Minev Nikolay - Mini Lessons-OCR, 218p

Mini-Lessons from Short Games of the 21st Century
by IM Nikolay Minev
#1: Exciting Short Stories From The Olympiads
C70 Z. Al-Zendani – Z. Dollah

Istanbul (ol) 2000
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 g6
This is a rarely used continuation, with not much theory behind it.
5.d4 b5 6.Bb3 exd4 7.O-O!?
This, together with next move, is a novelty. It is a gambit typical for today’s chess:
initiative first and foremost! However, I suppose that in case of 7.Nxd4 the reply will be
7…Na5!?, which is also an interesting novelty!
7…Bg7 8.c3 dxc3 9.Nxc3 Nge7 10.Nd5! O-O 11.Bg5 Bxb2
Maybe 11…Kh8 offers more resistance.
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdb1w4kdy
|dw0phpdpy
|pdndwdpdy
|dpdNdwGwy
|wdwdPdwdy
|dBdwdNdwy
|Pgwdw)P)y
|$wdQdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
12.Rc1!!
What a surprise! Now White wins by force.

12…Ba3
After 12…Bxc1 13.Qxc1 Blaxk has no defense against the threat Bf6 and Qh6.
13.Rxc6! dxc6 14.Nf6+ Kh8 15.Qa1 Ng8 16.Nxg8+ Kxg8 17.Bh6! 1-0
C00 O. Ganbold – B. Villamayor

Istanbul (ol) 2000
1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.e5 c5 4.b4 cxb4
The theory considers that accepting the gambit is OK for Black, even though for a pawn
he will be under considerable pressure. The alternative 4…c4!? is the preferred
continuation for many players.
5.a3 Nc6
Usual is 5…bxa3.
6.axb4 Bxb4 7.c3 Be7 8.d4 f6!?
Black introduces new and interesting plan for immediate counter-attack against White’s
center which, in my opinion, deserves to be tested further.
9.Bd3 Qc7 10.Bf4 f5 11.g4
11.Na3!?
11…fxg4 12.Ng5 Bxg5 13.Bxg5 Qf7
Perhaps here or next move Black should play a6.
14.Qxg4 Nge7 15.Rg1 Nf5 16.Na3!
This Knight is going to d6! The position is tense and unclear.
16…O-O
Now 16…a6 does not prevent 17.Nb5!

17.Nb5 Kh8 18.Qh3 h6?
This loses. Instead, after 18…a6 19.Nd6 Qc7 the situation is still unclear.
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdbdw4wiy
|0pdwdq0wy
|wdndpdw0y
|dNdp)nGwy
|wdw)wdwdy
|dw)BdwdQy
|wdwdw)w)y
|$wdwIw$wy
Uzzzzzzzz\
19.Bf6!! 1-0
What a knock-out!
E38 M. Carlsen – N. Ibraev

Calvia (ol) 2004
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 c5 5.dxc5 Bxc5
Also popular are the continuations 5…Na6 and 5…O-O.
6.Nf3 Qb6!? 7.e3 Qc7 8.b3 b6 9.Bb2 Bb7
The theory suggests 9…a6! as necessary. As we shall see immediately, this is with good
reason.
10.Nb5! Qd8 11.O-O-O! O-O 12.Ng5! Re8
In case of 12…g6 13.h4 White’s attack is irresistible.
13.h4!
But not 13.Bxf6? Qxf6 14.Qxh7+ Kf8 and it is White who is in big trouble.
13…e5 14.Nd6 Bxd6 15.Rxd6 h6
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhw1rdkdy
|0bdpdp0wy
|w0w$whw0y
|dwdw0wHwy
|wdPdwdw)y
|dPdw)wdwy
|PGQdw)Pdy
|dwIwdBdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
16.Qf5! Nc6
If 16…hxg5 17.hxg5 Ne4 (17…Be4 18.Qh3 Nh7 19.Bd3 Bxd3 20.Rxd3 and wins)
18.Qh7+ Kf8 19.Ba3! Nc5 20.Rf6!! and wins, or 16…Qe7 17.Rxf6! Qxf6 18.Qh7+ Kf8
19.Ba3+ d6 20.Bd3! hxg5 21.hxg5 Qd8 22.Qh8+ Ke7 23.Qxg7 Kd7 24.Bf5+ Kc7 25.Rd1
and White should win.
17.Rxf6! 1-0
For if 17…Qxf6 18.Qh7+ Kf8 19.Ne4! Qe6 20.Ba3+ d6 21.Bxd6+ and wins.
C41 Friso Nijboer - Martin Poulsen

Turin (ol) 2006
1.e4 d6 2.d4 e5 3.Nf3
Not everyone likes to exchange the Queens early (as in 3.dxe5 dxe5 4.Qxd8+) even if this
should bring some advantage.
3…Qe7
This experimental variation usually arises from the following order of moves: 1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Qe7 and in my opinion should be included in C41 “Philidor Defense”.
4.Nc3 c6 5.Bc4 Bg4 6.Be3 Nf6 7.a3 Nxe4?!
A strategical mistake! Almost as a rule, opening the center early favors the better
developed side, in our case White. Perhaps Black should try 7…g6 or 7…Qc7.
8.Nxe4 d5 9.dxe5 dxe4 10.Qd4!? exf3
Maybe 10…Nd7!?
11.Qxg4 Nd7
Black is in trouble. For example, not much better is 11…fxg2 12.Qxg2! Qxe5 13.O-O-O
Be7 14.Rhe1 O-O 15.Bh6 Qf6 16.Rxe7! (not 16.Bxg7?? Qg5+) Qxh6+ 17.Kb1 and
White has strong attack.
12.e6 fxe6 13.O-O-O Ne5 14.Qh5+ Nf7 15.Qxf3 Nd6 16.Bb3
Black’s position is already untenable. If now 16…Nf5, then 17.Rhe1, or 16…O-O-O

17.Bxa7.
16…e5
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwdkgw4y
|0pdw1w0py
|wdphwdwdy
|dwdw0wdwy
|wdwdwdwdy
|)BdwGQdwy
|w)Pdw)P)y
|dwIRdwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
17.Rxd6! e4 18.Qf5 1-0
Because of 18…Qxd6 19.Qf7+ Kd8 20.Rd1.

A60 M. Mahjoob – R. Zhumabayev
Dresden (ol) 2008
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 c5 4.d5 exd5 5.cxd5 b5 6.e4!?
The most active and interesting continuation!
6…Nxe4 7.Qe2 Qe7 8.Bg2 f5!?
Deviation from the known main line 8…Nd6 9.Be3 and now 9…c4 10.Nc3 a6 11.Bc5,
intending 12.a4, or 9…b4 10.Bxc5 Qxe2+ 11.Nxe2 Na6, in both cases with a complex
and unclear game.
9.d6 Qe6
But not 9…Qxd6 10.Nc3!
10.Nc3 Bxd6 11.Nh3!?
Searching for new tactical opportunities. If 11.Nxb5 Ba6!
11…h6 12.Nxe4 fxe4 13.Bxe4 Nc6 14.Qh5+ Kd8 15.Ng5 hxg5 16.Qxh8+ Kc7 17.Qh7
Bb7 18.Be3
All this is forced and was initiated by White, but the result is not in his favor. White’s
King is badly exposed and will be under fierce attack.
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwdwdwdy
|0bipdw0Qy
|wdngqdwdy
|dp0wdw0wy
|wdwdBdwdy
|dwdwGw)wy
|P)wdw)w)y
|$wdwIwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
18…Rh8!! 19.Qxh8
If 19.Qg6 Qxg6 20.Bxg6 Ne5! Or 19.Qf5 Qxf5 20.Bxf5 Nd4!
19…Qxe4 20.Kd2
There is no defense. If 20.O-O Nd4! or 20.O-O-O Nb4!
20…Ne5 21.Rad1 Qc4! 0-1

by IM Nikolay Minev
#2: The Intermediate Move
The intermediate move is a powerful tactical tool, an unexpected move that suddenly
changes the situation in our favor and very often decides the game. The idea can be used
in either attack or defense. The ability to see and predict the possibility for intermediate
moves is an evidence for high level of tactical skill.
The three games below are from tournament practice, and are very instructive examples
of this topic.
D18 M. Sjoberg – Rubene

Stockholm 1999-2000
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.a4 Bf5 6.e3 e6 7.Bxc4 Bb4 8.O-O Nbd7 9.Qb3
More often used in practice is 9.Qe2.
9…a5 10.Nh4 Bg4 11.f3 Nd5
The theory recommends 11…Bh5
12.fxg4
This is much more interesting than 12.g3 Bh3 13.Ng2 O-O.
12…Qxh4 13.e4 Bd6
If 13…N5f6 14.h3 h4 15.g5 Ng4 16.Bf4!
14.h3 N5b6 15.e5 Nxc4

^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwdkdw4y
|dpdndp0py
|wdpgpdwdy
|0wdw)wdwy
|Pdn)wdP1y
|dQHwdwdPy
|w)wdwdPdy
|$wGwdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
16.Ne4!!
A surprising intermediate move. Instead, the expected line is 16.Qxc4 Bb8 17.Ne4 Qd8
18.Bg5 Qb6, where Black is still fighting. Now the threat is 17.Bg5! which forces Black
to choose between bad alternatives.
16…Qd8
If 16…Bxe5? 17.dxe5 Ncxe5 18.Bg5, or 16…Be7 17.Qxc4 h5 (17…h6 18.Bd2,

threatening 19.Be1) 18.Bg5! Bxg5 19.Nd6+ Kd8 20.Rxf7 Rf8 21.Qxe6 Rxf7 22.Qe8+
Kc7 23.Qxa8 with a strong attack.
17.exd6 Ncb6
Also after 17...Ndb6 18.Bg5 Qd7 19.Rac1 White should win.
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdw1kdw4y
|dpdndp0py
|whp)pdwdy
|0wdwdwdwy
|Pdw)NdPdy
|dQdwdwdPy
|w)wdwdPdyw
|$wGwdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
18.Rxf7! Nd5
If 18…Kxf7 19.Ng5+ Kg6 20.Qd3+ Kf6 21.Qf3+ and White wins.
19.Rxg7 1-0
B18 H. Toufighi – P. Long

Al Ain 2008
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.Bc4 e5
Very rare, almost unknown, continuation.
7.Qe2!?
Not so clear is 7.Nf3 exd4 8.Nxd4 Bc5 9.Be3 Nd7.
7…Qxd4 8.Nf3 Qd6 9.Nxe5 Qe7 10.O-O Nd7 11.Nxg6
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwdkgn4y
|0pdn1p0py
|wdpdwdNdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|wdBdwdwdy
|dwdwdwHwy
|P)PdQ)P)y
|$wGwdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
11…Qxe2??
Overlooking the opponent’s intermediate reply, which immediately decides the game.
Obligatory was 11…hxg6.
12.Bxf7+! 1-0
B22 A. Gattas – Si. Oliveira
Brazil (ch)-Porto Alegre 2008
1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.cxd4 d6 7.exd6!?
One of the most interesting and least analyzed continuations.
7…e6
Instead 7…Qxd6 is more risky.
8.Nc3 Nxc3 9.bxc3 Bxd6 10.Bd3 O-O!
In the game Minev-Korchnoi, Oslo 1954, there followed 10…Be7 11.O-O O-O 12.Qe2
Bf6 13.Re1 Qd5 14.Bf4 with slightly better chances to White.
11.Qe2?
Here the typical sacrifice 11.Bxh7+? is a mistake because of 11…Kxh7 12.Ng5+ Kg6
13.Qg4 f5 14.Qh4 Rh8, but the move in the game waste of time. Correct is 11.O-O and
Black can not advance 11…e5? 12.dxe4 Nxe5 13.Nxe5 Bxe5 14.Bxh7+! Kxh7 15.Qh5+
Kg8 16.Qxe5.
11…e5! 12.Ng5?
White initiates a combination which is suspicious because first his King is still in the
center, and more importantly, because of the overlooked intermediate move that follows,
ruining his tactical idea. Correct is 12.O-O, but already Black stands better.
12…g6 13.Nxh7
The idea behind the sacrifice is 13…Kxh7 14.Qh5+ Kg8 15.Bxg6 fxg6 16.Qxg6+ and
White has at least a draw.
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdb1w4kdy
|0pdwdpdNy
|wdngwdpdy
|dwdw0wdwy
|wdw)wdwdy
|dw)Bdwdwy
|PdwdQ)P)y
|$wGwIwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
13…e4!
An unexpected intermediate move, which decides the game. This deserves to be

remembered.
14.Bxe4
If 14.Qxe4 then not 14…Re8?? 15.Nf6+! but 14…Bf5 or simply 14…Kxh7 and Black
wins.
14…Kxh7 15.Qh5+ Kg8 16.Bxg6 Qe8+! 0-1
For if 17.Be3 fxg6.

by IM Nikolay Minev
#3: Modern Trends in the Slav Defense
For a long, long time the Slav Defense has been very popular because of its reputation as
a sound opening for Black. In the last hundred years, many unsuccessful attempts have
been made from the White side to destroy this reputation. And strangely enough, in the
end of 20th beginning of 21st Century we saw a trend for more frequent use of a
continuation for Black that is not new, but almost totally forgotten! I’m speaking about
the deviation from the main line 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 followed by 4…a6!?,
instead of the more common 4…dxc4.
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhb1kgw4y
|dpdw0p0py
|pdpdwhwdy
|dwdpdwdwy
|wdP)wdwdy
|dwHwdNdwy
|P)wdP)P)y
|$wGQIBdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
This original continuation is used in all the games below. Based on these games, I don’t
offer a final assessment, but my intention is to present some relatively new examples that
show some typical strategic and tactical aspects of this modern variation.
D15 Z. Sturua – Suat Atalik

Bled (ol) 2002
1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.c4 c6 4.Nc3 a6 5.c5 Nbd7 6.Bf4 Nh5!

An important innovation that makes White’s plan with 5.c5 look dubious. Previously
known from tournament practice was 6…g6 7.e3 Bg7 8.h3 and White has the better game
due to controlling the square e5.
7.Be5
The game J. Obona – D. Schwarz, Slovakia (ch team) 2005 continued 7.e3 g6 8.Be2 Bg7
9.O-O O-O 10.Ng5 e5! 11.dxe5 Nxf4 12.exf4 Nxc5 with better chances for Black.
7…Nxe5 8.dxe5 Nf4! 9.Qd2 Ng6 10.e4 e6 11.Na4 Bd7
11…dxe4!?
12.Bd3 Qc7 13.Qc3
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwdkgw4y
|dp1bdp0py
|pdpdpdndy
|dw)p)wdwy
|NdwdPdwdy
|dw!BdNdwy
|P)wdw)P)y
|$wdwIwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
13…Nf4! 14.O-O??
A blunder in an already lost position. If, for example, 14,O-O-O? dxe4, or 14.g3 Nxd3+
15.Qxd3 Qa5+ 16.Nc3 Bxc5, or 14.Kf1 Nxd3 15.Qxd3 Qa5 16.Nb6 Rd8 and Black wins
the c5 pawn.
14…dxe4 0-1
For if 15.Bxe4 Ne2+.
D15 Loek van Wely - Ashot Anastasian

Ohrid 2001
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 a6 5.cxd5
There is logic in this continuation, because in many situations Black’s move 4…a6 seems
to be waste of time.
5…cxd5 6.Bg5
A continuation with an independent meaning. Instead 6.Bf4 Nc6 7.e3 Bg4 transposes into
the Slav-Exchange variation (D13), which, according to ECO, leads to position with
equal chances.
6…Nc6 7.e3 e6 8.Bd3 Be7 9.O-O O-O 10.Rc1 Bd7
Maybe Black should try 10…h6 11.Bh4 Ne8, but his position is already worse.
11.Ne5! Rc8 12.f4 h6 13.Bxf6 Bxf6 14.Qh5
Threatening 15.Ng4 and 16.Nxh6+.
14…Nxe5 15.dxe5 Be7 16.Rf3 f5
Perhaps 16…Be8 17.Rg3 Kh8 offers more resistance.
17.exf6 Rxf6!
If 17…Bxf6? 18.Rg3 Kh8 19.Qg6 etc.
18.Rg3 Bb4 19.Bb1 Be8 20.Qd1 Qb6??
Here again, as in previous game, Black blundered. However, without any doubt, it is
White who has clear advantage because of the threat 21.Qd3.
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdrdbdkdy
|dpdwdw0wy
|p1wdp4w0y
|dwdpdwdwy
|wgwdw)wdy
|dwHw)w$wy
|)PwdwdP)y
|dB$QdwIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
21.Nxd5 1-0
D15 Florian Handke – Wolfgang Pajeken

Germany (ch) Altenkirchen 2005
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 a6 5.h3
A new and quite original idea, which gives Black the opportunity to have his own choice
of the best answer. Believe me, this is not an easy task!
5…dxc4
Probably not a bad reply, but I prefer 5…e6, and if 6.Bf4 c5, or 6.Bg5 Nbd7 7,e4 Qa5, or
6.e3 c5.
6.a4!
For the gambit variation 6.e4 the opening idea 5.h3 is not useful move.
6…e6 7.e3 c5 8.Bxc4 Nc6
Now the game has transposed into a position from the Queens Gambit Accepted.
9.O-O cxd4?!
In my opinion the early exchange in this special position is strategically inaccurate

because it gives White too much freedom to seize the initiative. Correct is 9…Be7 first,
and if 10.Qe2 cxd4 11.Rd1 O-O 12.exd4 Nb4.
10.exd4 Be7 11.Bg5 O-O 12.Qd2 Na5
12…Nb4!?
13.Ba2 b5 14.d5!?
The fight for the initiative! If 14.axb5 axb5 15.Nxb5? Ba6!
14…exd5
Instead 14…b4 15.Bxf6! Bxf6 17.Ne4 exd5 18.Qxd5! Qxd5 (18…Bb7 19.Nxf6+ Qxf6
20.Qxa5) 19.Nxf6+ gxf6 20.Bxd5 leads to a position with only a slightly better endgame
for White.
15.axb5 axb5?
15…Bb7!?
16.Nxd5 Nxd5??
16…Bb7!?
17.Bxd5 Bxg5 18.Nxg5 Bb7
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdw1w4kdy
|dbdwdp0py
|wdwdwdwdy
|hpdBdwHwy
|wdwdwdwdy
|dwdwdwdPy
|w)w!w)Pdy
|$wdwdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
19.Bxf7+! Rxf7? 20.Qxd8+ 1-0
Black’s play in this game is far front perfect and only further testing in practice can give
us a clearer picture about the whole variation with 5.h3.
D15 Suat Atalik – Tibor Reiss

Augsburg 2005
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 a6 5.e3
The continuation that is preferred in tournament practice.
5…b5
Instead 5…e6 transposes into well known variation of Queen’s Gambit (D45).
6.c5
For the alternative 5.b3 – see next game.
6…Nbd7
Black uses an idea known from the variation D45 mentioned above, but here this plan
seems to be unsuitable. According to GM Gavrikov, Black should play 6…Bg4, followed
by 7…Nbd7 and e7-e5.
7.b4 a5 8.bxa5 e5
Maybe 8…Qxa5 and if 9.Bd2 b4 10.Ne2 (Nb1) Ne4, deserves some attention.
9.Bd2! e4 10.Ng5 Rxa5 11.a4!
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdb1kgw4y
|dwdndp0py
|wdpdwhwdy
|4p)pdwHwy
|Pdw)pdwdy
|dwHw)wdwy
|wdwGw)P)y
|$wdQIBdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
The right strategy! After opening of the a- and b-files White has space and more pieces
on the Q-side, hence, a decisive advantage.
11…bxa4 12.Rxa4 Rx a4 13.Qxa4 Nb8
Or 13…Qc7 14.Na2!
14.Qa7 Bd7 15.Na4 h6 16.Ba5 1-0
D15 Jaan Ehlvest - Oskar Bjarnason

Reykjavik 2006
1.c4 c6 2.Nf3 d5 3.e3 Nf6 4.Nc3 a6 5.d4 b5 6.b3 Bg4 7.Be2 Nbd7 8.O-O e6 9.Bb2
Qb8?
A novelty but not a good one. The theory suggests 9…Bxf3 10.Bf3 Be7 with a slight
edge to White. In my opinion 9…Bd6!? deserves to be tested.
10.Ne5! Bxe2 11.Qxe2 Nxe5 12.dxe5 Nd7
If 12…Qxe5? 13.Nxd5!
13.cxd5 cxd5 14.Rad1 Bc5
After this Black is lost. In the case of 14…Nxe5 15.f4 Nc6 16.f5 with a strong attack, but
probably this was also Black’s last practical chance.
15.Qg4 g6
^xxxxxxxxY
|r1wdkdw4y
|dwdndpdpy
|pdwdpdpdy
|dpgp)wdwy
|wdwdwdQdy
|dPHw)wdwy
|PGwdw)P)y
|dwdRdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
16.Nxd5! exd5 17.Rxd5 Qb7 18.Rfd1 O-O-O
Or 18…Rd8 19.e6 and wins.
19.Rxc5+ 1-0
Before making some conclusions, let’s see two older examples (used back in 90’s) of
important continuations, 5.Ne5 and 5.Bg5.
D15 A. Yermolinsky – P. Rohwer

Philadelphia 1992
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 c6 4.Nc3 a6 5.Ne5!? Bf5
Natural, but a seemingly dubious reply. The alternatives 5...dxc4 and 5…g6 deserve
serious attention.
6.Qb3! b5 7.cxd5 cxd5 8.a4! bxa4 9.Qxa4+ Bd7
In case of 9…Nbd7 is possible 10.Qc6 and White wins a pawn.
10.Nxd7 Nbxd7 11.Bg5
Looks even stronger than 11.Qc6.
11…e6 12.e4! dxe4?
Better is 12...Be7 13.Bxf6 Bxf6 14.exd5 exd5 15.Nxd5 O-O with some counter-play for
the pawn.
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdw1kgw4y
|dwdndp0py
|pdwdphwdy
|dwdwdwGwy
|Qdw)pdwdy
|dwHwdwdwy
|w)wdw)P)y
|$wdwIBdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
13.Bb5! Be7 14.Bxf6 Bxf6 15.Nxe4 Bxd4?
The last mistake. Better defense offers 15…Be7.
16.Bc6 Bxb2 17.Rd1 Ra7 18.Bxd7+! 1-0
Because of 18…Rxd7 19.Nc5

D15 Akesson - Cruz Lopez
Amsterdam 1996
1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.c4 c6 4.Nc3 a6 5.Bg5!? Ne4 6.h4!?
6.Bf4!?
6…Nxc3 7.bxc3 dxc4 8.e4 b5 9.Ne5!?
An adventure or a strong continuation? The consequences of 9…f6 10.Qh5+ g6 11.Nxg6

hxg6 12.Qxh8 fxg5 13.hxg5 are not so clear.
9…Be6 10.f4!
^xxxxxxxxY
|4hw1kgw4y
|dwdw0p0py
|pdpdbdwdy
|dpdwHwGwy
|wdp)P)w)y
|dw)wdwdwy
|PdwdwdPdy
|$wdQIBdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
10…f5
If 10…f6? 11.f5! In the game I. Rogers - T. Engqvist, Gausdal 1995, was 10…g6 11.h5
Rg8 12.hxg6 hxg6 13.Rh7 f6? 14.f5! Bc8 15.Nxg6 1-0
11.Be2! fxe4 12.f5!
White conducts the attack marvelously! Now he is winning by force.
12…Bxf5 13.O-O Be6 14.Bh5+ g6 15.Bxg6+ hxg6 16.Nxg6 Rg8 17.Nxf8 Rxf8
18.Rxf8+ Kxf8 19.Qh5
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhw1wiwdy
|dwdw0wdwy
|pdpdbdwdy
|dpdwdwGQy
|wdp)pdw)y
|dw)wdwdwy
|PdwdwdPdy
|$wdwdwIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
19…Nd7 20.Bh6+ 1-0
Conclusion: The modern variation 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 a6 is still not refuted
definitely, but it looks very dubious to me. At least, there are many variations that need
solid repair, mostly from Black’s side. Thinking as coach, I don’t recommend it.
by IM Nikolay Minev
#4: Double-Attack With A Rook
Double-attack is the most common tactical element, and plays a part (in actuality or only
possibility) in almost every game. Double-attack is feasible with any piece or pawn, and
in any stage of the game. Here we will some instructive examples with relatively rare
double-attack with a Rook in opening.
A06 Pavel Blatny – Ka. Muller

Austria (ch team) 2001
1.c4 e6 2.b3 d5 3.Bb2 Nf6 4.e3 c5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.cxd5 exd5 8.d4 O-O 9.Be2
White’s play in the opening was far from perfect and now Black tries to seize the
initiative.
9…Ne4 10.O-O Bf6 11.Nxe4?!
Better is 11.Na4!?
11…dxe4 12.Ne5 Bxe5 13.dxe5 Qg5 14.Qd5?
Correct is 14.Qc2.
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdbdw4kdy
|0pdwdp0py
|wdndwdwdy
|dw0Q)w1wy
|wdwdpdwdy
|dPdw)wdwy
|PGwdB)P)y
|$wdwdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
14…Rd8! 15.Qxe4 Rd2
It is clear that White overlooked this double-attack. With an extra piece, now Black wins
easily.
16.f4 Qf5 17.Qc4 Rxb2 18.Bd3 Qg4 19.Be4 Bf5 20.Bf3 Qg6 21.e4 Nd4! 0-1
For if 22.exf5 Nxf3+ 23.Rxf3 Qxg2#
C42 V. Anand – Vl. Kramnik

Sofia 2005
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3 Nc6 7.O-O Be7 8.c4
This continuation is considered White’s best.
8…Nb4
The main alternatives are 8…Bg4, 8…Be6 and 8…Nf6. I think that the three are
approximately with the same value – in all White achieves slightly better chances.
9.Be2!?
This appears better than the analysis by Keres, which dominated the theory for a long
time: 9.cxd5 Nxd3 10.Qxd3 Qd5 11.Re1 Bf5 12.Ne5. Look what happens in the game
Rogulj – Forintos, Austria (ch team) 1997: 12…g6!? 13.g4 Bh4! 14.Re2 Bxf2+ 15.Rxf2
Nxf2 16.Qe3 Bxb1 17.Nxg6+ Be4 18.Nxh8 Nxg4 19.Qc3 Qd6 20.Qd2 f5 21.h3 Qg3+ 0-
1
9…O-O 10.Nc3 Bf5 11.a3 Nxc3 12.bxc3 Nc6 13.Re1 Re8
Or 13…dxc4 14.Bxc4 Na5 15,Ba2 c5 16.Ne5 with better chances to White.
14.cxd5 Qxd5 15.Bf4 Rac8 16.Qc1! Na5 17.c4 Qe4?
Now White wins by quite original double-attack along the 5th rank. Accordin to Anand,
correct is 17…Qd8.
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdrdrdkdy
|0p0wgp0py
|wdwdwdwdy
|hwdwdbdwy
|wdP)qGwdy
|)wdwdNdwy
|wdwdB)P)y
|$w!w$wIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
18.Bd1! Qd3 19.Re3! Qxc4 20.Re5! 1-0
B42 Adam Horvath – Csaba Balogh

Hungary (ch) 2005
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Bd3 Bc5 6.Nb3 Ba7 7.O-O Nc6 8.Qg4?!
Risky business! Better is 8.Qe2, followed by 9.Be3.
8…Nf6!
The sacrifice of a pawn in order to open a file against the opponent’s castled position is
almost as a rule a good value!
9.Qxg7 Rg8 10.Qh6 Ne5 11.Nc3 b5 12.Bf4
If 12.h3, then 12…d6 with the hidden threat 13…Rg6 14.Qf4 Nh5 winning White’s
Queen.
12…Neg4 13.Qh4?
White overlooks a simple double-attack by his opponent’s Rook. Obligatory was 13.Qh3.
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdb1kdrdy
|gwdpdpdpy
|pdwdphwdy
|dpdwdwdwy
|wdwdPGn!y
|dNHBdwdwy
|P)Pdw)P)y
|$wdwdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
13…Nxf2! 14.Rxf2 Rg4 15.Qh6 Ng8 16.Qxh7 Bxf2+ 17.Kxf2 Rxf4+ 18.Ke2 Qg5
19.g3 Rf6 0-1
by IM Nikolay Minev
#5: The Most Common Mistake In The Opening
Losing two or more tempi to win a pawn is the most typical, notorious mistake in the
opening. Such adventures very often end in catastrophic consequences for the greedy
party. All of the examples presented below are the typical case: Black’s Queen loses
tempi, grabbing the b2 pawn early in the opening. And it is instructive to see how this
crime against the development is severely punished in each case.
B07 A. Subaru – A. Ivanov

Kharkov 2005
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 Qa5
Twenty years ago this variation was an interesting novelty, today its reputation is not
very high.
5.Bd2! Bg4
The idea behind 4…Qa5 is 5…e5. But this is not so convenient here because of 6.Nd5
Qd8 7.Nxf6+ and Black is forced to reply with 7…gxf6 because 7…Qxf6 9.Qg5 Qg6
10.dxe5 loses a pawn.
6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 Qb6
Here again 7…e5 leads to a worse position after 8.Nd5.
8.e5 Nfd7 9.exd6 e6?
After this move, Black not only loses the opportunity to ever regain the d6 pawn , but
also will be practically forced to lose several tempi capturing White’s pawns on the
Queenside.
10.Ne4! Qxb2
If 10…Qxd4 11.O-O-O, followed by 12.Bc3.

11.Bc3 Qa3
Probably 11…Qxc3 offers more resistance.
12.Rb1 Qxa2 13.Rxb7 Qd5 14.Bd3 a5
White is at least three tempi ahead. According to the rule of Rudolf Spielmann, this
means that White already has winning position and he should try to find the right
continuation. And he found it!
15.Rc7!
The threat is 16.Rc8#
15…Kd8 16.O-O Bxd6

^xxxxxxxxY
|rhwiwdw4y
|dw$ndp0py
|wdpgpdwdy
|0wdqdwdwy
|wdw)Ndwdy
|dwGBdQdPy
|wdPdw)Pdy
|dwdwdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
17.Bc4!! Qxc4
In case of 17…Qf5 White wins as in the game 18.Rc8+!!
18.Rc8+!! Ke7 19.Rxh8 Bb4 20.Bxb4+ axb4 21.Re8+! 1-0
An important game for the theory of this opening variation.
A45 D. Konenkin – S. Airumian

St Petersburg 2008
1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 c5 3.Nc3 Qb6?!

