Batsford Chess Library

New Ideas in the

Alekhine Defence

Graham Burgess

(I)
An Owl Book
Henry Holt and Company
New York
Henry Holt and Company, Inc.
Publishers since 1866
115 West 1 8th Street
New York, New York 100 1 1

Henry Holt® i s a registered

trademark of Henry Holt and Company, Inc.

Copyright© 1 996 by Graham Burgess

All rights reserved.

Published in Canada by Fitzhenry & Whiteside Ltd.,

1 95 Allstate Parkway, Markham, Ontario L3R 4T8.
First published in the United States in 1996 by
Henry Holt and Company, Inc.
Originally published in Great Britain in 1 996 by
B. T. B atsford Ltd.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 95- 81559

ISBN 0-8050-4725-5 (An Owl Book: pbk.)

First American Edition- 1 996

Printed in the United Kingdom

All first editions are printed on acid-free paper.oc

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Editorial Panel: Mark Dvoretsky, John Nunn, Jon Speelman

General Adviser: Raymond Keene OBE
Commissioning Editor: Graham Burgess
Contents

Introduction 4
Symbols 5
1 White does not play 2 e5 6
2 2 e5 Miscellaneous 15
3 Chase Variation 21
4 Unusual Fourth Moves for White 27
5 Exchange Variation 33
6 Four Pawns Attack without 6...lbc6 42
7 Four Pawns Attack with 6...lbc6 46
8 4lbf3: Introduction and 4...dxe5 5lbxe5lbd7 54
9 Alburt Variation: 4...g6 61
10 4....tg4: Old Main Line 78
11 Flohr-Agzamov Variation: 5...c6 85
12 Kengis Variation: 4... dxe5 5lbxe5 g6 104
13 The Main Line: 6 .tc4 112
Index of Variations 128
Introduction
w
Why the Alekhine Defence? Quite
simply, because it's far more fun to
play than most chess openings. It
rarely leads to a dull game, and the
play takes on a flavour that you just
don' t get in other openings.
It's also a much underestimated
opening. Those who play 1 e4 tend
not to take the Alekhine Defence too
seriously, which, certainly at club
level, means there are easy pickings
for those of us prepared to study this
quirky defence.
To be honest, I fi nd the lack of
respect for the Alekhine Defence
rather puzzl ing. At the time of writ­
ing, it is nearly 75 year s since it was
first introduced into grandmaster
practice, and almost all of the World
Champions have played it, albeit as
an occasional weapon in most cases.
Its recent practical record is rather
good: B lack is scoring about 47% (as
compared to Black achieving around
45% generally in chess games) in the
1 990s Alekhine Defence databases
that I have seen, with Black winning
about 30% of the games. Pre- 1 990s
material showed the Alekhine scor­
ing a similar proportion of wins, but
suffering a greater number of losses,
for an overall percentage in the low
40s. I suspect the new solidity is
closely related to the rise to promi­
nence of the Kengis Variation (Chap­
ters 12 and 1 3).
The aim of this book is to present
the most important of the new mater­
ial that has accumulated since my
previous book on the subject, The
Complete Alekhine (to which I shall
refer as TCA), was published. In­
deed, the research for this book be­
gan as soon as that manuscript left
my hands. I have gathered material
from innumerable books and maga­
zines as well as the standard sources:
Informator (up to 64), ChessBase
Magazine (up to 49), and Mark Crow­
ther's The Week in Chess (up to 69).
The material is therefore up to date to
the start of February 1 996. Also,
Fritz3 has checked over almost all of
the analysis presented herein.
My policy has been to focus on:
1) Lines that are worth playing. I
always feel rather conned when I
plough through a chapter just to find
out the line should be avoided.
 Introduction 5

2) Lines to which I can add some­
thing original. After all, that's what
an author's for!
3 ) Lines in which a lack of de­
tailed knowledge is disastrous. This
is self-explanatory ! As a pleasant
side-effect, this means that I am fo­
cusing on the more exciting lines.
4) Linesfor which systematic cov­
erage is possible. I shall be referring
back to TCA quite frequently, but
this book can be used on its own as a
guide to the main new systems in the
Alekhine Defence - for these lines I
have provided the 'essential knowl­
edge' .
I would like to thank the follow
ing people: Robert Timmer, Peter
Whayman, Ian Rogers and Jonathan
Tait for generously supplying mater­
ial; John Henderson, for sending me
a copy of his large Alekhine data­
base, although I only really referred
to it in the few cases where I was
short of good material from my own
sources; John and Petra Nunn for ef­
ficient typesetting; and finally my
mother for proofreading on Christ­
mas Day !
Graham Burgess
London, February 1996

Symbols

+ Check 0-1 Black wins

++ Double Check lf2-lh Draw
# Mate Ch Championship
Good move Cht Team championship
!! Excellent move Echt European team championship
? Bad move OL Olympiad
?? Serious blunder z Zonal
!? Interesting move IZ Interzonal
?! Dubious move Ct Candidates event
;!; Small advantage to White Web World championship
+ Small advantage to Black jr Junior event
± Big advantage to White worn Women's event
+ Big advantage to Black rpd Rapidplay game
+- Decisive advantage to White mem Memorial event
-+ Decisive advantage to Black corr. Postal ga.-ne
= Even position (n) nth match ga.-ne
1 -0 White wins (D) Diagram foilows
1 White does not play 2 e5
The most important line here is 2
tt::lc3, when the most popular fighting
response amongst die-hard Alekhine
players is 2 ... d5 3 e5 tt::le4. Before
going into details, a few general
comments would be in order.
Why does White play 2 tt::lc3
rather than 2 e5 ? The move is un­
doubtedly less critical than advanc­
ing the e-pawn, so hasn't Black
immediately won the psychological
battle? Moreover, unless White would
normally play a Four Knights or Vi­
enna after 1 e4 e5 , the reply 2... e5
would force him outside his reper­
toire. Since so many players seem to
regard Alekhine 's Defence as a little
suspect, why is 2 tt::lc3 so popular?
I think a major motivation is that
White wants to kill B lack's fun. In
answering 1 e4 with l ... tt::lf6, Black
is looking for a sharp fight on un­
usual ground. By replying 2 tt::lc3,
White is trying to insist on an ordi­
nary position. If this is not to Black's
liking, then he will have to take the
risks, and make the running.
Indeed it is all too easy for Black
to get into a mess by playing too
aggressively. I dare say most Alek­
hine players have suffered a few dis­
asters against 2 tt::lc3 - I certainly
have. Perhaps the most dangerous
assumption Black can make is that,
having played 2 tt::lc3, White must be
a passive player, interested only in a
draw. The move has been ventured
by attacking players such as Mikhail
Tal, Jonny Hector, William Watson
and even John Nunn, and so deserves
respect.
So let's have a closer look at 1 e4
tt::lf6 2 tt::lc3 d5 3 e5 tt::le4 (D).
What is Black trying to achieve,
planting his knight on e4?
1 ) If White exchanges knights,
then the pawn on e4 will be more of a
strength than a weakness, and in or­
der to secure his e5-pawn, White will
normally have to play d4, where­
upon Black will take en passant. The
position then looks drawish (sym­
metrical structure, plenty of scope
for exchanges), but I like B lack's
chances - certainly there is a chance
of outplaying a weaker opponent, as
the e5-pawn will always be a handy
target. I speak from considerable

experience, having had positions of
this type many, many times during
the 510 games I played to break the
marathon blitz world record. Very
few of my opponents (mostly rea­
sonable to good club players) man­
aged to hold a draw.
2) If White lets Black exchange
on c3, then play transposes to lines
of Chapter 2 (1 e4 lDf6 2 e5 tbd5 3
tbc3 tbxc3 and then 4 bxc3 d5 or 4
dxc3 d5). These are both lines in
which a real battle can ensue, and in
which Black can perceive winning
chances due to White's compro­
mised pawn structure.
3) Therefore White's critical line
is to avoid an exchange of knights,
by playing the slightly ungainly 4
tbce2, and then to aim to show that
the e4-knight is misplaced. Black
must respond to the threat to trap the
knight (5 d4); if he does so in stereo­
typed fashion with 4 . . . tbc5, then 5
d4 tbe6 6 ..ie3, followed by f4 if ap­
propriate, gives White a slight ad­
vantage, while 4 . . . f6 5 d3 tbg5 6
..ixg5 fxg5 7 h4 is a little too sharp
for Black's good. Black's best is
4 . . . d4, radically preventing White
playing his pawn to d4, and securing
the knight an active future. After the
normal reply 5 c3 Black is generally
prepared to sacrifice the d4-pawn
(5 . . . tbc6). The following diagram
shows the type of compensation he
can hope for.
Black's position is quite a pretty
picture. All of his pieces are active,
whereas White's are in rather a tan­
gle, tied to defending pawns. How
White does not play 2 e5 7
is the f l -bishop to develop, for in­
stance? Where is the white king go­
ing?
Note that Black's whole position
hinges around the blockade on d5 .
Take that away and Black's position
instantly falls apart. Thus, when this
position arose in the game Zapolskis­
Kaunas, Riga Z 1995, Black met 16
'ifd2 with 16 . . . b4, preventing tbc3,
and then after 17 h4 decided the time
was right for his main active idea,
17 ... f6, which gave him good play.
After 5 c3 tbc6, there have been
recent claims that two lines, 6 lDf3
and 6 cxd4 tbg5 7 f4 tbe6 8 lDf3
tbexd4 9 tbexd4 tbxd4 10 'ii'a4+
tbc6 11 ..ib5, offer White a plus.
These claims are answered below.
Game 1
Nisipeanu - Bagirov
Cuxhaven 1994
1 e4 lDf6
2M dS
3 eS
Here is a quick round-up of the
news in the lines following 3 exd5
lDxdS 4 ..ic4 (D):
8 White does not play 2 e5
B
a) 4 ll:lxc3 (better than its repu­
...
tation) 5 'ii'f3 e6 6 'it'xc3 ll:ld7 7 ll:lf3
ll:l f6 8 0-0 i..e7 9 d4 0-0 1 0 ll:le5 c5
1 1 i.e3 'fic7 12 l:t ad 1 b6 13 dxc5 bxc5
1 4 i.f4 ll:lh5 15 i. c l i. d6 1 6 'ii'f3
i.. xe5 17 'iVxh5 i.. b7 1 8 l:t fe 1 i. f6 1 9
l:td3 g 6 2 0 'it'g4 l:t ad8 2 1 c 3 l:txd3 22
i.xd3 l:td8 23 i.. c 2 'ii'c 6 24 i.. a4
'ii'a6 25 i.b3 'fic6 26 i.. a4 'fia6 27
i.b3 'ii'c 6 1h-1h Akopian-Yermolin­
sky, Glendale 1 994.
b) 4.. c6!? 5 'ii'f3 ll:lf6 ! (improv­
. tious) 1 8 �d2 l:txh6 1 9 'ii'g 2 i.g5 20
ing over 5 . . . i.. e6 when Black has
some problems - see page 44 of my
book Gambits) 6 h3 ll:lbd7 7 'ili'e2 g6
8 ll:lf3 ll:lb6 9 i. b3 i.g7 10 0-0 0-0
1 1 d3 ( 1 1 d4) 1 1 . . .ll:lbd5 12 i. d2 a5
13 a3 i.e6 ! 1 4ll:ld4? ! ( 1 4ll:le4ll:lxe4
15 dxe4 ll:lc7 = ) 14 . . .ll:lxc3 15 i. xc3
i.d5 ! 16 a4 e5 ! + Rozentalis-Yermo­
linsky, Moscow OL 1 994.
c) 4 ll:lb6 5 i. b3 ll:lc6 (Kott­
.•.
nauer's gambit, namely 5 . . . c5 6 'ii'h5
c4, claimed a highly rated victim in
Ka.Miiller-Seul, Bundesliga 1 993/4:
7 i. xc4 ll:lxc4 8 'fi b5+ ll:lc6 9 'i!i'xc4
e5 10 ll:lf3 i.d6 1 1 d4 0-0 12 i.. e 3
i.f5 13 0-0-0 e4 14 ll:lg5 l:tc8 1 5
'ii'd5 ll:le7 1 6 'ii'b 3 b5 1 7 'ii'xb5 l:txc3
1 8 bxc3 h6 19 g4 i.d7 20 ll:lxf7
l:txf7 2 1 'ii'b 3 'fia5 22 l:thg1 i.a4 23
'i'k b2 l:tf8 24 �d2 l:tb8 25 'ii'a 1 ll:ld5
26 l:tb1 l:tc8 27 l:tb3 ll:lxc3 0- 1) 6
ll:lf3 (6 'i'kf3 e6 7 ll:lge2 i.e7 8 d4
ll:lxd4 9ll:lxd4 'i'kxd4 1 0 i.. f4 i.. d6 1 1
i.g3 gave White a fair amount of
play for the pawn in A.Femandes­
Shabalov, New York Open 1 993)
6 i.f5 7 d4 e6 and now:
..•
c 1 ) 8 0-0 i.e7 9 i.f4 0-0 1 0 d5
(the ' interesting' approach) 10 . . . exd5
1 1 ll:lxd5 ll:lxd5 1 2 'ffi xd5 'ifc8 1 3
ll:ld4 ll:lxd4 1 4 'ii'xd4 i.. f6 1 5 i.e5 c5
16 'ii'c 3 i. xe5 17 'ii'xe5 l:te8 18 'ii'c 3
"ir'c6 + J.Diaz-Nogueiras, Havana
Capablanca mem 1 992.
c2) 8 i. e3 i.e7 9 h3 ll:la5 1 0 'ii'e2
ll:lxb3 1 1 axb3 h6 1 2 ll:le5 c6 1 3 g4
i. h7 14 h4 ll:ld5 15 g5 i.f5 (alterna­
tively, 15 . . .ll:lb4) 1 6 gxh6 ll:lxe3 1 7
fxe3 i.. x h4+ (it becomes painfully
clear that White has been over-ambi­
ll:lf3 l:txh 1 21 l:txh 1 i.h6 22 b4 "ir'd6
23 b5 cxb5 24 l:txh6 gxh6 25 ll:le5
0-0-0 (25 . . . l:td8) 26ll:lxf7 'ii'c 6 27 d5
(27 'fixc6+) 27 . . . l:txd5+ 0- 1 Gluz­
man-Leko, Sydney 1 992.
3...
ll:le4
Since The Complete Alekhine was
published, there have been no devel­
opments of great note in the other
variations at B lack's disposal at this
point.
4 ll:lce2(D)
As discussed above, 4 ll:lxe4 gives
Black no problems, while allowing
an exchange on c3, most notably by
4 'ii'f3 ll:lxc3 5 dxc3, transposes to
lines in the next chapter. It is worth
mentioning that B lack should not

avoid this transposition : 4 'ii'f3 lDc6
allows White to secure a pleasant ad­
vantage with 5 lbxe4 lbd4 (the reply
5 . . . lbxe5 ?? loses a piece, for exam­
ple to 6 'ii'g 3 +-) 6 'ii'c 3 dxe4 7 lDe2
;!; (Adams).
4 d4
There have been virtually no re­
cent examples of 4 . . . f6.
It occurs to me that 4 lbc6 just
••.
might be worth considering, e.g. 5
d3 lbc5 6 d4 lbd7 or 5 d4 .tf5 6 f3
lbb4.
5 c3
5 lDf3 will just transpose, after
5 . . . lbc6 6 c3, to note ' a' to White's
6th move.
5
••. lDc6
It has been known for a long time
that the reply 5 dxc3 is not a blun­
..•
der, as once was claimed: 6 1lt'a4+
(apparently Black resigned at this
point in a game Grondechevsky­
Okhlin, Moscow 1 973, which may
have done much to perpetuate the
myth) 6 . . . lbd7 7 'iWxe4 lbc5 is at
least OK for Black. However, until
recently this was regarded as merely
a curiosity, since no one could make
White does not play 2 c5 1)
the position after 6 bxc3 work for
Black. For example, 6...lbc6? 7 d4
lDxe5 8 f3 lbc5 9 lDg3 leaves the
black knights well and truly forked.
Then Bagirov played the blindingly
simple 6 lbc5 7 d4 lbca6 8 lDf4 c6
...
9 lDf3 c5 1 0 .td3 cxd4 1 1 cxd4 .td7
12 0-0 lbb4 1 3 .te4 .tc6 14 'ii'e 2
i...e7 15 a3 lbd5 1 6 lDxd5 .txd5 1 7
.txd5 'ii'xd5 and secured a very rea­
sonable game in Niermann-Bagirov,
GieBen 1 99 3 . It is hard to believe
that Black can j ustify playing four
moves with his king's knight just for
it to end up on a6, but then White's
position is no picture of good organ­
isation either. If the positions in the
lines below are not to your taste, then
this line is worth careful investiga­
tion.
One thing Black must avoid is
5 ...c5?? 6 d3 . Just thought I'd better
mention that one !
6 cxd4
Two other moves should be con­
sidered here:
a) 6 lDf3 was claimed to be good
for White, but this is not so clear:
a1) 6 dxc3! ? 7 bxc3 feels like it
...
ought to be good for White, but
should be compared with the note to
Black's 5th move. The only practical
example hardly tested Black's idea:
7 . . . .tg4 8 d4 e6 9 h3 .th5 1 0 'ii'b3
l:tb8 1 1 g4 i... g 6 1 2 lDf4? lbxc3 0-1
(a distinctly premature resignation)
P.Maarten-J.Petrov, Halle U-20 Wch
1995.
a2) 6 .tg4 and now:
...
a21 ) 7 cxd4? ! .txf3 8 gxf3 l/!g5
9 .tg2 lbe6 10 f4 lbcxd4 II 1i'a4!
/0 White does not play 2 e5
(Stiazhkin-Levin, St. Petersburg
1992), and now Black should play
ll . . 'ii'd7 1 2 lDxd4 lLJxd4 13 'ii'xd7+
.
�xd7 14 .txb7 :b8 15 .te4. Ka­
l inichenko assessed this position as
favouring White, but 15 .. .f5 (intend­
ing . . . g6 and . . . .th6 hitting f4) 1 6
exf6 exf6 looks good for B lack, e.g.
17 �d 1 f5 18 .tg2 .td6 19 d3 l2Je6.
a22) 7l2Jexd4!? l2Jxe5 8 'ii'e2 'ii'd5
is a critical position:
a221 ) 9 'ii'h5+?! 'ii'xb5 10 .txb5+
l2Jd7 1 1 lDe5 l2Jf6 1 2 f3 .th5 1 3 g4
.tg6 14 g5 a6 15 .ta4 b5 1 6 l2Jxb5
axb5 17 .txb5 :as 1 8 a4 :xb5 1 9
l2Jxg6 fxg6 2 0 axb5 l2Jd5 2 1 :a8+
�f7 led to a win for Black in de la
Villa-Iruzubieta, Elgoibar 1995 .
a222) 9 l2Jb5! is Jiirgen Graf's
idea, against which it is difficult for
Black to achieve a decent game.
9 . . . 0-0-0 1 0 c4 (White's unnatural
but effective idea) 10 . . .'ii'e6 1 1 d4
l2Jd3+ (what else?) 1 2 'ii'x d3 l2Jg3+
13 .te2 lLJxh l 14 l2Jxa7+ �b8 15
l2Jb5 is good for White. My best shot
he re is 9 . J�c8 10 c4 'ii'e 6, when 1 1
. sen-Burgess, Arhus Festuge 1 992,
li'lbd4 .txf3 1 2 gxf3 'it'd? 1 3 'ii'xe4
'ii'xd4 141i'xb7 .l:td8 looks like com­
pensation, hut White has 11 'ii'xe4
.txf3 1 21i'e 3 ! it.h5 1 3 tt'lxa7 .l:f.d8 1 4
tt'lh5 l:td7, when Black's p o s i t i on is
harder to believe.
Barri n g any b r i gh t ideas, I rec om­
mend line 'al ' !
b) 6 l2J x d4 l2Jxd4 7 'ii'a4+ c6 8
'iVxd4 'iVxd4 9 cx d4 l2Jg5 10 .t c4
(D) is a very important alternative,
no less critical than our main line.
Black has the choice between two
main continuations:
B
bl) 10 l2Je6 1 1 lDe2 lLJc7 seems
.•.
sound:
bl l ) 12 a3 .te6 1 3 d3 .td5 with
compensation - Bagirov.
bl2) 12l2Jc3 .tf5 13 d5 (Vukovic­
Stoj anovic, Yugoslav Ch, Kladovo
1 992), and now 13 . . . b5 is necessary:
14 .tb3 ( 14 .te2 b4) 14 . . . b4 and now
15 lLJe2 lLJxd5 ( 1 5 . . . .te4 ! ?) 1 6 l2Jd4
.td7 is OK for Black.
bl3) 12 0-0 .te6 13 d3 0-0-0 1 4
f4 f5 1 5 .td2 .td5 1 6 :rei e 6 1 7
.l:f.c2 .te7 1 8 a4 �b8 1 9 :ac l :c8 20
.ta5 b6 2 1 .td2 �b7 22 �f2 :hd8
is quite OK for Black. In Aaes Niel­
my opponent lost his patience here
and lashed out with 23 l2Jc3 ? .txc4
24 dxc4 :xd4 25 .te3? :xc4 26 b3
:b4, leading to a won ending for
Black.
b2) 10 .tf5 is more fashionable,
.•.
but less proven:
b2 1 ) 1 1 d3 l2Je6 12 .te3 l2Jc7 1 3
l2Je2 b5 1 4 .tb3 e6 (14 ... .txd3 1 5 :c 1
.te4 may be viable, but Shabalov
doesn't want to give his opponent the
initiative; he will only regain the
pawn if and when he can do so with­
out making any concessions) 15 :c l

�d7 1 6ll'lf4 i.e7 (Black has organ­
ised his position and has a firm grip
on d5 ; he will now look for play on
board sides of the board) 1 7 �e2 a5
1 8 a4 g5 19 ll'lh3 h6 20 f3 ll'ld5 2 1
ll'lf2 ll'lb6 2 2 axb5 cxb5 2 3 ll'le4
l:thb8 24 ll'lc5+ �e8 25 g4 i.g6 26
h4 gxh4 27 f4 a4 28 i.a2 b4 29 l:tcfl
a3 30 i.b3 axb2 3 1 l:tb1 h5 32 d5 ?
(this is disastrous, underestimating
the power of Black's passed pawns ;
instead the continuation 32 g5 l:ta1
3 3 l:txa1 bxa1 'ii' 34 l:txa1 i.f5 looks
reasonable for Black, but no more
than that) 32 . . . hxg4 33 dxe6 g3 34
exf7+ i.xf7 35 i.xf7+ 'it>xf7 36
ll'le4 �e6 37 i.xb6 l:txb6 38 ll'lxg3
hxg3 39 l:th6+ �f5 40 l:txb6 l:ta1 0- 1
(one of the pawns will soon become
a queen) Reefschliiger- Shabalov,
Philadelphia 1992.
b22) llll'le2 is normal:
b22 1 ) ll ll'le6 12 d3 ll'lc7 13
•..
ll'lg3 i.e6 (not 13 ... i.g6? 14 f4 e6 15
0-0 intending f5 ±) is an odd idea,
presumably claiming that it is worth
losing a tempo with the bishop to
lure the knight to g3 . However, the
knight turns out to be not at all badly
placed:
b22 1 1 ) 14 i.e3 i.d5 ! 15 ll'le4
(this manoeuvre gives up more than
it achieves) 15 . . . e6 ( 1 5 .. .f5 ! ? is quite
a desirable move, made possible by
White's last move; Bagirov chooses
to hold the idea in reserve) 16 0-0
0-0-0 17 .l:bc l i.e7 18 i.g5 i.xg5
19 ll'lxg5 l:td7 20 i.xd5 ll'lxd5 ! (not
20 . . . cxd5 2 1 f4 i) 2 1 ll'le4 �b8 22
ll'ld6ll'lb6 23 f4 f5 (23 . . ll'lc8. 24 d5
liquidates to equality) 24 l:tf3 a6 ! 25
White does not play 2 t•5 II
'it>f2 ll'lc8 26 ll'lxc8 �xeS 27 llc4
'it>c7 28 l:tg3 b5 29 l:tc3 g6 gave
Black a pleasant ending in J.S 0ren­
sen-Bagirov, Berlin 1 992.
b22 1 2) 14 0-0 0-0-0 15 i.e3 i.d5
16 f4 (the fact that Black cannot
meet this with .. .f5 means that some­
thing has already gone wrong for
Black) 1 6 . . . e6 1 7 f5 l:td7 1 8 ll'le4
i.e7 19 fxe6 fxe6 20 l:tf3 ± J.S0ren­
sen-Kindl, Berlin 1 992.
b222) ll bS (I prefer this move)
•..
1 2 i.b3 0-0-0 1 3 a4 b4 14 d3 (White
meekly returns the pawn; 14 i.c4
ll'le6 { 14 . . . i.e6?? drops the knight to
1 5 i.a6+ 'i;c7 1 6 h4ll'le4 1 7 f3 } 1 5
0-0 ll'lxd4 1 6ll'lxd4 .l:hd4 1 7 i.xf7
gives White an extra pawn, but acti­
vating his queenside will be a major
task ! ) 14 . . ll'le6
. 15 i.e3 i.xd3 1 6
i.xe6+ fxe6 1 7ll'lf4 i.f5 1 8 �e2 g5
1h-1h Vavra-Konopka, Prague 1 992.
6 ... ll'lgS
7 f4
The main alternative here is 7
'ii'a4, hanging onto the pawn for
grim life. It used to be thought that
B lack had to reply 7 . . . a6, so as to be
ready to break the pin with . .. b5, but
several other moves have popped up:
a) 7 g6, 7 f6 and 7 i.fS are all
•.• •.. •.•
awaiting investigation.
b) 7 'ii'd7? ! 8 'ii'c4 a6 and now
..•
rather than 9 f4 b5 10 'ii'c 3 ( 1 0 'it'b3
ll'le6 1 1 d5) 10 . . ll'le6
. 1 1 ll'lf3 g6 1 2
d 3 i.b7 1 3 i.e3 which led to a fairly
standard type of position (for this
opening variation anyway ! ) in Bur­
gess-Tatari, Danish League 1992/3,
9 dSll'lxe5 10 'it'd4 'it'f5 l l ll'lg3 '*'f6
12 'ii'c 3 seems to win White a piece.
12 Whit£' does not play 2 e5
c) 7 �d7 8 f4 lLle6 9 d5 lLlc5 10
...
'ikc4 lLl b4 looks OK for Black:
c 1 ) 11 lLlg3 e6 12 d6 lLlca6 will
give Black excellent compensation
for the pawn.
c2) 11 lLld4 e6 1 2 dxe6 ( 1 2 d6
cxd6 works very nicely for Black)
1 2 . . .lLlxe6 and now 13 li)b3 b5 1 4
'ii'c 3 li)xf4 15 d4li)fd5 leaves White
in desperate trouble, while 13 li)ge2
c5 gives Black superb play.
d) 7 ... a6 8 f4 li)e6 9 li)f3 bS 10
'ii'c2 �b7 1 1 'ii'c3 g6 12 d3 ( 1 2 l:tg1
'ii'd 5 13 g3 b4 14 'i!Vd3 l:td8 1 5 �g2
'i¥c5 16 'i!Ve4 'ii'b6 17 'i!Ve3li)cxd4 1 8
li)fxd4 li)xd4 1 9 li)xd4 �xg2 20
l:txg2, H.Madsen-Burgess, Funen Ch
(Bellinge) 1 99 1 , 20 . . . l:txd4 21 b3 e6
22 �b2 �c5 23 �xd4 �xd4 24 'ii'e4
i.xa1 25 1\Va8+ cJ;d7 26 'ii'x h8 'fi'c6
and White must play carefully to
avoid being worse) 12 ... �g7 13 �e3
0-0 14 li)g3 �h6 15 li)e2 'ii'dS 16
'it'd2 b4 (16 ...'ii'd 7 is the only other
way to stop li)c3, but is too passive)
and now:
d 1) 17 'ii'c 1 is Fritz's suggestion,
intending 'ifc4, and is best answered
by 17 ...f6 :
d 1 1 ) 18 'iWc4 'ifxc4 ( 1 8 . . . l:t ad8 is
simpler) 19 dxc4 fxe5 20 d5 li)cd4
will boil down to an ending, e.g. 2 1
�xd4 (2 1 li)exd4 li)xd4 22 li)xd4
exd4 23 �xd4 l:f.xf4 looks good for
Black) 2l . . .li)xd4 22li)exd4 exd4 -
this should be OK for Black.
d 1 2) 18 exf6 exf6 gives Black an
excellent game - as this exchange
generally does with this formation.
After 19 'ii'c4 l:tad8 20 'ii'xd5 l:txd5
21 g3 Black has many possibilities,
including the direct 2 1 .. .l:td6 22 �g2
li)cxd4, when 23 li)exd4 li)xd4 24
i.xd4 i.xf3 25 �xf3 l:txd4 gives
Black a good ending, and 23 �xd4
J.xf3 is the same.
d2) 17 h4 f6 1 8 h5 (after 1 8 Ah3
l:tad8 Black intends . . .fxe5 , regain­
ing a pawn however White replies;
then 1 9 h5 g5 looks entirely playable
for Black) and now 18 g5 is Fritz's
.•.
preference, and seems logical - after
1 9 fxg5 fxg5 it is far from clear what
White's next move might be. Instead
the game Zapolskis-Kaunas, Riga Z
1 995 continued in very interesting,
but unconvincing fashion: 18 fxe5 .••
1 9 dxe5 ( 1 9 hxg6) 1 9 ... g5 20 fxg5
l:txf3 21 gxf3li)xe5 22li)g1 �g7 23
h6 (23 l:th4 looks good for White
now or on the next move - how does
Black continue?) 23 . . . �h8 24 l:tc 1
l:td8 25 d4 'it'xf3 26 l:t h3 'ife4 27
'ii'c 2 l:txd4 28 1'i'xe4 l:txe4 29 cJ;d2
l:tg4 30 �e2 l:tg2 3 1 cJ;e 1 cJ;f7 32
Ac2li)g4 33 �a7 c5 34li)f3li)e3 35
l:td2 cJ;f8 36 l:td7 i.c6 37 l:td2 �e4
38 l:th2 li)c2+ 39 l:txc2 l:txh2 40
li)xh2 �xc2 and Black went on to win
this ending.
7 li)e6
8 lt)f3 li)exd4
9 li)exd4 li)xd4
10 'ifa4+ li)c6
1 1 i.bS i.d7
Instead Black may try ll .. 'it'dS
.
1 2 i.c4 ! (or 1 2 0-0 i.d7 intending
. ..li)xe5 , which is unclear according
to Stoica) 1 2 . . . 'ii'e4+ 1 3 �f2 e6 1 4
d 4 i.d7 1 5 l:te l , despite Stoica's ±
assessment, since 15 . . . 'fi'f5 seems
absolutely fine for Black. I thought

this was a critical improvement until
I asked the opinion of a silicon friend
- see the note to Black's 1 3th move !
12 e6
This move has generally been
adorned with an exclamation mark,
but perhaps, in view of the note to
Black's 1 3th move, the opposite is in
order. Instead 12 f5 could be tried,
but it offers no advantage if Black re­
sponds precisely:
a) 12 i.xf5? ! 1 3 lL'ld4 i.d7 1 4
.•.
lL'lxc6 bxc6 1 5 i.xc6 i s similar to the
game, except that White has a pawn
on e5 instead of f4, and has avoided
the variation 1 3 .. . 'it'd5 ! .
b ) 1 2... e6 1 3 fxe6 fxe6 1 4 0-0
might offer White something since
14 . . . i.c5+ 15 d4 i.xd4+ 1 6 lt'Jxd4
lt'Jxd4 17 i.xd7+ 'it'xd7 1 8 'ti'xd7+
�xd7 1 9 llf7+ �c6 20 i.e3 looks
risky for Black.
c) 12...a6! 1 3 e6 axb5 14 exd7 +
�xd7 1 5 'Wxb5 �c8 looks fine for
Black.
12 ... i.xe6
12 ... fxe6 1 3 'it'e4 was assessed as
± by Stoica, but I am not convinced
that 1 3 . . .lt'Ja5 ( 1 3 . . . g6? 14lt'Jg5 e5 1 5
1\Vd5 1Wc8 1 6 fxe5 e 6 1 7 1li'f3 i.e7,
W.Watson-Neil, British Ch (Nor­
wich) 1 994, and now 1 8 'ii'f7+ �d8
1 91Wg7 l:tf8 20 lL'lxh7 is simple and
strong- Pein) 14 i.xd7+ 'it'xd7 1 5
lt'Jg5 e5 16 fxe5 lL'lc6 i s i n White's fa-
vour.
13 lt'Je5 i.d7
Here Fritz came up with the star­
tling resource 13.. .'ii'd 5 ! (D).
This is the sort of move computers
find far more easily than humans -
White does not play 2 e5 13
once they have analysed a few moves
deep and seen that Black does not
lose a piece, there is nothing to put
them off the idea. Here's how the
analysis works out:
a) 14 0-0 is not a problem for
Black:
al) 14 . i.d7 15 lL'lxd7 1Wxd7 is
. .
greedy, and may offer White danger­
ous compensation, but it's entirely
conceivable that Black's defensive
resources are sufficient (read: Fritz
found an answer to everything I tried
for White here ! )
a2) 1 4 ..a 6 1 5 i.xc6+ bxc6 1 6
.
'it'xc6+ (of course not 1 6 lt'Jxc6??
i.d7) 16 ... 'iixc6 17 lL'lxc6 i.d5 gives
Black risk-free winning chances ow­
ing to his bishop-pair.
b) 14 lt'Jxc6 i.d7 miraculously
recovers the piece:
b l ) 15 lt'Jd4 c6 and here are a
couple of sample variations: 16 i. e2
b5 17 lL'lxb5 (White cannot hold on
to the knight) 17 ... cxb5 gives Black a
pleasant game; 16 i. c4 'ir'xg2 ! 1 7
llfl b 5 1 8 lL'lxb5 'i!Ve4+ 1 9 � f2 (only
move) 19 . . . 'ihf4+ 20 'ite 1 1We4+ is
good for Black, who could obvi­
ously take a draw if he wished.
14 White does not play 2 e5
b2) 15 t&.a7 c6 16 .te2 'iVcS and
Black will round up the horse, with a
comfortable game.
14 t'!Jxc6 bxc6
15 .txc6 e6
16 0-0
Stoica proposed 16 b3!, intending
.tb2, as keeping a small advantage.
16 ... .te7 (D)
16 .tcS+ is Fritz's suggestion,
•••
which has the merit of not obstruct­
ing the black king.
17 d4
17 fS is a better try, since while
the move d2-d4 may fit in with many
of White's attacking ideas, in others
the bishop will find activity on b2 or
a3. For instance:
a) 17 e5? 18 d4 exd4 must be
•••
very good for White, who even has a
choice:
a1) 19lld1 .txc6 20 'ii'xc6+ �f8
21 .te3 is simple and strong.
a2) 19 f6! ? .txf6 (19 . . . gxf6) 20
l:.xf6 'iVxf6 21 .txd7+ �f8 is not too
clear.
a3) 19 l:.e1 threatens b3 and .ta3,
amongst other things. Then 19 ... .:.bs
is best, since 20 f6 gxf6 21 b3 can be
met by 21....:.b6 22 .txd7+ 'iVxd7 23
.ta3 :e6.
b) 17 exf5 18 b3 llb8 19 .tb2
.••
(19 llxf5 0-0 20 .txd7 llb4 21 'Wxa7
'ii'xd7 22 'iff2 .l:r.d4 gives Black
plenty of pressure for the pawn)
19 . . . f6 (otherwise Black's pawns
will be rather weak, for example
19 ... .:.b4 20 .txd7+ 'ii'xd7 21 'ii'xd7+
'it>xd7 22 .txg7) and now White has
a pleasant plus after either 20 l:ac1
or 20 .:.xf5.
17 llb8
18 f5 exf5
.•. , 19 .:.xr5 f6?
Bagirov misses his chance to
equalise: 19 ... 0-0! is possible, based
on the trick 20 .txd7 .l:r.b4 21 'ii'c6
(alternatively 41 'ii'xa7 'ii'xd7 is quite
poor for White, with his queen short
of squares, and the d-pawn loose)
21. ..l:.b6 when White must either re­
peat moves or surrender the extra
bishop.
20 .:.d5
Now Black is in deep trouble. The
game concluded as follows:
20 ....td6 21.tf4.txc6 22 'ii'xc6+
1i'd7 23lle1+ �d8 24 'ii'a6 .l:r.e8 25
ltc1 ! .l:r.e6 26 1i'xa7lbb2 27 'ii'a8+
cl;e7 28 1i'g8 .:.ee2 29 'Wxg7+ �e8
30 'it'g8+ �e7 31llg5! +- .txf4 32
.l:r.g7+ �d6 33 :Xd7+ �d7 34 'ii'g4+
1-0
Conclusion
It's not clear where White's best
chance of advantage after 1 e4 lbf6 2
lbc3 d5 3 e5 lbe5 4 lbce2 d4 lies. My
gut feeling is that 5 c3 lbc6 6 lbxd4
lbxd4 7 'Wa4+ should be the best try.
2 2 e5 ttJdS Miscellaneous
The most important system for
White in this chapter is 3 lDc3, offer­
ing an exchange of knights to gain
time either for rapid development
(3 . . ltJxc3 4 dxc3) or to construct a
. 2 ..ib2 lZ'lf6 3 e4 ..ig7 4 e5 lt'ld5 .
pawn centre (3 . . . lbxc3 4 bxc3). Most
Alekhine players choose to answer
hoth ideas with 4 . . . d5 , stabilising the
centre and looking to the long term
to make use of White's weakened
pawns. In the last few years there
have been no new developments that
should dissuade Black from this ap­
proach.
Game 2
Adams- Agdestein
Oslo Challenge (2) 1994
1 e4 lDf6 2 eS lt'ldS (D)
w
3 lt'lc3
There are various odds and ends
worth rounding up here:
a) The weird line 3 b3 g6 4 ..ib2
..ig7 occurred in Morozevich-Van
der Wiel, Til burg 1993, by transposi­
tion from the equally strange 1 b3 g6
Then 5 d4 d6 6 lZ'lf3 0-0 7 c4 lZ'lf4 8
'iid 2 dxe5 9 lt'lxe5 ..ixe5 1 0 dxe5
'iix d2+ 1 1 �xd2lZ'lc6 12 �e3 lt'le6
gave Black a sound position. Play
continued in crazy fashion: 1 3 lt'lc3
lt'lxe5 1 4 lt'ld5 lt'lg4+ 15 �f3 f5 1 6
c 5 lt'lg5+ 1 7 �f4 lt'le4 1 8 lt'lxe7+
�f7 1 9lZ'lxc8lt'lgxf2 20 ..ic4+ �e8
2 1 .l:the 1 .l:txc8 22 c6 b5 23 ..ixb5
.l:td8 24 ..ia3 .l:tf6 25 �f3 lt'ld3 26
.l:te3lt'le5+ 27 �f4 .l:td5 -+.
b) 3 lt'lf3 d6 4 ..ic4 c6 5 lDc3 g6 6
0-0 dxe5 (more logical than 6 . . lt'lb6,
.
as played by Grigorian against Keres
- see TCA) 7 lt'lxe5 1Lg7 8 d4 ..ixe5
9 dxe5 lt'lxc3 10 'iix d8+ �xd8 1 1
bxc3 ..ie6 1 2 ..ixe6 fxe6 (this looks
tenable for Black) 1 3 llb1 b6 14 .l:tb4
/
c5 15 .l:th4lZ'lc6 16 ..ih6 l:1g8 17 ..ig5
h5 1 8 .l:td 1 + �c7 19 'i!i>fl .l:r.ad8 20
l:hd8 �xd8 2 1 .l:.e4 l:1f8 1/z-1/z Keres­
V.Mikenas, USSR Club Ch (Tallinn)
1 964.
c) 3 ..ic4 is a move that must be
taken seriously, since the generally
recommended reply 3 . . lt'lb6
. 4 ..ib3
c5 is likely to dump Black straight
into what is currently the main line
of the c3 Sicilian if White continues
5 c3 -lt'lf3 and ...lZ'lc6 will make the
16 2 e5li:Jd5 Miscellaneous
transposition complete. Assuming
that keeping up to date with a main
line just in case you reach it via a very
rare transposition isn't your idea of
fun, it makes sense to play some­
thing else. The following lines are
my suggestions:
c 1 ) 3 c6 makes a good deal of
•••
sense if you meet 3 d4 d6 4 .llc4 with
4 . . .c6.
c2) 3 li::J b6 4 .ll b 3 (D) and now
•••
Black can play:
B
c2 1 ) 4 d5 is sound, if a little dull
•••
- see TCA.
c22) 4 d6 is a standard move.
•••
Then S d4 transposes to 3 d4 d6 4
.tc4 li::Jb 6 S .tb3, while S li::Jf3 is a
position discussed in TCA via the
move-order 3 li::Jf3 d6 4 .tc4 li::Jb6 S
.tb3. Black has a number of reason­
able continuations, of which S . . . cS is
the most dynamic. Note that White
does not have time to reach the c3 Si­
cilian line that Black is trying to
avoid, since 6 exd6? c4 would be very
embarrassing, while 6 c3? ! c4 forces
the game into obscure territory: 7
.txc 4 li::J x c4 8 'ii'a4+ li::Jc 6 9 'ii'xc4
dxeS or 7 .t c2 dxeS 8 li::JxeS 'ii'dS.
c23) 4 li::Jc6 S d4li::J a5 ! ? 6 f4 d6
...
7 c4li::Jx b3 8 axb3 gave rise to an un­
usual variety of Four Pawns Attack
in Xheladini-A.G.Panchenko, B ern
1 994. Then 8 . . . dxeS 9 fxeS cS 10 dS
e6 1 1 li::Jc 3 exdS 12 cxdS 'iih4+ 1 3
g 3 'iid4 1 4 li::Jf3 'iix d 1 + l S �xd 1
.tg4 gave B lack a very satisfactory
position.
d) 3 g3 has been popularised by
Rozentalis, who also introduced 1
e4 cS 2 c3 li::Jf6 3 eS li::JdS 4 g3 into
grandmaster practice. After 3 d6 4 •••
exd6 Black has tried three moves:
d 1 ) 4 'ii'xd6 S i.g2 g6 6 d4 c6 7
•••
li::Jf3 'ii'e6+ 8 'ii'e2 'i!Vxe2+ 9 �xe2
.tfS = 10 c4? ! li::Jb4 l lli::Je 1 ? ! li::Jxa2 !
1 2 .td2 ltla6?? 1 3 l:t.xa2 and White
wins, Ulfarsson-Halldorsson, Haf­
narfjordur 1 99S.
d2) 4 cxd6 S .tg2 lLlf6? ! (Sha­
•••
balov felt that S . . .li::Jb 6 6 a4 ! ? ltlc6 7
aS lLld7 8 a6 'ii' b 6 was unclear) 6 d4
g6 7 c4 .tg7 8 ltlc3 0-0 9 lLlge2 lLlc6
10 0-0 (incredibly, the game has
transposed to a line of the English, 1
c4 cS 2 ltlc3 ltlc6 3 g3 g6 4 .tg2
.tg7 S e3 lLlf6 6 ltlge2 0-0 7 0-0 d6 8
d4 cxd4 9 exd4, that is very difficult
for Black) 10 . . . .tg4 ( 1 0 . . . a6 intend­
ing . . . .td7 and . . . l:t.b8 could be bet­
ter) 1 1 .te3 'i'd7 12 f3 ! ? .th3 1 3 dS
.!Des 14 b3 .txg2 1S �xg2 gave White
a substantial advantage in Rozen­
talis-Yermolinsky, Rakvere 1 993.
d3) 4 exd6 S .tg2 lLlf6 6 d4 (6
•••
li::Jf3 'iie 7+ 7 'ii'e2 c6 8 li::Jc 3 ltla6
gave Black full equality in the game
Disconzi da Silva-Lima, Brazilian
Ch (Brasilia) 1 99S) 6 . . . dS 7 .!Df3
.te7 8 0-0 .tfS (8 . . . 0-0 9lDeS.!Llbd7

10 ltJc3 c6 1 1 f4 ltJxe5 1 2 fxe5 ltJe8
13 'ii' h5 ;!;; Rozentalis-Appel, Bun­
dcsliga 1 993/4) 9 ltJh4 .i.e6 1 0 f4
0-0 l l f5 .i.c8 1 2 ltJc3 c5 13 dxc5
.i.xc5+ 14 'ifi>h 1 d4 15 ltJa4 i.e7 1 6
c 3 dxc3 112-112 Kuczynski-Bagirov,
Bundesliga 1 993/4.
3 ••. ltJxc3
3 ...e6 4 d4 d6 is reckoned to be a
little dubious as B lack has problems
linding a reply to 5 ttJf3. Still, I can't
resist giving the following game: 5
li\xdS exd5 6 ltJf3 ltJc6 7 .i.f4 dxe5 8
dxc5 (8 ltJxe5 'ii'e7) 8 . . . .i.e7 9 'ii'd 2
0-0 10 0-0-0 (maybe the wrong side
for the king) 10 . . . i.e6 1 1 i.b5 (after
II ltJg5 i.f5 1 2 g4 ..ltxg4, the pawn
on c5 hangs) 1 1 ...ltJb4 ! 12 a3 a5 ! 1 3
h4 (White declines the sacrifice, only
to be forced to accept it two moves
later in worse circumstances) 1 3 . . . c5
14 ltJ g5 .i.f5 15 axb4 ( 1 5 c3?? allows
mate, while after 15 ..ltd3 ltJxd3+
Black's attack plays itself) 15 . . . axb4
16 'ii'e 2 c4 17 'iti>d2 ( 17 i.xc4 .l:ta1 +
I H 'iti>d2 dxc4+) 1 7 . . . 'ii' b6 1 8 .i.xc4
dxc4 19 .i.e3 'ii'a5 20 'ii'xc4 .l:tac8 2 1
'Wlff4 i.xc2 2 2 .l:tc 1 (22 .l:ta1 'iWd5+)
22 ... b3+ 23 'ifi>e2 'ii' b 5+ 24 'ifi>e 1 .l:tc4
0-1 S.Madsen-Granberg, Danishcorr.
Ch 1 9 8 1 (comments based on notes
hy Niels Granberg).
4 dxc3
4 bxc3, is also normally answered
nowadays by the solid 4 ... d5:
a) 5 d4 .i.f5 (5 . . . c5 is preferable)
6 ltJe2 (6 .i.d3 e6? ! 7 ..ltxf5 exf5 8
'ii'f3 'ii'd7 9 ltJe2 .i.e7 1 0 0-0 0-0 1 1
ltJg3 g6 1 2 .i.h6 .:tc8 1 3 ltJh5 'iWd8
14 e6 ± B aturinsky-Zhukhovitsky,
Gorky 1 93 8 - no 'new ideas ' here,
2 e5 0.d5 Miscellaneous 17
but the game is worth mentioning
due to the later notoriety of the
player with the white pieces) 6 ... e6 7
ltJg3 .i.g6 8 f4 ltJc6 9 .l:tb1 ltJa5 1 0
.i.d3 'ii'd7 1 1 0-0 0-0-0 1 2 f5 exf5 1 3
ltJxf5 ltJc4 1 4 'iWf3;!;; Pakkanen-Ba­
burin, Helsinki 1 992.
b) 5 f4 c5 6 ltJf3 ltJc6 7 d4 .i.g4 8
..lte2 e6 9 0-0 .i.e7 1 0 h3 .i.h5 1 1
.l:tb1 'ii'c7 1 2 .i.e3 c4 1 3 g4 .i.g6 1 4
ltJ e 1 f6 ( 1 4 . . . .i.e4 ! ? and 1 4 . . . f5 both
look good) 15 f5 .i.f7 16 exf6 gxf6?!
( 1 6 . . . i.xf6) 17 fxe6 .i.xe6 1 8 ltJg2
0-0-0 19 ltJf4 .i.f7 20 ..ltf3 'ii'a5 2 1
"ii'd2 ;!;; Yudasin-Ehlvest, Biel IZ 1993.
4 ... d5
4 d6 is the alternative, when 5
•••
..ltf4 ltJc6 6 ltJf3 is not so bad as the
three miniatures below suggest:
a) 6 dxe5 7 'ii'x d8+ ltJxd8 8
•••
.i.xe5 c6 9 0-0-0 f6 10 .i.c7?! ( 1 0
.i.d3) 1 0 . . . .i.g4 1 1 .i.c4 e5 1 2 .:the 1
i.e7 1 3 .l:td2 ltJe6 1 4 ltJxe5 fxe5 1 5
i.xe5 h 5 1 6 ..ltxe6 i.xe6 1 7 .i.d6
.l:th6 1 8 .i.e5 'ifi>f7 19 f4 .i.f6 20 .l:td6
l:te8 2 1 h3 .i.f5 22 l:tfl h4 0- 1
L.Hiibner-Baburin, Berlin 1 992.
b) 6 .i.g4 7 .i.b5 a6 8 .i.xc6+
•••
bxc6 9 h3 .i.h5 10 g4 .i.g6 1 1 'ii'e 2
e6 12 0-0-0 d5 (this position ought to
be quite reasonable for White) 13 h4
h5 14 .:tdg1 'ii' b 8 15 ltJd2 hxg4 1 6
'Wxg4 'ii'b 5 17 .i.g5 .l:tb8 1 8 b3? 'ii'a5
1 9 ltJc4 'Wxc3 0- 1 Rahls-Bagirov,
Kusadasi 1 990.
c) 6 .'ii'd7 !? (intending . . . 'ii' f5) 7
.•
.i.b5 (7 .i.d3) 7 . . . a6 8 .i.a4 b5 9 .i.b3
'Wf5 10 .i.d5 .i.b7 1 1 g3? dxc5 12
ltJxe5 0-0-0! 13 0-0 ( 1 3 'it'f3 llxd5 ! )
1 3 . . . g5 !? (or 1 3 . . . e6 14 ltJxc6 llxd5!)
14 c4 ( 1 4 'ii' f3 lhd5 15 'it'xd5 gxf4
18 2 e5 0.d5 Miscellaneous

1 6 'Wixf7 'W/xe5 17 'W/e8+ 0.d8 1 8 12 h5 0.a6

l:tad 1 i.d5 ; 14 i.xc6 l:txd 1 1 5 1Ifxd 1 Adams suggested the more natu­
.txc6 1 6 0.xc6 gxf4 1 7 l:td8+ 'iti>b7 ral 12 0.c6, but the text, with which
..•

1 8 0.a5+ 'iti>a7 ! 1 9 0.c6+ 'iti>b6 -+) the knight eyes the c5-square, cer­
14 ... bxc4 15 0.xf7 l:txd5 16 'Wih5 gxf4 tainly has its points.
1 7 'iixf5+ l:txf5 1 8 0.xh8 .tg7 and 13 0.h4 .th7
Black won shortly in a computer After the game Agdestein sug­
game Fidelity-Mephisto. gested the move 13 .te4 as a possi­
...

