Grigory Bogdanovich

THE ZUKERTORT SYSTEM:

A Guide for White and Black

© 20 1 0 Grigory Bogdanovich
English Translation © 20 1 0 Mongoose Press

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced

or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or
mechanical , including photocopying, recording, or by an
information storage and retrieval system, without written
permission from the Publisher.

Publisher: Mongoose Press

1 005 Boylston Street, Suite 324
Newton Highlands, MA 0246 1
info@mongoosepress.com
www. MongoosePress.com

ISBN 978- 1 -936277-05-6

Library of Congress Control Number: 20 1 093433 1

Distributed to the trade by National Book Network

custserv@nbnbooks.com, 800-462-6420
For all other sales inquiries please contact the publisher.

Translated by: Sarah Hurst

Layout: Andrey Elkov
Editor: Jorge Amador
Cover Design: Kaloyan Nachev
Printed in China

First English edition

098765432 1
To my daughters Katyusha and Shura, and my son Anton.
 CONTENTS

Foreword by Arturyusupov ......................................................................7

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
The Subject of Our Serious Study .......................................................... 15

PART I: Play for White

CHAPTER 1: A Piece Attack................................................................... 21

A. The Black Monarch's Residence on the Kingside ............................ 21
B. The Black King on the Run ............................................................ 36

CHAPTER 2: Opening Up the a1-h8 Diagonal ......................................... 39

CHAPTER 3: Transforming the Pillsbury Formation; The Marshall Plan ...... 52
CHAPTER 4: A "Psychological" Attack byWhite's Kingside Pawns ............ 66
CHAPTER 5: Play with Hanging c- and d-Pawns ...................................... 80
A.White Has Hanging c- and d-Pawns ...............................................81
B. Black Has Hanging c- and d-Pawns ............................................ 104

CHAPTER 6: Play with an Isolated d-Pawn ............................................ 110

A.White Has an Isolated d-pawn ..................................................... 110
B. Black Has an Isolated d-pawn ..................................................... 118
CHAPTER 7: A "Repulsive" Queenside Pawn Majority ............................ 124
CHAPTER 8: A Position "Suffocated at a Distance" ................................ 140
CHAPTER 9: White's Plan with e3-e4 ................................................... 143

PART II: Play for Black

CHAPTER 1: The Bishop Hunt ............................................................. 155

CHAPTER 2: "Hooray for Being Primitive!" ............................................ 160
CHAPTER 3: An "Aggressive Defense" for Black on the Kingside ............ 164
CHAPTER 4: Is it Possible to PerplexWhite with ...�b6? ........................ 176
CHAPTER 5: And the Little Kid Asked: "Check on a5 - Good or Bad?" ..... 179
CHAPTER 6: Black's Counterplay with a Queenside Pawn Advance . . . . . . . . 186

CHAPTER 7: Half a Kingdom for a Horse... on e4! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

CHAPTER 8: Following Capablanca's Recipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226

CHAPTER 9: "A Fruitful Opening Idea" - Black's Main Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

CHAPTER 10: Black Builds a "Cabin" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258

CHAPTER 11: "Reviving" the Light-Squared Bishop

with the Schlechter-Lasker Method ................................ 266

CHAPTER 12: A Delicate Question:

Who Benefits from an Early Pawn Trade on d4? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272

CHAPTER 13: The "Exchange Square" on e5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282

CHAPTER 14: Is the ...CZJc6-b4 Maneuver Really So Dangerous forWhite? ....294

SUPPLEMENTARY GAMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300

Afterword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336
Tactical Methods and Strategic Themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
 Foreword

Once, back when I was playing in the Soviet Junior Championship, a game that
was being played on a board next to me caught my eye . White had developed his
bishops to b2 and d3 and his knights to f3 and d2, had created an attack and was
confidently winning. My neighbor's game made a strong impression on me, but my
opening repertoire at the time began with the move e2-e4 . . .

Many years later, i n the European Team Championship i n Plovdiv i n 1 98 3 , I

wanted to experiment as White and I remembered that episode. The " novelty"
turned out to be successful and I won two colorful games with the "new" system. I
was faced with an unexpected problem: what to call this new opening, of which I'd
only just become an admirer. The official name, " Queen's Pawn Opening , " didn't
suit me, of course. In honor of the famous German grandmaster Zukertort, who
played a number of brilliant games and from time to time used the system 1 . d4, 2.
tLlf3, and 3. e3, I started calling the new system the Zukertort Opening. Some time
later (but "drops of water will eventually wear away a stone ") the new name for the
interesting opening system caught on.

I have now been using the Zukertort in practical play for over 25 years, and with
its help I have achieved some rather good results. Of course , this isn't the most active
system, but it is based on the good positional concept of fighting for the center and it
has every right to exist. Even many strong opponents of mine have found themselves
unprepared for its novel problems, falling into bad positions right off the bat. Cer­
tainly, if White manages to implement the main strategic idea - placing the knight
on e5 and reinforcing it there, and maintaining control over the e4 square - then
Black will have nothing to celebrate!

Of course , the Zukertort isn't some kind of universal weapon. So against the Slav
or the King's Indian Defense it's better to look for more active variations. But if
your opponent prefers to play the Queen's Gambit or the Nimzo-Indian, then the
Zukertort is a good alternative to the standard openings. I 'm very pleased that many
chessplayers have followed my example and included the Zukertort in their opening
repertoire.

7
The Zukertort System: A Guide for White and Black

Unfortunately, I still have not managed to start writing a book about this opening,
although I gladly show specific variations to my students. So Grigory Bogdanovich
decided to compensate for this gap in the literature and has written a very interesting
work on this fascinating opening. Readers will get the opportunity not only to fa­
miliarize themselves with the different variations and setups, but also to study many
typical middlegame ideas that have universal value.

Artur Yusupov
July 20 1 0

8
 I ntroduction
Dear Reader:
If you play the Zukertort System in
the Queen's Pawn Opening, I advise you
to read the book that you hold in your
hands. With few exceptions, and despite
its popularity, theorists haven't favored
this opening with their attentions. In
fairness I should note that in 2008, when
I had already prepared my book for dis­
cussion with the publisher, two books
came out, by Richard Palliser (Starting
Out: d-Pawn Attacks) and David Rudel
(Zuke 'Em: The Colle-Zukertort Revolu­
tionized). But then there is a great deal
of material in these two titles that is not
relevant to our subject. While its cousin,
the Colle System, has been spoiled by
the attention of theoreticians, and more
than one book has been devoted to it,
the Zukertort System, like Cinderella, is
waiting for its day.
I was also waiting for one of the
grandmasters who play the opening, like
Artur Yusupov, to write a book about it.
But, alas. . . And then I decided to fol­
low the advice of the famous English
novelist and politician Benjamin Dis­
raeli: "When I want to read a book, I
write one . " I had long been planning to
eliminate this inequity: you won't find
such detailed coverage of the Zukertort
System anywhere else. I've been playing
this system for a long time, and I love it,
and that's why I always keep track of eve-
rything that has to do with it, wherever
that may be. Since I have an inclination
towards analytical work, I 've always tried
to understand it from every angle. And
you will see that in the Zukertort System
there is no use for the recommendations
of theoreticians who write according to
the standards of a well-known phrase
from that masterpiece of Soviet cinema,
Gentlemen of Fortune: " Don't go there ,
go there!'; or of "doctor theoreticians"
with their advice: "play a2-a3 to avoid
a headache. " This doesn't only apply
to the Zukertort System, of course , but
also to other openings.
The history of an opening, just like
the history of anything, has its inconsis­
tencies. Consider the name, for example:
the "Colle-Zukertort System. " Those
who have some familiarity with it will
wonder immediately: what's Colle doing
here? According to the computer data­
bases he only played it a couple of times,
and then not the main lines of the system.
And I would also ask: what was Zuker­
tort's contribution to the system that is
named after him? Again according to the
databases and also the thick books about
Zukertort, we can see that the subject of
our discussion occupies a meager place in
the story of its creation. But it was worth
it for him to shine in this opening field,
and the magic of his name worked: it will
be associated with this opening setup
forever. Neither Colle nor Zukertort re-
9
The Zukertort System: A Guide for White and Black

searched or invented this system. And and Joseph Blackbume. Moreover, they
to judge by the number of games played, both made one of the main moves in the
another person is no less significant, and Zukertort System - tLl f3-e5! Here are
perhaps even more so: Akiba Rubinstein those games:
exceeds them both put together. That's
why in the West the Zukertort System is Blackburne J. - Minckwitz J.
sometimes known as the Rubinstein At­ Berlin 1 8 8 1
tack. And if you look at our day, then the
contribution to the development of the 1. d4 dS 2 . tLl fJ tLl f6 3 . e3 e6 4 . b3
Zukertort System by Grandmaster Yu­
supov (in no way the least of the modem The game Potter W.N. - Blackbume
chess elite) is much greater than the "ser­ J . , London 1 876, continued: 4 . .id3
vice" to it given by the aforementioned .id6 5 . c4 0-0 6. 0-0 b6 7. b3 .ib7 8.
gentlemen. So the Zukertort System has .ib2 tLl bd7 9. tLlbd2 J:Ie8 l O. tLl e5 tLl fS
also acquired a third name among "the 1 1 . f4. The deployment o f the white
masses" : the "Yusupovka. " However, we pieces corresponds to the Pillsbury for­
have not set out to reinvestigate the name mation in the Zukertort System, and
of the system; we'll just accept everything Black has refrained from playing . . . c7-
as it's been settled on. c5. Blackbume remembered this game
and repeated the plan five years later!
The theoreticians of the past proba­
bly noticed a certain similarity in the ar­ 4 . . . .:.te7 S. i.b2 cS. And after
rangement of White's pieces: pawns on 6. i. d3!? there is a tabiya from the
d4 and e3, a bishop on d3, knights on d2 Zukertort System on the board.
and f3. And the difference doesn't appear
to be very great: it's all in the positioning
of the b- and c-pawns, and in the avail­
able spots for developing White's dark­
squared bishop. So they decided to call
White's setup with d4, e3, tLl f3 , .id3 the
Colle System. The setup with a pawn on
c3 is the Colle- Koltanowski System; the
setup with the pawn on b3 is the Colle­
Zukertort System, and sometimes also
the Yusupov-Zukertort System. In her
domestic opening nomenclature Russia
always goes her own way, establishing
the following names respectively - the 6 ... tLl c6 7. 0-0 0-0 S. l':te l b6 9.
Colle System and the Zukertort System. tLl bd2 i. b7 10. tLleSl':tcS 1 1 . tLl dfJ tLld7
These are the ones we will follow. Again 12. tLl xd7 �xd7 13. dxcS bxcS 14. c4
according to the databases, this setup �c7 IS.l':tc 1 dxc4 16.l':txc4 f5 17. �al
was first used for White by W.N. Potter .id6 IS. l':th4 �e7 19. J:IhS tLlb4 20.

10

2l.xg7 �xg7 2 1 . �gS �xgS 22. CiJ xgS
CiJxd3 23. �dl 2l.eS 24. �bl CiJ b4 2S.
�d7 �c7 26. �dl CiJ dS 27. �xc7 2l.xc7
2S. CiJ xe6 �f7 29. �hS 2l.b6 30. e4 CiJ f6
31. �gS+ \t> hS 32. exfS CiJ d7 33. �hS
�e7 34. �h4 �f7 3S. �g3 2l.c6 36.
�d6 2l.bS 37. g4 \t> gS 3S. a4 il a6 39. as
ilxas 40. �xa6 2l.b6 4 1 . �cS+ CiJf8 42.
\t>g2, and here Black gave up the fight.
Digging around the databases I found
the following game Mahescanda - Co­
chrane J., played even earlier than the
above games, way back in 1 85 1 : 1 . d4 d5
2. CiJf3 e6 3. e3 c5 4. 2l.d3 CiJ ffi 5. 0-02l.e7
6. c4 0-0 7. b3 cxd4 8. exd4 CiJ c6 9. 2l.b2
b6 10. a3 h6, and here White brought his
knight out to a less characteristic square
for the Zukertort System, c3, instead
of d2. We'll see later on that even in the
Zukertort System the knight can also be
developed to c3, so this position can cer­
tainly be associated with the Zukertort
System. And do you know where this
game was played? In Calcutta! So India
isn't only the birthplace of elephants and
chess, but also of the Zukertort System!
It's quite possible that some meticulous
chess historian will discover an even ear­
lier game played with the Zukertort.
The contribution of the players I 've
named consists of the fact that it was
they who were the first to place the
bishop in an active position on d3. And
subsequently it was this deployment of
the bishop to d3 that became the axis
around which the theory of this system
turns. By the way, the course of play with
the bishop on e2 cannot be associated
with the Zukertort System. So a ques­
tion arises for the authors of the two-
Introduction
volume Queen s Pawn Opening, Anatoly
Karpov and Nikolai Kalinichenko, who
believe: " . . . that the most beautiful game
with an early e2-e3, b2-b3 and 2l.c l -b2
was played, without a doubt, by the First
Candidate [Zukertort - GB] , " and they
reference the game Zukertort - Black­
burne, London 1 883.
In a formal sense this assertion may
be correct, but how is the Zukertort Sys­
tem relevant here? The bishop on e2 is
a completely different line of play (true,
in some subvariations the bishop may
find itself on e2 temporarily when it's
chased from the d3 square), and the au­
thors themselves in their chapter dedi­
cated to the Zukertort System examine
it only in the variation where Black's
light-squared bishop comes out to g4.
But that variation can be viewed as a way
for Black to avoid playing on Zukertort
territory. Some writers on our theme in­
clude the development of the bishop to
e2 - if they even mention it at all - only
as a completely "foreign body. "
Many of the great chessplayers of
the past played this system. How valu­
able is an endorsement from names
like Alekhine, Bogolyubov, Gunsberg,
Capablanca, Levenfish, Mar6czy, Mar­
shall, Pillsbury, Rubinstein, Tarrasch,
Tartakover, Teichmann, Flohr, Schlech­
ter, Euwe, and Janowski? Tigran Petro­
sian and Vasily Smyslov used it in their
time . Among the modern chess elite it
is constantly used by Artur Yusupov and
Michal Krasenkow. Mark Taimanov,
Rafael Vaganian , Maia Chiburdanidze,
Susan Polgar, Teimour Radjabov, and
many other well-known grandmasters
11
The Zukertort System: A Guide for White and Black
have used it brilliantly. So there is some­
thing to use as an example.
What attracts us to the Zukertort
System? In the conclusion to my book
on the Nirnzowitsch-Rubinstein Sys­
tem in the Sicilian Defense, I wrote that
Nirnzowitsch's invention interested me
because you didn't have to memorize
long forced variations. In passing I 'll
add the comment by Mark Dvoretsky,
that "your opening repertoire should
be built on the capabilities of your own
memory. " So in the Zukertort there 's
no need to put your memory to the test.
The Zukertort System looks, ftguratively
speaking, like a sailboat (the pawn struc­
ture that is characteristic of the system
and the typical piece setup) with many
sails (the plans, methods, and maneu­
vers that are inherent in and work specif­
ically in the Zukertort System) . A player
of the Yusupovka must be a good "sail­
or" in order to steer these kinds of boats.
Moreover, the "wind" often changes di­
rection - that is to say, Black's reactions
to White's play are extremely varied and
demand speciftc knowledge and skills
of the latter. Sometimes a small "gust
of wind , " in other words some insig­
niftcant little technique on Black's part,
can overturn the "sailboat" and lead to
defeat. That's why it's very important to
know not only the strategy ofthe system,
but also its tactics.
This is the objective that the author
sought when writing the book - to re­
flect the slightest nuances in the prac­
tical material, and not just general dis­
cussions. Therefore, in addition to the
general contents, the author brings in
12
a list of "Tactical Methods and Strate­
gic Themes. " The need for this list was
provoked by the circumstance that no
matter what plan we undertake in the
Zukertort System, any of the elements
of this list may be encountered in it. Of
course, we can argue about the correct­
ness of their classiftcation, but the main
purpose of the list is to draw the reader's
attention to one possibility or another
for both sides in the Zukertort System.
Up until now, emphasis has mainly been
placed on a traditional presentation of
the theoretical material, with the move
order taking priority. Move order is very
important, of course , and in the Zuker­
tort System in particular. But the gener­
alized conclusion of some theoreticians
that you should make the move a2-a3 as
soon as possible, and not tl'lb l -d2, is ex­
tremely dubious. The Zukertort System
is multifaceted, and trying to channel it
into a narrow rut is a very bad idea. In
this book you will encounter themes
such as the Pillsbury formation, the long
diagonal (al -h8), the strategic diagonal
(b l -h7) , and others.
When writing this book, I started
from the assumption that the reader has
a sufficient grasp of general chess theory.
Practical play shows that this system
requires familiarity with some areas of
general chess theory, such as how to play
with or against hanging pawns and iso­
lated pawns, among others. It would also
be useful to be aware of certain opening
variations, for example, the Queen's
Indian (ECO code E 1 4), into which
the Zukertort System sometimes trans­
poses. I 've already said that the Zuker­
tort System is distinguished by its strong

interweaving of plans and the multifac­
eted improvised methods, that is to say,
techniques and elements of play. And
more time is required from the reader to
master them than when you're studying
other opening variations and openings.
Remember: " Knowledge is achieved at
a slow walk, not a fast gallop. "
This book will also b e very use­
ful to those who just want to improve
their positional play. The reality is that
in the Zukertort System you use "the
kind of method of play where most of
your attention goes not on calculating
individual moves, but on drawing from
general principles. " Richard Reti called
this method "position play. " The goal of
position play is to create the precondi­
tions for carrying out a combination, for
a decisive game , or simply to obtain (or
increase) some kind of advantage. Re­
member the words of Emanuel Lasker:
" Position play is preparation for combi­
national play. " For coaches it will make
the creation of your students' opening
repertoire considerably easier, if they
are already familiar with the elements of
position play.
A little about the materials dedicated
to the Zukertort System. It's very im­
portant to know who they come from.
Some theorists latch on to any problem
just so that they can write something.
For them the most important thing is to
jot anything down as quickly as possible
and rush it to press. They find out what
they need and don't need at the touch of
a button on the computer keyboard, add
stock phrases, and hand the latest "pie"
they've half-baked to the publisher. And
Introduction
my doubts only increase when I see
that they have never played the opening
they're writing about.
Of course, there are exceptions. For
example, coaches whose students play
this or that variation. They " live through"
them together with their charges, but I
have observed that they don't really like
to share their knowledge, for completely
understandable reasons. I always read
the works on opening theory by G M
Evgeny Sveshnikov with great interest.
In the first place, his belief in what he
plays makes a convincing impression
on the reader. Secondly, it feels like he
himself has lived through everything that
he writes about. He doesn't write about
anything and everything, although his
knowledge and playing strength give him
the right to do that.
Of the works dedicated to the Zuker­
tort System I would single out a book by
the American author David Rudel, Zuke
'Em: The Colle-Zukertort Revolutionized
(Thinkers' Press, 2008). Its main virtue,
as the author tells us at the beginning of
the book, is that it is the first to be com­
pletely dedicated to the Colle-Zuker­
tort System. Never mind the fact that it
contains a great deal of material that is
irrelevant to our topic. We'll come back
to that. A second, no less important vir­
tue of the book is that the author is very
enthusiastic about this subject and no
shoddy work is evident. And this endears
me to Rudel's book.
On the other hand, not everything
impresses. Here, too, it's appropriate
to recall another saying: " Don't shoot
13
The Zukertort System: A Guide for White and Black
the piano player; he's doing the best he
can . " I ' m very well aware that on that
score my book, too, contains shortcom­
ings, but the most important thing is this
absence of shoddy work. In the Ameri­
can author's book the main emphasis
is on what we may call the philosophy
of the Zukertort System, which is also
crucial for understanding it. Moreover, I
think that it can be a wonderful supple­
ment to my book, or (so as not to offend
anyone) vice versa. But, as nothing can
be ideal, I ' m not in complete agreement
with the author here, either. Above all,
as I 've pointed out, a great deal of space
in the book is taken up by material that
is irrelevant to the Zukertort System.
So, for example , what do variations in
the Slav Defense (pp. 1 30- 1 46) have to
do with the Zukertort? I also noticed
the author's fondness for statistics. Of
course, "statistics know everything!"
But statistics are statistics, and there are
very few games, and their analysis isn't
exactly packed with detail.
Right after Rudel's work, Richard
Palliser's book Starting Out: d-Pawn At­
tacks (Everyman Chess, 2008) came out.
Here we have a book by a professional
chessplayer, and he takes a different ap­
proach to presenting the material. It is
also distinguished by a conscientious
treatment of the subject and a stress on
key points in the development of the
theory of the Zukertort System. Pallis­
er's book is dedicated not only to the
14
classical Zukertort System, but also to
other openings in which the Zukertort
setup can be used.
There was also a book by Ken Smith
and John Hall, Winning with the Colle
System, published by Chess Digest. It
too has a chapter on the Zukertort Sys­
tem. True, the authors of this work call
it the Colle-Zukertort System. We won't
repeat ourselves, as we've already dis­
cussed the matter ofthe opening's name.
Much has happened since it came out,
and also only a small number of pages
are dedicated to the Zukertort System.
At the end of this book you 'll find a
bibliography. It contains a list of all the
books and magazines that the author
worked through. Yes, really "worked
through, " and not on the principle that,
"We read a book so we can say that we've
read it. " And all the points that are wor­
thy of attention have been reflected in
this book. I didn't want to make a com­
pilation - I either gave the information
as a supplementary note with an indica­
tion of authorship, so as not to be a pla­
giarist, or else I included it in the course
of the discussion.
I hope that I 've persuaded you, dear
reader, to start studying the Zukertort
System. It will help you to improve both
your play and your results. Enjoy your
excursions into this opening which, no
doubt, will improve your chess health!
 The Subject of Our Serious Study
1 . d4 d5 2. t'll fJ t'llf6 3. e3
"The idea of this variation is to take
possession of the e5 square and, after
occupying it with a knight, to start an
attack against the enemy king. Black,
meanwhile, tries to take the initiative
on the other flank and, when he gets the
chance , make sound use of his queen's
bishop. " That, in the most general
terms, is how Alexander Alekhine char­
acterized the Zukertort System.
3 . . . e6
In our book we'll only be examin­
ing the Zukertort System in its classical
form, i.e. with the move . . . e7-e6, which
to a large extent determines the strategy
of play for the opposing sides. The main
weakness of this move, as in the French
Defense, is that Black has the "light­
squared bishop problem. " The Zukertort
System can be used, in principle, against
any opening setup by Black, as it's uni­
versal. But it can't always be effective,
otherwise opening theory wouldn't ex­
ist and there would only be the Zuker­
tort System. That's why, as a rule, theo­
rists relate only those variations where it
works and that are typical for it. So, for
instance, after 3 . . . c5 4. b3 t'll c6 5. ii.b2,
Black can play 5 ... ii.g4!?, and the main
ideas for White in the Zukertort System
simply don't work. John Watson and Eric
Schiller, the authors of the book How
to Succeed in the Queen Pawn Openings
(Trafford, 2006) , are of the same opinion.
John Cox, in his book Dealing with d4
Deviations (Everyman Chess, 2005), also
considers the line where the light-squared
bishop comes out to f5 or g4 independent
of both the Colle System and the Zuker­
tort System. Richard Palliser additionally
thinks that bringing out the bishop to f5
or g4 gives Black an "easy game" if White
sticks to the Zukertort System. He, too,
declines to examine this continuation.
And you are amazed when you read the
following in the book by Anatoly Karpov
and Nikolai Kalinichenko: "However,
the ideas in apparently (to judge by their
name) different systems are, in essence,
extraordinarily similar. The only differ­
ence is that in the Zukertort System the
bishop temporarily stays on c8, and in the
Nirnzo- Indian, as we see, it can be devel­
oped to g4. The rest is identical. . . "
What o n earth is the meaning of the
phrase, " .. . in the Zukertort System the
bishop temporarily stays on c8"? Despite
my long acquaintance with one ofthe au­
thors of this bit of wisdom, I have to call
things as I see them. The whole point is
that after . . . e7 -e6 this poor devil of a bish­
op often can't find a worthy use behind
the fence of black pawns, and often finds
itself in secondary roles for a long time,
and sometimes remains a mere extra all
the way through to the end of the game.
At the same time, once it comes out to g4
it immediately jumps into the middle of
the battle, neutralizing White's threats on
the b l -h7 diagonal. And then naturally,
the game scenario changes fundamen-
15
The Zukertort System: A Guide for White and Black
tally, and similar issues arise only in a few
situations. After S ... i.g4!? it is difficult for
White to count on getting an advantage by
sticking to the Zukertort System. In gen­
eral, as I said above, it's very doubtful that
the variations with Black's light-squared
bishop coming out to a useful spot (the g4
or f5 squares) have a connection with the
Zukertort System. That's why with this
move order for Black, 3 . . . cS, White has
to be very careful and react in some other
way to Black's plotting.
By way of illustration, Watson and
Schiller bring in the game Perissinotto
C. - Zurla M . , Bologna 1 99 1 : 3 . . . i.g4 4.
b3 e6 S. i. d3 cS (S .. .I;:Z�e4!?) 6. i. b2 cxd4
7. exd4 tiJ c6 8. 0-0 lIc8 (On this theme
there are two other games that once again
confIrm that once Black brings out his
light-squared bishop to g4 it's better if
White doesn't try for the Zukertort Sys­
tem: 8 . . . i. d6 9. tiJ bd2 [9. lI e l 0-0 10. a3
�c8 1 1 . tiJ bd2 i. hS 12. h3 i. f4 1 3 . g4
i.g6 {with the maneuver . . . i. c8-g4-h5-g6,
which Savielly Tartakovervividly described
as "a departure to distant lands, " Black
neutralizes White:V play on the important
b l-h 7 diagonal, andfurthermore the white
pawn remains weak, as it has lost its main
defender - the d3-bishop} 1 4. tiJ fl tiJ e4
IS. tiJeS? tiJxeS 1 6. dxeS �h4 and White
is defenseless, Mendoza A - Bachmann
A, Aguascalientes 2007] 9 . . . 0-0 1 0. a3
�c8 1 1 . �e l i. f4 12. tiJ eS tiJ xeS 1 3 .
dxeS tiJ d7 1 4 . f3 [ 1 4. g3] 1 4 . . . i. hS [ 1 4 . . .
i. f5 ! ? IS. i.xfS exfS 1 6. g3 �b6+ 1 7.
W h l �xc2] IS . :f2 �b6 1 6. tiJ fl i.g6
1 7. i.xg6 hxg6 1 8 . W h l i.xeS, and Black
won a pawn in Rogmans J. - Karpatchev
A, Charleroi 200S , and with it the game)
9. tiJ bd2 (according to Watson and Schil-
16
ler, Black i s already better) 9 . . . i. d6 1 0.
lI c l i. f4! (exclamation mark by Watson
and Schiller. As we can see from these
games, the move is characteristic of this
variation: now the bishop can't be cut out
of the action on the kingside by the move
tiJ f3-eS [of course, after the knight frees
itself from the pin] , and it's also pleasant
for it to work along the c l -h6 diagonal)
1 1 . i. e2 tiJ e4!, and Black has the advan­
tage.
4. i. d3 cS
In principle, the theory ofthe Zuker­
tort System starts out from the assump­
tion that there is a black pawn on cS. In
90 percent of the cases that's true, but
there are games in which Black refrains
from . . . c7-cS for a while, or never plays
it at all. The fact is that, knowing what
difficulties await him, Black might go
for different schemes: either by saving a
tempo on . . . c7 -cS or by playing a " Black
Zukertort" (see Part I I , Chapter 3).
S. b3
In contrast to the Colle System, where
White plays c2-c3, securing a retreat
square for the light-squared bishop in the
event of. . . cS-c4, in the Zukertort System
White not only anticipates Black's threat,
but also immediately prepares a parking
spot for the dark-squared bishop. Now
we have the starting point of the Zuker­
tort System. While White's aims in this
position are fairly transparent - put the
bishop on b2, open the a l -h8 diagonal,
and throw all your pieces at your oppo­
nent's king, with the rocket battery ofthe
two Horwitz bishops fIring with terrible

force - Black is at a crossroads. Where is
his queen's knight better placed - on c6,
or d7? Where is the dark-squared bishop
best developed, on d6, e7, or hidden away
in a "cabin" on g7? Or perhaps he should
express his love for an early check like an
amateur? Or maybe start hacking away
at d4 right away, swordsman-style. As we
can see, Black has many roads to choose
from. Incidentally, White's subsequent
play depends on this choice too. So it's
with these questions that we'll begin our
investigation.
But before going into the main
material I should point out that, after I .
d4 CLl f6 2 . CLl f3 e6 3 . e3 c5 4. il.d3 d5,
White sometimes provokes Black into
. . . c5-c4 by immediately playing 5. 0-0:
The Subject of Our Serious Study
A debatable decision. After 5 . . . c4
Black not only chases White's bishop
away from its aggressive post, but also
grabs some space. What does White seek
in return? First, Black must react care­
fully to White's action on the queenside.
Below we'll see what kind of nuance this
is. Secondly, after Black plays . . . c5-c4
the white pawn on d4 will solidly cover
the center, providing an opportunity for
its e-pawn brother to demonstrate some
activity - e3-e4 - and untying White 's
hands on the kingside. And what does
Black need with all this? The fact is that
seizing space with . . . c5-c4 enables Black
to create serious counterplay on the
queenside. Therefore
6. il. e2 b5
Here's that very nuance: Slow play
after this move isn't desirable, as White
will get the better pawn structure , for
example 6 . . . CLl c6 7. b3 cxb3 (it is nec­
essary to trade pawns, as 7 . . . b5 is bad
because of 8 . a4) 8. axb3 (White already
has a nice position thanks to his supe­
rior pawn structure) 8 . . . il. d6 9. il. a3 0-
o 1 0 . c4 �e8 1 1 . il.xd6 'iVxd6 1 2 . CLl c3
( 1 2. c5!? intending CLl b l -c3 -b5-d6) 1 2 . . .
b 6 1 3 . 'iV c l a5?! ( 1 3 . . . il.b7 �) 1 4 . CLl b5
(Rotstein E. - Hermann w., Cologne
2000) 14 . . . 'iVd7 1 5 . CLl e5 CLlxe5 1 6 . dxe5
CLl e4 1 7 . cxd5 il. a6 1 8 . dxe6 l::t xe6 1 9.
l::t d l �; or 6 . . . CLlbd7 7. b3 b5?! (now it
was necessary to agree to 7 . . . cxb3 8.
axb3) 8 . a4 cxb3 9. axb4 bxc2 10 . 'iVxc2
il.b7 1 1 . CLl bd2 il. d6 1 2 . il. a3 il.xa3 1 3 .
�xa3 0-0 1 4 . �fa l 'iVb6 1 5 . 'iVa2 �fc8
16. il. f1 (weaker is 1 6. �xa7 �xa7 1 7.
'iVxa7 l::t a 8 !) 1 6 . . . 'iVc7 1 7 . CLlb3 CLl e4,
and here in Kurajica B. - Palac M.,
17
The Zukertort System: A Guide for White and Black
Medulin 1 997, White could already take
the pawn with 1 8 . �xa7 as 1 8 . . . �xa7 1 9 .
�xa7 � a 8 doesn't work because o f 20.
�c l ! ; finally 6 . . . i. d6 7. b3 b5? (here we
go again: better is 7 . . . cxb3 8 . axb3) 8 . a4
bxa4 9. bxc4 dxc4 1 0. i. xc4 Baumgart S.
- Eichner M., Germany 1 997.
7. b3!?
White immediately tries to wreck
his opponent's entrenched pawns. But
there is also another frequently en­
countered strategy for White associated
with the Pillsbury setup, which we 'll
talk about in more detail below. Here's
how the game Najdorf M . - Hounie
E, Mar del Plata 1 946, went: 7. ll:l e 5
ll:l bd7 8 . f4 i.b7 9 . ll:l d2 i. d6 (play
turned out less successfully for White
in the following recent game: 9 . . . i. e7
1 0 . ll:l df3 ? ! [White voluntarily declines
to fight for the e4 square , while it's pre­
cisely in this structure that the advance
e3 -e4 can be very effective. Now is not
a good moment to undermine Black's
queenside , i.e. 10. b3? c3 1 1 . ll:l df3 b4
1 2 . a3 as, and after Black occupies e4,
White 's dark-squared bishop can 't get
into play] 1O . . . ll:le4 1 1 . a4? ! [another
unsuccessful move : in addition to the
e4 square, Black also takes space on
the queenside] 1 1 . . .b4, and later on in
Adly A. - Rublevsky S . , Tripoli 2004,
Black's space advantage on the queen­
side made itself felt) 1 0 . c3 0-0 1 1 . �c2
�c7 1 2 . i.f3 ll:l b6 1 3 . e4 l:t ac8 14. exd5
exd5 ( 1 4 . . . ll:l bxd5 !?) 1 5 . g3, and in the
18
subsequent maneuvers Najdorf simply
did a number on his opponent, not run­
ning into any powerful resources.
7.. .i.b7 8. a4
White's play is also organized by
keeping pawns on the a-file, for exam­
ple: 8 . bxc4 bxc4 9. ll:l c3 ll:l bd7 1 0 . � b l
i. c6 1 1 . e4!? (White rushes t o open up
the center, as Black's king is stuck there)
1 1 . . .dxe4 (It would be interesting to see
what would have happened if Black had
first taken the pawn with the knight.
Does White really feel comfortable in
the variation 1 1 . . .ll:l xe4!? 1 2 . ll:l xe4 dxe4
1 3 . ll:l d2 c3) 1 2 . ll:l d2 �a5 1 3 . i. b2 ll:lb6
14. ll:l xc4 ll:l xc4 1 5. i. xc4 i. d6 1 6 . d5!?
exd5 1 7. i. b5 i. xb5 1 8 . ll:lxb5 �xb5 1 9 .
i. xffi � d 7 20. i. xg7 l:tg8 2 1 . �d4 (also
after 2 1 . i. d4 an impressive draw could
be obtained: 2 1 . . .�h3 22. g3 i. xg3 23.
fxg3 l:txg3+ 24. hxg3 �xg3+) 2 1 . . .ffi 22.
i. xffi J:Ixg2+ 23. 'iitxg2 �g4+ 12-12, Diz­
dar G. - Chandler M . , Jiirmala 1 983.
8 . . . a6 9. c3
After the series of trades 9. axb5 axb5
1 0. �xa8 i. xa8 1 1 . bxc4 bxc4, neither
side could achieve anything tangible in
the game Mar6czy G. - Nimzowitsch
A. , Goteborg 1 920.
9 ... ll:l bd7 10. ll:l bd2 i. e7 1 1 . i. a3
0-0 12. �c2 i. c6 13. �b2 with an ap­
proximately equal game in Kurajica B.
- Bareev E., Sarajevo 2003.
 Part!