Interesting and unclear is 3…cxd4 4.Qxd4 Nc6 5.Qh4, followed by O-O-O.
4.d5
This position arises usually from following order of moves: 1.d4 Nf5 2.Bg5 c5 3.d5 Qb6
4.Nc3.
4…Qxb2 5.Bd2 Qb6 6.e4 d6
The theory recommends 6…e5 7.f4 d6 8.fxe5 dxe5 9.Nf3 Bd6 10.Bc4 and according to
Hort, White has compensation for the pawn.
7.f4 Nbd7?! 8.Nf3 a6 9.e5 dxe5 10.fxe5 Ng4 11.Qe2 e6 12.Qe4 h5 13.Bc4 Nb8 14.O-O
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhbdkgw4y
|dpdwdp0wy
|p1wdpdwdy
|dw0P)wdpy
|wdBdQdndy
|dwHwdNdwy
|PdPGwdP)y
|$wdwdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
What a picture! White is fully developed, while Black is behind with at least four tempi.
The picture on the next diagram is even more dramatic!
14…Qc7 15.a4 f6 16.dxe6 Nxe5 17.Nd5 Qd6 18.Nxe5 Bxe6 19.Qg6+ Kd8 20.Ba5+
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhwiwgw4y
|dpdwdw0wy
|pdw1b0Qdy
|Gw0NHwdpy
|PdBdwdwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|wdPdwdP)y
|$wdwdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
1-0
For if 20…b6 21.Bxb6+ Kc8 22.Rab1 etc.
B42 M. Rechel – A. Moroz

Pardubice 2000
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Bd3 Qb6 6.c3
6.Nb3!?
6…Nc6 7.Be3! Bc5
After 8…Qxb2? 8.Nb3 Black’s Queen is trapped.
8.Nd2!?
A bold sacrifice of two pawns for quicker development and initiative. However, at this
moment is not easy to precisely assess the value of this compensation. It comes down to a
question of skill, instinct and experience.
8…Qxb2 9.O-O .Qxc3
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdbdkdn4y
|dpdpdp0py
|pdndpdwdy
|dwgwdwdwy
|wdwHPdwdy
|dw1BGwdwy
|PdwHw)P)y
|$wdQdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
White’s development is finished, while Black needs three more tempi. Generally
specking, Black should be in big danger. As we shall see, the truth is no different here.
10.Nxc6 Qxd3?
As often happens, the side under the pressure makes a decisive mistake. Critical is
10…Bxe3 11.fxe3 Qxd3 12.Ne5 Qxe3+ 13.Kh1 Nf6 14.Ndc4 Qc5 15.Nd6+. The position
is very complicated and unclear, even for a computer!
11.Ne5 Qd6 12.Nec4! Qc7 13.Bxc5 Qxc5 14.e5 Kf8 15.Rc1 Qd4 16.Nd6 Ne7 17.Qh5!
g6 18.Qh6+ Kg8 19.Nf3
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdbdwdk4y
|dpdphpdpy
|pdwHpdp!y
|dwdw)wdwy
|wdw1wdwdy
|dwdwdNdwy
|Pdwdw)P)y
|dw$wdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
1-0
Not only is Black completely paralyzed, but also when his Queen retreats, then 20.Ne8
will lead to inevitable mate.
So the moral of the story is: If you are thinking about capturing a pawn in the opening for
a price of tempi, think twice! And remember our last typical example!
B22 M. Tscharotschkin - D. Dimitrijevic

Gibraltar (Catalan Bay) 2007
1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bf5 6.Be2

^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwdkgn4y
|0pdw0p0py
|wdndwdwdy
|dw0qdbdwy
|wdw)wdwdy
|dw)wdNdwy
|P)wdB)P)y
|$NGQIwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
6…Bxb1??
An “idea” that loses at least three tempi in the opening (Bf5, Bxb1,Qxa2) for a single
pawn, this is always a crime! Correct is 6…e6 or 6…cxd4 7.cxd4 e6. The punishment is
very quick.
7.Rxb1 Qxa2 8.Be3 cxd4 9.Nxd4 e6 10.O-O Nxd4 11.Qxd4 Ne7 12.Bb5+ Nc6 13.Rfd1
Be7 14.Qd7+ Kf8 15.Qxb7 1-0
by IM Nikolay Minev
#6: The Always Exciting KID (King’s Indian Defense)
Without any doubt, the King’s Indian Defense is the most popular choice for Black
against 1.d4. This opening offers a variety of variations with different strategic ideas and
countless tactical opportunities. That is why almost any game with the “KID” is
instructive and exciting, as my choice of examples below shows.
E62 M. Schneider – R. Huss

Bad Zwesten 2005
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 g6 3.Bg2 Bg7 4.O-O O-O 5.c4 d6 6.d4 c6 7.Nc3 Qa5!?
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhbdw4kdy
|0pdw0pgpy
|wdp0whpdy
|1wdwdwdwy
|wdP)wdwdy
|dwHwdN)wy
|P)wdP)B)y
|$wGQdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
This recent but rarely used idea is intended to transfer the Queen to the Kingside. Its true
value is still unclear, while this game shows how White should not play!
8.a3?
Or 8.Qc2? Qh5 9.Re1 Bh3 10.Bh1 Nbd7 11.Ng5 Ng4 12.Bf3? Bxd4! 13.Qe4 Bxf2+
14.Kh1 Bg2+! 0-1, A. Kohalmi – E. Tang, Winnipeg 2005. In my opinion, White’s best
response is 8.d5!?, an idea that is critical for the whole variation. The theory suggests
8.h3!
8…Qh5 9.b4 e5 10.dxe5 dxe5 11.Bb2 e4 12.Nd2 e3! 13.fxe3 Ng4 14.h3 Nxe3 15.Qe1
Bxh3 16.Bxh3 Qxh3 17.Qf2 Ng4 18.Qg2 Bd4+ 0-1
E62 R. Fernandes – F. de la Paz

Linares 2005
1.c4 Nf6 2.g3 g6 3.Bg2 Bg7 4.Nf3 O-O 5.O-O d6 6.Nc3 Nc6 7.d4 Bg4 8.h3
An alternative is 8.d5!? Na5 9.Nd2 c5 10.Qc2, Smyslov-Minev, Moscow 1960.
8…Bxf3 9.Bxf3 Nd7 10.Be3
An original idea, but hardly to be recommended. Better is 10.e3 e5 and now 11.dxe5 or
11.d5 Ne7 12.e4 f5 13.Bd2!, intending b2-b4.
10… e5 11.Bxc6 bxc6 12.Qd2 f5!?
Clearly more ambitious than 12…exd4 13.Bxd4 Bxd4 14.Qxd4 Qf6= as in P.Nikolic-
Velimirovic, Bor 1986.
13.Rad1?
White should play 13.dxe5 or 13.Bg5.
13…f4! 14.gxf4 Qh4 15.fxe5?
Maybe 15.dxe5!? Qxh3 16.Ne4.
15…Qxh3 16.Bf4
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwdw4kdy
|0w0ndwgpy
|wdp0wdpdy
|dwdw)wdwy
|wdP)wGwdy
|dwHwdwdqy
|P)w!P)wdy
|dwdRdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
16…Bh6!!
A tactical trick that deserves to be remembered!
17.Bxh6 Qg4+ 18.Kh1 Rf5 0-1
E70 Chatalbashev – L. Hetey

Malaga 2000
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Bd3!?
This is s modern variation!
5…O-O 6.Nge2 a6 7.O-O c5
In my opinion, the better plan here is 7…e5.
8.dxc5!?
Instead of the usual 8.d5 e6 etc.
8…dxc5 9.e5 Ng4
If 9…Nd7, then not 10.e6?! fxe6!, but 10.f4! with a better game for White.
10.f4 Nc6 11.h3 Nh6 12.Be3 Nd4 13.Be4!
Incredibly, this quiet move practically wins the game.
13…Nhf5 14.Bxf5 Nxe2+ 15.Qxe2 Bxf5 16.Rfd1 Qa5 17.Nd5 Rae8
Now comes the shocking surprise.

^xxxxxxxxY
|wdwdr4kdy
|dpdw0pgpy
|pdwdwdpdy
|1w0N)bdwy
|wdPdw)wdy
|dwdwGwdPy
|P)wdQdPdy
|$wdRdwIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
18.a4!! 1-0
There is no defense against the threat 19.b4 cxb4 20.Bb6 and Black’s Queen is trapped.
This next game is poorly played by Black game, but is shown in spite of this for two
reasons:
• To demonstrate the result of passive play against a direct attack and
• To show a rare, beautiful mating pattern with a Bishop and pawn.
E73 A. Zubritskiy – D. Ozerov

Moscow 2005
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 O-O 6.Bg5 Nbd7? 7.h4 h6 8.Be3 Kh8? 9.g4
Ne8 10.Qd2 Kh7 11.f4 e5 12.dxe5 dxe5 13.f5 Rh8 14.g5 h5 15.f6 Bf8 16.Qd5 Kg8
17.c5 c6??
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdb1ngk4y
|0pdndpdwy
|wdpdw)pdy
|dw)Q0w)py
|wdwdPdwdy
|dwHwGwdwy
|P)wdBdwdy
|$wdwIwHRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
A picture which cannot be forgotten. Pay attention to Black’s pieces on the last rank!
18.Qxf7+ 1-0
Because of 18…Kxf7 19.Bc4#
E81 R. Biedekoepper – C. van Oosterom

Groningen 2008
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 O-O 6.Bg5
Usual is 6.Be3. We will learn in this game why White should be very careful playing
Bg5!
6…c5 7.d5 e6 8.Nge2
The theory recommends 8.Bd3 or 8.Qd2.
8…exd5 9.cxd5 a6 10.a4 Nbd7 11.g4 Re8 12.Ng3??
Failing into one of the most typical tactical traps in the KID. Correct is 12.Qd2.
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdb1rdkdy
|dpdndpgpy
|pdw0whpdy
|dw0PdwGwy
|PdwdPdPdy
|dwHwdPHwy
|w)wdwdw)y
|$wdQIBdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
12…Nxe4! 13.Bxd8 Nxc3+ 14.Qe2 Nxe2 15.Bxe2 Bxb2 0-1
E94 S. Ernst – R. Pruijssers
Groningen 2006
1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6 3.e4 d6 4.d4 Bg7 5.Nf3 O-O 6.Be2 e5 7.O-O Na6
A relatively new idea, instead of 7…Nbd7 or 7…Nc6.
8.Be3 Ng4 9.Bg5 Qe8 10.h3 h6 11.Bh4?!
Practice shows that after 11.Bc1 Nf6 12.dze5 dz5 13.Be3 N5 the chances are equal.
11…exd4?!
A novelty, but with dubious value. Instead 11…Nf6 is considered to achieve equality.
12.Nd5!
The alternative is 12.Nxd4 Nf6 13.f3=
12…g5 13.hxg4 gxh4 14.Nxd4 Qxe4?
Better is 14…c6, followed by Nc5.
15.Nf5! Bxf5 16.gxf5 c6 17.Bd3 Qd4
If 17…Qe8 18.f6 cxd5 19.Qg4! and wins.
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwdw4kdy
|0pdwdpgwy
|ndp0wdw0y
|dwdNdPdwy
|wdP1wdw0y
|dwdBdwdwy
|P)wdw)Pdy
|$wdQdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
18.f6! Bxf6
If 18…cxd5 19.Bh7+ winning the Queen.
19.Qg4+!! 1-0
Because of 19…Qxg4 20.Nxf6+ and 21.Nxg4, or 19…Kh8 20.Qf5 or 19…Bg7 20.Ne7+

Kh9 21.Qf5.
by IM Nikolay Minev
#7: Triumphs and Disasters Among the Elite
The following games are played between top players in the world – rated 2600 and over –
and all end with a quick knock out. These examples of triumph for the winner and misery
for the loser show that the elite chess players are not immune to making common errors.
The instructive side of these short stories is to learn how to punish mistakes.
B43 Francisco Vallejo-Pons – V. Topalov

Leon 2006
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Nc3 d6 6.g4!?
This is the Keres Attack, but only if Black now plays 6…Nf6. Against all other answers,
White’s 6.g4!? is an interesting experiment.
6…Ne7?!
Probably a dubious plan.
7.a3 Nbc6 8.Nb3 b5 9.h4 Bb7 10.Bf4! Ne5?
This loses. Maybe 10…Ng6 11.Bg3 (11.Be3) Be7 is more resilient.
11.Bxe5 dxe5 12.Qxd8+ Rxd8 13.Nc5 Rb8
If 13…Bc8? 14.Nxb5! axb5 15.Bxb5+ Bd7 16.Nxd7 Rxd7 17.Rd1 and White wins.
14.Nxb7
^xxxxxxxxY
|w4wdkgw4y
|dNdwhp0py
|pdwdpdwdy
|dpdw0wdwy
|wdwdPdP)y
|)wHwdwdwy
|w)Pdw)wdy
|$wdwIBdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
14…Nc6
The alternative is 14…Rxb7 15.a4! bxa4 (15…b4 16.Bxa6) 16.Bxa6 Rxb2 17.Bb5+ Kd8
18.O-O-O+! and wins.
15.a4 b4 16.Bxa6 bxc3 17.Bb5! Kd7 18.Na5 cxb2 19.Rd1+ Kc7 20.Nxc6 1-0
B90 N. Short – V. Anand

Dubai 2002
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.a4?! Nc6 7.f4 g6 8.Be2 Bg7 9.Be3
O-O 10.O-O Bg4 11.Nb3?!
Critical is 11.Bxg4 Nxg4 12.Qxg4 Nxd4 (12…Bxd4 13.Bxd4 Nxd4 14.Qd1) 13.Qd1.
11…Qc8 12.a5 Re8 13.Ra4?
A strange idea.
13…Bxe2 14,Qxe2 Qg4 15.Qd3 Rac8 16.Nd5?
The fatal mistake in worse position.

^xxxxxxxxY
|wdrdrdkdy
|dpdw0pgpy
|pdn0whpdy
|)wdNdwdwy
|RdwdP)qdy
|dNdQGwdwy
|w)PdwdP)y
|dwdwdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
16…Nxd5 17.exd5 Ne5! 0-1
For if 18.Qe4 f5 19.Qb4 Rxc2 or 18.Qd1 Qxd1 19.Rxd1 Nc4, in both cases with a
winning position for Black.
B90 V. Kramnik – V. Topalov

Wijk aan Zee 2005
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e6 7.f3 b5 8.g4
Is this idea too early and too ambitious, or is it the right way for White to seize the
initiative? We still don’t know, even after Black’s convincing success in this game.
8…h6 9.Qd2
Perhaps 9.a3 is a necessity!
9…b4 10.Na4 Nbd7 11.O-O-O?!
If 11.Qxb4 d5. Maybe 11.Be2 is better.
11…Ne5! 12.Qxb4
It seems that White has nothing better.
12…Bd7 13.Nb3 Rb8

^xxxxxxxxY
|w4w1kgw4y
|dwdbdp0wy
|pdw0phw0y
|dwdwhwdwy
|N!wdPdPdy
|dNdwGPdwy
|P)Pdwdw)y
|dwIRdBd$y
Uzzzzzzzz\
14.Qa3
If 14.Nb6? Nc6, but probably 14.Bb6 was White’s last chance.
14…Nxf3 15.h3 Nxe4 16.Be2 Ne5 17.Rhe1 Qc7 18.Bd4 Nc6 19.Bc3 d5 20.Nbc5 Qa7
0-1
C08 M. Carlsen – Pr. Nikolic

Wijk aan Zee 2005
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 c5 4.exd5 exd5 5.Ngf3 c4?!
In my opinion, Black’s best is 5…a6.
6.b3 cxb3
If 6…b5? 7.a4!
7.axb3 Bb4 8.Ne5!?
A novelty, instead of 8.Be2, 8.Bb5+, or Bronstein’s 8.Bd3!?
8…Ne7
If 8…Bc3? 9.Qf3!
9.Bd3 Nbc6 10.O-O Bc3 11.Ra4 Bxd4

Instead 11…Nxd4? Is bad because of 12.Nb1! but 11…Nxe5 12.dxe5 Bxe5 looks
unclear.
12.Nxc6 Nxc6 13.Ba3
Keeping the opponent’s King in the center is enough compensation for a pawn.
13…Be6 14.Nf3 Bb6 15.Qa1! Qc7 16.b4! f6
The alternative is 16…O-O 17.b5 Ne7 18.Ng5 h6 (18…g6? 19.Qf6) 19.Nh7 Rfe8 20.Bb2
with a strong attack.
17.Re1 Kf7 18.b5 Na5
If 18…Ne7? 19.Bxe7 Qxe7 20.Bf5 etc. Maybe 18…Nd8 offers more resistance.
19.Qd1 Rae8
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdwdrdw4y
|0p1wdk0py
|wgwdb0wdy
|hPwpdwdwy
|Rdwdwdwdy
|GwdBdNdwy
|wdPdw)P)y
|dwdQ$wIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
20.Ng5+!! fxg5 21.Qf3+ Kg8 22.Rxe6 1-0
C51 A. Kogan – V. Anand

Venaco 2005
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 Bb6 7.O-O
Critical is 7.dxe5!? The old theory gives 7…h6 8.Qd5 Qe7 9.Ba3 Qe6 10.Qd3 Nxe5
11.Nx5 Qxe5 12.f4 (Tartakower-Chajes, Carlsbad 1923) and according to Unzicker
(ECO) White has the advantage. The assessment looks correct. Unfortunately we will not
see the improvement that was prepared by Anand, because White avoided this
continuation, instead playing a well known variation recommended for Black by E.
Lasker.
7…d6 8.dxe5 dxe5 9.Qb3 Qf6 10.Bg5 Qg6 11.Bd5 f6!?
An incredible novelty! The established line (from long ago) is 11…Nge7 12.Bxe7 Kxe7
13.Bxc6 Qxc6 14.Nxe5 Qe6 15.Qa3+ Qd6!=.
12.Bxg8 fxg5 13.Nxg5
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdbdkdB4y
|0p0wdw0py
|wgndwdqdy
|dwdw0wHwy
|wdwdPdwdy
|dQ)wdwdwy
|Pdwdw)P)y
|$NdwdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
13…Kf8!!
The point of Black’s novelty. This unexpected move wins at once, while 13…Qxg5
14.Qf7+ Kd8 15.Rd1+ Nd4 is unclear.
14.Ne6+ Kxg8! 15.Nxc7+ Kf8 16.Nxa8 Bh3 17.g3 Qxe4 18.Qa3+ Ne7 0-1
D39 L. van Wely – Z. Ribli

Germany (Bundes liga) 2000
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Bg5 Bb4+ 5.Nc3 dxc4 6.a3
A rare continuation. Usual is 6.e4.
6…Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 b5 8.e4!?
A novelty, instead of 8.a4

8…Nbd7?
Better is 8…h6 9.Bxf6 Qxf6 10.a4 c6 11.g3 O-O 12.Bg2 a6.
9.e5 h6 10.exf6 hxg5 11.fxg7 Rg8 12.Qb1! g4 13.Ne5 Qg5
If 13…Nxe5? 14.Qh7!
14.Qxb5 Rb8 15.Qc6 Qf5 16.Bxc4! Rb1+ 17.Rxb1 Qxb1+ 18.Kd2 Qxh1
Or 18…Qb2+ 19.Kd3 Qb6 20.Bb5 Rxg7 21.Rb1 and White should win.
19.Bxe6! Ke7 20.Bxd7 Qf1
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdbdwdrdy
|0w0Bip)wy
|wdQdwdwdy
|dwdwHwdwy
|wdw)wdpdy
|)w)wdwdwy
|wdwIw)P)y
|dwdwdqdwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
21.Ng6+! 1-0
For if 21…fxg6 22.Qe6+ Kd8 23.Qxg8+ Kxd7 24.Qf7+, or 21…Kd8 22.Qf6+ Kxd7
23.Ne5+ and wins.
E34 Y. Pelletier – M. Carlsen

Biel 2005
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 d5 5.cxd5

^xxxxxxxxY
|rhb1kdw4y
|0p0wdp0py
|wdwdphwdy
|dwdPdwdwy
|wgw)wdwdy
|dwHwdwdwy
|P)QdP)P)y
|$wGwIBHRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
5…c5!?
A truly surprising novelty, used for the first time in Bareev – Topalov, Monako 2005.
6.dxc5
It seems that after 6.dxc6 Qxd4 7.cxb7 Bxb7 Black has enough compensation for the
pawn.
6…Nxd5
Instead 6..exd5!? 7.Bg5! transposes into a line that has been quite popular recently.
7.Bd2 Bxc5 8.Nxd5 Qxd5 9.e4 Qd4

Maybe 9…Qc6 is the better try.
10.O-O-O Nd7 11.Bb5 O-O??
A blunder. Black should play 11…Qe5!? 12.Nf3 Qc7.
12.Bc3 Qxf2 13.Qxf2 Bxf2 14.Bxd7 Be3+ 15.Kc2 1-0
E35 I. Sokolov - Levon Aronian

Turin (ol) 2006
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 d5 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 c5!?
Sharper than 6…h6 7.Bxf6 Qxf6 8.e3.
7.dxc5 h6 8.Bh4?!
The theory recommends 8.Bxf6.
8…g5 9.Bg3 Ne4
In case of 9…d4 is possible 10.a3 or 10.O-O-O!?
10.Bxb8? Qf6!
Best. Naturally not 10…Rxb8? ``.Qa4+ and White wins a piece.
11.Bg3 Nxc3 12.a3 Bf5 13.Qd2
There is no defense. If 13.Qc1? Na2+, or 13.Qb3 Ba5 14.Qxb7 O-O (14…Ne4+) and
Black wins.
13…Ba5 14.b4 Ne4 15.Qc1
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwdkdw4y
|0pdwdpdwy
|wdwdw1w0y
|gw)pdb0wy
|w)wdndwdy
|)wdwdwGwy
|wdwdP)P)y
|$w!wIBHRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
15…Rc8!! 16.Ra2 Rxc5 17.Qa1 Qc6!!
A fantastic final blow.
18.Qe5+ Kd8! 19.Qxh8+ Kd7 0-1

by IM Nikolay Minev
#8: The French Defense Rubinstein Variation is in Trouble
Recent statistics show that the French Defense-Rubinstein Variation (after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3
(3.Nd2) dxe4) Black loses about 90% of the games at all levels of play. The reason is, I think, that
the pawn structure that arises for Black is passive, and only a small number of players are able to
successfully handle such positions. Or, are there other reasons for such results? Perhaps you will
find something more in the following games, with troubles for the Black side.
C10 B. Macieja – V. Laznicka

Khanty-Mansiysk (Russia) 2007
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Nf3 Ngf6 6.Nxf6+
This continuation is considered by the books as White’s strongest.
6…Nxf6 7.Bg5 h6 8.Bh4!?
For 8.Bxf6 – see next game.
8…c5
8…Be7!?
9.Bb5+!?
Usual is 9.Bc4.
9…Bd7 10.Bxd7+ Qxd7 11.Qe2! cxd4 12.O-O-O Bc5? 13.Qe5 Be7 14.Nxd4 Qa4 15.Qc7! Rd8
If 15…Qxa2 then 16.Nc6!! wins.

^xxxxxxxxY
|wdw4kdw4y
|0p!wgp0wy
|wdwdphw0y
|dwdwdwdwy
|qdwHwdwGy
|dwdwdwdwy
|P)Pdw)P)y
|dwIRdwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
16.Nf5!! Rd7
Or 16…exf5 17.Rxd8+ Bxd8 18,Re1+ and White wins.
17.Qc8+ Rd8 18.Nxg7+ 1-0
C10 V. Topalov - E. Bareev

Monaco (Rapid) 2002
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Nbd7 6.Nf3 h6 7.Nxf6+ Nxf6 8.Bxf6 Qxf6
Tournament practice shows that after 8…gxf6 9.Bc4 White has better chances.
9.Bb5+!?
9.Bd3!? or 9.Bc4!? are the usual choices.
9…c6 10.Bd3 Bd7 11.Qe2 c5?!
Better is 11...Bd6 12.O-O-O O-O-O with an approximately equal game.
12.O-O-O! O-O-O
If 12…cxd4, then 13.Be4 or 13.Bb5!?
13.Be4 Kb8
^xxxxxxxxY
|wiw4wgw4y
|0pdbdp0wy
|wdwdp1w0y
|dw0wdwdwy
|wdw)Bdwdy
|dwdwdNdwy
|P)PdQ)P)y
|dwIRdwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
14.Ne5!! cxd4 15.Bxb7!! Qf4+
If 15...Kxb7 16.Qe4+ Kc7 17.Qxd4 Be8 18.Qxa7+ Kc8 19.Rxd8+ Qxd8 20.Nc4! and wins.
16.Kb1 Kxb7 17.g3 Qf5 18.Rxd4 Bc5 19.Rf4! Qg5 20.h4 1-0
Because of 20...Qe7 21.Rxf7 Qe8 22.Qb5+ and wins.
C10 S. Karjakin – A. Rychagov

Russia (ch team) 2007
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Nf3 Ngf6 6.Nxf6+ Nxf6 7.c3
Another rare and interesting plan for White’s development.
7…c5 8.Be3 Qc7
Somebody should try 8…Ng4.
9.Ne5!
The point of White’s plan.
9…a6 10.Qa4+ Nd7 11.O-O-O cxd4 12.Nxd7 Bxd7 13.Qxd4
White stands clearly better.
13…Bc6
If 13…O-O-O? 14.Bf4 Qa5 15.Qa7 and wins.
14.Bc4 Rd8 15.Qg4 Bd7 16.Bb3 Qa5 17.Bg5! Rc8 18.Rhe1 h5
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdrdkgw4y
|dpdbdp0wy
|pdwdpdwdy
|1wdwdwGpy
|wdwdwdQdy
|dB)wdwdwy
|P)wdw)P)y
|dwIR$wdwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
19.Bxe6!! Ba3
If 19…hxg4 20.Bxd7#, also 19…fxe6 20.Rxe6+ or 19…Rxc3+ 20.Kb1! and wins.
20.Bxd7+ Kf8 21.Qg3! h4
If 21…Rxc3+ 22.Kb1! Rxg3 23.Re8# or 21…Ra8 21.bxa3.
22.Qe5 1-0
C10 P. Svidler – E. Bareev

Wijk aan Zee 2004
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Nf3 Ngf6 6.Bd3
This continuation is also quite popular and successful too!
6…c5 7.O-O Nxe4 8.Bxe4 Nf6 9.Bg5 cxd4 10.Nxd4 h6?!
10…Be7!?
11.Bxf6 Qxf6 12.Qd3!