5 'Wif3 ble improvement because if White

It is worth mentioning, for the
sake of historical accuracy, that the
game actually reached this position
via the move-order 1 e4 0.f6 2 0.c3
d5 3 e5 0.e4 4 'Wif3 0.xc3 5 dxc3 .
5
... c6
Adams suggests 5 0.c6, which
..•
looks fairly sensible.
6 .if4
After 6 .id3 Adams pointed out
the variation 6 . . . 0.d7 ! 7 e6 (7 .tf4
0.c5 ) 7 . . . 0.e5 8 exf7+ 0.xf7 9 c4 e5
10 cxd5 cxd5 with the point that 1 1
.ib5+ .td7 1 2 'ii'xd5 ?? loses a piece
to 1 2 . . . 'ifa5+.
6 ... i. f5
The following miniature demon­
strates that White's opening should
be treated with respect: 6 'Wia5 7
.••
replies with f3 , then the lateral de­
fence along the third rank with l:th3
is no longer possible.
14 'W/g4!
Adams hits e6 in preparation for a
possible 0.g6. This is better than
either the premature 14 0.g6 fxg6 15
hxg6 .ig8 or 14 .td3 .txd3 1 5 cxd3
c4 when Black has an attack - Adams.
14 ... b4
15 i.d2
White cannot afford to ignore the
gathering storm on the queenside .
15 c4 (D)
w

.td3 g6 8 'iVg3 .ie6 9 0.f3 c5 10 0.g5

'it'b6 1 1 0-0-0 h6 1 2 0.xf7 .txf7 1 3
e6 'ii'xe6 1 4 .ixb8 .tg7 1 5 l:the 1
'ii'c 6 1 6 .ib5 'iix b5 1 7 l:txe7+ <li>f8
1 8 'iif4 1 -0 Buturin-Hudecek, Par­
dubice 1 995.
7 0-0-0 e6
8 'W/g3 h6 Threatening . . . b3 and total devas­
9 h4 'W/a5 tation.
10 'iti>b1 b5! 16 0.g6!
B lack wishes to rule out any ideas This attacking move is also a de­
White may have had of playing c4. fensive necessity !
11 0.f3 c5 16 ..• l:tb8

16...fxg6? 17 'ii' xe6+ is a massa-
cre: 17 ...i..e7 (or 17 ...�d818i..g5+)
18 hxg6 i..g8 19 'iVc6+, etc.
16...b3 is recommended by Fritz:
17 axb3 cxb3 18 cxb3 li:Jc7 defend­
ing e6 in preparation for grabbing
the knight.
17 l:.b3
17 li:Jxh8? is best answered by
17 bxc3 since after 18i..c 1, Black
...
mates: 18...l:.xb2+ 19 i..xb2 'it'b4.
17 cxb4 could well be necessary
in view of the next note.
17 ... i..e7?
17 'ii' b6 was Agdestein's sug­
•••
gested improvement immediately
after the game:
a) 18li:Jxrs? b3 -+.
b) 18 li:Jxh8? b3 19 'it>a1 bxc2 20
.i.e 1 and now, as previous annotators
failed to mention, Black has a beau­
tiful forced mate: 20...'it'xb2+!! 21
.i.xb2 .ta3!! 22i..xa3 l:.b1+ 23 :Xb1
cxb1'W#.
c) 18 i..e3 i.. cS (D) and now
there are four lines:
w
c1) 19li:Jxh8 bxc3 20 b3 cxb3 21
'Wa4+ �f8 22 axb3 'ii'xb3+ 23 'ii'xb3
:xb3+ 24 �a2 l:.a3+ 25 �b1 .txc2+
2 e5lhd5 Miscellaneous 19
26 'it>xc2 li:Jb4+ 27 �b1 c2+ wins
nicely for Black.
c2) 19 i..xcS li:Jxc5 20 cxb4 (20
li:Jxh8 bxc3) 20...1i'xb4 21 b3 cxb3
(2l...fxg6!?) 22 'ii' xb4 and now
22 lbb4 seems the simplest win,
•••
but 22...bxc2+ 23 'it>xc2 l::txb4 24 �c3
a5 25 li:Jxh8li:Je4+ 26 �c2 li:Jxf2+
27 i..d3 li:Jxd3 might also be good
enough.
c3) 19i..xc4(Fritz) 19 ...dxc4 20
l:.d6 (20 .txc5 li:Jxc5) 20...1i'b7 21
i..xc5 (21 l::t xe6+ fxe6 22 1Vxe6+ is
also inadequate) 2l...li:Jxc5 22li:Jxh8
bxc3 -+.
c4) 19 cxb4 i..xe3 (19...1i'xb4 20
i..c1!?) 20 l:.xe3 (20li:Jxh8 'ii'x b4 2 1
b 3 cxb3 forces mate) 2 0...'ii'xb4 21
b3 cxb3 22 'Wxb4 bxc2+ 23 'it>xc2
li:Jxb4+ and ...fxg6 leaves Black a
piece to the good.
d) 18 .ixc4 is less effective than
in the game, and can be met by
18...dxc4, when 19li:Jxb8 b3 is still
devastating, while 19 i..e3 i..c5
transposes to 18i..e3 i..c5 19 i..xc4
dxc4, analysed above.
e) 18 i..cl "maybe best, since af­
ter 18...fxg6 19 hxg6 i..g8 Black has
problems developing, but White's
position isn't inspiring"- Tisdall.
18 i..xc4!
After this bold sacrifice White is
no longer in danger, and indeed it is
Black who must be careful.
18 dxc4
19 'i'xc4 (D)
19 ... 'it'cS
19 i..xg6!? is an interesting op­
•••
tion: 20 'Wc6+ (20 hxg6!?) io...�f8
21 hxg6 Wbs 22 'i'f3(22 'ii'xb5 .:Xb5
20 2 e5 lbd5 Miscellaneous

23 l:.f3 with compensation - Adams) 24 l:.f3 lbd2+

22 . . . f5 (22 . . .'ife8 ! ?) 23 exf6 (23 g4 ! ?) 24 i.f5 can be met by either 25
•.•

23 . . . i.xf6 24 i.xh6 and now rather lbxf7 ! or 25 l:.f4 ! - White wins in

than 24 'ifi>g8? 25 i.f4 +-, 24 'iff5
•.• •.. both cases.
should be tried, e.g. 25 'ifc6 l:.xh6 25 i.xd2 l:.d8
(25 ... bxc3 26 'ifxa6 seems surpris­ 25 . . . cxd2 is answered by 26 'iti>b2.
ingly good for White) 26 'ifxa6 l:.e8 26 lbxf7 l:.xd2 27 l:.cl i.a3 28
looks OK for Black. lbd6+ 'ifi>d7 29 l:.xc3 ! i.xc1 30
20 'ifxc5 lbxc5 'iti>xcl l:.xf2 3 1 g4 l:.g2 32 l:.c4 l:.e2
21 lbxh8 lbe4 33 l:.c5 l:.g2 34 lbb5 l:.xg4 35 l:.c7 +
22 i.e1 bxc3 'iti>d8 36 l:.xa7 +- l:.g5 37 lbd4 'ifi>c8
23 b3 (D) 38 lbxe6 l:.xh5 39 l:.xg7 i.e4 40
23 i.b4? l:.g8+ 1-0
Now White is winning. Black had
to try 23 i.f5 when White needs to
•.. Conclusion
be prepared to give back the ex­ Every Alekhine player should know
change, for example 24 l:.f3 i.g4 25 how to face the lines in this chapter,
lbxf7 i.xh5 ! 26 lbd6+ lbxd6 27 since they are far from innocuous.
exd6 i.xf3 28 gxf3 i.f6 29 d7+ 'ifi>e7 Particularly lines with i.c4 deserve
30 l:td3 , which Adams assessed as attention - don't get move-ordered
equal. against your will into a c3 Sicilian !
3 Chase Variation

This is rather a quirky system. White
d1arges his c-pawn up the board to
L·), an d while this costs no tempi
(since meanwhile Black is playing
.. li1d5 -b6-d5), it is hard to see how
1 his can improve his position. There
arc glaring holes on d3, d4 and d5,
and t he pawn will become exposed
on c5 . In fact, the first time I read
about Alekhine's Defence in some
general book, 4 c5 was given a ques-
1 ion mark, with the explanation that
Black's knight could return to the
centre .. .
So what is White's idea? The in­
iiiat point is that White will argue
I hat the d5-knight is a target, and so
I he c5-pawn's real role is in cutting
oil th e knight's retreat. Eventually
Black will have to resolve the ques-
1 ion of the d5-knight - if by ex­
d�anging knights on c3, then this
will open lines for White, quicken­
lllg h is development.
The pawn on c5 itself may also
prove a tasteless morsel if Black
grahs it by . . . e6 and . . . �xc5 , if White
··an gain time on the bishop and at­
lack the dark squares it has neglected
• •n th e king side. If Black plays . . . d6
or ... b6, then an exchange of pawns
will open lines.
Black must not underestimate
1 he Chase Variation. Some precise
knowledge is essential, as intricate
tactics are the rule, rather than the
exception. The conclusion at the mo­
ment is that B lack has nothing to fear
in the critical lines, but strong nerves
are definitely required, with a sense
of the bizarre a desirable optional ex­
tra!
Game 3
Sveshnikov - Khmelnitsky
Sibenik 1 990
1 e4 tllf6 2 e5 tlld5
3 c4 lllb6
4 c5 llld5 (D)
w
5 .tc4
5 lllc3 is the main alternative:
a) 5...e6 6 d4 gives B lack the
problem of avoiding a line of the c3
Sicilian (which could easily arise
after 6 . . .d6 7 cxd6 cxd6). One idea is
6 . . . lllxc3 7 bxc3 b6 8 cxb6 (8 'ii'g4? !
bxc5 9 .tg5 ? ! .te7 10 .txe7 'ii'xc7
22 Chase Variation
1 1 'il/xg7 l::t f8 is good for Black due
to his central control) 8 . . . axb6 9 li'lf3
(9 'ifg4?!) 9 . . . iLb7 10 .i.d3 d6 1 1 0-0
.i.e7 1 2 l::te 1 tt'ld7 1 3 .i.c2 (it is hard
to believe that Sveshnikov's sugges­
tion 1 3 .i.e4 i.xe4 14 l::t xe4 dxe5 1 5
dxe5 tt'lc5 1 6 l::td4 'il/c8 1 7 i.g5 is
promising for White) 13 . . . l::t a5 14
tt'ld2 dxe5 15 tt'lc4 l::t a7 (here Svesh­
nikov gave 1 5 . . . l::td5 16 i.e4 exd4 17
.i.xd5 exd5 as good for Black, but he
was missing the very neat tactical se­
quence 1 8 .i.a3 tt'lc5 1 9 tt'la5 i.a8 20
cxd4, which gives White a substan­
tial advantage) 16 tt'lxe5 tt'lxe5 1 7
l::t x e5 .i.f6 18 l::te 1 'ifa8 1 9 f 3 0-0 20
i.f4 g6 21 i.b3 c5 22 dxc5! t Svesh­
nikov-Morozevich, Alushta 1994 .
b) 5 ... c6, as in the next note, is a
fighting move. Then 6 .i. c4 (6 tt'lxd5
cxd5 7 d4 d6 8 cxd6 exd6 is level) is
critical:
b 1 ) 6 ... e6 (a speciality of Kengis)
7 'ii'g 4 (for other moves, see TCA)
7 . . . f5 8 'il/g3 b6 9 cxb6 axb6 1 0
tt'lge2 .i.a6 1 1 d 3 'ife7 1 2 0-0 'ilif7 1 3
.i.xd5 cxd5 14 tt'la4 tt'lc6 1 5 i.d2
(Blatny considered 15 tt'lxb6 l::tb 8 1 6
tt'la4 tt'lb4 necessary) 15 . . .b 5 1 6
tt'lac3 b 4 1 7 li'ld 1 .i.e7 1 8 b 3 0-0 1 9
li'lb2 .i.b5 2 0 l::t fc 1 l::t a 3 gave B lack
excellent play in Sveshnikov-Gluz­
man, Bern 1 992.
b2) 6 ... d6 7 'ii' b 3 li'ld7 8 tt'lxd5
tt'lxc5 9 tt'lc7+ gives Black two good
options:
b21 ) 9 ... 'it>d7 10 'il/e3 'it>xc7 1 1 d4
i.e6 ( l l . . .d5 was discussed in TCA)
1 2 b3 d5 1 3 i.e2 tt'ld7 14 f4 (this has
been reckoned to give White com­
pensation) 14 . . . i.f5 and now 15 li'lf3
(this insipid move abandons the plan
of a kingside pawn storm) 15 . . . e6 1 6
0-0 ( 1 6 tt'lg5 i.g6 with . . .h 6 to fol­
low) 1 6 . . . i.e7 1 7 a4 l::t c 8 1 8 'ii'c 3 c5
19 i.e3 'it.>b8 left White a pawn down
for nothing much in Vaassen-Etmans
Dutch corr. Ch 1 990- 1 . Instead 15
i.f3 e6 16 h4 ( 1 6 li'le2 looks the best
try, though I'm sure White is fighting
for equality) is more spirited, but
does not give B lack problems :
16 ... tt'lb6 1 7 g4 i.e4 1 8 i.xe4 dxe4
1 9 'ii'xe4 and White has won back
the pawn, but Black's position is ob­
viously pleasant, while 16 .. .i.e7 1 7
g 4 i.e4 1 8 i.xe4 dxe4 1 9 g 5 f5 20
exf6 gxf6 21 'fi'xe4 looks attractive
for Black too.
b22) 9.. .'fi'xc7 (this must be one
of the most natural moves to get the
'N' symbol in lnformator) 10 i.xf7+
'it>d8 11 'ft'e3 (best) and now (D):
B
b22 1 ) ll ... d5 1 2 d4 tt'le6 1 3 li'lf3
g6 14 h4 ! tt'lg7 1 5 e6? (Sveshnikov
suggests 15 h5 ! tt'lxh5 16 l%xh5 gxh5
17 e6 with compensation) 15 . . . 1i'd6
16 tt'lg5 h6 1 7 li'lf3 tt'lxe6 ! 18 'ii'e5
i.g7 (not 18 . . .'fi'b4+? 19 i.d2 'ii'xb2
20 'fi'xh8 'fi'xa1 + 2 1 'it.>e2 'ii'x h 1 22

.llxe6 +-) 1 9 'ii'xd6+ 112-112 Sveshni­
kov-Neckai', Bern 1992. Black should
certainly have played on here, e.g. 1 9
1fxd6+ exd6 2 0 Jlxg6 �xd4 2 1
lL!xd4 Jtxd4 22 h5 +.
b222) ll e6! ? with the possi­
...
hilities:
b222 1 ) Sveshnikov suggested 12
d4 'ifxfl 1 3 dxc5 , but it is easy to be
sceptical about White's compensa­
tion after 1 3 . . . dxc5 .
b2222) 12 Jth5! ? 'with compen­
sation' - Sveshnikov. Play may con­
tinue 12 dxe5 13 �f3 and now:
.•.
b2222 1) 13 g6 14 d4 ( 1 4 .tg4)
•..
1 4 .. . gxh5 ( 1 4 . . . �d7) 15 dxc5 'ii'a 5+
( 1 5 .. J:tg8 16 0-0) 16 Jtd2 'ifxc5 1 7
�g5+ followed b y 'ii'xh5 causes
problems for Black.
b22222) 13. i.d6 14 d4 (14 �xe5
..
.llxe5 15 'ii'xc5 =) 14 . . . exd4 15 'ii'xd4
with good compensation.
b22223) 13 ..e4 14 �g5 �d3+ 15
. the pawn is too risky) 8 cxb6 axb6
<J.>n Jlc5 16 'ii'xe4 �xf2 17 'ii'h4
�e7 (avoiding 17 . . . �d7 1 8 d4 �xh 1
19 dxc5 'ii'e5 20 �f3 'ii'xc5 2 1 Jtf4
±) 18 �fl+ �d7 when White should
opt for a draw by repetition with 19
lile5+ , since 19 'ii'xe7+? �xe7 20
l/:'lxh8 �xh 1 2 1 d4 i.xd4 22 Jlg5+
'>t>f8 23 l::t d 1 is insufficient after
either 23 . . . e5 or 23 . . . c5 .
5 ... e6
5 ...c6 (D) is an altogether more
imbalancing move:
a) 6 d4 d6 7 cxd6 exd6 8 �f3
uxe5 9 0-0 !? Jle7 (9 . . . e4 10 �g5
.lle7 1 1 'ii'h5 i.xg5 12 i.xg5 'ii'd6
13 �c3) 10 dxe5 0-0 1 1 'ii' b 3 (Skrip­
chenko-Burgess, Biel 1992) and now
ll . . .�b6 1 2 e6 ! ? �xc4 1 3 exfl+
Chase Variation 23
l::t xfl 14 'ii'xc4 would have been
roughly level.
b) 6 �f3 d6 7 cxd6 exd6 8 0-0
dxe5 9 �xe5 i.e7 10 d4 0-0 1 1 �c3
i.e6 12 'ii'f3 �xc3 1 3 i.xe6 fxe6 14
'ifxc3 'ii'd5 1 5 i.e3 �a6 16 b3 l::tad8
1 7 .U.ad 1 i.d6 1 8 �c4 i.b8 19 i.c 1
'ii' h5 20 h3 �c7 gave Black a com­
fortable position in Yurtaev-Bagirov,
Frunze 1 979.
c) 6 'i!Ve2 b6 7 �c3 e6 (grabbing
9 d4 Jla6 1 0 �f3 ( 1 0 i.xa6 �xa6
1 1 �xd5 exd5 12 �h3 'ii'h4 +)
10 . . . i.e7 1 1 0-0 0-0 12 �e4 f5 1 3
exf6 i.xf6 14 l::te 1 i.e7 1 5 �e5 �f4
1 6 'ii'g4 i.xc4 17 i.xf4 i.d5 1 8 l::te 3
i.xe4 19 l::t xe4 l::t f5 20 �d3 'ii'f8 2 1
a 3 c 5 2 2 dxc5 bxc5 gave Black a
good pawn centre in Scotto-Shaba­
lov, Saint Martin 1 993 ; White was
pushed off the board as follows: 23
l::tc 1 �c6 24 i.e3 l::tb 8 25 f4 'ii'f6 26
l::t a4 .U.d5 27 'ii'e2 'ii'f5 28 �f2 i. f6
29 g4 'iVg6 30 .l:r.c2 i.d4 3 1 l:f.d2 h5
32 h3 l::tb 3 3 3 l::t a8+ �h7 34 .llxd4
�xd4 0- 1 .
d ) 6 �c3 i s discussed under 5
�c3 c6 6 i.c4.
6 �c3
24 Chase Variation
6 d4 is a maj or alternative, when
6...d6 7 cxd6 cxd6 transposes to a
line of the c3-Sicilian. The 'Alek­
hine' response is 6 b6, when 7 cxb6
..•
would normally be met by 7 axb6, ..•
though in Kruglov-Pushkin, Russia
1 992, the experimental 7 4Jxb6! ? 8
••.
.i.d3 d5 ! 9 exd6 cxd6 1 0 liJf3 .tb7
( 1 0 . . . .i.a6 ! ?) 1 1 0-0 i.e? 1 2 liJc3 0-0
13 b4 ! liJ8d7 1 4 a4 l:tc8 1 5 liJb5 a6
1 6 liJa3 liJd5 17 i.. d 2 liJc3 18 i.. x c3
l:txc3 19 b5 a5 20 'i'd2 l:tc8 gave
Black decent play.
6 •.• i..xc5!
This move was formerly consid­
ered rather too risky, but Khmelnit­
sky has demonstrated that it is at
least as good as the longer-estab­
lished ideas.
One new idea is for Black to play
6...4Jc6. Then 7 d4 ltJxc3 8 bxc3 d6
9 cxd6 cxd6 10 exd6 i.. x d6 1 1 liJf3
is a position where White would
generally prefer to have the bishop
on d 3 . There are two examples :
1 1 . 0-0 1 2 0-0 e5 1 3 dxe5 ltJxe5 14
..
ltJxe5 i.. xe5 1 5 'i'xd8 l:txd8 16 i.. g 5
i.. f6 17 i.. xf6 gxf6 1 8 l:tfe1 'it>f8 1 9
l:te3 i.. g 4 2 0 h3 .th5 2 1 l:tae1 l:tac8
22 i.. b 3 l:tc7 23 f4 .tg6 24 'it>f2 .td3
25 l:tc 1 1h-1h Vavra-Pacl, Czech tt
1 992; 11 'i'c7 12 0-0 0-0 13 'i'd3 e5
...
1 4 ltJg5 g6 15 'i'e4 exd4 16 'i'h4 h5
1 7 liJe4 i.. e 5 1 8 .th6 i.. g7 1 9 liJf6+
'it>h8 20 i.. x g7+ 'it>xg7 2 1 ltJxh5+
gxh5 22 'i'g5+ 'it>h7 23 'i'xh5+ 'it>g7
and now White should probably
have taken the perpetual, in Levi­
Wahl, Canberra 1 995 .
7 d4 i.. b4
8 'ii'g4! ?
Varying from 8 i..xd5 exd5 9 'ilg4
'it>f8 10 liJf3 ( 10 i.. g5 'ii'e 8 1 1 'ilf3 c6
1 2 liJge2 d6 13 a3 i.. x c3+ 14 'ilxc3
dxe5 15 dxe5 4Jd7 16 f4 gave White
some compensation in the game
Mikulcik-Freisler, Czech Ch (Luha­
covice) 1 993) 10 . . . d6 1 1 'ir'g3 liJc6
12 0-0 ( 1 2 i.. g 5? ! 'ild7 intending
1 3 . . . 'i'g4) 1 2 . . . i.. e 6, since although
Bagirov rated this as unclear, Svesh­
nikov quite reasonably felt it offered
White nothing good.
8 ... ltJxc3
9 bxc3? !
9 a3 (D) was given a ' ! ' by Khme­
nitsky, but Fritz claims that White is
just a pawn down - and I can't fault
its analysis :
B
a) 9 .ta5? 10 'ir'xg7 l:tf8 1 1 i..d2 !
...
liJb5 1 2 b4 ! ! wins for White, for ex­
ample: 12 ..liJxd4 1 3 i.. g 5 ; 12 i.. b6
. ...
1 3 .tg5 ; 12...4Jc6 1 3 i.. x b5 i.. b 6 1 4
i.. g 5 ( 1 4 i.. h6 'ir'e7 1 5 i.. x c6 looks
good too) 14 ...4Je7 15 4Jf3 c6 16 i..d3
intending i.. xh7 and i.. h6, winning.
b) 9 "fie7 is an interesting idea,
...
which Fritz claims to be good for
Black, e.g. 1 0 i..d2 liJd5 1 1 axb4 and
now Black can choose between

ll...f6, 1 1 . . .0-0 and l l . . .f5 (which
looks soundest).
c) 9 .tf8 ( ' ! ' from Khmelnitsky
•••
- it is certainly playable, but allows
White compensation) 10 i.g5 (Svesh­
n ikov suggested the move 10 bxc3 !?,
which gives White a certain amount
of extra freedom as compensation)
I O h5 (best; 10 ....te7 1 1 .txe7 'fixe7
•••
12 'flixg7 ;!; ; 1 0 . . . f6? loses to 1 1 exf6
gxf6 1 2 'ii'h 5+ <i;e7 1 3 i.xf6+) 1 1
1ff4 (D) and now:
II
cl) 11 ... f6?! (very interesting, but
not best, and not a try for advantage)
12 exf6 gxf6 (and not 12 . . . i.d6?? 1 3
fxg7 +-) 1 3 i.xf6 i.b4 ( 1 3 . . .i.h6 14
�f3 i.d2+ 1 5 <i;fl ! +-) and now
White can choose between 14 .t xd8
tiJds+ 15 axb4 lLlxf4 16 i.xc7 lLlxg2+
17 ct;n when Black may go a pawn
down, but White's unsightly pawns
will provide compensation, and 14
axb4 llf8 15 .txd8 ( 1 5 bxc3 leaves
White a little better due to the weak­
ness of h5) 15 . . . llxf4 16 .txc7 ( 1 6
bxc3 <i;xd8 ;!; ) 16 . . . llxd4 when the
black position hangs together.
c2) ll ... .te7 (the only move given
by Khmelnitsky) 1 2 i.xe7 "il/xe7 1 3
Chase Variation 25
bxc3 b6 14 ltlf3 gives White com
pensation.
c3) 11 ... lLlds!? (in order to deny
White the possibility of strengthen­
ing his pawn centre with bxc3) I 2
i.xd5 i.e7 1 3 .txe7 "il/xe7 looks quite
reasonable for Black.
9 .txc3+
10 ct;n (DJ
10 ••• "il/e7!
This move is forced according to
Khmelnitsky, but this may not be the
case: 10 llg8 1 1 i.g5 'ii'xg5 (though
•••
this is forced for Black, Khmelnitsky
neglects to mention the possibility;
certainly not 1 1 . . .f6? 1 2 .txf6 +-)
1 2 'ii'x g5 .txa1 gives B lack rook,
bishop and two pawns for the queen.
Also, while the reply 10 <i;f8 looks
•••
very greedy, no knock-out blow for
White is apparent.
11 llbl
After this move White is defi­
nitely worse. He should have tried II
"il/xg7 'ii'f8 1 2 "illf6, which Khmelnit­
sky gave as unclear - an inadequate
assessment without a great deal of
further evidence, since White is so
much material down. For example,
26 Chase Variation

how does White continue in the Black's idea is to play 2 1 . ..b5 .

event of 12 llg8 1 3 llb 1 (not 1 3
•.. 21 llb6?
i.h6? 'ilb4) 1 3 . . .i.xd4 (or 1 3 . . .lbc6) 21 f4 was White's last chance to
or 12 i.xa1 1 3 i.h6 'figS?
••. make any sort of fight of the game.
1 1 ... f5! 21 ... lbxe5
12 'ilh5+ g6 Now Black is winning.
12 Ji'f7 is an alternative.
•• 22 i.f4 lbc4 23 llb4 b5 24 lbxe6
13 'ii'd 1 lbc6 llb6 25 lDd4 lle8+ 26 �fl lle4 27
14 lbf3 i.xd4! ? g3 d6 28 lbf3 �g7 29 lbd2 lbxd2+
Black must avoid 1 4. . .lbxd4? 1 5 30 i.xd2 i.e6 31 a4 i.c4+ 32 �g2
lbxd4 'ilc5 1 6 lbe2 'flxc4 1 7 'flc2 a5 33 llb2 b4 34 i.f4 lle6! 35 llbd2
+- . i.b3 36 l:ta1 llc6 37 i.e3 llxe3!
15 lbxd4 'ilc5 This is the most straightforward
16 lbb5 'flxc4+ route to victory, since with opposite­
17 'fle2 'flxe2+ coloured bishops there is always the
18 �xe2 �f7 possibility of a counterattack, or a
19 lbxc7 llb8 blockade.
20 lld1 a6! (D) 38 fxe3 0-1
In view of 3 8 . . . i.c2 39 lla2 b3 40
llb2 llc4 4 1 llxd6 (4 1 lld4 l1xd4 42
exd4 may be regarded by Black as if
it were a king and pawn ending)
4 I . . Jba4 42 lla6 lla1 43 �f3 a4.

Conclusion
The Chase Variation is a great exam­
ple of 'chess from another planet' ,
but isn't Black just better in the main
lines?!
4 Unusual Fourth Moves for White
In this chapter we consider all lines
in which after 1 e4 tDf6 2 e5 tDd5 3
d4 d6 White plays neither 4 c4 (Ex­
change or Four Pawns) nor 4 tDf3
(Main Line).
Game 4
de Ia Villa - Miles
Seville 1993
1 e4 tDf6 2 eS tDdS
3 d4 d6 (D)
w
4 ..tc4
There are a few other moves here
worthy of attention:
a) The unpopularity of 4 .ie2 is
astonishing, considering its excel­
lent score in practice. I know of only
one recent example : 4 . . . dxe5 5 dxe5
i. f5 6 c3 e6 7 ti:)f3 tDd7 8 0-0 .ie7 9
a3 0-0 1 0 h3 a5 1 1 c4 tD5b6 12 tDc3
a4 1 3 .ie3 'ii'b 8 was roughly even in
H.Waller-G.Mohr, Bled 1 992.
b) 4 f4, on the other hand, has
been quite popular in the 1990s, with
Kupreichik as the main protagonist:
b 1) 4 i.f5 5 tDf3 e6 6 .id3 .ixd3
•••
7 'ii'xd3 c5 8 0-0 ! ? (varying from the
previously played 8 c3 and 8 dxc5 )
8 ... tDc6 (8 . . . cxd4 must be the critical
reply) 9 f5 ! ? (9 dxc5 dxe5 1 0 fxe5
.ixc5+) 9 ... cxd4 10 fxe6 fxe6 1 1 tDg5
and now rather than ll .. .'ii'd7? ! 1 2
'ii'h 3 0-0-0? ( 1 2 . . . dxe5 ; 1 2 . . . tDxe5 )
13 ti:)f7 ± Kr.Georgiev-V.Petkov, Bul­
garian Ch (Bankya) 1992, ll ... tDxeS
1 2 'ii'h 3 looks unclear: 1 2 . . . tDc7 1 3
lbxe6 ( 1 3 lbxh7 !l.. e7 14 lbf6+ 'ii? f7
gives White no useful discoveries)
1 3 ... lbxe6 14 'ii'xe6+ .ie7 with . . .'ili'd7
to follow.
b2) 4 dxe5 5 fxeS (D) and now:
••.
b2 1 ) s ... .trs 6 lbf3 e6 7 i.dJ
!l.. x d3 8 'ii'x d3 c5 9 0-0 i.c7 (tJ h 6 . . .
1 0 c4 ! ? lbb4 1 1 li'e4 Mrva- Khcinits,
Odessa 1 990) 1 0 dxc5 ! ? ( 10 li'\hd2
28 Unusual Fourth Moves for White
cxd4 1 1 lLle4 h6 1 2 lLlxd4 gave
White at most a tiny edge in the
game Martin Gonza1ez-F.Martinez,
Candas 1 992) 10 . . . lLlc6 1 1 'it>h 1 is
pleasant for White according to
analysis by Kupreichik, for example
l l . .'fia5 1 2 c4 ! lLldb4 1 3 'iie4 in­
. lLldxb8 17 .txe6 fxe6 18 l::.xe6 ;!;) 1 6
tending a3 and �d2 or ll ... �xc5 1 2
lLlbd2 ! ? lLle3 1 3 lLle4 ! ;!;.
b22) 5...lLlc6 (? ! from Tal) 6 c3
.tf5 7 .td3 .txd3 8 'iixd3 'it'd? (Chris
Chandler's interesting idea 8 . . . f6
was discussed in TCA) 9 lLlf3 0-0-0
10 0-0 ( 1 0 b4 ! ?) 10 . . .f6 1 1 lLlbd2
(Tal mentioned 1 1 lLla3 ! ? f5 ! 12 e6)
1 1 . . .lLlf4 ! 12 'it'e4 'it'g4 13 g3 g5 1 4
exf6 (Tal considered 14 'it>h 1 f5 1 5
'ii'e 3 unclear) 14 . . . exf6 15 'it>h 1 f5 1 6
'ii'e 3 lLlh3 1 7 'ii'e 6+ 'it>b8 (not
17 . . . l::. d 7?? 1 8 d5 lLld8 19 'it'xd7+)
and now instead of 18 d5? ! �c5 ! ,
which gave B lack good play i n Tal­
Jung Karl, Moscow 1 99 1 , Tal rec­
ommends 18 lLlc4! ? �d6 1 9 lLle3 ;!;.
b23) 5...c5 6 lLlf3 cxd4 (6 ... �f5 ? !
7 � b 5 + lLlc6 8 c4 ! lLlc7 9 �xc6+ !
bxc6 10 lLlc3 e6 1 1 'it'a4 'it'd? 12 �e3
cxd4 1 3 lLlxd4 c5 14 lLldb5 ! lLlxb5
15 lLlxb5 0-0-0 16 0-0 �e7 17 b4 !
cxb4 1 8 c5 �c2 1 9 'it'a6+ 1 -0 Ku­
preichik-Karolyi, Dortmund 1 99 1 ;
6 . . . .tg4 ! ? 7 �b5+ lLld7 8 0-0 e6 9
.tg5 .te7 10 �xe7 'ikxe7 1 1 'fid2 0-0
1 2 .txd7 'iixd7 1 3 dxc5 'fie? 1 4
'iid4 .txf3 1 5 l::. xf3 l::. ad8 1 6 lLla3
lLle7 = Carr-Crocker, Halifax 1993)
7 'iixd4 lLlc6 8 'ii'e4 ! ? (Kupreichik's
latest idea) 8 . . . g6 (8 . . . e6 9 c4 ;!;) 9
.tc4 lLlb6 (9 . . . lLldb4 10 �b3 .tf5 1 1
'iie 2 might be a shade better for
White) 10 .tb3 (10 e6?! f5 !) 10 ... .tg7
( 1 0 . . . �f5) 1 1 0-0 .tf5 1 2 'iif4 0-0
( 1 2 . . .lLld5 !? is best met by 13 'iig 3 ! ?
0-0 14 'it>h 1 intending l::.d 1 ;!; accord­
ing to Kupreichik) 1 3 lLlc3 and now,
rather than 13 .. J�'b8 14 l::.e 1 lLld7 1 5
e 6 fxe6 (or 1 5 . . . �xe6 ! ? 1 6 'iix b8
'ii'h4 lLlc5 1 7 lLlg5 h6 1 8 lLlxe6 .txe6
19 �xe6+ lLlxe6 20 l::. xe6, which left
White a little better in the game Ku­
preichik-Varga, Debrecen Echt 1 992,
Fritz's suggestion 13...lLld7 looks
extremely logical, e.g. 14 l::.e 1 is an­
swered by 14 .. .'ii'a5 , so e6 can be met
by . . . fxe6 without giving White the
option of exchanging queens.
4 ... c6
This flexible move has been quite
popular recently, but there is nothing
wrong with the traditional 4...lLlb6 5
�b3:
a) 5 . lLlc6 6 e6 fxe6 7 lLlf3 e5 8
..
dxe5 d5 is a sharp line that has gener­
ally been considered quite playable
for Black, but after 9 lLlc3 .tg4 1 0
lLlxd5 e 6 White tried a promising
new idea in Kalod-Hudecek, Czech
Ch (Luhacovice) 1 993 : 1 1 �g5 ! ?
.txf3 1 2 gxf3 'iixg5 1 3 lLlxc7+ 'it>f7
14 .txe6+ 'it>g6 15 f4 'ii'g 2 16 'iid 3+
( 1 6 f5+ ! ?) 16 . . . 'it>h6 17 0-0-0 l::.d 8
and now rather than 18 'iie 3 l::. x d 1 +
1 9 l::. xd 1 �e7 20 .th3 'iix h2, which
was unclear, White could have tried
18 'iig 3 l::. x d 1 + 1 9 l::. x d 1 'iix g3 20
hxg3 when Black is in extreme peril.
b) 5....tf5 is preferred by a num­
ber of Alekhine specialists:
b 1 ) 6 e6 (not one of the better va­
rieties of e6 pawn sacrifice) 6 . . . .txe6
7 �xe6 fxe6 8 lLlf3 lLlc6 9 0-0 'it'd?

I0 tt:\g5 g6 1 1 'ii'f3 tt:\d8 1 2 'ii'd 3
�c6 13 .:te l 'ii'd 5 14 tt:\c3 'ii'f5 1 5
'ji'c2 �g7 1 6 tt:\b5 'it;d7 1 7 c4 c 6 1 8
g4 'ii'f6 was at least O K for Black in
D .Gross-Zvolanek, Czech Ch (Lu­
hacovice) 1993.
b2) 6 'ii'f3 and now:
b2 1 ) 6 'ii'c8 (the solid move) 7
•••
l/)e2 tt:\c6 8 exd6 cxd6 9 c3 e6 10 0-0
�e7 1 1 tt:\a3 0-0 1 2 tt:\c2 d5 1 3 tt:\e3
�e4 14 'ii' h 3 i.d6 15 �c2 f5 gave
B l ack an excellent position in the
game Feigin-Onishchuk, Nikolaev Z
1 995.
b22) 6 e6 is Hjorth's pawn sac­
.••
rifice, and has been played by both
Shabalov and Kengis - what better
recommendation could one want? 7
�xb7 (7 'ii'g 3 dxe5 8 dxe5 c5 9 tt:\a3
c4 10 tt:\xc4 tt:\xc4 1 1 i.xc4 i.xc2 1 2
� d 2 'ii'd4 1 3 i.b5+ tt:\c6 1 4 i.xc6+
hxc6 15 tt:\f3 'ii'd7 16 c;t;n 0-0-0 1 7
'.t> g l f6 1 8 h 3 h5 1 9 i.e3 1h-1h Rom­
cro-Kengis, Manila OL 1992) 7 . . . d5 8
li:le2 �b4+ 9 �d2 a5 1 0 �a4+
ti:J8d7 1 1 �b5 0-0 12 0-0 f6 1 3 exf6
li:lxf6 gave B lack good play in
Soltis-Shabalov, New York MCC
1 992, but he went on to lose by try­
ing too hard to win.
c) 5 dxe5 6 'ii'h5 e6 7 dxe5 (D)
•••
is the main line:
c l ) 7 &Dc6 8 tt:'!f3 tt:'!d4 (8 . . . i.c5 ?
•••
lJ 'if g4 tt:'!d4? 1 0 'ii'x g7 tt:'!xf3+ 1 1
gxf3 l:tf8 1 2 tt:'!c3 'ii'h4 1 3 tt:'!e4 �e7
1 4 �h6 1 -0 Djuric-Speck, Adelaide
1 990 is a cautionary tale) 9 tt:'!xd4
l!Vxd4 1 0 0-0 g6 1 1 'ii'f3 �g7 1 2
�d2 0-0 1 3 �c3 'ii'h4 14 tt:'!d 2 a5 1 5
a4 tt:'!d7 1 6 l:tfe l l:ta7 1 7 �c4 b6 1 8
�b5 tt:'!c5 1 9 b3 l:td8 2 0 �c6 �d7
Unusual Fourth Moves for Wh itt' ."J
1h-1h de Ia Villa-Oil, Pamplona
1 99 1/2.
c2) 7 c5 8 tt:'!a3 tt:'!c6 9 tt:'!f3 tt:'!d4
•••
1 0 tt:'!xd4 'ti'xd4 1 1 0-0 �d7 1 2 c3
'ii'e4 13 i.c2 'ii'c 6 14 c4 a6 15 .:tel
'iic7 16 i.d2 tt:'!c8 1 7 �c3 tt:'!e7 1 8
l:tad l g6 1 9 'ifh4 h5 20 tt:'!bl tt'lf5 2 1
'ii' h 3 0-0-0 2 2 tt:'!d2 ..tc6 was more
or less OK for Black in the game de
Ia Villa-Santo-Roman, Las Palmas
1 99 1 .
c3) 7 a5 8 a4 tt:'!a6 ( 8 . . . tt:'!c6 is
••.
generally considered the main line,
though the disruptive bishop check
8 . . . ..tb4+ might be best of all - see
TCA) 9 tt:'!f3 g6 (a new approach - in
a line where Black needed one) 1 0
'ii'h 3 h 6 1 1 tt:'! c 3 tt:'!c5 1 2 0-0 tt:'!xb3
13 cxb3 tt'ld5 14 l:td l �g7 15 'ii'g 3
b6 gave B lack a tenable position in
Kotronias-Kakageldiev, Manila OL
1 992.
Note that 4 dxe5 is premature,
•••
for example 5 dxe5 c6 6 tt:'!c3 �c6
7 tt:'!f3 tt:'!d7 8 tt:'!xd5 �xd5 9 �xd5
'ii'a5+ 1 0 �d2 'fixd5 1 1 'fie2 c6 1 2
0-0 �e7 1 3 :fdl 'ii'b5 1 4 c4 'il'a6 1 5
�g5 l:td8 1 6 �xe7 'it;xe7 1 7 'il'd2 ±
Mellado-Viot, Enghien- lcs- Bains
1 995.
30 Unusual Fourth Moves for White
5 'ii'e2
Fedorov has tried 5 f4 in two re­
markably dramatic games:
a) 5 J.f5 6 ltJf3 e6 7 0-0 ltJd7 8
..•
J.b3 a5 9 c4 ltJb4 10 ltJc3 d5 1 1 a3
dxc4 12 ixc4 ltJb6 1 3 J.e2 ltJc2 1 4
l:ta2 ltJd5 15 l:tf2 J.e7 16 h 3 ( 1 6 J.d3
ltJce3 17 J.xe3 ltJxe3 =) 16 . . . h5 1 7
J.d2? 'iib6 1 8 J.c 1 ? 'ii'b3 -+ 19 ltJd2
'ii'xa2 0- 1 Fedorov-Movelian, Buda­
pest 1989.
b) 5 ... g6 6 ltJf3 J.g7 7 0-0 0-0 8
h3 J.h6 9 ltJ c3 ie6 10 f5! ? (D)
gives Black serious problems:
b 1) 10 ... ltJe3 1 1 fxe6 ! ! ltJxd 1 1 2
J.xh6 ltJxc3 1 3 exf7+ wins: 1 3. ./�hS
14 ltJg5 or 13 l:txf7 14 ltJg5 .
...
b2) 10 .. J.e3+ 1 1 J.xe3 ( 1 1 'i!?h 1
.
ltJxc3 1 2 bxc3 ixc4 1 3 ixe3 gives
White attacking chances) 1 1 . . .l2Jxe3
12 'ii'c 1 J.xc4 13 'ilr'xe3 J.xf1 14 'ii'h6
f6 ( 1 4 . . . dxe5 1 5 ltJg5 +-) 1 5 fxg6
hxg6 1 6 'it'xg6+ 'i!?h8 17 ltJe4 J.c4
( 1 7 . . . 'ii'e 8 1 8 'ii'h6+ l!tg8 19 ltJfg5
fxg5 20 l2Jxg5 wins) 1 8 ltJfg5 fxg5
1 9 ltJxg5 l:tf7 20 'ii'xf7 'iYg8 21 'iYxe7
'ilg7 (2 l . . .dxe5 22 b3) 22 'ii'e8+ 'iYg8
(22 . . . J.g8 23 'iYh5+ i.h7 24 l:tfl
wins) 23 'ii'h 5+ l!tg7 24 'ii'g4 'i!?h6
25 'iYh4+ l!tg7 26 ltJe4 must be win­
ning for White.
b3) 10 . .ltJxc3 1 1 bxc3 J.xc 1 (or
.
1 1 . . . J.xc4 1 2 J.xh6 with an attack)
1 2 'ii'xc l ixc4 1 3 'ii'h6 f6 (forced)
14 fxg6 hxg6 15 'ii'x g6+ 'i!?h8 1 6 e6
J.xe6 ( 16 . . . 'ii'e 8 17 'ii'h6+ l!tg8 1 8
ltJh4 J.xe6 1 9 ltJg6 +-) 1 7 ltJg5
fxg5 18 'ii'h 6+ l!tg8 19 'ii'xe6+ l!tg7
( 1 9 . . . 'i!?h8 20 l:txf8+ 'ii'xf8 21 l:tfl
'i!Vg7 22 l:tf7 +-) 20 l:txf8 l!txf8 (or
20 . . . 'ilxf8 2 1 l:tfl 'ii'e 8 22 l:tf5 win­
ning) 21 l:tfl + l!te8 22 l:tf5 'ii' b6 23
l:txg5 'iYb1 + 24 'i!?h2 'i!?d8 25 l:tg7
1 -0 Fedorov- Kakageldiev, USSR
rural players tournament 1 977.
5 ... dxe5
6 dxe5 J.f5
6 ... g6 (D) is a more popular move,
and leads to positions that can also
arise from the Pirc or Modem, e.g. 1
e4 g6 2 d4 J.g7 3 ltJf3 d6 4 J.c4 ltJf6
5 'ii'e2 c6 (or 5 . . . 0-0 6 e5 dxe5 7 dxe5
ltJd5) 6 e5 ltJd5, or 1 e4 d6 2 d4 ltJf6
3 ltJc3 g6 4 J.c4 J.g7 5 'ile2 c6 6 e5
dxe5 7 dxe5 ltJd5 . White has two
main choices, corresponding to each
of these transpositions:
a) 7 ltJf3 J.g7 8 h3 0-0 9 0-0 'ilc7
 Unusual Fourth Moves for Wh itt' .U

I 0 l:i.e 1 e6 1 1 i.b3 b5 12 lbbd2 lbd7 10 i.a2 0-0!'!

1 3 c3 a5 14 i.c2 i.b7 1 5 h4 h5 1 6 10 ... a5 and 10 ... 'ikc7 arc allcrna
liJfl c 5 1 7 i.g5 c4 1 8 lbg3 b 4 gave tives.
B l ack plenty of counterplay in Mas­ 11 c4
serey- Vaganian, Biel 1 994. Again 1 1 lDd4 looks very natural.
b) 7 i. d2 i.g7 8 lbc3 i.e6 (the 1 1 ... lD5b6
most flexible; 8 . . . 0-0 9 0-0-0 i.e6 1 0 12 lbc3 'ikc7
f4 lbd7 1 1 tiJf3 lD7b6 1 2 i.xd5 12 ... i.g4 would be OK, but Miles
i.xd5 1 3 lDxd5 'ili'xd5 14 �b1 'ike6 still refrains from playing it, presum­
1 5 h4 f6 16 h5 l:i.ad8 17 hxg6 hxg6 ably because he saw that d3 could
18 'ili'e4 fxe5 19 fxe5 lbc4 20 lbg5 become a sensitive spot in White's
tnxd2+ 2 1 l:i.xd2 'Wxe5 22 l:i.h8+ ! position.
i.xh8 23 'i\i'xg6+ 'ili'g7 24 'i\i'e6+ 'Wf7 13 i.f4 lbc5
25 lDxf7 l:i.xd2 26 lbe5+ 1 -0 Fette­ 14 b4! ?
Honfi, Bad Worishofen 199 1 ; 8 ...tbd7 14 1:i.ad1 is more circumspect.
9 lDf3 lD7b6 10 lbxd5 cxd5 1 1 i.b5+ 14 ... lbba4
i.d7 1 2 lbg5 i.xb5 1 3 'i!Vxb5+ 'ili'd7 Black may instead try 14 ... lbd3!?
1 4 'ilt'xd7+ lbxd7 ;!; P.Littlewood­ intending 1 5 i.g3 a5 1 6 lbe4 ( 1 6
Nunn, London 1 975) 9 0-0-0 lbd7 c5 ! ?) 1 6 . . . axb4 ! ?, while 1 4...i.d3 1 5
I 0 f4 ( 1 0 lDf3 'i!Vb6 1 1 lbg5 ? ! i.xe5 'i!Vd 1 i.xfl 1 6 bxc5 lbxc4 1 7 'ii'x fl
12 lbxe6 fxe6 13 f4 ?! lDxf4 14 i.xf4 lbxa3 is how Fritz wants to continue,
i.xf4+ 1 5 �b1 'i!Ve3 +) 1 0 . . lb7b6
. but White's minor pieces will give
1 1 i.b3 lbxc3 12 i.xc3 'Wc8 13 lbf3 him excellent attacking prospects in
i.xb3 1 4 axb3 'ilt'g4 1 5 g3 0-0 (this the middlegame.
position looks about equal) 1 6 h3 ! ? 15 lbxa4 lbxa4
'ikxg3 17 i.d2 1:i.ad8 1 8 1:i.dfl l:i.xd2 ! ? 16 i.b3 lbb6
1 9 lbxd2 lbd5 2 0 lbe4 'Wh4 2 1 'ir'f2 Black is planning 17 . . . a5 or
'ir'xf2 22 1:i.xf2 i.h6 23 l:i.hfl lbe3 24 1 7 . . JHd8 .
.ll g 1 lDd5 25 lbg5 ? f6 ! -+ 26 exf6 17 lbd4
(26 lbe6 lDxf4 ! ) 26 . . . exf6 27 lbe6 Considering what happens later in
l:f.e8 28 1:i.e2 lDxf4 0- 1 Kveinys-Cher­ the game, exchanging off White's
nin, Debrecen Echt 1 992. bad bishop with 17 i.g5 looks sensi­
7 lbf3 e6 ble.
8 0-0 lDd7! 17 ... i.g6
9 a3 18 c5
It looks more logical to hit the f5- If this move is really White's hesl
hishop with 9 lbd4. chance, then he is already in serious
9 ... i.e7 trouble. Why not play 18 l:.fd 1 , for
Black is in no hurry at all to play instance, and see how B lack wi shes
. . . i.g4 because the pressure on c2 is to continue?
causing White some inconvenience. 18 ... lbd5
32 Unusual Fourth Moves for White

19 i.xd5 exd5 (D)

Black is substantially better here.
The rest of the game is a superb dem­
onstration by Miles. He gradually re­
groups and strengthens his grip on
the position befor� advancing on the
white king.
26 ... lle6!
Now Black has a very big plus.
27 'ii'f2 l:g6 28 g3 1i'd7!? 29
lDxaS!? h5 30 lDb3?
White's last chance for counter­
play was 30 f5 ! i. xf5 31 lDxb7 ! or
30 lDxb7.
30 h4 31 l:c3 i.e7 32 f5 i.xf5
•••

20 . 'ii'g4 'ii'c8 33 :n i.h3! 34 'fixf7+ cRh7 35

21 'ii'g3 'ii'f3 llf8! -+ 36 'it'xf8
White avoids exchanging into an Miles pointed out 36 'ii'h5 + llh6!.
unpleasant ending. 36 i.xf8 37 l:.xf8 'ii'g4 38 l:.cf3
•••

21 l:e8! 'ii'e4 39 lDct 'ii'd4+ 40 :n hxg3 41

22 i.g5 i.f8 hxg3 :Xg3+ 42 �h2 'ii'h4 0-1
23 :ret
After 23 f4 i. f5 White's bishop is Conclusion
left stranded on g5. Of these unusual ideas for White at
23 a5 move 4, Kupreichik's 4 f4 currently
24 i.d2 'flc7 looks the most threatening. 4 i.c4 is
25 f4 i.e4 a good practical choice for those
26 lDb3? (D) who wish to stir up complications,
26 bxa5 intending i.b4 is far bet- but Black's resources are entirely
ter. adequate in a variety of lines.
5 Exchange Variation
The Exchange Variation, 1 e4 lt:Jf6 2
e5 lt:Jd5 3 d4 d6 4 c4 lt:Jb6 5 exd6, im­
mediately presents Black with a fun­
damental decision: to recapture with
the e- or the c-pawn.
w
Recapturing with the e-pawn (see
diagram) gives rise to a symmetrical
structure. It looks as if Black has no
chance of active counterplay, and
can only hope to neutralise White's
initiative and space advantage. How­
ever, although the position is not ex­
actly overflowing with dynamism,
White's pawns on c4 and d4 do pro­
vide targets for the black pieces, and
a well-timed . . . d6-d5 thrust can pose
White some problems. White's plans,
on the other hand, involve dominat­
ing the e-file and pawn storms on
either side of the board: after the
moves . . . d6-d5 and c4-c5 have been
played, b2-b4-b5 may generate use­
ful pressure; but a kingside advance,
typically h3 followed by g4, is a
more alarming idea from Black's
viewpoint. Note that if Black plays
. . . c6, rather than an early . . . lt:Jc6,
play is often similar to lines of Chap­
ter 1 1 , with transpositions possible.
The most interesting theoretical
development in the 5 . . . exd6 line is
Korchnoi's idea with 'ii'f3 , the point
of which is to deny Black's queen's
bishop a convenient square.
Most Alekhine players choose the
more dynamic recapture with the c­
pawn, almost invariably followed by
a fianchetto of the king's bishop.
Traditionally in this line, Black
would eventually end up playing
. . . d5 , which would be answered hy
c5, when there are two scenarios:
1 ) If appropriate, Black lands h i s
knight o n c4, whereupon intricate
piece play results;
34 The Exchange Variation
2) Alternatively, Black drops the
knight back to c8 or d7, and looks for
counterplay on the kingside and in
the centre. Meanwhile White storms
the queenside.
While these two types of position
still occur frequently, White has been
trying other ideas, most notably aim­
ing to advance his own pawn to d5
before Black can do so. This will
generally involve overprotecting the
c3-knight, either with l:lc 1 or tLlge2.
A further idea is to delay the devel­
opment of the f l -bishop, because
then . . . d5 followed by . . . tLlc4 can be
met by .i.f lxc4, not losing a tempo
as in the traditional lines. Against all
these ideas Black does best to look
for his counterplay also by non-tra­
ditional means.
Game S
Korchnoi - Miles
Bie/ 1992
1 e4 lLlf6 2 eS tLldS 3 d4 d6 4 c4 tLlb6
5 exd6 exd6
6 tLlc3 .i.e7 (D)
7 'it'f3
This is Korchnoi's sharp new
idea.
Another plan involving castling
queenside was tried in Donev-Bi­
schoff, Austrian League 1993/4: 7
.i.e3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 tLlc6 9 0-0-0 l:te8 10
h3 (10 lLlf3 would be conveniently
met by 10 . . . .i.g4) 10 . . . d5 11 c5 tLlc4
12 .i.xc4 dxc4 13 'ii'e 2 (13 lLlf3!?
gives Black counterplay after either
13 . . . .i.f5 or 13 . . . lLlb4) 13 . . . .i.f5 14
'ii'xc4 .i.gS 15 lLlf3 (Donev avoids
15 .i.xg5? 'ii'xg5+ 16 l:ld2 'ii'xg2 17
'ii'd5 l:te1+ 18 l:td1 'ii'g 5+ 19 f4
'ii'xf4#) 15 .. Jixe3! 16 fxe3 .i.xe3+
17 l:td2 (17 tLld2!? 'ii'xd4 18 'ii'xd4
tLlxd4 gives Black compensation)
17 . . . .i.xd2+ 18 'iii>xd2 .i.e6! 19 'ii'd3
1h-lfz.
7 .i.e2 0-0 8 tLlf3 .i.g4 9 b3 tLlc6
10 0-0 d5 11 c5 tLlc8 12 .i.e3 .i.f6 13
h3 .i.e6 14 'ii'd2 is a very traditional
line; here is Black's latest approach:
14 ... tLl8e7 (flexible) 15 g4 g6 (15 ... h6
16 tLle1 g5 1h-1h Miljanic-Knezevic,
Vrnjacka Banja 1987) 16 tLlel .i.g7
17 tLlg2 b6 18 cxb6 cxb6 19 lLlf4
'ii'd6 20 :ac l l:lac8 21 l:tfd1 tLlb8
22 tLlb5 'ii'd7 23 :xc8.l:.xc824 l:tc1
l:txcl + 25 'ii'xcl tLlbc6 26 'ii'd2 1h-lf2
Mortensen-Kengis, Moscow OL
1994.
Starting with 7 h3, Ian Rogers has
tried a plan based on an early d4-d5,
with some success:
a) 7 0-0 8 lLlf3 .i.f5 (8. . . l:te8 9
...
.i.e2 .i.f5 10 0-0 tLl8d7 was analysed
in TCA; after 10 ... tLlc6 Rogers would
presumably play 11 dS and 12 tLld4)
9 .i.e2 tLlc6 10 d5 tLle5 11 tLld4 .i.g6
12 b3 .i.f6 13 0-0 :e8 14 .i.e3 tLled7

1 5 'ii'd 2 tbc5 1 6 b4 tbe4 17 tbxe4
.l:txe4 1 8 .l:tac 1 'ii'd 7 1 9 .tf3 .l:th4 20
c5 dxc5 21 bxc5 .txd4 (2 l . . .tbxd5
22 c6 leaves Black in severe difficul­
ties) 22 .txd4 tbxd5 23 .txg7 <J;xg7
24 .txd5 ± Rogers-Loffler, Dutch
Interclub 1 995.
b) 7 tbc6 8 tbf3 .tf5 9 d5 tbe5
•••
10 tbct4 .td7 1 1 b3 0-0 12 .te2 c5 1 3
dxc6 bxc6 1 4 0-0 .l:te8 1 5 .te3
(White has a small but durable ad­
vantage based on his structural supe­
riority) 1 5 . . . 'ii'c7 1 6 .l:tc 1 .l:tad8 1 7
'ii'd2 .t c 8 1 8 'ir'c2 .tf8 1 9 .l:tfd 1 'ii'e7
20 .tf4 .tb7 2 1 tbf5 'ii'e6 22 .l:te1
'ii'g 6 23 .tg3 .tc8 24 tbd4 .tb7 25
'ii'xg6 hxg6 26 .tn a6 27 tbc2 f6 28
f4 tbf7 29 .tf2 tbd7 30 tbd4 f5 31 g4
.l:txe1 32 .l:txe1 c5 3 3 tbe6 .l:te8 (one
may presume from what follows that
both players were by now in time
trouble) 34 g5? (34 .tg2 ;!;) 34 . . ..l:tc8
(34 . . . tbde5 ! 35 fxe5 .l:txe6 is very
good for Black) 35 tbd5 tbd8? 36
tbxf8 <J;xf8 37 tbe7 +- .l:tc7 38
tbxg6+ <J;n 39 lbh8+ <J;f8 40 .td3
tbf7 41 tbg6+ <J;g8 42 .l:te8+ <J;h7 43
.txf5 1 -0 Rogers-Bagirov, 2nd Bun­
desliga 1 995 .
Interestingly enough, these two
games, which Ian Rogers kindly sup­
plied to me by e-mail, were played
on consecutive days. It seems that
the plan is good enough for an edge,
so Black should perhaps refrain from
an early . . . tbc6.
7 ... tbc6
Curt Hansen suggests the con­
tinuation 7 tb6d7 8 .te3 tbf6, but I
.••
must confess to being left cold by
this waste of time.
The Exchange Variation f�
Instead 7 0-0 8 .t e3 c6! '! m i g ht
...
be the solution to Black's problem�:
a) 9 0-0-0?! d5 1 0 c5 tb6d7 I I
.td3 b6 1 2 h4 tbf6 ( 1 2 . . . bxc5 ! ? i �
preferable) 1 3 tbge2 bxc5 occurred
in Camacho-Diaz Perez, Pinar del
Rio 1 995, and was assessed as =F by
Diaz Perez, who claimed Black's in­
tention was ... lbbd7, but 14 dxc5
lbbd7 ( 1 4 . . . tbg4 ! ? is better) 15 lbd4
looks OK for White.
b) 9 .td3 d5 10 cxd5 cxd5 1 1
tbge2 tbc6 1 2 0-0 .td6 1 3 tbf4 lbb4
14 .tb1 'ir'h4 15 g3 'ir'g4 gave Black
a comfortable game in Dolezal-Bul­
courf, Buenos Aires 1 995 .
8 .te3 0-0
Blatny suggested 8 .te6!? with
...
the possible continuation 9 d5 tbe5
10 'ii'g3 .tf5 .
9 0-0-0 (D)
B
9 .•• f5? !
This highly spirited move intends
.. .f4, but is inadequate. However,
Black has not proved clear equal ity
after other moves:
a) 9 .tg5 looks like a re a s o n ­
•.•
able idea, but is untested.
b) 9 .tf6 and now:
.••
36 The Exchange Variation

b 1 ) 10 h4! ? should probably be 15 cxd6 cxd6

met by 10 ... h6; instead 10 ... .ie6 1 1 16 .txr5 l:txf5
b3 d5 1 2 c5 ltlc8 1 3 ltlh3 b6 14 i.g5 ! 17 ltlge2
favoured White in the game Cherny­ The knight is heading for e6.
shov-Kopylov, Voronezh 1 993. 17 l:tf7 18 l:thg1 ltla6 19 'ii'h 5
•..

b2) 10 i.d3 ! ? .ixd4 1 1 .ixd4 'ii'e8 20 ltld4 l:tc8 21 'it>b1 ltlac5

ltlxd4 12 .ixh7+ 'it>xh7 13 'ii'h 5+
'it>g8 14 l:txd4 'ii'f6 15 ltlf3 ;!; is analy­
sis by Chernyshov and Raetsky.
c) 9 .te6 and now:
•..
c 1 ) 10 b3 (rather harmless) 10 ... a5
( 1 0 . . . 'ii'c 8 1 1 h3 a5 112-112 Seul-J.Hor­
vath, Budapest 1 995) 1 1 a4 d5 12 c5
ltlc8 ! ( 1 2 . . . ltld7? 1 3 ltlxd5 denies
Curt Hansen suggests that instead
2 1 . . .ltlf6 ! ? gives Black better sur­
vival chances.
22 ltle6 ltlf6 23 'ii'h3 ltlfe4 24 i.d4
.if6 25 ltlxe4 ltlxe4 26 'ii'e3 i.xd4
27 'ii'xd4
Now g7 collapses.
27 ltlf6 28 ltlxg7 'il'e4+ 29 'ifxe4
•..

