THE TOURNAMENT P LAYER'S REPERTOIRE OF OPENINGS

Series edited by R.D.Keene OBE

Symmetrical English:
1 ... c5

JOHN L. WATSON

B.T.Batsford Ltd, London

First published 1988
© John L. Watson 1988

ISBN 0 7134 5391 5(1imp)

All rights reserved. No part

of this publication may be
reproduced, by any means, without
prior permission from the publisher

Photoset by Andek Printing, London

and printed in Great Britain by
Dotesios Ltd,
Bradford upon Avon, Wiltshire
for the publishers
B.T.Batsford Ltd, 4 Fitzhardinge Street,
London W1H OA H

A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK

Adviser: R.D.Keene GM, O BE
Technical Editor: Ian Kingston
Contents

Symbols IV

Introduction

Part 1: 2 lbc3 lbc6 - Pure Symmetrical 3

1 Introduction and Various 5th Moves 5
2 5 e4 and 5 e3 19
3 5 lbf3 lbf6 (with ... d5 lines) 32
4 5 lbf3 lbf6 with 7 d4 40
5 5 lbf3: Others 49

Part II: Counterplay by 2 ... lbf6 and ... d5 67

6 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation 68
7 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation 83
8 3 lbf3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation 98

Part Ill: 2 lbf3 Systems 115

9 2 lbf3 Introduction and 2 'Others' 117
10 Three Knights: 2 ... lbc6 3 lbc3 g6 128
II Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 132
12 Double Fianchetto Defence 155
13 2 lbf3 lbf6 3 d4: 4 ... lbc6 166
14 2 lbf3 lbf6 3 d4: 4 .. . e6 184
15 2 lbf3 lbf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves 2 01

Index of Variations and Transpositions 216

Symbols

+ Check
;t + Slight advantage
±+ Clear advantage
±± H Winning advantage
Level position
ro Unclear position
Good move
!! Outstanding move
!? Interesting move
?! Dubious move
? Weak move
?? Blunder
corres Correspondence
01 Olympiad
IZ Interzonal
L League
Ch Championship
�f Semi-final
Introduction

This book is a thorough rewrite of my 1980 book English I ... P-QB4 in

algebraic notation. I say "rewrite" rather than "revision" because so
much of the material is new. Perhaps a third of the most significant I c4 c5
games have been played since 1980. In the meantime, the very character
of the opening has changed. In 1980, I had the large problem of organizing
material into coherent lines, finding names for variations, etc. Since so
little had been written, almost any suggestion was an improvement, and
many obvious moves had never been tried. Now the major systems are
well defined and widely known, much as with I e4 or I d4 systems.
Specialists have arisen in many key variations, and the abundance of new
games has created a certain consensus of opinion about major lines.
The major constraint on this new effort has been space. To take an
already lengthy book and supplement it with so much new material
requires a few compromises. Whenever possible, I cut down on older,
well-established material, looking especially to eliminate redundant
examples. One will find less detail and fewer changes in the Pure
Symmetrical lines of Part I or in (e.g.) the Three Knights lines. Material
on the Keres-Parma and the Rubinstein has been re-organized to reflect
the disuse of former main lines (now relegated to notes) and the rise of
new ones. The biggest changes have come in the second half of the book,
with much new material and analysis in the Hedgehog, Double Fianchetto,
Asymmetrical, and all the 2 lLlf3 lLlf6 3 d4 systems.
Because of length, I had to take a close look at what in my view was
most valuable to the reader. It seems to me that two features distinguish
the best Batsford opening books: thoroughness, and individual attention
to the material. I believe the strength of this book goes beyond its use as
an up-to-date reference, however complete. The main difference between
this work and, say, ECO is that I've carefully examined each line,
suggested innumerable improvements, and pointed towards what seems
critical for the assessment and future of each variation, i.e. I've tried to
indicate how each side can best pursue (or salvage) his play.
2 Introduction

In general, for the reader's convenience and my own, I have followed

the order and format of my 1980 book. The main improvement in this
regard has been to cut down on the number of sections. Outside of a few
extremely complex lines, one will not find "B232211 " and the like. Now
that we know better which variations are effective, much of the rest can
be put into notes.
As always, the first edition contained a number of errors. My thanks
to all those who drew attention to these; you are mentioned in the text.
On that subject, I should say a word about attribution. In general, I have
become more conservative in assigning credit. When I have the same
suggestion (or game moves) from several different sources, especially
when the sequence in question is fairly obvious, I have sometimes left it
unaccredited. Also, I have shied away from calling moves (e.g.)
"Korchnoi's move" or "Uhlmann's move", unless the evidence is clear or
the player's use of the move dominant. Too often famous players get
credit for using (sometimes only once) a line developed by someone less
visible.
Transpositions are mentioned throughout the text. When in doubt,
the 'Index of Variations and Transpositions' in the back may prove
useful. Rather than include every major source in the world in some kind
of "bibliography", I will merely mention here that the material extends
through Informant 42, and the games through mid-to-late 1 987.
Finally, please be tolerant of the inevitable oversights which accompany
any such project. The extent of this material is vast, and I greatly appreciate
any corrections or additions readers may bring to my attention.

John Watson
San Diego, 1987
 Part I

2 lLJc3 lt:Jc6: Pure Symmetrical

 1 Introduction and Various
5th Moves

1 c4 c5 is how varied and exciting the play

2 lt:lc3 lt:lc6 can become. Tal, Fischer and
3 g3 g6 Adorjan, for example, have scored
4 .ig2 .ig7 (1) many points by exploiting the
dynamic potential in Black's posi­
tion, whereas Uhlmann, Petrosian
w and Seirawan among others have
found ways to utilize White's ad­
vantage of the first move. In general,
the key ideas have proven relatively
stable. Less has happened since
my 1 980 book to the theory of
these lines than to any other major
formation in the 1 ... c5 English.
This is in part a consequence of
My new name for this formation fashion, and in part due to the
is the "Pure Symmetrical" variation. number of players who commit
More than in any other ... c5 vari­ themselves to ltJf] on the first few
ation, Black copies White's set-up, moves.
sometimes well into the middle­ We begin by a brief discussion
game. By contrast, Chapters 6-15 of alternatives on the way to the
cover variations where the position key position.
is already unsymmetrical by the 1 c4 c5
third move or earlier. Although 2 lt:lc3
with the order of this chapter a Independent lines with 2 b3, 2 g3
blind imitation will be sufficient and other odd second moves are
for equality in only a very few discussed in Chapter 9. When
cases, it is also true that the plans desiring to locate a given move
available to Black tend to be the order, the reader should first con­
same ones at White's disposal. sult the 'Index of Variations and
What is really remarkable, then, Transpositions'.
 6 Introduction and Various 5th Moves

2 lt:Jc6 delay 2 ... b6?

a) 2 ... g6 will generally transpose. 3 g3
Gipslis in £CO gives it an"!", but 3 e3, seldom played, can trans­
he ignores the most important pose to a Queen's Gambit after
independent answer: 3 d4 cd (3 ... 3 ... e6 4 d4 d5 or to a Caro-Kann
�g7!? intends 4 lt:Jf3 cd 5 lt:Jxd4 after 3 ... CiJf6 4 d4 cd 5 ed d5. 3 ...
lt:Jc6- Chapter IO,Iine A -but 4 d5 g6?! is less appropriate due to either
d6 5 e4 lt:Jf6 is not a very popular 4 {jjf3 (Chapter 10) or 4 d4 cd 5 ed
form of King's I ndian for Black, �g7 6 d5 (or 6 CiJf3!) 6 ... CiJd4 7
and his 5th move alternatives are CiJf3 t Krstev-Bonchev, Sandomierz
unpromising) 4 't!fxd4 lt:Jf6 5 �g5 1976.
(5 b3 !?) 5 ... �g7 (5 ... lt:Jc6 6 'tifd2) 3 g6
6lt:Jd5 (6lt:Jf3!? lt:Jc6 7'§d2 d6 8 e3 a) 3
e6 4�g2 CiJf6 (or 3 ... CiJf6
...

0-0 9�e2�e6?! I O O-O h6 11 �h4 4 �g2 e6) usually elicits 5 {jjf3 d5

g5 12 �g3 d5!? 13 cd lt:Jxd5 14 6 cd ed 7 d4 (a Tarrasch Queen's
lt:Jb5!, Snapik-Schmidt, Poland Gambit) or here 6 ... CiJxd5 (Chapter
1972. ":!; with the idea of e4" - 7).
Sznapik, who suggests 9 ... �f5!) b) After 3 ... e5 4�g2 g6 White can
6 ... lt:Jc6 7 't!i'c3 0-0!? (7 ... lt:Jh5 8 choose between 5 e3 and 5 CiJf3.
't!t'd2 h6 9 �h4 g5 10 �g3 lt:Jxg3 Had Black waited via 3 ... g6 4�g2
11 hg, lightly t). and now Zachary­ �g7, he could play 5 ... e5 or
Zabell, Chicago 1986, went 8 �xf6 remain free to deviate. A unique
ef 9 lt:Jf3?! f5 10 'tifd2 CiJe7 II CiJf4? order occurred in Uhlmann-Pahtz,
'tifb6 12 I!bl d5 13 cd I!d8 14 e3 East German Ch 1973: 3 ... e5 4
�e6 15 �c4 I!ac8 16 �b3 �xd5! �g2 d6 5 e3 �f5!? 6 a3 CiJf6 7 d3
17 CiJxd5 CiJxd5 18 �xd5�c3 H. '§d7 8 h3! g6 9 CiJge2�g7 10 I!bl
But 9 I!dI ! improves, so this line 0-0 11 b4 h5 12 CiJd5 I!ab8 13 CiJec3
is still a problem for 2 ... g6. (2) t
b) 2 ... b6 3 e4 or 3lt:Jf3 transposes
to normal lines, but 3 e3 can be
independent: 3 ... CiJf6 (3 ... �b7?!
4 d4 CiJf6 5 d5) 4 d4 e6 5 d5!? (5
CiJf3!, e.g. 5 ... �e7 6 d5 or 5 ... g6
6 e4!?) 5 ... ed 6 cd d6 7 e4, Szabo­
Rajkovic, Belgrade 1979; and here
7 ... g6 with a kind of Benoni seems
best. In the game 7 ... �e7 8 f4!
0-0 9 CiJf3 was ±. A good reason to
 Introduction and Various 5th Moves 7

13 ... lHc8 14 J:lb3 .ie6 IS .id2 b6 San Antonio 1972.

16 't!kf3 ltlh7 17 bS! lLlaS { 17 ... A
ltle7 18 g4!) 18 llbl J:lf8 19 e4! S a3 (3)
ltlb7(?) 20 g4! hg 21 hg .ixg4 22
ltle7+! �h8 23 't!kg3 llbe8 24 lLlfS!
gf 2S 't!kh4 .ih6 26 .ixh6 1-0.
4 .ig2
a) 4 b3 .ig7 S .ib2 e6 6 't!kcl (6 .ig2)
6 ... ltlf6! 7 e3 0-0 = Kholmov­
Hermlin, Riga 1968.
b) 4 a3 .ig7 S llbl is designed to
provoke S ... aS, thus avoiding the
line 4 .ig2 .ig7 S a3 a6. But S ... aS
is not bad, and otherwise 4 ... a6 is
possible, e.g. S 't!ka4!? llb8 6 b4 cb A frequently-played and tricky
7 ab bS 8 ab ab 9 lLlxbS .ig7 1 0 move. Black has:
"
llb! 11t'b6 I I ltla3 ltlxb4 oo with AI S ... ltlf6
the idea 12 .ig2 1!t'cS. A2 S ... e6
4 .ig7 A3 S ... d6
Arriving at diagram I above. A4 S ... a6
We examine: S ... llb8 transposes (to S ... a6,
A S a3 in most cases). Others:
B S b3 a) S ... eS? 6 b4!, e.g. 6 ... cb?! 7 ab
c s d3 ltlxb4 (7 ... ltlge7 8 bS ltld4 9 .ia3
S e4 and S e3 are in Chapter 2, with the idea cS) 8 .ia3 .if8 (8 ...
S ltlf3 in Chapters 3-S. S llbl will ltlc6 9 lLlbS ±) 9 'ii'a4! ltlc6 10 cS
transpose to A. S ltlh3!? also often .ig7 II ltle4 fS 1 2 lLld6+ �f8 13
transposes, e.g. to S d3, S b3 or llbl with great pressure.
S e3. Imitation by S ... ltlh6 might Better but insufficient was 6 ...
lead to 6 d3 d6 7 1!t'd2 't!t'd7(?) 8 b3 d6 7 J:lbl (or 7 be de 8 .ixc6+! be
b6 9 .ib2 .ib7 10 ltle4 0-0 { 10 ... 9 llbl ;t) 7 ... ltlge7 8 d3 (or 8 e3 !)
lLleS? II f4) II .ixg7 �xg7 12ltlf4 8 ... 0-0 9 ltlf3 llb8 10 0-0 b6 II
! intending h4. An example of S ... lLld2 h6 12 lLldS .ib7 13 bS lLld4
e6 was 6 ltlf4 ltlge7 7 h4 h6 8 llb l 1 4 e3 ltle6 IS a4 lLlc7 1 611t'b3! with
(8 b3 Larsen) 8 ... 0-0 9 b3 d6 1 0 the idea .ib2, f4 and eventually aS,
.ib2 a6 II d 3 J:lb8 1 2 11t'd2 dS 13 Rail::evic-Radulov, Novi Sad 1974.
0-0 b4? 14 ltldl! eS IS lLldS lLlfS 16 b) S ... .i xc3!? 6 be resembles S e3
ltlle3 ! Larst:n- Campos-Lopez, .ixc3 in Chapter 2. d3, e4 and
 8 Introduction and Various 5th Moves

lila2-e2(f2) would exploit the extra good for Black in Raicevic-Forintos,

a3. Also, 6 de!? leaves the c l bishop Novi Sad 1 974. Better is 7 d3 e6
open, e.g. 6 ... aS?! 7 .i.e3! d6 8 b4!. 8 h4 hS (8 ... h6 9 .i.f4 and 1 0 1!t'd2)
Better is 6 ... d6 7 h4 h6 8 liJh3 oo. 9 lLlh3 d6 1 0 .i.f4 Wd7··1 1 lLlgS!
c) S ... aS 6 liJfJ(6 e3 eS is Chapter lild8 1 2 0-0 .i.eS! 1 3 'iWd2 1!t'e7,
2; 6 ... liJh6!?) 6 ... e6?! (6 ... d6; 6 ... Watson-Forintos, Lone Pine 1 976,
eS) runs into 7 d4! (4) and now 1 4 .i.xeS liJxeS ( 14 ... de
IS f4) IS e4 with the idea f4 is t.
AI
s liJf6
A sound reply.
6 libl
6 e4 transposes to Chapter 2.
6 e3 d6! =, e.g. 7 d4 (7 b4 cb 8 ab
dS!) 7 ... cd 8 ed dS 9 cd liJxdS =.

6 aS
a) 6 ... a6? 7 b4 cb 8 ab 0-0 9 1!t'a4!
lila7 1 0 bS ab II 't!kxbS lb6 1 2
liJfJ t Bilek-Beckingham, 1 9S8.
c l ) 7 . . . .i.xd4? 8 lLlbS d6 (8 ... .i.g7 b) 6 ... 0-0 7 b4 cb 8 ab aS 9 bS?
9 1!t'd6; 8 ... liJge7 9 .i.f4! eS I 0 (9 ba! liJxaS - 9 .. . 1Wxa5 10 .i.b2
liJd6+ �f8 II .i.h6+ �g8 1 2 e3 with the idea lia 1 - 1 0 d3 d6 II
.i.xb2 13 liJgS!) 9 liJfxd4 cd 1 0 .i.d2 .i.d7 1 2 liJfJ .i.c6 13 0-0 t
liJxd4 liJxd4 II 'iit'xd4 ±. Taimanov) 9 ... liJb4 1 0 1!t'b3 dS!
c2) 7 .. . cd 8 lLlbS eS(8 ... dS 9 cd ed II cd e6(or l l ... .i.fS I2 d3 llc8't)
1 0 .i.f4 �f8 II liJfxd4) 9 e3! d6 12 d6 1!t'xd6 1 3 lLlf3 eS 1 4 .i.a3?
(9 ... de 1 0 1!t'd6) 10 ed etc. .i.fS IS lib2 e4 +Reshko-Hamlin,
c) 7 ... liJxd4 8 liJxd4 cd (8 ... .i.xd4 USSR 1 97S.
9 liJbS .i.eS 10 .i.e3!- or 1 0/4 .i.b8 c) 6 ... e6!? 7 b4 cb 8 ab dS 9 bS liJe7
1 1 e4- I 0 ... 1!t'e7 II 1!t'd2 liJf6 1 2 I0 cd ed II 1!t'a4 0-0 12 liJfJ liJfS =

.i.gS) 9 lLlbS liJe7! (9 ... eS 1 0 e3; Averbakh-Suetin, USSR Ch 1 9S8.

9 ... dS 10 cd 1!t'b6 II a4 .i.d7 12 de!) 7 liJI'3
1 0 liJd6+ �f8 II cS (II liJxb7 !?) A fundamental decision about
with an interesting attack. White's pawn structure:
d) S ... b6 can transpose after e.g. a) 7 e4 transposes to Chapter 2,
6 d3 .i.b7 7 e4. The obvious 6 lilbl line A2 (S e4). By committing Black
.i.b7 7 b4?! cb (7 ... liJaS !?) 8 ab to ... liJf6 and ... aS, White has
1!t'c8! 9 liJdS e6 1 0 liJe3 liJd4 was avoided the defences of that chapter
 Introduction and Various 5th Moves 9

which involve ... e6/... ti:Jge7 What else? 9 �b3 ti:Jb6 10 d3

and/or ... a6/... b5. a4! II '@c2 c4! (12 de ti:Jxc4 13
b) 7 d3 0-0 (7 ... d6 8 ti:Jh3!? h5 or ti:Jxa4 �a5+ I4 ti:Jc3 ti:Jxa3!) is no
8 ti:Jf3 0-0 9 0-0 ..id7 10 ti:Jei) 8 e3 improvement. And (e.g.) 9 ti:Jxd5
(8 ti:Jh3!?) 8 ... e6 9 li:Jge2 d5 10 0-0 �xd5 10 d3 '@a2! II ..id2 c4!
lile8 II 'i*c2 d4 I2 ti:Ja4 =/oo (with the idea 12 de ..if5), or here
Smyslov-Stein, Amsterdam 1 964. II ti:Jd2 ..id7, presents Black no
7 0-0 difficulties. Nor does 9 0-0 0-0 10
A good option is 7 ... d5(!) 8 cd ti:Jxd5 '@xd5 II d3 '@a2 I2 ..ie3 c4,
(8 b3!?, e.g. 8 ... 0-0 9 0-0 e6 1 0 d3 or here II b3 '@d6 (II ... a4!?).
b6 II e3 ..ib7 I2 ire2 =) 8 ... ti:Jxd5 Thus 7 ... d5 makes a good impres­
(5) sion. But 7 ... 0-0 is important for
transpositional reasons.
8 0-0 d6
5
9 ti:Je l
w
An example of White's possi­
bilities was 9 d3 ti:Je8 10 ti:Jd2 ti:Jc7
II lt:Ja4! lilb8?! (II ... lla6; II ...
b5 t Benko) I2 ti:Jb6! ..if5 l3 ..ic3
e5 I4 ti:Jd2 ..ie6 15 b4 ab 16 ab cb
17 ..ixb4 lle8 I8 li:Je4! ti:Jxb4 I9
lilxb4 ±(b-pawn and d5 control)
Benko-Zuckerman, US Ch I967.
9 ti:Je8 !?
Now 9 ti:Jg5 e6 10 ti:Jge4 b6 II Better seems 9 ... ..id7 10 ti:Jc2
�a4 was Timman-Enklaar, Dutch llb8 II b4 ab I2 ab b6.
Ch 1974, when II ... t!fd7? 12 10 ti:Jc2 a4
ti:Jxd5 ed 13 ti:Jc3 ..ixc3 14 be llb8 To discourage b4. This leads to
I5 d3 favoured White. Much bet ter a typical example: II d3 ..id7 I2
is II ... ..id7, when Kurajica gives ..id2 lla7 l3 ti:Jb5 lla6 14 ..ic3
12 ti:Jxd5 ed I3 ti:Jd6+ �f8 14lt:Jx17: �c8 1 5 ..ixg7 ti:Jxg7 I6 ti:Je3 ..ih3
but 13 ... �e7! is correct, when 1 4 17 ti:Jd5 ..ixg2 18 �xg2 lt:Je8 I9 e3
ti:Jxf7 ti:Je5 15 ti:Jxd8 ..ixa4 1 6 b3 e6 20 ti:Jdc3 ti:Ja7 2I ti:Jxa7 lilxa7
..id7 I7 ..ib2 llaxd8 I8 f4 ..if5 I9 22 �f3! f5 23 b3 ab 24 llxb3 llf7
d3 ..ixd3! is strong. I 0 ... c4!? 25 llfbi U± Ivkov-Nicevski,
(Kurajica; "t" ECO ) also looks Rovinj-Zagreb 1970.
fine, e.g. II 'ira4 ti:Jb6 12 'i!fb5 0-0 A2
13 e3 a4! with the idea ... lila5. 5 e6 (6)
 10 Introduction and Various 5th Moves

lLlxa3 16 lil:xa3 ll:lc8 17 0-0li:ld6 18

'ti'b3 li:le4 19 lil:faI ± Benko-Martz,
Vrnjacka Banja 1973.
7 e4
This is the Botvinnik set-up
(c4/e4) as in the next chapter.
There we consider e4 versus ... e6,
but in general Black avoids ... a5.
Here he is already committed to
that move, so one should not be
surprised that White gets interesting
6 Ii:bl chances. Seventh-move options:
6 li:lf3!? is Chapter 5, line C (5 a) 7 d3!? ll:lge7 8 ..id2 0-0 9li:lfJ d5
li:lf3 e6 6 a3). 10 tiel li:ld4!? (1 0 ... b6! =; see
6 b4? is a mistake due to 6 ... Chapter 5, line C) 11 b3 ..id7? (II
ll:lxb4! 7 ab cb 8 d4!(8 ll:lb5? ..ixa I ... b6) 12 cd ed 13 li:lxd4 cd 1 4
9 'ti'a4 ..if6! I 0 d4, and instead of lLlxd5 t Ree-Uhlmann, Amsterdam
1 0 ... a5? 11 ..if4 lil:a6, my suggestion 1 975.
1 0 ... a6! was winning in Lobron- b) 7 ll:lh3 ll:lge7 (7 ... d5(?) 8 cd ed
Kavalek, Bochum 1 981) 8 ... be 9 li:lf4 d4 10 lLle4 c4 II t!t'a4) 8 lLlf4
9 e3 ll:le7 (9 ... d5!) 10 ll:le2 d5 11 cd 0-0 9 b3!? (9 0-0) 9 ... d5!? (9 ...
li:lxd5(II ... ed) 12 ..ia3 ..iffi 13 0-0! lil:b8 10 ..ib2 b6 =) 10 cd ed II
..ixa3 14 Ii:xa3 ..id7 + Smyslov­ lLlcxd5 lLlxd5 1 2 lt'Jxd5 lt'Jd4 13 0-0
Hartston, Hastings 1 972-73. (1 3 e3 ..ih3! Bukic; 13 lLle3!?) 1 3 ...
6 a5 ..ig4 1 4 lLlc3 lil:e8 15 f3 lLlxe2+
6 ... lLlge7?! 7 b4 cb 8 ab d5 9 b5 (1 5 ... ..if5! 16 e4 ..ie6 =/oo Bukic)
ll:le5(9 ... ll:la5!? tOed ed II ..ia3!? 16 lt'Jxe2 ..if5 17 Ii:b2 ..id3 1 8 Ii:f2
d4 12 ll:le4 lLlc4 13 ..ib4 0-0 14 and White took charge in Miles­
ll:lh3 d3!? 15 'it'b3 oo was Seirawan­ Adorjan, London 1975.
Gurevich, US Ch 1984; II d4 is c) 7 h4!? tries to improve upon 'b':
probably best here too) 1 0 cd ed 7 ... lt'Jge7!? (7 ... h5 8 d3 ll:lge7 9
II d4 ll:lc4 12 e3 ("±" Benko; ..ig5 t:, or 8 li:lh3 lt'Jge7 9 lt'Jf4; 7 ...
Black's d-pa wn is a target) 1 2 ... h6! 8 lt'lh3 ll:lge7 9 li:lf4 0-0 10 b3
..ie6 (12 ... ..if5 13 lil:al 't!t'd7 1 4 b6! 11 ..ib2 d6 =) 8 h5 d5 9 cd ed
't!t'b3 - 1 4 lLlge2! lvkov - 1 4 ... 0-0 (9 ... li:lxd5 10 t!fa4 t) 10 d3 ..ie6
15 ll:lge2 a6? 16 ba ba 17li:lxd5 ±± II ltJ h3 f6? 1 2 lt'Jf4 ..if7 13 h6 ..iffi
Ivkov-Keene, Skopje OJ 1972) 13 14 't!t'b3 ±± Watson-Fuller, Harrow
lLlge2 t!fd7 14 lil:al ! 0-0 15 ..ia3 1 979.
 Introduction and Various 5th Moves I1

7 d6 .i.e3 d5 (13 ...lLld4 1 4 b4!) 1 4 ed ed

8 d3 lLlge7 15lLlec3!lLld4 16 .i.xd4 cd 17lLlxd5
9 lLlge2 0-0 <t:lxd5 1 8 .i.xd5 ± with the idea b4
Adorjan-Ermenkov, Warsaw Z (1 8 ... .i.xb5 1 9 "i!i'b3!), Adorjan­
1 979, saw 9 ... b6 10 0-0 .i.b7 II Sznapik, Warsaw Z 1 979.
.i.e3!? lLld4 1 2 b4 ab 1 3 ab .i.c6 1 4 b) 10 ... lLld4 II b4 ab 1 2 ab lLlec6
'ifd2 with a draw. Perhaps IIlLlb5!? 13 lLlxd4 lLlxd4 1 4 be be 1 5 f4 f5?
with the idea d4, e.g. II ... lLld4? 1 2 (1 5 ... e5!?;1 5 ... lLlf3+ :t Miles) 16
lLlxd4 cd 1 3 e5!. or II ... c 5 12 f4 e5 ( ± " Miles) Miles-Olafsson,
"

( 12 .i.d2!? intending b4) 12 ... ef 13 Lone Pine 1 978.

gf f5 (13 ... 0-0 14f5) 14cflLlxf5(1 4 c) 10 ... eS II lLld5 lib8 1 2 lLlec3
... gf 1 5 .i.e3 and d4) 15 .i.d5lLlfe7 .i.e6 13 .i.d2 :t .
(15 ... 'ifd7? 1 6 .i.e6!) 16 f5! lLlxf5 d) 10 ... b6 may transpose to the
17 lixf5 gf 1 8 lLlg3 or 18 lLlf4. text. Aside from II lLlb5, White
10 0-0 (7) may consider II f4!?, e.g. II ... f5
1 0 .i.e3 b6 (intends II d4 e5) II 12 ef (intending .i.e3, d4) or II ...
0-0 lib8 (II ... i.a6 1 2 b3 lib8 i.b7 12 lLlb5 (e.g. 12 ... f5 13 d4 :j;
1 3 d4 e5 = Martinovic-Psakhis, or 12 ... lLld4 1 3lLlexd4 cd 1 4 lH2).
Sarajevo 1 981 ;12 f4!?) 12 "i!fd2(1 2 II lLlbS!
f4!?) 1 2 ... ..ta6 13 b3,0 smanovic­ Smejkal's move. II .i.e3 e5 1 2
Psakhis, Sarajevo 1 98 I. and now lLld5 is met by 12 ... b5!.
Psakhis gives 13 ... lLle5! 14 .i.f4 II b6
lLl7c6 15 a4 .i.b7 =. II ... d5?! 1 2 cd ed 1 3 .i.f4!
(Smejkal) retains the initiative,
and II ... e5 1 2 lLlec3 f5 1 3 ef gf,
Ritov-Balashov, Tallinn 1973, could
be answered by 14 f4!?, e.g. 1 4 ...
.i.e6 15 lLld5 (1 5 ... .i.f7 16 fe!),
14 ... lLld4 15 b4, or 1 4 ... lLlg6 15
lLld5 .i.e6 16 fe de 17 'ifh5. Best is
1 4 ... �h8!.
12 d4 i.a6
12 ... e5 1 3 d5 lLld4 1 4lLlexd4 cd
15 b4 :t (Smejkal), or 1 2 ... cd 13
lLlexd4 lLlxd4 1 4 lLlxd4 .i.b7 1 5 f4
10 lib8 ;t (weak d-pawn;1 5 ... d5 16 cd ed
a) 10 ... .i.d7?! II lLlb5! 'ifb6 12 17 e5).
i.g5 ( 12lLlxd6lLld4 ) 12 ... h6 1 3
= 1 3 .i.e3 llb7
 12 Introduction and Various 5th Moves

1 4 a4 (intending d5) 14 ... cd 1 5 ll:lge7 is Chapter 5, line D.

ll:lexd4 ll:lxd4 16 �xd4 �xd4 1 7 6 aS
'i¥xd4 lld7 18 llbd1 ll:lc6 1 9 'i¥e3 7 e3 e5
± Smejkal-Andersson, Biel IZ Or 7 ... h5!? 8 h3 ll:lh6.
1976. 8 ll:lge2 ll:lge7
A3 The position resembles Chapter
5 d6 2, line B. Black does not generally
6 llbl resort to ... a5 there, but neither
a) 6 e3!? is my recommendation does White gain much by the in­
for excitement here, e.g. 6 ... e5 sertion of a3. Hort-van der Stcrren,
(6 ... �xc3!?) 7 b4!!? cb 8 ab ll:lxb4 Lone Pine 1 979, continued 9 b3
9 �a3 ll:ld3+ 1 0 �e2 (8) llb8! 10 ll:lb5 (else 1 0 ... �e6 11 d5
b5) 10 ... 0-0 II ll:lec3 f5 1 2 d3 �e6
13 ll:ld5 �f7
II
=.

A4
B
5 a6
This move constitutes the most
serious problem for 5 a3: White
has trouble breaking symmetry to
good effect.
6 llbl
6 ll:lf3 will be seen in Chapter 5:
5 ll:lf3 a6 6 a3.
6 llb8
10 ... ll:lc5 11 d4 ed 1 2 ed �f5!? 7 'ti'a4! (9)
(on 1 2 ... t!t'a5? or 12 ... ll:le6?, 1 3 The best bet. 7 ll:la4?! 'i!t'a5
ll:lb5!; 12 ... a6 1 3 de �xc3 1 4 lib I achieves nothing, and 7 b4 cb
and cd) 13 de �xc3 14 llcl 'i¥a5 8 ab b5 9 cb (9 c5 a5 10 �a3 ab
15 'ti'b3 :t II �xb4 ll:lxb4 12 llxb4 �xc3 =
6 e3 ll:lh6 7 ll:lge2 ll:lf5 8 b4!? Tarjan-Gheorghiu, Hastings 1979-
(8 lib1 a5 9 b3 h5 1 0 h3 e5 11 �b2 80) 9 ... ab has been shown to be
h4 1 2 g4 ll:lfe7 1 3 d4 oo Seirawan­ equal by many years of games.
Hort, Hastings 1979-80) 8 ... h5!? 10 ll:lf3 allows any of 10 ... d6 =,

(acceptance is critical) 9 libI ll:le5 10 ... e5 = or 10 ... d5 =;see Chapter

1 0 'i!t'c2!? llb8 11 f4 ll:lxc4 12 be 0-0 5, line A. 1 0 ll:lh3 lt:Jh6 11 0-0 0-0
oo Seirawan-Giardelli, Mar del 12 d4 d5 1 3 �xh6 �xh3! = and
Plata 1 982. 10 e4 e5 (or 10 ... d6 =) also
=

b) 6 ll:lf3 e5 7 0-0 (7 b4 e4!) 7 ... achieve nothing.

 Introduction and Various 5th Moves 13

i.xf2!?) or 1 3 ... ti:Je4 1 4 i.g7 lig8

15 f3 oo, when 15 ... lhg7 16 fe
lia8 ought to be fine.
8 b4
8 e3 b5 9 cb (9 ti:Jxb5 ti:Jxb5! 10
cb ab II @'a7 i.b7 12 i.xb7 'it'c7)
9 ... tiJ xb5 I 0 ti:Jge2 ti:Jf6! ( 10 ... e6
I I ti:Je4!) II 0-0 0-0 12 d3 (12 b4
c4! or 12 ... cb 13 ab d5 =) 1 2 ... d6,
Rajkovic-Gheorghiu, Lone Pine
1 979, and here instead of 13 b4?
7 ti:Jd4! i.f5! 14 lid! c4! 1 5 e4 i.g4 +,
a) 7 e6? 8 b4 cb 9 ab ti:Jge7? (9 ...
... 13 i.d2 is best, e.g. 1 3 ... i.f5 1 4
'f/c7 ±) 1 0 b5 ab II cb 't'fa5 12 be ti:Je4 ti:Jxe4 1 5 d e i.c8 16 lifd l oo.
i.xc3 13 'i!t'xa5 i.xa5 14 cb 0-0 1 5 8 bS
bc't'f 1-0 Watson-Meyer, Vancouver 8 ... cb 9 lixb4!?@'c7!(9 ... e6 1 0
1976. c5!) 10 ti:Jd5 @'c6! =/oo Rajkovic­
b) 7 ... ti:Jh6? 8 b4 cb 9 ab b5 lOeb Matulovic, Yugoslavia 1979.
ab II ti:Jxb5 'i!t'b6 1 2 ti:Ja3! ti:Jxb4?! 9 cb ti:JxbS
13 ti:Jh3 ti:Jf5,Seira wan-Gheorghiu, 9 ... ab?! 10 @'a7. After 9
US A 1978, and now 14 0-0 ± with ti:Jxb5 Seirawan-W.Schmidt, Indo­
the idea ti:Jc2, i. a3 (Gheorghiu). nesia 1983, went 10 ti:Jxb5 lixb5
c) 7 ... d6!? 8 i.xc6+ be 9 'i!t'xc6+ II ti:Jf3 (II e3 'it'c7 1 2 ti:Je2 i.b7 =)
i.d7 1 0 'i¥g2?! (10 @'xa6? i.xc3! II ... i.b7!? (II ... ti:Jf6 Schmidt)
I I de @'c7 intending ... i.c6; 10 12 i.b2 (1 2 0-0 ti:Jh6!?- 12 ... liJf6
@'f3! i) 10 ... i.xc3! II de ti:Jf6 - 13 d3 cb 14 lixb4 lixb4 15@'xb4
=/oo intending ... i.f5, ... i.a4. i.c6 1 6 i.g5 i Seirawan-Jansa,
Christiansen recommends 9 ... Biel IZ 1 985) 1 2 ... i.xb2 (12 ...
�f8"!" with the idea 10 ti:Jf3 i.b7 ti:Jf6 1 3 be) 1 3 lixb2 ti:Jf6 14 0-0
II @'a4 @'c8! etc; 1 0 f3 i.b7 II @'a8 15 lic l cb 16 lixb4(16 ti:Jd4!
'f/a4 is awkward but probably Schmidt; this looks best) 16 ... 0-0
best. Seirawan-Timman, Mont­ 1 7 lixb5 ab 18 1!t'b4 d6 19 d3 lic8,
pettier C 1985, avoided this line by and now instead of 20 lixc8+ oo,
8 b4!? i.f5 (8 ... i.d7 9 b5 ti:Ja5!?) Schmidt calls 20 libI "±', but
9 i.xc6+ be I 0 'it'xc6+ i.d7 II after 20 ... i.c6 this is not at all
'it'xa6 i.xc3! 12 de ti:Jf6, and instead clear either (21 i.h3!?).
of 13 ti:Jf3?!, 13 i.h6 with the idea 8
13 ... ti:Jg4 14 i.g7 lig8 15 h3(15 ... 5 b3 (10)
 14 Introduction and Various 5th Moves

81
5 li:Jf6
10
B
6 .ib2 0-0
7 d3!?
a) 7 li:Jh3!? is an attempt to clamp
down on d5 by li:Jf4 (II):

A flexible move employed by

Smyslov and Larsen.
8 1 5 ... li:Jf6
8 2 5 ... e6
a) 5 e5 is normal, but after 6 .ib2
...

li:Jge7 White usually plays 7 e3 0-0 al) 7 e5 8 0-0 d6 9 f4 .id7 1 0 e3

...

8 li:Jge2 transposing to Chapter 2. .ixh3!? (1 0 ... .ig4) II .ixh3 ef 1 2

7 li:Jf3 d5 8 cd li:Jxd5 9 li:Jxd5 (9 gf d5 13 .ig2 dc 14 bc'8'd7 15 llbl
li:Jxe5!? .ixe5! 10 .ixd5 .ih3 m) llad8 16 li:Jd5 ;t Romanishin­
9 ... 'ti'xd5 I 0 0-0 'ti'd61ooks equal. Belyavsky, USS R Ch 1974.
b) 5 ... b6 6 .ib2 .ib7 7 li:Jf3 is a2) 7 d 6 8 0-0 .id7 9 e3 li:Je4!?
...

Chapter 2, but White also has 7 10 'i!t'c I li:Jxc3 II .ixc3 e5 1 2 f4

_.bl !?, e.g. 7 ... 'ti'b8 8 li:Jd5! .ixb2 m Larsen-Polugayevsky, Bugojno
(8 ... li:Jd4 9 e3 e6 10 ed ed II cd cd 1980.
1 2 li:Je2 li:Je7 13 li:Jxd4 li:Jxd5 14 a3) 7 d5 (! ) is untried but unjustly
...

li:Jf5!) 9 .-xb2 f6 1 0 li:Jf3 t:. so. e.g. 8 li:Jxd5 (8 li:Jf4 d4 9 li:Ja4

c) 5 . ..d 6 6 .ib2 e5 transposes to �d6!; 8 cd li:Jxd5 9 llcl m) 8 . . .

Chapter 2, and here 6 ... e6 7 li:Jh3!? li:Jxd5 9 .ixg7 'it>xg7 10 cd .ixh3

is promising, with the idea li:Jf4, II .ixh3 �xd5 12 0-0 llfd8 1 3 d3
d3, 'ti'd2, li:Je4 etc. b6 =.

d) 5 ... .ixc3!? 6 de .-as('!) 7 .id2!? b) 7 li:Jf3 e5!? is also seen: 8 0-0 d6

li:Jf6 8 li:Jh3 d6 = Marangunic­ 9 d3 li:Jh5 (9 ... llb8 10 a3!?, e.g.
Barle, Bled/Portoroz 1979. But 10 ... a6 II li:Jd2 .ie6 12 li:Jd5) 10
why not 7 li:Jh3(!) .-xc3+ 8 .id2 li:Jd2 .ig4 II a3 .ih6?! 1 2 b4! ;t
_.g7 9 li:Jf4 with the idea li:Jd5 and Petrosian-Portisch, match (9) 1974.
.ic3 or llc l and .ic3 etc? 7 e6
 Introduction and Various 5th Moves 15

7 ... d6 8 't!t'd2 J.d7 9 lt:lh3 with 1 976, White managed by this means
the idea lt:lf4; 7 ... llb8 8 't!fd2 a6 to keep the pawn structure static,
9 e3!? b5 10 lt:lge2 e6 II lt:lf4. and Black's bishops inactive: 13 ...
8 J.xc6! lle8 14 0-0-0 h6 (1 4 ... e4? 15llJxe4
Larsen's ingenious idea. Other­ ± Larsen) 1 5 't!t'e3 �g4 1 6 ifgI h5
wise 8 ... d5 = follows. 17 'it>bI (with the idea 17 ... J.h6
8 be 18 J.cl ) 17 ... e4?! 1 8 lt:lxe4 J.xb2
8 ... de also deserves attention. 19 'it>xb2 f5 20 llJc3 llJe3 21 llcl
I suggest 9llJf3, e.g. 9 ...llJe8 I 0 't!ff6 22 't!YeI a5 23 'it>a3! ± intending
1i'd2 b6 (10 ... e5 IIllJa4 1i'e7 12 llJa4.
't!fe3) II 't!Ye3!? f6 12 0�-0 e5 1 3 B2
lldg I!? with the idea g4-g5, h4-h5. 5 e6
9 't!t'd2 (12) 6 J.b2
6 J.xc6!? was not so impressive
12 as in BI after 6 ... be 7 J.b2 d6 8 d3
8 e5 9 1!t'd2, Larsen-Andersson, Las
Palmas 1974, when simplest was
9 ...llJge7!, although 9 ...llJf6 10
0-0-0 0-0 II h 4 (II f 4llJg4) II ...
llJh5 was also =.

6 llJge7 (1 3)

13
w

9 d6
9 ... e5! is more accurate. Then
Watson-Browne, Los Angeles 1 982,
went 10 0-0-0 d6 II 'it>b l!? (II e3
or II h4 may be better) II ... 't!t'e7!
1 2 f3 J.e6 (12 ... d5? 1 3llJa4 a5-
else 't!Ya5 - 14 J.a3llJd7 1 5 cd ed
16 lilc l etc) 13 h4 h6 14llJh3 lt:ld7
1 5 f4 d5!? 16 e4! d4 17 �a4llJb6 7 h4!?
18 \Wa5 lt:lxa4 19 't!Yxa4 't!fd7 20 The most challenging. White
llJf2 a5 21 J.cI t. must not be too passive:
10 f4! 't!t'e7 a) 7 lt:la4?! J.xb2 8llJxb2 0-0 9 e3
II lt:lf3 e5 1 2 fe de 13 't!t'g5!. (9llJf3 d5 +) 9 ... d5 10llJf3 ( 1 0 cd?
In Larsen-Betancourt, Lanzarote llJxd5 II lt:le2 b6 12 d4 J.a6 13 de
 16 Introduction and Various 5th Moves

1!t'f6! 14 lLlc4 lLlc3 H Smyslov­ l:l:ad8 16 lLlec3 lLlfd7) 14 ... d5! 15

Fischer, Palma de Mallorca IZ cd ..ixd5! (15 ... 't\fxd5 16 "t!t'b l !
1970) lO ... lLlf5 11 0-0 b6 12lba4 with the idea g4) and here 16l:l:b l!?
..ib7 13 cd ed 14 d3 t!t'f6 15 'tit'd2 ..ixe4 (17 lbcxg5 and 17 lt'Jexc5
li:ad8 16 li:fd1 li:fe8 + Smyslov­ were threatened) 17 �xe4 lLld6
Tal, Moscow (USS R Club Teams 18 'ilt'd5 was an interesting try.
·
Ch) 1964. This whole line is unexplored and
b) 7 t!t'cl !? is logical, intending replete with creative options.
lLld5 or lbe4 at some point, but c
Biack's kingside is very solid: 7 ... 5 d3 (14)
0-0!? 8 lbe4 d6 9 ..ixg7 �xg7 I 0
"t!t'b2+ e5 "and Black is already
better" ( Adorjan). Or 7 ... d6 8 f4!?
(8 lLld5 0-0 = or 8 ... e5 9 d3 0-0 10
h4 h6 11 h5 g5 12 f4 f6 oo Donchev­
Adorjan, Prague 1984) 8 ... 0-0 (8
... e5!?) 9 lbe4 e5 10 fe lbxe5 11
lLlf3 f5 12lbf2 lb7c6 13lbxe5 (13
0-0? f4!) l 3 ... de 14 ..id5+!? (14 h4
h6! =) 14 ... 'it>h8 15 ..ixc6 be 16
lLld3 ti'e7! =(17 ..ia3 lild8 18 ..ixc5
ti'e8) Hort-Gulko, Niksic 1978. C1 5 ... e6
7 h6 C2 5 ... d6
7 ... h5 8 '@cl !?, e.g. 8 ... d6 9lLle4 a) 5 ... e5 6lbf3 is Chapter 4, line D,
0-0 10 ltJf6+ ( lO g4!?) lO ... 'it>h8 and here 6 e3 is Chapter 2, line B.
11 g4 e5 1 2 g5 lLlg8 13 lbd5 (13 b) 5 ... lbf6 has several answers,
lLle4!?) oo. e.g. 6 e4(Chapter 2, line A) or 6 ..id2
8 't!t'b l ! ? d6 d6 7 l:l:b l "t!t'd7 8 a3 b6 9lbf3 ..ib7
8 ... 0-0 9 h5! d5(9 ... g5? lOlLle4) 10 0-0 0-0 11 '@a4 li:fd8? 12 b4
10 hg fg 11 lLlf3 is promising. lbe8 13 l:l:fd l ! (with the idea ..iel,
9 lLle4 e5 e3, d4) 13 ... lbd4 14 '@xd7 l:l:xd7
10 ti' d3! lbf5 15lbxd4 ..ixg2 16 'it>xg2 ..ixd4 17
lO ... lbb4? II '@xd6 lLlc2+ 12 be be?! ( 17 ... de 18 a4t) 18lba4 e6
'it>dl lLlxal 13 ltJf6+! etc. 19 l:l:b5! with initiative, Rabar­
II e3 0-0 Djurasevic, Belgrade 1954.
Now Watson-Keene, New York c) 5 .. li:b8! (5 ... a6 allows White
.

1981, continued 12 a3 ..ie6 13 h5 the option 6 "t!t'd2 't!t'a5 7 lLld5!?)

g5 14 ltJO (14lLlge2 't!t'b6!? 15 'i!t'c2 6 e3 (if now 6 'i!t'd2 '@a5!, e.g. 7 e3
 Introduction and Various 5th Moves 17

a6 8 ltJge2 b5 9 ltJe4 't!Vb6 etc) 6 ... 13 ... ltJe7 (1 3 ... ..ih3 Bukic; 14
ltJh6 (or 6 ... a6 7 a4 d6 ) 7 ltJge2
= llfdl ltJe7 15 ..ih l ±) 14 ..ig2 ..ie6
ltJf5 8 libI b6 9 a3 ..ib7 I0 b4 'ii'c8 15 llad l 'i¥d8 16 f4 ef(?) 17 ltJe4!
= Borm-Rogers, Eerbeck 1978. d5 1 8 ltJf6+ 'Ot'h8 19 cd ltJxd5 20
C1 ..ixd5 ..ixf6 (20 ... ..ixd5 21 llxf4)
5 e6 21 llxf4! ..ixb2 22 1t'xb2+ 'i!lg8 23
6 ltJ h3!? ..ixe6 fe 24 llxflH 'it'xf8 25 llf l
Again possible is 6 e4. 6 ..id2 is 'f!/e7 26 'it'e5 ±.
passive, e.g. 6 ... ltJge7 7 a3 (7 'ii'cI C2
h6) 7 ... 0-0 8 lib! a5 Krogius­
= 5 d6
Kuzmin, USSR 1964. 6 llb1
6 ltJge7 6 ltJf3 ltJf6 7 0-0 0-0 is Chapter 3,
7 ltJf4 d6 !? line C2.
More accurate is 7 ... 0-0 with 6 hS!?
the idea 8 'ti'd2 'ii'a5! or 8 0-0 a6 =. Weakening, but imitation by
8 'ti'd2 ! llb8 6 ... llb8 is not problem-free due
8 ... 't!Va5?! 9 libI lib8 1 0 a3 a6 to 7 'ti'd2! intending b3, ..ib2, e.g.
II b4 with the idea II ... cb 12 ab 7 ... 'tWaS 8 a3 a6 9 b4 cb 1 0 ltJa2!.
ltJxb4 13 ltJe4 ± Bukic. Of course 6 ... e5 or 6 ... ltJf6 is
9 b3 0-0 playable.
10 ..ib2 'tW aS!? 7 h3. ..id7
10 ... a6; 10 ... b6. White plays 8 e3 'ti'c8
for ltJe4. 8 ... ..ixc3+ 9 be b6 was sug­
11 0-0 eS gested, but then 10 ltJf3 with the
Perhaps II ... ..id7. After II . . . idea e4, 0-0, ltJh4, f4 keeps the
e5 Larsen-Hartston, Hastings 1972- advantage.
73, went 12 ltJfd5 ltJxd5 13 ..ixd5 9 ltJge2 ltJ h6
(15) 10 a3
Petrosian-Bisguier, New York
1954. The game continued I0 ...
ltJe5!? II f4 ..ic6 12 e4 ltJd7 13
ltJd5! e6 14 ltJe3 t.

Conclusion. 5 ... a6 has taken much

of the sting out of 5 a3, although
Seirawan continues to do reason­
ably well on the White side. Black
might also look into 5 a3 ltJf6, when
18 Introduction and Various 5th Moves

the critical 6 e4 is discussed in the esting alternative to 5 li:Jf3. As for

next chapter. 5 d3, 5 ... I:l:b8 with the idea ... b5
5 b3 has led to some exciting seems the main drawback if White
games, and may be the most inter- needs to make things double-edged.
2 5 e4 and 5 e3

c4 c5 Now Black usually picks one of:

2 lLJc3 lLJc6 AI 5 0 0 0 e6
3 g3 g6 A2 5 0 0 0 lLJf6
4 i,g2 i,g7 Often he will be committed to
The two Pure Symmetrical vari­ one of these moves already. e.g. by
ations about which we have the the order I c4 lLJf6 2 lLJc3 g6 3 g3
most over-the-board experience i.g7 4 i.g2 0-0 5 c4 d6 6 ll:lge2 c5,
arc 5 e4 and 5 c3. The first system when 7 0-0 c5? slightly misplaces
is associated with Botvinnik and, the f6 knight, e.g. l:! f4 ef 9 gf lLJc6
before him, with Nimzowitsch. It 10 d3 :f: or simply 8 d3 lLJeX 9 libI
can come up by a variety of move lLJc6 I0 a3 a5 II lLJd5 .teo 12 f4 or
orders. The second system, 5 c3. is 12 lLJec3 :±:. Others:
in a sense the most natural move a) 5 ... e5 6 lLJge2 lLJeg7 7 d3 d6
for White, who can bring his king's with:
knight to the flexible e2 square and al) 8 i.c3?! (This will illustrate the
leave himself the option of pressing rules of thumb: don't put your
forward with d4 or slowly building knight on d5 until the opponent
up by d3. has played o o . i.e6, and don't play
A 5 e4 i.c3 too early lest your opponent
B 5 e3 play 0 0 0 lLJd4 in favourable circum­
A stances. They apply to Black also)
5 e4 (16) 8 oo· lLJd4 9 0-0 0-0 10 'it'd2 a6 II
i.h6 :Sb8 (or II 0 0 0 lLJec6) 12 i.xg7
®xg7 13 lLJxd4 cd 14 lLJe2? (14
lLJd5) 14 0 0 0 b5 +Fuller-Jamieson,
Melbourne I975.
a2) 8 0-0 0-0 (8 0 0 0 i.e6?! 9 lLJd5!;
8 0 0 0 :Sb8 9 :S b l a6 IO a4 0-0 II
i.d2 with the idea lLJd5) 9 a3 (9 f4!?
ef 10 gf could be tried) 9 0 0 0 i.e6?!
(9 o o . a6! 10 :Sbl :Sb8 = ) 10 :Sb l f5
II lLJd5 fe 12 de lLJd4? (breaking
 20 5 e4 and 5 e3

both rules!) 13 ll:lxd4 cd 14 i.g5 ll:ld4 12 b4 !) 12 ll:ld5! a5 (12 ...

i.xd5 15 cd 'it'd7?! (but otherwise ll:lxd5 13 cd ll:lb4 14 f4 ;!:: with the
i.h3 will ensure the win in any con­ idea 14 ... ef 15 gf f5 16 e5!) 13 f4 t,
ceivable ending) 16 i.h3! 1!rxh3 e.g. l 3 ... ef 14 gf f5 15 e5 b6 16 ed
17 i.e7 ±t lvkov-Torre, Madonna 'it'xd6 17 d4 t.
di Campiglio 1973.
b) 5 ... b6 6 ll:lge2 i.b7 7 d3!? e6 17
8 0-0 ll:lge7 will transpose to A I w

below, but here 7 0-0! e6 8 d4! is

very strong: 8 ... cd (8 ... ll:lxd4 9
ll:lxd4 i.xd4 10 ll:lb5 i.e5 II ll:ld6+
i.xd6 12 1!rxd6 ±; 8 ... i.xd4 9
ll:lb5 i.e5 10 i.f4! Uhlmann) 9
ll:lb5 d6 10 ll:lexd4 ll:lxd4 II ll:lxd4
ll:le7 12 1!i'a4+ (or 12 i.g5 0-0 13
1!i'd2 ± Uhlmann) 12 ... 1!i'd7 13
'i*xd7+ �xd7 14 li[dl a6 15 i.e3 7 0-0
llhc8?! 16 li[ac l li[ab8 17 b4! ± 7 d3 helps forestall some of
Uhlmann-Danailov, Halle 1984. Black's queenside ideas, e.g. 7 ...
c) 5 ... a6 6 ll:lge2 b5!? is probably a6!? 8 i.e3 ll:ld4 9'it'd2(or 9li[b l !)
playable, e.g. 7 cb (7 d3 ) 7 ... ab
= 9 ... li[b8 (9 ... 'i*a5 10 li[c l ll:lec6
8 ll:lxb5 i.a6 9 ll:lec3 1!ra5 10 a4 II i.h6 Taimanov) 10 lii:cI! h5?!
i.xc3! II ll:lxc3 (II be!? i.xb5 12 II i.g5 d6 12 0-0 b5 13cb ab 14 b4!
ab oo) II ... ll:lb4 etc. But 5 ... a6 0-0 (14 ... cb 15 ll:lxd4 be 16 'i*xc3
6 a4! commits Black too early to a 'i*b6 17 'it'c7! Taimanov) 15 be de
formation which tends to favour 16 e5! i.xe5 17 ll:le4 f6 18 i.h6 llf7
White; compare what follows. 19 ll:lxc5 ± Hort-Uhlmann, Skopje
AI 1968.
5 e6 7 0-0
6 ll:lge2 ll:lge7 (17) 8 d3
Instructive is 6 ... llb8 7 d3 a6 8 a3 will transpose after (e.g.)
8 a4! ll:lge7 9 0-0 0-0, and now 10 8 ... a6 9 li[b l llb8 or 8 ... d6 9 libI
f4?! d6 II �hi i.d7 12 llb l 'it'e8! b6. Here and on the next few moves,
(intending ... ll:ld4, ... b5) 13 e5? ... a5 transposes to Chapter I, line
de 14 ll:le4 b6 15 fe ll:lxe5 =F was A2.
Roizman-Pankratov, USSR 1970. 8 d6
Much better is 10 li[b l ! d6 11 i.e3 9 li[b 1
(with the idea d4) II ... e5 (II ... 9 i.e3 ll:ld4 10 1!Vd2 i.d7 II
 5 e4 and 5 e3 21

i.h6 ll:lec6 = and 9 f4 a6 10 g4!? f5! (14 ... ll:lec6 15 b5 t) 15 ll:lxd4 cd

II gf gf 12 ll:lg3 ll:ld4! are unchal­ 16 ll:lb5 fe 17 ll:lxd4 e5 18 fe de 19
lenging. ll:lb5! a6 20 de it'xdl 21 llfxd1 ab
9 b6 22 cb! (with the idea lld7, .ixb6)
9 ... a6!? 10 a3 llb8 (10 ... b5!? led to an overwhelming queenside
II cb ab, Makarichev-Kasparov, pawn mass for White in Sehner­
USSR Ch 1978, and now critical Chandler, West Germany 1985.
would be 12 ll:lxb5 i.a6 13ll:lbc3!? 13 it'd2 n fe8
or 13 a4!? 13 ... ll:le5 14 ll:lf4! 13 ... llfd8 14 i.h6 is similar,
�
- -

with the idea 14 ... g5 15ll:lh5 i.xd3 and 14 i.f2 with the idea d4 is
16 i.xg5 etc) II b4 cb 12 ab b5 13 also possible. 13 ... ll:lec6!..
cb ab 14 d4! d5 15 .if4 llb6 14 i.h6
16 't!t'b3! ;t Reshevsky-E.Castro, 14 f4. 14 lHcl ll:lec6 15 i.xd4
Lugano 01 1968. The ideas include ll:lxd4 16lLl xd4 cd 17 ll:le2 lilacS 18
(e.g.) 16 ... de 17 llfd1! f5? 18 d5 b5 llc7 19 a4 :t Zi.iger-Adorjan,
and 16 ... ll:lxd4 17 ll:lxd4 i.xd4 Thessaloniki 01 1984.
18 llfd l ! etc. 14 i.h8
10 a3 i.b7 We are following Soos-Geller,
11 b4 it'd7 Varna 1964. After 15 ll:lxd4 cd 16
1 2 i. e3 (18) ll:le2 Black played the odd 16 ...
12 tt'a4 !? llfd8 13 llfd1 ll:ld4 14 a5? 17 ba ba 18 llb6 and got into
it'xd7 ll:lxe2+ 15 ll:lxe2 llxd7 16 trouble. Better was 16 ... d5 (16 ...
.ie3 (";t" Speelman) was Lein­ b5 !?) 17 cd ed 18ll:lf4 de 19 de ll:lc6
Hartston, Hastings 1978-79- dull oo, with the idea 20 ll:ld5 ll:le5.

but somewhat unpleasant for Black. A2

5 ll:lf6
18 This is one of the purely English
B Opening lines of the King's Indian
Defence.
6 ll:lge2
6 d3 0-0 7 f4 d6 8 ll:lO (8 ll:lge2
ll:le8 9 0-0 ll:ld4 = was Grigorian­
Antunac, USSR v Yugoslavia 1964)
8 ... llb8 9 0-0 a6 =,e.g. 10 llb1 b5
II b3 ll:le8 12 ll:ld5 ll:lc7 13 .ib2
i.g4! = Bronstein-Najdorf, Moscow
12 ll:ld4 1967.
12 ... llac8 13 f4ll:ld4 14 i.f2! f5 6 0-0
22 5 e4 and 5 e3

7 0-0 (19)
7 d4? cd 8lt:Jxd4lt:Jxe4! =t= Euwe.

/9
H

This is less flexible than 8 d3,

7 d6 especially since White is some­
There are so many games with times able to profit from the move
this line that I will limit myself to a4.
the most typical and (hopefully) 8 aS
revealing examples. Here Black a) Often played is 8 ... lt:Je8,
also has: transposing after 9 Il:b1 a5. Instead,
a) 7 ... a6 8 lib1 (8 a4! or 8 d3; see 9 libI Il:b8!? 10 b4 b6 II d3lt:Jc7!
below) 8 ... Il:b8 9 a3 b5 10 cb ab 12 b5 lt:Jd4 13 lt:Jxd4 .txd4 was
11 b4 cb 12 ab e5 = (with the idea Stolyar-Bikov, USSR 1957, when
13 d4? ed 14lt:Jxd4lt:Jxd4 15'it'xd4 14 lt:Je2 J.g7 is of interest. Most
lt:Jxe4!) Smyslov-Taimanov, USSR important is 9 lilb l lt:Jc7!? 10 b4
Ch 1961. lt:Je6 II d3 lt:Jed4 12 lt:Jxd4 lt:Jxd4
b) 7 ..lt:Je8 8 a3(8 d3lt:Jc7 9 libI !?;
.
13 lt:Je2, and now Stolyar-Zilber,
compare A22) 8 ... lt:Jc7 9 Il:b1 a5 Leningrad 1957, went 13 ... b6 14
(or 9 ... d6!?, e.g. IOb4lt:Je6 is A21 lt:Jxd4 .txd4 15 J.b2 .txb2?!(15 ...
below) 10 d3 (10 lt:Jd5!?) 10 ... e5) 16 llxb2 e5?!( 16 ... .ib7 17 f4 e6
lt:Je6!? II f4 f5 12 g4!? lt:Jed4 13 gf 18 f5?! ef Stolyar-Nezhmetdinov,
=

lt:Jxe2+ (?! 13 ... gf) 14 lt:Jxe2 gf

-
Moscow 1957, but 18 'it'el ! with
15lt:Jg3 with an attack, Augustin­ the idea g4 improves) 17 f4 f6 18
Kozlov, Stary Smokovec 1976. Il:2f2 lilb8 19 h4! 'it'e7 20 f5 ±.
After 7 ... d6: b) 8 .. i.d7 9 h3 lt:Je8 (or 9 ... a6)
.

A21 8 a3 10 libl lt:Jc7(10 ... a5) II b4lt:Je6

A22 8 d3 12 d3 lilb8, and now Shatskes gives
A2l 13 b5! lt:Jcd4 14 f4! :t
8 a3 (20) 9 libl
 5 e4 and 5 e3 23

9 h3(!), to prevent... .ig4, might

be more accurate, but this hasn't 21
been tried yet. B

9 .i g4!
Others seem less desirable:
a) 9 .id7!? 10 h3 Iii: b8 (I 0 ...lt:Je8
...

II d3 lt:Jc7 12 .ie3 lt:Jd4 13 b4 ;t)

II d3 lt:Je8 12 .ie3 e5!? (12 ...lt:Jd4
13 b4 ab 14 ab t) 13 �h2 lt:Jd4 14
b4 ab 15 ab b6 16 't!fd2 lt:Jc7 17
llb2! (t intending lltbl or llfal)
17 ... f5 18 ef gf 19 .ig5 't!fe8 20 be 8 lt:J e8
± Watson-Shean, Denver 1977. a) 8 ... .id7 9 h3 't!fc8? ! 10 �h2
b) 9 ... lt:Je8 10 d3lt:Jc7 II .ie3 (II lt:Je8 11 .ie3 lt:Jc7 (II ... lt:Jd4 12
lt:Jd5lt:Jxd5! 12 edlt:Jd4 =; Illt:Ja4!? .ig5! Shatskes) 12 d4 cd 13lt:Jxd4
lt:Je6 12lt:Jec3 .id7! =) II ...lt:Jd4!? lDe6 14lt:Jde3:!: Rapopov- Litvinov­
(II . . lt:Je6!?) 12 b4 ab 13 ab b6,
. Minsk 1963.
Evans-Fischer, New York 1967, b) 8 . lii: b 8 9 llb1 b6!? 10 d4( 10 h3
..

and now 14 h3 ;tor 14 't!fd2 would Nei) 10 ... cd 11 lt:Jxd4 lt:Jxd4 12

maintain the tension. 't!fxd4lt:Jxe4!? 13 't!fxe4 .ixc3, Ritov­
10 f3 Spassky, Tallinn 1973, and now
10 h3 .ixe2! IIlt:Jxe2lt:Je8 12 d3 instead of 14 .ig5 .ie5! =!= White
lt:Jc7 13 i.d2 b5! = intending 14 e5? had 14 be! i.f5 15 1!Ve2 i.xa1 16 g4!,
lt:Jxe5. which is at least equal and perhaps
10 .id7 better for White.
11 d3 lt:Je8 c) 8 ... .ig4!? could use tests: 9 f3
12 .ie3!? (12 h3 with the idea .id7 10 h3 with the idea f4 or here
f4) 12 ... lt:Jc7 13 b3 (13 d4 cd 14 10 .ie3 seems best.
lt:Jxd4 a4!, or 14 ... lDxd4 15 .ixd4 d) 8 . a6 9 h3 (9 lii: b1 lii:b8 10 a4
..

.ixd4+ 16 1!t'xd4lt:Je6 and 17 ... a4) lt:Je8 11 .ie3lt:Jc7 12 d4 t) 9 ... llb8

13 ...lt:Jd4 14 a4lt:Ja6 = Taimanov­ 10 a4!lt:Je8 (10 ... i.d7 II llb1 e6
Gurgenidze, USSR Ch 1958. 12 .ie3 h6 13 �h2 �h7 14 d4:!:
A22 Watson-Williams, New York 1979)
8 d3 (21) II .ie3 and now Black can try II
Here White emphasizes central ... lt:Jd4, when 12 .ig5 h6 13 .id2
and kingside play. Black must be (Shatskes) is not too frightening.
very careful not to cede too much Better is 12 lii: b l!lt:Jc7(12 ... .id7
space. 13 b4 cb 14 llxb4 t Azmaiparashvili-
 24 5 e4 and 5 e3

Chekhov, USSR 1980) 13 b4 14 f4 b6 15 h3 f5 16 �h2 .ic6,

lt:lxe2+? (13 ... b6 ;!;) 14 lt:lxe2 cb Filip-Giigoric, Moscow 01 1956.
15 .ib6! .id7 16 lhb4 ±. Theory calls this equal, and yet
Otherwise I I ... lt:lc7 is possible, 17 b5 .ib7 18 a4 (with the ideas
but then 12 d4 is :t, e.g. 12 ... cd( 12 llbel , .ig l , lLlxd4, a5, g4) may
... lt:la5!? 13 b3 lt:le6 14llbl .id7 favour White slightly.
15 f4! ;!; Taimanov-Suetin, Riga ·to aS
1954) 13 lt:lxd4 lt:le6 (13 ... .id7 10 ...llJc7 II b4 t. 10 ... b6 I I e5!
14 lLlde2!, e.g. 14 ... lbe5 15 b3 b5 llJxe2+ 12 'i!t'xe2 litb8 13 d4! cd 14
16 f4) 14 lt:lde2! lt:lc5 15 l:lbl a5 16 .ixd4 de 15 .i xe5 .ig4! 16 it'e3
b3;!; with the idea 'it'd2 Taimanov. .ixe5 17'it'xe5'it'd6 18'it'e3! t plan­
9 .i e3 ( ! ) (22) ning h3,llbdl ,b3 etc, M.Gurevich­
With ... lt:le8 already in, 9 h3 has Sturua, USSR 1981.
less point, e.g. 9 ... lt:lc7 10 g4!? 11 h3
lt:ld4 (or 10 ... lLle6 I I f4llJed4 12 a) 1 1 b3?! llJc7 12 a3 .ig4! 13 f3
f5 e6! ) II f4 f5 Taimanov; 12
= = .id7 14 b4 ab 15 ab llJxe2+ 16
lbg3 e6 and ... :C:b8. llJxe2 cb! 17 .ib6 (17 lhb4 b5 +
M.Gurevich) 17 ... 'i!t'c8 18 litxb4
22 lba6 19 liib l llJc5 + M.Gurevich­
B Gavrikov, USSR 1983.
b) On 1 1 a 3!?, I I ...llJc7 12 b4 t is
A2 l above. I I . ..llJxe2+ 12llJxe2
a4 is unclear after 13 d4 or after
the trade-off of weaknesses (b7 v
a3) following b4.
11 llJc7
12 f4 f5
Here M.Gurevich gives 13 'i!t'd2
9 liJd4 with the idea :!I bel, b3, .if2,
9 ... llJc7?! 10 d4 cd I I llJxd4 llJxd4 with central pressure. This
llJe6 (or l l ... .id7 12llbl !llJe6 and I I a3 llJxe2+ are areas for
13 liJde2 lbe5 14 b3llJg4 15 .icl! further investigation.
± Watson-Elseth, Hamar 1980)
12 liJde2 lbc5 13 ll:cl .ie6 14 b3 t Conclusion. 5 e4 remains a com­
Barcza-Szilagyi, Hungary 1967. plicated and unresolved way for
10 l:lbl White to conduct the game. The
Or 10 't!t'd2!?, e.g. 10 ... ll:b8 I I 5 ... lt:lf6 6llJge2 0-0 7 0-0 d6 8 a3
ll:ab I .ig4 12 f3 .id7 13 b4llJc7 lines give Black several methods
 5 e4 and 5 e3 25

to achieve good play, but 8 d3 has ..txb2 I3 llxb2 ::t, or here 10 ... b5
proven more dangerous; as of now, II cb ab I2 li:le4 ..txb2 I3 llxb2
the 8 ... li:le8 lines seem best for the 'it'b6 14 li:lf4! Shatskes; in both
second player. cases Black suffers from an inability
to play ... e6 without further weak­
8 ening his kingside) 9 ..tb2 .ib7
5 e3 (23) 10 llbi e6 (10 ... d6 lvkov) II li:lf4
d6 I2 li:le4 ..txb2 I3 llxb2 1!t'e7 I4
23
B
'it' aI! li:lg7 I5 h4 f5 I6 li:lg5 ±(the
threat of li:lgxe6 means White gets
d4 in) Geller-R.Byrne, Sousse I Z
I967.
b2) 7 b3 a6 8 ..tb2 0-0 9 d3 d6 (9 ...
llb8 10 0-0 b5 II llbi t intending
lt:Je4) IO 0-0 ..td7 II 't!td2!? llb8
I2 li:le4 'it'a5 I3 ..tc3 ..txc3 I4
li:lexc3 b5 15 llfei lii:fc8 16 lladi
White's most fundamental move, 'it'd8!? I7 li:ld5 'it'f8 oo Andersson­
preparing li:lge2 and, perhaps, d4. Miles, Tiiburg I977.
Bl 5 ... e5 As an illustration of how easy it
B2 5 ... li:lf6 is for these lines to become critical,
B3 5 ... e6 witness Jakobsen-van der Wiel,
a) 5 ... a6?! 6 li:lge2 b5? should Aarhus I983: 7 0-0 b6? 8 d4! cd
be answered by 7 li:lxb5! (7 d4 t 9 li:lxd4 li:lfxd4 IOed ..txd4 II .ih6
Taimanov) 7 ... ab 8 cb, e.g. 8 ... ..txc3 I2 be ..tb7 I3 c5! 't!lc7 I4
li:le5 (8 ... li:lb4 9 ..txa8 li:ld3+ I 0 lii: ei be I5 llbi a6(15 ... 0-0-0!PCN,
�fl ±±:) 9 ..txa8 d5 10 ..tc6+ �f8 but then I6 llxe7!, since I6 ...
II 0-0 ..tg4, Barle-Savon, Yugo­ li:lxe7 I7 ..txb7+ 'it'xb7 I8 llxb7
slavia 1981, and now 12 f4! was �xb7 I9 ..tg6 with the idea 'it'd6 is
very strong: 12 ... li:lf3+ 13 �g2 or unplayable for Black) I6 ..tf4 't!Vc8
12 ... li:ld3 13 a4 'it'a5 (otherwise I7 llxe7+! I-0.
14 a5) 14 ..txd5 with the idea ..tf3. c) 5 ..txc3+ was modestly touted
...

b) 5 ...li:lh6 6li:lge2li:lf5 is difficult in the first edition, but no one has

to handle for Black, e.g. picked it up: 6 de!? d6 7 e4 (7 h4!?
b l )7 0-0 0-0 (7 ... llb8 8 d3 b6 9 b3 and lt:Jh3-f4) 7 ... 't!ld7 8 li:le2 b6
is similar; for 7 ... g6? see the end 9 li:lf4 ..tb7 10 'it'e2 e6 II li:ld3 h6
of this note) 8 b3 b6 (8 ... a6 9 llbi I2 ..td2 (12 0-0 li:lge7 I3 f4 0-0-0
llb8 I 0 .ib2 d6 II d3 ..td7 I2li:ld5 I4 b4!?) I2 ... li:lge7 13 0-0-0 0-0-0
26 5 e4 and 5 e3

14 Ilfel 'irc7 15 h4 .ta6 16 b3 b5! 7 0-0

+ Benko-Tarjan, Lone Pine 1979. Some examples of delayed cast­
Better is 6 be(!) b6 7 lt:lge2 .tb7 ling:
8 d3 d6 9 0-0 1i'd7 10 e4, Speelman­ a) 7 d3 d6 8 a3 0-0 9 lib! .te6(or
Commons, Lone Pine 1978, which 9 ... a5 10 0-0 lilb8) 10 li:ld5 lilb8
went 10 ... f5(?) II li:lf4 0-0-0 \12-\12, (10 ... b5!? II lt:lxe7+ lt:lxe7 12 cb
although here 12 ef! gf 13 .td5 lt:le5 li b8 13 lt:lc3 d5 14 a4 f5 is unclear,
14 d4 is ±. So 10 ... 0-0-0 is best, Donchev-Adorjan, Prague 1985)
and on II li:lf4, II ... 'i!>b8 12 .th3 II lt:lec3 a6 12 .td2 b5 13 cb? (13
1We8 is unclear. The position after b4 ) 13 ... ab 14 b4li:lxd5 15li:lxd5
=

10 ... 0-0-0 looks reasonable for lt:le7! 16 lt:lxe7+ Wxe7 17 0-0 c4! =F
Black. White might consider trying Kupka-Faibisovich, Vilnius 1969.
to save a tempo by 8 e4 d6 9 0-0, b) 7 a3 d6 8 lil:bl a5 (or 8 ... .te6
with the option of d4 in one move. 9 li:ld5 .tf5 10 d3 li:lxd5 II cd
d) 5 ... h5 6 h4 (6 h3 t) 6 ... li:lh6 lt:le7 =, Botvinnik's idea;9 ... b5!?
7 lt:lge2 lt:lf5 8 a3 lib8 9 liibI Gipslis) 9 li:ld5 0-0 10 0-0 .tg4! II
li:ld6?! 10 d3 b5 II cb lt:lxb5 12 h3 .td7 12 lt:lec3 liib8 13 b4 cb! 14
lt:lxb5 liixb5 13 1Wc2 .tb7 14 0-0 ab li:lxd5 15 li:lxd5 b5 + Lysenko­
'ira8 15 lt:lc3 .txc3 16 Wxc3 ± Karpov, Rostov 1971.
Padevsky-Gurgenidze, Varna 1975. c) 7 b3!? d6 8 .tb2 used to be thought
e) 5 ... d6 6 lt:lge2 .td7 (6 ... e5 and bad due to 8 ... .te6 9 lLld5(?) .t xd5
6 ... lt:lf6 transpose; 6 ... .tf5 7 d3 10 cd lt:lb4, or here 9 d3 d5, e.g. 10
h5 8 h3 1Wc8 9 a3 t Sapi-Forintos, 0-0 0-0 II llc l b6 12 a3 Wd7 +with
Hungary 1967) 7 0-0 h5 (7 ... 't!t"c8 the idea ... f5 Angantysson-Tarjan,
8 li:lf4 t or 8 d4 ;t) 8 h3 t ECO. Lone Pine 1978. But 9 0-0! d5 10 cd
Bl li:lxd5, and now two interesting
5 e5 ideas of Keene's are II lt:le4 b6
6 lt:lge 2 lt:lge7 (24) 12 lt:lf4!!? intending 12 ... li:lxf4
13 lt:lf6+! .txf6 14 .txc6+ 'i!;>f8
24
w 15 ef lilc8 16 fe! ±;and l l li:la4
b6 12 d4, although in the second
case mass exchange on d4 should
equalize.
7 0-0
8 b3
This gives the best chances for
some kind of edge.
8 a3 d6 (8 ... a6?! 9 b4!) 9 d3 (9
 5 e4 and 5 e3 27

ll:bl .te6! 10 ll:ld5 .tf5 II ll:lxe7+ could consider the useful waiting
't!t'xe7 12 d3 e4! 13 ll:lf4 ed 14 e4 move 12 h3!?. Otherwise he can
.te6 15 b3 ll:ab8 = Pachman­ play 12 llfdl contemplating central
Botvinnik, Moscow 01 1956) 9 ... action, e.g. 12 ... 'it'a5!? 13 llac l
.te6 10 ll:ld5 Ir.b8! 11 ll:lec3 a6 12 .ie6 14ll:le4 't!t'xd2 15 llxd2("Mini­
lib! (12 b4 e4! 13 Ir.bl ed 14 't!t'xd3 mally !" Taimanov) Polugayevsky­
cb 15 ab ll:le5 =F Adorjan) 12 ... b5 Bobotsov, Le Havre 1966. The
13 cb ab 14 b4ll:lxd5 15ll:lxd5ll:le7 game MacPherson-van der Sterren,
16 ll:lxe7+ 'irxe7 17 .tb2? (17 a4 London 1978, went 12 ... �h8 13
Adorjan; ) 17 ... c4 18 d4 'ira7!
= Ir.ac l .tg4! 14 h3 .te6 15 ll:ld5?!
19 d5 .tf5 20 e4 .td7 21 lia l f5 ( 15 .tal) 15 ... 't!t'd7 16 ct>h2? .txd5
=F (c-pa wn and attack) Bertok­ 17 cd ll:lb4 +.
Adorjan, Birmingham 1973. 12 't!t'a5
8 d6 Now 12 ... �h8 13 .ta l .tg4 14
9 .t b2 (25) h3 .te6 15ll:ld5 is useless. Better is
12 ... .te6, but 13 h3 f5?! (13 ...
't!t'd7) 14 f4 d5 15 fe is also poor:
15 ... de 16 ll:lf4 .ic8 17 ll:lcd5! or
15 ... d4 16 ed cd 17 ll:ld5 o!.
The text is Lein-Polugayevsky,
Tbilisi 1967: 13 h3 .te6 14 .ta l f5
15 f4 �h8 16 't!t'cl ll:lb4 17 lld2
.ig8 18 �h2 libd8 19 llfdl h6!?
20 a3 ll:lbc6 21 ll:ld5! ll:lxd5 22 cd
ll:lb8? (22 ... ll:le7 23 fe de 24 e4!
Petrosian; at least !) 23 fe de 24
9 lib8 't!t'xc5 lieS 25 'it'd6 ±±.
a) 9 ... .te6?! 10 ll:le4! h6 II d4 ed B2
12 ed f5 l 3 lLld2 cd l 4ll:lf3 o!(Keene, 5 ll:lf6
based on Lein). 6 ll:lge2
b) 9 ... .tg4 10 h3! .te6 11ll:ld5(or 6 d4 generally transposes.
II ll:le4! as in 'a') II ... 'ird7 12 6 0-0
¢>h2 ,t Stahlberg-Bobotsov, Zeven­ It's a bit illogical to play 6 ... e6!?
aar 1961. (why not 5 ... e6 and 6 ... ll:lge7
10 d3 a6 instead?), but 7 d4 only transposes
11 'ird2 b5 to the next section. The other course
12 ll:ad1 is 7 ll:lf4!? 0-0 8 0-0, and Larsen-Tal,
An interesting juncture. White Bugojno 1984 (by transposition),
28 5 e4 and 5 e3

continued 8 . . . b6!? (9 d4 is threat­ and 15 i.xc6 ±, or 1 2 . . . ll:Jd7 1 3

ened; 8 . . . ll:Je 7!?) 9 b3!? (consistent i.xg7 c;S>xg7 1 4 i.xc6 be 1 5 f3 !)
is 9 d4!: 9 . . . i.a6 !? 10 1!t'a4 i.b7 1 1 't!Vd2!? (not II de de 1 2 i.xc6?!
Tal; but 1 1 li d l looks better for be 1 3 ll:Ja4 ll:Je4 ! , but II a3 ( ! ) has
White) 9 . . . i.a6 1 0 i.b2 ( 10 i.a3 !? the idea II . . . a6 1 2 de de 13 ll:Ja4 ±
Tal) 10 . . . d5 II lie l li c8 12 d3 intending i.c3) 1 1 . . . a6 1 2 l:tfdI
d4 !? =/oo. lifc8 ( 1 2 . . . cd!? t) 1 3 de de 1 4
7 d4 ll:Ja4 !.
Or 7 0-0, but why allow 7 . . . e6 c) 8 ... i.g4 ! ? 9 h3 i.xe2 10 ll:J xe2
again? cd 1 1 ed d5 12 c5 b6 13 i.e3!? (or
7 d6 13 cb t) 13 ... be 1 4 de ;t with the
7 . . . cd 8 ed e6!? 9 i.g5?! h6 1 0 idea 1 4 . . . e5 15 i.g5 R. Byme­
i.e3 ll:Je7! = was RaiC:evic-Hort, Balcerowski, Varna 01 1 962.
Stip 1 977; but 9 d5! intending 9 . . . 9 b3 a6
ll:J a 5 1 0 b3 o r 9 . . . ed 1 0 cd i s better. 9 . . . 't!Vc8 l O i.b2 (or l O d5 t, or
8 0-0 (26) 1 0 lii: e 1 i.h3 II i. h l i.g4 1 2 't!Vd2
i.xe2 1 3 l he2 cd 14 ed 't!Vg4 1 5
i.b2! ± Petrosian-Giigoric, Bled
1 96 1 ) l O . . . i.h3 1 1 d5 i.xg2 1 2
'it>xg2 ll:Ja5 1 3 't!Vd2 't!Vd8 1 4 ll:Jc 1 a6
15 lil b l lii: b8 16 a4 lLld7 1 7 lite! ±
Hort-Hamman, Copenhagen 1 965.
1 0 i.b2 li b8
1 1 't!Vd2
Or II de!? de 1 2 ll:Ja4! b6 l 3 ltJf4
't!Vc8 ( 1 3 . . . ll:Ja5 1 4 't!t'c2 i.xa4 1 5
ba t Mikenas-Suetin, Vilnius 1 966)
8 i.d7 14 li c l e6 1 5 ll:Jd3 ll:Je8 16 i. xg7
The most common try, but White ll:J xg7 1 7 't!Vd2 't!t'c7 1 8 li fd 1 ±
is better in any case. Others: with the idea 't!Vb2, ll:Jc3 Kavalek­
a) 8 cd 9 ed i.f5 1 0 d5 ! ( 1 0 h3 h5
... N eamtu, Bucharest 1 966.
1 1 b3 't!t'd7 1 2 'it>h2 d 5 ! 1 3 i.a3 ( ! ) 11 cd
de 1 4 d 5 t Watson-Denker, New 1 1 . . . b5 1 2 eb ab l 3 de ! de 1 4
York 1 978) lO ... ll:Je5 II b3 't!Vc8 lii: fd 1 (or 14 lii: a e l , working against
1 2 ll:Jd4 t Rogoff. the hanging pawns) 14 . . . 't!Vb6 1 5
b) 8 ... ..trs 9 b3 litb8 1 0 i.b2 't!Va5 lLlf4 is ideal for White, e.g. 1 5 . . . e6
( 1 0 . . . a6? II de! de 12 ll:Ja4 and 1 2 16 ll:Je4 ll:Jxe4 17 i.xe4 i.xb2 1 8
. . . 't!Vxd l ? 1 3 lii: a xd 1 lLld7 1 4 i.xg7 't!Vxb2 ± Pytel-Kupka, Zagreb
 5 e4 and 5 e3 29

1 977. e5 1 8 d3 i.f5 1 9 lLld6 lil: bd8 20 lLlxf5

12 ed lLl xf5 2 1 ll:a 1 ± G.Garcia-Estevez,
12 ... b5 1 3 cb ab 14 d5 ( ±) 14 . . . Camaguey 1 974.
ll:la5 ( 1 4 . . . lLl a 7 1 5 lLl d4 b 4 1 6 b) 7 d4 (!) is probably best as it limits
lLlce2 lLlb5 1 7 lHe 1 ll: e8 1 8 lLl xb5 Black's options in the main line:
± with the idea 1 9 lLld4) 15 lLld4 7 . . . cd 8 lLlxd4 d5!? (8 . . . lLlxd4
'i!t'b6 1 6 llfe 1 llfe8 1 7 ll: a c l i.f8?! 9 ed d5 10 cd lLl xd5 1 1 0-0 0-0 1 2
18 lLlce2 lil:ec8 1 9 lLlf4 (planning 't!fb3 and 1 2 lLl xd5 cd 1 3 1!t'a4 !? are
lLld3-b4) 19 . . . lLle8 20 lLlc6! ±± discussed in the main line below)
Pytel-Wentman, Gausdal 1978. 9 cd lLlxd5 1 0 lLl xd5 lLlxd4 1 1 lLl c3
B3 lLlc6 1 2 't!fxd8+ lLl xd8 and one can
5 e6 see that the omission of 0-0/ . . . 0-0
6 lLlge2 lLl ge7 (2 7) makes a difference. White is very
slightly better, and Andersson­
27 Miles, Tilburg 1 98 1 , went 13 i.d2
w 0-0 (Makarichev gives two instruc­
tive lines: 1 3 . . . i.d7?! 1 4 lLle4 i.c6
1 5 lLl d6+ �d7 16 i.xc6 �xd6 -

16 . . . �xc6 1 7 lLlc4 1 7 i.f3 i.xb2

-

18 ll b 1 ± intending �e2; and 1 3

. . . �e7 !? 1 4 ll: c 1 i.d7 1 5 0-0 i.c6
16 b4 ±) 14 lil: c 1 i.d7 1 5 0-0 i.c6
1 6 llc2! (t) 1 6 . . . i.xg2 ( 1 6 . . . f5
1 7 i. xc6 lLlxc6 1 8 lLla4 intending
This is Black's least ambitious lLlc5 K oval:evic) 17 �xg2 lLlc6 1 8
continuation, aiming for only a lLle4 n fd8 (perhaps 1 8 . . . a 5 ! ? with
draw but challenging White to the idea 1 9 a3 a4 20 lLld6 lla6!
achieve more. Makarichev) 1 9 i.c3 ll ac8!? ( 1 9 . . .
7 0-0 lil:d5 !?) 20 i.xg7 �xg7 2 1 lil: fc 1
Options to mix it up: intending lLlc5, a 3 , b4. White's
a) After 7 lLl f4 0-0 8 0-0 d6 B lack pressure persisted, and he eventu­
must be careful, e.g. 9 a3 (9 b3 a6 ally won.
1 0 i.b2 b5 1 1 d3 i.b7 12 1!t'e2 ll:b8, 7 0-0
about =, Hort-Planinc, Banja Luka 7 . . . d5?! is premature due to 8 cd
1 974) 9 . . . a6 (9 . . . i.xc3!? would lLl xd5 9 lLl xd5 ed 10 lLlf4 ! t Hort,
be interesting) 1 0 lil: b 1 lil:b8 1 1 b4 or here 10 1!t'b3 d4 1 1 d3! t Tal.
cb 12 ab b5 13 cb ab 1 4 't!fb3 d5?! 8 d4 cd
1 5 lLld3! 't!fb6 16 lLl c5 d4 1 7 lLlce4 9 lLlxd4
30 5 e4 and 5 e3

9 ed d5 1 0 cd lLl xd5 I I lt:l xd5 i.xd4 = has often been seen, and
( I I 1rb3 lt:l a5 ! 12 1rc2 .id7 ! 1 3 a game Velez-Boudy, Cuba 1982,
lt:lxd5 ed 1 4 1rc5 lle8 1 5 1rxd5 went 13 'i!Ya4!? 'i!Yb6 1 4 .ie3 ( 1 4
�g4! +, a game Bukhman-Suetin) .ixd5 i.h3 =) 1 4 . . . .ie6 1 5 ll ac l
I I . . . ed 12 .ie3 ( 1 2 lt:lc3 lt:lxd4 = ; ll fc8 =.
1 2 1rb3 i.g4! 1 3 lt:lc3 lt:l xd4 +) 1 2
. . . .ig4 1 3 lle l , Botvinnik-Gligoric, 28
Hastings 1 96 1 -62, and now 1 3 . . . B

1rd7 1 4 1rb3 llad8 i s =.

