summary: In this section, Black's plan
to liquidate White 's b-pawn, and swap
73
queens ide rooks, turns out to be too sim­
plistic. White has good chances for the
advantage.
Chapter 3D
l .b4 e6 2 . .Q.b2 �f6 3.bS .Q.e7
Black delays any decisions about pawn
structure unti l after he has safely
castled.
4.�(3
This is yet another opportunity to ex­
periment with 4 . f4!?; e.g., 4 . . . d5 5 . e3
0-0 6.<£lf3=.
4 . . . 0-0
If 4 . . . a6, 5 . a4 needs to be played to
maintain the cramping b-pawn. 5 . . . axb5
6. axb5 .§ x a 1 7 . A x a 1 c6 8 . c4 cxb5
9 . cxb5 �a5 1 0 . <£lc3 d5 l l .e3 ..llb 4
12 . ..1le2 ..lld7 1 3 . 0-0 0-0 14.�b3 .ll x c3
1 5 . ..1lxc3 �d8 16 . .§a1 Black's problems
with queenside development give White
a clear advantage, Bonetti - D.Rush, ICC
2002 .
s.e3
Transposes to Game 23, but the analy­
ses up to move 1 6 are considered here.
s . . . c6
A) 5 . . . a6 6.a4
1) 6 . . . axb5 7. axb5 .§ xa 1 8 . ..1lxa1 c6
9 . c4 ( ,;; 9.bxc6 bxc6) 9 . . . d5 1 0 .<£lc3
dxc4 l l ..ll x c4 cxb5 1 2 . <£\xb5 <i:lbd7
1 3 . 0-0 <i:lb6 14 . ..1le2 ..lld7 1 5 .�bl ..llc 6
16.<£\bd4 (16.<£lfd4!?) 1 6 . . . ..1ld5 1 7 . .§cl
White is more active;
 l .b4 e6

2) 6 . . . d5 7.c4 c6 transposes to Chapter We ak i s 1 5 ... ,il.xc4 1 6 . ! h c 4 �d5

3C, i.e., l .b4 e6 2 . ..\lb2 .£\f6 3.b5 c6
4.c4 Ae7 5 .e3 0-0 6Ajf3 d5 7.a4 a6;
B) 5 . . . b6 6.d4 Ab7 7.Ad3 c5 8.0-0 d6
9.dxc5 bxc5 10.c4 .£\bd7 l l . .£\bd2 a6
(White has good chances after 1 1 . . .d5
1 2 .a4 �c7 1 3 .�c2 ..lld6 1 4.h3 t! ac8
1 5 . a 5 ) 1 2 . a 4 a x b 5 1 3 . a x b 5 t! x a 1
14.�xa1 �a8 1 5 .Ac3 �xa1 16.t!xa1
t! a8 17.t! xa8+ Axa8 18.�fl White has
the better endgame chances thanks to
his passed, protected b-pawn.
6.a4
17 .!k7! � .
16 . .Q.a31
White seeks a positional advantage by
dominating the dark squares in Black's
territory. For the continuation see Game
23 : Sokolsky-Abzirko, Odessa 1 943 .
S u mmary: In the main line White tries
to take advantage of B l ack's slow
queenside development. Note the pos­
sibility of 4.f2-f4 instead of 4 . .£\g1 -f3.
Game 9
Soko/sky-Byvshev
USSR 1 95 1

l.b4 4)f6 2.Ab2 e6 3.b5 d5 4.e3

a6

4 . . . c5 is the main line in Chapter 3 .

5.a4 4)bd7

Black avoids the usual choice, which is

6 •.. d5
to swap pawns and rooks, for which see
Chapter 3 B . 5 . . . c5 6 . .£\f3 Ad6 7 . c4
If 6 . . . a6, then 7 . c4 (7 . .£\c3!?) 7 . . . d5 .£\bd7 8.d3 transposes (8 . ..1le2, Game
8 . .£\c3 .£\bd7 9.cxd5 exd5 1 0.Ae2 fol­ 1 0).
lowed by 1 1 .0-0.
6.4)(3
7.c4 a6 8.4)c3 a xb5 9.axb5 E! x al
I O . � x a l d x c4 l l . .Q. x c4 c x b 5
12.4) x b5

Black has achieved his aim of eliminat­

ing the white b -pawn, and can now de­
velop a knight to c6 - or a bishop.

12 . . . .Q.d7 1 3 . 0 - 0 Ac6 1 4 . 4) fd4

Ad5 15.E!cl 4)bd7

Black completes his development at last.

74
 The Sokolsky Opening

6 .Q.d6
..•
6 . . . .£lc5 7 . .(,te2 a x b 5 8 . a x b 5 !! x a 1
9. ..llx a 1 .(,te7 10.0-0 0-0 1 1 . .£lc3 .£\fe4
12 :�b1 ..1lf6 1 3 .d4 .£lxc3 1 4 . ..1lxc3 .£le4
15 . ..1lb4 = NCO; Y2-Y2, Rashkovsky­
Tseshkovsky, Alma-Ata 1 989.
7.c4 cS 8.d3
If White tries to apply pressure against
the d5-pawn by 8 . .£lc3 0-0 9. �b3 Black
simply advances it 9 . . . d4 =i= .
8 ... 0-0 9 . 4) bd2 b6 10 .Q.e2 .Q.b7
• s i v e . 1 7 . .£lbd2 (White can ' t allow
1 1.0-0
Sokolsky recommended 14 . . . f! ac8 so
that the queen could hide on b8.
1S.flb3 E{ea8 16.4)bl
The knight heads for c3 to pressurize
the center, or a3 to trap the rook. Little
is gained by 1 6 . f! a l f! xa l 1 7 . f! xa l
f! xa1 + 1 8 . ..1lxa1 �b8 but little is lost
either.
t6 . . . fld8
16 . . . d4 is obviously strong and aggres­
1 7 . e x d4 cxd4 1 8 . .£lxd4 .£lc5 -+ or
1 7 . .£la3 f! 8 x a 3 1 8 . ..1l x a 3 f! x e 2 -+ ;
maybe 17.e4 is best) 17 . . . dxe3 18.fxe3
.£lh5 :j: .

17.E{fdl E{2a4

The rook would be threatened by the b­

knight next move. 17 . . . d4 now would
be similar to the previous note.

18.4)c3 !a4aS 19.d4!

l l ... flc7

The queen could go the other way :

l l . . : �e7 1 2 .�c2 axb5 1 3 .axb5 e 5
14.cxd5 .£lxd5 1 5 . .£\c4=.

12.h3 E{fe8 13.lacl!?

White gives up the a-file in the hope of

exploiting the position of the black
queen with d3-d4 etc.
White 's pieces are well-placed for this
13 axbS 14.axbS E{a2
••• thrust, which puts a pawn on d4 before
Black can.
Yes, Black controls the a-file, but in this
game it doesn 't result in very much. 19 ••• .Q.b8?!

75
 l .b4 e6

Stronger was 1 9 . . . dxc4!? 20:�xc4 "ffle7 'it>xf8 3 1 .b6 l':'! a8 32.4Jd2 +- also loses
with chances for equality. for Black) 29 . . . l':'! a8 30.Ac7 +- .

20.cxd5 exd5 21.dxc5 bxc5? 2 6 . .1lc4 E!Sa7 2 7 . � e 5 .1l x e5

28 . .1lxe5 E!a4 29 . .1ld6
Black should take with the knight, gain­
ing control of the e4 - square in return
for relinquishing control of the d4 -
square.

29 . . . �e6?

Black crumples under the pressure.

Necessary was 29 .. :�d8 although af­
ter 30.�xc5 4Jd7 3 1 .�d4 White retains
22. � x d5! the advantage.

Completely unforeseen by Black, pre - 30.b6

sumably.
The b -pawn decides the game - how
22. . .� x d5 2 3 . E! x d 5 Jl x d 5 appropriate ! - although strictly speak­
24. t\' xd5 �e7 ing it started life on the a- file.

24 . . . l':'!a2 can lead to sharp play: 30 . . . E{ d 7 3 l .b7 E! b4 3 2 . � x c 5

A) 2 5 . 4:\gS �e8 (25 . . . �e7? 26.Ac4;
e . g . , 26 . . . 4Jb6 2 7 . �f5 +- ) 2 6 . �b 3
�e7 oo ;
B) 25.l':'!c2!? intending 26.Ac4 looks to
be a less uncertain adventure.
E! x d6 33.E! xd6!
Correct. After the careless 33.Axe6?
l':'! xdl + 34.'it>h2 l':'! xb7 Black has two
rooks for the queen.
33 . . . E{bl+ 34.�h2 �e7 35.Ad5

25.E!dl �f8 Even better is 35.�b5! l':'! xb5 36.�xb5

�xd6+ 37.f4 �b8 38.�c6 +- .
A losing line is 25 . . . 4Jf6 26.�d8+ �f8
2 7 . .il x f6 ! Ah 2 + 2 8 . 'it> x h 2 l':'! x d8 35 . . . g6 36.f4 �g7 37.�d4+ �h6
2 9 . Axd8 ( 2 9 . l':'! xd8 gxf6 3 0 . l':'! x f8 + 38.E{b6 1-0

76
 The Sokolsky Opening

Game 1 0 As in Game 9 , White's rook abandons

Sokolsky-Usov the a-file in order to try to take advan­
Odessa 1 960 tage of the black queen being on the c­
file.
l.b4 e6 2 . .1lb2 4)f6 3.b5 a6 4.a4
d5 5.e3 c5 6.4)f3 .1ld6 7.c4 4)bd7 ll •.. axb5 12.axb5 0-0 13.h3 E{a2
8 . .1le2 b6
Doubling the rooks on the a-file won't
bring all it promises. Black should con­
sider 1 3 . . . El. ac8 so that his queen could
hide on b8.

14.flb3 E{fa8 15.0-0 cxd4

Relieving the pressure. Black should be

a bit more patient and play 1 5 . . . .£le4!?
because after 1 6.cxd5 .£\xd2 17 . .£\xd2
exd5 he has a good game.

9.d4 t6 . .Q.xd4 4)c5 17.flbl e5 18 .Q.b2 •

fle7 19.cxd5
9.d3:
19.El.c2!? threatens to win a pawn by
A) 9 . . :�c7 1 0.h3 dxc4 l l .dxc4 .llb7 20 . .1l x e 5 fl. xc2 2 1 . .1l x d6 � x d6
1 2 . .£lc3 0-0 1 3 .bxa6 .ll x a6 1 4 . .£lb5 22 :�xc2.
.ll x b5 1 5 . a x b 5 El. fd8 1 6 . 0 - 0 .£lf8
17.'lii'c 2 .£lg6 18.El.fdl El. xa l 1 9 . El. xal 19 ... .1lxd5 20 . .1lc4
4Jd7 2 0 . El. d l White is more active,
Kilpatrick-Sadowski, Scotland 1 988;

B) 9 ... axb5 10.axb5 f!. xal l l ..ll x al 0-0

12.0-0 .llb7 1 3 . .£lbd2 �c7 1 4.h3 El. a8
15 :�c2 .£le5 1 6 . El. c l �b8 1 7 . .£\xe5
.llx e5 1 8 . .1lxe5 �xe5 1 9 .cxd5 .£\xd5
20.4Jc4 �g5 = Kasper-Schulze, corr
1 97 5 .

9 ... flc7

It isn't necessary to commit the queen 20 . . . E{ x b2!?

at this stage. o 9 . . . .1lb7, Chapter 3, see
6 . . . .ll d6 7 . .1le2 a6 8.a4 b6 9.d4 .llb 7. It's not clear Black would be getting
anywhere by retreating the rook, so he
10.4)bd2 .1lb7 l l .E{cl tries a positional exchange sacrifice.

77
 l .b4 e6

21.'� x b2 e4 22.�h2 37 . . . �xf7 38.�h8+ �h7 39.�xb2 +- .

White is careful. After 22 . .£ld4 �e5 38. 'lf/g8 # 1-0

23.g3 h5 24.E!al E!c8 25 . ..\lxd5 �xd5
(25 . . . .£lxd5 26 . .£lc4 ± ) 26.�a2 �g5 Game II
27 . .£lc4 ..llc 7 28 . .£lc6 E! e8 Black has Sokolsky-Szukszta
some kingside play. Polanica Zdroj 1 958

l .b4 e 6 2 .Q.b2 �f6 3.bS dS 4.e3

22 E{d8 23.�b3 �d3 24. Jl, x d3
•
•••

cS S.�f3 � bd7 6.c4 Jl,d6 7 .Jl,e2

Jl.a3
0-0 8.0-0 'lf/e7
Black regains the exchange.
8 . . . b6, Chapter 3 , see 6 . . . ..1ld6 7 . ..1le2
0-0 8.0-0 b6.
2S.'If/c3 Jl,xcl 26.E{xcl .Q.xb3?
9.a4
This drops a pawn. Black should try
2 6 . . . e x d 3 ! ? 2 7 . .£ld4 � c 5 2 8 . �b 2
(avoiding the horrible 28.�xc5 bxc5
29.E! xc5 d2 -+ ) 28 . . . ..\lc4 when he is
still very much in the game.

27 . Jl, x e4! � x e4 28. '1f/ x b3 � c S

29.'1f/c4 E{d2

Control of the 2nd rank isn't enough

compensation for the pawn deficit.
White is in a comfortable situation.

30.�{3 lab2 31.E{al! 9 •.. es

Control of the a-file is worth more than The overwhelming choice.

control of the 2nd rank.
lO.cxdS � xdS
31 ... h6 32.'1f/dSI
More often seen is 10 . . . e4 l l ..£lel
.£lxd5 1 2 .d3 exd3 1 3 . .£lxd3 .£l7f6=.
Threatening mate with 33.E!a8+ 'it'h7
34.�f5+ g6 35.�c8 etc. l l .d3 \t'h8

32 . . . \t'h7 33.'ll:\'f S+ g6 34.'1f/c8 hS Preparing . . . f7-f5 . However, according

to Sokolsky better is l l . . . .£l7f6.
Stiffer resistance is offered by 34 . . . �d6
35.�c6 �e6 36 . .£ld4 �e5 ± . 12.,£\bd2 .ilc7 13.aS fS 14.,£\c4

3 S . E{ a 8 iltf6 3 6 . � g S + I \t' h 6 White's pieces are optimally placed and

37. � x f7+! \t'h7 pressure the center. b5-b6! is planned.

78
 The Sokolsky Opening
14... 4)5f6
The complexities after 14 . . . e4 are not
in Black's favor: 1 5.dxe4 fxe4 16:i'i!xd5
exf3 17 . .!lxf3 .£lf6 1 8 . 'll! g 5 .!l x h 2 +
19.'�hl .!le6 2 0 J!fcl !!ad8 2 1 ..!la3 ± .
15.b6! axb6
White has the better chances after
15 . . . .1lb8 1 6.bxa7 !! xa7 1 7.lL:lb6 lL:lxb6
1 8 .axb6 !! xa l 1 9 . 'll! x a l e4 2 0 A je 5
exd3 21 ..1lxd3 .
1 6 . a x b6 §. x a l 1 7 . � x a l .£} x b6
18 . .£) xb6 Jl. x b6 19.Jl. xe5
The exchanges have been to White 's
advantage.
19 ... .£)d5 20.g3
To deter . . .f5-f4.
20 ... Jl.e6 2l.§.cl .£)b4 22.d4 cxd4
23.Jl.xd4 .ilxd4 24.�xd4
24 . .£lxd4!? looks good too.
24 ... .£)c6 25. �c5 §.cS
26.~b6
White declines the variation 26.'ll! x e7
.£ixe7 27.!! xc8+ .!lxc8 28 . .£ld4 . He
79
hopes to reach such a (superior) ending
at an even more advantageous time.
26 . . . �c7?
Black misjudges the situation with the
heavy pieces off. 26 . . . Ad5 !? would
maintain the fight.
27.~xc7 ~ "d4 .Q.c8
'°'xc7 28.'Z..J
Not 28 . . . .£lxd4? 29.!! xc7 lL:lxe2+ 30.'�fl
with a won ending.
29 .£) b 5 §. d 7 3 0 . Jl.f3
• §.d8
31.Jl.xc6 bxc6 32 . .£)d4!
32.!! xc6?? !!dl + 33.'<t>g2 .!lb7 -+ .
32 ... .Q.d7 33. 4)b3 .Q.e6 34.4)d4
A repetition - with an eye on the clock,
perhaps.
34 . . ..1ld7 35.§.c5 g6 36.§.a5 ""g8
37.f4!
Creating an outpost on e5 for the knight.
37 ... ""f7 38.§.a7 ""e8 39 . .£)f3 ""e7
40 . .£)e5
White is in prime position, and inciden­
tally threatens to take the c -pawn.
 l .b4 e6

40 . . . <i!]e8 4 t . E!c7 <i!]e7 42 . E{ x c6 A) l l . . .�b8 1 2 .<£\xc4 .llc7 1 3 .a6 .lla8

E!c8 43.Eta6 E!c7 44.h3 J}.e6 45.g4 14.d3 <tld5 1 5 .�b3 <£\7f6 16.<£\fe5 <£\e7
fxg4 46.hxg4 Jld5 47.f5! 17.e4 <£\d7 18.£4 <£\g6 19.<£\xg6 hxg6
20.�c3 'iWf6 2 l .�e l �e7 22.�g3 <£\f6
The f-pawn decides the game. 2 3 . 'iWh4 .ll d 8 2 4 . g4 <tld7 2 5 . g 5 f6
2 6 . .Q.g4 ;!; Bendig-Kuhn, Germany
47 gxf5 48.gxf5 Jlb7 49.f6+ <i!]f8
..•
1 988;
50.E{d6 E{c8 51.E{d7 Jle4 52.E{f7+
�g8 53.Etg7+ 1-0 B) l l . . . .lld 5 1 2 .<£\xc4 .ll x c4 1 3 . .1lxc4
�c7 1 4.�a4 'iWb8 1 5 .d3 bxa5 16.�xa5
53 . . .'itJf8 54.<£\d7+ \t>e8 55 .f7+ �xd7 <£\g4 1 7 . h 3 <£\ h 2 1 8 . <£\ x h 2 .ll x h 2 +
56.£8�+ winning easily. 19.'itJhl .lle 5 2 0 . .1lc3 �d8 2 l .f4 .ll xc3
22 .�xc3 i!i Hofmeister- Marolt, IECG
Game 1 2
email 2000.
Soko/sky-Andreev
corr 1 960
12.{) xc4 Ab8 13.d3 'l!fe7 14.e4!

l .b4 d5 2 . .Q.b2 {)f6 3.e3 e6 4.b5

This blocks the long light diagonal, but
c5 5.{)f3 .Q.d6 6.c4 {)bd7 7.Ae2
White is really planning <tlf3-d2 and f2-
0 - 0 8 . 0 - 0 b6 9 . a4 Ab7 1 0 . a 5
f4 with a clear positional advantage. It's
dxc4?!
hard to see how Black can counter this.
Not recommended. It hands White the
14 E{fd8 15.'1!fb3 {)e8 t6.{)fd2
c4 - square. Better is 10 . . . bxa5 which
•.•

Ac7
transposes to Chapter 3, see 6 . . . Ad6
7 . .1le2 0-0 8.0-0 b6 9.a4 .llb7 1 0.a5
If 16 . . . e5, 17 . .1lg4 gives White's light­
bxa5 .
squared bishop a useful diagonal.
l l .{)a3
17.f4

White is nicely placed to control events

over the entire board.

17 . . . <i!]h8 18.a x b6 a x b6 1 9 . E!a7

E{b8 20.e5!

A very strong move. White intends to

swap light- squared bishops then place
a knight on e4; it will take Black longer
to place a knight on d5 .

ll .•. E{c8 20 {) f8 2 1 . Af3 A x f3 2 2 . E{ x f3

•••

Eld7 23.{)e4 {)g6 24.g3

Other moves are also favorable for
White: To stop . . . <tlg6-h4-f5-d4.

80
 The Sokolsky Opening
24 ... t\'d8
24 . . . f5 2 5 . e x f6 �xf6 2 6 . �xf6 gxf6
27:�c3 ± .
25.!'!al
The rook heads to the kings ide where it
will have more impact.
2S ... {}e7 26.g4 {}dS 27.laafl �h4
28.lag3 labelS
29.fS!
The position is ripe for exploitation.
29 ... exfS 30.laxfS �g8
The f7-pawn needs reinforcement.
30 ... �b4 3 l . �cd6! (31 .�e3!? uncovers
the queen too) 3 1 . . . ..\lxd6 32.exd6 �h6
(32 . . .f6 33 . .§h5 +- ) 33 . .§ xf7 �xd6:
A) 34.! hd7 .§ xd7 35.!!f3 .§d8 36.g5
1) 36 . . . �h5 37 . ..\lxg7+! 'iftxg7 38.�c3+
'it>g8 39.�f6+ winning;
2) 36 . . . �g6 37. �xd6 �xd6 38.�f7
l::l g8 39.g6 �d5 40.!!h3 �g5+ 4l .'iftfl
h5 (4 1 . . .h6 42 . ..\lxg7+ !! xg7 43.�f8+
l::l g8 44 . .§ x h6+ � x h 6 4 5 . � xh6 • )
42.�f3 h4 43.�f2 mating;
81
B ) 3 4 . � x d 6 ! ? .§ x d6 3 5 . !! gf3 .§ g8
3 6 . .§ x g7 �xg7 37 . ..\l x g 7 + <;t? xg7
38.�f7+ 'ifth8 39.�f5 !!dg6 40.�e5+
!! 6g7 4l .g5 +- .
31 .Jlcl t\'e7
After 3 1 . . . h6 3 2 . g 5 ! (less c lear i s
3 2 . !! h 5 � e 7 3 3 . ..1l g 5 f6) 3 2 . . . �h5
33.!!fl , White has a promising attack.
32.JlgS f6 33.lagf3!
After this bold move Black's position
falls apart.
33 ... fxgS
A) 3 3 . . . �f7 3 4 . e x f6 g x f6 3 5 . ..\lxf6
�exf6 36.�e3 �xe3 37.�xf6+ 'ifth8
38.�xf7 !! xf7 39.!! xe3 +- ;
B) 33 . . . �e6 34.exf6 �exf6 35 . ..1lxf6
�xf6
1) 36.!!e3 �xg4 (36 . . . �xe4 37.!! xe4
�h6 38.�xb6+ 'tfth8 39.�xd7 �xh2+
40.'iftfl +- ) 37.�g5 �xf5 (the insertion
of37 . . . ..\lxh2+ 38.'ifthl makes little dif­
ference) 38.�d6+ 'ifth8 39.�xf5 �xe3
40.�f7+ !! xf7 (40 . . .'iftg8 4l .�xd8+ c4
42. �a2 ..llf4 43.�e6 �xf5 44.�xf4 +- )
4 l .�xf7 +- .
2) 3 6 . � x f6+ gxf6 3 7 . !! xf6 �xg4+
38.'ifth l �h4 39.�xb6+ c4 40.�xc4+
�xc4 4 l . � xc4 !! x d3 4 2 . b6 !! d l +
43.'iftg2 ..llb8 44.!!c6 White has to work
hard to make the extra pawn count.
34.e6!
This is the point of the combination.
Obviously, taking the e-pawn is an­
swered by checkmate.
 l .b4 e6
34 . . . �ef6 35.exd7 <tfilh8
35 . . . .£Jxe4 36 . .£Je3! +- .
36.~xg5 f!xd7
3 6 . . . h6 3 7 . .£Je4 l:'! x d7 tran s p o s e s
( 3 7 . . . 'l!i'xd7!? 3 8 . .£Jxf6 .£Jxf6 39 .'l!i'c3
ought to be better for White too, but
perhaps Black could get lucky in the
complications).
37 .�e4 h6 38.g5 � x e4 39.d x e4
t\' x e4 40. t\'d3 �d4+
A) 40 . . . .£Jf6 4l .'l!i'xe4 .£lxe4 42 .g6 .£Jf6
43.l:'!a3 '<t>g8 44.l:'!a6 +- ;
B) 40 . . . �g4+ 4l .l:'!g3 +- .
4 t . <tfil h l � e7 4 2 . § f8 + � g8
43.t\'xd4 § xd4 44.§3f7 Ad6
44 . . . ..1l.xh2 45.'<t>xh2 l:'! xc4 46.l:'!b7 +- .
4 5 . � x d6 § d l + 4 6 . § f l § x d6
47.§el l-O
47 . . . '<t>h7 (47 . . . h x g 5 4 8 . l:'! ee8 +- )
48.g6+! l:'! xg6 49.l:'!ee8 gains the knight.
Game l 3
Soko/sky-Keres
Moscow 1 950
l .b4 e6 2.Ab2 �f6 3.b5 c5 4.e3
d5 5.�f3 �bd7 6.c4 .Q.d6 7.d3 0-
0 s.�bd2 b6 9.Ae2 Ab7 to.o-o
t\'e7 l l .a4 a5
l l . . .l:'! ad8, Chapter 3 .
12.bxa6
1 2 .l:'!el l:'!fe8 13 . ..1l.fl l:'! ad8 1 4.�c2 oo
Lebel-Wildemeersch, Laragne 2002.
82
12 ... § xa6 13.d4 §a7 14.�e5
14 . . . §fa8
Black hopes to tie up White 's forces in
defense of the a - pawn . Sokolsky­
Atyashev, corr 1 952, went 14 . . . l:'! c8
1 5 . .£Jxd7 .£Jxd7 16.cxd5 exd5 17 . ..ll.b5
c4 18 . .£Jbl .£Jf6 19 . .1la3 ..ll.c 6 20 . .1lxd6
� x d6 2 1 . .£J c 3 l:'! a 5 ? (according to
Sokolsky better was 2 1 . . . l:'!e7) 22 . .1lxc6
�xc6 23.f3 l:'! ca8 24.�d2 .£Je8 (This
only encourages e3-e4; Black should
consider 24 . . . l:'!e8.) 25.e4 .£Jc7 26.l:'! ael
with the advantage.
1 5.f4
G o o d or not? S o ko l sky suggests
15 . .£Jxd7!?; e.g., 15 . . . .£\xd7 ( 1 5 . . . �xd7
1 6.cxd5 exd5 1 7.dxc5 bxc5 1 8 . ..1l.xf6
gxf6 1 9.Ab5 [ 1 9 . ..1l.d3 ..ll.a 6!] 1 9 . . . �e6
20.l:'!bl intending 'l!i'dl -h5, .£Jd2-f3-h4
with good chances) 16.cxd5 exd5 17.dxc5
bxc5 18 . ..1l.b5 with reasonable play.
15 . . . c x d4 16.exd4 Ab4 17.�df3
�e4 18:�·b3 � xe5 19.fxe5 §c8
20.§acl �d2 2 1 . � xd2 A x d2
22.§c2 dxc4 23.§ xc4
Only thus. 23 . ..1l.xc4? 'l!i'g5 24.d5 �e3+
25 .'<t>hl �xb3 26 . ..1l.xb3 l:'! xc2 27 . ..1l.xc2
..ll. x d5 simply loses a pawn.
 The Sokolsky Opening
23 . . . };t x c4 24. J}. x c4 �gS 2 S . d S
�e3+
Black has to play accurately too, other­
wise 2 5 . . . e x d 5 ? 2 6 . ..1l x d 5 � e 3 +
27.�hl �xb3 28.-'txb3 ..llc8 29.�dl
.llg 5 30.�d6 � a6 3 l .Ad4 Ae6 3 2 .Adl
and the b-pawn is lost.
26.�hl � x b3 27. Jl. x b3 Jl. x d S
28.Jl.xdS exdS
29.};tdl Jl.e3 30.};t xdS h6!
A simple measure against a back rank
mate, and now the a-pawn falls.
31.};td8+
Not 3 l .Ad4?? Axd4 3 2 . � xd4 b5 when
Black is on the way to winning.
31. .. �h7 32.};td3 Jl.cS 33.h3
White has to live with the loss of a
pawn. After 33 . -'1.a3 � xa4 34.Axc5
bxc5 35 .�gl � a7 36.�c3 �c7 the rook
ending is lost for White, according to
Sokolsky.
33 ... };t x a4 34.�h2 };tb4 3S.Jl.a3
§d4 36.};tb3 };te4 37 .J}.b2
The right decision, giving White the
best chances to save half a point. The
83
ending 37.Axc5 bxc5 38.�b7 � xe5
39.� xf7 �g6 would be hard to defend.
37 •.. };tel 38.};tf3
Sokolsky's suggestion 38.g4 is refuted
by 38 . . . � b l ! and 39 . . . ..1ld4 -+ .
38 . . . J}.gl + 39.�g3 �g6 40.Jl.c3
40 •.. };te4
Following the exchange of rooks by
40 . . . �e3 4 l . � xe3 Axe3 42.�f3 Ac5
43.g4 �g5 44.Ael Ad4 45.h4+ �g6
46.�e4 White proves able to organize
some sort of defense.
4t.};td3 �fS
Activation of the king is required in all
endings.
42.};tf3+
42.e6?? � xe6 43.-'1.xg7 �g6+ -+ .
42 ... �e6 43.};td3 hS 44. �f3 �fS
4S.g3 Jl.cS?
Now White is able to swap his e-pawn
for his opponent's g-pawn, which was
threatening to advance. 45 . . . g5!? is a
 l .b4 e6

surer path to victory as the threat of St.g4+ �gS S2 .1l,eS !;Ic2 S3.Jl,c7
•

. . . g5-g4+ is very great: �g6 S4 . ..Q.d8 Jlf2 SS.E!b3

A) 46.g4+ hxg4+ 4 7 . hxg4+ !! x g4 The white pieces cooperate against the

48.!!d7 !! f4+ 49.'�1g2 ..Q..c 5 50.!! xf7+ b-pawn.
'tt>g4 5 l .e6 !! e4 -+ ;
SS ... �f7 S6.Jl, xb6 Jl,xb6 S7.!;Ixb6
B) 46.'tt>g 2 ..Q..c 5 47.!!f3+ 'tt>e6 48.!! f6+
'tt>e7 49.!!h6 !!e3 50.-'l.a l !!a3 51 . ..Q..b 2
This is a dead draw.
!!a2 traps the bishop.

46.e6! fxe6 S7 !;I h 2 SS.gS !;I x h3 + S9. �g4

• • .

!;Ihl 60.!;Ib7+ �f8 6t.!;Ih7

But not 46 . . .£6? 47.!!d5+ when Black
loses material. Now the white pieces cooperate against
the h-pawn.
47. Jl, x g7 !;Ia4 4 8 . Jl, b 2 !;I b4
49 . ..Q.c3 !;Ic4 6t !;Igl+ 62.�f4 !;Ifl+ 63.�g4 e;
•••

64.!;I x h4 �f7 6S.!;Ih6 e4 66.!;If6+

Pinning the bishop by 49 . . . !!b3 results Yl-Yl
in nothing after 5 0 . g4 + h x g 4 +
5 1 . hxg4+ 'tt> g 6 ( 5 1 . . . 'tt> g 5?? Game 1 4
52 . .1ld2+ +- ) 52.'<t'e4 b5 53 . ..Q..d 2 !! xd3 Schiffler-Kaba Klein
5 4 . 'tt> x d3 'tt> f7 5 5 . 'tt> e 4 when White Binz Ruegen 1 950
should draw from here.
l .b4 e6 2.Jl,b2 4)f6 3.bS Jl,e7 4.e3
SO.Jl,b2 b6 S.f4 0-0 6.4)(3 Jl,b7 7.Jl,e2 d6
8.0-0 4)bd7 9.a4 aS 10.4)d4 !;Ic8
1 1 . Jlf3

l l .<tlc6, Chapter 3A.

n ... dS

so ... h4

This leads to a drawn rook ending.

Black could still try 50 . . . !!c2!? 5 l .g4+
hxg4+ 5 2 . hxg4+ 'tt> g 5 53 . .1le5 !! f2 +
5 4 . 'tt>g3 !! a2 55 . ..Q..f4 + 'tt>f6 etc.

84
 The Sokolsky Opening
12.c4 c5 13.4)e2
More logical and smooth is 1 3 . bxc6
Axc6 1 4 . 4Jxc6 t:!. xc6 1 5 .cxd5 4Jxd5
16.4Jc3 ( 1 6.f5!? Sokolsky) 1 6 . . . 4J7f6
17.'�'b3 with pressure.
13 ... §.c7 14.4)a3
Here Sokolsky recommended 1 4 .d3
with the b-knight going to d2 rather than
the offside a3 .
14 ... 4)e4 15.d3
15 ... j'tf6
15 . . . 4Jd6!?, preparing for exchanges on
c4, is better according to Sokolsky.
16.j'txf6 4)dxf6
This enables White to initiate kingside
operations. 16 . . . 4Jexf6 with equal play
was simplest.
17.g4
If 17.dxe4 dxe4 18.Axe4 4Jxe4 mate­
rial is level, but Black is obviously bet­
ter because his heavy pieces will con­
trol the d-file; however, 17.cxd5 exd5
18.dxe4 dxe4 is a significant improve-
85
ment on 17 .dxe4 etc. because White
will have access to the c4- square.
1 7 . . . 4) d 6 1 8 . g 5 4) d 7 1 9 . .£l g 3
§.e8
Sokolsky suggested 1 9 .. .f6!? but White
simply plays 20.h4 and continues with
his attacking plans.
20.h4 4) f8 2 1 . �e2 f5 2 2 . §.adl
�e7 23. �g2 d4?
Closing the center favors White as he
will be ab le to concentrate on the
kings ide. Black should be thinking
about opening the position by 23 . . . t:l.d8
with the plan . . . 4Jd6-f7, . . . g7-g6 and
then forcing through . . . e6-e5.
24.Jl.xb7
Interesting is 24.exd4!? cxd4 25 .4Jc2
hitting the d4 -pawn.
24 4) x b7 2 5 .e4 4)d6 26. §.del
. •.
�d7 27.h5!
With the center under control, White
can confidently push ahead like this.
27 .•. §.cc8 28.4)bl
It's high time to introduce this knight
back into the game.
28 . . . �f7
Sokolsky proposed 28 . . .fxe4 29.4Jxe4
4Jf5 with better chances than in the
game, although after 3 0 . �h3 4Je3
3 1 .t:l.f2 White is certainly better.
2 9 . 4) d 2 �b7 3 0 . 4) {3 f x e4
31.4) xe4
 l .b4 e6

Or 40 . . . f! xg7 4l . f! xg7 <it>xg7 42.f!gl +

<it>f6 43.f!g8 <it>e7 44.h6 .£lxh6 45.f!g7+
<it>f6 46.f!b7 +- .

4 1 . § g 5 h6 4 2 . 4) g6 + 4) x g6
43.§ xg6 'if/h7 44.f5! 1-0

44 . . . f! e8 45.f!f6 +- .

Game l 5
Zielke-Howe
Kiel 2006
31 4)f5?
l.b4 e6 2 .1lb2 4)f6 3.b5 b6 4.4)f3
•••

.1lb7 5.e3 d5
Less bad is 3 1 . . . .£lxe4 32.fhe4 ± .

32.4)e5 5 . . . .1le7, Chapter 3A.

32 . .£lxd4! �d7 (32 . . . cxd4?? 33 . .£lf6+ 6.c4 4)bd7

wins the queen) 33 . .£lc6 �xd3 34 . .£le5
�d4+ 35.<it>h2 .£ld7 36.f!dl +- . 6 . . . c5 7 . .1le2 .ll d 6 8.a4 .£lbd7 9. 0-0
0-0 with mutual chances, transposes to
32 ••• '1P/c7? Game 1 2 .

Black had to try 32 . . . f! e7!?. 7.cxd5

33.4)f6+! In Lorentzen-Kupec, corr 1 995, White

chose a more typical plan: 7 . .1le2 dxc4
This move proves dangerously strong 8 . .1lxc4 .lle7 (8 . . . .1ld6!? must be stron­
even though the black queen no longer ger) 9.0-0 0-0 10.d4 c5 l l .bxc6 .ll xc6
shares the white queen 's diagonal. 1 2 . .£lbd2 .£ld5 ( 1 2 . . . b5 !?) 1 3 . e4 .£lf4
14.f!cl f! c8 1 5 .�b3 .£lf6 ( 1 5 . . . .1lb7!?)
33 ••• gxf6 34.gxf6+ 'if/h8 35.f7 16 . .1la6 f! c7 17.d5 exd5 18 . .1le5 :

3 5 .'<t>h2! (or 3 5 . <it>f2); e . g . , 35 . . . .£le3

36.f! xe3! dxe3 37.f!gl .£lg6 38.hxg6
winning.

35 ••• 4)h6

35 . . . .£lg7 36.h6 +- .

3 6 . f x e8 '1P/ § x eS 3 7 . '1P/ g 5 'IP/ g7

3 8 . 'if/ h 2 4) f 5 3 9 . § g l §e7
40.'1P/ xg7+ 4) xg7

86
 The Sokolsky Opening
A) 18 . . . Ad6? Black should give up the
exchange rather than do this. 19.Axd6
�xd6 20.e5 wins a piece;
B) 18 . . . �e6 1 9.Axc7 "if1xc7 Black is
worse but still fighting;
C) 18 . . . dxe4
1 ) 1 9 . ..11 x f4 e x f3 2 0 . A xc7 "if1 x c 7
21 .�xf3 Ac5 � ;
2) 19.�d4 Ac5 20.�xc6 E!. xc6 2 l .Axf4
4Jd5 � .
7 ... .£) xdS
8.jle2 .£) 7f6 9.0-0 Jle7
10 . .£)c3 0-0 l l .a4 cS 12.E!cl
12.bxc6 Axc6 1 3.�5 ( 1 3.�b5!? avoids
the exchange of knights) 1 3 . . . �xc3
14.Axc3 Ad5 is nothing special for ei­
ther side.
1 2 .. .-�c7 1 3 . h 3 E!ad8 1 4 . tfb3
� xc3 1S.Jl xc3 .£)e4
16.JleS?
Inaccurate. White can play 16.Ab2 be­
cause Black can 't take the d-pawn :
16 . . . �xd2 17.�xd2 E!. xd2 18."if1c3 and
Black has to give up the exchange on
account of the mate threat.
87
16 . . . jld6
Black fails to take advantage ofWhite's
inaccuracy. c 16 . . .�xd2!?; e.g., 17.�b2
(17.Axc7? �xb3 18 ...11xd8 �xc1 19.E!.xcl
E!. xd8 =1= ) 17 . . . Ad6 18 . ..11x g7 �xfl :
A ) 1 9 . '<f.? x fl E!. fe8 2 0 . Af6 Ad5 !
(20 . . . ..11 e 7 2 l . E!. c4 could pose Black
some problems) 2 1 ...1lxd8 E!. xd8 Black's
two bishops and passed c-pawn give
him the better endgame;
B) 19 . ..11 xf8 Axf8 20.E!. xfl Ag7=i= .
17.Jlxd6 tf x d6 18.EJ,fdl tfb8
1 8 . . . "if1e7 is a good alternative.
19.d3 .£)f6 20 . .£)el
White wants to exchange his passive
bishop for Black's active one.
20 . . . E!d7
Black can avoid the bishop swap by
20 . . . e5 2 l .Af3 Ac8 and 22 . . . Ae6.
2l.Jlf3 Jl x f3?
Impulsive. After 2 1 . . . e 5 ! ? 2 2 . Axb7
�xb7 23.�f3 E!.e8 24.d4 exd4 25.exd4
�e4 26. E!. e l E!. dd8 Black should be
able to hold the position.
22 . .£) xf3 EJ,fd8
Perhaps slightly better was 22 . . . e5!? al­
though after 23.d4 exd4 24.exd4 cxd4
25.�xd4 White will put his knight on
c6 with a slight advantage.
23.d4 cxd4 24 . .£) xd4 .£)e4 2S . .£)c6
E! xdl+ 26.EJ,xdl EJ, xdl+ 27.tfxdl
tfc7
 l .b4 e6

36. �a3! wins again.

36 •.. gS

Black could sti ll try relocating his

knight to e7: 36 . . . 4Jg8, 37 . . . 4Je7.

37.�a31

At last !

37 . . . �c7 38.�a8+ ct>d7 39.�f8

28.�d4 �f4+ 40.ct>e2 �c7 41.�xf7+ 1-0

The ending is better for White who Game 1 6

gradually increases his advantage, al­ Sokolsky-Chekhover
though he did miss the immediate Leningrad 1 93 8
28.4Jxa7!
l .b4 �f6 2.Ab2 e 6 3.bS b 6 4.e3
28 •.• �cS 29.aS .ilb7 s.�f3 .ile7 6.c4 0-0 7 . .1le2 d5

Second -best. 29.4Jxa7! is still possible. 7 . . . d6, Chapter 3A.

29 h6 30.a xb6?
8.a4
.•.

Now the position is near- equal. White

should play 30.a6! , swap queens, take
the a-pawn, and go on to win.

30 axb6 3V�fl ct>fS 32.{3 �d7

.•.

33.ct>f2 �f6 34.�b4+ ct>eS?

34 . . .'�g8 was necessary.

3S.e4

A) After 3 5 :lii' a3! e5 36.�a8+ 'it>d7

37.�f8 'it>e6 38.�xg7 h5 39.e4 Black
can resign in the face of �g7-g5-f5+;
B) 35.�a4 is inferior to 35.�a3 as the
king is allowed to backtrack: 35 . . . 'it>f8
36.�a8+ 4Je8 etc.
3S ... �d7 36.ct>e3
8 . . . dxc4?1
Clarifying the center reduces Black's
further options. 8 . . . c5!? is better and
more popular. 9.0-0:
A) 9 . . . 4Jbd7 1 0.d3 �c7 (10 . . . Ad6!? and
l l . . . �e7 seems a better idea) 1 1 .4Jbd2

88
 The Sokolsky Opening

aS 1 2 .t!cl t! ac8 1 3 . t! c 2 t! fd8 1 4:i!i'a l

�e8 1 5 . t! fcl ..llf6 16.d4 <iJd6 17.<iJe5
�e4 1 8 . <iJ x e 4 d x e 4 1 9 . <iJg4 .ilg5
20.h4?! (The over-optimistic plan is to
deflect the b i shop so that d4 x c 5 ,
.ll b 2 xg7 , <iJg4-h6+ w i l l be mate)
( 2 0 . d x c 5 straight away i s better)
20 . . . .1lxh4 2 l . d x c 5 � x e S ( 2 1 . . . f5
22 .cxb6 ± ) 2 2 . ..1lxg7 .ilg5 ( 2 2 . . . e 5 !?)
so far as in Badenes-Pisani, corr 1 9 8 0
2 3 . .1lh6! ( o r 2 3 . t! d2 ) 2 3 . . . f6 2 4 . t! d 2
�f7 ( 2 4 . . . <iJ e 5 2 5 . t! x d 8 + t! x d 8
26 . .\l.xgS <iJxg4 2 7 . .1lxf6 +- ) 2 5 . t! cd l 18 . . . .1ld3
�e7 2 6 . .§ d6 �xd6 2 7 . .ilxg5 �xdl +
28 . .llxdl fx g S 2 9 . � g 7 + � d 6 The alternatives are also unattractive :
30. �h6 leaves B lack in serious dif­ A) 18 . . . <iJd3 1 9 . ..1lxd3 ..ll x d3 20.<iJce5
ficulties; .ll.e4 2 l .t! xc7 wins a pawn;

B) 9 . . . a6 1 0.d4 <iJbd7 l l .<iJbd2 �c7 B) 18 . . . ..1lxf3 1 9 . .ilxf3 <iJd3 2 0 . �c2

1 2.�e5 �xe5 1 3 .dxe5 <iJd7 14.f4 axbS
15.axb5 t! xa l 1 6 . .ilxal t! d8 with an
equal position because ofWhite 's ham­
strung dark- squared bishop, Dziel­
Lozinski, corr 1 99 1 .
<iJxcl 2 1 ...1lxa8 t! xa8 2 2 . t! xcl Black's
backward c-pawn gives White the ad­
vantage;
C) 18 . . . <iJb7 19.<iJfd2 ± .

9.�a3 c3 1 0. .1l x c3 4)dS 1 1 . .1lb2 19.dxcS

j}.f6 12 . .1l x f6 � x f6 13 .. 0-0 §d8
14:�bl .£)d7 White heads for a favorab le ending,
but this wasn ' t the only way to do
14 ... c5 1 5 .<iJc4 <iJd7 1 6.a5 gives White it. 19 . .ildl !? .ll x c4 2 0 . t! xc4 a6 2 l .<iJe5
active play. axbS 2 2 . a xb5 t! x a l 2 3 . � x a l <iJe4
24 . .ilf3 <iJd2 2 5 . t! xc7 <iJxf3 + 2 6 . <iJ x f3
15.�c4 4)cS 16.§cl 4)e7 <iJdS 2 7 . t! a7 and White i s a pawn
up.
After 16 . . . a6 1 7.<iJa5! bxaS 1 8 . t! xc5
axb5 19.axb5 �e7 20.d4, White stands 19 ... �xb2 20. 4) x b2 A xe2 21.4)d4
better because Black's queens ide pawns AhS
are weak.
The bishop stays here, doing nothing,
17.d4 .1le4 for some time.

17. ..�e4 18.<iJce5 ± . 22.cxb6 cxb6 23.4)c4 §ac8 24.aS

b x a S 2S . .£) x a5 § x c l + 26. § x c l
18.�b2 �f8 2 7.f3 §c8

89
 l .b4 e6

Sokolsky gave the following interest- 46.4)c4+ �e7

ing variation : 27 . . . e5 28..£ldc6 §. c8
29 . .£lc4! .tlxc6 30 . .£ld6 §. c7 3 l .§. xc6 46 . . . r.t>c5!? could've been tried.
§. d7 32.§.c8+ r.t'e7 33 . .£lf5+ r.t>f6 34.g4
.l.lg6 35.§.c6+ r.t'g5 36.h4 # . 47 .4)d2 Jl,a2 48.f xg4

2S. g x c8+ 4) x c8 2 9 . 4) dc6 �e8

30. 4) x a7!

In fact, there was nothing much Black

could do to stop this.

30 ••• 4)b6

Of course not 30 . . . .£lxa7 because then

the b-pawn can 't be stopped 3 1 .b6
.tlc6 32 . .£l x c 6 � d 7 3 3 . b 7 r.t' c 7
34.b8�+ +- .
48 ••• Jl,g8 49.4) xf6!
31 .�f2 �d7 32.e4 f6 33.�e3 eS
34.�d3 Jl.f7 3S.�c3 �c7 36.�b4 There 's no choice, but the passed pawns
Jl,a2 37. 4) 7c6 g6 38. 4) b3 Jl,bl on both flanks should still ensure a win.
39.4)cS Jl,c2 40.4)e6+
49 . . . � x f6 SO.h4 Jl,e6 Sl.gS+ �g6
White missed 40.r.t'a5! .tlc4+ 4 1 .�a6 S 2 . 4) c4 � h S S 3 . b 6 Jl, x c4
.tld6 42 . .£lb4, which wins quickly. S4. � x c4 4) x b6+ S S . � Is 4) a4+
S6.�dS 4)c3+ S7.�xeS 4)e2
40 ••• �d6 41.4)f8 Jl.d3 42.g3?
The knight doesn ' t stand a chance
A serious mistake that endangers the against all those pawns.
win. Simply 42 . .£lxh7!? .tld7 (42 . . . ..1lfl
43.g4 .llg 2 44 . .£lxf6 ..ll x f3 4 5 . h4 +- ) ss.g4+t �g6
4 3 . h4 ..ll f l 4 4 . g4 ..ll g 2 4 5 . g 5 fx g5
46 . .£lxg5 White is two pawns up and 58 . . . r.t'xg4 59.g6 +- .
should win without difficulty.
S9.\fld6 4)c3 60.eS 4)e4+ 61 .�d7
42 gS 43.4) x h7 4)d7 44.4)aS g4?
••• 4)cS+ 62.�c6 4)d3 63.�d6

This helps White . 44 . . . �e7 !? gives A l s o 6 3 . e6 ! ? .tl e 5 + 64 . r.t'c7 r.t'g7

Black good chances for a draw since 65.�d8 .tlc6+ 66.r.t'e8 .tld4 67 .r.t'd7
the h-knight may be trapped. .tlb3 68.e7 .tlc5+ 69.r.t'c6 +- .

63 4)f2 64.e6 4) xg4 6S.e7 �f7

•••

66.hS �e8 67.h6 4)f2 68.h7 4)e4+

45 . . . .l.lxb5 46.fxg4 r.t'e7 47.g5 +- . 69.�eS 4) xgS 70.h8�+ 1-0

90
 The Sokolsky Opening
Game 1 7
Sokolsky- Weinblatt
Odessa 1 949
NB : We 've also seen Black referred to
as Vainblat.
l.b4 e6 2.Jlb2 �f6 3.bS a6 4.a4
axbS S.axbS � xat 6.Jlxal c6 7.c4
cxbS 8.cxb5 dS 9.e3 �bd7 10.�f3
J1,d6 1 l .d4
1 1 .4Jc3, Chapter 3 B (see 6 . .1l.xal c6
etc.).
ll ... �e4!?
) 26.4Jc5 �b8 27. �a3 1 -0, Ziese-Seifert,
In combination with the next move (a
queen check) this is an attempt to inter­
fere with White 's normal development.
t 2.Ad3 t'/aS+ 13.�bd2 Ab4
Black is tied up, not White, after
13 . . . 4Jc3? 14.�cl .a.b4 1 5 .0-0.
14.�e2!
The king is perfectly safe here.
14 ... �df6 1S.t'/c2 Jld7
Is the b5-pawn defendable?
91
16.�b3 t'/b6 17.�e5! �d6
The pressure mounts. Later games saw:
A) 17 . . . 'ifte7 18.4Jxd7
1 ) 1 8 . . . 4Jxd7! 19.E(bl E( a8 20.f3 4Jd6
2 1 .4Jcl �a5 22.�b3 .1l.e1 23.�dl .a.b4
B l ack retained equal ity in Z i e s e ­
Trigance, corr 1 992, and went o n to
draw;
2) 1 8 . . . 'iftxd7 1 9 . E( c l h6 20.f3 4Jd6
2 1 .4Jc5+ �e7 2 2 .�b3 .ll.a 5 2 3 . 4Ja4
(23.e4!?) 23 . . . �a7? (23 . . . �d8 was the
only move) 24.b6 �a8 25.E(c7+ �d8
corr 1 989;
B) Perhaps simply 1 7 . . . 0-0!? to com­
plete development;
C) 17 . . . .1l.xb5?! 1 8.�c8+ 'ifte7 1 9.�xh8
�a6 20.E(bl ! The position is complex,
but the rook move prepares to block the
queen check on a2 and thereby keeps
the advantage for White.
18.�c5 �e7
The pawn is taboo: 18 . . . .1l.xb5?? 19.E(bl
�a5 20 . .1l.xb5+ 4Jxb5 2 1 . 4Jxb7 and
Black loses material.

19.�b1 13a8 20.g4
Having stymied Black's queenside at­
tack, White lashes out on the other
flank.
2 0 . El x b 4 ! ? El x a l 2 1 . 4Jb 3
(2 1 . . .Ela8! oo ) 22:�c5:
A) 22 . . . "itrd8 2 3 . � xd6+ !
2 4 . 4J x f7 + �e7 2 5 . 4J x d8
26.4Jc5 ± ;
B) 2 2 . . . �xc5 2 3 . dxc5 4Jde4 2 4 . f3
El xg2+ (24 . . . 4Jc3+ 25.�f2 ± ) 25.�fl
El xh2 26.fxe4 dxe4 27 .c6 Ac8 28.Axe4
4Jxe4 29 .El xe4 +- .
20 . . . h6
20 . . . �xb5? loses the exchange after
2 1 . El xb4 ! hal 22 .�xb5 4Jxb5 23.�d3
El a 5 2 4 . 4Jb3 4Je4 2 5 . � e l 4Jed6
26.4Jxa5.
2 1 .h4 .Q.e8 2 2 .g5 h xg5 23.hxg5
.£Jfe4
24 . .Q. x e4 dxe4 25. � x b4?
This should've ended badly for White.
If 25 .4Jxe4! �xbS+ 26.�f3 everything
is okay.
l .b4 e6
25 ... .1lxb5+ 26.�d2 � xa1 27 . .£lb3
�fl?
We shall see that this is weak. Correct
was 27 . . . El a4 ! 2 8 . El xa4 (28.�c3 f6
29.El xa4 Axa4 30.4Jc5 �e8 3 1 .gxf6+
El g l gxf6 3 2 . 4Jc4 4Jxc4+ 3 3 . �xc4 f5 :;: )
28 . . . �xa4 29.�c5 :
�xd6 A) 29 . . . �xc5! 30.4Jxc5 Ae8 Black is a
�xd8 pawn up;
B) If 29 . . . � x b 3 3 0 . �c 7 + �e8
3 1 .�b8+ �e7 32.�c7+ � ite saves
himself by perpetual check.
28.'~c51 §xf2+ 29.<it'c3 ~a6
Maybe there are some drawing chances
for B l ack in the line 29 . . . � x c 5 + !?
30.dxc5 �a6 3 1 .cxd6+ �xd6 32 .4Jc4+
(32.El xe4 �d5 :5:5 ) 32 . . . �d5 etc.
30 . � x b 5 � x b 5 3 1 . �c 7 + �e8
32. � x d6 f6??
Now this loses. 32 . . . g6! was vital.
3 3 . � x e6 + � d 8 34 . .£J f7+ �c7
35.�d6+ 1-0
35 ..5.f.?c8 36.'iM8#.
Game 1 8
Bernstein-Seidman
New York 1 959
1 .b4 .£lf6 2 ..1lb2 e6 3.b5 a6 4.a4
a x b5 5 . a x b 5 � x a 1 6 . -'l. x a 1 d5
7 . .£lf3 .1le7 8.e3 .£Jbd7 9 . .1le2
9.c4, Chapter 3B 9 . . . 0-0 10.4Jc3 4Jb6
Game 1 9.
9 •.. 0-0 10.0-0 .£je8
92
 The Sokolsky Opening

Black's regrouping is misjudged. Best
in this position is 1 0 . . . c5!?
ll.c4 .Q.f6 12.�c3 dxc4 13 .Q. x c4
�d6 14 .Q.e2 b6
•
Black has some tactics in mind, hoping
to confuse White with pressure on both
the b5-pawn and the h2-pawn. 23 . . . e5!?
• intending . . . e5-e4 is better.

24.�a4

White is wise to what's going on, and

sets a trap . Nevertheless 2 4 . 4Jh4!?
threatening h2-h3 is stronger.

l5.4)a21

The knight heads for the c6-square

which was weakened by 14 . . . b7-b6.

15 ....Q.b7 16.Jlxf6 'lt x f6 17.�b4 24 ••• � xh2??

�e5 1 8 . � d4 'itg5 1 9 . g3 'lt h 6
20:i;tc2 'lth3 2 1.�bc6
The knight arrives at its destination and
Black's light-squared bishop is blocked
out of the game.
Black falls for it. 24 .. :�h3!? was nec­
essary; 24 . . . 4Jxb5?? loses to 25.4Jh4! ;
e.g., 25 . . ...1lxc6 26.�xc6 4Je5 27 . .§a8 +- .
25.4)fe51

Nothing else will do. Black was expect­

ing 25 . .§ h4 4Jxf3+ 26 . ..Q.xf3 �f5 with
Here White can take the a-file, as so the advantage.
often in the Sokolsky Opening, or make
2S 'lt xe2
progress in the center. 2 2 . f4 ! ? 4Jg4
.••

( 2 2 . . . 4Jd7 2 3 .e4 ± ) 23 . ..Q.xg4 �xg4

25 . . .�f5 26.�xf5 exf5 27.�xh2 +- .
24.e4 .§a8 25 .d3 threatening 4Jc6-e5!
26. � x h7+!! 1-0
22 ... �g4
White forces mate. Again, nothing else
22 . . . .§ a8?? 2 3 . .§ x a8+ Axa8 24 . ..Q.fl ! will do.
�g4 25.4Jxe5 +- .
26 . . . �xh7 27 . .§ h4+ �h5 28 . .§ xh5+
23.�f3 'lth5? �g8 29.4Je7 # .

93
 l .b4 e6

Game 1 9 White plans to pressurize the c - pawn,

Sasonow-Kamenski so first he eliminates its defender. He
corr 1 962 avo i d s 1 7 . .1l x f6 g x f6 because the
doubled pawns can't really be exploited,
l .b4 d5 2 . .Q.b2 4)f6 3.e3 e6 4.b5 not to mention the fact that Black is left
a6 5.a4 axb5 6.axb5 §. xal 7 . .Q.xal with the bishop -pair.
Jte7 8.4)(3 4)bd7 9.c4
17 Jt xe5 18.4) xe5 §.aS 19.4)c3
..•

9 . .1le2 Game 1 8 . \f/f8 20.f4

9 ... 0-0 10.4)c3 4)b6 Better is 20.!!c1 !? which indirectly tar­

gets the c -pawn, maybe followed by
10 . . . c5 and 10 . . . c6, Chapter 3B. 4Je5-f3-d4.

20 . . . 4)fd7 (
After 1 l . . .dxc4 1 2 . .1lxc4 4Jxc4 1 3 . �xc4, 20 . . . 4Je4!? 2 1 .4Jxe4 dxe4 looks more
Black has the two bishops, but since he promising for Black.
still has to decide how to develop the
one on c8 White has reasonab l e 2 1 . Jl.f3 4) xe5 22.fxe5 Jte6
chances; e.g., 1 3 . . . b 6 1 4.e4 ( a differ­
ent idea is 1 4 . 4Je5!? heading for c6) More dynamic is 22 . . . .Q.d3!? 23.!!cl c6
14 . . . .Q.b7 1 5 . 0 -0 �d7 1 6 . d 3 !! a8 24.bxc6 bxc6 etc.
1 7 . .Q.b2 =.
23.§.cl \f/e8 24.e4
1 2.cxd5 exd5 13 . .1le2 �a3

13 . . . .Q.f5 !? followed by . . . !!f8-a8.

1 4 . � x a3 J}. x a 3 1 5 .0-0 Jtf5

16.4)bl j'td6

To open up the position for the f3 -

bishop.

24 ••. c6

A) After 24 . . . dxe4 25 . .1lxe4 !! a7 26.d4

17.Jte51 White is more active;

94
 The Sokolsky Opening
B) Best is probably 24 . . . d4!?
1) 25 . .£}d5 �d8 26 . .£} x c 7 !! a 2
27.4)xe6+ fxe6 28.-'tg4 �d7 2 9 . d3
Eld2 30.!!fl �e7 3 l .!!cl �d7 32.!!fl
repeats the position.
2) 25 . .£}e2 d3 26 . .£}f4 Ac4 27.�f2 !!a5
28.'it>e3 (28 . .£}d5!?) 28 . . . !! xb5 29 . .£}xd3
�xd3 30.�xd3 c6 with the advantage.
25.bxc6 bxc6 26.�e2
26 ... .£)c4?
Forking two pawns, but at the same time
allowing a tacti c involving the f3 -
bishop down the long diagonal.
A) 26 . . . dxe4 27.Axe4 Ad5 28 . .£}c3
gives White the slightly better ending;
B) i6 . . . �d7! protecting the pawn by
developing the king must be best.
27.exd5 Jl,xdS
27 . . . cxd5 is also answered by 28.!! xc4!
28.E{xc4!
White wins a pawn, although there is
still a little work to be done before vic­
tory.
95
28 Jl, x c4
. • • 2 9 . Jl, x c6 + rt]e7
30.Jl, xa8 Jl, xe2 31.Jl,e4 h6 32.rt]f2
Adl 33.rtle3
33 . . .f6 34.Jlf3! Jl,a4
Of course 34 . . . -'txf3 is answered by
35.exf6+.
35 ·~f4 (35.'it>d41?)
.. 35 ... ~e6
35 . . . g5+ 36. �f5 Ac2+ 37 . .ll.e4 +- .
36.Jl,g4+ rtle7 37.Ae2 Ad7
This makes things simpler for White.
I t ' s a bit tougher for White after
37 ... g5+!? 38.�f5 .ll.d 7+ 39.e6 Axe6+
40.�g6 f5 4l .�xh6 �f6 42.h3 etc.
3 8 . d 4 Jta4 3 9 . Ad3 ( 3 9 . d 5 ! ? )
39 . . . Jld7 40.d5 f x e S + 4 1 . � x e 5
Aa4 42.Ae4 Jl,d7 43.Jld3 Jla4
44.Jta6 Ad7 4S.Ab7 Aa4 46 .Q.c6 •
Jlb3 47.d6+ rt;dS
Now that the black king is restricted
White will advance his kingside pawns.
4S.�f5 Jtf7 49.g4 rt;cs s o . h4
rt]d8 S l .gS h x gS 5 2 . h x g5 �c8
5 3 . rt;e s rt;ds S4 .Q.d5 A h S
•
ss.rt;e6 .Q.g6 S6.Ac6 1-0
 l .b4 e6

56 . . . .Q.h5 57 . ..1le4 �e8 58.d7+ '<t>d8 1 4 . ..1lxc4 .£\e4 + . This is similar to what
59 . ..1lc2 .lle 2 60.�f7 'iti'xd7 6l .r.t>xg7. happens in the game except that here
Black's bishop can't stop the pawn; e.g., the b-pawns are gone, decluttering
61 . . .Ah5 62.r.t>f6: Black's position.

A) 62 . . . '<t>d8 63.Af5 ..lle 8 64 . ..1le6 ..llh 5 1 2 . . . dxc4 13 . .1l x c4

65 . ..1lf7 +- ;

B) 62 . . . Ae8 63.Aa4+ +- ;

C) 62 . . . r.t>e8 63 . .1lg6+ +- .

Game 20
Klavins-Randviir
Vilnius 1 95 5

l .b4 d5 2 . .1lb2 e 6 3.e3 �f6 4.b5

.1ld6 5.�f3 a6 6.a4 axb5 7.axb5
§. x al 8 . .1lxal �bd7 9.c4 c6
9 . . . c5 transposes to Chapter 3B, i.e.,
9.c4 .£\bd7.
10.d4
1 0.Ae2 0-0 1 1 .0-0 �c7 1 2 . .£\c3 .£\b6
1 3.bxc6 .£\xc4 14.cxb7 �xb7 15 . ..1lxc4
d x c 4 1 6 . � c 2 �a6 1 7 . .£\e4 .£\ x e 4
1 8.�xe4 ..ll b7 1 9 . �g4 g 6 20.�h4 ;!;
R.Agrest-Isetoft, Taby 2007 .
10 . . . .1lb4+ l l.�bd2
Simplest was 1 1 ...1lc3 ..ll x c3+ 12 . .£\xc3
�a5 1 3 . � d 2 �a 1 + 1 4 . .£\ d 1 .£\e4
1 5 . �c2 followed by ..llfl -d3 and 0-0
with a more or less equal position. The
game move sets White some problems.
11 •.• "lta5 1 2 . .1ld3
White allows the loss of a pawn. At­
tempting to avoid that could lead to even
greater d i fficultie s : 1 2 . b x c 6 bxc6
13 . ..1ld3 dxc4 ( � 13 . . . .£\e4 1 4 .r.t>e2)
n . . . �e4
Sokolsky suggested 1 3 . . . cxb5! 14 . .1ld3
0-0 1 5 .0-0 .£\b6 with Black a pawn up.
14.�e2 �df6?
14 . . . .£\xd2! (or 14 . . . cxb5 first) 1 5 . .£\xd2
cxb5 wins a pawn.
15.� xe4 � xe4 16 . .1ld3 f5 17.�b3
0-0
It's too late to take the pawn. After
17 . . . cxb5 18.§b1 the b4-bishop has to
move, then White can take the b5-pawn.
18.§.bl .1lc3?1
Presumably Black thought that with
fewer pieces on the board his position
would be easier to defend. A better idea
was 1 8 . . . .Q.d6 1 9 . ..1lxe4 fxe4 20 . .£\d2
§ f5! oo .
19 . .1l x e4 fxe4

96
 The Sokolsky Opening
If 19 . . . .1lx a l , 20 . .1ld3 and both of
Black's bishops are hemmed in.
20 . Jl x c 3 e x f3 + 2 l .g x f3 'l!/c7
22.E{gll?
White is prepared to give up the h-pawn
in return for pressure down the g-file.
22 Etf7
.•.
22.. .�xh2 is met by 23J:�g3 threaten­
ing 24.d5 g6 25.dxe6 +- .
23 . .1lb2 'l!/xh2 24.Etg3 �hS 2S.b6
Jld7
A) 25 . . . �b5+ 26.�xb5 cxb5 27 . .1la3.
Despite the opposite bishops, this end­
ing is favorable for White;
B) 25 . . . �a5!? or the game move, pre­
serves the queen in the hope o f
counterplay.
26 .sla3 eS 27.'1!/a4 h6 28.'1!/aS+
• 39.f,fj>c3 �xg3 40.�xf7 �el + 4 l .f,fj>c4
'ifi!h7 29.'1!/ x b7
White gains nothing from 29.�a5 !! xf3!
30.f! xf3 .llg4 3 l .�xe5 .ll x f3+ 32.t.t•d3
fff7 when Black has sufficient play.
29 ... e4 30. �a6
97
30 ••• .1lc8
30 . . . exf3+ 3 l .f,fj>d2 iit'd5 32 . .1lc5 .llf5 :
A) 33.f,fj>c3 �e4 34.iit'a2. White isn't
better, in fact Black can practically force
a draw by 34 . . . iit'd3+ 35.f,fj>b4 �b5 +
36. f,fj>c3 �d3+ etc.
B ) 3 3 . b7?? !! x b7 3 4 . iit' x b7 � a 2 +
35 .f,fj>c3 �c2+ 36.f,fj>b4 �b2+ 37.f,fj>c4
�xb7 -+ ;
C) 33 .�a4 h5! is a reminder that Black
has a passed pawn too.
31.�c4
3 1 . � x c8? i s a mi stake because of
3 l . . . � b 5 + 3 2 . f,fj> e l � b l + 3 3 . f,fj>d 2
iit'd3+ 34.f,fj>cl (34.f,fj>e l ? exf3 35.!! xf3
iit'bl + 36.f,fj>e2 �c2+ 37.f,fj>e l !! xf3 -+ )
34 . . . � x a 3 + 3 5 .f,fj>c2 �a 2 + 3 6 . f,fj>c 3
�xf2 37.�e6 � x e 3 + 38.f,fj>c2 �f2 +
�a5 White is in serious difficulties
42 . . . iit'a2+ is threatened.
31 . . . §. x f3 32.§.xf3 � x f3+ 33.�el
hS
Black introduces his own passed pawn
into the equation. 33 . . . .1lg4 is an empty
threat since after 34.�c2 the bishop has
to return to defend against the b-pawn
34 . . . .Q.c8.
34.dSI
To increase the scope of the queen. Af­
ter 34.�xc6 .lla6 35.�c2 �g2 36.�c5
�fl + 37.f,fj>d2 �xf2+ 38.f,fj>c3 �xe3+
White will have to play very well to
draw.
 l .b4 e6

34 .•• �hl+ Game 2 1

Sokolsky-Shagalovich
34 . . . h4! 35.dxc6 (35 . .1ld6 h3 36.dxc6 Minsk 1 959
.ll g 4 3 7 . '�c 2 transposes) 3 5 . . . .1lg4
36.�c2 h3 37 . .1ld6 �f5 is double-edged l .b4 e6 2 .Q.b2 .£)f6 3.bS a6 4.a4
•

but probably dead-level with best play. axbS S.axbS .§xa1 6 .Q.xal dS 7.e3
•

cS 8 .£) f3 .Q.d6 9.c4 0-0 10 .Q.e2

• •

3S.�d2 �bl 36.dxc6 .£)bd7 1 1 .0-0 dxc4

36.�xc6?? �d3+ 37.'it'cl (37.<it>el .lla6 Regarded as better is l l . . .b6 a� in Chap­

and White will be mated) 37 . . . �xa3+ ter 38.
38.<it>d2 .lla6 -+ .
1 2 .£)a3
•

36 � x b6
• • • 37 . � x e4 + �h6
3 8 . � f 4 + �h7 3 9 . �e4+ � h 6 Also played is 1 2 . .1lxc4; e.g., 1 2 . . . {}b6
40.�dS �b1 41 .e4 h4 1 3 . .1le2 .ll d 7 1 4 .�b3 {}fd5 1 5 .{}e5
�c7 16.f4 f! a8 17.{}a3 .lle8 18.{}ac4 ;t
Grund-Janecky, corr 1 975.

1 2 .£)b6 13 .£) xc4 .£) xc4 14 .Q.xc4

••• • •

b6 1 S .£) e S .Q.b7 1 6 . f4 �c7

•

17 .£)g4!
•

White's pieces are well placed to go into

action.

42.�d6+ �h7 43. �es �a2+

44 .Q.b2 �f7 4S.f4 h 3 46.fS
•

White doe s n ' t benefit much from

46. �g5 h2! ( 46 . . . �g6 47. �xg6+ �xg6
48 . .ll e 5 ;!; ) 47 . �h4+ �g8 48.�xh2
�b3 4 9 . � c l �c4+ 5 0 . � c 2 �fl +
5 l .�d2 �xf4+. Now that Black is only
a pawn down, the ending is drawish.
17 ••• .Q.e7

46 �f6 47.�e2 �h6 48.�h2

•••
.Q. a 6 + 4 9 . �f3 �hS+ S O . �g3
�gS+ Yz-Yz
5 l .�f2 �d2+ 52.�g3 �e3+ 53 .�h4
.ll e 2 54 . .1le5 �h6+ 5 5 . �g3 �e3+
56. �h4 �h6+ etc. is a draw.
It's hard to find a good move for Black:
A) 17 . . . {}xg4 1 8 . �xg4 g6 ( 1 8 . . . e 5
1 9.�g3!) 1 9.�g5 threatens the decisive
2 0 . �f6 ; e . g . , 20 . . . e5 2 l . fx e 5 �e7
( 2 1 . . . .1le7 22 . .1lxf7 + +- ) 2 2 . �h8 + !
�xh8 23.exd6+ �f6 24.f! xf6 +- ;

98
 The Sokolsky Opening

B) 17 . . . .£le8 18.f5 .lld 5 19 . .ll x d5 exd5 26 ••• �h6!

20.f6 Black's position is passive;
C) 1 7 . . . .£ld5?? 1 8 . .11 x d5 ..Q.. x d5 1 9 . .£lf6+!
�h8 ( 1 9 . . . g x f6 2 0 . �g4 + �h8
2 1 ..1lxf6 # ) 20.'�'h5 h6 2 1 ..£lxd5 and
Black can resign.
18.� xf6+
White decides to spoil Black's kingside
pawn structure with the prospect of a
favorable endgame or a direct attack on
the black king.
White was threatening 27.t!f3 �cl +
28.�h2 �e1 29.t!g3+ �h8 30.�h6 +- .
2 7 . � x h6 + <i!} x h6 2 8 . }a a l }adS
29.Iaa7 lad7 30.<i!}gl <i!}g7 31.<i!}f2
<i!}f8 32. <i!}e3 <i!}g7 33. <i!}d2?
Sokolsky admits this was a mistake.
White should try 33 . ..Q..d 5! ..llc6 Now he
can decide whether to head for a bishop
ending or a rook ending:

18.f5!? .lld 5 19 . .£lxf6+ .ll xf6 20 . .ll xf6

gxf6 (20 . . . .ll xc4?? 2 l .�g4 g6 22.�g5
White will deliver mate on g7) 2 l .fxe6
fx e6 ( 2 1 . . . .ll x c 4 2 2 . � g 4 + �h8
23.�xc4 +- ) 22 . .ll x d5 exd5 23.�g4+
�h8 24.�e6 with the advantage in this
heavy-piece ending.

18 Axf6 19.Axf6 gxf6 20.fS eS

.•.

Now White would like to organize his A) 3 4 . t! a 6 .ll x d 5 3 5 . e x d 5 t! x d 5

queen and rook for a mating attack, but 36.t! xb6 t!d4 37 .g3 ± ;
of course B lack won 't just sit back and
let that happen. B) 34.t! xd7 .ll x d7 35 . .1lc6 .llc8 White
has all the winning chances, but can he
21:�·g4+ (2 l .e4!?) 2l <i!}h8 22.e4••• win by force?
�d7 23.d3 �d4+ 24.<i!}hl �e3
25.�hS <i!}g7 26.h4 33 ••• Jl,c6!

This saves B lack.

34.}a x d7

If 34.t!a6 ..ll x e4!.

34 ••• Jl,xd7

B ecause of the need to protect the b5-

pawn, White can't get his king to d5, so
the ending should be drawn.

99
 l .b4 e6

35.ciflc3 ciflf8 36.ciflb3 cifle7 37.cifla4 15 ••• -'l.xe5 16.cxb7

-'l.e8 38.-'l.d5 cifld6 39.-'l.b7 ciflc7
40.-'l.d5 cifj>d6 Yz-Yz 1 6 . ..1l x e 5 E!. x e 5 1 7 . c x b7 ..ll xb7
18.i!;i'd4 ;�; transposes to the previous
Game 22 note ( 1 5 . cxb7 ..ll xb7 etc.).
Pommere/-Bankwitz
email l 984 16 ..• Jl. x b7 17.gbl

l .b4 e6 2.-'l.b2 �f6 3.b5 c6 4.a4 It is wiser to transpose to previous notes

-'l.b4 by 1 7 . ..\lxe5.
(
For other moves see Chapter 3C. 17 ••. Jl. x b2 18.g xb2 Jl.c6 19.gb4?

5.�(3 d6 6.c3 -'l.a5 7.�a3 d5 This could tie White in knots. Stronger
is 1 9 . <£lb 5 ; e . g . , 1 9 . . . dxc4 ( 1 9 . . . a6
7 . . . e 5 was the logical follow up to 20.<£ld4 �d7 2 1 .<£lxc6 �xc6 22.cxd5
5 . . . d7-d6. <£lxd5 23.i!;i'b3 and Black isn't better)
2 0 . E!. d 2 ( 2 0 . ..1l x c 4 i!;i' x d l 2 l . E!. x dl
8.e3 E!.ed8=) 20 ... �b6 2 1 ...1lxc4 E!. ad8 with
equal chances.
8.g3!? 0-0 9 . ..1lg2 is untried.
t9 . . . gbs?
8 0-0 9 . -'l.e2 � bd7 IO.c4 ges
• . .

1 1.0-0 e5 1 2.d4 e4 13.�e5 Jlc7

A routine, lazy move. Black should take
the opportunity to play 1 9 . . . �e7! ; e.g.,
20.�b3 (20.i!;i'd2 a5 + ) 20 . . . a5 2 1 .E!.b6
i!;i' c 5 2 2 . E!. b l E!. e d8 threaten ing
23 . . . <£!d7.

20.ti\'b3

20.E!. xb8 �xb8 2 1 .i!;i'd4 dxc4 22 .E!.bl

�c7 23 .i!;i'xc4=.

20 .•• g x b4 2 1 . t\' x b4 ti\'d7

Sti ll left to try was 2 1 . . . a 5 !? 2 2 . �b3

14.bxc6 � xe5 1 5.dxe5
Probably better is 1 5 . c xb7 ..ll xb7
( 1 5 . . . <£lf3+ 1 6 . ..\lxf3 ..ll xb7 17 . ..1le2 �d6
18.g3 a6 1 9.�d2 1 eaves White a pawn
up) 1 6 . d x e 5 ..ll x e 5 1 7 . ..ll x e 5 E!. x e 5
1 8.i!;i'd4 ;�; . White can transpose to this
variation later.
d4 2 3 . exd4 i!;i'xd4 2 4 . <£1b5 ( 2 4 . E!. d l
�e5 =F ) 24 . . . i!;i'c5 a n d B lack stands
well.
22.a5 d4
M ore s o l i d for B lack i s 2 2 . . . E!. c8
23.E!.cl dxc4=.

1 00
 The Sokolsky Opening
23.exd4 � x d4 24.Etdl �eS
2S.{\c2 E{b8 26. �a3 -'ld7 27 .{\e3
h6 28.h3 �b2 29. �d6 �b4 30.cS!
The game had seemed level until this
passed pawn started to move.
30 . . . J}.e6 3 1 . {) c 2 �b2 3 2 . {) d4
§e8 33.c6 J}.c8
33 . . e3!? hoping to activate the knight,
. is in trouble).
is a last try for some counterplay but
34 f3 .£lh5 35.�h2 dashes that hope.
. 1 8 . -'l. x d S {) b x d S 1 9 . {\ d6 �e7
34.�cs �b8 3S.{\bS �eS
The position was hopeless anyway.
36.~xe5 E{xe5 1-0
37.E!.d8+ E!e8 38.c7 +- .
Game 23
Sokolsky-Abzirko
Odessa 1 943
l.b4 {\f6 2.J}.b2 e6 3.bS Jl.e7 4.e3
0 - 0 S . {\ f3 c6 6 . a4 dS 7 .c4 a6
8.{\c3 axbS 9.axbS E{ xal lO.� xal
dxc4 11.J}. xc4 cxbS 12.{) xbS Jl.d7
13.0-0 Jl.c6 14.{\fd4 AdS IS.Etct
{)bd7
101
16.-'l.a3!
Earlier divergences are considered in
Chapter 3D.
16 . . . J}.xa3 17.� xa3 {\b6
B lack gets nothing from 1 7 . . . .ll x c4
18.E! xc4 4Je5 19.E!c5 .£lfg4 20.g3 � (not
20.h3? �h4 2 l .hxg4 .£lxg4 when White
20.{\4bS {\e8 2l.g3
In order to play e3-e4 without permit­
ting . 4Jd5-f4.
. .
21 . . . {\ xd6 22.�xd6 �gS
Black prefers to keep the queens on the
board in order to g e n e rate s o m e
threats . The ending after 2 2 . . . �xd6
23 . .£lxd6 would not be all that good
fo r B l a c k : 2 3 . . . b6 ( 2 3 . . . E! b 8
2 4 . .£l x b7 ! ) 2 4 . e 4 .£lf6 2 5 . f3 E! b8
2 6 . E!. b l ( i f 2 6 . E! c7 .£le8 2 7 . .£l x e 8
E! x e8 28 . E! b7 E! d8 2 9 . E! xb6 White
goes a pawn up, but this rook ending
will be hard to win) 26 . . . �f8 27.'�f2
and now not 27 . . .'tle7 since 28.E! xb6!
wins a pawn.
 l .b4 e6
23.4)d4 ladS 24. �cS h6 2S. �bS
eS 26.4)e2 �e7?
Black wrongly decides on passive de­
fense. He should play 26 . . . b6!?; e.g.,
27.<tlc3 <tlxc3 28.E! xc3 e4! (the ending
after 28 . . . E! xd2 29.'�e8+ 'ifth7 30.'l1Yxf7
�g4 3 1 . E! c7 is better for White)
29.�xg5 (29.'l1Yxb6 f! xd2 30.'l1Yb7 �f5
3 1 . 'l1Yc 8 + i1Y x c 8 3 2 . E! x c 8 + 'ift h 7 = )
29 . . . hxg5 30.f!b3 f! xd2 3 l . f! xb6 g6
32.E!b5 f6 33.E!b7 g4 with a drawn end­
ing.
27 .lacS �d6 2S.d4 exd4
Now if 28 . . . b6 29.E!c6 �a3 30.e4 <tlf6
3 l . 'l1Yxb6 E! e8 3 2 .dxe5 <tlxe4 3 3 . e6
White has the advantage.
29.lz)xd4 ~c7 30.~c4 ~a6
Sokolsky recommended 30 . . . 4Je6!? with
chances to save the ending.
31 .labS labS
White is more active after 3 l . . .'l1Ye7
32.<tlf5 'l1Yf6 33.'l1Yg4 E! b8 34.e4 <tlc7
35.'l1Yf4 'l1Yd8 36.E!b2 <tle6 37.�e5.
32.�b3!
1 02
White avoids exchanges in order to in­
crease winning chances. He wins the b­
pawn after 3 2 . E! xb7 E! xb7 33.'l1Yc8+
'ifth7 34.�xb7 but not the game.
32 . . . �d7 (32 . . . 4Jc5!?) 33.4)fS (jfjlh7
34.�b2 f6 3S.�bl (jfjlhS
Worse is 35 . . .\Ttg8 36.E!d5 �c7 37.�dl
<tlc5 (37 ... E! c8?? 38.E!d7 is very similar
to how the game ends) 38. �h5 ± . White's
queen and knight pose various threats:
A) 3 9 . E! xc5 �xeS 4 0 . <tlxh6+ gxh6
4 1 . 'l1Yxc5 +- ;
B ) 3 9 . 'l1Yg6 'iftf8 4 0 . 'l1Yh7 <tle6
4 l .E!d6 +- .
36.h4 (jfjlgS?
Now the white rook becomes deadly.
Black should anticipate the rook move
by 36 . . . 'l1Yc7 37. E! d5 <tlc5 (37 . . . \Ttg8?
transposes back to the game) 38.4Jd6
b6 39.'l1Yg6 although White retains the
advantage.
37.ladS! �c7
37 . . . �xd5?? 38.4Je7+ wins the queen.
3S. �dl lacS??
It's hard to defend such a position. Nev­
ertheless, stiffer opposition is offered
by 38 . . . <tlc5 39.'l1Yg4 'iftf8 40. <tlxh6!
(also good, but more unbalanced, is
40.E! xc5 i1Yxc5 4l .'l1Yxg7+ 'ifte8 42:i1i'xf6
etc . ) 40 . . . E! d8 (if 40 . . . gxh6 4 l .�f5)
4 l . f! xd8+ 'l1Yxd8 42.4Jf5 ± .
39.lad7 1-0
39 . . . �cl 40.4Je7+ +- .
 Chapter 4
l.b4 d5
After this ordinary developing move the
play could transpose to other variations
seen in Chapters 3, 4A, 4B and 5. Here
we mainly deal with the London Sys­
tem: Black will have a bishop on f5, and
pawns on c6, d5 and e6. Black's setup
is solid, but White is comfortable.
2 . .Q.b2
2 ..£lf3 intending e2-e4, Chapter 4B.
2.g3!? is interesting, but we 're not sure
about the further 2 . . . eS 3 . .1lg2?! .ilxb4
4. e4 oo .
2... 4)f6
Bl ack p l a n s to rap i d l y c o m p l ete
kingside development.
A) 2 . . . 't5i'd6, Chapter 4A;
B) 2 . . . AfS , Chapter 4B;
C) 2 . . . 4Je6 3.bS
1) 3 ... 4JaS 4.4Jf3 .Q..d7 S.e3 e6 6.bxe6
4:'lxc6 7.d4 e6 8.4Jbd2 .Q..b4 9.a3 .Q..a S
10.Ad3 't5i'b6 1 1 .f!b1 .Q.. x d2+ 1 2.'t5i'xd2
?Jf6 13.a4 't5i'e7 14 ..lla3 't5i'aS 1 S .E! xb7
�xa4 1 6 . .1ld6 't5i'a 1 + ( o. 1 6 . . . 4Je4)
1 7 . 't5i'd l � e 3 + ? ( o. 17 . . . � x d 1 + )
18.4Jd2 .ile8 19.f!e7 a S 20.AbS Ad7
21.0-0 a4 22 . .Q.. xe6 Axe6 23.f!e7+ 'it'd8
24 . § xf7 +- Ocampos-Barrionuevo,
Buenos Aires 2004;
2) 3 . . . 4Jb8 4.4Jf3 e6 S .e3 4Jf6 6.a4 Ad6
7.c4 0-0 8.d4 (or of course 8.d3) 8 . . . b6
1 03
9.aS eS 1 0 .axb6 't5i'xb6 l l .dxeS AxeS
1 2 .Axf6 gxf6 1 3 .exdS E! d8 1 4 .Ae2
E! xdS 1 S .'t5i'b3 E!hS 16.0-0 a6 17.4Je3
w i th the advantage, Arias-Bobb,
Ushuaia 2004;
D) 2 . . . e6 3 .4Jf3 AfS 4.e3 e6 S.e4 4Jf6
1) 6.bS
a) 6 . . . e S 7 . d4 4Jbd7 8 . 4Jbd2 .Q.. d6
9 . .Q..e 2 0-0 1 0 . 0-0 4Je4 1 1 .f!e1 4Jdf6
1 2 .4Jxe4 4Jxe4? ( o. 1 2 . . . dxe4) 1 3.dxeS
4JxeS 14.�d4 f6 1 S .exdS eS 16.'t5i'h4
f! e8 (16 . . . 4Jd3 17.Axd3 .Q..x d3 18.f!fd1
.ile2 1 9 . E! e 1 AxbS=) 17 . .Q.. a 3 't5i'd7
18 . .1lxeS .§ xeS 19.f! xeS AxeS 20.'t5i'a4
E! e8 2 1 .f!cl (also 2 1 .4Jf3-h4) with the
advantage, Fucik-B .Fischer, Karlsruhe
2003 ;
b) 6 . . . Ae7 7 . .Q.. e 2 0-0 8 . 0- 0 dxe4
9.Axe4 exbS lO . .Q.. x bS 4Jbd7 1 1 .d4
4Jb6 1 2 . 4J e 3 E! e8 1 3 . �b 3 4JbdS
14.E!acl 4Jxe3 1 S . .Q.. x e3 .Q..e 4 16.4JeS
AdS 17.'t5i'a4 a6 18.Ad3 't5i'b6 19.f!b1
't5i'a7 20.Ab4 .ilxb4 2l .'t5i'xb4 f!e7 22.a4
E!fe8 23.aS White has held back Black's
queenside and thus stands more ac­
tively, Lindner-Norman, Dresden 2003 ;
2) 6.a3
 l .b4 d5 2 . .1lb2
a) 6 . . . <tlbd7 7 . d4 .ll d 6 8 . <tlbd2 0-0
9 . .1le2 <tle4 10.0-0 �f6 1 l .§. e 1 �h6
1 2 .<tlfl §. ad8 1 3 .�b3 g5 1 4 . .lld3 <tldf6
1 5 .cxd5 cxd5 1 6.<tle5 g4 17.§.ac1 �g5
18.§.e2 h5 with a complicated position
that White won in the end, Alekseev­
Skytte, Tula 2000;
b) 6 . . . a5 7.b5 .lle7 8.bxc6 bxc6 9.cxd5
cxd5 1 O . .ll b 5+ <tlbd7 1 1 . <tld4 .ll g 6
1 2 .<tlc3 .lld6 1 3 . <tla4 0-0 14.<tlc6 �c7
1 5 .§.cl �b7 16.�e2 §.fc8 17.0-0 <tle8
18.<tld4 <tlc5 1 9.<tlxc5 §. xeS 20.§. xc5
.ll x c5 2 1 . .1lc6 �xb2 22 . .1lxa8 <tlc7
23 . ..Q.c6 �xa3 24.<tlb5 <tlxb5 25 ..1lxb5 ±
Heinzel-Merz, Germany 1 996;
E) 2 . . . e5 See the Introduction where
1 .b4 e5 2 . .ilb2 d5 3 . .ll x e5 is analyzed;
F) 2 . . .f6
1) 3.d4
a) 3 . . . e6 4.a3 <tld7 5.e3 .lle 7 6 . ..Q.d3
<tlh6 7.c4 c6 (7 . . . dxc4!? 8.Axc4 <tlb6 oo )
8.c5 b5? ( o 8 . . . e5) 9.<tld2 <tlf7 10.<tlgf3
0-0 1 1 .0-0 e5 1 2.e4 with a clear posi­
t i onal advantag e , Kent- Tanner,
Liverpool 2006;
b) 3 . . . e5 4.b5 .lld6 5 .e3 <tle7 6.<tlf3 e4
7.<tlfd2 0-0 8.c4 c6 9.<tlc3 <tld7 1 0.cxd5
cxd5 1 l .�b3 <tlb6 1 2 .<tldxe4 ± Melich­
Houska, Klatovy 2000;
2) 3 . e4 Game 2 4 : Katalymov­
Mnatsakanian, Sochi 1 969;
3) 3.f4 �d6 4.e3 ..Q.f5 (does White have
sufficient compensation for the pawn
after 4 . . . �xb4 5 .Aa3 or not?) 5 .<tlf3
.llg4 6.a3 <tld7 7.c4 c6 8.cxd5 cxd5
9.<tlc3 a6 10 . .lle 2 e5 l l .fxe5 fxe5 1 2.Q-O
<tlgf6 1 3 . <tlh4 .ll e 6 1 4 . <tlf5 .ll x f5
1 5 .§. xf5 the two bishops give White the
better chan c e s , O l e x a - H o fmann,
Bratislava 1 959;
1 04
4) 3.e3 .llf5 (3 ... e5 4.b5 transposes to
Chapter 7 A) 4 . c4 c6 5 . <tlc3 ( 5 . �f3
Game 25: Sokolsky-Csaszar, corr 1 958)
5 . . . e5 6.�b3 .lle6 7.cxd5 cxd5 8 . .llb5+
<tlc6 9.e4 <tlge7 1 0.§.cl �d6 1 l .�a4
g6 1 2 .<tlf3 'lf?f7 1 3.exd5 <tlxd5 14 . .1lxc6
bxc6 1 5 .a3 Ad7 ( 1 5 . . . <tlf4! threatens the
g-pawn, not to mention a piece fork)
1 6.<tle4 �e7 17.�b3 .llh6 18.0-0 with
pressure down the long dark diagonal,
Diener-Petzold, corr 1 985. Just to show
how strong that pressure already is:
18.<tlxf6!? �xf6 1 9.<tlxe5+ 'lf?g8 20.0-0
�e6 2 1 .<tlxd7 �xd7 22 . .1lxh8 'lf?xh8 oo ;
G) 2 . . . <tld7
1) 3.e3 e5
a) 4.a3 <tlgf6 5.c4 dxc4 6 . .ll x c4 .ll d6
7.<tlc3 c6 8.<tlf3 �e7 9.d4 h6 1 0.�c2
e x d4 1 1 . <tl x d4 <tl e 5 1 2 . A e 2 0-0=
Emberger-Polansek, Feffemitz 2004;
b) 4 . <tlf3 ..Q.d6 5 . b5 <tlgf6 6 . d4 e4
7.<tlfd2 0-0 8.c4 c6 9.<tlc3 §. e8 10.a4
<tlf8=; we
2) 3.<tlf3 <tlgf6 4.e3
a) 3 . . . e6
(i) 5.b5 Ad6 6.d4 (6.c4 dxc4 7 . ..Q.xc4
0-0 8.0-0 b6 9.d4 .llb7 10.<tlbd2 <tle4
1 1 ..1le2 �f6 1 2 . <tlc4 �h6 1 3 . <tlxd6
c x d6 1 4 . §. c 1 §. ac8 1 5 . � d 3 <tldf6
 The Sokolsky Opening

16.f! xc8 !! xc8 17.f!cl f! xc l + 18.Axcl 4.b5, Chapter 3 ;

'lttg6 [18 . . . g5!?] 1 9.-tle1 '/;1ff5 20.f3 .tlg4
[ 2 0 . . . -tl g 5 2 1 . h 4 +- ] 2 1 . '/;1tc 2 h 5 3 ) 3.g4 h5!;
22 . .ll d 3 '1;1tg6 2 3 . fxg4 + - Cottarelli­
Rezzuti, Salsomaggiore 2006) 6 . . :if!e7 I) 2 . . . Ag4
(6 . . . -tle4 7 . ..1ld3 f5 8.c4 c6 9.0-0 0-0
10.-tlbd2 g5 l l . .tle5 '/;1ff6 1 2 .f4 Axe5 1 ) 3 . f3 Af5 4 . e 3 e6 5 . c4 .tlf6 6.b5
13.dxe5 'if¥g6 14.bxc6 bxc6 1 5 .-tlf3 g4 ( o 6 . a 3 c6 7 . c x d 5 cxd5 8 . -tle 2 = )
16 . .£Jd4 ± D i az Lombardo-Araiza 6 . . . -tlbd7 7.cxd5 exd5 8.d4 ..lld6 9 . .1ld3
Nieto, Mexico 1 999) 7.Ae2 e5 8.dxe5 Ag6 1 0 .Aa3? '/;1te7 1 1 ...1lxd6 Zielke­
<Dxe5 9 . 0- 0 Ag4 1 0 . -tlbd2 .tl x f3 + Lohrie, Kiel 2006 1 1 . . .'/;1txe3+! 1 2 .'/;1te2
1 Ulxf3 Axf3 1 2.-tlxf3 c6 1 3.bxc6 bxc6 '/;1txe2+ 1 3 .�xe2 cxd6 Black is a pawn
14.c4 dxc4 1 5 :if/a4 White regains the up and better developed;
pawn w i th a s l i ght advantag e ,
Tartakower-Vajda, Vienna 1 92 1 ; 2) 3.h3 .llh 5
(ii) 5.a3 a6 6.c4 dxc4 7.Axc4 b5 8.Ae2
!J..e 7 9.d4 0-0 1 0 . 0-0 Ab7 1 1 .-tlbd2
<Db6 12.f!c1 f! c8 1 3 .-tlb3 f! e8 1 4.-tle5
<Dfd7 1 5 . Af3 A x f3 16 . .£l x f3 .£lf6
1 7 . .£Je5 ± Ve s s o n - M azalto b , S a i n t
Quentin 2000;
b) 4 . . . c5 Game 26: Lorenc-Navratil,
Czechia 200 I ;
c) 4 . . . g6 5 . c4 d x c 4 6 . ..1l x c 4 .tlb6
(6 . . . .llg7? 7.Axf7+ l -0, Vokac-Bazant,
Turnov 1 996) 7 . ..ll b 3 ..ll g 7=
Dunnington;
a) 4.c4 e6 5.'if¥b3 .tlf6 6.e3 Ae7 7.-tle2
H) 2 . . . e6 c6 8.-tlf4 .llg6 9.b5 .tlbd7 10.d4 0-0
1 1 .-tlxg6 fxg6 1 2 .Ad3 a6 1 3 .a4 '<t>h8
1) 3 ..£lf3 f5 4.e3 .tlf6 5.a3 Ae7 6.Ae2 14.-tld2 axb5 1 5 .axb5 f! xa l + 1 6.Axa 1
0-0 7.0-0 c6 8.d3 a5 9.c3 axb4 10.cxb4 '/;1tc7 17.-tlf3 f! a8 18.0-0 f!a3 1 9.'if¥b1
b6 1 1 .-tlbd2 Ab7 1 2 . 'i!Yb 3 .tlbd7? '<t>g8 20 . .ilb2 f! a8 2 l .f!cl '1;1td8 22 .'/;1tc2
( o 12 ... ..1ld6) Noskowicz-Adamowski, due to Black's inferior pawn structure,
corr 1 992. Now 13.-tlg5 wins a pawn; White stands better, P.Nielsen-Holst,
Aarhus 1 998;
2) 3.e3 b) 4.-tlf3 .tld7 5.e3 e6 6.a3 .tlgf6 7.c4
a) 3 . . . a6 4.c4 dxc4 5 .'i!Yc2 .tlf6 6.'l!Yxc4 c6 8.d4 Ad6 9.-tlbd2 0-0 10 . ..1le2 f!e8=
b5 7.'/;1tb3 .£Jc6 8.a3 Ae7 9. -tlf3 0-0 Mikhalchishin-Pavasovic, Bled 2002 ;
10 . .lle 2 Ab7 1 1 .0-0 .tld5 1 2 .d4 Af6
13.§d1 g6 14.-tlbd2 .tlce7 1 5 .-tle4 Ag7 3) 3.-tlf3 (White's usual response) trans­
16 . .£Jc5 ± Karlsen-Gusland, Sandefjord poses to the notes in Chapter 4B (2.-tlf3
2002; etc.);
b) 3 . . . .£Jf6 is understandably the over­
whelmingly popular choice at this point. 4) 3.c4 e6!?;

1 05
 l .b4 d5 2 . .ilb2

5) 3 :iii•'cl !? ; (i) 8 . . . 4Jbd7 9.E!c1 a6 1 0.�b3 e6 1 l .a4

4Je4 1 2 . 0-0 White i s more active,
J) 2 . . . a6 transposes to l .b4 a6 2 . .Q.b2 Lauer-Pocivalnik, Saarlouis 2004;
d5 mentioned in the Introduction. (ii) 8 . . . .1l.g4 9.0-0 4Jbd7 10.E!cl 4Je4
1 1 .h3 .ll xf3 1 2 . .1l.xf3 4Jxc3 1 3 . .ilxc3
3.e3 4Je5 14 . .1l.e2 �d7 1 5 .�b3 E!fc8 16.E!c2
4Jc4 1 7 . .1l. x g7 'ift x g7 1 8 . E! fc l ;!;
3 .<�:lf3 e6 4.b5 .ild6 5.e3 transposes to Katalymov-Grushevsky, Tashkent
the start of Game 20. 1 978;
b) 4 . . . .Q.g7 5 . cxd5 0-0 6 . 4Jf3 4Jxd5
3 -'l.fS
7 . .1l.xg7 'iftxg7 8 . �b3 c6 9 . .ile2 h6
.•.