Play for White

 Chapter 1

A Piece Attack

A. The Black Monarch's Residence on the Kingside

White often attacks only with pieces on the kingside, dispensing with the pawns.
In the first phase he transfers his pieces to the kingside. In the second phase he cre­
ates various threats in order to provoke weaknesses in Black's position. Then in the
final phase, exploiting the weak points in his opponent's defenses, he launches the
decisive attack. The usual scenario is that Black holds the position, but a protracted
defense leads to mistakes that can't be corrected.

Yusupov A. Scheeren P.
-
c4; secondly, he prevents a check from
Plovdiv 1 983 White's bishop on bS. So, for example,
now 8 ... ttJ e4 would be bad due to 9 .
1. d4 ttJ f6 2. ttJ f3 e6 3. e3 cS 4 ..td3
• ..tbS ttJ efO 1 0 . �f3, and as a result Black
dS S. b3 ttJ bd7 6 ..tb2 b6 7. 0-0 ..tb7 8.
• has only lost time. White , besides the
llJeS!? gift in the fonn of additional tempi for
development, has also created a terrible
The mark of respect after this move threat, for example on 1O . . . a6? there fol­
hasn't been placed there for no reason. lows 1 1 . ..t xd7+ ttJ xd7 1 2. �xf7# (the
You only have to recall the saying of the variation with the preliminary exchange
very experienced Tartakover: '� knight 8 . . . ttJ xeS? and after 9. dxeS Black plays
on eS is a great master of space; mate 9 . . . ttJ e4 isn't even worth talking about
follows on its heels . " due to 10 . ..tbS+).

8 . . . a6 9. ttJ d2 bS

"Two for the price of one " : First, Black adopts a very simple plan,
Black is preparing to advance the pawns which we 'll talk about in Part I I , Chap­
on the queenside - . . . b6-bS and . . . cS- ter 6. Its main drawback in this game

21
Part I. Play for White
is that development isn't finished. The
counter-plan employed by Yusupov can
be considered one of the most effective
in this variation.
9 . . . tLl e4 is bad because of the varia­
tion pointed out by Susan Polgar: 1 0.
tLlxd7 �xd7 ( l 0 . . . tLlxd2 1 1 . tLlxb6!?
GB) 1 1 . �xe4 dxe4 12. tLl c4 (threaten­
ing a fork on b6) 1 2 . . . �c6 1 3 . dxc5 bxc5
(White has the advantage, as he has the
better pawn structure: on the queenside
he has three pawns against two black
pawns, and without the help of the piec­
es they can create a passed pawn in the
endgame; and on the kingside, thanks to
the fact that Black has doubled pawns on
the e-file, the white pawns easily hold off
Black in a pawn ending. Of course, aU
this discussion ofthe long-term prospects
inspires anguish in view of Nigel Short's
saying: "In modem chess there's more
concern about pawn structure. Forget it:
mate decides everything. " Giving check­
mate is a more enjoyable pastime. But
still, when defensive technique in mod­
em chess has lulled you into the idea:
I'll play how I play, I'll go wherever I'll
be safe - that's rather a dangerous thing.
White's superiority in the above variation
is also determined by his better develop­
ment, and moreover Black has to think
about how to complete his development
on the kingside. [Bad are both 1 3 . . . � xc5
because of 1 4. �xg7 ; and 13 ... �xc5 be­
cause of 1 4. �d4. ] ) .
1 0 . tLl xd7!?
Weaker is 1 0. dxc5 because of 10 . . .
tLl xc5, attacking White's important
bishop.
22
10 . . . �xd7
In the event of 1 O . . . tLl xd7, White
plays 1 1 . c4, undermining Black's cen­
ter. This is very dangerous for the second
player, as he is behind in development.
1 1 . dxc5!?
White opens up the major al-h8
diagonal. One of the main weapons in
the hands of followers of the Zukertort
- opening up the a l -h8 diagonal - has
been allocated its own chapter due to its
importance. (See Chapter 2.) The idea
is clear: to bring White's dark-squared
bishop into the game.
1 l . . . � xc5 12. �f3
In the game Adly A. - Taleb M . ,
Dubai 2005, White used a plan involving
an e3-e4 advance. See Part I, Chapter 9:
12. a4 b4 ( l 2 ... bxa4?! 13. �xa4 is dubi­
ous, as White puts strong pressure on
the a-pawn) 1 3 . �f3 �e7 14. e4 (Wor­
thy of attention in this position is Yusu­
pov's plan , in which White can hope for
succcess: 1 4. �g3 !? 0-0 1 5. tLl f3 . After
14. e4 mass exchanges follow, when the
rightful result of the game is a "draw
from exhaustion of the organism , " as
Tartakover put it. ) 1 4 . . . dxe4 1 5 . tLl xe4
tLl xe4 1 6 . � xe4 � xe4 1 7 . �xe4 0-0 1 8 .
:tad 1 with an equal game.
12 . . i.e7
.
Worthy ofattention is 1 2 . . . �e7. True,
after 1 3 . �g3 0-0 (Smith and Hall point
out an interesting opportunity after 1 3 . . .
� d6: 1 4. �xg7 :tg8 1 5 . �xf6! �xg2+

1 6 . W xg2 d4+ 1 7 . i. e4 �xf6 1 8 . i. xb7,
and it's even somewhat uncomfortable
to talk about White's compensation for
the queen) 14. a3, White's pieces are
more active; I might also add that on
l 2 . . . d4 there follows the straightforward
1 3 . tll e4. Susan Polgar came up with the
following variation: 1 3 . . . tll xe4 14. i. xe4
i.xe4 1 5 . �xe4 l:!:d8 l 6 . l:tad l ± .
13. �g3 0-0 14. tll f3
White not only brings the knight
into the attack on the kingside , but also
takes control of the e5 square , not giving
Black the opportunity to. play . . . e6-e5.
White's last three moves, transferring
his pieces from the center to the flank,
are completely in line with Tartakover's
vivid expression: "Order to the center
- take the king's fortress by storm . "
1 4 . . . l:!:ac8
Smith and Hall think that in this po­
sition Black should play 1 4 . . . h6. After
this move Richard Palliser suggests 1 5 .
tlle 5 �c7 1 6 . f4, when White controls
the situation on the queenside and in
the center, while on the kingside he has
good preconditions for an attack.
15. tll g5 (threatening the h7-pawn)
15 ... g6
1 5 . . . h6? is bad because of 1 6. tll h7! .
16. �h4 (with the simple threat of
17. i.f6 and 1 8 . �h7#) 16 h5 ..•
Moves suggested by our "silicon
friends" such as 16 .. .l:Ue8 are difficult
Chapter 1 . A Piece Attack
for a human to find, as they're very far
from obvious.
Directed against 17 . ..lLle4. Worthy
of attention is 1 7 . �d4!? , tying Black
down to the long diagonal.
17 tll h7?
• •.
17 . . . �c7 (Yusupov) 1 8 . �d4 �c5
19. �f4 tll g 4.
18. �xh5!
One of the most beautiful sacrifices
typical of the Zukertort System, but:
"The most miraculous thing about chess
is that there's absolutely nothing miracu­
lous about it. " We won't recall who said
these words, but we'll bring in an expla­
nation ofthem by Tartakover, who noted,
" . . . how quickly here a creative moment
turns into a purely technical one. So, for
example, the player who used a 'smoth­
ered mate' for the first time, by means of
a queen sacrifice . . . no doubt acted under
the influence ofgreat inspiration. Howev­
er, since then this motif has participated
23
Part I. Play for White
as something elementary and self-explan­
atory in countless combinations. In gen­
eral, many forms of sacrifice have already
become routine - for example, sacrific­
ing a pawn to open up a line or sacrificing
the exchange based on the law of rela­
tive strength. Something more striking is
required for today's sophisticated chess
strategists - for example, sacrificing a
major piece (a rook or a queen) or several
pieces in a row - to really make an im­
pression on them. " We'll add only that in
the 80 years since those words were said,
such brilliant sacrifices are already being
used as an ordinary technical method, es­
pecially by those who have long been ac­
quainted with the Zukertort System.
IS i. xgS
• •.
Clearly 1 8 . . . gxhS is impossible be­
cause of the mate 1 9. i. xh7.
19. i. xg6 f6
1 9 . . . fxg6?? 20. �xg6+ wins.
20. f4
White wins the piece back with a
continuing attack.
20 • •. �g7 2 1 . fxgS ctJ xgS 22. h4 ctJ e4
Also losing is 22 . . . ctJ h7 , i.e. 23. � d4
fS 24. i. xh7+ �xh7 2S. �g4+ fxg4 26.
�xg4+ and mate on the next move.
23. i. xe4 dxe4 24. �f4 1-0.
In the guise of worrying about con­
trol over the eS square , White can dou-
24
ble the queen and rook on the e-file,
and moreover his knights are eyeing eS
and gS. This white piece setup is a pre­
condition for a surprise tactical attack
should Black lose control over the e6
and fl squares. Salvadori G. - Menen­
dez S . , Spain 1 998, went: 1. d4 ctJ f6 2.
ctJ rJ e6 3. e3 cS 4. i. d3 dS S. b3 ctJ c6
6. 0-0 cxd4 7. exd4 iJ.e7 S. a3 0-0 9.
ctJ bd2 b6 10. i. b2 i. b7 l l . �e2 �cS
12. �ael �eS? ! . The first step towards
the edge of the abyss - the fl square is
weakened. 13. ctJ gS Black should have
been on the lookout for this move , but
now 13 h6??, and we have in front of
.••
us a model position for a typical knight
sacrifice on fl :
White's major pieces are concentrat­
ed on the e-file, and the vulnerability of
Black's castled position means that the
fl square is available to the white knight:
14. ctJ xt7! �d7 (after 1 4 . . .';iJxfl? IS.
�xe6+ 'itlfS 16. i.g6 Black can't avoid
mate) IS. i. g6. As a result of this simple
combination, White has obtained a sig­
nificant advantage.
History repeated itself in the follow­
ing game: Ferris S. - Huynh A. , Can-

berra 2002: I . d4 tiJ f6 2. tiJ f3 e6 3. e3
cS 4. i.d3 dS S. b3 tiJ c6 6. i.b2 cxd4 7.
exd4 i.b4+ (for the maneuver 6 . . . cxd4
and 7 . . . i.b4+ see Part I I , Chapter 1 2)
S. tiJbd2 0-0 9. 0-0 lleS 10. lle1 VJJIc 7
1 1 . a3 i.d6 12. tiJ eS b6 13. tiJ df3 as
14. VJJIe 2 i.b7 IS. h3 tiJ e7?? Instead
of Bogolyubov's maneuver (more about
which below) , with this move Black has
invited the "hara-kiri maneuver" :
16. tiJ xt7! � xt7 17. tiJ gS+, and
Black resigned because of the variation
17 ... � gS ( l 7 . . . � f8 1 8 . tiJ xe6+ + - ) IS.
�xe6+ � hS 19. tiJt7+ � gS 20. tiJ xd6+
Fans of beautiful combinations should
be careful when carrying them out, as
(for example) after 20. tiJ h6+ � h8 the
"impressive" queen sacrifice 2 1 . �g8+
is refuted by 2 1 . . . tiJ exg8 , and the black
queen controls the f7 square. 20 . . . � hS
2 1 . tiJ xeS with an easily winning posi­
tion for White.
In his arsenal of typical tactics White
also has an impressive bishop sacrifice on
h7, which is based on a "dream plan," as
Susan Polgar called it. Langer M. Ros­ - taking on h7 leads to unavoidable mate:
tlivy M . , Czech Republic 1 996: 1. d4 tiJf6
�tiJf3�1���i.���� tiJ ��
Chapter 1 . A Piece Attack
i.b2 cxd4 7. exd4 i.b4+ S. c3 i.aS?! (af­
ter a check on b4 the black bishop usually
retreats to d6 or e7) 9. tiJbd2 0-0 10. 0-
o :eS 1 1 . VJJIe2 i.c7. The dark-squared
bishop has returned to the diagonal on
which it usually works, but with the loss
of a tempo. True, there is a little plus:
when the opportunity arises, he can take
White's e5-knight with his own knight
without having to worry about a fork on
e5. 12. tiJ eS �e7 13. f4 i.d7 14. :13.
" Rush to the flank! " 14 .. .l:IedS IS. l:Ih3.
White has completed the ideal deploy­
ment of his pieces to carry out the attack
in the "dream plan": the knight on e5;
the rook transferred to the h-fUe via fl ­
O-h3; the queen on the d l -h5 diagonal
always ready to join in the assault on the
black king; and the light -squared bishop
patiently waiting in ambush to dart to the
h7 square, which is drawing the white
pieces to itself like a magnet. Everything
in this plan is good: all that's needed is
permission from Black to carry it out.
IS ... VJJIf8 ? And Black gives the blessing:
16. i.xh7+ ! and Black resigned, as
16 . . . tiJxh7 17. VJJIh S VJJIeS IS. VJJIxh7+
� f8 19. i.a3+ .
25
Part I. Play for White

Now let's look at a game on the same
theme, this one played by Argentinian
grandmaster Miguel Najdorf: Najdorf
M . - Rossetto H . , Mar del Plata 1 942:
1 . d4i.{Jf6 2.i.{JO e6 3. e3 b6 4. i. d3 i.b7
S. 0-0 dS 6. b3 i. e7 7. i.b2 0-0 8.i.{Jbd2
cS 9.i.{JeSi.{Jc6 10. f4 l::t c8 1 1 . a3
Already threatened was . . i.{Jc6-
.
b4, and White has to part with his
light-squared bishop, which generally
isn't favorable for him. We'll see this
opportunity for Black more than once
in this book. A separate section (Part
I I , Chapter 1 4) has been assigned to the
black knight's maneuver to b4.
1 1 . . . cxd4 12. exd4 VJilc7 13. c3
White makes provision against the
black knight's jump to e4, as in the event
of trades on e4 and eS the white c-pawn
is defenseless. It can also be defended
with l::t a l -c 1 . See Part I I , Chapter 7.
difficulty) 1 6 . i.{JgS i.{JdS 1 7 . kIf3 ( 1 7 .
c4!?) 1 7 . . . h6 ( 1 7 . . .i.{Je4 I S . i.{Jxh7! ) I S .
l::t h 3! i.{Je4 ( 1 S . . . hxgS? 1 9 . fxgSi.{Jg4 20.
VJilxg4! fxg4 2 1 . i. h7+ W hS 22. i.{Jg6)
1 9 . VJilhS , and White has a strong at­
tack.
IS.kIae l VJile7 16. b4
Also possible is 1 6 . l::t f3 immediately,
as the pawn on a3 is immune to capture.
In this case the "dream plan" goes into
action, for example: 1 6 . . . i. xa3? 1 7 .
i. xh7+! W xh7 I S. l::t h 3+ WgS 1 9. VJilhS
with inescapable mate.
16 . . . aS 17. :Oi.{Jd8?
By his lack of resistance , Black has
"persuaded" his opponent to undertake
one of the main combinations in the
Zukertort System:

13 ...i.{Je8

After 1 3 . . i.{Je4
. 14. i.{Jxe4 i.{JxeS,
White obtains good chances for an attack
on the kingside with the Zwischenzug I S .
i.{Jf6+ ! .

1 4 . VJil e 2 i. d6

In this situation the automatic 1 4 . . .

fS allows White to obtain a n attacking
position, for example: I S . i.{Jdf3 i.{Jf6
(after I S . . i.{JxeS
. 1 6 . fxeS , Black's e4-
knight doesn't make it, and the closed
center allows White to prepare for a
decisive assault on the castled position
of the black king without any particular
18. i.xh7+ ! W h8
Black can't avoid mate after I S . . .
W xh7 1 9.1::th 3+ WgS 20. VJilhS .
19. l::t h 3 i.{Jf6 20. i.{JdO i.{Jxh7 2 1 .
i.{JgS, and Black gave u p the fight. 1 - 0

26

The Pillsbury Formation
The Pillsbury setup is one of
the basic piece arrangements in the
Yusupovka during both a piece attack
and a pawn attack by White. A typical
indicator of the Pillsbury setup is the
white pawn triangle - d4/e3/f4 -
topped by the knight on eS. However,
in the Pillsbury attacking plan there is
a white pawn on c3 (a Stonewall-type
pawn structure) , reinforcing White's
center, and in this case White's dark­
squared bishop stays on the sidelines
for a while. The Zukertort System takes
this deficiency into account. Instead of
playing c2-c3, White fianchettoes the
dark-squared bishop with b2-b3 and
.ib2, where it lurks awaiting its time.
At first I thought that Isidor Gunsberg
was the first person to put the Pillsbury
formation into "circulation" in his
game against Amos Burn at London
1 887. But then I found the game Potter
W.N. - Blackburne J . , London 1 876
(!), where there appeared on the board
not only the Pillsbury formation, but
also, we might say, the Zukertort System
itself. (See the Foreword. ) So, why then
do I name this piece configuration after
Pillsbury - especially as, if you believe
the databases, he first came across
this setup much later than Potter? It's
just that the universally known name
Pillsbury has already become linked
with the theory of this deployment plan.
By the way, famous theoreticians of the
past - in particular Siegbert Tarrasch
('� is well known, Pillsbury placed his
knight on eS in every Queen's Gambit,
and there, with a pawn to the right of it
and a pawn to the left of it, it flaunted
Chapter 1 . A Piece Attack
itself as a symbol of future victory") and
Savielly Tartakover - associated this
setup with Pillsbury's name. A similar
thing happened with the name of the
Zukertort System.
But for us the name of the system
isn't as important as how to play it, so
let's continue with the matter at hand.
The kingside is the strategic direction
of play for White. Let's start with one of
the early games with this setup between
two top players:
Janowski D. Lasker Em.
-
Berlin 1 9 1 0
l . d4 d5 2 . ClJ rJ ClJ f6 3 . e3 e 6 4 . i.d3
c5 5. 0-0 ClJ c6
Why does Black bring his knight out
to c6, and not to d7? Developing the
knight to d7 looks more flexible, and
it doesn't block access to the a8-h l di­
agonal by his own light-squared bishop,
which is very relevant in the battle for
the crucial e4 square. If you read this
book to the end you'll understand why.
For now let's just say that developing the
knight to c6 gives Black many more op­
portunities to equalize.
Here Black could play S . . . c4. We al­
ready looked at this direction of play in
the previous chapter. See Kurajica - Ba­
reev, Sarajevo 2003.
6. b3 i. d6!?
By the end of the book we'll come to
understand when it's better to place the
dark-squared bishop on d6, and when on
27
Part I. Play for White
e7. For now we'll talk in general terms. On
d6, the bishop supports the freeing pawn
advance . . . e6-eS, and is sometimes ready
to sacrifice itself in order to eliminate
the very important white knight on eS.
The drawbacks: Black can't take the eS­
knight with his queen' s knight, as with the
bishop on d6 and the knight on to there's
a fork; in some variations White opens
the diagonal with a tempo by means of
dxcS, attacking the bishop; sometimes
the battery of the black queen and bishop
on d6 can be subjected to attack after
QJ b l -c3(a3)-bS. A black bishop on e7 is
passive, of course, but in this case Black
both avoids the defects listed above and
defends the knight on to; and sometimes
the need arises to control the h4-d8
diagonal.
7. � b2 0-0 S. QJ bd2 'iVe7!?
The start ofa maneuver that Emanuel
Lasker observed Carl Schlechter playing
in his game against Salwe at the Hamburg
tournament of 1 9 1 0 not long before
the match; and Schlechter in turn was
evidently familiar with the game Salwe
- Rotlewi , L6di 1 909. Later Max Euwe
spoke warmly of this maneuver. For
more detail on this maneuver see Part
I I , Chapter 1 1 .
9. QJ e5
White prevents . . . e6-eS, after which
Black equalizes. See Part I I , Chapter 9.
9 ••. J:tdS
Schlechter preferred to leave this
rook in place - see Part I I , Chapter 1 1 .
28
In passing we'll mention the popular
misconception that exists to this day,
that the line 9 . . . cxd4 1 0. exd4 � a3!?,
which was first encountered in the game
Bogolyubov-Capablanca, New York
1 924 (see Part I I , Chapter 8) , eliminates
all of Black's problems. We'll see in due
course that it isn't all that simple.
10. a3 � d7
Black sometimes develops his bad
bishop via d7, and later to bS with an
attempt to trade off White's "nasty"
bishop, which, as a rule, is met by
White's clear opposition, expressed in
the move c2-c4; or else it follows the
route d7-e8 -g6(hS) , and it makes sense
that the black f-pawn should move from
its starting square, with an urgent desire
to force its white "brother-in-arms"
into an exchange. In addition to which,
in this situation it's difficult to develop
the bishop to b7, as after . . . b7-b6 the c6-
knight is left unguarded.
1 1 . f4
So, we have on the board the basic
configuration of white pieces that we call
the Pillsbury formation. Later on, White
can take the game in several directions
depending on what Black does. The
first is the "dream plan" we saw above,
i.e. , White transfers his rook to h3 by
the route f1 -f3 -h3 , and subsequently
applies the techniques that we already
know. Sometimes, if Black objects to his
opponent's intentions, White puts his
rook on g3 , where it still occupies a good
attacking position.

The second direction of play, which
White uses in this game, is to transfer his
queen to the h3 square, and later to bring
the knight into the game via Cll e5-g4 or
ctJd2-f3-g5. The rook can also be involved
in carrying out this plan. The third
direction of play is an attack by the white
pawns - g2-g4-g5 or f4-f5. Sometimes
the h-pawn also gets into the act. (See
Part I, Chapter 4.) And the last direction
is that White can ram the castled position
of the black king with the f-pawn: f4-f5-
f6. We'll also encounter this plan of play
on more than one occasion. Finally, I 'll
say that in all these plans it's possible to
open up the main a l -h8 diagonal. See
the next chapter.
It's also possible for White to play in
the center with c2-c4, but in this case
he should bear in mind the possibility
of getting hanging pawns and the black
anny coming to life. That's why the
plans of play for White listed above, in
my opinion, look safer and more logical
for White , which is very important for
players who like to conduct an attack
"comfortably. "
11 ... � e8 12. 'i¥fJ
Chapter 1. A Piece Attack
The queen's move to f3 is often
necessary for two reasons - apart from
the fact that that it's on the way to h3, it
also takes control of the e4 square.
12 ••. Cll d7 13. 'i¥h3 Cll fS
Black has moved away his knight,
his main defender, to a solid place.
The reality is that its post on f6 is very
unstable: White was threatening to
march the g-pawn forward - g2-g4-g5
- or to open up the a l -h8 diagonal with
the threat of eliminating the f6-knight
with the b2-bishop.
14. Cll dfJ
In the game Hartston W. - Kosten
A. , Torquay 1 982, White took a different
path: 14. 'i¥g3 f6 (after 1 4 . . . Cll g 6, White
has the following opportunity: 1 5 .
Cll xg6 hxg6 1 6. Cll f3 with the threat of
Cll f3-g5 and 'ifg3 -h4) 1 5 . dxc5 (White
chooses the attacking plan associated
with opening up the a 1 -h8 diagonal,
which has been allocated a chapter of
its own due to its importance; see Part
I , Chapter 2) 1 5 . . . �xc5 1 6. Cll g4 �g6
1 7 . b4 � b6 1 8 . .l: ae 1 .l:e8 19 . � h 1 ( 1 9.
Cll f3) 19 ... f5 20. Cll e5 (a "devourer of
tempi" - Nimzowitsch's name for the
knight that has been attacked twice by
the f-pawn, allowing Black to win time
- has returned to his favorite pasture,
the e5 square) 20 . . . Cll xe5 2 1 . �xe5 a5 22.
Cll f3 axb4 23. axb4 �a3 with an unclear
position. (Incidentally, the b4-pawn
was inedible because of the following
variation: 23 . . . 'i¥xb4? 24. IIb l 'i¥a5 25.
�b5 'ifa7 26. �fb 1 Cll d7 27 . .l:xb6 Cll xb6
28. � d4 + - .)
29
Part I. Play for White
14 . . .f6 IS. tZJ g4
Contemporary chess analysts
suggested continuing the attack with the
move 1 5. tZJ h4!?, which assumes that the
piece sacrifice will be accepted. Let's see
what happens if Black gets greedy and
takes the knight: 1 5 . . . fxe5 ( 1 5 .. J::!: a cS!?,
and if, for example , 1 6 . g4!? , then 1 6 . . .
tZJ b S with the threat o f 1 7 . . . c4) 1 6 . fxe5
i.c7 1 7. �xfS+! �xfS (or 17 .. .'it' xfS
I S . �fl + �f7 ( 1 S . . . 'it'gS 1 9 . i. xh7+!)
19. �xe6 with a big advantage) I S . l:t fl
i. f7 ( 1 S . . . �e7 is also bad because of
1 9. i. xh7+! 'it' xh7 20. tZJ f5 + and so on;
true , after IS . . . �xfl +!? 1 9. 'it' xfl i. f7
material equality i s preserved, and Black
holds on) 1 9 . i. xh7+ !? 'it' xh7 20. tZJ f3 +
'it' g S 2 1 . tZJg5 � e S 2 2 . �h7+ 'it> fS 2 3 .
� h S + 'it' e7 24. �xg7 'it' d7 25. �xf7+
tZJe7 26. �f6. White not only returns
the sacrificed material, but also gains
something with the continuing attack.
And I haven't yet found a clear answer to
the reasonable question, "What if Black
doesn't accept the sacrifice?"
IS . . . i. g6 16. i. xg6 tZJ xg6 17. dxcS
i. xcs
Threatening I S . . . tZJxf4.
18. tZJ d4
With the counter-threat 1 9. tZJ xe6!
�xe6? 20. tZJ h6+.
18 . . . f5
Black should pay attention to this
opportunity to win time by chasing
the e5-knight. But at the same time he
30
should bear in mind the possible bishop
sacrifice on h7. This possibility will be
examined below.
19. tZJ xc6 bxc6 20. tZJ eS tZJ xeS 2 1 .
i. xeS!?
Clearly not 2 1 . fxe5? - the dark­
squared bishop should, as a rule, patrol
the long diagonal.
2 1 . . . i. xa3 22. J:If3 .1i. d6 23. i.b2
l:tf8
Lasker suggested the immediate 23 . . .
e5.
24. �a6 J:Iac8 2S. l:tg3 l:tt7
In the case of25 ... e5 26. fxe5 i.xe5 27.
i.xe5 �xe5 2S. �xa7, a draw also ensues.
26. �h6
Threatening 27. i.xg7 �xg7 2S.
�xg7+ �xg7 29. �xe6+.
26 . . . e S 2 7 . fxeS i. xeS 2 8 . i. xeS
�xeS 29. l:txc6 l:tfc7 30. �f6! �xf6 3 1 .
l:txf6, and the game ended i n a draw on
move 45 .
In the next game White wasn't afraid
of parting with his lovely knight on e5:
Fries-Nielsen O. - Hellsten J.
Copenhagen 1 996
1. d4 tZJ f6 2. tZJf3 e6 3. e3 cS 4. i. d3
dS S. 0-0 tZJ c6 6. b3 Ji d6 7. i.b2 0-0 8.
tZJbd2 �e7 9. tZJ eS �d8 10. a3 tZJ d7