Threatening 13.Bxb7 Bxb6 14.Qb5+
12…a6 13.Rad1 Be7
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdbdkdw4y
|dpdwgp0wy
|pdwdp1w0y
|dwdwdwdwy
|wdwHBdwdy
|dwdQdwdwy
|P)Pdw)P)yt
|dwd$dRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
14.Nc6! e5
Black should play 14…O-O, with a worse, but still playable, position.
15.Nxe7 Qxe7 16.f4 exf4?
A blunder. However, also after the best 16…O-O 17.f5! f6 18.Qb3+ Kh8 19.Rd3 White has a big
advantage.
17.Bxb7! 1-0
Because of 17…Qxb7 18.Qd8# or 17…Bxb7 18.Rfe1.
C10 A. Khalifman - E. Bareev

Wijk aan Zee 2002
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Bd3 Ngf6 6.Qe2!?
An interesting order of moves which, in my opinion, deserves serious consideration. Usual is

6.Nf3 or 6.Nxf6+.
6…c5
If 6…Nxe4 7.Bxe4 Nf6? 8.Bxb7! Bxb7 9.Qb5+.
7.Nxf6+ Nxf6 8.dxc5 Bxc5 9.Bd2

White stands better.
9…O-O 10.O-O-O!?
A formidable sacrifice of two pawns that at first glance looks like a terrible mistake!
10…Qd5 11.Kb1 Qxg2 12.Nf3 Qxf2 13.Qe5
Two open files against Black’s castled position provide good compensation for the sacrificed
pawns, but the game is far from over.
13…Be7
Instead 13…Qxf3 14.Qxc5 looks much more dangerous to Black. For 13…Nd7 – see next game.
14.Rdf1 Qc5 15.Qg3 Nh5 16,Qh3 g6 17.Rhg1 Nf4?
This tactical defense is the decisive mistake. Instead Black should try 17...Ng7.
18.Bxf4 e5 19.Qh6 exf4
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdbdw4kdy
|0pdwgpdpy
|wdwdwdp!y
|dw1wdwdwy
|wdwdw0wdy
|dwdBdNdwy
|P)Pdwdw)y
|dKdwdR$wy
Uzzzzzzzz\
20.Rg5!! 1-0
Because of 20…Qd6 21.Rh5! with inevitable mate.
C10 A. Morosevich - L. van Wely

Wijk aan Zee 2002
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Bd3 Ngf6 6.Qe2 c5 7.Nxf6+ Nxf6 8.dxc5 Bxc5 9.Bd2
O-O 10.O-O-O Qd5 11.Kb1 Qxg2 12.Nf3 Qxf2 13.Qe5 Nd7
Even worse than 13…Be7 as in the previous game Khalifman – Bareev.
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdbdw4kdy
|0pdndp0py
|wdwdpdwdy
|dwgw!wdwy
|wdwdwdwdy
|dwdBdNdwy
|P)PGw1w)y
|dKdRdwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
14.Bxh7+! Kxh7 15.Qh5+ Kg8 16.Rhg1! Be3
If 16…Nf6 17.Rxg7+! Kxg7 18.Qg5+ Kh7 19.Qxf6 and Black is hopeless. For example 19…Qg2
20.Ng5+ Kg8 21.Qh6 or 19…Qe2 20.Re1 Qf2 (if 20…Qc4 or 20…Qg2 then 21.Ng5+ Kg8
22.Qh6) 21.Bc3 Rg8 22.Qxf7+ Kh6 23.Qxg8 Qxf3+ 24.Bd2+ and White wins.
17.Bxe3 Qxe3 18.Rg3 Qc5
Or 18…Qe4 19.Rh3 f6 20.Rg1 and wins.
19.Qh6 1-0
by IM Nikolay Minev
#9: Recipe for a Quick Catastrophe
Most short games show a characteristic pattern – the King of losing side remains in the
center and fails victim to attack by a better developed opponent. There are many reasons
why the King remains in the center too long (or forever!), but we can consolidate all
these reasons in one: wasting time. This includes playing many times with the same
piece, playing to many pawn moves, grabbing and defending small material etc.
In most cases, leaving the King in the center leads to disaster, as in all the games
presented below. When examining these instructive examples, try to admire not only the
attractive winning tactics, but also to understand why the losing player failed in such
terrible position.
A04 M. Carlsen – S. Dolmatov

Moscow (Aeroflot) 2004
1.Nf3 f5 2.d3 d6
Recommended by the books. If 2…Nf6, then White can try the very promising gambit
3.e4!? fxe4 4.dxe4 Nxe4 5.Bd3. Maybe Black should try 2…d5!?
3.e4 e5 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.exf5!
This, together with White’s next move, is a new idea, which deserves serious attention. It
seems that opening files in the center is in White’s favor.
5…Bxf5 6.d4! Nxd4 7.Nxd4 exd4 8.Qxd4 Nf6 9.Bc4 c6
Already Black has big problems with castling, and this move does not help. Where is
Black’s mistake? Probably 2…d6 is not to be recommended.
10.Bg5 b5
In the case of 10…d5, possible is 11.O-O-O Be7 12.Rhe1 and if 12…O-O 13.Qe5
11.Bb3 Be7 12.O-O-O Qd7 13.Rhe1 Kd8

^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwiwdw4y
|0wdqgw0py
|wdp0whwdy
|dpdwdbGwy
|wdw!wdwdy
|dBHwdwdwy
|P)Pdw)P)y
|dwIR$wdwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
Black cannot castle and his King will remain in the center, under attack by all White’s
forces. The catastrophe is not merely near, the catastrophe comes immediately!
14.Rxe7!! Qxe7
If 14…Kxe7 15.Bxf6+gxf6 16.Re1+ and White wins.
15.Qf4 Bd7 16.Ne4 d5 17.Nxf6 h6 18.Bh4 g5 19.Qd4 1-0
For if 19…gxh4 20.Nxd5! Qg5+ 21.f4 and White wins.
A45 L. Bruzon Bautista – B. Jobava

Havana 2005
1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4 3.Bf4 d5 4.e3 c5 5.Bd3 Nc6 6.Bxe4 dxe4 7.Ne2 cxd4 8.exd4 Bg4
9.h3 Bxe2 10.Qxe2 Qxd4 11.Nc3 e5 12.Be3 Qb4?
After this, Black’s King will remain in the center. Instead, to defend the extra pawn,
better was 12…Qd7 and if 12.Nxe4 Be7 13.Rd1 Qc8, gaining time for short castling.
13.O-O-O Be7 14.Qg4! Kf8
Forced. If 14…O-O then 15.Bh6 Bf6 16.Rd7!! and Black has no defense against the
threat 17.Nd5.
15.Nd5 Qa5 16.Nxe7 Nxe7 17.Qd7! Rc8

The decisive mistake in an already very difficult position. Black cannot play 17…Qxa2??
or 17…b6?? then 18.Qd8+! and after 17…f6 18.Qxb7 Re8 19.Qxa7
White should win easily. The best defense is 17…Re8 but it is hard to believe that after
18.Kb1 (18.Qxb7 Qxa2 19.Bc5) Black can save the game.
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdrdwiw4y
|0pdQhp0py
|wdwdwdwdy
|1wdw0wdwy
|wdwdpdwdy
|dwdwGwdPy
|P)Pdw)Pdy
|dwIRdwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
18.Bc5!! Re8
If 18…Qxc5 or 18…Rxc5 then 19.Qd8+!
19.Rd5! 1-0
Because of 19…Qxa2 20.Qxe7+! Rxe7 21,Rd8#
A45 P. Frohlich – G. Lane

Queenstown (New Zealand) 2006
1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 e6 3.e4 h6 4.Bxf6 Qxf6 5.Nc3 d6
Perhaps 5…Bb4 is the better try.
6.h4
The idea behind this? I think that White says it loudly : “Don’t try to castle short!”.
6…Nc6
Better is 6…c6.
7.Nb5!? Qd8 8.d5 exd5 9.exd5 Ne5 10.Qd4 c5?
Opening both center files for your opponent when your King will have no possibility for
castling (at least for next few moves) is always dangerous. However, after the obvious
10…a6 11.f4 (White’s idea behind 7.Nb5) 11…Nd7 (11…Ng6 12.Qe4+ Be7 13.h5 Nf8
14.Nd4) White has the opportunity to initiate an unclear but very interesting attack with
12.O-O-O!? axb5 (12…Nf6!?) 13.Re1+ Be7 14.Qxg7 Rf8 15.Bxb5 etc.
11.dxc6 bxc6 12.f4! Ng6
Or 12…Ng4 13.O-O-O! with the same attacking possibilities as in the game.
13.O-O-O! d5
After 13…cxb5 14.Qe4+ Be6 15.Bxb5+ Ke7 16.f5 White keeps his strong attack.
14.Nf3 Ne7
Or 14…cxb5 15.Bxb5+ Bd7 (15…Ke7 16.Rhe1+ Be6 17.f5) 16.Qxd5 and White wins.
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdb1kgw4y
|0wdwhp0wy
|wdpdwdw0y
|dNdpdwdwy
|wdw!w)w)y
|dwdwdNdwy
|P)PdwdPdy
|dwIRdBdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
15.Qc5!! cxb5
If 15…Be6 16.Nd6+ Kd7 17.Ne5+ Kc7 18.Ndxf7 and wins.
16.Bxb5+ Bd7 17.Ne5 Nc6 18.Qxd5 1-0
B14 T. Hirneise – H. Sjol

Helsingor 2007
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Nf3 Bb4 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.Bd2 Nc6
9.Bd3 Nxc3?!
9…Be7!?
10.bxc3 Be7 11.Qe2 Bd7?
Why make this useless move, which makes Black’s development even more difficult?
Correct is 11…O-O!?
12.O-O Bf6?
Here again is necessary 12…O-O.
13.Qe4! g6 14.d5! Na5 15.Nd4 e5 16.f4 Qe7 17.fxe5 Bxe5
If 17…Qxe5?? 18.Rxf6.
18.Rae1 f6
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwdkdw4y
|0pdb1wdpy
|wdwdw0pdy
|hwdPgwdwy
|wdwHQdwdy
|dw)Bdwdwy
|PdwGwdP)y
|dwdw$RIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
19.c4! b6 20.d6! Qd8 21.Rxf6! 1-0
B21 M. Zelic – S. Martinovic

Split 2007
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 e6 6.Bc4 a6 7.O-O Nge7?!
Losing even one extra tempo when playing against a gambit always is dangerous.. In my
opinion, better is 7…d6, followed by Nf6 and Be7.
8.Bg5 f6 9.Be3 Ng6 10.Bb3 b5 11.Nd5!
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdb1kgw4y
|dwdpdw0py
|pdhdp0ndy
|dpdNdwdwy
|wdwdPdwdy
|dBdwGNdwy
|P)wdw)P)y
|$wdQdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
“In the opening, if you are ahead three or more tempi in development, try to find a
winning continuation!” – Rudolf Spielmann.
11…Rb8
Played to counter the threat 12.Bb6. If instead 11…exd5, then 12.exd5 transposes into
same variation as in actual game.
12.Rc1 exd5
This exposes the King and loses quickly. After 12…Be7 13.Nxe7 Ngxe7 14.Bc5 White
has more than enough positional compensation for the pawn.
13.exd5 Nce5 14.Nxe5 Nxe5 15.d6 Qa5
There is no adequate defense. If 15…Bb7 16.f4 Nc4 17.Re1 and wins.
16.Ba7 Ra8 17.Qd5 Nc6 18.Rxc6! Bb7 19.Qf7+ Kd8 20.Bb6+ 1-0
B97 K. Spraggett – D. Komljenovic

Seville 2007
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qxb2
The notorious “Poison Pawn” variation, where Black wins a pawn at the cost of several
tempi. This automatically means that Black’s King will remain in the center for a long
time. This does not means that Black is lost, but he deliberately takes a big risk.
9.Nb3 Nbd7 10.Bxf6!
The attempt to trap the Queen by 10.a3 fails to 10…Nc5
10…gxf6
But not 10…Nxf6?? 11.Ra2.
11.Rb1 Qa3 12.Be2 b5 13.O-O Bb7 14.f5! Rc8
Black decides to keep his King in the center. Maybe he should try 14…O-O-O, even if it
looks very, very dangerous?
15.Bh5 Ke7 16.Rbd1 Ne5 17.fxe6 fxe6 18.Nb1 Nc4 19.Qf2!
Stronger than 19.Nxa3.
19…Qb2
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdrdwgw4y
|dbdwiwdpy
|pdw0p0wdy
|dpdwdwdBy
|wdndPdwdy
|dNdwdwdwy
|P1Pdw!P)y
|dNdRdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
20.Qa7 Rc7 21.Qb8 1-0
C40 N. Rutter – A. Chavan

England (Team ch) 2005
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6
The Latvian Gambit is an opening in which Black plays excessively with pawns and the
Queen. This very often leads to positions with Black’s King remaining in the center; and
sometimes to a quick catastrophe, as in this instructive game.
4.Nc4!?
In my opinion, this move is strategically more correct than the continuation that is often
seen in practice: 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4.
4…fxe4 5.Nc3 Qg6 6.Ne3
Also strong, but more complicated is the immediate 6.d3.
6…c6 7.d3!
The point behind 4.Nc4.
7…Bb4
Or 7…Nf6 8.Nxe4 Nxe4 9.dxe4 Qxe4 10.Bd3 with a clear advantage to White.
8.dxe4 Bxc3+
Or 8…Qxe4 9.Bd3 Qh4 10.Nf5 Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 Qf6 12.O-O d5 13.Re1+ Kf7 14.Bg5!
and White wins.
9.bxc3 Qxe4 10.Bd3 Qe5 11.O-O Qxc3?
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhbdkdn4y
|0pdpdw0py
|wdpdwdwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|wdwdwdwdy
|dw1BHwdwy
|PdPdw)P)y
|$wGQd$Iwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
What a picture! Compare the developed pieces. Black has only his Queen in play, while
White is ready for decisive action. The expected blow comes immediately!
12.Nc4!! Qxa1 13.Re1+ Ne7 14.Rxe7+ Kd8
If 14…Kf8 15.Qe1 Qf6 16.Re8+ Kf7 17.Rxh8 and White wins.
15.Rxd7+! Kxd7 16.Bg6+ Ke7 17.Qd6# 1-0
D30 Tunik - A. Geller

Togliatti 2001
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c6 4.Qc2 dxc4
Here, to give up the center is not the best strategy. Better is 4…Nf6.
5.Qxc4 b5?! 6.Qc2 Bb7 7.e4 Nf6 8.Bd3 Nbd7 9.O-O a6 10.Qe2 c5 11.Bg5 cxd4??
The decisive mistake. Truly, it is easy to overlook the menace of a very original mate
with a Bishop and pawn, but a veteran such as A. Geller should be alert that his King is
still in the center. Correct was either 11…Be7 or 11…h6.
12.e5! h6
Or 12…Bxf3 13.gxf3 and further as in the game.
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdw1kgw4y
|dbdndp0wy
|pdwdphw0y
|dpdw)wGwy
|wdw0wdwdy
|dwdBdHdwy
|P)wdQ)P)y
|$NdwdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
13.exf6! hxg5 14.Qxe6+!! 1-0
Because of 14…fxe6 15.Bg6#
It is no wonder that Black’s King is the victim in all the examples so far. It is much more
often that the second player, already a tempo behind, loses additional tempi,
compounding the initial disadvantage. As we saw, there can be many strategic and
psychological reasons for these additional losses of time. However, these same reasons
can also tempt the player with White pieces. Below are presented two examples in which
it is White’s King that remains in the center too long, and is brutally punished.
A21 F. Tahirov – A. Shirov

Villa de Canada de Calatrava 2007
1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Bb4 3.Qc2 Nf6 4.a3 Bxc3 5.Qxc3 Nc6 6.b4 O-O 7.e3 d5 8.cxd5 Qxd5
Playing mostly with pawns, White is already three tempi behind in development. Notice
also that White’s King’s side is still frozen, which means that prior to castling, his King
will remain in the center at least three tempi more. White’s next move is again a waste of
time, which makes the position even worse.
9.b5?
Too many moves with pawns!
Nd4!
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdbdw4kdy
|0p0wdp0py
|wdwdwhwdy
|dPdq0wdwy
|wdwhwdwdy
|)w!w)wdwy
|wdw)w)P)y
|$wGwIBHRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
Nothing fancy! This is a typical sacrifice where files are forced open, followed by a
decisive assault by all pieces.
10.exd4 exd4 11.Qc4 Re8+ 12.Kd1 Qh5+ 13.Be2 Qg6 14.Nf3 Be6 15.Qc2
15…d3!!
Another typical sacrifice to open more files against the King in the center.
16.Qxd3
If 16.Bxd3 Qxg2.
Bf5 17.Qc4
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwdrdkdy
|0p0wdp0py
|wdwdwhqdy
|dPdwdbdwy
|wdQdwdwdy
|)wdwdNdwy
|wdw)B)P)y
|$wGKdwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
17…Rxe2!! 18.Nh4
There is no adequate defense. If 18.Kxe2 Re8+ 18.Kd1 Bd3 10.Qc5 Be2+ etc. The best
defense seems to be 18.Qxe2, but after 18…Bc2+ 19.Ke1 Re8 20.Ne5 Qxg2 21.Rf1
Rxe5 22.Qxe5 Bd3 23.Qe2 Bxe2 24.Kxe2 Qe4+ 25.Kd1 Qd4! 26.Rb1 (26.Ra2 Qc4!)
Qd3! Black wins.
18…Qh5 19.Qxe2 Bc2+ 20.Ke1 Re8 21.Qxe8+ Nxe8 0-1
After 22.Nf3 Qxb4 White’s position is practically hopeless.
D16 L. van Wely – A. Morosevich

Wijk aan Zee 2001
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.a4 c5 6.d5
The theory recommends 6.e4!
6…Bf5 7.e3 e6 8.Bxc4 exd5 9.Nxd5 Nc6 10.Qb3
10.O-O!?
10…Qd7 11.Nxf6+ gxf6 12.Bd2 Rg8 13.Bc3?
13.O-O-O!?
13…O-O-O!
Castling is not only defensive, but also can be an attacking move!
14.Bxf7 Rxg2 15.Nh4
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdk4wgwdy
|0pdqdBdpy
|wdndw0wdy
|dw0wdbdwy
|PdwdwdwHy
|dQGw)wdwy
|w)wdw)r)y
|$wdwIwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
15…Ne5!!
When the King is in the center, expect surprises!
16.Nxf5
If 16.Nxg2 Nf3+ 17.Ke2 (17.Kf1 Bd3#) Bd3+ 18.Kxf3 (18.Kd1 Bc4+) Qh3+ 19.Kf4
Bd6+ and mate next move.
16…Nd3+ 17.Kf1?
After the better 17.Kd1 Ne5+ 18.Kc1 Nxf7 Black still has the advantage.
17…Rxf2+ 18.Kg1 Kb8!

Avoiding White’s only hope 19.Be6.
19.Qe6 Rxf5 20.h4 Bd6! 21.Rf1
^xxxxxxxxY
|wiw4wdwdy
|0pdqdBdpy
|wdwgQ0wdy
|dw0wdrdwy
|Pdwdwdw)y
|dwGn)wdwy
|w)wdwdwdy
|dwdwdRIRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
21…Rg8+! 0-1
For if 22.Bxg8 Qg7#
Let’s finish this mini-lesson with a quotation from GM Rudolf Spielmann:
“In an opening castling may well be said to be the most important move, as two
pieces are developed at one stroke. The King, to be sure, does not get into play
thereby, but making the King secure is the equivalent at least of a strong developing
move.”
by IM Nikolay Minev
#10: The King’s Gambit Today
There was a time when the King’s Gambit was the most frequently used opening; and
there was a time when the King’s Gambit nearly disappeared from play – considered an
opening only for the archives. Today the King’s Gambit is again quite popular in open
tournaments, mainly as a surprise. Many things about this sharp gambit are forgotten
from the earlier days, and because of this many players improvise at the board, producing
unusual games full of tactics, interesting ideas, and “novelties” that were perhaps better
left undiscovered. Let’s see a few games that are characteristic of the King’s Gambit
today.
C30 M.Neubauer - H.Rolletschek

Austria (ch) Mureck 2001
1.e4 e5 2.f4 Nf6 3.fxe5
Following an established main line. David Brostein approached this variation differently
against Kostro, Tbilisi 1970 with 3.Nf3!?, which after 3…Nxe4 4.d3 Nc5 5.fxe5 d5 6.d4
Ne4 transposed into the same unfavorable variation as in our game. Naturally, instead of
3…Nxe4 Black can continue 3…d5! or 3…exf4, but those are different variations.
3…Nxe4 4.Nf3 d5?!
The theory recommends 4…Ng5 5.d4 Nxf3+ 6.Qxf3 Qh4+ 7.Qf2 Qxf2+ 8.Kxf3 with
slightly better chances for White.
5.d3 Nc5 6.d4 Ne4
Also after 6…Ne6 7.c4 c6 8.Nc3 White has the better game.
7.Bd3 Bf5
A novelty, but one which looks dubious because it loses an important tempo in the
opening. In Bronstein-Kostro Black lost after the passive 7…Be7, while B. Ivanovic
proposed the untested 7…c5!?
8. O-O Bg6 9.c4!dxc4 10.Bxc4 c6 11.Nc3 Nxc3 12.bxc3 Be7
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhw1kdw4y
|0pdwgp0py
|wdpdwdbdy
|dwdw)wdwy
|wdB)wdwdy
|dw)wdHdwy
|PdwdwdP)y
|$wGQdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
13.e6! fxe6
After this Black’s King will remain in the center, but even worse is 13…f6 14.Nh4 or
13…O-O 14.Ne5.
14.Bxe6 Nd7 15.Qe2 Qc7 16.Bh3! Nf8?
16…Kd8!?
17.Re1 Kd8
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwiwhw4y
|0p1wgw0py
|wdpdwdbdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|wdw)wdwdy
|dw)wdNdBy
|PdwdQdP)y
|$wGw$wIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
18.Bf4 1-0
Because of 18…Bd6 19.Bg5+ and wins.

C33 J. Steffen – H. Simon
Corr. (Thematic) 2004
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 b5
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhb1kgn4y
|0w0pdp0py
|wdwdwdwdy
|dpdwdwdwy
|wdBdP0wdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|P)P)wdP)y
|$NGQIwHRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
4.Bxf7+?!
The variation has a dubious reputation, which was tested repeatedly in this thematic
tournament. Instead, the main line of recent theory is 4.Bxb5 Qh4+ 5.Kf1 g5 6.Nc3 Bg7
7.d4 Ne7 8.Nf3 Qh5 9.h4 with better chances to White. In my opinion, there are many
possibilities for innovations for both sides.
4…Kxf7 5.Qh5+ g6 6.Qd5+ Kg7 7.Qxa8 Nc6
^xxxxxxxxY
|Qdb1wgn4y
|0w0pdwipy
|wdndwdpdy
|dpdwdwdwy
|wdwdP0wdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|P)P)wdP)y
|$NGwIwHRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
The critical position. White has won an exchange, but his Queen is in a “mouse trap”.
The decisive question is whether the Queen can be saved.
8.Nf3 Nf6 9.d3
It seems that White has nothing better and there is no help for his trapped Queen.
9…Bd6! 10.a4
Or 10.Nc3 Qe7 11.Nxb5 Ba6 etc.
10…b4 11.a5 Qe7 12.a6 Bxa6 13.Qxh8+ Kxh8 14.Rxa6 Nxe4! 15.O-O
Or 15.dxe4 Qxe4+ 16.Kd1 (16.Kf1 Qc4+) b3! And wins.
15…Bc5+ 16.d4 Nxd4 17.Kh1 Nxf3 0-1
In conclusion, the assessment of this variation 4.Bxf7+ is it is worse than dubious.
C37 M. Uhl – V. Pribe

Germany 2005
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.O-O gxf3 6.Qxf3 Qf6 7.e5 Qxe5 8.Bxf7+ Kxf7
9.d4 Qxd4+ 10.Be3
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhbdwgn4y
|0p0pdkdpy
|wdwdwdwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|wdw1w0wdy
|dwdwGQdwy
|P)PdwdP)y
|$NdwdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
This piquant position is the theory from a hundred years ago! It is considered that after
10…Qf6 11.Bxf4 Ne7 12.Nc3 Nf5 Black repulses the attack. As we shall see, in our
game Black uses another continuation, which leads to disaster. Does he not know the
theory, or is he afraid that the theory is not correct? Probably the former.
10…Qg7? 11.Qxf4+ Nf6 12.Bd4 Be7 13.Nc3 d6
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhbdwdw4y
|0p0wgk1py
|wdw0whwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|wdwGw!wdy
|dwHwdwdwy
|P)PdwdP)y
|$wdwdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
14.Rae1
The threat is 15.Rxe7+! Black is already lost.
14…Bd8 15.Bxf6 Bxf6 16.Nd5 Re8 17.Qxf6+ Qxf6 18.Rxf6+ Kg7 19.Rxe8 Nd7
20.Re7+ Kg8 21.Rff7 1-0
C39 A. Fedorov – M. Sorokin

Dubai 2002
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Nf6 6.Nxg4 Nc6?!
Black improvises. He should follow the theoretical advice 6…Nxe4! 7.Qe2 d5 8.Nf2
Qe7, but most likely he is not familiar with this variation.
7.Nc3 Rg8 8.Nxf6+ Qxf6 9.Nd5 Qg6!?
Hoping for counter-play, because 9…Qd8 looks too passive.
10.d3
If 10.Nxc7+?? Kd8 11.Nxa8 Qg3+ 12.Ke2 Nd4#

10…Qg3+ 11.Kd2 Nb4?
The best try is 11…Kd8!
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdbdkgrdy
|0p0pdpdpy
|wdwdwdwdy
|dwdNdwdwy
|whwdP0w)y
|dwdPdw1wy
|P)PIwdPdy
|$wGQdBdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
12.Nf6+!
If 12.Nxc7+ Kd8 13.Nxa8 then after 13…Qe3+ 14.Kc3 Qc5+ 15.Kd2 Qe3+ Black has
perpetual check, while White’s attempt to escape 15.Kb3 Nxc2! 16.a3 (16.Qxc2? Qb4#
)Nxa1+ 17.Ka2 Nc2 is in Black’s favor.
12…Kd8 13.Qf3! Rg6 14.Nxh7 Be7 15.Ng5 d5
Or 15…Bxg5 16.hxg5 Qxg5 17.c3 Nc6 18.Kc2 with a clear advantage to White.
16.c3 1-0
Speaking about the King’s Gambit today, I cannot resist the desire to show the following
unique experiment, which I saw for the first time in a game from 20th Century.
C30 Ziegler - D. V. Pedersen

Denmark (Team ch) 1998
1.e4 e5 2.f4 Nc6 3.Nf3
Naturally not 3.fxe5?? because of 3…Qh4+.

3…f5
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdb1kgn4y
|0p0pdw0py
|wdndwdwdy
|dwdw0pdwy
|wdwdP)wdy
|dwdwdNdwy
|P)P)wdP)y
|$NGQIBdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
This bold experiment is not mentioned by the theory, most probably, because it looks
dubious. However, after the success of this game, perhaps the surprising 3…f5 will
attract more attention.
4.exf5
The best continuation is not easy to be found. White has many interesting options to
consider: 4.Bc4, 4.d4, 4.Nc3, 4.d3 etc.
4…e4
The symmetrical 4…exf4 5.d4 must be in White’s favor.
5.Ne5 Nf6 6.Be2?
Tempting, but the wrong idea. In my opinion White’s best is 6.d4.
6…Bc5 7.Bh5+ Kf8 8.Nc3
Instead 8.Nf7? Qe8! 9.Nxh8 Qxh5 is clearly with advantage to Black.
8…Qe7 9.Na4
What else? White is already without good options.
9…Bd4!? 10.Nxc6 dxc6 11.c3 Nxh5 12.Qxh5 g6!? 13.fxg6
After 13.Qh6+ Bg7 14.Qg5 Bf6 15.Qh6+ Kf7! 16.b3 Bxf5 Black has the advantage.
13…hxg6 14.Qg5?
Probably the decisive mistake. White’s best defense was 14.Qxg6, For example 14…Rg8
15.Qh6+ (15.Qh5? Bf6 16.O-O b5) Bg7 16.Qg5 Bf6 17.Qh6+ Bg7 =, while 14…Bf6 or
14…Bg7 are unclear.
14…Bf6 15.Qc5 Bh4+ 16.Kf1
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdbdwiw4y
|0p0w1wdwy
|wdpdwdpdy
|dw!wdwdwy
|Ndwdp)wgy
|dw)wdwdwy
|P)w)wdP)y
|$wGwdKdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
16…b5!! 17.Qxc6 bxa4 18.Qxa8 Qc5 19.Qxc8+
Or 19.Ke2 Kg7! and wins.
19…Ke7! 0-1
There are about fifty games with this variation from 21st Century. Unfortunately, these
games are from low level competitions, and it is too early for a definitive assessment to
be made. Here is an example, where it is White who prevails.
C30 A. Cabrera – E. Garcia

Cartagena de Indias (Colombia) 2001
1.e4 e5 2.f4 Nc6 3.Nf3 f5 4.Nc3!? Nf6?! 5.Nxe5 fxe4 6.Ng4! Nh5 7.g3 Nd4
If 7…d5 8.Ne3 Nf6 9.Nexd5! Nxd5 10.Qh5+ and 11.Qxd5.
8.Bg2 d5 9.Ne3 Nf6

^xxxxxxxxY
|rdb1kgw4y
|0p0wdw0py
|wdwdwhwdy
|dwdpdwdwy
|wdwhp)wdy
|dwHwHw)wy
|P)P)wdB)y
|$wGQIwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
10.Ncxd5
After this White wins easily.
10 Nf3+ 11.Bxf3 Nxd5 12.Bxe4 Nxe3 13.Qh5+ g6 14.Qe5+ Qe7 15.Qxe7+ Bxe7
16.dxe3 Bh3 17.Bxb7 Rb8 18.Bc6+ Kf7 19.Bd5+ Kg7 20.Bd2 Bf6 21.Bc3 Bxc3+
22.bxc3 Rhd8 23.0-0-0 Bg4 24.Rd2 1-0
Mini-Lessons From Short Games Of 21st Century
By IM Nikolay Minev
Entertaining and Instructive Games from the World Blitz
Championship (Moscow 2007)
A48 Vassily Ivanchuk – Alexey Shirov

World Blitz Championship, Moscow 2007
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Bf4 Bg7 4.e3 d6 5.h3 c5 6.c3 Qb6 7.Qc1
More popular in tournament practice is 7.Qb3.
7…cxd4 8.exd4 Nd5 9.Bh2
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhbdkdw4y
|0pdw0pgpy
|w1w0wdpdy
|dwdndwdwy
|wdw)wdwdy
|dw)wdNdPy
|P)wdw)PGy
|$N!wIBdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
9…Bh6??
Tempting, but the wrong idea. Correct is 9…O-O.
10.Qxh6! Qxb2 11.Bc4 Qxa1
If 11…Nxc3 then 12.O-O! Qxa1 13.Qg7 Rf8 14.Ng5 and White’s attack should prevail.
12.O-O Be6 13.Qd2!

Threatening 14.Rc1 and 15.Na3, winning the Queen. Black is already lost.
13…b5 14.Bxb5+ Nd7 15.c4 Rb8 16.cxd5 Rxb5 17.Nc3 1-0
A48 Ruslan Ponomariov – Alexey Shirov

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Bg5 Bg7 4.Nbd2 O-O
4…d5!?
5.e4 d5 6.Bd3 dxe4 7.Nxe4 Nxe4 8.Bxe4 c5 9.c3 cxd4 10.Nxd4 h6 11.Be3
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhb1w4kdy
|0pdw0pgwy
|wdwdwdp0y
|dwdwdwdwy
|wdwHBdwdy
|dw)wGwdwy
|P)wdw)P)y
|$wdQIwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
11…f5?? 12.Qb3+ Kh7 13.Bxb7 f4
A desperate attempt for some counter-play.
14.Bxa8 fxe3 15.fxe3 e5 16.Nf3 Ba6 17.Be4 Nd7 18.Rd1 Qe7 19.Qd5 Rxf3
If 19…Nc5 20.Qd6!
20.Bxf3 e4 21.Qxe4
Stronger than, 21.Qxd7 Qg5.
21…Ne5 22.h4 Nxf3+ 23.gxf3 Qc7 24.Rg1 1-0

B19 Peter Leko – Alexey Dreev
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.h4 h6 7.Nf3 Nd7 8.h5 Bh7 9.Bd3
Bxd3 10.Qxd3 e6 11.Bd2 Ngf6 12.O-O-O Be7 13.Ne4 Nxe4 14.Qxe4 Nf6 15.Qd3
Qd5?!
A dubious idea. Usual is 15…c5.
16.c4 Qe4 17.Qb3 b5 18.Rhe1 Qf5 19.Ne5 Rc8 20.f3
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdrdkdw4y
|0wdwgp0wy
|wdpdphw0y
|dpdwHqdPy
|wdP)wdwdy
|dQdwdPdwy
|P)wGwdPdy
|dwIR$wdwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
20…bxc4??
The decisive mistake in an already difficult position.
21.Qb7! Rd8 22.g4 Qh7 23.Ba5 Nd5 24.Bxd8 1-0
[B43 Rustam Kasimdzhanov – Sergei Rublevsky

World Blitz Champioship, Moscow 2007
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Nc3 Qc7 6.Bd3 Nf6 7.Qe2 Bd6!?
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhbdkdw4y
|dp1pdp0py
|pdwgphwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|wdwHPdwdy
|dwHBdwdwy
|P)Pdw)P)y
|$wGQIwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
A provocative continuation that deserves attention.
8.Ndb5??
White unsuccessfully attempts an immediate refutation of Black’s interesting idea.