9 lt:lxd4
9 . . . d5 may be more accurate,
on account of 10 cd lt:lxd5! ( 10 . . .
ed I I 1rb3 lt:l xd4 1 2 ed lt:lf5 1 3
1rxd5 'i!Yxd5 1 4 lt:lxd5 lt:lxd4 1 5
.ig5 t Benko-Geller, Wijk aan Zee
1 969; I 0 . . . lt:lxd4 I I ed lt:lxd5 trans­
poses) I I lt:l xd5 lt:l xd4! = Larsen­ Now Black has a wide choice:
Matulovic, Palma de Mall orca 1967. a) 12 ... lt:le7 13 d5 ed 1 4 i.g5 h6
H ere I I lie I l0xd4 12 ed 'tWb6 is 15 .ixe7 'i!Yxe7 16 lt:l xd5 'i!Ye5 =

also equal. was Forintos-Sapi, Hungary 1 969.

But the interesting thing here is But 1 3 lld I ! causes more trouble,
that 7 d4( !), instead of 7 0�. doesn't e.g. 13 . . . i.xd4?? 14 .ig5 f6 ( 1 4 .. .
allow this line; instead we get the lle8 1 5 .if6) 1 5 i.e3 ±±, or 1 3 . . .
ending of that note, or the play lt:lf5 14 d5 etc. Perhaps 1 3 . . . 'W'b6,
which follows: yet 14 lt:l a4 ( or 14 'it'a 3!?) 14 . . .
10 ed d5 'i!Yxb3 1 5 a b with the idea lt:lb6/ lt:lc5
10 . . . d6 ! ? I I d5 e5 1 2 b3 e4!? is not so easy . After 1 5 . . . lLl c6, 1 6
13 i.b2 f5 1 4 'i!Yd2 h6 1 5 lt:lb5 !? i.f4! renews the threat.
( 1 5 llae I with the idea f3 is t) 15 . . . b) 12 ... lt:lb6 13 lild l is similar,
.ixb2 1 6 'i!Yxb2 a6 1 7 lt:ld4 g5 1 8 e.g. 13 . . . i.xd4 1 4 i.h6 lle8 1 5 a4!
f3 t Doda-Fischer, Havana 1 965. with the idea 15 . . . a S 16 lild4 f6
11 cd lt:lxd5 1 7 lil xd4 ! or 1 5 . . . e5 1 6 a5 i.e6
I I . . . ed?! is worse after either 17 'i!Yb4.
1 2 .ig5! or 1 2 .ie3 and 13 'i!Yb3 etc. c) 12 ... 'i!Yb6 13 lt:lxd5!? ed 14 i.e3
12 'i!Yb3! (28) .ie6 1 5 ll ac l llac8 16 i. xd5 i.xd5
Creating the most problems for 17 'it'xd5 lilcd8 18 'i!Yc5 i.xd4 1 9
Black. 1 2 lt:lxd5 ed 1 3 .ie3 i.e6 = 1Wxb6 i.xb6 20 i.xb6 a b 2 1 llfd I
or here 1 3 'i!t'b3 i.e6! 14 'i!t'xb7 t Kest1er-Pavlov, Bucharest 1 976.
 5 e4 and 5 e3 31

d) 1 2 ... .txd4 (!) is the most critical, 1 8 't!Vc3+ 1!t'f6 1 9 1!t'xf6+ ct>xf6 20
e.g. 13 .th6 ( ! ) lle8? 14 llad l .txc3 llc7 lla5! and if 2 1 .txb7, 2 1 . . .
15 be 'ti'b6 1 6 'ti'c4 't!rc6 17 'ti'e2! b5 .te6 =.
18 .tg5 .tb 7 19 'ti'e5 llac8 20 11 fe I !
.ta8 (now the pawn can't be taken Conclusion. This last line, with
- if 20 . . . 11t'xc3 then 21 'ti'xc3 and 22 5 e3 e6 6 lLlge2 lLlge7, remains the
.txd5) 2 1 h4 't!rc5 (21 . . . 't!rxc3? 22 most serious drawback to using 5 e3
lld5 ! ) 22 .txd5! .txd5 23 .th6 f6 as a winning weapon. Andersson's
24 'ti'xf6 llc7 25 .te3 'ife7 26 'ife5 order with 7 d4 ( ! ), howjv er, gives
:±± Cardoso-Torre, Manila 1973. White some hope of m � ing Black
13 . . . .tg7 ! is better. After 14 suffer for such unimaginative play .
.txg7 ct>xg7 White should try for The endings in that line are defen­
a small edge by 1 5 ll fd l 11t'b6 1 6 sible, but slightly better for White.
lLl xd5 1!t'xb3 1 7 ab ed 1 8 ll xd5 ! a6 Otherwise, 7 lLlf4 is the best bet to
1 9 b4 t Smyslov-Petrosian, U SSR keep the pieces on and try for a
Ch 1 974. A similar but probably specific advantage later on.
less desirable line (for White) goes As regards the other replies to
1 3 lLlxd5!? ed 1 4 .th6 .tg7 ( 1 4 . . . 5 e3, 5 . . . lLlf6 is inferior because
lle8 1 5 llad 1 ;;!;) 1 5 .txg7 ct>xg7 it cedes a central advantage, and
1 6 .txd5, Andersson-Gheorghiu, 5 . . . e5 is a viable and complex
Moscow 1 98 1 . B lack found 16 . . . system offering chances for both
a 5 ! 1 7 llac l ( 1 7 llfd 1 !?) 1 7 . . . a4 sides.
3 5 �f3 �f6 (with . . . d5 lines)

In this chapter we look at assorted 5 . . . g6 6 i.g2 i.g7 7 lt:lxd5 'tWxd5

ideas in the Pure S ymmetrical with 8 d3 lt:lc6 is ' B ' below, and here 7
lt:lf3, mainly involving . . . d5 ideas 'tWa4+!? lt:lc6 8 1rc4 lt:ldb4 9 0-0
by Black. The first of these is: 'tWaS is equal.
A I c4 c5 2 lt:lc3 lt:lf6 3 lt:lf3 d5 4 cd 6 i. g2
lt:lxd5 5 g3 a) 6 'i!t'b3?! lt:lc7 + (or 6 . . . e6) is a
Moves other than 5 g3 in this good version of the Rubinstein
position are dealt with in Chapter System - Chapter 6.
8. Also, the few lines where Black b) 6 lt:lxd5(?!) (this can always be
plays . . . d5 and . . . g6 withou t . . . played later, u nless White is afraid
lt:lc6 are i n Chapter 8, line D . of 6 .ig2 lt:lc7, again Chapter 6)
The next two sections introduce 6 . . . 'tWxd5 7 .ig2 e5 (7 . . . g6 is 'B'
I c4 c5 2 lt:lc3 lt:l c6 3 g3 g6 4 i.g2 below) 8 d3 (8 0-0 .ie7 9 e3?! e4!
i.g7 5 lt:lf3 lt:lf6: 1 0 lt:lei i.f5 II 'i!t'a4 'tWe6 ! 12 d3
B 6 0-0 d5 .ig4! 13 'tWc2 lt:l b4 + Ree-Smej kal,
C 6 d4 and 6 0-0 0-0, I ntroduction Amsterdam 1 975) 8 ... 'tWd7 ( inten­
A ding . . . i.d6, . . . 'i!t'e7) 9 0-0 i.d6
1 c4 c5 10 i.e3 ( 10 lLld2! =) 10 . . . 0-0 II
2 lt:lc3 lt:lf6 lil c l 'tWe7 12 ltld2 .id7 13 lt:l e4 b6
3 lt:lf3 d5 I4 lt:l xd6 'tWxd6 + A.Schneider­
4 cd lt:l xd5 Portisch, H ungary 1 984.
5 g3 lt:lc6 (29) 6 g6 (30)

29 JO
w w
 5 lbf3 lbf6 (with ... d5 lines) 33

H ere 6 . . . e5? 7 ltl xe5! ltl xc3 8 8 1t'c2 i.g4! or 8 't!t'h4 i.g7 9 d3 h6
i.xc6+ be 9 de 1t'c7 10 1t'a4! is or 8 't!t'b5 ltld7 9 d3 ..tg7 1 0 i.e3
a blunder, and 6 . . . ltlxc3 7 be lt:ld4. Instead, practice has seen
g6 transposes to a Griinfeld-like 7 . . . i.g7 8 ltlg5 ! ? (8 't!t'b5 ltldb4
position which is discussed in my 9 0-0 't!t'a5 ! =; 8 't!t'c4 ltldb4 9 0-0
English II. 't!t'a5 1 0 ltle4 1t'a6! I I Wxc5 b6 1 2
7 d3 'i!t'e3 0-0!- 12 . . . lbc2 13 lbd6+ -

a) 7 0-0 i.g7 is ' B ' below. 1 3 ltl e l i.e6 1 4 ltlc3 ll ac8 1 5

b) 7 d4!? i.g7 8 0-0 ltl xc3 (8 ... cd i.xc6 ltlxc6 1 6 d 3 lLl b4 1 7 i.d2 b5!
9 ltl xd4 ltlxd4 1 0 ltlxd5 i.g4!? or =F K aiszauri-Georgadze, Tbilisi
1 0 . . . i.e6; 8 . . . ltl xc3 9 be 0-0 is a 1 977) 8 . . . e6 9 ltlge4 ltlb6! 10 tt'b5
Griinfeld Defence) 9 be cd 1 0 cd c4 I I ltla4 0-0 1 2 ltlxb6 ab 13 't!t'xc4
ltl xd4 I I ltl xd4 1t'xd4 1 2 llb I e5 14 't!t'c2 ltld4 1 5 Wb l f5 1 6 ltlc3
(possibly 1 2 1t'xd4 i.xd4 1 3 ll b l e4 (or 16 . . . i.e6 intending . . . i.b3
is more accurate, e.g. 1 3 . . . i.b6 Karpov) with a strong initiative,
14 i.h6) 1 2 . . . 0-0 13 i.e3 tt'c4! Tatai-Karpov, Las Palmas 1 977.
1 4 1t'd2 i.e6 1 5 llxb7 llad8 = 7 i.g7
Ribli-Andersson, Wijk aan Zee 8 i.d2
1 983. 8 ltl xd5 transposes to 'B'.
c) 7 ltlgS e6! ; see 7 0-0 i.g7 8
= 8 0-0!?
ltlg5 e6 below. 7 ltlg5 ltlb6 8 d3 Perhaps more accurate is 8 . . .
ltld7 9 0-0 ..tg7 = Djuric-Bertok, e6 ( ! ) 9 't!t'c l b 6 1 0 i. h 6 0-0 I I h4
Yugoslavia 1 97 8 . f6 ! 1 2 0-0 i. b7 1 3 i.xg7 �xg7 1 4
d) 7 1t'b3? ltldb4! ( o r 7 . . . ltlb6! tt'd2 e5 1 5 e3 ltlc7! 1 6 ll fd l lt:le6 +
8 ltle4 e5! 9 d3 9 d4?! c4! 9 . . .
- - (central bind) Ptleger-Sigurjonsson,
.i. e6 1 0 tt'd 1 f6 + Szabo-Miles, M unich 1 979.
Hastings 1 973-74; 7 . . . ltlc7?! 8 9 tt'cl (31)
ltlg5 ! e6 9 i.xc6+ be 10 d3 ;!;; 7 . . .
e6!? 8 d3 ..tg7 9 i.g5! and 9 . . . ltld4? 31
1 0 1t'xd5 ! ! or 9 . . . tt'b6 1 0 tt'xb6 ab 8

I I i.d2 ;!; Uhlmann) 8 ltle4!? (8 a3

ltla5 9 1t'd I lLl bc6 10 d3 i.e6 I I
ltld2 0-0 +; 8 d3 i.g7) 8 . . . i.g7 9
ltl xc5 1t'a5 1 0 lt:le4 i.f5 1 1 ltl fg5
0-0 1 2 e3 h6 1 3 ltlh3 i.e6! H
planning . . . i.c4, Webb-Miles,
England 1 975.
e) 7 't!t'a4 ltlb6 ( ! ) looks good, e.g.
34 5 ltJj3 ltJf6 (with . . d5 lines)
.

9 0-0 b6 and now 1 0 ltJxd5 'tlt'xd5

I I .tc3 i.b7!, or 10 'iWa4 i.b7 I I
32
ltJxd5 'it'xd5 1 2 ltJg5 'it'd7 1 3 .tc3 w
h6 = Spiridonov-Bukic, Bajmok
1 980, or 1 0 lii: b l i.b7 I I a3 e6 1 2
'iWa4, K arlsson-Vadasz, Ere van
1 980, when 12 . . . a6 or 12 . . . ltJd4 is
equal.
9 b6
Good seems 9 . . . ltJc7 ! , e.g. 1 0
i.h6 ltJe6 I I h 4 f6! intending . . .
ltJed4. 9 . . . ltJxc3 1 0 be c4!? I I d4
e5 =, I vkov-M iles, Amsterdam 8 ltJ xd5
1 976, is also playable, or here 1 0 This time White has some mter­
. . . e 5 I I 0-0 c4!? 1 2 d e ltJa5 1 3 c5, esting options:
Uhlmann-Smej kal, Vrbas 1 977, a) 8 d3!? sacrifices the c-pawn for
and now best is 13 . . . 'iWc7! 14 i.e3 the sake of quick development and
i.e6! . open lines, e.g. 8 ... ltJxc3 9 be .txc3
1 0 .th6 .tb7!? 10 ll b i i.g7 ( 1 0 . . . 0-0 I I i. h6 or
Better is 10 . . . e6! - see Pfleger­ I I 't!t'a4!?) I I 'it'c2 't!t'd6 12 i.e3 b6
Sigurjonsson above. After 10 . . . ( 1 2 . . . ltJd4 1 3 ltJxd4 cd 14 i.f4) 1 3
.tb7!? Uhlmann-Aiburt, Bucharest i.f4 't!t'd7 I 4 d4! ;t ( J 4 . . . cd I 5 ltJe5)
1 978, continued I I h4 ltJf6 12 h 5 ! Speelman-A dy, London I 985.
ltJd4 1 3 h g ltJxf3+ 1 4 .txf3 .txh6 ! The problem with 8 d3 is that
1 5 'iWxh6 i.xf3 1 6 ef fg oo. after 8 . . . 0-0! White must transpose
Altogether a good line for Black, by e ither 9 ltJxd5 or 9 i.d2.
barring White's transposition to b) 8 't!t'a4 ltJ b6! looks good, but
'B'. 8 . . . 0-0 9 't!t'c4 is less clear, e.g. 9 . . .
8 ltJxc3 10 dd!i'b6 ( 1 0 ... b6?! I I ltJg5!
1 c4 c5 2 ltJc3 ltJ c6 3 g3 g6 4 i.g2 i.b7? I2 ltJe6! Uhlmann) I I 't!t'h4!?
.tg7 5 lfjf3 ltJf6 6 0-0: lle8 I 2 lii: b i ltJe5!? I 3 ltJxe5 .txe5
6 d5 1 4 b4 cb I 5 i.e3 'iWa6 16 'tlt'xb4 :t
7 cd Uhlmann.
I f 7 d3 then Black simply plays c) 8 'tlt'b3 e6 (8 . . . ltJc7?! 9 ltJg5 ! 0-0
7 ... (}.0 and there is nothing better 1 0 .txc6 :t, but 8 . . . ltJdb4? with the
than 8 cd, transposing to another idea 9 a3 ltJ a5 or 8 . . . ltJb6 9 'tlt'b5
line. ltJd7 looks reasonable) 9 'ilt'c4?
7 ltJ xd5 (32) (9 'irb5 .b6 =; 9 d 3 0-0 1 0 .tg5
 5 l0j3 l0/6 (with . . . d5 lines) 35

l0d4! I I l0xd4 't!t'xg5 Hi.ibner­

33
=

van der Wiel, Wijk aan Zee 1 984) w

9 . . . b6 10 d3 0-0 I I .ig5 't!t'd7 (or
I I . . . f6 +) 1 2 llac l .ib7 1 3 't!t'h4
l0de7! 1 4 g4 f6 1 5 .id2 e5 was
=F in G.Garcia- Dzindzihashvili,
Wij k aan Zee 1 979.
d) 8 lOgS e6 9 l0 ge4 (9 d3!? 0-0!
10 l0xd5 ed I I lt:lh3 =) 9 . . . b6 I 0
't!t'a4 .id7 ( 1 0 . . . .ib7 !? gives up a
pawn after 1 1 lt:lxd5 ed 1 2 l0c3, 10 .i e3 ( ! )
but 12 ... 't!t'd7 13 l0xd5 0-0-0 14 Played al most exclusively now.
l0c3 lithe8 1 5 litb l l0d4! 1 6 't!t'xa7 Others:
.ixg2 1 7 't!t'xd7+ ll xd7 1 8 \!lxg2 a) 10 .tr4 't!t'd7 I I 't!t'c2 e5 12 .ie3
l!Jxe2 sufficed for an eventual draw b6 =.
in Romanishin-Ligterink, Wijk aan b) 10 t!t'a4!? 't!t'h5 ! I I .ie3 .id7 1 2
Zee 1 985) I I l0xd5 ( I I l0d6+ 'i!le7 llac l b 6 1 3 b4!? l0 e 5 1 4 't!t'd l cb
12 l0xd5+ ed 13 l0xf7 l0e5 ! ) I I . . . 15 l!Jxe5 .ixe5 16 .ixa8 llxa8 ==/m
e d 1 2 l0 c3 l0e7 + (centre) Browne­ Estevez-Uhlmann, Leningrad IZ
Miles, Lanzarote 1 977. 1973.
8 't!t'xd5 c) 1 0 a3 is rather weak, but impor­
9 d3 0-0 (33) tant due to other move orders, e.g.
a) 9 ... .id7 may also transpose, 5 l0f3 l0f6 6 0-0 0-0 7 a3 d5 8 cd
but W hite ca n also try ( e.g.) 1 0 l0xd5 9 l0xd5 etc:
.if4!? 't!t'e6 ( 1 0 . . . 'it'f5!? I I e4 't!t'f6 c l ) 10 ... b6 I I litb l ( I I d4!? cd 1 2
1 2 e5 't!t'f5 1 3 d4) I I lOgS 't!t'f5 1 2 .ie3 't!t'h5 1 3 l0xd4 l0 xd4 1 4 .ixd4
't!t'b3 ! with the idea .ih3 ( 1 2 . . . - 14 .ixa8 l0xa2+ and 15 . . . .ig4 -
l0d4 1 3 't!t'xb7). 14 . . . llb8 ==) I I . . . .ib7 1 2 .ie3
b) 9 ... 't!t'd6?! 10 .ie3 (or 1 0 .if4 e5 ( 1 2 b4 't!t'a2! 1 3 't!t'b3 ! =, rather
I I .ie3; 10 l0d2!? b5 I I l0c4 't!t'c7 than 1 3 .ie3 l0d4 + Ribli-Miles,
1 2 a4 .ib7 1 3 .ie3 - intending a5 - Amsterdam 1 978) 12 . . . l0d4! with
1 3 . . . l0d4 14 .ixb7 't!t'xb7 1 5 ll b l the idea 1 3 b4 cb 14 ab llfc8.
with the idea b4) 1 0 . . . .ixb2!? ( 1 0 c2 ) 10 ... 't!t'h5!? I I lirb l .ih3 (or
. . . 0-0 is note 'b' to 1 0 . . . .id7) I I I I . . . .if5 =) 12 .ie3 .ixg2 13
lit b l .ig7 ( I I . . . .id4 1 2 l0 xd4 cd �xg2 't!t'd5 ! 14 't!t'c2 b6 Larsen­
=

1 3 .if4 e5 14 .ih6 t Chess Player) Bukic, Portoroz 1 977.

1 2 ..-c2! l0d4 1 3 l0 xd4 cd 1 4 .if4 c3) 10 ... .id7 I I lLlg5 't!lf5 !12-!12
e5 1 5 .id2 t. Lein-Zu ckerman, US Ch 1 977;
36 5 liJj3 liJf6 (with . . . d5 lines)

1 2 .ih3 'ti'd5 1 3 .ig2 'ti'f5 etc. 12 . . . 'ti'd7 1 3 .ixc5 liJ d4 ( 1 3 . . . b6!?

c4) 10 ... 'ti'd6 I I l:lb l .if5 !? (or 14 .ixb6 liJd4) 1 4 'ti'd I liJxf3+?
I I ... .ie6 =, or even I I ... c4 !? ( 1 4 . . . liJe6 1 5 .ie3 ll b8 1 6 d4 !
with the idea 1 2 dc 'i!t'xd l l 3 llxd l Tal-Pytel, Tallinn 1 973) 1 5 .ixf3
.if5 1 4 l:l a l liJa5 "=/oo" ECO) l:lb8 16 .ixa7 ± Tal-Pribyl, Tallinn
1 2 .ie3 l:l ac8 13 'ti'a4 b6 1 4 lit fc I 1 973. Or 1 2 . . . 'it'd6!?, when 1 3
.ie6 = Notaros-Lein, 1 973. liJd2 liJd4 1 4 .ixd4 .ixd4 1 5
10 .id 7 .ixb7 i s critical. O r finally 1 2 . . .
This solid defence has taken liJb4 1 3 a3 ( 1 3 lldc l .id7 1 4 'it'd l
over from: ± Jansa, but then 1 4 . . . b6!? is
a) 10 ... 'i!t'h5? I I llc l liJd4 12 b4! in teresting) 1 3 . . . liJ a2 14 liJg5!
± Pirc-Jovanovi c, Yugoslav Ch liJc6 ( 1 4 ... 'i!t'e5 15 lt:J e4 ±) 1 5
1 963. .ixd5 lt:Jxa4 1 6 lt:Je4, Jansa-Pribyl,
b) 1 0 ... 'it'd6!? I I l:l c i liJd4 ( 1 1 . . . Luhacovice 1 973, and now instead
b6? 1 2 d4; I I . . . .ixb2 1 2 ll xc5 of 16 . . . .id4 1 7 .ixb7 ±, Jansa
.ig7 13 'it'b3! ;t:) 1 2 liJxd4 ! ( 1 2 liJd2 gives 16 . . . lt:Jb6 17 lt:Jxf6+ t; after
.ig4! 13 l:l e l 'it'b6 1 4 liJc4 'it'a6 1 7 . . . gf 1 8 .if3 White stands very
=/oo R ind-Chandler, New York well.
1 979) 12 . . . cd ( 1 2 . . . .i xd4!? pre­ ll lt:Jd4 !
vents the g7 bishop from becoming The most promising. Aside from
bad, but then either 1 3 'it'c2!? .ixe3 relatively pointless moves such as
1 4 fe 'it'e6 1 5 'it'xc5 'it'xa2 1 6 .id5 I I 'it'c2?! b6 1 2 a3 l:lac8 1 3 lt:Jd2
'it'xb2 1 7 'it'xe7 ±, or 1 3 .if4, e.g. lt:Jd4 + Doda-Markovsky, Polanica
13 ... 'i!t'a6 1 4 'i!t'b3 .ie6 15 .ixb7! ) Zdroj 1 976, or I I llc l ? 'it'xa2 1 2
1 3 .id2 .ig4 ( 1 3 . . . .ie6 1 4 'it'a4 .ixc5 l:lac8 +, or I I lt:Jd2 'it'h5 =
'i!t'b6 1 5 .i b4 ! , e.g. 1 5 . . . l:lfe8 1 6 (or I I . . . 'it'f5 =), White also has:
.ic5! 'i!t'xb2 1 7 llc2 .id7 1 8 ll xb2 a) l l 'i!t'cl !? b6 12 d4 cd 1 3 lt:J xd4
.ixa4 1 9 .ixb7 ±) 14 h3 .ie6 1 5 lt:Jxd4! 14 .ixd5 lt:Jxe2+ 1 5 $>g2
'it'a4 a5 (versus .ib4) 1 6 'it'b5 ! 'ti'e5 lt:J xc l 16 .i xa8 .ixb2 1 7 l:l b l .if6!
1 7 'it'xe5 .ixe5 1 8 'it'c5 .id6 was = Bagi rov-Tu k ma kov, USSR Ch
Palatnik-Timoshchenko, USSR Ch 1 978.
1 973, and now Gufeld gives 1 9 b) l l lt:Jg5 'ti'f5 ( I I . . . "ire5 !? 1 2
l:l xa5 ! ±. .if4 'ti'xb2 oo/+) 1 2 .ih3 'it'd5 1 3
c) 1 0 ... .ixb2!? has never been .ig2 =.
refuted, although B lack doesn't c) ll 'it'd2 'i!t'd6 12 .ih6!? ( 1 2 l:l b l
seem much interested: I I l:l b l .if6! llac8 1 3 a3 ) 1 2 . . . l:l ac8 1 3 a 3 b6
=

(to defend the e-pawn) 1 2 'it'a4, 14 .ixg7 $>xg7 1 5 b4 lt:Jd4 1 6 be

when Black has three choices: ( 1 6 llfc l c4!, Larsen-Miles, London
 5 li:\f3 li:\f6 (with . . . d5 lines) 37

1 977) 1 6 . . . li xeS 17 liJ xd4 'ti'xd4 Now Black has non-trivial prob­
1 8 llad I Y:!- Y2 Geller- Karpov, lems to solve:
Li nares 1 983; 18 . . . i.a4 or 18 . . . a) 16 ... b6 17 '@'a 1 ! 'ti'e6! ( Karpov's
1lfc8 +. suggestion, to improve upon 1 7 . . .
d) 1 1 d4 cd 1 2 li:l xd4 'ti'c4 13 li:lxc6 'ikxa l 1 8 n xa l lifb8 1 9 lii: a 6! �f8?!
( 1 3 'ti'b3 'ti'xb3 14 li:l xb3 i.g4! , - 19 . . . 1lb7 20 1lbxb6 t Karpov -
Kaufman-A iburt, New York 1 979) 20 1lb4 i.eS 2 1 liba4 ± Karpov­
13 . . . i.xc6 14 i.xc6 be ( 14 . . . 1!¥xc6, Ribli, A msterdam 1 980) 18 't!Va6
e.g. I S '@'b3 'ti'a6 or I S lic l 'ti'a6) ( 1 8 't!Va4 !? lHc8 19 ll a l h S ! 20
I S b3 '@'a6 1 6 ll c l 'ti'xa2 1 7 n xc6 1lb4 i.f6 21 'ti'a2 'ikd7 Bagirov­
=

1lfb8 1 8 li c7 i.f8! (or 1 8 . . . i.f6 )

= Mi khalchishin, Tbilisi 1 980) 18 . . .
1 9 i.cS 1ld8 Espig-Smejkal, 't!Vd7 ( 1 8 . . . 1lfc8 1 9 't!Vb7 I vanov,
Leipzig 1 977. presumably with the idea 19 . . .
11 'ti'd6 1lcb8 20 'ti'f3) 1 9 lia l (threatening
12 li:lxc6 i.xc6 1lxb6!) 19 . . . hS 20 1l b4 1l fc8 2 1
13 i.xc6 'ti'xc6 'ti'a4!? ( 2 1 'tWbS l vanov) 2 1 . . . '@'b7
14 net 'ti'e6 ! ( 2 1 . . . 't!Vxa4! Ivanov) 22 h4 i.eS
15 lixc5! 23 'ti'b 3 1lc6 24 d4 t Ivanov­
I S i.xcS b6 (or 1 S . . . 'i!Vxa2 ) = Timman, Lucerne 01 1 982; White
1 6 i.a3 'ti'xa2 1 7 i.xe 7 1lfe8 1 8 eventually won.
i.a3 .ixb2 + Gheorghiu. b) 1 6 . . . a6!? 1 7 lixb7 liab8! 1 8
15 't!Vxa2 1l xe7 1l xb2 1 9 .if4 aS 20 1la7 lile8
1 S . . . .i xb2 1 6 ll bS i.f6 17 'i!Va4 21 e3 1ld2 22 'i!Vc l ! 1lxd3 23 'i!Vc6
;!; Karpov. ;t Ostojic.
16 1lb5! (34) c) 16 ... 'ti'a6 17 lilb4!? (or 17 't!Vb3,
This idea of K arpov's revived forcing 17 ... b6 anyway - Karpov;
White's chances in this line (pre­ then 18 n b4 transposes, but 1 8
viously considered +). i.gS !? '@'b7 1 9 lla l i s possible)
17 . . . b6 18 'ti'b3 1l lb8 19 1la4 'ti'b7
34
20 llfa l a6 2 1 't!fa2 aS 22 lilc l (22
B
d4!? with the idea b4) 22 ... i.eS 23
1lc4 ( " ! " Ostojic, intending 23 . . .
.id6 24 .if4 Ostojic), Ribli­
Ti mman, Tilbu rg 1 980.
It's interesting that Tim man did
not repeat 1 6 . . . 'ti'a6 in his later
game versus I vanov. The general
impression in this variation is that
38 5 ltJf3 ltJf6 (with . . . d5 lines)

Black probably ought to draw, There's nothing wrong with 6 . . .

but White ca n develop pressure d6 o r 6 . . . 0-0, but then Black must
without any significant error by deal with the Yugoslav Ki ng's
his opponent. Indian after 7 d5 . Also , 6 . . . d6 7 de
c de 8 1!fxd8+ is somewhat unclear.
1 c4 c5 2 ltJc3 ltJc6 3 g 3 g6 4 i.g2 7 ltJ xd4 d5!?
i.g 7 5 ltJf3 ltJf6: 7 . . . h5!? 8 h3 doesn't achieve
Now there are two major choices: much, and 7 . . . ltJ xd4 8 1!fxd4 0-0
C l 6 d4 ( !) (8 . . . d6 9 b3! :t ) will transpose after
C2 6 0-0 (other than 6 . . . d5) 9 0-0 (9 b3 d 5 ! ) 9 . . . d6. But here
6 d 3 !? 0-0 (6 . . . d5 7 cd ltJxd5 is 9 i.d2 !? is unique, e .g. 9 . . . d6 1 0
discussed above; 7 ltJd2 !?) 7 i.e3 lii:a c l a 6 I I b3 Ii b 8 1 2 0-0 i.e6
d6 8 h3 i.d7 9 1!fd2 lilb8 I 0 i.h6 ( 1 2 . . . b5 1 3 1!fa 7!) 1 3 'ifd3 etc.
ltJe8 (?) I I h4! i.g4 12 h5! gh 1 3 8 0-0
ltJh4 'ifd7 1 4 i.e4 ltJd4 1 5 0-0-0 8 1!fa4 !? i.d7 ! 9 cd ltJxd5. 8 cd!?
b5 1 6 f3 b4 1 7 ltJb5 ! ltJxe2+ 1 8 ltJxd5 9 ltJxc6 be 1 0 ltJxd5 cd oo,
ot>b I ltJxg3 1 9 fg ltJxe4 20 de 't!fe6 e.g. I I i.xd5 ( I I 1!fxd5 1!fxd5 1 2
2 1 ltJf5! ± Reti-Becker, Vienna i.xd5 Ii b 8 1 3 i.b3 i.h3 ! oo ) I I . . .
1 923. Iib8 1 2 i.c6+ i.d7 1 3 i.xd7+
C1 1!fxd7 14 1!fxd7+ ot>xd7 15 li b !
6 d4 (!) (35) lii: fc8 1 6 ot>d l Ii c 6 ! =/oo.
8 0-0
35
B
8 . . . e6!? 9 cd ltJxd5 I 0 ltJxc6 be
I I 'ifa4 i.d7 1 2 ltJe4 1!fe7 1 3 't!fc4 :t.
9 cd ltJxdS
10 ltJxdS ltJxd4
And now I I i.g5 ! looks danger­
ous, with t he idea I I . . . ltJc6 1 2
ltJxe7+ ltJxe7 1 3 't!fxd8 lii: x d8 1 4
i.xe7 (;!;) 1 4 . . . Iie8 1 5 i.a3 Ii xe2
1 6 Iiae l , or I I ... Iie8 1 2 e3 ltJc6
I f nothing else, this tends to get 13 ltJxe7+! ±, or I I . . . f6 1 2 1!fxd4
into the next chapter without allow­ fg 13 't!fe3 e6 14 ltJc3 ±.
ing 6 0-0 d5, as above, which seems It's surprising that 6 d4 has
satisfactory for Black. On top of seldom been employed.
that, 6 d4 has several original fea- C2
tures. 6 0-0 0-0
6 cd 6 . . . d6 7 d4 cd 8 ltJxd4 i.d7 is
 5 lt:\j3 lLlf6 (with . . . d5 lines) 39

passive: 9 lLlc2 ! 0-0 I 0 b3 a6 ( 1 0 . . . worth a try.

tt'a5 I I .td2 tt'h 5 1 2 f3 t ) I I .tb2 b) 7 ... a6 8 .tf4 (8 .te3!? d6 9 h3)
Il.b8 1 2 lLld5 ± Bozic-Pete, corres 8 . . . d6 9 't!i'd2 I:. b8 1 0 .th6 b5 =
1 965; or 9 b3 0-0 I 0 .tb2, e.g. 10 . . . Larsen-H tibner, Tilburg 1 978.
lLlxd4 I I 11t'xd4 .tc6 1 2 'it'd2 1t'a5 8 lilb l lilb8
13 lil fd l ;!:: Hansen-Larsen, Gausdal 8 . . . 'it'd7 !? 9 a3 b6 Romanovsky.
1 985. 9 a3 a6
7 d3 I 0 b4 cb I I ab b5 12 cb ab 13 d4
An alternative to 7 d4 ( !}, and to .tf5 ( 1 3 ... d5!? is risky due to 1 4
the harmless 7 a3, when 7 ... d5 ! lLle5 ! lLlxe5 1 5 d e lLlg4 1 6 lLlxd5 e6
8 cd lLl xd5 is discussed above, and - 1 6 . . . lLlxe5 1 7 .tg5 - 1 7 lLlf6+ !)
7 ... d6 8 lil b l lLle8 with the idea 1 4 lilb3 lLle4 15 lLl xe4 .txe4 1 6 d5
9 b4 .tf5 ! 10 e4 .tg4 = (Giigoric ; .txf3 I 7 ef lLle5 1 8 f4 lLlc4 19 f5!
o r here 8 . . . .tf5 =) is another solu- lila8 ( 1 9 . . . gf 20 g4 ! Keene) 20 fg
tion. hg 2 1 h4 ! lil a ! 22 h5 (=/oo) Stein­
7 d6 Filip, Moscow 1 967.
a) 7 ... dS 8 cd is ' B ' above. H ere
8 lLld2 ( ! ) would be more lively: Conclusion. The main lessons of
8 ... d4 9 lLla4 't!i'a5 (9 . . . lt:\d7 1 0 this chapter are that the early . . .
lLlb3) 1 0 a3 .td7 I I b4! ; or 8 . . . de lLlf6 a n d . . . d 5 lines o f the Pure
9 lLl xc4 (9 .txc6 !?) 9 . . . .td7 10 a4 ! Symmetrical tend to be satisfactory
with the idea a5; or 8 . . . e6 9 lLlb3 for Black . If White is forced into
b6 I 0 .tg5 lLle7 I I 1!i'd2; or finally them, he should exchange on d5
8 ... .te6 9 lLlb3 b6 10 .tg5 intending (line B); still better, he should
I 0 . . . de I I .txc6 lilc8 1 2 .tb7 lilc7 avoid all that by 6 d4. The . . . d5
13 .ta6! cb 1 4 .tf4 lild7 1 5 .tb5 lines are thus a problem in such
Il.d4 16 e3 lil b4 17 a3 etc. Of course cases as those in 'A' above, where
Black is n ot so badl y off, but this is White pla ys an early lLlf3.
4 5 lbf3 lbf6 with 7 d4

1 c4 cS There are several reasons for this,

2 li:lc3 li:l c6 including the development of other,
3 g3 g6 more dynamic I . . . c5 lines. Further­
4 i.g2 i. g7 more , al though it was popular at
5 li:lf3 li:lf6 the time of the last edition, this
6 0-0 6-0 whole mode of defence was already
7 d4 cd beginning to look shaky from a
7 . . . d5!? 8 de de 9 Wa4 't!t'a5 1 0 theoretical point of view. That
't!t'xc4 i. e6 I I 't!Yh4 'ti'xc5 1 2 li:lg5 impression has been confirmed in
;t (Taimanov). 7 . . . d6 is a King's many lines which I have now rele­
Indian Defence, Yugoslav Vari- gated to notes.
at ion. A 8 . . . 'ti'a5
8 li:lxd4 (36) B 8 . . . li:lg4
C 8 . . . li:lxd4
36 The alternatives seem insufficient:
B a) 8 'ti'b6?! 9 li:lc2 (or 9 e3 e6 1 0
...

b3 .i d 7 I I i. b 2 li ac8 1 2 'ti'd2 ;!;

with the idea 1 3 li:lde2, Foguelman­
Saadi, Argentina 1 959; or 9 li:ldb5 !?
Mecking; or, finally, 9 li:lb3!?, but
then 9 'ti'b4! is ' A' below) 9 d6
0 0 . 0 0 0

10 b3 .ie6 ( 1 0 li:le6 I I h3 i.e6

0 0 .

12 i.e3 Wc7 1 3 li:ld4 i.d7 14 li:ld5

± Gheorghiu-Buza, Romania 1969)
This was at one time one of the I I li:ld5 ( I I e4 ;t; I I .ie3 Wa5 1 2
very rnuin lines of the English (note .id2 'ti'h5 1 3 e4 ;t) I I .ixd5 1 2
000

for e xample its position in ECO as cd li:le5 1 3 i.e3 Wa6 1 4 a 4 ll:fc8

the culminating line for I . . . c5). 15 li:la3 t Keene-Littlewood, H am­
Remarkabl y, it has practically dis­ mersmith 1 97 1 .
appeared from high-level practice b ) 8 a6?! 9 e3 (or 9 li:lc2 d6 1 0 b3
...

in a few short years, without any 'ti'a5 I I li:ld5 ! t; or even 9 li:lxc6 !?

maj or discoveries in the meantime. de 9- be 10 c5
0 0 0 10 'ti'b3 'ti'c7
-
 5 llJf3 ll:Jf6 with 7 d4 41

I I i.f4 e5 1 2 .ie3 .ie6 1 3 a4 t ll:Jd5! was advantageous.

Ortega-Palhares, Graz 1 978) 9 . . . c3) 9 ll:Jxc6!? be 10 i.xc6 lilb8 ( 1 0
"f!/c7 I 0 b 3 llb8 ( 1 0 . . . e5?! I I . . . i.h3!? 1 1 .ixa8 't!t'xa8 1 2 f3 i.xfl
ll:Jde2 d6 1 2 i.a3 ± Ti mman­ 1 3 �xfl llc8 14 "f!/d3 "f!/b7 ! - 14 . . .
Andersson, Biel 1 98 1 ) I I a4 d6 t!Vc6 1 5 .i e3! - 1 5 lil b l ll:Jd7 1 6 b3
12 .ib2 t Sakharov-Popov, K iev ll:Je5?! 17 'it'd5 'it'd7 1 8 ll:Je4 ±
1 964. Vukic-Nemet, Vi nkovci 1 977; 1 6
c) 8 ... d6!? (3 7) is a chal lenging . . . i.xc 3 ! 1 7 "f!/xc3 d 5 1 8 .ib2 f6
gambit: Vu kic, but 1 9 't!t'e3 t) I I i.g2 'it'a5
and now the main line has been
37 12 ll:Jb5 .ib7 ( 1 2 . . . .td7 1 3 .td2
w 't!t'b6! 1 4 .tc3 .txb5 1 5 cb 'it'xb5
16 tib2 ;!; Hansen-Hick!, Kiljava
1 984) 1 3 .txb7 llxb7, and after
14 .td 2 't!t'a6 ( ! ) 1 5 .tc3 ll fc8 1 6 a4
Black has 1 6 . . . ll xc4 with reason­
able play. The variation 1 2 't!t'c2
.ie6 1 3 b3 llfc8?! 1 4 .id2 't!t'h 5 1 5
e 4 ll:Jg4 1 6 h 3 ll:Je5 1 7 't!t'd 1 ! .txh3
18 'it'xh5 ;!; of Espig-Markland,
c I ) 9 .ixc6!? be 10 ll:Jxc6 is untested, Polanica Zdroj 1 973, stands or
e.g. 10 . . . "f!/c7 I I ll:Jd5 ll:Jxd5 1 2 cd falls on 13 . . . d 5 !?, e.g. 14 cd .if5
.ib7 1 3 i.d2 ( 13 .ig5 !?) 1 3 . . . i.xc6 1 5 't!t'd2 .
14 lilc 1 .txb2 (Taimanov) 1 5 ll xc6 A
'it'd7 1 6 'it'c2 i.f6 1 7 lilfc I ; 10 . . . 8 'it'aS
"f!/d7 !? ma y improve. 9 ll:Jc2
c2) 9 ll:Jc2 ( !) is safe, and u ncom­ Also quite promising is 9 e3 (38) :
fortable for Black, who lacks space,
e.g. 9 . . . .ie6 (9 . . . ll:Jd 7 10 i.d2
ll:Jb6 1 1 b3 e6 1 2 a4 ;!; Portisch­
Sax, Hu ngarian Ch 1 97 1 ) 10 b3
(or 10 ll:Jd5 t with the idea 1 0 . . .
'it'd7 I I .ig5; o r 10 ll:Je3) 1 0 . . . 'it'd7
1 1 .ib2 (or I I ll:Jd5 .if5 1 2 i.b2
;!; Petrosian-Smej kal , A msterdam
1 9 73) 1 1 . . . i.h3 1 2 lil b l i.xg2 1 3
�xg2 llfd8 1 4 e4 lilab8 1 5 'it'e2 a6,
K arner-Musil, 1 975, and now 1 6
42 5 !i:Jf3 !i:Jf6 with 7 d4

Now the attempt to win the

c-pawn by 9 . . . 'it'b4 10 'ilre2 !i:Je5 39
fails to l l f4 ltJxc4 12 a3 tfc5 1 3 b4 w

etc, or here 10 ... !i:J a5 1 1 !i:Jd5 t

(or even I I b3 tfxc3 1 2 .i.d2 !).
So in Zilber-Gurgenidze, USS R
1 959, Black tried 9 . . . d6 !? 10 .i.xc6 ( ! )
b e 1 1 !i:J xc6 tf c 7 1 2 !i:J d 5 !i:J x d 5 1 3
cd .i.b7; but 1 4 .i.d2! .i.xb2 1 5 litb I
.i.xc6 1 6 de litab8 1 7 tfa4 litfc8 1 8
.i.b4 ! .i.f6 1 9 .i.a5 won outright.
The most popular move, 9 !i:J b3 , simplify.
i s the worst after 9 . . . tfb4! 1 0 c 5 9 e3
(no o ne has tried m y 1 0 !i:J d 2 d6 I I The daring gambit 9 !i:Jb3 d6
a3 1!t'a5 1 2 h3!? .i.e6 1 3 !i:J d5), and 1 0 !i:Jd5 !? e6 1 1 !i:Je3 !i:Jxe3 1 2 .i.xe3
Black has done well with 1 0 . . . a5, .i.xb2 1 3 ll b l , Gutman-Petrushin,
1 0 ... b6( !) and even with 1 0 ... d6!?, Beltsi 1 977, is suspect, but White
e.g. 1 1 a3 1lt'g4! 1 2 cd litd8 1 3 h 3 did well after 13 . . . .i.g7 14 tfd2
1!t'h5 1 4 e 4 .i.g4! 1 5 h g !i:Jxg4 1 6 1!t'c7 ( 1 4 . . . 1!t'e7) 1 5 ll fd l ( 1 5
lite 1 .i.xc3 1 7 be lit xd6 1 8 !i:Jd2 litfc I !?) 1 5 . . . litd8 ( 1 5 . . . !i:Je5 !)
!i:Jce5 =/ro Kh asin-Kuksov, USSR 16 .i.h6 .i.xh6 17 tfxh6 e5 1 8 .i.d5
1 980. .i.e6 1 9 !i:Jd2! .i.xd5 20 cd ltJa5 2 1
9 d6 !i:Je4 f5 2 2 !i:Jg5 ± .
9 . . . tfh 5 10 !i:J d5 d6 1 1 !i:Jf4 tfa5 9 d6!
1 2 .i.d2 tfd 8 1 3 .i.c3 ("!" £CO) 9 .. . !i:Jge5? 1 0 b3 d6 1 1 .i.b2
Romanishin-van den Berg, Amster­ .i.g4 12 f3 .i.d7 1 3 1!t'd2 t and 9 . . .
dam 1 973. f5? 1 0 !i:J de 2 o r 1 0 c5 are u nsatis­
10 .i.d2 1rh5 factory, but 9 . . . !i:Jh6!? 1 0 b3 ( 10
11 e4! tfxd 1 !i:Jde2 looks best) 10 . . . !i:Jxd4 1 1 ed
Rogoff- Lo mbard, Ha ifa 1 9 70. !i:Jf5 is possible.
I nstead of 12 ll fxd l !i:Jg4 1 3 .te l 10 b3
.i.e6 1 4 f3 !i:Jge 5 1 5 b3 g5 ! =, W hite 1 0 !i:J xc6 be 1 1 .i.xc6 litb8 gives
should have tried 1 2 litaxd 1 ! t, Black compensation, but 10 !i:Jde2
preparing !i:Jd5. is a sound alternative, and even
B 10 .i.xc6!? be I I !i:Jxc6 1!t'd7 12 !i:Jd4
8 !i:Jg4 (39) is of interest.
This is still the best idea apart 10 !i:Jxd4
from 8 . . . !i:J xd4. Black aims to 1 0 . . . .i.d7?! I I .i.b2 litb8 12 !i:Jd5 !.
 5 �j] �/6 with 7 d4 43

Gufeld-Dvoiris, Sochi 198 1 . 1 0 9 't!i'xd4 d6 (41)

. . . � h6?! I I � de2! 't!i'a5 1 2 i.d 2 9 . . . 't!i'a5? 10 c5 ! 't!i'a6 I I i.f4 ±
�f5 1 3 �d5 t Weinstein-Cleghorn, Krogius-Kudinov, USSR Team Ch
Lone Pine 1 976. I97 1 .
11 ed �h6 (40)
4/
40 w
w

10 't!i'd3 (42)
12 i. d2 The strength of this move has
My suggestion from the first eclipsed:
edition. 1 2 i.b2 �f5 (a new idea a) 1 0 't!i'd2 Ii:b8 I I b3 a6 (or I I . . .
was 12 . . . a6 ( ! ) 13 lle l Ii: b8 1 4 a4 i.e6 I 2 i.b2 't!i'a5), o r 1 0 . . . .te6( ! )
�f5 1 5 �d5 e6 1 6 �e3 �xe3 1 7 I I .txb7 ll b 8 1 2 i.d5 � x d 5 1 3
ll xe 3 b5 + De Boer-Hartoch , Wijk � x d 5 't!i'd7 I 4 e 4 Ii:fc8 ( 1 4 . . . f5! ?
aan Zee 1 985) 1 3 �d5 ( 1 3 �e2 Bertok) I S 't!i'e2 i.xd5 1 6 cd ( l 6 ed
llb8 ; or 13 d 5 i.d7 1 4 Ii: b l !?
= llb4) 16 . . . 't!i'b5 Korchnoi-Geller,
=

Hartoch) 13 . . . i.d7 ( 1 3 . . . e6 I 4 USSR Ch 1 963.

�e3 �xe3 I S fe t) 1 4 lle l Ii:e8 I S b) 10 b3 d5! I I cd i.e6 !? (or 1 1 . . .
't!i'd2 t Sahovic-Cleghorn, Lone � xd5 1 2 't!i'xd5 .txc3 I 3 i.h6
Pine I 977. 't!i'xd5 = Spassky-Ta l, Moscow
12 �f5 1 967) I 2 't!i'h4 �xd5 1 3 �xd5
I 2 . . . i.xd4 I 3 i.xh6 .txc3 1 4 i.xd5 14 ll b l =.

i.xf8 .txa I 1 5 i.xe7 t. c ) 10 lld1 i.e6 ! I I i.xb7 �g4 ( I l

13 d5 i.d7 . . . llb8 co) 1 2 't!i'f4 lilb8 1 3 i.g2
14 l:.c I a6 1 5 �e4 with advan­ 't!i'c 8 ( 1 3 . . . i.h6 ) 14 �d5 ll e8
=

tage, e .g. 15 . . . b5 (?) 16 c5 de l 7 I S h 3?! �e5 1 6 't!i'h4 't!i'xc4 1 7

�xeS �d6 1 8 Ii:e I lle8 I 9 �e6! � xe7+ <Zi>h8 + Larsen-Tal , match
etc. 1965.
c d ) 1 0 i.d 2!? is logical, and IO . . . a6
8 �xd4 I I b 3 llb8 12 ll c l b5? 13 't!i'a7!
44 5 li:Jj3 li:Jf6 with 7 d4

.i e6 1 4 li:Jd5 ±, or I 0 . . . .ie6 I I li:Jc5 19 l:lce I f5 ! + Bronstein­

'it'd3 ( I I lHd l ! ?) I I . . . li:Jd7 1 2 b3 Kernachevsky, USSR 197 3 .
lib8 1 3 liac l a6, and now 1 4li:Jd5 !
intending 14 . . . b5? 1 5 cb ab 1 6 li:Jb4
was best.
e) 1 0 1!t'h4 has lost its sting, e.g.
1 0 . . . .ie6 I I .ixb7 ( I I .ig5 'it'a5
1 2 li:Jb5!? lhc8 1 3 b3 lic5 ! 14 a3
h6! = Savon-Osnos, Moscow 1 966)
I I . . . lib8 1 2 .if3 'it'a5 1 3 li:Jd 5
( 1 3 li d ! ? lib4 1 4 b3 lixb3 etc
Mikhalchishin) 1 3 . . . .ixd5 1 4 cd
li:Jxd5 1 5 .ixd5 'it'xd5 16 'it'xe7 a5
17 e4 'it'd4 = Mikhalchishin-Gulko,
USSR Ch 1 978. After 1 0 1!t'd3 , Black's most
Also fine is I 0 'it'h4 'it'a5 (or I 0 common tries are:
. . . l:tb8 I I .ih6 'it'a5 =), e.g. I I c 1 10 . . . .if5
.id2 .ie6 1 2 b3 l:tab8 1 3 llac l C2 10 . . . a6
lifc8 = planning ... 'it'd8 , ... a6 etc. a) 10 ... li:Jg4 I I b3 'it'a5 1 2 .id2
f) 1 0 .igS .ie6 !? I I 'it'f4 'it'a5 (or 1!t'h 5 13 h4 li:Je5 14 1!t'e3 1!t'g4 1 5
I I ... l:tc8 12 b3 'it'a5 =) 1 2 l:t ac I liad 1 't!t'd 7 1 6 li:Jd5 1!t'd8 1 7 ..tc3
l:tab8 (or 1 2 . . . l:tac8! 1 3 b3 l:tc7 ± Reshevsky-Zuckerman, US Ch
Fine, or here 13 . . . lic5 !? 14 .ixf6 1967.
.ixf6 1 5 li:Je4 'it'xa 2 ! oo H ulak­ b) 1 0 ... .ie6 I I .ixb7 ( I I .id2
Velimirovic, Yugoslav Ch 1 986) 1!t'd7 12 li:Jd5 !? li:Jxd5 1 3 cd .ig4
1 3 b3 llfc8 1 4 'it'd2 a6 1 5 ..te3, 14 f3 .if5 1 5 e4 .ih3 16 .ixh3
Fischer-Spassky, match 1972, and 'ifxh 3 17 liacl liac8, Smyslov­
here 1 5 ... .id7 and ... b5 was Ch ristiansen, Hastings 1 9 8 1 - 82)
recom mended. 1 1 . . . l:tb8 1 2 .ig2 llc8 ( 1 2 . . . 'it'a5
I t is simpler for Black to play 13 b3 ! li:Jg4!? 14 .id2 'it'h 5 1 5 h3
10 ... h6! I I .id2 ( I I .ixf6?! .ixf6 li:Je5 16 g4!li:Jxd3 1 7 gh ± Uhlmann­
1 2 't!t'd2 .ig7 1 3 l:tfd l lib8! 1 4 c5 Bonsch, East German Ch 1 98 1 ; or
..te6 1 5 cd 'it'xd6 1 6 'ifxd6 ed 1 7 here 13 . . . lixb3 14 ab 'it'xa l 1 5
li xd6 llfc8 =t= Watson-L . Levy, .id2 1!t'a6 1 6 li:Jb5 t Quinteros­
Li ncoln 1 975) I I . . . .ie6 12 'it'd3 Jimenez, Cienfuegos 1972) 1 3 li:Jd5
't!t'd7 (or 12 ... li:Jd7) 13 e4 !? .ih3 li:Jxd 5 14 cd .id 7 1 5 .ig5 !? ( 1 5
14 f4 (14 f3) 14 ... .ixg2 1 5 �xg2 lib ! ! t) 1 5 . . . .ixb2 1 6 liab l ..tf6
'ifc6 1 6 l:tac l e6 17 b3 li:Jd 7 18 1!t'f3 1 7 .ixf6 e f, Kimelfeld-Mu ratov,
 5 liJ./3 ltJf6 with 7 d4 45

USSR 1 973, and now Osnos gives

1 8 'fla6! t. 43

c) 10 ... lii:b8 I I ..ie3 ( I I i.f4!? or w

1 1 llfd l .ie6 1 2 ..if4 is a lso good)

I I . . . b6 ( I I . . . 'fla5 1 2 h3! t with
the idea 12 . . . i.e6 1 3 i.d4 lii:fc8
1 4 b3 a6 1 5 1i'e3 ! ; I I . . . a6 1 2 i.a7 !
lii:a 8 1 3 i.d4; I I . . . i.f5 1 2 'il'd 2 a6
is 'C2' below) 1 2 i.d4 i.b7 1 3 e4
'fld7 1 4 lii:fd l lii:fd8 1 5 a4 t Ribli­
Venalainen, Nice 01 1 974.
d) 1 0 ... 1i'a5 1 1 h3 (or I I ..id21i'h5 This is second to I 0 . . . a6 in
1 2 b3 i.h3 1 3 lii:a c l lii: fd8 1 4 e42; popularity. Black offers a tempo
Smejkal-Hernandez, Banja Luka to block off the g2 bishop, but it's
1 979) I I . . . ..ie6 1 2 i.d2 ltJd7 ( 1 2 a high price to pay.
. . . 1i'a6 1 3 b3 lii: fd8 1 4e4d 5!? 1 5 ed 12 ..id2
..ixd 5 1 6 ..ixd5 lLJxd5 17 ltJxd5 e6 Also quite good is 1 2 b3 and:
1 8 lii:a d I lii: x d5 1 91!i'fH Dorfm an­ a) 1 2 ... a6 13 ..ib2 ltJd7 1 4 1i'd2
Sher, USSR 1 973) 1 3 ltJd5 1i'd8 1 4 ltJc5 1 5 f4! llc8? ( 1 5 . . . f5 1 6 eft)
ltJf4 i.f5 1 5 e4 ltJ c5 1 6 1i'c2 ..id7 16 f5 i.d7 17 f6 ! gf ( 17 . . . .t xf6 1 8
17 i.c3 U± Gu.Garcia-Abreu, lii:x f6 ± ) 1 8 ltJd5 f5 1 9 e f i.xf5
Bayamo 1 98 1 . 20 ..ixg7 �xg7 2 1 1!i'd4+ f6 22 g4
e) 1 0 . . . ltJd7 I I 'it'c2 ( I I b3 ltJc5 ..ie6 23 ltJxf6 ±± Smyslov-Timman,
1 2 1i'd2 a5! 1 3 ..ib2 ..ie6! 1 4ltJd5 - Moscow 1 98 1 .
14 lii:a b1!? - 1 4 . . . i.xb2 1 5 'flxb2 b) 1 2 ... 1Wa5 1 3 i.d2 'flh5 1 4 f3!
llb8 16 lHd l b5 17 cb lii: x b5 1 8 i.h3 1 5 lii:a c I ..ixg2 16 �xg2 f1fd8
llac l ..ixd5 1 9 ..ixd5 1i'b8 = Vukic- 17 f1fd l i.h6 1 8 ltJd5 ± Donner­
Zivkovic, Yugoslavia 1 974) I I . . . Pomar, B runnen 1 966.
ltJc5 1 2 i.g5! h6 1 3 i.e3 i.f5 ( 1 3 . . . c) 12 ... ltJd 7 1 3 i.d2 (or 1 3 i.b2
i.e6 1 4 llfd l 1Wc8 1 5 ltJd5 lle8 1 6 1i'a5 - 13 . . . ltJc5 14 1i'd2 1Wd7 15
..id4 ±) 1 4 'it'd2 �h7 1 5 i.d4 ..ixd4 f1ac1 t Karpov-Diaz. Stockholm
1 6 1!i'xd4 ..id7, Hort-Unzicker, 1969- 1 4 nac l llac8 1 5 f1fd l t)
Venice 1969, and instead of 1 7 ltJd5 13 . . . ltJe5!? 14 'fle2 1!i'd7 15 ltJd5!
i.c6 + Hort gives 17 f4 ± ( 1 7 . . . f5 ltJc6 16 f1ad I i.h3 17 ..ixh3 1i'xh3
1 8 e4) . 18 ..ie3 ± Uhlmann-Mohring,
C1 East Germany 1 982.
10 _ifS 12 ltJd7
11 e4 ..ie6 (43) a) 12 ... a6 1 3 b3 llb8 14 llac l
46 5 &iJfJ &iJf6 with 7 d4

&iJd7 1 5 'ti'e2 &iJc5 ( 1 5 . . . &iJe5 !? 1 6 the idea h4-h 5 Uhlmann) 20 . . .

lil.fd l ..tg4 1 7 f3 ..td7 1 8 ..te3 ± lil.e8 2 1 lil.c4 \!t'a5 2 2 lil. l c 2 e6 2 3 de
Krogius-Tringov, Varna 1 970; but &iJxe6, and now 24 \!t'g4! (threaten­
16 . . . b5 ( ! ) 1 7 cb ab 1 8 &iJxb5 i.g4 ing i.xb4) 24 . . . h5 25 lil.xb4 hg
improves . So 1 6 h3 or even 1 6 f4 26 lil.xb8 is winn ing.
i.g4 I 7 'ti'e3 &iJc6 1 8 �h I was C2
best) 16 &iJd5 ! a5 ( 1 6 . . . b5 17 b4 10 a6 (44)
&iJa4 1 8 c5 ±) 1 7 lil.fd l;!: Rogoff­
44
Zuckerman, US Ch 1 974. w
b) 12 ... 'ti'd7 1 3 b3 (or 1 3 lil.fe l ;!:)
13 0 0 0 a6 14 lil.fe l !? ( 1 4 nac l ! , e .g.
1 4 . . . i.h3 15 lil.fd l ..t xg2 1 6 �xg2
lii:ab 8 1 7 a4 ;t) 14 . . . lil.ab8 1 5 a4
i.h3 ( 1 5 . . . &iJg4 !?) 16 lil.ad I lil.fc8
1 7 i.g5 ;!; Hort-Browne, Rovinj/
Zagreb 1 970.
13 b3 a6
1 3 . . . &iJc5 1 4 'ti'e2 a6 transposes. The key line at the time of the
14 \!t'e2 first edit ion. I ronically, what seem
Or 14 Il.ac l &iJc5 1 5 \!t'c2! Keene. the two best sequences against it
14 &iJc5 remain untested by leading players.
15 lbc1 11 ..te3!?
1 5 Il.fd l 't!Vd7 1 6 lil.ac l lil.ab8 or What I feel is best was shown to
16 . . . i.h3 is less convincing. me in N orway in 1 980 by the ori-
15 b5!? ginator: I I Il.d I ! ..tf5 ( I I . . . &iJd7
15 . . . i.d 7 16 lil.fd l lil.c8 17 i.e3 12 't!Vc2 ! Il.b8 1 3 ..te3; I I . . . Il.b8
't!Ve8 18 &iJd5 U ± Hort-Unzicker, 12 c5 or 1 2 ..te3; on I I . . . 't!Va 5, 1 2
Lugano 01 1 968. h 3 looks easiest) 1 2 '8' f3 ! (45)
16 cb ab
45
1 7 Il.c2!
B
No t I 7 't!Vxb 5?! ..tc8 ! 1 8 't!Vc4
..ta6 1 9 &iJb5 \!t'd7 20 a4 lil.ab8 2 1
li[b I lifc8 + Portisch-Geller, Skopje
1 968.
After 1 7 lil.c2, Smej k al-Popov,
Wij k a an Zee 1 975, continued 1 7
. . . b4 1 8 &iJd5 i.xd 5 1 9 ed lib8 20
lil.fc I !? (20 lil.c4! 'ti'a5 2 1 i.e3 with
 5 lLl j3 lLlf6 with 7 d4 47

This is the point, although 18 ..txd5 ! Furman-Vasyukov,

two recent games have seen 1 2 e4 USSR Ch 1969.
with quick equality for Blac k . 12 i..d4 lLle5
I s it the refutation o f 1 0 . . . a 6 ? 13 'it'd1 llb8
Lauvsnes-Svenn, Oslo 1 980, went 1 3 ... i..e6 14 i.. x b7 llb8 1 5 ..txa6
1 2 . . . llb8 1 3 c5 lLle8 1 4 i.. f4 'W'c8 llab2 1 6 lLld5 t Vukic-Gufe1d,
1 5 cd ed 16 ll xd6 ±, and in Watson­ Yugoslavia v USSR 1 97 5.
Kastner, New Y ork 1 980, Black 14 lLld5 (46)
was equally frustrated following The author's move, giving more
1 2 . . . llc8 1 3 'W' xb7 'W'a5 1 4 'W'xe7 play than (e .g.) 14 c5 i..e6 1 5 Jlc1
llfe8 1 5 'irb7 lLld7 !? 1 6 'ti'd5 (or lle8 = or 14 a4i..e6 15 lLld5 i.. x d5!
16 ll xd6! ±±) 1 6 . . . lLlc5 1 7 i..d 2 1 6 ..txd5 a5 17 b3 lLlc6 = Matera­
±±. Zuckerm an, US Ch 1 977, or 1 4
Since 1 1 l1 d 1 and 1 1 ..te3 are ll c 1 ..te6 1 5 lLld5 ( 1 5 b 3 b 5 ! = ) 1 5
both so effective, I will limit com­ . . . b5 1 6 c b ..txd5 1 7 ..txd5 a b 1 8
ments on 1 1 i.. d 2 to the main line: 'W'd2 e6 1 9 i..g 2 lLlc4 = Tal-Torre,
1 1 . . . llb8 12 ll ac l ( 1 2 e4 !? b5 ! 1 3 Leni ngrad 1973.
ab a b 1 4 lLlxb 5 ..ta6 1 5 a4 'W'e8,
13 c5 b4! 1 4 lLl a4 'ila5 !; best may 46

be 1 2 a4 and 1 2 . . . lLld7 1 3 'it'c2 a5 B

14 llad 1 or 1 2 . . . ..te6 l 3 b3 'W'd7

1 4 a4 �) 1 2 . . . lLld7 ( 1 2 . . . i..f5 !? 1 3
e4 i..d 7 1 4 h3 'irb6 oo) 1 3 b3 ( 1 3
'ti'e3 !?; 1 3 e4 lLle5 1 4 'W'e2 i..g4 ! 1 5
f3 i..e 6 1 6 b3 b5 =) 1 3 . . . lLlc5 1 4
'ti'b 1 b5 1 5 ab a b 1 6 lLld5 i.. b7 =
Uhlmann-Smej kal , Arande1ovac
1 976.
11 lLlg4 Here Black has 14 . . . i..e 6?! 1 5
a ) 11 . .. llb8? 1 2i.. a7 ! ll a8 1 3i..d 4 i.. b6 (or 1 5 lLlb6) 1 5 . . . 'W'd7 1 6
±. llc l , or 1 4 . . . b6 1 5 f4 lLld7 1 6 ..txg7
b) 11 . i.. f5 12 1!rd2 llb8 ( 1 2 . . .
.. �xg7 1 7 'ird4+, or 1 4 . . . b5 1 5 cb
'ti'd7 1 3 i.. d4 ! or 1 3 i..g5 llab8 and now 1 5 . . . llxb5 16 f4 lLld7 1 7
14 llac 1 t with the idea 14 . . . b5 ..txg7 �xg7 1 8 'ild4+ �g8 1 9 b4
15 ab ab 16 i.. xf6 t) 13 Jlac 1 (or and 20 a4 or 1 5 . . . ab 16 lLlb4 or 16
1 3 i..a 7 ! lla8 14 i.. d4) 1 3 . . . b5 1 4 llc l . I n fact, Thomas-Matheson ,
cb a b 1 5 ..ta 7 lla8 ( 1 5 . . . b4 1 6 corres 198 1-83, saw 1 5 . . . a b 1 6
lLla4 ±) 1 6 i..d4 b4 1 7 lLld5 lLl xd 5 lLlb4 i..b 7 1 7 e 4 ( 1 7 i.. xb7 !? i) 1 7
48 5 ti:Jf3 ti:J/6 with 7 d4

. . . ti:Jc6 1 8 i.xg7 't>xg7 1 9 ti:Jxc6 development in this whole line is

i.xc6 20 't!i'd4+ 't>g8 2 1 lHcl 't!i'b6 the possibility of I I lld l (!) after
22 'ii'xb6 l hb6 t. 10 . . . a6. In general, despite its rich
heritage, 5 . . . ti:Jf6 has lost its place
Conclusion. The most i mportant as a maj or defensive syste m.
5 5 ltJf3: Others

1 c4 c5 a6 7 d4, or here 6 . . . e5 7 d4! (inten­

2 lt::lc 3 lt::lc 6 ding lt::l b 5, .tf4 after exchanges).
3 g3 g6 b) 5 ... lt::l h6 is an idea which is
4 .tg2 .tg7 easier to play via 5 . . . d6 6 0-0lt::l h6.
5 lt::lf3 (47) The problem is 5 . . . lt::l h6 6 h4! (6
0-0!? lt::lf 5 7 b3 b6 8 .tb2 .tb7 9 d3
e6 = Huguet-Hort, Las Palmas
1973; 10 ._d2 with the idea l O . . .
d5? I I cd e d 1 2 lbxd5! -.xd5 1 3
lt::lh 4 is met by l O . . . 0-0 a n d o n I I
lt::le4, I I . . . d5!) 6 . . . d6 (6 . . . lt::lf 5
7 h5 e6 8 d 3 d5 9 g4lt::lf d4 1 0 lt::l d2!
and I I e3, or j ust 9 lt::ld 2 is promis­
ing) 7 d3 (48)

48

The lines of the last chapter offer B

Black l ittle in the way of active

counterplay, and tend to leave
Wh ite the advantage. Thus (for
the above move order) this is the
natural place to break the sym­
metry, and almost every leading
player does so. The most attractive
means for this are:
A 5 . . . a6 7 . . . ll b8 (7 . . . .tg4 8 h5! - or 8
B 5 . . . d6 .td2 Euwe - 8 . . . gh 9 lt::l h 2 .td7
C 5 . . . e6 10 .txh6 .txh6 I I e3 ;!;; Black's f8
D 5 . . . e5 bishop is a serious problem; 7 . . .
a) 5 ... llb8 is equivalent to 5 ... a6, .tf5 8 h 5 'tid7 9 .t d2 o r 9 lt::l h4!?­
except that White might try 6 e3!? all Taimanov's analysis) 8 h5 .td7?
50 5 li:Jf3: Others

(8 . . . f6 9 hg hg 1 0 li:Jh4 ;!;" Botvinnik) .te4 ( ! ) = Pirc-Matulovic, Maribor

9 .txh 6! .txh6 1 0 hg hg I I We i ! 1967) I I . . . li:Jf6 12 d3 0-0 1 3 .tf4
.tg7 1 2 lhh 8+ .txh 8 1 3 �6 lir.b6 = (intending . . . d4) Taimanov­
.txc3+ ( 1 3 . . . .tf6 1 4 li:Jg5 ±) 1 4 Averbakh, USSR Ch 1 958 .
be e6, Botvinnik-Giigoric, Moscow I 0 . . . e5 !? is not bad either: I I d4
01 1 956, and here 1 5 �d2 ! with li:Jxd4 (or I I . . . ed 1 2 li:Jd5 i.b7 1 3
the idea 15 . . . 'ife7 16 li:Jg5 ± was .tb2 li:Jf6 1 4 li:Jxd4 0-0 1 5 li:Jxf6+ -
best (Flohr), i nstead of 15 li:Jg5 15 li:Jb5!? - 1 5 . . . i.xf6 1 6 li:Jxc6 be
�e7 t. 17 0-0 .txb2 + Kastner-Gheorghiu,
A New York 19 80) 12 li:Jxd4 ed 1 3
5 a6 li:Je4 d 5 (or 1 3 . . . d 6 1 4 .tb2 ti'b6
The idea is to beat White to the 1 5 e3 ,tb7 1 6 i.xd4 i.xd4 1 7 ti'xd4
punch by enforcing . . . b5 before Wxd4 1 8 ed �d7 = Gheorghiu­
b4 is possible. Jansa, Budapest 1 970) 14 i.f4 de!
6 0-0 !5 .txb8 i.f5 !? ( 1 5 . . . .tb7 ( ! ) ) 1 6
a) The "main line" with 6 a3lir.b8 .ta7 li:Je7 1 7 e3 ! d 3 1 8 g4 .te6 19
7lir.b l b5 8 cb a b 9 b4 cb l 0 ab (49) .txe4 .tc3+ =/ro Despotovic­
is rather d reary, but it often arises: Velimirovic, Yugoslavia 1 984.
Finally, an easy solution is 1 0 . . .
49 d 6 I I 0-0 ( 1 1 d 4 i.g4!) 1 1 . . . i.g4
B ( 1 1 . . . li:lh6 1 2 d4 li:lf5 1 3 d 5 ! !; 1 3
. . . li:lxb4 1 4 i.d2) 1 2 h 3 i.xf3 1 3
i.xf3 \!fd7 1 4 i.g2 e6 1 5 e3 li:lge7
= Shatskes.
b) 6 d3lir.b8 7 0-0 (7 a4 d6 8 i.d2
.td7 =) 7 . . . b 5 !? (7 . . . d6 is safer)
8 cb ab 9 i.e3 ! li:ld4 10 lic1 li:lh6
( 10 . . . d6 I I b4!? Euwe, or 1 1 i.xd4
cd 1 2 li:ld5 e6 1 3li:lb4!) I I b4li:lhf5
Now 1 0 . . . li:Jf6 I I 0-0(}.0 1 2 d4 12 .tf4 li:lxf3+ 1 3 .txf3 e5 14 i.d2
d5 is Chapter 2, line C2, note to cb 15 li:ld5 ;t Polugayevsky-Malich,
7 d3, and 10 . . . li:Jh6?! I I e4 f5 ( I I Bad Liebenstein 1 963.
. . . d6!?) 12 d4! fe 1 3 li:Jxe4 li:Jf5? 6 lir.b8
( 1 3 . . . d 5 ;!;") 14 d5 ± was Timman­ 7 e3 ( ! )
Kostro, Wij k aan Zee 1 97 1 . Untried, b u t I think i t i s best to
Bu t Black has several good alter­ counter Black's flank attack with
natives. The least analysed is 1 0 a central push. In practice, 7 a4
. . . d5 I I 1!t'b3 ( I I d4 .tf5 1 2lir.b3 has been played , e.g. 7 . . . a6 8 d3
 5 lt:lf3: Others 51

(8 e3 lt:l h 6 9 d 3 0- 0 and . . . e5) 8 . . . 8

lt:lf6 9 .id2 0-0 1 0 lii: b l .id7 I I 5 d6
lt:le I lt:le8 = Fo rintos- W.Schmidt, If not used for transpositional
Polanica Zdroj 1 968. purposes, this can be too passive.
Bu t also interesting would be 6 0-0
7 d3 !?, e.g. 7 . . . b5 8 cb ab 9 a4! ba After 6 d 3 , 6 . . . e5 is 'D' below
(9 . . . b4? 1 0 lt:lb5 'i!t'b6 I I d4 !) 1 0 and 6 . . . a6 is ' A'; 6 . . . h 5 !? 7 .id2
'!Wxa4 .ib7 I I .if4 ! lia8 ( I I . . . d6 lt:lh6. 6 a3!? is logical , e.g. 6 . . . lib8
1 2 lt:le5!) 1 2 'i!t'b5 :t; or 7 . . . lt:l f6 8 (6 . . . aS 7 e3!?) 7 b4! b6 ( 7 . . . cb 8 ab
h3!? 0-0 9 .ie3 d6 10 d4 et c. lt:lxb4 9 lixb7 lt:la6 1 0 1!t'b3 ! t) 8
7 b5 0-0 e5 9 lib l lt:l ge 7 10 d3 0-0 1 1
Consistent. 7 . . . e5 (t o stop d4) lt:le 1 .ie6 1 2 lt:l d5 :t Watson-Delva,
might be answered by 8 d4(!) a ny­ Philadelphia 1 980.
way, with the idea .if4, lt:le4/d5 , 6 lt:lh6
a nd/or lie ! after exchanges. 6 . . . lt:l f6 7 d4 is Chapter 4. 6 . . .
8 cb ab .id7 7 e3 1!t'c8 8 d 4 t.
9 d4 b4 7 d4(!)
I 0 lt:le2 A recent idea. Also promising is
1 0 lt:le4!?. 7 b3 0-0 8 .ib2 lib8 9 e3! a6 1 0 1!t'c2
10 cd e5 1 1 liad 1 lt:lfe7 1 2 d4:tYudasin­
II ed (50) Georgadze, Bangalore 1 98 1 . Nor-
mal has been 7 a3 0-0 (or 7 . . . lt:l f5
50 =) 8 li b l lib8 9 b4 lt:l f5 (9 . . . b6) 1 0
B e 3 .id 7 1 1 1!t'e2 e6 1 2 lii:d 1 b6 oo
H ort-Spassky, match 1 977.
7 cd
8 .ixh6 .ixh6
9 lt:lxd4 (5 1)

51
B

I li ke White, e .g. I I . . . lt:lf6 1 2 d5

lt:la5 1 3 lt:lf4 :t, or I I . . . d5 1 2 .if4
lib6 1 3 lt:le5 lt:l xe 5 1 4 de e6 1 5 lt:ld4
:t. intending to overprotect e5 and
(e.g.) push the a-pawn ( 1 5 . . . g5?
1 6 .ie3 ±).
52 5 liJf3: Others

9 �d7 The leading anti-ll:lO system,

"? ! " Andersson; B lack probably due both to its soundness and to
underestimated White's next. But the dynamic chances it offers. Black
9 . . . ll:lxd4 I 0 \!t'xd4 0-0 I I l:Ifd 1 threatens to wrest the central ini­
�g7 12 \!t'e3 or 12 \!t'd2 (Andersson) tiative by playing . . . d5 before
is uncomfortable for B lack. By White has a chance to do the same
a n alogy with the �g5/xf6 systems by d4. 5 ... e6 continues to score
of the Hedgehog (Chapter 1 1 ), well at all levels of international
White can work up a good deal of play, and any player on the White
pressure in the centre; 13 c5 is in side would do well to study its
the air, for one thing. ramifications.
10 e5! de C l 6 0-0
11 ll:lxe6 �xe6 C2 6 d4
12 ..be6 be There are some feeble options
1 3 \!t'e2 here, and one fascinating one:
":j;" Andersson. Andersson-van a) 6 d3 li:lge7 7 �g5!? (7 �f4 d5 -
der Wiel, Wij k a an Zee 1983, con­ 6 0-0) 7 . . . h6 8 �d2 0-0 9 \!t'c 1 rj;h7
tinued 1 3 . . . \!t'd2 1 4 \!t'xd2 ( 1 4 1 0 h4!? d5 I I h5 g 5 =F G rigorian­
li ac 1 Andersson) 14 . . . �xd2 1 5 Furman, USSR 1 972.
ll:le4 0-0-0 1 6 lit ad 1 �h6 ( 1 6 . . . b) 6 b3 ll:lge7 7 �b2 0-0 8 ll:la4!?
�b4 1 7 a3 �a 5 1 8 ll:lxc5 �b6 !) (8 0-0 d5 +) 8 . . . e5 ! 9 0-0 (9 lLl xc5??
1 7 ll:l xe5 lidS 1 8 ll:l d3 rj;c7 1 9 f4 ! e4) 9 . . . d6 1 0 e3 f5 I I d3 ( 1 1 a3 h6!?
�g7 20 lite] lita5 2 1 a3 litb5 22 1 2 b4 cb 13 d4! unclear, Torre­
lic2 lihb8 23 b4 a5 24 l:Ifc l ±. Zuckerman, Cleveland 1 975; but
Simple but effective ! I I . . . a5 ! is+) I I . . . h6 1 2li:le l f4 ( + )
c 1 3 ll:lc2 g5 1 4 lite l �f5 1 5 lilc3
5 e6 (52) 'it'd7 ! (attack) Smyslov- Fischer,
Buenos Aires 1 970.
52 c) 6 h4 h6 (6 . . . d 5 !? 7 h5 li:lge7 8 cd
w ed 9 d3 h6!? - 9 . . . j.g4!? - 1 0 hg fg
I I �d2 g5 1 2 'it'a4 �d7 1 3 0-0 ll:ld4
=/oo Ribli-Sosonko, Amsterdam
1980) 7 b3 (7 d4 !? - cf 6 d4) 7 .. .
ll:lge7 8 �b2 b6?! (8 . . . d 5 ! +, or 8 . . .
0-0) 9 \!t'b 1 ! e5 1 0 liJd5 Ilb8 I I h5
d6? 12 hg fg 1 3 ll:lh4 ± Fedorowicz­
Shamkovich, Hastings 197 7-78.
d) 6 e3 could transpose to 5 e3 after
 5 ltJf3: Others 53

6 . . . li:lge7 7 d4 etc; 6 . . . li:lge7 7 0-0 I 5 ..ixb4 lt::l x b4 I 6 'fJ/xb4 de I 7

li:lf5 !? (7 . . . d5 = or 7 . . . 0-0 8 d4 d6) 't!t'xc4 ..id7 1;2-1;2 Watson-Antunac,
8 b3 0-0 9 ..ib2 l:tb8 (9 d5 =) I O 0 0 0 New York 1 98 1 . I 8 lt::ld4 !? e5 I 9
lba4 ..ixb2 I I li:lxb2 �f6 I 2 lt::la 4 lb b 3 ..ie6 20 � b4 could follo w.
b6 = Kholmov-Suetin, USSR I 970. My first error came in the m ain
e) 6 a3!? is a wild sideline, and also line 7 . . . lt::l x b4 8 ab cb 9 li:le4! (9
the variation with my biggest over­ lt::lb 5 ..ixa I 10 lt::ld6+ 'it>f8 I I �a4
sights from the original volume ! ..if6 +) 9 . . . ..ixa i I O �a4(?) ..ig7
On 6 . . . a5, 7 d4 ( ! ) transposes to I I lt::ld 6+ 'it>f8 1 2lt::lg5? ( 1 2 't!t'xb4!?,
note 'c' of Chapter I , line A . And but I 2 . . . h6 1 3 0-0 a5 14 't!t'a3 'it>g8
the point on 6 . . . lt::lg e7 is 7 b4 !? (53): + with the idea . . . lt::lf5 or . . . lt::l c 6),
Watson-Hjartarson, Lone Pine
53
1 98 1 , and Black refuted the line
B
outright by 12 . . . �b6! 1 3 lt::lg xf7
b3 (or even I 3 . . . llg8 +) I4 ..ia3
b2 1 5 0-0 b i � H with the idea
I6 c5 't!t' I b3!.
Oddly enough, this doesn't quite
finish off the 6 a3, 7 b4 idea, because
I l ater realized that after 9 lt::l e4
..ixa i White could still play 1 0 d4!
Now one line is 7 . . . cb 8 ab li:lxb4 (with the idealt::lf6+ and ..ih6 mate,
9 ..ia3, and 9 . . . lb bc6 IO lbb5 0-0 or ..ig5 etc) and get a whole different
I I ..i d6! lt::lf5 I 2 ..ixf8 ..ixa l I 3 set of complications. This may also
'tlt'xa i thf8 1 4 0-0 b6 ( 1 4 . . . 'tlrg7 be too chancy, but they are posi­
I 5 d4 d5 1 6 g4! lt::l fe7 I 7 lt::lc 7 l::t b 8 tionally better fou nded than in the
I8 lt::l e8 e tc ; I4 ... lb d6!? I5 lt::l c 7 last example, since the black bishop
l::t b 8 I6 c 5 lt::le 8 17 li:lxe8 with pres­ is cut off from the sensitive kingside
sure) 15 g4lt::lg 7 ( 1 5 . . . lt::ld 6 1 6lt::le 5 squares. Probably the most im­
\lre7 I 7 g5! with the idea li:lg4 ), portant line goes 1 0 . . . ..ic 3+ 1 I
Watson-Groth, Oslo I9 80, and 'itff1 0-0! 1 2 ..ig5 f5 ( I 2 0 0 0 f6 !? I 3
i nstead o f I 6 lt::le 5 'fJ/e7 =, I6 g5 ! lt::l xf6+ 'it;>g7 I 4 lt::lg4) I 3 li:ld6! and
was strong, e .g. 1 6 . . . lt::l e 8 I 7 lt::le 5 Black m ust still free himself, e .g.
"t!t'e7 I8 lt::lg 4! �xg5 I 9 li:lc7 ! "t!t'xg4 l 3 ... a5 14 �a4 b3 I 5 �xb3 ..ib4
20 ltJ xe8 'it;>f8 2 1 lt::lf6 �h4 2 2 16 c5 ( I 6 ..if4 1!t'b6! ) I6 . . . b6 ( I 6 . . .
lt::lx d7+ . Here best is probably 9 . . . l::t a6? 1 7 li:lxc8) I 7 li:le5 l::t b 8 I 8 d 5
lbec6 ( ! ) 1 0 'tlt'a4 a5 I I l::tb I l::t b 8 b e ( I 8 . . . .ixc5!? 1 9 lt::l x c8 !? l::t x c8
12 0-0 0- 0 13 li:la2 d5! I4 lt::lxb4 ab 20 de intending 20 . . . de 2I 't!t'xe6+
54 5 liJf3: Others

</;g7 22 liJd7 i.d4 23 e3; or 1 9 de!? 6 . . . d 5 here is also generally

.txd6 20 ed+ </;g7 21 •b2) 19 •c4 ignored. Aside from 7 d3, 7 cd ed
with ideas such as liJxc8 and d6 or 8 d4!? is of some interest, since
•h4 ( 19 ... i.a 3 20 i.f3; 19 . . . i.a6 pawn grabbing by 8 . . . cd 9 lLlb5
20 •xa6 i.c3 21 f4). Admittedly 'irb6 is u nclear after 1 0 liJd6+ </;e7
speculative in the extreme (this I I ltJxc8 llxc8 1 2 e3 ! .
last position, for example, i s very 7 d3
dangerous), this line provides some a) 7 b3 is roughly equivalent to 6 b3,
hope for 6 a3!?. e.g. 7 . .. d5 8 cd ed 9 .tb2 0-0 10
Unfortunately, Black has yet ltJa4 i.xb2 I I lLlxb2 i.g4 1 2 lLld3
another answer to 6 a3 which puts 'tlt'd6 13 lilc I b6 14 h3 i.xf3 15 i.xf3
White's chances for advantage to llad8 + Dake-Schmidt, Lone Pine
the test, viz simply 6 . . . d5. This 1975.
move is as yet untried in several b) 7 e3 transposes to 6 e3 or 5 e3.
6 a3 contests, but seems acceptable. c) 7 lilbl d 5 8 a3!? a5 (8 ... d5 9
A sample line might go 7 cd ( 7 ltJa4 t; 8 . . . de 9 'tlt'a4 t Lysenko,
•a4!?; 7 0-0) 7 . . . ed 8 b4!? ( 8 0-0 although (e.g.) 9 . . . i.d7 ! 1 0 't!rxc4
liJge7 9 d4?, given in the first edition, b6 I I b4 cb 1 2 ab JileS =) 9 d3 h6
falls short after 9 ... ltJxd4! 10 liJxd4 (or 9 . . . 0-0 =) 1 0 i.d2 0-0 I I 't!tc l
cd and on I I lLlb5, I I . .. 'tlt'b6) 8 . . . </;h7 1 2 cd ed = Lysenko-Kogan,
c b ( 8 . . . d4 9 ltJa4) 9 a b d 4 1 0 ltJa4 USS R 1 976.
( 10 ltJe4!?) 10 . . . d3 I I i.b2 i.xb2 d) 7 e4!? 0-0 (or 7 . . . d5) 8 d3 d5 ! 9
1 2 ltJ xb2 de! =. White is perhaps cd? ! ed 1 0 ltJxd5 liJxd5 I I ed 't!t'xd5
better off with simply 8 d3, e.g. 12 .te3 .txb 2! 1 3 liJd4 'tlt'xg2+!?
8 . . . ltJge7 9 i.g5 h6 I 0 i.xe7 ltJxe7 ( 1 3 . . . 'tlt'd6 ) 14 </;xg2 .txd4 =/co
=

I I d4. Compare lines below. Bellon-Adorjan, Lanzarote 1975.