Black enough compensation, con­ ltlxe4 30 ltle6 l:tf5 31 f3 ltlf2 32 l:td2

trary to the opinion of Chernyshov ltlh3 33 l:tg4 h5 34 l:th4 ltlg1 35
and Raetsky, e.g. 13 . . .ltlf6 14 ltlxf6+ ltlg5 l:te8 36 l:txh5+ 'it>g8 37 l:tg2
.ixf6 1 5 d5 ltle5 1 6 dxe6 +-) 1 3 l:te1 + 38 'it>c2 l:te2+ 39 l:txe2 ltlxe2
ltlge2 i.g5 1 4 'it>b2 ltlb4 1 5 h4? ( 1 5 40 ltle4!
ltlf4 +) 1 5 . . ..ixe3 1 6 fxe3 'ii'd7 1 7 h5 A neat trick to finish Black off.
.ig4 1 8 'iff4 l:ta6 ! 1 9 l:th4 .if5 20 40 ... l:txf4 41 'it>d2 ltld4 42 'it>e3
ltlg3 l:tf6 2 1 ltlxf5 'ir'xf5 22 'ii'xf5 l:tf5 43 'it>xd4! 1-0
l:txf5 + Chernyshov-Zelcic, Djakovo
1 994. Game 6
c2) 10 c5 is more critical. Rather Malishauskas - Kupreichik
than 10 ltlc4? 1 1 .if4 ! .if6 12 d5 ±
.•• Moscow OL 1994
R.Leyva-Medina, Cuba 1 994 or
10 ltlc8 1 1 i.a6 ! ?, 10 ltld7 looks
••• •.. 1 e4 ltlf6 2 e5 ltld5 3 d4 d6 4 c4 ltlb6
best. 5 exd6
10 g3 f4 5 ... cxd6
1 1 gxf4 .tr5 6 ltlc3
12 c5 ltld7 After 6 d5 e6 7 ltlc3 i.e7 8 i.d3
13 .ih3! Kaidanov-Palatnik, New York 1 994,
Highlighting the weaknesses left Kaidanov recommends 8 . . . 0-0 in­
by Black's impetuous advance. tending . . . ltla6-c5 = .
13 ..• 'it>h8 6 ... g6 (D)
14 d5 ltlcb8 7 .ie3
Both 14 ltlb4? 1 5 i.xf5 l:txf5 1 6
•.. There are various other ideas for
'ii'e4 and 1 4 ltla5 ? 1 5 i.xf5 l:txf5
.•• White here.
1 6 'ii'e4 'il'f8 1 7 b4 lose material for 7 .i g5 i.g7 8 l:tcl 0-0 9 .ie2 h6 10
Black. i.e3 d5 1 1 c5 ltlc4 1 2 i.xc4 dxc4 13

lbge2 (M. Kaminski-Kveinys, Polish
Cht (Lubniewice) 1 995) 13 . . .i.f5 14
'ili'd2 �h7 15 0-0 lbc6 16 l:tfd 1 i.d3
17 l2Jf4 is analysis by Chekhov, but
now he overlooked that Black has
1 7 . . . e5 !, e.g. 18 lbxd3 exd4 is quite
good for Black, while 18 dxe5 lbxe5
1 9 lbb5 can't be at all bad for Black,
e.g. 1 9 . . . b6.
7 d5 i.g7 8 l2Jge2 0-0 9 l2Jd4 e5
10 dxe6 i. xe6 1 1 lbxe6 Wie7 1 2
i.e2 'ii'xe6 1 3 0-0 lbc6 14 lbb5 l:tad8
1 5 l:te1 (Dvoirys-Svidler, Novgorod
1 995) and now Dvoirys gave 15 .. .'ili'f5
1 6 i.d3 "ili'f6 17 .U.b1 d5 18 c5 lbc4 19
b3 lb4e5 20 i.fl as favouring White,
but I 'm not sure this is right after,
e.g., 20 . . . 'tli'h4 - White has no block­
ade on d4, and B lack is well central­
ised.
I have an idea for White here that
deserves some testing . It is based
upon the sharp line 7 a4 a5 8 c5 dxc5
9 i.b5+ ltJ6d7 10 i.f4 ! i.g7 1 1 lDd5
e5 ! 1 2 dxe5 0-0 1 3 lDf3 lDc6 1 4
.tg5 ! f6, a s played i n the game
Perovic-Begovac, Yugoslavia 1 985
(see TCA for details). This line is
rather unclear, but satisfactory for
Black. My idea is that White tries to
The Exchange Variation ./!
get this line with the moves h 4 and
... h5 already played, viz. 7 a4 a5 H h4
h5 9 c5 dxc5 1 0 i.b5+ lD6d7 1 1 .t f4
i.g7 ( 1 1 . . .lDa6 1 2 lDd5) 12 lDd5 e 5
1 3 dxe5 (13 .ig5 f6) 1 3 ...0-0 14 .ig5.
which seems to be good for White. I
think that Black should avoid this, hy
meeting 8 h4 with 8 . . . h6, and i f
White tries 7 h4 h5 8 a4, then avoid­
ing 8 . . . a5, in each case claiming that
the moves of the other set of rooks'
pawns helps Black.
The general wisdom is that 7 a4 is
best met by 7 . . . a5, and 7 h4 by 7 . . . h5 ,
but neither reply is compulsory:
7 h4 h6 8 h5 g5 9 .id3 lDc6 1 0
lDge2 .ig7 1 1 i.e3 d5 ! 1 2 c 5 lDd7 !
1 3 .U.c 1 ( 1 3 i.b5 lDf6) 1 3 . . . lDxc5 14
dxc5 d4 15 lDxd4 i.xd4 ! 1 6 'ii'e2
i.e6 17 0-0 i.xe3 1 8 'ii'xe3 'iVd4 1 9
'ili'g3 ( 1 9 'ili'xd4 ! ? = ) 1 9 . . . 'tli'e5 ! 20
"ili'xe5 lDxe5 21 i.b5+ �f8 ! 22 f3
�g7 23 I:.fe 1 f6 + V.Meier-Bagirov,
Berlin 1 99 1 .
7 a4 .tg7 8 a5 lD6d7 9 i.e3 0-0 1 0
lDf3 e5 1 1 i.e2 lDc6 1 2 d5 lDe7 1 3
lDb5 lDf5 1 4 i.xa7 e4 1 5 lDfd4 lDe5
1 6 lDxf5 ( 1 6 0-0) 1 6 ... i.xf5 17 'ili'd2?
( 1 7 0-0) 17 . . . .U.xa7 ! ! 1 8 lDxa7 e3 ! 1 9
'ii'xe3 lDd3+ 20 �fl .U.e8 2 1 'tli'd2
(2 1 'ii'g 3) 2 1 . . .l:txe2 ! ! gave Black a
ferocious attack in Shaw-Condie,
Aberdeen 1 995.
Darryl Johansen's impressive re­
sults with 7 i.d3 i.g7 8 lDge2 have.
not exactly surprisingly, led to the
line becoming very popular amongst
Antipodean players, but it's odd t h at
players from other parts of th e world
have been relatively slow o n the u p
take. White's idea of meet i n g . . . l/ \c(J
38 The Exchange Variation
with d5, either with or without an in­
tervening 8 . . . 0-0 9 0-0, is so potent
that Black really should avoid it alto­
gether. Consider:
a) 8 .!bc6 9 d5 .!be5 10 0-0
.••
.!Dxd3 1 1 'ii'x d3 .i.f5 1 2 'ii'd 1 0-0 1 3
b 3 .!bd7 1 4 .i.e3 .!De5 1 5 h 3 'ii'd7 1 6
f4 .!bd3 17 g4 ± Rogers-Duijenbade,
The Hague 1 990.
b) 8 0-0 9 0-0 (D) and now:
•••
B
b 1 ) 9 .!bc6 10 d5 .!Des ( 1 0 . . . .!Db4
•••
1 1 .i.b1 a5 1 2 a3 .!ba6 1 3 .i.a2 .!bc5
14 .i.e3 .!bcd7 15 b3 .!Df6 16 'ii'd2 e6
1 7 dxe6 fxe6 1 8 .l:r.ad 1 ± 1 ohansen­
Homung, Canberra 1990) 11 b3 and
now:
b l l ) ll .i.g4 1 2 .i.b2 .i.xe2 1 3
•••
.i.xe2 a6 14 .l:r.e 1 ;!; Rasik-Velicka,
Czech tt 1993 .
b12) ll tbxd3 12 'ii'xd3 .!bd7 1 3
•••
.i.e3 .!Df6 1 4 'ii'd 2 .!bg4 1 5 .i.f4 .l:te8
16 h3 .!be5 17 .i.h6 .i.h8 ( 1 7 ... .i.xh3?
1 8 .i.xg7 'iitxg7 19 f4 +-) 18 .!bd4 a6
19 l%ad 1 .!bd7 20 .l:tfe 1 ± Rogers­
R.Rodriguez, Cebu 1 992.
b 1 3 ) ll e6 12 dxe6 .i.xe6 1 3
•••
.i.e4 i s good for White, for example
13 'ii'e7 14 .i.e3 .l:tfd8 15 .l:tc 1 .l:td7
•••
16 .!Df4 .!bg4 17 .i.xb6 axb6 18 .!Dxe6
'iixe6 1 9 .i.d5 ± Johansen-Depas­
quale, Victorian Ch 1 992 or 13 'ii'd7•••
14 .i.e3 f5 15 .i.c2 f4 16 .!Dxf4 .!bexc4
1 7 .!bxe6 'iixe6 1 8 .i.d4 ± West­
Fuller, Sydney 1 992 .
b2) 9 e5! 1 0 .i.e3 gives Black a
•••
choice between 10 .!bc6 , transpos­
•••
ing back to the old line 7 .i.e3 .i.g7 8
.i.d3 0-0 9 .!bge2 .!bc6 1 0 0-0 e5 (as
suggested in TCA), and the very rea­
sonable alternative 1 0 f5 1 1 dxe5
•..
dxe5 12 c5 .!b6d7 ( 1 2 . . . f4? loses a
pawn to 1 3 .i.xf4 exf4 14 cxb6
whether Black opts for 14 . . . axb6 1 5
.!bxf4 or 1 4 . . . 'ifxb6 1 5 .!bd5) 1 3 f3
(rather tame, but it's hard to see any­
thing better) 1 3 . . . a6 14 b4 .!bc6 1 5
'ii' b 3+ 'iti'h8 1 6 .1:1ad 1 .!bd4 1 7 'ii'c4
(White could try 17 'fi'a3 ! ? intending
b5) 17 ... .!bb8 !? 18 .!bxd4 exd4 19 .i.e2
( 1 9 .i.c2 .!bc6 20 .!be2 .i.e6 ! 2 1 'ii'xe6
.l:te8 + cunningly effects a favour­
able exchange of bishops) 1 9 . . . .!bc6
20 .i.f2 'ii'e8 2 1 .!ba4? (21 .!bd5 keeps
White in the game, though 2 1 . . . .i.e6
22 .i.xd4 .!Dxd4 ! 23 .1:1xd4 .l:td8 24
.l:tfd 1 .i.d7 ! favours Black) 2 l . . . .i.e6
-+ 22 'ifc l .i.xa2 (22 . . . .!bxb4 !) 23
.i.c4 .i.xc4 24 'fi'xc4 'ii'f7 25 .!Llb6
'ii'xc4 26 .!bxc4 .1:1ad8 27 .!bd6 l:td7
28 .l:i.fel (28 b5) 28 . . . .!bxb4 29 .i.xd4
.i.xd4+ 30 l%.xd4 .!bc2 0- 1 Trapl­
Hoticka, Ceske Budejovice 1 993.
7 •.• .i.g7
8 .l:i.cl
8 .i.d3 0-0 (8 . . . .!bc6 9 .!bge2 .i.g4
10 f3 i.f5 1 1 b3 .i.xd3 12 'fi'xd3 d5 1 3
c 5 .!DeS would normally transpose,
but 14 h4 !? e6 15 h5 b6 16 cxb6 .!bxb6
17 f4 f6, Kamsky-Palatnik, Philadel­
phia 1 99 1 , 1 8 .!bg1 intending .!Df3

and 0-0-0 shows an independent
idea) 9 ltJge2 ltJc6 10 0-0 e5 1 1 d5
lLlb4 1 2 b3 ltJxd3 1 3 'ii'x d3 f5 14 f4
ltJd7 1 5 l:tad 1 b6 ! ? 1 6 'ilid2 .i.b7 1 7
fxe5 dxe5 1 8 i.g5 .i.f6 1 9 .ih6 i.g7
20 �h 1 .ixh6 21 'ifxh6 ltJf6 22 h3
�d7 was unclear in Kamsky-Chek­
hov, Pavlodar 1987 .
8 0-0
9 b3 (D)
8
White now has c3 and c4 covered,
and so is prepared to meet either of
Black's standard moves : 9 . . . ltJc6
walks into 10 d5 , 9 . . . d5 loses a pawn
after 1 0 c5, while 9 . . . e5 is a little sus-
pect too with Black's position rather
undeveloped. Imagination is called
for.
9 ••. f5
This looks like rather a good nov­
elty, making use of the slowness of
White's build-up, in a line that had
been giving Black some problems:
a) 9 .if5? ! 1 0 .ie2 d5 ? ! 1 1 c5
...
ltJc8 12 .i.f3 ! .i.e6 13 ltJge2 ltJc6 14
ltJf4 'ilia5 1 5 0-0 l:td8 1 6 a3 ! ± Kis­
lov-Brachenko, Odessa 1 980.
b) 9 ltJ6d7 10 ltJf3 (or 10 d5 ! ?)
...
1 0 . . . ltJf6 1 1 d5 ( 1 1 h3 ! ?) 1 l . . .i.g4 12
The Exchange Variation . /IJ
.i.e2 ltJbd7 1 3 0-0 ltJc5 14 lbd4 i.xel
15 'ilixe2 l:te8? ( 1 5 . . . 'ii'a5 16 i.d2 1
Raetsky) 1 6 b4 ltJcd7 17 ltJb3 ! ±
Raetsky-Dovzhik, Lipetsk 1 993.
c) 9 e5 10 dxe5 and now:
...
c 1 ) 10 i.xe5?! gives White a
.•.
choice between 1 1 ltJf3 i.g4 12 i.e2
.i.xf3 13 i.xf3 ltJc6 14 0-0 l:tb8 1 5
'ilid2 ltJe7 1 6 ltJb5 a6 1 7 ltJd4 d5 1 8
c 5 ± Raetsky-Gutkin, Riazan 1 982
and 1 1 i.e2 ltJc6 12 ltJf3 i.g7 13 0-0
i.f5 14 'ilid2 l:te8 15 l:tfd 1 ltJe5 1 6
ltJb5 ltJg4 17 .i.g5 f6 1 8 .i.f4 'ii'e7 19
.i. f l ltJe5 2 0 ltJxd6 .ig4 2 1 i.xe5
fxe5 22 ltJxe8 i.xf3 23 gxf3 l:txe8
24 c5 +- Kislov-Melkumiants, Rus­
sia 1 983.
c2) 10 dxe5 1 1 'ii'x d8 ( 1 1 c5 ! ?)
...
1 1 . . . l:txd8 and here Chernyshov and
Raetsky analysed 1 2 c5 ltJ6d7 (not
1 2 . . . ltJd5 ? 1 3 l:td 1 +-) 1 3 i.c4 ( 1 3
ltJf3 ! ?) 1 3 . . . ltJc6 ( 1 3 ... ltJa6 ! ?) 14 ltJf3
when both 14 ltJf8 15 ltJg5 ltJe6 1 6
•..
ltJxe6 .i.xe6 17 i.xe6 fxe6 and 1 4 h6 ...
1 5 ltJe4 ! ? ltJd4 1 6 ltJd6 ! ltJxf3+ 1 7
gxf3 l:tf8 1 8 l:tg1 are very good for
White.
d) 9 ltJc6?! 10 d5 ltJe5 1 1 i.e2,
...
intending f4, is very promising for
White:
d 1 ) 11 f5 12 f4 ltJg4 ( 1 2 . . . ltJf7
...
1 3 ltJf3 l:te8 14 0-0 e6 15 dxe6 i.xe6
16 'ilid2 ± Sergienko-Kopylov, Voro­
nezh 1989) 1 3 i.xg4 fxg4 14 ltJgc2 c5
1 5 dxe6 i.xe6 16 0-0 'ii'd7 ( l 6 d5 . . .
17 c5 ltJd7 1 8 ltJd4 ltJxc5 19 lbch5
'ilie7 20 l:Ie 1 ± Sergienko-Shash k i n ,
Riazan 1 982; 1 6 . . . ltJc8 17 i.d4 4\c7
1 8 .ixg7 �xg7 19 �h 1 lLlf5 20 li1d4
± Kislov-Bragin, Voronezh I Y75 ) 17
'ii'd2 l:.ad8 18 i.d4 .l:tfe8 I 9 l::t 1 CI lAX
40 The Exchange Variation
20 l:.cd 1 'it>h8 2 1 �e4 ± Priehoda­
Konopka, Slovakian Ch (Topol­
cianky) 1994.
d2) After 1 1 e6!? Raetsky ana­
•••
lysed 1 2 dxe6 �xe6 1 3 f4 �g4 1 4
�xg4 'ifh4+ 1 5 g3 'ifxg4 1 6 'ft'xg4
�xg4 17 h3, with some advantage
for White.
10 �h3
10 dS is less troublesome when it
doesn' t hit a knight. Black replies
1 0 . . . e5 ! ? 1 1 dxe6 �xe6 ( 1 l . ..�c6 ! ?
i s a speculative, but possibly reason­
able pawn sacrifice) 12 �d4? ! ( 1 2
�f3 �c6 1 3 �g5 = ) 1 2 . . . .txd4 1 3
'ifxd4 �c6 +.
10 �ge2 e5 1 1 dxe5 dxe5 is rea­
sonable for Black; note that 1 2 'ifxd8
l:txd8 1 3 �xb6 axb6 14 a4 doesn't
work because B lack is too active for
White to have the opportunity to at­
tack the b-pawns.
10 �f3 ! ? is extremely natural.
Then:
a) 10 e5?! 1 1 dxe5 dxe5 12 li'xd8
•.•
l:txd8 1 3 c5 �6d7 ( 1 3 . . . f4 1 4 cxb6
fxe3 15 �c4+ 'iii h 8 16 fxe3 axb6 1 7
�g5 +-) 14 .tc4+ 'iiif8 15 �d5 ± is
horrible for Black.
b) 10 f4 (consistent with Black's
...
9th move) 11 �d2 (D) and now:
b1) 11 ... ltJc6 1 2 d5 (White's main
idea in this variation; it's surprising
Chekhov didn't fight a little harder
to prevent White implementing it)
1 2 . . . �e5 13 �xe5 ! �xe5 14 �e2 e6
15 dxe6 ( 15 �f3 !?) 15 . . . �xe6 1 6 �f3
d5 17 cxd5 �xd5 18 �xd5 ( 1 8 0-0!?)
1 8 . . . �xd5 1 9 .tb4 .txf3 20 'ili'xf3
�b2 (20 . . . l:tf7 2 1 0-0 'iff6 22 l:tfd 1
;!; ) 2 1 0-0 ! �xc 1 2 2 �xf8 'ifxf8 23
l:txc 1 'iff7 24 l:tc4 l:tf8 25 h4 ;!; V.Iva­
nov-Chekhov, Moscow 1 995 .
b2) 1 1 e5 (now that White can­
•••
not take the queens off, catching the
white king in the centre has more
merit) 12 dxe5 ( 1 2 c5 exd4 1 3 cxb6
dxc3 gives Black an extra pawn; 1 2
d 5 �f5 also looks rather good for
Black) 1 2 . . . dxe5 1 3 c5 and now
13 �6d7 14 �c4+ �h8 1 5 �e4
•••
should be a little better for White, but
13 ... e4 is the move Black wants to
play, for example 14 �xe4 ( 1 4 cxb6
exf3) 14 . . . l:te8 1 5 cxb6 l:txe4+ 1 6
�e3 ! ? ( 1 6 �e2 �c6) 1 6 . . . 'ifxd 1+ 1 7
'iit xd 1 �f5 , when 1 8 bxa7 fxe3 1 9
axb8li'+ l:txb8 20 �c4+ 'iitf8 2 1 fxe3
(2 1 �g5 l:td8+) 2 1 . . .l:txe3 looks like
trouble for White, but 18 .t d2 axb6
19 �c4+ is more critical.
10 ..• h6
10 e5 1 1 dxe5 dxe5 is riskier
...
than with the knight on e2, since here
the king's bishop is free to move, e.g.
to c4 following c5 .
11 f4
11 �4? g5 12 � f4 + 1 3 �xg7?
fxe3 -+; 1 1 dS g5 1 2 f4 ( 1 2 �d4? !
f4) 12 ... g4 1 3 �f2 e5 14 fxe5 dxe5 ao.
11 .•. � e6
 The Exchange Variation 41

12 d5 i.ti 20 lbd5 l:teS 2 1 l:tfd l i. xd5 22

Unlike other lines in which White i.xd5+ 'it>h7 23 'ifb2 'il/e7 24 'iVd2
plays d5, Black has breathing room l:tadS 25 lbf2 lbxd5 26 cxd5
for his pieces and has not lost time 26 'fi'xd5 looks a better try.
moving a knight from c6. 26 ... liJbS 27 'ii'd4 'fi'e3 2S fl'xc3
13 i.e2 l:teS l:txe3 29 l:tel l:txel + 30 l:txel l:ld7
14 0-0 e6 Black can defend this ending,
15 dxe6 which White tries to win for a while .
15 i.f3 is impossible in view of 31 l:.eS lba6 32 :as lbc7 33
White's undefended bishop on e3 . l:txa7 lbxd5 34 liJd3 'it>g7 35 :taS g5
15 l:txe6 36 g3 gxf4 37 lbxf4 lbxf4 3S gxf4
16 i.d4 i.xd4+ l1c7 39 l:tdS l:tcl + 40 'it>f2 l:tc2+ 41
17 'ifxd4 lbc6 'it>g3 l:txa2 42 l1d7+ 'it>fS 43 l:txd6
lS 'iff2 lbd7 l1c2 44 l1b6 l:tc3+ 45 'it>h4 l:tf3 46
19 i.f3 liJf6 (D) l1b4 'it>g7 47 l1xb7+ 'it>g6 4S l:lb6+
'it>g7 49 b4 l:txf4+ 50 'it>h5 l:tg4 51
h4 'it>f7 52 b5 l:tb4 53 l:tb7+ �f6 54
b6 f4 55 'it>g4 h5+ 56 'ifi>f3 �f5 57
w
l:tf7+ 'it>g6 11z-lf2

B oth sides have their problems :
Black's position is somewhat in dis­
array, but the white knight on h3 is a
by-stander at present.
Conclusion
As we have seen, the Exchange Vari­
ation is far from the harmless nonen­
tity its name would suggest: bold,
imaginative play is required from
both sides . The most important stra­
tegic addition to White's armoury is
the idea of preparing to meet . . . lbc6
with d5 . Black is yet to establish
completely reliable paths to equality
versus this concept.
6 Four Pawns Attack without
6 . . . ttJc6

This is a relatively short chapter as

not a great deal has happened in the
8
Four Pawns Attack in the last few
years.
After the normal 5 . . . dxe5 6 fxe5 ,
the main alternative to 6 . . . l2Jc6 is the
notoriously sharp line 6 . . . c5 , which
tries to dismantle White's centre by
the most direct means available.
White frequently ends up with some
fearsome-looking passed pawns in
the centre, while B lack's hopes rest Mitropa Cup (Bad Worishofen) 1993,
on his active piece play. continued with ll J\Vxd4+? 1 2
..

Our main game features 6 . . . c5 7 'i!Vxd4 l2Jxd4 1 3 l2Jxf7 .l:.g8 14 l2Ja3

d5 e6 8 l2Jc3 exd5 9 cxd5 c4 10 l2Jf3 t, which was most peculiar, since
i.g4, which is rather suspect - Black ll . l2Jxe5, with . . . 'ii'xd4+ to follow,
. .

should play 10 . . . ..tb4 - but I feel that leaves Black material up.
the critical line is 1 0 d6. This move b) 6 l2Jc3 e6 7 l2Jf3 and now:
would constitute my main reason for b 1 ) 7 l2Ja6 8 l2Jf3 (8 exd6 cxd6
...

hesitating to play 6 . . . c5 . 9 c5 dxc5 10 i.xa6 bxa6 1 1 dxc5

'ii'x d 1 + 1 2 l2Jxd 1 l2Jd5 gave B lack
Game ? an excellent position in Rigo-Rei­
Durao - Silva nemer, Dortmund 1 992) 8 . . . dxe5 9
Portuguese Ch (Lisbon) 1995 fxe5 c5 1 0 i.e2 cxd4 1 1 l2Jxd4 i.g6
12 0-0 i.c5 13 a3 'ii'b 8 14 b4 'it'xe5
1 e4 l2Jf6 2 e5 l2Jd5 3 d4 d6 4 c4 l2Jb6 15 'i!Vd2 i.xd4 1 6 i.xd4 0-0-0 1 7
5 f4 (D) .l:.ad 1 'ilt'b8 1 8 l2Jb5 gave White a
5 ••. dxe5 dangerous attack in Solomon-Wohl,
5 ..tf5 is a rather old-fashioned
.•• Melbourne 1 99 1 .
move: b2) 7 dxe5 8 fxe5 ..tb4 9 i.d3 !
•••

a) 6 i. d3 i.xd3 7 'ii'x d3 dxe5 8 (this move, which is possible thanks

fxe5 c5 9 l2Jf3 e6 10 0-0 l2Jc6 1 1 l2Jg5 to the lack of pressure against d4,
and the game Votava-Iannacone, has always been the main argument
 Four Pawns Attack without 6
against Black omitting ...o!Dc6) 9 ... c5
10 i.xf5 exf5 11 i.g5 'ii'd7 12 0-0 0-0
1 3 d5 lbxc4 14 'ii'e2 i.xc3 15 'ii'xc4
i.xb2 16 l:tab1 i.d4+ 17 lLlxd4 cxd4
1 8 e6 fxe6 19 dxe6 'ii' c8 20 'ii'd5
'ii'c 6 21 'ii' xd4 'ii' xe6 22 .l:.xb7 'ii' g 6
23 i.cl lbc6 24 'ii'd5+ 'iii>h8 25 i.b2
l:tad8 (D).
26 .l:.xg7 l:txd5 27 l:txg6+ lbd4
28 l:tg4 1-0 Morozevich-Bagirov,
Moscow Intel rpd 1995.
6 fxe5 c5
If you haven't seen this variation
before, don't worry; it's not a mis­
print. Black really is forcing White
to advance his centre pawns, rather
than trying to restrain them as one
normally would. The idea, of course,
is to destroy the pawns before they
land- just like Space Invaders!
7 d5 e6
8 lLlc3
White must obviously avoid 8
d6? 'ii'h4+.
8 exdS
9 cxdS c4 (D)
10 lLlf3
The queen sacrifice 10 d6! ? lbc6
1 1 lbf3 (11 i.f4 g5 12 lbe4 gxf4, etc.,
... lbc6 43
w
was discussed in TCA) 11.. .i.g4 12
i.f4 g5 13 lbe4 gxf4 14 lLlf6+ 'ii'xf6
15 exf6 0-0-0 is one of the corner­
stones of this variation for Black,
and had been assessed as + on the
basis of a game T.Paunovic-Mdevic,
Yugoslavia 1982 - I do not know
how the game continued. I reached
this position as Black against a
strong club player, Darius Pour, in
game 475 of my marathon blitz in
1994. He promptly unleashed 1 6
'ii'c1! , when i t i s hard to see how
Black should continue, for example
16 i.xd6 17 i.xc4; 16 .i.e6 17 i.e2
•.• ••
i.xd6 18 0-0; 16 i.xf 3 17 gxf3
•••
lLle5 18 'ii' xf4; 16 l:te8+ (consid­
•••
ered best by Fritz3) 17 'iPf2 i.xd6 18
i.xc4 i.c5+ 19 'iii>fl i.xf3(19 ...i.e3
20 'ii'c2) 20 gxf3 l:te3 21 i.e6+ fxe6
22 'ibc5. None of these look espe­
cially convincing for Black. I actu­
ally won the game quickly, but this
was somewhat fortuitous.
Other tenth moves for White are
less critical, e.g. 10 i.e3 i.b4 and
now:
a) 1 1 d6 (illogically bolting the
cathedral door after the dark bishop
has gone) 1l. . .lbc6 12 'ii'h5 0-0 ! '!
44 Four Pawns Attack without 6... tLlc6
( 1 2 . . . J.e6 1 3 lLif3 tZ:Id5) 1 3 lLif3 f6
1 4 0-0-0 J.xc3 1 5 bxc3 J.e6 1 6 h4
J.f7 ( 1 6 . . . tZ:Ia4 ! ) 17 'ili'f5 tZ:Ixe5 1 8
tZ:Ixe5 fxe5 1 9 'fi'xe5 tZ:Id7 20 "iig 5 b5
21 "fixb5 ? .l:tb8 22 "fka6 "fif6 23 "i'ia3
(23 J.d4 "i'if4+ 24 .l:td2 .l:tb1 + 25
r.ti>xb1 "fkxd2 26 i.xa7 i.g6+ 27 r.ti>a1
"fkc 1#) 23 . . ..l:tfe8 24 .l:th3 "fif5 25
'it>d2 tLle5 26 J.e2 J.g6 27 "fia4 "fie4
28 .l:tg3 tZ:Id3 29 .l:tfl .l:tb2+ 30 r.ti>d 1
.l:teb8 3 1 J.d2 .l:tb1+ 0- 1 Sadiku­
Crocker, B iel 1 992.
b) 11 i.xb6 "fkxb6 12 i.e2? ! 0-0
13 lLif3 J.g4 14 "fid2?! (14 'ii'd4 "fixd4
1 5 tZ:Ixd4 i.xe2 1 6 'it>xe2 tZ:Id7 1 7 e6
tZ:Ib6 1 8 .l:tac 1 ) 14 . . . tZ:Id7 1 5 0-0-0
J.xf3 16 gxf3 tZ:Ixe5 17 li'g5 ? ! ( 1 7 f4
tZ:Id3 + ! ? 1 8 J.xd3 cxd3 1 9 "i'ixd3
.l:tac8) 17 . . . f6 1 8 "fif4 .l:tac8 19 'ii'e4
( 1 9 .l:thg 1 J.c5 ) 1 9 . . . li'a5 20 'ii'c 2
J.xc3 21 bxc3 .l:tc5 led to a win for
B lack in Knudsen-Burgess, Arhus
Sommer 1 992.
10••• i. g4?!
10 i.b4 is the relatively solid
.•.
main line: 11 J.xc4 ( 1 1 d6? ! i.g4 1 2
J.e2 tZ:Ic6 1 3 J.f4, Gr!11 nh!11j -Burgess,
Svendborg 1 992, 1 3 . . . f6 dismantles
White's centre) 1 1 i.xc3+ 12 bxc3
•••
tZ:Ixc4 13 'ifa4+ lLid7 14 'ifxc4 tZ:Ib6
15 'ili'h5+ (15 li'd4 li'xd5 16 J.a3 J.e6
1 7 'ii'h4 'ii'd 8 1 8 li'b4 'ii'c7 1 9 .l:td 1
tZ:Id5 20 'ii' b 5+ li'c6 2 1 li'xc6+ bxc6
was fine for Black in Gayson-Rix,
Paignton 1 99 1 ) 15 'ii'd7 16 "fkxd7+
.••
J.xd7 17 d6 .l:tc8 (D) and now:
a) 18 J.f4? ! .l:txc3 19 0-0 0-0 20
.l:tfc 1 .l:td3 + Marovitch-Shabalov,
Chicago 1994.
b) 18 J.d2 i.b5 (varying from,
and quite probably improving over
w
1 8 . . . tZ:Ia4 and 1 8 . . . tZ:Ic4, discussed in
TCA) 1 9 lLid4 J.d3 20 'it>f2 'it>d7 2 1
.l:the 1 .l:the8 2 2 a4 J.g6 2 3 .l:ta2 .l:tc5
24 tZ:If3 tZ:Ic4 25 J.f4 J.h5 26 .l:tae2
i. xf3 27 gxf3 .l:taS 28 .l:tg 1 g6 29 .l:tb1
b6 30 .l:tb4 tZ:IxeS 3 1 .l:td4 f6 32 J.c 1
.l:tc5 33 l::te 3 (MChess Pro-Shabalov,
Boston Harvard Cup rpd 1 994) and
now 33 . . . .l:tec8 is very good for
Black.
c) 18 0-0 .l:txc3 19 J.d2 .l:td3 20
i.a5 tZ:Ic4 21 J.c7 h6 22 .l:tfc 1 tLld2
23 lLixd2 .l:txd2 24 .l:tab 1 b6 25 J.b8
0-0 26 J.xa7 .l::te 8 27 .l::t c7 J.f5 28
.l:te7 (28 .l:te1 .l:txd6; 28 .l:tb5 .l::td 1 + 29
'it>f2 .l:td2+) 28 ... .l:tc8 29 .l::tc7 .l::te 8 30
.l::te 1 If2.If2 Formanek-Shabalov, New
York 1 995.
1 1 J.e2
This move has always been con­
sidered to give Black a difficult posi­
tion, and is a strong argument against
Black playing 10 . . . J.g4, regardless
of the assessment of the following
mess . . .
The ferociously complicated 1 1
'i!Vd4 J.xf3 1 2 gxf3 J. b4 1 3 J.xc4 0-0
14 .l::t g 1 g6 15 J.g5 li'c7 1 6 i.b3 i.c5
17 'ii'f4 J.xg1 1 8 d6 "i'ic5 19 tZ:Ie4
'fi'd4 20 .l:td 1 'ii'xb2 2 1 lLif6+ 'it>h8 22
 Four Pawns Attack without f1. Ji \tf• ·I ·,

l:td2 'ir'al + 23 i.d 1 (D) was the main 18 gxf3 t.l1d5

line in TCA, with the conclusion that 18 lL!b1 prevents i. d 2 as a n·
•.•

Black was in serious trouble. sponse to . . . i.b4+, and gi v es rise It • ; a

position that i s very difficu I t t o a s
sess.
19 lL!xb7 i.e7
B
20 i.d2 lL!c6
21 lL!a5 lL!d4
Instead 21. c3? 22 i.xc3 lL!xd
•.

23 lL!xc6 +- is no good at all, hut

21. i.h4+! ? 22 'iti>d l c3 23 lL!xc6
••

cxb2 24 l:tc l might be OK for Black,

for example 24 bxcl'fi'+ 25 i.xc I
•••

i.c4 or 24 h5 25 i.h3 (25 i.xh5 ?

•••

l:tc8 !) 25 . . . bxc l'fi'+ 26 i.xc l i.c4.

However, John Henderson found 22 'ifi>f2 lLle2
the tremendous resource 23 . . . i.e3 ! 23 l:the1 i.h4+
24 'ili'xe3 lL!c4, when the fight con­ 24 'ifi>g2 h5
tinues. John Nunn suggested that 25 l:txe2 hxg4
White may play 25 lL!g4 f6 26 'i!i'd4. 26 l:te5 gxf3+
11 ... i.c5 27 'ifi>h3 i.f2?
12 lLlg5 i.f5 27 lL!e7 is a far better try.
.•.

12 ... i.xe2 1 3 'ili'xe2 0-0 may give 28 l:txd5 i.e4

Black some prospects of survival. 29 l:te5 i.d3
13 i.g4 30 i.e3 i.xe3
13 l:tfl was analysed to an advan- 31 l:txe3 f2
tage for White in TCA. 32 'iti>g2 l:tf8
13 i.d3 33 e7 1-0
14 e6 0-0
15 lDxf7 lL!xd5 Conclusion
16 'ii'f3 Black is under some pressure in most
Not 16 lL!xd8? i.f2+ 1 7 'ifi>d2 of the variations in which he avo ids
i.e3+ 18 'ifi>el , which leads only to a the main line 5 . . . dxe5 6 fxe5 lL'lc6,
draw. though many of the critical as sess
16 ••• lL!xc3 ments are based on intricate tac t i c a l
16 lL!b4 is no good: 1 7 lLlxd8
.•• variations, whose evaluations c a n
lL!c2+ 1 8 'ifi>d l l:txf3 19 i.xf3 lL!a6 change overnight. The mos t i n t r i g u
20 lL!xb7 +- . ing question i s what Shahalov wou l d
17 lL!xd8 l:txf3 play against 10 d6.
7 Four Pawns Attack with 6 ... tt:Jc6
This is the traditional main line of
the Four Pawns . Rather than try to
smash White's centre to pieces im­
mediately, Black first puts d4 and e5
under pressure to restrain further ad­
vances by White. After further prepa­
ration Black envisages a freeing
break with . . . c5 or .. .f6.
Game 8
Tasc R30 Mephisto Genius 2
- a) 9 �b4 was Alekhine's origi­
Kensington 1994
1 e4 �f6 2 e5 �d5 3 d4 d6 4 c4 �b6
5 f4
5 dxe5
6 fxe5 �c6
7 .te3 .tf5
8 �c3 e6 (D)
w
9 rn
9 .te2 is a very important move­
order. White will generally follow up
with 1 0 �f3 , having ruled out the
line with 9 . . . i.g4. In return for this,
White misses out on the chance to
meet 9 �f3 i.e? with the sharp 1 0
d5, but i t seems o n the current evi­
dence that White should not go in for
the complications anyway.
9... 'ii'd7
In the next game we discuss the
current main line, 9 . . . i.g4. Here are
the alternatives :
...
nal idea, but on the current evidence
(sec TCA ) it looks very dubious, and
has hardly been played at all in re­
cent years.
b) 9 i.b4 has never really be­
...
come popular:
b1) 10 a3?! i.xc3+ 1 1 bxc3 0-0 12
c 5 �d5 1 3 i. d2 f6 ! gave Black ex­
cellent play in Kulaots-Kengis, Riga
Z 1 995, which concluded 14 exf6
'ikxf6 15 i.b5 e5 16 i.xc6 bxc6 1 7
dxe5 ( 1 7 �xe5 'iih4+) 1 7 . . . 'ike? 1 8
'ika4 ( 1 8 c4 ! ? i s Blatny's suggestion)
1 8 .. .'it'xc5 19 'iid4 'ii'xd4 20 cxd4
.td3 2 1 .tb4 �fb8 22 �d2 .tg6 23
�hc 1 a5 24 .tc3 �b3 25 a4 c5 26
�a2 c4 27 �e1 �f8 28 �f3 �f4 0- 1 .
b2) 10 .te2 0-0 1 1 �c 1 (this is the
main threat to Black's idea; 1 1 0-0
�a5 gives Black good play - see TCA)
1 l . . .'ii'd7 ( 1 l . . .�a5 1 2 .tg5) 1 2 a3
..i.xc3+ 13 �xc3 �ad8 14 0-0 ..i.g4 15
�h 1 ! .txf3 1 6 .txf3 �xd4 1 7 i.g5
(Bagirov) gives Black problems, e.g.

1 7 . . . tt:'lxf3 1 8 'ii'xf3 .::!.b 8 19 .tf6 with
an overwhelming attack.
c) 9 ... .te7 used to be the standard
move. There does not appear to be
anything particularly wrong with it,
but it is not terribly fashionable
nowadays. The wildly sharp lines
following 10 d5 fail to trouble Black
if he is supremely well-prepared, so
White should try the quieter ap­
proach:
c 1 ) 10 .te2 0-0 1 1 0-0 f6 12 exf6
.txf6 1 3 'ii'd 2 'ii'e7 14 .::!. ad 1 ( 1 4 c5
tt'ld5 15 j_f2 .::!. ad8 1 6 .::!. fe1 tt:'ldb4 1 7
.tc4 tt:'lc2 1 8 j,xe6+ j,xe6 1 9 'ii'xc2
tt:'lxd4 20 tt:'lxd4 j,xd4 2 1 j,xd4
.::!. xd4 22 tt:'lb5 .::!. df4 23 tt:'lxc7 'ifxc7
24 l:txe6 �f2 = Garma-Alburt, New
York Open 1 993) 14 . . . �ad8 15 'ii'c 1
h 6 1 6 �h 1 .::!. d7 ( 1 6 . . .�h8 is normal,
but is under some pressure in the line
17 h3 .th7 1 8 j,g1 .::!. fe8 1 9 .::!.fe 1
'ilif7 20 'ii'f4) 17 .::!.fe1 'fin 18 d5 tt:'le7
( 1 8 . . . exd5 is more robust) 1 9 dxe6
.txe6 20 tt:'le4 t Narciso-Mellado,
Spanish Ch (Linares) 1 993.
c2) 10 d5 and now:
c2 1 ) 10 exd5 1 1 cxd5 tt:'lb4 12
•••
tt:'ld4 .td7 13 e6 fxe6 14 dxe6 .tc6
15 �g4 .th4+ 16 g3 .txh1 17 0-0-0
(after 17 .tb5+ c6 1 8 0-0-0 0-0 1 9
gxh4, Black has the option of trans­
posing to line 'c2 1 2' by means of
1 9 . . . 'fif6) 17 0-0 (playing 17 . . . 'ii'f6
•••
often simply transposes, but reduces
Black's options - after 1 8 .tb5+ c6
1 9 gxh4, he should transposes to line
'c2 1 2' with 19 . . . 0-0; instead 19 . . . h5 ?
20 'ili'g3 cxb5 { 20 . . . 0-0 2 1 .te2 .td5
22 a3 ± } 2 1 .tg5 'ii'g 6 22 'ili'd6 !
tt:'l6d5 23 l:tfl ! tt:'ld3+ 24 �d2 tt:'le5
Four Pawns Attack with 6. . . tt'lc6 47
25 'ii'xe5 tt:'lf6 26 'ii'x b5+ �f8 27
.::!. xh 1 .l:td8 28 �c 1 �g8 29 e7 .l:tc8
30 .txf6 gxf6 3 1 'ili'f5 1 -0 was Fer­
nandez Garcia-Leko, Debrecen Echt
1 992) 18 gxh4 'ii'f6 (D) is a very
deeply analysed position, but since it
has hardly been played at all in the
1 990s, I shall just give a few exam­
ples:
c21 1 ) 19 i.e2 'ii'e5 20 i.g5 c5 2 1
e7 cxd4 2 2 exf8'it'+ .l:txf8 2 3 'ii'xd4
'ii'xd4 24 .::!.xd4 tt:'l4d5 (a novelty; the
older 24 . . . tt:'lc6 was reckoned to leave
White a little better after 25 .l:tf4) 25
tt:'lxd5 i.xd5 26 a4 i.b3 27 a5 tt:'ld5
28 j,g4 tt:'lf6 29 j,h3 .:.e8 30 ..tg2
.::!.c 8+ 31 �b1 l:tc5 32 l:td2 l:.xa5 33
i.xb7 .l:tc5 34 .l:td8+ �f7 and Black
had his fair share of the play in
Texier-Solozhenkin, Noumea 1 995.
c2 1 2) 19 i. b5 c6 ! ? ( 1 9 . . . c5 is
well-documented, and entirely satis­
factory for Black) 20 i.g5 (20 l:txh 1
cxb5 2 1 tt:'ldxb5 tt:'l6d5 22 i.d4 'ili'f4+
23 'ili'xf4 .l:txf4 24 l:tg1 g6 25 .:r.g5
.l:td8 26 a3 tt:'lxc3 27 bxc3 tt:'lc6 28
.te5 .l:te4 29 tt:'ld6 .l:te2 30 i.g3 b6 3 1
h5 .l:txe6 3 2 tt:'lc4 tt:'le7 3 3 hxg6 hxg6
0- 1 B. Christensen-Granberg, Danish
48 Four Pawns Attack with 6. . . ll:k6
corr. Ch 1 98 1 ) 20 . . . fif2 2 1 .i.h6
fig2 22 l:.g1 fixg4 23 l:.xg4 l:.f6 ! 24
.i.g5 l:.f2 25 .i.e2 lD4d5 26 lDe4
l:.xe2 ! 27 lDg3 l:lg2 28 .i.h6 g6 29
h5 lDf6 30 l:.g5 l:.xh2 3 1 lDdf5
lDxh5 0- 1 Hyldkrog-Granberg, Dan­
ish corr. Ch 1 980.
c22) 10 lDb4 1 1 l:tc 1 exd5 (I
.••
think 1 1 . . .f6 might be playable) 1 2
a 3 c 5 1 3 axb4 d 4 1 4 bxc5? ! dxc3 1 5
b4 fixd 1 + 16 l:.xd 1 lDd7 17 i.e2 0-0
1 8 0-0 a5 19 lDd4 .i.e4 20 lDb3 a4 2 1
l:lxd7 axb3 2 2 .i.d4 l:tad8 2 3 l:.xd8
l:Xd8 24 i.xc3 b2 25 .i.f3 b l 'it' 26
l:txb1 .i.xb l 27 .i.xb7 .U.d 1 + 28 �f2
.U.c l 0- 1 Morris-Agnos, London B a­
roque 1 994.
10 d5? !
Here are the alternatives, o f which
only 1 0 .i.e2 is worth playing:
10 .i.d3 ? ! lDa5 1 1 c5 lDbc4 1 2
.i.xc4 (not 1 2 .i.c l ? .i.xd3 1 3 'it'xd3
.i.xc5) 1 2 . . . lDxc4 1 3 fie2 ( 1 3 ..te l )
1 3 . . .lDxe3 1 4 fixe3 must be good for
Black, but in Ananse-Cheiron, Pad­
erborn microcomputers Web 1 995
the computer playing Black then
drifted; as a plan, queenside castling
and a quick .. .f6 suggests itself.
10 :ct? ! .i.g4 1 1 c5 ( 1 1 .i.e2 .i.xf3
1 2 gxf3 gives Black a choice be­
tween 1 2 . . . 0-0-0 1 3 c5 lbd5 1 4
lbxd5 fixd5 1 5 .i.c4 fid7 1 6 .i.b5
fid5 = and 12 . . . l:.d8 ! ? 13 c5 lDc8 14
.i.b5 a6 15 .i.a4 b5 16 cxb6 lDxb6 oo,
as analysed by Kupreichik) 1 1 . ..lbd5
1 2 lDxd5 fixd5 1 3 .i.c4 'ir'e4 14 fid2
( 1 4 'ii'e 2? lDxd4 ! is winning for
Black, but White should play 1 4
�f2 ! ? .i.xf3 1 5 'ii'xf3 'ir'xf3+ 1 6
gxf3 0-0-0 1 7 :hd l = - Kupreichik)
14 . . . .i.xf3 15 gxf3 'ii'xf3 16 Afl 'iih5
17 l:.c3 0-0-0 left Black a pawn up
and with all the chances in Velimi­
rovic-Kupreichik, Yugoslavia 1994.
Instead 10 .i.e2 is the normal re­
ply. 10 ... 0-0-0 ( 1 0 . . . l:.d8 is consid­
ered playable, but there have been no
new developments - see TCA for de­
tails; Macieja-Timmer, Pardubice
1 994 merely provided further evi­
dence that 1 1 0-0 .i.g4 12 c5 lbd5 1 3
lDxd5 'ir'xd5 14 lDg5 .i.xe2 1 5 'ii'xe2
l:td7 1 6 'ir'f2 lDd8 is satisfactory for
Black: 17 'ir'g3 ..1e7 1 8 lbf3 'ii'e4 1 9
.i.g5 .i.xg5 2 0 'ii'xg5 0-0 2 1 l:.ae 1
'ii'd5 22 'ii'h4 lDc6 23 l:te4 lbe7 24 b3
lbg6 25 'ii'e l b6 26 'ii'e 3 lbe7 27 .l:tc 1
a5 28 Ilg4 lDf5 29 'ii'g5 h6 30 'ii'f4
h5 3 1 l:tg5 lDxd4 32 Ilxg7 + 1ixg7 3 3
'ii'g 5+ �h7 34 'ii'x h5+ �g7 35
'ir'g5+ �h7 1h-lf2) 1 1 0-0 ( 1 1 'ii'd2 f6
is considered satisfactory for Black)
l l ..i.g4 ( 1 1 . . . .i.e7 and 1 1 . . .f6 are
..
both very powerfully met by 12 d5)
12 c5 lDd5 13 lDxd5 'ifxd5:
a) 14 lDg5 (the main line, but
maybe not such a problem for Black)
14 . . . .i.xe2 1 5 'ii'xe2 lDxd4 1 6 .i.xd4
'ii'xd4+ 17 �h 1 'ir'd2 18 'ii'xd2 l:txd2
19 l:.xf7 .i.xc5 20 lDxe6 .i.b6 2 1
lDxg7 .i.d4 (this position has gener­
ally been regarded as equal) 22 e6
.i.xb2 23 e7 (new move) 23 . . . .i.xg7
24 l:.e1 l:.e8 25 l:.xg7 (looks good for
Black) 25 . . . h6 26 'it>g1 :xa2 27 l:.g6
'it>d7 28 l:r.xh6 and now, in the game
Dark Thought-Cheiron, Paderborn
microcomputers Web 1 995, B lack's
most sensible course was 28 ... :xe7
29 :d1 + �e8 30 l:th8+ � 3 1 :h7+
�e8 32 l:th8+ with a repetition.

b) 14 b4!? 'ii'e4 15 'ii' b3 lLixd4 16
lLixd4 i.xe2 (D).
17 lLixe2!? (this move is far more
dangerous than the formerly played
17 lH4) 17 ... .:td3 18 'it'a4 'ii'xe3+ 19
�h1 'ii'xe2 20 'ii'xa7 l:.d2 21 'ii'a8+
�d7 22 'ifxb7 i.e7 23 l:rae1 'ii'd3
(23 . . . 'ii' c4 24 l%d1 l:.d5 25 l:.c1 We2
26 c6+ �e8 27 Wxc7 and White's c­
pawn should carry the day) 24 c6+
�e8 25 Wxc7 'ii'd5 (or 25 . . . 'ii' b5 26
a4 'ii'a6 27 b5 and the white pawns
steam-roller through) was played in
Minasian-Donchenko, Naberezhnye
Chelny 1988. Then, rather than 26
:C3, when Black should have tried
26 ... l:.c2, I see no defence to the con­
tinuation 26 l:.gl ! l:.c2 27 l:.c1 l%xc1
28 l:.xc1 'ii'd2 29 'ii' b8+ i.d8 30 l:.g1
and Black is powerless against the
pawns, for example 30 ...Wc2 31 'ii'd6
winning on the spot. Does this refute
10 ... 0-0-0?
10 exdS
11 cxdS lLib4
12 lLld4 lLI6xd5
13 lLlxdS lLixdS
14 lLixf5 0-0-0
15 Wd3 g6 (D)
Four Pawns Attack with 6... lLic6 49
This was a known theoretical po­
sition, considered good for Black
due to some diabolical tactical ideas.
However, Murray Chandler and Si­
mon Knight at the BCM Chess Shop
had set two of their strongest com­
puters to play against each other, and
this position quickly resulted. The
Tasc produced the following move:
16 lLih4!?
Murray's analysis suggested that
this novelty made the line good for
White, and that the assessment '10
d5 is tricky, but seems to be bad'
from TCA might require some revi­
sion. His provisional article on the
game was called The l % Novelty, the
point being that one would not ex­
pect such a decentralising move to be
any good, but once in a while it just
happened to work- and so was just
the type of novelty a computer would
find more readily than a human. At
the point in his analysis that seemed
the critical one, I set my old (and
now sadly lobotomised) computer to
work overnight. The fruits of its la­
bour(see note to White's 18th move)
resulted in Murray's article mutating
into The Novelty That Wasn't.
50 Four Pawns Attack with 6. . . lUc6
Other moves for White are no bet­
ter:
16 liJh6 lUxe3 17 'ii'xe3 'ii'e7 +.
16 liJd6+? .i.xd6 17 exd6 liJxe3
0- 1 Bullockus-Oakley, corres. 1 984.
16 liJg3 .t b4+ 17 i.d2 ( 17 'it>f2
'ike7 intending 1 8 . . . liJxe3 ) 1 7 . . .'ii' a4
works well for Black.
16 ... liJxe3
16 .. .'ii'a4 works nicely in case of
17 i.g5 i.b4+ 1 8 'it>f2 i.c5+ 1 9 'it>g3
( 1 9 'it>f3 f6 20 b3 'ii'c 6 -+) l 9 . . . liJc3
20 'ii'e 2 l:td3 -+, but after the simple
17 liJf3 I don't see anything promis­
ing for Black.
17 'ii'xe3 i.b4+
The critical idea that B l ack must
avoid is the exchange of queens in
such lines as 17 ...i.c5 18 'ii' h 3.
18 'it>f2?!
18 'it>e2!? (D) was Murray Chan­
dler's proposed improvement:
B
Then such lines as 18 ... 1\VbS+ 1 9
'it>f2, 1 8...'ii'd2+ 1 9 'ii'xd2 l:txd2+ and
18 ...'iVg4+ 1 9 liJf3 'ii'c4+ 20 'it>f2 are
no good at all for Black.
After more than seven hours ' de­
liberation, Fritz came up with the
astonishing 18 ... g5! , which seems to
be very good for Black in all vari­
ations :
a) 19 'iixg5 'ii'd 3+ 20 'it>f2 .i.c5+
21 'it>e1 'ii'd4 (2 1 . ..iLb4+ repeats, but
Black has better) 22 'i'i'f5+ 'it>b8 23
i.e2 'ii'xh4+ and Black regains the
piece with a huge advantage.
b) 19 e6 'ii' b 5+ (or 1 9 . . .'ii' d 2+ 20
'ii'xd2 l:txd2+ 2 1 'it>e3 gxh4 22 a3 iLa5
23 b4 ±) 20 'it>f2 (20 'it>f3 'iVd5+ -+)
20 . . . l:td2+ 2 1 iLe2 (2 1 'ifxd2 'ii' b 6+
22 'ii'e 3 iLc5 23 liJf5 fxe6 wins for
B lack) 2 1 . . . gxh4 22 exf7 .:tf8 +.
c) 19 liJf3 g4 is the main point.
Having seen what Fritz was up to, it
wasn't too difficult to coax the fol­
lowing variations out of it:
c l ) 20 liJg5 l:ihe8 -+.
c2) 20 liJh4 'ii'e7 21 liJf5 (2 1 g3
l:td2+) 2 l ...l:f.d2+ 22 'ii'xd2 'ii'xe5+ 23
'ii'e3 'il'xb2+ 24 'it>d3 (24 'it>d 1 l:td8+
25 i.d3 'ii'x a1+ -+) 24 . . . 'i'c3+ 25
'it>e4 (25 'it>e2 'iic2+ 26 'fi'd2 'ii'xd2#)
25 . . . !1e8+ -+.
c3) 20 lUe1 'ii'f5 (20 . . . l:the8 2 1
liJct3) 2 1 l:f.c l (2 1 liJct3 l:.xd3 22 'ii'xd3
'ifxe5+ -+) 2 1 . . ..:the8 22 liJd3 l:txd3
23 'ii'xd3 'ii'xe5+ 24 'it>f2 (or 24 �d1
l:td8) and now 24 ... 'iff6+ mates in
seven moves at most: 25 'iff3 g3+ 26
'it>xg3 iLd6+ 27 'iii>h 3 'iih 6+ 28 'iti>g4
l:tg8+ 29 �f5 'ii'g6#.
The rest of the game was a superb
attacking demonstration by Genius 2.
18 ... 'iie 7!
19 'ii'h3 +
19 liJf3 is impossible as 19 . . . iLc5
picks off the white queen.
19 �b8
20 liJf3 iLcS+
21 �g3 !:.d2!
 Four Pawns Attack with 6. . . lL!c6 51

22 .l:.cl
The rook is immune as 22 lL!xd2
allows a forced mate: 22 . . . 'ifxe5+ 23
�f3 'ife3+ 24 �g4 h5+ 25 �h4
i.e7#.
There is also a forced mate after
10 i.e2
10 'ifd2 is the main alternative,
but it has never performed well in
practice, and allows Black good
counterplay:
a) 10 'i¥d7 1 1 i.e2 ( 1 1 0-0-0 i.b4
...