Obviously this is improvisation on the board. Correct is 8.h3
8…axb5 9.Nxb5 Qa5+ 10.Bd2 Bb4
Forced. If 10…Qb6 11.Nxd6+ Qxd6 12.e5.
11.Bxb4 Qxb4+ 12.c3 Qc5 13.e5 Nd5 14.Nd6+ Kf8 15.Qh5 g6 16.Qh6+ Kg8 17.h4
Nc6 18.h5 Nxe5 0-1
D11 Alexey Dreev – Alexander Morozevich

World Blitz Cup, Moscow 2007
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 a6 5.Bd3 Bg4 6.Nbd2 e6 7.Qc2 Nbd7 8.b3 Rc8 9.O-O
c5 10.Bb2 Be7 11.Ne5 Bh5 12.Nxd7
12.f4!?
12…Qxd7 13.dxc5 Rxc5 14.Rac1 dxc4 15.bxc4 Bg6 16.Bxg6 hxg6 17.Rfd1 Qc6
18.Nf3 Ra5 19.Bc3 Rah5 20.h3
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdwdkdw4y
|dpdwgp0wy
|pdqdphpdy
|dwdwdwd4y
|wdPdwdwdy
|dwGw)NdPy
|PdQdw)Pdy
|dw$RdwIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
20…Rxh3 21.gxh3 Qxf3 22.Qa4+ Kf8!
After 22…b5 23.Qxa6 (23.cxb5? Rxh3) Kf8 24.Bb4 Rxh3 25.Rd8+ Ne8 26.Rxe8+ Kxe8
27.Qxb5+! Kd8 28.Ba5+ Kc8 29.Qe8+ Kb8 30.Rb1+ White wins.
23.Bb4
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdwdwiw4y
|dpdwgp0wy
|0dwdphpdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|QG)dwdwdy
|dwdw)qdPy
|Pdwdw)wdy
|dw$RdwIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
23…Rxh3??
Instead 23…Kg8!! wins, because is no defense against Rxh3.
24.Rd8+ 1-0
D14 Vladimir Kramnik – Viswanathan Anand
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.d4 Nc6 6.Bf4 a6 7.Rc1 Bf5 8.e3 Rc8
Probably 8…e6 followed by Bd6, is better.
9.Be2 e6 10.O-O Be7 11.Qb3!
Stronger than 11.Qa4, which is the recommended by theory.
11…Na5
If 11…b5 12.Nxb5 or 11…Qd7 12.Na4!
12.Qa4+ Nc6?
If 12…b5 13.Nxb5! or 12…Nd7 13.Rxc8 Qxc8 14.Qxa5. Black’s only reply was
12…Kf8, which would result in a clearly worse, but still playable, position.
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdr1kdw4y
|dpdwgp0py
|pdndphwdy
|dwdpdbdwy
|Qdw)wGwdy
|dwHw)Ndwy
|P)wdB)P)y
|dw$wdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
13.Bxa6!! Ra8
If 13…bxa6 14.Ne5 Qb6 15.Ne2 (15.Nb1!?) O-O 16.Nxc6 etc.
14.Bxb7 Rxa4 15.Bxc6+ Kf8 16.Nxa4 Ne4 17.Bb7 Nd6 18.Bxd6 Qxd6 19.Rc6! Qd7
20.Rc8+ Bd8 21.Ne5 1-0
An important game for the theory of this variation.

D38 Alexander Grischuk – Boris Savchenko
World Blitz Championship Moscow 2007
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 Nbd7 7.e3 c5 8.Bd3 c4?!
9.Bf5 Qa5 10.Qc2 g6 11.Bxd7+ Nxd7 12.e4 O-O 13.O-O Nb6 14.e5 Bf5 15.Qd2
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwdw4kdy
|0pdwdpdpy
|whwdwdpdy
|1wdp)bGwy
|wgp)wdwdy
|dwHwdNdwy
|P)w!w)P)y
|$wdwdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
15…Be4??
Obligatory was the immediate 15…Rfe8 (15…Nd7!?).
16.Bf6 Rfe8
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwdrdkdy
|0pdwdpdpy
|whwdwGpdy
|1wdp)wdwy
|wgp)bdwdy
|dwHwdNdwy
|P)w!w)P)y
|$wdwdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
17.a3!! Bxf3
There is no defense. If 17…Bxc3 18.Qh6! with inevitable mate or 17…Bf8 18.Nxe4 and
White wins a piece.
18.axb4 Qxb4 19.Qh6 1-0
E12 Alexey Dreev – Alexey Korotylev

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.Nc3 Bb7 5.Bg5 Bb4 6.Qc2 h6 7.Bh4 c5 8.d5!? exd5 9.cxd5
Bxd5 10.O-O-O Be6?!
10…Bxc3!?
11.Ne4 c4?!
11…d5!?
12.Nxf6+ gxf6 13.Nd4 Qe7 14.e4 c3 15.e5 cxb2+ 16.Kb1 Qc5 17.Qxc5 Bxc5 18.Bxf6
Rg8 19.Nxe6 fxe6 20.Be2 Be7
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhwdkdrdy
|0wdpgwdwy
|w0wdpGw0y
|dwdw)wdwy
|wdwdwdwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|P0wdB)P)y
|dKdRdwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
21.Bh5+ Kd8??
A blunder. Obligatory was 21…Kf8.
22.Bf3 1-0
By IM Nikolay Minev
Center Counter: The Retreat 3…Qd6 is Barely Alive
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhbdkgn4y
|0p0w0p0py
|wdw1wdwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|wdwdwdwdy
|dwHwdwdwy
|P)P)w)P)y
|$wGQIBHRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
The attempt to revive the Center Counter Defense with the retreat 3…Qd6 seems to not
fulfill expectations. The position which arises after 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 is a
relatively new continuation that is popular, but statistics show the results are no better –
and probably even worse – for Black than the classical retreats 3…Qa5 or 3…Qd8. The
games from recent practice below show that with 3…Qd6 Black has the same strategic
problems as the other two continuations: an exposed Queen and the loss of tempi that
follow.
B01 Richard Biolek – Vlastimil Nedela

Chehia (Team ch) 2005
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 4.Nf3 c6
This gives Black an opportunity to further retreat the Queen to c7. This defensive plan is
also used in the classical variation 3…Qa5. See also the next two games.
5.Bc4 Nf6 6.O-O b5?!
An unnecessary weakness!
7.Bb3 Bg4
Consistent is 7…b4 and if 8.Ne2 Bg4 9.Ng3 h5!? 10.h3 h4, with unclear complications.
8.h3 Bh5 9.d4 Nbd7?!
Perhaps 9…e6 10.Re1 Be7 is better.
10.Re1 b4
Another loss of tempo, but 10…e6 is no better because of 11.d5!
11.Ne4 Qc7
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwdkgw4y
|0w1n0p0py
|wdpdwhwdy
|dwdwdwdby
|w0w)Ndwdy
|dBdwdNdPy
|P)Pdw)Pdy
|$wGQ$wIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
12.d5!
If the opponent is behind in development and his King is still in the center, the basic
strategic rule is: open the center!
12…cxd5
Black’s last chance was 12…O-O-O.
13.Nxf6+ Nxf6 14.Ba4+!Kd8
There is no defense. If 14…Nd7 15.Qxd5 Bxf3 16.Qxf3 Rd8 17.Bf4 Qa5 18.b3 e6
19.Rad1 and White wins.
15.g4 Bg6 16.g5 e6 17.gxf6 gxf6 18.Qxd5+! 1-0

B01 B. Lengyel – B. Bednay
Budapest 2007
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 c6 6.Ne5
An original plan to create immediate danger against Black’s Queen.
6…Nbd7 7.Bf4 Nd5
If 7…Qb4 8.a3! and Black cannot play 8…Qxb2?? Because of 9.Na4, when the Queen is
lost.
8.Nxd5 Qxd5 9.Nf3 Nf6 10.Be2 Bf5 11.c3 e6 12.O-O Be7 13.Ne5 O-O
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwdw4kdy
|0pdwgp0py
|wdpdphwdy
|dwdqHbdwy
|wdw)wGwdy
|dw)wdwdwy
|P)wdB)P)y
|$wdQdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
A typical pattern for all variations of Center Counter – White has more space and stands
slightly better.
14.Re1 Rfd8?!
This weakens the f7-square. Better was 14...Rad8.
15.Bc4 Qa5 16.Qf3 Bg6 17.h4 Bc2? 18.a4 Qb6? 19.a5 1-0
Because of 19…Qxb2 20.Ra2 or 19…Qc7 20.Nxf7.

B01 A. Olsson – B. Jaderberg
Sweden (Team ch) 2005
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 4.d4 Nf6 5.Bc4 c6 6.Nge2!?
Maybe stronger than 6.Nf3, when Black uses the defensive plan with c7-c6.
6…Bg4
In case of 6…e5 7.dxe5 Qxe5 8.Bf4 or 8.O-O Black is too far behind in development.
Even though an immediate disaster is not visible, Black’s chances are clearly worse.
7.f3 Bf5 8.Bf4 Qb4 9.Bb3 e6 10.g4 Bg6 11.h4 h6 12.Bd2 Qd6 13.Nf4 Bh7 14.Qe2 Be7
15.O-O-O Nd5
Black is already in big trouble. If 15…Nbd7 16.g5! followed eventually by g5-g6.
16.Nh5!
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhwdkdw4y
|0pdwgp0by
|wdp1pdw0y
|dwdndwdNy
|wdw)wdP)y
|dBHwdPdwy
|P)PGQdwdy
|dwIRdwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
16…Nxc3 17.Bxc3 Bf6 18.f4 Bg6 19.Nxf6+ gxf6 20.f5 1-0
The next game shows what can happen to Black if the important square b5 is not
protected.
B01 D. Bojkov – V.Panbukchian
Bulgaria (ch) Pleven 2005
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 Nc6? 6.Nb5 Qd8
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdb1kgw4y
|0p0w0p0py
|wdndwhwdy
|dNdwdwdwy
|wdw)wdwdy
|dwdwdNdwy
|P)Pdw)P)y
|$wGQIBdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
7.d5! Nb4
If 7…Nxd5?? 8.Qxd5! Qxd5 9.Nxc7+.
8.c4 c6
This leads to disaster. However, it seems that already Black has no satisfactory
continuation.
9.dxc6 Qa5 10.Bd2 Ne4 11.Bxb4 Qxb4+ 12.Nd2 Rb8 13.Nc7+ Kd8 14.Nd5 1-0
The defensive line used by Black most often in practice includes the protection of the b5-
square with a7-a6. With this approach, Black has a relatively better result, which keeps
the whole 3…Qd6 variation alive. But first, let’s see the examples where the idea of a7-
a6 finishes in disaster.
B01 D. Werner – R. Schildt
Berlin 2005
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 4.d4 Nf6 5.Bc4 a6 6.Bb3
Also possible is 6.Nge2 and if 6…Qc6? 7.Bb3 Qxg2 8.Rg1 Qf3 9.Bf4 as in M. Perunovic
– T. Gruskovnjak, Portoroz 2005. White has more than enough compensation for the
pawn and won quickly.
6…Nc6 7.Nge2 Bg4 8.f3 Bf5 9.Bf4 Qd7 10.g4 Bg6 11.g5
Stronger is 11.h4! – compare with Olsson – Jaderberg above.
11…Nh5 12.Be3 Qh3?!
12…e6!? intending Bb4 and O-O.
13.Qd2! O-O-O 14.O-O-O Ne5?
Threatening 15…Nxf3. This tempting action is a decisive mistake, because Black is

several tempi behind in development. Necessary was 14…e6
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdk4wgw4y
|dp0w0p0py
|pdwdwdbdy
|dwdwhw)ny
|wdw)wdwdy
|dBHwGPdqy
|P)P!Ndw)y
|dwIRdwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
15.Nd5! Nxf3 16.Qc3 Qd7??
A blunder in an already lost position.
17.Nb6+ 1-0
B01 T. Thorhallsson – V. Koskinen
Helsingor 2007
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 a6 6.Be2
A rarely used continuation in comparison with 6.Bc4.
6…Bg4?!
6…Bf5!? or 6…g6!?
7.h3 Bh5 8.g4 Bg6 9.Ne5 Nd5
If 9…Nbd7 10.Bf4!
10.Bf3 c6 11.h4! Nxc3 12.bxc3 h6 13.Rb1 Ra7 14.Bf4 Bh7 15.O-O Qd8
White is fully developed and has total domination. It is time for decisive action.
^xxxxxxxxY
|whw1kgw4y
|4pdw0p0by
|pdpdwdw0y
|dwdwHwdwy
|wdw)wGP)y
|dw)wdBdwy
|PdPdw)wdy
|dRdQdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
16.d5!
Another instantly winning continuation here is 16.Nxc6!!
16…f6 17.Nxc6! Nxc6 18.dxc6 Qxd1 19.Rfxd1 1-0
For if 19…bxc6 20.Bxc6+ Kf7 21.Bb8 or 19…b5 20.c7.

B01 R. Hungaski – A. Aberbach
Villa Ballester 2005
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 4.d4 a6 5.g3
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhbdkgn4y
|dp0w0p0py
|pdw1wdwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|wdw)wdwdy
|dwHwdw)wy
|P)Pdw)w)y
|$wGQIBHRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
This is a positional continuation, and is the most popular against Black’s a7-a6 but, as we
shall see later, it is probably not more successful than the variations with Bc4.
6…Nf6 6.Bg2 e5?!
6…g6!? or 6…Nc6!?
7.dxe5 Qxe5+ 8.Nge2 Bb4
8…Bc5!?
9.O-O Nc6 10.Bf4 Qe7 11.Bg5!
The threat is 12.Nd5. White stands clearly better.
11…Bg4
No better is 11…Bxc3 12.Nxc3 Be6 13.Ne4.
12.Bxf6 Qxf6 13.Nd5 Qd6 14.Nxb4 Qxb4
After 14…Qxd1 15.Bxc6+! White wins a piece.
15.Bxc6+ bxc6 16.Qd4 Rb8?

After the correct reply 16…Qxd4 17.Nxd4 Bd7 18.Rfe1+ White has a practically winning
position.
17.Qxg7 1-0
B01 Michele Godena – Meng-Kong Wong

Turin (ol) 2006
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 a6 6.g3 b5 7.Bg2 Bb7 8.O-O e6 9.Ne5
Bxg2 10.Kxg2 c6 11.Qf3! Qxd4
Almost forced. If 11…Be7 12.Bf4!
12.Bf4!
Against 12.Nxc6 Black has a good defense in 12…Qg4!
12…Nd5 13.Rad1 Qa7
If 13…Qb6 14.Nxf7!
14.Nxd5 cxd5 15.Rfe1 Bb4 16.c3 Ba5
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhwdkdw4y
|1wdwdp0py
|pdwdpdwdy
|gpdpHwdwy
|wdwdwGwdy
|dw)wdQ)wy
|P)wdw)K)y
|dwdR$wdwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
17.Nxf7! Qxf7
Or 17…O-O 18.Ng5.
18.Qxd5 O-O 19.Qxa8 Bb6 20.Qf3 1-0
B01 F. Kwiatkowski – J. Snowden

Hastings (Masters) 2006/7
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 a6 6.g3 Bg4 7.h3 Bxf3 8.Qxf3 Nc6
9.Be3 e6 10.O-O-O O-O-O 11.Bg2 Qb4 12.Rd3!
White is preparing a direct attack on the Queenside, and Black does not have any
adequate defense against the plan.
12…Qa5 13.a3 Rd7 14.Re1 Ne8? 15.Bd2 Qb6 16.d5 Nd4 17.Qf4 c5 18.dxc6 Nxc6
19.Rxd7 Kxd7 20.Qxf7+ 1-0
Naturally, there exist some sporadic successes for Black that keep the variation alive. It is
hoped that new ideas can be found for Black in these rare examples. Below are presented
two such games, which attracted my attention.
B01 Darren McCabe - Mikko Kivisto

Kemer 2007
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 4.d4 a6 5.g3 Nc6 6.Nge2 Bg4 7.Bg2 O-O-O 8.Be3
e5!?
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdk4wgn4y
|dp0wdp0py
|pdn1wdwdy
|dwdw0wdwy
|wdw)wdbdy
|dwHwGw)wy
|P)PdN)B)y
|$wdQIwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
Notice that Black uses this idea for counter play without to losing a tempo by Nf6.
Compare with Hungaski – Aberbach above!
9.dxe5
9.d5!?
9…Qxe5 10.Qc1 Bb4 11.O-O Nf6
It seems that Black has solved all his opening problems.
12.a3 Bxc3 13.Nxc3 Rhe8 14.Bf4?
14.h3!?
14…Qh5 15.Be3 Ne5 16.f4 Nf3+ 17.Bxf3 Bxf3 18.h4 Bc6 19.a4 Qg4 20.Kh2 Bd7 0-1
B01 A. Avdic – B. Kurajica

Bosnia and Herzegovina (Team ch) 2005
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 4.d4 g6!?
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhbdkgh4y
|0p0w0pdpy
|wdw1wdpdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|wdw)wdwdy
|dwHwdwdwy
|P)Pdw)P)y
|$wGQIBHRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
Rare, but probably the most interesting idea for Black.
5.Nf3 Bg7 6.g3 Bf5 7.Bg2 Qa6!?
7…Nd7!?
8.Ne5
8.Bf4!?
8…Nd7 9.Nxd7 Bxd7 10.Ne4 b6!?
A controversial decision. Instead 10…Bc6 is not only playable, but looks even better for
Black. For example, 11.Nc5 Qb6 12.O-O O-O-O 13.c3 e5 etc.
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwdkdn4y
|0w0b0pgpy
|q0wdwdpdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|wdw)Ndwdy
|dwdwdw)wy
|P)Pdw)B)y
|$wGQIwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
11.c3
Critical is 11.Nc5 (11.Nf6+? Nxf6 12.Bxa8 c6 or 11.Nd6+?! cxd6 12.Bxa8 d5!) bxc5
12.Bxa8 cxd4 13.Bg2 e5. Black has compensation for the exchange, but the position is
unclear.
11…Rc8 12.a4 Nf6 13.Nxf6+ Bxf6 14.Bh6 c5 15.d5 Qc4 16.Qe2??
A decisive blunder in a slightly better position for Black.
16…Bxc3+ 0-1
By IM Nikolay Minev
The Dutch Defense Under Pressure
In the last decade the Dutch Defense is under pressure by sharp attacking variations
characterized by the thrust g2-g4. Here is my choice of some recent games with this
continuation, which give some ideas about this recent dangerous trend.
A80 Lars Andreassen - Aksel Brasoy

Tromsø 2007
1.d4 f5 2.g4
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhb1kgn4y
|0p0p0w0py
|wdwdwdwdy
|dwdwdpdwy
|wdw)wdPdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|P)PdP)w)y
|$NGQIBHRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
Some books named this continuation “Lasker’s Gambit”.
2…fxg4 3.h3!?
This order of moves is missing in most of the publications.
3…g3
Opening the h-file by 3…gxh3 4.Nxh3 or 4.Bxh3 gives too many tactical opportunities to
White, as shown in the next game.
4.fxg3 d5 5.Bg2 Nf6 6.Nc3 Bf5?!
Teske-E. Kristiansen, Voronezh 1987, went 6…c5!? 7.Nf3 Nc6 8.Bg5 cxd4 9.Nxd4 e5
10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.e3 Qb6? (12…Be6! unclear) 13.Qh5+ Ke7 14.O-O-O
Be6 15.Rd3 Rb8 16.b3 Qa5 17.Rhd1 Bg7 18.Nxd5+! cxd5 19.Bxd5 Bxd5 20.Rxd5 Qa3+
21.Kb1 Rbd8 22.Qg4! 1-0
7.Nf3 e6 8.g4 Be4 9.O-O Bd6 10.Bg5 Nc6
If 10…Bg6 11.Nh4 Bf7 12.e4 with advantage to White.
11.Nxe4 dxe4 12.Nd2 Nxd4 13.Nxe4 O-O 14.c3 Nc6 15.Qb3 Qe7 16.Qxb7 Ne5
17.Nxf6+ gxf6 18.Bxf6 Qe8 19.Bxe5 1-0
A80 J. Salvaing – Pascal Gerfault

Angers 2007
1.d4 f5 2.g4 fxg4 3.e4
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhb1kgn4y
|0p0p0w0py
|wdwdwdwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|wdw)Pdpdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|P)Pdw)P)y
|$NGQIBHRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
This visually attractive order of moves is used often in practice.
3…d6
According to ECO, after 3…d5 4.e5 Bf5 5.h3 gxh3 6.Nxh3 White has compensation for
the sacrificed pawn.
4.h3 gxh3 5.Bxh3!?

With the idea (in case of 5…Bxh3 6.Nxh3) of making weak light squares inside of
Black’s position. Also promising is 5.Nxh3, with compensation for the pawn.
5…e6 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.Be3 Nc6 8.Qd2 Qe7 9.O-O-O Bd7 10.Nf3 O-O-O??
This is a blunder in an already difficult position. If 10…h6 then 11.e5 (as played in the
game) still looks very strong.
11.e5 dxe5 12.dxe5 Nd5 13.Bg5 Qe8 14.Bxd8 Nxd8 15.Nxd5 exd5 16.Qxd5 Bxh3
17.Rxh3 Ne6 18.Qe4 h6 19.Nd4 Nxd4 20.Qxd4 b6 21.Rhd3 1-0
The direct assault by g2-g4 can also come not immediately on second move, but later,
after some preparation, as in the next examples.
A80 E. Prie – V. Schweitzer

Cap D'Agde (France) 2008
1.d4 f5 2.h3!? d6 3.Nc3
Instead 3.g4 fxg4 4.e4 transposes into the previous game.
3…Nd7?!
An experiment that cannot be recommended.
4.g4 fxg4 5.hxg4 e5 6.e3 exd4 7.exd4 Be7 8.Bd3 Nf8 9.Qe2
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdb1khn4y
|0p0wgw0py
|wdw0wdwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|wdw)wdPdy
|dwHBdwdwy
|P)PdQ)wdy
|$wGwIwHRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
White stands clearly better.
9…c6 10.Bf4 Kd7 11.Nh3 Kc7 12.O-O-O Ne6 13.Be3 d5 14.f4 b5
If 14…b6 15.f5 Ng5 16.Bf4+ Kd7 (16…Kb7 17.Ba6#) 17.Nxd5! cxd5? 18.Bb5#
15.f5 Ng5 16.Bf4+ Kb6
Or 16…Kb7 17.Bxb5 Nxh3 (17…cxb5 18.Qxb5+ Qb6 19.Nxg5) 18.Ba6+ Kb6 19.Na4+
Ka5 20.Bd2+ Kxa4 (20…Bb4 21.Bxb4+ Kxb4 22.Qd2+ and mate in two) 21.Qd3 Qb6
22.b3+ Ka3 23.b4+ and mate follows.
17.Bxb5 Nxh3
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdb1wdn4y
|0wdwgw0py
|wipdwdwdy
|dBdpdPdwy
|wdw)wGPdy
|dwHwdwdny
|P)PdQdwdy
|dwIRdwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
18.Na4+ Ka5 19.Bd2+ Bb4 20.Bxb4+ Kxb4 21.a3+ 1-0
For if 21…Ka5 22.b4#
A84 Igor Khenkin - Axel Rombaldoni

Bratto 2007
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e3 f5 5.g4!? Nf6
If 5…fxg4 then 6.h3! is the best reply.
6.gxf5 exf5 7.Qb3 dxc4
If 7…Bd6 8.cxd5 cxd5 9.Bg2.

8.Bxc4 Bd6 9.Nf3 Qe7 10.Ng5 b5
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhbdkdw4y
|0wdw1w0py
|wdpgwhwdy
|dpdwdpHwy
|wdB)wdwdy
|dQHw)wdwy
|P)wdw)w)y
|$wGwIwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
11.Bf7+ Kf8 12.Be6! Nfd7
Or 12…Bxe6 13.Nxe6+ Ke8 13,d5! with a strong attack.
13.h4
But not 14.Nf7 Nc5! 15.dxc5 Bxe6 16.cxd6 Qxf7 unclear.
13…h6?
This loses because it opens the door to a surprising intermediate move.
14.Nf7 Nc5 15.dxc5 Bxe6 16.Nxh8! 1-0
Next, let’s see two classical examples, where the assault g2-g4 is used on third move. In
the first game White wins, while in the second it is Black who prevails.
A80 E. Bogolyubov – V. Wendell

Stockholm 1920
1.d4 f5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g4

^xxxxxxxxY
|rhb1kgw4y
|0p0p0w0py
|wdwdwhwdy
|dwdwdpdwy
|wdw)wdPdy
|dwHwdwdwy
|P)PdP)wdy
|$wGQIBHRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
3…Nxg4
If 3…fxg4, then White can continue 4.h3 or 4.e4, or even 4.Bg5.
4.e4 e5!
4…e6!? or 4…d6!?
5.exf5.Qh4 6.Qe2 Nc6 7.Nf3 Qh5 8.Nd5
If 8.dxe5 Ngxe5!
8…Bd6 9.Nxe5 Bxe5
After 9…Nxd4 10.Qxg4 (Better than 10.Nxg4+ Nxe2 11.Ngf6+) Qxg4 11.Nxg4 Nxc2+
12.Kd1 Nxa1 13.Bc4!, intending 14.Re1+, and White has the advantage.
10.dxe5 Qxf5 11.Bh3! h5 12.f3 Qf7 13.Nxc7+ Kd8 14.Nxa8 Nd4
^xxxxxxxxY
|Ndbiwdw4y
|0pdpdq0wy
|wdwdwdwdy
|dwdw)wdpy
|wdwhwdndy
|dwdwdPdBy
|P)PdQdw)y
|$wGwIwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
15.fxg4 1-0
For if 15…Nxe2 16.Bg5+ Ke8 17.Nc7+ Kf8 18.Rf1 and White wins.
A80 E. Bogolyubov – V. Hasenfuss

Kemeri 1939
1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 f5 3.g4
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhb1kgn4y
|0p0pdw0py
|wdwdpdwdy
|dwdwdpdwy
|wdw)wdPdy
|dwdwdNdwy
|P)PdP)w)y
|$NGQIBdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
3…fxg4 4.Ne5 Qh4
Probably Black’s best continuation.
5.e4 g3! 6.Bg2 gxf2+ 7.Kf1 Nc6 8.Nxc6 bxc6 9.c4 Nf6 10.e5 Nd5! 11.Bf3
If 11.cxd5?? Ba6+.
11…Ba6
11…Nf4!?
12.b3 Be7 13.Kg2 O-O 14.Rf1
If 14.cxd5? Rxf3! 15.Qxf3 Rf8.
14…Rxf3!
14…Nf4+!?
15.Qxf3 Rf8 16.Qd3 Qg4+
If 16…Nb4 17.Qe2!
17.Kh1 Nb4 18.Qg3 Qxd4 19.Nc3 Bh4 20.Qe3
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdwdw4kdy
|0w0pdw0py
|bdpdpdwdy
|dwdw)wdwy
|whP1wdwgy
|dPHw!wdwy
|Pdwdw0w)y
|$wGwdRdKy
Uzzzzzzzz\
20…c5! 21.Qxd4 cxd4 0-1
For if 22.Ne4 Bb8.
This last experiment from the past shows that while the Dutch Defense is under serious
pressure, it still is not refuted. Searching for evidence, I found the following incredibly
original recent example.
A84 Igor Efimov – Igor Naumkin

Arvier 2005
1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.g4 fxg4 4.e4 d5

^xxxxxxxxY
|rhb1kgn4y
|0p0wdw0py
|wdwdpdwdy
|dwdpdwdwy
|wdP)Pdpdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|P)wdw)w)y
|$NGQIBHRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
5.Nc3
Maybe 5.e5!?
5…dxe4 6.Be3
If 6.Bxe4, then 6…Bb4+ (with 7.Nc3 Nf6) or the immediate 6…Nf6 are good replies.
6…Nf6 7.Qc2
7.h3!?
7…Nc6 8.O-O-O Nb4! 9.Qb3 Bd7 10.a3? a5! 11.Rd2
The alternative 11.axb4 axb4 12.Kb1 (12.Nb1? Ba4) bxc3 13.Qxc3 looks no better.
11…a4 12.Qd1 Nd3+ 13.Kb1
Or 13.Bxd3 exd3 14.Rxd3 b5! etc., as in the game.
13…b5! 14.cxb5 Qb8 15.Bg2 Bxb5 16.Nxe4
Perhaps White’s last chance was 16.Nxb5 Qxb5 17.Bxe4 Nxe4 18.Rxd3.
16…Bxa3!!
^xxxxxxxxY
|r1wdkdw4y
|dw0wdw0py
|wdwdphwdy
|dbdwdwdwy
|pdw)Ndpdy
|gwdnGwdwy
|w)w$w)B)y
|dKdQdwHRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
17.bxa3 Nxe4 18.Ka1
If 18.Bxe4 Bc6+!
18…Nxd2 19.Qxd2 Bc4! 20.Qc3
In case of 20.Bxa8, then 20…Qb3 21.Ne2 Qxa3+ 22.Kb1 O-O and Black wins.
20…Ra6 21.Ne2 Qb3 0-1

By IM Nikolay Minev
Opening Up Pandora’s Box: ECO A40
The chapter A40 of “Encyclopedia of Chess Openings” (ECO) is truly a Pandora Box. Included
here are many variations that are rarely used in practice, such as 1.d4 e5, 1.d4 b6, 1.d4 b5, 1.d4 Nc6
etc. Also included are many variations arising by transposition of moves after 1.c4, but for one of
other reason are not included in previous chapters A1, A2 and A3. All this creates confusion
and I have found that many games in recent data are wrongly coded.
However, after so long time of existing, something new and important has also come from this
Pandora Box. I’m speaking about the original opening idea that arises after the moves 1.Nf3 c5
2.c4 g6 3.d4 Bg7 4.e4
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhb1kdn4y
|0pdp0pgpy
|wdwdwdpdy
|dw0wdwdwy
|wdP)Pdwdy
|dwdwdNdwy
|P)wdw)P)y
|$NGQIBdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
This basic position can also be reached from a much different order of moves. For example 1.c4 c5
2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 Bg7 4.e4, or 1.d4 g6 2.c4 Bg7 3.e4 c5 4.Nf3, or 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nf3 c5 4.c4 etc.,
which can be coded differently, but I think should remain in A40 as the most important part of this
chapter.
The following selection of games demonstrates some new variations and recent ideas, which can
help if you have an interest in this opening.
A40 Van Wely – V. Topalov
Frankfurt 2000
1.Nf3 c5 2.c4 g6 3.d4 Bg7 4.e4 d6
The most common order of moves of this main line is 4…Qa5+ 5.Nc3 d6.
5.Nc3 Qa5 6.d5
The modern line. The older continuation 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Qd2 Ng4 looks satisfactory for Black.
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhbdkdn4y
|0pdw0pgpy
|wdw0wdpdy
|1w0Pdwdwy
|wdPdPdwdy
|dwHwdNdwy
|P)wdw)P)y
|$wGQIBdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
6…Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 Nf6 8.Nd2
8.Qc2!?, and if 8…Nxe4 9.Bd3 see next game.
8…Qxc3 9.Rb1 Nxe4

^xxxxxxxxY
|rnbdkdw4y
|0pdw0pdpy
|wdw0wdpdy
|dw0Pdwdwy
|wdPdndwdy
|dw1wdwdwy
|PdwHw)P)y
|dRGQIBdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
10.Bb2??
Critical is 10.Rb3!?, and now 10…Qa5 11.Ra3 Qb4 12.Rb3 Qa5= (Eingorn – Chekhov, Palma de
Mallorca 1989), or 10…Qd4 11.Nxe4 Qxe4+ 12.Re3 Qg4 13.Qb3 with compensation (Uhlmann-
Holzl, Graz 1991).
10…Qxd2+ 11.Qxd2 Nxd2 12.Bxh8 Nxb1 13.Bd3 f6 14.Bxb1 Kf7 15.Kd2 Bf5 16.Bxf5 gxf5
17.Re1 Nd7 0-1
A40 Z. Ribli - Fogarasi