Cl e) 7 d4!? is less dangerous to Black
6 0-0 liJ ge7 (54) than its counterpart 6 d4 below.
Best seems 7 . . . liJxd4 8 ltJxd4 cd
54
9 ltJb5 liJf5 !? (9 . . . d5 I 0 cd lLlxd5
w
I I .txd5 ed 1 2 liJxd4 = Yusupov-
Cordes, Graz 1978; 9 . . . 'tlt'b6 ( ! )
1 0 a 4 - 1 0 e 3 liJf5 - 1 0 . . . 0-0 I I
c5? 't!rxc5 1 2 b4 'tlt'b6!, K harkin­
Lysenko, USSR 1 968) 10 g4 a6 I I
't!ra4 liJh4 1 2 liJd6+ </;f8 1 3
liJxc8(?!) ( 1 3 c 5 +) 1 3 . . . 't!fxc8 1 4
'tlt'b4+ </;g8 1 5 .txb7 't!t'b8 =F
 5 lb/3: Others 55

Stei nberg-Tu kmakov, Orel 1 966. 1 4 li:lxc6 be 1 5 l:i:c l , when White

7 0-0 (55) has not wasted time via l:i:b l-c1
Or 7 . . . d 5, when 8 ..td2 or 8 .i.f4 and the e-pawn is protected versus
transposes, or 8 cd ed (8 . . . li:lxd 5 ! ? . . . lil:e8, . . . ..ig4 etc. Larsen-Kudrin,
9 .i. g 5 1!rd7) 9 ..tg5 ( 9 ..tf4 0-0 1 0 Reykjavik 1 986, saw 8 . . . a6 9 .i.f4
'trd2 ..if5 1 1 l:i:ac I 't!t'd7 Ptleger­
= d6 (9 . . . d5 1 0 e4!?) 1 0 trd2 l:i:b8
Penrose, Bath 1973) 9 ... h6 10 ..txe7 1 1 ..ih6 ( 1 1 lil:b 1 - cf 8 ..tf4 d6) 1 1
li:lxe7 1 1 d4 cd 12 li:lxd4 0-0 1 3 e3 . . . e5 1 2 ..txg7 'it>xg7 1 3 a 3 b5 1 4
( 1 3 l:i:c 1 ( !) ) 1 3 . . . li:lc6 ! 1 4 li:lxd 5 cb! ? a b 1 5 b4 =.

li:lxd4 = Larsen-Korchnoi, London Cl l

1 980. 8 ..id2
Common, but passive. Trading
55
w
bishops isn't necessarily desirable.
8 d5
Also good are 8 ... b6, e.g. 9 1Wcl
..tb7 1 0 ..ih6 ..txh6 1 1 11xh6
ltJf5 1 2 tt'f4 tt'b8 = Gheorghiu­
Tu kmakov, Buenos Aires 1970,
and 8 . . . d6 9 't!Vc 1 lilb8 10 ..ih6 a6
1 1 a4?! ( 1 1 b3 b5 1 2 ..txg7 ) 1 1 . . .
=

d 5 ! + Lysenk o .
C I I 8 ..td2 9 'ilc 1 b6
C 1 2 8 a3 1 0 ..ih6
C 1 3 8 ..tf4 1 0 cd ed 1 1 i.. h 6 d4 ! 1 2 lt:le4 lbd5
C 1 4 8 l:i:b l 13 a3 i.. b 7 + (centre).
a) 8 ..tg5 h6 9 .i.d2 (9 .i.xe7 'it'xe 7 10 .i.b7
1 0 e 3 ! ? or here 9 . . . li:lxe7 1 0 d4 1 1 i..x g7 �g7
might be tried) 9 . . . b6 (or 9 . . . d5 = ) 12 cd lbxd5 (56)
1 0 a3 .i.b7 1 1 l:i:b 1 d5 1 2 b4? ! (but
56
1 2 cd ed 13 b4 d4 ! +) 1 2 . . . de! 13 de w
cb 1 4 cb lil:c8 1 5 lba4 lbd4 16 lbxd4
..ixg2 1 7 lbxe6 fe 18 'it>xg2 l:i:xc4 +
Korchnoi-Karaklajic, Wijk aan Zee
1 968.
b) 8 l:i:e1 !? is a Larsen refinement
similar to 8 l:i:b l . The idea is prob­
ably 8 . . . d5 9 .i.g5 h6 10 cd ed I I
.i.xe7 lbxe 7 1 2 d4 cd 1 3 lbxd4 lbc6
56 5 li:Jf3: Others

A typical position. Larsen-Tal, 11 b4?!

Leningrad IZ 1 973, went 1 3 h4!? Natural, but White never quite
(weakening; 1 3 li:Jxd5 1!t'xd5 1 4 equalizes thereafter. I I 1!t'a4 de!
1!t'c3+ o;!;>g8 1 5 li:Je5? li:Jd4! i s also 12 1Wxc4 ( 1 2 dc li:Ja5) 1 2 . . . lDd5 1 3
poor, bu t 13 �e l or 1 3 a3 is prefer­ 't!Va4 = or I I cd li:Jxd5 1 2 1!t'a4 ( 1 2
a ble) 1 3 . . . li:Jd4 1 4 �e l h6 1 5 li:Je5? li:Jxd5? 'ifxd5 1 3 b4 cb 1 4 a b li:Jd4!
( 1 5 lDxd4) 1 5 . . . li:Jxc3 l6 1!t'xc3 ( 1 6 + Marjanovic-Gufeld , Vrnjal:ka
be i.xg2) 1 6 .. . i.xg2 1 7 'it>xg2 Banja 1976) or I I 'itcl 'itd7 achieves
1!t'd5+ 1 8 li:Jf3 �ad8 19 o;!;>g I e5 20 nothing.
li:Jxd4 ed =F. 11 eb
C1 2 12 ab de
8 a3 dS 13 de �e8
Or 8 . . . b6 9 �b l i.b7 1 0 i.d2 White's hanging pawns are a
d6 I I b4 1!t'd7 =. problem , e.g. 14 c5?! ( 14 li:Jb5 a6
9 i.d2 1 5 li:Ja3 is best; 1 4 li:Je l 'itd7 1 5
9 cd ed (or 9 . . . li:Jxd5 10 i.g5 li:Jd 3 li:Jd4 + ) 1 4 . . . be 1 5 be li:Ja5
1!t'd7 =) 1 0 � b l b6 I I i.f4 h6 16 li:Ja4 i.c6 l 7 1!t'c2 li:Jb7 18 �fc l
1 2 1!t'c I d4 1 3 li:Ja4 g5 + Csom­ 1!rd7 1 9 li:Je I ! li:Jd5 ! + Petrosian­
Smej kal, K iel 1 978. Fischer, Belgrade 1970.
Larsen tried 9 i.g5 ! ? h6 l 0 cd ed C1 3
l l i.xe 7 li:Jxe 7 12 d4 versus Karpov 8 i.f4
at Buenos Aires 1 980, but 1 2 . . . cd A system Fischer played with
1 3 li:Jxd4 li:Jc6 1 4 li:Jxc6 be 1 5 llc l colours reversed. I overestimated
i.a6! 1 6 �e l �e8 = held the bal­ its worth in the first edition.
ance; see 8 �e l above and 8 �b l 8 dS
below. 8 ... e5 9 i.d2 or 9 i.g5 ( ! ) is 'D'
9 b6 below. The main option is 8 . . . d6
10 �b1 i.b7 (5 7) 9 1!rc l li:Jf5 (9 . . . b6 1 0 �b l i.b7
I I a31!fd7- 11 . .. a5 12 �dl :t-
1 2 b4 �ad8 1 3 �el f5 1 4 b5 e5 1 5
i.h6 :t D.Byrne-R.Byrne, New
York 1 967) 1 0 �b l 1!re7 ll �e l ( !)
(versus . .. li:Jd4) I I . . . i.d7 1 2 li:Je4!
e5 ( 1 2 . . . li:Je5 1 3 li:Jxe5! i.xe 5 -
13 . . . d e 14 i.d2 ±- 1 4 i.xe5 de
1 5 g4 ! a nd 1 6 g5) 1 3 i.d2 a6 1 4
li:Jc3 b5 ! 1 5 li:Jd5 't!Vd8 1 6 li:Jg5!?
( 1 6 b4!?) 1 6 . . . �c8 1 7 li:Je4 i.e6
 5 liJf3: Others 57

1 8 g4! li:Jfe7 1 9 li:Jdf6+ ± w ith the 'ifxf4, 1 1 . . . d 4 1 2 li:Ja2 f6 1 3 b4 e5

idea .tg5, Malich-Ciocaltea, Halle 1 4 .td2 t, and 1 1 . . . W'd7 12 lHc l
1 9 74. lHd8 1 3 cd ed 1 4 b4 cb 1 5 ab d4
9 l:lb 1 !? ( 1 5 . . . li:Jd4 1 6 li:Jxd4 .txd4 1 7 b5
9 cd ed 1 0 We i b6 1 1 .th6 is the .tg7 1 8 li:Ja2! ;t) 1 6 li:Je4 li:Jd5 1 7 b5
n ote to I 0 .th6 in line C 1 1 ; here li:Jce7 1 8 .te5 Uoo.
9 ... li:Jxd5 10 li:Jxd5 ed 1 1 W'd2 After 1 1 ... a6 ! I countered rather
l:le8 ( Larsen) i s equal. feebly with 1 2 l:lfc 1? de 13 de? ( 1 3
9 b6! 1t'xc4, b�t 1 3 . . . li:Jd5 is a t least )
=

9 . . . d e 10 de .txc3? 1 1 be W'xd 1 1 3 . . . li:Ja5 and the threat of . . . .tc6

1 2 l:lfxd 1 f6 1 3 .td6 b6 1 4 li:Je5 . and . . . li:Jxc4 was too strong, since
9 . . . e 5 1 0 .td2 h6 1 1 cd ! li:Jxd5 1 2 14 li:Je5 .t xg2 1 5 'i!i>xg2 g5! doesn't
1t'c l ;!;. 9 . . . d4? 1 0 lDa4 e 5 1 1 .td2 work . Thus W hite should settle
b6 12 a3 a nd b4. for something like 12 cd li:Jxd5 1 3
10 a3 .tb7 (58) li:Jxd5 e d 1 4 l:lfc l with the idea
W'd l , b4, or perhaps 12 l:lfd l li:c8
( 1 2 . . . li:Ja5 1 3 Wc2 or 12 . . . 1fe8
13 1t'b3!?) 1 3 li:ac 1 or 13 e4!?. These
lines are not necessarily prospectless
for White, but for now 1 1 . . . a6!
seems to provide a complete answer
to the 8 .tf4, 9 li:b 1 idea.
C14
8 li: b l !?
Larsen, who has encountered
some difficul ties on the White side
1 1 Wa4 of 5 li:Jf3 e6, has invented a new
The alternatives are comparable strategy based on i.g5. It has yet
to previous sections and rather to yield good results, but has some
depressing. in teresting features.
11 a6! 8 d5
Played by McCambridge versus 8 . . . b6 9 .tf4 d5 transposes to
the author at Lone Pine 198 1 . The the last section; if 10 cd ed (or 10 . . .
move p repares . . . de and . . . li:Ja5 li:Jxd5 ) 1 1 1!t'd2 .tb7 1 2 a3 then
=

(compare 1 1 . . . de 12 de li:Ja5 1 3 1 2 . . . d4 fol lowed by . . . li:Jd5 is

l:lfd 1 W'e8 1 4 1t'xe8 l:laxe8 1 5 l:ld7 ! equal.
or here 14 . . . lUxe8 1 5 li:Jb5). Others 9 ,tg5 (! ) h6
are 1 1 . . . e5? 1 2 cd ef 1 3 de and 1 4 10 cd ed
58 5 li:Jf3: Others

1 0 . . . hg? I I de li:Jxc6 1 2 h 3 ! ±
60
(Tu kmakov); or 1 2 li:Ja4! 't!t'e7 1 3 B
't!t'c 1 li:Jd4 1 4 lii:e l .
11 .i.xe7 li:Jxe7
12 d4 cd
1 2 . . . b6!? (Tu kmakov).
13 li:Jxd4 (59)

59
B

Another eccentric tactical idea

(see 6 a3!? above), which probably
"shouldn't" work but has some
charming points. The j ustification
for such madness stems from the
dark-square holes which Black
has created by moving his c-, e­
and g-pawns.
White has some pressure on the 6 li:Jxd4
isolani to compensate for the bishop The most entertaining line. Safer
pair. In Larsen-Tukmakov, Las but less ambitious is 6 . . . cd, but after
Palmas IZ 1 982, Black went for the 7 li:Jb5 Black must move against a
Tarrasch-like position after 1 3 . . . simple edge by li:Jbxd4. If 7 . . . e5 (?)
li:Jc6! 1 4 li:Jxc6 b e 1 5 't!t'c2 ( a big then 8 e3 (!) a6 9 li:Jd6+ rtle7 can be
choice: 1 5 e4!?; 1 5 't!t'd2 lii:e 8 1 6 followed up by either 10 li:Jxc8+
lii:fe 1 .i.a6 1 7 li:Ja4 'it'd6 =) 1 5 . . . lii:x c8 1 1 ed ( I I . . . e4 12 li:Jg5 or 1 1
lii:b 8 1 6 llfd 1 ( 1 6 e4!?) 1 6 . . . 't!t'a5 ! . . . ed 12 0-0 rtlf8 ! 1 3 .i.g5 !?) or even
1 7 e4 de 1 8 .i.xe4 .i.e6! = ( 1 9 .i. xc6 10 c5!? 't!t'a5+ 1 1 b4 1!rxb4+ ( 1 1 . . .
.i.xc3 ). li:Jxb4 1 2 0-0 'it'xc5 1 3 li:Je4 or 1 3
One can see how L arsen's ex­ li:Jxc8+ with the idea e d and/or
perime nt with 8 lii: e 1 (see above) .i.a3) 1 2 li:Jd2 ( ! ) 't!t'xc5 ( 1 2 . . . de
was aimed at getting the same 1 3 fe exposes Black even more;
k ind of play with the useful lii:e 1 1 2 . . . f5 13 lii: b 1 't!t'xc5 14 't!t'b3 ! and
in; but of course that move had .i.a3) 13 li:J2e4 1!t'b6 ( 1 3 . . . 't!t'b4+
less point when Black avoided . . . 14 .i.d2 't!t'b6 1 5 llb I and 'i!t'b3) 1 4
d5. 0- 0 with t h e idea .i.a3.
C2 Similarly, 7 ... 't!t'b6 8 e3! is pro­
6 d4! ? (60) mising, e.g. 8 . . . de 9 .i.xe3 (9 1!rd6!?)
 5 lLljJ: Others 59

9 . . . 'tlra5+ l 0 ..td2 "ifb6 ( 1 0 . . . 1t'd8 understatement, since Black can

I I ..tf4 e 5 12 'tlrd6) I I ..tf4 e 5 1 2 hardly defend against the multiple
..te3 't!t'a5+ 1 3 ..td2 1lrb6 1 4 0- 0 etc. threats of l2Jd6, ll:la5, ..tf4 and
The most sensible decision is �cl.
therefore 7 . . . d5 ("! " - the author; So in Nogueiras-Barbero, Thes­
b ut I seem to have been asleep to saloniki 01 1 984, Black played
the possibilities for much of this simply 8 . . . ed, hoping for active
chapter) 8 cd! (61) piece play: 9 0-0 ll:lge7 10 ll:lbxd4
0-0 I I ..te3!? �e8 1 2 �c l !? ( 1 2
61
B
�e l ( ! ) is more accurate here: e2 is
covered, and the a l rook may yet
end up on d l . Then 1 2 . . . ll:lf5 1 3
ll:lxf5 ..txf5 1 4 ll:ld4 ll:lxd4 1 5 ..txd4
..txd4 1 6 'tlrxd4 ..te4 1 7 �ad I or
15 ... ..te4 16 ..th3 !? is not yet equal)
1 2 . . . ll:lf5 1 3 l2Jxf5 ..txf5 14 �c5?!
d4 1 5 ll:lxd4 ..txd4 16 �xc6 ( 1 6
�d5? ..txe3) 1 6 . . . ..txe3 1 7 �d6
Now 8 . . . 'ffa 5+ ! ? proves surpri­ fle7 +.
singly risky due to 9 ll:ld2 ! 'tlt'xb5 7 ll:lxd4 cd
(9 . . . ed!? 10 a4!? a6 I I l2Jd6+ �e7 7 . . . ..txd4 8 ll:lb5, e.g. 8 . . . ..te5
13 b4!? ll:lxb4 1 4 ..ta3 'it>xd6 1 5 �b l (8 . . . e5?? 9 e3; 8 ·- ..tg7?? 9 'tlrd6;
etc; safer but less enterprising is 8 . . . 'ff b 6 9 a4!? - or 9 e3 ..te5 1 0 /4
10 ll:ld6+ 'tie 7 I I ll:lxc8+ �xc8 1 2 ..tbB 1 1 e4 etc, or even 9 0-0 - 9 . . .
0-0, e.g. 1 2 . . . ll:lf6 1 3 ll:lb3 'tlrb6 1 4 a 5 l 0 ..tf4 e 5 I I ..t c I etc) 9 ..tf4 ( 9
e3) 1 0 de (or 1 0 a4, to limit Black's f4 !?) 9 . . . ..txf4 1 0 g f 'W'a5+ I I ��
options) 10 . . . be ( 10 ... ll:le7 !?, bu t d5 1 2 b4 ! cb 1 3 1t'd4 f6 1 4 1t'c5 .
then I I a4 1t'a6 1 2 b4, e.g. 1 2 . . . d 3 8 ll:le4! (62)
1 3 b5 1t'a5 1 4 0-0!? ..txa l 1 5 cb-
62
15 lLlc4!? ._b4 16 ed- 1 5 . . . ..txb7 B
1 6 ..t xb7 with the idea 16 . . . �b8
1 7 ll:lc4 etc) I I a4 ( I I ll:le4 !? Povah)
I I . . . 'tlt'b7?! ( I I . . . 11t'a5 1 2 b4!; I I
. . . 'tlt'b6 1 2 ll:lc4 'tfb4+ 1 3 ..td2 !
Povah; best looks I I . . . 11t'a6, but
1 2 11t'c2 and ll:le4-d6/c5 is nice) 1 2
lbc4 "with am ple compensation
for a pawn" (Povah). This is an
60 5 li:Jf3: Others

8 1t'c7!? lbd5 ( 14 ... li:Jf5 15 li:Jc4! ±intending

A good place to look for im­ li:Jb6 Filip) 1 5 .i.xd5 ed 16 1t'a3 ( ±
provements: threatening 1 7 c6, 1 7 \Wf3; 1 6 't!t'b3 !?)
a) 8 ... d6 9 \Wa4+ q;e7 (9 ... .i.d7 1 6 . . . �g8 1 7 �0 (or 1 7 11t'f3 f5 1 8
IO li:Jxd6+ q;(E II 1t'a3 ± Povah) \Wd5+ ±) 1 7 . . . f5 1 8 .i.f4 't!t'd8 1 9
1 0 'tta 3 with an attack (Povah); li:Jb 5 b6 20 c b \Wxb6 2 1 li:Jc7 .i.b7
possible is (e.g.) 10 . . . f5 II .i.g5 + ! 22 li:Jxa8 ±±.
li:Jf6 1 2 li:Jxf6 .i.xf6 I3 .i.xf6+ q;xf6 Time will tell if 6 d4 (or 6 a3 !?)
I4 ��0 'it'b6 I5 e 3 ! 'ttc 5 I6 1t'xc 5 can help to spice up a rather settled
±. 5 . . . e6 variation.
b) 8 ... dS!? 9 1t'a4+ .i.d7 !? 1 0 li:Jd6+ D
q;ffi II 1!t'b4!?, or here 9 . . . q;f8 I 0 s eS (63)
cd ed ( 1 0 ... 1t'xd5 II \Wb4+ with
the idea .i.g5 or b3) II li:Jc5 with 63

pressure. 9 cd ed 10 \Wa4+ is similar, w

with options l ike 10 . . . q;(E II

1Wa3+ !? and li:Jd6.
c)8 ... fS?! 9li:Jd6+ �7 1 0 c5! \Wa5+
I I .i.d2 \Wxc5 I 2 li:Jxc8 ! (clearer
than I2 'itb3 !? a5 t) I2 . . . 'irxc8 I3
l:l:cl (or I3 .i.b4+ and e3) I 3 . . .
1t'b8 I 4 .i.b4+.
d) 8 ... li:Je7!? 9 li:Jd6+ q;ffi 10 \Wb3!?
intending 1 0 . . . \Wc7 II .i.f4 or I 0 This, the Botvinnik System as
. . . 'itb6 II \Wa3. This could use Black, has been utilized by many
tests. top players, although some are
9 cS li:Je7 shy of its- committal n ature.
10 .i.f4! Dl 6 0 -0
White has developed strong 02 6 d3 ( .i.g5 lines)
pressure on the dark squares. Now 6 a3 tends to t ranpose. 6 e4?
1 0 . . . e5? I I 'irxd4! 0-0 I2 \Wd6! is (doesn't mix with li:Jf3) 6 . . . li:Jge7
given by Povah, but winning is I I 7 a3 a5 8 0 -0 0-0 and White must
li:Jd6+ with the idea II . . . q;ffi I2 moe his king's knight again versus
'irb3. . . . f5 -f4.
So in Chernin-Parameswaran, Dl
Bangalore I98I, B lack tried 10 . . . 6 0-0
'ita5+ I I .i.d2 ( I I q;n !?) I I . . . 1t'c7 The main line; this section in­
12 li:Jd6+ �ffi 1 3 l:l:c I h5 1 4 'ira4 cludes lines where �0 is played
 5 li'Jf3: Others 61

here or on the next few moves, e.g. li'Jxd5 li'Je7 15 li'Jxe7+ 't!Vxe7 16 e4
6 d3 li'Jge7 7 a3 0-0 S 0-0. f5 1 7 f3 h5 =.
6 li'Jg e7 Dll
a) 6 . . . li'Jf6?! 7 a3 (or 7 li'Je l and 7 a3! ? (64)
S li'Jc2) 7 . . . a5 S lib I 0-0 9 d 3 d6
1 0 i.g5 ! h6 I I i.xf6 i.xf6 1 2 li'Je l
i.g7 1 3 li'Jc2 a4 14 li'Je3 li'Jd4 1 5
lie I 't!Va5 1 6 li'Jed5 lieS 1 7 e3 ±
Stein-Doroskevich, USSR Ch 1 967.
b) 6 ... d6 7 d3 or 7 a3 transpose. I f
7 li'J e I , 7 . . . i.e6 ! S li'Jd5 li'Jge7 9
a3?! 0-0 10 d3 libS I I li'Jc2 b5 +
H ubner. A disaster for Black was
6 . . . d6 7 a3 i.e6!? S d3 li'Jge7?!
(8 . . . a5) 9 b4 ! e4? (but 9 . . . cb? 1 0
a b li'Jxb4 I I i.a3 li'Jbc6 1 2 li'Je4 This can simply transpose to
McCa mbridge) 1 0 li'Jxe4 i.xa I I I '022', but here we look at White
i.h6! ± planning 1 1 . . . i.b2 12 't!Vc2 options.
or I I ...li'Jf5 12 't!Vxa I , McCambridge­ 7 0-0
Choobak, Los Angeles 1 985. It's not clear what the best move
Oi l 7 a3 order is by which to prevent un­
0 1 2 7 d3 wanted complications:
H arm less is 7 b3 0-0 8 i. b2 d6 a) 7 ... a6?! 8 b4 ! cb 9 ab li'Jxb4 1 0
9 d3 h6 = with the idea . . . i.e6. i.a3 li'Jbc6 I I i.d6 li'Jf5 1 2 li'Je4
White's main option is 7 li'Je l , a i.f8!? 1 3 i.xe5 li'Jxe5 l 4li'Jxe5 i.g7
good reply being 7 . . . d6 8 li'Jc2 15 d4 ± Osnos-Tarasov, USSR Ch
..ie6 9 d3 (9 li'Je3 !? lib8 !?) 9 . . . d5 ! 1 967 .
1 0 b3 ( 1 0 cd li'Jxd5 I I li'Je3 li'Jde7 b) 7 . . aS!? may prematurely con­
.

or I I . . . li'Jxe3 +) 10 . . . 0-0 I I llb l cede White the opportunity for a

lieS 1 2 e4 de 13 deli'Jd4 + Korchnoi­ favourable i.g5. Also of i nterest
H iibner , match 1 980-8 1 . is 8 li'Jb5 d6!? 9 e3 i.e6 10 't!Vc2 h6
7 li'Je I 0-0 S li'Jc2 d6 9 li'Je3 (9 I I lld I llc8 1 2 d4! with an attack,
llb I i.e6! I 0 li'Jd5 a5; 9 d3 i.e6 Karner-Espig, Tal linn 1 975. But
10 li'Jd5 li b8 ! = planning . . . b5) here 8 . . . d5 9 cd li'Jxd5 10 li'Jg5
9 . . . i.e6 (9 . . . li b8 10 li'Jed5 li'Jxd5 (Karner) isn't impressive, e.g. 1 0
I I li'Jxd5 li'Je7 = Lombardy-Evans, . . . li'Jde7 I I li'Jge4 0-0! and 1 2li'Jxc5?
USA 1 966) 10 a3 't!Vd7 I I d3 i.h3 @b6 or 1 2 li'Jed6 i.e6! 1 3 li'Jxb7
12 li'Jed5 i.xg2 1 3 �xg2 liJ xd5 1 4 't!fb6 14 li'Jbd6 a4 ! etc .
62 5 liJf3: Others

c) 7 ... d6!? looks innocent, but 8 .tb2 0-0 oo Raj kovic), e.g. 1 0 . . . cb
b4 !? creates new problems, e.g. ( 1 0 . . . f5 I I be fe 12 cb with good
8 . . . cb 9 ab liJ xb4 1 0 .ta3 ± with play) I I ab f5 12 b5 liJe5 ( 1 2 . . .
the idea 1 0 ... liJec6 II 't!t'a4 liJa6 liJa5 1 3 ll:xa5; 1 2 . . . liJ b 8 !? 1 3 .ta3
12 liJ e4 .tf8 1 3 d4; or 8 ... .te6 9 fe 14 liJxe4 oo) 13 liJd6+ '@xd6 14
liJg5 .txc4 I0 d3 cb!? ( I 0 . . . .te6 .ta3 't!t'd8 1 5 liJd 5, and 15 . . . liJg8
I I liJxe6 fe 12 be d 5 ! 1 3 e4! �0 1 4 16 it'b3 or 1 5 . . . liJxd5 1 6 .txd5
\lt'g4 t Ftacnik-Rogers, Groningen with e4, d4 to follow.
1 9 76-77) I I ab .te6 12 ll:lxe6 fe 1 3 Too speculative, perhaps, but
b5 liJd4 1 4 e 3 't!t'c7 1 5 .td2 liJdf5 also the best try for advantage once
1 6 b6! 1!t'xb6 l 7 1!t'a4+ �f8 1 8 ll:b l White h as played 8 b4!?.
'it'd8 1 9 lixb7 ± Ftacnik-Danner, 8 b4 e4!
Vienna 1 985. 8 . . . cb 9 ab liJxb4 1 0 .ta3 gives
So the main move is 8 ... e4! (65): clear compensation.
9 liJel?!
65 Here 9 ltlg5 is critical, since 9 . . .
w h6? 1 0 l0gxe4 attacks c5. 9 . . . f5
1 0 lib! ( 1 0 .tb2 d 5 ! ) is unclear,
e .g. 1 0 . . . h6 ( 10 . . . d5 !? I I cd ltlxd5
l 2 1!t'b3 !?) I I ltlh3 cb 12 ab g5 with
complications.
After the text move Horvitz­
Donaldson, match 1 978, went 9 . . .
d 5 ! 1 0 ll:ab l !? cb 1 1 cd l0xd5 1 2
ltlcxe4 .tf5! 1 3 l0ed3 ll:fe8 with
For example, 9 liJeI f5 I 0 .tb2 advantage to Black.
�0!? (or 10 ... .te6 1 1 d3 ed 12 ll:lxd3 Dl2
.txc4 1 3 liJa4 ! =/oo Romanishin­ 7 d3 0-0
Short, Lvov 1 984) II d3 (II ll:b 1 !?) 8 a3
I I . . . .te6 1 2 de!? ( l2 'it'd2!?) 12 . . . Most flexible (aside from 8 .tg5!?,
fe 1 3 .txe4 .txc4 = Romanishin­ which transposes to 02 below).
Agza mov, Sochi 1 984. 8 ltle l ll:b8 ! ? (8 . . . d6 =) 9 ltlc2 a6
But nobody has tried my some­ 10 b4 .te6 II be de 12 ltle3 b6 1 3
what fanciful 8 . . . e4 9 liJg5!? h6 ltled5 .td7! 1 5 .td2ltlxd5 l 6ltlxd5
(9 ... f5 10 ll:b l t; or 10 .t b2!? ltle7 (=) 1 7 't!fc l ? ltlxd5 1 8 .txd5
h6 I I h 3 .te6?! 1 2 d 3 ed 13 edt .th3 1 9 ll:eI? b5 20 a3 \!t'd6 2 1 .to
Rajkovic-Nicevski, Stip 1 976; I I .te6 22 cb ab 23 .te3 ll:fc8 24 'ti'd2
. . . cb) 1 0 liJgxe4! !? ( 1 0 liJh3 g5 I I b4 H Barcza-Karpov, Caracas
 5 lLlf3: Others 63

1 9 70. 1 7 ab ab 1 8 .id2 Ita2!? 1 9 .txb4 ;t

8 d6 Radke-Watson , Sunnyvale 1 975;
8 . . . f5!? should be met by 9 lib I or here I I ... l:Ib8 1 2 b4 cb 1 3 ab b6
a5 10 lLle l ! d6 1 l lLlc2. 8 . . . a6 9 l:Ib l 14 b5 lLld4 1 5 lLle3 ;t Agdestein­
Itb8 1 0 b4 cb I I ab b5 1 2 c5 ! ;1;. Ke kki, Norway 1 982.
9 l:Ibl aS (66) b2) 1 1 lLldS l:Ib8 12 lLlc2 ( 12 .ig5
Ideas based on . . . b6 leave White f6 and . . . b5) 12 . . . b5 1 3 lLlce3 ( 1 3
a slight spatial plus, e.g. 9 ... b6 cb? lLl xd5 1 4 be lLlc3 ; 1 3 lLlxe7+?
1 0 b4 .ib7 I I be!? de 12 .ib2 1!t'd7 lLlxe7 14 lLle3 a4! 1 5 .id2 be 1 6 de
1 3 lLld2 lLld4 14 .ixb7 'tixb7 1 5 e3 l:Ib3 =F Lengyel-Wedberg, Eksjo
lLle 6 1 6 e4! ! planning lLld5, .tc3, 1 980) 1 3 . . . 1Wd7 (or 1 3 . . . b4, or 1 3
a4-a 5, Larsen-Bobotsov, Palma . . . b e 1 4 d e f5) 1 4 cb Itxb5 1 5 a4?!
de Mallorca 1 969. l:Ib8 l 6 lLlxe7+ lLlxe7 1 7 lLlc4 lLlc6
18 .id2 e4! l 9 lLJxa5 lLlxa5 20 ..txa5,
66 Barcza-Uh l mann, Sarajevo 1 969,
w and n ow Uhlmann gives 20 . . .
.tb3 ! 2 1 't!fd2 ..ta2 22 n be l l:Ixb2
=F.
10 l:Ib8!
10 . . . h6 and:
a) 11 't!t'a4 !? .te6! 12 Itfc l f5 1 3
't!fd l '@'d7 1 4 lLl e l f4 1 5 lLld5 fg 16
hg Itab8 l 7 lLlc2? ( 1 7 b4 ! oo) 1 7 ...
Itf7 1 8 lLl xe7+ lLlxe7! 1 9 ..txa5
1 0 .id2 l:Ibf8 20 .i.e l h 5 ! 21 b4 .i.h3 22
White can still play into the .i.g5 ..te4!? h4 23 be hg 24 f3 't!fg4! =F
lines by (e.g.) 10 .tg5 f6 I I .i.d2 or Polgar-Ribli, Hungarian Ch 1 972.
I I .ie3!?, discussed in '02' below. b) 1 1 lLlel! ..te6 ( I I . . . f5 12 lLlc2
Or: �h8 1 3 b4 t; I I . . . l:Ib8 1 2 lLlc2
a) 10 lLldS l:Ib8 ! I I lLl d2 .i.e6 =. .te6 1 3 b4 t) 12 lLld5 l:Ib8 ( 1 2 . . .
b) 10 lLle1 .ie6 (the move 10 .i.d2 Ita7 !?) 1 3 b4! a b 1 4 ab .t xd5 1 5 cd
discourages) and: lLlxb4 16 .txb4 cb 1 7 It xb4 !.
b l ) 11 lLlc2!?, e .g. I I . . . d5 12 cd 1 1 lLle1
lLlxd5 13 lLle 3 lLlde7 (or l 3 . . . lLlxe3 Thus ... l:Ib8! has saved the tempo
14 .txe3 lLld4!?, sacrificing the for . . . h 6. I I h 3 !? is the best option,
b-pawn for a bind) 1 4 lLle4! b6 1 5 trying to get Black to commit him­
lLlg5 ..tc8? ( 1 5 . . . .id7 or even 1 5 . . . self. Suttles-Chow, C anada 1 976,
'tid7 (!) l 6 lLlxe6 'ti'xe6oo) l 6 b4 cb went I I . . h6 12 lLle l .ie6 13 �h2
.
64 5 li:Jf3: Others

d 5 !? 1 4 cd li:Jxd5 1 5 t!t'c l li:Jd4 1 6 t!t'a4! = Evans-Karpov, San Antonio

.bd5 i.xd5 1 7 i.h6 i.c6 1 8 .txg7 1 972 .
c;t>xg7 19 t!t'e3 llh8 ! ro. Or here 1 2 D2
t!t'a4!?, e.g. 1 2 ... .te6 ( 1 2 . . . .td7 6 d3 li:Jge 7
13 lUc l and t!t' d l ) 1 3 llfc l t!t'd7 7 a3
14 'it>h2 f5 15 t!t' d l f4 1 6 1!t'h l !? in­ The irregular 7 h 4!? h6 (or 7 . . .
tending i.e I , li:Jd2-e4, or li:Je4 and h 5 ) 8 li:Jd5 li:Jxd5 (8 . . . d6) 9 cd li:Je7
b4. 10 h5 g5 1 1 d6! li:Jf5 12 g4! li:Jxd6 1 3
11 .te6 t!t'c2 'irb6 ( 1 3 . . . c4!?) 1 4 .te3 e4!
12 li:Jc2 15 li:Jd2! tiro Bruycker-Schm idt,
12 li:Jd5 allows 12 . . . b5, e.g. 1 3 M alta 01 1980.
b3 ( !) ( 1 3 li:Jxe7+? li:Jxe7 1 4 cb llxb5 7 0-0
15 b4 ab 16 ab c4 ! +n= Csom­ If 7 . . . a5 White has 8 lilb I 0-0
Hartoch, Skopj e 01 1972) 1 3 . . . b4 9 i.g5 (see below), or immediately
( 13 . . . f5 !? with the idea . . . be) 1 4 a4 8 i.g5 ( ! ), e.g. 8 . . . h6 (8 . . . f6 9 .id2
1!t'd7 (or 1 4 . . . h6!) 1 5 li:Jd2, Ek­ 0-0 10 litb l is the text) 9 i.xe7 li:Jxe7
Ornstein, Goteborg 1 975, and now (9 . . . t!t'xe7 10 ll b l d6 J l li:Jd2! .te6
1 5 . . . 'it>h8 is
=. 12 1ra4 ! , or here I I . . . 0-0 1 2 li:Jd5
12 d5 and 1 3 b4) 1 0 llb l (67)
13 cd li:Jxd5
14 li:Jxd5
14 li:Je3 li:Jxe3 (or 14 . . . li:Jde7)
1 5 i.xe3 tt) d4 16 b4 ab 17 ab cb
18 lilxb4 ,-as 1 9 t!t'a4 t!t'xa4 +
Suttles-Ghizdavu, Lone Pine 1975.
14 i.xd5
Now White finally achieves b4,
but having lost the centre: 15 b4
( 1 5 .txd5 1rxd5 16 b4 ab 1 7 ab
ll fd8! 18 li:Je3 t!t'd4 19 be e4! 20
1!t'c2 ed 2 1 ed 1!t'f6 22 llb6 t!t'f3 =F 1 0 . . . d5 ( 1 0 . . . li:Jc6 1 1 li:Jd2 ! and
threatening . . . li:Jd4, O'Donnell­ II . . . 0-0 12 li:Jd5 or II . . . d6 12 t!t'a4!
Watson, Colorado 1 976) 1 5 . . . i.d7 1 3 li:Jde4 ! etc) I I li:Jd2 ! de?!
i.xg2 1 6 'it>xg2 b5!? ( 1 6 . . . a b ! 1 7 ( I I . . . d4 1 2 li:Ja4 1!t'c7 1 3 li:Jb3 ! ; I I
ab 1!t'd5+) 1 7 ba! li:Jxa5 1 8 li:Je3 ... i.e6!? 12 cd li:Jxd5 1 3 1!t'a4+ c;t>f8!
1le8 1 9 1!t'cI ( 1 9 t!t'c2? i.f8 ! 20 t!t'a2 ;!;) 1 2 1!t'a4+ i.d7 1 3 1!t'xc4 1!t'b6 14
1le6 21 f4 e4! Jamieson) 1 9 . . . .tf8 li:Ja4 .txa4 15 1!t'xa4+ li:Jc6 16 li:Jc4
20 i.xa5 't!fxa5 2 1 li:Jd5 li:e6 22 e4 1!t'c7 1 7 't!fb5 ± Watson-Gri.inberg,
 5 {£Jj3: Others 65

New York 1 978. This illustrates

6li
the idea behi nd i.g5. B
8 ltb1 a5
9 i.g5!
021 9 . . . h 6 (?!)
022 9 0 0 0 f6
021
9 h6(?!)
10 i.xe7 CiJxe7
10 . . . 'i!he7 I I CiJd2 ::t Petrosian.
Kn ights are worth more than the I I . . . i.e6 (II . . . f5 1 · 2 i.g5 !?
bishops if White can keep things Byrne; here 12 ... h6 1 3 i.xe7 CiJxe7
semi-closed. 1 4 {£Jd2 g5 1 5 b4 might follow: 1 5
11 CiJd2! CiJc6 . . . e4 1 6 'i!t'c2) 1 2 CiJe l ! 'it'd? ( 1 2 . . .
I I . . . d6 1 2 b4 ::t. A fter II . . . CiJc6 h6!?) 1 3 CiJc2 a4 14 b3 ab 1 5 li:xbH.
White's stra tegy is demonstrated The idea of playing i.e3 to stop
by the sa mple line 1 2 CiJd5 ltb8 1 3 . . . d5 may attract attention. If Black
b4 ( 1 3 'it'a4 !? d6 1 4 b4 i.d7! 1 5 plays . . . CiJf5 then after i.d2 inten­
be CiJd4 1 6 'it'd! de = Watson­ ding {£Jd 5 or CiJe l -c2 White has his
H .Oiafsso n, New York 1 977) 1 3 . . . normal position without fear of . . .
a b 1 4 a b b 6 1 5 'it'a4 (or 1 5 b e be d5 or . . . f5.
1 6 lhb8 CiJxb8 1 7 'i!t'b3! planning 10 d6
17 . . . CiJc6 1 8 'it'b5 'it'a5 1 9 'it'xa 5 11 0-0 i.e6
CiJxa 5 20 CiJe4 CiJb7 2 1 0-0 f5 22 12 CiJe 1 f5
CiJec3 ±) 15 ... i.b7 ( 1 5 . . . cb 16 The point is that now 1 2 . . . d5?
CiJxb4 CiJxb4 17 'it'xb4 i.b7 1 8 1 3 cd CiJxd5 14 'it'b3 is ± (see 9 . . .
i.xb7 lixb 7 1 9 'it'd6! ±) 1 6 be be f6).
17 (jJe4 ±. 1 3 CiJc2!?
022 Not necessarily best. 13 CiJd5
9 f6 lib8 14 b4 is untried but attractive.
This is best, but committing Also 1 3 f4!? and 13 i.g5 !? could be
the f-pawn has some original con­ considered .
sequences. 13 d5
10 i.d2 14 b3! d4?!
The new idea l 0 i.e3 !? d6 I I 0-0 Natural , but better is 1 4 . . . lib8.
(68) was seen (by t ransposition) After 1 4 ... d4?! Petrosian-Radulov,
in Andersson-Seirawan, Linares Amsterdam 1 973, continued 1 5
1 983: CiJb5 f4 1 6 b4 b6 (?) ( 1 6 . . . ab 1 7 ab
66 5 li:Jf3: Others

b6 ;!;) 1 7 be be 1 8 a4! ( intending Conclusion. As a whole, 5 . . . e5 has

li:Jba3 and lib5 or li:Ja 1-b3) 18 . . . a good reputation . On the other
�d7 1 9 li:Ja 1 .th3 2 0 li:Jb3 .txg2 hand, it is probably easier to probe
21 l&xg2 e4 22 li:Jxc5 f3+ 23 ef ef+ agains t than 5 . . . e6, and these last
24 �xf3 ! lixf3 25 li:Jxd7 li xd3 26 lines with i.g5 are of particular
.tg5! ±. interest in this regard .
 Part II
Counterplay by 2 ... lt:Jf6 and ... d5
6 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein
Variation

1 c4 c5 Before looking at replies to 5 . . .

2 ltJc3 ltJf6 ltJc7, a qu ick look a t Black's alter­
3 g3 d5 natives:
4 cd ltJ xd5 a) 5 ... ltJf6 6 't!fb3 ! ltJbd7 (6 . . . 't!fc7!?
5 i.g2 (69) 7 ltJf3 with the idea 7 . . . e5 8 ltJb5
't!fe7 9 d4! cd 10 ltJxe5! etc, or 7 .. .
69 ltJc6 8 d4 and 8 . . . cd 9 ltJb5 or 8 . . .
B ltJxd4 9 ltJxd4 cd 1 0 ltJb5 't!fb6 I I
't!fc4 t; 6 . . . ltJc6 7 .txc6+ be 8 't!fa4
t or 8 ltJf3 ;!;) 7 ltJf3 e5 8 0-0 .te7
9 e3 0-0 10 d4 tl ±.
b) 5 ... ltJb4!? 6 ltJf3 (6 a3!? ltJ5c6
7 ltJf3 ; 6 f4 g6) 6 . . . tb 8c6 7 0-0 e5
(7 . . . g6 8 ltJa4 ! ?) 8 d3 .te7 9 ltJd2
ltJd4!? (9 . . . i.d 7 1 0 a3 ltJ a6 I I
ltJc4 f6 1 2 f4 ;!;) 1 0 ltJc4 f6 I I f4 ef
5 ltJc7 (70) 12 gf 0-0 1 3 a3 ltJa6 14 e3 ltJ f5
This introduces the Rubinstein 1 5 .id5+! �h8 1 6 e4 ± K otov­
System, the most ambitious of Fu rman , USSR Ch 1 949.
Black's established strategies in c) 5 ... e6?! 6 ltJf3 ltJc6 would be
the Symmetrical English. By moving Chater 7, but 6 ltJxd 5 ! ed 7 't!fb3 !
his knight three times only to arrive (7 d 4 ! ? i ) wins a pawn: 7 . . . .te6
at the modest c7, the second player 8 't!fxb7 ltJd7 9 ltJh3! (9 ltJf3 ;!;) 9 . . .
concedes a lead in development to 9 . . . ltJb6 1 0 't!fa6 .id6 II d 3 0-0 1 2
his opponent for the sake of central li::l f4 ± S.Garcia-Farago, Polanica
com mand . The idea is to clamp Zdroj 1 978.
down on d4, usually by . . . e5 and d) 5 ... ltJb6 6 d3 e5 7 .te3 !? (or 7
. . . ltJc6. This strategy has been ltJf3 t, or 7 a4! t e.g. 7 . . . a5 8 f4)
successful for many years, yet the 7 . . . i.e7 8 ll c l 0-0?! (8 . . . ltJa6),
assessment of several of the key Portisch-Hort, Tilburg 1 978, and
lines remains open. now best is 9 ltJe4! f5 I 0 ltJxc5 f4
 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation 6Y

I I .i.d2 with the idea I I . . . .i.xc5 i.b7" ;!:" ECO) 7 . . . i.e 7 (or 7 . . .
12 llxc 5 '@d4 1 3 'i!fb3+ �h8 1 4 lt:lc6, since 8 i.xc6+?! is not so
'i!fc3. good without 'i!fa4 available; but
e) 5 ... lt:lxc3 6 be ( 6 de!?) 6 . . . g6 8 llc l i.d7 ! ? and either 9 etJf3 f6
7 llbl is a line from I o4 lt:lf6 2lt:lc3 10 0-0 llc8 I I e3 ! t planning d4 -
d5 3 cd etc. Peters, or 9 lt:Ja4 lt:le6 1 0lt:lh3 i.e7
I I 0-0 0-0 1 2 f4 t Taimanov seems
70 to favour White. Thus 8 . . . f6 -
w Peters) 8 llc I f6 !? (or 8 . . . 0-0 9lt:la4
lt:ld7 1 0 e3 llb8 I llt:le2 b5 1 2lt:lac3
i.b7 1 3 i. xb7 llxb7 1 4 d4 ed ! 1 5
ed lt:le6 =) 9 lt:lh3 (9 lt:la4 lt:lba6
10 lt:l h 3 ! 0-0 I I 0-0 i.e6 1 2 f4 ;t
Brinck-Claussen- Witkowski, Wijk
aa n Zee 1 97 1 ) 9 . . . 0-0 (9 . . . i.e6!?
1 0 f4 'i!fd7 I I lt:lf2 lt:lc6 1 2 felt:lxe5
- 12 . . . fe;!:- 1 3 lt:lce4! Taimanov)
A 6 'i!fb3 10 f4 l0c6 I I 0-0 i.e6 1 2 fe fe 1 3
B 6 d3 llxf8+ 'i!fxf8 1 4 lt:le4 lld8 1 5 'i!ffl !
c 6 lt:lf3 'i!fxfl + 1 6 �xfl i.d5 1 7 lt:lhf2 b6
a) 6 a3 will generally transpose to 1 8 lt:ld3 i.f6 1 9 b4 ! ± Taimanov­
(e.g.) 6 d3 e5 7 a3 or 6 lt:lf3 lt:lc6 Zhuravlev, Riga 1 968.
7 a3, even after 6 a3 e5 7 b4 lt:lc6 e) 6 '8'a4+!? i.d7 !? (6 . . . lt:ld7 7
8 lt:lf3 etc. lt:lf3 ;!: and 7 . . . g6 8 d4 or 7 . . . f6 8
b) 6 lt:lh3 e 6 (6 . . . e5 encourages f4) 0-0 e6 9 ll d l i.e7 10 e3; 6 . . . '@d7
7 0-0 .i.e7 8 b3 0-0 9 .i.b2 lt:lba6 7 'i!fe4 !? g6 - 7 . . . e6 8 lt:lf3 ;!:; 7 . . .
(9 . . . 'i!f d7 ! ?) 1 0 lt:la4 lt:lb5 I I lt:lf4 lt:lc6 - 8 lt:lf3 i.g7 oo, e.g. 9 0-0 0-0
Iii b 8 = Kholmov-Korchnoi, USSR 1 0 lld I lt:lc6 I I e3 e5) 7 '@c4 lt:lc6
Ch 1 9 58. 8 'i!fxc5 e5 ( 8 . . . lt:le6!? 9 'i!fe3 lt:led4
c) 6 f4 g6 (or 6 . . . e6 7lt:lf3lt:lc6 8 b 3 10 i.e4 e5 I llt:lf3 i.c5 1 2 'i!fd3lt:lb4
.i.e7 9 .i.b2 0-0= Korchnoi-Balanel, 1 3 'i!fb l f5 14 lt:lxd4 ed, Hank en­
1 9 54) 7 b3 (7 lt:le4 lt:lba6! =) 7 . . . Peters, Los Angeles 1 979, and now
i.g7 8 i.b2 (8 i.a3 lt:lba6 =) 8 . . . best was 1 5 i.xb7 Iii b 8 1 6 i.g2 d3'
0-0 9 '8'c I ?! lt:lbc6! 1 0 lt:lf3 lt:le6 17 0-0 lt:lc2 =/oo Peters) 9 'i!fe3
I I 0-0 lt:ld4 + Ko rch noi-Ragozin, lt:lb4!? (9 . . . lt:le6 10 d3 lt:led4 I I
USSR Ch 1 9 56. 'i!fd2 .:t with the idea I I . . . lt:lb4 1 2
d) 6 b3 e5 7 i.b2 (7 i.a 3 i.e7 8 llc l Iii b l ) 1 0 '@xeS+ i.e7 I I �fl 0-0
lt:lba6 9 lt:lf3 f6 1 0 0-0 b5 I I i.b2 12 'i!fe4, Nikolayevsky-Kudriashov,
70 3 gJ d5 and the Rubinstein Variation

USSR 1 966, and now 1 2 . . . f5! 1 3 below. 8 lt:Jf3 f6 9 t!t'a4 transposes.

'i!f' b 1 14 tim was a better try than 8 i.d7
1 2 . . . g6? 1 3 'i!f'b l ±. Two interesting gambits are
A possi bl e here:
6 'i!¥b3 lt:Jc6 a) 8 ...lt:Je6!? 9 d3 g6 10 i.e3 i.g7
6 . . . lDd7?! 7 lDf3c5 (7 . . . g6 8 d4 ( 1 1 1Wxc6+ i.d7 1 2 1i'b7 l:ib8 =t=
t) 8 d3 t is given under 6 d3 e5 7 Tarjan) I I . . 0-0 1 2 lDf3 lt:Jd4 1 3
.

'i!f'b3 below. i.xd4 cd 1 4 lDe4 i.e6 1 5 0-0 i.d5

7 i.xc6+ be (71) + 'Browne-Brasket', Lone Pine
1 9 72.
71 b) 8 ... e5!? 9 lDf3 f6 10 !t'xc6+
w i.d7 1 1 1!t'e4, 'Matu lovic-Szabo',
Ka pfe nberg 1 970, and 1 1 . . . lt:Je6!
12 0-0 lDd4 with the idea . . . i.c6
was the best try, e.g. 1 3 lDxd4 cd
14 lDb l l:ic8 oo.
c) 8 ...'@d7 9 lt:Jf3 f6 (72) is a very
co mmon line, but has generally led
to difficulties for Black:

In my first book I treated this 72

line under the reverse move order w

I c4 c5 2 lDc3 lDc6 3 lt:Jf3 g6 4 d4 cd

5 lDxd4 i.g7 6 lDc2 i.xc3+ 7 be
't!Va5 (or 7 . . . lDf6 with . . . 't!Va5 to
follow). The point is that if White
plays \lfa4 in the next few moves
after the diagram he transposes to
those li nes but having taken two
moves for \lfa4. Si nce 6 't!fb3 is the
more common line now, I have re­ 1 0 d3 e5 ( 1 0 . . . lDb5?! 1 1 i.e3 e5
versed the order of names from those 1 2 llc I lDd4 1 3 lDe4 11 b8 1 4 lt:Jxc5
6 lDc2 i.xc3+ games, put single i.xc5 1 5 llxc5 llxb2? ! 16 i.xd4!
quotes around them and used the lib! + 17 'it>d2 nxh l 1 8 lt:Jxe5 ! ±
material here. Larsen-van der Wiel, Ams terdam
8 \lfa4 1 980) 1 1 i.e3! ( 1 1 0-0 lDe6 !? 1 2
For lines where White keeps his i.e3 llb8 - 12 . . . lDd4!? - 1 3 llab 1
queen on b3, see 6 d3 e5 7 ti'b3 i.e7 14 llfcl 0-0 1 5 lDe4 t Quinteros-
 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation 71

Portisch , Mar del Plata 1 98 1 . I I . .. .ih3 =.

ll:\b5 ( ! ) improves) I I . . . ll:\d5 ( !?, Overall, this line remains dyna­
but I I ... ll:lb 5? 1 2 l:lcl is Larsen­ mically equal.
van der Wiel, and 1 1 .. . ll:\e6 12 lie I B
with the idea ll:\e4 looks equally 6 d3
poor) 12 ll:\e4 ll:\xe3 l 3 fe n b8 1 4 The idea here is to delay ltlf3, so
't!t'c2 ± N ilssen-Trifunovic, Am­ that . . . ll:\c6 may be answered by
sterdam 1 954. .ixc6+.
9 ll:lf3 f6 6 e5 (73)
10 d3 Alternatives tend to have draw­
Not n ecessarily best, but played backs:
most often. Others: a) 6 ... g6 7 .ie3! and 'tid2, .ih6,
a) 1 0 d 4 is safe: 1 0 . . . cd l l'i¥xd4 e5 h4-h5 may follow.
1 2 't!t'c4 't!t'e7 1 3 0-0 't!t'e6 = Stein­ b) 6 ... ll:\c6? 7 .ixc6 be 8 't!t'a4 .id7
Matulovic, Sousse I Z 1 967. (8 . . . 'tid7 9 ll:lf3 f6 lO 't!t'a5 ! e5 1 1
b) 10 't!t'a5 e5!? ( lO . . . lLle6 l l'i¥xd8+ b3 ll:\e6 1 2 .ia3 ll:\d4 1 3 ll:\xd4 ±;
llxd8 and . . . ll:ld4 looks okay) I I or here l O .ie3 e5 I I ll:\e4 ll:\e6 1 2
b 3 't!tb8 1 2 .ib2 ltle6?! ( 1 2 ... c 4 1 3 lic l lii: b8 1 3 'i¥c2 ±) 9 ltlf3 f6 l O
.ia3 =) 1 3 .ia3 .ie7 14 llc l 't!tb6;!: .ie3 (or 1 0 lLld2! , e.g. l O ... e 5 1 1
Taimanov-Korchnoi, USSR 1 966. ltlc4 .ie7 1 2 f4 ±) 1 0 ... e5 1 1 ltle4
c) 10 ltle4 e5 1 1 d3 ltlb5 =. ltle6 1 2 lii:c 1 't!tb6 1 3 ltlfd 2 ! lii:b8
10 e5 14 lLlc4 'i¥c7 1 5 b3 l1b7 1 6 't!ta5 ! ±
1 1 .ie3 Sanguinetti- Dbokin, Moscow 01
a) 1 1 ll:\d2 ll:\d5 1 2ll:\c4 .ie7 1 3 't!t'a5 1 956.
'i¥b8 ! = lvanovic-Quinteros, Bar c) 6 ... e6?! 7'i¥b3 (or 7ltlf3 ;!:) 7 . . .
1 977. ltld 7 8 lLlf3 b6?! 9 ltld2 lii: b 8 1 0
b) 11 0-0lLle6 1 2lLle4 't!tb6 1 3ll:\fd2 ltlc4 .ib7?? ( I 0 . . . .ia6) 1 1 .ixb7
'i¥b5 ! ? ( 1 3 ... lLl d4!?) 1 4 'i¥d 1 .ie7 lii:x b7 1 2 ltla5 1-0 K arlsson-Bass,
1 5 ll:\c4 0-0 =/co A . Petrosian­ Gausdal 1 983.
A n ikayev, Daugavpils 1973. d) 6 ... 'i¥d7!? 7 ltlf3 (7 ltlh 3 ltlc6
11 lii: b 8!? 8 .ie3 b6 = ; 7 .ie3 e5 8 l1clltlc6?!
Or 1 1 . .. ll:\e6. A fter 1 1 . . . lii:b8 !? 9 ltlf3 ;!:) 7 . . . ltlc6 8 0-0 e5 9 ltld2
Quinteros-Sokolov, Biel lZ 1 985, .ie7 (9 . . . lii: b 8 !?) l O ltlc4 f6 ( 1 0 ...
continued 1 2 0-0 ll:\d5 13 life! ( 1 3 0-0!? and 1 1 .ixc6'i¥xc6 12 ltlxe5
\!t'xa7 l1a8 1 4 'tib7 ll:lb6 =) 1 3 ... 'i¥e6 +leo or 1 1 a4 !? f6 1 2 f4) 1 1
a5 14 .id2 llxb2 1 5 ltle4 'i¥b6 1 6 't!Va4 ( 1 1 f4 ;!:) 1 1 . . . ltld8 1 2 'ti'xd7+
'i¥xa5 ( 1 6 .ixa5 't!ta6 =/co So kolov) .ixd7 ( 1 2 ... �xd7 1 3 .ie3 ltlc6
1 6 . . . 'tia5 1 7 .ixa5 l1xe2 ! 1 8 ll:lfd2 1 4 liac l ltla6 1 5 ltld5 ;!: lvkov-
 72 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation

Dunkelblum, Caorle 1972) 1 3 f4 ef f5 ! ) Rasch-B.Stein, West Germany

1 4 .ixf4 lilc8 (?) ( 1 4 ... lt::l ce6 I 5 1975.
lt::la 5 lt::lxf4 t Ti mman; I 5 .id6 !?) c) On 7 a3, independent were 7 . . .
1 5 a4 b6 16 .ixc 7 ! lilxc7 17 lt::lb 5 .ie7 8 lt::lf3 lt::l c6 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 llb i ,
.ixb5 1 8 a b :±± Ti mman-Hort, Andersson-Tseitlin, Polanica Zdroj
Montreal 1 979. 1978 ( 1 0 . . . .ie6! Milic), and 7 . . .
t!fd7!? 8 .ie3 lt::lc6 9 ll c I li::le6 10
73 li::lf3 llb8 I I 0-0 f5 1 2lt::l a4 b6 13 b4
w .ib7 1 4 bc b5 1 5lt::lc 3 a6Voo Ribli­
van Riemsdyck , Riga IZ I 979.
d) 7 f4 ef (7 . . . .id6 !? 8 fe .txe5
intending 9 't!t'a4+ 't!t'd7; 7 . . . li::ld 7
8 'it'a4 t) 8 .ixf4 .ie7 9 'it'a4+ (9
'ikb3 li::lc6 1 0 .txc6+ be I I 't!t'a4
lt::le 6!? 1 2 't!t'xc6+ .id 7 and . . . li::ld 4
oo) 9 . . . li::ld 7 (9 . . . .id 7 10 't!t'a 5!
with the idea 1 0 ... b6? I I .ixc7!
7 lt::l h 3!? 't!t'xc7 I 2li::ld 5 ± ) 1 0li::l f3 0-0 I I 0-0
a) 7 t!fa4+ .id7 8 t!fe4lt::lc6 9lt::lf3 f6 lt::lb6 1 2 't!t'c2li::lc d5 I 3 a3 .ie6 1 4 e4
10 0-0 .ie7 I I li::ld5 (}0, Witkowski­ was Tal-Gipslis, Riga I 954, when
Pietzsch, Riga 1954. 14 . . . lt::lxf4 15 gff5 would have been
b) 7 'ttb 3 li::ld 7 8 lt::lf3 (8 f4!?) 8 .. . equal.
.ie7, a nd now 9li::ld 5!?li::lx d5 (9 .. . e) 7 .ie3lt::lc6? 8 .txc6+ still favours
lt::le 6 1 0 (}0 0-0 I I a4! <t>h8 1 2 a5 White, and 7 . . . 'ikd7 8 l:tc l lt::lc 6 is
l:tb8 1 3 ;V ± Geller-Madera, Buenos note 'd' to 6 . . . e5. Better is 7 . . . lt::le6
Aires I 954) 1 0 t!fxd5 t!fc7 ! I I .ie3 8 llc l li::ld 7 9 lt:lf3 llb8 10 0-0 .te7
( I I 0-0 .id6) I I . . . llb8 I 2 llci b6 =; but here 10 ... g6?? I I 't!t'd2 h6
=. Best seems 9li::ld 2 (}0 lO 0-0, e . g . 1 2li::l d 5 b6 1 3 d4 ! ! cd 14 .ixd4 ed
1 0 ... li::l b6 ( 1 0 . . . l:tb8 ! ? ) I I lt::lc4 1 5 li::lx d4 was :±± in Sadovsky­
.ie6 I 2 t!fc2 ! t Karlsson-Alburt, Shaposhni kov, corres 1956.
Hastings 1 983-84. More conventional is 7 . . . .ie7
On 7 t!fb3 lt::lc 6 8 .ixc6+ be, 9 8 l:tc l , e .g. 8 ... li::le 6!? (safer 8 . . .
t!fa4 transposes to 6 'it'b3; and 9 lt::lb a6 9 li::lf3 f6 1 0 li::ld 2 l:tb8! =
li::lf3 f6 I 0 .ie3 .id7 ( 1 0 . . .li::le 6 I I Plachetka) 9 li::lf3 lt::lc 6 l O li::ld 2
lt::le4 'ikd5? I 2 llc l ± Panno-Strauss, .id7 I I 0-0 llb8 1 2 lt::lc4 f6 13 a4
Lone Pine 1 976; I I . . . 'ikb6 !?) I I (}0 = Plachetka- Bai'ias, Trnava
lt::le4 ( I I 0-0 li::le 6!) I I . . . li::le 6 1 2 I 98 I .
ll c l t!fb6 1 3li::lfd2 .ie7 = ( I 4 0-0?? Aft er 7 li::lh 3:
 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation 73

7 i.e7 6 . . . g6?! 7 't!t'a4+! and 7 . .. i.d7

7 . . . i.d6 8 0-0 0-0 9 f4 ef(or 9 . .. 8 't!t'c4 or 7 ... 't!t'd7 8 't!t'c4 ltJ ba6
ltJc6 1 0 i.d2 i.g4! = ) 10 ltJxf4 9 ltJe5 .
ltJd7 ! ? I I ltJe4 ( I I b3 !?; I I i.e3 C l 7 b3
ltJf6 12 <t>h I ;!:: ECO ; 1 2 . . . l:tb8) C2 7 't!t'a4
I I ... i.e5 12 e3 f5 13 ltJd ltJf6 was C3 7 a3
Averbakh- Bronstein, USSR 19 74, C4 7 d3
and now best is 1 4 ltJc4 :t. cs 7 0-0
8 0-0 0-0 Cl
9 f4 ltJc6 7 b3 e5
9 . . . ef l O ltJxf4 ltJc6 I I i.e3 i.d7 Or 7 .. . g6!? 8 i.a3 (8 i.b2 i.g7
1 2 Itc l ( 1 2 ltJfdS !?) 1 2 ... Itc8 1 3 9 llc l 0-0 1 0 ltJa4 ! ? i.xb2 l l ltJxb2
't!t'd2 ltJe6 1 4 ltJfdS b6 = Gi ardelli­ ltJe6 = ) 8 ... b6!? (or 8 ... ltJa6 9 l::l: c l
Quinteros, Moron 1 982. 't!t'a5 l O ltJa4 ltJab4) 9 e3 i.g7 l O d4
10 i.e3!? cd I I ltJxd4 ltJxd4 ! 1 2 i.xa8 i.g4 ! !
1 0 <t>h I llb8 I I a3 ef! ? ( I I . .. 1 3 't!t'xg4 't!t'xa8 1 4 0-0-0 f5 1 5 't!t'h4
i.d7 ! = ) 1 2 ltJxf4 ltJe6 1 3 llb l i.f6 16 'it'xf6 ! =/oo Robatsch­
ltJxf4 1 4 i.xf4 t Uhlmann-Kostro, Farago, Erevan 1 982.
Kienbaum 1 9 5 8. 8 i.b2 i.e7
After l O i.e3, B lajwas-Fielding, Generally chosen, although 8 . ..
corres 1 983, continued lO . . . llb8 f6 (75) has a fine theoretical repu­
I I llc l i.g4?! ( I I ... b6! = ) 1 2 ltJf2 tation:
ef 13 gf i.h5 1 4 ltJce4 f5 ( 14 ... b6??
1 5 ltJg3; 14 . . . ltJ d4?? 1 5 ltJg3) 1 5 75

ltJxc5? ( 1 5 ltJg3 ± threatening w

i.xc5 ) 15 . . . ltJd5 oo.

c
6 ltJf3 ltJc6 (74)

74
w

For example, 9 0-0 i.g4! l O ltJe l

't!i'd 7 ( I I ltJd3 @xd 3 ! ) , or here 1 0
ll c l ltJe6 I I ltJa4 :iil.c 8 with solid
control ove r the centre. I nstead
of acceding to passivity, White
 74 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation

could try I 0 h3 .i.h5 l l lLlh4!? 'it'd? USSR Ch 1 954. Here 1 2 d4 !? ed

1 2 lLle4!? with the idea 1 2 . . . .i.e? 1 3 lLlxd4 lLlxd4 1 4 .i.xd4 cd 1 5
1 3 llc l b6 14 g4 .i.g6 1 5 lLlg3 oo, llxc7 't!fxc7 1 6 J.xa8 .i.g4 =/oo
or 12 . . . lld8 1 3 llc l b6 14 d3 (e.g. was Ruiz-Tarjan, Palo Alto 1 98 1 .
14 ... .i.f7 15 f4 !?), or 1 2 ... f5 1 3 12 e3
lLl xf5! 'ti'xf5 1 4 g4 .i.xg4 1 5 hg Again, 1 2 ltJ e l .i.g4 ! , or 1 2 d3
't!fxg4 16 llc l (planning l:tc3-g3). .i.g4 = . A ft er 1 2 e3, Furman­
Shatskes also gives 9 llc I .i.g4 Witkowski, Polanica Zdroj 1 967,
10 lLl a4 (?!) (again, 10 h3 .i.h5 I I went 1 2 . . . .i.e6 !? ( 1 2 ... .i.g4 13 h3
lLlh4 'it'd? 1 2 lLle4 lLle6 1 3 0-0) I 0 .i.e6) 1 3 d4 cd 1 4 ed e4 15 lLle l f5
. . . lLle6 I I .i.a3 b6! 1 2 h3 ( 1 2 lLlh4 16 f3 .i.g5 1 7 llc2 .i.e3+ 1 8 �h 1
lLled4!) 1 2 . . . .i.h5 1 3 0-0 llc8 +. lLlxd4 1 9 llc 3 ! .i.g5 20 fe ;!;.
9 llc 1 f6 C2
9 . . . lLle6!? I 0 0-0 0-0 I I lLle I ! 7 't!t'a4 (76)
.i.d7 (lest .i.xc6) 1 2 lLld3 intends
1 2 . . . llc8 1 3 lLla4 or 1 2 . . . f6 1 3 76

lLld5 b6 1 4 f4 ;!;, In Speel man-Sax, B

Plovdiv 1 983, Black found 1 2 . . .

b6 ( ! ) 1 3 lLld5 ( 1 3 .i.xc6 .i.xc6 1 4
lLlxe5 .i. b 7 oo ) 1 3 . . . .i.d6 1 4 f4 e f
1 5 gf llc8 1 6 e3 ( 1 6 'ti'e l !?) 1 6 . . . f6 !
1 7 't!fh6 lLle 7 =.
10 0-0
10 lLla4 lLla6 ! I I 0-0 0-0 trans­
poses.
10 0-0 7 .i.d7 (!)
1 1 lLla4 7 ... 't!t'd 7 is playable but u n­
I I lLl e l !? .i.g4 ! =. Perhaps I I necessary. After 8 0-0 (8 't!t'e4 f6
d3!? .i.e6 ( I I . . . .i.g4 !?) 1 2 e3 lLld5 9 0-0 e5 1 0 lld I .i.e? I I e3 't!t'g4 ! =;
13 't!fe 2 lLlxc3 14 .i.xc3 't!fd7 1 5 8 d3 e5 9 0-0 ll b8 I 0 .i.e3 .i.e? =),
lLle I !? with the idea f4, 't!Vb2 is Black has :
worth a try. a) 8 ... e5 9 e3 ! ? (9 a 3 ll b8 1 0 b4 b 5)
11 ltJa6! 9 . . . .i.e? 1 0 lld l lLle6 !? ( 1 0 . . . 0-0
I I . . . b6 1 2 lLlh4!? .i.d7 ( 1 2 . . . I I d4 ;!;) I I 't!t'e4 ! ? f6 1 2 .i.h3 'i!t'd8
.i.b7 1 3 b4 ! ; 1 2 . . . lLld5 1 3 a 3 ;!;) 1 3 1 3 d4 ;!;.
a 3 ! ? ( 1 3 e3 lLl b4 oo ) 1 3 . . . 't!fe8 ! 1 4 b) 8 ... g6!? 9 't!t'c4 (9 lLle I ! ?) 9 . . . b6
't!fc2 ll c8 1 5 e3 lLle6 1 6 f4 e f 1 7 10 b4 .i.g7 ! I I be b5 1 2 't!t'e4 b4 1 3
gf c4 ! =/oo Sokolsky-Taimanov, lLlg5 .i.b7 1 4 ll b l h6 ( 1 4 . . . lLla6!
 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation 75

co) 1 5 ll xb4! lt:lxb4 1 6 1!fxb7 hg Sokolsky's 1 3 b4 cb 1 4 ab lt:l b5 ! +

17 '8'xb4 t Mi khalchishin-Chekov, is even better. So play should go
USSR 1977. 13 lib ! ( 1 3 d3 lt:le6 14 i.e3 lt:led4 +)
8 1!fe4 13 . . . lt:le6 14 b4 b6 1 5 lt:l d 5 lt:led4!
8 'it'h4 e5 =. 16 be be 17 e3 lt:le2+ 18 �h l e6
8 g6! 19 't!rd3 cd 20 't!rxe2 llb8 + Smcjkal­
S afe and good. 8 . . . lt:l e6 !? is rich Sokolov, Novi Sad 1 984 .
in complications, e .g. 9 e 3 g6 1 0 d4 c
cd 1 1 ed i.g7 1 2 i.e3! ( 1 2 0-0 lt:lexd4 7 a3 (77)
1 3 lt:l xd4 lt:lxd4 14 't!rxb7 ll b8 = ;
1 2 d5? lt:led4 1 3 de i.xc6) 1 2 . . . f5
1 3 'ii'd 5 lt:lc7?! ( 1 3 . . . lt:l b4!? 1 4 'ft'b3
lt:ld3+ 1 5 �e2 f4 ! ro; 1 3 . . . f4 !? with
the idea 1 4 gf lt:lb4 15 'ti'e4 lt:l xd4 ! ?
1 6 lt:l xd4 i.xd4 1 7 i.xd4 i.f5 1 8
'i!Vxb7 1t'xd4! ro) 1 4 'i!Vb3 Uoo
Ro manishin-Tal, USSR Ch 19 76.
9 lt:le5 i.g7
1 0 lt:lx d 7 'i!Vxd 7
11 0-0
White's two bishops are at least 7 g6
compensated by B lack's space and Best on grounds of simplicity,
development. 1 1 1!fa4 0-0 (or 1 1 . . . but there are two other good moves:
lt:ld4 =) 1 2 d 3 lt:l e6 1 3 i.xc6 !? be a) 7 ... e6!? 8 0-0 i.e7 is rare: 9 d3
14 i.d2 llfb8 + Csom-Vadasz, (9 e3 't!rd3! Polugayevsky-Korchnoi,
Budapest 1 977. Amsterdam 1972) 9 . . . 0-0 (9 . . . b6!?)
11 0-0 10 i.e3 lt:ld5 1 1 ll c l lt:lxe3 1 2 fe i.d7
I I ... llc8 ( ! ) (or I I . . . lt:le6) 12 a3 ( 1 2 . . . llb8) 1 3 lt:le4 'ft'b6 14 'i!Vc2
lt:le 6 is also good, e . g. 13 b4 ( 1 3 d3 c4 1 5 d4 :t Vaganian-Lju boj evic,
0-0) 13 . . . b6 1 4 e3 0-0 + Novak­ Tilburg 1983.
Adams, Polish Ch 1977. b) 7 ... e5 8 b4 (8 0-0 t ransposes to
12 a3 7 0-0 below) 8 . . . f6 ! (8 ... cb 9 ab
1 2 d 3 lt:l e6 (or 12 ... llab8 ! and i.xb4 10 lt:lxe5! 0-0 ! I I lt:l xc6 - 1 1
... lt:ld4) 1 3 i.d2 nac8 =. .ixc6 'tWd6! - I I . . . be 1 2 't!ra4 :t)
12 llac8 9 be (9 li b ! !? cb 10 ab i.f5 1 1 llb2,
Or 1 2 . . . llab8. After 12 . . . llac8, Forin tos- Varnusz, Balatonbereny
I gave 13 b4 lt:l e6 14 lib I b6 with 1983; 1 1 ... i.e7 Forintos) 9 . . . i.xc5
good play in the first edition, but (9 . . . lt:le6!? 1 0 e3 i.xc5 1 1 0-0 0-0
76 3 gJ d5 and the Rubinstein Variation

1 2 't!t'c2 i.d7 ro) 10 0-0 0-0 I I .ib2 9 be

( I I a4 lDc6 1 2 i.a3 �h8 1 3 't!t'c I 9 lib ! i.fS ! 1 0 ll b l c4 I I bS
llb8 = Seirawan-Sax, Amsterdam ll:JaS 12 't!t'a4 b6 + E.Meyer-Portisch,
1 9 83; I I lib I !? l:l b8 1 2 d 3 i.e6 1 3 Lone Pine 1978.
li:'Je4 i.e7 1 4 't!t'c2 lLJdS ! Plachetka) 9 lt:Ja6
I I . . . i.e6 (or I I . . . lLJ e6 12 llc I 10 i.b2
Wh8 1 3 e3 't!t'd3 =, or 1 2 . . . ..tlh8 ) 1 0 0-0 ll:JxcS I I a4, Christiansen­
1 2 lt:J e4 { 1 2 't!t'a4!?) 1 2 . . . .ie7 1 3 Peters, USA 1 979, is best met by
llc l ll:Ja6 1 4 d4 't!t'b6! I S .ta l llad8 I I . . . 0-0 1 2 .ta3 't!t'aS and 1 3 ll b l
1 6 llb l 't!t'c7 Gofstein-Karasev,
= a6 o r 1 3 lit e I i.e6.
USSR 1 976. I0 ll:Jxc5
c) 7 ... f6!? 8 llb I eS 9 0-0 (9 b4 is Black is already somewhat better,
' b') 9 . . . i.fS 10 d3 't!t'd7 I I i.e3 llc8 e.g. I I ll:Ja4 (else I I . . . .ie6) I I . . .
1 2 b4? cb 1 2 ab i.xb4 =t= Dorfman­ i.xb2 1 2 ll:Jxb2 i.e6 1 3 0-0 llc8
Ani kayev, USSR Ch 1 98 1 . ( 1 3 . . . 0-0 14 lie ! 't!t'aS + Andersson­
8 b4 Portisch, Biel IZ 1 976) 14 lic l "§'aS
Consistent. Otherwise, 8 d3 (8 + Osmanovic-Smejkal, Sarajevo
h4'? i.g4? 9 b4 ! M i khalchishin; 1983.
but 8 ... h6 =) 8 . . . i.g7 9 0-0 0-0 C4
1 0 i.d2, and now 1 0 . . . b6 (or 1 0 . . . 7 d3
h 6 ) I I I1b l i.b7 1 2 b 4 cb 1 3 a b Here we treat lines where White
lt.:d4 = Lu kacs, or 1 0 . . . ll:Je6 I I delays 0-0.
lt:Jd4 = Lukacs, or 1 0 . . . ll:Je6 I I lib I 7 e5
a S 1 2 lt:Je4 i.d7 1 3 e3, Vaganian­ 7 ... g6 !? resembles 7 0-0 g6 below,
Korchnoi, Linares 1 98S, and now but White gets to the c-pawn more
M i k halchishin suggests 1 3 . . . a4 !?. quickly: 8 i.e3! ll:Je6 (8 . . . ll:Jd4?
8 i.g7 (78) 9 i.xd4 cd I 0 1i'a4+; 8 . . . eS 9 lt:Jd2
.id7 1 0 0-0 :U ±) 9 0-0 i.g7 I 0 ll:Ja4
ll:Jcd4?! ( 10 . . . 0-0 I I lt:JxcS lt:JxcS
1 2 i.xcS i.xb2 1 3 ll b l i, or l l lie !
i) I I lic l 'ii'aS 1 2 ll:JxcS ! lt:Jxf3+
13 i.xf3 lt:JxcS 1 4 lixcS 't!t'xa2 I S
b4 ± Gheorghiu-Korchnoi, Palma
de Mallorca 1 972.
8 lt:Jd2
8 .ie3?! .ie7 (or 8 . . . i.d7 9 0-0
i.e7 10 lt:Jd2 0-0, e.g. I I ll:Ja4 b6
12 b4 cb! 13 llc l ll:Jd4 =/oo) 9 lt:Jd2
 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation 77

,.td7 (9 . . . 0-0!? 10 ..ixc6 be I l lb b3 ! d4 ! ) 8 . . . i.. e 7 9 ..ie3 0-0 (9 . . . eS

Popov, but I I . . . fS 1 2 ..ie3 lbe6 1 3 1 0 Iit c l !) 10 d4 !.
lba4 f4 ! holds; s o I I lbc4 !) I 0 0-0 est
( I 0 lbc4 0-0 I I a4 'i!?h8 I 2 0-0 f6 7 g6!? (79)
1 3 f4 ef 1 4 gf lbe6 I S fS lbed4 or
14 . . . ..ie8 ) 10 . . . 0-0 I I lbc4 f6
= 79

( I I . . . b6!?; see below) 1 2 f4 ef 1 3 gf w

:S:b8 I 4 :S:c l lbd4 I S i.f2 i.g4! +

Rukavina-Lengyel, Virovitica I 977.
8 ..id7
a) 8 ... i..e 7? 9 i.xc6+ be 10 lbc4 f6
I I '@'a4 ±.
b) 8 ... '@d7?! 9 0-0 b6 10 lbc4 f6
I I a4 ..ie7 1 2 f4 ef 1 3 i.xf4 lbe6 1 4
a S ! ± Polugayevs ky-Gheorghiu,
Palma de Mallorca 1 972. Recently beginning to catch on
c) 8 ... i..e 6!? 9 ..ixc6+ be 10 b3 ! a bit.
( 10 '@a4 t!id7) 10 . . . lObS I I lba4 8 lba4
't!i'dS 1 2 f3 ..ie7 (?!) ( 1 2 . . . hS I 3 Others tend to cede Black control
i.. b 2! !) 1 3 i.. b 2 hS 1 4 :S:c l h4 I S of d4:
g4 (intending I 6 lbe4) I S . . . ..ixg4!? a) 8 b3 i_g7 9 i.. b 2 b6 (or 9 . . . 0-0 =)
16 e4 '@xd 3 17 fg ..igS 1 8 liJxcS ± 10 lba4 ..ixb2 I I lbxb2 Iil b8 I 2 e3
Petrosian-Szabo, Amsterdam 1 973. 0-0 1 3 d4 cd I4 :S:c i i.. b7 I S ed
No rm al after 8 . . . ..id7 is 9 0-0 lObS! 16 dS lbb4 I 7 a4 lbc7 =t=
i.. e 7 ('CS2' below). 9 lbc4 bS! 1 0 Gurevich-Alburt, US Ch 1983.
lbe3 lii: c 8 I I 0- 0 lbd4 1 2 i.. d 2 ( 1 2 b) 8 a3 i.g7 9 Iilb l , Filgu th-Law,
liJedS = Pach man) I 2 . . . i.. e6 I 3 Youth Team Ch 198 1 ; 9 . . . 0-0!
a4?! ( 1 3 f4 ef 1 4 gf g6 ) 1 3 . . . a6
= with the idea I 0 b4 cb I I ab i.. fS ! .
14 ab ab I S lii: a 7 ..ie7 + Olafsson­ c ) 8 d3 ..ig7 9 ..ie3 ( 9 i.. d 2 0- 0 l O a3
Bronstein, Reykj avik 1 974. ..ig4 I I h3 ..id7 =) 9 . . . b6 (9 . . .
cs lbd4 10 lba4 't!Yd6 I I :S: c l lb e6 I 2
7 0-0 lOgS! Tomas) l O 't!Yd2 ( 1 0 Iil c i 0-0
And now: I I '@a4 i.. d 7 I 2 '@h4 eS 1 3 '@xd8
C S I 7 . . . g6 !? Iilaxd8 + You nglove-Dlugy, New
CS2 7 ... eS York I 983) I O . . . 0-0 I I :S:fd i Iilb8
7 . . . e6?! 8 d3 (8 b3 i..e 7 9 ..ib2 I2 i.. h 6 lbd4 = Adamski-Cserna,
0-0 1 0 lii: c l , Ujtel ky-Bednarski, Budapest 1 9 79.
Po lanica Zdroj I 96S; lO ... b6? I I 8 b6
78 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation

8 . .. �a6!? is untried. If 8 . . . �c6, a ) 8 b3 i.c7 (8 . . . f6 9 i.b2 was 'C I ' ;

9 d3 i.g7 10 �g5 ! t looks promis­ 9 i.a3 !'? i.c7 10 �c I .ig4 I I i.xc6+
ing. Complex is 8 . . . e5!? 9 d3 (9 be 1 2 �a4 �c6 1 3 li c l "f/a5 1 4
b3 !? and 9 . . . e4 10 �e l t o r 9 . . . b5 �d3 lid8 m; 8 . . . i. e 6 9 i. b 2 lic8
10 �c3 lib8 I I i.b2 i.g7 1 2 li c l 1 0 li c l b6 I I �c l i.d7 1 2 �d3
�c6 1 3 �c l i.d7 1 4 �d5 intending i.d6 13 �c4 a nd f4 follows: i) 9
�d3) 9 . . . i.d7 (9 . . . b5 !'? 10 �c3 - �c l !? (9 i.b2 f6 1 0 lic l ; see 'C I ' )
10 �g5 i. d7 I I "f/b3 c4 - 1 0 . . . lib8 9 . . . .ig4!? ( 9 . . . 0-0 1 0 �d3 f6 I I
I I i.c3 �c6 1 2 li c l f5 =/m) 1 0 a3 �a4 ± intending .ia3, li e ) ; 9 . . .
�c6 I I i.e3 b6 1 2 b4 cb 1 3 d4 cd i.d7 10 �d3 f6 I I f4 ef 1 2 �xf4 :t )
14 �xd4 lic8 1 5 ab, Romanishin­ I 0 i.xc6+ be I I i.a3 "f/d7 ( I I . . .
Palat ni k, K i ev 1 973, and now i n­ .ih3 ! ? 1 2 �g2 h 5 m) 1 2 tJ i.h3
stead of 1 5 . . . i.g7?! 1 6 �b5 ! 0-0 1 3 li f2 (1) .
1 7 lia2 'i/c7? 1 8 �xa7 ! ±, Black b) 8 a3!? f6 ( 8 ... .id7 9 c 3 ! i; but
had 1 5 . . . i.xb4, e.g. 16 �b5 0-0 8 . . . i.d7 is playable, as is 8 . . . a5
1 7 � xa7 �xa7 1 8 .ixb6 lic7 . 9 d3 1f.. e7 . 8 ... i.c7 9 b4 f6 is ·c 3'.
9 d4! cd and here 9 lib I a5 10 b3 0-0 I I .ib2
10 i.f4 i.g7 i.f5 12 d3 � c6 = was Olafsson­
II �d4 Ernst. Reykj avik 1985) 9 d3 (9 e3 !?
1 1 li c l i.b7 = . i.e7 ! 1 0 d4 cd I I ed cd 1 2 �c2 d3
II �d4 1 3 �f4 0-0 1 4 �xd3 i.f5 is a line
1 2 i.xc7 �xc7 1 3 i.xa8 0-0 14 given by Boleslavsky) 9 . . . i.e7 (9
i.g2!? ( 14 �c3 lid8 15 i.g2 - versus . . . i.e6?! I 0 i.e3 "f/d7 I I �e4 �d4
. . . i.a6 - 1 5 . . . �f3+ 16 i.xf3 lixd l 12 li c l � a6 13 i.xd4 ! cd 1 4 e3 de
1 7 lifxd I , l ightly t , Polugayevsky­ 1 5 fc i.f5 1 6 �xe5 ! fe 1 7 �h5+ g6?
Taimanov, U SSR Ch 1 967) 14 . . . - 1 7 . . . i.g6 - 1 8 � f6+ � d8 1 9
i.a6 ( 1 4 . . . lid8) 1 5 �c3 li d 8 1 6 �xd7 gh 20 �xffi ++ Adamski­
�h i ("! t " Razuvayev) 1 6 . . . � xe2 Foisor. Warsaw 1 98 3 . The same
17 "f/a4 i.c4 18 lifd l �d4 19 game with 15 . . . i.d6 1 6 d4 ed 1 7
liacl b5, Razuvayev-Ki rov, Bul­ �xd4 i.e5 1 8 �xe6 "f/xe6 1 9 � g5 !
garia 1 9 8 1 , and now 20 "f/a6 t �b6 20 �d 5 ++ was Gufeld­
was best. Bukic. Skopje 19 7 1 ) 10 �d2 1f.. d 7
C52 ( 10 . . . 0-0 !?) I I li:bl ( I I �c4 0-0
7 e5 1 2 14 b5 1 3 �c3 ef l 4 �f5 ! � c 5 ! oo
C52 1 8 � e l Lech tynsky-Trap!, Czechoslovak
C522 8 d3 Ch 1 986) I I . . . lib8 12 �c4 b5 1 3
Not 8 �a4'! ! i.d7 9 �e4 f5 1 0 �c3 �d4? 1 4 b4 c b 1 5 ab i.e6 1 6
�e3 'ti'e7 + . Others: f4 cf 1 7 li xf4 ! ± wit h the idea
 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation 79

li:lcd5 , Espig-Forintos, Balaton­ as in Watson-Banks , New York

bereny 1 9 84. 1 980, when I I f4 or I I d3 is best ,
C521 since the natural I I li:ld 3? .if5! 1 2
8 li:lel (80) li:le4 t!¥d5 1 3 f3 c4 1 4 li:lc3 �d7 1 5
't!t'xc4 .ixd3 clearly favoured Black.
/10 The correct sequence is 9 li:ld3!
B f6 1 0 .ixc6+ be I I 't!ra4 U ± .
b) 8 ... .ie6 9 li:ld3 f6 1 0 .ixc6+ ( 10
f4 c4 I I li:lfl ef 12 gf 'ifd7 = Smyslov­
Htibner, Ve lden (match) 1 983) 1 0
. . . b e I I �a4 �d7 1 2 b3 li:lb5 1 3
.ib2 li:ld4 1 4 f4 t Watson-Grtinberg,
Gausdal , 1 980, with the idea 14 . . .
e 4 1 5 li:l fl f5 1 6 d 3 , or even 1 5
li:l xe4!? li:l xe2+ 1 6 \t12.
I 've s uggested this (Shats kes's) c ) 8 ... h5!? 9 f4 (9 h3!? .ie6; 9 h4 g5
move as a substitute for the almost 10 hg oo) 9 . . . h4 10 d3 hg I I hg c4!?
auto matic 8 d3, but haven't aroused 12 de .ic5+ 13 e3 t!Vxd l 14 li:l xd l
much interest. The idea is to threaten ef 1 5 li:ld3 ( 1 5 gf .if5 with active
.ixc6+ while 1Wa4, b3, .ia3 , li:ld3 piece play) 1 5 . . . f3 ( 1 5 . . . .ixe3+
and :S:c l are all still possible. If 16 li:lxe3 4') 16 :S:xf3 .ie7 1 7 li:l l f2
Black defends his pawns, f4 will li:le6 1 8 li:le4 li:lg5 1 9 li:lxg5 .ixg5
become a key break . There is a 20 :S:fl .ie6 2 1 .id5 0-{}.0 22 e4
certain piqua ncy in 8 li:le l , as .if6 22 .ie3 ± Nikolic-Cebalo,
White moves his ki ng's knight Vrs ac 1 98 3 .
three times to get to an odd square d) 8 . . . .ig4!? i s the most interesting
( d3), j ust as Black moved his three alternative: 9 .ixc6+ (9 li:lc2? �d7
times to get to c7. Of course Black's 10 li:le3 .ih3 '+ ) 9 . . . be 10 t!¥a4 t!¥d7
regaining of time gives him many I I li:ld3 f6 1 2 f4 !? �d4+ 1 3 :S:fl
options. �xa4 ( 1 3 ... c4 1 4 1Wxc6+ �d8 1 5
8 .id7 li:le l ) 1 4 li:lxa4 t .
To prevent .ixc6+. Others: 9 li:ld3
a ) I gave 8 ... .ie7?! 9 .ixc6+ (?) 9 b3 'ticS ( ! ) (9 . . . .ic7 10 li:ld3 f6
be 10 't!t'a4 (}.0 I I b3 1!re8, which was I I f4 cf 1 2 li:l xf4 0-0 1 3 e 3 ! b6 14
Michaelides-McDaniels, Boston .ib2 .id6? 15 li:lcd5 t!¥e8 1 6 li:lh5
1978, when Michaelides gives 1 2 li:le5 17 :S: xf6! .ig4 18 li:lxg7 ! ±±
li:ld3 ! f6 1 3 .ia3 ± . True enough, D . Cramling-Lengyel , Eksjo 1982;
but Black also had 1 0 . . . 't!rd6! (= ) a good exampl e) 1 0 .ib2 ( 1 0 li:ld3
80 3 gJ d5 and the Rubinstein Variation

.ih3 I I f4 .ixg2 1 2 �xg2 'i!t'd 7 ! ?) a) 8 ... f6 9 ll:ld2 (9 e3 .ig4 ! 1 0 h3

10 . . . ll:ld8? ( 10 . . . .ih3! =) I I ll:ld3 .ih5) 9 . . . .id7 1 0 ll:lc4 ll:lc6?! ( 10
f6 1 2 f4 i Watson-Eversole, Colo­ . . . .ie7 is the text) I I f4 (or I I a4 ::!-:)
rado 1 977. I I ... ef 1 2 .ixf4 ( ! ) ( 1 2 gfis examined
9 f6 (8 1) in 'c') 1 2 . . . ll:lxf4 1 3 l:ixf4 .ie7 1 4
9 . . . .ie7 1 0 .ixc6 be I I ll:lxe5 .i d 5 ! \Wb8 1 5 c3 b 5 16 \Wf3 ±±
.ih3 1 2 ll:lxc6 �d7 1 3 ll:lxe7 ±; Pavlov-Nach t, Romania 1 973.
9 ... c4 10 .ixc6 cd I I .ixb7 Itb8 b) 8 ... .id7?! 9 e3! :t:: .
( I I . . . .ih 3 12 .ixa8 't!t'xa8 14 �a4+ c) 8 . . . ll:le6?! 9 ll:ld2 .id7 1 0 ll:lc4
and 'ti'e4) 1 2 .ig2 ± . f6 I I f4 ef 1 2 .i x f4! is 'b'; 1 2 gf(? ! )
.i c 7 1 3 e3 0-0 1 4 �b3 l:i b8 1 5 f5
81 ll:lg5 16 ll:le5+ 'it>h 8 1 7 ll:l xd7 1i'xd7
w = S hatskes.
9 ll:ld2 (82)
9 .ie3 0-0 10 ll:ld2 is C4 above
( note to 8 ll:l d2).

