Vinning With the Philidor

Winning With the

Philidor

Tony Kosten

B. T. Batsford Ltd, London

Fi rst publ is hed 1992
(c ) Tony Kosten 1 992

ISBN 0 7 134 6945 5

Briti s h Library C atal ogui ng-in-Publ icatio n Data.

A catalogu e record for this book is avail able from the
Briti s h Ubrary .

Al l rig hts reserved. No part of thi s book may be

reproduced, by any m eans, without prior permission
of the pub l i s her.

Typeset by B. 8. E nterpri ses, Brighto n

a n d pri nted i n Great Bri tai n by
Dotesios Ltd, Trowbridge, Wi l ts

for the publis hers, B. T. Batsford Ltd,

4 Fi tzhardinge Street, London WlH OAH

To Gyongyver

A BATSFORD C H ESS BOOK

Adviser: R. D . Keene GM, OBE
Technical Editor: Andrew Kins m an
Contents

Bibliography 6
Symbols 6
Introduction 7
1) White Third Moves other than d4 9
2) Unusual Black replies to 3 d4 16
3) Mestel's Variation 22
4) Larsen's Variation-Introduction 33
5) Larsen's Variation-Pseudo-Yugoslav Attack so
6) Antoshin's Variation 67
7) Morphy's Variation 80
8) Hanham Variation (Improved) -Introduction 98
9) Hanham Variation-Main Line 110
10) Exchange Variation 130
11) In Conclusion . . . 139
Index of Variations and Games 141
Blbllography

Of the many books that I consulted whilst writing this

work, the following were the most frequently consulted:

T. D. Harding, Philidor Defense: A Reappraisal (Chess

Digest Magazine, 1974).
T. Heiling, The Philidor Defense - Larsen Varia tion (Chess
Enterprises Inc. 1988).
B. Larsen (and A. Gipslis) , Why Not The Philidor Defence ?
(Chess Digest Magazine, 1971) .
L. M. Pickett, Philidor Defence!? (L. M. Pickett, 1973) .
R. D. Keene, Philidor's Defence Larsen Varia tion (Modern
Chess Theory) .
j. Nunn, The Complete Pirc (8. T. Batsford, 1989) .
L. Barden, W. Hartston and R. D. Keene, The King 's Indian
Defence (B. T. Batsford, 1973).
D. Bronstein, 200 Open Games (B. T. Batsford, 1974).
Sahovski Informa tor Vols 1 - SO (Chess Informant, Bel­
grade) .
A. Matanovic, Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings 'C' and 'E'
(ECO) (Chess Informant, Belgrade, 1981 and 1978).
New In Chess Vols 1- 1 8 (lnterchess) .

Symbols

+ check +- White is winning

++ double check -+ Black is winning
mate checkmate -
level position
good move CO unclear position
!! excellent move 1-0 Black resigns
? bad move 0 - 1 White resigns
?? blunder 112 - 112 draw agreed
!? interesting move 01 olympiad
?! dubious move IZ interzonal
± small edge for White z zonal
+ small edge for Black Ch championship
± clear edge for White Corr correspondence
+ clear edge for Black
Introduction

Since its heyday in the 1920s, during which time both

Alekhine and Nimzowitsch employed it regularly, and de­
spite a brief revival in the late '60s and early '70s under
Larsen, the Philidor has fallen into disuse. Why is this?
Why has modern opening theory decided that the last
word has been written on the defence, and summarily
consigned it to the scrap heap?
There are two reasons: firstly, fashion - many players
are content to follow 'the latest theory' and are unwilling
to have to think for themselves in the opening; and se­
condly, the Philidor seems to have suffered more than
most defences from poor analysis and shallow generali­
zations.
For instance, a common criticism levelled at 2 . . d6 is
.

that it shuts in the king's bishop, and yet if we compare it

with the Ruy Lopez, the lines there in which Black brings
out his king's bishop early are at best considered rather
risky, whereas the main line involves Black playing ... d6
and ... fle7 ! How many times have I read theoreticians
who say that the French Defence shuts in Black's queen's
bishop? Nowadays we all know that this is an irrelevance.
As to the analysis, much of the theory on Philidor's
emanates from such 'up-to-date' sources as Bilguer's
Handbook!
Playing the Philidor's Defence offers two main advan­
tages: firstly, White almost invariably answers 3 d4 (whe­
reas if you play the 'normal' 2 ... �c6 you have to reckon
not only with the 'Spanish Torture' - 3 flbS - but also with
the sharp Max Lange Attack, or the Scotch Gambit, or the
positional Bishop's Opening, in fact a whole host of dif­
ferent possibilities each requiring the memorization of a
precise defence) and it is Black who chooses the battle­
ground.
8 Introduc tion

If yo u r oppo nent i s bori ng a nd so li d, or i f yo u w ant to

upset a m uch stronger p l ayer, t hen you can pl ay the
ul tra- s harp Mestel variation ( i ndeed , I did ju st this
agai nst Wor l d C hampio ns hi p Candidate Sax at Hasti ngs,
and he spent over an h o ur ponderi ng his fi rst si x moves ! ) .
If, o n the other hand , yo ur adversary i s a s harp tacti cia n ,
the n why not p l ay the sol id Han ham vari ation and grind
hi m dow n ? Of cou rse , you can al w ays j ust s pecialize i n a
vari ation to s u i t your persona l taste .
The seco nd advantage i s that the theory is v i rt u al l}
u n k now n .
I have p l ayed t e4 a s a profes sional chess p l ayer for
sev en years , yet I've never bothered to l ook at the theory.
Whe never I have e ncou ntered Phi l idor's Defe nce I hav e
been forced to w ork thi ngs o u t myse l f, and not a l w ays
that s u cces s fu l l y eith er!
On top of that, if your opponent is acq ua i n ted w i th the
theory , it probably won't do hi m m uch good as a l ot of
the estab l i shed theory is m i s taken a ny w ay!
Al l in a l l , you have the opport u n i ty to grab the psycho­
l ogical i n i tiati ve w i th B l ack as early as move two; p laying
a pos i tion you u nde rstand wel l agai nst a n opponent w h o
probab ly doesn't have a cl ue!
As in the other books fro m the ' Wi n ni ng With' seri es ,
not o n ly have I i nc l uded t he theory ( q u i te a lot of it new ),
bu t al so many co m p l ete games, which I have picked to
i l l u strate i m portant t hemes or s trateg ies (or ju st because
they are pretty ! ) . The m ateri a l i s w ritten from a Black
viewpo i n t , b u t it is al so, I be l ieve, com p l etely objecti v e .
Unl ike a lot o f ope ni ng boo ks , t he reader of thi s book
has a choice between four mai n , com p l etely s eparate
variati o n s . I s ugg est that you p l ay thro ugh the various
chapters , decide o n w hi ch sy stem appea l s to you most,
and the n learn the theory . Or w hy not learn a l l four?
As with m any o ther open i ngs , there is al ways some­
thing wai ti ng to be discov ered , and I am s ure that the
reader w i l l agree: Phi l i dor's Defence has a lot of l i fe left
i n i t yet.
In the words of David Bronstei n : " .. . there can be no
do u bt that many of you wi l l come to l i ke Ph i l idor's De­
fe nce, perhaps for ever."
1) White Third Moves other
than 3 d4
1 e4 eS
2 4Jf3 d6
Al tho u g h in practice
White al most i nvariab ly
answers the Philidor's De­
fence with 3 d 4 , there are
many al ternati ves . The o n ly
mov e w i th any real pedi­
gree is 3 .Qc4, which w as
p l ayed by Stei n i tz and,
rather more rece ntly, by
the you ng Kasparov , as
we l l as being a favouri te o f
the E n g l i s h Grandmaster,
M u rray Chandl er.
Thi s chapter, therefore,
is di vided i nto two sec­
tions :
A 3 .Qc 4
B 3 Others
A .Qxd5?? 4Jxd5 6 ed �xg5- + )
3 .Qc4
The ai m of thi s move is
to avoid the s harper l i n es
which ari se after 3 d4, and
to p roduce a positi o n akin
to the Bi shop's Openi ng
( i nto w hich i t m ay wel l
tran spose shou l d Bl ack
pl ay a l ater 4Jc6) .
3 ... .Qe7
This is the mos t re­
s pectabl e reply; B l ack w i l l
co ntent hi msel f with sim­
p l e deve lopment, adopti n g
a formation similar to Han­
ham's or Antos hin's varia­
tions as circums tances
permit. B l ack does , how ­
ev er, possess a n u m ber o f
interes ti ng pos sib i l ities to
al ter the s hape of the
com i n g batt l e :
a) 3 . . . 4Jc6. This w i l l eff­
ect a transposi tio n i n to
either the H u ngarian De­
fen ce (if Whi te p l ays d4) or
Bis hop's Opening ( i f i n­
stead White s ho u l d p l ay
d3) w hich are both beyond
the scope of this work .
b) 3 . . . 4Jf61? ( rather p ro­
vocative) 4 4JgS dS S ed (5
S . . . h6 ( by anal ogy w ith the
Two Knig hts Defence, 5 . . .
4JxdS can not be recom m ­
ended) 6 4jf3 e 4 7 4Je5 .Qd6
8 .Qb5+ c6 ! ? 9 de 0-0 10 cb
.Qxb7 with promisi ng gam ­
bit p lay .
c) 3 . . . c6?1 4 d 4 dS 5 ed
e4 ( obv iou s ly 5 . . . cd 6 !l,bS+
wi ns a paw n ) 6 4JeS cd 7
10 White Third Moves other than 3 d4
�h5 g6 8 4Jxg6 fg 9 �e5+ is
better for Whi te.
d) 3 �f61? ( Bl ack plans
...
to keep the cen tre c l osed,
and then l au nc h a ki ng side
attack with . . . g5 . A simi l ar
plan i s possi b l e i n Han­
ham's vari atio n . Certai n ly
t hi s co u l d prove dangero us
agai nst a care l ess Wh i te
player b u t objecti v ely i s i t
not correct) 4 d3 !J.g4 5
4Jbd2 4Jc6 6 c3 4Jge 7 7 h3
!J.d7 8 b 4 4Jg6 9 4jf1 4Jf4 10
4Je3 ( eyei ng d5 and f5) tO . . .
h6 1 1 4jh2 �g6 1 2 �f3 !J.e7 13
h 4 ( i ntendi ng to dri v e t he
bl ack k n i g h t fro m f4 with
g3) 13 . . . !J.x h 4 ! ? 1 4 g3 !J.f6
w h en t he game C ha nd l er -
Hodgs o n , Hast i ng s 1986/7,
di ssol ved i nto a tactica l
mess w hi ch w as w o n by
White.
e) 3 ... !J.e61? ( t h i s is not
as bad as i ts repu tati on) 4
!J.xe6 fe 5 d 4 ( t hi s is c l early
t he most critical rep ly, 5 c3
is w el l m et by 5 . . . 4Jd7 6
�b3 4Jc5 and 5 d3 is i n no­
cuou s : 5 . . . 4Jf6 6 c3 4Jbd7 7
0-0 !J.e7 8 4Jg5 4jf8 9 �b3
�cB was Borkow ski
Li ttlewood, M exico 1977,
w hen tO !J.e3 w o u l d have
been s l ig h t ly better for
Whi te ; b ut 6 . . . 4Jc6 7 0-0
!J.e7 8 �b3 �ea 9 4Jg5 4Jd8
10 !J.e3 h6 and 11 . . . 0-0 is
fi ne for Black; if White
does n't p l ay d4 soo n B lack
will be ab l e to p ut t he f-
fi l e and the outpost on f4
to good use) 5 . . . ed (5 . . .
4Jbd7! ? may also be poss­
ib le, 6 de de l eaves Black
wi th doub l ed, i solated
pawn s , but they are not on
an open fi le, and they do
co ntrol some u sefu l cen­
tral sq uares ) 6 4Jxd4 4jf6!
(6 . . . �d7 is a suggestion of
Estri n , and may be OK , b u t
neither 6 . . . e5? ! 7 4Je6 t/1e7
8 �h5 + g6 9 �h3 4Ja6 10
4Jc3 C handl er - Large, Ha­
sti ngs 1986/7, the knight
on e6 - w hich can be readi ly
su pported by f4- f5 - i s l i ke
a kni fe i n Bl ack's throat;
nor 6 . . . �f6?! 7 �h5+ g6 8
�b5+ 4jd7 9 �xb7 !!b8 10
�xa7 of Grob - Tartakow­
er, Oste nd 1 937, is sati s­
factory) 7 4Jc3 ( 7 4Jxe6 t/1e7
8 4Jx f8 �xe4 + - ) 7 . . . �d7
8 0-0 e5 9 4Jde2 !J.e7 i n­
tendi ng . . 0-0 w hen, acc­
.
ordi ng to Pachman, Black
is eq ua l . Certai n ly the
paw n formation i s good for
Black, he has an extra
centre paw n and the semi­
open f- fi l e.
f) 3
... fSI? (I l ike thi s
mov e; now 4 d4 ed ! wou l d
transpose to Mestel's var­
iati on - see chapter 3 - b u t
to a l i ne that I bel iev e to be
good for Black) 4 !J.xg8
�xg8 5 d3 4Jc6 6 .!lgS? !J.e7
is already better for Black,
and 4 d3 4jf6 5 .!lg5 h6 6
!J.x f6 �xf6 7 c3 4Jc6 8 b4
 White Third Moves other than 3 d4 11
!le 7 9 4jbd2 !1e6 t 0 �b3
4jd8 1 1 h3 ( Whi te is l oathe
to cas tle kingside, as B l ack
wo u ld play . . . f4 fo l l owed
by . . . gS - g 4, but this move
is a was te of ti me) t1 . .. 0-0
12 0-0-0? ! aS 13 bS a4 1 4
!1xe6+ 4:)xe6 ( B l ack's i ni tia-
ti ve progres ses nice ly o n
both w i ngs ) t S �c4 c6 16 b6
�h7 17 ef dS ! ( now the
w hite q u een is s hort of
sq uares) t8 ttfg 4 4jf4 t9
4Jxe5 ( 1 9 . . . hS w as a big
threat, trapping the q u ee n ,
bu t this i s a n ov er-reac­
tion) t 9 . . . ttfxeS 20 d 4 ttfxfS
21 4jf3 !1a3+ a nd mate i n
two more moves N : N -
Kosten , Mi n i tel B l i tz Game,
t990. Whi te's play was not
good, b u t this game does
i ndi cate some of Black's
possibi l ities .
4 o-o
This wou l d appear to be
the most fl exib l e mov e, 4
d3 or 4 c3 w i l l probab ly
transpose soo n er or l ater,
as it seems u n l i kely that
White can do wi thout cast­
l i ng a l together. The move 4
d4 is not partic u l arly co n­
sistent here as 4 . . . ed 5
4jxd4 �f6 6 4:)c3 0- 0 is a
li ne fro m An to s hi n's varia­
tio n , and 5 ttfxd4 4jf6 is
Morphy's variati on ( chap­
ters 6 and 7 respective ly ) ,
bu t i n both cases the b i s h­
op i s probably misplaced
on c4, w here i t serves as
a target for B l ack's q u een­
side play .
4 ... 4:)f6
5 d3
Whi te does h av e another
option , nam ely 5 !!et , w hen
5 ... 0- 0 6 !lb3 4jbd7 7 c3 cb
8 d3 w i l l reach the mai n
li ne a l thoug h i n the game
Torre - Rodri g u ez , B l ack
tried 7 . .. 4:)c5 8 !1c2 dS ? ! 9
d4?! ed tO eS d3! ( I s u ppose
White had missed this tac­
tica l trick w hen he p l ay ed
d4, otherwi se I'm s u re he
wou l d hav e p l ayed 9 ed
which w i ns a paw n for
neg l igib l e co mpe nsation) t t
!1xd3 4jxd3 12 �xd3 4:)e4 t3
c4 !1e6 1 4 cd 4:)c5 t 4 �e2
ttfxdS+. As on mov e fou r, 6
d4 l ets B l ack p l ay a si mi l a r
strategy to that of An to­
shi n's sys tem . A textbook
exam p l e w as Mes te l
Georgadze, Has ti ngs 1979/
80 ( i ncidenta l ly , this game
co mmenced w ith the move
order 1 e4 eS 2 !1c4 d6 -
Phi l idor's agai nst Bi shop's
Openi ng - 3 �f3 !1e7 4 0-0
4jf6 5 !!et 0-0 6 d4, but
al tho u g h it is pos si b l e to
pl ay . . . d6 agai nst moves
other than 2 4jf3 , Black
mus t bew are of Wh ite re­
plyi ng wi th 3 f4) 6 . . . ed (a
Hanham v ariation p l ayer
m i g ht w e l l prefer 6 . . . �bd7
here, but White is not
forced to reply 7 4:)c3) 7
�xd 4 a6 8 a4 cS! 9 �b3 !leb
12 White Third Moves o ther than 3 d4
( B l ack is abl e to keep dS
u n der con tro l ) 10 �e2 ti)c6
1 1 ti)c3 ( 1 1 !1xe6 would h ave
on ly been s l ig h t ly better
for Bl ack. It is remarkab l e
how q ui ck ly Wh ite's posi­
tio n goes dow n hi l l from
now o n , despite h i m hav i ng
o n ly play ed natura l moves)
1 1 . . . ti)b4 ! 12 ti)d5 !1xd5 13
ed !Ie8 14 !Id1 !1f8 1 5 !1e3
!IeS !+ (/)
1 ing.
w 6 . . . �4? ! is not right
( This is the end for Wh ite's
d- pa w n; 16 f4 !Ixe3 17 �xe3
ti)xc2 wou l dn't hel p h i m i n
the s l ig h test) 1 6 �d2 ti)fxdS
17 !1f4 ti)xf4 18 �xf4 �e7
and B l ack won easi ly .
s o-o
6 c3 c6
Thi s is Black's l as t
chance to pl ay . . . ti)c6 ,
w hich wo u l d reach a s tan­
dard posi tion from Bis hop's
Openi ng, which is a li ttl e
better for Whi te . I n h is
book, Th omas Hei l i ng m e n­
tio ns the possib i l i ty 6 . .
cSI ?, the i dea bei ng t hat i n
co m pariso n w i th the l i ne: 6
. . . ti)c6 7 !1b3 ti)a5 8 !1c2 cS
9 rle1 ti)c6 , B l ack can save
two tem pi . Of course the
bis hop is on the less active
diagonal b1 -h7 here, bu t he
does , neverthel ess, have a
poi n t . Let's fo l l ow hi s an­
alysi s : (6 . . . c5) 7 !Ie1 ti)c6 8
!lb3 !lg 4 ( 8 . . . !1e6 9 !1xe6? !
fe 1 0 ti)g5 �d7 1 1 �b3 dSaj
bu t 9 ti)bd2 i s eq ual ) 9
ti)bd2 �c7 , co nti n u i ng . . .
!!ad8, . . . !Ife8 , . . . !1f8 and . . .
d5 . Thi s p l an i s worth try­
here as the bi shop ca n j ust
serv e as a target for Whi te;
7 h3 !1xf3? (concedi ng the
two bis hops , i f 7 . . . !lhS
then Whi te w i l l con ti n u e 8
ti)bd2- f1- g3 and i f the bish­
op retreats to g6 the n ti)h 4
wi l l embarrass i t further,
bu t neverthel es s , this
wo u ld hav e been better) 8
�xf3 c6 9 !1b3 ti)bd7 tO �e2
ti)c5 1 1 !1c2 ti)e6 12 g3 t/1c7 13
f4! !Ife8 14 ti)d2 �ad8
( B l ack has developed his
pi eces ro u ti nely , wi thout
any parti cu lar plan, and
no w di scovers that there i s
no t h i ng active he can u n­
dertake. Wh i te, o n the
oth er hand , has bee n stead­
i ly prepari ng the coming
ki ngside ons l au g ht) 1 5 ti)f3
�h 8 16 f5 ti)f8 1 7 g4 h6 (2)
. 18 g5 hg 19 ti)xg5 �g8 20
�h 1 4:)6h7 21 ti)f3 !Id7 22
�g 1 !1d8 23 !1h6 f6 24 �g2
d5 25 !Iag1 !!Be7 26 ed cd 27
 White Third Moves other than 3 d4 13
!1a4 !!d6 28 !!xg 7+ and
wi ns , Stei nitz - McDon n e l l ,
Dubl i n 1 865.
7 !1b3 {)bd7
Thi s i s better than 7 . . .
!1e6 , wh en the game Kas­
parov - Georgadze, USSR
Ch 1 979, con ti n u ed 8 !1c2 h6
9 !!et {)bd7 10 {)b d2 t/Jc7 1
d4 !!fe8 1 2 h3 {)f8 1 3 c4
{)g6 14 d5 !1d7 when Black
was bei ng p u s h ed back .
Accordi ng to Kasparov , 1 1
. . . �4 12 h3 !lhS 13 {)ft {)h7
with the plan of exchang­
i ng pi eces on g5, was equ al .
8 !!et {)cS
9 !1c2 !lg4
Thi s ti me thi s move i s
associated wi th a rea l p l a n ,
w hich i s t h e use o f t h e g5
sq uare to exchange a
co u pl e of pieces , th ereby
eas ing B l ack's posi tion .
10 h3 !lhS
11 {)bd2
1 1 d 4 i s premature: 1 1
ed 1 2 cd {)e6 1 3 !1e3 dS ; as
the knight is perfect ly
pl aced on e6 .
11 . . . {)e6
12 {)ft {)e 8
In the game Mik l os -
Au tenrieth , Budapest 1 983,
Bl ack pl ay ed 12 . . . {)d7 i n­
stead and won q ui ck ly after
1 3 g 4 ( 1 3 {)g3 seems more
sen si bl e, as now f4 i s sen­
s i ti v e) 13 . . . �6 1 4 {)g3 {)gS
1 5 �h2 {)c5 1 6 {)f5 h6 1 7
{)3 h 4 !1f6 1 8 �g3? dS! 1 9 ed
cd 20 f4 ef+ 21 !1f4 {)ce6 22
!1xg5 {)xg5+.
13 {)1h2
The poi n t of B l ack's p l ay
is revealed i n the vari ation
13 {)g3 !1xf3 ! 1 4 �xf3 �5 = .
13 . . . .QgS (3)
14 d4 !lxct?!
An i n naccuracy , 1 4 . . . ed !
15 cd !1xc1 1 6 �xct d5 was
the right was to proceed,
the trade of dark- sq uared
bi s hops i n this man ner
wou l d equali se.
15 �xct! ed
16 {)xd41
The poi n t : this k n ight is
no l o nger pi n n ed.
16 . . . {)xd4
17 cd dS
18 ed cd
14 White Third Moves o ther than 3 d4
And now , i ns tead of 19
!!e5? ! , 19 �b3 w o u ld have
been to W h i te's advantage.
As it was , the game Psak his
- Ts esh kov sky , USS R C h
1980/ 1 soon term i n ated i n a
draw .
Al t ho ugh 3 . . . �e7 i s
Bl ack's mos t so lid rep ly to
3 �c4, i t i s evident from
the l arge choi ce o f other
third moves for Black off­
eri ng the seco nd p l ayer a
good game , that 3 �c 4
s hou l d present h i m w i t h
few prob lems.
B Other White third moves
1 e4 eS
2 ci)f3 d6
At t h is j u n ct u re Wh ite
has a very l arge choi ce of
moves ; by a nd l arge , he h as
preferred to p l ay the agg­
ressive 3 d4 or 3 �c4 . It is
di fficu l t to give any hard or
fast ru les to fo l l ow s hou l d
one's adversary p l ay any­
thi ng u n usual , I mys el f
prefer to ei ther adopt a
Pirc- ty pe s et- up with . . . g6
and ... ll.g7 , or to react w ith
. . . f5 . This i s a m atter of
taste as m u c h as anythi ng
el se, a nd it is just as good
to p l ay , say , a Han ham
formatio n i nstead.
Any w ay , bel ow is a brief
se l ection of poss ibi liti es:
a) 3 �e2 ci)f6 4 ci)cJ c6 ( 4
. . . g6 m u st al so be good) 5
d4 the? 6 a4 �e7 7 aS 0-0 8
0-0 ll.g4 ( 8 . . . ci)bd7 would
lead directly to a Han ham
type formatio n , B l ack's
mov e is more ambiti ou s) q
�e3 ci)bd7 10 ci)h4? ! , Ki n-
dermann - Gross, Stary
Smokov ec 1987 ( by transpo­
sition) and now 1 0 .. . ci)xe4!
11 �xg4 ci)xc3 12 be �xh 4
was unclear.
b) 3 ci)c3 is a flexible
move, and Bl ack probab ly
does best to pl ay 3 . . . ci)f6
w h ic h , after 4 d4, wi l l
transpos e i nto o ne of the
mai n l i nes co nsi dered in
thi s book . If i nstead 3 . . . fS
then 4 d4 i s variation C of
chapter 3, a nd 3 . . . ci)c6 4
�bS i s a Ruy Lo pez .
c) 3 c3 ( ai mi ng to set up
a strong centre wi th d4,
but Black i s we l l p l aced to
meet this) 3 . . . fS! 4 �c4 ( 4
ef �xf5 5 �b3 ci)f6 6 ci)gS dS
7 tt1xb7 ci)bd7 8 �c6 �do,
Lepes hki n Terp ugov ,
USSR 1959 , w he n B l ack's
centre and l ead in deve lop­
ment are more than enoug h
co mpe ns ation for t h e paw n )
4 . . . ci)f6 5 d 4 fe 6 de e f 7 ef
thxf6 8 gf ci)c6 9 f4 �d7 10
�e3 0-0-0 1 1 ci)d2 !! e8 12
�f3 �f5 13 0-0-0? dS! 14
�xd5 (4)
1 4 . . . tt1xc3+ ! 1 5 be �a3
mate 0- 1, Sch ul der - Boden,
circa 1865 . They do n't play
chess l i ke that anymore!
d) 3 c4 g6 (3 . . . fS, si m i lar
 White Third Moves o ther than 3 d4 15

8 �et h6 9 �ft ( W hi te de­

cides that he l ik es the look
of Black's fi anchetto and
so copi es it; howev er, h e is
now behi nd in develop­
ment) 9 . . . �e6 1 0 g3 d5 11
!lg2 �d7 12 �h 2 �ad8 13
�e2 �fe8 14 b3 c[)d 4 15
c[)xd 4 ed 16 c[)a 4 de 17 a3 b6
18 �b2 cS + (5)

to the above, also seems to 5

be stro ng) 4 c[)c3 !lg 7 5 d3 w
(5 d 4 is more to the poi nt, 5
. . . ed wou l d then be Lar­
sen's variation) 5 . . . c[)e7 6
�e3 c[)bc6 7 �d2 c[)d 4 8
�xd4 ed 9 c[)e2 c5 10 h3 0-0
(a l ready +) 11 b4 f5 12 c[)g3
eh 13 �xb4 c[)c6 14 �d2 fe 15
�xe4 �f5 16 �e2 �xe4 and
. . . d3 w i n ni ng , N . N . - Ko ste n, 19 de �d5 20 �d3 �c6 21
Min ite l B l i tz game 1990 . �e2 ? �b5 and B l ack won
e) 3 d3 g6 4 �e2 !lg7 5 eas i ly , ' B lac' - Kosten , Mi n­
0- 0 �f6 6 �c3 0-0 7 h3 �c6 itel B l i tz game 1991.
2) Unusual Black replies to
1 e4 eS
2 ci)f3 d6
3 d4
I don't i nte nd to dwel l
l o ng o n these moves as
they al l l ead to an i n feri or,
or perhaps even l ost, posi­
tio n for B l ack . From the
poi n t of v iew o f Winning
With the Philidor these
moves are I ' m afraid, real
non-starters .
Hav i n g sai d that, how­
ever, t here are two i nter­
esti ng l i nes i nv o l v i ng t he
sacri fice of a paw n that ,
w h i l st not bei ng com p l ete­
ly sou nd, m i g ht w el l prove
successfu l in b l itz or semi­
rapid games.
So w e have
A 3 . . . ci)d7
B 3 . . .!l.g4
. l oses a paw n to 5 de ci)xeS
c 3 . . . .!l,d7
A �xe5 and w hi l s t 4 . . . h6 has
3 ... ci)d7
Thi s i s the ori g i na l Han­
ham v ariatio n . Many of the
cl as s ic Han ham games
com menced wi th this move
order, but, u n fortu nate ly,
3 d4
there i s a tactica l fl aw , i n­
v o lv i ng an early .!l,c4 and
ci)gS , that renders this l i ne
al most u np l ayable.
It is more for this reason
that Han ham's sy stem is
nowadays i n trod uced o n ly
after the pre l i mi nary 3 .. .
ci)f6 4 ci)c3 and now 4 . . .
ci)bd7 w hen after 5 .!l,c4 .!l,e7
any sorti es of the white
ki ng's k ni g ht to g5 can be
met by the si mpl e . 0-0.
. .
4 .!l,c4
Obv iously there are a l ­
ternativ es to thi s move, but
they are not cri tical and
w i l l probab ly transpose to
li nes co n sidered i n chapte r
8.
4 c6
A necessary precaution.
The i m mediate 4 . . . .!l,e7
( 5 . . . de?? i s ev en worse , b
�d5 + ) 6 ci)xe5 de 7 �h5 g6 8
the merit of s toppi ng ci)gS,
it does perm i t 5 de de (5 . . .
ci)xe5 6 ci)xe5 de 7 .!l,xf7+ is
di sas trou s for Black) 6
.!l,xf7+ �xf7 7 ci)xe5+ �f6 8
�d 4! c5 ( the only sensible
 Unusua l Black replies
move that I ca n see) 9
�xd 7++ �e7 10 �xc5+ �xd7
11 �b5+ w i th a s trong att­
ack and three paw ns for
the piece . 4 . . . �gf6 5 de
�xe5 6 �xe5 de 7 .Q.xf7+
�xf7 a �xda .Q.b4+ 9 �d2
.Q.xd2+ 10 �xd2 a l so w i n s a
pa w n for Whi te.
5 o-o
Thi s see ms the most na­
tural move , yet Whi te al so
ge ts a strong pos i tion after
both 5 de de 6 �g5 �h6 7
0-0 .Q.e7 a �e6 fe 9 .Q.x h6
�b6 10 thh5+ �fa 11 f4 .Q.c5+
12 �h1 �ga 13 f5 gh 1 4 fe
�e7 15 !!f7 �g5 16 !!fa+ ! (6)
6 thi s variation . Th e game
B Ta l - M e n v ie l l e , Spai n 1966 ,
and mate next move, 1-0,
(Van der Wiel - Va n Baarl e ,
Amsterda m 19a3), and 5 �c3
.Q.e7 (5 . . . h6 is o ften given
as bad on the bas is of U n­
zicke r - Blau , Lucern e 1 9 4a,
which co nti nued: 6 a 4 �f6? !
7 h 4 g6 8 .Q.e3 w i th ad van­
tage to Whi te , b u t, by an­
alogy wi th a previo u s varia­
tio n , w hy not co n ti nue w i th
6 de de 7 .Q.xf7+ �xf7 8
�xe5+ �e6 9 �g6, w hen the
to 3 d4 1 7
Black ki ng's prospects
seems very poor?) 6 de de
(6 . . . �xe5? 7 �xe5 de 8
�h5 g6 9 �xe5 + - occu rred
i n an ear ly game of
Fi sch er' s , agai n st Go l d­
smith , USA 1957) 7 �gS
.Q.xg5 (7 . . . �h6 is no im-
provemen t; a �e6 ! fe 9
.Q.x h6 �b6 10 �h5+ �fa 1 t
.Q.b3 gh 12 !!d1 fo l l owed by
�xh6+ and !!d3- f3 i s deva­
stati ng ) a �h5 g6 (a . . . �fb
9 .Q.xg5 �g6 10 � h 4 al so
l eads to a large ad vantage
for Wh i te , Schl echter -
Al ek hi ne , Ha m b u rg 1910) 9
�xg5 �xg5 10 .Q.xg5 w i th a
fairly typica l endgame for
co n ti n u ed 1 0 . . . �f8 1 1
0- 0-0 .Q.e6 12 .Q.e2 (natur­
al ly , White w i s h es to retain
bot h of his bishops) 12 . . .
�d7 13 !!d6 �e7 1 4 !!h dl;
and the correspo ndence
ga me Sa l onen - Batik 19 76,
featured the 'i m provement·
10 . . . �c5, w h en 1 1 0-0-0
.Q.e6 12 .Q.e2 f6 1 3 .Q.e3 �d7 1 4
!!d6 �e7 15 !!hd1 �f8 1 6 .Q.c5
�ea 1 7 �b5! (7)
17 . . . eh 1a !!xe6+ ! �f7 was
easily w i n n i ng for Wh i te , 1a
. . . �xe6 bei ng met by 1q
.Q.xb5+ �f7 20 !!d7 +, regai n-
i n g the sacri ficed material
w i th a hefty prem i u m . I n
both ca ses t h e tw o bi s hops
and Bl ack's weak ness on
the dark sq uares w as j u s t
18 Unusual Black replies to 3 d4
7 learn t w ell from hi s game
B agai nst Tal) 12 . . . f6 13 �e3
too m uch to bear.
5 ... �e7
5 . . . h6 i s even w o rse i n
thi s pos i tio n , as b de d e 7
�x f7+ �xf7 8 ti)xeS+ �f6 9
�f3+! led to a k i ng- hunt i n
the game Georgiev - Pe l i­
tov , Bulgaria 197 4: 9 . . .
�xeS 10 �f7 ti)gf6 11 �d 1
�cS 12 ti)d2 and the end w as
i n s ig h t ; 5 . . . �c7 6 ti)gS
ti)h6 7 f4 i s no better.
6 de de
Agai n , 6 . . . ti)xeS? 7 ti)xeS
de 8 thhS acquires a paw n .
7 ti)g5 �xg5
The attentive reader w i l l
hav e noticed by now t hat 7
... ti)h6 l os es rather q ui ck ly
to 8 ti)e6! fe 9 �x h6 ti)b6 10
�hS+ g6 ( 10 . . . �f8 11 f4 + -)
11 t/1e2 ti)xc4 12 �xc4 tf1c7 13
ti)d2 ; the black ki ngside is
fu l l of ho les, a nd his
q ueen's bi s hop i s a m i ser­
ab l e piece.
8 �h5 �e7
Both 8 ... g6 9 �xgS �xgS
10 �xg S ti)cS (10 . . . h6 11 �d2
gS 12 �c3 Stei n er - Bri nck­
man n , B u dapest 1929) 11
ti)d2 �e6 12 �e2 ! ( Wh i te
ti)d7 14 a4 ti)e7 15 ti)c4 fo l -
lowed by do ub l i ng the
roo ks o n the d- fi l e, and
wi n n i ng not l ong after,
Menviel l e - Garcia, Arreci fe
1973 , and 8 ... t/1f6 9 �xgS
t/1g6 10 �h 4 are also w i t-
nesses to White's advan­
tage.
9 �xg5
9 �xgS is a l so very good:
9 . . . ti)gf6 10 �e2 (10 t/1h4 hb
11 ti)c3 �h7 12 �xf6 ti)xf6 13
�ad1� Butnori s - Bastri ­
kov , USSR 1968) 10 . . . h6 1 1
�d2 0- 0 12 a 4 b6 13 f3 �b 7
14 �e3 a6 15 t/1f2, Gi ps l i s -
Cso m , Budapest 1977, Whi te
enjoyi ng a considerab le ad­
vantage, w hi ch he managed
to convert i n to a poi n t
some thirty- two moves
later. The text is perhaps
more l og ical i n that the
advantage of the bis hop
pair will be more marked
i n the e ndgame.
9 t/1xg5
10 �xg5 ti)gf6
11 f3 ti)c5
12 4Jd2 ti)fd7
I n view of w hat fo l l ow s ,
12 . . . a S i s better, but
B l ack's po sition wo u ld sti ll
be cl early w orse.
13 b41
Whi te begi ns a genera l
advance o n t h e q ueenside
w h ich w i l l rapid ly sq uas h
 Unusual Black replies to 3 d4 19

Black . I t is typical of the 26 4:)d6 4:)b6

bi s hop-pai r that t hey faci l ­ 27 �b3 1-0
i tate paw n ro l l s o f t h i s A textbook disp l ay !
type, a n d i t i s al so fai rly (Dreev - Korho nen, Ki l j ava
common to see the k n ig hts j nr C h 1 98 4)
both ru n ni ng out of mea n­
i ngfu l sq uares at the same B
ti me. 3 ... .Qg4
13 4:)a4 One of the mos t famo us
If B l ack had tried 1 3 games ever p l ayed w i th
4:)e6 i n s tead the n 1 4 �xe6 fe Ph i l idor's Defence featu red
15 4:)c4 w u l d be cl early ad­ thi s t h i rd move. The game
vantageou s for White, in qu esti on was between
oppos i te co l oured bi s hops Pa u l Morphy (w ho had the
notw i thstand i n g . w h i te pieces) and the Duke
14 �b3 4:)ab6 of Bru ns wick and Cou nt
15 c4 f6 lsouard (w ho s hared the
16 �e3 4:)f8 bl ack pieces) and the move
17 c5 4:)bd7 3 . . . � 4 never recovered
18 4:)c4 �e7 (8) from the mau l i ng i t re­
cei ved at the hands of the
8 yo ung Ame rica n .
w The game w e n t a s foil-
ows:
4 de �xf3?
I n the con temporary an­
a lysis o f thi s game, thi s is
gi ven as bei ng forced, el se
B l ack wi l l l ose a paw n (4 . . .
de? 5 �xdB+ �xd8 6 4:)xe5 ) .
How ever, as Black i s al so
19 4:)d6 4:)g6 c l early worse after the text
20 4:)f5+ �f8 move, then from Bl ack' s
21 !!fd1 4:)f4 poi nt of v iew w e shou l d
The k ni g h t i s not a l low­ exami ne the a l ternati ves :
ed to res t here for l o ng; There are two other
White rapid ly w i ns a pi ece moves: fi rs tly 4 4:)c6!?
...

and wi th i t the ga me. w h ich i n v i tes Whi te to grab

22 g3 4:)h3+ a paw n by 5 ed �xd6, w hen
23 �g2 4:)g5 Bl ack w i l l con ti n u e w i th . . .
24 �xg51 fg �d7 ( . . . �e7) and . . . 0-0-0,
25 �e6 g6 Bl ack w i l l have a lead i n
20 Un usual Black replies to 3 d4

de ve l opment and free play 5 ... de

for h i s pieces as com pe n­ 6 .Q.c4 4:)f6?
sation for the paw n . I see m 6 . . . thd7 i s a better try .
t o reme mber that t h e Eng­ 7 thb3 the7
l i s h Grand mas ter, j u l ian B 4:)c31
Hodgs o n used to p l ay this Morphy s purns the w i n
ga mbi t w i th some succes s o f the b- paw n , as after 8
w he n h e w as very , very tbxb7 thb4+ Black w i l l be
young . The mai n draw back ab l e to fig ht o n a bi t . It
i s that Wh i te can prefer 5 wou l d seem that he was i n
.Q.b5, w he n 5 . . . de 6 thxd 8+ a hu rry to fi ni s h !
!!xd8 7 .Q.xc6+ be 8 .Q.eJ (8 B c6
4:)xe5?? �dt mate) 8 . . . .Q.d6 9 .Qg5 b5?
9 4:)bd2 l eaves W h i te with a 10 4:)xb51 cb
naggi ng e ndgame ad vant­ 11 .Q.xb5+ 4:)bd7
age, al though B l ack does 12 o-o-o �dB
have t he tw o bi s hops to 13 �xd71 �xd7
co nso l e hi m . Second ly , we 14 �d1 tbe6
ha ve 4 . . . 4:)d7?1, w hich as 5 Now 15 .Q.xf6 tbxb3 16
.Q.b5 is no l onger a se nsib l e .Q.xd7 mate is con v i nci ng,
pos s ibi l i ty , forces Whi te to but M orp hy chooses a more
accept t he paw n o ffer (a l ­ aes thetic route.
t hough i n t he game Pol l ock 15 .Q.xd7+ 4:)xd7
- Blackburne, Has ti ngs 1895 , 16 thbB+I 4:)xbB
Whi te did p l ay the ra ther 17 �dB mate (9) 1-0
l i m p 5 .Q.e2? !) and 5 ed .Q.xd6
6 .Q.e2 tbe 7 7 0-0 0-0-0 9
reaches a pos i ti o n w here B
Black , agai n , has somethi ng
in return for his paw n , al­
t ho u g h his queen's knig h t
i s l ess acti v ely p l aced . As I
men tio ned at the s tart,
both t hese moves are o ften
worth a try , i f o n ly i n off­
ha nd games .
5 tbxf3 Thi s was played i n Pari s.
Maroczy mentions that 5 1 858 .
gf de 6 thxd 8+ �xd8 7 f4 is
good fo r Whi te, bu t I c
would be tem pted to try 5 3 .Q.d7?1
. . . 4:)c6 ! , wou l d n't yo u? Yet a no ther gambit var-
 Un usual Black replies to 3 d4 21
iati o n . The idea, as before,
is to dev elop the q ueen s i de
pieces as q u ickly as poss­
ible and p l ay castl es long,
witho ut a l l ow i ng an i nco n­
venie nt !l.bS. The one e x­
ample I hav e was most
enco uragi ng for Black : 4 de
c£)c6 5 ed !l.xd6 6 !l.c4 t/Je7 7
!l.eJ 0-0-0 8 c£)bd2 .Q.g 4 9 cJ
c£)f6 tO �c2 !l.cS t t !l.f4?
!l.xfJ 12 gf ci]hS 13 .Q.gJ fS !
w i th a cru s hi ng positio n ,
Kub l er - Li l ienthal , Corr .
O f co u rse, Wh ite's pl ay
was ho pel ess , but it does
s how the k i nd of i n itiati ve
that B l ack ca n get i n these
ga mbit system s if White i s
not o n his g u ard .
3) Mestel's Variation
Thi s sy stem i s al so k now n
as Phi l ido r's Coun ter­
attack , b u t as the entire
v ari ati o n bears Phi l idor' s
na me, I have taken the l i­
berty of re na m i n g i t after
t he Eng l i s h Grandmaster,
jonathan Mes te l , w ho took
t his little k now n syste m
out of moth-bal l s i n t he
sev en ties and scored a
n u mber of fi ne w i n s w i t h
it.
1 e4 e5
2 4:)f3 d6
3 d4 fSI? (10)
Essen tial ly , there are
fou r 'refutations'.
A 4 de
B 4 .Q.c4
C 4 4:)c3
D 4 ef
A
4 de
The most popu lar and
mos t forci ng l i ne.
4 fe
5 4:)g5
Obviou sly , 5 .Q.g5 .Q.e7 6
.Q.xe7 4:)xe7 7 4:)g5 d5 8 eb
0-0 9 �hS (or 9 4:)f7 �e8 tO
�g 4 4:)g6) 9 . . . h6 only fa­
vo urs B l ack , who has a l ead
i n dev e l opmen t and al so (a
recu rri ng theme in this
sys tem) an extra cen tra l
pawn .
5 d5
6 e6!
Driving a wedge i n to the
b l ack posi tion . The game
van der Sterren - Meste l�
Tjentis hte 19 75 , deve loped
di fferen t ly: 6 c41? .Q.b4+ 7
4:)c3 (7 .Q.d2 �xg5 8 .Q.x b4 de
is good for B l ack - Mestel )
7 . . . d4 8 a3 .Q.xc3+ 9 be e3! ?
(9 . . . 4:)c6 10 4:)xe4 �h 4 m a}
be better, accordi ng to
Mes tel , bu t who wouldn't
want this black paw n
chai n ?) 10 f4 c5 1 1 .Q.d3 4Je7
12 0-0 (both 12 4:)xh7 !!xh7

and 12 !l_xh7 !!xh 7 are very
u ncl ear) 12 ... 4:)bc6 13 4:)e 4?
(possi bly 13 e6 �d6 is bet­
ter) (//)
11
B po ssibi l ities .
13 ... 0-0 14 4:)xc5 4:)f5 15
4:)b3? (Wh ite fi nally ma n­
ages to break u p the b l ack
paw n s , but a th e cost of a
lost endi ng) 15 ... de 16 !l_xf5
�xd1 17 �xd1 !l_xf5 18 !l_xe3
!l_c2 19 4:)c5 !l_xd 1 20 �xd 1
4:)a5! 21 �d3 4:)xc4 22 !l_c1
�ac8 23 4:)xb7 c2 , w i n n i ng
eas i ly. The move 6 4:)c3 w as
su ggested by Stei n itz , 6 . . .
c6 7 e6 w i l l transpos e, but
6 ... !l_b 4 ! ? m i ght be p l ay­
able, e.g. 7 a3 !l_xc3+ 8 be
4:)e7 or 7 e6 �f6�.
The strange 6 h41 ? is
fairly typica l of the s ort of
ru bbi sh w eaker players
have tried agai nst me i n
qu ick games . O ne o f my
games fro m the Franco n­
vi l l e Se mi-Rapi d to u rna­
ment 1991 co nti nued : 6 ...
4:)c6 7 !l_f4 !l_b 4+ 8 c3 !l_c5 9
e6 �f6 10 �g 4 4:)h6 (meet­
i n g 1 1 �h5+ w i th 11 ... g6 12
�x h6 �xf4 - + of co urse) 11
Mestel 's Varia tion 23
�g3 0-0 w h en White was
already lost.
6 ... 4:)h6
Thi s is the most obv i ou s,
g u ardi ng agai n s t 4:)f7, bu t
Black has three other
a) 6 . . . !l_cS?! 7 4:)c3 ( 7
�xe4! i s probably al so
good, 7 . .. JJ.e 7. Not 7 . . . de?
8 �h5+ g6 9 �xc5+ . 8 rtfg4!?
8 4:)g5! ? mig ht be better ,
co mpare w i th Sax - Kos ten
in (b) . 8 . . . g6 9 �gS �h6 10
tjh 4 �fS 11 tja4+ c6 12 �f7
tjb6 13 �xh8 JJ.cS. This
might be an error, as 1 4
4:)f7!? m i g h t be good , wi t h-
draw i ng the k n ig ht - 1 3 . . .
!l_xe6! . 14 rtff4 ? JJ.xe6 IS �c3
JJ.d6 16 tjgS JJ.e7, Rosenthal
- Pi tsche l , Paris 1 878, w hen
Black w i l l have a l i ttle
com pe ns atio n for the ex­
change w he n he ma nages to
reca ptu re the k n ight. The
more bl atan t 7 �f7? is a
mi stake , how ev er, a nd was
co nvi nci ng ly refu ted i n the
ga me Barnes - Morph)'.
Lo ndo n 1 858 : 7 . .. rtff6 8
JJ.e3 d4 9 .tJgS tjfS 10 �xh 8
rtfxgS 11 JJ.c4 �c6 12 �f7
tjxg2 JJ[!fl �f6 14 f3? �b4!
(12)
IS �a3 JJ.xe6 /6 JJ.xe6 �d3+
17 rtfxd3 ed 18 0-0-0 JJ.�'t(a3 19
JJ.b3 d2+ 20 {fib/ JJ.cS 21 �eS
{f;FB 22 �d3 l!eB! 23 �xcS
tjxfl! 2 4 �e6+ l!xe6 0- /) 7
... c6 (7 .. . �f6 i s s i m p ly
answ ered by 8 4:)gxe4 �xe6
24 Meste/'s Varia tion
12
w w
9 �xdS + ) 8 4:)f7 �f6 9 �e3
d4? ( B l ack w o u l d have
reasonab l e co m pe nsation
for the exchange after 9 . . .
�xe3! 10 fe �xe6 11 4:)x h8 g6
or t t . . . tbh 4+ t 2 g3 tbh6) tO
twh S! (tO 4:)cxe4 i s not bad
ei th er) tO . . . de 1 1 4:)d6+ +
�dB t2 �eB+ �c7 1 3 tbxcB+
�xd6 t 4 4:)xe4+ .
b) 6 �b4+? 1 (the idea i s
...
to p l ay variati o n 'a' w i t ho u t
the po ss ibi l i ty of 7 4:)c3) 7
c3 �c5 8 4:)xe4! ( 8 4:)f7 is
not so co n vi nci ng; 8 . . . �f6
9 �e3 �xe6 tO 4:)x h8 �xe3 t t
fe tb h 4+ t 2 g3 tbh6 1 3 tbd2
4:)d7 t 4 c4 - or 1 4 twf2 4:)e7
t5 tbf4 tbxf4 t 6 gf 0-0-0
and . . . nxh8 - t 4 . . . 4:)e5 tS
�e2 de 16 4:)c3 4:)d3+ t7 �xd3
ed (13)
Analysi s by Meckarov , w i th
p l ay for the e xcha nge, ass­
u mi ng the k n ight on h 8 is
capt u red) 8 . . . �e 7 9 �g5!
(w hen I orig i nally w rote
the ro ugh draft for t h i s
chapter, I thou g h t t hat 6 . . .
�b 4+ w as Bl ack's s tro nges t
mov e, so so I decided to try
13
i t agai n s t o ne of the fi nes t
tacticians in the worl d, Gy­
u l a Sax , by way of experi­
men t. As I me nti oned in
t he i n troducti on , he spe n t
ov er o ne hour o n his fi rs t
few moves , but then , u n­
fortu n ate ly, fou nd the move
9 4:)g5 w h ich appears to
ass ure Whi te the adva nt­
age. 9 �g4 ! ? is a l so poss­
i b l e . I ana lysed: q . gb 10
. .
�g5 �hb 1 t «fh4 - 1 1 «fa4+?
4:)c6 12 �f7 4:)xf7 1 3 ef+
�xf7+ - t 1 . . . �f5 12 tba 4+
c6 13 4:)f7 tbbo 1 4 �xhB -
thi s is si mi l ar to the Ro­
se n thaJ - Pi tsch e l game -
t 4 . . . �xe6! 1 5 �e2 �d 7 lb
0-0 0-0-0 t 7 �xg6?! hg 1 8
�d2 �c5 19 «fc2 d4 w i t h the
i ni tiati ve) 9 . . . �xgS (a di ff-
icu l t deci sion to have to
make , bu t 9 . . . twd6 10 twhS+
g6 11 twe2 �h 6 12 h4 is a l so
u npleasant) tO tbh 5+ g6 11
twxgS twxgS ( or 1 1 . . . �xe6 12
�e5 �f6 13 �xc7+ or 11 . . .
tbd6 12 �f4 twxe6+ 13 tweS:
fi nal ly 1 1 . . . �f6 12 �d3 0-0
13 �xg6! ? or 13 0-0 w i th the

idea of tbh4, .Q.h6 etc) 12
.Q.xg5 .Q.xe6? (I had pi n ned
too m uch fai th on a dis­
covered check , 1 2 ... c6 w as
the o n ly cha nce, but it is
s l ig htly better for White
because of the two b i s h­
ops) 13 .Q.f 4 4jc6 ( 1 4 .Q.e5
was the threat) 1 4 .Q.xc7
�d7 15 .Q.f4 �e8 (14)
14
w
1 6 4ja3 ! .Q.g4+ t 7 �d2 4jf6 1 8
f3 .Q.eb 19 4jb5 and B l ack
was com p l ete ly l o st, a l­
though I tried to set a
cou p l e of tricks ! Sax -
Kosten , Hasti ngs 1990/1.
c) 6 •.. 4jf61? an idea of
Meckarov 's, 7 4jf7 t/1e7 8
4jxh8 .Q.xe6co. As i n al l
these v ariation, i f Black
can reg ai n the piece on h 8
wi thout l osi ng any ti me
then his s trong centre w i l l
provide good com pensation
for t he exchan ge.
7 4jc31 c6
Forced. 7 . . . .Q.b4 ?? 8
tbh5+ g6 9 t/1xh6+ - .
8 4jgxe41
Thi s has been k now n to
be the best move si nce the
Meste/'s Varia tion 25
eig hteen th cen tury ! 8 4jxh7?
( w ith the idea of 8 ... �xh 7?
9 t/1h5+ �e7 10 .Q.g5+ + ) re­
bo u nds: 8 . . . .Q.xe6! 9 4jxf8
.Q.f7! 10 .Q.e3 �xf8 11 t/1d 4
�g 8 12 0-0-0 4jd7 1 3 �d2
(... cS and ... d4 w as threat­
ened) t3 . . . 4jg 4 ( 15)
15
w
( 1 3 ... 4jf5 l ooks to be even
better to me) and Black's
stro ng cen tre gi ves hi m a
co ns iderab l e ad van tage.
Spasskov - Pi sh kov , Bu l ­
garia C h 1965. Other moves
wo u ld al l ow B l ack to co n­
sol i date w i th .. . t/1f6, . . . .Q.cS
etc.
8 ... de?!
Acceptance of t he pi ece
sacrifice mig h t l ose. B l ack
has an i n teresti ng al terna­
tive in 8 . .. 4jf5!? 9 4Jg5 t/1f6
tO .Q.d3 h6 (tO . . . .Q.xe6 l ooks
OK as wel l , tt 4Jxe6 t/1xe6+
t2 t/1e2 t/1xe2+ l eaves White
w i th the bis hop pair i n
the endgame. bu t B l ack's
stro ng cen tre offers hi m
level chances. Al ternati v e ly,
11 0-0 .Q.d 7! t2 �et + .Q.e7 13
tbe2 0-0! t 4 .Q.xf5? t/1xf5 tS
26 Meste/'s Varia tion
t!Jxe7?? thxf2+ 16 �h 1 thf1+ .Qg7 w as a better chance -
and m ate ne xt move. This 15 4:)xe4! a4 16 4:)f6+ �f8 17
l i ne needs tes ts) 11 thf3 g6 4:)xg8 �xg8 (17)
12 g 4! (12 4:)h3 is noth i n g: 12
. . . .Qg7 i n ten d i ng . . . 0-0, . . . 11 I
.Qxe6, . . . 4:)d 4) 1 2 . . . hg 1 3 gf w
.Qb 4! ? (I s up pos e other
bi shop moves may be poss-
i b l e , bu t not 13 . . . .Qxe6? 1 4
.QxgS! thxgS - 14 ... thf7? ? 15
fe thxf3 16 .Qxg6+ + - - 15 fe
w i th the advan tage) 1 4 .Qd2
(/6)