Hungary (ch team) 2000
1.Nf3 c5 2.c4 g6 3.d4 Bg7 4.e4 Qa5+ 5.Nc3
For 5.Bd2 see the next game.
5…d6 6.d5 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 Nf6 8.Qc2!? Nxe4 9.Bd3 Nf6
But not 9…Bf5? 10.g4!
10.O-O O-O 11.Bg5 Nbd7 12.Rae1 Re8 13.Nh4! Kg7 14.f4
White’s attacking chances are more than compensation for the sacrificed pawn.
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdbdrdwdy
|0pdn0pipy
|wdw0whpdy
|1w0PdwGwy
|wdPdw)wHy
|dw)Bdwdwy
|PdQdwdP)y
|dwdw$RIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
14…b5
If 14…h6?, then 15.Bxg6 hxg5 16.Bxf7, or 15.Bxh6+ Kxh6 16.Bxg6, in both cases with a decisive
attack.
15.f5 Qa4
If 15…Ne5 16.fxg6 hxg6 17.Bxg6! Nxg6 18.Bxf6+ exf6 19.Rxe8 Nxh4 20.Qf2 and White wins.
16.Qf2 Ng4
Or 16…bxc4 17.fxg6 cxd3 18.Bxf6+ Nxf6 19.Rxe7! and White wins.
17.Qf4 Nge5 18.f6+ Kg8
Or 18…exf6 19.Bxf6+ Nxf6 20.Qxf6+ Kg8 21.Rxe5 and wins.
19.fxe7 bxc4
Black is already lost.
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdbdrdkdy
|0wdn)pdpy
|wdw0wdpdy
|dw0PhwGwy
|qdpdw!wHy
|dw)Bdwdwy
|PdwdwdP)y
|dwdw$RIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
20.Rxe5! Nxe5 21.Qf6 1-0
There us no defense against the threat 22.Bh6.
A40 R. Korsunsky – L. Zaid

USSR 1976
1.Nf3 c5 2.c4 g6 3.d4 Bg7 4.e4 Qa5+ 5.Bd2 Qb6 6.Bc3 Nf6
According to ECO, after 6…cxd4 7.Bxd4 Bxd4 8.Qxd4 Qxd4 9.Nxd4 White stands slightly better.
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhbdkdw4y
|0pdp0pgpy
|w1wdwhpdy
|dw0wdwdwy
|wdP)Pdwdy
|dwGwdNdwy
|P)wdw)P)y
|$NdQIBdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
7.dxc5?!
In my opinion, 7.d5 is the correct continuation.
7…Qxc5 8.Bd3 d6 9.O-O Bg4 10.Nbd2 Nc6 11.h3 Bxf3 12.Nxf3 O-O 13.Re1 Nd7 4.Bxg7
Kxg7 15.b3 a5 16.a3 Nde5 17.Nh2?
17.Bf1!?
17…Nd4 18.Nf1 f5 19.exf5 gxf5 20.Ng3 Kh8 21.Kh2??
A blunder in a position that is already worse.
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwdw4wiy
|dpdw0wdpy
|wdw0wdwdy
|0w1whpdwy
|wdPhwdwdy
|)PdBdwHPy
|wdwdw)PIy
|$wdQ$wdwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
21…Ndf3+! 0-1
A40 J. Baules – C. Pace
Dresden (ol) 2008
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 Bg7 4.c4 Qb6
From the order of moves, this game can be coded also as B27.
5.dxc5 Qxc5 6.Nc3 Bxc3+?!
6…Nc6!?
7.bxc3 d6 8.Qd4 f6 9.Be3 Qc7 10.c5 dxc5 11.Qxc5 Qxc5 12.Bxc5 b6 13.Be3 Ba6 14.c4!
14…Nd7 15.Nd4 Nc5 16.f3 O-O-O? 17.a4 e5 18.Nc6 Rd7 19.a5 Rc7
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdkdwdn4y
|0w4wdwdpy
|b0Ndw0pdy
|)whw0wdwy
|wdPdPdwdy
|dwdwGPdwy
|wdwdwdP)y
|$wdwIBdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
20.Nxa7+! Kb7 21.Rb1! Na4 22.axb6 1–0
Mini-Lessons From Games Of 21st Century
By IM Nikolay Minev
Unique and Instructive Endgame Draws
This month features some examples from play of interesting endgame draws. Along with
the examples from play are included some analysis and additional games to further
illuminate the illustrated themes. We begin with a basic position that is worthy of
examination. White has substantial extra material, but cannot make progress.
Analysis
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdwdwdwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|wdwdwdwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|wdwGwdpdy
|dwdwdwIpy
|wdwdk)wdy
|dwdwdwdwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
Draw
White can only make progress with the Bishop on the h2-b8 diagonal. This would free
the White King from watching the h-pawn, and allow the capture of the g-pawn.
However, redeploying the Bishop in this way allows the Black King to shuttle between
d4 and e4, and prevent any access to the g-pawn from the other side. If the White King
tries an outflanking maneuver, the position with the Black King at f3 and the White
Bishop at g3 allows …h2, which draws.
I. Bogachkov – V. Selin
Russia 2009
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdwdwdwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|wdwdwdwdy
|dwdkdwdpy
|wIwdwdp)y
|dwdwdw)wy
|wdwdBdwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
Black to move. Draw.
1…Kd4!!
1…Ke4 2.Bxg4 hxg4 3.Kc4! Ke5 4.Kc5 Ke4 5.Kd6 Kf3 (5…Kf5 6.Kd5 and wins) 6.h5
and White wins.
2.Bxg4
Or 2.Kb5 Ke3 3.Bxg4 Kf2!=
2…hxg4 =
I. Bogachkov – V. Selin
Russia 2009
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdwdwdwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|wdwdwdwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|wIwiwdp)y
|dwdwdw)wy
|wdwdwdwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
White to move. Draw.
1.Kb3 Kd5 2.Kc3
Or 2.Ka4 Ke4!, or 2.Ka2 Ke4 3.Ka3 Ke5 4.Kb2 Kd4, or 2.Kb2 Kd6! 3.Kc3 Ke5!=
2…Ke5 3.Kc2 Ke4 4.Kc3 Ke5 5.Kd3 Kd5 6.h5 Ke5 7.h6 Kf6 8.Ke4 Kg6 9.Kf4 Kxh6
10.Kxg4 Kg6 1/2-1/2
(Analysis by I. Bogachkov)
Grishchuk
Informant 78/2000
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdwdwdwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|wdwdwiw0y
|dw0wdwdwy
|w0wdwdwdy
|dwdwdwdBy
|wIwdwdwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
1.Kb3 h5 2.Kc4 h4 3.Bc8 Ke5 4.Bd7 Kf4
Or 4…Ke4 5.Ba4 h3 6.Kxc5 =
5.Be6 Ke4 6.Bc8
If 6.Kxc5? Ke5! and Black wins.
Kf3 7.Bb7+! Kf4 8.Bg2 Ke3
8…Kg3 9.Bd5=
9.Bh3 Kd2 10.Bf5 Kc1 11.Kxc5 b3 12.Kd4 b2 13.Ke3 =
If the initial position has a Black pawn at a5 instead of c5, the position is winning. For
example, 1.Kb3 h5 2.Ka4 h4 3.Bd7 Ke5 4.Bc8 Ke4! and the White King cannot reach the
h-pawn as in our example.
Analysis
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdwdwdwdy
|dwdwdpdpy
|wdwdwdwdy
|dwdwIw)ky
|wdwdwdwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|wdwdwdwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
White to move. Draw
1.Kf5!
1.Kf4?? Kh4 2.Kf5 Kg3 and Black wins.
1…Kh4 2.Kf4! Kh3 3.Kf3! Kh2 4.Kf2! =

Kozul – Zaja
Pula 1997
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdwdwdwdy
|dwdwdkdwy
|wdwdwdwdy
|dwdwdPdwy
|w0nGwIwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|w)wdwdwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
1…Na5! 2.Ke4
2.Bc5 Nc4 =
2…Nb3! 3.Kd5 Na1! 4.Kc4 b3 1/2-1/2

E. Lie – F. Urkeda;
Norway (ch) Bergen 2009
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdwdrdwdy
|dK)wdpdwy
|wdwdwdwdy
|0wdwdwdwy
|Pdwdwdwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|wdwdw0kdy
|dw$wdwdwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
52.Kb6!! Rc8 53.Kb7! Re8 54.Kb6 f1=Q 55.Rxf1 Kxf1 56.Kxa5 f5 57.Kb6 f4 58.Kb7
f3 59.c8=Q Rxc8 60.Kxc8 f2 61.a5 Kg1 62.a6 f1=Q 63.a7 Qa6+ 64.Kb8 Qb6+ 65.Ka8
Qc7 1/2 – 1/2
I. Kurnosov – B. Lalic
Germany (Bundesliga) 2009
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdwdwdwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|wdwdwdwiy
|dwdwdwdPy
|pdIdwdwdy
|drdwdwdwy
|w)wdwdw$y
|dwdwdwdwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
1…Kg7!
It is against the natural instinct of almost any player to give up the blockade of the passed
pawn. Nonetheless, by doing so, Black effectively gives the move back to White. In the
game Black played 1…Rb8? and lost after 2.Kc3 Rb3+ 3.Kc2 Rg3 4.Rh1 Rf3 5.Rh4 a3
6.b3 Rf1 7.Ra4 Kxh5 8.Rxa3 Kg6 9.b4 Rf2+ 10.Kb3 Kf7 11.Ka4 Ke7 12.Rd2 Ra2+
13.Kb5 Ra8 14.Kc6 1-0
2.h6+ Kh7 =
B. Yildiz – E. Danielian
Istanbul 2009
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdwdwdwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|wdwdKdwdy
|dwdwdwdpy
|w0wiwdwdy
|dwdwdw)wy
|Pdwdwdwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
1.Ke7!!
In the game White played 1.Kd6? Ke4 2.Kc5 Kf3 3.Kxb4 Kxg3 4.a4.h4 5.Kb5 h3 6.Kb6
h2 7.a5 h1=Q 8.Ka7 Qh7+ 9.Kb8 Qb1+ 10.Ka7 Qb5 0-1
1…Kc3
Or 1…Ke3 2.Kf6 Kf3 3.Kg5 =
2.Kd6 =
(Analysis by M. Mikhalchishin)
By IM Nikolay Minev
Some Instructuve “Short Stories” from the 38th Olympiad
As the 39th Olympiad concludes, here are some valuable lessons gleaned from the most
recent past Olympiad.
Always look for possibilities of double attack!
E14 V. Babula – G. Xie

Dresden (ol) 2008
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.e3 Bb4+ 5.Bd2 Be7 6.Nc3 Bb7 7.Bd3 d5 8.Qa4+!? c6
If 8...Nbd7 9.Ne5!
9.cxd5 exd5 10.O-O O-O 11.b4!
11...Nbd7 12.Qb3 Bd6 13.Rfe1 Re8 14.e4 Nxe4 15.Nxe4 dxe4 16.Ng5! Rf8
If 16...exd3? 17.Nxf7!
17.Bc4 Qf6 18.Qh3!

^xxxxxxxxY
|rDWdw4kDy
|0bDnDp0py
|w0pgw1wdy
|dwdwdwHwy
|w)B)pdwdy
|dwdwdwdQy
|PdwGw)P)y
|$wdw$wIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
This decisive double-attack should be predicted when White has initiated the variation
with 16.Ng5!
18... h6 19.Nxe4 Qxd4 20.Bc3!
But not 20.Qxd7?? Bxh2+ and it is White who is victim of double-attack.
20...Bxh2+ 21.Kxh2 Qxc4 22.Qg4! 1–0
Thematic win by another double-attack: 23.Qxg7# and 23.Nf6+, winning Black’s Queen.
E97 C. Amura. – K. Kachiani

Dresden (ol) 2008
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 O-O 6.Nf3 e5 7.O-O Nc6 8.d5 Ne7 9.b4 Nh5
Another common continuation in practice is 9...a5.
10.c5 Nf4 11.Be3
According to the theory, 12.Bxf4 exf4 13.Rc1 leads to equal chances.
11...h6 12.Rc1?
Correct is 12.Nd2, and if 12...f5 or 12...Nxe2+ 13.Qxe2, then f2-f3.
12…Nxe2+ 13.Qxe2 f5 14.cxd6 cxd6 15.Nb5 fxe4 16.Nd2 Nxd5 17.Bxa7 Nf4 18.Qxe4
d5 19.Qe3
The only move. If 19.Qc2 Ne2+, 19.Qf3 Nh3+ or 19.Qe1 Nd3.
19...d4 20.Qb3+ Be6 21.Qd1
Now another double-attack decides the game.

^xxxxxxxxY
|rdw1w4kdy
|Gpdwdwgwy
|wdwdbdp0y
|dNdw0wdwy
|w)w0whwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|PdwHw)P)y
|dw$QdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
21...Qd5! 0–1
There is no defense against the threats 21...Qxg2# and 21...Qxb5.
Rare variations and experiments are a two-edged sword
A04 V. Akopian – H. Ziska

Dresden (ol) 2008
1.Nf3 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Bg4?! 4.e4 Nbd7?
An experiment which, in my opinion, should not be recommended. Usual and better is

4...g6 or 4...c6.
5.e5! dxe5 6.dxe5 Bxf3
Or 6...Ng8 7.h3! with better game for White.
7.Qxf3 Nxe5 8.Qxb7 e6 9.Bb5+ Ned7 10.Bg5
Black is already in big trouble.
10. Qc8 11.Qf3 Rb8 12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.O-O–0 Bd6 14.Rhe1!
Stronger than 14.Qxf6.
14...Ke7 15.Nd5+ Kf8 16.Bxd7 Qxd7 17.Qxf6 Rg8

xxxxxxxxY
|w4wdwirdy
|0w0qdpdpy
|wdwgp!wdy
|dwdNdwdwy
|wdwdwdwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|P)Pdw)P)y
|dwIR$wdwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
18.Qh6+ Rg7 19.Nf6 Qb5 20.Nxh7+ Kg8 21.Nf6+ Kf8 22.b3 1–0
E20 M. Bluvshtein – J. Rowson

Dresden (ol) 2008
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3
A rare continuation, usually used as a surprise. As we shall see, this time the surprised
side is White!
4...O-O
The theory recommends 4...c5 as best for Black.
5.a3
5.e4!?
5...Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Nh5 7.g3?!
Better is 7.Nh3, and if 7…Qh4+ 8.Nf2.
7...f5 8.e4 d6 9.f4 Nf6 10.e5 Ne4 11.Ne2 b6 12.Bg2 Ba6! 13.Qb3
If 13.Qa4 Qe8!
13...Nc6 14.c5 d5 15.cxb6

^xxxxxxxxY
|rdw1w4kdy
|0w0wdw0py
|b)ndpdwdy
|dwdp)pdwy
|wdw)n)wdy
|)Q)wdw)wy
|wdwdNdB)y
|$wGwIwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
15…cxb6! 16.Qc2 Rc8
Black has the advantage.
17.Bb2 Na5 18.Bxe4 dxe4! 19.O-O Qd5 20.Bc1 e3! 21.Bxe3 Bb7 22.Kf2 Qf3+ 0–1
C40 S. Azarov – R. Khouseinov

Dresden (ol) 2008
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Qe7
A very rare opening idea, still without a name and without established theory.
3.Nc3 c6
3…Nf6!?
4.d4 d6 5.a4 a5 6.Be2 g6
6…Nf6!? And if 7.O-O Qc7.
7.O-O Nh6
More natural is 7…Bg7, followed by 8…Nf6.
8.d5! c5
Or 8…Bg7 9.Nd2 O-O 10.Nc4 with the better game for White.
9.Nd2 f6 10.Nc4 Qd8
If 10…Nd7?? 1.Nb5.
11.Bxh6! Bxh6 12.Nb5 Ra6 13.Bg4! Bxg4 14.Qxg4 Qd7
^xxxxxxxxY
|whwdkdw4y
|dpdqdwdpy
|rdw0w0pgy
|0N0P0wdwy
|PdNdPdQdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|w)Pdw)P)y
|$wdwdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
15.Qe6+! Qxe6 16.dxe6 Ke7 17.Rfd1 Rd8 18.Ra3!
The point of White’s idea 15.Qe6+. Now Black loses a pawn and the game.
18…Nc6 19.Rh3 Bg7 20.Rxh7 Kf8 21.Nc7 1–0
C42 N. Umudova – A. Shyngys Kyzy

Dresden (ol) 2008
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Nc3!?
Usual is 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3.
5…Nf6
Avoiding the sharper 5…Nxc3 6.dxc3.
6.d4 d5 7.Bd3 Bd6
Here perhaps 7…Be7 is more suitable.

8.O-O O-O 9.Bg5 c6 10.Ne5 Nbd7 11.Re1 Qc7 12.Nxd7 Nxd7 13.Qh5 g6 14.Qh6 f5
An interesting defense is 14…f6, and if 15.Bxg6 Nb6!?
15.Qh4 Nb6 16.Be7 Rf7 17.Bd8! Qd7 18.Re2 Bc7 19.Bf6 Qd6
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdbdwdkdy
|0pgwdrdpy
|whp1wGpdy
|dwdpdpdwy
|wdw)wdw!y
|dwHBdwdwy
|P)PdR)P)y
|$wdwdwIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
20.Re8+ Rf8 21.Be5 Qd7 22.Re7 1–0
Examples of typical mating attacks
B71 J. Ziogaite – S. Oliver

Dresden (ol) 2008
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.f4 Nc6 7.Nf3
One of many possible continuations. As we shall see in our game, the idea is to build a
typical attack against Black’s fianchetto.
7…Bg7 8.Bd3 O-O 9.O-O b6?
The wrong plan. Correct is 9…Bg4 followed by …Bxf3, exchanging an important piece
for White’s attacking pattern.
10.Qe1
Now, pay attention how, move by move, White builds his attack.
10…Bb7 11.Qh4 Rc8 12.f5 Qd7 13.Bh6 a6? 14.Rad1 Qc7 15.fxg6 hxg6 16.Ng5 Ne5
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdrdw4kdy
|db1w0pgwy
|p0w0whpGy
|dwdwhwHwy
|wdwdPdw!y
|dwHBdwdwy
|P)PdwdP)y
|DWDRdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
All White’s pieces are in right place and the execution begins.
17.Rxf6 Bxf6 18.Bg7!! Nf3+ 19.gxf3 Qc5+ 20.Kh1 1–0
B17 M. Sergeeva – E. Nakagawa

Dresden (ol) 2008
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Nf3
The classical line. Recently very popular is 5.Bd3 Ngf6 6.Ng5, which stirs immediate
tactics: 6…h6?? 7.Ne6!
5…Ngf6 6.Ng3 e6 7.Bd3 Bd6 8.O-O O-O 9.Re1 Qc7
9…c5!?
10.Qe2 b6
Too slow. This gives White time to build an attacking position. Better is immediately
10…c5!?
11.Ne5 Bb7 12.Bg5 c5 13.c3 Rfe8?
Weakening the f7 pawn – when White’s knight is posted on e5 – is always dangerous!

Better is 13…h6.
14.Rac1 Rac8
Now begins the typical attack, which deserves to be remembered.
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdrdrdkdy
|0b1ndp0py
|w0wgphwdy
|dw0wHwGwy
|wdw)wdwdy
|dw)BdwHwy
|P)wdQ)P)y
|dw$w$wIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
15.Nh5 Nxh5 16.Bxh7+!
The point of White’s attack. If now 16…Kxh7, then 17.Qxh5+ Kg8 18.Qxf7+ Kh8
19.Re3 and White wins.
16…Kf8 17.Qxh5 Nxe5 18.dxe5 Bxe5? 19.Rxe5! f6
If 19…Qxe5 20.Be7+.
20.Re3 fxg5 21.Bg6 Qc6 22.Qh8+ 1–0

By IM Nikolay Minev
The Pirc Defense: Under Direct Attack.
In last decade “The Pirc Defense” (1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6) is under dangerous direct
attack. This is demonstrated in the small collection of games below. One can argue that in
these examples Black misses some opportunities, but the deeper truth is that White’s
quick attacking variations are not easily repulsed.
B07 J. Bourne – R. Johnson

England (ch team) 2005
1.d4 d6 2.e4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Be3 Bg7 5.Qd2 O-O
Instead 5…Ng4 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bh4 g5 8.Bg3 looks less attractive for Black. Maybe he
should try 5…h6 6.f3 c6 or 5…c6 6.O-O-O b5 even if here, as we shall see, Black’s
counter play is often not satisfactory.
6.Bh6 c6 7.h4
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhb1w4kdy
|0pdw0pgpy
|wdp0whpGy
|dwdwdwdwy
|wdw)Pdw)y
|dwHwdwdwy
|P)P!w)Pdy
|$wdwIBHRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
The most typical attacking pattern, with an early advance of the h-pawn.
7…Bxh6 8.Qxh6 Qa5 9.h5 Nxh5
9…Ng4!?
10.Nf3 f6
Or 10…Nd7 11.Ng5 Ndf6 12.Be2 etc.
11.Bc4+ e6 12.g4 1-0
B07 L. Nestorovic – N. Svetac

Belgrade 2009
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Bg5 c6 5.Qd2 Bg7
ECO suggests 5…b5.
6.O-O-O Qc7?!
Interesting, but probably too passive an idea. Maybe the immediate 6…b5 offers more
counter chances.
7.Bd3 e5 8.dxe5 dxe5 9.Bh6 O-O 10.h4
The typical pattern is in use again and, as in previous game, Black is not able to find a
satisfactory defense.
10…Bxh6
10…b5!?, and if 11.h5 Na6 12.Bxg7 Kxg7 13.hxg6 fxg6.
11.Qxh6 Ng4 12.Qd2 f5 13.Bc4+ Kg7 14.h5 f4 15.hxg6 hxg6 16.Nf3 Nd7??
The decisive blunder. However, after 16…b5 17.Ng5 Nf6 18.Be6 White’s attack
continues, with great chances for success.
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdbdw4wdy
|0p1ndwiwy
|wdpdwdpdy
|dwdw0wdwy
|wdBdP0ndy
|dwHwdNdwy
|P)P!w)Pdy
|dwIRdwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
17.Rh7+!! Kf6
If 18…Kxh7 19.Ng5+ Kh6 (19…Kh8 20.Rh1+) 20.Ne6 with the double threat 21.Rh1#
and 21.Nxc7.
18.Qd6+ 1–0
B07 J. Lillo Ferrer – T. Yastrebova

L'Estartit 2009
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Bg5 Bg7 5.Qd2 h6 6.Bh4 c6
For 6…g5!? 7.Bg3 Nh5 – see next game.
7.f4! b5 8.Bd3 Qb6 9.Nf3 Bg4 10.e5 dxe5 11.dxe5 Nfd7 12.a4 b4
Maybe 12…bxa4!?
13.Ne4 Bxf3
Black overlooks White’s 16th move. Better was the immediate 13…g5.
14.gxf3 g5 15.Bf2 Qb7
15…c5!?
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhwdkdw4y
|0qdn0pgwy
|wdpdwdw0y
|dwdw)w0wy
|P0wdN)wdy
|dwdBdPdwy
|w)P!wGw)y
|$wdwIwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
16.e6! fxe6 17.O-O-O Nb6? 18.Nc5 Qc8 19.Bg6+ 1–0
B07 G. Hertneck – V. Beim

Austria (ch team) 2005
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Bg5 Bg7 5.Qd2 h6 6.Bh4 g5 7.Bg3 Nh5
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhb1kdw4y
|0p0w0pgwy
|wdw0wdw0y
|dwdwdw0ny
|wdw)Pdwdy
|dwHwdwGwy
|P)P!w)P)y
|$wdwIBHRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
In this way Black avoids the variations with the direct attack, but his King will remains in
the center.
8.O-O-O a6
A very dubious idea. Probably 8…c6, intending 9…b5, offers more counter-chances.
9.Nge2 Nc6
9…b5!?
10.f3 Nxg3 11.hxg3 e6 12.d5!
When the opponent’s King is in the center – open the center files!
12…Ne5 13.Nd4 Bd7 14.f4 Ng4 15.dxe6 fxe6 16.Be2
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdw1kdw4y
|dp0bdwgwy
|pdw0pdw0y
|dwdwdw0wy
|wdwHP)ndy
|dwHwdw)wy
|P)P!BdPdy
|dwIRdwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
16…Bxd4
Already Black is in big trouble. If 16…e5 17.Nf5!
17.Qxd4 e5 18.fxe5 Nxe5 19.Bh5+ Ke7 20.Nd5+ Ke6 21.Rhf1 1-0
B07 E. Vovsha – A. Schiffer

USA (Amateur ch team) 2009
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Be3 Bg7 5.f3 O-O
According to ECO, the correct strategy is to start immediately with counter play by
5…c6 6.Qd2 b5, without or late castling.
6.Qd2 c6 7.O-O-O Nbd7 8.g4 b5 9.Bh6 Qa5 10.h4 b4 11.Nb1
In this situation of mutual attack, White’s chances are stronger because his attack is
quicker and has the participation of more forces.
11…Kh8?
Already Black is in trouble, but this waste of time makes the position even worse.
12.Bxg7+ Kxg7 13.h5 Rh8 14.hxg6 hxg6
Perhaps 14…fxg6 offers more resistance.
15.Rxh8 Kxh8 16.Qh6+ Nh7 17.Nh3 Ndf8 18.Bc4 Be6
If 18…d5 19.Ng5 dxc4 20.Nxh7 Nxh7 21.Rh1 and White wins.
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwdwhwiy
|0wdw0pdny
|wdp0bdp!y
|1wdwdwdwy
|w0B)PdPdy
|dwdwdPdNy
|P)Pdwdwdy
|dNIRdwdwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
19.d5! cxd5 20.Ng5 1–0
B09 Z. Jovanovic – Z. Martic

Bizovac (Croatia) 2007
1.e4 d6 2.Nc3 g6 3.f4 Bg7 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.d4 O-O 6.e5 Nfd7 7.h4
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhb1w4kdy
|0p0n0pgpy
|wdw0wdpdy
|dwdw)wdwy
|wdw)w)w)y
|dwHwdNdwy
|P)PdwdPdy
|$wGQIBdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
7…c5 8.h5 cxd4 9.Qxd4
For 9.hxg6 – see the next game.
9…dxe5 10.Qf2 e4 11.Nxe4 Nf6 12.Nxf6+ exf6 13.hxg6 hxg6?
According to Parma, Black should play 13…fxg6 with equality. In my opinion the
correct assessment is that the position is unclear.
14.Bd2 Nc6
14…Re8+!?
15.O-O-O Be6? 16.Qh4 Re8
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdw1rdkdy
|0pdwdpgwy
|wdndb0pdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|wdwdw)w!y
|dwdwdNdwy
|P)PGwdPdy
|dwIRdBdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
17.f5! Bxf5 18.Qh7+ 1-0
Because of 18…Kf8 19.Bh6 and wins.
B09 J. Morris – B. Atzmon Simon

Australia (ch) Sydney 2010
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.f4 Bg7 5.Nf3 O-O 6.e5 Nfd7 7.h4 c5 8.h5 cxd4 9.hxg6
hxg6?
Instead 9…dxc3 10.gxf7+ Rxf7 11.Bc4 or 11.e6 is considered to be in Black’s favor, but
the arising positions are full of possibilities for tactics and surprising novelties.
10.Qxd4 Qb6?
In case of 10…dxe5 11.Qf2 White has a strong attack – compare with the previous game!
11.Nd5! Nc6
If 11…Qxd4?? 12.Nxe7#!
12.Qa4 Qd8 13.f5! e6 14.Bg5 f6 15.Qh4
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdb1w4kdy
|0pdndwgwy
|wdn0p0pdy
|dwdN)PGwy
|wdwdwdw!y
|dwdwdNdwy
|P)PdwdPdy
|$wdwIBdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
A unique position! Black is already lost.
15…gxf5 16.Qh7+ Kf7 17.exf6 Qa5+ 18.Bd2 Nxf6
Or 18…Qxd5 19.fxg7 Rg8 20.Ng5+ and White wins.
19.Ng5+ Ke8 20.Qg6+ 1–0

By IM Nikolay Minev
New Exciting Short Stories Among the Elite
B41 B. Gelfand – R. Ponomariov

Khanty-Mansiysk (World Cup) 2009
1.d4 e6 2.c4 c5 3.Nf3 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Nc3 Qc7 6.e4 Nf6
This is a controversial variation, with opinions divided as to who is better! According to

some grandmasters, sooner or later Black will promote d5 and have a good game, while
many others consider that White has a positional advantage due to more space.
7.a3! b6 8.Be3 Bb7 9.f3 Nc6 10.Rc1 h5?
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwdkgw4y
|db1pdp0wy
|p0ndphwdy
|dwdwdwdpy
|wdPHPdwdy
|)wHwGPdwy
|w)wdwdP)y
|dw$QIBdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
11.Nd5! exd5 12.cxd5 Nxd5 13.exd5 Qe5 14.Kf2 Ne7
If 14…Qxd5 then 15.Bc4, followed by 16.Re1 with a decisive attack.
15.Qd2 Nxd5 16.Bg5 Ne7
This looks very dangerous. Perhaps 16…Be7 17.Re1 Qd6 (18.Nf5?! Qc5+) offers better
resistance.
17.Bc4 f6
After this, White wins by force. However, Black is already lost.
18.Bf4
Surprisingly now White wins the Queen.
18…Qa5 19.b4 Qa4 20.Bb3 Qxa3 21.Ra1 1–0
B42 H. Nakamura – V. Epishin

Gibraltar (Catalan Bay) 2007
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Bd3 Bc5 6.Nb3 Be7
A relatively new idea, instead of 6…Ba7.
7.Be3 d5 8.exd5 Qxd5
8…exd5!?
9.Nc3!
Modern chess – initiative first and foremost! For a pawn White gains several tempi and
of course, attacking chances.
9…Qxg2 10.Be4 Qh3 11.Qd4 Nf6 12.O-O-O Nbd7 13.Rhg1 g6?
Maybe Black should try 13…e5, because after the text the situation of his Queen
becomes critical.
14.Rg3 Qh5 15.Bg5!