The point is to control e4. 1 0 . 4Jc3 .Q.g4 1 1 . 0-0 e6 1 2 .h3 .ilxf3

1 3 . .1lxf3 4Jd7 1 4 . d4 ;t Cernik-Janda,
A) 3 . . . c6 4.f4 .Q.g4 Klatovy 200 1 ;

1) 5 .4Jf3 e6 6.a3 a5 7.b5 cxb5 8 . .1l.xb5+ 2) 4.a3 .ll.g7 5 .4Jf3 0-0 6 . .ile2 b6 7.0-0
4Jc6 9.c4 dxc4 10.�a4 (10.0-0 must be .ll.b7 8.d3 (8.c4!?) 8 . . . 4Jbd7 9.4Jbd2 c5
stronger) 1 0 . . . .1l. x f3 1 l . g x f3 E! c8 1 0.c4 �c7 1 l .E!cl e5 1 2 .cxd5 4Jxd5
1 2 . 4J c 3 .ll e 7 1 3 . E! c 1 0-0 1 4 . .1l.xc4 1 3.bxc5 bxc5 1 4 . d4 �b6?
Lapshun - F i l ipovich, Guelph 2004 ( o 1 4 . . .exd4) 1 5 . 4Jc 4 �e6
14 . . . 4Jb4 ! 1 5 . .ile2 4Jd3 + 16 . .Q.xd3 1 6 . 4Jc x e 5 +- Kuhmann- S chweiger,
�xd3 =i= ; Erlangen 2003 ;

2) 5 . .Q.e2 .Q.xe2 6.�xe2 (6.4Jxe2 e6 C) 3 . . . 4Jbd7 4.4Jf3 transposes to 2 . ..Q.b2

7.a3 a5=) 6 . . . e6 7.a3 4Jbd7 8.4Jf3 .Q.d6 4Jd7 3.4Jf3 4Jgf6 4.e3.
9.c4 0-0 10.0-0 a5= Lapshun-Furdzik,
New York 2002;

B) 3 . . . g6 The e5-square could also be reinforced

with a pawn: 4.f4 Games 27 and 3 3 .
1) 4.c4
a) 4 . . . c6 5 .4Jf3 .ilg7 6.4Jc3 0-0 7.cxd5 4.c4 e 6 5 . b 5 .ile7 6.4Jf3 c 6 transposes
cxd5 8 . .ile2 to Lindner-Norman in the notes above.

4 e6 s.a3
..•

Or of course 5.b5 but for once 5 .a2-a3

scores better.

s ... .Q.e7

5 . . . a6 Game 2 8 : Bessat-Lombard, La
Fere 2006.

6.c4

1 06
 The Sokolsky Opening

Balashov-Vafin, Kazan 2006, went S u m m a r y : I n the s i d e lines after

6 . .1le2 0-0 7.<tlh4 <tlbd7 8.<tlxf5 exf5 Black's second move, White has many
9. 0-0 c6 1 0 . c4 dxc4 l l . .ll x c4 <tlb6 promising possibilities.
12 ..1lb3 a5 with queenside counterplay.
Chapter 4A
6 ...c6
l .b4 d5
6...0-0 7.<tlc3 c6 8 . .1le2 <tle4 9.0-0 .llf6
l O . .§. c l <tld7 l l . d 3 ! ? ( � 1 1 . �b3
l . . .e5 2.a3 d5 3.e3 <tlf6 4.Ab2 �d6
S p assky-N e i , L e n i n grad 1 9 6 3 ) transposes.
1 1 . . . <tl x c 3 1 2 . .1lxc3 �c7 1 3 . .1lxf6=
Khalifman. 2 . .Q.b2 �d6

7.cxd5
The German Defense. Black gains a
tempo by attacking the b-pawn, pre­
7 ..1le2!? 0-0 8.0-0 oo dxc4 9 . .1lxc4 <tlbd7
pares . . . e7-e5, but at the same time ex­
10.d4= Finkel.
poses his queen.
7...cxd5 8.�a4+ �bd7 9.�c3 0-0
10.J1,e2 �b6 l l . �b3 �c8 12.d3 3.a3
h6 13.0-0 .Q.d6 14.�ac l � bd7
15.l;tc2 By far the most popular choice.

A) 3.b5

1) 3 . . . �b4 The usual move, but Black

does have other good options.
a) 4.Ae5

15... ~b6

15 ... a6!? Black prepares to double his

rooks too: 1 6 . . . �e7, 1 7 . . . .§. c7 etc.

16.l;tfcl
White has the slightly better position
and threatens to win a pawn by <tlc3xd5,
Cottarelli-Tamburini, Salsomaggiore
2005 .
(i) 4 . . . d4 5 .e3 c5 6.�cl (6.a3 �b2??
7.<tlc3 dxc3 8 . .1lxc3 traps the queen)
6 . . . dxe3 7.fxe3 .llf5 8.<tlc3 e6 9 . .1le2
<tld7 10.Ag3 i!:i'a5 l l .a4 i!:i'd8? (Black
should go l l . . .<tlgf6 1 2 . .1lf3 0-0-0 with

1 07
 l .b4 d5 2.Ab2

sharp play) 1 2 .Af3 �c8 1 3 .a5 <tlgf6 3 ••. es

14.a6+- Ho Hou Meng-Schadler, Turin
2006; Erecting a big center was the point of
(ii) 4 . . . <tld7!? 5 .Axc7 e5 leaves the c7- 2 . . . �d8-d6.
bishop stranded;
(iii) 4 . . . �xb5 5.Axc7 <tld7 6.e3 �c5 A) 3 . . .Af5 4.<tlf3 <tld7 5 .e3 e5
7 . Ag3 <tlgf6 8 . d4 �a5+ (8 . . . �b4+
9.<tld2 <tle4 10.<tlgf3=) 9.�d2 �xd2+
1 0.<tlxd2 e6 1 1 .Ad3 White is slightly
more active, Johansson-Bergljung, corr
1 987;
b) 4.Ac3!?;
c) 4.�cl �xb5 5.<tlc3 (5.e4!?) 5 . . . �d7
6.e3 c6 7.<tlf3 <tlf6 8.E!.b1 �c7 9.d4 .il£5
1 0.Ad3 Ag6 1 1 .0-0 e6 1 2 .<tle5 <tlbd7
1 3 .Aa3 <tlxe5 14.dxe5
(i) 14 . . . <£:ld7 1 5 .Axf8 'it>xf8 16.f4 Axd3?
17.cxd3 g6 18.<tlb5! �b8 19.<tld6 with
1) 6.Ae2 Ae7 7.d3 h6 8.<tlbd2 <tlgf6
a decisive advantage, Djakov-Boysan,
9.0-0 c6 1 0.c4 0-0 1 1 .�b3 Ae6 1 2 .c5
Dos Hermanas 2004;
�c7 1 3 .�c3 with pressure down the
( i i ) White ' s compensation after
long dark diagonal, W. Stein-Rahner,
1 4 . . . �xe5! 1 5 .Axf8 E!. xf8 1 6 .�a3 is
Karlsruhe 2003 ;
probably not worth the two pawns;
2) 6.<tlc3 c6 7.Ae2 <tlgf6 8.0-0 Ae7
2) 3 . . . <tld7 4.Aa3 oo ; 9 . <tlh 4 .i.te6 1 0 . f4 <tle4 l l . <tl x e4
( l l . fxe5 <tlxe5 1 2 .<tlxe4 dxe4 trans­
3) 3 . . . e5 4 . .ila3 �e6 5 .Axf8 'it>xf8 6.e3 poses) 1 1 . . .dxe4 1 2 .fxe5 <tlxe5 1 3.<tlf5
<tle7 (6 . . . c5!?) 7.Ae2 a5 8.a4 c5 9.<tlc3 Axf5 14.E!. xf5 .Q.f6 1 5 . .ild4 <tld7 1 6.c3
b6 1 0 . d3 Ab7 1 1 .<tlf3 ( l l .<tlh3 d4 �e6 (16 . . . 0-0!?) 1 7.Ag4 ± Bott-Rahner,
12 ...1li3 .Q.xf3 1 3.�xf3 E!.a7 oo ) 1 1 . . .<tld7 Karlsruhe 2003 ;
1 2 . 0-0 E!. d8 1 3 . <tlb1 e4 1 4 . <tle 1 f5
1 5 . <tld2 <tlf6 1 6 . c3 �f7 1 7 . �b3 g5 B) 3 . . . a5 4.b5
1 8 . d4 c4 1 9.�d1 g4 + Fritz-Pickert,
corr 1 966; 1) 4 . . . Ad7 5 .e3 c6 6.a4 cxb5 7.axb5
e5 8 . .i.ta3 �b6 9.Axf8 'it>xf8 1 0.<tla3
4) 3 . . . a6 4 . a4 a x b 5 5 . a x b 5 E!. x a 1 <tlf6 1 1 .c3 �c5 1 2.�b3 b6 1 3.<tlf3 <tlg4?
6.Axa1 e5 7.<tlf3 <tld7 8.e3 <tlgf6 9.Ab2 ( o 1 3 . . . �d6) 1 4.h3 e4 1 5 .hxg4 exf3
c5 1 0.bxc6 bxc6 1 1 .d4 Y2-Y2, Cuellar­ 1 6 . gxf3 White is a pawn up, Larios
Boudy, Havana 1 982; Villa-Garcia Andres, Aragon 2002;

B) lf 3.<tlc3, Black's simplest course is 2) 4 . . . a4 5.e3 Ad7 6.c4 dxc4 7 . .ilxc4

3 . . . c6 4.a3 <tlf6 5 .e3 e5 6.<tlf3 <tlbd7 c6 8 . <tlc 3 c x b 5 9 . <tl x b 5 Axb5
7.Ae2 Ae7 8.0-0 0-0 with equality at 1 0 . A x b 5 + <tlc6 1 1 . A x a 4 ± Kuhn­
least. Schwabe, Voelklingen 2000.

1 08
 The Sokolsky Opening
4.e3
A) 4.d3 f5 5.4Jd2 4Jf6 6.c4 c6 7.g3 IJ..e7
8 . .Q.g2 0-0 9 . e 3 f4 B l ack has the
kingside initiative;
B) 4.<£'lf3
1) 4 . . .f6 5.d4 (5.e3 Game 29: Sokolsky­
Villard, Kiev 1 955) 5 . . . e4 6.4Jfd2 <£Jh6
(6 .. .f5 7.e3 <£Jf6 must be better) 7.e3 f5
8.c4 f4 9 . �h 5 + g6 1 0 .�xd5 �xd5
l l .cxd5 fxe3 1 2 .<£'lxe4 with the advan­
tage, Lukovski-Raabe, Leverkusen
1 997;
2) 4 ... <£Jd7 5.e3 IJ..e7 (5 ... <£Jgf6 trans­
poses to the main line) 6.c4 c6 7 .cxd5
cxd5 8.<£'lc3 IJ.. f6? (8 . . . a6 was vital)
9.<£'lb5 �b8 1 0Jk1 IJ..d8 1 U!xc8! 1 -0,
Sokolsky-Krupsky, USSR 1 960;
3) 4 . . . e4 5.<£'ld4
a) 5 . . . <£Jf6 6.c4 dxc4 (6 . . . c6 7.c5 ;t ) 7.e3
.Q.e7 (7 . . . IJ.. e 6 8 . �cU ) 8.Il.xc4 0-0
9 . .£lc3 and according to Sokolsky White
has the better prospects . I n fact
Damaso-Santos, Lisbon 1 997, contin­
ued 9 . . . <£Jc6 1 0 . 4Jcb5 �d7 1 1 .<£'lxc6
�xc6 1 2 .Ae2 Y:z- Y:z;
b) If 5 . . . <£Jc6 simply 6.e3 (Sokolsky
BC02 : "6.c4! dxc4 7.e3 ;t " looks a
1 09
questionable line) 6 . . . <£Jxd4 7.IJ.. x d4
�g6 8.d3!?;
c) 5 . . . a5 6.<£'lc3 is possible because of
the vulnerable queen; e.g., 6 . . . axb4?
(6 . . . 4Jf6 is safe) 7.<£Jdb5 �c6 8.<£'lxd5
4J a 6 9 . a x b4 � b8 1 0 . e 3 � x d 5
1 1 .� xa6! +- ;
C) 4.e4?! gives up a pawn for an uncer­
tain future ; e . g . , 4 . . . dxe4 5 . f3 exf3
6.<£Jxf3 e4!?
4 ... {)f6
A) 4 . . . ..1le7 5 .4Jf3 ..llf6 6 . ..1le2 ..llg4
1 ) 7 . <£'lc 3 c6 8 . 0-0 <£'ld7 9 . d3 <£'le7
10.�b1 b5 1 1 .<£'la2 (White spends time
on <£'lc3-a2-c l -b3, but then strangely
resists playing 4Jb3-a5) 1 1 . . .0-0 1 2 .<£'lcl
� fd8 ( 1 2 . . . a5!?) 1 3 . <£'lb3 4Jg6 14.<£'lfd2
Il.xe2 1 5 .�xe2 4Jgf8 16.c4 a6 17.cxd5
c x d 5 1 8 . � fc l � dc8 1 9 . � d l 4Je6
20.�c2 � xc2 2 l .�xc2 <£Jb6 2 2 . � c 1
� c8 23 .�b1 IJ..e 7 24.�c2 f5 25 .�cl
� xc2 26.�xc2 f4 with equal chances,
although White won in the end, Zarko­
Heged, Velika Gorica 2004;
2) Interesting is 7.d4 e4 8.<£'lfd2 ..ll x e2
9.�xe2 <£'le7 10.c4 c6 1 1 .<£'lc3 o-o 12.0-0
� 1 3.f3 with good chances for White;
B ) 4 . . . IJ.. f5 5 . d3 <£'ld7 6 . <£'lf3 <£'lgf6
7 . <£'lbd2 c6 8.e4 ..ll g6 9 . exd5 <£'lxd5
 l .b4 d5 2 . .1lb2
(9 . . . cxd5=) 10.4:Jc4 �e6 1 1 .<£lg5 �e7
1 2 . <£l e4 �e6 1 3 . h 4 f6 1 4 . h 5 .ilf5
1 5 .�f3 .ilxe4 ( 1 5 . . . .ilg4 !?) 1 6 . dxe4
<£!5b6 17.�b3 .ild6 18.<£lxd6+ �xd6
1 9 . � h3 0-0-0 2 0 . � d3 �e7 2 1 ..ile2
�he8 22 . .ilg4 �c7 23.a4 <£Jc8 24.0-0-0
<£lf8 25 .b5 � xd3 26.� xd3 c5 27 . .ila3
b6? 28. 't11 d 5 �b8 29.�c6 +- Poley­
Terrieux, St. Lorrain 2003 ;
C) 4 . . . .ile6 (This is just as popular as
4 . . . <£Jg8-f6) 5 . <£lf3 ( 5 . <£lc3 Game 3 0 :
Bums-Bennett, Wanganui 2005) 5 . . .f6
6.d4
1) 6 . . . <£ld7 7.dxe5
a) 7 . . . <£lxe5 8.<£lbd2 <£lxf3+ 9.�xf3 <£lh6
1 0.c4 c6 1 1 .h3 Ae7 1 2 .c5 �c7 1 3 . .ild3
<£lf7 14:�·e2 <£le5 1 5 . .1lc2 � d8 16.<£lb3
<£lc4 17.<£ld4 .ilf7 18 . .ilc3 b6 19.<£lb3
.ll g 6 2 0 . 0- 0 .il x c 2 2 l . � x c 2 �f7?
(Black's king is too bold 2 1 . . . 0-0!?)
2 2 . .1ld4 g6 2 3 . �c3 h5 2 4 . f4 � hg8
25 .e4 �d7 26.e5 f5 27.�f3 �e6 Again,
too bold
( i ) 2 8 . � a 2 28 . . . � df8 29 . .1lf2 �e8
30.cxb6 axb6 3 1 .<£ld4+ �f7 32 .b5 +­
Krafzik-Porubszki, Triesen 2004;
(ii) 28.cxb6! ; e.g., 28 . . . axb6 29 . ..1lxb6
�b8 30.<£ld4+ �f7 3 1 .e6+ +- ;
b) 7 . . . fxe5 8. <£lbd2 <£lgf6 9 . c4 dxc4
(9 . . . c6!?) 1 O . .ll x c4 e4 1 1 . <£lg5 .ll x c4
1 2 .<£lxc4 �e7 1 3 .0-0 h6 1 4.<£lh3 'ltlf7
1 5 .�c2 � c8
1 10
( i ) 1 6 . � a d 1 .ile7 1 7 . <£J e 5 {}xeS
1 8 . .1lxe5 �e6 1 9 . .ilxf6 .ilxf6 20.{}f4
�f5 2 l . � d 5 .ll e 5 2 2 . 'ltl c 5 1 - 0,
Brinkrnann-Menkhaus, Germany 200 1 ;
( i i ) 1 6 . .il x f6 ! <£l x f6 1 7 . <£lf4 !:::.
18.<£le5 +- ;
2) 6 . . . e4 7.<£lfd2
a) 7 . . . .ile7 8.c4 c6 9.<£lc3 a6 10.{}a4
<£ld7 1 1 .<£lc5 <£lxc5 1 2 .dxc5 (probably
stronger was to play 1 2 .bxc5!? and then
apply pressure down the b-file with
� a 1 -b 1 ) 1 2 . . . �d7 1 3 . c x d 5 ..ll xdS
1 4 . .ilc4 �f5 1 5 . �c2 <£Jh6 1 6 .-'txdS
cxd5 1 7.c6 (17.<£lb3!? with the idea of
targeting the backward d-pawn by {}b3-
d4-e2-f4) 1 7 . . . bxc6 18.�xc6+ �f7=
Kozun-P.Hoffmann, corr 1 992;
b) 7 . . . <£Jh6 8.c4 c6 9.<£lc3
(i) 9 . . . Ae7 1 0 . � c l a6 1 1 . <£lb3 ..llf7
( 1 1 . . .<£ld7!?) 1 2 .cxd5 cxd5 1 3 . <£lc5 b6
14.'ltla4+ �f8 1 5 .<£lb5 �d8 16.<£Jc7 due
to the threats of <£lc5-e6+ and <£lc7xa8,
B l ack loses material Vokac-Mohr,
Montecatini Terme 1 997;
(ii) 9 . . .f5 1 0."itlc2 a6 1 1 .<£la4 b5 1 2.cxd5
cxd5 1 3 .<£lc5 ± S itnikov-Dyachkov,
Serpukhov 2003 ;
c) 7 . . .f5 8.c4!;
D) 4 . . . a5 5 .b5!?
A) Or the immediate 5.c4!?
1) 5 . . . c6 6 . <£lf3 .ilg4 7 . h 3 (7 . .ilxe5
'ltlxe5 8.<£lxe5 .ilxd1 9 . � x d 1 White
gains a pawn) 7 . . . .ilxf3 8.'ltlxf3 <£Jbd7
9.cxd5 e4 1 0.'ltld1 cxd5
a) 1 1 ..ilb5 .ile7 1 2.f4 exf3 1 3.�xf3 Q-0
1 4 . 0-0 a6 1 5 . .ila4 b5 1 6 . .ilc2 � ac8
1 7 . .ilf5 � c7 18 . .ild4 <£le5 19.�f4 <£Jg6
20 . .ilxg6 hxg6?? (20 . . . �xf4 2 l ..ilxh7+
�xh7 2 2 . � xf4 � c 2 was necessary)
 The Sokolsky Opening
2 1 ..1le5 gains material, Moehring­
Kleifges, Tiefenbach 2005 ;
b) 1 1 .4Jc3 a6 ( 1 1 . . .4Je5? 1 2 . 4Jb5 ± )
12.d3 ;!; ;
2) Black loses a pawn after 5 . . . .lle6?
6.c5 �d8 7 . .ilxe5 Krafzik-Voelkel, Bad
Griesbach 2002;
B) 5.d3 4Jbd7 6.4Jf3 c6= BC02 7 . .1le2
g6 8.c4 Ag7 9.cxd5 cxd5 10.0-0 0-0
1 1 .4Jc3 a6 1 2 J ! c l b6 1 3 . � c 2
( 1 3.�b3!?) 1 3 . . . .11 b7 1 4 .h3 ( 1 4 . d4!?)
14 . . . d4 1 5 . 4Jd l ? ( 1 5 . 4Je4 .il x e 4
16 .dxe4 dxe3 1 7 . fxe3 b5 1 8 .!H d l
lii'b6 =i= Uhlmann) 1 5 . . . .§ ac8 1 6.�bl
4Jd5 17 . .§el dxe3 1 8.fxe3 b5 1 9 . .11fl
4J7b6 20.4Jd2 4Ja4 + Lalic-Uhlmann,
Sarajevo 1 980.
5... 4)bd7
A) 5 ... e4 resolves the issue of the cen­
ter 6.4Jd4 c6
1) 7.c4
a) 7 . . . .1le7 8.�c2 4Ja6 9. cxd5 cxd5
10 . .1lb 5 + �f8 ( 1 0 . . . .ild7 1 1 . 4J f5 ! )
1 1 .4Jc3 with the advantage, Diener­
Eriksson, corr 1 993 ;
b) 7 . . . a6 8 . 4Jc 3 4Jbd7 9 . .§ c l g6
1 0 . c x d 5 c x d 5 1 1 . 4J c b 5 ! a x b 5
Ill
1 2 . 4Jxb5 ± Rodriguez-Marcussi, corr
1 982;
2) 7.d3 g6? (7 . . . .11 e 7!?) 8.dxe4 dxe4
9.4Jb5! cxb5 1 0.�xd6 (or 10 . .11 x b5+
first) 10 . . . .11 x d6 l l ..ll xf6 0-0 1 2 .4Jc3
4Jd7 1 3 .4Jxe4 4Jxf6 14.4Jxf6+ with an
extra pawn, Nadanian-Lobj anidze,
Erevan 1 996;
B) 5 . . . .11g4? loses a pawn to 6.Axe5
�xe5 7.4Jxe5 Axdl 8.�xdl .
6.c4
6 . . .c6
Reinforcing the d5-pawn is the logical
thing to do.
A) 6 . . . Ae7 7.4Jc3 c6 8.cxd5 4Jxd5
1) 9.�c2 0-0 10 . ..1ld3 g6 1 1 .4Je4 ffc7
12 . .11c4 4J5b6 13 . .11b3 h6 14.h4! �g7
1 5 .h5 f5 16.4Jg3 �d6 1 7.hxg6 f!xg6
18.4Jxe5 4Jxe5 1 9.Axe5+ �h7 20 . .11f4
.ll g 5 2 l . A x g 5 � x g 5 2 2 . 0- 0 - 0 a 5
2 3 . .§ h 5 �f6 2 4 . d4 a x b 4 2 5 . a x b 4
( 2 5 . .§ d h l .§ a 5 26 . .§ x h6+ simplest
2 6 . . . �xh6 2 7 . .§ xh6+ �xh6
28.�d2 +- ) 25 . . . .§ a l + 26.�b2 .§ xdl
27.�xdl �g7 28 . .§ xf5! �e7 (28 ... ..1lxf5
2 9 . 4J h 5 + fo rks k i n g and queen)
 l .b4 d5 2.Ab2
29 .� xf8 �xf8 30. �d2 +- Dergatschova
Daus-E.Paehtz, Germany 1 997;
2) 9.Ac4 .£\xc3 1 0.Axc3 .llf6 1 l .�c2
.£lb6 ( 1 1 . . .0-0!?) 1 2 .Aa2 0-0 1 3.h4 g6
14 . .£lg5 Af5 15 . .£le4 Axe4 16.�xe4
.£ld5 17.Ab2 Ag7 18.h5 f5 19.'l!i'c2 e4
2 0 . hxg6 hxg6 2 l . g4?! ( o 2 l . � e 2 )
2 1 . . . .1l x b 2 (nothing bad happens t o
Black if h e simply takes the pawn; e.g.,
2 1 . . . fxg4 2 2 . Axg7 �xg7 2 3 .'tit'xe4
.£lf4! + ) 2 2 . �xb2 �f6 2 3 .�xf6 � xf6
24.gxf5 gxf5 25.�e2 �g7 26.� ag1 +
(White does better to double on the h­
file: 26.�h5 and 27. � ah 1 ) 26 . . . � g6
27 . .1lxd5 cxd5 28. � c 1 White turned
th i s favorab l e ending into a w i n ,
Dzieniszewski-Masternak, Bydgoszcz
1 990
B) 6 . . . g6
1) 7 . .£lc3 c6 8.cxd5 .£\xd5 9 . .£\xd5 'l!i'xd5
10.�c2 Ag7 1 1 ..1lc4 i!i'd6 1 2.0-0 fol­
lowed by d2-d4 with active play;
2) 7 . �a4 c6 8 . c 5 �e7 9 . d4 e x d4
(9 . . . e4!?) 1 0 .Axd4 Ag7 1 l .Ae2 0-0
1 2 .0-0 Ah6!? so that the f6-knight can
move without exchanging dark-squared
bishops 1 3 . h3 ( 1 3 . .£lc3 !?) 1 3 . . . .£le4
1 4 . .£lbd2 f5 1 5 .�c2 .£ldf6 1 6 . .£lb3 f4
17.exf4 .ll xf4 ( 1 7 . . . .£\hS!?) 18.Ad3 A£5
19.�fe1 �ae8 Szewczak-Kulik. Warsaw
1 12
1 997. Now White should proceed on the
queenside with 20.a4 and 2 1 .b5.
White gets on with development.
7.cxd5
A) 7 . . . .£lxd5 8 . .£lc3 .£\xc3
1) 9.dxc3 �xd1 + 1 0 . � xd1 Ae7 1 1 .c4
f6 1 2 .c5 .£lf8 1 3.Ae2 Ae6 14.0-0 .£lg6
1 5 . .£ld2 �f7 16.Ac4 b6 1 7.cxb6 axb6
18.f4 .ll x c4 1 9 . .£\xc4 exf4 20.exf4 b5
2 1 ..£\aS c5= S aradj en-Kariz, Skofja
Loka 1 998;
2) o 9.Axc3! Game 3 1 : Lalic-Giaidzi,
Athens 1 992 ;
B) 7 . . . cxd5
1) 8.�a4 e4 9 . .£ld4 a6 10 . .£lc3 �b8
1 1 . � c 1 ;!;; Te i c hmann-Konopka,
Bratislava 1 99 1 ;
2 ) 8 . d4 e4 9 . .£le5 Ae7 1 0 .Ae2 0-0
1 1 . 0-0 �e6 and B lack has no prob­
lems;
3) 8 . Ab5 e4 (8 . . . a6? 9 . A x e 5 costs
Black a pawn) 9 . .£ld4 a6
 The Sokolsky Opening

a) 10 . .Q.e2 .tle5 1 1 .-tlc3 .lle7 1 2 .h3 0-0
13.0-0 .11d8 1::>. 14 . . . .Q.c7 with threats
against the white king;
b) Or 1 0:ifi'a4 g6 1 1 .-tlc3 Ag7 12 . .Q.e2
0-0 13 .d3 exd3 14 . .1lxd3 .£Je5 1 5 .Ae2
Ag4 16.§d1 -tlc4 17.Aa 1 b5 18:ili'b3
§ ad8 with good play, Myslowski­
Kulik, Warsaw 1 980.
2 l . . .gxh5 22 .-tlxh5 'it!c7 ( 2 2 . . . -tld7!?)
23.-t\xg7 �xg7 24.h5 -t\h7 25 .g6 -t\g5
26.gxf7 Axf7 27.§ xf7+! -t\xf7 28.�g6+
�f8 29.h6 +- Chirpii-Kounine, Eforie
Nord 2000.

7 ... a6

Dunnington analyzes 7 . . . e4 8.W4 dxc4

9.'�c2!? �e5 1 0.Axc4 -tlb6 1 1 .f4! "with
chances for both sides" although we
much prefer White.

8 c5
.

1 2 ... {:)e8 13.�c2 f5 14.{:)g5 f!e7

A reasonable alternative is 8.cxd5 cxd5
1 5 .f4 e4 1 6 . {:) h3 {:) df6 17 .{:)f2
9.§cl Scholbach-Eman, corr 2000.
.Q.e6 18.E{fcl

8... �e6 White's plan is Ae2-d1 and then to cen­

tralize the g3 -knight by -tlg3-e2-d4,
If8 . . . �c7 9.-tla4!? is strong. with good prospects.

9.-tle2 g6 10.{:)g3 Jl.g7 ll.J}.e2 0-0 Sum mary: We draw attention to 3.b4-
12.0-0 b5 , which hasn't been fully tested out
in practice. Likewise 8.c4xd5 in place
Completing development. of the main line 8.c4-c5.

A) 1 2 .d3 -t\e8 1 3 . 0-0 f5 1 4 .�b3 h6 Chapter 4B

Black equalizes easily;
B) 1 2 .h4!?; e.g., 12 . . . h5 1 3.�c2 �e7
14 . .£Jg5 § e8 1 5 . 0-0 -tlf8 16.f4 .£:!6h7
17.§ae1
1) 17 ... -t\xg5 simplest, leading to equal­
ity 18.fxg5 f5=;
2) 17 ... .Q.d7 18.§f2 § adS (still possible
is 18 . . . -t\xg5!? 19.fxg5 f5) 19.§ efl -t\xg5
20.fxg5 Ae6 (it's too late for Black to
play 20 . . .f5?? 2 1 .gxf6 +- ) 2 1 .Axh5!?
( 2 1 . e 4 ! 1::>. 22 . .£Jf5 g x f5 2 3 . e x f5 )
l.b4
1 .-tlf3 d5 2 .b4, Santasiere 's Folly, is the
same as l .b4 d5 2.-tlf3, which is cov­
ered in the notes to move two. Apart
from that, this section mainly deals with
the early development of Black's light­
squared bishop.
l . . . d5
l . . .-tlf6 2 ..ilb2 d5 3.e3 Af5 4.-tlf3 trans­
poses.

1 13
 1 .b4 dS 2 . .ilb2
2.1l.b2
2 . .£)f3!? This is a fascinating alternative
to the automatic 2 . .ilcl -b2 if the inten­
tion is to follow it up with c2-c4, other­
wise it is simply a transposition to
Santasiere's Folly:
A) 2 .. :ti;i•d6 3.c4!? The Soszynski Gambit.
1) 3 . . . dxc4 4.e3
a) 4 . . . �xb4 5 . .£)c3 (better than both
5 . .£)a3 c3! and S.Aa3) 5 . . . .£)f6 6.§b1 i'i5 ;
b) 4 . . . .£)f6 5 . .£)a3!?;
c) 4 . . . -ilfS .ila3!?;
d) 4 . . . b5 S .a4
(i) s . . . .£)d7 6 . .£)a3 �f6 7 . .£)xb5!? �xa1
8 . .£)xc7+ �d8 9 . .£)xa8 .ilb7 (9 . . . �a2
10 . .£)g5 .£)h6 oo ) 10 . .ilxc4 e6 1 l .�c2
.ilxa8 1 2.0-0 �f6 1 3 . .ilb2 �g6 1 4 ..ild3
fS 15 . .£)h4 i!Ye8 16.§cl �e7 1 7.�c7
.£)gf6 1 8 . -ilbS �b8 1 9 . i!Yxb8 .£)xb8
2 0 . § c8 1 - 0, Soszynski -NN , www.
ChessWorld.net 2007;
(ii) S . . . c6 6 . .£)c3 bxa4 7 .bS! ± ;
(iii) S . . . .ild7 6.axb5 .ilxbS 7 . .£)a3 ± ;
e) 4 . . . .ilg4 5 . .ilxc4 e6 6.b5 �d8 7 . .ilb2
.£)f6 8 . h 3 .ilhS 9 . g4 ; C . Bulcourf­
F.Benko, Buenos Aires 2000;
2) � 3 . . . �xb4 4.cxd5;
3) 3 . . . e5 Probably the most dynamic
reply is 4.cxd5 (4.c5 is simplest)
1 14
a) 4 . . . e4 5 . .£)d4 � x d S 6 . e 3 .£)f6
7 . .£)c3 oo ;
b) 4 . . . .£)f6 5 . e4!? .£)xe4 6 . .£)c3 .£)xc3
7 .dxc3 e4 8. �e2 �xdS 9 . .£)g5 oo ;
4) 3 . . . c6 4.e3 e5 S.cxdS cxdS 6 . .£)c3
.£)f6 7 . .£)b5 �e7 8 . .ilb2 .£)c6 9.�a4
.ild7?? (White is still better after 9 . . . d4
1 0 . Ac4 a6 1 1 . 0- 0 ) 1 0 . .£) c 7 + +­
Soszynski-R.Clegg, Rhyl 2006;
B) 2 . . . Ag4
1) 3.c4!? Axf3 (3 . . . dxc4 4.e3!?) 4.gxf3
a) 4 . . . dxc4 5 . .ilb2 bS 6.a4 c6 7.Ag2
.£)f6 8.axb5 e6 9.f4 .£)d5 10.i!Ya4 i!Yb6
1 1 ..£)c3 .£)xc3 1 2 .Axc3 Ad6 1 3 .bxc6
�c7 14.b5 0-0 1 5 .-ilaS i!Ye7 16.�xc4
§ c8 1 7 . c7 1 - 0 , S o s zynski -NN,
www.ChessWorld.net 2007;
b) 4 . . . e6 S.cxdS (5 . ..1lb2 .£)f6 6.cxd5=)
S . . . �xdS 6 . .£)c3 White seems to have
more possibilities, but the line needs
practical tests;
2) � 3 . .£)e5 ..llfS 4.e3 .£)d7;
3) 3.Ab2 .£)f6 (3 . . . Axf3!? is less com­
mon) 4.e3 e6 5.a3 .£)bd7= NCO;
C) 2 . . . .£)f6 The usual move in this posi­
tion. Now 3.Ab2 transposes to Chap­
ter 4 ( � 3.c4 e6);
D) 2 . . . e6 3.Ab2 transposes to Chapter
4;
E) 2 . . .f6 3.e3! e5 4.c4! The exclama­
tion marks are Santasiere's .
2 . . Jl.fS
.
In this chapter Black lets the bishop out
immediately before closing the gate
( . . . e7-e6). Obviously with the bishop
 The Sokolsky Opening
on f5 play can readily transpose to
Chapter 4.
2 . . . 1!2\£6 3.e3 .llf5 transposes; 2 . . . .llg 4,
Chapter 4; 2 .. :�d6, Chapter 4A.
3.e3
Intending c2-c4.
A) 3.1!2\f3
1) 3 . . . 1!2\f6
a) 4.g3 1!2\bd7 5.-'i.g2 e6 (5 . . . c6 6.0-0
e6 7.a3 -'i.d6 8.d3 0-0 transposes to
Boysan-Franco in the notes below) 6.a3
.lld6 also transposes to Boysan-Franco
in the notes below;
b) Or of course 4.e3 which transposes
to the main line;
c) 4.b5 e6 5 .e3 transposes to 3.e3 1!2\f6
4.4Jf3 e6 5 .b5;
2) 3 . . . e6 4.e3 a6 (4 . . . 1!2\f6 5.a3 trans­
poses to 3.e3 1!2\f6 4.1!2\f3 e6 5.a3) 5 .Ae2
4Jd7 6.0-0 1!2\gf6 7 .a3 c6 8 . d3 Ad6
9.4Jbd2 t:!g8 10.t:!cl g5 1 1 .W4 f!c7
1 2 .h3 Ag6 1 3 .c4 h5 1 4 .cxd5 1!2\xd5
1 5 ..1lxh5 ( 1 5 . b5!? is more energetic)
15 . . . .1lxh5 1 6 .' �xh5 0-0-0 1 7 . t:! fd l
( 1 7 . 'i!i' xf7 ! ? ) 1 7 . . . g 4 1 8 . hxg4 1!2\7f6
19.ffh3 t:!h8? ( o 1 9 . . . 1!2\xg4!?) 20.fff3
Cruz - Zamarb ide Ibarrea, Heraklio
2002;
1 15
3) 3 . . . h6 4.e3 e6 5.1!2\d4 (5.a3 Game 32:
Maletzki - Rauscher, Naumburg 2002)
5 . . . .llg6 6.c4 1!2\£6 7.-'i.e2 a6 8.0-0 c5
9:�a4+ 1!2\bd7 10.bxc5 .ll x c5 1 1 .cxd5
1!2\xd5 1 2 .1!2\f3 0-0 1 3.d4 .lld6 14.1!2\bd2
t:! c8 1 5 . t:! a c l f!e7 1 6 . 'i!i'b3 Ah7
17.1!2\c4 with active play, Lauko-Kroo,
Strm i l ov 2 0 0 5 . White threaten s
18.1!2\xd6 �xd6 1 9 . .lla 3 winning;
B) 3 .g3 e6
1) 4.a3 1!2\f6 5 . .1lg2 Ad6 6.1!2\f3 1!2\bd7
a) 7.0-0 0-0 8.d3 c6 9.1!2\bd2 a5 1 0.c3
e5 l l .t:! e l itfe7 1 2 .e4 dxe4 1 3 . dxe4
.lle6 14.1!2\g5 h6 1 5.1!2\xe6 �xe6 16.�e2
1!2\b6 1 7 . .ll f 1 1!2\a4 1 8 . 1!2\ c4 1!2\ x b 2
1 9.�xb2 axb4 20.cxb4 .llc 7 2 l .ffc2
1!2\d7 2 2 . 1!2\ e 3 1!2\b6 2 3 . t:! e d 1 t:! fd8
24.t:! xd8+ t:! xd8 25 .a4 g6 26.a5 1!2\d7
27.-'i.c4 �f6 28.1!2\g4 �g5 29.�e2 1!2\f6
30.1!2\xf6+ �xf6 3 1 . t:! a3 t:! d7 32.�g4
t:! e7 3 3 . h4 'iti'g7 3 4 . t:! d 3 Wh ite i s
slightly better but eventually won after
opposition errors, Boysan-Franco, Dos
Hermanas 2003 ;
b) 7.d3 �e7 8.1!2\bd2 e5 9.0-0 0-0 1 0.c4
c6 1 l .cxd5 cxd5 1 2.e4 Ag4 13.h3 .ll.xf3
14.�xf3 d4 1 5 .1!2\c4 White can prepare
f2 -f4 w i th the better chan c e s ,
Kulithenko-Makaev, corr 1 952;
2) 4.b5
 l .b4 d5 2 . ..1lb2
a) 4 . . . c5 5.<bf3 <bf6 6.Ag2 Ad6 7.0-0
0-0 8 . d3 <bbd7 9 . <bbd2 '?!Je7 1 0 . c4
d4 oo ;
b) 4 . . . c6!? 5.a4 <bf6 6.<bf3 .lld6 7.Ag2
0-0 8 . 0- 0 a6 tran s p o s e s to
Dubleumorti er-Frenzel, corr 1 996,
which continued 9.<ba3 (9.d3!?) 9 . . . �e7
lO:�cl E! c8 l l .e3 ( l l .c4!?) l l . . .cxb5
1 2 . a x b 5 a x b 5 ( 1 2 . . . .1l d 3 ! 1 3 . E! e l
a x b 5 + ) 1 3 . <bd4 ( 1 3 . .1l x f6 � x f6
14.<bxb5=) 1 3 . . . .1ld3 + .
A) 3 . . . <bd7 4.d4 (if 4.f4 e5!? is strong)
4 . . . e6 5.a3 .lld6 6.<bd2 <bgf6 7.c4 c6
8.c5 .llc7 9.a4 (9.<bgf3 and the comple­
tion of kingside development is more
logical) 9 . . . 0-0 1 0.b5 e5 l l .<bgf3 (this
invites l l . . .e5-e4, which luckily for
W h i te wasn ' t p l ayed) 1 1 . . . e x d4
1 2 .<bxd4 .llg 4 1 3 .�c2 .ll a 5 1 4 . .1ld3
.ll x d2+ 1 5 .'i!txd2 cxb5 ( 1 5 . . . <be4 + ! ?
aims t o open the position up) 1 6.axb5
E! c8 17.c6 <be5 18.f3 .llh 5 (18 . . . ..1ld7!?)
19.E! xa7 bxc6 20.<bxc6 White is a pawn
up in the better p o s i t i o n , Kazak­
Nozdrachev, Dagomys 2004;
B) 3 . . . <£Jc6 4.a3 a6 5 .<bf3 �d7 6 . .1le2
0-0-0 The wrong side to castle as
White 's pawns are already advanced on
this wing 7.b5 axb5 8 . ..1lxb5 e6 9.0-0
1 16
f6 1 0 .d4 ..lld6 l l .<bbd2 <bge7 1 2 .c4
White threatens c4-c5 and �dl -a4 with
a dangerous initiative that was turned
into a win, Kadziolka-Pertl, Trinec
200 1 ;
C) 3 . . .f6 4.c4 e6 ( 4 . . .e5 5.cxd5 Axb4??
6.�a4+ +- ) 5 .cxd5 exd5
1) 6.a3 <bh6 7.<bf3 Ag4 8 . .1le2 Ad6
9.<bh4 ( c:. 9.<bc3) 9 . . . �d7 1 0.h3 Ae6
l l .<bc3 c6 1 2 .<bf3 a6 1 3 .d4 0-0 14.e4
White should castle first 1 4 . . . dxe4
1 5 .<bxe4 Ae7 (more active is 15 . . . a5!?)
1 6 . 0-0 ( 1 6.<bc5 is a possibility for the
next few moves) 1 6 . . . E! d8 1 7 .Vi1c2
'life8 1 8 . .1ld3 <bd7 1 9 . E! a e l <bf8
2 0 . <bc5 Finally ! 20 . . . ..1lxc5 2 l .dxc5
�f7 22.E!e3 E! e8 (less bad is 22 . . . E! xd3
2 3 . 1=! xd3 ..ll f5 ;!; ) 2 3 . <bd4 ( 2 3 . E! xe6!
<b x e 6 [ 2 3 . . . E! x e 6 24 . ..1lc4 E! ae8
25.<bd4 +- ] 24.Axh7+ 'it'h8 25 .Ag6 ± )
23 . . . Ad5 24.E!g3 'it'h8 25 .<be2 E! ad8
26. <bf4 Ab3 27.Vi1c3 ± Black stands
p a s s i v e ly, L . Vukov i c - M o m i rovic,
Belgrade 2004;
2) 6.<bf3 Axb4? 7.<bd4 Ad7 8.Vi1h5+
'it'f8 9:�xd5 ± ;
D) 3 . . . e6
1) 4.c4 dxc4 5.Axc4 <bf6 6.a3
 The Sokolsky Opening
a) 6 . . . c6 7.<£lc3 <tlbd7 8.<£lf3 Ad6 9.d4
0-0 10 . ..1ld3 ..ll x d3 1 1 .iii' x d3 e5 1 2 .!!d1
Ei e8 1 3 . dxe5 AxeS 1 4 .<£\xe5 <tlxe5
15 .�xd8 !! axd8 16.\tle2 <tlc4 1 7.-'l.cl
g6 18.h3 h5 1 9 . f! xd8 f! xd8 20.f!d1
f!xd1 2 l .'it'xd1 \tlf8 22.\tle2 \tle7 23.f4
�e6 24.'it'd3 b5 25 .e4 a6 26.<£le2 <tld7
27.4Jd4+ White is slightly more active
and went on to w i n t h i s e n d i n g ,
Schoenegg-Kratochvi l , Marianske
Lazne 2004;
b) 6 . . . .lld6 7.d3 <tlbd7 8.<£lf3 0-0 (8 . . . c5
9.bxc5 .ll x c5 1 0 . <£lbd2=) 9.e4 Ag4
10.4Jbd2 <tle5 1 1 .iii'c 2 .ll xf3 1 2 .<£\xf3
.£\xf3 + 1 3 . g x f3 .Q.f4 1 4 . 'it' e 2 <tl h 5
15.!!agl iii'e7 16.!!g2 !! ad8 17.!!hg1
.ilh6 ( o 1 7 . . . e5)
(i) 18 . .llc 1 .1lxc1 19.iii' x cl e5?? (19 . . . g6
20.f4 oo ) 20.f! xg7+ \tlh8 2 1 .'fii'h6 <£lf6
22.f! xh7+ 1 -0, Bartle-Strasser, Ottenau
2005 ;
(ii) 18. 'fii'd 2! -'txd2 1 9 . f! xg7+ <£\xg7
20.f! xg7+ \tlh8 2 l .!! xf7+ e5 22.f! xe7
.ll f4 2 3 . !! x e 5 \tlg7 2 4 . !! e 6 + 'it'f7
25.h4 +- ;
2) 4.b5
a) 4 . . .f6 5.<£lf3 .Q.d6 6 . .1le2 c6 7.c4 <tle7
8.0-0 iii'c 7 9.d4 dxc4 1 0 . .1lxc4 <tld5
1 1 .4Jbd2 ..llg4 1 2 .h3 Ah5 1 3 .iii'b 3 ..Q.f7
(i) 1 4 .a4 <tld7 1 5 .a5 0-0 1 6. !! fcl c5
17.4Je4 b6 18.a6 (1 8.<£\xd6!?) 18 ... !!ac8
1 17
19.<£le1 iii'b8 20 . .lla 3 .lle7 21 .<£ld3 cxd4
2 2 . .1l x e 7 <tl x e 7 2 3 . .1l x e 6 !! x c l +
24.!! xc1 dxe3 2 5 . .1lxf7+ !! xf7 26.fxe3
<tl e 5 ? ? 2 7 . <£l f4 ( 2 7 . <£\ x e 5 iii' x e 5
[ 2 7 . . . fx e 5 28 . !! f1 iii' f8 2 9 .<tlg5 +- ]
2 8 . !! d 1 �c7 [ 2 8 . . . h 6 2 9 . <£ld6 +- ]
29.<£ld6 <£lg6 30.<£\xf7 'fii' x f7 3 l .'fii' x f7+
'it'xf7 3 2 . !! d7+ +- ) 27 . . . h6 2 8 . iii' e 6
<£17g6 29.!!c8+ 1 -0, Grodecki-Gerhardt,
Germany 200 1 ;
(ii) 14.e4!? <tlf4 1 5 .g3 <£\xh3+ 16.\tlg2
<£\g5 1 7 . <£\ x g 5 fx g 5 1 8 . .1l x e 6 0-0
19.e5 ± ;
b) The usual deployment is 4 . . . <£lf6
5 .<£lf3 .lld6 6.c4 etc. as in Sherbitzky­
Begun in the notes below;
c) 4 . . . c5 5 .<£lf3 <tlf6 6 . .1le2 .lld6 7.<£lh4
0-0 8.<£\xf5 exf5 9.g3 <tlbd7 10.0-0 !! e8
l l . .llf3 iii'b6 1 2 .a4 a6 1 3 .<£lc3= Lanca­
Antoshik, Konik 1 996;
3) 4.<£lf3 transposes to 3.<£lf3 e6 4.e3.
4 . f4 Game 3 3 : S c h i ffler-Goers,
S o emmerda 1 9 5 0 . 4 . c4 Game 3 4 :
Sokolsky-Romanishin, Lvov 1 947 .
4 ... e6
Sokolsky-Eisenstadt, Kishinev 1 95 1 ,
continued 4 . . . <£lbd7 5.c4 dxc4 6 . .1lxc4
e6 7.b5 .lld6 8.<£lc3 iii'e7 9.d4 e5 1 0.h3
h6 1 l .dxe5 <£\xe5 1 2 .<£\xe5 .ll x e5 1 3.0-
0 0-0 ( 1 3 . . . iii' b 4 1 4 . iii' b 3 � x b 3
1 5 . a xb3 ;t ) 1 4 . iii' b 3 .ll d 6 1 5 . !! ae l
!! ae8 1 6.<£ld5 <tlxd5 1 7 . .1lxd5 iii' g 5
18.e4 with the better position.
5.c4
oo NCO.
There are two other moves roughly
equally as popular:
 l .b4 d5 2 . .i}.b2
A) 5.a3
1) 5 . . . Ad6 6.c4 c6 7 . .i}.e2 <£lbd7 8.0-0
�e7 9.d3 e5 10.cxd5 cxd5 1 1 .<£lc3 0-0=
Kulithenko-Laes, corr 1 95 3 ;
2) 5 . . . h6 6.c4 !J.e7 7.cxd5 exd5 8.Ae2
0-0 9.0-0 <£lbd7 1 0.d3 c6 1 1 .<£lc3 fi e8
1 2 .b5 ( o 1 2.<£ld4) 1 2 . . . c5 1 3.�b3 Ae6
1 4 . � c 2 Ad6 'l' L e b e i - G. Vasquez,
Challes 1 990;
3) 5 . . . <£lbd7 6.c4 dxc4 (6 . . . a5 7.b5 Ad6
8.d4 it ) 7.!J.xc4 !J.e7 8.0-0 c6 9.<£lc3 0-0
1 0.�b3 b5 l l .!J.e2 �b6 1 2 .fiacl a6
( 1 2 . . . a 5 !?) 1 3 . d4 a5 1 4 . <£le 5 a x b4
1 5 .<£lxd7 <tlxd7 16.axb4 <£lf6 17.fife 1 it
Lalic-McMahon, Dublin 1 99 1 ;
4) 5 . . . !J.e7 6.!J.e2 0-0 7.<£lh4 transposes
to Chapter 4, see the Balashov-Vafin
game in the notes to 6.c4;
5) 5 . . . c5 6.c4!? cxb4 7 .axb4 <£lc6 8:�a4
Ae7 (8 . . . !J.xb4 9.<£ld4 oo ) 9.cxd5 exd5
1 0 . <£ld4 !J.d7 1 l .b5 <£lb4 1 2 .Aa3 a5
1 3 .<£lc3 0-0 14.!J.e2 <£le4 1 5 .0-0 <tlxd2
1 6 . fi fd 1 <£lc4 1 7 . <£l x d 5 it Larsen­
Browne, Las Palmas 1 974;
6) 5 . . . a6 Game 28;
B ) 5 . b5 Ad6 ( 5 . . . c 5 transposes to
Lanca-Antoshik in the notes above)
6.c4
1 18
1) 6 . . . <£lbd7 7.d4 dxc4 8.Axc4 0-0 9.0-0
�e7 1 0 . <£lbd2 e 5 1 l . d x e 5 <tlxe5
1 2 .<£lxe5 Axe5 1 3 .Axe5 �xe5 1 4.<£lf3
�e7 1 5 . <£ld4 w ith good p l ay,
Sherbitzky-Begun, Minsk 1 96 1 ;
2) 6. . .c6 7.<£lc3 0-0 8.<£lh4!? oo .
5 ... �c6
Black has tried several different moves
in this position:
A) 5 . . . !J.xb4 6.�a4+ (6.cxd5 �xd5
7.�a4+ <£lc6 8 . .i}.b5=) 6 . . . <£lc6 7.<£ld4
1) 7 . . . fib8! 8.<£lxc6 bxc6 9.�xc6+ �d7
1 0 .�xd7+ ( 1 0 . cxd5 �xc6 l l . dxc6
A x b 1 1 2 . fi x b 1 Aa3 + ) 1 0 . . . � x d7
1 1 .<£lc3 Ae7 1 2 . <£ld 1 fi b7 1 3 . cxd5
e x d 5 1 4 . fi c 1 fi hb8 + S c i al i n o ­
Zonneveld, IECG 2003 ;
2) 7 . . . �d6? 8 . <£lxc6 bxc6 9.a3 Ac5
1 0.d4 Ab6 1 l .c5 +- ;
3) 7 . . . Ae7 8.<£lxc6
a) 8 . . . bxc6 9.�xc6+ �f8 1 0.Ae5 White
is slightly better if only because of the
position of the black king;
b) 8 . . . �d7 9.cxd5 bxc6 10.dxc6 �d8
1 1 . <£l a 3 ! Ad3 1 2 . .i}. x d 3 � x d 3
1 3 .�c4 ± ;
 The Sokolsky Opening

B) 5 . . . 4Jbd7 6.c5 Black seeks simplifying exchanges.

1) 6 . . . .ll.e7 7.4Jd4 .ll. x b1 8 . .§ xb1 (8.c6! ;
e.g., 8 . . . .ll.g6 9.cxb7 .§b8 10.4Jc6 traps
the queen) 8 . . . c6 9.g4!? (or the calmer
9 . ..1le2 0-0 10.0-0 �c7 l l .f4 ;!; ) 9 . . . h6
1 0 . h 4 �c7 1 l . f4 b6 1 2 . b 5 .ll. x c 5
( 1 2 . . . 4Jb8 1 3 . cxb6 axb6 1 4 .bxc6 ± ;
o 1 2 . . . bxc5) 1 3 .4Jxc6 with an obvious
advantage , K i l p atrick- B o y l e , corr
1 99 1 ;
2 ) 6 . . . a 5 7 . a 3 a x b4 8 . a x b 4 f! x a 1
9 ..1lxal �a8 1 0.4Jc3=;
.
7 . . . Ad6 8.d4 0-0 9.0-0 a5 1 0.b5 4Je7
1 1 .4Jbd2 4Jed5 1 2 .f!e1 4Je4 1 3 . 4Jxe4
Axe4 14.4Jd2 .ll.g6 1 5 .e4 4Jb6 16.Ad3
White is slightly more active.
8.�b3
8.Axd3 �xd3 9:-l!Ye2 �xe2+ (9 . . . �b3
10 . .ll. xf6 gxf6 1 1 .d4 ;!; ) 1 0.'.t'xe2 Ae7
l l . .§ c l White will have the slightly
better ending.
8 ••. Jl, x c4

C) 5 . . . c6 6.b5 (also possible are 6.a3!? Torassa-Coristo corr 1 986 continued

..lle7 which transposes to the main line
of Chapter 4, and 6.c5!?) 6 . . .4Jbd7 7.a4
..lld6 8.bxc6 bxc6 9.4Jd4 Ag6 1 0.4Jxc6
�b6 1 1 . .ll. x f6 4J x f6 1 2 . c x d 5 4Jxd5
1 3 .4Jd4 0-0 1 4 . 4Ja3 .ll. x a3 1 5 . f! xa3
�c5 ( 1 5 . . . e 5 !?) 1 6 . f! a 1 e 5 1 7 . f! c l
White i s a pawn up, Bulcourf-F.Benko,
Buenos Aires 1 963 ;
8 . . . .ll.e4 9.d4 (9.Ae2!?) 9 . . . Axf3 10.gxf3
4Je7 1 1 .4Jc3 c6 1 2.e4 �c7 1 3.4Je2 .§d8
14.f!d1 4Jg6 1 5 .Acl b5 16.Ad3 .ll.e7
17 . .ll.b 1 0-0 18.f4 .§ fe8 19.f!g1 with
attacking possibilities on the kingside,
White went on to win.

D) 5 . . . a5 6.b5 4Jbd7 7.4Jc3 4Jb6 8.cxd5

White has a small positional advantage
exd5 9.4Jd4 Ad7 1 0.d3 Ad6 1 1 .Ae2
so far.
(l l .g3!?) 1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2 . 0-0 c5 1 3 .bxc6
bxc6 14 . .§cl .§ e8 1 5 .Af3 �e7 with
more or less equal chances, Grund-Van
der Zvan, corr 1 975;

E) 5 ... .ll.e7 6.4Jc3 0-0 7.�b3! ( � 7.c5

a5! Soltis);

F) 5 . . . dxc4 6 . .ll. x c4 Ad3 (6 . . . 4Jbd7

transposes to Sokolsky-Eisenstadt in the
notes above) 7. �b3 .ll. x c4 8. �xc4 ;!; .

6.a3 dxc4
9 . . . �d5
6 . . . a6 7.cxd5 exd5 8.d3 Ad6 9.Ae2
0-0 10.0-0=. Black failed to equalize in Hoffmann­
Piszcz, corr 1 992, 9 . . . .ll.e 7 10.4Jc3 0-0
7 . .Q.xc4 Jl.d3 1 1 .0-0 4Jd5

1 19
 l .b4 d5 2.-'i.b2

A) 1 2 .<tlxd5 i!t'xd5 1 3 . �g4 f6 1 4 . e4

i!t'd7 1 5 .d4 E! ad8 16.E!adl f5 17.i!t'f4
fx e4 1 8 . i!t'xe4 i!t'd5 1 9 . E! fe l i!t'xe4
20.E! xe4 E!d6 2l .E!del Black is saddled
with a weak e-pawn and eventually lost;
Also played were:

B) 1 2 . E! acl .llf6 1 3 .d4 <tlb6 1 4.i!t'e2 a5

1 5 . b5 <tla7 1 6 . <£Je4 .Q.e7 1 7 . <£lc 5 ;!;
Baluch-Piszcz, corr 1 993 ;

C) 1 2 .d4 <tlb6 1 3 .�b3 a5 14.b5 <tla7

1 5 . e 4 c6 1 6 . b xc6 <tlxc6 1 7 . d 5 a4 4 e6
.••

1 8 . i!t'a2 exd5 1 9 .<tlxd5 ;!; Buczinski-

Piszcz, corr 1 994. A) Weak is 4 . . . <£Jh6

10.'~xdS ~xdS 11.~c3 1) 5 . �h5+ g6 6.�e2 .llg7 7.f3 exf3

Followed by E!a 1-cl gives White the
slightly more active position.
S u mmary: There are so many options
for both sides, not to mention transpo­
sitions, that we recommend study of the
fully annotated games. However, note
the possibility of 2.4Jgl -f3 (instead of
the automatic 2.-'i.c l -b2) and the dy­
namic, almost unexplored positions fol­
lowing c2-c4.
8.4Jxf3 -'i.g4 9.0-0 c6 1 0 . 4Jc3 �b6+
( o 1 0 . . . <£ld7) l l .'it>hl i!t'xb4? 1 2 .E!abl
e5 1 3 . <£le4 �e7 14.i!t'd3 <tlf5 Pilczuk­
Gruszczynski, corr 1 99 1 1 5 . <tlxf6+!
.ll x f6 1 6 .<£lxe5 <tld7 1 7 . <£lxd7 �xd7
1 8 . .1lxf6 +- ;
2) Or 5.f3 exf3 6.<tlxf3 e5 7.0-0 .llg4
8 . b 5 .ll d 6 9 . � e l �e7 1 0 . 4Jc 3 c6
l l .<tle4 .ilxf3 1 2 .E! xf3 cxb5 1 3.-'txb5+
<tld7 ( o 1 3 . . . <£Jc6) Guziec­
Gruszczynski, corr 1 99 1 1 4 . .\txd7+!
�xd7 1 5 .E!d3 +- ;

Game 24 B) 4 . . . e5 5.<£lc3 55 .
Katalymov-Mnatsakanian
Sochi 1 969 s . .£)h3 Jl x b4

l .b4 dS 2.J}.b2 f6 3.e4 Another possibility is 5 . . . <£Jc6 6.<£Jf4!?

White seizes the initiative; for alterna­ 6.t\'hS+

tives to this risky move, see Chapter 4.
6.<£Jg5 <tlc6 7.0-0 :55 .
3 . . . dxe4
6.•. ~f8
3 . . . e5 transposes to Chapter 7B.
6 . . . g6!? Black retains castling rights but
4.Jlc4 at the cost of kingside weaknesses.

1 20
 The Sokolsky Opening
White must maintain the tension if he
wants to win.
8 . 4J x e 6 + A x e 6 9 . � x e 8 + '.t' x e 8
10.-'l.xe6 4Ja6. White, a pawn down,
will have to fight for a draw.
s ... es
8... 4Jc6!? Black is two pawns up and can
afford to let one go, although his king's
position continues to give White some
compensation.
9 . .flg6+ hxg6
Black decides to give up material. Al-
ternatively 9 . . . �xg6!? 1 0.�xc8+ �e8
l l .�xb7 4Jc6 1 2 .�xc7 ( 1 2 . .1la3 .ll x a3
1 3A:Jxa3 4Jge7 1 4 . § b l � ) 12 . . . 4Jge7
13.0-0 .llc 5 oo . Note that Black threat-
ens the win the bishop on b2 like so :
14 . . . §c8 1 5 .�b7 § b8 16.�a6 § xb2.
10.'� xh8 .Q.e6 l l . .Q.e2?!
White does better to exchange on e6.
11 �c6 12.�c3 �d7 13.0-0 �cS
•••
14.a3 .Q.aS 1S.a4
121
Black could gain another pawn by
15 . . . Axc3 1 6.Axc3 4Jxa4 but prefers to
hold on to the bishop-pair.
16 .Q.b5 t\'d6 17 .Q.a3?
• •
White needs to protect his d-pawn.
17 ••• f5
B l ack s h o u l d go for the pawn
1 7 . . . �xd2! 1 8 .4Jd5 ( 1 8.Axc5 �xc3
19 . .1le3 c6 + ) 18 . . . �xd5 19.§adl Ad2
20.Acl e3 2 l . fxe3 Axe l ! 2 2 . § xd5
Axe3+ 23 .'.t'hl Axd5 Black has more
than enough material for the queen.
t8.t\'h3
White still needs to protect his d-pawn.
t8 ••• �f6 (18 . . . �xd2!) t9.t\'e3 b6
Black has a dynamic position in return
for the exchange, and soon threatens the
white kingside.
2 0 . E{ fd l a6 21 .Q.ft f4 2 2 . �e l
•
t\'c6
23 .Q. xc5 .Q. xc3!
•
 l .b4 dS 2 . .llb 2

White was probably counting o n

23 . . .'�xc5 24.<£lxe4 <tlxe4 25.�xe4.
34 . . . <tlxfl !? 3 5 . �xf3 <tld2 3 6 . � a8+
24.d xc3 � x eS 2S.c4 E{h8 26.aS (36.� xd2 �g5+ -+ ) 36 .. .'it'h7 -+ .
4)g4
3S.E{a8 4)g4?
Even stronger is 26 . . . e3! 27.fxe3 <£Jg4
Black had been playing so well, but now
with a won position.
goes seriously wrong.
27.axb6 cxb6 35 . . . <£lxfl ! wins; e.g., 36.�xf3 �g5 +
37.'it>xfl �cl + 38.'�e2 � eS+ 39.�e3
27 . . . � xh 2 ! threatening the decisive .ll x c4 * .
. . . �c5-f8-h8 supporting the rook.
36. E{ x f3 4)eS 37.lag3
28 .Q.e2 f3
•

3 7 . � e 3 ! ? �g 5 + 3 8 . � x g 5 � x g5+
28 ... <£lxh2! leaves White in serious diffi- 39.Ag2 +- .
culties.
37... ~b7
29.gxf3 �e7! 30 .Q.fl •

37 . . . ..1lxc4 38.�f8 �xf8 39.� xf8 -'txfl

The knight can't be taken: 30.fxg4 �h4 40.<itfxfl +- .
3 1 . f3 � x h 2 + 3 2.'.tlfl e3 3 3 . Ad3
38 .Q.g 2 �d7 3 9 . la a l 4) x c4
�f4 -+ .
•

40.E{el .Q.fS?

30 . . . exf3 (30 . . . <tlxh2!) 31 .lad3

3 l .�e4 <tlxh2 32 .�xe5 <tlxfl 33.� xfl

�h4 forces mate.

31 . . . 4) x h2 (3 l . . .�b7 -+ ) 32.�xeS
labS 33.�f4+ '1f(g8 34.E{ x a6

41.� xc4 1-0

Game 25
Sokolsky-Csaszar
corr 1 95 8

l .b4 dS 2 .Q.b2 f6 3.e3 .Q.fS 4.c4 c6

•

s.4)f3

1 22
 The Sokolsky Opening

S.<£lc3, Chapter 4. B) 1 2 . . . 0-0!? so that if 1 3 .ti'e2 tt'b4 and

Black goes on the counterattack.
; ...e; 6.b;
1 3 . .£l x f 5 .£l x f 5 1 4 . .1l h 3 §.e8+
15.�fl �b4

This no longer has the force it would

have had a few moves ago when there
was a bishop on f5 .

16.§.bll .£l xd4 17.�g2

White has completed development and

can now swing into action, already
threaten i n g <£l c 3 x d 5 uncovering a
double attack on the d4-knight.
6 ... ,1l.d6

6 . . a6 is a resolute way to eliminate the

.

b5-pawn.

7.4)c3 4)e7 8.d4 �a;

According to Sokolsky stronger was

8 ... e4 9.<£ld2 .lle6 followed by lO .. .fS
strengthening the pawn center.

9.c; exd4
17 . . . .£le6
If 9 . . . .1lc7, 1 0 . <£ld2 threatens the un­
pleasant 1 1 .<£lb3 . Other possibilities show the poor state
Black is in:
10.exd4 .1lf4 l l .g3 .1lh6 12 . .£lh4
�f7? A) 1 7 . . . El. d8 18.�h5+ 'it>f8 19.El.hdl a6
20.<£le4 dxe4 2 1 ..1lxd4 ti'c4 22 . .1lxf6
Leaving the king in the center when all El. xdl 23.El. xdl +- ;
the pieces are still on the board is not a
good idea. B) 17 . . . <£lxb5 1 8.<£lxb5 �xb5 1 9.ti'h5+
�f8 20.El.hel <£la6 2 1 ..1lxf6 +- .
A) 1 2 . . �b4!? is an attempt to disrupt
.

White's development, although White 18. �h5+ �f8 19.E!hel .£ld7

seems fine after 1 3 .�b3 �xd4 14.El.dl
�eS+ 15 . .1le2 ..ll. e 6 ( n o better is 1 9 . . . <£lc7 20.El. xe8+ <£\xe8 2 1 ..1le6 +- .
1 5 . . . .1lg4 1 6 . f4 ) 1 6 . b x c 6 <£lbxc6
17 . .£lb5 � ; 20 . .1l xe6 §.e7 21 . .1l xd5! E!ae8

1 23
 1 .b4 d5 2.-'tb2
2 l . . .cxd5 22.!:l. xe7! .
22.bxc6 bxc6 23.Jlb3
23.4)e4!? cxd5 (23 . . . !:l. xe4 24.�t/ # )
24.4Jd6 +- .
23 . . . .£) xc5
23 . . . �xc5 2 4 . � x c 5 4J x c 5 2 5 . !:l. xe7
!:l. xe7 26.-'ta3 +- .
2 4 . E{ x e7 Et x e7 2 5 . E{ d l
26. �f5 g6 27. �h3 1-0
Game 26
Lorenc-Navratil
Czechia 200 1
l .b4 d5 2.jlb2 .£)f6
2 . . . 4Jd7 3.4Jf3 4Jgf6 4.e3 transposes.
3.e3 .£) bd7 4 . .£)f3 c5
The most popular move in this position
is 4 . . . e6 for which see Chapter 4.
5.bxc5 �aS
5 . . . 4Jxc5!? looks fine for Black; e.g.,
6.Jl.b5+ Jl.d7 7.a4 a6 8 . .1lxd7+ 4Jcxd7
9.4Jc3 e6 10.0-0= N.Fink-Lichte, Ger­
many 1 999.
6.c4 e6 7.cxd5 exd5
8.�b3
White could simply complete develop­
ment by 8 . .1le2 .ll x c5 9.0-0.
8 •.. j}_xc5
8 . . . 4Jxc5!? is better since the game move
will lose Black his castling rights.
9.Jlxf6 .£) xf6 10 . .Q.b5+ �e7
.£) d 7
Black is forced to displace his king.
1 0 . . . .1ld7 l l .Jl.xd7+ 4Jxd7 1 2 .�xb7
wins a pawn.
1 1 .0-0 .Q.e6 1 2 .d4 .Q.d6 13 . .Q.d3
E{ab8 14 . .£)c3 a6 15 .£)g5 E{hc8
•
t6.E{fcl b5 17 . .£) xe6
Taking on h7 cannot be recommended:
A) 1 7 . 4J x h 7? 4J x h 7 1 8 . Jl. x h7 g6
19.4Jxd5+ 'it>f8 and the white bishop is
in trouble;
B) 17 . Jl. x h 7 4J x h 7 ( 1 7 . . . -'t a 3 ! ?)
18.4Jxh7 !:l. c4 with the initiative in re­
turn for the pawn.
17 fxe6 18.e4
.••
White hopes that opening the center
(where the black king is) will favor him.
18.g3 is very solid but unambitious.
18 . . . Ab4 19 . .£) xd5+?!
A huge investment to get at the black king.
19 . . . exd5 20.e5 .£)e8
Probably better is 20 . . . 4Jh5 2 1 ..1lxh7
(21 .�xd5 4Jf4 cripples White 's attack)
2 1 . . . .1lc3 2 2 . �xd5 White has three
1 24
 The Sokolsky Opening

pawns for the knight, but it's unlikely 34 . .§dl!? �f8 35 . .!:!d7 with an obviously
to be enough. large advantage.

21.t\' xdS 34 . . . g3 3S.fxg3

21...t\'d8? 3S . . . a4

There's no time for this as B lack should A better try for B lack is to activate
be counterattacking: forces by 35 . . . .!:! e8!? 36 . .§ e l 4:Jd5 .

A) 2 l . . . .§ xcl +!? 22 . .§ xcl �a3 23 . .§dl 36.E!dl �bS 37.E!d7+ <lJh6

El c8 intending 24 ... .§ c l to exchange
rooks and ease the defensive task; 37 . . . �h8 3 8 . e 6 b3 3 9 . a x b 3 a x b 3
40.e7 +- .
B) 2 l . . . .ilc3! 22 . .§ abl �b6 looks good
for Black. 38.g4 E!h8

22. t\'e4 Jl.c3? 38 . . . .!:!e8 39 . .!:! h7+ �g5 40 . .!:!h5+ �f4

41 ...1l.d7 .§b8 42.e6 +- .
A move ago this was good, but now
White regains his piece. (22 . . . ..1l.a3!?.) 39. E!b7 b3 40.axb3 a3 4 1 . f! xbS
E!a8 42.E!b6+ <lJg7 43.E!b7+ <lJgS
2 3 . t\' h4+ <lJfS 24 . '/k x dS E! x d8
44.-'tbl a2 4S . .Q.xa2! E! xa2 46.e6
25.§ xc3 g6 26.h4 E! x d4
E!e2 47.e7 <lJf7 48.<lJh2 E!e3 49.b4
1-0
All White has to do is to tum his one
pawn advantage into a win.
Game 27
27.hS b4 Lapshun-Gravel
Quebec 2004
27 . gxh5 28 . ..1l.xh7 ± .
. .

l .b4 �f6 2 . .Q.b2 dS 3.e3 JlfS 4.f4

28.§b3 aS 29 .Q.c2 gxhS 30 . .Q. x h7
•

�g7 31 . .Q.c2 �c7 32.E!g3+ E!g4 More frequent are 4.4:Jf3, Chapter 4B
33.§ xg4+ h xg4 34 . .Q.fS and 4.c4 Game 34.

1 25
 l .b4 d5 2.�b2

4 e6 5.a3
••• 16 �c4 17.� xc4 la xc4 18.� xd;
•••

� xd5 19.Jtxd5 lac2 20.Jtcl

5 .b5 Game 3 3 .
:!!0 20J!a2 .ll xf4 2 l .�f3 �e3+! 22 .r.t'hl

5 ••• a5 �d3 + .

Also possible is 5 . . . c5 6.b5 <tlbd7 7.<£\f3 20 ••• Jtxa3 2 1 . �f3

�e7 8.�e2 h5 9.0-0 �b6 1 0 .a4 a6
l l .<tle5 <£\xe5 1 2 .fxe5 <£\d7 1 3.a5 'I/Jc7 White tries to hang on to his light­
1 4 .b6 �b8 1 5 . d4 �g6 1 6 . c4 �c8 squared bishop. After 2 1 .�xf7+ f! xf7
1 7 . <£\d2 <tlb8 1 8 . �b3 cxd4 1 9 .exd4 22.f! xa3 f! fc7, B lack has plenty of ac­
tivity for the pawn.
dxc4 20.<£\xc4 with the better position,
Peck-Diamond, Millfield School 2003 .
21 ••• Jtxcl?

6.b5 c5 7.�f3 �bd7 8.c4

Illogical - B lack exchanges his good
bishop for White's bad one. Far better
is 2 1 . . . ..1lb4 .

22.laaxcl lae8

8 ••• Jtd6

8 . . . <£\b6!? 9.cxd5 exd5 1 0 .�e2 ..ll d6

1 1 .0-0 0-0 looks quite good for B lack.
23.f5 la xcl
9.cxd5 exd5 10.Jte2 0-0 l l.O-O h6
12.�c3 Jth7 13.d4 B etter is 23 . . . f!b2!?.

White has a weakness on e3 , while 24.la xcl �g5 25.lac7!

B lack's pieces are flexibly placed - the
struggle continues. White takes over the initiative.

1 3 � b6 1 4 . � e S lacS 1 5
• • • 25 lael+ 26.�f2 �d2+ 27.�g3
•••

cxd4 16.exd4 �h8

The p o s i t i o n after 1 6 . � x d 4 � c 5 27 .. :�g5+ 28.�g4 Otherwise a draw by

17.�d2 f! e8 favors B lack. repetition - White has to play quite

1 26
 The Sokolsky Opening

accurately in this entire variation 32.h3

28 .. :�e3+ 29 . .l;tf3 ( 2 9 . 'it>h4?? �f2 +
3 0 . \t>h 5 .l;t x fS 3 1 . � x g7 + ! \t>xg7 32.h4!? was better.
32.f!xf7+ 'it>h8 33.f!f8+ \t>g7 34.f!f7+
'h-'h) 29 ... g5 30.fxg6 -'txg6 3 l .�f4 b6 32 ••• �el+??
32.f!c6 White will win the b6-pawn and
the game. The decisive error. 32 . . . E!e6!? 33.f!c6
a4 continues the fight.
28.ftc8+
3 3 . � h 2 Et e 8 3 4 . � h 5 �h7
28.�f4!? �d3+ 29.Af3 f! e8 30.f! xb7 3 5 . Ag4 �f2 3 6 . Et x e8 �f4+
3 7 . �g l � x d4+ 3 8 . � h l � x f6
.ll xfS 3l . f! xf7 ± .
39.A.e2 �g7 40. �f3 1-0
28 Ag8 29. �g4
•.•

Game 28
Bessat-Lombard
29.�f4!? was a strong alternative.
La Fere 2006
29 Ete3+ 30.A.f3 b6
l . b4 d5 2 . A.b2 4'.) f 6 3 . e3 Af5
.•.

4.4'.)f3 e6 5.a3 a6
Black should use rather than protect his
passed pawn: 30 . . . �e l + 3 1 .'it>h3 a4! S ... Ae7, Chapter 4.
32.f!a8 a3 and Black has at least equal­
ized. 6.c4 b6

3l .f6? Needlessly weakening the queenside

when the light-squared bishop is away
3 1 .h3! gives the king some much­ on f5 . S i m p l e devel opment w i th
needed breathing space. 6 . . . ,l;te7 is better.

3l g5?
.••
7.c xd5 (7.<£lh4!?) 7 4'.) xd5 8.Ae2
•••

A,e7 9 . 0 - 0 A.f6 1 0 . 4'.) c3 .£, x c3

l l . A, x c3 A, x c3 1 2 . d x c3 � x d l
13.ftfxdl

After 3 l . . .�e l + 32 .'it>h3 gS, the white

king won't be comfortable on h3 .

1 27
 l .b4 d5 2 . .ll.b 2

13 . . . 0-0? 26 . . . .§ x c7 27 . .§ b8 + �c8 28 . .§ x c8+

.§ xc8 29 . ..ll x c8 +- .
Once the queens came off there was less
sense in castling. 13 .. .'it'e7 usefully cen- 27.�d7+ <;t>g8 28.§.b8 1-0
tralizes the king.
Game 29
14.§.d4 b5 1 5.a41 Sokolsky- Villard
Kiev 1 955
Black is weak on the queenside light
squares. l.b4 d5 2.Ab2 'ltd6 3.a3 e5 4.�f3
f6 5.e3
15 ... b x a4 1 6 . §. x a4 Jlc2 17.§.a3
Ag6 18.b5 §.c8 19.�e5 This is the usual choice. 5.d4, Chapter
4A.
1 9.bxa6 is also possible.
5 ••• Ae6
19 • . . <;t>f8 2 0 . §.c4 ( 2 0 . b x a 6 ! ?)
20 •.. §.a7 5 . . . �h6 6.c4 c6 7.�c3 .ll.e 6 8.d4 e4
9.�d2:

21 .b6! §.b7 22.§.b3 Ac2

A) 9 . . .f5 1 0.'�c2 a6 1 l .�a4 b5 1 2 .cxd5
c x d 5 1 3 . � c 5 .ll. e 7 1 4 . a 4 bxa4
22 . . . 'it'e7 23 . .ll.f3 c6 24.�xc6+ �xc6 1 5 :i1i'xa4+ .ll.d7 1 6.�b3 .ll.c6 17 . ..1le2
25 . .ll. x c6 +- . 0-0 18.0-0 'if?h8 19.f4 g5 with a sharp
game that White w o n , S i tnikov­
23.§.xc7 §.bxc7 24.bxc7 �c6 Dyachkov, Serpukhov 2003 ;

24 . . . .ll. x b3 loses to 2 5 . cxb8� .§ xb8 B) 9 . . . ..1le7 1 0 . .§ c l a6 1 l .�b3 ..llf7

26.�d7+ etc. ( 1 l . . .�d7!?) 1 2 . c x d 5 cxd5 1 3 . �c5
b 6 1 4 . �a4+ ( 1 4 . � xa6!?) 14 . . . 'it'f8
25.§.b6 �e7 1 5 .�b5 "i¥rd8 1 6 . �c7 bxc5 1 7 . � xa8
c 4 1 8 . � a 5 ± M . Vokac-G. M ohr,
25 . . . �xe5 26 . .§b8 +- . Montecatini Terme 1 997.

26 . .Q.xa6 (26 . .§b8 +- ) 26 ••• §.e8 6.d4 e4

128
 The Sokolsky Opening

Black could maintain the central tension Black is already in trouble.

with 6 . . . <£ld7 7 . dx e 5 fx e 5 8 . <£lbd2
(8.c4!? Sokolsky) 8 . . . <£lgf6 9 . c4 c6
1 0 .�e2 !J.e7 l l .cxd5 cxd5 12 . .§ c 1
( 1 2.<£lg5 !J.f5 1 3 . e4 oo ) 1 2 . . . 0-0 1 3.0-0
'it>h8 14. i!Yc2 .£le8 15 . .§ fd1 M6 1 6.<£Je4
.JJ/e7 17.<£lxf6 gxf6 1 8.g3 <£Jb6 19.<£ld2
§c8 20.i!Yb1 .§ xc l 2 1 ..§ xcl with rough
equality although White won in the end,
Melich-Kukacka, Czechia 1 999.

7.�fd 2 fS 8.c4 c 6 9 . � c3 � f6
10.'�C2
19 ••• .Q. xcS

19 . . .!J.e7 20.<£ldxe4 wins a pawn.

20.dxcS �h8

The king steps out of the queen 's line

of fi re . If 20 . . . !J.f5 2 1 . .§ cdl White
threatens <£ld2-c4 with a choice of fur­
ther destinations.

2 1 . gcdt .Q.fS 2 2 . 4) b l (22 .<£lc4!)

22 .Q.e6 23.4)c3 t.tes
10 a6
•••

•••

23 . . . <£!d7 24.<£lxe4 wins a pawn again.

White was threatening 1 1 .cxd5 cxd5
1 2.<£lb5.

ll.�a4 �d8 12.4)cS .1lc8 13.gct White has a simple win after 24.f5! .§ xf5
Ae7 t 4 .Q.e2 0-0 l S . 0 - 0 .1l d 6
•
25 . .§ xf5 !J.xf5 26.i!Yxd5 �g6 27.i!Yxb7
16.f4 <£Jc6 28.<£lb5 (Threatening mate on g7)
28 . . . <£le7 2 9 . t! d7 .§ b8 30.i!Ya7 .§ a8
White plants a pawn on f4 before Black 3 1 . .§ x e7 .§ x a7 3 2 . .§ x e8+ � x e 8
does. 33.<£lxa7 +- .

16 ••• 4)g4?

Black should play 16 . . . b6! to expel the
troublesome knight.
17 .11, x g4 f x g4 1 8 . c x d S c x d S
•
24 . . . <£Jc6 won 't change the result: 25.f5
.§ x f5 2 6 . i!Y c 3 i!Yg6 2 7 . .£lf4 .§ x f4
28 . .§ xf4 +- .

19.t.tb3

1 29
 l .b4 d5 2 . .1.tb2

With a material advantage, the rest is

plain sailing for White

27 ... g3 28.�b6 gxh2+

28 . . :�h5 29.hxg3 Black's attack is over

because if 29 . . . .£lg4? 30.�xg7 # .

29.�hl � h 5 3 0 . -lt e l 'ltg6

3 l . � x h 2 la f 5 32. �c8 � f6
33 . .Q.xf6

33J�d8+!? .£lg8 34 . .£le7 +- . 8 ••• 4)e7

33 . . . gxf6 34.�d6 1-0 8 . . . .1.te7 9 . .£la4!? White needs to orga­

nize counterplay on the queenside, and
Game 30 here 's how : 9 . . . .£lh6 1 0 .d4 followed
Burns-Bennett soon by c2-c4.
Wanganui 2005
9.d3 g6 1 0 . � a4 .Q.g7 l l .c4 0-0
l .b4 d5 2 . .Q.b2 'ltd6 3.a3 e5 4.e3 12.�c3 �h8 13.lacl f5 14.c5 'li}Jc7
15.e4
.Q.e6 5.�c3
The wrong pawn? In this kind of posi­
5 . .£lf3, Chapter 4A.
tion White usually plays 1 5 .d4 if only
to stop Black from advancing his own
5 . . . c6 d -pawn.

Bott-Heiduk, Wuerzburg 1 987, contin­ 15 ... d4 16.�bl �f6

ued 5 . . . a6 6 . .£lf3 .£ld7 7 . .1.te2 g6 8.d4
e4 9 . .£ld2 .l.th6? (9 . . . .£lgf6 is safety first) 16 . . . a5!? 17 . .£lbd2 axb4 1 8. a xb4 b6
1 0 . .£la4 White declines to explore a successfully chips away at White's
couple of good-looking knight sacri­ queenside leaving Black with an over­
fices ( 1 O . .£lcxe4!? dxe4 1 1 . d5 etc . ; all space advantage.
1 0 . .£lxd5!? �xd5 l l . c4 etc . ) 1 0 . . . f5
1 1 ..£lc5 b6 1 2 . .£lxe6 ( 1 2 .c4!? is another 17.�bd2 laad8 18.�g5 .Q.g8 19.f3
h6
possible knight sacrifice) 1 2 . . . �xe6
1 3 . c4 c6 1 4 .g3 .£le7 1 5 . a4 0-0 and
19 . . . .£lh5!? 20 . .£lh3 ..llh 6 with a clear
Black is okay for now.
advantage to Black - just compare the
scope of his bishops to White's.
6.�f3 f6 7 .Q.e2 �d7 8.0-0
•

20.4)h3 g5 21.4)c4 j}_xc4

8 . d4 e4 9 . .£ld2 .£lh6 1 0 . 0 -0 .£lb6
1 1 .4Jb3 �c7 1 2 .h3 ..lle7 13 . .£lc5 ..llf7 = Not immediately necessary since there's
C.Mitrus-Sokolik, corr 1 992. actually little to fear from .£lc4-d6.

1 30
 The Sokolsky Opening

2 2 . E! x c4 �d7 2 3 . 4) f2 E!g8 Opening up the position when under

24.�h1 4) h7 25.g3 Jl.f6 26.)3g1
f} f8 27.�fl 4)fg6 28.Jl,c1 �e6
29. �h3 �h7 30. �h5
30 . .lld l !? 1::. 3 1 ..llb 3. Compare the nice
position of White 's bishops here to
where they were a few moves ago.
30 ... 4)h8
attack isn't a good idea. 35 . . . .!:!h8!? of­
fers tougher defense.
36.Jl,e6 �c7 37.fxe4 4)g6 38.4)g4
E!h8
38 . . . h5 doe s n ' t change the result
39.4Jxf6 'it>xf6 40 . .§ fl + '1Jg7 4 1 . .§ cf2
4Jh6 42.�xh5 +- .

Black has wasted six moves bringing 39.f!f2 h5 40. 4) x f6 g4 41.4) xh5+
the b8-knight all the way here. f! xh5 42.�xh5 1-0

Game 3 1
Lalic-Giaidzi
Athens 1 992

1.b4 d5 2.Jl,b2 �d6 3.a3 e5 4.4)f3

4) d7 5.e3 4) gf6 6.c4 c6 7.cxd5
4) xd5 8.4)c3 4) xc3 9.Jl.xc31

:oE 9.dxc3, Chapter 4A.

9 . . . Jl,e7 10. �c2

10 . .ll c 4. The bishop can 't stay here :

31:{i\'h3
1 0 . . . e4 1 1 .4Jd4 4Je5 1 2 . .lle 2 �g6 =F .
Perhaps White wanted to stop . . .f5-f4.
10 . . . 0-0 l l .d4
The consistent thing to do, bringing the
knight into action, is 3 l .exf5 4Jxf5
l l .Ad3 g6 1 2 .h4 was an interesting,
32.4Je4; e.g., 32 . . . 4Jg7 33 :i�'g4 .ll e7
sharp line.
{ 33 . ..�xg4?? 34.4Jxf6+) 34 . .lld2 �xg4
3 5 . fx g4 4Je6 36 .Elfl. In this complex
l l . . . exd4 1 2 . .Q.xd4
position we much prefer White.

3l ... f}f7

3 1 . . . 4J hg6!? is perhaps more active.

32.Jl,dl l

The bishop heads for b3 .

32 ... �d7 33.Jl.b3 E!gf8 34. )3c 2

�g7 35.a4 fxe4?

131
 l .b4 d5 2 .Ab2
1 2 . . . .Q.f6
12 . . . a5!? hopes to involve the a8-rook
in the game.
1 3 . .§ d 1 Jl. x d4 1 4 . .§ x d4 �f6
15 . .Q.d3 h6 16.0-0 .£le5 17. 4) x e5
� xe5 18 . .§d1 .Q.e6 19 . .Q.h7+ 'i!(h8
20 . .Q.e4 �f6 21. �c5 .§fd8?
Introducing unnecessary complications.
2 l . . . § fe8!? holds the position for a
while.
22.�xa7!
Obviously, capturing the queen results
in checkmate.
22 . . . .Q.d5 23.�b6 .§ xa3 24 . .Q.xd5
.§ xd5 25 . .§ xd5 cxd5 26.�xf6 gxf6
27.g4 .§b3 28 . .§d4
Material may be equal, but Black's
pawns are scattered, and White should
be able to exploit that fact.
28 . . . 'i!(g7 2 9 . 'i!(g2 'i!(g6 30. 'i!fg3
.§b2 31 .h4 h5?
Too hasty. Black's position is bad, but
he should mark time by 3 1 . . .'it'h7 32.f3
�g6.
1 32
32.gxh5+ 'i!(h6
3 2 . . . 'it'xh5? 3 3 . § x d 5 + would make
White 's job even easier.
3 3 . .§f4 'i!f x h 5 3 4 . .§ x f6 .§ x b4
3 5 . .§ x f7 .§ g4+ 3 6 . 'i!(f3 .§ x h4
37 . .§f5+
37.§h7+ �g5 38.§ xh4?? is drawn.
37 . . . 'i!(g6 38 . .§ xd5
White 's connected passed pawns are
ready to march to victory.
38 . . . .§h8 3 9 . .§b5 .§bS 4 0 . 'i!(e4
'i!(f6 4 1 . f4 'i!(e6 4 2 . f 5 + 'i!( d 6
4 3 .'i!(d4 'i!(c6 44 . .§c5+ 'i!(d6 45.e4
b5 46.e5+ 'i!ld7 47.e6+ 'i!(e8 48.f6
b4 49 . .§h5 1-0
Game 32
Maletzki-Rauscher
Naumburg 2002
1.b4 d5 2 . .Q.b2 .Q.f5 3 . .£lf3 h6 4.e3
e6 5.a3
5.4Jd4, Chapter 4B.
5 . . . 4) d7 6 . d 4 ?) gf6 7 . h 3 Jle7
8.4)bd2 0-0 9 . .£le5
 The Sokolsky Opening

9,,,4)e8

9 . . a5!? would be the typical queenside

.

strike.

10 ..Q.d3 .Q.xd3 ll.cxd3 .Q.f6 12.0-0

.Q.e7 13.f4 .Q.d6

13 . . a5!? continues to be a possibility.

.

14.§f3

In the Sokolsky White normally concen­

trates on the queenside, but this game
is an example of play on the other
Highly optimistically, White abandons
wing.
his queens ide in the hope of a kings ide
attack. 23.�dl !? is more careful.
14 ... .Q. xe5

23 . . . d4?
Black had wasted time with this bishop
and now exchanges it for a knight that
wasn 't actually threatening anything Not forceful enough and wasting a
yet; he shou ld ' ve been organ izing move. 23 . . . �b6! poses White serious
queenside counterplay instead. problems - where 's the white queen
when she's needed?
15.dxe5 c5 16.b5
24.§g5
It is better to maintain the tension with
16.Ekl !?. White intends f4-f5 .

16 ... a6 (16 . . . �b6!?) 17.bxa6 § x a6 24 . . . .£\b6

18.§g3 �h8 19. 'li\'g4 g6
24 . . . �b6!? is still the move.
This wasn ' t n e c e s s ary j u s t yet.
19 . �a5!? is enough to recall the white
..
25.f5 exf5 26.exf5 .£\ xf5?
queen from the kingside.
Black fails to appreciate the danger to
20.h4 .£\g7 21 .e4 h5 22. 'li\'h3?! his king. 26 . . . 4:Ja4! hits the bishop.

The queen goes offside and limits its 27.e6

own options. 2 2 .�g5 may be better
even if it a l l o w s a queen l e s s A l s o strong is 2 7 . � x f5 ! ? g x f5
middlegame. 28.�xf5 -+ .

22 :�a5
.. 27 . . . .£\a4

1 33
 l .b4 d5 2 . .llb 2

This is too late now, but what else is

there? 27 . . . �b5 28..!3 xf5 �xb2 29.� el
gxf5 30.�xf5 wins easily. White misses a nice tactic: 34.4Je6! fxe6
3 5 . �xg6+ 'it>h8 3 6 . �h 6 + 'it>g8
28.e7? 37.�xe6+ �f7 38.�xd5 +- .

34 .£)b2 3S .£)gS Et xgS 36.�xg5

What? 28.� xf5! gxf5 29.'�xf5 � xe6 ••• •

ladS
30.Jlxd4+ 'it>g8 3 1 .�xh5 �h6 32.�xh6
cxd4 33.4Jg5 �f5 34.4Je4 f6 35.�fl +-
36 . . . 4Jxd3 37.�b5 4Jde5 38.�xb7 +- .
·

28 ••• .£) x e7 3 7 . '/i\' b S .£) x d 3 3 8 . E! d l E!d6

39.�bl
B l ack looks more than safe after
28 . . . � e8!? 29.� xf5 gxf5 (29 . . . 4Jxb2? Simply 39.� xd3 +- .
3 0 . � x f7 +- ) 3 0 . � x f5 � x e7
(30 ... �b6!?) 3 1 .�xh5+ 'it>g8 32:i�tg5+ 39 .£) e7 40. '/i\'bS Eta6 4 1 .'/i\' xd3
•••

'it>f8 33 .�h5 'it>e8. 1-0

29.Jlxd4+ cxd4?? Game 3 3

Schiffler-Goers
The end ofthe show. White is left strug­ Soemmerda 1 950
g l i n g after B l ack ' s only defen s e :
2 9 . . . f6! ; e.g., 30.'�d7 �d8 3 1 ...1lxf6+ l .b4 dS 2.Jlb2 .£)f6 3.e3 JlfS 4.f4
� axf6 32 .�xa4 �xd3 + .
More frequent are 4.4Jf3 Chapter 48
30. E! x aS Et xaS 31 .£) xd4
•
and 4.c4 Game 34.

4 e6 S.bS
Now White can show how disorganized •••

Black's forces are.

5 .a3 Game 27.
3 1 . E!dS 32. '/i\'e3 .£)c6 33.�h6+
s . . .cs
••

�g8
Also possible (all answerable by 6.4Jgl­
f3) : 5 . . . c6!?; 5 . . . ..1le7; 5 . . . 4Jbd7.

6 .£)f3 .£)bd7 7.a4

•

Better is 7.c4 or 7 . ..1le2 according to

Sokolsky.

7 ••• Ae7

Black intends for this bishop to go to

f6. 7 . . . Jld6 is a possibility.