10 b3
Interesting is 1 0 f4 ( " ! " Colias)
1 0 . . . c4 I I ll:l f2 ef 1 2 gf f5 !? ( 1 2 . . .
.ic5 1 3 \Wa4 !?; 1 2 . . . .ie6) 1 3 b3! cb
1 4 d4! .id6 (? ! ) ( 14 . . . .ib4 Colias)
1 5 e4 fe 16 ll:l fxe4 .if5 1 7 �xb3
.ixe4 1 8 ll:lxe4 .ie7 1 9 ll:lg5 ±± 9 .id7
Ivanov-Ch ow, Ch icago 1 986. a) 9 . . . 0-0!? I 0 ..txc6 be I I ll:lc4 f6
After I 0 b3, play could go 10 . . . 1 2 b 3 !? .ih3 1 3 li e ! ll:le6 1 4 .ib2
.ie7 I I .ib2 0-0 1 2 f4 t, or 1 0 . . . h 5 1 5 e3 1i'e8 1 6 f3 ( ! ) h4 1 7 ll:le4 hg
.ig4 I I .ixc6+ be 1 2 f3 .if5 ( 12 . . . 1 8 hg \Wh5 19 1!t'e2 t Dzindzihashvili­
.ih3 1 3 llf2 .if5 1 4 ll:le4 .ixe4 1 5 Tim man . Tilbu rg 1 985; 1 2 1!t'a4( ! )
fe t) 1 3 ll:lf2 t/oo. ( "t" ECO ).
8 ll:le I still awaits a body of b) 9 . . . hS? ! 1 0 h4! g5 I I hg .ixg5
practical evidence. 12 f4 ! h4!? 1 3 ll:lc4 ± Podgayets­
C522 Ka rasev, USSR 1 974.
8 d3 .ie 7 10 �c4 0-0 (!)
 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation 81

A gambit sequ ence which con­ II ..txc6

tinues to have great success. There I I a4!? is interesting, when 1 1 . . .
are many games wit h the older f6 ( I I . . . b6 !?) 1 2 f4 ef is note 'a' to
10 . . . f6, e.g: 10 . . . 0-0. The more common way
a) 1 1 a4!? 0-0 1 2 f4 ef 13 .ixf4 �e6 to decl ine is 1 1 f4 ef 12 gf ( 1 2 ..txf4
( 13 . . . .ie6!?, e.g. 14 �e3 'it'd7 = �e6 - 12 . . . ..te8!? - 1 3 ..td6 �ed4
Blau-Pachman, Munich 1 958; 1 4 14 ..txe7 'it'xe7 15 e3 �f5 =) 12 . . .
.txc6 i s especially risky w i t h t h e f5 !? ( 1 2 . . . lie8; 1 2 . . . li bS 1 3 ..td2
centre a n d b-file exposed) 1 4 �d5 f5 or 1 3 . . . lib8) 1 3 ..te 3 b6 (or 1 3
�xf4 1 5 �xf4!? 'it'e8 !? with the . . . litb8 1 4 lic l 'it>h8 1 5 'it'e l lif6 =
idea 16 �d5 lid8 or 1 6 e3 lidS Lobo-Tarjan, Palo Alto 1 9 S l ) 1 4
17 d4 cd 1 8 ed ..tc8 1 9 d5 .ic5+ 20 ..tf2 ..th4 1 5 ..tg3 ..txg3 1 6 h g 'it'f6
'it>h l �e5 =. =!+ with the idea . . . lidS, Reguera­
b) 11 f4 b5 1 2 �e3 litc8!? (the older Illescas, M edina del Campo 1 9S5.
line is 1 2 . . . ef and: 1 3 lhf4!? �e6 12 �xeS ..te8 (83)
14 lHI ! Byrne, but unclear; or
1 3 � f5 !? fg 14 �xg7+ 'it>f7 15 �f5 83

gh+ 1 6 'it>h l ro Zaichik-Palatnik, w

USSR 1 975; or 1 3 gf li b8 ! , and

14 �ed5 0-0 15 f5 ..td6 = or 1 4
.id2!? 0-0 1 5 f5 �e5 1 6 'it>h 1 , Vilela­
Lu kacs, Albena 1 985; 16 . . . c4!?)
13 a4 ( 1 3 f5 0-0 14 .id2 �d4 =;
1 3 �ed5 �xd5 1 4 �xd5 0-0 1 5 fe
�xe5 16 ..tf4 �c6 1 7 a4 b4 1 8 litc l
.ie6 1 9 e4 ..td6 = with the idea
. . . �a5, . . . c4, Smyslov-Htibner, 13 ..te3
Velden (match) 1 983) 1 3 . . . b4 1 4 a) 13 f4?! ..tf6 (or 1 3 . . . 'it>h 8 1 4
�e4!? ( 1 4 � b 5 e f 1 5 litxf4 �e6 ..te3 �e6 1 5 .i f2 f5 ! with the idea
16 �c4 ! 0-0 1 7 �bd6 �xf4 ro . . . g5) 14 �f3 ..tc6 1 5 �e4 lieS!
Houshan-van der Sterren, Lucerne 1 6 'it'c2 ..td4+ 1 7 e3 f5 ! =t= Espig­
01 1 982; 1 4 �cd5 0-0 1 5 �xe7+? ! Polugayevsky, Sochi 1 974.
'it'xe7 1 6 �c4 litfd8 + Seirawan­ b) 13 e4!? ..tf6 1 4 �g4 ..td4 1 5 �e3
Portisch, Mar del Plata 1 98 1 ) 14 . . . ..tc6 1 6 �f5 �e6 1 7 � xd4 ! ( 1 7
f5 1 5 �d 2 0-0 1 6 �ec4 e f 1 7 gf �d5? lie8 I S �xd4 �xd4 1 9 �e3
'it>h8 18 �b3 litf6 =/ro Korchnoi­ 'it'd7 20 f3 liadS 21 b3 f5 ! =t=
Portisch, Lucerne (World Team Petrosian-Vaganian, USSR Ch
Ch) 1 985. 1 976) 1 7 . . . � xd4 (or 1 7 . . . cd I S
82 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation

ll:Je2 f5) 1 8 i.e3 f5 1 9 i.xd4 1!fxd4 14 . . . 't!t'xd5 15 f4 f6 1 6 ll:Jf3 i.f7 ! 1 7

20 't!t'b3+ 'it>h8 2 1 ll:Je2 1!fd7 22 f3 't!t'c2 llfe8 1 8 b3 i.ffi 1 9 i.c 1 b5! +
i.b5 =/co Schtissler-Donaldson , Watson-Grefe, Las Vegas 1 97 5 .
Malmo 1 985. 14 llc1
c) 13 't!Vb3 b6 ! 1 4 i.e3 �h8 1 5 14 ll:Je4 b6 = wit h the idea . . .
lUd l f6 1 6 lLJf3 i.f7 1 7 't!t'a4 ll:Jd 5 'it>h8 , . . . f6/ . . . f5/ . . . f4. 1 4 't!t'b3 !?
1 8 ll:Jxd5 i.xd5 + Commons­ i.f6 (or 1 4 . . . b6 1 5 1Wd5 't!t'c8 1 6 f4
Gheorghiu, Lone Pine 1 975. 'it>h8 - or 16 . . . i,{6 - 1 7 f5 ll:Jc7 1 8
13 ll:Je6 't!t'e4 i.f6 = Vadasz- Vaganian,
There are other good moves: Sk ara 1 980) 1 5 f4 i.xe5 16 fe i.c6
a) 13 ... f6 !? 1 4 ll:Jf3 i.c6 15 ll:Je 1 1 7 1Wc4 1Wc7 = Sahovic-J oks ic,
'i!lh8 1 6 d4?! ll:Jd5 1 7 ll:Jxd5 't!t'xd 5 Yugoslav Ch 1 976.
1 8 f3 llad8 =!= Frumkin-Savereide, After 14 lie I. Black gets excellent
Palo Alto 1 9 8 1 . play, e .g. 1 4 . . . i.f6 1 5 ll:Jc4 i.c6
b) 13 ... i.f6 1 4 ll:Jf3 ll:Je6 1 5 ll:Je4 16 ll:Je4 i.d4 1 7 i.xd4 cd 1 8 ll:Je5
i.e7! (or 1 5 . . . i.d4 1 6 i.xd4 cd 1 7 i.d5 19 't!t'a4 lle8 20 ll:Jf3 't!t'b6 2 1
't!t'd2 i.c6 = Colditz-Reichenbac h , llc2 llad8 2 2 llfc 1 h 6 2 3 h 4 �h8
Berlin 1 9 7 7 ; 1 5 . . . b 6! ? ) 1 6 ll:J e 5 24 ll:Jed2 ll:Jf4 ! ! 25 gf 't!t'g6+ 26 'i!lf1
'i!l h 8 ! 1 7 f4 f6 1 8 ll:Jf3 b 6 1 9 i.d2 1Wg4 =!= Govbinder-Kapengut,
i.c6 (or 19 . . . i.f7) 20 i.c3 't!t'd7 2 1 Moscow 1 979.
lLJf2 i.xf3 2 2 ef f5 + Seirawan­
B.Stein, New York 1978. Conclusion: The Rubinstein is
c) Even 1 3 ... ll:Jd5!? seems okay: holding up well, and should prob­
1 4 ll:Jxd5 ( 14 't!t'b3 ll:Jxe3 1 5 fe i.f6!) ably be employed more often .
7 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma
Variation

I c4 c5 ..tc7 6 0-0 0-0 7 d4 cd 8 �xd4 1!t"c7

2 �c3 � f6 9 1!t"d3 (9 b3? d5) 9 . . . d6 I 0 b3 ..td7
3 g3 I I ..tb2 �c6 1 2 li: c l ;t Watson­
3 �f3 e6 transposes (e.g. 4 d4 to Miles, Lone Pine 1 976.
Chapters 1 3 and 1 4) . 3 e4 e6 is the 5 .ig2 .ie7
I c4 �f6 2 �c3 e6 3 e4 c5 English. 5 . . . 1!t"b6 !? is Makarichev's idea,
3 e6 to s top d4: 6 0-0 ..te7 7 b3 ! (7 e3 d5
4 �f3 =) 7 . . . 0-0 8 ..tb2 :ii d8 (8 . . . d5 9 cd
4 ..tg2?! d5 5 cd ed 6 d4 (otherwise ed 1 0 d4 ! ;!;) 9 d4 cd 1 0 �a4 ;t
. . . d4) 6 . . . cd 7 1!¥xd4 �c6 + is a (centre).
line from I c4 e5 2 �c3 � f6 3 g3 6 0-0 dS
c6 4 d4 etc. 6 . . . 0-0 7 e4?! d5 8 cd ed 9 e5
4 �c6 �e4! + Ree-Petursson, Malta 01
4 . . . d5 5 cd �xd5 is the best way 1 980. 6 . . . 0-0 7 d4 cd (7 . . . d5 tends
to get to the main line, but we use towards the main line) 8 �xd4 a6
this order to look a t irregular lines. is ±. This can also arise by 6 . . . a6
Here 6 ..tg2 �f6!? is Chapter 8 7 d4 cd 8 � xd4 0-0 (84) :
(5 g3 �f6), 5 . . . ed 6 d4 is a Tarrasch
Queen's Gambit, and 4 . . . b6 lines
are dealt with in Chapter I I . White
ca n play for the e4 lines of that
chapter by 4 . . . b6 5 d3 ..tb7 6 e4,
in view of 6 . . . d5? ! 7 cd ed 8 e5
�fd7 9 d4! cd?! (9 . . . ..te7 10 ..tg2
�c6 ;t) 10 � xd4 �xe5 I I .ib5+
�bd7 1 2 1!t"e2 1!¥e7 1 3 0-0 ±
Plato nov-G rigorian, USSR 1 97 1 .
Finally, 4 . . . a6 !? 5 .ig2 (5 d4
b5 !? 6 .ig2 be oo Velimirovic) 5 . . . White has two ways to obtain
84 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation

the adva ntage:

a) 9 b3 'it'c7 I 0 i.b2 d6 I I llc l 115

�xd4 ( lest �d5 ) 1 2 'it'xd4 i.d7 1 3 8

llfd l (or 1 3 .to llfd8 1 4 'it'f4 i.e8

1 5 g4! with the idea g5) 1 3 . . . llfd8
1 4 h3 i.e8 1 5 a4 (or 1 5 'it'e3 ::!:
G .Garcia-A ndersson, Cienfuegos
1 975) 1 5 . . . llab8 1 6 i.a3 ! b6 1 7
lld3 i.f8 1 8 'it'f4 :!; Csom-Augustin,
Pula 1 975.
b) 9 i.f4 (!) is also good, preventing
. . . 'it'c7 : 9 . . . � xd4 (9 . . . d5 1 0 cd The basic positio n . Now 8 . . . cd
�xd5 I I �xd5 ed 1 2 llc l ) 10 'it'xd4 9 �xd5 (9 �b5 0-0 1 0 �bxd4 �b6
d6 I I 'it'd3 'it'c7 1 2 llac l lld8 1 3 =) 9 . . . ed 1 0 � xd4 0-0 ( 1 0 . . . i.f6
llfd l ltJ h5 1 4 i.e3 i.d7 1 5 i.d4 I I i.e3) I I i.e3 i.f6 1 2 ll c l �xd4
(with the idea 'it'e3) 1 5 . . . i.e8? 1 6 ( 1 2 . . . i.xd4!? ;l: is Portisch-Da rga
'tWO ±± Watson-Slaton, Pasadena of Chapter 1 3 ) 1 3 i.xd4 i.g4 1 4
1 983. llc2 t . A n d 8 . . . �f6!? 9 e 3 0-0 1 0
7 cd �xdS a 3 ( 1 0 de!? Mikh alchishi n) 1 0 . . .
A 8 d4 c d I I e d 't!t'b 6 1 2 'it'd3 ll d 8 1 3 i.e3
B 8 � xd5 �g4? ! 14 b4 ± was Mikhalchishin­
In general, White gets to both Lalic, Sa rajevo 1 985. Th us:
main lines via 8 d4, but 8 � xd5 A I 8 . . . �xc3
can be independent. The alternatives A2 8 . . . 0-0
are equal: 8 e3 0-0 (or even 8 . . . c4! ) AI
9 d4 cd 1 0 �xd5 e d I I �xd4 i.f6 8 � xc3
= Tarrasch- Rubinstein, Carlsbad A little riskier than 8 . . . 0-0, but
1 9 23; and 8 b3 0-0 9 i.b2 i.f6 I 0 very common.
'it'c l b6 I I �xd5 ed 1 2 d4!? i.a6 9 be 0-0
( 1 2 . . . � xd4 1 3 ltJxd4 cd 14 �d2 a) 9 ... i.d7 is passive: 10 ll b l b6
i.a6 1 5 i.xd4 t Smej kal-Ftacnik, I I e4 cd 1 2 cd 0-0, Ujtelky-Szilagyi ,
Vrsac 1 98 1 ) 1 3 l:Ie l � xd4 1 4 Budapest 1 979, a nd now best is 1 3
i.xd4 ( 1 4 �xd4 cd 1 5 't!i'd2 d3 ! = ) i.b2! ( d5 a n d �d4-c6 can follow).
1 4 . . . cd 1 5 't!i'a3 Wc8 1 6 l:Iad l l:Ie8 b) 9 ... i.f6 1 0 e3 ( 1 0 i.a3!? cd I I
= Olafsson-Sigurjonsson, Reykjavik cd �xd4 1 2 �xd4 'iWxd4 1 3 �c2
1 98 1 . oo) 1 0 . . . 'tWaS I I 't!t'b3 'it'a6 1 2 Wa3
A :!; ,
8 d4 (85) 10 e4
 3 gJ and the Keres-Parma Variation 85

The main line, bu t now we see

that 8 . . . 0-0 is an easier route,
IM
because here 10 llbl !? is rather w
difficult for Black. I gave 1 0 . . .
1!t'c7 I I i.f4 i.d6 1 2 i.xd6 1!t'xd6
as equal in the first editio n, but
Unzicker-Miles, Baden-Baden 198 1 ,
went 1 3 1!t'a4 cd, and now Unzicker
suggests " 1 4 ll'l xd4! ± " . Black can
play 14 . . . ll'ld8 1 5 lil:fd l �e7 1 6
ll'lb5 a 6 1 7 ll'ld6 llb8, bu t t seems
fair. The other idea is 10 . . . �a5 ,
but Korchnoi-Lipnitsky, USSR Botvinnik-van Scheltinga, Amster­
Ch 1 952, went I I �c2 cd 1 2 ll'lxd4 ! dam 1 963, a nd now 16 . . . ll'lc4 ! 1 7
ll'lxd4 ( 1 2 . . . lLl d8 !? 1 3 llb5! 1t'c7 d6 �d7 is u nclear) 1 4 i.f4 i.d6
1 4 i.f4 1!t'd7 - 14 . . . i.d7? 15 ll h5 - ( 1 4 . . . ll'ld6 =) 1 5 ll'lg5 g6 1 6 �e4
1 5 lil:d I 1!t'e8 1 6 lil: b I ) 1 3 cd i.f6 1 4 b5 1 7 i.xd6 ll'l xd6 1 8 'it'h4 h 5 =
lld l lld8 1 5 i.e3 1!t'a6 1 6 ll b4 ! ± . Ftacnik-Lerner, Bratislava 1 98 3 .
10 cd A game Hort-Zwaig, Halle 1 967,
In view of this move's poor was more to the point: 1 2 i.f4 ( ! )
results, the alternatives deserve ed 1 3 ed i.f6 ( 1 3 . . . i.a6 ! ? 1 4 lle l
more attention : i.f6 or 1 3 . . . i.d6!?) 14 �d3 i.b7
a) 1 0 ... b5!? (Peters) l l d5 ( 1 1 ll b l 15 llad l it'c8 16 llfe l with the
b4 1 2 d5 e d 1 3 ed i.f5 ! 1 4 ll a l advantage: 16 . . . c4 !? 17 1t'c2 '@c5
lt:Ja 5 ; I I i. e 3 'it'c7 !? 1 2 1!t'e2 a5? 1 3 18 ll'l g5 i.xg5 19 i.xg5 ±. But
d5 ! ± Crane-D rysdale, corres Black's play is easy to improve
1 979; but I I . . . cd or even I I . . . upon.
ll'la 5 seems to im prove) I I . . . ed c) 1 0 . . . 1t'c7!? I I d5 ed 12 ed ll'la5
12 ed ll'la5 1 3 ll'le5 co. is fine , so perhaps I I 'it'e2 with the
b) 1 0 ... b6!? is quite reasonable. idea d5, or I I i.f4 i.d6 1 2 i.e3 b6
White should probably forego I I as in Watson-Carlson, Colorado
i.e3 i.b7 1 2 1!t'e2 ll'la5 1 3 ll'l e5 1 976, when White should continue
'it'c7 = Spassov-Raicevic, Subotica 13 lil:cl or 1 3 ll'ld2 !?.
1 978, in favour of I I d5 ll'la5 (86) 11 cd b6!?
H ere 1 2 'ti'c2!? has been seen in I I . . . i.f6 12 i.b2 b6 transposes,
two games: 1 2 . . . ed 1 3 ed ll'l c4 (or but limits Black's options; here
13 . . . g6!? Smej kal; 13 . . . i.f6 1 4 12 . . . ll'la5 !? is also interesting. The
i.f4 g6 1 5 llad l i.f5 1 6 �c l , other line is I I . . . i.f6 12 i.e3 b6
86 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation

( 1 2 . . . li:J a 5 ! ? 1 3 :ii c l !? .id7 1 4

�d3 a 6 1 5 :ii fd l .ia4 = Wa tson- 117

0 gaard, Os lo 1 9SO; 1 3 '@ld3 !?) B

1 3 't!t'a4 ( 1 3 'i!t'd3 .ib7 1 4 :ii a d I

:ii cS = Schu ssler-Ch ristian sen ,
Reykjavik 1 9S4) 1 3 . . . .id7 1 4 '@'a3
Il eS 1 5 ll a c l lt:Ja5 = Portisch­
H i.i bner, Abano Terme 1 9 80.
12 .ib2 (8 7)
a ) 1 2 d5!? has also s ucceeded, e . g .
1 2 . . . e d ( 1 2 . . . lt:J a 5 1 3 't!t'd3 cd 1 4
ed .if6 1 5 .ia3 ! ± O'Kelly-Barden, 12 .if6!?
England 1 95 1 ; 14 . . . .i b7 ! ?) 1 3 ed 12 . . . .i a6 13 l:le l lt:Jb4 ( 1 3 . ..
lt:J b4 ( 1 3 . . . .i f6 1 4 :ii b 1 .if5 1 5 :ii cS 1 4 d5 ed 1 5 .i h 3 lla8 1 6 ed
l1b3 lt:Ja5 1 6 Ilb4 =t= Mikhalchishin). lt:Ja5 , Sisniega-Karolyi, G raz 1 97 8 ,
H ere my suggestion 1 4 lt:J e 5 ! (t o a n d n o w 1 7 lt:Je5 ! is ;!:;) 1 4 .i f l ! ( 14
replace 1 4 lt:Jd4 .ia6 1 5 lit e 1 .i f6 :ii e 3 !? lii c S 1 5 lilc3 15 .ic3 '@'c7
-

1 6 .i a3 .ixd4 =) has been tried i n with the idea . . lt:Jd3 - 1 5 . . . :ii xc3
.

several ga mes, e .g: 1 4 . . . .i f6 ( 1 4 . . . 1 6 .ixc3 '@'c7 = Robatsch-Pinter,

.ia6? ! 1 5 :ii e I :ii c 8? 1 6 .ia3 .id6 Rome 1 9S2) 1 4 . . . .ixfl 1 5 �xfl
1 7 .ixb4 .ixb4 I S lt:Jc6 ± Gorelov­ :ii cS ( 1 5 . . . 't!t'c S!? Ftacnik) 1 6 lite2
Lukacs, Budapest 1 9S2) 15 :ii e 1 f5? ! ( 1 6 . . . \!t'd7 ) 1 7 't!t'bH Ftacnik-
.if5?! ( 1 5 . . . :ii e 8 1 6 :ii b 1 ! .ixe5 Farago, S kara 1 9SO.
1 7 :ii x b4 t M i n ic; 1 5 . . . .ib7 1 6 Remember, however, that Black
.ia3 t) 1 6 g4! lt:Jd3 1 7 lt:Jxd3 .ixd 3 has to allow 12 d5 to h ave this
1 S .i. a 3 ! .ixa 1 1 9 .ixf8 �xf8 20 opti o n .
't!t'xd3 't!t'f6 2 1 d 6 ! :ii dS 22 g5 ! 13 :ii b 1 ! .ib 7
H Mikhalchishin-Gorelov, U SSR 1 3 . . . .ia6 1 4 l:I e 1 lt:J a5 1 5 d 5
1 984. .ixb2 1 6 l:I b2 t.
b) 1 2 .ie3 .ib7 ( 1 2 . . . .i a6 1 3 :ii e l 14 d5 ed
lt:Ja5 !?) 1 3 :ii c l b 5 ! = Kuzmin. 15 ed lt:Ja5
I ns tead, 1 3 . . . lt:J a5 14 '@'d3 :ii cS 16 lt:Je5 .ixe5?!
15 :ii xcS 'ti'xc 8 1 6 :ii c 1 �aS 1 7 d 5 ! Conceding too m any advantages,
led to 1 7 . . . ed 1 8 ed .ixd5? ( I S . . . yet: 1 6 . . . lit eS 1 7 l:l e 1 lt:Jc4 ("? -
:ii d 8 1 9 lt:Jg5 g 6 M i nic) 1 9 lt:J g5 1 7 . . . lit eS" R ibli; but 1 8 d6 ! ) I S
.ixg5 20 .ixd5 �dS 2 1 .ixg5 �xg5 li:J xc4 l:Ixc4 1 9 d6 .ixg2 20 �xg2
22 l'i:c7 ±± in Qu i n teros-Tringov, lit c6 2 1 d7 litc7 22 .ixf6 't!t'xf6 23
Bar 1 9 77. :ii c l and wins, Berg-Velikov, West
 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation 87

Germany 1 983. � 1 2 i.e3 li d8 CD Cebalo­

After 16 . . . .txc5, Christians en­ Marjanovic, K ovala 1 9 85) 10 . . .
Portisch, Linares 1 9 8 1 , went 1 7 'ti'xd5 I I d e 1!¥xc5 ( I I . . . 1Wxa2 1 2
.ixe5 ltc8 1 8 li e I '@'d7 1 9 .ic3 i.g5 ! ) 1 2 !t'a4 i.d7 1 3 i.e3 !t'e 7
.ta6 20 li c l lLl b7 2 1 '@'d4 f6 22 14 'ft'e4 (or 1 4 b4 R ibli) 1 4 . . . llac 8
.ib4 lixc 1 2 3 li xc l li c8 24 li xc8+ 15 b4 b6 1 6 .id2! t/ ± with the idea
'@'xc8 25 h4 .tb5 26 d6 lLlc5 27 b5 , .tb4 Suba-Petursso n , Thessa­
'@'d5+! �f8 28 '@'e4 ! �f7 29 '@'e7+ loniki 01 1 984.
�g6 30 h5+ �xh5 3 1 i¥f7+ 1 -0. b ) 9 . . . cd 1 0 lLlxd4 lLlxd4 I I �xd4
A2 .tf6 1 2 'ft'c4 lLlxc3 1 3 be �a5 1 4
8 0-0 i.e3! !t'xc3 1 5 '@'a4 ! (or 1 5 1Wxc3
9 e4 t) 15 . . . i.d8 1 6 .txa7 ! ± Suba­
9 lLlxd5 ed (9 . . . 1!¥xd5? 1 0 i.e3 ! ) Cebalo, S kopje 1 9 84.
i s ' B ' below, and 9 d e lLlxc3 (9 . . . c) 9 . . . �aS 1 0 d e ! ? ( 1 0 'ti'd2!? li d 8
.i xc 5 1 0 i.d2 lLl b6 I I lLl e4 ! t - 10 . . . cd? 11 cd llJxd4 12 llJd5! -
Ftacnik-Gorik, Dortm u nd 198 1 ) I I lLl xd5 t; 10 .t d2 lLlxc3 I I .txc3
1 0 b e .txc 5 I I 'it'c2 h 6 (or I I . . . 't!Va2 1 2 e3 lil: d8 13 'ft'e 2 cd 14 lLlxd4
'ft'e7 i ntending 1 2 lLl g5 f5 ! ) 1 2 li d l CD S p eel man-Aiburt , Taxco IZ
( 1 2 ll b l '@'c7 1 3 lLl d 4 i. d 7 =) 1 2 . . . 1 9 8 5 ; 13 . . . e5 !? Speelman) 10 . . .
'ti'f6 1 3 lil: b l e5 + Romanishin­ lt:lxc3 I I b e "it'xa2 (!?) ( perhaps I I
A iburt, U SSR Ch 1 97 5 . . . . ti'c5 ) 1 2 .te3 e 5 1 3 lLlg5 lidS
A new m ove w h i c h has had 1 4 'ifb3 'tWxb3 1 5 ll xb3 lLla5 ( "? ! "
success is 9 ll b l !? (88) Informant) 16 ll b4 f6 1 7 lLl e 4 llJc6
18 ll b5 t Cebalo-J . Pi nter, Taxco
IZ 1 985.
d ) 9 ... h6!? Speel man. Then 10 e4
llJ b6 I I de (!) 't!Yxd I 12 li xd I .t xc5
1 3 e5 loo ks better than in 'A22'
below, because of 1 3 . . . llJc4 1 4
lie I .
After 9 e4, 9 . . . lLlxc3 is ' A I '
above. A lso:
A 2 1 9 ... lLl db4
A22 9 ... lLlb6
9 . . . lLlc7 1 0 i.e3 t. 9 . . . lLlf6!?
The idea is that B lack lacks a 1 0 de i.xc5 I I e5 t.
plan, and the rook may be useful: A2 1
a) 9 ... .tf6 10 lLlxd5 ( 1 0 e3 cd I I ed 9 lLldb4 (89)
88 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Varia tion

Abano Te rme 1 980 - 1 3 . . . l:ld8

H9
14 't!fc2 lt:\a5 15 i. f4 \!Vc4 = Geller­
w
Piache_t ka. S k ara 1 980; 1 4 't!fa4!?)
1 3 .if4 ( 1 3 �e2 �c7 14 .ie3 .ib7
1 5 l:l a b l l:l fd8 = Ka valek-Ta rja n ,
US Ch 1 97 8 ) 1 3 . . . i. b 7 1 4 'iVb3
'ii'c 8 I S l:lfd l l:lfd8 1 6 ltJ d4 a5 ! =
Ftacni k-Tarj a n , Malta 01 1 980.
10 i.x c5
10 . . . lt:\d3 I I '@'e2 ltJxcl 1 2 l:laxc l
10 de! .ixc5 1 3 l:Hd l ! , o r here 1 1 .ic3!?
One o f my best i deas from the lt:\xc5 ( I I . . . .ixc5 1 2 'i!t'e2 i.xe3 1 3
first ed i tion; I believe that it 't!¥xc3 ! ) 1 2 ltJd4 t ( 1 2 . . . eS 1 3 ltJ fS ) .
accounts for the demise o f 9 . . . 11 e5!
ltJdb4. W h i te's o ther choices a re I I a3 lt:\d3 1 2 'i!t'e 2 lt:\xc l 1 3
fai rly harmless: l:l axc l eS 1 4 l:l fd I .i d4 I 5 h 3 a6 =
a ) 10 i.e3 cd I I lt:\xd4 lt:\xd4 1 2 Vaganian -Portisch. R i o I Z 1 979.
i.xd4 b6 ( 1 2 . . . lt:\ c2 1 3 '@xc2 '@xd4 11 i.e7
1 4 Ii a d l ± ; 1 2 . . . i.d7 !? 1 3 Ii c l A nt i cipating lt:\e4 or b4 . Others:
.ic6 1 4 a 3 eS!? I S .ixe S ! lt:\ d 3 1 6 a) l l ... lt:\d3? 1 2 .igS ! f6 ( 12 . . .
.ic 7 'ii'd 7 1 7 Iic2 t Speel m a n ) 't!fd7 1 3 �e2) 1 3 ef g f 1 4 .i h 6 ± .
1 3 eS .ia6 1 4 .ixaH 'iVxa 8 ! I S Iil: e I b) l l . . . 't!fxd1 1 2 l:lxd l lt:\c2 (else
Iil:d8 etc. 13 a3) 13 li b ! lt:\2d4 1 4 ltJxd4 ( 1 4
b ) 10 d5 ed I I ed ltJd4 1 2 a 3 ( 1 2 .i f4 t:) 1 4 . . . .ixd4 1 5 .i xc6 i.xc3
lt:\xd4 cd 1 3 a 3 de 1 4 a b .ixb4 I S 1 6 be be 1 7 i.c3 t or 1 7 i. a 3 t.
't!fd4 .id6 1 6 �xc3 - 16 be b6 = c) l l . . . ltJdS 1 2 lt:\e4 .ie7 1 3 a H,
- 1 6 . . . a S ! 1 7 .ie3 .id7 + a n d . . . bS e .g . 1 3 . . . b6 1 4 �c2 .ib7 1 5 lt:\eg5
Schmidt- Po rtisch, Buenos Aires g6 1 6 'i!t'e4 etc.
01 1 978) 1 2 . . . ltJxd S ! 1 3 ltJxd4 d ) l l ... b6?! 1 2 a 3 't!fxd l 1 3 li xd l
lt:\xc 3 1 4 be cd I S cd Iil:b8 ( I S . . . ltJd5 ( 1 3 . . . lt:\ c2?? 1 4 li a2) 1 4 ltJxdS
i.f6 ! ? a nd . . . �aS) 1 6 Iil: b l b S !? cd 15 b4 .ic7 1 6 li xd5 ± Watson­
( 1 6 . . . b6 Ri bli) 1 7 �d3 a6 ! 1 8 Ii e l Pe t u rsson, Harrow 1 979 .
.id6 1 9 .id2 i.d 7 2 0 i. b4 .ixb4 12 a3 lt:\d3
2 1 a b a S 22 ba Y:> - 'h Gheorghiu­ l3 'ii'e2 ltJxcl
Un zicker, Lucerne 01 1 982. 14 liaxcl
c) 10 a3 cd I I ab de 12 be b6 Korchnoi-H i.ibner, Johannesburg
(or 1 2 . . . 't!fc7 1 3 b5 - 1 3 .ie3 Iii: d8 1 9H I . I 4 li fxc l ( ! ) ± i n tendi n g b4,
1 4 �e 2 .id 7 = Hubner-Portisch. lid! etc was more accurate, because
 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation 89

n o w 1 4 . . . 'it'a5 ! 1 5 lifd l a6 ! was tt:Jf4?! 1 6 i.xg7 lt:Jxh3+ 1 7 �g2

playabl e ( H i.ibner tried 15 . . . lifd8?! tt:Jxf2 1 8 't!t'xd8 :tl ± Forintos­
16 tt:J b5! :!;). In genera l , if White U tasi , H u nga ri an Ch 1 9 8 6 .
gets e5 i n , h is g2 bishop, space and II tt:J b4 (90)
devel opm e nt o ffer good chances. I I . . . tt:J a5 ! ? 1 2 b 3 ( 1 2 .i f4!?) 1 2
A22 . . . i. f6 1 3 .id2 .if5 1 4 lie I :t
9 tt:Jb6 Ftacnik-Johansson , London 1982.
This seems Black's best. despite
a few new White i deas.
10 d5
a ) U nt ried is 10 lt:J e2!?, e.g. I 0 . . . cd
1 1 lt:Jexd4 tt:Jxd4 1 2 tt:Jxd4 .if6 1 3
tt:Jb5, bu t t h is isn't m uc h .
b) 10 de looks good a gai nst 1 0 . . .
.i xc5 I I 't!t'e2! :!;, b u t 1 0 . . . 't!t'xd l
(or I 0 . . . tt:J d7 !? 1 1 e5 tt:Jxc5 1 2 .ie3
lib8 = Tseitli n-Ag 1.a m ov, USSR
Ch 1 982) 1 1 li xd l .i xc 5 12 e5 ( 1 2 12 lt:Jel
.if4 f6 !) 1 2 . . . tt:J c4 1 3 lie 1 .id7 1 2 lt:Je5!? is still con troversial,
( 1 3 . . . lt:J b4 1 4 .ifl !?; 1 4 lie4 tt:Jb6 e.g. 12 ... .i f6 1 3 f4 .if5 14 a3 ( 1 4
1 5 .ie3 i.xe3 16 li xb 4 i.c5 = i.e3!?) 1 4 . . . tt:Jc2 1 5 lia2 lic8 ( 1 5
Quinteros- Razu vayev, Novi Sad . . . tt:Jd4?! 1 6 b4 't!t'c7 1 7 .ie3 cb 1 8
1 982) 14 i.fl tt:Jb6 1 5 li d 1 tt:Jb4 1 6 lt:Je4! .ixe4 1 9 .ixe4 ± Hjart arson­
a 3 ttJ bd5 1 7 lt:Je4 li fc8 ! 1 8 tt:Jxc5 H .Ol afsson , I celandic Ch 1 984)
lil:xc5 1 9 tt:Jg5 ( 1 9 tt:Jd4 ! ? lt:Jc4 20 1 6 b3 ( 1 6 g4 .ixe5 1 7 fe .ig6 = )
li e ! t was Leviti na- Li u She La n , 1 6 . . . tt:J d4 1 7 .ie3 li e8 ( 1 7 . . . 't!t'c7 !
N a lenczow 1 984; but 1 9 . . . liac8 Hjartarson) 1 8 .ixd4! ( 1 8 b4 .ixe5
20 b4 li c7 i m proves) 1 9 . . . .ia4 20 19 fc lt:Jc4 = Tal- Pe tursson, Ta lli nn
lt:Je4 lic7 2 1 lie I h6 22 b4 a5 = 1 98 1 ) 1 8 . . . cd 1 9 't!t'xd4 't!t'c7 20 lt:Jb5
Watson-Alburt, New York 1 979. .ixe5 21 fd : Hjartarson . But 12 . . .
10 ed i.d6 ( ! ) still has good standing, e.g.
II ed 1 3 tt:Jd3 .ig4! 14 'ifxg4 tt:J xd3 1 5
I I tt:J xd 5 ! ? i.g4 ( I I . . . tt:Jxd5 1 2 i.g5 ( 1 5 .ih6 i.e5 = Ribl i ) 1 5 . . . f5 ,
e d tt:J b4 1 3 lt:J e l :!; o r 1 3 tt:Je5 :t ; Dorfman-Tu k makov, USSR 1984,
I I . . . .ie6 1 2 tt:Je I !? with the idea and i nstead o f 1 6 't!t'h5 't!t'd7 1 7
1 2 . . . i.xd5 1 3 ed tt:J b4 14 do, but 't!t'e2 c4 = , White could t ry 1 6 't!t'e2
th is is critical) 1 2 h3 i.xf3 1 3 i.x f3 't!t'xg5 1 7 't!t'xd3 with the ideas tt:Jb5,
tt:Jd4 1 4 .ie3 tt:J xd5!? 1 5 ..ixd4 f4, liae I -e6, when 17 . . . f4 !? is m .
90 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation

12 i.f6 16 1!t'd4!?
a) 1 2 ... ll:lc4!? 1 3 a3 ll:la6 14 � e4 The latest move. In two earlier
i.f5 1 5 ll:lc2 ..txe4 ( 1 5 . . . ..Q.f6 !?) 1 6 games 16 i.d4 had been played:
i.xe4 ll:ld6 1 7 i.g2 l:l:e8 1 8 l:l: b l 16 . . . i.e6 ( 1 6 . . . i.f5!?) 1 7 ll:ld3 l:l:c8
i.f6 1 9 ..tf4 ..te5 2 0 i.xe5 n xe5 2 1 ( 1 7 . . . 1!t'd6 18 l:l: c l - 18 lLlc5 lLlxc3!
ll:le3 :t Korchnoi-Kuzmin, Moscow threatening . . . 'ilxd4! - 18 . . . l:l: ac8
1 973. 19 l:l:e I litfd8 20 i.e4 ll:ld7 21 li:le5
b) 12 ... c4 1 3 a3 ll:la6 14 i.f4 ..Q.d6 ll:ldf6 22 i.b I =/ oo Chernin­
( 1 4 . . . ll:lc5 1 5 d6 ..tf6 1 6 a4 ! ll:lb3 Petursson , World Junior Ch 1979;
17 l:l:a3 ± Gulko) 15 i.xd6 1!t'xd6 compare what follows) 18 li c l ( 1 8
1 6 �d4! i.f5 1 7 ll:lf3 l:l:fd8 !? 1 8 li:lc5 li:lxc3 1 9 lLl xe6 fe 20 i.xc3
ll:ld2 ! ± Gu lko-Alburt, USSR Ch l:l:xc3 2 1 ..txb7 :t Rodriguez) 18 . . .
1 975. �d6 1 9 li e ! lied8 2 0 'i/h5 ! ? (20
c) 1 2 ... i.d6 1 3 a3 ll:la6 1 4 ll:lc2 ..tf5 ..te4 was Chern in-Petursson) 20 . . .
1 5 li:le3 i.g6 1 6 b3 li:lc7 1 7 ..Q.b2 :t h 6 2 1 l:l: ed l 1!t'ffi =/oo Ftacni k­
Spraggett-Andrijevic, San Bernar­ Am.Rodriguez, Thessaloniki 01
dino 1 986. 1984.
13 i.e3 After 16 't!i'd4!?, Ehlvest-Lputian,
13 a3 !? i. xc3!? ( 1 3 . . . ll:la6 1 4 USSR 1985, went 16 . . . i. e6?! 1 7
ll:lc2 ll:lc4 1 5 li:l e3 ll:ld6 = Alburt­ li:ld3 (or 1 7 f4 g6 1 8 c4 :t Dlugy) 1 7
Burman, USSR 1 973) 14 ab ..txb4 . . . I!c8 ( 1 7 . . . 1!t'c7 !? 1 8 a4 l:l: fd8 1 9
1 5 li:lc2 i.f5 1 6 li:lxb4 cb 1 7 d6 ( 1 7 a 5 ll:l c8 or 1 8 ll:lb4 ll:lxb4: :t ? ) 1 8 a4
�d4 b3) 1 7 . . . �d7 1 8 i.f4 gave ll:ld7 ( 1 8 ... l:l:c7 19 l:l:fe l ! ± Ehlvest)
White some compensat ion (= ?) in 19 i.xa7 ll:l xc3 ( 1 9 . . . 1!t'a5 20 ll:lb4
Boersma-Franco, Amsterdam 1983. li:lxc3 1 6 life ! ± Ehlvest) 20 ll:lf4!
13 ..txc3 ±.
14 be ll:l5xd4 Ftacnik-Dlugy, Lugano 1987,
15 i.xc5 l:l:e8 (91) saw the improvement 16 . . . 't!Yf6 ( ! )
1 7 ..txb6 ( 1 7 ..txd5 1!t'xd4 1 8 ..txf7+
9/• � .t � ;. .K � � 'i&xf7 19 i.xd4 ll:lc4! Dlugy; 17 li:ld3
w�
�-,. l. -
· -
- 1. �-7. 1. ll:lxc3 =; 1 7 �xf6 !? ll:l xf6 1 8 i.d4 is
�-
- .. . . .. .. . interesting) 17 . . . ll:lxb6 18 'ffxf6 gf
. �·- . 19 ll:ld3 li:la4! ( 1 9 . . . i.f5 20 ll:lf4 :t
• • • • or 20 ll:l c5 l:l:ac8 2 I ll:l xb7 :tDlugy)
. �
- �;, -
. " [9,.
20 c4 ..te6! 21 l:l: fc l?! (2 1 i.xb7
i.xc4 2 2 ..txa8 l:l: xa8 = Dl ugy) 2 1
�• - . " "' ..�"
• f.Q� ... . . . l:l:e7 22 ll:l f4 l:l:c8 (=/+). Here
�- · � \llb
� t;'f �· - �· .&�.
o;:? �-f'l ,.,�
� �
2 1 ll:l f4 ( ! ) looks better, e.g. 2 1 . . .
 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation 91

.txc4 (21 . . . ltJ c5 22 ltJd5 or 21 . . . 11 ltJeS (92)

l:le7 22 lHe l ) 22 tlfc l .ia6 ( 22 . . . I I b3 cb (or I I . . . b5!? and 1 2 a4
l:l ac8? 23 .txb7 tl c7 24 ltJd5) 23 ltJa5 or 1 2 ltJe5 ltJ xe5 1 3 de i.e6)
ltJd5 ;!;. One feels that Black should 12 ab ( 1 2 'tifxb3 ltJa5) 1 2 . . . .ie6 1 3
be able to defend this sort of posi­ ltJe5 't!fb6 = E. Meyer-Shamkovich,
tion, but i t may not be as easy as New York 1983.
Ftacnik-Diugy would indicate.
B
8 ltJxd5 ed
Here 8 . . . 't!t'xd 5 can be m et by
9 d4!? ltJxd4 (9 . . . 0-0 1 0 .te3) 1 0
ltJ xd4 'ti'xd4 1 1 't!t'c2 0-0 1 2 .te 3
't!t'f6 ( 1 2 . . . 'it'b4 !? 1 3 llfd l e 5 oo )
1 3 ll fd I , Pytel-Bernard, Lublin
1 9 73, and now 1 3 . . . e 5 was best; or
by 9 d3 .td7 (9 . . . 0-0?! 10 .ie3 't!t'd6
1 1 d4 cd 12 ltJxd4 ! Dzindzihashvili­
K raidman, Israel 1 976) 1 0 .ie3
l:lc8 1 1 d4 ed 12 ltJ xd4 'ti'a5 ( 1 2 . . . 11 .tf5 !
't!fh5 ! ) 1 3 ltJb3 't!t'b5 1 4 ne t l:I d8 Not I I . . . .te6? 1 2 ltJ xc4! o r I I
1 5 ltJc5 .tc8 1 6 't!t'b3 't!t'xb 3 1 7 . . . ltJ xe5? 1 2 de .te6 1 3 i.. d4 ±.
.txc6+ ! Watson-Martz, Lone Pine But I I . . . f6!? 1 2 ltJ xc6 be 13 i.. f4
1 976. ( 1 3 'ti'a4) 1 3 . . . a5 ( 1 3 . . . .td6 ! ?)
9 d4 0-0 14 b3 .ta6, Portisch-Matulovic,
A position which also comes Biel I Z 1 9 76, is playable , and I I . . .
from 8 d4 0-0 9 ltJxd5 ed. White ltJa5 ( ! ) 1 2 t!t"c2 f6 1 3 ltJf3 b5 1 4
has: ltJ h 4 i..e 6 = Cillo-Pytel, Istres
B 1 10 .te3 1975, deserves attention.
B2 1 0 de 12 b3?!
81 An instructive move, but not
10 .te3 c4 best.
a) 1 0 . . . .if6 I I de! ( 1 1 'ti'd2 c4; 1 1 a) 12 ltJx c6 be 1 3 t!t"a4?! ( 1 3 .td2
't!t'a4 l:Ie8) 1 1 . . . .txb2 1 2 l:I b l .if6 l:Ib8 =) 13 . . . 1!fb6 14 b3 .ic2! +
1 3 ltJ d4 ! Csom. lvkov-A iburt, Yugoslavia v USSR
b) 10 ... 'it'b6 1 1 'ti'd2 l:Ifd8 1 2 b3 1975.
.te6 1 3 de!? ( 1 3 nac l !? ±) 1 3 . . . b) 12 't!Vd2?! l:I c8 1 3 ltJxc6 n xc6 1 4
..txc5 1 4 ..txc 5 't!t'xc5 1 5 ltJg5 ! f3 l:l e 8 1 5 a3 (?) l:Ie6 1 6 life I h5 +
H tibner-Csom, Houston 1 972. Bass-Diugy, Bermuda 1985.
92 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation

c) 12 't!t'a4!? lt:'Jxe5 ( 1 2 . . . li:'J b4 1 3 a) 1 1 1t'd3!? is almost unknown .

.id2 ! ; 1 2 . . . 't!t'd6 1 3 1t'b5 ) 1 3 de d4 Petrosian-Keres, San Antonio 1972,
1 4 .tf4 ( 1 4 llad l ? .td7 !) 14 . . . g5 went 1 1 . . . h6 1 2 a3 !? a5 1 3 .id2 b6!
15 .id2 'ti'c7 16 llac 1 m Tal . \12 - \12 with the idea . . . .ta6. Perhaps
12 lle8 ! 12 .id2 is better.
13 be b) 1 1 .if4 .if5 (or I I . . . lii:e 8) 12
Or 1 3 lt:'Jxc6 llxc6 14 be ll xc4 ;!: 'i!t'b3 ( 1 2 ll c l .tb6 =) 1 2 . . . .ib6 1 3
Tal. llad 1 .te4 1 4 .ie3, Andersson­
13 ltJxeS Peters, Hastings 1978-79, and now
14 de de 1 5 't!t'a4 ( 15 .txb7 llc7 14 . . . .txe3 is =.

16 .tf3 1t'xd 1 17 llfxd 1 c3 Tal ) 1 5 c) l l li:'Je1 lle8 (or 1 1 . . . d4 1 2 li:'Jd3

. . . 't!Vc7 1 6 llac I c3 1 7 .id4 c2 1 8 .ib6 13 lt:'Jf4 lle8 1 4 b3 .tf5 =, or
.id5, Tal-Aiburt, USSR Ch 1975, I I . . . .tg4!? 12 li:'Jd3 .ib6 1 3 lt:'J f4
and now Tal gives 1 8 ... llfd8! =F, d4 = Lein-Speelman, Hastings
e.g. 19 e4 .ie6 20 'i!t'b3 .ixd5 21 ed 198 1-82) 1 2 li:'Jd3 ( 1 2 .txd5 .ig4)
't!t'c4 ! etc. 12 . . . .ib6 1 3 lt:'Jf4 d4 14 .td2 .tg4
82 = 8enko-Tarjan, US Ch 1978.
10 de .i xeS (93) 821
1 1 ltJgS
Threatening 't!t'c2 and 't!t'xd5 .
93
w
11 h6!
Actually, 1 1 ... .id4!? is more
important, since after 12 1t'c2! ( 1 2
't!t'b3? h 6 1 3 lt:'Jf3 .ib6 + ) 1 2 . . . g6
1 3 1t'b3 .if6 ! ( 1 3 . . . h6 1 4 lt:'Jxf7
�xf7 15 .ih6 ±) 1 4 1t'xd5 li:'Jd4
(94)

94
w

The most popular position of

the Keres-Parma. White has tried
j ust about everything:
8 2 1 1 1 lt:'J g5
822 1 1 .ig5
823 1 1 b3
824 I I a 3
8 2 5 1 1 'ti'c2
 3 g3 and the Keres- Parma Variation 93

we have a position which also comes 13 l:Ixfl hg

from I I 1Wc2 .ib6 1 2 lt:Jg5 g6 1 3 This is equal, e.g. 14 'tlkd2 d4 ( 1 4
@d l .id4 1 4 1Wb3 .if6 etc. This . . . .ie6 ! ? ) 1 5 Wxg5 't!Vxg5 1 6 .i xg5
hasn't been tested, as far as I know, .ig4 = , or 14 1!t'b3 !? .ie6 ! 1 5 't!Vxb7
since the first edition. Best play is 't!Vd6 16 .ixg5 l:I ab8 1 7 1!t'a6 n xb2
probably 15 Wxd8 ( 15 �h I lt:Jxe2 18 lil c l lii: c 8 19 .if4 'tlkd7 = Watson­
16 .ie3 Wxd5 17 .ixd5 .ixb2 1 8 Weinstein, Boston 1 978 .
l:I ae I lt:Jc3 1 9 .ib3 h6! 20 lt:Jxf7 led B22
to a draw in Mi les-Tarjan, Riga IZ 11 .igS (95)
1 979) 1 5 . . . lt:Jxe2+ 1 6 �h i l:I xd8
( 1 6 ... .ixd8 1 7 .ie3 ±) 17 lt:J e4
95
.id7 ( 1 7 . . . lt:J xc l 1 8 lt:Jxf6+ �g7 B
19 lt:J h5+ �h 6 20 nax c l �xh5 2 1
nc7, or here 1 8 . . . gh 1 9 � xc l n d2
20 ll fd l t) 1 8 .ie3 .ie6 1 9 l:I fd 1 !
l:IacS ! 20 .if3 l:Ic2 2 1 n xd8+ .ixd8
22 li[e l .ic4, Benko-Pe ters, US Ch
1975, and here instead of 23 lt:Jd2
.ia5 ! , 23 .i h6 ( ! ) (23 lt:Jc5 !?) 23 . . .
.ia5 (23 . . . f5 24 lt:Jd6 .ia5 2 5 l:I xe2 !
.ixe2 26 lt:Je8 l:Ic7 27 .ig5 ! h6 28
.tf6+ ±) 24 lLlf6+ �h8 25 nd 1 11 f6
l:I xb2 26 h4! tl±, e .g. 26 . . . .ie6 Not I I . . . .ie7?! 1 2 .i xe7 '@'xe7
27 h5 lt:Jc3 28 hg! fg 29 l:Id6 .ic8 1 3 'tlkd2 lld8 , but I I . . . 'tlkb6 !? is
30 .ig4 ±±. respectable: 12 lt:Je l ( 12 't!Vxd5
If the above holds , I I . . . .id4 is .ie6 13 @d2 h6 14 .ie3 .i xe3 1 5
suspect; compare comments under 1!t'xe3 't!Vxb2 - o r 1 5 . . . 't!Vxe3 = -
I I 1Wc2 below. 1 6 l:I fb l 't!Vf6 ! = Barbero-Diugy,
1 2 1Wc2 Me ndoza 1985; or 14 .if4 lii: fd8 1 5
1 2 lt:Jh3 has several good answers: 't!fc2 l:Iac8 etc) 1 2 . . . .ie7 ! ? ( 1 2 . . .
1 2 . . . l:Ie8 1 3 lt:Jf4 d4 =; 1 2 . . . .if5 d4!? 1 3 lt:Jd3 .id6 1 4 b 3 t and lt:Jd5 )
1 3 lt:Jf4 d4 =; 1 2 . . . .ixh3 1 3 .ixh3 1 3 .ixe7 'tlkxe7, Varnusz-Domoter,
lile8 1 4 .ig2 d4 1 5 .if4 Wb6 = Tai­ Hungary 1 974, a nd now instead of
Lengyel , Mi skolc 1 969; and even 14 lt:Jd3 .i fS ! 1 5 lt:Jf4 allowing 1 5 . . .
I I . . . g5!? Tukm akov. Wxb2 ! 1 6 lt:Jxd5 lt:Jc6 = Florian ,
12 .i xfl+ 14 @d2 and 14 . . . .if5 1 5 lt:Jf3 or
12 . . . hg? 1 3 1Wxc5 .ie6 14 lild l 1 4 . . . d4 1 5 lt:Jd3 seems best.
l:Ic8 1 5 .i.e3 ! ± . 12 .i.d2
94 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation

Popular, but it's not clear that 't!t"d6) 1 4 ed �xd4 1 5 .i.e3 (" ±"
this is any better than the older Larsen) 15 ... � xf3+ 1 6 .i.xf3 't!fb6?
1 2 Ii c l .i.b6 ( 1 2 . . . .i. xf2+?? 1 3 ( 1 6 . . . .i.xe3 1 7 't!t"xe3 U ± van der
Iixf2 fg 1 4 �xg5!) 1 3 .i.d2 ( 1 3 .i.f4 Wiel) 1 7 life ! ! ± Larsen-Yusupov,
.i.e6 1 4 �e l lite8 1 5 �d3 't!t"e7 ! 1 6 Reykjavik 1 9 8 5 .
.i.d2 Iiad8 + Ghitescu-Peters, d) 12 . . . 1!i'e7!? 1 3 .i.c3 l1d8 1 4 e3
Bagneux 1 978) 1 3 . . . d4 (or 1 3 . . . .i.f5 ( 1 4 . . . .i.g4!?) 1 5 lie ! .i.e4 1 6
.i.e6 =, or 1 3 . . . .i. f5 , o r 1 3 . . . .i.g4 li e ! .i. b6 1 7 a 3 t Agdestein-Aiburt,
1 4 't!fb3 �h8 1 5 e3 't!fd7! 1 6 .i.c 3 Taxco IZ 1985.
liad8 = with the idea 1 7 litfd I ? 13 �e1
't!ff5 , Christiansen-Tarjan, U S Ch Or 1 3 b4 .i. b6 1 4 b5 (van der
1 9 78) 14 � e l .i.e6 1 5 �d3 .i.d5 ! Wiel) and now 1 4 . . . �e7 1 5 .i.b4
(or 1 5 . . . lite8) with a good game ­ lite8 is equal. After 1 3 � e l .i. b6 1 4
Keres. �d3, Black can play 1 4 . . . .i.g4
12 d4 with rough equality.
Several moves are good here: B23
a) 12 ... liteS 1 3 l:t c l .i.b6 1 4 e 3 11 b3 (96)
.i.f5!? 1 5 .i.c3 .i.e4 1 6 't!fb3 �h8 1 7
li fd l 't!Ve7 1 8 .i.d4 ! t Larsen­
96
Agdestein, Ga usdal Z 1 985, when B
1 8 . . . � xd4 1 9 � xd4 l1 ad8 is
playable. Also, 1 4 . . . .i.g4 (or 14 . . .
d4!? W edberg) may i mprove, e.g.
15 h3 ( 1 5 .i.c3 d4 =; 1 5 't!t"b3 �h8 =;
15 't!Va4 d4 =) 15 ... .i. h5 16 g4!?
.i.g6 I 7 .i.c3 .i.e4 ! .
b) 1 2 . . . .i.b6 1 3 .i.c3 .i.g4 !? 1 4 h 3
.i.f5 1 5 �d4 .i.xd4 1 6 .i.xd4 lie8
17 e3 't!t"d7 18 .i.c3 l1ad8 was equal
in Lombardy-Weinstein, US Ch 11 .trs
1 978. I I . . . 't!ff6?! 1 2 .i.g5 't!Ve6 1 3 li c l
c ) 12 .. . .i.e6 13 e3 d4? ( not 1 3 . . . .i.b6 1 4 lic2 ! ± was Uhlmann­
�e5? 1 4 .i.c3 .i.g4 1 5 h3 ; Larsen Velimirovic, Tallinn 1977. But I I
gives 1 3 . .. 't!fb6 1 4 .i.c3 l1ad8 1 5 . . . .i.g4 is very logical , e.g. 1 2 h3
b4 w ith the idea 1 5 . . . .i.xb4 1 6 .i.h5 13 .i.b2 'i!t'd6! ( 1 3 . . . d4 14
li b ! 't!t"c5 1 7 .i.xb4 �xb4 1 8 't!t"d4 ! , litcl .i.b6!? 15 g4 .i.g6 1 6 ll xc6! be
but this i s not convincing after 1 7 �xd4 t Welin-Watson, Ha mar
14 . . . lifd8! 1 5 b4 �xb4 1 6 lib ! 1980) 1 4 e3 Ii ad8 1 5 g4 .i.g6 1 6
 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation 95

ti'id4 =/m Watson-Alburt, Orlando 16 llfdl lilad8 (97)

! 9 8 1 . Here 12 -'.b2 d4 1 3 li[c I -'.b6
!4 h3 -'.e6! is equal too. Finally, 97

1 1 . . lie8 1 2 -'.b2 d4 is also play-

.
w

a ble.
12 -'.b2 -'.e4
Here too 1 2 . . . lile8 1 3 llc 1 'it'd6
! 4 e3 liad8 is possible.
13 lilcl 'i!re7
14 't!Yd2
Another try is Suba's 14 lt:lh4 ,
1 4 . . . -'.xg2 1 5 �xg2 (threaten­
c: . g .
i n g 16 .ixg7) 1 5 . . . d4 1 6 e3 !? ( 1 6 17 -'.a l l ?
:i1c4) 1 6 . . . -'.a3 ! ( 1 6 . . . d e 1 7 lt:lf5 This tries to improve upon 1 7
i'We4+ 1 8 'it'f3 ! ± ) 17 -'.xa3 'it'xa3 lt:ld4 -'.xd4 1 8 .ixd4 .ixg2 1 9 �xg2
1 8 ed liad8 , Suba-Pe ters, Hastings 'it'e4+ 20 �g 1 h5 + Palatni k , or
1 9 78-79, and now 19 lic4!? is intt;r­ 17 'it'e2 't!Yb4 (to prevent lt:ld4 and
csting. But Stean-Schtissler, Malta meet 18 .ic3 with 18 ... 'it'a3 19
01 1 980, saw 14 . . . -'.b6! 15 e3 ( 1 5 'it'b2 'it'xb2 and 20 . . . lLl b4 ; 17 ... h6
'i/Ud2!?) 1 5 . . . 't!Ye6 ! 1 6 't!Vh5 f6 1 7 1 8 lt:ld4 lt:le5 is also possible).
.ixe4 fe = . On 17 .i a l !? f6 1 8 'it'e2, 18 . . .
14 -'.b6 'it'f7?! 1 9 lt:ld4 gave W hite a small
a ) 1 4 ... d4 1 5 'it'g5 ! 'it'xg5 1 6 lt:l xg5 edge in Ribli-Pinter, Baile Herculane
�xg2 17 �xg2 ± H tibner- Ivkov, Z 1 982. 1 8 . . . a6!? 19 lt:ld4, Smejkal­
West Germany 1 975. Schtissler, Lucerne 01 1982, could
b) 14 ... f6 !? 1 5 e3 life8 resembles have led to 19 . . . .ixg2 20 <oi'xg2
the main line: 1 6 lilfd l lilad8 1 7 'i¥e4+ = ( 2 1 'Wf3 lt:le5 !). Easier still
't�Ye2 -'.b6 1 8 a3 'i!r f7 (?) ( 1 8 . . . lt:l a5 ) is 18 . . . �h8 , Qui nteros-Alburt,
1 9 lt:ld4 J Uhlmann- Farago , Halle Ne w York 1 983, which went 1 9
1 9 78. 'it'fl ? 't!Ya3 ! 20 lid2 .i xf3 2 1 -'.xf3
15 e3 lilxe3 ! 22 .ixd5 lle7 =F .
A place to look for improvement, 824
e.g. 15 't!Yf4!?. Also, 1 5 't!Yg5 ! ? f6 11 a3 .i f5
16 'it'g4, Ostermeyer-Grtinfeld , II . . . .ie7 1 2 b4 ( ! ) .if6 1 3 lila2
Dortmund 1 984, deserves attention; with the idea lild2 is promising for
15 . . . \i'xg5!? 16 lt:lxg5 -'.xg2 1 7 White, and I I . . . a5 led to a White
'4txg2 life8 ( 1 8 e 3 d4). advantage in Petrosian-Peters, Lone
15 life8 Pine 1 976: 12 lt:l e l ( 1 2 'Wc2 .ib6
96 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation

1 3 lild I h6 1 4 i.f4 i.e6 = Chaudry­ I I . . . i.e7?! 1 2 i.eJ i.f6 ( 1 2 . . .

Radulov, Malta 01 1 980) 12 . . . i.e6 1 3 lt:Jd4 ±) 1 3 ll fd l lii e 8?,
d4 ! ? ( 1 2 . . . i. e6 1 3 lt:Jd3 i.d6 1 4 Szabo-Flesch , Belgrade 1 964 , and
i.f4 i.e7 1 5 i.d2!? a nd lt:Jf4) 1 3 now 14 lt:Jg5 ! is ± .
li:Jd3 i.b6 ( 1 3 . . . i.d6 !? Peters; 1 3 Si nce most ofWhite's l i th moves
. . . i.e7 1 4 i.d2 a4 1 5 b3 - 15 ltJf4!? are rather flat, attention has turned
- 1 5 . . . ab 1 6 1t'xb3, lightly t, to I I �c2. W hite can easily risk
Portisch-Pr i tchett, Buenos Aires disadvantage thereby (see the next
01 1978) 1 4 i.d2 lil e8 1 5 lilc l i.g4 note), but the main line which
1 6 Ii: e l li eS 1 7 h3 i.f5 1 8 1i'b3 follows has some good points.
i.e4 1 9 i.xe4 Ii: xe4 20 1t'b5 ! t. 12 lt:JgS
12 b4 i.b6 12 lldl neglects the kingside:
13 lla2 !? 12 . . . h6 (or 12 . . . 1t'f6 ! 13 i.g5 •e6
13 i.b2 lle8 1 4 1t'd2 ( 1 4 e3!? 14 i.f4 14 'iJ/d3 h6 15 i.d2 was
-

i.e4 15 �b3 1t'd7 1 6 li[adl llad8 recommended, but 1 5 . . . d4 looks

and . . . i. f5 = S passov-Tu k makov, fine - 1 4 . . . h6 1 5 'iJ/d3 li[d8 1 6 a4
Plovdiv 1 983; 15 lt:Jd4!? with the 1We7 1 7 i.d2 i.g4 + Portisch­
idea 15 . . . i. xg2 1 6 �xg2 lt:Je5 1 7 H iib ner, match 1 980 ) 1 3 b3 'iJ/f6
llc l lt:J c4 1 8 .ta l intending lt:Jf5 , ( 1 3 . . . i.g4!? 1 4 i.b2 1l e8 1 5 'i!t'd2
1i'g4) 1 4 . . . i. e4 1 5 llfd l 1t'e7 = llc8 = Stein-Parma, USSR v Yugo­
Borsch-Ch andler, Keszthely 1 9 8 1 . slavia 1 97 1 ) 14 i.b2 d4, and now
1 3 Ii:a2 ! ? i.e4 1 4 li[ d2 1t'e 7 1 5 15 'i!t'd2 lld8 1 6 b4 a6 1 7 a4 i.e6
i.b2 l He8 1 6 1t'a l ! ? ( 1 6 lt:J h4!? 1 8 b5 lt:Ja5! = Cramling-Kochiev,
li[ad8) 16 ... f6 ! 17 llfd l 1t'e6 = Reggio Emilia 1 980, or 15 llac I
Portisch-Spassky, Bugojno 1 978. i.f5 1 6 'i!t'd2 llad8 17 b4, Adorjan­
825 Cramli ng, Gladsaxe 1 983, when
11 �c2 i.b6 (98) 17 . . . a6! 18 a4 a5 ! is =.
12 g6
98 13 'ifd1
w To 1 3 'i!t'd2 there are three good
replies. 1 3 . . . i.d4 ! ? 1 4 ll d l ( 1 4
lt:Jh3 i.g7 =) 14 . . . 1i'b6 1 5 lt:Jf3 !?
( 1 5 e3 i.f6) 1 5 . . . i.xf2+ 16 �fl
i.c5 1 7 �h6 i.e7 ro . O r 13 . . . lt:Jd4
1 4 lt:J f3 ! lt:Jc6 ! 1 5 b4 ( 1 5 1!t'h6 f6) 1 5
. . . a6 1 6 i.b2 1We7 1 7 a3 i.f5 , about
equal, Bukic-Mikhalchishin , Banja
Luka 1 98 1 .
 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation 97

Best seems 1 3 . . . d4 ( ! ) 1 4 1i'f4 or 1 7 f4!?.

( 1 4 li:lf3? 1Ve7 1 5 1i'h6 f6 1 6 e3 d3, 14 i.e3 li:le6
Agza mov-Tal, USSR Tea m Ch 15 li:lxe6 i.xe6
1 9 8 1 ) 1 4 ... We7 1 5 i.d5 (with the 16 .id4 ll c8
idea li:lxh 7) 1 5 . . . i.f5 16 e4 ( 1 6 g4 17 e3 1i'd6
..tc7 ! ) 1 6 . . . de 1 7 i.xe3 h6 1 8 li:lf3 1 7 . . . i. xd4 !? 1 8 1i'xd4 lilc2 19
( 1 8 li:lxf7 l hf7 1 9 i.xf7+ <t>xf7 20 Wxa7 lil xb2 20 llfbl !.
"§'xh6 1i'f6 + Bagirov) 1 8 . . . i. xe3 18 h4!?
1 9 1Vxe3 1Vxe 3 20 fe li:l b4 ! + Or 18 1i'd2 i.xd4 19 Wxd4 lilc2,
Pigusov-Kengis, USSR 1 982. Adorjan-Gri.infeld, Dortmund 1984.
13 li:ld4 !? Now 20 lilfd l Wb6 21 Wxb6 ab 22
An important decision: b3 "w6 uld have assured a small
a ) 1 3 . . . d4 14 li:le4 t Ad orjan. White but lasting edge" (R ibli). After
has play on the dark squares, e.g. 18 h4!?, Adorjan-Plaskett, Esbjerg
1 4 ... .tf5 1 5 i.g5 f6 16 i.h6 i. xe4 1985, went 18 . . . lilc4? ( 1 8 . . . h 5 !
17 i.xe4 a nd 1i'b3 . Plaskett) 1 9 b3! .i xd4 ( 1 9 . . . lilc6
b ) 1 3 ... i.d4!? 1 4 1i'b3 ! is the com­ 20 h5 ± Plaskett) 20 be i.xa I 2 1
plex line given in '821' above (under cd! i.g7!? 2 2 de Wxe6 23 1i'a4!
the diagram), which seems to favour ( ±" Plaskett) 23 . . . We8 (23 . . .
"

White. Wa6 2 4 Wxa6 ba 2 5 lil c l ) 2 4 Wxa7

c) 13 ... i.e6 (!) is a new idea. The 1i'a8 25 1Vxa8 lil xa8 26 i.d5 ± .
game Adorjan-Dlugy, New York
1 985, e nded quickly after 14 li:lh3 Conclusion. Although this I I Wc2
..txh 3 I 5 i.xh 3 lile8 16 i.g2 We 7 i.b6 1 2 li:l g5 idea is hardly intimi­
1;2 - '/2. Critical seems 14 li:l xe6 fe dating, it currently represents
1 5 i.h6, e .g. 1 5 . . . lilf7 ( 1 5 . . . llxf2 White's best try in the li:l xd5 lines.
1 6 lil xf2 i.xf2+ 1 7 <t>xf2 1i'f6+ 1 8 The note on 13 . . . .ie6 seems par­
�g l g5 1 9 \!fb3 ! ) 1 6 e4 ( 1 6 1i'd2 ticularly i mportant. Overall, I feel
"t!rf6 ) 16 . . . d4 ( 1 6 . . . de!?) a nd 1 7 the 9 e4 variations grant White
1i'b3 with the idea 1 7 . . . 1i'f6 t 8 f4 , more positive chances.
8 3 ltJf3 d5: Asymmetrical
Variation

1 c4 c5 .id7!? 6 "it'b3 - 6 tWc4? lLlb4 7 lLld5??

2 li'lc3 li'lf6 b5 6 . . . li'lb4 7 a3 .ie6 8 'ii' a4+
-

3 li'lf3 d5 .id7 9 t!rd I t; but 6 . . . li'lb6 and

4 cd li'lxd5 (99) 7 li'l e5 e6 8 g3 li'lc6 or 7 e3 li'lc6 8 d4
cd 9 cd .ie6 I 0 t!rd I .id5 may im­
99 prove) 6 li'le5 'ii'c7 (or 6 . . . .id7 ( ! )
w with the idea 7 li'l x f7 li'lxc3 8 t!rc4
li'la5 9 1!t'f4 li'ld5 1 0 'it'f3 .ig4 ! -
Peters; or here 8 'it'b3 tlrb6! 9 li'lxh8
'it'xb3 1 0 ab li'ld4) 7 li'lxd5 t!rxe5
8 li'l b6 lib8 9 li'lxc8 li xc8 1 0 e3 ,
Uhlm ann-Korchnoi, Sk opje OJ
1972, and now K orch noi gives 10
... g6! =.

A
This freque ntly arises after I c4 5 e4 (1 00)
c5 2 li'l f3 li'lf6 3 li'lc3 d5 4 cd li'lxd 5 .
Black secures h i s share o f central
turf at the cost of a tempo and slight
loosening.
A 5 e4
B 5 d4
C 5 e3
D 5 g3
'D 5 g3' exami nes the odd lines
where Black neither retreats his
k night to c7 (Chapter 6) nor plays
. . . li'lc6 (Chapters 3 and 7). 5 li'l xd5 Once considered dubious, this
t!rxd5 6 g3 is Chapter 3, line A , move of Nimzowitsch 's has ta ken
note to 6 .ig2. 5 t!ra4+ lLlc6 ( 5 . . . over as the main line.
 8 liJj3 d5: A symmetrical Variation 99

A I 5 . . . liJ xe 3 10 lld l .id7 I I .ic4! f6 1 2 .ixf7+!