^xxxxxxxxY
|rdbdkdw4y
|dpdngpdpy
|pdwdphpdy
|dwdwdwGqy
|wdw!Bdwdy
|dNHwdw$wy
|P)Pdw)w)y
|dwIRdwdwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
There is no defense against the threat 16.Bf3 Qxh2 17.Rh1 and the Queen is trapped.
15…h6 16.Bf3 Qxh2 17.Be3
Stronger than 17.Rh1.
17…e5 18.Qa4 e4 19.Nxe4 Nxe4 20.Bxe4 Qh4 21.Nc5 b5 22.Qd4 Bf6 23.Qd5 Nxc5
Or 23…Ra7 24.Rh1.
24.Bxc5 1-0
C18 E. Sutovsky – S. Dyachkov

Moscow 2007
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Qc7 7.Qg4 f6
The theory considers this to be a weak continuation, recommending instead 7…f5 or

7…Ne7.
8.Bb5+ Kf8
This novelty was most likely prepared in advance, but it looks to me more like a
misguided adventure. Natural and better is 8…Nc6.
9.Nf3 c4
This is the idea behind the novelty. At first glance White’s Bishop at b5 looks lost, but
this is far from the truth.
10.a4 a6 11.Ba3+ Ne7 12.Be8! Qd8
After 12…Kxe8 13.Qxg7 Rg8 14.Qxh7 Rf8 15.Qh5+ Kd8 16.exf6 White wins.
13.Bh5 Nbc6 14.exf6 gxf6

^xxxxxxxxY
|rdb1wiw4y
|dpdwnwdpy
|pdndp0wdy
|dwdpdwdBy
|Pdp)wdQdy
|Gw)wdNdwy
|wdPdw)P)y
|$wdwIwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
15.Ng5! Qa5
If 15…fxg5 16.Qf3+ Kg7 17.Qf7+ Kh6 18.h4 and White wins.
16.O-O f5
Or 16…e5 17.Ne6+ and wins.
17.Qh4 1-0
There is no defense against the threat 18.Nxe6+.
C77 M. Godena – A. Naiditsch

Crete (European Team championship) 2007
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.d3 b5 6.Bb3 Bc5 7.a4 Rb8
A frequent alternative here is 7…Bb7.
8.axb5 axb5 9.Nc3!?
An interesting rare idea. Usual is 9.c3 and after that White has some problems with the
development of his Queen’s Knight.
9…d6 10.Nd5 h6 11.c3 O-O 12.d4

^xxxxxxxxY
|w4b1w4kdy
|dw0wdp0wy
|wdn0whw0y
|dpgw0wdwy
|wdw)Pdwdy
|dB)wdNdwy
|w)wdw)P)y
|$wGQIwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
12…exd4
In case of 12…Ba7 13.Nxf6+ Qxf6 14.Bd5 and White wins a piece.
13.cxd4 Nxd5 14.dxc5 Nf6 15.cxd6 Nxe4
After 15…cxd6 16.O-O Re8 17.Re1 White stands better.
16.dxc7 Qxc7 17.O-O Bg4
The center is without pawns and all pieces are playing with full force. This means that the
position is full of tactical opportunities, and a quick end to the game can be expected.
And this is exactly what happens!
18.Qc2! Bxf3 19.gxf3 Nf6
^xxxxxxxxY
|w4wdw4kdy
|dw1wdp0wy
|wdndwhw0y
|wpdwdwdwy
|wdwdwdwdy
|dBdwdPdwy
|w)Qdw)w)y
|$wGwdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
20.Bxh6! 1-0
Because of 20…gxh6 21.Qg6+.
D43 H. Nakamura – J. Gustafsson

Ansfelden (Austria Team championship) 2009
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4
A controversial gambit. Usual is 6.Bxf6 Qxf6 7.Qb3, intending e2-e4 with a slight edge.
6…dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.Bg3 b5 9.Be2 Bb7 10.e5 Nd5 11.Nd2
The other, sharper continuation is 11.h4!?
11…Nd7 12.O-O Qb6 13.a4 a5! 14.Nde4 b4 15.Na2 O-O-O 16.Bxc4 Nf4
Returning the pawn, Black seizes the initiative. The immediate double threats are
17…Nxe5 and 17…c5.
17.Nd6+ Bxd6 18.exd6 c5 19.Bxf4 gxf4 20.Qh5 Qxd6 21.Rfd1 Rhg8 22.f3 Rg5!
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdk4wdwdy
|dbdndpdwy
|wdw1pdw0y
|0w0wdw4Qy
|P0B)w0wdy
|dwdwdPdwy
|N)wdwdP)y
|$wdRdwIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
0–1
Because after 23.Qxh6 Rdg8 or 23.Qh3 cxd4, followed by Ne5, White’s position is
hopeless. An important game for the theory of this gambit.
E71 A. Obukhov – D. Petrosian
Alushta 2008
1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6 3.e4 d6 4.d4 Bg7 5.Bg5 O-O 6.h3 c5 7.d5 b5!
This is the trend of today’s chess – the fight for initiative begins as early as possible!
8.cxb5 a6 9.bxa6
9.a4!?
9…Qb6 10.Qd2 Nbd7 11.Nf3 Bxa6 12.Bxa6 Qxa6 13.Qe2 Rfb8 14.Qxa6 Rxa6
White is already in trouble. His heroic attempt to save the extra pawn makes the things
even worse.
15.O-O-O?
^xxxxxxxxY
|w4wdwdkdy
|dwdn0pgpy
|rdw0whpdy
|dw0PdwGwy
|wdwdPdwdy
|dwHwdNdPy
|P)wdw)Pdy
|dwIRdwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
15…Nxe4! 16.Nxe4 Rxa2 17.Nc3 Raxb2 18.Bd2 c4 19.Rdf1 Nc5 20.Ne1 Ne4! 0–1
Because of 21.Nxe4 Rb1+ 22.Kc2 R8b2#

By IM Nikolay Minev
The Always Exciting Queen Sacrifice
The sacrifice of the Queen is the highest point of the tactics, and the dream of every chess
player from beginner to grandmaster. Here is small collection of such fresh examples,
arranged by the result of the sacrifice, either gain of material or delivery of mate. These
educative combinations deserve to be seen and remembered.
Sacrifices That Win Material
B30 Glek – S. Arkhipov

Russia (ch team) 2001
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 e6 4.O-O Nge7 5.Re1 a6 6.Bxc6 Nxc6 7.d4 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Qc7
9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.e5! Bb7
10…d6!?
11.Nd2 c5
11…d6!?
12.Nc4 Bd5?
The decisive mistake, but the position is already very difficult for Black.
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwdkgw4y
|dw1pdp0py
|pdwdpdwdy
|dw0b)wdwy
|wdNdwdwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|P)Pdw)P)y
|$wGQ$wIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
13.Nd6+! Bxd6
Or 13…Ke7 14.c4 Bc6 15.Qh5 and White wins.
14.Qxd5!! 1-0
Because of 14…exd5 15.exd6+ winning a piece.
The next examples lead to a gain in material, but by promotion to a new Queen, rather
than by simple double attacks and captures.
B33 D. Rombaldoni – M. Sibilio

Italy (ch) 2009
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Qb6 5.Nb3 Nf6 6.Nc3 e6 7.Qe2!?
A relatively new continuation, which already has many followers.
7…Qc7 8.Bd2 d6 9.g4 h6 10.f4 Bd7 11.O-O-O a6 12.Bg2 Rc8
12…O-O-O!?
13.Kb1 b5
White’s development is finished, it is time for action!
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdrdkgw4y
|dw1bdp0wy
|pdn0phw0y
|dpdwdwdwy
|wdwdP)Pdy
|dwHwdwdwy
|P)PGQdB)y
|dKdRdwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
14.e5! dxe5 15.fxe5 Nh7
If 15…Qxe5 16.Bxc6 and White wins a piece. Or if 15…Nxe5 16.Bf4 Bd6 17.Rxd6
Qxd6 18.Bxe5, with two minor pieces for Rook and strong attacking chances.
16Bf4 Be7 17.h4 Nb8 18.g5 h5 19.Qxh5 b4
^xxxxxxxxY
|whrdkdw4y
|dw1bgp0ny
|pdwdpdwdy
|dwdw)w)Qy
|w0wdwGw)y
|dNHwdwdwy
|P)PdwdBdy
|dKdRdwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
20.g6! bxc3 21.Qxh7! 1–0
After 21…Rxh7 22.gxh7 the promotion of a new White Queen is inevitable, while the
position after 21…Rf8 22.Be4 is hopeless for Black.
A40 D. Grosdemange – T. Duchateau

Vandoeuvre les Nancy 2008
1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.c4 d6 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Be3 Bxf3 7.gxf3 e5 8.d5 Nce7
9.Qa4+!? Qd7
If 9…c6 10.dxc6 bxc6 11.c5! with the better game for White.
10.Nb5 Kd8
Maybe 10…Kf8!? should be preferred, but not 10…c6? 11.c5! dxc5 12.Bxc5 and Black
is in big trouble.
11.c5! Nc8 12.c6! bxc6 13.dxc6 Qe7 14.Qa6! Rb8
If 14…Nb6 15.Qb7 Rc8 16.Nxa7 and White wins.

^xxxxxxxxY
|w4niwdn4y
|0w0w1pgpy
|QdP0wdpdy
|dNdw0wdwy
|wdwdPdwdy
|dwdwGPdwy
|P)wdw)w)y
|$wdwIBdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
15.Qb7!! Rxb7 16.cxb7 c6 17.b8=Q cxb5 18.Rc1 1–0
Sacrifices That Win by Mating Patterns
B07 P. E. Chaplin – P. Kelly

England (ch team) West Bromwich 2005
1.Nc3 g6 2.h4
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhb1kgn4y
|0p0p0pd0y
|wdwdwdpdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|wdwdwdw)y
|dwHwdwdwy
|P)P)P)Pdy
|$wG!IBHRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
How many times have you seen these opening moves?
2…Nf6 3.e4 d6 4.d4 Bg7 5.Be2

We are now, by transposition of moves, in one of main variation of the Pirc Defense –
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Be2 Bg7 5.h4.
5…a6
Maybe too passive, but recent theory does not give a clear indication which response is
best for Black.
6.h5 Nxh5 7.Bxh5 gxh5 8.Be3 b5 9.Qxh5 Qd7? 10.Rh3 Nc6
If 10…Qg4?? 11.Qxg4 Bxg4 12.Rg3 and White wins a piece.
11.Rg3! Bxd4 12.Bxd4 Nxd4
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdbdkdw4y
|dw010pdpy
|pdw0wdwdy
|dpdwdwdQy
|wdwhPdwdy
|dwHwdw$wy
|P)Pdw)Pdy
|$wdwIwHwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
13.Qxh7!
Simple, but effective. If 13…Rxh7 14.Rg8#
13…Rf8 14.O-O-O c5 15.Nd5 Rb8 16.Rxd4! cxd4 17.Rg8 Qg4
There is no defense against the threat 18.Rxf8+ Kxf8 19.Qh8#
18.Rxg4 Bxg4 19.Qh4 1-0
D36 Tunik - A. Geller

Togliatti 2001
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c6 4.Qc2 dxc4?! 5.Qxc4 b5 6.Qc2 Bb7 7.e4 Nf6 8.Bd3 Nbd7
Relatively better is 8…Bb4+.
9.O-O a6 10.Qe2 c5 11.Bg5 cxd4?? 12.e5! h6
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdw1kgw4y
|dbdndp0wy
|pdwdphw0y
|dpdw)wGwy
|wdw0wdwdy
|dwdBdNdwy
|P)wdQ)P)y
|$NdwdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
13.exf6 hxg5 14.Qxe6+!! 1-0
Because of 14…fxe6 15.Bg6#, which is one of the typical mates that can occur in the
opening after a Queen sacrifice. The alternative 14…Be7 15.Qxe7+ is also hopeless for
Black.
C15 K. O'Brien – D. Salter

Athens (Kallithea) 2008
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3?!
A rarely used continuation, played mostly as an opening surprise.
4…Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.Qg4 Nf6 7.Qxg7 Rg8 8.Qh6 Nbd7 9.Ne2
9.f3!?
9…b6 10.Bg5 Bb7 11.Ng3 Qe7 12.Qh4 O-O-O 13.Bb5 c6 14.Bc4 h6!
With this surprising pawn sacrifice Black achieves a dangerous initiative.
15.Qxh6
Worse is 15.Bxh6 Rg4!
15…Rh8 16.Bxf6 Nxf6 17.Qf4 Rdg8 18.O-O Nh5 19.Qe5?
The decisive mistake. The position after 19.Qxe4 is still unclear.
19…Qh4 20.Qxe4?
Also after 20.h3 Nf4 Black’s attack should prevail.
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdkdwdr4y
|0bdwdpdwy
|w0pdpdwdy
|dwdwdwdny
|wdB)Qdw1y
|)w)wdwHwy
|wdPdw)P)y
|$wdwdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
20…Qxh2+! 21.Kxh2 Nxg3+ 0-1
For if 22.Kg1 Rh1#, an original mating pattern.
E32 M. Carlsen – V. Kramnik

Nice (Amber Blindfold) 2009
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 O-O 5.e4!? d6
The theory recommends 5…d5.
6.Bd3 Nc6 7.Nge2 Ba5!?
An original idea!
8.O-O Bb6 9.d5 Nb4 10.Qd2 exd5 11.cxd5 Ng4! 12.Bb1 Qh4 13.Qf4 f5!
It is clear that Carlsen overlooked this move. Now Black has a strong – probably decisive
– attack.
14.exf5 Bxf5 15.h3
If 15.Bxf5 Rxf5!
15…Bxf2+ 16.Kh1
Or 16.Rxf2 Qxf2+ 17.Qxf2 Nxf2 18.Kxf2 Bxb1+ and Black wins.
16…Bd7 17.Qg5
Or 17.Qxb4 Bc5 and Black wins.
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwdw4kdy
|0p0bdw0py
|wdw0wdwdy
|dwdPdw!wy
|whwdwdn1y
|dwHwdwdPy
|P)wdNgPdy
|$BGwdRdKy
Uzzzzzzzz\
17…Bc5!! 18.Rxf8+ Rxf8 19.Ng1 Rf1 20.Bxh7+ Kh8 0–1
Our final examples are with my favorite mating pattern after a Queen sacrifice: mate with
two Bishops and a Knight.
E11 T. Nyback – U. Von Hermann

Germany (Bundesliga) Hamburg 2009
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2
This continuation is more promising than 4.Bd2.
4…d5 5.a3 Be7 6.e3 O-O 7.Bd3 c5 8.b3 cxd4 9.exd4 b6 10.O-O Bb7 11.Qe2 Nc6
12.Bb2
The main line, and a typical position for this variation. In my opinion, White stands
better.
12…Re8 13.Rfe1 Bf8 14.Rac1 g6 15.c5! e5
This fails into a tactical trap, but Black was forced to react with something to counter the
positional threat of b3-b4.
16.dxe5 bxc5
Maybe 16…Bxc5 offers better resistance.
17.Ng5! Nh5 18.Qg4
The obvious threat is 19.Nxh7 Kxh7 20.Qxh5+.
18…Bc8
Now comes the hidden threat.
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdb1rgkdy
|0wdwdpdpy
|wdndwdpdy
|dw0p)wHny
|wdwdwdQdy
|)PdBdwdwy
|wGwHw)P)y
|dw$w$wIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
19.e6! Rxe6 20.Qxh5!! 1–0
For if the Queen sacrifice is accepted with 20…gxh5, then the Bishops and Knight
cooperate to deliver mate with 21.Bxh7#. This is my favorite mating pattern resulting
from the sacrifice of a Queen!
Incredibly, here is another example of the same pattern.

D27 M. Rodshtein – A. Diamant
Puerto Madryn (Argentina) 2009
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 dxc4 4.e3 e6 5.Bxc4 c5 6.O-O a6 7.Bb3 Nc6 8.Nc3 cxd4 9.exd4
Be7 10.Bg5 O-O 11.Qd2 Na5 12.Bc2 b5 13.Qf4 Bb7 14.Qh4 g6
If 14…Bxf3?? 15.Bxf6!
15.d5! b4
If 15…exd5 16.Rfe1, intending 17.Rxe7, or 15…Bxd5 16.Rad1, intending 17.Nxd5 exd5

(17…Nxd5 18.Rxd5) 18.Rfe1 with the threat 19.Rxe7.
16.Rad1! exd5
If 16…bxc3 17.d6! and wins.
17.Rfe1! bxc3 18.Rxe7 Qxe7 19.Bxf6 Qd6 20.Ng5
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwdw4kdy
|dbdwdpdpy
|pdw1wGpdy
|hwdpdwHwy
|wdwdwdw!y
|dw0wdwdwy
|P)Bdw)P)y
|dwdRdwIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
1–0
Because of 20…h5 21.Qxh5!! gxh5 22.Bh7#.

By IM Nikolay Minev
The New Face of the Four Knights
There is currently a strange new variation in the Four Knights Opening, with an early g3.
As far as I can tell, this new variation was first played in following game:
C47 A. Nimzovich – E. Grunfeld

Carlsbad 1923
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.g3!?
Instead of 4.Bb5, 4.Bc4 or 4.d4.

^xxxxxxxxY
|rdb1kgw4y
|0p0pdp0py
|wdndwhwdy
|dwdw0wdwy
|wdwdPdwdy
|dwHwdN)wy
|P)P)w)w)y
|$wGQIBdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
4…d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Bg2 Nxc3 7.bxc3 Bd6 8.O-O O-O 9.d3 Bg4 10.h3 Bd7 11.Rb1
Rb8 12.Re1 Re8 13.Ng5 h6 14.Nxf7?
This is a tempting but incorrect sacrifice, as the game shows. Correct is 14.Ne4, and if
14…Bf8 15.f4.
14…Kxf7 15.Qh5+ Kg8 16.Bxh6 Qf6 17.Bg5 Qf7 18.Qh4 Ne7 19.Rxb7 Rxb7 20.Bxb7
Qxa2 21.Bxe7 Rxe7 22.Be4 Qe6 23.Qh7+ Kf8 24.Qh8+ Qg8 25.Qh5 Be8 26.Qg5 Qe6
27.Ra1 c6 28.Kg2 Qh6 29.Qg4 Qd2 30.Qh4 Qh6 31.Qg4 Rf7 32.Qe2 Bc5 33.Bf3 Bd7
34.g4 Qf4 35.Ra5 Bb6 36.Rxe5 Bc7 37.Re4 Qh2+ 38.Kf1 Qxh3+ 39.Bg2 Qh6 40.Qe1
Bg3 41.Re2 Qh4 42.c4 Kg8 43.g5 Qxg5 44.Kg1 Bd6 45.d4 Bh3 0–1
At first glance the experimental idea of Nimzovich looks unattractive and further, the
stem game finished in disaster for White. The result was that the new variation was
almost forgotten and only in the 1970’s was it rediscovered as an option leading to
positions which offer strategically interesting ideas and tactics.
Today, after about thousand recorded games, the theory of this new variation still is not
firmly established. For those interested, the next short collection of recent games will
help with understanding some of the strategical ideas and typical tactics of this new face
of the Four Knights.
Variation 4…d5: The Logical Reply
C47 M. Hangweyrer - S. Loffler

Vienna 2002
1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e5 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.g3 d5
This reply (which follows the stem game above) is according to general strategic rules: if
the opponent plays in the wing, the best reaction is to counter in the center!
5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Bg2 Nxc3 7.bxc3 Be7
7…Bd6!? – see the stem game.
8.O-O O-O 9.Re1 Bf6 10.Rb1 Re8 11.d3 e4
11…Rb8!?
12.Nd2 exd3
After 12…Bxc3 13.Rxe4 White is slightly better.
13.Ne4! Bf5
In case of 13…dxc2 14.Nxf6+ gxf6 15.Rxe8+ Qxe8 16.Qxc2 and White has good
compensation for the pawn. (16…Qe1+ 17.Bf1 Bh3?? 18.Be3)
14.cxd3 Bxe4 15.Rxe4 Rxe4 16.Bxe4 Bxc3 17.Rxb7 Nd4 18.Bf4!
Stronger than 18.Rxc7!?

18…c6
If 18…Ne6 19.Rb3!
19.Bxh7+ Kf8 20.Qh5 Qf6
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwdwiwdy
|0Rdwdp0By
|wdpdw1wdy
|dwdwdwdQy
|wdwhwGwdy
|dwgPdw)wy
|Pdwdw)w)y
|dwdwdwIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
21.Bg6! 1-0
C47 M. Dorin – S. Slipak

Vicente Lopez (Argentina) 2001
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.g3 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Bg2 Nde7
An original and rare continuation that deserves attention.
7.d3 g6 8.Bg5?! Bg7 9.Qd2?
If 9.Ne4? f5 10Nf6+ Kf7 or 10.Bf6 Bxf6 11.Nxf6+ Kf7. Correct is 9.O-O.
9…h6 10.Be3 Nd4! 11.Ne2?
This loses. If 11.O-O then 11…Bh3!? is also possible, or 11…Bg4 with better game for
Black.
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdb1kdw4y
|0p0whpgwy
|wdwdwdp0y
|dwdw0wdwy
|wdwhwdwdy
|dwdPGN)wy
|P)P!N)B)y
|$wdwIwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
11…Bh3! 12.O-O Bxg2 13.Kxg2 Nxf3 14.Kxf3 Qd5+ 15.Kg4 Qg2! 0-1
C47 P. Guyot – S. Trassaert

Cannes 1990
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.g3 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Bg2 Be6 7.O-O Bc5!? 8.Re1 f6?
Instead 8…O-O 9.Nxe5 Nxe5 10.d4! (10.Rxe5?! Bxf2+) seems to also be in White’s
favor.
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdw1kdw4y
|0p0wdw0py
|wdndb0wdy
|dwgn0wdwy
|wdwdwdwdy
|dwHwdN)wy
|P)P)w)B)y
|$wGQ$wIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
9.d4! Bb4
If 9…Nxd4 10.Nxd4 Bxd4 11.Nxd5 Bxd5 12.Qxd4 and White wins. Better was 9…Nxc3
10.bxc3 Be7, but which is still in White’s favor after11.dxe5 or 11.Nxe5!?
10.Bd2 Bxc3 11.bxc3 Bg4 12.Nxe5! 1-0
For if 12…Nxe5 13.Qxg4 or 12…Bxd1 13.Nxc6+.
Variation 4…Bb4: Preferred by High-Rated Players
C47 M. Weimann – M. Lacrosse

Vlissingen 2007
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.g3 Bb4
This continuation is used mostly by high rated players.
5.Bg2 d6
After 5…Bxc3 6.dxc3 Nxe4 7.Nxe5 White has small edge because of the two Bishops.
6.d3 Bxc3+?!
For the recommended 6…h6 – see the next game.
7.bxc3 O-O 8.O-O Qe7 9.Nh4 Bd7 10.Rb1 Rab8 11.Nf5 Bxf5 12.exf5 Nd7 13.f4
13…Rfe8 14.Rf2 Nc5?
This loses. If 14…Nf8, then 15.Rxb7is possible. Perhaps Black should try 14…f6.
15.fxe5 dxe5
^xxxxxxxxY
|w4wdrdkdy
|0p0w1p0py
|wdndwdwdy
|dwhw0Pdwy
|wdwdwdwdy
|dw)Pdw)wy
|PdPdw$B)y
|dRGQdwIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
16.f6! gxf6 17.Bxc6 bxc6 18.Ba3
A deadly pin!
18…Qd6 19.Rxb8 Rxb8 20.d4 1-0
C47 I. Glek – A. Onischuk

Wijk aan Zee 1997
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.g3 Bb4 5.Bg2 d6 6.d3 h6 7.O-O Ne7!?
A new idea. Parma, who recommended 6…h6, proposes 7…Be6 and eventually d5, with
equal chances.
8.d4
8.Ne2 deserves attention.
8…Bxc3 9.bxc3 Ng6 10.Ba3 Qd7!?
An original defensive idea. Instead 10…Nxe4? 11.Nxe5 Nxc3 gives a dangerous

initiative to White, for example 12.Qf3 dxe5 13.Qxc3 Qxd4 (13…exd4? 14.Rfe1+ Be6
15.Bc6+!!) 14.Qxc7 etc.
11.dxe5 dxe5 12.Qc1 Qe6 13.Rb1?
This helps Black. Critical is 13.Nd2, followed by 14.f4.

13…b6 14.Ne1?!
14.Nd2!? and 15.f4.
14…Bb7 15.Nd3 Bxe4
15…O-O-O 16.f4 is still unclear.
16.f4 Bxg2 17.f5 Qd5 18.c4 Qe4 19.Rf2
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwdkdw4y
|0w0wdp0wy
|w0wdwhn0y
|dwdw0Pdwy
|wdPdqdwdy
|GwdNdw)wy
|PdPdw$b)y
|dR!wdwIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
19…Nh4!
Probably White overlooked this powerful reply. Now Black has the advantage.
20.gxh4 Bh3 21.Qe1 O-O-O 22.Nxe5
The record shows that White is in time-trouble.
22…Rhe8 23.Bb2 Qxh4 24.Rf3 Qg5+ 25.Qg3 Ne4 26.Nxf7? Qxg3+ 27.hxg3 Rd2
28.Ne5 Rg2+ 29.Kh1 Nd2 0–1
Variation 4…Bc5: Most Often Used in Practice
C47 P. de Carvalho Yamamoto – L. Jukemura

Sao Paulo 2005
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.g3 Bc5

The preferred reply in more than 50% of the games.
5.Bg2
A blunder is 5.Nxe5?? because of 5…Nxe5 6.d4 Bxd4! and White is a without piece
(7.Qxd4? Nf3+)
5…O-O?!
Correct is 5…d6. See also the next game.
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdb1w4kdy
|0p0pdp0py
|wdndwhwdy
|dwgw0wdwy
|wdwdPdwdy
|dwHwdN)wy
|P)P)w)B)y
|$wGQIwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
6.Nxe5!
Here this typical trick works in White’s favor.
6…Bxf2+
The alternative is not much better, as shown in the following example G. Xie – L.
Nilsson, Sydney 2009: 6…Nxe5 7.d4 Bxd4 8.Qxd4 d6 9.h3 h6 10.f4 Ng6 11.O-O Qe7
12.b3 Bd7 13.Bb2 Bc6 14.Rae1 Rfe8 15.b4 Nf8 16.b5 Ne6 17.Qd1 Bd7 18.Nd5 Qd8
19.Nxf6+ gxf6 20.Qh5 1–0
7.Kxf2 Nxe5 8.Rf1 c5 9.d3 d6 10.Kg1 h6 11.h3 a6 12.Bf4 Be6 13.Qd2
With two Bishops and the open f-file, White has the advantage. The rest of the game
shows this convincingly.
13…Nh5 14.Ne2 Qb6 15.c3 c4+ 16.Be3 Qc7?
16…Qd8
17.d4 Nd3 18.g4 Nf6 19.Bxh6 d5 20.Bxg7! 1-0
C47 I. Glek – J. Aagaard

Copenhagen 1996
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.g3 Bc5 5.Bg2 a6?
Correct is 5…d6
6.Nxe5 Nxe5 7.d4 Bd6 8.dxe5 Bxe5 9.f4!
Bold and consistent.
8…Bxc3+ 10.bxc3
10…Qe7?
10…d6!?
11.e5 d6 12.Ba3 Qe6 13.O-O dxe5 14.fxe5 Ng4
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdbdkdw4y
|dp0wdp0py
|pdwd1dwdy
|dwdw)wdwy
|wdwdwdndy
|Gw)wdw)wy
|PdPdwdB)y
|$wdQdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
15.Bd5 Qb6+ 16.Qd4! Qxd4+ 17.cxd4 Nh6 18.Rab1 Nf5 19.Rxb7! Ne3 20.Bc6+ 1-0
C47 L. Comas Fabrego – J. Morovic Fernandez
Havana 1999
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.g3 Bc5 5.Bg2 d6 6.h3 O-O 7.d3 a6 8.O-O Be6 9.Be3?!
Usual in practice is 9.Kh2.
9...Bxe3 10.fxe3 d5! 11.exd5
11.Ng5!? d4 12.Nxe6 fxe6 13.exd4 Nxd4 unclear.
11...Nxd5 12.Nxd5 Bxd5 13.e4?
13.Nh4!?
13...Be6 14.Kh2 Qd6! 15.Nh4 Ne7 16.Nf5 Qd7 17.Qg4 g6 18.Nh6+?!
After 18.Nxe7+ Qxe7 Black stands better. Maybe White should try 18.Qg5!?.
18...Kg7 19.Qh4 f6 20.Rf2?
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwdw4wdy
|dp0qhwipy
|pdwdb0pHy
|dwdw0wdwy
|wdwdPdw!y
|dwdO dw)Py
|P)Pdw$BIy
|$wdwdwdwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
20…Qe8! 21.Ng4 Ng8! 0-1
For if 22.Raf1 g5 23.Nxf6 gxh4 24.Nxe8+ Raxe8.

By IM Nikolay Minev
NOSTALGIA
There is only one reason why I collected and am showing the games presented in this
article: nostalgia! These games remind me of my younger years when I posted the Bishop
on c4, or moved the f2 pawn to f4(or both!) with the idea to quickly pounce on f7, the
weakest square around the opponent’s King. Believe me, it was an exciting time!
However, when I saw the following recent games, I was surprised how these old and
almost forgotten openings still lead to very interesting and highly emotional chess, even
after all these years.
C25 P. Hommerson – J. Klein Douwel

Helmondsee 2000
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 exf4 4.Nf3 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng5 d6
Considered better is the immediate 6…h6 7.Nxf7 Kxf7 8.d4 and not 8…d6, but 8…d5.
7.d4 h6 8.Nxf7 Kxf7 9.Bc4+ Kg7?
Clearly Black is not familiar with the history of this continuation. A long, long time age
Bilguer recommended 9…Kg6! 10.Bxf4 Bg7.
10.Bxf4 Be7 11.O-O Nf6 12.Qd2 g3

^xxxxxxxxY
|rdb1wdw4y
|0p0wgwiwy
|wdn0whw0y
|dwdwdwdwy
|wdB)PGw)y
|dwHwdw0wy
|P)P!wdPdy
|$wdwdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
13.Bg5! Nxd4
If 13…hxg5 14,Qxg5+ Kf8 15.Qg6 Qe8 16.Rxf6+ and White wins.
14.Nd5!!
This wins by force. But not 14.Qxd4 hxg5 15.hxg5? Rh1+! 16.Kxh1 Qh8+ and mate on
the next move.
14…Ne2+ 15.Bxe2 Nxd5 16.Qxd5 Qe8 17.Bd2 Rf8 18.Bc3+ Kh7 19.Bh5 Rxf1+
20.Rxf1 1-0
C25 M. Lyell – E. Kislik

Budapest 2009
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 exf4 4.Nf3 h6?
Black tries to play ideas from two different variations. After Nc6, the move h6 is a waste
of time, and probably is the decisive mistaken! The theory recommends 4…g5, and 5.d4
g4.
5.d4 g5 6.d5 Nb8 7.Qd4 Nf6 8.e5 Nh5
Now, with so many tempi ahead, White opens the position.