It's this move order (and not 1 O . . . i. c8-
d7) that Efim Bogolyubov suggested.
1 1 . f4 tZl fS
"With the move . . .f7 - f6 Black chases
the knight away from its dominating
position and then develops by means of
. . . i.c8-d7-e8 and . . . g7-g6. Black's play
after this is preferable " - Bogolyubov.
But, as we 'll see now, the position isn't
simple and the attacking potential of
the white pieces is also great with this
arrangement of the black pieces.
12. �h5 f6 13. l:'IfJ �e8
White has a clear advantage after 1 3 . . .
fxe5 1 4 . fxe5 i. xe5 (playing t o hold o n to
the material leads to immediate defeat,
for example: 14 . . . i. c7 1 5 . l:'Ixf8 + ! 'it' xf8
16. �fl + + - ) 1 5 . dxe5.
14. �h4 cxd4
The e5-knight is still untouchable:
14 . . . fxe5 1 5 . fxe5 tZlg6 ( I 5 . . . i. e7 1 6.
�xf8+! + - ) 1 6 . �h5 cxd4 ( I 6 . . . i. c7
17. �h3 + - ) 1 7 . �h3 and there's little
chance of repelling White's attack.
15. exd4 h5
On 15 ...tZl e7 Smith and Hall give the
following variation: 16. i.xh7+ tZlxh7 17.
l:'Ih3 fxe5 18. �xh7+ 'it'f7 19. fxe5 i.c7 20.
l:'Ifl + tZlfS 2 1 . g4 with a winning position.
After 1 5 . . . fS it wouldn't be easy for
White to attack.
16. �an fxe5
Chapter 1 . A Piece Attack
1 6 . . . tZl e7!? (Baburin) 1 7. l:'I3f2 fxe5
1 8 . fxe5 tZlfS 19. �xf5 exf5 20. exd6.
17. fxe5 i. e7 18. �g3 i. d7 19. �f4
:dc8 20. tZl fJ �d8
Again using the analytical findings
of Smith and Hall: 20 . . . :c7 2 1 . tZlg5
� ac8 22. l:'If7 (22. tZlf7! ? GB) 22 . . . g6,
and here we 'll leave their analysis and
suggest a shorter path to victory: 23.
i. xg6!? tZl xg6 24. �d3 + - .
Here White missed an opportunity
to end the game in his favor more
quickly: 2 1 . �xf8+! i. xf8 22. �g6 i. e8
23. �h7+ 'it' f1 24. i. c 1 , and Black has
to choose between getting mated and
losing his queen.
In the next game, after 1O . . . f6 a
problematic position again arose. The
question is whether White is correct to
sacrifice her bishop on h 7.
Zaitseva L. Rubtsova T.
-
Sochi 1 983
1 . d4 tZl f6 2. tZl fJ d5 3. e3 e6 4. � d3
31
Part I. Play for White

cS S. b3 .li d6 6 .lib2 tLl c6 7. tLlbd2 0-0

• An excursion by the black queen to
S. a3 Vii e7 9. tLl e S tLl d7 the kingside is dubious: 1O ... Vii h4+ 1 1 .
g3 Vii h3 (DragaSevic GA - Maric M.,
The plan of development for Budva 1 996. White continued 1 2. Vii f3 ,
the black pieces suggested by Euwe castled long, and obtained a promising
deserves attention. Despite Black's slow position, with black queen bearing most of
development, White can't lunge in and the blame for this for staying out of play.
refute it.
The move 1 0 . . . f5 looks solid, without
10. f4 f6 any risk. In this case White will most
likely choose the plan with c2-c4 after
In Podolnjak T. - Adiic M . , Becici first castling.
1 994, Black decided to chase the e5-
knight with the move ... f7-f6 only after Returning to the game :
securing his king's position: 1 O . . .l::t e8
1 1 . 0-0 tLlf8 12. Vii h 5 cxd4 (after 12 . . .
f6 , White can continue to build up
augment the attack, for example with
1 3 . :t f3 , as the knight on e5 is inedible
for the time being: 1 3 . . . fxe5 1 4 . fxe5
g6 [ 1 4 . . . .li c7 15 . .ll x f8 + + - ] 1 5 . exd6
Vii x d6 1 6 . dxc5 Vii xc5 1 7 . .li xg6 tLl xg6
1 8 . .ll f7 + - ) 1 3 . exd4 g6 (on 1 3 . . . f6
White coolly continues to bring new
pieces into play: 14. �f3) 1 4 . Vii h 6 f6
1 5 . tLl g4 (White has to move his knight
away, otherwise he 'll simply be left a
piece down) 1 5 . . . Vii g 7 1 6 . Vii h 4 i. e7 1 7 . II. i. xh7+?!
tLl f3 i. d7 ( l 7 . . . f5 ? 1 8 . tLl h6+ 'iii h8 1 9 .
tLl g5 ± ) 1 8 . � ae l tLl d8 1 9 . tLl h6+ \t> h8 As the "post-mortem" showed, this
20. g4 b5?! (20 . . . tLl f7 looked logical, piece sacrifice is incorrect.
with an effort not only to reduce his
opponent's attacking potential, but I I \t> xh7 12. Vii h S+ \t> gS 13. tLl g6
••.

also to leave his pieces less congested) Vii e S 14. dxcS

2 1 . g5 f5 22. tLl e5 i. d6 23. 'iVf2 i. xe5
24. :txe5 (24. dxe5!?) 24 . . . tLlb7 25. c4
bxc4 26. bxc4 i. c6 27. c 5 , and White
obtained a big advantage .
For 1 O . . . i. xe5?! 1 1 . dxe5, see the
notes to Salwe G. - Schlechter c . ,
Hamburg 1 9 1 0 , i n Part I I , Chapter 1 1 .
In Kekki P. - Kosmo S . , Finland
2008, White decided to move the queen's
knight over to the kingside first with 14.
tLlf3, but in this case, too, Black plays 1 4 . . .
tLl e7, and his chances i n the coming battle
look much better: 1 5 . tLl fh4 (following
1 5 . 'iVh8+ \t>f7 1 6 . tLlxf8, Black should

32

take on f8 with the queen, defending the
g7 square, as 1 6 . . . ctJxf8? loses to 1 7 . dxcS
i.xcs 1 8 . ctJgS+!) I S . . . cxd4 1 6 . exd4
ttJxg6 1 7 . ctJxg6 fS 1 8. �h8+ -tlf7 1 9.
ttJxf8 �xf8 20. �hS+ -tlg8 , and Black
has two pieces for a rook.
14 . . . ctJ xc5?
Black blunders. The second player
proceeded correctly with 1 4 . . . ctJ e7! in
Bruno A. - Messa R. , Imperia 1 984.
See Part I I , Chapter 1 1 .
On the other hand, 1 4 . . . �xcS isn't
so clear, as in this case White retains
an attacking position: I S . ctJ f3 eS ( I S . . .
ttJe7? loses immediately, for example:
1 6. �h8+ -tlf7 1 7 . ctJgS+ fxgS [ 1 7 . . .
'itixg6 1 8 . �h7#] 1 8 . �xg7#) 1 6 .
fxeS � xe3 ( l 6 . . . fxeS? 1 7. ctJgS; 1 6 . . .
ttJ dxeS? 1 7. ctJ fxeS ctJ xeS 1 8 . � xeS)
17. �h8+ -tl f7 1 8 . �hS. The position
after 14 . . . � cS requires detailed analysis.
Then again, we must ask whether it is
necessary, considering that Black has
the strong move 1 4 . . . ctJ e7 ! .
1 5 . ctJ rJ ctJ e7?
Clearly IS ... ctJ e4 isn't a saving
move either, but at least it doesn't lose
immediately: 1 6 . ctJgS ctJ xgS 1 7 . fxgS eS
18. 0-0 fS 19. :ad l � e6 20. g4 with a
very strong attack.
Black also faces a very difficult
defense after I S . . . �d8 1 6 . 0-0 ctJ e4 1 7 .
ttJgS ctJ xgS 1 8 . fxgS eS 1 9 . c4.
16. �hS+ -tlf7 17. ctJ g5+! , and
Black resigned. 1-0
Chapter 1 . A Piece Attack
Still, bearing in mind Black's
opportunity on move 14, before going for
the bishop sacrifice on h7 White should
have considered the configuration of the
black pieces. See the notes to Vospernik
Z. Potochnik P. , Slovenia 1 996 (Part I ,
-
Chapter 4 ) . See also Euwe- Rubinstein,
Ostrava 1 923, in the supplementary
games section.
The next game was played by mail.
Correspondence games differ from
over-the-board games in their playing
conditions: in an analytical game it's
much more difficult to deceive your
opponent. White nevertheless went in
for a positional bishop sacrifice on h7
in Russell - Hoffmann J . , USA corr.
1 992:
1. d4 ctJ f6 2. ctJ rJ e6 3. e3 c5 4. b3
ctJ c6 5. � d3 b6 6. � b2 �b7 7. 0-0 � e7
S. ctJ bd2 0-0 9. a3 d5 10. ctJ e5 ctJ eS 1 1 .
f4 f6
After 1 1 . ..f5 White can continue 1 2 .
g4, and now Black has t o think about
reinforcing the fS square, as the course
of play after 1 2 . . . fxg4 1 3 . �xg4 does not
favor his cause.
33
Part I . Play for White
12. i.xh7+?! 'itt xh7 13. �h5+ 'itt gS
14. ttJ g6 f5 15. ttJ f3
It's all very unclear i f White goes into
play with a ratio of rook plus n-number
of pawns against two minor pieces, for
example: I S . �hS+!? rJ;;; f7 1 6 . ttJxfS
i. xfS ( 1 6 . . . ttJf6? 1 7 . �xg7+ 'itt xg7 I S .
ttJ xe6+ , and White has armed himself
with pawns for good reason; while after
16 . . . ttJ c7 1 7 . dxcS �xfS I S . �hS+ 'itt gS
1 9 . cxb6 axb6 20. ttJf3 White doesn't
have as many extra pawns, but he has
kept his queen) 1 7 . ttJ f3 , and White's
attack continues.
15 . . . ttJf6 16. �hS+ 'itt fl 17. ttJ ge5+
Not so good now is 1 7 . ttJ xfS �xfS
I S . ttJgS+ 'itt eS 19. �xf8+ 'itt xfS 20.
dxcS ttJdS. No queens.
17,..ttJxe5 IS. ttJ xe5+ <J;;> eS 19.
�xg7 �c7 20. dxc5 bxc5 21. �g6+
With 2 1 . �fd l it was possible to try
and hold the black king in the center,
and with a subsequent c2-c4 to start
destroying Black's pawn center.
2 1 . . .'itt dS 22. ttJt7+ 'itt cS 23. ttJ g5
'itt d7 24. �ad l �b6 25. ttJ h7 ttJxh7 26.
�xh7 �aeS, and Black was a piece up.
This game showed, taking into account
White's opportunity on move I S , that
with a black piece configuration like the
one in the game under examination a
bishop sacrifice on h7 is quite possible.
In the next game we focus on White's
cavalry attack.
34
Sorokin G. Zagrebeloy S.
-
Vladivostok 1 995
1 . d4 ttJ f6 2. ttJ f3 e6 3. e3 b6 4. i. d3
i.b7 5. 0-0 d5 6. b3 i. d6 7. i. b2 0-0 S.
ttJ e5 c5 9. ttJ d2 ttJ c6 10. a3 l:cS 1 1 . f4
ttJ e7
Bogolyubov's maneuver: the knight
is transferred from the queenside to
the kingside, where on the g6 square it
becomes a champion in defense ofits king.
In some lines its route can go through f5.
This is undertaken in combination with
a flank development of the light-squared
bishop. Why? The queen's knight is
needed not only to fortifY the position of
the castled king, but also to free up the h l ­
as diagonal for the light-squared bishop,
which by X-ray action supports the
intended key move in Black's defense: . . .
ttJf6-e4. In addition to which, by leaving
the c-fLle the knight allows Black's major
pieces to organize pressure on it. We will
encounter this maneuver many times.
We should point out that the first flash
of the aforementioned maneuver was
encountered in the game Rubinstein A.
- Znosko-Borovsky E., St. Petersburg
1 905.
12. �f3
White takes control of e4, as Black
already threatens to play . . . ttJ f6-e4
followed by . . . f7-fS .
12,. .�c7
With the threat of . . . cS -c4.
13. dxc5 bxc5 14. ttJ g4

During a piece attack on the black
king's castle , White often goes for the
maneuver ltJ f3 -e5-g4, in order to remove
the main defender in Black's order
of battle. Clearing the long diagonal
doesn't hurt, either.
14 . . . ltJ e8
1 4 . . . ltJxg4 1 5 . 'i¥xg4 ltJ g6 1 6 . 'i¥h3
and then the knight joins the game:
lll d2-f3-g5 .
15. 'i¥h3 f5 16. ltJf3! d4
1 6 . . . ltJ f6 1 7 . ltJg5 fxg5 1 8 . j, xh7+
'it> h8 19. 'i¥h4 ltJ eg8 with an ongoing
attack; White also isn't short material.
17. ltJ g5 h6
18. ltJ xh6+!
This knight sacrifice, crashing
through the king's pawn cover, looks
very promising when you take into
account the opening of the g- and h­
files on which White's major pieces are
starting to work. But if you also bear
in mind that - with the material ratio
Chapter 1 . A Piece Attack
being a rook for two pieces - White has
a good pawn return on investment and
also the opportunity to open up the long
diagonal, then his desire to tear off the
black king's armor is understandable.
18 ... gxh6 19. ltJ xe6
1 9. 'i¥xh6!? doesn't look bad, either:
1 9 . . . l::t f6 ( 1 9 . . . l::t f7 20. j, c4 with a strong
attack) 20. 'i¥h7+ 'it> f8 2 1 . 'i¥h8+ ltJ g8
22. � xf6+ ltJ gxf6 23. ltJ xe6+ 'it> f7 24.
ltJ xc7 ltJ xc7 25. exd4, and with this
many pawns White can look to the
future with optimism.
19 . . . 'i¥d7 20. ltJ xf8 'it> xfS 2 1 . 'i¥xh6+
ltJ g7 22. 'i¥f6+ 'it> g8 23. exd4 ltJ d5 24.
'i¥g5 j, e7 25. 'i¥g3 j,f6 26. j, c4+ W h7
27. l::t ad l ltJ h5 28. 'i¥h3 'it> g6 and, in this
position, after 29. j, d3 Black would be
unlikely to remain standing. I should
add that in the course of the game White
had several equivalent ways to continue
the attack. So in this game White won
the battle of the opening.
In the next game Black was slow to
castle, and White immediately got his f­
pawn going.
35
Part I. Play for White

Egorenkov I. Nepomniachtchi I.
-

Rybinsk 2008

1. d4 dS 2. tZ:lfJ cS 3. e3 e6 4. i. d3
tZ:l f6 S. 0-0 i. e7 6. b3 tZ:lbd7 7. i.b2 b6 8.
tZ:l bd2 i.b7 9. tZ:l eS 'Wic7 10. f4 a6

After 10 . . . 0-0, play can go into the

usual lanes of the Zukertort System, but
Black decides either to do something
prophylactic, so that there is no chance
of a bishop check on b5 and possibly
also a pin on the a4-e8 diagonal, or to 1 1 . f5 g6?
start preparing for a pawn attack on the
queenside (which we 'll discuss in Part I I , Black succumbs to White's
Chapter 6 ) . I n tum White decides not to provocation, and once again ignores
put offhis attack on the black king but to 1 1 . . .0-0, after which White would
start it immediately. have had to search for a way to keep
developing his attack.
I 'll point out right away that Black
can 't play 1O . . . tZ:l e4?, as in this case 12. fxe6 fxe6 13. tZ:l xd7! tZ:l xd7
White does something similar to the
game Capablanca - Bernstein, New On 1 3 . . . 'Wixd7, White plays 14. dxc5.
York 1 9 1 3 . See Part I I , Chapter 7. I I .
tZ:l xe4 dxe4 ( l 1 . . .tZ:l xe5 is bad, too, 14. 'Wig4
because of 1 2 . tZ:l d6+ [it's also possible
to just take the pawn 1 2 . tZ:l xc5] 12 . . . 14. dxc5 is also good.
'Wixd6 [ 1 2 . . . i. xd6 1 3 . fxe5 i. e7 1 4.
'Wih5] 1 3 . fxe5 'Wic7 14. 'Wih5, and by 14 cxd4 IS. 'Wixe6, and White's
.•.

inducing the move 14 . . . g6 White obtains victory is merely a matter of time.

a big positional advantage) 1 2. i.b5!?

B. The Black King on the Run

We've seen that Black's king feels uncomfortable on his own wing. Sometimes,
in order to avoid White's kingside attack, the black monarch runs to the opposite
flank.

Yusupov A. Savchenko B . , Moscow

- Let's look at a few other games
2007 , went: 1. d4 tZ:l f6 2. tZ:lfJ e6 3. e3 dS featuring the evacuation of the black
4. ,St d3 cS S. b3 tZ:lbd7 king to the queenside: 5 . . . tZ:l c6 6. 0-0

36

i. e7 7. i. b2 Vii c 7 S. a3 b6 9. Cll b d2 i. b7
10. Cll eS Cll xeS 1 1 . dxeS Cll d7 1 2 . f4 ( 1 2.
Vii g4 g6 1 3 . f4 0-0-0 14. Vii e 2 Cll bS?!
and now, in Lemanczyk T. - Henrich
T. , Germany 1 999, White could have
seized the initiative with c2-c4; although
for the sake of fairness I should point
out that Black could also have created
counterplaywith 1 4 . . . tO!?) 1 2 . . . fS ( 1 2 . . . 0-
0-0 1 3 . Vii e 2 [ 1 3 . c4! ? to 14. cxdS] 1 3 . . . f6
14. extO [perhaps it was worth trying 14.
�g4] 1 4 . . . i. xfO IS. i. xfO gxfO 1 6. e4 c4
and, in the game Loiterstein M. - Sosa
R. , Argentina 1 992, Black initiated
some double-edged play) 1 3 . extO i.xfO
14. i. xfO ( 1 4. Vii h S+!? g6 [ 1 4 . . . \t> e7
I S . i. xfO+ Cll xfO 1 6 . Vii g S :agS 1 7. c4!
with the initiative] I S . i. xg6+ W e7 1 6.
i. xtO+ Cll xfO 1 7 . Vii eS! White didn't see
this strong move, else he would have
gone in for this variation) . After 1 4 . . .
Cll xfO I S . Vii e 2 0-0-0 1 6 . e 4 W bS 1 7 . eS
Cll d7 I S . Vii g4 Cll f8 1 9. :ae l g6, Black
succeeded in building a line of defense,
Bogdanovich G. - Geyer B . , Germany
1 997.
6. 0-0 b6 7. i.b2 i. b7 8. Cll bd2 i. e7
9. Cll e5 Cll xe5 10. dxe5 Cll d7
1O . . . Cll e4 is bad because of 1 1 .
Cll xe4 dxe4 1 2 . i.bS+, and Black, at
a minimum, is doomed to artificial
castling.
1 1 . f4
Omitting c2-c4 allows Black to
obtain counterplay on the kingside: 1 1 .
�g4 g6 1 2 . f4 ( 1 2. l:tad l Vii c 7 1 3 . f4 0-0-
0 1 4. c4! hS I S . Vii e 2 :hgS I 6. cxdS i. xdS
1 7 . Cll e4 with an advantage for White
Chapter 1 . A Piece Attack
in Hagenstein A. - Hein A. , Germany
2003) 1 2 . . . Vii c 7 1 3 . :ac l (White is
better after 1 3 . c4!? 0-0-0 14. cxdS i. xdS
I S . Cll e4, although Black can dig in)
13 . . . 0-0-0 1 4. llfd l (again it was worth
considering 14. c4!?) 1 4 . . . hS I S. Vii e 2 gS
and Black obtained counterplay in the
game Kaufmann H . - Trommsdorf F. ,
Bad Wlldbad 2000.
1 1 . . . Vii c 7
In Nystrom L. - Morant P., Turku
2002, Black first made the prophylactic
move 1 1 . . .g6, and only then ran his king
over to the queenside , also not choosing
the most auspicious moment for this: 1 2 .
e 4 ( 1 2. c4!?) 1 2 . . . Vii c 7 1 3 . exdS i. xdS
14. Cll e4 O-O-O? ( 1 4 . . . c4!? I S . bxc4 i. xe4
1 6 . i. xe4 I:t dS 00) I S . Cll d6+ i. xd6, and
in this position the best continuation
was 1 6 . ii a6+! i. b7 ( 1 6 . . . WbS 1 7 . exd6
and now not 1 7 . . . Vii xd6 because of I S .
iixhS Ii:xhS 1 9 . c4) 1 7. exd6 Vii c 6 I S .
i. xb7+ W xb7 1 9 . i. xhS with a winning
position.
Black can try to prevent the further
advance of the white f-pawn with I I . . .
f5 , but by continuing according to
Marshall (see Part I, Chapter 3) with
1 2. c4!? White obtains the advantage ,
i.e. 1 2 . . . Cll f8 1 3 . Vii e 2 Cll g6 (the black
knight's unsuccessful maneuver allows
White to immediately start scalping the
black king) 14. cxdS i. xdS I S . e4 (White
proceeds strictly in accordance with the
Marshall plan) I S . . . fxe4 1 6 . i. bS+ W f8
1 7 . fS , with a decisive attack i n Okhotnik
V. Ranfagni S . , Pedavena 200S .
-
12. Vii e2
37
Part I . Play for White
White can also intimidate Black on
the queenside right away with 1 2 . a4,
as happened in Adly A. - Divljan I . ,
Heraklio 2002: 1 2 . . .a 6 1 3 . �g4 g6. And
now the Marshall plan that we mentioned
above goes into action. 1 4. c4!? d4 (now
the white knight is aiming for e4; after
14 . . . 0-0 1 5 . cxd5 Ji.xd5 1 6 . e4 White is
better) 1 5 . �e2 dxe3 1 6 . tLl e4 Ji. xe4 1 7 .
Ji. xe4 l::t b 8 1 8 . �xe3 0-0 1 9. f5 ! tLl xe5
(on 19 . . . exf5 there follows 20. Ji. xf5 ,
and Black can't take the bishop, as in
that case he loses his queen: 20 . . . gxf5?
2 1 . �g3+ 'itl h8 22. e6+) 20. f6 tLlg4 2 1 .
�h3, and White has won a piece.
12 . . . 0-0-0
If Black castles short with 12 . . . 0-0,
then White activates the Marshall plan,
starting with 1 3 . c4!? (see Chapter 3).
13. a4
Besides the very logical game move ,
1 3 . c4 also deserves attention.
13 . . .g 5 1 4 . a5 bxa5
38
If 1 4 ... gxf4, then White can choose
between the Zwischenzug 1 5 . axb6 and
1 5 . l::t xf4 as in the game.
15. Ji. a6 gxf4 16. l::t xf4
White takes on f4 with the rook,
so as to bring it into the attack on the
queenside as quickly as possible.
16 .. .l:thf8
Black didn't want to risk taking the
second pawn 1 6 . . . tLl xe5 because of 1 7 .
Ji. xb7+ c;t> xb7 1 8. �b5+ 'it>c8 1 9. �a6+
c;t>b8 20. Ji. xe5 �xe5 2 1 . l:ha5, when his
king is in danger.
17. l::t fa4 tLl b8 18. Ji. xb7+ �xb7 19.
l:'Ixa5 tLl c6 20. l:!:b5 �d7 21. tLl rJ c;t> c7
22. Ji. a3 l:'Ib8 23. l:'Ixc5!, and White has
won a pawn, also getting a positional
advantage.
We can conclude that castling long
doesn't give Black any peace. He has
to create counterplay as quickly as
possible, otherwise White can develop
a dangerous attack in that sector with
the energetic moves a2-a4 and c2-c4.
By the way, Emanuel Lasker thought
that, " Black's counterplay doesn't
develop in the appropriate manner"
if Black castles long. See the notes to
Omearat A. - Sadvakasov D . , Dubai
2002, in Part I I , Chapter 9. There, we
find the interesting game Hoffman A.
- Hernando J . , Internet 2000, in which
White's procrastination permitted Black
to build a strong attack.
 Chapter 2

Openi n g U p the a 1 - h8 Diagonal

White's attacking possibilities increase if he opens up the long a l -h8 diagonal.

In this case it isn't easy for Black to defend - the possible clearing of the diagonal,
like the sword of Damocles, keeps him in a state of tension, and very often he prefers
to exchange on d4 immediately in order to block the diagonal. In the next game not
even the great Nimzowitsch could withstand the pressure from the white pieces.

Dus-Chotimirsky F. Nimzowitsch A.
- The tempting 1 3 . . . �b6? doesn't
Karlsbad 1 907 work, for instance 14. QJ xc6 (also
possible, of course , is 14. J::t ae 1 , but it's
1. d4 dS 2. QJrJ e6 3. e3 QJ f6 4. QJ bd2 not as convincing) 14 . . . i- xe3+ I S . 'it> h l
cS S. b3 QJ c6 6. i. b2 i. d6 7. i. d3 0-0 8. i. xc6 1 6 . i. xf6 gxf6 1 7 . il.. xh7+ ! and
a3 b6 9. QJ eS i. b7 10. f4 a6 nothing can save Black.

Black starts moving his queenside
pawns to chase White 's light-squared
bishop from its active position on
d3. This plan is examined in Part I I ,
Chapter 6.
1 3 . . . QJ d7 14. QJ xc6 il.. xc6 I S . �h3 fS
( 1 S . . . h6 1 6. b4 il.. b6 1 7 . QJb3) 1 6. QJ f3
i-xe3+ 1 7 . 'it> h l .
14. �g3

1 1 . �rJ bS Closely related to the main game

Threatening . . . cS-c4.
12. dxcS
This would seem to obstruct us, but
it's the one thing White needs.
12 . . . i- xcs 13. 0-0 �c8
is Salgado R. - Hart M . , corr. 1 98 3 :
1 4. b4! ? i- e7 (it made sense t o leave
the bishop on the g l -a7 diagonal :
1 4 . . . il.. b6, although White retains
something of an advantage in this case ,
too) I S . �g3 QJ xeS 1 6 . il.. xeS QJ e 8 1 7 .
QJ b 3 with a positional edge for White
thanks to the opportunity to play on
the dark squares. I have to point out

39
Part I. Play for White
White 's knowledge of the classical
Zukertort System.
14 . . . ttJxeS IS . .lixeS .li d6 16. � d4
Vlii e7
On the offer to repeat moves 1 6 . . .
.li c 5 , White could play 1 7 . .lib2, also
with a promising position.
17. b4 g6
17 . . . ttJe8, in order to play . . . f7-fS , is
followed by 1 8 . ttJb3 with an occupation
of the c5 square. Black's last move
weakens the position of his king. He
wanted to free his knight from the pin so
as not to be mated on g7. Of course , 17 . . .
g 6 didn't lead t o defeat, but it created
the preconditions for it.
IS. Vlii gS ttJ e4?
Now he should have played 1 8 . . .
ttJ d 7 , but Nirnzowitsch doesn't want to
retreat.
19. ttJ xe4 dxe4 20 .li f6 h6 2 1 . Vlii h4 ,
•
and White won.
In the game Mikac M . - Susnik M . ,
Slovenia 1 995, White's whole attack was
supported by the dark-squared bishop:
I . d4 dS 2. ttJ f3 cS 3. e3 e6 4. b3 ttJ f6
S . .li d3 ttJ c6 6 .li b2 .li d6 7. 0-0 0-0 S.
• after 1 2 . . . c4 it drops a piece. So before
ttJ bd2 b6 9. ttJ eS .lib7
Black should play close attention to
White's opportunity to open the long
diagonal and get his knight through to
40
to: if he leaves the to-knight undefended
even for a second, he can quickly obtain
the worse position, as happened in the
following game: 9 . . . Vlii c 7?! 10. ttJxc6
Vlii xc6 1 1 . dxc5 Vlii xc5 ( 1 1 . ..bxc5? is very
bad because of 1 2 . .lixffi gxffi 1 3 . Vliig4+
'itt h8 1 4. Vlii h4 fS 1 5. Vlii to + 'itt g8 16. f4,
and the transfer of the rook via fl -f3-g3
followed by mate can be prevented only
at the price of great material loss. White
has to prove his advantage after 1 1 ... .lixc5,
but the result is still in no doubt: 1 2 . .lixffi
gxffi 1 3. iVg4+ W h8 14. iVh4 fS 1 5. b4
.li d6 1 6. iVto+ 'itt g 8 17. f4 .1ixb4 1 8 . l:tf3
l:te8 19. 1:tg3+ 'itt fS 20. ttJf3 .ltc3 2 1 . ttJe5
.ltxe5 22. tXe5 .ltb7 23. �h3) 12 . .ltxffi
gxffi 1 3. Vlii h 5 fS 14. g4 (there have been
those who wanted to limit themselves to
perpetual check after 14. iVg5+ 'itt h8 1 5 .
iVto+ 'itt g8 16. iVg5+) 14 . . . 'itt h 8 1 5. ttJ f3
iVb4 1 6. gxf5 exfS 17. h 3 iV c 3 1 8 . ttJd4,
and Black's kingside is severely weakened,
Smith D. - Ferrero M . , COIT. 2004. But
White should also be warned: taking on
to must bring concrete results, otherwise
Black can obtain dangerous play against
White's king on the half-open g-fIle.
10. a3 Vlii c 7 I I . f4 l:tadS
Events unfolded under a different
scenario in Kovacevic V. - Dizdar G.,
Sarajevo 1 983: l 1 .. .ttJ e7 12. dxc5 (A hasty
move; another possibility - the move 1 2.
iVf3? - is useful as a rule, as White takes
control of the e4 square, but in this case
putting the queen on f3 White should
look around and see whether he's losing
a piece; Richard Palliser recommends
transferring the rook immediately by the
route fl -f3-h3 , and he doesn't fear the
 Chapter 2. Opening Up the a l -h8 Diagonal
possibility of sacrificing the exchange, as
in this case White would have sufficient
compensation: 12. l::t O !? liJe4 [ 1 2 . . . c4 1 3 .
bxc4! dxc4 14. liJ dxc4 .txn I S. � xn ] 1 3 .
.ltxe4 dxe4 1 4 . l::t h 3. A plan involving play
in the center may be worthwhile: 12. c4!?
This may turn out to be a position where
White has hanging pawns. We'll examine
this case later.) 1 2 ... bxcS (after 1 2 ... .txcS!?
it becomes clear why I don't like White's last
move: now he has to defend the e3-pawn,
and after 13. �O [clearly 13. liJg4 doesn't
work because of the loss of the e3-pawn;
13. �e2 liJfS with the initiative] 1 3 ... liJfS
14. l::t ae 1 d4 I S. e4 as followed by . . . liJfS-
e3, Black has counterplay) 13. liJg4 liJd7
(in order to evaluate the variation 1 3 . .. liJe4
14. liJxe4 [ 14 . .txe4] 14 ... dxe4 I S . .tc4 I
advise you to take a look at Pcut I, Chapter
7, Section 2) 14. fS exfS I S . .txfS liJxfS
16. l::t xfS ffi (17. liJh6+ was threatened: for
example, 16 ... l::t ae8 is met by 17. liJh6+!
Wh8 18 . .txg7+!, etc.) 17. c4 liJ eS 1 8 .
tZJxeS .t xeS 1 9 . .t xeS fxeS 20. �g4 d4
with an unclear position.
12. �e2
White didn't want the unclear
complications that would have ensued
after 1 2 . �O c4.
12 liJ e7 13. dxc5
•••
It's time to open up the long
diagonal.
13 bxc5
.•.
After 1 3 . . . .txcS?! White can
undertake some favorable play on the
queenside: 14. b4 .t d6 I S . c4.
14. liJ g4
White is playing consistently in a
manner characteristic of the Zukertort
System: after opening up the long
diagonal with the knight maneuver
liJeS-g4, he attacks the black king's
main defender - the ffi-knight.
14 liJ e4
..•
1 4 . . . liJ xg4 I S . �xg4 liJg6 1 6 . liJ o
and the cooperation between the knight
and the queen (liJgS , �hS) brings Black
a great deal of unhappiness.
15. liJ xe4 dxe4 16 .t c4
•
Preventing . . . f7-fS for the time
being.
16 liJ f5?
.••
In the "Yusupovka, " the knight is sent
to fS with the aim either of transferring
it to d6 to take control of the e4 square,
or (with Black's bishop on cS) to exert
pressure on the e3-pawn when there's
a Pillsbury formation on the board. In
this case e4 is also occupied by a pawn,
and the black bishop is on d6, not only
not attacking the white pawn on e3, but
also rendering the fS-knight useless by
taking away d6. The typical place for the
queen's knight when carrying out the
Bogolyubov maneuver is the g6 square:
1 6 . . . liJg6, and after 1 7 . fS exfS 1 8 . l::t xfS
White's pieces are in active positions,
but there's still a long way to go until
the decisive combinations. 16 . . . .tdS was
worthy of attention, in order to make
. . . f7-fS possible.
41
Part I. Play for White

Black didn't see this move. Shifting

the rook over to h3 ends the battle. But
on taking it 20 exO there follows 2 1 .
•.•

ii. d3, and we can lower the curtain.