22 i. c4 i.f2+ 23 �f4 'ifb4 24 b3, viz. 1 2 a3 i.e7 1 3 lL!e4 0-0-0 14 lL!eg5

24 . . . .l:.d4+ 25 lL!xd4 'ifd2+ 26 �f3 i.h5 1 5 d5 exd5 16 i.xb6 axb6 1 7
'it'e3+ 27 �g4 h5+ 28 'i!Vxh5 'ife4+ cxd5 lL!a5 1 8 'ife3 'ifa4 gave Black
29 �g5 i.h4+ 30 'iVxh4 'ifxh4#. It is excellent play in Zvara- Konopka,
impressive how the white king is Prague 1 99 1 ) 1 1 . . .0-0-0 1 2 c5 i.xf3
corralled up the board. 1 3 cxb6 i.xg2 14 i.b5 a6 1 5 1i'xg2
22 i.f2+ axb5 (Shabalov- Kengis, Latvian Ch
23 �f4 f6 (Riga) 1 989) 16 a4 was given as ± by
24 g3 .l:.hd8! Shabalov, but this looks unconvinc­
25 ltJxd2 'ifxe5+ ing; what, for example, does White
26 �f3 .l:.xd2 play after 16 . . . lL!xd4 here?
Faced with various mating ideas, b) 10 i.b4 (D) hopes to provoke
...

the Tasc deemed it appropriate to re­ a weakening of White's queenside:

sign at this point.
0-1
w
Game 9
Van der Wiel - Vaganian
Ter Ape/ 1 993

1 e4 lL!f6 2 e5 lLid5 3 d4 d6 4 c4 lL!b6

5 f4 dxe5 6 fxe5 lL!c6 7 i. e3 i.f5 8
lbc3 e6 9 lL!f3
9 i.g4 (D)

b1) 11 a3 i.e7 12 tbe4 'iVd7 1 3 i.e2

0-0-0 14 0-0-0 i.f5 1 5 lL!g3 i.g6 1 6
w
i.d3 lL!xd4 1 7 lL!xd4 i.xd3 and now
1 8 c5 was successful in the game
M.Simons-Standen, corr. 1 994, the
game continuing 18 lL!d5? 19 c6
...

bxc6 20 'ifxd3 �b7 2 1 lL!b3 +-. How­

ever Black can do better: 18 .'�xd4
..

1 9 i.xd4 .l:.xd4 20 'ifxd3 .l:.xd3 2 1

.l:.xd3 lL!d7 22 .l:.e1 lL!xc5 with two
52 Four Pawns Attack with 6... tDc6
good pawns in return for the ex­
change.
b2) 11 i.e2 0-0 (unusual; nor­
mally Black would aim to castle long
in this variation, e.g. l l . . .i.xf3 1 2
gxf3 'ii'd 7 1 3 a3 j_e7 1 4 tDe4 f5 1 5
exf6 gxf6 1 6 0-0-0 0-0-0 { this should
be OK for Black } 17 .l:thgl .l:thg8 1 8
.l:txg8 .l:txg8 1 9 d 5 exd5 2 0 cxd5 tDe5
and now 2 1 j,xb6 axb6 22 d6 cxd6
23 tDxd6+ j,xd6 24 'iix d6 might
give White an edge, but i ns tead 2 1
'ii'a5 'iii> b 8 22 .l:td4 f5 23 tDc3 f4 24
.l:ta4 'ii'xa4 25 tDxa4 fxc3 26 tDxh6
axb6 27 'ii' b5 lDg6 28 'i1Vd3 i. d 6 29
h4 .l:te8 30 'iii>d l .l:te5 3 1 Wei tDxh4 32
'fi'xh7 lDg2+ 33 'iii> f l tDt4 34 'i\Vg8+
'iii> a7 35 'iii> e l .l:th5 36 'ii'g l .l:txd5 37
'ii'g 8 11d2 0- 1 was the far more enter­
taining conclusion of the game Cas­
tafieda-Golyak, North B ay 1 995) 1 2
a 3 j,e7 1 3 tDe4 j_f5 1 4 lDg3 j_g6 15
.l:td l f6 1 6 0-0 (16 exf6 leads to a
type of position more common in the
line 9 . . . j,e7 10 i.e2, etc.) 16 . . . fxe5
1 7 d5 e4 1 8 lDg5 ( 1 8 dxc6 exf3 1 9
j_xf3 'ii'x d2 i s a t least satisfactory
for Black) 1 8 . . . .l:txfl+ 19 i.xfl exd5
20 cxd5 tDe5 + Rosito-Sorokin, Tre­
lew 1 995.
10 ••• j_xf3
10 Jii'd7 1 1 'fi'd2 - see 1 0 j,e2
••
'ii'd7 1 1 j,e2 in note 'a' to White's
l Oth move.
11 gxf3 'ii'd7! ?
1 1 'iih 4+ 12 i.f2 'ii'f4 13 c5
.••
tDd7 (D) is the normal line:
a) 14 'fi'd2 (the dull approach)
14 . . . 'ii'x d2+ 1 5 'ifi>xd2 0-0-0 16 'iii>c 2
(Pakkanen-Kilpi, Helsinki 1 992)
16 . . . g6 17 j,b5 tDe7 ! 18 j_h4 h6 1 9
f4 .l:tg8 2 0 .l:thg l g5 ! 2 1 fxg5 tDf5 is
unclear according to Blatny.
b) 14 �d3 f6 1 5 i.e3 'ii'h4+ 1 6
j_f2 �h6 1 7 i. e3 'ifh3 1 8 exf6
tDxf6 19 0-0-0 0-0-0 gave Black
pleasant prospects in R.Anderson­
Alburt, New York Open 1993.
c) 14 tDe4 f6 15 'ii'a4 0-0-0 looks
quite alright for Black, e.g. 1 6 d5
tDcxe5 17 dxe6 lDb8 18 lDd6+ j,xd6
19 'ii'xf4 lDd3+ 20 j,xd3 j_xf4 2 1
.l:td l .l:tde8 22 0-0 tDc6 2 3 .l:tfel i.e5
24 b3 and now Black can choose
from 24 tDd8, 24 .l:te7 25 i.c4
..• ...
.l:the8 26 .l:te4 g5 and 24 tDd4 25 ..•
'iii> g 2 tDxe6 26 j_f5 g5 27 j,d4 'iii> b 8
28 j,xe5 fxe5 29 j,xe6 .l:txe6 30
.l:td7 . I really don't see an advantage
for White in this line.
d) 14 j,bS!? j_e7 (14 .. .f6 is the al­
ternative) 1 5 0-0 j,h4 ? ! (now Black
really should have played 15 . . . f6) 1 6
j,xc6 bxc6 17 'ii'a4 0-0 1 8 .l:tadl ( 1 8
'ii'xc6 j_xf2+ 1 9 lhf2 'ii'xd4 2 0 lDb5
'ii'x c5 2 1 'ii'xd7 l%fd8 is OK for
Black) 1 8 ... .l:tab8 ( 1 8 ... 'ii'g 5+ 1 9 'iii>h 1
j,xf2 2 0 .l:txf2 'ii'e 3) 1 9 j,xh4 'ii'xh4
20 .l:tf2 .l:tfd8 2 1 'ii'x c6 ± Koch­
Konopka, Clichy 1 993.
12 f4? !

12 'il'd2 is liable to transpose to
the line 1 0 'il'd2 'il'd7 1 1 i.e2. Since
the text turns out extremely badly,
the evaluation of Vaganian's idea de­
pends on the fate of that line.
12 ••. l:td8
13 d5
13 c5 looks sensible, but the con­
tinuation 1 3 . . . t[)d5 14 lLlxd5 'il!Vxd5
15 i.f3 'fkd7 16 l:tc 1 lLlxd4 17 i.xb7
'fi bS (or 1 7 . . . c6 1 8 'it'xd4 'it'xb7) 1 8
i.xd4 'ikb4+ works out well for
Black: 1 9 'fkd2 l:t xd4 20 i.c6+ 'it>d8
2 1 'il'xb4 l:txb4 22 'it>d2 with a clear
advantage for Black.
13 ••• i.b4!
14 i.xb6
14 dxc6? fails completely to the
reply 14 . . . 'ikxc6 -+, while 14 i.f3
exd5 ( 1 4 . . . lLlxc4? 15 dxc6 is good
for White) 15 i.g4 ( 1 5 i.xb6 axb6
transposes to the game) 15 . . . 'ii'e7 !
-+ is no good for White either.
14 •.. axb6
15 i.f3
15 l:tg1 exd5 16 cxd5 ( 1 6 l:t xg7
d4) 16 . . . 'ikh3 is very much in Black's
favour.
15 exd5
16 cxd5 'it'h3! (D)
Four Pawns Attack with 6... lLlc6 53
White has no satisfactory answer
to the deadly threat of 17 . . . 'fih4+
and 1 8 . . . 'ii'xf4.
17 'it>e2
Horrible, but other moves are
catastrophic : 17 'il'e2? lLld4 -+; 17
'iii>d2 'il'f5 picks off White's f-pawn;
17 'il'd3 'fkh4+ and then 1 8 . . . 'ii'xf4.
17 ... 0-0
18 'il'd3
Otherwise 18 lLle4 i.c5 ! + gain­
ing control of d4; 18 lLlb5 l:tfe8 ! with
an attack, e.g. 19 'ii'f l 'fkf5 (threaten­
ing . . . 'ikc2+) 20 'ikc 1 lLlxe5 2 1 fxe5
l:txe5+ is slaughter.
18 lLle7
19 'il'c4 i.xc3
20 bxc3 b5 !
21 'il'xb5 c6
22 dxc6
22 'fkxb7 lLlxd5 wins for Black
since White must either allow the
knight into f4 or exchange off his
king's only defender, the f3-bishop.
The game concluded 22 ... bxc6 23
'il'c4 t[)g6 24 .lhg1 'ikf5 25 l:tg4 'it'c2+
26 'it>e3
26 'it>fl l:td 1 + 27 i.xd 1 'ii'xd 1 +
picks off the g4-rook.
26 ... 'iid2+ 27 'it>e4 l:td5 0-1
Conclusion
9 lLlf3 i. g4 looks quite satisfactory
for B lack. Little wonder then that
White is choosing 9 i.e2 increas­
ingly frequently. Then the line
9 . . . i.e7 10 lLlf3 may offer White a
small edge, while 9 . . . 'ii'd 7 1 0 i.e2
l:td8 could be a very important line,
although virtually no one has been
playing it !
8 4 liJf3 : Introduction and 4 ... dxe5
5 liJxe5 liJd7
Now we come on to the main line of
the opening, by far the most popular
in practice: 4 �f3 (D).
B
It is this apparently modest move
that more than any other puts players
off Alekhine's Defence. As we shall
see in this and the remaining chap­
ters of the book, Black has a variety
of interesting responses. White cer­
tainly does not enjoy a simple advan­
tage that can be maintained by
'natural' moves.
Our main focus of interest in the
current chapter is the notorious line
4 . . . dxe5 5 �xe5 �d7, inviting White
to drag the black king all over the
board with the knight sacrifice 6
�xf7 �xf7 7 'it'h5+ �e6. Although
rarely played, an enormous amount
of analysis has been devoted to this
variation, for the simple reason that
if the sacrifice is not good for White,
then the whole line with 4 �f3 is far
less fearsome. The play following
the sacrifice is almost purely tactical,
so if you wish to play the line, please
study the material in this chapter
very carefully, and supplement it
with your own analysis. The current
verdict is inconclusive: there is no
clear win for White, nor can one
demonstrate that the sacrifice is un­
sound. My hunch is that Black is
OK, but some of the messy positions
will be cleared up over the next few
years as computers become more
powerful.
Among the other fourth moves for
Black we touch upon in this chapter
are 4 ...c6 and 4 ... �6. Tony Miles has
enjoyed considerable success with
4 . . . c6. This move largely aims to
give Black a playable game and to
transfer the weight of the battle to the
middlegame; it is no attempt to seize
equality from the word go, though
some of his games have shown the
quick counterpunching resources at
Black's disposal if White plays too
ambitiously. On the other hand,
4 . . . �c6 challenges White directly.
White cannot hope for much if he
avoids the critical pawn sacrifice 5
c4 �b6 6 e6. This line, however, has
 4 &iJf3: Introduction and 4. . . dxe5 5 llJxe5 &Dd7 55
not been seen so often in the 1 990s,
so I shall just present a few recent
ideas.
Game 1 0
Szilagyi - Krantz
corr. 1992
1 e4 lbf6 2 e5 &iJd5 3 d4 d6 4 lbt'3
4
••• dxe5
This is Black's most popular reply
at present. Here are some rarer ideas:
a) 4 ... c6 has been played with im­
pressive results by Tony Miles, but
nevertheless is rather passive, and
precise play should give White a
pleasant plus:
al) 5 c4 &Dc7 and now:
al l ) 6 J.. e 2 dxeS 7 &iJxeS g6 ! ? 8
J..e 3 J.. g7 9 &iJd2? cS ! 10 &iJdf3 cxd4
1 1 'it'a4+ bS ! 1 2 cxbS dxe3 1 3 b6+
&iJd7 ! 14 b7 J.. x b7 l S l:ld l 0-0 (the
variation 1 S . . . exf2+ 1 6 �xf2 .i.dS
17 ltxdS &iJxdS 18 &Dxd7 { Fritz } is
obviously risky, but may well be
good for Black) 16 &Dxd7 exf2+ 1 7
�xf2 eS ! gave Black good play in
Gi.Garcia-Miles, Matanzas Capa­
blanca mem 1 994.
al2) 6 exd6 exd6 7 dS J..e7 8
&Dc3 0-0 9 J..e 3 J.. f6 10 'ii'd2 cxdS 1 1
cxdS J.. g4 1 2 J..e 2 l:le8 1 3 0-0 &iJd7 =
Blatny-Kengis, Bern 1 99S .
a13) 6 &Dc3 dxe5 7 &Dxe5 &iJd7 8
&iJf3 g6 9 J..e 2 J.. g7 10 0-0 0-0 1 1
J..e 3! (D) and now:
a13 1 ) ll ...a6?! 12 a4 eS? ( 1 2 . . . a5 ;
1 2 . . . &iJf6 1 3 aS leaves Black's queen­
side weak) 1 3 dS cxdS 14 cxdS &De8
lS d6 ! gave White a large advantage
in Apicella-Miles, Linares Z 1 99S .
a1 32) ll ...&iJf6 1 2 h3 &Dce8 (but
not 12 . . . b6? 13 &DeS ! ±) 13 'ii'b 3 &iJd6
14 .l:tad l (Nunn-Ghinda, Hamburg
1 984) 14 . . . J.. e6 lS &DeS ! &iJd7 16 f4
;t (Nunn).
al33) ll ...e5! 12 dS cxdS 13 cxdS
&iJb6 14 J..cS l:le8 lS d6 &De6 1 6 J.. a3
gives White the initiative - Nunn.
a2) 5 J..e 2 makes a good deal of
sense as a reply to 4 . . . c6. Considering
that in the Kengis Variation (4 . . .dxeS
S &iJxeS g6), Black will generally
play . . . c6 as a response to J.. c 4, it
seems logical to put the bishop on e2
when Black has already played . . . c6.
Then after S . . .dxeS 6 &iJxeS g6 7 0-0
(7 c4 &iJc7 8 &iJf3 g6 9 0-0 J.. g7 1 0
&Dc3 transposes to ' a1 3 ' ) 7 . . . i.g7 8
&iJd2 ! ? 0-0 9 &iJdf3 J.. fS 1 0 c4,
rather than 10. .&iJb6 1 1 'ii' b 3 &iJ8d7
.
12 i.f4 (Sulskis-Kengis, Riga Z
1 99S) 1 2 . . . &iJxeS 1 3 dxeS i.g4 ;t,
Black should play 10 ... &iJb4!? 1 1
'ii'b 3 &Dc2 1 2 'ii'xb7 f6 ! 1 3 &iJd3 ( 1 3
'ii'x a8 fxeS 1 4 J.. gS &Dxal l S l:lxal
exd4 16 'ii'xa7 d3 17 J.. xe7 .l:tf7 ! is
probably good for Black, e.g. 1 8
J.. xd8 l:lxa7 1 9 J..fl J.. xb2) 1 3 . . .&iJd7
14 l:lbl eS (1 4 . . . &iJa3 lS bxa3 .l:tb8 1 6
'ii'x c6 .:.xbl leaves White with a lot
56 4 ll::.f3: Introduction and 4. . . dxe5 5 lbxe5 ll::.d7
for the exchange) and now 15 dxe5
�xd3 1 6 �xd3 li:Jc5 is an example
of Black's idea, while 15 g4! ? �xg4
16 ii'xc6 ii'b6 is OK for Black.
b) 4 li:Jc6 has been extremely
•••
unpopular recently. Here is the only
notable new game: 5 c4 li:Jb6 6 e6
fxe6 7 ll:Jg5 e5 8 d5 li:Jd4 9 �d3 .i.f5
1 0 �xf5 li:Jxf5 1 1 �e3 g6 1 2 li:Jc3
( 1 2 g4 ll:Jg7 13 ii'f3 is the theoretical
recommendation, but maybe Black's
idea is 1 3 . . . ll:Jxc4, the point being
that 1 4 li:Jf7 e4 ! 15 ii'f4 li:Jxb2 ! 1 6
li:Jxd8 li:Jd3+ i s winning for Black)
1 2 . . . ii'd7 1 3 ii'd3 ll:Jg7 14 a4 ii'f5
( 1 4 . . . ii'g4) 1 5 li:Jge4 a6 1 6 0-0 li:Jh5
1 7 b4 li:Jf4 1 8 �xf4 exf4 19 c5 li:Jd7
20 f3 li:Je5 was quite OK for Black in
the game Zarnicki-Paglilla, Argen­
tine Ch (Rosario) 1 994.
c) 4 li:Jb6 is an odd-looking
•••
move, voluntarily withdrawing from
the centre without obliging White to
play c4 (which Black would argue to
be weakening). Robert Timmer ex­
plains the move as follows: "It has
some nice points : . . . li:Jb6 is a useful
move anyway and you keep your op­
tions open. You could play . . . g6,
. . . li:Jc6, . . . .i.g4 or even . . . �f5 ; it de­
pends how White reacts. Besides
that the opponent is immediately
'out of book' and you can literally set
your watch by it that he's going to
spend about ten minutes on his next
move. At least, that's my experience
so far." Still, I feel that the move's
virtues are mainly negative ones, and
that the time wasted must be more
significant:
c l ) 5 li:Jc3:
e l l ) 5 li:Jc6? ! 6 e6 fxe6 (the fact
•••
that White has played li:Jc3 instead of
c4 must constitute a substantial im­
provement over the line 4 . . . li:Jc6 5 c4
li:Jb6 6 e6 fxe6) 7 �d3 g6 8 h4 �g7
9 h5 li:Jxd4 10 li:Jxd4 �xd4 1 1
.i.b5+ c6 1 2 ii'xd4 e5 1 3 ii'd l cxb5
14 hxg6 ± Berelovich-Hetey, Gron­
ingen 1995 .
c l 2) 5 �g4 6 h3 �h5 (D) and
•••
now:
w
cl21) 7 e6 fxe6 8 �e2 li:Jc6 9 li:Jg5
�xe2 1 0 ll:Jxe2 'it'd? 1 1 li:Jf4 li:Jxd4
12 �e3 e5 ( 1 2 . . . ii'b5 ! ? is a move
made possible by White's omission
of a4) 13 ii'h5+ g6 14 li:Jxg6 li:Jxc2+
15 'ii;> e2 ( 1 5 'ii;> d2 ll:Jc4+ 1 6 'ii;> xc2?
ii'f5+ and Black wins) 1 5 . . . ii'b5+ ! ?
(again, this move would be impossi­
ble, and the position good for White,
if a4 and . . . a5 had been interposed;
15 . . . hxg6 16 ii'xg6+ 'iitd 8 is quite
good for Black, since after 17 li:Je6+
�c8 1 8 .l:thc l Black yet again has
1 8 . . . 'fib5+, this time with decisive
effect) 16 �d2 li:Jxal 1 7 li:Jxf8+ 'ii;>d 8
18 li:Jf7+ 'ii;>c 8 19 ii'f5+ 'ii;>b 8 20
li:Jxh8 ii'xb2+ 21 �d l with a very
messy position.
 4 li:Jf3: Introduction and 4. dxe5 5 fue5 Ct'v/7
.. V

c122) 7 g4 .tg6 8 e6 (this had al­

ways been assumed favourable for
White, but without any supporting
evidence) 8. . . fxe6 9 li:Jg5 'ii'd7 10
.id3 .ixd3 11 'ii' xd3 li:Jc6 12 li:Jxh7
li:Jxd4 13 .td2 (13 1Vg6+ �d8 14
li:Jxf8 fLxf8 15 .ie3 l::tf6 looks OK
for Black) 13 ... 1i'c6 14 0-0-0 1i'c4 15
1i'g6+ 'iti>d7 16 .ie3 c5 gave Black a
compact position in the game Krak­
ops-Hetey, Groningen 1995. He went
on to win.
c2) 5 a4 a5 6 li:Jc3 (probably the
most accurate) 6 . . . .tg4 7 h3 .ih5 8
.te2 (or 8 e6 !? - compare 'c121')
8...dxe5 9 li:Jxe5 .txe2 10 'ii'xe2 'iVxd4
('logical, but too risky' - Timmer) 11
li:Jb5 'iVc5 12 0-0 li:Ja6 (12 ... e6 13 'ii'f3
wins: 13 ...'iVxe5 14 .if4 or 13 ... f6 14
.ie3 'ii' xe5 15 .if4) 13 l:la3 li:Jd5?
(13 ... e6) 14 'iVf3 ± f6 15 1i'h5+ g6 16
li:Jxg6 hxg6 17 1i'xh8 0-0-0 18 .ie3
1i'xc2 19 1i'g8 e5 20 l:laa1 'ii'f5 21
Afd1 li:Jab4 22 l:lac l li:Jd3 (Blees­
Timmer, Bussum tt 1994) and now
23 g4 ! 'it'e4 24 1i'xf8 l:lxf8 25 li:Jd6+
wins nicely.
5 li:Jxe5 tbd7 (D)
For 5 c6 6 c4 ltJc7 7 li:Jc3 li:Jd7 8
....
li:Jf3 see 4 ... c6 5 c4 li:Jc7 6 li:Jc3 dxe5
Other moves should not terrify
Black:
a) 6 .ic4 c6 7 0-0 li:Jxe5 8 dxe5
.if5 9 li:Jd2 e6 10 a3 .te7 11 .ta2 0-0
12 li:Jb3 'ilc7 13 1i'e2 l:r.ad8 14 .ib l
1i'b6 15 'ii'f 3 f6 ! = Yermolinsky­
Shabalov, New York Hudson 1993.
b) 6 li:Jf3 e6 7 c4 li:J5f6 8 .te2 c5
9 0-0 .td6 10 li:Jc3 0-0 11 .tg5 h6 12
.th4 g5 13 .ig3 .ixg3 14 hxg3 b6
15 d5 l:le8 16 Ae1 a6 17 .tn gave
White a small plus in Lautier-Shirov,
Biel 1992, but an entirely manage­
able one.
6
7 'ii'h5+
8 c4
8 g3 is the main alternative. After
8 b5 9 a4 (D) play may continue:
...

7 li:Jxe5 li:Jd7 8 li:Jf3.

The very important move 5 g6 is •.•

discussed in Chapter 12.

B
This line shot to notoriety when
Larsen dared try it against Tal in their
Candidates match in 1965. The fol­
lowing piece sacrifice has since been
subjected to an enormous amount of
analysis, with no real conclusion
emerging.
6 li:Jxn
58 4 0.j3: Introduction and 4. . . dxe5 5 fue5 0.d7
a) 9 b4 has never been sug­
•••
gested, but I ' m not sure why not.
Then 10 c4 bxc3 must be the logical
continuation:
a1) 11 bxc3 0.7f6 12 i. h3+ 'i!i>d6
1 3 'ii'e 5+ 'i!i>c6 14 i. g2 i. a6 1 5 0.d2
e6 16 c4 can't be too bad for Black.
White will regain his piece, but
Black has a lot of development and
his king will find a home of sorts on
d7 or d8, but note that the tempting
1 6 . . . .td6 is bad since 17 'ii'xe6 l:te8
18 cxd5+ 'i!i>b6 19 a5+ 'i!i>b7 20 l:tb1 +
.tb5 2 1 l:txb5+ 'i!i>a6 22 .ifl wins for
White !
a2) 1 1 0.xc3 0.7f6 1 2 .ih3+ 'i!i>d6
1 3 .tf4+ 'i!i>c6 14 'ii'e 2 a6 and I cer­
tainly don't see a clear win for
White.
b) 9 .ib7? ! (an idea of Sowray,
.••
an expert in this line, but it looks bad)
10 .th3+ 'i!i>d6 1 1 'ii'f7 c5 12 0.c3 (to
gain the f4-square) 1 2 . . . 0.xc3 1 3
'ii'e6+ ! 'i!i>c7 1 4 .if4+ 'i!i>c8 1 5 bxc3
g5 ( 1 5 . . . .txh 1 ? 16 d5 +-; 15 . . . a5 16
axb5 does not help) and now, rather
than 16 .ie5?! g4 17 i. xg4 h5, when
Black's idea of . . . l:th6 kept things un­
clear in Greiner-Sowray, corr. 1988,
16 dxc5 intending 0-0-0 and l:txd7
wins on the spot.
c) 9 c6 10 axb5 ( 1 0 .ih3+ 'i!i>d6
•••
1 1 axb5 cxb5 12 b3 b4 13 0.d2,
Polee-Etmans, Dutch corr. Ch 1 992,
1 3 ... 0.7f6!?) 10 ... g6 l l 'ii'e2+ 'i!i>t7 1 2
bxc6 0.7b6 1 3 .tg2 (Ernst- Koma­
rov, Dortmund 1 992) 1 3 . . . .tg7 ! 1 4
c 4 0.b4 15 d 5 .if5 16 .te4 .ixe4 17
'ii' xe4 0.4xd5 ! 1 8 cxd5 'iixd5 19
'ii'f4+ .tf6 is equal - analysis by
Ernst.
As an aside, don't play this line of
you are desperate to beat an oppo­
nent who only wants a draw: 8 'ii'g4+
'i!i>f7 9 'ii'h5+, etc. gives White half a
point immediately.
8 0.5f6
9 d5+ 'i!i> d6
10 'ii't7
10 c5+ ? ! 0.xc5 1 1 .tf4+ 'i!i>d7 1 2
.ib5+ c 6 1 3 dxc6+ bxc6 1 4 'ii'x c5
'ii'b 6 ! 15 'ii'x b6 axb6 16 .ic4 e6 1 7
ltJd2 .td6 1 8 .ixd6 'i!i>xd6 1 9 ltJf3
l:tf8 20 0-0-0+ ltJd5 21 l:the 1 l:ta4 !
was good for Black in the game
Stringer-M.Johnson, corr. 1 988-9.
10 ••• ltJe5
The main alternative is 10 ltJb8 •••
11 c5+ 'i!i>d7 (D) :
w
a) 12 .ib5+ c6 1 3 dxc6+ bxc6 1 4
O-O 'ii'a5 ! 15 l:tdl+ 'i!i>c7 16 .if4+ 'i!i>b7
1 7 ltJc3 is probably a critical posi­
tion, in which I find it difficult to
believe White's compensation for
the piece, for example 17 cxb5 or •••
17 i. d7 18 b4 'ii'a 3 19 'ii'c4 cxb5 20
..•
l:txd7+ ltJfxd7 2 1 ltJxb5 'ifa6 22 l:te1
ltJc6 23 l:te3 'ifa4 24 l:tb3 (Sowray­
Greiner, corr. 1 988) 24 . . . l:td8 25
0.c3 0.ce5 .
 4 t'l:Jf3: Introduction and 4. . . dxe5 5 0.xe5 t'i:Jd7 59
b) 12 ..tf4 (White's main current
attempt to prove an advantage after
1 0 . . . t'i:Jb8) 1 2 . . . 'ii'e 8 1 3 'ii'e6+ 'it;dS
14 'ii'eS 'ii'd7 1S t'i:Jc3 t'l:Jg4 16 'ii'e2
'ii fS 17 'ir'd2 t'i:JeS (Black could try
17 . . . gS !? intending . . . ..tg7 and ... .l:tg8
or maybe 17 . . . t'i:Jd7) 1 8 0-0-0 t'i:Jbd7
( 1 8 . . . t'i:Ja6) 19 c6 gave White danger­
ous play in Kopec-Sowray, corres.
1 990-2 - see Kingpin 2 1 for Peter
Sowray's full notes.
1 1 ..tf4 c5
12 t'i:Jc3
The simplest answer to 12 b4 is
12 . . . 'fib6 ! and then 13 t'i:Jc3 a6, or 13
bxc5+ 'fixeS 14 t'i:Jc3 a6, in both
cases transposing to lines below.
12
•.• a6
13 b4
13 0-0-0? g6 ! is by now a very
well known trap, the point being that
1 4 . . . ..th6, winning White's queen, is
threatened.
13 ... 'ii'b6 (D)
Other moves have been found
wanting.
14 .l:tcl
14 bxc5+? 'fixeS 1S .l:td 1 , which
had been the main line, is completely
refuted by 1S . . . 'ir'a3 ! 16 .l:td3 'ir'c 1 + ! ,
when Black wins, e.g. 17 ..txc 1 t'i:Jxf7
1 8 cS+ 'it;c7 ! 1 9 ..tf4+ 'it;dS 20 t'i:Ja4
..tfS 2 1 .l:td4 'it;e8 22 ..tc4 .l:td8 23 0-0
..tc2 24 t'i:Jb6 eS 2S d6 ..txd6 0- 1 Wy­
drowski-Krzyzanowski, corr 1 993.
1 4 0-0-0 cxb4 ! 1 5 t'i:Ja4 'fixf2! ?
16 c5+ ( l 6 .ixc5 + ! ? WxeS 1 7 ..td3 oo
Gipslis) 16 ..t>d7:
...
a) 17 .ixe5 'ii'c 3+ 1 8 'it>b1 'fixeS
1 9 t'i:Jb6+ rl;; c 7 (or 1 9 . .'�d8 20 d6
.
exd6 2 1 t'i:Jxa8 t'i:Jd5 { 2 1 . . . 'ir'xc5 } 22
.l:txd5 'ii'e l + 23 'it>c2 'iic 3+ 24 'iti>b1
'ii'e 1 +, with a draw) and now after 20
t'i:Jxa8+ 'iti>b8 21 t'i:Jb6 ..tg4 (an enor­
mous improvement over 2 l . . .if5+ .
22 ..td3, given as ± in lnformator 60)
22 t'i:Jc4 'ii'c 3 23 ..td3 .i.xd 1 24 .l:txd l
'fid4 Black wins, while 20 d6+ 'it>b8
2 1 d7 ..txd7 22 .l:txd7 'iti>a7 23 .l:td 1
t'i:Je4 24 t'i:Jxa8 t'i:Jc3+ 25 'iti>c 1 t'i:Jxd 1
26 'it;xd 1 'fixeS 27 ..td3 'iti>xa8 -+ 28
.l:tfl eS 29 .l:te 1 ..te7 30 'ir'xg7 .l:td8 3 1
'it;e2 'i!VdS 3 2 .l:td 1 .icS 0- 1 was Mys­
liwiec-Krzyzanowski, corr. 1 99S.
b) 17 c6+ and now rather than
17 'it;d8 1 8 c7+ ! ± Grasis-Stavri­
...
nov, Riga 1 994, best play appears to
be 17 ... bxc6!? 1 8 dxc6+ ! 'it;xc6 1 9
..txeS 'ii'e 3+ 2 0 .l:td2 'ii'e 1 + ! 2 1 .l:td 1
1i'e3+ with a draw.
14 g5
15 .ig3 b5
16 bxc5+
16 'ii'g6 'ifxb4 17 'ii'x gS t'i:Jg4 1 8
'ifg6+ 'it;d7 ( 1 8 . . . t'i:Jf6? 1 9 ..txeS+
wins : 19 . . .'iti>d7 20 'ir'f7, or 19 . . . 'it;xeS
20 'iVg3+ 'iti>fS 2 1 ..td3+ forces mate)
1 9 ..txeS t'i:JxeS 20 'ii'e 6+ 'it;d8 2 1
'ifxeS .l:tg8 2 2 g3? (22 'ir'e3 .ig7 23
'ir'd2 ..tfS) 22 ... ..tg7 23 'fie3 lii f8 24
60 4 l?:.f3 : Introduction and 4. . . dxe5 5 l?:.xe5 l?:.d7

f4 bS 2S �g2 bxc4 26 'fid2 l:.b8 27 to be unclear, while after 22 l?:JdS+

0-0 �fS 28 d6 �d4+ 29 �h 1 exd6 'fixdS (22 . . . �b8 23 �xeS+ 'fixeS+
30 �f3 l:.e8 3 1 l:.fe1 l:.xe1+ 32 'iixe1 24 'fixeS+ !?:.xeS ao) 23 cxd7+ �xd7
l:.b7 0- 1 Elburg-Krantz, corr. 1 99 1 . 24 l:.c7+ ! (a nice way to get White's
16 'fixeS hanging pieces 'off prise' ) 24 ... �xc7
17 'fig6 'ifd4 ! ? 2S 'ifxeS+ 'fixeS+ 26 �xeS+ �c6
18 c5+ �c7 27 �xh8 .ie6 Black has no prob­
18 �xcS is rather cheeky, but it
••. lems - but this is far better than the
seems that Black can get away with game, of course !
it: 1 9 l?:JbS+ �b6 20 'iib 1 (20 'fixf6+ 22 axbS
exf6 2 1 l?:Jxd4 �b4+ +; 20 l?:Jxd4? 23 cxd7+ �xd7
l?:Jxg6 -+) 20 . . . axbS 2 1 'ii'xbS+ �a7 24 l:.c7+ �xc7
22 'ifa5+ �b8 23 'ii'c7+ with a draw. 2S 'fixeS+ 'fixeS+
19 'ii'xgS l?:Jd7 26 �xeS+ �c6
20 c6 bxc6 27 �xh8 l:.xa2
21 dxc6 �h6 (D) 28 �e2 �d2+
29 �d1
29 �fi would last longer.
29 ..• �e6!
w
0-1

22 l?:JbS+?
22 cxd7 .ixgS 23 l?:Jb S ++ �xd7
24 l?:Jxd4 .ixc 1 2S �xeS l:.h6 seems
Conclusion
At the risk of stating the obvious, a
great deal of detailed knowledge is
needed to venture S . . . l?:Jd7 with con­
fidence. Black will spend a long pe­
riod in an extremely precarious
situation, any slip being fatal . If this
suits your style, then, barring a refu­
tation being discovered, I can recom­
mend the line.
9 Alburt Variation: 4
The move 4 ... g6 had been the main
line of the opening in the mid- to
late-1980s, but has now gone very
much out of fashion. The reason,
quite simply, was that Black's results
had deteriorated. Alburt's score with
the variation against his fellow
American grandmasters became in­
creasingly bad, his few wins coming
mainly from ingenious Houdini acts
from difficult positions. Further­
more, Timman's occasional top­
level outings with the variation were
failures. Periodically one read proc­
lamations that the entire opening
was therefore unsound, as if 4 . . . g6
were the only playable system.
Recent years have seen some pro­
gress towards making the line viable
for Black again, but a full-scale re­
vival is still some way off. My view,
and I should stress that it is a per­
sonal one, is that it is dubious for
Black to initiate a king's fianchetto
when White retains the option of
maintaining a pawn on e5.
The problem from Black's view­
point is the position after 5 .i.c4 ltlb6
6 .i.b3 .i.g7 (D).
White's main decision is whether
he wishes to insert the moves a4 and
. . . a5 , and if so, then precisely when
to do so. Two points to note:
1 ) It is not entirely clear who
benefits from these moves. One can
... g6
w
point to individual variations where
it is in one side's favour, e.g. Black
may suffer through his knight being
undefended on b6, but on the other
hand the rook's ability to manoeuvre
via a6 might be of great use.
2) After the immediate 7 a4,
Black has the move 7 . . . dxe5, which
obliges White to enter some sharp,
chaotic variations. This seems a poor
deal for White unless he has some
specific ideas in mind. If White in­
stead plays the simple 7 'ife2, then he
can often play a4 a few moves later,
when Black's best reply is ... a5 .
In the first game in this chapter we
discuss unusual lines for both sides,
while in Kveinys-Speelman we con­
sider 7 'ii'e2 without a4, and in Nunn­
Howell we move onto lines with the
advance of the a-pawn. This last
game describes Black's various at­
tempts to nullify White's grip on the
position.
62 Alburt Variation: 4... g6
Game 1 1
Anand - Timman
Linares 1992
1 e4 ltlf6 2 e5 ltld5 3 d4 d6 4 ltlf3
4
••• g6
5 i.. c4
The old line 5 ltlg5 is totally out
of fashion, for the simple reason that
it gives White at best equality. 5 i.e2
will almost always transpose into the
Exchange Variation after a later c4
and exchange on d6. Black should
note that he is more or less commit­
ting himself to playing the 5 . . . cxd6
variety of Exchange Variation, since
recapturing with the e-pawn is not
generally appropriate with a fian­
chetto.
5
.•• ltlb6
The only other move worth play­
ing here is 5 c6 (it is worth remind­
•••
ing ourselves that 5 . . . dxe5 ? ! 6 dxe5 !
c6 7 ltlc3 ! i..e 6 8 ltlg5 gave White an
overwhelming position in P.Cram­
ling-Alburt, Reykjavik 1 984). The
resultant positions are reminiscent of
the main line of the Kengis Variation
(Chapter 1 3) - transpositions are
possible if White delays playing
exd6, and lets B lack exchange on e5
himself, and replies with �xe5 . Play
generally continues 6 0-0 i.. g7
(6 . . . i.. g4 ? ! 7 exd6 'ii'xd6 8 h3 i.. xf3 9
'ii'xf3 i.. g 7 1 0 �c3 ! e6 1 1 �e4 'ii'c7
1 2 i.. b 3 0-0 1 3 c4 ltle7 14 i.. f4 gave
White a substantial advantage in the
game W.Watson-Wohl, Kuala Lum­
pur 1 992) and now:
a) 7 ltlbd2 0-0 8 i.. b 3 i.. g4 9 h3
i.. xf3 1 0 ltlxf3 dxe5 1 1 �xe5 �d7
1 2 �f3 (Lau-Vaganian, Porz 1 992)
gives Black a tempo-up version of a
line of the Kengis Variation in which
he plays . . .i..e6-i.. g4xf3 .
b) 7 h3 0-0 8 'ii'e2 i.. f5 9 i.. g 5 h6
10 i.. h4 dxe5 1 1 dxe5 g5 1 2 i.. g 3 e6
1 3 i.. b 3 �d7 14 �bd2 �c5 1 5 �4
� Kalesis-Gluckman, Biel IZ 1 993.
c) 7 l:tel i.. g4 (7 . . . 0-0 8 i.. b 3 i.. g4
9 �bd2 dxe5 1 0 dxe5 �d7 1 1 h3
i..e6 1 2 �e4 �c7 = 13 �eg5? i.. xb3
14 axb3 �xe5 ! 1 5 'ii'x d8 ltlxf3+ 1 6
�xf3 l:tfxd8 1 7 l:txe7 l:td l + 1 8 .:tel
l:txel + 1 9 �xel �b5 + 20 c3? ltlxc3
-+ Ginzburg-Nogueiras, San Martin
City 1 995) 8 �bd2 dxe5 9 dxe5 lbd7
10 h3 i.. x f3 1 1 �xf3 e6 12 'ii'e2 0-0
1 3 i.. g5 'ii'c7 14 l:tad l h6 15 i.. c l a5
16 l:td4 lbe7 17 c3 lbf5 1 8 l:ddl gave
White j ust a small advantage in the
game Aseev-Baburin, Helsinki 1992.
d) 7 exd6 'ii'xd6 (D) is the main
line:
w
d l ) 8 .:tel i.. g4 (8 . . . 0-0 is more
solid) 9 h3 i.. xf3 1 0 'ii'xf3 e6 (or
10 . . . i.. xd4 1 1 ltlc3 ! ?) 1 1 c3 (1 1 �3
was played successfully in Chan­
dler-Vaganian, London 1 984 - what
did Hellers and Baburin have in

mind?) 1 1 .. .tLld7 1 2 tLld2 b5 1 3 �b3
0-0 14 tLle4 'i!ic7 15 �g5 ;!; Hellers­
B aburin, Gausdal Skei 1 993.
d2) 8 tLlbd2 �g4 9 l:te1 0-0 10 h3
�xf3 1 1 tLlxf3 e6 1 2 �fl b5 ( 1 2 . . . c5
1 3 c4 tLle7 14 dxc5 'i!ixc5 1 5 l:tb 1
'i!ic7 16 b4 tLlbc6 17 'ir'c2 tLlf5 1 8 c5
l:tfd8 1 9 'i!ie4 tLlfd4 20 �f4 tLlxf3+
2 1 'ilixf3 e5 22 �g5 l:td7 was fine
for Black in Tischbierek-Vaganian,
Bundesliga 1 994/5) 1 3 a4 b4 14 c4
bxc3 (in Nunn-Vaganian, London
1 984, 14 . . . tLle7 was played, where­
upon Chandler suggested 15 l:te4
followed by �f4) 15 bxc3 (annotat­
ing his game against Nunn, Vagan­
ian gave this position as ± in view of
the impending �a3 ; it seems he had
since changed his mind) 15 ...'ilic7 1 6
� a3 l:td8 1 7 c 4 tLle7 1 8 l:ta2 a5 1 9
l:td2 tLla6 2 0 g3 tLlb4 2 1 �g2 l:tab8
22 'ilie2 tLlf5 23 l:ted1 c5 = lvanchuk­
Vaganian, Manila OL 1 992.
6 �b3 �g7
7 exd6! ?
This simple approach b y Anand
does not aim for a large advantage,
but makes it difficult for Black to
equalise fully.
7 0-0 0-0 8 l:te1 �g4 presents
Black with few problems, for exam­
ple 9 e6? ! d5 (the standard response
to an early e6 by White) 10 exf7+
l:txf7 1 1 tLlbd2 �h6 ! ? ( 1 1 . . .i.xd4 is
risky with B lack' s queenside still
half-asleep, but there's no obvious
refutation) 1 2 tLle4 (an extremely
radical measure, as 1 2 c3 �xd2 1 3
i.xd2 also allows Black to rupture
White's kingside by taking on f3 but
without any compensating initiative)
A/burt Variation: 4. . . g6 63
1 2 . . . �xf3 1 3 gxf3 �xc 1 14 l:txc 1
dxe4 1 5 fxe4 'i!ie8 + Yurtaev-B abu­
rin, Oberwart 1 99 1 .
7 tLlg5 used to b e the main line,
but it has gone out of fashion in the
1 990s. Black almost invariably plays
7 e6 (D) (since after 7 . . . d5 he has a
...
small but durable disadvantage).
Here are a few recent ideas:
w
a) 8 f4 dxe5 9 fxe5 c5:
a1) 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 c3 cxd4 1 2 cxd4
tLlc6 13 00 f6 14 exf6 'ilixf6 15 �e3
tLld5 1 6 �f2 tLlf4 (the 1 980s main
line position) 17 tLlc3 tLla5 (awarded
an exclamation mark by Pushkin, but
the tactical method 1 7 . . . tLlh3+ is
considered adequate) 1 8 tLle5 ! tLlxb3
1 9 'i!ixb3 b6 20 �g3 g5 2 1 �xf4
gxf4 (Pavlov-Pushkin, Russia 1 992)
was given as unclear by Pushkin, but
22 tLlb5 looks like a clear edge for
White.
a2) 10 c3 cxd4 11 cxd4 tLlc6 12
tLlf3 f6 and it seems that neither side
can gain from their delay in castling:
a21 ) 13 exf6 'ilixf6 14 �e3 tLld5
1 5 �f2 (usually this position would
arise with both sides having castled;
Black now tries to take advantage of
64 A/burt Variation: 4. . . g6
the circumstances, but without great
success) 15 . . . i.h6 16 0-0 lt:Je3 1 7
'it'd2 lt:Jg4 1 8 'it'd3 lt:Jxt2 1 9 .l:txf2 0-0
20 lt:Jc3 ;j;; Hiibner-Seul, Bundesliga
1 993/4.
a22) 13 lt:Jc3 fxe5 14 i.g5 'it'd7
1 5 dxe5 0-0 1 6 i.f6 ( 1 6 0-0 trans­
poses back to the game Pupols-Al­
burt, cited in TCA - then 16 . . . lt:Jxe5
17 lt:Jxe5 .l:txfl + 1 8 'ii'x fl 'ii'd4+ 1 9
'itth 1 'it'xe5 2 0 i.e7 gave White ade­
quate compensation, but no more)
1 6 . . . i.xf6 17 exf6 .l:txf6 18 0-0 'it'xd 1
1 9 ltaxd 1 .l:tf8 20 lt:Jg5 .l:txfl + 2 1
'itt x fl h 6 2 2 lt:Jxe6 i.xe6 2 3 i.xe6+
'itt g7 = Campora-Polzin, Bern 1 992.
b) 8 'ii'f3 'ii'd7! ? (there has been
very little recent experience with
8 . . . 'it'e7, when the main line is 9 lt:Je4
dxe5 1 0 i.g5 'it'b4+ 1 1 c3 'ii'a5 1 2
i.f6 i.xf6 1 3 'it'xf6 0-0 14 'ii'xe5
'it'xe5 15 dxe5 i.d7 1 6 lt:Jbd2 i.c6 1 7
f4 , when White has marginally the
better prospects in a tedious ending)
9 lt:Je4 dxe5. At the time of writing
TCA, this was quite a hot theoretical
position, with White's best course of
action being quite unclear. Van der
Wiel, however, found an excellent,
and very natural, pawn sacrifice, viz.
10 dxe5 ( 1 0 i.h6 f5 is messy, while
10 lt:Jf6+ i.xf6 1 1 'ii'xf6 .l:tg8 is sur­
prisingly good for Black) 10 i.xe5 .••
1 1 lt:Jf6+ i.xf6 12 'fi'xf6 .l:tg8 13
'iWh4 f5 ( 1 3 . . . 'it'b5 might be the best
try) 14 lt:Jc3 (D) and now:
b1) 14 lt:Jc6 15 i.g5 'ii'd4 1 6
...
'ii'xh7 'ii'e 5+ 1 7 'ittf l 'ii'g7 1 8 'ii'xg7
l:txg7 1 9 I:.e 1 i.d7 20 lt:Jb5 l:.c8 2 1
i.f4 e 5 2 2 i.xe5 lt:Jxe5 2 3 ltxe5+
l:te7 24 I:.xe7+ 'itt xe7 25 lt:Jc3 c5 26
B
lt:Jd5+ lt:Jxd5 27 i.xd5 gave White an
extra pawn in Van der Wiel-Hoek­
sema, Dutch Ch (Eindhoven) 1 99 1 .
b2) 14 'it'g7!? 1 5 i.g5 h6 (Black
...
returns the pawn since 15 . . . lt:Jc6 1 6
0-0-0 gives White a fearsome attack,
while 15 . . . i.d7 1 6 0-0-0 is also hor­
rid for Black: 16 . . . lt:Ja6 1 7 l:the1 lt:Jc5
1 8 lt:Jb5 l:.c8 19 'fkf4) 16 i.xh6 g5 1 7
i.xg7 gxh4 1 8 i.f6 ( 1 8 i.e5 l:.xg2
19 'itt f l .l:tg6 20 i.xc7 should also
give White some advantage) 18 . . . h3? !
(Haba gave 1 8 . . . l:txg2 1 9 i.xh4 ;j;;
while 1 8 . . . a5 1 9 a3 a4 20 i.a2 does
not obviously improve the situation
for Black, except perhaps that c2 is
undefended, and . . . I:.a5 is possible,
though it is hard to see that Black can
force any great benefit from this) 1 9
gxh3 ± Haba-Polzin, Pardubice 1993.
7 .. . cxd6
Anand analysed 7 exd6 8 i.g5
...
f6 9 i.e3 and 7 'ii'xd6 8 0-0 0-0 9
...
I:.e 1 , with a small plus for White in
both cases.
8 0-0 0-0
9 .:tel (D)
9 ... lt:Jc6
9 i.g4 is a very natural alterna­
...
tive, probably best met by 10 h3

i.xf3 1 1 'ii'xf3 i.xd4 ( 1 1 . . .lL'lc6 1 2
c 3 gives White a very clear edge) 1 2
'ii'xb7 lL'l8d7 or 10 c3 intending h3 .
10 h3
10 lL'lc3 i.g4 is more inconvenient
now that d4 is harder to defend. 10
c3 e5 1 1 i.g5 'fic7 is also quite
healthy for Black: 12 lL'l a3 a6 or 1 2
dxe5 dxe5 1 3 lbbd2 h6 14 i.e3 :d8
1 5 'ii'e 2 lL'ld5 Jukic-Hauchard, Ost­
end 1 99 1 .
10 ••• i.f5
After 10 ... e5? ! 1 1 i.g5 'ii'c 7 1 2
lL'lc3 ! White benefits from not hav­
ing played c3 - compare the previous
note. For example 12 ... lL'lxd4 1 3
lbxd4 exd4 14 lL'le4 ± . 1 0... d5 would
be answered by 1 1 lL'lc3 . Anand in
fact had previous experience of this
position: 10... lL'la5 1 1 lL'lc3 ( 1 1 i.g5
:e8 1 2 lL'lc3 h6 13 i.h4 g5 14 i.g3
lL'lxb3 1 5 axb3 i.f5 16 h4 g4 17 lL'lh2
h5 gave Black decent play in Gdan­
ski-Varga, Odorheiu Z 1995) 1 1 ...h6? !
1 2 i.f4 g5 1 3 i.e3 lL'lbc4 14 i.c l d5
1 5 lbe2 i.f5 1 6 lbg3 i.g6 17 c3 lL'lxb3
1 8 axb3 lbd6 1 9 lL'le5 ! Anand­
Guevara, Dubai OL 1 986.
11 lL'lc3 :cS
12 i.g5 ! h6
A/burt Variation: 4.. g6 65 .
Now White will be able to exploit
the slight weakness of g6; instead
u . d5 could be tried.
..
13 i.e3
White plans both 1 4 lL'lh4 and 1 4
d5 followed by 1 5 i.d4.
13 ... d5
Anand analysed instead 13 ... �h7
14 d5 lL'la5 1 5 i.d4 ! and 13 ... lL'la5 14
lL'lh4 ! i.d7 ( 1 4 lL'lxb3 15 axb3 a6 1 6
. . .
lL'lxf5 ± ; l4 . . .lL'lbc4 1 5 i.c l ) l5 lbxg6
lL'lxb3 l6 lL'lxf8 lL'!xal l7 lL'lxd7 lL'lxc2
1 8 lL'lxb6 ! lL'lxe3 1 9 l:txe3 axb6 !.
14 lL'le2!
14 'fid2 leads nowhere after the
reply 14 ... 'it>h7.
14 .. . lL'la5
Black could try 14...lbb4 when
White must avoid 15 lL'lg3? lL'lxc2
( 1 5 ... i.xc2 16 'ii'd 2) 1 6 lL'lxf5 lL'lxe 1 ;
instead 15 ltc1 lL'lc4 1 6 lL'lg3 is the
critical variation, when B lack's best
chance is 16...i.e4! ?, rather than
16... lL'lxe3 17 lhe3.
15 c3 lL'lbc4
15 ...i.d7 1 6 i.c2 i.c6 1 7 lt:'lf4
gives White a kingside attack - Blatny.
16 i.cl 'iib6 ? !
1 7 lL'lg3 would be the response to
1 6 . . . e6, 1 6 . . . .:te8 ! ? or 1 6 . . . a6, with
some advantage for White in each
case. 16...g5! ? has been suggested
here.
17 lL'lf4 i.e4?
17...e6 1 8 lL'lh2 ! g5 1 9 lL'lh5 gives
White a powerful attack, but Black
would do better to try 17 ... 1i'd6!
when after 1 8 lbh4 i.d7 19 tbd3, with
i.f4 to follow, White only has a
small advantage.
18 lbd2!
66 A/burt Variation: 4. . . g6

Now Black has serious problems. White intends 'iie 3 and f3, ex­
18 ... tt:'lxb3 ploiting Black's unfortunate line-up
Blatny analysed the continuation on the e-file.
18...tt:'lxd2 1 9 .t xd5 at length, con­ 29 'il'a4
cluding that White was winning in 30 b3! cxb3
view of Black's unfortunately placed 31 axb3 'iVb5
pieces . Or 31...'ili'xb3 32 f3 .
19 tt:'lxc4 32 �e3 ! .td6
Afterwards Anand preferred 19 33 tt:'lh5 ! 1-0
'iWxb3! tt:'lxd2 20 .txd2 e6 2 1 f3 �xb3 Black's resignation was based
22 axb3 .tc2 23 .:txa7 .txb3 24 .:txb7, upon the line 33 . . .gxh5 34 'ii'xh6 .te5
with a sound extra pawn. 35 'it'g5+ .tg6 36 .:txe5 hxg4 37 'iif6
19 ... �a6! l:he5 38 .txe5 <Ji>f8 39 'ifd8+ 'ife8
Presumably Anand had missed that 40 .td6+.
this move, Black's only chance, was
possible. Fortunately, he is still win- Game 1 2
ning. Kveinys - Speelman
20 �xb3 dxc4 Moscow OL 1994
20 ... .:txc4 is no good since White
then has time for 2 1 f3 . 1 e4 tt:'lf6 2 e5 tt:'ld5 3 d4 d6 4 tt:'lf3 g6
21 �dl .tc6 5 .tc4 tt:'lb6 6 .tb3 .tg7
22 .:txe7 .:tfe8 7 'iie2
23 l::txe8+ .:txe8 This is the most popular move
24 .te3 nowadays. In the next game we con­
Instead after 24 d5 .ta4 Black's sider all lines in which White plays
bishops may yet have their say. the move a4, whether now or on sub­
24 ... �5? sequent moves.
Timman had to try 24... g5 25 tt:'lh5 7 ... 0-0
'ii b 5 26 'it'd2 'ii'd 5 and hope that 7...tt:'lc6 8 0-0 (8 h3 0-0 returns to
Anand would get bogged down in the main line) is best met by 8 ... dxe5
the technical difficulties. 9 dxe5 tt:'ld4 10 tt:'lxd4 1i'xd4 as here
25 d5! 1 1 .:tel .tg4 ! is irritating for White,
Now Black is getting pushed off and 11 e6 .txe6 12 .txe6 fxe6 1 3
the board. 'iixe6 'it'c4 1 4 'iixc4 tt:'lxc4 is fine for
25 ... i.d7 Black, e.g. 15 c3 0-0-0 1 6 a4 l::t hf8 1 7
25 ... l1d8 is met by 26 .td4 ! .txd4 f3 .te5 1 8 tt:'la3 tt:'lxa3 1 9 l::t x a3 .tf4
1/z- 1/z
27 1i'xd4 1i'xb2 28 .:tel - Anand. Dolmatov-Neckai', Bern 1 994.
26 'il'd2 .trs Instead 8 ... 0-0 9 c3 .tg4 1 0 .tf4
27 .td4 .tf5 gives White more chances of achiev­
28 g4! .te4 ing an advantage, for example
29 .:tel 10 . . . a5 1 1 a4 dxe5 12 dxe5 .txf3 1 3