1 8 �dB+! �xd8 19 e7+ 1-0,

An i n teres ti ng positi on for
analysi s , 1 4 ... .Qxe6! 1 5
.QxgS ( 1 5 0-0-0 g f o r .QxfS
shou l d be good for B l ack )
15 . . . .Qxc3+ ( 1 5 . . . tbxgS 16 fe
�f8 1 7 t!Jg3) 1 6 be t!Jxc3+ 1 7
�e2 g f and I thi nk that this
shou ld be fi ne for Black ,
e.g: 1 8 the3 �f7 19 .Qf4 4:)d7
with ... �ae8 and ... d 4 to
come.
9 �hS+ g6
10 t!JeS �g8
11 .QgSI
Thi s is better than 1 1
.Qxh6 .Qxh6 12 �d1 tbgS! ( the
mos t acti ve , 1 2 . . . the?? 13
.Qc4 bS 1 4 .Qb3 aS ? - 1 4 . . .
Atw ood - Wi l so n , Lo ndon
1 798. I ncidental ly, the p l ay­
ers w ere both con tem po­
raries of Phi l i dor, al thoug h
he cou l d give them con sid­
erabl e odds ) 13 tbc7 .Qxeb 14
�xb7 e3! (/8) ( typical Mor­
phy ! The me nace is . . . ef+
and the n . . . �e3 mate) .
18
w
15 f3 �e7 16 tbxa8 �f7
(trappi ng the w hi te queen)
17 4:)e4 .Qf4 18 .Qe2 �g 7 19
0-0 �c7 20 4:)c5 (el se 20 . . .
4:)d7 w i n s Whi te's qu een)
20 . . . .Qx h2+ 21 �ht .Qc8 22
�d 4 .Qg3 23 �e4 �h8! 24

�d t �g 7! 25 �h4 ( the o n ly
way to stop ... �h6+. The
players of the w hi te pieces
try thei r u tmos t to save the
ga me) 25 . . . .Q.xh 4 26 tbxb8
.Q.a6 27 �h2 .Q.xe2 28 !ld7
�h6 29 4:)e 4 .Q.c 4 30 4:)f6 e2
31 �e7 tbc t + 32 �g t �xg t +
33 �xgt et (�) + 34 �xe t
.Q.xe1 0- t . A toug h battl e!
Sta u n to n and O wen - M or­
phy and Barne s , Lo ndo n
1858 .
11 !J.g7
t t . . . �d6? t2 !ld t �xe6 13
.Q.c 4! + .
12 e7 tbd7? 1
Thi s l ooks l ike an ug ly
move to have to p l ay , and is
12 . . . �b6 !? 13 0-0-0 4:)d7 ( or
eve n 13 ... .Q.d7) so aw fu l ?
For exam p le , 1 4 tbf4 4:)f5 t5
.Q.c4 ( t he q ueen's knig ht is
u nab l e to partici pate, t5
4:)xe4? tbxb2+) 15 . . . h6! ? 16
.Q.xg8 hg 17 tbxe4 4:)xe7 1 8
!!he t 4:)e5+ ; or t 4 tbxe4 ( or
t 4 tbe6) 14 . . . 4:)f7. The posi­
tio n is so comp l icated that
I wou ld not l i ke to p u t
money on any of these var­
iations. It's at ti mes l i ke
these t hat I thi nk i t wou l d
be nice to bo rrow 'Deep
Thought' for a cou p l e of
days to work it al l o u t !
13 tbf4 tbfS
t3 . . . 4:)f5 1 4 !ldl tbe6 15
!ldB+ �f7 16 !!xg8 �xg 8 1 7
.Q.c4 fares no better - Sozi n.
14 .Q.xh6 .Q.e6
15 o-o-o tbxf4+
Mestel 's Varia tion 27
16 .Q.xf4 .Q.xc3
17 !J.gS 4:)d7
18 be
And Wh i te i s wi nn i ng -
Berger .
However, I thi nk I have
show n that thi ngs are not
at a l l clear, and furt her I
be l i eve that there are other
i m provements to be fou nd;
a l l that is req u i red are
practical tests i n tourna­
men ts .
B
4 .Q.c4 edl
Other mov es are pa ten tly
i n ferior:
a) 4 . . fe? 5 4:)xe5 d5 ( 5 . . .
.
de 6 tbh5+ �d7 7 �f5 + �c6 8
�xe5 - better than 8 tbxe 4+,
Bronste i n - Saadi , Cordova
1968 - 8 . . . a6 - 8 . . . 4:)f6?
hastens the end; 9 tbbS+
�d6 10 .Q.f4+ �e7 11 tbeS+
�d7 t2 tbe6 mate Diep­
straate n - Zsc horn , Corr -
9 d5+ �b6 tO .Q.e3+ w i t h a
w i n n i ng attack ) 6 tbh5+ g6 7
4:)xg6 4:)f6 8 �e 5+ .Q.e7 and
now ei ther 9 4:)x h8 de 10
4:)c3 4:)c6 t t tbg 5 .Q.e6 t2 0-0
tbd7 1 3 d5 4:)xd5 1 4 tbh5+ -
Ste i n i tz ; or the si m pler 9
.Q.b5+ c6 tO 4:)xe7 tbxe7 1 1
tbxe7+ �xe 7 12 .Q.e2 !lg B 13
g3 - analysi s by Keres - are
advan tageo u s for Whi te.
b) 4 . . . 4:)f6 5 4:)g5 tbe7 (5
. . . d5 is eve n worse; 6 de de
7 tbxd8+ �xd8 8 ef, mena­
ci ng 4:)f7+) 6 .Q.f7+ �dB 7
28 Mestel 's Varia tion
.Q.b3 ed 8 0-0± .
c) 4 4Jc61? i s an idea of
...
Morphy's . Now 5 de fe 6
4Jg5 4Jxe5 7 .Q.d5 see m s fi ne
for Black b u t , nevert heless ,
the well-tested mai n li ne is
stro ngly reco m mended .
5 4Jg5
Obviously 5 tbxd4 4Jc6 or
5 4Jxd 4 fe 6 �h5+ (6 4Jc3
4Jf6 w i t h the i n ten tion of
co nti n u i ng . . . d5 or . . . c6
and . . . d5 + ) 6 . . . g6 7 tbd5
tbe7 8 .Q.g5 4Jf6 q .Q.xf6
( forced , 9 tbb5+ ? cb tO tbb3
d5 + ) 9 . . . tbxf6 tO tbxe 4+
tf1e7 1 1 4Je6 ( 11 tbxe7 + .Q.xe7+
- two bis hops ) 11 . . . .Q.xe6 12
tbxe6 tbxe6 13 .Q.xe6 4Jc6 t 4
c3 r3;e7 1 5 .Q.b3 .Q.g7== offer
nothing for W h i te, and (5
4Jxd 4 fe) 6 .Q.xg8 �xg8 7
tbh5+ g6 8 �xh7 �g7 9 �h8
c5! 10 .Q.h6? nf7 1 t 4Jb3 �h 4
12 .Q.g7 �f4 is a pos i tiv e ca­
tastro p he . Fi nal ly; 5 ef d5 6
.Q.d3 tbe7+ 7 .Q.e2 .Q.x f5 8
4Jxd 4 .Q.g 4 9 f3 .Q.d 7 1 0 0-0
4Jc6 1 1 �e t 0-0-0! 12 4Jc3
tbh 4 13 4Jxc6 ? ! .Q.c5+ and
Black w o n , Kel l er - M este l ,
Bern 1 975 .
5 4Jh6
6 o-o
6 4Jx h7 ( w i t h the idea 6
. . . nxh7? 7 �h5+ �d 7 8
�g6 + ) was once con sidered
to be a refutatio n of this
sys tem , t hat i s , unti l t he
game N urm i - Mes tel , Tjen­
ti s h te t975: 6 . .. 4Jg 4! 7
4Jxf8 ( 7 4Jg 5 tbf6! 8 4Jf7
nh5 traps the errant kn ight,
8 .Q.f7+ r3;e7! and 8 c3 4Jc6!
are also good for B l ack) 7
. . . r3;xf8 8 ef?! ( 8 �xd4
might be better, but 8 . . .
4Jc6 9 �d5 4Jce5 1 0 .Q.b3 cb
1 1 �d 4 4Jx h2 is extreme l)'
awkw ard for White, as . . . 4J
(either) f3 is threatened) 8
. . . �e7+ 9 r3;ft (the endgame
is very pleasant for Black
w i t h his tw o extra ce ntre
paw ns) 9 . . . .Q.xfS 1 0 �xd4
4Jxh2+ 1 1 �xh2 �xh2 12 .Q.e3
(/9)
12 . . . tbe4 ( B l ack, now an
exchange to the good, e l ­
ects t o play t h e endi ng) 13
�xe4 � h 1 + ! 1 4 r3;e2 .Q.xe4 0-t
"Note the extra ce ntre
paw n" - Mestel .
6 4Jc6
7 �et
Th is is the l atest attem pt
at refutation , 7 ef .Q.xfS 8
�et+ r3;d7 9 c3 ( perhaps 9
.Q.e6+ .Q.xe6 10 f)xe6 r#h 4=
was better, but White m ust
sti ll be carefu l , e.g : 1/.Q.gS
(lg4 12 f3 'tjfS 13 .Q.xh6 gh I.J.
f);ttd4 'tjcS IS c31J.g 7+. How-
 Mestel 's Varia tion 29

ever, the entici ng- l ooki ng 9 8 .Q_xf4 �f6

fje6 ? seems to rebou nd, i .e. 9 tbd2 4Je5
9 . . . tjf6 10 �5 tjg6 11 tje2 Meckarov suggests 9 . . .
l!eB 121J,xh6 gh. Obv ious ly .Q.e7 ! ? , but I prefer the tex t .
not 12 . . . tbxh6? ? 13 4jc5+ . 10 .Q.e2 .Q.e7!
13 fjxfB+ l!hxfB 14 tjd2 1J.h3 Thi s is my i m provement,
IS 1J.f1 1J.xg2! 16 1J.xg2 !1gB taki ng advan tage of the
wi th w i n of materi al and l oosenes s of Wh ite's k i ng­
mate to fo l l ow, ' Lj u bo' - side pi eces . 10 . . . !lg 4? 1 1 f3
Kosten , M i ni tel 199 1 ) 9 . . . .Q.d7 12 !lg3 0-0-0 13 f4 + of
tbf6 t O tbb3 .Q.e7 1 1 4je6 �ab8 Parjalis - Arhi pki n , USSR
12 cd tbh4 13 4Jxg 7 4Jxd 4 1 4 1978 was al l wrong.
4Jxf5 4jhxf5 1 5 .Q.e6+ �d B+ 11 4jf3
(20) t t 4Ja3? 0-0 12 g3 4Jg6 +
or 12 .Q.xe5 de 1 3 4jf3 + .
20 "· " � ,., . . . 11 . . . 4Jxf3+
� �� �· �: 12 .Q.xf3 4jf71+
w w�w �� � .....
• ��s �
� �.w.� � 21
• • ••• w
� � � � ,
� - � , �. .

4- �
-�-
4- � .,..,1 � • �a,·..,� •
.
�. .,�

.db.�. � W$� � �.db.�. �

�
,� ,
�
�� '·
�� �����·��
, ��··�·�
�
�. .
��

(Adorja n - Mes tel , Moscow

1977) 16 �d3 4Jxe6 17 �xe6
( 1 7 �xfS? �f8 + ) 1 7 . . . �d 4
18 �b3 �f8 or 1 7 . . . �f8. The Bl ack menaces . . . 0-0 and
white attack may appear . . . 4Je5, or even , i n some
dangerous b ut, i n real ity, cases , . . . g5 and . . . h5 catc h­
he has yet to deve lop his i ng a bi s hop . For exam p l e,
queenside and Black's ki ng 13 4Ja3 .Q.d7 1 4 �ad t ( 1 4 4jc4
can hide safely beh i nd his 4je5) 1 4 . . . 0-0 15 !lg3 4Jg5
centre paw n s . 16 eS tbxf3 or 1 4 . . . g5 !? 15
7 ... f41 !lg3 h5 16 h3 g4 w i th an
Black must keep the e­ attac k .
fi le cl osed , 7 . .. fe? 8 4Jxe4
c[)eS 9 .Q.x h6 gh 10 f4 4jc4 1 1 c
4Jxd6+ ± . As he has a paw n 4 4jc3
more , B l ack can afford to Al though not partic u l ar­
return i t. ly pop ular, thi s m i g h t be
30 Mestel's Variation
Whi te's best.
4 •.. fel?
It might also be possible
to play 4 .•. 4Jf6 5 de c£)xe4
6 c£)xe4 fe 7 c£)g5 d5 8 e6
.Qc5 (or 8 ... .Qb 4+ 9 c3 and
then 9 ... .QcS) 9 c£)xe 4 .Qe7
10 �hS+ ( 10 c£)g5 .Qxg5 1 1
�h5+ g6 12 �xg5 �xg5 13
.Qxg5±) 10 ... g6 1 1 �e5 r!f8
12 c£)g5 .Qf6 13 �g3 �e7 14
.Qe2 h6 15 c£)f3 �g7 b u t I'm
not all that s u re abo u t this.
What i s certain i s that 4
. . . ed i s not good here: 5
�xd 4 fe ( 5 ... c£)c6 can be
answered by 6 .Qb5 here, i n
B this wo uld have l os t a
tempo as the bis hop had
already been devel oped) 6
.Qg5 c£)f6 7 c£)xe 4 .Qe7 8
0-0-0 ( or 8 .Qc4 c£)c6 9
�e3±) 8 ... o-o 9 c£)xf6+
.Qxf6 10 .Qc4+ �h8 11 .Qxf6
�xf6 12 �xf6 gf 13 c£)d 4 .Qd7
1 4 r!he1 c£)c6 15 c£)xc6 .Qxc6
16 r!e7 .Qxg2 ( Bl ack's posi­
tion w as pretty m iserable
in any case but this si mpl i­
fies White's task) 1 7 r!gt d5
1 8 .Qd3 .Qe 4 19 .Qxe4 fe 20
rlgg7 (22)
(Seventh rank absol u te!) 20
... r!fe8 21 r!xh7+ �g8 22
r!eg7+ �f8 23 r!xc7 1-0
Tseshkovsky - Inkiov. 5
c£)xd 4 has al so been p l ayed:
5 ... fe 6 �e2 d5? ? (6 .. c£)f6
i s fine, 7 c£)xe4 c£)xe4 8
�xe4+ �e7 or 7 .Qg5 .Qe7 8
c£)xe4 0-0) 7 �h5+ g6 8
�e5+ (oops!) 8 ... �e7 9
22
B
�xh8 c£)f6 10 .Qg5 �b4 11
�xf6 c£)d 7 1 2 �e6+ .Qe7 13
c£)b5 c£)f6 1 4 c£)xc7+ and
Black resigned a few moves
later, Al berts - Soria, Corr
1977. I feel that somew here
al ong the l ine, Black could
have saved h i mse l f a few
stamps!
5 c£)xe4 dS
6 �eS?I
Theory , b u t not best, in
my opinion. 6 c£)g3 e 4 ( may­
be 6 ... ed 7 �xd4 c£)f6 8
.Qg5 .Qe7 9 0-0-0 0-0 could
be tried : 10 .Qxf6 .Qxf6 11
�xd5+ �xd5 12 r!xd5 .Qe6 i s
uncl ear; and if 1 0 .Qd3 h6 !?.
However, White's lead in
development i s a bit dis­
turbing) 7 c£)e5 c£)f6 which
is Bird - Morphy, London
1858 , and now Keres' sugg­
estion 8 f3 ! looks good: 8
... ef 9 �xf3 .Qd6 10 .Qd3 0-0
11 0-0 c£)c6! ? 12 c£)xc6 bc:t/­
but 11 ... c£)e4 and 11 ... c£)bd7
might al so be pos sibl e, and
bet ter (or worse!).
6 ... de
7 �hS + g6

8 4Jxg6 hgl
For some odd reason
ECO prefers 8 . . . 4Jf6?? to
thi s . Let's see thei r analy­
si s : 9 tbe5 + �f7 ( 9 . . . !J..e 7 1 0
4Jxh8 4Jc6 1 1 !J..b 5 tbd5 12
!J..g5 ± Z ukertort) 1 0 fJ..c 4+
�g 7 1 1 !J.. h 6+ ( 1 1 4Jx h8 �x h 8
12 !J..gS !J..g 7 1 3 !J.. x f6 !J.. x f6 1 4
�xe4 4Jc6 1 5 0-0-0 i s not
bad either - Bi l g uer) 11 . . .
�x h6 1 2 4Jx h8 !J..b 4+ 1 3 c3
�x h8 1 4 cb w i th bi g ad van­
tage to Whi te. Th e q ues­
tion i s : w hy s hou l d Black
want to pl ay thi s?
9 tbxh8
At the l as t mo men t I
noticed that Whi te has an­
ot her i m portant pos sibi l i ty
here, and one that seem s to
have escaped everyone's
attentio n: 9 tbxgb+ ! ? Now 9
. . . �d7 1 0 �f5 + �e8 is a
forced draw i f Whi te wants
it - w hich is as wel l to
know i f you have to p l ay
for a w i n at al l cos ts w i th
the bl ack pieces ! And
Whi te can al so p l ay 1 1 tbe5+
!J..e 6! 12 �x h8 a l though I
thi nk B lack's two pieces
are better than the rook,
e.g . 12 . . . 4Jc6 13 !J..b 5 tbd5!
14 c4 ?! !J..b 4+ 15 �f1 �f5 16
d5 !J..c 5 17 � h 4 e3 w i th a
decisive attack .
9 ... !J..e6
10 �eS
"And w i th 'correct' p l ay
Wh i te s ho u ld rea lize his
advan tage" - Gips l is. But
Meste/'s Varia tion 31
isn 't B l ack better? He has
two knig hts for a rook and
two paw ns, and a targe t on
d4 . It is al so i mportan t
that the roo ks hav e no
open fi l e. So , let's l ook at
some con ti n uatio ns.
10 . . . tbdS
11 tbxdS
I n pri nci p l e, Whi te shou ld
want to excha nge q u eens,
and anyway 1 1 tbxc7 ? fJ..d 6 12
tbc3 4Jc6 ( menaci ng . . . !J..b 4)
13 a3 4Jxd4 i s al ready w i n n-
ing for B l ack .
11 . . . !J..xdS
12 !J..e3
12 c4? !J.. f 7 13 !J.. e3 !J..g 7 ( . . .
c5 a nd . . . 4Jcb are th reats)
1 4 �d1 4Jcb 1 5 !J..e2 0-0-0 ( o r
. . . 4Jge7-f5) + 1 6 dS 4Jb4
w i n n i ng a paw n . To make
hi s pi eces tru ly ope rational
B l ack needs to force some
weak ness and fi nd some
sq uares for them . For i n­
s tance, if White p l ays dS
then . . . e5 and . . . c5 become
usefu l posts for Bl ack's
knig hts.
12 ... . !J.g7
13 c3 4Jd7
14 !J..e2 4Jh6
Wh en B l ack intends
4jf5 , . . 0-0-0 ( or . . . �f7) , . . .
.
cS or wh atever seem s app­
ropriate. Reme mber, Bl ack
on ly has to w i n the ex­
change and he w i l l be a
pi ece u p!
Serious ly thou g h , w h en
pl ay i ng w i th two pieces
32 Mestel 's Varia tion
against a rook , it i s gener­
al ly i mportant to avoid ex­
changi ng the other rook.
D 10 gf .Q_d6! 1 1 t/1d2? ! .Qg3+
4 ef e4
5 4jg5 .Q.xfS
M ore sen sib l e than 5
4jf6 6 f3 t/1e7 7 .Q.e2 ef? 8
4jxf3 .Q_xf5 9 0-0 t/1d7 1 0 d5!
.Q.e7 11 4jd 4 .Q.g 4 12 �xf6!
wi th a cru shing advantage,
Vi tol i n s - Arhi pki n, USSR
1975 .
6 4Jc3 dSI
7 f3
"White has the better
posi tio n . It's al l so s i m p le
that i t' s difficu lt to find an
improvemen t for Bl ack" -
Gi ps l i s (or Larsen , i t's not
c l ear w h ich) . We l l , maybe.
What abou t:
7 ... e31?
8 .Q.xe3 h6
9 4Jh3
I think that 9 .Q.d3? ! j u s t
loses: 9 . . . .Q.xd3 tO tbxd3 ( 1 0
4je6 t/1d6 1 1 4jxf8 .Q.a6 + or 1 1
4jxd5 4Ja6 1 2 4Jxf8 �xd5 + )
10 . . . hg 1 1 t/1g6+ �d7 12
4Jxd5 4Je7 or 12 t/1f5+ �c6!
and B l ack sh o u l d be ab le to
consol idate hi s extra pi ece
wi thou t too many prob-
lems.
9 g41? is an i nteresti ng
a l ternati v e to the text.
Bl ack's bes t is 9 . . . hg ! , e.g.
w i th the fo l l owi ng pos si­
bi li ties: 1 2 hg �xh t 13 0-0-0
4jc6tX) or 12 �d t?! .Q_h 4 or 12
.Q_f2 .Q_f4 ( 1 2 . . . t/1e7 + is a l so
worth consi deration) . 1 1
t/1e2 is better, w hen 1 1 . . .
4Je7? ! 1 2 .Q.xg5 .Q.g3 + 13 hg
�x h1 1 4 4jxd5 4jcb looks
very dangerou s for Black
bu t may be p l ayab le and 1 1
. . �f8 12 0-0-0 c 6 1 3 tbd2
.
t/1c7 1 4 .Q.xg5 !!h S!? or 1 4 . ..
�xh2 i s very w i l d .
9 ... .Q_xh3
10 gh .Q.e7
11 .Q.f2
Or 1 1 �g 1 .Q_h 4+ 12 .Q_f2
.Q.xf2+ 1 3 �xf2 t/1h4+ 1 4 �g3
4Je7 15 �gt 0-0.
11 ... .Q.f6
12 t/1d2 4Je7
13 o-o-o 4Jbc6
Wi th reaso nab l e p l ay fo r
the paw n , a doub led h­
paw n at that.
It is difficu lt to be cata­
gorical , and there are many
grey areas , b u t I th i nk that
Mes tel 's variation is com­
p l ete ly viab le.
4) Larsen' s Variation -
Introduction
1 e4 eS
2 4jf3 d6
3 d4 ed
4 4jxd4 g6 (23)
23
w on the e- fi l e) or certain
In the l ate '60s Dani s h
Grand master Bent Larsen
evo l ved the p l an of fia n­
chettoi n g his ki ng's bis hop
after cap turi ng on d4. The
meri ts of this idea are
ev ident: B l ack i m mediate ly
pl aces his ki ng's bis hop on
the active at - h 8 diagonal
and can bri ng strong press­
ure to bear on the sq uares
d4 and c3. The di sadvan­
tage is that s ho u ld White
succeed i n exchangi ng thi s
bi shop the dark sq uares
around Black's ki ng can
become v ery v u l nerabl e.
The positi on s that res u l t
are s i m i lar i n many ways to
those of the Sicil ian Drago n
( the di fference bei ng that,
i n the Dragon Black exerts
pressu re on the c- fi le
w hereas here Black pres ses
variations of the Pi rc ( from
w hich identica l posi tions
often arise) .
It is not c l ear that, w i th
accurate play, Wh ite can
de monstrate any rea l ad­
vantage. Conversely, the
s l i g htest mistake on his
part can l ead to i m medi ate,
catastrophic con seq uences .
Before proceedi ng w i th
the analy sis of this posi ­
tion I wou ld me nti on that
it is also poss i b l e to p l ay
the k i ngs ide fi anchetto
after i nserti ng the moves 4
... 4jf6 5 4Jc3 ( and then 5 . . .
g6) . Thi s w i l l most like ly
tran spose i n to one of the
vari ations considered l ater,
but does depri ve Black of
so me of his more i n terest­
i ng pos sib i l i ti es in vo l vi n g
a n early ... 4jc6 . It does
al so al low Whi te to play 6
.Q.gS althoug h it i s not clear
34 Larsen 's Varia tion
that this i s so w onderfu l : 6
. . . �7 ( 6 . . . h6? ? 7 .Q.xf6
�xf6 8 �dS �d8 9 �bS �a6
10 t{rd 4± ) 7 t{rd2 h6 ( I t is
best to break the p i n i m m­
ediate ly , the game To m pa -
Hardicsay, Budapest 1 972 ,
co nti nued , i n ente rtai n i ng
fas hi o n : 7 . . . 0-0 8 0-0-0
�ea 9 f3 �c6 10 �xc6 - this
move has its dow nside as
we l l , Black can now u ti l ize
the b-fi le - tO . . . be 1 1 h 4 +
t{re7 t2 hS aS 1 3 hg fg 1 4
.Q.c4+ .Q.e6 15 .Q.xe6+ t{rxe6 1 6
g 4 a 4 1 7 a3 !!ab8 1 8 !!h2
�b7 - both s i des p repare
their attack s as q ui ck ly as
pos s i b l e , bu t perhaps some
defensive moves shou l d be
co ns idered - 19 !!d h 1 !!eb8
20 �xa4 (24)
24
B
20 . . . !!xb2! ? 21 �xb2 �xe 4!
22 fe .Q.xb2+ 23 �d1 t{rxg 4+
24 t{re2 t{rxgS 25 t{rd2 t{rg 4+
26 t{re2 �.l-112 a l tho ugh I
thi nk that B l ack is now
better) 8 .Q.f4 gS 9 �3 �hS
10 .Q.e2 ( 1 0 .Q.bS+ ! seems
better as if ei ther k ni g ht or
bi sh op goes to d7, Wh ite
w i l l p lay �fS, so : 10 . . . c6 t t
.Q.e2 �xg3 12 hg �fb t3 �d t
�xd 4 1 4 �xd4 .Q.xd4 15
�xd4 �e7 1 6 0-0 bS 1 7 a4
which l ed to some advan­
tage for Whi te in the game
Adorjan - Radu l ov , So fia
1970, b u t I don't l i ke B lack 's
deci sion to gi ve up h i s
da rk-sq uared bis hop, t 3 . . .
0-0 seem s better) tO . . .
�xg3 1 t hg �c6 12 .Q.bS .Q.d7
13 �de2 �f6 t 4 0-0 0-0-0
w hen Bl ack was fi ne, Henn­
i ngs - Rad u l ov , Siegen o l
1 970. O n the p l u s side,
Wh ite is no lo nger ab le to
p l ay c4, so any p l aye r who
is w orried abou t this pos s i ­
bi l i ty m ight profi tab ly be
ab le to p l ay this way .
Retu rni ng to the pos ition
after 4 . . . g6, Whi te can
p l ay ei ther:
A Others
B 5 c4
C S �c3
A Other White fifth moves
Moves other than 5 c 4 or
5 �c3 do n ot have any great
sig nificance, al most i nvar­
iab ly they w i l l trans pose
i n to variation C sooner or
later, as c3 is very much
the bes t sq uare fo r the
q u een's knight. Some ex­
amp les:
a) 5 g3 � 7 6 �2 �f6 7
0- 0 0-0 8 c4 �c6 9 �e2 .Q.eb
1 0 �d2 �hS 1 t h3 �eS t2 g 4

�f6 t J �c2 g5 1 4 �fJ �xfJ+
15 �xfJ �d7 1b �g3 �e5 17
.0.e2 �g6 18 �h5 �e5 1 9 �d 1
�f4 (25)
25
w 1 5 0-0-0 ef and . . . �h6 + ) 1 4
White's origi nal open i ng
plan has rebo u nded , B l ack's
fi rm gri p on the ki ngside
dark sq uares gi v i n g him the
edge, Csom - Morten so n ,
Biel 1978.
b) 5 �c4 !lg7 6 0-0 �f6
and at thi s poi nt, i n Kava­
lek - Larsen , San j u an 1969,
White cou l d fi nd nothing
better than 7 �cJ trans­
posi ng to secti on CJ.
c) 5 h41? Th is is not s u ch
a bad idea. I'm s u rprised
that it is not tried more
often; Kaidanov - Grabu sov ,
USSR 1975 , co nti nued 5 ...
.Q.g 7 6 h5 �c6 7 �eJ �ge7 8
�cJ �e5 9 �e2 ± , bu t more
sensi b l e ( to my m i nd at any
rate) is 5 ... �f6 6 �cJ !lg7 7
�e2 0-0 w i th a l i kely trans­
posi tion to one of the l ater
l i nes after 8 �e3, as 8 h5
�e8 9 hg hg 1 0 f3 dS l eaves
the w h i te ki ng l ooki ng
rather exposed i n the
Larsen 's Variation 35
midd l e. Two possi b l e co n­
ti n uations : 11 �hb de 12
�xg7 �xg7 13 fe? �h 8! and
it is B l ack who attack s o n
the h-fi l e! Or 1 3 �d2 �h8 1 4
0-0-0 ( not 1 4 �x h8? �x h 8
. .. �c6 1 5 �xc6 �xd2+ and
Black is fi ne.
B
5 c4 �7
6 �c3
Larsen reca l l s t hat one
of his biggest problems
w hen prepari ng this l i ne
was fi ndi ng a s u i tab l e an­
swer to 5 c4. It seems a l ­
mos t i nev i tab l e that the
game w i l l tran spose i n to
ei ther a l i ne of the Ki ng's
I ndian Defence ( variati on
B1) or a M odern Defence
(variation B2) w here Whi te
has , of co u rse, p l ayed c4.
At the mome nt the l i ne
B2 i s u nder a bi t of a c l o u d !
s o I recomm end l i ne Bt. I
do not rea l ly wan t to get
bogged dow n i n a detail ed
exami nati on of ei ther l i ne .
as they can b e fo u nd in
books on the specific open­
i ngs. It co u l d be arg u ed
that anyone w ho p l ays 1 e4
is u n l ikely to be co n versant
w i th 1 d 4 sidel i nes anyway .
and this probably exp l ai ns
w hy 5 c4 is rarely p l ayed.
B1
6 • • • �f6!
36 Larsen 's Varia tion
7 �e2
This i s the mos t so l i d
move, b u t 7 f3 i s not bad;
Black can effect a trans­
posi tion to a rare ly played
l i ne of the Sami sch Ki ng's
I ndian: 7 . . . 0-0 8 �e3 c6 9
�d2 (9 �e2 w i l l ret urn to
the mai n l i ne) 9 . . . d5 ! ( the
key to B l ack's cou nterp lay)
1 0 ed cd 1 1 0-0-0 ( // .Qe2
4)c6 12 cS. Obvious ly not
12 0-0? 4jxd 4 1 3 �xd4 de 1 4
�xc4 (26)
26
B of the most recent, at the
1 4 . . . 4je4 15 fe �xd 4+ +
Soos - janosev ic, Ti to vo
Uzice 1966 . 12 . . . l!eB and i f
13 0-0 then 13 . . . lf.,l(e3! is
agai n a transfer to a posi­
tio n further on) 11 . . . 4Jc6 12
�h6 ( Not 12 4Jxc6 be 13 cd
4Jxd5 1 4 4jxd5 cd 15 �xd5
�xd5 1 6 �xd5 �e6+ ) 1 2 . . .
�x h6 1 3 �xh6 �b6 = Por­
tisch - Gl igoric, So u sse 1 967.
Al ternati v e l y , 10 cd cd 1 1 e5
4Je8 1 2 f4 f6 13 �b5 fe 1 4 fe
�xe5 15 4jf3 .Qg7 16 0-0
4Jc6- Pac hman - Gl igoric,
Oberhausen 196 1 .
1 ... o-o
a o-o
8 �e3 i s also possible, 8
. . . �e8 9 f3 (9 �c2 is worse:
9 . . . �e7 1 0 f3 c6 1 1 �f2 4jh5
12 g3 4jd 7-e5 + , Si magi n -
Petros ian , M oscow 1 966) 9
. . . c6 ! ( B l ack's on ly hope for
a good positi on resi des i n
the pos sibi l i ty o f forci ng
thro ugh . . . d5 as soon as
possib le) 1 0 0-0 ( /0 rld2 dS
11 ed cd 12 0-0. 12 c5?! 4jbd7
13 c6 4Je5 1 4 cb �xb7 1 5 0-0
4jc4+ Si mag i n - Bed narskL
Z i n no w i tz 1 965. 12 0-0 w as
played i n the eleve nth game
time of w riti ng , at l east!,
match for the Worl d C ham­
pi on s h i p , trans posi ng from
the Ki ng's I ndian , of co u rse.
Kas parov not bei ng k now n
for h i s espousal of the
Ph i l idor's, as yet! 12 . . . fjc6
13 cS and n ow Kas parov u n ­
corked the screamer of a
move 13 . . . lJ,l(e3!. Only time
wi l l te l l how sound this
'shot' i s , but i t certain ly
does offer Black p l enty of
tacti ca l chances on the
da rk squ ares . 14 rlxe3 riFB
IS 4)xc6 be 16 'iflh l. I t was
i m porta nt to remove the
ki ng fro m the v u l nerab le
a7-g1 diagonal . /6 ... lfbB 17
fJa 4 !1b 4 /8 b3 .Qe6 19
fjb2 fJhS. In order to avoid
the fol l ow i ng draw, I tried
19 . . . �h 4 ? ! i n a recent bl i tz
ga me, w h ich co nti nued : 20
�f2 g5 21 g3 �h6 22 4jd3

�b8 23 f4 {)e4 24 �e3 �h3
25 fg �d4 26 �f4 �xf4 27
{)xf4 �xf1 28 rlxft {)xg3+
29 �g2 {)x ft 30 g h {)e3+
with a w i nnin g endgame,
bu t the p lay i s far from
perfect! 20 4)d3 l!h 4 21 �f2
�e 7 22 g4 (27)
27
B
22 !!act �d 4 was too risky
for Whi te, but now B l ack
decides to force a perpetual
check . 22 . . . .Q.d4! 23 tgxd4
l!xh2+ 24 ff;xh2 tgh 4+ ltl--'tl
Karpov - Kasparov , New
York 1990. Also 10 .Q.f2 dS 11
ed cd 12 0-0 4)c6 13 cS 4)h5
was l evel i n Tai manov -
Stei n , USS R C h 1965) 1 0 .. .
d5 1 1 cd {)xd5 ! 12 {)xd5 cd
13 �b3 {)c6 1 4 rlad1 �xd4 15
�xd4 {)xd 4 1 6 rlxd 4 thf6 17
�xdS? ( 1 7 tha4 �e6 18 !!fd l
de 19 fe 112-112 So l tan - Da n­
stru p, Corr 1987 w as better)
17 ... �e6 18 thcS rlec8 19
thb 4 aS 20 tha4 rlc2! ! (28)
21 �xc2 thxd4+ 22 rlf2 rlc8
23 thd 1 �xb2 24 �fl �cl ! +
Kl i nger - Dorfman , Be l ­
grade 1988.
8 ... rte8
Larsen 's Varia tion 37
28
w
9 f3
The only move to defend
the paw n , 9 thc2? {)xe4! 10
{)xe 4 �xd4 11 !lg5 f6 12
!!ad l fg 13 !!xd4 �f5 1 4 cS
{)c6 15 �c4+ �g 7 1 7 �c3
{)xd 4 17 �xd 4+ �h6 - + is
hopeless for White, Ro­
setto - Larse n, Am sterdam
IZ 1964.
9 ... c6
10 �h1
Thi s m ove w i l l be nec­
essary , sooner or l ater, to
avoid tactics i nv ol v i ng . . .
�b6+ ( xb2). 10 {)c2 {)a6 1 1
�h 1 w i l l reach the mai n l i ne
posi tio n, and 1 1 �f4 dS 12
ed cd 13 cd {)h5 1 4 �d2 {)c7
is unclear. 10 �e3 is co n­
sidered prev ious ly , b u t tO
�f4? attem pting to press­
urize d6 , backfi res horri bly :
10 ... {)hS! 1 1 �e3 fS 12 thd2
f4 13 �f2 �eS ( B l ack has
arti fi cia l ly created a strong
poi n t on eS, and White is
al ready in a bad w ay) 1 4
rladt thf6 1 5 {)b3 {)g3! (29)
16 hg fg 1 7 �e3? ! �h 4 1 8
�fe 1 .Q.f4 ! 0- 1 for 1 9 .Q.xf4
38 Larsen 's Varia tion

13 ed cd
29 14 cS 4Jh5
w 15 �d2
If i nstead 15 g 4 ? ! then 15
... �xe3 16 4Jxe3 4jf4 is co n­
cei vab le e.g : 17 4jg2 c£)xg2
1 8 �xg2 d4 and 4jd5co.
15 . . . d4! (30)

30
w
�h2+ 20 �f1 �h1 i s mate,
and other tries l ose a great
deal of material , Porath -
G l igoric, Neta nya 1965.
10 . . . �a6!
The kni g h t is com i ng to
c7 to lend s u pport to the
d5 break. Once this is
successfu l ly acco m p l is hed, 16 -'lxd4 -'lfS
Black w i l l have free p l ay 17 4je4
for al l his p ieces. C l early forced .
11 4jc2 4jc7 17 . . . 4je6
12 -'le3 18 �ad1
12 -'lf4 i s s ti l l of do ubtfu l It m ay have been better
val ue, 1 2 . . . d5! 13 cd cd 1 4 to p l ay the other rook here.
-'lxc7 �xc7 1 5 ed �f4! , H u z­ 18 . . . 4jxd4
man - Epi s h i n , USSR 1987. I 19 4jxd4 �h4!?
l i ke this l as t move w hich The vari ati on 19 . . . ,.O.xe4-
emphasizes Bl ack's control 20 fe !!xe4 21 4jf3 is ass­
over the cen tral dark essed as ± in Informato r
sq uares . In my o pi n io n , 49, bu t after 21 ... �xd2 22
B l ack has am p l e co mpen­ !!xd2 4jf4 23 -'ldt 4Jeb I
sation for the pawn. One think that ; is more acc­
i l l u strative l i ne: 1 6 4jd 4? urate!
4jh5 ! 17 4jdb5 ( there are no 20 �et �f41?
dark squares i n the m idd le 20 ... �xet 21 �fxet ,.O.xe4
on which the w h i te k n ig hts 22 fe �xe4 is eq ua l .
can fee l safe) 17 . .. -'le5 1 8 21 g3 �e3
g3 4Jxg3+ 19 h g �xg3 20 f4 Wi th a l evel position , L
-'lh3 2 1 -'lf3 -'lxf 4 + ) . Hansen - Epi s h i n , Warsaw
12 . .
. dS 1990. I t is evident that

B l ack cou l d have reac hed a
ba la nced endgame at seve­
ra l moments , but fe l t that
hi s pos i tion j u sti fied a
more ambiti ous approac h .
Looki ng throug h these
ga mes makes me wo nder
why thi s l i ne is not more
pop u l ar w i th Ki ng's I ndi an
players . It appears that
Wh ite is u nab le to prev ent
Black l iq uidati ng the ce ntre
after w hich the b l ack b i s h­
op tucked away on g 7 ex­
erts a powerfu l i n fl uence
on the ce ntre , w hereas the
two w h ite bi s hops see m a
l i ttle exposed, naked eve n ,
when t h e e- and d- fi l es are
opened .
B2
6 4jc61?
Thi s is better than 6
4Je7? ! because 7 �S is
an noy i ng ; obvio u s ly 7 . . . f6
8 �e3 i s n ot the k i ng side
pa w n formati on that Black
desires.
7 �e3
It doesn't make a l ot of
sense to take on c6 : 7
4Jxc6?! be 8 cS 4Je7 9 cd cd
10 �f4 �aS! is an analy s i s
o f Larse n's and i s cl early
good for Black .
7 ... 4Jge 7
It is al so pos sib l e to play
7 . . . 4jf6 here, bu t I ' m not
so keen on this. Rigo - Le h­
m an n, Lei pz ig 1977, con ti n­
ued: 8 fJ 0-0 9 �e2 �d7 10
Larsen 's Varia tion 39
0- 0 a6 11 �d2 !le 8 1 2 !!act
�b 8 ± .
8 h41?
Kasparov b lew the E ng­
l i s h Grandmaster SpeeJ man
aw ay at Barcel ona 1989
w i th this thru st, so I have
taken i t as my mai n l i ne.
The mai n al ternati ve , 8
�e2, is sol id a nd good; 8 . . .
0-0 9 0-0 ( 9 g4 ,{J.e6! De­
spite the fi ne pos i tio n
Se irawan had i n thi s posi­
tion i n his game ag ai ns t
Nau m k i n , Moscow 1990, he
decided to essay 9 . . . fS !? 1 0
g f g f 1 1 ef 4Jxd4 ! 12 �xd 4
4JxfS 1 3 �xg 7 4Jxg 7 i n stead ,
w hen h e w as again w e l l
p l aced a l t hough his k i ng
was a li ttle exposed . 10
f!g1 4)xd4 11 1J.xd4 4)c6 12
.{J.xg7 f!Jxg7 /3 rld2 rlh4 +, D
Gurev ich - Seiraw an , USA
Ch 1987 . If, i nstead , 9 rld2
fS 10 ef 1J.xd4 11 1J.xd4 4)f5
12 1J.e3 4)xe3 13 rlxe3 1.24
D l ugy - Seiraw an , USA Ch
1987 , but 9 h4 i s al toge ther
m ore dangerou s , w he n the
game Vi l el a - Popc he v, A l ­
bena 1989, l ed to a big ad­
van tage for Wh i te after 9
. . . 4)xd4 10 1J.xd4 1J.xd4 11
�xd4 1J.e6 12 0-0-0 4)c6 13
rle3 fS 14 ef .{J.xfS IS g4!,
bu t 9 . . . fS wou l d hav e bee n
more of a tes t of Wh i te's
aggression) 9 . . . fS (this is
B lack's o n ly attempt to get
seri ou s co unterplay and,
i ndeed , Whi te m u s t be
40 Larsen 's Varia tion
carefu l ) 10 4Jxc6 ( the ob­
vio u s /0 ef? al l o w s /0 . . .
1J.,'t(d4! 11 1J.xd4 fjxfS 12 1J.e3
4Jxe3 13 fe+ (31)
31
B now 1 4 eS wo u l d have bee n
Indeed , this i s s uc h a wel l
di sg ui sed trap that ev en
very stro ng Grandmasters
have been k no w n to fal l
i n to i t! Tw o recent ex­
amp l e s : 13 . . . f!,'t({/+ ?! 14
�xf1 1J.e6 IS �f4 �e 7 /6 l!fl
l!eB 17 1J.g4 fjdB /8 1J.xe6+
4Jxe6=- Ta l - Az maiparas h­
vi l i , A l be na 1984 , and /6 . . .
a6 1 7 1J.g 4 1J.f7 18 .Qf3 l!fB.
1 8 . . . gS i s best . 1 9 fJdS
JJ.xdS 20 JJ.xdS+ �g 7 21
�xfB+ �xfB 22 l!xfB �xfB
23 1J.xe6 be 24 b4!:t Po l u­
gaev s ky - Ermenkov , Ma­
jorca 1989 . Strangely , Wh i te
won both gam e s ! O f co u rse,
the re l ati ve s trengths of
the p l ayers at the ti me -
abou t 1 00 poi n ts m ore fo r
the W h i tes - may have had
so meth i ng to do w i th it!
Anyway , 1 3 . . . .!l,e6 ! i s better ,
and co n serves B l ack's p l u s .
10 �d2 i s a so u nd al terna­
tive , al thoug h /0 . . . fe 11
4J,'t(e4 fjfS 12 4J,'t({S JJ.,'t({S 13
4Je3 �f6 14 l!fdl �hB
shou l d be eq ual ) 10 . . . be 1 t
.!l,f3! �b8 12 �d2 cS 13 !l.gS
�d7 , Lp utian - Az maipar­
as hv i l i , Erev an 1989 , and
s tro ng .
Apart from 8 .!l,e2, 8
4Jxc6!? has a l so been
played by Po l u gaev sky , pre­
s u mab ly i n an attempt to
i mprov e the open i ng he had
agai n st Ermenkov . Az mai­
parashvi l i was , agai n , the
p l ayer of the b l ack pieces
at Reykjav i k 1990, and the
game progressed: 8 . . . be 9
.!l,d 4 0-0 ( B l ack pl ayed di ff­
eren tly agai n st Kn aak , Ber­
l i n 1989: 9 . . . 1J.,'t(d4 10 �,'t(d4
0- 0 /I eS de 12 �xeS �d6 13
�xd6 ed b u t the on ly
change i s the posi tion of
the k i ng on g 7 an d the
paw n on f6 . The best move
here, thoug h , is 9 . . . f6! 10
eS! dS 11 1J.e2 0-0 12 0-0 and,
accordi ng to Seirawan, 12 . . .
.!l,e6 w ou l d hav e been eq ua l
i n his game agai n st A l b urt ,
US Ch 1990) 10 .Q.xg 7 �xg7
1 1 �d4+ f6 12 cS de 13 �xcS
�d6 1 4 �xd6 w i th a s l ig h t
edge for Whi te . Howev er, 8
. . . 4Jxc6 i s more natura l ,
and fo l l owi ng 9 .!l,e2 0-0 tO
0-0 fS 1 1 ef .Q.xfS , say , Bl ack
has an acti ve po si tion. 9 cS
can be si mply answered by
9 . . . de 10 �xd8 4Jxd8 t t
.!l,xcS 4Je6 - and 9 �d2 .Q.e6
 Larsen 's Variation 41
10 �e2 �d7 11 0-0 0-0 w as 10 ef 4)xf5
fi ne for B l ac k i n Y akovich - 11 4)xf5 �xfS
Kan ts l ar, Uzhgorod 19B7 ; . . . 12 tWd2 �d7?
f5 i s comi ng . 1 2 . . . tWf6!? was a better
8 h6?1 choice.
Kas parov co nsiders this 13 o-ot o-o-o? !
dubio u s , and certai n ly it B l ack cast l es qu een side,
does seem that i f B l ack where his ki ng w i l l have
wi shes to p l ay f5, then . . . more paw n cover, but i t i s
h6 first fu rt her weakens hi s not eno u g h to save hi m .
ki ng side . O n the other 14 b41 (32)
hand , the i m mediate . .. f5
al so has its drawbacks : B . . . 32
f5! ? 9 h5 fe 10 h g ( thi s app­ B
ears to be stronger than 10
4)xe 4 4)f5 1 1 !lg5 �d7 12
4)f6+ �xf6 1 3 �x f6 0-0 1 4
4)xf5 tWxf5 1 5 �d 4 �e4+ 16
�e3 4)b4 1 7 �et �f5 w hich
is very wi l d , Vaga nian -
Mestel , Hastings 1 974/5) 1 0
. . . 4Jxg6 11 �d2 4)xd 4 1 2
�xd4 4)e5 1 3 4Jxe4 tWe 7 1 4 14 4)xb4?!
0-0-0± , w hen the b l ack 15 4)b51 4)c2
ki ng positio n looks very 16 �f31 dS
wi ndy , Bo nsch - Az m aipa­ 17 �xdS 4)xa1
ras hvi l i , Dortm u nd 1990 . B l ack fi na l ly decides to
9 �e2 take the rook , w h ich has
9 �d2 a l so has i ts poi n t s : bee n o n offer for severa l
9 . . . 4)e5 1 0 0-0-0 a6 ( 1 0 . . . moves , but i n return h e w i l l
4)7c6 can't be worse, b u t have to gi ve up his q ueen to
after 1 1 f3 �e6 1 2 4Jxe6 fe 1 3 avoid mate.
�e2 �e7 1 4 f 4 4)f7 1 5 �f3 a6 18 4)xa7+ �b8
16 tWc2 White had a cl ear 19 tWb4 tWxdS
pl u s i n We steri ne n - Wah l ­ 1 9 . . . c5 20 �f4+! �aB 21
bo m , Gau sdal 1 97B) 11 �e2 tWa5 is curtains.
�d7 12 �b t h5 1 3 f3 c6 1 4 20 cd 4)c2
4Jb3 �e6 1 5 tWxd6 �xd6 16 And the game fi ni shed : 21
�xd6 �xc4 17 4)a5! ± Pod­ tWa5 4)xe3 22 fe �heB 23
gaets - Az mai paras hvi l i , 4)b5 �xd5 24 tWxc7 + �aB 25
Hai fa 19B9 . tWa5+ 1-0.
9 fS These two varia ti ons
42 Larsen 's Varia tion
seem to fairly refl ect the
state of the two openi ngs
at present: w hereas the
Ki ng's I ndian has a good
rep utatio n , and even ho l ds
i ts own at Worl d Cham­
pi o n s h i p l evel ( w hen played
by Kas parov , a t least! ) , the
Modern s ti l l has a do ubtfu l
l oo k abo ut i t. Eve n great
con noi sseurs of the Mo­
dern Defence l i ke Az mai­
parashvi li seem to l ose an
aw fu l l o t o f games w ith
Black .
c 6
5 �c3 flg7 (33)
33
w Bl ack has bee n succe ss­
Thi s i s , i n effect , the
s tarti ng pos i tion for Lar­
se n's variati on , as 5 �c3 is
by far the most pop u l ar
choice.
Now there are the fo l l ­
ow i ng pos sibi l i ti es :
et 6 gJ
C2 6 .Q.e2
CJ 6 .Q.c4
C4 6 .Q.f4
The bes t move, 6 .Q.e3 , i s
co ns idered i n the nex t
chapter.
Wh i l st wri ting thi s sec­
tio n , it occu rred to me that
6 .Q.d3! ? is not as ri dicu l ous
as it l oo k s , for 6 . . . .Q.xd4 7
.Q.bS+ c6 8 �xd4 is clearly
better for White. 6 . . . �c6 7
�xc6 be 8 0-0 �b8 might
be Black's best, h i s centre
i s s trong and the press ure
on the b- fi l e aug men ts tha t
al ong the at- h8 diagonal .
et
g3 �c6
7 .Q.e3 �f6
a hJ o-o
9 flg2 �ea
fu l w i th 9 . . . �eS in prac­
tice : tO 0-0 a6 ( 10 . . . �e8 1 1
b3 c6 1 2 �et �c7 1 3 a4 �ed7
t4 �d2 �cS tS .Q.h6 aS 16 g 4
.Q.h 8 1 7 �adt .Q.d7 1 8 .Q.f4
�ad 8 and i nstead of 19 gS? .
Raj as - Dreev , Pari s 198 4 .
w h e n Wh i te was strugg­
li ng , 19 !lg3 was eq ual ) 1 1
a4 �b 8 1 2 �et �e 8 13 f4? ( 1 3
b3 firs t) 13 . . . �c 4 1 4 .Q.c 1
cS! 15 �b3 .Q.e6 16 �h 2 bS 1 7
ab ab t 8 eS b4! (34)
19 �dS ( 1 9 ef be 20 fg cb
wi l l w i n a paw n) 19 . . . �xdS
20 .Q.xdS .Q.xdS 21 �xdS �bb
22 �f3 de + Oi m - Ta l , Vi l­
jandi 1 972. However, de­
spite this , I thi nk the tex t
i s better.
to o-o .Q.d 7

34
w 17 .Q.f4 �aS 1 8 �d3 �b 4 19
10 . . . 4jxd 4 w orked o u t
q u i te w e l l i n the game
Byrne - Larsen , Lu gano 1979 :
1 1 .Q.xd 4 .Q.d7 12 tbd3 .Q.c6 13
!!fet w hen accord ing to
Larsen , either . . . 4Jd7 or . . .
aS were eq ual , instead : 13 . . .
!!e7? 1 4 !!e3 �f8 15 �ae1
4jd7 16 .Q.xg7 tbxg 7 17 b4
was better for Whi te. B l ack
s hou l d be fi ne provided he
ca n restrai n the w h i te e­
paw n i n the sty l e o f Ni mzo­
wi tsch .
The pos ition after 10 . . .
.Q.d7 i s one I'v e had myse l f,
bu t from a Pi rc de fence; I
fee l that B l ack's resou rces
are su fficent.
11 !let a6
12 a4
Instead 1 2 f4 4Jxd4 13
.Q.xd4 cS 14 .Q.xf6! ? .Q.xf6 15
�xd6 .Q.d4+ 16 �h2 !le6 17
�dS !lb6 gi ves B l ack great
p l ay for the paw n , Byrn e -
Christi ansen , USA Ch 198 4.
12 . . . 4Jb4
The weake ned b4 i s a
tem pti ng s i te for a k night,
bu t 1 2 . . . 4Ja5!? is a l so i n-
Larsen 's Varia tion 43
teres ting: 13 g 4 cS 1 4 4Jde2
.Q.c6 1 5 4Jg3 �b6 16 �b1 4jc4
4Ja2 tbxa4 20 4Jc3 �b4 2 1
4Ja2 �bS 22 4jc3 4Jxb2 +
Wockenfuss - Pl askett, Lu­
ga no 1986.
13 tbd2 cS
14 4Jb3 .Q.c6 (35)
35
w
The idea of taki ng on d 4
and then p l ayi ng c 5 i s a
very com m on one i n the
Ph i l idor. Here it so l ves al l
B l ack's prob l e m s . 15 .Q.f4
wou l d now have bee n leve l .
as i t was, Sek - Ksi es k L
Po l and 1981 , co nti nued 15 f3
�c7 16 4je2 �ad8 1 7 c3 d5 1 8
.Q.f4 �b6 19 e S 4Je4 ! with a
powerfu I i n i tiati ve .
C2
6 .Q.e2
Thi s i s rather i n si pid.
6 ... 4jc6
7 .Q.e3 4jf6
a o-o o-o
9 !let
If i n stead 9 �d2 !leB t O
4Jxc6 be 1 1 .Q.f3 .Q.b 7 we
reac h the iden tica l pos i tion
44 Larsen 's Varia tion
to o ne that arose i n Spass­
ky - Larse n , M a l mo 1 968,
from a Three Knig hts
ga me. ( Incidenta l ly , a word
of advice for anyone p l an n­
i ng to w rite a book about a
particu l ar open i n g ; avoid
those open i ngs that can
ari se from a n u m ber of
di ffere nt move orders , as
you w i l l spend al l yo ur
ti me wo nderi ng w hether
the pi eces real ly are on the
rig ht sq uares ! ) Back to the
ga me: 12 !l,h6? ( 1 2 �fe t was
correct) 12 . . . !l,x h6 13 �x h6
�eS ! 1 4 !lae1 cS 1 5 !le3 �e7
16 �fe1 �ae8. Th is deserves
a diagram (36). Al most al l
the pieces o n the board are
ei ther defending or attac k­
i ng ( restra i n i ng) the e­
paw n . I am s ure t hat N i m­
zo wi tsch w o u l d have e n­
joyed this game very m uch .
36
w posi tion.
17 h 4 �e6 1 8 �f4 ( Wh i te
fai l s to fi nd the bes t
chance, 1 8 b3! ) 1 8 . . . �g7 19
bJ h6 20 �g3 �d7 21 �f4
!l8e7 22 4jdS? ( 22 !l3e2 gS
23 hg hg 24 �g3 g4 25 !le3
�f8 26 !l,d1 was only a l i ttle
pl us for Black ) 22 . . . .Q.xdS
23 ed gS! 24 hg hg 25 �g3
�fS 26 c4 !lxe3 27 fe !leS 28
!l,d 1 �d3 29 !l,f3 �c3 30 �h2
aS ( Bl ack has posted al l h i s
pi eces o n b l ack sq uares
w h ic h guara ntees that the
l i g ht-squared bishop wi 1 1
not be a probl em ) 31 �h l
�f8 32 !lf1 �xe3 33 �h3
�g 7 34 g3 �d4 35 g4 a4 36
!l,d t !le3 37 �g2 !ld3 38 .Q.e2
!ld2 39 ha �eS 0- 1 .
9 !le8
10 4jxc6 be
I thi nk that thi s ex­
ch ange te nds to favo u r
Black more t h an Wh i te , the
b- fi l e and ex tra con t ro l
over the cen tre can be ver)
us efu l .
11 .Q.f3 4Jd7
12 �d2 !l,a6
13 !lad1 �b8
Black has a very p l eas an t
14 b3 tbb4
15 4jb1 �xd2
And after some u ps and
do w ns B l ack ach ieved a
draw , Karpo v - Keene, Bad
La utenberg 1977. To score
1l:z out of 2 Whites i s no t an
i mpres sive resu l t from two
s uch strong players as
Spas sky and Karpov . There­
fore we ca n s urmise that b
!l,e2 is not parti cu larl)
tro u b l esome.