^xxxxxxxxY
|rhb1kgw4y
|0p0pdpdwy
|wdwdwdw0y
|dwdP)w0ny
|wdw!w0wdy
|dwHwdNdwy
|P)PdwdP)y
|$wGwIBdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
9.g4! fxg3
The alternative 9…Ng7 10.h4! is even worse.
10.hxg3 Nxg3 11.Bxg5 Be7 12.Bxe7 Qxe7 13.Rg1 Nf5 14.Qe4 d6 15.Bh3
Black is already lost.
15…Na6 16.Bxf5 Nc5 17.Qg4 h5 18.Qg7 Qf8 19.Bxc8 Rxc8 20.0–0–0 1-0
C25 D. Pruess – A. Moreno

San Francisco 2009
1.e4 e5 2.f4 Nc6 3.Nc3 exf4 4.d4
The sharpest and most risky continuation.
4…Qh4+ 5.Ke2 d5 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.exd5 0–0–0 8.dxc6 Nf6!?
The book main line is 8…Bc5, which is unclear.
9.cxb7+??
As we shall see later, this is the decisive mistake! Correct is the immediate 9.Qe1.
9…Kb8 10.Qe1 Bxf3+ 11.gxf3 Re8+ 12.Ne4 Qh5 13.Kf2 Nxe4+!
Now this is winning because of the mistake 9.cxb7?? – see next note.
14.Kg1
If 14.fxe4 Qh4+ 15.Ke2 Rxe4+ and Black wins the Queen. However, if Black’s King is
on c8, then it is possible to play 15.Kf3! Qxe1 (15…Qh5+ =?) 16.Bh3+!
^xxxxxxxxY
|wiwdrgw4y
|0P0wdp0py
|wdwdwdwdy
|dwdwdwdqy
|wdw)n0wdy
|dwdwdPdwy
|P)Pdwdw)y
|$wGw!BIRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
14…Bb4 15.Qxb4 Qxf3 16.Qe1 Ng3 0–1
C29 B. Valentine – D. Curry

England (Team ch) 2005
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 d5 4.fxe5 Nxe4 5.d3
This variation of the Vienna Game has existed for more than one hundred years and still
produces new strategic ideas.
5…Nxc3 6.bxc3 d4
Considered obligatory by theory.
7.Nf3 Nc6 8.Be2 Bg4
After 8…dxc3 9.d4 Bg4 10.Be3 White has good attacking chances as compensation for
the pawn because of the center and f-file!
9.O-O Bc5 10.Kh1!?
Instead of 10.c4, White follows the more promising idea of a pawn sacrifice.
10…O-O 11.Bf4 Bxf3 12.Bxf3 Qd7 13.Qe1 dxc3 14.Qg3 Nd4
Maybe 14…Rfe8, intending 15…Bf8, is the better defense.
15.Bxb7 Rab8 16.Be4 Qe6
^xxxxxxxxY
|w4wdw4kdy
|0w0wdp0py
|wdwdqdwdy
|dwgw)wdwy
|wdwhBGwdy
|dw0Pdw!wy
|PdPdwdP)y
|$wdwdRdKy
Uzzzzzzzz\
17.Bg5! Ne2 18.Qh4 g6 19.Bf6 Rfe8 20.Rf3 Qxa2? 21.Qxh7+! 1-0
C29 G. Antal – I. Tillet

Paris 2000
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 d5 4.fxe5 Nxe4 5.Qf3 f5 6.Nh3
Who can remember the correct reply against this rare and very old continuation?
6…Bc5?! 7.d3 Nxc3 8.bxc3 d4 9.Bg5 Be7?
It looks ugly, but probably Black should try 9…Qd7, and if 10.Nf4 O-O.
10.Qh5+ g6? 11.Qh6 dxc3 12.Qg7 Rf8 13.Qxh7 Rf7 14.Qg8+ 1-0
C51 M. Krakops – S. Azarov

Bled (ol) 2002
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4
The Evans Gambit, already more than two hundred years old, is still a very dangerous
weapon!
4…Bb6
Black does not accept the gambit. This means either that he is not a bold player or, most
likely, that he doesn’t remember anything about the theory of this opening.
5.b5 Nd4
Instead of the more common 5…Na5 6.Be2 etc.
6.Nxd4
But not 6.Nxe5? Qg5!
6…Bxd4 7.c3 Bb6 8.d4 Qe7 9.O-O Nf6 10.f4 exd4
If 10…d6, then 11.Ba3 looks very strong.
11.e5 Ne4 12.Kh1 O-O 13.Qf3 Nxc3 14.Nxc3 Qc5?
Obligatory was 14…dxc3.
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdbdw4kdy
|0p0pdp0py
|wgwdwdwdy
|dP1w)wdwy
|wdB0w)wdy
|dwHwdQdwy
|PdwdwdP)y
|$wGwdRdKy
Uzzzzzzzz\
15.Nd5! Qxc4 16.f5 Re8 17.f6 d6 18.fxg7 1-0
C52 C. Baker – S. Collins
Sunningdale 2009
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4
Recent theory considers 6…d6 to be Black’s best defense.
7.O-O Nge7 8.Ng5?
It seems that in this game, Black is the better prepared player. This premature attempt for
an immediate attack leads to disaster. Usual is 8.cxd4 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 etc. and White has
compensation for the pawn.
8….d5 9.exd5 Ne5 10.Bb3 O-O 11.Qxd4 N7g6 12.Bc2 Bb6 13.Qd2 h6 14.Ne4 Qh4
Already Black stands better.
15.Ba3 Re8 16.Bc5 Bxc5 17.Nxc5 Nf4
The threat is 18…Nf3+! 19.gxf3 Qg5+
18.f3
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdbdrdkdy
|0p0wdp0wy
|wdwdwdw0y
|dwHPhwdwy
|wdwdwhw1y
|dw)wdPdwy
|PdB!wdP)y
|$NdwdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
18…Nxf3+! 19.Rxf3 Re1+ 0–1
Because of 20.Rf1 Ne2+.

C57 D. Khalat – P. Lasinskas
Bad Homburg 2005
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5
This is a continuation that was popular in 1950’s. In my opinion, it is at least as good as

the play that is most often used in practice: 5…Na5.
6.Bxb5 Qxd5 7.Bxc6+ Qxc6 8.Nf3 Bd6 9.d3 O-O 10.h3?
Development is needed. This kind of waste of time usually turns out to be a mistake, and
here it is the decisive mistake! Necessary was 10.O-O.
10…e4 11.dxe4 Ba6! 12.Be3 Nxe4 13.Nbd2 Rfe8 14.Nd4 Qb7 15.N2b3
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwdrdkdy
|0q0wdp0py
|bdwgwdwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|wdwHndwdy
|dNdwGwdPy
|P)Pdw)Pdy
|$wdQIwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
15…Nxf2! 16.Kxf2 Rxe3 0-1
After 17.Kxe3 Qxg2 there is no defense against the threat 18…Re8+.
C57 L. Cernousek – J. Kratochvil

Strmilov 2005
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4

Another rare and controversial continuation. It seems that in these old variations it is
frequently Black who introduces surprises.
6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.cxd4
The theory recommends 8.Ne4!
8…Qxg5 9.Bxb5+ Kd8 10.Qf3 Bb7 11.O-O
The exciting variation 11.Nc3 exd4 12.O-O Qf4 13.Qh3 Nf6, in my opinion, is unclear.
11…e4 12.Qxe4? Bd6 13.d3
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwiwdw4y
|0b0wd0p0y
|wdwgwdwdy
|dBdndw1wy
|wdw)Qdwdy
|dwdPdwdwy
|P)wdw)P)y
|$NGwdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
14…Bxh2+! 14.Kxh2 Nf4 15.Bxf4
Or 15.Qxb7 Qh4+ 16.Kg1 Ne2#
15…Qh4+ 16.Kg1 Bxe4 17.Bg3 Qh5 0-1

By IM Nikolay Minev
New Adventures in the English Opening
Variations without c7-c5 or e7-e5
Our first two games demonstrate that many obvious, “automatic” moves end up being a
mistake!
A13 Liang Chong - Li Shilong

Peking 2001
1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 c6 3.b3 Nf6 4.Bb2 e6 5.Qc2 Nbd7 6.d4 Ne4 7.g3 Bb4+ 8.Nbd2??
This move is usually played automatically, but in this case is a fatal mistake. Correct is
8.Nfd2!
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdb1kdw4y
|0pdndp0py
|wdpdpdwdy
|dwdpdwdwy
|wgP)ndwdy
|dPdwdN)wy
|PGQHP)w)y
|$wdwIBdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
8…Qf6!!
The refutation is not an obvious move and should be remembered. There is no good
defense against the threat 9…Bxd2+ 10.Nxd2 Qxf2+.
9.Rd1 Bxd2+ 10.Rxd2 Nxd2 11.Qxd2 O-O 12.Bg2 Qe7 13.O-O b6 0-1
A15 D. Flores – A. Shabalov
Buenos Aires 2005
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 d5 4.e3 e6 5.b3 Nbd7 6.Bb2 e5!?
Possession of the center – achieved with loss of tempo – is an ambitious, but also
controversial, plan in the opening.
7.cxd5 cxd5 8.g4!?
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdb1kbw4y
|0pdndp0py
|wdwdwhwdy
|dwdp0wdwy
|wdwdwdPdy
|dPHw)Ndwy
|PGw)w)w)y
|$wdQIBdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
An adventure, chosen instead of 8.d4!?, and if 8…e4 9.Ne5.
8…h6 9.Qc2 a6 10.O-O-O b5 11.d4 e4
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdb1kgw4y
|dwdndp0wy
|pdwdwhw0y
|dpdpdwdwy
|wdw)pdPdy
|dPHw)Ndwy
|PGQdw)w)y
|dwIRdBdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
12.Nxd5??
At first glance, a move with obvious tactics. Who would think that it should lose!
12…Ra7
The surprising refutation. However, after 12…Nxd5 13.Qxe4+ Be7 14.Qxd5 Qc7+
15.Kb1 Bb7 16.Qf5 g6 Black also wins.
13.g5 Nxd5 14.Qxe4+ Qe7 15.Qxe7+
If 15.Qxd5 Rc7+ 16.Kd2 Bb7 17.Qf5 Be4 and 18…Rc2+.
15…Bxe7 16.g6 fxg6 17.Kb1 O-O 18.Bg2 Bb7 19.Rhg1 Ba8 0-1
The next games are showcases for some interesting sacrifices of the Queen.
A15 K. Spraggett – P. Llaneza Vega

San Sebastian 2007
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 g6 3.b3 Bg7 4.Bb2 O-O 5.Bg2 d6 6.c4 e5 7.d3 Nc6 8.O-O h6 9.Nc3
Nh5 10.e3 f5 11.a3 a5 12.Rb1 Be6 13.Nd5 Qd7 14.Nh4 Kh7 15.f4 exf4?
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwdw4wdy
|dp0qdwgky
|wdn0bdp0y
|0wdNdpdny
|wdPdw0wHy
|)PdP)w)wy
|wGwdwdB)y
|dRdQdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
16.Nxg6!! Kxg6 17.Qxh5+!! Kxh5 18.Nxf4+ Kg5 19.h4+ Kg4 20.Kh2 1-0
A16 M. Krasenkov – V. Mikhalevsky
Saint Vinzent (Europe ch) 2000
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Qa4+ Bd7 5.Qb3 dxc4 6.Qxc4 a6 7.e4 b5 8.Qe2 Nc6 9.e5
Nb4? 10.exf6 Nc2+ 11.Kd1 Nxa1 12.b3 Bf5 13.Bb2 Nc2 14.g4 Bxg4 15.Kxc2 e6
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdw1kgw4y
|dw0wdpdpy
|pdwdp)pdy
|dpdwdwdwy
|wdwdwdbdy
|dPHwdNdwy
|PGK)Q)w)y
|dwdwdBdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
16.Qxb5+! 1-0
Variations with c7-c5
This game shows the age-old theme that losing tempi by grabbing pawns in the opening
is usually a bad idea!
A30 E. Romanov – M. Molner

World Junior Championship Yerevan 2007
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nc3 e6 4.g3 Be7 5.Bg 2O-O 6.O-O Nc6 7.d4 cxd4
Instead 7…d5 transposes into the Tarrasch Defense.
8.Nxd4 Qa5
A new idea?
9.Bf4 Qc5?
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdbdw4kdy
|0pdpgp0py
|wdndphwdy
|dw1wdwdwy
|wdPHwGwdy
|dwHwdw)wy
|P)wdP)B)y
|$wdQdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
Grabbing a pawn when you are behind in development is always dangerous! As we shall
see very soon, this leads to fatal consequences.
10.Ndb5 Qxc4 11.Rc1 Qb4 12.a3 Qa5
After 12…Qxb2? 13.Rb1 Black loses the Queen.
13.b4 Qb6 14.Nc7 Rb8 15.Na4 Qd4 16.Qc2 b5
Not much better is 16…Nh5 17.Nb5.
17.Rfd1 Nxb4 18.axb4 Qxb4 19.Nc3 d6 20.N7xb5 1-0
Variations with e7-e5
A King remaining in the center is always in danger.
A21 F. Tahirov – A. Shirov

Villa de Canada de Calatrava (Spain) 2007
1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Bb4 3.Qc2
As the practice shows, 3.Nd5 Ba5 4.b4 c6 5.bxa5 cxd5 6.cxd5 Qxa5 is not in White’s
favor. For example 7.e4 Nf6 8.Qc2 O-O 9.Ne2 Na6 10.Nc3 d6 11.Be2 Bd7 12.O-O b5
13.Bb2 Nc5 14.d3 Rac8 15.Qb1 b4 16.Nd1 Bb5 17.Re1 Qa6 0-1 W. Wengenroth – A.
Orlov, Germany 2005
3…Nf6 4.a3 Bxc3 5.Qxc3 Nc6 6.b4?! O-O 7.e3 d5 8.cxd5 Qxd5 9.b5?
Too many moves with pawns! The trouble comes immediately.
9…Nd4!
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdbdw4kdy
|0p0wdp0py
|wdwdwhwdy
|dPd10wdwy
|wdwhwdwdy
|)w!w)wdwy
|wdw)w)P)y
|$wGwIBHRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
10.exd4 exd4 11.Qc4 Re8+ 12.Kd1 Qh5+ 13.Be2 Qg6 14.Nf3 Be6 15.Qc2 d3!
A typical sacrifice of a pawn for the opening of a file. Now Black wins by force.
16.Qxd3
Or 16.Bxd3 Qxg2.
16…Bf5 17.Qc4
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwdrdkdy
|0p0wdp0py
|wdwdwhqdy
|dPdwdbdwy
|wdQdwdwdy
|)wdwdNdwy
|wdw)B)P)y
|$wGKdwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
17…Rxe2!! 18.Nh4
If 18.Kxe2 Re8+ 19.Kd1 Qxg2 and wins, or 18.Qxe2 Bd3 19.Qe3 Re8 20.Qxe8+ (20.Ne5
Qh5+) Nxe8 and, as in the game, Black should win because White’s pieces are without
coordination.
18…Qh5 19.Qxe2 Bc2+ 20.Ke1 Re8 21.Qxe8+ Nxe8 0-1
For if 22.Nf3 Qg4 and Black wins.
A21 I. Lada - I. Glek

Bad Worishofen 2001
1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Bb4 3.Nd5 a5!?
An experiment which deserves attention!
4.Nxb4?! axb4 5.d4 d6 6.b3 Qe7 7.Bb2 Nf6 8.dxe5 dxe5 9.Nf3?!
Provocation!
9…e4 10.Nd4 e3! 11.f3 O-O 12.Qc2 c5 13.Nf5 Bxf5 14.Qxf5 Nc6 15.g4 Rfd8 16.g5?
Now White’s King in the center is an easy victim. Obligatory was 16.Bg2.
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdw4wdkdy
|dpdw1p0py
|wdndwhwdy
|dw0wdQ)wy
|w0Pdwdwdy
|dPdw0Pdwy
|PGwdPdw)y
|$wdwIBdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
16… Qd6! 17.Qc2 Ne4! 18.Bc1
If 18.fxe4 Qf4!
18…Qd2+! 0-1
The main winning variation is 19.Bxd2 exd2+ 20.Kd1 Nf2#
A22 J. Grant – J. Kregelin

Dresden 2007
1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 e4 4.Ng5 b5 5.d3!
This is considered the refutation of Black’s dubious gambit.
5…bxc4 6.dxe4 h6 7.Nxf7! Kxf7 8.e5 c6 9.e4! d5 10.exf6 Qxf6 11.Be3 Bb4 12.Bd4
Qf4 13.Be2 Qxe4 14.O-O Bxc3 15.Bh5+ g6 16.Bxc3! Rf8 17.Re1 Qd3
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhbdw4wdy
|0wdwdkdwy
|wdpdwdp0y
|dwdpdwdBy
|wdpdwdwdy
|dwGqdwdwy
|P)wdw)P)y
|$wdQ$wIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
18.Qc1! gxh5 19.Qxh6 d4 20.Bb4 1-0
A23 K. Tsarouhas – V. Kotronias

Greece (ch team) Ermioni Argolidas 2005
1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 c6 4.d4 exd4 5.Qxd4 d5 6.cxd5 cxd5 7.Nf3 Nc6 8.Qa4 d4
9.Nb5 Bb4+ 10.Bd2 Bxd2+ 11.Nxd2 O-O 12.Nf3 d3 13.Rd1 Qb6 14.Rxd3 Bf5 15.Rd1
Rad8 16.Nd6
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdw4w4kdy
|0pdwdp0py
|w1nHwhwdy
|dwdwdbdwy
|Qdwdwdwdy
|dwdwdN)wy
|P)wdP)w)y
|dwdRIBdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
16…Nb4!! 17.Nxf5 Qa5!! 18.Rxd8 Rxd8 0-1
A23 Kapostas – Kallai

Hungary (ch team) 2001
1.c4 e5 2.g3 c6 3.Bg2 Nf6 4.Nc3 d5 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Qb3 Nc6 7.Nxd5 Nd4 8.Qa4+?
The critical variation is 8.Nxf6+ Qxf6 9.Qd1.
8…Bd7 9.Nxf6+ Qxf6 10.Qd1 Rc8 11.Rb1
If 11.Kf1 Qa6!
11…Qa6! 12.b3
If 12.a3?? Ba4!
12…Bb4! 13.Bb2
13.Nf3 Bf5! And wins.
13…Bf5 14.Bxd4?
The decisive mistake. Relatively better was 14.Rc1.

14…Bxb1 15.Qxb1
Or 15.Bc3 Bxa2! 16.Bxb4 Bxb3.
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdrdkdw4y
|0pdwdp0py
|qdwdwdwdy
|dwdw0wdwy
|wgwHwdwdy
|dPdwdw)wy
|Pdw)P)B)y
|dQdwIwHRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
15…Qxa2!! 16.Qb2 exd4!! 0-1
For if 17.Qxa2 Rc1#
Next, an example of “murder on the h-file”.
A25 Franco – Akopian

Linares 2001
1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nc6 3.Bg2 g6 4.Nc3 Bg7 5.e4 d6 6.Nge2 Nge7 7.O-O h5!?
The opening of a strategy of direct attack!
8.h4
8.h3!?
8…Nd4 9.Nxd4?!
9.d3!?
9…exd4 10.Ne2
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdb1kdw4y
|0p0whpgwy
|wdw0wdpdy
|dwdwdwdpy
|wdP0Pdw)y
|dwdwdw)wy
|P)w)N)Bdy
|$wGQdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
10…g5! 11.hxg5 d3! 12.Nf4 h4 13.Nh5
Critical is 13.g4 Nc6 14.Nh3 Nd4 15.f4 Be6.
13…Bd4 14.Nf6+
If 14.gxh4 Ng6.
14…Kf8 15.gxh4
Or 15.g4 Ng8
15…Ng6! 16.h5 Nf4 17.Qf3 Ne2+ 18.Kh1
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdb1wiw4y
|0p0wdpdwy
|wdw0wHwdy
|dwdwdw)Py
|wdPgPdwdy
|dwdpdQdwy
|P)w)n)Bdy
|$wGwdRdKy
Uzzzzzzzz\
18…Bxf6 0-1
For if 19.gxf6 Qe8! 20.Bh3 Bxh3 21.Qxh3 Qxe4+ 22.f3 Qf4 23.Re1 Rxh5 24.Qxh5
Ng3+ and Black wins.
A28 Efimenko – Z. Arizmendi
Gibraltar 2006
1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.d4 e4 5.Ng5 h6 6.d5
The alternative is 6.Ngxe4 Nxe4 7.Nxe4 Qh4

.
6…hxg5 7.dxc6 g4!? 8.cxb7?! Bxb7 9.Bf4
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdw1kgw4y
|0b0pdp0wy
|wdwdwhwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|wdPdpGpdy
|dwHwdwdwy
|P)wdP)P)y
|$wdQIBdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
9…e3!? 10.Bxe3 g3 11.fxg3 Ng4 12.Qd4
It may look ugly, but perhaps White should try 12.Bg1 Bd6 13.Qd3.
Nxe3 13.Qxe3+ Be7 14.Qd3 Rb8 15.e4 Bc6 16.Be2?
16.O-O-O!? is unclear.
16…Rxb2 17.O-O Bc5+ 18.Kh1 Qg5 19.Rf4 Bd6 20.Rg4

^xxxxxxxxY
|wdwdkdw4y
|0w0pdp0wy
|wdbgwdwdy
|dwdwdw1wy
|wdPdPdRdy
|dwHQdw)wy
|P4wdBdP)y
|$wdwdwdKy
Uzzzzzzzz\
20…Rxh2+!! 21.Kg1
If 21.Kxh2 Qh5+ 22.Kg1 Bc5+ 23.Kf1 Qh1#
21…Qc5+! 0-1
Because of 22.Kxh2 Qh5+ and Black forces mate as in the previous note. But not
21…Bc5+?? 22.Kxh2!
By IM Nikolay Minev
Fresh Mini-Stories from 2011
Rare Openings and Variations
B06 T. Weber – J. Rudd

Gibraltar 2011
1.e4 d6 2.d4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.Be3 a6 5.Bd3 e6 6.f4 Ne7 7.Nf3 Nd7 8.O-O
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdb1kdw4y
|dp0nhpgpy
|pdw0pdpdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|wdw)P)wdy
|dwHBGNdwy
|P)PdwdP)y
|$wdQdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
The practice shows that Black’s relatively rare defensive formation is very resilient. In
most games, White uses a plan of attack combining long castling and the h2-h4 advance,
but this has not led to real success. In this game, White promotes another plan, with
Kingside castling and the f4-f5 instead. This idea looks very promising.
8…b6?!
Consistent is 8…b5, but 8…c5, 8…e5, or even 8…f5 also deserve attention.
9.f5!? exf5 10.exf5 gxf5
After this Black is in trouble. Perhaps 10…Bb7 or 10…O-O offer better resistance.
11.Nh4 f4? 12.Rxf4 O-O
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdb1w4kdy
|dw0nhpgpy
|p0w0wdwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|wdw)w$wHy
|dwHBGwdwy
|P)PdwdP)y
|$wdQdwIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
13.Qh5 Ng6 14.Nxg6 hxg6 15.Bxg6! fxg6 16.Qd5+ 1–0
D07 M. Bouaraba – M. Wiander

Stockholm 2011
1.d4 d5 2.Bg5
This strange continuation has sometimes made an appearance in recent tournament

practice.
2…Nc6!? 3.c4!?
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdb1kgn4y
|0p0w0p0py
|wdndwdwdy
|dwdpdwGwy
|wdP)wdwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|P)wdP)P)y
|$NdQIBHRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
Now we have transposition into an extremely rare variation of the Chigorin Defense: 1.d4
d5 2.c4 Nc6 and now the unique3.Bg5!? leads to the game position.
3…f6 4.Bh4 e5
With the idea to immediately seize the initiative. Instead, Black has many other
continuations at his disposal that deserve attention, such as 4…e6, 4…Nh6, 4…Bf5 etc.
5.dxe5 Bb4+ 6.Nd2 dxc4 7.Ngf3 Bg4 8.a3 Ba5 9.e3 Bxf3
9…c3!?
10.gxf3 Qd5 11.Qc2 Nxe5?
11…O-O-O!?
12.O-O-O
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwdkdh4y
|0p0wdw0py
|wdwdw0wdy
|gwdqhwdwy
|wdpdwdwGy
|)wdw)Pdwy
|w)QHw)w)y
|dwIRdBdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
12…Bxd2+
Surprisingly Black is in trouble. If 12…O-O-O 13.Bh3+! Nd7 (13…Kb8 14.Nxc4)

14.Nxc4 and White wins.
13.Rxd2 Qxf3 14.Rg1 Ne7 15.Rxg7 Nf5 16.Be2 Qh3 17.Bxf6 Nxg7 18.Bxg7 Ng6
19.Bxh8 Nxh8 20.Qe4+ Kf8 21.Qf4+ 1–0
C85 J. Mullon – K. Georgiev
Gibraltar 2011
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.d3 Qd6!?
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdbdkdw4y
|dp0wgp0py
|pwp1whwdy
|dwdw0wdwy
|wdwdPdwdy
|dwdPdNdwy
|P)Pdw)P)y
|$NGQdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
An extremely rare continuation, instead of the regularly played 7…Nd7.
8.b3
White gains nothing with 8.d4 Nd7 or 8.Nbd2 Be6 8.d4 Nd7.
8…Be6 9.Ba3 c5 10.Nbd2 Nd7 11.Qe2
11.Nc4!? Bxc4 12.bxc4.
11…b5 12.Rfe1 O-O 13.Nf1 a5! 14.d4
After 14.Bb2 a4 Black stands better.
14…exd4 15.Qxb5 a4 16.e5 Qd5

^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwdw4kdy
|dw0ng0p0y
|wdwdbdwdy
|dQ0q)wdwy
|pdw0wdwdy
|GPdwdNdwy
|PdPdw)P)y
|$wdw$NIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
17.c4
In a worse position, White initiates tactical complications that prove to be not in his
favor.
17…dxc3 18.Ne3
If 18.Rad1 Rfb8!
18…Qe4 19.Nd1 c6 20.Qb7 Qd3 21.Re3 Qb5 0–1
Mistakes and Typical Tactics
“Without mistakes, chess is not interesting. Routine games can be played by computers,
but human mistakes create very unusual situations and it is always a challenge to find a
way out of trouble.” – D. Bronstein.
“Sacrifices only prove that someone has blundered.” – S. Tartakover.
B16 N. Mikkelsen – K. Rasmussen

Denmark (ch team) 2011
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nxf6+ gxf6 6.Bc4 Bf5 7.Ne2 e6 8.O-O Bd6
9.Bf4 Qc7 10.Bxd6 Qxd6 11.Ng3 Bg6 12.Qe2 Nd7 13.Rfd1 O-O-O 14.c3 h5 15.Qf3 f5
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdk4wdw4y
|0pdndpdwy
|wdp1pdbdy
|dwdwdpdpy
|wdB)wdwdy
|dw)wdQHwy
|P)wdw)P)y
|$wdRdwIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
16.Ne2??
A blunder that would be typical for players with little tournament practice.
16…Ne5! 0–1
D34 M. Taras – P. Van Ginkel

Leinzell 2011
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.g3 Nf6 7.Bg2 Be7 8.O-O O-O 9.Bg5
b6?
A novelty that, in my opinion, is not to be recommended.
10.Qa4 Bd7 11.dxc5 bxc5 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.Nxd5 Bxb2 14.Rab1 Rb8 15.Qc2 Ba3
16.Rxb8 Qxb8 17.Ng5 f5 18.Rb1 Qd8 19.Qb3 Nd4
The same mating pattern with two Knights also arises after 19…h6 20.Nf6++ 21.Kh8
22.Qg8+ Rxg8 23.Nf7#
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdw1w4kdy
|0wdbdw0py
|wdwdwdwdy
|dw0NdpNwy
|wdwhwdwdy
|gQdwdw)wy
|PdwdP)G)y
|dRdwdwIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
20.Nf6++
The same result is also achieved by 20.Ne7++.
20…Kh8 21.Qg8+ 1–0
For if 21…Rxg8 22.Nf7#
D71 M. Carlsen – A. Giri

Wijk aan Zee 2011
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 d5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.Nf3 Nb6
Recently, this has been considered Black’s best continuation.
7.Nc3
7.e4!?
7…Nc6 8.e3 O-O 9.O-O Re8
9…e5!?
10.Re1 a5 11.Qd2 e5 12.d5 Nb4 13.e4 c6 14.a3

^xxxxxxxxY
|rdb1rdkdy
|dpdwdpgpy
|whpdwdpdy
|0wdP0wdwy
|whwdPdwdy
|)wHwdN)wy
|w)w!w)B)y
|$wGw$wIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
14…cxd5! 15.axb4 axb4 16.Rxa8 bxc3 17.bxc3 Nxa8 18.exd5 Nb6 19.Rd1 e4 20.Ng5?
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdb1rdkdy
|dpdwdpgpy
|whwdwdpdy
|dwdPdwHwy
|wdwdpdwdy
|dw)wdw)wy
|wdw!w)B)y
|dwGRdwIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
The decisive mistake. As we shall see later, White wrongly assessed the position after the
forced tactical complications that follow. Necessary was 20.Ne1, but it seems that after
20…Qc7 or 20…Bg4 White is still in trouble.
20…e3! 21.Qb2 Qxg5!
Now White discovers that the planned 22.Qxb6 is refuted by 22…e2 23.Re1 Qxc1!!
24.Rxc1 e1=Q+ 25.Rxe1 Rxe1+ 26.Bf1 Bh3 with inevitable mate.
22.Bxe3 Qg4 0–1
Because of 23.f3 Qa4 24.Ra1 Nc4.