In this game, the paralyzing strength

ofthe dark-squared bishop displays itself
in all its glory: the knight is pinned and
the f7-pawn is blocked by the bishop,
not giving Black's pieces the chance to
come to the aid of their king.

Black's last move allows White to

carry out a knight sacrifice on to that
In the following game I advise you
is effective, but run-of-the-mill for the
to watch how the plan of action for the
Zukertort System:
white pieces works against other black
setups. Black has used an unsuccessful
17. ttJ f6+! 'iti hS
piece configuration - the bishop on e8
never manages to get into the game. See
After 1 7 . . . gxfO 1 8 . �g4+ ttJg7 1 9 .
Part I I , Chapter 1 1 .
ii. xfO, matters also end with mate.

Olesen M. Shirazi K.
-

IS. �hS gxf6?

Chicago 1 992

I think that l 8 . . . ttJ h6 doesn't save

1. d4 dS 2. ttJO ttJ f6 3. e3 e6 4. ii. d3
Black either: 1 9 . g4 and White has a very
cS S. b3 ttJ c6 6. 0-0 ii. d6 7. ii. b2 0-0 S.
strong attack.
ttJ bd2 ii. d7 9. a3

19. ii. xf6+ ttJ g7

In the game Schlechter C. - Muller J.,
Copenhagen 1 907, Black left his to-knight
defenseless, and the opening of the long
diagonal had to lead to a win for White: 9.
c4 � c7? (both a strategic mistake - in the
prelude to the possible opening-up ofthe
c-ftle the queen will feel uncomfortable
on c7; and a tactical one, that should also
decide everything) 10. dxc5! (the knight
on to is left defenseless, allowing White to
crack Black's pawn rampart) 1 O . . . ii.xc5
1 1 . ii. xfO gxfO 1 2. cxd5 exd5 1 3 . ii. xh7+!
'itig7 (worse is 13 ... 'iti xh7 1 4. �c2+ 'itig7
20. :O!! 15. �xc5; after Black's move in the game

42
 Chapter 2. Opening Up the a l -h8 Diagonal
it wouldn't have been bad for White to
play 14. �b l , so that following Ji. h7-
f5 he could trade off the light-squared
bishops and decrease Black's attacking
potential).
9 .. .l::t cS 10. Qj eS Ji. eS 1 1 . f4 �b6?
Black brings his queen out to b6,
forcing White to think about defending
the d4-pawn. He wants to deflect White
from his aggressive plans on the kingside,
and he's also threatening . . . c5 -c4. For
more on this possibility for Black, see
Part I I , Chapter 4. As it turned out,
Black's last move loses the game.
12. dxcS!?
Looking through the game to the
end, the impression is created that after
this move the horse has already left the
bam. At least, I couldn't find a defense
for Black.
12 . . . �xcS
On 12 . . . Ji. xc5, White plays similarly
to the game: 1 3 . Qj xc6 it. xe3+ 14. 'it' h l
ii. xc6 1 5 . Ji. xf6.
13. Qj xc6 �xe3+ 14. 'it' h l it. xc6 IS.
Ji. xf6 it. xf4
The bishop can't be taken, for
example: 1 5 . . . gxf6 1 6. �f3 �d4 1 7 . c 3,
and now Black has to part with his queen
to avoid being mated in a few moves.
16. �g4 it. h6 17. l:ae l
1 7 . �ad l !? i s still strongest here, but
White is playing for beauty's sake.
17 ...�xd2 1S. l:e2 �a5 19. l:e3 'it'hS?
After 1 9 . . . �d2 Black might put up a
fight, but he could not save the game.
20. �hS, and Black resigned. 1-0
In the next game the same attacking
mechanism for White was launched, but
with a different "entourage" :
Landero V. LOpez E.
-
Corr. 1 989
1. d4 Qj f6 2. QjrJ e6 3. e3 d5 4. it.d3 cS
S. b3 Qjc6 6. a3 it.d6 7. it.b2 0-0 S. Qjbd2
b6 9. 0-0 it.b7 10. Qj eS V1ii c7 1 1 . f4 .l:1adS
43
Part I . Play for White
12. dxeS!?
It's still too early for 1 2 . ltJxc6 �xc6
1 3 . dxcS because of 13 . . . d4! .
12 . . . i. xeS
The main idea is that 12 ... i.xcS? meets
a typical combination for this variation,
with which we've already become familiar:
1 3 . ltJxc6! i.xe3+ 14. 'it' h 1 �xc6 1 5.
i.xffi gxfb 16. �g4+ 'it' hS 1 7. �h4 f5 1 S.
�ffi+ 'it'gS 1 9. 1::t f3 , winning .
13. fxeS ltJ xeS
14 . .:txf6!
Destroying the black king's main
defender.
14 . . . gxf6 IS. �hS .:tfeS
1 5 . . . ltJg6 1 6. i.xffi with �h6.
16. �xh7+ 'it' f8 17. l::t n 'it' e7
1 7 . . . f5 loses: I S . cxb6 axb6 1 9.
�hS+.
44
IS. �g7 'it' d7
No help is l S . . . ltJ d7 because of 19.
i. xffi+ ltJxffi 20. l::t xffi, and Black might
escape mate, but not the loss of material.
Now the most solid continuation was
19. i. bS+ 'it' eS (everything else is very
bad: 1 9 . . . i. c6 20. i. xe5 �xe5 2 1 . �xf7+
.:te7 22. i. xc6+ ; or 19 ... ltJc6 20. i. xffi
l:tgS 2 1 . �xf7+ 'it'cs 22. �xc7+ 'it' xc7
23. i. xdS+) 20. i. xeS :xeS 2 1 . exb6
axb6 22. l::t xf6 �xe2 23. i. xeS �xd2 24.
�xf7, with a winning position.
Pay attention in the next game to the
Bogolyubov trap, based on the opening
of the a 1 -hS diagonal (typical for this
variation) , into which inexperienced
players fall.
Bogolyubov E. Andersen
-
Prague 1 93 1
1 . ltJ rJ ltJ f6 2. d4 b6 3. e3 i. b7 4.
i. d3 e6 S. 0-0 i. e7 6. ltJ bd2 dS 7. ltJ eS
0-0 S. b3 eS 9. i. b2 ltJ bd7 10. �rJ :eS
1 l . l::t ad l ! ?
One o f the key moves i n the
Bogolyubov trap.
1 l . . . �e7 12. �h3
White has set the snare , and with his
next move Black walks right into it.
12 . . . i. d6?
Now Black must either lose a piece
or get mated.
 Chapter 2 . Opening Up the a l -h8 Diagonal
1 2 . . . tll e4 is also bad because of 1 3 .
ttJ xd7 �xd7 1 4 . dxc5 ( 1 4. iL xe4 dxe4
1 5 . dxc5 is good for White too) 1 4 . . . tll g5
1 5 . �g3 ffi 1 6 . cxb6 axb6, when White is
a pawn up with a pleasant position.
13. tll x d7! 'iVxd7 14. dxcS bxcS IS.
li.xf6 gxf6 16. �xh7
The diagonal is opened up with
d4xc5 , then the knight on ffi is eliminated
with iLb2xffi , and White's remaining
pieces - the light-squared bishop,
the queen, the rook, and sometimes
the second knight - are thrown at the
weakened position of the black king.
Players of both White and Black should
pay attention to this, one of White's
main threats!
1. d4 e6 2. tll f3 dS 3. e3 tll f6 4. li. d3
cS S. b3 tll c6 6. iL b2 iL d6 7. tll bd2 a6
8. a3 bS 9. c4 l::t b8 10. l::t b l 0-0 1 1 . tll eS
'iJlc7 12. f4 'iVb6 13. tll df3 tll e8 14. tll gS
g6
An effective element of White's
attack (the white queen on h5 is attacked
by the black g-pawn) , based on opening
up the a l -h8 diagonal, was encountered
in a little-known game that I found on
the Internet: Svinarev M. - Yakobyants
Kh. , Tskhakaya 1 982:
In the diagram position, Black's last
move 1 4 . . . g6, defending the h7 square,
turned out to be a horrible mistake.
White's beautiful reply quickly ended the
game: IS. dxcS (above all the diagonal
must be opened up) Is ... iLxcS I6. tll xc6
(clear it completely!) 16 . . . �xc6. And
now there follows the stunning 17. 'iJlhS!!,
when evidently the queen can't be taken
with 17 . . . gxh6 because of 18. iLxh7#.
The attacking picture in this game
very much reminds me of Yusupov A.
- Scheeren P. , which we saw in Part I ,
Chapter 1 .
One of the most colorful combi­
nations in the Zukertort System is the
double bishop sacrifice, which has been
·
dubbed the Lasker combination, as it
was first seen in the game Lasker Em.
- Bauer J . , Amsterdam 1 889. The fol­
lowing game shows that the Lasker com­
bination is a risky undertaking:
45
Part I. Play for White
Shereshevsky M. Vladimirov E.
- unusual material imbalance. In the event
Daugavpils 1 975
1. d4 CiJf6 2. CiJ rJ e6 3. e3 cS 4. i. d3
dS S. b3 !JJ.. e7
In Plante M. - Gilman A. , Montreal
2000, Black saved himself before the
double bishop sacrifice: 5 . . . CiJ c6 6. 0-0
!JJ.. d6 7. !JJ.. b 2 0-0 S. CiJ bd2 b6 9. CiJ e5 !JJ.. b 7
10. a3 a6 (if White goes for the double
bishop sacrifice, he can put his foot in it,
as happened in Dumitrache D. - Musat
A. , Bucharest 1 993: 1 O .. :�e7 1 1 . f4 CiJ d7
1 2. CiJ xd7 [more restrained is 1 2. II f3 , i.e.
12 ... f5 1 3 . CiJ xd7 �xd7 14. dxc5 !JJ.. xc5
(R. Palliser thinks that 14. . . bxc5! 15. l::tgJ
d4 16. CiJ c4 !JJ.. c 7 17. b4!? e5 is better,
with a complicated game) 1 5 . l::t g 3 IIf7
1 6 . b4 {l6. �h5!?} 1 6 ... !JJ.. e7 1 7 . CiJf3,
and in Fronczek B. - Leibbrand U.­
M . , Baden-Wiirttemberg 1 992, White
obtained an advantage , but whether
it was enough to turn into something
more tangible is questionable] 1 2 . . .
�xd7 1 3 . dxc5 !JJ.. xc5 [With 1 3 . . . bxc5
Black reinforces his center, but at the
same time loses an additional defensive
resource in the form of the opportunity
to take the e3-pawn with his bishop.
Next we'll bring in the game Barret
S. - Callet E., Nimes 2009, without
detailed investigation. In some places
White could have played more strongly
and in other places Black could have.
We 'll give the game in full to show how
events can unfold in conditions of " real
combat " : 14 . .i.. xh7+ 'it> xh7 1 5 . �h5+
'it>gS 16 . .i.. xg7 f6 (After 16... Wxg7 17.
�g5+ 'it> h8 18. II/3f6 19. IIhJ+ � h 7,
noforced win for White is evident, and it s
difficult to predict the result with such an
46
of 16. . /5, White s attacking potential
grows thanks to the possibility of quickly
bringing his knight into play via CiJ d2-
/3-g5) 1 7 . i. xfS IIxfS (possibly better is
17. . . !JJ.. xf8; this requires further analysis)
I S . II f3 IIf7 1 9. IIh3 l::t g 7 (the game goes
in a different direction if Black moves his
king away to the center: with 19. . . Wf8 and
. . . Wf8-e 7) 20. CiJf3 !JJ.. fS 2 1 . CiJ h4 l::t h 7
22. �g4+ !JJ.. g 7 23. IIfl f5 24. �g3 CiJ e7
(24. . . d4!?) 25. CiJ f3 l:xh3 26. �xh3 d4
27. exd4 cxd4 2S. CiJg5 CiJ d5 29. �h7+
WfS 30. �g6 CiJf6 3 1 . h4 !JJ.. d5 32. IIe l
CiJ e4? 3 3 . CiJ h7+ WgS 34. l:he4!, and
Black resigned. ] 1 4 . .i.. xh7+ W xh7 1 5 .
�h5+ WgS 1 6 . !JJ.. xg7 [Interestingly,
Smith and Hall evaluate this position
as winning for White, while pragmatic
practice refutes the assertions of "weak­
sighted old theory. " Let's see this for
ourselves! ] :
1 6 . . . f5 [here Black could also have
stocked up on material: 1 6 . . . !JJ.. xe3+ 1 7 .
W h l f5 I S . �hS+ {l8. l::t/3 � xg7 19.
IIgJ �xgJ 20. hxgJ 'it>g7; 18. !JJ.. xf8 Wxf8
19. :/3 .i.. xd2 20. l::t gJ �f7 21. � h 6+
W e8 22. IIg7 .i.. xf4} l S . . . W f7 1 9 . .i.. xf8
I1xf8 20. �h5+ W e7 and Black won in
 Chapter 2. Opening Up the a l -h8 Diagonal
Borensztajn D. - Souza Marco A. , Rio
de Janeiro 2002] 1 7 . � xf8 [ 1 7. � h6 has
also been suggested; in this case Black
can play 17 .. :i¥h7 or 1 7 . . . �xe3 + , but
it hasn't been possible to find decisive
continuations] 1 7 . . . 'it' xfS [as we've
already seen, 1 7 . . . � xe3 + also works] 1 8 .
: 0 [ 1 8. 'i¥h8+ 'it' e7 and the king gets
awayfromthe checks] 1 8 . . . 'i¥f7 1 9 . 'i¥h6+
'Wig7 20. 'i¥xg7+ 'it' xg7, and Black's two
pieces turned out to be stronger than
White 's rook and two pawns) 1 1 . f4 bS
12. dxcS �xcS 1 3 . 'i¥o (Also typical of
this variation is the transfer of the rook
via the route :n -0-h3(g3) : 1 3 . :0 d4
[Opening up the center looks good, at
least in accordance with the theoretical
recommendation: - on a flank attack,
reply with a breakthrough in the center]
14. l:th3 dxe3 [better is 14 . . . lLJ xeS I S .
fxeS {I5. �xh 7+ ? lLJxh 7 16. 'i¥h5 15}
I S . . . dxeS 1 6. 'it' h l {16. �xh 7+ ? lLJxh 7
17. 'Wih5 exd2+ 18. 'it' h 1 � e4 - +} 1 6 . . .
'WidS {I6. . . exd2? 1 7. ex16} 1 7 . ng3 exd3
1 8 . exf6 g6 1 9 . 'i¥xd2 with an extremely
murky position. Or 14 . . . g6 I S . lLJ xc6
i.xc6 16. e4 with unclear play. ]
Now the "dream plan" starts to work:
IS. �xh7+! lLJxh7 [ 1 S . . . 'itl h8 1 6. � d3+
'it'g8 1 7. 'it' h l exd2 {1 7. . . e2 18. 'i¥ e 1 + - }
1 8. lLJ xc6 + - ] 16 . 'i¥hS exd2+ 1 7. 'it' f1
d l 'i¥ + 1 8 . nxd l 'i¥xd 1 + 1 9. 'i¥xd 1 . Here
there's no defense left. Next followed:
19 . . . lLJ e7 20. lLJ d7 :fd8 2 1 . 'i¥hS � e4 22.
'i¥eS lLJ f5 23. 'i¥xe4 � e7 24. nxh7! 'it' xh7
2S. g4 and Black laid down his arms on the
next move in the game Csiszar C. - Papp
G . , Balatonlelle 2006.) 1 3 . . . lLJ xeS 14.
�xeS lLJ d7 IS. � xh7+ 'it'xh7 16. 'i¥hS+
'it'g8 17. �xg7 f6? (any of three other
continuations would have yielded a draw:
1 7 . . . 'it'xg7 1 8 . 'i¥g4+ 'it' h7 1 9. 'i¥hS+ ;=
1 7 . . . � xe3+ 1 8 . 'it' h l 'it'xg7 1 9. 'i¥g4+ ;
=
1 7 . . . f5 1 8. nO 'it'xg7 1 9. ng3+ 'it'f6 20.
'i¥h7 1:tg8 2 1 . 'i¥h4+ 'it'f7 22. 'i¥h7+ 'it'f6
= ) Here, too, White obtained a decisive
advantage by means of 1 8 . � h6!? �xe3+
1 9. 'it' h l lLJeS 20. nO!.
6. � b2 0-0 7. lLJbd2 b6 S. 0-0 �b7
9. lLJ e5 lLJ c6 10. a3 a5 1 1 . f4 lLJ d7 12.
lLJ xc6 � xc6 13. dxc5 � xc5
After 1 3 . . . lLJ xcS!?, I couldn't
find a successful finish to the Lasker
combination.
14. � xh7+ 'it'xh7 15. 'Wih5+ 'it' gS
16. � xg7 f5
47
Part I . Play for White
1 6 . . . <.ifxg7 1 7 . �g4+ � h7 ( 1 7 . . .
� h8 loses: 1 8 . I:to i. e7 [ 1 8 . . . lLl ffi 1 9 .
I:th3+ lLl h7 20. �h5 + - ] 1 9 . I:th3+) 1 8 .
l:t 0 . White has the draw sewn u p and is
trying to win: 1 8 . . . �ffi 1 9. I:th3+ �h6
20. lLlO, with an unclear position.
17. i. h6?!
Stronger is 1 7 . I:t0, and White
can still "fish in troubled waters, " for
example: 1 7 . . . lLl ffi ( l 7 . . . � xg7 1 8 . I:tg3+
�ffi 19. �h7 I:tg8 20. �h4+ <.iff! 2 1 .
�h7+ with perpetual check) 1 8 . i.xffi
l:txffi 1 9. Itg3+ W f8 20. �h7 � e8 2 1 .
Itg7 �d6 (worse is 2 1 . . .i. xe3+ 22. � h l
�d6 [22 . . .i. xd2? 23. �h5+ � f8 24.
�h8] 23. I:t e l i. xd2 24. �g8+ �f8 25.
:xe6+ � d8 26. I:txffi �xg8 27. J::t d 6+
� e8 28. l:txg8+ , and Black has to fight
for a draw) 22. I:te l , and White has
two pawns plus an attack for his piece,
but there's nothing concrete in the
foreseeable future. So draw your own
conclusions. After the game move in the
game, however, Black should have won.
17 ... i. xe3+ IS. � h l �f6 19. I:tf3
� xal +
1 9 . . . i. xf4!?
20. lLl n i. d4
After this move Black no longer has a
win. He still could have fought for a win
with 20 . . . i. f2 .
2 1 . � g6 + i. g7
2 1 . . . � h8 loses to 22. i. xf8 i.g7 23.
i. xg7+ �xg7 24. I:th3+ 'It;>g8 25. �xe6+
48
�f8 26. I:th5, and in this position "etc . "
looks completely appropriate.
22. i. xg7 � xg7 23. � xe6 + I:tf7
23 . . . �f! 24. I:tg3+ � h8 25. llh3+
� g8 = .
2 4 . �xc6 �f8 25. :g3+ � hS 26.
I:th3+ � gS
It's dangerous for Black to play for
a win: 26 . . . l:t h7 27. I:txh7+ 'It;> xh7 28.
�xd7+ , and White starts taking Black's
pawns, in addition to which his king is
exposed.
27. Itg3+, and the players agreed a
draw. YZ-YZ
The ghost of Lasker also had an
invisible presence in the next game.
And, as often happens in such cases,
Black went to the scaffold meekly here,
whereas in fact it wasn't so simple:
Filatov L. Mayer S.
-
Philadelphia 2000
I. d4 d5 2. lLlf3 lLl f6 3. e3 e6 4. i. d3
i. e7 5. 0-0 0-0 6. b3 c5 7. i. b2 b6 S.
lLl bd2 i. b7 9. lLl e5 lLlbd7 10. f4 �c7 H .
a3
In this situation, when Black has
brought his Queen's knight out to d7
and not c6, and there was no threat of
. . . lLl c6-b4, White needed this move, as
they say, like a fish needs a bicycle.
H . . . a6 12. �e2 b5
 Chapter 2. Opening Up the a l -h8 Diagonal
Here Black could have decided on
12 . . . Cll e4 1 3 . Cll xd7 �xd7 1 4 . .t xe4 dxe4
1 5 . dxc5 .t xc5. See the consequences of
the knight'sjumping to e4 in more detail
in Part I I , Chapter B .
1 3 . Cll xd7 Cll xd7
Clearly the variation 1 3 . . . �xd7? 1 4.
dxc5 .t xc5 doesn't suit Black, and then
following the plan that's already been
worked out: 1 5 . .t xffi gxffi 1 6 . .t xh7+!
c;t> xh7 17. �h5+ � g7 l B . �g4+ � h7
19. :f3 with unavoidable mate.
14. dxc5
14 . . . Cll xc5?
When there is a choice, this is always
bad. Here Black has three ways to take
the c5-pawn. And he picks the wrong slip
of paper out of the bag! As the analysis
below shows, the drawbacks of the move
are: first - it takes the knight further away
from the defense of the kingside (this
should really put you on your guard!),
and now it can't cover the king when the
need arises with the maneuver . . . Cll ffi­
h7; and second - the knight is covering
the c-fIle for the queen, and there can
be variations, after White sacrifices his
bishop on h7, when the black queen can
defend the h7 square from c2!
If the c5-pawn is captured with either
the queen or the bishop, Black gets an
additional defensive resource in the form
of taking the e3-pawn with check! But
now we'll elaborate on all our arguments
and tum to our "silicon friend" for help:
14 . . . .t xc5 1 5 . .txh7+ � xh7 1 6. �h5+
� gB 17 . .t xg7 .t xe3+ ( 1 7 ... ffi l B . J::t f3
[ l B . �g6? Cll e5! - + ] I B . . . Cll e5 [ l B . . .
.t xe3+ 1 9 . l:Ixe3 �b6 20. l:Iae l W xg7
2 1 . W h l :f7 22. :xe6 �c5 {22. . . �f2
23. : e 7 'fJ. aj8 24. �g4 + � h8 25. 1J. 1e3
+ - } 23. 1J. 6e3 +- ] 1 9 . fxe5 �xg7 20.
I1g3 �xg3 [20 . . . .t xe3+ 2 1 . l:txe3 + - ]
2 1 . hxg3. Black doesn't get mated, but
there's a solid advantage on the white
side.) l B . � h l f6 ( I B . . . � xg7 1 9. �g5+
� h7 20. :f3 + - ) 19 . .t h6 ( 1 9. �g6?
Cll e5! 20. fxe5 �xg7; after 1 9. l:tf3 .t xf4
[ l 9 . . . Cll e5? 20. �hB+ + - ] 20. �hB+
W f7 2 1 . �h7 W eB 22. I1xf4 �xf4 23 .
.t xf8 Cll xf8 24. �xb7 a double-edged
position arises in which any result is
possible) 1 9 . . . Cll e5 ( I 9 . . . Cll b 6 20. I1f3
+- ) 20. fxe5 .t xh6 2 1 . �xh6 �g7 22.
�h3 f5 , and the worst is behind Black,
but he's a pawn down and looking at
an unpromising endgame. It seems that
Black won't get out of this.
Correct is 14 . . . �xc5!, and in this case
Lasker's combination doesn't bring the
expected results, for example: 1 5 . b4 ( 1 5 .
.txh7+ �xh7 1 6. �h5+ �gB 1 7 . .txg7
�xe3+ [ l 7 . . . �xg7? l B . �g4+! {Susan
Polgar suggests thefollowing wayfor White
to continue the attack: 18. I1f3 �xc2 19.
49
Part I. Play for White
:tg3+ �g6 20. :t.xg6+ fxg6, and she
thinks that Black is already better. Correct.
But 18. �g4 is stronger, as it leads to a
win for White. By the way, instead of 18. . .
� c2 Black can play the even stronger 18. . .
:tg8.} 1 8 . . . �h8 1 9. :to liJf6 20. :th3+
liJh7 2 1 . �h5 �xc2 22. e4 + - ] 18. � h l
�xg7 [ 1 8 . . . f5 1 9 . �g6 + - ] 1 9 . � O d4,
and it seems that the best White can do
is agree to perpetual check) 1 5 . . . �c7 16.
.lt xh7+ (After 1 6 . :to [So Polgar] Black
is in danger, and ifhe recklessly plays 1 6 . . .
.lt f6 ? , then the "double-headed Hydra"
- the Lasker combination and the
"dream plan" - blows Black's position
to smithereens: 1 7 . .lt xh7+ ! �xh7 1 8 .
J:th3+ �g8 1 9. �h5 .lt h4 2 0. .ltxg7!
�xg7 2 1 . �g4+ and White wins. It only
remains to add that after the accurate 1 6 . . .
f5 White's advantage vanishes instantly,
and everything has to start again from
scratch.) 1 6 . . . �xh7 1 7 . �h5+ 'itt g 8 1 8 .
.ltxg7 �xg7 1 9. �g4+ W h8 20. �o liJf6
2 1 . J:th3+ liJh7 22. J:txh7+ (You have to
agree to perpetual check, otherwise after
22. �h5 .lt h4! [22 . . . �xc2? 23. e4] 23.
:txh4 f6 you'll find yourself in a tough
situation without even knowing how you
got there!) 22 . . . � xh7 23. �h5+ with
perpetual check.
IS. il. xh7+ ! � xh7 16. �hS+ � gS
17 . .lt xg7! � xg7
1 7 . . . f6 1 8 . �g6 11f7 1 9 . .lt h6+ � h8
20. �xf7 + - .
IS. �g4+
In the previous game the black queen
was on d8, and so taking with the knight
on c5 ( l 3 . . . liJ c5!) would have been a
50
good reply to White's combination, as
on a check by the white queen on g4
Black had the possibility of fencing it in
with the bishop - . . . .ltg5. Here, though,
Black's queen is on c7 and he doesn't
have this defensive move. And due to
IS . . . � hS
1 8 . . . � f6 1 9. �g5 .
19. J:t0, Black gave up the fight. 1 -0
The Lasker combination also visited
the recent Olympiad in Dresden.
Nodirjanova N. - Beddar K.
Dresden 2008
l. d4 dS 2. liJ O liJ f6 3. e3 e6 4. il. d3
.lt d6 S. 0-0 0-0 6. b3 liJbd7 7 . .ltb2 cS S.
liJbd2 b6 9. liJ eS �c7 10. f4 .ltb7
So we have a position in which White
can go into the Lasker combination.
We 'll see now whether or not this
decision is correct.
l l . liJ xd7
First of all, we clear the long
diagonal.
1 l . . . liJ xd7
1 1 . . .�xd7? is bad because of 1 2 .
dxc5 and Black i s forced t o retreat her
bishop to e7, escaping with the loss of
one pawn, otherwise she'll be punished
by means of the now-familiar White
attacking maneuver, for example: 1 2 . . .
 Chapter 2. Opening Up the a l -h8 Diagonal

i.xcS? 1 3 . i. xf6 gxf6 14. 'iVg4+ 'itl h8 I S . A move that should lead to defeat for
�h4 i.xe3+ 1 6 . 'itl h l f5 1 7 . 'iVf6+ 'itlg8 White . Here White had her last chance
18. �f3, and White wins. to get out with the move 1 8 . :le i , for
example: 1 8 . . . 'itl xg7 19 . �g3+! i.xg3 20.
12. dxc6 � xc5 'iVg4+ with perpetual check, as Black's
king cannot go to f7 because of � e6+,
After 12 . . . tLl xcS 1 3 . i. xh7+ 'itl xh7 and the fire of White's attack burns with
14. � hS+ 'itlg8 I S . i. xg7 f6 1 6 . i. xfS, renewed intensity.
White continues her offensive, with a
rook and two pawns for two pieces. 1 8 . . . 'itl xg7 1 9 . �xf4, and here with
the move 19 . . . tLl e5 ! Black could refute
13 . .ii. xh7+ 'itlxh7 14. �h5+ 'itl g8 White 's play. In order to master the
15. i.xg7 i. xe3+ subject of the Lasker combination you
should definitely have a look at Part
IS . . . f6? fails to 1 6. � f3 , and the I I , Chapter 3 , and in the notes to the
rook's entry into the attack decides the game Hodgson - Polgar you 'll find
game. the matchup Dizdarevic - Miles, Biel
1 98 5 . You won't regret it! Opening up
16. 'itl h l f6 17. �f3 the long diagonal also played a decisive
role in the games Flohr - Em. Lasker,
In this situation, 17. i. h6! is Moscow 1 936 (see the supplementary
stronger. games section) , and Polgar - Varga,
Hungary 1 99 1 (see Part II, Chapter
17 . . . i. xf4 18. �an? 1 3).