C3
6 �c4
A l og ica l and agg ressive
move, bu t the b i s hop may
fi nd i tse l f more than a
l i ttle exposed here .
6 ... 4jc6!
It i s al so pos sib l e to p l ay
6 . . . 4jf6 bu t I don' t t h i n k
that t h i s pu ts Wh i te's move
to the tes t: 7 0-0 0- 0 8 �5
h6 9 �h 4 4jc6 (9 . . . a6? !
see ms a tri f l e s l ow , and i n
the ga me Bru stman - Lan­
dry , Du bai o l 1 986 , B l ack's
subsequ ent p l ay did not
exact ly hel p matters : 10 f4
�eB 1 1 �xf6 �xf6 12 4jd5
�dB 13 f5 gS 1 4 �hS c5 15
�x h6 �xe 4 16 f6 �g6 17
4Je7+ �xe7 and 1 -0 before
Wh i te co u l d p l ay 1 8 �xg6+)
10 4Jxc6 be 1 1 �f3? ( a m i s­
take that a l l o w s B l ack to
take the i ni tiati ve, 1 1 f 4
keeps u p the pressure ,
w hen after 1 1 . . . �eB Larsen
assesses the po siti o n as
u nclear) 1 1 . . . gS! 1 2 �3
4Jg 4 13 �ad 1 4Je5 1 4 �e2 aS
15 �xeS �xeS 16 �d3 'l;g 7
17 g3, Kav alek - Larse n , San
j uan 1969 , and now 17 . . . g 4
was + .
7 �e3
As u s ua l , 7 4Jxc6 o n ly
he lps B l ack by streng the n­
i ng h i s ce ntre and open i ng
up the b-fi l e : 7 . . . be 8 0-0
( 8 �f4? wi l l transpose to
Hazai - Sax in C4) 8 . . . �b B!
(this move very m u ch app-
Larsen 's Varia tion 45
eal s to m e , but many other
mov es are pos sib l e ; Larsen
hi mse l f p l ayed 8 . . . fje 7,
agai nst Brow ne , San j u an
1969, and i n his an notations
suggests 8 . . . �e6!? - bu t
not 8 . . . 4jf6? 9 e5 ! de 1 0
�xdB+ 'l;xd8 t t �xf7 . Afte r
8 . . . 4Je7 t h e g ame pro­
ceeded 9 f4 1J.e6 10 1J.d3 '/jd7
11 '(jf3 fS 12 1J.d2 0-0 13 l!ael
l!ae8= ) 9 f4 (accordi ng to
Hardi ng , 9 �b3 � h 4 ! ? 10
�f3 4jf6 1 1 eS de 12 tbxcb+
�d7 13 �xc7 0-0 w i l l give
B l ack enoug h co mpensa-
ti o n for the paw n s - afte r
14 �xeS - that he has sac­
ri fi ced , bu t this i s not so.
The w h i te pos i tion is so l i d,
and he i s not rea l l y be h i n d
i n deve lop ment; 9 . . . �eo or
9 . . . 4Je 7 are better) 9 . . .
�h 4 ! to �dJ 4Jh6! ( hi g h l)
ori gi na l deve lopment, t he
knight threate ns to come
to g4 w h i l st keep i n g the
dark squared bishop's dia­
gonal ope n) 11 h 3 0-0 12 b3?
( White doesn't rea l ize the
danger he is i n , now Bl ack
forces the wi n w i th some
neat tactics) 12 . . . dS ! (37)
13 ed cd 1 4 �xdS �fS 15 �f3
c6 ! 16 �xc6 �4! 1 7 hg �d 4+
18 �e3 4Jxg 4 1 9 �xg4 �xe3+
0- 1 Sherma n - j Li ttl ewood,
Lo ndo n 1 973 .
7 ... 4Jf6
A game of m i ne, from
the An ti bes se m i-rapi d
tou rnam ent 1 99 1 , took a
46 Larsen 's Varia tion
37
w pi ece) 1 1 . . . be 12 ed ( 12 !l,e2
di fferen t co urse: 7 . . . 4Jge7
8 0-0 4)e5! 9 !l,b3 0-0 ( now
Wh ite has two threa ts to
worry abo ut, . . . 4)g 4 and . . .
c5 - c4) 1 0 !lg 5 h6 1 1 !l,h 4
gS ! 1 2 !lg3 4)7g6 ( by co n­
trol l i ng f4 Black secu res
the fu ture of the knig h t o n
eS) 13 4jf5 !l,xf5 1 4 e f 4jf4 15
!l,xf4 gf 16 �h5 c6 ( playing
. . . c6 and . . . d5, Black can
use his extra ce ntre paw n
to sh ut out the w hi te bis h­
op) 1 7 nad1 dS 1 8 4)e 4 4jd 7!
19 4jc3 �gS 20 �xg5 hg 21
�fe1 �fe8 22 �f1 .Q.xc3 ! ? 23
be 4jb6 24 h4 g h 25 �d 4
�xel + 26 �xe1 cS 27 nxf4
c 4 w i n ni ng .
a f3 o-o
9 �d2
Whi te s h o u l d make haste
to castl e q ueenside , as ev­
idenced by the game Karo ly
- Tompa, H u ngary 1978: 9
a3? ! ( p l ayed p res u m ably i n
order to pres erve h i s k ing's
bi s hop on the a2-g 8 diago­
na l sh ou l d B l ack p l ay . . .
4)e5 or . . . 4)a5) 9 . . . �e8 10
�d2 dS ! 11 4)xc6 ( 11 4jxd5?
4jxd5 12 !l,xd5 ? 4jxd 4 13
!l,xd4 �xd5 w i n s a whole
is an i m provemen t, bu t 12
. . . de 13 �xdB �xdB 1 4 fe
�b8 is s ti l l cl ea rly better
for B l ack ) 12 . . . !l,h6 13 4jd t
cd 1 4 !l,b5 �xe3+ ! 15 4)xe3
d4 16 �d l tf1e7 17 tbxd 4 !l,xe3
( w i n ning, of cou rse, bu t
miss i ng the prettier tactics
17 . � . .Q.d7! 18 .Q.xd7 .Q.;"e3 19
rld3 4)xd7 20 rlxd7 .Q.d2++!
(38)
38
w
Cu tti ng off the w h i te
quee n from her defender.
20 rle4 l/e8 is also w i n ni ng)
1 8 �dB+ �xd 8 19 nxd8+ �g7
20 !l,a6 !l,b7 21 �xa8 !l,xa8 22
�e2 .Q.d4 + .
9 ••• a6
10 o-o-o 4Je51
The pos ition is simi l ar to
those of the next chapter
but wi th the di fference
that Wh i te ki ng's bi shop i s
o n c 4 . This a l l ow s B l ack to
gain a v i tal te mpo. 1 0 . . .
ne8 is al so a good move .
but 10 . . . 4jxd 4 is a mi stake.
Hoiberg - Soerenso n, Ph ja

1986 , conti n u ing: 1 1 .Q.xd4 bS
12 .Q.dS 4:Jxd5 1 3 .Q.xg7 �xg7
1 4 4:)xd5 f6 ? ! 15 g4 .Q.e6 16
4:)f4 .Q.f7 1 7 h4 w hen B l ack
was in bi g trou b l e .
11 .Q.e2
The bis hop m u st l eave
the a2-g8 diagonal , as 1 1
.Q.b3? ( 1 1 .Q.dS? c6 12 .Q.b3 cS
al ters nothi ng - except the
n u m ber of moves played !)
t t . . . cS! 1 2 4:)d e 2 c 4 1 3 f 4 ( 1 3
.Q.a4 b S i ncarcerates the
bi shop) 13 . . . cb 1 4 fe 4:)xe 4!
tS 4:)x e4? ba (39) is eas i ly
wi n n i ng for B l ack, no pow­
er on earth wi th be ab l e to
stop the a- paw n fro m be­
com i ng a q u een .
11 . . . bS
12 h4
Black wi l l treat 12 g 4 i n
the sa me man ner; bu t the
attempt to avoid w hat fo l l ­
ow s , 1 2 4:)d5 l oses i n an u n­
us ual way : 12 . . . cS ! 1 3 4:)xf6+
( 1 3 4:)b3 i m mediatel y makes
l i ttle di fference: 13 . . . 4:)c 4!
t4 .Q.xc4 be 1 5 4:)a5? 4:)xd5 16
�xdS �xaS 17 �xa8 �xa2 -
17 . . . c3 may wi n even more
Larsen 's Varia tion 47
q u ic k l y - 1 8 c3 .Q.d7 t9 �dS
�a t+ w i th a devastati ng
attack) 13 . . . .Q.x f6 1 4 4:Jb3
4:)c 4 ! 1 5 .Q.xc4 be 16 4:Ja5 ( 40)
( t 6 4:)a1 c3 1 7 be �aS + )
16 . . . c3?! 1 7 �xd6 cb+ t 8 �b t
�xaS t9 �xf6 .Q.e6 20 �dS
.Q.xdS 2t ed �dB ! guardi ng
the ki ngs ide dark sq uares .
w hen Bl ack s hou l d be ab le
to make hi s materia l ad­
vantage cou n t w i thou t too
many prob l e m s , b u t 16 . . .
.Q.e6 ! is probab ly ev en more
effective as i t i s not poss­
ible to stop . . . c3 or . . . �bo
on the next move , w hen
Wh i te ca n happi ly res i g n .
12 cS!
13 4:Jb3 c4 !
14 4:Jd4 b4
15 4:)d5 4:)xd5
16 ed �as (41)
Accord ing to my analy­
sis , B l ack has a deci sive
attack, e.g : 17 .Q.h6 c3 or t 7
c3 �xa2 1 8 cb .Q.d7, mena­
ci ng . . . .Q.a 4 and . . . �at
mate. The l i nes demon­
strate the catastrophes
awai ti ng any u ns us pecti ng
48 Larsen 's Varia tion
41
w �b 8 16 c3 cd 1 7 �xdS �c8 1 8
w h i te p l ayer s h o ul d he
co m m i t the v ery s l i ghtes t
s l i p- u p agai n s t Ph i l idor's
Defe nce.
C4
6 .Q.f4
Th i s has the same agg­
ressive i ntentions as 6 .(le3
( w hich i s the s u bject of the
next chapter) . However, 6
.(lf4 s u ffers the handicap
that i t fai l s to defend d 4,
wi t ho u t a ny co m pe nsati ng
advan tages .
6 ... 4jc61
Agai n , this is the mos t
perti nent re ply . 6 . . . 4jf6 is
pos s i b le : 7 ttd2 0-0 (7 . . .
4Jc6 8 4Jxc6 be 9 0-0-0 .(le6
to .(lh6 0-0 t 1 .(lxg7 �xg 7 t2
h4 h5 13 f3 �b8 1 4 .(le2 ±
jansa - Cas tro, Mal ta 1980)
8 0-0-0 �e8 9 f3 4Jc6 tO
4Jxc6 ( b u t not 1 0 .(lh6?
4Jxe4! ) tO . . . be tt eS! ? (This
i s the i dea be hi nd 6 .(lf4,
b u t i t's not parti cu l arly
terri fyi ng, tt .(lc 4 .(le6? - t t
�b 8 i s better, i n H ardi ng's
opi nion - 12 .(lxe6 �xe6 13 e5
4jdS - 13 . . . 4je8 looks
sounder - 14 4Jxd5 cd 15 ed
�d3 �e2 19 �xd6 ! + Byk­
hov s ky - Pripis , USS R 1973)
1 1 . . . 4jd5 12 4Jxd5 cd 13
!lg5! ( th i s is stronger than
13 tbxd5 �b8 14 c3 .(lxeS !
w i t h the attack , not 1 4 . . .
tbd7? 1 5 ed .(lb7 16 �aS cd 1 7
.(lc4 �bc 8 18 �xd6 + Zatu­
lowskaja - Kus hnir, Match
1971) 13 .. �d7 1 4 �xdS �b8
1 5 .Q.f6 .Q.xf6 1 6 ef and now .
i n s tead of 16 . . . �e6 1 7 �xeb
�xe6 18 �d5± , Tal - Larse n.
2nd Match game 1969, Lar­
sen says that i t was a
s hame that he di d not p i a)
16 . . . tba4 1 7 .(lc 4 ! ? .Q.eb 1 8
�d2, threaten ing tbhb, 1 8
. . . �xb2 ! wi th i n teresti ng
co mpl icatio n s .
7 4jxc6
Virtual ly forced, 7 .(le3
would be a mos t ignomi n­
ious retreat, and 7 .(lbS 4Je7
8 0-0 0-0 9 4Jxcb 4Jxcb i s
very pleasan t for B l ack in ­
deed ; a variati on of the Ruy
Lopez w here Bl ack has
managed to di spense w i t h
. . . .(ld7.
7 . . . be
8 .(lc4
Thi s is a m i s h- mash o f
two not very good sys tems.
6 .Q.f4 and 6 .(lc 4. 8 �d2
see ms a be tter be t, bu t I
thi nk that B l ack can make
good u se of the open b­
fi l e, e . g : 8 . . . �b8 9 0-0-0
 Larsen 's Varia tion 4<)

.Q.e6 1 0 .Q.d3 �cB !? i nte nd i ng of beau ti fu l b l ows .

to p l ay . . . �b7 and com m­ 13 . . . !!d4
ence q u een side operations 14 �cl �f6
before ca stl i ng . 15 f3 .Q.h6
8 !!b8 16 �f2 �g4+!
9 �cl? ! 17 fg �f6+
Obviou s ly 9 .Q.b3 wou l d 18 �g1?
be better, with a l evel posi­ It w o ul d have been
tion. better to hav e p l ayed 1 8
9 ... dSI �et �eS 1 9 �d 1 .Q.xe3 20
10 ed !!b4 �xe3, al thou gh here too
11 .Q.b3 �e7+ (42) Bl ack is w i n ni ng easi l)
after 20 . . . !!e4 .
42 18 . . . !!d1+1 ! ( 43)
w Q-1

12 .Q.e3 .Q.a6
Catchi ng the w hi te k i ng
in the cen tre.
13 �d2? Hazai - Sa x , Bu dapest
A was ted mov e i n a des­ 1971 , as bo th 19 �xd t .Q.xe3
perate si tuati o n . B l ack now and 1 9 �xd 1 �f1 are check­
forces the w i n w i t h a series mate. Very vi sual ! !
5) Larsen's Variation -
Pseudo-Yugoslav Attack
1 e4 eS
2 �f3 d6
3 d4 ed
4 �xd4 g6
5 �c3 �7
6 .Q.e31 ( 4 4)
44
B 'a tempo', pu s h i ng White' s
Thi s i s the o n ly move,
other than possibly 5 c4
( s ee prev i o u s chapter) , to
cau se B l ack any angu i s h .
Wh i te w i l l p l ay �d2 , 0-0-0
and then p u s h h i s h- and
g-paw n s w hi l s t at the sam e
ti m e atte mpti ng t o s wap­
off Bl ack's bi s hop o n g7.
Thi s is, to al l i n tents and
pu rpos es , the same p l an
em ployed i n the Yugosl av
attack ag ai nst the Sici l i an
Dragon. The di fference is
that i n the Ph i l idor's Black
has use of an open e- fi l e
i ns tead o f a n open c-fi l e ,
as i n the Dragon .
I n both l i nes the p l ay is
s h arp and u nco mpro mi s i n g .
but a pecu l i ari ty o f Lar­
sen's v ariation i s that, at
any moment, B l ack's queen­
side paw ns can advance
mi nor pi eces from the
centre and then breaki ng
open the w h i te ki ng's posi­
ti o n .
6 ... �f6
6 . . . �c6 l oses much o f
i ts poi n t here as t h e d 4
sq uare i s w e l l guarded.
7 �d2
The pri nci pal move, and
by far the best. Other
moves are possib le but.
beari ng in m i nd that Black
is th reateni ng the an noyi ng
. . . �g 4 , the on ly se ns i b l e
moves are 7 f3 and 7 .Q.e2.
The former w i l l trans pose
to a l i ne co nsidered l ate r
whi l s t for the l atter tran s­
posi tio n to 6 .Q.e2 of the
previo u s chapter is l ike I) .
The o n ly i ndependent ex­
amp l e of th i s parti cu lar
move order that I k now of
 Larsen 's Varia tion - Pseudo- Yugosla v A t tack 51
is a game o f m i ne: Carrasco
- Koste n , Au berv i l l iers Ra­
pi d Handicap t99t ( t he 'Han­
di cap' is not to s i g ni fy that
the au thor s u ffers fro m
any serious p hysical prob­
lem, b u t rather that I had
to mov e co nsiderab ly fas­
ter than my oppo nen t. Cer­
tai n tou rnamen t orga ni sers
see m to be o f the opi n i o n
that c hess p l ayers s h o u l d
be pena l ized i f they are too
stro ng ! ) : 7 !l_e2 0- 0 8 f 4?
( too ambitious) 8 . . . !!e8 9
!l_f3 ( Wh i te's pos i ti o n ap p-
ears to be reasonab l e e n­
oug h , but the o p posi ti o n o f
b l ack roo k v ers u s w h i te
ki ng o n the e- fi l e - w hich
i s a recu rri ng moti f i n this
sys tem - al l o w s Black to
wrap u p the ga me i n short
ti me) 9 . . . 4jxe 4 tO !l_xe4 ( t O
4jxe 4 i s no be tter, Bl ack
wi l l gai n at l east a paw n
e.g. 10 . . . dS t 1 4jc3 !!xe3 + t2
�f2 cS! 1 3 �xe3 cd+ 14 �f2
de + or t3 4jde2 d4) tO . . . dS!
11 !l_xdS �xe3+ 12 4jde2
!l_xc3+ t3 be �h 4+ ( Wh i te
was hopi ng to play !l_xf7+ ,
u ncoveri ng an attack o n
Black's ung uarded q ueen )
t4 g 3 �e7 t S �f2 !l.g 4 (45)
and White soo n threw i n
the towe l .
7 . . . o-o
The al ternati ves are as
fol l ow s :
a) 7 . . . 4Jc6 8 0- 0- 0 ( 8
.QbS is al so poss i b l e , w hen
the game has tra ns posed to
an o l d l i ne o f the Ruy Lo­
pez, Stei n i tz Variati o n ; 8 . . .
.Qd7 9 f3. 9 !l_xc6 ! be 1 0 !l_h6
!l_xh6? ! t 1 �xh6 4jg 4 t 2 �d2
led to a s l i g h t Whi te ad­
van tage i n Hol mov - IGm­
e l feld, Moscow 1 969 . 9 . . .
0- 0 /0 D-0-0. 1 0 0-0, w hi l s t
no t l os i ng a paw n is , at
best, rather i nsipid. Diaz -
Raz u vaev , Cien fu egos 1975,
co nti n ued : tO . . . �e8 1 1 �fe1
a6 12 4jxc6 !l_xc6 t3 !l_xc6 be
1 4 4ja4 �b8 1 5 �ad 1 aS 1 6 b3
4jd7 1 7 !;tf2 !!e6! 1 8 �h1 ? !
�b7 t 9 �d3? ! �ae8 w hen
B l ack had the better pros­
pects . 10 . .. 4)xd4! 10 . . .
a6! ? 1 1 !;te2 bS 1 2 h 4 4Je5 13
!l_h6 E m . Lasker - Vi dmar ,
St Petersburg 1 909, is al so
playab le i f, i ns tead of 13 . . .
4jc4, B l ack had conti n u ed
13 . . . cS t 4 4jb3 c4 1 5 4jd 4
b4 16 4jd5 4jxd5 1 7 ed c3
w i t h a v i ci o u s attack . 11
.Qxd4 4)xe4! 12 fe .Qxd4 /3
ijxd4 .QxbS 14 cf]dS FS w hen
Black has won a paw n d ue
to the check at gS, Vyed -
52 Larsen 's Varia tion - Pseudo- Yugosla v A t tack
Sz abo, 1962) B . . . �g4?! ( I
prefer B . . . 0- 0, return i n g
t o t h e tex t) 9 �xc6 ? ( w hat
did B l ack i n tend agai nst 9
!lg S! ? . Perhaps 9 . . . .Qf6 ; the
tacti c 9 . . . tWxgS 10 tWxgS
.Qh6 tt tWxh6 �x h6 12 �dbS
�d B 13 f4 l eft B l ack poorly
pl aced in the ga m e D vojris
- Go l ov i n , USS R 1976) 9 . . .
be t o _Qd 4 _Qxd4 t t tWxd 4
tWf6 1 2 f3 tWxd 4 1 3 !!xd 4 �e3
1 4 �d t �xd t I S �xd t �e7
w i th a l eve l end i n g i n Be l l ­
o n - Karpov , Las Pa l m as
19 77; a l tho u gh that didn 't
stop Karpov from gri nd i n g
ou t the wi n .
b ) 7 . . . dS? B 0-0-0 de 9
.Qh6! and W h i te w o n qu ick­
ly , Stanci u - Radu l esc u,
Romania t 97 1 .
c) 7 . . . a6? ! 8 0- 0- 0 bS 9
.Qh6 0-0 t O .Qxg 7 �xg7 t t eS!
�eB ( 1 1 . . . de? 12 �fS+ or 1 2
�e6 + w i ns) 12 h 4 h S 1 3 f3
.Qb 7 1 4 g 4 !!h B 15 e6 and the
b l ack position was q u i ck ly
rou ted , Chabanon - Rad u­
l o v , Sofi a t990.
d) 7 . . . �g4? is now a n­
sw ered by B !lgS.
8 o-o-o
As . . . �g 4 is no l o nger a
prob l e m , Whi te tucks h i s
ki ng a way . 8 .Qe2, w hi ch
cou l d ari se fro m various
move orders , i s wel l met by
8 . . . !!eB 9 .Qf3 �c6 for 9
f3?! a l lows 9 . . . dS! .
8 f3 i s a n i n acc uracy , B . . .
dS ! bei ng a stro ng rep ly .
Actual ly , a n u mber o f the
ga m es in thi s chapter star­
ted w i t h th is move se­
q uence , and most B l ack's
tran sposed to the mai n l i ne
w i th B . . . �c6. Why they
didn't avai l the msel ves of
the opport u n i ty to play . . .
dS , I don't k now . After 8 f3
dS Whi te s hou l d p l ay 9
0- 0-0! ( t h i s is o n ly poss­
i b l e due to a tacti cal trick ,
i f i ns tead 9 eS! ? then ei ther
9 . . . 4)fd7 10 e6. tO f 4? cS. 10
. . . cfJeS 11 ef+ 4)xf7 or the
cha l lengi ng 9 . . . cfjhS!? w i th
t he possib l e co nti nuati ons :
10 g4 cS 11 gh cd 12 1J.xd4
t!jh 4 + /3 12,f2 t!jxhS, w hi eh
l eaves the w h i te posi tion in
di sarray , e.g: 14 f4 d4! IS
1J.xd4 4)c6 menaci ng . . . !!dB
and . . . !lg 4 ; or /I 4)b3 d4 12
0-0- 0 4)c6 13 gh. 13 !lgS de!
13 . . . de; or 101Jg5 t!jeB w i t h
ei ther . . . tWxeS, . . . f6 or . . .
cS co ming next are bo th
poss i b l e . However, the bes t
move, and the o ne that
occu rred to me on ly after I
had comp l eted the original
man uscri pt, may we l l t u rn
out to be 9 . . . lJeB!! w i t h
t he fol l ow i ng pos sibi l i ties:
10 ef. t O f4 cS . 10 . . . 1J.h6 11
cfjdl. t t �e4!? .Qxe3 1 2 tWxe3
de a nd 13 . . . �xf6+ . 11 . . . cS
12 1J.e2. Not t2 .QbS cd 13
.Qxe8 de 1 4 �xe3 tWxeB + or
t2 �f2 .Qxe3 + 13 �xe3 cd 1 4
tWxd 4 �c6 wi th a strong
i ni tiative . 12 . . . lJxe3! ? 13
 Larsen 's Varia tion - Pseudo- Yugosla v A t tack 53
4)xe3 cd 14 tjxd4 4)c6 IS
�d3 d4. Or 15 . . . 4jb4 mena­
ci ng . . . .Q.xe3 and . . . 4Jxc2+ .
16 4)g4 1J.xg4 17 fg tjxf6
with many threats . 9 ed ? is
worse: 9 . . . 4J:<d5 10 4J:<d5
�xdS and as 11 0-0-0 fai ls
to 11 .. . tjxa2, and 11 12,e2
lJeB 12 0-0 ? ? to 12 . . . !1xe3,
Wh i te is s trugg l i ng ) 9 . . .
de ! ( 9 . . . cS? l ooks good ,
and i n fact proved too
tem pti ng for B l ack i n the
game Sves h n i k ov - Zaichi k ,
Vo lgodonsk 1983, bu t after
10 4jb3 d4 1 1 .Q.gS B l ack dis­
co vered that he w as u nab le
to take the piece on c3 , so
t t . . . 4jc6 12 4jd5 b6 , w he n
h e w as a li ttle worse and
lost q u ick ly) 10 .Q.h6! (This
sav es Whi te' s baco n . I n the
game C Hansen - K.ri stian­
sen , Whi te was q ui ck ly
overru n after 10 fe !1e8 11
1J.c4 4)bd7 12 4)f3 t1te7 13
!1hel 4)b6 14 1J.b3 1J.e6 IS
4)d5. White has m anaged to
rid hi msel f of the is o l ated
e-paw n , but the b l ack
pi eces re mai n we l l - p l aced .
IS . . . 12,xd5 16 ed 4)e4 17 t1ta5
�d6 18 �bl !1ad8 1 9 �xa 7?
Too greedy , bu t 19 .Q.d 4
.Q.xd4 20 4Jxd4 �xh2 w as
al so good for Bl ack . Now
Black w hi ps up an over­
whel m i ng attack . 19 . . . !laB
20 �xb 71J.�'<b2! (46)
21 1J.xb6. 21 �xb2 was im­
poss ible: 21 . . . �a3+ 22 �at
ci)c3 l eaves Wh i te no de-
46
w
fence to 23 . . . �xa2+ and 24
. . . !!xa2 m ate . 21 . . . tja3 22
c4. Tryi ng to gi ve hi s k i ng
some more e l bow room , 22
!!xe4 .Q.c3 ! and . . . �b2 is
m ate . 22 . . . cb 23 �c2 .Qg7
24 4)d4 4)c5 25 !1xe8+ !1xe8
26 t1txb6 !1e2+ 27 l!d2 !1xd2+
28 �xd2 1J.xd4 0- 1 ) 10 . . .
4Jc6 (obvio usly not tO . . .
.Q.xh6? 1 1 �xh6 ef becau se
of 12 4jf5 + , and simi l arly 1 0
. . . ef? 1 1 .Q.xg7 �xg7 12 4jf5+
and 1 3 �xd8± . How ev er, 1 0
. . . 4jbd7 1 1 .Q.xg7 �xg7 12 fe
tf1e7 ( or 12 . . . !!eB) or t 1
4jf5? .Q.xh6 ! 12 4Jxh 6+ �g7
both look very p l easa nt fo r
B l ack . Whi te has an iso­
l ated e- paw n w hich l eaves
the eS sq uare i n B l ack's
possession b u t , as far as I
know , this has not been
tried as yet. The text is
more forcin g ) 11 .Q.xg7 �xg7
12 4Jxc6 �xd2+ 13 !!xd2 be
1 4 4Jxe 4 4Jxe4 15 fe and, i n
N u nn's opi n io n , Wh i te has a
m i n u te adv an tage. Pers o­
nal ly , I' m not even s ure he
has that. For i n stance, 15 . . .
54 Larsen 's Varia tion - Pseudo- Yugosla v A t tack
�e8 1 6 �d3 �e6 t7 eS ! ? ( i f
B l ack gets the chance he
w i l l play . . . �f6- e5! ? w hen
hi s ki ng wi l l be very do m i­
nant - h i s q ueen side paw ns
are more than bal anced by
Whi te's w eak e- paw n and
the eS sq u are) 17 . . . !!adS t 8
�e4 ! ? !!xd2 1 9 �xd2 �dS 20
�xdS cd 2 t !!et == .
8 �h6 i s q u i te p l ayabl e,
then 8 . . . !!e8 forces 9 f3
( t he i n termediate move 9
�xg7 be i ng met by the i n­
termediate move 9 . . . 4jxe4 ! )
w hen 9 . . . �h8 t O 0-0-0 i s
vari ation C .
No w , after 8 0-0-0, we
reac h a parti ng of the w ays
(4 7) :
47
B cen tre and pre pari ng the g4
A 8 . . . 4jc6
B 8 . . . !!e8
In variation A, B l ack i n­
te nds to cap ture o n d 4,
p l ay . . . �e6, and then s weep
up the queens ide w i th . . . cS ,
. . . tWaS, and then . . . b5-b4.
As the w h i te bi s hop w i l l
have to re take on d4, there
is no i m mediate ri sk of
Whi te p l ayi ng �h6, ex­
changi ng Black's powerfu l
ki ng's bishop, so Bl ack
tries to avoid p l ayi ng . . .
!!e8 .
In variation B, Black
p l ays . . . !!e8, so that he
wi l l be ab le to drop his
bi s hop back to h8 shou l d
Wh i te play �h6 , after this
he can choose from a var­
iety o f p l an s , the best of
these be i ng to play . . . 4jc6 -
eS , before co m menci ng the
queens ide adv ance.
A
8 4jc6
9 f3
Thi s is Whi te's stro nges t
optio n , safeg uardi ng his
pus h . There are more direc t
methods avai l ab l e , thoug h :
a) 9 4jxc6 b e 10 �h6 ( 10
eS?! peters o u t fai rly q uick­
ly , Keene ana lyses 10 . . .
4)d5! 11 4)xd5 cd 12 ed. Not
12 tbxdS? �e6 and 13 . . . �xeS
w he n the black bishops
poi n t menaci ngly at the
w h i te k i n g . 12 . .. i!txd6 13
i!txdS. 13 �d 4 �xd 4 t 4 tbxd 4
�e6 and 15 . . . cS . /3 . l!bB!
. .
14 t!jxd6. t 4 c3? �xc3 15
tbxd6 �xb2+ 16 �c2 cd + as
the w hi te k i ng is exposed;
or tS be? tba3+ - + . 14 . . .
1J.xb2+ 15 �d2 cd==) tO . . .
�x h6 ! ( This i s a profound
move. Blac k real izes that
 Larsen 's Varia tion - Pseudo- Yugosla v A t tack SS
the w hite q ueen i s l ess ac­
tive on h6 than on d2, and
it wi l l take White a l ong
ti me to generate mati ng
threats . B l ack , on the other
hand , has an ope n b- fi l e. I n
the game Veroci - Petro n i c­
lv anka, H u ngary 1 977 , B l ack
pl ayed w i thout a c l ear p l an
and w as soon l os t : 1 0 . . .
�e8 ? ! 1 1 �xg 7 �xg 7 1 2 �d3
�b7? - 1 2 . . . �d7 1 3 f4 �b8 ! ±
- 1 3 f4 �b8 1 4 h 3 dS 15 eS
4jd7 16 h 4 hS 1 7 g 4 + . I n­
stead of 1 0 . . . �e8?! , Hei l ­
i ng s uggests ei ther 10 . . .
�e6 1 1 �xg7 �xg 7 1 2 f4 �b 8
13 �d 3 �b4 1 4 fS �ab 8 or 1 0
. . . �d 7! ? 1 1 �xg7 �xg7 1 2 f4
�b8 13 eS de 1 4 fe 4Jd 5 15
4Jxd5 cd 16 �xdS �e6, bo th
of w hich are u nc l ear. At
any ra te, the moral i s c l ear:
Black s ho u ld seek to ex­
p l oit the b-fi l e as s oo n as
possib le) 1 1 �xh6 �b 8!
( c lear ly thi s is w here the
rook be l o ngs , so w hy not
pu t it there i m mediate ly ? )
12 f3 �e7 1 3 h 4 d S ! 1 4 h S (48)
48
B b ) 9 �h61? ( a l tho u g h this
and now , i n stead o f 1 4 . . .
�b 4 1 5 h g fg 1 6 eS as i n
Fi l i pjenko Vorotni kov ,
j urma l a 1980, w hen Fi l i p­
jenko s uggests 16 . . . tbxb2+
17 �d2 �fS w i t h i n teresti ng
p l ay , I think that B l ack can
cl ari fy matters at once
wi th 1 4 . . . �xb2! 15 �xb2
tbb 4+ 16 �cl �xc3 1 7 hg fg
(of course, thi s recapture i s
forced here , bu t ti me and
agai n in thi s sy stem , B lack
recapt u res on g6 with the
f- paw n . Whi l s t thi s i s os­
tensibly anti-positiona l , its
meri t i s that B l ack ca n de­
fend the h-paw n l atera l ly .
thereby ho l d i ng o ff an)
crude mati ng atte m pts by
Wh i te . Worth remember­
i ng ! ) , w hen B l ack has mar­
vel l ou s val ue for t h e e x­
change i . e: 1 8 ed �fS 1<) �d3
(obvio u s ly �d2 and �d2
both a l l ow . . . �at check­
mate; this co mbi nati o n
wo u l d have been i m poss­
ib le had the w hi te qu ee n
been o n d2) 19 . . . �a3+ 20
�d2 �xd3 2 1 cd �b2+ 22
�e t �eB+ 23 �fl �e2+ w i n n ­
i ng .
mov e is hard ly ever p l ayed �
I can s ee no reason fo r t h i s :
Wh i te might b e ab l e to re­
tai n a s l ig h t advantage ) 9 . . .
�x h6 ( 9 . . . 4Jxe 4 ! ? is not
beyond the bou nds of poss­
ibi l ity a nd cou l d appea l to
more adventu rous p l ayers
e . g : 10 4Jxe 4 �xd4 1 1 �x f8
56 Larsen 's Varia tion - Pseudo- Yugosla v A t tack