A 2 5 . . . liJ b4 ± Miles-Vaganian, London 1984.
5 . . . liJe7 6 d 4 e d 7 1t'xd4 (or 7 8 e6
liJxd4!? e5 8 liJdb5 1t'xd I + 9 ct>xd I 8 . . . b6 !? 9 .ib5 (or 9 liJd2 .ib7
liJxb5 1 0 liJ xb5 liJa6 I I .ie3 .ie6 ! 10 f3 t) 9 . . . .ib7 10 b4! e6 1 1 be
I 2 liJxa 7 liJe5 1 3 i.b 5+ c;!;>d8 1 4 ( I I a3 !? Cvetkovic) I I . . . .ixc5 1 2
c;!;>e2 Yeo Ti mman-M iles, Nik�ic .txc5 be 1 3 'i!i>e2 t Cvetkovic­
1983) 7 ... 1t'xd4 8 liJ xd4 e5 (per- Biriescu, Satu Mare 1980.
haps 8 . . . f6 !?; t h en 9 f4 t or 9 9 ct>c2
liJdb5 liJ xb5 1 0 ltlxb5 liJa6 I I f4 Just as good seems 9 a4, e.g. 9 . . .
t) 9 liJdb5 liJxb5 I 0 liJxb5 .ib4+ b 6 1 0 liJd2 .ib7 ( 1 0 . . . .id6 !?), but
I I .id2 .ixd2+ 12 c;!;>xd2 liJa6, now 1 1 .ie2 or 1 1 ct>c2 (Tal) is pre­
Foerder-Maehate, 1 93 1 , and now ferable to 1 1 liJc4 0-0-0+! 12 c;!;>c l
13 'i!i>e3 ! ± Shatskes, or 13 lite I ( 1 2 ct>e2 liJa5) 1 2 . . . .ie7 1 3 f3 f5 !
c;!;>e7 t Miles. with counterplay, Tal- Tim man,
Al Montreal 1 9 79.
5 liJ x c3 9 .id7 (101)
A l l 6 de a) 9 . b6? 10 .ib5 .id7 ( 10 . . . .ib7
. .

A l 2 6 be I I liJe5 ll c8 1 2 llfd l or 1 2 a4) I I

All a4 a6 1 2 .ie2 .id6 1 3 liJd2 liJ a5 1 4
6 de!? 1t'xd 1+ llfb l ! 0-0 1 5 b4 ± Benko-Seirawan ,
Tal's 6 . . . 'tlt'e7 is untried. H e Lone Pine 1978.
gives 7 g 3 ! . b) 9 ... .ie 7 10 .ie2 0-0 I I llfd I ;t
7 ct>xdl liJc6 Cvetkovic; compare what follows.
a) The 7 . .ig4 !? 8 .ie3 e6 of
.. 10 litd I ! ? .id7 I I liJd2 liJa5 1 2
van Wijgerden-van Riemsdyck , .ie2 .ie7 ! . 1 0 a4 !?.
A msterdam 1979, might be met by
9 .ib5+ liJd7 10 a4 t and c;!;>c2.
b) 7 . b6 8 a4 .ib7 9 ltld2 co; 8
. .

.if4 ( ! ) liJ c6 (8 . . . .ib7 9 i.xb8 a nd

.ib5+) 9 .ib5 .ib7 1 0 a4 0-0-0+
I I c;!;>d2 t ( I I . . . f6 1 2 e5).
c) 7 ... f6 8 .ie3 e5 9 i.c4 liJd7 1 0
liJd2 .id6 1 1 a4 c;!;>e7 1 2 a5 ! :tl ±
Seirawan-Arkell, London 1 98 1 .
8 .ie3
Or 8 i.f4 !? g6 (8 . . . e6 9 ct>c2 .ie7 Now 10 ..ie2!? .ie7 I I lii:fd l
10 litd I Miles; 8 . . . f6 !?) 9 ct>c2 .ig7 0-0-0 ( I I .. . lit eS !?) 1 2 lit d2 f6 1 3
 1 00 8 &iJf3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation

liad I &iJa5 ( I 3 . . . e5 I 4 .ic4 rt;c7 0-0) I I 0-0 0- 0 1 2 d4 b5 1 3 .ie2 c4

1 5 .id5 t; 13 . . . .i e8 !?) 14 e5, and 14 't!t'b2 lle8 1 5 .id6 .ic6 I 6 a4! ba
in place of 14 . . . .ia4+? 15 b3 I 7 lt::J d 2 ± Dubinin-Kupert, corres
llxd2+ I 6 &iJ xd2 i.c6 I 7 ef gf I 8 1957.
.ig4! ± Cvetkovic-Palatnik, USSR b) 7 .ib5+ .i d7 (7 . . . lt::J d 7 8 a4!? or
v Yugoslavia 1 976, 14 . . . .ic6 1 5 just 8 0-0 and d4) 8 .ic4 b5 !? (8 . . .
lhd8+ llxd8 1 6 llxd8+ rt;xd8 I 7 lt::Jc6 9 d4 .ig7 1 0 0-0 0- 0 I I h 3
ef gf was = in D voretsky-Barway, 't!t'c7 oo ) 9 .id5 lt::J c6 1 0 a 4 b4 I I
France 1983. 6 de is a bit awkward 't!t'b3 e6 1 2 .ixc6 ::t: Korchnoi­
for Black, but should be drawn. Zaltsman, Lone Pine 1979.
Al2 c) 7 't!t'a4+!? m ight be tried, e.g.
6 be g 6 (1 02) 7 ... lt::J c6 8 .ia3 or 7 . . . &iJ d7 8 e5 ! ;
The most i m portant move . 6 . . . best is 7 . . . .id7 8 't!t'b3 't!t'c7 9 lib!
e 6 7 .ie2 ( 7 d4 is a Queen's Gambit) (or 9 d4!?) 9 . . . b6 1 0 .ic4 e6 I I d4
7 . . . .ie7 8 0-0 0-0 9 d4 t Vidmar­ lt::Jc6 1 2 .ib5 oo.
Rabar, Lj ubljana I 945, and 6 . . . A2
&iJc6 7 .ic4 't!t'c7 8 0-0 e 5 9 d 3 .ie7 5 &iJb4
10 &iJ g5! t Rejfir-Porath , Moscow Still the main line, but it's under
Ch I 9 56, are unpleasant for Black. fi re from:
A21 6 .ic4
102
w
A22 6 .ib5+
6 d4 !? cd 7 .ib5+ .id7 (7 . . . &iJ5c6
or 7 . . . lt::J 8c6 transposes) 8 lt::J xd4
and 8 . . . e5 9 lt::J f5 or 8 . . . .ixb5 9
&iJd xb5 is untried, but 6 i.b5+ is
more forcing.
A21

Now 7 d4 .ig7 is a Grii nfeld

Defence, but W hite also has:
a) 7 .ia.3 't!t'a5 !? (7 . . . 't!t'c7 8 't!t'b3 ! ?
.ig7 9 't!t'd5 !? lt:ld7 1 0 .ib5 0-0 I I
.ixd7 .ixd7 1 2 't!t'xc5 .ic6 oo
O'Kelly-J .Sch m idt , cor res I 957;
but here 9 .ib5+ .id7 1 0 0-0 0-0
I I d4 is more dynamic) 8 't!t'b3 .ig7
9 .ib5+ .id7 1 0 .ic4 e6?! ( 10 . . .
 8 lLlf3 d5: A symmetrical Variation 10/

White threatens 0-0 or d4 . lLle l i.h6 ! 1 2 lLlxd3 \i'xd3 +

.\ 2 1 1 6 i.e6
0 0 0 W. Koch-Richter. The best option
A 2 1 2 6 . . . lLld3+ is 9 \i'b3 !? \i'd7 10 lLlg5 lLlc6! I I
a ) 6 ... e6? can be answered by 7 d4(!) lLlxe6 lLld4 1 2 lLlxd4 \i'xd4 ( 1 2 . . .
cd 8 lLlb5 a6 (8 . . . d3 9 i.c4! lLlc2+ lLlxd4 1 3 lLld5 =) 1 3 \i'b5+ �17 1 4
I 0 <M1 lLla6 1 1 lilc 1 ± Rabi novich) lLld l =/oo Cafferty .
9 lLl bxd4 lLlbc6 I 0 0-0 lLlxd4 I I
lLlxd4 i.d6 1 2" a3 lLlc6 1 3 lLlxc6 be
1 4 \i'g4 ±. Or 7 0-0 lLl8 c6 8 d3
lLla5 (8 . . . lLld4 9 lLlxd4 cd 10 lLle2
a6 I I lLlg3 i.d6 12 \i'g4! ± is given
by Nim zowitsch) 9 i.b5+ lLlbc6
I 0 d4 cd I I lLlxd4 i.d7 1 2 i.f4 t
Gheorghiu-Peters, Lone Pine 1978.
b) 6 .. lLl4c6 !? 7 d3!? (7 0-0 g6! 8 d3
.

i.g7 9 i.e3 b6) 7 . . . g6 8 lLlg5 !? (8

i.e3 lLld4 9 i.xd4 cd 10 lLle2 i.g7 Still a very interesting posit ion,
I I lLlg5 !?) 8 . . . e6 9 f4; an untried somewhat lost in the shuffle after
line. the e mergence of 6 . . . lLld3+.
A2 l l 9 �b6 !?
6 i.e6 Tal 's move. B lack has many
7 i.xe6 in teresting tries; some have been
7 i.b5+ lLlbc6 8 a3 lLld3+ 9 'it;e2 worked out, others really haven't:
lLlf4+ 10 �fl o4 ( 1 0 . . . a6 1 1 i.xc6+ a) 9 . . . �d7 1 0 �f3! ( 1 0 �g4 lLlc6!
be 12 d4 cd 13 \i'xd4, lightly t) I I - or 10 . . . e5 I I lLle6 lLlf4! = - I I
"i!t'a4 \i'd3+! 1 2 �gl lilc8 (threatens \i'xe6 \i'xe6 12 lLlxe6 �d7 13 lLlxf8+
. . . lLlh3+) 1 3 lLle5 lLle2+ 1 4 lLl xe2 lhffi 1 4 f3 g5 ! + Radchenko) 1 0
�xe2 15 h3 it'xe4! +. . . . lLle5 I I it'h3 it'd3+ ( 1 1 . . . lLld3?
7 lLld3+ 12 lLlxe6; I I . . . lLlbc6? 1 2 lLlxe6 li c8
7 . . . fe 8 0-0 lLlbc6 9 lLlg5 \i'd 7 - o r 1 2 . . . lLld4 13 \i'h5+!, o r 1 2 . . .
10 -;!t'g4 lLld4 I I f4 intending e5 ± b6 13 lLld5! - 1 3 f4! Ciocaltea, or
Golombek-Dykstra, Leeuwarden here 13 d3!? lLlxd3 14 .i.h6! Stean)
1947. 12 \i'xd3 lLlxd3 1 3 �e2 (or 1 3 gH;
8 �n fe 13 lLl xe6 �d7 14 lLlg5 e5 =) 1 3 . . .
9 lLlg5! (104) lLlf4+ ( 1 3 . . . lLlxc l +? 14 llaxc l �d7
9 lLle I ? lLlc6 10 lLlxd3 \i'xd3+ I I 15 d4 ! cd 1 6 1Ud 1 lLlc6 1 7 lLlb5 e5
\i'e2 \i'd7 + with . . . 0-0-0 and . . . g6 18 lLlt7+ with the idea 1 8 . . . llg8
to fol low. 9 g3?! lLlc6 1 0 �g2 g6 I I 19 lLlxe5+! , Stefanov-Neamtu,
 /02 8 li:Jf3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation

Romanian Ch 1 977) 14 '.t>f3 ( 1 4 li:Jg5 is a third option ( I I . . . c4 1 2

'.t>e3 e5! 1 5 li:Jd5 !?; 1 5 . . . h6 1 6 li:Jc7+ 'it'a4 !?), but most critical seems
'.t>d7 1 7 li:Jf7 ! ) 1 4 . . . e5 ( 1 4 . . . h6!? 10 'it'b3: 10 . .. li:Jxc l ( I 0 . . . 't!t'd4 I I
15 '.t>xf4 hg+ 16 �g3 ! S uba-A lburt­ li:Jd I ;t; 1 0 . . . li:Jc7!? I I 'it'xb7 'it'd4
Bucharest 1 978) 15 d4 ! ( 1 5 g3 h6 ! 1 2 li:Jd l li:Jxc l 1 3 l hc l 't!t'xd2 1 4
= ; 1 5 li:J d5 li:Jc6 ! ! 1 6 li:Jc7+ �d7 1 7 't!t'c6+; 10 . . . 't!t'd7 I I li:Jxe6) I I l:txcl
li:Jxa8 li:Jd4+ 1 8 '.t>g4 - 18 '.t>g3 li:Jd3! 'it'xd2 1 2 'it'b5+ 'it'd 7 1 3 li:Jxe6 ;t.
Benko - 1 8 . . . h 5 + 1 9 '.t>h4 e6 20 d 3 10 'it'f3
i.e7 2 1 llfl llh6! 22 i.xf4 ef 23 b4 Also favourable is 1 0 'it'a4+
llg6 ++ Vadasz-Lukacs, Hun­ li:Jd7 I I 't!t'c4 li:J7e5 ( I I . . . h6 1 2
garian Ch 1 977) 1 5 . . . cd ( 1 5 . . . li:Jxe6 li:J 7e5 1 3 'it'b5+ �f7 1 4
li:Jc6 1 6 d e li:Jg6 1 7 li:J e6 Moiseyev) li:J xc5 ! li:J xc5 1 5 d4 ± Chekhov) 1 2
1 6 li:J b5 li:J a6 1 7 i.xf4 ef 1 8 li:Je6 'it'xe6 't!t'xe6 1 3 li:J xe6 l:tc8 ( 1 3 . . .
( Moiseyev); ±. '.t>d7 1 4 li:J xc5+ ! ) 1 4 f4 'ot>d7 1 5
b) 9 li:Jc6!? is logical, but 10 li:Jxe6
. .• li:Jxc5+ It xc5 1 6 fe Itxe5 1 7 '.t>e2
'it'd? I I li:Jxc5 ! ( I I li:Jd5 Itc8) I I . . . li:Jf4+ 1 8 '.t>f2 li:Jd3+ 19 '.t>e3 li:Jb4
li:J xc5 1 2 'it'h5+ g6 1 3 'it'xc5 'i!rd3 + 20 d4 !I ± Chekhov-Kharitonov,
1 4 '.t>g l , Tim man-Stean, Amster­ USSR 1 980. On the other hand,
dam 1 978, seems to have put this 10 1i'e2?! c4 I I b3 h6! 1 2 li:Jf3 li:Jc6
line to rest: 14 . . . i.g7 ( 1 4 . . . 0-0-0 13 be 0-0-0 + was too passive in
1 5 h4! and llh3 Stean) 1 5 't!t'b5 Polugayevsky-Tal , Riga I Z 1 979.
Itd8? ( 1 5 . . . 'it'd?!? 1 6 d3, or 1 6 10 c4
'it'd5, o r 1 6 h4 M iles - a little u n­ 11 b3 (105)
clear) 1 6 't!t'xd3 Itxd3 1 7 '.t>fl 0-0
105
1 8 '.t>e2 l:td7 19 f3 li:Jd4+ 20 '.t>d I B
g5 2 1 d3 g4 22 f4 ± . This line is not
completely clear.
c) 9 ... li:Ja6 !? was tried in S zekely­
Palat nik, Fru nze 1 979: 1 0 'i!ra4+!?
'i!rd7 I I 'it'xd7+ '.t>xd7 12 '.t>e2 li:Jf4+
( 1 2 . . . c4!? 1 3 b3 li:J ac5 14 be h6!?)
13 '.t>f3 li:Jg6 1;1 - 1;1 ; 14 h4 seems a
good follow-up. I nstead of 10
'it'a4+ , 1 0 1i'f3 li:Je5 I I 'it'h3 't!t'd3+ Black has not solved this position:
1 2 'it'xd3 li:J xd3 gives White the a) 11 ... li:Je5 12 "t!¥h3 li:Jd3 1 3 "t!¥f3
same ending with the black king li:Je5 14 'it'e3 ( ! ) cb 1 5 ab 't!t'xb3 1 6
on e8, e.g. 13 '.t>e2 c4 14 b3 li:Jc5 d 4 li:J f7 1 7 't!t'd3 'it'b6 1 8 '.t>e2 ±
1 5 be lld8 etc. 10 li:Jxe6 'it'd 7 I I Levin-Zilberstein, USSR 1 983.
 8 lbjJ d5: A symmetrical Variation 103

b) 1 1 ... 1!t'a6? 1 2 a4 �d7 1 3 lbb5 7 �e2 lb f4+

lbc6 14 be lbce5 1 5 'ft'g3 1!t'c6 1 6 7 . . . lbxc l +? 8 libe l leaves Black
.i.b2! lbxb2 1 7 1!t'xe5 1!t'xc4+ 1 8 d3 ! way behind in development:
lb xd3 1 9 lid l lid8 20 lbxe6 1 -0 a) 8 .. e6 9 d4 cd 10 i.b5+! lbc6 I I
.

Gheorghiu-Chow, New York 1984. 1!t'xd4 1!t'xd4 1 2 lbxd4 ..td7 1 3

c) l l . . . h6 1 2 bc lbxcl !? ( l 2 . . . lZJe5 lifd l lic8 1 4 lbxc6 be 1 5 ..ta4 ±
1 3 1!t'h3 lbbc6 1 4 lbxe6 is given as Aronin-Mi kenas, USSR 1 947.
u nclear by Tukmakov; but Black b) 8 . . a6 9 d4 cd 10 1!t'xd4 (or 1 0
.

needs an idea. I nstead, 13 ... hg lbxd4) 10 . . . 'ft'xd4 I I lbxd4 e6,

1 4 1!t'xh8 lbd3 (Tal) allows 1 5 'i!lh5+ Botvinnik-Kasparian, USSR Ch
�d7 1 6 1!t'e2 etc) 1 3 lZJ17 ( or 1 3 1938, when 12 e5 ! , 12 f4 and 1 2
1!t'h5+ !? �d7 1 4 lZJ17 lbd3 1 5 1!t'f3 , lifd l are all ± according t o Euwe.
and now best was 1 5 . . . 1!t'xf2 :t, c) 8 ... lbc6 9 i.b5 ! (9 'ft'b3 !? e6 10
Loginov-M alaniuk, USSR 1 984) i.b5 i. d7 I I ..txc6 ..txc6 12 l:Ud I
1 3 . . . lig8 14 lbe5 ! 1!t'b2 1 5 1!t'f7 + :t) 9 ... i.d7 10 ..txc6 ..txc6 I I d4
�d8 1 6 li xc l ! 1!t'xc l + 1 7 �e2 ( ± Nimzowitsch, with the idea
'ft'xh l 18 'ft'xe6 ±± Tukmakov­ I I . . . cd 1 2 1!t'xd4! ) I I . . . e6 1 2 :�l e i
Pense, USSR 1 980. ..te7 1 3 d 5 e d 1 4 ed i. d 7 1 5 d6 i.f6
d) " l l . . . lb a6 ! ? 1 2 bc lbac5 =/ro" 1 6 �fl + �f8 1 7 lbe4 b6 1 8 b4 ! ±
(Tal) has yet to be tried . But both Welin-Bergstro m , Sweden 1 985.
1 2 ..ta3 (e.g. 12 . . . lidS 13 ..t xc5 8 �fl lbe6
lb xc5 14 't!¥17+ �d7 1 5 d4) and 1 2 To prevent d4. 8 . . . ..te6?! ("8 . . .
li b l (e.g . 1 2 . . . 1lt'a5 1 3 lib5 1!t'a6 lbc6? 9 d4! cd 1 0 ..txf4 de I I 1!t'b3
1 4 li xc5 lb xc 5 1 5 lbb5 lic8 1 6 ±" Schwarz; I I . . . e6 1 2 1!t'xc3 :t.
lbt7 lig8 1 7 lbe5) s eem good for H ere 10 lb xd4 is also :t) 9 i.b5+
White. i.d7 I 0 d4 cd I I lb xd4 lbg6 1 2
A21 2 ..te3 e 6 1 3 1!t'b3 i.e7 1 4 li d ! 1!t'c8
6 lbd3+ (106) 1 5 li[c l 1!t'd8 1 6 g3 lZJa6 1 7 lZJ f3 0-0
1 8 �g2 ;!; Benko-Peters, Lone Pine
106
w
1978.
9 b4!?
Also unresolved is 9 lbe5!? (107) :
a) 9 . lbd7? 1 0 lb x f7 ! �xl7 I I
. .

..txe6+ �xe6 1 2 1!t'b3+ �6 1 3

lbd5+ � 17 1 4 lbc7 �g6 1 5 ltJe6!
1!t'e8 1 6 lbf4+ �g5 17 h4+ �h6 1 8
'ft'g3 1lt'g6 19 'ft'g5+ 'ft'xg5 20 hg+
�xg5 2 1 lih5+! ±± J . Pinter-
 104 8 &i:JjJ d5: Asymmetrical Variation

d) 9 ... &i:Jc6 10 &i:J xc6 be I I d3 g6

/07 ( I I . . . &i:Jd4 !?) 1 2 &i:Ja4 'it"d6 1 3 ..te3
B ..tg7 14 lic l ( 14 .ixe6 .ixe6 1 5
..txc5 t ) 1 4 . . . 0-0 ( 1 4 . . . .i d4 ! ?) 1 5
'ird2 � h8 1 6 .ixe6 .ixe6 1 7 &i:Jxc5
± Suba-Bukic, Tu zla 198 1 .
e) 9 . . . g6 (!) 1 0 't!Va4+ ( 1 0 'ti'f3 f6;
10 f4 ..tg7!? I I &i:Jxf7 �xf7 1 2 f5
lilf8) and now:
e l ) 10 ... &i:Jd7 I I d4!? cd 1 2 &i:Jb5
.ig7 (?) 1 3 &i:Jxf7! �xf7 14 .ixe6+
Arkhipov, Ba latonbereny 1 983. �xe6 15 'ti'b3 + with a big attack,
b) 9 'i¥d6!? 1 0 f4 ( 1 0 1!Va4+ &i:Jd7 -
... Miles-Hort, London 1 983. But
10 . . . &i:Jc6!? - I I f4 a6 - I I . . . &i:Jd8!? Miles gives 1 2 . . . a6 ; then 13 &i:Jxd4
Euwe - 12 d3 llb8 1 3 &i:Jxf7 �xf7 1 4 b5 14 ..txb5 ab or 1 3 &i:Jxf7 ab 14
f5 &i:Je5 1 5 .if4 b5 =/m Sifdeif-Zade; &i:Jxd8 li xa4 ! 1 5 .ixb5 �xd8 1 6
10 i.b5+!? &i:J d7 I I &i:Jc4 1!Vd3+ , or .ixa4 &i:J c 5 etc i s unco nvi ncing.
here 10 . . . &i:Jc6 Sim agin) 10 . . . &i:J c6 e2) 1 0 ..td7 I I &i:Jxd7 ( I I .ixe6 fe
...

( 1 0 . . . &i:Jd7 Ftacnik) I I 'ti'a4 &i:Jd8? 1 2 'ti'b3?! ..tg7 ! i ntending 1 3 'ti'xb7

( I I . . .i d7) 1 2 d4 cd 13 &i:Jb5 'ti'b8
. .ixe5 14 'ti'xa8 'ti'b6 etc) I I . . .
14 &i:J xd4 f6? ( 14 . . . 1!Vc7 ±) 1 5 'ti'xd7 1 2 ..txe6 fe 1 3 'it"xd7+ �xd7
&i:Jdxc6 be 16 ..tf7+ 1 -0 Suba-Sax, 1 4 d 3 &i:Jc6 (or 14 . . . ..tg7 1 5 .ie3 b6
Hastings 1 983-84. =) 1 5 ..te3 b6 1 6 h4 i.g7 17 h5
c) 9 ... 'ti'd4 I 0 'ti'a4+ ..td7 I I liaf8 + Larsen-Ti mman, Bugojno
&i:J xd7 'ti'xd7 1 2 ..txe6 fe 1 3 'ti'xd7+ 1984.
�xd7 14 d3 e5 1 5 ..te3 e6 1 6 &i:Je2, 9 cb
Averbakh-Bondarevsky - called Very i mportant is 9 . . . g6 !? 10 be
"!" by Euwe and Schwarz, but 1 6 .ig7, when Seirawan-Miles, London
. . . &i:Jc6 seems equa l . 1982, went I I .ixe6 .ixe6 1 2 d4
T h e best cha nce m a y b e 1 0 f4 !? &i:Jc6 1 3 .ie3 .ig4 1 4 &i:Je2 f5 1 5 h3
&i:J xf4 (I 0 . . . f6? I I &i:Jb 5 ! 'ti'xe4 1 2 t. But in Ftacnik- Pinter, Prague
d3 'ti'f5 1 3 g4 ) I I 't!t'a4+!? ( I I 1 985, Black found 13 . . . 'ira5 ! 1 4
..txf7+ !? <!td8 1 2 t!t'f3 ! 'ti'xe5 1 3 d4 'ird2?! 0-0-0 1 5 lii: fc l f5 ! 1 6 efgf =F .
cd 13 . . . 'ti'/6 14 'ti'xf4 - 1 4 ..txf4
- Stohl gives 14 llc l .ic4+! 1 5 �gl
't!rf6 is u nclear; 1 5 .ic4!? de 1 6 ( 1 5 &i:Je2 ! ?) 15 . . . 0-0-0 1 6 h3 f5 ! 17
lld I + �e8 1 7 e5 !?) I I . . . ..td7 1 2 ef gf m ; Black looks well off.
..txf7+ �d8 1 3 'ti'xd4 c d 1 4 &i:Jd5 I f Black's play holds up, White
with complex play. might have to deviate at an early
 8 lLlf3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation 105

stage . Risky but enterprising would One advantage of 10 lLle2 is that

be 1 3 . . . \!ka5 14 d5!? .ixc3 ( I4 . . . 10 ... g6? I I .ib2 .ig7 I2 .ixe6
'i¥xc3 I 5 llc l \!kb4 I 6 d e fe 1 7 .ixb2 13 .ixf7+ �xf7 14 1!t"b3+,
lLlg5) I 5 ll c l with the idea I 5 . . . or here 13 ... �f8 1 4 llb i favours
0-0-0 I 6 \!kc2. White. Otherwise, the idea is to
10 lLle2 ! ( /08) use White's large centre and space.
This has completely replaced 10 lLlc7
Veresov's original idea of 10 lLl d5 , a) 10 . . . lLlcS 1 1 'W"c2 ( I I lLlg5 e6 I 2
which has failed t o produce much d4 Miles; 1 2 . . . h6 ! ) I I . . . e 6 1 2 d4
after 10 . . . g6 ( 1 0 . . . lLlc6!? I I .ib2 lLlcd7 1 3 .ib2 ( 13 .if4 with the idea
lLlc7 oo) I I .ib2 .ig7 I 2 .ixg7 lld 1 ) I 3 . . . lLlb6 I 4 .id3 .id7 I 5
lLl xg7 I 3 lLlxb4 ( I 3 'W"c l !? lLlc6 I 4 llc l ( 1 5 h4 ! ) 1 5 . . . lLl a6 1 6 'W"d2
d4 .ie6! I 5 h4 lilc8 I 6 h5!? lLlxh5 llc8 1 7 h4 ! llxc l + 1 8 .ixc l "Wc7
I7 'i¥h6 lLlxd4 + Seira wan-Pe ters, 19 h5 h6 20 llh4! with an attack ,
US Ch I 98 I ; I 4 d3 .ie6 I 5 h4 f6 I 6 Miies-Hort, London 1 983.
\!kh6 0-0 I 7 llh3 b5 ! + Fedorowicz­ b) 10 ... lLld7?! I I .ixc6!? (or 1 1 d4
Kuligowski, World U-26 Teams lLlb6 1 2 .id3 g6 - 1 2 . . . lLlc7 13
Ch I 98 I ) I 3 . . . 0-0 I4 h3 ( I 4 d4 llb 1 e6 14 .id2 :t - I3 h4! .ig7 14
.ig4 I 5 �e2?! 'W"d6! I 6 'W"d2 lLle6 ! h5 gh 15 .ie3 .id7 16 li b ! a5 1 7
=t= or I 5 \!kd2 .ixf3 I 6 gf lLlc6 +) I 4 d5 lLlf8 1 8 lLlf4 ± Lerner-Smejkal,
. . . e 5 ! ( 1 4 . . . \!kd6 I 5 lil b i .ie6 is B ratislava 1983) 1 I . . . fe 12 d4 e5
also playable) I 5 g3 .ie6 (or I 5 . . . 1 3 'W"b3 (or 13 lLlg5) 1 3 ... ed 1 4
lLlc6 , since I 6 lLlxc6 de takes a way lLlg5 lLle5 1 5 .if4 h 6 1 6 .ixe5 hg
d5, but 16 lLld5 lLle6 is at least =) 1 7 lild 1 'ira5 1 8 .ixd4 llh6 1 9
I6 ll c l lLld7 I7 lLld5 lLlf6 ( 1 7 'ire3 ! llc6 20 h4 g4 2 1 g3 ±
. . . lLlb6 = Sax) 1 8 lLlxf6+ \!kxf6 I 9 Dzindzihashvili-Peters, US Ch
�g2, Seirawan-Sax, Li nares I 9 83, 1984.
and now 19 ... llac8 ! is +. 11 d4
1 1 .ib2 e6 ( 1 1 . . . .ie6 1 2 .ixe6
lOS
B
lLlxe6 1 3 d4 !) 12 lLl f4!? lLld7 I 3
lLlh5 llg8 I 4 d 4 lLlb6 I 5 .id3 ( 1 5
.ib3 a 5 I 6 llc l ) I 5 . . . g6! =/
oo SchUssler-Wedberg, Stockholm
I 984.
11 e6
12 h4!?
Other games have seen 12 .ib2,
e.g. I2 . . . lLld7 ( I 2 . . . b5 1 3 .ib3 a5!
106 8 li:Jf3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation

oo Vaganian; 1 2 . . . i. e7 1 3 h4 li:Jd7
14 llc l li:Jf6 15 i.d3 i.d7 16 li:Je5 ;!" 109

Sideif-Zade - Mi khalchishin, Baku w

1 983 ) 1 3 h4! li:Jf6 14 i.d3 i.d7 1 5

h5 h6 1 6 li:J f4 i.e7 1 7 't!t'e2 a6 1 8
nh3 i.d6 1 9 't!t'd2 i.xf4 20 't!t'xf4
Uro Psakhis-Vaganian, Lvov 1 984.
12 i.d6
13 h5 h6
14 Ilh4 li:Jd7
Now H tibner-Tuk makov, Wij k
aan Zee 1 9 84, conti nued 1 5 i. b2 i.e6 line above. But theory no
( 1 5 i. e3 ! ?) 1 5 . . . i.e7 1 6 Ilh3 li:Jf6 longer li kes that line, so perhaps
1 7 i.d3 i.d7 1 8 ll:le5 .tb5 1 9 �g l 7 i.c4 is worth a try. On 7 . . . li:J8c6?,
0-0 20 li:Jf4 with the idea :ag3, and 8 a3 is strong, and 7 . . . li:J4c6 can
Black found it di fficult to cope be met by 8 't!t'b3 (8 d4 t) 8 . . . e6 9
with the pressure, although this is 'it'xb7 li:J a5 I 0 't!t'xa8 li:J xc4 and 1 1
hard to assess. d 3 ll:lb6 1 2 't!t'b7 may leave B lack
A ll in all, the 6 i.c4 lines are short. This leaves (e.g.) 7 . . . e6 8 d4
scoring well for White. It seems cd 9 li:J xd4 li:J8c6 1 0 a3 li:Jxd4 I I
that Black migh t look into the ab ;!;! ± .
sideline 6 . . . li:Jd3+ 7 �e2 ll:lf4+ 8 7 lD4c6!
<t>fl li:Je6 9 b4 g6 !? . 7 ... .txb5? has been discredited:
A22 8 ab .td3 (8 . . . 1t'b6 9 be 't!t'xc5 10
6 .tb5+ 'it'b3 .tc6 1 1 d4 ± Shatskes) 9
A221 6 . . . .td7 'it'a4+! li:Jc6 (9 . . . 'i!t'd7 10 li:Je5!
A 222 6 . . . li:J8c6 'it'xa4 I I li:Jxa4 .ta6 1 2 b5 ±±) 10
6 . . . li:J4c6 7 d4 cd 8 ll:lxd4 ( 8 b5 li:Jb4 I I b6+ ! 't!t'd7 ( I I . . . li:Jc6
't!t'xd4 i.d7 9 't!t'd l g6 t ) 8 . . . i.d7 1 2 li:Je5) 1 2 't!t'xd7+ �xd7 1 3 ll xa7
9 i. e3 (9 li:J xc6 !? li:Jxc6 1 0 i.e3 ;!;) nb8 14 li:Je5+ ±± Forintos-Farago,
9 ... ll:l xd4 I 0 't!t'xd4 ll:lc6 I I 'it'd2 ;1:: . Dubna 1979.
A221 8 i.c4!?
6 .td7 (109) a) W hite's best may be 8 d4 cd 9
7 a3 li:Jxd4 ll:l xd4 (9 . . . g6! Peters; 1 0
A lmost always played, but what .te3 , l ightly ;!; ) 1 0 't!t'xd4 li:Jc6 1 1
about 7 i.c4 ? This used to be con­ 'fi'd3 a6 1 2 .ta4 li:Je5 1 3 i.xd7+
sidered fairly irrelevant due to 7 . . . 't!t'xd7 14 't!t'g3 ! f6 1 5 0-0 ± Bukic­
i.e6, transposing t o the 6 i.c4 Smejkal, Banja Luka 1 976.
 8 lb./3 d5: A symmetrical Variation 107

b) 8 0-0 e6!? (8 ... lL!d4 (! ) ) 9 d4 cd 1 0 8 de!

lL! xd4 i.e7? I I lL!f3 ! 0-0 1 2 i.f4 f6 a) 8 ... i.d7?! 9 ll:lxd4 (9 ab de 10
1 3 'i!Yb3 ± Kholmov-Anikayev, 'i!Yb3 cb I I i.xb2 "ti'b6 ro Plachetka)
Sochi 1974. 9 .. . lL!xd4 I 0 i.xd7+ 'i!Yxd7 I I ab
8 e6 e6 ( I I . . . e5 1 2 ll:ld5 ±) 1 2 i.e3 ll d8
9 d3 i.e7 1 3 0-0! i.xb4 1 4 i.xd4 1t'xd4 1 5
10 i.e3 0-0 'ti'a4+ <t>e7 ( 1 5 . . . lld7 1 6 ll:lb5 ! ) 1 6
l l 0-0 lle8!? ( 1 1 . . . i.e8 1 2 'i!Yc2!?, lL!b5 ! 'ikxe4 1 7 llfe l ! 'it'xe i I 8
Korchnoi-Lengyel, Moscow 1975; lilxe I i.xe I 1 9 1t'a3+ <t>f6 2 0 ll:ld6
then 1 2 . . . lL!d4 13 i.xd4 cd 1 4 ±± Uhlmann-Lukacs, Berlin 1 982.
lL!e2 lL!c6 1 5 b4 llc8 is ! after 'i!Yb2, b) 8 ... '@b6?! 9 i.xc6+! (9 ab!? de
llac l etc) 12 d4 cd 13 lL!xd4 lL!xd4 10 'it'a4 cb I I i.xb2 with an attack)
1 4 i.xd4 lL!c6 Y2-Y2 Andersson­ 9 . . be (9 . . . liJ xc6 10 lL!d5 ) 10 ab
.

Polugayevsky, Wij k aan Zee 1979. de I I be i.a6 (0-0, i.e3 etc was
1 5 i.e3 :!:. threatened) 1 2 lL!e5 lld8 1 3 'ti'a4
A222 i.b5 1 4 'ti'a2 ! e6 1 5 'ti'xa7 1!t'xa7
6 liJ8c6 1 6 lii: xa7 i.e7 1 7 c4 ! i.xb4+ 1 8
7 d4 <t>e2 i.c5 1 9 lii: a2 f6 20 c b fe 2 1 be
Not 7 0-0?! a6 8 i.a4 b5 9 a3 ±± Ribli-Ftacnik, Baile Herculane
lL!d3 + Tukm a kov-Tal , USSR Ch z 1 982.
1 977. Or 7 a3?! lL!d3+ 8 <t>e2 lL!f4+ ! 9 'ii'x d8+ <t>xd8
9 <t>fl lL!e6 I 0 b4 ( 1 0 d3 g6) I 0 . . . g6! 10 ab (J J J)
I I be i.g7 1 2 e5 ll:ld4 I 3 lL!xd4
'i!Yxd4 14 i.b2 0-0 + Poutiainen­ 111

Tal, Tallinn 1 977. B

7 cd
8 a3 (1 10)

10 cb
This is still the m ain move. 10 . . .
lL!xb4 (?) I I <t>e2 with the idea 1 2
ll:lg5 , 1 2 lii: d I + or 1 2 i.e3 i s effec­
tive. Or 10 . . . g6 I I be i.g7 1 2 lla3
/08 8 li:Jf3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation

.id7 1 3 0-0 lii: c 8 14 lii: d l a6 ( 1 4 . . . li:Jc5 ! 21 lita8+ �7 22 litxd7+ \12-\12

�e8? 1 5 litxa 7 !) 1 5 .ie2 �e8 1 6 Tal-Tim man, Montpellier (play-off)
b5 ! ± Stean-Browne, Buenos Aires 1985.
01 1 978. I 0 . . . .id7 I I be g6 trans­ 12 0-0 f6
poses. 1 2 . . . .ixb4? 1 3 litfd l + �c7 1 4
This leaves 10 . . . c2!? I I .ixc6 .txc6 b e 1 5 .ixg7 litg8 1 6 .ie5+
be 12 li:Je5 ( 1 2 li:Jd4 .id7 1 3 li:J xc2 �b6 17 litab l c5 18 .id6! .ib7 19
e5 1 4 .ie3 �c7 =) 12 . . . �e8 . Bohm­ .ixc5 +! ± Chekhov.
Langeweg, Du tch Ch 1979, and 13 e5 f5 (1 12)
here 13 .ie3! e6 1 4 .ic5 ( Stean ), or Here 1 3 . . . .ie7!? s eems a good
1 3 . . . f6 1 4 li:Jd 3 ! e5 1 5 �d2 etc. option, when W hite can play 1 4
11 .ixb2 e6 ! ? .ixc6 b e a n d n o w 1 5 .id4 .i d 7 1 6
It's unclear what' s best here: .ixa 7 �c7 1 7 .ic5 = o r 1 5 li:Jd4
a) 1 1 . e5? 1 2 .ixc6! ( 1 2 0-0-0+
.. .id7 1 6 litfc l fe or 1 5 lii: a 4 .id7 1 6
�c7 1 3 .ixc6 be 14 .ixe5+ Wb7 = ) lit l a l e 5 1 7 lit xa7 litxa7 1 8 lit xa7
1 2 . . . b e ( 1 2 . . . .ixb4+ 1 3 �e2 be cb 19 li:J d4 fe 20 lita8+ .txa8 2 1
1 4 li:Jxe5 �c7 1 5 :iii: hc l ±) 1 3 li:Jxe5 li:Jxe6+ �d7 22 li:J xg7 , but none of
�c7 1 4 �e2! f6 15 li:Jd3 .id6 1 6 these lines seems to offer many
lithcl lite8 1 7 f3 ± Ree-Chandler, winning chances.
Lone Pine 1 979.
b) 1 1 . . . f6!? 1 2 e5! .id7?! ( 1 2 . . .
.ig4 1 3 .i xc 6 .ixc6 1 4 li:Jd4 fe 1 5
li:Jxc6+ We8 1 6 0-0 ± ; 1 2 . . . �c7 !?
with the idea . . . .ig4) 13 .ic4! litc8
1 4 litdl �c7 1 5 e6 .ie8 1 6 b5 li:Ja5
17 .ie2 �b8 18 0-0 ± Timman­
Bohm, Dutch Ch 1 979.
c) 11 ... .id7!? was Ti mman's im­
provem ent: 1 2 0-0 (here 12 0-0-0!?
has its points; also 1 2 .ia4 !'! with
the idea 12 . . . f6 13 e5 could be tried) 1 4 li:Jd4!?
1 2 . . . f6 1 3 .ic4! ( 1 3 lii: fd l e5 1 4 a) 14 .ixc6 be 1 5 li:Jd4 .id7 1 6
.ixe5 .ixb4 1 5 .if4!?) 1 3 . . . li:Jxb4 l:lfc I .ixb4 1 7 li:J xc6+ .ixc6 1 8
14 e5 lit c8 15 .tf7 ( 1 5 e6 n xc4 1 6 litxc6 litd7 1 9 litca6 .ic5 =
litfd l li:J c6 ! 1 7 lit xd7+ �c8 1 8 li:Jd4 Rakowiecki-Adamski, Poland 1980.
li:Jxd4 19 .ixd4 litc6 ! Ligterink) b) 14 li:Jg5!? �e7 1 5 .ixc6 be 16
15 ... li[c2 16 lii: fb l li:Jd3 17 .i d4 fe .id4 �e8 1 7 .ic5 ( 1 7 l:la4 !? with
1 8 .txa7 e6 1 9 litxb7 .id6 20 .ie3 the idea 1 7 . . . .id7 18 .ic5) 1 7 . . .
 8 li:lj3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation 109

.t xc5 1 8 be �e7 19 lUd l aS oo Chicago 1985 .

H i.ibner-Ti m man, West Germany B1
1985. 5 cd
14 li::J xd4? 6 't!t'xd4
Best is 1 4 . . . .td7 ! oo Ch ekhov. 6 lt:lxd5 't!t'xd5 7 't!t'xd4 't!Vxd4 8
White could try 15 l Hd l �c7 1 6 li::J x d4 .td7 = (9 .tf4 f6; 9 e4 a6).
.txc6 be 1 7 b5!? cb 1 8 llac l + ( 1 8 6 li::J xc3
. . . � b6 1 9 li::J b3 !?, o r 1 8 . . . �b7 1 9 6 . . . e6 7 e4 li::J x c3 transposes.
li::J x f5), but again, the winning 7 't!t'xc3 li::J c6
chances are slim. 8 e4 (/ 1 3)
After 14 . . . li::J xd4?, Chekhov­ 8 e3 .tg4 9 .td2?! .txf3 10 gl
Verner, USSR 1979, continued 1 5 'it'd5 + Ribli-Lj uboj evic, Tilburg
.txd4 .td7 1 6 .txa 7 �e8 1 7 .txd7+ 1 978.
�xd7 1 8 llfd l + �c6 1 9 li[dc l + !
�d7 2 0 llc4 g5 ! 2 1 b5, and now
best was 21 . . . li[g8 ::!:: .
6 .ib5+ remains a dangerous
move, but Black can defend .
B
5 d4
B l 5 . . . cd
B 2 5 . . . li::J xc3
5 . . . e6 6 e3 or 6 e4 is a Queen's
Ga mbit Semi-Tarrasch . 5 . . . g6 !?
may be met by 6 e4 li::J x c3 7 be .tg7 8 e6
( a Gri.i nfeld) or by 6 de li::J x c3 7 a) 8 a6?! 9 i.c4 1t'a5 (9 . . . e6? 10
...

't!t'xd8+ �xd8 8 be .tg7 9 li::J d4 0-0 .t d7 I I Iidl ±, e.g. I I . . bS 1 2

.

li::J c 6 10 e3 (?) ( 1 0 .tg5 ! ) 10 . . . .td7 .tg5 't!t'c7 1 3 i.d5! ± Mikhalchishin­

I I llc l �c7 1 2 li::Jb5+ �b8 + Tarjan­ Horvath, Pees 1 978) 10 i.d2 't!t'xc3
Sha m kovich , U S Ch 198 1 . A third I I .txc3 tl ± Korchnoi-Karpov,
try is 5 . . . g6 6 .td2!? cd 7 li::Jxd4 .ig7 USSR Ch 1 970.
8 e4 ! li::J b6 9 .te3 t Christiansen­ b) 8 'tWaS? 9 't!Vxa5 li::J xa5 10 i.bS+
...

Botterill, Hastings 1978-79. Finally, (or 10 li::J e 5 ) 10 . . . .id7 I I i.xd7+

6 li::J xd5 (?) 'it'xd5 7 't!t'c2 is refuted �xd7 12 0-0 li::J c 6 1 3 .tf4 ± Tai­
by 7 .. . .tf5 ! 8 'it'xeS 't!Vxc5 9 de Zhuravlev, Sochi 1 977 .
.tg7 10 li::J d2 0-0 (or 10 . . . li::J c6 ! ) I I c) 8 ... i.g4 9 i.b5 li:c8 10 i.e 3 !
e4 .td7 with more than enough .txf3 I I g f a 6 1 2 ll d l �c7 1 3
for the pawn, Ahlstrom-Ch ow, .txc6+ 't!t'xc6 14 't!t'd4 ! f6 1 5 0-0
 I 10 8 &i:J j3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation

( ±) 1 5 . . . e5? 1 6 'i!Va7 i.e7 1 7 li:c l 82

±± Portisch- Htibner, Montreal 5 l/Jxc3
1979. 6 be g6 (1 14)
9 i.bS i.d7 Interesting after 6 . . . i.f5 would
9 . . . 't!Vb6 ! ? 1 0 i.xc6+ 't!Vxc6 I I be 7 't!Vb3 , e.g. 7 . . . 'W/c7 8 e4!?
�xc6+ be 1 2 0-0 i.e7 1 3 i.e3 t i.xe4 9 l/Jg5 i.g6 I 0 i.f4 ! 't!Vc8 ( I 0
Muresan-Savereide, Tbilisi 1982. . . . 'it'xf4 I I 't!t'xb7) I I i.c4 e6 1 2
10 0-0 'ti'b6 !? l/Jxe6 fe 1 3 i.xe6 with the attac k .
a) 1 0 . a6 I I i.e2 'i!Va5 ( I I . . . li:c8
. .

12 i.f4 ±) 12 'i!Vxa5 &i::J x a5 1 3 &i::Je 5

1 14
( 1 3 i.d2 i.b5 ! 14 li:e l !?) 1 3 . . . w
i.d6 1 4 &i::J x f7 �xf7 1 5 li: d l i.b5
1 6 i.xb5 ab 17 li: xd6 t Martz­
Dieks, 1 975.
b) 10 li:c8 I I li:d l a6 12 i.xc6 !
...

li: xc6 1 3 'i!Vb3 't!Vb8 1 4 i.e3 i.c5

1 5 li:d2! i.xe3 16 'i!Vxe3 i.c8 1 7
&i::J d4 li:d6 1 8 �g3 0-0 1 9 l/Jxe6 1 -0
Butnoris-Gelyashinis, USSR 1 980.
c) 10 ... f6!? 1 1 i.e3 i.b4 1 2 't!Vb3
't!le7 1 3 li:ad l 0-0? 14 lt xd7 ±± 7 e3
Fedorowicz-Bouissious, D mitrias 7 e4 is a Gri.infeld. Others include:
198 1 . 7 't!t'a4+ l/Jc6 8 de? ! i.g7 9 i.b2
11 i.a4 0-0 + Korchnoi-Furman, M oscow
1 1 a4 !? may be best. After 1 1 1973; 7 i.g5 !? i.g7 8 e3 0-0 9 'W/d2
i.a4, Mi les- Ri bl i , Baden-Baden cd I 0 cd b6 = Korchnoi-Reshevsky,
1 9 8 1 , went 1 1 . . . 't!Vc5 !? 1 2 'i!Vd3 Lone Pine 1979; and 7 i.f4!? i.g7
�d6 1 3 �e2 a6 14 li d 1 'i!Vc7 1 5 8 e3 'it'a5 (8 . . . de? 9 cd 'W/a5+ 1 0
i.xc6 ( 1 5 i.e3 ±) 1 5 . . . i.xc6 1 6 't!t'd2 t ) 9 't!t'd2 0-0 1 0 i.e2 lt:\ c6 I I
&i::J d4 i.d6 Y2-Y2. H .Oiafsson-Chow, li: b I cd 1 2 cd 't!t'xd2+ 1 3 �xd2
New York 1984, sa w 1 1 . . . !Va6 1 2 li:d8 = Portisch-Tim man, Til burg
i.b3 ( 1 2 �b3 !?) 1 2 . . . !Va5 1 3 'ti'd3 1980.
( 1 3 i.d2 't!fxc 3 1 4 i.xc3 f6 1 5 e5 7 i. g7
i.e7! Chow; here 1 5 li:adl planning 8 i.bS+
.!ad2 looks m ildl y ±) 1 3 . . . li:d8 1 4 Karpov's move, which to some
i.g5 i.e7 1 5 i.xe7 l/Jxe7 =. Gener­ extent revived this line. Actually,
ally, White seems to retain a light however, both alternatives have
edge from 5 . . . cd. some prom ise:
 8 lLljJ d5: Asymmetrical Variation 111

a ) 8 .te2 0-0 9 0-0 b 6 ( 9 . . . 'it"c7 1 0

1 15
.ta3!? lLld7 1 1 e4 l:i: d8 1 2 'it"b3 e6 B
13 l:i:d1 ;!; Liberzon-Peters, H astings
1 980-8 1 ; 9 . . . liJ c6 1 0 tt'b3 !? wou1d
intend 1 0 . . . lLla5 1 1 1Wa3; 9 . . . lLld7
1 0 a4!?) 1 0 a4 ltJd7 1 1 a 5 l:l b8 1 2
e4 1Wc7 1 3 .tg5 ! lLlf6 1 4 .td3 h6 1 5
.td2 ( 1 5 .th4 lLl h5) 1 5 . . . .t b7? !
( 1 5 . . . e6 ;!;) 1 6 d5! l:lad8 1 7 c4 e5
1 8 l:i:b1 ± H . Oiafsson-Paolozzi,
Lone Pine 1 979. 13 'i/c7
b) 8 .td3 (prepares .te4 in some Or 1 3 . . . e6 1 4 .tf4 l:le8 ( 1 4 . . .
cases) 8 . . . 0-0 9 0-0 'i/c7 (9 . .. lLlc6 lLlf6) 1 5 e5 ! h6 (versus ltJg5-e4) 1 6
1 0 .ta3 b6 I I de 'i/c7 1 2 .te4 .tb7 We2 ..tc6 1 7 ..txa6 ..txa4 1 8 ..tb7
1 3 1!t'c2 t Tal-Miles, Bugoj no 1978) l:la5 19 ..te4 ± H . Oiafsson­
10 .ta3 ( 1 0 l:lb1 t) 10 . . . liJd7 1 1 Kuligo wski, Reykj avik 1 982.
1We2 b6 1 2 e4 .tb7 1 3 l:l fd 1 l:l fd8 , A ft er 1 3 . . . 1Wc7, Karpov­
Portisch-Tal, Milan 1 975, and now Korchnoi, M erano 1 98 1 , went 1 4
1 4 e5 (";!;" Tal) has the idea 1 5 lLld2 ll e 1 e 6 1 5 e 5 ! h 6 1 6 h 4 l:lfd8 1 7
on either 14 . . . e6 or 14 . . . .td5. ..tf4 ( 1 7 h 5 Tal) 1 7 . . . ll:Jffi 1 8 ..te3
8 lLld7 l:lab8 1 9 'i/e2 ..tc6 20 ..txa6 cd 2 1
8 ... lLlc6!? Tal. 8 . . . .td7 9 a4 !? c d ..txa4 2 2 lLld2 'it"c6 2 3 l:i:ec l
1Wa5 1 0 1Wb3 ! cd 1 1 ed .txb5 1 2 1Wa8 24 .td 3 ..tc6 2 5 f3 b5 26
1!t'xb5+ t Makarichev. lLlb3 ±.
9 0-0 0-0 c
10 a4 a6!? 5 e3
Weakening th e queenside . In Keres managed to eke out small
Spraggett-Shamkovich, New York advantages from this move, which
1983, Black tried 10 . . . lLlf6 1 1 still has some punch .
.td3 ( 1 1 .ta3 !? lLle4 1 2 l:lc1 ) 1 1 . . . C 1 5 . . . lLlc6
.tf5 ( ! ) 1 2 lle 1 ( 1 2 .ia3) 1 2 . . . C2 5 . . . lLlxc3
.txd3 1 3 1!t'xd3 l:lc8 1 4 e4 e6 1 5 5 . . . e66 d4 is a Queen's Gambit.
.tf4 1Wa5 +. Korchnoi's 6 1Wc2 !? ltJc6 7 a3 {=)
11 .td3 b6 mixes it up.
Also interesting here is 1 1 . . . C1
e5!?. 5 ltJc6
12 l:lb1 .tb7 6 ..tb5 e6
13 e4 (1 15) 6 . . . ltJxc3 7 be ..td7 (7 . . . g6? 8
112 8 l0f3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation

l0e5 'ii'c7 9 '§a4; 7 . . . 'ii'c7 8 0-0 e5 C2 I 7 ..ta3

9 d4 e4 1 0 l0d2 ±) 8 0-0 e6 (8 . . . C22 7 1Wa4+
a6!?) 9 d 4 i. e7 I 0 e4 0-0 I I 't!fe cd C23 7 .ib5+
1 2 cd lieS 13 i.b2 l0b4 14 i.c4 ± 7 d4 is '82' above. 7 h4 h6! is
Keres-Tai manov, USSR 1948. pointless, and 7 ..tc4 i.g7 8 h4 !? is
7 0-0 i.e7 artificial after 8 . . . h6 9 '§c2 1Wc7
8 t0e5 i.d7 10 ll b l b6 I I i.d5 l0 c6 I 2 c4 0-0
9 ..txc6 1 3 h5 ( I 3 't!fxg6? e6) 1 3 . . . g5 1 4
9 l0xd5? l0xe5 ! 10 ..txd7+ 1Wxd7 i.b2 e6 + Christiansen-H.Olafsson,
I I t0xe7 t0d3 ! + was Veltmander­ Lone Pine 1978.
A ronin, USSR I 953. Or 9 t0 xd7 C21
'§xd7 10 d4 cd I I ed t0 c7 ! = 7 i.a3 'i!i'c7
Shatskes. 7 . . . W'a5 8 W'b3 ! ::!:: , or 8 l0e5 !?
9 ..txc6 with the idea 8 . . . 'i!i'xa3? 9 .ib5+
10 l0xc6 be and IO l0c4 ; 7 . . . l0c6 8 ..tb5 ! ( all
I I '§a4 1Wb6 1 2 t0xd5 ! ed I 3 b 3 analysis by Karpov). 7 . . . l0d7 8
0-0 1 4 i.a3 :t, e.g. 1 4 . . . '§b5 1 5 .ib5 is C23.
ll fc l 1Wxa4 1 6 b a 1Hb8 1 7 ..txc5 8 ..tc4 ..tg7
..txc5 IS llxc5 llb2 19 d4 e tc. 9 0-0 0-0
Thus 5 . . . l0c6 does not lead to Equal, e.g. 10 lii: c l t0d7 I I d4
clear equality. llb8 1 2 ..tb5 ( 1 2 e4 i.h6! 1 3 llc2
C2 l0b6 Karpov) 1 2 . . . b6 1 3 l0d2
5 t0 xc3 llfd8 I4 't!ff3 a6 ( I4 ... i.b7 1 5 'i!i'g3
6 be 'i!i'c8 ! Karpov) 1 5 .ie2 i.b7 1 6
6 de 'iWxd I+ 7 c;!;>xd I l0c6 (7 .. . 'i!i'g3 'i!t'c6 1 7 .ib2 e5 + Shamkovich­
.if5?! 8 l0d2!) 8 e4 b6 =, or 8 . . . Karpov, Leningrad I97 l .
i.g4 = . C22
6 g6 (1 1 6) 7 'i!t'a4+ l0d7
7 . . . i.d7 8 'i!t'b3 'i!t'c7 9 ..tc4 e6
/ 16
w
10 d4 t.
8 i.a3
8 e4 .ig7 9 e5? 0-0 10 e6 fe I I h4
l0b6 1 2 't!fe4 e5! I 3 i.c4+ c;!;>h8 I4
l0g5 i.f5 =!= Lein-Peters, Lone Pine
1977. Best m ay be 8 it'a4!?, e.g. 8
. . . .ig7 ( 8 . . . e5!?) 9 d4 0-0 10 .id3
'i!i'c7 I I .id2 b6 1 2 0-0 i.b7 I 3 e4
etc.
 8 ltJj3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation 1 13

8 1Wc7 Uhlmann-Adamski , Halle 1 9 S I )

9 i.e2 i.g7 1 2 . . . \!t'b6 1 3 \!t'e2 i.d7 1 4 d 5 lUeS
1 0 0-0 0-0 I I lil ab l b6 1 2 1t'h4 1 5 de i.xe6 1 6 \!t'b5 ! ± Korchnoi­
i.b7 1 3 c4 Il:adS 1 4 i.b2 i.xf3 ! ? Wirthensohn, Bad Kissingen 1 9S 1 .
1 5 i. x f3 was U hlma nn-S. Garcia, The older S b3 i.e7 9 i.b2 0-0
Madrid 1 973, and now Uhlmann 10 lil c l 't!t'a5 I I lt:l a4 lidS 1 2 'W'c2!
gives 1 5 ... lt:l e5 = . lt:lb4 1 3 't!tb l t Smyslov-Bronstein ,
C23 Amsterdam I956, and S d 3 i.e7
7 i.b5 + i. d7 9 i.f4 with the idea 9 . . . �d5 1 0
7 . . . lt:ld7 S 0-0 i.g7 9 a4 0-0 I 0 lt:l xd5 e d 1 1 d4 a re also possible.
d4 is ' B 2' above. Or here S i.a3 !? 6 i.g2
1Wc7 9 d4 cd! ( B u kic; 9 ... i.g7 I 0 6 'ti'a4+ is harmless after 6 . . .
i.xc5 0-0 I I i.b4 ! ± Smej kal­ lt:lc6 7 �e5 lt:lxc3 ! S de 1td5 9 lt:l xc6
Jansa, Czechoslova kia 19SO) 1 0 i.d7 = Gheorghiu-Csom , Orense
1Wxd4, a n d n o w 1 0 . . . lilgS I I 0-0!? 1975. 6 'ti'b3 �b4! 7 lt:le4? (7 a3
i.g7 12 1Wa4 is u nclear, and 1 0 . . . lt:l4c6 =) 7 . . . i.g7 ! S lt:l xc5 1Wa5
f6 I I 0-0 e 5 1 2 1Wa4 ties Black 9 a3 �4c6 (or 9 . . . ltJS c6 10 �a4
d own. i.e6! I I 1td l i.f5 ! =F Vukic-Bukal,
8 1Wb3 1Wc7 Yugoslavia 1 973) 10 1Wc4? ! ( 1 0
9 lilbl b6 1Wc2 + ) 1 0 . . . b5 1 1 1th4 b4 I 2 lt:l d3
10 lt:lg5 e6 I I c4 i.b7 1 2 i. b2 0-0 �a6 1 3 i.g2 i.d7 =F with a bind,
1 3 i.xg7 'it>xg7 14 0-0 lt:lc6 1 5 'W'b2+ Polugayevsky-Bronstein, USSR Ch
f6 1 6 lt:l e4 Il:adS 1 7 lilfd i e5 = 197 1 .
Smej kal-Sc h midt, Warsaw 1 979. 6 i.g7
D 7 0-0
5 g3 7 \!t'a4+ lt:lc6 is Chapter 3. 7 . . .
An odds-and-ends section of i.d7 S 1Wc4 �b4 !? ro.
those lines which do not trans­ 7 0-0
pose. 8 lt:l xd5
5 g6 As usual , S \!t'b3 e6 (or S . . . lt:lc7
B ronstein's deviation 5 . . . lt:l f6 !? =, or S . . . lt:lb4 =) 9 d3 �c6 = ( 10
6 i.g2 lt:l c6 7 0-0 e6 faces a severe i.g5? lt:ld4 ! ) doesn't achieve any­
test after S e3 ( " ! " U hlmann) S . . . th ing. S d4!? cd 9 lt:l xd4 �xc3 1 0
i.e7 ( but no one mentions S . . . be is logical, b u t 1 0 . . . lt:lc6! 1 1
1td3 intending 9 lt:le I 1td7 or 9 lt:lxc6 ( I I i.e3 lt:la5 ! =) 1 1 . . . be
lt:le2 e5 , which seems critical) 9 d4 1 2 1WxdS li xdS 1 3 i. xc6 i. xc3 1 4
cd I 0 lt:lxd4 lt:lxd4 I I ed 0-0 1 2 lilb1 i.f5 ( 14 . . . i.h 5 =) 1 5 e4 lilacS
i.f4!? (or 1 2 i.e3 i.d7 1 3 d5 ! t = was H tibner-Tal, Bugojno 197S.
114 8 &i:Jf3 d5: A symmetrical Variation

8 't!t'xdS �xg2 1 3 <t>xg2 't!t'd5 1 4 �e3 &i:Jc7

9 d3 &i:Ja6 !? 1 5 lilfc l ;!:.
9 . . . &i:Jc6 is Chapter 3 again. 9 . . .
&i:Ja6 !? was Andersson-Smej kal, Conclusion. Clearly the m ost dan­
Palma de Mall orca 1 972: 10 a3 gerous lines in this chapter stem
't!t'h5 ( 10 000 'it'd6 1 1 lil b 1 �d7 1 2 from 5 e4, but 5 d4 may appeal to
�e3, Andersson- Ree, Wijk aan those who want a small, safe edge
Zee 1973, and n ow 1 2 . . . lil ab8 is and don't mind the Semi-Tarrasch
u nclear) 1 1 lil b 1 �h3 1 2 'it'a4 Queen's Ga mbit.
 Part III
2 ltJf3 Systems
9 2 ltJf3 Introduction and 2 'Others'

1 c4 c5 Larsen gave this move new life

In this chapter we introduce the a few years bac k, but it is only an
i mportant 2 lbf3 by looking at occasional choice now. Its main
irregular li nes, by which one side virtue is to discourage . . . g6.
or the other avoids the material in A I 2 . . . lDf6
Chapters 1 0- 1 4. Be fore that, we A2 2 . . . e5
look at lines where White plays 2 . . . g6 3 .ib2 lbf6 4 .ixf6 is ' A l '.
neither 2 lbc3 nor 2 lDf3: 2 . . . d6 3 .ib2 e5 will transpose to
A 2 b3 ' A 2' . On 2 . . . lbc6 3 .ib2 e6 , White
8 2 g3 can try 4 lDf3 d 5 5 cd ed 6 e3 (6 d4
c 2 lbf3 lDf6 7 e3 .ig4 = o r 7 . . . cd 8 lDxd4
Other moves tend to transpose, .tb4+ =) 6 . . . lDf6 (6 . . . d4? 7 .ib5 ;
e.g. 2 e4 lbc6 3 lbc3 g6 4 g3 i.g7 6 . . . a6 7 d4 t) 7 .ie2 or 7 .ib5 - see
5 .ig2 is Chapter 2, line A . 2 e3 ' A I 2' .
can lead to a Queen's Gambit after 2 . . . b 6 3 .ib2 .ib7 i s doubtless
2 . . . e6 3 d4 d5 or to a Caro-Kann, equal, e .g. 4 lDf3 lDf6 5 e3 e6 6 .ie2
Panov A ttack after 2 . . . lDf6 3 d4 .ie7 7 0-0 0-0 8 d4 d5 (or 8 . . . cd =)
cd 4 ed d5. 2 d3 e6 with the idea . . . 9 de .txc5 10 lDbd2 lbc6 I I cd
d5 equalizes immediately, and 2 f4 't!t'xd5 1 2 a3 lUd8 = Petrosian­
can be a nswered by 2 . . . lb f6 , 2 . . . Saidy, San Antonio 1972.
g6, or even 2 . . . d 5 3 cd 1t'xd5 4 lDc3 AI
'i!t'd8. 2 lb f6
A 3 .tb2
2 b3 (1 1 7) A l l 3 . . . g6?!
A l 2 3 . . . lbc6
117
B
a) 3 ... d6 4 g3 lDc6 5 .ig2 e5 (5 . . .
g6? ! 6 .ixf6 ! ) 6 lbc3 (6 e 3 .if5 !)
6 ... .ie6 7 lDf3 h6 8 0-0 d 5 (? ) 9 cd
lDxd5 10 e3 ! intending d4.
b) 3 . . . d5 !? 4 cd lDxd5 5 lDf3 lbc6
6 a3 (6 lDc3 lD xc3 7 .txc3 f6 and . . .
e5 = ) 6 . . . f6 ( 6 . . . e 6 7 g 3 lDf6 8 .ig2
.ie7 9 0-0 ;t i ntending d4) 7 e3 e5
8 'i!t'c2 .te6 9 .td3 g6 10 h4 .tg7
 1 18 2 li:Jf3 Introduction and 2 ' Others'

I I li:Jc3 li:Jxc3 1 2 .txc3 li[c8 1 3 h5 ! 7 .tg2 f5

± Timman-Adorjan, Wijk aan Zee 8 e3 0-0 9 li:Jge2 a6 1 0 li[c l b5
1 974. I I d3 .tb7 1 2 0-0 d6 1 3 1i'd2 t!fa5
c) 3 ... e6 4 li:Jf3 .te7 (4 . . . d5 5 cd 14 lUd I lbb8 1 5 li:Jd5 ± K arpov­
ed 6 e3 with the idea 6 . . . li:J c6 7 B rowne, San A ntonio 1 972 .
.tb5 !) 5 g3 0-0 (5 . . . d5 6 .tg2 d4 All
7 b4! ?) 6 .tg2 li:Jc6 7 0-0 d5 is a Re ti 3 li:Jc6
System. 4 li:Jf3
Al l 4 g3 e6 5 li:Jf3 transposes.
3 g6?! 4 e6
4 .txf6 ! ef 5 e3
5 li:Jc3 (1 18) 5 g3 d5 6 cd ed 7 .tg2 d4 8 0-0
.te7 9 e3 0-0 1 0 ed cd I I li:J a3 .t f5
1 /8 ( I I ... .tg4!?) 1 2 li[ e l t Gulko­
B Belyavsky, USSR 1973.
5 d5
Safer 5 ... .te7 6 .te2 0-0 7 0-0
(7 d4 cd 8 li:J xd4 1!fa5+ 9 1t'd2, very
slightly !, A ndersson-Szabo, A m­
sterdam 1 979) 7 . . . d5 8 cd li:Jxd5!
9 li:J a3 b6 10 li:Jc4 .i.b7 I I d4 li[ c8
= Petrosian-Vasyukov, Moscow
1973.
5 ..i g7 6 cd ed
Probably not the best, but Black Here 6 . . . li:Jxd5 is playable, but
has serious troubles with the l oss makes the k ingside difficult to
of d 5 , e .g. 5 . . . b6 6 e3 .t b7 7 li:J l e2 develop after (e.g.) 7 a3 .
d5 (lest li:Jf4, d4) 8 cd ..ixd5 9 li:Jxd5 7 .tel!?
(or 9 .tf4 .tb7 10 ..ie2 ±) 9 . . . 7 .tb5 is also natural, with the
'tit'xd5 1 0 li:Jf4 ± ( 1 0 . . . 't!fd7 I I 'tit'f3 idea 7 . . . .td7 8 0-0.
or 1 0 . . . 't!lb7 I I ..ie2). Or 5 . . . d6 7 a6
6 g3 li:Jc6 7 .tg2 h5 8 h4 .t h6 9 li:Jf3 7 ... d4? 8 ..i b5 ! with advantage .
..ig4, Keene-Bellon, Cala Galdana After 7 . . . a6, Petrosian-Belyavsky,
1 974, and now either 10 li:J h2 ! ? USSR Ch 1973, continued 8 d4 cd
..ie6 I I li:J f l a nd li:Je3-d5 , or 1 0 0-0 9 li:Jxd4 ..ib4+ 10 .tc3 ..id6 ( 10 . . .
0-0 I I li:Jh2 ..ie6 1 2 e3 retains the 'tlt'a5 I I 1i'd3 ;t Zaitsev) I I li:J d 2 0-0
advantage. 1 2 0-0 .tc7 ( 1 2 . . . li[e8 ) 1 3 lL! xc6 be
6 g3 li:Jc6 14 'tit'c2 li[e8 1 5 ..id4 't!rct6 1 6 g3 :t.
 2 lLlj3 Introduction and 2 ' Others' 1 19

A2 7 li:lf3 f6 8 0-0 .ie7 9 e3 and d4.

2 e5 5 .ig2 g6
3 .ib2 li:l c6 (1 1 9) 6 li:lc3 .ig7
7 d3
1/9 7 e3 li:lge7 8 li:lge2 .ie6? is dis­
w cussed in Chapter 2, line B I .
7 li:lge7
8 e3 0-0
8 . . . .ie6 !? 9 li:ld5 .ixd5 I 0 cd
li:lb4? ( 1 0 . . . 'tlra5 +! Keene; then
I I �e2! oo; White can avoid this
by 7 e3 is he wishes) I I e4 '@a5 1 2
.ic3 'ifb5 1 3 .if! ! ( ± " Larsen)
"

1 3 . . . 'tWd7 14 li:lf3 0-0 1 5 a3 li:l a6 16

4 g3 h4 !? li:l c7 17 a4 b5 18 h5 ± Larsen­
a) 4 e3 g6 5 li:lf3 .ig7 6 d 3 li:lge7 (or Seira wan, N iks ic 1 983.
6 ... f5 ! ) 7 a3!? d5! 8 cd li:lxd 5 9 'tlrc2 9 li:lge2 .ie6
.ie6 + ( 10 'tlrxc5 lieS I I 'it'b5 li:lb6 9 . . . .if5 l O li:le4 ;!: or 1 0 0-0 'it'd?
a nd . . . a6) Seirawa n-Tarjan, USA I I li:ld5 !. 9 . . . �h8 !?.
1 9 80. 10 li:ld5
b) 4 li:lf3 d6 5 d3 g6 6 li:lc3 .ig7 7 e3 lO 0-0 is Chapter 2, Iine B. After
li:lge7 8 .ie2 0-0 = Andersson­ lO li:ld5 , Larsen-Kavalek, Lugano
Stean, Hastings 1 974-75. 1 970, went 1 0 . . . 'tlrd7 I I h4 !? f5 1 2
c) 4 li:lc3 d6 5 g3 g6 6 .ig2 .ig7 7 'tWd2 li ae8 1 3 h 5 b 5 ! 1 4 h g h g 1 5
li:lf3 !? (7 d3 or 7e3 - see the text). li:lec3 b e 16 b e e 5 =/oo .
Now normal is 7 . . . li:lge7 8 d3 0-0 B
9 0-0 h6 1 0 li:l d2 ( l O e3!? planning 2 g3 e6
10 . . . .ie6 I I 'it'e2 ) 10 . . . .ie6 I I a3 a) 2 ... d5!? 3 cd 'it'xd5 4 li:lf3 li:lc6
d5!? ( I I . . . 'tlrd7 = ) 12 b4!? cb 13 ab 5 .ig2, Suba-Stefanov, Romania
li:lxb4 14 .ia3 =/oo Keene-Timman, 1980, a nd instead of 5 . . . .ig4 6 h3
Reykjavik 19 72. Or 7 . . . f5 ( ! ) 8 0-0 .ih5 7 0-0 li:l f6 8 d3 'it'd? 9 li:lbd2
li:lf6, e .g. 9 li:le l li:l c6 1 0 li:lc2 f4 ! t, 5 . . . e5 6 li:l c3 'it'd?! with the idea
(preventing li:l e3) I I li:ld5 li:lxd5 ... .id6, . . . li:lge7, . . . b6 (Suba): ! ?
1 2 cd li:le7 1 3 li b l ? ( l 3 b4 =/oo) 1 3 b) 2 ... g6 3 d4!? cd 4 'tlrxd4 lt:l f6
. . . g5 1 4 e3 li:lg6 =t= Hecht-Hubner, 5 .ig2 lt:lc6 6 'it'd2 .ig7 7 li:lc3 0-0
West Germany 1 980. was Larsen-Browne, Tilburg 1982.
4 d6 8 li:lh3? li:la5 ! 9 'tlrd3 'tWc7 ! + follow­
4 . . . li:lge7 5 .ig2 d5!? 6 cd li:lxd5 ed, but 8 b3 ! is :!; unless 8 . . . d5 !?
120 2 li:Jf3 Introduction and 2 ' Others'

9 cd li:J xd5 I 0 .ixd5 .txc3 I I 't!rxc3 2 . . . d6, 2 . . . e6 and 2 . . . g6 all

\!t'xd5 1 2 .ih6 li:Jd4!? or some such transpose. 2 . . . f5!? 3 d4 (or 3 e3 ;!;)
works. 3 ... cd 4 li:J xd4 g6 5 g3 .ig7 6 .ig2
3 .ig2 li:Jc6 7 li:Jb5 ! ? (o r 7 li:JbH) 7 ... li:J f6
3 li:J f3 li:Jf6 4 .ig2 b6 is Chapter 8 li:Jbc3 ;!; Botvinnik-Smyslov, match
I I. (20) 1958.
3 d5 2 . . . b6 is independent in the line
4 cd ed 3 g3 .ib7 4 .ig2 g6 5 d4 cd 6 't!t'xd4
5 d3 li:Jc6!? li:Jf6 7 b3 li:Jc6!? (7 . . . .ig7 is Chapter
Or 5 . . . li:Jf6, e .g. 6 .ig5 .ie7 7 1 2) 8 't!rd I !? li:Je5 9 0-0 li:Jxf3+ 10 ef
't!t'b3 li:Jbd7. .ig7 I I li:Jc3 0-0 12 .ib2 1!t'c7
6 li:Jc3 li:J f6 = Andersson-Adorjan, Indonesia
7 .i g5 .ie7 8 li:J h3 d4 ( or 8 . . . 1983. Mestel suggests 8 '@d2.
.ixh 3 !?) 9 .ixf6 .ixf6 1 0 li:Je4 Cl
.txh3? ( 1 0 . . . .ie7 ! l l li:Jf4 .id7 oo, 2 li:Jc6
or I I �cl 't!ra5+ 1 2 't!t'd2 't!rxa2 oo) C l l 3 li:Jc3
I I .txh3 .ie7 12 0-0 0-0 13 �c l C l 2 3 g3
b6 1 4 \!t'a4 tl ± Seirawan-Giigoric, 3 d4 cd 4 li:J xd4 li:Jf6 is Chapter
Lone Pine 1 979. 1 4. But B lack also has:
c a) 4 d5!? 5 't!ra4 \!t'b6! is suggested
...

2 li:Jf3 (120) by Christiansen ; 5 g3 !?.

b) 4 ... 1!t'b6 !? ( Wedberg) really
120 shouldn't be any better than when
8 White p lays it. 5 li:Jb3 ;!; or 5 e3 t.
c) 4 e6 !? is Wedberg's other idea,
...

which has not done b adly. Critical

is 5 li:Jb5 d6 (5 . . . a6? 6 li:Jd6+ .ixd6
7 't!t'xd6 li:J ge7 8 li:Jc3 0-0 9 e4 ±
Hi.i bner- Wed berg, Lucerne 1979)
6 .if4 e5 (6 . . . li:Je5? 7 c5) 7 .ig3 f5 !?
or 7 .tc 1 .ie6. 5 li:Jc3 .ib4 6 g3
't!t'a5 !? 7 li:Jxc6 de 8 .id2 't!t'c7 ! 9
About half ofSymmetrical Eng­ li:Je4 1!ra5 ! 10 .i g2 e5 I I .ic3
lish games begin with this move. .txc3+ 1 2 be li:Jf6 \12-\12 Adorjan­
This section deals with irregular Wedberg, Oslo 1 984. 5 g3 .i.. b4 +
orders. 6 .id2 .ie7 (6 . . . 1!t'b6!? 7 li:Jb3
C l 2 . . . li:Jc6 li:Je5 8 1!rc2 a5 - 8 . . . 1!Vc6 9 .ixb4! -
C2 2 . . . ll:lf6 9 .ig2 a4 10 li:Jc I ;!; Polugayevsky-
 2 llJj3 Introduction and 2 ' Others' 121

Ornstein, Buenos A ires 01 1 978) 8 d5 li:le5 9 't!t'b3 tt'e7 I 0 .id2

7 ..tc3 li:lf6 8 ..tg2 0-0 9 0-0 d5 I 0 0-0 I I li:lcxe4 ..t xd2+ 12 �xd2
cd ( 1 0 li:ld2 't!t'b6 =) 10 . . . li:lxd5 !? ;l; Gurevich-Yudasin, Sverdlovsk
( 1 0 ... ed =) I I li:lxc6 be 12 "i!t'a4 1984. H ere 7 li:le5!? has led to 7 . . .
't!t'b6 1 3 .id4 c5 1 4 ..te5 f5 1 5 .ic3 i.d6 (7 i.b4 8 ..te2 0-0 9 0-0 l:t e8
000

"i!t'a6! was = in Eingorn-Dorfman, 10 .if4 .if8 I I c5 ! ± Moskalenko­

M oscow 1 985. Aseyev, USSR 1 9 85) 8 li:lg4 li:l xg4
Cll 9 ti'xg4 0-0 1 0 .ig5 f5 ( 1 0 f6 I I o o .

3 li:lc3 e5!? c5! ;l;) I I .ixd8 fg 1 2 .ig5 li:lxd4

3 . . . li:lf6 4 e3 e5!? is the note to 1 3 0-0-0 .ie5 =/oo Vai nerman­
Black's fourth. Zaid, USSR 1985.
4 e3 a3) 5 ... e4 6 d5 (6 li:le5 ! ? W edberg;
4 g3 f5 5 d3 llJf6 6 .ig2 .ie7 (6 . . . 6 li:ld2 cd 7 ed .ib4 8 li:lb3!? ) 6 ef o o .

g6 !?) 7 0-0 0- 0 8 a 3 d 6 9 l:t b l 1t'e8 7 de fg 8 cd+ ..txd7 9 .ixg2 'irc7 1 0

(9 . . . a5 !?) I 0 b4 "i!t'h5 I I li:ld5 .idS 'W'b3 .ic6 I I li:l d5 i.xd5 1 2 cd .id6
1 2 e3 t Bukic-Mestrovic, Yugoslav 1 3 "i!t'a4+ 't!fd7 = Suba-Wedberg,
Ch 1 974. Dortmund 1983.
4 r5 b) 4 d6 5 d4 cd ( 5 ed 6 ed .ig4
... 00.

a) 4 ... li:lf6 5 d4 (121) (5 .ie2 d5 6 7 i.e2! i.xf3 8 i.xf3 li:lxd4 9 .ie3 !

cd li:l xd5 7 0-0 li:lc7 ! ? oo Speel man­ li:lxf3+ 10 1Wxf3 't!fd7 I I 0-0-0 ±
Wedberg, 1 982) and: Helmers-Sigurj onsson, Reykjavik
198 1 ) 6 ed .ig4 7 .ie2 li:lf6 8 0-0
121 i.e7 9 .ie3 ± Timman-Radulov,
B H elsinki 1 972 .
5 d4 cd
5 e4 6 d5 (or 6 li:ld2 li:lf6 7 d5
0 0 0

;!;) 6 llJb4 7 li:ld2 .id6 8 a3 li:la6

oo.