By IM Nikolay Minev
French Defense – Exchange Variation: The Potential of c2-c4
For many years, the Exchange variation of French Defense, with 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5
exd5, has been considered only as a tool for a draw against a stronger opponent.
However, recently this variation is again in the center of attention because of the
continuation 4.c4!?.
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhb1kgnry
|0p0wdp0py
|wdwdwdwdy
|dwdpdwdwy
|wdP)wdwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|P)wdw)P)y
|$NGQIBHRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
Practice shows that this continuation leads to positions full of tactics and strategic
problems for both sides. In the following pages you will find a small collection of recent
games which in my opinion demonstrate the potential of c2-c4 idea, either executed
immediately as above, or a few moves later.
The example games are organized as follows:

Part 1: White is victorious after Black plays…dxc4 (immediate or delayed)
Part 2: White is victorious without Black …dxc4
Part 3: Various approaches that give Black the victory
Part 1: Black plays …dxc4 (either immediately or late)
C42 K. Macek – S. Marjanovic

Prague .2007
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nf3 Be7 6.Bd3 0–0 7.0–0 dxc4 8.Bxc4 Nbd7
9.Nc3 Nb6 10.Bb3 c6 11.Qd3 Nbd5 12.a3 h6 13.Re1 Be6 14.Bc2 Re8 15.Ne5 Qc7
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwdrdkdy
|0p1wgp0wy
|wdpdbhw0y
|dwdnHwdwy
|wdw)wdwdy
|)wHQdwdwy
|w)Bdw)P)y
|$wGw$wIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
16.g4! Bf8 17.g5 hxg5 18.Bxg5 Ne7 19.Bxf6 Bf5 20.Ne4! gxf6 21.Qg3+ 1–0
C01 K. Mahdi – M. Serov

Oberwart 2010
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Nf3 c6 5.Bd3 Bd6 6.0–0 Ne7 7.c4 dxc4 8.Bxc4 0–0 9.h3
Nd7 10.Nc3 Nb6 11.Bb3 Ned5 12.Re1 Re8 13.Bg5 f6 14.Bd2 Be6 15.Ne4 Bf7 16.Nh4
Qd7 17.Qf3 Rad8 18.Nf5 Bf8 19.Rad1 Nc7??
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdw4rgkdy
|0phqdb0py
|whpdw0wdy
|dwdwdNdwy
|wdw)Ndwdy
|dBdwdQdPy
|P)wGw)Pdy
|dwdR$wIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
20.Nh6+! 1–0
Because of 20…gxh6 21.Nxf6+.
C01 K. Nagy – G. Nemeth

Zalakaros 2010
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Nf3 Bd6 5.c4 dxc4 6.Bxc4 Ne7?? 7.Ng5 Bb4+ 8.Nc3
Nd5 9.Qe2+ Kf8 10.0–0 Bxc3 11.bxc3 c6 12.Re1 Bd7 13.Qh5 Be8
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhw1biw4y
|0pdwdp0py
|wdpdwdwdy
|dwdndwHQy
|wdB)wdwdy
|dw)wdwdwy
|Pdwdw)P)y
|$wGw$wIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
14.Bxd5 cxd5 15.Nxh7+ Kg8 16.Nf6+ gxf6 17.Qg4+ Kh7 18.Re3 1–0
C01 A. Gipslis – B. Sturm
Schwabisch Gmund 1995
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Nf3 Bd6 5.c4 c6 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.Bg5 dxc4 8.Bxc4 O-O 9.O-
O Nbd7 10.Re1 Nb6 11.Bb3 Bf5 12.Ne5 Qc8 13.Bxf6 gxf6
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdqdw4kdy
|0pdwdpdpy
|whpgw0wdy
|dwdwHbdwy
|wdw)wdwdy
|dBHwdwdwy
|P)wdw)P)y
|$wdQ$wIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
14.Ne4! Bxe4 15.Rxe4 fxe5 16.Qh5 Be7 17.Re3 Nd5 18.Bxd5 cxd5 19.Rg3+ Kh8
20.Qxe5+ f6 1-0
C01 Lupu – Koen

Hajduszobolszlo (Hungary) 1991
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.h3 Bd6 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.c4!? dxc4 7.Bxc4 Nf6 8.O-O O-O
9.Nc3 Bf5? 10.Bg5! h6 11.Bh4 Be7 12.Re1 Nb4?? 13.a3 Nc6 14.d5 Na5 15.Ba2 c5
16.Nb5 Qd7 17.Qe2 Rae8 18.Ne5 Qd8
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdw1r4kdy
|0pdwgp0wy
|wdwdwhw0y
|hB0PHbdwy
|wdwdwdwGy
|)wdwdwdPy
|B)wdQ)Pdy
|$wdw$wIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
19.d6! Bxd6 20.Nxf7! Rxf7 21.Bxf6 1-0
C01 K. Dolzhikova – G. Rodionov

Kiev 2007
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Nf3 Bd6 5.c4 dxc4 6.Bxc4 Nf6 7.0–0 0–0 8.h3 h6 9.Nc3
c6 10.Qd3 Nbd7?
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdb1w4kdy
|0pdndp0wy
|wdpgwhw0y
|dwdwdwdwy
|wdB)wdwdy
|dwHQdNdPy
|P)wdw)Pdy
|$wGwd$Kwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
11.Bxh6! gxh6 12.Qg6+ Kh8 13.Qxh6+ Kg8 14.Ng5 Bf4 15.Nce4 Bxg5 16.Nxg5 Nb6
17.Qg6+ Kh8 18.Bxf7 1–0
C01 K. Macek – S. Marjanovic
Prague 2007
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nf3 Be7 6.Bd3 0–0 7.0–0 dxc4 8.Bxc4 Nbd7
9.Nc3 Nb6 10.Bb3 c6 11.Qd3 Nbd5 12.a3 h6 13.Re1 Be6 14.Bc2 Re8 15.Ne5 Qc7
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwdrdkdy
|0p1wgp0wy
|wdpdbhw0y
|dwdnHwdwy
|wdw)wdwdy
|)wHQdwdwy
|w)Bdw)P)y
|$wGw$wIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
16.g4! Bf8 17.g5 hxg5 18.Bxg5 Ne7 19.Bxf6 Bf5 20.Ne4 gxf6 21.Qg3+ 1–0
The typical position after Black’s …dxc4 can also arise by transposition from a variation
of QGA (1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 e5 4.Bxc4 exd4 5.exd4), as shown in this example.
D20 T. Hillarp-Persson – Kleinert

Reykjavik 2000
1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 e5 4.Bxc4 exd4 5.exd4 Nf6 6.Nf3 Be7 7.O-O O-O 8.h3 c6 9.Nc3
Nbd7 10.Bb3 Nb6 11.Re1 Nbd5 12.Bg5 Re8?! 13.Bxf6! Nxf6 14.Ne5 Nd5?
Maybe 14…Be6 15.Bxe6 fxe6 16.Qb3 Qc8 or14…Rf8 is more resilient.

^xxxxxxxxY
|rdb1rdkdy
|0pdwgp0py
|wdpdwdwdy
|dwdnHwdwy
|wdw)wdwdy
|dBHwdwdPy
|P)wdw)Pdy
|$wdQ$wIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
15.Nxd5 cxd5 16.Nxf7! Kxf7 17.Qh5+ Kf6
Or 17…Kg8 18.Bxd5+ Kh8 19.Be4 h6 20.Qg6 Kg8 21.Qh7+ Kf7 22.Bg6+ Kf6 23.Re3
Rh8 24.Rf3+ Ke6 25.Qxg7 and wins
18.Bxd5 Rf8 19.Re5! 1-0
For if 19…h6 20.Qf3+ Kg6 21.Be4+ or 19…g6 20.Qh4+ Kg7 21.Rxe7+
D20 L. Christiansen – M. Heidrich

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 e5 4.Bxc4 Bb4+ 5.Nc3 exd4 6.exd4 Nf6 7.Qb3 Qe7+ 8.Nge2
Nc6 9.O-O O-O 10.Bg5 Bxc3 11.Qxc3 Re8?
ECO recommends 11…h6 12.Bh4 g5 13.Bg3 Ne4 14.Qe3 Nxg3 15.Nxg3 with only slight
edge for White.
12.Ng3 Be6 13.Rac1 Rad8 14.Rfe1 Qb4?
A fatal mistake, but also after 14…Nxd4 15.Bxe6 Nxe6 (15…fxe6 16.Qxc7) 16.Nf5 Qf8
17.Bxf6 White has a decisive advantage.
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdw4rdkdy
|0p0wdp0py
|wdndbhwdy
|dwdwdwGwy
|w1B)wdwdy
|dw!wdwHwy
|P)wdw)P)y
|dw$w$wIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
15.Bxf6 Qxc3 16.bxc3 gxf6 17.d5! Na5 18.Nh5! Re7 19.Bb3! 1-0
Part 2: Games where Black does not play …dxc4
C01 M. Franzenburg – I. Gottschall

Hockenheim (German ch women) 2009
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.c4 Bb4+ 5.Nc3 c5 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.Qxd4 Be6
9.Qxg7 Qf6
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhwdkdn4y
|0pdwdp!py
|wdwdb1wdy
|dwdpdwdwy
|wdPdwdwdy
|)w)wdwdwy
|wdwdw)P)y
|$wGwIBHRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
10.Bh6! dxc4 11.Qf8+ Kd7 12.Rd1+ Kc7 13.Bg7 Nd7 14.Qd6+ 1–0
C01 H. Erenska BrloV. – Milashevskaia

Bad Zwischenahn (world ch senior women) 2008
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nf3 Be7 6.Nc3 c6 7.Bd3 0–0 8.0–0 Bg4 9.Be3
Nbd7 10.c5 Bxf3?! 11.Qxf3
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdw1w4kdy
|0pdngp0py
|wdpdwhwdy
|dw)pdwdwy
|wdw)wdwdy
|dwHBGQdwy
|P)wdw)P)y
|$wdwdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
11…Nxc5?? 12.dxc5 d4 13.Rad1! Kh8
If 13…dxe3 14.Bxh7+
14.Bb1 Bxc5 15.Na4 Qe7 16.Bg5 Rad8 17.Bxf6 gxf6 18.Qf5 1–0
C01 B. Khetsuriani – N. Karountzos

Athens 2007
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.c4 Bb4+ 6.Nc3 0–0 7.Bd3 Re8+ 8.Be3 Ng4?
9.0–0 Rxe3 10.fxe3 Nxe3
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhb1wdkdy
|0p0wdp0py
|wdwdwdwdy
|dwdpdwdwy
|wgP)wdwdy
|dwHBhNdwy
|P)wdwdP)y
|$wdQdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
11.Bxh7+ Kxh7 12.Qd3+ Nf5 13.Nxd5 Bd6 14.g4 g6 15.gxf5 Bxf5 16.Qd2 c6 17.Ne3
Bf4 18.Qf2 Be4 19.Ng2 Bh6 20.Ne5 f5 21.Nf7 1–0
C01 M. Congiu – M. Vanderbeeken

Cap D'Agde 2008
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.c4 c6 6.Nc3 Bb4 7.Be2 Ne4?! 8.0–0 Nxc3
Deserving attention is 8…Bxc3!?
9.bxc3 Bxc3
^xxxxxxxxY
|rhb1kdw4y
|0pdwdp0py
|wdpdwdwdy
|dwdpdwdwy
|wdP)wdwdy
|dwgwdNdwy
|PdwdB)P)y
|$wGQdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
10.Ba3!? Bxa1 11.Qxa1 f6 12.Qc1 Kf7 13.Bd3 g6 14.Qh6 Na6 15.cxd5 Qa5 16.Bf8!!
Rg8 17.Re1 Qxe1+ 18.Nxe1 Bf5 19.d6 Bxd3 20.Qxh7+ 1–0
C01 K. Zolnierowicz – S. Khamitskiy

Gdansk 2009
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.cxd5 Nxd5 7.Bd2 Nc6 8.Nf3 0–0
9.Be2 h6 10.0–0 Be6 11.a3 Bxc3 12.bxc3 Nb6 13.Re1 Bc4 14.Bxc4 Nxc4 15.Bf4 Nb6
16.Qd3 Na5 17.Ne5 Re8 18.Qg3 Kf8
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdw1riwdy
|0p0wdp0wy
|whwdwdw0y
|hwdwHwdwy
|wdw)wGwdy
|)w)wdw!wy
|wdwdw)P)y
|$wdw$wIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
19.Bxh6 gxh6 20.Qf4 1–0
Part 3: Black gains the upper hand (various systems)
Until now only examples where White was successful have been featured. But this is only
half of he story. Naturally 4.c4 does not lead to a winning position for White. Practice
shows also many games where Black turns the fight in his favor, as in next few
interesting examples, which deserve deeper investigation.
C01 Fairlough - Hankipohja
Budva 1963
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.c4 dxc4 5.Bxc4 Bd6 6.Nf3 Nf6 7.Qa4+? Bd7 8.Qb3 O-O
9.Qxb7? Qe7+ 10.Be2 Re8 11.Nc3? Bb4 12.O-O Bc6 13.Qxa8 Bxa8 14.Ne5 c5 15.Be3
Bxc3 16.bxc3 Nc6 17.Bb5 Nxe5 18.dxe5 Qb7 19.f3 Qxb5 0-1
C01 K. Weissenbach – A. Graf

Lichtenrade 2008
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Nf3 0–0 7.Bd3 dxc4 8.Bxc4 Bg4
9.0–0 Nc6 10.Be3 Qd6 11.Nb5 Qd7 12.a3 Ba5 13.Be2 Rfe8 14.h3 Bf5 15.Qb3 Nd5
16.Bc4 Nxe3 17.fxe3 a6 18.d5 axb5 19.dxc6 bxc6 20.Be2 Rxe3 0–1
C01 E. Nordin – M. Orndahl

Copenhagen 2007
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Nf3 Bd6 5.c4 dxc4 6.Bxc4 Nf6 7.Nc3 0–0 8.0–0 h6
9.Be3?
9.h3!
9…Bg4 10.Rc1 c6 11.a3 Nbd7 12.Ba2 Bh5 13.Bb1 Re8 14.d5? Ne5 15.dxc6 bxc6
16.Kh1 Nxf3 17.gxf3 Qd7 18.Rg1 Qh3 19.Rxg7+ Kxg7 20.Bxh6+ Kh8 0–1
C01 J. Vacha – F. De Andres Gonalons

Marianske Lazne 2011
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Be7 6.h3 0–0 7.Nf3 Re8 8.Be3 Nc6 9.Ne5
Bb4 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.c5 Ne4 12.Rc1 Qh4 13.Qf3 Ng5 14.Qe2
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdbdrdkdy
|0w0wdp0py
|wdpdwdwdy
|dw)pdwhwy
|wgw)wdw1y
|dwHwGwdPy
|P)wdQ)Pdy
|dw$wIBdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
14…Ba6 15.Qxa6 Rxe3+ 16.Be2 Rae8 17.Kf1 Qf4 18.Kg1 Bxc3 0–1
C01 M. Roskam – W. Vermeulen

Utrecht 2005
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.Be2 dxc4 8.0–0 Bd6
9.Qa4 0–0 10.Qxc4 Bxf3 11.Bxf3 Nxd4 12.Bxb7 Rb8 13.Ba6 Re8 14.Rb1 Ng4 15.h3
Ne5 16.Qa4 Qh4 17.Qd1 Rbd8 18.Be3 Nef3+ 19.Kh1 Rxe3 0–1
C01 S. Budrin – A. Blagodyr

Kiev 2005
1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 e5 4.Bxc4 exd4 5.exd4 Nc6 6.d5 Ne5 7.Qe2?? Qe7 8.Bb5+ c6
9.dxc6 bxc6 10.Ba4
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdbdkgn4y
|0wdw1p0py
|wdpdwdwdy
|dwdwhwdwy
|Bdwdwdwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|P)wdQ)P)y
|$NGwIwHRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
10 Ba6 11.Qe3 Nd3+ 12.Kd2 0–0–0 13.Nc3 Nf4+ 14.Kc2 Bd3+ 15.Kb3 Qb4# 0–1
In conclusion, the theoretical assessment of this variation is still not clear, but definitely
offers interesting fighting opportunities for both sides.
By IM Nikolay Minev
Blunders With Two Open Files in the Center
A blunder is a mistake that immediately decides the game. Of course, blunders can
happen anytime, but the tournament practice shows convincingly that blunders happen
most often in positions with two open files in the center. The reason: the pieces of both
sides are playing with full force, and any mistake is punished decisively. This small
collection of exciting games is a good demonstration of this typical pattern.
C84 V. Aveskulov – S. Opryshko

Ukraine (ch team) Alushta 2010
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–0 Be7 6.d3 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.a4 Rb8 9.c3 0–0
10.Nbd2 d5 11.h3 dxe4 12.Nxe4 Nd5 13.Re1 h6 14.Ng3 Qd6 15.axb5 axb5 16.d4 exd4
17.Nxd4 Nxd4 18.Qxd4
^xxxxxxxxY
|w4bdw4kdy
|dw0wgp0wy
|wdw1wdw0y
|dpdndwdwy
|wdw!wdwdy
|dB)wdwHPy
|w)wdw)Pdy
|$wGw$wIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
18…Nb6??
Allows the surprising blow that follows on the next move. Correct is 18…Nf6.
19.Rxe7!! 1–0
Because of 19…Qxe7 20.Nh5, with inevitable mate.
C91 W. Unzicker – J. Smejkal

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 O-O 9.d4
Bg4 10.Be3 exd4 11.cxd4 Na5 12.Bc2 c5 13.Nbd2 cxd4 14.Bxd4 Nc6 15.Be3 d5
16.exd5 Nxd5! 17.Bxh7+?
Tempting, but a wrong combination. Correct is 17.Ne4 Nxe3 18.Rxe3.
17…Kxh7 18.Qc2+ Kg8 19.Qxc6 Bb4 20.Red1??
The blunder! However, after 20.Bg5 f6 21.Re4 Rc8 22.Qxa6 Qd7 Black stands better
(Ivanovic-Smejkal, Zagreb 1985).
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdw1w4kdy
|dwdwdp0wy
|pdQdwdwdy
|dpdndwdwy
|wgwdwdbdy
|dwdwGNdwy
|P)wHwP)Py
|$wdRdwIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
20…Nxe3 21.fxe3 Bxd2! 0-1
After 22.Rxd2 Bxf3 Black wins a piece.

C41 S. Fedorchuk – J. Maiwald
Dresden (Bundesliga) 2008
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5 4.Nf3 Nbd7 5.Bc4 Be7 6.0–0 0–0 7.Re1 c6 8.a4 a5 9.Ba2
exd4 10.Nxd4 Nc5 11.Bf4 Be6 12.e5 dxe5 13.Nxe6 fxe6 14.Bxe5 Nd5 15.Nxd5 exd5
16.c4! dxc4?
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdw1w4kdy
|dpdwgw0py
|wdpdwdwdy
|0whwGwdwy
|Pdpdwdwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|B)wdw)P)y
|$wdQ$wIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
17.Qg4! 1–0
For if 17…Bf6 (17…g6) 18.Qxc4+
C47 S. Adamovic – G. Mitrovic

Belgrade Trophy, Obrenovac 2008
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nxd4 Bb4 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.Bd3 d5 8.exd5
cxd5 9.0–0 0–0 10.Bg5 c6 11.Na4 Bd6 12.Qd2 Rb8 13.c4?? dxc4 14.Bxc4??
After 14.Bc2 White would be only a pawn down.

^xxxxxxxxY
|w4b1w4kdy
|0wdwdp0py
|wdpgwhwdy
|dwdwdwGwy
|NdBdwdwdy
|dwdwdwdwy
|P)w!w)P)y
|$wdwdRIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
14…Ne4! 0–1
White loses a piece.
C84 A. Okay – K. Komut

Konya 2010
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–0 Be7 6.d4 exd4 7.Re1 0–0 8.e5 Nd5 9.Bb3
Nb6 10.Nxd4 Nxd4 11.Qxd4 d5 12.exd6 Bxd6 13.Bf4 Bxf4 14.Qxf4 Nd5 15.Qf3 Nf6
16.Nc3 c6 17.Ne4 Nxe4 18.Rxe4 Qg5??
A typical blunder, known from the time when chess was born!
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdbdw4kdy
|dpdwdp0py
|pdpdwdwdy
|dwdwdw1wy
|wdwdRdwdy
|dBdwdQdwy
|P)Pdw)P)y
|$wdwdwIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
19.Qxf7+! 1–0
Because of 19…Rxf7 20.Re8#
C56 D. Kerigan – B. Komut

Konya 2010
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.0–0 Nxe4 6.Re1 d5 7.Bxd5 Qxd5 8.Nc3 Qa5
9.Nxe4 Be6 10.Bd2 Qf5 11.Bg5 h6 12.Bh4 Bb4 13.c3 dxc3 14.Nd4 Qd5??
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwdkdw4y
|0p0wdp0wy
|wdndbdw0y
|dwdqdwdwy
|wgwHNdwGy
|dw0wdwdwy
|P)wdw)P)y
|$wdQ$wIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
15.Nxe6 fxe6
If 15…Qxd1 16.Nxg7+! Kf8 17.Rexd1 cxb2 18.Rab1 Kxg7 19.Bf6+, followed by

20.Bxh8.
16.Nf6+ 1–0
B10 T. Vagner – M. Mriso

Teplice 2010
1.e4 c6 2.c4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.cxd5 Qxd5 5.Nc3 Qd8 6.Bc4 Nf6 7.Nf3 Nc6 8.0–0 g6
9.d4 e6 10.d5 exd5 11.Nxd5 Nxd5 12.Bxd5 Be7 13.Re1 0–0 14.Bh6 Bb4 15.Bxf8 Bxe1
16.Bh6 Ba5
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdb1wdkdy
|0pdwdpdpy
|wdndwdpGy
|gwdBdwdwy
|wdwdwdwdy
|dwdwdNdwy
|P)wdw)P)y
|$wdQdwIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
17.Bxf7+! Kxf7 18.Qb3+ Be6 19.Qxb7+ Bd7 20.Rd1 Ke8 21.Qb3 Ne7 22.Ne5 1–0
C19 V. Talla – J. Wyss

Chur 2010
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Ne7 7.Qg4 0–0 8.Bd3 f5 9.exf6
Rxf6 10.Bg5 Rf7 11.Qh5 g6 12.Qd1 e5 13.dxe5 Nbc6 14.Bf6 Qc7 15.Nf3 Bg4 16.Be2
Bxf3 17.Bxf3 Nxe5 18.Bxd5 Nxd5 19.Qxd5 Ng4 20.Bh4
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdwdwdkdy
|0p1wdrdpy
|wdwdwdpdy
|dw0Qdwdwy
|wdwdwdnGy
|)w)wdwdwy
|wdPdw)P)y
|$wdwIwdRy
Uzzzzzzzz\
20…Re8+ 21.Kd1
Or 21.Kf1 Ne3+
21…Nxf2+ 0–1
Because of 22.Bxf2 Rd8.
C42 Guzman Freire,J - Sanchez,JoseR

Santo Domingo 2010
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Nc3 Nxc3 6.dxc3 Be7 7.Bd3 0–0 8.0–0 Bg4
9.Qe2 d5 10.c4 Nc6 11.cxd5 Qxd5 12.Be4 Qe6 13.Re1 Rad8 14.Bf4 Bd6 15.Bxd6 Bxf3
16.Qxf3 Qxd6 17.Rad1 Qb4 18.b3 Rfe8 19.c3 Qc5
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdw4rdkdy
|0p0wdp0py
|wdndwdwdy
|dw1wdwdwy
|wdwdBdwdy
|dP)wdQdwy
|Pdwdw)P)y
|dwdR$wIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
20.Bd5!! Rxe1+ 21.Rxe1 Rf8 22.Re8 1–0
D11 Benidze,D - Buhmann,R

Rijeka 2010
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 a6 5.Nbd2 Bf5 6.Nh4 Bg4 7.Be2 Bxe2 8.Qxe2 g6 9.0–0
Bg7 10.Nhf3 0–0 11.e4 dxe4 12.Nxe4 Nbd7 13.Bg5 Re8 14.Rfe1 h6 15.Bd2 Nxe4
16.Qxe4 e5 17.dxe5 Nxe5 18.Rad1??
Even the most “obvious” move is sometimes a blunder!

^xxxxxxxxY
|rdw1rdkdy
|dpdwdpgwy
|pdpdwdp0y
|dwdwhwdwy
|wdPdQdwdy
|dwdwdNdwy
|P)wGw)P)y
|dwdR$wIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
18…Nxf3+ 19.Qxf3 Qxd2! 0–1
D26 Ki. Georgiev – V. Kukov

Bulgaria (ch) Kyustendil 2010
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 dxc4 4.e3 e6 5.Bxc4 c5 6.0–0 cxd4 7.exd4 Nc6 8.Nc3 Be7 9.Bg5
0–0 10.Qd2 b6 11.Rad1 Bb7 12.Qf4 Nh5 13.Qh4 Bxg5 14.Qxh5 Bf6 15.d5 exd5
16.Bxd5 Qe7 17.Rfe1 Qb4 18.Ne4 Rad8
^xxxxxxxxY
|wdw4w4kdy
|0bdwdp0py
|w0ndwgwdy
|dwdBdwdQy
|w1wdNdwdy
|dwdwdNdwy
|P)wdw)P)y
|dwdR$wIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
19.Nfg5 Bxg5 20.Nxg5 h6 21.Bxf7+ Kh8 22.Qg6 1–0
D27 T. Likavsky – J. Kochetkova

Banska Stiavnica 2010
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.e3 a6 6.a4 c5 7.Bxc4 Nc6 8.0–0 Be7 9.Qe2
cxd4 10.Rd1 e5 11.exd4 Nxd4 12.Qxe5 Nxf3+ 13.gxf3 Qb6 14.Be3 Qb4
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdbdkdw4y
|dpdwgp0py
|pdwdwhwdy
|dwdw!wdwy
|P1Bdwdwdy
|dwHwGPdwy
|w)wdw)w)y
|$wdRdwIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
15.Rd4 Qxb2 16.Rb1 Qc2 17.Bd3 1–0
E57 V. Gagarin – A. Klimov

Moscow 2006
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 d5 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.e3 0–0 6.Bd3 dxc4 7.Bxc4 c5 8.0–0 cxd4 9.exd4
Nc6 10.a3 Be7 11.Re1 a6 12.Ba2 b5 13.d5 exd5 14.Nxd5 Nxd5 15.Qxd5! Bb7 16.Qh5
h6?
^xxxxxxxxY
|rdw1w4kdy
|dbdwgp0wy
|pdhdwdw0y
|dpdwdwdQy
|wdwdwdwdy
|)wdwdNdwy
|B)wdw)P)y
|$wGw$wIwy
Uzzzzzzzz\
17.Bxh6 gxh6 18.Qg6+ Kh8 19.Qxh6+ Kg8 20.Bb1 1–0
For if 20…f5 21.Ba2+ Rf7 22.Qg6+ etc.

Minev Nikolay - Mini Lessons-OCR, 218p

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Minev Nikolay - Mini Lessons-OCR, 218p

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mini-Lessons from Short Games of the 21st Century

C70 Z. Al-Zendani – Z. Dollah

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 g6

5.d4 b5 6.Bb3 exd4 7.O-O!?

7…Bg7 8.c3 dxc3 9.Nxc3 Nge7 10.Nd5! O-O 11.Bg5 Bxb2

Maybe 11…Kh8 offers more resistance.

What a surprise! Now White wins by force.

C00 O. Ganbold – B. Villamayor

1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.e5 c5 4.b4 cxb4

6.axb4 Bxb4 7.c3 Be7 8.d4 f6!?

9.Bd3 Qc7 10.Bf4 f5 11.g4

11…fxg4 12.Ng5 Bxg5 13.Bxg5 Qf7

Perhaps here or next move Black should play a6.

14.Qxg4 Nge7 15.Rg1 Nf5 16.Na3!

This Knight is going to d6! The position is tense and unclear.

Now 16…a6 does not prevent 17.Nb5!

E38 M. Carlsen – N. Ibraev

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 c5 5.dxc5 Bxc5

Also popular are the continuations 5…Na6 and 5…O-O.

6.Nf3 Qb6!? 7.e3 Qc7 8.b3 b6 9.Bb2 Bb7

10.Nb5! Qd8 11.O-O-O! O-O 12.Ng5! Re8

In case of 12…g6 13.h4 White’s attack is irresistible.

C41 Friso Nijboer - Martin Poulsen

1.e4 d6 2.d4 e5 3.Nf3

8.Nxe4 d5 9.dxe5 dxe4 10.Qd4!? exf3

12.e6 fxe6 13.O-O-O Ne5 14.Qh5+ Nf7 15.Qxf3 Nd6 16.Bb3

Black’s position is already untenable. If now 16…Nf5, then 17.Rhe1, or 16…O-O-O

Because of 18…Qxd6 19.Qf7+ Kd8 20.Rd1.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 c5 4.d5 exd5 5.cxd5 b5 6.e4!?

The most active and interesting continuation!

6…Nxe4 7.Qe2 Qe7 8.Bg2 f5!?

But not 9…Qxd6 10.Nc3!

10.Nc3 Bxd6 11.Nh3!?

Searching for new tactical opportunities. If 11.Nxb5 Ba6!

There is no defense. If 20.O-O Nd4! or 20.O-O-O Nb4!

20…Ne5 21.Rad1 Qc4! 0-1

D18 M. Sjoberg – Rubene

More often used in practice is 9.Qe2.

9…a5 10.Nh4 Bg4 11.f3 Nd5

The theory recommends 11…Bh5

This is much more interesting than 12.g3 Bh3 13.Ng2 O-O.

12…Qxh4 13.e4 Bd6

If 13…N5f6 14.h3 h4 15.g5 Ng4 16.Bf4!

14.h3 N5b6 15.e5 Nxc4

If 16…Bxe5? 17.dxe5 Ncxe5 18.Bg5, or 16…Be7 17.Qxc4 h5 (17…h6 18.Bd2,

Also after 17...Ndb6 18.Bg5 Qd7 19.Rac1 White should win.

B18 H. Toufighi – P. Long

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.Bc4 e5

Very rare, almost unknown, continuation.

Not so clear is 7.Nf3 exd4 8.Nxd4 Bc5 9.Be3 Nd7.

7…Qxd4 8.Nf3 Qd6 9.Nxe5 Qe7 10.O-O Nd7 11.Nxg6

One of the most interesting and least analyzed continuations.

Instead 7…Qxd6 is more risky.

8.Nc3 Nxc3 9.bxc3 Bxd6 10.Bd3 O-O!

An unexpected intermediate move, which decides the game. This deserves to be

14…Kxh7 15.Qh5+ Kg8 16.Bxg6 Qe8+! 0-1

For if 17.Be3 fxg6.

D15 Z. Sturua – Suat Atalik

1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.c4 c6 4.Nc3 a6 5.c5 Nbd7 6.Bf4 Nh5!

7…Nxe5 8.dxe5 Nf4! 9.Qd2 Ng6 10.e4 e6 11.Na4 Bd7

12.Bd3 Qc7 13.Qc3

For if 15.Bxe4 Ne2+.

D15 Loek van Wely - Ashot Anastasian

6…Nc6 7.e3 e6 8.Bd3 Be7 9.O-O O-O 10.Rc1 Bd7