�xf8 1 2 c3 .Qg 7 13 !l,c4 !l,fS

1 4 f3? ? .Q.xe4 15 fe !l_h6 + ) t O 49
�x h6 �e8 1 1 f3 �xd 4 1 2 w
�xd4 �eS ! ? 13 �d2 ( 1 3 f4??
�hS + ) 13 . . . .Q.d7 1 4 g4 .Q.c6
15 .Qg2? ! �e7 1 6 h 4 �f8 1 7
.Q.ft ? ! hS ! 1 8 g h �xhS w i th
good p l ay on the ki ng s i de
dark sq uares , Unzicker -
Kee ne , Moscow , 1 977, b u t
Wh i te wasted val uab l e ti me
with his ki ng's bi s ho p . to p l ay 9 . . . !!eB transpc
c ) 9 h 4 ( there i s noth i ng s i ng to vari ation B, or 9
w ro ng w i t h thi s ) 9 . . . �xd4! dS? ! tO ed �xdS 1 1 �5! �
10 .Q.xd 4 .Q.e6 1 1 hS ? ! (bu t �xc6 be 1 2 �xdS cd
there i s with thi s , 1 1 f3 , �xdS �b8! 1 4 b3 t/1f6 is u 1
wou l d transpose i n to more neces sari ly dangerou s) 1 1
normal l i nes ) tt . . . cS 12 .Q.e3 �d 7 1 2 �dbS ( 1 2 �xc6 be
�aS 13 hg? ( this j u st l os es , �xdS cd 1 4 t/1xd5 �b8
w h ich perhaps dem o n­ b3 ± i s better than befo
strates the danger that as the bl ack q ueen must �
Whi te is exposed to i n to the l es s acti v e sq ua1
Larsen's Variati o n . 1 3 f3 e8) 1 2 . . . a6 13 �xdS ab
was be tter, a l tho ug h B l ack �e7+ �xe7 15 twxd7 !l,xd7
can probab ly p l ay 13 . . . �xd7 �c6 1 7 �bt w hic
�xh S w i th the better posi­ wo u l d appear to be 1
tion) 1 3 . . . �xe4 ! 1 4 gf+ Whi te's advantage with h
.Q.xf7? ? (a co u n ter-bl u nder, two bi s hops , and rook <
1 4 . . . �xf7 w o u l d have g i v en the seventh . Howev er aft�
Black's ki ng an i m portan t 1 7 . . . �a4 ! ! 1 8 �xc7 �fa8
f l i g h t sq uare. Now 1 5 �d3, a3 b4 (50)
pi n n i n g the k night, w o u l d
have con siderab ly co m pl i ­ so
cated ma tters ) 15 �xe4 ? ? w
.Q.xb2+! (4 9) 0- 1 .
j Niel sen - j H Niel se n ,
Denmark 1 977 , 16 �xb2
�xa2+ 1 7 �c3 �a3 mate or
17 �et �at mate.
9 ... �xd4
Thi s i s the thematic
mov e, bu t it a l so po ssib l e
 Larsen 's Varia tion - Pseudo- Yugosla v A t tack 57
Bl ack has bags of acti v i ty
and drew , M Gurevich -
Zaichik, Lvov 1 987.
10 .Q.xd4 .Q.e6
11 g4
Thi s is the most com mo n
move at thi s stage , and
al so , in many ways , the
mos t natural . White pro­
ceeds w i t h his ki ngside
paw n charge w hi ls t at the
same ti me, bei ng ready to
answer . . . dS w i th gS. The
other poss ibi l i ties are:
a) 11 �b1 cS! ( t his is the
key to B l ack's co u nterp l ay
in this sys tem , and rec urs
agai n an d agai n . Practice
has shown that a l ternati ve
plans are l ack ing in i m pe­
tus , fo r i nstance : 11 . . . a6! ?
12 h 4 cS 13 .Q.e3 �aS? 1 4 .W.h6
- 1 4 �xd6? �xe4 ! - 1 4 . . .
�fd 8 15 .Q.xg7 �xg7 16 hS
�x hS 1 7 g 4 �f6 1 8 �h6+
�g 8 19 gS �hS 20 f4 + ,
Miniboeck Ermenko v ,
Vienna 1 983. Bl ack co u l d
have achieved a more dy na­
mic pos ition i f he had
p l ayed . . . bS on move 13 or
14, and even on move 1 6 . . .
�c7 i n order to defe nd h7,
wou l d have put u p more o f
a fig h t) 1 2 .Q.e3 ( 1 2 .Q.xf6 i s
rarely a s erio u s worry for
Bl ack , 12 . . . .Q.x f6 13 �xd6
�aS is al ready + ) 12 . . . �aS
13 �dS ( 1 3 g 4 ret urns to the
mai n l i ne ; 13 h 4 to note 'b' ;
and 13 �xd6?? l oses on the
spot to 13 . . . �xe4! ) 13 . . .
tba 4 ( t here i s no need to
play the e ndi ng after 13 . . .
�xd2 1 4 �x f6+ .Q.x f6 15
�xd2 as White w i l l be a
tiny bi t better) 1 4 �c3 �aS
15 a3 ( I i magi ne Bl ack
wo u l d have been happy
wi th the draw after 15 �dS .
the o n u s s ho u l d be o n
Whi te t o prove h e has made
so met h i ng of his extra
mov e) 15 . . . !!fd8 ( I do n ' t
thi nk that thi s move i s ever
rea l ly neces sary , B l ack
s ho u l d 'get on wit h i t' over
on the q ueenside , i.e: 1 5 . . .
�ab 8 16 �xd6? ! �xe 4 1 7
�xe 4 - or 1 7 fe .Q.xc3 1 8 be
!!fd8 + - 1 7 . . . !!fd8 wi nni ng
the q ueen , or 1 6 �bS �bb ! )
16 .Q.e2 �ab 8 17 .Q.gS �b6? !
( Bl ack starts goi ng back­
wards here) 18 h4 a6 19 hS
�d7 20 hg? (20 .Q.h 6 was
better, al tho ugh B l ack's
resources seem adeq uate .
Hei l i ng gi ves the vari ati o n
20 . . . .Q.h 8 21 g 4 t/Jc7! ? 22
�f4 bS 23 .QgS b 4 24 .Q.xfb
be 25 .Q.x h8 �xb2 + 26 �c l
�b 1 + 27 �x b1 �b7 + wi n n i ng
and 2 4 �dS �xdS 25 ed ha
26 b3 �b 4 27 �e3 a2+ 28
�xa2 �aS+ 29 �b 1 t/Ja l
mate, b ut White's p l ay here
is far from exe m p l ary) 20
. . . fg 21 �e3 �e8 22 �d3 dS!
(51)
When B l ack was co u n ter­
attacki ng fierce ly i n the
centre, Placketka - Do nchev .
Bratis lava 1983.
58 Larsen 's Varia tion - Pseudo- Yugosla v A t tack
51
w . . . 4jd 7 + ) 13 . . . !!fd8 14 .Q.gS
b) 11 h4 cS ! 1 2 !l_e3 ( Agai n,
12 !l_xf6? has l i tt l e meri t: 12
. . . !l_xf6 1 3 �xd6 !l_xc3 1 4
�xd8 !l_xb2++ ) 1 2 . . . �aS 1 3
a3? ! ( this i s a poor move
w hich weaken s the w h i te
q u eens ide, a better move is
13 f!;bl w ith si mi l ar p l ay to
t he mai n l i ne, e. g : 13 . . . bS!
13 . . . hS? i s abs u rd , the
ga me Pra nds tetter - Pl ac h­
etka, Trenchianske Tepl ice
1985 , co n ti n ui ng : 1 4 !l_h b
!!fd B t s .Q.gs !!d 7 16 !l_xf6
!l_xf6 1 7 4jd5 �d8 1 8 !l_bS + ,
w hy w eaken the k i ngside?
14 4)d5 b 4! IS .Qh6 .QxdS! 16
ed [!acB+. 13 .Qh6 is not so
bad, either: 13 . . . .Q;t(h6 14
ijxh6 bS IS .QxbS [!abB 16
ijf4 4)e8. 16 . . . 4jh5 ! ? . 17
.QxeB l!fxeB 18 ijf6 .Q;t(a2 19
[!xd6 .Qc4 w i th a mess that
soon l ev e l l ed ou t i n Po l o­
wodi n - Voro tn i k ov , Le ni n­
grad 198 1 . I am not so co n­
vinced that there is any­
thi ng w rong w i th 1 4 . . . gent idea; i f al l B l ack's pl ay
!l_xa2 anyway , 1 5 !l_xd6 !l_e6
l eaves Whi te the check o n
at t o w orry abo ut. What I
do know, tho ug h , is that 13
�xd6 is sti 1 1 too greedy , 13
a6 15 g 4 bS t6 lflbt ? ( 16 !l_xf6
!l_xf6 1 7 4Jd5 was perhaps
eq ual , now Wh ite's pos itio n
goes dow n hi l l ) 16 . . . b4 17
4jd5 !l_xdS 18 ed !!db8 19 a4
4jd7 20 hS �xa4 2 1 !l_c4 4Je5
22 !l_b3 �d7 23 hg 4jxf3 ( I n
hi s annotations B l ack gi ves
thi s move an exc l amatio n
mark , b u t si mply 23 . . . fg 24
�h2 !l_h 8 25 !l_a4 �f7 l ooks
fi ne too) 24 gh+ lflh8 25 �f4
4Jxg5 26 �xgS aS 27 !!de l
4Je8 28 �fS !!xel + 29 !!xe t
�xfS ( the endgame is very
good for B l ack) 30 g f a4 31
!l_c4 a3 (52)
( B l ack's k i n g's bishop fi­
nal ly gai ns co ntro l of the
w ho l e di agonal ! ) 32 !!e7 ab
33 !l_a2 c4 0- t , as 34 !!b7
!!e8 w as Petru s h i n - Kim­
el feld, USS R 1 979.
c) 11 !l_e3. A very i ntel l i­
comes from pl ay i ng . . . cS .
then w hy not s top it? Ob­
vi o u s ly 1 1 . . . cS? 1 2 �xd6
 Larsen 's Varia tion - Pseudo- Yugosla v A t tack 59
�aS 13 �xcS w o u l d t u rn
into a fiasco b u t , neverthe­
less, White has w asted a
move and Bl ack s ho u ld do
something soo n el se h i s
pi eces wi l l fi nd them sel ves
'al l dre ssed up w i t h no­
where to go' . The orig inal
game w ith thi s move,
Cherni n - Zaichik , Lvov
1987 , conti n ued : 1 1 . . . �e8 12
!l.gS �e7 ( and not 12 . . . c6?
becau se of 13 eS! de 1 4
�xd8 �axd8 15 !!xd8 �xd8
18 ci)e4 w i n ni ng ) 13 g4 �f8
14 rl;b l a6 15 h4 w hen Wh i te
has a big p l us . A l though
p l an s i nv o l vi ng . . . a5- a4
mig ht be feasi b l e , it co u l d
we l l transpire that the
simp l e 1 1 . . . a6 i s B l ack's
best, not feari ng 12 .Q.h6
.Q.x h6 1 3 �xh6 �e7 1 4 h 4 bS
15 h5 ( or 15 g4) 15 . . . b4,
dri v i ng aw ay the w h ite
knig ht and prepari ng to
break open Whi te' s quee n­
side w ith . . . a5-a 4 and
b3 .
11 . . . cS
12 .Q.e3 �aS
13 rt;bt
Protecting a2 and pre­
pari ng ci)dS; the a l ternative
is 13 .Q.h6 .Q.x h6 ( 13 . . . �fd8
14 .Q.xg7 rl;xg7 15 h4 h5 16 g h
c£)xh5 1 7 �g 1 bS 1 8 �gS± ,
j urtaev - G ul ko, Frunze
1985) 14 �x h6 bS ( i t is not
c l ear that there is anyth ing
wrong w ith 1 4 . . . .Q.xa2 ,
Tses hkovsky gives 15 h 4
.Q.e6 1 6 hS w i t h the threat of
17 hg fg 18 gS ci)hS 19 �xhS
gh 20 �xe6+ , bu t Bl ack can
eas i ly s top this by 16 . . .
�fe8 , for i nstance. The
posi tion seems very dou b l e
edged, b u t B l ack mig ht be
OK) 1 5 .Q.xbS �ab8 1 6 �f4 ( 16
�xd6 !!xbS 1 7 ci)xbS thxbS
1 8 �hd 1 ci)d7 1 9 �e3 is a
l i tt l e better for Wh ite , a l ­
tho ugh i t a l l depends o n
w hether B l ack can get his
two m i nor pieces co-ordi-
nated ) 16 . . . ci)e8 ( Unfortu -
nately, 16 . . . rl;g7? 1 7 �xd6
�xbS 1 8 ci)xbS �xbS 19 �eS !
wi l l w i n the pin ned k nig h t
by g S ) 1 7 .Q.xe8 !!fxe8 1 8
!!xd6 ? ! ( 1 8 �f6 i s better
according to Tses hkov sky)
1 8 . . . .Q.xa2? ! ( and now he
assesses 1 8 . . . �xb2! 1<)
rl;xb2 �b 4+ 20 rl;c1 �xc3 21
eS h6 as u ncl ear. After
missing this chance Bl ack
l oses rapidly) 19 �f6 .Q.e6 20
!!hdl �at+ 21 rl;d2 �aS
( B l ac k notices that 21 . . .
�xb2? fai l s to 22 !!b 1 �a3
23 �xb8 �xb8 24 �xe6 ! fe
25 �xe6+ rl;g7 26 �eS+ �
forki ng the k i ng and rook )
23 rl;e3 ! c 4 ( and now 22 . . .
�xb2 ? 23 �xe6 fe 2 4 �d7 is
curtai n s) 23 h4 �xb2 24
rl;f4! (53)
(Th e w h i te k i ng heads for
the ki ng side w here Whi te
has more paw n cov er. The
absence of B l ack's k i n g's
bi s hop a l l ows Wh ite to
60 Larsen 's Varia tion - Pseudo- Yugosla v A t tack
53
B seventh ran k) 22 �h6 �d 4
do m i n ate the dark square s)
24 . . . �b6 25 �dB �b8 26
�xb8 �xb8 27 hS g h 28 g h
!!eB 29 h 6 �f8 30 �g 1 �c7+
31 eS 1-0 (�gB+ i s u n stopp­
ab le) Tses hkov sky - Vorot­
ni ko v , Atb u sb i n sk 1985 . The
w ho l e ga me l ook s q u i te
u n p l easa nt for Bl ack and,
on re f l ecti o n , I thi n k that
Bl ack s hou Id ca l l White' s
bl u ff i m mediately w i th 13
. . . �xa2! e . g : 1 4 �xg7 �xg7
15 �xd6 �ad8 16 �eS �fe8
17 �f4 �e6 w i t h pow erfu l
threats , or 15 h 4 �e6 w hen
( a n i m porta nt poi n t ! ) the
w h i te k i n g's f l ig ht is
bl ocked by the w hi te quee n .
13 . . . bSI
Thi s i s the ri g h t move
here , 13 . . . �fd8 is too
passi ve: 1 4 �e2 bS 15 �dS
�a4 1 6 �c3 �aS 1 7 h 4
( W hite i s n ot content w i th
a draw by repeti tion) 17 . . .
b 4 1 8 �dS �xdS 1 9 ed �d7
( I pre fer 19 . . . �dc8 , men a­
ci ng . . . c4-c3, 20 �c 4 �d 7-
b6 and Black m u st be at
l east eq ual ) 20 hS �b6 21
hg hg? ( 21 . . . fg al lows
B l ack to defend al ong the
23 !l.gS !l.g7 ( White was
probab ly hopi ng for 23 . . .
�a4 ?? 2 4 �xd4! cd 25 �f6
w hich, of cou rse , wou ld
not have been pos sible had
Bl ack recaptu red on gb
wi th hi s f- pa w n ) 24 �f4
�eB 25 �h 7 + , as 25 . . .
�x h7? 26 �xf7 and !!h 1 w i l l
mate, Ern st - Pl achetka.
Gau sdal 1985.
14 �d5
The b-paw n is i mm u n e
from captu re: 1 4 �xbS?
�ab8 15 �d3 �xe4! + ; or 15
a4 a6 16 �d3 �xb2+ 17 �xb2
�b 4 + , w i th a sw i ft mati ng
attack. 1 4 h4 b4 1 5 �dS
�xdS i s si mi l ar to the game.
14 . . . b4!
Thi s s hows t he advan­
tage of play i n g 13 . . . bS :
Black no l ong er has to
su bmi t to a draw by 14 . . .
�a 4 15 �c3 �aS etc, but can
take the bu 1 1 by the horn s .
15 �h6
It is probab ly wi se to
exchange B l ack's danger­
ou s dark sq uared bi shop . I f
i n stead 1 5 h 4 !!ac8 ( threa t­
eni ng . . . c4-c3) 16 �c4 �d7
17 hS �b6 1 8 �e2 i s al ready
w i nning for Bl ack i n tw o
separate ways : 1 8 . . . !!fe8 ! :
or 1 8 . . . �xb2! 19 �xb2 �a3+
20 �b 1 �a4 (or 20 �at
�c 3+) .
15 . . . �xd5?
 Larsen 's Varia tion - Pseudo- Yugosla v A t tack 61
Wi nning a pawn b u t
throw i ng away t h e ad van-
tage; better w as 15 . . . .Q.xdS
16 ed !!ac8 17 .Q.c4 4Jd7 1 8
.Q.xg7 �xg7 19 h 4 4Je5 20
«fe2 (54)
54
B
and Bl ack m i g ht even co n­
sider 20 . . . fS here. He has a
superb pos i tion , the pow­
erfu l k night on eS do mina­
ti ng the m i serab l e bis hop
on c4; Black even hol ds the
upper hand on the kingside,
21 . . . fg and 22 . . . �f 4 bei ng
one th reat.
16 ed .Q.xdS
17 �xdS .Q.xh6
18 gS �7
19 h4 �ae8
20 f4 �·4
21 .Q.c4 �d7 (55)
Bl ack's extra paw n is u se­
less and, if anything, it is
White w ho hol ds t he u pper
hand . The game dribb l ed to
a draw : 22 hS !!e3 23 h6 .Q.h 8
24 �hft �fe8 25 �et aS 26
twxcS de 27 �xd7 �3e 7 28
�xe7 �xe7 29 fS .Q.d4 30 fg
l.'z-112 , Zbikow ski - A u ten­
rieth , B u ndes l iga 1985 .
ss
w
Provided that Black
knows want he is doi ng .
the v ariation w i th 8 . . . c[)cb
appears to be more than
sati sfactory .
B
8 . . . !!e8
Bl ack by this move.
makes s u re that he can
preserv e hi s ki ng's bis hop
from exchange , s ho u l d
Wh ite play .Q.h 6. Ge nera l l)
speaking, the p l ay in this
section is more co m p l i ca­
ted than in the prev io u s
sectio n, and more pi eces
are retai ned on the board .
It is perhaps for this rea­
son that 8 . . . !!eB has
proved less po pu l ar i n
practice than 8 . . . 4Jc6 b u t .
nev erthel es s , B l ack's pros­
pects seems q u ite reaso n­
ab le.
9 f3 4Jc6
Bl ack can't afford to
waste ti me i n s u ch a posi­
tion , so one wou ld expect 9
. . a6 ? ! to be i n feri or: 1 0 .Q.hb
.
( 1 0 g4 bS 1 1 .Q.gS is not so
62 Larsen 's Varia tion - Pseudo- Yugosla v A t tack
critical for Bl ack ; j oksic -
Le hman, Pl ovdiv 1975, con­
ti n ued t t . . . .Q.b7 t2 h 4 ci)bd7
13 h5? ! - t3 ci)d5 is better -
t 3 . . . c5 t 4 ci)b3 b4 t 5 hg ! ?
be 1 6 gf+ �xf7 1 7 be, w hen
White has sacri ficed a pi ece
for no parti c u lar reason. I
i mag ine t h at a co m p u ter
wo u ld win t hi s posi tion for
B lack wi t ho u t too much
di fficu l ty b ut , in fact, in
the ga m e W h i te managed
to make t he most of his
chances and won) t O . . . .Q.h8
1 1 g 4 b5 1 2 h 4 .Q.b7 ( Larsen
analysed several other
possibi l i ties here : t2
na7 ? ! 13 h5 c5 1 4 hg ! fg 15
4:)4xb5 ab t6 ci)xb5, answ er-
ing bot h t 6 . . . !!d7 and t6 . . .
!!xa2? w i th t 7 .Q.c4 + ; 1 2 . . .
b4 t 3 ci)d5 c5 t 4 ci)f5 .Q.b7 t 5
ci)de3 ci)xe4 t 6 fe g f t 7 g f
.Q.xb2+ 1 8 �b 1 ! ; and fi na l ly ,
12 . . . c 5 13 ci)f5! d5 w hen,
instead of t4 ci)xd5 ci)xd5 t5
tbxd5 tbxd5 t 6 nxd5 gf
w hic h is unc l ear, Povah
poi nts out that t4 ed ! b4 15
ci)e4 ci)xe 4 t 6 fe !!xe4 17
tbg2 .Q.xf5 1 8 g f i s very
strong for Whi te) 13 h5
ci)bd 7 1 4 hg fg t5 g5 ci)h5 t6
!!x h5 gh t7 .Q.h3 ci)e5 t8 ci)d5
.Q.c8 19 .Q.f5! c6 20 ci)f6 + .Q.xf6
2t gf tbxf6 22 !!g t+ ci)g6 23
.Q.g5 tbf7 24 .Q.xc8 rlaxc8 25
ci)f5 w i nning rapidly , Pov ah
- van der Wei de , t979 . 9 . . .
ci)bd7 i s , however, a pos si­
bi l i ty , as tO h4 ci)e5 returns
to the mai n path .
10 g4
10 h4 w i l l probably reach
a s i mi lar posi tion, b u t
Wh ite might try to play hS
wi tho u t preparation by g4.
To date p l ay has proceeded:
tO . . . ci)e5! ( thi s is probab ly
the s trongest, a l t ho u g h
Black can try t o play a s in
v ari ation A wi th /0 . . .
4)xd4!? 11 1J.xd4 fJ.e6 12 hS
c6 ?! t2 . . . c5 seems more to
the poi nt. 13 hg. Sueti n con­
siders 13 g 4 b5 t 4 tbh2 to be
cl early better for White,
but 1 4 . . . b4 seem s OK,
Wh ite is not real ly going to
pl ay 15 .Q.xf6? tbxf6 lb
tbx h 7+? �f7 t 7 ci)a4 !!h8 + i s
he? 13 . . . fg! 1 4 'tjgS �e 7 IS
�h 4 bS 16 g4 b4 17 4)e2 cS
18 1J.e3 1J.xa2 1 9 4)f4 1J.f7 20
gS 4)h5! 21 4)xh5 gh 22 g6! ?
hg 23 �xe7 l!�"e7 24 l!�"d6
with a l evel endi ng , Rad u­
l ov - Uu si , USSR t970, a l ­
though Bl ack managed to
misp l ay i t and lose . This
strange mi x of system s
deserv es to be tried more
often) 1 1 .Q.h6 ! ? ( 11 1J.e2 a6 12
g4 is the best way to reach
t he mai n l i ne, as // g4 ? im­
mediate ly a l l ows // . . . cS 12
4)b3 4:J�'lf3 with a rout. 11
{f;bJ a6 121J.g5 bS 13 h5 1J.b 7?
14 hg fg IS 4)b3 b4 /6 4)d5
fJ.xdS 1 7 ed 'tjbB 18 'tjf4
4)ed7 /9 fJ.c4 was a l l wrong
for Black in Hardicsay -
Pri nz , Bobl i ngen t985; pre-
 Larsen 's Varia tion - Pseudo- Yugosla v A t tack 63
su mab ly nei ther pl ayer n o­
ticed 13 . . . cS! 14 {Jb3. 1 4
4:,fS? is poi n t l ess i f Wh ite
has not p l ayed g 4 , 1 4 . . .
gf+ . 14 . . . c4 15 f]d4. O r 1S
4:,cS b 4 . IS . . . b4 16 fJdS c3!
or 14 fjde2 f)c4 w i t h a ter­
rific posi ti o n for Bl ack i n
al l cases ) 1 1 . . . .Q.h 8 12 h5
4:,xhS 13 g4 4:,g3 1 4 r!h3
4:,xf1 1S r!xf1 cS 1 6 4:,fS 4:,c4
17 �d3 .Q.e6 1 8 b3 al so wor-
ked out wel l for Whi te in
the gam e Koro n g hy - Tor­
nai , H ungary 1972, after: 1 8
. . . �aS? 1 9 be .Q.xc3 2 0 f4
.Q.x f5 21 gf .Q.d 4 ( 21 . . . �a3+
on ly loses a piece) 22 fg fg
23 f5 gf 2 4 r!g3+ f(tjlh8 2S c3
.Q.eS 26 .Q.g5! fe 27 �xe4
.Q.xc3 (56)
56
w Al tho u g h Wh ite probab l)
28 .Q.f6+ ! .Q.x f6 29 �x h7+ ! 1 -0
(29 . . . f(tjlx h7 30 r!h t + forces
mate) . Bl ack had obv ious ly
misj udged his chances after
18 . . . �aS , for if he had
pl ayed 1 8 . . . 4:,eS 19 �d2 �aS
instead, he wou l d hav e had
a s trong attack (and a paw n
to boot! ) . Of co urse, this
wou ld have deprived the
specta tors of the beau tifu l
fi n i s h , bu t I'm s u re that
Bl ack wou ldn't have m i n ­
ded much.
The other two moves
that have occurred i n prac­
tice are 10 f(tjlb1 a6 1 1 4:,de2
b5 12 4:,f4 .Q.d7 13 h 4 h5 1 4
4:,cdS �b8 15 �cl ? 4:,h 7 16
�d2 4:,e5 =F , Sch midt - Al­
burt, Moscow 1970 ( I don't
unders tand any of thi s ! ) ;
and 10 .Q.bS .Q.d7 1 1 !!het
(e l se 11 . . . 4:,xe4 might hav e
been a problem , a s in the
aforementio ned game Vyed
- Szabo) 1 1 . . . 4:,eS = (or 1 1 . . .
a6 perhaps ) Zatu lo w ski -
Ku s h nir, Match 1971 , w hich
gave B l ack no prob lems at
al l .
10 . . . 4:,e5
11 .Q.e2
wou ld prefer not to p l ay
this mov e, it is neces sary
for the protection of f3
si nce as before, 1 1 h4 ??
l oses to 1 1 . . . cS.
11 . . . a6
12 h4
Larsen , i n h i s book Wh.J
Not the Philidor Defence ?
pu b li shed i n 197 1 , al so a n­
alyses 12 gS 4:,hS 1 3 f4 ( 1 3
!!hgt bS) 1 3 . . . 4:,g4 1 4 .Q.g1
c5 ! 1 5 4:,b3 .Q.xc3 ! 16 be r!xe4
17 h3 ( 1 7 4:,xcS rlxe2) 1 7 . . .
4:,g3 1 8 .Q.xg4 .Q.xg 4 1 9 hg
4:,xh 1 20 �g 2 �e7 21 �xh t
r!e8 , w i t h good chances for
B l ack . Curiou s l y, i n the
64 Larsen 's Varia tion - Pseudo- Yugosla v A t tack

i n terveni ng period, very wi l d pos it i on which mig

l i t t l e o f h i s analysis has not be at all bad for B l acl
had any p ractica l testi ng . 12
.Q.gS b5 1 3 �d5 !1b 7 1 4
�xf6+ !1xf6 1 5 !1xf6 �x f6 i s
eq ua l , accordi ng to Sama­
rian , b u t w hy s hou ld Wh i te
want to waste time exchan­
gi ng pieces l ike t h i s ?
12 . . . bS
Larsen , agai n , men tions
that 1 2 . . . c5! ? deserves con­
siderati o n . I f 13 �b3 c4 1 4
�c5! ? !1xg 4 1 5 �xb7 tbb8 16 b) 13 hS cS 1 4 �fS ( a gai
�xd6 �xf3 is good for 14 �b3 i n v i tes t 4 . . . c4
B l ack , w h i l st 1 4 �d 4 b5 and �d 4 b4 1 6 �dS c3! + ) 1 4
1 3 �f5 w i l l dev e l op al ong gf! ? 1 5 g f �h8 1 6 !!h g t �g
the l i nes of the mai n varia- Bl ack s hou l d be ready
tio n . su ffer a l i t t l e for his e x t
13 .Q.gS pi ece - analysis of Hei
.
Thi s pi n i s q u i te an noy­ t ng ' s .
i ng for B l ack , b u t it is by c) 13 �hg1 ( i n order
no means certain that it is gi ve added force to the 4J
the bes t mov e. Others : sacrifice) 13 . . . cS t 4 4J
a) 13 !1h6 !1h 8 1 4 h5 c5 1 5 gf? 1 5 g f lfih8 1 6 !1h6 win
�fS ( 15 �b3? c4 1 6 �d 4 b 4 i ng, but t3 . . . b4! 14 �d5
t 7 �d 5 c3 ! + ) 1 5 . . . b 4 ( t 5 . . . 1 5 �f5 ( 15 �b3? c4 to ��
dS ? did not t u rn ou t we l l i n �xdS 1 7 ed tbaS-+ ) 15
the game Tses hkovsky - �xd5 1 6 ed !1xf5 17 gf twj
Lehman, A l bena 1 977: 1 6 hg (58) - H ei l i ng .
fg 1 7 g5 d4? - 17 . . . !1xf5
fi rs t was better, 18 ef d4 19
gf de 20 �xc3 tbf6 ± - 1 8 g f
!1xf5 1 9 �d5 ! !1e6 2 0 .Qg5!
!1xd5 21 f7+ + ) 16 �dS �xd5
17 �xd5 !1e6 1 8 �xd6 �f6 is
more a na ly si s of Larsen's,
w hen the threats of . . . �c 4,
. . . �xf3 discoveri ng a n att­
ack on b2 , or . . . gf seem to
force 19 g5 �d3+ 20 !1xd3
�xb2+ 2t lfid2 gf (57) w i th a When 18 .Qg S �xfS
 Larsen 's Varia tion - Pseudo- Yugosla v A t tack 65

wi nning for Black , and i f 1 8 the maj ori ty .

fg? ! then abs urd moves l i ke 14 . . . e4
18 . . . 4Jg 4 ! are possible. 15 4Jd4 b4
13 . . . eSI ? 16 4Jd5 e31
I t is not c l ear that t h i s i s 17 be be
the bes t m o v e h ere , 13 . . . 18 4Jxe3
.Q.b7 fi rst might be an i m ­ 1 8 �xc3 al l ow s Bl ack to
provement: 1 4 h 5 c 5 1 5 4jf5 unpi n w i th 18 . . . 4Jxd5 19
(agai n , forced of co urse) 15 ed �b6 w hen White must
. . . gf 1 6 gf �h 8 17 !!hg 1 !!g B face a pow erfu l attack.
18 f4 b4! 19 4Ja4 and now , 18 . . . �aS
in the p l ace of 1 9 . . . 4Jxe 4? 19 4Jb3 tWa3+
20 .Q.xd8 4Jxd2 2 1 h6! !!a xd8 20 �bl (59)
22 hg+ �xg7 23 !!xg 7 �xg7
as in Sax - Adorjan , H u n­ 59
gary 1971 , w hen 24 f6+ ! �h6 B
25 fe was m u ch better for
White , B l ack s hou l d p l ay 19
. . . 4Jed7 , w hen bo th 20 h6
_ctf8 21 e5 !!xg5! and 20
�xd6 h6 seem to be w i n n­
ing for Black . As it very
ofte n happens that B l ack
has the opportu nity to take
the piece on f5 i n this var­ 20 . . . 4Jexg4!
iati on, it is i n teres ti ng to 21 �xd6?
observe how a s trong Of co urse 21 fg 4Jxe4
player sets about defendi ng w i ns on the s po t , but 21 eS!
the black positio n , ev en if al l owed White to make a
he did err at one poi n t. game of i t , e . g : 21 . . . 4Jxe5
14 4Jb3? 22 tbxd6 tbxd6 23 �xd6
As we have prev iously .Q.e6 + .
seen, 1 4 4Jf5 was ob li ga tory 21 . . . 4Jxe41 ! (60)
1 4 . . gf 1 5 gf �h8 is u n­
. Su perb ! Black sacri fi ces
c l ear, but Wh i te w i l l hav e hi s quee n , b u t wi ns more
reasonab l e practical c han­ than enoug h materia l for i t
ces . It does of co urse take and mai n tai ns h i s attack.
quite a l ot of co urage to 22 �xa3 4Jxe3+
put a piece en prise; I won­ 23 �et 4Jxe2+
der how many cl ub players 24 �b1
\You Id have automatical ly 24 �d2 is prohibited : 24
played 1 4 4Jb3? Probab ly . . . .Q.c3+ 25 �d3 .Q.f5+ 26 �c4
66 Larsen 's Varia tion - Pseudo- Yugosla v A t tack

34 ... 4:>g3
60 o-t
w The b l ack pieces are ho­
m i ng i n for the ki l l , Be ngt­
sson - Wah l bo m , U ppsa la
1970.
If you were to as k me
w h ich is be tte r, variation A
( w i th 8 . . . 4:>c6) or vari ation
B ( w ith 8 . . !!e8) , then I
.

wou ld have to say: I do n't

4:>eS+ 27 �dS !l_e6+ 28 �e4 know. Why not try both?
fS+ 29 �e3 4:>c 4+ w i n n i ng . Al tho ugh there may see m
24 . . . 4:>f2 to be a lot of variations to
25 !!dB !!xd8 remember, it is rea l ly not
26 !l_xd8 4:>xht so m u ch w hen you com pare
27 tbe 7 4:>c3+ i t w i th, say , the Sici l i an
28 �et 4:>xa2 + Drago n (I have fo ur books
29 �bt 4:>e3+ at ho me j u s t fo r the Y u go­
30 �et hS s l av attack! ) .
3t �e8+ �h7 Any u nprepared w h ite
32 �xf7 !l_e6 p l ayer wi l l have to fi nd h i s
33 �xe6 �xd8 way through a veri tab l e
34 4:>d2 mi nefield over the board.
34 �xa6 !!d t + 35 �b2 and the s l i ghtes t mi stake
!!b t + 36 �a3 l ets B l ack's can pres ent B l ack w ith j u s t
ki ng's bi s hop have the fi nal the sort of v io lent attack
word : 36 . . . !l_f8+ mati ng. of w h ich he dream s .
6) Antoshin's Variation
1 e4 eS
2 4Jf3 d6
3 d4 ed
4 4Jxd4 4Jf6
5 4Jc3 !J.e7 (61)
I 3 . . . 4Jf6 4 4Jc3 ed 5 4Jxd 4
Thi s system is si mi l ar to
Larsen's vari ation i n that
Bl ack takes on d 4 and co n­
cedes the cen tre, bu t i n­
stead o f fianchetto i n g his
ki ng's bi shop he pl ay s it
immediate ly to e7 . Whi l s t
he may not su ffer the po­
tential dark-sq uare w eak­
ness of Larsen's sy stem , on
the other hand , h i s co u n­
terp lay w i l l be s l ow er.
Al tho u gh thi s vari atio n
has been e m p l oyed by bo th
Morphy and Ni mzo w i tsc h,
it is the Soviet players
Ho l mov , Georgadze and, in
particu l ar, An tos hi n w ho
have proved i ts viabi l i ty .
Before proceedi ng w i t h
the analy si s , I sh o u l d men­
tion that thi s posi ti on can
eq ual ly wel l be reac hed b�
!J.e7 , thou g h i n t h i s case.
B l ack wi l l have to be co n-
versant w i th 4 de ( c hapter
10) . In ei ther case �xd 4 i n­
stead of 4Jxd 4 wi l l tran s­
pose to chapter 7.
Wh ite's sixth mov es are
cl ass i fied as fo l l ow s :
A 6 !J.f4 !
B 6 g3
C 6 !J.c 4
D 6 !J.e2
E 6 !J.d3
A
6 !J.f41 o-o
7 t(fd2 (62)
As in Larsen's vari ation
the most cri tical test of
Black's set- up i n vo l ves the
q u ick mobi l ization of the
q u eens ide pi eces and cast­
l i ng long by Wh i te. Not
on ly does thi s threaten to
swamp B l ack w i t h a ki ng-
68 A n toshin 's Varia tion
62
B
side paw n aval anche, b u t
al so t h e press u re al ong the
d- fi l e wi l l mak e it di fficu l t
for B l ack to carry o u t the
freei ng paw n adv a nce . . . d5 .
7 ... a6
By contro l l i ng b5, Black
prepa res either . . . d5 or . . .
b5 , b u t t he re are s everal
al ternati v es :
a) 7 . . . 4jc6 ( th i s sens ible
dev elo pi ng move does
not h i n g to s to p Wh ite from
i m p l e menti ng hi s basic
plan o f a ki ngside paw n
storm ) 8 0- 0- 0 4jxd 4 9
t(fxd 4 .Q.e6 1 0 f3 a6 1 1 g 4 �e8
12 h 4 bS 1 3 gS cS 1 4 twe3
4jh5 15 .Q.h2 t(ya5 16 �b1 c4 17
4jd5 , Ta l - Ho l mov . Ri ga
1968 , w hich was very m u ch
to Wh i te's adv antage.
b) 7 ... �ea 8 o-o-o .Q.f8 9
f3 4jbd7 ( B lack's p l ay is
very s l ow , and by the ti me
that h e deci des to start
p l ay on the q ueenside, it is
al ready too late) 10 g4 4je5
1 1 .Q.e2 a6 12 h 4 b5 13 h5
.Q.e6? (63) 1 4 4Jxe6 fe? ( t h i s
care less recapture i s a
bl u nder, losi ng a pi ece i n
an am u si ng man ner, bu t
Whi te's attack was wel l o n
the way to hi tti n g its targe t
anyway) 15 .Q.xe5 de 1 6 g5 .Q.d6
1 7 gf t(fxf6 18 t(ye3 t/Je7 19
�d3 �fd8 20 t(fd2 1-0 Kas h­
da n - Ko l tanow sk i , Londo n
1932.
c) 7 . . . dSI? (i ndeed, there
is a certai n amo u nt of logic
behi nd play i n g this thru s t
w h i l e the w h i te k i ng i s sti l l
on e t ) 8 ed ( 8 eS fJhS 9 .Q.g3
{6. 9 . . . f5 may wel l be an
i m prov ement as 1 0 e6?
wo u l d be an swered by 10 . . .
f4; 10 f4 c5 1 1 4jdb5 d 4 12
4je2 a6 13 4Ja3 .Q.e6 is tru ly
m i serable for Whi te; and tO
ef wou ld tra nspose into
the co n ti n uation be l ow
w i thou t al low ing White' s
next al ternative. 10 ef. Ker­
es s u ggested 1 0 e6 as an
i m prov emen t. 10 . . . �x f6 11
�e2 .Q.gS 12 tjd3 {Jf4 == Zu­
rav l ev - Go lcov , Corr 1968,
w h i l s t 8 fJdbS �b4! 9 ed
[1e8+ /0 �e2 fJe4 11 rt/d3 �fS
12 tjf3 fJa6 /3 0- 0 ,tlxc3�

Shi l ov - Podo l s ky , USS R
1979, i s fi n e for B l ack) 8 . . .
.Q.b4! ( 8 . . . 4jxdS 9 4JxdS
�xdS 10 4JbS �e4+ 1 1 .Q.e2
4Ja6 1 2 0-0 �d B 1 3 .Q.d3 �c6
1 4 �e3 �e8 tS �fe l l ed to
a q u i ck cru s h for Wh i te i n
the game Ki ri l ov - Darz­
niek , USS R 1 972) 9 0-0-0
.Q.xc3 10 �xc3 4jxdS 1 1 �g3
4jxf4 12 �xf 4 �dS 13 4jb3
tbfS was on ly a l i tt l e better
for Whi te , Agapov - An te­
s h i n , USSR 1 983 .
d) 7 ... c61? 8 0-0-0 ( 8
.Q.e2 occu rred i n a co u p l e of
games of the Da n i s h corr­
espo ndence p layer Gra n­
berg i n 1 9 8 4 , both co nti n u­
i ng 8 . . . dS 9 ed 4jxdS 1 0
4JxdS �xdS 1 1 .Q.f3 �c 4 ,
which l ook s fai rly eq ua l ) 8
. . . bS ( w hi l st exami n i ng
these games I noticed that
8 . dS see m s to be a sen­
. .
sib l e so l u ti o n to B l ack's
prob l e m s , e.g : 9 ed 4)xd5 10
4)xdS (Jt,'ld5 11 4)b3. 1 1 �bt cS
12 4jf3 �xd2 1 3 �xd2 4jc6 . 11
. . . (Jtxd2+ 12 l!xd2 4)d7 13
.Qd3 4)f6 14 l!he l ? 4)d5+ as
any move of the b i s hop
a l ong the h2- g8 diago n a l
a l lows . . . .Q.g S , and 1 S .Q.e3
4jxe3 1 6 fe i s awfu l , so tS
g3 .Q.e6 1 6 .Q.eS 4jb4 17 a3
4jxd3+ gai ning the b i s hop
pai r; or 9 eS 4)e8 10 .Qd3
4)c7 11 4)f5 .QxfS 12 .QxfS
fje6 13 1J.g3 4)a6 , say , w i t h
the p l an o f . . . 4Jac7 , a n d . . .
f6 or . . . fS . Of co u rse, o n ly
An toshin's Varia tion 69
a real game co u I d provide a
test of a l l thi s) 9 f3 b4 1 0
4Jce2 ( 1 0 4jbt has a l so been
played wi th success , but i t
m u s t be i n ferior. The
k n i g h t is more active on e2 ,
however, Hy l dk rog - I jen­
sen , Corr 1 98 4 , conti n u ed
tO . . . �b6 1 1 g 4 dS 12 eS 4Je8
1 3 h 4 4Jc7 1 4 4jfS .Q.cS ? 15
.Q.d3 4jd 7 16 .Q.h6! +) 1 0 . . .
4jhS? ! (thi s seems to be a
waste of ti me, t O . . . aS
m i g ht better) 1 1 h 4 ( 1 1 g 4
4jxf4 12 4jxf4 cS 1 3 4jf5
.Q.x fS 1 4 e f 4Jc6 1S 4jdS± B
C h ri s te n sen Granberg ,
Corr 1 984) 1 1 . . . cS 12 4jb5
.Q.d7 1 3 4jxd6 �aS 1 4 �dS
4jxf4 tS 4jxf4 .Q.c6 1 6 tf1c4
4Jd7 1 7 4jfS w he n B l ack did
not have e nough com pensa­
tion for h i s pawn , Charu ­
s h i n - Granberg , Corr 1989 .
a o-o-o ds
It appears that Bl ack
m u s t p l ay t h i s si nce the
a l ternative 8 ... bS, fares
badly: 9 f3 b4 10 4jdS 4Jxd5
t t ed aS 12 g 4 ! ( 1 2 .Q.c 4 .Q.b7
1 3 4jfS 4Jd7 1 4 4Jxe7+ �xe7
tS � he t was a l so better for
Wh i te i n Hol mov - An te­
s hi n , Hav ana 1 968) 1 2 . . . .Q.b7
13 4jfS .Q.f6 1 4 h 4 �d7 ? 15
.Q.gS! �dB 16 �et 4jd7 1 7
�e7 ! ! (64)
1 7 . . . �h 8 ( 1 7 . . . .Q.xe7 1 8
4Jxe7+ �h 8 19 4Jg6+ , wi n n­
i n g t he q ueen , is the att­
racti ve poi n t of White' s
tacti c) 1 8 �xd7 .Q.xb2+ ( des-
70 An toshin's Varia tion
64
B as 1 2 . . . the? l ooks too ob­
peratio n , t 8 . . . �xd7 t 9 !l_xf6
g f 20 �h6 l eads to m ate) t9
�xb2 �xd7 20 !l_f6 ( a nyw ay !
20 . . . g f 2 t tbh6 �g 8 22
tbx f6+ ) t -0 Petros i a n - Gu­
sev , USSR 1968 .
S l ower moves , s uc h as 8
... �ea 9 f3 b5 to g 4 !l_b 7 t t
4jf5 4jbd7 12 h 4 4jbb t 3 h5
Cioca ltea - Vai s m an , Ru­
mania t980 ; or 8 . . . 4jc6 9 f3
4jxd4 10 tbxd 4 !l_e6 1 1 �b t
b5 12 tbd2 Sves h ni kov -
Ka l atozi s h v ili , USS R t975,
can not be better.
9 ed
In practice this has bee n
the preferred m ov e , 9 4Jxd5
4jxd5 tO ed �xd5 w i l l tra n­
spose to a l ater note, 9 e5
is often g i ve n as best h ere
with the fol l ow - u p 9 . . .
4jh5 1 0 !l_e3 c5 1 1 4jb3 d 4 t2
tbe2 �c7 13 4jd5 �xe5 1 4
4jxe7+ �xe7 15 !l_d2 ! ( not 15
�x h5 de 16 �e t , Bitman -
Ageiche nko, Mo scow t967 ,
w h e n 1 6 . . . �c7 t 7 �xe3 c4
is eq ual ) 15 . . . tbxe2 16 !l_xe2
4jf6 t? 4jxc5 w ith a c l ear
advantage to Wh ite in the
e ndgame - ana lysis by Es­
tri n - but I' m not con v i nced
l i gi ng. 12 .. . g6 l eaves the
w h ite p ieces tang l ed u p: 13
!l_ h6? loses i m mediate ly to
1 3 .. . �5+ ; and 1 3 4je4 4jd7
t 4 !l_h6 �e8 i s a l so fi ne for
Black . A ny how , 9 . . . 4Je8 i s
good , w h en 1 0 4jb3 c6 a l l­
ow s B l ack to develop his
pi eces beh i nd h i s so l id wal l
of q u eenside paw ns , afte r
w h ich Wh ite w i l l ha ve g reat
di fficu lti es keep in g i t re­
strai ned . It is not easy to
gi ve concrete vari ations ,
but 1 1 f3 4jc7 1 2 !l_d3 cS i s
o n e poss ibi l ity ; o r t 2 h 4 aS
t3 a 4 4jba6.
9 ... 4jxd5
10 4jf5 !
10 4jxd5 t/1xd5 1 1 4jb3
tbc6! 12 !l_d3 ( 12 !l_e2 �a 4 13
!l_xc7 4Jc6 g i v es B l ack good
p l ay for the paw n , Hol mov
- Garcia, Havana t968) 12 . ..
�a 4! ( not t2 . . . !l_e6 1 3 tbe3
tbb6 1 4 t/1xb6 cb t 5 !l_e3+
Li berzon - Antos hi n , USSR
t971 ) 1 3 �bt 4jcb 1 4 !l_xc7
!l_e6 and . . . �ac8 w he n Black
w i l l hav e a stro ng q uee n­
side i n iti ativ e for the paw n .
10... 4jxf4
11 tf1e31?
1 1 4Jxe7+ tf1xe7 12 thxf4
!l_e6 1 3 g3 4Jc6 1 4 �2 !!ad8
t5 !l_xc6 be 16 !!xd8 �xd8
was soon agreed drawn in
Zaits ev - Antos hi n , USSR
1 969. Obv i ou sly t t thxf4 ??
 An toshin's Varia tion 71

.QgS i s not good , b ut i n h i s

annotations o f the above 66

ga me Estri n analyses the B

text move and hi s a n a ly sis
was l ater tri ed o ut in the
( b l itz) game Gi ps l i s - An­
tos hi n , Moscow 1 972.
11 ... .Q.gSI
12 rtxd8 rtxd8
13 �e4 (65)
Whi te m u st defend the
knight on fS , s i n ce 1 3 �b1 ? 21 rtxd1
!l_xfS 1 4 h4 !l_h6 ha nds Black So far, thi s seems u n­
a materia l su periority to go avoidab l e. Now vari o u s
with h i s i nitiati v e . so urces g iv e th i s a s either
+ or ± , presu mab ly on acc­
ou nt o n White's co ntro l of
the d- file , a nd his acti v e
k i n g . However, at t h e mo­
ment, h i s q u een s i de paw ns
are w eak and th ere are
oppos ite co l ou r bi shops o n
the board . I as ses s th i s as
u n clear, e . g : 21 . . . aS+ 22
�bS ( 22 �b3?? �cS m ate !;
22 �a 4 �cS+ 23 �bS !l_a3) 22
13 ... �e2+ . . . !l_b2 23 !!d 7 !l_xc3.
14 �b1 �xc3+ In co nclu s ion , agai n st 6
15 be rtd1+ !l_f4 , w h i ch is the mos t
16 �b2 !l_c1+ criti cal move, Black m u s t
17 �b3 !l_e6+ p l ay . . . dS either i m medi­
18 !l_c4 � d7 1 ately on mov e 7 or after
19 �xe6 (66) pre paration by . . . a6 o r
Forced, as both �cS+ and ( possi bly best) by . . . c6 .
�x hl were me naced e.g : 19
tbg 4? �cS+ 20 �b 4 aS+ 21 B
�xcS !l_a3+ 22 �bS !l_d7 6 g3
mate. Thi s move has enjoy ed a
This weird pos i ti o n de­ certai n vog u e of l ate.
serv es a diagra m . Wh ite 's plan i s c l ear: he
19 ... �cS+ i ntends .Qg2, tak i ng a fi rm
20 �b 4 �xe6 ho l d on dS and making it
72 An toshin's Varia tion
i m pos s ib l e for Black to
free hi m se l f.
I n the l ig h t of thi s B lack
p l ay s :
6 ... dSI?
The a l ternati ves: 6 ... !l,d7
7 !lg2 4jc6 8 4j f5 0-0 9 0-0
!!e8 10 4J x e 7+ , S ha m kovich
- H o l mov , USS R C h 1 964/5;
and 6 ••• o-o 7 !lg2 !lg 4 8
tbd2! 4jc6 9 h3 .Q.d7 1 0 4jde2!
!!e8 11 b3, Spas s ky - Ho l­
mov , USSR 1971, l eave Bl ack
poorly pl aced. It i s noti ce­
ab le t hat Spass ky ( w ho w as
worl d c ha m pi o n at t he
ti me) as s id uo u s l y av oids
any exchange w h ich wo u l d
ease B l ack's tas k .
7 eS
The on ly pri nci p l ed re­
p l y , K u d ri n - C h ib u rda n­
idze, Ku sadasi 1990, con ti n­
ued i ns tead 7 ed ? ! 4jxd5 8
4jf3 4jxc3 9 tbxd8+ !l,xd8 10
be .Q.fS 11 !lg2 4jc6 12 0-0
il2�, b u t Whi te i s a l ready
worse .
7 ... 4jg4?1
Un i v ersa l ly p l ayed i n t h i s
posi tio n , b u t q u i te pos s ib ly
not t he be s t , Za i tsev g i ves
7 . . . 4je4!? 8 4Jxe4 de 9 !lg2
tbdS tO 0-0 4jc6! as equa l ,
and h e may be ri g ht : 1 1
4Jxc6 tbxc6 1 2 !!et !l,fS 13
tbe2 0-0-0 14 .Q.xe4 .Q.xe4 1 5
tbxe4 tbxe 4 16 !!xe 4 !!d t + 1 7
�g2 !!Bd8 (6 7)
wo u l d gi ve W h i te cons i d­
erab l e prob l em s dev e l op i n g
h i s q u ee ns ide, as 1 8 b 3 .Q.a3
67
w
w i ns . And i f i n s tead 1 4 !l,f4,
then 14 . . . gS keeps the
eq u i l i bri u m .
8 !l,f4
8 e6 i s v ery tempti ng but
see m s to backfire: 8 . . . 4jfb
9 ef+ (9 !l,h3 4jc6! 10 ef+
�x f7 1 1 !l,xc8 tbxc8 1 2 4jf3
tbd7 13 0-0 !!he8 14 �d3.
Spee l man - Georgadze, Ha­
sti ngs 1979/80, w hen 1 4 . . .
�g 8 15 !lgS 4jb 4 16 �d 2 cb
i s sl i g h t l y better for B l ack.
and 11 . . . !!xc8 wou l d be
s i m p l er s ti l l ) 9 ... �x f7 10
!lg2 c6 lt 0-0 !!e8 ( 1 1 . . .
4jbd7 12 !!e t 4jc5 13 b 4 ! 4jeb
14 bS of Ge l l er - Georgadze,
USS R C h 1 979 , is u nc l ear.
tho u g h B lack was soo n
better) 1 2 4Jce2 (12 !l,f4 4jab
13 tbd2 4jc5 1 4 !!ae t 4je6 15
!l,eS 4j xd4 tb tbxd 4 ,!l.f4 is
a l so l ev e l ) 1 2 . . . 4jbd7 13 b3
4Je5 1 4 .Q.b2 .Q.cS tS h3 tbbb =
Ha l i fman - Kuz min, Lv ov
1990.
Whereas t he ri sky 8 4jf3
l ed to a s l ig h t p l u s for
Whi te i n the ga me Pa l atnik
- H o l mov , USSR 1972: 8 . ..
 An toshin 's Varia tion 73
�cS 9 �xdS .Q.x f2+ 10 �e2 attem pt, altho u g h White is
�b6 1 1 h3 �h6 1 2 �xd8+ sti l l somew hat better) 19
�xda 13 !lgS + �ea 14 h4 �x f7+ �ha 20 �xb7 1-0. A
4Jg8 15 !!et �c6 t6 �d1 .Q.e6 gam e of p u re com p l ica­
t7 .Q.bS �ge7 ta �et a6 a l ­ tions !
tho u gh Black s hou l d n 't 9 �bd5 d4
have too many prob l em s 10 �d5 o-o
here. However, many p lay­ 11 .Qg 2 �c6
ers wou ld fi nd tO . . . bb very 12 �e2 .Qg5
tem pti ng here as tt �xaa? ? 13 �xg5 �x g5
�a6 + l eads to mate , and t 1 14 f4 �g 6
tbxda+ �xda 1 2 h 3 .Q.a6+ t3 15 o-o-o �e6
�d 1 .Q.b7 t4 !lg2 �e3+ al so 16 �e4 tbh6
appears very pro m isi ng. 17 �dc7
Why it was not tried . I do Thi s has bee n on the
not k now . cards for some ti me; B lack
8 ... c5 manages to g i v e u p the ex­
I n the game S m iri n - chan ge for some tactica l
Kuzmi n , Lv ov 1 990 , B lack play aro u nd Wh ite's k i n g ,
essayed the u ltra s harp a . . . b u t i t may not be enou g h .
0-0? ! w hen 9 h3 �xeS 10 17 .. �e3
�xeS �ea t 1 .Q.e2 .Q.b4 12 .Q.f4 18 �xa8 !!xa8
cS 13 �bS d4 1 4 0-0! �xh3 19 �c 7 !!c 8
( 1 4 . . . de? tS �xda !!xd8 16 20 �xe6 �xe6
be �aS t7 �c7 ! + - is the neat 21 !!d3 �b4
poi nt) 15 �a4 �c6 (15 . . . 22 !!a3 c4
�dS 1 6 �f3) 16 �d6 !!xe2 1 7 23 !!xe3
�xe2 c4 (68) Wi sely decid i n g to retu rn
the exchange.
68 23 ... c3! (69)
w No than k s ! 23 . . . de 24 a3
is c l ear ly better for Wh ite.
24 b3
White can keep his rook
with 2 4 !!f3? ? , b u t afte r 24
.. . �xa2 he loses h i s k i n g !
24 ... de
25 a3
And now the game Dei ko
ta �hS! �xft? ( 18 . . . �xd6 19 - A ntos hi n , M i n sk t 9a3.
�x h3 bS 20 �xd6 �xd6 2t term i nated in a very
4Jc3 de 22 be i s Black's best stran ge fashion - pres u m -
74 An toshin 's Variation

c
69
6 .Q.c4
w
Although thi s move i s
not parti cu larly com mon at
this stage , this pos ition is
q u ite l i kely to occ ur from
another move order, v i z 1
e4 e5 2 cijf3 d6 3 .Q.c 4 .Q.e7
(the most sol id , bu t see
chapter t) 4 d4 ed 5 cijxd 4
cijf6 6 cijc3 and i s therefore
i m portant to remem ber.
ab ly d ue to m utual ti m e 6 ... o-o
press u re: 7 o-o
25 ... cija6?? Thi s is the most natura l ,
25 . . . cijd5 seems to h o l d but 7 .Q.b3 is al so so me­
- 26 �dt �e7 or 26 .Q.xd5 ti mes p l ayed, presu mab l)
�xd5 27 �dt �c5 both in order to avoid any cijxe4
threaten �xa3+ and trick s ; 7 .. . cija6 a 0-0 cijcS q
mate. �e t (9 ti!Jf3 cijxb3 tO ab cb 11
26 .Q.xb7 t!Je7 cijf5 was a l so a l i ttle bette r
27 twxa6 for Whi te i n Wes teri nen -
Thi s is pres u mab ly w hat Garcia, Lugano t96a) 9 ...
Black m i ssed , a3 i s defe n­ cijxb3 tO ab �ea tt �f3 .Q.d7
ded . t2 h3 h6 13 .Q.f4 cijh7 1 4 T:!ad l
27 ... �dB .Q.f6 15 �g3 .Q.h 4 t6 twd3 cijf8
2B �dt? �d2 1 7 cijf3 cijg6 ta .Q.h 2 .!lcb 1q
29 �xd2? ed+ cijd4 cijeS 20 .Q.xe5 T:!xeS 21
30 �dt �cS cijf3 �ea 22 e5 .Q.e7 23 cijd 4
Su dde n ly B l ack has some �d 7 24 cijf5 �ada? (It
very po te n t threats that w o u ld have been better to
ob l i ge Wh ite to make a acq u iesce i n p l ay i ng a
draw by perpet ual check . s l ig htly i n ferior e ndgame:
31 .Q.g2 g6 24 . . . .Q.fa t5 ed T:!xet+ 26
32 �d3 �xa3 �xet .Q.xd6 27 cijxd6 twxdb
33 �dB + �4.z 2a twxd6 cd 29 T:!dt, as now
I hav e to say that the Wh ite demo l i s hes the b l ack
w ho le game l ooks very ki ng side) 25 e6! fe (70)
fis hy to me, and therefore I 26 cijxh6+ ! g h 27 �g6+ �h8
shou l d prefer the, ad mi tt­ 2a �xh6+ �ga 29 �g6+ �h8
ed ly u ntri ed , 7 . . . cije4 to 7 30 �d 4 e5 31 �g 4 twxg 4 32
. . . cijg 4. hg .Q.f8 33 �e3 �7 3 4 �f7