9 g4! :!: Odendahl-Costigan, US

Junior Ch 1978.
6 ed e4
7 d5 ef
Now after 8 de White keeps the
a l ) 5 . . . ed 6 ed d5?! 7 .ig5 .ie7 8 edge, e.g. 8 ti'e7+ 9 .ie3! or 8
o o .

de! d4 9 .ixf6 .ixf6 1 0 li:ld5 0-0, 000 de 9 't!fxf3 li:lf6 10 .if4 .ie7 I I
Portisch-Radulov, Indonesia 1983, l:td l :!:.
and now I I .ie2! .ie6 1 2 li:lf4 't!fa5+ Cl2
1 3 't!fd2 ± (Portisch). 3 g3 e5
a2) 5 ... cd!? 6 ed e4 7 li:lg5 ! ? i.b4 3 0 0 . g6 4 d4 cd 5 li:lxd4 .tg7 6
122 2 liJf3 Introduction and 2 ' Others'

liJc2!? can transpose to Chapter I 0, Vaganian, Plovdiv 1 983, transposes

line A I , after 6 . . . liJf6 7 liJcH. But to a Rubinstein Variation (Chapter
Black has the i mportant options 6).
6 . . . 'ffb6 !? ( when 7 liJd2 =/ oo is b) 3 b4 !? cb 4 d4 d5 (or 4 . . . e6 5 d5
best) and 6 . . . 1!t'a5+ (K eene). In .ic5) 5 cd liJ xd5 (5 . . . 'i¥xd5 ( ! ) )
the latter case, 7 liJd2 d5 frees 6 e4 liJb6 7 d5 e5!? 8 liJxe5 .td6,
Black's game, so critical is 7 .t d2 Napolitano-Adam, corres 1950-53,
t!t'b6 8 liJc3 , when 8 . . . 1!t'xb2 9 and now Napolita no gives 9 liJd3 ! .
lii: b l ?? '@xc3 wins, but 9 liJd5 'it>d8 c ) 3 b3 g6 4 .t b2 .tg7 5 e3 0-0 6 �e2
or 9 liJ b5 lt>d8 is unclear. liJc6 7 0-0 d5 =; here 3 . . . d5 4 cd
4 .t g2 f5 ! ? liJxd5 5 .tb2 f6 6 liJc3! e5 !? 7 lt:\xd5
5 d3 d6 'i¥xd5 8 e3 .te6 9 �c4 t was Miles­
6 liJc3 liJ f6 Timman, Amsterdam 1 985.
A standard position, but Larsen­ C2 1
Shirazi, Lo ne Pine 1979, took an 3 g3
odd turn after 7 0-0 h6!? (7 . . . g6) C2 1 1 3 . . . d5
8 liJ h4 g5 9 liJg6 lii:g 8 10 liJ xf8 C2 1 2 3 . . . g6
lt>xfl! I I a3 f4 1 2 b4 Uoo. 3 . . . b6 4 .tg2 .t b7 is Chapter I I ,
C2 and 3 . . . a6!? 4 liJc3 ! (4 �g2 b5 ! )
2 liJf6 (122) will lead t o a standard White space
advantage after d4.
122 C21 1
w 3 d5
4 cd
4 .tg2 liJc6 5 0-0 e5?! ( 5 . . . de 6
1!t'a4 is a Catalan ; 5 . . . d4 6 d3 e5
7 b4 !?) 6 t!t'a4 (123) :

C2 1 3 g3
C22 3 liJc3
a ) 3 e3!? g6 4 liJc3 .tg7 5 d4 0-0 (5
... cd is safer) 6 .te2 (6 de(!) liJa6
7 .te2 liJxc5 8 0-0 t) 6 . . . cd 7 liJxd4
liJc6 8 liJc2 d6 9 e4 (9 0-0 .tf5 !
1 0 f3 d5! � Vaganian) , Inkiov-
 2 lbj3 Introduction and 2 ' Others' 123

Black's position is exposed, e.g. 6 d4 (124)

6 ... "ilc7? 7 llJc3 de 8 llJxe5 "ilxe5 6 0-0 e5 !? 7 llJc3 ..te6 8 llJg5 (8
9 ..txc6+ llJd7 1 0 ..tg2 .i.d6 I I d 3 .te7 =; 8 e3 llJ xc3 with . . . .tc4,
"ilxc4 ± Zaichik-Eingorn, USSR . . . e4) 8 . . . 1Wxg5 9 llJxd5 't!Vd8 10
1 9 79, or 6 ... ..td7 7 cd llJxd5 8 llJe3 litc8 I I b3 ( I I 'ita4!?) I I
llJxe5! llJxe5 9 "ile4 etc. The main . . . .i.d6 1 2 .i.b2 0-0 1 3 "ile l !? ( 1 3
line has been 6 ... .i.d6 7 llJg5 ! lit c l ) 1 3 . . . ..tb8 1 4 f4 e f 1 5 gf
ltl d7 ! ? (7 . . . .te7 8 cd llJxd5 9 "ilc4 f5 =/ro Timman-Portisch, N ik�ic
.txg5 1 0 .t xd 5 "ile7 I I d3 .txc l 1 2 1978 .
.txc6+ ± ; 7 . . . .te6 8 llJxe6 !; 7 . . .
b 5 !? 8 cb llJe7 ;!; ; 7 . . . .td7? 8 c d
124
lbb4 9 "ild l llJfxd5 1 0 d 4 ! ..t c6 1 1 B
a3 llJ a6 1 2 "ilb3 .i.e7 1 3 de! ±
Portisc h-Kavalek, Tilburg 1 980)
8 ..t xd5 ! "ilxg5 9 ..txc6 be 1 0 'ifxc6
llb8 I I "ilxd6 lit b6 1 2 1Wc7 0-0 1 3
llJc3 ;!; Kovacevic-Barle, Sombor
1 9 76.
Finally, Quinteros tried the novel
6 . . . 'itd6 !? versus Pan no in Buenos
A ires 1 980: 7 d3 !? .i.d7 8 "ilb3 llJa5
9 'itc3 llJc6 10 1i'b3 =. Th e relevant Following Andersson's lead, this
options are 7 llJc3!? (e .g. 7 . . . ..td7 has become a popular position.
8 llJb5 "ilb8 9 cd llJxd5 10 llJg5 !?), A sampling of ideas:
7 llJg5 and even 7 llJa3!?. Th ese a) 6 ... llJc7 7 e3 ..tg4 8 llJc3 cd 9 ed
need tests. e6 10 "ila4 "ild7 I I 0-0 .i.e7 1 2 .i.f4
4 llJxd5 llJd5 ! ? ( 1 2 . . . 0-0 1 3 ..txc7 and 14
5 ..tg2 d5) 13 llJxd5 ed 14 litfel :U. ad8 (?)
5 b3 f6! 6 .t g2 e5 7 0-0 llJc6 ( 1 4 . . . 0-0) 15 ..tg5! .txf3 16 .txf3
8 llJc3 ..te6 = Miles-Lj ubojevic, 0-0 17 ..txe7 llJxe7 18 1Wxa7 ±
Lucerne 01 1982. Miles-Ljubojevic, B ugoj no 1 986.
5 llJc6 b) 6 ... llJf6!? 7 e3 (7 ..te3!? e6 8 0-0
In teresting is 5 . . . g6 !? 6 d4 ..tg7 , llJg4 9 ltlc3 llJxe3 10 fe = Andersson­
e.g. 7 e4 llJc7 ! 8 d5 llJ b5 ! 9 0-0 Portisch, Nik�ic 1 9 83. 7 tWa4
0-0 (or 9 . . . ..tg4! Karpov) 1 0 'itc2 ..td7 8 de e5 9 0-0 ..txc5 10 lbc3 t
llJa6 I I .tf4 .i.g4 1 2 ltJ 1 d2 llJd4 Andersson-Portisch, Reggio Emilia
=/ro Korchnoi-Ka rpov, Moscow 1985) 7 . . . e6 8 0-0 .te7 9 de .txc5
197 1 . 1 0 "ilxd8+ �xd8 I I .i.d2! .i.d7 1 2
 124 2 !Df3 Introduction and 2 ' Others'

li[ c l .id6 1 3 &i:Jc3 ( 1 3 &i:Ja3 !? plan­

ning &i:Jc4 or ltJb5 Andersson) 1 3 . . .
lieS 1 4 &i:Jb5 .i bS 1 5 &i:Jfd4 &i:Jxd4
16 &i:Jxd4 &i:Jd5 1 7 li d l ;!; Speelman­
Pritchett,
c) 6 ...ltJb6 7 de tt'xd l + S �xd l
&i:Ja4 9 &i:Jc3 &i:Jxc5 (9 . . . ltJxc3+ 1 0
be .id7 I I .i e 3 li eS 1 2 lil b l ltJa5
1 3 ltJe5 ;t Andersson-Tim man ,
London 1 9S2) 1 0 .i e3?! ( 10 ltJb5 !
ltJe6 I I ltJ g5 ltJ cd4 1 2 ltJ xe6 ltJxb5
- 1 2 . . . ltJxe6 1 3 .ie3 ± Byrne) 1 0 e l ) 1 0 .ixc6+ be l l ltJc3 ( I I .ie3!?
. . . ltJe6 I I � 2 g6 1 2 lilhd l t a5 1 2 ltJd2 .ie6 13 �c 2 .if5+ 14
Andersson-Seirawan, Wijk aan Zee �c l e5 15 ltJc4 t Miles-Ljubojevic,
l 9S3. Tilburg 19S3) I I . . . g6 1 2 i.e3 .i g7
d) 6 .. .if5 7 0-0 (7 ltJc3 ltJdb4 ! S e4
. 1 3 lilcl .ie6 14 b3 .ixc3 ! ( 14 . . . 0-0?
.ig4 9 a3 cd 10 ab de I I be g6! + 1 5 ltJa4 ±) 1 5 li[ xc3 a5 = S myslov­
Andersson-Po rtisch, Mar del Plata Hubner, match (7) l 9 S 3 .
19S2), and now 7 ... e6 S ltJe5 (S a3!? e 2 ) 1 0 ltJc3 .id7 I I i.e3 llcS (or
.ie7 - 8 . . . lic8!? - 9 de .ixc5 10 b4 I I ... e5 !? 1 2 li[c I 0-0-0, Speelman­
.ie7 I I .ib2 t Nikolic-Ra zuvayev, A lbu rt, match (3) l 9S6) 1 2 lilc l g6
Novi S ad l9S2) S . . . .ig6 ! ? 9 ltJxg6 1 3 f4 .ig7 14 � e l 0-0 15 �e2 .ie6
hg 10 ltJ c3 ! cd I I ltJ xd5 ed l 2 1!t'b3 = Andersson-Farago, Rome l 9S6.
;t Andersson-Portisch, Turin 1 982; C212
or 7 . . . ltJdb4 (!) S a 3 !? (S 't!t'a4! 'tia 5 3 g6
ro Miles; then 9 't!t'xa5 ltJ xa5 1 0 4 b3
.id2 !? is interesting, with the idea a) 4 d4 cd 5 ltJ xd4 d5!? 6 i.g2 e5?
10 . . . ltJac6 I I ltJc3 ltJc2 12 d 5 ! ) (6 . . . .ig7 ) 7 ltJO d4 S 0-0 ltJc6 9 e3
S . . . ltJc2 9 ltJh4 't!t'xd4 ! 1 0 ltJ d2 ! ? .ig4 10 't!t'b3 ! ± Tukma kov­
( 1 0 .id2!? Speelman) 1 0 . . . ltJ xa l Belyavsky, USSR Ch l 97S.
I I i. xc6+ be l 2 ltJxf5 't!t'd7 1 3 't!t'a4 b) 4 .ig2 .ig7 5 d4 cd 6 ltJ xd4 d5 !?
g6, Speelman-van der Wiel, Dort­ (6 . . . 0-0 7 ltJc3 1tc7!? S 't!t'd3 ltJc6)
mund l 9S5, and now best was 1 4 7 cd ltJxd5 S 0-0 0-0 9 ltJb5!? e6 1 0
ltJe4! gf 1 5 ltJ xc5 , although the e4 ltJb4 =.
onus is on White to improve 4 .ig7
earlier. 5 .ib2 0-0
e) 6 ... cd 7 ltJ xd4 ltJdb4 8 &i:Jxc6 6 .ig2 d6
't!t'xd I + 9 �xd l ltJxc6 (1 25) A fter 6 . . . d5?! 7 cd ltJ xd5 S
 2 lbj3 Introduction and 2 ' O thers' 125

i.xg7 �xg7 9 (}-0 b6 10 d4 t i.xf6 I I i.xh7+ 'it>xh7 1 2 lt:lg5+

Dzindz ihashvili- We bb, Hasti ngs 'it>h6 13 'ii'd 2 i.xg5 Karlsson) 7 . . .
1 977- 78. d 5 (126)
7 0-0 e5
7 . . . lt:lc6 8 d4 cd (8 . . . lt:le4 ! ?) 9
li:l xd4 i.d7 I 0 lt:lc3 'ii'a5 I I e3 t
Romanishin-Gulko, USSR 1978.
8 lt:lc3
8 e3 lt:lc6 9 d4?! ed 10 ed i.g4 +
Kasparov.
8 lt:lc6
9 e3
Two good moves after 9 d3 are
9 . . . lt:lh5 I 0 e3 f5 I I li:ld2 lt:lf6 = Now 8 i.g5 !? .i.e7 9 i. xf6 .txf6
Bernat-Rogers, B uenos A ires 01 10 cd (intending 1 0 . . . ed I I .i.b5 +)
1 978, and 9 . . . lt:le8 1 0 lt:ld2 lt:lc7 ran into I 0 . . . (}-0! I I de fe 1 2 .i.c4
I I e3? ! i.e6 + Tempone-Kasparov, lt:lc6! 1 3 .i.xe6+ 'it>hH in Andersson­
Dort m und 1 980. Adorjan, Wijk aan Zee 1984. In
9 .trs view of 14 d5 .i.a6! 15 de lle8, there
Or 9 ... lt:le8 planning . . . lt:lc7, . . . followed 1 4 0-0 lt:lxd4 1 5 lL!xd4
i.f5. After 9 . . . i.f5, Weinstein­ i.xd4 1 6 i.d5 .i.xc3 17 i.xb7
Tarjan, USA 1 977, contin ued 1 0 i.xb2 =.

d 3 ( 1 0 d4? e4 I I lt:lg5 lle8 + Webb­ But here 8 cd! lt:lxd5 is promising,

Kasparov, Sk ara 1 980) 10 . . . 'i!rd7 e.g. 9 lt:le5 ( ! ) (9 .i.b5+ i.c6 1 0 i.d3
( 1 0 . . . lt:lb4 I I e4 i.g4 1 2 h3 i.d7 = lt:ld7 oo) 9 . . . a6 (9 . . . i.d6!?) 1 0 'i!rf3
Kasparov) I I a3 ( I I lt:lg5! t Kas­ _.c7 I I i.b5+! ab 1 2 lt:l xb5 _.e7
parov) I I . . . ll ab8 1 2 lt:lg5 a6 = . 1 3 lt:ld6+ @xd6 (?) 14 _.xf7+ 'it>d8
C22 15 @xb7 Karlsson. Here 1 0 . . . _.f6
3 lt:lc3 b6 looks better, but I I _.g3 ! is still
A risky line which suddenly good, e.g. I I . . . i.e7 12 h4 ! or I I . . .

attained popularity, although its lt:l xc3 1 2 be i.d6 1 3 i.f4.

value is still unresolved. b) 4 g6 seems best to me, e.g. 5 d4
...

4 e4 i.g7 6 i.e2 (6 d5 d6 7 e4 (}-0 8 i.e2

Also 4 e 3 !? can be dangerous: e6 avoids locking in B lack's bishop
a) 4 i.b7 5 d4 cd (5 . . . e6 6 d5 ;!;)
... on b7, so Black is a tempo u p - . . .
6 ed e6 7 a3 ! (7 i. g5 !? i.e7 - 7 . . . b 6 - o n a Benoni) 6 . . . 0-0 7 0-0
h6! - 8 i.d3 0-0 9 h4!? S peelman­ lt:la6!? (7 . . . i.b7? 8 d5 is bad, but
Kudrin, 1 985; 9 . . . d5 10 i.xf6 7 . . . e6!? and 7 . . . d6 are possible)
 126 2 li:JjJ In troduction and 2 ' Others'

8 e4 (8 b3 i.b7 9 i. b2 e6 = ; 8 d5 d6 li:Jc5 1 2 f3 a5 1 3 h4 'it'b7 1 4 h5!

9 e4 li:J c7 l 0 a4 e6 =) 8 . . . cd 9 li:J xd4 ± Korchnoi-Gheorghiu, London
i.b7 (9 . . . li:J c 1 0 f3 a5 !?) 1 0 f3 with 1980; 7 . . . g6 8 i.g5 i.g7 9 0-0-0
a Hedgehog-like position. li:Jbd7 1 0 f4 ± Lebredo) 8 g4!? (or
4 i.b7!? 8 g3 , e.g. 8 . . . li:Jbd7 9 i.g2 a6 10 0-0
a) 4 ... d6 5 d4 cd 6 li:Jxd4 i.b7 (127) l:l:c8 I I i.d2 'it'c7 12 b3 :!: Korchnoi­
M akropoulos, Rome 198 1 ) 8 . . .
127 i.e7 ( 8 . . . li:J c6 9 li:Jxc6 l:l: xc6 10 i.g2
w i.e7 I I 0-0 l:l:c8 1 2 i.f4 t Cvetkovic­
Velikovic, Yugoslavia 198 1 ) 9 g5
li:Jfd7 1 0 h4 li:J c6 I I li:Jxc6 ( 1 1 i.e3)
1 1 . . . i.xc6 1 2 i.f4 a6 1 3 0-0-0 't!t'c7
14 � b l i.b7 1 5 h5 li:Je5 1 6 l:l:h3 t
(int ending 1 7 g6 ! ) Vera-Lebredo,
Managua 1 982.
b) 4 ... li:J c6 !? 5 d4 cd 6 li:J xd4 i.b7
7 i.g5 (7 f3 11t"b8 !? 8 i.e3 e6 9 1Wd2
No w 7 f3 would tranpose to i.d6 l 0 li:J db5 i.e5 I I f4 i.xc3
Chapter 1 3, and 7 i.d3 e6 (7 . . . g6) = Csom-Horvath , Magyarorszag
8 0-0 i.e7 9 't!re2 0-0 1 0 b3 ( 10 �h l 1984, or 7 i.e2 11t"b8 ! ?) 7 . . . 't!t'b8
with the idea f4, li:J f3 ) 1 0 . . . li:J bd7 8 li:J xc6 i.xc6 9 't!t'e2!? (9 i.d3 t)
I I i. b2 was Ornstein-Lj ubojevic, 9 . . . h6 10 i.d2 e5 I I li:Jd5 i.xd5 ,
Nice 01 1 974, and here I I . . . a6 oo Tal-Toskov, Albena 1984, and here
or 1 1 . . . l:l:e8!? was best. Tal gives 1 2 ed! i.e7 1 3 i. c3 d6 1 4
An irregular seve nth move was g3 :!: . Also 7 i.e3 e 6 8 f3 i s solid,
7 li:Jd5 !? e6 8 �xf6+ 'it'xf6 (8 . . . gf? e.g. 8 . . . 'it'b8 9 1!rd2 :!: (9 ... J.c5
9 i.d3 �d7 1 0 0-0 h5 I I i.c2 a6 10 0-0-0 0-0 I I g4!), K orchnoi­
12 J.e3 ± with f4, Murei-Dankert, Winants, SWIFT 1987.
Berlin 1 983) , Greenfeld-K udrin, 5 e5
Beer-Sheva 1 984, and now instead 5 i.d3 e6 6 0-0 d6 ! ? (6 . . . li:J c6) 7
of 9 c5?! be 1 0 i. b5+ li:Jd7 +loo, i.c2 i.e7 8 d4 cd 9 li:J xd4 a6 is
9 li:Jb5 'it'b8 1 0 1t"g4 li:Jd7 I I i.g5 ! similar to the 4 . . . d6 lines above.
(Greenfeld) was interesting. 5 d3 d6 6 g3 is Chapter I I .
H owever, the biggest danger in 5 li:J g4
this sequence is 7 11t"e2 !?, preparing a) 5 . . . �e4!? doesn't deserve the
for 0-0-0 and a central advance: '??' I gave it (or £CO's " ±±" , for
7 . . . e6 (7 . . . li:J c6?! 8 li:J xc6 i.xc6 that matter), since 6 li:Je2 f6 ! 7 d3
9 i.g5 li:Jd7 10 0-0-0 'tireS I I �b l li:Jg5 8 li:Jxg5 fg 9 i.xg5 (9 d4 !?) 9 . . .
 2 liJf3 In troduction and 2 ' Others' I 27

ttJc6 may be a playable gambi t. 7 d4

b) 5 ... lLg8 is a more serious option: 7 .td3 .txf3 ! 8 1txf3 li:Jc6 9 e6 !?
6 d4 (6 ..td3 ..txf3 ! 7 1!rxf3 li:Jc6 8 g6 = U hlmann-Adorjan, Sa rajevo
"fWg3 g6 was equal in Qu interos­ 1982.
Dzin dzihashvili, Lone Pine 1980) 7 cd
6 . . . ..txf3 !? (6 . . . cd 7 li:Jxd4 g6 8 ..tf4 7 . . . ..txf3 8 1hf3 li:Jc6 9 de! with
i.g 7 9 't!re2! llJ c6 1 0 li:Jf3 li:J h6 1 1 the idea 9 . . . be 10 ..txh6 gh 1 1 e6 !
h4 ! V ± Mestel-Miles, London ± Uhlmann.
! 984) 7 'ihf3 (7 gt1? cd 8 't!rxd4 li:Jc6 8 li:J xd4 e6
9 t!fe4) 7 . . . li:J c6 8 de (8 d 5 !? li:J xe5 8 . . . g6 9 ..tf4 li:Jc6 10 llJf3 ..tg7
9 t!fg3 with space and the bishops 1 1 .te2 li:Jf5? 1 2 g4 ! li:J fd4 1 3 li:Jxd4
would be interesting) 8 . . . be 9 1i'e4 li:J xd4 14 'it'xd4! was Gheorghi u­
( 9 ..tf4 li:Jd4 1 0 1t'e4 f5 ! = Raicevic­ S tefanov, Romania 1979.
Planinc, Yugoslav Ch 1 977) 9 . . . After 8 . . . e6, Vaganian-Pytel,
g6 10 ..td3 ..tg7 1 1 f4 f5 1 2 1te3 d6 Buenos Aires 01 1978, went 9 .tf4
1 3 .tc2 li:Jd4 1 4 ..ta4+ �f8 =/ oo (9 ..txh6!?) 9 . . . a 6 1 0 li:Jf3 f5 1 1 g3
Portisch-Quinteros, Mar del Plata li:Jf7 1 2 ..tg2 ..te7 1 3 0-0 0-0 14 lil e l
1 98 1 . li:Jc6 1 5 h4 h6 1 6 h5 :V ±.
6 h3 This is a rather s kimpy over­
6 d4!? cd 7 li:Jb5 ! li:Jc6 8 ..tf4 view of 3 . . . b6 4 e4 .t b7 5 e5,
1ib8 9 ..tg3 li:Jgxe5 1 0 llJxe5 li:J xe5 however, and the reader will find
I I 1i'd4 d6 1 2 0-0-0 =/oo Uhlmann. much room for independent in­
6 li:J h6 vestigation.
 10 Three Knights: 2 . . . lbc6 3 lbc3 g6

1 c4 cS a) 6 e3 lLlf6 (6 . . . lLlh6 7 lLlc2 !? , e .g.

2 lLlf3 l!Jc6 7 ... i.xc3+ 8 be lLlf5 9 i.d3 'it'a5
3 lLlc3 g6 (128) 10 0-0 ! ) 7 lLlc2 (7 i.e2 0-0 8 0-0 d5
9 cd lLl xd5 10 lLlxc6 be 1 1 l!Ja4
128 lLld7! = van Scheltinga-Tarjan,
w Wij k aan Zee 1 973-74) 7 . . . 0-0 (7
. . . d6 8 i.e2 i.e6 9 e4 lLld7 I 0 lLld5
lLlc5 I I f3 f5 =/oo K ee ne-Tal,
H astings 1973-74) 8 i. e2 b6!? (8 . . .
d6 9 0-0 i.e6 I 0 e 4 = is Chapter 6,
colours reversed)9 e4 i.b7 10 i.g5
lit c8 1 1 lLla3 h6 1 2 i.h4 a6 1 3 1Wd2
lth7 14 0-0 t Korchnoi-Gipslis,
USSR 1 966.
This variation hopes to control b) 6 lLlb3!? d6 7 e4 b6!? (or 7 ... lLlf6,
dark squares and maintain flexi­ or 7 . . . i.xc3+ 8 be lLlf6) 8 i.e2
bility. But the difficulties following i.xc3+ 9 be lLlf6 10 f3 ( 10 i.h6 !?)
4 e3 , and the fact that B lack has 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 i.g5 i.a6 1 2 lD d4 lLl a5
developed better systems, have cast 1 3 lLlb5 lLld7! 1 4 'it'd4 lLlc5 1 5 i. h6
the Three K n ights into relative lLle6 = Osterman-Holzl, Maribor
disuse. 1983.
A 4 d4
129
B 4 e3 B
4 a3 i.g7 5 litb1 a5 6 e3, Hi.ibner­
Diez del Corral, Spain 1 975, is
well a ns wered by 6 . . . l!Jf6 7 d4 cd
8 ed d5 9 i.g5 i.g4! etc.
A
4 d4 cd
S lLlxd4 i.g7
6 lLlc2 (1 29)
 Three Knights: 2 . . . ltlc6 3 ltlc3 g6 129

A I ' 6 . . . d6 8 f3
A2 6 . . . .1xc3+ 8 ltlb4!? 9aS 9 ltld5 ltl e4 ! 10
6 . . . ltlf6?! 7 g3 d6 8 .i.g2 �0 9 �0 9c2 ltld6 I I e4 llJeS 12 .i.f4 f6 1 3
(or 9 b3 �) 9 . . . .i. d7 (9 . . . '1Va5 1 0 .i.e2 ( 1 3 lit d I !? ltldf7 1 4 .i.g3 ±
e 4 � or 1 0 .i.d2 ± or 1 0 l0 d 5 ± ; 9 . . . planning f4) 1 3 . . . ltldf7 1 4 .i.e3 d6
.1e6 1 0 b 3 9d7 I I ltldS .i.fS 1 2 I S lit b l ;t Szabo- Ribli, Wijk aan
,ib2 ltlxdS 1 3 .1xg7 rj;xg7 1 4 Zee 1 97 3 .
.i.xdS ! .i.h3 I S lit e I h S 1 6 ltle3 8 d6
h4 17 litcl ± intending cS, 9 e4 .i.e6
Petrosian-Smej kal , Amsterdam Now Tai manov recommends 1 0
1 973) 10 b3 9c8 I I .tb2 .i.h3 .i.h6!? or 10 ltld4. · Quinteros­
12 l:t b l litd8 13 e4 .1xg2 1 4 Fischer, B u enos A ires 1 970, went
rj;xg2 e6 I S l:t e l a6 1 6 ltl a4 ! 10 .i.e2!? liteS I I ltle3 9a5 1 2 .i.d2
± Korchnoi-Htibner, m atch (2) llJeS 1 3 9b3 l0 fd7 ! 1 4 f4 tOeS I S
1 980. 9c2 ltlc6 1 6 � 0 9a4! +.
AI B
6 d6 4 e3 (130)
7 g3
7 e3 .1xc3+ = . 7 e4 .1xc3+ is line 130

A2, and here 7 ... ltl h6 8 h4!? (8 B

.1e2) 8 ... fS 9 hS fe 10 ltlxe4 is given

as unclear by Botvinnik.

7 .te6
8 l0e3 liteS
9 .i.g 2 9d7?!
Better 9 . . . .1xc3+. After 9 . . .
't1Vd7 , Keres-Kuij pers, 1959, went
10 .i.d2 .i.h3 I I .1xh3 9xh3 1 2
ltlcdS ltlh6 1 3 9b3 9d7 1 4 .i.c3 This presents serious problems
U ±. for 3 . . . g6 , and has accounted for
A2 its fall from favour. The threat is
6 .1xc3+ d4-dS.
7 be lt)f6 ! ? B l 4 . . . ltlf6
The lines with . . . 1t'a5 are deal t B2 4 . . . d 6
with in Chapter 6, line A, since B3 4 . . . .i.g7
that order is now the main way of 81
reaching these positions. In fact, 4 ltlf6
7 . . . 9aS is probably Black's best. S d4 cd
 130 Three Knights: 2 . . . li'lc6 3 liJc3 g6

.ie2 .ig7 8 0-0 li'lh6 (8 . . . li'lf6 is

' 83'; 8 . . . .ixf3 9 .ixf3 li'l xd4 1 0
.ixb 7 lilb8 I I .ie4 U ±) 9 d5 .ixf3
1 0 .i xf3 li'le5 I I b3 (}.0 1 2 i. d2 a6
13 .ie2 li'l f5 1 4 U.e I @b8 1 5 lic l
U.c8 1 6 f4 li'ld7 1 7 .ig4 ± S mej kal­
Zi nn, Lugano 01 1 968 .
6 i.e2 .ig 7
7 d5 liJ aS
7 . . . li'le5?? 8 li'lxe5 .ixe2 9 @a4+.
7 ... .ixc3+ 8 be li'la5 9 e4 b6 10 0-0
li'lf6 I I h3 ± Taimanov, e.g. I I . . .
.ixf3 1 2 .ixf3 0-0 1 3 .ih6 lieS 1 4
'itd3 li'ld7 1 5 .ie2 lt:le5 1 6 'i!t"g3
lt:lexc4 1 7 f4 etc. Finally, 7 . . . lt:l b8
8 h3 .ixf3 9 .ixf3 lt:lf6 I 0 0-0 0-0
I I 'itd2 a6 1 2 U. b l ! lt:lbd7 1 3 .ie3
Wi nning d5. 7 cd li'lxd5 1s a was also ± in Smyslov-Simagi n,
Caro-Kann. USSR 1 95 1 .
7 lLle4 8 0-0
Nothi ng works, e .g. 7 . . . .ig4 Or 8 .id2 lt:lf6 9 h3 .ixf3 10 .ixf3
8 .ixf6 ef 9 cd i.xf3 10 1!hf3! 0-0 I I b3 a6 1 2 0-0 U.b8, Tai­
li'lxd4 I I @e4+ @e7 12 (}.(}.0 ± , or Velimirovic, Titograd 1 984, and
7 . . . .ig7 8 .ixf6 i.xf6 9 cd li'lb8 1 0 now best is 1 3 a4! .
h3 0-0 I I .ic4 li'l d7 1 2 0-0 ± 8 lt:lf6
Uhlmann-Pribyl, Tallinn" 1 977. 8 . . . .ixc3+ 9 be lt:lf6 I 0 lt:ld2
8 cd li'lxc3 .ixe2 I I 1!¥xe2 0-0 12 e4 li'ld7 1 3
9 be 'ihd5 I 0 .ie2 (" 1 0 'tlrb3 ±" li'lb3 with the idea .ih6, f4 etc.
8o tvinnik) 1 0 . . . .ig7 I I (}.0 0-0 12 9 h3 .ixO
c4 't!Vd6 1 3 d 5 li'la5? ( 1 3 . . . .ixa l 14 10 .ixf3 0-0 I I .ie2 e6 1 2 de ( 1 2
'i!t"xa l ± ) 14 U.c l b6 15 U.el U. e8 e4 ed 1 3 ed ;l;) 1 2 . . . fe 1 3 @c2 'i!t"e7
1 6 c5! ±± ( 1 6 . . . be 1 7 1Wa4) Rogoff­ 14 b3 lt:lc6 1 5 .ib2 i Filip-Averbakh­
Zuckerman, Lone Pi ne 1 978. Moscow 1 96 1 .
82 83
4 d6 4 .i g 7
5 d4 .i g4 5 d4 d6
5 . . . .ig7, most often played, is 5 . . . lt:lf6? 6 d5 lt:lb8 7 e4 d6 8
line 83 below. 5 . . . cd 6 ed .ig4 7 .ie2 ± Welin-Zieher, Copenhagen
 Three Knigh ts: 2 . . lt:\c6 3 lLlc3 g6
.. 131

1982. Better 5 ... cd 6 ed d6 (6 . . . 10 f4 lt:lf7, Pytel-Tal, Jurmala 1 983;

tDf6 7 d 5 lt:lb8 8 d 6 ! ± ) 7 d5 (or 1 1 g4!? ed 1 2 g5 lt:le4 l 3 lt:l xd5 lt:l g3
7 i.e2) 7 . . . lt:l e5 (7 ... lt:lb8 8 i.d3 =/oo Pytel.
lt:lf6 9 0-0 0-0 10 i.g5! ±) 8 lt:l d4 6 lt:lf6
(or 8 lt:l xe5 ;!;) 8 . . . lt:l h6 9 h3 0-0 1 0 6 . . . cd 7 ed lt:l f6 8 d5 lt:lb8 9 0-0
i.e3 lt:l f5 1 1 lt:lxf5 .ixf5 1 2 g4 .ic8 0-0 10 .ie3 ;!; Portisch-Petrosian,
1 3 f4 t Partos-Paidoussis, Ista nbul S an Antonio.
1 975. 7 d5
6 .ie2 (132) Or 7 0-0 cd 8 ed .ig4 9 d5 .ix£3
10 .ix£3 lt:le5 1 1 .ie2 ;!; Uhlmann­
B rowne, Zagreb 1 970.
7 lt:la5
7 . . . lt:le5 8 lt:ld2 0-0 9 0-0 a6 10
a4 lt:le8 1 1 f4 lt:ld7, Ribli-Pogats,
Hungarian Ch 1972, and now Haag
gives 12 Jil a3 ! .
8 e4
Or 8 0-0 0-0 9 'ti'c2 ;!;. A fter 8 e4 ,
Filip-Sanz, Olot 1975, went 8 ...
0-0 9 h3 (o r 9 0-0 .ig4 1 0 .ie3!?
6 d5!? is not so clear, e.g. 6 . . . .ixf3 l l gf ;!;) 9 ... a6 1 0 0-0 llb8 l l
lt:le5 ( or 6 . . . i. xc3+!? 7 be lt:l a5 ) lle l ! .i d7 1 2 e5 lt:le8 1 3 .if4 b5 1 4
7 li:ld2 (7 lt:lxe5 i. xe 5 8 i.e2 lt:l f6!? cb a b 1 5 1t'd2 ;!;.
9 0-0 g5!? - 9 0- 0 (D - 1 0 i.d3 g4
000

I I ct>h 1 Jilg8 oo Keene-va n der Conclusion. 4 e3 is still a good

Wiel, Aarhus 1 983) 7 . . . f5 8 .ie2 reason to avoid 3 . . . g6. The Three
lt:lf6 9 h3 e6!? (9 .. 0-0 10 f4 lt:lf7 00
0 Knights is probably doomed to
Korchnoi-Fischer, Sousse I Z 1 967) lasting quiescence.
 11 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog

I c4 c5 can prove im portant. White can

2 lt:lf3 lDf6 gain a tempo in certain lines, and
3 g3 sidestep problems based on . . .
3 lt:l c3 e6 4 g3 b6 will often trans­ lt:le4 i n others, b y choosing 5 lt:l c3
pose, but unique is 5 e4 .tb7 (5 . . . e6 6 d4 cd (6 . . . lt:le4 7 d5 ( ! ) lt:l xc3
lt:lc6 6 .tg2 .tb7 7 0-0 t!Vb8 8 ll e l 8 be .ie7 9 e4) 7 'ti'xd4 (133)
d6 9 d 4 c d 1 0 lDxd4 ;t Romanishin­
Vaiser, Sochi 1 984) 6 'it'e2!? lt:lc6
(6 ... d6 7 d4 cd 8 lDxd4 a6 9 .tg2
'ti'c7 10 0-0 lt:lbd7 I I .te3 ! was
Korchnoi-Csom, Rome 1 98 1 , or
here 8 ... g6! ? 9 .tg2 a6 1 0 0-0 lt:lbd7
I I lld l 'ti'b8 1 2 a4 ! .tg7 1 3 a5 ±
Petrosian-Psa khis, Las Palmas I Z
1 982) 7 .tg2 d6 8 0-0 .te7 9 ll d I
a6 (9 . . . lt:l d4? 1 0 lt:lxd4 cd I l lt:lb5
e5 12 lDxd4 ! ed 1 3 e5 ± Seirawan­
van der Wiel, Wijk aan Zee 1983; a) 7 ... .ic5?! 8 'ti'f4 0-0 9 0-0 d5,
9 ... e5!?) 1 0 d4 cd I I lt:l xd4 lt:l xd4 Vaganian- Browne, Gjovik 1983,
1 2 ll xd4 'it'c7 1 3 b3 !? ( 1 3 .te3 !) and now Adorj an gives 1 0 lld l !
1 3 . . . b5 1 4 .t b2 e5 1 5 ll d d l be 1 6 'ti'e7 I I cd lt:lxd5 1 2 lt:lxd5 .ixd5
ll a c l =/ ro Rivas-Short, Plovdiv 13 b3 ± .
1 984. b) 7 ... d6 8 0-0 i s a main line, but
3 b6 8 .tg5 is challenging: 8 . . . lt:lbd7
3 . . . e6 4 .ig2 lt:lc6 5 0-0 b6 !? 6 (8 . . . .ie7 9 li d I h6 1 0 .ixf6 .ixf6
d4 cd 7 lt:l xd4 .t b7 8 lt:lb5 !? (8 lt:lc3) I I 'it'f4 - 1 / 'ti'e3!? - I I . . . .txc3+
8 . . . d6 9 .if4 e5 1 0 .ig5 a6 I I .txf6 12 be g5, Chekhova-Litinskaya ,
gf 1 2 lt:l 5c3 ;Vro Pigott-Brittan , USSR 1 984, and now 1 3 'it'e3 ! ;t
London 1 979. Chekhova) 9 lt:lb5 t!Vb8 (9 . . . h6 1 0
4 .tg2 .i b7 .ixf6 lt:l xf6 I I lld l lt:le4 1 2 lt:lh4
5 0-0!? lbc5 1 3 0-0! ± Suba-K indermann,
An issue of move order which Dortmund 1 985; 9 ... e5!? l O lt:lxd6+
 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 133

.ixd6 I I 'it'xd6 lLlc4 Suba) 1 0 lii:d l ' A3 ') 7 cd lDxd5 (7 . . . ed 8 lDe5!?,

e5 I I 'ire3 a6 l 2 lLl c3 .ie7 1 3 .ih3 e .g. 8 ... .td6 9 'ira4+ lD bd7 10
.ic6 14 lLld5 ;!: A .Greenfeld-Suba, lLlc4 .ic7 I I .if4 ro) 8 lDc3 .ie7
Thessaloniki 01 1 984. 9 'it'a4+ 'ird7 (9 . . . lLl bd 7 1 0 e4
c) 7 . . lLlc6 8 'irf4 .ib4 is the main
. lLlxc3 1 1 be ;!:, or 10 lDe5 !?) 1 0 'irg4
problem with this order: 9 .id2 0-0 h5?! ( 1 0 . . . 0-0! , planning l l .ih6
10 0-0 .ie7 !? (now that White's .if6 1 2 lLle4? .t xb2 ! ) 1 1 'tlfc4 lLlc6
bishop is diverted from b2; also 1 2 'ira4! 0-0 1 3 .ig5 ;!: Romanishin­
interesting is 1 0 . . . lii:c 8 and ... 'ire7, Georgadze, USSR 1 972.
or even 1 0 ... lLl a5 ) I I lii: fd l ( I I b ) 6 d4 cd 7 'irxd4 lLlc6 8 '1Vf4 can
ll ad l a6 1 2 lLld4 1!1c8 1 3 lLl xc6 be independent, e.g. 8 ... d5 !? 9 lii: d l !
.ixc6 1 4 e4 d6, about equal) I I . . . .td6 l 0 'tlfh4 0-0 I I lLlc3 .ie7 1 2
d6 ( I I . . . a 6 1 2 e4 d 6 1 3 1!1e3 lii: a 7 .tg5 h6 1 3 cd! ed 1 4 .te3 ±
= Stean-Andersson, Amsterdam Stukaturkin-Sakharov USSR 1 98 1 .
1 979) 1 2 lii: ac l h6 ( 1 2 ... ll c8 1 3 Other tries include 8 ... lLle7 9 lLle5 !?
.i e l lii: c7 1 4 e4 lii: d 7 1 5 'it'e3 't!fa8 .txg2 1 0 �xg2 lLlg6 1 1 lLlxg6 hg
16 't!fe2 lii: c8 ro Frias-De Firmian, 1 2 lLlc3 lii: c8 with equality in
New York 1 985) 13 .i e l 'irb8 1 4 Rashkovsky-Kharitonov, Sverd­
h3? ! a 6 1 5 't!fe3 b5 ! + H .Oiafsson­ lovsk 1 984, and 8 . . . .tc5 9 lLlc3
De Firmian, Copenhagen 1 985. 0-0 1 0 lii:d I lLl e7 ro K asparov,
Aside from this, 5 d 3 !? e6 6 e4 although in this case I I lLl e5 inten­
d6 transposes to A3. 5 . . . d5 6 lLle5 ding e4 looks ;!:. Finally, simply
or 6 cd lLl xd5 7 0-0 intending d4 is 8 . . . 1!1b8 has its points, since 9 lLlb5
the alternative. is not available .
5 e6 (134) A 6 . . . .ie7
B 6 . . . a6
a) 6 ... lLle4!? 7 lLla4!? (7 lLlxe4 .ixe4
8 d3 .ib7 9 e4 .ie7 = Fedorowicz;
but 7 'irc2! looks ;!:) 7 . . . .ie7 (7 . . .
d 5 !? ) 8 d 3 lLlf6 9 e4 d 6 1 0 lLlc3 ;!:
Fedorowicz.
b) 6 ... d6 7 lii: e 1 (7 d4 cd 8 lLlxd4 !?)
7 . . . .ie7 8 e4 a6 9 d4 cd is 'A2'.
Otherwise 8 . . . e5 9 b3 lLl c6 1 0 a3
0-0 I I lii: b l a5 1 2 lLld5 = Plachetka­
Vaisman, Stara Pazova I983, or
6 lLlc3 8 . . . lLl c6 9 d4 cd 1 0 lLl xd4 lii: c 8 I I
a) 6 d3 d5 (for 6 . . . .ie7 7 e4 d6, see b3 0-0 I 2 .ib2 ( 1 2 .ie3 ) I 2 . . . lii: e 8
 /34 Queen 's Indian and Hedgehog

= Karlsson-Fe dorowicz, Lugano improves.

19S3. Thus 7 . . . db is the main answer:
c) 6 ... d5 7 cd (or 7 lt:J e5) 7 . . . S d4 cd 9 lt:Jxd4 lt:Jxd4 (9 li eS 1 0
0 0 0

lt:J xd5 S d4 lt:Jxc3 9 be lt:Jd7 (9 .. . lt:Jxc6 ( ! ) .ixc6 I I .if4 is promising,

.ie7!?) 10 lil:e I cd I I cd .ib4 1 2 e.g. I I o o · .ie7 1 2 t!Ye2 a6 13 llfd l
.ig5 ! f6 1 3 .id2 t Karpov-Hort, t!Yc 7 1 4 li ac l t!YbS 1 5 e5 ! ) 1 0 t!Yxd4
Waddi nxveen 1 9 79. .ie 7 I I b3 ( 1 1 li d l a6 1 2 ti'd3
d) 6 ...lt:Jc6 is popular, since 7 d4 lt:Jd7) I I 0-0, Christiansen­
0 0 .

lt:Jxd4 S lt:Jxd4 .ixg2 9 ot>xg2 (9 Andersson, Hastings 1979-SO, and

lt:J xe6!? fe 1 0 ot>xg2 en Siddeek­ instead of the normal 12 .ib2 ti'bS
Fedorowicz, Estes Park 19S4) 9 . . . = , 1 2 .ia3 ( ! ) prevents o o . lLld7 , e.g.
cd 10 '@xd4 is considered equal , 1 2 '@bS ( 1 2 o o • a6? 1 3 li fd 1 lt:JeS
0 0 0

e.g. 10 'tWbS I I .if4 '@b7+ 1 2

0 0 0 14 e5! ±) 13 lUd I li dS 14 .ib4!?
ot>g 1 d6 1 3 .ig5 .ie7 1 4 .ixf6 .ic6 1 5 a4 a6 16 f4 lia7 17 a5 b5
.ixf6 ! = , or 1 0 a6, or 1 0 '@bS
000 0 0 0 IS ti'b6 .
I I .if4 '@c6+ 1 2 f3 .ic5 13 '@d3 A
.ie7 14 lil: d 1 0-0 = Fedorowicz. 6 .ie7 (136)
So W hite' s best is 7 e4 (135)
136
w

A I 7 b3
A2 7 lil: e l
Now 7 . . . e5 S d3 .ie7 9 lt:Jh4 0-0 A3 7 d3
1 0 lt:Jf5 lt:J d4 1 1 g4! t Stean­ A4 7 d4
Sch neider, Beersheva 1 9SO, and 7 t!Yc2 !? 0-0 (7 lt:Jc6 S e4 d6 9
0 0 .

7 · o o lil:cS?! S e5! lt:JgS 9 d3 d6 1 0 lid I e5) S e4 d6 9 d4 cd 10 lt:J xd4

.if4 t Uhlmann-Szabo, Amsterdam lt:Jbd7 1 1 li d 1 '@bS 1 2 b3 lieS 1 3
1 972, are suspect. Smej kal- Larsen, .ib2 a6 1 4 t!Ye2 was Smyslov­
Biel IZ 1 976, sa w 7 'i!t'bS !? 8 d4
0 0 0 Dzindzihashvili, Moscow 1 972,
cd 9 lt:J xd4 lt:J xd4 10 'it'xd4 .id6 ! =; when 1 4 · o o lil:eS! would have been
but S li e I (S d6 9 d4 !) or S d3
000 equal .
 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 135

Al lt:l xd4 , to gain a tempo on lines

7 b3 0-0 where he plays d4/1t'xd4/e4/.e3/
7 . . . a6 is B l . 7 . . . d5 8 e3 lt:le4!? lt:ld4 etc.
9 .ib2 .if6 1 0 'it'c2 lt:lxc3 I I .ixc3
d4 = Le i n-Gurgenidze, Tbilisi
1969.
8 .ib2 d6
8 . . . d5 is fi ne, e.g. 9 cd lt:lxd5 1 0
d 4 ( 1 0 lt:l xd 5 .txd5 I I 1t'b l - or I I
fJ.cl lLld7 12 d4 fJ. c8 - I I . . . lt:ld7
12 fJ.d l 't!fc7 13 d4 1t'b7 1 4 de
lt:l xc5 1 5 .id4 \12 - \12 Smej kal-Ribli,
Lucerne 0 I 1 982) 10 . . . lt:lxc3 I I
.txc3 cd 1 2 1Wxd4 1t'xd4 was equal
in Andersson-Polugayevsky, Mar A 2 l 7 . . . d5
del Plata 1982. A22 7 . . . d6
9 e3 lt:lbd7 Black must be careful after 7 . . .
a) 9 ... a6 10 d4 lt:lbd7? I I d5! ed 1 2 0-0, e . g . 8 e4 lt:lc6?! 9 e5! lLle8 1 0
lt:lh4! g6 ( 1 2 . . . fJ. b8 1 3 lt:l f5 de? 1 4 d 4 ;!; or 8 . . . d 6 9 d4 c d 10 lt:l x d4
.txb7 fJ. xb7 1 5 lt:l d5 ±±: Hulak; with the idea e5 . New is 7 . . . lt:le4!?
1 2 ... fJ.a7 1 3 lLlf5 d4 14 ed ± 8 lt:la4!? (8 lt:lxe4 .txe4 9 d3 .tb7
Karlsson-D.Gu revich, Helsinki 10 e4 lt:lc6 ) 8 . . . d5 9 cd ed 1 0 d3
=

1 983) 13 lt:l xd5 lt:l xd5 14 .txd5 lt:lf6 I I d4 ro Speelman- Fedder,

.txd5 1 5 1t'xd5 ± Andersson­ Plovdiv 1 983 .
Browne , Wij k aan Zee 1983. Best A21
seems 10 . . . 1t'c7 I I 1t'e2 lt:l e4 =. 7 dS
b ) 9 . . . lLlc6 1 0 fJ. e l !? fJ.c8 I I fJ.c l 8 cd ed
fJ.c7 1 2 d4 cd 1 3 ed d5 14 cd � 8 . . . lt:l xd5 9 e4 (9 lt:lxd5 ed 10 d4
Petrosian-Dolmatov, USSR 198 1 . 0-0 ) 9 . . . lt:l xc3 (9 . . . lt:l b4!? 10 d4
=

10 d4 fJ.b8! cd I I lt:lxd4 lLl 8c6 - 1 1 . . . 0-0 12 a3

Stopping d5 d ue to I I d5 ed 1 2 ltJ4c6 13 e5! ;!; Ftacnik-Meduna,
cd b 5 ! . N ow I I 1t'e2 fJ.e8 1 2 e4 cd Czechoslovakia 1978 - 1 2 lt:l xc6
1 3 lt:lxd4 a6 was Dzindzihashvili­
= lt:l xc6 13 e5! ;!; Larsen-G ligoric,
Ribli, Amsterdam 1 978. Portoroz 1 979) 10 be 0-0 I I d4 cd
A2 12 cd lLlc6 1 3 .ib2 .tf6 ( 1 3 . . .
7 fJ.el (13 7) lt:l a 5 ! ? ) 1 4 fJ.b l fJ.e8 1 5 h4 h 6 (?)
The most important alternative ( 1 5 . . . fJ. c8) 16 d5! ed 17 e5 .te7
to 7 d4. W hite hopes, by e4/d4/ 1 8 e6 with the attack, Seirawan-
 136 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog

Timman, Las Palmas 19S l .

9 d4 �0
10 .tgS
10 de be 1 1 ltlh4 is worth a look,
e.g. I I . . . ..d7 1 2 e4! ltlxe4 ( 1 2 . . .
d4?! 1 3 ltlf5 ! .tdS 14 ltla4) 1 3 ll:lxe4
de I 4 -.xd7 ltlxd7 1 5 .i.xe4 ! Kan­
Taimanov, USSR Ch I 95 2. Other
moves include 10 .tf4 ltla6! =, I O
�3 lLl bd7 ( 1 0 . . . ltlc6!? I I de
ltla5) 1 1 de ll:lxc5 I 2 ._d l =, a nd
1 0 ltle5 cd I I -.xd4 .tc5 1 2 �4 9 d4 cd
ltle4 I 3 ltlxe4 -.xh4 with an unclear 10 lLl xd4 'tllc7
position in Fedorowicz-Browne, 11 .te3!
US Ch I 9 S4. I I b3 ltlbd7 I 2 .tb2 =, e.g. I 2 . . .
10 ltlbd7 0- 0 1 3 f4 lit fe8 I 4 f5 !? e 5 1 5 ltlc2
I 0 .. . ll:la6 I I lit c l liteS ( 1 1 . . . b 5 ! , Larsen-Quinteros, Mar del
ltle4 o r I I . . . h6 Tal) I 2 e 3 ltlc7 ! ? Plata 1982.
( 1 2 . . . ltl e 4 =) 1 3 d e be I 4 ltl a4 ;t 11 ltlbd7
Romanishin-Tal , USSR 1977. I I ... 0-0 12 g4 !? is dangerous.
After 10 ... ltlbd7, the con tinu­ 1 1 . . . -.xc4?? loses to 12 lite I ( I 2 . . .
ation I I lit c l h6 ( I I . . . lit eS =) I 2 � 1 3 e5 !).
.txf6 lLlxf6 1 3 -.a4 a6 1 4 de be 12 litc1 0-0
1 5 ltld2 litbS I 6 e4 de led t o a level 13 f4 litfe8
game in Qu interos-Polugayevsky, a) 1 3 ... litad8 1 4 g4 ltlc5 I 5 .tf2 e5
Mar del Plata 1 9S2. 1 6 ltlf5 ef I 7 b4 ! ±± Lemach ko­
A2 Aiexandria, match I 984.
7 d6 b ) 13 ... litac8 14 g4 ( 1 4 f5 e5 I 5
More c ommon than 7 . . . d5, but ltld5 ._d8 =) 1 4 . . . ltlc5 I 5 .tf2 g6,
difficult to handle. Dezan-Bass, I 984, and now 1 6
8 e4 a6 (138) .tg3 ! , e.g. 1 6 . . . e5 I 7 fe de 1 8 lLld5,
S . . . 0-0 9 d4 cd 10 ltlxd4 has the looks better than I 6 b4.
drawback that 10 ... a6 runs into 14 g4
I I e5 ( ! ) de 12 .txb7 lita7 13 ltlc6 a ) 14 .tfl .tf8 I 5 b3 lit ac8 I 6 f5 e5
11fxd i 1 4 lLlxe7+ �hS I 5 lit xd i I7 ltlc2 b5 = Spassov-Stoica, Athens
lit xb 7 1 6 b 3 etc. And here 1 0 . . . 198 1 ; I 5 g4 e5 I 6 ll:lf5 g6 1 7 g5!?
._c8 I I .te3 lLl bd7 1 2 f4 also lLlh5 18 lLld5 oo Fedorowicz .
favours White. b) 14 rs ltlf8 I 5 g4 ±, but 1 4 . . . e5
 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 137

1 5 llJd5 1t'd8 or 14 . . . .if8 is critical. 1 6 cd! as best, e.g. 16 . . . 'it'xf4 17 b4

14 lLl cS ltJcd7 ( 17 ... ed 1 8 be be isn't enough)
A t ry t o improve upon 1 4 . . . 1 8 de fe 1 9 lLlxe6 1lhg4 ( 1 9 . . . 'tireS
lljf8 1 5 g 5 lLlfd7 1 6 b 3 ( 1 6 'W'g4!?) 20 'W'b3 ! ) 20 lLlc7 ± .
16 ... llac8 1 7 llfl 'ifb8 18 f5 e5, In general, 7 lle l loo ks good
Quinteros-Ribli , Li nares 1 98 1 , and against 7 . . . d6 , but 7 . . . d5 is likely
now Fedorowicz gives 19 lLlde2! equal.
with the idea lLlg3, f6. c
1 5 .ifl (l39) 7 d3
This variation is fai rly com mon
/39 due to orders like I c4 llJf6 2 lLlc3
B lLlf6 3 g3 e6 4 llJf3 b6 5 e4 .ib7 6 d3
or I c4 lLlf6 2 lLlc3 e6 3 llJf3 b6 4 e4
.ib7 5 d3 etc.
C l 7 . . . d5
C2 7 . . . 0-0
C1
7 dS
Not possible i n the above­
mentioned move orders.
A key position. Ftacnik suc­ 8 cd
ceeded with the move 1 5 . . . e5 8 lLle5!? 0-0 9 .if4 'it'c8 1 0 cd
versus Agdestein in Naestved 1985: lLl xd5 1 1 lLlxd5 .ixd5 seems =, but
1 6 fe (?) de 17 lLlf5 ll ad8 1 8 ltJd5 could be tried.
lLlxd5 19 cd a5 20 lLl xe7+ (lest . . . 8 eel
.ig5) 2 0 . . . 'it'xe7 2 1 "itd2 llc8. B u t On 8 . . . lLl xd5, 9 'it'a4+ is note 'a'
1 6 lLlf5 ! seems t o improve, due to to 6 lLlc3 a bove.
16 . . . ef 1 7 g5 lLlfd7 1 8 b4 lLle6 1 9 9 lLl h4!?
lLld5, when Black gets some com­ 9 lLle5 0-0 is harmless and 9 d4
pensation for the exchange, but it 0-0 comfortably equal.
doesn't look sufficient. 9 0-0
Fedorowicz analyses 1 5 . . . d5 !? , 9 . . . 'it'd7 10 e4!?. 8 fter 9 . . . 0-0,
giving 1 6 e5?! lLlfe4 =t= with the idea the game Shirazi-Winslow, Los
1 7 cd lLlxf2 or 1 7 lLlxe4 de 1 8 .ifl Angeles 1 982, continued 1 0 lLl f5
ll d8 ; and 16 ed ed 1 7 b4 lLlce4! 1 8 lLla6 1 1 d4 ( 1 1 .ig5 lLlc7 1 2 d4 h6
lLlxe4 de = ( although here 1 7 g5 ! ? Winslow) 1 1 . . . h6 1 2 de be 1 3 a3
i ntending 1 7 . . . llJfe4 1 8 lLlxd5 ( 1 3 lLlb5!?) 1 3 . . . lle8 1 4 b4 .tf8 1 5
may be good). Fedorowicz suggests lLlb5 lLlc7 1 6 lLlxc7 'it'xc7 1 7 .tb2
138 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog

lt:le4 t. .i.b2 :acS (or 1 3 . . . :res 1 4 :ac l

C2 1i'bS) was balanced in Portisch­
7 0-0 Lju bojevic, Madrid 1973.
8 e4 d6 (140) Common is 9 ... lt:lc6 1 0 d4 e5,
Not S . . . d5? ! 9 cd ed 10 e5 a nd e.g. I I de de 1 2 ltJd5 ltJeS !? ( I 2 . . .
I I d4, but S . . . lt:lc6 9 d4 cd 10 lt:lxd4 lt:ld7) 1 3 b 3 lt:l c7 1 4 .i.b2 .i.r6 ( 1 4
lt:l xd4 transposes. . . . .i.d6 1 5 lt:l h4! lt:l d4 1 6 lt:l r5 t
Polu gayevsky-Gurgenidze , Kislo­
140 vodsk 1 972) 1 5 ii'c2 lt:le6 1 6 :ad I
w t Vaganian-Matanovic, Belgrade
1 974.
9 lt:lc6
a) 9 ... lt:la6 1 0 : e l (or 1 0 1i'e2!
and d4) 1 0 . . . e5 I I .i.h3 lt:lc7 1 2
lt:lh4 g6 1 3 lt:l g2 intending r4,
Korchnoi-Petrosian, match ( 1 )
1 974.
b) 9 ... lt:lbd7 1 0 1i'e2 a6 I I .i.b2
9 b3 lt:le8 (?) 12 d4 ;!; Smyslov-Filguth,
a) 9 lt:le l lt:lc6 1 0 f4 ltJeS (or 1 0 . . . 1978.
a 6 ) I I g 4 lt:lc7 1 2 lt:\0 d5 1 3 fS d e c) 9 . . . :es 10 .i.b2 .i.f8 I I :el
1 4 de .i.d6 Y2 - Y2 Pe trosian-Darga, lt:lc6 12 d4 e5 "=" ECO, but 13 de
Las Palmas 1 973. de 14 lt:ld5 looks ;!;.
b) 9 h3 a6 (9 . . . lt:lc6 10 d4 cd I I d) 9 . .. a6 1 0 .i.b2't!fd7 !? ( 10 ... :eS)
lt:lxd4 :cs 1 2 lt:lxc6 ! .i.xc6 1 3 .i.f4 I I :e 1 lt:lc6 1 2 .i.h3 ii'c7, Tai­
t Smyslov-Reshevsky, Belgrade Polugayevsky, Tallin·n 1973, and
1 970) 10 .i.e3 lt:lc6 I I d4 cd 1 2 now best. is 1 3 lilac I ! ;!; planning d4.
lt:lxd4 lt:l xd4! (lest lt:l c2) 1 3 1i'xd4 10 d4 cd
lt:ld7 1 4 :rd :bS 1 5 :ac I 1i'c7 = 1 0 . . . e5?! I I de de 1 2 lt:ld5! ( 1 2
Carrasco-Gh eorghiu, Palo Alto . . . lt:l xe4?! 1 3 lt:lxe5 ! ) ;!; Gligoric.
198 1 . 11 lt:l xd4 lt:lxd4
c ) 9 1i'e2 lt:lbd7 (9 . . . lt:l c6 1 0 :d l I I . . . 1i'd7 1 2 .i.b2 : acS 1 3 ltJ c2
e5 ) 1 0 d4 cd I I lt:l xd4 1i'c7 1 2 b3
= a6 1 4 1i'e2 :res 1 5 :rd ! 1i'c7 1 6
a6 1 3 .i.b2 ;!; Smej k al-Piachet ka, : ac l 1i'bS 1 7 f4 .i.aS I S �h i .i.f8
Czechoslovakia 197S. 1 9 lt:le3 ;!; was Watson-de Firmian,
d) 9 :el doesn't allow d4 in one Los Angeles 1 9S I . This illustrates
step (as 7 :e l did), so 9 ... lt:lbd7 the general " rule" that Black
1 0 d4 cd I I lt:l xd4 a6 12 b3 1i'c7 1 3 shouldn't allow lt:lc2 when his
 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 139

ow n knight is on co ( lt:\ c2 versus . . . A41 8 lt:\xd4

lt:\bd7 is less effective). A42 8 1t'xd4
1 2 1t'xd4 a6 (141) A41
8 lt:l xd4 i. xg2
141 9 �xg2 'it'c8
w Also 9 . . . 0-0 1 0 e4 ( 10 b3 a6 1 1
i.b2 d6 1 2 d3 lii: a 7! = Uh 1mann­
Ribli , V rbas 1 977) 1 0 . . . 1t'c8 (or
10 . . . d6 1 1 b3 a6 12 i.e3 'it'c7) 1 1
b 3 1t'b7 1 2 0 lt:\c6, Capablanca­
Vidmar, New York 1927; possible
now is 1 3 i.b2 :S: ad8 14 :i:te I lt:\e8 !?
with the idea ... lt:\xd4 , . . . f5 .
1 0 1t'd3
Here 1 3 ..i b2 ..ic6!? 1 4 :S:fd 1 Harmless is 10 b3 0-0 ( 10 . . . d5
1t'c7 1 5 :S:ac l 't!t'b7 is double-edged. 1 1 i.f4!?) 1 1 i. b2 1t'b7+ 1 2 0 d5 =.
Best may be 13 ..ta3 , e.g. 1 3 . . . 1t'c7 But 10 i.f4!? is complex: 1 0 . . . 0-0
14 l:Ud 1 :S:fd8 1 5 llac 1 ( 1 5 lt:\a4 1 1 lt:l db5 ( 1 1 e4 1t'xc4 !? 1 2 lt:\cb5
:S: ab8 ! ) 15 ... lii: ac8 1 7 ..ib4 ;l; with lt:\c6 oo, or 1 1 . . . 't!t'b7 1 2 0 :i:td8)
a4 to follow. I I . . . a6 12 i.d6 lt:\c6 ! 13 i.xe7
A4 lt:\ xe7 14 lt:\ d6 1t'c6+ 1 5 0 lt:\c8 1 6
7 d4 cd lt:\de4 lt:\ xe4 = N ei-Gipslis, Tallinn
7 . . . 0-0?! 8 d5 ed 9 cd d6 1 0 lt:\d2 198 1 .
lt:\a6 1 1 lt:\c4 lt:\c7 12 a4 ± Smyslov­ 10 lt:\c6
Dominguez, Las Palmas 1 972. 7 . . . 11 lt:\xc6!
lt:\e4!? is almost untested. Yudovich­ Or I I b3 , but 1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2 i.b2
Kovacevic, Zagreb 1 969, saw 8 d5 :i:td8 or 1 2 . . . d5 !? should suffice,
(8 lt:\xe4 ..ixe4 9 d5 b5 !?; 9 . . . 0-0 1 0 or I I . . . lt:\e5 1 2 1t'e3 1t'b7+ 1 3 0
1t'b3 t was H i.ibner-Sunye, Rio de lt:\g6 , Nei-Gurgenidze, USSR Ch
Janeiro I Z 1 979) 8 . . . lt:\xc3 9 be 1967.
i. f6 (9 . . . 0-0 Ku rajica; then 10 d6 11 1t'xc6+
i.f6 1 1 1t'd3 lt:\c6 1 2 e4 or 10 e4 d6 1 2 e4 0-0 1 3 i.d2 l::t ac8 1 4
1 1 e5 ! ? ca n be tried) 1 0 e4 ! i.xc3 b3 l::t fd8 1 5 'tW O ( 1 5 0 d 5 ) 1 5 . . .
1 1 i.g5 f6!? ( 1 1 . . . i. f6 12 i. xf6 a6 1 6 l::t fe 1 d6 1 7 l hc l 1!t'b7 =
and 1 2 . . . gf 1 3 lt:\h4! or 1 2 . . . 1t'xf6 intending . . . b5 Hort-Tal, H avana
1 3 e5 1t'h6 14 lt:\ d2 ! is difficult) 1 2 01 1 966.
l::tc 1 fg 1 3 l::t xc3 ed 14 ed 0-0 1 5 1i'c I A42
h6 1 6 h4! gh 1 7 lt:\xh4 ±± . 8 't!txd4 (1 42)
140 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog

1963. 10 e4 transposes to 8 . . . 0-0

142 below.
B After 1 0 lLlb5 , Korchnoi-Barcza­
Leningrad 1967, went 1 0 . . . 0-0 I I
't!t'xb8 l:r.a xb8 1 2 .i.f4 l:r.d8 1 3 .i.d6
(or 13 .i.c7 l:r.c8 14 .i.d6) 1 3 . . .
.txd6 1 4 lLlxd6 .ta8 1 5 lt fd l ltb8
16 :S:d2 ( 16 lLlg5 !) 16 ... :S:fd8 ( 1 6
. . . h6), and Milic suggests 1 7 lLlg5 ! .
A422
8 o-o (143)
The m ai n line. Black must first Probably not the m ost accurate
decide where he wants his q ueen's order for the . . . lLlbd7 systems, but
k night: best for the ... lLlc6 ideas.
A42 1 8 . . . lLlc6
A422 8 . . . 0-0
A423 8 . . . d6
A421
8 lLlc6
9 1Wf4
9 'tlt'd2 lLla5 1 0 b3 d 5 I I lLle5 de

9 't!t'b8
a) 9 ... 0-0 1 0 e4 ( ! ) ( 1 0 lt d 1 and
10 b3 transpose to 'A422') 1 0 . . .
ltc8 1 1 ltd ! .i.b4? ( I I . . . lLla5 !?) 9 ltdl
12 e5 .i.xc3 13 be ± Korchnoi­ a) 9 b3 lLlc6!? 10 't!t'f4 't!t'b8 1 1 .i.b2!?
Veresov, USSR 1 967. 't!t'xf4 1 2 gf !; 9 . . . d6.
b) 9 ... lLla5!? 1 0 ltd ! ! ? ( 10 b3 ;t) b) 9 e4!? lLlc6 (9 . . . 't!t'c8!? 1 0 e5 - or
10 . . . 1Wc8 ! 1 1 b3 d5 1 2 cd? ( l 2 lLle5 10 lil:d1 - 1 0 . . . lLlc6 1 1 't!t'h4 " ! with
de =; 1 2 lLl b5 0-0 =) 12 . . . 't!t'xc3 the idea 1 1 . . . lLlxd5 1 2 cd .txh4 1 3
.td2 't!t'b2 14 'tlra4+ 'lt>f8 1 5 .txa5 de ;!;" Yudovich; Black could argue
ba 16 de .txf3! 17 .t xf3 lil:c8 =F with this) 10 ire3 ( 10 'tlrd3 d5 I I e5
Slitsky-Ruderfer, 1 967. - 1 1 cd lLl b4 = - I I . . . lLld7 1 2 cd
1 0 lLlbS lLlb4 ) 10 . . . .i.c5 !? ( 1 0 . . . d6 I I
=

Or I 0 1Wxb8+ lt xb8 I I .i.f4 l:r.c8 lt d l 1Wc7 1 2 1We2 lLl e5 1 3 b3 lLlxf3+

12 lLlb5 lLl e4 1 3 l:r. ad I .i.c5 1 4 14 .i.xf3 a6 1 5 .i.b2 , Korchnoi­
lLld2! t Smyslov-Tal, Moscow Kholmov, Moscow 1 964, and now
 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 141

Karklins gives 1 5 . . . .i c6 ! ; l O . . . may be more accurate) I I ... l:l:axb8

d 5 ! ? I I e 5 ! , e .g. I I . . . d4 1 2 lt:lxd4 ( l l . . . l:l:fxb8?! 1 2 .if4 l:l:d8 l 3
lt:lg4 l 3 lt:l xc 6 etc) I I 1!1e2 d6 1 2 b3 lt:lb5 lt:la5 1 4 .id6 :t Portisch-Csom,
lt:ld7 1 3 .ib2 li:lde5 1 4 llad 1 :!; Ljubljana 1973) 1 2 .if4 l:l:bc8 1 3
Smej kai-Giigoric, Vrbas 1 977. lt:le5 ( 1 3 lt:lb5 d5 ! ) 1 3 . . . d6! 1 4
=

9 lt:lc6 lt:l xc6 .i xc6 1 5 .ixd6 .ixd6 1 6

9 . . . d6 is ' A423'. 9 . . . a6 10 .ie3 !? It xd6 .ixg2 1 7 'ii? xg2 It xc4 1 8
.ic5 I I 1!1d3 is oo, and 9 . . . d5? ! l O Itad l g5 ! 1 9 lld8 ll xd8 20 l:l: xd8+
lt:le5 .ic5 I I \!fh4 i s d ubious. This 'ii?g7 2 1 l:l:a8 lt:ld5 ! = Portisch­
leaves the old move 9 . . . 'tlt'c8 l 0 Pachman, Amsterdam 1 967 .
e4 ( ! ) ( 1 0 .if4 lld8 I I l:l:ac l lt:lc6 b) 1 1 e4 't!t'xf4 ( 1 1 . . . l:l:d8 AI burt)
12 'tlt'd3 d5! = Refir-Milev, 1958; 12 .ixf4 Itfd8 1 3 e5 lt:le8 14 lt:ld4
1 0 't!Vf4 lt:l a6 ! I I b3 d5 =) I I b3 lt:l a5 ( 14 . . . l:l: ac8!?; 14 . . . 'ii?f 8!?
lt:lc6 1 2 'tlt'd2 lld8 13 't!t'e2! lt:ld7 Averbakh) 1 5 b3 .ixg2 16 'ii? xg2
( 1 3 ... lld7) 14 .ia3 1!1b8 15 lld2 g5 ( 1 6 . . . d6 1 7 ed .ixd6 1 8 .i xd6
lt:lc5 16 l:l:ad l ± Korchnoi-Gipslis, lt:l xd6 19 l:l:d2 :t Karpov-Portisch,
Stockholm IZ 1 962. M ilan 1 975) 17 .ie3 'ii?g7 1 8 f4! gf
10 'tlt'f4 d6 1 9 gf lt:l c6 20 lt:l ce2 ± Pet rosian­
Moves like 10 . . . llc8 1 1 b 3 a6 Portisch, Palma de Mallorca 1974.
12 e4 b5?! ( 1 2 . . . .ib4) 1 3 e5 ! b4 l 4 11 b3 'tlt'b8
lt:la4 lt:le8 1 5 .ie3 f6 1 6 .ib6 ± I I . . . a6 1 2 .ia3 d5 1 3 .ib2( ! )
Forintos-Kushnir, Lone Pine 1975, with the idea 1 3 . . . .id6 1 4 cd! .
and lO . . . .ib4 I I .id2 (or I I lt:lf5 ! 1 1 . . . 'tlt'd7 1 2 .i b2 l:l:fd8 1 3 .ih3! ±
nd lt:lge4) 1 1 . . . lt:la5 1 2 b 3 't!t'e7 1 3 intending lt:ld5 or lt:l b5 Szabo­
lt:lb5 :t are no longer played. Better Tatai , Sarajevo 1972.
is lO . . . 't!t'b8 (144) : 12 .i b2 l:l:d8
a) 12 ... lt:leS 1 3 .ia3 ! lt:lxf3+ ( 1 3 . . .
144 lt:lg6) 1 4 .ixf3 :!; Hort-Nicevski,
w Rovinj-Zagreb 1970.
b) 12 ... a6 1 3 lt:lg5 ! ( 1 3 e4 l:l:d8
transposes, but 1 3 l:l:d2 ! is also
strong) 1 3 ... l:l:a7 ( 1 3 . . . h6 1 4
lt:lge4) 1 4 lt:lce4 lt:le5 1 5 lt:lxf6+
.ixf6 16 .i xb7 l:l: xb7 17 lt:le4 ! .ie7
( 1 7 . . . lt:lf3+ 18 't!t'xf3 .ixb2 1 9
l:l: ab l .ie5 2 0 lt:l xd6! H aag) 1 8
l:l:d2 ± Smyslov-Andersson , Biel
a) 1 1 1lhb8 ( I I b3 l:l:d8 1 2 't!t'xb8 IZ 1 976.
142 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog

13 e4 White's strategy in these ci rcum­

Aga in 1 3 l:ld2 is promising, e.g. stances was supposed to be straight­
13 . . . a6 14 "tit'e3 ! ( 1 4 li:Jg5 ! h6! 1 5 forward: establish a bind on Black's
lL!ge4 lL! xe4 intending 1 6 lL! xe4 f5 two freeing moves . . . . b5 and . . . d5.
and . . . .ig5) 1 4 . . . lL!d7 1 5 lL!g5 ! The n, with more space to work
etc. with, White could more rapidly
13 a6 shi ft his forces from one side to
14 "tit'e3 "tit'a7 another, eventually forci ng new
14 . . . b5?! 1 5 cb ab 16 lL!xb5 weaknesses or material gain. This
lL!b4 1 7 lL!fd4 (or 1 7 e5 !?). After sort of squeeze was a trade mark of
14 . . . "tit'a7 , Taim anov-Kholmov, many strong players, including
USSR Ch 1 967, continued 15 lL!e l (e.g.) Botvinni k and Smyslov.
l:lab8 1 6 lL!c2 .i a8 1 7 t!re2 (;l;) 1 7 . . . Two di fficulties arose: ( I ) Pre­
t!rb8 1 8 a 4 t!rc8 1 9 l:lab I lL! e8 20 f4 venting both . . . b5 and . . . d5 turned
.i f6 2 1 h3 lL!c7 22 lt>h 2 lL!a7 23 out to be more difficult than in
lL!e3 U ± . posi tions with the knight on c6; in
A423 particu lar, the b7 bishop had
8 d6 ( 145) more direct control of e4, d5 and
even b5 (after, e.g, . . . �c6); (2) I f
145
w
Wh ite did manage t o ac hieve the
bind. it often turned out that he
couldn 't transfer his forces as
planned above, because any com­
mittal movement would release the
pressure on Blac k 's game. Thus
White tends to be as much tied up
by Black 's latent activity as Black
himself is tied up by White's space
Now Black intends . . . lL!bd7 in­ advantage.
stead of . . . lL!c6. Still in its i n fancy After several years and seemingly
at the time of the first edi tion, this countless games, the essential vali­
' He dgehog' system subsequen tly dity of Blac k 's st rategy versus a
became the single most popular central bind seems fu lly substan­
answer to the English Opening. tiated. In fact, players on the White
It's worth a little space to consider side turned their attention to either
how this came about. By traditional an early central break (e4-e5) or to
theory, Black's pawn on d6 should a safer positional solution beginning
prove a wea kness in the long run. with �g5 xf6, to defuse the counter-
 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 143

attacking potential of B lack's set­ a6 14 lt:lbd4 'ti'c7 =!+ was Suba­

up. These latter strategies have Stefanov, Ro mania 19SO) 1 2 . . . a6
done much to discourage advocates 13 b4?! lt:lcd7 14 i.. b 2 'ti'bS 1 5 lt:ld2
of the Hedgehog, but the debate i.. xg2 1 6 'i!txg2 lieS 17 f3 (?) b5! =t=
continues. M il es-Adorjan, R iga IZ 1 979 .
A423 1 9 b3 ( with 10 .ta3) A4232
A4232 9 l:i: d l 9 l:i:d1 0-0! ?
A4233 9 e4 The safer 9 . . . a6 10 e4 is examined
A4234 9 i.. g5 in 'A4233', and 9 . . . a6 10 lt:J g5 is
These lines are highly transposi­ ' B22' below. Also possible is 9 . . .
tional , so I have grouped b3 and ll:Jbd7, e.g. 1 0 lt:lg5 ! ? .txg2 I I
lid l without e4 under A4232, 'i!txg2 0-0 1 2 lt:Jge4 lt:lxe4 ( 1 2 . . .
those games where an early e4 is lt:leS 1 3 lt:lb5) 1 3 lt:Jxe4 1!t'c7 ! 1 4 b3
played under A4233, and the rare ( 1 4 lt:J xd6 l:i:adS) 1 4 . . . lifdS 1 5 f3,
9 b3 with 10 i.. a3 u nder A423 l . Krnic-De Firmian, N ice 19S I , and
A4231 now Krnic gives 1 5 . . . lt:lf6! =.
9 b3 0-0 10 b3!?
9 . . . a6 is 'B' below. 9 . . . lt:J bd7 a) 10 lt:lbS !? lt:lc6 I I 'ti'd3 'ti'bS 1 2
1 0 .ta3 lt:J c5 I I b4 lt:Jce4 12 lt:Jxe4 b 3 ( 1 2 lt:J xd6? lidS 1 3 i.. f4 e5 1 4
.txe4 1 3 llfd l 0-0 1 4 b5 1!t'cS 1 5 lt:J xe5 lt:lxe5 1 5 .txe5 i.. xg2 1 6
'tie3 ! ? l:i: dS I 6 l:i: d4 ( 1 6 lt:Jd4 !?) 1 6 'i!fxg2 lt:leS H Alburt) 1 2 . . . l:i:dS
. . . a6! 1 7 l:i: xe4 lt:Jxe4 1 S lt:l d4 ! ( I S 1 3 i.. b2 , AI burt-Tarjan, US Ch
'ti'xe4 d5 !) I S . . . f5 1 9 lt:Jc6 i.. f6 20 1 9S I , and now 1 3 . . . a 6 or 1 3 . . . d5 !
i.. xe4 fe 2 1 i.. b2 l:i:eS 22 .txf6 gf 14 cd ( 1 4 lt:Jg5 h6! 1 5 .txf6 .txf6
23 'tixb6 ab = Uhlma nn-J ansa, 1 6 't!t'h7+ 'i!ff8 Christiansen) 1 4 . . .
Hastings 1975-76. lt:lb4 1 5 'ti'b l i.. xd5 1 6 i..e 5 'tib7
10 i.. a 3 1 7 a3 i.. e 4 = B yrne and · M ednis.
10 i.. b2 transposes to li nes b) I mportant for an assessment of
below, e .g. 10 a6 I I l:i:d l ts this order is 10 i..g S(!) lt:Jbd7
'A4232' . 10 . . . lt:lc6 I I 't!t'f4 ;!; Speelman­
10 lt:la6 ! Hawksworth, Edinburgh 19S5) I I
As suggested in the first edition. lt:Jb5 d5 ( I I . . . e5!? 1 2 'tie3 e4 1 3
10 . . . lt:lc6 I I 'tif4 a6 12 l:i:d l ::!:: i.. xf6 lt:Jxf6 1 4 lt:lfd4 lt:lg4 1 5 'tif4
transposes to ' A422', whereas 1 0 ;!; Gurevich-Benjamin, US Ch 19S3;
. . . d5!? I I .txe7 'ti'xe7 1 2 c d lt:lxd5 12 'i!t'd2!?) 12 cd i.. x d5 ( 1 2 . . .
1 3 lt:lxd5 i.. x d5 14 l:i:ac l is unclear. lt:l xd5? 1 3 .txe7 't!t'xe7 1 4 e4 and 1 5
11 l:i:fd1 lt:lcS e 5 ; 1 2 . . . ed!? 1 3 1t'f4 h 6 1 4 .txf6
12 l:i:ac l ( 1 2 ll:Jb5 lt:lfe4 1 3 't!t'e3 lt:J xf6 1 5 lt:Jfd4 - 15 lt:Je5 l:i:e8! - 1 5
144 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog

. . . a6 1 6 lt:lc3 .id6 1 7 't!rf5 ! ]i[e8 1 8 lt:lde4 transposes t o 1 2 lLlg5 . 1 2

lt:l xd5 lt:lxd5 19 .txd5 .txd5 20 'tlt'd2 ...c7 1 3 lt:ld4 .ixg2 1 4 'i!?xg2
't!rxd5 .te5 2 1 e4 ! U ± Adorjan­ 'tlt'b7+ 1 5 f3 lt:le5 (or 1 5 . . . ]i[ fd8 =,
Bouaziz, Riga IZ 1 979) 1 3 lt:lc3 ( 1 3 or 1 5 ... ]i[ fc8 1 6 e4 lt:le8 =) 1 6 e4
't!rh4 ]i[c8 ! 1 4 e4 ]i[c4 1 5 lt:lfd4 .ia8 ]i[fc8 1 7 'tlt'e2 lt:lc6 ( 1 7 . . . g5!?) 1 8
= Horvat h-Borm, Baden 1 980) 1 3 lt:l xc6 ]i[xc6 was equal in Korchnoi­
. . . .ic6 1 4 't!rc4! ( 14 lt:le5 lt:lxe5 1 5 Polugayevsky, Buenos A ires 1980 .
't!t'xe5 't!t'c8 = Schii ssler-Suba , Lu­ A42321
cerne 01 1 982) 1 4 . . . 't!rc8 ( 1 4 . . . 12 lLlg5 .ixg2
]i[c8 1 5 'tlra6 'tlk 7 1 6 lt:lb5 ;!; Ftacnik) 13 'i!?xg2 'tlt'c7
15 e4 h6 (?), Korchnoi-Ftacnik , O r 1 3 . . . ]i[a7 1 4 lt:lge4 't!t'a8 1 5 f3
Biel 1 984, and n o w 1 6 .if4 ! w as lt:le8 = Baumbach-Espig, 1976. Or
very s trong, e.g. 1 6 . . . b5 ( 1 6 . . . g5 1 3 . . . 't!rb8 1 4 lt:lge4 ]i[ d8 1 5 lt:l xf6+
1 7 lt:l d4 ± ) 1 7 lt:lxb5 't!rb7 1 8 lLlc3 ! .txf6! 1 6 't!rxd6 'tlt'b7+ 1 7 'i!?g l ( 1 7
± Ftacnik. Better seems 1 5 . . . lt:lc5 f3 lt:le5 1 8 't!ra3 lt:lg4! 1 9 ]i[xd8+
1 6 e5 ( 1 6 lt:ld4 .ib7 1 7 e5 !?) 16 ... ]i[xd8 20 lt:le4 lt:le3 =/ ro R uderfer­
lt:ld5 1 7 b4, Kengis-Shabalov, Psakhis, USSR 1980) 1 7 . . . lt:le5 1 8
Jurmala 1 985, and now 17 . . . lt:l xc3 't!ra3 lt:lc6 = Koval:evic-Ljubojevic,
is =/ro according to Kengis; but in Titovo U zice 1 978 .
general this looks a risky line . 9 . . . 1 4 lt:l ge4 't!rc6
a 6 i s probably more accurate than Or 1 4 . . . lt:le8 with the idea .. .
9 ... d6. 't!rb7, . . . b5 Ljubojevic. Or 1 4 .. .
10 lLlbd7 ]i[ fd8 1 5 f3 ( 1 5 lt:lxf6+ .t xf6 ! ) 1 5 . . .
11 .tb2 a6 ( 146) lt:lc5 1 6 ]i[ac 1 'tlt'b7 = Schmidt­
G iigoric, Buenos A ires 01 1978.
146 After 14 . . . 'tlt'c6, Hort-Browne,
w Buenos Aires 1 980, went 15 f3
li[fd8 16 lilac l lt:lc5 1 7 lt:l xc5 be
1 8 'tlt'f4 d5 19 e4 de =.
A42322
12 't!t'e3
With the ideas lt:ld4-c6 and/or
f4-f5 .
12 'tlt'c7
O r 1 2 . . . lil e8 , e .g. 1 3 lLld4 ( 1 3
A423 2 1 1 2 lt:l g5 h3!?) 1 3 . . . .txg2 1 4 'i!?xg2 .tf8 1 5
A42322 1 2 ...e3 :C:ac l 'tlt'c7 1 6 h 3 ]i[ac8 = Ribli­
1 2 lt:ld2 .txg2 1 3 'i!?xg2 't!rc7 1 4 Giigoric, Vrbas 1 977.
 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 145

13 h3 number of defences to the e4-e5

Larsen's move, s topping . . . ll:lg4 plan of ' A4233 1 ' .
and giving the king a safe square A42 33 1 10 b3
on h2. 1 3 ll:ld4 .txg2 14 �xg2 ll:le5 A42332 10 'tlt'e3
(or 14 . . . l:lfe8 !) 1 5 f3 ( 1 5 f4 !? �7+ A42331
1 6 ll:lf3 ll:leg4, e .g. 1 7 1M3 ll:ld7 ! 10 b3 ll:lbd7
1 8 b4 ! f5! ? oo ) 1 5 . . . �7 1 6 lild2 11 lild1
litfc8 1 7 h3 lilc7 1 8 a4 ll:l fd7 = a) 1 1 .ta3 ll:lc5 12 lilfe l 0-0 ( 12 . . .
Seirawan-Browne, US Ch 1 980 . e 5 ! ? =) 1 3 lilad l � 8 1 4 e 5 de 1 5
13 lilfc8 'tlt'xe5 'tlt'a7 ro Lief-Walder, Anaheim
Or, again, 1 3 . . . lilfe8 ! . Complex 1 9S4.
was 13 . . . lil acS 1 4 lilac ! lilfdS 1 5 b) The simple 1 1 .tb2 0-0 has fallen
ll:ld4 .txg2 1 6 �xg2 ll:le5 1 7 f4 from favour:
'it'b7+ I S ll:l f3 ll:lc6 1 9 �h2 b5 b l ) 12 ll:ld2 .tc6 1 3 a4 'tlt'bS 1 4
20 f5 ! e5 2 1 g4, Larsen-Browne, lilfe 1 lit eS 1 5 h3 .tffi Korchnoi­
=

Rey kj avik 1 9 78. B rowne, Chicago 1 9S2.