51
 Chapter 3

Transforming the Pillsbury Formation ;

The Marshall Plan

Often, after trading pieces o n e S , a pawn structure arises featuring the characteristic
pawn triangle e3/eS/f4(d4) . In this case the game acquires its own peculiarities:

Janowski D. - Esser plan!? I ask politically literate players

Paris 1 9 1 0
1 . d4 dS 2 . CiJ f3 c S 3 . e3 e 6 4 . ii. d3
CiJ c6 S. 0-0 CiJ f6 6. b3 ii. d6 7. ii. b2 0-0
S. CiJ bd2 b6 9. CiJ eS ii. xeS?!
Black is prepared to part with his
bishop, as the white knight on eS is a
very unpleasant character - the pride
of the Pillsbury formation! Paraphrasing
Josef Stalin's very gloomy expression,
"No man, no problem! " , we can say,
"No knight on eS, no problem! " Note
that 9 . . . CiJ xeS? is of course impossible
because of the trivial fork 1 0 . dxeS.
The issue of exchanging pieces on eS is
examined in Part II, Chapter 1 3 .
1 0 . dxeS CiJ d7 1 1 . f4 f6
Black's prospects aren't terribly
bright, as White 's pieces are already
preparing to hit his virtually undefended
king. On 1 1 . . .fS White can either con­
tinue as in the game or play the Marshall
not to strain themselves too much but
just to look at the next game.
12. exf6 CiJxf6 13. CiJrJ CiJb4 14. CiJ eS
Retreating the bishop 14. ii. e2 in or­
der (after I S . a2-a3) to return to the ini­
tial arrangement doesn't work because of
the variation 1 4 . . . ii. a6 I S . c4 dxc4. Also
White probably didn't want to lose time.
14 . . . CiJ xd3 IS. cxd3 CiJ d7?!
Instead of finishing his development
and organizing his defenses, Black con­
tinues playing for exchanges. Further­
more, with opposite-colored bishops
White's attack only increases in strength.
16. �g4 CiJxeS I7. ii.xeS �e7 IS. nrJ
White 's attack develops by itself.
IS . . . g6 19. e4 ii.b7 20. � e l dxe4 2 1 .
dxe4 n adS

52
 Chapter 3 . Transforming the Pillsbury Formation; The Marshall Plan
Black, too, has done everything by
the book: he 's opened the d-file and
occupied it with a rook. But . . .
22. h4!
A typical enlistment of the h­
pawn in the destruction of the black
king's pawn cover, especially as in
Black's castled position there's a
"hook" (or as Tarrasch put it, a "land­
mark to attack") - the g6-pawn. That's
why Black always has to be careful about
moving his pawns on the kingside.
22 . . . <;i;> t7
As White builds u p a fearsome attack,
the Black king goes on the run.
As was even pointed out in contem­
porary commentaries, the attempt to
include the bishop in the defense of the
kingside ends with the loss of a piece:
22 . . . .lt c6 23. h5 .lt e8 24. hxg6 .lt xg6 25.
f5 exf5 26. exf5 �d7 27. �c4+ ( T ijd­
schrijt v. d. Nederlandeschen Schaak­
bond 1 9 1 0) .
23. h S �g8 24. hxg6+ �xg6
After 24 . . . hxg6 25. l:th3 <;i;> f8 (25 . . .
W e8 26. f5 - T ijdschrift) 26. l:th6 you
wouldn't envy Black here, either.
2S. �hS <;i;> e8?
In a panic it's very difficult to think
where you have to run to. Strange as it may
seem, 25 . . . <;i;>g8 would have offered a more
stubborn defense. But here White could
quickly end the game with the move:
26. f5!?, and Black can't avoid losing
material.
An effective method of play for White
in situations where the pawn structure is
fluid is the Marshall plan, which was first
demonstrated by the leading American
player of the early 20th century.
Marshall F. Leonhardt P.
-
Pistyan 1 9 1 2
1 . d4 dS 2 . tZJrJ c S 3 . e3 e 6 4 . tZJ bd2
tZJ f6 S . .lt d3 .lt e7 6. 0-0 tZJ c6 7. b3 0-0
8 . .ltb2 b6 9. tZJ eS tZJxeS 10. dxeS tZJ e8
1 1 . f4 g6 12. �f3
Now it was already possible to carry out
the plan we've examined: 1 2. c4 .lt b7 (after
1 2 . . . dxc4 1 3. tZJxc4 [or 1 3 . .ltxc4 .ltb7 14.
�e2 a6 15. a4 �c7 16. e4 threatening f4-
f5] 1 3 ... .ltb7 14. �c2 White has clear play:
the queen's rook can be placed on d l and
a knight jump to d6 is threatened; there
is also the straightforward e3-e4 with a
subsequent f4-f5) 1 3 . cxd5 (also promising
is 1 3 . e4 d4 [ 1 3 ... tZJ c7 14. exd5 exd5 15.
�e2] 14. �g4, except that White's dark­
squared bishop has to rejoin the game by
53
Part I . Play for White
going back to c 1 ) 1 3 . . . exdS 1 4. e4 with
initiative for White.
1 2. . . Cll g7 13. �h3 f5 14. �e2
Marshall didn 't take the pawn en
passant 1 4 . exf6 , evidently because
of the variation 1 4 . . . .1i. xf6 I S . .1i. xf6
�xf6 1 6 . Cll f3 eS 1 7 . fxeS �e7 1 8 .
l:t h4 , after which the black pieces are
activated.
14 . . . a6
Black's play is logical: after
reinforcing the kingside , he plans to
obtain counterplay by advancing pawns
on the opposite flank. Moreover, with
the modified Pillsbury setup White
won't have the opportunity to open up
the long diagonal with dxcS.
15. c4!?
One ofthe main moves in the Marshall
plan: White begins to undermine Black's
central pawn triangle (dS/e6/fS) while
preventing . . . b6-bS:
15 . . . .1i. b7 16. �dl
54
To intensify the pressure on the d-
file the Queen's rook needs to be placed
on d 1 .
16 . . .�d7 17. cxd5!?
White needs not only to weaken
Black's pawn backbone in the center,
but also to make available the c4 square,
from which the black king may be
threatened in the future.
17 . . . exd5 18. e4!?
The move deserves attention because
it leads to interesting complications;
moreover, slow play by White gives
Black time to reinforce his position:
After 1 8 . Cll c4 �c7 1 9 . Cll d6 .1i.xd6
20. exd6 �xd6 2 1 . .1i. eS �e7, White
has compensation for the pawn in the
form of the wonderful bishop on eS, but
Black's position is strong, and moreover
he controls the center.
18 . . . fxe4 19. Cll xe4
A bold decision, but I won't give it
any encouraging punctuation marks, as
it's really the only move.
 Chapter 3 . Transforming the Pillsbury Formation; The Marshall Plan
19 . . . tll e6
1 9 . . . dxe4?? 20 . .t c4+.
20. �g4?
Instead of this, 20. 5!? was stronger:
20 . . . tll f4 (20 . . .gxf5 is bad because
of 2 1 . tll f6+ .t xfO 22. exfO ; 20 . . JI xf5
is a little better, but also after 2 1 . tll fO+
.t xfO 22 . .t xf5 Black is down the
exchange , although it's true that he
has good compensation in the form of
a strong center) 2 1 . �g4 tll xh3 + 22.
�xh3 �xf5 (22 .. JIxf5 23. tll g3) 23.
lll fO+ l::t x f6 24 . .t xf5 �xf5 with an
unclear position on the board. After
the game move, however, White should
lose.
20 . . . l::t xf4 2 1 . l::t xh7 l:txg4 22. tll f6+
i.xf6 23. �xd7 .t cS, and this position
was lost for White. Still, in this game the
Marshall plan presented a new direction
of play for White with the modified
Pillsbury setup, which was taken up
by Akiba Rubinstein and then other
players.
In the next game Rubinstein, in
accordance with the Marshall plan,
destroys Black's pawn triangle (d5/e6/
5) with c2-c4 and e3 -e4.
Rubinstein A. Treybal K.
-
Baden- Baden 1 925
I. tll rJ dS 2. d4 e6 3. e3 tll f6 4 . .li d3
cS S. b3 tll c6 6 . .tb2 .t d6 7. tll bd2
tll b4
Black achieves nothing with this
knight lunge , as after 9. a3 the white
bishop can return to its usual post
without tempo loss. But in this game
the bishop turns out to be fine on e2,
too.
S . .t e2 �e7
Sometimes Black links the early
knight jump to b4 with a subsequent
occupation of the e4 square by the
second knight (see more on this idea
by Vasily Panov in Part II, Chapter 7),
but here this undertaking doesn't look
so attractive. 8 . . . cxd4 9. exd4 tll e4 1 0.
tll xe4 dxe4 1 1 . tll d2 f5 (relatively best;
the move 1 1 . . .e3 is linked to the pawn
sacrifice 1 2. fxe3 �h4+ 1 3 . 'it> fl , but the
h2-pawn can't be taken and there's no
apparent compensation for the invested
pawn; while 1 1 . . .�c7 also leads to the
loss of a pawn, for example 1 2 . c3 tll d3+
13 . .txd3 exd3 1 4. tll e4) 12. tll c4, and
White has achieved, as Tartakover put
it, "if not a real advantage, then a moral
one . "
8 . . . tll e4 without a preliminary
exchange of pawns on d4 also leads to
55
Part I . Play for White

an better game for White, for example:

9. tiJ xe4 dxe4 1 0. tiJ d2 f5 1 1 . dxc5 .Jt xc5
12 . .Jt h5 + .

9. a 3 tiJ c6 1 0 . tiJ eS .Jt xeS 1 1 . dxeS

tiJ d7 12. f4 f5

On 1 2 . . . f6 Rubinstein advises playing

1 3 . tiJ f3 . As we saw in the previous game,
Janowski preferred capturing on f6 in a
similar position.

18. e4! 'iif h8 19. l:adl .Jt d7 20. exfS

exfS 2 1 . l:d6! .Jt c6

2 1 . . .tiJ f7 can't be played because of

22. l:xd7! �xd7 23. e6.

22. l:fd l tiJ f1 23 . .Jt xf1 �xf1 24.

e6.

'Mer this the game was strategically

13. c4!?
Rubinstein is playing strictly
according to the Marshall plan.
13 . . . 0-0
Clearly, 13 . . . dxc4 is unacceptable
because of 14. tiJxc4, when the knight
occupies the d6 square. And who could
like that?
14. 0-0 tiJb6 IS. �c2 dxc4 16. tiJ xc4
tiJ xc4 17. i. xc4 tiJ dS
Black transfers the knight to f7 so as
to control d6.
decided. Possession of the only open
line and the fearsome position of the
bishop guarantees victory for White"
- Rubinstein.
In the game Bogolyubov E. -
Rellstab L. , Bad Nauheim 1 936, we
again encounter the Marshall plan, but
as played by Efim Bogolyubov:
1. d4 dS 2. tiJrJ tiJ f6 3. e3 e6 4 . .Jt d3
cS S. b3 tiJ c6 6 . .Jt b2 .Jt e7 7. 0-0 0-0 S.
tiJ eS tiJ xeS 9. dxeS tiJ d7 10. tiJ d2
With the queen sortie 1 0 . �h5 White
could provoke a weakness in the position
of Black's castled king.
10 . . . fS 1 1 . f4 l:f1

56
 Chapter 3 . Transforming the Pillsbury Formation; The Marshall Plan

e4 are linked by a unity of purpose: one

doesn't work without the other.

16 . . . fxe4 17. i. xe4

In this case the illogical-looking 1 7.

lll xe4!? is also O.K. Illogical, because in
principle you have to trade off the light­
squared bishops and invade on d6 with
the knight. After 1 7 . . . �b6 ( 1 7 . . . i. xe4?
is bad because of 1 8 . i. xe4 �b6 1 9 . fS
with a powerful attack) 1 8 . W h l �d8
12. c4!?
19. lll c3 i. c6 20. fS , White is on the
offensive.
An automatic move by White
with a transformation of the Pillsbury
17 ... i. xe4 18. lll xe4
formation.

After 1 8 . �xe4 �c7 ( 1 8 . . . �d5 1 9.

12 . . . lll f8 13. �c2 i. d7 14. �adl
�xd5 exd5 20. f5 i.g5 2 1 . e6 :e7 ±) 1 9 .
lll c4, White also has a n advantage.
The second important move in the
Marshall scheme , which White almost
18 . . . �c7 19. g4
always needs to play.

1 9 . fS exfS 20. lll d6 is stronger, as

14 . . . i. c6 15. cxd5 ii xd5
Black must retreat into deep defense.

19 . . . lll g6 20. �c4 �xf4?!

Now it's Black who misses his chance

to switch to counterattack with the move
20 . . . lll xf4!?

21. �xe6+ W h8 22. lll d 6 �c6 23.

�xf4 �g2+!? 24. W xg2 lll xf4+ 25.
W g3 lll xe6 26. lll xb7, and White , after
winning a pawn, had good chances of a
win, but alas . . .
16. e4

White continues the systematic de­ In the next game White followed
struction of Black's pawn fortifications Marshall's "ordinances" and easily
in the center. The moves 12. c4 and 16. obtained a winning position.

57
Part I. Play for White

Pytel K. Van�ura z.
- Bogdanovich G. Lasslop U.
-

France 1 993 Crailsheim 2005

1 . d4 t'll f6 2. t'll fJ b6 3. t'll bd2 ii.b7 4. 1. d4 t'll f6 2. t'll fJ e6 3. e3 dS 4. ii. d3

e3 e6 S. it d3 dS 6. 0-0 t'll bd7 7. b3 ii. e7
8. ii. b2 cS 9. t'll eS t'll xeS 10. dxeS t'll d7
1O . . . t'll e4 doesn't work because of 1 1 .
ii.b5+ W fS 1 2. t'll xe4 dxe4 1 3 . Yi'xd8+
kIxd8 14. kIfd l kId5 15. c4, and the
white rook invades Black's camp.
1 1 . f4 g6?!
Black was probably afraid of f4-f5 ,
and decided t o put u p roadblocks. On
1 1 . . .0-0 White could hardly play 1 2. f5 ,
but would have continued as in the game
or with 1 2 . Yi'h5.
cS S. b3 t'll c6 6. 0-0 ii. e7 7 . .t b2 Yi'c7 8.
a3 b6 9. t'll bd2 ii.b7 10. t'll eS t'll xeS 1 1 .
dxeS t'll d7
1 1 . . .t'll e4? 1 2 . .t xe4 dxe4 1 3 . Yi'g4,
and White wins a pawn.
12. f4 g6 13. c4 0-0
In the event of 1 3 . . . 0-0-0 White
plays as in the game Yusupov -
Savchenko , Moscow 2007. See Part I ,
Chapter 1 .
14. Yi'e2

12. c4 fS?

This only weakens Black's position.

13. cxdS ii. xdS 14. e4!

Everything according to Marshall.

14 fxe4 IS. t'll xe4 0-0 16. t'll c3

.•.

�c8?

An oversight in a difficult position.

14 f6?!
.••

17. t'll xdS exdS 18. ii. a6

The rest is a matter of technique .
In the next game White had no dif­
ficulties with his choice of playing plan,
as he was familiar with the general prin­
ciples of play in these kinds of positions:
Black is grist to White's mill : not only
extending the radius of his opponent's
dark-squared bishop's actions, but also
making it easier to undermine Black's
pawn bastions.
IS. cxdS ii. xdS

58
 Chapter 3 . Transforming the Pillsbury Formation; The Marshall Plan
I S . . . exdS isn't too sweet either, for
example 1 6. e6 CiJb8 1 7. fS.
16. e4 i.b7 17. i. c4 fxe4
1 7 . . :�c6 is better.
18 . .it xe6+ rJil g7
On 1 8 . . . rJil h8 there would have followed
19. fxe4 with an overwhelming position.
19. CiJ c4 rJil h6 20. �e3 �ad8 2 1 .
tZlxeS
And now, as Tartakover used to say in
such cases, Black " is left with only one
reply: I resign. "
I n the next game White decides to
"come in from the side" :
Yermolinsky A. Shaked T. -
New York 1 998
1. CiJ f3 cS 2. b3 dS 3. e3
An accurate move order. On 3.
i.b2, according to Mikhail Botvinnik's
recommendation 3 . . . fO would have
followed with a subsequent . . . e7-eS .
3 ... CiJ f6 4. i.b2 e6
After Black places a pawn on e6,
closing the path to freedom for his light­
squared bishop, White can boldly go
into a Yusupovka.
S. d4 CiJ c6 6. CiJ bd2 i. e7 7. i. d3 0-0
8. 0-0 b6 9. a3 i. b7 10. �e2 as
A useful move , especially in those
cases when White has played a2-a3 and
is initiating action with c2-c4. See the
notes to White 's move 1 3 . Sometimes an
exchange of the light-squared bishops is
possible after . . . i. b7-a6.
1 1 . CiJ eS CiJ e8
Black has already grasped where this
is heading and prepares to occupy e4
with his knight.
12. f4 f5
The Anti-Pillsbury doesn't look bad
against the Pillsbury!
13. g4
White uses the move g2-g4 fairly
often to crack Black's pawn chain in
the Zukertort System, as with a closed
center a weakening of his own king's
position is not very dangerous for him.
From the previous games we know
that undermining Black's pawn bases
in the center in accordance with the
Marshall plan is very promising but, in
this situation, after 1 3 . c4 Black obtains
59
Part I. Play for White
serious counterplay on the queenside ,
for example: 1 3 . . . a4!? ( 1 3 . . . tLl d6 14.
cxdS exdS IS. l:tac 1 with a complicated
game) 1 4. cxdS exdS ( 1 4 . . . tLl xeS?! I S .
fxeS i. xdS 1 6 . bxa4 cxdS 1 7 . e4 fxe4 1 8 .
tLl xe4 :xa4 1 9. l:txf8+ i.xf8 20. 'iVg4
i. e7 2 1 . �f1 , and Black's position is
very worrisome) I S . bxa4 c4 ( 1 S . . . �xa4?
1 6 . i.bS; l S . . . tLl xeS 1 6 . fxeS , and Black
has no time to take the a-pawn as his
fS-pawn must be defended), and the
following variation is hardly likely to suit
White: 1 6 . tLl dxc4?! dxc4 1 7 . i. xc4+
� h8 1 8 . tLlf7+ �xf7 1 9 . i. xf7 tLl d6.
13 . . . tLl d6
One of the little-noticed advantages
of situating the dark-squared bishop on
e7: the knight lands on e4 via d6 without
hindrance .
14. 'iVg2 tLl xe5
Out of harm's way - White was
already threatening to open the long
diagonal. For example, the placid 14 . . .
a4?! would have been answered with
I S . dxcS bxcS 1 6. gxfS tLl xeS 17 . i. xeS.
Black's light-squared bishop is activated
in this case , of course, but the benefits
that White gains should outweigh that.
15. dxe5 tLl e4
Right on time.
16. �adl 'iVeS 17. gxf5 exfS IS.
i.xe4 dxe4 19. tLl c4 i. a6, and White's
small edge wasn't enough to win.
60
When the Pillsbury formation is
modified by an exchange on eS, the
long diagonal for White's dark-squared
bishop is extended, as the d-pawn shifts
to the eS square. This circumstance
sometimes makes White think about
trying to clear a path for the eS-pawn,
bringing in the f-pawn to carry out this
idea, and if necessary even going for a
sacrifice on the key fS square.
Summerscale A. - Gimenez
Andorra 1 99 1
l . d4 d5 2 . tLl rJ tLl f6 3 . e3 e6 4 . i. d3
c5 5. b3 tLl c6 6. i.b2 i. e7 7. tLlbd2 0-0
S. 0-0 b6 9. tLl e5 tLl xe5 10. dxe5 tLl d7
l l . f4
In the modified Pillsbury setup, aside
from the Marshall plan White can start
an attack with f4-fS , if Black is late with
. . . f7-f5.
1 l ... .tb7
An attempt by Black to solve his
problems with the help of a French-type
undermining move ended lamentably:
1 1 . . .ffi 1 2 . tLlf3 fXeS (on 1 2 . . . f5 White acts
according to the Marshall plan: 1 3 . c4)
1 3 . tLl xeS tLl xeS 1 4. i. xeS i.ffi? (a serious
mistake; Black could have stayed afloat by
taking control of the hS square with 1 4 . . .
'iVe8. Now, though, a quick denouement
follows) I S . 'iVhS g6 (after l S . . . h6 1 6. 'iVg6
l:tf7 1 7 . 'iVh7+ �f8 1 8 . i.g6, Black has
a choice: to either give up the exchange,
or after 1 8 . . . �d7 19. g4 be subjected to a
very powerful attack, the result ofwhich is
probably predetermined) 16 . i.xg6 hxg6
1 7 . 'iVxg6+ � h8 , and now follows the
 Chapter 3 . Transforming the Pillsbury Formation; The Marshall Plan

rook's decisive arrival: 1 8 . J::t f3 . And on 12 . . . g6 13. �h3

the next move Black laid down his arms
in the game Shaw J. - Paul B., England White shuflle s his queen to a modest
2008 . position. On 1 3 . �h6, where the queen
is " relentless, " as Tartakover put it, 1 3 . . .
After I I . . .fS Black also has to contain l::t e 8 can ensue followed by . . . i. e7-f8,
White's initiative: 1 2 . exfO (White can also and White loses a tempo on the queen
play as per Marshall: 1 2. c4 tlJb8 [ 1 2 . . . retreat.
ii.b7 1 3 . cxdS i. xdS 1 4. e 4 fxe4 I S . tlJxe4
�c8 16. �hS g6 1 7 . �h3 �e8, and in 13 . . . b5
this position from Adly A. - Magnusson
B . , Reykjavik 2006, White could have With the idea of playing . . . cS-c4,
immediately obtained a big advantage but Black's idea meets with an effective
with 1 8 . tlJ d6! i. xd6 1 9. exd6 c4 {White refutation.
also has a bigplus after 19. . . tlJj6 20. 'f:1. ae I}
20. bxc4 i. xc4 2 1 . l::t ae l ] 1 3 . �c2 [ Most 14 . .\t xb5!? �a5 15 . .\t xd7 �xd2
likely it's best to ftght for an advantage 16. l:Ifl �b4 17. a3 �b6
by means of 1 3 . cxdS!?, for example 1 3 . . .
exdS {to 13. . . �xd5 White can reply 14.
CfJ c4 i. b 7 15. �e2, then seize the d-file
after l::t ad 1 and the automatic move e3-e4}
14. e4 and White has the initiative. After
the game move, Black equalizes.] 1 3 . . .
CfJc6 14. a 3 d4 Bigg A. - Hinks-Edwards
T. , England 2003) 1 2 . . . i. xfO 1 3 . �hS h6
( 1 3 . . . g6 is better - R. Palliser; 1 4. i.xfO
[ 1 4. i.xg6? is bad because of 14 . . . �e7!]
14 ... tlJxfO) 14. i. eS �e8 (after 1 4 ... i. xeS
IS. fxeS �gS in Seredkin A. - Paulsen V. ,
Norway 1 997, White could have obtained
the initiative by playing 1 6. 'f:1.xf8+!? tlJxf8 18. f5!
17. �xgS hxgS I 8 . tlJf3) I S . i.g6 �e7 1 6.
CfJf3 i. a6 1 7 . l::t f2 l::t fd8 1 8 . g4! , and game Threatening fS-f6 and �h6.
Rotstein E. - Shlakman I . , Areo 200 1 ,
White developed a dangerous attack on 18 . . . gxf5
the kingside.
I think that White's tasks would have
12. �h5 been more difficult after 1 8 . . . exfS 1 9 .
'f:1.xfS d 4 ( l 9 . . . i. c8 20. 'f:1.xf7 'f:1.xf7 2 1 .
The purpose of this move is to i. xc8 and White attacks with material
provoke a weakness in Black's castled equality) 20. l::t f2 , when Black stays
position. afloat.

61
Part I. Play for White
19. 1:xf5!
White "starts talking seriously" !
1 9 . . . exf5
1 9 . . . l:tad8 20. l:th5 l:txd7 2 1 . l:txh7
doesn't save Black.
20 . .i. xf5 h6
Anything else is even worse.
2 1 . e6!
I have to say that opening up the long
diagonal in the Zukertort System is like
a bolt of lightning for Black. That's why
many people playing Black are often
already in a panic after the first few
moves, and trade on d4 to avoid this "act
of God. "
2 1 . . . � gS
2 1 . . . fxe6 22. �xh6 +- .
2 2. .i. f6! fxe6
22 . . . i. xf6 23. �xh6 +- .
62
23. i. xe6+
With oblique fire on the king's
position.
23 . . .:1:17
23 ... 'itl h7 24. �f5.
24. i. xgS, and Black made a few
more graveside moves: 24 . . . hxgS 2S. �f1
�af8 26. 1:f6 'itl g7 27. �h6+ 1-0.
The next duel develops the theme of
the previous game.
Belfiore D. Juarez E.
-
Buenos Aires 1 992
1 . d4 lLl f6 2. e3 e6 3. lLl rJ b6 4. i. d3
.i.b7 S. 0-0 i. e7 6. lLlbd2 dS 7. lLl eS 0-0
8. b3 cS 9. i.b2 lLl c6 10. a3 lLl xeS
An important moment requiring
attention. Another alternative involving
an exchange on e5 is for Black to take
first with his d4-pawn: 1O . . . cxd4, when
some Yusupovka enthusiasts prefer to
go for an in-between capture on c6: 1 1 .
lLl xc6 i. xc6, and only then 1 2 . exd4,
obtaining a pawn structure sporting
some pluses. The main benefit is that
it's trickier for Black to get counterplay.
I f 1 1 . exd4 is played immediately, then
Black - after first trading off the knights
on e5 - sends his other knight to c5, and
White either has to allow the exchange
of his bishop for Black's knight, or
remove his bishop from the key d3
square, or else play b3 -b4, creating a
"hook" for Black to hang his play on
 Chapter 3 . Transfonning the Pillsbury Fonnation; The Marshall Plan
on the queenside. Black can also act
capriciously and simply place the knight
on e4. The second variation, I I . exd4, is
examined in Part I I , Chapter 1 3 .
1 1 . dxe5 ti:J d7
For 1 1 . . .ti:J e4!?, see Part I I , Chapter
13.
12. �h5
Events unfolded differently in the
game Bottino A. Kulcsar M . , Budapest
- with 20 . . . d4, for example: 2 1 . exd7 IIfS
1995, but the main lever of the attack
was the same: 1 2 . f4 g6 1 3 . �g4 l:IeS:
14. f5!? exf5 15. l:txf5! ti:J fS 1 6 . II xf7?
(Here it's relevant to recall Tartakover's
quip: "White plays beautifully, but
unsuccessfully. " Correct is the less
impressive 1 6 . e6! f6!? [ 1 6 . . . ti:J xe6? is
bad because of 1 7 . I:txf7! W xf7 I s . II fl +
i.f6 1 9 . �h4 WgS 20. i. xf6 �c7 2 1 .
i.xg6! with a winning position; 1 6 . . .
fxe6 looks slightly better, but isn't too
sweet, either, for instance 1 7 . l:txf8 +!
i.xf8 I S . i. xg6 IIe7 1 9. i. xh7+ W xh7
20. �h4+ i. h6 2 1 . i.f6, when after
winning back the rook White is left a
pawn up and has an attack to boot] 1 7 .
i.b5 � cS l S . ..t xeS � xe6 1 9 . ..t c6 �xf5
20. �f3 IIcS 2 1 . � xd5 + , and White is
simply better, though the worst is over
for Black) 1 6 . . . W xf7 ( 1 6 . . . ..t cS doesn't
work because of 1 7 . e6! ti:J xe6 [ 1 7 . . .
..t xe6 permits a beautiful finale: I S .
IIg7+ W hS 1 9 . IIxh7+!] I S . �xg6!, and
Black is defenseless) 1 7 . II fl + WgS I S .
�f4 ti:J d7? (losing; after the correct I S . . .
� c S ! Black defends: 1 9 . � f7 + W hS 20.
e6+ d4) 1 9. �f7+ W hS 20. e6+ ti:J f6? (it
still wasn't too late to challenge White
22. �e6 IIxfI + 23. � xf1 , and White is
better for the moment) 2 1 . IIxf6!, and
Black resigned.
12 . . . g6 13. �h3 �c7 14. f4 a6
15. f5!
Aided by this "lever" White explodes
Black's position.
15 . . . exf5 16. IIxf5! c4
16 . . . �c6 1 7 . e6 i.f6 ( 1 7 . . . �xe6?
allows a beautiful end: I S . �xh7+ ! W xh7
1 9. IIh5+ WgS 20. IIhS; Black can try
63
Part I. Play for White
and sneak his king out of the battle zone ,
for example 1 7 . . . fxe6 1 8 . �hS! 'ti f7
( l 8 . . . gxhS 1 9 . .li xh7+!) 1 9. �xh7+ , and
the black king hides behind its subjects,
but the only question facing White now
is how best to exploit his advantage) 1 8 .
�xf6 tZlxf6 1 9 . .li xf6 "iVxe6 20. "iVxe6
fxe6, and White must do some sustained
work to take advantage of the better
coordination of his pieces.
Only 16 . . . f6 would have caused
problems for White in developing his
attack.
17. l:th5?
17. bxc4! dxc4 18 . .li xc4 bS ( l 8 . . .
gxfS? loses immediately: 1 9. "iVg3 +
'ti h8 20. e6+ + - ; 1 8 . . . "iVc6 only delays
the timing of the resignation: 1 9 . e6 fxe6
20. l:thS \t;f7 2 1 . l:txh7+ 'ti e8 22 . .li d3
and, as they say, way to go) 1 9 . .li xf7+!
with an attack that Black is hardly likely
to refute.
17 . . . gxh5?
What would Tartakover have said
about Black's last move? - " Hypnotized
by a weak move ! " After 1 7 . . . c3! it's quite
possible that Black is already better, for
example: 1 8 . .li c l (on 1 8 . l:txh7 there
follows simply 1 8 . . :�heS, and White
can resign; 1 8 . .li xg6 doesn't help White
either, for example: 1 8 . . . fxg6 1 9. "iVe6+
'ti h8 20. "iVxg6 tZl f6 2 L exf6 .li xf6 , the
position looks sharp, but Black should
win) 1 8 . . . tZlxeS ( l 8 . . . cxd2? is a mistake
because of 1 9 . .li b2! tZlxeS 20 . .lixeS .li d6
2 1 . .li f6 .li e7 22 . .li d4 [22 . .li eS .li d6 =]
22 ... .li cS 23. �xh7 .li xd4 24. exd4 "iVf4
64
2S. l:t h4 or 2S. "iVh4, and White is better)
1 9 . 1:txh7 .li f6 with a sharp position, but
White must think about how to finish
developing his queenside, as without it
the attack on the kingside is doomed.
Now, though, the game ends
quickly.
18. "iV g3 + � g5
1 8 . . . 'ti h8 1 9 . e6+ + -
19. "iVxg5+ 'ti h8 20. IIn IIg8 2 1 .
"iVxh5 l:tg7 22. l:txf7 l:tag8 23. "iVxh7+ ! ,
and Black congratulated his opponent
on his victory. Readers have probably
noticed that I often give games by lower­
rated players. The reality is that high­
rated players rarely make mistakes from
which the main mass of players could
extract lessons. And sometimes the games
of ordinary players serve as a source of
new ideas; not presenting them to the
public would be a major methodological
omission. Some theoreticians are guilty
of chess snobbishness. The idea of
the double sacrifice on fS , which has
been encountered in a game between
ordinary players, should be introduced
into the arsenal of players of any strength
who play the Yusupovka. And finally
- Tartakover's opinion on the game we
examined above: " Sacrifices either tum
out to be correct accidentally, or. . . your
opponent trips up! "
We should mention one more
possibility for Black: he sometimes
creates a diversion with the queen on the
kingside with the aim of deflecting White
 Chapter 3 . Transforming the Pillsbury Formation; The Marshall Plan
from carrying out his main plan. Practice
shows that nothing good awaits him.
Petrovs V. Treybal K.
- what to suggest for Black.
Podebrady 1 936
1. d4 d5 2. QJ rJ QJ f6 3. e3 e6 4. � d3
c5 5. b3 QJ c6 6. � b2 � d6 7. QJ e5 � xe5
8. dxe5 QJ d7 9. f4
9 .. :�h4+?!
General opening theory frowns on
early queen forays, especially not in this
situation, when Black's other pieces
can't support their queen.
10. g3 Vj'h3?!
Black could return the queen home
with the move 1O . . . Vj'e7. In some
opening variations, the following idea is
used: the queen gives check to provoke
the opponent into moving his pawns
- pawns can't go backwards - and then
returns to her own camp. But Black
persists, and as a result risks falling into
a difficult position.
l l . �n Vj'fS 12. QJ d2 f6
The lunge 1 2 . . . QJb4?! is met with 1 3 .
e4, and after 1 3 . . . dxe4 1 4 . �g2 e 3 I S .
QJ e4 0-0 1 6 . a 3 you don't even know
13. e4!? Vj'g6
1 3 ...dxe4 14. QJc4 Vj'g6 ( l 4 ... 0-0? IS.
QJd6 Vj'g6 16. QJxc8 loses a piece) IS.
QJd6+ <j;; e7 16. �e2 with a ve ry strong
attack.
14. exd5
1 4 . .td3!? QJ b4 1 5 . Ji. e2.
14 ed 15. Ji. d3 f5 16. QJ n
.••
16. c 3 0-0 1 7. Vj' f3 doesn't look bad
either.
16 QJb6 and, in this position after
••.
17 . .t a3!? c4 18. Ji. e2, an appreciable
advantage has been obtained. As we saw
in this game, the wayward black queen
actually helped White to develop his
initiative in the center. And all of Black's
difficulties occurred because he violated
one of the fundamental principles of
playing the opening: don't bring your
queen out so early in the game.
65
 Chapter 4

A " Psychological " Attack by

White ' s Kin gside Pawns

When the center is closed, White can assail Black's kingside by advancing the
pawns in front of his own king, as in this case His Majesty is safe. It's very difficult
for Black to withstand this kind of "psychological attack. "

Maroczy G. Blake H.
- As we already know, transferring
Hastings 1 923
1 . d4 Cll f6 2. Cll f3 cS 3. e3 e6 4. i. d3
dS S. b3 Cll c6 6. 0-0 cxd4
Generally speaking, a hasty decision.
The fact is that now Black can 't
undertake the "liberating" advance . . . e6-
e5, as after 6. exd5 White can control the
e5 square with his major pieces. On the
subject of the early exchange of pawns
on d4 see Part I I , Chapter 1 2 .
7. exd4 i. d6 S. i.b2 0 - 0 9 . a 3 b 6 10.
Cll bd2 i.b7 1 1 . �e2
This same position was encountered
some ten years later in the model game
Alekhine - Rosselli Del Turco, Zurich
1 934. See the supplementary games
section.
1 1 . ..l:tcS 12. Cll eS � e7 13. f4 l:tfeS?!
14. l:tf3
the rook to h3(g3) is one of the main
elements of White's plan in his play on
the kingside.
14 . . . �f8?!
Black's last two moves to restructure
his pieces are unsuccessful, as practice
has shown.
Palliser recommends 14 . . . g6!? 1 5 .
l:th3 Cll h5! and 1 6 . . . f5 . It's all correct,
but with the move . . . f7-f5 , I believe
so as to later transfer the h5 knight to
e4, it isn't so simple , for example 1 6.
�g4!? Here the intended 1 6 . . . f5 gives
White a big advantage : 1 7 . Cll xg6! fxg6
(White has a powerful attack after 1 7 . . .
hxg6 1 8 . �xg6+ Cll g 7 1 9 . Cll f3 i. xf4 20.
l:t e l ) 1 8 . Cll xe7+ l:txe7 1 9 . l:txh5 i. xf4
20. Cll fl . That's why Black first has to
retreat his knight away to g7 , and only
then play . . . f7-f5 . In this case White has
a substantial positional achievement,

66
 Chapter 4. A " Psychological" Attack by White's Kingside Pawns

as the black knight can't reach e4 19. IIg2

immediately.
With his last three moves White
15. �h3 has brought his rook, which had been
quietly dozing on the queenside, into
Threatening .t xh7+ and 'iVh5(+). the attack. Now the threat of f4-f5 will
always be hanging over Black.
15 . . . g6
19 �c7
•..