'ii'xf3 l2Jxe5 14 'ii'x b7 l:tb8 1 5 'ii'e4
t2Jbd7 1 6 'i!Vc2 l2Jc5 17 l:td 1 'ii'e 8 1 8
t2Jd2 'it'c6 1 9 ..t xe5 i.xe5 20 ..tc4 t;
Mortensen-Polzin, Lyngby 1 99 1 .
8 h3 t2Jc6
Black quite frequently plays in­
stead S aS here, when 9 a4 is nor­
...
mal - see the next game.
9 t2Jc3 (D)
This move is a little unusual, but
has its points . Instead after the nor­
mal 9 0-0 Black may try:
a) 9 t2Ja5 gives White a choice
...
between 10 l2Jc3, reaching the posi­
tion after White's l Oth move and 10
..tgS, discussed in TCA.
b) 9 a5 should probably be met
•••
by 10 a4, for which see the next
game. Instead, 10 c3 a4 1 1 ..1c2 ..1e6
1 2 l2Ja3 ..1d5 1 3 exd6 exd6 14 ..te3
l:te8 15 l2Jh2 'it'd7 left White strug­
gling to maintain the balance in the
game J .Polgar- Khalifman, Amster­
dam Donner mem 1 995: 16 'ii'd2 l2Ja5
1 7 ..1f4 l2Jac4 1 8 l2Jxc4 ..txc4 1 9
l:tfe l l:txe l + 2 0 'ii'xe l 'ii' b5 2 1 'ii'c l
h5 2 2 t2Jf3 ..1d3 2 3 ..1xd3 'ii'x d3 24
..1h6 ..tf6 1h-1h. In any case, White
should certainly avoid 10 a3? a4 1 1
..t a2 dxe5 1 2 dxe5 t2Jd4 1 3 t2Jxd4
'ii'xd4 14 l:te l l:ta5 ! (Anand).
c) 9 dxe5 10 dxe5 t2Jd4 1 1 t2Jxd4
•••
'ii' x d4 1 2 l:te l should be compared
with the analogous line with a4 and
. . . a5 included, discussed in the next
game. This version is no picnic for
B l ack either, e.g. 1 2 . . . e6 1 3 t2Jd2
..td7 14 t2Jf3 'ii'c5 15 ..te3 'ii'a5 1 6
i.d2 'ii'a6 1 7 c 4 l2Ja4 1 8 i.g5 .l:tfc8
1 9 l2Jh2 h6 20 ..te7 .l:te8 2 1 ..tf6 l2Jc5
22 ..txg7 �xg7 23 'i!i'f3 .l:th8 24
A/burt Variation: 4. . . g6 67
'ii'f6+ �g8 25 'ii'e7 'ii'b 6 (25 . . . t2Jxb3
26 axb3 'ii'c 6 leaves B lack totally
passive) 26 l2Jg4 �g7 27 ..tc2 i.e8
(B lack has no defence against the
threatened i.xg6, e.g. 27 . . . l:taf8 28
i.xg6 'it>xg6 29 'ii'f6+ �h5 30 l2Jxh6
forces mate) 28 i.xg6 h5 29 i.xh5
.l:txh5 30 t2Jf6 l:tf5 3 1 l:te3 'ii'x b2 32
l:tg3+ 1 -0 P. Popovic-Damljanovic,
Belgrade 1 992. It is worth noting
that the opening in this game was a
Modern Defence: I e4 g6 2 d4 i.g7
3 t2Jf3 d6 4 i.c4 t2Jf6 5 1i'e2 0-0 6 e5
dxe5 7 dxe5 l2Jd5 8 h3 t2Jb6 9 i.b3
l2Jc6 10 0-0. Could it be that Alek­
hine players are avoiding this line of
the Alekhine Defence?
8
9 ••• tlJaS
9 dxe5?! 1 0 dxe5 t2Jd4 ( 1 0 . . . i.e6
.••
might be playable here) 1 1 t2Jxd4
'ii' xd4 12 f4 (Speelman) shows one
advantage of 9 l2Jc3 over 9 0-0.
10 0-0
It is time to let the reader into a lit­
tle secret. The game actually reached
this position via one of the more un­
usual transpositions from the Pirc, 1
e4 d6 2 d4 t2Jf6 3 l2Jc3 g6 4 i.c4 i.g7
5 'ii'e 2 l2Jc6 6 e5 t2Jd7 7 t2Jf3 t2Jb6 8
68 Alburt Variation: 4 g6 . . .
.ib3 ! ? 0-0 9 h3 lt:)a5 10 0-0. What
makes Speelman's notes to the game
interesting is that he was apparently
completely unaware that he had
transposed to a main line of Alek­
hine's Defence, both during the
game, and when annotating it. It is a
rare treat to a get top-class grand­
master analysing a main line of an
opening as if it were virgin territory,
unshackled by any notion of the ' ac­
cepted wisdom' on the position.
10 •.. h6! ?
This i s a new move, preventing
i. g5 . While it is hard to believe the
move should give Black full equal­
ity, it certainly provides more op­
portunities than the continuation
10 lbxb3 1 1 axb3 .if5 12 .if4 f6 1 3
.••
exd6 exd6 14 d5 ! ± Kapengut-Bark­
ovsky, Minsk 1984.
11 lt:)e4 ! ? lt:)xb3
12 axb3 f6
12 f5! ? 1 3 lt:)g3 is perhaps more
•..
solid, but acquiesces to White retain­
ing a pawn on e5 .
13 c4 fxe5
14 dxe5 lt:)d7
Speelman directly targets e5, but
since after White's next move he is
unable to destroy the pawn, he was
later critical of the idea. He also con­
sidered 14 .'ii'e8 and 14 g5! ? .
•• .••
15 .id2!
Speelman analysed 15 .i e3 b6 1 6
'ii'd2 .ib7 1 7 .ixh6 ! .ixe4 1 8 .ixg7
�xg7 1 9 lt:)g5 .if5 20 g4 lt:)xe5 (this
exchange sacrifice was Speelman's
intention, but the less dramatic line
20 . . . lt:)c5 2 1 gxf5 l:.xf5 looks quite
attractive for Black) 2 1 gxf5 l:.xf5 22
f4 l:.xg5+ 23 fxg5 'ii'd 7, with com­
pensation.
15 ••• b6
B lack has no way to capture on e5
without giving himself an unpleas­
ant pawn structure since 15 lt:)xe5
•••
1 6 lt:)xe5 .ixe5 17 .ixh6 is good for
White due to Black's weak kingside.
Nor does the exchange sacrifice
15 l:.xf3 1 6 'ili'xf3 lt:)xe5 look par­
.•.
ticularly good for Black.
16 e6! ? lt:)f6
17 lt:)xf6+ l:.xf6
18 lt)d4 (D)
B
18 ••• .i b7
Speelman avoided 18 c5 because
.• .
he feared the response 19 'it'e4!, but I
think he underestimated his pros­
pects here:
a) 19 l:.b8 20 lZ)c6 .ib7 21 lha7
..•
'i!Ve8! (best) 22 lbb7 l:.xb7 23 l:.a1
(this makes a reasonable exchange
sacrifice of White's play; Speelman
only gave 23 lt:)b4? '±' , but he is
surely missing 23 ... 'ii'c 8 -+, both de­
fending the rook and hitting e6) and
here:
al) 23 'i!Vc8 falls into 24 lt:)xe7+!
.•.
l:.xe7 25 l:.a8 'i!Vxa8 26 'ii'x a8+ �h7

27 i.c3 and it's not so easy for the
black rooks to co-ordinate.
a2) 23 l:c7 24 l:a8 ! 'ifxa8 25
.•.
�xe7+ is the same trick in reverse
order.
a3) 23 ... 'iVf8 24 i.c3 l:f5 25 �e5
±.
a4) 23...'it;>h7 24 i.c3 (24 �e5
'iVc8 25 �d7 l:xe6 26 'iVxe6 'iVxd7
= ) 24 . . . l:f8 25 i.xg7 'it;>xg7 26 �e5
l:c7 looks rather unclear.
b) 19 ... d5 forces White to play
precisely to avoid being seriously
worse, viz. 20 �c6 dxe4 2 1 �xd8
i.xe6 22 �c6 i.xc4 (22 . . . a5) 23
�xe7+ 'it;>f7 24 bxc4 'it;>xe7 25 i.c3
l:f7 26 i.xg7 l:xg7 27 l:fel 'it;>f6 28
l:xe4 l:e7 =.
19 i.c3 ! a6
Black must prevent �b5 .
20 f4! ?
Speelman suggested 2 0 �c2! .
20 . . . 'iVf8
21 �c2 c5!
21...l:xf4 22 l:xf4 'ifxf4 23 i.xg7
'it;>xg7 24 l:fl is 'terrific for White' . I
can believe that Black is in trouble
here, e.g. 24 . . . 'iVg5 25 l:f7+ 'it;>g8 26
�e3.
22 i.xf6!?
22 b4 cxb4 (the reply 22 . . . l:xf4
might be worth considering here, be­
cause by comparison with the last
note, the black queen has the e4-
square at her disposal) 23 �xb4
l:xf4 24 l:xf4 'iVxf4 25 l:fl i.d4+
26 �h l 'iVe5 27 'it'g4 i.xc3 28 bxc3
(Speelman) gives White play for
the pawn.
22 'iVxf6
23 l:ab1 l:f8
Alburt Variation: 4. . . g6 69
23... a5 would be answered by 24
�a3 ! intending �b5-c3-d5 .
24 b4 'iVf5
25 'it;>h2
25 bxc5 i.e4 ! is OK for Black
since 26 g4? allows 26 .. .'ii'xc 5+.
25 ... 'iVe4!
Speelman considered 25 ... i.e4?
unplayable due to 26 g4 (26 . . . 'it'xe6
27 .libe l ), but Black is unfortunate
that after 26 . . . i.d3 27 gxf5 i.xe2 28
l:f2 i.xc4 29 fxg6 i.xe6, White has
30 l:e l , which ties Black up some­
what.
26 l:be1 l:txf4
27 'iVxe4 l:xe4 (D)
w
A tense ending has been reached.
I do not intend to present detailed
analysis - the interested reader
should refer to Speelman's notes in
the March 1 995 Chess Monthly.
28 bxc5
28 l:xe4 i.xe4 29 �e3 cxb4
works out OK for Black.
28 ... l:txc4 29 �e3 l:xc5 30 b4!
l:e5 31 �c4 l:tg5 32 l:e2 i.d5 33
l:f4!?
33 �xb6 l:e5 ! 34 l:c2 i.xe6 gives
Black some winning chances.
70 Alburt Variation: 4. . . g6
33 b5 34 tbb6
.••
34 h4 ! ? was analysed to approxi­
mate equality by Speelman.
34 ... .tb3 35 tbd7?
35 tbc8 ! is better, though 35 . . .l:r.e5
36 tbxe7+ �h7 37 l:r.fe4 .txe6 is
safe for Black.
35 ... l:r.f5 ! 36 l:r.xf5 gxf5 37 �g3
.tc4 38 l:r.e3 .td4 39 l:r.a3 .txe6 40
tbb8 .te5+ ! ? 41 �f2 �f7 42 tbc6
.tb2 43 l:r.xa6 .tdS 44 tba7!? .tc3 45
tbxb5 .txb4 46 l:r.al f4! 47 l:r.cl .tc5+
48 �fl e5 ! ? 49 tbc3 .tc6 50 l:r.al ? !
�e6 5 1 l:r.bl ! .ta7 52 l:r.al .td4 53
l:r.a3 e4 54 tbe2 .tcs 55 l:r.b3 �e5
Speelman suggested instead get­
ting the f-pawn moving directly, so
that it cannot become blockaded on
f2.
56 l:r.b8 f3 57 gxf3 exf3 58 tbg3
.td7 59 h4?
59 tbhl ! ! would have forced Black
to find the winning line 59 . . . .txh3+
60 �e l .tg2 61 tbf2 �d4 62 l:r.h8
.tb4+ 63 �d l .tfl 64 l:r.xh6 .te2+
65 �c l .tel ! .
5 9....th3+ 60 �el f2+ 6 1 'i!te2 �4
62 l:r.g8 ! ? .tg4+ 63 l:r.xg4+ �xg4 64
tbe4 �h3! 65 �fl h5
This is a position of reciprocal
zugzwang.
66 tbf6 �xh4 67 tbe4 �h3 68
tbf6 h4 69 tbe4 �h2 70 tbf6 �g3 71
tbe4+ �f4 72 tbxd6 h3 0-1
Game 1 3
Nunn Howell
- now seems to get carried away) 1 3 c4
Isle of Man 1994
1 e4 tbf6 2 e5 tbd5 3 d4 d6 4 tbf3 g6
5 .tc4 tbb6 6 .tb3 .tg7
7 a4 (D)
It was Paul Keres who first drew
attention to the potential of this pawn
thrust. White hopes to force a weak­
ening in Black's queenside; Black's
task - by no means an easy one - is
to demonstrate that the weakening of
White's own queenside is no less
significant.
7 ... aS
This is the normal reply to 7 a4 .
Alburt experimented with the moves
7 . . . d5 and 7 . . . c6, but never really
proved them viable, and so they have
vanished from practice. The only
move to make White think twice
about playing 7 a4 is 7...dxe5!?. Then
after 8 aS (otherwise White is worse)
Black has a choice:
a) 8... tbd5 is not an ambitious
move; White should be somewhat
better after 9 tbxe5 0-0 10 0-0:
al) 10 ... .te6 1 1 l:r.el tbd7 1 2 tbf3
tb7f6 (White is a little better, but
tbb4 14 .td2?! tbd3 ! 15 l:r.xe6? fxe6
1 6 'ii'e 2 e5 ! (rescuing the knight) 1 7
tbxe5 tbxe5 1 8 dxe5 tbd7 1 9 .tc3
tbc5 20 .tc2 tbe6 21 'ft'e4 'i!th8 22

lLld2 c6 23 g3 'ii'd7 24 f4 l%ad8 25
lLlf3 lLlxf4 ! -+ Smagin-Jiickle, Dort­
mund 1992.
a2) 10...c5 (this allows a trick,
but one that is not too devastating) 1 1
lLlxf7 ! �xf7 ( 1 1 . . .1hf7 1 2 dxc5 e6
1 3 c4 is dreadful for B lack) 12 'iVf3+
�g8 1 3 'ii'x d5+ ( 1 3 i.xd5+?? e6)
13 ... 'ii'xd5 14 i.xd5+ e6 15 i.e4 cxd4
(White is only a little better) 16 i.g5
lLlc6 1 7 lLld2 i.d7 1 8 ltfe 1 l%ac8 1 9
lLlb3 lLlb4 2 0 i.e7 lLlxc2 2 1 i.xc2
l:.xc2 22 i.xf8 �xf8 23 :t.ad 1 :t.xb2
24 lL!xd4 9i;e7 25 lLlf3 :a2 26 :t.b1
i.c6 27 lLlg5 i.d5 28 lLlxe6 i.xe6 29
l:lxb7+ �f8 30 h3 i.d5 3 1 ltd7 l:txa5
32 :c 1 i.f7 33 ltc8+ i.e8 34 l:lxe8+
�xe8 35 .l:hg7 l:f.h5 36 l:txa7 �f8
(this ending should be a draw) 37
�h2 'iii> g 8 38 g4 .Ub5 39 9;;g 3 l:tb4 40
'iii> h4 (Black now lost on time while
in the act of trying to play a rook
move; unfortunately the rook flew
from his hand, landing far from the
board, and he was unable to retrieve
it before his flag fell) 1 -0 Nunn­
Schroll, Vienna 199 1 .
b ) 8 lLl6d7 9 i.xf7+ �xf7 1 0
•••
lLlg5+ �g8 1 1 lLle6 'ii'e8 1 2 lLlxc7
(D) and now in this irrational posi­
tion Black has a choice:
b1) 12...'ii'f7 !? and now:
b1 1 ) 13 lLlxa8 exd4 14 0-0 ( 1 4
lLlc7 ! ?) 1 4 . . . lLla6 1 5 c3 h 6 1 6 cxd4
�h7 1 7 lLlc3 (Winsnes 's analysis ­
before 8 . . . lLl6d7 was first played ­
continued 1 7 b4) 1 7 . . . lLlf6 1 8 lLlb5
i.g4 19 f3 i.d7 1h- 1h Gunnas-Po­
laczek, corr. 1 992.
b 1 2) 13 d5 lL!a6 14 lLlxa8 lLlf6 1 5
i.e3 'ii'f8 1 6 i.xa7 ( 1 6 b4 ! ? i.f5 1 7
A/burt Variation: 4. . .g6 71
c3 'it'xa8 1 8 'it'b3 'it'c8 19 lLld2 was
messy, and roughly level in Bolzoni­
Polaczek, Lyon 1 990) 16 . . . i.g4 1 7
f 3 'ii'x a8 1 8 i.b6 i.f5 1 9 g4 ! ? i.d7
20 lLlc3 'ii'c 8 21 d6 (Polaczek was
more concerned about 21 0-0 'it'c4
22 'it'e2, but since this drops the d5 -
pawn, it's very hard t o see why)
2 l . . .exd6 22 'it'xd6 'ii'c 6 23 0-0-0
'ii'xd6 24 ltxd6 i.c6 25 l:td8+ cj;f7
26 l:txh8 i.xh8 27 g5 lLld5 28 lLlxd5
i.xd5 29 ltd 1 1h- 1h Du Jardin-Po­
laczek, corr. 1 992-3.
b2) 12...'ii'd8 13 lLlxa8 exd4 14
c3 lLlf6!? (varying from 14 ... lLlc5, as
played by Alburt) and now:
b21 ) 1 5 cxd4 lLla6 1 6 lLlc3 ( 1 6
'ii'f3) 1 6 . . . i.e6 1 7 0-0 'iii>f7 1 8 l:te1
'ii'd7 1 9 lLlb6 axb6 20 axb6 lLlb4 2 1
i.f4 lLlbd5 (2 1 . . .lLlc6 ! ? 22 i.e5
lLlxe5) 22 i.e5 lLlxb6 23 'ii'e2 .:.f8 24
ltac l ? ! (24 h3) 24 . . . i.c4 25 'ii'd 2
'iii>g 8 26 h3 lLlbd5 27 i.h2 e6 28 i.e5
lLlxc3 ! 29 l:lxc3 i.d5 30 l:lc7? 'it'd8
3 1 b4 lLle8 32 i.xg7 lLlxg7 33 l:tc3
lLlf5 34 f3 'ii'd 6 35 l:.cc l i.xf3 0- 1
Wolff-Khmelnitsky, New York Open
1 992.
b22) 15 0-0 lLla6 was analysed at
great length by Patrick Wolff in New
72 Alburt Variation: 4. . . g6
in Chess Magazine, No. 5, 1 992. I do
not propose to give his analysis at
length, but here are the main points :
b22 1 ) 16 'ii' b 3+ 'ii'dS 17 c4 and
now:
b22 1 1 ) 1 7 'ii'd6 1 8 tDa3 ! <J;f7
•••
1 9 tDb5 and now Black should play
1 9 . . . 'ii' b 8, as after Wolff's 1 9 . . . 'ii'd 8
White has 20 tDxa7.
b22 1 2) 17 ... 'ii'c6 1 8 lDd2 i.g4 !
1 9 .l:.e1 <J;f7 20 h3 i.f5 2 1 tDf3 tDe4
22 i.h6 (22 g4 J:ba8 !) 22 . . . .tf6 is
messy and maybe good for Black.
b222) 16 .tf4 .tf5 ! 17 'ii'b3+ 'ii'd5
1 8 c4 ( 1 8 l:ta3 ! ?) 1 8 . . . 'ii'c 6 looks en­
tirely respectable for Black.
b223) 16 Ite1 i.f5 17 tDa3 (or 1 7
'ii'b 3+ ! ?) 1 7 . . . 'ii'xa8 can't be too bad
for Black.
b23) 15 'ii'xd4 is materialistic and
simple, but certainly deserves atten­
tion.
8 'ii'e2
8 0-0 will generally transpose to
the main line after a subsequent
'ii'e2, but this is by no means inevita­
ble. Here is an early example from
two very young players who are now
making their mark in the chess
world: 8 . . . tDc6 9 exd6 cxd6 10 h3 0-0
1 1 tDc3 d5 12 lDb5 ! i.f5 13 i.f4 .l:.c8
1 4 c3 f6 1 5 Ite 1 'ii'd 7 1 6 l:te3 g5 1 7
i.h2 i.g6 1 8 'ii'e2 <J;h8 19 .l:.e1 l:tfe8
20 i.c2 i.xc2 2 1 'ii'xc2 lDc4 22 .l:.3e2
e5 !? 23 b3 e4 24 tDd2 tDxd2 25 'ii'xd2
l:.e6? ! (25 . . . i.f8 ! would give Black
reasonable chances; now Black is
forced into unsound tactics) 26 f3 ! f5
27 'ii'x g5 l1g6 28 'ii'e3 .l:.g8 29 i.f4
.tf6 30 ..th2 (30 <J;h l ! ?) 30 ... .th4 3 1
l1gl i.g3+ 3 2 i.xg3 l:txg3 3 3 l:tt2
'ii'g 7 34 'ii'f4 ! exf3 35 lDd6 ! 1i'c7 ! 36
c4 ! .l:t3g6? (36...11xg2+) 37 c5 l1xg2+
38 l:tfxg2 l:txg2+ 39 l:.xg2 fxg2 40
'ii'xf5 ! 'ii'g7 41 'ii'c8+ 'ii'g 8 42 'ii'xg8+
�xg8 43 lDxb7 �f7 44 �xg2 <l;e7
45 'if.?t2 �d7 46 'iti>e3 �c7 4 7 lDd6
'ittd7 48 tDf7 �e7 49 tDe5 tDb4 50
<J;d2 'iti>e6 5 1 lDd3 tDc6 52 'iPc3 �f5
53 b4 'if.?e4 54 lDf2+ �e3 55 lDg4+
1 -0 Emelin-Diachkov, Leningrad jr
1 990.
8 lDgS should, of course, be com­
pared with the line 7 lDg5 . After
8 ... e6 (D), White has the same two
choices:
a) 9 f4 dxe5 10 fxe5 c5 1 1 c3 cxd4
1 2 0-0 0-0 1 3 cxd4 tDc6 14 lDf3 f6
15 tDc3? ! fxe5 16 i.g5 1i'd7 17 dxe5
tDxe5 1 8 tDxe5 Itxfl + 19 'ii'xf1 1i'd4+
20 'ifi>h 1 'ir'xe5 and now 2 l i.d8 was
Kuijf's idea, which received a great
deal of praise, because it seems a sat­
isfyingly logical way to profit from
the inclusion of the moves a4 and
. . . a5. However, Black has the equally
logical response 2 1 . . . l1a6 !, when 22
'ti'bS? i.d7 ! 23 'ii'xe5 i.xe5 24 l1d l
i.xc3 was very good for Black in the
game Zhukov-Pushkin, USSR 1 99 1 .

Instead Pushkin suggested 22 l:. e l !
'ii'f5 2 3 'ife2 !?.
b) 9 'iWf3 'ife7 (9 ... 'it'd7 can be
met by the Van der Wiel method 1 0
lLle4 dxe5 1 1 dxe5 - compare 7 lLlg5
e6 8 'it'f3 'ii'd 7 - or 10 exd6 ! ? cxd6
1 1 c3 ;!; Lanka-Reinemer, Germany
1 992, Lanka's idea being that his
knights will be able to make use of
the weak squares in Black's queen­
side) 10 lLle4 d5 ( 10 ... dxe5 - see TCA)
1 1 lLlf6+ .txf6 1 2 exf6 ! 'ii'b4+ 1 3
.td2 ! (more forcing than the pre­
viously suggested 13 lLlc3) 13 ...'it'xd4
14 lLlc3 lLlc4? (even the better 14 ...c6 !
1 5 0-0-0 lLl8d7 1 6 .ie3 ! 'it'b4 1 7
�bl ! 'it'd6 18 l:.he l allows White
excellent compensation) 1 5 0-0-0
lLlxd2 16 lbd2 'ifc5 occurred in the
game Lanka-Santo-Roman, Cannes
1 993 . Lanka then provides the very
convincing variation 17 lLlxd5 ! exd5
1 8 l:.xd5 'ii'c 6 ( 1 8 . . . 'ii' b 6 19 :!:te l +
.te6 2 0 l:. b 5 +-) 1 9 'ii'e 3+ ! .te6 20
l::thdl ! lLla6 21 l::te5 l:.d8 22 .txe6 ! 0-0
23 'ifh6 +- .
Returning to the position after 8
'ile2 (D):
8 ... 0-0
Alburt Variation: 4. . . g6 73
8 ... lLlc6 9 0-0 tends to transpose to
lines below after 9 . . . 0-0 1 0 h3, etc.,
but 9...dxe5 10 dxe5 lLld4 1 l lLlxd4
'iixd4 may prove a little awkward
for B lack (by contrast to the analo­
gous line without a4 and . . . a5 thrown
in, since Black's queenside weak­
nesses are a problem here):
a) 12l:t.el �g4 13 'iffl !? lLld7 (this
is probably too ambitious) 14 lLlc3
lLlxe5 15 lLlb5 (a fantastic square for
the knight) 1 5 . . . 'ii'd7 1 6 .tf4 c6 1 7
.txe5 .txe5 1 8 l:r.xe5 cxb5 1 9 h3
.tf5 (Benjamin-Santo-Roman, Can­
nes rpd 1 992) 20 'ii'e 2 gives White a
large advantage.
b) 12 e6 �xe6 1 3 �xe6 fxe6 14
'ifxe6 'ifc4 1 5 'ifxc4 lLlxc4 1 6 .::t a2
(obviously this move is only at
White's disposal because of the
moves by the a-pawns) 16 ...l::tf8 17 b3
lLld6 1 8 �a3 .:tf5 1 9 c4 .tf6 ( 1 9 . . . c5
might be better, aiming to establish
the bishop on d4) 20 l:le2 lte5 2 1
l:.xe5 .txe5 2 2 lLld2 .::td 8 2 3 lLlf3
.tf6 24 l::td 1 lLlf5 25 l::t x d8+ �xd8
26 g4 lLld4 27 lLlxd4 �xd4 28 �fl .
B lack will suffer in this ending, in
large part due to the aS-pawn, fixed
on a dark square; Van der Wiel­
Santo-Roman, Cannes rpd 1992.
9 h3
White normally plays this move,
since otherwise . . . .tg4 would be irri ­
tating.
9 ... dxeS
9 lLlc6 10 0-0 dxeS 11 dxe5 lLld4
•••
12 lLlxd4 'iixd4 13 l:lel (D) is the
main variation.
This line is best known for the
game Short-Timman, Til burg 1 99 1 ,
74 Alburt Variation: 4. . . g6
B
in which White tied up Black com­
pletely, and then carried out the exe­
cution with the sadistic king-march
�h2-g3-f4-g5-h6. However, from a
theoretical viewpoint, this game was
not so significant; it simply con­
firmed that Timman' s idea in that
game did not make l 3 . . . e6 sufficient
for equality.
The diagram position is quite an
important one. If B lack can show it
to be playable, then he has gone a
long way towards making the line
4 . . . g6 viable, because it can arise
from various move orders, at either
player's instigation. It is also of rele­
vance to Modem Defence theory !
Black has tried various moves:
a) 13 ...c6 occurred in Kaufmann­
Gligoric, Lone Pine 1 9 80, and gives
White 'just an edge' according to
John Nunn, in The Pircfor the Tour­
nament Player. (The move order un­
der discussion was l c4 g6 2 d4 if.. g7
3 lLJf3 d6 4 i.c4 lLJf6 5 'jWe2 0-0 6 e5
dxe5 7 dxe5 lLJd5 8 h3 lLJb6 9 i£.b3
tt:Jc6 10 0-0 lLJd4 1 1 lLJxd4 'jWxd4 12
l:te 1 a5 13 a4.)
b) 13...1:ta6 was successful in the
game B olzoni-Simonenko, Manila
OL 1 992, but only due to White's
faulty play: 1 4 lLJc3 ( 1 4 lLJd2 intend­
ing tt:Jf3 also looks quite good for
White) 14 . . . tt:Jd7 15 e6 ( 1 5 lLJd5 must
be at least fairly good for White:
1 5 . . . tt:Jxe5 1 6 lLJxe7+ �h8 1 7 lLJxc8
l:txc8 18 'jWb5 or 15 .. J�e6 16 �g5
l:txe5 1 7 lLJxe7+) 15 .. .fxe6 1 6 �xe6+
�h8 1 7 .l:td 1 ( 1 7 lLJb5 ) 1 7 . . . 1:txe6 1 8
'ii'xe6? 'jWxf2+ 1 9 �h 1 lLJe5 20 'jWxe7
�xh3 ! 2 1 gxh3 'ii'g 3 22 �f4 'ii'f 3+
23 �g1 'jWxf4 24 l:td8 lLJf3+ 25 �fl
lLJh4+ 26 'it>e2 'jWf3+ 0- 1 .
c) 13.. .e6 14 lLJd2 �d7 ( 1 4 . . . tt:Jd5
was Short-Timman) 1 5 lLJf3 'jWb4 1 6
i.d2 'ii'c5 1 7 �e3 'jWb4 1 8 l:ted1 ii.c6
1 9 lLJd4 lHd8 20 c3 'ti'e7 2 1 f4 lLJd5
22 .i.xd5 �xd5 23 c4 if.. c 6 24 tt:Jxc6
bxc6 25 l:txd8+ l:txd8 26 l:td 1 l:txd 1 +
27 'i!fxd 1 'i!fb4 28 b3 �f8 29 �h2
�g7 30 �f2 if.. c 5 3 1 i£.e 1 'ii' b 6 32
�h4 i£.d4 3 3 �e7 c5 34 'ii'f3 c6 35
'ii' g 3 h6 36 h4 h5 37 'jWf3 'ii' b4 38
'it>h3 'ii'e 1 39 g4 hxg4+ 40 �xg4
'ii'g 1 + 41 �h3 'ii'b 1 42 .i.f6+<il? h7 43
i.d8 'ii'e 1 44 h5 i.f2 45 hxg6+ fxg6
46 �xa5 'iffl + 47 'i¥g2 li'd3+ 48
�g4 'ii'd 1 + 49 �g5 (slightly remi­
niscent of Short-Timman ! ) 49 . . . �g7
50 'i¥h2 1 -0 Glek-Timmer, Haarlem
1 994.
d) 13 . ..i.e6 is quite well met by
.
14 i.xe6 fxe6 1 5 lLJd2, followed by
bringing the knight to f3 . For exam­
ple: 15 ... 1:tad8 1 6 lLJf3 'ii'c4 17 'ii'xc4
tt:Jxc4 1 8 lLJg5 ± Timmerman-Weij­
erstrass, corr. 1 99 1 , or 15 ...1:tf5 1 6
tt:Jf3 'ii'c4 1 7 b 3 'i¥xe2 1 8 l:txe2 l:taf8
1 9 i£.d2 lLJd5 20 l:tae 1 and again the
e6-pawn is sick; B orge-Simonenko,
Manila OL 1 992.

e) 13 ....if5 is a sensible move,
intending to transfer the bishop to
e6 without compromising B lack's
pawn formation. Then after 14 liJd2
'ii'd 7, Chetverik gave 15 liJf3 .ie6
16 .l:td 1 'ii'c 8 17 'ii' b5 .ixb3 18 'ii'x b3
as slightly in White's favour, while
15 ltJe4 'ii'c 6 16 ltJg5 h6 17 liJf3
.l:tfd8 1 8 .ie3 'ii'e4 ! gave him ade­
quate play in I.Almasi-Chetverik,
Budapest 1 994 .
f) 13 .id7 and now:
•.•
fl) 14 ltJ c3 (D) (was praised by
Chetverik, but I find some, well actu­
ally most, of his supporting analysis
incomprehensible):
B
fl 1 ) 14 e6 1 5 .ig5 and here
..•
15 'it'c5 1 6 'ii' g4 .ic6 (why not
..•
1 6 . . . .ixe5 17 lbe4 'ii'b4 instead?) 17
ltJe4 .ixe4 1 8 'iWxe4 lbd7 19 .if4 (19
'ji'xb7 ! ?) 1 9 . . . 'ii' b4 20 'iWxb4 axb4 21
.l:te4 c5 22 .ic4 g5 23 .ixg5 ltJxe5
(23 . . . .i xe5 ? 24 .l:td 1 lbb6 25 .l:txe5
ltJxc4 26 .l:txc5 +-) 24 i.b5 .l:tfc8 25
.l:td 1 ;!; was the game Eismont-Chet­
verik, Russia 1 995 . Instead he dis­
misses 15 h6 on the grounds of 1 6
..•
.ie7 ? (my question mark; 1 6 .l:tad 1
'ii'xe5 17 'ii'xe5 .ixe5 1 8 .l:txe5 hxg5
A/burt Variation: 4. . . g6 75
1 9 .l:txg5 .ic6 is level) 1 6 . . . .l:tfe8 1 7
.l:tad 1 but then 1 7 . . . 'ii'xe5 wins a
pawn for nothing.
f12) 14 i. c6 is Timman's latest
..•
try, and one that looks OK: 15 lbb5
i.xb5 16 'ii'x b5 c6 17 'ii'e 2 lbd5 1 8
c 3 'ii' b 6 1 9 .ic4 .l:tad8 20 .ig5 h6
21 i.e 1 e6 22 h4 .l:td7 23 g3 .l:tfd8
(B lack's position is solid; there now
follows some tame j ockeying for
position) 24 'it>g2 'ii'c5 25 i.b3 'fib6
26 .ic4 'ii'c5 27 i.b3 'ii' b 6 28 'ii'c4
lbe7 29 .ie3 'ii'c7 30 'ii'e 2 ltJf5 3 1
i.f4 'ii' b6 32 .ic4 'ii'c5 3 3 .l:tab 1 .if8
34 .ib3 112-112 Leko-Timman, Wijk
aan Zee 1 996.
f2) 14 c3 'ikh4 ( 1 4 . . . 'ii'c 5 15 e6
.ixe6 16 i.xe6 fxe6 17 'ii'x e6+ .l:tf7
1 8 .ie3 'ii'c6 19 i.xb6 cxb6 20 liJd2
.l:td8 2 1 'ii'x c6 bxc6 22 .l:te2 was
slightly better for White, Wahls-Tim­
mer, Bern 1 994) 1 5 liJd2 i.c6 1 6
ltJe4 i.xe5 1 7 .ig5 'ii' xe4 1 8 'it'xe4
.ixe4 19 .l:txe4 ltJd7 20 .l:td 1 .id6 2 1
.ixe7 lbc5 22 .ixf8 Wxf8 112-112 Ste­
fansson-Egger, Moscow OL 1 994.
10 dxe5 lba6 (D)
10 ltJc6 transposes to the pre­
.•.
vious note. Placing the knight on a6
may give this line new life. The main
idea is to destroy at least one of
White's bishops.
11 0-0
11 .ie3 ltJd5 ( 1 l . . .c5 is an inter­
esting idea from Fritz, preserving the
knight from exchange, and with pos­
sible ideas of . . . c4) 1 2 0-0 (Howell
had played the inferior 12 i.g5 ? ! in a
game shortly before our present one
- this gave him the idea to try the line
as Black) 12 . . . lbxe3 1 3 'it'xe3 gives
76 Alburt Variation: 4... g6

Black the bishop pair, and White Instead Nunn analysed 17 c6 1 8•••

more space - not too bad a deal for lLlxg7 'iii> x g7 1 9 .l:td4 'ii'd7 20 .l:.h4
Black. 'iii> g 8 2 1 i.h6 .l:tfd8 22 .l:te l ;!;. The
1 1 ... ltJcS text move weakens Black' s king
12 .l:td1 position, but it is surprisingly resil­
12 i.a2 (Fritz) is possible since sient.
12 . . . ltJcxa4 ( 1 2 ... lLlbxa4 13 i.e3 b6) 18 .l:txdS "ii'c6
1 3 i.e3 lLlxb2 ( 1 3 . . . ltJd7) 14 i.xb6 19 "ii'd3
cxb6 15 'ikb5 lLld l 16 c3 traps the White threatens to establish a flrm
knight. grip on the position by i.f4 and l:tc l .
12
••• 'ike8 Instead 1 9 .l:t bS would be met by
13 ltJc3 lLlxb3 1 9 ... b6 intending ... 'ii'e 6, and 19 .l:td3
13 .id7 14 ltJd4 lLlbxa4? (instead
..• by 19 . . ..l:tfd8 20 l:tg3 'ii'e6 (Nunn).
1 4 . . . lbxb3 is better, transposing to 19 e6
the note to Black's 14th) 1 5 lLlxa4 20 .l:td7 i.xeS
lLlxa4 ( 1 5 . . . i.xa4 16 i.xa4 lLlxa4 1 7 21 i.h6 (D)
lLlb 5 wins material) 1 6 e 6 (Nunn) is
a disaster for Black.
14 cxb3 i.e6
B
14. . i.d7 15 ltJd4 gives Black the
.

problem of finding a plan. 15 ... c5

(Fritz) looks as good as any, for ex­
ample 1 6 lLldb5 'ikc8 17 .i g 5 .l:te8
( 1 7 . . . f6 ! ?) 18 'ike3 and now 18 ... 'ikc6
or 1 8 . . . i.e6, while after 15 ...l:td8 1 6
i.f4 i t is not obvious how Black
should proceed.
15 lLld4 i. dS
16 lLlxdS ltJxdS (D) The game has reached its climax.
17 lLlfS gxfS The players felt, both during the

game and the post mortem, that
B lack was without a defence here,
and it was only when he came to
write up his lnformator notes that
Dr. Nunn discovered that providing
convincing variations to bury all of
Black's defensive tries was none too
easy !
21 ••. .txb2?
After this B lack is definitely in
trouble. Instead:
a) 21 .l:.fe8 is too slow, and is
.••
answered by 22 'ii'd2! :
a 1 ) 22 f6 23 .11c l �e4 24 .l:.g7+
.••
'iii> h 8 25 �d7 f4 26 .11 g4 forces mate
(Nunn).
a2) 22 f4 is more stubborn, but
.•.
White has a way through: 23 .11e 1 .id6
24 'ii'd 1 �h8 25 .tg5 'iii>g 8 (25 ...'iii>g7?
26 �g4 +- h5 27 .l:.xf7+ 'iii> xf7 28
�xh5+ 'iii> g 8 29 "ii'g6+ 'iii>f8 30 .ih6+
'iii> e7 3 1 'ii'xe6+ 'iii> d 8 32 .ig5+) 26
.tf6 f3 27 �d4 �c2 28 �g4+ 'ilkg6
29 �xf3 ±.
b) 21 .td6!, trapping the white
•••
rook, is the key defensive idea that
they had underestimated:
b l ) 22 'ii'd4 f6 23 .11 g7+ 'iii>h 8 24
'it'h4 (24 .11 e 1 �e8 intending . . . l1f7)
24 'it'e4 and now:
•••
bl l ) 25 'it'h5 f4 ! 26 .l:.g4 .11 g 8 27
�f7 lhg4 28 'ii'xf6+ 'iii> g 8 29 hxg4
'ii'g6 + (Nunn).
b 1 2) 25 g4 deserves attention,
e.g. 25 .. J:tac8 26 .11 xh7+ 'iii> xh7 27
.ixf8+ 'iti>g8 28 .ixd6 cxd6 29 �xf6
fxg4 is maybe a draw.
A/burt Variation: 4. . . g6 77
b2) 22 'ii'e3 is Fritz's suggestion.
b3) 22 f4 'iii> h 8 23 .ixf8 l:txf8 24
�c3+ 'ii'xc3 25 bxc3 .ixf4 ;!; (Nunn)
should be a draw.
22 l1bl
22 .11 c l is less good in view of
22 . .'ii'e4 .
.
22 ... .tg7?
Black should have tried 22 .te5•••
23 .11c 1, which, although very good
for White, would have prolonged
Black's resistance.
23 �g3 'ii'c3
24 'ii'xc3 .txc3
25 .txf8 l::[xf8
26 .11xc7 .tb4
27 l::txb7 l::td8
28 g3 �g7
29 .!::te l 1-0
Conclusion
There are clearly signs of regenera­
tion in the 4 . . . g6 line, especially in
variations with a4 and . . . a5. It is a
cause for some concern that Game
1 1 Anand could secure an edge with
the simple 7 exd6, but this sort of ad­
vantage should be manageable, pro­
vided Black is not too ambitious . A
word of caution about the forcing 7
l2Jg5 : it has not been conclusively
shown that Black's resources are
fully adequate against this move, so
if Black is successful against the
quieter lines that are currently in
fashion, this line may be expected to
come under the spotlight again.
10 4 ... .itg4 : The Old Main Line
Here we come to B lack's most natu­
ral reply to 4 lLlf3 - Black develops
his bishop, pinning the knight, thus
increasing the pressure against the
e5-pawn.
However, my conclusion in The
Complete Alekhine about the tradi­
tional main line, in which Black
meets the standard 5 i.e2 with 5 . . .e6
was that B lack was in trouble, lack
of counterplay being the principal
problem. In the years since then,
there has been little sign of a revival.
If you wish to play 4 ... i.g4 5 i.e2 e6
as Black, then you have a lot of fun­
damental work to do, and I fear some
suffering ahead. Good luck!
Game 14
Leko Blatny
- bxc3 dxe5 7 h3 i.xf3 8 'iixf3 c6 9
Bmo 1993
1 e4 lLlf6 2 e5 lLld5 3 d4 d6 4 lL!f3
4 •.• i.g4 (D)
w
5 i.e2
Other moves are regarded as a lit­
tle eccentric, and are far less trouble­
some for Black. There have been few
recent examples of the Panov Vari­
ation (5 h3 i.xf3 6 'ii'xf3 dxe5 7
dxe5 e6 - basically it leaves White
with a weak pawn on e5 to defend),
Alekhine's line, 5 c4 lL!b6 6 i.e2
(then 6 . . . dxe5 7 lLlxe5 i.xe2 8 'iixe2
'iixd4 might give White just suffi­
cient compensation) and the name­
less 5 i.c4, which fails to break the
pin and is probably not even suffi­
cient for equality.
Rausis-Savko, Latvian Ch 1 994
featured a completely new move, 5
lLlc3, but novelty is all it has going
for it. The game finished 5 . . . lL!xc3 6
dxe5 e6 10 :b1 'iic7 1 1 i.f4 lL!d7 1 2
i.e2 g6 1 3 0-0 i.g7 14 .:tfe1 tf2-tf2.
5 c4 lL!b6 6 d5 e6 7 dxe6 (7 exd6
had previously been played by Vi­
tolins) 7 . . . fxe6 8 h3 i.h5 9 i.e3 lL!c6
10 exd6 cxd6 1 1 lL!c3 i.e7 12 g4
i.g6 13 h4 h6 14 h5 i.h7 15 i.d3
i.xd3 16 'iixd3 0-0 17 lL!d4 lLle5 1 8
'iie 2 'iid7 gave B lack a good posi­
tion in Campora-Kaidanov, Tilburg
rpd 1 993.
5 ... e6
Apart from 5 ... c6, discussed in the
next chapter, the only other move
worth considering is 5 lL!c6. This
•••

had always been considered suspect
since B lack was reckoned to have
no follow-up if White played simply
6 0-0 (for example 6 . . . e6? ! 7 c4 fol­
lowed by 8 exd6 and 9 d5 is very
good for White). However, the new
idea 6 . . . dxe5 7 lbxe5 lbxe5 may
force a re-evaluation. Here is the re­
cent practical material:
a) 6 c4 'bb6 7 e6 ! ? (7 exd6 is
most likely to lead to the Exchange
Variation, since ideas with a very
early d5 are not too convincing)
7 .. .fxe6 8 it.e3 (8 ctJg5 i.xe2 9 'ir'xe2
lbxd4 10 'ir'e4 is not good - the black
king can walk to d7 and if necessary
c7) 8 . . . it.xf3 (8 . . . g6 9 ctJg5 St.xe2 1 0
'ifxe2 'ii'd7 1 1 'iff3 lbct8 1 2 lbct2 h6 1 3
ctJh3 yields compensation) 9 it.xf3
lbxc4 10 0-0 (Pogorelov 's sugges­
tion 10 it.g4 d5 1 1 St.xe6 'ii'd 6 1 2
'ir'h5+ g 6 1 3 'ir'xd5 i s interesting, but
should be OK for Black) 1 0 . . . d5 1 1
lbc3 g6 1 2 it.g4 'ir'd7 1 3 b3 ! ? ctJd6
(this returns a pawn; 1 3 . . . lbb6 1 4
lb b 5 puts more pressure on e 6 - but
still, B lack is two pawns up) 1 4
lbxd5 ctJf5 1 5 ctJf4 St. g 7 1 6 it.xf5 !
exf5 1 7 d5 ! gave White good com­
pensation in Gil.Garcia-Pogorelov,
Albacete 1 995 .
b) 6 0-0 and now:
b 1 ) 6 'bb6 (this move was tried
•••
without success by Mikenas in the
1 960s) 7 h3 ! it.xf3 8 it.xf3 (the fact
that White has the option of chop­
ping off the c6-knight severely limits
B lack's plans; otherwise exchanging
on e5 would be a good idea) 8 . . . e6 9
lbc3 (9 exd6 is thought to give White
a pleasant edge no matter how Black
4. . . it.g4: The Old Main Line 79
recaptures, but the choice here is
largely a stylistic one) 9 . . . d5 1 0 'be2
it.e7 1 1 ctJf4 0-0 1 2 g3 ctJb8 1 3 b3
(an idea familiar from the Advance
Variation of the Caro- Kann; Black's
preparation of . . . c5 has been so tor­
tuous that White has been able to
prepare c4 as a powerful response)
13 . . a5 14 c4 c6 15 .l:tb1 ctJa6 16 'iie2 !
.
lbc7 1 7 .l:td 1 ctJd7 1 8 h4 ± Aseev-So­
rokin, Russian Ch (Elista) 1 995 .
b2) 6 dxe5 7 lbxe5 lbxe5 ! (or
•••
7 . . . St.xe2 8 't!Vxe2 'ir'd6 9 'bxc6 'ifxc6
10 c4 'ir'a6 ? ! 1 1 .l:te 1 ± Malishau­
skas-Fioramonti, Bern 1 992) 8 dxe5
(8 St.xg4 lbxg4 9 ii'xg4 g6) 8 . . .it.f5 9
c4 'bb6 10 'bc3 e6 1 1 it.e3 it.e7 1 2
'ii' x d8+ it.xd8 (but not 1 2 . . . .l:txd8 ?
1 3 ctJb5) 1 3 g4? ! ( 1 3 .l:tfd 1 c6 1 4 .l:td2
it.c7 is the critical line) 1 3 . . . .tg6 1 4
f4 f5 1 5 exf6 it.xf6 1 6 ctJb5 0-0-0! +
1 7 .l:tad l ( 1 7 lbxa7+ <it'b8 1 8 'bb5
it.xb2 + Blatny) 1 7 . . . it.xb2 1 8 f5 ?
exf5 1 9 gxf5 .l:txd 1 20 .l:txd 1 it.xf5 2 1
c5 lba4 gave Black an enormous ad­
vantage in the game Korenev-Pan­
chenko, USSR 1 99 1 .
6 0-0 it.e7
7 c4
Before the main line was per­
ceived to be so good for White, the
form of Exchange Variation 7 h3
it.h5 8 c4 'bb 6 9 exd6 cxd6 10 lbc3
0-0 (note that 10 . . . lbc6 is premature
since 1 1 d5 secures an edge) was
quite popular. Nowadays it occurs
only rarely. Here are a few examples:
a) 11 b3 'bc6 12 it.e3 ( 1 2 d5 exd5
1 3 lbxd5 lbxd5 1 4 'ii'x d5 it.f6 ! ex­
ploits the fact that White has played
b3) 12 . . . d5 1 3 c5 ctJc8 ( 1 3 . . . lbd7 ! ?)
80 4. . . .i.g4: The Old Main Line
14 b4 a6 15 'ii'a4 (Svidler considers
the position after 1 5 g4 ! ? .i.g6 1 6
'ii'a4 to be unclear) 15 . . ..i.xf3 16 .i.xf3
.:.a7 ( 1 6 . . . .i.f6 ! ?) 17 .l:tad 1 .i.f6 1 8
'ii' b 3 l2J8e7 1 9 g4 l2Jg6 20 .i.g2 b6 ! ?
gave Black good counterplay in Kar­
asev-Diachkov, St. Petersburg 1 994.
b) 11 .i.f4 featured in two thrill­
ing games T.Thorha11sson-Zilber­
man, at the Gausdal summer events
in 1 995. The game in the Peer Gynt
went 11 ...t2J8d7 1 2 b3 a6 1 3 l:te1
l:tc8 1 4 l:tc l l:te8 15 t2Jd2 .i.xe2 1 6
'ii'xe2 t2Jf6 1 7 'it'd3 h 6 112-112, while a
week or so later in the International
they managed a move and a half
more: 11 a6 12 .rl.e1 .i.xf3 1 3 .i.xf3
...
l2Jxc4 1 4 .i.xb7 l:ta7 15 .i.f3 d5 1 6
l2Ja4 t2Jd7 1 7 .i.e2 t2Jd6 1 8 .:.c 1 t2Jb5
1 9 l2Jc5 112-112.
7 ••. t2Jb6
8 t2Jc3 0-0
With 7 h3 .i.h5 already played,
Black tried 9 t2Jc6 10 exd6 cxd6 1 1
.•.
d5 exd5 1 2 t2Jxd5 t2Jxd5 1 3 'ii'xd5
.i.g6 in Tkachev-Blatny, Djakarta
1 994, hoping to improve upon the
lines in which Black plays . . . t2Jc6 af­
ter castling. However, White found a
good response: 14 'ii'b5 ! 'ii'c7 15 .i.f4
a6 16 'ii'b 3 0-0 1 7 l:tfd 1 h6 1 8 .l:i.d2 ;!;.
9 .i.e3 (D)
White can also reach the analo­
gous position with the pawn on h3
and bishop on h5 by playing h3 on
move 6, 7, 8 or 9 - in none of these
cases is it justified for B lack to ex­
change on f3 since then White's at­
tack on b7 (or potential attack if he
has not yet played c4) forces B lack
to play a defensive move. White will
then resolve the central tension to his
benefit.
As is customary, positions with h3
and . . . .i.h5 included will be consid­
ered together with those lines where
the pawn has remained on h2. Unless
stated otherwise these moves may be
assumed not to have been included.
9••• dS
Black has tried various other
moves here:
a) 9 a5 10 exd6 cxd6 1 1 c5 ! ? (an
••.
unconventional but effective idea)
1 1 . . .dxc5 12 dxc5 t2J6d7 13 l2Je4 !
t2Ja6 14 l:tc 1 and now 011 analysed
14 t2Jb4 15 t2Jd6, 14 ..i.f5 15 .i.xa6!,
.•. .•
and 14 f5 ! ? (Nijboer-011, Gronin­
•••
gen PCA 1 993) 15 t2Jd6 ! t2Jdxc5 1 6
.l:i.xc5 .i.xd6 1 7 .l:i.b5 ! , with at least
some advantage for White in each
case.
b) 9 a6 seems the best hope for
•.•
Black:
b1) 10 exd6 cxd6 11 'ii'b3! ? ( 1 1
d5 .i.xf3 12 .i.xf3 e5 13 .i.e2 t2J8d7 14
.l:i.c 1 .l:.c8 15 l2Ja4 l2Jxa4 16 'ii'xa4 l2Jc5
17 'iifc 2 f5 oo Sieiro-Gonzalez-Nogu­
eiras, Villa Clara 1'994; if White
wishes to play b3, then he should not
exchange on d6, since 1 1 b3 d5 ! 1 2