1 34
 The Sokolsky Opening

8.Ae2 � e4 9 . 0 - 0 -'l.f6 1 0 . �cl 20.e4! d4

§c8
2 0 . . . .£le3 is met by 2 l . .§ fe 1 �xf4
10 . . . �xb2!? 1 1 .�xb2 �f6=. (2 1 . . . d4 2 2 . .£lxd4 +- ) 2 2 . e xd5 -'tf7
23.�d2 which wins a piece.
l l .c4 b6?
21.�el �e7
A positional mistake as it weakens c6.
Better is 1 1 . . .0-0 or 1 1 . . . ..1lxb2 1 2.�xb2 2 1 . . . .£le3 is also answered by 22 . .£lxd4!
�f6.
22.� xd4 Af7 23.e51
12.d3 {)d6 13.{)eS hS
White strikes decisively in the center ­
Black was concerned about 1 3 . . . 0-0 where Black's king still is.
14.g4!?.
23 ... fxe5 24.fxe5 � xe5
14.{)c6
24 . . . �xe5 25 . .£lc6 �d6 26.-'txg7 +- .
The knight shows why l l . . .b7-b6 was
so bad. 2 5 . -'l.c 6 + ( 2 5 . .£lf5 !?) 2 5 . . . � 5 x c6
2 6 . � x c 6 A d 5 2 7 . A e 5 �d7
14 ... �c7 2 8 . A x g7 � g8 2 9 . � e 5 �d6
3 0 . �f2 � g6 3 1 . � f7 �d7
14 . . . �xb2 etc. is still a better option. 32.�cel + �e7 33.�e5

1 5 . c x d 5 e x d 5 1 6 . � c 3 A x c3 33.<£:ih6 ftxg7?? 34.'~'f8•.

17.�xc3 f6 18.Af3
33 ... �f5 34.�h4 �h7
White has exploited Black's weak play
and threatens e3-e4. Now it's mate in five with two solutions.

18 ... Ae6 19.�acl �f5 35.� x e7+11

1 35
 l .b4 d5 2 . .11b2
This is the crowd-pleasing way. Or
35.EH7 E k7 36 . .:£\c6 .ll x c6 37.E(fxe7+
�d8 38.E(e8+ �d7 39.�e7 # .
35 ... � x e7 36.�c6+ �d6 37.l;U6+
1-0
3 7 . . . .11 e 6 (37 . . . �c7 3 8 . E( e 7 # )
38.E( exe6+ �d5 39.E(e5 # .
Game 34
Sokolsky-Romanishin
Lvov 1 947
1 .b4 d5 2 . .1l,b2 �f6 3.e3 JU5 4.c4
For other moves see Chapters 4 and 4B.
4 ... e6 5.b5 dxc4
Unless it brings obvious benefits,
there 's no point in immediately clarify­
ing the position in the center. There are
several good alternatives; e.g., 5 . . . .11e7
6 . 4J f3 c6 tran s p o s e s to L i n d n e r­
Norman, Dresden 2003 , in the notes to
Chapter 4 ; and 5 . . . 4Jbd7 6.4Jf3 .lld6
transposes to Sherbitzky-Begun, Minsk
1 96 1 , in the notes to Chapter 4B.
6.J1,xc4 Ad3 7. �b3 Axc4 8. � xc4
Now Black could consider a plan in­
volving . . . 4Jb8-d7-b6-a4.
1 36
8 .•• �d5
Instead of the knight maneuver, Black
issues an invitation to an ending, which
White is happy to accept.
9.�xd5
Black has no problems after 9:�xc7
4Jbd7 (9 . . . � x g 2 ?? 1 0 . �c 8 + �e7
l l ..lla 3 # ) 10.4Jf3 .11d6 1 l .�c2 �xb5=.
9 . . . � xd5 10.�c3 � xc3 1 1 . .1l,xc3
�d7 12.�f3 a6 13.a4 .1l,e7
1 3 . . . axb5 14.axb5 E( x a l + etc., is an in­
vitation to a draw.
White is a little more active. It's instruc­
tive to see how Sokolsky (with Black's
help) turns this minimal advantage into
the full point.
14 Af6?
•..
This was virtually Black's best piece.
Now White 's active rooks will be un­
opposed, while Black's rooks will be
passive defenders . 14 . . . axb5 1 5 . axb5
0-0 is much more easily defendable.
15.Axf6 � xf6 16.E{hc1 �d8
Here Sokolsky suggested 16 . . . axb5
1 7. axb5 E( xa l 1 8 . E( x a l �e7 19.E(a7
E(b8 and this dogged defense will have
some drawing chances - but what about
17.E( xc7!?
17 .�e5 E!f8 18.Eta3!
The rook avoids being swapped on the
a-file and causes trouble in the center.
 The Sokolsky Opening

18 axb5 19.Etd3+ <ifjlc8 20.a xb5

••• 23.e4 �b4 24.E{d7 E{g8 25.Etbl
�d5 2 1 .g3 (25 .<tle3!?) 2 5 E{a4 26 .b6! �a6
•••

Now White will be able to play e3-e4
without permitting a knight fork.
21...f6 22.�c4
2 7 . b x c7 + � x c7 2 8 . � d6 Eta7
29.Etcl �a6
29 . . . b5!? seems to offer stiffer resis­
tance.

30.E{ xg71

It's checkmate if the rook is taken.

30 ••• E{d8 3l.E{d7

White is toying with Black who is of

course well beaten at this point.

31 ••• E{g8

22 <ifjlb8
•••
3 1 . . .§h8 32.§ xh7! .

White threatened to go a piece up by 3 2 . E{ x h 7 b6 3 3 . E{ x a7 <ifjl x a7

23.§xd5 exd5 24.<tlb6+ r,!tb8 25.<tld7+ 34.E{c6 �c5 35.d4 � a4 36.E{c4
�c8 26.<tlxf8. 1-0

1 37
 Chapter 5
l.b4
In this Chapter we deal mainly with
lines where Black plays in the style of
the King 's Indian Defense, with a
kingside fianchetto, . . . d7-d6, probably
. . . e7-e5 , etc . There are many, many
possible move orders to reach these
sorts of positions, and in most sources
they' ll be considered as side lines of the
Reti or English Openings that start
1 .4Jgl -f3 or l .c2-c4.
A) 1 .4Jf3 4Jf6 2 .b4 (2.c4 transposes to
l .c4 4Jf6 2.4Jf3) 2 . . . g6 3 ..1lb2 .llg7 4.c4
d6 5.e3 transposes;
B) l .d4 4Jf6 2.c4 g6 3 .4Jf3 .llg7 4.b4
The Kings Indian Defense, Santasiere
Variation 4 . . . 0-0 5 . .1lb2 d6 6.e3 trans­
poses to the main line;
C) l .c4 4Jf6 2 .4Jf3 g6 3.b4
1) 3 . . . a5 4.b5 .llg7 5 . .1lb2 0-0
a) 6.g3 d5!? 7.cxd5 �xd5 8.a4 �h5 oo
NCO;
b) 6.e3 d6 7 . .1le2 e5 oo NCO;
2) 3 . . . .1lg7 4 ..1lb2 etc., is likely to trans­
pose.
138
l . . {)f6
.
l . . .e5 2 . .1lb2 d6:
A) 3.c4 4Jf6 4.e3 g6 (4 . . . 4Jbd7 5.<£lf3
g6 6.d4 .llg7 transposes) 5 .4Jf3 .llg7
6.d4 (6.4Jc3 0-0 7 . d4 transposes to
7 . d 4 ! ? i n the notes to Game 39)
6 . . . 4Jbd7 7 . .1le2 0-0 transposes;
B) 3.e3 4Jf6, Chapter 8 (3 . . .f6 Game 72)
4.4Jf3 g6 5 . .1le2 .llg7 6.c4 0-0 7.<£lc3
Games 37 and 39. There are several rea­
sonable move orders to reach this posi­
tion.
2.-'lb2
2 . c4 The "English Orangutan" 2 . . . g6
3 . .1lb2 transposes to the main line.
2 . . .g6
Putting a bishop on g7 is characteristic
of this line. 2 . . . d6 could easily trans­
pose, but let's see :
A) 3 .c4
1) 3 . . . c5 4.b5 b6 5.e3 .llb7 6.4Jf3 4Jbd7
7 . ..1le2 e6 8.0-0 .lle7
 The Sokolsky Opening
a) 9 . .£lc3 0-0 1 0 .a4 i1Yc7 1 1 .�b3 a5
(1 1 . . .d5!?) 1 2 .bxa6 � xa6 13 . .£lb5 i1Yc6
14.�fcl .£le4 1 5 .i1Yd1 .£lg5 1 6.d4 � aa8
1 7.d5 exd5 18 . .£lxg5 .ll x g5 1 9 . cxd5
�xd5 2 0 . i1!xd5 .ll x d5 2 1 . .£lc7 ..ll c 6
22 . .£lxa8 � xa8 23 . ..1lb5 ± B renner­
Oberlaender, Germany 1 995 ;
b) 9.d3 �c7 1 0 . .£lbd2 0-0 1 1 . �b3
§ ac8 1 2 . � ac 1 � fd8 1 3 . � fd 1 �b8
1 4 . a4 .£l f8 1 5 . .£l e 1 .£lg6 !h - !h ,
B.Schmitt-Remaitre, Germany 2004;
2) 3 . . . g6 4.g3 (4 . .£lf3 Ag7 5 .e3 trans­
poses to the main line) 4 . . . .1lg7 5 . .llg 2
a) 5 . c6 6 . .£lc3 �b6 7.�b3 0-0 8 . .£lf3
. .
eS
(i) 9.d3 .£la6 1 0.a3 .£lc5 1 1 .i1!c2 .£le6
1 2 . 0 - 0 a 5 1 3 . b 5 Ad7 1 4 . � ab 1 ;t
Kleiser-Steiner, Austria 2000;
(ii) 9.d4!? e4 (9 . . . exd4 1 0 . .£la4!) 1 0 . .£ld2
dS 1 1 .0-0=;
b) 5 ... 0-0 6 . .£lf3 e5 7.0-0 (7.d3 .£lh5!
!:;,. 8 .. .f5)
(i) 7 . . . a5 8.b5 .£lbd7 9 . .£lc3 (9.d4!?)
9 . . . 4Jc5 1 0.d3 � e8 ( 1 0 . . . h6 1 1 . .£ld2
.lle6 12 ..£lb3 .£lfd7= NCO) 1 1 ..£ld2 Af5
1 2 .<tlb3 .£lxb3 1 3 . axb3 e4 1 4 . .£lxe4
<tlxe4 1 5 .Axg7 '1Jxg7 1 6.dxe4 ..ll x e4
17.f3 Af5 18.e4 .lld7 19.f4 c6 20.i1Yxd6
cxb5 21 .�fd1 Ac6 22.c5 a4 23.bxa4
bxa4 2 4 . e 5 .ll x g 2 2 5 . '1J x g 2 if1e7
26.§a3 !h-!h, Timman-Ree, Amsterdam
1 973;
1 39
(ii) 7 . . . .£lbd7!? NCO;
(iii) 7 . . . .£lh5!? NCO;
(iv) 7 . . . e4!? 8 . .£le 1 c6 Mikhalchishin;
(v) 7 . . . � e8 8.d3 e4! ;
B) 3.d4
1) 3 . . . .£lbd7 4 . .£lf3
a) 4 . . . g6 5.e3 Ag7 6 . .lle 2 0-0 7.0-0 �e8
8.a3 a6 9.c4 b6 1 0.i1Yb3 c5 1 1 ..£lc3 .llb7
1 2 . � ad1 e6 1 3 . .£la4 �c7 with mutual
chances, Sebald-Weise, Germany 1 996;
b) 4 . . . b6
(i) 5 . .£lbd2 c5 6.c3 .llb7 7.e3 g6 8.th4
i11c7 9.c4 cxb4 10.i1!xb4 .llg7 1 1 .�cl
0-0 1 2.Ae2 � ac8 1 3 .0-0 .£le4 14 . .£lxe4
.ll x e 4 1 5 . .£ld2 .ll a 8 1 6 . f4 .£lf6
( 1 6 . . . .£lc5!?) 17 . .llf3 Axf3 18.� xf3 �d7
1 9 .e4 ;t Bemardt-Schuler, Ellwangen
2003 ;
(ii) 5.c4 .llb7 6.e3 g6 7 . .lle 2 ..llg7 8.0-0
0-0 tran sposes to Gaprindashv i l i ­
Jobava, Batumi 2002, which continued
9.i1Yb3 a5 (9 . . . e6 1 0 . .£lc3 �e7 1 1 .�fd1
.£le4 1 2 . .£lxe4 .ll xe4 1 3 . .£ld2 .ll b 7
14 . .llf3 .ll xf3 15 . .£lxf3 a5 1 6.a3 e5 oo
Kae n e l - S chmaltz, Germany 1 99 6 )
1 0.a3 axb4 1 1 .axb4 � xa1 1 2 . .ll x a1 e 5
1 3 .dxe5 .£lg4 14 . .£lc3 .£lgxe5 1 5 . .£lxe5
4::l x e5 16 . .£ld5 c6 17 . .£lf4 ;!; ;
2) 3 . . . d5!? Black challenges White to
show that the loss of tempo is impor-
 1 .b4 4Jf6 2.Ab2 g6
tant 4.b5 g6 5.e3 .llg7 6.c4 0-0 7.4Jf3
b6 (7 . . . a6!?) 8.-'l.e2 .llb7 9.4Jbd2 dxc4
1 0 . ..1l.xc4 a6 1 l . a 4 c6 1 2 . 0- 0 �d6
1 3 .�b3 cxb5 1 4 . axb5 a5 1 5 .4Je5 ±
Schwichtenberg-Hoeppner, Kaufungen
2003 ;
C) 3.f4
1) 3 . . . g6 4.4Jf3 ..ll.g7 5 .d3 0-0 6.e4 c6
7 .a3 a5 8.bxa5?! (Not recommended, in
this game or generally in the Sokolsky,
as the a3-pawn becomes isolated. Bet­
ter is 8.4Jbd2) 8 . . . �xa5+ 9.�d2 �b6
10.-'l.d4 c5 1 1 .-'l.c3 4Jc6 1 2.a4
a) 1 2 . . . �c7 1 3 . ..1l.e2 Ad7 14.0-0 4Ja5
(14 . . . 4Jb4!?) 1 5 .e5 4Jd5 16.exd6 exd6
17.-'l.xg7 'ltxg7 18.4Jc3 4Jxc3 19.�><c3+
'ltg8 20.d4 because of Black's weak­
ened kingside, White has the better
chances, Proff-Dewald, Germany 1 999;
b) 12 . . . d5! 1 3.a5 �c7 14.Axf6 exf6 + ;
2) 3 . . . 4Jbd7 4.4Jf3 b6 5.e3 ..ll.b7 6.-'l.e2
e5 7.fxe5 4Jxe5 8.0-0 4Jg6
a) 9 . 4Jd4 ± Wenze i - N i s p e l , B ad
Wildungen 2000;
b) Or 9 . ..1l.xf6 �xf6 (9 . . . gxf6 10.4Jc3 ± )
10.4Jd4 �g5 1 1 .-'l.b5+ 'ltd8 1 2 .�e2 ± ;
D) 3.e3
1) 3 . . . -'l.f5 4.b5 4Jbd7 5.c4 a6 6.a4 c6
7.4Jf3 g6 8.-'l.e2 Ag7 9.0-0 (9.4Jd4!?)
9 . . . 0-0 1 0 . 4Jc3 4Je4 ( 1 0 . . . e5!?) 1 l .d4
�c7 ( a 1 1 . . . 4Jxc3 1 2 . .il.xc3 axb5=)
1 2 .�b3 ! Hc8 1 3 . 4Jxe4 .il.xe4 14.4Jg5
4Jf6 1 5 .b6 �d7?? ( 1 5 . . . �d8 1 6.f3 ..ll.f5
17.e4 ± ) 16.f3 M5 17.e4 ..1l.e6 1 8.d5 +­
Veer- Christopher, Mallorca 2004;
2) 3 . . . c6 4.c4 4Jbd7 5 .4Jf3 e5 6.�c2
..ll.e7
a) 7 . a 3 0 - 0 8 . ..1l.e2 !! e8 9 . 0-0 ..ll. f8
1 0 . 4J c 3 "itlc7 1 1 . 4Je4 ( o 1 1 . h 3 )
1 40
Didicher-Ortiz Rodriguez, Frankfurt
2005 1 1 . . .4Jxe4 1 2 .�xe4 4Jf6 1 3.�c2
g6=;
b) 7.Ae2 0-0 8 . 0-0 !! e8 9 . d3 .ll f8
1 0 . 4Jbd2 d5 1 l . a 3 a 5 1 2 . c 5 �c7
1 3 .4Jb3 axb4 14.axb4 k! xa1 1 5 .k!xa 1
e4 1 6 . 4Jfd 2 e x d 3 1 7 . .il. x d 3 <tl e 5
1 8 . A e 2 ; Timofeeva- M o s i onzhik,
Ozery 1 997;
3) 3 . . . e5, Chapter 8 .
3.c4
White can't really do without this move,
although he can delay it.
A) 3.e3 Ag7 Here are a few practical
examples :
1) 4.b5
a) 4 . . . d6 5.a4 0 - 0 6.4Jf3 .llg4 7.-'l.e2 c6
8.c4 cxb5 9.axb5 4Jbd7 10.0-0 White
has good play and can choose to de­
velop his b-knight on c3 or d2 (after d2-
d3), P.Weiss-Cinque, Leimen 200 1 ;
b) 4 . . . c6 5.a4 a6 6.c4 axb5 7.cxb5 0-0
8 .4Jf3 d6 9.4Jc3 4Jd5 oo Heyer-Eder,
Giessen 1 995;
2) 4.-'l.e2
a) 4 . . . d6
(i) 5 . f4 a6 6 .4Jf3 0-0 7 . 0-0 e6 8.c4
4Jbd7 9.�c2 c5 1 0.a3 �e7 1 1 .h3 d5
 The Sokolsky Opening
l z.4)c3 cxb4 1 3 .axb4 �d8 14.c5 'l:/c7
15 . .£\b5 White is better developed and
more active, Deb-Cromwell, San Mateo
2000;
(ii) 5.d4 0-0 6 . .£\f3 e5 7.dxe5 .£\g4
8 . .£\bd2 .£\d7 9 . .£\d4 {)dxe5 1 0 .h3 {)f6
l l .c4 � e8 1 2 .�b3 c5 oo B . Larsen­
Bielicki, La Plata 1 997;
b) 4 ... 0-0 5.f4 e6 6 . .£\f3 d5 7.b5 a6 8.a4
c5 9. 0-0 .£\bd7 1 0 . .£\ e 5 ;�o H agara­
Feranec, Stary Smokovec 1 996;
B) 3.f4 Ag7 4 . .£\f3
1) 4 . . . a5 5 . b5 d6 6 . .£\a3!? 0-0 7 . e 3
.£lbd7 8 . .£\c4 a 4 9.Ae2 .£\ c 5 1 0 . � b 1
A e 6 1 l . a 3 {)fd7 1 2 . A xg7 � x g 7
13A)g5 .a.d5 14.d4
a) 14 . . . .£\e4 1 5 . .£\xe4 .ll x e4 1 6.0-0 b6
1H:ld2 Ab7 18.Af3 .ll xf3 1 9 . .£\xf3 d5
20.!!b4 � a5 2 l . 'l:/d3 �a8 2 2 . f5 c5
23.dxc5 bxc5 2 4 . � h4 {)f6 2 5 . fxg6
hxg6 26..£\g5 �h8
(i) 27 . � hf4 �e8 2 8 . 'l:/c 3 �d8
(28 ... !! xb5 29.� xf6! +- ) 29.'l:/xc5 and
White went on to w i n , B . Larsen­
Raizman, Munich 1 958;
(ii) 27 .� xh8 'l:/xh8 28 . .£\xf7?! �xf7
29.�xd5 + �g7 30. 'l:/xc5 � ;
b) 14 . . . .1lxg2 1 5 .�g1 .£\e4 1 6.d5
(i) 16 ... .£\xg5 1 7 .fxg5 Ah3 18.�g3 .ll£5
19.e4 .llxe4 20.�d4+ ± ;
(ii) 16 . . . �g8 1 7 . � xg2 .£\c3 1 8 .�c1
.£lxb1 19.�xb1 .£\c5 20.�fl ± In some
141
circumstances, the white queen will be
able to cause trouble on the kingside by
'l:/b1-e1-h4;
2) 4 . . . 0-0 5.g3 d6 6.�c l !? a5 7.b5 Ad7
8.a4 c6 9 . .£\a3 �c8 1 0.Ag2 .a.h3 1 1 .0-0
A x g 2 1 2 . � x g 2 .£\bd7 1 3 . c 4 .£\ c 5
14.'l:/c2 �f5 1 5.'l:/xf5 gxf5 1 6 . .£\c2 cxb5
17.axb5 d5 18.�fb1 dxc4 19 . .£\e3 �fd8
20 . .£\xc4 {)fe4 2 1 .Axg7 �xg7 22 .d4
.£\e6 23.� xa5 � ac8 24 . .£\e3 �f6 25.b6
with the advantage , B . Larsen­
Barendregt, Beverwijk 1 96 1 ;
C ) 3 .g4!? The Polish Spike 3 . . . Ag7
(Black's simplest solution is 3 . . . h6 4.h3
Ag7 5 . Ag2 d5=) 4 .g5 .£\h5 5 .Axg7
.£\xg7= White can consider 6.'l:/c1 and
7.�b2;
D) 3 . .£\f3 is just a change of move or­
der and will transpose;
E) 3 . e4!? The Schiffler Attack 3 . . . d6
4.Ac4 Ag7 5 . .£\e2 0-0 6.d3 .£\c6 7.a3
d5 8.exd5 .£\xd5 9.Axg7 �xg7 10.0-0=
Topov-Sokolsky, corr 1 959 .
3 ...
Jl,g7
3 . . . d5 4.cxd5 (the most common con­
tinuation is 4.e3 c6 5 . .£\f3 Ag7 6.Ae2
0-0 7.0-0 which transposes into a note
below) 4 . . . �xd5 5 . .£\c3 'l:/d8 (5 . . . 'l:/d6
6 . .£\e4 oo ) 6.d4 Ag7 7 . .£\f3 0-0 8.e3
Ag4 9.Ae2 .£\bd7 10.0-0 .£\b6 1 1 ..£\e5
.ll x e2 1 2 .�xe2 {)fd5 1 3 . a 3 . White
stands minimally better, and can plan
to place rooks on c 1 and d 1 , and push
the a- or e-pawns according to the situ­
ation.
Now White decides whether to place his
light-squared bishop on e2 or g2 . For
an example of the latter see Game 3 5 :
Reti-Capablanca, New York 1 924.
 l .b4 .£lf6 2 . .1lb2 g6
4.e3
A) 4 . .£lf3
1) 4 . . . 0-0 5.e3 etc. is likely to transpose
(5 .g3 d6 [5 . . . c6 6 . .1lg2 d5 7 . .£la3!?]
6 . .1lg2 transposes to Timman-Ree in the
notes above);
2) 4 . . . c6 5.g3!?;
3) 4 ... a5 5.b5 (5.a3!?) transposes to l .c4
.£lf6 2 . .£lf3 g6 3.b4 a5 4.b5 .llg7 5 . .1lb2
in the notes above;
B) 4.e4!? d6 5:�c2 0-0 (5 . . . e5 is fine
too) 6.d4 White 's pawn front looks too
good to be true 6 . . . c5!
1) 7.bxc5 dxc5 8.d5 e6 9 . .1ld3 exd5
1 0.cxd5 b5!
a) 1 1 . .£ld2 c4 :;: L a c o - M e n o n i ,
Montecatini Terme 1 994;
b) l l . .ll x b 5 � a 5 + 1 2 . .£l c 3 .£l x e 4
1 3 . .£lge2 .£ld6 + (or 1 3 . . . .£lxc3 + ) ;
c) l l . � x c 5 ? 4::l x e 4 1 2 : � c 2 .ll x b 2
1 3 .�xb2 �xd5 -+ ;
2) 7 . dxc5 dxc5 8 . b 5 a6 9 . a4 axb5
1 0.axb5 f! xa l l l ..ll x al �c7 12 . .£lf3
.ll g 4 1 3 . .1le2 .£lbd7 :;: Laco-Mi letic,
Nova Gorica 2003 .
1 42
4 . . . d6
This is the standard King's Indian setup,
but Black has other options:
A) 4 . . . 0-0 5 . .£lf3
1) 5 . . . d5 6.cxd5
a) 6 . . . �xd5 7 . .£lc3 �d6 8 . .£lb5 'lii'd8
9 . .1le5 .£la6 1 0.�b3 .lle 6 l l .�b2 c6
1 2 . .£lbd4 ;t ;
b) 6 . . . .£lxd5 7 . .1lxg7 �xg7 8.�b3 4Jf6
9 . .£lc3 .llg4 1 0 . .1le2 .£lbd7 1 1 .0-0 c5
1 2 .b5 ;t ;
2) Of course 5 . . . d6 transposes back to
the main line;
3) 5 . . . c6
a) 6 . .1le2 d5
(i) 7.0-0 .llg4 8.�b3 .£lbd7 9.h3 .llxf3
1 0 . .1lxf3 e6= NCO;
(ii) 7.�c l !? .llg 4 8 . h3 .ll x f3 9 . .1lxf3
.£lbd7 1 0 . 0-0 e5 1 1 .d3 f!e8 1 2 .f!dl
�e7= Smyslov-Ftacnik, Beersheba
1 990;
b) 6 . d4 a5 ( 6 . . . d 5 7 . .£lbd2!
Mikhalchishin) 7.b5 cxb5 8 .cxb5=;
4) 5 . . . b6 6 . .1le2!?;
B) 4 . . . b6 5 . .£lf3 .llb7 6 . .1le2 0-0
1) 7 . 0- 0 c5 8 . b 5 d6 9 . d3 .£lbd7
10 . .£lbd2 e5 1 l .a4 �e7 1 2 .a5 d5 1 3.d4
cxd4 14.exd4 exd4 1 5.a6 .llc 8 16.4::lxd4
.£lc5 1 7 . .£lc6 �e8 18.f!a3 with the ad­
vantage, S erebrij sky-Chavin, USSR
1 956;
2) 7 . .£lc3 d5 8.d4 dxc4 9 . .1lxc4 .£lbd7
1 0.0-0 .£le8 1 l .�b3 .£ld6 1 2 . .1leU .
 The Sokolsky Opening
5.d4 0-0 6 . .£lf3 transposes. However,
playing d2-d4 before .£lgl -f3 pennits
Black to try 5 . . . e5 6.dxe5 (6 ..£lf3 e4)
6 . 4Jg4 or 6 . . . .£lfd7.
. .
; ... 0-0
5 . e5 6.d4 .£lbd7 7 . ..1le2 0-0 transposes.
. .
6.d4
White increases his space advantage
with this natural move.
Other moves could still transpose to the
main line :
A ) 6 .Ae 2
1) 6 . . 4Jbd7 7.0-0
.
a) 7 ...b6 8.a4 aS 9 . .£ld4 Ab7 10.b5 .£le4
1 1 .d3 4Jec5 1 2 . .£la3 e5 13 . .£lc6 .ll x c6
14.bxc6 4Jf6 1 5 .d4 exd4 16.exd4 .£le6
17.4Jb5 White 's two bishops give him
more play, Katalymov-Guseev, USSR
1 959;
b) 7 . . . Ele8
(i) 8.d4 c6 (8 . . . b6 9.ili'b3 .llb7 IO.Eldl
e6 1 1 .4Jbd2 'if1e7 1 2 . a4 e5 1 3 .dxe5
4:lxe5 1 4 . a 5 ;!; B ennett-Lee, Kuala
Lumpur 2 0 0 6 ; 8 . . . .£le4 Game 44 :
Katalymov - Bakhtiar, Tashkent 1 959;
8 . . e5 Game 45) 9.a4 �c7 1 0 . .£lc3 e5
. 22.Eleal ± Laine-Pang, Haifa 1 976;
1 43
l l .�b3 e4 1 2 . .£ld2 .£lf8 1 3 .b5 ..ll f5
1 4 . a 5 a6 1 5 . ..1la3 ;�; McNab-B ernal
Moro, Oviedo 1 992;
(ii) Less energetic is 8.d3 Game 3 7
B e h n i cke-Koni kow s k i , D o rtmund
1 995 ;
c) 7 . . . e5 8.d4 transposes to the main
line;
2) 6 . . . a5 Game 3 6 Radshenko-Shapiro,
Krasnodar 1 95 5 ;
3) 6 . . . e5 7 . d 3 ( 7 . .£l c 3 transposes to
Games 37 and 39)
a) 7 . . . e4 8.dxe4 .£lxe4 9.Axg7 �xg7
IO.'if1d4+ 'if1f6 l l .Ad3 .£lc6 1 2 .ili'xf6+
.£l x f6 = NCO; Kharitonov­
Chiburdanidze, Groningen 1 979;
b) 7 . . . El e8 8.0-0
(i) 8 . . . a5 9.b5 e4= NCO;
(ii) 8 . . . .£lbd7 oo NCO;
B) 6 . .£lc3 e5 7 . .1le2 Games 37 and 39.
6 ... 4)bd7
A logical move, preparing . . . e7-e5 .
A) 6 . . . c6 7 . .1le2
I ) 7 . . . .£lbd7 8 . 0 - 0 .£le4 9 . ili'c 2 f5
10 . .£lbd2 .£lxd2 1 1 ..£lxd2 e5 1 2 .dxe5
dxe5 1 3.c5 ili'e7 1 4 . .£lc4 h5 1 5 .Eladl ±
Mikhalchishin-Ristic, Cetinje 1 992;
2) 7 ... .£la6 8.a3 (8.�b3!?) 8 ... .£lc7 9.0-0
b5? This weakens the queenside (Black
should be thinking about preparing the
typical central strike ; e . g . , 9 . . . .£ld7,
10 . . . ili'e8 and then l l . .. e5) 10 . .£lbd2
.£ld7 l l .ili'c2 Ab7 12 . .£lb3 Elc8 1 3.c5
d5 14 . .£la5 Elb8 1 5 . .1ld3 .£lf6 16 . .£le5
'if1e8 17.Elfe l a6 18.a4 .£le6 1 9.axb5
a x b 5 20 . .£lxb7 E! x b7 2 1 . El a6 .£ld8
 1 .b4 {)f6 2 . .il.b2 g6

B) 6 . . . e5 (i) 9 . .1le2 a5 1 0.a3 <£lbc6 1 l .b5 <£\xf3+

1 2.gxf3 <£1e7 ( 1 2 . . . <£le5!?) 1 3.h4 with the
1) 7 . .il.e2 makings o f an attac k , N . Lewin­
a) 7 . . . e4 Mikhalchishin: "It is bad to Loboshitc, Minsk 1 95 7 ;
close the center before White has ( i i ) 9.<£\xe5 Axe5. Here according to
castled kingside." 8.<£lfd2 Mikhalchishin 10.f4 might be a better
(i) 8 . . . h5 9.<£lc3 !! e8 10:i!i'c2 .il.£5 1 l .b5 option than I O . .il.e2 ;
<£\bd7 1 2 .a4 c5 1 3.bxc6 bxc6 14 . .il.a3 b) 8 . . . dxe5?! Is this really bad? 9.�xd8
(14.h3!? followed by 1 5 .0-0 merits con­ !! xd8 1 0.<£\d5 (1 0.h3 e4!)
sideration) 14 . . . c5 1 5 .<£lb3 <£lg4 16.!!d1 (i) 1 0 . . . e4 l l ..il.xg7 'it'xg7 1 2.<£\xc7 exf3
'lli'g5 17 .<£ld5 The knight is eyeing e3 1 3.<£\xa8 The position is unbalanced but
not c7 (Black was threatening 17 . . . <£\xe3 White has already won the exchange;
18.fxe3 'l!i'xg2 19.'it'd2 cxd4 20.<£\xd4 (ii) 10 . . . <£\a6 1 l .b5 e4!?;
.il.xd4 2 l .exd4? e3+ 22. 'it'cl .il.xc2 -+ )
17 . . . cxd4 ( 1 7 . . . !! ab8!?) 18.<£\xd4 .il.xd4 C) 6 . . . c5
19.!! xd4 White has the better prospects,
Miralles-Prie, France 1 982; 1) 7.b5
(ii) 8 . . . !! e8 9.<£lc3 h5 1 0.a4 ( 1 0.h3 h4
1 l . 'l!i' c 2 .ll f5 1 2 . <£lb 3 = ) 1 0 . . . <£\bd7
1 l .'l!i'c2 'l!i'e7 1 2 .b5 <£lf8 1 3 . .il.a3 Af5
1 4 . <£lb3 c6 1 5 .a5 The game is about
level, although White is pressing on the
queenside. Note that White's king has
stayed in the center, where it's safest;
b) 7 . . . e x d4 Game 4 0 S o k o l sky­
Lilienthal, Kiev 1 954;

2) 7 .<£\c3 transposes to 7.d4!? in the

notes to Game 39;
a) 7 . . . <£\bd7 8 . .1le2
3) 7.dxe5 <£lg4 8.<£lc3 (i) 8 . . . b6 9 . <£lbd2 .ll b 7 1 0 . 0-0 d5
1 1 . 'lli' b 3 e6 1 2 . !! fd 1 'l!i'e7 1 3 .a4 a5
1 4 . bxa6 .il.xa6 1 5 .<£le5 !! fc8 1 6.-'tf3
dxc4 17.<£\dxc4 .il.xc4 1 8.<£\xc4 !!ab8
19.!!ac l <£\e8 20.<£le5 <£\xe5 2 l .dxe5
'l!i' a 7 2 2 . .il. e 2 !! d8 2 3 . .il. b 5 <£\c7
24.-'tc6 <£la6 25 . .il.c3 !! bc8 26.!! xd8+
!! xd8 27.!!d1 'l!i'c7 28 . .il.b5 <£\b8 29.f4
White has more space and the bishop­
p a i r, Brehov sky-Newrkla, Vienna
2006 ;
(ii) 8 . . . a6 9.<£lc3 cxd4 1 0 . exd4 <£lh5
1 l .'l!i'd2 axb5 1 2 .cxb5 <£1b6 1 3.a4 e5
a) 8 . . . <£\xe5 14.a5 <£\d7 1 5 .b6 <£lf4 16.0-0 <£\xe2+

1 44
 The Sokolsky Opening
17.<tlxe2 exd4 18 . .ll x d4 <tle5 1 9:�c3
<tlxf3 + ( 1 9 . . . .1lg4 ! ? ) 2 0 . � x f3 d 5
2 l . .llxg7 �xg7 2 2 J:Hd 1 Black is worse
due to his weak d-pawn, Tereshenko­
Mikhailenko, Evpatoria 2005 ;
b) 7 . . . cxd4 8.exd4
(i) 8 . . . <tlbd7 9 . ..ll e 2 b6 1 0 . d 5 <tlc5
l l .<tld4 'iflc7 1 2.0-0 .llb7 1 3 .<tld2 e5
14.<tlc6 .ll x c6 1 5 . d x c6 d5 1 6 . cxd5
4:lxd5 17 . <tle4 <tlxe4 18. 'if!xd5 <tlc5
19.'if!c4 f! ad8 20.f!ad1 f! xd1 2 1 .f! xd1
E( d8 2 2 . f! d 5 f! x d5 2 3 . 'if! x d 5 <tle6
24.Ac4 ± Mikhalchishin-Ankerst, Bled
1992;
(ii) 8 . . . e5 9 . .ll e 2 M i khal c h i s h i n
� 9.dxe5;
c) 7 . . . a6 8 . a4 .ll f 5 9 . .ll d 3 .ll x d 3
10.'if!xd3 <tlbd7 1 1 . 0-0 a5 1 2 . <tlbd2
b6 1 3 . f! ad 1 'if!c7 1 4 .d5 f! fd8 1 5 . h3
4Jf8 1 6 . <tlh2 e5 1 7 . f4 exf4 1 8 . e xf4
4Jh5 1 9 . .1lxg7 <tlxg7 2 0 . 4Jg4 <tld7?
21 .<tlh6+ �f8 2 2 . <tle4 f6 2 3 .'iflc3 <tle8
24.<tlg5 1 -0, Hickl-Schuppert, Germany
1980;
2) 7.a3
a) 7 . . . cxd4
(i) 8.<tlxd4 <tlc6 9 . .lle 2 ..lld7 10.0-0 f! c8
l l .<tld2 a6 1 2 .f! c l 'if!e8 1 3 .<tl2b3 <tlb8
14.c5 e5 1 5 .<tlf3 ..lla 4 16.cxd6 f! xc l
17.Axc1 'if!e6 18.<tlfd2 f! c8 1 9 . .1lb2
�xd6 20.'if!b1 <tlbd7 with roughly equal
cha n ces, M i ltner-Hasecic, Walldorf
2006;
(ii) 8. exd4 e 5 9 . .ll e 2 e4 1 0 . <tlfd2 d5
1 1 . 0 - 0 <tl c 6 1 2 . b 5 <tl e 7 1 3 . <tl c 3
E(e8 oo Korchnoi-Nunn, San Franc isco
1 99 5 ;
b) 7 . . :�·b6 8 . <tlc3 cxb4 9 . <tla4 'iflc7
10.axb4 <tlc6 1 l .b5 <tla5 1 2 .<tld2 ..lle 6
1 3 .d5 .lld7 14 . ..ll e 2 e6 1 5 . 0-0 f! fc8
I6.dxe6 ..ll x e6 17 . f! c l ;!; Korchnoi­
Nunn, Nuremberg rapid 1 990;
3) 7.bxc5 dxc5 8 . .1le2
1 45
a) 8 . . . cxd4 9 . exd4 <tlc6 1 0 . 0-0 Af5
1 1 .d5 <tla5
(i) 1 2 .<tlbd2 f! c8 1 3.f!cl b6 14.Ac3
<tlb7 1 5 .<tld4 .lld7 ( 1 5 . . . <tlxd5!? 16.cxd5
f! xc3 17.f! xc3 .ll x d4 � ) 16 . .1lf3 <tld6
17.'if!e2 <tlf5 18.<tlxf5 .ll xf5 19.g4 .lld7
20 . ..llb4 f! e8 2 1 .g5 <tlh5 22 . .llx h5 gxh5
23.'if!xh5 White goes a pawn up, and
went to win, Schoenwaelder-Sieberg,
Nettetal 2004;
(ii) 1 2 .<tld4 .lld7 1 3.<tld2 f!c8 14.f!cl
'iflb6 1 5 . <tl4b3 <tlxb3 1 6 . a x b 3 ;t
E fimov-Romanishin, Reggio Emilia
2000;
b) 8 . . .'if!b6 9.'if!b3 <tle4 10.<tlc3 <tlxc3
1 l .Axc3 .llg4 1 2 .f!cl cxd4 1 3 .<tlxd4
Axe2 1 4 .<tlxe2 <tld7 1 5 . ..ll x g7 'it>xg7
16.0-0 f!fc8 17.<tlf4 'if!xb3 18.axb3 a5
Y2-Y2, Barcza-Kluger, Budapest 1 956;
D) 6 ... .1lg4 7.Ae2
1) 7 . . . <tlbd7 8.<tlbd2 a5 9.b5 c5 10.0-0
f! e8 1 1 .h3 .llxf3 12 . .1lxf3 f!b8 1 3.a4 e5
14.dxe5 <tlxe5 1 5.'if!c2 b6 16.f!fd1 'if!e7
17 . .1le2 f! bd8 18.<tlf3 <tlxf3+ 1 9 . .1lxf3
<tle4 2 0 . .1lxg7 'it> x g7 2 l . f! d3 f5
22.f!ad1 'if!f6 23 . ..ll x e4 f! xe4 24.f!d5
White has a positional advantage since
Black can't organize any counterplay
while he has to worry about his d6-
pawn, Reimer-Meissner, Mehlingen
1 999;
 l .b4 4Jf6 2.Ab2 g6
2) 7 . . . c6 S.0-0 4Ja6 9.a3 4Jc7 1 0.h3
Axf3 1 Ulxf3 d5 1 2 .cxd5 cxd5 1 3.4Jc3
e6 14 . .§c1 �d7 (14 . . . 4JceS!? Black can
plot to get this knight to c4) 1 5 .Ae2 a6
1 6.4Ja4 �dS 1 7.�b3 4Jd7 1S . .§c2 b5
1 9 . 4Jc5 4Jxc5 2 0 . bxc5 ( 2 0 . .§ x c 5 ! ?)
20 . . . .§ eS 2 1 .£4 f5 22 . .ilc3 �d7 23 . .ila5
�c6 24 . .§ a 1 .§ ecS 25.Af3 '<t>hS 26.g4
M6 27.gxf5 gxf5 2S . .§g2 .§gS 29 . .§ aa2
.§g7 30 . .§ xg7 Axg7 3 1 .a4 with the ad­
vantage, Mueri-Wunderle, Graechen
1 999;
E) 6 . . . b6
1 ) 7 . 4Jbd2 c5 S . a 3 a 5 (S . . . c x d 4 ! ?
9.4Jxd4 Ab7 oo ) 9 . .ile2 axb4 10.axb4
.§ x a 1 1 l . � x a 1 4Jc6 ( 1 l . . . c x b 4 ! ?
1 2.�a4 4Ja6 oo ) 1 2 .b5 4Jb4 13.0-0 Ab7
1 4 . .ilc3 �aS 1 5 .Axb4 cxb4 16.�b2
�a3 17 . .§ b 1 .§ aS 1 S . � xb4 4Je4
19.�xa3 .§ xa3 20.4Jxe4 Axe4 2 1 ..§d1
e5? B lack goes downhill from here
22 .dxe5 Axf3 23.gxf3 .ilxe5 24.f4 Ac3
25 . .§ xd6 .§a2
a) 26.'<t>fl Aa5 27.c5 bxc5 2S . .§ a6
.§ a 1 + 2 9 . '<t>g2 .§ e 1 3 0 . .ilf3 l -0 ,
Kushch-Kutsij , Donetsk 1 993 ;
b) More flamboyant is 26 . .§ xb6! .§ xe2
27 . .§ bS+ '<t>g7 2S.b6 Ab4 29 . .!:! dS .§b2
30.b7 Ad6 3 1 . .§ xd6 .§ xb7 32.'<t>g2 +- ;
2) 7.4Jc3 c5 (7 . . . Ab7 S.Ae2 4Jbd7 9.0-0
c5 oo ) S.a3 (or S.bxc5 bxc5 9.Ae2)
1 46
a) S . . . 4Jc6
(i) 9.b5 4Ja5 1 0 .Ae2 ( 1 0.d5 e6 +2 }
1 0 . . . c x d 4 1 1 . 4J x d4 ? ! ( 1 l . e x d4!?)
1 l . . . .ilb7 1 2.0-0 �c7 (12 . . . .§cS 13.�a4
4Jd7 =F Hazai) 1 3 . .§cl 4Jxc4 14 . ..1lxc4?
( H azai recommended 1 4 . 4Jbl d5
1 5 . 4Jd2 etc . ) 14 . . . �xc4 1 5 . e4 e5?
( 1 5 . . . 4Jxe4! 1 6 . 4J x e4 �a2 + Hazai)
1 6. 4Ja4 �a2 1 7 . 4Jb3 4Jxe4 1 S . §. a l
�xa1 1 9 .Axa1 +- Kovacevic­
Tukmakov, Solin 1 999;
(ii) o 9.d5 cxb4 10.4Jb5 bxa3 l l ..llxf6
Axf6 1 2 .dxc6! Axa1 1 3 .�xa1 oo ;
b) Hazai suggests S . . . cxd4 9.exd4 d5
1 0.c5 bxc5 1 l .bxc5 4Je4 � ;
3) 7.Ae2 Ab7 (also possible is 7 .. c5 .
S.a3 etc . ) S. 0-0 4Jbd7 transposes to
Gaprindashvi l i -Jobava in the notes
above;
F) 6 . . . a5 7.b5 4Jbd7
1) 8.�c2 .§ eS 9 . ..1le2 e5 1 0.0-0 exd4
l l .exd4 4Je4 1 2 .Ad3 4Jg5 1 3 .4Jbd2
<bxf3+ 14.4Jxf3 4Jf6 1 5.h3 Ad7 1 6 . .§fel
4Jh5 1 7 . .§ x eS+ �xeS 1 S . .§ e 1 �f8
19.Ae4 .§ bS 20.Ac3 and White stood
sufficiently actively to be able to go on
to win, Spiridonov-Atanasov, Varna 1 983;
2) S . 4Jc3 .§ eS 9 . Ae2 e 5 1 0 . 0-0 e4
1 1 .4Jd2 4JfS 1 2 .�c2 Af5
a) 1 3 . c5 d5 1 4 . 4Ja4 4Je6 1 5 .b6 c6
1 6 . 4Jb3 h 5 1 7 .Ac3 .ilg4 1 S . 4J xa5
.§ xa5!? 19 . .ll x a5 �aS 20 ...1lxg4 <bxg4
2 1 .h3 �xa5 22.hxg4 hxg4 23.4Jb2 g3!
w i th the i n i t i at i v e , Gawlikowski­
Filipowicz, Warsaw 1 964; e.g., 24.fxg3
4Jxd4 oo ;
b) One possibility is 1 3 . .§ fd1 !? so that
14.4Jfl defends the h-pawn;
G) 6 . . . e6 7.4Jc3 �e7 S . .ile2 e5 9.0-0
e4 10.4Jd2 .§ eS l l .b5 h5 1 2 .a4 .llf5
 The Sokolsky Opening
13.a5 ;!; Sander-Korchnoi, Berlin 1 985.
7 .Q.e2
•
Obviously White intends to castle and
complete development.
A) 7 . . . c5 8 . ..\le2 b6 9.�bd2 e6 1 0.0-0
.llb7 1 l .bxc5 dxc5 1 2.a4 �e4 1 3.�xe4
.ll x e4 1 4 . E! fd 1 c x d4 1 5 . e x d4 �c7
1 6 . a 5 E! ab8 1 7 . �e3 ..ll x f3 1 8 . �xf3
bxa5 1 9 . .ilc3 ;t M i les-Polugaevsky,
London 1 984;
B) 7 . . . E!e8 ( . . . e7-e5 is coming)
1) 8.<tlc3 e5 9 . ..\le2
a) 9 . . . exd4 1 0 . �xd4 �e5 1 1 .h3 a 5
1 2 . a 3 axb4 1 3 .axb4 E! xa 1 + 1 4 . ..\lxa1
1 47
�c6 1 5 .�xc6 bxc6 16.0-0 .ile6 1 7 . .1lf3
White has the better game, Sokolsky­
Kowal, Kishinev 1 95 1 ;
b) 9 . . . c6 1 0 . 0 - 0 �f8 l l . d5 c x d 5
1 2 .cxd5 �8d7 1 3 .�d2 a 6 1 4 . a4 e4
1 5 . E! acl b6 16 . .1la3 .Q.b7 17.E!fd1 .llf8
1 8 . ..\lfl E!c8 19.h3 E!e5 20:i�rb1 �xd5
2 l .�cxe4 E! e8 22.E! xc8 �xc8 23.E!c1
�a8 oo Mikhalchishin-Vuckovic, Nova
Gorica 1 998;
2) 8 ..Q.e2 e5
a) 9.0-0 Game 4 1 : Sokolsky-Kogan,
Odessa 1 949;
b) 9.�c3 transposes to 8.�c3 etc.;
C) 7 . . . a5
1) 8.b5 E! e8 (Black may prefer 8 . . . e5
9 . .1le2 exd4 1 0 . .1lxd4 �c5) 9.�c3 e5
1 0 . dx e 5 dxe5 ( 1 0 . . . �c5!?) 1 l . �a4
( 1 l .E!d1 !? Sokolsky) ll . . . �e4 12 . .1la3
b6 1 3 . E! d 1 .Q.b7 14 . .Q.e2 �c8 1 5 .0-0
.Q.f8 1 6 . .Q.b2 �dc5 1 7 . � x c 5 �xc5
18.�c2 ..llg7= Sokolsky-Gufeld, USSR
1 95 5 ;
2 ) 8.a3 axb4 9.axb4 E! xa1 1 0 . .1lxa1 e 5
1 l .dxe5 ( 1 U l.e2!?) 1 1 . . .�g4 1 2 . .1le2
�dxe5 1 3 . � x e 5 �xe5 1 4 . 0-0 .ll e 6
1 5 . � d 2 d5 1 6 . f4 ? ! ( o 1 6 . c x d 5 )
1 6 . . . � x c 4 1 7 . � x c4 d x c 4 1 8 . ..1lxc4
.llx c4 1 9.�xc4 .ll x a1 20.E!xa1 �d2 �
Teichmann-Mollov, Metz 1 99 1 .
7 e5
...
A) In Ree-Riemersma, Rotterdam 1 990,
Black struck from the other side : 7 . . . c5
8.bxc5 dxc5 9.d5 �b6 1 0.�bd2 (10.a4
a5 1 1 .0-0=) 10 . . . e6 1 l .e4 exd5 1 2 .exd5
E!e8 1 3 . 0-0 .Q.f5 14.E!e1 �e4 15 . ..\lxg7
�xg7 1 6 . �xe4 E! xe4 ( o 16 . . . ..\lxe4
17 ..Q.d3 .\lxf3 18.�xf3 �f6=) 17.�b3
�f6 1 8 . .Q.d3 E! f4 1 9 . ..\l x f5 � x f5
 l .b4 .£lf6 2 . .ilb2 g6
20J!acl g5 2 U! e 2 g4 22 . .£lh4 �f6
23.g3 E!d4 24.a4 �g5 25.E!ee1 E! b8
(25 . . . E! e8 26.f4 [simpler than 26.'�b1]
26 ... E! xe1 + 27.E!xe1 �f6 28.E!e5 E! xc4
29 . .£lf5+ �f8 30.�e3 �d8 3 l .a5 +- )
26.�b5 E!d2 27.a5 .£lc8 28.�xc5 with
a decisive advantage;
B) 7 . . . c6 Game 42.
8.0-0
White secures his king before deciding
where his b-knight will go.
8 . .£lc3 E! e8 (8 . . . c6 transposes to Game
42 : Sokolsky-Solovj ev, Minsk 1 957)
9.a4 (9.b5!?)
A) 9 . . . e4 10 . .£ld2 .£lf8 1 l .b5 h5 1 2 .h3
.£18h7 1 3.a5 .£lg5 14.�b3 .ilf5 1 5 .a6 b6
1 6 . 0-0-0!? �c8 1 7 .�b1 c5 1 8 . dxc5
dxc5 19 . .£ld5 .£lgh7 2 0 . g4 ( S ome
sources claim that a 1 960 Sokolsky
game also got this far)
1) 20 . . . hxg4 2 1 .hxg4 .ilxg4 22 . .ilxg4
�xg4 23 . .£lc7 ± Nickel-Heyland, Ger­
many 1 986;
2) 20 . . . .£\xd5 2 l .cxd5 looks perfectly
okay for White (and if he's optimistic
about staging an attack he can try
1 48
2 1 .gxf5!? .£lb4 22.fxg6 fxg6 23 . .ilxh5!?
gxh5 24.E!hg1 oo );
B) In Game 43 : Sokolsky-Pelz, Minsk
1 96 1 , Black maintained the central ten­
sion with 9 . . . c6.
8 .. .e4
Now that White has committed his king
to g 1 , Black expels the f3-knight in the
hope of a kingside attack. Alternatively:
A) 8 . . :�e7 9 . .£lc3 c6 IO.a4 ( I O :Ii1b3!?
a5 1 l .b5 oo ) 10 . . . E! e8 1 l .a5 .£lf8 12.d5
cxd5 1 3.cxd5 .ilg4 14 . .£\d2 h5 15.t:icl
E! ac8 1 6.a6!? bxa6 17.f3 ..lld7 18 . .ilxa6
E! xc3 Mamedyarov-Radj abov, Baku
2005 19 . ..1lxc3!; e.g., 19 . . . .£\xd5 20.<£lc4
1) 20 . . . .£lc7 2 1 .-'tb7 ..llb 5 22.-'td5 with
the advantage;
2) 20 . . . .£\xc3 2 l .E! xc3 e4 22.E!a3 exf3
23.�xf3 ..lle 6 24 . .£la5 ± ;
B ) 8 . . . e x d4 9 . .£\ x d4 ( 9 . e xd4 d5!?)
9 . . . E! e8 1 0 . .£lc3 .£le5 1 1 .�b3
1) 1 1 . . . .ll.g4 1 2 . E! ad1 .ilxe2 13 . .£\dxe2
�c8 1 4.h3 �e6 15 . .£ld5 .£\xd5 16.cxd5
�e7 17.E!cl E! ac8 18.E!c2 c5 19.dxc6
E! xc6 20.E! xc6 bxc6 2 l .E!c1 c5 22.<£lf4
Y2-Y2, Portisch-Kluger, Budapest 1 959,
drawn although White is slightly better;
2) 1 l . . .c5 1 2 .bxc5 dxc5 1 3 . .£\db5 �e7
14.E!adU ;
C) 8 . . . .£le4!? 9.�c2 exd4 1 0 .exd4 E!e8
1 l .E! e 1 .£ldf6=;
D ) 8 . . . E! e8 ( G ame 4 5 : S o k o l sky­
Kirilov, Minsk 1 957) 9.b5 Game 3 8 :
Frombach-Overbeck, Dortmund 2003 .
 The Sokolsky Opening

9.,£ifd2 )ae8 1 0 . . . c6 1 1 .a4 .:£lf8 1 2 .b5 h5 1 3 .a5:

This reinforces e4 and at the same time A) 13 . . . cxb5 14 . .:£lxb5 a6 1 5 . .:£lc3 Mh7
makes room for a knight on f8. 1 6 . �b 1 ! Af5 1 7 .Aa3 � b8 1 8 . �b6
�xb6 1 9.axb6 ± V.Kovacevic-Subasic,
9 . . . c6 1 0 . .:£lc3 d5 1 l .b5 � e8 1 2 . � c l Zenica 1 986;
<£lf8 1 3 .Aa3 .:£le6 1 4.�b3 .:£lc7 1 5 .�c2
B) 13 . . . a6 1 4.bxc6 bxc6 1 5 .�a4 �c7
cxb5 16.cxd5 a6 17.d6 .:£le6 18.�fc l
16.�ab1 Af5 1 7.Aa3 .:£:!8d7 18.�fc l ;
<£lf8 19 . .:£ld5 with the better position,
Kaenel-Henze, Switzerland 200 I .
Martin-Hebden, Eastbourne 1 99 1 .
l l.'�c2
Remarkably, the position after 9 . . . � e8
is the exact mirror image of a position White reduces B lack's options by con­
from a line of the Kings Indian Attack centrating his own forces against e4.
versus the French Defense : l . e4 e6
2.d3 d5 3 . .:£ld2 .:£lf6 4 . .:£lgf3 c5 5 .g3 b5 A) 1 l .a4 h5
6 .1lg2 Ae7 7.0-0 0-0 8.�e1 Ab7 9.e5
.

<£lfd7. 1) 1 2 .�e1 .:£:!8h7 1 3 .a5 Af5 14.f3 Ah6

1 5 . .:£l d x e 4 A x e 3 + 1 6 . 'ifi>h 1 .:£l x e 4
( c:d 6 . . . Axe4 1 7 .fxe4 c5 oo ) 1 7 .fxe4 ±
Kempinski-Ovsejevitsch, Szeged 1 994;

2) 1 2 .a5
a) 12 . . . .:£l8h7 1 3.a6 b6
(i) 14.f4 exf3 1 5 .Axf3 Ag4 16.h3 Ah6
Kozomara-R. Byrne, S araj evo 1 967
17.�e1 with the advantage;
(ii) 14.b5 .:£lg5 oo with attacks on oppo­
site sides of the board;
b) 1 2 . . . a6 1 3 .�c2 Af5 1 4 .b5 .:£:!8h7
1 5 . .:£ld5 .:£lg4 1 6 .b6 ; Novopashin­
Podgayets, USSR 1 968;

B) 1 l .�e1 h5 1 2 .f3 exf3 1 3.Axf3 Mh7

14 . .:£lde4 Ag4 1 5 . .:£lxf6+ .:£lxf6 1 6.b5 oo
Yl - Yl , M i k h a l c h i s h i n - R e i n derman,
Groningen 1 992;

C) 1 l .� c l !?.

l l ... A.fS 12.dS

Or White can proceed with the usual

left-wing expansion: 1 2.b5!? and 1 3.a4
10.4)c3 .£)f8 etc.

1 49
 l .b4 .£lf6 2 . .1lb2 g6
1 2 h5 1 3 . 4) b3 4) 8h7 1 4 . 4) d4
• • •
Jlg4 15 .Q. xg4 h xg4 t6.4)de2
• Reti-Capab/anca
16 ••• 4)g5
1 6 . . . .£ld7 17 . .£lf4 .f:lgS 1 8 . .£lbS oo Crazy
horses!
Both sides are ready to attack in this
complicated position (in fact White
went on to win), Kempinski-Badea,
Istanbul 2000.
Summary: F i anchetto i n g on the
kingside is a popular way of meeting
the Sokol sky, and usually leads to
Black attacking on the kings ide while
White attacks on the queenside. Note
that in some lines White can safely
leave his king in the center while all
the action i s on the flanks. White
should only attack on the kingside if
the queenside is quiet - if he starts
transferring his pieces to the kingside
his extended queenside will be very
fragile. The transpositional possibilities
in this Chapter are enormous, and the
middlegame positions are double­
edged. The illustrative games should
help to show some typical stratagems
in practice.
1 50
Game 35
New York 1 924
Almost all sources classify this game
as a Reti Opening or an English Open­
ing, but for our purposes it is very much
a Sokolsky Opening since l .b4 4Jf6
2 . .11b 2 g6 3 . .£lf3 .11g7 4.c4 transposes.
1 4)f6 2.c4 g6 3.b4 Ag7 4 .Q.b2
••• •
0-0 5.g3
S .e3, Chapter 5 .
5 ••• b6
S . . . dS This move doesn 't do well in
practice - opening up the position and
exchanging dark-squared bishops usu­
ally favors White. 6.cxd5 .f:lxdS 7.!J.. xg7
�xg7 8.'�tb3
A) 8 . . . .£lf6 9 . .11g 2 .£lc6 ( c. 9 . . . a5! 10.b5
c6 Mikhalchishin) 10.0-0 eS l l .d3 ..\lg4
1 2 . .£lbd2 �e7 ( c. 1 2 . . . a6) 1 3 .b5 4Jd8
14.�b2 .£ld7 1 S . .!:! acl .!:!c8 1 6.h3 !J.. xf3
1 7 . .11 x f3 f6 1 8 . .!:! c3 b6 1 9 .�a3 4Jc5
20 . .£lb3 .£lde6 2 1 ..£lxc5 .f:lxcS 22."�xa7
�d7 23.a4 fS (23 . . . �xh3 24.a5 �e6
25 . .11c6 +- ) 24 . .11c6 �d4 2S . .!:! c4 �d8
26.a5 .!:! f7 27 . .!:! xc5! bxcS 28.�xc5 �f6
29.a6 .!:! ff8 30.a7 1 -0, Reti-Pokomy,
Maehrisch-Ostrau 1 923;
B ) 8 . . . �d6 ! ? 9 . a 3 (9 . .11 g 2 ! ? .£lxb4
10 . .£lc3 ii5 ) 9 . . . e 5 (9 . . . �f6 1 0 . d4!?)
10 . .£lc3 .f:lxc3 1 l .�xc3 f6 1 2 . .11g 2 .£lc6
1 3 . .!:! c l .!:! f7 1 4 . d 3 = Werchan­
H.Mueller, Osterburg 2005 .
6 .Q.g2 .Q.b7 7.0-0 d6 8.d3 4)bd7
•
9.4)bd2 e5 10.�c2 E{e8 l l .E{fdl
a5 12.a3 h6
 The Sokolsky Opening

There'll be nothing for the queen on this

a l -h8 diagonal. So 1 7:�c l !? instead, or
17:ti¥e2!?

17 ... exd4 18.ex d4 .£) 6d7?!

Black hasn't hit on the right plan. Per­

haps he missed something . . .

Why h e didn't play 1 8 . . . <tle6!? is a mys­

tery ; e . g . , 1 9 . d x c 5 ( 1 9 . d5 <tlxd5 ! )
1 9 . . . <tlxc5!? 20.a4 �b7 � .
13,{)fl cs
19.�d2 c x d4
Black is perfectly okay after 13 . . . e4;
e.g. , 14.<tle l exd3 1 5 .<tlxd3 �xg2 etc. 1 9 . . . <tlf6!? retracts the error; 1 9 . . . !!ad8
20.<tle3 oo .
14.b5
20 .11, xd4 � x c4 21.J}. xg7 � xg7
•

White warily avoids lines that involve

complications: 14.bxa5 ! haS (14 . . . e4!?)
1 5.<tlxe5 �xg2 16.<tlxd7 �c6 17.<tlxf6+
Axf6 etc. and 14.<tlxe5 �xg2 1 5 .<tlxd7
�xd7 etc.

14...{)fS

Black rightly takes his time. The active­

looking 14 . . . d5 1 5.cxd5 <tlxd5 16.<tl3d2
flf8 17 .<tlc4 leaves White better thanks
to his superbly placed knight on c4.
22.�b2+!
15.e3
Presumably Black had been expecting
White prepares d3-d4. Closing the cen­ 22.a4 (to protect the b-pawn, which is
ter with 1 5 .e4 doesn't really bring po­ a necessity) and had overlooked the
sitional benefits. queen check (which does the same job).

15 ... �c7 16.d4 .Q.e4 22 ... �g8 23. E{ x d6

16 . . . exd4 17.exd4 �e4 18.i�i'c3 trans­ 23.<tl3d2 �c2 24.�xc2 �xc2 25 .�xa8
poses. �xdl 26.!!xdl !! xa8 27.<tlc4 is sup­
posed to be level (because of the sym­
17:ttc3 metrical pawn structure after the d-

151
 l .b4 �f6 2.Ab2 g6

pawn inevitably falls) but White 's 3l.E{ ld5 1-0

pieces are more active and he will have
winning chances.
23 . . . 'ltc5
Black could try a more defensive line
and hope to draw: 23 .. :it1c7 24J:!ad1
l=! ad8 25.�d2 (25.�d4 Ab7 26.'{;i<d2
...ll xf3 transposes) 25 . . . Axf3 26.A xf3
�e5 27.Ae2 �e6 ;!; .
24.-Etadl Eta7 25.4)e3 'lth5?
3 l . . .�c4 32.l=! xc5 �xb2 33.l=!c2 <tla4
34.�d5 and Black loses material. This
was Capablanca's first loss in years, and
caused a sensation in the chess world.
Game 36
Radshenko-Shapiro
Krasnodar 1 955
l .c 4 4) f6 2 . 4) (3 g6 3 . b4 A g 7
4 . .Q.b2 0-0 5.e3 d6 6.Ae2 a5

For one thing, the queen could get 6 . . . �bd7 and 6 . . . e5 can be seen in
trapped here, but where are Black's al­ Chapter 5 .
ternatives? 25 . . . 'iti'h7 26. �g4 Axf3
2 7 . A x f3 )::( e 1 + 2 8 . )::( x e 1 '{;i< x d 6 7.b5 c6
29.Ac6 ± .
7 . . . e5 oo NCO.
26.4)d4!?
8.a4 e5 9.d3
A positional solution, so to speak. A
tactical solution was available too :
More forcing is 9.d4 e4 10.�fd2 d5
26.)::( 1 d5! Axd5 27.g4 ..Q.xf3 28.gxh5
l l .�c3 h5 1 2 .�b3 Ae6 13 . ..Q.a3 l=! e8
...ll x h5 29.Ac6 +- .
14.l=!c1 Ah6 1 5 .bxc6 bxc6 1 6.cxd5 ;!;
Barbeau-Brodeur, Montreal 1 983.
26 . . . jt xg2 27.<i!Jlxg2 'lte5

It's hard to know what to recommend

here:

A) 27 . . . �e5 28.�c6!? �f3+ 29.'iti'g1

�xc6 30.bxc6 ± ;

B ) 2 7 . . . l=! x e 3 ! ? 2 8 . fx e 3 � e 5
( 2 8 . . . � x d 1 ?? 2 9 . �f5 +- ) 2 9 . '{;i<e 2
�xe2+ 30.�xe2 �c4 3 l .'it>f3 ! �xd6
32.l=! xd6 �d7 33 .'it>e4 ± .

28.4)c4 'ltc5 29.4)c6 Etc7 30.4)e3 9 ... 4)e8

4)e5
30 . . . l=! e6 3 1 . l=! xe6 �xe6 3 2 . �g4 h5
33.l=! xd7! hxg4 34.�e7+ +- .
Black's natural theater of operations is
the kingside, so he should seek play
there with . . f7-f5 etc.
.

1 52
 The Sokolsky Opening

9 . .. e4!? 1 0.dxe4 .:£lxe4 l l ..ll xg7 'it>xg7
1 2 . '�d4 + �f6 1 3 . .£!bd2 ;!; Kreuzer­
Bolt(?), Schwetzingen 1 993 .
10. �c2 .Q.e6
20.�d3 �d6 2l.�eS � xeS
Perhaps Black should try 2 l . . .�c8!? al­
though White will be quite happy with
22.c5 .£!e4 23 . .:£lxe4 etc.

The consistent move is 1 0 . . .f5!? straight 2 2 . d x e S ( 2 2 . fx e 5 ! ?) 2 2 . . . � e4

away. 23.� xe4 dxe4

ll.�bd2 �d7 12.0-0 fS 13.E!abl 23 . . .fxe4?? 24.f5 +- .

Sokol sky h i m s e l f recommended 24.E!fdl 't!!c7 2S.Aa3

1 3.bxc6 bxc6 14J�abl with the inten­
tion of queenside pressure with .llb 2- 25 .c5!? White will play this in a moment
a3. anyway.

13 . gs
. .
25 ... �a7+ 26.cS

White is left to do as he wishes on the

queenside. The prophylactic 13 . . . c5!?
blocks one side of the board in order to
allow uninterrupted action on the other.

14.bxc6 b x c6 1 S .d4 g4 t 6 . � e l
Etf6

Sokolsky cast doubt on this move as he

thought such a simplistic attack could
be easily repelled by White. He sug­
gested 16 . . . h5!? instead.
26 ••• .11,d S?
17.f4 E!h6
26 . . . �f7!? would stop the bishop com­
This may look threatening, but next ing to c4.
move White will stop . . .�d8-h4 and the
h6-rook will be looking for something 27 .Q.c4!
•

to do. Sokolsky gave as an improvement

17 . . exd4 18.exd4 �f8.
. Black is positionally lost.

18.g3 exd4 19.exd4 dS? 27 ... E!d8

Relinquishes control of the e5-square, 27 . . . .ll x c4 28. �xc4+ �f7 29:i*xf7+

and so it becomes a target for a white 'it>xf7 30.�b7+ 'it>g8 3 l .�d6 +- .
knight. Better-looking is 19 . . . �b8!? pre­
paring to challenge the rook on b I . 28.E!b6 'i!Jf7

1 53
 l .b4 .£lf6 2 . .ll.b 2 g6

28 . . . .ll.f8 29. �b3 �a8 30 . .ll x d5+ cxd5

3Uhh6 .ll xh6 32.�b6 .ll.f8 33.�e6+
�h8 34.�xf5 +- .

29.f! x c6!

This emphasizes White 's domination.

29 f! xc6 30.f!xdS f! xdS 3 1 .'�b3

•••

'/hc7 32 .Q. x d S + �f8 3 3 . '/h b S

•

( 3 3 . �b6!?) 33 f!g6 34.c6+ �e8

•••

3 S . 'ltb7 ( 3 5 . .1ld6! +- ) 3S �d8 • • •

36.-{taS+
10 ••• .£)f8
36 . .ll.e 7+! '(ff x e7 37:�b8 • .
1 0 . . . a6 1 1 . .£ld 2 d 5 1 2 . c x d 5 cxdS
36 ••• '/hcS 37 .Q.e7+! 1-0
•
13 . .£la4 d4 oo Gagnon-Yermo1insky,
Las Vegas 1 996.
Game 37
Behnicke-Konikowski l l .a4 aS 12.bS .£)e6 13.f!fdl h5
Dortmund 1 995 14.d4 e4 1 S .£)d2 .£)gS
•

Black proceeds with the usual plan of a

1.b4 eS 2 .Q.b2 d6 3.e3 .£)f6 4 .£)f3
kingside attack.
• •

g6 s . .Q.e2 .Q.g7 6.c4

16 .£)b3?•

6.d3, Chapter 8 .
This looks okay visually, but it's too
6 0-0 7 .£)c3 f!e8
slow and distances another piece from
••• •

7 . . . e4 Game 39.
8.d3
A) The immediate 8.d4 can be met by
8 . . . exd4 (rather than 8 . . . e4 9 . .£ld2 as in
the subvariations of Chapter 5) 9 . .£\xd4
c5 1 0 . .£ldb5 ( 1 0 .bxc5 dxc5 l l ..£ldb5
.£lc6 =i= Rodin) 10 . . . cxb4 l l ..£ld5 .£\xd5
1 2 . ..1lxg7 .£\xe3! 1 3 .fxe3 �xg7 1 4 . .£\xd6
.§. f8 1 5 .0-0 .£lc6 =i= Rodin-Kristo1, USSR
1 979;
the king.
White could try direct confrontation.
16.h4!? .£lgh7 17 . .£lcxe4 (or 1 7 .bxc6
bxc6 first) 1 7 . . . .£lxe4 1 8 . .£lxe4
A) 1 8 . . . ..\lf5 1 9 . ..\ld3 ..ll x e4 20 . .ll xe4
� x h4 2 1 . ..\l d 3 .£lf6 w i th mutual
chances;
B) 18 . . .f5 1 9 . .£ld2 '(ffxh4 20 . .£lf3 �e7 oo .
16 ••• .Q.fS 17.bxc6 bxc6

B) 8.0-0 has the merit of delaying the 1 7 . . . .£lf3+!? This happens later in the
choice of a more specific plan. game, but it looks playable earlier, in­
cluding right now: 18.gxf3 ( 1 8.�hl??
8 ••• .£)bd7 9.'/hc2 c6 10.0-0 .£lg4 -+ ) 1 8 . . . exf3 1 9.c7 oo .

1 54
 The Sokolsky Opening

18.d5 White loses after 22.ili'b2 ili'h4 23 .h3

fxg2 24.Ah8 f6 25.f3 �xh3 26."tli'xg2
18 . .llil !? prepares for the coming attack. (26.fxg4 �h l + 27.'<tff2 �h2 28.E!gl
ili'h4 + 2 9 . 'ttt e 2 E! x e 3 + ! mating)
18 ... c5 19.4:)h5 26 . . .�xg2+ 27.'<tfxg2 4Jxe3+ -+ .

White stands well on the queenside, but
the game will be decided on the other
side of the board.
19 ... 4:)g4
22 .. :t\'h4 23.h3 fxg2 24.\flxg2
This loses quickly, but all roads lead to
defeat: 24.f3 �xh3 25 ."tli'xg2 �xg2+
26.�xg2 4Jxe3+ 27.'tttg3 h4+! 28.'<tfxh4
�xg7 29.E!dcl Ac2 and Black is cer­
tainly winning; e . g . , 3 0 . 4Jd2 4Jf5 +
3 l .'tttg4 E!e2 32.4Je4 E!h8 etc.

24 ... j}.e4+ 25.f3 Axf3+! 26.�xf3

� x h3+

26 . . . E! xe3+! 27.ili'xe3 "tli'xh3+ 28.�e2

ili'xe3+ 29.'tttfl ili'f2 # .

20.j}. xg7 Quickest i s 2 7 . . . 4J e 5 2 8 . e4 ili'g4 +

29. 'ttte 3 ili'f3 * .
20.�xg4!? eliminates an attacker.
28.}3gl
20 ... 4:)f3+!
28. "tli'xf2 �g4 # .
The start of a decisive combination.
28 . . . }3e4+ 29.�g5 �h4+ 0-1
21.j}.xf3
30.'<tfh6 4Jg4+ 3 l . f! xg4 hxg4 # .
All the other replies are worse:
Game 3 8
A) 2l .'<tfhl 4JxfU ; Frombach-Overbeck
Dortmund 2003
8) 2 1 . '<tffl 4Jgxh2 # ;
l .{)f3
C) 21 .gxf3 exf3 22. ili'b2 (22.Ad3 Axd3
2 3 . "tli' x d 3 ili'h4 mating) 2 2 . . . �h4 l .b4 4Jf6 2.Ab2 g6 3 .4Jf3 Ag7 4.e3
2 3 . � x f3 � x h 2 + 2 4 . 'ttt f l 4J x e 3 + ! transposes.
25.fxe3 Ah3+ -+ .
l . . . {)f6 2.e3 g6 3.b4 j}_g7 4 . .Q.b2
21 ...exf3 22. �d2 0-0 5.c4 d6 6.d4 {)bd7 7 . .Q.e2 }3e8

1 55
 l .b4 {)f6 2 . .1lb2 g6
8.0-0 eS 9.bS
9.dxe5 Game 45.
9 ... e4
Black may prefer to exchange in the
center: 9 . . . exd4!?
A) 10 . .£\xd4 .£lc5 1 1 ..£lc3 .il.d7 12 . .il.f3
( 1 2 . .£lb3!?) 1 2 . . .'lik8 1 3 .a4 .il.g4 14 . .£ld5
.ll x f3 1 5 . .£\xf6+ .ll x f6 1 6 . �xf3 .£le4
l 7 :�e2 a6= Labahn-R.Becker, corr
1 993 ;
B) 10.exd4 c5!?;
C) 1 0 . Axd4 a6 l l . a4 .£lc5 1 2 . .£lc3
Jl.f5 oo .
Black should be continuing with his
kingside operations rather than allow­
ing White to open up the queenside. For
example 10 . . . a6 l l .a4 axb5 1 2 .axb5
t:!. xa l 1 3 .Axal .£lf8 1 4:�c2 h5 1 5 .t:!.cl
.£18h7 1 6 . c 5 d 5 17 . .£\c3 h4 oo
L.Oiiveira-De Paula, Angra Dos Reis
1 999.
l l .bxc6 bxc6 1 2 . .£)c3 .£)f8 13.E!bt
hS t 4 : �c 2 .ilfS 1 S .ila3 .£) e6 •
t6.E!b7 .£)gS?!
1 56
Black's attack is optimistic in the face
of White 's active position in the center
and on the queenside.
A) Black should either strike tactically:
16 . . . .£\xd4!? 1 7 . exd4 e3 18 . .1ld3 (not
1 8 . .£\de4? e x f2 + 1 9 . t:!. x f2 .£\xe4
20 . .£\xe4 t:!. xe4 -+ ) 18 . . . .il.xd3 19:�xd3
e x d 2 2 0 . � x d 2 d5 2 l . c x d 5 .£\xd5
2 2 . .£\xd5 �xd5 2 3 .Ac5 t:!. ad8 with
more or Jess equal chances;
B) Or challenge White directly on the
other side of the board : 1 6 . . :�c8!?
17.�b3 .£ld8 18.t:!.b4 .£ld7 oo .
17.E!fbt .£)g4 18.�a4 cS 19 . .£)d;
.£)e6 20.dxcS dxcS
White also has the better chances after
20 . . . .£\xc5 2 Ulxc5 dxc5 22.t:!. xa7.
21.E! x a7
Even stronger i s 2 l . A x g 4 ! ? hxg4
22 .Ab2 .
21 ... E! x a7 22.�xa7 .i'teS
With 22 . . . .£lf6!? Black shows that he
realizes that realistically his attack prob­
ably won 't succeed.
23.~fl ~h4
Black's aggression is easily parried -
or so you would think.
2 4 . j't x g4 A x g4 2 S . �a4 E!dS
2 6 . j'tb 2 A x b 2 2 7 . E! x b 2 .£) g ;
28.�c2?
This deactivates the queen and gives
Black an unexpected chance. 28.�a5!
or 28.�a7 etc., maintains White's ad­
vantage.
 The Sokolsky Opening
28 ••• 4:)f3+?
Black has 28 . . . .\lf3 ! ! which equalizes:
A) 29.�c3! (This is vital - White 's
queen and knight will work together to
draw the game. The alternatives are
bad.) 29 . . . �h3 30.4Jf6+
1) 30 . . .'�f8 3 1 .4Jh7+
a) 30 .. .'it'g8 32.4Jf6+ repeats the posi­
tion;
b) 3 l . . .'<tfe7?? 32.�e5+ forks king and
knight;
c) 3 l . . .<;t>e8?? 32.�h8+ 'it?d7 33.E!d2+
'it?c6 34:{i;\rf6+ +- ;
2) 30 . . . 'it?g7?? 3 1 .4Je8+ 'it?f8 32.�h8+
'it?e7 33.E!b7+ E!d7 34:�e5+ +- ;
B) 29.4Jf6+ 'it'g7 30.�c3 'it?h6 3 l .�e5
.Jlxg2 3 2 . �g3 4Jf3 + 3 3 . 'it'xg2 �xf6
Black is winning - just compare his
knight to White's;
C) 29.�d2 �h3 30.4Jf4 E! xd2 3 l .E!b8+
'it?g7 32.gxh3 E! xa2 with a huge advan­
tage;
D) 29.gxf3 exf3 30.4Jg3 E! xd5! 3 l .�fl
§d8 32.'it?el �xh2 White is lost.
29.<.!lht .£)el??
1 57
Black had still to try 29 . . . .\le6!?; e.g.,
30.�xe4 �xe4 3 1 .4Jf6+ 'it'g7 32 .4Jxe4
.\lxc4 33.gxf3 .\lxfl 34.h4 c4 with hopes
of a draw.
30:tt xe4 'litgS 3l.'�e7
Rather than exchanging the b lack
queen, White should force it offside by
3Lf4 �h4 32.4Jg3 +- .
31 ••• E{ xdS?
White is still better, but set far more
problems, after 3 l . . . �xe7 32.4Jxe7+
'it'g7 33.4Jd5 4Jd3 34.E!d2 4Je5.
3 2 . E{ b 8 + litlg7 3 3 . t\'f8+ litlf6
34.'(Jth8+
34.f4! �h4 (34 .. .'lii'f5 35.E!e8 catches
the king in a mating net) 35.cxd5 +- .
34 ••• <ifle7 35. t\'e8+
Black is of course well beaten, so we
give the remainder of the game with
minimal commentary.
3S ••• <iflf6 36.cxdS '/txdS 37.'/tdS+
37.�h8+!? 'it?e6 38.e4 +- .
37 -(t xdS 38. E{ x d8 �c2 39.E{d6+
•••
<ifleS 40.E{c6 <ifldS 4 1 . E{c7 Jle2
42.�d2 �a3 43.e4+ litld6 44.E{ xf7
c4 4S.f4
45.E!f6+!?; e.g., 45 . . . �c5 46.E! xg6 .lld 3
47.E!g3 �b4 48.e5 ltf5 49.E!xa3! �xa3
50.4Jxc4+ 'it?xa2 5 1 .4Jd6 .\ld7 52.f4 +- .
4S c3 46.�b3 Jlc4 47.E{f6+ litld7
•••
48 . � c l � c 2 49 . E{ x g6 � b4
SO.Etg3 c2 Sl .§c3 1-0
•
 l .b4 <tlf6 2 . .1lb2 g6

Game 39 (ii) 13 . . ..1le6 14 ..1lxg7 \t>xg7 1 5 .'lii'b2+

Soko/sky-Kho/mov f6 16.<£\f4 �e7 1 7 . .1le2 .llf7 18.Eldl
Kiev 1 954 �e5 with mutual chances, G.Weber­
Kwatschewsky, Vienna 1 998;
l.b4 e5 b) 8 . . . c5 9.bxc5 dxc5 10.<£\dbS �a5
( 1 0 . . . <£\c6!?) 1 1 . �a4 �xa4 1 2 .<£\xa4
1 . . .<tlf6 2 . .1lb2 g6 3.<tlf3 .llg7 4.c4 0-0 .ll d 7? ( o 1 2 . . . <tla6) 1 3 . <£\ x c S .ll x b5
5.e3 d6 6.<tlc3 e5 transposes. 1 4 . cxb5 <tlfd7 ( o 14 . . . b6) 15 . .1lxg7
'<t> x g 7 1 6 . <£\ x b 7 <tlb6 1 7 . .1le2 a6
2.Ab2 d6 3.c4 4)f6 4.e3 g6 5.4)f3 18.bxa6 E! xa6?? ( o 18 . . . <£\xa6) 19 . .1lxa6
Ag7 6.4)c3 1 0, Konikowski-NN, blitz playchess.
-

com 2005 ;
Other lines are considered in Chapter
5. 2) 8. exd4 c5 9 . dxc5 dxc5 1 0 . �xd8
E! x d8 1 l . b 5 b6 1 2 . ..1l e 2 <tle4
6 . . . 0-0 7.Ae2 ( o 12 . . . ..1lb7) 1 3 .<£\xe4 .ll x b2 14.E!dl
E! xd 1 + 1 5 . '<t> x d 1 '<t>f8 1 6 .'<t>c2 .llg7
7.d4!? was a Sokolsky suggestion: 1 7 .<£\fgS <tld7 ( 1 7 . . . a6!?) 18.<£\d6 <!ile7
19 . .1lf3 E!b8 20.<£\dxf7 with the advan­
A) 7 . . . exd4 tage in the endgame, D iaz-Lemos,
Buenos Aires 2004;
1) 8.<£\xd4
B) 7 . . . <£\c6!? 8.dxe5 dxe5 9.b5 e4 oo ;

C) 7 . . . e4 8.<£\d2 E! e8 9 . ..1le2 See the

subvariations in Chapter 5 .

7 e4
•••

7 . . . E! e8 Game 37.

8.4.:)d4

a) 8 . . . <£\c6 9 . a 3 a5 1 0 . b 5 <t\ x d4
1 l .�xd4 <tld7 1 2 . �d2 <ticS 1 3.<£\dS
(i) 13 . . . .1le6 a) 13 . . . .1le5! Now . . . <tlc5-
b3 is a real threat because Black can
recapture the bishop with a pawn in­
stead ofthe king as compared to the next
note ; b) 1 3 . . . <£\b3 1 4 . .1lxg7! <tlxd2
(14 .. .'<ti>xg7?? 1 5 .�c3+ picks up the
knight) 15 . .1lf6 �d7 1 6.<tle7+ �xe7
17 ..1lxe7 E! e8 18.\t>xd2 E! xe7=;

1 58
 The Sokolsky Opening
S ... cS 9.�c2?
This is the cause ofWhite's future prob­
lems - taking on c5 must be better.
Campora-Komljenovic, Seville 2005,
ended quite quickly: 9.bxc5!? dxc5
10 . .£lb3
A) 1 0 . . . b6 1 l . d4 c x d4 ( 1 1 . . . e x d 3
1 2 .�f3 wins material) 1 2 . exd4 .£lc6
1 3 . 0-0 .§ e8 1 4 . a4 a5 1 5 . .£lb5 .£lb4
16.d5 .llf5 17 . .£l3d4 �d7 18 . .£lxf5 gxf5
( 1 8 . . . \�i'x fS 1 9 . .£ld6 w i n s material)
19.§a3 f4 20 . .1lxf6 -'l.xf6 2 1 ..1lg4 1 -0
2 1 . . .�d8 22 . .§h3 -+ ;
B) 1 0 . . . �e7
1) l l .f3!? .§d8 1 2.0-0 exf3 1 3.-'l.xf3 .£lc6
1 4 .�h 1 ( 1 4 . .£l a 4 ! ? ) 1 4 . . . .£l e 5
(14 . . . �e6!?) 1 5 . 4:'ld5 4:'lxd5 1 6.-'l.xdS
Ae6 17.�xe6 �xe6 1 8 .4:'lxc5 �xc4
1 9 . � x e 5 -'l. x e 5 2 0 . d4 �d5 =
Westerinen-Dueball, Dortmund 1 973;
2) 1 1 .0-0 .§ d8 =F NCO; Polugaevsky­
l.Gurevich, Hastings 1 992 [NCO states
" 1 993/4"] .
9 ... �c6 lO.bS �eS 1 1 .0-0 .1le6
12.�a3 E!e8 13:(�·c2 -'tfS 14.ti\'b3
White must be careful : 14 . .£ld5? 4:'lxd5
1 5 . c x d 5 4:'lf3 + 1 6 . �h 1 ( 1 6 . g x f3
exf3 -+ ) 16 . . . �h4 with a decisive attack.
14 ... hSI
Black continues in the characteristic
fashion for this variation.
15.�dS � x dS 16.cxdS h4 17.f4
exf3 18.gxf3 h3
A) 1 8 . . . .£ld3 !? 1 9 . .1lxd3 ( 1 9 .-'l.xg7??
�g5 + 2 0 . � h 1 h3 2 l . .§ g 1 .£lf2 # )
1 59
1 9 . . . .ll x b2 ( 1 9 . . . .1lxd3 20.�xd3 .ll x b2
2 l . .§ ad1 transposes) 20 . .§ adl .ll x d3
2 l .�xd3 Axa3 22 .�xa3 �g5 + 23.�f2
�xd5 + ;
B) 1 8. . . -'td3 1 9.Axd3 etc., transposes
to the 18 . . . .£ld3 line above.
19. �hl ti\'h4 20. t\'c3 .1lf6 21.�c4
�g4
2 1 . . . .£lxc4!? 22. �xf6 �xf6 23 . .1lxf6 .£lb6
and the d5-pawn will fall.
Not 23.�xb2?? .£lf2+ 24.�g1 .£ld3 and
Black wins.
Black plays for the initiative. He's not
interested in the drawn position after
2 3 . . . -t)f2 + 2 4 . �g 1 �g5 + 2 5 . � x f2
�h4+ ( � 2 5 . . . �g2 + 2 6 . � e 1 �xh2
27 . .1ld3) 26.�g1 �g5+ 27.�f2 �h4+.
24.�c4 E!ad8 2S.E!acl b6 26.a4
.1lc8 27.f4?
27 . .§ g 1 puts the brakes on B lack 's
kingside attack.
27 ... .11,g4 28 . .11, x g4 � xg4
28 . . . �xg4! 29 . .§f2 �f5 30 . .£lxe5 dxe5
3 1 .�c4 exf4 32 . .§ xf4 �xd5+ 33.�xd5
.§ xd5 leaves Black a pawn up.
2 9 . E!f3 � f 2 + 3 0 . �g l � e4
31.t\'dl t\'g4+ 32.E!g3 t\'fSI
Black declines to win the exchange by
32 . . . �xd1 + 33 . .§ xd1 .£lxg3 34.hxg3, as
White's knight will be quite strong in
this partly blocked, queenless position.
 l .b4 <£lf6 2 . .Q.b2 g6

33.t\'f3 .£} xg3 34.hxg3 �g7 35.g4 The exchange is returned.

t\'d3
44 .£) xe5 � xeS 45.d4+t
•

This guarantees White equality.

4 ; ... �f6

Or 45 . . . cxd4 46.exd4+ r,t>xd4 47.�c7

with sufficient counterplay.

46.dxc5 dxc5 47.E!d3 �e7 48.a;

E!ht 49.�e4 E!bl!

Not 49 . . . bxa5? 50.�a3 �dl 5 l .� xa5

36.�h2
�d7 52.�a3 � c7 53.r,t>d5 when Black
will have problems.
White shouldn ' t take the pawn :
3 6 . 'l!1 x h 3 ? � h8 3 7 . 'l!1g2 � h4 !::.
50.axb6 axb6 51.�e5 f6+ 52.�d;
38 . . . � dh8 -+ .
E! x b5 53.E!a3 Yz-Yz

36 ... E{e4 37.E!c3 t\' x d5

53 . . . � a5 54.�b3 � a6 55.r,t>c6 is dead
drawn.

Game 40
Soko/sky-Lilientha/
Kiev 1 954

l .b4 e5 2 .Q.b2 d6 3.e3 .£)f6 4.c4

•

g6 ; .£) f3 Jlg7 6 .d4 0-0 7 .Q.e2

• •

exd4

A) The inferior 7 . . e4 appears in the

.

subvariations of Chapter 5 ;
38.d3 E!d4 39. t\' xd5
B ) 7 . . . <£lbd7 is the most popular move
39.'lii'e 2? � e8 -+ . in this position, transposing to the main
line (7 . . . e5) in Chapter 5 .
39 ... E{ xd5
8.~xd4
Black is up in material, but the d5-rook
is practically trapped. White has other possibilities, o f course:

40.�xh3 g5 41 .f5 E!h8+ 42.�g3 A) 8 . exd4 .Q.g4 (8 . . . d 5 ! ? S okol sky

�f6 43. �f3 E!e5 9 . 0-0 oo ) 9.0-0 � e8 1 0.<£lc3 <£lc6 1 l .b5

1 60
 The Sokolsky Opening
li::J e 7 1 2 .h3 .QJ5 1 3 . !! e 1 c6 1 4 . a4 a6
1 5 .�b3 �d7 16 . .1lf1 (No doubt both
s i d e s were l o o k i n g at 1 6 . . . .ll x h 3
17.gxh3 �xh3 - ) 1 6 . . . h6 17.!!ad1 g5
18.li::Je 5
1) 1 8 . . . �c8 1 9 . li::J d 3 li::J g6 2 0 . !! xe8+
li::J xe8 2 1 . 4Jb4 a5 2 2 . 4Jc 2 li::J h 4 oo
Barcza-Opocensky, Leipzig 1 965;
2) 18 ... dxe5 19.dxe5 �c8 20.exf6 .ll xf6
2 1 .li::Je4 ± ;
B) 8.4Jxd4
1) 8 . . . c5 9.4Jb5 4Jc6 (9 . . . cxb4 10.a3!?)
1 0 .a3 ( 1 0 . bxc5 dxc5 1 1 .0-0 .ll e 6 �
NCO) 1 0 . . . cxb4 1 1 .0-0 .lle6 1 2.axb4
d5 13.c5 a6 14.4Jd6 4Jxb4 1 5 .�a4 a5
16 . .1ld4 b6 17.4Jc3 4Jd7 1 8 . .1lxg7 'it>xg7
19.!!ad1 bxc5 20.�a1 f6 2 1 .li::J a 4 �e7
22.li::J b 5 .llf7 with complex play that
later ended in a draw, Espig-Savon,
Odessa 1 976;
2) 8 ... !! e8 9.0-0 4Jbd7 10.li::Jc 3
a) 10 . . . li::Je 5 1 1 .h3 .lld7 1 2 .�b3 �c8
13.�h2 li::Jc 6 14.li::Jf3 4Je7 1 5. !! ac l h6
16.!!fd1 g5 1 7 .li::J d 5 4Jexd5 1 8 . cxd5
§e7 19 . .1ld4 �f8 20.�b2 li::Je 8 2 1 .b5
f5 22 . .1lxg7 !! xg7 23.�d4 � Miltner­
Mahdi, Germany 1 998;
b) 10 ... a6 1 1 .�c2 li::Je 5 1 2 .!!ad1 .llg4
13 . .1lxg4 li::Jfxg4 14.h3 4Jf6 oo ;
161
3) 8 . . . a5 9.b5 li::Jbd7 10.4Jc3 4Jc5 1 1 .0-0
!! e8 1 2 . � c 2 .ll g 4 1 3 . !! ad 1 .ll x e 2
1 4.�xe2 �e7 1 5 .li::Jd 5 4Jxd5 1 6.cxd5
�e5 1 7.�c4 �e4 18 . .1la3 b6 19.!!cl
�h4 Y2-Y2, Lombardy-R.Byme, New
York 1 969.
8 ... 4)c6 9.�c3 E{e8 10.0-0
10 .. :�e7
10 . . . li::Jh 5 1 1 .�b3 .ll x b2 1 2.�xb2 �f6
1 3 .li::J c 3 .lle 6 1 4 . !! fd1 li::J e 5 1 5 .li::J x e5
� x e 5 1 6 . .1l x h 5 g x h 5 ( 1 6 . . . � x h 5 ?
17.li::Je 4 ± ) 17.c5 (17.!!d4!? � 18.!!e4)
1 7 . . . dxc5 1 8 . b x c 5 h4 1 9 . !! ac 1 b6
20.cxb6 axb6 2 1 .h3 �g7 22 .'it>hl Y2-
Y2, Bendig-Schneider, Germany 1 987.
l l .bS
White is in a hurry. After the game
Sokolsky recommended queenside de­
velopment with 1 1 .4Jbd2!? This was
tested out in Rodin-Van Son, corr 1 989,
which continued l l . . . li::J h 5 1 2 . �b3
.ll x b2 1 3 .�xb2 �f6 1 4 . �xf6 !i::J x f6
1 5 .b5 li::J a 5 16.!!ab1 .llf5 1 7.!!b2 b6
18.li::Jd4 .llc8 19.li::J 2 b3 li::J x b3 20.axb3
.llb7 2 1 .!!a2 a5 22.bxa6 !! xa6 23.!! xa6
.ll x a6 24.!!a1 with a significant advan­
tage. [This game appears in some data­
bases as Groenendal-Kragten, corr
1 989.]
 l .b4 <£lf6 2 . .1lb2 g6
l l ... �d8 12.�bd2 �e6 13.�b3
� e4 1 4 . � c 2 .Q. x b 2 1 S . � x b 2
� 6cS t6.� xcS � xeS 17.a4 .Q.fS
Here S o k o l sky suggested 1 7 . . . a 5
(which stops White from advancing his
own pawn to this square); e.g., 18.<£ld2
.ilf5 19.<£lb3 <£lxb3 20.�xb3 b6 2 l ..ilf3
.ile4 22 . .ilxe4 �xe4 23.�adl with a
level position.
1 8 . a S .Q.d3 19 . .Q. x d 3 � x d3
20.�c3 �cS
21.§fdl c6 22.§abl cxbS 23.cxbS
§ac8 24. �d4 �e4 2S.§bcl lacS
26.§ xcS dxcS 27.�d7
White stands a bit better, but it's not
enough for the full point, and the game
is soon drawn.
27 ... �f8 28.h3 �f6 29.�d3 §c8
30.�c3 �g8 31.�c4 �e4 32.§dS
�f6 33.§d3 �e4 34.§dS �f6 Yz-Yz
Game 4 1
Sokolsky-Kogan
Odessa 1 949
l .b4 �f6 2 . .Q.b2 g6 3.�(3 .Q.g7
4.c4 d6 s.e3 0-0 6.d4 �bd7 7. �b3
§e8
1 62
For alternatives see Chapter 5 .
8 .Q.e2 e S 9.0-0 �e4
•
9 . . . e4 1 O.<£lfd2 <£lf8 is better. Black con­
tinues with . . . .ilc8-f5 and . . . h7-h5-h4,
according to Soltis.
10.�c3 � xc3 l l . .Q.xc3
Black plays a waiting game. But this is
the time for action on the kingside :
l l . . .e4!? 1 2 .<£ld2 �h4 or 1 2 . . . �g5 .
1 2.a4
White concentrates on the queenside,
of course.
12 ... �f8 13.§fdl .Q.g4?
1 3 . . . e4! is the way to play this line.
14.dxeS d xeS 1 S.�b2 f6 t6.§d2
§adS 17.§adl .Q.e6 18.bS § x d2
19.§ xd2 §d8 20 . .Q.b4 �e8 2 1.aS
White has made good progress on the
queenside, meanwhile Black has done
nothing on the kingside and so suffers
a positional disadvantage.
 The Sokolsky Opening

21 ••• E;t xd2 22 .£) xd2

• What else? l f 39 .. .'it>d6 40 . ..1lxe6 'it>xe6
4l . ..ll x c5 White goes two pawns up.