1 4 ll:ld4 .txg2 b2) 1 2 lilfe1 1Wc7 1 3 11t'd2 lil fe 8 1 4
1 5 �xg2 ll:l eS ll:ld4 .i. ffi 1 5 lilad 1 lil ad8 1 6 ll:lc2
"=" Hubner. In Htibner-Browne, 11t'b8 1 7 11t'f4 .taS 1 8 g4 ll:le5 ! 1 9 g5
Tilburg 1 982, White got some pull ll:lg6 20 'tlt'e3 ll:lh5 2 1 ll:le2 d5 22 e5
after 16 �g l ll:lc6?! ( 16 . . . 'tlt'b7) 1 7 ll:lh4! =F Valvo-Gheorghiu, Phila­
lilac l 'tlt'b7 I S ll:l xc6 lhc6 1 9 a4 delphia 1978.
ll:leS 20 .ta3 . b3) 1 2 lilfd1 and now:
A4233 b3 1 ) 1 2 ... lilc8 13 ll:ld2 .tc6! 14 a4
9 e4 a6 (147) 'tlt'c7 1 5 h3 lilfe8 = Karpov-Browne,
Buenos Aires 1 9SO.
147 b32) 1 2 ... 'tlt'c7 1 3 11t'e3 lil fe8 1 4
w ll:ld4 ( 1 4 'tlt'e2 lilacS 1 5 lil d 2 'tlt'bS
1 6 lil ad l .tf8 1 7 ll:le l ! intending
ll:ld3, f4, Smej kal-Raj kovic, Bel­
grade 1977, is a neglected plan) 1 4
. . . .t f8 1 5 lilac I lit adS 1 6 h3 g6?!
( 1 6 . . . �s = ) 1 7 ll:ld5 ! ! (148)
1 7 . . . ed I S cd ll:lc5? ( I S . . . 'tlt'bS
19 ll:lc6 'tit'aS 20 lZl xdS 'tlt'xdS 2 1
'tlt'f4 ;t Rshaid) 1 9 ll:l f5 ! ll:lxd5 20
Most flexible. 9 ... 0-0 will usually ll:lh6+ .txh6 2 1 'tlt'xh6 ffi 22 ed ±
transpose, but cuts down on the Rshaid-Wiedenhafer, corres 1 984.
146 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog

b33) 1 2 . . . 1i'b8! 1 3 ll:ld2 ( 1 3 'ti'e3 Now known is 1 7 b4 ll:lcd7 1 S c5 ! ,

liteS 1 4 ll:ld4 .tffi =) 1 3 . . . litdS (or e.g. l S . . . g6 !? ( l S . . . b 5 1 9 ..ib2 is
1 3 . . . litac8 1 4 'it'e3 b5 ! + Uhlmann­ untested; l S . . . 'ti'c7?! 19 ..ixd7
Ljubojevic, A msterdam 1975) 1 4 ll:l xd7 20 ll xd7 ! ! 't!fxd7 2 1 cb llaS
a4 't!V c7 1 5 't!Ve3 n acS 1 6 'ti'e2 ll:le5, 22 litd 1 'ti'c6 23 ll:le4 f5 24 b5 ! !
Polugayevsky-Ftacnik, Lucerne 01 with a winning attack, Stempin­
1 9S2, and i nstead of 1 7 h3 h5! l S Ksieski, Polanica Zdroj 1 9S3) 19
f4 ll:l g6 1 9 ll:lf3 d5 ! 20 cd h4 ! =F, ll:la4 be 20 't!fh6+ 'it>gS 21 be 'ti'f8 !?
Ftacnik gives 17 'it>h 1 =. 22 'W'e3 'it>g7, Mayorov-Andrianov,
11 'it'c7!? USSR 19S3; 23 litac l ! Andrianov,
a) 1 1 . . . lita7 1 2 ..ia3 ll:lc5 1 3 e5 but this leaves many questions.
.txf3 ( 13 ... de 1 4 't!fxdS+ ; compare I like the simple 17 lld2. Then
below) 14 .txf3 de 1 5 't!fxe5 ll:lcd7 17 . . . 'it'cS? lS 'W'xe5 ! or 17 . . . litc7?
16 ..ixe7 'it'xe7 1 7 'W'e3 litc7 l S l S 'it'xe5 is bad, but on 17 . . . ll:lcd7,
ll:la4 ± Tiller-Lobron, Randers l S ..i xe7+ 'it>xe7 19 litadl h6 (else
1 9S2. 'ti'g5 ) 20 ll:le4 with the idea c5 and/
b) 11 ... ll:lcS!? 12 e5 de 13 1i'xe5 or litd6/ ll:lf6 can follow. White
( 1 3 ll:l xe5 ..c7 =) 1 3 . . . \i'cS 1 4 intends simply litadl and then (e.g.)
..ib2 ( 1 4 ..if4 0-0 1 5 't!fc7 't!fxc7 1 6 b4 if Black does nothing.
..ixc7 ll:lcd7 =) 1 4 . . . 0-0 1 5 lit d2 c2) 13 ... de 14 Wxe5 'ti'a7!? ( 1 4 . . .
liteS 1 6 litad l ..ic6 1 7 'it'e2 ll:lcd7 ..ixf3? 1 5 'W'xbS+ lit xbS 1 6 ..ixg3
= S mejkal-Quinteros, Novi Sad 0-0 1 7 ll:la4 litfcS 1 S ll:l xc5 ..i xc5 19
1 9S2. .ib2! ± and ..ie5 Tiller-H.Olafsson,
c) 11 ... 1!t'b8 1 2 .ta3 ll:lc5 13 e5 and Randers 1 9S2) 1 5 ll:la4 ( 1 5 i.b2
now: liteS 1 6 'it'e2 'ifaS = Tu kma kov­
c l ) 13 ... ..ixf3 14 ..ixf3 de 15 ..ic6+ Psakhis, USSR Ch 1 9S3; 15 'it'e2
'it>ffi 1 6 'it'e3 lita7 (149) 0-0 1 6 ll:le5 ..ixg2 1 7 'it>xg2 lit cS ) 1 5
 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 147

. . lt:Jfd7 ! 1 6 'iff4!? ( 1 6 'ifxg7 .if6

1 7 �h6 .ixa I 1 8 lt:Jxe5 =/ro
G reenfeld) 16 . . . 'ifb8 17 'ifg4 h5
m Miles-Georgiev, B elfort 1 9 83.

Also possible in this line is 14 . . .

tL1ed7 1 5 'ifxb8+ nxb8 1 6 .i e l ( l 6
.ixd6 .ixd6 1 7 n xd6 rt/e7 1 8
Ilad 1 b5 ! + Trosclair-G heorghiu,
New York 1 984; 16 .ib2 !? 0-0 1 7
t'i:ld4 .ixg2 1 8 rtlxg2 ll fe8 1 9 f4
t'iJg4 20 lt:Je2! lt:Je5 2 1 h 3 lt:Jf6 22
t'i:le3 b5 23 Ilacl t Ftaenik; but 23 14 lieS!
. . . b4! 24 lt:J e2 lt:Jfe4 =) 16 . . . ne8 a) 14 ... 'i!t'c8 15 lt:Ja4 ( 1 5 1i'e3 !?
17 .ib2 h 5 !? 18 h4 ( 1 8 h3) 18 . . . lt:Jfd7 Ftaenik) 1 5 . . . lt:Jfd7 ( 1 5 . . .
ne7 1 9 lt:Jg5 .ixg2 20 rt/xg2 0-0, lt:Jcd7 1 6 'ifb2 .ixa3 1 7 1!fxa3 b5
Ge orgiev-Ftaenik, Wijk aan Zee 18 cb ( ! ) ab 19 lt:Jd4! .ixg2 20
1 985. Instead of 17 . . . h5!?, 1 7 . . . lt:Jxb5 ± Korsunsky-Norgulev,
Ii:g8!? 1 8 lt:Je2 g5 1 9 lt:Je5 .ixg2 20 USSR 1977; 1 5 . . . lt:Jxa4 16 .ixe7
\t>xg2 lt:Jxe5 2 1 .ixe5 lt:Jd7! was rtlxe7 1 7 'ifd6+ ±) 1 6 '@xg7 .if6
equal in Pelts-Browne, New York 1 7 'it'h6 .i xa l 1 8 ll: x a 1 ( 1 8 lt:Jxc5!?
1986. lt:Jxc5 19 ll:xa I \!t'c7 20 lld1 lld8
d) 11 ... 0-0? 1 2 .ia3 lt:Je5 1 3 e5 de 2 1 Ile I ! ± Olafsson-Kinderrnann,
14 1!fxd8 nfxd8 1 5 lt:Jxe5 .ixg2 1 6 Reykjavik 1 982) 18 ... '@c7 1 9
$>xg2 .if8 (or 1 6 . . . Ilde8 1 7 lt:Ja4 lt:Jxc5 be 20 .ib2 lig8 2 1 1i'h7 ±
Ii:ab8 18 lt:Jxe5 be - /8 . . . .ixc5 / 9 Stean-Ligterink, Mar del Plata
.ixc5 nxc5 2 0 f4! b5 21 lld2 1982 .
Mednis - 1 9 .ib2 ! Ilb7 20 Ild3 b) 14 ... 't!t'xe5 1 5 lt:J xe5 .ixg5 1 6
rtlf8 2 1 llad 1 rtle8 22 f4 ± Pytel­ rtlxg2 llc8 , K rnic-Stoica, A thens
Krusyns ki, Poland 198 1) 17 .ixe5 ! 198 1 , and aside from 17 .txc5
be ( 1 7 . . . .ixe5? 1 8 lt:Ja4 rt/f8 19 b4! llxc5 18 f4 llc7 19 f5 t, Mednis
.ixb4 20 lt:Jxb6 .ic3 2 1 lt:Jxa8 n xa8 gives 1 7 .ib2 ! 0-0 18 rtlf3 t .
22 lt:J d7+! lt:Jxd7 23 ll:ac l ±±) 1 8 1 5 \!t' xc7
�a4 lld6 1 9 <M3 h5 20 h3 lla7 2 1 1 5 .ib2 h5!? 16 h3 .ic6 (or
g4 ± Ftacnik-Ambroz, H radec 16 . . . .ixf3 1 7 1!'xc7 ll: xc7 1 8 .ixf3
Kralove 198 1 . h4 ro B rowne) 1 7 1!fxc7 Ilxc7 1 8
1 2 .ia3 lt:Jc5 lt:Je5 .ixg2 \12-\12 I vanka-Browne,
13 e5 de Las Vegas 1986. 15 .tc I " ! " �xe5
14 'ifxe5 (/50) 1 6 lt:Jxe5 .ixg2 17 rtlxg2 lt:Jcd 7 1 8
148 Queen's In dian and Hedgehog

lt:lxd7 lt:l xd 7 1 9 lt:l e4 llc6 20 i.f4 11 lt:ld4 1t'c7

;!:: (Kengis) needs tests. 12 b3 (15 1)
IS lil xc7
16 i.cl /5/

A clever t ry wh ich threatens

i.f4 and lt:le 5.
16 lt:lfe4 !
1 6 . . . lt:lcd7 1 7 i.f4 lieS 1 8 a4 !?
(perhaps 18 lt:le5 i.xg2 1 9 �xg2,
e.g. 19 . . . b5 20 llac l lt:l xe5 2 1
i.xe5 be 22 lt:la4; 1 9 . . . i.a3 !?) 1 8
. . . i.b4 1 9 lt:l a2 i.c5 20 lt:le5 i. xg2
21 �xg2 lt:lxe5 22 i.xe5 ;!: I vanov­
Browne, Los Angeles 1 98 1 . This line has been dominated by
1 7 lt::lx e4 i.xe4 Uhlmann's al most exclusive use of
18 i.f4 lilc8 it over the last decade. For the
19 i.d6 most part, other players have
1 9 i.e 5 f6 20 i.d6 lt:lb7 shied away from the variation,
Gutman. either because they mistrusted
19 lt:ld3 !? White's c hances or because they
Not 19 ... llc6? 20 i.xe7 �xe7 simply didn't feel up to defending
2 1 b4 lt:l a4 22 lt:le5 i.xg2 23 lld7+! against the (often devastating)
�e8 24 llad 1 ±±: Gutman-de Black counterattacks which can
Firm ian, Lone Pi ne 198 1 . But also arise after . . . b5 and/or . . . d5 .
possible is 19 . . . i.f6 ( !), e .g. 20 Theoretically, the line may be
lt:le5 lt:lb7 ! 21 f4 lt:lxd6 22 ll xd6 better than its l ac k of popularity
i.e7 ! 23 lldd 1 i.xg2 24 �xg2 f6 would i ndicat e.
25 lt:lf3 i.c5 Andersson-Browne­
= 12 lt:lbd7
Naestved 1 985. 1 2 . . . lt:lc6 13 i.b2 lilfd8 ( 1 3 . . .
After 19 . . . lt:ld3, Gutman­ llfe8) 1 4 lil a c l lt:l xd4 1 5 1t'xd4 ;!:,
Lj ubojevic, Biel 1 985, went 20 e.g. 1 5 . . . i.f8 1 6 h3 l:i ac8 1 7 �h2
i.xe7 �xe7 21 lt:ld4 i.xg2 22 lile8 1 8 lUd 1 i.a8 19 i.a3 liled8
�xg2 lt:le5 23 lild2 llhd8 24 lil ad 1 20 f4 ;!: Uhlmann-Tarjan, Skopje
�e8 25 �fl lt:lc6 26 �e2 . Gutman 1976.
calls this ";!::� , but it is no more than 13 i.b2 l:ife8
a drawn ending. Played exclusively now, although
A42332 1 3 . . . lilad8 is not unthin kable.
10 1t'e3 0-0 14 l:ifel
 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 149

Not even in the first edition, this (with the idea ll:la4) 25 . . . lLl eS 26
has become Uhlmann's m ain idea. ll:le3 i.g7 27 lled2 b5 28 ll:le2! tl ±
If Black plays . . . d5 at any point, Uhlmann-Grunberg, Dresden 19S5.
White is ready to answer with e5 . 16 1rd2 g6
a) 1 4 lit acl ll ac8 1 5 h3 'it'bS 1 6 g4, 16 . . . ll:lc5 17 lld 1 ll:lg4 !? ( 1 7 . . .
Uhlmann-Ribli, Manila I Z 1 9 76, 1!ibS) 1 S ll:l c 2 g 6 transposes.
and now 16 . . . g6! 17 ct>h l .US I S 17 ll d 1 ll:lc5
f4 e5 (Stean). 1 S ll:lc2 ll:lg4 19 ll:le3 ! ( 1 9 .ta 1
b) 14 ct>h1 i.f8 15 f4 g6 1 6 litae I i.g7 20 ll:le3 ll:l xe3 2 1 1!1xe3 .tc6 =
i.g7 1 7 1!id2 ( 1 7 h3? e5! - or 1 7 . . . Uhlmann-Gheorghiu, East Ger­
llad8 18 g4 e5 + Uhlmann-Szabo, many v Romania 1 9S4) 19 . . . i.h6
Bucharest l979 - IS ll:lc2 ef 19 1!1xf4 20 f4 ll:l xe3 21 �xe3 i.g7 ( 2 1 . . . e5
ll:lc5! 20 ll:lb4 ll:lh5 2 1 '@f2 '@d7 22 li:ld5) 22 b4 li:ld7 23 lit ed2 lLlbS
=F Stefanov-Gheorghiu, Romanian 24 .tfl i. f8 25 �d4 ! e5 26 �f2 ±
Ch 1 97S) 17 . . . e5 !? ( 1 7 . . . ll adS ! =) Uhlmann-Womacka, East German
1 S ll:lc2 ef 1 9 1!1xf4 ll:lc5 (?) ( 1 9 . . . Ch 1 9S6. A still unresolved line.
ll:le5 2 0 litd I h6! ) 2 0 ll:lb4 ± A4234
Uhlmann-A.Rodriguez, Halle 1976. 9 i.g5 (152)
c) 14 h3 i.fS 1 5 llfe1 ll adS ( 1 5 . . .
litacS 1 6 lle2 '@bS 1 7 1!id2 ll:lc5 1 S
litd 1 1!1aS 1 9 '@e 1 " ! t Uhlmann­
�

Vaiser, Be rlin 1 9S2) 1 6 ll e2 ( 1 6

llad 1 �bS 1 7 �c 1 ll:lc5 1 S �b 1
'@aS 1 9 f3 '@bS 20 f4 e5 + was
Uhlmann-Akesson, Polanica Zdroj
1 9 S 1 ) 1 6 . . . '@bS 1 7 llae1 g6 1 S �d2
ll:lc5 (or 1 S . . . i.g7 1 9 �d 1 ltJc5 =
Hiibner-Kasparov, Tilburg 1 9S 1 )
1 9 �d 1 '@aS !? 20 ll:lc2 i.g7 2 1
i.a 1 h5 22 b4 li:lcd7 2 3 �xd6 h4 ! After all the messy lines had
24 g4 ll:lc5 25 �xb6 li:ld3 =Iro been played a while, this simplifying
Uhlmann-Adorjan, Budapest 19S2. posi tional line became popular.
14 i.f8 The result was dramatic: after years
15 lite2 llad8 of high fashion, the H edgehog was
1 5 . . . llac8 1 6 lld 1 �S 1 7 �d2 replaced as the main 1 . . . c5 vari­
ll:lc5 1 S i.a 1 '@aS 19 f3 :U. edS 20 ation (by the Double Fianchetto
ct>h 1 g6 2 1 '@e3 i. g7 22 :U.ed2 liteS of the next chapter). This was
23 1!1f2 i.h6 24 lite2 lledS 25 ll:l c2 ! apparently not due to any clear
150 Queen's In dian and Hedgehog

advantage produced by 9 .i,g5, llad 1 �0 1 4 b3 li:Jd7 ! 1 5 li:Je4 .i.e7

but because it denies Black the = Hebert-Greenfeld, Thessaloniki
type of game he wants. 01 1984) 1 3 . . . 0-0 14 lld2 lld7 1 5
9 a6 llc1 't!fc7 1 6 b 3 llc8 1 7 a4 li:Jc6 1 8
9 . . . 0-0 1 0 lHd l li:Jbd7 ( 1 0 . . . 't!t'xc6 'itxc6 1 9 .i.xc6 llxc6 20 li:Ja2 !
li:Jc6 1 1 't!t'd3 t ) 1 1 li:Jb 5 was ex­ ;!; Andersson-Browne, Tilburg 1982.
am ined in 'A4232' above. 9 . . . b) 11 ... lla7 12 llad1 ..ie7 13 li:Je4
h6? 1 0 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 1 1 't!t'd3 a6 1 2 .i.xe4 14 't!t'xe4 li[c7 15 b3 was
lUd 1 .i.e7 1 3 li:Je4 d5 ( 1 3 . . . ..txe4) Andersson-Langeweg, Wijk aan
14 cd ..i xd5 1 5 li:Jc3 .i.c6 16 't!t'c4 ! Zee 1 98 1 , and now Cebalo gives
and 1 7 li:Je5 wins. 1 5 . . . li:Jc6! 16 li:Jd4 li:Jxd4 =.
10 .i.xf6! c) 1 1 0-0 1 2 llad 1 ( 1 2 llfd 1 .i.e7
...

A move I called "uninspired" in 1 3 li:Je4 .i.xe4 14 'it'xe4 lila7 1 5

the first edition! 10 Iilfd1 li:Jbd7 li:Jd4 't!t'c8 1 6 b 3 JileS 1 7 a4!? 1tc5
1 1 li:Jd2 !? is relatively untested; oo Karpov-Kasparov, USSR 198 1 )
best seems 1 1 . . . .i.xg2 1 2 <t>xg2 �0 1 2 . . . .i.e 7 1 3 li:Je4 .i.xe4 1 4 'ti'xe4
13 li:J de4 'itc 7! 1 4 li:Jxd6 lHd8 with li[a 7 1 5 li:J d4 1tc8 ( 1 5 . . . lld7 16 b3
counterplay, e .g. 1 5 li:Jde4 't!t'c6 1 6 .i.f6 17 a4 ;t Nogueiras-Pazos, Cuba
0 h6! = . 1984) 1 6 b3 1!t'c 5 1 7 a4 llc7 1 8 lld2
10 .i.xf6 'ti'e5 ( 1 8 . . . li:Jd7 1 9 li:Jxe6 ! ±) 19
11'itd3 (154) 'ir'b 1 llfc8 20 ll fd 1 li:Jd7? ( 20 . . . g6)
More popular than 1 1 't!t'f4 (153) 21 b4 ! ! g6 ( 2 1 . . . ll xc4 22 .i.b7) 22
b5 ab 23 cd d5 24 li:Jc6 ±± Kavalek­
/53 Velikov, Solingen v Slavia 1984.
B

a) 1 1 hf3 1 2 't!t'xO ( 1 2 .i.xf3

...

lla7 1 3 llfd 1 .i.e5 1 4 't!t'd2 0-0 1 5

ll ac I b5?! 1 6 't!fe3 ! ;!; K arpov­ 11 lla7
Browne, Bath 1983; 1 5 . . . 'ite7 a) 1 1 ... .i.xf3 1 2 e f! ? ( 1 2 .i.xf3 ;!;)
Karpov) 1 2 . . . li[ a7 1 3 llfd 1 ( 1 3 1 2 . . . lla7 1 3 f4 0-0 1 4 llad 1 .i. xc3 !?
 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 151

( 1 4 . . . :U.d7 1 5 fS ! ) 1 5 't!t'xc3 :U. d7 1 6 14 ... :U.c7 1 5 f4 ! (threatening f5)

h4! 'tlt'c7 1 7 h 5 ± Ni kolic-De�e. 1 5 . . . ll:l c6 ( 1 5 . . . g6 G reenfeld; 1 6
Novi Sad 1 982. e4!?) 1 6 ll:l xc6 ( 1 6 f5 ( ! ) ll:l e 5 1 7
b) 1 1 ... 0-0? 1 2 :U.fd l i.. e7 1 3 ll:lg5 't!t'e4 :U.xc4 1 8 fe fe 1 9 b3! Greenfeld)
i.. xg5 14 i.. x b7 lla7 1 5 i.. e4 ! f5 16 . . . 't!t'a8 ! 17 :U.f3 't!t'xc6 18 b3
16 i.. g2 :U.d7 1 7 f4 i.. f6 1 8 e4 ± 0-0, Ehlvest-Greenfeld, Groningen
Vaganian-Htibner, Thessaloniki 01 1 98 2-83, and now 19 e4 is t.
1 984. 15 f4 g6
c) 1 1 ... 't!t'c7 is a good alternative, 1 5 . . . ll:lc6 1 6 f5!? ll:le5 1 7 't!t'e4
e.g. 12 :U.fd I i.. e7 1 3 ll:le4 0-0 1 4 0-0 1 8 fe fe 1 9 :U.xf8+ i.. x f8 20 ll:lf3
ll:lfg5 g6 ( 1 4 . . . :U.d8 1 5 ll:lc5 ! i) 1 5 ll:l xc4 2 1 b3 ll:le5 22 ll:lxe5 i was
't!t'd4 h 6 ! 1 6 lLl f3 i..xe4 ! 1 7 't!t'xe4 Dorfm an-Psakhis, USSR Ch 1 984;
ll:lc6 1 8 :U.ac l Y:! - Y:! Tal-Browne, or 1 5 . . . :U.c7 ! ? 1 6 f5 e5 (?), Ni kolic­
Taxco IZ 1 9 8 5. More common is Ribli, Novi S ad 1982, when Nikolic
1 2 :U. ad l i.. e7 1 3 ll:l d4 i.. x g2 1 4 gives 1 7 f6! ed ( 1 7 . . . i.. f6 18 ll:lf5)
<t>xg2 ll:lc6 1 5 f4 ll:lxd4 ( 1 5 . . . 0-0 18 fg :U.g8 I 9 't!t'xh7 ±± .
1 6 ll:l xc6 't!t'xc6 17 :U.f3 b5 = Welin­ 16 b3
Browne, Reykjavik 1 986; 16 f5 !? I 6 f5 !? gf I7 e4 fe I 8 ll:lxe4 f5
or 16 b3) 16 1hd4 0-0 1 7 f5 ( 1 7 (forced) I 9 ll:lg5 !? ( I 9 lixf5 !? gf 20
:U. f3 ! ? Ftacnik) 1 7 . . . :U. ac8 ( 1 7 . . . ll:lf5 'ii'c6 ! ; I9 ll:l c3 ll:l c6 ! 20 't!t'e2
i.. f6 1 8 'tlt'xd6 'tlt'b7+! =/ro or 1 7 ll:lxd4 = Tal-Gavrikov, Tallinn
. . . 'it'b7+ Ftacnik) 1 8 fe fe 1 9 'ii'g4 I985) 19 . .. i.. g 5 20 ll:l xe6 1Wxe6 2 I
1Wxc4 20 :U.d4 't!t'c6+ 2 1 :U.e4 =/ro :U.de i 't!t'xe i 2 2 :U.xe l + :U.e7 23 't!t'd4
Ftacnik-Browne, Naestved 1985. :U.g8 24 :U.xe7+ <t>xe7 ! 25 'ii' xb6
d) 11 ... i.. e7 12 :U.fd 1 ll:le7 13 ll:le4 ll:ld7 26 'ii' xa6 =/oo Tal-Short,
i.. xe4 14 't!t'xe4 :U.c8 1 5 :U. ac 1 0-0 1 6 Naestved 1985.
ll:ld4 i.. f6 1 7 b 3 'ii' c7 1 8 :U.cd2 i 16 0- 0
Htibner-Lj ubojevic, London 1982. About equal, although: 1 7 h4!?
12 :U.ad1 i..e 7 b5!? 18 cb :U.c7 I 9 :U.f3 e5? 20 ll:ld5 ! !
1 3 ll:ld4 'tlt'b7 (20 . . . e d 2 I :U. c l ! ) 2 1 b 6 't!t'xd5
1 3 ll:le4 0-0 14 :U.d2 ( 1 4 ll:lxd6? 22 be ±± Greenfeld-Pasman, Beer­
i.. xf3 1 5 i..x f3 :U.d7) 14 . . . 't!t'c7 1 5 Sheva I 984.
ll:leg5 !? ( 1 5 :U.fd 1 ! ?) 1 5 . . . g6 1 6 h4 Probably Black can equalize
ll:ld7 17 b3 ll:lf6 1 8 ll:ld4 i.. xg2 1 9 after 9 i.. g5, and often the i end­
<t>xg2 Wb 7 + 2 0 f3 d5 = S myslov­ i ngs are theoretically drawn. But
Short, Montpellier 1 985. very seldom does Black achieve
13 i..x g2 the active play he gets in other
14 <t>xg2 'ii'c 8!? lines.
152 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog

8 lLlc5 1 3 llfd 1 lLlxe4 1 4 lLlxe4 lLlxe4

6 a6 (155) 1 5 11t'xe4 llb8 1 6 J.f4 ! ± .
c ) 9 J. gS J.e7 transposes to 'A4234';
155 or 9 . . . lLlbd7 1 0 lLld2 J.xg2 1 1
w �xg2 J.e7 1 2 lLlde4 11t'c7 1 3 llfd 1
0-0! 1 4 lld2 ( 1 4 lLlxd6 llfd8) 1 4
. . . llfd8 = was Dr� ko-Griinberg,
Polanica Zdroj 1985.
81
9 b3 lLlbd 7 !
9 ... J.e7? ! 1 0 J.a3! lLlc6 ( 1 0 . . .
�0? 1 1 ll fd 1 lLle8 1 2 lLle4 lLlc6 1 3
11t'd2 d5? 1 4 cd J.xa3 1 5 de! 11t'xd2
7 d4 1 6 li:lfxd2 ± Zuckerman-8enjamin,
7 b3 d6 (7 . . . J.e7? 8 d4 cd 9 New York 1 979; 1 2 . . . d5 1 3 J.xe7
11t'xd4 d6 1 0 J.a3 ! is looked at 1!rxe7 14 cd J.xd5 1 5 lLlc3 ±±
below; 7 ... d5 8 cd lLlxd5 9 lLlxd5 Zuckerman) 1 1 11f4 ;!;, e.g. 1 1 . . .
and 9 . . . 11t'xd5 1 0 J.b2 or 9 . . . ed 1 0 11t'c7 1 2 llac1 lLle5 1 3 llfd 1 ;!;
d 4 ;t ) 8 J.b2 ( 8 e 3 J.e7 9 d 4 lla7! =) 8enko-Diesen, Lone Pine 1976, or
8 . . . J.e7 9 d4 cd 10 lLlxd4 ( 1 0 1 1 . . . 11t'b8 12 lilfd 1 d5 1 3 J.xe7
11t'xd4 is 'A') 1 0 . . . J.xg2 1 1 �xg2 lLlxe7 1 4 lLle5 ;!;.
�0 1 2 e4 ( 1 2 'it'd3 't/c7 =) 1 2 . . . 10 lild1 J.e7
11t'c7 1 3 f4 lbc6!? ( 1 3 . . . lle8!?; 1 3 Or 10 .. . 'iVb8 1 1 J.a3 li:lc5 =
. . . 'tlt'b7) 1 4 lLl O 'tlt'b7 1 5 11t'e2 llfe8 Seirawan-Fedorowicz, USA 1 977.
1 6 llad 1 oo 8ronstein-Kalinchev, 1 1 J.a3 lLlc5
M oscow 1 982. 1 2 b4 lLlcd7!? 13 b5 lLlc5 1 4 11t'e3
7 cd ab 1 5 lLlxb5, Uhlmann-Rogoff,
8 11t'xd4 d6 8iel I Z 1 976, and now Rogoff gives
8 1 9 b3 15 ... 11t'b8 !. Moreover, 1 2 . . . lLlce4(!)
82 9 lld 1 and 13 lLlxe4 li:lxe4 14 'tlt'xg7 J.f6
a) 9 e4 J.e7 1 0 b3 lLlbd7 1 1 J.a3 or 1 3 lLla4 lLl d7 looks good.
'tlt'b8 1 2 llad 1 lLlc5 is 'A4233 1 ' ( 1 1 82
. . . 'tlt'bS ) . 9 lild1
b) 9 J.e3 lLlbd7 1 0 lLl g 5 J.xg2 1 1 821 9 ... lLl bd7
�xg2, Sahovic-Gipslis, Jurm ala 8 22 9 . . . J.e7
1978, and now 1 1 . . . 11t'c7 1 2 lLlge4 8 21
lld8 or 1 1 . . . ll c8 1 2 lLlge4 ll c6 is 9 lLlbd7
better t han 1 1 . . . J.e7? 1 2 li:lge4 10 lOgS J.xg2
 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 153

11 �x g 2 (156) 1 0 lt:lgS
1 0 b3 lt:l bd7 transposes to 'A';
/56 or here 10 . . . 0-0? 1 1 i.a3! lt:lc6 1 2
B 1rf4 d 5 1 3 cd (or 1 3 i.b2!? intending
1 3 . . . i.d6 1 4 cd lt:lxd5 ! 1 5 "tlt'g4
lt:lf6 1 6 "tn14 with an attack) 1 3 . . .
e d ( 1 3 . . . lt:lxd5 1 4 lt:lxd5 i.xa3 or
14 i.xe7 "tlt'xe7 is a better try) 1 4
i.xe7 lt:lxe7 1 5 lil:ac l lil:e8 1 6 l!Ja4
± Ftacnik-Suba, Sochi 1 977.
10 i.x g2
1 1 �xg2 lt:lc6
11 i.e7 1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2 lt:lce4 lil:a7 13 lt:lxf6+
a) 1 1 ... "tlrc7 1 2 lt:lge4 l!Jxe4 1 3 i.xf6 14 "tlt'g4 i.e7 1 5 h4 lt:ld7 1 6
lt:lxe4 lt:le 5 1 4 b3 lil:d8 ! 1 5 i.e3! b 5 b3 lt:lf6 1 7 'tWO lil:d7 1 8 i.b2 ;t
1 6 "tlt'b6 ± Larsen-Gheorghiu, Las Adorj an-Lau, Plovdiv 1983.
Palmas 1 976. 12 "tlt'f4 lil:a7
b) 1 1 ... lil:c8!? 1 2 lt:lge4 lil:c6 1 3 13 b3
i.g5 !? ( 1 3 i.f4 lt:lxe4! 1 4 "t!t'xe4!? 1 3 lt:lge4 ( 1 3 lt:lce4 0-0 1 4 lt:lxf6+
\12- \12 Adorjan-Sub a, Prague 1985; i.xf6 1 5 'ti'g4 'ti'c7!? - 15 . . . lil:d7 -
14 ... "tlrc7 1 5 b3 lt:lf6 with the idea 1 6 "it'e4 g6 1 7 i.f4 t Robatsch­
. . . b5 could follow. 14 lt:lxe4!?, e .g. G . Garcia, M alta 1 98 1 ) 1 3 . . . lil:d7
14 . . . e5 1 5 "tlt'd5 "t!t'c7 16 i.e3 i.e7 1 4 i.e3 lt:le5 ( 1 4 . . . 0-0 1 5 lt:l a4 b5
may favour White) 1 3 . . . i.e7 1 4 16 lt:lb6 lil:b7 1 7 lt:lxf6+ Horvath)
lt:lxf6+ lt:lxf6 1 5 lLle4 0- 0 1 6 lt:lxf6+ 15 lt:lxf6+ i.xf6 was Horvath­
i.xf6 1 7 i.xf6 "tlt'xf6 1 8 "tixf6 gf 19 Schneider, Hungary 1 984, and now
lld4 !. Horvath gives 1 6 "tlt'e4! ± with
12 lt:lge4 0-0 ! the idea lt:la4, but this is not very
The typical gambit idea. Horvath­ convincing.
IIijin, Virovitica 198 1 , continued 13 0-0
1 3 lt:lxd6 "t!t'c7 1 4 lt:lde4 ( 14 i.f4 ! ?) 14 i.b2 lil:d7
14 . . . lil:ad8 1 5 i.e3!? ( 1 5 lt:lxf6+ A position where White still has
Ilijin, but 1 5 . . . lt:l xf6 1 6 11t'h4 lt:ld5 chances to exert pressure, e.g. 1 5
or 1 5 . . . i.xf6 !? is unclear) 1 5 ... lt:lce4 lt:le8 1 6 lt:lf3 ( 1 6 lil:ac l h6 1 7
lt:lg4 ! 16 i.f4 lt:lde5 1 7 lt:ld5 ed 18 lt:lf3 'ti'b8 1 8 � g l 'ti'b7 1 9 "it'd2 !
cd =/oo. Ornstein-Ftacnik, Trnava 1 983)
822 16 . . . b5 ( 1 6 . . . "tia8 1 7 �gl lil: d8
9 i.e7 1 8 'ti'e3 b5 1 9 lil: ac 1 ;t Adorj an-
/54 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog

Schneider, Hu ngarian Ch 1 984) 1985.

17 ct>g l ! be 1 8 be ll:la5 1 9 li[ac l Thus an early ... a6 creates certain
li[c7 20 lil de2 't!t'c8 2 1 .ta3 e5 22 problems for Black , apparently
't!t'e3 ± Adorjan-Rohde, New York without corresponding benefits.
 12 Double Fianchetto Defence

1 c4 c5 An extraordinarily popular vari­

2 lt:lf3 lt:lf6 ation at the highest levels, at least
2 . . . g6 3 g3 (3 d4 cd 4 lt:lxd4 .tg7 for the moment. It retains many
5 e4 is a S icilian) 3 . . . b6 4 .tg2 .tb7 of the structural features of the
5 0-0 .tg7 6 d 3 !? lt:lh6!? 7 lt:lc3 0-0 Hedgehog without as much risk
8 .t d2 f5 9 ll b i lt:lf7 = Feustei­ (no initial weakness on d6, for one
Nicolaiczu k, West Ge rman Ch thing). The reader should n ote,
1978. however, that the Double Fian­
3 g3 b6 chet to can be conveniently used
4 .tg2 .tb7 only against 2 lt:lf3 , as (e.g.) 2 lt:lc3
5 �0 lt:lf6 3 g3 renders 3 . . . b6 ineffec­
5 lt:lc3 g6 can be independent in tive , whereas 2 lt:lc3 b6 allows
the line 6 b3 d5 (!) 7 cd .tg7 8 .tb2 3 e4 .tb7 4 lt:lf3 intending d4, as
lt:lxd5 9 t!t'c i (9 0-0 lt:l c6 10 ll b i ?! outlined in Chapter 9.
lt:lc7! + Andersson-Korchnoi , Sao A 6 ll:l c3
Paulo I 979; 10 d4 lt:l xc 3 ! I I .txc3 8 6 b3
lt:ld4 +lro) 9 . . . 0-0 10 lt:lxd5 1!hd5 6 d3 .tg7 7 e4 will transpose to
I I .txg7 �xg7 I 2 t!t'c3+ f6 I 3 0-0 'A2', and 6 d4 cd 7 t!t'xd4 .tg7 will
lt:lc6 I4 llfe l e5 + Ivkov-Tukmakov, transpose to 'A I '. Korchnoi-Miles,
Lugano I 985. Tilburg I985, saw 6 e 3 .tg7 7 d4 cd
5 g6 (15 7) (7 . . . 0-0 8 d5 b5 Miles) 8 ed 't!t"c8 !?
(I gave 8 . . . d5 9 lt:le5 t!t'c8 = i n the
157 first edition) 9 lt:la3 d5 10 lle I de
w I I t!t'a4+ lt:l bd7 1 2 1Wxc4 a6 ! 1 3
t!t'e2 0-0! =.
A
6 lt:lc3 .tg7
A I 7 d4
A2 7 d3
S low is 7 ll b i ? ! lt:lc6 8 b3 0-0
9 .tb2 d5 =!+ Andersson-Larsen,
Copenhagen I977; or 7 e3 0-0 8 d4
 156 Double Fianchello Defence

cd 9 ed lt:lc6 1 0 ..if4!? lt:la5 1 1 b3 ll b l 0-0 1 5 lt:lc3 , Vadasz- Ftacnik,

d5 12 lt:le5 1l c8, a t leas t =, Eising­ Zalaegerszeg 1 979, when Ftacnik
Keene, Ma nnheim 1 975. gives 15 . . . lD xc3 ! 1 6 .txc3 .txc3
A1 1 7 be 1!rc8 =.
7 d4 8 .txe4
A l l 7 . . . lt:le4 9 d5 0-0
A l 2 7 . . . cd a) I gave 9 ... b5 as best, but Renman­
All Ornstein, Swedish Ch 1 984, went
7 lt:le4 (158) 10 cb ( 10 lt:ld2 .txg2 I I �xg2 'ti'b6
1 2 e4 0-0 1 3 h4 lt:la6 = Schmidt­
/58 Ornstein, Erevan 1976) 1 0 . . . 1!rb6
w I I 4Jd2! ( 1 1 a4 a6 1 2 a5 1!rxb5 1 3
lt:ld4 c d 1 4 .txe4 d6 = ) I I . . . .txg2
1 2 �xg2 1!t'xb5 1 3 1!rb 3 ! 'ti'a6 !? ( 1 3
. . . 1!rxe2 1 4 lt:lc4 lt:la6 1 5 .tf4 and
1lae l ; 13 ... 1!rxb3 1 4 ab d6 1 5 lbc4
lt:ld7 1 6 1l a6 :t) 1 4 lt:lc4 d6 1 5 ..id2
lt:ld7 16 .tc3 lt:lf6?! ( 1 6 . . . li[ b8??
1 7 .txg7; 1 6 . . . .txc3 1 7 1!rxc3 0-0)
17 li[ad I 0-0 1 8 .txf6! .txf6 19 'ti'c2
8 lt:lxe4 li[lb8 20 b3 with all the play.
a ) 8 1!rd3 lt:lxc3 ( 8 . . . f5 !? 9 lt:lg5 cd b) 9 e5 10 1!t'b3 0-0 I I ..ih3 ..txf3
•..

1 0 lt:lcxe4 f) 9 be 0-0 1 0 e4 (" 1 0 d5 12 1!t'xf3 f5 1 3 e4 f4!? ( 1 3 . . . 1!t'f6

wi th a spatial advantage" Ivanov) Karpov) 1 4 1!t'd l d6 1 5 .id2 a5 1 6
10 . . . cd ( 1 0 . . . d6 1 1 .te3 lt:lc6 1 2 'ti'a4 ± Karpov-Timman, Brussels
lt:ld2 e5 - 1 2 . . . e6!? - 1 3 d5 lt:l e7 1 4 1986.
f4 t Pfleger-Gligoric, M anila 1974) 10 .th3
1 1 cd d6 1 2 ..ig5 lt:lc6 1 3 li[ac I lil:c8 Threatening lt:ld2. Not 10 h4
14 li[fd l li[c7 1 5 1!re3 1!t'a8 1 6 ..ih6 b5! =, but 1 0 'ti'b3 is promising,
=leo Ivanov-Miles, Lucerne 01 e.g. 10 . . . e6 I I ..ih3 t or I I ..ig5 :t.
1982. 10 .txf3
b) 8 4Jd5!? lt:lc6 (8 . . . 0-0 9 lt:lg5 ! 11 ef e6 (159)
lt:ld6 1 0 ..if4 :t; 8 . . . e 6 9 lt:lf4 d5? I I . . . e5 !? 1 2 f4 !? ( 1 2 li[e l ) 1 2 . . .
1 0 de be I I lt:ld2! lt:lf6 1 2 cd lt:lxd5 e f 1 3 .txf4 ..ixb2 1 4 li[ b l ..if6 1 5
13 lt:le4 ± G reenfeld-K arolyi, 't!Va4, Karpov-Timman, Amster­
Groningen 1 9 8 1 ) 9 dc bc 1 0 lt:le l !? dam 1 98 1 , is assessed as =/co by
f5 l l lt:l d3 a6 1 2 lt:ldf4 ..tc8 ( 1 2 . . . Timman; in the game, 1 5 . . . d6 1 6
li[d7 1 3 4Je6! ) 1 3 ..td2!? ..id7 1 4 ll b l h 5 ! 1 7 lle l g 5 1 8 li[ be3! gf
 Double Fianchetto Defence /57

1 9 lii: e 8 b5 ! 20 't!Yxb5 't!Yb6 =I CD a ) 8 ... 0-0 9 1i'h4 d6 1 0 .ih6 ( 1 0

followed. Timman suggested 1 6 .ig5 ! ? ll:lbd7 I I lii: fd l ; 1 0 lii: d l
li fe I (! ) and 1 6 . . . h 5 1 7 .ih6 .ig7 ll:lbd7 l l .ie3 llc8 1 2 lii: a c l a6 1 3
1 8 .ixg7 'ii?x g7 1 9 lii: e 3 etc, or 1 6 . . . b 3 ll e8 1 4 't!Yh3 ! :;!; planning lLld4
a6 1 7 :Iii: b3 :Iii: a 7 1 8 lii: be 3 lii: e 7 1 9 Pekarek-Ambroz, Prague 1986)
l:Ixe7 .ixe7 20 .ih6 lii: e8 2 1 lii: e 3 ! 10 .. . lLl bd7 I I lii: a c I lii: c 8 12 b3
with ongoing pressure. llc5 1 3 .ixg7 'it'xg7 14 lii: fd l �
Schmidt- Barle, Pula 1975.
!59
w
b) 8 . . . d6! (160) (Adorjan's move)

12 lii:e 1 !
" 1 2 f4!" Filip. 1 2 lii: b 1 a 5 ( 1 2 . . .
ed 1 3 't!Yxd5 ll:J c6 1 4 .ig5 .if6 1 5 9 lii: d l ll:lbd7 10 b3 ( 1 0 't!Yh4 lii: c8
.ih6 lii: e8 CD Seirawan-Miles, Lone with the idea . . . lii: c5) 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1
Pine 1 978) 1 3 .ie3 ( 1 3 f4) 1 3 . . . i.b2 lii: c 8 (or 1 1 . . . a6 in tending 1 2
l:I a 7 1 4 't!Yd2 ll e8 = Levitina­ lii: a cl b5; 1 2 't!Yf4!?) 1 2 't!Ye3 ( 1 2
Alexandria, Dubna 1983. lii: ac l a6 1 3 ll:Jd5 b5! = Donaldson­
12 .id4 Gurevich, New York 1 985) 12 . . .
The problem is that now 1 2 . . . lii: e8 1 3 lii: a c l a 6 1 4 .ia l lii: c5 ! 1 5
e d 1 3 't!Yxd5 ll:Jc6 1 4 .ig5 .if6 1 5 a4 't!Ya8 1 6 ll:Je 1 lii: f5 ! 1 7 .i xb7
i.h6 is strong. After 1 2 . . . .id4, 1i'xb7 1 8 f3 h5 = ( or 18 . . . d5 =)
Korchnoi-Panno, Lucerne 1985, Karpov-Kasparov, match (23) 1986.
went 1 3 .i h6 lii:e 8 14 1i'a4 a6 ( 14 . . . 9 't!Yf4
..txb2 1 5 llad l !) 1 5 f4 11 47 1 6 a) 9 't!fh4 h6 ! 1 0 ll:Jd4 ( 1 0 ll:ld5 lii: c8
llad l :tl ± . = or 1 0 . . . e6 =) I 0 . . . g5 ( 10 . . . lii: c 8
All I I lii: d I g5?! 1 2 ll:Jxc6 .ixc6 1 3
7 cd 1t'd4 .ixg2 1 4 'i!7xg2 :;!; Greenfeld­
A 1 2 1 8· 1i'xd4 E.Gudmundsson, Groningen 1 982-
A l 22 8 ll:l xd4 83) I I ll:Jxc6 de 1 2 't!Yh 3 1i'd7 =
Al21 Donaldson-Lengyel, S trasbourg
8 1i'xd4 ll:Jc6 1985.
 158 Double Fianchetto Defen ce

b) 9 1i'd3 li[c8 1 0 e4 �g4 was equal idea 1 7 ... �xg4 18 1i'f4 ..tf6 1 9
in Korchnoi-Miles, Baden-Baden 1i'xg4 �g7 20 �d4! keeps an edge.
198 1 . A l 22
9 lil:c8 8 �xd4 ..t xg2
9 . . . �a5 10 b3 0-0 with the idea 9 � xg2 (1 61)
I I l:[d I e5! Shamkovich . 9 . . . 0-0
10 1i'h4!? �a5 I I ..tg5 ( I I b3 �h5!
Kengis) I I ... lilc8 12 b3 lic5! 1 3
li[ac l h6 = Kengis-Ma karichev,
Moscow 1 986.
10 lid1
10 b3 � e4 ( 10 . . . 0-0) I I 1i'xe4
..txc3 1 2 li[ b l ..tg7 13 1i'h4 h6 1 4
..tb2 ;t S myslov-Ko hlweyer, Dort­
mund 1986.
10 �a5!? Now Black can head for a some­
No t best, perhaps, but most what passive ending, or take his
exciti ng. Either 10 . . . 0-0 I I 1i'h4!? chances in the middl egame:
�a5 12 b3 lil c5 1 3 ..ta3 lif5 ! = A l 22 1 9 . . . 1i'c8
Velez-Lebredo, Cuban Ch 198 1 , A l 222 9 . . . 0-0
or 1 0 . . . �h5 I I 'tWe3 �b4 1 2 l:[ b l a) 9 . . . �c6 is less effective due to
li[xc4 1 3 �e 5 ..txe5 1 4 1i'xe 5 f6 1 5 1 0 �c2 0-0 I I e4, e.g. I I . . . ltle8 1 2
1i'b5 ..ta6 1 6 1i'a4 =/ro is playable. ..td2 �d6 1 3 1i'e2 1i'c8 1 4 lilad l ;!;
11 b3 b5 Yermolinsky-Eingorn, USSR 1982.
No t I I . . . �e4? 12 �e5 ! ± , and b) 9 . . . 1i'c7 10 b3 0-0 I I e4 trans­
I I . . . �h5 12 1i'e3 b5 transposes. poses to 9 . . . 0-0.
12 �xb5! �h5 A l221
13 1i'e3 ..txa 1 9 1!Vc8
14 �d6+ �f8 10 b3
15 �xeS ..txc8 A fascinating alternative is 10
16 g4 ..tg5 !?, as in Agudelo-Rodriguez,
Analysis by Panno, who gives Envigado 1 983: 1 0 . . . 1!Vxc4 ( 1 0 . . .
16 0 0 0 �g7 1 7 ..ta3 ..tf6 1 8 g5 �f5 h 6 I I ..txf6 ..txf6 1 2 �d5) I I l:[ c l
19 gf! ± . But Donaldson-Kouatly, 0-0 ( I I . . . �c6!? 1 2 � cb5 1i'd5+ 1 3
Strasbourg 1 985, went 1 6 . . . �f6 ! e 4 1i'xg5 1 4 �c7+) 1 2 e4! � xe4!
Yl- \t'l . I n fact, 1 7 ..td2 �xg4 1 8 1i'g5 13 �xe4 1!Vxd4 14 1!Vxd4 ..txd4 1 5
..tf6 1 9 1!ha5 ;t is given by Donald­ ..txe7 li[ e8 1 6 �d6 ! ! li[xe7 1 7 li[c8+
son, while even 1 7 ..ta3!? with the �g7 1 8 �e8+ li[xe8 19 li[xe8 ..t xb2
 Double Fianchetto Defence 159

20 f4 =/ro. 16 1i'e6
10 11rb7+ 1 6 . . . 'tib7 1 7 'tlt'd3 (}.0 1 8 Il fd l
11 f3 d5 ll fc8 1 9 'tlt'd7 't!t'xd7 20 Ilxd7 Ilxcl
I I . . . ll:lc6 1 2 i.b2 0-0 1 3 e4 ;!;, 2 1 i.xc l �! 22 a4 :t Polugayevsky­
e.g. 1 3 . . . a6 14 llc I ll:l xd4 1 5 Spassky, Manila IZ 1 976.
'Wxd4 ll:lg4 1 6 1fd2 i.h6 1 7 ll:ld5! 17 'tid3 0-0
± Kochiev. 18 Il fdl
12 cd ll:lxd5 White has some edge here, but
13 ll:lxd5 1fxd5 Black should be able to hold with
14 i.e3! proper defence. Not 1 8 . . . f5? 1 9
1 4 i. b2? 0-0 1 5 'tid3 lld8 + was 1fc4 � f7 20 't!t'xe6+ �xe6 2 1 Ilc6+
Capablanca-Botvinnik, Nottingham �f7 22 i.g5 ! ± Tal-Polugayevsky,
1 936. USSR Ch 1 976, nor 18 . . . Ilac8? 1 9
14 ll:lc6 Ilxc8 1hc8 2 0 'it'd? 'ti'a6 2 1 ll d l
Noteworthy is 1 4 . . . (}.0 1 5 llc l e6 22 i.g5 ! h6 23 i.d8 ± which
h 5 ! (to improve upon 1 5 . . . ll:l a6 1 6 was Polugayevsky-Smyslov from
ll:lc6 1fe6 1 7 1fd3 ± or 1 5 . . . ll:ld7 the same event. But 1 8 . . . i.f6!? 1 9
1 6 llc7 ll fc8 17 ll:lc6 ! 'tlt'e6 1 8 lilc7 ! ( 1 9 i.h6 i.g7 ; 1 9 1i'e4 lil fc8!
Ilxd7 Gl igoric, although then 1 8 20 'it'xe6 fe) 1 9 . . . h5 is possible, or
. . . Il xc6 m ay hold; perhaps 1 8 18 . . . h 5 1 9 lilc7 lilad8 Kasparov,
'tlt'xd7 1fxd7 1 9 ll xd7 Ilc6 20 or, finally, 18 . . . lilfc8 19 lil xc8
Ilfd l ) 1 6 a4 (intending ll:l b5) 16 . . . 'ti'xc8 ( 1 9 . . . lil xc8? 20 'it'd7) 20
a 6 1 7 1Vd3 ! ? ( 1 7 i.f2) 1 7 . . . e 5 1 8 'tlt'd7 't!t'xd7 21 Ilxd7 � ;!; Bagirov,
ll:lc6, lightly ;!;, Rubinetti-Emma, although this last looks difficult.
Buenos Aires 1 979. A1222
15 ll:lxc6 't!t'xc6 9 0-0
16 Ilcl (162) 10 e4 'tlt'c7 (163)

/62 163
B w
1 60 Double Fianchetto Defence

All the rage. Weak er are 10 . . . Gavrikov, Jurmala 1983.

lLlc6 I I .ie 3 ;t ( or here I I lLlc2 lLle8 b) 1 4 .ta3 lLlc6 15 lit ad l 1We5 1 6
1 2 .i d2 lLld6 1 3 b3 1!t"c8 14 1!t"e l ! lit xd7 1!t"a5 ! 1 7 .txe7 lLle5 1 8 1!t"d l
1!t"b7 1 5 f3 f5 1 6 litd l � Chekhov­ lLlxd7 1 9 1!t"xd7 1!t"xa2 = Karpov­
Psakhis , Irkuts k 1 983), and 10 . . . Kasparov, match ( 1 3) 1 984-85.
lLla6 I I b3 ( or I I .ie3 ! liteS 1 2 b3 14 1We5 !
lLlc5 I 3 f3 �) I I ... lLlc5 1 2 f3 lLle8 1 4 . . . lLlc6 !? I 5 .ib2 't!fxb2 1 6
1 3 .te3 �- lit xb2 .txb2 Speelman; then 1 7
11 b3 lLlc3 is bothersome.
I I .ie3 1Wxc4 1 2 lit c l lLlc6! 1 3 14 . . . 'ilt'e5 is Karpov-Kasparov,
lLlcb5 1!t"xa2 1 4 lit a l = Ftacn i k­ match (20) 1 984-85, agreed drawn.
Adorjan, Gj ovik 1983. I I 1!t"e2 After 1 5 .if4 Black has two lines:
lLlc6 1 2 lLlc2 a6 1 3 lit d l ( 1 3 .ig5 e6 15 . . . 'tlt'h5 (!) 1 6 g4! ( 1 6 lLlf6+ .txf6
I 4 lit a c l litfc8 1 5 b3 lLl e8 1 6 .id2 1 7 'ilt'xa8 lLlc6 1 8 1!t"b7 g5 ! 1 9 'it'xd7
1!t"b7 I 7 f3 b5 1 8 lLl e3 f5 = Vukic­ lLld4 20 g4 1Wg6 2 1 .ig3 1!t"e4+ 22
Psakhis, Bor 1985) 13 . . . e6 14 b3 ( 1 4 f3 lLlxf3) 1 6 . 'tit'aS 1 7 lLlf6+ .txf6
. .

.if4 1Wb7 1 5 .id6 litfd8 Adorjan) 1 8 'ttx a8 lLlc6 1 9 'it'b7 'it'xa2 20

14 . . . 1Wb7 1 5 .tb2 lit fd8 1 6 f3 d6 't!fxd7 lLld4 =/oo intending . . . 'it'e2,
1 7 lLl e3 lLle5 1 8 litd2 g6! I 9 litad l . . . lLlb3. Or 1 5 . . . 1We6 1 6 lLlf6+
h5! threatening ... g4, H ansen­ .txf6 17 'tlt'xa8 lLl c6 1 8 1Wb7 g 5 ! ,
Adorj an, Gladsaxe 1 983. Finally, a n d 1 9 .te3 litb8 2 0 'ilt'a6, o r 1 9
I I lLl d5 lLlxd5 1 2 cd 1!t"e5 13 lLlf3 .tc7 h5! 20 litbe l h4, o r (best) 1 9
1!t"xe4 1 4 lite I 1!t"f5 ! 1 5 litxe7 lLla6 llbel 1!t"f5 2 0 .t e 3 = Adorjan.
(Kasparov) leaves the white d-pawn Thus the ending from 9 . . . 1!t"c8
weak . seems sufficient to draw, and,
II lLlxe4! for n ow, 9 . . . 0-0 10 e4 't!fc7 ! also
12 lLlxe4 appears to equalize.
I 2 lLld5 !? 'ilrct8 ( 1 2 . . . 'ilt'e5 1 3 A2
.ib2; 1 2 . . . 'tlt'c5 1 3 .te3) 1 3 lite I e6 7 d3 0-0
14 litxe4 ed 1 5 cd lLla6 = Gochev­ 7 . . . d 5 is still untried, as far as I
Vilela, Teteven 1 985. k now, e .g. 8 't!fa4+ 1Wd7, or 8 cd
12 'i!fe5 lLlxd5, or 8 l!Je5 0-0 9 .ig5 lLl bd7.
13 'it'f3 1Wxd4 6 d3 .ig7 (6 ... d5 7 lLle5 is annoying,
14 litbl e.g. 7 . . . g6 8 1!t"a4+) 7 e4 may be a
a ) 1 4 .te3? 'ilt'e5 1 5 litad l ( 1 5 c5 more accurate order.
lLlc6; 15 lLl f6+ .txf6 1 6 'it'xa8 lLlc6 8 e4 lLlc6 (164)
17 1Wb7 1We4+ !) 1 5 . . . 1i'c7 ! 16 .if4 8 . . . d6 9 h3 lLlc6 transposes, or
1i'c6 I 7 litd5 f5 =t= Kharitonov- 9 lLl h4 lLlc6 10 f4 lLld 7! I I h 3 e6
 Double Fianchetto Defence 161

1 2 i.e3 ltJd4 = Me duna-S m ej kal, 1 2 i.e 3 d6 13 l:l:c1 ltld4 1 4 : e 1

Marians ke Lazne 1 978. Wd7 = Pfleger-Jansson, N i ce 01
1 974.
164 9 d6
w Now 9 . . . e6 10 :e 1 !? is Caffe rty­
Miles again ; 10 'tlt'e2 ( ! ) has the
idea 10 . . . d5 1 1 e5 ltld7 1 2 i.g5
and 1 3 cd. 9 . . . ltle8 10 i.g5 ltlc7
1 1 1fd2 ltle6 12 i.h6 ltled4 1 3
ltlxd4 ( 1 3 ltlh4!?) 1 3 . . . ltl xd4 =
A lburt-Vaganian, USSR Ch 1 975.
10 i.e3
1 0 i.g5 ( ! ) may be the best try,
9 h3 e .g. 10 ... h6 ( 1 0 . . . l:l: c8 1 1 \!rd2
a) 9 i.g5 ltl e8 1 0 \!rd2 ltlc7 1 1 i.h6 ltld7 1 2 ltlh 2!?) 1 1 i.e3 �h7 ( 1 1 . . .
ltle6 1 2 i.xg7 �xg7 1 3 ltlh4 ltled4 l:l:c8 1 2 \!rd2 � h 7 1 3 b 3 plan ning
14 f4 f5 1 5 ef gf 16 b4! cb 1 7 ltlb5 d4) 1 2 d4 ltla5 1 3 Wd3 e5 1 4 d 5 ;!;
=/ro Romanishin-Winants, Brussels Hatjun-Forintos, Hungarian Ch
1 986. 1954.
b) 9 l:l:e1 e6 (9 ... d6 10 a3 e6 I I 10 l:l:c8!
l:l: b 1 ltld7 1 2 i.g5 Wb8 1 3 Wd2 ! 10 . . . h6?! I I Wd2 �h7 12 d4 :t
Karlsson-Miles, Gjovik 1 983) 1 0 Vaganian-Ma nning, Ma nila 1 98 1 .
h3 d5 1 1 ed? ( 1 1 e5 ! ltl d7 1 2 i.g5 1 0 . . . a 6 1 1 d4 cd 1 2 ltl xd4 ltld7 1 3
\!rb8 13 cd ro) 1 1 . . . ed 12 i.g5 h6! ltlxc6 i.xc6 1 4 i.d4 ;!; Uhlmann­
13 i.xf6 i.xf6 1 4 ltl xd 5 ( 1 4 cd Spiridonov, Polanica Zdroj 1 98 1 .
ltlb4 +) 1 4 . . . i.xb2 1 5 Ilb 1 i.g7 + 1 1 't!ld2 ltld7
Cafferty-Miles, E n gland 1 980. Equal, e.g. 1 2 b3 ltlde5 1 3 ltle1
c) 9 l:l:b1 ltle8 (or 9 ... d6 1 0 ltlh4 ltld4 = Planinc-Sofrevski, S kopje
ltld7) 10 i.e3 ltld4 1 1 ltle2 e5 1 2 1 97 1 , or 1 2 �h2 a6 1 3 ltlh4 ltld4
b4 d6 1 3 be de = Karpov-Savon, 14 f4 b5, Speelman-Browne, Lon­
USSR Ch 1 973. don 1980, and now B ro wne gives
d) 9 ltle1 d6 10 f4 ltld7 ! 1 1 ltlf3 15 f5 !? be 1 6 de ltl e5 17 b3 e6 1 8
ltld4 1 2 lLl xd4 cd 1 3 ltle2 f5 = i.h6 a s unclear. Then 1 8 . . . i.xh6
Uhlmann-Hecht, Vr§ac 1 973. 19 \!hh6 �h8 looks forced, but
e) 9 ltlh4 ltl e8 ( 9 ... d6 1 0 f4 e6 1 1 fine.
g4 ltl e8 1 2 ltl f3 ltlc7 ! 1 3 f5 d5! B
Popov) 1 0 f4 f5 ( 1 0 . . . ltld4!? 1 1 f5 6 b3 i.g7
Ribli) 1 1 ltlf3 Wc8 !? ( 1 1 . . . ltlc7!) I ' m not sure why 6 ... d5!?
162 Double Fianchetto Defence

shou ldn't be effective, e .g. 7 cd 'tid2 ( I I lbd5? ! b5 ! Adorjan) 1 1 . . .

(7 ..tb2 ..ig7) 7 ..ig7 8 ..ib2 0-0
0 0 0 lii: c8 1 2 lii: fd l a 6 1 3 li:ld4 ..ixg2 1 4
and 9 lbc3 li:lxd5 9 d4 li:l xd 5 1 0 =
, 'it>xg2 'tic7 1 5 f3 'tib7 1 6 e4 e6!? ( 1 6
e4 li:l c7 =
o r 9 ..ixf6 ! ? ..ixf6!? 1 0
, . . . lii: fd8 1 7 li:ld5 li:le5 Adorjan)
=

li:lc3 ..ixc3 ! ? I I d e 1Wxd5 1 2 1Wxd5 17 lii: a c l ( 1 7 li:lc2 b 5 ! ; 17 li:lde2 b5 !)

..ixd5 1 3 l Hd l ..ie4. 1 7 ... lii:fd8 = Korchnoi-Adorjan,
7 ..ib2 0-0 Wijk aan Zee 1 984.
7 . . . d5 is the last note, and 7 000 10 'ti'h4
e 6 8 d 4 d5 i s also of interest. 1 0 'ti'd2 d5! I I cd 'ti'xd5 10=
.

8 1 8 d4 'ti'f4 d5 !? I I lii: d I 'ti'c8 1 2 c d li:lxd5

82 8 li:l c3 13 'tid2 (?) ( 1 3 'tie l ) 1 3
=
lii: d 8
0 0 0

8 e3 e6 (8 . . . d5 =) 9 d4 'it'e7 1 0 14 ..ixg7 li:le3! H Kasparov.

li:lc3 li:la6!? I I 'ti'e2 d 5 1 2 lii: fd l 10 h6
lii: fd8 1 3 lhc l de ( 1 3 . . . lbe4 !? 10 ... d6 I I li:lc3 h6 12 lbd5!
Tukmakov) 1 4 be lii: a c8 1 5 li:lb5 li:lxd5 13 ..i xg7 'it>xg7 14 cd lb b8
..ie4 16 a3 t Karpov-Kasparov, 1 5 1Wd4+ 'it>h7 1 6 h4 !I ± 8 arcza-
match ( I I ) 1984-85. 8iro, H ungarian Ch 1 966.
81 11 ..txf6!
8 d4 cd The best chance. 1 1 lbe5 't!t'c7 1 2
8 . . . li:la6!? 9 d5 e6 (9 . . . b5 1 0 lba3? ( 1 2 lb xc6 ) 1 2 ... g5! 1 3
=

lii: e l ! ! ) with the idea 1 0 d 6 lbe4, 1Wh3 lb xe5 1 4 ..ixb7 'ti'xb7 1 5

a nd 8 . . . e6 9 de be 10 li:lc3 1We7 are ..txe5 'ti'e4 + Ribli-Enklaar, Wij k
reasonable options. aan Zee 1 973.
9 't!t'xd4 (165) 11 ef
I I . . . ..ixf6? 1 2 'ti'xh6 e6 1 3 li:lc3.
/65 12 li:lc3
B Kasparov (who queries I I ..txf6)
gives 1 2 lba3 d5 1 3 lii: ad l 'ti'e7 ! +
here.
12 fS
O therwise White dominates the
centre. Now 8jarnehag-Ostenstad,
Sweden v Norway 1 984, continued
1 3 1Wxd8 lii: fxd8 1 4 lii: ac l li:le7 (?)
1 5 lii: fd l lii: ac8 ( 1 5 . . . d5 1 6 lbe 1 )
9 lbc6 1 6 li:l b 5 ! d5 1 7 li:lxa7 lii: a 8 1 8 li:lb5
9 . . . d6 10 li:lc3 ( 10 lii: d l li:l bd7 lii: x a2 19 li:lfd4 lii: aa8 20 cd ± in­
1 1 li:lel 't!t'c7 ) 1 0 . . . li:lbd7 1 1
=
tending li:lc6. Here 14 ..txc3 ( !)
0 0 0
 Double Fianchetto Defence 163

1 5 llxc3 d5 1 6 cd lt:lb4 seems to 1984; or 1 2 d e ( ! ) lt:lxc5 ( 1 2 . . . be

improve . I n general, 8 d4 is not is the main line below) 1 3 lt:lb5
very dangerous. ( 13 lt:ld4!? :!) 13 . . . 'tid7 I4 lt:lbd4
82 1lfe8 1 5 nc2 a5 ! 16 a3 i.a6 =

8 lt:le3 (166) Taimanov-Kudrin, Thessaloniki 01

1 984.
166
B
9 d5

8 2 1 8 . . . e6
822 8 . . . d5
823 8 . . . lt:l a6
a) 8 ... lt:le4!? 9 '@c2 (9 d4 lt:l xc3 10
i.xc3 lt:lc6 =) 9 . . . lt:l xc3 I 0 i.xc3 1 3 . . . e5! ( 1 3 . . . f6? 1 4 lt:lxf6! nxf6
i.xc3 I I 'tixc3 d5 ( I I . . . lt:l c6 1 2 1 5 lt:lg5 1t'c8 1 6 llac l lt:lc6 1 7 lt:le4!
ll fd l d5 I 3 d4!) 1 2 cd 'tixd5 1 3 d4, ±) I 4 i.xe5+ ( 1 4 lt:lxe5!? with the
lightly :t. idea 14 . . . f6 I 5 lt:lxf6) I4 . . . f6 1 5
b) 8 ... lt:le6 (?) 9 d4 cd (9 . . . lt:le4 10 lt:l xf6 ("?!" Ftacnik; 1 5 lt:l f4!?),
llcl ;t) 10 lt:l xd4 ( 1 0 'tWxd4 lt:lbd7 is Schneider-Ftacnik, Stary Smokovec
'8 1 ' ) 10 . . . i.xg2 I I ct>xg2 d 5 !? 1 2 I 983, and now 15 . . . llxf6! I 6 lt:l g5
cd lt:lxd5 1 3 lt:ldb5 ( 1 3 'tid2 or I 3 1t'c8 I 7 lil ac ! ? lt:l c6! wins ( I 8 lt:le4
e3!? may im prove) 1 3 . . . lt:lxc3 1 4 lt:lxe5) , so Ftacnik gi ves 1 7 lt:l e4
'tixd8 ll xd8 1 5 i.xc3 = Alburt­ lt:ld7 1 8 i.xf6+ lt:lxf6 I 9 lt:ld6 'ife6!
Polugayevsky, USSR Ch 1974. 20 lt:lxb7 llc8 + .
821 10 de be
8 e6 11 ed ed
9 d4 12 llcl lt:la6
9 lic l d5 (9 . . . '@e7 I 0 d4 d6 I I Now 1 3 e3 would b e the 9 li c l
'tid3 :!) 1 0 cd ed ( IO . . . lt:l xd5 I I d4 note above, but more accurate is
:!) I I d4 lt:l a6, and now 1 2 e3 ! ? 'tie7 I3 lt:la4 'tie7 I4 i.a3 llac8 I 5
l 3 de be 14 lt:la4 llfc8 1 5 i.a3 i.f8 lt:le l ! llfd8 1 6 lt:ld3 lt:le4 1 7 1We l ! :t
oo Eisterer-Sax, 8alatonbereny Taimanov-Tal, USSR 1 983.
164 Double Fianchetto Defence

822 This endi ng is u npleasant but

8 d5 qui te tenable for Black:
9 lt:lxd5 a) 1 5 .. lt:la6 16 1Hd1 liac8 1 7
.

9 cd lt:l xd 5 10 't!t'c 1 lt:l c6 liac 1 lt:lb4! ( 1 7 . . . �f6 1 8 �b5 t)

9 lt:le 5 !? e6 (9 . . . lt:lbd7 1 0 f4 !?) 1 0 18 li xc8 + ( 1 8 a3 lt:la2 =) 18 . . .
d 4 c d ( 1 0 . . . lt:l a6 is ' 8 23') 1 1 lt:lb5 ! lixc8 1 9 lid2 a 6 Y2-Y2 Benk<r
a6? ( 1 1 . . . lt:l fd7) 1 2 lt:lxd4 ( ±) 1 2 . . . Weinstein, Lone Pine 1 9 75.
lt:lfd7 1 3 lt:lxf7 ! with a killing attack, b) 1 5 ... a6?! 16 life ! lia7 17 lic2
Lengyel-Sugar, Hu ngary 1 9 82. lifd8 1 8 e3 �f8 ( 1 8 . . . e5 19 lt:lf3 f6
9 lt:lxd5 20 g4 ! t) 1 9 liac 1 �e8 20 g4! h6
10 i.x g 7 � x g7 2 1 h4 liad7 22 f4 tl ± Andersson­
11 cd 't!t'xd5 H ort, Niksic 1 976.
For 1 1 . . . i.xd5 1 2 d4 �a6 1 3 c) 15 ... liteS 16 lilacl lt:l d7 1 7 lifd 1
't!t'd3 i.b7, see 823. ( 1 7 lt:lc6 �f6) 1 7 . . . lt:l f6 ! 1 8 e3 ( 1 8
12 d4 cd lt:lc6 lic7 1 9 b4 a 6 20 a4 b5) 1 8 . . .
Or 1 2 . . . lt:l a6 1 3 e4! 't!t'd6 ( 1 3 . . . a 6 1 9 a 4 lt:le4 ! 2 0 lt:lc6 Y2- Y2 Tai­
't!t'd7 1 4 d5 t) 1 4 e5 ( 1 4 d 5 e 6 =) Savon, USSR Ch 1 973; 20 . . . �f6
14 . . . 't!t'd8 ( 1 4 . . . 't!t'd5 !? 1 5 lt:lh4 2 1 b4 b5 =.
'ti'd7 oo), Mestei-Chekhov, Tjentiste d) 15 ... lidS 16 lifd 1 lt:l a6 1 7 lt:lc6
1 975, and now Ch ekhov gives 1 5 ( 1 7 liacl lilacS ) 1 7 .. . lildc8 ! 1 8
1!t'e2! cd 1 6 lUd 1 ;!:. lt:lxe7 ( 1 8 lil ac I lic7) 1 8 . . . lle8
13 't!t'xd4+ 19 lt:lc6 lixe2 20 lild7 lilc8 = Marie.
1 3 lt:lh4 'ti'd7 1 4 i. xb7 follow­ 823
ed by 15 't!t'xd4+, 16 lUd 1 may also 8 lt:la6
be lightly t. 9 d4
13 't!t'xd4 9 d3 d5! =. 9 e3 d5 1 0 lt:lxd5
14 lt:lxd4 i. xg 2 lt:l xd5 1 1 i.xg7 �xg7 1 2 cd 't!t'xd5
15 �xg 2 (168) 1 3 d4 lifd8 1 4 lt:le l 't!t'd7 = Torm­
Lj ubojevic, Nice 01 1974. 9 lil c l
168
B
can be met b y 9 . . . d 5 1 0 lt:lxd5 ( 1 0
lt:le5 !?) 1 0 . . . lt:l xd5 1 1 i.xg7 �xg7
12 cd ihd5 1 3 d4 lilfd8 = ( 1 4 e4
't!t'h5), or by 9 . . . e6 1 0 d4 d5 1 1 e3
( I I cd ed 1 2 de w as ' 8 2 1 ' ) 1 1 . . .
't!t'e7 1 2 't!t'e2 1Hd 8 = .
9 d5
9 . . . cd 1 0 lt:l xd4 ( 1 0 't!t'xd4!?
lt:le4!? 1 1 't!t'e3 lDxc3? 1 2 i.xc3
 Double Fianchetto Defence 165

�xc3 1 3 't!Vxc3 lt:\c5 1 4 llfd l ;!:! ± = A ndersson-Polugayevsky, Biel

S i lm an-Wi nslow, Palo Alto 198 1 ) 1985. I I cd ed ( or I I . . . lLlxd5 =) 1 2
1 0 . . . .ixg2 I I 'ittxg2 lt:\c5 1 2 ll e l ll c l 't!Ve7 1 3 lLld3 cd 1 4 lt:\b5 't!Vd7
( 1 2 f3 ! ;t-) 1 2 . . . 't!Vc7 1 3 e4 'it'b7 1 4 = Andersson- Rodriguez, Biel 1985.
r3 d6 1 5 't!Vd 2?! ( 1 5 lt:\c2! ;t- with the 11 lt:\xc5!
idea lt:\e3) 15 . . . a6 16 lbc l llfc8 ! I I . . . be? 12 cd ed 1 3 lLld3 't!Ve7
= Su nye-Larsen, Las Pal mas IZ 14 lt:\a4 llac8 1 5 ll c l ll fd8 1 6 .ia3
1 9 82. etc.
10 lt:\e5 12 cd ed
A move I suggested in the fi rst 1 2 . . . lLl xd5 1 3 lt:\xd5 .ixd5 1 4
edition, to replace 10 cd lt:\xd5 I I .ixd5 't!Vxd5 1 5 't!Vxd5 e d 1 6 llfd l
c3 lt:\ xc3 1 2 .ixc3 llc8 = (or 1 2 . . . ;t- Ftacnik .
lt:\c7 ! Kasparov), and 1 0 d e lt:\xc5 1 3 lt:\f3
I I lt:\xd5 lt:\xd5 =. 1 3 llc l d4 =.
10 e6 13 't!Vd7 !
1 0 . . . cd I I 't!Vxd4 lt:\d7 1 2 f4, or Bet ter than 1 3 lle8, which
here I I . . . lt:\ b4 12 llad l ± . allows 14 lt:\b5! a nd lLlbd4 . After
11 de (169) 13 ... 't!Vd7 Ftacni k-Speelman, Thes­
saloniki 01 1984, went 14 ll c l llfe8
169 1 5 llc2 llad8, and now 16 lLld4
B ( = ) ( Ftacni k) was better than 1 6
b4 d4 ! .

Conclusion. The Double Fianchetto

Defence is solid and reliable. Its
m ain drawback is a lack of positive
prospects for the second player.
This will probably inhibit expansion
of its use on any but the highest
I I e3 't!Ve7 1 2 't!Ve2 de 13 be ll ac8 levels.
 13 2 lLlf3 lLlf6 3 d4: 4 . . . lLlc6

1 c4 c5 or here 7 lLld6+ .ixd6 8 't!Yxd6

2 lLlf3 lLlf6 1i'e 7 9 't!Yd l !?.
3 d4 cd b) 5 . .. d5 6 .ig2 e5? (6 . . . e6 is note
4 lLlxd4 lLlc6 (1 70) to 6 . . . 't!Yb6) 7 lLlxc6 be 8 0-0 ;!:.
c) 5 . lLlxd4 6 1i'xd4 g6 7 .ig2 .ig7
..