h3 i.h5 ! 1 3 lbe5 i.xe2 14 'i*'xe2 lbc6
1 5 .l:.fd l ! i.f6 gave Black complete
equality in Anand-Yusupov, Wijk
aan Zee Ct (7) 1 994 - unfortunately
for him, he needed a win) 11 li:J8d7 ..•
( l l . . .'i*'c7 1 2 d5 li:J8d7 13 dxe6 i.xe6
1 4 li:Jd5 li:Jxd5 15 cxd5 i.g4 16 %be l
'ii'b8 17 'it'b4 li:Jf6 1 8 h3 i.d7 19 'i*'b3
lt:\e4 20 i.f4 l:te8 2 1 i.d3 i.f8 22
'ii'c 2 li:Jf6 23 i.g5 ± Spangenberg­
Sanchez Almeyra, Mar del Plata
1 995) and now:
bl l ) 12 a4 i.xf3 ( 1 2 . . .'ti'c7 1 3 a5
lbc8 14 .l:.fcl ;!;; Blatny) 13 i.xf3 'ii'c7
1 4 l:.fc l ! ;!;; Blatny-B ischoff, Brno
1 994.
bl2) With h3 i.h5, 13 .l:tacl l:tc8
14 li:Jd2 i.xe2 15 lt:\xe2 i.g5 16 i.xg5
'ii'xg5 17 lt:\e4 'it'e7 1 8 c5 gave White
the advantage in Anand-Moroze­
vich, Moscow Intel rpd 1995 .
b2) With h3 i.h5 , the game
Nunn-Agnos, Isle of Man 1994 con­
tinued 1 1 b3 d5 12 c5 li:Jc8 1 3 g4
i.g6 1 4 li:Jel f6 15 exf6 i.xf6 16 f4
li:Jc6 1 7 l:Z.c l b6 1 8 lt:\a4 b5 1 9 li:Jb2
i.e4 20 'i*'d2 g6 21 li:Jd l 'ii'd7 22
li:Jf2 lt:\8e7 23 .l:td 1 .l:tad8 24 li:Jf3
i.xf3 25 i.xf3 and now the continu­
ation 25 . . . g5 ! ? 26 fxg5 i.xd4 27
i.xd4 li:Jxd4 28 'ii'xd4 .l:.xf3 29 lt:\e4
led to an unbalanced position. "The
combination has been positionally
beneficial to Black, since he has ac­
quired two connected passed pawns
in the centre of the board, but
White's knight has been given a free
ride to f6." - Nunn.
10 c5
With h3 i.h5, White tried 1 1 cxd5
exd5 1 2 g4 i.g6 1 3 li:Jel in the game
4. . . i.g4: The Old Main Line 81
Svidler-Solozhenkin, Russian Ch
(Elista) 1 995, but Black played a
good new move: 1 3 . . . lt:\c6 (Black
had not had an easy time after l3 ... f5
1 4 li:Jd3 - the knight can use the f4-
square - or 1 3 . . . i.b4 14 .l:tc l in pre­
vious games) 14 f4 f5 15 exf6 i.xf6
1 6 li:Jf3 h6 17 b3 'i*'d6 1 8 i.d3
.l:tae8 ! ? and obtained a very reason­
able position.
10 i.xf3
11 gxf3 (D)
This used to be considered a main­
line position for the entire opening,
but is now virtually a backwater in
view of the atrocious results Black
had been achieving. Blatny is the
regular annotator of Alekhine's De­
fence games for ChessBase Maga­
zine, so it is interesting to speculate
what he may have had in mind
against the 'official prescription' for
White against his chosen line. I have
speculated, and remain profoundly
unconvinced - nor has Fritz come up
with any improvements for Black
over my analysis.
11 �8
12 f4
82 4. . . i.g4: The Old Main Line
This has been the most popular
move recently. The trend is well jus­
tified by its tremendous score in
practice but no convincing answer to
12 'ito>h1 has been found either.
12 .•. g6
Here's another grim experience
for Black: 1 2 c6 1 3 b4 i.h4 14 i.d3
•••
t:De7 15 'ii' h 5 ( 1 5 i.xh7+ 'ito>xh7 1 6
'ifh5+ 'ito>g8 1 7 'ili'xh4 liJf5 gives
Black compensation) 15 . . . l£Jg6 1 6
'ito> h 1 liJd? 1 7 f5 exf5 1 8 f4 .l:te8 1 9
'ii'xf5 b 6 20 t:De2 ! "fie? 2 1 .l:tac l f6 22
cxb6 tDxb6 23 'i!Vh5 fxe5 24 dxe5
l£Jc4 25 i.c5 'ii'f7 (25 . . . 'ii'd 8 26 .l:tg1 )
2 6 .l:tg1 i.e? 2 7 .l:txg6 i.xc5 2 8 bxc5
hxg6 29 i.xg6 1 -0 Sisniega-Stull,
Manila OL 1 992.
12 {5 13 'ito>h 1 'ito>h8 1 4 .l:tg1 .l:tg8
•••
(new; 14 . . . g6 had been suggested,
while 14 . . . i.h4 15 i.h5 'file? { 15 . . . g6
1 6 i.xg6 ! } 16 i.g6 ! ! worked well in
a 1 986 game Dautov-Kharitonov ­
see TCA) 1 5 'ii'd 2 ( 1 5 i.h5 g6 is
presumably B lack' s idea; therefore
White must return to the standard
plan of squashing Black; that's what
I really don ' t like about this line for
Black - were Black better in the long
term if he could survive the initial
onslaught, then the suffering would
perhaps not be in vain; however it
seems little more than a choice be­
tween a quick death or a slow one)
15 . . . b6 1 6 b4 l£Jc6 1 7 l£Ja4 i.h4 1 8
.l:Iac 1 liJ8e7 1 9 liJb2 'ir'b8 20 b5
liJd8 2 1 liJd3 l£Jt7 22 t:De 1 liJc8 23
liJf3 i.e? 24 .l:Ig3 liJd8 25 'ir'c2 a6
(25 . . . bxc5 26 dxc5 c6) 26 cxb6 cxb6
27 bxa6 ± Herrera-Diaz Perez, Cu­
ban Ch 'hf (Villa Clara) 1 995.
The main line is 12 l£Jc6 (D) :
.••
w
a) Then 13 i.d3 is an important
move. Much of the theory here has
been based around the game Sham­
kovich-Alburt, New York Heraldica
1 980. The continuation of this game
was reckoned to be good for White,
but Shamkovich argued in recently
published analysis that, while the
general assessment was correct, it
was for the wrong reasons ! The criti­
cal lines are:
a 1 ) 13 g6!? (unclear
..• - ECO)
should probably be answered by 14
'ii'g4 f5 15 'ii' h 3 intending 'ito>h 1 and
.l:tg1 with an attack (Shamkovich),
because after his other suggestion,
14 f5! ? exf5 15 'ii' b 3 f4 ! ? 1 6 'i1Vxb7,
Black has the important improve­
ment 1 6 . . . 'i!Vd7 ! , for example 17 e6
( 1 7 i.xf4 .l:tb8) 17 .. .'ili'xe6 18 i.xf4
( 1 8 �xa8 'ii'g 4+ 1 9 'it>h 1 'i1Vf3+ 20
'ito>g1 'ii'g4+ is a draw) 1 8 . . . .l:tb8 1 9
Wixc7 and now both 1 9 . . . i.d8 and
19 . . . .l:txb2 are at least OK for Black.
a2) 13 f5 14 'i1Vb3 .l:Ib8 15 i.b5 !
•••
is unpleasant for Black - Sharnkovich.
a3) 13 i.xc5?! 1 4 dxc5 d4 1 5
..•
'ir'h5 (this move was criticised i n

lnformator 29, where it was claimed
that 15 i.xh7+ 'it>xh7 1 6 'ii'h 5+ 'it>g8
1 7 tt:\e4 intending lLlg5 was simply
overwhelming, but 17 . . . f6 ! 18 exf6
l:txf6 ! is unclear, as Shamkovich dem­
onstrated) 1 5 . . . g6 ( 1 5 . . . h6? 1 6 l:tad 1
"fie7 17 tt:\e4 ! dxe3 1 8 lLlf6+ 'it>h8 1 9
lLlg4 ! intending 2 0 lLlxh6 i s over­
whelming) 1 6 'fi'h6 dxc3 17 l:tad 1
"file? ( 1 7 . . .'ilie8 1 8 f5 ! exf5 1 9 f4 ! in­
tending 20 l:tf3 and 2 1 l:th3 is very
strong) 1 8 bxc3 l:td8 ( 1 8 . . . f5 1 9 exf6
l:txf6 20 i.e4 ±) 1 9 i.e4 'fi'e8 20 f5 !
exf5 (20 . . .'fi'f8 2 1 f6 ! ) 2 1 i.xc6 ! bxc6
22 l:txd8 "fixd8 23 i.g5 '§'f8 was the
game Shamkovich-Alburt. Shamk­
ovich indicates that 24 l:td 1 ! would
then have been very good for White:
24 lLle7 25 l:td7 lLld5 26 c4 or
•••
24 'fi'xh6 25 i.xh6 tt:\e7 26 l:td7
•••
lLJd5 27 c4 lLlc3 28 l:txc7 lLlxa2 29
l:txc6 a5 30 l:tb6 intending c6-c7 ,
winning.
a4) With h3 i.h5, 14 b6 15 'i!Va4
•••
tt:lxd4 1 6 i.xd4 bxc5 was tried in
Sutovsky-Wells, Budapest 1 993, but
it is not clear why White did not then
play 17 i.e3 d4 1 8 l:tad 1 .
b ) Again with h 3 i.h5, the per­
haps overly sharp 14 f5 was played
in Hendriks-B osch, Dutch Ch 1hf
(Enschede) 1 995. Then 14 . . . exf5 1 5
i.f3 i.g5 1 6 lLlxd5 f4 17 tt:lxf4 i.xf4
1 8 i.xf4 'ilt'xd4 1 9 'ikxd4 ( 1 9 i.g3
lLJ8e7 20 'fi'c2 was played in Tseshk­
ovsky-Alburt, Daugavpils 1 97 8 , but
with the difference that White's
pawn was on h2 in that game; in the
current position, the reply 20 . . .'ii'd7
would give White more problems)
19 . . . lLlxd4 20 i. g4 lLle7 2 1 l:tad 1
4. . . i.g4 : The Old Main Line 83
tt:\ec6 22 i.e3 l:tad8 23 l:td2 lLle6 left
Black with no difficulties in the end­
ing whatsoever.
13 'it>h1 'it>h8
14 l:tg1
I think Blatny 's idea must be to
meet 14 f5 gxf5 15 l:tg1, which led to
a quick win for White in the game
Kiik-Janes, Tartu 1 986 (see TCA),
with 15 ... l:tg8, e.g. 16 l:txg8+ 'ilt'xg8
17 i.h6 (D) when B lack can avert
immediate disaster, but may still find
himself rather over-stretched :
8
a) 17 ...'fi'e8 1 8 'ii b 3 lLlc6 1 9 lLlb5
'iid8 and here White has many prom­
ising continuations .
b) 17 lLlc6 is liable to transpose
•••
back to Kiik-Janes after 18 'iid 2 fol­
lowed by l:tgl .
c) 17 ...b6 1 8 "fid2 f6 1 9 i.h5 'ii'd8
20 l:tg1 i.f8 21 i.f7 lLle7 22 exf6 lLlg6
23 l:txg6 hxg6 24 'ilt'g5 and White
forces mate.
d) 1 7 lLld7 1 8 'iVb3 gives White
•••
all manner of threats.
e) 1 7 'fi'd8 1 8 'ii'd2 i.f8 1 9 l:tg1
•••
tt:\d7 20 i.h5 i.xh6 21 'ilkxh6 'fi'f8 22
'ifxf8+ lLlxf8 23 i.xf7 (23 lLlb5)
23 . . . lLle7 24 lLlb5 l:tc8 25 lLlxa7 l:ta8
84 4. . . .tg4: The Old Main Line

26 tLlb5 lha2 27 tLlxc7 .l:.xb2 looks .l:.ag1 .l:.xg2 27 .l:.xg2 'ii'f 7 28 .l:.f2
like the best try, but I can't see Black tLlg6 29 .thS 'ilie7 30 tLlg2
surviving after 28 tLlxe6 tLlxe6 29 30 tLlxg6+ hxg6 3 1 i.g4 is a better
.ixe6 .l:.xf2 (probably bad) 30 .l:.b1 try, e.g. 3 l . . .fxe3 32 'ii'x e3 .l:.xf2 3 3
tbc6 3 1 .l:.xb7 tLlxd4 32 .txd5, while 'ii'xt2 rj;g7 3 4 .th3 "fkf7 3 5 'ii'e3 - it's
28 .txe6 .l:.xf2 29 .tf7 tLlfg6 30 not easy for Black to make progress.
tLlxd5 tLlxd5 3 1 .txd5 .l:.d2 32 .txb7 30 ...fxe3 31 'ii'xe3 .l:.xf2 32 'ii'xf2
.l:.xd4 also looks hopeless. 'ii'f8
So what is Blatny's idea? Now White's position is falling
14 .th4 apart.
15 .l:.g4 tLlc6 33 'ikg1 tLlf4 34 'ikf2 tLlg6 35 'ilig1
16 'ii'g 1 .l:.g8 'ii'rs 36 i.e2
17 'ii'd 1 f5 36 i.xg6 hxg6 leaves White with
18 .l:.g2 tLl8e7 virtually no moves.
19 a3 .l:.g7 36 tLlf4 37 .tf3 tLlxg2
.•.

20 tLlb1 'ii'g8 (D) 37 ... tLld3 is also very nasty.

Now Black is doing well, and me­ 38 i.xg2 'ii'f4 39 'ii'e 1 tLlxd4 40
thodically prepares to open the king­ i.h3 'flif3+ 41 .tg2 'flie2 42 'ii'x e2
side. tLlxe2 43 .th3 tLlf4 0-1

w
21 tLld2 g5 22 tLlf3 gxf4 23 tLlxh4
fxe3 24 fxe3 ltf8 25 'ii'd2 f4 26
Conclusion
Looking in the crystal ball, I see a
young, talented player studying at
the position after 5 . . . e6 and thinking
'this position can't be too bad for
Black - there must be ways to make
it work ! ' And he will work furiously
at developing new plans for Black,
new move-order tricks to avoid the
bad lines and reach the good ones.
I know neither who nor when, but
state this with certainty, for such is
the way with chess openings.
1 1 Flohr-Agzamov Variation: 5
w
I must confess to being rather par­
tial to this modest-looking variation.
Given how quickly Black can obtain
an overwhelming position if White
plays inaccurately, it is surprising the
line is not far more popular at club
level.
The main point of the move 5 . . . c6
is shown in the variation 6 0-0 i.xf3
7 i.xf3 dxe5 (if Black had not played
. . . c6, then White could reply c4,
causing a disaster on the long diago­
nal) 8 dxe5 e6 (D).
w
... c6
Very natural play by White so far,
everyone would agree - and indeed
there is nothing wrong with White's
position. The problems tend to arise
if White continues playing 'natu­
ral ' moves on ' general' grounds.
Consider the following sequence: 9
'ii'e2 lL!d7 10 c4 lL!e7 ! . This often
takes White by surprise. 'Doesn' t the
knight always go to b6 when White
hits it with c4 in the Alekhine De­
fence?' White is already in real dan­
ger here; Black has the simple plan
of clobbering the e5-pawn with al­
most everything he's got: knights on
d7 and g6, queen on c7, with tactical
back-up provided by the dark­
squared bishop, often venturing to
b4 to interfere with White's defence
of the pawn, occasionally moving
round to b8, or sometimes sitting on
e7 with tactics on the long diagonal
in mind. The queen's rook frequently
comes to d8, which may exploit a
loose white piece on d2. I have had
many games, including some against
good international standard opposi­
tion, where it really has been as sim­
ple as that: gang up on the e5-pawn,
take it off, and then win ! I am pre­
pared to guarantee that you will also
win some games in this way if you
play this variation.
So what if White is alert, and does
know what he's doing?
86 Flohr-Agzamov Variation: 5 . . . c6
The old books tended to recom­
mend 6 l2Jg5 , with the idea that the
position after 6 . . . i.xe2 7 'ii' x e2 is
very good for White - it is hard to
imagine this view being challenged.
Therefore Black must play 6 . . . i.f5 ,
when White sharpest attempt is 7 e6,
leading to very messy positions, as
we shall see in Game 1 5 . In TCA, I
presented some new analysis after 7
i.d3, arguing that this move was
harmless for Black. This analysis
has, as far as I am aware, stood the
test of time, and consequently there
have been few recent outings for 7
i.d3. Indeed, in practice when White
loses time to exchange the light­
squared bishops, he can easily get
into the same sort of mess defending
the e5-pawn as discussed above. One
idea for B lack is to play . . . h6 and
. . . g5, threatening to kick away the
knight, which will then be on f3, and
preparing . . . i.g7 to attack the hap­
less pawn once again.
Another major option for White is
6 c4, the logic being that if White
wishes to play this move, then he
may as well do so when the e7-
square is unavailable to the black
knight. Then 6 . . . l2Jb6 is by far the
most popular move, presumably be­
cause it keeps White's centre under
fire, but if 6 . . . l2Jc7 does not give
Black too passive a position, then it
deserves to be given serious atten­
tion. Ian Rogers told me that he felt
that the retreat to c7 was fully play­
able. Although there have been sev­
eral games that have suggested that
White should be better if he plays
d4-d5 at the right moment, it may
j ust be that in those games, Black
could have stopped there being a
'right moment' . The main specific
reason for seeking an alternative to
6 . . . l2Jb6 is the line 6 c4 l2Jb6 7 l2Jg5 ,
when the position after 7 . . . i.f5 is far
more pleasant for White than that
after 6 l2Jg5 i.f5 - the black knight
is further from the kingside, which
makes a crucial difference if White
starts immediate action there. Thus
Black is condemned to a dull de­
fence after 7 . . . i.xe2 8 'it'xe2. While
this is considerably healthier for
Black than the line 6 l2Jg5 i.xe2 7
'i*'xe2, it is still no fun.
White has other methods after 6
c4 l2Jb6. One is a form of Exchange
Variation, popularised by Yudasin, 7
exd6. However, this should not
trouble B lack provided he keeps his
knights flexible and does not balk at
playing . . . d5 when necessary. It is
hard to see why in many games
Black avoids this standard thrust, in­
stead shuffling pieces aimlessly -
with the pawn structure d4 & c5 vs
d5 & c6, White can find play on the
queenside, but Black has counter­
play against d4 and often some
cheap threats against c5 too. Con­
sider the following position, in
which Black's threat of . . .l2Jc5 forces
White to waste some time (D):
White has a more critical line: 6
c4 l2Jb6 7 l2Jbd2 (as played by John
Nunn in quite a few games over the
years), a maj or point being that
7 . . . dxe5 8 l2Jxe5 gives White far too
much activity. Black has little choice

but to answer 7 . . . lLl8d7 . Then 8 exd6
gives White a slightly improved ver­
sion of Yudasin's approach, while 8
lLlg5 is the interesting move. Then
8 . . . ..tf5 looks suspect in view of
Klovans's forceful reply (see the
notes to Game 1 7 ) , so 8 . . . i.xe2 9 e6
(quite a shock if you haven' t seen the
idea before ! ) 9 . . . f6 is necessary. This
is OK for B lack, but he really must
know it in some detail - see TCA.
Coming back to the move 6 0-0,
this has been quite popular in the last
few years, in part due to a much-pub­
licised win by Gufeld, in which he
quickly brought the knight to c4. In
fact the idea is not new; Amason had
played the same sequence in 1 9 8 3 .
However, h e had the misfortune to
try it against Agzamov, who replied
sensibly, equalised, and went on to
win. Gufeld 's opponent instead al­
lowed a very attractive sacrificial
breakthrough (D):
This is the position where Agza­
mov played 1 1 . . . lLl7b6. Instead Gu­
feld-Goh, Penang 1 99 1 continued
1 l . . .b5? 1 2 ..txd5 ! cxd5 1 3 lLld6+
..txd6 14 'ir'xd5 ! ! and the tactics
worked like clockwork for White.
Flohr-Agzamov Variation: 5. . . c6 87
Although B lack's main aim is to at­
tack and undermine e5 , to do so with
a move like . . . b5 is a rather desperate
measure at the best of times.
White may be able to find some
advantage in lines where he retains
the option of playing lLlc4, but first
plays some useful moves, for in­
stance 1 1 'ir'e2 (instead of 1 1 lLld2-c4
reaching the diagram we have just
seen). This is not terrifying for
Black, but counterplay is hard to
generate. For this reason, I have
mentioned in the notes to Game 1 8 ,
a n old and forgotten game b y Keres
in which he was successful with
6 . . . e6 after 6 0-0. I am aware of no
other games with this move, so it de­
serves at least a second look.
Enough chat; on with the enter­
tainment!
Game 15
de Fi:rmian Burgess
-
Gausdal Troll Masters 1 995
It's never fun to lose with a pet line,
but when the opponent is a top-class
GM, and you've basically just gone
88 Flohr-Agzamov Variation: 5...c6
to a tournament for a skiing holiday,
it doesn't seem so bad. de Firmian's
conclusion in the post-mortem was
that the position from the opening
was playable for Black, but he'd
rather play White ! Fair enough -
many would say the same of the
Alekhine as a whole.
1 e4 ltlf6 2 eS ltldS 3 d4 d6 4 ltlf3
.i.g4 5 .i.e2 c6
6 ltlgs .i.rs
7 e6 fxe6
7 ..i.xe6 8 ltlxe6 fxe6 is very much
••
out of fashion; 9 .i.g4 and 9 'ffd3
both give Black problems.
8 g4
8 .i.hS+ g6 9 g4 is a sharp, cha­
otic, but not especially convincing
line. Then 9 .i.xc2 (best) 10 'ii'xc2
•••
gxh5 1 1 ltlxe6 'iVd7(11 ...'ii'a5+ !? is
interesting too) 12 'iVfS ltlf6 (this
might be suspect; 12...l:.g8 is the safe
move, believe it or not - see TCA)
and now (D):
a) 13 gS 'iti>f7 more or less forces
a draw on the spot: 14 g6+ hxg6 15
ltlg5+ 'iti>g7 16 ltle6+ 'iti>h7 17 ltlg5+;
etc., or 14 ltld8+ 'iti>e8 15 ltle6 'iti>f7
16 g6+ hxg6 17 ltlg5+ 'iti>g7 18 lbe6+
lf2.lf2 de la Villa-Fernandez Garcia,
Spanish Ch (Almeria) 1989.
b) 13 0-0 was a move I gave as a
suggestion, without assessment, in
TCA, having faced it in a five-minute
game against Peter Webster- I won
quickly, but remained somewhat
sceptical about Black's chances:
b1) 13 l:g8 14 g5 h6 (14 ...'iti>f7
.••
15 l:e1 h6 16 g6+ is good for White
since 16...l:xg6+ allows 17 1fxg6+
'ifilxg6 18 ltlxf8+) 15 f4(15 l:e1 hxg5
16 'iti>fl threatening 17 .i.xg5 looks
better) 15...c5 (to give Black coun­
terplay against White's plan of play­
ing 'iti>h1 to dislodge the knight from
f6) 16 d5 (16 dxc5) 16...ltla6 17 'iti>h1
'fib5 18 l:e1 (18 'ffh3 ltlxd5 19
'fixh5+ 'iti>d7 20 'ffh3 'iti>c6 is good
for Black) 18...ltlg4 19 g6 (19 ltlxf8
llxf8 20 l:xe7+ forces a draw)
19...1i'd3 ! (and not 19...lbf6? 20 'fixf6
exf6 21 ltlc7+ - what an orgy of
knight fork tricks!) 20 'ii'f7+ 'ili>d7 21
ltlxf8+ l:[axf8 is very grim for
White. This is just one sample vari­
ation in a position too messy to ana­
lyse conclusively.
b2) 13 9ilr7 is a standard coun­
•••
terattacking idea in these lines, for
example 14 l:e1 (14 ltlg5+ does not
even force Black to repeat moves
here with 14...'iti>e8) 14...hxg4 15 .i.g5
h5 (to prevent a later 'fih5+) allows
White to draw by repetition, but
probably no more: 16 .i.xf6 exf6 17
ltlg5+ 'ili>g7 (17...'iti>g8? 18 'fig6+ 'fig7
19 1fxg7+ .i.xg7 20 l:e8+ .i.f8 21
ltle6 'iti>f7 22 ltlc7 wins material) 18
ltle6+ (18 l:e6? l:h6 -+) 18...'iti>f7

repeats; or 16 .i.h4 .l:th6 ( 1 6 . . . d5 1 7
lbg5+ �g7 1 8 lbe6+ r:J;; f7 repeats
the position) 1 7 lbc3 ( 1 7 .i.g5 .l:t.h8
18 .i.h4) 17 ... d5.
b3) 13...l2Ja6 14 .i.g5 ( 1 4 g5)
14 . . . .:.g8?? ( 1 4 . . . l2Jxg4 looks best,
while 14 ...l2Jds 15 .i.h6 lbf6 16 .i.xf8
.l:lxf8 17 l2Jxf8 'it'xf5 18 gxf5 ri;xf8
gives Black some chances to save the
game) 15 .i.xf6 +- exf6 ( 1 5 . . . .l:t.xg4+
1 6 �h l doesn' t help) 16 l1e 1 .l:t.d8
(short of outright blunders, every le­
gal move for White is good enough
to win here ! ) 1 7 lbxf8+ 1-0 B .Mar­
tin-Condie, Golders Green 1 995 .
This game was played just a few
months after I had played this line
against Ben - he played 6 0-0 and
lost quickly, as we shall see later in
this chapter. He had clearly done
some preparation in the meantime !
8 ..i g6
9 .i.d3 .i.xd3
10 'ii'xd3 (D)
B
10 ••• l2Jf6
There have been few recent out­
ings for 10 g6, although this move
•••
is by no means refuted - see TCA.
Here's an important game from the
Flohr-Agzamov Variation: 5. . . c6 89
archives: 1 1 c4 l2Jf6 1 2 lbxe6 'it'c8 1 3
'it'e2 lba6 14 lbc3 l2Jc7 1 5 d5 lbxe6
16 dxe6 (this must be the critical po­
sition) 1 6 . . . 'it'c7 (passive; 1 6 . . . .i.g7
looks more promising) 17 .i.f4 'it'b6
18 0-0-0 .i.g7 1 9 h4 0-0-0 20 .:.h3
l:thf8 2 1 lba4 'it'a5 22 lla3 l2Jd5 23
.i.d2 l2Jf4 24 'it'e3 'it'a6 25 'it>b1
1i'xc4 26 'it'xa7 'iie4+ 27 �a1 lbxe6
28 .l:lb3 c5 29 lbb6+ r:Ji;c? 30 l2Jd5+
1 -0 Keres-Bhend, Zurich training
1 968.
One recent game: 11 h4 l2Jf6
( l l . . . .i.h6 ! ?) 1 2 lbxe6 'it'd? 1 3 'fi'e2
l2Ja6 1 4 h5 ( 1 4 .i.g5 can be met by
14 . . . �f7 1 5 h5 gxh5 1 6 lbxf8 .l:laxf8
1 7 gxh5 �e8, when Black has no
problems) 14 . . . .l:.g8 (a simple solu­
tion to Black's problems) 15 hxg6
hxg6 16 lbc3 lbb4 !? 17 r:Ji;d 1 was un­
clear in Veresagin-Vl.Sergeev, Kiev
1 995 .
11 l2Jxe6 1i'd7
12 'fi'e2 r:J;;f7
13 l2Jg5+ r:Ji;gS
1 4 .:.g1
14 l2Je6 r:J;; f7 1 5 l2Jg5+ r:Ji;g8 1 6
lbe6 r:J;; f7 1h-1h M . Simonsen-Bur­
gess, Aalborg Politiken Cup 1 99 1 il­
lustrates a slight practical drawback
to this line from Black's viewpoint.
14
•.. lba6
15 l2Jc3 .l:.e8
15 . l2Jc7 (this looks more passive
..
than 15 . . . l:te8, but is quite logical) 1 6
.i.e3 l2Jcd5 1 7 .i.d2 .l:t.e8 1 8 0-0-0 e5
19 dxe5 llxe5 (Black has managed to
avoid an isolated e-pawn, but at the
cost of some time with the queen's
knight) 20 'fi'f3 h5 ! ? (thematic) 2 1
l2Jxd5 .l:t.xd5 22 h 3 hxg4 2 3 hxg4
90 Flohr-Agzamov Variation: 5. . . c6

.l:Ih4 24 'it'e3 .l:Ixg4 25 f4 (White cer­

tainly has play for the pawn, but is it
enough?) 25 . . . .l:Ixgl (25 .. .'ii'f5 is less
compromising) 26 .l:Ixg l 'it'f5 27
.ll c 3 l:tc5 28 lDe6 .l:Ic4? (it was now
essential for B lack to sacrifice the
exchange: 28 . . . .l:Ixc3 29 bxc3 l2Jd5 -
this should be safe enough) 29 lDxg7
.ll x g7 30 'ike7 +- de Firmian-Szme­
tan, Buenos Aires 1 995.
16 l2Je6
16 .ll f4 was de Firmian's sugges­ Black is even somewhat better, e.g.
tion after the game : Black may then 21 'ikxd5 lbb4 22 'it'b3 (22 'it'e4+
try 16... l2Jb4, 16 l2Jc7 or 16 e5 1 7
••• ••• 'i!ff5) 22 .. .'it'f5 23 'it>dl .l:Ic8 .
dxe5 h 6 ( 17 . . . dxe5 leaves White a lit­ 20 ••• 'it> g8
tle better after he retreats the bishop) 21 g6 hxg6
1 8 l2Jge4 ( 1 8 lDf3 ) 1 8 . . . l2Jxe4 1 9 21 'il¥e6+ 22 .ll e 3 hxg6 is play­
•••

'it'xe4 ( 1 9 lDxe4 'ii'f7 ! ? - from here able for Black.

the queen discourages White from 22 'it'xd5+ e6
castling long - 20 i.g3 dxe5 looks 23 'i!fb3 .l:IfS
entirely playable for Black) 19 . . . l2Jc5 This initiates an over-ambitious
( 1 9 . . . dxe5) 20 'ii'c4+ (20 �e2) when plan. Instead 23 .l:If6 is sensible.
•••

20 .'i¥e6 2 1 �xe6+ .l:Ixe6 22 0-0-0

•• 24 .ll e3 .l:IbS
dxe5 looks OK, but is a little dull, 25 'i!fa4 'ikc6
while 20 d5?! 2 1 �e2 ( 2 1 'ikfl
•.• 26 0-0-0 .l:Ic8
i.d6) 2 1 . . .'�'f7 (2 1 . . .l2Je6) 22 .ll g 3 27 a3 'i!fb6?
(22 i.d2 d4 23 lbd l d3 24 cxd3 28 .l:Ixg6 d5
.l:Ixe5 oo ) 22 . . . d4 23 l2Je4 lba4 24 b3 28 .l:Ixb2 29 .l:Ixg7+! forces mate:
•••

i.b4+ 25 'it>fl l2Jc3 26 l2Jxc3 .ll x c3 29 . . . 'it>xg7 (29 . . . 'it>h8 30 .l:Ih7+ 'it>xh7
27 .l:Id l does not look sufficient for 3 1 �d7+ 'it>h8 32 'it'xc8+) 30 'Wd7+
Black. 'ifi>f6 3 1 i.g5+ 'it>xg5 32 .l:r.g l + 'it>f4
16 ..tn 33 �f7+ 'it>e4 34 'Wxe6+ 'it>xd4 35
17 l2Jxf8 .l:Ihxf8 .l:Ig4+ 'it>c5 36 �c4#.
18 gS liJdS 29 .l:Idg1 .l:Ic4 (D)
19 l2Jxd5 cxd5 (D) I decided I might as well allow a
20 'fibS+ pretty mate. 'That's the editor in you
20 'ikf3+ can be met by 20 . . . 'it>g6 ! , coming out ! ' - de Firmian.
a s pointed out b y d e Firmian ( I con­ 30 .l:Ixg7+ 'itt'S
fess that I had intended the inferior 31 .l:Ih7 eS
20 . . . 'it>g8 2 1 �xd5+, which gives 32 'i!fxbS 'ii'xbS
Black less compensation), when 33 .ll h6+ 'it>e8

34 ltg8# (1-0)
Game 1 6
U.V.Nielsen - Burgess
Danish League 1991/2
1 e4 l0f6 2 e5 l0d5 3 d4 d6 4 t0f3
j.g4 5 j.e2 c6
6 c4 l0b6
Should the variations following 7
l0bd2 l08d7 8 lOgS (or 8 exd6) or in­
deed 7 lOgS turn out too hot to han­
dle, then the move 6... l0c7 deserves
serious attention. This retreat has a
certain logic to it, and has been
played by Ian Rogers and Vlastimil
Hort, although their opponents did
not try what has been considered the
critical reply, an early d4-dS . Here
are a few examples after 7 exd6 exd6
8 0-0 (8 'ii'b 3 ! ?) 8 .. j.e7 9 l0c3 0-0:
. Rogers, London Lloyds B ank 1 99 1 .
a) 10 j.e3 l0d7 1 1 'ii'c 2 l0f6
(White's last two moves have been
rather insipid and so Black has an at­
tractive position, with good control
of dS ; he can choose when, and if, to
play . . . d6-dS , rather than be forced to
play it just to prevent White advanc­
ing to this square) 12 .l:.fe 1 'i!Vd7 1 3
a4? ! a5 1 4 !Iad 1 l0a6 =i= 1 S l0a2 .l:.fd8
Flohr-Agzamov Variation: 5. c6 91 ..
1 6 tOeS (this spirited move achieves
nothing more dramatic than ex­
changes) and now in Kliigel-Evdoki­
mov, Bern 1 992, 1 6 . . . dxeS 17 dxeS
'ii'fS 1 8 'ii'xfS j.xfS 19 exf6 j.xf6
would have been rather good for
Black.
b) 10 d5 should probably be an­
swered by simple development, for
example 10 . . . l0ba6, 1 0 . . . l0d7 or per­
haps 10. . . j.f6.
c) 10 h3 j.fS (now that White has
been encouraged to resolve the cen­
tral tension, the bishop has done its
job on the d 1 -hS diagonal, so there is
no obj ection to it slipping back to
an active post on fS) 1 1 .i.f4 .l:.e8 1 2
.l:.e 1 l0d7 1 3 j.d3 j.g6 1 4 ..txg6
hxg6 1 S 'ii'd 3 l0f6 16 .i.h2 a6 1 7
.l:.ac l bS 1 8 a3 'it'd7 1 9 l0d2 .l:.ad8 20
b4 'ikfS 2 1 'ii'xfS gxfS (the black h­
pawn ending up on fS is quite an im­
portant theme in the exchange lines
of the Flohr-Agzamov - it does
rather a good job covering e4, and in
no way can be considered a weak­
ness) 22 l0b3 l0e6 23 .l:.ed 1 bxc4 24
lOaS dS 2S l0xc6 .l:.d7 26 l0a4 f4 27
l0xe7+ !Idxe7 28 �fl gS 29 g3 g4
30 gxf4 gxh3 3 1 .l:.c3 l0xd4 gave
Black quite a good ending in Emms­
7 exd6
7 l0g5 is rather a good idea, so it
is surprising how rarely it has been
played. Here is the only example
since TCA was published: 7 . . . .i.xe2
8 'ii'xe2 h6 9 t0f3 dxeS 10 dxeS e6 1 1
0-0 l08d7 1 2 .i.f4 gS 1 3 .i.g3 hS 1 4
h 3 g4 1 S hxg4 hxg4 1 6 l0h2 'ii'gS 1 7
l0d2 0-0-0 1 8 .l:.fd 1 j.g7 1 9 'ii'x g4
92 Flohr-Agzamov Variation: 5. . . c6
'ifh6 20 lbdf3 .l:r.dg8 21 'li'e4 .i.f8 22
b3 .i.c5 23 'ifi>fl 'li'g7 24 'iti>e2 .l:r.h5 25
lbfl .i.e? 26 lbe3 lbc5 27 1i'c2 f5 28
exf6 .i.xf6 29 .l:r.h l .l:r.gh8 30 .l:r.xh5
.l:r.xh5 3 1 .l:r.d l e5 32 b4 lbe6 33 c5
lbd5 34 .l:r.xd5 cxd5 35 lbxd5 1i'f7 36
'it'e4 lbc7 37 'li'g4+ 'iti>b8 38 lbxf6
l:.h8 39 .i. xe5 .l:r.d8 40 .i.xc7+ cl;; xc7
41 Wf4+ 'iti>c8 42 g4 We6+ 43 'ifi>fl l-O
Ernst-Urday, Manila OL 1 992.
7 exd6
8 0-0 .i. e7 (D)
9 lbbd2
9 b3 is the main alternative:
a) 9 a5 ! ? (Yudasin praised this
...
move, but really it has no advantages
over castling immediately) 10 lbc3
0-0 (I can ' t see anything better) 1 1
.i.f4 d5 1 2 c5 lb6d7 (Black's ideal
piece deployment is bishop on f6 and
knights on e6 and f5 , so I was
tempted to play 12 . . . lbc8, but felt I
needed more control over e5 ) 1 3
a3? ! lba6 (holding up the b3-b4 ad­
vance, and envisaging the manoeu­
vre . . . lbc7-e6 gaining time on the
f4-bishop) 14 'ii'b l ? (neglecting d4)
14 . . . .i.f6 15 .l:r.d l ( 1 5 Wd3 is neces­
sary, but Black is doing very well
after such an admission of failure)
15 ...lbctxc5 16 lbxd5 cxd5 (16...Wxd5
1 7 dxc5 Wxc5 { or 1 7 . . . Wh5 + } 1 8
.i.d6 Wc3 +) 1 7 dxc5 .i.xal ? (B lack
should play 17 . . . lbxc5 +, but I had
missed a trick . . . ) 18 lbg5 g6 1 9
.i.xg4 .i.e5 2 0 lbxf7?? (20 lbe6 !
We7 2 1 .i.xe5 fxe6 gives White rea­
sonable compensation for the ex­
change - Sowray saw this, but was
under the impression that his actual
move was better) 20 . . . .Uxf7 2 1 .i.xe5
Wg5 -+ (ouch ! ) 22 .tal 'iixg4 23 f3
1i'f4 (23 . . . .l:r.xf3 also does the trick:
24 h3 .l:r.xh3 or 24 'ii b 2 l:tf6 -+ 25
Wxf6? Wxd l+ 26 'iti>t2 .l:r.f8) 24 'iib 2
We3+ 25 'iti>h l d4 0- 1 Sowray-Bur­
gess, London Middlesex v Cam­
bridgeshire 1 995 .
b) 9 0-0 10 lbc3 and now Black
...
has various ideas:
bl) 10 a5 is line 'a' .
...
b2) 10 lbsd7 is flexible, and does
...
not have a drawback of . . . lb8d7 in
some situations, i.e. that it asks for
a4 followed by .l:r.a3-e3 .
b3) 10 d5 - there is much to be
...
said for Black simply getting on with
it since his pieces are already well­
placed to start action against White's
pawn centre. 11 c5 lb6d7 12 b4? !
(this seems rather pointless since
White is not going to get far with a
queenside blitzkrieg; 1 2 .i.f4 .i.f6 1 3
'ii'd2 i s more flexible) 1 2 .i.f6 1 3
...
.i.f4 .l:r.e8 (it's never very clear what
the rook can achieve on the e-file in
such positions; sometimes it just
helps White to seize control of the e­
file, whereas if Black fails to oppose
the e-file, a build-up of major pieces

by White on e 1 , e2 and e3 can just be
very clumsy, aiming at thin air;
1 3 . . . lL!a6 ! ? prepares to bring the
knight to e6 without having to play
. . . l:te8 - the manoeuvre . . . lL!a6-c7 -e6
takes no more tempi than . . . .!bf8,
. . . .!b8d7 and . . . .!be6; then 1 4 �xa6
bxa6 can hardly be good for White as
Black has excellent play all over the
board) 14 h3 �h5 15 g4 (logical,
since White's queenside play is not
particularly fast, nor does it cause
much damage when it arrives)
15 �g6 16 'it'd2 lL!f8 (D) and now:
•.•
w
b3 1 ) 17 b5 .!be6 1 8 �d6 b6
(starting hand-to-hand combat for
which White is not ready; this is one
justification for leaving the knight
on b8 ! ) 19 l:tad 1 ( 1 9 cxb6 'ii'xb6)
19 . . . bxc5 20 dxc5 d4 (20 . . . .!bxc5 2 1
�xeS �xc3 2 2 'ii'x c3 l:txe2 2 3 lL!d4
allows White the initiative) 2 1 .!ba4
�e4 + Kalivoda-Zvolanek, Czech
Ch (Luhacovice) 1 993.
b32) 17 � g3 (Kalivoda varies
from 1 7 b5, which he had played ear­
lier in the same tournament, but why
didn' t he made the further logical
step, and leave the pawn on b3 until
Flohr-Agzamov Variation: 5 . . c6 93 .
it became clear that a queenside ad­
vance was a good idea?) 17 . . . .!be6
( 1 7 . . . .!bbd7 is possible first, so as to
exchange immediately on e5 if
White should land a knight there) 1 8
.!be5 .!bd7 1 9 f4 �h4 ? ! (Black should
be playing for advantage, for exam­
ple 19 ... �e4 or 19 . . . .!bxe5 ! ? when 20
fxe5 ? �g5 walks into White's posi­
tion, while 20 dxe5 gives Black a
choice between 20 ... �h4 and 20 . . . d4)
20 �h2?! (20 �xh4 'ii'xh4 2 1 lL!xd7
'ii'g 3+ 22 �h 1 'ii'x h3+ 23 �g1 is a
draw) 20 . . . .!bxe5 2 1 dxe5 d4 22 f5
dxc3 23 'ii'x c3 'ii'd4+ (23 . . . .!bd4 ! ?)
24 'fixd4 .!bxd4 25 �c4 .!be6 26 fxe6
fxe6 led to an endgame draw in Ka­
livoda-Sleich, Czech Ch (Luhaco­
vice) 1 993.
b4) 10 l:te8 1 1 h3 �h5 12 �f4
..•
( 1 2 l:te1 is very natural; f4 is not nec­
essarily the ideal home for the
bishop) 1 2 . . a5 ( 1 2 . . . �f6 ! ?) 1 3 l:te 1
.
.!ba6 (the consistent follow-up to
. . a5) 14 �fl ? ! ( 1 4 �d3 is more ac­
.
tive; perhaps Mortensen did not per­
ceive that Black would find some
useful things to do before playing
. . . d5) 14 . . . .!bc7 15 l:tc 1 .!be6 16 �e3
d5 (Black's position is already rather
attractive) 1 7 c5 ( 1 7 cxd5 lL!xd5 1 8
.!bxd5 'ii'xd5 1 9 �c4 �xf3 20 �xd5
�xd 1 21 �xe6 �h5 leaves White
with a miserable ending) 17 . . . lL!d7
1 8 .!ba4 f5 (by no means a standard
idea for B lack, but this seems justi­
fied with White's pieces so decen­
tralised) 19 i.e2 'filc7 20 .!bg5 �xg5
2 1 i.xh5 g6 22 i.xg5 .!bxg5 23 i.e2
'fif4 + 24 .tn ?! (24 l:.c2 is a sensible
defensive move) 24 .. Jhe l 25 'ii'x e1
94 Flohr-Agzamov Variation: 5. . . c6
'ifxd4 26 'ife7 tbf6 (abandoning
the queenside to its fate; instead
26 . . . tbe4 27 'ifxd7 'ifxf2+ 28 �h 1
tbg3+ 29 �h2 'iff4 30 'ife6+ �g7 3 1
� g 1 i s not particularly clear) 27
'ifxb7 l:tf8 28 'i¥c7 (28 'ifxc6 tbge4
29 l:tc2 tbxf2 30 l:txf2 tbe4 wins for
Black: 3 1 'ifxd5+ 'ii' xd5 32 i.. c4
'ir'xc4 33 bxc4 tbxf2 34 �xf2 �f7 ,
etc . , but 28 l:tc2 tbge4 2 9 'ifa6 i s
more robust) 28 . . . f4 (Agdestein de­
cides to go for the throat) 29 'ir'xa5 f3
30 'ifc3 'ii'h4 3 1 l:tc2 tbh5 (3 1 . . . tbfe4
3 2 'ife3 tbxf2 ! also wins : 33 l:txf2
'ifg3 or 33 'ii'xf2 fxg2 34 'ti'xg2 tbf3+
35 �h 1 tbe1 ) 32 �h2 (32 'ir'e3 fxg2
3 3 i.. x g2 tbf4) 32 . . . fxg2 33 i.. x g2
l:txf2 (33 . . . tbf4) 34 l:txf2 'ir'xf2 35
tbb6 d4 -+ Mortensen-Agdestein,
Reykj avik Z 1 995 .
Note that there is no real point in
White playing 9 tbc3 since after
9 0-0 White must in any case attend
...
to the threat of . . . i.. xf3 . Black should
think carefully before playing the
greedy 9 i.. xf3 1 0 i.. xf3 tbxc4 as
.•.
this allows White to catch the black
king in the centre with l l l:te l .
Yudasin ' s latest attempt is 9 'ifc2
0-0 10 i..e 3, when 10 d5 1 1 c5 tb6d7
...
is the logical way for B lack to con­
tinue ( 1 l . . .i.xf3 12 i.. xf3 tbc4 might
be viable too). Instead 10 tb8d7?! ...
1 1 a4 (now that Black cannot follow
. . . a5 with . . . tba6-b4) l l . ..a5 1 2 tbbd2
l:te8 1 3 l:tfe1 tbf8 14 'ifb3 l:tb8 (once
B l ack starts having to make passive
defensive moves on the queenside,
something has gone wrong; games
like this one reinforce my view that
Black has no plan better than . . . d6-d5,
so he should not delay this move un­
duly) 1 5 d5 tbbd7 1 6 h3 i.h5 1 7
tbe4 i.g6 1 8 tbfd2 tbf6? ( 1 8 . . . f5
may not be too bad for Black, since
White cannot play 1 9 c5? fxe4, viz.
20 cxd6 i.xd6 21 dxc6+ i.. f7 or 20
dxc6+ i.f7 21 cxd7 i.xb3 22 dxe8'if
'ifxe8 23 tbxb3) 1 9 i.b6 'ii'd 7 20
tbxf6+ i.. xf6 21 i.xa5 gave White a
clear extra pawn in Yudasin-Fernan­
dez Garcia, Dos Hermanas 1 993.
9 •.. 0-0
10 l:te1 i.. f6!
This novelty was a recommenda­
tion in The Complete Alekhine. The
idea is to keep the queen's knight
flexible and to put pressure on d4 .
10 tb8d7? ! 1 1 a4 a5 ? ! ( 1 l . . .d5) 1 2
...
l:ta3 was played i n Yudasin-Timosh­
enko, Podolsk 1 989; Black could not
find a plan and went on to lose - see
TCA .
1 1 a4
1 1 tbe4? is bad due to 1 1 . . . .txf3
when White must accept a weakened
kingside or drop his c4-pawn. 1 1
'ii'c2 l:te8 looks quite reasonable for
Black.
11 ... a5
11 d5! ? is also possible. In such
•..
positions the decision to play . . . a5
must never be taken lightly. This
move weakens the queenside, and if
it is not linked to a specific plan to
hold up White's queenside expan­
sion, then is better omitted.
12 l:ta3
White continues much as in the
aforementioned Yudasin game. This
is less effective here for two reasons:
Black is able to play . . . tba6 (and if

appropriate . . . tt:lb4); and since Black
has not played . . . .l::t e 8, dominating
the e-file with both rooks will be of
little consequence. This may seem
paradoxical, but it was one of the
concepts I had prepared when study­
ing Yudasin's idea. If White has two
rooks on the e-file, then they may
prove exposed to attack by Black's
minor pieces. Black will only op­
pose the e-file when there is any
chance of gaining control of it.
12 ... d5
This is now necessary, as White
was threatening 1 3 tt:le4, when the
reply 1 3 . . . .ixf3 could be answered
by 14 .l::t xf3 .
13 c5 tt:l6d7
14 .l::te3
14 'ii'c2 is another idea, for exam­
ple 14 . . . tt:la6 15 tt:lg5 i.xg5 1 6 i.xg4
- White has gained the bishop pair,
but on the other hand B lack has ex­
changed off his bad bishop and has
two good knights. In the post mor­
tem we considered this position un­
clear.
14 ... tt:la6
15 tt:lb3 b6
15 ... tt:lb4 1 6 i.d2 b6 is possible,
but maybe a little cowardly. The text
aims to dismantle White's centre.
16 .id2
16 i.xa6 .l::t x a6 17 cxb6 'ii'x b6 1 8
.l::te 8 achieves nothing.
16 bxc5
17 .ixa5 (D)
17 ... �8
17.. Ji'c8 is also feasible, as is
17...tLlc7, for example 18 tt:le5 .ixe2
1 9 J:Uxe2 .ixe5 20 dxe5. Of course it
Flohr-Agzamov Variation: 5... c6 95
is paradoxical to walk into a pin, but
it is not easy for White to benefit
from this, while the pressure from
the a8-rook is very useful.
18 tt:leS
18 .ic3 i.xf3 1 9 .ixf3 c4 is good
for Black.
18 ... tt:lxe5
Not 18 ... cxd4? 1 9 tt:lxc6 dxe3 20
tt:lxb8 exf2+ 21 �xf2 .ixe2 which is,
sadly, a thoroughly unsound queen
sacrifice. While trying to make this
idea work in some way, I neglected
to realise that 18 ...i.xe5 19 dxe5 ( 1 9
i.xg4 i.xh2+ 2 0 �h 1 tt:lf6 nets
Black a pawn) 19 . . . .ie6 was a very
sound alternative.
19 dxe5 i.xe2
20 l:tlxe2?
It's hard to believe, but after this
move White has great problems .
However, 20 l:t3xe2 (former Danish
champion Ulrik Rath's suggestion)
can be met by either 20 . . . i.h4 or
20 . . . i.d8, both of which look quite
attractive for Black.
20 ... .igS
21 .l::tf3
21 .l::t g 3? .if4 22 .l::t g4 .ixe5 wins
a pawn for nothing, since a cave-man
96 Flohr-Agzamov Variation: 5. c6
attempt to smash through on g7 costs
White most of his pieces: 23 l:.xe5
'ii'xe5 24 .ic3 d4 25 liJxd4 cxd4 26
.ixd4 l:tad8 -+.
21 ••• l:te8
The e5-pawn is extremely weak.
22 l:.f5?
After the move 22 'ii'e 1, 22 l:te6
•••
intends a methodical build-up of
pressure against e5 , while 22 c4 23
•••
liJd4 liJc5 should be good too.
22 .•• h6!
23 1i'c2
23 .ic3 d4 followed by . . . g6 bags
the e5-pawn; 23 f4 g6 wins the ex­
change.
23 ••• g6
24 l:txg5
White does not want to go down
without a fight.
24 ..• hxg5
25 e6 'ii'd 6!
The rest of the game was con­
ducted in time-trouble.
26 exf7+ <J;xf7 27 g3 liJb4 28 'ii'd2
llxe2 29 'il¥xe2 c4 30 'i'd2 cxb3 3 1
.ixb4 c 5 3 2 .ic3 d 4 3 3 'il¥d3 llxa4
34 'i'f3+ 'iii>g8 35 .id2 c4 36 .ixg5
lla1 + 37 'ii;>g2 J:ta5 38 .id2 l:tf5
Black can even afford to blunder,
and still win: 38 . . . 'ii'd 5 39 .ixa5
'ii'xf3+ 40 'it>xf3 c3.
39 'il¥a8+ 1i'f8 0-1
Game 17
Martin Gonzalez - Fernandez
Garcia
Spanish Ch (Bilbao) 1993
1 e4 liJf6 2 e5 liJd5 3 d4 d6 4 liJf3
.ig4 5 .ie2 c6 6 c4 liJb6
. .
7 liJbd2 liJ8d7 (D)
Instead 7 dxe5 is considered
.••
rather dubious - Black has problems
equalising after 8 liJxe5 . The line is
hardly played nowadays - see TCA
for details. There's just one idea
worth noting: 8 liJxe5 .ie6 9 liJe4 (9
liJef3 is considered sufficient for a
modest advantage) 9 . . . f6 10 liJc5
.ig8 1 1 liJf3 liJxc4 (Bagirov com­
mented that if B lack exchanged the
b7 -pawn for White's c4-pawn, then
his queenside would be left chroni­
cally weak; however, things may
not be so straightforward) 1 2 liJxb7
'ii'b 6 ! (a better try than the pre­
viously analysed 1 2 . . . 'ifc7) 1 3 liJc5
e5 14 .ixc4 ( 1 4 0-0, gambiting a
pawn, is interesting: 1 4 . . . .ixc5
{ not 1 4 . . . exd4? 1 5 liJa4 ±} 15 dxc5
'ifxc5) 14 . . . .ixc4 1 5 liJa4 ( 1 5 liJxe5
is an interesting sacrifice: 15 . . .fxe5
1 6 'ii'h 5+ 'it>d8) 15 . . . .ib4+ 1 6 .id2
'ii'a5 17 'ii'c 2 (or 17 b3 with the in­
tended follow-up liJxe5 is possible,
but 17 . . . .id5 intending . . . .ixf3 looks
pleasant for Black; instead 17 . . . e4 1 8
a3 .ixd2+ should be good for White)
1 7 . . . .ixd2+ 1 8 liJxd2 .ib5 1 9 liJc3
exd4 20 liJxb5 'ii'xb5 21 0-0-0 0-0 22
liJb3 c5 23 'iff5 'ii'd7 24 'ii'f3 liJa6 25
c;i;>b1 l:.ac8 26 l:.d2 l:.fd8 27 l:.c 1 'ii'f7
28 'ii'f5 l:.c7 29 'it>a1 l:.e8 30 liJa5 l:.e5
3 1 'ii'f3 'ii'e 6 32 liJc4 l:.f5 3 3 'ii'a 8+
<J;f7 34 'i!fd8 l:.d5 35 'ii'a8 liJb4 36
'ii'b 8 l:.e7 37 'ii'f4 d3 38 b3 l:.d4 39
'iff3 liJc2+ 40 'it>b2 l:.xc4 4 1 'ii'h 5+
'iti>g8 42 l:.xd3 g6 43 'ii'd5 'ii'xd5 44
l:txd5 l:td4 45 l:.xc5 liJe1 46 :c8+
cj;f7 0- 1 Holt-Whayman, corr. 1991-2.
My thanks to Peter Whayman for

supplying this game by e-mail with
brief comments.
8 h3
I am rather suspicious of this
move, since the best reply to 8 0-0 is
8 i.xf3 in any case. Instead 8 dxe5
... ...
9 dxe5 e6 1 0 b3 a5 1 1 i.b2 tllc 5 1 2
tlld4? ! tlld 3 ! 1 3 i.c3 i.b4 1 4 i.xb4
axb4 15 tllc2 i.f5 16 lllf3 lllf4 gave
Black comfortable equality in A. Ro­
driguez-Urday, Havana Capablanca
mem 1 992, but 9 tllxe5 is more trou­
blesome for Black.
8 tllg5 is the sharpest move at
White's disposal. Then Black should
reply 8 i.xe2, when the complica­
•••
tions after 9 e6 ! ? f6 10 "ii'xe2 fxg5 1 1
tlle4 lll f6 1 2 lllx g5 tll xc4 ! are rea­
sonable for Black - see TCA. How­
ever, 8 i.f5, which I regarded as of
...
equal merit in TCA, must now be
viewed with suspicion because of
the following line: 9 g4 i.g6 10 e6
fxe6 1 1 tllxe6 "ii'c 8 1 2 f4 i.f7 1 3 f5
i.xe6 ( 1 3 . . . tllb 8 1 4 tllg 5 should be
just good for White; 13 . . . lllf6 14 g5
tll g 8 15 i. g4 leaves Black with no
play) 14 fxe6 tllb 8 ( 1 4 . . . lllf6 15 g5
tll g 8 1 6 i. g4 "ii'c 7 17 0-0 0-0-0 1 8
Flohr-Agzamov Variation: 5. . . c6 97
l:r.f7 l:r.e8 19 "ii'f3 paralyses Black) 15
tLle4 'i'xe6 16 tll g 5 "ii'g 8 17 0-0
tllxc4 (allowing a cheapo, but there
was nothing good: 1 7 . . . lll 8 d7 1 8
tllf7 ; 1 7. . .h6 1 8 lllf7 l:r.h7 1 9 i.d3 g6
20 "ii'c 2 l:r.g7 21 lllx h6) 18 l:r.xf8+
<li>xf8 19 "ii'fl + won material in
Klovans-Zetterberg, Gausdal 1 995 .
8 exd6 exd6 gives White an im­
proved version of the type of ex­
change variation we saw in the
previous game. Nevertheless, I think
that the same principles as I outlined
there should allow Black a decent
game: in particular not holding back
with the move . . . d5, and only consid-
ering playing . . a5 when White has
.
already committed himself to b3,
and so cannot play the l:r.a3-e3 ma­
noeuvre. Here is one, already quite
widely publicised, example: 9 0-0
i.e7 10 h3 i.h5 1 1 b3 0-0 12 i.b2 a5
1 3 a4 d5 14 c5 tllc 8 1 5 .:tel i.f6 1 6
.:tel l:r.e8 17 lllfl M 1 8 tllg3 i.g6 19
i.fl tlle7 2 0 tlle5 tlle6 gave Black a
very reasonable position in Nunn­
Burgess, London marathon blitz
(Game 505) 1 994.
8
9 tllxf3 dxe5
10 dxe5 e6
1 1 0-0 "ii'c7
12 'i'd4 tllc8! ?
Black decides to recycle his knight
immediately. In TCA I suggested a
variety of moves after the continu­
ation 12 h6 1 3 l:td 1 g5 14 b3, i.e.
••.
14 . . . 0-0-0, 14 . . . 11g8 and 14 . . . tllc 8 ! ?
- Fernandez decides to employ the
last of these ideas in accelerated
form.
98 Flohr-Agzamov Variation: 5. . . c6

13 .id3 l?Je7
14 It.el c5!
14... l?Jg6?! 1 5 .ixg6 hxg6 1 6 .tg5
makes it hard for Black to organise
his position.
15 'iVf4
15 'ir'e4!? looks more logical, given
that . . . h6 and . . . g5 is part of Black's
plan.
15 ... l?Jc6 ·
15 ... h6 is safer, and should lead to
similar play to the game, but denying Black must make an important deci­
White the possibility of 16 .ixh7 . sion:
16 .id2 a) 27...l?Jxe5?! 28 lia8+ �d7 29
16 .ixh7! ? l?Jdxe5 is messy. lixd8+ (29 l?Jxe5+? 'ir'xe5 30 l:.xb7+
16 ... h6 �e8 3 1 .:txd8+ �xd8 3 2 'ir'd 1 + lDd4
This is a standard method of ob­ wins for Black) 29 . . . l:.xd8 30 l:d 1 +
taining counterplay in the Flohr-Ag­ and White will pick u p one o f the
zamov line. loose knights.
17 .ic2 g5 b) 27...'ir'b8?! ( ' ! ! ' Fernandez, but
18 'ir'e4 0-0-0 this does not appear justified) and
19 .ic3 i.e7 now while 28 l:Ia2 l?Jxe5 29 l?Jxe5
20 a3 'ir'xe5 + 30 l:.xc2 'ir'h2+ 3 1 ..t>fl 'ir'h1 +
Fernandez considered 20 i.a4 32 ..t>e2 'ir'xb1 -+ works well, and 28
lDb6 2 1 .ixc6 'ii'xc6 22 'ir'xc6+ bxc6 l:.bxb7 "i!Vxb7 29 l:.xb7 l?Jf6 ! -+ is a
equal . In return for his weakened tremendous way to exploit White's
queenside, Black has control of the vulnerable king, 28 li aS! l:.h6 29
d-file, and prospects of opening the "i!Ve4 l:.dh8 30 'iii> f l lih l + 31 l?Jg1
kingside with . . . h5 and . . . g4. looks unclear.
20 h5 c) 27 ... 'iVc5 seems very strong:
21 b4! g4! 28 l:.a8+ l?Jb8 29 'ir'e4 (29 'ir'f4 'ir'b6 !)
22 hxg4 29 . . . l?Jb4 is just an extra piece, while
After 22 b5 gxf3 23 bxc6 "i!Vxc6 28 l:.axb7 l?Ja3 destroys the co-ordi­
B lack has no problems. nation of White's rooks.
22 hxg4 26 l:Idg8
23 'i¥xg4 cxb4 27 'ir'f4 f5
24 axb4 i.xb4 28 .tbl?
25 .ixb4 l?Jxb4 (D) 28 .ixf5 exf5 29 l:.xa7 is better,
26 .te4 'but accurate defence should prevail '
26 l:.ebl l?Jxc2 (26 . . . l?Jxe5 ! ?) 27 - Fernandez.
llxa7! ? is the critical line, when 28 ... l?Jc5
 Flohr-Agzamov Variation: 5. . c6 99.