70
w . . . 4Jxe4 does n't seem s to
1-0 Diaz - H o l mov, Fru nze
1989.
The w ho l e idea of e x­
changi ng White' s l i g ht
sq uared bi s h op seem s very
ti me-cons u m i ng and l eaves
Wh ite w ith a nag gi ng space
advantage . I thi n k that
B lack can p l ay more agg­
res s i v e ly : 7 . . . c5 ! ? 8 4Jde2
(8 4Jf5 !l_x f5 - 8 . . . 4Jxe4 ? ! 9
4Jh6+ i s messy - 9 e f �d7 10
�f3 4Jc6 i s good for B l ack -
4jd4 i s a th reat - he ha s a
central paw n and a n advan­
tage i n deve l opment; 8 4Jf3
4Jc6 9 0-0 !l_e6=-; but not 8
4Jdb5? a6 9 4Ja3 b5 when
the w hite mi nor pieces l ook
rather si l ly) 8 . . . a6 9 a4
(e l se . . . b5 is an noy i ngi 9 . . .
4Jc6 1 0 0-0 4Jb4 takin g a
fi rm gri p on d5. Thi s ty pe
of po sitio n rem i nd s me of
certai n vari ations of the
Si ci l ia n Defe nce, if B lack
can keep co ntro l over d5
then the di sadvantage s of
the backward d-paw n w i l l
be more tha n outw eig hed
by the dynam ic advantages.
An toshin's Varia tion 75
7 ... a6!
The obv i ous 'eq ual i zer' 7
ach ieve its obj ecti v e: 8
4Jxe 4 d5 9 !l_d3 de 1 0 !l_xe 4
4Jd7 ( 10 . . . !l_f6 11 c3 �eB 12
�c2 g6 1 3 !l_f 4 !l_e5? - 13 . . .
4Jd7± - 14 !l_xe5 !!xeS 1 5 f4
!!e7 16 fS with a powerfu l
attack , Dv oretsky - C hep­
u kai ti s , USS R 1 968) 1 1 4Jf5
!l_f6 1 2 !l_e3! g6? 13 4Jh6+
�h 8 14 !l_d5 �g7 1 5 4Jg 4
�g8 16 �f3 !!eB 1 7 !l_h6 c6
1 8 !!ae 1 1-0 Sch u l z - A l b u rt.
Odes sa 1 969 , but thi s is
hard ly model p l ay by Black!
8 a4
In order to protect
the w hite bi s hop fro m
B l ack's q ueenside expan­
sion, but it weakens b 4 .
8 ... 4Jc6
9 !l_f4 4Jb4
10 !l_b3 cS!
11 4Jf3 !l_e6
12 4Jd2?!
A bad mov e in an u n ­
i nspiri n g positio n , Anga nty­
sson - Antos hi n , Reykjav i k
1976, conti n ued: 1 2 . . . dS ( 71)
71
B
76 An toshin's Varia tion
t3 ed 4Jfxd5 t 4 4Jxd5 4Jxd5
tS .Qg3 bS w he n B l ack he l d
the advantage . Antos h i n
and Georgadze see ms to
have thi s system do w n to a
fine art, a nd i t i s i nteres­
ti ng to co m pare this w ith
the Meste l - Georgadze
ga me fro m c hapter t.
D � ad t ,!lf6 t3 tbd2 4Jb6 1 4 b3
6 ,!le2
Asi de fro m the more
normal 6 ,!lf4, 6 g3 and 6
,!lc4 , Whi te has a co u p l e of
other al ternati ves . The
m ost i m portant of these is
6 ,!le2 , w h ich is a s o l i d co n­
ti n uatio n , i f n ot partic u lar­
l y tro u b l eso me for B lack .
6 ... o-o
The re i s no reaso n to
de lay cast l i ng , 6 . . . a6 7 0-0
0-0 transposes , and b . . . dS
i s thoro ug h ly i napprop­
riate: 7 eS 4Je4 8 4Jxe4 de 9
,!le3 ± .
7 Q-0 cSI
Si m p l e and good . The
alternatives are many and
vari ed:
a) 7 .. . 4J c6 8 ,!le 3 (8 4Jxc6
does n't l ook ri g h t , the
ce lebrated game Leon hardt
- Ni mzowi tsch , Sa n Sebas­
tian t9 t 2 , co nti n u ed 8 . . . be
9 b3 dS?! tO eS 4Je8 t t f4 fS
t2 ,!le3 g6 t3 4Ja 4 4Jg 7 t 4
tbd2 tbd7 tS tbaS 4Je6 ( bl ock­
ade!) t6 �adt �dB and now ,
i n stead o f t7 4Jc5? w hen t 7
. . . ,!lxcS al l ow ed B l ack to
keep his powerfu I bl ockade.
17 ,!lcS wo u l d have l ed to
Wh ite's advantage. As it
w as , B lack won a fi ne bri l l ­
ia ncy . However, Keres i n­
di cated that 9 . . . 4jd7 tO ,!lb2
,!lf6 wou l d ha ve given
better chances of eq ual i­
zing) 8 . . ,!ld7 9 f4 4Jxd 4 tO
.
tbxd 4 ,!lc6 tt ,!lf3 4Jd7 12
i s better for White.
b) 7 ... c6 8 g 4 ! ? dS 9 e S
4Je4 10 4Jxe 4 de t t 4Jf5,
agai n better for White ,
Myani skov - Go l oscapov ,
Moscow t968.
c) 7 ... � e 8 8 f4 (8 i:!et
,!lf8 9 ,!lf t h6 t 0 ,!lf 4 4Jbd7 ll
h3 ± , Iose lani - C h i b u rda n­
idze, Tel A v i v t988) 8 . ,!lfB
. .
(8 . . . 4Jc6 9 ,!le3 ,!ld7 t O 4Jb3!
,!lf8 t t ,!lf3 �c8 12 h3 bS 13
a3 �b8 t 4 � et aS t S ,!lf2 b4
16 4Jd5 ± , As eev - Kuzmi n ,
USSR C h t990) 9 ,!lf3 cS
( better tha n 9 . . . 4Ja6 1 0 T:!et
c6 t t g4!? 4Jd7 t2 gS + , Ab­
ramovic Fran ic, Be la
Crk va t987 , bu t tO . . . 4Jc5 11
4Jb3 4Jxb3 t2 ab ± is a
better try) tO 4Jb3 4Jc6 11
,!le3 dS! t2 ed �xe3 t3 de
�b6co , Sm i ri n - Kuzmi n ,
USSR C h t 990.
d) 7 ... a6. Th is is the most
pop u l ar, 8 f4 (8 1J.f3 g6. Or
8 . . . 4Jc6 9 4Jxc6 be tO ,!lf4
�b8 t t b3 4Jd 7 t2 tbd2 Am­
irk hanov - Kas paryan , USSR
t9 56. 9 g3 cS 10 cfjde2 cfjc6 11
.Qg2;t, Tses hkov s ky - Geor-

gadze , USSR C h 1979 a nd 8
!Je1 cS 9 4)b3 bS 10 .Qf3 !Ja 7
11 .Qf4 .Qe6 12 4)d5+- Tses h­
kovs ky - Georgadze (agai n ! ) ,
USSR C h 1980, are bot h
better for W h ite; b u t 8 .Qf4
led to a bi t more fu n for
Black i n Dem etiev - An te­
s hi n , Riga 1970: 8 . . . cS 9
4)f3 .Qe6 10 4)g5 4)c6 11
4)xe6 Fe 12.Qc4 r)tc8 13 4)a 4!
4)xe4 14 �g4 ? 1 4 4Jb6 �dB
15 !l.xe6+ �h B 16 4Jd5± had
previo u s ly occ u rred i n a n­
ot her Antos hi n game, some
fou rtee n years before ! Ag­
ai nst Ragoz i n , USSR C h
1956 . 14 . . . dS 15 4)b6 4)f6! 16
(!th3 (!td8 1 7 4);"a8? eS! (72)
72
w �xd5 10 4Jb5 whe n , accor­
The b lack cen tre s w eeps
al l be fore i t . 18 (!te6+ f1)h8
19 .QxeS de 20 .Qxf6 .Q;.,;{6 21
(!txc4 (!txa 8 +. Fi nal l y , 8 a4
cS 9 4)f3 4)c6 10 h3 4)b4 11
fJgS .Qe6-= Sak harov - An­
tos hi n , USS R 1 967) 8 . . . c5 9
4Jb3 bS 1 0 !l.f3 �a7 1 1 !l.e3
(or 1 1 a3 �e B 1 2 !l.e 3± Fori n­
tos - Antosh i n , Budapes t
1963) 1 1 . . . �d7 1 2 a3 !l.b7 13
�e2 �c7 14 �ad t �7d8 15 g 4
An toshin's Varia tion 77
and now , i ns tead of 15 . . . b 4
1 6 a b cb 17 4Jd5 4Jxd5 1 8 ed
when Black became very
cram ped o n t he k i ng side,
Rubinetti - j i m enez , he
co u l d have tried 15 . . . d5 16
4Jxd5 4Jxd5 1 7 ed c 4 w i t h
u ncl ear p lay . As far as I can
see , An tos hi n's idea i s to
provoke a4 by Whi te, w he n
b4 w i l l b e weak . However,
s hould White refrai n fro m
t hi s , t he n B lack's . . . a6 may
t urn o u t to be u seless ; i n
fact , t he weak ness of b6
can beco m e a l iabi l i ty . Thi s
explai ns w hy I have g i v e n
prefere nce t o t he i m m e­
diate . . . cS .
e) O ne last t hi ng : 7 ... dS
is met by 8 ed 4Jxd5 9 4Jxd5
di ng to Larse n , B lack has a
di fficu l t pos i tio n .
8 4Jb3
8 4Jf5 !l.xfS q ef tbd 7 10
!l.f3 4Jc6 is very p l easan t
for B l ack , and 8 4Jf3 4Jcb q
!l.f4 !l.e6 t O 4Jg5 ( 10 (!td2 dS
11 ed 4)xd5 12 !Jad1. Thi s is
better t han 1 2 4Jxd5 w hich
only h e l p s B lack's devel op­
ment. I n t he game Drei -
Ko ste n , Varal lo 1991 , Whi te
was soo n i n tro u b l e : 1 2 . . .
�xd5 1 3 �xdS !l.xdS 1 4
�fd 1 ?! !l.xf3! 1 5 !l.xf3 4Jd 4 16
�d2 - of co u rse 16 !l.xb7?!
4Je2+ 17 �f1 4Jxf4 is + - 16
. . . 4Jx f3+ 17 g f �fdB w he n
Whi te was stru gg l i ng - a n d
u l timately fai l i ng to make a
78 An toshin 's Varia tion
draw . 12 . . . 4)xf4 13 �xf4
�aS. 1 3 . . . �b8 i s i nterest­
i ng, i f Black can exchange
q u eens the n he w i l l h ave
the s u perior endgame
ow i ng to his pai r of bi­
s hops . 14 .Q.d3 l/adB 15 f:JKS
.Q.;t(gS 16 dtxgS h6 1 7 �h4
4)d4 i s fi ne for B l ack ,
Lo wenthal - Morp hy, 1 s t
m atch game, Lo ndo n 1 8S8,
remark ab ly modern p l ay by
Morphy) 10 . . . dS! 1 1 ed ( 1 1
ci)xe6 fe 1 2 ed ed i s good for
B l ack , h i s centre a nd o pe n
fi l es com pe n sate t h e tw o
Bis hops, e . g . 13 �3 ci)d4 14
�d3 �d6+ ) 1 1 . . . �xdS ! ( t he
poi n t , for now , i f 12 ci)xdS??
ci)xdS w i ns a piece. As it i s ,
Wh ite quickl y m i s l ays a
pi ece anyway) 1 2 �d 3 g6 13
ci)ge 4 c4! 14 ci)x f6+ �xf6 1 S
�xg6 �xc3 1 6 �xh7+ �xh7
1 7 � hS + �g 8 1 8 be tbfb (73)
73
w w i l l be weak .
and Black easi ly w arded off
t he t hreats and tri u m p hed,
Ak menti n - Tal, Ri ga 1 9S 4.
Obv i o u s ly, 8 ci)d bS ? a6 9
ci)a3 bS wou Id be most em­
barras s i ng for Wh ite .
8 ... ci)c6
8 . . . a6 i s a l so possi b l e,
w i t h l i nes s i m i l ar to 7 . . . a6,
but 9 �e3 ci)bd7 10 f4 b6 1 1
�f3 �b7 1 2 a4 bS 1 3 aS b4 1 4
ci)dS ci)xdS 1 S ed �f6 is an
exam p l e fro m thi s move
order, w hen B l ack w as
better, Radzi kovska - Mar­
kov i c h, Be l g rade 1 968 . I
pre fer bri ngi ng an extra
un it into p l ay if poss i b l e.
The fo l l ow i ng i s untried,
but s eems l ogical to me:
9 �f4
Alternati v el y , Wh i te can
attem pt to disco urage
Black from pl ayi ng the
freei ng . . . dS by 9 f4 , e. g .
9 . . . �e6 10 �f3 aS! 1 1 a4
ci)b4+ ( conti nui ng the fig h t
for dS) 1 2 �e3 tf1b6 (threat-
eni ng . . . ci)xc2! ) fo l l owed by
. . rlad8 a nd . . . dS . Sho u l d
.
Whi te p l ay fS ! ? at any time
t he n . . . �d7 - c6 wi l l press­
u re e4 and the eS-square
9 ... �e6
Menaci ng . . . dS when al l
Black's worries wou l d be
be h i nd h i m, so :
10 �f3 ci)eS
11 �xeS de
12 ci)dS �xdS
13 ed e4
14 �e2 �d6 (74)
The pas sed w hite d- paw n
i s so li dly bl ockaded and h i s
k n ig h t h as n o u sefu l rol e
to p l ay o n b3 . A l s o, Wh i te' s
k i ng s i de may come under

74
w Boden, M anchester 1 857. 12
pressure . Al l i n al l, B lack
i s s l ig htly better a lthou g h
thi s i s h ard ly forced.
E
6 .Q.d3
Not a very exciti n g move.
6 . . . 0-0 (6 . . . 4Jbd7 makes
no sense, Herrara - Perdo­
mo, Sancti Sp iritus, 1989,
conti nued 7 {)f5 0- 0 8 0-0
4Je5 9 4Jxe7+ t/1xe7 10 .Q.gS
c6 1 1 f4±) 7 0-0 a6 ( 7 . . . ne8
8 4:)4e2 .Q.f8 9 4Jg3 c6 10 b3
4jbd7 t1 .Q.b2 4Jc5 12 �d2 d5!
13 ed 4Jxd5-=, Yates - Ko l­
tanow s k i, Ram sgate 1929) 8
a4 c5! 9 4Jde2 4Jc6 10 4Jg3
(/0 f4 was treated i n i nter­
esti ng fas hion by Pau l Mor­
phy: 10 . . . .Qg4 11 h3 1J.�"<e2 12
An toshin's Varia tion 79
�xe2. 1 2 4Jxe2 4jb4 13 c3
4Jxd3 1 4 �xd3 dS = Pi nder -
. . . lJeB 13 �f2 lJcB! S i m p l e
dev elopment! 14 g4?! fjb4
15 b3 dS!, Barnes - M orphy ,
1st m atch game 1 858, for i f
16 e5? c4! - + ) 10 . . . �e6 1 1 h3
d5 12 ed 4Jxd5 13 �h5 4jf6
1 4 � h 4 4Je5 1 5 .Q.f5 4Jg6 16
.Q.xg6 ( forced, as the w h ite
q u ee n was r u n ni ng s hort of
sq uares) 1 6 . . . hg 17 .Q.gS
�e8 18 4Jge4 4Jxe4 19 .Q.xe7
�xe7 (75)
20 �xe7?? ( th i s loses ma­
terial, b ut 20 �xe 4 .Q.f5 w as
al so better for B l ack ) 20 . . .
�xe7 2 1 4Jxe 4 �c4 22 !!fel
�ae 8 0- 1, Stei n sa pi r - Ro­
manowsk i , Leni ngrad 1 9 40.
7) Morphy' s Variation
1 e4 eS
2 �f3 d6
3 d4 ed
4 �xd4 (76)
76
B it' s worth , it i s a l so the
AI tho u g h t h i s see m s to
contravene one of the basic
laws of chess , in that the
quee n i s bro u g ht i nto an
expo sed positi o n i n the
centre of the board as early
as m ov e 4 , i n fact, as i t can
be j u stifi ed tacti ca l ly, it i s
perfectly reasonab l e . Th us
the i m m ed i ate 4 ... �c6 can
be a n s wered by 5 .Q.b5 , pi n­
ni ng the k ni g ht, 5 . .. .Q.d7 6
.Q.xc6 w he n the wh ite queen
can mai nta i n i ts dom i nati n g
pos i ti o n , so B l ack often
defers thi s m ov e for a ti me
w hen it w i l l be more e ffec­
tiv e .
4 �xd 4 w a s the preferr­
ed mov e of Paul Morp hy
(wh o p l ayed it th ree ti mes
i n h i s match agai nst Harr­
witz) and Alek h i ne , i n thei r
ti me a nd , for w h at little
author's favo urite.
Notwithstandi ng the fac t
that obj ecti vely 4 �xd 4 i s
the stronger mov e, 4 tbxd 4
does have the benefit of
avoidi ng the da ngero u s i n­
tricacies of Larse n's varia­
tio n , and w i l l th erefore
have to to be co ns idered by
anyone w i s hi ng to p l ay
thi s .
I s ho u ld mention at this
poi nt, by way of com p l ete­
nes s , th at, apart from 4
�xd 4 and 4 �xd4 ( w hi ch
formed the s u bject of the
l ast few chapters ) , Wh ite
can al so p l ay th e gambi t
l i ne 4 .Q.c4 wh en 4 .. . �f6
see m s the most s ure ( a l ­
tho u g h 4 . . . �c6 was p l ayed
with s uccess i n th e game
Gl ek - Dreev , w h i ch co n­
tin ued: 5 c3 �eS 6 �xeS de 7
�b3 t/Je7 8 0-0 c6 ! 9 f4 bS
tO .Q.d3 �c5 1 1 cd t/Jxd4+ 12

�h 1 �c5 13 �c2 c£)e7 and
B lack managed to s ur­
mount h i s develop ment
prob lems and th en take the
i n itiative . N ote that 5 4jxd4
can be wel l met by 5 . . . g6,
reachi ng a branc h of Lar­
sen's l i ne w hic h i s not at
al l u n favou rab le for B l ack ,
and 5 4jg5? meets the re­
tort 5 . . . 4je5) 5 4jg5 �e6 ! 6
�xe6 ( b ut not 6 c£)xe6 fe
7 �xe6 �e7 8 �c8 �xe4+ 9
�e2 �xe2+ 1 0 �xe2 4jbd7 1 1
�xb7 �b8 12 �f3 d5 w he n ,
despite White's tw o bi s h­
ops , I prefer Bl ack ; h i s
ce ntre has a n i m prov i ng
look and allow s the black
k n i g hts to i ns ta l l them­
se l ves on advanced , focal
sq uares) 6 . . . fe 7 c£)xe6 �e7
8 4jxd4 �xe4+ 9 �e2 �xe2+
tO �xe2 �d7! w hich l ooks
to be fai r ly eq ual .
So , after 4 �xd 4 w e have
the n the f� l l ow i ng co nti n­
uations :
A 4 . . . 4jf6!
B 4 . . . 4jc6
c 4 . . . �d7
D 4 . . . a6! ?
E Others
A thi s , 5 . . . 4Jg4 may al so be
4 ... c£)f61
Now there i s a fu rther
s u bdi v i s i o n :
At 5 e5
A2 5 4jc3
Morphy's Varia tion 81
5 .Q.g5 �e7 6 4Jc3 w i l l
transpose to A2
A1
5 eS! ? �e71?
The Czech Grandmaster,
Vl asti m i l jans a gives 5 ...
de 6 �xd8+ �xd8 7 ciJxeS
�e6 8 �c4 �xc4 9 4Jxc4 as
a l ittl e better for White,
w h ic h may be tru e , b u t
neverthe les s , after 9
4jbd7 1 0 �f4 4jd5 1 1 .Q.g 3
�e7 12 0-0 �f6 13 �d1 cb ,
say , Bl ack mere ly s u ffers
from a s l i g htly m i s placed
ki ng . Hi s positi on is so l i d
and he s h ou l d have few
proble m s . He fai l s to me n­
tio n , however, w hat he
w o u l d have done i n the
cas e of 7 . . . �b4+ ! , as 8 c3
�e8 9 cb �xe5+ 1 0 �e2 4jcb
looks u ncom fortab l e for
Wh ite as both . . . 4jd4 and
. . . 4Jxb4 are th reate ned ,
and 8 �d2 �e8 9 �xb4
�xe5+ 1 0 �e2 4jd5 1 1 �d2
4Jc6 a l so appears to offer
Black good pros pects . Do
note that 8 . . . �xd2+ 9
4jxd2 �e8 tO 4jdf3 4jd7 pi ns
the k ni g ht a nd re l ieves
White of h i s problems a l ­
ong the e- l i ne. On top of
playab l e . Both 6 ed �xdb
and 6 .Q.g5 �e 7 seem s OK
for B l ack. However prac­
tica l tri a l s are l ack i ng .
6 �e2
6 �e3 4Jg4 7 ed �xd6 8
82 Morphy's Varia tion
.Qf4 �xd 4 9 4Jxd4 c6 is
eq ua l , but B l ack can a l so
try 7 . . . cd 8 4Jc3 4Jc6 9 .Qb5
4Jxe3 w hen he m ay w el l be
better.
6 ... de
7 {)xeS {)bd 7? I
Obv i o u s , b u t not the
be s t . I thi nk t hat 7 . . . �b4 + !
eq ual i zes co m fortably . For
i n stance , 8 �xb 4 .Qxb 4+ 9
.Qd2 .Qxd2+ 10 4Jxd2 4jbd7
or 9 c3 .Qe7 10 0- 0 0-0 and
1 1 . . . 4Jbd7 or, fi nal l y , 8 �c3
4Jbd 7 a l l of w h ich are
eq ua l .
8 4Jd3! �e4
9 tbxe4 4Jxe4
to o-o .Qd 6
11 .Qf3 {)ecS
12 �et+ �d8?
To my m i n d , a baffl i ng
deci s i o n ; now Whi te's i n i t­
iat i ve takes o n a l armi ng
proporti on s . Is 1 2 . . . 4Je6,
maski ng t he e-fi l e , so dis­
astro u s ? I do ubt i t . For
exa m p l e : 1 3 4jf4 4Je5! 1 4
.QdS ( 1 4 4Jxe6? 4Jxf3+ 15 g f
.Qxe6+ ) 1 4 . . . 0- 0! 1 5 4Jxe6
( 1 5 .Qxeo fe w hen B l ack h as
the t wo bi s hops a n d t he
u n p l easant t hreat o f
4jf3+ a n d . . . .Qxf 4) 1 5 . . . fe
16 .Qe 4 ( t hi s i s better than
16 .Qb3 4Jg 4 ! 1 7 �xe6? �h8!
(77)
Bl ack w i l l w i n the paw n
back w i th adv antage, or 17
.Qxe6+ .Qxe6 18 �xe6 �xf2
t hreaten i n g mate i n two
moves, 1 7 f3 .Qx h2+ ! and 1 8
. . . !lg 3 i s a l so very strong)
1 6 . . . 4Jg 4 1 7 f3 .Qx h2+ 18
�f1 !lg3 , Bl ack 's posi tio n is
c l early s u perior. Therefore.
1 3 4Jc3 c6== is t h e best
choice.
13 {)xcS {)xcS
14 4Ja3! .QfS
15 .Qe3 4Je6
16 4Jb5
And, i n the game jansa -
Ermenkov , Prag u e 1985.
Wh i te's positi on was cl ear­
ly preferabl e. He w e n t on
to w i n , al thoug h not w i t h­
ou t some difficu I ty . Li ke so
many games i n Ph i l idor's
Defe nce , the stron ger
pl ayer w i ns , and in his
a n notati ons g ives the i m ­
pression that i t w as a
s mooth performa nce from
begi nn i ng to end . I' m afraid
tha t al l strong p l ayers are
gu i l ty of t h i s to so me ex­
ten t, b u t as yo u can see. a
c l ose exa m i nation often
revea l s that thi ngs are not
q u i te so c l ear.
Su m m i ng up, 5 e5! ? l eads
to eq ual i ty. A l t hough by its

very natu re ( re l easi ng the
cen tral te ns ion at s u ch an
early s tage) the ensu i ng
endgames have a dra w i s h
look abo u t the m , there are
s ti l l ma ny pieces l eft and
no reaso n w hy B lack
s hou l dn't try to w i n .
Remember t h at a s 'Vh i te
has t he pri v i l ege of the
firs t mov e, n u l l i fyi ng t ha t
advan tage i s a v ictory i n
itse l f.
A2
5 4jc3
Thi s l i ne has i ndependent
signi ficati o n , as 1 e 4 eS 2
4jf3 d6 3 d4 4jf6 4 4jc:: ed 5
�xd4 wi l l tra ns pose i n to
thi s w i thou t a l l o w i ng v ari­
ation A1 ( a l t hou g h , as \.Ve've
j u st see n , t h i s does n't l ook
so terri ble) .
5 ...
fle7
6 .Qg5
Thi s i s the mos t common
move at this s tage a l­
tho u g h w h i l st i t does app­
ear the m os t aggressi ve ,
t he bis hop's posi tion on gS
is s l i g h t ly e xposed and
ofte n a l low s s i m pli ficati o n.
How ever, that said. t he
natura l alternativ e , 6 !J.. f 4
di dn't fare too wel l i!1 t he
game Bhend - Tu kmakov ,
Bat h 1973, a l t h o u g h Whi te's
open i ng w as n' t to b l ame : 6
. . 0-0 7 0-0-0 4Jc6 ( by de­
. !J.. c 4 !J.. f S 1 0 !J.. b3 c6 11 !J.. e 3? !
ferri ng t h i s mov e ti 11 now
Black gai ns a tempo for
Morphy's Varia tion 83
de ve l o pment) 8 �d2 b6! ?
( a n i n teresti ng i dea w hi ch
work s s u rprisi ng ly we l l , i n
so me l i nes B lack w i l l be
ab le to p l ay . . . !J.. b 7) 9 !J.. d 3
4jb4 1 0 4jd5 aS 11 lt?b1 !J.. e b
12 c4? ( 1 2 4Jxf6+ !J.. x f6 13 a3
was a better try , si nee now
B lack is the first to get
thi ngs goi ng in his s phere
of operation) 12 . . . bS! 13
nhe1 c6 14 4Je 3 be 15 4Jxc4
dS ! 16 ed �xdS (78)
78
w
( N ow B l ack w i ns mate rial)
1 7 4jd4 4Jxd3 18 �xd3 �xc4
19 �xc4 !J.. x c4 20 nxe7 4Jd5.
pi ck i ng u p an excha nge.
B l ack now managed to
s teer h i s way thro u g h the
co m p l i cati o n s e fficien t ly to
wi n!
Apart from t h i s , 6 eS? !
has been p l ayed, a l t ho u g h
i t i s of I i tt l e theoretical
val u e : 6 .. de 7 �xd8+ !J.. x d8
(of course , B l ack doesn't
have to recapt u re w i th h is
k i ng now ) 8 4Jxe5 0-0 q
( 1 1 0 -0 !J.. c 7 1 2 4jf3 4Jbd7 is
more accu rate bu t Bl ack is
84 Morphy's Varia tion
s ti l l s l i g h t l y better) 11
!J.. c7 1 2 4jf3 4:)g4 ! (I have i n­
cl uded this gam e because i t
de monstrates h ow one can
go abou t try i n g to o btai n
the u pper- ha nd i n endi ngs
of t hi s ty pe . As I men tion ed
previou s ly , b i s h ops tend to
be rather more effective
than k n ig h ts in the end­
game, and to possess t he
bi s hop pair can ofte n co n­
s i ti t u te a decis i v e adv a n­
tage. There fore Black
threaten s to exchan g(· one
of h i s k n ig hts for a ..v h i te
bi shop, and at t h e same
t i me prod u ce a w eaken i n g
of the w h i te pa w n struc­
tu re; s ho u l d the bis hop
mov e, probab l y t he better
opti o n , t hen t3 . . . �e 8-t- w i l l
be most i n con venient) t3
0- 0-0 4:)xe3 1 4 fe 4ja6 t5
4jh4 !J..g 4 16 �d 4 fJ.. c 8 ! 17 �f1
4jc5 (79)
79
w stead of my i n tended 14 . . .
( Ooop s , t here goes another
bi s h op !) t8 h3 4Jxb3+ 19 ab
�eB 20 �d3 b5 21 4jf3? (A
bad m ov e i n a bad positi on)
21 . . . b4 22 4:)a4 flab 0- 1
Hmadi - C hern i n , Tu n i s 1985 .
6 ... 0-0
7 o-o-o 4Jc6
7 . . . !J.. e6? i s co m p l etely
i l l ogica l , 8 eS! de ( 8 . . .
4jc6? ? 9 ef! 4Jxd 4 10 fe tbd7
t t ef(�) + �x f8 t2 4jxd 4
bri ngs a w ho l e new mean­
i n g to the p hrase 'w i t h
com pensation for the
q u ee n ! ' An d 9 . . . gf 1 0 �e4
fg 1 1 !J.. d 3 i s even w orse) q
�h 4 �c8 tO 4:)xe5 w i th a
strong attack .
8 �d2 a61?
I l i k e t he l ook of t h i s
m ov e , a l thou gh 8 ... !J.. e6
prov ed v ery s ucces sfu l i n
t he game lvanovic - An to­
s h i n , Sochi t979: 9 !J.. b 5! ? (q
4jd4 4jxd4 t O �xd4 cS ! 11
�d2 �aS is dan gerou s on l)
for Whi te , b u t 9 �b1 is
sen si b l e: 9 . . . ab tO !J.. d 3 bS
1 1 4jd5 ! ? !J.. x dS t2 ed 4:)e5 13
4:)xe5 de t 4 �het occu rred
i n a ra pid game Pri e - Kos­
ten , Au berv i l l iers 1991 . I n­
4jd7 15 !J.. xe7 �xe7 16 f4
tbd6=-, I chose fi rst to gai n
a move by 14 . . . h6?? w hen
my oppo nent g l eefu i i.Y
p l ayed 15 !J.. x h6 as 15 . . . gh ?
t6 �x h6 l eaves B l ack w i ­
t ho u t a defe nce t o �e3 -
g3 . So I strugg l ed on
w i t h 15 . . . 4Jg 4 bu t soon
man aged to fi nd so me more
bl u nders to go w i th this
one and l ost) 9 . . . 4jb 4 ! ? 10
�h et? ! ( 10 a3 a6 tt !J.. e 2 4:)co

m u s t be better, t h o u g h
Black i s fi ne. Th e p l a u s ib l e
t2 4jd4 i s a ns wered by 1 2 . . .
4Jxd4 13 �xd4 cS 1 4 �d2
�aS a nd a s u bseq u e n t bS­
b4, w h e n Wh i te wi l l be i n
bi g tro u b l e. As p l ayed ,
Whi te gets i nv o l v ed i n a
messy tacti ca l sk irm i s h
from w hich h e fai l s to em­
erge) tO . . . 4Jxa2+ 11 4Jxa2
.Q.xa2 t2 b3 c6 t3 .Q.ft aS t 4
.Q.xf6 .Q.xf6 1 S e S ( attem pt­
i ng to exchange q u ee n s and
b l ock t he a t - h 8 di agona l ,
wh en the bi s h op on a2
wou ld be l os t. B l ack de­
cides to em bark on a po l icy
of openi ng u p the w h i te
ki ng's pos i ti o n , w hi l s t
keepi ng q u ee ns on t he
board . Pres u mably , B l ack
fel t that t he l ong-term
tactica l c ha nces j u s ti fi ed
thi s deci sion , b u t Whi te
m i sses sev era l good oppor­
tu n i ti es l ater o n ) tS . . . .Q.e7
16 ed .Q.f6 1 7 {)eS a 4 1 8 �b 4
ab t9 cb cS 20 �bS �aS 21
�xb7 c4! ? 22 4Jxc4 �aB 23
�d3 �b8 24 �f3 ( 24 �c7 !
exchanges the q u ee n s , b u t
Bl ack s ho u l d be capab l e of
ho l di ng t he draw . I ass u me
that W h i te was i nte nt on
wi nni n g : he does , after al l ,
have two extra pa w ns ) 24
. . . �d7 25 �e2 �a7 26 �e3?
(26 d7 had to be tried, w he n
t he ou tcome i s sti l l n ot
c l ear) 26 . . . �a6 27 �d t
.Q.xb3 + ! ( wi ns the exchange)
Morphy's Varia tion 85
28 �xb3 �at + (80)
80
w
29 �et ( 29 �c2? �a2+ 30
4jb2 �fc8+ + ) 29 . . . �xcl + 30
�xct �xb3 and B l ack man­
aged to ro u nd u p the cl­
pa w n a nd w i n .
Apart from 8 . . ab a nd 8
.
. . . .Q.e6 , 8
... h6 i s a re l i ab l e
a l ter nati ve: 9 .Q.f4 ( the
overly aggress i v e 9 h 4? j u s t
see m s to l ose a piece t o q
. . . h g t O hg 4Jg 4 e . g . t t �f4
{)ceS 1 2 {)xeS? ? .Q.xgS- +) 9
. . . �e8 1 0 h3 .Q.f8 tt .Q.d3
{)eS ! 1 2 {)xeS de w h ic h is
eq ua l , L l orens - Kol tanow­
sky , Spai n 193S.
9 �b1 bS
10 .Q.d3
Thi s red uces the press­
ure along t h e d- fi l e , b u t i f
i nstead t O 4Jd 4 ? ! t he n tO . . .
4Jxd 4 t t �xd 4 .Q.eo threa t­
e n i n g . . . cS a nd . . . b4 or . . .
�aS cou Id become extreme-
ly u n p leasant for Whi te as
B l ack's q u ee n s ide attack
gathers momen t u m ver)
q u ick l y .
10 ... {)eS!
A com mon idea i n t hese
86 Morphy 's Varia tion
l i nes ; i f Wh i te capt u res o n
e S then t h e ce ntra l forma­
tio n s tabi l i zes , a nd if not
the n B l ack's q u eens i de
paw n s are free to adv a nce .
11 4jxe5 de
12 f4 c6
13 fe 4jg4
14 �f4 �c5
15 �e2 tf1e7 ( 81)
81
w cal tes ts) 7 �h 4 !!g8? 8
Sax - Ts es hkov s ky , Banja
Luk a 1981 . B l ack has a very
ni ce pos i ti o n s i nce the- two
w h i te e- paw n s , are j u s t
weak nes ses . I t see m s :·i g ht ,
t o m e , t o l eav e the bis hop
on c8 for a w hi l e and s av e
the tem po for dev e l op i ng
t he q u ee ns ide pattern . The
bi s h op m i gh t , l a ter on , be
more profi tab ly pos i tioned
on b 7, s ay . A l l i n a 11, 4 . . .
4jf6 offers the second
p l ayer good chances .
B 27 t/1xe1 !!xd8 28 t/1h4+ rJ;xfS
4 ... 4jc6
5 �b5
Thi s i s effecti v e ly forced ,
a ny q u een mov e wo uld be
a n ad m i s s i o n o f defea t .
5 ... �d7
We hav e trans posed into
the Ste i n i tz variation of
the Ruy Lopez . Th ere are a
n u mber of a l ternati ves:
a) 5 . . . 4Je7 6 .Q.gS (6 �f 4
is l ess direct) 6 . . . h6? ( t his
i s not the bes t way of
breaki ng the p i n 6 . . . f6 7
�h 4 a6 8 �xc6+ 4Jxc6 i s
m uch more agreeab le fo r
B l ack and deserv es practi­
4jc3 gS 9 .Q.g3 a6 10 �xcb+
4Jxc6 11 t/1e3 g 4 ( B l ack tries
the utmost to com prom ise
his posi ti o n ) 12 �h 4 �e7 13
�xe7 4Jxe7 1 4 4jd 4 �g6 15
0-0-0 �e6 16 f4 gf 17 gf
4:)c6 18 f4 ( persi stent!) 18 . . .
�d7 19 4jd5 + 4jxd 4 20 t/1xd4
�c6 21 fS �g 2 22 4jf6+ rJ;e7
23 eS (82)
23 . . . !!e2 2 4 !!het de 25
t/1b 4+ rJ;xf6 26 �xd8 �xe1+
29 t/1xd8 1-0 Z uckerman -
Bisg uier, New York 1969 .
Not a ga me that Bisgu ier
wo u l d be pro u d of.
b) 5 . . . t/1f6? 1 b t/1d3 t/1gb 7

0-0 ab 8 �xc6+ be 9 !!e t �e7
tO 4:)c3 �f6 11 eS! + Bi l ek -
Mes trov i c , Al bena t 975.
c) 5 -'lg4 ?! 6 �xc6+ be 7
...
4jc3 4Je7 8 �e3 cS 9 �d3
4:)c6 10 0-0-0, reachi ng in a
rou n dabo u t way , the game
Adorj an - Karner, Soc hi
t977, w here W h i te had
s l i g ht ly the better pros­
pect s .
6 �xc6
6 �e3? ! g6 7 4:)c3 .Q.g7 i s
less than not h i n g for
Wh i te .
6 ••• �xc6
6 . .. be i s an i n teresti ng
mov e . The Y ugos l av I n ter­
na tiona l Mas ter Basag ic
s u rpri sed me w i t h i t at
O l ot 1 990; 7 0-0 ( not the
best; 7 4:)c3 4:)e7 8 �e3 and 9
0-0-0 i s more dangero u s
for Black . Adorjan - Be l l o n ,
Lanzarote t977 , w e n t 7 4:)c3
f6 8 �e3 g6 9 �d2 .Q.g7 t O
0-0-0 �b 8 t t !!het �b7? 1 2
eS! w ith a q u i ck w i n i n
sig h t) 7 . . . 4:)e7 8 b3 ( 8 4jc3
f6 9 �e3 cS tO �d3 g6 t t
r!ad t .Q.g7 1 2 �fet �b 8 l ed
to a co m p l i cated s trugg l e
i n the ga me Mohrl ock -
Tal , We st Germany v USSR
1960 w here B l ack s ucceeded
i n com i ng o u t on top) 8 . . .
4jg6 9 �b2 f6 t O c4 �e 7 t t
cS? ! ( hopi ng to e xpose the
weak c- paw n s , b u t the p l an
back fires) tt . . . 0-0 t 2 4jbd2
4:)f4 13 !!fet 4Je 6 t 4 �c4
tfih 8 15 cd cd 16 4jd 4 4jxd 4
Morphy's Varia tion 87
t7 �xd4 �e6 t 8 4:)c 4 tfjc7 19
!!act aS 20 �a3? (20 4jb6
was better) 20 . . . cS ! ( u n­
expected and strong: B l ack
de val u es his da rk- sq uared
bi s h op , b u t in t he mea n­
ti me s h u ts o u t that of h i s
opponen t . The poi n t i s tha t
Black's l ig h t s q u ared bis h­
op, pressi ng on dS , be­
co mes a mons ter) 2t �d3
�fd8 22 4:)e3 �b7 23 4jd5
�f8 24 tbc4 fS 25 f3 �e8 26
�b2 a 4 ! ( sw oppi ng B l ack's
i so l ated a- paw n off, w h ic h
at the same ti me gi ves
Whi te a weak ness on b3. At
thi s poi nt I w as mere ly i n­
te n t o n keepi ng my pos i­
tion from fal l i n g apart) 27
�cdt ab 28 ab �ab8 29 �e3
�a? 30 �c3 �f7 3 1 �de l �hS
32 �d3 fe 33 fe �xb3 ?? ( 33
. . . �xdS first was prefer­
ab l e ; 34 ed �xe3 35 �xe3
�xb3 36 �h3 �xc3 37 �xc3
�xdS s hou l d be a draw , but
now B l ack , an xio u s to
ach ieve a con crete advan­
tage, and see i ng that 34
�xg7+ �xg7 35 tbxb3 �d 4 is
good for hi m , b l u nde rs) 34
4Jc7 ! (of co u rse, thi s had
been i m pos si b l e previ o us l y
becau se of the w h i te
q uee n's p l aci ng on c4) 34 . . .
c4 35 �d4 �e7 36 4Jxe6
�xe6 (83)
( I n my ear l ier ana lys i s I h ad
noticed that 37 tbxc4 was
w i n n i ng - B l ack w i l l l ose
the exchange - bu t i t is
88 Morphy's Varia tion
83
w 8 . . . 4Je7-g6 m u s t be best.
ofte n a good idea t h at i f
you see a good m o v e , t hen
have a n o t her l ook to see i f
t here i s not a better one.
A n d i n t h i s pos i tio n , there
i s !) 37 �f1 1 -0 ( i f 37 . . . �ea
38 �ef3 or 37 . . . �e 8 38
�xf8+ and 39 t/1xg7 mate.
There i s n o poi n t i n w as­
ti ng effort u n n eces sari l y !) .
7 4Jc3
7 �5 i s accorded an
excl a mation m ark by I vkov
w hi l st an notati ng the game
S ueti n - Damjan ovic, H a v a­
na 1968 . The g am e con ti­
n u ed 7 . . . f6 ?! 8 .Q.f 4 f5! ? 9
ef .Q.xf3 1 0 gf t/1f6 1 1 t/1e 4+
�d7 12 t/1xb7 �e8 + 13 .Q.e3
t/1x f5 1 4 4Jc3 tf1c5 15 0-0-0
t/1c6 16 t/1xa7 4jf6 and now
Wh i te , v ery sen si bly, e x-
cha nged q u ee n s by 1 7 t/1a 4
and w o n easi ly . I n fact, i t
was fi rst p l ayed by Morp hy
and i n h i s 4th gam e ag ai n s t
Harrw i tz , i n t h e prev i o u s ly
m e n tioned m atch , after 7 . . .
f6? ! he co nti n ued 8 !l,h 4
4Ja6 9 4Jc3 t/1d7 10 0-0
w h ich doe s n ' t l ook so
wonderfu l , but Morp hy
won any w ay . I n both g ames.
How ever, 7 . . . f6 is fa r
from be ing the w h o le s tory
here. Fi rs t l y , the rather
. . f\. 7'?
s u rpr1s1ng move 7 . . . :a,e ..
see m s to be pl ay ab l e : 8
t/1xg 7 .Q.f6 9 t/1x h8 .Q.x h8 10
.Q.xd8 .Q.xb2 1 1 .Q.xc7 i s pro­
bably eq u a l after bo th 11 . . .
.Q.xa 1 and 1 1 . . . �d7. 9 .Q.xfo
tbxf6 1 0 tbxf6 4Jxf6 will
a l low B l ack to regai n his
paw n , w hen h i s bis hops
m ig ht just give him the
edge i n t he cal ling. In view
of a l l thi s , i n Wade - Dasa­
l ov , Tal l i n n 1 971, Whi te tri ed
8 .Q.xe7, yet after 8 . . . t/1xe7
he p l ayed 9 4Jc3 , seei ng
t hat 9 t/1xg 7 t/1f6 wou l d
tran spose i nto t he previous
note: 9 . . . .Q.xe4 10 0-0 ttf6
m i g h t a l so be poss i b l e . The
fol l ow - u p 9 . . . 4jf6 1 0
0-0- 0 0- 0 1 1 4jd5 .Q.xd5 12
ed t/1e 4 posed few prob l ems
for Black . Obviou s ly, the
exchange of materi a l te n ds
to he l p the side wi th l ess
space w h i ch, in Phi l idor' s
Defence i s a l most i n v ari­
ab ly B l ack .
For those of yo u not
wi l l i ng to ris k 7 . . . .Q.e7 , 7 . ..
4jf6 i s a l so fi ne. 8 .Q.x f6?
t/1x f6 9 t/1xf6 g f en feebl es
B l ack's k i ng s ide pa w n s , b u t
l e aves B l ack w i t h the s u­
perior m i nor pieces w hich.
i n my opi nion , provide more

than s u fficien t co m pen sa­
tio n . I n fact, W h i te is pro­
bab ly wors e e . g : 10 4Jc3 fS ! ?
1 1 ef �g 8 1 2 4jd4 �xg2 or 12
. . . �xg2 13 !!g t 0-0- 0; or 1 1
4jd4 �xe 4 1 2 f3 !lg 7 13 fe
�xd4 1 4 ef �xc3+ + . I n s tead
8 eS de 9 �xeS+ �e 7 10
�xf6 gf i s s i mi l arly uni n­
spiri n g . So 8 4jc3 ! ret u rn i ng
to the text , has been the
norma l rep l y .
7 ••• 4jf6
I n the game Utj atsky -
Suchanow , M oscow 197 1 ,
Black es sayed the enter­
pri sing 7 . . . �e7 ! ? w he n 8
�d2 �f6 9 �d3 4Je7 10
0-0-0 �d 7 11 �het 0-0-0
was eq u a l . The acid tes t
m u s t be 8 �xg7 �f6 q �g3
(9 �g 4 �xc3+ 10 be {)f6 1 1
�g7 �g8) 9 . . . �xc3 + �0 be
�xe4, w he n 1 1 0-0 l ooks a
l i tt l e dangerou s , b u t 11 �g7
�f6 12 �h6? �xf3 i 3 gf
o-o-o 14 �xfo 4jxfo ts !lg7
�he8+ i s better for B l ack .
8 .Q.gS
Thi s seem s l i ke an au to­
matic choice, yet 8 b31?
m ig h t be better: 8 . . . �e7 9
�b2 0-0 1 0 0-0-0 i s a l i tt l e
better for Wh i te, t h e q u een
and bishop l i ned up o n the
at -aB diagonal l ooks m ena­
ci ng . I n the ga me Lit t l e­
wood - Riv as , Lo ndo n 1979,
8 . . . g6 9 !lgS ( change of
pl ans!) 9 . . !lg7 t O eS de 11
. !!e4 �bS 23 �xb7! 1-0. Mar­
�xeS+ lltf8 12 0-0 h 6 13
!!ad 1 4jd7 1 4 �xg7+ lltxg7 15
Morphy 's Varia tion 89
�xd8 !!a xd8 16 4jd4 occ­
u rred , a n d t h i s is assessed
as + by ECO C , bu t 16 . . .
4jb8 l ooks to be eq u a l to
me. Furt h ermore , I do n ' t
u nderstand m uch of this
game at a l l ; for e xa m p l e .
w hy didn' t B l ack preface . . .
h6 by 12 . . . �xf3 ?
8 0-0 i s i ns i p i d , yet i n
t he game Ada m s - Torre ,
New O r l eans 1920, Wh i te' s
appare n t ly m u ndane p i a)
l ed to pos si b ly the mos t
fam o u s 'su s ta i n ed overl oad'
combi nation of al l ti me: 8
. . . �e7 9 4jd5 �xdS 10 ed
0-0 11 !lgS c6 12 c4 cd 13 cd
aS? ( 13 . . . h6 wo u l d , as we
wi l l see l ater, have g i v en
t he k i ng a u sefu l l oopho l e)
14 !!fet !!e8 15 !!e2 !!ac8 16
�ae t �d7 17 �xf6 ! �xf6
( t h i s pos i ti o n ap pears fi ne
for B l ack , bu t . . . ) 18 �g 4 !
(84)
84
B
18 . . . �bS 19 �c 4! �d7 20
�c 7! �bS 21 a 4 ! �xa4 22
vel l ou s .
8 ... �e7
90 Morphy's Varia tion
9 o-o-o
9 0- 0 is aga i n possi b l e,
but does not real ly offer
Wh i te too m u ch : 9 . . . h6 1 0
.Q.h 4 0-0 1 1 !!fe1 !!e8 , Mei k­
lejohn - Sax , Gro n i ngen
1972, l oo k s fair ly l ev e l .
9 ... o-o
9 h6 i s ge neral ly
qu eri ed on accou n t of the
game Pokojowczyk - Sar­
wi nski , Po l a nd 1 976, the
di ffere nce betw een t h i s and
the m ai n l i ne bei ng that the
bi s hop wi l l be on h4 i n­
s tead of g5 , w here , i n the
fo l l ow i n g l i ne , i t w o u l d
ha v e been taken w i t h check .
The game co nti n ued : 1 0
.Q.h 4 0- 0 t t !!he t !!e8? (t t . . .
4Jd7 1 2 .Q.xe7 t/1 xe7 1 3 4Jd5±
i s certai n ly better) 1 2 eS ! de
1 3 t/1 c 4 4Jd 7? ( 1 3 . . . .Q.d 6! ) 1 4
4JxeS ( sic) 1 4 . . . 4Jxe5 15
�xe5 .Q.x h 4 16 �xd8 + .
10 !!het
Bro n s tei n makes the i n­
teres t i n g remark t hat i n
thi s pos i ti o n h e ca n never
deci de w he ther to play 1 0
�het or to defend the
bi s hop w i th 10 h 4 to be 'o n
t he safe s ide' . I t h i n k that
the tex t is bes t b u t , i ndeed ,
A l ek hi ne hi m se l f p l ayed 1 0
h 4 aga i n s t M ideno, Holl and
t933: 10 . . . h6 1 1 4jdS?! (brill­
i a n t but flawed) 1 1 . . . hg 12
4Jxe7+ t/1xe7 13 hg 4Jxe4 1 4
!!h5 t/1e6? (Larsen poi n ts
ou t that by p l ayi n g 1 4 . . . f5 !
first, 15 g6 twe6 16 4Je5 !!fe8
- 1 6 . . . de? wou l d tra n s pose
to the game - 1 7 !!d h 1 �f8
1 8 !!h8+ �e7 19 4Jxc6+ �d7!.
Bl ack wo u l d be better) 1 5
!!dht fS 1 6 4Je5! d e 17 gb!
(85)
1-0. For i f 1 7 . . . t/1xgb 18
t/1c 4+ and !!h 8 m ate , or 17 . . .
de t8 !!h8 m ate. I can ' t hel p
thi nk i ng that 10 . . . h6 i s a
bi t too provocati ve al l the
sam e , 10 . . . !!fe8 is more
sensi bl e, and i f 1 1 !!h el
then p l ay 1 1 . . . h6.
10 ... !!e8
Other ideas i nvol v i ng the
exchange of the da rk­
squ ared bi s hops are worse:
10 . . . 4Jd7 11 .Q.xe7 t/Jxe7 1�
4Jd5 ! .Q.xdS 13 ed t/Jf6 14
t/1e3 + , Andersson - Kadiri .
Si egen O ly m pi ad 1 970:
Wh i te ow n s the e- fi l e and
can p l ay t/1e7 at a j u dicious
mome nt. 1 3 . . . t/1d8 14 !!e3
!!e8 IS !!xe8 t/1xe8 16 !!et
amo u n ts to the same.
10 . . h6 1 1 .Q.h 4 4Je8 12
.
.Q.xe7 t/1xe7 13 eS? ! of Mor­
phy - Harrwi tz, 2nd match
game a nd 10 . . . 4Je8 1 1 .Q.xe7

Ybxe7 12 Ybc 4 Ybe6 of A nder­
ssen ( no re l atio n ! ) - Mei t­
ne r, Vi en na 1 873 , sho u l d
bot h b e treated the same
way respectively by 13 �d5
and 12 �d5 i.e : 12 . . . .Q.xd5 1 3
ed �d7 14 !!e3 �f6 15 !!del
!!fe8 16 !!xe8+ !!xe8 1 8
!!xe8+ �xe8 1 8 �xa7 + ( a l ­
t hough 13 �d2 a n d 1 4 �d 4 ,
sugges ted by M orp hy i n h i s
ga me, is a l so w orthy o f
considerati on ) .
11 lf;b1
A us efu I prop hy l a tic
mov e . The i m m ediate 11 e5?
is not good : 11 ... de 12 tbc4
�d7 w i n s a paw n as 13
�xe5? �xe5 1 4 !!xe5 .Q.xg5
is ch eck .
11 . . . .Q.d7?
Not a very good mov e .
B l ack , seei n g t h at the
bi s hop is not parti cu l ar ly
usefu l on c6, decides to
repos ition i t o n eb or g 4.
How ever, B l ack ca nnot
afford suc h l u xu ries in t h i s
posi tio n . 1 1 . . . aS? ! i s al so
ou t of p l ace here , b u t i n
the game Parma - S N i ko l ic,
Nov i Trav n i k 1 969 , Whi te
i m p u l si vely tried to i m m­
ediate ly refu te i t w i t h 12
e5? ! de 13 �c 4 and now , i n­
stead of 13 . . . �d7? 1 4 �xe5
�xe5 15 �xe5 .Q.xg5 16 �xd8
�axd8 17 �xe8+ �xe8 1 8 a4
w hen Whi te had a cl ear ad­
van tage, a l thou g h B l ack
l ater m anaged to set up a
fortress pos i tion a nd draw ,
Morphy's Varia tion 91
i t w o u l d h av e bee n better
to h ave p l ayed 13 . . . .Q.d6 1 4
�xe5 .Q.xe5 1 5 �xd8 �axd 8
w h ich offers more com­
pensation for the q u een .
Fro m my analys i s , th ere
are two a l ternati ve moves
w h ich deserv e consi deation
here:
a) 11 . . . h61? wou l d appea r
t o be a u s efu l move , re­
l i ev i ng B l ack of any l ater
back-rank prob l ems at no
cos t i n ti m e , 12 .Q.h 4 and
now 12 ... �d7 i s pos s i b l e .
w i t h the i n ten tion o f co n­
ti n ui ng ... tbg 4, as 13 .Q.xf6?
.Q.xf6 14 e5 .Q.xf3 1 5 g f a l l ­
ow s 1 5 . . . !!xe5 1 6 �xe5 Ybcb!
17 f4 ( w hat e l se?) 1 7 . . . dP
18 fe �d8 19 �e3 �xd 1 + 20
�xd1 �dS ( 21 . . . �xeS) .
b) Apart from thi s , I
wo nder i f 11 . . . �b8!? (or 12
. . . �b8 after 1 1 . . . h6) i s
accep tab l e , t he idea bei ng
to conti n u e .. . b5 and . . .
�b7 , s tarti n g acti ve o pera­
tions o n the q ueen s ide:
pressi ng o n e 4; and at the
same time re mov i ng t he
q u ee n from t he exposed
cen tral fi l e . Now e5 can
a l ways be met by . . . de or
. . . .Q.xf3 , as ci rcu m s tances
perm i t , a nd �d5 by .. . �xdS .
. . . .Q.xh 4 and .. . .Q.d7 w i t h
s i m p l i fication.
12 .Q.xf61
Thi s l i tt l e combi nati on
as s ures Whi te of l asti ng
strategical s u peri ori ty.
92 Morph.,v's Varia tion

12 ... �xf6 33 �ht �ea

13 e5 �e7 33 . . . �h8 w ou l d have
14 �d5 �fa avoided the w ors t , bu t 34
15 ed ed �e3 �g6 35 !!ft , menaci ng
Obvi ously, i f 1 5 . . . �xd6 , fS, w ou l d have kept u p t he
16 �xc7 w i ns a pawn, b u t pres sure. Fi nal ly , afte r
thi s m ay w e l l h av e been the p l ay i n g a fi ne s trateg ical
bes t way to proceed e. g . 16 game, Whi te rou nds i t off
. . . �xe1 1 7 �xel t/Jxc7 1 8 w i th a di s pl ay of tactics
t/Jxd6 t/Jxd6 19 �xd6 �c6 and for w h ich h e w as so j u stly
20 !!e8 w i th some famous .
chances to make a draw . As 34 �ef6+ ! (86)
p l ayed , the bishop spends
al m os t the entire game 86
pas s i ve o n f8, co m p l ete ly B
do m i nated by Whi te's enor­
m o u s k n i g h t o n dS .
16 �xea �xea
17 �d21 �c6
1a �e4 f5
19 �ec3 thd7
20 a3 thf7
21 h3 a6
22 g4 !!ea 34 ... gf
23 f4 !!e6 35 �xf6+ �f7
B lack defe nds the f6 36 �xh7+ !Jg7
sq uare w i th a view to p l ay­ 37 �xg7+ �xg7
i n g g6 , b u t White has other 3a �xea+ �fa
ideas . 39 tbxfS+ �xfS
24 g51 b5 40 �xd6
25 h4 �ea Wi n n i ng eas i ly; Ander­
26 twd3 �ba ssen - L Pau l sen, Vi e n na
27 hS aS 1 873 .
Des perately searching
aro u nd for co u nterp l ay , b u t c
Whi te j u s t keeps turn i n g 4 ... �d7
the screw . The advan tage of this
2a b41 ab mov e is that B l ack w ill
29 ab tbxhS i m m ediately dri ve the white
30 tbxf5 thf7 q u ee n from d4 by . . . �cb .