40 .£) x c S J}. x c4 4 1 . .£) x e6 J}. x e6

•

42.Jl, xe6

White can advance the pawn straight

away : 4 2 . a 6 ! ..ll c 4 4 3 . ..1l c 5 + 'it>f7
44 . ..1lxf8 'it>xf8 45 . ..1lc8 'it>e7 46 . ..1lb7 +- .

42 ..• \t'xe6 43 ..Q.d4 \t'dS

The bishop won't be fast enough to stop

the pawn : 43 . . . ..1ld6 4 4 . a6 ..ll b 8
22 ••• Jl,d7 45.a7 +- .

Maybe Black can put up a defense with 44.a6 'it>c6 4S.a7 'it>b7
2 2 . . . .£ld7 and 23 . .£lb8.

23.Jl.f3 c6 24.Jl.cS fS

Overdue. If 24 . . . cxb5 25 . ..1lxb7 bxc4

26 . ..1lxa7 then the passed a-pawn will
decide the game.

2S.bxc6 bxc6

25 . . . ..1lxc6 26 . ..1lxc6 �xc6 27 . ..1lxa7 ± .

26.iltb7 e4 27.Jl,e2 .£)e6 28.Jl.xa7 46.hS! Jl.d6

White goes a pawn up, and that practi­ 46 . . . gxh5 47. 'it>g3 ..lle 7 48. 'it>f4 +- .
cally settles the game.
47.hxg6 h xg6 48.'ifle2 1-0
28 cs 29 .£lb3 Jl.fS 30.ttbs 'it>f7
••• •

Game 42
Sokolsky-Solovjev
Black takes the queen next move any­
Minsk 1 957
way.
l . b4 .£) f6 2 . A.b 2 g6 3 . c4 Jl.g7
3l.h4 ilt x b8 32.Jl, xb8 Jl.cS 33.f3 4 .£){3 0-0 s.e3 d6
•

f/;e7 34.f x e4 f x e4 3S.Jl.g4 Jl.a6

36 .£)d2 Jlb7 37.'it>f2 Jlg7 38 .£)b3
• •
5 . . . d5 6.cxd5, Chapter 5 (see the notes
to 4 . . . d6).
White starts to gang up on the c5-pawn.
6 .d4 .£) bd7 7 .Q.e2 c6 8 .£)c3 eS
• •

38 .Q.f8 39.Jl.a7 Jl.a6

••• 9.0-0

1 63
 l .b4 4Jf6 2.Ab2 g6

9.a4 is possible too, delaying a decision
about the king; the next game, Game
43, shows White castling queenside.
9 ... e4 10.�d2 !!eS
18 ... dxc5 19.dxc5 .il xb2 20.� xb2
�c3
That's how Black manages to eliminate
both White 's bishops.

2 1 . �c 2 � x e 2 + 2 2 . � x e 2 �g;
23.!!fcl

2 3 . � x a6? Ah3 2 4 . g3 �g4 2 5 . f4

exf3 -+ .

23 . . . Ah3 24. �ft �d7

White has to keep an eye on the vulner­

able c5-pawn because Black is doing
the same.
u .a4 �fs 1 2.b5 h5

Black plays in the characteristic and

correct way for this variation. 26.�xa6? <tlxc5 27.�fl 4Jb3 -+ .

13.a5 a6 26 . . . � e 5 27 . � c3 �h4 28. !!c2

.ilg4
Otherwise White will advance his own
pawn here. 28 . . . � ed8!? �::;. 29 . . . 4Jd3.

14.4)a4 Jl.f5 29.!!a4

Black is right not to be distracted from

the kingside by 14 . . . �xa5, which can
be met by 1 5 .bxc6 bxc6 1 6.c5! dxc5
17 .4Jxc5 with good play for the pawn.

15.�b6 !!bS 16.bxc6 bxc6 17.c5

�d5 18.�dc4

This looks good. However, stronger is

18.cxd6!? <tlxb6 (18 . . . �xd6 19.4Jdc4
�c7 2 0 . 4J x d 5 c x d 5 2 1 . 4Jb6 �b7
22 .Aa3 ± ) 19.axb6 � xb6 20.Aa3 �g5
2 1 .'<t>hl 4Je6 22.�cl . Black is worse
because of his feeble queenside pawns
and his weak attack on the other wing.
29.4Jc4! forces Black to make his mind
up about his knight; e . g . , 29 . . . 4Jf3
(29 . . . 4Jd3? 30.4Jd6 ± [ .e 30.4Jxe4 oo ])
30.h3 4Jg5 3 1 .'<t>h2 and White is safe.

1 64
 The Sokolsky Opening

29 . . . 4.)f3 38.g3 h4 3 9 . g4 [ 3 9 . 4::l x e4 �e5 -+ ]

Black optimistically threatens mate.
29 . . . .ilf5 is slower but surer.
30.h3 E{bd8
In the heat of battle Black calmly brings
up another piece. 30 . . . .ilxh3!? 3 l .gxh3
Ele5 intending . . . Ele5-g5 is playable, but
Black thinks he can achieve something
more certain.
31.4.)c4
The knight hurries to where the action
is. Were it not for the knight move,
Black had very dangerous threats along
these lines: 3 1 . . .El d2 3 2 . f!. xd2 4::l x d2
33.�cl .ilf3 34.'it>gl �g5 35 .g3 �f5
36.�h2 .ilhl ! -+ .
3 9 . . . f5 -+ ) 3 7 . . . �g5 + 38 . 'it>fl e x f3
39.f!. c l �g2 + 40.'it>e l �gl + 4 l .'it>d2
�xf2+ In the long run White's uncoor­
dinated pieces should be no match for
B l ac k ' s queen and h i s advan c i n g
kingside pawns.
34. E{ x e4??
After 34.4Jxe4!, everything would be
okay ; e . g . , 34 . . . .ilf5 3 5 . �d l .ilxe4
36. �xf3 f5 37 .f!. cc4 +- .
34•• :trxf2U
It's all over. Presumably White was ex­
p e c t i n g 34 . . . 4J d 2 3 5 . � e l 4::l x e 4
3 6 . 4J x e4 b u t e v e n t h e n B lack h a s
3 6 . . . .1lxh3! 3 7 .4Jd6 Ae6+ 38. 'it>gl �b4
with the advantage.

31 ... E{d3? 35.E{cl

It's not clear where Black 's attack is 35.�xf2 f!.bl + mating.
going. o 3 1 . . .4Jg5!?
35 ... �g3 0- 1
32.4.)d6
Game 43
32 .4Je2?? The knight was doing a vital Soko/sky-Pe/z
job covering the d ! -square. Now Black Minsk 1 96 1
can mate with 32 . . . .ilxh3 33.gxh3 f!.dl
34.iii' x dl �xh3 # . l .b4 4.)f6 2.Ab2 g6 3.c4 Ag7 4.e3
d6 5.d4 0-0 6.4.)f3 4.) bd7 7.Ae2
32 ... §xc3 33.E{ xc3 E{b8 E{e8 8.4.)c3 e5 9.a4 c6

Black can force a draw here, if he wants 9 . . . e4 transposes to subvariations in

one, by 33 . . . 4Jd2 34.�gl 4Jf3: Chapter 5 .

A) 35.�fl 4Jd2 repeats the position; 10.a5

B) 35.4::l x e8? <tlxgl 36.'it>xgl It may 1 0 . 0-0 exd4 1 1 . 4Jxd4 a 5 1 2 . b5 c5

seem that Black can only draw, but in 1 3 . 4Jf3=.
fact the position is winnable after
36 .1lf3!; e.g., 37.gxf3 (37.4Jd6 �g5
. . . 10 ..• �c7

1 65
 l .b4 4Jf6 2 . .ilb2 g6

l l .bS a6 12.b6 24.J}.d31 �d7

White blocks the queenside with the
possible intention of housing his king
there, and of mounting an attack on the
black king on the other side of the
board.
12 .. :~d813.d5 c514.~b3 h6
Practically forced, as Black must try to
maintain his f5-pawn. The alternatives
are gruesome :
A) 24 . . . e4 25 . .llx e4! fxe4 26.4Jxe4 4Jd7
(26 . . . -'tf5 27.4Jxf6! +- ) 27.4Jxf6 4Jdxf6
28.�g6 "ili'f8 29.4Jg5 hxg5 30.hxg5 +- ;

B lack chooses the inferior p lan of B) 24 . . .f4 25.exf4 exf4 26 . ..1lxh7 4:lxh7
. . . 4Jf6-h7 and . . . f7-f5 instead ofthe typi­ 27.4Je4 .llf5 28.4Jxf6! ..ll x c2 29.4Jh5+
cal 14 . . . e4!? 1 5 .4Jd2 4Jf8 1 6.h3 h5 etc. 4Jf6 30.-'txf6+ +-

1 S.h3 �h7 t6.g41 25.~h2!

White 's intentions are revealed for all It's far more important to clear the way
to see. for the f-pawn than to continue protect­
ing the h-pawn.
t6 . . . fS 1 7 .g x f S g x f S 1 8 . 0 - 0 - 0
\tlh8 19 .§dgl
• 2S ... J}. xh4 26.f4 Jl.f6 27.� f3 exf4

White 's control of the g-file gives him What to do? Black is lost. 27 . . . e4 1oses
a clear advantage in the coming attack. to 28 . .ll x e 4 ! fx e 4 2 9 . 4J x e 4 "ili'f7
30.4Jxd6 �h5 3 1 .4Je5 +- .
19 ... .§g8 20:�c2 �df8 2t .h4 J}.f6
22 .§ xg8+ \tl xg8 23 . .§gl+ \tlh8
• 2 8 . e x f4 �e8 2 9 . �g 2 �f7
30.� h41
23 . . .'it>f7?? The king can't escape as eas­
ily as that! 24.4Jxe5+! -'txe5 25.-'th5+ This knight will deliver the killer blows.
'it>e7 2 6 . f! g8 "ili'd7 2 7 . f4 .ll f6
28.4Je4! +- . 30 ... Jl,d4

1 66
 The Sokolsky Opening
White wins after 30 . . . ..Q.xh4 3 1 .<tle4+
<tlf6 32.<£\xf6 Axf6 33 . ..1lxf6+.
3 l . {) e 2 A, x b2 + 3 2 . <t> x b2 Jld7
3 3 . A, x fS I Jl. x fS 34.{) xfS {) d7
3S.{) x d6!
The black queen is tied to the defense
of the g 7 - square . 3 5 . <£\ xd6! ttff6 +
36.'it'b3 �xd6? 37.'ltfg7 # .
3S . . . �e7 3 6 . {) fS �f7 37.<t>b31
ges 38.{)d6 Ete3+ 39.{)c3 �f8
40.�g6 Ete7 4t.{)f5 1-0
41 . . ..§.f7 42.<£\xh6 .§.g7 43.'ltfxg7+ ttfxg7
44 . .§. x g7 'itl x g 7 4 5 . <£\fS + 'itlf6
46.<tld6 +- .
Game 44
Katalymov-Bakhtiar
Tashkent 1 959
l . b4 {) f6 2 . .Q. b 2 g6 3 . e 3 .1lg7
4.{)f3 d6 S . d4 {) bd7 6.c4 0 - 0
7 .Q.e2 E{e8 8.0-0 {)e4
.
For 8 . . . e5 and other possibilities see
Chapter 5 .
9.�c2 f S 10.d5 {)ef6
The unforced retreat of the kni ght
doesn 't make much sense. A better plan
1 67
is l O . . . e S ! ? l l . d x e 6 { l l . <tlfd 2 ! ?)
l l . . .Axb2 1 2.' � x b 2 { 1 2 . exd7 Axa l
1 3 . dxe8'ltf+ 'ltfxe8=) 1 2 . . . <tldf6 1 3 .<tld4
c5 14.bxc5 dxc5 1 5.<tlb3 ( 1 5 .<tlc2 .§. xe6
16.a4 oo ) 1 5 . . . Axe6 16.f3 <tld6 17.<£\xc5
<t\xc4 18 . ..1lxc4 ..ll x c4 with the advan­
tage, although White had alternatives
along the way.
l l .{)d4 {)f8 12 . .Q.f3 E{b8 13.{)c3
e5 14.dxe6 {) xe6 15.{)d5 {) xd5
1 6 . Jl x d 5 c6 1 7 . A, x e6 + .1l, x e6
18.E{fdl .1lf7 19.c5 dS
Black could play 1 9 . . . ..Q.d5 !? 20.<£\e2
Axb2 2 l .'ltfxb2 dxc5 22.bxc5 �e7 with
equality.
20.a4 �e7 2 1 .b5 E{bc8 22.E{acl
�d7 23. �c3 b6?
This only weakens the queen s i d e .
23 . . :�c7!? was suggested in the post
mortem.
24.�a3 cxbS 2S.c6!
Thus White creates a passed pawn that
forces Black on the defensive.
25 ... �c7 26.ax b5
26.<£\xbS!? is also tempting.
 l .b4 .£:lf6 2 . .1lb2 g6
26 ... Ete4 27.Etal EtaS 28.�a6 hS
29.Etacl laee8 30.�b7 JleS
Weaker is 30 .. :ilhb7 3 l .cxb7 !! ab8
32.!!c7 .ile5 33.!!d7 +- .
3 1.f4 Jld6 32.A.a3! Eteb8
33.A xd6!
The queen sacrifice must have come as
a shock to Black, although the long-term
consequences should be very good for
White.
33 ..• Et xb7 34.cxb7
The consistent move. After 34 . ..1lxc7
!! xc7 3 5 . !! a l 'it>g7 36. 'it>f2 White is
obviously much better, but there's still
work to be done.
34... �xb7 3S.Etc7 �b8 36 .£)c6 • (40 . . . .ild5 41 ..£:ld7!) 4 1 ..£:lc6 a4 42.!!c7
White 's knight is practically the most
powerful piece on the board at the mo­
ment. Another show of its strength is
36 . .£:lf3!? b. 37 . .£:lg5 .
36 •.• �e8 37 . .£)eS
Maybe the bishop should be placed on
e5 since the knight has more real choice
of where to go.
1 68
37 ... A.e6 38.Ete7 �c8?
38 . . . �xb5!? abandons the bishop but
gains a pawn and some much needed
counterplay : 3 9 . !! xe6 �e2 40.!! a l
�xe3+ 4 1 .'it>h l a 5 4 2 . !! xg6+ '<t>h7
43.!!g5 !! c8 44.!! xh5+ 'it>g8 45.!!g5+
'it>h7 and Black has drawing chances.
39.Etfl
39 . ..1lc7! was even stronger.
39 ... d4
B lack offers a pawn to increase the
scope of his bishop.
40 . .£) xg6?
White is overconfident. He should sim­
ply take the pawn 40.exd4; e.g., 40 . . . a5
�e8 43.!!el when Black can resign.
4o .•• d3?
B lack should play 40 . . . �c3! 4 1 .h3
(41 .!! xe6? 'it>f7 wins a piece) 41.. . .1lf7
(4 l . . .!!d8 42 . .ile5 W oo ) 42.!!f3 (Black
is okay after 42 . .£:le5 .ile8) 42 . . . Axg6
43.!!g3 �el + 44.'it>h2 �xg3+! 45.'it>xg3
d3 46. Ab4 !! e8 4 7 . !! x a 7 !! x e 3 +
48.'it>h4 !! e4 and Black saves the game.
 The Sokolsky Opening
4 t . Et c7 �e8 4 2 . 4) e7 + �f7
43.4) x fS+ �f6?
43 . . . .1ld7 is met by 44.Ae5 with the
advantage.
44.4)g7 �g8 4S.Jl.eS+ �g6 46.fS+
A xfS 47.4) xfS 1-0
Game 45
Soko/sky-Kiri/ov
Minsk 1 957
l.b4 eS 2.j},b2 d6 3.c4 4)f6 4.e3
4)bd7 S.4)f3 g6
5 . . . Ae7 Game 68.
6.d4 j},g7 7 .Ae2 0-0 8.0-0 E{e8
For other lines see Chapter 5. The most
popular move in this position 8 . . . e4 is
the main line in that chapter.
9.dxeS
White dissolves the "problem" of the
center.
A) 9.d5 e4 1 0 . <£ld4 <£le5 l l . h3 h5
1 2 .<£\c3 g5 with attacking chances,
Doostkam-Peyrou Olya, Iran 2000;
B) 9.�c2 exd4 10.<£lxd4 a5 l l .a3 <£le5
1 2.<£\d2 Ad7 ( 1 2 . . . Ag4!? The bishop
1 69
goes here next move anyway) 1 3 .b5
Ag4 14.f3 Ac8 1 5 .e4 <£led7 16.a4 <£lc5
17.f!a3 �e7 18.f!el Ad7 19.<£lfl h5
20.Adl h4 2 l .�f2 <£lh5 22 .Ac2 <£lf4
w i t h an active p o s i t i o n , P o l ey­
Navrotescu, Agneaux 2004;
C) 9.b5 Game 3 8 : Frombach-Overbeck,
Dortmund 2003 .
9 .. .l~g4
9 . . . dxe5 1 0 .�c2 (White can grab the
e 5 -pawn by 1 0 . <£l x e 5 ! ? but after
1 0 ... <£le4 1 1 .<£ld3 Axb2 1 2 .<£\xb2 �e7
1 3 .<£ld3 a5 his advantage doesn't feel
like a full pawn's worth) 10 . . . �e7 1 l .c5
<£ld5 1 2 . a3 <£lf8 1 3 .<£\c3 c6 1 4 . f! adl
<£l x c 3 1 5 . A x c 3 .ll f 5 1 6 . e4 Ad7
( 1 6 ... Ag4!?) 17.f!d6 h5 18.f!fdl f! ad8
1 9.�d2 with pressure, Krafzik-Kluge,
Dresden 200I .
10.4)c3 4)gxe5
Sokolsky: "It is possible that 1 0 . . . dxe5
l l .h3 <£!h6 was slightly better, though
after 1 2 .c5 White has some advantage
on the queenside."
1 1 .4)d4 4)f6 12. �b3 c6 13.Etadl
�e7 14.h3
 l .b4 4Jf6 2 . .ilb2 g6

This takes the g4-square away from 18 •.. c5?

Black's minor pieces.
This immediately goes along with
14 ... .Q.e6?1 White 's plan. We suggest 18 . . :-lli' c 7!?
rather than Sokolsky 's proposal of
Unimaginative. Sokolsky suggested 18 . . . cxb5 19.�xb5 .
1 4 . . . g5!?
19.�c2
1 5.f4 �ed7 t6.e4 �f8

The knight heads for d5 via e3 .

White commands the width of the
board; e.g., 16 . . .4Jh5?? 1 7 . .ilxh5 gxh5
19 ... .Q.h6 20.Jl,cl Jlg7 21.�e3 h6
18.f5 +- 0

22.f51
17 . .Q.f3 laad8 18.b51
White finally plays this move, a move
that leaves B lack both positionally
worse and with no sign of counterplay.

22 Jl,c8 23.�ed5 � xd5 24.� xd5

•..

�h4 25 . .Q.g4 .Q.e5

Black defends himself against g2-g3,

which would trap the queen. No better
is 25 . . .!:� xe4 26.g3 � xg4 27.hxg4 �xg4
28.f6 etc.

White wants to deflect the c6-pawn 26.E{d3 h5 27.g3 .Q. xg3 28.E{ xg3
from protecting the d5-square. hxg4 29. E{ xg4 1-0

1 70
 Chapter 6
l.b4 fS
Black develops in the style of the Dutch
Defense, intending a closed center and
a kingside attack. It is "not active
enough" against l . b4 according to
Soltis. Chapter 8 also features an early
. . . t7-f5 .
l . . .e6 2 . ..ilb2 f5 3.c4 <tlf6 (transposes
to Baessler-Antusch in the notes below)
4.b5 (transposes to Game 48) 4 . . . ..ile7
5.e3 0-0 6.4Jf3 transposes to the main
line.
2 . .Q.b2
If 2 . . . e6, we recommend 3 . e3 <tlf6,
which transposes to the main line.
2 . . . e6 3.e4!? is the Schiffler Gambit, a
popular choice, but we don't completely
trust it. Here is a short sample : 3 . . :{!\'h4
(3 .. .fxe4 4.�h5+ �e7 5.�h4+ <tlf6 oo ;
:!0 3 . . . 4Jf6 4.e5) 4.exf5 �xb4 5 .�h5+
�d8 6 . � g 5 + <tle7 7 . .1l x g7 Yl - Yl ,
Roggensack Hanspach-Dowd, corr
1 989.
171
The usual move, but of course White
has several alternatives:
A) 3 . .1lxf6!? A paradoxical idea - White
exchanges his only developed piece in
order to weaken his opponent's kingside
p aw n structure 3 . . . e x f6 (3 . . . g x f6
4.e4! ± ) 4.a3 (4.c3 Game 46: Schiffier­
Schmidt, Leipzig 1 950) 4 . . . a5 5 .b5 f4
6.<tlh3 Ad6 7.<tlc3 (7.g3!? fxg3 8.hxg3
and the opening of the h-file is in line
with White 's aggress ive intentions)
7 . . . �e7
1) 8.g3 fxg3 9 . hxg3 c6 1 0 . a4 Ae5
1 1 .4Jf4 Axf4 1 2 . gxf4 d5 1 3 .d4 .llf5
14.e3 <tld7 1 5 .Ad3 Axd3 1 6.�xd3 g6
17.bxc6 bxc6 18.!!bl 0-0 19.�d2 §fb8
w i th more or less equal chanc e s ,
Bulcourf-Bianchi, San Martin 1 987;
2) 8.e3 fxe3 9.fxe3
a) 9 . . . c6 10 . .1ld3 0-0 1 1 .0-0 .ll x a3
( l l . . . A e 5 ! ? 1 2 . � f3 = ) 1 2 : �h 5 g6
1 3 .Axg6
(i) . 1 3 . . . Ab2 1 4 . !! a4 Axc3 ( 1 4 . . . d 5
1 5 . !! h4 h x g6 1 6 . �h8+ �f7
1 7 . !! h7+ +- ) 1 5 J ! g4 �h8 1 6.Axh7!
 l .b4 fS
�xh7 1 7.�xh7+ 'it>xh7 1 8 . .§ fS 'it>h6
19 . .£\f4 mating;
( i i ) 1 3 . . . h x g6 1 4 . � xg6+ �g7
1 S .�xg7+ �xg7 1 6 . .§ xa3 ± ;
b) 9 . . . ..1lxa3 1 0 . .£\dS �cS 1 1 ..£\xc7+
�xc7 1 2 . .§ x a 3 0-0 1 3 . E! c 3 � e S
1 4 . .£\£4 ± ;
B) 3.g3 e6 4.a3 !Jie7 S.!Jig2 0-0 6 . .£\f3
1) 6 . . . d6 7.0-0 .£\bd7 8.c4 aS 9.�b3 cS
l O.bxaS .§ xaS 1 1 ..£\c3 .£\e4 ( 1 1 . . . .§ a6!?)
1 2 . .£\bS .§ a6 1 3 .d3 .£\gS 1 4 . .£\xgS AxgS
1 S . f4 Af6 1 6 . e4 Axb2 1 7 .�xb2 eS
18.fxeS .£\xeS 19.exfS �gS? (better is
19 . . . .§ xfS 20 . .§ xfS AxfS 2 l .Axb7 .§b6
22 .!JidS+ 'it>h8 and Black is still in the
game) 20 . .£\c7 �e3 + 2 1 .�f2 �xf2 +
22 . .§ xf2 .§ a4 23 .!JidS+ 'it>h8 24.!Jie4
.£\g4 2S . .§ b 2 A x fS 26 . ..1l x fS .§ x fS
27 . .§ xb7 White won a pawn and went
on to win, Rewitz-Hoiberg, Aarhus
1 988;
2) 6 ... dS 7.0-0
a) 7 . . ..£\bd7 8.d3 .§e8 9.c4 c6 1 0 . .£\bd2
.£\£8 1 1 . �b3 �h8? ( c:. l l . . . l£\g6)
12 . .£\eS �g8 13 . .£\d£3 .£\6d7 1 4 . .§ ad1
.£\xeS 1S . .£\xeS Af6 1 6. e4 d4 1 7 . f4
AxeS 18.fxeS .£\g6 19.cS .£\xeS 20.exfS
.£\g4 2 1 . .§ £4 .£\ e 3 2 2 . .§ e 1 .£\ x g 2
2 3 . 'it> x g 2 �dS + 2 4 . � x d S c x d S
2 S . !Jixd4 ± Roisman-Varela, Buenos
Aires 1 993 ;
1 72
b) 7 . . . c6 8.d3 aS 9.c3 !Jid7 10 . .£\bd2
!Jie8 1 l .�c2 AhS 1 2 . .£\d4 �d7 1 3 .e4
b6 1 4 . .§ae1 with a positional advan­
tage, Windelboe-Grand, Aarhus 1 994;
C) 3.f4 e6
1) 4.a3 b6 S .e3 (S . .£\f3 !Jib7 6.e3 trans­
poses) S . . . Ab7 6 . .£\f3 Ae7= B C02
7 . ..1le2 0-0 8.0-0 aS 9.bS .£\e4 1 0.d3
.£\cS 1 1 ..£\eS d6 1 2 . .£\c4 .£\bd7 1 3 .Af3
!Ji£6 1 4 . !Jixb7 Axb2 1 S . .£\xb2 .£\xb7
1 6.d4 .£\£6 1 7 . c4 �d7 18 . .£\c3 .§ ae8
1 9 . .£\d3 .£\e4 20 . .§ c l "?t!le7 with a com­
plex game that White eventually won,
Dus Chotimirsky-Kirilov, Vilnius 1 949;
2) 4.bS a6 S .a4 c6 6.c4 axbS 7.axbS
.§ xa 1 8.!Jixa1 dS 9.e3
a) 9 . . . ..1le7 10 . .£\£3 0-0 1 1 ..£\c3 �c7
1 2 .!Jie2 .£\bd7 1 3 .cxdS cxdS=;
b) 9 ... AcS!? 1 0 . .£\f3 0-0 1 1 .Ae2 .£\bd7
1 2 . .£\c3 dxc4 1 3 .!Jixc4 .£\b6 1 4 . ..1le2
.£\bdS oo ;
D) 3 . .£\f3 e6 (3 . . . g6 4 . e 3 !Jig7 S . c4
transposes to Lanca-Bembenek in the
notes below) 4.a3
1) 4 . . .Ae7 S . c4 b6 6.g3 Ab7 7 ...1lg2 d6
8.0-0 "?t!ld7 9.d4 0-0 1 O . .£\c3 .£\e4 1 1 .e3
A£6 1 2 ."?t!lc2 .£\xc3 1 3 .Axc3 ..lle 4 Yz-Yz,
Jeschke-J.Meyer, Osterroenfeld 1 996;
 The Sokolsky Opening

2) 4 . . . b6 5 .g3 (5.e3 is another possibil-

ity) 5 . . .-'tb7 6 . .ilg2 .ile7 7.0-0 0-0 8.d3
c5 9.bxc5 bxc5 10Ajbd2 "/J'fc7 1 U! b1
<tlc6 1 2 .c4 .!:! ab8 1 3 .-'tc3 .f:lg4 14."/J'Ic2
Af6 1 5 . .!:!b2 -'txc3 1 6."/J'fxc3 .ila8 1 7.h3
!! x b2 1 8 . "/J'f x b 2 .f:lf6 1 9 . "/J'f c 3 .!:! b8
20 . .l:!b1 .!:! xb1 + 2 1 ..f:lxb1 "/J'fb7 22 . .f:lbd2
iii'b6 23.-tlb3 Ab7 24 . .f:lfd2 d6 Obj ec­
tively the position is equal although
Black went on to lose, Bogdan-Forgacs,
Hajduszoboszlo 200 I ;

E) 3.c4 e6 3 ... e6

1) 4.a3 The normal reply. An alternative is to

a) 4 . . . c6 5.d4 d5 6.e3 .ild6 7 . .f:lf3 .f:lbd7 play along the lines of the Leningrad
8.<tlc3 0-0 9 . Ae 2 .f:le4 1 0 . 0-0 "/J'ff6 Variation of the Dutch Defense: 3 . . . g6
l l .<tlxe4 fxe4 1 2 . .f:le 1 "/J'fh6 1 3.g3 .!:! f6 4.c4 Ag7 5 . .f:lf3
1 4 . <tlg2 "/J'fh3 ( 1 4 . . . dxc4!?) 1 5 . -'tg4
( 1 5.<tlh4! threatens to trap the queen by
16 ..Ag4) 1 5 . . . "/J'Ih6 1 6.c5 .Ac7 17.-ilc l
!!f8 (17 . . . e5!?) 18.f4 .f:lf6 1 9.Ae2 Ad7
20.g4 g5 ( 2 0 . . . "/J'f h 3 ! ? ) 2 1 . h4 "/J'fg6
( 2 l . . . g x h 4 2 2 . g 5 "/J'fg7 2 3 . � h l o o
[ 2 3 . gxf6 .!:! x f6 -+ ] ) 2 2 . h x g 5 .f:le8
23.<tlh4 "/J'Ig7 24 . .!:! f2 with the advan­
tage, Baessler-Antusch, Schloss Schney
1 996;
b) 4 . . . Ae7 5 . .f:lf3 0-0 (5 . . . b6 transposes
to J e s c h k e - J . M e y e r in the n o t e s
above) 6.g3 ( o r 6 . .f:l c 3 followed by A) 5 . . . 0-0
d2-d4 and e2-e3 is another reason­
able plan) 6 . . . d5= BC02 7 . .ilg2 a5 1) 6."/J'fb3 c5?! ( c:. 6 . . . a5) 7.bxc5 .f:lc6
8.b5 .f:lbd7 9 . "/J'Ic 2 .f:lc5 1 0 . 0- 0 c6 8.Ae2 e6 9.0-0 "/J'Ie7 10 . .f:lc3 ( 1 0.d4!?)
1 0 . . . .f:le4 1 l . d4 g5 1 2 . .f:l x e 4 fx e4
l l .bxc6 bxc6 1 2.d4 .f:lce4 1 3 ..f:le5 "/J'fe8
1 3 . .f:l d 2 e 5 1 4 . d 5 w i n n i n g , S a s s ­
14.f3 <tld6 1 5 . .f:ld2 � White can prepare
GBrueckner, P inne berg 1 99 1 ;
e2-e4, F.Perez-Naj dorf, Mar del Plata
1 96 1 ; 2) 6.-'te2 d6 7.d4 .f:le4 8 . .f:lbd2 c6 9.h4
h6 10."/J'Ib3 .f:lxd2 l l ..f:lxd2 .f:ld7 1 2 .f4
2) 4.iii'b3 b6 5 . .f:lf3 -'tb7 6.g3 .f:lc6 7.a3 .f:lf6 1 3 . h 5 g x h 5 1 4 . -'t x h 5 .f:l x h 5
Ae7 8 ..Ag2 0-0 9.0-0 d6 1 0 . .f:lc3 "/J'Ie8 1 5 . .!:! xh5 "/J'fe8 16 . .!:! h3 "/J'fg6 1 7.'itlf2 �f7
l l .d4 "/J'Ih5 1 2 .d5 exd5 13 . .f:lxd5 .f:lxd5 1 8 . .!:!ahl ± Hickl-Jahr, Germany 1 98 1 ;
1 4 . c x d 5 .f:ld8 1 5 . .!:! ac l ± Kozun­
Maciejewski, corr 1 99 1 . B) 5 . . .d6 6.d4

1 73
 l .b4 f5
1 ) 6 . . . c6 7 . � e 2 4Ja6 8 . �b 3 4Jc7
9.4Jbd2 �d7 10.h4 with the initiative,
Lanca-Bembenek, Ostrava 2003 ;
2) 6 . . . 0-0 Game 4 7 : Jalo-Keskinen,
Helsinki 1 992.
4.bS Jl.e7
Black simply completes kingside devel­
opment.
A) 4 . . . b6
1) 5 .4Jf3 �b7
a) 6.g3 J:J..e 7 7.J:J..g 2 0-0 8.0-0 �e8 9.a4
d6 1 O.d3 4Jbd7 1 1 .4Jd4 Axg2 1 2 .<:fxg2
4J c 5 1 3 . 4Jc6 e5 1 4 . d4 ;t P i nto
F ernandez- Dopico Alcala, Madrid
2000;
b) 6.�e2 c5 7.0-0 a6 8.c4 (8.a4!?) 8 . . . d5
( o 8 . . . axb5 9.cxb5 �e7 1 0 . a4 0-0=)
9. cxd5 exd5 1 0 . a4 �d6 1 l .�d3 g6
1 2 . 4Jg5 �e7 1 3 . 4Jc3 4Jbd7 1 4 . bxa6
J:J.. x a 6 1 5 . � x a 6 f! x a6 1 6 . f4 c4?
( 0 16 . . . h6) 17 . 4J x d 5 4J x d 5
18.�xh8 +- Dessing-Van der Pluijm,
Schagen 2003 ;
2) 5.c4 J:J..b7 6.4Jf3 J:J..e7 7.J:J..e 2 o-o 8.0-0
f! e8 9.d4 d6 10.4Jbd2 4Jbd7 1 l .�b3
.llf8 1 2 .a4 c5 1 3 .a5 ;t Schwichtenberg­
M.Rubinstein, Naumburg 2002;
1 74
B) 4 . . . a6 5.a4 .lle7 6.c4 0-0 7.4Jf3 c6
8.�b3 axb5 9.axb5 f! xa1 1 0 . .1lxa1 .£\e4
1) 1 1 . 4Jc3 �a5 1 2 . .1lb2 d5 1 3 . .\le2
4Jd7 14.cxd5 4Jdc5 1 5.�c2 exd5 16.o-O
followed by 17 .§a 1 with slightly more
activity;
2) 1 l .�a2 cxb5 1 2 . cxb5 d5 13 . .lle 2
4Jd7 1 4 . 0- 0 4Jdf6 1 5 . f! c l �b6
16.J:J..d4 ;t Agrest-Aurell, Gothenburg
2005;
C) 4 ... d5 5.c4 �e7 6.4Jf3 0-0 7 . .lle 2
c 6 8 . 0 - 0 4Je4 9 . a 4 �f6 1 0 . .ll x f6
( 1 0 . d4 tran sposes to Gruszynski­
Widzinczewski in the notes below)
10 . . . �xf6 l l .d4 4Jd7 1 2 . 4Jbd2 .£\c3
1 3 .�e1 4Jxe2+ 1 4 .�xe2 c5 1 5 .cxd5
exd5 16.dxc5 4Jxc5 17.f!fcl b6 18 . .£\d4
f4= Chilton-Eisentraeger, Berlin 2005 .
5.c4 (Actually c2-c4 is more common
than 4Jg1 -f3 , but it's usually j ust a
change in move order) 5 . . . 0-0 6 . .£\c3
(6. 4Jf3 transposes to the main line)
6 . . .�e8 (6 . . . 4Je4 Game 49: Katalymov­
Kondratiev, Minsk 1 962) 7 . 4Jf3 b6
8 . .1le2 J:J..b7 9.0-0 d6 10.d4 (10.4Jd4!?
t:::,. 1 l .J:J..f3) 10 . . . 4Jbd7 1 l .�b3 'it>h8
A) 1 2 .c5 bxc5 1 3 .�xe6 4Je4 14 . .£\d5
�d8 1 5 .4Jf4 ;!; ;
B) Holz auf der Heide-Richter, Leipzig
1 998, continued 1 2 .4Jg5 �g6 1 3.f4 h6
1 4 .J:J..f3 4Je4 1 5 .4Jgxe4 fxe4 1 6 . .1ldl
4Jf6 1 7.�c2 d5 1 8.cxd5 exd5 1 9.h3
1 ) 1 9 . . . h5 20. �f2 § ae8 2 l . a4 .lld8
2 2 .J:J..a 3 § f7 23.f5 �h7 24.4Je2 with
active play;
2) Better is 19 . . . a6 20.a4 axb5 2 l .axb5
f! xa1 2 2 .J:J.. x a1 f! a8 as White is dis-
 The Sokolsky Opening
tracted fro m try i n g to organ ize a
kingside attack.
5 .. 0-0 6.c4
. b) 9.tt'c l !? .ll x b2 (no better i s 9 . . . tt'a5+
6 . d6
. .
This is the normal move in this posi­
tion, freeing d7 for a knight.
A) 6 . . . c6 7.a4 d5 8 . .1le2 4Jbd7 9.0-0
flc7 1 0:�·b3 'it>h8 1 l .§c1 4Jc5 1 2:�c2
dxc4 1 3 . tt' x c 4 c x b 5 1 4 . a x b 5 tt'd8
15 . .lla 3 with enough pressure for an
eventual victory, Sander-Rakic, Berlin
1 985;
B) 6 . . . 4Je4 7 . .lle 2
1) 7 . . . c5 8.d3 .llf6
a) 9 . d4 d5 1 0 . tt'b3 b6 1 1 . 0-0 .llb 7
1 2 .<£lc3 4Jd7 1 3 .cxd5 4:1xc3 14 . .ll x c3
1 75
Axd5 1 5 . .1lc4 .ll x c4 1 6 . tt'xc4 tt'e7
17.§ad1 White is more active, Franek­
Widziszewski, corr 1 99 1 ;
10.4Jfd2 4Jxd2 1 1 .4Jxd2) 1 0.tt'xb2 tt'f6
1 1 . tt'xf6 4:1xf6 1 2 .4Jc3 ;!; ;
2) 7 . . . d5 8 . 0-0 c6 9 . a4 Af6 1 0 . d4
( 1 0 . .1l x f6 tran s p o s e s to C h i lton­
Eisentraeger in the notes above) 1 0 ... c5
1 1 . �c2 4Jd7 1 2 .cxd5 exd5 1 3 .dxc5
4:1 d x c 5 14 . .ll x f6 � x f6 1 5 . 4Jd4 f4
16.4Jc3 it Gruszynski-Widzinczewski,
corr 1 99 1 .
7.d4
White leaves a hole on e4, but that's less
important than stopping Black from
playing . . . e6-e5.
A) 7.4Jc3
1) 7 . . . c5 8.bxc6 4:1xc6 9 ..1le2 b6 10.0-0
( 1 0.d3!? stops a knight from occupying
e4 1 0 . . . .1lb7 1 1 . 0- 0 = ) 1 0 . . . 4Je4
1 1 .4Jxe4 fxe4 1 2 . 4Jd4 4:1xd4 1 3 . .ll xd4
.llb7 14.f4 exf3 1 5 .Axf3 .ll xf3 16.§ xf3
Af6 1 7 . .ll x f6 § x f6 1 8 ." � e 2 tt'e7
19.§ xf6 tt'xf6 20.§f1 tt'e7 2 l .tt'f3 §f8
22.tt'c6 § xf1 + 23.'it>xfl g6 reaches a
level ending that was soon drawn, Lom­
bardy-L.Evans, New York 1 962;
2) 7 . . . e5 8.�b3 'it>h8 9.d4 e4 10.4Jg5
( 1 0 . 4Jd2!? is also possible) 1 0 . . . h6
1 1 .h4! �e8 ( 1 1 . . .hxg5?? 1 2.hxg5+ 4Jh7
1 3 .g6 +- ) 1 2 .4Jh3 ( 1 2 . .ll e 2!? tries to
maintain the tension) 1 2 . . . c5 1 3 . 4Jf4
.lld8 14.h5 §t7 1 5 .0-0-0 White 's supe­
rior development gives him the better
chances, De Vi s ser-Hendriks, corr
1 982;
B) 7 . .1le2
 l .b4 f5
1) 7 . . . e5 8.d4 e4 9 . .£!fd2 'ffi'e 8
a) 1 0 . .£!c3 'ffi'g6 1 l .g3 .£!bd7 1 2 :�b3 c5
1 3 .a4 'it'h8 1 4 . f4 exf3 1 5 .Axf3 'ffi' h6
1 6 . .£!e2 Ad8 1 7 . .£!f4 � e8
(i) 18.0-0!? g5 19 . .£!g2 cxd4 20.Axd4 oo
(20.exd4? g4 -+ );
(ii) It's risky to castle queenside: 18.0-0-
0?! a6 19.h3 axb5 20.axb5 .£!b6 2 l .dxc5
dxc5 2 2 . g4 Ac7 with active p l ay,
Teichmann-Bhend, Bern 1 99 1 ;
b ) O r 1 0 . f3 ! ? e x f3 1 l . A x f3 .£lg4
( .e 1 1 . . . 'ffi' g 6 1 2 . 0-0) 1 2 :�e2 Ah4 +
1 3.g3 Ag5 14.Axg4 fxg4 1 5 . .£!c3 a6 �
( 1 5 . . . 'ffi' x e3 1 6 . �xe3 Axe3 1 7 . .£ld5
Axd2+ 18.'it'xd2 � f2+ oo );
2) 7 ... -ffi'e 8 8.h3 (8 . .£!c3!? looks stron­
ger than unnecessarily weakening the
king's position) 8 . . . .£!bd7 9.d4 Ad8
1 0 . -ffi' c 2 b6 1 1 . .£!bd2 Ab7 1 2 . � d 1
( 1 2 .a4 .£!e4 1 3 .a5 !?) 1 2 . . . .£!e4 1 3 .0-0
�h5 14 . .£lxe4 .ilxe4 1 5 . �d2 'ffi' h 6
16 . .£!h2 Af6 1 7 . Af3 ( 1 7 . f3 Ag5!?)
1 7 . . . Axf3 1 8 . .£lxf3 g5 with kingside
counterplay, I o s i f-Just, Wuppertal
1 994.
7 ... -lteS
A typical Dutch Defense maneuver to
get the queen involved in a kingside at-
tack.
1 76
7 . . . .£!e4
A) 8 . .£l b d 2 .£!d7 9 . Ad 3 (9 . .£lxe4
transposes to 7 . d4 .£!e4 8 . .£lc3 .£!d7
9 . .£lxe4) 9 . . . .£!df6 1 0 . 0-0 �h8 1 1 .-ffi'c 2
d5 1 2 . .£!e5 Ad7 1 3 .a4 c6 1 4 . f3 .£lxd2
1 5 .-ffi' x d2 Ad6 1 6.Aa3 Axa3 1 7 . � xa3
'ffir e 7 1 8 . � a a 1 � a c 8 1 9 . � fc 1 g 5
2 0 . � a 5 f4 2 l . e x f4 g x f4 2 2 . 'ilh a7
White's attack on the kingside is faster
than B lack's on the other side, and
White soon won, V.Martinez-D.Rosen,
Avoine 1 992 ;
B) 8 . .£lc3
1) 8 . . . .£!d7
a) 9 . .£lxe4 fxe4 1 0 . .£!d2 .£!f6 1 1..�. e 2
�e8 1 2 .0-0 �g6 1 3 . f3 exf3 ( 1 3 . . . 'i'!i'h6
1 4.�b3!) 14.� xf3 intending Ae2-d3,
'ffi'd 1-c2 and � a 1 -fl with good chances.
Note that 1 5 .Ad3 �xd3? 1 6.e4 traps the
queen;
b) 9.Ad3 .£!df6 1 0 .-ffi'c 2 d5 1 1 .0-0 c6
1 2 . .£!e5 Ad7 1 3 . bxc6 bxc6 14.f3 ll:ld6
1 5 .e4 fxe4 1 6.fxe4 dxc4 17 . .£lxc4 .£lxc4
1 8 . Axc4 :t Haider- S chreiner, Pang
1 98 3 ;
2 ) 8 . . . .£!xc3 Game 48: Sokolsky-Lukin,
corr 1 960.
s . .Q.e2
 The Sokolsky Opening

After 8.<iJbd2 b6 9.g3 .llb7 1 0.-'l.g2 a6 12.<iJh4 �g5 13.<iJhf3 �g6 ( ::!!0 13 . . . �h6
l l .a4 <iJbd7 1 2 .0-0 <iJe4 1 3 . <iJb3 axb5 14.<iJd4) 14.<iJh4 repeats the position.
14.axb5 �g6 the position is more or
less equal. 12.•. ~xd5

8 ... �g6 9.0-0 b6 10.4)bd2 .Q.b7 Or 12 . . . .1lxd5 1 3 .<iJh4 �f7 14.<iJxf5 ± ;

1 2 . . . <iJe4 1 3 .<iJxe4 fxe4 14.<iJd4 .llx d5
1 5 .-'l.h5 ± .

1 3 . .Q.c4 <if;l h 8 1 4 . 4) b3 4) f6
1S.4)bd4

With the initiative for the pawn.

Summary: Black's principal idea is to

U.dS!?
Probably best. For the cost of a pawn,
White opens up the position for both of
his bishops.
l l .g3 <iJe4 1 2 . <iJ x e 4 fx e4 1 3 . <iJe l
( 1 3 . <iJd2 a 6 1 4 . a4 <iJd7=) 1 3 . . . <iJd7
14.f4 exf3 1 5 . .1lxf3 .ll xf3 1 6 . .§ xf3 .§ xf3
17.<iJxf3 �e4 18.�e2 .§ f8 =F Helbich­
Kunc, Bmo 1 986.
ll exdS
..•
get his queen to j oin in with an attack
on the white king. White can success­
fully counter that by taking over the
center and breaking it open if necessary.
l l .d5!? gives White plenty of play.
Game 46
Schif.ller-Schmidt
Leipzig 1 950
l .b4 fS 2 . .Q.b2 4)f6 3 . .Q.xf6 exf6
4.c3
4.a3, Chapter 6.
4 dS S.e3 Jld6

.••

A) l l . . .e5? 1 2 .<iJh4 Now Black will get

into a complete tangle if he tries to pro­
tect his f-pawn: 1 2 . . . �g5 1 3.<iJdf3 �h5
14.<iJd4 �xh4 1 5 .<iJxf5 �e4 16.-'td3
ili'g4 17.<iJxe7+ +- ;

B) l l . . .<iJfd7 Black refuses to go along

with White 's plans, but is still slightly
worse after 1 2 .<iJd4 exd5 13 . .1Ul5.

12.cxd5

The consistent move. 6 .Q.d3

•

1 77
 l .b4 f5

To deter Black from playing 6 . . .f5-f4. A bold decision. Instead Black could
play the quiet 19 . . . .1ld7 or 19 . . . E!.b6.
6 ... t\'e7 7 . .£ie2 c6 8.t\'c2 g6 9.h4!
h5 20 . .£j xc6

Necessary to prevent White 's pawn White accepts the bait.

from advancing.
20 .•. t\'b7 21 . .£j xb8?
10.a4
Played in a hurry?
White plays on both wings. More dy­
A) Correct is 2 1 .4Jb5!? �xc6 22.4Jxd6
n a m i c is 1 0 . c4 d x c 4 ( 1 0 . . . 'it>f7 ! ?) �xd6 23.�xc4+ <1Jg7 White is a pawn
1 Ulxc4 .ll xb4 1 2.4Jf4 oo . up, although with care Black should be
able to draw this heavy piece endgame;
10 .£Jd7 1 1.f4 a5 12.b5 .£Jc5 13.c4
.••
e.g., 24.'�c3 �d5 25.0-0 E!. fc8 26.'�a3
.£i xd3+ 14.t\' xd3 E!. c 2 2 7 . �e7+ �f7 2 8 . �xf7 + 'it>xf7
29.E!.fb1 E!. xb1 + 30.E!.xb1 E!.a2 3l .'it>fl
It's knights versus bishops, which in an E!. xa4 32.'it>e2=;
open position ought to favor the latter.
B) 2 1 .4Je4 �xc6 22.4Jxd6 transposes
14 . . . d x c4 1 5 . t\' xc4 .Q.e6 16.t\'c2 to 2 1 .4Jb5 �xc6 22.4Jxd6 etc.
0-0
21 ... t\' xg2 22.0-0-0
Black will be left with an isolated c­
pawn. He should exchange on b5 first:
16 . . . cxb5 17.axb5 0-0.

17.bxc6 bxc6 18 . .£ibc3

Simple development is good, and be­

lieve it or not White could still want to
castle long.

A) Grabbing material looks risky after

18.�xc6 E!. fc8;
22 ••• .Q.a3+?
B) 18.4Jd4? drops a pawn to 18 . . . .1lxf4
1 9 . 4J x e 6 ( 1 9 . e x f4?? .ll b 3 + -+ ) It seems both sides had overlooked
1 9 . . . �xe6. 22 . . . E!. xb8! 23 .4Jb5 �d5 when White
loses; e.g., 24.d4 -'txb5 25 .axb5 E!. xb5
18 •.• E(ab8 followed by 26 . . . .1la3+ 27.'it>d2 E!.b2
pinning the queen.
18 . . . .1lc5!? stops 19.4Je2-d4.
2 3 . <1; b l E( x b8 + 24 . .£J b 5 t\' d 5
19 . .£Jd4 Ac4!? 25.<1;al Ab3 26.t\'c7 E(b7

1 78
 The Sokolsky Opening

Black can draw by 26 . . . E!. xb5 27.axb5
.ltxdl 2 8 . E!. x d l �b3 2 9 . E!. b l �a4
30:�d8+ A£8+ 31 .\t>b2 �xb5+ 32 .'it'cl
'i!l'c4+ 3 3 .'it'dl �fl + 3 4 . 'it'c2 �c4 +
35.\t>dl 'Ml +, which repeats the position.
3 5 . <if(c 2 �a4+ 3 6 . <itfc3 �b4+
37.<if(d3 g5
37 . . . �e4+ 38.'it'e2 �g2+ 39.'it'dl �fl +
40.'it'c2 �c4+ 4 1 ..£lc3 +- .

27:�c8+ <if(h7 3 8 . h x g 5 + f x g 5 3 9 . �c6+ <itfg7

4 0 . f x g 5 h4 4 1 . � h 6 + <if(g8
42. �g6+ <if(h8

It's mate in eight against any defense.

43.4)d6! 1-0

Game 47
Jalo-Keskinen
Helsinki 1 992

l .b4 f5 2 .Q.b2 4)f6 3.4)f3 g6 4.e3

•

.Q.g7 5.c4 d6 6.d4 0-0

28 . .§bl!
6 . . . c6, Chapter 6.
White must play accurately. If he tries
7.4)bd2 /ilbd7
to w i n a p i e c e by 28 . .£l x a 3 A x d l
29.E!. xdl Black will threaten to win it Black prepares to advance his e-pawn.
back by 29 . . . �b3 30.�cl E!.b4 with the
advantage. The immediate 7 . . . e5 is very complex:
8 . d x e 5 d x e 5 ! ? (8 . . . .£lg4 9 . c 5 .£lxe5
28 ... .Q.b2+?? 1 0 . .£lxe5 dxe5 l l ..£lf3 �xdl + 1 2 . E!. xdl
e4 1 3 .Ac4+ 'it'h8 14 . .Q.xg7+ 'it'xg7
28 ... ..1lb4! retains chances for Black. 1 5 . .£ld4 is better for White) 9 . .£lxe5
.£lg4 1 0 . .£ldf3 �e7 � .
29 . .§ x b2!
8. �b3 �e8 9.Ae2 h6
It's not clear what Black was hoping for
since 29.'it'xb2 Axa4 30.'it'al Axb5
31.E!.hcl also loses.

29 . . . � x h l + 3 0 . .§ b l �d5
3l..§xb3!

The game is effectively over - Black

has a few checks left but that's all.

3l. .. � x b3 3 2 . � x b7 + <if( h 6
33.�d7 � x a4+ 34.<if(b2 �b4+

1 79
 l .b4 f5

10.h4 1 6.4Jb6 .§b8 1 7.�xd7 .ll xd7 18.4Jxd7

�xd7 19.f!dl=.
Very committal, since if a kingside at­
tack is to succeed White has to leave 1 6 . . . -'\.xd7 17.0-0
his rook on h l .
White does have to do something with
10 . . . e5 his king eventually.

A central blow in response to one on 17 . . . .1lc6 18 . .£lh2 t!Je7

the flank, or in boxing terms an upper­
cut in reply to a hook. Stronger is 18 . . . <£lxh2 1 9.�xh2 .lld 5.

Unclear is 10 . . . a5!?. In case White is 19.g3 Jlf6 20 . .£jb6 -'\. x h4?

hoping to castle queenside, Black starts
hostilities there. l l .b5 ( l l .c5+ �h8
1 2 .a3 axb4 1 3 . axb4 ! ha l + 14.Axal
e5=) l l . . . a4 (or simply l l . . . e6 and
1 2 . . . b6) 1 2 .'lik2 b6 with equal chances.
Unsound. Black should either move the
rook out of harm's way 20 . . . .§ad8 or
play 20 . . . <tlxh2 2 l .�xh2 .§ ad8 with an
excellent position.

l l .c5+ Cit'h8 21 . .£j xg4 fxg4 22 . .£j x a8

l l . . .�f7? 1 2 .�xf7+ �xf7 ( 1 2 . . . .§ xf7

1 3 .dxe5 dxe5 1 4 . Ac4 wins the ex­
change) 1 3 .dxe5 dxe5 1 4.�c4+ �e8
1 5 .4Jxe5 ± .

12.cxd6 cxd6 13.dxe 5

1 3.h5 is a possibility because of 1 3 . . . g5

14.4Jxg5!.

13 . . . dxe5 14 . .1lb5?!
22 . . . '1!Jf6
White is prepared to exchange a piece
that could be useful defending his own 22 . . . E! f3!? threatens 23 . . Axg3 24.fxg3
.

king. Better is 14 . .§c1 !?. § xg3+ 2 5 . �f2 §g2+ 26.�el �h4+

27.'ittd l �d8+ -+ .
14. . . .£jg4 1 5 .£lc4
•

23.e4!
1 5.4Jg5!? is complicated but more prom­
ising; e.g., 1 5 . . . a6 ( 1 5 . . f4 1 6 . 4Jde4
. White has no alternative as Black was
�e7 1 7.4Je6 ± ) 1 6 . .1lc4 oo . threatening 23 . . . �f3 .

1 5 . . . a6 16 . .1l x d7 23 . . . Jl x e4

1 80
 The Sokolsky Opening

23 .. .! ha8 24.f4 gxf3 2 5 . � xf3 +- .

24.ti\'e3

24.�ae l ! is very strong.

24 ... ti\'c6 25. ti\' x h6+ <if]g8 26.E{ac1

�f6 27. ti\' x h4 (27.� c7!) 27 . . . ti\'f3
2 8 . ti\' h 2 Et f 5 2 9 . Et c 8 + <if]f7
30.ti\'h7+ <if]f6

30 . . .'�e6 3 l . � e8 + U ust as quick is

31 .4Jc7+ 'it'd6 32.�d8+ 'it'c6 33 .�d7+
12 ti\'e8
'<!tb6 34 . ..1ld4+ exd4 3 5 . �xd4+ � c5
•.•

36.�xc5 # ) 3 l . . . 'it'd5 3 2 . �d7+ 'it'c4

As usual, the queen heads for the
33.4Jb6+ 'it'xb4 34.�d6+ 'it'b5 35 .a4+
kingside.
'<!ta5 36. �c5 # .

13.a4 ti\'h5 14.a5

31.E{f8+

White isn't finding the fastest mates, not
that it matters by this stage. 3 1 .�h8+!
'<!te6 32.4Jc7+ 'it'd6 33.'lf¥d8+ and Black
will be checkmated in another two
moves.
31 ... <if]e6 32.E{e8+ <if]d5 33. ti\' x b7+
�c4 34. ti\' x a6+ <if} x b4 3 5 . E{b8+
�c5 36.E{c8+ <if]d5 37.�c7+ 1-0
The opposite sides attack on opposite
sides
14 ... �g4 15.h3 Etf6?
This doesn't work. Correct is 1 5 . . . 4Jf6,
or even 1 5 . . . 4Jh6 planning . . . g7-g5-g4.
16.Etfb1 Eth6

As we said, White isn't finding the fast­ Again 16 . . . 4Jh6!? etc. is a reasonable
est mates: 37.'lf¥c6 # ! idea.

Game 48 17.b6!
Soko/sky-Lukin
corr 1 960 White needs to provoke a crisis to dis­
tract Black from his kingside attack.
l.b4 e6 2.Ab2 f5 3.c4 �f6 4.b5
Jl.e7 5.e3 0-0 6.�f3 d6 7.d4 � e4 17 cxb6 18.a xb6 a6 19.Eta5 �f6
••.

8 .£)c3 � xc3
. 20.e4!

8. . .4Jd7, Chapter 6. White takes over the initiative.

9.Jl.xc3 �d7 10. ti\'c2 �f6 l l.Ad3 20 ... Ac6 21 .d5 exd5 22.cxd5 -'l,d7
Jl.d7 12.0-0 23.exf5 g5

181
 l .b4 f5

6 . . . f!e8, Chapter 6.

7.f4 .1lf6 S.d4 .£) xc3

No one is forcing Black to exchange

pieces. 8 . . . d5 supports the knight.

9 .1lxc3 a6 10.a4 axbS?

•

Opening up the queenside when Black

is undeveloped there, is a bad idea. Bet­
ter is 1 0 . . . d6 or 1 0 . . . d5.
24.j,\xf6!
l l .axbS la xa1 12.�xal d6 13.�f3
White liquidates an important attacking
piece. 24.fxg6 ..ll x h3!? is messy.

24 . . . J}. x f6 2 S . la b4 lacS 26. lac4

la fS 27 . lag4 lacS 2S. �d2 <l}hS
29 . .£) xgS

The game is over.

29 ... .1lc3

If 29 . . . .!1.e5, simplest is 30.<i:lf7+ f!xf7

3 1 .f!xh6 .l1.xf5 32 . ..1lxf5 f!xf5 33.g3 +- .
13 .•• b6
30. �e3! laf6
This fianchetto plan is easily countered.
Or 30 . . . .!1.xa5 3 l .fld4+ �g8 32.<i:le6+
1 3 . . . <£ld7 continues Black's develop­
mating.
ment and keeps options open.
3 1 . la a3 .1l b 2 3 2 . �e7 .il x f S
3 3 . .1l xfS la x fS 34.laf3 .ileS 14.�aS! .£)d7 1 S.<l}d2!

34 .. J!e8 35.fld7 f! xf3 36.gxf3 +- . Tactically, White protects the c3-bishop

in case of . . . <i:ld7-c5 ; strategically, he
3S.�c7 1-0 centralizes his king in anticipation of
the endgame.
Game 49
Katalymov-Kondratiev 1 S .1}.e7 1 6 . .1ld3 .£)f6 1 7 . laal
. . •

Minsk 1 962 j,\d7

l .b4 fS 2 .1lb2 .£)f6 3.e3 e6 4.bS

• Black imagines the pressure he is un­
.1le7 s.c4 0-0 6 . .£)c3 .£)e4 der will be reduced by a queen ex-

1 82
 The Sokolsky Opening

change . If 1 7 . . . d 5 , 1 8 . 'it> e 2 g i v e s B) Sokolsky analyzes 25 . . . h5? 26.e5

White's pieces more maneuverability.
1 8 . '/t x d8 � x d8 1 9 . � a 7 � c 8
20 .Q.b4 C(f}f8 21 .h3 h6 22.g4!?
•
dxe5 27 . .ll. x e7+ 'it>xe7 28.fxe5 .ll.e 8
29.d5 exd5 30.cxd5 .ll. x b5 3 l ..ll.f5 .ll.d7
32.d6+ 'it>d8 33.e6 +- ;

C ) 2 5 . . . 4J h 3 2 6 . 'it> e 3 g5 2 7 . fx g 5
White sacrifices a flank pawn in order hxgS oo .
to get his central pawns rolling.
26 .Q. x e7+ C(f} x e7 27.e x d S e x d S
•

2 8 . 4) e S 4) e4 + 2 9 .Q. x e4 d x e4
22 fxg4 23.hxg4 4) xg4 24.e4
•

30.C(f}e3 .Q.fS 3 l .cS C(f}e6 32.4)c6

•••

g6??
This is the point of the sacrifice.

24 4)f2 2S .Q.bl
.•• •

This innocent little move loses on the

spot. Necessary is 32 . . . bxc5! 33.dxc5
g6 34. f!. a6 'it>f7 3 5 . 4Jd4 h5 36.4Jxf5
2 S dS
g x f5 3 7 . f!. h6 ( 3 7 . f!. c6 'it>e7 3 8 . b6
•••

'it>d8=) 37 . . . f!. a8 38.f!. xh5 'it>g6 with a

Black refuses to be a passive spectator drawish ending.
and strikes out. Alternatives include
33.dS+! C(f} xdS
A) 25 . . . g5!? 26.fxg5 hxg5 27.e5 g4
28.exd6 cxd6 29.f!. xd7 gxf3 30 . ..1lxd6 33 . . . 'it>f6 3 4 . 4J e 5 6 3 5 . cxb6 cxb6
Axd6 3 l . f!. xd6 f!. xc4 3 2 . 'it>e3 4Jd1 + 36.f!. f7 • .
33.�xf3 'it>e7 34.f!. xb6 4Jc3 35 . .ll.g6
f(xd4 is drawish; 34.4)e7+ 1-0

1 83
 Chapter 7
l .b4 e5
l . . . d5 2 . .!lb2 f6 3 . e3 e5 4 . a3 trans-
poses.
2.j},b2 f6
Black defends his advanced pawn while
threatening to take White 's. The draw-
back is the weakening of the kingside,
which i s often exploited by White .
Particularly dangerous for B lack i s
3.e4!?, Chapter 7B.
3.a3
A quiet, unambitious move although
Black still has to be careful. Theory re­
gards as stronger: 3 .b5, Chapter 7 A,
3.e4, Chapter 7B.
3 ... d5
The natural move, and the overwhelm-
ing c h o i c e in pract i c e . I n stead
Kuhmann-Wolfram, Erlangen 2002,
continued 3 . . . !i:Jc6 4.c4 d6 5 .e3 ..lle 6
6.!i:Jf3 !i:Jge7 7 . ..1le2 g6 8.e4 b6 9.d4
exd4 1 0 . !i:Jxd4 ( 1 0 . b5 !?) 1 0 . . . !i:Jxd4
1 l .�xd4 ..ll g 7 1 2 . 0-0 El g8 (simply
1 84
1 2 . . . 0-0!?) 1 3 .'lii'd 2 f5 1 4 . .!lxg7 El xg7
1 5 .exf5 gxf5 1 6.�h6 E!g6? ( 1 6 . . . �f7!)
1 7 . .!lh5 ..Q.f7 1 8 . .!l x g6 .il x g6
19.Ele1 +- .
4.e3 Ae6
Also played are
A) 4 . . . .!ld6
1) 5 .4)f3 .!le6
a) 6 ...1le2 !i:Je7 7.d3 0-0 8.!i:Jbd2 <tld7
9.c4 c6 10.Elcl
(i) 1 0 ... !i:Jg6 1 l .!i:Jb3 �e7 1 2 .�c2 �h8
1 3 . 0-0 f5 1 4 .cxd5 cxd5= Cruz-Zhao
Nan, Heraklio 2002;
( i i ) 1 0 . . . a5 1 l . c 5 ..ll c 7 1 2 . 0 -0 b6
1 3 .�c2 oo ;
b) 6.d4
(i) 6 . . . !i:Jd7 7.c4 dxc4 8.d5 ..llg4 9 . ..\lxc4
e4 10.h3 exf3 1 l .hxg4 fxg2 1 2 .Elg1 a6
1 3.!i:Jc3 ( 1 3 . El xg2 ;!; ) 1 3 . . . !i:Je5 1 4 . .ile2
�e7 1 5 .�a4+ �f7 1 6.El xg2 !i:Jh6 17.0-
0-0 b5 1 8.�b3 El hd8 1 9 . El dg1 with
sufficient initiative for an eventual win,
Kesmaecker-Bodenez, Gouesnou 1 999;
(ii) 6 . . . e4 7.!i:Jfd2 f5 8.c4 c6 9.!i:Jc3 !i:Je7
(9 . . . !i:Jf6!?) 1 0 .g3 !i:Jd7 1 1 . �b3 !i:Jf6
 The Sokolsky Opening

1 2 .b5 0-0 1 3 .a4 oo Giardelli-Urday C) 5 . .£lf3

Caceres, Santiago 1 987;
1) 5 . . . a5 6.b5
2) 5 . c4 c6 6 . .£lf3 Ag4 7 . �b3 .£le7
8 . .£lc3 Ae6
a) 9.d4 e4 10 . .£ld2 'it'f7 Black plans a
kingside attack, but the move merely
exposes his king ( 1 0 . . . Af7!?) 1 1 .Ae2 f5
12.f3 exf3 1 3 . .£\xf3 dxc4 14.Axc4 .£\d5
1 5 .e4 fxe4 16 . .£lxe4 § e8 17.0-0 'it'g8
18.§ae1 ± Pandurevic-Osolin, Opatija
2003 (18 . .£lfg5 is even stronger);
b) 9.cxd5 cxd5 10.e4 Af7 ( o 10 . . . 0-0)
l l . .£\xd5 .£\xd5 1 2 . ..Q.c4 0-0 1 3 .Axd5
4Jc6 1 4 . 0-0 ± Otazu Oj er-Leranoz
Zabalza, Spain 1 999;
a) 6 . . . .£le7 7.Ae2 .£lf5 8.0-0 .£ld7 9.d3
.£lc5 10.a4 Ad6 1 l .d4
B) 4 . . . �d6 5 . .£lf3 transposes to Game
(i) 1 1 . . . .£\d7 1 2 .dxe5 .£\xe5 1 3 . .£ld4
29.
( o 13 . .£lc3) 13 . . . .£\xd4 1 4 . exd4 .£lg6
1 5 .c4 dxc4 16 . .£ld2 0-0 White will re­
5.d4
gain the pawn, but B lack is okay,
White wants an early decision about the Saradjen-Osolin, Bled 2000;
shape of the center. (ii) :!!E l l . . . e4 1 2 .dxc5 exf3 1 3 .-'l.xf3
Axc5 14.c4 ;; ;
A) 5 . -'l. e 2 Game 5 0 : Valenta­ b) 6 . . . c5 7.d3 .£ld7 8.c4 .£lb6 9.cxd5
Ruckschloss, Banska Stiavnica 2006; .£\xd5 10 . .£lbd2 .£lh6 1 1 ...\le2 ..ll.e7 1 2 .0-
0 0-0 1 3 . .£lc4 .£lb6 14 . .£lfd2 .£\xc4
B) 5.d3 1 5 . .£\xc4 �c7 16.�c2 b6 1 7 .Af3 § adS
18.§fd1 .£lf7 19.§acl Ad5 20.Axd5
1) 5 . . . .ild6 6.c4 c6 7 . .£lc3 .£le7 8.cxd5 § xd5 2 1 .e4 §d7 22 . .£le3 White has the
cxd5 9 . .£lb5 0-0 10 . .£lf3 a6 1 1 . .£\xd6 better prospects due to his control of
�xd6 1 2 . A e 2 .£lbc6 1 3 . 0-0 § ac8 the d5-square, Opocensky-Teller, Bmo
14.�d2 �d7 1 5 .§fd1 .£ld8 1 6 . § ac1 1 928;
4Jf7 17.§c5 § c6 18.§dcl § fc8 with
equal chan c e s , Kuipers-B akker, 2) 5 ... .£ld7 6.d4 e4 7 . .£lfd2 ..Q.d6 8.c4
Schagen 2003 ; c6 9 . .£lc3 § c8 1 0 . � b 3 .£le7?
( o 1 0 . . . .1l.f7) 1 l .c5 Ab8 1 2 . .£\cxe4 ±
2) 5 ... c5 6.b5 Ad6 7.c4 .£le7 8.Ae2 o-o Keustermans -Van S o o m , Antwerp
9.4Jf3 .£ld7 1 0.0-0 �c7 1 1 ..£lbd2 § fd8 1 999;
1 2.cxd5 .ilxd5 1 3 . e4 .ll.f7 1 4.�c2 .£lg6
15 .g3 .£lgf8 16 . .£lc4 Ae7 17 . .£lfd2 .£le6 3) 5 . . . c6 6 ...1le2 �b6 7.0-0 a5 8.c3 Ad6
18.4Je3 § ac8? ( 1 8 . . . .£ld4 =) 1 9 . .£ld5 9.�c2 .£le7 1 0.d3 0-0 l l . .£lbd2 .£ld7
�d6 20 . .£lc4 +- Holz auf der Heide­ 1 2 . § ab1 §fc8 1 3 . § fc1 axb4 14.cxb4
Grabara, Templin 2004; c5 1 5 .bxc5 § xc5 1 6.Ac3 �c7 17.d4

1 85
 l .b4 e5 2 . .1lb2
exd4 18.4:\xd4 .\lxh2+ 1 9 .'<t'h1 .llf7
20.4J2b3
a) 20 . . . E! c4? 2 1 .4::\ b S and 22 . .1lxc4 with
the advantage, Campora-S ion Castro,
San Roque 1 996;
b) 0 20 . . . .\lg6 2l..�.d3 .\lxd3 22.�xd3
E!c4 23.f4 (23 . .\lb4!?) 23 . . . .\lxf4 24.exf4
�xf4 oo ;
4) s . . Jld6
.
a) 6.d3 4Je7 7.4Jbd2 0-0 8.Jle2 trans-
poses to Cruz-Zhao Nan in the notes
above;
b) 6 . d4 transposes to Kesmaecker-
Bodenez in the notes above;
5) 5 . . . �d6 transposes to Krafzik­
Porubszki in the notes to Chapter 4A.
5 ••• exd4
A) 5 . . . e4 Game 5 1 : Capablanca­
Pedroso, Sao Paulo 1 927;
B) 5 ... .\ld6? 6.dxe5 fxe5 7.Jlxe5 1eaves
White a pawn up because of 7 . . . .ll x e5?
8.�h5+.
6 .il x d4 .Q.d6 7.�f3 �e7 8 . .Q.d3
•
Kosikov-Zhizmer, Kiev 2002, contin­
ued 8.4Jbd2 4Jbc6 9.Jlb2 aS 1 0.b5 4Je5
1 1 ..\le2 0-0 1 2.0-0 4J7g6 1 3 . 4Jd4 .llf7
1 86
14.4::\fS .llc 5 1 5 .4Jb3 .llb6 16.a4 .§e8
1 7 . .lld4 .ll xd4 18.4Jfxd4 �e7 19.�d2
b6 20.E!fe 1 4Jc4 (better is 20 . . . �d7 in­
tending . . . 4Jg6-e7 to challenge the in­
fluence of White 's knights) 2 Ulxc4
dxc4 22.4Jc6 �e4 23.f3 �h4 24.4Jbd4
4Je5 25.e4 Jlg6 26.E!ad1 4Jf7 27.<£le2
f5 28.exf5 Jlxf5 29.4Jg3 with the better
chances.
8 0-0 9.�bd2 �bc6 tO.c4 �g6
•.•
l l.t\'c2 t\'e8 1 2.c5 � xd4 13.� xd4
.Q.e5 t4.� 2f3 <if;h8
1 5.§.bl
White can try 1 5 .Jlxg6 hxg6 16.!'k1!?.
15 .Q.g8 1 6 . ,il x g6 h x g6 17.0-0
.•.
.ilh7 1 8 . §.bdl g 5 1 9 . t\'c3 ,1le4
20.� xe5 fxe5 2l.�e2 c6 22.�g3
.Q.g6
The position is more or less equal al­
though White won the ending, Kostrov­
Eitsov, St. Petersburg 2005 .
Summary: The unadventurous 3.a3 is
less popular than 3 .b5 and 3 .e4, but
perhaps undeservedly so since the re­
sultant positions are mostly safe and
solid for White.
 The Sokolsky Opening
Game 50
Va/enta-Rucksch/oss
Banska Stiavnica 2006
l.b4 eS 2.Ab2 f6 3.a3 dS 4.e3 Ae6
;.Jl,e2
For other possibilities see Chapter 7.
; ... A d 6 6.d3 � e7 7 . � d 2 c 6
8.�gf3 0-0
9.c4
Or 9.0-0 first.
9 .. .-�eS 10.e4 � d7 1 1 .0-0 }adS
12.d4 �g6 13.�h4 �h6 14.g3 gS
Black starts a kings ide attack, even if it
means exposing his own king. Another
idea in the same vein is 14 .. .f5!? 1 5.exd5
cxd5 16.c5 Ab8 17.dxe5 f4! oo .
1 5 . � g 2 d x e4 1 6 . � x e4 AbS
1 7 . �c l �g6 1 S . Jld3 � h S
19.Jl,c2?!
A gambit or an oversight? 19./:! e l !? is
the straightforward move.
19 ... Jl,xc4 20.};!el Jl,d; 21.�e3 h6
22.� xd5 � xdS 23.�c3 (23.4Jc5!?)
23 ... � xc3
1 87
After 2 3 . . . e x d4 2 4 . 4J x d5 c x d 5
25 .Axd4, White has some compensa­
tion as he has the two bi shops and
Black's king is somewhat exposed.
2 4 . A x c 3 e x d4 2 5 . Jl, x d4 Jl e S
2 6 . Ab 3 + <itl h s 2 7 . Jl d t � h 3
(27 . . . g4!?) 2S.Ac3 E!feS 29.Af3
�fS 3 0 . Jl,g 2 A x c3 3 1 . � x c 3
}a xel+ 32.};!xel �eS 33.�c5
33 . . . a6?
Black, a pawn up, had been cruising
with no problems. 33 . . . !!e8! stops the
white queen from coming to e7 and also
threatens 34 . . . 4Jf3+ 35 . .ilxf3 !! xe l +
36.�g2 'lii' x c5 37.bxc5 !!cl -+ .
34. �e7! labS 3S.Jle4 �f3+??
The only defense is 35 . . . 'lii'd7! although
after 3 6 . 'lii' x f6+ 'lii' g 7 3 7 . 'lii' d 6 !! e8
38. �g2 White probably has the slightly
better chances.
36.<jfjlhl! 1-0
Game 5 1
Capablanca-Pedroso
Sao Paulo casual 1 927
l .b4 eS 2.Ab2 f6 3.a3 dS 4.e3 Ae6
;.d4 e4
 l .b4 e5 2 . .1lb2
5 . . . exd4, Chapter 7.
6.c4
The standard plan, played now or next
move.
6.<tld2
A) 6 . . . .ll d 6 7 . c4 c6 tran sposes to
Kocela-Mrozek below;
B) 6 . . . c6 7 . c4 .ll d 6 8 . c x d 5 c x d 5
9 . .1lb5 + <tld7 10.<tle2 <tle7 l l .f4 exf3
1 2 .<t\xf3 0-0 1 3 .0-0 <t\b6 14.<t\f4 .Q.f7
1 5 .�d2 a6 1 6 . .1ld3 !'! c8 17.!'!acl �d7
18.'l!i'f2 !'! xc1 1 9 . .1lxc1 <tlg6 20.<t\xg6
.ll x g6 B l ack is w ithout p ro b l e m s ,
Kocela-Mrozek, Poland 1 999;
C) 6 . . .f5 7.c4 <tlf6 8.!'!c1 .lle 7 9.<tle2
<tlbd7 1 0 . <tlf4 .ll f7 1 l . c x d 5 <t\ x d 5
1 2.<tlxd5 .ll x d5 1 3.�a4 0-0 1 4.g3 <tlb6
1 5 .�a5 .lld6 16.<tlc4 .ll x c4 17 . .1lxc4+
<t\xc4 18.�d5+ '\t>h8 19.�xc4 c6 20.0-0
�e7 2 l .d5 ;!; Bessat-Danzanvilliers,
Marseille 200 I .
6 . . . c6
After 6 . . . dxc4 7.<tld2, White will get the
pawn back.
7.4)c3 4)d7 8.cxd5 cxdS
1 88
Not 8 ... .1lxd5? 9.<tlxd5 cxd5 10.'�rh5+
g6 1 1 . �xd5 winning a pawn or two.
9.4)ge2 .1ld6 10.g3 4)e7 1 1.4)f4
Jlxf4 12.gxf4
White has the bishop-pair and the open
g-file to play with.
12 4)b6 13.�gl g6 14.h4!
.•.
White views Black's last move as an
invitation to attack.
14 . . . 4)fS lS.hS �f7
15 . . . <tlh4!? 16 . .1le2 !'! c8 puts White un­
der pressure.
1 6 . � c l � c 8 1 7 . 4) a4 4) x a4
1 8 . � x a4 � x c l + 1 9 . Jl x c l �c7
20 . .1ld2 a6 21.Jle2 4)d6
Black has defended excellently so far.
22.§.hl ~g7
22 . . . g5 23.fxg5 fxg5 24.h6 is unclear.
23.�aS!?
A remarkable decision. White, the great
Capablanca, will try to outplay his lesser
 The Sokolsky Opening

opponent in the ending (since he hadn't 36.fxg5+ � xg5??

done so in the middlegame) starting by
voluntar i l y breaking up h i s own Loses. 36 . . .'it'g6 is tougher resistance,
queens ide. but admits how bad Black's previous
move was.
23 ... 'll\' xa5 24.bxa5 �c8 25.�dl
Ad7 26.h xg6 .sla4+ 27.�el h xg6 37 .Q.e7+ 1-0
•

37 . .ile7+ ends the game because after

37 . . . '�g6 3 8 . E! xc6+ bxc6 39 . .ilxa6
Black loses a vital pawn.

Chapter 7A

l.b4 e5

l . . .d5 2 . ..1lb2 f6 3.e3 e5 4.b5 transposes

( 4.a3 .ile6 transposes to Chapter 7).

28.f3 f5
Black has other, better possibilities:
A) 28 . . . .ilb5!?;
B) 28 . . . Ek2!
1) 29 ..ildl Both sides probably thought
that this move refutes the rook invasion,
but 29 . . . E!a2 30 . .ilxa4 exf3 followed by
3 1 . . .4Je4 places White deep in trouble;
2.-'\.b2 f6 3.b5
This move is certainly more active than
3 . a2-a3 as it interferes with Black's
queenside development. Note that be­
cause of the white pawn on b5 and the
black pawn on f6, the black knights
usually end up on d7 and e7, while the
black bishops often end up directly in
front of them on d6 and e6.

2) 29.E!h2 .£lc4 30 . ..1ldl .£lxd2 3 1 ...1lxc2

4:lxf3+ 3 2 . 'it'd l .£lxh2 3 3 . .ilxa4 4Jfl
34 .�e2 .£lg3 + 3 5 .'it'd2 4Jf5 36 . .ild7
4Je7-+ .

29.ftgl -'\.c2 30 .Q.b4 .£)c4 3 1 .\t?f2

•

4) b 2 (3 1 . . . ..1ld3 !?) 3 2 . f x e4 -'\. x e4

33.Ac5 \t?f6 34.ftcl �c6 35.\t?g3
g5?
3 ... d5
At last, Black makes the kind of mis­
take that White had been hoping for. The strongest and by far the most popu­
35 . . . E!c7!? and the battle continues. lar move. Black sticks to basic prin-

1 89
 l .b4 e5 2 . .1lb2
ciples and occupies the center, but there
are other possibilities:
A) 3 . . . c6
1) 4.a4 d5 5.e3 .llf5 6.c4 .llc 5 7.<tlf3
<tle7 8 . d4 -'tb4+ 9 . <tlc 3 A x c 3 +
(9 . . .' � a 5 !?) 1 0 . .1l x c 3 <tld7 ( 1 0 . . . e 4
1 1 .<tld2 0-0 1 2 . .1leU ) 1 l .dxe5 fxe5
1 2 .<tlxe5 <tlxe5 1 3.Axe5 White has no
compensation for the pawn, Dessing­
Van Bokhorst, Hengelo 200 1 ;
2) 4.bxc6 <tlxc6 5 .e3 d5 6.<tlf3 -'te6
Black is obviously better;
B) 3 . . . b6 4 . c4 .llb7 5 . e3 <tlh6 6.<tlf3
<tlf7 7 . .1le2 Axf3? (7 . . . Jil.e7 and 8 . . . 0-0
is certainly stronger) 8.-'txf3 c6 9.0-0
�c7 1 0 .g3 ( 1 0 .<tlc3 !?) 1 0 . . . d6 1 l .<tlc3
a6 1 2 .bxc6 <tlxc6 1 3 .�a4 Black is in
troub l e , Z i e lke-Unterhauser, K i e l
2000;
C ) 3 . . . c 5 4 . e 3 d5 tran s p o s e s to
Stefanova-Vladimirova in the notes
below.
4.e3
White plans to expand his pawn struc­
ture with c2-c4 and d2-d4.
4 ••• -'l_e6
Played to deter c2-c4.
A) 4 . . . c5 5.c4 (More energetic is 5.d4!?
Game 5 2 : Volke-Kupreichik, Minsk
1 994) 5 . . . d4 6.Ad3 <tle7 (6 .. .f5!? re­
quires practical tests, but a sample line
is 7 . e x d4 e4 8 . .1lc2 c x d4 9 . d 3 oo )
7.exd4 exd4
1) 8.ii1"h5+ g6 9.ii1"xc5
1 90
a) 9 . . . <tlec6 1 0 .�d5 ii1"xd5 1 l .cxd5
<tlb4 1 2 .Ae4 f5? ( o 1 2 . . . Af5) 1 3 . .ilxd4
)::\ g8 (White is two pawns up after
13 .. .fxe4 14 . .1lxh8 <tlc2+ 1 5 .\!id1 <tlxa1
16 . .1lxa 1 ) 1 4 .a3 fxe4 1 5 . axb4 Axb4
1 6 . )::1 a4 ± Stefan ova- Vladimirova,
Pleven 2006;
b) 9 . . . -'tf5 1 0 . .1lxf5 <tlxf5 1 1 .ii1"d5 �xd5
1 2 .cxd5 <tld7 1 3 .<tlf3 .£\e5 ii5 ;
2) 8 . .£\e2!? has been suggested, but it's
probably no improvement; e.g., 8 . . . <tlg6
(8 . . . .£\d7 9.f4 g6!? The dark-squared
bishop could go to h6 or g7, and if
10.f5? .£le5 is bad for White) 9.0-0 Ad6
1 0 . .£\g3 0-0 1 Ulxg6 hxg6 1 2 .f4 <tld7
1 3 . .£\e4 .llc 7 Black is better not least
because of White's poor bishop;
B) 4 . . . .£\h6
1) 5.c4
a) 5 . . . Ae6 6.cxd5 ii1"xd5 7 . .£\c3 �d7
8 . .£\f3 Ad6 9.d4 .£\f7 1 0.d5 -'tf5 1 l .e4
-'\.g4 1 2 .h3 -'\.xf3 1 3 .ii1"xf3 0-0 14.Ad3
ii1"e7 1 5 .0-0 .£\d7 1 6 . .1lc2 .£\h6 1 7.�e2
g5 1 8.a4 \!ih8 1 9 . .£\d1 ):!g8 20 . .£\e3 .£\f8
2 1 .ii1"h5 with the better position, al­
though B l ack managed to draw,
Englisch-Pillsbury, Vienna 1 896;
b) A better plan for Black is 5 . . . d4
6.exd4 exd4 7.Ad3
 The Sokolsky Opening
(i) 7 . . . c5=;
(ii) 7 . . . .£ld7!? can lead to some wild
line s ; e . g . , 8 . Ax d4 .£lc5 (8 . . . .£l e 5
9 . .1l x e 5 � x d 3 1 0 . ..\l x c 7 � x c4 oo )
9 . .ll x c5 Ag4 1 0.Ae2 AxeS 1 l .Axg4
'lii'd4 1 2 .�e2+ oo ;
2) 5 . .£lf3 Ae6 6.a4 (more energetic is
6.d4 e4 7 . .£lfd2 Ad6 8.c4 etc.) 6 . . . .£lf7
(6 . . . .£\fS !?) 7 . ..1le2 c5 8. 0-0 Jle7 9 . d3
0-0 10.c4 d4 l l .e4 .£ld7 1 2 . .£lbd2 g6
13 . .£le1 f5 1 4 . ..1lf3 .£lg5 with sufficient
counter-chan c e s , Gadaskin-Vog e l ,
Koblenz 2000;
3) 5.d4 .£lf7
a) 6 . .£lf3 e4 7 . .£lfd2 a6 8 . a 4 a x b 5
9.axb5 l:'::!.x a 1 1 0.Axa1 Ad6 1 1 .c4 f5
1 2 . .£lc3 dxc4 1 3 . .£\xc4 0-0 1 4 .Ae2
White has the brighter future;
b) 6.c4 Jle6 7 ..£lf3 dxc4 8 . .£lbd2 Ab4
9.'lii'c2 .£\d7 1 0 . ..1lxc4 Jlxc4 1 1 .�xc4
Axd2+ 12 . .£\xd2 .£\b6 1 3 .i*e6+! (oth­
erw i s e 1 3 . i*b 3 �d5 = ) 1 3 . . . >l*e7
14.'lii'b3 ;!; ;
C) 4 . . . .1ld6
1) 5 . .£lf3
a) 5 . . . .Ag4 6.Ae2 �d7 7.a4 >l*e6 8.0-0
.ll xf3? ( o8 . . . .£le7 There 's nothing to
fear from White 's f3 -knight) 9.Axf3
191
.£le7 1 0.c4 0-0? ( o 1 0 . . . .£ld7) 1 1 .cxd5
.£\ x d 5 1 2 . � b 3 e4 1 3 . A x e 4 i* x e 4
14 . .£lc3 White regains the piece with the
advantage, Lippmann-Zotin, Wingst
2004;
b) 5 . . . .£le7 6.d4 .£ld7 7.c4 e4 8 . .£lfd2
c6 9 .i*b3 Ac7 1 0 . .£lc3 .£lf8 1 l .a4 ;!;
Boysan-Schiller, Dos Hermanas 2004;
c) 5 . . . Ae6 is the usual move in this po­
sition, which transposes to Maksimov­
Minnibaev in the notes below;
2) 5 .c4
a) 5 . . . ..1le6 6.cxd5 Jlxd5 7 . .£lc3 Af7
8.i*g4 �f8 9 . .£lge2 (9.Ac4!?) 9 . . . .£ld7
10 . .£lg3 .£lh6 1 1 .>l*f3 �c8 1 2 . .£lge4 f5
1 3 . .£\ x d6 c x d6 1 4 . ..\le2 ( 1 4 . E! c 1 ! ? )
1 4 . . . .£\f6 1 5 . 0-0 A h 5 1 6 .i*h3 Axe2
17 . .£\xe2 >l*d7 1 8 . a4 �f7 1 9 . f4 e4
20.�h4 �e7 2 1 ...\ld4 a6 22.b6 E! hc8
2 3 . E! fc 1 White i s more act i v e ,
Neuwald-Rimpler, Waldshut 2002 ;
b) 5 . . . c6
(i) 6 . .£lf3 e4 (6 . . . .£le7 7.d4 e4 8 . .£lfd2
0-0 9 . .£lc3 f5 1 0.g3 .£ld7 1 1 .i*b3 Game
5 3 : Sokolsky-Golovko, corr 1 960-6 1
[ 1 l . a 4 Game 54: S o k o l sky­
Zhukhovitsky, Kiev 1 945]) 7 . .£ld4 c5
8 . .£lb3 .£le7 (8 . . . .Q.e6 9 . cxd5 .ll x d5
1 0 . .£lc3 ± ) 9.cxd5 0-0 1 0 . .£lc3 f5 1 1 .d4
exd3 1 2 . ..\lxd3 and White is better;
(ii) 6.a4 .£le7 7 . .£lc3 0-0 8.i*b3 Ac7
(Black can play 8 . . . .£ld7 as he has no
 l .b4 eS 2 . .1lb2
reason to fear 9 . .£le4; e . g . , 9 . . . dxe4
l O.cS+ .£ld5 l l .cxd6 .£lc5 with the ad­
vantage) 9 . c x d 5 c x d S 1 0 . e 4 .ll e 6
l l . e x d S -tlxdS?? B ugaev- Steinitz,
Moscow 1 896, 1 2 .Ac4 wins a piece;
D) 4 . . . a6 S . a4 a x b S 6 . a x b 5 ! h a l
7 . A x a l .ll e 6 8 . .£lf3 .ll d 6 9 . c4 =
Dunnington.
S.d4
S . .£lf3 (This often transposes to the main
lines.)
A) 5 . . . .£ld7 6 ..1le2 .lld6 7.d3 .£le7
1) 8.c4 c6 9.a4 a6 10 . .£lc3 0-0 1 1 .0-0
'lii'e8 1 2 .'1ii'b l g5 1 3.!:!cl .llc7 ( 1 3 . . . g4!?)
14 . .11a 3 !:! b8? ( o 14 . . . dxc4) l S . cxdS
cxdS 16 . .11 x e7 'lii' x e7 1 7 . -tlxdS AxdS
18.!:! xc7 White goes a pawn up, Reis­
Leuchter, Augsburg 200 1 ;
2) 8 . .£lbd2 0-0 9.c4 c6 10.a4
a) 1 0 . . . a6 l l .bxc6 bxc6 1 2 . 0-0 !:! b8
1 3 .'1ii' c 2 .£lg6 1 4 .Aa3 .ll x a3 1 S .!:! xa3
'lii'a S= Olexa-Kupka, Ostrava 1 960;
b) 10 . . . '1ii' e 8 1 1 . 0-0 'it>h8 12 . .£lh4 gS
1 3 .Ah5 Af7 1 4.Axf7 'lii' x f7 15 . .£lhf3
!:!g8 with the initiative, Holz-Geiling,
Leipzig 1 996;
B) S . . . cS
1 92
1) 6.d4
a) 6 . . . cxd4 7.exd4 e4 8 . .£lfd2 fS 9.c4
.£lf6 1 0 . .£lc3 .llb4 l l .'lii'b 3 'lii'a 5 12 .Ae2
0-0 1 3 .0-0 with the better chances;
b) After 6 . . . e4 7 . .£lfd2 c4 8.f3 fS 9.fxe4
fxe4 1 0 .'1ii'h 5+ g6 ( o 1 0 . . . W) l l .�e5
'lii'f6 White can sacrifice a piece by
1 2 . .£lxc4!? dxc4 1 3 .'1ii' x e4 with sharp
p l ay ( 1 3 . 'lii' x f6? .£lxf6 1 4 . d 5 4:l x d 5
1 5 . ..Q.xh8 .£lxe3 - + ) ;
2) Sokolsky-Veresov, Moscow 1 944,
continued 6.c4 d4 7.d3 .£lh6 8.e4 g6
9.g3 'lii' c 8 I O . Ag2 .llh 3 1 1 . 0-0 Ag7
1 2 . .£lh4 0-0 1 3 . .£ld2 .ll x g2 1 4.'iftxg2
'lii'e 6 1 S .'Iii'e 2 .£ld7 1 6.'it>hl fS 17.exf5
gxfS 18.f3 !:!ae8 with the more active
position;
C) s . . . .lld6
I) 6.c4 c6 7 .'1ii' c 2 .£ld7? ( o 7 . . . .£le7)
8.bxc6 bxc6 9.cxd5 cxdS 1 0 .'1ii' c6 'lle7
l l ..£lc3 .£lb6 1 2 .-tlbS 'lii'd7 ( 1 2 . . . Ab8!?)
1 3 . '1ii' x d 6 + 'lii' xd6 1 4 . .£l x d6 \t' x d6
1 S .Aa3+ 'iffd7 16.Ab5+ 'iftd8 1 7 . ..11f8
a6 1 8.Ae2 h6 1 9 . .i1.xg7 !:! h7 20 . ..11f8
W h i te i s a pawn u p , M a k s i mov­
Minnibaev, Kazan 1 997;
2) 6.d4 Game 55: Soko1sky-Kan, Omsk
1 943
a) 6 . . . .£ld7 transposes to Vo1ovich-Es­
trin in the notes below;
 The Sokolsky Opening
b) 6. . . e4 7.�fd2 �7 8.c4 c6 9.�c3 0-0
10.'lii'b 3 f5 1 1 .g3 �d7 1 2 .a4 transposes
to the main line.
; ... 4)d7
Black protects the e5-pawn and main­
tains the central tension.
A) 5 . . . e4 oo NCO (The move is about
twice as popular as 5 . . . �b8-d7, but we
think it's inferior)
1) 6..£id2
a) 6 . . . c6 (6 . . . Ad6 Game 56: Kilpatrick­
Bryson, corr 1 978 7 .c4 c6 transposes)
7.a4 (7.c4 .lld6 8.a4 transposes to 7.a4
Ad6 8.c4)
(i) 7 . . . �h6 8.�e2 (The typical 8.c4!? is
also very playable) 8 . . .Ad6 9.�g3 0-0
1 0 . Ae 2 a6 1 l . A a 3 ? ( o 1 l . c 4 )
l l . . .axb5 Not best (Black is a safe pawn
up after 1 l . . . .il x a 3 1 2 . � x a 3 a x b 5
13.'lii'a 1 'l!i'e7) 1 2.Axd6 �xd6 1 3 . axb5
.£ld7 14.0-0 f5 1 5 .c4 cxb5 ( 1 5 .. .f4!?)
I 6.c5 'lii'e7 17.� xa8 � xa8 18.�b3 �b8
19.Axb5 it Melzig-Zoll, Bad Sooden
2002 ;
(ii) 7 . . . a6 Game 5 7 : Sokolsky-Livshitz,
Minsk 1 956;
(iii) 7 ... Ad6 8.c4 �e7 is the natural
move (8 .. .f5 9.�h3 �f6 1 0 .'lii'b 3 0-0
1 93
1 1 .�a3 with the better prospects ac­
cording to Sokolsky; 8 . . . �h6 Game 56)
9 . c 5 (9.�b3!?) 9 . . . Ac7 1 0 .�e2 0-0
1 l . � c 3 f5 1 2 . g3 �d7 1 3 . h 4 �f6
1 4.Ah3 'lii'd7 1 5 .�e2 .lU7 16.iii'fl h6
(16 . . . Ah5!?) 17.0-0-0 Aa5 18.�g1 �fc8
Yl-Yl, Hollstein-Hoeger!, Mehlingen
1 992, although Black is better in this
sharp position;
2) 6.c4
a) 6 . . . dxc4
(i) 7.�d2 �b4 8.�cl a6 9.Axc4 .ilxc4
1 0 . � x c 4 .il x d 2 + 1 l . c;t1 x d 2 a x b 5
( 1 1 . . . �d5 1 2 . 'lii' b 3 [ 1 2 . � x c 7 ! ? ]
1 2 . . . � x b 5 1 3 . � xc7 [ 1 3 . � b4!? �a5
1 4 . A c 3 b 5 1 5 . d 5 +- S o k o l sky]
13 . . . �xb3 1 4 . a xb3 �e7 1 5 . � e 2 ±
White threatens Ab2-a3 and � h 1 -c l )
1 2 . � h 5 + c;t1f8 1 3 . 'lii' x b 5 � x a 2
14.�xb7 ± Sokolsky;
(ii) 7.�c2 f5 ( .e 7 . . . �d5 8.a4 a6 9.�e2
Ab4 + 1 0 . �d 2 a x b 5 ? [ 1 0 . . . g5
1 1 .Ac3 ± ] 1 l .�f4 �f5 1 2 .g4! 1 -0,
Woelfelschneider-Hanison, corr 2004
12 . . . Axd2+ 1 3 .c;t1xd2 'l!i'xg4 14.�xe4
c;Jtf7 1 5.�h3 +- ) 8 . .ilxc4 .ilxc4 9.iii' x c4
�d7 1 0 . �c 3 �b6 1 l . �e6+ �e7
1 2 . �ge2 iii' d 6 1 3 .�b3 0-0-0 1 4 . a4
�bd5 1 5 . 0-0 � x c 3 1 6 . � x c 3 �d5
17.�fcl White has the better chances
as his queenside attack will be quicker
 l .b4 e5 2.�b2

than anything B lack can do on the 9.c4 �e7 (9 . . . c6 Game 5 8 : Sokolsky­

kingside; Kotov, Leningrad 1 93 8 ) 1 O . .ile2 c6
b) 6 . . . c6 1 l . a4 0-0 1 2 . 0-0 �f7 1 3 . 4::l g 5 .ilg6
( i ) 7:(iirb 3 f5 8.4::l c 3 4Jf6 9.4::l h 3 Ad6 14.4::1df3 �h5 1 5 .4Jh4 .ilxe2 16.�xe2
(9 . . . dxc4 1 0.�xc4 �xc4 1 l .�xc4 4::1d 5 g6 Black is at least equal, Welti-Piazza,
1 2 .0-0 ± ) 10.a4 4Jbd7 1 l .�a3 with the ICCF 2003 .
better prospects according to
Boleslavsky;
(ii) 7.4::lc 3 �d6 (7 . . . dxc4?! 8.bxc6 bxc6
9.4::\ x e4 ± ) 8.cxd5 cxd5 9.�b3 ;!; ;

B) Less good for B lack i s 5 . . . exd4

6.�xd4

6 ... e4

By closing the center Black reduces the

power of the b2-bishop. Other plans are
inferior:

A) 6 . . . ..1ld6 7.c4
1) 6 . . . 4Jd7 7.4Jf3
a) 7 . . . 4Je7 8.�d2 c5 9.�e2 4::1f5 10.4::lc 3
4Jb6 1 l .a4 Ae7 1 2 .a5 4Jc4 1 3 .�xc4
dxc4 14.�e2 0-0 1 5.0-0 and White won
after sharp play, Sokolsky-Rovner,
Leningrad 1 937;
b) Panov analyzes 7 ... �c5 8.�c3 4Je7
9.4Jbd2 followed by 1 0 .4::lb3 with the
better game for White;

2) 6 . . . Ad6 7.4::lf3 c5 8.'lM2 4::1d7 9.c4

4Je7 1 0.4Jc3 4Jb6 1 1 .0-0-0!? with com­
plex play although we prefer White.
Maintaining the tension like this, with
pressure on e5, is best.
6.dxe5 fxe5 7 . 4::l f3 �d6 8.4::1b d2 4::1gf6
1) 7 . . . c6
a) 8.4::\ c 3 dxc4 9.dxe5 4::\ x e5 1 0 .4::\ d4
�d7 1 l . b x c 6 b x c6 1 2 . ..1l e 2 Ei b8
1 3 . Ei b l c5 1 4 .4Jc2 �e6 ( 1 4 . . . .llf5 !?)
1 5 . 0-0 with rough equality although
White went on to win, Volovich-Estrin,
Moscow 1 96 1 ;

1 94
 The Sokolsky Opening

b) 8.bxc6 bxc6 9.cxd5 cxd5 10.dxe5 Necessary to stop .. .f5-f4.

fxe5 1 1 .<£:lc3 E!b8 � ;
2) 7 . . . dxc4 8.�c2 .llb4+
a) 9.<£:lbd2 <£:Jb6 1 0.dxe5 �d5 1 l .a4
( 1 l .exf6 <£:lxf6!) 1 l . . .fxe5 1 2 .a5 <£:ld7
13.0-0-0 with a sharp position;
b) 9 . .1lc3 tl!Je7 1 0.<£:lbd2 <£:lb6 1 l .dxe5
0-0-0 oo ;
12 ••• �f6 13.as
1 3 . .1la3 E!c8 14 . .1lxd6 t!¥xd6 1 5 .c5 �d7
1 6.b6 axb6 1 7 . t!¥xb6 E! b8 1 8 . a 5 g5
with kingside counterplay, Kesmaecker­
Guillen Ramirez, Istanbul 2000.
13 . . . dxc4 14 .Q.xc4 A x c4
•

B) 6 . . . exd4
14 . . . <£:lfd5 1 5 .0-0 �h8 16.a6 with the
initiative.