On 1 5 . . . h6, White also throws the

g-pawn into the fray to meet the h6 Black puts his rook on the seventh
"hook. " rank to defend the fl-pawn.

20. CiJ dfJ CiJ eg8?

On the more stubborn 20 . . . CiJ c6, the

energetic thrust 2 1 . f5!? could follow, or
once again 2 1 . CiJg5.

21. CiJ g5!

Threatening CiJgxf7 and CiJ xg6.

2 1 . . .h6

16. g4! "The position looks, the combination

finds . . . " (Tartakover) .
White starts moving the pawns in
front of his king, which is dangerous to do
when the center is open. The Zukertort
System allows White to proceed without
worrying about the center, as it's safely
closed.

16 . . .. iVg7 17. �f1 CiJ e7

Black reinforces his control over f5 .

18. IIa � h8

Black prudently takes his king off the 22. CiJ gxf7+! IIxt7 23. CiJxg6+ � h7
g-file, which could come open. 24. CiJf8+ � h8 25. CiJ g6+ � h7

67
Part I. Play for White

White simply gains time . I2. a3

26. tZ:l eS+ \t> hS 27. gS! Now White has to prevent the black
knight from landing on b4.
White begins, as Tartakover would have
put it, the "scalping" of the black king. I2 a6 13. f4 l:IfdS 14. �rJ g6 IS.
••.

�h3 it f8 16. c3
27 � xeS
••.

After constructing the typical piece

On 27 . . . tZ:l e4 Susan Polgar suggested
the beautiful variation 28. gxh6 'iYf6 29.
'iYg4! it xe5 30. 'iYg7+!!.
2 S . gxf6 itxf6
28 . . . 'iYxf6 29. fxe5 'iYe7 30. �g6.
configuration, White reassigns the
function of defending the c-pawn to the
dark-squared bishop, as it's possible that
the black knight might land on e4, when
as a result of mass exchanges the white
c2-pawn could be left undefended. See
Part I I , Chapter 7.

29. l:Ixg7, and Black resigned a few

moves later.

In the following game, GM Mark

Taimanov hews strictly to the classical
Zukertort, and wins easily.

Taimanov M. Dalmau O.
-

Stockholm 1 995

1 . tZ:l rJ tZ:l f6 2. b3 cS 3. it b2 tZ:l c6 4.

e3 e6 S. d4 dS 6. it d3
I6 it cS I7. l:In
•••

So we reach a classic position from

the Zukertort System. Note the cunning Prior to launcing decisive operations,
move order White has used: It allows White brings out the queen 's rook.
White to avoid inconvenient directions
of play on Black's part. I7 tZ:l eS
•.•

6 b6 7. 0-0 cxd4 S. exd4 it d6 9.

••.
tZ:l eS �b7 10. tZ:l d2 'iYc7 1 1 . 'iYe2 0-0
It's still too soon for 1 1 . . . tZ:l b4?!
because of 1 2 . �b5+.
Black in turn also prepares to meet
White's attack adequately, and to that
end he executes the main defensive
maneuver: the black knight moves
away, letting the f-pawn move forward,

68
 Chapter 4. A " Psychological" Attack by White ' s Kingside Pawns

and then aims for e4. See Part I I , Chap- Not only allowing White to open the
ter 7 . f-file, but also giving him the opportunity
to create a powerful pawn center.
18. g4!
22. fxe5 lll e4?!

Black is relying on his kingside pawn

fence, but he forgets that White's pawn
center is more important, and that the
long diagonal is coming open.

23 . .t xe4! dxe4 24. h5!

Creating a pawn weakness on g6.

White's attack develops of its own
accord.

18 . . . f5 19. �g3 24 . . . �c6 25. c4 b5 26. bxg6 bxg6 27.

d5!
Up till now White has been playing
according to a well-established plan, but The beginning of the end!
now he has to display some independent
thinking. The purpose of White's last 27 . . . �b6+ 28. � g2 bxc4 29. e6
move was to open up the g-file and let
the h-pawn move forward to shatter the Moves like this require no
king's pawn cover. explanation.

19 . . . lll f6 20. gxf5 exfS 2 1 . h4! 29 . . . .t g7 30. �xg6 l::t a7 3 1 . �xf5 e3

32. lll e4

Over the last few moves we are

dazzled by the plethora of possibilities
for ending the game.

32 . . . �f8 33. �t7 l::t fxt7 34. ext7+,

and Black resigned. 1-0

In the next game, the white pawn's

march to g5 paved the way for the knight
to invade on to or h6. Trying to escape the
2 1 . . .lll xe5?! worst, Black created new weaknesses.

69
Part I . Play for White

Lobron E. Adams M.
- 9 . . . b6 10. 'ife2 as 1 1 . a4 i. a6 12.
Dortmund 1 996 i.bS i. b7?!

1. d4 tiJf6 2. tiJrJ e6 3. e3 cS 4. i. d3 After 12 ... i.xbS!? 13. axbS, matters are

dS S. b3 cxd4
Such an early exchange looks logical
only when followed up with a bishop
check on b4, otherwise it's difficult to
find an explanation for it. The fact is
that it eliminates other promising battle
plans for Black against the Zukertort
System. For more details see Part I I ,
Chapter 1 2 .
not so clear. The game move is probably
an error, as White keeps his light -squared
bishop which actively participates in
the destruction of the black king's pawn
cover. And Black's light-squared bishop
is then just a spectator.
13. i. b2 tiJ c6 14. �fe l �cS IS. :adl
'ifc7 16. i. d3 �feS 17. i.bl g6 IS. tiJ eS
i. f8 19. f4 i. g7

6. exd4 i.b4+ 7. c 3 i. e7 S. 0-0 0-0 Black has fianchettoed his dark­

9. tiJbd2 squared bishop, hoping that the "cabin"
will help him to defend successfully.
Strategically similar in essence to This plan of defense is examined in Part
the following game: 9. 'ife2 as 1 0. a4 b6 I I , Chapter 10 .
1 1 . tiJ eS tiJ fd7 ( l 1 . . .i.a6 is impossible
because of 1 2 . i. xa6 l:xa6 1 3 . tiJ c6 2 0 . 'iffl tiJ e7
winning the exchange) 1 2 . f4 g6 (at this
point Black had a chance to trade off Black wants to transfer his knight to
the light-squared bishops: 1 2 . . . tiJxeS 1 3 . d6 via the route tiJ e7-t:5-d6, and then
fxeS i. a6 1 4 . i. xa6 tiJxa6, but White's occupy e4. With his next move White
position is better here, too) 1 3 . tiJ a3!? not only thwarts Black's plan, but also
i.b7 (now exchanging on eS with 13 . . . brings the g-pawn into the attack.
tiJ xeS i s no longer playable because ofthe
weakened dark squares on the kingside)
14. tiJbS tiJffi (White has brought out
his queen's knight to bS, and not to d2,
so Black decides to occupy e4 with his
knight) I S . g4 ( I S. t:5!? ex(') 1 6. i. h6 l:Ie8
17. i.xfS i. f8 [ l 7 ... gxt:5 18. Itx(') + - ] 1 8.
i.gS, and things are bad for Black) I S . . .
tiJbd7 1 6. i. e 3 tiJ e4 1 7 . i.xe4 dxe4 1 8 . t:5
ex(') 1 9 . gxt:5 i.gS 20. tiJ xd7 i. xe3+ 2 1 .
'ifxe3 'ifxd7, and in the game Hoffman
A. - Paglilla C., Buenos Aires 1 988,
after 22. c4 and d4-dS White would have 2 1 . g4!? tiJ c6 22. 'ifh4 tiJ d7 23. :e3
gained a huge advantage. 'ifdS 24. gS hS?!

70
 Chapter 4. A " Psychological" Attack by White 's Kingside Pawns
24 . . . ClJ dxe5 25. fxe5 looks safer, and
he can then play 25 . . . h5, but in this case,
too, White could target not only the g6
and h5 squares, but also the f7-pawn.
What's more, White has the f6 square
at his disposal, towards which the white
rook can strive, as it would be inadvisable
for Black to take the exchange.
Based on these considerations, 24 . . .
lZ:l fS looks preferable.
25. ClJ xg6!
A combination typical of the
Zukertort System: giving up two pieces
for a rook, but at the same time getting
a sufficient number of pawns. The main
thing is that the black king's pawn cover
is destroyed.
25 ... fxg6 26. i. xg6 ClJ e7
White is also much better after 26 . . .
lZ:l fS 2 7 . i. xe8 (27. i. d3 ClJ e7 2 8 . 'i¥xh5
lZ:l f5) 27 .. .'ihe8 28. f5 .
27. i. xeS 'i¥xeS 2S. nxe6 ClJf8
It's also worse for Black after 28 . . .
'i¥ f7 , for example 29. nde l ClJ f5 30.
'i¥h3 ClJfS 3 1 . l':txb6.
29. l:txb6
White has a big advantage.
In the next example, White starts a
pawn offensive on the kingside with his
pieces in virtually the same positions as
in the previous game, but he gets to it via
an unusual move order.
Kova�evic V. Farago I.
-
Hastings 1 983
1 . d4 e6 2. ClJ rJ e5 3. e3 ClJ f6 4. i. d3
d5 5. b3 ClJ e6 6. 0-0 i. e7 7. i.b2 0-0 S.
ClJbd2 exd4 9. exd4 b6 10. :tel i. b7 1 1 .
a 3 :teS 1 2 . :te3
It would now be a mistake to
implement the plan in which the knight
occupies e5 supported by f2-f4. First,
because that plan looks illogical, to say
the least. In this case the rook's move to
e 1 is unnecessary, and the move 'i¥ d l -e2
worked fine to control over the e4 and e5
squares. And secondly, in this situation
Black can occupy e4 with his knight,
i.e. 1 2. ClJ e5?! ClJ xe5 1 3 . dxe5 ( 1 3 . :txe5
doesn't help, either, in view of 13 . . . 'i¥c7
14. n e 1 [the rook must retreat, as 14.
nc1 is answered by 1 4 ... i. d6, and the
h2-pawn is lost] 14 . . . ClJ e4, and after
multiple takes on e4 White loses the c2-
pawn) 13 . . . ClJ e4 14. i.xe4 (the variation
14. ClJ xe4 dxe4 1 5 . i. xe4 i. xe4 1 6. :txe4
'i¥xd 1 + 1 7 . nxd 1 nxc2 clearly doesn't
suit White) 14 . . . dxe4 1 5 . c4 (as we saw
71
Part I. Play for White
above , in the event of 1 5 . t'l:lxe4 the c2-
pawn is lost) 15 . . . f5 1 6. exf6 .lt xf6 1 7 .
�c2 � d4 1 8 . .ltxd4 �xd4 1 9. t'l:l fl b5,
and Black equalized in Dokutchaev A.
- Pihlajasalo A. , Finland 2008.
12 t'l:l g4
••.
After 1 2 . . . g6, 1 3 . t'l:l e5?! occupying
e5 with the knight looks hasty once
again, as now Black obtains e4 in return:
1 3 . . . t'l:lxe5 14. dxe5 (Black also settles
on e4 after 14. l::t x e5 �c7 1 5 . �e2 t'l:l e4)
14 . . . t'l:l e4 1 5 . t'l:lf3 ( 1 5 . t'l:l xe4? dxe4 1 6 .
.ltxe4 �xd I + 1 7. l::t xd l .lt xe4 1 8 . l::t xe4
�xc2 with a big advantage for Black)
1 5 . . . t'l:lc5 16 . .lt fl ( 1 6. t'l:l d4, as played
by Rubinstein in a similar situation,
deserves attention) 16 . . . .lt a6, and in
Bistric F. - Sher M . , Bled 1 99 1 , Black
traded his bad light-squared bishop for
White 's good one.
13. l1e2 �c7 14. �n t'l:l bS
Shifting Black's queen to the
kingside looks dubious, as it finds itself
in a restricted space, while it's hardly
possible to create anything significant
with just two pieces: 14 . . . �f4 1 5 . g3
�h6 1 6 . h3 t'l:l f6 . Black can hide his
queen in the "cabin , " of course - . . . g7 -
g6, . . . �g7 - but in this case White, as
we saw above, can play as in Mar6czy -
Blake, Hastings 1 923, and obtain good
attacking chances on the kingside.
IS. g3 t'l:lf6 16. l::t c l t'l:l bd7 17. �h3
h6 IS. t'l:l h4 t'l:l h7 19. f4
It is difficult to calculate
ramifications of 1 9. t'l:lg6?!.
72
19 . . . .ltxh4 20. �xh4 t'l:l hf6
In this position White has undertaken
a transfer of the queen to f3 and only
then started to move the g-pawn. In my
opinion, a different plan in preparation
for pushing this pawn is more promising:
2 1 . c3 (above all, we free the light­
squared bishop from the need to defend
the c-pawn) 2 1 . . . �feS 22. �n (the
rook will defend the f-pawn) 22 t'l:lf8, .•.
and only now does the g-pawn begin its
march to g5: 23. g4. No counterplay is
evident for Black on either the queenside
or the center. He faces a difficult defense
on the kingside.
Now here's a game where the
outcome of the battle was more or less
decided by the march of White's g­
pawn, allowing the white knight to gain
a foothold on f6:
Vospemik Z. Potochnik P.
-
Slovenia 1 996
1. d4 dS 2. t'l:lfJ t'l:l f6 3. e3 cS 4. b3 e6
S . .lt d3 t'l:l c6 6 .ltb2 � d6 7. t'l:l bd2 0-0
•
S. a3 b6 9. t'l:l eS .ltb7 10. 0-0 �e7 1 1 . f4
l::t adS 12. �fJ t'l:l eS
the
 Chapter 4. A " Psychological" Attack by White 's Kingside Pawns
13. g4 � xeS
Black can't chase the white knight
away with 1 3 . . . ffi?, as a thematic bishop
sacrifice follows:
14. � xh7+! 'it' xh7 1 5 . 'fih3+ 'it'g8
16. ttJg6 'fic7 1 7 . ttJ f3 cxd4 1 8 . 'fih8+
'it' f7 19. 'fih7 � a6 20. ttJg5+! fxg5 2 1 .
fxg5+ �xfl 22. l:[xfl + ttJ f6 23. gxffi 'it' e8
24. ttJ xf8 � xf8 25. 'fig6+ 'it' d7 (25 . .
'fif7 26. fxg7!) 26. fxg7 with a winning
position for White.
1 6 . . . 'fid7 is bad too: 1 7 . ttJ f3 cxd4
1 8 . ttJg5! fxg5 1 9. 'fih8+ W f7 20. fxg5+
ttJ ffi 2 1 . 'fih5 ! , and despite the two extra
pieces Black's condition is grim:
The move 13 . . . f6 doesn't work
in this situation because of the poor
position of the black pieces. But in a
different configuration (see Zaitseva
L. - Rubtsova T. , Sochi 1 98 3 , in Part
I , Chapter 1 ) , after Black's f-pawn
attacks White's e5-knight, White has to
weigh everything up before deciding to
sacrifice the bishop.
14. dxeS d4 IS. 'fih3 g6 16. gS!
Now a powerful supporting square
has been secured on f6 for the white
knight.
16 . . . ttJ g7 17. ttJ e4 hS IS. gxhS ttJ fS
19. ttJ f6+ 'it' hS 20. e4 ttJ e3 2 1 . Ito, and
subsequently White put his queen on g5 ,
and the h-pawn blew up the position of
the black king after h2-h4-h5 .
.
Sometimes a white pawn that reaches
g5 is sacrificed:
HotTman A. Urday H.
-
Alicante 1 989
1 . d4 e6 2. ttJ O ttJf6 3. e3 b6 4. � d3
�b7 S. 0-0 dS 6. b3 � d6 7. �b2 0-0 S.
ttJ eS ttJbd7
8 . . . c5 9. ttJ d2 ttJ c6 10 . a3 Itc8 I I .
f4 cxd4 1 2 . exd4 ttJ e7 (in the following
game White also offers the g-pawn, but
Black sensibly declines it: 1 2 . . . g6 1 3 . 'fie2
'fie7 14. Itf3 ttJ h5 1 5 . g4 ttJg7 1 6. l:Xh3
ttJb8?! [Black often makes unsuccessful
moves in the main line of the Zukertort
System, as it isn't easy for him to find his
way around a situation in which there's a
73
Part I. Play for White
lack of counterplay] 1 7 . gS f6 I S . liJg4!?
liJhS [ Black turns away the Trojan horse,
otherwise the game could end roughly
like this: I S . . . fxgS? 1 9. �xg6! hxg6 20.
liJ h6+ 'it' h7 2 1 . liJ fS + , and it's time
for Black to resign] 1 9. �xhS! gxhS 20.
liJ xf6+ �xf6 2 1 . gxf6 �xf6 22. �xhS ,
and the black king found itself in greater
danger than the white king in Gagloshvili
R. - Du�ek M . , teske Bud�jovice 1 996)
1 3 . �e2 (Black was threatening to hop
into e4 with his knight) 1 3 . . . �bS:
1 4. g4! (very timely; the slow 14.
�f3 would have allowed Black to create
defensive redoubts, for example 1 4 . . . liJfS
I S . g4 liJd6 16. gS liJfe4, and it isn't easy
for White to attack, Perie S. - Lazaro
A. , Figueres 2004) 14 . . . �c7 I S . l:Iac 1
(Black was again threatening I S . . .liJ e4,
when after the exchange White couldn't
take the black pawn on e4, as he would
lose his c2-pawn) I S . . . 'it' hS 1 6. l:If3 liJg6
1 7 . gS liJ hS I S . l:Icfl (now that the black
knight no longer threatens to occupy
e4, the queen's rook comes into play on
the kingside) I S . . . liJxeS (better is I S . . .
�e7) 19. fxeS �e7 20. � e 3 (White has
managed without a sacrifice and is already
planning his 22nd move, apparently) 20 . . .
74
�ceS 2 1 . �h3 g6 22. �f6! �cS (clearly
taking the rook with 22 . . . liJxf6 leads
quickly to mate after 23. gxf6 and �e3-
h6.) 23. l:IxhS!. In the game Barbero G.
- Liao Y, Mercedes 1 979, Black resigned
because of 23 . . . gxhS 24. l:Ih6, when he's
left defenseless.
9. �e2 c5 10. liJ d2 �e7 1 1 . �adl
�ac8 12. f4 g6 13. g4 IUd8 14. g5 liJ e8
15. �f2 cxd4 16. exd4 � xe5
17. fxe5!?
White sacrifices the pawn based on the
following ideas: first, 1 7. dxeS didn't suit
him because of 1 7 . . . liJ cS, and Black gets
White's light-squared bishop in exchange,
as a result of which the c2 square falls. But
the worst part for White is that by playing
. . . dS-d4 the black pieces break into
White's camp via the newly opened hI -aS
diagonal. Secondly, and more pleasantly,
he gets wonderful compensation in the
form of the weakening of his opponent's
dark squares.
17 . . . �xg5+ 18. �g2 �e7 19. liJ fJ
liJ g7 20. � c l f6 2 1 . exf6 liJ xf6 22. i. g5
�f8 23. �e5 �f7 24. l:In liJ d7
 Chapter 4. A " Psychological" Attack by White 's Kingside Pawns
24 . . . liJ e4!?
25. �el liJ f5 26. tlJ h4 'it' h8 27. liJ O
�g7 28. � xf5 exf5 29. �h4 �f7 30.
�f4 1'.:tc6 3 1 . liJ e5 liJ xe5 32 . .i. xeS+
As a result of all the maneuvers,
White has obtained the opportunity to
play with opposite-colored bishops,
which enhances his attack.
32 . . . 'it' g8 33. �h6 .i. c8
34. h4!
Now the h-pawn also goes into
battle, with the aim of smashing the
black king's pawn cover.
34 . . . I:te8 3S. hS �t8 36. �f4 'it' f7
Black's king goes o n the run.
37. 1'.:t0 'it' e7 38. hxg6
38. Itc3 'it' d7 39. Itxc6 'it' xc6 40.
hxg6 hxg6 4 1 . Itxg6+ isn't as strong, as
it isn't clear whether White can win.
38 . . .hxg6 39. 1'.:th3!? 'it' d7 40. Mh7+
40. c4!?
40 .. J::t e 7 4 1 . J:tgh2, and subsequently
by playing c2-c4 White steered the game
to victory.
The white h-pawn often serves as a
battering ram against the black king's
pawn cover, but at the same time it also
fulfills the function of "bouncer. " In the
next game Black's queen's knight comes
to the aid of its sovereign , and the white
h-pawn immediately goes for it:
Gunsberg I. Chigorin M.
-
La Habana 1 890
1. liJo dS 2. d4 liJ f6 3. e3 e6 4 . .t d3
� d6 S. b3 liJ bd7 6 . .tb2 0-0 7. liJbd2
J:te8
As a rule, Black's rook move to e8
is unsuccessful , as White is coveting
the eS square and almost immediately
lays claim to it with liJ f3-eS. Chasing
it away with the move . . . 17-f6 isn't easy,
as White always has the bishop sacrifice
on h7 in reserve. The upshot is that
tempi have been expended uselessly,
the 17 square has been weakened, and
the retreat square on e8 has been taken
up by a rook. In any case , the queen's
knight can be transferred to g6 by the
Bogolyubov maneuver.
8. liJ eS!
See the previous note!
8 . . . liJt8 9. f4 cS 10. 0-0 a6 1 1 . J:t0
bS
75
Part I. Play for White
Black undertakes a counter-plan,
advancing his queenside pawns. See Part
I I , Chapter 6.
12. dxe5!?
We've already seen that opening
the a l -h8 diagonal ( Part I , Chapter
2) is one of the best methods in the
struggle against Black's queenside pawn
offensive, especially if White controls
eS.
12 . . . ii.xe5 1 3 . l:g3 ti.J g6
14. h4! Black has transferred his
Queen's knight to g6, and appears to
have provided solid cover for his king.
In order to hit him White brings his h­
pawn into the fray.
1 4 . . . � b6
Black doesn't risk taking the f4-pawn,
as in that case White obtains a dangerous
attack: 14 . . . ti.J xf4 I S . �O ti.J g6 1 6. ii. xg6
fxg6 ( 1 6 ... hxg6 1 7. hS gxhS? 1 8 . ti.J c6!)
17. hS �c7 ( 1 7 ... ti.J xhS? 18. �f7+ 'it' h8
1 9. ti.J xg6+ hxg6 20. ii. xg7+ ti.J xg7 2 1 .
76
l:h3+ ti.J hS 22. �xg6) 1 8 . hxg6 with
sharp play.
15. ti.Jn ti.J xh4?!
Black unexpectedly takes the pawn
at the most inappropriate moment.
He could have included his Queen's
rook in the defense of his king with IS . . .
l:a7, when the entire battle i s still ahead.
Now, though, White's attack doesn't
need any nudging, but develops of its
own accord.
16. ti.J xt7!
Witness the consequences of Black's
reckless seventh move.
16 . . . 'it' xt7 17. ii. xf6 gxf6
1 7 ... 'it'xffj 18. �hS ti.Jg6 ( 1 8 ...ti.J0+ 19.
gxf3 ii.xe3+ 20. 'it'g2+ - ) 19 . �xh7 + - .
18. �h5+ 'it' e7 19. �xh4 ii.d7?!
Not Black's best move in a difficult
position.
 Chapter 4. A " Psychological " Attack by White 's Kingside Pawns

20. l':tg7+ W d6 2 1 . Vi'xf6 i. xe3+ 22.

CZlxe3 Vi'xe3+ 23. 'It'fl! J:tadS 24. l:t e l ,
and White soon won.

Sometimes Black decides on a

kingside attack, and in this case White
can switch to "aggressive defense, " to
use Hans Kmoch's phrase. Rubinstein
A. - Salwe G . , Mdt 1 903, went:

1. d4 dS 2. CZlfJ tiJf6 3. e3 e6 4. i. d3
cS S. b3 tiJ c6 6. i.b2 i. d6 7. 0-0 0-0 S.
CZlbd2 cxd4 9. exd4 tiJ hS 10. g3 g6
1O . . . f5 is better, with a subsequent . . .
CZl e4, o r . . . CZl h5-f6-g4 as played b y Black
in Capablanca - Corzo, La Habana
1 90 1 .
1 1 . tiJ eS i. d7 12. f4 CZl g7
Worthy of attention is 1 2 . . . f5 with
a repositioning of the knight to e4 via
. . . CZlg7-h5-f6-e4. Black decides to put it
behind his kingside pawns so that it can
support their attack while also defending
19. g4!
According to the principle that
attack is the best form of defense.
Rubinstein's counterattack in this game
is very reminiscent of Capab1anca's play
against Corzo, La Habana 1 90 1 (see Part
I I , Chapter 3).
19 ... gxf4
1 9 . . . fxg4 20. tiJ xg4 (Susan Polgar
suggests 20. fxg5 gxf3 2 1 . gxh6 and
the final position doesn't raise any
questions, but what if instead of 20 . ..

the e6-pawn. But his idea turns out to be gxf3 Black plays 2 0 . . . tiJ f5?) 2 0 . . . l':1xf4
unsuccessful. 2 1 . tiJ xh6+ � h8 22. l':1afl and Black is
beyond salvation.
13. a3 fS 14. Vi'e2 i. eS IS. tiJ dfJ l':1 cs
16. � h l 20. Vi'xf4 i. gS 2 1 . CZl xgS bxgS 22.
Vi' g3 f4 23. Vi'h3
White frees u p the g 1 square for the
rook, from where it will support the Threatening mate.
advance g3-g4.
23 ... CZl xeS 24. Vi'h7+ 'It'f7 2S. dxeS
16 . . . h6 17. Vi'e3
With the threat of 26. i.g6 and 27.
Preventing . . . g6-g5 . Vi'g7.

17 ... i. e7 IS. l':tgl gS 2S . . . l':1gS

77
Part I. Play for White
It looks like the black royal will slip
away from the warm embraces of the
white pieces, but . . .
2 6 . a4!
White frees up a3 for the dark­
squared bishop so that it can take part in
the final phase of the attack.
26 . . . b6 27 . .t a3 �c5 2S. Vj'g6+ � f8
29. Vj'f6+!
Tartakover: '� miracle of simplicity
- isn't that where the greatest chess art
is found? "
29 . . . Vj'xf6 30. exf6, and Black soon
capitulated.
Until this point we have examined
games in which White's kingside pawn
assault was accompanied by the presence
ofa knight on e5. Now let's look at a game
in which White organizes a pawn attack
against the black king without bringing
his knight out to e5 (in this case, Black
loses the possibility of exchanging on e5
when after dxe5 the black knight goes
from f6 to c5; see Part I I , Chapter 1 3) ,
then places the c2-pawn o n c3, shifts
his queen to the kingside, and with her
support the white g- and h-pawns storm
the black king's fortifications, while the
f-pawn remains in its initial position.
Guseinov A. - Sideif-Sade F.
Baku 1 98 3
1 . d 4 ttJ f6 2. ttJ fJ e 6 3. e 3 c 5 4 . .t d3
d5 5. b3 .t e7 6. 0-0 0-0 7 . .t b2 cxd4?!
78
A pawn exchange in the center
this early benefits White. See Part I I ,
Chapter 1 2 .
S. exd4 ttJ c6 9. ttJbd2 b6 10. �el
.tb7 1 1 . a3 �cS 12. Vj'e2 l:::t c 7 13. �adl
A little fly in the ointment in White's
purposeful play - the rook move to
d 1 turns out to be unnecessary in his
subsequent play.
13 . . . Vj'cS 14. Vj'e3
Transferring the queen to the
kingside.
14 . . . �dS 15. Vj'f4 as 16. l:::t e3
White prepositions his rook on the
third rank, and puts the second one on
e l to control the e-file.
16 . . .l::t cd7 17. c3
Freeing up the light-squared bishop
from the function of defending the c­
pawn.
17 . . . .t f8 IS. �del �c7 19. Vj'h4
.t e7 20. Vj'h3 h6
Black begins a maneuver to exchange
the f6-knight for the white one on D.
White can only be happy about this desire
of Black's: first, the black king's main
defender goes away of its own volition;
and second, the move . . . h7-h6 creates a
"hook" in Black's castled position.
2 1 . g4 ttJ h7 22. Vj'g2 ttJ g5 23. h4 -
ttJ xfJ+ 24. ttJ xfJ
 Chapter 4. A " Psychological " Attack by White 's Kingside Pawns

The place of its vanished colleague 29. :g3 f5 30. j, c l !

is taken by the other knight, which was
standing around with nothing to do, as White brings his dark-squared bishop
the black pieces aren't threatening to into play on his opponent's hopelessly
occupy the e4 square. weakened dark squares.

24 . . . j, d6 25. g5 hxg5 26. CLl xg5 j, f4 30 . . . ViNt7 3 1 . j, f4 :e7 32. h5 'itl f8

3 3. .ltb5
26 . . . e5 27. j, h7+ 'itl f8 (27 . . . 'itl h8 is
bad because of 28. ViNf3 with the decisive . The immediate 33. h6 also wins.
addition ofthe white queen to the attack)
28. ViNf3 e4 29. ViNh5, and Black has no 33 . . . :dd7 34. h6 gxh6 35. ViNxh6+ ,
defense against White's onslaught. and Black resigned a few moves
later. This is one of the best games
27. �f3 j, xg5 28. ViNxg5 ViNd7 illustrating the strength of the
Zukertort System , and even Black's
Black rushes to the defense of his hesitation underscores how difficult
monarch, but he is no longer in any it is for him to defend against White ' s
condition to help it. systematic play!

79
 Chapter S

Play with H anging

c- and d - Pawn s

" Hanging pawns" are two connected pawns on the same rank, not defended by
other pawns. In the Zukertort System, White often goes for play with hanging c- and
d-pawns, as sometimes there is no evident promising action on the kingside against
the black king. And only opening up play in the center, and correspondingly on the
long a l -h8 diagonal, allows him to create real threats against Black's king. I should
add that in addition to the above, central hanging pawns also control key squares in
the center with all the ensuing consequences of this, while on the adjacent half-open
files White can both exert pressure on Black's position and transfer his major pieces
to other sectors of the board. But hanging pawns also have their faults, as they must
be defended with pieces since defense with other pawns is impossible.