31 thd3 �d7 The disadvantage is that

32 �e4 t!JfS the bishop s eems poorly

placed on d7 i n co m pari so n
wi th say , v ari a tion A2 ,
where i t co u l d go to the
more activ e sq uare e6 , g 4
or even b7 i n one bou n d .
5 .Q.f4
I n t h i s case 5 .Q.g5? ac h­
iev es not h i n g : 5 . . . 4Jc6 6
tbd2 (6 .Q.xd8 4Jxd 4 - threat­
en i ng 4Jxc2+ - 7 4Jxd4 !!xd8
is better for B l ack: tw o
bi s hops . I ncide n ta l ly , I can
see no reas on w hy a l l the
so urces g i ve 7 . . . �xd8 i n
thi s pos i ti o n , a s 8 4Jb5 can
be a n s wered by 8 . . . c6
anyway , a nd the k n i g h t
m us t retreat , or be l os t. 6
tbc3 f6 7 .Q.h 4 d5 ! - hopi ng
to p l ay . . . .Q.b 4 - 8 tbe3 de 9
tbxe4+ t/1e7 and o-o-o+ -
the w h i te bishop i s m i s­
p l aced o n h 4 ) 6 . . . .Q.e7 7
.Q.xe 7 �xe 7 8 4Jc3 4Jf6
so l v es most of B l ack's
prob l e m s . A game Biy iasas
- S mys l o v , Bor 1 980, co n­
ti n ued: 9 0-0-0 0-0-0 t O
.Q.d3 !!fe 8 1 1 !!fe 1 4Je5 12
4jd4 4Jxd3+ 1 3 cd ? ! �e5! 1 4
4Jf3 t/1a5 15 h 3 .Q.e6 1 6 �b t d5
17 e5 d4! 1 8 ef de+.
5 .Q.e3 w i l l be s i mi l ar to 5
.Q.f4; 5 . . . 4Jc6 6 �d2 4Jf6 7
4Jc3 .Q.e7 8 0-0-0 0- 0± ( 8
.Q.c4 4Je5 9 4Jxe5 de t O 0-0
0-0 tran sposes i n to a game
Morphy - Lowenthal , match
1 858; i t appears fair ly l ev e l
though W h i te l o st) .
5 ... 4Jc6
6 t/1d2 .Q.e7
Morphy's Varia tion 93
The Fi n n i s h Grandmas ter
Heikki Wes teri nen e xper­
i me n ted w i th the move 6 . . .
4Jge7 agai ns t Kuraj i ca, So-
l i ngen 1974, w h ich co nti n­
ued 7 4Jc3 4Jg6 8 .Q.gS .Q.e7 9
.Q.xe7 �xe7 1 0 0-0-0, bu t
after 1 0 . . . . 0-0? i t a l l wen t
wrong: 11 h 4 ( now the
k n i g h t w i l l fi nd i tsel f aw k­
w ard ly p l aced on g6 ) 1 1 . . .
.Q.e6 1 2 h 5 4Jge5 1 3 4Jh 4!
!!ae8 14 f4 4Jc4 1 5 .Q.xc4
.Q.xc4 16 h6 g6 17 b3 .Q.a6 1 8
4Jd5 �dB 1 9 �c3 f6 20 !!het
!:!f7 21 4Jf3 !!ef8 22 g 4 4Jb8
23 g 5 ( Wh i te has a bone­
cru s h i n g i n itiat i v e) 23 . . . f g
24 4Jxg5 c6 25 4Jxf7 !!xf7 26
4Je3 �f8 27 4Jf5 ! (87)
87
B
27 . . . 4Jd7 ( t here is the n ice
poi n t that i f 27 . . . d5 28 ed
�xf5 29 �e8 w i n s) 28 !!xd6
4Jf6 29 �d2 a nd B l ack
threw i n the towe l , 1-0 ( 29
... g f 30 �g 1 + � 8 2 1 �dB
4Je8 32 t/1d4+ is a l i keJy
fi n i s h ) .
7 4Jc3
In the game Bl ackb urne -
Deaco n , Pari s 1 862 , 7 .Q.c4
94 Morphy·s Varia tion
4Jf6 8 4Jc3 0-0 9 0-0?!
occurred , and now B l ack
p l ayed 9 . . . 4Jg 4 ! di sregar­
di ng t h e dS sq u are bu t i n­
s tead h as te n i ng to con tro l
eS . Whi te' s i n i tiative w i l l
be so m ew h at d u l l ed i f
t here i s no t h reat of eS ,
l everi ng open t h e cen tra l
fi l es . Now t O �ad t .Q.f6 1 1
�fet 4Jge5 12 .Q.xeS .Q.xeS 1 3
h3 .Q.e6 w as perfect ly res­
pectab l e for B lack , b u t 9
0- 0- 0 i s m ore poi n ted.
7 ... 4Jf6
a o-o-o o-o
9 h31
I n my optnton t h i s m u s t
be t he most acc u rate, 9 eS?!
de 1 0 4Jxe5 4Jxe5 1 1 .Q.xe5
.Q.c6 ( // ... .Q.e6. B u t not 1 1 . . .
.Qg 4 1 2 f3 �xd2+ 1 3 �xd2 as
B l ack l oses h i s c- paw n . 12
tfjf4 4)d7 al so seems OK
for B l ack as /3 tfjg3. Ob­
viou s l y 1 3 .Q.xc7? ? .Qg5 1 4
.Q.xd8 .Q.x f4+ i s n o t recom-
mended for W h i te! /3 . ..
.Q.f6 see m s to s u ccessfu l ly
exchange pi eces e . g : 14
.Q.xf6 tfjxf6 IS tfjxc7 tfjxf2 16
l!xd7? .Q.xd7 17 tfjxd7 l!adB
w i ns , or 14 .Q.f4 .Q.h 4. And 12
tfjxdB .Q.xdB- 13 fjbS l!cB 14
4J:<a7? !!aB, fo l l owed by . . .
�xa2) 12 �f4 �c8 1 3 h 3 ( i t
t u rn s ou t t hat t he threat to
c7 is i l l u s ory : 13 .Q.xc7 4Jh5
1 4 �e5 .Q.f6 15 �x h5 t/Jxc7 is
too dangero u s fo r W h i te)
13 . . . a6 1 4 .Q.c 4 b5 15 .Q.xf6
.Q.xf6 1 6 .Q.d5 .Q.xd5 17 4Jxd5
.Q.d 8 (88) w hich l ook s eq ual
but l ed to a comfortable
Black wi n i n M atu l ovic -
Tri ngo v .
It has t o be remembered
t ha t w i th 9 e5? ! Whi te is
s tarti ng t he com p l ications
before he has even devel­
oped h i s ki ngs ide.
9 .Q.d3 is a sens i b l e move
bu t B l ack m i g h t be ab l e to
s i m p ly pl ay 9 . . . 4Jg 4, gett­
i ng a fi r m gri p on the eS
sq uare. 1 0 4jd5 4Jge5 1 1
4Jxe7+ �xe7 is a p l ausible
co nti n u ation w he n Whi te
has the two bish ops , bu t i n
thi s pos i tion that may not
mean a great deal . Play can
co nti n u e 12 .Qg5 f6 1 3 .Q.h 4
.Q.e6 or 1 3 . . . .Qg 4 w i t h a
reas onab l e posi ti o n . B lack
can consider s tarti ng a
q u eens ide attack, or he can
si m p ly p l ay rooks to e8 and
dB . If W hi te captures on eS
then Black can recapture
w i t h t he d- paw n and u ti l ize
t he d-fi l e . 9 . . . 4Jb4 is also
poss i b l e .
The text 9 h31 i s a su gg-

esti on of Gra n dmaster K u ­
raj i ca's . Whi te takes ti me
o u t to s top . . . c[)g 4 or . . .
� 4 a n d prepares to p l ay
-'ld3 and �h et , or perhaps
g4, gai n i n g space on t he
ki ngside . B l ack ' s mos t
pro m i s i ng l i n e o f action
appears to be 9 . . . -'le6 , w i t h
the further p l a n to p l ay . . .
c[)d7 , . . . -'lfb, and . . . c[)de5.
Wh i te does not have ti me
for 10 c[)g5 c[)d7 ? ! 1 1 c[)xe6 fe
12 -'lc4 ?? beca use of 12 . . .
r!xf4 and . . . � 5 , b u t 1 2 -'le3
c[)de5 1 3 f4 c[)g6 - me naci n g
c[)xf4 - 1 4 g3 a n d White i s
better . There i s , howev er,
no good reaso n to al low
c[)xe6; therefore t O . -'lc8!
. .
fol l owed by . . . h6 and . . .
-'le6 . I n any case , i t i s cl ear
that W h i te's s pace adv a n­
tage and poss i bi l i ties of
direct action offer hi m t he
better pro s pects .
D
4 ••• a6
Whi l st t hi s mov e has t he
same l a u dab l e moti v e as
vari ation C , namely to e x­
pe l the w h i te q u een fro m
i ts ce n tra l pos tion w i t ho u t
al l o w i n g t he -'lb5 pi n , i ts
advan tage i s t hat q u ee n s i de
co un terp l ay w i l l com e t hat
much soon er, as . . . b5 is
a l ready pre pared .
5 -'lf4
Agai n , 5 �5 i s m i s take n ;
5 . . . c[)c6 6 tbd2 ( 6 -'lxd8
Morphy's Varia tion 95
c[)xd 4 7 c[)xd 4 �xd8 8 -'lc4-
c[)h6 , whe n the b l ack posi­
tion is so l id and he has the
bi s hop pa ir. He w i l l fo l l ow
up w i t h . . . g6 and . . . �7 or
. . . -'le 7 - f6) 6 . . . -'le 7 7 c[)c3
( 7 -'lxe7 tbxe7 8 c[)c3 c[)f6=)
7 . . . -'lxg5 8 c[)xg5 and in the
ga m e Szn api k - Pl achetka,
Trnava 1984, B l ack p l ayed
the care le s s 8 . . . c[)fb ? !
w h e n after 9 f 4 0- 0 1 0
0- 0-0 W h i te had so me ad­
van tage, a l thou g h the game
l a ter di sso l v ed i n to a w i l d .
tacti ca l m e l ee: 1 0 . . . h6 t 1
c[)f3 b5 1 2 -'ld3 b4 1 3 c[)dS aS
1 4 �hgt -'le6 1 5 g 4 c[)xdS 16
f5 ! ? c[)c3 whi ch is wort h a
di agram , i n my view (89)
89
w
An d the game s taggered
on: 1 7 be -'lxa2 18 g5 hg 1q
�xg5 tbf6 20 �dg 1 !!fb8 21
r!xg7+ w hen Wh i te was
w i nn i n g a l thoug h t h e game
was l ater drawn . But, of
co u rs e , si m p l y 8 . . . h6! q
c[)f3 c[)f6 1 0 0-0- 0 0-0.
w hen the abse nce of one
pa ir of pieces eases a ny
sensa tio n s of cra m p that
96 Morphy 's Varia tion

B l ack m i g h t fee l i n t h i s probab ly rig h t . If B l ack

vari ati o n . ma nages to take on d3 and
5 ... 4jc6 the n p l ay ... .Q.e6 he s hou l d
6 �d2 4jf6 be fi ne.
7 4jc3 .Q.e7 11 .Q.e2 !!e8
a o-o-o o-o And here 1 1 .. . .Q.e6 looks
9 .Q.d3 more se ns ib l e to me.
O ne advantage of not 12 4jxe5 4jxe5
ha v i ng the bi s hop on d7 ( as Probab ly overl ook i ng
i n v ari ati o n C ) i s that 9 eS Wh i te's next; 12 .. . de 13
has abs o l u te l y no poi n t .Q.e3 .Q.e6 ( b u t not 13 . . . .Q.d6?
here : 9 . .. d e 10 4jxe5 4jxe5 1 4 4jb6! ) i s o n ly s l ightly
11 .Q.xeS �xd2+ 12 !! xd2 c6 == . di sadvan tageou s for Black .
A l s o 9 h3 i s i rrel eva nt as 13 �a51 c6
Bl ack can a l w ay s p l ay h i s Not 13 . .. b6? 1 4 tbc3.
ki ng's k n i g h t to e S v i a d 7 i f 14 4jxe7+ t/Jxe7
he so w i s he s. 15 !!het f6
9 ... 4jd7 16 �a3 !!dB
9 . .. 4jb 4 i s not w i thou t 17 .Q.g3 4jf7
poi n t here , i f Whi te tri es to 18 .Q.f1 c5
preserv e hi s l ig ht- sq uared 19 f4
bi s hop by 1 0 .Q.e2 t he n 10 ... When Whi te w as c l earl)
.Q.e6 1 1 a3 aS! ? co u l d be fu n , better b u t s oon ran s hort
a s now 1 2 a b i s extremely of ti me, and so decided to
ri sky due to 12 ... ab 13 4jb 1 offer a draw a few moves
!!a 1 1 4 �xb 4 .Q.a2 15 l:\ld2 dS later w h ic h , of course, was
(90) w i t h a v i ciou s attack . accepted ; Matu l ovic - Bar­
lov , Vrnjacka Ba nja 1 983.
90
w E Other Black fourth moves

a) 4 ... .Q.g4
A rare ly p l ayed move,
but on the e vidence of the
game Archvadze - C hipu­
ka i ti s , USSR 1968, perhaps
no t so bad :
5 .Q.g5 �d7
10 .Q.c4 ? ! i s m et by 10 ... bS . 6 4jc3
10 4jd5 4jde5? Hardi ng fee l s that 6
M atu l ov ic s u gges ts that 4jbd2 4Jc6 7 �c3 is more
10 . . . 4jc 5 is best, a nd he is co n s i stent, and i t does
 Morphy's Varia tion 97

certai n ly make t h i n gs more 5 4Jc3 a6 6 !;le3? 4jc6 7 �d2

di fficu l t for B l ack . 4jf6 8 �dt f;le7 9 f;le2 0-0 10
6 ... 4jc6 0-0 b5= b u t W h i te' s p i a)
7 �d2 !;le7 was not, by any s tre tch o f
8 !;lbS a6 t he i magi nati o n , a cri tical
9 !;le2 4jf6 tes t.
10 h3 !;lhS Whi l st al l these v aria­
11 !;le3 .Q.g6 tions are certai n ly play ab l e
Wh i te's moves appear to for B l ack , v ariation A
be a l i t t l e purpose l es s , and seems the bes t v ariation
fo l l ow i n g 1 2 !;ld3 0-0 1 3 �e2 and v ariation D i s a l so i n­
!!ae8 1 4 0-0-0 !;ld8! 15 4jd2 teres t i n g bu t, to my m i n d .
b5 1 6 a3 d5 ! B l ack has ass­ vari ations B and C s u ffer
u med t he i n i tiativ e , and fro m t he fact t hat the
went on to w i n. l i g h t-squared bi s hop i s not
so w e l l p l aced on, res pect­
b) 4 ... !;le6 i ve ly , c6 and d 7 . Of t he
Lowen t ha l - Morphy , 7th o t her two i deas , 4 .. Slg 4
.

match game 1 858 con ti n ued m i g h t be w ort h a try .

8) Hanham Variation (Improved)
Introduction
1 e4 eS
2 �f3 d6
3 d4 �f6
4 �c3
4 de i s disc u s sed i n
chapter 1 0 , a nd other a ss­
orted moves in chapter t t .
4 ... �bd7 (91)
91
w part the b l ack pieces can
Thi s i s the key move o f
thi s syste m , a l thoug h w he n
t h e America n M a s ter Major
Ha nham ori g i na l ly co n­
cei v ed the p l an he p l ayed ...
� d7 on move t h ree. Now
we k now t h at thi s partic­
ul ar order o f moves i s i n­
ferior ( see c hapter 2) , and
it w as t h e great chess
t h i nker Aro n N i mzowi tsch
w ho fi rst i n trod u ced the
i n terpo l ation 3 . . . � f6 and
on l y then 4 . . . 4jbd7.
Bl ack de fends hi s e­
paw n a nd prepa res to de­
ve l op the res t o f his pieces ,
w hi l st k eepi ng the centre
cl osed . His positi on , though
a l i tt l e cra m ped, is so l id
and wi tho u t w eak nesses .
Fu rthermore, White m u s t
tak e care , a s after a mo­
ment's ca rel ess ness on his
s p ri ng to l i fe .
I n t he mai n l i ne , w h i ch
we w i l l l ook at later, B l ack
ca n play a pati ent man­
eo u v eri ng game if he so
wi s hes , bu t perhaps the
best cha nces are offered by
p l ay i ng a we l l - ti med . . . ed
and then pressurizi ng the
w h i te e- paw n . It was , agai n ,
Ni mzow itsch who fi rst
s how ed the poss i bi l i ties
i n herent i n this strategy o f
restrai n t .
5 �c4
Thi s is al most in vari ab ly
pl ayed , but there are many
al tern ati v es .
a ) 5 .QIS �e7 6 �d2? !
occu rred i n a game Wag ner
- H o lz hausen , 1926, w h en it
wou Id ap pear that 6 . . . h6!
 Hanham Varia tion (Impro ved) - In troduction
i s s trong , as 7 �e3 i s met
by 7 . . . ci)g 4 a nd 7 �h 4? i s
even w orse becau se of 7 . . .
ci)xe4! 8 ci)xe4 �xh 4 ( wi n n­
i ng a pawn with a better
pos i tion) or 8 �xe7 ci)xd2 9
�xd8 ci)xf3 + whe n White
can happi ly res i g n . So 7
�xf6 seemed forced , and
after 7 . .. �xf6 and B l ack
has every reaso n to fee l
co nte nted.
b) 5 �e2 �e7 ( as per the
m ai n l i ne , but as B l ack has
no worries abou t h i s f­
pawn , he cou l d j u st as eas­
i ly co ns ider pl ay i n g 5 . . . g6
6 0-0 .Qg7 wi th a fav o u rab l e
posi tion for the Pi rc) 6 0-0
(6 a4 aS fi rs t , then 7 0-0
0- 0 8 �et c6 9 b3 �e8 1 0
�b2 �f8 == Rei cher - Qui n­
teros , Wij k aan zee 1973 ,
bu t s i m p ly 6 . . . c6 7 0- 0 0-0
8 �e t the? 9 b3 �e8 tO �a3
�f8 1 1 h3 g6 12 de de 13
�xf8 ci)xf8 14 't!Jd2 ci)e6 15
t!ad t �dB of Arak ham i a -
Rogers , M oscow 1989 is
al so good , wi th B l ack grad­
ua l ly as s u m i n g the i ni tia­
tive) 6 . . . 0-0 ( or, more
aggres si vely , 6 . . . c6 7 �et
h6 8 h3? 't!Jc7 9 �e3 gS,
Voi tsekhovsky - Tartako­
wer , Y u ptata 1937) 7 �et c6
8 a4 b6 9 b3 a6 1 0 �b2 �b7
1 1 �ft bS (an i n teresti ng
posi tion , Bl ack i s expand­
i ng on the q u eens ide and
Whi te i s hopi ng to target
Black's e-pawn ) 1 2 de de 13
99
ab ab ( 13 ... cb ! ? ) 14 �xa8
�xa8 15 �at ! �e8 16 g3 �cS
17 �h3 �b7 1 8 �dt �c8 19
ci)e2? ( White's patience
sn aps , b u t 1 9 �d2 tf1c7 i s
fi n e for B l ack) 1 9 . . . ci)xe4
20 �xd7 ci)xf2 ! 21 �xe8
ci)xd l + 22 �d4 ! ed 23 �xf7+
lf;xf7 24 �xd1 + Manca -
Kos ten , Vara l l o 1 991 .
c) 5 de i s a m i stake,
Wh i te hereby re l eases the
tension i n the cen tre and
i n v i tes the b l ack k i ng's
bi s hop to take up a more
t han normal l y acti v e posi­
tion . Akopjan - Sergiev sk) ,
USSR 1964 , con ti n ued: 5 . . .
de 6 �c4 �b4 ( s ic) 7 0-0
0-0 8 ci)dS ci)xdS 9 �xdS
c6=.
d) 5 g3 i s the on ly move
(apart from 5 �c4 , o f
co u rs e) to have any sort o f
rep utati o n , i ndeed Korch­
noi hi m se l f once p l ayed i t :
5 . . . �e7 ( apart from th i s
'pure Han ham' approac h .
Black can a l s o p l ay 5 . . . gb
6 .Qg2 .Qg7 reachi ng anothe r
pos i tion from the Pirc
where , thi s time, the wh ite
knight is m i s p l aced on f3 -
it wo u l d norma l l y be on e2 .
One exam p l e : 7 0-0 0-0 8
de de 9 b3 bb 1 0 a4 �b7 11
ci)d2 �e8 12 �a3 �f8 1 3 �x fB
ci)xf8 1 4 ci)c4 ci)e6= , S mys-
lov - Sax , Ti l bu rg 1 979 ) 6
.Qg2 0- 0 ( the game H ebde n
- Sal e m , H asti ngs O pen
1991 , co n ti n ued i n cu rious
1 00 Hanham Varia tion (Impro ved) - In troduction
fas hio n : 6 . . . hS! ? 7 h3 c6 8
a4 aS 9 b3 ed /0 �xd4 f:)cS
11 1J.b2 1J.e6 12 l/ad/ �c7 /3
ite3 0-0-0 14 t£)d4 lfheB IS
t£);t(e6 Fe 16 h 4 dS 17 �e2
t£)g4 18 1J. h3 1J. f6 19 1J. ;t(g 4 hg
20 itxg4 t£)xe4 21 t£);t(e4
1J.xb2 (92) w hi ch i s u n cl ear,
t he game was l ater draw n
after so m e w i l d fl u ct u a­
tions)
92
w der possi bi l i ties are hereb)·
7 0- 0 ( from a s l i g h t ly diff­
eren t move order, the game
Kap l an - Pan no , Sao Pa u l o
1973 , reach ed t he pos i ti o n
after 7 a4 c 6 8 aS , a n d t hen
co nti n u ed : 8 . . . tfjc7 9 0-0
tbb8 ! 10 b3 !!e8 1 t �b2 bS t2
ab ab 13 t!Je2 �b7 14 �xa8
�xa8 1 5 !!d t bS wi th eq ual ­
i ty , tho u g h Bl ack l ater
went on to w i n ) 7 . . . cb 8 a4
( probably more accu rate
than 8 b3 �e8 9 �b2 of
Tartakower - Kosti c, Tep­
l i tz Shonau 1 922) 8 . . . �e8 9
b3 ( or fi rs t 8 �et �f8 t O b3,
but it is a mi s take to g i v e
up the cen tre a t this poi n t
by 1 0 . . . ed ? ! t 1 ci)xd 4 dS 12
ed �xe1 + t3 t!Jxe t ci)xdS 1 4
ci)xdS cd ± , Korchnoi - Gu i­
mard , Bue nos Ai res 1960) 9
. . . �f8 tO �b2 tfjc7 t 1 �et bb
12 ci)h 4 �b7= Hase - Rubi­
nett i .
5 . . . �e7
As ci)gS i s now a very real
threat, Bl ack has tens to
cas t l e , 5 . . . h6 ( 6 0-0 .Qe7)
i s l i ke ly to transpose i n to
the note to B l ack's sixth
mov e . The advan tage is
t hat many of Whi te' s wil­
avoi ded ; the drawback i s
that . . . h 6 might not be a
particu l arly u seful mov e .
6 o-o
The best move, bu t i t i s
a s wel l to k n ow that v ari­
ous al tern ati ves , which,
tho u gh i n feri or, are never­
the l ess not w i t hou t danger
for B l ack .
a) 6 �xf7+? ( the exchan ge
on eS , con si dered below , i s
t he necessary prelude to
t hi s sacri fice/combi nati on )
6 . . . �xf7 7 cf)gS+ �g8 ! ( 7 . . .
�g6 mi ght be playab l e as
we l l , Shtad l er - Perevorz­
ni k , Wo men's Candidates
1967, co n ti n ued: 8 h4 hS q
f4 e f tO ci)e2 �g 8 1 1 ci)xf4+
�h6 12 ci)dS ci)xdS 13 ci)eb+
�g6 1 4 ed ci)f6 15 �d3+ �f7
w hen Wh i te was a l read)
l os i ng , but t he mai n l i ne is
so co n v i nci ng that i t s eems
poi n t l ess to both er w i th
thi s . Th e mov es 7 . . . �e8
and 7 . . . �f8 both lose the
 Hanham Varia tion (Impro ved) - In troduction tOt
q u ee n and are defi n i tel y to
be avoided ! ) 8 �e6 �e8 9
�xc7 �g6 10 �xa8 ( perhaps
i t i s better to make a gen­
u i ne sacri fi ce ou t of thi s by
10 0-0! ? nb8 1 1 �d3 h6 12 f4
as i n Bri nck m a n n - Romi n ,
Ham bu rg t930, a l thoug h
objectiv e ly , Whi te is l os t .
1 0 de? �xe5 j us t bri ng s the
black pieces n earer the
w h i te ki ng) tO . . . �xg2 t t
�ft ed ( th i s i s w hy i t is
better for Whi te to ex­
change firs t on e5, the e5
square becom es acces s i b l e
to the b l ack k n i g h t) t2
�xd4 ( t h i s seem s obv i ou s ,
bu t 12 t11e2 has a l so been
p l ayed ; 12 . . . de! 12 . . . �e5
i s met by t3 f4. 13 t11c 4+ dS
14 t11xc8+ ff;f7 IS t11xb 7. Try­
i ng to keep the q u een i n
the game ; the greedy t5
�x h 8 l oses to t 5 . . . �xe4+
t6 �d t �f3+ t7 �e t cb 1 8
�xb2 �b4+ t 9 c 3 �xc3+ 20
�xc3 �xc3+ 21 �e2 �c2+ 22
�f3 - 22 �et �e5 t h reaten­
i n g . . . �d3 a nd . . . �f3 mate,
or 22 �f3 �e4+ 23 �g3 �g 4
mate - 22 . . . d4+ (93) fre s h
wood on the fire!
Thi s is the mos t fun , al­
though there may be o t her
ways for B l ack to w i n , 23
�xd 4 - 23 �f3 a nd 23 �f4
are both answ ered by 23 . . .
�e4+ a nd 24 . . . �g 4 mate -
23 . . . �c5+ 24 �d3 �e5 + -
B l ack's three pi eces co­
opera te w e l l , and a l l the
w h i te pieces , s tuck i n the
corners , are mere wi tness­
es to the persecu tion of
the w h i te k i ng 25 �d2 - or
25 �e2 �c2+ 26 �e3 �d3+
and mate in two moves - 25
. . . �e4+ and , by my ca l c u ­
l atio n , Whi te i s mated i n at
mos t fi v e moves .
Al ternati v e l y , 1 6 �e3 cb
t7 �b t �b 4+ t 8 �d t �f3
mate, or 1 8 c3 �xb t + , . . .
�xf1 + and . . . b 1 (�) + w i t h
materi al adva n tage , fi nal l)
t 7 �d t �xc2 menaci ng . . .
�b 4+ , . . . b 1 (�) or . . . �xd t +
a s appropriate . 15 . . . t11xe4+
16 .Q.e3 l/bB 17 t11xa 7 cb 18
ff;d2. Resig n s m ig h t have
been a better choi ce. 18 . . .
t11b 4+! /9 c3 fje4 + 20 ff;e2
fjxc3+ 21 ff;£3 rl!e4 + 22 ff;g3
fje2+ 23 ff;h3 t11f3 (94) mate.
Rab i nov ich - l ly i n -Z henev­
sky, Moscow t922) 12 . . .
�e5 1 3 f4 �fg 4! t 4 �dS+ !
( t h i s forces the k n i g h t to
retrea t as 1 4 . . . �f8?? a l l ­
ow s 15 fe+ ! ) 1 4 . . . �f7 15
�c 4 ( defendi ng ft and
t hreatening c8) 15 . . . �h 4+
102 Hanham Variation (Impro ved) - Introduction
94
w �h t + 26 �e2 �xa t - the
1 6 �d 1 �e6 ! 1 7 �e2 [ijf2+ 1 8
r!xf2 ( 1 8 �d2 � 4 19 r!xf2
�xf2 20 �bS i s be s t an­
sw ered by 20 . . . g6 - 21 �e8
mate was the t hreat - w he n
Whi te h a s h ard ly g o t a
mov e , i .e : 21 li:Jc7 �b6+) 1 8
. . . �xf2 1 9 fS ( to s top 1 9 . . .
� 4) 1 9 . . . �gt+ 20 �d2 ( and
now B l ack h as a draw i f he
so w i s hes , by 20 . . . �dS+ ,
b u t i ns tead he fo u nd a
mos t bea u ti ful w i n) 20 . . .
li:JeS ! ! (95)
21 [ijd l? ( A b l u nder; this
s tops . . . �e3+ but not . . .
�et + . I t w o u l d hav e bee n
better t o take t h e piece a n d
see : 21 fe �et + ! 22 �xel
[ijf3+ 23 �e2 li:Jxe1 24 �e3 -
24 �d2 amou nts to the
same - 24 . . . �xh 2+ 25 �xet
q ueen's rooks don't seem
to fare too wel l i n this
vari ation ! - 27 li:Jc7 hS! and
t he h-p aw n w i l l w i n , 28 e7
bei n g answ ered by 28 . . .
�f7 + ) 2 1 . . . �et + 22 �xet
tWd 4+ 23 �e2 �c4 mate!
Heiden fel d - Wo l pert , Jo­
h a nn esburg 1 955 .
b) 6 de de ( thi s is the
normal mov e here, b u t 6 . . .
f)xeS i s a l s o v ery s atisfac­
tory , and may appeal to
t hose p l ayers w ho do n't
w i s h to p l ay the long, for­
ci ng mai n l i ne . 7 1J.e2 is
s u pposed to be a l i ttle
better for Wh i te . I n stead, 7
li:JxeS de 8 �xd8+ �xd8 9 a4
- 9 �5 0- 0 tO 0-0-0 i s a
recom mendatio n of A lek-
hi ne's , b u t after tO . . . c6 1 1
a4 a6 the threat of . . . b5-b4
al low s B l ack to enjoy a
certa i n amount of i n i ti ative
on the q ueen side - 9 . . . cb
t O aS �e7 1 1 f3 li:Jd7 t 2 [ijd t
li:JcS - j u h tman - Gusev ,
USSR 1 956 ; 7 �b3? �4 i s + .
Now 7 . . . f)xf3+ is the most
l ogica l , d i s p l aci ng the bi s h ­
o p b u t 7 . . . li:Jg6!? i s al so
p l aus i b l e. 8 1J.xf3 0-0 9 0-0
l!eB. 9 . . . c6 was p l ayed i n
Birm i n g ha m Manouck,
French Ch 1 986, w h ich co n­
ti n ued 10 a4 aS 1 1 �d4 �4
12 �xg 4 li:Jxg 4 13 �f4 �c7
1 4 �adl r!ad8 w i th a q ui ck
 Hanham Varia tion (Impro ved) - In troduction 103
draw , and Pickett l i kes the
idea of p l ay i ng , after 9 . . . c6
10 �f 4 , 1 0 . . . 4Je8! ? , t hen . . .
f5, . . . fe, and . . . d5. My op­
i n io n i s that 9 . . . c6 i s an
u n necessary w eak en i ng of
db . 10 !Iel h6 11 b3 w h en
Pach man D u n ke l b l u m ,
D u b l i n 1 957 , wen t o n : 11 . . .
JJ.FB ?! 12 1J.b2 g6 13 fjbS 1J.g7
14 c4 w i th a s l i g ht p u l l for
Whi te , bu t ECO's recom m ­
endatio n , 1 1 . . . fjh 7! 12 fjdS
1J.f6 13 fJ�"f6+ �xf6 i s very
strong, e . g : 1 4 �d2 4Jg5 1 5
�xgS h g (96)+ p l an n i ng
�e5 , . . . �d7-c6, . . . �ae8
96
w al t hough Larsen gi ves the
w i t h powerfu l pres s u re on
t he w h i te e-paw n ) 7 �xf7+
( w i t ho u t thi s move there
wou ld be l i t t l e poi n t i n
Wh i te exchangi ng o n e5 , 7
�e2 is s i m p ly answ ered by
7 . 0-0 fol l ow ed by . . . c6
. .
when Black has a pos i t ion
t hat resemb l es variou s
li nes of the Pi rc, w i t h t he
di fference t hat h i s k i ng's
bi s hop is more ac tively
pl aced than on g 7 . There i s
another crude atte m p t by
Whi te : 7 fjgS?! 0-0 B JJ.�"f7+
l!xf7 9 fje6. Obv io u s ly 9
4Jxf7 wo u l d al ready be
better for B l ack , two pi eces
are worth more t han a rook
and a paw n i n the middle
ga me, oth er thi ngs bei n g
eq ua l . I n general I am very
su s pici o u s of l i nes l i ke t h i s
that g i v e aw ay a p i ece to
w i n the rook o n a8 , the
k n i g h t o n aB never seems
to co me o u t agai n . 9 ... �eB
10 fjxc7 �dB 11 fJxaB. 11
4Je6? does not force a draw
as now the bl ack q u een can
escape to the b6 or aS
sq uares. 11 . . . bS. Thi s i s
probab ly the s tronges t ,
fo l low i ng , p retty po ssi bi 1-
i ty: t 1 . . . �b 4 ! ? 12 �d2 b6 13
4Jb5 ? ! �xd2+ 1 4 tWxd2 4Jxe 4
15 tWdS �b7 ! ? as 1 6 tWxb7
4jdc5 w i n s the w hi te quee n ,
al t hough 1 7 �d 1 tWf6 1 8
tWxf7+ \f;xf7 19 0- 0 tWc6 i s
not c l ear even t ho ug h the
w h i te k n i gh t s look a l i tt l e
s i l ly . 12 fJdS. The idea i s to
resc ue the k ni g h t on aB, 12
4Jxb5 i s po i nt less : 12 . . .
tWa5+ 13 4Jc3 4Jxe 4 14 0-0
4Jxc3 1 5 be tWxc3 1 6 �e3 tWc6
17 �xa7 �b7+ . 12 . . . 1J.d6!
Pi ckett s ug gests 12 . . . 4Jxe4
13 0-0 �d6 1 4 tWd3 �b7 e. g :
1 5 tWxe 4 �xa8 16 �d1 4Jb6
b u t not 12 . . . 4Jxd5? ! 13
tWxdS 4jf6 14 tWxb5 and
Wh i te wen t on to wi n Mag-
erut - Frei di n , USS R 1955. 13
104 Hanham Varia tion (Improved) - In troduction

0-0. 1 3 .(lgS .Q.b7 1 4 �d2

.Q.xa8 15 0-0-0 .Q.f8 al so 97
wo rked ou t we l l for B l ack w

i n Bram i ns ky - Hever, USS R

1965. 13 . .. 1J,b 7 14 t£)8c7
1J,xc7� Aru l aid - Heu er,
Tartu 1 970. Provid i ng that
B l ack can avoid too many
exchanges , and fi n d some
good s i tes fo r his m i nor
pi ece s , t h i ngs s hou l d go
we l l ) 7 . . . �xf7 8 c[)gS+ �g8 13 t£)xf4+ 'i!lh6 14 t£)f7+ t£)xf7
( 8 . . . rflg6! m ay wel l be ev en IS t£)e6+ 'i!lh 7 /6 t£)xd8 l!xdB
stro ng er, bu t i t demands a (98)
certa i n am ou n t of co u rage
on the part of B l ack to p l ay 98
i t : 9 h4. The poi n t i s that w

after 9 4Je6 �g 8! 1 0 4Jxc7

!!b 8 saves t h e rook - + ; 9 f4
ef 10 4Je6 �g8 1 1 4Jxf4 c[)eS!
- probably si m p l er than 11
. . . !!h 8 1 2 .Q.xf4 - 1 2 4Jxa8
.(lg4 13 4Je2 �c4 + - Har­
di ng , Bl ack h as a n attac k ,
a n d w he n h e takes o n a8, a
materi a l advantage to boot !
9 . . . h S /0 f4 ef. 1 0 . . . 4Jc5?!
11 f5 + .Q.xf5 1 2 ef+ �x f5 i s
a l so po s s ib l e , i f not w i th­
o u t ri s k ! 11 t£)e2. 11 4Je6 is no
i m p rov emen t: 11 . . . �g8 12
4Jxc7 4Je5 ! 13 4Jxa8 .(lg4 1 4
�d 4 4Jc6 1 5 �a4 �b8 1 6 �bS
f3! (97)
0- 1 Ro sen - Scho izs wo h l ,
Euro pean C u p fi n al 1 960/ 1 ,
as . . . . �g3+ wi l l b e cu rtai n s ;
did W h i te rea l ly sacri fi ce a
pi ece to l os e s o i g n om i n­
ious ly ? I/ . . . 1J,d6 12 eS. There
is not h i ng to be h ad from
12 .Q.xf4 4Je5 + . 12 . . . fJ,l(eS!
Ana lysi s by Voronkov , wh en
B l ack is wi n ni ng ; not an i)
has he th ree pi eces for the
q ueen , b u t also two enti ­
ci ng sq uares for h i s pieces
on g 4 and g3 , and , on top
of t h i s , the whi te ki ng i s
stuck i n t h e cen tre) 9 4jeb
�e8 1 0 4Jxc7 �gb 1 1 4Jxa8
�xg2 12 �f1 4Jc5 13 �e2 .Q.h3
1 4 .Q.e3 �xf1 + 15 �xft .Q.xft
16 �xf1 �f7 ( this is so l i d
enoug h , b u t why not try to
keep the a8 k n i g h t out of
the gam e w i th 16 . . . 4Je6 ! ? .
for exam p l e : 1 7 4jd5 �f7 1 8
4Jac7 4Jxc7 1 9 4Jxc7 �c8 20
 Hanham Varia tion (Impro ved) - In troduction 1 05
�d5 nxc2 21 �xe7 lf;xe7 22
-'l_xa7 nxb2 + / + or 1 7 -'l_xa7
lf;f7 1 8 �b6 -'l_c5 t h o u g h
there i s a ri sk t hat 1 9 �ca4
m i g ht j us t be good for
Wh i te) 1 7 �c7 �fxe4 1 B
�xe 4 �xe4 1 9 �dS -'l_cS=. I f
B l ack wants to w i n then
ei ther B . . . lt;g6 ! or perhaps
6 . . . �xeS are better.
c) 6 �gS?! Th i s is s i m i l a r
to t h e above materi a l : 6 . . .
0-0 7 -'l_x f7+ nxf7 B �e6
�eB 9 �xc7 �dB 1 0 �xa8
bS ! ( agai n , the key mov e -
the idea i s that a l tho u g h
Wh i te has the materia l ad­
van tage - exchange and two
paw n s - soo ner or l ate r he
wi l l try to develop the res t
o f h i s pieces a n d cas t l e .
Bl ack , there fore , wan ts to
take the k n i g ht on aB , b u t
at the same ti me he ai m s to
create co m p l ication s , pro­
voke weak nesses or regain
some paw n s . Thi s is the
poi n t o f . . . bS, Black p re­
pares . . . -'l_b 7 x aB , b u t a l so
has the b4 mov e i f need be.
Ot her moves are worse : 1 0
. . . b6 1 1 de �xeS 12 f 4 �g6
1 3 -'l_e3 -'l_b7 1 4 �xb6 ab I S
�d 4 + , Hen nebe rge r - So l l ­
erm , Z u ri ch 1 942; o r 1 0 . . .
�aS 1 1 0-0 bS 1 2 de �xeS 13
�dS + ; or tO . . . ed 1 1 �xd 4
�g 4 1 2 0-0 b6 1 3 h3 �4eS
1 4 �dS - threa t : �ac7 - 1 4
. . . -'l_a6 15 �xe 7+ nxe7 16 nd 1
�xaB 1 7 �xd6 �xe4 1 8
�dS+ � ) 1 1 de ( 1 1 �xbS �aS+
1 2 �c3 �xe 4 is very m u ch
to B l ack's tas te : 13 0-0
�xc3 1 4 be �xc3 15 -'l_e3 -'l_b7
16 de �xe5 1 7 -'l_xa7 -'l_xaB -
or even 1 7 . . . �f3+ ! ? - and
the b l ack p ieces are poi nt­
i ng very agg res siv ely to­
ward the w h ite k i n g , ei the r
. . . �f3 + o r . . . -'l_f3 may w e l l
b e o n t h e cards soo n . A l ­
ternati v e ly , 1 1 f3 ! ? -'l_b7 12
�xbS and i n stead of 1 2 . . .
-'l_xaB 1 3 d5= Erics so n -
Sc hon man , w hat abo u t 1 2 . . .
�aS+ 1 3 �c3 d5 ! ? open i ng
u p the pos i tion to good
effect e . g : 1 4 0-0 ed 1 5
�xd 4 ? ? -'l_cS - + ) 11 . . . �xe5
( o f cou rse , 1 1 . . . de trans­
poses to no te 'b' and can ' t
b e bad, b u t i t seems more
na t u ra l to pu t the q u ee n ' s
k n i g h t on a more adva nced
sq uare) 12 -'l_f4 (A good
mov e; 12 �xbS �aS+ 13 �c3
�xe 4 g i v es B l ack al l the
chances , w h i l s t 12 0-0 i s
ri sky , the w h i te ki ng be­
i n g safer on the q u een side:
12 . . . -'l_b7 13 f3 b 4 14 �d5
�xdS - or 1 4 . . . -'l_xdS - 1 5
ed �xa8 is al ready + , and 12
f4 is we l l a n s wered by 12 . . .
�c4 w h i l st 1 2 �dS �xdS 13
�xdS �d7 is + accord i n g to
Keres) 12 . . . �g6 ! ( 12 . . . b 4
occu rred i n M urey - Ree
Su h u m i 1972 , 1 3 �d5 �xd5
1 4 �xdS �g6 1 S .Q.g3 -'l_f8 16
0-0-0 -'l_b7 17 �e6 �xaB lB
f3± bu t 18 . . . -'l_cB 19 �c4
�eS? ? 20 -'l_xeS de 2 1 ndB
106 Hanham Varia tion (Impro ved) - In troduction
�e6 22 !! xf8+ 1 -0 and 12 . . .
�b7? 1 3 �d4 ! �xa8 1 4 0-0-0
{)fd7 1 5 �xeS de 1 6 �xa7 i s
+ . The fo l l ow i ng i s my a n-
alysi s , and t here is no
g u ara ntee! ) 13 !J.g3 �b7 1 4
�d 4 �xa8 ! (re mov i ng the
q u ee n from t he d- fi l e a nd
putti ng m ore press u re on
t he e- paw n ) . No w there are
sev eral po ssi bi l i ties :
et) 15 o-o-o {)xe 4 16
{)xe 4 �xe 4 1 7 �xd6? �c6 !
(99) w i n n i ng ,
99
w s tri ke ou t dangerous ly : 7
du e to 1 8 c3 !J.gS+ , or 1 8 �c3
�xd6 1 9 �xc6 �f4+ , or 1 8
�d2 .Qg S . Or a l ternati v e ly
1 7 f3 �fS 1 8 �xd6 �f6 19
�d2 �c8 20 g4? !J.gS + or 19
�dS �c8 20 �cS �xcS 21
�xcS !!c 7 22 b4 {)f4 gi v i ng
B lack p l e n ty o f p l ay aro u n d
t he w eakened w hi te q u een­
side.
c2) 15 f3 b 4 ! ? 16 {)e2 ( 16
�xb 4? dS and B l ack's
pi eces co m e a l i v e) 16 . . . �a6
( k eepi ng t h e k i ng i n the
cen tre) 1 7 �xd6? �xdb 1 8
�xd6 �xe2 1 9 �xe2 {)xe4
20 fe �xe 4+ w i t h a s trong
attack for the exchange.
c3) 15 �xd6 4Jxe4 lb
4Jxe 4 �xe 4 17 �xe? ( 17
0- 0- 0? �c6 ! has been seen
be fore ! ) 1 7 . . . �xe7 18 0-0-0
�xg2 w i th adva ntage to
B l ack , even the endi ngs are
very fav ou rab l e for hi m
now .
d) Fi na l ly , mov es l i ke
6 h3 w i l l trans pose i n to the
next chap ter after 6 . . . 0-0
7 0-0 . Li kew ise 6 a4 0-0
w hen 7 0-0 i s bes t, for i f
Wh i te l eav es hi s k i n g i n the
centre too l o ng B l ack ca n
aS? ! ed 8 4Jxd4 ( 8 �xd 4
{)g 4 , . . . �f6 etc) 8 . . . {)cS q
�e2 �e8 1 0 0-0 �fB 1 1 !J.gS
( 1 1 f3? dS 12 {)xdS? {)xdS 13
�xdS c6 + ) 1 1 . . . {)e6 w it h
reasonab l e p l ay .
6 . .. o-o
Thi s is t he normal , and
the best move here. b u t
B l ack can a l s o try to deve­
l o p hi s q u ee nside p i a)
w h i I st de l ay i ng cas t l i ng
( v ari ati o ns bel ow ) or he can
forget cast l i ng al together.
l eave his ki ng i n the m idd l e
a n d a ttack o n t h e k i ngsi de
by w ay of . . . h6, . . . gS . . .
{)f8-g6- f4 ; a l thou g h thi s
can prove dangerous ag­
ai n s t an u nprepared oppo­
ne nt, i t is objectively i n­
correct ( v ariation b) .
a) 6 . . . c6 7 a 4 ( i t is best
to stop B l ack p l aying . . . bS)
7 . . . �c7 ( a l ternati vely , 7 . . .