1S.� xc4 ct}h8

1) 7.<£:lxd4 .llf7 8 . .1le2 .llb 4+ 9.c3 .lld6

a) 1 0 . <£::! £5 .ll f8 1 1 . 0-0 g6 1 2 . <£:lg3
(12.<£:ld4!?) 1 2 ... .1lg7 1 3 .c4 <£:le7
(i) 14.e4 dxc4 1 5 .t!¥c2 0-0 16.E!d1 t!¥e8
16.� xd6
17 . ..1lxc4 <£:Jb6 18.Ae2 ( 1 8 . .1lxf7+ E! xf7
1 9 . a4 is strong) 1 8 . . . c6 1 9 . a4 E! c8
16.0-0 White could castle first, secur­
20 . .1lg4 E! c7 2 1 .<£:la3 �b8 22.E!acU
ing his king, before deciding on a spe­
Kalashnikov-Ushenina, Moscow 2004;
cific plan.
(ii) 14.<£:ld2!? 0-0 1 5 .�c2 is an alterna­
tive solution;
1 6 '/i\' x d6 17 .Q.a3 'li\'d7 18.0-0
b) White can continue development by
••• •

E! fc8 19 .Q. x e7 'li\' x e7 2 0 . b x c6

10.0-0 <£:le7 1 l .c4 0-0 1 2 .<£:la3!?; •

(20. E!fcl !?) 20 bxc6•••

2) 7 . t!¥xd4 transposes to Sokolsky­

Rovner in the notes above. 20 . . . E! xc6 2 l .E!fb1 E! ac8 22.<£:lb5 it .

7.�fd2 Jld6 21.Etfb1

7 .. .f5 8.c4 c6 9.<£:lc3 .lld6 transposes. Black 's weak c - pawn gives White a
slight advantage (which he converted
8.c4 c6 9 . � c3 fS 10. 'li\'b3 � e7 to a win) as in Fahrner-B randner,
l l.a4 0-0 12.g3 Hartberg 1 992.

1 95
 l .b4 eS 2 .�b2

Summary: The move 3.b4-b5 has the

clear aim of grabbing space and inter­
fering with Black's queenside develop­
ment. It does well in practice and gives
White a good chance to secure the ad­
vantage.

Game 52
Volke-Kupreichik
Minsk 1 994

l .b4 e5 2.Ab2 f6 3.b5 d5 4.e3 c5

5.d41? 8.�h5+

S .c4, Chapter 7 A. W h i te w i sh e s to weaken B l ack's

5 ..• exd4
A) s . . . 4Jd7!?
1) 6.dxe5 4Jxe5
a) 7.4Jf3 Ag4 8.�e2 Axf3 9.gxf3 �d7
1 0 . f4 .£\f7 1 1 .a4 0-0-0 1 2 . b6 axb6?
( a 1 2 . . . a6) 1 3 . .£\c3 .£\e7 14.a5 bxaS
1 S . � xa5 �d6 1 6.i!i'a 1 �b6 1 7 . � b 5
�c7 18 . .£\a4 + - Lindner-Goldbar (com­
puter), The Hague 1 997;
b) After 7 .�xe5 fxe S 8.�h5+ �e7
9.i!i'xe5+ �f7 White gains a pawn and
displaces Black's king, but Black has
some compensation in the form of the
bishop-pair;
kingside, especially since Black's dark­
squared bishop has gone absent. How­
ever, simple development with 8 . .1le2
or 8 . .£\f3 is better as the white queen 's
check and retreat doesn't aid the mobi­
lization of the other white pieces.
8 ... g6 9.�f3 a6 (= NCO) 10.g3
White must complete development. Not
10.bxa6? � xa6 because the rook is use­
ful ly placed on the sixth rank. But
10 . .£\ge2 axbS 1 1 .a3 is okay.
to . . . Af5 n .Ah3
No better is 1 1 .�g2 .£\e7.

2) 6 . .£lc3 cxd4 7 . exd4 �b4 8 . dxe5 11 •.• -'l,e4

.£\xeS 9.�d4 �xc3+ 1 0.�xc3 .llfS oo
N C O 1 1 . Ad3 � c8 1 2 . �d 2 �d7=
NCO; Volke-Kovalev, Minsk 1 994;
B) S . . . cxd4 6.exd4 e4 7.c4 �e6 8.'ii¥b 3
.£\e7 9.c5 .£\g6 10 . .£\e2 Ae7 1 1 ..£\bc3
0-0 1 2 .g3 fS 1 3 .h4 t Bohley-Thomp­
son, East Lansing 1 982.
6.exd4 c4 7 .4)c3 Ab4
l l . . . Axc3+ 1 2.�xc3 .£\e7 has the merit,
as far as Black's concerned, of both re­
taining the advantage and keeping
things simple .
1 2.�e2 axb5
A) 1 2 . . . i!i'a5 1 3 . 'ii¥ e 3 ( 1 3 . �d 2 !?)
13 ... �a4 14 . .£\ge2 �xc2 1 5 .0-0 is bet-

1 96
 The Sokolsky Opening
ter for White; e.g., 1 5 . . . �xb2 ( 1 5 . . . <£\e7
16.<£\f4!) 1 6.<£\xe4 dxe4 1 7.�xe4+ <£\e7
18.E!abl �a3 19.�xb7 axb5 20 . .llg 2 ± ;
B ) B l ack ' s b e s t l i n e s e e m s to b e
1 2 . . . �e7 1 3 . f3 .ll x c2 14.•it>f2 .lld 3 oo .
We prefe r 1 3 . f3 ! ? E! a 3 ( 1 3 . . . <£\e7
14.fxe4 ± ) 1 4.�d2 ..ll x c3 1 5 . ..1lxc3 .ll£5
16 . .llxf5 gxf5 17.<£\e2 with a good game.
13 . . . .Q. x c3 1 4 . .Q. x c3 4::l e7 1 S .f3
.llfS 16 .Q. x f5 gxfS 17.4::l h 3 4::l bc6
• 2 8 . <it>g l 4::l f3+ 2 9 . <iflfl 4::l d 2 +
18.§bl
18 ••• b4
Too forcing, but Black must have rea­
soned that the pawn was lost anyway.
Better is 18 . . . �d7!? 19.'it'g2 ( :!!f 19.E!xb5
E! a 3 2 0 . �d 2 ? <t\ x d4 + ) 1 9 . . . 0-0
20.E! xb5 E! a3 with good play.
19 .Q.xb4 4::l xd4 20 .Q.xe7?
• •
Hard to understand. The queen can sim­
ply move away: 20.�dl !?.
20 •• .'~xe7 21.~d2
White can try 2 l .ili'f2 <£\e6 22.E!el !?. If
the knights are exchanged, White may
still draw the heavy piece ending.
1 97
21 4::l xf3 22.�xd5 �e4 23.�bS+
•••
<it>f8 24. �b4+ <it>g7 2S.4::l f 2 '{tc6?
Overconfidence. Now White draws.
Black has an excellent position after
25 . . . �e3! 26.�xb7+ 'it'g6 27.'it'g2 <£\e5.
26.-�e7+ <iflg6 27. § x b7 4::l d 2+
Or 27 . . . E! xa2 28.�g7+ 'it'h5 29.g4+
fxg4 30.�xg4+ 'it'h6 3 l .�g7+ 'it'h5
32. �g4+ and White can force a draw
by repetition.
30. <it>gl Yz-Yz
Game 53
Soko/sky-Golovko
corr 1 960
l . b4 eS 2 .Q.b2 f6 3 .bS dS 4.e3
•
.Q.d6 s.c4 c6 6.4::l f3 4::l e7 7.d4 e4
8 .4::l fd2 0-0 9.4::l c3 fS 10.g3 4::l d7
l l.'�b3
The immediate l l .a4 is seen in Game
54.
1 1 ... 4::l f6 12.a4 .Q.e6
This is a typical, complex position from
the Sokolsky Opening. White is advanc­
ing his queenside pawns, while Black
is preparing action on the other wing.
 l .b4 e5 2.�b2

on c6. White 's plan is simply to play

A good decision. White activates his
inferior dark-squared bishop, and is
fully prepared to exchange it for Black's
superior bishop - White 's dark-squared
bishop would be useless trapped behind
its pawns whereas B l ack ' s b i shop
would be useful in pressuring White 's
kings ide.
<i!i'el -e2 and bring his rook to the a-file;
2) 20.cxb6 may be even better; e.g.,
20 . . . E!. fb8 2 1 .b7 .§. xb7 2 2 . .£Jc5 .ilc8
23 . .£Jxb7 Axb7 24 . .£Jb3 ± ;
B ) 1 6 . . . b6 1 7 . c xb6 axb6 1 8 . a6 c5
1 9 . d x c 5 d4 ( B etter for White are
1 9 . . . b x c 5 2 0 . b6 ± , and 1 9 . . . �xc5
20 . .£Je2 .6. 2 1 . .£Jd4) 20. �xe6 dxc3
2 1 ..£Jb3 ± .

A) 13 . . . Jlxa3 1 4 .�xa3 g5 intending 16... ~d7

. . . f5-f4;
B ) 13 . . . ltc7 1 4 . a 5 a6 1 5 . b6 .ilb8
1 6.�e2 ( 1 6 . .£Ja4!?) 1 6 ... g5 17.0-0-0 In
this situation White has nothing to fear
about his king being on the queenside,
and he can start operations on the
kings ide.
14.-'l, x d6 � x d6 15.c5
After 1 6. . . axb6 1 7.cxb6 �d7 18.�b4
Sokolsky assessed the position as bet­
ter for White. However, we point to
Black's attacking chances following
1 8 . . . g5! and 1 9 . . . f4.
17.bxa7 E! x a7 18.h4
To deter . . . g7-g5.

18 ... -'l,f7
Sokolsky draws attention to 1 5 :�a3!?
The bishop heads for the unobstructed
15 ... �c7
h5-d l diagonal.
The retreat 15 . . .�d7 permits 1 6.a5 a6
19.a5 E!fa8!
( 1 6 . . . .§.ab8!?) 17.bxa6 bxa6 18 . .£Ja4 and
1 9 . .£Jb6.

t6.b6?!

White is in an unnecessary hurry.

Sokolsky suggested 1 6.a5!?:

A) 1 6 . . . a6 (Otherwise White will ad­

vance his own a-pawn) 1 7.bxa6 bxa6
18 . .£Ja4 �xa5 1 9.�b6 �xb6

1 ) 2 0 . .£J x b6 E!. a7 2 l . .§. x a6 .§. x a 6

2 2 . .il x a 6 The endgame is better for Black wants control over the entire
White because of Black's weak pawn board, the queenside included, because

1 98
 The Sokolsky Opening

he sees that White could play "iii'b3-b4 1 3 . . . .lle6 14."iii'b 3 a6 1 5 .b6 is seen in
and .£lc3-a4. the notes to Game 53 ( 1 3 . .1la3 !J.c7
14.a5 etc.).
20.labl
14.b6
White changes course, since after
20:i!i'b4 Ah5 2 1 ..£lb3 .llf3 22.E!.gl .£lg4 White ' s far-advanced p awns don ' t
23 . .£la4 E!. g8 24 . .£lb6 '®e8 Black has merely constrict B lack. In the right
strong attacking ideas such as . . . 'i!i'e8- circumstances if White is able to sac­
h5, . . . g7-g5 and .. .f5-f4 (even without rifice a piece on a6 or b7, then White 's
. . . g7-g5). pawns will advance to victory - and
that's what actually happens later in this
20 Et x a S
. • . 2 1 . � x b7 � x b7 game.
2 2 . la x b7 la S a7 2 3 . Et b6 � d 7
24. lab2 lthS Yz-Yz t4 . . . Ab8 tS.�b3

A draw was agreed because after the

possible 25 .Ae2 Ag4 26.Axg4 fxg4
27.'iti>e2 'it'g8 28.E!. hbl 'it'f7 29.E!.b7 g6
it's not clear how either side can make
much progress.

Game 54
Sokolsky-Zhukhovitsky
Kiev 1 945

t .b4 eS 2 . Ab2 f6 3 .bS d S 4.e3

Jl,d6 s.c4 c6 6.�f3 �e7 7.d4 e4
s.�fd2 o-o 9.�c3 fS 10.g3 �d7 ts . . . Etf7 t6.�cs gS t7.�b3 Ad6
ll.a4
Sokolsky suggests 17 . . .f4 18.gxf4 gxf4
l l .'®b3 Game 5 3 . 19.E!.gl + 'it'h8 20.cxd5 cxd5 2 1 ..£l3xe4!
although the further 2 l . . .fxe3! 22.fxe3
l l ... �f6 12.Aa3 .£lxe4 23 . .£lxe4 .£lf5 is unclear.

12 .'ili'b3 transposes to Game 5 3 . 18.0-0-0

12 ••• Ac7 18.h4 g4 1 9 .cxd5 cxd5 20. 0-0-0 h6

12 . . . .1lxa3 1 3 . E!. xa3 c5 14 . .£lb3 cxd4
15 ..£lxd4 '®d6 is roughly level; likewise
12 . . . dxc4 1 3 . Axc4+ .£led5 1 4 . 'ili'b3
Ae6 1 5 .0-0.
13.as a6
transposes to the game.
18 ... h6 19.cxdS cxdS 20.h4 g4
Black would rather not have to worry
about both flanks, so blocks the one
where his king is.

1 99
 l .b4 e5 2.Ab2

20 . . . f4? is suicidal because of 2 l .hxg5 37 . .ll x a6! +- ) 34 . .£\xb7! � xb7 35 . ..1lxa6

hxg5 22.gxf4 opening up the black king �t7 36 . .1lb5 +- 0

to attacks.

21.E{d2 E{b8 22.E{c2 .Q. xc5

Black is in a tangle, but his solution in­
volves exchanging one of his best
pieces, his dark-squared bishop. At least
22 . . . Ad7!? gives purpose to his last
move.
33 . . . �d8 34.4Jc5 Ac8 3 5 . � c l ± The
rook clears a path for the bishop to get
to b3 .
34.t\'a3
o 3 4 . � x d6 .£\ x d6 3 5 . A x a 6 ! b x a6

2 3 . -'t x c 5 � c 6 2 4 . t\' a 3 J;td7 36.� c6 4Jc4+ 37.'�i'c3 +- .

25.c;ftb2 E{c8 26.J;te2 J;te6 27.�a2
�e8 28.E{hcl 34 •.. t\' xa3+ ??

It's clear that White has been improv­ Black does better to keep the queens on
ing the positioning of his pieces, but it's with 34 . . . �d8 ± .
not so clear what Black has been doing
for the last several moves.

Black is lost. White will sacrifice bishop

or knight for Black's queenside pawns,
an idea that has obviously been in the
air for a long time.

35 .•. �d6 36.�c5

36.Axa6! bxa6 37.�c6 .£\c4+ 38.�b4

.ll d 7 3 9 . b7 A x c 6 4 0 . b8�+ �g7
4 1 ..£\c5 +- .

36 ••. E{e7?
28 ... �b8 29.-'tb4 E{ xc2+ 30.E{ xc2
t\'d7 31.�cl

The knight heads for c5 .

3l ... �c6 32.�b3 � x b4

32 . . . 4Jf6? allows 33 . .£\c5 (not to men­

tion 33.Ad6!? a move that shows just
how weak Black is on the dark squares)
3 3 . . : tii' e 8 ( 3 3 . . . �c8 3 4 . �a4 .£\xb4
3 5 . �xb4 �e8 3 6 . .£\ x e 6 �xe6

200
 The Sokolsky Opening

36 . . . .£lc8 offers more resistance. ( 1 2 . . . 4Jd7 1 3 . 4Jcxe4!) 1 3 . fxe3 4Jf6

( 1 3 . . . iilh4+ 1 4 .g3 A x g 3 + 1 5 . h xg3
iil x h l 1 6 . 4J x d 5 +- ) 1 4 . iilb7 4Jbd7
1 5 .4Jb5 with a big advantage.
37 .4Jxa6! (The other piece sacrifices on
a6 and b7 work too) 37 . . . bxa6 38 . .£lxa6 10.Jl,e2 0-0 1 1 .0-0
4Jb7 39 . .£lxb7 .§ xb7 40 . .§b2 +- .
The king will come under attack on
37 ... �f7 38 . .£) xa6 g l , but it seems unnatural to avoid
castling when the king can 't step onto
At last!
the second rank to connect the rooks .
The game will be very complex indeed
38 bxa6 39.Ax a6 �e8
..•

if Black plays aggressively, which is

39 . . . .!:!e8 40 . .!:! c7+ '<t>f6 41 .'<t>c5 +- . of course exactly what he should be
doing.
40.E{c6 �d7 41.�c5 1-0
l l .iilb3 4Jbd7 1 2 .0-0 transposes to the
41 . . .4Jf7 42.b7 .§ e8 43.l:!c8 +- . game.

Game 55 11 ... .£)bd7 12.�b3

Sokolsky-Kan
Omsk 1 943

l .b4 e5 2.j;lb2 f6 3.b5 d5 4.e3 Ae6

5 . .£)f3 j;ld6 6.d4

6 .c4, Chapter 7 A.

6 ... e4

6 . . . 4Jd7, Chapter 7A.

7. .£)fd2 f5
1 2 ... .£)g4
7 . . 4Je7 8.c4 c6 9.4Jc3 0-0 10.iilb3 f5
.

l l .g3 4Jd7 1 2.a4 transposes to the main Black goes straight into action.
line of Chapter 7 A.
A) Sokolsky suggests further prepara­
8.c4 c6 9 . .£)c3 .£)f6 tion with 1 2 . . . iile7!? One possibility is
1 3.a4 intending .£lb2-a3. Now if Black
Black rightly proceeds with develop­ is set on early violence he can try
ment. 13 . . . 4Jg4 14.h3 4::\ x e3!? 15.fxe3 iilg5 oo ;

9 .. .f4? is premature because of l O .bxc6 B) 1 2 . . . iilc7!? looks the obvious move

bxc6 l l . c x d 5 c x d 5 1 2 . iilb3 fx e 3 (apart from 1 2 . . . 4Jg4);

201
 l .b4 e5 2 . .ilb2
C) It's too early for 1 2 . . . .ll. x h2+ but it
should be in both players ' minds.
13.J:lxg4 fxg4
There ' s no point in B lack p laying
13 . . . dxc4 1 4:�c2 fxg4 1 5 .bxc6 bxc6
( 1 5 . . . ..\lxh2+? 16.'iftxh2 �h4+ 17.'iftgl
E! f6 1 8 . g 3 �h5 1 9 . � x e 4 +- )
16.4Jcxe4 ± .
14.c xd5?
1 4.g3! stops the sacrifice on h2. Play
could continue 1 4 . . . �e7 1 5 .bxc6 bxc6
16.c5 .ll. x c5!? 17.dxc5 d4 oo .
14 j}, x h2+!
•••
A classical bishop sacrifice.
The "Greek Gift" must be accepted.
1 5 .'ifth l ?? �h4 16.4Jf3 gxf3 1 7 . -E! fe l
.ll.g 3+ 18.'iftgl �h2+ 19.'iftfl �hl # .
1 5 ... �h4+ 16.<i!lgl E!f6
Is this the best route for the rook to get
to the h-fi le? 1 6 . . . E! f5 ! ? 1 7 . 4Jdxe4
( 1 7.4Jcxe4 E!h5 18.f3 Axd5 and when
the white queen gets out of the way
202
19 . . . E!f8 increases the pressure around
the white king) 1 7 . . . E!h5 18.f4 .llxd5
19.4Jxd5 cxd5 Because the rook went
to the fifth rank, the d5-pawn is pro­
tected, and Black is still attacking with
menace.
17 .£)dxe4 E!h6 18.f4 cxd5
•
19 .£) xd5?
•
This strong-looking move actually loses
the game. 19.4Jg5!? is the right defense,
but it's still promising for B lack in the
long run:
A) 1 9 . . . 4Jf6 20.-E!fe l g3 2 1 .'iftfl .llg4
22.4Jh3 ..ll x h3 23 .gxh3 �h5 (White is
a l s o i n a d i ffi c u l t s i tuation after
23 . . . �xh3+ , but perhaps he can still
save the game.) 24.E!e2
1 ) 24 . . . �f3+ 2 5 .'ifte l f! xh3 26.�d2
E!h2 27.�dl E! e8 + ;
2) 24 . . . g2+!? 2 5 . f! xg2 �xh3 26.�f2
E! e8 27.-E! e l �h4+ 28.\tle2 E! xe3+! is
good for Black as well;
B) :!!!< 19 . . . g3 20.4Jh3 ..ll x h3 2 1 .gxh3
4Jf6 2 2 . �c 2 �xh3 2 3 . �g2 �xg2+
24.'iftxg2 f!h2+ 25.'iftxg3 f! xb2 � .
 The Sokolsky Opening

19... ~h8! Game 56

Kilpatrick-Bryson
An excellent "quiet" move that ensures corr 1 978
the knight can't quit d5 with check.
t .b4 eS 2.Jl,b2 f6 3.bS dS 4.e3 Jle6
A) 19 . . .<£:lb6? 20.<£:ldf6+! Not just a good S.d4 e4 6 . .£)d2 Jld6
move that happens to win - it's the one
playable move 20 . . . !! xf6 ( 2 0 . . . 'it>f7 6 . . . c6, Chapter 7A.
2 1 .<£:lg5 + +- ) 2 1 .<£:lxf6+ "t!j'xf6 2 2 . d5
.ll x d5 23 . ..11. x f6 ..ll x b3 2 4 . axb3 gxf6 7.c4 c6 8.a4 .£)h6
25.E!fdl +- ;
For 8 ... <£:le7 and 8 . . .f5 see Hollstein-
B) A reasonable although inferior alter- Hoegerl in the notes to Chapter 7A.
native for B lack is 1 9 . . . g3 20. <tlxg3
"t!j' x g 3 2 l . e4 "t!j' h 2 + 2 2 . 'it>f2 <tlf6 9.�b3
23.<tlxf6+ f! xf6 24.d5 f! xf4+ 25 .'ifi>e3
§ af8 + .

20.fS

Or 20.E!fcl g3 2 1 .'it>fl "t!j'hl + (2 1 . . . ..11.g4

22.'it>e l "t!j'hl + 23 .'ifi>d2 "t!j'xg2+ 24.'ifi>d3
.llf5 takes an extra move to transpose)
22.'ifi>e2 "t!j'xg2+ 23.'ifi>d3 M5 24.<£:ldc3
4Jf6 -+ 0

20 ... .£)f6t
The only way to continue the attack.
The f6-knight distracts the e4-knight
that guards against . . . g4-g3 ; e . g . ,
2 0 . . . g3?? 2 l .<tlxg3 +- .
9 . . . 0-0?!
Black decides on, or overlooks, a loss
of material . Simply 9 .. .f5 avoids the
immediate complications.

21 •.f)dxf6 10.bxc6

White gives up his queen to prolong the
game.
21 . . . Jl, x b3 22. E{f4 g x f6 23.a x b3
lacS 24. .£)c3 �g3 2S.E{e4 E{h2 0 - 1
White - Sokolsky i n fact - is shown
how powerful a black kingside attack
can be.
A better way to accept Black's offer is
1 0 . c xd5 ..ll. x d5 ( 1 0 . . . cxd5 l l . <tl x e4
dxe4 1 2 ."t!j'xe6+ 'ifi>h8 1 3 ."t!j'xe4 is simi­
lar to the game except for the presence
of pawns on b5 and fl, which favors
White because his queenside will be
slightly less exposed) l l ...ll. c 4! 'ifi>h8
1 2 .Axd5 cxd5 1 3 . "t!j'xd5 f5 14 . .1la3
..ll. x a3 1 5 ."t!j'xd8 f! xd8 1 6.f! xa3 ± .

203
 l .b4 e5 2.Ab2

10 ••• bxc6 Obviously Black wants to open up the

position.
10 . . . �xc6!? l l . c xd5 ( l l . Ac 3 �a5
1 2 . Axa5 �xa5=) l l . . . �a5 1 2 .�a2 21 .h3 �df6 22.�fS

22 .�b5!? looks better.

l l .cxdS cxdS

l l . . .Axd5 12 . ..\lc4! �h8 1 3 . ..\lxd5 cxd5

1 4.�xd5 �a6 Now White has a pleas­
ant choice between grabbing another
pawn by 1 5 .�xe4 or 1 5 .Aa3 which
encourages exchanges in order to rap­
idly head for an advantageous endgame.

12.� xe4 dxe4

1 2 . . . ..\le7 1 3 .�f3 �a5+ 1 4.�c3 � c8

1 5 .�cl and White remains a safe pawn
22 � xf2!?
up.
•••

Black goes for broke to expose the

1 3 . � xe6+ �h8 14. � x e4 .ll b 4+
white king.
lS.�dl �d7
23. � x f2 fxe3+ 24.�e2
Black is two pawns down, but has some
compensation because ofWhite's awk­
The king can be useful as a blockader,
wardly placed king and undeveloped but it's a dangerous role for White's
kings ide. most important piece. Perhaps the king
should step away by 24.�g l !? e2:
t 6 .1ld3 fS 17.�dS �e7 18.�f3
•

�g4 19.�e2 E{ae8 A) 25.Af4

The pressure around the white king in­
creases, and both sides should be pre­
paring for a knight sacrifice on e3 or f2.
20 .Ilcl
•
White defends too passively. 20.�b3
protects the light-squared bishop, and
now the knight sacrifice doesn't pay:
20 . . . �xf2? 2 1 .�xf2 �xe3+ 22.'it>fl �f6
23.Acl �e7 24.Ag5 +- .
20 ••• f4
1) 25 . . . �e4 26.�xe4 �xe4 27.Axe4
� xf4 28.Ac6 eli*+ 29.�xel (29.�xel
etc. transposes) 29 . . . � xe l + 30.�xel
Axel 3 1 .'it?h2 ;!; Despite White's extra
pawn, the position is drawish because
of the opposite bishops;
2) 25 . . . e l �+ 26.�xel Axel 27.Ae5
with the advantage;
B ) 2 5 . Ag 5 e l � + 2 6 . � x e l A x e l
27.'it?h2 Ac3 28.Axf6 gxf6 29.�acl
Axd4 30.� hel Ae5+=;

204
 The Sokolsky Opening

C) Not so good for White is 25 .'<Tth2 Losing is 32 . ..ilb2 e2+! (32 . . . �xb2??
el f!l 26.4Jxel �c7+! 27.Af4 ..ild6 in­ 33.Ac4+ leads to mate) 33 . ..ilxe2 E1f8+
tending . . . 4Jf6-e4-f2. 34.Af3 �xb2 -+ .

24 ... 'ttd 6 32 ... 'ttc3?

The queen would like to get to f2 . Stronger is 3 2 . . . E1 e6 ! ; e . g . , 3 3 . �g4

25.~fl
25.E1gl �g3 26.Axe3 E1 xe3+ is very
similar to 25.E1fl f!/g3 26.-'txe3 E1 xe3,
as in the next note.
25 ... g6
25 . . . f!/g3!? 26.f!/g5 (26.Axe3 E1 xe3+
27.<it>xe3 E1 e8+ 28.-'te4 4Jxe4 29.�xe4
Ad2+ 30.<it>d3 E1xe4 31 .'iftxe4 �g6+ oo )
26 . . . 4Jh5 27.�xg3 4:lxg3+ 28.<it>dl e2+
29.Axe2 E1 xe2 30.E1gl a5 '�' .
26.'ttg 5
'l1i'c3 -+ .
33.'tt h 7+ �f8
3 3 . . . <it>f7 3 4 . Ag6+ <it>e6 ( 3 4 . . . <it>f6
35.-'txe8 f!/e l + 36.<it>d3 �c3+ 37.'ifte2
is a repetition) 35.�h4 E(f8 36.f!/e4+
<it>f6 37 . ..ilxe3 �b2+ 38.<it>d3 �b3 +
39.<it>e2 f!/b2+ repeats the position.
34.�h4 {)e6
With best play by both sides this posi­
tion will be played out to a draw be­
cause both kings are exposed to checks.

26.f!/e5!? E1 xe5 27.dxe5 followed by

28.exf6 gives White full compensation
for the queen.

26 ... {)h5

26 . . . 4Jd5 ! ? 2 7 . 4J e 5 4Jc3+ 2 8 . 'ift x e 3

4Jd5 + 29.<it>e2 4Jc3+ 30.'ifte3 repeats
the position.

27. {) e 5 .§ x f l 2 8 . � x f l 'tt x d4
29. {) xg6+?
35.'tt x b4+??
It's surprising that in a corrpondence
game White fails to find the best de­ A mistake that leads to defeat.
fense. 29.�xe3! E1 f8+ 30.<it>g l Ac5
(30 . . . � x a l ?? 3 1 . 4J x g 6 + hxg6 35.Axe3! 4Jd4+ 36.<it>f2 �b2+
32.f!/h6+ +- ) 3 1 .<it>h2 �xe3 32 . ..ilxe3
.ll. x e3 with a roughly equal ending. A ) 3 7 . <it> g l �xa 1 + 3 8 . <it> h 2 E1 x e 3
39.�f6+ 'it>e8 4 0. .11b 5+ 4Jxb5 4l .�xal
29 . . . h x g6 30.�h6+ �g8 Ad6+ 42 .<it>hl 4Jc3 gives Black suffi­
31.�xg6+ {)g7 32.�e2 cient compensation for the queen;

205
 l .b4 e5 2.Ab2

B) 37.Ac2! E! xe3 (37 . . . <£\xc2 38.tH4+

�e7 39:�e4+ and Black can 't defend
against perpetual check) 38:�'h6+ �f7
39.�f4+ �g7 40.�g5+ �f7 4l .�f4+
�g7 Black repeats the position because
if he moves his king to the e-file he al­
lows White to take the e3 -rook with
check.

35 .'� x b4 36.Aa3 .£lf4+ 37.<iflf3

•.

.£) xd3

Or 37 . . . �xa3!? 38.E! xa3 <£\xd3 39.�e2

10.c5
(39.E! xd3 e2 -+ ; 39.E!a2 <£\el + 40.';t?g3
e2 4l .�f2 <£\d3+ -+ ) 39 . . . <£\f4+ 40.�el
White decides to close the position .
E!b8 4 l .E!al E!b2 -+ .
Alternatively 1 0.bxc6!? bxc6 1 1..11.a3
-'l.xa3 1 2 . E! xa3 ;!; .
38 . A x b4+ .£) x b4 3 9 . <ifl e 2 .£) d 5
40. §.e1 <i!le7 4 1 .g3 <i!ld6 42.§.c1
10 Jl,b8
<ifle5 43. f!c4 §.b8 44.<ifld1 §.b1+
..•

0-1
If 1 0 . . . .1le7, Sokolsky recommends
45 .�e2 E!b2+ 46.�fl <£\b4 -+ . 1 1 .<£lf4 Af7 1 2 .�g4 etc.

Game 57 1 1 .b6!
Soko/sky-Livshitz
Minsk 1 956 N o w the rook on a8 is trapp ed.
S okol sky points out that e i ght of
1.b4 e5 2.Jl,b2 f6 3.b5 d5 4.e3 Jl.e6 White 's eleven moves were made by
5.d4 e4 6 .£)d2 c6 7.a4 a6
•
pawns.

According to Sokolsky this unnecessar­

ily weakens the queenside. For 7 . . . <£\h6
and 7 . . . Ad6 see Chapter 7 A. The knight heads for a5 .

12 ••. 0-0

Not recommended is 8 . . . axb5 9.axb5 If 12 . . . a5? 1 3 .�d2 or 1 3 .-'l.c3.

E! xal lO.�xal cxb5 l l .<£\f4. White will
regain the pawn with the better game.

9.c4 .£ld7 Black is tied up on the queenside, so

White is obviously better
9 . . . dxc4 1 0 . <£lc3 Ab4 l l .bxc6 <£\xc6
1 2 .oll x c4 oll x c4 1 3 .<£\xc4 ;!; . 14:�d2 f5 15.g3 g5

206
 The Sokolsky Opening

Prepares .. .f5-f4.

16.h4

16.0-0-0!? Sokolsky.

16 ... f4?t

B l ack continues aggressi vely even

though his queenside pieces will be dif­
fi cult to bring into action, unlike
White's; whereas 1 6 ... g4!? would block­
ade the entire board giving B lack
chances to draw the game despite
White 's more mobile pieces. However,
Sokolsky analyzes the following line
that shows the possibilities of a sacri­
fice on b7: 1 7.<tlcl <tlf6 18.<tlcb3 <tlg6
19.<tlxb7 '1;1txb7 20.<tla5 i;1td7 2 1...1lc 3
E!f7 2 2 . E! b l followed by 23.b7 E! a7
24.E!b6.
17.hxg5 fxg3 18.fxg3 Etf3 19.G-O-O
�f8
A) 1 9 . . . <tlf5 2 0 . .\lh3 ( 2 0 . g6 h x g 6
2 1 . <tlf4 .\l x f4 2 2 . g x f4 oo ) 2 0 . . . <tlf8
2 1 . E! dfl <tl x g 3 2 2 . .1l x e 6 + <tl x e 6
23. <tlxg3 .\lxg3 24.g6 hxg6 2 5 .i;1tg2
with the better chances;
B) Not 19 . . . .1lxg3? 2 0 . <tl xg3 f! x g3
21 .'1;1th2 +- .
2 0 . � f4 � f 5 2 1 . � x e6 � x e 6
2 2 . .Q.h3 � xe3?
Black gets himself into serious trouble.
22 . . . <tlxg5! is necessary; e.g., 23 . .1lxf5
(23 . .1lg4 threatens to win the exchange,
but after 24 . .1lxf3 exf3 Black's knights
23.�h2! h6
Black can 't play 23 . . . E!f7 24.E!del <tlc4
25.<tlxc4 dxc4 26.E! xe4 +- .
24.E{dgl
Even better is 24.g6! Axg3 25 . .1lxe6+
'l;1txe6 26.'1;1txh6 i;1ff6 2 7 . '1;1th7+ �f8
28.E!dgl winning.
24 �e8
. • . 25 . .Q. x e6 + � x e6
26. � x h6 � x h6 27.g x h6 .Q. x g3
2 8 . � x b7 � h 8 2 9 . � a 5 lacS
30.�bl
30.h7!? The point is that after 3 1 .<tlxc6
E! xc6 B lack will find it practically im­
possible to stop the b-pawn.
30 ... �f5 31.Eth5 �e7 32.Etg5 .Q.f4
3 3 . Etg7 �f5 34.b7 E{eS 3 5 . Etf7
� xh6 36.E{xf4!
The simplest course - liquidation of one
of the defenders of the queening square,
b8.
3 6 E{ x f4 37. � x c6 e3 38.b8 �
. • .

become very powerfu l ) 23 . . . E! x f5 Et x b8 39. � x b8 e2 40.E{el l-O

24.'1;1th2 E!f7 25 .'1;1th5 <tlf3 and B lack is
resisting. 40 . . . E!fl 41 ..1lc3 +- .

207
 l .b4 e5 2 . .Q.b2
Game 5 8
Sokolsky-Kotov
Leningrad 1 93 8
l.b4 e 5 2 . .slb2 f6 3.b5 d 5 4.e3 .sle6
5.d4 4)d7 6.dxe5 fxe5 7.4)f3 J}.d6
8.4)bd2 4)gf6 9.c4 c6
9 . . :i!Je7, Chapter 7A.
10.Jl,e2 0-0 1 1 .4)g5
ll •.. �e7
Here 's what can happen if Black tries
to hang on to the light-squared bishop :
1 l . . . .Q.f5 1 2 .cxd5 cxd5 1 3 .e4 ( 1 3 .0-0=
is simplest) 1 3 . . . .£lxe4 14 . .£ldxe4
A) 1 4 . . . dxe4
1) 1 5 :i/Jxd6 -i!Jxg5 16.0-0 transposes to
the next note ( ::!i0 16.g3 !! ac8 17.-i!Jd5+
'ifth8 18 . .Q.xe5 .Q.h3! 1 9 . !! d 1 -i!J x e 5
20.-i!Jxe5 .£lxe5 2 l ..Q.f1 .£lf3+ 22 .'<t>e2
.Q.g4 0- 1 , Hasler-Barlow, corr 2000);
2) 1 5 . 0- 0 -i!J x g 5 1 6 . -i!J xd6 .Q.h3
17.-i!Jd5+ �h8 1 8.-i!Jxe4=;
3 ) 1 5 . -i!Jd 5 + ? �h8 1 6 . .£Jf7 + !! x f7
1 7.-i!Jxf7 -i!Ja5+ 18.�fl !! f8 + ;
B) 14 . . . .Q.b4+
208
1) 1 5 . .Q.c3
a) 1 5 . . . .Q. x c 3 + 1 6 . .£l x c 3 -i!Jxg5
1 7.-i!Jxd5+ '<t>h8 18.0-0=;
b) 15 . . . dxe4 1 6 . .Q.xb4 -i!Jxg5 17.-i!Jd5+
�h8 1 8 . .Q.xf8 !! xf8 1 9.0-0 ± ;
2) 1 5 .�fl dxe4 16.-i!Jb3+ Sokolsky sug­
gested this line for White, but after the
furth e r 1 6 . . . �h8 1 7 . .£Jf7 + !! x f7
1 8.-i!Jxf7 -i!Jb6 19.-i!Jxf5 !!f8 White must
give up his queen because of the mate
threat on f2.
12.4) xe6
1 2 .0-0 e4 1 3 . .£lxe6 -i!Jxe6 14.bxc6 bxc6
1 5 . cxd5 cxd5 1 6 . .£lb3 .Q.c7 1 7 . .£ld4
-i!Jd6 1 8 . g3 .Q.b6 1 9 . -i!Ja4 it Muri­
Savegren, corr 2003 .
1 2 ... � x e6 13.0-0 <t>hS
13 . . . e4 transposes to the previous note.
14.a4 E!ad8 15.�c2 e4 16 .sla3! •
It's a good idea to exchange Black's
dangerous bishop.
16 4) e 5 1 7 . j}_ x d6 E! x d6 18.c5
• . .
E!d7 1 9 . 4) b3 4) fg4 20.h3 4)h6
21.4)d4 �e7 22.a5 4)f5
B l ack m i s s e s the chance to play
22 . . . cxb5 23.a6 b4 with near-equality.
23.4) xf5 E! xf5
Note that this leaves Black's rooks un­
connected and on the same color diago­
nal as White 's bishop.
24.bxc6 bxc6
24 . . . .£lxc6? 25 . .Q.g4 +- .
 The Sokolsky Opening
25 . .§abl
2 5 . f4 ! exp loits the p o s itioning o f
Black's rooks.
25 . . . '/WfS?
25 .. J:! f8! with equal chances.
26.a6
This is positionally sound, but again
White misses the tactical opportunity.
26.f4! gives White a clear advantage :
2 6 . . . <£\c4 ( 2 6 . . . e x f3 ? 2 7 . 'li.h f5 +- ;
26 . . . <£\g6? 27.Ag4 +- ) 27.Axc4 dxc4
28.�xc4.
26 . . . .§df7 27 . .§b7 h6
The f2 -pawn is tabo o : 27 . . . E! x f2 ?
28.E! xf2 E! xf2 29:�b l ! E! xe2 (29 . . . <£\d7
30 . .llg4 +- ) 30.E!b8 E! e l + 3 1 .'it?h2! +- .
28 . .§fbl <ifl h 7 2 9 . .§ x f7 '/W x f7
30 . .§b7 '/Wg6 31 . .§ x a7 .§g5 32.g3
Now Black can go into a drawing com­
bination.
32.Afl ! gives White winning prospects;
e.g., 32 . . . <£\f3 + (32 . . . d4 33 . 'it?h l d3
209
34.�a2 <tlf3 3 5 . E! a8 E! d5 36.a7 d2
3 7 . E! h8 + ! 'it? x h 8 3 8 . a8�+ 'it>h7
39.�xd5 cxd5 40.�xd5 +- ) 33.'it?h l
<tie l 3 4 . � d l <£\ x g 2 3 5 . Axg2 E! xg2
36.�fl E!g5
A) 37.E!b7! On the b-file the rook can
still retreat to help out in defense
1) 37 . . . �f5 38.a7 �f3 + 39.'it>h2 d4
40.E!b3 +- ;
2) 37 . . . �e8 3 8 . a 7 �a8 3 9 . E! f7 1:::.
40.�a6 +- ;
B) :!!: 37.E!e7 �f5 38.a7 �f3+ 39.'it?h2
d4 40. a8� dxe3 4 l . E! xe4 (4 1 .�a2
�f4+ 42.'it?hl �f3+ draws) 4 l . . .�xe4
42.fxe3 �c2+ 43.'it>hl �e4+ draws.
32 . . . .§ x g 3 + 3 3 . f x g3 '/W x g3 +
3 4 . <ifl f l '/W x h3 + 3 5 . <ifle l '/W x e3
36.<it>dl Yz-Yz
36 . . . �d4 + 3 7 . 'it> e l �g l + 3 8 . 'it>d 2
�d4+ 39.'it?el repeats the position.
Chapter 7B
l.b4 e5 2.Jl.b2 f6 3.e4!?
The Sokolsky Gambit. For the cost of
the b4-pawn, White stops Black from
 l .b4 eS 2 .�b2
building a large pawn center with . . . d7-
d5. Then, after .l1fl -c4, White hopes to
exploit Black's weak kingside (because
of the pawn on f6, and the absent dark­
squared bishop).
3 ... jt x b4
The pawn was there for the taking, and
database statistics indicate that the cap­
ture is indeed Black's best option.
A) 3 . . . d6
1) 4.c4 �e6 S.i£:lc3 1£:le7 6.�e2 g6 7.d4
�g7 8 . d 5 �f7 9 . h4 h6 l O . h S g S
l l .�g4 0 - 0 1 2 .1£:lge2 �e8 1 3 .�e6+
'iffh8 14.g4 �d7 l S .�fS ..ll xfS 1 6.exf5
White has the e4-square for his knight
and is altogether more active than Black,
Kulbachny-Davydiants, S e rpukhov
2004;
2) 4.�c4
a) 4 .. :�e7 S.l£:l£3 �e6 6:�e2 1£:lh6 7.0-0
'ltff7 8 . �xe6 'ltlxe6 9 . d4 (9:�b5+ !?)
9 . . . 1£:ld7 1 0 . c4 (equally logical is the
developmental 1 0 . 1£:lc3!?) 1 0 . . . ..1le7
l l .i£:lc3 0-0 1 2 .�cl fS 1 3 .1£:ld5 �d8
14 . ..1lxh6 'ltlxh6 l S .dxeS
(i) l S . . . dxeS 1 6 . exf5 � xfS 1 7 . �e4
(17.�adl c6 18.1£:le3 � t7 19.1£:lf5 � xfS
210
2 0 . � x d7 ± ) 1 7 . . . � f7 ( 1 7 . . . �e6??
18.1£:ld4 I -0, Valles Calvo-Selfa Diaz,
Valencia 2004) 18.1£:lxeS I£:lxeS 19. �xeS
c6 2 0 : �e 8 + � f8 2 1 . 1£:l e 7 + ..Q.xe7
22:flxe7 with an extra pawn;
(ii) 1 S . . . c6 16.exd6!? cxdS 17.e5 �e8
18.�fe l oo ;
b) 4 . . . 1£:lc6
(i) S .a3 l£:lge7 6.1£:lc3 l£:lg6 7.1£:lge2 and
after 8.0-0 and d2-d4 or f2-f4 White has
very good chances;
(ii) A line that needs practical tests is
S .bS �£:laS 6.�xg8 � xg8 7.�h5+ g6
8.�xh7 �g7 9.'ltlh4 1£:lc4 1 0.�c3 .lle6
l l .d3 l£:lb6 1 2 .a4 White is a pawn up
and has a fine position;
B) 3 . . . c6
1) 4 . ..1lxe5 Not recommended.
a) 4 . . . ili'e7 S . ..llxb8 'lt!xe4+ 6 . ..1le2 � xb8
7 . 1£:lf3 ili'xb4 8 . 0-0 �e7 9 . � e l l£:lh6
1 0 . a 3 �b6 l l .i£:lc3 l£:lg4 ( l l . . . d5!?
1 2 .�d3 �c7 1 3 .ili'e2 'iftf7 oo ) 1 2 .d4 d5
1 3 .1£:lh4 l£:lh6 1 4 . �h5+ 'iftd8 1 5 :fle2
�d6 1 6 . ili'e 3 �d7 1 7 . � e 2 'lt!c7
( 1 7 . . . � e8!?) 1 8 . g3 gS 1 9 . 1£:lg2 � e8
B l ack i s a pawn u p , B en i dze­
Malureanu, Herceg Novi 2005;
b) 4 .. .fxe5!? S.'ltlhS+
(i) S . . . 'ifte7 6.'lt!xe5+ 'ifft7 7.�c4+ dS
8 . exd5 ..ll d 6 9 . dxc6+ 'iftf8 1 0 . c xb7
 The Sokolsky Opening
-'txb7 1 l .'l!1e6 'l!1e7 Black is probably
better but the position is complicated;
(ii) 5 . . . g6 6.�xe5+ 'l!1e7 7.'l!1xh8 �f6=
BC02 . This line still needs many prac­
tical tests to be sure of the correct as­
sessment;
2) 4.f4!? exf4 ( 4 . . . d6!?)
a) 5 .-'tc4 �e7 6.'l!1e2 d6 7.�f3 �d7
8.�c3 �e5 9.Ab3 �h6 10.0-0-0 Ae6
l l .d4 �xf3 1 2 .gxf3 Axb3 1 3.axb3 a6
1 4 . h4 �f7 1 5 . 'l!1f2 g5 1 6 . d 5 � e 5
17.�e2 h5 18.�d4 cxd5 19.�f5 'l!1c7
20J! xd5 .§c8 2 1 .hxg5 fxg5 22 . .§ hd1
with the i n i t i at iv e for the pawn,
Lapshun-Laframboise, Montreal 2004;
b) 5.�h3 'l!1e7 6.Ad3 d5 7.�xf4 dxe4
8.0-0 'l!1xb4 9.-'txe4!? oo BC02, but the
assessment is indecisive; e.g., 9 . . . 'l!1xb2
10.'l!i"h5+ �d8 l l .�c3 �h6 12 . .§ ab1
"i;\ra3 1 3 . .§ f3? 'l!1c5+ Once the queens
disappear, White's insufficient compen­
sation for the dark-squared bishop will
be quite obvious;
3) 4.a3
a) 4 ... a5 5 .b5 d5 6.exd5 cxd5 7.d4 Jld6
(7 . . . e4 8.c4 Ae6 9.�c3 �e7 1 0.c5 ;&; )
8 . c4 e x d4 9 . A x d4 ( 9 . �f3 ! ? D.
10.�xd4) 9 . . . �e7 1 0 . �f3 0-0 1 1 . c5
Ac7 1 2 .�c3 -'1.e6 1 3 .-'td3 �7 14.0-0
�e5 15 . .§ e 1 White has the better pros-
21 1
pects because of his queenside pawn
majority;
b) 4 . . . d5 5 .exd5 cxd5 6.d4 e4 7 . c4
dxc4 (7 . . .f5 !?) 8.Axc4 f5 9.�e2 �f6
1 0 . 'l!1b3 ;!; ;
4) 4.b5
a) 4 . . . d5 5.exd5 cxd5 6.d4 e4 7.f3 Af5
(7 . . . f5 !?) 8 . fxe4 Axe4 9 . �d2 'l!1e7
1 o . � x e 4 f5 1 l . � e 2 ( l l . �h 3 ! ? )
1 l . . . fxe4 1 2 .g3 'l!1b4 + 1 3 .-'tc3 'l!1c4
( 1 3 . . . 'l!1xb5 14.�f4 'l!1c6 1 5 .'l!1h5+ with
the advantage) 1 4 . a4 ( 1 4 . -'l. d 2 ! ? )
14 . . . -'l.d6 1 5 .-'ta5 "i;\rc8 16.c4 dxc4
(i) 17.�f4 Jlxf4 1 8.gxf4 'l!1f5 19 . .§g1
'l!1xf4 20 . .§ g4 'l!1e3+ 2 1 .'l!1e2 'l!1xe2+
22 .Axe2 �f6 23 . .§ xg7 b6 24.Ad2 .§g8
25 . .§ xg8+ �xg8 26.-'txc4 and White
went on to win, Rohde-Bielefeld, corr
1 997;
(ii) 17.�c3 is good because 1 7 . . . b6?
1 8 . �xe4 'l!1e6 1 9 . Ag2 bxa5 2 0 . 0-0
leaves Black in deep trouble;
b) Rather than 4 . . . c x b 5 5 . A x b 5
(5 .-'txe5!? fxe5 6.'l!1h5+ �e7 7.'l!i"xe5+
�f7 8.'l!1d5+ 'itlg6 9.�f3 oo [White has
a draw in hand w ith 9 . "i;\rf5 + �h6
10.'l!1h3+ �g6 1 1 .'l!1f5+ etc.]) 5 . . . 'l!1b6
6.�c3 a6 7.�d5 with the advantage
because of 7 . . . 'l!1xb5?? 8.�c7+ +- ;
C) 3 . . . �h6
 l .b4 e5 2 . .llb 2
1 ) 4.a3 a5 5.b5 .llc 5 6 . .llc4 'Ytle7
a) 7.'Yt!e2 4Jf7 8.4Jf3 0-0 9.0-0 White
plans d2-d4 and will get a good game;
b) Black wins a pawn after 7 . 4Jc3?
.ll x f2+ 8.'�xf2 'Yt!c5+;
2) 4 . ..1lc4 g6 5.4Je2 .ll xb4 6.0-0 d6 7.f4
4Jc6 8.a3 (8.c3 .ll a 5 [8 . . . Ac5 + 9.d4
.llb6 transposes] 9.d4 .llb6 Black has a
solid position in the face of White 's
l arge center) 8 . . . ..1l c 5 + 9 . d4 e x d4
10.4Jxd4 4Jf7 l l .'�hl 4Jxd4 12 . ..1lxd4
.ll xd4 1 3 . 'Yt! x d4 'Yt!e7 1 4 . 4Jc 3 .ll e 6
( 1 4 . . . c 5 1 5 . 'll1 d 3 0 - 0 I 6 . 4Jd 5 ± )
1 5 . .ll x e6 'l!1xe6 1 6 . 4Jd5 ± Jeschke­
Haversick, Ratzeburg 1 997;
D) 3 . . . 4Je7
1) 4.f4!? Game 59: Sokolsky-Lisenkov,
Zwenigorod 1 95 1 ;
2) 4 . ..1lc4
a) 4 . . . 4Jg6 5.a3
(i) 5 . . . c6 6.4Jc3 b5 7 . .1lb3 .llb7 8.d4
(8.'l!1h5!?) 8 . . . 'l!1c7 9 .4Jf3 d6 1 0 .'Yt!e2
(10.0-0!?) 1 0 . . . 4Jf4 l l .'iirfl 4Jd7 1 2 .g3
4Jg6 1 3 .d5 a6 14.dxc6 .ll x c6 1 5 .4Jd5
.il x d 5 1 6 . e x d 5 4Je7 1 7 . c4 b x c 4
1 8 . .ll x c4 a5 1 9 . E k l (or 1 9.'Yt!e2 i n or­
der to rapidly castle kingside) 1 9 . . . fi c8
20.'Yt!d3 with the bishop-pair and the
212
better chance s , D i l l i mann-Fabian,
Augsburg 1 994;
(ii) 5 . . . d6 6.4Jc3 4Jd7 7.4Jf3 4Jb6 8 . .1lb3
'Ytle7 9.d4 .lle 6 I O.d5 .llg4 l l .h3 .lld7
1 2 .4Je2 .llb 5 1 3 .4::ld 2 .ll x e2 14.'Yt!xe2
4Jf4 1 5 .'ll1f3 g5 1 6.g3 4Jg6 1 7.'Ytlh5 'Ytlfl
18.4Jfl 4Je7 19.'iir x f7+ �xf7 20.4::le 3 h5
2 1 .c4 4Jg6 2 2 . �fl Ae7 2 3 . �g2 h4
24 . .§ ac l .lld8 25.c5 ± Weber-Reich,
Eisenach 1 956;
b) 4 . . . d5 5.exd5 4::l x d5 6.a3 .lle6 7.4Jf3
.lle 7 8 . .llb 3 4Jd7 9.0-0 0-0
(i) 1 0.c4 4Jf4 l l .d4 ( l l .c5!?) l l . . .exd4
( l l . . . e 4 ! ? ) 1 2 . 4::l xd4 .ll f7 1 3 . 'Yt!f3 ±
Stemik-Golon, Olsztyn 1 990;
(ii) IO.d4 is strong; e.g., IO . . . e4 1 1 .4Jc3!
exf3 1 2 .4::l x d5 fxg2? 1 3 .4::l x e7+ 'Yt!xe7
14.fiel +- ;
3) 4.c4 4Jg6 5 .a3 d6 6.d4 (6.4Jc3!?)
6 . . . .1le6 7.d5 .ll£7 8.4Jc3 .lle 7 9.h4 c6
I O . ..Ile2 'Yt!c7 l l .g3 4Jd7 1 2 . 4Jf3 a6
1 3 . a4 h6 1 4 . h5 4Jgf8 1 5 . 4Jh4 'Yt!b6
1 6.'Yt!b3 fi gS 1 7.a5 'Yt!c7 18.4Jf5 4Jh7
1 9 . f4 Af8 20. 4Jh4 with a positional
advantage that was turned into a win,
Lang-Soyez, Waldshut 1 99 1 ;
E) 3 . . . g6 4 . .llc4
1 ) 4 . . . .ll x b4 5 . 'Ytlf3 4Jc6 6 . 4Je 2 d6
(6 . . . 4Ja5 !?) 7.0-0 4Jh6 8.c3 .llc 5 9.d4
..llb6 1 0.4Ja3 'Yt!e7 1 1 .4Jc2 4Jf7 1 2 .h4
h5 1 3.4Je3
 The Sokolsky Opening
a) 1 3 . . . .£la5 1 4 . .£ld5 .ilg4 1 5 .�xf6 �xf6
16 . .£lxf6+ \t>f8 1 7 . .lld 3 ;!; ;
b) 1 3 . . . .1le6? 14 . .1lxe6 �xe6 1 5 .d5 +­
Argitis-Balaskas, Attica 2003 ;
2) 4 . . . .£le7 5.f4 (or 5 . .£lc3!? with rapid
mobilization) 5 . . . d6 ( 5 . . . d5 6 . e x d5
<£\xd5 7 .fxe5 is better for White) 6 . .£lf3
<£\bc6 7.0-0 .ilg7 (7 . . . .ilg4 8.fxe5 dxe5
9.b5 �d6 10.bxc6 �c5+ 1 UH2 �xc4
1 2 . cxb7 [ 1 2 . .£l x e 5 etc . transposes]
1 2 ... !!b8 1 3 . .£lxe5 fxe5 14.�xg4 Ag7
1 5 .d3 with a large advantage) 8.fxe5
dxe5 9.c3 White prepares d2-d4 with
good play, meanwhile Black's king re­
mains uncastled;
3) 4 . . . .£:Jh6 transposes to 3 . e4 .£lh6
4 ..1lc4 g6 in the notes above;
F) 3 . . . d5 (Black's second choice after
3 . . . .1lxb4)
1) 4.exd5 �xd5 ( 4 . . . .ll xb4 Game 60:
Daniel ian-Vardanian, Yerevan 1 996)
5.<£\c3
a) 5 . . . �f7 6.b5
(i) 6 . . .Ad6 7.Ae2 .ile6 8.<£lf3 .£ld7 9.d4
.llc4 1 0 . 0-0 0-0-0 l l .d5 ( o 1 1 ..£le4)
1 1 . . . .£:Jb6 Note that if the white queen
could get to g4, she would fork king and
bishop 1 2.a4 ( 1 2 . .£lxe5!? .ilxe5 1 3.Axc4
213
.£lxc4 1 4 . �g4+ \t>b8 1 5 . �xc4 .£le7
White has gained a pawn and has the
advantage but his own d5-pawn is un­
der pressure) 1 2 . . . .£le7 1 3 .a5 ( 1 3 .Axc4
.£lxc4 14 . .£:Jg5 ! fxg5 1 5 . �g4+ \t>b8
1 6.�xc4 ± ) 13 . . . .ilxe2 1 4.�xe2 .£lbxd5
1 5 .!!fd1 .£lxc3 16 . .1lxc3 .llc 5 17.!!db1
.£lf5 oo H.Jensen-Rolf, Sottrum 2005 ;
(ii) 6 . . . .£:Jh6 7.<£lf3 (7 . .1le2 .lle7 [7 . . . .£lf5
8 . .£lf3 transposes to the notes below]
8 . .1lh5 g6 9 . .1lf3 c6 1 0 . bxc6 .£lxc6
1 1 . .£lb5 Ac5 1 2 .Ad5 oo N i v itzky­
Bolytshev, corr 1 962) 7 . . . .£lf5 8 . .1le2
(8.d4!?) 8 . . . c5 9 . .£le4 .lle6 10.0-0 .£ld7
1 1 . c3 c4 1 2 .d4 cxd3 1 3 .Axd3 .£lb6
14.�b1 0-0-0 1 5 .Ac2 Ae7 16.!!e1 g5
1 7 . .£lexg5! fxg5 18 . .£lxe5 �f8 1 9 . .£lc6
Ac5 2 0 . !! xe6 .£lg7 2 1 . .£lxd8 �xf2 +
22 .\t>h1 !! xd8 23.!!e5 ± Fink-Nautsch,
Germany 1 999;
(iii) 6 . . . Ae6 7. �f3 c6 8.bxc6 .£lxc6
9 . .1lb5 .£lge7 1 0 . .£lge2 !!d8 1 1 ..1la4 a6
( 1 1 . . . .£ld5!?) 1 2 .d3 b5 13 . .1lb3 .£lb4
14.0-0 Axb3 1 5 .axb3 .£lxc2 16.!! xa6
.£lb4 ( 1 6 . . . �x b3 1 7 .A a 1 .£l x a 1
18.!!fxa1 ;!; ) 1 7 . !! a8 .£lec6 18.!! xd8+
.£lxd8 19 . .£lc l �d7 2 0 . d4 With the
black king still in the center, White is
more active, Steuer-Kuhlmann, email
1 997;
b) If 5 ... �d8 good is 6.b5 .£:Jh6 (6 ... Ae6
7 . f4!? [7 . .£lf3 .£:Jh6 transposes to the
notes below]) 7 . .£lf3 .ile6 8.d4 exd4
9 . .£l x d 4 �e7 1 0 . A e 2 c 5 P e r l i tz­
H . Schmidt, corr 1 985 11 . .£lxe6! �xe6
12 . .£ld5 Ad6 1 3 . 0-0 0-0 14.Ac4 with a
big plus;
2) 4.f4!? An energetic move, offering a
pawn for the initiative
a) 4 . . . dxe4
( i ) 5 . fx e 5 A x b 4 tran s p o s e s to
Kedzierski-van den Braak in the notes
below;
 1 .b4 e5 2 . ..1lb2
(ii) 5 . ..1lc4 �h6 (if 5 . . . exf4 White can
play 6:iii h 5+ g6 7:�e2 ..llf5 8.�c3 and
so on) 6.fxe5 f5 7.�e2 �e7 8.a3 �g4
9 . �f4 � x e 5 1 0 . ..1l a 2 ( 1 0 . �h 5 + ! ? )
1 0 . . . �f3+! 1 l .'it'f2 �h4+ (1 l . . .�d6!?)
1 2 .g3 �h6 1 3 . d3 �b6+? ( o 13 . . . ..1ld6)
14.'it>g2 �h6 1 5 .dxe4 fxe4 16.�d5 1 -0,
Pommerel-Leuschner, corr 1 988;
b) 4 . . . exf4 5 . �h 5 + ( 5 . �h 3 ! ? dxe4
[5 . . . �e7 transposes to Game 59] 6.�xf4
..ll f5 7 . ..1lc4 �d6 � ) 5 . . . g6 6 . �xd5
�xd5 7.exd5 ..ll xb4 Now White has two
strong continuations:
(i) 8.�e2 ..lld6 9.�bc3 �a6 (9 . . . �e7
Game 63 : Sokolsky-Estrin, Baku 1 958)
10.a3 ..llf5 1 l .�d4 �e7 1 2 . �xf5 �xf5
13.�e4 'it'f7 (13 . . . ..1le7!? 14.�xf6+ ..llxf6
1 5 . ..1lxf6 0-0 oo ) 14.�xf6 ..lle7 15.�g4 ;;&
Miralles-Bolduc, Kiljava 1 984;
(ii ) 8 . ..1lc4 ..ll f5 (8 . . . �d7 Game 6 1 :
Katalymov-Estrin, Moscow 1 9 64)
9 . �e 2 ..ll x c 2 ( 9 . . . ..1ld6 Game 62 :
Katalymov-Estrin, M i n s k 1 9 6 2 )
10.�xf4 �d7 1 l .�e6 ..1ld6 (or 1 l . . .§ c8
1 2 . 0-0!? with the initiative for the pawn)
1 2 . d3 ( 1 2 .�a3 !?) 1 2 . . . �e5 1 3 . ..1lb5 +
'it'f7 14.'it'd2 ..llx b1 (14 . . . a6!?) 1 5.!!axb1
a6 ( 1 5 . . . c6 16 . ..1lxe5 [ o!: 16.d4 �f3+!]
16 . . . ..1l x e 5 1 7 . ..1lc4 ;t ) 16 . ..1la4
( 1 6 . ..1lc4!?) 16 . . . b 5 17 . ..1lb3 �e7
18.§hfl ( 1 8.�xc7!?) 1 8 ... �f5 19.!!be1
h5 20.�xc7 ..llb 4+ (20 ... ..1lxc7 2 l .d6+
214
'it'g7 2 2 . dxc7 !! hc8 2 3 . !! x e 5 ! fxe5
24 . ..1lxe5+ 'it'h7 25 . ..1ld5 !! a7 26.§cl
�e7 27 ...1le6 § f8 28.d4 The d-pawn
will advance to support the c-pawn in a
totally won ending for White) 2 Ulc3
..ll x c 3 + 2 2 . 'it' x c 3 !! a7 2 3 . d6+ 'it'g7
24.§ xf5! gxf5 25.d4 b4+ 26.'it'd2 �g6
2 7 . ..ll a 4 'it'h6 2 8 . �e8 1 - 0 , Rodin­
Ushakov, corr 1 976 28 . . . !! a8 29.d7
§ d8 30.�xf6 ± ;
c) 4 . . . ..1lxb4
(i) 5 . fxe5 dxe4 6.�h5+ (6 . ..1lc4 ..llf5
7.�h3 e3 8.0-0 �d7 9.c3 ..lle 7 10.d4
[ 1 0 . �b3!?] 1 0 . . . fxe5 1 l .�f3 In this
sharp position White has the better pros-
pects) 6 . . . 'it'f8 (6 . . . g6 7.�h4 ;& ) 7.a3
(7 . ..1lc4 �e7 [ o 7 . . . �e8] 8 . a 3 ..llc 5
9.�e2 �d7 [9 . . . ..1lf2+!?] 10.§f1 �xe5?
makes a bad situation worse 1 1 . �xe5
..lld6 1 2 .�xe7+ 1 -0, Grehl-Schroeder,
c o rr 1 9 8 9 ) 7 . . . ..ll e 7 8 . ..1lc4 �h6
( o 8 . . . g6) 9.�e2 ..llg4 1 0 . exf6! ..ll xf6
1 l .�b5 b6 ( o 1 l . . . �d7) 1 2 . 0-0 ..Ilxe2
1 3 . ..1lxe2 �f7 14 . ..1lxf6 gxf6 1 5 .�c4
( 1 5 . �c 3 ! ? ) 1 5 . . . �d6 1 6 . � e 6 �c6
17.!! xf6+ 'it'g7 18.§f4 with the advan­
tage, Kedzierski-van den Braak, corr
1 996;
(ii) 5.exd5 �d7 (5 . . .�xd5 6.fxe5 �c6
7 . �f3 ..ll g 4 8 . ..1le2 fxe5 9 . 0-0 �f6 +
Reichert-NN, Siemianowice S laskie
1 993) 6 . ..1lb5 exf4 7.�h3 a6 (7 . . . �e7+
 The Sokolsky Opening
8:�e2 f3! is good for Black) 8 . .1lxd7+
.llx d7 9.4)xf4 4Jh6 (9 . . . �e7+!?) 10.0-0
4Jf5? ( 1 0 . . . 0-0=) 1 1 .�h5+ �f8 (not
l l . . . g6?? 1 2 .4:lxg6 4Jg7 1 3.�e2+ �f7
1 4 . 4Jxh8+ +- Brzoza- Szymanowski,
corr 1 979) 1 2 .4Jc3 with the advantage;
G) 3 . . . a5 4.b5 transposes to Etmans­
Mostertman in the notes to Chapter I ;
H) 3 . . . b5?! is Schirmer's idea - Black
himself offers a pawn to stop White 's
light-squared bishop from coming to c4.
1) 4 . ..1lxb5 .ll x b4
a) 5.c3 seems best. White readies d2-d4
and opens another diagonal for his queen,
while Black has to make an important
decision about his dark-squared bishop;
e.g., 5 . . . Ae7 (5 . . . .1la5 6.d4 exd4 7.4Je2
[avoiding 7 . ..1lxd7+? �xd7 8 . �g4+
'iftc6!] 7 . . . dxc3 8.4Jbxc3 with a big lead
in development) 6.d4 c6 7 . ..lld 3 ;�; ;
b) 5 . .1lc4!? puts the bishop on c4 after
all. The position is the same as the main
line except that Black is without his b­
pawn;
c) Not as good is 5 . .1lc3 aS;
2) 4 . .1lxe5 is very tempting but after
4 . . . fx e 5 5 . �h 5 + g6 6 . � x e 5 + �e7
7.�xh8 4Jf6 White 's queen will be out
of play for a while.
215
4 .Q.c4
•
Whatever happened to the principle of
"knights before bishops"? Well, the
bishop commands an important diago­
nal - it interferes with Black's devel­
opment and in particular the possibility
of his castling kingside. White will fol­
low up with d2-d4 or f2-f4.
Black obviously prepares . . . d7-d5 to
continue development.
A) 4 . . . �e7 (This is meant to deter f2-
f4.)
1) 5.a3
a) 5 . . . .1la5 6.f4 (to be considered is
6.4Je2 followed by castling and d2-d4
or f2-f4) 6 . . . 4Jc6 7.f5 d6 8.�h5+ �f8
9.4Jc3 .ll x c3 (9 . . . �e8!?) 1 0 . .1lxc3 .lld7
1 1 ..§b1 b6 1 2 .�e2 4Jd4 1 3.�d3 4Jh6
14.4Jh3 b5 15 . ..1la2 c5 16 . .1lxd4 exd4
( 1 6 . . . c4!?) 1 7 . ..1ld5 c4 18.�xd4 4:lxf5
1 9 . �f2 .§ e8 2 0 . 0-0 �e5 2 1 .4Jf4 ±
Katalymov-Muratov, Novgorod 1 96 1
(alternatively 2 1 .4Jg5!? threatens 4Jg5-
f3 followed by e4xf5, and if 2 l . . .fxg5,
22.�xa7 wins);
b) 5 . . . ..1lc5 6.d3= Black was threaten-
ing 6 . . . .1lxf2+ 7.�xf2 �c5+ forking the
king and light-squared bishop;
 l .b4 e5 2.Ab2
2) 5.4je2 White's usual choice.
a) 5 . . . d6 6.c3 ..llc 5 7."iilb 3 .£lh6 8.d4
Ab6 9.a4 a5 1 0 . .£ld2 Ag4 1 1 .0-0 Ah5
1 2 .f4 ( 1 2 . .£lf4! exf4 1 3 .�b5+ ± forking
the king and light-squared b i shop)
12 . . . .£ld7 1 3.fxe5 .£lxe5 14 . .£lf4 .£lxc4
1 5 ."iilb 5+ �d7? ( c:. 15 . . . •it>f8) 16."iil x h5+
g6 17 . .£lxg6 with a big advantage,
Pimmingstorfer-Essing, Germany 1 988;
b) 5 ... .£lh6 Game 64 : Schiffler-Skirl,
Lipsk 1 950;
3) 5 . .£lf3 d6 6 . c 3 Ac5 7 . 0-0 Ae6
8.Ab5+ (8.Ab3!?)
a) 8 . . . c6 9 . Aa4 .£ld7 1 0 . d4 Ab6
l l ..£lbd2 .£lh6 1 2 .Ab3 0-0 with more
or less equal chances;
b) 8 ... .£ld7 9.d4 Ab6 1 0 . .£lbd2 'iitff7
(i) l l .h3 'iitf h 5 1 2 .Ae2 'iitf h 6 1 3 . .£lc4
g5 1 4 . .£lfd2 .£le7 oo Szewczak-Wiech,
Warsaw 1 996;
(ii) White can win his pawn back di­
rectly, but the outcome is near-equal :
l l .d5 .llg 4 1 2 . .£lxe5! fxe 5 1 3 ."iil x g4
.£lgf6 14.'iitfe 6+ �f8;
4) 5.f4 exf4 6.'iitfh 5+ g6 7."iile 2 (7."iilf3
b5!? b. 8 . . . Ab7) 7 . . . c6 White is threat-
ened with . . . b7-b5 as well as . . . d7-d5;
B) 4 . . . d6 5.f4!? A dynamic gambit, giv-
ing White good attacking chances.
216
5 . . . .£lc6, the usual reply, transposes to
Sokolsky-Gurvich in the notes below;
C) 4 . . . .£lc6 5.f4!?
1) 5 . . . exf4 6 . .£lh3
a) 6 . . . .£lge7 7 . .£lxf4 .£la5 (7 . . . .£lg6!?)
8 . .1lxf6!?
( i ) 8 . . . !! f8 ! 9 . .£lh5 .£lxc4 (9 . . . !! xf6
1 0 . .£l x f6 + g x f6 1 1 . 'iitf h 5 + .£lg6
1 2 . .1lg8! ± ) 1 0 . .£lxg7+ �f7 1 1 .0-0 �g8
1 2 .'iitfh 5 !! xf6 ( 1 2 . . . d5!?) 1 3 . !! xf6 .£lg6
1 4 . !! xg6! hxg6 1 5 .'iitf x g6 �h8?? The
losing move ( 1 5 . . . .£le5! 1 6 .'iitf g 3 'itlh7
1 7 . .£lf5 'iitf f6 and B lack has success­
fully defended himself) 16 . .£le8! "iile7
1 7 . .£lf6 1 -0, Sokolsky-Strugach, Minsk
1 95 8 ;
(ii) 8 . . . gxf6?? 9."iilh 5+ .£lg6 1 0 . .£lxg6 +- ;
(iii) 8 . . . .£lxc4?? 9.'iitf h 5+ g6 1 0 . .£lxg6
.£lxg6 l l . .ll x d8 �xd8 1 2 . 'iitf b 5 .£la3
1 3 .'iitfa4 b5 14.'iitfb 3 +- ;
b) 6 . . . "iile 7 7 . .1ld5 .£le5 8 . .£lxf4 c6
(i) 9.0-0 cxd5 10 . .£lxd5 'iitfd6 1 l .d4 .£lg6
Sokolsky-Kuznetsov, corr 1 960 1 2 .c4
with the initiative;
(ii) 9 . .1lb3 !? d5 1 0 .0-0 ( 1 0 .c3? .llg4
1 1 . "iil c 2 dxe4 1 2 .cxb4 .£ld3+ 1 3 . �fl
.£lxf4 -+ ) 1 0 . . . dxe4 oo ;
2) 5 ... d6
 The Sokolsky Opening
a) 6.f5
(i) 6 . . . <£lge7 7:�h5 + (7.c3 .lla 5 8.<£lh3
is unclear but does well in practice)
7 . . . g6 8 . fxg6 (8:�h6 d 5 ! ) 8 . . . <£lxg6
9.<£lf3
(a) 9 . . . .£la5 1 0 . <£lh4 �e7 1 1 ..1ld5 c6
1 2 . <£lc3! .ll x c3 1 3 . .1lxc3 cxd5 14 . .1lxa5
'tfi'e8 1 5 . d4 <£l x h 4 1 6 . 'tfi' x h 4 'tfi'b5
1 7 . .11d 2 .11e 6 18.dxe5 dxe5 1 9 . exd5
.ll x d 5 2 0 . f! f1 f! af8? ( o 2 0 . . . '�d7;
20 .. .'�c6? 2 1 .f! xf6 'tfi'xf6 22 . .11g 5 +- )
2l..ll.b4+ �e6 22 . .1lxf8 f! xf8 23.0-0-0 ±
Sokolsky-Gurvich, corr 1 963;
(b) 9 ... 'tfi'd7!? Game 65 : Jensen-Labahn,
corr 1 99 1 ;
(c) 9 . . .�e7 was tried in Trokenheim­
Holmberg, corr 1 983, which continued
1 0.a3 .lla 5 1 1 .<£lc3 .ll x c3 1 2 .Axc3 �e8
1 3 .g3 .ild7 1 4 . <£lg5 <£lf4 ( 1 4 . . . fxg5??
1 5 . 'tfi' x g 5 + � f8 1 6 .'{�1'£6 + �f7
17.'tfi'xf7 # ; o 14 . . . <£ld4 1 5 .0-0 .Ilb5 oo )
1 5 :ili'f7+ 'tfi'xf7 1 6.<£lxf7 White has the
better chances;
(d) 9 . . . 'tfi'e7 10.<£lh4 'tfi'g7 1 1 .<£lf5 'tfi'f8
1 2 . 0-0 .ild7 1 3 .c3 .llc 5+ 14.�h1 0-0-0
1 5 .d4 exd4 1 6.cxd4 .llb6 17.<£ld2 �b8
18.<£lb3 <£lce7 19.<£lg3 White is better
because of B l ack ' s weak f-pawn ,
Stiefei-Mueller, Crailsheim 1 995;
(ii) 6 ... g6 7.c3 ..Q.c5 8.d4 .llb6 9 . .11e6
<£lce7 1 0 . <£ld2 .ll x e6 1 l . fxe6 e x d4
217
1 2 . cxd4 d5 1 3 . <£lgf3 dxe4 1 4 .<£lxe4
'tfi'd5 1 5 :�e2 �xe6 ( 1 5 . . . 0-0-0!?) 1 6.d5
with the initiative, Schmidt-Tiemann,
corr 1 988;
(iii) 6 ... <£lh6 7.'tfi'h5+ �f8 8.<£lf3 .lld7
9.0-0 Ae8 1 0.�h4 .llc 5+ 1 1 .'it>h1 Af7
1 2 . .1lxf7 <£lxf7 1 3 . c3 d5 1 4 .d4 exd4
1 5 . cxd4 dxe4 1 6 .'tfi'xe4 .ll d 6 1 7 .d5
<£lce5 ( 1 7 ... 'tfi'e7!?) 18.<£ld4 with the ini­
tiative, Korner-Grund, corr 1 98 5 ;
b) 6.�f3
( i ) 6 . . . .ild7 7 .<£le2 'tfi'e7 (7 . . . <£la5 !?)
8.<£lbc3 .11 x c3 9 . .11 x c3 <£lh6 10.f!b1 b6
1 1 . 0-0 <£ld8 1 2 . f5 <£lhf7 1 3 .d3 <£lb7
14 . .1ld2 0-0-0 (14 . . . 0-0 is safer) 1 5 .<£lc3
<£lg5 16.�f2 f! df8 17.a4 White is ad­
vancing on the black king, and went on
to win, Danek-Martinkova, Klatovy
1 995;
(ii) 6 ... <£ld4? 7 . .1lxd4 exd4 8.'tfi'h5+ g6
9.�b5+ c6 1 0.'i1i'xb4 +- ;
3) 5 . . . 'tfi'e7 6.f5 g6 7 . .£le2 (worse in
prac t i c e is 7 . <£l c 3 .ll x c 3 [ 7 . . . 'i1i'g7
8 . <£ld 5 ! ] 8 . .1l x c 3 'tfi' c 5 ) 7 . . . 'tfi' c 5
(7 . . . <£l a 5 ! ?) 8 . Ab3 <£lge7 9 . c 3 ..ll a 5
1 0 . .1la3 'i1i'b6 1 1 .<£lg3 d6 1 2 . .1lb2 .lld7
1 3 .<£la3 0-0-0 14.<£lc4 'tfi'a6 1 5 .0-0 gxf5
1 6.exf5 (or 16.<£lxf5 <£lxf5 17.exf5 with
mutual chances) 16 . . . h5 17.<£le3 .llb6
18.d4 h4 19.<£le4 f! df8 20.a4
 l .b4 e5 2.Ab2

6 . . . <£le7 7.0-0 <£lbc6 8.d4 Ab6 9.'<t>hl

intending f2-f4 with compensation.

Returning to the position after 4 . . . .£le7,

we arrive at the critical position of this
variation. White should choose between
two active candidates.

a) 20 . . . Aa5 2 l .�b1 b6 reaching a com­

plicated position, which White turned
into a win, Brinkmann-Springer, corr
1 98 8 ;
b) 20 . . .4Ja5 2 l .Ac2 d 5 22.Ad3 .£lc4
(i) 2 3 . Axc4 dxc4 24.a5 Axa5
25 .Aa3! ± ;
(ii) 23.iit'e2 dxe4 24.Axc4 iit'a5 25.Ab5 5.�h5+
exd4 2 6 . c xd4 Axb5 27 . a x b 5 iit'b4
28.<£lc4 <£ld5 29.<£lxb6+ <£lxb6 30.� xa7 This is the most popular move, and it's
� e8 oo ; considered to give White the most pos­
sibilities.
D) 4 . . . 'it'f8 5.c3
Tartakower's 5.f4!? is still problematic
and much less explored than 5 .�h5+,
but here are some examples :

A) 5 . . . d5 6.exd5

1 ) 5 . . . Ae7 6. <£lf3 c5 7. 0-0 (=7 .d4 d6

8. 0-0) 7 . . . d6 8.d4 cxd4 ( c. 8 . . . <£ld7)
9 . cxd4 .Q.g4 1 0 .dxe5 .Q.xf3 1 l .exf6
<£lxf6 1 2 :�xf3 with the advantage;

2) 5 . . . .Q.a5 6.<£le2 (also reasonable is 1 ) 6 . . . .Q.d6 7.fxe5 fxe5 8.�h5+ <£lg6

6.<£lf3 followed by castling and d2-d4) 9 . <£l f3 <£ld7 1 0 . 0-0 0-0 1 1 . <£l c 3

218
 The Sokolsky Opening

( � l l . �g5 � x fl + 1 2 . 'ift x fl �f6 + ) E) 5 . . . exf4 6.�h3 d5 7 . exd5 Axh3

l l . . .�f4 (unclear is l l . . .�f6 1 2:�g5 e4
1 3.�d4 [White gets pushed around with
1 3.�h4? �e5 14 . ..1lb3 �f7] 1 3 . . . ..1lxh2+
14.'ifthl) 1 2 .d3 �f6 1 3 .'lii'g 5 h6 14.'fii'g 3
e4? ( o 1 4 . . . 'ifih7) 1 5 . � x e 4 � x e 4
1 6 . dxe4 ;t Tartakower-Reti , Vienna
1 9 1 9;
2) 6 . . . exf4 Game 66: Tartakower-Colle,
Bardej ov 1 926;
B) 5 . . . d6 6 . 'lii' h 5 + g6 7 .'tii' h 6 c6 (if
7 ... �bc6 then 8.�3 and 9.0-0-0) 8.�f3
..ll g 4 9 . fx e 5 d x e 5 l O . � fl 'lii' b 6
(10 . . . �d7 stops White 's next move)
l l . � x e 5 ! fx e 5 1 2 . ..1lxe5 w ith good
chances;
8.'fii'h 5+ �g6 9. 'fii' x h3 'fii'e 7+ ( o 9 ... �d7
10.0-0 oo ) 1 0.'iftd1 'iftd8 1 1 .� e 1 'lii'd7
1 2 .'fii'b 3 c5 1 3.a3 ..lla 5 14 . ..1lb5 (White
should bring the knight into action:
14.�3!?) 14 . . . 'lii'f7 1 5.'lii'a4 ..1lc7 16.�c3
�d7 17.d6!? ..ll xd6 18 . ..1lc4 'fii'f8 19.�d5
..ll e 5 2 0 . � b 1 � b8 2 1 . 'lii' x a 7 'lii' d 6
2 2 .Ac3 ..ll x c3 23 .�xc3 �ge5 Black
starts to counterattack, and went on to
win, Ferreiro Montoya-Vehi Bach, San
Sebastian 1 99 5 .

C) 5 . . . b5 6 ...1lb3 d6 7.f5 (7.a4!?) 7 . . . d5

8.i!i'h5+ 'iftf8 9.�f3 'fii'e 8 10.'fii'g4 ..lld6
1 1 .0-0 c5 1 2 . ..1lxd5

1) 1 2 . . . �bc6 1 3 . �c3 � b8 1 4 . a4 a6
1 5 . a x b 5 a x b 5 1 6 . � a 2 ( 1 6 . ..1l e 6 ! ? ) s ... {)g6
1 6 . . . �b4 1 7 . � a7 c4 oo B o h u s ­
Priehoda, Kubin 1 978; Only slightly less popular than 5 . . . �g6
is 5 . . . g6:
2) 12 . . . ..1lxf5!? 1 3 .'fii'g 3 �xd5 14.exd5
Ag6 'i' ( � 14 . . . ..1lxc2 1 5 . ..1lxe5!); A) 6.'fii'h4

D) 5 . . . �ec6 6.a3 (=6.�f3 d6 7.a3 ..llc 5)

6 . . . ..1lc5 7 . �f3 d6 8 . f5 �d7 9 . �h4
(stronger is 9.�g5!)