According to Fernandez, Black is 36 ..• .l:txh4

winning after this move, but in view Now White will be mated anyway.
of the next note, 28 tDc6 may be
••. 37 j.xd3 0-1 (time)
preferable.
29 'ii'd4 Game 1 8
In mutual time trouble White B.Martin-Burgess
misses 29 l:ha7 �b8 30 .l:ta3, which Birmingham, English Counties
is not at all easy to refute, and may Fina/ 1995
even be good for White.
29 ... .l:td8 1 e4 tDf6 2 e5 tbd5 3 d4 d6 4 tDf3
29 ... tbb3? is of course much too j.g4 5 j.e2 c6
greedy : 30 'ii'xa7 'ifh7 3 1 �fl tbc6 6 0-0 ..txf3
32 1i'a8+ �c7 33 'ii'a3 tbxa1 34 'it'd6+ This is invariably played nowa­
�b6 (34 . . . �c8 35 'i!Vxe6+ �b8 36 days, but 6... e6 may be a viable alter­
..txf5) 35 j.d3 is good for White. native. Aitken-Keres, Stockholm OL
30 'ii'e3 �b8 1937 continued 7 c4 tbc7 8 'ii'b 3 'ii'c8
31 g3 9 .l:te1 tbd7 10 j.f4 d5 1 1 tDfd2 ..tf5
This move is directed against 12 tDc3 j.e7 1 3 ..tg3 0-0 14 .l:tac 1
. . . 'ii' h7 . Instead 31 'ii'a3 tDca6 in­ .l:td8 1 5 ..tf3 ..tg5 1 6 .l:tcd 1 b5 17 c5
tends . . . 'it'h7, and 31 tbg5 ! ? is best a5, and Black had excellent play.
answered by 3 1 . ...l:th5 . 7 j.xfJ dxe5
31 ... a6 8 dxe5 e6 (D)
31 tbbd3 is tempting, since 32
•••

.l:td1 ? f4 (not 32 . . . 'ii' h7 33 tbh4 f4 ??

34 'ifxc5) 33 gxf4 tDxf4 34 .l:txd8+
w
'ii'x d8 gives Black decisive threats,
but 32 j.xd3 .l:txd3 33 'fi'f4 doesn' t
look s o clearly good for Black.
32 'ii'a3 tbbd3
33 .l:te3 �7
34 tbh4 f4
35 .l:tf3
Fernandez intended to meet 35
'ii'xc5 with 35 . . . fxe3 , but 35 . . . tDxc5
36 ..txh7 fxe3 is far more decisive. Vishy Anand once described this
35
..• 'ii'e4 as the Nightmare on Elm Street Vari­
36 j.c2 ation - if White falls asleep, he' ll be
36 ..txd3 is no good since Black cut to pieces !
has mating ideas: 36 ... tbxd3 37 .l:td 1 9 'ii'e2
.l:txh4 38 .l:tdxd3 'ii'e 1 + 39 �g2 This is a maj or decision point for
'ii'h 1#. White. 9 c4 and the exchange of
100 Flohr-Agzamov Variation: 5. . . c6
queens does Black no harm at all
(see TCA), but one plan in which the
white queen remains on d 1 for a
while has been popular: 9 :e1 (or 9
.!Dd2 followed by 1 0 :e 1 comes to
the same thing) 9 .!Dd7 10 .!Dd2
•..
'fkc7 1 1 .!Dc4 (D):
B
a) l l b5? ! 12 i.xd5 ! cxd5 (Gu­
...
feld analysed 12 . . . bxc4 1 3 i.xc4
.!Dxe5 14 i.f4 ! i.d6 15 .txe5 i.xe5 16
'ii' h 5 +-) 13 .!Dd6+ i.xd6 14 'i¥xd5 !
0-0 ( 1 4 . . . exd5 1 5 exd6+ �d8 1 6
dxc7+ �xc7 1 7 ne7 gives Black an
appalling ending; 14 . . . nc8 15 exd6
l\Vc4 { else 1 6 nxe6+ } 16 'Wb7 Vc6
1 7 'i¥xa7 +- Gufeld-Goh, Penang
1 99 1 ) 15 'ii'x d6 ( 1 5 exd6 is good if
White can maintain the d6-pawn;
this type of position can be quite hard
to assess) 1 5 . . . �b7 (B lack intends
. . . l:tfc8, . . . .!Df8- g6, . . . nc4 with pres­
sure against c2, e5 and White's king)
1 6 .te3 nfc8 17 ned 1 .!Df8 1 8 c3
.!Dg6 lfz- 1/z Deszczynski-Kadziolka,
Warsaw 1 993. I don't really believe
B lack's compensation in this line.
b) ll .te7!? 12 ti:ld6+ �f8 (of
...
course 12 . . . .txd6? 1 3 exd6 is wholly
unacceptable for B lack) 1 3 c4? ! ( 1 3
i.xd5 cxd5 14 i.f4 looks a s i f it
should be ;!;, but Fritz likes 14 . . . 'ii'b6,
threatening 15 . . . .!Dxe5 ; the immedi­
ate 14 . . . .!Dxe5 ? is no good: 15 .!Dxf7
�xf7 1 6 i.xe5 ±) 13 . . . .!Dxe5 14 cxd5
'ii'x d6 15 dxe6 'ii'x d 1 1 6 i.xd 1 .!Dd3
17 :e2 fxe6 18 i.e3 ( 1 8 l:.xe6 +)
18 .. .'bf7 19 .tb3 .tf6 20 :d 1 nhd8
+ Prie- Karr, Cannes 1 995 .
c) ll .!D7b6 was played by Ag­
...
zamov:
c l ) 12 .!Dxb6 'ii'xb6 1 3 'ii'e2 i.c5
14 a3 a5 15 c3 (Howell-Burgess,
Hastings Challengers 1 99011) 15 ...0-0
intending .. .f6 looks OK for Black.
c2) 12 i.xd5 cxd5 13 .!Dd6+ i.xd6
14 exd6 �xd6 1 5 'it'g4 (S.Pedersen­
Burgess, Odense rpd 1993) 15 ...:g8 !?
1 6 i. d 2 .!Dc4 1 7 .tc3 ( 1 7 .tf4 'ii'c 6)
17 . . . g6 18 :ad 1 gives White com­
pensation .
c3) 12 tLld6+ i.xd6 1 3 exd6 'it'xd6
14 b3 Vc7 ( 1 4 . . . '1\Ve7 ! ? appears very
sensible) 15 Vd4 0-0 16 i.b2 .!Df6
1 7 'ii'h4 'ii'e7 1 8 i.e4 h6 19 ne3
(White has compensation, but it's
hard to believe Black should be in
much trouble) 19 . . . .!Dfd5? 20 :g3 !
e5 2 1 'fi'xh6 f5 22 i.xd5+ .!Dxd5 23
:e1 +- Haba-Ratolistka, Czech Ch
(Luhacovice) 1 993.
c4) 12 'ii'e2 can be answered by
12 . . ..!Dxc4, reaching line 'c5 ' , but
gives Black the useful extra options
12 ... .te7 (as suggested to me by Kaj
Rosell) and 1 2 . . . i.c5.
c5) 12 'ii'd4 .!Dxc4 (else White
plays 1 3 .!Dd6+) 13 'fi'xc4 0-0-0 and
now:
c5 1 ) 14 a4 i.e7 (14 . . .h6 ! ? intend­
ing . . . g5 looks better) 15 aS ? ! ( 1 5 c3
 Flohr-Agzamov Variation: 5 .. c6 101
is the correct move) 1 5 . . . i.b4 1 6 c3
i.xa5 won a pawn for not a great
deal in H.Nielsen-Burgess, Danish
Ch (Arhus) 1 992 - see my book
Gambits for more details.
c52) 14 a3 h6 ( 1 4 . . . i.e7 was Ag­
zamov's choice, and perhaps to be
preferred - see TCA) 1 5 1ia4 i.c5 1 6
'ii'g4 'ii' b 6 1 7 .l:.fl g 6 ? ( 1 7 . . . g 5 is a
much better idea; I cannot explain
why I refrained from this more ag­
gressive advance - maybe this is just
another example of the strength of
the opponent 'inspiring' weak play !)
18 c3 'ii'c7 1 9 1ie4 .l:.d7 20 .l:.d l 'ii'b 6
2 1 'ir'c2 'ii'c 7 22 .l:.el g5 23 b4 i.f8
24 c4 &iJe7 25 'ii'a4 ± Gallagher-Bur­
gess, Hastings Challengers 1990/ 1 .
9 ... &iJd7
10 c4
I ' m always happy when White
plays c4 in these positions. It forces
my knight where it wants to go, and
takes the c4-square away from
White's knight.
White does better to play 10 .l:.el
'i/ic7 11 &iJd2 ( 1 1 g3 was answered
by l l . . .i.c5 , improving over B agi­
rov's l l . . . a5 , in the game Leko-On­
ishchuk, Wijk aan Zee 1 995 - White
then had to grovel for equality : 1 2
&iJd2 0-0 1 3 i.g2 a5 14 &iJf3 b 5 1 5
'ir'e4 .l::t fb 8 1 6 i.d2 a4 1 7 h 4 b 4 1 8
.l:tad l 'ilib6 1 9 .l:.e2 &iJf8 20 i.h3 .l:td8
2 1 .l:.c l lh- 112) and now Black has the
following possibilities:
a) 11 &iJf4 12 'i/ie4 &iJg6 13 &iJc4
..•
i.e7 14 i.d2 0-0 15 .l:tad l .l:tad8 1 6
i. a5 b6 17 i.c3 &iJh4 1 8 i.g4 tiJc5 1 9
'ii'e2 &iJa4 2 0 i.d2 .l:.d4 2 1 i.cl .l:tfd8
22 %hd4 .l:.xd4 23 g3 &iJg6 did not
.
quite equalise in Chandler-Burgess,
British League (4NCL) 1 993/4.
b) 11 i.c5 1 2 &iJb3 i.b6 1 3 i.d2
...
(it is probably worth provoking . . . h6,
as it is possible to envisage either a
sacrifice on h6 if Black castles short
or B lack's light squares becoming a
problem if he tries to free himself
with . . . f6; 1 3 i.g5 h6 14 i.d2 a5 1 5
a4 i s the critical line) 1 3 . . . a5 (Black
is in no hurry to commit his king to
one side or the other) 14 c4? ! ( 1 4 a4)
14 ... &iJe7 1 5 i.c3 a4 16 &iJd2 &iJg6 1 7
l:tadl i.a5 1 8 'ilie3 0-0 1 9 i.e4 i.xc3
20 'ii'x c3 &iJdxe5 2 1 i.xg6 &iJxg6 22
&iJe4 c5 23 .l:.e3 .l::tfd8 24 l:.del 'iVc6
25 h4 &iJxh4 26 l:.h3 &iJg6 27 'ii'e3 l:.d4
28 l:.h5 l:tad8 0- 1 Betko-Sergeev,
Slovakian Ch (Topolcianky) 1 994.
10 •.• &iJe7
11 b3
This looks like a natural solid
move, but I think it just loses, since
White cannot defend e5 . In any case,
to my knowledge White has scored
no points from this position in sev­
eral attempts. If White wishes to play
a queen's fianchetto, then the best
moment is on move 9. After 9 b3
&iJd7 10 i.b2, the cunning 10 . . . i.b4
was recommended in TCA, the point
being to frustrate White's queenside
development, and drop back to a5
and c7 if the bishop were hit by a
pawn. Then 1 1 'ii'e2 a5 (considering
the previous comment, this is rather
a concession; l l . . .'iVg5 1 2 i.xd5 is
mildly annoying since 12 ... cxd5 ? 1 3
'ii' b 5 picks up a pawn, but even
1 2 . . . exd5 1 3 e6 is hardly terrifying
for Black after 13 . . .&iJf6; still Black
102 Flohr-Agzamov Variation: 5. . c6 .

should look for better - 1 1 . . .0-0 1 2 15••• 0-0-0!

l:f. d 1 'it'g 5 could be tried, since 1 3 Perhaps I should mention that I
.ixd5 ? ! exd5 14 e6? ! l:f.ae8 1 5 exf7+ did not find this idea at the board; it
<Ji;xf7 is rather good for Black) 12 a3 can be found in The Complete Alek­
.ic5 1 3 tLld2 tLlf4 14 'it'e4? (1 4 'it'c4 hine.
reserves e4 for the knight, and may 16 fxe6
be good for White) 14 . . Ji'g5 15 <Ji;h l The point is that 16 fxg6 hxg6 re­
( 1 5 'ili'el ) 15 . . . tLlxg2 1 6 .txg2 'it'xd2 gains the piece with a huge advan­
gave Black a useful extra pawn in tage, e.g. 17 l:txt7 l:txh5 1 8 h3 .ic5+
McKenna-Whayman, corr. 1 993-4. 19 <Ji;h 1 'it'g3 is convincing enough.
11 tLlg6 16..• fxe6
12 .ib2 'ili'c7 17 .ig4
13 .thS 17 'ili'xe6 .id6 1 8 .ixg7 ( 1 8 h3
13 .te4 tLlgxe5 14 f4 tLlg6 15 f5 tLlf4) 1 8 . . . l:thg8 1 9 .ih6 .ixh2+ 20
tLlf4 1 6 'tli'f3 e5 was good for B lack <Ji;h 1 .ie5 was good for Black in the
in the game Thorsteinsson-Wester­ game Mestrovic-Kovacevic, Yugo­
inen, Reykjavik 1 976, but gives slavia 1 98 1 .
White more of a fighting chance. 17 ttJf4
13 ... ttJdxeS 18 'ili'e4 .id6
Ben realised that something was 19 g3 ttJcS
up when I whipped off this pawn. 20 'ili'e3 ttJfd3
However, he was already committed, 20 ttJcd3? would be rather a silly
•••

so decided to plough on, and find out move, just getting the knights tan­
what the trick was. gled; still, 2 1 .td4 h5 22 .if3 .ie7
14 f4 ttJd7 23 .ixa7 .if6 boils down to approxi­
15 fS (D) mate equality.
21 .id4
21 .txe6+ ttJxe6 22 'fi'xe6+ <Ji;b8
leaves White unable both to save his
B
bishop, and to prevent a winning
. . . .ixg3 sacrifice, e.g. 23 .ic3 .ixg3;
23 'fi'e2 .ixg3 24 hxg3 'it'xg3+ 25
<Ji;h l l:f.d6; 23 .td4 .txg3 24 .txa7+
<Ji;a8 25 'ii'e3 .ixh2+ 26 <Ji;h 1 .U.he8 is
a slaughter.
21 .ieS
22 .ixeS 'fixeS
23 'it'xeS ttJxeS
It looks as though Black is about 24 .ih3 <Ji;c7
to be torn limb from limb, but now 25 b4 ttJcd3
comes the anticipated surprise . . . 26 a3 ttJxc4
 Flohr-Agzamov Variation: 5 . c6 103
. .

27 i.xe6 lLle3 �h6 38 .l:.f4 lLle3+ 39 �h3 lLldf5 40

28 .l:.f3 g4 saves all of White's pieces, and
28 .l:.f7+ 'Ot>d6 29 i.h3 .l:.he8 in­ gives him a winning attack!) 32 i.xf7
tends to bring the rook into e l . lLl1c2 wins the a-pawn since after 33
2 8 ... lLle 1 (D) .l:.a2 .l:.f8 34 i.c4 'iii>e5 the black king
28 lLlc2 29 .l:.a2 lLle5 30 .l:.f4
••• goes on the rampage .
.l:.d 1+ 3 1 'Ot>f2 lLld3+ 32 <ii> e2 lLlxf4+ 31 l1xt7
33 'Ot>xd 1 lLlxb4 is an alternative. 32 i.xf7 lLl1c2
33 lLlc4+ 'iii>e7
34 lLlxe3 lLlxa1
0-1
w
I have gone into some detail on
this game, not because of its theo­
retical importance (after all, this line
was known to be bad for White), but
to show how Black really can win al­
most effortlessly even if White is a
strong player, and makes 'natural'
moves. It also demonstrates how
breakable some 'rules' of opening
29 .l:.t7+ 'Ot>d6 play are: of Black's 34 moves, 17 were
29 'Ot>b8 is safer.
••• with knights !
30 i.b3
30 i.h3 lLl1c2 3 1 .l:.a2 'Ot>e5 32 lLlc3 Conclusion
.l:.d2 leaves White in a pitiful state. The lines to concern Black are 6 lLlg5
30 .•. .l:.hf8 i.f5 7 e6, 6 c4 lLlb6 (or 6 . . . lLlc7) 7
31 lLld2 lLlg5 and 6 0-0 i.xf3 7 i.xf3 dxe5 8
31 .l:.xf8 .l:.xf8 32 lLld2 would al­ dxe5 e6 9 1i'e2 lLld7 1 0 .l:.e 1 'illc7 1 1
low White to play a lost ending; 31 lLld2. If you are content with your
lLlc3 .l:.xt7 (3 1 ... lLlf3+ 3 2 <ii> f2 lLlg4+ chances in these variations, then I
33 'Ot>g2 lLld4 is bad as 34 lLle4+ 'Ot>e5 heartily recommend the Flohr-Ag­
35 .l:.e7+ <ii> f5 36 :n + 'Ot>g6 37 i.t7+ zamov.
12 Kengis Variation: 4
ti:JxeS g6
In view of its tremendous popularity,
this variation, characterised by the
moves 4 tL!f3 dxe5 5 tL!xe5 g6 (D),
should be regarded as the current
main line of Alekhine's Defence.
That I have named this variation
after the Latvian GM Edwin Kengis
should not prove controversial. He
has played the line for many years,
with extremely good results: on my
database he has a 65% score with the
variation against IM/GM strength
opposition, and only one loss ! I would
reserve the name 'Larsen Variation'
for 4 . . . dxe5 as a whole, and perhaps
5 tL!xe5 tL!d7, even though Larsen
was not the first to play that line.
Kengis's main theoretical contri­
bution has been in demonstrating
that after the main continuation, 6
�c4, the subject of the next chapter,
... dxe5 5
Black should play 6 . . . c6, rather than
6 . . . �e6, although both may be vi­
able. Moreover, his games are su­
perb models of how Black should
handle the resultant positions. Many
players readily move the knight from
d5 , perhaps to hit the c4-bishop.
Kengis tends to leave the knight on
d5, unless forced to remove it, since
the knight radiates such power from
d5 . Black's counterplay frequently
comes from a minority attack on the
queens ide. He also tends to keep his
queen flexible, often staying on d8
for quite a while before choosing be­
tween c7 (most often), c8, d7 and b6.
Kengis's trainer has for many
years been Alekhine's Defence ex­
pert Vladimir B agirov. It is notable
that in the 1 990s he has himself
taken up the Kengis line, after many
years of playing the 4 . . . �g4 main
line - so it seems that the teacher has
learnt from the pupil in this case.
This chapter deals with all of
White's alternatives to 6 �c4. By far
the most dangerous of these is 6
'ii'f3 , despite it being hardly ever
played. The notes here give some
ideas for Black after the moves
6 . . . �e6 7 c4 tL!b4 8 'ii'x b7, but I'm
afraid that John Henderson's idea,
8 . . . 'ii'xd4? ! 9 'ii'xa8 tL!c2+ 10 �e2
 Kengis Variation: 4. . . dxe5 5 lhxe5 g6 105
'ii'x e5+ 1 1 <iii> d 1 1i'd4+, which he so
loudly proclaimed to be the answer
to this line, would appear to be in­
adequate for Black. If 6 'ii'f3 puts
you off playing the Kengis Variation,
then you may wish to investigate the
move-order 4 . . . g6 5 i.c4 c6 intend-
ing a quick . . . dxe5, discussed in
Chapter 9.
Game 1 9
Anand - Adams
Linares PCA Ct ( 1) 1994
1 e4 liJf6 2 e5 liJd5 3 d4 d6 4 liJf3
4 ... dxe5
5 lbxe5 g6
This was the first time in Michael
Adams 's chess career that he had
played Alekhine's Defence - quite
an occasion for it ! Assuming, quite
reasonably, that Adams would have
devoted most of his preparation to
the main lines, and anything sharp
and forcing, Anand chose a quiet,
unusual, almost innocuous reply.
6 g3! ?
Here are the new developments in
White's other alternatives to 6 i.c4:
a) The extremely insipid 6 i.d3
was played in the game Stripunsky­
A.G.Panchenko, Ukrainian Ch (Sim­
feropol) 1 990, with Black easily
obtaining good play: 6 . . . i.g7 7 0-0
0-0 8 f4 c5 9 c4 l2Jb4 10 d5 liJd7 1 1
l:te1 e6 1 2 a3 l2Jxd3 1 3 'ii'x d3 exd5
14 'ii'xd5 l2Jxe5 15 fxe5 'ii'h4 1 6 l:.e4
'ii'e 7. The weakness of the e5-pawn
and disorganisation ofWhite's posi­
tion allowed Black a straightforward
victory.
b) 6 h4?! l2Jd7 7 l2Jxd7 'ii'xd7 8 h5
i.g7 9 c3 c5 1 0 dxc5 'ii'c 6 1 1 liJd2
i.f5 12 h6 i.f6 1 3 1i'f3 0-0 14 g4 i.c2
15 i.g2 l2Jxc3 1 6 'ii'xc6 bxc6 1 7 l:.h3
( 1 7 g5 is a better try, but 17 . . . i.h8
should still be pleasant for Black)
17 . . . l2Jd5 1 8 i.e4 l2Jb4 19 'ili>e2 i.a4
gave Black what should have been a
decisive advantage in Reeh-Loffler,
Amstelveen 1 994.
c) 6 liJd2 i.g7 7 liJdf3 0-0 8 g3
(an unfortunate novelty) 8 . . .l2Jd7 9
liJd3 c5 1 0 c3 cxd4 1 1 cxd4 (Black
obviously has an extremely satisfac­
tory position) 1 l . . .b6 ( l l . . .'ii'b 6 ! ?)
1 2 i.g2 i.a6 1 3 0-0 l:.c8 14 a3 'ii'c 7
15 l:.e 1 e6 1 6 h4 i.b5 ( 1 6 . . . 'ii'c 2 1 7
'ii'x c2 l:.xc2 1 8 liJb4 liJxb4 1 9 axb4
liJb8 20 i.f4 i.b7 2 1 l:.ed 1 keeps
White in the game) 17 liJb4 liJxb4 1 8
axb4 liJf6 1 9 i.f4 'ii'b7 20 liJe5 liJd5
2 1 h5 l:.fd8 22 'ii'g4 gxh5 ? ! 23 'ii'xh5
f6 24 l2Jg4 l2Jxf4 25 gxf4 i.c6 26
i.xc6 l:txc6 27 d5 ! (suddenly White
is much better) 27 . . . exd5 28 l:.e8+
l:.xe8 29 'ii'xe8+ i.f8 30 liJh6+ �g7
3 1 liJf5+ �g8 32 l:.a3 1 -0 Los-Loff­
ler, Amstelveen 1 994.
d) 6 �f3 is a sharp move. I have
had second thoughts about my rec­
ommendation here. 6 . . . f6 is unlikely
to suffice for equality (though may
not be too bad), so it is worth taking
another look at 6 i.e6:• ••
d 1 ) 7 i.c4 i.g7 8 liJc3 c6 is a po­
sition that has occurred a number of
times by transposition:
d 1 1 ) 9 lbe4 is not so fearsome as
has been claimed:
d1 1 1) 9 0-0 10 0-0 liJd7 (or
.••
10 . . . . l2Jc7 ! 1 1 i.xe6 l2Jxe6 12 c3 'ifd5
106 Kengis Variation: 4. .. dxe5 5 ltixe5 g6
oo Psakhis) 1 1 l2Jxd7 .ilxd7 12 c3
(Blatny proposes 12 .l:td 1 ) 12 . . . .if5
13 .l:te1 .ilxe4 14 'ii'xe4 e6 15 a4 a5 16
.ild2 'ii'd7 1 7 l:lad 1 b5 1 8 .ib3 l2Jb6
19 'ii'c2 bxa4 20 .ilxa4 tLlxa4 2 1 1i'xa4
'ii' b 7 22 .ilc 1 'ii'b 5 gave Black rea­
sonable play on the queenside in
Ki.Georgiev-Donchev, Bulgarian Ch
(Sofia) 1988.
d 1 1 2) 9 l2J d7 10 l2Jg5 .ixe5 1 1
••.
l2Jxe6 fxe6 1 2 dxe5 l2Jxe5 1 3 1i'e2
l2Jxc4 14 'ii'xc4 'ii'a5+ 15 .ild2 'ifb5
left White struggling for a draw in
Luther-C.Horvath, Budapest 1 992.
d 1 2) 9 0-0 0-0 10 .l:te1 ( 1 0 l2Je4 is
line ' d 1 1 1 ') 10 . . . l2Jd7 11 h3 lLlxe5
1 2 dxe5 l2Jxc3 1 3 'i!Vxc3 .1xc4 1 4
'ii'xc4 'itd5 = 15 'iVb3 'ii'xb3 1 6 axb3
l:lfd8 17 .ilg5 .l:td5 18 .ixe7 .l:txe5 1 9
.l:txe5 .ilxe5 2 0 c 3 .l:te8 2 1 .ic5 b 6 22
.ile3 .l:td8 23 f4 .ilb8 24 b4 f5 and
Black held the ending comfortably
in the game Hort-A.N.Panchenko,
Bern 1 992. Going back to move 1 1 ,
would you believe that White has a
plausible losing move? Well, here it
is: l l .id2?? l2Jxe5 ! 12 dxe5 lLlxc3
0- 1 Chachalev-Ayupbergenov, Vol­
gograd 1 994 . The d2-bishop drops
after either 1 3 .ixe6 1i'xd2 or 1 3
'ii'x c3 .ixc4 14 'i!Vxc4 'itxd2.
d2) 7 c4 l2Jb4 8 'itxb7 (D) is the
critical attempt to refute Black's
play:
d2 1 ) 8 'ii'xd4?! 9 'ii'xa8 l2Jc2+ 10
...
�e2 'ir'xeS+ 11 �d1 and now, rather
than 1 1 ... 'ii'e 1 + (see TCA), l l .'ii'd4+
..
is good for Black according to Hen­
derson, but it does not seem to solve
his problems if White plays 12
.ild2!, e.g.:
B
d2 1 1 ) 1 2 l2Jxa1 1 3 1i'xb8+ �d7
.•.
14 c5 1i'xc5 15 .ib5+ c6 1 6 'ii'b 7+
�e8 (forced) 17 1i'xc6+ 1i'xc6 1 8
.1xc6+ �d8 ( 1 8 . . . .id7 1 9 .ixd7+
�xd7 20 .ilc3 .l:tg8 21 l2Ja3 wins the
knight) 1 9 .ic3 .l:tg8 20 b3 .ilf5
(20 ... .ig7 2 1 .ixg7 .l:txg7 22 lLla3 +-;
20. . . �c7 2 1 .if3 .if5 22 �e2 lLlc2
23 g4 and the knight is still trapped)
2 1 l2Ja3 e6 and here 22 b4 seems to
win (this is certainly the reply to
2 1 ...e5), as does 22 l2Jb5 .
d2 1 2) 12 'ii'xb2 1 3 .ic3 .ilg4+
.••
14 f3 l2Je3+ 15 �e1 l2Jc2+ 16 �e2 !
(this is much clearer than 1 6 �d2)
16 . . . l2Jd4++ 17 �d 1 'ii'c 2+ 18 �e 1
(almost all of Black's pieces are en
prise) 1 8 . . . .1g7 1 9 1i'xb8+ �d7 20
'i!Vb2 (simplest; greedy approaches
may be viable too) 20 . . . 'itxb2 2 1
.ixb2 l2Jxf3+ 22 gxf3 .ixb2 2 3 fxg4
and White should win this ending.
d22) 8 l2Jc2+ 9 �d 1 l2Jxa1 1 0
...
'i!Vxa8 .ilg7 1 1 .id2 (1 1 'ii'b7 was sug­
gested by Fleck) and now, rather
than the feeble 1 1 . . .0-0 (see TCA),
1 l . . .c5 ! ? seems to leave White's po­
sition rather disorganised. A cute
idea is that 12 l2Jc6? ! is answered by
1 2 . . . l2Jxc6 1 3 'ii'x c6+ .ild7 14 'ii'xc5
 Kengis Variation: 4. . . dxe5 5 ltixe5 g6 107
.ixd4 ! while 12 d5 .ixe5 13 dxe6
fxe6 14 'fixa7 'iid 6 (or 14 .. .'ii'd4 ), 12
'fixa7 cxd4 13 .ia5 ( 1 3 f4 is Fritz's
suggestion) 1 3 ... 'fic8 and 12 f4 (Fritz)
all require careful analysis.
e) There are some important new
ideas in the variation 6 c4 tt:'!b6:
e1) 7 c5?! tt:'!6d7 8 tt:'!f3 (this leaves
White a tempo down by comparison
with 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 tt:'!f6 3 d4 tt:'!xd5
4 c4 tt:'!b6 5 tt:'!c3 g6 6 c5 tt:'!6d7, a line
of the Scandinavian) 8 . . . .ig7 9 .ic4
0-0 10 0-0 b6 1 1 lt:Jg5 .ib7 = 12 'fib3
'ii'e8 ( 1 2 ... e6 allows 13 .ixe6) 13 'fih3
h6 14 tt:'!f3 h5 (although not bad, this
is unnecessary because 1 4 . . . e6 is
possible, for example 15 .ixh6 .ixh6
1 6 'ikxh6 .ixf3 17 gxf3 and now
1 7 . . . bxc5 or maybe the more specu­
lative 17 ... tt:'!c6 !?) 15 'iig 3 .ia6 1 6
.ixa6 tt:'!xa6 1 7 cxb6 cxb6 1 8 a3 tt:'!f6
1 9 tt:'!c3 l:tc8 gave Black satisfactory
play in the game Sax-Maus, Bun­
desliga 1 993/4.
e2) 7 .i e 2 .ig7 8 0-0 0-0 9 i.e3
.ie6 10 'fic2 tt:'!8d7 1 1 f4 c5 !? 12 dxc5
tt:'!xe5 1 3 cxb6 tt:'!c6 14 bxa7 .if5 1 5
'fic 1 tt:'!d4 1 6 tt:'!c3 tt:'!xe2+ 17 tt:'!xe2
'ii'd 3 18 tt:'!g3 and now 18 .ig4 1 9
...
h 3 ( 1 9 l:tb1 ) 1 9 . . . .ixb2 20 'ikxb2
'ir'xe3+ 2 1 �h2 .ie6 22 tt:'!h5 !? (22
'ikxb7) 22 . . . gxh5 23 l:tf3 (23 f5 )
23 . . . 'fie4 24 l:tg3+ .ig4 25 'fif2 (25
hxg4 h4 26 l:tf3) 25 . . . 'ii'g6 26 hxg4
hxg4 was messy, and led to a draw in
Mann-Maus, B undesliga 1 993/4. In­
stead B lack could try 18 .ixb2 1 9
•..
'iix b2 'ti'xe3+ 2 0 �h 1 immediately,
but must still be extremely careful:
20 .'it'xa7?! 21 tt:'!xf5 gxf5 22 l:tf3 ;
..
20 .ie6 2 1 tt:'!h5 (or 2 1 f5 .ixc4)
•..
2 1 . . .gxh5 22 f5 (22 l::tf3 'it'e4 23
l:tg3+ i.g4 24 h3 'ilfxf4 +) 22 . . . .ixf5
23 l:txf5 f6.
e3) 7 tt:'!c3 .ig7 (D):
w
e3 1 ) 8 .if4 0-0 9 .ie2. In this po­
sition Kengis had previously tried
9 . . . f6? ! and 9 . . . c6. In the game Gal­
lagher-Kengis, Bern 1 992 he played
a novelty that turned out extremely
well: 9 . . . a5 ! ? 10 h4? ! (over-zealous
maybe; 10 0-0) 10 . . . tt:'!c6 ! 1 1 tt:'!xc6
bxc6 12 .ie5 (Kengis gives the line
12 .ie3 .ie6 ! 13 b3 c5 14 tt:'!b5 c6 1 5
dxc5 tt:'!d7 ! and now 1 6 tt:'!a3 'ikb8
planning . . . l:td8, or 16 tt:'!d4 tt:'!xc5 1 7
tt:'!xc6 'ilic7 1 8 .if3 l:tad8 ! 1 9 tt:'!xd8
l:txd8 20 'ii' b 1 tt:'!d3+ with compen­
sation; Black may opt for a simpler
approach, with 1 3 . . . a4 ! ?) 1 2 . . . .ixe5
1 3 dxe5 i.e6 14 b3 'ikxd l+ 15 ltxd 1
a4 1 6 tt:'!e4 ( 1 6 0-0 axb3 17 axb3
l:ta3) 16 . . . axb3 17 axb3 .if5 18 tt:Jc5
l:ta5 19 tt:Jd3 ! (1 9 b4 l:ta2 20 g4 ! .ie6 !
2 1 tt:'!xe6 fxe6 22 llh3 =.b2 ! is just
good for Black) 19 ... .ixd3 20 .ixd3
l:txe5+ and Black won a useful pawn,
though according to Kengis's notes,
White ought to have obtained good
drawing chances.
108 Kengis Variation: 4. . . dxe5 5 lhxe5 g6
e32) 8 i.e3 is the critical line:
e32 1 ) 8 �c6 (Kengis played a
...
similar idea in the game we have just
seen against Gallagher, but only
when White had played the attacking
thrust h4, so it was both necessary
and appropriate to distract him with
a central blow, and the white bishop
was on f4, so the pressure on d4 was
more acute) 9 �xc6 bxc6 10 'ii'd 2
a5 1 1 i.e2 a4 12 .l:r.d 1 0-0 13 i.h6 ;!;
and now 13 e5? ! 14 i.xg7 'iitxg7 1 5
...
c 5 ( 1 5 dxe5 'ii'e7 i s presumably
Black's idea) 1 5 . . . �d7 16 0-0 ± �f6
(16 ...'ii'e7 17 i.f3; 16 ...exd4 17 'ii'xd4+
'ii'f6 1 8 �xa4 picks off a pawn;
1 6 . . . 'ii'f6 17 f4 exd4 1 8 �e4) 17 dxe5
�d5 1 8 i.f3 +- was A.lvanov-Men,
US Ch (Durango) 1992. Black's best
chance was 13 i.e6 14 b3 axb3 1 5
.••
axb3 i.xh6 (not 1 5 . . . .l:r.a3? 1 6 i.xg7
r3;xg7 17 'ii'b 2 intending d5, embar­
rassing Black on the long diagonal)
16 'ii'xh6 .l:r.a3 17 �e4 f6.
e322) 8 0-0 9 'ii'f3 ? ! (9 f4 and 9
•••
.l:r.c 1 had previously been played
with success) 9 . . . f6 10 �d3 e5 (nor­
mally, Black could not hope for
much by playing these moves, but
White has set herself up for it here -
if anything, Black is already margin­
ally better) 1 1 dxe5 fxe5 12 'ii'd 1 �6
1 3 �c5 'ii'e 8 ( 1 3 . . . 'ii'h4 ! ?) 14 �d5
'ii'f7 1 5 �e4 i.f5 1 6 �g5 �d7 1 7
�xb6 �xd 1 + 1 8 .l:r.xd 1 axb6 1 9 c5
h6 20 i.c4+ 'iilh 8 21 h4 (2 1 �f7+?
'iil h 7 22 cxb6 �a5 23 i.d5 c6 24
i.c5 cxd5 25 i.. xf8 .l:r.xf8 +) 2 l . . .b5
22 �f7+ 'iilh7 23 �g5+ 'iilh 8 24
�f7+ 'iilh7 25 �g5+ lf2- lh J.Polgar­
Agdestein, Isle of Lewis rpd 1 995.
e323) 8 c5 has been Kengis's
...
preference:
e323 1 ) 9 f4 cxd4 10 'ii'xd4 'ii'xd4
1 1 i.xd4 �6d7 1 2 �d5 �xe5 1 3
i.xe5 i.xe5 1 4 fxe5 �a6 1 5 i.e2
i.e6 16 0-0 .l:r.c8 17 .:lad 1 g5 18 b4
h5 19 c5 i.xd5 20 .l:r.xd5 �xb4 2 1
i.b5+ 'iitf8 22 .l:r.d7 .:lxc5 23 e6 f5 24
.l:r.xb7 �xa2 25 i.d3 f4 26 h4 �c1 27
i.a6 112- 112 Vitolins-Kengis, Latvian
Ch play-off 1 989.
e3232) 9 dxc5 'ii'xd1+ 1 0 l:txd1 (in
1 990 Vitolins tried 1 0 r3;xd 1 against
Kengis - see TCA) 10 ...i.xe5 1 1 cxb6
i.xc3+ ( 1 1 . . .axb6 can be answered
by Ernst' s 1 2 l:r.d2 �d7 1 3 i.e2 or
12 i.d4 �c6 13 i.xe5 �xe5 14 i.e2
N .Pedersen-Flindtholt, Arhus Fest­
uge 1 992, with some advantage for
White in both cases) 1 2 bxc3 axb6
13 .l:r.d2 �7 14 i.e2 �5 15 0-0 i.f5
(after 1 5 . . . 0-0 1 6 :tb1 , Ernst analysed
1 6 ... .l:r.a6 17 i.f3 i.f5 1 8 :tbb2 ;!;, but
1 6 . . . �e4 1 7 l:tc2 i.f5 1 8 :txb6 �xf2
1 9 .l:r.cb2 �e4 may well be an im­
provement) 16 i.f3 and now instead
of the horrible blunder 16 i.e4?? ..•
1 7 i.xc5 i.xf3 1 8 i.d4 when White
won material in the game Ernst-Ba­
girov, Helsinki 1 992, 16 0-0 17 l:b2
.•.
.l:r.a6 1 8 i.xc5 bxc5 1 9 :txb7 should
certainly be survivable for Black,
who may choose between 19 e6 •.•
(Ernst), 19 ....l:r.xa2 20 l:r.xe7 i.d3 and
19... i.d3.
Back to Anand and Adams in their
PCA Candidates match.
6
..• i.g7
6 �d7 has been tried by Stefan
•...
Loffler, and seems fairly logical. It is
natural to compare it with the line
 Kengis Variation: 4. . . dxe5 5 ltJxe5 g6 109
5 . . . lLld7 ; White can no longer sacri­
fice on f7, but on the other hand ex­
changing on e5 is less of a threat
when Black has already played . . . g6:
a) 7 lLlf3 (this retreat looks too
meek) 7 . . . i.. g 7 8 i.. g 2 c5 9 0-0 0-0
10 c3 ( 1 0 l:te 1 is better) 10 . . .cxd4 1 1
lLlxd4 liJ7f6 ! 1 2 l:!e1 l:!e8 1 3 c4 lLlb6
14 b3 i.. g4 15 'ii'd 2? ( 1 5 f3 i.d7 1 6
lLlc3 = ) 1 5 . . . 'ii'd 7 1 6 i.b2 l:!ad8 +
Finkel-Loffler, Tel Aviv 1 995 .
b) 7 i.. g2 lLlxe5 (7 . . . c6) 8 dxe5 c6
9 0-0 i.. g7 10 'ii'e2 (White has a solid
space advantage; Black has no natu­
ral counterplay, so tries to generate
some artificially) 10 . . .h5 !? 1 1 c4 ( 1 1
l:!d1 i..g4 12 f3 'iVb6+ 1 3 'it>h1 may be
White' s best) 1 1 . . .lLlb6 1 2 lLla3 (1 2
l:!d1 'ii'c7 { not 12 ...i..d7? 1 3 e6 ± } 1 3
i..f4 g5 14 i..xg5 'ii'xe5 favours Black
- it's hard to believe that White can­
not stamp out Black's counterplay
more convincingly) 1 2 . . . i.g4 1 3 f3
i.. e 6 1 4 f4 'ii'c 8 ( 1 4 . . . 'it'd4+ 1 5 i.e3
i.. xc4 16 'ii'f2 'it'd7 17 l:!fd 1 i..d5 1 8
i.. x b6 axb6 1 9 lLlc4 ± ) 1 5 b 3 h4 1 6
lLlc2 hxg3 17 hxg3 i..h 3 1 8 lLle3 'ii'e6
1 9 i.. b 2 0-0-0 20 l:!ad 1 i.. x g2 2 1
l:!xd8+ l:!xd8 22 'it>xg2 left Black with
no great problems in Glek-Loffler,
Bundesliga 1 993/4.
7 i.. g2 0-0
7 lLlb4 should be answered sim­
•••
ply by 8 00 - compare the next note.
8 0-0 c6
8 .. .lLlb4 9 lLlf3 i.. f5 10 lLla3 in­
tending c3 ;!;.
9 l:!e1 i..f5
10 c3
10 c4? ! lLlb4 1 1 lLla3 (or 1 1 .Ue2
lLlxa2) 1 1 . . .a5 ! .
10 liJd7
11 ltJf3 l:e8
12 liJbd2 (D)
12 ... ltJ7f6?!
An odd choice, given that Black
had at his disposal an idea that ap­
pears not only to solve his problems
almost entirely, but also to be the
logical follow-up of his previous
move: 12 ... e5 ! 13 lLlc4 (the critical
move, and Anand's intention; 1 3
dxe5 lLlxe5 1 4 lLlxe5 i..xe5 1 5 ltJc4
i.. c7 16 l:!xe8+ 'ii'xe8 gives Black no
problems) and now there are three
possibilities:
a) 13 ...exd4 14 J:.xe8+ 'ii'xe8 1 5
liJd6 ! 'ii'e6 1 6 lLlxf5 'ii'xf5 1 7 ltJxd4
leaves White a little better - Anand.
b) 13...i.. g4 (I think Ftacnik is
right to regard this move more highly
than Anand's 1 3 . . . 'ii'c 7) 14 dxe5 ( 1 4
liJd6 l:!e6 1 5 lLlxb7 'ii'b6 1 6 'ii'b 3
i.. xf3 17 i.. xf3 exd4 18 l:!xe6 fxe6
looks entirely satisfactory for Black)
14...ltJxe5 15 ltJcxe5 .l:txe5 ( 1 5 ...i..xe5
was proposed by Ljubojevic) 16 .l:txe5
i..xe5 and now:
b1) 17 h3 i.. xf3 1 8 'ii'xf3 'ii'b 6 =
Ftacnik.
1 10 Kengis Variation: 4. . . dxe5 5 ltne5 g6

b2) 17 c4 i.xf3 ( 1 7 . . . lLJc3? is just Anand felt this was better than 19
too cheeky: 1 8 1i'xd8+ .l:f.xd8 19 i.g5 c4 c5 intending ... lLJc6 or 19 i.g5
lLJe2+ 20 'iii> f l .l:f.e8 21 lLJxe5 .l:f.xe5 22 lLJg6 intending 20 f4 h6.
i.e3) 1 8 1i'xf3 ( 1 8 i.xf3 lLJb6 high­ 19 lLJd5
lights the deficiencies of the white 20 c4 lLJe7
queenside) 1 8 . . . lLJb6 followed by 21 i.e3 .l:f.ad8
. . . 'Wd4 leaves B lack with a very ac­ 22 b4 .l:f.d7
tive position. 23 �f2 lLJc8!
b3) 17 �b3! i.xf3 18 i.xf3 lLJb6 23 b6 is met by 24 a4 ! intending
.•.

and it seems that Black has almost a5 .

fully equalised. 24 a4
c) 13 �c7 ( ! from Anand) 14
•.. Ftacnik preferred 24 .l:f.ed1 .l:f.ed8
dxe5 lLJxe5 ( 1 4 ... i.g4 1 5 i.f4 i.xf3 25 .l:f.xd7 .l:f.xd7 26 a4, but I cannot
1 6 i.xf3 ;!;) 1 5 lLJcxe5 i.xe5 1 6 c4 ! agree with his condemnation of 24
lLJb4 17 .l:f.xe5 .l:f.xe5 1 8 i.f4 lLJd3 1 9 i.xa7 on account of 24 . . . b6. Though
lLJxe5 lLJxe5 20 ..,d4 ;!; Anand. this is unnecessarily messy, it may
13 lLJc4 still be good for White: 25 i.b8 'ifxb8
Now White has a firm grip on the 26 i.xc6 and 25 c5 'i!Vxa7 26 i.xc6
position, and the move . . . .l:f.e8 is ren­ both give White a rook and two
dered pointless. From a theoretical pawns for two pieces .
viewpoint, the game is of little fur­ 24 .l:f.ed8
ther importance, so we can sit back 25 a5 f6!
and enjoy the battle. 26 exf6 i.xf6
13 ..• �c7 27 .l:f.ab1
14 lLJce5 27 .l:f.ac1 .l:f.d3 intending . . . i.c3
14 �b3! .l:f.ad8 1 5 lLJce5 was helps Black's cause.
Anand's preference afterwards. 27 ••• i.c3
14 ••• lLJg4! 28 .l:f.fl
14 ttJd7 15 lLJxt7 !? 'it>xf7 16 g4 e6
••• 28 .l:f.ec1 is met by 28 . . . i.d2 ! .
17 gxf5 exf5 was judged ± by Anand 28 .l:f.d3
- B lack's king is very exposed; 29 'iii>h 1 i.d4
1 4 b5 1 5 a4 ;!; Ftacnik.
••• 30 i.xd4 (D)
15 lLJh4 lLJxe5 30 .l:f.3xd4 ? !
16 lLJxf5 gxf5 Black's best chance was to con­
16 lLJc4 1 7 lLJxg7 'it>xg7 1 8 b3 ±
••• tinue 30 .l:f.8xd4 intending . . . 'Wd7,
..•

Ftacnik. when nothing giving White real win­

17 dxe5 e6 ning chances has been demonstrated,
17 i.xe5 1 8 i.xd5 cxd5 19 'Wxd5
••• for example 31 c5 (3 1 .l:f.fc 1 lLJd6)
i.g7 20 'tli'xf5 ± Ftacnik. 3 l ...a6 32 'We2 'Wd7 33 .l:f.fe1 lLJe7 34
18 �e2 lLJe7 'ii'xe6+ (34 i.fl is suggested by
19 f4 Fritz, e.g. 34 . . .lLJd5 35 �xe6+ 'ti'xe6
 Kengis Variation: 4. . . dxe5 5 tbxe5 g6 1 1 1
36 l:txe6 l:tdl 3 7 l:txd l l:txd l 3 8 <li'g2
.!bxb4 39 i.c4, although it is hard to
see White achieving any real win­
ning chances) 34 .. .'ii'xe6 35 l:txe6
l:td 1+ 36 l:te l l:txe l+ 37 l:txe l l:txb4
= Ftacnik - we may continue this
line 38 l:txe7 l:tbl + 39 i..fl l:txfl + 40
�g2 l:lbl . 31 'ii'e2 'ii'd 7 32 c5 was
given by Hodgson, Adams 's second
in this match, but it's difficult to see
White making progress with B lack
so active.
31 l:tfel?
31 i.d5! is better, though B lack
can struggle on with 3 1 . . . .:!.4xd5 32
cxd5 exd5 ± intending to continue
. . . .!bd6-e4.
31 ... 'ilf7?
Anand preferred 3 1 . . . .l:.xc4 ! , on
the basis that 32 l:txe6 'il'd7 is only a
little better for White, but Ftacnik
suggested 32 'ii'e 2 .l:.cd4 33 'il'xe6+
'ii'f7 34 'ii'xf7+ <li'xf7 35 a6 bxa6 36
i.xc6 ±.
After the inferior text continu­
ation, Anand was able to finish the
game off neatly:
32 i.d5! 'fig7? (32 ... .:!.4xd5 ± Ftac­
nik) 33 l:te5! +- .l:.4xd5 34 cxd5 cxd5
(Anand points out that 34 ... exd5 can
be answered by 35 g4 ! ? with an at­
tack, or by the straightforward 35
l:txf5 +-) 35 g4! .!be7 36 .l:.xe6 (36
gxf5 exf5 37 .l:tgl .!bg6 38 .l:txf5 +-)
36 fxg4 37 'fih4 l:f.d7 38 l1be1 �f8
•••
39 f5 1-0
Conclusion
Of the lines in this chapter, only 6
'iVf3 and 6 c4 pose B lack any par­
ticular threat.
13 The Main Line : 6 i.. c4
The standard position of the Kengis
Variation arises after the further
moves 6 . . . c6 7 0-0 i.g7 (D) :
w
In this line Black's counterplay
comes mainly on the queenside,
often based on advances by the a­
and b-pawns . Black will normally
also gain time by threatening to ex­
change the e5- knight; White has the
choice then of recapturing with the
d-pawn, playing tt:ld2-f3 to recapture
with the knight, or preserving the
knight from exchange, by means of
tt:\e5-f3 (or -d3).
Often B lack manoeuvres his mi­
nor pieces thus: . . . i.e6, . . . tt:ld7 and
then answers tt:\e5-f3 with . . . i.g4 .
The question then arises: why not
play ftrst . . . tt:\d7 and then meet tt:\e5-
f3 with . . . tt:\d7-b6 and after the
bishop moves from c4, play . . . i.c8-
g4 directly, saving a tempo? The point
here is that the knight is not terribly
well-placed on b6, and Black often
wishes to advance his b-pawn; a sub­
sequent . . . tt:lb6-d7 leaves Black a
tempo down on the standard lines.
White's bishop will generally drop
back from c4 anyway, to stop silly
threats like . . . tt:\xc3 (and . . . i.e6xc4)
which often win a pawn in ftve-min­
ute chess, and even in postal games
(hard to believe, but there are several
examples).
Another point worth considera­
tion is precisely how Black should
arrange the possible queenside pawn
advance. The move . . a5 is often
.
played when the further advance to
a4 has some tactical points, for ex­
ample (when the pawn is still on c2)
trapping the bishop on b3, deflection
of the bishop from the defence of a
pawn on c4, or (with the bishop on
b3 and the pawn on c3) White's
queen may find herself a little over­
loaded. Following a future . . . a4 ad­
vance, B lack may be able to cause
further havoc on the queenside with
. . . a3, or play the . . . b5 advance, hav­
ing ruled out the undermining a4. If
White plays a3 to prevent this ad­
vance, this causes some weakening
of the light squares, while advanc­
ing the pawn to a4 leaves a black
knight on d5 more secure, because
c4 would drive it to the then unas­
sailable b4-square. In many cases