10 .Q.xf7+ �xf7 11 f)gS+ �g6.
1 1 . . . �g8 is now met by
12 �c4+ + -. 12 [!d3 �b 7,
Chri s tiansen - Ando nov ,
Sai n t J o h n 198 8 , w hen , i n­
stead of 13 �g3 w i t h a
stro ng attack , 13 de f)xeS
14 f4! f)xd3 IS fS+ .Q.xfS /6
ef+ �xfS 17 �xd3+ �eS 18
.Q.f4 + �xf4 19 f)e6 + �eS 20
l!el+ f)e4 21 �xe4 + �f6 22
l!fl was mate) 8 �e2 4jb6?
( 8 . . . 0-0) 9 de de 10 .Q.x f7+ !
�xf7 1 1 aS 4jbd7 12 �c 4+
�e8 ( 1 2 . . . �g6 13 4jh 4 + �hS
1 4 t/1e2 + �x h 4 15 g3+ �h3 16
f3 + - ) 13 4Jg5 4jf8 1 4 �d t
.Q.d7 15 .Q.e3! �c8 16 t/1f7+
�dB 17 4Ja4 cS 18 4Jxc5!
.Q.xcS 19 thx g 7 + - 4Jg6 20
.Q.xcS 4Jh5 21 .Q.e7+ �c7 22
.Q.d6+ �c6 23 t/1f7 �bS 24 a6!
ba (101) Ve l i m i rov ic - Ka­
va l ek , Bel grade 1 965 , and
now the eas i es t way to w i n
was : 25 t/1b3+ ! �eo 26
�xa6+ ! �xa6 27 �dS+ w i t h
mate i n tw o.
b) 6 ... h6 7 a4 ( th i s is
sti l l a u sefu l move , 7 .Q.e3
c6 8 .Q.b3?! Or 8 de de 9 �e2
bS tO .Q.b3 t/1c7 reachi n g a
gam e Thomas - A l ek h i n e .
Has ti ngs 1 934, w h ich A l ek­
hi ne hand l ed in a s l i g h tly
di fferen t man ner: 1 1 a3 4Jc5
12 .Q.a2 4Je6 ! 13 �fd1 4Jg 4 1 4
4Je1 4jd4 15 �d2 0-0 - on iJ
now - 16 h 3 4Jxe3 17 thxe3 aS
18 4Je2 .Q.cS w i t h a small
advan tage for Black . 8 . . .
�c 7 9 f)d2 gS! ? 10 a 4 f)f8 11
aS f)g6 12 l!el f)f4 13 f3 l!g8
14 l!fi .Q.e6 IS f)g3 tjd7 16 dS
.Q.h3! 17 gh �xh3 18 �d2
f)6hS /9 �{2 g4 20 �hJ gf 21
[!gJ .Q.h 4 22 .Q.x£4 ef 23
f)xhS .Q.x£2 a nd went on to
w i n , Y ates - M arco , The
Hag ue 192 1 ) 7 . . . c6 8 b3
( Th i s m i g h t be the best .
bu t the al ternatives are i n­
teres ti ng too: 8 h3 �c7 9
.Q.e3. Or 9 �et gS 10 4jh2 4Jf8
11 4jf1 4Je6 12 de de 13 4Jg3
4jf4co Ciric - Ree, Bever­
w i j k 1 967. 9 . . . gS! ? Or fi rs t
108 Hanham Varia tion (Impro ved) - In troduction
9 . . . �f8 ! ? 1 0 �h2 gS 1 1
�g 4 ? ! - I pre fer 1 1 �f1 as
above - 11 . . . ,!lxg 4 12 h g
�g6 1 3 g 3 hS w ith w i l d
p l ay ; Zatu lovs kaya - D m i t­
riev a, USS R 1 963 . 10 l/el. Not
1 0 de de 11 �d2 ? �f8 12 �e2
�g6 13 c3 �f4 1 4 b4 hS 15
�b3 !!h7 16 !!fe1 !!g 7 -
s torm c l o u ds are gath eri n g
- 1 7 aS h 4 1 8 ,!lxf4 g f 1 9 \fi h2
�d 7 - threat: . . . !!xg2+ - 20
\fih 1 \fif8 ! - s i n ce 20 . . .
!!xg2? 21 ,!lxf7 + \fif8 22 ,!le6
- 21 !!ad 1 !!xg2! (102)
22 ,!le6 �d3! 23 ,!lxc8 nx f2!
24 �c 4 �e3 - menac i ng ...
f3 and . . . nx h2+ - 25 nf1
!!xe2 0-1 , j am i eso n - Ro­
gers . Thi s is th e sort o f
p l an l ess p l ay t h at Wh i te
m us t av oi d i f h e doesn't
want to get cru s hed . 10 . . .
fjf8? Th i s l oses . j urtajev
s ugges ts first 10 . . . �g8 as
u nc l ear. At the momen t the
b l ack rook i s u nfort u n ate ly
p l aced on h8 . 11 de de (103)
12 fJxeS! �xeS 13 .Qd4 tltaS
14 eS fjdS IS e6 f6 16 fJ;t(dS
cd 1 7 .QbS+ f!ld8 18 .Qc3 tltb6
19 tltxdS+ f!lc7 20 a S! w i n n­
i n g ea s i l y , j u rtaj ev - Pa l at­
ni k , Fru nze 1979: a l terna­
tive ly 8 tlte2 gS! ? 8 . . . 't1Jc7
is more circu mspect , b u t 9
nd 1 �f8 1 0 �h 4 g6 1 1 f4
�4 12 �f3 ed 13 eS ! was
sti l l + in l vanovic - G l i k s ­
man , Y u gos l av ia Ch 1968 . 9
l/dl �c 7 JO .Qe3 fjf8 11 de de
12 fJxeS! ? Thi s i s the same
idea as above , bu t not so
co nv i nci ng . 12 . . . tltx·eS 13
.Qd4 tltf4! 14 g3! ? �g4 IS f3
�hS?! 16 eS fjg8 17 g4 �gb
18 e6 lfh 7 19 ef+ [!xf7 20
l/el .Qd7 21 !lad/ 0-0-0 22
.Qxf7 tltxf7 23 .Qxa 7z Peters
- Shipma n , Las Vegas 1 976)
8 . . . ti!Jc7 9 ,!lb2 �f8? ! ( Wh i te
is wel l p l aced to re fu te
t hi s , b u t neverthel es s 9 . . .
,
0-0 wou I d have been some­
w h at to Wh i te's advantage
anyway as a l ater �h4
wou I d threaten not on I}
�fS , bu t a l s o �g6 , as B l ack
has w eakened g6) t O de de
11 �xeS! (agai n ! ) 1 1 . . . �xeS
(104)
12 �dS ! ( the poi n t; 12 . . .
 Hanham Varia tion (Impro ved) - In troduction 109
�x b2?? a l l ow s 1 3 {)c7
mate) 1 2 . . . �d6 1 3 .Q.a3 cd
(or 13 . . . cS 1 4 eS �xeS 1 5
!!et {)e4 16 !!xe4 �xe4 17
{)c7 mate) 1 4 .Q.xd6 de 15
.Q.xe7 �xe 7 1 6 eS 4jfd7 17
�d6+ + Nimzow i tsch - Mar­
eo , Gothenburg 1 920 . The
b l ack pos i tio n is com p l ete­
ly disorgani sed .
Thi s furni s h es am p l e
proo f t h at 6 . . . 0-0 i s i n­
di s pu tabl y B l ack's best
m ov e at this j u nct u re . We
have now reac hed the mai n
s tarti ng pos i tion for the
Han ham , a nd White's var­
ious s eventh moves , and
B l ack's appropri ate strat­
ege m s , w i l l be disc u s sed i n
the next chapter.
9 ) Hanham Variation ­
Main Line
1 e4 eS
2 �f3 d6
3 d4 �f6
4 �c3 �bd7
5 �c4 �e7
6 o-o o-o r1osJ
Th u s we reach the s tar­
ti n g poi n t for the mai n l i ne .
Wh ite h as a b i g choi ce o f
m o v e s here, b u t on ly two,
vari ati o n s B a nd C, real ly
addres s t he m sel ves to the
prob l e m s faci n g W h i te .
Happi ly for B lack , vari ati o n
A, w hi c h w a s l ong consid­
ered to be Whi te's best ,
now see m s to be a m istake .
Wi t h acc urate p l ay Wh i te
can m ai n tai n an edge, b u t
i n the e n s u i n g manoeuvri ng
i t is o ften the p l ayer w ho
knows w hat he i s doi ng
w ho wi l l come out o n top .
Bl ack normal ly tries to
gai n room on the q ueenside
b u t s hou ld be ready to cap­
t u re o n d4 and press urize
e4 w he n ap propriate .
Wh i te's al ternati ves are
arranged as fo l l ows :
A 7 t/1e2? !
B 7 �e t
C 7 a4 ( w i thou t !!et )
D O thers
A
7 �e2?1
And Black's m ai n two
rep l i es are further s ubdiv­
i ded:
A t 7 . . ed!
.
A2 7 . . c6
.
A1
7 . . . edl
8 �xd4 �eSI
The most aggressive, and
t he s tart of an i n teresting
seq u ence of moves that
see k to exp l oi t the fact
that the w hite q ueen occ­
upies t he bes t retreat
sq uare of both bis hop and
 Hanham Variation - Main Line
knight. 8 . . . �b6?1 is worse,
as the knight is a l most a l ­
ways m i s p l aced on this
sq uare , the gam e Gufe ld -
Lerner, USS R 1 978 , conti­
n u i n g : 9 .Q.b3 cS tO �f3 .Qg 4
t t a 4 �c7 1 2 .Q.f4 c 4 1 3 .Q.a2
I:!fc8 1 4 h 3 .Q.xf3 15 �xf3
�c6 1 6 aS �bd7 and a l ­
though B l ack has managed
to s h u t t he Whi te k i n g's
bi shop ou t of the game, he
ha s had to make too ma ny
posi tio na l conces s io ns and
Whi te is better. 8 ... !!e8??
is a b l u nder here , w hich
was neatly refu ted i n Ty l o r
- Ko l tanow ski , Has tings
1931 : 9 .Q.xf7+ ! �xf7 10 �e6!
�xe6 1 1 �c4+ dS 12 ed+ �f7
13 d6+ and de, w i n n i n g
Bl ack' s tra pped q uee n . I f
Black w i s hes to p l ay l i ke
thi s then 8 . . . �cS fi rst ,
the n . . . I:!eB and . . . .Q.f8 i s
pos s i b l e , com pare w i th A2 t .
9 .Q.b3
If White doe s not move
thi s bi s ho p , then he can
forget abo u t an ope n i ng
advantage, a nd he mig ht
eve n be worse in the l ong
term beca use o f B l ack's
bi shop pair . One e xa m ple: 9
f4? �xc4 tO �xc 4 �xe4! t t
�xe 4 dS 1 2 �d3 de 1 3 �xe4
.Q.cS + . A nd 9 .Q.bS? a6 10 f4
( 1 0 .Q.a4? cS and . . . bS + ) 1 0
. . . � 4 1 1 �f2 a b 12 fe de 13
�dxbS c6+ i s j u s t p l ai n bad.
9 ... cSI
10 �fS
ttt
Of co u rse, this k n i g h t
wou ld l i ke t o go to e 2 and
then to f4 to con tro l dS,
w h ic h Black has j us t w eak­
ened , b u t the w h i te q ueen
is al ready there . The al ter­
natives are not particu larly
entici ng either: 10 �bdS? ab
1 1 �a3 bS 12 .Q.dS ( 1 2 f4 ? !
�g6 1 3 .Q.dS !:!a ? 15 �ab 1 b4
1 5 �d 1 �xdS + ) 12 . . . !!a? 13
�d1 �xdS 1 4 ed .Q.f6+ or 10
�f3? .Qg 4 1 1 .Q.f4 .Q.x f3! 1 2 g f
�g b 1 3 .Qg 3 ( not 1 3 �d2?
�c8 - menaci ng . . . c4 , . . . a6 ,
and . . . bS, ens n ari ng the
bi s hop - 1 4 .Q.dS �h4 15
�e3? ! - Whi te is l ost any ­
way - 1 5 . . . � h 3 a n d mate
ne xt go) 1 3 . . . �hS 14 �dS
.QgS + , B l ack can p l ay for . . .
�h8 and . . . fS , or for co n­
tro l of the ki ngside dark
sq uares , i . e: 15 I:!ad 1 �h f4
16 �xf4 .Q.xf4 1 7 .Q.dS �f6 1 8
c3 h5- h 4 etc.
10 .Q.xfS
11 ef �d7 1 (/06)
106
w
Thi s i s the poi n t , Black
has an extra cen tre paw n
and can pres sure Wh i te' s
112 Hanham Varia tion - Main Line
forward f- paw n , gai n i ng
ti m e for dev e l op me n t . For­
merly 1 1 . . . !!c8 had bee n
played b ut thi s i s not a
usefu I move: 1 2 !ld5 twd7 13
f4 4Jc6 1 4 g4 4Jd 4 1 5 �d1 ! b5
16 .Q.g2 b 4 17 4Je2 4Jxe2+ 1 8
ttxe2 d S 1 9 �d 1 + , Bol es l av-
sky - Furma n, Moscow 1 96 1 .
How ev e r 1 1 . . . �e8 i s p l ay­
ab l e , s i m i l ar to A21 .
12 .Q.f4
Thi s seem s bes t. 12 4Jd5
�fe8 1 3 !!d 1 ! ( strugg l i ng
for co n tro l o f d5; 1 3 c3 .Q.d8
1 4 4Jxf6+ .Q.xf6 1 5 .Q.d5 �xf5
16 .Q.xb7 �ad8 + , com pare
w i th Ah man - Brg l ez , i n
A21 ) 13 . . . .Q.d8 1 4 4Je3 4Jc6?
( 1 4 . . . .Q.c7 first l ook s bett­
er: 1 5 c3 �e7 w he n i t i s
di fficu l t to s ee a move for
Wh i te e . g : 1 6 f4? 4Jeg 4 or 16
.Q.d2 d5 ) 15 c3 .Q.c7 16 �f3
�eS 1 7 g 4 �ae8 1 8 gS 4Je4 19
h 4 4Je7 ! 20 4Jg 4 4Jx f5 21
4Jxe5 �xe5 22 �g 4 c4 23
.Q.c2 ( e l se 23 . . . .Q.b6) (107)
23 . . . 4jxf2! 24 �xf2 .Q.bo+
a nd now , i ns tead of 25
�d 4? g6 26 .Q.f4 �bS ! w i n n-
i ng , Pa lciau skas - Staa l ,
Corr 1975; 25 �f3! �c6+ 26
.Q.e4 !!xe4 27 �xe4 4Jxh4+
28 �f4 4Jg 2+ is a draw by
perpetua l check .
12 f4!? 4Jc6 13 g 4 has
been mooted , b u t I t h i nk
that 13 . . . d5! 1 4 g5 ( thi s is
better than 14 rlg2 c4 IS
1Ja 4 l!feB?! 15 . . . .Q.cS+ 16
�h 1 !!fe8 i s crushi ng, i f 17
gS 4Je4 + . 16 1Je3 1Ja3! 17
1Jd4 1J;t{b2 18 lfad1! I had
ori gi na l ly thought that
Wh i te wou ld try 18 .Q.x f6? !
gf 19 4Jxd5 b u t the n 1 9 . . .
.Q.d 4+ ! 20 �h1 �ad8 21 4Jb 4
.Q.xa1 22 �xa 1 �d1 + w i ns the
ho use. 18 . . . 1Jxc3 19 1Jxc3
f)e4 20 1Je5! (�dB. E l se 2 1
�xe4; now Wh i te had to
try 21 !lxc6 be 22 gS f6 + ,
bu t 21 g5 ? bS! 22 1Jxb5 �b6+
23 ff;h1 (itxbS 24 1Jxg7 ff;xg7
25 (!th3. Wh i te has no rea l
co m pe nsation for the two
horses . 25 . . . ff;hB 26 {6 d4
27 l!f3 (gdS 28 (itg2 (IfS 29
!Jh3 (itxh3 0- 1 , Fabiano -
Kos te n , San Ben nedetto
1991 . The bes t reply to l +
lfd1 i s probab ly 14 . . . f)d4
15 (!tg2 c4! ? 16 !Jxd4 1Jc5 1 7
1Je3 cb. Or fi rs t . . . .Q.xd4. 18
ab lfeB, w he n i t is u n l i ke ly
that Wh i te has enoug h
co m pe nsatio n for the ex­
change ) 1 4 . . . c4 t5 gf ( 15
.Q.a4 !!fe8 16 �g2 - not 1 6
g f? ? .Q.cS+ - 16 . . . .Q.cS+ 17
�h 1 4Je4 + ) 15 . . . .Q.xf6 to
.Q.a4 �xfS is a v ery prom-
 Hanham Varia tion - Main Line 1 1 3
tst ng piece sacrifi ce : 17
�xc6 be 18 �et ! ? �ae8 ! 19
tifxe8 tifg4+ i s at l east a
draw , e . g : 20 �f2 �d 4+ 21
�e3 �xf4 +- + , or 1 8 �d2
�xc2 ( si m pl es t , b u t 1 8 . . .
!!fe8 1 9 �d 1 d 4 20 ci]e2 c3!
has i ts poi n t s ) w i th three
paw n s and a harmo nious
posi tio n for the piece (108).
I certai n ly wou ldn't want
to get this pos i ti o n w i th
White!
12 ... cijc6
13 ci]dS !!ae8
14 c3 �xfS
15 tifd2 ci]xdS
16 �xdS ci]d41?
17 �c4
The o n ly move agai n s t
the threats of . . . tifxdS and
. . . tifxf4 and . . . ci]e2+ . 17 cd?
�xdS l eav es Whi te a paw n
dow n for nothi n g .
17 . . . cije6
18 .Qg3 �dB
19 !!ad1
U nfortu nately , Black now
spoi l ed his precedi ng p l ay
w i t h 1 9 . . . �h8? 20 nfe 1
g6? ;t , al tho ugh White a l so
we nt as tray and B l ack w o n
anyway , Pfan nk u ch e - S
Bucker , S ud l o h n 1 986. O f
co urse, B l ack sh ou l d be
tryi n g to ad va nce his e xtra
( back w ard) paw n ; the corr­
ect move i s therefore 19 . . .
ci]c7! co n trol l i ng dS , 20 !!fet
( 20 a4? ! �5 21 f4 �f6 and
. . . dS) 20 . . . �d7 21 �dS
cijxdS 22 �xdS !!fe8 23 c4
(attempting to keep the
paw n fro m ad vanci ng ) 23 . . .
�f8 fo l l owed by . . . !!e6 etc .
Wh i te has some draw i ng
chances , b u t i f I had a po­
s i ti o n l i ke this every ti me I
had Black , then I wou l d be
a very happy man !
A2
7 ... c6
8 a4
Os te n sib ly Bl ack was
threaten i ng . . . bS so Wh i te
i m mediate ly c l a m ps dow n
on bS. The a l ternatives are
no t h i n g for Wh ite: 8 �b3
bS ! 9 dS? ( 9 a3 a6 is more
sen si b l e, b u t thi s is exact ly
the sort of q u eenside
s tru ctu re that B l ack i s
after) 9 . . . b 4 1 0 de be 1 1 cd
�b7! 12 be ci]xe4 1 3 �d3 cijcS
1 4 tife3 tifxd7 (109)+ , Graf
- Hardi ng , Lo ndo n 1 973:
the po s i ti o n rese m b l es a
Si ci l ian w here B l ack has
sacri ficed the exchange on
c3 , except that B l ack i s n ' t
a n exchange dow n !
8 ndt bS! ( 8 . . . dtaS? i s
1 1 4 Hanham Varia tion - Main Line
no t a move B l ack often
p l ays i n Han ham's , and i n
t he game Cam po ra - Cos ta,
Bern 1 987, we got an idea
w hy : 9 a 4 bS ? 10 b4! tjxb4 11
ab f)b6. 11 . . . tbxc3 12 �d2
tbxc2 1 3 !1fc1 tbb2 1 4 !1cb1
tbc2 15 �d3 ± bu t the q ueen
manages to ge t i tse l f l os t
any h ow . 12 1Jd3 ed 13 f)b/
cS 1 4 1Jd2 �b2 IS f)a3 f)a4
16 f)c4 f)c3 1 7 1Jxc3 1-0 . Of
co urse 17 4Jxb2 4Jxe2+ 1 8
�xe2 w as n ' t bad, b u t 1 7
�xc3 tbxc3 1 8 !1 fh 1 and 4Ja3
is stro n ger) 9 de de 1 0 �b3
tbc7 1 1 a4 b 4 1 2 4jb1 4Jc5 + . 8
.QgS?! h6 tran sposes to Dd ,
and 8 de ? ! 4Jxe 5 9 4Jxe5 de
is most satis fac tory for
B lack .
Now there is another
part i n g of t he w ays :
A21 8 . . . ed !
A22 8 . . . t/1c7 and others
I n the firs t varia tio n ,
B l ack opens t h e game u p
and p l ay w i l l be s i m i l ar to
Al , and i n t h e second, i n
ge neral , h e w i l l keep the
posi tion closed .
A21
8 ... ed!
9 4jxd4 4Je5
Th i s i s , I be l i eve , the be st
bu t B l ack has another i n­
teres ting pos sibi l i ty i n 9 . . .
!1e8, as 10 �xf7+ does n o t
work anym ore si nce t he dS
sq uare is guarded . So : 1 0
�a2 ( 10 1Je3 JJFB 11 f)f3.
Ready to answer 1 1
4Jxe 4? w i t h 12 4Jxe4 �xe 4
13 �xf7+ �xf7 1 5 4Jg5+ . 11 . . .
f)eS 12 f)xeS de=-=) 1 0 . . . �f8
1 1 tbf3 ( the q ueen m u s t get
off the e- fi l e) 1 1 . . . 4Je5 ( 1 1
. . . g6 and .Qg7 is worth try­
i ng) 1 2 tbd l ( better than 12
tbg3? ! 4jh5 13 tbg5 t/1xg5 1 4
�xg5 h6 1 5 �c l 4jf6== , Mar­
janovic . Cam pora , Bor 1 985)
12 . . . 4Jg6 ( this is much
more logica l t han 12 . . .
f)fd7?, w h ich takes t he
pre s s u re off e4, Gheorg h i u
- Pan no , Mani la 1 976, co n­
t i n ued: 13 f4 4Jg6 14 f)f3
1Je7 /S f!;h1 �c7 16 1Je3. Black
has conceded the ce ntre for
no t h i ng , t h i ngs now go
from bad to worse . 16 . . . bb
17 �e2 1Jf6 18 f)gS! f)hB.
U n fortu nate ly , 1 8 . . . �xgS?
fai l s to 19 �x f7+ . 19 �hS
f)fB 20 eS!:t ) 1 3 �e l (13
4jf3 ! ? i s i n teres ti ng) 13 . . .
aS 1 5 h3 h6 1 5 f4 �d7 16 �h l
c5 1 7 4jf3 �c6 1 8 f5 4Je5 19
�f4 tbb6 20 �xeS! de 21
 Hanham Varia tion - Main Line 1 1 5
�e2± lvanovic - Najdorf,
Bugoj no 1982 . Wh i te's poss­
ess i o n of c4, d5 and b5 giv e
hi m the edge, al thou g h he
later l os t ( vi cti m of B l ack's
dark- sq uared bi shop! ) .
9 4Jxe4? has so me c u te
. . .
tacti cal poi nts , but al mos t
certai n ly loses : 10 4Jxe 4!
(this i s far fro m obv iou s ,
the more natural 10 f!!txe4 ?
is worse : 10 . . . dS 11 .Q.xdS. 1 1
c£)xd5? ? cd 1 2 tbxd5 c£)b6 0- 1
Zei rb u l i s - Randvi i r, Parn u
1950 ; 12 .Q.xdS c£)f6 amou nts
to the sam e . 11 . . . 4)£6 12
.Q.x£7+ !1xf7 13 f!gd3 4Jg4!
offers good p l ay to B l ack
e.g: 14 .Q.e3 ? 14 h3 4J e5 15
�e 4 is more ci rcu m spect .
14 . . . f!!tc 7 IS g3 f!geS 16 r!!te 4
(!lhS 17 f!ghJ .Q.cS! w i t h a da n­
ge rou s i n i tiative , U h l i n -
He n n i ngse n , We st Germany
1966) 1 0 . . . d5 1 1 c£)f5 ! ( a l ­
though 1 1 .Q.a2 i s a l so bette r
for Wh i te : 1 1 . . . de 1 2 !!d 1
.Q.f6 13 c£)f5 tbc7 4 tbxe4, S u­
eti n - Gu sev , Tu l a 1 950) 1 1
. . . de ( the fi rst game w i t h 1 1
4jfS co n ti n ued: 1 1 . . . de? 12
.Q.h6! 4jf6 13 4Jeg3 .Q.xf5 1 4
4Jxf5 g h 15 c£)xe7+ + - , Tses h­
kov s ky - Lu tikov , Al ma Ata
1968/9) 12 tbxe 4 .Q.f6 13 �d 1
( 1 3 c£)h6+ ! ? i s fu n : 13 . . . g h
1 4 .Q.d3 !!e8 1 5 tbxh7+ �f8 16
.Q.x h6+ �e7 17 !!fe1 + �d6
(110)
w hen 1 8 tbxf7 wou l d have
kept the b l ack k i ng's c ha n­
ces of s u rvi val i n dou bt; as
11 0
w
i t was , i n Gruz man - Pan­
krav tov , USSR 1969 , Wh i te
got a bi t carri ed away w i th
h i s pi ece sacri fices and
soon l ost) . After 13 !!d1 the
b l ack pos i ti o n is probab ly
lost, e . g : 13 . . . tba5 ( 13 . . .
!!e8 1 4 .Q.xf7+ �xf7 15 ct)do+
�f8 16 tbxh 7 + - ) 14 c£)e7 +
.Q.xe7 15 tbxe7 c£)f6 1 6 .Q.d2 + .
10 .Q.a2
Thi s l ooks better than 1 0
.Q.bJ , tho ugh thi s has al so
been p l ayed , w hen Black
can s ti l l p l ay in si m i lar
s ty l e to 9 . . . !!e8 by p l ay i ng :
a ) 10 . . . �e81 ? a n d i t is
i n teres ti ng to watch the
co urse of ev ents i n Howe l l
- Barua, Lo ndon 1990, 1 1
�h 1 ? ! ( thi s i s not very u se­
fu l at the moment, perhaps
1 1 tbd 1 ! ? - taki ng the q ueen
from t he e- fi le and l eav i ng
the e2 sq uare for the k ni ght
shou l d B l ack play . . . c5 - 11
. . . .Q.f8 1 2 !!et i s best, s i m i ­
l ar to lv anov i c - Najdorf
above) 1 1 . . . .Q.f8 1 2 .Q.e3 cS!
13 c£)bd5 a6 1 4 c£)a3 c£)eg 4! ( i t
i s amaz i ng how pow erfu l
1 1 6 Hanham Varia tion - Main Line
t he B l ack i ni tiati ve be­
co mes after j u st o ne i nacc­
u ra te m ov e on Wh i te's part)
15 .!lg5 h6 16 .Q.h 4 g5! t7 .!lg3
d5 1 8 f3 c4! ( Bl ack is happy
to gi ve u p a piece j u st to
s h u t Wh i te' s ki ng's bi s hop
out of t he gam e ; w he n i t
manages to ret u rn , i t i s a l ­
ready too l ate) t9 .Q.a2 d4 20
{)dt .Q.xa3 21 ba b5! 22 eS
{)xeS 23 .Q.xeS �dS 24 �et
{)d7 25 f4 .Q.b7 26 {)b2 4Jxe5
27 fe �xeS 28 �ft �ae8 (///)
111
w .Q.xe5 ( the advent o f oppo­
29 �xeS �xeS ( B l ack i s op­
erati ng w i t h a 3: t ratio i n
hi s fav o u r o n the k i n g s ide,
w h i l s t the b u l k of W h i te' s
forces are j a m med on the
a- a nd b-fi l e s ) 30 ab ab 3t
a4 t/1e4 32 .Q.xc 4 ( des pera­
tion) 32 . . . be 33 {)xc 4 �f5
34 thg t �c6 35 4Ja3 �c3 36
4Jb5 .Q.xg2+ 0- t .
b) 10 . . . cSI ( t he pos i tion
is a l most iden tica l to that
in At - the difference bei ng
that t he w hi te a-paw n is on
a 4 i ns tead of a2 - and p l ay
wi 1 1 , of co u rse, be ro ug h ly
eq u i va l e n t . I prefer the
move order i n At as i t gi ves
Wh ite few er opti on s , par­
ticu l ar l y over the p l ace­
m e n t of h i s ki ng's bishop.
bu t this seq uence of moves
does have an i ndiv idua l s i g­
ni ficance as i t can a l so ar­
i se from 7 a4 c6 8 �e2?! ed,
etc) 1 1 {)fS .Q.xfS t2 ef �d7
t 3 {)d5 �fe8 t 4 c3 ( t h i s
shou l d b e co m pared to the
note to move twe l ve of A t .
w here �d 1 was pl ayed) 1 4 . . .
.Q.d 8 tS 4Jxf6+ .Q.xf6 t6 .Q.dS
�xf5! 1 7 .Q.xb7 !!ad8 t 8 .Q.e4
t/1e6 t9 �c2 g6 20 .Q.f4 dS 2 1
site co l o u red bi shops does
no t h i n g to he l p Wh i te ; he
i s j us t too far beh i nd i n
development, and l oses
q u ic k l y) 21 . . . .Q.xeS 22 .Q.f3
�f6 23 �d t d 4 ! (112)
112
w
24 c4 d3 25 �a3 t/1f4 26 g3
t/1xc4 0- t , A h man - Brg l ez ,
Corr 1982.
10 . . . cSI
11 {)fS
Un l i ke i n A t , both t t
{)db5 a6 1 2 4Ja3 and t t {)b3
.Q.e6 12 {)d2 are now p l ay-
 Hanham Varia tion - Main Line 1 1 7

abl e , a l t h o u g h B l ack i s w e l l 2t �xd5 �xft+ 2 2 �g2 �xdS

pl aced i n bo th cases. 23 fl}xf1 .Q.xa3 24 ha bS + ) 1 8
11 . . . .Q.xf5 . . . de 1 9 �xd 8 !!axd8 20
12 ef !!e8! .Q.xc4 .Q.d 4 + .
Esse ntia l ly , t h i s is t he 15 ... c4
same as , or at l eas t very 16 !!d1 �b6+
simi lar to , variation A 1 . 17 fl}f1 .Q.b4!
How ever, a s the w h i te Brg l ez's ow n i m prove­
bi s h op i s now on a2 i ns tead ment over another of h i s
of b3, tO . . . �d7 is l ess games : 1 7 . . . d 4 1 8 �e2 d 3 19
s tro ng becau se after 1 1 f4 cd cd 20 �c3 .Q.b4 2 1 gS
ci)c6 t2 g4 Wh i te is better, .Q.xc3 22 be �e2 23 t{1g 1 �g 4
as B lack's . . . c4 no l on ger 24 �xb6 �xh2+ . U nder­
gai ns a tempo . Therefore , s tandab ly , B l ack doe s n ' t
B l ack p l ay s 1 2 . . . !!e8! and fa ncy p l ayi ng t h e endgame
is ready to rep l y to t3 ci)dS w i th two k n ig h ts agai ns t
w i th . . . �d 7+ as we have two bi s hops , so he decides
see n , w h i l s t at the same to take the perpetu a l chec k :
time be i ng we l l pre pared 25 fl}g 1 �f3+ 2 6 fl}f1 �h2+
for t3 f4 etc . etc, 11-� 4� Ke l l er - Brg l ez .
13 f4 ci)c6 Corr 1 983.
14 g4 dS! 18 g5 .Q.xc3
15 �g2! 19 be �e4
1 5 gS revea l s the poi n t 20 !!xdS �xc3
be hi nd 1 2 . . . !!e8 : t S . . . c4! 21 g6
( a ns weri ng t6 g f?? w i t h 16 2 t !!d2? �xa2 22 !!xa2
. . . .Q.cS+ fl}h 1 !!xe2) 16 �d 1 �b 1 + W hi te wants to give
(e l se 1 6 �g2? .Q.cS+ t 7 fl}h 1 u p an exchange to free h i s
ci)e4 + , or 1 6 �f2 ci)g 4 1 7 �f3 bi s hop , b u t Bl ack has other
.Q.cS+ t 8 fl} h 1 ci)f2+ 19 !!xf2 ideas !
.Q.x f2 20 �xf2 d4 21 ci)b5 a6 21 . . . ci)xa2!
22 ci)a3 �dS+ 23 fl}g t bS + as 22 gf+ fl}xf7
mos t of Whi te's forces are 23 !!d7+ !!e7
's l eepi ng') t 6 . . . .Q.cS+ 1 7 fl}h 1 24 �d5+ flle 8
( 1 7 fl}g2 d 4 1 8 ci)bS �dS+ 19 25 f6 (113)
�f3 !!e2+ 20 !!f2 !!xf2+ 21 A va l ia n t try , 25
fl}xf2 d3+ 22 fl}g2 d2 23 !!xd7 ?? 26 �g8+ mate! How­
�xdS de (�) ! s hou l d w i n , or ever, i t's diffi cu l t to be l i eve
20 llih 1 �x f3+ 21 !!xf3 anyone wou ld fa l l for this
ci)g4 + ) 17 . . . d 4 1 8 gf ( 1 8 i n a corres pondence game!
ci)bS a 6 19 g f a b 20 a b ci)b 4 25 ... �ab4!
or 1 9 ci)a3 �d5+ 20 �f3 !!e t ! 26 !!xe7+ ci)xe7
1 1 8 Hanham Varia tion - Main Line
113
B l e nds extra s u pport to h i s
27 t/JhS+ g6
28 t!JeS ci)c6
29 t!Je4 !!dB
30 �g2 'thd4!
Forci ng a w i n n i ng end­
ga me. The res t o f t he game
req u i res no specia l com m­
e n t : 3 1 t/Jxd 4 ci)xd 4 32 fe
!!d7 33 !!a2 !!xe7 34 c3 ci)b3
35 !l,a3 !!e3 36 !l,b 4 aS 37
�f2 !! h3 38 !!e2 + �dB 39
�g2 !!d3 40 !l,e7+ �d 7 4 1
!!e 4 !!xc3 42 !l,f6 !!c2 + 43
�g3 ci)cS 44 !!e7+ �d6 45 h 4
ci)d7 46 !!f7 ci)x f6 4 7 !!xf6+
�e 7 0- 1 , Pov a h - Brg l ez ,
Corr 19 83.
I t is important to s t u dy
t h i s l i ne i n co n j u ncti o n w i t h
At . My feel i ng is that t h ey
w i l l event u a l ly s pe l l the
end for 7 't/Je2 . Sti l l , there
are a l ot o f poi n ts to be
w o n for Bl ack i n the mea n­
time w h i l s t i t is s ti l l
Wh i te's most pop u l ar l i ne .
A22
8 ... t!Jc7
and others
Th i s i s the p u re H a n h a m
co nti n u ati on ; B l ack tucks
h i s q ueen aw ay on c7, and
e-paw n . The b l ack posi tion
is fair l y robu st, as al ways
in this l i ne , bu t a l i tt l e
worse .
8 ... t!Jc7
Apart from t h i s and 8 . . .
ed ! , 8 . . . aS i s a l so a move
of some i n terest, w hen
B l ack' s p l an is to sto p
Whi te expand i ng on t he
q u eenside. The drawback i s
t ha t B l ack a l so depri ves
hi m se l f o f a ny meani ngfu l
p l ay i n t h i s sector, bo th . . .
bS and . . . cS beco m i n g im­
pos s i b l e beca u se of the
weak nesses crea ted on dS
and bS . It i s v ery m u ch a
cas e , th erefore, of Black
adopting a 'wait and see'
po l icy : (8 . . . aS) 9 h3 (n e­
ces sary to com p lete deve­
lop men t w i t h !l,e3, al tho ug h
i t i s possi b l e to defer t his ; 9
!!d t 't/Jc 7? ! t O h3 h 6? 1 1 d e de
1 2 ci)h 4 ci)cS 13 ci)fS + , Kav a­
lek - Naj dorf, M ani l a 1 973)
9 . . . 't/Je8 ! ? ( th i s is the s tart
of Pickett's l i ne , w hich
formed the s u bj ect of h i s
pam ph l et. Hi s idea i s to p u t
the q ueen on e7 w here i t
he l ps defend f7, and to
bri ng the ki ng's bish op to
the more acti ve g 1 -a7 or
h2-b8 di agonal s . Al though
i t does cost ti me, this
manoe u v re i s p l ayab le , and
it is s u rprisi ng that i t

has n ' t proved more popu­
la r. A l terna tive ly , 9 . . . tf1c7? !
10 �a2 ! - better than p u tt­
i ng this b i s hop on b3 , as
thi s e ncou rages B l ack to
pl ay a l a ter . . . ed and . . .
�cS - 1 0 . . . h6? ! 1 1 �e3 �eB?
12 ttc4 ! �fB 13 �fd 1 b6 14 de
de 1 S �bS ttb7 1 6 �d6 �xd6
17 �xd6 cS 1 8 �ad l �a7 19
�d2 �eB 20 �d3 ttc6 21
ttbS ttg6 22 �c 4 �a6 23
tbb3 + , Smej k a l - Rukavi na,
Le ni ngrad 1 973. Or 9 . . . ed ? !
- there i s n o j us ti fication
for p l ayi ng this now - 10
�xd 4 �cS 11 �d l ttc7 1 2 �f4
�fd7 1 3 .Qg3 �eS 1 4 �a2
ttb6 1 S tbe3 �eB 1 6 f4 �g6
17 �f2 ttc7 1 8 ttf3 + , Smys-
l ov - Lu ti kov , USSR 19S9) 1 0
�e3 �dB 1 1 �ad t tte7 1 2 �a2
( 1 2 dS? ! �b6 1 3 �xb6 �xb6
1 4 �b3 �hS 1S tbd2 cS + -
Pickett or 12 �fe 1 �b6 13 de
de 1 4 �xb6 �xb6 1S �a2 �e6
16 �xe6 �xe6 nearly =-
worth noti ng a trap s potted
by Harding i n a s i mi l ar po­
sition : 17 tte3? ! �c4 1 8
ttcS? ? b6 w i n n i ng) 1 2 . . . �c7
(114) w i t h reasonabl e chan­
ces .
It i s a mi s take to p l ay 8
. . . h6? 1 how ever, a fter a l l
di dn't we al l l earn when we
s tarted p l ay i ng ches s not
to move the paw n s in fro n t
o f o u r ki ng w i t hou t reas­
on? 9 �a2! ( a l t hou g h 9 �b3
t/!Jc7 10 h3 �h 7 1 1 �e3 g6 12
�ad l �g 7 13 �h2 �gB 1 4 f4
Hanham Varia tion - Main Line 1 19
114
w
f6 1 S ttg 4 ed 1 6 �xd4 �cS 1 7
fS �xb3 1 8 tbxg6+ + worked
ou t very w e l l for W h i te i n
t he game A l ek h i ne - M arco .
Stock ho l m 1 91 2 ; B l ack's
p l ay w as pathetic) 9 . . . �h7
t O �e3 �f6 11 !!fd1 tbe 7 12
tbc 4 �eB 1 3 aS �h f8 1 4 dS
cS IS �bS �bB (//5)
11 5
w
.It is
16 �xcS! de 17 do ttd? 1 8
�c7 bS 1 9 tbdS 1-0 Bogo l­
j u bov - Sel en iev , Tri berg
1916 .
9 h3
I have my do u bts abo u t
t h e efficacy of 9 aS! ? i . e : q
. . . �bB ( w i t h the i n ten tio n
of con ti n u i ng 10 . . . bS 1 1 ab
ab a nd 12 . . . bS agai n ) 10
�e3 �g 4! (and w hy not? ) 1 1
120 Hanham Varia tion - Main Line
.Q.d2 �gf6 12 h3 bS 13 ab ab
and if 1 4 dS? bS 1S .Q.b3 b4 16
�a4 cd; or 1S de? be 16 cd
.Q.xd7 + ; b u t not the i m me­
di ate 10 . . . bS ? as 1 1 ab ab 1 2
dS b S 1 3 �a7 .Q.b7 1 4 d e b e 1 S
�dS ! �xdS 1 6 ed± - ana ly­
sis by Pick et t , the bis hop
on e3 m akes a l l the di ffer­
ence.
If 9 .Q.a2 ( better than 9
.Q.b3 w h i c h enco u rages: 9 . . .
a6! ? 1 0 h 3 ed! ? 1 1 �xd 4 �e8
- gai ni ng an i m porta n t tem­
po - 1 2 .Q_f4 !l_f8 13 f3 �cS 1 4
.Q.a2 �e6 1 S .Q.xe6 .Q.xe6 16
ttd2 �ad8 1 7 �fe1 .Q.c8 1 8
�ad 1 �d7! 1 9 �fS �eS 20
�d 4 f6 21 � h t ttf7 w i t h a
fi ne po si tio n for B l ack ,
Teich m a n n - N i mzo w i tsc h ,
C arl s bad 191 1 ) then 9 . . bo
. - Scherman n , Corr 1 96 1 /b3 :
1 0 .Q.eJ �g4 1 1 .Q.d2 �gfo 12
h3 a6 i s pos sib l e, or 10 . . .
a6, b u t not 10 . . . .Q.b7 ? ! as i t
i s no l o nger poss i b l e to
defend fS : 1 1 �h 4! ed ( 1 1 . . .
g6? 12 d e de 1 3 .Q.h6 �fe8 1 4
.Q.x f7+ �x f7 1 S �c4+ ± ) 12
.Q.xd4 cS 13 .Q.e3 �xe4 1 4
�fS .Q.f6? ( 1 4 . . . �df6 1S
�bS �d7 1 6 �xe7+ ttxe7 17
f3 a6 w as l es s c l ear) 1 S �dS
.Q.xdS 16 .Q.xdS + Zai tsev -
Durao , Sochi 1 977.
9 . . . b6
Thi s is the bes t , i n tend­
i n g . . . a6, a nd a l ater . . . bS,
w hen Bl ack wi l l h ave
so meth i n g worth w hi l e on
the q ueen s i de . 9 . . . ed ?!
see ms ou t of p lace h ere: t O
�xd 4 �e8 1 1 .Q.f4 �eS 12
.Q.b3 �fd7 1 3 �ad 1 .Q.f8 1 4
.Q.c1 ! ? �cS 1 S .Q.a2 dS? 16 f 4
�ed7 17 eS �b6 18 aS �bd7
19 tthS w i th a s tro ng att­
ack , Grefe - Najdorf, Lo ne
Pi ne 1 976 .
10 �d1
10 .Q.e3 is al so met by 1 0
. . . a6, and not 1 0 . . . .Q.b 7 1 1
de de 1 2 �h4 .Q.cS 1 3 �ad t
�ad8 1 4 !lgS h6 1 S !!xd7 !
�xd7 1 6 tthS , Zhidkov -
Koga n , USS R 1 969.
10. . . a6!
Setti ng u p the desi red
q ueens ide paw n structure .
It i s s ti l l a n1 i s take t o pia)
10 . . . .Q.b7 as 1 1 de de 12 �h 4
�fe8 1 3 �fS .Q.f8 1 4 tbf3 i s
mos t u n p l easant, K l ompus
al t hough 1 1 . . . �xeS i s
better, ± .
B l ack s ho u ld have fai r
chances after 10 . . . a6: 1 1
de? ! de 12 �h 4 �cS 1 3 tbf3
.Q.e6 1 4 .Q.xe6 �xe6 IS �fS
�fd8- ( Pickett) ; or 1 1 !lgS
.Q.b7 12 �h 4 g6= (Cafferty ) ;
or fi na l ly 1 1 .Q.e3 .Q.b 7 1 2 de
de 1 3 �h 4 �cS 1 4 ttf3 bS + .
B
7 net
Arg uably the bes t of the
seven th move a l ternativ es .
Wh i l e bo l s ters e 4 a n d w i l l
react accordi ng to the
dep l oyment of Bl ack' s
forces . Wh i l st 7 !!e t is not
as v igoro u s as 7 tte2.
 Hanham Variation - Main Line 1 2 1
nei ther does i t s u ffe r the
di sadvantages of 7 �e2 ; and
it res tricts Black' s acti v i ty
to a m i ni m u m .
7 . . . c6
8 a4
Wh i te m ust res trai n
B l ack' s q ueenside expa n­
sio n . Of co u rse, 8 .Q.b3 i s
met , not by 8 . . . ed? 9 �xd 4
4JcS 10 h3 4Je6 1 1 �e3 �c7± ,
Blake - Wahl tuch , Li ver­
poo l 1 923, bu t by 8 . . . bS
and i f 9 dS? ! b4 1 0 de be 1 1
cd .Q.b7 + .
8 . . . b61
It i s probably bes t to
di spense w i t h . . . �c7 and
get on wi th t he q ueen s i de
p l ay ; there i s no pres si ng
need to remove the q ueen
from the d-fi le . Formerly ,
Black has p l ayed more
rou ti nely :
a) 8 . . . � c7 9 h3 ( 9 .Q.gS
ed? 10 4Jxd4 4JeS t1 .Q.f1 r!e8
12 h3 4Jfd7 13 .Q.e3 .(lf8 1 4
�d2 4JcS 1 5 r!adt g6? 16
4Jdb5! , with the idea of 16
. . . eh 1 7 4Jd5 �dB 18 .Q.g5
and 19 4Jf6+ + - , Ernevoldsen
- N i l sse n , Da ni sh C h 19SS;
or 9 .Q.d2 ! ? 4Jb6 tO .Q.a 2 .Q.g 4
1 1 aS 4Jbd7 1 2 dS cd 1 3
.Q.xdS ± , Hort - Ree, Wi j k
aan Zee 1 979 ; fi nal l y , 9 aS! ?
r!b8! ? 1 0 d5 b5 1 1 a b 4Jxb6 1 2
.(lb3 cda:J , o r 12 .(la6? .(lxa6
13 �xa6 t/1b 7 + ; and 9 b3 b6
tO .Q.b2 a6- ) 9 . . b6 ( 9 . . . h6
. and gai n con tro l of the d5
di d we l l i n the game Darcy l
- Berna t: 10 .(le3 �e 8 1 1 �d2
.Q.fB 1 2 �ad1 a6 13 b4? b5 1 4
ab eh 1 5 .Q.d3 .Q.b7 1 6 d5 �ac8
17 4Jb1 4JxdS ! 18 ed e4 + bu t
Wh i te's p l ay was a big hel p)
10 .Q.g5 a6 1 1 d5, b u t i n stead
of 1 1 . . . .Q.b 7 12 de .Q.xc6 13
�e2 .Q.b7 1 4 �ad l l:!fc8 1S b3
gb 16 .Q.x f6 4Jx f6 , Pi ket -
Ree, Du tch C h 1 990, 1 7 4Jh2-
g4± ; 1 1 . . . cS was possi b l e .
wi t h a Benon i - type forma­
tion.
b) 8 . . . aS 9 h 3 �e8 ! ?
( p l ayi ng Pi ckett's p l a n here
seem s q u i te sol i d ; 9 . ed? !
. .
10 4Jxd 4 4Jc5 1 1 .Q.f4 l:!e8 12
�f3 .Q.f8 1 3 �adt 4Jcd7 1 4
.Q.b3 g 6 1 5 g 4 �e7 1 6 4Jxc6!
be 1 7 .Q.xd6 was better for
Wh i te i n T u km akov - Pl an­
i nc, Amsterdam 1 97 4) tO
.Q.a2 .Q.d8 11 .Q.e3 t/1e7 t2 t/1d2
.Q.c7 12 �adt 4Jb6 ± , A Soko-
lov - Lo heac , Du bai O lym­
pi ad t 986.
9 h3
If Whi te is s eek i n g the
advantage he m us t p l ay 9
dS! and now : 9 . . . .Q.b7 ( 9
. . . cS! ? is u n tried b u t see m s
t o me l ike Black's bes t , e.g.
tO aS a6! 11 ab 4Jxbb with
the i n ten ti on o f co nti n u i ng
. . . 4Je8 - c7 - bS and then
p l ay i n g for . . . fS a:J , bu t
poss i b ly + ! ) tO de .Q.xc6 t t
.Q.g5 a6 ( i n t h i s Sici l ian-ty pe
posi tio n , Whi te w i l l want
to take on f6 anyway to try
sq uare, therefore i t is a
was te of ti me to p l ay t 1 . . .
122 Hanham Varia tion - Main Line
h6 ? ! 12 -'tx f6 �xf6 1 3 thd3 g6
14 �d2 �g 7 15 -'tdS �xdS 16
�xdS ± Ki nderma n n - Pl ac h­
etka, Trnava 1987) 12 -'txf6
�xf6 1 3 �dS ! �xdS 1 4 -'txdS
r;!c8 15 c3 thc7 16 -'txc6 thxc6
1 7 �d3 ( Wh i te w o u l d l i ke
to tran sport h i s k ni g h t to
dS , bu t not o n ly is t h i s
ti m e- co ns u m i ng , i t i s n ot
s o ea sy to w i n w he n i t does
get there . I once l os t a p o­
s i t i on l i ke thi s , w i th the
k n i g h t o n dS, to Grand­
master M u rray Chan d l er.
There is m ore tha n a grai n
of tru t h i n Tartak ower's
say i ng that 'the w orst bi s h­
op i s better than the bes t
k n ig h t' ) 17 . . . thc4 1 8 �ed 1
thxd3 1 9 �xd3 fS ( co u n ter­
play ) 20 �d2 g6 2 1 �et �c6
22 g 3 �f7 23 f4! ? ef 24 g f
-'tf6 25 nh3 �g 8 26 e f g f 27
�f2 bS! = 28 ab ab 29 �f3
nc4 30 ndt nx f4 31 nxd6 b 4
3 2 eh nxb4 3 3 �d2 !!xb2
(116)
116
w Kru m Georg i ev , Torcy 1 9q 1 ,
( s udde n ly the bis hop makes
i ts presence fe l t ! ) 34 �xb2
-'txb2 w hen B l ack was a
paw n to the good, a l thoug h
the red uced materi al mean t
that a draw was a l most i n­
ev i tab l e , jan sa - M ok ry ,
Trnava 1987 .
9 . . . a6
10 .Q.gS
10 dS has l es s force here
as B l ack ca n s i m p ly rep ly 0 0 0
cS ( Wh i te no l o nger has the
fo l l ow - u p aS) w i th a
C z ech-Benoni ty pe pos i ­
tio n , w here W h i te's pos si­
bi l i ties are res tri cted . Nor­
mal ly , B l ack w ou l d prepare
the move . . . fS by w ay of 0 0 0
�e8 , . . . g6, . . . �g 7, . . . �h8.
. . . �f6-g8 etc , remem ber-
i ng to exchange dark­
sq uared bi shops , if he
s hou l d get the ch ance , by
way of . . . �5.
I n the gam e Sch midt -
Andanov , Wa rsaw 1 987�
Wh i te deci ded to re-posi ­
tio n h i s bi s ho p : 10 -'tf1 -'tb7
1 1 g3 �e8 1 2 �2 �b8 13
-'te3 t::l , bu t si m ply t 1 . . bS
.
was fi ne . I n my game ag­
ai nst the Bu l garia n G M
some i n teresti n g tactics
occu rred after tO -'te3 -'tb7
1 1 -'tb3 bS 12 �d2 ed ! ? 13
-'txd4 c S 1 4 -'txf6 -'txf6 1 5
-'tdS -'txc3 16 -'txb7 -'txb2 1 7
�a2 �b8 18 -'txab ba 19
�xa4 =- and at this poi nt he
offered a draw . As he was
a l ready an hou r behi nd on
the c l ock ( a com mon occ­
urrence i n my ga mes w i th
 Hanham Variation - Main Line 1 23

the Phi l idor) I dec l i ned , a l ­ 22 cfjg4?!

tho ugh i t was a draw some A harm l ess eno u g h
25 moves l a ter, anyw ay ! l ooki ng move , bu t the
10 ... .Q.b7 s l ig h t weak ness that Wh i te
11 .Q.b3 b5 has created o n h i s ki ngside
12 ab ab is e xp l oi ted by B l ack i n a n
13 �xa8 .Q.xa8 i n teres ti ng fas h i o n .
14 t&e2 t&c7 22 ... cfjxg4
15 .Q.h4 h6 (/17) 23 hg .Q.c8
24 cfjd2 g5!
25 .Q.g3 cfjf6
26 f3 h5
27 t&e3
Thi s i s better than 27 g h ?
cfjxhS 2 8 .Q.f2 cfjf 4 2 9 �e3
g 4 + or 28 .Q.h2 cfjf4 29 .Q.x f4
gf+ .
27 . . . hg
28 �xgS cfjh7
29 t&e3 !!e6
The open i n g has bee n a 30 fg?
s u cces s for B l ack . and the I t w ou l d have bee n bett­
posi ti o n is l ev e l . Now er to p l ay 30 f4 ef 31 .Q.x f4
comes a period o f man­ .Q.eS 32 g3, al thou gh White
oeu v ri n g w here both sides is s ti l l w orse. I t i s noti ce­
try to i m prov e the pros­ ab l e that as soon as Wh i te
pects of thei r respective has made a s l i p , the b l ack
pi ece s . B l ack decides to pieces s w arm ou t. The att­
play . . . �e8, . . . g6 and . . . ack proceeds very s moo th l)
.Q.g7, b u t firs t he has to from here on i n .
s top White rep lyi ng cfj gS, 30 ... .Q.h6
so he p l ay s . . . h6. It i s i n­ 31 t&e2 J!g6
teres ti n g to note that he 32 cfjf3 .Q.xg4
chooses to p l ay t h i s at a 33 t&d3 .Q.xf3!
mome nt w he n Whi te i s u n­ 34 t&xf3 c£)f6
ab le to p lay cfjh 4-f5. 35 .Q.b3 cfjg4
16 c£)d1 �ea 36 J!d3 .Q.f4!
17 c3 .Q.f8 37 .Q.xf4 ef
18 .Q.c2 .Q.b 7 38 t&dl {//8)
19 de de 38 . . . f3 l ooks l i ke a ki l ler
20 cfje3 g6 here : 39 �xf3? �h2+ 40 �fl
21 J!d1 .Q.g7 �h t + 41 �e2 �xg2+ or 3C)
1 2 4 Hanham Varia tion - Main Line
• te ly?
�
�-1 .
� i: .
� 7
. i: . • •
i: . • •
• ·;lt -4)
�U
.W. �H
���� �
� on the q ueenside. 8 tbe2? !
• . ;It
tiJ
�x f3 �h2+ 40 �ft �f6 or 39
.Qx f7+ �x f7 40 �dB + �h7 41
�d 7 f2+ 42 �ft 4Je3+ bu t, i n
t h i s last l i ne , 40 !!x f3 per­
m i ts Wh i te a l i tt l e m ore
res i s tance . The l i ne chosen
by B l ack is c l ear enou g h :
3 8 . . . tbbb + 39 �d 4 c5 40
�dB+ �g7 41 .Qxf7 ! ? c 4+ 42
tbd 4+ tbxd 4+ 43 cd �x f7 4 4
�b8 �a6 ( B l ack i s s ti l l att­
ack i n g , mate i n one is the
threat ! ) 45 �ft �a2 46 �xbS
c3 47 be 4Je3+ 48 �g 1 �xg2+
49 �h l f3 so �b l 4Jg 4 0- 1 ,
Antu nes - C ifue n tes, D ubai
O ly m piad 19B6, . 4jf2 mate
. .
is rat h er decisi ve.
A near perfect exam p le
of B l ack's best strategy
agai nst 7 ne t - cal m strat­
egica l p l ay , b u t ready to
pu n i s h W h i te s h ou l d he
overpres s . Captu ri n g on d 4
never see m s t o eq u a l ize for
B l ack i n t h i s l i ne.
c oro w icz - C i fu e n tes, Buen­
7 a4 (without !!et>
A fl e xi bl e co n ti n uati o n -
as W h i te w i l l p l ay t h i s
any w ay , w hy n o t i m media­
. . . c6
8 aS
Thi s i s an idea that we
hav e see n before - Wh ite
attem pts to cram p B l ack
ed ! tran s poses t o A21 and
8 !!et to B; 8 .Qa2 is a u sefu I
mov e, but i t l eads to posi­
tio ns of a type that we have
prev iou s ly e xami ned e . g : 8
. . . the 7 ( 8 . . . ed ?! i s s t i 1 1 o f
do u btfu l va l u e : 9 fJ '<d4 fJc5
/0 !!eJ aS 11 h3 l!eB 12 rgf3
fJ.fB ?! 13 JJ.gS fje6 14 fJ��eb!
JJ.xe6 IS eS fJ.xa2. 15 . . . de
16 �ed t tbe7 1 7 4je4 + . /6 ef
JJ.e6 17 fg! JJ.e7 18 fJ.xe7 rg)(e7
19 fje4 fS 20 fjg3 rgxg7 21
'/lf4!, Cioca l tea - Mohri ng .
Ha l l e 1 974, w i th a mi ser­
ab l e pos i tion for B l ack . I t
i s pos si b l e to p l ay as i n B.
however, w i th 8 . . . b6! fo l l ­
owed by . . . a6 , . . . .Qb 7 , . . . bS .
Two exa m p l es : 9 rge2 JJ.b 7?!
9 . . . a6! fi rs t is best, it i s
i m porta nt to con ti n u e co n­
tro l l i n g fS, as w e sha l l see .
10 l!dl '/jc 7 11 fjh 4. Better
than 11 de de 12 4jh 4 4Jc5 13
4jf5 .Qc8 - sic - 14 tbf3 .QxfS
15 tbxf5 �ad8- C i fuentes -
Adams, Buenos A i res 199 1 .
11 . . . ed ? 12 !1xd4 l!feB 13
fJ.f4 fJ.fB 14 !1adl fJeS:t Fed­
os Aires 1 99 1 . I n teresti ng l)',
the actual move order of
the Adam s game was 8 . . .
 Hanham Variation - Main Line 1 25
!!e8 9 4:)g5 !!f8 10 4jf3 !!e8
1 1 4:)g5 �f8 12 4jf3 and o n ly
the n 12 . . . b6 , d i sdai n i ng the
dra w ! Black s ho u l d be car�
fu l to defend h i s q u ee n's
rook before p l ayi ng . . . b5 as
Whi te can p l ay !l_xf7+ i n
som e variations , w i n n i n g
the rook) 9 h3 ( 9 !!et i s ,
agai n , s i m i l ar to vari ation
B, o ne exa m p le : 9 . . . b6 1 0
.Q.e3 a6 1 1 4jh 4 e d 1 2 t/1xd 4
4:)c5 1 3 b4 4:)g 4 ? ! - 13 . . . 4:)e6
1 4 t/1d1 g6co was preferab l e
- 1 4 4jf5 .Q.f6 1 5 e5 ± Vogt -
He sse , Eas t Ge rmany 1 986 .
Rather t h an al l ow i ng Whi te
to p l ay 1 0 !l_e3 w i thou t h3,
as here , I t h i nk that B l ack
s hou l d p l ay . . . 4:)g 4 , for i n-
s tance : t O . . . 4:)g 4 ! ? 1 1 !l_d2
4jgf6 ! ? - or 1 1 . . . a6 1 2 h3
4jgf6 - as the bis h o p is not
we l l pl aced o n d2 a nd w i l l
probab ly have to move
agai n soon ) 9 . . . b6 10 �et
a6 1 1 4jh 4 !!e 8 1 2 4jf5 !l_f8 13
!l_e3 !l_b7 1 4 de de 15 t/1f3
b5 ± , Parma - Bare ndregt,
Amsterda m 1 965 , b u t 11 . . .
g6 was not beyond the
bou nds of possibi l i ty .
8 ... h6?1
Actu al ly this is not a
very good move . I have
chosen th is game, however,
to de monstrate h o w res i l ­
ient Ha nham 's v ariatio n i s
i n the ha nds of a s tron g
player. After a l l , everyone
p l ay s the occas ional bad
move, but this need n o t be
t he end of the s tory !
Som e a l te rnatives : 8 . . .
t!Jc7 9 !l_a2 ( 9 �e t h6 10 h3
!!e8 11 !l_e3 !l_f8 12 d5 ? ! -
Karpov was very young
w hen he played t hi s , I'm
s u re t h at nowadays he
w o u l d pefer somethi ng l i ke
1 2 !l_a2, mai n tain i ng t he
tension - 1 2 . . . cd 1 3 !l_xd5
4:)xd5 1 4 4jxd5 t/1d8 1 5 c4 + ,
Karpo v - Noak h , USSR 1966 .
9 . . . !!bB w as a better so l u­
ti o n for B l ack, 1 0 h3 b5 1 1
ab ab = ) 9 . . . ed ( n ot a bad
idea as Wh i te's a4 - aS
does n't co ntri bute to h i s
de ve l opment, bu t q . . . �b 8
and . . . b5 w as agai n equ al )
tO 4jxd 4 !!eB 1 1 4jf5 ( 1 1 !!e t
!l_f8 1 2 h 3 4:)c5 1 3 t/1f3?! d5 ! )
1 1 . . . !l_f8 1 2 4:)g3 4:)c5 1 3 !!e t
!l_e6 = Os toji c - Ree, Buda­
pest 1 977.
If 8 . . . !!b8 9 t/1e2 the n 9
. . . t/1c7 ! tO h3 b5 1 1 ab ab 12
dS ? b5 1 3 de be 14 cd .Q.xd7+
i s better than the i m m edi­
ate 9 . . . bS ? ! as 10 ab ab 1 1
d5 b5 1 2 de be 1 3 cd .Q.xd7 1 4
t/1xc4 w i n s a paw n .
9 !l_a2 !!e8
10 de de
11 t/1e2 !l_f8
12 �d1 t/Jc7
13 4:)h4 4jc5
Wh i te certai nly seem s to
have a good deal of press­
ure o n the ki ngside, but
agai n s t B l ack's defe n s i ve
ski l l i t j u s t ev aporates .
14 4:)f5 �h 7
126 Hanham Varia tion - Main Line

15 t/1f3 �g8 B l ack' s set up; but wh i l s t

16 b4 � e6 they are not exact ly di sas­
17 �bt? trou s for Whi te, they do
Ste i n con s i ders t 7 bS i m p ly a fa u l ty appreci ation
wi th the idea of a5- a6, try­ of the po siti o n that very
i n g to ga i n con tro l of dS, often resu l ts i n White
to be better, b u t t7 . . . g6 1 8 co m m i tti ng fu rther i nacc­
�e3 .Qb 4 i s m ore than ade­ u racies that real ly are fa ta l.
q u ate . a) 7 .Qe3 c6 8 .Qb3? ! (8 a4
17 . . . g6 is, of co urse, the rig h t
18 �e3 !Jg 7 m ov e , w hen 8 . . . �g 4 9 .Qd2
19 �c 4 �d4 �b6 tO .Qb3 ed 1 1 �xd4 .Qf6
20 t/1d3 !!dB 12 �fS .Qx fS 1 3 ef �eS i s a
21 �ft .Qe6 (119) pos s ibi l ity) 8 . bS ( t he na­
. .

tura l res po n se, b u t 8 . . .