1 ) 9 . . . h 5 1 0 . �g6 � h6 1 1 . d4 exd4
1 2 . ..1lc l � h7?? (B lack i s safe after
12 . . . � xg6! 1 3 . 'fii' x h5 �de5 1 4 . Ab5
'ifte7) 1 3 . ..1lg8 1 - 0 , S zewczak­
Duchnowski, Polanica Zdroj 1 996;

2) 9 .. .'�e7!? Now White gains nothing

from the further 10. 'fii'h 5+ 'iftd8 l l .�g6? 1 ) 6 . . . � f8 7 . 'fii' x h 7 d 5 8 . e x d 5
because of 1 1 . . . 'fii'e 8 -+ ; (8.Axd5!?) 8 . . . Ad6 9.�f3 c 5 10.dxc6

219
 l .b4 e5 2.�b2
4J b x c 6 1 1 . 0 -0 �f5 1 2 . 4Jh4 'iii' b 6
1 3 .4Jxf5 gxf5 Suutarla-J.Nielsen, Pula
1 972 1 4 . ti'h5 + ! ? �d7 1 5 . �b3 4Jd4
16.�xd4
a) 16 . . . exd4 1 7.h3 White has the better
chances on account of his better-placed
pawns and king;
b) 16 . . . 'lii' xd4 17.4Jc3 'lii' x d2 18.�a4+
�c8 19.!!ad1 iii< x c3 20.!! xd6 ± ;
2) 6 . . . g5 7. ti'h5+ 4Jg6 8.h4 g4 ( 6 8 . . . c6
9.hxg5 d5 1 0.exd5 !::>. l l .t\'xg6+!)
a) 9.4Je2 c6 10.4Jbc3 �xc3 1 1 .4Jxc3
d6 1 2.f4
( i ) 1 2 . . . e x f4 1 3 . 0- 0 - 0 ( 1 3 . 4Je 2 ! ? )
1 3 . . . ti' e 7 1 4 . !! he 1 � d 8 1 5 . d4 s:s
Brinkmann-Goebgens, corr 1 988;
(ii) 1 2 ... gxf3 1 3 . gxf3 �d7 14.d4 ought
to be better for White who is far more
active;
b) 9.f3 d5 1 0.�xd5 c6 1 l .�b3 ti'e7
( 1 1 . . .4Ja6!?) 1 2 .fxg4 'it>d8 1 3 .g5 !! f8
1 4 . gxf6 !! x f6 1 5 . 4Jf3 .ll d 6 1 6 . 4Jc3
( 1 6 . g 3 ! ? stops B lack ' s next move)
16 . . . 4Jf4 1 7 . ti' g 5 h6 ( 1 7 . . . 4Jd7
1 8.4Je2 oo ) 18.'lii'g 8+ !! f8 19.i*g3 �e6
2 0 . !! g 1 !! g8 2 1 . i*f2 �xb3 2 2 . axb3
�c5 2 3 . d4 e x d4 2 4 . 4J x d4 .ll x d4
2 5 . iii< x d 4 + �c7 2 6 . 0 - 0 - 0 ± Erich­
Pollok, Osterroenfeld 1 996;
3) 6 . . . d5 7.exd5 (an untried improve­
ment is 7 .�b3 4Jd7 8.f4 oo ) 7 . . . iii< d6
220
(7 . . . 4Jd7!?) 8 . 4Je 2 �f5 9 . 4Jbc3 a6
1 0 . 0 - 0 g5 1 1 . i*h6 �g6 1 2 . 4Jg3
( 1 2.d3!? !::>. 1 3.4Je4) 12 . . . �xc3 13 . .ilxc3
4Jd7 1 4 . !! ab 1 4Jxd5 1 5 . !! xb7 iii< c 6
1 6.�xd5 iii< x d5 17.!!bU Smolensky­
Bratsev, corr 1 976;
4) 6 . . . 4Jec6 7.f4
a) 7 . . . d6 8.a3 �a5 9.f5 gxf5 (9 . . . iii<e7
10.4Je2!) 1 0 .'lii'h 5+ 'it>d7 1 1 .4Je2 4Je7
1 2 .4Jbc3 c6 1 3 . 0-0 ti'e8 (Black can 't
win the bishop with 1 3 . . . 'lii'b 6+ 14.'it>h1
iii< x b2 because of 1 5 .�b3 !::>. 16.!!a2
trapping the queen) 14.W i*f8 1 5 .exf5
�c7 1 6.d4 oo Brinkmann-Grund, corr
1 98 5 ;
b ) If 7 . . . 'lii' e 7, White does best t o play
8.4Je2!?;
c) While after 7 . . . �f8 8.4Jf3 d6 9.0-0
White is better developed;
B ) Worth furthe r investi gation is
6.'iii'f3!?; e . g . , 6 . . . 4Jec6 (6 . . . !! f8 7.4Je2
4Jbc6 8.0-0 f5 9.�b3 fxe4 1 0.ti'xe4 d5
1 1 .'lii'h 4 h5 1 2 .�xe5 4Jxe5 1 3 .'lii' xb4 �
Kaniak-Coltharp, corr [?] 1 998) 7 .a3
(7.4Je2!?) 7 . . . �c5 8.4Je2 4Jd4 9.4Jxd4
�xd4 1 0.c3 �b6 1 1 .0-0 d6 1 2 .d4 ti'e7
1 3 . a4 a5 1 4 . 4Ja3 �e6 1 5 .�d3 4Jd7
1 6.4Jc4 0-0 17.'lii'g 3 intending the at­
tacking f2-f4, Krivthenia-Lemer, USSR
1 959;
 The Sokolsky Opening

C) Not recommended is 6.�h6 d5! �e6 with the advantage, Riveline­

7 . Ab3 (7. exd5? 4Jf5 8 . �h3 4Jd4 + )
7 . . . dxe4 8 . �g7 E!. f8 9 . 'iii' xh7 4Jbc6
1 0.4Je2 ..12J5 1 1 .4Jg3 'iii'd7 Black plans
to play 12 . . . 0-0-0 with good prospects.
Poorun, Paris 1 994;
2) 8.4Jf5+ 'it>f8 9.Axb5 (9.Ab3!?) 9 . . . c6
1 0.Jlc4 d5 with active play, Wessei­
Jendrian, Kiel 1 992;

B) 6 . . . 4Jc6

6.f4

White threatens not only f4-f5 but also

to open up the position. However, Black
seems to have sufficient defensive re­
sources to cope, and even tum the tables
- don't forget he's still a pawn up.
We suggest instead 6.4Jf3!? White has
the logical plan of rapid kingside de­
velopment and d2-d4 (perhaps f2-f4
later) while the black king is still con­
sidering his future, although of course
a change of plan may be required in
practice:
A) 6 . . . b5 7.4Jh4 'll e7
1) 8.Jlb3!? �f8 9.4Jf5+ 'it>d8 1 0.g3 4Je7
1 1 .4Jxe7 �xe7 1 2 .�e2 (The position
of the black king suggests that 1 2 .0-0!?
followed by c2-c3 and d2-d4, opening
the center, would be a good p lan)
1 2 . . . a6 1 3 . 4Jc 3 lt x c 3 1 4 . d x c 3
( 1 4 . ..\lxc3!?) 1 4 . . . Jlb7 1 5 . 0-0-0 4Jc6
16.Jld5 d6 17.a3 E!. b8 18.E!.hfl 4Ja5
19 . ..\lxb7 E!. xb7 20.'llb 1 4Jc4 2 l .Acl
1) 7.0-0 a6 8.c3 Jla5 9.d4 d6 1 0.4Jh4
4Jce7 l l .f4 d5 1 2 . 4Jxg6 ( 1 2 .exd5 !?)
12 . . . 4Jxg6 1 3 .Axd5 exf4 1 4.4Jd2 'iii' e7
1 5 .4Jc4 Jlb6 16.Aa3 'iii'd7 17.E!. xf4 Jla7
1 8 . E!. e 1 ( 1 8 . E!. h4!?) 18 . . . c6 1 9 . 4Jd6+
'it>e7 2 0 . 4Jf7+ +- Danek-Brudnova,
Klatovy 1 997;
2) 7.a3 Ac5 8.4Jc3 4Jce7 9.4Jh4 c6
1 0 . f4 d5 1 1 . e x d 5 cxd5 1 2 . 4J x d 5 ±
F erre iro Montoya- I zeta Txabarr i ,
Euskadi 2000;
3) 7.4Jh4 4Jce7 8.f4 exf4 9.0-0 (9.c3!?)
9 . . . d5 (9 . . . c6 1 0.Ab3 oo ) 1 0.exd5 Ad6
1 1 .4Jxg6 4Jxg6 1 2 .E!.e1 + 'it>f7 1 3 .4Jc3
and we prefer White;
C) 6 . . . 'it>f8!? b. . . . 'iii'd8-e8 may be best;
D) 6 . . . c6 7.4Jh4 'it>e7 8.4Jxg6+ hxg6
9.'iii' xg6 �f8 1 0.c3
1) 10 . . . E!.h6 1 l .�g3 ..lld6 1 2 . ..\la3 ..llx a3
1 3 . 4J x a 3 d6 1 4 . 4Jc2 .ile6 1 5 . ..\lxe6

22 1
 l .b4 e5 2 .�b2
'it'xe6 16.<£le3 g6 17.0-0 White is bet­
ter but the game ended here, Y2-Y2,
Schmidbauer-Rak, Germany 1 998;
2) 10 . . . .ll a 5 1 1 . 0-0 d6 1 2 . d4 ..ll e 6
1 3 . .ll x e6 'it'xe6 14.dxe5 dxe5 1 5 . ..1la3
�f7?? (15 . . . c5 16.<£ld2 ± ) 16.�f5 • 1 -0,
Novikov-Sergeev, Tula 2006.
6 ... exf4
The best and by far the most the popu­
lar move.
A) 6 . . . d5 7 . .ll x d5 c6 8 . ..1lb3 exf4
1) 9.<tlf3 �e7 10.0-0 �c5+ 1 l .�xc5
.ll x c 5 + 1 2 . d4 ..ll d 6 1 3 . <tlbd2 <tld7
14.<£\c4 � ;
2) 9.<£le2!? �e7 10.0-0 �c5+ 1 l .�xc5
.ll x c5+ 1 2 .d4 �d6 1 3 .<tld2 a5 1 4 . a4
with active play;
B) 6 . . . b5 7 . .llb 3 (7 . ..1lxb5 0-0 8.fxe5
fxe5 9.<tlf3 � ) 7 . . . ..Q.b7 8.f5 ..ll xe4 9.<tle2
(9 .fxg6!?) 9 . . . ..1lxg2 (9 . . . c5!?) 1 0 . f! g 1
Black is losing; e.g., 1 0 . . . �e4 1 l .f! xg6!
hxg6 1 2 .�xh8+ .llf8 1 3 . <£lg3 .ll x f5
14.<£\xf5 gxf5 1 5 .�h5+ g6 1 6.�xg6+
'it'e7 17.�a3+ mating.
222
7.a3
A) 7 . . . ..1ld6 8.<£\e2 (or of course 8.<£lf3
�e7 9.0-0 and Black still has the prob­
lem of what to do with his king) 8 . . . �e7
9.d3 (9.0-0! is possible since 9 . . . �xe4??
is answered by 10 . .lld3 �e7 l l ..llxg6+
with a won game) 9 . . . ..1le5 1 0.d4 ..Q.d6
1 1 .<£\d2 <tlc6 1 2 .c3 �f8 1 3 . 0-0 \t'd8
1 4 . .lld 3 White has the initiative in re­
turn for the two pawns, and threatens
expan s i o n w i th c 3 - c 4 , S c h i l ler­
Froemmel, WO 1 989;
B) 7 . . . d5 8 . .ll x d5 c6 9 . .llb 3 �a5? (bet­
ter is 9 . . . .ll d 6!? Game 6 7 : Golj ak­
Lilienthal, Moscow 1 962) 1 0.e5! ..lle7?
( 1 0 . . . .ll c 5 1 1 ..llc 3 �b6 1 2 .exf6 gxf6
1 3 .<£\e2 ± ) 1 l..�. f7 + ! 1 -0, Katalymov­
Ilivitsky, Frunze 1 959;
C) 7 . . . .llf8 8.<£lf3 �e7 9.d4 (better is
the developmental 9.<£lc3!? and 1 0.0-0-0
with sharp play)
1) 9 . . . d5 10 . .ll x d5 c6 1 1 ...1lb3 �xe4+
1 2 .'it'd2 �f5 1 3 . f! e 1 + �e7 1 4 .�xf5
.ll xf5 1 5 .d5 cxd5 16.<tlc3 <tlc6 17.<£\xd5
0-0-0 18.f!ad1 ..llc 5 19.'it'cl f! he8 -+
Mielke-Hildebrand, Berlin 2002;
2) 9 . . . �xe4+ grabs another pawn, but
after 1 0.'it'd1 Black is practically forced
 The Sokolsky Opening
to play 1 0 . . . 'iti'd8 1 l .t:! e 1 '{:ffc6 1 2 . .£lbd2
and White is entirely compensated.
7 ••• 'ljfe7
This is clearly Black's strongest move,
and poses a severe test of the 3.e4 gam­
bit. Black threatens 8 . . . '{:ffe 7xe4+, while
if8.0-0 then 8 .. :t;j'e7-c5+ forces an ex­
change of queens that at once dimin­
ishes White's attack.
7 . . . .£:Jc6 8 . .£lc3 (White has several other
good options here, including 8.c3 !?)
8 . . . ..1lxc3 9 . ..1lxc3 d6 1 0 . .£lh4 .£lce7
( 1 0 . . . 'iti'e7!?) :
A) 1 1 . .£lf5 'iti'f8 ( 1 l . . . d 5 ! ? ) 1 2 . 0- 0
( 1 2 . ..1lxf6!?)
1) 1 2 . . . '{:ffe8 1 3 . ..1lxf6! ..ll xf5 ( 1 3 . . . gxf6
1 4 .'{:ff h 6 • ) 1 4 . exf5 d5 1 5 . fxg6 gxf6
( 1 5 . . . dxc4 1 6 . ..1l x e 7 + t¥ x e 7
17.t:!ae 1 +- ) 16.'{:ffh 6+ 'iti'g8 17.g7 1 -0,
R . F ischer-Gloger, C leveland simul
1 964. Yes, the Bobby Fischer;
2) Correct is 1 2 . . . d5 1 3 . .£lxe7 '{:ff x e7
14.'{:ff x d5 c6 1 5 .'{:ffh 5 ..lle6 with roughly
equal chances;
B) 1 1 . 0- 0 'iti'd7 1 2 . .£l x g6 h x g6
( 1 2 . . . .£lxg6!?) 1 3 .'i!Jg4+ f5 ( 1 3 . . . 'it'e8
223
14.'{:ff x f4 ± ) 14.exf5 'iti'c6 1 5 .'{:fff3+ d5
1 6 . t:! fe 1 'iti'c5 1 7 . t:! x e 7 ! 'iti' x c 4
( 1 7 . . . t¥xe7 18.t¥xd5+ 'iti'b6 19.'i!Jb5 • )
18.'(:fjd3+ (18.t:!b1 ! i s faster) 1 8 . . . 'iti'c5
19 . ..1ld4+ 1 -0, Trokenheim-Kusmierek,
corr 1 994.
8.e5
White tries this bold move because he
fears that otherwise Black will achieve
a normal-looking position but with two
extra pawns. In other words, White is
anxious to have something soon to show
for his material investment.
A) 8 . ..1lb3
1 ) 8 . . . .£lc6 9 . .£lc3 Axc3 1 0 . ..1lxc3 d6
( 1 0 . . . '{:ff x e4+ 1 l .'iti'f2 .£lce7 oo ) 1 1 ..£lh4
..ll d 7 ! "1' M C 0 1 4 1 2 . .£l x g 6 '(:fj x e 4 +
1 3.'iti'f2 '{:ff xg6 14.t:!he l + 'iti'd8 1 5 .'{:ffd 5
.£l e 5 1 6 . A a 5 'iti'c8 1 7 . t:! ab 1 ..ll c 6
1 8 . 'i!Je6+ 'iti'b8 -+ Tawbeh-Solomon,
Novi Sad 1 990;
2) 8 . . . '{:ff x e4+ 9.'ifild1 'iti'd8 10.t:!e1 'i!Jc6
a) 1 1 ...1lf7 t:!f8 1 2 .'{:ff x h7 t:! xf7 1 3 .'{:ff xg6
t:! e7 1 4 . t:! xe7 ..ll x e7 1 5 .'(:fjxg7 is in
White's favor;
b) 1 1 ..£lc3 '{:ff c 5 1 2 . .£ld5 c6 1 3 .Ad4
'{:ff b 5 1 4 . a4 ( 1 4 .a3!?) 14 . . . '{:ff a 5 1 5 .c3
cxd5 16.cxb4 '{:ff xb4 17.'{:ff x d5 oo ;
3) 8 . . . 'iti'd8 9.a3 Ac5 1 0 . .£lc3 d6 1 l .d4
..llb6 1 2 .0-0-0 Ae6 1 3 .Aa4? (better is
13 . ..1lxe6 '{:ff x e6 1 4.e5 with chances to
gain the initiative; 1 3 .e5 !?) 13 . . . .£ld7
1 4.t:!he1 Af7 1 5 .Ab3 ..ll x b3 1 6.cxb3
'(:fjf7 l7.'(:fjb5 a6 18.'i!Ja4 'iti'c8 19 . .£ld5
t:! e8 20.'{:ffc4 '(:fjfB 2 l .'it'b1 'it'b8 22.t:!cl
c6 23 . .£lxb6 .£lxb6 24.'{:ffb4 'iti'a7 25 .a4
t:! ac8 26.a5 .£ld7 27.d5 c5 with the ad­
vantage, Biberger-A.Taimanov, Munich
2006;
 l .b4 e5 2 . .1lb2
B) 8.'ifJdl
1) 8 . . . �c5 9 . .1ld5 'ifJd8 1 0 . c 3 .ll a 5
l l ..lla 3 �b5 1 2 .<£lg5 with a sharp po­
sition, Kapengut-G lushnev, M insk
1 95 8 ;
2 ) 8 . . . <tlc6 9.<tlc3 (9.�el d6 + ) 9 . . . .1lxc3
1 0 . ..1lxc3 d6 l l . � b l 'ifi>d8 1 2 . d4 b6
13.'ifi>cl (13.�el !?) 13 . . . .1ld7 14.'ifJb2 a5
Black's position is solid enough and he
is still up in material.
8 •.• d6!
This is simplest, giving White the least
chances.
A) 8 .. .fxe5 9.�g5 �f6 1 0.0-0
1) 10 . . . ..1le7 l l .<tlxh7 �b6+ 1 2 .'ifi>hl
a) 12 . . .'ifJd8 1 3 .Ad3 �xb2? ( 1 3 . . . <tlf8!
breaks up White 's attack) 1 4.�xg6 e4
1 5 .<£lc3 exd3 1 6 . �xg7 � e8 1 7 . �f6
�b4 (if 17 . . . � f8 White can force mate
starting by either rook coming to e I )
1 8.<tlxe8 1 -0, Wei Wen-Sin Fa, Hefei
1 962;
b) 12 .. .'lii' x b2 1 3 . �xg6+ 'ifJd8 1 4.�xg7
� e8 1 5 .<£lc3 Black is clearly worse on
account of his undeveloped queens ide
and centralized king;
2) 10 . . . <£lc6 l l .<tlxh7 �d6 (Black is
better after l l . . . � xh7 1 2 . �xh7 d6
1 3 .<tlc3 .ll x c3 14 . ..1lxc3 ..lle 6 with the
p l an of . . . 'ifJe8 -f7 and . . . � a8-h8)
1 2 . .1ld3 �ce7 1 3 . ..1lxe5 � x e 5
1 4 . ..1l x g 6 + <tl x g 6 1 5 . � x g6 + 'ifJd8
16.�c3 with a strong initiative;
B) 8 . . . �c6 9 . a 3 ..ll a 5 l O . 'ifJdl fx e 5
l l .<tlxe5 <tlcxe5 1 2 . ..1l x e 5 d5 1 3 . � e l
0-0 ( 1 3 . . . .1le6 giving a choice o f which
side to castle, is better) 14 . ..1lc3 �f7
224
(hardly better is 14 . . . dxc4 1 5 . � xe7
.ll x c3 1 6.<tlxc3 <tlxe7 1 7 .�c5 .llg 4+
1 8 . 'ifi> c l � f7 1 9 . � x c4 ± ) 1 5 . � xd5
( 1 5 . ..1lxd5? .llg4+ ! 1 6.�xg4 �xd5 + )
1 5 . . . .1lg4 + 1 6 .'ifJcl .ll x c3 1 7 .�xf7+
� xf7 1 8 . <tlxc3 with the advantage,
Johansson-Erlandson, corr 1 988.
9 .£l h4 E!f8 10 .£l x g 6 h x g6
• •
l l ." � xg6+ �d8 12.a3 Jta5 13.0-0
fxe5 14.�e4 .£lc6 15 . .£lc3 j'tb6+
16.�hl Jlf5 17.�f3 E!h8 18.h3
�h4 and B lack is winning, Piron­
Honhon, Huy 1 992.
Summary: This gambit variation gives
good chances for White in blitz and
rapidplay games. However, if Black is
theoretically well-prepared White will
have difficulty in achieving any advan­
tag e . That i s why we recommend
6.<tlf3!? in place of the usual 6.f4. The
point is to secure the king, and then get
mobilized quickly in order to benefit
from a later opening-up of the position.
The entire variation needs further analy­
sis and practical tests.
Game 59
Sokolsky-Lisenkov
Zwenigorod 1 95 1
l .b4 e5 2.Ab2 f6 3.e4 .£le7 4.f4!?
Other moves Chapter 7B.
4 ... exf4 5 . .£lh3
Perhaps White does best to try 5 .�h5+
<tlg6 6.�f3!? (6.�h3 transposes to the
next note).
s . . . ds
An energetic central blow. If 5 . . . <£lg6
White should play 6.�h5 (6 . ..1lc4 d5 is
 The Sokolsky Opening

good for Black) 6 . . . i:fte7 7.�c3 i:ftxb4 At last the king is housed. 12 . . .f5? and
(7 . . . i:f/e 5 ! ? 8 . i:f/f3 .ll. x b4 9 . 0-0-0 oo ) 1 2 . . . �c5? are refuted by 1 3 .�cd5 .
8 . �xf4 i:ftxb2 9 J ! b 1 i:fta3 1 0 . �xg6
hxg6 1 1 .i:ftxh8 with the better chances 13 . .£) xe4 Jlg7 14.E!abl
although Black does have some com­
pensation. The rook points at the enemy queen and
ultimately at the enemy king 's home.
6 .£) xf4 dxe4
•

A) 1 4 . � x f6? .ll x f6 1 5 . .ll. x f6 i:ftb6+

1 6.'it'h1 i:ftxf6 17.�d5 �xd5! 18.f! xf6
�xf6 and Black has sufficient material
for his queen;

B) 1 4 .'<t'h 1 !? is a useful and typical

safety move.

14 . . . Iahe8?

Now Black loses material because of a

potential discovered attack on h i s
queen. H e c a n defend h i m s e l f b y
7 .1lc4
• 1 4 . . . �c5!? 1 5 . �d6+ c x d 6 1 6 . i:f/xe7
�xb3 17.cxb3 .ll.h6 but White is still
7.�c3!? is worth considering. better.

7 ••• �d6 8.0-01?

Rapid development in the opening is

worth a material investment.

8 . . . � x b4 9.Jlb3

9.i:f/h5+!? is untried.

Black must catch up on development,

but 9 . . . �bc6!? looks more natural.

10•.£\c3 Jl.d7 11.~h5+ g6 15 .. ,.£\f5

Black will let a pawn go in order to White is winning after 1 5 . . . E!f8 16 . .ll. xf6
castle. It's hard to agree to displace the i:f/a3 17.E!f3 .
king b y 1 1 . . . '<t'd8!?
t 6 . j}, x e8 !a x eS 17.d3 �b6+
12.�e2 0-0-0 18.�hl

225
 l .b4 e5 2.Jl.b2

18:�f2!? is strong. Note that half a dozen pieces are di­

rected on the d5-pawn.
18 �c6 19.�f2 b6 20.c4 .£}h6
•••

2 1 .£}d5!
•
t 2.Ab3 �d7

This emphasizes White 's superiority.

Obviously Black prepares to castle long,
2 1 .£}g4 22.�g3 .£}c5 23 .£} x c5
••• •
but he's also thinking about a queen
� x c5 24.-'la3! exchange.

And that is decisive because White wins 13.a3 j}_ xc3 14.dxc3
the other exchange.
C orrect. 1 4 . �xc3?! .£\bxd5 1 5 .�f3
24 �c6 25 .£}e7+ !;l x e7 26.j}_xe7
••• •
0-0-0 + is weaker.
f5 27.!;lbel l-O
14 ••• �f5
Game 60
Danielian- Vardanian
B lack declines to take the d5 -pawn
Yerevan 1 996
with a knight because White would
reply with the pinning � fl -dl . So first
l.b4 e5 2 .1l,b2 f6 3.e4 d5 4.exd5
•

B lack eliminates queens for an easier

.1l, x b4
game.
4 . . :�xd5, Chapter 7B.
15.� xf5 gxf5?
5 .1l,c4 .1lf5 6 .£} f3 .£} e7 7 .£} h4
• • •

.1l,g6 Much better is 15 . . . .:£\xfS!? (In the game

Black can liquidate the d5-pawn, but
after 7 . . . Ae4 8 . �g4 .ilxd5 9 . Axd5
.£\xd5 1 0.�xg7 � f8 l l .�xh7 White is
a pawn up.
8 .£} x g6 h xg6 (8 . . . .£\xg6!?) 9 . �f3
•
this knight goes to g6 and stays there
doing nothing) 1 6.c4 0-0-0 17.a4 .£\d7
1 8 .Aa3 .£\d4 and B l ack mai ntains
equality.
t 6.c4 0-0-0 17.a4 !;lh4 18.Aa3
.£}g6 19.!;!fdl f4

.£}d7 10 .£}c3 a6 1 1 .0-0 .£}b6

•

Black's pieces are so uncoordinated it's

hard to recommend anyth i n g .
1 9 . . . .£\xc4? 20.g3 � g4 2 l .f3 +- .

20.c5 .£}d7 2 1 .c6 .£}b6 22.a5 .£}a8

Black has been pushed on to the defen­

sive, and is achieving nothing on the
kingside.

23.cxb7+ 'it> x b7

226
 The Sokolsky Opening

Permits a nice finish. Black can hold

out for longer with 33 . . . e4 34 . .1le2 <t:ld5
35 . .1lxa6 <t:lh4 36.�b8+ 'it'd7 37 . .1lb5+
'it'xd6 38.gxh4 but the a-pawn is a
trump card.

34.Et xbS! axbS 3S.a6 �d7 36.a7

Elh8 37 . .Q.b8 1-0

Game 6 1
Katalymov-Estrin
Moscow 1 964
24.Etabl f3
l .b4 eS 2 . .Q.b2 f6 3.e4 dS 4.f4 exf4
If 24 . . . 'it'c8, then 25 .d6!, threatening S.�hS+ g6 6.�xdS � xdS 7.exdS
26 . .1le6+ . .Q. x b4 s ..Q.c4 4)d7

2S.d6 cxd6 26.g3 Eth6 8 . . . .1lf5 , C hapter 7 B 9 . <£le 2 .ll d 6,

Game 62.
26 . . . � d4 l o s e s the g 6 - k n i g h t to
27 . .1lf7+.

2 7 . Jl, d S + �c7 2 8 . Et b7 + �c8

29.Etdbl 4)c7 30.Jl, xf3

Or 3 0 . .1lc6 <tl b 5 3 l . � l x b 5 a x b 5
32.a6 +- .

3o . . . rs

30 . . . <£le7 3 l . � xc7+! 'it'xc7 3 2 . � b7+

'itlc8 33.�xe7 +- .

31.Etb8+ 9 .•. .Q.d6

Or 3 1 ..1lc6 <t:le6 32 . .1la4 +- . Black can give the pawn back now, with
equality: 9 .. .f3 10.gxf3 <t:le5.
31 ••• �d7 32.Etxd8+

32 . .1lc6+ ! 'it'e7 3 3 . � x d8 'it' x d8

34 . � b8 + 'it'e7 3 5 . � b7 'it'd8 1 0 . . . <£l e 5 l l . l.t b 5 + .ll d 7 1 2 . <tl x f4
36 . .1lxd6 +- . <tlf3 + 1 3 . gxf3 l.txf4 1 4 . .1lxd7+ 'it'xd7
1 5 . <£l e 4 .ll e 5 1 6 . d 4 ( 1 6 . <£l c 5 + ! ? )
32 ... � x d8 33.Jl, xd6 4)bS 1 6 . . . .1ld6 1 7 . c 4 � e 8 1 8 . 'it' f2 f5

227
 l .b4 e5 2 . .1lb2

1 9 . {)c 5 + 'it>c8 and B l ack has kept This can 't be good as it simplifies the
roughly level, Kruk-Rogalewicz, corr situation in White 's favor. Black should
1 976. try 2 l . . .{)e3!? 22.{)e6 .!:! d7.

1 1 .0-0 .£le5 1 2 .Q.b3 g5 1 3 .£) e4

• • 22.dxc5 c6 2 3 . d x c6 b x c6
.Q.g4 24 .Q. x f7+ \t> x f7
•

1 3 . . . ..1lf5 !? is an obvious alternative,

when White should avoid 14.d3?! ..ll x e4
1 5 .dxe4 {)h6 =i= .

14 . .£)d4 �d8?

25 .£)d6+
•

25.c4? is reckless by White, but might

A routine move to develop a rook, but a
m i stake in th i s p o s i t i o n . At least
14 . . . 'it>g6!? quits the diagonal ofWhite's
j ust work : 25 . . . cxb5 26.cxb5 .llc8 oo
(26 . . . {)e3? is reckless by Black, and
probably won't work despite winning
the exchange after 27.bxa6 {)c2).
25 ••. \t>g6 26 .Q.d4 �hf8
•

light-squared bishop.
26 . . . .!:! b8!? controls an open file before
15 .£lb51 \t>g6
• White does.

1 5 . . . a6 is met by 1 6.{)xc7! . 27.�abl .Q.c4

16 .£) x a7
• Black can 't challenge White's control
of the open files. lf 27 . . . .!:! b8, 28 . .!:!b6!.
White gets his pawn back.
28.�b6 .Q.d5 29.a5 .£)h6 30.a6
16 .Q.e2 17.�fel .Q.a6 18.a4 .£)h6
••. .£lf5 31 .Q.f2 g4 32.c4 g3 33.hxg3
•

19 . .£lb5 .£lhf7
33.cxd5 gxf2+ etc. is similar to what
Black plays too cautiously. 19 . . . {)f5!? is happens in the game.
more active.
33 ... fxg3 34.cxd5 gxf2+ 35.\t>xf2
20.d4 .£)g4 21 .£)c5 .Q. xc5?
• c x d5

228
 The Sokolsky Opening

Or 35 . . . 4:lxd6 36.cxd6 cxd5 37.a7 +- . Not 1 0 . . . Axc2? The bishop is trapped

after 1 l . d 3 4J a 6 ( 1 1 . . . a6 1 2 . a 4 ! )
36.4) xf5 � xf5 37.c6 1 2 .Axa6 bxa6 1 3 .<i!td2 .

Black is lost in the face oftwo advanced 1 1 . 4) d4 4) e 5 1 2 . .Q.b3 4) e7

passed pawns. 1 3 . 4) c b 5 a6 1 4 . 4) x d 6 + c x d 6
1 5 .0-0
37. . .E{a8 38.c7 lafc8 39.lac1 �e5
40.�e3

Even stronger is 40.§cc6! f5 4 1 .§b7 d4

42.a7 +- .

40 f5 41.�d3 lagS 42.E{e1 + �f4

•••

43. �d4 (43 . § eb 1 ! +- ) 43 . . . E{ x g2

44.E{fl + �g5 45.E{c1 E{c8 46.E{b8
E{d2+ 47.�e5 1-0

Game 62
Katalymov-Estrin
Minsk 1 962 1 5 . . . .Q.e4

1.b4 e5 2.-'l_b2 f6 3.e4 d5 4.f4 exf4 Black can 't retain the f4-pawn: 1 5 . . . g5
5."�h5+ g6 6.�xd5 � x d5 7.exd5 16.4:lxf5 4:lxf5 17.g3 f3 18.§ae1 <i!tf7
.Q. x b4 8.-'l.c4 .Q.f5 9.4)e2 .Q.d6 19.d4 and so on .

16. E{ x f4 f5 17.4)f31

White induces the exchange of Black 's

strong bishop.

17 . . . .Q. x f3

The alternatives aren't good:

A) 17 . . . 4:lxd5 18.§ xe4! fxe4 19.4Jxe5
dxe5 20.Axd5 with a decisive advan­
tage;

9 . . . Axc2, Chapter 7B. B) 1 7 . . . 0-0-0 18.4:lxe5 dxe5 1 9 . § h4

Axd5 20.-'l.xe5 §he8 2 l .§ xh7 ilxb3
10.4)bc3 22.cxb3 § xd2 23.Af4 ± .

A good alternative i s 1 0 . 0- 0 ! ? g 5 18.gxf3 g5

1 1 .4Jd4 Ac5 1 2 . § e 1 + .
This is perhaps premature. 1 8 . . . a 5 ! ?
10 . . . 4)d7 stops White's next move.

229
 l .b4 e5 2.�b2

19.E!b4! 0-0-0 victory; e.g., 29.f! xc8 'itt x c8 30.Aa3

'ittc7 3 1 .c4 t::. 32.c5.
At last Black takes care of his king, but
now the bishops prove their superiority 29 ••• 4)f8 30.E!f6 �d8
over the knights. 19 . . . 4Jxf3+? is shown
to be weak after 20.'ittf2 4Je5 2 1 .f! xb7.

20.�f2 4)7g6 2l.E!el

Another possibility is 2 1 .d4 followed

by Ab3-c4-d3.

21 ••• E!he8

2 l . . .g4!? This practically forces White

to give up one of his bishops, but in re­
turn B lack is driven back 2 2 .Axe5
31.Jla3 4)d7 32.E!e6 4)f8 33.E!d2!
4Jxe5 23.f4 4Jf3? The knight has to re­
treat because of 24.f!e7 b5 25.f!a7 ± .
White activates his other rook.
22.d4 4)f7 23.E!e6 4)f4
33 ••• g4
No doubt B lack expects the rook to
move. 33 . . . 4Jxe6 34.dxe6 4Jh6 3 5 . Axd6 is
much better for White.
24.Jlcl! 4)g6
34 .E{ x e7 � x e7 3S.fxg4
•

Not 24 . . . 4Jxe6 25.dxe6 4Jh8 26.Axg5

winning. Less clear is 35.f!e2+ 'ittf6 36.c4 h5,
but 36.fxg4!? is an improvement.
2S.E!c4+
3S ••• .E{c3 36.E!e2+ �f6 37.h4 E!h3
25.f!f6!? is strong.
If 37 . . . f! g3 38.g5 + and the white rook
2S �d7 26.E!c3 (26.E!f6!?) 26
••• ••• f4 will be able to get to e7 with a big plus.
27.a4!
38 .E{e8 4)g6 39.Jlxd6!
•

White intends to immobilize Black's

queenside by a4-a5 . Very good. And so is 39.f! e6+ �g7
40.h5 4Jh4 41 ...1lxd6.
27 ••• .E{e7 28.aS E!c8 29.E!d3
39 ••• .E{h2+
Another idea is to exchange rooks, put
pressure on the d6-pawn, and eventu- There ' s no re l i e f from 39 . . . 4J x d6
ally push the central white pawns to 40.f!e6+ 'ittg7 41 . f! xd6 4Jxh4 42.f!d7+

230
 The Sokolsky Opening

�g6 4 3 . d6 � h 2 + 4 4 . �f1 4Jf3 13.� xd6+ cxd6 14.Jld3

45.Ad5 +- .
Worth considering is 14 . ..1la3!? '<t>d7
40. c.flg1 la x h4 41 .Jle5+! 1-0 1 5 .�f2 b5 16.�e1 Ab7 17.�e6 �d8
1 8 . � x d 6 + '<t>c7 1 9 . � x f6 4:l x d 5
4 1 . . .4:lfxe5 42.dxe5+ 4:lxe5? 43.�e6+ 2 0 . 4:l x d 5 + A x d 5 2 1 .Ad3 w i th the
wins the knight. slightly better ending.

Game 63 14 -'\.f5 1 5 .0 - 0 � d7 1 6 . -'\. xf5

• • •

Soko/sky-Estrin � x f5 1 7 . la ae 1 + c.flf7 1 8 . la x f4
Baku 1 95 8 lahe8 19.�e4 h5?

1.b4 e 5 2.d}.b2 f6 3.e4 d 5 4.f4 exf4 Simplest is 1 9 . . . �g7; e.g., 20.g4 4Jh6
5.�h5+ g6 6.'�xd5 � xd5 7.exd5 is okay for Black.
d}. x b4 8.�e2 d}.d6 9.�bc3 �e7
20.la xf5!
9 . . . 4Ja6, Chapter 7B.
White goes into a favorable endgame.
10.�d4 Ae5
20 ... gxf5
The simple 10 . . . 0-0 completes develop­
ment.
20 . . . � xe4 2 1 . � xe4 gxf5 2 2 . � e6 ± is
less bad but doesn't save Black.
11. �db5

21.� xd6+ c.t;>f8 22.lae6??

Absurd. What was White thinking?

S i m p l y 2 2 . 4:l x e 8 � x e8 23 . ..1la 3 +
(23.�e6 i s very good here and might
be the position that Sokolsky had in his
m i n d when he m i stakenly p l ayed
22.�e6 in the game) 23 ... '<t>f7 24.� xe8
�xe8 25 . .1lc5 +- .

22 ... la xe6

ll .•. a6? The only move but very obvious.

Inaccurate . 1 1 . . . 4Jf5 ! ? 1 2 . d 6 4Ja6! 23.dxe6 c.t;>e7! 24.� xf5+ c.flxe6 ( ...)

1 3 .dxc7 �f7 14.Ac4+ '<t>g7 1 5 .0-0-0 0-1
4:lxc7 and Black has no great problems.

12.d4! Jl,d6 We don't know the end moves of the

game, but Black is clearly better and
12 . . . axb5 1 3 .dxe5 fxe5 14.4:lxb5 ± . went on to win.

23 1
 l .b4 e5 2.Jlb2
Game 64
Schiffler-Skirl
Leipzig 1 950
l . b4 e 5 2 . J}.b 2 f6 3 . e4 J}. x b4
4.J}.c4 'i!/e7 5 . .£)e2 .£)h6
5 . . . d6, Chapter 7B.
6.~g3d6
6 . . . b5?! Black returns the pawn so that
he can castle, but after 7 .Jlxb5 0-0 8.c3
Aa5 9.�b3+ B lack won 't be happy
however he deals with the check; e.g.,
9 . . . r,t>h8 1 0 . Jl a 3 d6 1 l . � d 5 c6
1 2.Jlxd6! ± .
7.c3 Ac5
7 . . . Aa5?! loses a piece after 8.�a4+
4Jc6 9 . Ab 5 0-0 1 0 . A x c 6 b x c 6
1 1 .�xa5, but 1 l . . .f5! does give Black
some counterplay against White's dis­
organized pieces.
s.d4 Ab6
9.a41
Black's dark-squared bishop is a target.
9 . . . a6
232
A) Not 9 . . . 4Jc6 1 0.a5 4:lxa5 1 Uh a5!
.ll x a5 1 2 .�a4+ because White gets two
pieces for the rook;
B) Nikiforovich-Noy, Minsk 1 963, con­
tinued 9 . . . a5 1 0.�b3 4Jc6 1 1 .Ad5 4Jd8
1 2 . 0-0 Ae6 1 3 . f4 Axd5 ( 1 3 . . . exf4
1 4 . 4Jh5 !?) 1 4 .�xd5 l"! a6 ( 1 4 . . . �f7!?)
1 5 .4Jd2 �e6 1 6.�b5+ c6 17.�d3 0-0
1 8 .Aa3 exf4 1 9 . l"! xf4 4Jdf7 2 0 . l"! b 1
l"!d8 2 1 .�h1 d 5 22.l"!bfl (22.4Jh5 Jlc7?
2 3 . �g3 ± ) 2 2 . . . Ac7 2 3 . l"! 4f3 dxe4
( c;, 23 . . . l"!e8) 24.4Jdxe4 4Je5 (24 . . . 4Jg4
2 5 . 4Jh 5 threatens 2 6 . l"! x f6 gxf6
27.4Jexf6+ 4Jxf6 28.4Jxf6+ +- ) 25.4Jg5!
winning.
10.a5 Jla7 11 . .£)d2 .£)f7 12.0-0 0-0
13.f4 .£)c6 14.fxe5 fxe5
A) B l ack loses the exchange after
14 . . . dxe5 1 5 .Aa3 �e8 16 . .ll xf8 �xf8,
but maybe this is okay for Black be­
cause 17 .4Jb3 exd4 18.cxd4 4Jd6 puts
a great strain on White 's center;
B) 14 . . . 4Jcxe5 1 5 .Ab3 oo .
15.'i!/b31
To stop . . . Ac8-e6.
1 5 . . . exd4
Sokolsky recommends 1 5 . . . Jld7!? to
maintain the central tension.
16.'1flhl dxc3?
Black plays materialistically, but open­
ing the long dark diagonal can't be right.
1 6 . . . d3!?;
Sokolsky suggests 1 6 . . . 4Jce5!? 17.cxd4
4Jxc4 1 8 . 4Jxc4 Jld7 with equalizing
chances.
 The Sokolsky Opening
17.Jl xc3
Inferior is 17.�xc3? ..lld4 18."ii¥c 2 .ll x b2
1 9.�xb2 '<T1h8 + .
17 . . . .1l,d4
17 . . . .£\d4 doesn't change the final pic­
ture: 1 8.'li¥b2 c5 19 . .1lxd4 cxd4 20.�b3
and the pressure on f7 is intolerable.
18. E! x f7!
White starts to cash in.
18 . . . E! x f7 19.E!fl Jlf6
20.Jlxf6
Inaccurate ; White ' s dark- squared
bishop is needed to take care of Black's
knight if it comes to e5 . For White to
fully exploit his opponent's difficulties,
each white piece must play its optimal
role and be used in the right sequence.
Correct is 20 . .£\h5! .£\e5 2 l . .ll x e5 dxe5
22 . .£\f3 .lld7 (22 . . . .1lg4 23 . .£\xf6+ gxf6
2 4 . A x f7 + � x f7 2 5 . 'li¥ x f7 + � x f7
26 . .£\xe5+ �e6 27 . .£\xg4 +- ) 23 . .£\g5
�af8 (23 . . . .1le8 24 . .£\xfl .ll x fl 25.� xf6
gxf6 2 6 : � g 3 + �f8 2 7 . 'li¥g7+ �e8
28 ..1lxf7+ �d8 29 . .£\g3 and White is a
233
piece up ) 24 . .£\xfl � xfl 25.� xf6 gxf6
2 6 . .1l x f7 + � x f7 2 7 . .£\ x f6 + �g7
28.'li¥xf7+ �xf7 29 . .£\xd7 and again
White is a piece up in a won ending.
20 . . .gxf6 21 .�h5 f5?
T h i s l o s e s . B l ack c o u l d sti l l try
2 1 . . . .£\e5!? 2 2 . .£\xf6+ �h8 2 3 . .1lxf7
'li¥xf7 24.'li¥xf7 (24 . .£\d5 'li¥g7 25 . .£\xc7
Ah3 2 6 . 'li¥ x h 3 ii¥ x c 7 2 7 . ii¥e6 ;!; )
24 . . . .£\x£7 25 . .£\d5 �g8 26 . .£\xc7 � b8
27.�bl .lld7 (27 . . . .£\e5!?) 28 . .£\xa6 � c8
29 . .£\b4 �c5 30.� a l with only a small­
ish endgame advantage.
22.exf5 �e5 23. �g3+ �f8
Or 23 . . . '<T1h8 24.f6 'li¥f8 25 . .1lxf7 ..llg4
(25 . . .'�xf7 26.'li¥g7+ 'li¥xg7 27.fxg7+
�g8 28.�f8 to) 26.h3 'li¥xf7 27 .hxg4 +- .
24.f6 '/td8
24 . . . "ii¥e 8 25 . .ll. x f7 ii¥xf7 26.�g7+ '<T1e8
27 . .£\e4 +- .
25.Jlxf7 1-0
Game 65
Jensen-Labahn
corr 1 99 1
l . b4 e 5 2 . Jl b 2 f 6 3 . e4 .1l, x b4
4 . Jlc4 �c6 5 . f4 d6 6.f5 � ge7
 l .b4 e5 2 . .1lb2

7.�h5+ g6 8.fxg6 � x g6 9 . � f3 The consistent move i s to complete the

�d7!? knight maneuver: 1 9.4Jg4 f5 (19 . . .'�c8
2 0 . E!. f5 4Jc6 2 1 . c4 4Jd4 2 2 . E!. afl !)
Other moves, Chapter 7B . 20.exf5 .§. xf5 2 l . .§. xf5 �xf5 22.E!.fl with
active play.
10.h3
19 ••• .§hg8!?

B lack hopes to distract the white queen

with the offer of a pawn.

20.� x a7 � h4

The knight can hit effectively from the

other side too: 20 . . . 4Jf4!? 2 l .Axf4 �xh3
and so on, with White very much on the
defensive.

2 1 .g4 b6
10 ••. �d8!?
Or 2 1 . . .h5!? without further ado.
The justification for stranding the king
in the center is to unpin the g6-knight,
but that could be done another way:
10 . . . 4Ja5!? and then 1 Ule2 0-0 etc.

11.'~h6

White could develop the knight imme­

diately: 1 1 .4Jc3!? �g7 1 2 . 4Jd5 Ae6
1 3 . 0-0-0 Axd5 1 4 .exd5 4Ja5 1 5 .Afl
4Jf4 1 6.�h4 4Jxd5 17.d4 (17.a3 Ac5
18.d4 exd4 1 9.4Jxd4 .§.e8 oo ) 17 . . . e4
1 8.�xe4 Schneider-Labahn, corr 1 99 1
18 . . . c6 19.a3 �h6+ 20.'�bl Axa3! with 22.c4?
the advantage.
There's no time for this. In this sharp
1 1 �e7 1 2.�c3 .1l, xc3 13 .1l, xc3
•.. • position White has to play relevant
.1l,e6 14 .1l, xe6
• moves that insist on Black's attention,
specifically 22.�a4+!? 4Jc6 23.�b3.
14 . .1lb3 !? declines to go along with
B lack's plans. 22 ••• h5!

14 � x e6 1 5 .d3 �d7 1 6 .1l,d2

• • . • Black takes the game into its final stage .
.§ag8 17.0-0 � d8 1 8 . � h 2 .§f8
19.�e3?! 23. �a4+ �c6 24 .1l,el h xg4
•

234
 The Sokolsky Opening

24 . . . <t\g6!? looks more logical. 7 Jl,d6 8.�e2 �g6 9.d4

•..

2S.Jl, x h4 g3 26.�g2?

A) White must block the black queen

by 26.!!£5!? gxh2+ 27.�xh2 and though
worse, he is still in the game;

B) 26.<t\f3? �xh3 l::.. 27 . . . g2 -+ ;

C) 26.<t\g4? §. xg4 27.hxg4 �xg4 -+ .

26 g x h2+ 27. � x h 2 E{h8 28.d4

..•

E{ x h4 2 9 . '/h x c6 + � x c6 3 0 . d S +
9 . . . '/he7
�d7 31.dxe6+ � xe6 32.E{ael EtaS
0-1
9 . . . 0-0 is a suggested improvement, but
White can try 1 0.<t\bc3 Af5 l l .h4!?.
Game 66
Tartakower-Colle lO.Jl,cl
Bartfeld 1 926
The f4-pawn is the center of attention.
t . b4 eS 2 . Jl,b 2 f6 3 . e4 Jl, x b4
4.Jl,c4 �e7 S.f4 dS 6.exdS exf4 lO ... Jl,fS ll.Jl.d3 Jl xd3 12.'/h x d3
0-0 13.0-0 E{e8 14.� xf4 � xf4
6 . . . -'td6, Chapter 7B.
14 . . . Axf4 1 5 .Axf4 <t\xf4 16.§. xf4 trans­
7.'/hf3 poses.

White makes capturing the d5 -pawn 1 S . Jl x f4 Jl, x f4 t 6 . E{ x f4 � a 6

problematic for Black. 17.�d2

A) 7 . <t\h 3 Ad6 (7 . . . A x h 3 now or Or 17.<tlc3

shortly is of course answered by
8 . �h 5 + ! ) 8 . 0-0 c6 9 . �h l c x d 5
10.-'txd5 -'te5! with complications in
Black's favor:
1) l l . A x e 5 �xd5 1 2 . A xb8 A x h 3
1 3 . �f3 A x g 2 + 1 4 . � x g 2 � x g 2 +
15 .'itfxg2 §. xb8 16.§. xf4 �f7 =i= ;
2) l l . Ac4 -'t x h 3 1 2 . A x e 5 A x g 2 +
13 .�xg2 fxe5 =i= ;
B) 7:�h5+!?
A) 1 7 . . . <t\b4!? 18.�c4
1) 18 . . . <t\xc2 (Unless this is good, and
the discovered check is nothing to worry
about, 1 7 . . . <t\b4 is bad) 1 9.d6+ �e6
20.�xe6+ §. xe6 2 l .§.cl
a) 2 1 . . .<t\e3 22.dxc7 §. c6 23.§.e4 <tlf5
24.g4 <t\h4 25.§.e7 §.c8 26.d5 §.6xc7
2 7 . §. xc7 §. xc7 28. �f2 �f7 29.�e3
<t\g6 30.h3 <t\e5 + ;
b) 2 1 . . .<t\a3 22.<t\e4 cxd6 23.d5 §. e7
24.<t\xd6 §.d7 25.<t\f5 'i' ;

235
 l .b4 e5 2.Ab2

2) 18 .. :�e3+ 19.1:!£2 <tlxc2 20.d6+ �h8 ing against a pawn advance as well as
2 1 .<tld5 ± ; the check on d6.

B) 1 7 . . :itYe3+ 1 8."itl'xe3 l::! xe3=. 3 1 .a51 f5 32.axb6

17 .. :�e3+? 32 .a6 fxe4 33.axb7 wins too.

Exchanging into an endgame is good for 32 ... fxe4

White because of his central pawns,
which will be supported by his king. 32 . . . a6 is met by 33.<tlf2 followed by
<tlf2-d3 to support c4-c5.
17 . . . <tlb4! Black brings his knight into
the game with a vital tempo 18."itl'b3 33.bxa7 1-0
( 1 8."itl'c4 b 5 ! ) 1 8 . . . "itl'e3+ with good
chances.

1 8 . � x e3 .§ x e 3 19 . .§bl .§ c 3
20 . .§b2 b6

It is worth confirming that Black has

no tactical escapes: 33 . . . <tla5 34.l::! b8
l::! xc4+ 3 5 .�e5 l::! a4 36. a8"itl' <tlc4+
37.�d4 l::! xa8 38. l::! xa8 <tld2 39.fxe4
<tlf3+ 40.�c5 <tlxh2 41 .e5 +- .
21 . .§f31 .§ x f3 22.gxf31? .§dS 23.c4
Game 67
White 's central pawns give him the ad­
Goljak-Lilientha/
vantage.
Moscow 1 962
23 .£j b8 24. �f2 �f7 25 .a4 c6
..•

26.dxc6 .£j xc6 27.d5 .£la5 28.�e3 l . b4 e5 2 . .1l b 2 f6 3 . e4 .il x b4

.£lb7 29.�d4 4 . .1lc4 .£le7 5. �h5+ .£lg6 6.f4 exf4
7.a3 d5 8 . .Q.xd5 c6 9.Ab3 .Q.d6!?
The king is optimally placed for the
ending. 9 . . . "itl'a5?, Chapter 7B.

29 ... .§c8 30 . .£je4 h6? 10.4:)f3 ~d71?

Black has to move his king because oth­ The king unpins the knight and seeks a
erwise his knight is overloaded guard- safe queenside location.

236
 The Sokolsky Opening

1 1 .0-0 t\'e8 1 2.d4 �c7 After 1 7 . . . .a.e6 1 8 . .11. x e6 .§ xe6 19.f! xf4
White has regained the pawn.
1 2 . . . i*xe4?? 1 3 . f! e l traps the queen.
18.E{ael

Or 18.4Jf7 right away.

18 •.. J;td7 19.�f7! -'l.e7 20.h4

B lack's kingside pawn maj ority will

crumble under the pressure that White
can apply.

20 .•. g xh4

20 . . . g4 2 Ulc 1 ! .

13 .•. �e5 21.E{ xf4 �a6

Black hopes the exchange of queens 2 1 . . . .11.d6 2 2 . .§ xe8 .11. xf4 2 3 . f! f8 and
will ease his defensive task. Black has problems developing his
queens ide.
14. t\' x e8
22.�e5 E{f8 23.� xd7 1if/xd7
White doesn 't have to swap: 14.i*h4
4Jxf3 + ( 1 4 . . . 4Jg6 1 5 .i*fU [ 1 5 . i*h5
23 . . . f! xf4? is answered by 24 . .§ xe7 +- .
repeats the position ] ) 1 5 . .§ x f3 g5
16.i*f2 .11.g4 17.f!d3 4Jd7 18.c4 with
24.J;te6+ lif/c7 25.E{g4 -'l.f6
the initiative.

14 ..• � xf3+ 15.� xf3 E{ x e8 16.e5!

White wants to open the position for

his bishops at a time when B lack 's
queenside pieces are completely unde­
veloped.

16 ••• fxe5

16 . . ...1le7 17.f!ae l !? Note that, as in the

game, White's immediate plans concern
the black kingside pawns rather than the 26.-'l.cl!?
black king.
Now B lack must cope with a bishop
17.� xe5 g5 check on f4.

237
 l .b4 e5 2.-'tb2
26 . . . b5
Better is 26 . . . h5 27 . .§.ge4 .§.ae8 because
at least B l ack 's pieces are all out.
27.-'th6 E!fe8 28.-'tg7
White wants a rook on the seventh rank.
28 . . . j}_ xg7 29. E! xg7+ �b6 30.c4!
White opens the position in order to
embarrass the black king.
30 ••• ,£ic7?
Not g o o d . N e i ther is 30 . . . bx c4?
3 l ..§.bl + �a5 32 . .§.g5+ (32.-'txc4 h6
33.d5!?) 32 . . . c5 33 . .ilxc4 with the bet­
ter ending, but Black can play 30 . . . h6!?
so if 3 l .c5+ �a5 and he is okay for a
while.
31.c5+ �b7 32.d51
The pinned pony is powerless.
32 ... cxd5 33.j}.xd5+ �a6 34.E!xe8
.£) xeS
35.f! x h7
238
This doesn't squander the win, but there
are better moves.
A) The straightforward method is
35.-'tb7+! �a5 36 . .§. e7 .§. d8 (36 . . . .§. b8
receives the same treatment) 37 . ..Q.c6!
with a double attack on the e8-knight
and the a7-pawn (with mate);
B) But not 35 . .§.g8? .§. d8 36.-'tt7? .§.dl +
37.�h2 4.Jf6 and Black has turned the
tables.
35 . . . f!d8 36.E!h6+?
This is serious, putting the victory in
doubt. The win i s sti l l there with
36 . .lle 6! 4.Jf6 37 . .§. c7 when B lack has
to give up the exchange to avoid mate,
i.e., 38.Ac8+ .§. xc8 39 . .§. xc8 +- .
36 . . . �a5 37.j}.b7
White has more chances after 37 . .ilf3
4.Jg7 38 . .§. xh4 but in the long run this is
probably drawn too.
37 ... ,£ic7 38,E!xh4
White 's extra pawn won't ensure vic­
tory as Black's rook is very mobile.
38 ... E!dl+ 39.�h2 E!c1 40.c6
40 . .§. h5 �a4=.
40. . . f!c3 41.f!h3 E!c21 42.�gl
42.�g3 .§.a2!=.
42 ... f! c l + 43.�h2 E!c2 44. �gl
E!cl+ Yz-Yz
 Chapter 8
l.b4 e5 2 . .Q.b2 d6
A flexible move. Black guards his e5-
pawn but keeps most of his options
open. As we shall see, he could decide
on King's Indian or Dutch setups, so
the play could have many things in com­
mon with Chapters 5 and 6.
3.c4
This is players ' favorite move in this
position. The c4-pawn controls d5 and
starts queenside expansion.
A) 3.e3 .llf5 (3 .. .f6 Game 72; 3 . . . 4Jd7
4.c4 4Jgf6 transposes to Games 45 and
68)
1) 4.c4 is the usual move here, which
transposes to 3.c4 .llf5 4.e3;
2) 4.tH3!? ti'c8 5 .e4=;
B) 3.g3
1) 3 . . . g6 Game 7 1 : Hubner-Asplund,
Jerusalem 1 967;
2) 3 . . . 4Jf6 4 . .llg 2 A.e7
a) 5 .d3 c6 6.c4 0-0 7.a3 4Jbd7 8.4Jc3
4Jb6 9 .�cl .llg4 1 0.4Jf3 ti'd7 1 1 .0-0
A h 3 1 2 . c 5 .ll x g 2 1 3 . 'ifil x g 2 d x c 5
14.4Jxe5 ti'e6 1 5 .bxc5 .ll x c5 16.4Ja4
4Jxa4 1 7.ti'xa4 .lld6 and Black has no
problems, S unye Neto-Groszpeter,
Tjentiste 1 97 5 ;
b) 5.e3 0-0 6.d3 (or 6.4Je2 planning,
after castling, d2-d4 and c2-c4) 6 . . . c6
7.4Jd2 .lle6 8.c4 ti'c7 9.4Je2 a5 1 0.a3
d5 1 1 ..1lc3 axb4 1 2 .axb4 4Jbd7 1 3 .0-0
dxc4 1 4 . dx c 4 4Jb6 1 5 . ti' b 3 4J x c 4
239
1 6 . 4Jxc4 b5 1 7 .�b2 .ll x c4 1 8 . .1lxe5
ti'b6 1 9 . � fc l � x a 1 2 0 . � x a 1 c 5 =
Zielinska-Wiliczkiewicz, Wisla 1 998;
3) 3 . . .f5 4 . .1lg2 4Jf6 5.c4 Ae7
a) 6.d4 0-0 7.4Jd2 4Jc6 8.dxe5 4Jxe5
9.4Jgf3 4Jxf3+ 10 . .llxf3 .lle6 1 l .�b3 d5
1 2 . 0- 0 c6 1 3 JHd 1 ti'b6 1 4 . c 5
( 1 4 . .1lxf6 oo ) 1 4 . . . ti'c7 1 5 . � ac l 4Je4
( 1 5 . . . f4!?) 16.4Jxe4 fxe4 17 . .1lxe4 .llf6
18 . .1lxf6 � xf6 19 . .1lf3 ± Kellermann-De
Visser, corr 1 990;
b) 6.ti<b3 Game 70: Miralles-Bologan,
France 2003 ;
c) 6.4Jf3 0-0 7.�b3 transposes to Game
70.
3 . . .f5
Black reveals his intentions - kingside
play in the style of the Dutch Defense.
Obviously he has several other options:
A) 3 . . . g6
1 ) 4 . g3 Game 7 3 : M iral l e s - S eret,
Belfort 1 98 3 ;
2) 4.d4!? .llg7 (4 ... 4Jd7 5 .e3=) 5.dxe5
4Jd7 6.4Jf3=;
 l .b4 e5 2 . .1lb2 d6
3) 4.e3 .llg7 5 .<tlf3
a) 5 . . . <tle7 6.d4 (6 . .1le2 0-0 7.d4 trans­
poses to Hoszowski-Frysiak in the notes
below)
(i) 6 . . . <tld7 7.<£lc3 (7.c5 e4 8.<£lg5 dS oo )
7 . . . 0-0 8 . .1le2 exd4 9.<tlxd4 <tle5 10.0-0
<tl5c6 1 1 . <tl xc6 <tlxc6 1 2 . 'l!lb3 <tle5
1 3 . h 3 ..Q.e6 1 4 . f4 <tld7 1 5 . f! ad 1
( 1 5 . e4!?) 1 5 . . . a 5 16.a3 axb4 17.axb4
<tlb6 18.e4 �d7 19.f!f3 ( 1 9.f5 gxf5 oo )
1 9 . . . �c6 2 0 . <£ld 5 ;t P andurev i c ­
Vanderhallen, Bled 2003 ;
(ii) 6 . . . e4 7.<£lfd2 f5 8.<tlc3 c6 9.g3 <tld7
1 0 . �b 3 0-0 l l . a4 a 5 w i th equal
chances - White w i l l press on the
queenside, B lack on the kingside,
Kalashnikov-Maksi mov, M o s c o w
2004;
(iii) 6 . . . 0-0 7 . ..Q.e2
(a) 7 . . . <tlf5 8.0-0 (8.dxe5 <t!c6 9. 0-0
<tlxe5 1 0.<tlxe5 AxeS 1 l ..ll x e5 dxe5
1 2 .'l!ld5 �xd5 1 3.cxd5 .lld7 1 4.<tld2 c6
1 5 . <tle4 ;!; Sternik-Chowaniec, corr
1 997) 8 . . . <£ld7 (stronger is 8 . . . exd4!?
9 . exd4 c5 1 0 .b5 <tld7 1 1 ..1lc3 cxd4
1 2 . <£l xd4 <£lf6 1 3 . <£l x f5 ( 1 3 . ..Q.f3 ! ?)
13 . . . Axf5 with good play, S okol ik­
Hoszowski, corr 1 99 1 ) 9.<tlc3 (9.<£lbd2
exd4 10.exd4 <tlb6 1 l .�c2 Ad7 1 2 .a4
a5 1 3 . b 5 d5 ( 1 3 . . . c6!?) 1 4 . c 5 <tlc8
1 5 .f!fe l .lle6 1 6 . .1ld3 <t!ce7 1 7.<tlb3 ±
Kirylo-Hoszowski, corr 1 99 1 ) 9 . . . f! e8
240
1 0.d5 a5 l l .a3 c5 1 2 .dxc6 ( 1 2 .<£le4!?)
1 2 . . . b x c 6 1 3 . b 5 e4 1 4 . b x c 6 <t!c5
(14 . . . exf3 1 5 .cxd7 'l!lxd7 1 6 .Axf3=)
1 5 . <£ld4 <tle7 1 6 . <t!cb5 'l!lb6 1 7 .f!bl
<tlxc6 18.<tlxd6 f! d8 1 9.Aa l (19.<tlxe4
<tlxe4 20.<tlxc6! f! xd1 2 1 .<tle7+ 'it'h8
22.Axg7+ 'l;xg7 23.f! xb6 +- ) 1 9 . . .�c7
20.<£!4b5 ± Hoszowski-Frysiak, corr
1 99 1 ;
(b) 7 . . . exd4 8.Axd4 W7 9.Axg7 \txg7
1 0 . 0-0 <t!c6 l l . a 3 a5 1 2 . <tlc3 axb4
1 3 . axb4 f! x a 1 1 4 . � x a 1 f6 1 5 .<tld5
<tlde5 1 6 . <£ld4 ;!; Kozl owski­
Rosikiewicz, corr 1 992;
(iv) 6 . . . exd4 7.Axd4 0-0 8 . .1le2 trans­
poses to Kozlowski-Rosikiewicz in the
notes above;
b) 5 . . . <t!f6 6.d4
( i ) 6 . . . e x d4 7 . <tl xd4 0-0 8 . Ae 2 c5
9.<tlb5 (9.bxc5 dxc5 1 0 . <tlb5 �xdl +
l l .Axd1 <t!c6 =F ) 9 . . . cxb4 1 0.<tlxd6 <t!a6
1 1 . 0- 0 Ae6 1 2 . a 3 b x a 3 1 3 . f! x a3
( 1 3 . <tl x a 3 = ) 1 3 . . . <£lc5 14 . .1le5 �b6
1 5 .<tlc3 f! fd8 16.<tla4 <tlxa4 17.f! xa4
f! d7 1 8 ." �d4 'l!l x d4 1 9 . e x d 4 <tle8
20 . ..Q.xg7 �xg7 2 1 . <£lb5 <£ld6 2 2 .d5
<tlxb5 23.dxe6 f! d4 (23 . . . <tlc3 24.exd7
<tlxa4 2 5 . f! a 1 <tlc5 2 6 . f! xa7 f! d8=)
24.Af3 <tld6 25.exf7 a6 26.f!b1 f!c8
27.Ad5 f!c5 oo Skerlik-Murden, corr
200 1 ;
(ii) 6 . . . 0-0 7 .Ae2 <tlbd7 8. 0-0 f! e8
transposes to Game 45;
 The Sokolsky Opening
B) 3 . . . a5 (NB With this move play can
transpose to Chapter I : l .b4 a5 etc.)
4.b5
1) 4 . . . b6 5.4Jc3 .l1b7 6."tWc2 <tlf6 7.e4
g6 8.<tlge2 .l1g7 9.g3 0-0 1 0 . .l1g2 <tlbd7
1 1 . 0-0 <tlh5 1 2 . <tld5 <tlc5 1 3 . f4 c6
1 4 . b xc6 -'\.xc6 1 5 . d4 <tla4 I6 . .l1a3
( 1 6 . fx e 5 !?) 1 6 . . . e x d4 1 7 .§adl b 5
18.<tlxd4 .llx d5 19.<tlxb5 'iWb6+ 20.�hl
<tlc3 2 1 . <tl x c 3 .ll x c4 2 2 . <tld5 -'\.xd5
23.!! xd5 !! ac8 24.'iWd2 White has a
positional advantage because ofBlack's
weak pawns on aS and d6, Katalymov­
K.Grigorian, Moscow 1 972;
2) 4 . . . <tld7
a) 5.e3 <tlgf6 6.<tlc3 (6.<tlf3 transposes
to Sternik-Sokanski in the notes to
Chapter 1 ) 6 . . . .l1e7 7.<tlf3 0-0 8.'iWc2
<tlc5 9.d4 exd4
(i) IO.<tlxd4 .lle6 l l ..l1e2 !! e8 1 2 .0-0
'iWd7 1 3 . !! adl -'tg4 14.f3 .l1h5 1 5 .e4
.ll g 6 1 6 . <tlb3 <tl x b 3 1 7 . 'iW x b3 'iWc8
18.!!d2 c6 19.!!fdl 'ti1e6 20.-'ta3 with
pressure on the d6-pawn. White has the
better prospects because, among other
things, the g6-bishop is out of play,
Lagemann-Kiein, corr 2004;
(ii) IO.exd4 <tle6 1 1 .g3 !! e8 1 2 . .l1d3 d5
1 3 .cxd5 <tlxd5 14 . .l1xh7+ �f8 oo ;
b) 5.a4 <tlgf6 6.<tlf3 g6 (6 . . . e4!?) 7.<tlc3
-'tg7 8.e3 0-0 9 . d4 exd4 (or 9 . . . e4
24 1
10.<tld2 !! e8 1 1 .'iWc2 'iWe7 1 2 . .Q.e2 with
the plan of 0-0, !! a i -e l and f2-f3)
1 O.<tlxd4 <tle5 1 1 .-'te2 -'\.e6 1 2 .<tlxe6
fxe6 1 3 .f4 <tled7 14.-'tf3 <tlc5 1 5.'iWc2
<tlfd7 1 6.0-0=;
3) 4 . . . <tlf6 5 .e3
a) 5 . . ..l1e7!? 6.<tlf3 0-0
(i) 7.-'te2 c6 8.<tlc3 !! e8 9.0-0 <tlbd7
Black is right to bring his pieces out and
to maintain the tension. (The active but
committal 9 . . . e4 is seen in Game 74:
Sokolsky-Fiohr, Moscow 1 953) 10.d4
exd4 ( 1 0 . . . e4 1 1 .<tld2 d5 1 2 .'iWb3 i!: )
1 1 .exd4 <tlf8 1 2 .!!el <tlg6 1 3 . 'iWd2 -'tf5
with mutual chances;
(ii) 7.d4 e4 8.<tlfd2 c6 9.a4 (9.<tlc3 d5
1 0 . -'\.e2 .l1e6 1 1 . 0-0 dxc4 1 2 .<tlxc4
cxb5 1 3 . <tl x b 5 <tlc6 1 4 . !! c l !! c8=)
9 . . . d 5 1 0 . <tl c 3 <tle8 l l . �b 3 .ll e 6
1 2 .Aa3 f5 1 3 .g3 ( 1 3 . cxd5!?) 1 3 ... �h8
1 4 . .1l x e 7 'iW x e 7 1 5 . h 4 = J . L arsen­
Aagaard, Denmark 1 980;
b) Another reasonable idea is 5 . . . g6
6 . <tlf3 .l1g7 7 . .l1e2 0-0 oo NCO (by
transposition);
4) 4 . . . g6 5.d4 <tld7 6.<tlf3 exd4:
a) 7.<tlxd4 .l1g7 8.e3 <tlgf6 9.<tlc3 0-0
1 O . .l1e2 <tlc5 1 1 . 0-0 !! e8 1 2 . !! c l h5
1 3.<tld5 <tlg4 1 4.h3 <tlf6 1 5 .�c2 .l1d7
with more or l e s s equal chan c e s ,
Sanguinetti-Bielicki, Punta d e l Este
1 964;
b) 7 . .l1xd4!? <tlgf6 8.e3 (8.g4!?) 8 . . . .l1g7
9.Ae2 0-0 10.0-0 is perhaps better for
White;
C) 3 . . . <tlf6 (most popular)
1) 4.<tlf3 .lle7 5.e3 0-0 (According to
theory 5 . . . e4 isn't recommendable, as
demonstrated in Game 7 5 : Sokolsky­
Mnacakanian, Vladimir 1 960) 6 . .1le2 is
usual (but 6.<tlc3 and 6.d4 are okay too)
 l .b4 e5 2.Ab2 d6

(ii) 7 . . . e4!? 8.<tle1 oo ( :!!: 8.<tld4 c5);

d) 6 . . . b6 Game 69;

2) 4.<tlc3 g6 5 .g3 Ag7 6.Ag2 0-0 7.d3

<tlc6 8.b5 <tle7 9.e4 Ad7 10.<tlge2 h5
1 1 .h3 �c8 1 2.a4 a6 1 3.�b3 <tlh7 14.f4
c6 1 5 .E!b1 E! e8 1 6.fxe5 dxe5 17.bxa6
b x a 6 1 8 . -'t a 3 <tlg5 1 9 . �b7 �d8
20.Ac5 <tle6 2 l . Ab6 �c8 2 2 .�xc8
<tlxc8 2 3 . Ae3 Af8 2 4 . a 5 � Vokac­
Dochev, Pardubice 1 998;

a) 6 . . . <tlbd7 7 .<tlc3 c6 8.d4 exd4 (8 . . . a6 3) 4.e3:

Game 76: Katalymov-Suetin, Moscow a) 4 ... g6, Chapter 5;
1 959; 8 . . . e4 9.<tld2 d5 10.b5 � Soltis) b) 4 ... Ae7 Games 69 and 75;
(i) 9.<tlxd4 a5 1 0.a3 axb4 1 l .axb4 !! xa1 c) If 4 ... d5 simplest is 5 .a3;
1 2 .�xa1 <tle5 1 3 . 0-0 �b6 14.<tla4 �c7
( 1 4 . . . �xb4?? 1 5 .Ac3 +- ) 1 5 .h3 with D) 3 . . . c6:
slightly greater activity. White can think
of f2-f4 to expel the e5-knight; 1) 4.a4 a6 5 .<tlc3 <tlf6 6.e3 Ae6 7.<tlf3
(ii) Inferior is 9.�xd4 �b6 1 0.b5 E! d8 Ae7 8.�c2 0-0 9.Ae2 �d7 1 0.a5 h6
1 1 .0-0 <tlc5 1 2.E!fd1 ..itf5 1 3 :ili'f4 Ac2 1 1 . <tla4 itd8 1 2 . c 5 <tl d 5 1 3 . A c 3
14.E!d2 <tle6 1 5 .�h4 Ag6 1 6:lli'h3 a6 ( 1 3 . cxd6!?) 1 3 . . .f6 1 4 . d4 e 4 1 5 .<tld2
17.a4 axb5 18.axb5 E! xa1 + 19.Axa1 d5 ( 1 5 . � x e 4 Af5 1 6 . 'lli' h 4 oo ) 1 5 . . . f5
Black is better because of the poor po­ 1 6 . <tlc4 ffe7? ( B lack s h o u l d play
sition of the white queen, Melich­ 16 . . . dxc5) 17.<tlxd6 (17.cxd6!? clears c5
Horak, Ceske Budejovice 1 992; for a kni ght) 1 7 . . . E! a7 1 8 .g3 Ac7
b) 6 . . . a5: 1 9 . <tlc4 <tld7 20. <tlab6 B lack has no
(i) 7.a3 axb4 8.axb4 E! xa 1 9.Axa1 <tla6 compensation for the pawn, De Visser­
1 0 .b5 <tlc5 1 l .<tlc3 White will prepare Roosink, Haarlem 2002;
d2-d4 and achieve the more active po­
sition; 2) 4.e3
(ii) 7.b5 <tlbd7 8.d4 exd4 9.exd4 d5
1 0.c5 E! e8 1 l .<tlc3 b6
(a) 1 2 .c6 <tlf8 1 3 .0-0 Ad6 1 4.h3 iU5
1 5 .Ad3 ite4 16.E! e 1 = ;
(b) White should not follow Sokolsky's
suggestion of 1 2 .<tle5? <t\xe5 1 3 .dxe5
d4 with good play for Black;
c) 6 . . . h6 7.0-0
( i ) 7 . . . Ae6 8 . <tlc 3 <tlbd7 9 . d4 c6
1 0 .'�c2 Now White i s thinking of
queenside expansion with a2-a4, b4-b5
and so on;

242
 The Sokolsky Opening

a) 4 . . . <tlf6 7.0-0 0-0=) 7.0-0 0-0 8.b5 a6 9.a4 axb5

(i) 5 .<tlf3 .llg4 6 . .1le2 <tlbd7 7.h3 .ll xf3
8 . .1lxf3 �b6 9.�b3 a5 1 0.bxa5 f! xa5
l l .<tlc3 .lle 7 1 2 . 0-0 0-0 1 3 .d4 f! fa8
with pressure down the a-file, although
the chances are about equal, Fahrner­
Ebner, Graz 1 993 ;
(ii) In the very earliest l .b4 game we
know of(Skipworth-Cuthbertson, Lon­
don 1 868) White tried the odd 5 . .1ld3
Ae7 6.<tle2 <tla6 7.'l!i'b3 e4 8 . .1lc2 .llg4
9.<tlbc3 with equality, although both
sides' play could be improved;
b) 4 . . ..1le6 5.<tlf3 <tld7 6 . .1le2 .lle7 7.0-0
.llf6 8.d4 �c7 (8 . . . e4!?) 9.<tlbd2 .llf5
1 0 .e4 .ll g 6 1 l . 'l!i<b3 <t\e7 1 2 . f! ac 1 =
Rustamov-Zhuravliov, Ozery 1 997;
1 0 . axb5 f! x a 1 1 1..lt x a 1 b6 1 2 . <tlc3
<tlbd7 1 3.'l!i<c2 <tlc5 14.d4 exd4 1 5 .exd4
<tlb7 1 6.d5 ;!; Holz auf der Heide-Roth,
Germany 1 996;
F) 3 . . . .1lf5 4.e3 ( 4.g4? .ll xg4 5 ..1lg2 c6
White has little or no compensation for
the pawn) 4 . . . U6 5.<tlf3 .lle7 6 . .1le2 0-0
7.0-0=;
G) 3 .. .f6 4.e3 Game 72;
H) 3 . . ..1le7 4.e3 f5 5 .<tlf3 <tlf6 trans­
poses to the main line .
4.e3

E) 3 ... .1le6 4.e3 4.<tlf3 <tlf6 5 .e3 transposes.

1) 4 . . ..1le7 5.<tlc3 <tlf6 6.<tlf3 0-0 7.�c2 4 . . . 4)f6

.£Jc6 8.a3 a5 9.b5 <tlb8 10 . .1le2 �d7
1 1 .0-0 .ll£5 1 2 .e4 Ag4 1 3 .d4 Usual and best. Black proceeds with
a) 1 3 . . . exd4 1 4.<t\xd4 .ll x e2 1 5 .'l!i<xe2 kingside mobilization. Black didn 't do
f!e8 16.<tlf5 .llf8 17.�f3 'l!i<e6 18.f!fe 1 well in Lalic-Milligan, Eastboume 1 990:
.£Jbd7 ( 1 8 . . . �xc4?? 1 9 .<tld5 winning; 4 . . ..1le6 5 .<tlf3 .£Jd7 6.d4 e4? (6 . . . c6!? is
e.g., 19 . . . <tlbd7 [ 1 9 . . . <tlxd5 allows a recommended) 7.d5! .llf7 8.<tld4 <tlh6
mate in 9 : 20.<tlh6+ ! �h8 2 1 .exd5 etc.] 9.'l!i<a4 c6 10.dxc6 <tlb6 1 1 .'l!i<c2 bxc6
20 . .1lxf6 <t\xf6 2 1 .<t\xf6+ gxf6 22.�g4+ 1 2 .<tlxc6 with the advantage.
�h8 2 3 . f! e 3 etc . ) 1 9 . <tld 5 <t\ x d 5
20.cxd5 'l!i<g6 2 l .f!acl f! ac8 22.f!e3
Opocensky-Halvorsen, Prague 1 93 1 .
White is clearly better and threatens
'l!i<f3-h3 with a dangerous attack;
b) 1 3 . . .Axf3 14 . .1lxf3 exd4 1 5 .<tle2 c5
16.bxc6 <t\xc6 17.<t\xd4 <t\xd4 18 . .1lxd4
f!fc8 19.'l!i<eU ;

2) 4 . . . g6 5 .<tlf3 .llg7 6 . .1le2 <tlf6 7.0-0

0-0 8 . d4 (or 8 . <tlc3 first) 8 . . . e x d4
9.<tlxd4 <tlbd7 1 0.<tlc3 a5 1 1 .a3 axb4
1 2 . axb4 f! xa 1 1 3 .'l!i<xa1 and White is a
bit more active; S.4)f3

3) 4 . . . <tlf6 5 . .1le2 (5.<tlf3 .lle7 6 . .1le2 A few players prefer to develop the
transposes) 5 . . ..1le7 6.<tlf3 h6 (6 . . . <tlbd7 other knight first, which is also good.

243
 l .b4 e5 2 . .Q.b2 d6
5.4jc3
A) 5 . . . .Q.e6 6.4Jf3
1) 6 . . . h6 7.b5 4Jbd7 8.d4 g5 9.a4 ..llg7
1 0 : � c 2 e4 ( 1 0 . . . 0 - 0 ! ? 1 l . d 5 ..ll f7
1 2 .�xf5 4Jc5 � ) 1 l .d5 exf3 1 2 .dxe6
4Je5 13.4Jd5 c6 14.Axe5 dxe5 1 5.�xf5
�a5 + 1 6.'\t'd1 cxd5? ( o 1 6 . . . 0-0-0)
17:�g6+ �e7 18.�xg7+ (strictly more
accurate is 18.�f7+ �d8 1 9.�xg7 +- )
1 8 . . . '<t'xe6 19.cxd5+ <it>xd5 20.�xf6 (or
again 20.�f7+) 20 . . . !! hf8 2 1 ...1lc4+!
�xc4 22 .�e6+ 1 -0, Timofeev-Ubert,
Moscow 1 965 ;
2) 6 . . . Ae7 7.a3 (or of course 7.d4!?)
7 . . . 0 - 0 8 . d4 e4 9 . 4Jd 2 ( 9 . 4Jg 5 ! ?)
9 . . . 4Jbd7 1 0.c5 d5 1 1 .4Jb3 c6 1 2 .a4
�c7 (Threatening . . . f4-f5) 1 3 .g3 h6
14 . ..1le2 4Jg4 1 5 . b5 4Jgf6 Y2-Y2, Van
Oosterom-Ris, Rijswijk 2000;
B) 5 . . . ..1le7 6.4Jf3
1) 6 . . . e4 voluntarily opens the long dark
diagonal for White 's pieces. Game 77:
Katalymov-Liberson, Rostov 1 960;
2) 6 . . . 0-0 (best) Game 79: Sokolsky­
Persits, corr 1 968;
3) 6 ... c6 7 ..ile2 0-0 8.0-0=;
244
C) 5 . . . g6
1) 6.d3 ..llg7 7.�b3 0-0 8 . ..1le2 c6 9.4Jf3
Ae6 10.4Jg5 ;t Feldman-Burrows, New
York 1 999;
2) 6.Ae2 Ag7 7.4Jh3!?;
3) 6.4Jf3 Ag7 7.Ae2 0-0 8.0-0 c6=.
The central strike merits further tests.
5 .d4
A) 5 . . . 4Jbd7 6.4Jf3 e4 7.4Jfd2 g6 8 . .lle2
Ag7 9 . 0-0 0-0 1 0.�b3 c6 1 l .a4 g5
1 2.4Jc3 �e8 1 3 .c5+ d5 14.b5 f4 1 5 .a5
a6 16.bxa6 bxa6 1 7.4Ja4 .Q.h6 with a
dynamic position (although it ended in
a draw), Lorenc-Poloch, Tatranske
Zruby 2005;
B ) 5 . . . e4 6 . 4J c 3 c6 7 . d 5 ! ? cxd5
8.4Jxd5 ;t ;
C) 5 . . . exd4 6.exd4 c6
1) 7.4Jf3 .Q.e7 8.Ad3 0-0 9.0-0 4Jbd7?
( o 9 . . . 4Ja6) 1 0 . .ilxf5 ± Hirt-Lehnert,
corr 1 98 8 ;
2 ) 7.a4 �e7+ 8 . .il e 2 g 6 9 .4Jf3 ..llg7
1 0 . 0-0 0-0 1 1 .4Jc3 4Je4 oo B akker­
Mento, corr 1 976.
s ... .Q.e7
 The Sokolsky Opening

The logical favorite. 5 . . . a5 Game 7 8 : -ttle 8 1 3.Ac4 ± ) 1 2 .c5+ '<t>e8 1 3.-iJd2 c6

Sokolsky-Lavdansky, Vladimir 1 960. 14.-iJf3 ± Adam-Stephan, corr 1 989.

6 . . . e4

6 . . . 0-0 7.-ttlb 3 '<t>h8 8.-iJc3 e4 Game 79.

6.d4

White delays kingside development in

order to strike in the center.

A) 6.-iJc3 transposes to 5 .-iJc3 �e7

6.-iJf3 in the notes above; S.bS

Also possible is the rare 8.-ttlb 3; e.g.,

1) 6 . . . e4 7.-iJd4 c5 8.-iJc2 -tt:lc7 9.-iJc3
0-0 1 O.d4 -iJc6 1 1 .-iJd5 (White should
swap pawns first, i . e . , l l .dxc5 dxc5
1 2 . -iJd 5 ) l l . . . -iJxd5 1 2 . c x d 5 -iJxb4
13.-iJxb4 cxb4 14.-ttf xb4 �d7 (14 ... a5!?)
1 5 .E! c 1 -ttl b 6 1 6 .-ttl x b6 axb6 1 7 . �c4
E! fc8 ( 1 7 .. .f4!?) 18.'<t>d2 '<t>f8 19.�b3
f! xc l 20J�(xcl .Q.d8 is roughly equal
although White won in the end, Grund­
Dobrev, corr 1 975;
2) 6 . . . Ae6 7 .d4
a) 7 . . . exd4 8.-iJxd4 -ttfd7 9.Ad3 -iJc6
10.-iJxe6 -ttf x e6 1 1 .0-0 0-0 1 2 .-iJc3 -iJe5
13.AeU ;
b) 7 . . . -iJbd7 8 . d x e 5 d x e 5 9 . Ae 2
(9.-iJxe5 gains a pawn at the cost of
development) 9 . . .0-0? (better is 9 . . . c5
and if 10.-iJg5 then 10 . . . .1lg8) 10.-iJg5
Af7 l l .-iJxf7 '<t'xf7 ( l l . . . f! xf7 1 2 .c5
8 . . . c6 9.-iJc3 0-0 10 . .1le2=.
8 . . . c 6 9 . a4 0-0 1 0 . � b3 .Q.e6
1 1.4)c3 4)bd7 1 2 ..Q.e2 �e81?
The queen goes kingside, which is nor­
mal for Dutch-style systems.
A) 1 2 . . . c 5 ? ! Game 8 0 : S okol sky­
Samarian, corr 1 95 8 ;
B) 1 2 . . . �h8 1 3.0-0 (or 1 3.Aa3 a s i n the
m a i n l in e ) 1 3 . . : tii' c 7 1 4 . a 5 oo .
White exchanges his bad bishop for
B lack's good one.
1 3 . 0-0 itif7 1 4 .Aa3 .ll x a3 1 5 J h a3
E!fc8=.

245
 l .b4 e5 2.Ab2 d6

13 ••• .Q. x a3 Game 68

Cerny-Cominetti
Teplice 2006

t .b4 e5 2 .Q.b2 d6 3.e3 .£)f6 4.c4

•

.£)bd7 5 .£){3 .Q.e7

•

5 . . . g6, Game 45.

6.d4 e4

Black prefers a closed center. 6 . . . exd4

7.exd4!? seems better for White than
7.<tlxd4 0-0 8.Ae2 c5.
t4:�xa3
7 .£)fd2 d5
•

Best because the white queen could find

d6 a very useful stopover.

A) Less clear is 14.f!. xa3 �g6 1 5 .g3

1) 1 5 . . . c5!?;

2) 15 . . . f!. ac8 is well met by 1 6.c5! b6

17.bxc6 f!. xc6 18.Ab5 f!. c7 19.Axd7
f!. xd7 (19 .. A:Jxd7!?) 20.cxb6 f!.b7 2 1 .a5
f!. c8 2 2 .�b2 ± Geisensetter-Knebel,
corr 1 98 1 ;
8.cxd5
B) Alternatively White can pull a sur-
prise with 1 4 .bxc6!? Ae7 (14 . . . bxc6 8.a3 a5 9.b5 dxc4 1 0.<tlxc4=.
1 5 . � x a 3 = ) 1 5 . c x d 5 Af7 1 6 . c x d7
�xd7 °0 • 8 .Q. x b4 9.'�b3 .Q. x d2+ 10 .£) xd2
••• •

0-0 l l .Etct .£)b6 12 .Q.c4 .£) xc4

•

t4 :�·g6 15:t\•d6 Etae8 16.0-0

••

If 1 2 . . . <£lbxd5, then 1 3 .<tlxe4 ± .

White has completed his first phase of
development and has good chances to 13.�xc4 .£) xd5 14 .£) xe4 c6 15.0-0
•

win, but the line must be tested in prac­ Ete8 16 .£) g3 Ae6 17. �c5 �b6
•

tice. 18. � x b6?!

S u m mary: Black has a clear plan of White shouldn't initiate the exchange.
action - a kings ide attack involving the 18.�a3!? avoids it altogether.
queen - so White must play forcefully,
and we recommend 1 3 .Ab2-a3! 18 ••• .£) xb6

246
 The Sokolsky Opening

18 . . . axb6!? with instant pressure on the The king arrives at the party after a short
a-pawn, looks even stronger. journey.

19.Etal �c4 20.Etfbl f5 21.�h5 34 ... .sl,d5

� x b2?
34 .. .'�g8 35.f3 !! f8 36.h5 and Black is
Black exchanges a good piece for a bad under pressure all over the board.
one, which doesn 't make sense.
35.f3
2 l . . . .llf7 !? 2 2 .�f4 g5 23 .�h3 h6 and
Black is much better placed. The simple 35.!! xb5! .ll x g2 36.f3 gives
Black a headache over his bishop.
22. Et x b2 b6 23.a4 .sl,c4 24.Etb4
35 . . . Etb7 36.� x f5 �g8 37.Eta5
24.h4!? means that White can play �h5- lafS+ 38.�g4 h5+
f4 without worrying about . . g7-g5.
.

Desperation.
24 ... b5 25.axb5 cxb5 26.Eta6!

White's rooks block the passed pawns

quite effectively. Presumably Black was hoping to trap
the knight if it captures on g6, but even
26 ... �f7 27.h4 h6? that hope is a false one : 40.�xg6 .Q.f7
4l .!!a6 'it>h7 42.f4 !!g8 43.f5 +- .
The hole this leaves on g6 will be ex­
ploited by White. 40 ... .sl,e6+ 41.�g3 1-0

27 . . . !! e6!? 28.!!a5 a6 29.�f4 !! d6 and Game 69

Black is fairly solid. Agrest-Aldobasic
Umea 2003
28.�f4 Ete7 29.�g6 Etc7 30.�e5+
�f8 3 1 .�h2 Etac8 32.�g3 Aft l.b4 e5 2.J}.b2 d6 3.e3 �f6 4.c4
33.Etal .sl,c4 34.�f4 .sl.e7 5.�f3

5.�c3 - refer to the note in Game 7 5 .

5 ... 0-0

5 . . . e4, Game 75.

6.j},e2 b6

For alternatives see Chapter 8 .

7.0-0 .sl,b7 8.�c3 �bd7

247
 l .b4 e5 2 . .ilb2 d6

This doesn 't actually achieve anything.

16.�fl �gf6 17.�g3 c5 18.Etafl

Etc8 19.bxc5 dxc5 20.�ce4 � xe4
2l.� xe4 f6

A complex line is 2 l . . .cxd4 22.exd4

( 2 2 . t! xf7 dxe3 2 3 . c 5 1:::. 24.�c4 oo )
22 . . .f6 ( � 22 . . . t! e7 23.<£\d6!) 23.<£lg3
�e7 White is better although Black's
p o s i t i o n i s surpri s i n g l y solid
( � 23 ... �c7 24.�g6 or 24.<£lf5).

22.d5 'l!:/e7 23.�f2 �e5 24.Etg3

More frequently seen is 9.d4: �h8 25.�h3 g5

A) 9 . . . e4 10.<£\d2 d5 1 l .a3 c6 1 2 .c5 b5 Black weakens his kingside because he

1 3 . a4 a6 1 4 . '�b3 h6 1 5 .axb5 cxb5 is very concerned about <tlh3-f4.
( o 1 5 ... axb5) 16J�fcl White concen­
trates on the queenside (although he
could start to burst through the center
with 1 6 . f3 exf3 1 7 . A.xf3) 1 6 . . . Ac6
1 7 J ! a3 �c7 1 8 . t! ca l �b7 1 9 .�dl
t! a7 2 0 . <£\b 3 t! fa8 2 1 . <£\ a 5 �c8
22.�fl ± Lentner-IIten, Wattens 1 996;

B ) 9 . . . a6 1 0 . a4 ( 1 0 .d5 !?) 10 . . . �e8

l l .�c2 exd4 1 2 .exd4 �d8 1 3 .d5 c6
1 4 . t! adl cxd5 1 5 .cxd5 t! c8 1 6.�f5
t! c7 17.t!fe l t! e8 18.b5 a5 19.<£\d4 ±
Myslowski-Doucin, Paris 1 989.

9 •.. h6 10.a3 Ete8 l l.d4 e4?

Even better is 26.Axe5 �xe5 27.�g6
Weak because it enables White to open Ag7 28.<£\f4!.
the f-file, as we shall see. Better is
l l . . . exd4!?. 2 6 '1!:/ h 7
. • . 2 7 . '1!:/ x h7 + � x h7
28.Jl,xe5 fxe5
t 2.�d2 Af8 13.f3t
28 . . . t! xe5? 29.<£lg4 and Black loses the
White 's pieces are better-placed than f6-pawn (or the exchange).
Black's to exploit an opening-up of the
position. 29.�e4

13 . . . exf3 14 . .Q. x f3 A x f3 1 5 . Et x f3 The knight is superbly placed. Black is

�g4 of course strategically lost.

248
 The Sokolsky Opening

29 . . . E{e7 30.Etgf3 Jlg7 31 .d6 Eib7 13 ..• f4 14.e4

32.E{f7 E{cb8
32 . . . f! xf7 33.f!xf7 'it>g6 34.f! xa7 +- .
3:Uk7 lit'g8
33 . . . E! xc7 34.dxc7 E!c8 35.E!t7 +- .
34.E{ff7 E{ xc7 3S.dxc7 1-0
14.e3 .llg4! .
14 . . . Jth3 1 S.d4
Not recommended is 1 5 . .1lxh3 �xh3
16.4Jg5 �h5 17.h4 (1 7.4Je6 4Jg4 18.h4
.ll x h4! -+ ) 17 . . . 4Jg4 with a strong at-
tack.

35 . . . E! c8 36.4Jd6 +- . 1S .•. �g4 16.dxeS

Game 70 Black gets more than sufficient long-

Miral/es-Bologan
France 2003
l .b4 eS 2.j'tb2 d6 3.g3 fS 4.j'tg2
�f6 s.c4 Jte7 6. �b3
6.d4, Chapter 8; 6.4Jf3 0-0 7.�b3 trans­
poses to the game.
6 . . . 0-0 7 . � f3 (7.4Jh3!?) 7
8.0-0 �e8 9.�c3 �hS
term compensation after 1 6 . .1l x h 3
�xh3 1 7 . dx e 5 fx g3 1 8 . fxg3 E! xf3 !
19.E! xf3 �xh2+ 20.'it>fl dxe5 thanks to
his kingside pawns.
16 .•• dxeS
More decisive is 1 6 . . .fxg3 !? 1 7 .hxg3
(We a l ready saw 1 7 . fx g3 .ll. x g 2
.•. �h8 18.'iftxg2 f! xf3 19.f! xf3 �xh2+ 20.'iftfl
dxe5 in the previous note) 17 . . . .§ xf3!
18.�xf3 (18 . .1l.xf3 .ll.g 2 and it's mate
next move) 18 . . . E!f8 -+ .

17.Jl x h3 � x h3 lS.j't xeS

lO.�dS � xdS l l .cxdS �d7 12.d3

1 2 . E! ac 1 !? is attractive.

12 ... �f6 13.E{ael? 18 ..• Jtd6!

Th i s doesn ' t make a lot of sense. Otherwise Black's bishop isn 't assist-
13.E!ac 1 !? remains attractive. ing the attack.

249
 l .b4 e5 2 .,i,tb2 d6

19.Jld4 White chooses a central strike. But he

could also meet B lack head on with
1 9 . ..1lxd6 cxd6 2 0 . § e 2 t! f6 2 1 . t! c l 1 2 .f4!?.
§ af8 22.t!c3 §h6 -+ .
12 . . . e4
19 . . . fxg3 20.fxg3 Jl xg3!
Now White can play an active gambit,
Smash ! so the typical l 2 . . . �e8 ought to be con­
sidered instead.
2l.f!e2

2 1 .hxg3 permits mate in 1 0 starting

2 l . . .iit"xg3+ 22.'<t>hl § xf3! etc.

2 1 . . . JleS! 22.JlcS

It's hard to recommend anything by this

stage.

22 . ..1lxe5 4:Jxe5 23.t! ef2 �g4+ 24.'<t>hl

�xe4 -+ .
13.dS!
22 ... f!f6 23.f!g2 .£) x h2! 24.f!xh2
B lack 's hopes of an unchal lenged,
24.4:Jxh2 ..ll x h2+ 2 5 . § xh2 § xfl # . steady kingside attack are dashed.
White forces open the center for his
2 4 . . . j}. x h 2 + 2 S .£) x h 2
• f! g6 + pieces and exposes the black king.
26.'ifjlf2 � x h2+ 0-1
1 3 . . .c x d S 1 4 . jl x g7 'ifil x g7
Game 7 1 1S.t\'b2+ 'it'g8 16 . .£)d4 Jlf7 17.f31
Hubner-Asplund
Jerusalem 1 967 White is single-minded about breaking
the position up. Material considerations
l.b4 eS 2.jlb2 d6 3.g3 g6 are secondary.

For other moves consult Chapter 8 . 17 . . . e x f3 18 .£) 2 x f3 h6 1 9 . c x dS

•

j}. xdS?
4.Jlg2 j}.g7 s.e3 .£)e7 6 . .£) e 2 0-0
7 . 0 - 0 c 6 8 . c 4 .Q.e6 9 . d 3 .£) d 7 This looks okay but it leads to trouble.
1 0. .£) d 2 f S 1 1 . t\'c2 gS 19 . . . �b6!? maintains the tension.

Since Black is hurrying to attack, White 20 .£)d2

•

must not just sit and watch.

Stronger is 20.4:Jxg5! hxg5 (20 . . . ..1lxg2
12.d4 2 1 .4:Jge6 +- ) 2 1 .4:Jxf5 4:Jxf5 22 . ..1lxd5+

250
 The Sokolsky Opening

\t>h7 23.Ae4 and White will regain his 2S.e4 �hS??

piece with a clear advantage.
This loses. B lack wrongly imagines
20 ••• lac8 2 1 .11, xd5+
• he is s t a rt i n g a s e r i o u s at t a c k .
2 5 . . . 4J e 3 ! i s okay for Black, and shows
2 l . E! xf5 Axg2 2 2.<�) e6 .£\xf5 B l ack why 2 4 . "i1lb3-b2 was necessary for
gives up his queen because he is threat­ White.
ened with mate 23.4Jxd8 Ad5 24.e4
E! cxd8 Now White can choose between 26.exd5 4)g4 27. 4) x h6+!
bishop and knight, with a clear advan­
tage in both cases. This is the move that Black didn't ap­
preciate when he played 25."i!1e8-h5.
21 .•• 4) xd5 22.�b3 White's next best move achieves equal­
ity only: 27.4Je7+ \t>g7 28.'{;}-g6+ "i!1xg6
Simpler is 22.4Jxf5 i11f6 23."i1lb3 4J7b6 29.4Jxg6 E! xfl + 30.E! xfl �xg6=.
24.4Je4 ± .
27 .•. ~xh6
22 •.• 4)7f6
Or 27 . . . 4Jxh6 28.E! xf8+ �xf8 29."i!1h7
/:;. 30.E!fl + +- 0

28.la x f8+ t\'xf8

28 . . . �xf8 29."i!1f5 + 4Jf6 30.E!fl �g7

3 1 .4Je4 E!c2 32.h4 +- .

2 9 . t\' g 6 + t\'g7 3 0 . t\'e6+ � h 8

3 1 . t\' xg4 la xg3+ 32.hxg3 � xal+
3 3 . 4) f l t\' x a 2 3 4 . t\'hS+ �g7
3S.t\' xg5+ �f7 36.t\'f5+ �g8

23.4) xf5
Or 3 6 . . . �e7 3 7 . '{;}-e 6 + �d8
White gets confused by all the knights 38. "i!1xd6+ +- .
being close together. 23.4Jc4!? is stron­
ger, while 23.4Je6 "i!1e7 24.4Jxf8 E! c3 is
unclear.
Game 72
23 •.• Iac3 24. �bl? Soko/sky-Nei
USSR 1 95 5
Another inaccuracy. 24."i!1b2! keeps i n
touch with the c3-rook. l .b4 eS 2 .1lb2 d6 3.e3 f6
•

24 •.. t\'e8 Other moves, Chapter 8 .

All eyes are o n the e-pawn. 4.c4 g6 S.4)f3 .1lg7 6.d4 4)e7

25 1
 1 .b4 e5 2.Jlb2 d6

Another idea is 6 . . . .£lh6 and 7 . . . .£lf7 to Sokolsky analyzes 1 9 . . ...1lxb2 20.�xb2

reinforce the center. fx e4 2 1 . .£l x c 7 � ac8 2 2 . b6 Axc4
23 .Axc4 �xc4 24.�d4 �f7 25.� xe4
7.-'l.e2 0-0 8.4)c3 'i!lh8 9.0-0 .11.e 6 with a positional advantage.
10.a4 4)d7 l l .a5
20.exd5 'i!lg7 2 1 . E! a b l 4) g8
W h i te s e e m s to be making more 22.Aa3!
progress on the queenside than Black
is on the kingside. White threatens b5-b6, undermining the
support of the d6-pawn.
-~ "
22 ... b6 23.ax b6 ax b5 24.E!b3 bxc4
25 . .1}. x c4

ll ... a6 12.b5 f5 13.dxe5 4) xe5

After 1 3 . . . dxe5, Sokolsky intended

14 . .£ld5 !?.
25 . . . c5?
14.~xe_,
t:. .._
"xe515,G
,M,d2 't>gS
White 's reply to this move was unex­
Weaker is 15 . . . f4 because of 1 6 . .£le4! pecte d . Perhaps B l ack should try
fx e 3 ( 1 6 . . . .£lf5 1 7 . Jl x e 5 + d x e 5 25 . . . � a4!?; e.g., 26.�d3 cxb6 27 . ..1lxd6
18.�c3 +- ) 17.fxe3 � f5 18.� xf5 Jlxf5 �d8 28.� xb6 �a7 29.Jlc5 �c7 30.�c6
19.Jlxe5+ dxe5 20.'iik 3 and White can �xf4 and he has defended himself, in
take the e-pawn (if he wants it). the short term anyway.

t 6.f4 .11. f 6 1 7 . E!fdl �e8 1 8 . e4 26.dxc6! � x c4 27.�d5 �e2

�f7
27 . . . �xd5 2 8 . � xd5 is no good for
18 . . .fxe4 19 . .£lxe4 Jlxb2 20.�xb2 �f7 Black.
2 l .g3 ;t ( :!!: 2 1 ..£lg5 �xf4 [ :!!: 2 l . . .�f6
2 2 . �xf6 � x f6 2 3 . � e 1 !::,. 2 4 . Jlf3] 28.b7
2 2 . .£l x e 6 � e 3 + 2 3 . 'it> h 1 � x e 6
24.Jlf3 55 ). More forcing is 28.c7! � ac8 29.Axd6
.£le7 30.�d3 �xd3 3 l . � dxd3 � fe8
19.4)d5 .11. xd5 32.b7 +- .

252
 The Sokolsky Opening

28 ... .£ie7 29. �d31 39.�d3 .£idS 40.g3 �e6 4t.<�>d4

White must swap queens, otherwise he
gets into troubl e : 29.bxa8�? <tlxd5
30:�b7+ �f7 -+ ; 29.'�xd6? � fd8 -+ .
29 ... � x d3 30.E{dxd3 E{ x a3 31 .c71
.£i f6 4 2 . E{a8 .£i g4 43 . Eta 2 .£i f6
44. E{e2+ .£ie4 4S.Ete3
45.� xe4+? fxe4 46.�xe4 d5+ 47.�d4
'<!td6 is a draw.
4s �d7 46.�ds .£i f6+ 47.�c4
•..