Black will begin the charge with the
b-pawn ( . . . b5) . This is often pre­
ferred when the . . . a5 advance has lit­
tle sting, and White's a4 thrust does
not seriously damage B lack's queen­
side - Black would prefer to meet
this with . . . a6, rather than . . . b4. In
some cases B lack is prepared to re­
capture with the c-pawn on b5 ; this is
generally after a considerable sim­
plification of the position, so the po­
tential outside passed pawn is more
relevant than central control.
If this discussion gives you a
headache, then studying the games
of Kengis will provide the details
(and quite a few more insights ! ) in a
more palatable form.
Game 20
Short - Vaganian
Riga Tal mem 1 995
1 e4 liJf6 2 e5 liJd5 3 d4 d6 4 liJf3
dxe5 5 ltJxe5 g6
6 �c4 c6
6 �e6 has been regarded as
.••
rather dubious owing to the reply 7
lL!c3. Then 7 � g7 8 lL!xe4 �xe5 9
.••
dxe5 lL!c6 certainly is bad in view of
1 0 b3 ! (see TCA), but 7 c6 is play­
.••
able: 8 lL!e4 lL!c7 9 �xe6 (9 �b3
was the old move, reckoned to give
White some advantage) 9 . . . ltJxe6 1 0
'it'f3 (White decides to force matters)
10 .. .f6 1 1 'it'b3 'ii'd5 1 2 'it'xb7 'it'xe4+
1 3 �e3 �g7 ( 1 3 .. .fxe5 14 'it'xa8 exd4
1 5 'ii'xb8+ 'iitt7 1 6 0-0 dxe3 17 fxe3+
'iit g 7 is also possible) 14 'it'xa8 fxe5
1 5 'ii'x b8+ rj;t7 1 6 'ii'b4 ( 1 6 'ii'xa7
exd4 1 7 0-0 dxe3 1 8 fxe3+ �f6 1 9
The Main Line: 6 �c4 1 13
l:tf2 appears awkward for Black ­
where is his counterplay?) 16 ... 'ii'xg2
17 0-0-0 exd4 1 8 i.d2 'ii'd 5 19 'it'b3
l:td8 gave Black good compensation
for the exchange in Godena-Vagan­
ian, Reggio Emilia 1 994/5 . White
may also play other 7th moves, e.g. 7
�b3 ..tg7 8 0-0 0-0 9 liJf3 ! ? ..tg4
(9 . . . c6 would most likely transpose
to a normal line, e.g. 10 l:te1 lL!d7 1 1
liJbd2) 1 0 liJbd2 a5 ( 1 0. . ...txd4?? is
no good: 1 1 h3 ! +- - this indicates
one drawback of omitting ... c6) 1 1 a3
c6 1 2 h3 ..txf3 1 3 ltJxf3 e6 14 ..tg5
lL!e7 1 5 'it'd2 ;!; Psakhis-Vaganian,
Rostov-on-Don 1 993 .
In practice, a subsequent . . . c6 will
often transpose to variations follow­
ing 6 . . . c6 in any case, so why not
play the move immediately, and
keep the queen's bishop flexible?
7 0-0
7 lL!c3 is likely to transpose to
lines considered under 6 'it'f3 ..te6 7
..tc4 ..tg7 8 lL!c3 c6.
7 liJd2 is an important move-or­
der subtlety, intending to have liJdf3
ready as a reply to . . . ltJd7 . See the
next game for details.
7 .•. ..tg7
We should note that the last ever
USSR Championship witnessed a
couple of experiments with 7 ltJd7 •••
instead of the natural bishop move:
a) Tiviakov-Vaganian, USSR Ch
(Moscow) 1 99 1 proceeded 8 lL!c3
lL!xe5 9 dxe5 ..te6 1 0 ltJe4 i.g7 1 1
ltJg5 'ii'd 7 1 2 l:e 1 0-0 1 3 'ii'd4 ..tf5
1 4 c3 'ii'd 8 1 5 liJf3 h6 1 6 ..tf4 g5 1 7
..t g 3 e 6 1 8 l:ad 1 'ii'e7 1 9 'ii'd 2 l:fd8
20 'ii'e 2 l:d7 2 1 h4 l:ad8 22 hxg5
1 14 The Main Line: 6 it.c4
hxg5 23 lLld4 it.g6 24 'ti'g4 lLlb6 25
it.e2 c5 26 ltJf3 .l:txd 1 27 .:.xd 1 .l:txd 1 +
28 it.xd l it.h6 29 'ir'h3 it.g7 30 'li'g4
'li'd8 3 1 ltJxg5 it.f5 32 'ii' h5 it.g6 3 3
'ii'g4 it.f5 3 4 'ifh5 1h- 1h.
b) 8 lLlf3 (in view of the discus­
sion above, this seems logical) was
subsequently preferred . The game
I.Zaitsev-A.G.Panchenko, USSR Ch
(Moscow) 199 1 then saw 8 lD7b6 9 ••.
it.b3 (a point in favour of Black's
move order is that by playing the
knight manoeuvre before White has
had time for .:.e 1 , Black robs his op­
ponent of the possibility of it.fl )
9 . . . it.g4 1 0 c3 it.g7 1 1 lLlbd2 0-0 1 2
h 3 it.xf3 1 3 lLlxf3 lLld7 1 4 .l:te 1 .:.e8
1 5 c4 lD5f6 16 c5 e6 1 7 'ti'c2 ltJd5 1 8
.i.g5 it.f6 1 9 it.xd5 ."'.xg5 20 it.e4 a5
2 1 .l:tad 1 it.h6 22 b3 'ti'c7 23 a3 e5 24
d5 cxd5 25 it.xd5 lLlxc5 26 lLlxe5
.l:txe5 27 :xeS 'ir'xe5 28 'ft'xc5 rJi;g7
29 'ii' b5 .:.c8 30 'ii'x b7 .:.c7 3 1 'ii' b5
.:.c 1 and Black managed to hold this
ending. B agirov later provided a re­
finement: 8 ... it.g7 (I have already
extolled the virtues of leaving the
knight on d5) 9 it.b3 a5 ! 10 c4 ( 1 0
a4? ! 0-0 1 1 c4 lLlb4 i s a theme men­
tioned above, but 10 c3 ! ? could be
best) 10 . . . ltJc7 1 1 lLlc3 0-0 12 .:.e 1
lLlb6 1 3 it.g5 it.e6 14 c5 ( 1 4 'ti'e2 is
met by 14 . . . a4 ! ) 14 . . . lLlbd5 1 5 'ir'd2
.:.e8 ? ! (B agirov analysed 1 5 . . . lLlf6
1 6 it.h6 it.xb3 17 axb3 lLlcd5 = ) 1 6
it. h 6 it. g 4 1 7 lLle5 i.f5 1 8 h 4 f6 1 9
lLlf3 'it?h8 2 0 it.xg7+ 'it?xg7 2 1 h5
gxh5 ! (although his kingside is a lit­
tle ugly, Black has good counter­
chances) 22 lLlh4 it.g6 (B agirov
mentions the alternative 22 . . . 1i'd7 ! ?
23 lLlxf5+ 'C!Vxf5 24 it.c2 'ii'g5 25 'C!Vd3
'if g6 26 li'd2 'ii' h 6 intending . . . .:.g8
and ... rJi;h8) 23 l:te2 'ii'd7 24 .l:tae 1 e6
25 lDe4 it.xe4 26 l:.xe4 l:.g8 27 ltJf3? !
(27 it.d 1 'fkf7 2 8 'ii'e 2 i s correct -
B agirov) 27 . . . 'it?h8 ! + Ulybin-B agi­
rov, Moscow 1 992.
8 it.b3 (D)
8 . . . ltJd7
Varying from the old move 8 0-0, . •.
when 9 'C!Ve2 gives rise to a position
that has tended to be reached via 8
'ii'e2 0-0 9 it.b3. Black may then try:
a) 9 it.e6 may be reasonable, al­
..•
though in none of these examples
does White's play look up to the
mark: 10 c4 lLlb6 1 1 it.e3 ltJ8d7 12 f4
lLlxe5 1 3 fxe5 f6 'unclear' Nijboer­
Westerinen, Dieren 1 986; 10 lLlc3
(rather unnatural) 10 . . . lLlxc3 1 1 bxc3
it.xb3 12 cxb3 lLld7 1 3 lLld3 .l:te8 1 4
f4 e 6 1 5 i.b2 W/c7 1 6 'ii'f2 b 6 1 7 c4
c5 1 8 dxc5 lLlxc5 = Drift-Etmans,
corr. 1 985; 10 c3 lLld7 1 1 f4? ! lLlxe5
12 dxe5 'ii'd7 1 3 lLld2 i.g4 1 4 'ii'f2 f6
1 5 exf6 exf6 1 6 h3 i.e6 17 lLlf3 i.f7
with an ugly position for White in
the game Sarapu-Garbett, New Zea­
land 1 985.
 The Main Line: 6 .tc4 1 15

b) 9... a5 1 0 a3 (Arakhamia-Efi­ 23 ltJe5 bxc5 24 dxc5 'ir'xc5 25 'iVxc5

mov, Tbilisi 1 99 1 continued 10 a4 .l:r.xc5 26 .l:r.d7 gives White dangerous
.te6 1 1 .l:r.d 1 , when 1 l . . .ltJd7 looks play.
perfectly good; instead after the odd 22 i.xg7 cJ;;xg7
1 1 . . . 'it'c8 12 ttJd2 ttJd7 1 3 ttJdf3 ltJxe5 23 ltJe5 .l:r.ac8
1 4 ltJxe5 .l:r.d8 1 5 c4 ltJb4 1 6 i.f4 c5 24 cxb6 axb6
1 7 d5 i.f5 1 8 h3 White could cer­ 25 .l:r.b1 .l:r.d6
tainly claim an edge) 10 . . . a4 1 1 i.a2 26 a4 f6
i.e6 1 2 c4 ltJc7 13 .l:r.d 1 ltJd7 14 .tf4 27 ltJg4 .l:r.dc6?!
ltJxe5 1 5 .txe5 i.xe5 1 6 dxe5 'i¥b8 27 g5 28 f4 ' with an attack'
.••

17 ltJc3 .l:r.a5 18 h3 ltJe8 19 f4 ltJg7 (Dolmatov), but then 28 . . . h5 29 ltJf2

20 ltJe4 If2- If2 Geller-B agirov, Mos­ gxf4 looks OK for Black, at least.
cow Veterans 1 99 1 . Also 27 ...cJi;g8 is viable, e.g. 28 'ii'f4
9 ltJf3 .l:r.f8 intending . . . h5 with counterplay.
Dolmatov mentions 9 f4 0-0 1 0 c4 28 'itb6+ cJi;g8
ltJ5f6 1 1 ltJc3 c5 with counterplay. 29 .l:r.e3 .l:r.f8
9 0-0 30 .l:r.be1 .tc8
10 .l:r.e1 ltJ7f6 31 .l:r.f3 (D)
1 1 h3 e6
12 c4 ltJe7
13 ltJc3 b6
14 i.f4 i.b7
15 "ii'e2 i.a6!?
Black has a cunning plan.
16 .l:r.ad1?!
This was almost certainly an over­
sight, but it does not turn out too
badly for White. Instead 16 "iVe3 b5
gives Black counterplay, while 16
"ii'c2! ? can be met by either 16 . . . ltJf5
or 1 6 . . . b5, but 16 i.e5 ltJed5 1 7 'ii'd 2 White has no especially powerful
ltJxc3 1 8 'it'xc3 should maintain an threat here, so B lack should try to
edge of some sort. consolidate his position. Instead he
16 ltJed5 hits out rather prematurely.
17 i.e5 ltJxc3 31 ..• e5?
18 bxc3 "iVe7 31. 'fig7? is bad as the king needs
.•

19 'ii'e3 .l:r.fd8 this square: 32 'ii' f4 e5? (32 . . . f5 3 3

20 c5 ltJd5 ltJe5 i s obviously dreadful for Black)
21 i.xd5 cxd5 33 dxe5 fxe5 ?. It's astonishing that
21 .l:r.xd5 is possible, although as
••• Dolmatov gave two variations here
Dolmatov points out 22 .txg7 cJi;xg7 without noticing the trivial 34 lbh6+
1 16 The Main Line: 6 i.c4
'iti>h8 35 'ii'xf8+ 'i'xf8 36 1:1xf8+ 'iti>g7
37 l:txc8 winning a piece.
31 1:1c4? is recommended by Dol­
••.
matov, but 32 lZJe3 is very strong:
32 . . Jha4 3 3 lZJxd5 'ii'd 8 (otherwise
Black just loses a pawn) 34 lZJf4
threatening both lZJxe6 and a me­
chanical attack with l:tg3, lZJxg6, etc.
3 1 i. a6 or 31. i.d7 looks sensi­
••• •.
ble - how does White continue? It's
true that B lack cannot undertake
much activity of his own, but if
White has no way to improve the po­
sition of his pieces, then this is not
such a problem.
32 dxe5 i. xg4
33 hxg4 l:te6
Black cannot play 33 . . . fxe5 on ac­
count of 34 1:1xe5, so his game col­
lapses completely. The remaining
moves were:
34 'i'd2 1:1xe5 35 'i'xd5+ l:txd5 36
l:txe7 l:td6 37 l:th3! l:ta8 38 1:1hxh7
g5 39 l:teg7+ 'iti>f8 40 l:tf7+ 'iti>g8 41
l:thg7+ 'iti>h8 42 l:tg6 l:txa4 43 l:tgxf6
l:td1 + 44 'iti>h2 l:txg4 45 l:txb6 l:th4+
46 'iti>g3 l:td3+ 47 f3 1-0
Game 2 1
Adams - Agdestein
Oslo (4) 1994
1 e4 ltJf6 2 e5 lZJd5 3 d4 d6 4 lZJf3
dxe5 5 lZJxe5 g6 6 i.c4 c6 7 0-0 i.g7
8 lZJd2 lZJd7
Agdestein chooses to avoid the
line 8 . . . 0-0 9 lZJdf3 lZJd7 10 lZJd3,
which, though not too fearsome for
Black, Adams had played success­
fully before. Actually, Black may not
be able to avoid this possibility if
White employs the move-order 7
lZJd2 i.g7 8 ltJdf3 0-0 9 0-0.
Here are the possibilities after
8 0-0:
•••
a) 9 lZJe4 i.f5 . Now instead of 10
lZJg3 i.e6 (see TCA), in Ernst-Ken­
gis, Haninge 1 992, Thomas tried 10
lZJcS a5! when Kengis reckoned 11 a4
was unclear. Instead after 1 1 l:te1 ? !
b 6 1 2 lZJcd3 b 5 1 3 i.b3 h e felt that
13 a4 14 i.xd5 l'kxd5 15 lZJb4 'ii'd6
.••
16 a3 c5 17 'ii'f3 cxb4 18 'ii'xa8 i.xc2
was well worth trying, but even the
game's 13 ... i.xd3?! 14 'ii'x d3 a4 1 5
i.xd5 'i'xd5 1 6 i.f4 l:t d 8 1 7 lZJf3
e6 1 8 i.e? would have maintained
equality after 18 . . . 1:1e8.
b) 9 lZJdf3 lZJd7 (D) (now 9 . . .i.e6
can be answered by 10 lZJg5).
w
Now a postal game (believe it or
not), Timmermans-Etmans, corr.
1 985 continued 10 c3 lZJxe5 1 1 lZJxe5
i.e6 1 2 lZJd3?? lZJxc3 1 3 bxc3 i.xc4
14 l:te1 i.xd3 15 'ii'xd3 e5 -+.
White has two serious possibili­
ties :
b 1 ) 10 l:tel lZJxe5 1 1 lZJxe5 trans­
poses to the game.
b2) 10 lZJd3:

b2 1 ) 10 b5 1 1 .tb3 a5 1 2 a4 b4
•••
13 .tg5 f6 14 .th4 l1e8 1 5 lte1 e6 1 6
.t g 3 gave B lack little t o show for
his various weaknesses in Tolnai­
S .Farago, Budapest 1993.
b22) lO lD7b6 11 .ib3 and now:
•••
b22 1 ) l l ... .tg4?! 12 c3. Now the
move 12 a5 was played in Kupo­
•..
rosov-Bagirov, Brno 1 99 1 , agreed
drawn at this point, but 1 3 a4 would
transpose into Adams-J.Horvath
below (;!;). Kruppa-A.G.Panchenko,
Ukrainian Ch (Simferopol) 1 990
continued 12 e6 13 h3 .txf3 14 'it'xf3
.•.
lbd7 when Black obtained queen­
side counterplay and a sound posi­
tion after 15 l:tel b5 16 g3 a5 17 a3
.l:.e8 1 8 h4 h5 1 9 .ig5 .tf6 20 .td2
a4 2 1 .ta2 'it'e7 22 lte2 'ii'f8 23 l:.ae1
.tg7 24 �g2 l:tac8. King suggests
that White should prefer 15 a4.
b222) ll ... a5! is the latest idea. If
White replies 12 a4, then 12 . . . i.f5
reaches a Kengis line for Black - see
'b23 ' , while after 12 a3, the bishop
is more exposed on b3 than it would
be if conveniently tucked away on
a2. Ernst-Agdestein, Reykjavik Z
1 995 then continued 1 2 . . . .tf5 1 3
.l:.e1 .ixd3 14 'it'xd3 'it'c7 15 g3 ltfe8
1 6 c4 lDf6 1 7 .tf4 'it'c8 1 8 ltad 1 c5
1 9 d5 e6 20 .ta2 a4 2 1 'ii'c2 exd5 22
ltxe8+ 'ii'x e8 23 cxd5 c4 ! + 24 d6
lDfd5 25 .tg5 'ikc6 26 lbd2 c3 + 27
lDb1 h6 28 .te7 cxb2 29 'ike4 lta5 30
i.d8 ltc5 3 1 .txb6 ltc 1 (everything
falls into place) 32 ltfl lbxb6 3 3
'ikxg6 lbc4 34 'it'd3 lbxd6 35 lbd2
b5 36 .ib1 'itf8 37 'it'e3 lbc4 38 'it'd3
'it'd6 39 'it'e4 lbxd2 40 'it'a8+ 'ite7
0- 1 .
The Main Line: 6 .tc4 1 1 7
b23) 1 0 a5 1 1 a4 ( 1 1 a3 is maybe
••.
a better idea as 1 1 . . .lD7b6 can now
be met by 12 .ta2, but Black can try
1 1 . . . b6 12 .l:.e1 .ia6 1 3 .ta2 .txd3,
as in Nijboer-Van der Werf, Nether­
lands tt 1 993) 1 1 . . .lD7b6 1 2 .ib3
.tg4 ? ! (Kengis has already shown
that 12 ....tf5 is the right method here
- the bishop should be exchanged for
the d3-knight; see TCA) 1 3 c3 lbd7
14 h3 .txf3 15 'ii'xf3 e6 16 l:te1 .l:.e8
17 .td2 'ii'b 6 1 8 .tc4 ;!; Adams­
J.Horvath, Debrecen Echt 1 992.
9 lbdf3
9 lDef3 does not appear too harm­
ful, for example 9 ... b5 10 .ib3 a5 1 1
a4 lD7b6 1 2 lbe5 bxa4 1 3 lbxc6 'ii'd 6
14 .ixd5 'ii'x d5 15 'ii'f3 .ie6 16 c3
l:tc8 17 'it'xd5 .txd5 1 8 lba7 l:b8 1 9
.l:.e1 'iti>d7 2 0 lbb5 .:the8 2 1 lDe4 �c6
22 lba7+ 'iti>b7 23 lbb5 �c6 24 lDa7+
�b7 25 lbb5 �c6 1h-1h Nunn-Loff­
ler, Bundesliga 1 993/4.
9 fue5
10 fue5 0-0
1 1 !tel .te6 (D)
ll lbb6 1 2 .ib3 c5 13 dxc5 .ixe5
...
14 'ii'xd8 .l:.xd8 15 cxb6 was 'unclear'
in Moiseev-A.G.Panchenko, Buda­
pest 1 99 1 , but 13 c3! ? looks more
critical.
Jon Tisdall wrote of this position:
"Black already has a very comfort­
able game. Compare this with the re­
putedly harmless treatment of the
Caro- Kann ( 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 lbc3
dxe4 4 �xe4 lbd? 5 lDf3 lDgf6 6
lDxf6+ lDxf6 7 lDe5 .ie6)".
12 .tb3
Tisdall suggests that the bishop is
poorly placed here, and that White
1 1 8 The Main Line: 6 i.. c4
should consider transferring it to the
long light-squared diagonal. How­
ever taking the pressure off d5 and fl
has its own drawbacks, and 12 i.. fl
has already been tried without suc­
cess by Conquest - see TCA .
Note that 12 c3 allows 12 . . . i.xe5 !
1 3 dxe5 ( 1 3 Itxe5 tbxc3 is the stand­
ard tactical trick, with which every­
one should be familiar) 1 3 . . . tbxc3 14
'ifxd8 Itaxd8 and now the continu­
ation 15 i..xe6 tbe2+ 16 �fl tbxc 1 is
obviously good for Black, but 15 i.. h6
is a better try: 1 5 . . ,i.. xc4 1 6 i.. xf8
tbe2+ 17 Itxe2 i.. xe2 18 i.. xe7 and a
draw is on the cards.
12 ••. a5
13 c3 ilc7
This seems a reasonable alterna­
tive to 13 .. .'�c8, which has been
played by Kengis (see TCA). On the
other hand, there is no point aban­
doning a queen move in favour of
13...tbc7 14 i.. xe6 tbxe6 15 'ii'b3 'ifc8
1 6 a4, which gave White a clear edge
in Kuporosov-A .G.Panchenko, Bu­
dapest 1 99 1 .
1 4 tbd3 i.. f5
15 i.. g5 Itfe8
16 'ii'd2 a4
16 i.. xd3 1 7 ilxd3 a4 1 8 i.c4 a3
•..
1 9 bxa3 .l:txa3 20 i.b3 e6 112- lfl was
Kholmov-Bagirov, Brno 1 99 1 . Black
need not hurry with an exchange on
d3 - as we shall see, in some tactical
lines this makes a significant differ­
ence in Black's favour.
17 i..xd5?!
A surprising decision, but perhaps
the position is already a little diffi­
cult for White. Consider the follow­
ing variations:
a) 17 i.. d 1 a3 18 b3:
a1) 18 i.xd3 19 ilxd3 e5 is sug­
•..
gested by Tisdall, but then 20 i. f3 is
Jess clear than Black might like. In­
stead 20 c4? exd4 ! is very good for
Black.
a2) 18 . e5 ! is an important re­
. .
finement:
a2 1 ) 19 dxe5 i.. x d3 20 ilxd3 and
now both 20 . . . Itxe5 and 20 . . . i.xe5
win a pawn for Black.
a22) 19 c4 exd4 20 cxd5 i.xd3
also nets Black a pawn, thanks to
White's back rank.
a23) 19 i.. f3 is no good here for
two reasons: 1 9 . . . e4 and 1 9 . . . exd4.
a24) 19 tbxe5 f6 20 g4 and Black
has the luxury of a choice: 20 i. c8..•
2 1 tbxg6 .l:txe 1 + 22 'ilt'xe 1 hxg6 23
ile8+ �h7 24 i.. c 2 fxg5 25 i.xg6+
(or 25 'ikxg6+ �g8 26 ile8+ i.f8)
25 . . . �h6 and ... tbf4 will leave B lack
just two pieces up; or 20 i. e6 21 c4
•••
tbb6 and Black bags the material.
b) 17 i.. c4 is suspect in view of
17 . . .tbb6.
c) 17 i.c2 looks best, when 1 7 ... a3
1 8 b3 .l:tad8 gives Black very active
play.
 The Main Line: 6 i.c4 1 19

17 cxd5 be fine were it not for the devastating

18 l2Jb4 l:tad8 24 . . . 'ti'b5 ! 25 dxe5 d4 !, while Ftac­
19 i.f4 nik analysed 22 'ii'e2 'ii'xe2 23 113xe2
19 l:t e3? fails to 1 9 . . . f6 20 i.h4 and 22 a3 e5 23 dxe5 'li'xf4 ! to ad­
i.h6. vantages for Black, although only
19 ... 'iWc4! slight in the first case.
Eyeing the loose bishop on f4 to 22 axb3
make . . . e5 more of a threat. 23 axb3 'iWxb3
20 l:te3 24 c4 'ii'xc4
Ftacnik suggests 20 l:te2, expos­ 25 :tel 'ii'bs
ing the rook less. 26 l:tc5 'iWa4
20 ... f6 27 h3
21 l:.ael <:J;;f7 (D) There are no good active moves,
21. e5 is not yet good in view of
•• so Adams secures his back rank.
the continuation 22 b3 axb3 23 axb3 27
••• i.f8
'ti'xb3 24 dxe5 . Protecting his only weakness and
taking aim at White's queenside
pieces.
28 ltJxdS
28 l:.xdS e5, as Fritz happily indi­
cates, wins for Black.
28
..• b6!
Now White must acquiesce to
simplifications.
29 l2Jxb6
29 ltJc3 l:t xd4 ! 30 ltJxa4 l:.xd2 3 1
ltJxb6 e5 32 l:tc7+ l:.e7 3 3 l:txe7+
i.xe7 34 i.g3 i.c5 35 11b3 leaves
The text move is a good example White a pawn down and with his
of how the king can be used to good knight almost dominated; indeed
effect in an ordinary middlegame 35 . . . :td l+ 36 c:t;h2 nn 37 l:tb2 i.d4
situation. The e8-rook needs more picks off a pawn.
support, and the king is the best man 29
..• 'ii'xd4
for the job. 30 'ii'a2+?
22 b3 White's reluctance to play a pawn­
It is hard to suggest a good plan down ending is understandable, but
for White, since Black has the inexo­ this sacrifice just doesn't work. I
rable plan of playing . . . e5 as soon as suppose that this way Agdestein had
he has made all the necessary prepa­ to find a few accurate moves.
rations . Tisdall points out that 22 30 e6
'iWd1 e5 23 b3 axb3 24 axb3 would 31 l:tc7+ <:J;;gs
120 The Main Line: 6 i.c4

32 l:r.c4 'ii'xb6 i.d3 l:te6 2 1 l:tb1 i.e5 with good

33 l:r.b3 l:r.d1+ play for Black.
34 �h2 'ii'd8 9 i.b3
If Black wants to be flashy, then For the sake of historical accu­
34 Jla1 also wins, but not 34 14a8?
•• ••• racy, I should mention that the actual
35 'ifxa8 'ifxb3 since White will win move order used was 7 i.b3 i.g7 8
the f8-bishop. 0-0 0-0 9 l:te l . I have adjusted it for
35 llb8 "fle7 the sake of clarity and convenience.
0-1 9 i.b3 is the most popular move at
After 36 llc7 Black has the neat this point. It is flexible, and pre­
reply 36 ...l:r.d7. serves the option of playing c2-c4 in
one move. Otherwise:
Game 22 a) 9 i.fl i.f5 10 c4 (an artificial
Short - Agdestein plan; if White had wanted to play c4,
Isle of Lewis rpd 1 995 he could have done so on move 6)
10 ...lDb4 1 1 lDa3 tDd7 12 lDg4 i.xg4
1 e4 lDf6 2 e5 lDd5 3 d4 d6 4 lDf3 13 'ii'xg4 e5 14 i.g5 i.f6 15 i.d2 a5
dxe5 5 tDxe5 g6 6 i.c4 c6 7 0-0 i.g7 1 6 i.c3 h5 17 'ifd 1 exd4 was ap­
8 .l:[e1 (D) proximately equal in Handoko-Ku­
preichik, Moscow OL 1 994.
b) 9 c3 is the most popular alter­
native to 9 i.b3. B lack has two re­
plies, which both seem viable and
have the endorsement of Alekhine's
Defence experts:
b 1 ) After 9 lDd7 1 0 lDf3 ( 1 0
...

lDxd7 i.xd7 1 1 lDd2 { 1 1 i. g5 puts

8 ... 0-0
S chekachev-A . G . Panchenko,
Berlin 1991 continued 8 lDd7 9 •••
lDf3 lD7b6 1 0 i.fl i.g4 when in­
stead of 11 c3 0-0 transposing to
variation 'b 1 ' of the next note, there
followed the unnatural l l h3 i.xf3
1 2 'ii'xf3 0-0 1 3 tDa3 lDd7 14 c3 e5
1 5 dxe5 lDxe5 1 6 'ii'g 3 l:te8 17 l:td 1
'ii'b6 1 8 lDc4 lDxc4 1 9 i.xc4 l:te4 20
more pressure on B lack } 1 l . . .a5 1 2
a4 i.e6 1 3 i.fl 'ii'b6 1 4 lDe4 l:r.ad8
15 'iff3 i.f5 16 h3 l:tfe8 17 lDd2
'ii'c7 18 lDc4 c5 gave Black excellent
play, and full equality in Handoko­
Conquest, Dhaka 1 995) 10 . . . lD7b6
1 1 i.fl i.g4 12 lDbd2, a new, and
very natural idea was introduced in
Ostojic-Bagirov, Neu Isenburg 1 992:
1 2 ... e6 (instead of 1 2 ... 'ifc7 as in Ar­
nason-Vaganian, given in TCA under
8 . . . lDd7) 1 3 h3 i.xf3 14 lDxf3 l:r.c8
(Black plans . . . c5 a good deal more
effectively when the rook supports

it) 1 5 c4 &iJe7 1 6 b3 &iJf5 1 7 i.e3 .
Now B agirov should certainly have
played 17 &iJxe3! ? 1 8 fxe3 c5 ; in­
•••
stead he chose 17 c5 1 8 i.g5 ! i.f6
•••
1 9 i.xf6 'ii'xf6 20 dxc5 .!:.xeS 2 1
'ii'd 2 .l:.d8 22 'ii'f4 and was battling
for equality again.
b2) 9 .i.e6 10 tiJd2 tiJd7 1 1 &iJxd7
••
( 1 1 &iJdf3 &iJxe5 1 2 &iJxe5 &iJc7 leads
to an equal position, while 1 1 &iJef3 ! ?
i.g4 1 2 h3 i.xf3 1 3 'ii'xf3 { for 1 3
&iJxf3 see TCA } 1 3 . . . e 6 is satisfac­
tory; 1 1 &iJd3 ! ? may be White's best)
l l . . .'ii'xd7 1 2 &iJe4 b6 1 3 h3 &iJc7 14
i.fl h6 1 5 i.f4 .l:.fd8 1 6 &iJd2 tiJd5 ? !
(Bagirov suggests 1 6 . . . c5 ! ?) 1 7 i.g3
c5 18 &iJb3 ! 'ii'c 8 19 'ii'e 2 cxd4 20
&iJxd4 i.d7 21 'ii'f3 e6 22 l:r.ad l a6 23
i.d3 l:r.a7 24 i.c2 b5 25 i.h4 l:r.e8 26
i.b3 &iJb6 = Mukhametov-Bagirov,
Bern 1 995 . Clearly, when and if to
play . . . c5 is a critical decision for
Black in these lines.
9 ••• aS
9 &iJd7!? 1 0 &iJf3 l:r.e8 (B agirov
•••
suggests 10 . . . a5) 1 1 c4 &iJc7 1 2 &iJc3
&iJb6 1 3 h3 i.e6 14 'ii'e2 a5. Now 15
a4 looks best (compare note 'al ' to
White's lOth move in the following
game), but Westerinen-Larsen, Co­
penhagen 1 969 continued 1 5 a3
&iJb5 ! 1 6 &iJxb5 cxb5 17 d5 i.c8 1 8
c 5 a4 1 9 i.a2 &iJxd5 20 .l:f.d 1 i.e6 2 1
&iJg5 'ii'd7 and Black was a pawn up.
The main line, 9 i.e6 is dis­
•.• , 12 l:te8, aiming to play . . . e5, is
cussed in the next game.
I have a feeling that 9 . . . a5 may be
rather premature. If the target is to
encourage White to play c2-c3, then,
as we shall see, he often chooses to
do so after 9 . . . i.e6 without Black
The Main Line: 6 i.c4 121
needing to advance the a-pawn. Nev­
ertheless the move . . a5 is at least
.
moderately useful in any case.
10 c3
10 a4 i.e6 1 1 tiJd2 ( 1 1 c3 'ii'c7 1 2
&iJd3 &iJd7 1 3 &iJd2 l:r.fe8 14 &iJe4 h6
15 'ii'f3 i.f5 16 i.d2 'ii' b6 1 7 i.c2
l:tad8 18 l:r.e2 &iJ7f6 = Godena-Kve­
inys, Debrecen Echt 1 992) l l . ..&iJd7
1 2 &iJdf3 &iJxe5 1 3 &iJxe5 &iJc7 14 c3
l:ta6 1 5 i.xe6 &iJxe6 16 'ii'b 3 'ii'c 8 17
'ii'c4 &iJc7 18 b3 &iJd5 1 9 i.a3 'ii'f5 20
&iJd3 ?? (an embarrassing blunder, es­
pecially in a postal game) 20 . . . &iJb6
2 1 'ii'c5 'ii'x d3 22 l:r.xe7 &iJd5 0- 1 De
Wit-Etmans, corr. 1 98 1 .
10 ••• i.f5
10 tiJd7 1 1 M &iJ7b6 12 a4 'ii'c7
•.•
13 i.g5 i.g4 14 &iJbd2 c5 15 h3 i.xf3
1 6 'ii'xf3 e6 1 7 c4 (Marin criticised
this move) 17 . . .&iJb4 18 i.f4 'ii'c 6 1 9
'ii'xc6 bxc6 2 0 dxc5 &iJd7 2 1 i.d6
&iJd3 ! 22 i.xf8 'itxf8 23 l:r.e2 .l:.b8 24
l:bl &iJ7xc5 25 i.c2 &iJxb2 was a very
reasonable exchange sacrifice in
Korchnoi-Vaganian, Horgen 1995 .
1 1 h3
1 1 &iJd2 had previously been
played: l l ...tiJd7 12 tiJef3 &iJ7f6 1 3 a4
'ii'c7 14 &iJc4 l:r.ad8 slightly favoured
White in Arnason-Knezevic, Grin­
davik 1 984.
1 1 ... &iJd7
12 ffi &iJ7b6
•..
feasible.
13 a3 'fkc7
14 &iJbd2
After 14 c4 &iJf6 White's pawn
centre will come under pressure.
14 ••• a4
122 The Main Line: 6 i&.c4

15 i.a2 c5 Black must be careful, because

If Black can achieve this freeing 22 .::tc5 , for example, gets hit by 23
...

break without leaving his position 1:txe6 fxe6 24 'ii'xe6+ <iii>h 8 25 lDe5
too weak, then he should normally and B lack must find some 'only'
do so. moves to avoid instant disaster:
16 dxc5 'ii'xc5 a) 25 i.. xe5? 26 'it'xeS+ <ili>g8 27
..•

17 lDe4 i.. h6 1:tc7 28 'ii'xc7 wins on the spot.

17 'i¥e2 is possible, with lDe4 b) 25 ...h6? 26 lDf7+ �h7 (or
coming next. 26 .. 5�g8 27 'il'xg6 will force mate)
17 i.. xe4 27 i.. b 1 lDf6 28 i.xf6 .::tc 6 29 lDd6 !
18 1:txe4 1:tfd8 with decisive threats.
19 'i\Vc2 c) 25 ... 1:tc7 26 lDf7+ 1:txf7 27
This move seems unnatural; why 'ii' xf7 'i¥c5 (27 . . . 'ii' b5 28 c4 +-) 28
not 19 'ii'e2 instead? The answer lies c4 .::t f8 (28 . . . h6 29 i.xh6 i.xh6 30
in the variation 19 . . . i.. x c3 20 i.. xd5 'il!l'xg6 +-) 29 1:te8 h6.
lDxd5 2 1 1:tc4 'ii' b5 when White re­ 23 i.d2 'ii'c5
mains a pawn down since 22 bxc3 24 lDe5 'ii'c7
lDxc3 23 'ii'f l 1:td 1 is a disaster. 25 lDg4 lDf6
19 e6 26 lDxf6+ i.xf6
20 i.. g5 1:tdc8 27 i.. b 1 .::taS ! ?
21 1:tae1 (D) Since this was a quickplay game,
there is little point analysing the rest
of the play in detail. The position of­
fers White marginally the better
prospects in the long term, but it will
take him so long to arrange his forces
conveniently, that Black is not in any
real danger of losing.
28 h4 'ii'c6 29 g3 i.e7 30 i.f4
lDd7 31 i.c2 i.c5 32 i.g5 r:l;; g7 33
'ii'd2 f6 34 i.h6+
34 .::t d 1 lDb6 35 i.. h6+ has been
suggested as an improvement, al­
The position is fairly quiet. Nei­ though it's not clear that it is any
ther side can expect to accomplish more dangerous than what Short ac­
much by direct action, so a period of tually plays.
jockeying for position follows. 34 r:li;f7 35 h5 f5 36 1:th4 lDf6 37
.••

21 ... 'ii'a5 hxg6+ hxg6 38 i.e3 i.xe3 39 'ii'xe3

Preparing, if appropriate, to dou­ 1:taa8?!
ble rooks on the c-file. In view of the next note, 39 ... e5
22 'ii'e2 1:te8 seems a very logical alternative.

40 .i.d1?!
40 'it'e5 ! would give White a firm
grip on the game.
40 e5 41 .i.f3
•.•
4 1 'it'g5 might be the best chance.
After the text Black takes control of
the game.
41. e4 42 .i.e2 l:r.ad8 43 l:r.h6 l:r.h8
..
44 l:r.xh8 l:r.xh8 45 l:r.d1 1;;g7 46 'ii'f4
l:r.e8 47 'ii'd6 e3 48 f3 'ii'xd6 49
l:r.xd6 lbh5 50 l:r.d7+ 1i;h6 51 1i;g2 f4
52 gxf4 lbxf4+ 53 1i;f1 1;; g5 0-1
Game 23
Howell - Kengis
London Lloyds Bank 1991
1 e4 lbf6 2 e5 lbd5 3 d4 d6 4 lbf3
dxe5 5 lbxe5 g6 6 .i.c4 c6 7 0-0 i.. g7
8 l:r.e1 0-0 9 i.. b3
9 ••. i.. e6 (D)
This is the most popular plan for
Black.
10 c3
White has tried several other
moves:
a) 10 h3 is a new idea, which has
its logic, as . . . i.. g4 is prevented. In
the Kudrin-Kengis game in TCA,
The Main Line: 6 .i.c4 123
this was played a move earlier (9 h3 ),
so Kengis saw no point in placing the
bishop on e6. Here Black is chal­
lenged to justify its position on e6.
After 10 ... lbd7 11 lbf3 lbc7 White
has tried:
a1) 12 c4! ? although loosening,
seems a fair try. In reply, 12 . . . lbb6 1 3
'ii'e 2 a5 14 a4 looks quite sensible,
and was played in Titov-A.G.Pan­
chenko, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1 99 1 ,
although Black must find a more in­
cisive continuation than 14 Jle8 .•
15 lbc3 lbc8 16 i.. e 3 lbd6 17 llad 1
which left White with an undeniable
edge. After 17 . . . 'ii'c 8 1 8 .i.f4 b5 1 9
axb5 lbcxb5 2 0 lba4 l:r.b8 2 1 lbc5
lbc7 22 lbg5 .i.d7 23 'ti'f3 h6 24
i.. x d6 hxg5 25 .i.xc7 'it'xc7 26 lba6
White won material . May I tenta­
tively suggest 14 lbe8 , intending
••.
. . . lbd6, and meeting 15 lbg5 with
15 . . . i.. xd4 1 6 lbxe6 fxe6 17 'ii'xe6+
1i;h8, with counterplay against fl?
a2) 12 c3 .i.d5 ! 1 3 .i.g5 ( 1 3 .i.f4
lbe6 14 .i.h2?! lbb6 15 lbbd2 c5 ! 1 6
dxc5 lbxc5 17 i.. xd5 'it'xd5 ! 1 8 l:r.xe7
lbba4 gave Black excellent compen­
sation in the game P.Ostojic-Kengis,
Germany 1992; Kengis recommends
14 i.. g 3 with equality) 1 3 . . . lbe6 14
i.. e 3 and now instead of 14 b5? 15
•..
.i.xd5 ! cxd5 16 'ti'b3 lbc7 17 .i.f4 ! e6
(Zso.Polgar-Kengis, Vienna 1 99 1 )
when 1 8 a4 ! would have been to
White's advantage, Kengis gives
14... lbb6 with equality.
b) 10 lbd2. Now Darga-Bischoff,
Ulm 1 98 1 continued with 1 0 . . . a5 1 1
c3 lba6 1 2 lbdf3 lbac7 1 3 .i.c2 f6 14
lbd3 .i.f7 1 5 'ii'e 2 lbe6 1 6 .i.d2 l:r.e8
124 The Main Line: 6 i.c4
1 7 a4 'ilc7 1 8 'ile4 l:tad8 which
someone described as ';!;' , but the
normal continuation is 10 lbd7 : .••
b 1 ) 1 1 lbdf3 lLlxe5 1 2 dxe5 a5
( 1 2 . . . i.g4 1 3 h3 i.xf3 14 'iixf3 e6
15 'ii'e4 a5 16 a4 'iib6 17 i.d2 l:tfd8 =
Rivera-Westerinen, Dubai OL 1986)
1 3 c3 and now 13 i.g4 (mentioned
...
by Kengis, according to Howell) is a
simple alternative to 13 a4 (ana­...
lysed in TCA).
b2) S avicevic-Djuravcevic, Cet­
inje 1 990 introduced the move 1 1
"i¥f3 after which B lack quickly got
himself into a terrible mess: 11 .'ti'c7
..
1 2 'ii'g3 lD7f6 1 3 c4 lbh5 14 'ilf3 lLlb6
1 5 'ilc3 l:.ad8 1 6 lLldf3 lLlf6 1 7 h3
'ilc8 1 8 'i/ia5 'ila8. ll lbxe5 12 dxe5
...
a5 springs to mind as more 'natural' .
b3) 1 1 lLlef3 is the latest attempt:
b3 1 ) l l lbc7!? was Kengis's
...
novelty:
b3 1 1 ) In Christiansen-Kengis,
Manila OL 1 992, play was similar to
the main game: 12 c3 c5 13 i.xe6
(Wang Zili-Deng Kongliang, Bei­
jing Z 1 993 featured the insipid nov­
elty 1 3 i.c2, and following 1 3 . . . cxd4
1 4 lbxd4 i.d5 1 5 lLlfl e5 Black was
very much OK) 1 3 ... lLlxe6 14 d5 lbc7
1 5 lbe4 lLlf6 1 6 c4 lbxe4 17 l:txe4 e6
1 8 i.g5 f6 1 9 d6 lbe8 20 l:txe6 fxg5
2 1 'ild5 'it>h8 22 l:tae1 lLlf6 23 'ikxb7
'ilb6 24 l:te7 'iVxb7 25 l:txb7 l:tfe8 26
l:txe8+ .l:txe8 27 h3 lbe4 28 d7 l:td8
29 l:txa7 i.xb2 30 a4 lLlf6 3 1 lLlxg5
l:txd7 32 l:txd7 lbxd7 reached an
ending in which Black's extra piece
triumphed in the end, although this
was mainly due to White trying too
hard to win.
b3 1 2) 12 lbc4 (this looks like a
very sensible move) 1 2 . . . a5 1 3 a4
i.d5 1 4 c3 lbe6 1 5 lLlfe5 lbxe5 1 6
lbxe5 (White i s threatening 1 7 c4)
16 . . . i.xb3 17 'ii'x b3 'ild6 ( 1 7 . . .'ii'c 8)
18 i.d2 c5 19 l:.e2 i.xe5 ( 1 9 . . . cxd4
20 lbxf7 <J;xf7 21 l:tae 1 .l:ta6 22
l:txe6 'ii'xe6 23 l:txe6 .l:.xe6 gives
Black just one problem: his awk­
wardly pinned rook, but it is hard
to believe this should cost him the
game) 20 .l:.xe5 cxd4 2 1 .l:.d5 and
now rather than 21 1i'a6? ! 22 cxd4
...
b6? ! (22 . . .l:.fd8 23 .l:.xa5 lLlxd4 keeps
Black well in the game) 23 i.e3 'iie2
24 .l:.d7 .l:.ac8? ! (24 . . . .l:.ab8 is more
resilient since 25 .l:.xe7 lbxd4 limps
on) 25 'iix b6 +- Milos-Llanos, San
Luis 1 995, 21 1i'c6 22 cxd4 .l:.fd8
...
23 l:txa5 (23 l:.xd8+ l:txd8 24 i.xa5
is the same) 23 .. .lha5 24 i.xa5 l:.xd4
looks good for Black, for example 25
'fibS lbc5 26 'iixc6 (26 i.c3 .l:.xa4)
26 . . . bxc6 27 b4 lbb3 -+.
b32) 11 ... i.g4 12 h3 i.xf3 . 13
iLlxf3 (D).
Now B agirov suggests 13 a5 14 ...
i.g5 l:te8 1 5 c4 lLl5b6 as unclear, be­
cause in Ulybin-B agirov, USSR Ch

(Moscow) 1 99 1 , 13 e6 14 .tg5 "fic7
.•.
1 5 c4 lL'I5f6 1 6 "fid2 a5 gave White
the possibility 17 .tf4! "iib6 1 8 .td6
l:tfd8 1 9 c5 intending lbe5 with an
advantage. Instead Ulybin played
17 a4 .l:.fe8 18 .tf4 "fib6 19 .ta2 c5 !
20 .te3 l:tac8 2 1 l:tad 1 e5 ! when
Black held the balance successfully:
22 dxe5 (22 d5 lbe4 23 'ii'c 2 lL'Id6
intending . . . h6 and . . . f5 ; 22 dxc5
lbxc5) 22 . . . lL'Ixe5 23 lL'Ixe5 l:txe5 24
.tb1 .l:.ce8 25 .td3 l:t5e6 26 l:te2.
Now 26 . . . lbe4 ! ? 27 .txe4 (27 "fic2
f5) 27 . . . l:txe4 28 'ti'd6 'ii'xd6 29 l:txd6
.td4 would even have given Black
an edge.
10 ... lL'Id7
The game Ye-Donchev, Thessa­
loniki OL 1 988 featured some rather
bizarre play: 10 . .a5 1 l lL'Id2 lL'Id7 1 2
. variations in which the entire theory
lbef3 .tf5 1 3 lbh4 .te6 14 a3 lbc7 15
lL'Ie4 .txb3 16 "fixb3 b5 1 7 a4 lL'!b6
1 8 axb5 cxb5 1 9 lL'If3 'ti'd5 20 "fic2
lbe6 and Black had decent play on
the queenside. However, . . . a5 may
not be a very valuable move in this
type of position. I do not see what the
bishop was doing on f5, nor can I un­
derstand White's 1 3th and 14th
moves.
1 1 ffi lbc7
Results with ll . .tg4 12 h3 .txf3
..
1 3 "fixf3 are not encouraging for
Black: 13 . e5? ! 14 .txd5 cxd5 1 5
. .
'il'xd5 exd4 1 6 cxd4 lL'!b6 1 7 "fixb7
'il'xd4 1 8 lbc3 lbc4 did not give
B lack compensation in Bator-As­
t ram, Stockholm Rilton Cup 1 987,
while Wahls-Maus, Hamburg 1 99 1
continued 1 3 .e6 14 lL'Id2 b5 15 lbe4
..
a5 16 a4 "iib6 17 lL'Id6 when 17 ... b4?
The Main Line: 6 .tc4 125
1 8 c4 lL'I5f6 19 c5 ! "fic7 ( 1 9 . . ."fia6 20
.tc4) 20 .tf4 lbd5 2 1 .txd5 fol­
lowed by 22 lL'If5 was a disaster for
Black. Instead Blatny gives the line
17 lL'I7f6 1 8 axb5 ( 1 8 .tg5 'itc7 ! ? is
...
unclear) 1 8 . . . cxb5 1 9 lL'Ie4 lL'Ixe4 20
l:txe4 when White is only a little bet-
ter.
12 .txe6
12 .tg5!? deserves some thought,
while 12 .tf4 .txb3 13 'itxb3 00 14
.tg3 b5 1 5 a4 a6 16 lL'Ibd2 1i'b6 gave
Black a sound position in Nolte-Tu
Honag Thong, Canberra 1 995 .
With the text move, James was
trying a line long recommended as
pleasant for White, on the basis of an
old Kengis game, but he felt under­
standably nervous about entering
has always been based on the games
of his opponent. ' Still, you've got to
play something ! '
12
13 'in>3
14 'ii'c4? !
This leads t o trouble, but it's not
very clear what White should play
instead. For example 14 lL'Ig5 lbxg5
15 "fixb6 (certainly not 15 .l:.xe7??
l:tfe8 1 6 .txg5 .l:.xe7 1 7 .txe7 l:te8
-+) 15 ... axb6 ! ? ( 1 5 . . .lL'Ixb6 16 .txg5
= ) 16 .txg5 e5 looks rather pleasant
for Black.
14 ... c5
15 d5
15 dxcS may be safer, but is not a
try for advantage.
15 lbc7
16 .lhe7 'ii'd6
17 .l:.e1 'iixd5
126 The Main Line: 6 i.. c4

17 b5 is an alternative, not that

••• 22 1lab1 .l:.fe8
Black needs one. B agirov's sugges­ 22 .l:.fd8? lets White solve his
••.

tion 17 ltlxd5 is also clearly unnec­

••• problems: 23 .l:.e4 ! =.

essary after this game. 23 �n

18 ltla3 ltlb6! (D) 23 .l:.xe8+ 11xe8 24 ltlb5 a6 kicks
This was Kengis's novelty, which the hapless knight around.
he had presumably been waiting to 23 ••• a6
use for many years. It improves over 24 ltlc4 b5? !
18 'i!Vxc4 1 9 ltlxc4 followed by a4
••• Instead Kengis felt that the con­
which was ;!; in the 1 98 1 game Tsesh­ tinuation 24 :Xe1+! 25 ltlxel b5 26
•••

kovsky-Kengis - see TCA. ltle3 l:td8 ! would have yielded a large

advantage.
25 ltle3
25 ltlce5 l:te6 is very good for
w
Black.
25 .•• .l:.ed8
25 ltlf4?! allows 26 ltlf5 ! , when
•..

White is back in the fight.

26 ltecl
26 ltlxd5 lhd5 27 llec l :;: is bet­
ter.
After the text Kengis won impres­
sively:
19 'ii'xd5 26 ltlf6! 27 c4 ltle4 28 l:.c2 lld3
•••

19 'ii'h4 llfe8 ! leaves White with 29 i.e1 .l:.e8 30 ltld2 ltld6! 31 �e2
problems over the defence of a2. 3 1 ltlb3 fails to 3 1 . . .ltdxe3 while
19 ... ltlcxd5 3 1 b3 ltlc3 32 l:tbc l hardly solves
20 i.g5 White's problems either.
Since this allows Black to play a 31 .l::t dxe3+! 32 fxe3 ltlf5 33 i.f2
••

useful move with tempo, 20 i.d2!? ltld4+ 34 �d1 ltlxc2 35 'iii>xc2 f5 36

was to be preferred. a3 �7 37 b3 ltlc3 38 :n h5 39 h3
20 .•• h6! ltle4!? 40 ltlxe4 .l:.xe4 41 cxb5?
21 i.d2 According to Kengis, White had
21 i.e7 l:tfc8 22 .l:.ad l l:tc6 ! (in­ to try 41 'iii>d 3 +.
tending 23 . . . lie8 and then 24 . . . l:tce6 41 axb5 42 .l:.d1 i.h6! 43 �d3
•••

after the bishop moves) 23 i.h4 f5 'it>e6 44 �e2 i.g5! 45 � h4 46 lld2

leaves White's bishop rather sick. i.f6 47 l:ta2 <it>d5 48 a4 b4! -+ 49 aS
21 ... ltla4! c4 50 bxc4+
B lack's pressure on the queenside After 50 a6 cxb3 5 1 a7 l:te8 52
means that White faces a grim strug­ a8'ii'+ 11xa8 5 3 ltxa8 b2 White is
gle for a draw. powerless to stop Black queening.

50... 'ittxc4 51 a6 b3 52 l:ta4+
Instead 52 a7 bxa2 53 a8'ii' al 'it' is
straightforward enough, but 52 l:ta5
b2 53 a7 b l 'i*' 54 a8'ii' 'iVd l# could
be described as unlucky.
52... 'ittb 5 0-1
White's final piece of ill-fortune
is the line 5 3 l:txe4 fxe4+ 54 'itt e2 b2 !
55 a7 bl 'i*' 56 a8'ii' 'i*'d3+ 57 'itt e l
i.c3#.
Conclusion:
The Kengis Variation is looking very
solid for Black, although we need
more games by B agirov, Kengis and
Agdestein in some variations. Some
of the more promising approaches
for White involve the move a4; per­
haps the fact that Black's counter­
play is limited is more significant
than the slight ugliness of weakening
b3 and b4. The most sensitive spot in
Black's position is the pawn on e7 ,
though we have seen lines in which
The Main Line: 6 i.c4 127
Black (temporarily) sacrifices this
pawn, or plays . . . e6 at a moment
when White cannot exploit the dark­
square weaknesses to a significant
degree.
From a practical viewpoint, the
Kengis Variation demands consider­
able flexibility of thought from both
sides, and a fair amount of expertise
(and a willingness to play end­
games ! ) from Black. There are prac­
tical winning chances for Black: it is
very easy for a few careless moves
by White to leave a weak pawn on
e5 , or for the queenside to collapse
due to pressure on the long diagonal.
Furthermore, one can expect the re­
ply 5 dxe5 quite often, when 5 . . . i.g4
(and not 5 . . . g6 6 i.c4 c6 7 lLlc3 !) is
very decent for Black, e.g. 6 h3 i.xf3
7 'ii'xf3 leads to the Panov Variation
(4 lLlf3 i.g4 5 h3 i.xf3 6 'ir'xf3 dxe5
7 dxe5 ), which White rarely plays
nowadays since e5 is so weak.
Index of Variations

1 e4 lL'lf6 c
2 e5 lL'ld5
A: White avoids 2 e5 lL'ld5 3 d4 3 d4 d6
B : 2 e5 lL'ld5 3 d4 d6 without 4 lL'lf3 4 lL'lf3 �g4
C: 2 e5 lL'ld5 3 d4 d6 4 lL'lf3 without 4 . . . c6 55; 4 . . . lL'lc6 56; 4 . . . lL'lb6 56
4 . . . dxe5 4 ... g6 5 �c4 lL'lb6 (5 ... c6 62) 6 �b3
D: 2 e5 lL'ld5 3 d4 d6 4 lL'lf3 dxe5 �g7 : 7 exd6 60; 7 0-0 63; 7 lL'lg5 63; 7
'ilfe2 66; 7 a4 70
A 5 �e2 c6
2 e5 5 . . . e6 6 0-0 �e7 79; 5 . . . lL'lc6 78
2 lL'lc3 d5 7 6 c4
2 ••• lL'ld5 6 lL'lg5 88; 6 0-0 99
3 c4 6 ••• lL'lb6
3 lL'lc3 1 5 ; 3 b3 1 5 ; 3 lL'lf3 d6 4 �c4 6 . . . lL'lc7 9 1
1 5 ; 3 �c4 1 5 ; 3 g3 1 6 7 lL'lb d2 9 6
3 ••• lL'lb6 . 7 exd6 exd6 92
4 c5
4 d4 d6 - see 3 d4 d6 4 c4 lL'lb6 D
4 lL'ld5 2 1 2 e5 lL'ld5
3 d4 d6
B 4 lL'lf3 dxe5
2 e5 lL'ld5 5 lL'lxe5 g6
3 d4 d6 5 . . . c6 57; 5 . . . lL'ld7 57
4 c4 6 �c4
4 �e2 27; 4 f4 27 ; 4 �c4 27 6 g3 1 05 ; 6 ..i.d3 1 05 ; 6 h4 1 05 ; 6 lL'ld2
4 ••• lL'lb6 1 05 ; 6 'ilff3 1 05 ; 6 c4 lL'lb6 1 07
5 f4 6 ••• c6
5 exd6: 6.. .�e6 1 1 3
5 . . . exd6 6 lL'lc3 �e7 34 7 0-0
5 . . . cxd6 6 lL'lc3 g6 36 7 lL'lc3 1 1 3 ; 7 lL'ld2 1 1 3
5 ••• dxe5 7 ..• �g7
5 . . .�f5 42 7 . . . lL'ld7 1 1 3
6 fxe5 lL'lc6 8 l:el
6 . . . c5 7 d5 e6 8 lL'lc3 exd5 9 cxd5 c4 43 8 lL'ld2 1 1 6; 8 ..i.b3 1 1 4; 8 'ilfe2 0-0 9
7 �e3 �f5 �b3 1 1 4
8 lL'lc3 e6 8 ••• 0-0
9 lL'lf3 8 . . . lL'ld7 1 20
9 ..i.e2 46 9 �b3
9
••• ..i.g4 5 1 9 ..i.fl 1 20; 9 c3 1 20
Or: 9 . . ...i.b4 46; 9. . .'i1Vd7 46; 9 ••• ..i.e6 1 23
9 . . . �e7 47 Or: 9 . . . a5 1 2 1 ; 9 . . . lL'ld7 1 2 1