11 9 �g4 9 .Qd2 ed 1 0 �xd 4 �cS

w i s al so good) 9 �d2 (9 dS? !
The w h i te pi eces have
bee n driven back, the b lack
k n ig ht has tak en u p the
po w erfu l pos t o n d 4 , Black
i s better. And White was
one of the stro ngest att­
ack i n g p l ayers o f a l l ti m e !
22 �e3 ��
Ste i n - Petrosian , Mos­
co w 197 t . Pres u mab ly B l ack
had deci ded to make a draw
that day.
D favo u rs B l ack, i f anyone, as
Other White 7th moves
No ne o f these m o v e s are
i n a ny way cri ti cal tes ts of
is bes t ans we red by 9 . . . b 4 !
1 0 de b e t 1 cd .Qb7 + ; a l ­
tho u g h 9 . . . cS 10 �xbS
�xe 4 1 1 �d2 a6 1 2 �a3
�xd2 13 �xd2 fS i s a l so i n ­
teresti ng, Roma n o vsky -
l lyi n-Zhe ne v sky , Len i ngrad
192t ) 9 . . . a6 tO �e2 .Qb7 1 1
c3 cS ! ? t2 dS c4+ , Gu tgi l f -
Rom a novsky , M oscow t 923
( t 3 .Qc2 �g 4 is ra ther aw k­
ward) .
b) 7 de?l de. As B l ack can
on ly ta ke on d4 a nd co n­
cede the ce ntre i f there is a
tacti ca l j u stificati on , l ike­
w i se Whi te can on ly ca p­
t u re o n eS if it is part of a
well-concei ved tac tica l op­
erati on . Th e res u l tant cen­
tral confi g u ration s l i g h t ly
he has paw n co ntro l of dS,
w h i l s t Whi te ca n n ot say
the sam e abou t d4. Ob-
 Hanham Varia tion - Main Line 1 27
v iou s l y , there i s no good
reason to take on eS at t h i s
j u ncture ; B l ack ga i n s u se o f
b4 and cS , w h i l e Whi te
gai n s nothi ng: 8 -'l.gS c6 9
a4 tbc7 10 tbe2 ( or 10 4jh 4
4Jc5 1 1 4jf5 -'l_x fS 1 2 ef !!adB
13 tbe2 4jd5 Va l l i - Lap laza ,
1970) 10 . . . 4Jc5 1 1 4Je1 ? 4Je6
12 -'l_e3 4jd 4 ! + Evenso n -
Alek h i ne , Kiev 1 9 1 6 .
c ) 7 h3 c6 8 a 4 ( 8 a 3 ? ! bS
9 -'l_a2 -'l_b7 1 0 de? ! de 1 1 tbe2
aS 12 !!d 1 tbc7 13 -'l.gS 4Jc5 1 4
.Q.xf6? ! -'l_x f6+ Rosetto -
Gu i mard , Arge nti na 1969; 8
de? ! de 9 tbe2? ! bS 1 0 -'l_d3
tbc7+ Bo nch-Os m a l o v sky -
C h i sti akov , M oscow 1 950)
8 . . . b6 ! (8 . . . 4Jxe4? worked
very w e l l i n Perez - Ortega ,
Cu ba 1 963: 9 4Jxe4 d S 1 0
-'l_d3? d e 1 1 .Q.xe4 fS 1 2 .Q.d3
e4 13 -'l_c 4+ �h8 1 4 4:)e5
4Jxe5 15 d.� tbeB 1 6 -'l_f4 gS 17
-'l_d2 f4 w i t h a dan gero u s
attack. Si m p l y 1 0 4Jxe5 i s
better for Wh i te , thou g h :
1 0 . . . 4Jxe5 1 1 de de 12 4jd6
-'l_xd6 1 3 ed, o r 1 1 . . . de 12
-'l_f4 -'l_fS 13 tbe2, and not 10
. . . de? 1 1 4Jxc 4 w i n n i n g a
paw n ) 9 -'l_e3 a6 1 0 dS? ! ( we
have seen t h i s adv ance be­
fore . As I men ti oned t he n ,
i t is better for Bl ack to
p l ay . . . cS w i th a Czec h­
Ben oni formatio n , than . . .
-'l_b7. Here i s a n examp l e of
w hat m i g ht happen) 1 0 . . .
cS! 1 1 g 4 ? ! ( as the cen tre i s
closed , Whi te decides to
advance on the kingside.
Whether he i n ten ded to
attac k here, or mere l y wan­
ted to make i t difficu l t for
B l ack to p l ay . . . fS , I don't
know . In fact g4 i s a com ­
mon idea i n the m a i n Czech­
Ben o n i ; bu t here B l ack i s
ab l e to exp l oi t the w ea k ­
e n i n g of the dark-sq u ares
w i th a seri es of accu rate
moves . The Fre nc h g rand­
master Renet p l ayed more
sen si bly agai nst me a t
Francon vi l l e 1 991 : 1 1 4jd2
4Je8 12 -'l_e2 , i n tendi ng 4Jc4
w i t h u ncl ear p l ay , a l th o u g h
B l ack l a ter won t h i s i m ­
porta n t l as t ro u nd ga me) 1 1
. . . hS! 1 2 4jd2 hg 13 hg 4J h 7
1 4 �g2 .Q.g S ( exc hangi ng t h e
defender o f t h e f 4 sq u are >
15 tbe2 -'l_xe3 16 tbxe3 �e8 17
�ht 4jdf8 1 8 f3 4Jg6 + (120)
Ho n - Ci fu entes, Du bai O l ­
y m piad 1 98o. Not on ly has
Bl ack the adva ntage on the
ki ngsi de (k n i g hts co m i n g
t o f 4 and gS) , bu t a l so on
t he q u een side w here he can
prepare the . . . bS break .
128 Hanham Varia tion - Main Line
d) 7 �5?1 ( t he bi s hop is
m isp l aced here, bu t it is the
sort of 'acti ve' m ove t hat
weak er p l ayers are very
fond o f) 7 . . . c6 8 �e2 ? ! ( 8
a4 i s better; 8 �b3 b5 9 a3
�b 7 t O ne t a6== Rah man -
Bel l , Sou t h a m p ton 1 986.
The tex t transposes i n to
one o f the c l as sic Han ha m
games , p l ayed by , arg u ably,
i ts greates t con n oi s seur,
Aro n Ni mzow i tsch) 8 . . . h6
9 �h 4 ? ! �hS ( forci n g the
exchange o f a piece ; as a
general rul e e xc ha nges fa­
vour the s ide wi th l eas t
space - i n thi s cas e B l ack -
and therefore i t w ou l d have
bee n better for Wh i te to
retreat h i s bi s hop to e3,
say , i ns tead) 1 0 .Qg3 �xg3 1 1
hg bS 1 2 �d3 a6 1 3 a4 �b7
(121) ( Bl ack h as achiev ed
h i s idea l q u eenside set-u p,
a nd has the bi s hop p ai r)
121
w ga me is al l bu t over; Bl ack
1 4 �ad1 �c7 15 ab ab 1 6 g 4
�fe8 17 d5 b 4 1 8 de �xc6 19
�b 1 �cS 20 �bd2 t/Jc8 21
�c4 g6 22 g3 �g7 23 �h2
.QgS ( the t h reat to the e-
paw n forces a fres h ki ng­
side w eaknes s . The i m por­
tance of this w i l l become
cl ear v ery s oo n ) 24 f3 t/Jc7
25 �fel (122)
( Bl ack's pieces s eem to
have fo u nd thei r opti m u m
pos i tio ns , the q uestion i s :
How bes t to proceed? ) 25
. . . �h8! ( the w h i te ki ngs i de
paw n s are very static, and
he ca n do nothi ng abou t
Black leveri ng ope n the h­
fi l e) 26 �df1 hS 27 gh �x hS
28 �dS �ah8 29 �xc6 t/Jxcb
30 t/Jc4 �b6 31 �g2 �eo 32
�e2 �d4 33 �eel t/Jb7 ( the
m enaces . . . t/Jd7- h3+ and . . .
�c8 . White decides to give
up the exchange , bu t he
can't con v ert a bad pos i tion
i nto a good one) 34 �xd4
cd 35 �g 4 t/Jb6 36 f4 �e7 37
�d t f5 38 �f2 fe 39 t/Jxd 4+
�xd 4 40 �xd 4 d5 41 g4 �cS
42 �d1 �h4 w i n ni ng easi ly ,
Teichman n - N i mzow i tsch,
San Sebas tian 19 1 1 . Su perb !
I n concl u s ion, i n these
vari ati o n s , B l ack s hou l d
 Hanham Varia tion - Main Line 1 29

attempt to expand o n the ment. The theory of re­

q ueen's w in g , b ut s ho u l d be strai n t i s as v al i d today as
pre pa red to cap t u re i n the i t was w hen firs t proposed
centre and i ni tiate tactica l by Ni mzow i tsch , b ut, be
p l ay at an opportu n e m o- carefu l , i t i s not a pa nacea !
1 0 ) Exchange Variation
1 e4 e5
2 4Jf3 d6
3 d4 4jf6
4 de (123)
12
B 6 0- 0 .Q.e7 7 .Q.e3 4Jxd3 8
A rather i n si pid move.
I n s tead o f k ee pi ng t he te n­
s i o n w i th 4Jc3 , Wh i te cap­
t u res on eS . Afte r the fur­
ther, i nev i tab l e , exchange
of the w hi te paw n o n eS fo r
the b lack paw n o n d6 a po­
s i ti on i s reach ed w h ere
bot h cen tra l fi l es are ope n .
Des pi te t h e drawi sh na­
t u re of the res u l ta n t posi­
tio n s , W h i te posses ses a
s m a l l l ead i n deve l o p me n t
a nd t herefore Black m us t
tak e a certai n a mou n t o f
care .
4 ... 4jxe4
There are n o w two mai n
poss ibi I i ties .
A S �dS !
B 5 4Jbd2
AI ternati vely, 5 .Q.d3? ! 4Jc5
�xd3 de 9 4Jxe5 �xd3 10
4jxd3 0- 0 1 1 .Q.cS ( i n order
to rel ieve B l ack of the
bi shop pair; 1 1 4jc3 4Ja6 ! 12
4jd5 .Q.d8 13 4Jc5 b6 1 4 4Jxa6
.Qxa6 i s no bette r, si nce
w h ereas Wh i te's i n i tiative
is o f a tem porary nature.
Once B l ack dea l s w i th t he
i m m ediate threats t he
w h i te pi eces w i l l be dri ven
back a nd B l ack's tw o bish­
ops pro mi se h i m a perma­
ne nt i n i tiative) 1 1 . . . .Q.xcS 12
4Jxc5 b6 + , as the b l ack
bi shop w i l l be the dom i n­
a n t minor piece.
5 .Q.c4 c6 ! ( the threat is . . .
dS, w i n n i ng a tem po at t he
expe nse of the bishop on
c4, e.g. 6 0-0 dS 7 .Qd3 4Jc5
8 !;US .Q.e7 9 .Q.xe7 t/1xe7 10
c4 de 1 1 .Q.xc4 0-0=- as i n
Sozi n - Romanovsky , Nov­
gorod 1923, bu t the ambi­
tious p l ayer of the black

pieces m i g h t prefer the
more combative 8 . . . �b6 ! ?
p l an n i ng . . . .Qg 4 , . . . {)e6 , . . .
�c5 , . . . 0-0, . . . {)d7 etc) 6
ed {)xd6 ( thi s i s better than
6 . . . �xd6 7 0-0 0-0 8 �d 4
as the b lack k ni g h t o n e4
serves o n ly as a target for
Whi te ) 7 �b3 �e7 8 0-0 0-0
9 {)c3 {)a6 ! is very p l easant
for Black , w ho t h reaten s . . .
{)cS ( xb3) and can a n s wer
10 �e3 w i th . . . {)fS.
A 1 7 {)dS - 1 7 �xc5 �xc3 1 8 be
5 �dS!
Thi s i s t he o n ly move
that offers Whi te a ny hope
of keepin g a rea l adv a n­
tage.
5 ... {)c5
It w o u l d n o t be a good
idea to try to mai n ta i n t he
k n i g h t on e 4 by 5 . . . f5 as ,
a l t ho u g h . . . c6 and . . . dS i s a
threat , the obv iou s and
rather brutal 6 �c4 fo rces 6
. . �e7 (6 . . . �d7? 7 e6 , w he n
7 . . . tf1e7 8 �xf5 a nd 7 . . .
�c6?? 8 �b5) ta ng l i ng u p
the bl ack p ieces.
6 il£5
The o n ly rel evant move.
6 {)g5 {)e6! ? ( Stei ner -
A l ek hi ne , Podebrady 1 936
featured the more fo rci n g 6
. . . �e6 ! 7 {)xe6 fe 8 �f3
{)bd7 9 ed �xd6 10 {)c3
t/1h 4, w hen Whi te has a
strategi c adva ntage , b u t is
so mew hat beh i nd in deve­
lopment: 11 g3 ? {)e5 12 �e2
Exchange Varia tion 131
�f6 1 3 f 4 {)c6 1 4 �e3 0-0-0
15 0-0-0 e5! 16 fe �xeS! (124)
124
w
�xc3 - + - 17 . . . �xb2+ 1 8 �b 1
�e5 19 �g 4+ {)d7 20 �f4
t/1e 4 21 �b5 {)d4 w h e n B l ack
was better) 7 {)e 4 (7 �c4?
c6 , but 7 {)xe6 i s more of a
prob l e m : 7 . . . �xe6!? 8
�xb7 {)d7 9 ed �xd6 10 �e2
0-0 may not o ffer B l ack
enou g h co m pe n sati o n for
t he paw n , so 7 . . . fe may be
s u perior: 8 �f3 d5 i s u n­
cl ear; B l ack hopes to pi a)·
i t l ike a French Defence
w i t h . . . c5 , . . . {)c6 etc, b u t 9
�d3 i s a prob l em ) 7 . . . de 8
t/JxeS �e7 9 {)c3 {)c6= .
Al ternatively 6 ed �xd6?!
7 {)c3 �e7 8 �xd6 �xd6 9
{)b5 {)c6 10 {)xd6 + , Ka rk­
l i ns - Deverett, C h i cago
1989 , is a good exam p l e of
how no t to p l ay the black
side of t h i s pos i ti on ; s i m p­
ly 6 . . . �xd6 7 .QgS f6 8 �e3
�e6 i s fi ne.
After 6 .Qg5 there is a
choice betw een
132 Exchange Varia tion
At 6 . . . tbd7 ! ? a nd
A2 6 . . . �e7
A1
6 ••• �d7!? (/25)
125
w ab l e , w hen . . . .Qe6 i s a
The q u een move l ooks
u g ly bu t i s probably bes t
here .
7 ed
Fu rt her re l easi n g the
te n s io n , b u t 7 {)c3 c6 8 tbd2
de 9 {)xeS tb xd2 + 10 �xd2
�e6 11 0-0-0 {)bd 7 12 {)f3,
Ve l i m i rov ic - V Ni ko l ic,
Be l a C rk v a 1984, i s bes t
co u n tered by 1 2 . . . � 4 1 3
!!e t + {)e6 1 4 {)d 4 .QcS! w h i c h
s h ou l d peter out t o eq u a l ­
i ty . A more a mbi tious
p l ayer mi g h t prefer 8 . . .
dS ! ? , i n ten di ng to co n ti n ue
w i t h . . . {)e6 and , possi b l y ,
. . . .Qb 4 .
7 ... .Qx d6
8 {)c3 o-o
9 o-o-o {)c6
Pe tros ian's move. Black
s h o ul d, o f co urs e, be en­
deavo u ri n g to m ake good
hi s arrears in deve l o pment
as q u ick ly as po s s i b l e . For
thi s reason , moves such as
9 . . . a6? 10 .Qe3 {)eo t l {)eS
and 9 . . . tbg 4? 10 h3 �hS 1 1
.Qe2 , w i t h adv antage to
Wh i te i n both cases, are
i n s u fficient. Howe ver, 9 . . .
h6 1 0 .Qe3 tbe7 may be p l ay­
th reat, hi tti ng Wh i te's ex­
po sed q u ee n .
10 .Qe3
Chandl er' s s uggestion of
10 {)bS see m s more cri ti ca l .
10 . . . {)e7
11 tbc4
1 1 tbd2 is a l so a pos sibi­
l i ty .
11 ..
. b6!
12 .QxcS
Thi s is q u oted as an im ­
provement over the 12 {)e.t.
of Byrne - Petrosian , Ma­
ni l a 1976, w hi ch co nti n ued:
12 . . . {)xe 4 13 �xe4 �co 1 4
.Qd3 tbxe4 1 5 .Qxe4 �b8 1 b
{)d4 .Qd7 17 .Qhe 1 � -1.'.l . The
po si tion i s l eve l , bu t there
i s no rea son w hy ei ther
p l ayer shou l dn't consider
p l ay i ng on here - there are
l o ts of pieces l eft on the
board . B l ack ca n pl ace his
rooks on the ce ntra l fi l es
and proceed fro m there , . . .
f7- f4 at the ri g h t ti me w i l l
pu s h the adversary back .
12 ... be
Despi te hav i ng h i s queen­
side paw n structure com­
pro m i s ed in t h i s way , Black
does have the bishop pai r
and use of the b- fi l e i n

co m pe ns ati o n .
13 �d3 r!b81
The q ueen 's rook ob­
v io u s ly be l o ngs on t h i s fi l e ,
i n the mean t i m e there i s a
threat of . . . r!b 4 w i n n i n g o n
the spot.
14 4Je4
1 4 �x h7+? lftx h 7 1 5 �h 4+
lftg8 16 4Jg5 �f5 defends h7
and refu tes the attack ; 1 4
tbh 4 4Jg6 (or 1 4 . . . {)f5 ) 15
�xg6 fg ! s ho u l d be to
Bl ack's adv an tage.
14 . . . �c6
15 4Jxd6 cd
Wh i te ma nages to e x­
change B l ack 's bi shop l i ke
thi s , but h e stre ngthens h i s
pa w n s tructure a t the same
ti me. Beari ng i n m i nd that
Bl ack is now m e naci ng . . .
d5 a nd . . . �e6, not to men­
tio n . . . �b6, Wh i te's next
may be ob l i gatory .
16 �e4 �xe4
17 �xe4 r!d8
18 !!het h6 ( 126)
126
w to e3 the e- fi l e w i l l be
The extra b l ack ce ntre
paw n gi ves hi m very s l ig ht­
ly the better chan ce s .
Exchange Varia tion 1 33
A2
6 ... �e7
Wi th best p l ay for bot h
sides , t h i s appears to l ead
to a ti ny endga m e advan­
tage for Wh i te . Fro m
B l ack 's viewpoi n t , he may
have q ui te a l ong s trugg l e
ahead o f h i m before he gets
a draw , a nd hi s wi n n i n g
chances seem l i m i ted .
I ncide nta l l y , 6 . . . f6 i s
al so lega l , b u t is certai n ly
not to be recom m ended , 7
ef g f 8 �e3 + .
7 ed tbxd6
8 4Jc3 h6 (127)
127 .
I n my opi nio n , the bes t
chance . I f the b i s hop moves
b l ock ed , if o n ly tem pora­
ri l y . There are m a ny other
poss i bi l i ti e s , m os t ly i ndi ff­
ere n t :
a) 8 . . . c6 9 �xd6 �xd6 1 0
0- 0- 0 �e7 1 1 �c4 ! �e6 12
�het 4Jba6 13 �xe7 lftxe7 1 4
4jd4 Adl er - C hi s tyakov .
Le n i ngrad 1963, l eaves B l ack
a g ri m defensi ve task ahead
of hi m .
1 3 4 Exchange Varia tion
b) 8 . . . .Q.e6 9 tb xd6 .Q.xd6
10 4jb5 ! 4jc6 1 1 4jxd6+ cd 12
0-0- 0 0-0 13 .Q.e3 ( no t 13
�xd6 ? 4je4 a nd . . . 4jxf2) 13
. . . �ac8 1 4 a3 4je4 15 4jd 4
Lu b l i n s ky Sc ho n man n ,
USSR - Germ a ny Corr 1960
and a l tho ug h B l ack won
thi s gam e , his po si ti o n i s
marked ly i nferior a t this
j u ncture .
c ) 8 . . . twxd5 is t he sec­
ond best move: 9 4jxd5 .Q.d6
1 0 0-0- 0 4jc6 ( 1 0 . . . 0-0? 1 1
.Q.e7 ! .Q.xe7 1 2 4jxe7+ �h8 13
4jxc8 �xc8 1 4 .Q.c4 f6 15
�het ± ) 1 1 .Q.bS .Q.d7 12 � he t +
4je6 1 3 c4± , Sadom s ky -
Abros hi n , Co rr 1 95 4, though
Whi te m us t ach ieve so m e­
thi ng co ncrete soo n as
B lack w i l l q ui ck ly cas t l e
and catch u p o n h i s dev e­
l o p m e n t , w hen the pos i ti o n
shou l d be eq u a l .
9 .Q.e3 c6
Now is not the ti me to
p l ay 9 . . . twxd5? 10 4jxd5 ( as
10 . . . .Q.d6 ? ? 1 1 .Q.xcS .Q.xcS 12
4Jxc7+ wo u l d be a catas tro­
phe) M orgado - Pa l m o , Ax­
e l so n Memorial Corr 1989,
co nti nu ed : 10 . . . 4je6 1 1
4jxe7 �xe7 12 4jd 4 �e8 13
0- 0- 0 4jxd 4 1 4 .Q.xd4 �f8 15
.Q.bS 4Jc6 16 .Q.cS+ �g 8 1 7
.Q.xc6? ! . I can't agree w it h
thi s . Of co u rse, B lack now
has chro n i cal ly weak
q u ee n s ide paw n s bu t the
opposi te- co l o u red b i s h o ps
w i l l make i t very di ffic u l t
for Whi te to w i n . I be l i eve
that Whi te s hou ld keep
bo th bi s hops and grad ual )}
increase t he pressure; as i t
i s W h i te nev er did wi n any
of the q ueen side paw ns and
the game was l ater draw n .
10 tbxd6 .Q.xd6
11 o-o-o .Q.e7
12 .Q.c4 4jba6
13 !!het .Q.e6
14 4je5?
Gips l i s i ndicates that 1 4
.Q.xe6 4jxe6 1 5 4je4 4jb4 16
4jc5 is c learly better for
Whi te , b u t 16 . . . 4jxa2+ 17
�b 1 4jb4 18 4jxb7 4jd5
m i g ht not be so aw ful e . g :
19 .Q.c5? �b8 + o r 1 9 4ja5
4Jxe3, w h ic h i s on ly a s l ig h t
edge to Whi te.
t4 . . . o-o
15 .Q.xe6 4jxe6
16 f4 r!fd8
17 r!xd8+ .Q.xd8
18 f5 4Jf8
And i n the game S m i t -
Peterson , USSR 1972, B lack
soon managed to achieve a
draw .
Perso na l ly s peak i ng, I
wo u l d not fa ncy p l aying
any o f the e ndgames afte r
6 . . . .Q.e7 ; chess s ho u l d be
more fu n !
B
5 4jbd2
Thi s s ho u ld g i v e Black
few er probl ems t han the
prev io u s l i ne; he has t he
choi ce betw een playi ng t he

si mp l e, and good, 5 . . . 4:)xd2
or the more co m p l icated 5
. . . 4:)c5 .
Bl 5 . . . 4:)xd2
82 5 . . . 4:)c5
Both 5 . . . f5? 6 4Jxe4 fe 7
4Jg5 d5 8 e6 , w hich trans­
po ses i nto a n i n ferior v aria­
tion of M este l 's l i ne, and 5
. . . .Q.fS 6 tbe2 d5 7 4jd 4 .Q.g6
8 tbb5+ are terri b l e for
B lack , so i t i s eviden t that
he w i l l not be ab l e to mai n­
tai n h i s k ni g h t o n e 4 , w hich
bri ngs u s to :
Bt
5 ... 4jxd2
6 .Q.xd2 .Q.e7
Thi s i s the mos t com mo n
rep ly , b . . . d e 7 .Q.c4 .Q.e7 8
4:)xe5 0-0 9 twh5 + i s clearly
bad, b u t w hat i s w rong
w i t h b . . . 4jcb , pu tti ng
press u re on e5 ? There is
very l i tt l e practi cal exper­
ience w i th t h i s move as yet ,
bu t h ere are sev eral poss­
ibi l i ties :
a) 7 ed? l .Q.xd6 8 .Q.d3 0-0
9 0- 0 ( 9 .Q.xh 7+ ? �xh7 10
4:)g5+ �gB 1 1 tbh5 .Q.f5- + ) 9
.. . .Q.g4 and B l ack i s at l eas t
eq ua l e . g : tO h3 .Q.h5 1 1 .Q.c3
( note that, w hi l s t the b l ack
quee n is on dB, 1 1 .Q.xh7+?
�xh7 1 2 4:)g5+ i s answered
by 1 2 . . . tbxg5 - + ) 1 t . . . �eB 12
.Q.e2 �e4! ? a nd . . . tbe7
b) 7 .Q.bS .Q.d 7 ( 7 . . . a6 8
E.;'(change Varia tion 1 35
.Q.xc6+ be i s a l s o p l ayab l e ) 8
tbe2 ( 8 ed .Q.xd6 is easy fo r
Black , and 8 .Q.f4 is met by
8 . . . 4:)xe5) 8 . . . 4Jxe5 q
4:)xe5 de 10 0-0-0 ( 1 0 twxeS+
twe7=: ) 10 . . . .Q.d6 s h o u l d be
OK .
c) 7 .Q.c3 d5 8 tbd2 .Q.eb
l ooks fai r ly eq u a l , b u t
Sc ho n man n managed to w i n
thi s pos i tio n as B l ack a
co u p l e o f ti mes i n the
Europa cup Corr 1959/60 .
d) 7 .Q.f4 d5 8 .Q.d3 .Q.e7 ± /=
m i g ht be Whi te' s bes t .
7 .Q.d3
7 ed tbxd6 8 .Q.c3 0-0 q
tbxd6 .Q.xd6 t o 0-0-0 .Q.g 4
does n't i nco nvenience B l ack
i n the s l i g htest, Bo l es l av ­
sky - Keres , Moscow 1 962 .
and 7 .Q.f 4 d5 8 .Q.d3 c5 q c3
4:)c6 1 0 h3 ( 1 0 tbe2 .Q.e6 1 1
0- 0 occu rred i n Lev i n -
C hern i n , USSR 1 96 9 , w here
B l ack con ti n ued 1 1 . g5! ?
. .
12 .Q.d2 g4 1 3 4:)e1 tbb6 1 4 .Q.e3
tbc7 and . . . 0-0-0 w hi ch i s
u n cl ear bu t not s o bad fo r
B l ack . Hardi ng s u gges ts 1 1
. . . tbd7 1 2 !!ad 1 0- 0- 0, w hich
l ooks fi ne to me, or per­
haps . . . h6 s h o u l d be played
first, to preserve the l ig ht­
sq uared bishop from 4:)g5)
10 . . . .Q.e6 t 1 0-0 a nd now
B l ack , w i th p l easa nt deve­
lopment and a fi n e centre.
opted to go on the offe n­
s i v e w i t h 1 1 . . . g5 ! ? ( o f
co u rse, thi s has more po i n t
here than i n t he prev io u s
136 Exchange Varia tion

note as Wh i te has w eake n­

ed h i s ki ng s i de ) 12 .Qh 2 hS
13 �e t tbb6 1 4 .Qe2 0-0-0
(128)

Ge l l er - Ca m pora, Moscow
1989 , w i th exci ti ng p l ay. I
wou l d be very happy w i th
B l ack h ere.
The E ng l i s h Grand mas te r
J oh n N u n n tried 7 .QbS+ re­
centl y agai n s t Wah l s , Bu n­
des l iga 1 988/9 . Was i t
some sort of preparati on ? I
do n't k now . Th e game went
on : 7 . . . c6 8 .Qd3 de 9 �xeS The poi nt! It is useful to
�d7 10 �xd7 .Qxd7 1 1 tbhS rem ember this manoeu vre .
.Qe6 1 2 0-0 �dS a nd B l ack zeroing i n on a2.
sys temati ca l l y exchanged 11 �c4
a l l the p ieces to make a If 1 1 �xc6?? , then not 1 1
dra w . It i s i n tere s ti ng that . . . �xc6 ?? 12 .QbS + - , bu t 1 1
N u n n managed to get a l o t . . tbxa2 menaci ng mate i n
.

l e s s from the ope ni ng than one, w h ich l eaves Wh i te in

he norma l ly does w i th t he big troub l e e. g : 1 2 .Qc3?
w h i te p i eces i n the Ruy .QgS+ - + .
Lopez . I ns tead of 7 . . . c6, 7 11 . . . �d4
. . . .Qd7 8 .Qxd7+ ( or 8 �e2 Can B l ack be more am­
0- 0) 8 . . . �xd7 ( a l so 8 . . . hi ti ous? Both 0-0 and 1 1 . . .

tbxd7, . . . �c6) 9 ed ( 9 .Qf4 0-0-0! 1 2 .Qc3 �d4 l ook fi ne

de == ) 9 . . . .Qxd 6 10 �e2+ �e7 to me.
cou l d be con s i dered , w h i ch 12 �eS �xeS
is abso l u tely l evel . 13 �xeS o-o

14 .Q.c3 4Jf5
15 !!het .Q.cS
��
K l ovan - Heu er, USS R
1962.
B2
5 ... 4Jc5
Not s u ch a strange move,
as al thou g h B l ack is mo­
vi ng h i s only deve loped
pi ece for the third ti me on
successi v e moves , Whi te
wi l l al so have to waste
ti me movi ng h i s q u ee n's
k n ig ht, as it i m pedes h i s
q u ee nside dev el op ment.
6 4Jc4
If i ns tead , 6 4Jb3 4Je6 (a
good b l ockadi ng sq u are ,
eve n i f it has taken fou r
mov es to get there ! ) 7 .Q.e3
4Jcb 8 .Q.b5 ( a game of
Bron s tein's agai nst Bertok ,
USS R v Yu gos lavia 1962,
went 8 ed 1J.xd6 9 4)fd4
4Jc�'td4 10 cfJ�'td4 0-0. B l ack
- Bronste i n - i s eq u a l , bu t
from this poi n t on Wh i te's
p l ay beggars descri pti on. 11
1J.c4 �{6 12 c3 4)xd4 13
1J.xd4 l!eB+ 14 tf)fl ? �f4 14
�cl �h 4 16 �dl cS 17 �a 4
l!e4 18 f3 cd! 19 fe �f4+ 20
tf)g1 1J.e6! (130)
21 f!dJ. 21 .Q.xeb �e3+ 22
�f1 fe and . . . !!f8 +. 21 . . . .
d3 22 f!xd3 JJ.cS+ 23 f!d4
�cl+ 24 tf)f2 �xh l 0-1 ) 8 . . .
.Q.d7 9 �e2 4Jxe5 1 0 4Jxe5 de
1 1 0-0- 0 c6 12 .Q.c4 �c7
eq ua l , Belov - Lei n , USS R
Exchange Varia tion 1 37
1962. And moves s u ch a s 6
.Q.c4?1 d5 and 6 .Q.e 2 4Jcb 7 ed
.Q.xd6 are pleasan t for
B lack .
6 . . . dS
7 .Q.gS
After 7 4Je3 .Q.e6 8 c4 de q
�xd8+ �xd8 10 .Q.xc4 , N ei ­
s h tadt - Roj t man USSR 1955 ,
10 . . . 4Jc6 may a l so be a
l i tt l e better for Wh i te .
7 ... �d7
Agai n , thi s s trange q u een
mov e, bu t thi s ti me it i s
forced as 7 . . . .Q.e7? 8 .Q.xe7
�xe7 ( 8 . . . �xe7 9 4Je3 .Q.eb
10 �d 4 b6 1 1 �h 4 + �e8 1 2
� f 4 (131) cropped u p i n an­
other of Bronstein's games .
bu t thi s time he had Wh i te
agai n st Pyatni tsky , Kiev
1 9 40. At this poi nt Bra n­
stei n made the apt obser­
v ati on that i f on ly Black
co u ld cas t l e , he wou l d have
a good posi tion! The game
now term i nated sw i ft l y :
1 2 . . . 4Je4 1 3 h 4 4Jd7 1 4 .Q.bS
�e7 15 0-0-0 1 -0) 9 �xdS
s naffl es a paw n , and 7 . . . f6
8 ef gf 9 4Jfe5 is even
138 Exchange Varia tion
wors e .
8 4Je3 c6
9 4Jd4
9 -'l.e2 -'l.e 7 10 0-0 Stan -
A l exander, Corr 1 950� i s
a l so a l i tt l e better for
Wh i te , b u t w hy not fi rst 9
. . . 4Je6 10 -'l.h 4 and then
10 . . -'l.e7? For e xa m p l e: 1 1
. Of co u rse, the bes t l i ne
-'l.xe7 t!Jxe7 12 0-0 4jf4 w i th
the i ntenti on of co nti n u i ng
. . . 0-0, . . . -'l.e6 and . . . 4'Jd 7.
9 . . . 4Je6
For now , if 9 . . !J.e7 1 0
.
!J.xe7 t!Jxe7 1 1 f 4 w i th men­
aci ng ly mobi l e e- and f­
paw n s . 11 . . . f6? does not do
becau se o f 1 2 4jfS .
10 -'l.h4 t!Jc7
11 !J.g3 t!Jb6
12 4Jb3t
Bisg u ier - G u i mard , Bu­
enos Ai res 1955.
Black's positi on is q u i te
p l ayab l e a l tho u g h he m u s t
be ware of a pos sib l e charge
of the w h i te f- paw n .
Al though objecti ve l) i n­
ferior to variati on Bl , varia­
tion B2 might appea l to
those p l aye rs w ho prefer a
more cl osed pos i ti on .
( b 4Jc4) is far from obv i ou s .
and i t i s u n l i kely that one's
opponent w i l l fi nd it over
the boa rd .
11 ) In Conclusion ...

Thi s chapter i s i n tended 4jbd7 5 c3 �e7== i s eq ual ly

to tie u p a few l oose ends . valid.
The first part dea l s w i t h 5 4Jxd4 g6
those moves that hav e not 6 �d3 !Jg 7
been cons idered in t he res t 7 c3 o- o
of the book and the second a o-o rtea
part is a brief descri ption 9 f4 c5!?
of move orders . 10 4j4f3 4Jc6
The game Zai tsev - G u­
Part 1 sev , USSR 1969, con ti n ued :
Any p layer w i s hi ng to 1 1 !!et d5!? 12 e5 4Jg 4 1 3 4jfl
p l ay Han ham's v ariatio n , twb6 14 �c2 c4+ 1 5 4Je3 f6= .
wi l l not o n ly have t o s tudy And any p layer i ntendi n g
chapters 8 and 9, but a l so t o p l ay Antos h i n's varia­
chapters 1 and 10. In addi­ tion via the fo l l ow i ng move
tion to th i s , o n move 4, order:
apart from 4Jc3 and de, 1 e4 e5
Wh ite ca n al so p l ay : 2 4Jf3 d6
1 e4 e5 3 d4 ed
2 4Jf3 d6 4 4Jxd4 4jf6
3 d4 4Jf6 wi l l have to know , not
4 4Jbd2 on ly c hapter 6 (after 5 4Jc3)
4 .Q.g5 h6 5 �h 4 �e7.: ; or bu t a l so chapters 1 and 7.
4 4Jg5 ! ? ( th i s i s a bi t crude, and:
the i dea is 4 . . . h6? 5 4Jxf7 5 �d3!? �e7
�x f7 6 de w i th an attack ) 4 5 . . . g6 and . . . �7 i s
. . . �e7.:: ( a l so 4 . . . ed 5 �c4 more aggresi ve.
d5 � ) . 6 c4 4Jc6
4 ... ed 7 4Jxc6 be
As Wh ite's co ntro l over a o-o o-o
d4 i s lesse ned, i t s eems 9 4Jc3 4Jd7
nat u ra l to pl ay a sort of 10 �e3 4Je5
Larsen's v ariatio n , bu t 4 . . . 11 �e2±
1 40 In Conclusion . . .
Zai tsev - Antos hi n , Soc hi
1 979.
Of course , both these
poss ibi l i ties are extreme ly
rare, b u t yo u nev er k no w
w hen y o u m i g h t have to
p l ay w i th B l ack agai ns t
Zai tsev !
Fi nal l y , i n this part, i t is
pos s ib l e ( b u t certai n ly not
recom mended) for B l ack to
essay an early . . . d5 , 1 e 4 e5
2 �f3 d6 3 d 4 ed 4 �xd 4
d5 ? ! ( a l so 4 . . . �f6 5 �c3
d5 ? ! 6 ed �xd5 7 �db5
�xc3 8 �xdB+ �xd8 9 �xc3
.Q.f5 10 .Q.g5+ f6 1 1 0-0-0+
�d7 1 2 .Q.f4 Ko ndrati ev - G.
Petros ian , USSR 197 1 , b u t
thi s endi ng is q u i te u n­
p l easant for Bl ack) 5 ed
twxd5 6 .Q.e3 (6 twe2+ .Q.e7 7
�b5 �a6 8 �1c3 ± ) 6 . . . �f6
7 �c3 .Q.b4 8 �db5 0-0! 9
�xc7 twa5 1 0 �xa8 .Q.g 4 1 1
.Q.e2 !!dB 1 2 0-0! (132) w i t h
wi l d com p l i catio n s , t h o u g h
favourab l e t o Whi te.
Kapen g ut - Kuz m i n , USS R
1972.
Part 2
It is worth noti ng that
t he Phi lidor (parti cu l arly
Han ham's variation) can be
reached by sev eral s trange
mov e orders , for i nstance : 1
d4 d6 2 e4 �f6 3 �c3 �bd7
4 �f3 e5 or 1 e 4 d6 2 d4 e5! ?
3 �f3 e tc, as the e nding
after 3 de? ! de twxdB+ �xd8
is noth i n g much for Whi te .
After 1 e 4 e5 the move 2
�f3 i s the al mos t i nvariab l e
choice for p layers o f the
w hi te pieces , but, of course,
it is necessary to l earn a
good defence agai nst the
al ternatives , the Ki ng's
Gambit , the Centre Game,
the Dani s h Gambi t etc .
It i t pos s i b l e t o play 2 . . .
d6 agai ns t any of these?
Yes , it i s , b u t i n genera l
other moves are s tronger.
So me exam p l es: 1 e4 e5 2
�c3 d6 3 .Q.c4 �f6 4 d3 .Q.e7
5 �ge2 0-0 6 0-0 c6 7 .Q.b3
�bd7 8 h3 b5 9 f4± Kas pe r
- M u l l er, East German Ch
1977: or 1 e4 eS 2 f4 d6? ! 3
�c3 �f6 4 �f3 and now
Ni mzow i tsch s uggested 4
. . . �bd7! ? . And, i n fact, the
game Mes te l - Georgadze
i n chapter 1 , s tarted 1 e 4 e5
2 .Q.c4 d6 and now 3 �f3
.Q.e7 4 0-0 and so forth , but
3 f4 wou l d have been more
tes ti ng . Fi nal ly, I wou l d
li ke to w i s h a J I readers the
bes t of l uck w i th Phil idor's
Defence.
Index of Variations

1 e4 eS 2 �f3 d6

1 White Thi rd Moves other than 3 d4

A 3 .Q.c4 9
Stei n i tz - McDon n e l l 12
B Other White third moves 14
Sch ulder - Boden 14

2 U n u s ua l B l ack rep l ies to 3 d4

A 3 . . . �d7 4 .Q.c4 c6 16
Van der Wiel - Van Baarl e ( 5 de) 17
Dreev - Korhonen (5 0-0) 19
B 3 . .. .Q.g4 19
Morp hy - D u ke of Bru n s w ick & Cou n t I so uard 19
c 3 . . . .Q.d7 20

3 M este l ' s Variati on ( 3 d4 fS)

A 4 de fe 5 �gS dS 6 e6 22
Barnes - Morphy (6 . . . .Q.cS) 23
At wood - Wil son (6 . . . � h6) 26
Stau nto n & Owen - Morphy & Barnes (6 . . . �h6 ) 26
B 4 .Q.c4 27
Diepstraaten - Z sch orn ( 4 . . . fe) 27
Nurmi - Mes te l ( 4 . . . ed) 28
c 4 �cl �
Tses h kov s ky - Ink iov 30
D 4 ef 31
1 42 Index of Varia tions and Games

4 Larsen's Vari a tio n (3 d 4 ed 4 4Jxd4 g6)

Tom pa - Hardicsay ( 4 . . . 4jf6) 34

A Other White fifth moves 34
Bt 5 c4 !Jg 7 6 4Jc3 4Jf6 35
Karpov - Kas parov (7 .Q.e2 0-0 8 .Q.eJ) 36
So l tan - Dans tru p ( 7 .Q.e2 0-0 8 .Q.e3) 37
Porat h - G l i goric ( 8 0- 0) 37
B2 6 . . . 4Jc6 39
Kas parov - Spee l man 39
Ct 5 4Jc3 !Jg 7 6 g3 42
C2 6 .Q.e2 43
S passky - Larsen 44
C3 6 .Q.c4 45
Bru s tman - Landry (6 . . . 4jf6) 45
S herman - j . Littlew ood (6 . . . 4Jc6 ) 45
C4 6 .Q.f4 48
Hazai - Sax 48

5 Larsen's Variation - Pse udo- Y u gos lav Attack

( 3 d4 ed 4 4Jxd 4 g6 5 4Jc3 .Qg7 6 .Q.e3 4jf6 7 �d2 0-0)

C . H a n sen - Kri s tiansen ( 8 f3) 53

A 8 0-0-0 4jc6 54
j . Nie l sen - j . H . Nie l sen ( 9 h 4) 56
Petru s h i n - Ki me l fe ld ( 9 f3) 58
Tse s h ko v s ky - Vorotn i kov ( 9 f3) 59
Zbikow s k i - A u te nrei th ( 9 f3 ) 61
B 8 . . . !!e8 61
Koro ng hy - Tornai ( 1 0 h 4) 63
Ben g tsso n - Wah l bom (9 fJ 4Jc6 10 g 4) 66

6 A n to s h i n's Vari ati o n ( 3 d 4 ed 4 4Jxd 4 4Jf6 5 4Jc3 !l,e7)

A 6 .Q.f4 0-0 7 tbd2 67

Kas hdan - Ko l tanowski ( 7 . . . rle8) 68
Petro s i a n - G u s ev (7 . . . a6) 70
B 6 g3 71
Ku dri n - C hiburdan idze ( 6 . . dS 7 ed)
. 72
Smiri n - Ku z m i n ( 7 eS ) 73
Deiko - Anto s hi n ( 7 e 5 ) 74
c 6 .Q.c4 74
 Index of Varia tions and Games 1 43

Diaz - Ho l mov ( 7 .Q.b3) 74

Sch ulz - Alb urt ( 7 0-0) 75
D 6 .Q.e2 76
E 6 .Q.d3 78
Stei nsapi r - Romanowski 79

Morphy's Vari ati on ( 3 d 4 ed 4 � xd4)

At 4 . . . c£)f6 5 e5 8t
A2 4 . . . c£)f6 5 c£)c3 83
H m adi - C h ern i n 84
B 4 . . . c£)c6 5 .Q.bS 86
Zuckerm an - Bisgu ier ( 5 o c£)e7) 0 0 86
Kos te n - Bas ag ic ( 5 o .Q.d 7)0 0 87
Adam s - Torre (5 .Q.d 7)
0 0 0 89
A l ek hi ne - M i de no (5 .Q.d7) 0 0 0 90
Anderssen - Lo Pau l sen ( 5 .Q.d 7) 0 0 0 92
c 4 . . . .Q.d7 92
Kuraj ica - Wes teri ne n 93
D 4 . . . a6 95
E Other Black fourth moves 96

Han ham Variation ( I m proved) - I n troduction

(3 d4 �f6 4 �c3 �bd7)

5 .Q.c4 .Q.e7 98
Rab i novich - l lyin-Zhenev sky ( 6 .Q.xf7+) 101
Heiden fe l d - Wo l pert ( 6 .Q.xf7 +) 102
Rosen - Schoizwoh l ( 6 de de 7 .Q.x f7+ ) 104
M u rey - Ree (6 c£)g5) 105
Jam i eso n - Rogers ( 6 0-0 h6) 108

Hanham Variation - M a i n Li ne (3 d 4 c£)f6 4 c£)c3 �bd7

5 .Q.c 4 .Q.e7 6 0-0 0- 0)

At 7 �e2 ed ttO
Fabiano - Kos ten 112
A2 7 . . . c6 tt3
Cam pora - Cos ta ( 8 �dl ) 11 4
A2t 8 a4 ed tt4
Zei rbu l is - Ra ndv i ir ( 9 c£)xd 4 c£)xe4) 115
How e l l - Barua ( 9 �e5 10 .Q.bJ �e8)
0 0 0 115
1 4 4 Index of Varia tions and Games

Ahman - Brg l ez ( 10 . . . cS ) 116

Ke l ler - Brg l ez (10 .Q.a2) 117
Pova h - Brg l ez ( 10 .Q.a2) 118
A22 8 . . . tf!Jc7 and others tt8
Bogo l j u bov - Seleniev 119
B 7 �et 120
jan sa - Mokry ( 7 . . . c6) 122
Antunes - Ci fuentes ( 7 . c6) . . 124
c 7 a4 (without �et) 124
S tei n - Petrosia n 126
D Other White seventh moves 126
Teich m an n - N i mzowi tsch 128

to Exchange Variation (3 d4 c£)f6 4 de c£)xe4)

At 5 ti!Jd5 c£)c5 6 .Q.g5 ti!Jd7 t32

Byrne - Petrosian 132
A2 6 . . . .Q.e7 133
Bt 5 c£)bd2 c£)xd2 135
Klovan - Heuer 136
B2 5 . . . c£)c5 136
Bertok - Bron s tei n ( 6 c£)b3) 137
B ro ns tei n - Pyat n i ts ky ( 6 c£)c4) 13 7