Another sacrifice, but it's worth it for .£i e4 48.�bS .£i f6 49. Eta3 .£i g4
the powerful pawns. so.E{a2 �e6

31 ..• Jl,d4+ 50 . . . <tle3 5 l . � a8 <tlg4 5 2 . � g8 <tlxh2

53.� xg6 +- .
3 l . . . � x b3 3 2 . � x b 3 �d4 + 3 3 . �fl
transposes.
Sl.�c6 .£if6 S2.E{a8 .£ie4 S3.Ete8+
�f7 S4.E{d8 �e7 SS.Etd7+ �f6
3 2 . �f l Et x b3 3 3 . Et x b3 Jl.a7
56.~d5
34.b8� Jl, x b8 3 S .c x b8� Et x b8
36. E{ x b8
Quicker is 56.� xd6+!; e.g., 56 . . . <tlxd6
57.\t'xd6 �f7 (57 . . . g5 58.h4!!) 58.h3
The dust has cleared to show that White
( 5 8 . h4? Y2 - Y2 ) 58 . . . \t'f6 5 9 . h4 �f7
is the exchange up for a pawn and that
60.�d7 �f6 6l .�e8 �g7 62.�e7 '<!tg8
he still has a lot of work to do for the
63 .\t'f6 �h7 64 .�£7 �h6 65.�g8 g5
full point.
66.hxg5+ and so on.
36 �f6 37. �e2 h6
S6 ... gS S7.h4 gxf4 S8.gxf4 .£ic3+
•••

S9.�d4

Perhaps White is worried about drop­

ping the f-pawn, but 59. �xd6 <tle2
60.�d8 <tlxf4 6l .�f8+ should win too.

S 9 .£i e4 60. E{ h7 �g6 6 t . Etc7

. . •

.£id2 6 2 . Etc3 �f6 63.�dS .£i e4

64.Etc7 .£id2 6S.Etc6 .£if3

65 . . . <tle4 66.� xd6+ <tlxd6 67 .'<!txd6

�f7 68.�e5 �g6 69.�e6 +- .
38.E{h81
66. E{ x d6+ �g7
To stop . . . g6-g5 .
66 . . . �e7 67.�h6 +- .
3S . . . hs
6 7 . E{ a 6 .£i x h4 68.�eS �f7
38 . . . �g7 39.�d8 +- . 69.Eth6 1-0

253
 l .b4 e5 2.�b2 d6

Game 73 17 ... Ac8 18.t\'b3 �h7 19.Jlc3

Miralles-Seret
Belfort 1 983 More dynamic is 19.f4! exf4 20 . .11 xg7
'itfxg7 2 l .gxf4 ;!; .
l .b4 eS 2.Jlb2 d6 3.c4 g6 4.g3
19 •.• hS
4.e3 and 4.d4, Chapter 8 .
Black misses a good opportunity for
4 .•. Jlg7 1 9 . . .f4!?.
4 . . . 4Jf6 5 . .1tg2 �g7 6.4Jf3 0-0, Chap­
20.bS
ter 5.

s.Jlg2 {)e7

5 . . .f5 6.'�'b3!?.

6.d3 0-0 7.{)c3 c6 8.{)f3

20 ... axbS 21.c xbS h4

White stands better after 2 l . . . cxb5

22.!!bl yet it is Black's best option.

s . . . ds
8 .. .f5 9.0-0 h6 10.'�'b3 'it'h7= D.Primel.
22.b6
Prime) thinks this is dubious, but that's
a harsh judgment. The Frenchman pre­
fers 22.a6 bxa6 23.bxa6 f4 24 . .11a 5__. .

9.0-0 h6 10.{)d2 Jle6 l l .a4 {)d7

1 2.as 22 . . . f4

White 's queenside pawns are becoming
dangerous.
12 a6 1 3 . {) a4 fS 1 4 . la c l t\'e8
• . .
Better late than never, this move has to
be played for Black to achieve any
counterplay.

1 S . {) b3 ladS t 6 . {) bc S {) x e S 23.a6 h xg3

17. {) xcS
Black is desperate, and keeps things
17.bxc5? is well answered by 17 ... dxc4. sharp . Bad for B l ack of course is

254
 The Sokolsky Opening

23 . . . bxa6 2 4 . b7 Af5 2 5 . ..1la5 E! b8 33 . . . ..1lh6 34.Axf3 Axf3 35.'irtxf3 +- .

26 . ..1lc7.
34.E! x h6+!
24.a7
Decisive.
24.hxg3?! fxg3 25.fxg3 Ah6! Prime!, but
25.a7! is an improvement. 34 .•• <l!l xh6

24 j}_g4 25 .£l x b7 E!a8 26 .£Jd6

••• • •
34 . . . Axh6 35 . ..1lxe5 +- .
�d7 27.b7
35·E!hl + <l!lg5 36·Jl.dl+ (36.Ah3!)
27.f3!? Ae6 28.�a3 with the threat of
36 <l!lf6 37.Ah3 E!a8 38.� x a8
•..

29.b7 looks stronger.

� x d6 39.<l!lh4

27 E! x a7
White prepares a mating net.
.••

There ' s l i ttle hope in 2 7 . . . � x d6

2 8 . b x a 8 � g x h 2 + 2 9 . 'i!t x h 2 E! x a8 39 j}_f8 40. Jl.g5 + <l!lg7 4 1 . E!bl
•.•

30.�b7 +- . 1-0

28.b8� E! x b8 29.�xb8 Game 74

Sokolsky-Flohr
Moscow 1 953

l.b4 e5 2.Jl.b2 d6 3.c4 a5 4.b5 .£jf6

5.e3 -'l,e7 6 .£Jf3 0-0 7.Ae2
•

7.d4, Chapter 8.

7 ... c6 8 . .£lc3 E!e8 9.0-0 e4

9 . . . 4Jbd7, Chapter 8.

1 0 . .£jd4
29 .•• gx h2+?

29 ... Axe2!? is a better defense as it leads

to greater complications in which to go
wrong; e.g., 30.E!fel? (30.4Jf7 should
win ) 30 . . . gxf2+ 3 l .'i!txf2 ..ll x d3 32.E!al
(to stop ... E!a7-a2+) 32 ... E! xal 33.E!xal
�g4 and it's White who 's under pres­
sure.

30. <l!l x h 2 A x e 2 3 l . E! h l .£l g8

32.E!cel f3 33.<l!lg3+ .£Jh6

255
 l .b4 e5 2.Ab2 d6

10 ••• c5 Black misses out on the chances from

Black expels the knight from d4, but at
the cost of weakening control of the d5-
square. 10 . . . ii\'c7 is Sokolsky's sugges­
tion.
1 1 . 4) c 2 4) bd7 1 2 . d 3 e x d 3
1 3 . tlh d 3 4) e 5 1 4 . � d 2 j}_e6
15.4)a3!
2 4 . . . � e 7 ! 2 5 . .£lf5 ii\' x e 2 2 6 . .£lxd6
(rather than 26.'li\'xe2? E! xe2 27 . ..1lxf6
.Q.f8 ! w i th good p l ay) 2 6 . . . ii\'xd2
27.f! xd2 .£le4 28 . .£lxe4 E! xe4 29.f!cl
.£lxc4 3 0 . E! dc 2 .£\xb2 3 l . f! x b2 b6
32.E!d2 E! d8 with a more or less equal
ending.

White protects the c4-pawn and empha­ 26.g4!? threatens 27 . .£lf5 among other
sizes his control of the d-file. 1 5 . .£ld5?! things .
.ll x d5 16.cxd5 completely changes the
central situation and loses White his 26 ••• h5 27.4)c3 4) f6 28.4)bl
positional plusses.
28.E!de l !? looks better.
15 ••• -'tf5 16.f3 4)ed7 17.e4
28 ••• 4)g4 29.4) xg4 � xg4 30 .£)c3 •

White could change direction with f5

1 7.g4!? ..llg6 18.g5 .£lh5 19.£4, which
looks promising for him. The c3-knight is denied the e4-square,
but at the same time Black weakens his
17 jlg6 18.E{adl 4)b6 19.4)c2
••• control of e6. After 30 . . . ii\'g6! White
won't be able to defend the c4-pawn.
Having done its job protecting the c4-
pawn, the knight now heads for e3 to 3l.E{det )axel 32.E{xel
increase control of d5.

19 ••• d5!?

Black solves the problem of his back­

ward pawn by giving it away, but will
he receive enough compensation?

20.exd5?!

The other two captures were possibly

better.

20 jld6 2 1 .f4 �c7 22.g3 -'lh5

••• 32 ••• 11. x f4 33.1ae6
23.4)e3
Stronger is 33.h3!? �g5 34.E!fl .lle5
Not 23 . .1lxh5? .£lxc4 with the initiative. 3 5 . E! x f5 �g6 3 6 . E! f8 + ( s i mp l e st)
36 . . . 'it'h7 37. �xg6+ 'it'xg6 38.f! xa8
23 ••• j}_ xe2 24.4) xe2 .£)e4? .£lxa8 39.'it'f3 ± .

256
 The Sokolsky Opening

33 ••. Jtc7 42 . . . 'it>d7 43:�·g7+ 'it>e6 44.'llt'e 7+ 'it>f5

45.'llt'f6+ 'it>xe4 46:lli'f3 "" .
33 . . . .1ld6!? is possible because 34.§. xd6
<£\xc4 3 5 . §. d7 f4 gives White a few Game 75
things to think about. Sokolsky-Mnatsakanian
Vladimir 1 960
34.d6 j},dS
l.b4 e5 2.ltb2 d6 3.c4 .£)f6 4.e3
34 . . . §.d8 35 .<£ld5!. lte7 5 . .£lf3

35.h3 5.<£lc3 0-0 6.<£lf3 is a safer line for White

because now 6 . . . e4 can be met by
Good but not best. 3 5 . <£ld 5 ! <£\xc4 7.<£\g5.
( 3 5 . . . h4 3 6 . <£\xb6 .ll xb6 3 7 . d7 +- ;
3 5 . . . 'llt' x c4 3 6 . §. e8+ 'it>f7 3 7 .'l!i' x f5 + 5 ... e4
�xeS 3 8 . d 7 + <£\ x d7 3 9 . 'llt' g 6+ 'it>f8
4 0 . A x g 7 + mating) 3 6 . <£\f4 <£\ x b 2 5 . . . 0-0, Chapter 8 .
37.'lli'd 5 +- .
6 . .£)d4 c5 7 .£)c2
•

35 ... � x c4 36.�xf5 j},f6 37.gxf6!

There is little Black can do now.

37 ... gxf6 38.�g6+ <if]f8 39.�xf6+

�f7

39 . . . 'it>g8 40.'llt' g 6+ 'it'f8 4 1 ..1lc l 'llt'f7

42 . .1lh6+ 'it'e8 43.'lli'e 4+ 'it'd8 44 . .1le3
is bleak for Black.

40.�h6+
Or 4 0 . 'lli' h 8 + 'lli' g 8 4 1 . 'llt' h 6 + 'it>e8
(4 1 . . .'lli'g7 42.'l!i'xg7+ 'it'xg7 43.<£\a4+
�f7 4 4 . <£\ x b 6 +- ) 4 2 . 'llt' e 3 + 'it>f7
43.'llt'e 7+ 'it>g6 44.<£le4 mating.
40... <if]e8 41 . .£)e4 �d5
7 ... a5?!
B l ack has better mov e s . A lthoff­
Polenske, Kaufungen 2003 continued
7 . . . 0-0 8.<£lc3 <£\c6 9.b5 <£\e5 1 0 . d4
exd3 l l . .ll x d3 .lle6 with a good game;
7 . . . <£\c6!?.

Black prolongs the game by 4 1 . . .<£\d7 8.b5 d5

4 2 . 'llt' h 8 + 'lli' f8 4 3 . 'l!i' x h 5 + 'lli' f7
(43 . . . 'it>d8 44.'lli'd 5 +- ) 44.'lli'h 8+ 'llt'f8 A typical move that ensures Black gets
45.'lli'h4 but his position is very diffi­ good play.
cult.
9.cxd5 � xd5 10 . .£)c3 �g5 11 . .£)a3
42.�h8+ 1-0 j},e6 12. �a4

257
 l .b4 e5 2.-'tb2 d6

Interesting is 1 2:�c2!? �g6 1 3.d3 exd3 2 8 . A f S E! a 3 2 9 . � x e4 + � x e4

1 4 .Axd3 �xg2 1 5 . 0-0-0 with sharp 30.�xe4 E!a2 3l.�c3 1-0
play.
Game 76
1 2 . . ; � f S 1 3 . h 3 � bd7 1 4 . � c4 Katalymov-Suetin
�xc4 1S.�xc4 �b6 16:�b3 Moscow 1 959

l .b4 eS 2 ..Q.b2 d6 3.c4 Ae7 4.�c3

c6 s.e3 �d7 6.d4 �gf6 7.�f3 0-0
8.�e2

16 ... a4?

Black imagines he will win a piece, in

fact he will lose a pawn. Simply 16 . . . 0-0!
gives him a comfortable game. 8 .•. a6

17.�xf7+! �d7 A) 8 . . . e4 9 . .£ld2 d5 1 0 . c x d 5 cxd5

1 l .�b3=;
Otherwise White will reply with �b3-
e6 forcing the exchange of queens, with B) 8 ... exd4 transposes to Melich-Horak
the advantage. in the notes to Chapter 8.

18.g4! axb3 9. 'ltb3 b S IO.cS

1 8 . . . �xf2+ 19.'it>xf2 axb3 20 . ..\lxb3 ± .
1 9 . g x fS b x a 2 2 0 . � e 6 + � d 6
21.E! xa2
White goes a pawn up, which ought to
be sufficient to decide this game.
2 1 . g6 2 2 . E! x a8 E! x a8 2 3 . �e 2
• •
g xfS 24.� xfS �c4 2S.�al �eS
26.�g4 hS 27.f4+ �d6
White keeps the game relatively closed.
Black would have no problems after
10.0-0 bxc4 1 l .�xc4 l:!b8 etc.
to ... as
After 1 0 . . . e4 l l . .£Jd2 d5 1 2 .a4, White
w o u l d have g ood chances on the
queenside. At some point he may be
able to sacrifice a piece on b5 for two
pawns.

27 . . . exf3+ 28.-'txf3 +- . l l .dxeS dxeS?

258
 The Sokolsky Opening
This automatic recapture neglects the
s i tuation of B l ack ' s l i ght-squared
bishop. Following l l . . .<t\xe5! 1 2 .<t\xe5
( 1 2 . c xd6 Axd6 is good for B l ack)
1 2 . . . d x e 5 1 3 . a 3 Ae6 the b i shop
emerges with tempo.
12.a3 'thc7 13.0-0 a4
Sokolsky thought that 13 . . . axb4 etc. ,
reducing material, would ease Black's
defense.
..M. 2 ~e8 15 . .£)e4
14.ec
White plans § a l -dl and <t\e4-d6 with
a positional advantage.
1 5 ... 4) xe4
Sokolsky suggests 1 5 . . . .11b 7!? 16.§adl
and only now 1 6 ... <t\xe4 followed by
1 7.�xe4 f6. However, after 1 8.<t\h4!
White has various good attacking ideas;
e . g . , 1 9 . § xd7!? ( 1 9 . f4 !?) 1 9 . . .'�xd7
20.Ad3 g6 2 l .<t\xg6! ; 1 5 . . . Af8!?.
16.'thxe4 .§a7
17.A x e5!
The start of a deep combination.
t7 ... Af6
259
A) 17 . . . .11 x c5 1 8.Axc7 (also good for
White, but more complex, are 18.§fc l !?
and 1 8 .Ad3 <t\ x e 5 1 9 . � x h 7 + 'it'f8
20.<t\xe5 �xe5 2 l .bxc5) 1 8 . . . § x e4
1 9.Ag3 Ab6 20. § fdl Black's pieces
are in a tangle and he could easily go
wrong; e.g., 20 . . . § e8? loses to 2 l .§acl
§ e6 22 .Axb5 ;
B) 1 7 . . . <t\xe5 1 8 .�xe5 Ag4 leaves
Black a pawn down in what is likely to
be a queenless endgame.
1 8 . A x c7 .§ x e4 1 9 . Ad 6 � x a l
20 . .§ x al
White has sacrificed material but in re­
turn he will raise irresistible pressure
against Black's queenside pawns.
20 . . . .§e8 2 1 . 4) d4 Ab7 2 2 . �f3
4)b8
If 22 . . . § c8, then 23.<tlf5! threatening
24.<tle7+.
2 3 . -'l. x bS .§ x b8 24 . Jl, x c6 A a 6
25.f4 �f8 26.�f2 g6 2 7. .§dl .§c7
2 8 . Af3 Ac8 2 9 . 4) c 6 .§ bb7
3 0 . .§d8+ �g7 3 1 . .£l d4 .§b8
32.Jl.c6
It's hopeless for Black.
 l .b4 e5 2 . .Q.b2 d6

32 <ifj>f6 33.Jl. x bS E{a8 34 .Q.c6

••• • age on the queenside pawn structure.
E{a6 3S.bS E{axc6 36 .£) xc6 .Q.b7
• Better is 8 . . . 4Jxd4! 9.Axd4 0-0 with a
37.e4 <it>g7 normal game.

37 . . . Axc6 38.b6 +- . 9 . .£) x c 6 b x c6 1 0 .£) x e7+ � x e7

•

l l .Q.e2 j}_e6 1 2.0-0 .£)g4 13.f4!?

•

38.E{d6 fS 39.eS 1-0

White 's idea is to stop a black pawn
Game 77 storm.
Katalymov-Liberson
Rostov 1 960 13 . . . exf3 14.E{ xf3 .£)eS

1 .b4 eS 2 .Q.b2 d6 3.c4 fS 4 .£)c3

• • 14 .. :�·h4!? is better as it prevents White
.£)f6 s.e3 .Q.e7 6 .£)f3 e4
• from getting the comfortable develop­
ment that he did in the game.
Better is 6 . . . 0-0, Game 79; 6 . . . c6, Chap­
ter 8. 1S.!ag3! .Q.d7

7.4)d4 4)c6 1 5 . . . f4 1 6 . e x f4 � x f4 1 7 . d4 4Jg6

7 ... c5!? We have seen this kind of thing
lots of times - the knight is driven from
f3 to d4, and then . . . c7-c5 hits both the
knight and the b-pawn.
(17 . . . 4Jxc4 1 8.'�cl �f7 1 9 .d5 4Jxb2
20.dxe6 �f6 2 1 .�xc6 � f8 22 .�c3 with
the advantage, according to Sokolsky)
18.d5 cxd5 19.cxd5 .IUS 20.�d2 White
is better thanks to his bishop-pair.

8.4)d5

8.4Jxc6!? bxc6 9.d4!?.

16.cS! f4

The pawn is taboo : 1 6 . . . dxc5 17.bxc5

�xc5? 1 8 .�b3+ �h8 1 9 . d4 wins a
8 . . . 0-0?! piece.

Castling is usually desirable but at this 17 . e x f4 E{ x f4 1 8 . � b 3 + <ifj> h 8

moment it allows White to inflict dam- 1 9 . �e3! !aaf8

260
 The Sokolsky Opening

Sokolsky analyzes 1 9 . . . § xb4 20 . .llc 3 = B C 0 2 . The b i shop is o ften

§ h4 2 l .§fl and although White is a fianchettoed in these sorts of positions.
pawn down, he has a clear advantage.
7 .d4 e4 8.�fd2 .Q.g7 9.�c3 0-0
20 . .Q.c3 '1!1f7 2 1 .c x d6 c x d6 10.'1!1b3 .11,e6 l l .a4 �bd7
22.'1f1xa7

12.�e2
This is the proof that Black's decision
to castle when he did was dubious. The The knight heads for f4, a powerful
weak a-pawn is lost and so is the game. placing if the knight can stay there.

1 2 . . . c5
22 . . . f!e8 23.h3 h6 24.d4 .Q.c8

S o k o l sky says that c l o s i n g the

Capturing on h3 is not good: 24 . . . Axh3
queenside helps only White. Worth con­
25.�xf7 4:\xf7 26 . .llf3 .lld7 27.d5 with
sidering is 12 . . . g5!? and if 1 3 h4 h6 with
.

a clear advantage.
sharp play.

2 5 . 'lf1 x f7 � x f7 26 . .1l, h 5 d 5 13.�f4 .Q.f7 14.h4

2 7 . .Q. d 2 f! f 6 2 8 . f! e l f! x e l +
2 9 . .Q. x e l � g 5 3 0 . f! a 3 �h7 Stops the knight being ejected by . . g6-
.

31 . .Q.g3 .Q.f5 32 . .Q.e5 f!f8 33.f!a7 g5.

1-0
14 . . . f!e8
Game 78
Sokolsky-Lavdansky Stronger is 14 . . . cxd4!? because 1 5 .exd4
Vladimir 1 960 removes the support of the f4-knight
and permits 15 . . . .1lh6 with good coun­
l.b4 e5 2 . .1l,b2 d6 3.c4 f5 4.e3 �f6 terattacking chances.
5.�f3 a5
1 5 . .1l,e2 lacS?
5 . . . .1le7 is the main line in Chapter 8 .
This was Black's last opportunity to
6.b5 g6 play 1 5 . . . cxd4!?.

26 1
 l .b4 e5 2 . .1lb2 d6

t6.dS! 27 . .1lxf5 !! xb3 28 . .1lxd7 .llg6! .

Sealing the queenside benefits White 2 6 1fJ x b 2 +

• • . 27. � x b2 .Q.g6
because he still has the choice of cas­ 28. 4) x fS+
tling on that flank and then attacking
on the kingside. 28 . .1lxf5 !!c7 is better for Black.

t6 ... 4)eS 17.f3!? exf3 18.gxf3 'tt1e7 28 AxfS 29.AxfS !ac7 30 .Q.xd7
..• •

19.0-0-0 }a xd7

The white king is safe whereas the black The game reaches a level four-rook
king is on a half-open file. ending.

19 ... 4)ed7 20.4)fl �h8 2 t .}ad2 3 1 . la g l + �f7 3 2 . }a dg 2 }ade7

4)hS
This helps White, but what else to do?
White was threatening h4-h5 so Black
plants his knight there.
22.4) x hS g xhS 23.Axg7+ � xg7
24.Ad3 'ttJf6
3 3 . lag7+ �f6 3 4 . }a x e7 }a x e7
3 S . }a g8 � e s 3 6 . �c 3 �f4
37.}af8+?
This allows the black king to go for the
h4-pawn. After 37.!!g5! 'itt xf3 38.!! xh5
the ending is easily drawn.

White has a tactical trick available that

probably leads to a draw: 38.!!d8 'it>xh4
39.!! xd6 'ittg 5 40.b6! with the idea of
4l .!!c6.

38 ••• lif,xh4 39.Etf6

White can try 39.!!g8 although Black

is still better.

39 ••• lif,g5 0-1

40.!! xd6 h4 should win.

Sokolsky later criticized this move as
leading to rough equality. Instead he Game 79
recommended 25.f4! which stops .. .f5- Soko/sky-Persitz
f4 not to mention . . . .£ld7-e5. corr 1 968

2S •.• }a x e3! 26.'tf1b2 l.b4 eS 2.Ab2 d6 3.c4 fS 4.e3 4)f6

S.4)f3 Ae7 6.4)c3 0-0
The o n l y move . B l ack has good
counterchances after 26 . .£lxf5 + �xf5 Best. 6 . . . c6, Chapter 8; 6 . . . e4, Game 77.

262
 The Sokolsky Opening
The black king steps off the diagonal
of the white queen. Owen-Bohlmann,
California 1 994, continued 7 . . . ..11 e 6
8.i:lg5 'lli'd7 9.i:lb5 i:la6 1 0.i:lxe6 'l!i'xe6
1 l . d4 d5 1 2 . a 3 c6 1 3 . d x e 5 c x b 5
14.cxb5 i:le4 1 5 .bxa6 bxa6 1 6.f3 i:lg5
1 7 . h 4 i:lf7 1 8 . f4 .§ fb8 1 9 . .l.le2 a 5
20 . ..1l.f3 .§ b 5 2 1 ...1l.e2 .§ bb8 2 2 . .§ d 1
with the advantage.
8.d4 e4 9.�gS
9.i:ld2 is the usual retreat in similar situ­
ations, but here the game move is more
active.
9 c6
•.•
9 . . . h6 can be met by 10.h4!?.
10.h4 �g4 l l .�e2 �a6
Black rightly gets on with development;
in fact he should probably have played
th i s on h i s previous turn . A fter
1 l . . .Axg5 1 2 .hxg5 �xg5 1 3 .i:lf4 White
has the initiative.
1 2 . . . Axg5 1 3.hxg5 �xg5 1 4 . .§h5 'lli'd8
1 5 . i:lg6+ �g8 1 6.i:lxf8 wins the ex­
change.
263
13.a4 dS t4.bS Jl xgS?
Black can't resist the temptation any
longer, but the move is hardly better
now than it was before. He should con­
s i d e r 1 4 . . . Ad7 ! ? or 1 4 . . . .§ f6 ! ? o r
1 4 . . . i:lf6!?.
lS.hxgS t\' xgS 16.Jl.a3 E{e8
16 . . . .§ d8? 1 7.Ae7! wins.
1 7 . Ad 6 � e 6 lS.cxdS � x f4
19.Jl. xf4 'tt d8
20.Ac41
White has a clear advantage because his
pawns threaten to get stronger; mean­
while the a8-rook is still out of play.
20 ••. Jld7
It's easy to be critical when Black is
worse whatever he does.
A) For example, 20 . . . g5 is proved bad
after 2 1 ...1l.e5+ (2l .Ag3 f4!?) 2 1 . . .i:lxe5
22.dxe5
1 ) 22 . . . cxb5 23 . ..1lxb5 .§ xe5 24 .�c3
'lli' f6 2 5 . .§ h6! 'l!i'xh6 26.�xe5+ �g7
27.�e8+ �g8 28.�e7 (White threat­
ens .§ a 1 -c l -c7) 28 . . . 'lli' g 7 2 9 . �d8+
 l .b4 e5 2 . .llb 2 d6
�g8 30 . .1le8 b6 3Ld6 .llb7 32 .�xa8
i.t x a 8 3 3 . d7 .ll c 6 3 4 . d8� .ll x e 8
3 5 . !! c l +- ;
2) 22 . . . cxd5 23 . ..1lxd5
a) 23 . . . �c7 24. !! d l �xe5 25 . .1lxb7!
.ll x b7 26.�t7 �g7 27. �xg7+ �xg7
28.!!d7+ +- ;
b) 23 . . . .§ xe5 24 . .ll x b7! .ll xb7 25.�t7
�g8 26.�xb7 +- ;
B ) B l ack s h o u l d probab ly p l ay
20 . . . cxb5!? 2 1 ..ll x b5 .lld7 and hope for
the best.
2 1 . d x c 6 b x c 6 2 2 . -'tf7 � a 5 +
23.<{tle2 EtfS 24.f3 � f6 2 5. 1l.e5
AeS
White was threatening 26 . .1lxf6 gxf6
27 . .1lg6 �g7 28.!! xh7+ �xg6 29.!!ahl
mating.
26.-'txeS !;taxeS 27.bxc6
This far-advanced pawn (which opened
the game) decides the issue.
27 ... �d5 2S.E{ac1 f4 29.Etc5 exf3+
3 0 .g x f3 � a 6 + 3 1 . �b5 � x b5 +
32.axb5 � xe3 33.Eta1 EtaS 34.c7
�f5 35.b6 1-0
264
Game 80
Sokolsky-Samarian
corr 1 95 8
1 .b4 e 5 2.-'tb2 d 6 3.c4 f 5 4.e3 �f6
5 . � {3 Jl.e7 6.d4 e4 7 . � fd2 dS
S.b5 c6 9.a4 0-0 1 0 . �b3 Jl.e6
l l .�c3 �bd7 12.Ae2
1 2 ... c5?!
Considered better is 12 . . . �e8!?, which
is covered in Chapter 8; also there is
1 2 . . . �h8.
1 3 . � x d 5 � x d 5 1 4 . c x d 5 Jl.f7
15.Etc1 E{cS 16.0-0 �b6 17.dxcS
� xd5 1S.Ac4
18.!!fdl? .£lf4 19 . .1lc4 .£le2+ wins ma­
terial.
1S ... E{ xc5 19.Etfd1 Etc7 20.� xe4!?
A spectacular way to expose a pin on
the d5-knight. But the same is achieved
more economically by 20 . .£lfl !!d7
2 1 ..£lg3 g6 (2 l . . .f4 22 . .£lxe4!) 22 . .£le2.
White is clearly better - he has maneu­
vered his knight from d2 to e2, so it has
improved options, and he can consider
doubling his rooks.
 The Sokolsky Opening
20 •.. l!! xc4
White is safely one pawn better after
20 . . .fxe4 2 1 ..1lxd5 !! xcl 22 . .1lxcl .
21.� xc4 fxe4 22.�xe4 �d6
Without the four queenside pawns
White's advantage would be dramati­
cally reduced (because as they stand the
black pawns are easier to attack) so it
makes sense for Black to try 22 . . . a6!?.
23.�g4
23 ... �h6?
A) B lack's best seems to be 23 . . . .1lf6
24 . .1lxf6 �xf6 but the future looks bleak
for him after 25.�d4! �xd4 26.l3 xd4;
B) Plain bad is 23 . . . 4Jf6 24.l3 xd6 4Jxg4
25.l3d7 +- .
24.t\'d7 .Q.e6 25.t\'xb7 t\'h4
25 . . . .llf6 26 . .1la3 White is winning but
Black does have a desperate trick or two
265
left: 26 . . . 4Jxe3! 27 . .ll x f8 (27 . fxe3??
loses the bishop to 27 . . . �xe3+ 28.'it>h1
� x a 3 ) 2 7 . . . 4Jxd 1 2 8 . !! x d 1 'it> x f8
29.�b8+ 'it>f7 30.�xa7+ 'it>g6 3 l .b6
.lle 5 32.g3 �h5 33.l3d2 .ll£4 !? 34.�e7
(34.gxf4? �g4+ 35.'it>h1 [35 .'it>fl? .llc4+
leads to mate] 35 . . . �f3+ 36.'it>g1 �g4+
draw s ) 3 4 . . . .1lh3 3 5 . �e 8 + 1 - 0 ,
Ru.Fischer-Rohr, corr 1 986.
2 6 . l!! d 2 �b4 2 7 . l!! c d l � b6
28.Ac3! �a3
28 . . . �xc3 29.�xe7 .llf7 is hopeless for
Black after 30.l3 d8.
Or 29.�xa7!? 4Jxa4 30 . .1ld4 +- .
29 ••• Af7
Everything loses sooner or later:
A) 29 . . . .1lb3 30 . .1lb2 �c5 3 1 .l3cl �g5
32.f4 +- ;
B) 29 . . . .1lf5 30.�e5 Af6 3 l .�xf5 �xc3
3 2 . l3 c 2 �b4 33.�e6+ �h8 34.�d6
�xd6 3 5 . l3 xd6 4Jxa4 36. !! a6 4Jc3
(36 ... 4Jb6 37.l3 xa7 +- ) 37.l3 xf6 gxf6
38.l3 xc3 +- .
30.Ab2 �c5 31.l!!c l �b4 32. itd4
� x d4 33.Jlxd4 Ab4
33 . . . 4Jxa4 34.l3c7 +- .
34.l!! dc2 1-0
 Chapter 9
l .b4 eS 2 . .Q.b2 e4
This move is the fourth favorite reply
to 2 . .ilb2 (after 2 . . . Axb4, 2 . . . d6 and
2 .. .f6). Although it breaks the principle
of not moving the same piece twice in
the opening, it has the merit of preserv­
ing the e-pawn and interfering with
White 's development. However, the
pawn advance opens the long dark di­
agonal that White has already placed a
bi shop on, and is achieved without
tempo because there is no knight yet on
f3. In practice the move is often a spur
of the moment decision to avoid the
main book lines, and the e4-pawn sim­
ply becomes a target. Soltis marks it as
dubious but at the same time says it is a
"reasonable move [with] no immediate
refutation."
3.c4
White takes control of as many
queenside squares as possible before
B lack plays . . . d7-d5.
A) 3.e3 straight away is more popular
1) 3 . . .4Jf6 4.b5
266
a) 4 . . . a6 S . a4 a x b S 6 . a x b 5 !! x a l
7 . .il x a l dS 8 . 4Jc3 (8 . c4!?) 8 . . . ..ll d6
9.4Jge2 0-0 10.4Jd4 4Jbd7 1 l ..lle 2 4Je5
1 2 . 0-0 c6=
b) 4 . . . d5 S .c4
(i) s . . . c6 6.a4 (another possibility is
6.4Jc3; e.g., 6 . . . .1le7 [6 . . . .1ld6 7.bxc6
bxc6 8 . cxd5 cxdS 9 . �b3 ;!; Ivanov]
7.cxd5 cxdS 8.4Jge2 0-0 9.4Jd4 4Jbd7
1 0 . .1le2 4Jc5 l l .�c2 4Je8 1 2.0-0 and
White will start to clear the center with
f2 -f3 and/or d 2 - d 3 , P l ock- V l ach,
Mecklenburg 2000) 6 . . . Ae7 (6 . . . a5
Game 82: Frosinos-Kanel l opoulos,
Patras 200 1 ) 7.d4 �aS+ 8 . .1lc3 .llb4
9:ii1d2 .ll x c3 1 0.�xc3 �xc3+ 1 1 .4Jxc3
0-0 which is roughly equal;
(ii) s . . . .lle6 6.cxd5
(a) 6 . . . �xd5 7.4Jc3 �gS (7 .. .'�f5 8.h3
hS 9.4Jge2 c5 1 0.�a4 b6 1 1 .4Jg3 �g6
1 2 . 4Jg x e 4 4J x e 4 1 3 . � x e 4 � x e4
1 4 . 4Jxe4 ± C . Ramirez-Paez Moguer,
Malgrat del Mar 1 99 8 ) 8. �c2 �g6
9.4Jge2 4Jbd7 10.4Jf4 �fS l l ..lle 2 and
Black will be preoccupied with the de­
fense of his e-pawn;
(b) 6 . . . A x d 5 7 . 4Je 2 (or of course
7.4Jc3!?) 7 ... .1lc4 8 . ..1lxf6 �xf6 9.4Jbc3
�eS 1 0 .�a4 ;!; ;
 The Sokolsky Opening

(c) 6 . . . .£\xd5 7 . .£\c3 .:tlf6 8.�c2 .il.b4

9.f3 ;t ;
(iii) 5 . . . .£\bd7 6 . .£\c3 .£\c5 7.�c2 d4?
( o 7 . . . dxc4) 8.exd4 �xd4 Novikov-
Smolskiy, Tula 2006 9 . .£\d5! wins; e.g.,
9 . . . .£\d3+ 10 . .11. x d3 exd3 1 1 ..11. x d4 dxc2
1 2 . .£\xc7+ etc.;
c) 4 ... c6 5.c4 a6 6.a4 d5 7 . .£\c3 .lld6
8.cxd5 cxd5 9 . .£\ge2 0-0 1 0 . .£\d4 .£\bd7
1 1 ..11.e 2 .£\c5 1 2 .0-0 .lld7=;
d) 4 ... b6!? Here Soltis suggests 5 .c4,
6 . .£\c3 and 7.ti'b3;

2) 3 . . . d5 4.c4 c6 (4 . . . dxc4 Game 8 1 :

Gilgevich-Voitech, Minsk 1 960)
a) 5 . cxd5 cxd5 6 . .£\e2 .:tlf6 7.a3 .il.g4
8.ti'b3 .£\bd7 9.h3 .il.e6 10 . .£\f4 .£\b6
1 1 ..£\xe6 fxe6 1 2 .d3 exd3 1 3 . .il.xd3
.ll e 7 14 . .£\d2 0-0 1 5 . 0- 0 White i s
s l i ghtly better and can prepare to
break up B lack's pawn center by e3-
e4, B . Krueger-Bringmann, Baunatal
1 99 5 ;
b ) 5 . ti'b3 .ll e 6 (5 . . . .£\a6 6 . a 3 .£\c7 oo )
6 . .£\c3 f5 7 . cxd5 cxd5 8 . .£\ge2 .:tlf6
9 . .£\d4 .il.c8 1 O . .il.b5 + 'it>f7 1 1 . 0-0 a6
1 2 . .11. e 2 .£\c6 1 3 . .£\ x c6 b x c6 1 4 . a 3
.ll d 6 1 5 .d3 � e8 1 6 . dxe4 fxe4 1 7 . .£\a4
'it>g8 1 8 . � ac 1 .ll d 7 1 9 . .£\ c 5 .il. x c 5
2 0 . � x c 5 it M y s l o w s k i - K i tanov i c ,
Paris 1 996;
B) 3.a3 f5 (more frequently seen nowa­
days is 3 . . . d5 4.e3 .£\f6 5.c4 c6=) 4.c4
.:tlf6 5 . .£\c3 .lle7 6.d3 a5 7.b5 exd3 8.e3!
0-0 9 . .11. x d3 d6 10.ti'c2 .:tlg4 1 1 ..£\d5 c6
12 . .£\xe7+ ti'xe7 13 . .£\e2 .:tle5 1 4 . 0-0
.ll e 6 1 5 . .£\d4 ti'f7 1 6 . .£\ x e 6 ti' x e 6
1 7.�c3 �f7 1 8 . � ad1 .£\bd7 1 9 . .11.e 2
.£\c5 20.�d4 � d7 2 1 .f4 .£\g6 2 2 . .11.f3
.£\h4 23.bxc6? .£\xf3+ 24.� xf3 bxc6 =F
( . . . ) Yl-Yl, Marshall-Reshevsky, New
York 1 934. This offhand game between
two great players is the earliest game
with 2 . . . e4 that we know of.
Also seen are
A) 3 . . .f5 4.e3 .£\f6
1) 5.ti'b3 c5 6.b5 .lle7 7 . .£\h3 b6 8.d4
d5 (8 . . . 0-0!?) 9.cxd5 .llb7 1 0 . .£\f4 .ll x d5
1 1 ..£\xd5 �xd5 1 2 . .11.c4 �d6 1 3 .'it>e2
( 1 3 . d x c 5 !?) 1 3 . . . .£\bd7 1 4 .a4 cxd4
1 5 . .il.xd4 ti'b4 1 6.�xb4 .il.xb4 17 . .il.e6
� c8 1 8 . .£\d2 ( 1 8 . � a 2 ! ? ) 1 8 . . . � c 2
1 9 . � a 2 � x a 2 2 0 . .il. x a 2 'it>e7 Yl - Yl ,
Troeger-Wagner, Germany 1 957;
2) 5 .b5 .lle 7 6 . .£\c3 0-0 7 . .£\h3 c6 8.a4
.lld6 (Black can play 8 . . . d6 with the
plan of . . . .£\b8-d7-e5) 9 . �b3 .il.c7
1 0 . .11.e 2 h6 1 1 .f4 d5 1 2 . .£\f2 .lle6 1 3.0-0
.£\h7 14 . .£\a2 .£\d7 1 5 . .£\b4 .£\b8 1 6.�fcl
.:tlf6 1 7 . .il.xf6 (17.bxc6!? bxc6 18.cxd5
cxd5 1 9 . .il.d4 it ) 1 7 . . . � xf6 1 8 .cxd5
cxd5 19.�b2 d4 20.Ac4 Axc4 2 1 .� xc4
.il.b6 2 2 . ti'b3 'it>h7 oo B erlacki­
Kitanovic, Paris 1 996;
B) 3 . . . e3
1) 4.fxe3 ti'h4+ 5.g3 �xc4 6.a3 .:tlf6
7 . .£\c3 h5 8 . .£\f3 h4 9.gxh4 .£\c6
a) 1 0 .Ah3 .:tle5 1 1 ..£\d4 � xh4 1 2 .d3
( 1 2 . .£\cb5! threatens to trap the queen)

267
 l .b4 e5 2 . .ilb2 e4
12 . . :iii·a6 1 3.Ag2 4Jfg4 ( 1 3 . . . c6! is nec­
essary) 14.4Jd5 'it'd8 1 5 .�c2 4Jc6 16.h3
( 1 6 . .§. f1 ! ? ) 1 6 . . . 4Jh6 1 7 . .§. c 1 Ad6
1 8 . 4Jf3 Ag3 + 1 9 . 'itt d 1 .§. h 5 2 0 . e4
( 2 0 . 'f!c3! means 20 . . . .§. xd5 loses to
2 1 . 'f! x g7) 20 . . . .§. x d5 2 l . e x d 5 4Jf5
H a v l i c ek-B akal ar, S l ovakia 2 0 0 1
22 .'f!d2! 'f!b6 23.d4 4Jce7 24.e4 1 eaves
Black in a bad way;
b) 1 0.d3 'f!e6 (after 10 . . . �a6 1 l .�b3!
threatening 1 2.4Jg5 is strong) 1 1 .4Jb5
'itfd8 1 2 . 4Jg 5 'ff d 5 1 3 . .§. g 1 .§. x h4
14.4Jc3 �f5 1 5 .e4 is bad for Black;
2) 4.4Jf3 exf2+ 5.'it'xf2 4Jf6 6.a3 Ae7
7 . e 3 0 - 0 8 . .ild3 d5 9 . c x d 5 'f! x d 5
1 0.'f!c2 h6 1 1 .4Jc3 �d8 1 2 . .§. hf1 4Jbd7
1 3 .'it'g1 a5 oo ;
C) 3 . . . c6 4.e3 d5 which transposes to
3.e3 d5 4.c4 c6 (4 . . . 4Jf6 5.b5 transposes
to 3.e3 4Jf6 4.b5 c6 5 .c4 in the notes
above [5.a3 d5= ]).
4.a3
Best.
A) 4.b5 Ac5 5 .e3
1) 5 ... 0-0 6.d4 Ab4+ 7.4Jd2 .§. e8 8.4Je2
d5 9.4Jc3 c6 1 0.'f!b3 Af8 1 1 .h3 Jle6
1 2 .Ae2 cxb5 1 3.cxb5 4Jbd7 14.a4 Ad6
268
1 5 . a 5 4Jf8 = H artze l l - Johansson,
Stockholm 1 992;
2) 5 . . . c6 6.d4 (6.a4 d5 7 . d4 Ab4+
8.4Jc3 0-0 9 .'ff b 3 �a5 oo ) 6 . . . Jlb4+
7.4Jd2 cxb5 8.cxb5 d5 9.4Je2 0-0 1 0.a3
A a 5 1 1 . 4J c l P. H orvath - K o z l ova,
Harkany 1 997. White is roughly level
and can continue with .ilfl -e2 and 0-0;
B) 4.'ffb 3
1) 4 . . . d5 5.cxd5 4:lxd5 6.a3 Jle6 7.�c2
f5 8 . 4Jc3 4Jd7 9.e3 c5 1 0 .b5 4:lxc3
1 l .Axc3 c4 1 2.4Je2 4Jc5 1 3 . 4Jd4 �d7
14.4Jxe6 �xe6 1 5 .Ae2 4:ld3+ 16.Axd3
cxd3 17.'f!b2 'f!g6 1 8.0-0 .ild6 19.f3
with the slightly better position, Melich­
Cejkova, Czechia 1 996;
2) 4 . . . c6 5 .d3 (5.e3 is the other option
that has been tried) 5 . . . d5 6.a3 (6.e3
dxc4 7 . dxc4 a5 with counterplay)
6 . . . exd3 7.exd3 Ad6 8.4:lf3 0-0 9.Ae2
.§. e8 10.4Jc3 4Jbd7 1 1 . 0-0 4Je5 with
roughly equal chances;
3) 4 . . . 4Jc6 5 . a3 d6 6 . e 3 Jle6 7.b5
(7.4Je2!?) 7 . . . 4Je5 8.Jlxe5 dxe5 9.4Jc3
Jlc5 10.4Jge2 .lli5 1 1 .4Jg3 Jlg6 1 2.'1�k2
'f!e7 1 3 .4:lgxe4 Axa3 (Black should
take on e4 first: 13 . . . 4Jxe4 1 4 . 4Jxe4
Jlxa3=) 14. 4:lxf6+ gxf6 1 5 .�a4 Ac5
1 6 . 4Jd5 'f!d6 1 7 .Ae2 0-0 1 8 . 0-0 c6
1 9.bxc6 bxc6 20.4Jc3 a5 (20 . . . 'f!xd2!?)
2 l . .§. fd 1 .§. fb8 2 2 . Af3 .§. a6 2 3 . 4Je4
(23.d4!?) 23 . . . 'f!e7 (Black should play
23 . . . Axe4 24.Jlxe4 .§. b2 because the
opposite bishops give him drawing
chances) 24. 4Jxc5 �xc5 2 5 . d4 �b4
26.Jlxc6 exd4 27.'f!xb4 .§. xb4 28.Ab5
.§. a8 2 9 . e x d4 w ith an extra pawn,
Labahn-Wegan, Hamburg 1 999.
4 . . . a5
 The Sokolsky Opening
This is the standard plan for B lack -
break up White 's queenside pawns and
acquire the c5-square for a bishop or
knight.
A) 4 . . . c5 5.b5 d5
1) 6.cxd5 �xd5 7.�xf6 (7.4Jc3!? looks
more logical) 7 . . . gxf6 8.4Jc3 �e5 9.e3
�e6 1 0.4Jge2 (1 O.f4!?) 1 O . . . c4 1 1 .4Jd4
4Jd7 1 2 .a4 4Jc5 1 3 .4Jxe6 �xe6 14.f3
f5 Black has good play, Gottert-Turcan,
Sala 1 994;
2) 6.e3 d4 (6 . . . 4Jbd7!?) 7.exd4 cxd4
8 . d 3 e 3 9 . fx e 3 d x e 3 1 0 . 4Jf3 �d6
l l .�e2 0-0 1 2 . 0-0 El e8 1 3 . d4 �g4
1 4.4Jc3 b6 1 5 .h3 �h5 with a complex
game that Black lost after poor play, Van
Daatsel aar-Vermeulen, Nether land
200 1 ;
B) 4 . . .�e7 5.4Jc3
1) 5 . . . c6 6.d3 exd3 (6 . . . d5 7.cxd5 a5 oo )
7.�xd3 (7.e3!?) 7 . . . 0-0 8.Eld1 b6 9.4Jf3
�c7 10.e4 d6 1 1 .4Jd4 4Jbd7? (better is
1 1 . . .Ele8! first) 1 2 .4Jf5 El e8 1 3 .f3 d5
14.4Jxe7+ El xe7 1 5.cxd5 cxd5 16.4Jxd5
4J x d 5 1 7 . � x d 5 �b7 1 8 . �d4 4Jf6
19.�d6 �xd6 20.El xd6 4Je8 2 1 .Eld2
Elc8 22.�e2 h6 23.'iftf2 El ec7 24.Elhd1
a6 25 . ..1ld4 winning, Tasic-Pokraj ac,
Belgrade 2006;
269
2) 5 . . . 0-0 6.e3 d6 7.�c2 ..llf5 8.4Jge2
c6 9.4Jg3 .llg6 1 0.h4 h6 1 1 .h5 ..llh7
1 2 . 4Jcxe4 4Jxe4 ( "" 1 2 . . . d5 1 3 .4Jxf6+
�xf6 14.�xf6 �xf6 1 5.�c3 ± ) 1 3.4Jxe4
d5 14.cxd5 cxd5 1 5 .�c3 d4 1 6.�c2
4Jc6 17.�d3 dxe3 1 8.dxe3 ( 1 8.fxe3
.ll h 4+ 1 9 .'ifte2 El e8 2 0 . El afl is safe
enough for White who is still a pawn
up) 18 . . . �xb4+! 1 9.'ifte2 (White is lost
after 1 9 . axb4? <bxb4 20. 4Jf6+ 'ifth8)
1 9 . . . .lle 7
a) 2 0 . El hd 1 '<t>h8 2 1 . 4Jg3 El c8??
(2 1 . . . .ll x d3+ is vital) 22.�xh7 4Jd4+
23 . .llxd4 El xc2+ 24.�xc2 M6 25.Elab1
winning, Pleschke-Kember, corr 200 1 ;
b) White gets nowhere with the sharp
20 . .llc 3 El c8 2 l .�b2 �d5 22.f3 El fd8
23.Elad1 �e6 because 24.�xg7? is re­
futed by 24 . . . El xd3! 2 5 . El xd3 ..ll x e4
26.fxe4 �xe4 27.Elg1 �g4+ with the
advantage;
C) 4 . . . b6
1) 5 .b5 a6 6.a4 ..llb7 7.4Jc3 �b4 8.e3
0-0 9.4Jge2 c6 1 0. El c l �e7 1 1 . 4Jg3
El e8 1 2 .�e2 d5 1 3 .cxd5 ( 1 3.bxc6!?)
1 3 . . . cxd5 1 4 . �b3 �c5 1 5 . 0-0 d4?
( o 1 5 . . . a5) 1 6 . e xd4 �xd4 1 7 . El fe 1
( 1 7 . 4Jf5 !?) 1 7 . . . �d7 1 8 . 4J d 1 �xb2
1 9 .�xb2 a5 20.4Je3 El c8 2 1 . El xc8+
.l1.xc8 22.Elcl �d8 23.�d4!? (23.4Jxe4!
is even better; e.g., 23 . . . 4Jxe4 24 . .llf3
�b7 2 5 . 4Jf5 +- ) 23 . . . 4Jc6 24.�xd8+
4Jxd8 25.4Jc4 �e6 26.4Jxb6 White has
won an important paw n , Sternik­
Frysiak, corr 1 992;
2) 5.4Jc3 �b7 6.e3
a) 6 . . .�e7 7.4Jh3 0-0 8 . .lle 2 aS 9.b5
d6 10.0-0 4Jbd7 1 1 .4Jf4 4Jc5 and Black
is okay;
b) 6 . . . d5 7.cxd5 4Jxd5 8.4Jxe4 4Jxe3
9.fxe3 (9.-'tb5+!?) 9 . . . ..1lxe4 10.4Jf3 ;!;; ;
D) 4 . . . d5!?.
 l .b4 e5 2.-'i.b2 e4

S.bS AcS B ) 9 . 4Jf3 d x c 4 1 0 . � x c 4 � x d 1 +

The bishop is more active on the a7-g l
diagonal than it is on the e7-square :
5 . . . Ae7 6.4Jc3 0-0 7:ffc2 (7.f3 d5 oo )
7 . . . d5 8.cxd5 -'tf5 9.e3 4Jbd7 10.4Jge2
4J c 5 1 1 . 4Jg3 �g6 1 2 . �c4 4J d 3 +
( 1 2 . . . h5!?) 1 3 . ..ll x d3 exd3 1 4:ffb3 �d7
1 5 . f3 E! a d8 1 6 . e 4 h 5 ( 1 6 . . . E! fe 8
1 7 . 0-0 ± ) 17.4Jfl h4 18.4Je3 h3 1 9.g3
and Black has yet to demonstrate that
his position is worth the pawn deficit.
1 1 . 'tftxd1 =;
C) 9.4Jd2 d4!? 1 0.4Jb3 dxe3! 1 1 .4Jxc5
transposes to 9. 4Jc3 d4 1 0 . 4Ja4 etc.
dealt with in the next note;
D) 9.�c2!?.
9 ... d x c4
9 . . . d4!? 1 0 . e xd4 ( 1 0 . 4Ja4 [If White
thinks this refutes 9 . . . d4, he is mistaken]
1 0 . . . dxe3! 1 1 . 4J x c 5 exf2 + 1 2 .�xf2
4Jg4 + oo ) 1 0 . . . �xd4 1 l .�c2 E! e8+
1 2 . 'ittfl 00•

1 0 . J}. x c4 � x d l + l l . E{ x d l AfS
12.4)f3 4)bd7

6.e3 0-0 7 .d4

Alternatively 7.4Jc3!? d6 8.�c2 �f5

9.4Jge2 E! e8 10.4Jg3 Ag6 1 1 .4Jce2 (or
simply 1 1 ...1le2 and 1 2 .0-0) 1 1 . . .4Jbd7
1 2 . 4Jf4 4J e 5 1 3 . 4J xg6 ( 1 3 . A e 2 ! ?)
1 3 . . . 4Jxg6 1 4 .d3 exd3 1 5 .�xd3 4Jf4
16.0-0 4Jxd3 17. �xd3 4Jg4 18. 4Jf5 4Je5
19.iii'c 2 White can now prepare e3-e4, Or 1 3 .h3 4Jb6 1 4.Aa2 E! fd8 1 5 .'ifte2
'iftg1 -h1 and f2-f4. 'iftf8=.

7 ...exd3 8.Axd3 dS 9.4)c3 13 ... Ad6

Because of the uncertainties resulting A fte r 1 3 . . . 4J x d 5 1 4 . ..1l x d 5 E! ab8

from 9 . . . d5-d4, White should at least 1 5 . 4Jd4 Axd4 1 6 . ..1lxd4 White has the
review the alternatives: bishop-pair and the more active pieces.

A ) 9 . c x d 5 � x d 5 1 0 . 4Je 2 4Jbd7 14.<(fie2 Etad8 1S.h3 Etfe8

(10 ... �xg2?? 1 1 .f!g1 �xh2 1 2 .Axf6 +- )
1 1 .0-0 ; ; The position is more or less equal.

270
 The Sokolsky Opening

Summary: 2 . . . e4 isn't as bad as theory 1 1 .£)bc3 �eS 12.0-0-0

•

suggests. White is prevented from de­

veloping as he wants. However, he does White's development advantage is eas­
have various alternatives he can inves­ ily worth the pawn.
tigate, especially on move nine.
12 ••• Jl.fS 13.d31
Game 8 1
Gilgevich- Voitech Opening the position benefits White as
Minsk 1 960 most of Black's pieces are still on their
starting squares.
1 .b4 eS 2 . Jl.b2 e4 3.e3 dS 4.c4
dxc4 13 e x d3 14 .£)f4 .1l,d6 1S.{) x d3
••• •

Jl.xd3 16.la xd3 a5

4 . . . c6, Chapter 9.
Black is desperate for counterplay. If
5.Jl.xc4 �g5?1 16 . . . <£)d7 17.f4 �e7 1 8.Ae6 Black's
king will be trapped in the center, and
Black seeks adventure while neglecting he will have an unhappy life.
development.
17.f4 �f5
5 . . .<£)f6 6.�b3 �e7 7.<£)e2;!; ; 5 . . . <£)c6!?.
1 7 . . . �e7 1 8 . bx a 5 <£)d7 ( 1 8 . . . !':!. x a 5
6 .£)e2
• 1 9 .�xb7 <£)d7 20.Ab3 +- ) 1 9 . �xb7
!':!.b8 20.�d5 with a huge advantage.

18.lad5 �h3 19 .£)e4 •

6 ••• .£)f6

B l ack gets into d i ffi c u l t i e s after

6 ... Axb4? 7.�a4+ <£)c6 8.Ab5 ; while 19 ••• laa6
6 . . . �xg2? gives White a strong initia-
tive : 7.!':!.gl �xh2 8.�b3 (or 8.�c2) B l ack is in a bad w ay, too, after
8 . . . <£)h6 9.<£)bc3 Af5 10.0-0-0 etc. 19 . . . <£)d7 2 0 . <£) x d6 c x d6 2 l . !':!. x d6
threatening 22.�e6.
7 . � b 3 � x g 2 8 . la g 1 � x h 2
9 . Jl. x f7 + �d8 1 0 .1l, x f6 + g x f6
• 20.b5 lab6 21. �c3

27 1
 l .b4 e5 2 .-'1.b2 e4

2 1 . .:£lxf6!? looks good; even better is 6 . . . l.te7, Chapter 9.

2 1 .f!h5 �f3 22.f! xh7! f!f8 23.�d3 +- .
7.d4 .Q..e7

8.t\'b3
White can mount intolerable pressure
down the d-file by 22.�d3 and 23.E!dl . We prefer 8 . .:£ld2 0 - 0 9 . 4"J e 2 and
1 0 . .:£lc3.
22 ••• t\'h2?

8 ... 0-0 9.h3

B lack misses his chance. 22 . . . Ab4 !
2 3 . �d4 Aa3+ 24.'<t>bl c5 2 5 . .:£lxh3
( 2 5 .�c3 !?) 2 5 . . . cxd4 2 6 . e x d4 E! d6 Often useful.
27.E! xd6 Axd6 and White 's advantage
has been considerably reduced. 9 ges to.{)e2 {)bd7 ( 1 0 . . . dxc4!?)
•••

l l .cS?

There are three aspects to this move :

23 . . .'<t>c8 24.E! xd6! �xgl + 25.E!dl +- .
I . It is part of the natural queenside
24.gg7 '/t x a2 expansion in this opening.

24 .. :�h6 25 .-'1.h5+ �xg7 26 . .:£lxg7 +- . 2. White plants a pawn on c5 before

Black can do the same.
2 S .Q.. h S + \fl x e6 2 6 . f S + \fl x d S
•

27.t\'d4 • 1-0
3. It could be part of a plan to close the
Or 27 .Af3 • of course. queenside so that White can castle long
before advancing on the black king.
Game 82
Frosinos-Kanellopoulos But that's not the whole story. Note that
Patras 200 1 in this precise position the knight on e2
impedes White 's king and his light­
l.b4 eS 2 .Q..b2 e4 3.bS dS 4.e3 {)f6
• squared bishop, so if Black could get a
S.c4 c6 6.a4 aS knight to d3 White would be in trouble.

272
 The Sokolsky Opening

lf 1 1 .4Jec3 c5 1 2 .4Jxd5 4Jxd5 1 3.cxd5 But he can 't take the pawn just yet:
.ll f6 ( 1 3 . . . c x d4 1 4 . .1l x d 4 4J c 5 = ) 1 7.4Jxa5? 4Jxb6 18.cxb6 �xb6 threat­
1 4 .dxc5 A x b 2 1 5 :�xb2 .£\ x c 5 and ens 1 9 . . . .1lb4.
Black has a nice position for the pawn.
17 ...gS 18.ccf)>d2!

The king should be safe behind a closed

B l ack m i s s e s a tri c k : 1 1 . . . .ll x c 5 ! center.
1 2 .dxc5 4Jxc5 1 3 .'i�i'c2 4Jd3+ 14.�d2
Now B l ack has a p l e asant choice 18 ... �f6 19.ccf)>c2 .Q.f8 20.h4 g4?
14 . . . d4 ( 1 4 . . . c 5 ! ? ; simplest i s
1 4 . . . 4Jxf2 !?) 1 5 . 4Jxd4 4Jxb2 1 6 . bxc6 B lack needs to open the position for
( 1 6:�xb2 c5!) 1 6 . . . bxc6 1 7.�xb2 c5 counterplay, not close it.
1 8 . .1lb5 .§ e6 1 9 . �e2 cxd4 20.�xd4
.§ d6 2 1 .�b2 .§b8 22.4Jc3 (22.4Ja3!?) 2l.� xaS .Q.g7 22.Ab4 �d7
22 . . . .1le6 23 . .§ hdl .llc 4+ 24.�e l .lld3
with good counterchances. The knight heads for a6.

12.b6!

B lack's a-pawn is made into a perma­ To enable a4-a5.

nent weakness.
23 ... �b8 24.aS �a6 2S.t\'el 'ltJe7
1 2 ... �hS 13.�d2 fS 14.g3 �e6 26.E:Icl hS 27 .Q.a3 'ltJd8 28.ccf)>bl
•

1S."�c3 �f6 16.�b3 ccf)>h8 29.f!c2 ccf)>h7 30. 'ltJd2 ccf)>g8

3l.�ecl
White targets the a-pawn.
White is regrouping for action on the
16 ... �d7 17.Aa3 a-file.

3l . . . ccf)>f7 3 2 . � a 2 Ah8 3 3 . � b4
�g7?

Shortens the game. But 33 . . . 4Jxb4

34 . .1lxb4 preparing a5-a6 will be also
be bad for Black in the long run.

34 . .Q.xa6 bxa6 1-0

35.4Jxc6 wins easily.

273
 Chapter 10
l .b4 e S 2 .Q.b2 .Q. x b4 3 .Q.xeS 4)f6
• •
4.c4
In this chapter we analyze the early ad­
vance of White 's c-pawn. 4.c2-c4 oc­
curs much more frequently than 4.e2-
e3. White would like to exchange his
c-pawn for B l ack 's d-pawn, which
would give White a central pawn mass
and expose the black queenside. How­
ever, Black will be better developed for
a while. Inevitably, many transpositions
are possible from this chapter to the next
or to the Introduction.
Note that later after . . . d7-d5 , c4xd5 and
. . . 4Jf6xd5 there will be considerable
pressure on an uncastled white king if
Black's rook is on an open e-file and
his dark-squared bishop is still on the
a5-e 1 diagonal.
Sacrifices on e3 suggest themselves, but
their success is far from certain in the
precise context of a particular game,
likewise . . . 4Jd5-f4.
F o l l o w i n g l . b4 e 5 2 . Ab2 A x b 4
3.Axe5 4Jf6, Myers has suggested the
staged advance 4.c3 Aa5 5 .c4 to put
274
Black's dark-squared bishop offside,
but this hasn 't been properly explored
in practice. Here we add a few, tenta­
tive l ines : 5 . . . 0-0 (5 . . . 4Jc6 6.Ac3!?)
6.4Jf3 (6.g3?! d5 7.Ag2 4Jbd7 + ) 6 . . . c5
(=6 . . . d5 7.e3 c5) 7.e3 d5 transposes to
Swicarz-Staniszewski, Polanica Zdroj
200 1 , which continued 8 . 4Jc3 dxc4
9.Axc4 4Jc6 10.0-0 Ag4 l l .Ag3 �d7
1 2 .E!.bl E!. ad8 1 3 .h3 Ah5 14.Ah4 Now
B lack, who went on to win anyway,
should play 1 4 . . . Axc3 1 5 .dxc3 �f5!
1 6 . �a4 Axf3 1 7 . gxf3 4Je5 1 8 . Ae2
E!. d2 -+ .
Surprisingly, the most popular reply to
4.c3 is 4 . . . Ae7:
A) 5 . c4 ! ? 0-0 6 . e 3 d5 7 . �c2 4Jc6
8.Ab2 d4 (8 . . . 4Jb4!?) 9.a3 E!. e8 1 0.4Jf3
d x e 3 l l . d x e 3 Ag4 1 2 . A e 2 �d7
1 3 . 0 - 0 = Jentsch-Van Ooteghem,
Stassfurt 1 993 ;
B) 5.d4 d6 (more challenging is 5 . . . d5
6.e3 c5 7.Ad3 [7.dxc5!? D. 8.Ad4]
7 . . . 4Jc6 8 . Ax f6 .ll x f6 9 . 4Jd2 0-0 =F
Hebels-Van Oirschot, corr 1 990) 6.Ag3
0-0 7 .e3 and White has fewer problems
compared to 4 . . . Ab4-a5 .
 The Sokolsky Opening
4 ... 0-0
The natural move.
4 . . . .£lc6 5 . .1lb2
A) 5 . . . d6 6 . .£lf3 (6 . .£lc3 is also possible)
6 . . . 0-0 7.e3 .llg4 8 . .1le2
1) 8 .. .'�e7 9.0-0 E!fe8 1 0 . .£lc3 (another
possibility is I O.d4 Ne4 I I .Qb3 etc.)
1 0 . . . .£le5 1 1 .<tlxe5 .ll x e2 1 2 .<tlxe2 dxe5
1 3.d3 .§ ad8 1 4 . .£lg3 'l:te6 1 5 .'l:tb3 .lld6
1 6.E!ac1 b6 17.E!fd1 h5 with mutual
chances, Reimer-Wild, Kaiserslautem
2006;
2) After 8 . . . .1lxf3 9 . .1lxf3 .£le5 1 0 . .1le2
c5 1 1 .0-0 E! c8 1 2 .a3 .lla 5 1 3 :iii'c 2 E! e8
1 4 .d3 'l:fe7 ( 1 4 . . . d5 !?) 1 5 . .£ld2 .£leg4
16.e4, White has the better chances and
275
can think of f2-f4, Holz auf der Heide­
Bross, Germany 1 998;
3) 8 . . . d5 9 . 0-0 dxc4 10 . ..\lxc4 'l:te7
1 1 ..1le2 E! ad8 1 2 .a3 .Q.d6 1 3 . .£lc3 a6
1 4 . h 3 ..ll h 5 1 5 . d4 h6 1 6 : iii' c 2 ..ll g 6
1 7 . .1ld3 .ll x d3 18.'l:txd3 E! fe8 19 . .£ld2
b5 2 0 . E! ac 1 �d7 2 1 . .£lce4 <tl x e 4
22 . .£lxe4 .£la5 and Black has equalized,
Franke-Boeckenhaupt, Bernkastei­
Kues 1 995 ;
B) 5 . . . b6 6 . .£lf3 ..llb7 7.e3 ..lle7 8 . .£lc3
0-0 9.d4 d5 10.a3 .£la5 1 l .cxd5 <tlxd5
1 2 . ..1ld3 c5 1 3 .dxc5 <tlxc3 14 . ..1lxc3
.ll x f3 1 5 . g x f3 b x c 5 ? ( o 1 5 . . . E! c8)
1 6 . � c 2 g6 1 7 . E! d 1 �c7 1 8 . E! g 1
( 18.h4!) 1 8 . . . E! ad8 (18 . . . �xh2 19.'ifffl
�c7 20 . .1lxg6! +- ) 19.'ifte2 c4 20 . .1lxg6!
(This was also possible on the previous
move) 20 . . . fxg6 2 1 . E! x g6+ 'iftf7
22.E!g7+ (or 22.'l:tf5+ 'it>e8 23.'l:tb5+
fol lowed by 24 . ..\lxa5 +- ) 2 2 .. . '�e8
2 3 . E! x d 8 + 'it> x d8 2 4 . �d 2 + 'it>e8
2 5 . .1lxa5 �c6 26.f4 �b5 27.E! xe7+ !
1 -0, Konikowski-Ratajczyk, corr 1 965
( 2 7 . . . 'ift x e 7 2 8 . �b 4 + �xb4
29 . .Q.xb4+ + - );
C) 5 . . . 0-0 6 . .£lf3 (6.e3 will probably
transpose) 6 . . . d5= NCO (6 . . . E! e8 will
probably transpose) 7 .cxd5 (7 .e3 Game
88) 7 . . . .£lxd5 (7 . . . 'l:txd5 8.e3 E! e8 Game
 1 .b4 e5 2 .�b2 �xb4 3 .�xe5 ll:Jf6 4.c4
88) 8.e3 (8.g3 �g4 9.�g2 �d7 1 0.h3
�f5= Soltis)
1) 8 . . .�g4 9.�e2 .§ e8 10.0-0
a) 10 . . . �e7 Game 89;
b) 1 0 . . . �d6 1 l .ll:Jc3! ;
c) 1 0 . . . �e7 1 l .a3;
(i) 1 1 . . . � a 5 1 2 . ll:Jd4 ( 1 2 . �a4 ! ?)
1 2 . . . �xe2 1 3.ll:lxe2 .§ ad8 14:?iYc2 ll:Je5
1 5 .d4 ll:Jg4 1 6.�c5 �h4 1 7 .h3 �b6
(17 . . . ll:lgxe3! 18.fxe3 f! xe3 + ) 1 8.�cl
ll:Jh6 ( 1 8 . . . ll:Jd x e 3 ! ) 1 9 . ll:Jd 2 c6
0 9 . . . ll:Jf5!?) 20.ll:Jf3 �e7 2 l .ll:Jg3 �c7
22.e4= Hess-Petermann, Bad Sooden
2002;
(ii) 1 l . . .�d6 transposes (with a change
of move numbers) to Lipok-Grimm in
the notes to Game 94;
d) 10 . . . �d6 1 1 .h3 �xf3 1 2 .�xf3 .§ ad8
1 3 . �b3 ( 1 3 . d4!?) 1 3 . . . ll:Ja5 1 4 . �c 2
�g6 1 5 . .§ c l c 6 1 6 . d4 ll:Jb6 1 7 . ll:Jd2
�xc2 18 . .§ x c 2 ll:Ja4 1 9 . ll:Jc4 ll:l x c 4
2 0 . .§ x c4 a 5 2 l . �c l ;!; Te ichmann­
Waddingham, Edinburgh 1 98 5 ;
e ) 1 0 . . . �xf3?! 1 l .�xf3 ll:Je5 1 2 .�xe5
.§ xe 5 1 3 .�b3 a 5 1 4 . a 3 a4 1 5 .�c4
( 1 5 . �b 2 !?) 1 5 . . . �d6 1 6 . g 3 ll:Jb6
1 7 . � c 2 �f6 ( o 17 . . . c6) 1 8 . � x b 7
( 1 8.d4 �xf3 1 9 . dxe5 � x e 5 20.ll:ld2
�d5 2 l . .§ ac l ± ) 18 . . . .§ b8 1 9 . �g2
( o 1 9 . d4) 19 . . . f! c 5 ( 1 9 . . . .§ x e 3 !
20.dxe3 �xa 1 =) 20.ll:Jc3 h 5 2 l .d4 f!g5
276
2 2 . ll:Je4 �f5 2 3 . �c6 .§ g6 2 4 . ll:lxd6
.§ xd6 2 5 .�xc7 +- Reimer-Enkrodt,
Mehlingen 1 999;
0 10 . . . �d7:
( i ) 1 l . ll:Jd4 � x e 2 1 2 . ll:l x e 2 .§ ad8
( 1 2 . . . .§ e6 1 3 .ll:Jbc3 ll:lxc3 14.ll:lxc3 f!h6
1 5 . d4 �d6 1 6 . f4 �e7 1 7 . �f3 .§ e8
1 8 . .§ae1 �b4 19 . .§ e2 �xc3 20.�xc3
�e4 2 l .d5 ll:ld8 22 .�e5 �xf3 23 . .§ xf3
c6 24.d6 with slightly better chances,
Jacob i - S chubert, Wi l l ingen 2 0 0 5 )
1 3 .d4 �d6 14.ll:Jg3 ll:Jce7 1 5 .�b3 c6
1 6.ll:Jd2 f5 17.e4 fxe4 18.ll:Jgxe4 �c7
19.ll:lxd6 .§ xd6 20 . .§ ae 1 �b6 2 l .�c2
.§dd8 22.ll:Jc4 �c7 23.ll:Je5 The strong
knight on e5 gives White good chances.
In the game White achieved a decisive
attack by transferring a rook to h4 via
e4, Novikov-Kozlov, Tula 2000;
(ii) 1 l .d4 .§ ad8! ;
(iii) 1 l .a3 �d6 1 2 .ll:Jc3 ll:lxc3 1 3 .�xc3
�e6 14.d4 �h6 1 5 .g3 .§ ad8 16.ll:Jh4
�h3 ( 1 6 . . . .§ x e 3 ! ? 1 7 . fx e 3 � x e 3 +
18 . .§ f2 �xe2 oo ) 17.f!e1 �e7 18.ll:Jg2
�g5 ( 1 8 . . . ll:l x d4 ? ! 1 9 . e xd4 �xg2
20.�d2! [ � 20.'iftxg2 �c6+]) 19.�g4
� x g 2 2 0 . 'ift x g 2 ll:J e 5 2 l . � d 2 ll:Jc4
2 2 . f! c 1 b5 2 3 . a 4 a6 2 4 . h 4 � e 7
2 5 . axb5 a x b 5 26.�c3 �g6 27.�h5
�b6 28 . .§ b 1 � f6 2 9 . � b 3 .§ b8
3 0 . � e 2 ll:Jd6 3 l . �b4 ll:Je4 3 2 . .1lf3
ll:Jd6 33 .�d5! .§ f8 34 . .§ ecl (34 . .§ a 1 !
D. 35 .�c5) 34 . . . .§ bd8 3 5 . f! c6 �b8
36 . .§bcl and Black is under very heavy
pre s sure, M o rri s s - H . H o ffmann,
Galway 2006;
2) 8 . . . �d6 9.�e2 (9.a3 �a5 1 0.�c2
�g4 1 l .�e2=) 9 . . . �g6 (9 . . . .§e8 10.0-0
Ag4 tran s p o s e s to Te i c hmann­
Waddingham in the notes above) 10.Q-O
�h3 1 l .ll:Je1 .§ ad8 1 2 .'ifth 1 �f5 1 3.d4
.ll x e 1 1 4 . .§ x e 1 ll:Jcb4 1 5 . ll:Ja 3 �e4
16.f!g1 �g5 (16 . . . .§ fe8!?)
a) 17.ll:Jc4 oo ;
 The Sokolsky Opening
b) 17 ..1lf3? Golyak-Lesiege, North Bay
1 995 17 . . . 4Jd3 1 8.�d2 f5 + ;
c) 17.f3 4:lxe3 is good for B lack; e.g.,
18:�a4 � d6! 6 1 9 ... � h6;
3) 8 . . . �e7 9.a3 (9 . .1le2 .llg4 1 0 . 0-0
�fe8 transposes to Hess-Petennann in
the notes above) 9 . . . Ad6 1 0.Ae2 Ag4
1 1 .0-0 �fe8 1 2.�b3 (12.�e1 Game 83 :
Jamieson-Kuenitz, G ibraltar 2 006)
12 . . . .£Jb6 1 3 .d4 � ad8 1 4 . 4Jbd2 Af5
1 5 .Ab5 and Black is starting to come
under pressure, Brenner-E.Paehtz, Ger­
many 1 994;
4) 8 . . . � e8 9 . .1le2
a) 9 . . . �e7 1 0 . 0-0 a6 1 l . � e 1 Af5
1 2 .�b3 � ad8 1 3 .a3 .£Ja5 1 4.�d1 Ad6
1 5 .d3 Ag6 1 6:�·a4 .£Jc6 1 7 . .£Jbd2 .£Jb6
1 8 . �b3 Af5 1 9 . � ac 1 �d7 2 0 . 4Jd4
4:l x d4 2 l . A xd4 .ile6 2 2 . �b 2 4Ja4
23.�a 1 f5 24 ..£Jc4 Af8 (24 . . . .ilxc4!?)
25 . .£Je5 �e7 26 . .1ld1 4Jb6 27.a4 (White
c a n w i n a pawn by 2 7 . Ac 5 �f6
2 8 . .1l x f8 � x f8 2 9 . � xc7) 2 7 . . . .£Jc8
28.Ac5 .£Jd6 29.�b2;!; Kapas-Konya,
Budapest 2005 ;
b) 9 . . . Af8 1 0.0-0 Ae6 1 l .d4 (after the
quiet 1 l .d3 Ad6 1 2 .4Jbd2 .£Jb6 1 3.a3
�e7 14.4Je4 White can count on a small
advantage as well) 1 1 . . .4Jb6 12 . .£Jbd2
4Jb4 1 3 .a3 .£!4d5 1 4 . � c l c6 1 5 . .£Je4
277
.ll f 5 1 6 . .£J c 5 .£Jd7 1 7 . .£J x d7 � x d 7
1 8 . .£Je5 �e6 19.�e1 .£Jb6 20.4Jd3 Ad6
2 1 ..£Jc5 �h6 22 .g3 .ilxc5 23.� xc5 Ae4
24.Acl �d6 25.f3 .ilg6 26.e4 � ad8
27 . .ilb2 White s big center and bishop
duo give him the better game, Franke­
Kopylov, Bargteheide 2005 ;
c) 9 . . . � xe3!? leads to unbalanced posi­
tions that are hard to call. So before
Black gets too excited about this move
he should realise that he is sacrificing
material for a questionable equality
rather an undoubted advantage; e.g.,
1 0.fxe3 4:lxe3 1 l .�b3 ( l l .�a4 .ild7
1 2 . �b3 i s s i m i l ar) 1 1 . . . .£J x g 2 +
( l l . . .�e7!? 1 2 .a3 4:lxg2+ 1 3.'itld1 Ae6
14 . .1lc4 .ll x c4 1 5 .�xc4 oo )
( i ) 1 2 . 'itld 1 Ae6 1 3 . �d 3 �e7
(13 . . . �xd3 [possibly best] 1 4 . .ilxd3
.ilg4 1 5 . .ile2 4Jf4 1 6 . � f1 4J x e 2
17.'itlxe2 Ac5 18.�d3 � d8+ &3 Dziel­
S z i mmat, corr 1 99 7 ) 1 4 . 4Jd4 4Jf4
( 1 4 . . . �f6!?) 1 5 . 4:lxc6! bxc6 1 6 .�d4
Ab3 + ( 1 6 . . . �g5 1 7 . � g 1 4:l x e 2
1 8 . � x g 7 + � x g7 1 9 . � x g 7 + �f8
20.� xh7 �e7 2 l .'itlxe2 +- ) 1 7 . axb3
�xe2+ 1 8 . �c2 1 -0 , Lapshun- Sinn,
Philadelphia 2003 ;
(ii) Probably better i s 1 2 . �f2 .ll h 3
13.�cl �e7 14.Ab5 .ilc5+ 1 5 . � xc5!
�xc5+ 1 6.d4 White will follow up with
.£Jb 1 -d2 freeing his rook and giving him
an active game;
d) 9 . . . .£Jce7 1 0 . 0-0 c5 1 l . d4 cxd4
1 2 .4:lxd4 .£Jc6 1 3 .4:lxc6 bxc6 1 4 . .ilf3
.£Je7 ( o 1 4 . . . Ad6!?) 1 5 . � c 2 Ae6
16 . .ilxg7! .£Jf5 ( 1 6 . . . 'itlxg7 1 7 .�b2+
�g8 1 8 . � x b4 ± ) 17 . .1lc3 .ll d 6
18.�a4 +- Vasut-Hrabe, Moravia 2002;
e) 9 . . . Ag4 tran sposes to Morri ss­
Hoffmann in the notes above;
0 9 . . .Af5 10.0-0 Ad6 (IO . . . �e7 fol­
lowed by l l . . . Rad8 gives Black an ac­
tive position) 1 1 . 4Jc3 .£Jxc3 12 . .1lxc3
.£Je5 1 3 . 4Jd4
 l .b4 e5 2 . .ilb2 .ilxb4 3 . .a.xe5 .tlf6 4.c4
(i) 1 3 . . . Ad3 14.f4 .ilxe2 1 5 .'�xe2 .tlg6
16.E!ab1 E!b8 (16 . . . .£\xf4? 17:�g4 .t\g6
1 8 . E! xb7 ± ) 17.�f3 c6 1 8.�h5 Ae7
1 9 . f5 .tlf8 2 0 . �g4 f6 2 1 . E! f3 Ad6
22 . .£\e2 �e7 23 . .£\g3 c5 24 . .£\h5 with
pressure on the black king, Volke­
Meister, Germany 1 994;
(ii) B lack played weakly in Poenisch­
Dietze, Germany 2003 : 13 . . . .a.e4 14.d3
Ad5 1 5 .e4 c5 16 . .£\f5 .a.e6 17.f4 .t\g6
18.-t\xd6 �xd6 19 .f5 +- .
White continues development with a
move he is almost certain to make
sooner or later. 5 . e3 is almost three
times as popular as 5 ..£\f3, but usually
transposes to our main line anyway. One
thing in favor of 5 . e3 (rather than
5 . .£\f3) is that White has the option of
.t\g1 -e2. See the first note in Game 89
for an example of when this is useful.
5 . e3
A) 5 . . . E! e8 6 . .a.b2
1) 6 . . . c6, Game 84: Zuse-Wemer, Ger­
many 1 995;
2) 6 . . . d5 7 . .£\f3 transposes to the main
line;
278
3) 6 ... b6!? 7 . .£\f3 Ab7 8.Ae2 d5 9.0-0
.t\bd7 1 0 . c x d 5 .t\ x d 5 1 1 . Ac4
( 1 1 . .£\a 3 ! ? ; 1 1 . d4 ! ?) 1 l . . . a 6 1 2 . a3
( 1 2 .a4!?) 12 ... Ad6 1 3 . d4 b5 � Althoff­
Kveinys, Weilburg 1 995;
4) 6 ... c5 7 . .£\f3 .tlc6 8.Ae2 d5 9.cxd5
.t\xd5 1 0.0-0
a) 10 . . . .ilf5 1 l .d4 ( 1 1 ..£\c3!?) 1 1 . . .�e7
1 2.a3 Aa5 1 3.�b3 E! ad8 and Black has
a nice position, Te ichmann-Gupta,
Dubai 2006;
b) 10 . . . .a.e6 1 1 .�c2 E! c8 1 2 .a3 Aa5
1 3.�xc5 ( o 1 3 . .£\c3) 1 3 . . . Ab6 ( 1 3 . . . a6!
1::. 14 . . . Ab6) 14.'lii'b 5 .tla5 1 5 . .£\c3 a6
16.�a4 Black has some play but White
has an extra pawn, Gorbylev-Filatov,
Rotterdam 1 996;
B) Lapshun/Conticello mention 5 .a3!
Aa5 (5 . . . E! e8!?) 6 . .£\f3 etc., as a way of
avoiding book lines. The further 6 . . . E!e8
7.e3 d5 transposes to Schiefelbusch­
Eismont in the notes below;
C) 5 . . . d5
1) 6.cxd5
a) 6 . . . .t\xd5 7 . .t\f3
(i) 7 . . . E! e8
(a) 8.Ab2
(I) 8 . . . .£\f4 9.a3 (9 . .£\e5 �g5! 10.exf4
�xf4 1 1 ..a.e2 E! xe5 1 2 . .a.xe5 �xe5
 The Sokolsky Opening

1 3 .4Jc3 Axc3 14.dxc3 �xc3+ 1 5 .f.t>f1
<Dc6 oo The position is genuinely un­
clear although in practice Black has
done excellently from here) 9 . . . Ad6
1 0 .g3 (Black has the advantage after
1 0 . d4 Af5 1 l . �b3 <Dd7) 1 0 . . . <Dh3
1 1 ..Q.g2 <Dc6 1 2 .d4 �e7 1 3.�d3 .llg4
1 4 . <Dbd2 <Dd8 oo Teichmann-Zhao,
Melbourne 2000;
(II) 8 . . . Ae7= NCO;
(III) 8 . . .<Dc6 9.Ae2 transposes to Volke­
Meister in the notes above;
(IV) 8 . . . Af5 9 . .1le2 (9 . .11c4!?) 9 . . . <Dc6
transposes to Volke-Meister in the notes
above;
(b) 8.Ae2? f! xe5 9.<Dxe5 �f6 -+ NCO;
(c) 8.Ac4?! .Q.g4 9 . .Q.b2 <Dxe3!? Excit­
ing, but does it lead to a definite advan­
tage? (9 . . . <Dc6 1 0 . 0- 0 oo ) 1 0 . fx e 3
f! xe3+ 1 1 .'it?f2 f! xf3+ 1 2 .gxf3 �h4+
1 3 .'it?g1 ( 1 3 . 'it?e2!?) 1 3 . . . .Q.h3 14 . .Q.fl
<Dc6 1 5 . .11 xh3 .ll c 5 + ( 1 5 . . . � x h 3 ! ? )
16.d4 <Dxd4 17.'it?g2 f! e8 18.<Dc3 <De2
19.f!e1 �f2+ 20.'it?h1 �xf3+ 2 1 ..Q.g2
<Dg3+ 22.hxg3 f! x e 1 + 23 .'it?h2 f! xd1
2 4 . f! x d 1 ? ( 2 4 . .11 x f3 f! d2 + 2 5 . 'it?h 3
E! xb2 26.<Da4 f! f2 w i l l probably end i n
a d r a w ) 2 4 . . . �h 5 + 2 5 . .Q.h3 .11 d 6
2 6 . f! d 3 g 5 2 7 . E! d 5 � - � , Gutte­
Warzecha, corr 1 983 ; but Black is much
better after the further 27 . . .f5! 28.f! xf5
�h4;
(ii) 7 . . . .Q.e7 8.<Dc3 (8.a3 c5 9.Ae2 <Dc6
1 0 . .Q.b2 b6= NCO; Homicek-Bartels,
Prague 1 98 5 ) 8 . . . c5 9.�b3 (9.<Dxd5
�xd5 1 0.�c2 <Dc6 1 1 ..11c 4=) 9 . . . <Dxc3
(9 . . . <Db6!?) 1 0 . A x c 3 ( 1 0 . � x c 3 f6
1 1 ..11g3 ;t ) 1 O . . .Af6 1 l .Ae2 <Dc6 12.0-0
b6 1 3 . f! fd1 �e7 1 4.d4 cxd4 1 5 .<Dxd4
<Dxd4 1 6 .Axd4 Ab7 1 7 . �b2 .11 x d4
18.f! xd4 �f6 19.f!ad1 E! ad8 20.�a3
f! xd4 2 1 . f! xd4 �g6 22.Af1 White is
better since besides threatening to take
the a-pawn he can consider �a3-e7
with E! d4-d8, Chirpii-Butuc, Kishinev
2005 ;
b) 6 . . . � x d 5 ! ? 7 . .11 x f6 g x f6 8 . <De 2
(8.<Dc3!?) 8 . . . f!d8 9.<Dbc3 �e5 10.f!cl
<Dc6 1 1 .<Dg3 .11e6
( i ) 1 2 . .11 e 2 .11 x c 3 1 3 . f! x c 3 � x c 3
1 4.dxc3 f! xd 1 + 1 5 .'it?xd1 Axa2 =F ;
(ii) 1 2.�c2 f5!? L::. 1 3. . .f4;
( i i i ) 1 2 . �a4 f! x d 2 ! ! -+ N C O ;
Teichmann-McKay, London 1 985;
2) 6.�b3 <Dc6 is definitely in Black's
favor due to White's poor development:
a) 7.<Df3 <Dxe5 8.<Dxe5 .11d6 9.<Df3 d4!
1 0 . <D x d4 ( 1 0 . e x d4 E! e8 + 1 l . A e 2
<Dh5 + ) 1 0 . . . .11e 5 + ;
b) 7.cxd5 <Dxe5 8.�xb4 <Dxd5 + ;
c) 7 . .11b 2 d4!? 8.<Df3 f! e8 + ;
3) 6 . <Df3 transposes to Kupreichik­
Yuferov in the notes below;
4) 6 . .11b 2 c6 7.<Df3 .11e6 8.<Da3 �e7
9.cxd5 cxd5 10.<Dc2 Ad6 1 1 .Ae2 <Dc6
1 2 . 0-0 E! ac8 1 3 . <Dcd4 Aa3 1 4 . E! b 1
.11 x b2 1 5 . f! xb2 f! b8 1 6 .�b 1 <Dxd4
17.<Dxd4 White has a positional advan­
tage in the placement of his knight,
Jacobi-Modes, Osterburg 2006;
D) 5 . . . <Dc6 6 . .11b 2 d5

279
 l .b4 e5 2o.llb 2 .ll xb4 3o.ll >< e5 .£Jf6 4oc4
1) 7o.£lf3 transposes to Game 88;
2) 7oc><d5 Game 89;
E) 5 o o o !! e8 6o.llb 2 .llf5 7 o .£Jf3 .£Jbd7
8o.lle 2 .£Je4 900-0 c6 1 0od4 ( 1 0 od3!?)
1 0 o o od5 1 l .�b3 c5 (1 l . . o.lld6!?) 1 2 o!!d1
dxc4 1 3 o .ll >< c 4 �e7 1 4 o a 3 .ll a 5
1 5o.£Jbd2 !! ab8 16oa4 .llg4 (16oo o.£Jd6!?)
170.£Jxe4 �xe4
1) 18o.lld 5 �g6 1 9oe4 cxd4 20o.ilxd4
.llb6 with chances for both sides al­
though we prefer White, Jovanovic­
Osthoff, Munich 2006;
2) 1 8 o .ll >< f7 + !! x f7 1 9 o �><f7 + '<t>xf7
2 0 o .£Jg 5 + '<t>g6 2 1 . .£l x e 4 .ll x d 1
22o!! ><d1 ± o
s ... E{e8
A) 5 o o oa6 6oe3 d6 7o.llb 2 c5 8o.lle 2 �e7
9 0 0-0 .ll d 7 B lack prepares o o o b7-b5
(9 o o o .llf5 !?) 1 0 od3 ( 1 0 o .£Jc3!?) 1 0 o o ob5
1 1 . .£Jbd2 .lla 5 1 2 o .£Jg5 h6 1 3 o.llf3 .llc6
14o.£Jge4 .£Jxe4 1 5 o.llxe4 .llxe4 160.£Jxe4
b x c 4 1 7 o �f3 !! a7?? ( o 1 7 o o o .£Jd7)
18o.£Jf6+ ! '<t>h8 19o�f5 g6 20o�f4 g5
210 �f5 l -0, Kaczorowska-Skurski, Po­
land 1 998;
B) 5 o o ob6 Game 8 5 : Schiefelbusch­
Gorzinski, Dortmund 2005 ;
280
C) 5 o o od5 6oe3
1) 6 o o o.lle7
a) 7o.£Jc3 .£Jbd7 8o.ilg3 (8o.ll xf6 Game
8 7 : Nevednichy-Parligras, Curtea de
Arges 2002) 8oo o.£Jc5 9o�c2 .llg4 1 0od4
.£Jce4 1 1 ..£lxd5 ( 1 1 .!!b1 .£Jxc3 1 2o�><C3
c5!? 1 3 o!! ><b7 .£Je4 1eaves White behind
in development) 1 l . . o.£J><d5 1 2 o�><e4
.ilb4+ 1 3 o.£Jd2 .£Jf6 1 4 o"iii'd3 c5 1 5 od5
b 5 1 6 o .ll e 2 b x c 4 1 7 0 � x c 4 .ll f5
( 1 7 o o o.ilxd2+ 18o'<t>><d2 .lle6 oo ) 18o.ilf3
"iii' a 5 1 9 o !! d 1 !! fe8 2 0 o � e2?
( o 20o'<t>e2) 20o o o c4 with a decisive ad­
vantage, Kupreichik-Yuferov, Minsk
1 97 5 ;
b ) After 7 o.lle 2 c5 (7 0 0 o.£Jc6 8o.ilb2 .llf5
900-0 !! e8 transposes to Katalymov­
Greifzu in the notes below) 8. cxd5
.£Jxd5 900-0 .£Jc6 Black has no prob­
lems;
c) 7 o.llb 2 c5 8o.lle 2 .£Jc6 transposes to
a subvariation of Smyslov-Adorjan in
Chapter 1 1 ;
2) 6oo oc5
a) 7ocxd5 �xd5 (7o o o.£J><d5!? is more test­
ing) 8..1le2 .£Jc6 9o.llxf6 gxf6 10o0-0 .ilf5
1 l .d3 !! ad8 1 2 oa3 .ila5 1 3 oe4 .ll x e4
14odxe4 �xe4 1 5 o.£Jbd2 "iii'f4 1 6og3 oo
S oLalic-De Kleuver, Delden 1 993 ;
b) 7oa3 Game 86: Katalymov-Giterrnan,
Novgorod 1 96 1 ;
 The Sokolsky Opening
c) 7 .<tlc3 dxc4 ( a 7 . . . <tlbd7) 8 . .1lxc4
<t:Jc6 9 . .1lxf6 �xf6 1 0.<£ld5 �g6 1 l .Q-0 ;!;
Gulko 1 1 . . . .1lh3?? ( a 1 l . . .'�d6) 1 2 . <£lf4
�e4 1 3 .d3 1 -0, Brinkmann-Sahlender,
Oberliga Nord 200 1 ;
3) 6. . ..ili5 7.�b3 <tlc6 8 . .1lb2 �d6 9.a3
dxc4 10 . .1lxc4 .lla 5 1 1 .0-0 .llb6 1 2.<£lg5
.llg6 1 3 . .1lc3 <tle5 14.E!cl <tlfg4 1 5 . .1lb4
..ll c 5 ? ( 1 5 . . . c 5 -+ ) 1 6 . .1l x c 5 � x c 5
1 7 . .1lxf7+ l -0, Waii-Greenwalt, Dayton
1 98 3 , although the further 17 . . . ..ll x f7
18.ii.i'xf7+ <tlxf7 19.E! xc5 <tlxg5 20.E! xg5
<tlxf2 is roughly level;
4) 6 . . .<£lc6 7 ..1lb2 transposes to Game
88;
5) 6 ... .1ld6 7 . .1lxd6 �xd6 8.<£lc3=;
6) 6 . . . E! e8 transposes back to the main
line;
D) 5 . . . <tlc6 6 . .1lb2 transposes to Volke­
Meister in the notes above.
6.e3 d5
Black can delay but normally shouldn't
avoid this active move.
A) 6 . . . <£lc6 7 . .1lb2 d5
28 1
(7 . . . ..1lf8 8 . .1le2 d6 9.0-0 <tle5 1 0 . d4
<tlxf3+ 1 1 ..1lxf3 c6 1 2.d5 cxd5 1 3.cxd5
<tld7 14.�d4 <tlc5 1 5.<£lc3 .lld7 16.E!fe1
� a 5 1 7 . <£le4 <tl x e 4 18 . .1l x e 4 ii.i'a4
1 9 .ii.i'xa4 .ll x a4= Alekseev-Chichkin,
Kiev 1 999)
1) 8.cxd5 <tlxd5 (8 . . . �xd5, Game 8 8 :
Miralles-Spiridonov, Bulgaria 1 98 5 )
9 . .1le2 transposes t o Volke-Meister i n
the notes above;
2) 8 . .1le2
a) 8 . . . h6 9.0-0 ..lle6 (9 . . . dxc4 1 0 . .1lxc4
.lle6 1 1 ..1le2=) 1 0.a3 .1le7 1 l .ii.i'c2 dxc4
1 2 . .1lxc4 ..ll x c4 1 3 .ii.i'xc4 .ll f8 1 4 . d4
�d5 1 5 . <£lbd2 ii.i'xc4 1 6 . <tlxc4 <tle4
1 7 . E! fc l <£le7 1 8 . <£la5 <tld5 1 9 . E! ab1
E! ab8 20.E!c2 E! e6 2 1 ..1lc l E! b6 and
Black has equalized the game without
trouble, Lippmann-Schallueck, Wingst
2006;
b) 8 . . . .1le6 9.cxd5 .ilxd5 10.0-0 .lld6
l l .<tlc3 .lle6 1 2 .d4 .llf5 1 3.<£ld2 ii.i'e7
14.<£lc4 <tle4 1 5 .<£lxd6 ( 1 5 .d5 E! ad8!?
1 6 . d x c 6 .ll x h 2 + 1 7 . «Tt x h 2 E! x d 1
18.E!axd1 oo ) 1 5 . . . <tlxd6 16.<£ld5 �d7
17.E!cl E! ac8 18.<£lf4 (18.f3!? .6. 19.e4)
1 8 . . . <£le4 1 9 . .1lb5 ( 1 9 . f3 ! ?) 1 9 . . . a6
20 . .1lxc6 bxc6 2 l .�a4 E! b8 22 . ..1la3
ii.i'd8 Krafz i k - F i eckner, Bad
Woerishofen 2003 23.�xc6 ± ;
c) 8 . . . 1.tf5 9.0-0:
(i) 9 . . . �d6 1 0.d4 dxc4 1 1 ...1lxc4 E! ad8
1 2 .a3 .lla 5 1 3 .�b3 <tld5 :
(a) 14.<£le5?! <tlxe5 1 5 .dxe5 ii.i'c6 1 6.a4
.lle6 and Black has achieved a good
position, Tkac-Michalek, S l ovakia
2003 ;
(b) 1 4 . <£l c 3 .ll x c 3 ( 1 4 . . . <£l x c 3 ?
1 5 . ..1lxf7+) 1 5 . .1lxc3=;
(c) 14.E!c1 !?;
(ii) 9 . . .1.te7 10.d4 �d7 1 1 .<£lc3 dxc4
1 2 . .1lxc4 .ll d6 1 3 . <£lb5 <tle4 1 4 . E! c 1
A g 4 1 5 . <tl x d6 c x d6 1 6 . d 5 <tl e 5 ?
 l .b4 e5 2 . .11.b 2 .11. xb4 3 . .11.x e5 -tlf6 4.c4
( o 16 . . . -tle7) 17.-tlxe5 dxe5 (17 . . . .11. x d1
18.-tlxd7 .11.a4 19.f3 -tld2 20.-tlf6+ gxf6
2 l .� fe1 +- ) 18.f3 .11.h 5 1 9.g4 .11. xg4 1 -
0 , Katalymov-Greifzu, Bad Liebenzell
1 996;
(iii) 9 . . . dxc4 10 . .11. x c4 Ad3=;
B) 6 ... d6 7 . .11.b2 4Jc6 8 . .11.e 2 ..11.£5 9.0-0=
and now Black probably does best to
play 9 . . . d5 anyway ;
C) 6 . . . .11.f8!? 7 . .11.e 2 g6 8.-tlc3!? White
should be prepared to relocate his dark­
squared bishop too; e.g., 8 . . . .11.g7 9.0-0
d6 10 . .11.g 3 4Jc6 1 1 .d4 ; .
7.�b2
A) 7.a3 White wants to see where the
bishop relocates:
1) 7 ... .11.a 5 8.cxd5 -tlxd5 9 . .11.e 2
282
(9 . .11. b 2 Game 90: Arkell-Gallagher,
London 1 986; 9.-tlc3? � xe5! 10.-tlxe5
-tlxc3 1 l .�f3 .11.e6 12 . .11.c4 -tlb1 ! -+ )
a) 9 . . . .11.g4 10 . .11.b 2 c5 (10 . . . -tlc6 1 1 .0-0
�e7 transposes to Hess-Petermann in
the notes above) 1 1 .0-0 4Jc6 1 2 .-tlc3
-tl x c 3 1 3 . .11. x c 3 .11. x c3 1 4 . dxc3 �f6
1 5 :�c2 Af5 16.�b2 b6 17.�fd1 Ae4
18.-tld2 .11.d 5 19.Af3 � ad8 with full
equal ity for B lack, Schiefelbusch­
Eismont, Dortmund 2005;
b) 9 . . . � xe 5 ! ? 1 0 . -tlxe5 �f6 1 1 .-tlc4
ii\'xa1 1 2 .-tlxa5. Lapshun/Conticello's
analysis continues 12 . . . .11.£5 13.0-0 �b2
14.iii'b 3 ii\'xb3 1 5 .-tlxb3 "with a play­
able position";
c) 9 . . . c5 10.iii'c 2!?;
2) 7 . . . Af8 8.cxd5 -tlxd5 9 . .11. e 2 .tlc6
10 . .11.b 2 Af5 ( 1 0 . . . .11.g4!?) 1 1 .0-0 iii<e7
1 2 .-tlc3 -tlb6 1 3 . d4 � ad8 14.-tla4 -tld5
1 5 . � e 1 �f6 16.�cl .ll.e 4 17.-tlc5 .ll x c5
18.� xc5 ; S c h i e fe l b u s c h - K l e i n ,
Dortmund 2003 ;
B ) 7 . c x d 5 -tl x d 5 tran s p o s e s to
Teichmann-Zhao in the notes above.
7 ... �e6
A) In practice 7 . . . 4Jc6!? is hugely more
popular than all the other moves com­
bined; it transposes to 6.e3 4Jc6 7 . .11.b2
d5 in the notes above;
B) 7 . . . c 5 8.cxd5 -tlxd5 9 . .1le2 -tlc6
transposes to Teichmann-Gupta in the
notes above;
C) 7 . . . Ae7 8 . .11.e 2 c5 9.0-0 4Jc6 10.d4
c x d4 1 1 . -tl x d 4 iii' b 6 1 2 . iii' c 2 -tlb4
1 3 .iii'b3 a5 14.-tlc3 (14.a3 a4!) 14 . . . .1ld7
1 5 .-tla4 .11. x a4 16.iii' x a4 � ac8 17.cxd5
-tlbxd5 1 8 . � ab 1 ;t Hammes-Poess,
Niederrhein 1 996.
 The Sokolsky Opening

S.cxdS 4) xdS 17 ...fxe4 18.4) x e4

8 . . . .1lxd5 9 . .1le2 4Jc6 transposes to And White has good chances in this
Krafzik-Fieckner in the notes above. complex position.