Above all, the side with the hanging pawns must ensure their defense , and their
advance must be supported by pieces.

In the Zukertort System, hanging pawns can also be created for Black.

What are the plans for each side in a game featuring hanging pawns?

Play for White:

1 . A pawn breakthrough in the center: d4-d5. In this case it's not only the dark­
squared bishop that gets into play on the long diagonal, but also the d-pawn itself,
sowing confusion in Black's ranks.
2. In the Pillsbury formation, the f-pawn advance (. . .j7-f5) intensifies White's
attack on the kingside.
3. With an advance of the a-pawn (a2-a4-a5), White weakens Black's queenside
with subsequent pressure on his opponent's pawns on this flank. A pawn march to as
is most effective if Black has already played . . . b7-b6.

Play for Black:

I . Pressure on the hanging pawns, and if one of them advances, then a blockade
can be organized.

80
 Chapter 5 . Play with Hanging c- and d - Pawns

2. Accurately situate your pieces so that they're up to the task of meeting White s
breakthrough d4-dS.
3. Undermining White s central hanging pawns with the e- or b-pawns.
4. Simplify the game, as it's easier to exploit the drawbacks of the hanging pawns
in the endgame.

We should point out that if it Black who has the hanging pawns, the plans for each
side are reversed.

A. White Has Hanging c- and d-Pawns

First and foremost, we should note that positions with hanging white pawns can
come out of the Pillsbury setup. In this case White gains additional chances from
letting the f-pawn move, as occurred in the following game:

Tibensky R. - Bouaziz S. 19 . . .l::t eS

Slovakia 1 997
The a3-pawn is untouchable: 19 . . .
I. d4 'll f6 2. 'll fJ e6 3. e3 cS 4 . .t d3 .txa3? 2 0. .t xa3 'fixa3 2 1 . .t xh7+.
dS S. b3 'll c6 6. 0-0 .t d6 7 . .tb2 0-0 S.
QJbd2 'fie7 9. 'll eS .t d7 10. a3 as 1 1 . c4
dxc4 12. bxc4 I:tfdS 13. f4

The Pillsbury setup makes its

appearance.

13 .t eS 14. 'fie2 .tbS IS. 'lithl

•.•

cxd4 16. 'll xc6 .txc6 17. exd4

Here the players have additionally

obtained a position with hanging pawns
in the center. A small peculiarity: the
white f-pawn is also taking part in the
battle for the center, ready to let the rook
through via l:Ifl -fJ-h3 (g3 ) and to serve
as a battering ram on Black's castled
position.
17 .. .l::t d7 IS. :ael .t d6 19. 'fie3
20. dS!
A typical breakthrough in positions
with hanging pawns. It has lots of
benefits: creating a passed pawn, flinging
open the a l -h8 diagonal, and driving
back the black pieces.

Now 1 9 . d5!? already looked good. 20 . . . .t a4

81
Part I. Play for White
20 . . . exd5 is poor because of 2 1 . �h3
�xe l 22 . .lt xf6!.
2 1 . j, xf6 �xf6 22. tZ:l e4
22. �e4!? �g6 (22 . . . g6 23. c5!) 23.
c5! wins even more quickly.
22 . . . �d8 23. f5
Now the f-pawn finds a use for
itself.
23 . . . exdS
He has to part with the exchange.
Anything else is even worse, for example:
23 . . . e5 24. f6 g6 25. �h3 I:!:c7 26. c5 with
an overwhelming advantage.
24. tZ:l f6+ gxf6 2S. �xe8+ �xe8 26.
�xe8+, and White made good on his
material advantage.
The next game is a good example
of the fact that the d4-d5 breakthrough
is White's most effective weapon with
hanging pawns:
Castaneda G. Zaw W. -
Istanbul 2000
1. d4 tZ:l f6 2. tZ:lf3 e6 3. e3 cS 4 . .lt d3
dS S. b3 tZ:l c6 6. 0-0 .lt d6 7 . .ltb2 0-0
8. c4 cxd4 9. exd4 dxc4 10. bxc4 b6 1 1 .
tZ:l bd2
1 1 . tZ:lc3 is good too, but the knight
on d2 has its pluses, in particular as it
defends the c4-pawn, against which
Black's play is often directed.
82
1l . . . .ltb7 12. I:!:e1
Moving the king's rook to e 1 is
good for White not only when he has
hanging pawns, as the rook prevents an
"undermining" move by Black's e-pawn
and reinforces the d4-d5 breakthrough;
but also when his opponent has hanging
pawns, as it supports the undermining
of Black's center pawns with the move
e3-e4, and moreover, if Black's queen
is on e7, then the breakthrough . . . d5 -d4
is generally impossible because of the
opposition of the rook and the queen.
12 ... .lt e7 13. �c1 �c8 14. a3 �e8
IS. tZ:l n �c7
16. dS!
Once White has properly situated
his pieces it's the right time for decisive
action, especially as the tactics also
support this course.
16 . . . �d7
16 . . .exd5 17 . .lt xf6 gxf6 ( l 7 . . . .lt xf6 is
no better, for example I S . I:!:xeS+ �xeS
19. cxd5) I S . cxd5 I:!:d7 ( l S . . . tZ:l e5 1 9.
 Chapter 5 . Play with Hanging c- and d- Pawns
t'll xeS fxeS [ 1 9 . . J::t xc l 20. �g4+ with
a quick mate] 20. �hS, and Black is
hardly likely to escape) :
1 9 . dxc6! J::t xd3 20. �xd3 �xd3 2 1 .
cxb7 �d7 22. J::t c B l:xcB 23. :txe7! and
after this impressive move the game
switches to a purely technical phase,
albeit a long one.
17. �e2 exdS
l7 ...t'll aS lB. t'll gS with a strong attack.
18. i. xf6 gxf6
White ultimately won the game , but
19. t'll h4! ? was the strongest move here,
for example 19 . . . dxc4 20. i. xh7+ ! and
mate is not far off.
In the next game White went for a
sacrifice of a central pawn:
Kova�evic V. Popovic P.
- i. b 1 was more stubborn, but then again
Zagreb 1 9B5
1. d4 t'll f6 2. t'll fJ e6 3. e3 cS 4. i. d3
dS S. b3 �aS+
This early queen sortie is covered in
Part II, Chapter S.
6. c3 t'll c6 7. 0-0 i. e7 8. i.b2 �c7!?
9. c4!?
Directed against ... e6-eS, and with
the opening of the c-file when the
opportunity arises, then the queen on c7
will feel uncomfortable.
9 . . . cxd4
Another direction of play is 9 . . . dxc4
1 0 . bxc4.
10. exd4 dxc4 I I . bxc4 0-0 12. t'll bd2
b6 13. J::t c 1 i.b7
So there's a position with hanging
pawns on the board, somewhat different
from that in the previous game , but the
strategy of play is mostly the same: open
up the center with d4-dS , even if this
requires a pawn sacrifice.
14. :tel
In the following game a pin on the
c-file and the weakness of the eighth
rank served as a basis for the d4-dS
breakthrough: 1 4. �e2 l:fdB I S . J::t fe l
:tacB? (it was necessary to move the
queen away, with l S . . . �f4, from the
dangerous opposition of the white rook
on c 1 , as happened in the game under
investigation) 1 6. dS! exdS ( 1 6 . . . t'll b4 l 7.
you wouldn't envy Black here, either) 1 7.
i. xfO i. xfO l B . cxdS t'll d4 ( 1 B . . . J::t xdS?
1 9. �eB+!) 1 9. �e4 t'll e2+ 20. �xe2,
and in the game Voinov A. Guseva 0 . ,
-
83
Part I. Play for White
Ufa 2004, White won a piece and with it
the game.
14 .. J::t ad8 15 . .ilbl 'iVf4!?
16. d5?!
In this game the advance d4-dS
doesn't yield immediate dividends.
Before moving a pawn you should
always remember Nimzowitsch's
advice: " If you intend to advance one
of your hanging pawns, don't do it
until you can see at least a hint of the
initiative in the new position that arises
as a result of the advance ; there's never
any reason to subject yourself to the
danger of a complete and hopeless
blockade . . . . " But here White even
sacrifices a pawn!
White played more circumspectly in
the following game and obtained good
chances on the kingside: 1 6. a3 IIfe8 1 7 .
'iV c 2 'iVh6 1 8 . IIcd l .il d6 1 9. h 3 .il b 8 20.
tiJ e4 tiJe7 2 1 . dS tiJ xe4 22. IIxe4 tiJ fS
23. l::t g4 (Markus R. Panman H . , corr.
- development of his queenside. I should
Netherlands 1 997).
16 ... exd5 17. cxd5 tiJ xd5
84
After 17 .. J::t xdS !? White may have
regretted the fact that he rushed the
breakthrough in the center, as 1 8 . l:txc6
doesn't work because of l 8 . . . .il xc6 1 9 .
l::t xe7 IIfd8, nor does 1 8 . II c 4 because of
1 8 . . . 'iVxc4.
18. l::t c4 'iVd6 19. tiJ e4 'iVh6
Black doesn't want to move the
queen away to a safer place that's further
from the king. After 1 9 . . . 'iVb8 this
variation is possible: 20. tiJg3 IIfe8 (20 . . .
tiJ e 3 i s nothing for White t o worry about
because of 2 1 . .il xh7+ 'it' h8 [2 1 . . .'it' xh7
22. 'iVb 1 + ] 22. 'iVc l tiJ xc4 23 . .il xg7+!
with an irresistible attack) 2 1 . 'iVc2 g6
22. IIxc6 ± .
2 0. .il c l 'iVg6 2 1 . .il d2 f5 22. tiJ g3
'it' h8 23. 'iVb3
23. 'iVc 1 .
23 . . . .il a8 24. h3 .il c5?!
In the end Black can't stand the
tension and makes a blunder.
25. tiJ xf5! l:txf5 26. l:txc5 bxc5 27.
tiJ h4 with an advantage for White.
In the next example, despite the
absence of White's dark-squared bishop,
the central pawn breakthrough d4-dS
doesn't lose its strength, especially as
Black dilly-dallied somewhat with the
also point out that developing the
queen's knight to c3 has its advantages
in comparison with developing it to d2.
 Chapter 5 . Play with Hanging c- and d- Pawns
Conquest S. Hra�ek Z.
- i. xb2 1 2 . 'Wixb2 dxc4 1 3 . bxc4 �d8 1 4.
Germany 1 996
1. d4 tiJ f6 2. tiJf3 e6 3. e3 cS 4. i. d3
tiJc6 S. 0-0 dS 6. b3 i. d6 7. i. b2 'Wie7
8. c4
If White tries to stop the black
e-pawn from advancing ( " a fruitful
opening idea, " as Tartakover put it;
see Part I I , Chapter 9) with 8. tiJ e5 , or
after 8 . . . 0-0 to prevent the Capablanca
maneuver ( Part I I , Chapter 8) by
continuing 9. a3 , then Black can
follow Max Euwe 's recommendation
9 . . . tiJ d7 ! ? , and on 1 0 . f4 play 1 0 . . . f6 ,
forcing White t o give u p the e5 square.
8 . . . 0-0 9. tiJ c3
On c3 the knight is good not only
because it's closer to the center, but
also because it supports the d-pawn 's
movement.
9 . . . cxd4
Black's attempt after 9 . . . dxc4 1 0 .
bxc4 t o free up his play with 1 0 . . . e 5? ! is
dubious. In Castaneda G. - Volokitin
A. , S widnica 1 998, White obtained an
edge with 1 1 . tiJ d5 tiJ xd5 1 2 . cxd5 e4 1 3 .
dxc6.
10. exd4 dxc4
In Yusupov A. - Schlosser P. ,
Germany 1 997, in contrast to the main
game White decided to arrange his
major pieces differently with the queen
on b2 and the queen's rook on d 1 . The
game continued 1O . . . i. a3 1 1 . 'Wic l
�ad l b6:
1 5 . d5! (hesitating over advancing
the d-pawn allows Black to complete his
development, when the forward thrust
won't be as effective, if it's even possible
at all) 1 5 . . . tiJ a5 ( 1 5 . . . exd5 1 6. tiJ xd5
tiJxd5 1 7 . cxd5 tiJ a5 1 8 . � fe l 'Wid6 1 9.
tiJg5 with the initiative) 16 . � fe l 'Wic5
17. tiJ e4 tiJ xe4 1 8 . i. xe4 i.b7 (White
also has a strong attack after 1 8 . . . tiJ xc4
1 9 . 'Wie2 �b8 20. tiJg5) 19 . tiJg5! h6 ( 1 9 . . .
g6? 20. 'Wif6 �fS 2 1 . tiJ xh7!) 20. i. h7+
'it> h8 (20 ... 'it> fS is no use either because
of 2 1 . tiJ xf7! 'it> xf7 22. 'Wie5) 2 1 . tiJ xf7+
'it> xh7 22. �c2+ \t>g8 (22 . . . g6 23. �xe6
�g8 24. 'Wic l 'WifS 25. l:e7!) 23. tiJ xh6+!
gxh6 24. 'Wig6+ 'it> fS 25. 'Wixh6+ 'it>g8
26. 'Wig6+ 'it>fS 27. 'Wif6+ 'it>g8 28. l:e5,
and Black waved the white flag.
1 1 . bxc4 i. a3
After opening up the a l -h8 diagonal ,
White 's dark-squared bishop becomes
extremely dangerous, so Black judges
that it's good to trade it off. In this case
there is also more room for the black
pieces.
85
Part I . Play for White
12. !:i:bl
1 2 . �c 1 !? as in Yusupov - Schlosser,
giving the queen's rook the subsequent
opportunity to occupy d 1 in support of
the d-pawn, doesn't look bad.
12 . . . itxb2 13. l:Ixb2 IIdS
The main difficulty in this type
of position for Black, and one often
encountered in different branches of the
Queen 's Gambit, is that his queenside's
development is held up. That's why very
often he doesn't manage to prepare for
White 's breakthrough in the center.
14. !:i: e l b6
IS. dS!? Cb aS 16. �bl �d6
Black shies away from opposing
the white rook. The attempt to finish
queenside development after 16 . . . itb7
17. !:i:be2 !:i:ac8 1 8 . it f5 IIxc4 (on 18 . . .
Cbxc4 there follows 1 9. l:Ixe6! fxe6 20.
it xe6+ 'it h8 2 1 . itxc8 with a big plus for
White) 1 9 . dxe6 itxf3 20. exf7+ �xf7
2 1 . it e6 leads to a material advantage
for White.
86
White stays on top after 16 . . . it a6, for
example 1 7 . Cbb5 �d7 1 8 . Cbe5.
17. Cb gS g6
White is also better after 1 7 . . . h6 1 8 .
it h7+ 'it fS 1 9. Cb xf7 ( 1 9. dxe6) 1 9 . . .
'it xf7 20. IIbe2.
IS. dxe6! �xd3 19. e7 IId7?
19 .. J::t d4 20. e8�+ Cb xe8 2 1 . I:txe8+
'itg7 22. �e1 is preferable, although
White has strong threats in this case too.
20. Cb dS!
There are no questions left after this
strong move - the outcome of the game
is clear.
White should be careful going into
a position with hanging pawns, because
Black can also attack, especially as his
bishops are often aimed at the white
king's castled position. In the next
game White evidently forgot about this
warning and the ex-world champion
created another masterpiece:
Gavrikov V. Smyslov V.
-
Moscow 1 985
1 . d4 dS 2. Cb rJ Cb f6 3. e3 e6 4. it d3
cS S. b3 Cb c6 6. itb2 it d6 7. 0-0 �c7
S. a3 b6
For 8 . . . e5!? see Hoffman A. -
Hernando J . , Internet 2000, in the notes
to Omearat A. - Sadvakasov D . , Dubai
2002 ( Part I I , Chapter 9).
 Chapter 5 . Play with Hanging c- and d- Pawns
9. c4 i.b7 10. ClJ c3 a6 1 1 . � e l
In this pawn structure, it's very
important to get established in the
center in a timely manner, as the central
exchange determines who will play with
the hanging or isolated pawns. So when
you're maintaining the tension in the
center don't forget that that tension
can also give you a shock. Therefore it's
better to offer to discharge it yourself.
So, for example , after 1 1 . dxc5 bxc5 1 2.
cxd5 exd5 a position similar to the one
in the game Petrosian T. - Razuvaev
Y. , Moscow 1 98 3 , arises, with several
differences: 1 ) Black still hasn't castled
- a time factor; 2) the black queen is
on c7, which isn't a good idea with the
white rook on c 1 (true , on the other
hand its position on c7 creates a battery
directed at White 's castled position) ;
3) there's already a white pawn on a3 ,
which means that Black has no knight
hop to b4 with a tempo, and White is
prepared for the thematic undermining
of the hanging pawns with b2-b4. And
if you take into account the fact that in
the game we 're looking at White's play
could have been stronger, then God
himself would order you to go into this
position!
1 1 . cxd4!?
.•
Black was first to sense the "moment
of truth" and exchanges pawns in the
center.
12. exd4 0-0 13. ClJ a4 i. f4 14.
ClJ eS?!
Before setting up the knight on
e5 (or, for Black, on e4) you should
always consider the possibility that your
opponent might take on e5, changing
the pawn structure in the center. So, for
example, in the Zukertort System after
the white d-pawn moves to e5, control
over c5 disappears, at which square the
second knight could aim. The problem
of exchanging pieces on e5 is relevant
with various pawn structures: see Part II,
Chapter 13. Evidently White should have
opted for 14. c5, for example: 14 ... b5 ( 1 4 ...
bxc5 1 5. ClJxc5) 1 5 . ClJb6 �ae8 16. i. c 1 !?
with obvious pluses in White's position.
14 ••• dxc4 IS. bxc4
A position with hanging pawns has
arisen momentarily, only to sink into
oblivion on the next move.
IS •.. ClJ xeS 16. dxeS
Black not only breaks up White's
hanging pawns, which in itself is
beneficial to him, but also switches to
the counterattack.
16 ....�Vc6 17. i. fl?
White is playing "solidly, " refusing
to weaken his castled position. But it's
87
Part I . Play for White
precisely the game move that allows
Black to develop a very strong attack.
After 1 7 . f3 ClJg4 instead, we have a
double-edged position on the board.
17 .. JUdS IS. �b3
All other queen retreats also lead to
advantage for Black.
IS . . . ClJ g4
White already has no defense, and
his next move allows Black to end the
game beautifully.
19. h3
19 . . J:td3!!
An unexpected addition of the rook
to the attack on White 's king. There's
even a word in German chess slang for
this rook maneuver with its turn towards
the flank: Schwenkungsmanover.
20. �xb6
20. �xd3 .t h2+ 2 1 . 'iii h i ClJ xf2+
-+ . 9 . . . cxd4!? 10. exd4 ClJ c6 l l . �e2
88
2 0 . . . l::t xh 3! 2 1 . .t d4
2 1 . �xc6 leads to mate: 2 1 . . . .t h2+
22. 'iii h i ClJ xf2. But now the bishop's
windmill maneuver decides:
2 1 . . . .t h2+ 22. 'iii hi .txeS+, and
White decided to stop the windmill
without waiting for the obvious: 23. 'iii g I
.t h2+ 24. 'iii h l .t c7+.
In the game we have just examined,
Black chose an auspicious moment to
break up White's hanging pawns. But in
the ensuing struggle White can still gain
the upper hand, and chess history has
seen such cases, for example the game
Portisch L. - Simagin V. , Budapest
1 96 1 .
I n the next game Black exploits
the inadequate defense of one of the
hanging pawns (White had brought his
knight out to c3 instead of d2, from
where he could have solidly defended
the c4-pawn) , and White had to
choose between losing the c4-pawn
and weakening his castled king. White
chose the latter in Franco Z. - Sokolov
A. , Pamplona 1 994:
1. d4 dS 2. ClJO ClJ f6 3. e3 e6 4 . .t d3
� d6 S. b3 b6 6 . .t b2 � b7 7. 0-0 0-0 S.
c4 cS 9. ClJ c3
An invitation by Black to create his
own hanging pawns deserves attention:
9. cxd5!? But here Black doesn't mind
White having the hanging pawns.
 Chapter 5 . Play with Hanging c- and d - Pawns

If you don't want to play with hanging llJ d4!) IS ... llJ xeS 1 6 . llJ xeS l:txeS 1 7 .
pawns, then you can play 1 1 . cxdS, but �d2 � h S ( 1 7 . . .� e 8 ) 1 8 . iJ.. xh7+ �xh7
then you shouldn't think about any kind 1 9 . �xd6 �xd6 20. �xd6 l:txc4 =.

of advantage. With the text move White prevents the

thematic undermining of the hanging
I I . . J:t e8 pawns, as will become evident from the
notes to the next move.
1 1 . . .dxc4 1 2 . bxc4 �c8 1 3 . �ad l
(this game reached the current position 13 llJ b4
•••

via a different move order, but at this

particular moment we're interested in Now 1 3 . . . dxc4 14. bxc4 eS no longer
how play goes with hanging pawns) works because of I S . dxeS llJ xeS 1 6.
1 3 . . .tlJ b4 ( 1 3 . . . a6? leads to the loss of llJ xeS �xeS 1 7. iJ.. xh7+ llJ xh7 1 8 . �xeS
a pawn: 14. cS! iJ.. c7 [the opposition iJ.. xeS 19. �xd8 + �xd8 20. :axeS, and
of White's rook and Black's queen White is a pawn up.
prevent him from accepting the pawn
sacrifice 14 . . . bxcS? because of I S . dxcS 14. iJ.. b l
iJ.. xcS 1 6. iJ.. xh7+] I S . iJ.. xa6 iJ.. xa6 1 6 .
�xa6, Janowski D. - Kostic 8 . , New 14. cxdS llJ fxdS favors Black, a s does
York 1 9 1 8) 14. iJ.. b l iJ.. xf3! I S . gxf3 ( 1 S . 14. llJ eS llJxd3 I S . � xd3 iJ.. a6.
�xf3 drops the c4-pawn) I S . . . iJ.. b 8 (a
hesitation; the software immediately 14 . . . dxc4 15. bxc4
gives the following variation: I S . . . llJ fdS!
16. llJ xdS [ 1 6. cxdS? �gS+ 17. � h l �f4
- + ] 1 6 . . . llJ xdS 1 7 . �e4 �gS+ 1 8 . �g4
� h6 1 9 . h4 �xc4 with a huge advantage
for Black. After the move in the game ,
though, White, having sacrificed a
pawn, succeeded in straightening out
his position, and the game dragged
on for a long time.) 1 6. a3 �c7 1 7 . f4
( 1 7. �eS �xc4) 1 7 . . . �xf4 1 8 . f3 llJ c6
19. llJ e4 with compensation for the
pawn, Tarrasch S. - Nimzowitsch A. ,
Hamburg 1 9 1 0 .
15 iJ.. xf3 !?
•..

12. l:tadl �c8 13. l:tfe l

White could take control o f b 4 with
1 3 . a3 , but the position is equalized
after 1 3 . . . dxc4 ( 1 3 . . . llJ aS 1 4. cS!) 14.
bxc4 eS!?, for example IS. dxeS ( I S . dS?
Black starts typical play for this class
of position, to which both players ofboth
White and Black should pay attention.
16. gxf3

89
Part I. Play for White
The pawn sacrifice 1 6. �xf3 !:Ixc4
looks dubious. This kind of pawn
structure (after 1 6. gxf3) has been
encountered again and again. But in this
game Black put his bishop on d6 right
away, and not on e7, thus winning an
important tempo for intensifying the
pressure on the h2-b8 diagonal. Black's
subsequent play serves as a template
for the struggle against an opponent's
hanging pawns.
16 . . . .tbS 17. l'iJ e4 l'iJ hS IS. l'iJ g3
l'iJ f4 19. �n
19 . . . bS!?
Without waiting for the automatic
advance of the white pawn with d4-
d5, Black starts playing according to
the idea that undermining the hanging
pawns with the b-pawn is one of the
most effective weapons in the battle
against them.
20. dS
Black meets 20. a3 with 20 ... bxc4!? 2 1 .
axb4 c3; and on the principled 20. cxb4
the simple 20 . . . l'iJ c2 doesn't look bad.
90
20 . . . bxe4 2 1 . dxe6 l'iJbd3, and Black
enjoys a large advantage. The game
ended fairly quickly: 22. exf6+ W xf1
23. !:IxeS �xeS 24 . .t c 1 .t eS 2S . .txf4
l'iJ xf4 26 . .t fS l:te7 27. �el g6 2S . .t e2
�e6 29. l'iJ e4 W g7 30. �aS W h6 1 -0.
Continuing the discussion that was
started by the previous game:
Peralta F. Panno O.
-
Villa Ballester 200 1
1 . d4 dS 2. l'iJ rJ l'iJ f6 3. e3 e6 4 . .t d3
eS S. b3 l'iJ e6 6 . .t b2 .t e7 7. 0-0 0-0 S.
e4 exd4 9. exd4 b6
In Kosic D. - Krivokapic M . ,
Budapest 2007, Black essayed an
early knight sortie to b4 to make it
difficult for White to arrange his pieces
conveniently: 9 . . . l'iJ b4 10 . .te2 b6 1 1 .
l'iJe5 .t b7 1 2 . l'iJ c3 dxc4 1 3 . bxc4 l:tc8,
with a complicated game.
10. l'iJ e3 .tb7
A tabiya located at the intersection
of ECD E 1 4 and the Zukertort System.
I I . �e2
1 1 . !:Ic 1 is played more often, so
that after the knight attacks the bishop
it is possible to retreat to b 1 without
shutting in the queen's rook: 1 1 . . .!:Ic8
1 2. a3 (in the game GnStarsson H . -
Salmensuu 0 . , Reykjavik 2000, Black
played as in Franco - Sokolov, but at
the crucial moment couldn't find the
way to victory: 1 2 . �e2 l'iJ b4 1 3 . .t b l
 Chapter 5 . Play with Hanging c- and d- Pawns
dxc4 1 4. bxc4 .t xf3 I S . gxf3 .t d6 1 6 .
W h l lll hS [up till now it's all going
the way Sokolov played it] 1 7 . �e4 fS
[ 1 7 . . . g6] 1 8 . �xe6+ W h8 1 9 . .t xfS ,
and in this position Black obtained a
decisive advantage with the move 1 9 . . .
�h4!?, i.e. 20. �xd6 I:txfS 2 1 . �xb4
�h3 with a mating attack; in the game
Keres - Smyslov, Zurich 1 9S 3 , White
decided not to part with the c4-pawn:
12. lIe l [ I n the run-up to . . . lll c6-b4,
White prepares the fl square for his
light-squared bishop, from where it
will look after the c4-pawn, as before .
But there 's a drawback to this piece
configuration: the bishop has left the
strategic diagonal. ] 1 2 . . . lll b4 1 3 . .t fl
[Mter 1 3 . .t b l Black boldly takes the
c4-pawn with 1 3 . . . dxc4 1 4. bxc4 l:hc4
I S . dS lll bxdS 1 6. �d3 l::t g4! ? (Black
switches to counterattack) 1 7 . lll e2,
and in this position from Payen A.
- Sammalvuo T. , Helsinki 2002, with
17 . . . lll f4!? Black tipped the balance
in his favor: 1 8 . lll xf4 �xd3 1 9. lll xd3
Ji xf3 ] 1 3 . . . lll e4 1 4 . a3 [in Zeller F. -
Slobodjan R. , Dudweiler 1 996, Black
obtained an attacking position after
inaccuracies from both sides: 1 4. lll eS
JigS I S . lI a l .t h4?! 1 6. lll xe4 dxe4 1 7 .
a3 lll a6 1 8 . b 4 (l8. �g4) 1 8 . . . lll b8 1 9 .
�a4 f6 20. lll g4 h S 2 1 . lll e3 fS 22. g3
.tgS 23. dS?! f4! with an attack] 14 . . .
llJxc3 I S . lIxc3 [one small thing was
lacking for the queen's rook to get to
the kingside: taking the knight away
from f3 and , of course , from eS] I S . . .
llJ c6 1 6 . lll eS lll xeS 1 7 . lIxeS .t f6 1 8 .
l:thS [White is threatening to carry out
the "dream plan , " when the first shot
will be fired by the hS-rook: 1 9. lI h7!
'it h7 20. �hS 'iiJ g8 2 1 . l:[h3; Smyslov's
next move is aimed at preventing his
opponent's crafty ideas] 1 8 . . . g6 1 9 .
lI 3h3 dxc4:
[The decisive moment in the
game in David Bronstein's eyewitness
commentary to this event: " Smyslov's
intuition hadn't deceived him, he
made the best move, as analysis
subsequently proved. But how did he
come to it? What is the mechanism of
grandmasters' intuition, if we can put
it like that? Of course, the move in the
game arose as a result of a deep study
of the position. First, Black has opened
up the diagonal for his bishop and has
created the opportunity to transfer it via
e4 to f5 or g6. Secondly, the d-file has
opened and the opportunity has arisen,
by placing the queen on dS, to attack the
g2 square or simply take the d4-pawn.
Thirdly, a passed pawn has materialized
on the c-file for an instant, which can
advance to c3 and cut off the diagonal
for the dangerous bishop . . . Meanwhile
the rook is out of the battle, and now
the main threat of . . . g6xhS has become
realistic. If, for example, 20. bxc4,
then 20 . . .gxhS 2 1 .�xhS .t e4. I wonder
what would happen if Black took the
91
Part I. Play for White
rook immediately, though? Wouldn't
he be saved after 19 . . . gxh5 20. �xh5
l:te8, opening up a gap for his king to
escape through? It turns out that White
would cut otT his path with the sneaky
maneuver 2 1 . a4! ! threatening j,b2-a3.
For example: 2 1 . .. �d6 {21. . . dxc4 22.
�xh 7+ rt;f8 23. j, a3+ l:I e 7 24. l:Ig3} 22.
c5 and then: 22 . . . bxc5 {22. . . � d8 23. c6
l:txc6 24. j, a3 l:t d6 25. �h6 j,xd4 26.
j, d3; 22. . . �f4 23. �xh 7+ 'lttf8 24. cxb6
j,xd4 25. 'fJ./3 �x/3 26. j, a3+ j, c5 27.
j,xc5+} 23. �h6 j,g7 24. �xh7+ 'ltt f8
25. dxc5 . " ] 20. l:txh7 [The tournament
situation forced Keres to reject a
drawing variation: 20. �g4 c3 2 1 . j,xc3
'fJ.xc3 22. 'fJ.xc3 �xd4 23. �xd4 j,xd4
24. 'fJ.c7 gxh5 25. 'fJ.xb7] 20 . . . c3 2 1 . �c l
[2 1 . j, xc3 doesn't work because of 2 1 . . .
l:txc3; nor does 2 1 . j, c l because of 2 1 . . .
�xd4] 2 1 . . . �xd4:
[On 2 1 . . . cxb2? there follows an
elegant combination with a thematic
clearing of a square: 22. �h6 �xd4
23. 'fJ.h8+! j, xh8 24. �h7#] 22. �h6
'fJ.fd8!, and Black has beaten back his
opponent's attack) 12 . . . 'fJ.e8 (After 12 . . .
� d6, White obtains a pawn majority on
the queenside: 1 3 . c5 �b8 [ 1 3 . . .bxc5 1 4.
92
l2lb5 �b8 1 5 . dxc5] 1 4. b4 bxc5 1 5 . dxc5
[ 1 5 . bxc5] 1 5 . . . e5 1 6. j, f5 'fJ.cd8 1 7 . b5
l2l a5 1 8 . l2l a4 l2l c4 1 9 . c6 j, c8 20. j, xe5
�xb5 2 1 . c7 l:tde8 22. l2l c3 with an edge
for White in Djurhuus R. - Bjarnason
S . , Bergen 200 1 . In the next game Black
broke up White's hanging pawns with
a typical method, and the latter also
blundered a pawn away: 12 . . . dxc4 1 3 .
bxc4 l2l a5 1 4 . l2l e5 l2l d7 1 5 . �e2 l2l xe5
1 6 . dxe5 j, c5 1 7. 'fJ.fd l [transferring the
knight to e4 also deserved attention:
1 7 . l2l e4!? �h4 1 8 . l2l d6] 17 . . . �h4
1 8 . l2l e4? [and now this move leads to
the loss of a pawn; the knight's path
to the d6 square went via b5: 1 8 . l2lb5]
18 ... i. xe4 19. j, xe4 j, xf2+! 20. �xf2
�xe4, and subsequently in Gulko B.
- Rashkovsky N., Lvov 1 965, Black
made good on his material advantage.)
1 3 . 'fJ.e l j, f8 14. l2l a4 dxc4 15. bxc4 g6
1 6 . 'fJ.c2 j,g7 (by fianchettoing his dark­
squared bishop, Black has strengthened
his castled position in light of White's
possible center breakthrough with d4-
d5) 1 7 . 'fJ.d2 l2l a5 1 8 . l2le5 l2l d7 1 9 .
j, fl l2l xe5 2 0 . dxe5 � c 7 (in this game,
too, Black manages to break up White's
hanging pawns, but in return the latter
obtains a strong square on d6) 2 1 . l2l c 3
(White could rid himself o f the weak
pawn with 2 1 . c5, for example 2 1 . . . bxc5
22. 'fJ.d7, when to avoid the worst Black
must repeat moves: 22 . . . �c6 23. J:d6
�c7 24. I:td7; although it's true that
Black could avoid this variation with
2 1 . . .'fJ.ed8) 2 1 . .. l2l xc4? (2 1 . . .'fJ.ed8 !?) 22.
l2lb5 �c6 23. l2l xa7, and in Vaganian R.
- Shereshevsky M . , Minsk 1 972, White
obtained an advantage.
1 l . . . l2lb4 12. j,bl
 Chapter 5 . Play with Hanging c- and d- Pawns
In contrast to the previous game ,
here White shuts in the queen's rook
with his bishop retreat.
12 . . . dxc4 13. bxc4
13 . . . Ji.:xf3 14. gxfJ
14. �xf3? �xd4 I S . a3 t'Ll a6 1 6.
�b7?!. White was counting on this
double attack, but Black has foreseen
everything: 1 6 . . . Ji. d6! 1 7 . �xa6?
Ji.xh2+ ! 1 8 . W xh2 �h4+ 1 9 . W g l t'Llg4,
and White can resign, Strater T. - Van
Den Doel E . , Germany 2002.
14 . . . �xd4
14 . . . l:te8 l S . l::t d l g6 1 6. t'Ll e4 I:tc8 1 7 .
a3 t'Ll a6 1 8 . Ji. a2 Ji. f8 1 9 . W h 1 Ji.g7, and
. . . draw, Peralta F. - Volzhin A. , Saint
Vincent 200 1 .
1 4. . .t'Ll hS I S . a3 t'Ll a6 ( l S . . .t'Ll c6?
16. �e4 + - ; lS . . . Ji. d6!? 16. �e4 [ 1 6.
axb4? �gS+ 17. 'iti h 1 �f4 -+ ] 1 6 . . .
fS 1 7 . �xe6+ 'iti h8 1 8 . t'Ll e2 �gS+ 1 9 .
llJg3 [ 1 9. W h l Ji. xh2 - + ] 1 9 . . . Ji. xg3 20.
fxg3 t'Ll xg3, and not only is Black up the
exchange, but he has also destroyed the
white king's pawn cover) 1 6 . �e4 g6 1 7 .
t'Ll e2 Ji. f6 1 8 . Ji. a2 �d7 1 9. l:tad l , and in
Peralta F. - Mellano S . , Punta del Este
200 1 , White snuffed out Black's attack
on the kingside.
15. t'Ll e4 �d8
l S . . . �d7 1 6. t'Ll xf6+ gxf6 ( l 6 . . . Ji.xf6
1 7 . Ji.xf6 gxf6 1 8 . Ji.xh7+ Wg7 19 . W h 1
l:th8, with unclear play, i s better, as after
1 8 . . . Wxh7 19 . �e4+ , the move 1 9 . . . f5? is
bad because of 20. �h4+ Wg7 2 1 . �gS+
W h7 22. W h l �d8 23. �hS+ Wg7 24.
l:tad 1 , and White obtains a solid material
advantage; while if Black doesn't cover
the check with 1 9 . . . f5, then White's
strong attack also persists).) 1 7. W h l
eS, and now i n Litwin J . - Korosciel A. ,
Polanica Zdr6j 200S , White won quickly
with 1 8 . f4!?, i.e. 1 8 . . . �h3 1 9. l:tg l +
'iti h8 20. l:tg3 �h6 2 1 . Ji.f5.
16. l:t dl � c 7 17. t'Llxf6+ Ji. xf6
1 7 . . . gxf6 is bad, for example 1 8 .
W h 1 �f4 1 9 . l:tg 1 + � h8 20. l:tg4, and
in Danieli E. - Mosca L. , Venice 1 997,
Black resigned due to the following
variation: 20 .. :�h6 2 1 . �e4 l:tad8 22.
�xh7+!.
93
Part I. Play for White
IS . .fd. xh7+
1 8 . .fd.xf6 gxf6 1 9 . .fd. xh7+ Wg7 ( 1 9 . . .
W xh7 i s poor because of 20. �e4+ and
Black can't avoid large material losses)
20. l:td4 (Black is slightly better after
20 . .fd. e4 l:th8) 20 .. J:th8 2 1 . l::t g 4+ W f8
22. �b2 (22. f4 l::t x h7 23. �e4) 2 2 . . .
:xh7 (22 . . . a5) 2 3 . �xb4+ �c5 24.
�d2 with a more pleasant major-piece
ending for Black, Grigorian K. -
Karpov A. , USSR Championship,
Moscow 1 976.
18 ... Wxh7? 19. �e4+ Wg8 20 . .fd. xf6
-
+ .
19 . .fd. e4
White started to attack in Roche W.
- Cafferty B . , COIT. England 1 9 5 8 . , but
had to resign after 1 9 . .fd. xf6 gxf6 20.
�e3? �c5.
19 . . . IIadS 20. f4 IIxd l + 21. �xd l
W gS 2 2 . .fd. xf6 �xf4 2 3. .fd. e7 �xe4 2 4.
.fd. xb4, and White's material advantage
should bring him victory.
It's also a good idea to know some
tactical methods that are encountered
in these kinds of positions.
Bogdanovich G. Randt K. -H.
- square by Black with 1 3 . . . tlJ e4 drops a
Leipzig 2003
1. d4 dS 2. tlJfJ e6 3. e3 cS 4. b3 tlJ f6
S. i. d3 i. e7 6. 0-0 0-0 7. tlJbd2 b6 S.
� b2 i.b7 9. tlJ eS tlJbd7 10. �fJ
94
We've already seen the transfer
of the queen via �d 1 -f3-h3 in our
examination of the Pillsbury formation.
This maneuver can also be undertaken
without the move f2-f4, and with this
there is a disguised Bogolyubov trap,
which has already been discussed above.
10 . . . IIeS 1 1 . �h3
White wants to win a pawn with
tlJ e5xd7 and d4xc5, when Black has
no time to reply . . . b6xc5 because of the
threat of .fd. b2xf6, and the h7-pawn is
left undefended.
1 1 . . . tlJ fS
Black has figured out White's idea,
and guards the h7-pawn.
12. l:tadl
White now doesn't rule out the
possibility of playing with hanging
pawns, in which case the rook is well
placed on d I .
1 2. . . a6 13. tlJ dfJ
Threatening 14. tlJg5 with sights on
the weakness at fl.
13 ... tlJ 6d7
Automatic occupation of the e4
pawn, as the Bogolyubov trap continues
to work, for example: 14. dxc5 tlJ xc5
(the location of White's queen's rook on
d 1 doesn't allow Black to take the white
c5-pawn with the bishop or with the b-
 Chapter 5 . Play with Hanging c- and d- Pawns