9.Ae2 S u m mary: White's advantage, if any,

doesn 't appear until the middlegame.
So, familiarity with typical plans is nec­
essary for both players. White 's ideal
is for a few pieces to be exchanged and
then to have rooks on b l and c l threat­
ening Black's pawn majority. Earlier,
both players should look out for a sac­
rifice on e3 before White has castled.
As usual, we recommend study of the
illustrative games to illustrate these and
other themes.

Game 83
9 ... 4)b6
Jamieson-Kuenitz
9 . . . 4Jc6 10.0-0=. Gibraltar 2006

10.0-0 4)c6 l l .d4 �f6 t.b4 eS 2.Ab2 A x b4 3.AxeS 4)f6

4.c4 4)c6 s . Ab2 o-o 6 . 4) f3 dS
1 l . . ..Q.f8 transposes to Franke-Kopylov 7.cxdS 4) xdS 8.e3 "121e7
in the notes above.
8 . . . .Q.g4, Game 89.
12.4)bd2 �h6 13.a3 Ae7 14.�c2
E{ad8 9 .a3 .Q.d6 1 0 . .Q.e2 .Q.g4 1 1 .0 - 0
E{fe8
The ideal place for the rook. Black
played passively in Labahn-Vajda, Eger
1 993 : 1 4 . . . .§ ac8 1 5 .e4 4Jb8 1 6 . .§fe 1 c6
17 ..1lf1 4J8d7 1 8 . .1lc3 .llg4 19.a4 White
stands well.

I S.e4 �g6 16.E{fcl fS

Black has to do something about the

white center.

17 .Q.d3
•

17.d5 fxe4 18.dxc6 exf3 1 9.�xg6 hxg6 12.E{el

20.4Jxf3 bxc6 2 l ..§ xc6 is more or less
level, therefore inferior to the main line. 1 2 . �b3, Chapter 1 0.

283
 l .b4 eS 2 . .llb 2 .llxb4 3 . .ll x e5 4Jf6 4.c4
12 ..• E{ad8
1 2 . . . .ll xf3 transposes (with a change of
move numbers) to Lipok-Grimm in the
notes to Game 94.
13.d4 4) xe3!?
Black sacrifices a piece to break open
the white kingside. He gains nothing
from 13 . . . 4Jf4 14.Ml 4Je6 1 S.<bbd2 but
it's obviously safer.
14.fxe3 ~xe3+ 15.\!i>fl
l S .�h l ?? loses to 1 S . . . .ll xf3 16.gxf3
i!,irf2 .
t s . . .- � h 6 t 6 . 4) bd 2 .ll, x h 2
17.4) xh2 .11. xe2+ 18. E{ x e2 �xh2
Black has three pawns for the piece, but
it's probably not enough in practice.
Black is forever on the defensive while
White tries to trade material to head for
a simplified ending.
1 9 . 4) f3 �f4 2 0 . E{ x e8 + Et x e8
2t.�d2 �fS
Black rightly avoids the exchange of
queens.
2 2 . E{ e t Et x e l + 2 3 . 'ifl x e l hS
2 4 .Q.ct �g4 2S.�gS f6!?
• l .b4 eS 2 .Q.b2 .11. xb4 3 . .11. xeS 4)f6
284
Black sets a little trap.
26.�dS+
Exchanging queens now drops the d­
pawn and the game is likely to end in a
draw : 26.'1�hg4? hxg4 27.<bh2 <bxd4
28.4Jxg4 �f7.
26 'iflh7 27.'iflfl h4 28.�c4 h3
•..
2 9 . � d 3 + g 6 3 0 . g x h 3 � >< h 3+
31.'iflf2 �g4?
3 l . . .i!,ird7 holds on longer.
32.dS
An intriguing line is 32 .i!,ire3 gS 33.'l!Ye8
�g7 34 . .ll x g 5 ! fx g S 3 S . d 5 <baS
3 6 . � e 7 + 'it'g8 3 7 . i!,ird8+ �g7
38.�xc7+ �f8 39.�xa5 winning.
32 4) e7 33.d6! c x d6 34. � x d6
•••
4)fS 3S. �c7+ 4)g7 36 .Q.b2 �e6??
•
36 . . .'i1Yf5 3 7 . i!,irxb7 gS continues the
struggle with good drawing chances.
37.4)gS+! t-o
Game 84
Zuse- Werner
Germany 1 995
•
 The Sokolsky Opening

4.c4 0-0 5.e3 E!eS 6.J}.b2 c6 16 .•• J}.g6 17."t!\'c3 f6

Other moves see Teichmann-Gupta in The mate threat could be parried by

the notes to Chapter 1 0. 1 7 . . .f5 too.

7 . .£lf3 d5 8.J}.e2 .Q.g4 9.�b3 .£la6

18.a4
10.0-0 �e7 l l .a3

White can play l l..ll xf6 �xf6 1 2 .cxd5
because he's better after 1 2 . . . �xa l ?
( 1 2 . . . cxd5 i s best but leaves Black with
an i s o l ated d-pawn) 1 3 A )c 3 .ll x c3
1 4.dxc3.
u ... Ad6 12.d3
1 2 .d4 is the natural move.
12 .£lc5 13."t!\'c2 §adS 14 . .£lbd2
.••
If 1 8.cxd5 cxd5, 19:�c2 avoids the
u n c l e ar compl ications of 1 9 . -tlh4
.ll x h2+!? 20 . .£lxh2 .tlxf2!.
18 . . . .£le5 1 9 . c x d 5 c x d 5 20 . .£l h4
.£le6?
Black maintains equality by 20 . . . .!:! c8
2 1 . -tlxg6 .tlxg6 22 . .1lf3 �f7 2 3 . �d4
.!:! ed8.

Ah5 IS.E!fdl?
21 .£l xg6
•

The rook was fine at fl . White doesn't

White is happy enough to obtain the
realize how fragile his kingside is.
bishop-pair.

2 1 . f4 .tlc6 2 2 . f5 is strong although

things are not so clear after 22 . . . -tled4!
23.exd4 �xe2 24.fxg6 �g4.

21 .£l xg6 22.�b3 �h8 23.Jl.f3

•••

.£lc7

The knight could just as well advance:

23 . . . -tlcS .

15 ••• .£lg4

There is no need to double the attack

on h2. Black can go on the rampage
straight away: 1 5 . . . ..1lxh2 +! 1 6 .�xh2
.tlg4+ 17.�gl .tlxe3! 18.�bl .tlxg2! + .

16 . .£lfl

Black was dreaming of 16.h3?? .tlxe3

17.fxe3 �xe3+, etc.

285
 l .b4 e5 2 . .1lb2 .ll x b4 3 . .1lxe5 4:Jf6 4.c4

24.a5 6 . . . .§. e8 7 . .1lb2 transposes to Althoff­

Kveinys in the notes to Chapter 1 0.
Obviously not 24.*Yxb7?? .§. b8 because
the bishop on b2 will be lost. 7 . .1}.e2 d5 S.cxd5

24 ... �e5 25 . .1l.xe5 fxe5 26 . .1}.xd5
� xd5 27.'�xd5
White proves his superiority by going
a pawn up.
8. 0-0 4:Jbd7 9 . .1lb2 .§. e8 again trans­
poses to Althoff-Kveinys in the notes
to Chapter I 0.
S . . . .1}.xd5

27 •.. E!d7 8 ... 4::\ x dS 9.0-0 4:Jd7 1 0 ..ilb2 .§.e8 yet

again transposes to Althoff-Kveinys in
27 . . . e4 28.'iii' x e4 *Yxe4 29.dxe4 .§. xe4 the notes to Chapter I 0.
30 . .§. abl ± .
9.0-0 j}.d6

9 . . . 4:Jbd7 10 . .1lb2 .§. e8 1 1 .4:Jc3 .llb7

Or 28.4:Jg3 and 29.4:Je4.
1 2 .'lii'b 3 is about level.
2S ... E!edS 29.a6 bxa6 30.E! x a6 e4
tO.Ab2
3 1 .d4 labS 3 2 . �a2 E!fS 33.E!al
Etas 3 4 .g3 h 6 3 5 . � d 2 Ab4
White avoids exchanges in the hope of
36.E!e6 �dS 37.� xe4
a more complex game.
Another pawn falls, so there is no doubt
about White 's eventual victory. 10 •.. �e4 l l .d3 �g5

37 a5 3 S . �a4 E!e7 3 9 . Et x e7
• . .

� x e7 40.�c6 E!eS 4 1 . � c 5 E!fS

42.�d3 E!f6 43. �b5 Ad2 44.E!a2
Ac3 45.�c5 � xc5 46.� xc5 \!lgS
47.�e4 E!c6 4S.� xc3 1-0

Game 85
Schiefelbusch-Gorzinski
Dortmund 2005

l .b4 e5 2.Ab2 Axb4 3.Axe5 �f6

4.c4 0-0 5.�f3 b6 1 2.e4!? .1l.b7 13.�bd2

Other moves, Chapter 1 0. 1 3 .e5!? merits consideration.

6.e3 Ah7 u . . . c5 t4.�c4 Ae7

286
 The Sokolsky Opening

1 4 . . . A c 7 ! ? d o e s n ' t i nterfere w ith He switches his forces from one flank

Black's other pieces so much. to the other. He could play 2 5 . !! h3!?
straight away.

25 ... .1lb4 26. 'ltrf2 E!c7 27 .Eth3 h6

White regroup s . The expan s i o n i s t
1 5 .4Jxg5 .\lxg5 16.f4 .!J.e7 17.4Je3 4Jc6
18.4Jf5 4Jd4 doesn 't appear to lead to a
significant advantage.

1S ... ~c6 t6.~fS ~e617.~d2 f6

Weakens the kingside. 17 . . . !! e8!? is

more prudent.

18 . .1l,dl

The bishop heads for the light-squared

28.-'l.cl!
diagonal that Black has just opened up.
The pawn on d4 can be taken, but White
18 . . . 4) ed4 1 9 . 4) 3 x d4 4) x d4
has eyes on a bigger target in the cor­
2 0 . 4) x d4 c x d4 2 1 . .1lb 3 + �h8
ner of the board.
22.f4 .1lc5?

28 •.. Et xcl

A short-term solution only, but little else

is available.

29.E!xcl -'l.a3 30.E!fl -'l.c5 31.'ltrh4

'ltre7 32. 'ltrg4 .Q.d6 33.E!cl

3 3 . �g6 threatens 3 4 . e 5 ! fxe5 3 5 . f6

mating.

33 ... Etc8?
At least 22 .. .f5!? stops White 's next
move. 33 . . . .!J.e5 props up Black's position for
a while.
23.f5!
34. E! x c8+
White grabs space in the area he will
attack. Or 34.!! xh6+ etc.

23 ... 'ltrd6 24.E!f3 E!ac8 25.E!afl 34 ••• .Q.xc8 35.E! xh6+! 1-0

287
 l .b4 e5 2.�b2 �xb4 3.�xe5 <£lf6 4.c4
35 . . . gxh6 36:i;;rg8 • .
Game 86
Katalymov-Giterman
Novgorod 1 96 1
l.b4 e 5 2.Jl.b2 Jl.xb4 3.Jl.xe5 {)f6
4.{)f3 0-0 5.c4 d5 6.e3 c5 7.a3
Other moves, Chapter I 0.
7 . . . Jl.a5 8.cxd5 {) xd5 9.�c2 {)c6
10.Jl.b2
White is a pawn up after 1 0.�xc5 <tlxe5
l l .<£lxe5 � e8 but is badly behind in
development.
10 . . . �e7
1 0 . . . � e8 transposes to Rosenhahn­
Zylla in the notes to Game 90.
l l .Ad3 h6 1 2 .0-0 Ae6 1 3 . �c l
Jl.b6 14.{)c3 �adS
The other rook belongs here. As proof,
Black will soon backtrack with . . �d8-
.
c8.
1 5 . {) a4 Ag4 t 6 . {) e l {) a 5
17.�abl �c8 18.h3 Jl.e6 19. {) x b6
axb6
288
1 9 . . . <£lxb6?? 20.�c3 wins the knight on
a5 by threatening mate on g7.
2 0 . {) f3 c41? 2 1 . Ah 7 + 'it> h 8
22.{)d4 c3?
Black underestimates White's attack and
misses a chance to equalize. 22 . . . <£lb3!
23.<£lxe6 fxe6 24.�dl (24.�fl ? <£lxd2!
2 5 . i1i' x d 2 'it' x h 7 + ) 24 . . . �h4 2 5 . f3
(leads to perpetual check, but White can
avoid the early draw by 2 5 . f4 <tlxd2
2 6 . � x g7 + ! 'it' x g 7 2 7 . � x d 2 oo )
25 . . . � xf3! 26.gxf3 �g3+ etc.
23.dxc3 g6
B lack was counting on this. However,
he could take on h6 first (because his
light-squared bishop is probably lost
anyway) in order to half-open the g-file:
23 . . . �xh3 24.gxh3 g6 25.-'\.xg6 fxg6 oo .
24.j}_xg6 fxg6 25.c4
White threatens captures on d5 and e6
(with check). 2 5 . <tlxe6 i1i'xe6 26.c4+
4Jf6 27.i1i'xg6 and Black is in trouble.
25 . . . {)f6 26.� xg6
26.<£lxe6 �xe6 transposes to the previ­
ous note.
26 . . . {) xc4
 The Sokolsky Opening
If 26 . . . Ad7, 27.�e2 intending 28.�f4.
27.� x h6+
Also extremely strong is 27.�xe6 �xe6
28.�xh6+ 'it>g8 29.�g6+ 'it>h8 30.Ad4!
The bishop is the most influential piece
on the board. One threat is 3 1 . l:! xc4
l:! xc4 32.l:! xb6.
27 ••• �g8
White g o e s three pawns up after
27 ... �h7 28.�xh7+ 'it>xh7 29.�xe6.
28. �g6+ �h8 29.Jl.al!?
This increases the scope ofthe b 1 -rook.
B lack has such a terrible position that
White can almost please himself.
29 ... !'!f7
29 . . . Ad7 can be met by 30.�e2 �g7
3 1 . �f4 'iftg8 3 2 . § b4 b5 3 3 . �xg7+
'iftxg7 34.�h5+ 'it>g6 3 5 . �xf6 § xf6
36.Axf6 'it>xf6 37.a4 with a decisive
advantage.
30 .£) xe6 � xe6 31.!=!bS 1-0
•
3 1 . . .l:!c5 32.l:!dl ! �d6 33.l:!b4 winning.
Game 87
Nevednichy-Parligras
Curtea de Arges 2002
l .b4 eS 2.J1,b2 J1, x b4 3.Jl.xeS .£)f6
4 . .£)f3 0-0 S.c4 dS 6.e3 J1,e7 7 .£)c3•
.£)bd7 8.J1, xf6
The more popular 8 . ..\lg3 is mentioned
in Chapter I 0.
8 . . . J1, x f6
289
8 . . . �xf6!? is unknown territory but looks
level after 9.�b3 c6 (or 9 . . . dxc4 1 0.Axc4
c6) 1 0.cxd5 �xd5 l l .�xd5 etc.
9.d4 dxc4 10.j}, xc4 cS 1 1.0-0
ll ••• cxd4 12.exd4
The right decision because Black can
force an isolated queen pawn anyway:
1 2.�xd4 �b6 1 3.Ab3 Axd4 14.exd4
Af5 This position is similar to what
occurs in the game except that there are
fewer pieces, which isn't what the side
with the IQP wants.
12 .£) b6 1 3 . Jl.b3 Jl.fS 1 4 . !=! e l
• • •
�d6 1 S .£)e4 •
This breaks up Black's bishop-pair one
way or another. However, 1 5 .�e5!? in­
tending 16.�f3 is more threatening.
1S ••• J1, x e4 t6.!=!xe4
The position is simplified, but White
has good central control.
16 .£)dS 17.�d3 !=!adS 18.!=!ael
•••
g6 19 .£leS !=!fe8??
•
An incredible move that should lose on
the spot. 1 9 . . . Ag7 can be met by 20.h4
with attacking chances.
 l .b4 eS 2.Ab2 Axb4 3 .Axe5 4Jf6 4.c4

20.�f3? 29 . . . 4Je7 stops White 's next move, but

30.§f4 § f8 3 1 .\'ii" g S and 3 2 . �f6+ is
White plays the move he had in mind winning.
for any reasonable move by Black, and
thus misses the chance to win material: 30 . .§ xg6+1
20.�xd5! �xdS 2 1 . 4Jg4 wins; e . g . ,
2 l . . .�e7 22.§ xe7 § xe7 23.§ xe7 �gS Perhaps Black was hoping that White
24:�e2 hS 2S.§e8+ etc. would miss this move.

20 . . . �g7 2 l.h41 30 ... <iflh7

A typical move against a fianchetto
3 0 . . . fxg6 3 l . � x g 6 + fo l l owed by
pawn structure.
32 .�h6+ picks up the rook on c l .
2 l . . . h5 22.g3
3 l . .§g7+ �h8 3 2 . .§ x c l � x c l +
White bides his time and maintains the 33.�h2 ?)e31?
tension.

After 2 2 .4Jxf7 § xe4 2 3 . § xe4 �xf7

24J!e5 White has won a pawn, it's true,
but there are opposite bishops on the
board, which dilute his advantage, so
he prefers to wait for a better opportu­
nity.

22 ... E!e7 23. <it'g2 E!c7 24. <it'gl bS

In desperation Black tries to random­

ize the situation.

34.�g5

34.�f3! 4Jfl + 35.'it'h3

A) 35 . . . �h6 36. § xf7 4Jd2 +- ;

B) 35 . . . '\Tixg7 36.�xf7+ '\Tih8 37.�f6+

25.g41 'it'h7 38.�xd8 +- .

The time has come ! 34 . . . ?)fl+

25 .§c3 26.�g2 h x g4 27 . .§ xg4

••• Black will get a series of checks, but
Jl. xe5 28.dxe5 �c5 29.h5 .§cl it's hopeless in the long run because if

290
 The Sokolsky Opening

the queens are exchanged White has an 8 . Ae 2 tran s p o s e s to L i ppmann­

easily won ending. Schallueck in the notes to Chapter I 0.

3 S . �g 2 � e 3 + 3 6 . �f3 � h l + S ... 'lt x dS

37 . � x e3 � e l + 3 8 . �(3 � h l +
3 9 . � e 2 �e4+ 4 0 . � f l � h l + 8 . . . <£lxd5 9.Ae2 transposes to Volke­
41.�gl �h3+ Meister in the notes to Chapter I 0.

4l . . .'l:1fxh5 42 . .§ xf7 +- .

4 2 . �g 2 § d l + 43 . 1l, x d l � d 3 +
44.�el �c3+ 4S.�e2 �c4+

45 . . :�xe5+ 46.'it>fl 'l:1fxg7 47.'l:1fxg7+

'itt xg7 48.'it>e2 +- .

46.�e3 �c3+

46 . . . 'l:1tcl + 47.'it>e4 'l:1tc6+ 48.'it>f5 �c8+

49.'it>g5 +- 0
9.Jl.e2

47 . � e4 �c4+ 4 8 . � f S � e 6 + White can exchange one of his bishops

49.�f4 �c4+ so.�e4 to wreck Black's kingside, but the long
term consequences are unclear: 9.Axf6!?
50.'it>g5!? 'it>xg7 5 1 .h6+ 'it>f8 (5 1 . . .'it>h7 g x f6 1 0 . ..1l e 2 Ag4 1 1 . 0- 0 t£J e 5
52 .'it>h5 +- ) 52 .'l:1ta8+ 'it>e7 53.h7 +- . ( l l . . . .§ ad8 1 2 . d4 'l:1t h 5 ! ? ) 1 2 . <£l x e 5
A x e 2 1 3 . 'l:1t x e 2 t! x e 5 ( 1 3 . . . 'l:1t x e 5??
SO . . . �cl+ Sl.�e3 �c4+ S2.�g3 14.'l:1tg4+ I -0, Van Gooi-NN, corr 2003 .
rtJ xg7 S3.Jl.b3 1-0 The further 1 4 . . . 'it>h8 1 5 .�xb4 �xal
1 6.<£lc3 traps the queen) 14 . .§cl oo .
Game 88
Mira/les-Spiridonov Meanwhile 9.<£lc3!? is untested.
Bulgaria I 985
9 . . . 11,fS 10.a3 Jl.aS 1 1 .0-0 §adS
l.b4 eS 2.1l,b2 1l, x b4 3.1l,xeS �f6 1 2.d4 �e4 13.�cl
4.c4 �c6
Threatens Ae2-c4.
4 . . . 0-0 5 .<£lf3 t£Jc6 6.Ab2 t! e8 7.e3 d5
transposes. A) 1 3 . <£lfd2!? t£lxd2 ( 1 3 . . . 'l:1te6!? maxi­
mizes Black's options) 14.<£lxd2 'l:1td7
S.Jl.b2 0-0 6.e3 dS 7.�f3 §e8 1 5 . <£lc4 Ab6 1 6 . t! c l ;!; Kamminga­
J .Johannesson, Netherlands-Iceland
7 . . Ag4 8.a3!?.
. I 994;

8.cxdS B) 1 3 . <£lbd2 is the natural move.

29 I
 l .b4 e5 2 . .1lb2 .ll xb4 3 . .1lxe5 .£Jf6 4.c4

13 �d6 14.E{dl .Q.e6 1 S . � bd2

••• 24.J}.xe4! Et x e4 2S.Et x dS
JldS 16.�c4 �h6 17.�feS � xeS
White goes a piece up and there's noth­
17 .. :�·h4!? forces White to defend f2. ing Black can do to avoid defeat.

1 8 . d x e S Jl,b6 1 9 . � x b6 c x b6 2S E{de8 26.h3 h6 27 . E{ d8 h5

•••

20.Jlf3 �g6 21.E{d4 2 8 . E{ c l � h 7 2 9 . E{ x e8 E{ x e8

30.E{c4 bS 3l.E{h4 a6 32.�xh5+
�xhS 33. Et x hS+ �g6 34.E{eS Etd8
3S.Ete7 E{d2

35 . . . f!dl + 36.<it>h2 f! d2 37 . .1lc3 f! xf2

38. f! xb7 +- .

36.Jlc3 Etc2 37 .Jl,aS Eta2 38.Jl,b4

a S 3 9 . Jl, x a S Et x a3 4 0 . J}. b 6 b4
41.E{ xb7 b3 42 .Q.d4 1-0
•

Game 89
Sokolsky-Anishchenko
21 ••• �c3? Minsk 1 959

Better is 2 l . . . .llc 6!?; e.g., 22 .ii¥dl f! xd4 l .b4 eS 2.Jl,b2 Jl, x b4 3 .Q. xeS �f6
•

with rough equality however White cap­ 4 . c 4 0 - 0 s . e3 � c 6 6 . -'l, b 2 d5

tures. 7.cxdS � xdS

7 . . . ii¥xd5 8 . .1lxf6 gxf6 9 . .£le2 (or 9.a3!?

22.e4!
first before deciding on the precise
Black was hoping for the easier game plan) 9 . . . .1lg4 1 0 . .£Jec3!? oo .
he gets after 22.Axc3 .ll xf3 23. �fl f!c8
8.�f3 .Q.g4
or 23 . . . .§xd4 .
Other moves, Chapter 1 0.
22 ••• � x e4
9.Jl,e2 E{e8 10.0-0
B lack loses a piece after 22 . . . .ll x e4?
23.f! xd8; e.g., 23 . . . .£le2+ 24.<it>fl f! xd8
25.�c7! .

23 . . . .£lxf2!? was Black's chance to try

to confuse White (although it shouldn't
work) 2 4 . <it'xf2 .ll x f3 2 5 . gx f3 �h5
26.f! xd8 �h4+ 27.<it'fl f! xd8 28.ii¥e2
ii¥h3+ 29.<it>gl ii¥f5 30.f! c l and White
will win eventually.

292
 The Sokolsky Opening

The natural and usual move here. 23 ••• c6 24.4)d2 .Q.d5 25 .Q.f3!
•

10 ••• .Q.e7 The exchange of light pieces further

exposes the weakness of the c-pawn.
Black plans to relocate the bishop to f6.
10 . . . �e7 transposes to Lipok-Grimm in 25 .Q.xf3 26.4) xf3 f6 27.h3 �ed8
•••

the notes to Game 94. For other moves 28.4)d2

see Chapter I 0.

l l .d4 .Q.f6 1 2.4)bd2 .Q.f5

1 2 . . :i!i'd7 or 12 . . . �e7 can be met by

13.§cl .

13.4)c4 4)b6 14.�cl 4) xc4

Trokenheim-Persson Borje, corr 1 99 1

continued 1 4 . . . -'te4 1 5 . Ad 3 �d5
1 6.Axe4 �xe4 17Ajfd2 �g6 1 8.Aa3
§ ad8 1 9.<tlxb6 cxb6 20.�f3 (better is
20.<tlf3 or 20.�c2) 20 . . . h6 (20 . . . -'txd4! 28 ••• �f8?
2 l . e x d4 <tlxd4 + ) 2 1 . <tlc4 (better i s
2 1 ...1lb2) 2 l . . .Ae7 (2 1 . . .-'txd4! Again ! T h i s move may prep are for the
22.<tld6 ..llb 2 + ) 22.Axe7 § xe7 23.a4 endgame, but it doesn 't prepare for the
�e4 24.�xe4 § xe4 25.§fdl and al­ imminent queenside cri s i s . At least
though White appears to have a small 28 . . .�e6!? improves the position of the
advantage the game was eventually queen.
drawn.

1 5 .Q. x c4 4)a5 16 .Q.e2

• •

Otherwise 29 . . . <tlxb3 30.axb3 c5 3 l .b4!

White can win a pawn by 16 . ..1lxf7+!? §d5 32 .bxc5 bxc5 33.�c2 and the c­
'<t>xf7 17.§c5 �d7 18.§ xa5 b6 19.§a3. pawn falls.

t6 ••• b6 30.4) xa5 � xa5 31."�c2

With the idea of . . . c7-c5, threatening to White attacks the h-pawn as well as in­
open up the long dark diagonal, while creasing the pressure on the c-pawn.
the bishop on b2 is unprotected.
31 ••• g6?
1 7 . .Q. a 3 ! .Q.e7 1 8 .Q. x e7 'l}f x e7
•

1 9 . '1}fa4 �ac8 20 .Q. a 6 �cd8 • Black does better to let the h-pawn go,
2 1.Etc3 .Q.e4 22 .Q.e2 �c8 23.�fcl
• because after 3 l . . .�e6 32.�xh7 f5 the
white queen will be offside.
White puts a stop to . . . c7-c5 , which
would free that backward pawn. 32.� xc6 �d8

293
 l .b4 e5 2 . .ilb2 .ilxb4 3 . .ilxe5 4Jf6 4.c4

Even worse is 32 . . . !! xc6 33.�xc6 !! xa2

34.�c8+ �e8 35.�b7 +- .

3 3 . t\'b3 � a d S 3 4 . � t c4 � Sd 6
3 S . t\'c3 � x c6 3 6 . � x c6 �g7
37.t\'c4 �d6 38.dS �f8

38 . . . !! xc6 loses to 39.dxc6 �c7 40.�e6

etc.

39.g3 �f7?

The game is totally lost anyway. 10 •.. t\'d6

40.�c7 1-0 A) 10 . . . !! xe3!? A familiar sacrifice in

the Soko1sky. Here we prefer White, but
Game 90 it's far from clear; e.g., l l .fxe3 4Jxe3
Arke/1-Gal/agher 1 2 . � a 4 ( 1 2 . � b 3 4J x g 2 + 1 3 . \t> d 1
London 1 986 .ile6 oo ) 1 2 . . . 4Jxg2+ 1 3 .\t>d1 ( ::!0 1 3.\t>f2
Ah3) 1 3 . . . .ilb6 1 4.\t>c l .ile6 oo ;
l.b4 eS 2.,11. b2 .11. x b4 3 . .11. xeS 4)f6
4.c4 0-0 S .£lf3 �e8 6.e3 dS 7.cxdS
• B) 1 0 . . . .ilg4 1 1 .0-0 �e7 transposes to
4) xdS 8.a3 .11. a S 9 .11. b 2
• Hess-Petermann in the notes to Chap­
ter 1 0.
9 . .ile2 and 9.4Jc3?, Chapter 1 0.
1 1.0-0 .11.fS
9 ... 4)c6
1 1 . . . ..1lg4 1 2 .h3 Af5 1 3 .�b3 is similar
A) 9 . . . c5 1 0 .�c2. This is a very dy­ to the game.
namic situation (of the type we warned
12. t\'b3 �adS 13 . .£lc3
about at the start of Chapter 1 0) that
requires deeper exploration. 10 . . . 4Jc6
Of course not 1 3 .�xb7?? !!b8 1 4.�a6
( 1 0 . . . 4Jf4!?) 1 1 .�xc5 ( l l ..ild3 4Jf4 [or
!! xb2 -+ .
1 1 . . . 4J x e 3 ] 1 2 . .il x h 7 + \t>h8 oo )
1 1 . . . ..1lg4 ( 1 1 . . .4Jf4 ! ?) 1 2 .Ac4 4Jb6 1 3 ,11. x c 3
• . . 1 4 . ,11. x c3 4) x c 3
1 3 . Jl a 2 .il x f3 1 4 . g x f3 �d3 oo 1S.t\'xc3 .11.e4 16.�fcl t\'g6
Rosenhahn-Zylla, corr 1 995;
16 . . . Axf3 1 7 . .ilxf3 �xd2 gains a pawn
B) 9 ... 4Jf4?? 10.�a4 +- shows a favor­ for Black, but 18.�xd2 !! xd2 19.!!ab1!
able aspect of driving the bishop back will make him regret it.
by a2-a3 .
17.d4 �d7 18.4)et .ildS 19 .11.f3 •

10.,11.e 2 4)e7 20.�abl!

294
 The Sokolsky Opening
The positive feature ofWhite 's position
is that he can apply considerable pres­
sure to Black's queenside.
20 . . .b6 2 1 . �c2
The exchange of queens favors White
because it eliminates the possibility of
an attack on his king.
21 ... �xc2 22.13 xc2 ..i}.xf3 23.4) xf3
cS?
Hyperactivity. B lack wasn 't looking
forward to the passiv ity of 23 . . . f6
24.E!.bcl c6 and 25 . . .'iftf7 although it
does hold the position for a while.
2 4 . d x c S 13c7 2 S . 13 b c 1 13 ec8
26.<iflfl f6
A) 26 . . . bxc5 27.�d4 a6 28.E!.c4 �d5
29.�b3 and the c-pawn will fall;
295
B) 26 . . . E!. xc5 27.E!. xc5 bxc5 28.�d2 and
next move the knight can either block
or attack the c-pawn, which is very vul­
nerable.
27. <it'e2 <it'f7 2 8 . 4) d4 13 x e S
2 9 . 13 x c S b x c S 3 0 . 4) b S <ifle6
31.4) xa7 13a8 32.4)bS 13aS?
Incomprehensible. At least 3 2 . . . E!. c8
defends the pawn.
33. 13 xcS 13a4 34.13c7 g6 3S. 13a7
13h4
It's hard to agree to swap rooks as that
only simplifies White 's task: 35 . . . E!. xa7
36.�xa7 '<t>d5 37.�b5 <iftc4 38.�d4 .
Eventually White will force weaknesses
among the black pawns so that the white
king will be able to infiltrate.
36.4)d4+ <it>d6 37.h3 4)dS 38.<it'd3
fS 39.f4
The black rook is excluded from play.
39 .•. <iflcS 40.13a6 hS
40 . . . �b6 4 l .E!.a5+ '<t>d6 42.E!. xf5! wins.
41.4)f3 1-0
In fact 4l .E!.c6 • was mate !
 Chapter 11
l.b4 e 5 2.J;tb2 Jl. x b4 3.Jl.xe5 .£Jf6
4 .£Jf3
•
White wants to rapidly develop his
kingside. In the main line he will play
.£lg1 -f3 , e2-e3 and Af1 -e2 so as to
castle as soon as posssible, thus avoid­
ing the types of sacrifices on e3 seen in
the notes to the last game (Game 90).
Firm decisions about the queenside are
left for later.
A) 4.c4, analyzed in Chapter 1 0, is more
popular;
B) Of course 4.e3 0-0 5 . .£lf3 transposes
(Basman has suggested 5 .h3 planning
Ae5-h2);
C) 4.e3 .£lc6
1) 5 .Ab2 d5 6.<£lf3 0-0 transposes to
Ganchev-Filev in the notes below;
2) In reply to Schiffler 's 5.f4!? Soltis
suggests 5 . . . 0-0 6.<£lf3 E! e8.
4 . . . 0-0
Other moves are mentioned in the In­
troduction.
296
5.e3
A) 5.c4 transposes to the main line of
Chapter 1 0;
B) 5.g3 .£lc6 6.Ab2 transposes to the
main line of the Introduction.
5 ••. d5
The usual move.
Other possibilities are
A) 5 . . . d6
1) 6.Ac3 a5 7.a3 Axc3 8 . .£lxc3 ..llg4
9.E!b1 �c8 1 0 .h3 Ah5 1 l .Ae2 <£lc6
1 2 .0-0 Ag6 1 3 . .£lh4 ;t Haertig-Boceck,
email 2000;
2) 6 . .ilb2 .ilg4 (6 . . . .£lc6 7.c4 transposes
to Reimer-Wild in the notes to Chapter
1 0) 7.Ae2 c6 (7 . . . .£lc6 transposes to
Wessel-Nehmdahl in the notes to the
Introduction) 8. 0-0 .£lbd7 9 . c4 E!e8
1 0 .�b3 ( 1 0 . d 3 �e7 1 1 . .£lc 3 d5=)
1 0 . . . �b6 1 l . d4 c 5 = Kaszynski­
Pofelski, Ustrzyki Dolne 1 996;
B) 5 . . . .£lc6
 The Sokolsky Opening
1) 6.-'tb2
a) 6 . . . d5 7 . .1le2
(i) 7 . . ..1lf5 8.0-0 E!. e8 9.c4 transposes
to Tkac-Michalek in the notes to Chap­
ter 1 0;
(ii) 7 . . . .Q.g4 8.0-0
(a) 8 . . : i!i'e7 9 . d4 ( 9 . d 3 Game 9 1 :
Z i e l inska-Nodorp, Hamburg 2 0 0 5 )
9 . . . �e4 1 0 . c4 ( � 1 0 . �bd2 Ac3 ! )
1 0 . . . dxc4 1 1 .-'txc4=;
(b) 8 . . . E!. e8 9.c4 (9.d3 'f!e7 Game 9 1 )
9 . . . dxc4 1 0 . ..\l.xc4 �a5 ( 1 0 . . . 'f!e7 trans­
poses to Lipok-Grimm in the notes to
Game 94) 1 1 . .1l e 2 .Q.d6 1 2 . d4 c6
1 3.�bd2 'f!c7 1 4.h3 .Q.h5 15 . .1ld3 ;t ;
(iii) 7 . . . E!.e8 Game 94: Mus-Mitrus, corr
1 992;
b) 6 . . . E!. e8 7.a3 Aa5 8.-'te2 d5 9.0-0
.Q.f5 1 0.d3 ( 1 0.c4!?) 10 . . . a6 1 l .�bd2
'i!i'e7 1 2 . c4 E!. a d8 1 3 . ..\l. x f6 g x f6
( � 1 3 . . . 'f!xf6 1 4 . cxd5) 1 4 . cxd5 E!. xd5
1 5 .�c4 with the advantage, Pommerel­
Zylla, corr 1 995;
2) 6.c3 �xe5 7.�xe5 (Black has no
problems after 7.cxb4 �xf3+ 8.'f!xf3
d 5 ) 7 . . . .Q.e7 8 . d4 c 5 9 . ..\l.d3 c x d 4
1 0 . cxd4 Ab4+ 1 l .�d2 d 6 1 2 .�ef3
.ll g 4 1 3 . 0 - 0 -'t x d 2 1 4 . 'f! x d 2 -'t x f3
1 5.gxf3 d5 Bulcourf-Giaccio, Argentina
1 997. Now White should play 16.'�h1
and 17.E!.g1 with kingside pressure;
297
C ) 5 . . . b6 6 . A e 2 ( 6 . c 4 Game 8 5 )
6 . . . .1lb7 7.0-0 d 5 8.d3 �bd7 9 . ..\l.b2
1) 9 . . . 'i!i'e7 1 0.h3 E!.fe8 1 l .a3 .llc 5 1 2.d4
Ad6 1 3 . �bd2 c5 1 4.c4 E!. ac8 1 5 .dxc5
( 1 5 . E!. c 1 !?) 1 5 . . . -'t x c 5 ( 1 5 . . . �xc5 !?)
16.�d4 �e5 1 7.cxd5 �xd5 18.�2f3
E!. ed8 1 9 .�xe5 'i!i'xe5 2 0 : �b3 'i!i'g5
2 l .�f3 'l!i'h6 The position is equal since
Black is flexibly placed, Tobys-Kuziola,
Leba 2004;
2) 9 . . . .Q.d6 10.�bd2 c5 (10 . . . E!. e8 Game
93) 1 l .c4 E!. e8 1 2 .a4 ( 1 2 .cxd5 �xd5
1 3 . �c4 ..\l.c7=) 12 . . . a6 1 3 . E!. e 1 ..\l.c7
14.'i!i'b3 E!.b8 1 5 .E!. ad1 ..\l.c6 1 6.'f!c2 b5
17.axb5 axb5 1 8.cxb5 ..\l.xb5 1 9 . E!. a 1
.Q.d6 20.-llfl 'i!Jc7 2 1 .g3 E!. ec8 22.e4
dxe4 2 3 . dxe4 ..\l. x f1 2 4 . 'it>xfl �e5
25 . ..\l.xe5 ..\l.xe5 26.�xe5 'f!xe5 27.�c4
'i!Je6 28.'it>g2 E!. d8 29.e5 E!. d4 30.exf6
E!. x c4 3 l . E!. x e6 E!. x c 2 3 2 . E!. b6 E!. d8
3 3 . E!. d 1 \12 - \12 , Ornste i n - Wedberg,
Stockholm 1 998;
D) 5 ... ..\l.e7 6.c4 c5 (6 ... d5 transposes
to Kupreichik-Yuferov in the notes to
Chapter 1 0)
1) 7.�c3 �c6 8 . .1lxf6 .ll xf6 9.E!.cl d6
1 0 . .1le2 Ae6 1 1 .0-0 E!. c8 1 2 .'i!i'c2 h6
1 3 .a3 E!. e8 1 4 .d3 Axc3 1 5 .'i/!xc3 b6
1 6 . E!. fd1 d5 \12-\12, Smyslov-Adorj an,
Wijk aan Zee 1 972;
 l .b4 e5 2.�b2 �xb4 3.Axe5 �f6 4.�f3
2) 7 . ..1le2 �c6 8 . .1lb2 d5
a) 9.cxd5 �xd5 (9 . . . �xd5 10.0-0=)
(i) 10.�c3 .lle6 1 1 .0-0 �db4 1 2 .d3 f5
with mutual chances;
(ii) 1 0.0-0 �f5 ( 1 0 . . . �f6 1 1 .�cl ..llf5
is good too) 1 1 .d3 �f6 with an active
position;
b) 9.0-0 d4 (9 . . . dxc4 10.�3!?) 10.exd4
cxd4 1 1 .d3 !! e8 1 2 .�bd2= b. 1 3.�b3;
E) 5 . . . !! e8 6 . �e2 d5 transposes to
4 . . . 0-0 5 .e3 d5 6.�e2 !! e8.
6 .Q.e2
.
White hurries to complete kingside de­
velopment.
6.c4 !! e8 transposes to the main line of
Chapter 1 0.
6.c3
A) 6 . . . .1ld6 7.d4 �g4 (7 . . . c5!?) 8 . .1lxd6
�xd6 9 . .1le2 § e8 10.0-0 !! e6 1 1 .�bd2
§ h6 1 2 .h3 �f6 1 3.�e5 �c6 14.f4 �e7
1 5.c4 oo Malmstroem-Milde, corr 2002;
B) 6 . . . �e7 7.d4
1) 7 . . . § e8 8 . .1ld3 �c6 (8 . . . c5!?) 9 . .1lxf6
�xf6 10.0-0 �e7 1 1 .�c2 g6 1 2 .�bd2
a6 1 3.e4 dxe4 1 4.�xe4 .llg4 1 5 .�xf6+
298
�xf6 16.�d2 'it>g7 17.�e4 �f4 18.�g3
(18.f3!?) 18 . . . § ad8 and Black has up­
held equality, Kupec-De Grandi, email
1 99 5 ;
2 ) 7 . . . �c6 8 . .1lg3 �e4 9 . .1ld3 �xg3
(9 . . . h5!?) 10.hxg3 h6 (10 . . .g6!?) 1 1 . ..1lc2
�d6 1 2 .�d3 f5 1 3 .�bd2 �e6 14.§b1
.lld6 1 5 .�g1 ( 1 5 .g4!?) 15 ... b6 16.�e2
a5 1 7 . �a4 �a6 1 8 . �b 5 �b7 =
Tavakoli-Ayman, IECG email 2000;
3) 7 . . . c5!?;
C) 6 . . . �a5 7 . '�a4 (7 . ..1le2 c5 8 . 0-0
�c6 =i= ) 7 . . . �c6 8 . .1lf4 �e4 9 . .1lb5 .llb6
1 ) 1 0 . 0-0 �f6 ( 1 0 . . . g5 !?) 1 1 .d4 �e7
1 2 . .1le5 �h6 1 3 . .1ld7 �g6 1 4 . .1lxc8
§ axeS 1 5 .c4
a) 1 5 . . . dxc4 1 6:�xc4 �xe5 ( 1 6 . . . c5!?)
1 7 .�xe5 c6 ( 1 7 . . . c5 !?) 1 8 .�d3 �d6
1 9 .�d2 �e6 20.�b3 �e7 2 1 . § ab1
§b8 22 .�a3 �e6 23.!!fcl White stands
slightly more actively and even went on
to win, Vidonyak-Gustavsson, Germany
1 999;
b) More dynamic is 15 . . . �xe5 ! ; e.g.,
1 6 . � x e 5 ( 1 6 . d x e 5 �xf2 ! ?) 16 . . . c5
17.�d7 cxd4 18.�xb6 dxe3! and now
1 9 . � x c8?? a l l ow s a forced mate :
1 9 . . . exf2+ 20.§ xf2 �cl + 2 1 .§fl �e3+
22 .'it>h1 �f2+ 23.'it>g1 �h3+ 24.'it>h1
�g1 + 25.!! xg1 �fU ;
 The Sokolsky Opening
2) White gains a pawn after 10 . ..1lxc6
bxc6 1 1 . 'itixc6? but is in trouble because
of 1 1 . . . <£Jc5 ! ; e . g . , 1 2 . 'it! x a 8 <£l d 3 +
1 3 .�fl <£lxf4 1 4 .exf4? Jla6+, which
loses the queen.
6 . . . c5
This is Black's usual choice, to occupy
the center.
A) 6 . . . E! e8
1) 7.0-0
a) 7 . . .<£lbd7 8.Ab2 <£Jb6 (8 . . . b6 Game
93 : Campora-German, Buenos Aires
1 99 5 ) 9 . <£lc3 (9.d3 <£la4!?) 9 . . . Jld7
10.E!b1 a5 with mutual chances;
b) 7 . . . ..1lg4 Game 92 : Markowski­
Pedzich, Poland 1 994;
c) 7 . . . c5 8.d3 ( :oE 8.c4 <£Jc6 9 . ..llb 2 d4 + )
8 . . . <£Jc6 9.Jlb2 transposes to the main
line;
2) 7 . c4 d x c 4 8 . ..1l x c 4 <£Jc6 9 . ..1lb2
(9 . ..1lc3!?) 9 ... Jle6 1 0.Jle2 �e7 1 1 .0-0
E!ad8 1 2 .a3 oo ;
B) 6 ... <£Jc6 7.Ab2 transposes to 5.e3
4Jc6 6 . Jlb2 d5 7 .Ae2 in the notes
above;
C) 6 . . . ..1ld6 7 . ..1lb2=;
299
D) 6 . . . Jle7 7.0-0 c5 8 . ..1lb2 <£Jc6 9.c4
tran s p o s e s to a subvariation o f
Smyslov-Adorjan i n the notes above.
7.0-0 �c6 8 . .1lb2
8.Jlg3 d4 is quite good for Black.
8 ••• E!e8
The half-open e-file inevitably attracts
the rook sooner or later.
A) 8 . . . Aa5 9.c4 (Black is fine after 9.d3
d4; but trickier for both sides is 9.Jla3
<£le4 1 0 . d3 �f6 1 1 . d x e 4 d x e 4
1 2 .<£Jd4! oo ) 9 . . . d4 1 0.exd4 cxd4 1 l .d3
E! e8 1 2 . <£lbd2 �e7 ( 1 2 . . . ..1lc7 trans­
poses to Poschmann-Soberano in the
notes below) 1 3 . E! e 1 ..llg4 14.�c2 .
A crossroads :
1 ) 1 4 . . .' ?i1f x e 2 ! ? 1 5 . E! x e 2 E! x e 2
1 6 : ?i11 c l oo Kocandrle-B ertel, IECG
2004;
2) 14 . . . Jlxf3 1 5 .Axf3 'itfxe1 + 16.E!xe1
E!xe1+ 17.<£lfl oo ;
3) 14 .. .'?i11d6 looks best;
B) 8 ... Jlf5 9.d3
 l .b4 e5 2 .�b2 �xb4 3.�xe5 <tlf6 4.<tlf3
1 ) 9 . . . h6 1 0 . <tl e 5 ( 1 0 . <tlb d 2 ! ? )
1 0 . . . <tlxe5 1 U1xe5 f! e8 1 2 . .l1b2 ii!'d6
1 3.<tld2 .l1a5 14 . .l1f3 .l1c7 1 5 .g3 f! ad8
1 6 . a4 b6 1 7 . f! e 1 <tlh7 1 8 .e4 dxe4
19.�xe4 i!i"g6 20.�xf5 'li!'xf5 2 l .'l!i"f3
a) 2 1 . . . 'llh f3 2 2 . <tlxf3 <tlg5 2 3 . 'ifi>g2
<tlxf3 24.'ifi>xf3 f6 with an equal ending;
b) 2 l . . .ii!'g6? 22.h4 <tlf8? 23.h5 'l!i"h7
24.ii!'c6 f! xe 1 + 25.f! xe1 .l1b8 26.f! e8
f! x e 8 2 7 . 'li!' x e 8 .l1c7 2 8 . 'l!i"c8 1 - 0 ,
F i schbach- Vi l lu m s e n , c o rr 1 9 9 0
28 . . . �d6 2 9 . <tlc4 �e7 3 0 . <tle3 �f6
3 1 .<tld5! +- ;
2) Ranby-Kempe, Sweden 1 990, con­
tinued 9 . . . 'lil'd6 1 0.<tlbd2 �a5 1 1 .c4 d4
1 2 . exd4 cxd4 ( 1 2 . . . <tlxd4!?) 1 3 . <tlb3
.l1c7 ( 1 3 . . . .!1b6 1 4 . a4!?) 1 4 . <tlb x d4
<t\xd4 1 5 . A x d4 .l1g4 1 6 . .!1e5 'l!i"d7
1 7 .�xc7 and White had won a pawn;
3) 9 . . . f! e8 transposes to 8 . . . f! e8 9.d3
A£5 in the notes below;
C) 8 . . . a6 9.c3 .l1a5 10.d3 b5 1 1 .<tlbd2
.l1b7 1 2 . a4 ( 1 2 . <tl b 3 ! ? ) 1 2 . . . .l1c7
1 3 . axb5 axb5 14.f! xa8 .l1xa8 1 5 .'lii"b 3
'l!i"b8 1 6 . c4 <tlb4 ( o 1 6 . . . b x c 4
1 7 .dxc4=) 1 7 . .l1xf6 and White has the
better prospects because B lack ' s
kingside w i l l be fracture d , Mroz­
Jakubiec, Poland 1 987;
300
D ) 8 . . . d4 9 . c 3 (after 9 . <tla 3 <tle4
10 . .l1d3 A£5 Black has no real prob­
l e m s ) 9 . . . d 3 ( 9 . . . d x c 3 1 0 . <tlxc3=)
1 0.�xd3 'li!'xd3 1 l .cxb4 <t\xb4 1 2 . .l1xf6
gxf6 1 3 .<tle 1 i!i"g6 1 4.<tlc3 f! d8 1 5 .<tle2
<tld5 16.<tlf3 b6 17.<tlg3 <tle7 with more
or less equal chances since Black has a
useful bishop to compensate him for his
inferior pawn structure , Pedersen­
Christensen, Denmark 1 998;
E) 8 . . . .!1g4
1 ) 9 . d3 'lil'e7 (9 . . . f! e8 transposes to
Pommerel-Mrkvicka in the notes be­
low) 10.<tlbd2 f! fd8 1 l .a3 �a5 1 2 .c4
.l1xf3 ( 1 2 . . . d4!?) 1 3 . .l1xf3 Axd2 14.cxd5
<tle5 1 5 . .!1xe5 'li!'xe5 1 6.i!i"xd2 <tlxd5
1 7 . f! a c 1 'lil' e 7 1 8 . 'lil'b 2 f! ab8=
R.Herbert-Sulyok, Austria 2004;
2) 9 . h3 Axf3 1 0 .Axf3 'lil'e7 l l .<tlc3
f! ad8 1 2.<tle2 <tle4 1 3 .c3 .l1a5 1 4.d4 f5
( 1 4 . . . c 4 ! ? ) 1 5 . .l1 a 3 oo S o szynski­
R.Taylor, SchemingMind.com 2008.
9.d3
White makes room for the b 1 -knight.
9.d4 only encourages 9 . . . c4! Game 95:
Althoff-T.Mueller, Kaufungen 2003 .
9 . . . JlaS
The bishop will go to c7 and tum its
attention to the white kingside.
A) 9 . . .Ag4 10.<tlbd2
1) 10 . . . d4 1 l .a3 ( 1 l . e4!?) 1 1 . . . .l1xd2
(better is 1 1 . . . .l1a5 !?) 1 2 . 'li!'xd2 'lil'e7
1 3 .e4 f! ad8 1 4 . 'lil'f4 c4 1 5 . f! ab1 c3
16 . .l1c 1 .l1xf3 1 7 .'li!'xf3 <tld7 1 8 . 'lil'h5
<tlb6? ( 1 8 . . . b6=) 1 9 .f4 and White is
starting an attack on the black king,
Pommerel-Mrkvicka, email 1 990;
 The Sokolsky Opening
2) 10 . . . �a5!? 1 1 ..£lh4 .ilxe2 1 2 .�xe2
d4 1 3 . .£lc4 .ilc7 ( """ 1 3 . . . .£ld5 14 . .£lxa5=)
1 4 . �f3 E! e6 1 5 . e xd4 b5 1 6 . E! fe l
(16 . .£la3!?) 1 6. . . .£ld5 and Black can be
satisfied with his position, Teichmann­
Zhao Zong Yuan, Gold Coast 2000;
B) l f 9 . . . .ilf5, 10 . .£lbd2 is the straight­
forward reply, but for something more
dynamic White can try 1 0 . c 3 �a5
l l ..ila3 b6 12 . .£lh4!?
The natural, developmental move.
Mukhin-Georgadze, Simferopol 1 975,
continued 1 0 . .£la3 .ilc7 ( 1 0 ... a6!? l l .c4
[ :!: l l . c 3 b 5 ] l l . . . d4 1 2 . .£lc2 �e7
13 . .£ld2 oo ) l l .c4 .£lg4 12 . .£lb5 ..llb8
1 3 .h3 .£lh6 1 4 . E! c l a6 1 5 .cxd5 axb5
(after 1 5 . . . �xd5 16 . .£lc3 �f5 17 . .£la4
.ild6 18 . .ila3 Black suddenly has prob­
lems with his c-pawn) 16.dxc6 E! xa2
17.E!c2 bxc6 18.�bl �d5 (18 . . . E! a6
1 9 . E! x c 5 = ) 1 9 . E! fc 1 �a7 and now
White should p lay 20 . .ilxg7! E! x c 2
2 l . E! x c 2 'it> x g 7 2 2 . � a 1 + 'it> g 8
23.�xa7 ± .
10 . . . -'l.c7
Black continues with the plan, although
the bishop is quite strong where it is too.
301
A ) Sharp play occurred i n Ornstein­
Karl s s o n , S w e d e n 1 9 9 8 : 1 0 . . . d4
1 1 . .£lb3 ..llc 7 ( 1 1 . . . dxe3!?) 1 2.exd4 .£ld5
( 1 2 . . . c x d4 ! ?) 1 3 . g 3 ( 1 3 . d x c 5 .£lf4
14.E!e1 �g4 � ) 1 3 . . . �f6 1 4 . .£lxc5 �h3
1 5 . .£le4 ± ;
B) 1 0. . ...1lg4 transposes to Teichmann­
Zhao Zong Yuan in the notes above;
C) 1 0 . . . �e7 1 l . c4 d4 1 2 . e4 ..ll c 7
13 . .£le1 .£ld7 1 4 . f4 oo Rogers-Stone,
Den Bosch 1 999.
l l .c4
Best. White must challenge the black
center.
ll .•. dxc4
1 1 . . .d4 gives a completely different
character to the game - Black must be
prepared to s a c r i fi c e h i s d-pawn
1 2 .exd4 cxd4 1 3 . .£lb3 ..llg4
A) 1 4.g3 �d7 1 5 .E!b1 ..lle 5 16.E!e1 b6
1 7 . a4 E! e7 1 8 . .£lxe5 E! xe5 1 9 . -'txg4
E! xe 1 + 20.�xe 1 .£lxg4 2 1 .�e4 .£lf6
2 2 . �f4 E! e8 2 3 . .£lxd4 .£le5 2 4 . �f5
�xa4? (24 . . . �xf5 2 5 . .£lxf5 .£lxd3=)
25.E!e1 .£led7 26.E! xe8+ .£lxe8 27 . .£lb5
.£lf8 28. �c8 ± Poschmann-Soberano,
IECC email 1 998;
B) 14 . .£lfxd4 .ilxe2 15 . .£lxe2 .£lg4 16.g3
( 1 6.h3 �h4 1 7.�d2 E! ad8 with active
play) 16 . . . �g5 with the initiative, but
is it enough for the pawn?
12.4) xc4 bS
1 2 . . . �g4 1 3 . h 3 ..ll h 5 1 4 . d4 c x d4
1 5 . .£lxd4 ..ll x e2 1 6 . .£lxe2 �e7 17 . .£ld4
( 1 7 . �b3!?) 1 7 . . . .£lxd4 1 8 . .ilxd4 b5
19 . .£ld2= Saradjen-Orel, Portoroz 2003 .
 l .b4 e5 2.Ab2 Axb4 3 . .1lxe5 4Jf6 4.4Jf3

This concludes our presentation of l .b4

theory. We have tried to be objective for
both sides and to not avoid the mention
of good moves. We recommend the
study of the annotated games for deeper
understanding of this opening.

Game 9 1
Zie/inska-Nodorp
Hamburg 2005

l.b4 e5 2 . .Q.b2 .Q. x b4 3 . .Q. xe5 �f6

4 . � f3 0-0 5.e3 �c6 6 . Ab2 d5
n . . . .Q.f5 7 .Q.e2 .Q.g4 S.0-0 t/Je7 9.d3
•

A) 1 3 . . . 4Jb4 1 4 . a3 ( 1 4 . a4!?) 9.d4, Chapter l l .

1 4 . . . 4Jbd5=;
9 . . . §.feS lO.�bd2 §.adS
B) 13 .. :�d6 14Jk1 4Jd5? ( a 14 . . . .1lf5)
1 5 .4Je4 �h6 16.� xc5 4Jce7 17.� xb5
Aa6 18.�b3 4Jf5 19.Acl ± Teichmann­
E.Levi, Melbourne 2000.

14.a4 b4 15.§.cl t/Je7 16.t/Jc2 �d7

17.�c4 §.adS

With a complex position. White has

pressure down the half-open c-file;
Black has pressure down the half-open
d-file. Chances are equal.
l l . §.bl
Summary: Black is given a free hand
while White catches up with castling, l l .a3 .ild6 1 2 .c4 d4 1 3 .e4 Ac5 oo .
yet Black doesn't seem able to exploit
this. White is safer than in lines involv­ n . . . b6 1 2.h3 Acs n.c4 .Q. x d2
ing an early c2-c4 (in the previous
chapter) . In practice the better-pre­ 1 3 . . . d4 14.e4 Ac3!? 1 5 .4Jb3 oo .
pared White should have chances for
an advantage. There are lots of rela­ 14.� xd2 �e5 15.c5!?
tively unexplored side lines, which
makes familiarity with typical strategies White decides to complicate things on
more important than memorizing varia­ the queenside because otherwise after
tions. 1 5 . c x d 5 4J x d 5 1 6 . d4 4Jg6 1 7 . Ac4

302
 The Sokolsky Opening

( 1 7 . .:£lf3!?) 17 . . . c6 18.f!e1 .:£lh4 Black 24 f6 2 5 . f4 .£) f7 26 .1lg4 .£) d8

••• •

has interesting play on the kingside. 27 .E!.a5 g6?

15 ••• .1lf5 Black needlessly weakens his kingside.

Stronger is 27 . . . Axg4 28.hxg4 'itld7
15 . . . bxc5 1 6.Aa3 starts to apply pres­
29 . .:£lf5 .:£lf7 with mutual chances.
sure to the c5-pawn.
28.f5 g5 29.h4!

White can drive Black back by 16.-'txe5 Since Black's pieces are snarled up with
�xe5 17 . .:£lf3 �e7 18 . .:£ld4 -'td7 1 9.c6 defensive duties on one side of the
but the position is less dynamic. board, White opens a second front.

16 ••• E!,b8? 29 g x h4 3 0 . �f2 .£) f7 3 1 . E!, e l

•••

.£)e5 32 .1le2 �h8 33. � x h4 E!.g8

•

34.�f2 E!.g5 3 5 .g4 .£) e8 36.E!,gl

.£)g7 (36 . . . h5 !?)

Black wrongly decides on passive de­

fen s e . B etter is 1 6 . . . b x c 5 ! ? ; e . g . ,
1 7 . .:£\xc5 (less clear i s 1 7 . .ilxe5 �xe5
18 . .:£\xc5 d4!?) 17 . . . �xc5 18.-'txe5 'itle7 37 .£)f3??
•

(also about equal is 18 . . . f! xe5 1 9 .d4

'itla3 20.dxe5 .ilxbl etc .) 1 9.-'tg3 c5 37.f! a3!? prepares to bring the rook to
20.f!b5 c4=. the kingside if necessary.

17.E!,cl (17 . .:£ld4!?) 17 ••• .1ld7 37 ••• .£) xf3?

17 . . . bxc5 1 8.Aa3 ! .
B l ack m i s s e s a w i n : 37 . . . .:£\ x g4 + !
18 .£) d4 c6 1 9 . �d2 b5 20 .1la3
• •
38.f! xg4 .:£\xf5 -+ .
E!.ec8 2 1 . .1lb4 .£) e8 22. E!.c3 .£)c7
23.E!.a3 E!.b7 24.E!,cl 38.J1,xf3 .1le8?

White has clamped down on Black who And now Black misses a possible draw:
has no counterplay. 38 . . . Axf5 ! ? 3 9 . gxf5 f! xg l 40.'iftxgl

303
 1 .b4 e5 2.�b2 �xb4 3.�xe5 i'lf6 4.i'lf3
�xe3+ 4 l .�f2 �c l + 42 .'f�H1 �g5 +
43. �g2 ( 43.-'i.g2 <£lxf5 oo ) 43 . . . �c l +
etc.
39.'llt h6 4) xfS 40.gxfS § xg1
40 . . . §. xf5 doesn't save B lack; e . g . ,
4 l . §. g3 Ah5 42.Ac3 b 4 43.Ad4 b3
44.axb3 §. xb3 45.§. xa7! mating.
4 V � > xg1 <it>g8 42.<it>f2 (42.�c3!?)
4 2 . . . � e s 43 . <it>e 2 § g7 44. �f4
�b2+ 4S.11.d2 1-0
Game 92
Markowski-Pedzich
Poland 1 994
1 .b4 eS 2.J1,b2 -'\. x b4 3.11.xeS 4)f6
4 . 4) f3 o - o S .e3 dS 6 . J1, e 2 §e8
7.0-0 -'l,g4
Other moves, Chapter I I .
8 .1}.b2 4)bd7 9.d3 (9.h3!?) 9 . . .c6
• where all the action will be.
Other moves are possible. The position
is fluid and amenable to different ap­
proaches.
10.4)bd2
1 0 . a4 tran sposes to Kri voshapko­
Dergatchov, Harkany 1 998, which soon
304
ended in a draw after some unambitious
exchanges : 1 O . . . Axf3 1 l ..ilxf3 <tle5
1 2 .Aa3 -'i.xa3 1 3 .§. xa3 i'lxf3+ 14.�xf3
�d6 1 5 .§.a1 b6 16.<£ld2 §. ad8 17.�g3
�xg3 18.hxg3 �-�.
10 ... �c7 l l .§b1 -'tcS
1 1 . . .Ad6!? can be answered (with equal­
ity) by 1 2 .h3 which is a move that seems
highly desirable for this kind of posi­
tion, yet surprisingly the pawn stays on
h2 for the entire game.
12.c4 dxc4 13.4) xc4
1 3 .d4!? doesn 't bring White much; e.g.,
13 . . . c3 1 4.-'i.xc3 i'ld5 1 5 .�c2 .ild6=.
13 . . . -'l,fS 14.11.a1 4)dS 1S.�c2 aS
16.§fc1 JlhS
Black plans to relocate the bishop to f7
in order to influence the queenside
17.4)cd2 4)b4 18.�b2 Jl,g6 19.e4
§ab8 2 0 . 11.f l f6 2 l . a 3 4) a6
22.4)h4 Jlf7 23.d4 �d6
24.a41?
A very committal move, allowing a
knight to settle on b4. However, White's
 The Sokolsky Opening

a-pawn was under attack and by ad­ 36 ••• �g7

vancing it . . . b7-b5 is deterred.
36 . . . Axe7 37.dxe7 !! xe7 38.exf6 +- .
24 ... �b4 2S.�f5 �f4 26.g3 �c7
3 7 . e x f6 + � x f6 3 8 .g4 .Q. x e7
27.d5 �es 28.ti\'d4 IaedS?
3 9 . d x e7 � c 2 40 .Q. e 5• .Q. x c4
4 l . .Q. x c4 � e 3 4 2 .g 5 � x c4
Defending is hard in a cramped posi­
43.gxf6+ 1-0
tion. However, B lack can play 28 . . . g6!?
to expel the advanced knight; e . g . , Game 93
29 . .£\ e 3 .£l a 2 3 0 . !! d l ( 3 0 . !! c 2 .£\b4 Campora-German
3 l .!!ccl .£\a2 repeats) 30 . . . §bd8 3 1 .f4 Buenos Aires 1 995
(better is 3 l .�b6) 3 l . . .cxd5! 32.fxe5
.\lc5 and Black is fighting back. l.b4 eS 2.J}.b2 Axb4 3.Axe5 �f6
4 . � f3 0 - 0 s.e3 !aeS 6 .Q.e2 dS•

29.f4 �d7 1.0-0 �bd7 s.Ab2 b6

29 . . . .£lg6!? stops d5-d6 and so holds up 8 . . . .£lb6, Chapter 1 1 .

White for a while.
9.d3
30.d6! �b6 31.�c4 ti\' x d4+
9.c4!? challenges the black center im­
mediately:
Even the exchange of queens provides
no relief for Black. A) 9 . . . c6 10 . .£\c3 .lld6 l l .cxd5 .£\xd5
1 2 . .£\xd5 cxd5 1 3 . .£\d4 .£lc5 1 4 .�c2
32 .Q. x d4 cS 33 .Q.al
• •
.ild7 1 5 ..£\b5 .ilf8 16.a4 .£le4 17.d3 .£\c5
18 ..ilf3 Af5 19.!!fdl a6 20 . .£\c3 Ae6
33 . .£\xa5?! runs into 33 . . . .£la2. 2 l .d4 .£lb7 22 .e4 with the advantage,
Haugli-Bjerke, Trondheim 1 983;
33 • • • b6 34. }a d t lae8 3 S .e 5 g6?
(35 . . . §bd8!?) 36.�e7+! B ) 9 . . . Ab7 transposes to Althoff­
Kveinys in the notes to Chapter 1 0.

9 ••• .Q.b7 to.�bd2 Ad6

A deadly strike. The game is practically

over.

305
 l .b4 e5 2.�b2 �xb4 3.Axe5 4Jf6 4.4Jf3

l l .E{el 18 •.• � 6d7?

l l .c4 is a good move and now 1 1 . . .c5 Black gives up control of e4. 18 . . . 4Jg6!?
transposes to Ornstein-Wedberg in the keeps an eye on important squares.
notes to Chapter I I .
19.4)h4
l l ... c5 1 2 .11, fl
•

More productive is 19.e4!? d4 20.4Jc4

The bishop will be fianchettoed. 1 2 .c4 Ac7 2 1 . a4 (so the knight won ' t be
is still good while Black can't play . . . d5- kicked by a pawn). Now White can pre­
d4. pare a kingside attack with 2 2 .' �h l ,
23.�d2, 24J�gl and 25 .g4.
1 2 :�e7
••

19 ... g6 20. �g4 �f6 21. �dl

Black could start a pawn storm with
1 2 . . . b5!?.
13.g3 �e6 14 . .11,g 2
1 4 . 4Jg5!? right away interferes with
Black's plans for a kingside attack.
A) 2 1 . 4Jf5 ! ? 4Jxg4 2 2 . 4Jxe7+ .ll x e7
23.hxg4 oo ;
B) 2 l .�g5 4Jh5 22.�g4 (22 .�h6 �d7
23 .4Jfl d4 24.e4 c4 with the initiative)
22 . . . 4Jf6 repeats the position.

14 E{ad8 1 5.h3 .11,a8 16.li) g5 �e7

••• 21 ... 4)6d7 22.4)hf3
17.f4
Both sides are maneuvering, waiting for
White is gradually flexing his muscles. an opportunity, or perhaps summoning
the courage for decisive action. There 's
17... 4)f8 a lot of that in this game.

22 . . .f6 23.c4t

A change to the central pawn configu­

ration suits White 's knights.

23 . . . �f7 24. �c2 d x c4 2 5 . � x c4

.1lc7 26.a4 �e7 27.e4 �b8 28.�e3

28.e5!? looks good but White prefers to

reorganize his forces.

18.4)gf3
White shouldn't press too soon; e.g.,
18.e4 h6! 19.e5 hxg5 20.fxg5 4J6h7
2 l .exd6 �xg5 isn't better for White.
28 . . . h5?
Is the black king allergic to pawns?
Black's kingside is further weakened.
28 . . . 4Jbd7!? brings the knight back into
play.

306
 The Sokolsky Opening

The first surprise.

White can win a pawn by 29.�c4+ �t7 40 ... � x c7

(29 . . .'ifth7 30.e5!) 30 . ..1lxf6.
There 's nothing Black can do. 40 . . . E!c8
29 ••• 4)bd7 30.4)dS! 4 1 .4Jb5 �b8 42.E! xe7+ +- .

41 .d6!
Now White strikes. White 's control of
the long dark diagonal should ensure his Another surprise !
victory. Black has no counterplay what­
soever. 41 ... �xd6 42.�f7+ Ciflh6 43.�xe8
�d4+ 44. Cifl h l � x a4 4 S . l;t x e7
30 ... -'t xdS � xa3 46. l;t x d7 1-0

No better i s 30 . . . �d6 3 1 . e 5 iilxd5 Game 94

32.exf6 E! xel + 33.E!xel Ae5 (the threat Mus-Mitrus
was 34.t7+ mating) 34.fxe5 with both corr 1 992
a material and a positional advantage.
l.b4 eS 2.-'tb2 -'\. x b4 3.-'\.xeS 4)f6
31.exdS �d6 4.e3

4.c4 4Jc6 5 .Ab2 0-0 6.4Jf3 d5 7.cxd5

4Jxd5 8.e3 �e7 9.a3 Ad6 1 0 . ..1le2 Ag4
1 1 .0-0 E! fe8 transposes (with a change
of move numbers) to Lipok-Grimm in
the notes below.

4 . . . 4) c 6 s . A b 2 d S 6 . 4) f3 o - o
7 . .Q.e2 l;te8

Other moves, Chapter 1 1 .

8.0-0 �e7
32.4)gS 4)h7 33.l;te6 l;t xe6

lf33 . . . �f8 34.h4! followed by 35.E!ae l

to increase the pressure against Black.

34.4) xe6 l;te8 3S. �c4 jtd8 36.d4

4)hf8 37.-'ta3 Ciflh7 38.l;tel .sle7

38 . . . 4Jxe6 39.E! xe6 E! xe6 40.dxe6 4Jf8

41 .d5 +- .

39.dxcS bxcS 40.4)c7!

307
 l .b4 e5 2 . .ilb2 .ilxb4 3 . .ilxe5 1£\£6 4.1£\f3
A) 8 . . . .1lg4 transposes to a position in
Chapter I I , i.e., 5.e3 in the main line
then the subvariation 5 . . . l£\c6 6 . .1lb2 d5
7 . .1le2 .ilg4 8.0-0 §. e8;
B) 8 . . . 1rl.f5 9.c4 transposes to Tkac­
Michalek in the notes Chapter 1 0.
9.c4
Less active, though not bad, is 9.d3 .il£5
(9 . . . .1lg4 Game 9 1 ) :
A) 1 0 . 1£\bd2 h6 1 1 . 1£\b3 ( 1 1 . a 3 ! ?)
1 l . . .a5 1 2 .1£\bd4 l£\xd4 1 3 .1£\xd4 .ild7
14.§.b1 1rl.d6 1 5 . .ilf3 c5 1 6.1£\e2 Ac6
and Black has good chances on the
queenside with 17 . . . b5 etc.;
B) 1 0 ... §. ad8 1 l .a3 .ild6 1 2 .c4=;
C) 1 0 . . ..1la3 1 1 .'lii'c l .ilxb2 1 2 .'lii' x b2=.
9 ... -'lfS
A) 9 . . . dxc4 10.Axc4 .ilg4 1 l ..ile2
1) 1 1 . . .1£\d5 1 2 .a3 Ad6 ( 1 2 . . . .1la5 trans­
poses [with a change of move numbers]
to Hess-Peterman in the notes to Chap-
ter 1 0) 1 3 . §. e 1 .ilxf3 ( 1 3 . . . §. ad8 trans-
poses [with a change of move numbers]
to Game 83) 14.Axf3 l£\f4 1 5 .d4 l£\g6
308
16.g3 l£\d8 1 7 .l£\d2 c5 18.1£\e4 cxd4
19.1£\xd6 'lii' xd6 20 . .1lxd4 l£\e5 2 1 ..1lg2
l£\dc6 2 2 . .1lc3 'lii' c 5 2 3 . 'lii' b 3 l£\d3
24.§.e2 Thanks to the bishop-pair White
has the better chances and in fact went
on to win, Lipok-Grimm, Germany
2000;
2) 1 1 . . .1£\a5 1 2 .a3 .ild6 1 3 .1£\c3 §. ad8
1 4 . 'lii' a 4 Axf3 1 5 . 1rl.xf3 = M . S chulz­
Reinhold, corr 1 986;
B) 9 . . ..1le6 1 0.a3 ( 1 0 .cxd5 l£\xd5= is
also played) 10 . . ..1ld6 1 1 . 'lii' c 2 §. ad8
1 2 .d4 dxc4 1 3 . .1lxc4 .ilxc4 1 4 .'lii' x c4
l£\g4 1 5 .'lii'c 3 'lii'f6 1 6.h3 1£\h6 17.1£\bd2
l£\f5 18.1£\c4 §. e4? ( 1 8 . . . .ilf8!?) 19.'lii'c2
'lii' e 7 20.1£\cd2 winning material and
then the game , B ott- M i ethke,
Hockenheim 1 994.
10.d4 �e6
Black can play 1 O . . . dxc4 1 l .Axc4 1£\e4
or 1 l . . .§. ad8 with full equality.
l l .a3 -'laS 1 2 . �b3 b6 1 3 . c x d S
� xdS t4.Ac4 laad8 t S.AbS
1S ••• �f6?
1 5 . . . 'lii'h 6!? continues the fight.
t6.�a4!
 The Sokolsky Opening

White simply doubles up on the pinned Game 95

knight. Althoff-T.Muel/er
Kaufungen 2003
t6 •.. 4)b8
l.b4 eS 2.-'\.b2 -'\. x b4 3.-'\. xeS 4)f6
Black has to give up the exchange. Oth­ 4.4)f3 0-0 S.e3 dS 6.-'\.e2 cS 7.0-0
erwise 1 6 . . . f! d6 17.4Jg5 ii;ird7 18.f!cl 4)c6 8.Jl,b2 �e8 9.d4
h6 1 9 . A x c 6 f! x c6 2 0 . 'lit' x c 6 ii;irxc6
2 l .f! xc6 hxg5 22.f! xc7 loses more than More solid is 9.d3, Chapter II .
just the exchange.

17.Jl,xe8 � x e8 18.4)c3 c6 19.�acl

�e7 20.4)eS

Also winning is 20.d5! cxd5 2 1 .4Jd4

(21 .'lit'f4!?) 2 l . . .'lit'e5 22.4Jxf5 etc.

20 ..• cs 21 .e4t cxd4

Everything loses. 2 1 . . . ..1lxe4 22 .4Jxe4

4::l x e4 2 3 . dxc5 4::l x c5 2 4 . f! xc5 bxc5
2 5 . ii;ir x a 5 +- or 2 1 . . . 4::l xe4 2 2 . 4::l xe4
.ll. x e4 23.dxc5 +- .
22.exfS � xfS
22 . . . 'lit'xe5 23.4::ld 5! f! e8 24.4::l xf6+ gxf6
25 . ..1lxd4 +- .
2 3 . 4) b S � x e S 2 4 . � c8 + � e 8
2 S . Jl. x d4 �e6 26 . � x e8+ 4) x e8
27.4) xa7 h6 28.�dl �e4 29.�bS
4)c7 30.�eS � x eS
B l ack can ' t avoid the exchange of
queens, which simplifies White 's task,
because 30 . . . 'lit'g4 3 l .f3 4Jd7 32.'lit'xc7
wins a piece.
3 l . Jl. x e S 4) ba 6 3 2 . 4) c 6 4) e 6
3 3 . 4) x a S b x a S 3 4 . Jl, d 6 4) ac S
3 S ..Q. x c S 4) x c S 3 6 . � d S 4) b3
• 1 3 . 'lit'c l Ac7 1 4 .Aa3 f! b8 1 5 . f! e l
37.�bS a4 38.�b4 4)cS 39. �c4
4)e6 40.� x a4 1-0
9 ..• c4!
Black puts a pawn on c4 before White
does. The natural reaction to . . . c5-c4 is
to undermine its supporting pawn d5 by
e3-e4, but that lever can't be played any
time soon unless Black is careless. The
next phase of the game revolves around
the preparation and timing of e3-e4.
10.c3
White can try a major reorganization
with 1 0.a3 Aa5 ( 1 0 . . . Ad6 1 1 .4Jc3 !?)
l l .Ac3 Ac7 1 2 . 4Jbd2 fol lowed by
fianchettoing the queen.
10 •.. Jl,d6
1 0 . . . A a 5 l l . a 4 Af5 1 2 . 4Jbd2 h6
Black seems better but Y2-Y:!, Skerlik­
Costa Fernando, corr 2005 .

309
 l .b4 e5 2 . .1lb2 .ll x b4 3.Axe5 .£Jf6 4 . .£lf3

11.4)bd2 .Q.bs

Presumably Black wants to set up a

queen and bishop battery on the b8-h2
diagonal while avoiding l l . . . .llc7 1 2.a4
�d6 1 3 . .1la3! Nevertheless there are
better moves such as l l . . . .llf5!?.

12.!ael 'l!\'d6

12 . . . �c7 is more consistent.

13.g3 4)g4? ( 1 3 . . . .1lg4!?) 14.4)h4

20 ••• .Q.b6 21.4)c4
This is safest.
2 1 .f5!? clears a path for 22 . .£lf4.
A) 1 4.e4!? is possible now, but the situ­
21 .Q. xg2
ation soon becomes unclear: 14 . . . dxe4
•••

1 5 . .1l x c 4 e3 1 6 . fx e 3 ( 1 6 . �e 2 ! ?)
1 6 . . . .£lxh2 1 7 . 'it>xh2 �xg3+ 18.\t>h l .
N o w B l ack can force a draw by
18 . . . �h3 + ( 1 8 . . . b5 !?) 1 9 .'it>gl �g3 +
20.\t>hl �h3+ etc., yet is there some­
thing more for either side along the
An unforced, unnecessary capture .
B lack should retain h i s b i shop by
2l . . . .lle 6!?.
22.<if}xg2 4)d5 23 .Q.g4 .Q.c7
•

away?;
23 . . . .£Ja5!? 24 . .£lxa5 .ll x a5 looks quite
B) 14 . .£Jg5 .£lxh2! 1 5 .e4! is messy. good for Black.

14 ••• 4)f6 ( 1 4 . . . h5!?) 15.4)g2 24 .Q.f5 4)f6?

•

1 5 . e 4 ! s o l v e s W h ite ' s prob l e m s : I n stead 24 . . . .£J a 5 ! ? 2 5 . .£l x a 5 .ll x a 5

1 5 . . . .£lxe4 1 6 . .1lxc4 .£Jf6 1 7 J ! xe8+ 2 6 . .1l x e 4 ( 2 6 . §. c l � b 6 2 7 . �b 3 = )
.£lxe8 18.Ad3 ;!; . 26 . . . .1l x c 3 2 7 . .1l x h 7 + ( � 2 7 . .1l x c 3 )
2 7 . . . 'it>xh7 28.�d3+ 'it>g8 2 9 . .1lxc3 §.c8
15 ••• .Q.f5 16.f3 when B lack 's fine knight gives him
some compensation for the loss of a
Now e3-e4 is definitely coming. pawn.

16 .Q.c7 1 7 .e4 d x e4 1 8 . 4) x c4
• • •
'l!\'d8 19.4)ce3 .Q.h3 20.f4
The position is transformed from a few
moves ago.
25.4)e5t g6 26.Ah3?!
White chooses to maintain the tension
by maintaining the number of pieces,
even though he has a clear advantage

310
 The Sokolsky Opening

after 26 . .1lxe4 {:)xe4 27 . .§ xe4 {:)xe5 37. \t'h2?

28.fxe5.
37.\t>g l ! is necessary.
26 ••• J}.d6 27.�e2 �c8?
37... ~xf4
Surely a terrible mistake. More resis­
tance is offered by 27 . . . {:)a5! ; e.g., 28.c4 3 7 . . . e 3 appears to fo rce a draw :
{:)h5 29.c5 .ll x e5 30.fxe5 �d5 etc. 3 8 . .§ g 2 + \t>f8 3 9 . .1l x e 3 {:) x f4
(39 . . . .1lxf4+ 40 . .Ilxf4 �xf4+ etc. is simi­
28.J}.xc8 �xeS 29. �b3 �e7 30.h3
lar) 40 . .1lxf4 �xf4 + 4 1 . 'it?gl 'l!i'c l +
42.'it?f2 �f4+ 43.'it?gl repeating the po­
30.c4!? is very strong.
sition.
30... ~f5 31.E!fl ~h5 32.E!ff2 g5
38.Axf4 A x f4+ 39.\t'gl e3
B lack is desperate.
Black should play 39 . . . .!:! e6!? 40 . .§g2+
33.Jl.cl? .§g6 &; .

White plays a series of inferior moves. 40 . � f3 � e 6 4 1 . � g 2 + � g 6

33.c4! and 33 .g4! are available. 42.� xg6+ h xg6 43.\t'fl �gS

33 ••• gxf4 34.gxf4 �h4 3S.� xc6 43 . . . g5!? holds B lack 's position to­
gether.
35 . .§ e3!? {:)h5 36.'l!i<d5 with a big ad­
vantage. 44.�d3 �f6?

3S ••• bxc6 36.c4 �hS This is horrible. 44 . . . �h6!? continues

the fight.
Black is getting some counterplay and
White must be careful.

45 . . . g5 46.'lli'e 4! !:::.. 47.h4.

46.f!xf6

The game is practically over.

46 J}. x d4 47. � xc6 \t'f8 48.�c7

•••

\t'e8 4 9 . \t' e 2 J}.b6 s o . �b7 f6

Sl.\t'd3 AcS S2.\t'e4 Af2 S3.\t'dS
1-0

311
 Afterword

While we hope that the so-called Orangutan Opening gives you some fun and
success on the board, we do ask you to spare a serious thought for the animal
itself.

The orangutan is a man-sized, tree-living ape from Borneo and Sumatra. Alas, it
is an endangered species. For more information on the • red-haired "man of the
forest" and how it could be saved, visit the following websites:

Borneo Orangutan Survival International

www. savetheorangutan. org

The Great Orangutan Project

www. orangutanproject. com

OrangAid+
www. orang. gekkeijyu. com

The Orangutan Conservancy

www. orangutan. net

Orangutan Foundation International

www. orangutan. org

Sumatran Orangutan Society

www. orangutans-sos. org

Please note : Neither the publisher nor the authors are responsible for the content,
availability or reliability of any of the websites mentioned and do not necessarily
endorse the views expressed therein.

312
 Index of Games

Agrest-Aidobasic, Umea 2003 - Game 69

Agrest-Andersson, Umea 2003 - Game 2
Althoff-Mueller, Kaufungen 2003 - Game 95
Arkeii-Gallagher, London 1 986 - Game 90
Behnicke-Konikowski, Dortmund 1 995 - Game 37
Bemstein-Seidman, New York 1 959 - Game 1 8
Bessat-Lombard, La Fere 2006 - Game 28
Bums-Bennett, Wanganui 2005 - Game 30
Campora-Anguix Garrido, Canete 1 994 - Game 4
Campora-German, Buenos Aires 1 995 - Game 93
Capablanca-Pedroso, Sao Paulo 1 927 - Game 5 1
Cemy-Cominetti, Teplice 2006 - Game 68
Danielian-Vardanian, Yerevan 1 996 - Game 60
Frombach-Overbeck, Dortmund 2003 - Game 3 8
Frosinos-Kanellopoulos, Patras 200 1 - Game 82
Gilgevich-Voitech, Minsk 1 960 - Game 8 1
Goljak-Lilienthal, Moscow 1 962 - Game 67
.
Hubner-Asplund, Jerusalem 1 967 - Game 7 1
Jalo-Keskinen, Helsinki 1 992 - Game 47
Jamieson-Kuenitz, Gibraltar 2006 - Game 83
Jensen-Labahn, corr 1 99 1 - Game 65
Katalymov-Bakhtiar, Tashkent 1 959 - Game 44
Katalymov-Estrin, Minsk 1 962 - Game 62
Katalymov-Estrin, Moscow 1 964 - Game 6 1
Katalymov-Giterman, Novgorod 1 96 1 - Game 86
Katalymov-Kondratiev, Minsk 1 962 - Game 49
Katalymov-Liberson, Rostov 1 960 - Game 77
Katalymov-Mnatsakanian, Sochi 1 969 - Game 24
Katalymov-Sakharov, corr 1 988 - Game 6
Katalymov-Simagin, Tashkent 1 95 8 - Game 3
Katalymov-Suetin, Moscow 1 959 - Game 76
Kilpatrick-Bryson, corr 1 978 - Game 56
Klavins-Randviir, Vilnius 1 95 5 - Game 20
Lalic-Giaidzi, Athens 1 992 - Game 3 1
Lapshun-Gravel, Montreal, 2004 - Game 27
Lorenc-Navratil, Czechia 200 1 - Game 26
Lukovski-Hespers, Bad Wildungen 2004 - Game 5
Maletzki-Rauscher, Naumburg 2002 - Game 32
Markowski-Pedzich, Poland 1 994 - Game 92
Miralles-Bologan, France 2003 - Game 70
Miralles-Seret, Belfort 1 983 - Game 73

313
Miralles-Spiridonov, Bulgaria 1 985 - Game 88
Mus-Mitrus, corr 1 992 - Game 94
Nevednichy-Parligras, Curtea de Arges 2002 - Game 87
Pommerel-Bankwitz, email 1 984 - Game 22
Radshenko-Shapiro, Krasnodar 1 95 5 - Game 36
Reti-Capablanca, New York 1 924 - Game 3 5
Rudenkov-Strugath, Minsk 1 96 1 - Game 7
Sasonow-Kamenski, corr 1 962 - Game 1 9
Schiefelbusch-Gorzinski, Dortmund 2005 - Game 85
Schiffier-Goers, Soemmerda 1 950 - Game 33
Schiffier-Kaba Klein, Binz Ruegen 1 950 - Game 14
Schiller-Schmidt, Leipzig 1 950 - Game 46
Schiffier-Skirl, Leipzig 1 950 - Game 64
Sokolsky-Abzirko, Odessa 1 943 - Game 23
Sokolsky-Andreev, corr 1 960 - Game 1 2
Sokolsky-Anishchenko, Minsk 1 959 - Game 89
Sokolsky-Byvshev, USSR 1 95 1 - Game 9
Sokolsky-Chekhover, Leningrad 1 93 8 - Game 1 6
Sokolsky-Csaszar, corr 1 95 8 - Game 25
Sokolsky-Estrin, Baku 1 95 8 - Game 63
Sokolsky-Flohr, Moscow 1 953 - Game 74
Sokolsky-Golovko, corr 1 960 - Game 53
Sokolsky-Kan, Omsk 1 943 - Game 5 5
Sokolsky-Keres, Moscow 1 950 - Game 1 3
Sokolsky-Kholmov, Kiev 1 954 - Game 39
Sokolsky-Kirilov, Minsk 1 957 - Game 45
Sokolsky-Kogan, Odessa 1 949 - Game 41
Sokolsky-Kotov, Leningrad 1 93 8 - Game 5 8
Sokolsky-Lavdansky, Vladimir 1 960 - Game 78
Sokolsky-Lilienthal, Kiev 1 954 - Game 40
Sokolsky-Lisenkov, Zwenigorod 1 95 1 - Game 59
Sokolsky-Livshitz, Minsk 1 956 - Game 57
Sokolsky-Luik, Minsk 1 957 - Game I
Sokolsky-Lukin, corr 1 960 - Game 48
Sokolsky-Mnatsakanian, Vladimir 1 960 - Game 75
Sokolsky-Nei, USSR 1 95 5 - Game 72
Sokolsky-Pelz, Minsk 1 96 1 - Game 43
Sokolsky-Persitz, corr 1 968 - Game 79
Sokolsky-Romanishin, Lvov 1 947 - Game 34
Sokolsky-Samarian, corr 1 95 8 - Game 80
Sokolsky-Shagalovich, Minsk 1 95 9 - Game 2 1
Sokolsky-Solovjev, Minsk 1 95 7 - Game 42
Sokolsky-Szukszta, Polanica Zdroj 1 95 8 - Game 1 1
Sokolsky-Usov, Odessa 1 960 - Game I 0

3 14
Sokolsky-Villard, Kiev 1 95 5 - Game 29
Sokolsky-Weinblatt, Odessa 1 949 - Game 1 7
Sokolsky-Zhukhovitsky, Kiev 1 945 - Game 54
Steffens-Paj eken, Germany 2000 - Game 8
Tartakower-Colle, Bartfeld 1 926 - Game 66
Valenta-Ruckschloss, Banska Stiavnica 2006 - Game 50
Volke-Kupreichik, Minsk 1 994 - Game 52
Zielinska-Nodorp, Hamburg 2005 - Game 9 1
Zielke-Howe, Kiel 2006 - Game 1 5
Zuse-Werner, Germany 1 995 - Game 84

315
Games/Chess $29.95

W eird and wacky or safe and sound? The Sokolsky

Opening is both. Sometimes the play is truly
deviant - both sides' initial few moves all on the
a-b-c files and the first pieces exchanged a pair of rooks-at
other times 1.b4 becomes merely a roundabout route to a re-
spectable Eng]ish, Reti, King's Indian or reversed French posi-
tion.

This book. packed with fresh analysis and 95 illustrative games,

clearly shows that White can look forward to a rewarding albeit
complex or unusual struggle. There's no need to dwell on the
usual platitudes applied interchangeably to unorthodox openings,
like "a good psychological choice to get your opponent into
unfamiliar territory." The Sokolsky, otherwise known as the
Orangutan or the Polish Attack. is an independent opening whose
merits are due to chess analysis not psychoanalysis. 1.b4 is sound,
the refutations don't work. assessments are disputed, printed
theory till now has been inadequate, White's aims are clear,
and the practitioners have been world class. So what are you
waiting for? Get out there and hit your opponents with the b-pawn!

About the Authors:

Jerzy Konikowski. is one of the most prolific chess authors
in the world, with dozens of publications n several languages
to his credit. He holds the FIDE Master title as well as titles
in correspondence chess and chess composition.

Marek Soszynski. is a Master of Philosophy and co-author of

the best-selling and widely acclaimed How to Think in Chess.
$29 . 95
ISBN 978- 1-888690-65-1
52995>
-
9 781888 690651