pawn, as the opposition of the rook and
the queen makes itself felt: 14 . . . bxcS I S .
i.xe4 ffi 1 6 . i. xh7+ !). But now Black
falls out of the frying pan into the fire :
I S . � h S ! (the absence of a rook on f8
is having an effect: there 's nothing to
defend the f7 square with - it can only
be covered, but that doesn't help) I S . . .
g6 ( l S . . .tl:Jg6 1 6. QJ xf7! � xf7 1 7 . �xh7,
with a rout, is also bad) 16. QJ xf7!! (see
Yusupov - Scheeren, Plovdiv 1 9 8 3 ,
above) :
the kingside attack with play in the
center.
14 . . . cxd4 15. exd4 dxc4 16. bxc4
White very much wanted to relieve
the central tension and play with hanging
pawns, as with this kind of white piece
configuration their breakthrough in the
center greatly strengthens the attack on
the kingside.
16 . . . QJ xe5 17. QJ xe5 il. f6 18. �fe l
QJ g6 1 9 . QJ g4 .lt e7

Typically for a situation with hanging

pawns, Black could have prevented
White's pawn breakthrough in the
center with the undermining move
1 9 . . . bS!?, even if it meant sacrificing a
pawn , for example 20. cxbS axbS 2 1 .
.lt xbS � f8 , and now White needs to be
careful.

1 6 ... �xf7 ( l 6 ...gxhS can't be played

because of mate: 17. QJ h6) 1 7 . .ltxg6+! (by
sacrificing two pieces, White clears a path
to the enemy king for his queen and dark­
squared bishop. 1 7 ... hxg6 18. �h8 eS (after
18 ... .ltffi 19. QJgS+! �e7 20 . .ltxffi+ , White
reaches the black queen) 19. QJ xeS+ � e6,
and in this position White can choose
between continuing to play for mate
with 20. c4, or simply taking the black
queen without risk after 20. �g8 or 20.
�h3 followed by a knight fork on f7. 20. d5!

14. c4 It's time!

Black has covered all the approaches 20 . . . exd5 2 1 . cxd5 il. d6?
to his king, so White decides to support

95
Part I. Play for White
Black loses control over f6, a
circumstance which White exploits
immediately; 2 1 . . . � d6 was better. White
has the advantage in this case too, but he
still has to prepare the field for decisive
action. After the game move, there's no
more need to think about that - just to
act.
22 . .l:xeS+
With this Zwischenzug the black
queen is deflected from the defense
of the f6 square, after which White
undertakes a combination that's typical
when an opponent has a shattered
castled position.
22 . . . �xeS 23. i. xg7!
After this bishop sacrifice, the f6 and
h6 squares become accessible to White's
queen and knight. Black is defenseless.
23 . . . 'it> xg7 is met by the trivial 24.
�h6+ 'it> h8 25. tZJf6.
2 4 . I:t e l �b4
96
On 24 . . . W xg7, White wins with 25.
�h6+ 'it> h8 26 . .lt xg6 fxg6 27. tZJ f6.
2S. !:tbl �f4? 26. tZJ f6+, and Black
resigned, as on 26 . . . 'it> xg7 there follows
27. tZJ hS+. White didn't reinvent the
wheel in this game , as you can confirm
by taking a look at Ingbrandt J. -
Bengtsson B . , Sweden 1 985, in Part I I ,
Chapter 6 .
In the game Miles A . - Muresan M . ,
Dubai 1 986, White didn't even have to
move his center pawns, he could decide
the outcome of the battle with a banal
tactic, first provoking a weakness in the
vicinity of Black's king:
1. d4 dS 2. tZJrJ tZJ f6 3. e3 e6 4 . .lt d3
eS S. b3 tZJ e6 6. 0-0 a6 7. tZJ bd2 exd4?!
Black is playing illogically, in my
opinion. Black usually links the move
. . . a7-a6 with a pawn attack on the
queenside, but after the exchange on
d4 there is no more talking about that;
see Part I I , Chapter 6. It does prevent
check by the white bishop on b5 after a
possible . . . tZJ c6-b4, but Black never did
carry out that maneuver. Black usually
ties the exchange on d4 in with a bishop
check on b4; see Part I I , Chapter 1 2 .
But Black couldn't carry this out either.
White can only welcome Black's play
here .
S. exd4 .lt e7 9. i. b2 0 - 0 1 0 . e 4 dxe4
I I . bxc4 .lt d7 12 . .l: e l .l:eS 13. !:tel
There 's no need to be in a hurry
here. As has already been said, above all
 Chapter 5 . Play with Hanging c- and d- Pawns

the side with the hanging pawns must

support them with pieces.

13 .. J:te8 14. ttJ e5 �b6 15. � a l

�cd8 1 6 . ttJ df3 h6

Black didn't want the white knight

to get to g5 , but with her last move she
weakened the castled king's position.
Now White starts building a � +�
battery on the b l -h7 diagonal with the
subsequent elimination of the ffi-knight,
either by means of d4-d5 and � xf6,
o r with the maneuver ttJe5-g4, after
which the h7 square is left undefended.
Whereupon Black has to play . . . g7 -g6 to
cover the dangerous diagonal, further
weakening the position of the castled
king. Here it's relevant to recall the
law of "vibration of the chessboard"
formulated by Tartakover: "every square
can be responsible for the weakness of
any other square!" The move . . . h7-h6
provoked a weakness in the other squares
in the castled position of the black king.
17. � b l � a3 18. l::i: c3 � b4 19.
ttJxd7 �xd7 20. l::i: b3 � d8 21. �e2 � e7
22. �c2
White has created a threat: d4-d5 ,
.li a l xffi, and White's queen drops in on
the black monarch's position.
23. h3
White can already play 23. �xe6!?
ttJ b4 (23 . . . fxe6 24. �xg6+ \t>f8 25.
�xh6+ \t>g8 26. �g6+ \t> f8 27. d5
with a victorious attack) 24. �e2 fxe6
25. �xe6+ \t>g7 26. d5, and Black is
hardly likely to hold onto her material
advantage, while White's threats are
very dangerous, for example 26 . . . ttJ bxd5
(if Black doesn't destroy her opponent's
infantry strike force in the center, then
White will carry out his own dark deeds
on the kingside unhindered) 27. �xg6!
�f8 28. cxd5 :C:xd5 29. � c2 �d7 30.
�e4 �f7 3 1 . �g6+ \t>f8 32. �xh6+.
23... ttJh7, and in this position White
could now take the e6-pawn without fear:

22 . . . g6

Black cuts off the dangerous

diagonal, but at the same time further
weakens the position of the castled king.
Now the only thing that has to be done is
to deflect the f7 -pawn , the only defender
of its colleague on g6:

97
Part I. Play for White
24. l:xe6!?, as after 24 . . . fxe6 2S.
1/i xg6 + Black is mated. In the Zukertort
System, Black has to try not to move the
pawns on the kingside unnecessarily.
Remember the warning of the wisest
player in the whole of chess history,
Tartakover: "The gods themselves are
powerless against weaknesses!"
In opening theory, there are
fundamental games that are sometimes
relied on for a very long time, as the
problems of that variation are so deeply
illuminated in them. And if in addition
they take place between great players,
the amount of attention paid to them
should be commensurate:
Keres P. Taimanov M.
- 2 1 . ii. a3 :tfdS 22. l:tcd l 1/ieS 23. tl:l f3
Moscow 1 9S 1
1 . d4 dS 2. tl:l fJ tl:lf6 3. e3 e6 4. ii. d3
cS S. b3 ii. e7 6. ii. b2 tl:l c6 7. 0-0 b6 8.
c4 ii.b7
This position can be reached via
different move orders, for example ECO
codes E 1 4 or A47.
98
9. tl:l c3 dxc4 10. bxc4 cxd4 1 1 . exd4
0-0 12. 1/i e2
It made sense first to put the queen's
rook on c l , so that after . . . tl:l c6-b4
the bishop to b 1 could retreat without
blocking the rook: 1 2 . :te l l:tcs (In the
following game Black made a clever
king move , creating a threat to the d4-
pawn: 12 . . . 'it' hS 1 3 . 1/ie2 [White fails to
react to Black's trick, and continues to
play keeping the usual piece setup; 1 3 .
ii.b l !? deserved attention] 1 3 . . . tl:l xd4
1 4. tl:l xd4 1/ixd4 I S. tl:l e4 [White obtains
decent compensation after I S . tl:ldS
1/ics 1 6 . tl:l xe7 1/ixe7 17. Itc3 l:IfdS I S .
ii. b l ItacS 1 9 . :th3, with a n attack]
I S . . . 1/id7 1 6 . tl:lgS [ 1 6. tl:lxf6 ii.xf6 1 7 .
ii. xf6 gxf6 I S . ii.xh7 1/ic6!] 1 6 . . .h 6 [ 1 6 . . .
1/ic6] 1 7 . f4 ii. cS+ [ 1 7 . . . ItadS!?] I S .
'it' h l ii. d4 1 9. ii. a3 ii. cs 20. ii. b2 ii. d4
ii. xf3 24. l:txf3 l:tacS, and Black was left
a pawn up in Payen A - Belov A, St.
Petersburg 1 995. Instead after 1 2 . . . ii. d6
a typical position with hanging pawns is
obtained, but White has an extra tempo
as Black's dark-squared bishop arrived
on d6 in two moves: 1 3 . 1/ie2 l:cs 14.
tl:l e4 [thanks to the extra tempo, White
prevents a typical maneuver by Black in
these kinds of positions: . . . tl:l c6-b4 fol­
lowed by . . . ii. b7xf3] 14 . . . tl:lb4 I S . tl:l xd6
1/ixd6 1 6. ii. a3 l:fdS 1 7 . l:tfd l as I S .
Itb l h 6 1 9 . tl:l eS 1/ic7 20. ii. xb4 axb4 2 1 .
1/ie3 l:taS 22. Itxb4 l:xa2, and here in
Polgar S. - Computer Mephisto Berlin
68020, The Hague 1 995, White obtained
an advantage with 23. l:db l ) 1 3 . 1/ie2
( 1 3 . It e l !? ; 1 3 . a3) 13 . . . tl:l b4 ( 1 3 . . . 1/id6
14. l:t fd l ItfdS I S . ii. b l tl:l aS 16. tl:leS
ii. f8 1 7 . tl:lbS 1/ibS I S . dS [ 1 S . tl:lxf7!?
 Chapter 5 . Play with Hanging c- and d- Pawns
� xf7 1 9. dS with a very strong attack]
1 8 . . . exdS 1 9 . t'l:l xf7 l:::t e 8 [ 1 9 . . .'�xf7 20.
i.xf6+ - ] 20. �f3 dxc4? [20 . . . d4 is bet­
ter, when after 2 1 . t'l:l h6+ 'it' h8 22. �h3
White attacks, but there 's no quick rout
of Black on the horizon. There's only
a draw with the checks 22. t'l:lf7+, 23.
lll h6+ and so on.] 2 1 . t'l:l h6+! 'it' h8 :
22. �xf6 ! ! gxf6 2 3 . i. xf6+ i.g7
24. !:td7 �eS 2S. t'l:lf7+ 1 -0 , Vaisman
V. - Stefanov P. , Romania 1 979) 1 4.
.li b l (White doesn 't want t o part with
his bishop after 1 4 . t'l:l eS , and he also
has to reckon with 14 . . . �d4) 14 . . . i. xf3
I S . gxf3 ( 1 S . �xf3 is tied to a pawn
sacrifice which for now doesn't bring
White anything: I S . . . l:::t xc4 [ I S . . . �xd4?
is bad due to 1 6. t'l:l dS ! ] 1 6. dS [after
16. a3 t'l:l bdS 1 7 . i. a2 l:::t c 7 1 8 . t'l:l xdS
lll xdS 1 9 . J::I x c7 t'l:l xc7, Black was left a
pawn up in Lehtinen A. - Issakainen
A. , Finland 1 996] 1 6 . . . t'l:l bxdS 1 7 .
�fd l [ 1 7 . t'l:l xdS �xdS 1 8 . l:::t xc4 �xc4
19. �b7 t'l:l dS 20. �xa7 i. c s 2 1 .
'i¥d7 t'l:l e3 22. l:::t c l , and in Sydor A.
- Tomaszewski R., Poland 1 980, Black
played 22 . . . �e2 when after 23 .�d3
White held his ground ; much stronger
was 22 . . . �g4 23. fxe3 i. xe3+ 24. 'it' h l
i. xc l 2 S . i. xc l �e2 26. �d4 �f1 +
27. �g l �xg 1 + 28. 'it' xg l l::t d 8, and
Black should win] 1 7 . . . �c8 [ 1 7 . . . l:::t c S
1 8 . l::t d 4 �c7 isn't bad, and in Agiiera J .
- Toledo F. J . , Spain 1 999, Black seized
the initiative and kept the extra pawn]
1 8 . t'l:l e4 l:txc l 1 9. l:::t xc l �d7 20. �g3
l:t c 8 , and in Czebe A. - Koneru H . ,
Budapest 200 1 , Black completed her
development with a material plus and a
strong position) I S . . . t'l:l c6 ( I S . . . i. d6 ! ? ;
I S . . . �c7 1 6 . t'l:l e4 �f4 [the immediate
1 6 . . . t'l:l hS deserves attention, as Igor
Bondarevsky advised playing in a similar
position; see commentary to the main
game below] 1 7 . l:::t fd l [ 1 7 . �e3!?] 17 . . .
l:t fd8 1 8 . �e3 �h4 1 9 . t'l:lg3?! i. d6 20.
�e2?! t'l:l hS 2 1 . a3 t'l:l f4 22. � f1 t'l:l c6
23. dS? t'l:l eS 24. i. xeS i. xeS 2S. dxe6
fxe6 was Mara�escu I. - Lengyel F. ,
Nyiregyhaza 1 996. Black has a better
pawn structure and active pieces. True,
we should point out that White helped
Black with his unsuccessful moves 1 9,
20, and 23.) 1 6 . dS t'l:l d4 1 7 . �d3 t'l:l fS
1 8 . l::t fe l ( 1 8 . t'l:lbS!?) 1 8 . . . t'l:l hS 1 9 . �e4
t'l:l f6 20. �e2 i.cs 2 1 . dxe6 t'l:l d4 22.
exf7+ l:::t xf7 23. �d3 with double-edged
play in Yakovich Y. - Voitsekhovsky S . ,
Soch i 1 997.
In order to prevent the maneuver of
Black's knight to b4, 1 2 . a3 l:::t c 8 has also
been played ( l 2 . . . g6 [A critical move:
now the long a l -h8 diagonal will echo.
It would make more sense for Black to
"build a cabin" in the position without
. . . dSxc4, as in this case there are no
threats associated with the opening of
the long diagonal.] 1 3 . �e2 t'l:l aS [ 1 3 . . .
t'l:l xd4? 1 4 . t'l:l xd4 �xd4 I S . t'l:l dS + - ]
14. l:tad l l:::t e 8 I S . t'l:l eS t'l:l d7 1 6. t'l:lg4
99
Part I. Play for White
[ 1 6 . tiJ xd7!? �xd7 1 7 . d5 f ] 1 6 . . . .1d8 1 7.
tLle3 �h4 1 8. g3 � h3 1 9 . .t e4 .txe4 20.
tLl xe4 f5 2 1 . tLlg5 �h6 22. f4 .tg7 23.
tLlf3, and in Schlechter C. - Tarrasch
S . , Ostend 1 907, peace was concluded
despite White's obvious advantage) 1 3 .
�e2 tLl xd4? (Black takes the poisoned
pawn, and the game should have ended
in a few moves. After 1 3 . . . tLl a5 the entire
battle would still lie ahead.) 14. tLl xd4
�xd4 1 5 . tLl d5 �c5 1 6 . .txfO .txfO,
and here in Stahlberg G . - Gligoric S . ,
Saltsjobaden 1 948 , with 1 7 . �e4! White
could have ended the game in his favor
immediately.
12 J:te8
..
This method is encountered quite
often in positions with hanging pawns:
the player who is expecting a pawn
breakthrough by his opponent (in our
case d4-d5) places his rook on the e-file
to exploit its opposition to the enemy
queen.
Let's look at some other possibilities
for Black in anticipation of the thematic
pawn breakthrough in the center: 1 2 . . .
lI c 8 1 3 . lIad l ( 1 3 . a3) 1 3 . . . tLl b4 14.
.tbl .t xf3 15. gxf3 (in this position no
one has sacrificed a pawn with 1 5 . �xf3
lIxc4; at least, I didn't find any games
like that in my database) 1 5 . . . �c7 ( 1 5 . . .
.t d6) 1 6. a 3 tLl c6 1 7 . tLl b 5 �f4 1 8 . d5
( 1 8 . .t c l ) 18 . . . a6 19. dxc6 axb5 20.
cxb5 .t d6 2 1 . :xd6! �xd6 22. � d l (22.
�c2!? (0) 22 . . . tLl d5 23. �d3 f5 24 . .t a2
lIfd8 25 . .txd5 �xd5 26. �xd5 lIxd5
(26 . . . exd5 27 . .t d4 + - ) 27. lIxd5 exd5
28 . .t d4 + - was Danner G. - Bawart
M . , Austria 2005.
1 00
The pawn on d4 can't be taken,
which Alatortsev indicated back in the
day: 1 2 . . . tLl xd4? 1 3 . tLl xd4 �xd4 14.
tLld5! �c5 15 . .t xfO! .t xffi ( 1 5 ... gxfO 16.
�g4+ 'ltt h8 17. �h4 f5 1 8 . tLlxe7+ - )
1 6 . �e4+ - .
1 2 . . . tLl b4! 1 3 . .t b l ( 1 3. lIfd l tLlxd3
14. J:txd3=) 1 3 . . . .t xf3 14. gxf3 ( 1 4.
�xf3 �xd4 1 5 . a3 tLl a6 16 . �b7 [ 1 6.
� d l �g4 1 7. �b7 .t c5! with a strong
attack - Bondarevsky] 1 6 . . . .t d6! 1 7.
�xa6 .txh2+) 14 . . . �xd4 1 5 . tLl e4.
Keres evaluated this position as unclear,
but later Bondarevsky demonstrated
convincingly that it's dangerous for
Black to take the d4-pawn, giving as
proof the following variations: 1 5 . . . �d8
1 6. lI d l �c7 ( 1 6 . . . tLl d7 1 7 . a3 tLl c6 1 8.
�d3 tLl cb8 19. �d4 e5 [ 1 9 . . . ffi 20. tLlg5!;
1 9 . . . tLl ffi 20. tLl xfO+ .t xfO 2 1 . �xd8 {21.
.txh 7+! GB} 2 1 . . .�xd8 22. �xd8+ .txd8
23 . .t e4 + - ] 20. �d5 �c7 2 1 . tLlc3 is
clearly in White's favor) 1 7 . tLl xfO+ .txfO
( 1 7 . . . gxfO 1 8 . W h l with a strong attack,
for example 1 8 . . . �f4 [ 1 8 . . . lIfd8 1 9.
lIg l + W fB 20 . .txh7] 1 9. lId4 �h6 20.
lId7 [20. lIg4+!? GB 20 . . . W h8 2 1 . �e4
lIg8 22. J:th4 �g6 23. l::t xh7+ Wxh7 24.
�h4+ + - ] 20 . . . .t c5 2 1 . .t e4 lIad8 22.
lIg l + W h8 23. �d2!) 1 8 . .t xh7+ W h8
(after 1 8 . . . Wxh7 1 9. �e4+ White has a
very strong attack, for example 1 9 . . . Wg8
20 . .txfO gxfO [20 . . . �c5 doesn't help due
to 2 1 . �g4 g6 22. �h4 �h5 23. �xh5
gxh5 24 . .t e7 tLl c2 25. lIac l lIfe8 26.
.t d6] 2 1 . �g4+ W h7 22. W h l lIg8 23.
�h4+ Wg7 24. �g l + W fB 25. �xg8+
Wxg8 26. �h6) 1 9 . .te4 J:tad8 ( 1 9 . . .
.txb2 20. �xb2 tLl c6 2 1 . �b5 likewise
favors White, and Black should give up
the exchange with 2 1 . . .tLl e5 , as 2 1 . . .l:tfc8
 Chapter 5 . Play with Hanging c- and d- Pawns
is met by 22. iL xc6 iVxc6 23. lldB+) 20.
f4 llxd 1 + 2 1 . iVxd l ! iVc5 (2 1 . . .lldB? 22.
-'h5+ �gB 23. iL xfb gxfb 24. iVh6 f5
25. � h 1 ) 22. iVf3 l:tdB 23. iVh3+ WgB
24. iL xfb gxfb 25. iVh6, etc. " So, in the
event of 14. gxf3, Black can't take the
d4-pawn. However, at his disposal there
is the positional continuation 14 . . . tLl h5 ,
to create counterplay o n the kingside.
Conclusion: Black should play 1 2 . . . tLl b4"
- Bondarevsky.
13. l:tfd l �e8 14. :tac t iVd6
14 . . . tLl b4 I S . iL b l iL xf3 1 6. iVxf3
( 1 6. gxf3 iL d6) I6 . . . llxc4 1 7 . d5 exd5
l B . a3 tLl c6 1 9. iL a2 00 .
1 5 . iL b l iVf4
16. d5! exd5
In the game White played 1 7 . cxd5.
We'll go down the route that Bondarevsky
recommended:
17. tLl xd5 tLl xd5
" If I 7 . . . iVh6, then l B . lle l with a
clear advantage" - Bondarevsky. All
well and good, but is it enough to win?
Let's go a little deeper into the variation:
I B . . . �f8 1 9. tLl xe7 tLl xe7 20. iL a3 �gB
(20 . . . tLl fgB 2 1 . tLl e5 llcdB 22. c5 bxc5
23. �xc5 is weaker, as the inclusion of
White's other rook in the play tips the
game in his favor) 2 1 . iL xe7 iL xf3 22.
gxf3 tLl d5 23. cxd5 llxc 1 24. iL c2 �xe l +
25. iVxe 1 iVg5+ 26. iL xg5 �xe 1 + 27.
� g2 lle5 White has an edge, but it's
highly unlikely he can make good on it.
18. exd5 iL f6
1 B . . . tLl d4 is better, when after 1 9 .
tLl xd4 iL d6 2 0 . iV h 5 g 6 2 1 . llxcB iL xcB
22. g3 iVxd4 23. iVxh7+ W xh7 24. Itxd4
l:t e 1 + 25. Wg2 White has an advantage,
but it's a long way to victory.
19. iVe2
As Keres demonstrated, 1 9 . dxc6
leads to an equal position, for example:
1 9 . . J::txe 2 20. cxb7 :tf8 (20 . . J::t b B 2 1 .
iL e5 ! llxe5 22. tLl xe5 g6 [22 . . .'ilxe5 23.
llcB+ 'ileB 24. lldc 1 iL e5 25. llxeB+
llxeB 26. lle l + - ] 23. tLl d7 llxb7 24.
g3 + - ; 20 . . . llxc 1 2 1 . llxc 1 iL dB 22.
llcB 'ild6 23. g3 llxb2 24. iL e4+ - ;
20 . . . llceB 2 1 . iL xfb [2 1 . llcB? iL xb2 22.
llddB 'ilc I + 23. llxc 1 llxdB 24. llcB
lleeB + ] 2 1 . . .gxfb 22. llcB Wg7 23. bBiV
iVxbB 24. llxbB llxbB 25. g3 ±) 2 1 . iL a3
iL e7 22. iL xe7 l:be7 23. :tcB g6 24. bB'iI
'ilxbB 25. llxbB llxbB =.
19 . . . iL xb2 20. dxe6 iLxe 1 2 l . iVxh7+
W fS 22. exb7 lled8 23. iVh8+ W e7 24.
:t e t + � d7 25. iL f5 + ! iVxf5
25 . . .':j;; c7 26. llxeB+ - .
101