1 70
w
8 lLlc3 is Chapter 4.
d) 5 ... 't!Yb6!? (1 7 1) is the m ain
alternative:

One of the most common English

Opening positions. White has:
A 5 g3
B 5 lLlc3
5 lLlc2 or 5 f3 are a nswered by 5
. . . d5 = . Slow is 5 e3 e6 (5 . . . d5 =) 6 Now 6 lLlb3 lLle5 ! (intending . . .
.ie2 d5 7 cd (7 0-0 .id6 =) 7 . . . ed 8 1!t'c6) 7 .ig2!? 0 c5!? 1!t'c6 8 li:gl
lLlc3 .id6 = (a Queen's Gambit). 1i'c7, at least =, or 8 . . . d5 =) 7 . . .
A lLlxc4 8 0-0 e6 (8 . . . g6!? 9 't!Ye2 lLle5
5 g3 10 .ie3 't!Yd8 I I .id4 lLlc6 12 .ixf6
This isn't played much, but oo - Janicki) 9 1Wc2 d5 1 0 e4 .ie7
Black has no certain route to I I ed ed 1 2 lLlc3 .ie6 1 3 lLlxd5
equality. = (Filip).
5 e6 White can also play 6 lLlc2!?
a) 5 . . . e5?! 6 lLlb5 .ic5 7 .ie3 ! lLle5 7 lLle3 lLlxc4!? 8 lLlxc4 1i'c6 9
(compare 5 e4 lLlb4 in Chapter 8), e4 't!Yxe4+ 10 1i'e2 1!t'xh 1 I I lLld6+
 2 l0f3 l0f6 3 d4: 4 . . . li:J c6 167

( '' ±" Kasparov) I I . . . <c!id8 1 2 Or 7 ltJb5!? d5 8 cd ed 9 ltJ lc3

.7J xl7+ <c!te8 1 3 ltJxh8 !? ( 1 3 ltJd6+ wi th the idea 9 . . . i.c5 (9 . . . d4? 1 0
c=), and now 1 3 . . . g6 14 't!t'c2 ! or 1 3 i.f4) 1 0 i.f4!? 0-0 I I ltJc7 . 7 ltJb3
. . . 't!t'xh 2 1 4 g4 !, but 1 3 . . . d 5 is is natural: 7 . . . li:Je5 (! 7 . . . i.b4+ 8
u nclear, e.g. 14 't!t'b5+ ( . . . g6 and . . . ltJc3 is 823 below) 8 ltJ I d2 (8 c5!?
�xh2 were threats) 1 4 . . . i.d7 1 5 i.xc5 9 ltJxc5 't!t'xc5 1 0 0-0 d5 is
'tlj'xb7 llc8 . speculative; 8 't!t'c2 !?) 8 . . . d6 9 0-0
In t h e first edition I suggested 6 i.e7 =.
0"J b5(!) with the idea 6 . . . ltJe5 7 Finally, 7 e3 i.c5 8 0-0!? is
�g2! ltJxc4 8 ltJ l c3 d5 (8 . . . a6 9 analysed under 4 . . . e6 5 g3 of
'tli'a4 ltJd6 1 0 i.e3) 9 i.xd5 ltJd6 I 0 Chapter 1 4. Black has 7 . . . i.b4+
�e3 't!t'd8 I I i.g2 V ±; o r 6 . . . d5 7 and 7 . . . d5 as options, but 7 . . .
cd! 1!t'xb 5 8 ltJ c3 't!Vb6 9 de 1!t'xc6 I 0 lt::l e 5 8 't!t'e2 i s n o t productive.
c4 a6 I I i.g2 :1:: . Miles-Giigoric, 7 d5
Bugojno 1 982, went 6 . . . a6 7 l0 5c3 8 0-0!?
( 7 i.e3!? 't!t'a5+ 8 ltJc3 b5 9 ltJd2 is 8 cd ed = (Aibu rt). After 8 0-0,
interesting) 7 . . . e6 8 i.g2 ltJe5 9 Alburt-de Firmian, New York
�b3 !? (9 ltJd2) 9 . . . W'b4! I 0 ltJd2 1985, went 8 . . . de 9 ltJca3 't!t'a6 10
llb8 I I 0-0 i.e7 1 2 W'c2 0-0 13 a3 b3 i.e7 ( 10 . . . cb I I 't!t'xb3 ltJd4 1 2
"i!t'c5 =. 't!t'b2 =/oo - Alburt; then 1 2 . . .
6 i.g2 'W'b6 ! ? ltJxe2+ 1 3 <c!ih I li:Jxc I 1 4 ltJb5 'ti'b6
a ) 6 . . . d5 7 0-0 i.c5 8 ltJxc6 (8 ltJb3 1 5 llac l i.c5 is possible; I I ab!?
i.e7) 8 ... be 9 '§'c2 (=?); compare in tending i.b2, ltJc4 is promising,
the Gri.infeld Defence. however) I I be!? (":!:" Alburt) I I
b) 6 ... i.b4+ 7 ltJ c3 is analysed . . . 0-0 1 2 ltJb5 'W'a5 1 3 i.d2 'ti'd8 1 4
under 5 ltJc3 e6 6 g3 i.b4 belo w. i.f4 e5 1 5 i.g5 i.g4 1 6 li:J d 2 Uoo.
He re 7 i.d2 't!t'b6 (7 . . . i.c5 !?) 8 B
liJ b3 is Ch apter 1 4. 5 li:Jc3 (1 72)
c) 6 ... i.c5 7 ltJb3 (7 ltJc2 d5; 7
1 72
li:Jb5 d5 8 0-0 0-0 9 .ig5!? Kova�evic; B
7 ltJ xc6 be 8 0-0 0-0 9 t!t'c2 !?) 7 . . .
i.b4+ ( 7 . . . i.e7 8 0- 0 d6 9 ltJc3 i s 5
li:Jc3 e6 6 g3 i.c5 below) 8 i.d2
(lik ewise 8 ltJc3 d5) 8 . . . i.e7 9
li:Jc3 0-0 1 0 0-0 b6? ( 1 0 . . . d6 I I
i.f4 :1::) I I i.f4 i.a6 1 2 lt:Jb5 ! ±
Chernikov-Stein, Moscow 1 966.
7 ltJc2!?
 168 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: 4 .. . li:J c6

5 e6 (1 73) li:J xa8 Tal-Donner, Wij k aan Zee

One o f the oldest lines of the 1973, and now 12 . . . 'i!rc5 was
English Opening, and still the suggested, but Abolinsh-Isomussu,
terrain for key i nternational con­ corres 1 980-2, went 1 3 llc l .id6
tests. Black's alternatives are mostly 14 li:Jb5! ±. After 1 2 . . . 'i!ra5 1 3
dubious : lld l ! li:Jxa2 1 4 lil a ! .ib4 1 5 ll xa2!
a)5 . . . g6 6 g3 .ig7 7 .ig2 or 6 li:Jc2 .ixc3+ 1 6 be 'i!rxa 2 17 'i!rc7+
is Chapter 4. (Janicki). Here 7 cd li:J xd5 8 li:Jxd5
b) 5 ... e5? 6 li:Jdb5 .ic5 7 .ie3! 'i!rxd4 9 'i!rxd4 lLl xd4 I 0 .if4 is also
.ixe3 8 li:Jd6+ '1!?f8 9 fe ±, e.g. 9 . . . promising.
li:Jg4 I 0 'i!rd2 'i!rh4+ I I g 3 'i!rh6 1 2 But 6 . . . e6(!) seems reasonable,
li:Jd l ! 'i!rg6 1 3 .ih3 h 5 1 4 0-0 li:Jf6 e.g. 7 li:J xc6 be 8 'i!rxc6+ (8 cd ed) 8
1 5 .if5 ! 'i!rg5 1 6 li:Jc3 ±± in . . . .id7 9 'i!ra6 d4! 10 li:J b l .ib4+
Cherepkov-Kiaman, USSR 1958. I I .id2 'i!re7 planning . . . 0-0, . . . e5-
c) 5 ... 't!lb6 6 li:Jb3 (6 e3 e6 7 .ie2 e4;
.ie7 8 0-0 0-0 9 b3 !; 6 li:Jc2 e6 7 e3 f3) 6 cd li:Jxd5 7 li:Jxc6 be 8 .id2! (8
d5!?, or 7 g3 .ic5 8 e3 li:Je5 !) 6 . . . e4 lt::l x c3 9 'tixd8+ '1!?xd8 =) 8 . . . e6
e 6 7 e4! ? (7 g 3 is the main 6 . . . 'i!rb6 (8 ... lt::l xc3? 9 .ixc3 'tixd l + 10
line ) 7 . . . .t b4 8 .id3 d5 9 cd ed 1 0 llxd l f6 I I g3 e5 12 .ig2 .id7 1 3
ed li:J xd5 I I 0-0!, e .g. I I . . . li:J xc3 0-0 ± Portisch-Donner, Amster­
12 be .ie7 13 'i!rh 5!. dam 1 969) 9 g3 (9 e4 lt::l b4 ! =) 9 . . .
d) 5 ... li:Jxd4 6 'i!rxd4 g6 (6 ... d6 7 .ie7 ( 9 . . . lt::l x c3 !? 1 0 .ixc3 'i!rd5!?
.ig5) 7 .ig5 ! .ig7 8 li:Jd5 0-0 9 t ) 1 0 .ig2 0-0 I I 0-0 .ib7?! ( I I ...
.ixf6 ef 1 0 'i!rd2 ± Gheorghiu­ .ia6 1 2 .if3 't!t'b6 13 lt::l a4 't!t'b5 1 4
Matulovic, Skopje 1968. a 3 llfd8 1 5 'i!rc2 ! ) 1 2 llc l c5 1 3
e) 5 ... b6!? 6 e4 .ib7 transposes to li:Ja4 llc8 14 b3 ! intending lt::l b 2-
Chapter 9, C22, note (b) to 4 . . . c4, Polugayevsky-Belyavsky, USSR
.ib7. Ch 1 974.
f) 5 ... d5 is the most interesting
1 73
deviat io n : w
fl) 6 li:Jxc6!? be 7 c d cd 8 e4!?
li:J xe4 9 .ib5+ .id7 1 0 'i!rxd5 !
Ivanov-Ca banas, Edmonton 1985;
f2) 6 'i!ra4!? with the idea 6 . . . 'i!rd7 ?
7 li:Jdb5 or 7 cd li:Jxd5 8 li:J xd5
'it'xd5 9 li:Jb5 ± (Tal) . Or 6 . . .
'it'b6! ? 7 li:J db5 e 6 8 .if4 e 5 9 c d ef
10 'it'xf4 ! li:J b5 I I li:Jc7+ '1!?d8 1 2
 2 ltJf3 ltJf6 3 d4: 4 . . . ltJc6 1 69

B I 6 li:ldb5 Korchnoi-Timman, Hilversum 1982,

B2 6 g3 and aside from 14 . . . ..ia6 1 5 ..i xa6
a) 6 e4 .ib4 is a Taimanov 't!t'xa6, Black had 14 . . . a5 (Hort)
Sicilian, considered harmless for or 1 4 . . . e5 1 5 b4 .ie6.
Black after e.g. 7 lt:l xc6! be ! (7 . . . Bl
d e 8 1Wxd8+ �xd8 9 e 5 ! is 6 lbdb5 (1 74)
d angerous) 8 .id3 e5 (or 8 . . . 0-0 9
e5 't!t'a5) 9 .id2 0-0 10 a3 .ie7 and 1 74

. . . d6. B

b) 6 a3 't!t'c7 (or 6 . . . d5 7 .ig5

.ie7 =, or here 7 . . . .ic5 !? 8 e 3
.ixd4 9 ed de) 7 e 3 (7 e4? lt:l xe4! 8
lt:lxe4 't!t'e 5) 7 . . . a6 8 .ie2 b6 =.
c) 6 .ig5 .ib4 (or 6 . . . 't!t'a5) 7 lbb5
a6 8 lt:ld6+ �e7 9 lt:le4? (9 lt:l xc8+
= ) 9 ... d5 10 cd ed I I lt:lxf6 gf 1 2
.id2 d4 1 3 lt:le4 't!rd5 =t= Oj anen­
Endzelins, corres 1 955. A move I advocated in the first
d) 6 e3 d 5 (or 6 . . . .ib4!, and 7 lt:lb5 edition at a time when 6 g3 was
0-0 8 a3 .ie7 - or 8 ... .ixc3+ 9 almost exclusively chosen . Two
lt:lxc3 d5 = - 9 .ie2 d5 = Filip­ cycles have occurred since: first, 6
Vasyu kov, Moscow 1 959; or 7 lt:ldb5 became the main line,
.id2 0-0 8 .ie2 lt:lxd4 9 ed d5 =) 7 following Korchnoi's lead; recently,
cd (7 .ie2 .id6 8 0-0 0-0 = or even 6 g3 has been strengthened again,
7 . . . .ic5 8 0-0 .ixd4 9 ed de =) 7 . . . and fairly reliable answers to 6
ed 8 .ie2 .id6 =; o r here 8 .ib5 lt:ldb5 have cut into the latter's
.id7 9 0-0 .id6 =. popularity .
e) 6 .if4!? can transpose after 6 . . . B l l 6 . . . .ib4
d 5 7 lt:ldb5 e 5 or 6 . . . .ib4 7 lt:ldb5. B l 2 6 . . . d5
Independent is 6 ... d5 7 cd ! ? lt:lxd5 a) 6 ... ..ic5!? 7 .if4 e5? 8 .ie3! ±
8 lt:l xc6 be 9 .id2, with White a transposes to note (b) above to 5
tempo down on the 5 . . . d 5 ("f3") . . . e6. Better 7 . . . 0-0 8 .ic7 't!t'e7 9
line above, e .g. 9 ... .ib4 (or 9 . . . ..id6, which is B I I .
.ie7) 1 0 lt:lxd5 ( 1 0 Il: c l Il: b 8 ! l l b) 6 ... d6 has never been refu ted,
't!t'c2 't!t'a5 1 2 e3 lt:lxc3 1 3 be .ia3 = yet doesn't appeal to top players: 7
Andersson-Sosonko, Tilburg 1982) ..if4 e5 (7 . . . lt:le5 ? 8 c5) 8 ..ig5 a6 9
I 0 . . . ..ixd2+ I I 1t'xd2 cd 12 e3 0-0 .ixf6 (9 lt:la3 .ie6 - or 9 . . . ..ie? = -
1 3 ..id3 't!t'b6 (or 13 . . . a5) 14 0-0 10 g3 't!t'b6 I I lt:lc2! lt:lg4 1 2 ..ie3
1 70 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: 4 . . . li:J c6

li:Jxe3 1 3 li:Jxe3 'tlt'xb2 1 4 li:Jed5 whereas here 8 .if4 e5 9 li:Jf5+ <t;f8

l:tc8 1 5 l:t b l 't!t'a3 1 6 l hb7 li:Ja5 1 7 10 .ig5 d5! (Tai manov) favours
l:tb4 =/ro - Timman-Soson ko, B l ack . Finally, 7 a3 .ixc3+ 8
London 1980) 9 . . . gf 10 li:Ja3 (1 75) li:Jxc 3 d5 can lead to e.g. 9 cd ed 10
e3 0-0 I I .ie2 .if5 =; or 9 e3 0-0 I 0
1 75
B
.ie2 de I I .ixc4 't!t'xd l + 1 2 li:Jxd l
li:Je5 = (in tending . . . l:td8, . . . li:Jd3)
Gipslis-M inic, USSR v Yugoslavia
1967.
7 0-0
Now 7 . . . e5 8 .ig5 a6 9 li:Jd6+
<t;e7 10 li:Jxc8+ com pares well for
White with 7 li:Jd6+?! above, and
here 10 li:Jde4!? h6 I I li:Jxf6 gf I 2
Now e.g. 1 0 . . . .ie6!? I I e3 ( ! I I .id2 also seems good . 7 . . . d 5 ? 8
g3 f5 1 2 .ig2 .ig7 1 3 't!t'd2 0-0 140-0 li:Jc7+ <t;e7 (8 . . . <t;f8 9 li:Jxa8 li:Je4
't!t'a5 1 5 l:tfd l e4! ro Mi kenas) I I 10 a 3 ! li:Jxc3 I I 'i!t'd3 ±) 9 li:J xa8 e5
. . . f5 I 2 t!fd2 ( 1 2 .ie2 t) 1 2 . . . .ig7 (9 . . . d4 1 0 a3 .ia5 I I b4 li:Jxb4 1 2
( 1 2 . . . l:t c8 !? I 3 lid I e4!?) I 3 0-0-0 a b .ixb4 1 3 f3! ±± - Szabo­
'tlt'a5 I 4 li:Jd5 t!fxd2+ 15 l:txd2 0-0-0 Langeweg, Tel Aviv 1 964) 10 .id2
16 .ie2 f4! 1 7 ef .ih6 I 8 li:Jc2 ef I 9 (or 10 cd ef I I de 't!t'a5 1 2 't!t'c l !) 1 0
.if3 li:Je5 2 0 li:Jd4 ;!; Zilberstein­ . . . d 4 1 1 li:Jd5+ li:Jxd5 I 2 c d 't!t'xd5
Lein, USSR Ch I 972. 13 .ixb4+ li:Jxb4 I 4 't!fd2! ±±, in
More accurate seems 1 0 . . . f5 ( ! ) , view of I4 . . . 't!t'a5 15 l:tc l , 14 . . .
because of the sequence I I e 3 .ig7 li:Jc6 1 5 li:Jc7 o r 1 4 . . . li:Ja6 1 5 li[ c l
I 2 't!t'd 2 ( 1 2 't!t'h 5 ! ?) 1 2 . . . e4 1 3 't!t'd6 I 6 't!t'g5 +.
0-0-0 ( 1 3 l:t d i .ie5!) 1 3 . . . .ie6! I 4 8 .ic7!?
'tlt'xd6 'tlt'xd6 1 5 l:txd 6 .ixc3 16 be 8 .id6 .ixd6 9 li:J xd6 (1 76) and:
li[c8 with no problems. After 10 . . .
1 76
f5 I I g3 .ie6 1 2 .ig2 .ig7 I 3 0-0 B
0-0 I4 't!t'd2 t!fa5 , we have Mikenas'
line of the last paragraph.
811
6 .ib4
7 .if4
7 .ig5 0-0 8 e3 d5 = is slow, and
7 li:Jd6+!? <t;e7 8 li:Jxc8+ l:txc8 is
bad for White's development,
 2 lLlf3 lLlf6 3 d4: 4 . . . ltJc6 1 71

a) 9 ... 1!t'b6 ! ? 10 1!fd2 ( 1 0 l:lb l + Janicki) 14 . . . l hc4 1 5 e3 l:l b4

lt:Jd4! I I e 3 1!fxd6 1 2 1!fxd4 - 12 ed and . . . d5 =.
h6 = - 1 2 . . . 't!i'xd4 1 3 ed b6 =
Kapengut; or 1 0 . . . lt:Je8 I I e 3
't!i' b4 ! = - Korchnoi-Andersson,
Johannesburg 198 1) 10 . . . lt:Je8 ( 1 0
. . . lt:Jd4 I I l:l d l 't!i'xd6 1 2 't!i'xd4,
l ightly ;!; after 12 . . . 1!fxd4 1 3
l:lxd4 b6 - Keene) I I lt:Jxe8 ( I I
lt:Jde4 f5 1 2 ll:Jg5 1!fc5 1 3 e3 b6 1 4
.te2 ;!; Euwe; but 1 2 . . . lt:Jf6 1 3 e3
h6 14 lt:Jf3 lt:J e4 1 5 't!i'c2 d 5 !? or
si mply 1 2 . . . ll:Je5 1 3 e3 h6 must be
considered) I I . . l:lxe8 12 e3 ( 1 2
. 10 1!t'd8 !
g3 ll:Je5! 1 3 b3 d 5 !) 1 2 . . . l:ld8 1 3 N o t I 0 . . . l:ld8 ? I I 't!i'xe7 ll:Jxe7
.te2 d6 ( 1 3 . . . d5!? 1 4 cd ll:Jb4 1 5 12 ll:Jd6 'i!;>f8 13 g3 ll:Jc6 1 4 .ig2 ±
.tf3 ed 1 6 a3; 1 4 . . . ll:Je7 ! ?) 1 4 0-0 Abramson-Rokhlin, corres 1 965-
( 1 4 l:lb!?) 14 ... .id7 1 5 l:lfd l .ie8 8, or 1 0 . . . 1!fxd6?! I I ll:Jxd6 l:ld8
;!; Korchnoi-Polugayevsky, match 1 2 g 3 'i!;>f8 1 3 .tg2 ll:Je8 14 ll:Jcb5
( 1 3) 1 9 80. ll:Jxd6 1 5 ll:Jxd6 't>e7 1 6 0-0-0 lib8
b) 9 ... ll:Je8 10 e3 ( 1 0 1!t'd2 1!t'b6, or 17 f4 ± ( 1 7 ... b6 ? 1 8 ll:Jxf7)
I 0 . . . ll:Jxd6 I I 't!i'xd6 't!i'b6 1 2 l:lb I Adorj an-Agdestein , Gjovi k 198 3.
lidS 1 3 g3 't!i'b4 1 4 't!i'xb4, very 11 e4
lightly ;!; ( 19 . . . 1!ff6 ! Hort). a) 1 1 0-0-0 a6 1 2 ll:Jd4 ll:Je8 ( 1 2 . . .
8 1!fe7 ll:Jxd4 1 3 l:lxd4 b5!? Polugayevsky)
9 .id6 13 lLJ xc6 be 14 't!i'd4 d6 1 5 c5 (else
9 a 3 ! ? (Raj kovic) 9 . . . .txc3+ 1 0 15 . . . e5) 1 5 . . . d 5 1 6 f4 ll:Jf6 1 7 e4 a5
b e ll:Je8 looks =, e .g. I I .id6 ( I I = Korchnoi-Polugayevsky, match
.ig3 1!t'f6 1 2 1!fd2 a6 1 3 ll:Jd4 g6 =) (5) 1 980.
I I ... ll:J xd 6 12 lD xd6 ( 1 2 't!i'xd6 b) I I g3 a6 ( I I . . . ll:Je8 1 2 't!i'd2 a6
't!i'xd6 and . . . b6) 1 2 . . . b6 1 3 't!i'd2 1 3 ll:Ja3 b6 1 4 .tg2 .ib7 1 5 0-0
.ia6 14 l:ld l ll:Ja5 1 5 e4 l:lfd8 = l:ld7 16 l:lfd I ;!; Miles-Hjartarsson,
with . . . ll:Jb7. Mexico City 1 98 1 ) 12 ll:Ja3 1!t'b6 !
9 .ixd6 1 3 l:lb l 't!i'b4 1 4 't!i'xb4 lDxb4 1 5
10 't!i'xd6 (1 77) .tg2 d5 = ( 1 6 l:l d I b 5 !) Korchnoi­
10 ll:Jxd6 ll:Je8 I I lDcb5 a6 ! 1 2 Polugayevs ky, match ( I ) 1 980.
lt:J xe8 ab! =, e .g. 1 3 ll:Jc7 l:la4 1 4 II a6
ll:Jxb5 ( 1 4 c b 1!t'b4+ 1 5 't!i'd2 ll:Jd4! Black needs an improvement.
1 72 2 Ci:Jf3 Ci:Jj6 3 d4: 4 . . . Ci:Jc6

Not I I . . . 1!t'a5 1 2 i.d3, but I I . . . Aggressive and critical.

't!t'b6 ! ? is a viable option, e.g. 1 2 7 ..tf4
lld l ( 1 2 't!i'd2 d 5) 1 2 . . . a6 1 3 't!i'c7 7 cd Ci:J xd5 (7 . . . ed 8 Ci:Jxd5
't!t'xc7 1 4 Ci:Jxc 7 llb8 ( 1 4 . . . lla7 1 5 transposes; 8 i.f4!?, e.g. 8 . . . i.b4
c5) 1 5 a 3 ro . Also, I I . . . Ci:Je8 1 2 9 Ci:Jc7+ �e7 10 Ci:J xa 8 d4 I I a3
1!t'd2 a 6 1 3 Ci:Ja3 (or 1 3 Ci:Jd6) could ..ta5 ! 12 i.c7 !?) 8 Ci:J xd5 (8 e4
use tests. Ci:J xc 3 9 'tWxd8+ �xd8 10 Ci:Jxc3
1 2 Ci:Jc7 Ci:Je8 i.c5 = e.g. 1 1 i.f4 �e7 12 i.b5
12 . . . lta7 1 3 c5 t. i.d7 1 3 lite ! a6 14 i.d3 ltac8 =

1 3 Ci:Jxe8 ltxe8 Filip-Flesch, Hungary 1 969) 8 .. .

1 4 ..te2 Wb 6 ed 9 't!t'xd 5 ! ? (9 e3 i.e6 =) 9 .. .
1 5 lilb 1 'W'd4 i.b4+ (or 9 . . . i.e6!? 1 0 't!t'xd8+
Instead of 1 5 . . . 'W'b4 1 6 'itxb4 llxd8 1 1 e3 i.b4+ 12 Ci:Jc3 0-0 1 3
Ci:Jxb4 1 7 a3 Ci:Jc6 1 8 ltd 1 !, or 1 5 . . . i.e2 Ci:Je5 1 4 0-0 i.xc3 1 5 b e i.c4 =

e 5 1 6 0-0 'tWd4 1 7 ll d I 't!t'xd6 1 8 Tuzovsky-Greckin, USSR 1967)

ltxd6 Ci:Jd4 19 i.g4 U ±. After 1 5 . . . 10 i.d2 i.e6 ( 1 0 . . . 't!t'e7 I I Ci:Jc3?
1t'd4 Korchnoi-Gri.infeld , Lucerne 0-0 1 2 i.g5 't!t'c7 1 3 e3 i.e6 1 4 't!t'd2
1 982, went 16 ltd I ! 'itxd6 1 7 ltxd6 't!t'a5 15 i.h4 g5! 16 i.g3 ll fd8 1 7
�f8 1 8 0-0 �7 19 llfd 1 g5? ( 1 9 1!t'c2 i. xc3+! 1 8 b e Ci:Jb4! =F Suba­
. . . b6 20 f4 lilb8 ;!; ) 20 Ci:J a4 b5 2 l cb Portisch, Thessaloniki 01 1 984; 1 1
ab 22 i.xb5 Ci:Je5 23 a3 lta5 24 Ci:Jc3 a3 i.xd2+ 1 2 'itxd2 0-0 1 3 't!t'd6
±± . 't!t'g5 oo Portisch. B lack could also
I n general, 6 . . . i.b4 leads to try I 0 . . . i.xd2+ 1 1 't!i'xd2 't!t'xd2+
slight edges for White, and not 12 �xd 2 0-0 13 f3 !? lild8+ 14 �e l
much counterplay. oo, or here 1 3 Ci:Jc3) 1 1 't!t'xd8+
812 lilxd8 1 2 Ci:Jc3 0-0 ! ( 1 2 . . . Ci:Jd4 1 3
6 dS (1 78) 0-0-0) 1 3 e 3 lild7 ( 1 3 . . . Ci:Je5) 1 4
i.b5 ltfd8 1 5 0-0-0 i.xa2 =
1 78 Kraidman-Cramling, Gausdal 198 1 .
w 7 e5
Spassky tried 7 . . . d4!? versus
Trifunovic in Belgrade 1964: 8
Ci:Jc7+ �e7 9 'ita4! (9 't!t'b3 !?) 9 . . .
Ci:J h 5 ( 9 ... d e 1 0 ltd ! ) 1 0 Ci:J xa8
Ci:J xf4 I I Ci:Jb5 i.d7 12 g3? Ci:Jg6 1 3
't!t'a3+ �f6 1 4 1!t'f3+ \12- Y2 but 1 2
e3 ! (Gipslis) 1 2 . . . de ( l 2 . . . Ci:Jg6 1 3
Ci:J xa7 ! Ci:Ja5 1 4 Ci:Jb5 ±) l 3 't!t'a3+
 2 lZlf3 lZlf6 3 d4: 4 . .. lZlc6 1 73

ct>f6 1 4 'ti'xe3 ± puts this line to 12 ll:ld6 (180)

rest.
8 � 1�

8 �g5 a6! 9 ll:lxd5 ll:l xd5 1 0 B

�xd8 �b4+ =F.

8 ef
9 de be
10 't!Yxd8 + ct>xd8 (1 79)

With one further split:

B l2 1 1 12 .. �xd6
B 12 1 2 12 . . . ct>c7
a) Originally 12 . . . l:tb8!? was
played: 1 3 ll:lx17+ <t>e8 14 ll:lxh8
( 1 4 ll:ld6+ i.. x d6 1 5 llxd6 lit xb2 1 6
l:td2 l:tb4 1 7 g3 l:tc4! 1 8 ll:l d 1 ct>e7
An arena for some heavyweight = Andersson-Timman, Bugojno
battles throughout the 80s . 1 98 2) 14 . . . llxb2; but 1 5 lit d4 ! ( 1 5
B 1 2 1 1 1 :ild l + l:td2? i.. b 4) 1 5 . . . �b4 ( 1 5 . . . a 5 1 6
B 1 2 2 1 1 ll:ld4 e 3 fe 1 7 fe, and 1 7 . . . i.. c 5 1 8 �d3!
1 1 0-0-0+ �d7 1 2 ll:ld6 �xd6 1 3 o r 17 ... �b4 1 8 llxb4 a b 1 9 ll:ld 1
l hd6 ll:lg4! 1 4 ll:ld l ct>c7 1 5 :ild4 litxa2 20 �c4 lit xg2 2 1 ll:lf7 looks
g5 16 g3 c5 ( " ! " Raj kovic), e.g. insufficient) 16 l:txb4 lit xb4 1 7
17 l:tc4 �c6 1 8 l:tg l ( 1 8 f3 e 3 ! ? ( 1 7 g3 l:tc4?! 1 8 ct>d2 l:td4+ 1 9
:ilfd8 ! ) 1 8 . . . ll:lxh2 1 9 gf ll:l xfl 20 <t>c I ct>f8 20 e 3 ± - H tibner­
:ilxfl g4! 2 1 lit xc5 h5 etc. In Trois­ Makropoulos, Athens 1 976; 1 7 . . .
Ro gulj, Virovitica 1 980, Black ct>f8 1 8 g f ct>g8 1 9 e 3 <t>h 8 2 0 �d3
settled for 12 ... ct>c7 !? 1 3 ll:lxl7 ±; or here 18 . . . l:txf4 19 e3 t or 1 9
litg8 1 4 ll:le5 �f5 15 e4 !? ( 1 5 g3 litgl ct>g8 20 ll:lg6 :!: Stean-Liberzon,
ll:le4!?) 15 . . . fe 16 �c4 lite8! 1 7 Baden 1 9 80) 17 . . . fe 18 fe ct>f8 1 9
ll:lf3 ( 1 7 �xg8 l:txe5 1 8 �b3 ef 19 i..d 3 ct>g8 20 0- 0 ct>xh8 2 1 ll:le4! t
i.. c 2 i..g4 intending ... �c5) 17 . . . (Xu Jun).
lit h 8 =. b) 12 ... <t>e7!? 13 g3 g5 14 �g2
8121 �g7 1 5 0-0 lit ab8 16 ll:lc4 ! t
11 :ildl+ �d 7 Polugayevsky-Giigoric, B ugojno
1 74 2 !i:JjJ !i:Jf6 3 d4: 4 . . . !i:Jc6

1 9 82. 15 !i:J xd7 !i:J xd7

81211 16 g3
12 i.xd6 1 6 litd2 !i:Je5 ! 1 7 e3 fe 1 8 fe i.b4
13 lilxd6 llb8(!) 19 ..ie2 ..ixc3 20 be lit b l + 2 1
13 . . . <t1c7 14 lii: d4 g5 1 5 g3 t; 1 3 lit b l litb2 = Rubi netti-Velimirovic,
. . . <tre7 1 4 lld4 ( 1 4 lld2 !i:Jd5 !? 1 5 Lucerne 01 1982.
!i:J xd5 cd 1 6 g3 llac8 = H .Olafsson­ 16 !i:Jxb2
Sosonko, Luceme 01 1982) 14 . . . g5 17 ..ih3 !i:J f6
15 g3 !i:Jh5 ! ? ( 1 5 . . . fg 16 hg !) 1 6 1 7 . . . lt:Jc5?! 1 8 0-0 litc2 1 9 lit c l
i.g2 ( 1 6 !i:Je4 !) 16 . . . f5 1 7 i.f3 g4 litxc l 20 lit xc l t Korchnoi-Portisch,
1 8 i.g2 t va n der Heij den- Fiorito, match (5) 1983. Gutman mentions
Net herlands 1 984. 17 . . . ..ib4!?, 17 . . . lt:Je5 !?, and 17 . . .
14 li[d2 lt:Jb6!? a s well .
14 b3 lii: b4 1 5 g3 <tre7 1 6 litd2 After 1 7 . . . lt:Jf6 , Adorjan­
c5 = Korchnoi-Polugayevsky, match Cebalo, Vrsac 1983, conti nued 1 8
(7) 1983. 0-0 fg 1 9 h g ..ib4 20 lite ) lit d8 2 1
14 liteS ..ig2 litdd2 ! = .

15 g3 f3 8122
16 <t1d1 11 lt:Jd4 (181)
16 i.h3 fe 1 7 i. xd7 !i:Jxd7 1 8 b3
<trc7 = H.Olafsson- Portisch , New 181

York 1 984. 8

16 fe+
1 7 i.xe2 <trc7 1 8 i.c4 i.g4+!?
( 1 8 ... <tre7 19 <t;c i llbe8 20 b3
i.e6 21 i. xe6 t Xu Jun-de Firmian,
Thessalo niki 01 1984) 19 <trc2 ( 1 9
lt>cl !?) 1 9 . . . lle7 20 b3 litd8 2 1
litxd8 <trxd8 22 f4 i.f5+ = Karpov­
Polugayevsky, London 1 984.
81212 Another Korchnoi move, de­
12 l!;>c7 !? signed to avoid Black's active
13 !i:Jxf7 lit g8 piece play of the last two sect ions.
14 !i:Je5 11 ..id7
1 4 g3 lit b8 1 5 litd2 i. b4 1 6 i.g2 1 1 . . . c5 ! ? 1 2 lilc6+ ( or 1 2 lildb5
..ixc3 1 7 be lit b l + Andersson­
= i.b7) 1 2 . . . lt>c7 1 3 lt:Jc5 ..ie6 1 4 g3
Ta l, Ma lmo 1 983. fg 1 5 hg litb8 is worthy of
14 llb8 ! attention ( 1 6 b3 ? c4; 1 6 litc l ) I I . . .
 2 llJf3 llJf6 3 d4: 4 . . . llJc6 1 75

i.b7?! 1 2 g3 c5 1 3 ll:lf3 ± is given nesses.

by Levitina. Korchnoi-Portisch, 82
match (3) 1 983, went I I . . . '!/c7 1 2 6 g3 (182)
g3 i.c5?! ( 1 2 . . . l:tb8 1 3 0- 0-0 i.c5
14 i.g2! ll:lg4 15 ll:le4 ! ! or 1 4 . . .
i.xd4 1 5 l:t xd 4 !; 1 2 . . . i.b4 ! ;t
Gutman) 1 3 l:tc l ! fg 1 4 hg i.a6 ?
1 5 ll:lxc6! ± .
12 g3 fg
1 2 . . . c5?! 1 3 ll:ldb5 l:tb8 1 4
ltJxa7 ! llxb2 1 5 0-0-0 ;t and 1 2 . . .
i.d6 1 3 i.g2 l:tc8 1 4 0- 0 fg 1 5 h g
h5(?) 1 6 l:tad I '!;c7 1 7 i.xc6!
Ligterink-Hulak, European Team
Ch 1 983, are not effective. But 1 2 This simple development has
. . . i. b4!? 1 3 i.g2 ( 1 3 gfl?) 1 3 . . . fg been debated a mong top players
transposes. for over 30 years without in any
13 hg i.b4 way exhausting its possibilities.
Or 1 3 . . . li b8 1 4 0-0-0 ( 14 i.g2 B21 6 . . . i.b4
lixb 2 1 5 0-0 l:tb4 = Andersson­ B 22 6 . . . i.c5
Polugaye vsky, Tilburg 1 983) 1 4 . . . B 23 6 . . . it'b6
'!/c7 oo, intending . . . ll:lg4 - Older moves tend to be too
Polugaye vsky; 1 5 i.h3 i.xh3 1 6 passive:
l:txh3 i.b4, roughly equal. a) 6 . d6 7 i.g2 i.d7 8 0-0 a6 9
..

14 i.g2 b3 !, e.g. 9 . . . i.e7 10 a4! 0-0 1 1 ..ta3

Or 14 llc l c5 = . After 14 i.g2, 'tib8 1 2 lla2 with the idea l:td2,
Ti mm an-Gligoric, Volmac 1 984, Karpov-Schauwecker, Bath 1 973.
went 14 . . . i.xc3+ 15 be '!/c7 1 6 b) 6 . dS can transpose to 6 . . .
..

0-0 ( 1 6 l:th4 g5!? 1 7 lith6 ll:lg4 1 8 i. c 5 after 7 ..tg2 ..t c 5 8 ll:lb3 ..tb4,
lih5 h6 = Djuric-Velimirovic, or to a Queen's Gambit after 7 cd
Titograd 1 985) 16 ... llab8 1 7 ll:lb3, ed .
and here Gligoric likes " 1 7 . . . h 5 ! c) 6 . . . a6 7 ..ig2 it'c7 8 0-0 ..te7 (8
planning . . . h4" . White was better . . . ll:l a5 9 b3 d5 10 i.g5 - or 10 ..tb2
after 17 . . . llhe8 18 l:tfe 1 l:tb5 1 9 de 11 b4 - 1 0 . . . ..te7(?) 1 1 l:t c l de
e4 t. 12 b4 llJ c6 1 3 ll:lxc6 be 14 ..txf6 gf
Overall, 6 . . . d5 appears best 1 5 ll:le4 ± Gligoric; 1 0 . . . de!? 1 1
after 6 ll:l db5, as Black's piece play i.xf6 !) 9 b3 0-0 10 ..ib2 l:td8 1 1
compensates for his pawn weak- ll c l d5? 1 2 cd ed 1 3 ll:la4 ..id7 1 4
1 76 2 liJf3 liJf6 3 d4: 4 . . liJc6
.

1i'd3 1i'a5 1 5 liJf5 ± Smys1ov­ b) 7 ... d5 8 liJxc6 ! be 9 1!t'a4 is

Cobo, Havana 1 967. awk ward for Black .
d) 6 .. liJe5 7 .if4 ! liJg6 (7 . . . liJ xc4
. c) 7 ... 1!t'a5 8 0-0! .i xc3 (8 . . . a6 9
8 e4 d5 9 ed ed lO liJdb5 ±) 8 .id2 liJb3 1!t'hS l O .if4 ±) 9 be 0-0 (9 . . .
(or 8 .ig 5 a6 9 .igH) 8 ... 't!lb6 9 e3 1!i'xc3 1 0 liJbS!) 1 0 "ti'b3 lld8 ( I O
.ie7 1 0 .ig2 liJe5 ;!; Szabo-Enk1aar, . . . ll e8 1 1 liJbS; 10 . . . dS 1 1 cd ed
Amsterdam 1973. 1 2 .if4 .ig4 1 3 life 1 1!t'c5 1 4
e) 6 ... .ie7 7 .ig2 0-0 8 0-0 a6 (8 . . . 1!t'xb 7 ! liJ xd4 1 S c d 1!t'xd4 1 6 l:lab 1
d S 9 cd liJxdS l O liJ xdS e d 1 1 aS ? 1 7 .ib8 ±± Stahlberg-Pe rsitz,
.ie3 ;!;, or here l O liJ xc6! be 1 1 Lj ubljana 1 9SS) 1 1 .ia3 1!t'hS 1 2
.id2 ;!;) 9 .if4 ! (9 e4 !? 1!t'c7 1 0 .ie3 l:lfd 1 liJxd4 1 3 cd d S Spassov­
and 9 liJb3 d6 10 .if4 are options) Form anek, Stara Zagora 1 97 7; 1 4
9 . . . 1i'a5 ( 9 . . . liJhS 10 .ie3; 9 . . . llac 1 ± .
liJaS l O 1!t'd3 d 6 1 1 liJb3 ;!; ) 1 0 liJb3 d) 7 ... liJe5 8 "ti'b3 (8 0-0!? liJ xc4 9
"ti'b4? 1 1 cS ! etc. 1!t'b3 .ixc3 I 0 1!t'xc3 dS 1 1 b3 liJd6
821 1 2 .ia 3 0-0 1 3 "ireS llJfe8 1 4 ll fd 1
6 .ib4 b6 1 S 1i'c2 oo Shatskes; o r here 8 . . .
7 .ig2 (183) .ixc3 9 be liJxc4 1 0 1i'a4 liJ b 6 1 1
'§'b3 0-0 1 2 .ia3) 8 . . . tWaS (8 . . .
183 .icS 9 liJ c 2 ;!; ) 9 liJ c 2 .ixc3+ l O be
B dS 1 1 cd ed 1 2 .if4 liJc4 1 3 liJe3!
liJ xe3 ( 1 3 . . . 't!t'cS 14 .ixd5 !? or 14
lld l ) 14 .ixe3 ;!; - Furman­
Vistanetskis, Vilnius 1 960.
8 0-0 d5
a) 8 . a6 9 i.gS !? (or 9 liJc2
..

.ixc3+ lO be d 5 1 1 liJe3 ;!;) 9 ... h6

10 .ixf6 "it'xf6 1 1 e3 .ixc3? ( 1 1 . . .
't!t'e7) 1 2 b e 't!t'eS 1 3 llb 1 't!t'c7 1 4
7 0-0 cS ! liJaS 1 S 't!t'h S ! fS 1 6 g 4 ti'xcS
a) 7 ... 't!rb6 ! ? 8 llJc2 !? (8 liJb3 is the 1 7 gS ± ( 1 7 . . . hg 1 8 liJf3) Garcia­
main line 823 1 ; 8 liJdbS ! ?) 8 . . . Palermo-Evans, Lone Pine 1 978.
.ixc3 + 9 b e 0-0 l O 0-0 ( l O .ia3 b) 8 . . "it'e7!? 9 liJc2 (9 .igS) 9 . . .
.

lld8 1 1 .id6 liJe8 1 2 cS 1!t'a5 1 3 .ixc3 1 0 b e lld8 1 1 .ia3 d 6 1 2

1i'd2!?) l O . . . d S 1 1 liJe3 lld8 1 2 cd liJd4 ( 1 2 e4!?) 1 2 . . . liJe5 1 3 "ti'b3,
ed 1 3 liJ xd 5 liJxdS 14 .ixdS liJe7 Tu kmakov-Hort, De�in 1977; 1 3
1S c4 liJxd S 16 cd .ifS = Bukal­ . . . liJfd7 ! = (Tukmakov).
Joksic, Yugoslavia 1 977. 9 cd ed
 2 liJf3 liJf6 3 d4: 4 .. . liJc6 1 77

1 0 .ie3 Zee 198 1 . I 0 .if4 or 10 .ie3

Or 1 0 .ig5, as in Quinteros- deserve a look)
Bertok, Cap D'Agado 1 986: 10 . . .
.ixc3 ( 1 0 . . . h 6!?; 1 0 . . . .ie6 I I 184

li:lxc6 be 1 2 lilc l t) I I be .ie6 1 2 W

lilb I ll:l a5 1 3 f4 ! li:lc4 1 4 'it'd3 li:lb6

1 5 l He l h 6 16 .ih4 't!t'd6 1 7 .ixf6
gf 1 8 e4 de 19 .ixe4 .ixa2 20 lilb5
±.
After 1 0 .ie3, 1 0 . . . .ixc3 I I be
.ie6 12 lilb I favours W hite, e.g.
12 . . . li:l a5 1 3 't!t'a4 b6 1 4 lilfd l li:lc4
15 .if4, Portisch-Donner, Santa
Mo nica 1966, went 10 . . . lile8 I I Now harmless is I 0 e4 a6 I I
lilc l .ig4 1 2 '@b3! .txc3 1 3 lil xc 3 't!t'e2 lilb8 1 2 lil d l 't!t'c7 1 3 .if4 liJe5
li:lxd4 1 4 .txd4 .txe 2 1 5 lil fc l 14 liJd2 b6 = Ciafone-Tarjan , Palo
li:le4 ( 1 5 . . . .ia6 1 6 lilf3! liJe4 1 7 Alto 1 98 1 . 10 li:ld4!? .id7 ( 1 0 . . .
lilf5) and now 1 6 lile3 .ta6 1 7 d5 ! ? intending I I c d e d 1 2 .if4
lice I ± (Portisch). 't!t'b6) I I liJ db 5 ( I I b3 a6 1 2 .ib2
822 lilb8 =) I I . . . 't!t'b8 1 2 .if4 ( 1 2 .ig5
6 .tcs a6 ! 1 3 .txf6 gf =, or 1 3 liJa3 lild8
7 li:lb3 =) 1 2 . . . ll:le5 1 3 b 3 a6 1 4 liJd4 t
7 li:lc2 't!t'b6 ! or 7 .ie3 't!t'b6 are Vu kic-Minic, Vinkovci 1 977.
fu tile. 7 e3 0-0 (or 7 . . . b6) 8 .ig2 The best move is 1 0 .if4!, when
d5 9 cd ed 10 0-0 .ig4 ( else I I 10 . . . liJe5 I I c5! and 1 0 . . . li:l a5 I I
liJb3) I I li:lxc6 be 1 2 't!t'c2 ( 1 2 'it'a4 liJ xa5 ( I I .ixd6 liJxc4 1 2 .txe7 t)
't!t'd7 or 1 2 . . . ll: c8 ) 1 2 . . . ll:c8 = l l . . . 't!t'a5 1 2 't!t'd2 favours White.
Browne- Lj ubojevic, Milan 1 9 75. More common are: I 0 . . . liJ h5 I I
7 .ib4 .te3 liJf6 ( I I . . . liJe5 1 2 c5 ! d5 1 3
7 ... .te7 is still common, but .id4 li:lc6 1 4 e4 ! = Kapengut; or
White keeps a riskless edge: 8 .ig2 14 e3 ± Adorjan) 12 ll:cl liJg4 1 3
0-0 9 0-0 d6 (184) (9 . . . a6 10 c5! d5 .tf4 g5 ( 1 3 . . . liJge5 1 4 liJb5 !) 1 4
I I cd .txd6 12 .ig5 .te7 1 3 'trxd8 .i d 2 it:lge5 1 5 liJb5 liJg6 1 6 c5! d 5
lilxd8 14 liJa4 t Tiller-Pl achet ka, Adorj an-Hulak , Toluca 1982, and
Norway v Czechoslovakia 1 98 1 ; 9 either 1 7 liJd6 ± or 1 7 e4 d4 1 8
. . . b6 1 0 liJd5 !? ed I I cd .ib7 1 2 d6 liJd6! (as played) is strong. O r 1 0
lile8 1 3 de 'tlt'xe7 14 lil e l t ... liJg4 I I :file I liJge5, Adorjan­
Gheorghiu-Tu kmakov, Wij k aan M o kry, Prague 1985, and aside
1 78 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: 4 .. . li:Jc6

from 12 li:Jb5 a6 1 3 li:Jbd4 li:Jxd4 1 4

'ifxd4 !, 1 2 li:Jd4(!) li:Jxc4 ( 1 2 . . .
i.d7 1 3 li:J xc6 i.xc6 1 4 c5! ± ) 1 3
i.xc6 ± with the idea li:J xc6,
li:Jxe7+, b3, li:Jb5 etc (Adorjan).
Fi nally, I O . . . h 6 l l litc l e5 1 2 i.d2
i.e6 13 li:Jd5 liteS, Gavrikov­
Zaichik, Tbilisi 1 9 S3; 14 i.c3! !
and li:Jd2 ( Ga vrikov).
8 i.g2 dS
9 cd
9 (}.0 de I 0 li:Jd2 (}.0 ( 10 . . . 'tlt'd4
I I li:Jb5 'ife5 1 2 a4 !) I I li:Jxc4 'ife7 Tu kmakov) 1 2 bc i.xc3 1 3 lit b l a5
1 2 i.e3 lit dS 1 3 'ifb3 li:Jd5! = ( 1 3 . . . 0-0 may improve; 13 . . . i.b4
Stean-Sosonko, A msterdam 1979; 14 li:Jd4 and li:Jb5) 14 litd l !? ( 1 4
12 i.d2 litdS 1 3 'tt"c I li:Jd4 (or 13 . . . li:Jc5 i.b4 1 5 li:Ja4 ::!:: Tu kmakov­
i.d7) is also equal. Tal, Erevan 1 9 SO) 14 . . . f6 1 5 a3
9 li:JxdS lUd8 1 6 li:Jc5 ± Reshevsky-Kogan,
9 . . . ed 10 0-0 i.e6 I I i.g5 ! ( I I US Ch 19S I .
. . . 0-0 1 2 lit b l !). 11 'ti'xd1
10 0-0 (!) No better seems I I . . . i.xc3 1 2
10 i.d2 li:Jxc3 I I i.xc3 i.xc3+ lit b I 0-0 1 3 i.e3 i.f6 1 4 li:Jc5 'ti'c7
12 be 'ti'e7 = ; 10 a3 i.xc3+ I I be 1 5 'ti'a4 litdS 1 6 lUc l ( ±) 1 6 . . .
0-0! ( I I . . . li:J xc 3 ? 1 2 'tfxdS+ a nd litbS 1 7 li:Ja4! i.e7 I S 'ti'xa 7 ! etc of
1 3 i.b2 ±) 1 2 c4 ( 1 2 'ifc2 it'c7 ! 1 3 Su nye-Hase, Moron 1 9S2.
c4 li:Je5 =) 1 2 . . . li:Jb6 1 3 'ifxdS 1 4 1 2 litxd1 i.xc3
c5 li:Jd5 ! ( 1 4 . . . li:Ja4 1 5 i.f4 ;t) 1 5 13 ll b 1 0-0
i.b2 b6 1 6 e4 li:J de7 ro. Finall y, 1 0 14 li:JcS eS
'ifc2 li:Jxc3 ! ( 1 0 . . . (}.0 I I i.d2 ;t) I I Christiansen gives 1 4 . . . li:Jd4!?
be i.e7 equalises. 15 'it>fl e5 1 6 litd3!? i.a5 ro , but
10 li:Jxc3 the immediate 1 5 lld3(!) intending
10 . . . i.xc3 I I be (}.0 1 2 i.a3 ! 15 . . . li:Jxe2+ ( 1 5 . . . e5 16 e3) 1 6
liteS 1 3 c4 li:Jb6 14 litc l i.d7 1 5 'it>f l li:Jxc l 1 7 lit xc3 li:Jxa2 I S lita3
li:Jc5 ± Adorjan-Sigurjonsson, etc looks good. 14 . . . li:JdS? 1 5 i.a3
Reykjavik 1 9S2. liteS 16 li:Ja6! i.a5 1 7 litb5 ± was
11 be!? (1 85) Christiansen-Radulov, I ndonesia
I I 'ifxdS+ has also had success, 1 9S2. Probably Ftacnik's 1 4 . . .
e.g. I I . .. li:Jxd S!? ( I I . . . 'it>xdS litdS i s best.
 2 �!3 �!6 3 d4: 4 . . �c6 . 1 79

After 1 4 . . . e 5, Razuvayev-
Polugayevsky, Moscow l 9S5, ended 186

quickly: 1 5 .ia3 .tf5 1 6 li xb7 B

�a5 1 7 lic7 liacS I S lba6! ( ±) I S

. . . l:UdS? 1 9 l hdS+ l hdS 20 lhc3
l -0.
823
6
Still the main line. 6 . . . ._.b6
drives the wh ite knight from the
centre without the loss of tempo 6
. . . .ic5 entails. Recently the move 8 23 1 7 . . . .ib4
has p repared the direct . . . d5. 8 232 7 . . . �e5
7 �b3 (186) 8233 7 . . . d5
7 �xc6 'ti'xc6! or: 8231
a) 7 �db5 �e5 (7 . . . .ic5?! S .ig2 ! 7 .ib4
.ixf2+ 9 � f l �g4 1 0 1!t'd6 ! ±± 8 .ig2 ._.a6
Lipinski-Schinzel, Warsaw 1 977) Still the normal move, although
S .ig2 ( S .if4 lt:lfg4! 9 e3 a6 +) S . . . Whit e has done well against it.
a6 (S . . . � xc4!? 9 'W'a4 'ti'c5 ! 1 0 Others:
.if4 e 5 I I .ig5 a6 1 2 .ixf6 li b S 1 3 a) 8 0-0 9 0-0 .ixc3?! 10 c5! it'c7
...

�d5 a b 14 'W'a7 ! 'W'd6 oo) 9 �a3 (9 I I be b5 1 2 .if4 e5 1 3 .ig5 ±

'ti'a4 .ic5; 9 .ie3 'ti'a5) 9 . . . .ixa3 Mikhalchishin-Valenti, Rome 1977;
10 ba � xc 4 I I 1!t'b3 ?! ( I I 0-0 0-0 better 9 . . . � e 5 10 c5 't!t'a6 I I 'ti'd4
1 2 e4!?) I I . . . i hb 3 12 ab �a5 1 3 �c6 1 2 'it'd3 ! Tischbierek-Goglitz,
lib l d5 + (Euwe). East Germany l 9SO.
b) 7 e3 .ib4 (or 7 . . . d5 = ) S .ig2 d5 b) 8 ... �e5 9 .ie3 'W'a6 (9 . . . 'W'c7
9 cd � xd4 1 0 1!t'xd4 'W'xd 4 I I ed 10 c5 �c4 I I 'itd4! �xe3 1 2 'W'xe3
�xd5 =. libS 1 3 0-0 .ixc3 14 1!t'xc3 b6 1 5 c6
c) 7 �c2 d5 ! (or 7 ... .ic5 S e3 0-0 9 0-0 - 15 . de 16 �d4! - 1 6 � d4 a6,
..

.ig2 'ti'a6 =) S cd ed 9 � xd5 (9 b3 Portisch-Donner, Amsterdam 197 1 ;

= Gufeld) 9 ... lt:\xd5 1 0 1!t'xd5 .ie 6 1 7 liac l ! d6 I S lifd I ± Portisch)
I I 't!t'e4, Belyavsky-Gurevich, USSR 10 c5 �c4 I I .tel d5 1 2 cd 0-0 1 3
1 975; . I I . . . .i b4+ ! 1 2 �xb4 0-0 .ixd6 ( 1 3 . . . lidS 1 4 .ig5 ! ; 1 3
'W'xb4+ 13 'ti'xb4 �xb4 + (Gufeld). . . . h 6 1 4 'W'd3 lidS 1 5 a 3 .ixd6 1 6
�c5! Ro manishin) 1 4 't!t'd 3 ! libS
see diagram 15 a4! �e5 16 'itd4 lidS 17 �b5 ±
Romanis hin-H ulak , K rk 1 976.
180 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: 4 . . . li:J c6

c) 8 . . . d5 9 cd (9 li:Jd2 d4 1 0 li:Ja4
'f/c7 = ) 9 li:Jxd5 (9 0 0 0 ed 1 0 .te 3
o o •

/87
"t!la6 I I 0-0 0-0!? 1 2 li:Jc5 ! ) 1 0 0-0! w
li:Jxc3 ( 1 0 .t xc 3 I I be 0-0 1 2 c4
oo•

li:Jde 7 B agirov-Barczay, Ta llinn

1 9 8 1 ; 1 3 .tb2 i; 13 .ta3; l 2 "t!lc2!?
Bagirov) I I be .te7 ( I I 0 0 0 .txc3 1 2
.te3! with a strong attack ) 1 2 .te3
"t!lc7 1 3 li:Jd4 .td7 14 llbl a6 1 5
li:Jxc6! .t xc6 1 6 .txc6+ "t!lxc6 1 7
:U.b6 t planning 1!Va4, :U. fb l etc,
Gulko-So kol ov, Parnu 1977.
9 c5 of E ingorn-Mikhalchishin, Lvov
a) 9 0-0!? "t!lxc4 10 .td2 d5 I I li[ c l 1 984, which went 1 1 . 0 0 d5 l 2 li:Jxc5
i.xc3 1 2 .t xc3 @'a4 o r 1 2 0 0 0 @'g4; @'a5 13 li:Jca4 ± . H ere I I 0 0 0 c4 1 2
here 1 2 . . . li:J d4? l 3 li:J xd 5 ! ! li:'lxe2+ li:Jc5 "t!la5 1 3 @'d6 ! looks worse.
1 3 "t!lxe2! with a k illing attac k , 10 ab
Fernandez-Le bredo, Cuba 1984. 11 0-0 0-0
b) 9 li:Jd2 !? .txc 3 l O be 0-0 (or 10 o o · II .t xc3!? 1 2 be d5 1 3 .tg5
o o •

d5 =) I I 0-0 ( I I c 5 b6; I I "t!lb3 !? ( 1 3 e4!?) 1 3 .tb7 14 .txf6 gf 1 5

oo•

Gligoric) I I 0 0 0 d5 12 "it'b3 .td7 (or li:'ld4 t Thinnsen-de Firmian , Palo

12 000 li:'la5 13 @'a3 b6 1 4 cd ed 1 5 Alto 1 98 1 .
c4! li:J xc 4 1 6 li:Jxc4 "t!lxc4 1 7 .tb2 12 .tg5 .te7
li:'le4 1 8 1!t'e3 =/ro Tatai-Ostojic, 1 3 e4 ! h6 ( 1 3 . . . b5 !?) 14 .tf4 e5
Rome 1 97 7) 13 1!t'a3 , Korchnoi­ 15 .te3 li:Jb4 16 a3 li:Jd3 17 'flc2
Spassky, match (5) 1 97 7- 8; 1 3 0 0 0 li:Jg5 1 8 .td2 1!t'c4 19 .tf3 ± van
1!t'xa3 1 4 .t xa 3 ll fc8 = (Stean). Dyck-Bernard, corres 1979-82. Thus
9 b6 (187) both 10 cb and 10 0-0 look good
9 0 0 0 1!t'c4 1 0 0-0! .t xc5 I I li:J xc5 for White.
1!t'xc5 12 .te3 1!t'e7 1 3 li:Jb5! t 8232
Chekhov-Alburt, U SSR 1978. 7 li:Je5
10 cb!? The old main line.
Perhaps even better is l 0 0-0( ! ) 8 e4 .tb4
be?! ( 1 0 . . . .txc5? I I li:Jxc5 b e 1 2 8 0 0 . d6 9 f4 lt::l g6 1 0 "t!le2 .te7 I I
'f/d6 ! ; 1 0 .tb7 I I .t g5 .t xc3 1 2
o o · .te 3 "t!lc7 1 2 .tg2 .td7 1 3 n e t 0-0
be li:Je5 1 3 .txb7 t intending .txf6 , 14 0-0 a6 1 5 li:Jd4 t Polugayevsky­
1!t'd4, Tukmakov-Razuvayev, Tash­ Lju bojevic, Tilburg 1 985.
kent 1 980) I I .te3 ! (" ±" Eingorn) 9 'ire2 (188)
 2 lLlf3 lLlf6 3 d4: 4 . . . lLlc6 181

ef lLlxf6 14 c5 't!t'c7 1 5 .ig2 b6 1 6

/88 lLlb5 .ixd2+ 1 7 'trxd2 'trb8 1 8 �c 1
B :!: Ubi1ava-Gu1ko, USSR Ch 1 98 1 ,
or here 1 4 .ig2 d5 1 5 0-0-0 a 5 1 6
.ie3 o!) 1 3 . . . 'trd8 ( 1 3 . . . 'trc7 1 4
lLl b 5 .t xd2+ 1 5 'trxd2 t) 1 4 a3 ( 1 4
.tg2 fe 1 5 fe b6 1 6 lLle4 a 5 oo ) 1 4 . . .
.txc3 1 5 .i xc 3 fe 1 6 .txe5 lLlxe5
17 'trxe5 a5 ( 1 7 . . . b6( ! ) 1 8 .tg2
.ta6 oo) 1 8 i.d3 a4 1 9 lLld2 d6 20
cd lLlxd6 2 1 0-0-0 ± Dvoiris-Tal,
9 0-0 USSR 1 985.
Weak is 9 . . . 'it'c6? 1 0 .id2! (or 11 'it'c7
l O f4( ! ) w ith the idea lO . . . lLl xe4 12 ..tg2 b6
1 1 .ig2 lLlxc 3 1 2 be .ixc3 13 .id2 1 2 . . . d5 falls short after 1 3 e5
± Shatskes) 10 . . . d6 1 1 f4 ±; or 9 lLle4 1 4 llc 1 (Mikha1chishin), or
. . . d6?! 1 0 f4 lLlg6 1 1 .id2 0-0 1 2 here 14 0-0 .t xc3 1 5 cd! ed 1 6 be
.ig2 a6 1 3 �c 1 �b8 1 4 g4! ± b6 1 7 � ac 1 f5 1 8 � fd 1 .ie6 1 9 g4
Holmov-Razuvayev, USSR 19 7 1 . (" ! " Velimirovic).
A wild line goes 9 . . . a5!? l O .ie3 13 ll acl !?
( l O f4 lt:l eg4! 1 1 e5 a4 oo) lO . . . 1 3 e5 lLle8 1 4 �c 1 " ±" (Mikhal­
'it'c6 ( l 0 . . . 'it'c7 !? 1 1 f4 ! lLlxe4 1 2 chishin).
.id4) 1 1 f3 0-0 1 2 lLld4 'it'a6 1 3 13 .ta6
lLl b5 d5 !? ( 1 3 . . . 't!t'c6 1 4 .id4 ±) 1 4 14 0-0 .txc3
lLlc7 ( 1 4 cd ed 1 5 .id4 de 1 6 .i xe5 1 5 � xc3 d6 1 6 lLld4 lt:lxd4 1 7
ef 17 'it'c4 f2+ oo Miles-Nunn, .txd4 e 5 1 8 i.fl Stean-Spassky,
London 1 977) 1 4 . . . 'it'd6 ( 1 4 . . . M unich 1 979; and instead of 18 . . .
'it'c6 !? 1 5 lLlxa8 lLlxc4 1 6 .id4 e 5 llac8 1 9 f5 ! ± , 1 8 . . . ef 1 9 gf �ae8
1 7 ed lLlxd 5 1 8 'it'xc4 o! Karpov) 1 5 20 i.d4 lLld7 was best .
lLlxa 8 de? ( 1 5 . . . lLlxc4! 1 6 a 3 lLlxa2 8233
17 llxa 3 d4 1 8 .id2 de 19 llxc3 U ± 7 dS (189)
Karpov) 1 6 fe lLl xe4 1 7 �d 1 ! 'it'c6 This radical solution was revived
1 8 .ig2 ±± Karpov-Miles, Tilburg a few years ago and is currently
1977. the main line.
10 f4 lLlc6 8 cd
II .ie3 8 .te3!? 'ti'b4 9 cd lLlxd5 is
Or 1 1 e5 lLl e8 1 2 ..i d2 ( 1 2 .ie3 unpromising, although Taimanov
't!t'c7 14 ..td2 t) 12 . . . f6 13 c5 !? ( 1 3 gives I 0 i.d2 lLl xc3 l l .txc3 't!t'e4
18 2 2 l1Jf3 l1Jf6 3 d4: 4 . . . l1J c6

lidS! 20 lidb l U± Adorj an­

189 Zys k , Dortmund 1 984.
w b) 10 ... e5 1 1 (}0 ( I I l1Jd2 'irc7 1 2
l1Jc4 �e7 1 3 l1Jc3 �e6 1 4 0-0 0-0
1 5 c4 i.c5 1 6 l1Jd5 'ird7 = Tal­
lvanovic, Nik� ic) I I . . . i.e7 1 2
i.e3 'f!Jc7 1 3 l1Jc5 trans poses to I I
. . . e5 above. H ere I I . . . �e6!? 1 2
..te3 'ira6 1 3 l1Jc5 i.xc5 1 4 i.xc5
lidS is an option.
9 ed
1 2 f3 'ti'e3 1 3 't!t'd2 t. Instead, 9 c5 !? 1 0 �g2 �b4+
is very interesting. Then 9 . . . l1Jg4 11 �d2 (190)
1 0 i.f4!? (or 1 0 i.d2 i.xc5 I I e3 ) I I �f l !? with the idea i.e3, h3,
I 0 . . . i.xc5 I I e3 with the idea a3 is �g l -h2 is slow but worth con-
apparently bad, and 9 . . . e 5 !? 1 0 a3 sideration.
't!t'c4 I I ..tg5 d4 1 2 e3 'ire6 13 l1Jb 5
is also loose. Perhaps 9 . . . l1Je4 I 0
lic l l1Jxc3 (t he c-p awn is immune)
I I li xc3 't!t'e4 12 f3 'iVf5 would be
best.
8 l1J xd5
9 l1Jxd5
The other popular move is 9
i.g2 (9 i.d2!?) 9 . . . l1J xc3 1 0 be:
a) 1 0 . . . ..te7 I I 0-0 (}0 ( I I . . . e5 1 2
i.e3 'iVc 7 1 3 l1Jc5 0-0 1 4 'iVa4 i.xc5
- lightly ! Kasparov-Karpov (26), 11 i.g4
Moscow 1 9S4-5) 12 ..te3 'irc7 1 3 a) 1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2 (}0 i.g4 1 3 h3 i.e6
l1Jd4 lidS ( 1 3 . . . i.d7 !?) 1 4 l1Jxc6 !? 14 i.e3 't!t'dS 1 5 li c l lieS 1 6
( 14 'iVa4 i.d7 15 l1Jxc6 i.xc6 1 6 l1Jd4!? ! ( 1 6 a3 planning l1J c5), Li­
i.xc6 be 1 7 liab I t Cvetkovic­ van der Wiel, Biel 19 85.
Giigoric, Lugano 1 983; or here 1 7 b) 11 . . . a5 1 2 0-0 i.xd2 ( 1 2 . . . (}0
c 4 \12- \12 Kasparov-Karpov, match 1 3 i.e3 'ira6 1 4 l1Jc5 !? - /4 licl!? -
( 24) 1 9S4) 14 . . . lixd l 1 5 l1J xe7+ 14 . . . i.xc5 1 5 i.xc5 lieS 1 6 e3 �f5
1txe7 16 l:l:xfd l g6 ( 1 6 ... h6 !? \12-\12 Adorjan-Ivanovic, Vrsac 19S3)
Adorjan) 1 7 l:l:ab I e5 I S lib5 ! 13 'ti'xd2 a4 1 4 ltJc I 0-0 1 5 l1Jd2 ( 1 5
i.e6 ( 1 8 . . . e4 1 9 lie5 ! ±) 1 9 lixb7 lii:d I i.f5 1 6 l1Jd3 i.xd3) 1 5 . . . lidS
 2 lt:lf3 lt:lf6 3 d4: 4 . . . lt:lc6 183

("?! 1 5 . . . lita5! Ei ngorn; 1 6 lt:lf4 d4 Nikolic- Cebalo, Novi Sad 1 984)

17 lt:ld5 t; 1 5 .tf5 1 6 lt:lf4 d4 1 7
0 0 0 14 . . . d4!? 1 5 .txc6+ be 1 6 .txd4 c5
lit fd 1 llfd8 1 8 lt:l d 5 t Georgiev­ 17 lt:l xc5 .txc5 1 8 'tra4+ ct>f8 1 9
Gligoric, Plovd iv 1 986) 1 6 lt:l f4 d4 .txc5+ 't!t'xc5 ' 20 ll a c l 't!t'e7 2 1
17 litac I i..d 7 18 litfd 1 lita5 1 9 'tWa5 ! g 5 22 litc7 'tWf6 2 3 'tWc5+
lt:ld5 'tWa7 20 lt:lb4! litc5 2 1 lt:l xc6 'tWd6 24 'tWxa7 ct>g7 oo Adorj an­
.txc6 22 11rb4 ± Eingorn­
- Danner, Lugano 1 983.
M ikhalchishin, Lvov 1 984. 13 't!t'xb4
12 0-0 14 'it'c2 0-0
1 2 .txb4!? • 'itxb4+ 1 3 'itd2 15 litfd1
11rxd2+ ( 1 3 . . . 0-0!?) 1 4 ct>xd2 0-0-0 " ±" (Spraggett). Here Spraggett­
15 h3 i.. h 5 1 6 litac l ct>b8 1 7 lt:lc5 Chand.ler, Commonwealth Ch 1985,
litd6 18 II hd 1 :t - Smyslov­ continued 1 5 . . . 'it'c4!? ( 1 5 . . . litfe8
H . Oiafsson, Copenhagen 1 985. is natural) 1 6 litd2 litfe8 1 7 e3 g6
12 litd8 1 8 h3 (or 1 8 lite I lt:le5 !? 1 9 lit xd5
1 2 . . . 0-0-0 1 3 lit e ! lit he8 ( 13 . . . 't!t'a6 20 llxd8 lit xd8 2 1 h 3 .tf3 22
ct>b8 1 4 i..f4+ ct>a8 1 5 a 3 t 'itc7 ± Smejkal-Cebalo, France
Tukmakov) 14 .txb4 ( 1 4 .te3 1986) 1 8 . .. i..f5 19 'tWd I .te4 20
litxe3 !?; 14 ... 1Wa 6!?) 14 . . . 1Wxb4 lie! 'tWb4 2 1 lt:ld4 ! ±.
1 5 'tWd4! 't!t'xd4 1 6 lt:l xd4 .txe2? Conclusion: Black has found no
( 1 6 . . . ct>d7! 1 7 lt:l xc6 be 1 8 e3 :t easy way to escape his difficulties
Tukmakov) 1 7 life I i.. c4 1 8 lit xe8 after 6 g3. Neither 6 . . . .ib4, 6 . . .
llxe8 19 lt:l xc6 be 20 b3 ± .ic5 n o r any o f the traditional
Tukmakov-Veingold, USSR 1979. move after 6 . . . 't!t'b6 7 lt:lb3 are
13 .txb4 presently satisfactory, and the
1 3 h3!? .ih5 14 .te3 ( 1 4 lit c l !?; newer 7 . . . d5!? apparently leaves
14 .txb4 1Wxb4 1 5 f4 !? f6 oo White with some pull .
 14 2 lb f3 lbf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6

1 c4 c5 7 lt:ld2 lLle4 ! i ntending 8 1!t'a4 lLlc6

2 lLlf3 lLlf6 9 lLlc7+ <t>f8 1 0 lLlxa8 1!t'f6! I I
3 d4 cd g3 lLl xd2 etc) 6 . . . a6 (or 6 . . . ed 7
4 lLlxd4 e6 (191) .if4 .ib4+ 8 lLl l c 3 0-0 =) 7 lLl5c3
ed 8 .ie3 lLlc6 9 .id4 lLlxd4 10
/ 91
w
1!t'xd4 1!t'c7 I I e3 .ic5 12 1!t'a4 b5!
1 3 .ixb5+ ab 1 4 1!t'xa8 0-0 :t=
Korchnoi-Greenfeld, B iel 1986.
A
5 g3
This move lacks the di rect
punch of 5 lLlc3, but can serve to
produce an original, balanced
game.
4 . . . e6 has long been considered A I 5 . . . .ib4+
Black's most rel iable line. It intro­ A2 5 . . . 1!t'c7
duces variat ions which are of Very important is 5 . . . d5 6 .ig2 ,
great transpositional signi ficance. which is a Catalan Openi ng. I will
The positi on after 5 lt:\c3 .ib4 6 not discuss it for reasons of space,
g3, for example, can arise from the but it is conside red fully equal in
controversial Nimzo-I ndian line the main lines following 6 . . . e5
I d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 lLlc3 .ib4 4 lLlf3 and 7 . . . d4. For further details,
c5 5 g3 cd 6 lLlxd4, and I d4 lLlf6 2 the reader may consul t the first
c4 c5 3 lLlf3 cd 4 lLlxd4 e6 is a (English notation) edition of this
Benoni. book, and update it by Chess Infor­
A 5 g3 mant from #29 on. Surprisingly
B 5 lLlc3 little has changed, although now
a) 5 e3 (5 .if4?? e5 ! ) 5 . . . lLlc6 6 even li nes such as 5 . . . d5 6 .ig2
.ie2 d5 = . e5 7 lLlf3 d4 8 0-0 lLlc6 9 e3 d3!?
b) 5 lLlb5 d 5 6 cd (6 .if4 .ib4+ and 9 . . . .ig4!? have had some
 2 ltlf3 ltlf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6 185

success, along with the normal 9 . . . 1 0 . . . e5 ( 1 0 . . . j.xc3?! I I be and

j_e7 and 9 . . . j.c5. j.a3 ; 10 . . . j.e5 I I lite l j.b8 1 2
Other moves i nclude 5 ... lt:lc6 lt:lb5 ± Nogueiras) I I lt:l b5 0-0!
( Chapter 1 3, A), 5 ... a6 6 j.g2 ( I I . . j.c5 1 2 j_g5 0-0 1 3 fld2
.

flc7 ( 8 2 below) and 5 . . . j.c5, e.g. h6 1 4 j.xf6 'it'xf6 1 5 b4 j_e7 1 6

6 lt:lb3 j.b4+ (6 . . . 't!t'b6 7 lt:lxc5 lt:lc7 lit b 8 1 7 lt:ld5 f;lg5? - 1 7 . . .
tt'xc5 8 lt:ld2 'it'c6 9 e4 ! ±) 7 j.d2 fle6 1 8 f4! - 1 8 f4 ef 1 9 't!t'xf4
i.e7 8 j_g2 lt:lc6 9 0-0 (t) 9 ... b6? l -0 Rogers-Suba, Szirak I Z 1 986)
1 0 lt:ld4! j.b7 l l j_f4 0-0 1 2 12 lt:lxd4 ( 1 2 a4 j.c5 ! 1 3 a5 fld8
lt:lb5 ± Ku ligowski-Su nye, Graz 14 lt:ld6 j.c7 Psakhis) 1 2 . . . ed,
1981. Nogueiras-Psakhis, Szirak IZ 1986.
Popular is 5 . . . tt'b6 !?, e.g. 6 Now 1 3 tt'd 3 d5 ! l 4 cd Itd8! ( 1 4 . . .
j_g2 j.c5 7 e3 lt:lc6, and now j.g4 1 5 h 3 j. h 5 1 6 f4! ; 1 4 . . . flc5
instead of 8 lt:l b3 j.b4+ 9 j.d2 1 5 j_g5 ! , e.g. 1 5 . . . lt:lxd5 1 6 litacl
lt:le5! l 0 't!Vc2 d 5 =I oo ( I I cd tt'a6 ! ) tt'a5 1 7 't!t'xd4 lt:l b6 18 j.f6! gf 1 9
a s in several games, the gambit 8 Itc5) seems to hold, e.g. 1 5 It e l
0-0!? is critical (or 8 lt:lc3 !, to h6! etc. The game went 1 3 b3 d5 1 4
transpose and a void 8 . . . j. xd4 9 ..i b 2 ( 1 4 c d j.f5 ! 1 5 j.b2 d3; 1 4
ed tt'xd4 1 0 lt:lb5!): 8 . . . lt:lxd4! ( 8 i.a3 lit e S 1 5 c 5 't!t'a5 1 6 j. b 2 't!t'xc5
. . . 0-0? 9 lt:l c 3 ±; 8 . . . j.xd4 9 ed 17 j. xd4 =) 14 . . . de 1 5 'it'xd4 cb 1 6
flxd4 1 0 1!hd4 lt:lxd4 l l lt:lc3 flxb6 a b 1 7 a b j.e6 1 8 j.xb7 =.
'it>e7 !? - 11 ... d5!? Nogueiras - 12 A rare line is 5 ... 'ffa 5+ 6 lt:lc3 (6
Itd I lt:lc6 13 b3 ! a5 1 4 j.f4 ! lt:le8 j.d2 't!t'b6 7 j.c3 e5 ! 8 lt:lb3 tt'c6 9
15 litd2 f6 1 6 litad l lt:le 5? 17 j.xe5 f3 't!t'xc4 =, or 9 . . . d5!?; 6 lt:ld2
1 -0 - Nogueiras-A m . Rodriguez, lt:lc6!? 7 lt:lb3 flc7 8 e3 8 j_g2 -

Havana 1986. 8 lt:lc3 avoids this) 9 ltle5 - 8 . . . b6 9 j_g2 j.b7, very

ed j.xd4 1 0 lt:lc3 (192) (with the lightly ;!: Pavlovic-Karlsson, Nice
idea lt:la4) 198 1 ; here 6 . . . tt'b6 7 e3 lt:lc6 8
lt:lxc6 8 lt:ldb3!? - 8 . . . be = was
-

/ 92
B
Coppini-A verbakh, Reggio Emilia
1 97 7-8) 6 . .. lt:le4 7 j.d2 lt:lxd2 8
'ffx d2 a6 9 i.g2 j.e7 1 0 0-0 0-0 I I
litfd I ;!: Yusupov-Ani kaev, USSR
1979.
AI
5 i.b4+
j.d2
6
6 lt:lc3 is A2 below; on 6 lt:ld2, 6
 186 2 liJf3 liJf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6

. . . li:Jc6 7 li:Jc2 ..tc5 = or 7 . . . ..te7 =. 1t'xd2+ 10 li:Jxd2 d5 !? ( l 0 . . . d6; 1 0

6 'irb6 (1 93) . . . c;!;>e7) 1 1 li:Jxc6 ! b e 1 2 'fJ. c l ;!;
6 . . . ..tc5 7 li:Jb3 ..te7 8 ..tg2 ;!;; Pribyl-Gross, Czechoslovakia 1975.
6 . . . ..te7 7 ..tg2 li:Jc6 8 ..tc3 ;!; (8 7 'it'xb4+
e3!?) ; 6 .. . ..txd2 7 'irxd2 (or 7 8 li:Jc3!
li:J xd 2 11rb6 8 liJ2b3 'it'b4+ 9 Zilberstein's gam bit. 8 li:Jd2
'it'd2 ;!;) 7 . . . d5 ( 7 . . . li:Je4!? 8 1We3 'irxb2 (or 8 ... d5 =) is less
'it'a5+ 9 li:Jd2 li:Jxd 2 1 0 'ihd 2 effective: 9 li:Jb5 li:Ja6 10 .ig2 0-0
'irxd2+ 1 1 c;!;>xd 2 c;!;>e7 1 2 ..tg2!? - 1 1 li:Jd6 'irb4 = Auen-Hartston,
1 2 'fJ.dl - 1 2 . . . li:J c6 1 3 c;!;>c3 li:Jxd4 Vienna 1 972.
14 c;!;>xd4 d6 1 5 '1J.ac 1 ..td7 = 8 li:J c6 ( !)
- Rashkovsky-Sideif-Zade, Baku Complex is 8 . . . 't!hb2!? (8 . . .
1983) 8 ..tg2 0-0 9 cd ed 1 0 li:Jc3 'it'xc4 9 e4 'irc5 1 0 li:Jb3 'ire7 1 1
li:Jc6 1 1 0-0 ;!; Grinza-Evans, H aifa e5 ±; 8 . . . 0-0 9 'it'b3 'irc5 1 0 '1J.d 1
1 9 76. But most of these ";!;"s are a6 - /0 . . . liJc6 I I 't!t'b5! ;!; - 1 1 .ig2
m ild. li:Jc6 1 2 li:Jxc6 be 1 3 0-0 ;!; -
Rashkovsky-Chekhov, USSR 1975;
193 8 . . . a6 9 a3 ! 'irxc4 1 0 'fJ.c 1 0-0 1 1
w ..tg2 ± with the idea 1 1 . . . 't!t'c7? 1 2
li:Jd5 t!t'd8 1 3 '1J.xc8 ! ; 1 1 . . . li:Jc6 1 2
li:Jxc6 b e 1 3 0-0 'irg4 1 4 'ird6) 9
li:Jdb5 'it'b4 1 0 li:Jc7+! c;!;>d8 1 1 't!t'd2
li:Je4! 1 2 li:J xe6+ fe 1 3 li:Jxe4
't!t'xd2+ 14 li:J xd2 ( 1 4 c;!;>xd2 b6 ! 1 5
.ig2 .ib7 1 6 'fJ.hd 1 li:Ja6 = -
Petursson-Forintos, Ljubljana 198 1 )
1 4 . . . c;!;>c7 1 5 ..tg2 li:J c6 1 6 0-0 b 6 1 7
7 .txb4 li:Je4 .ia6 1 8 liac 1 ;!; Alexandria­
a) 7 ..tg2 li:Jc6 (simplest, but 7 . . . Litinskaya, Vilnius 1 980 .
.ic5 8 e 3 ..txd4 9 e d 'it'xd4 1 0 0-0 9 li:Jdb5 0-0
li:Jc6! has been equal in practice) 8 10 e3 d5
li:Jb3 d5 (8 . . . a5 !?) 9 cd ed 1 0 0-0 11 a3 'it'a5!
.bd2 1 1 'irxd2 0-0 1 2 li:Jc3 '1J.d8 1 3 1 1 . . . 'ire7?! 12 cd ed 1 3 .ig2 ;!; .
'1J.ac 1 .ig4 = Stean-Sanz, Las After 1 1 . . . 'ira5, Rashkovsky­
Palmas 1 978. Schneider, Frunze 1 983, went 1 2
b) 7 e3 li:Jc6 ( 7 . . . 0-0; 7 . . . ..tc5 !? 8 c5 ( 1 2 b4 'it'd8 1 3 cd ed 1 4 .ig2
..tc3 li:Je4 9 'it'b3 ;!; Browne) 8 .ig4 1 5 'ird2 li:Je5 = Hausner­
..txb4 (8 .ig2) 8 . . . 't!t'b4+ 9 't!t'd 2 Pinter, Skara 1980; or 1 2 . . .
 2 lLlf3 lLlf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6 187

�b6! ?) 1 2 . . . �d8 1 3 .te2 ( 1 3 llc l 1980) 8 . . . d5?! (8 0 0 0.tb4+ =; 8 . . .

llb8 14 b4 a5 ! 1 5 't!t"a4 .t d7 + .tc5 = ; 8 . . . lL!xd4) 9 lL!xc6 b e 1 0
Diesen-Andersson, Torremolinos 0- 0 .t e 7 I I lt:l c3 0-0 1 2 e4 t Arkell­
1 9 78) 1 3 . . . �e7! 1 4 lL!d6 ( 1 4 b4 Psakhis, European Cup 1 984.
a 5 ! ) 14 . . . b6 1 5 lL!xc8 ll fxc8 1 6 cb e) 6 .tg2 .tb4+ (6 . . . �xc4!? 7 0-0
ab 1 7 0-0 lL!a 5 +. lL!c6 8 lL!xc6 de! 9 .tg5 .te7 1 0
A2 lL!c3 0-0 I I lL!e4 lld8 1 2 �e l
5 �c 7 (194) �d4 = Duric-Antonov, Pernik
198 1 ; 6 . . . a6 7 b3 .tb4+ 8 .td2 t) 7
/ 94 lL!c3 (7 lL!d2 �xc4 8 lL!c2 0-0 9 0-0
w .txd2 1 0 .txd2 d5 + Kapengut) 7
. . . 'it'xc4 8 0-0 0-0 (or 8 . . . lL!c6) 9
.tg5 lL!c6! with the idea . . . d5.
A21
6 lL!d2 lL!c6
Or 6 . . . .tb4 7 .tg2 �xc4 as
above, but White has 7 e3 or 7
1i'b3 . 6 . .. a6 7 .tg2 lL!c6 (7 . . . d6 8
b3 .te7 9 .tb2 ;!;) 8 lL!xc6 de 9 0-0
Atta cking c4 and preparing the .te 7 10 1i'c2 0-0 I I b3 e5 1 2 .tb2
Sicilian-like . . . d6, . . . a6 etc. .te6 1 3 a3 (or 13 1i'c3 ) 1 3 . . . a5 1 4
A 2 1 6 lL!d2 c 5 t Stean-Cebalo, S mederevska
A 22 6 lL!c3 Palanka 1 980. 6 . . . .tc5 !? 7 lL!2b3
a) 6 '@"c2 d 5 7 lL!b5 �c6 8 .tg2 a6 9 0-0 8 .tg2 .te7 ( "? ! 8 . . . .tb4+ 9
lL!5a3 lL!bd7 = (Ne istadt). .td2 'it'xc4 I 0 l:tc I .txd2+ I I
b) 6 b3 .tb4+ 7 lL!d2 (7 .td2 .tc5 �d2 't!t"a5 1 2 lL!c5 =/rn" Kasparov)
and . . . d5) 7 . . . .tc5 8 e3 ltJc6 =. 9 1i'd3 a6 1 0 0-0 d6 I I .td2 lL!c6 1 2
c) 6 �a4 .tc5 (or 6 . . . �b6 7 e3 lL!xc6 be 1 3 .ta5 'tWb 7 1 4 .tc3 t
lL!c6 =, or 6 . . . a6) 7 lL!b3 .te7 8 - Rashkovsky- Kasparov, USSR
lL!c 3 �c6 = or 8 . . . lLlc6 9 lL!b5 198 1 .
't!t"b8 =. 7 lLl bS 't!Vb8
d) 6 '@"d3 a6 (6 . . . e5 7 lL!b5 't!t"c6 8 7 . . . 1i'b6 8 .tg2 a6 9 lL!c3 .te7
e4! lL!xe4 9 .tg2 lL!c5 1 0 't!t"d 5 with 10 0-0 0-0 I I lL!a4 ! 'it'a5 12 c5!
attack, Bradford- Peters, Phoenix .txc5 13 lL!c4 't!t"b5 14 b3 ±
1978) 7 .tg2 (7 lL!c 3 is A 22) 7 . . . Mi khalchishin-Lukin, USSR 1 979.
lL!c6 8 b3 ( 8 lL!xc6 de!? 9 0-0 .te7 8 .tg2 a6
I 0 'it'b3 e5 I I .te3 lL!d7 = 9 lL!c3 bS
Olafsson-Karpov, Buenos Aires 9 . . . .te7 ( Razuvayev) 10 0-0 0-0
188 2 l1:Jf3 l1:Jf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6

I I 11:Jde4 t inte nding 12 ..tf4. After 7 ..tgS!?

9 . . . b5, Polugayevsky-Taimanov, a) 7 1t'a4 l1:Jc6 8 11:J xc6 t!t'xc6 =, or 7
USSR 1 978, went I 0 0- 0 ..te7 I I ... b5 !? 8 cb ..tb7 (Korchnoi).
c5!? ( I I b3 0-0 1 2 ..tb2 lil:d8) I I . . . b) 7 e3 11:Jc6 (7 . . . ..te7 = ) 8 ..te2 b6
..txc5 1 2 11:Jde4 l1:Jxe4 1 3 11:J xe4 9 11:Jxc6 de = .
..tb6! ( 1 3 . . . ..te7 14 ..tf4 e5 1 5 ..te3 c) 7 e4 b6 (7 . . . ..tb4 ( !); 7 . . . b5!?) 8
0-0 I 6 11:Jc3, Rashkovsky-Taimanov, a3 ..tb7 9 't!t'e2 d6 1 0 ..tg2 11:J bd7 =
USSR Ch 1 977) 14 ..tf4 ..tc7 1 5 Maninang-Dolmatov, Manila 1982.
..txc7 9xc7 1 6 lil:c l lil:a7, dynamic­ d) 7 b3 b5!? 8 ..tg2 ..tb7 9 ..tf4 d6
ally equal. =, or 7 . . . ..tb4 8 ..td2 d5 =.
A22 e) 7 ..te3 ..tb4 8 'tib3 ..te7! 9 ..tg2
6 l1:Jc3 a6 (195) d6 10 lil c l 11:J bd7 = Tarjan­
Not 6 . . . 9xc4? 7 e4 'it'b4 (7 . . . Vaganian, S kopje 1976.
1t'c7 8 ..tf4) 8 a 3 't!t'b6 9 ..te3 ± f) 7 1id3 l1:Jc6 (7 . . . b6; 7 . . . b5!? 8
( Muller). The main option is 6 . . . cb ..tb7 9 e4!? ..tb4 1 0 ..tg2
..tb4 7 't!t'd 3 (7 ..tf4!?, e .g. 7 . . . e5 8 l1:Jxe4! = Tarj an-Fedorowicz, US
11:Jdb5 'tixc4 9 ..txe5 or 8 . . . 'tic6 9 Ch 1 977) 8 l1:J xc6 (8 b3 ..tc5 !) 8 . . .
..b e5; 7 'tib3!? ..tc5 8 ..te3 a6 9 't!t'xc6!? ( 8 . . . de =; 8 . . . be) 9 e4!? ( 9
l1:Jc2) and now: a) 7 . . . a6 8 ..tg2 ll g I ..tc5 10 ..tg2 't!t'c7 = with the
l1:Jc6 9 11:Jxc6 de (9 . . . be 10 ..tf4 e5 idea I I ..tf4 d6 1 2 lld l �e7! ) 9 . . .
I I ..tg2 !) I 0 0-0 e5 I I l1:Ja4 ;!: b 6 1 0 ..tg2 ..tb7 I I ..td2! lil:c8 1 2
( Gipslis); b) 7 . . . l1:Jc6 8 11:Jdb5 !? b 3 t H .Olafsson-Alburt, Reykjavik
'tib8 9 ..tf4 l1:Je5 10 1!t'd4 d6 I I 1 986.
11:Jxd6+ ..txd6 1 2 0-0-0 11:J xc4 1 3 g) 7 ..tg2 1Wxc4 !? (7 . . . ..te7 8 0-0
1Wxc4 ..txf4+ 1 4 gf 0-0 1 5 lil: g l , 0-0 9 ..tf4!? d6 l O l1:J b3 11:Jbd7 I I
Seirawan-Polugayevsky, London lil:c I ;!: Dantov-Tischbierek, Berlin
1 984; 1 5 ... e5! (Polugayevsky); !. 1 984; 7 . . . d6 8 ..tg5 11:J bd7) 8 ..tf4
(8 0-0 1Wc7 9 ..tg5 l1:J c6 +) 8 . . . l1:J c6
/ 95 9 11:Jxc6 be 10 lil:c l 'irb4 I I a3 1i'b7
w 1 2 ..td6 ..txd6 1 3 't!t'xd6 1i'b8 =
Sosonko- Kavalek, Wijk aan Zee
1978.
7 ..te 7
a) 7 . . . ..tb4 8 ..txf6 gf ( 8 . . . ..txc3+
9 be gf 1 0 e4 b5 I I 't!t'f3) 9 ll c l b6
1 0 ..tg2 ..tb7 I I ..txb7 't!t'xb7 1 2 0-0
;t Rashkovsky-Vaganian, USSR
Ch 1976.
 2 ltJfJ ltJf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6 1 89

b) 7 ... b5!? 8 cb .tb7 9 f3 .tc5 1 0 e4 d6 7 .td3 or 7 f3 is Chapter 1 5 ,

'i!t'd 2 0-0 I I lit e I ab ro Do nchev­ E. Here 6 lt:ldb5 ( ! ) .tc5 (6 . . . d6? 7
Ortega, Erevan 1 986. .tf4 e5 8 lt:ld5 or 8 .tg5) 7 .tf4 0-0
8 llc1 d6 8 .tc7 'i!t'e7 9 .td6 .txd6 1 0
8 . . . b6 9 .tg2 (9 .txf6 gf) 9 . . . t!t'xd6 t was Speelman-Fedorowicz,
.tb7 1 0 lt:ld5 !? ed I I cd .tc5 ! 1 2 d6 Lone Pi ne 1 978.
( 1 2 .txf6 gf 1 3 d6 .tb4+; 1 2 lt:lf5 5 a6 6 e4 is a Kan Sicilian, and
..

'i!t'e5 !?) 1 2 . . . 'i!t'c8 1 3 .txf6!? ( 1 3 6 g3 is A22. I ndependent is 6 .tg5

0-0! ? .txg2 1 4 lt:l f5) 1 3 . . . .txg2 1 4 lt:lc6 ( 6 . . . h6 7 .th4 .t b4 8 llc l !?)
'i!t'd 2 1!1b7 ! + Grigorian-Ka rlsson, 7 e3 (7 e4!?) 7 . . . .tc7 8 .ie2 (8
Erevan 1 980. lt:lf3) 8 ... 'tia5 ! 9 .if4 lt:le4 1 0 'i!t'c2
9 .tg 2 lt:lb d 7 lt:lxc3 = Furman-Tal, USSR Ch
9 . . . 0-0 10 0-0 h6 I I .td2 .td7 1 975.
12 e4 lHc8 1 3 b3 'it'd8 1 4 a4 tl ± 81
Gauglitz-Petra n, Budapest 1986. 5 .tb4 (197)
10 0-0 h6
197
11 .te3 0-0 w
1 2 h3 ll e8 1 3 f4 !? ( 1 3 b3) 1 3 . . .
lt:lf8 1 4 lt:lb3 ( 1 4 .tf2 a n d e 4 -
Yusupov) 1 4 . . . .td7 = Yusupov­
Psa khis, Erev an 1 982.
B
5 lt:lc3 (196)
1 96
8
6 g3
a) 6 e3 lt:le4 7 'i!t'c2 lt:l xc3 8 be
.ie7 =.
b) 6 lt:lc2 .ixc3+ 7 be t!t'a5 8 'i!t'd3
lt:la6! (8 . . . lt:l c6 9 .ia3 d5 ! +
Fischer) 9 f3 lt:lc5 1 0 1!i'd2 0-0 +
Debarnot-Tatai, Las Palmas 1975.
c) 6 .ig5 lt:lc6 ( 6 ... h6) 7 li c 1 1i'b6
The main line, not so easy for 8 .txf6 gf 9 lt:lb3 lt:l a5 =/ro
Black as 5 g3. Korchnoi-Furman, USSR Ch 196 1 ;
B l 5 ... .tb4 d ) 6 'it'c2 lt:lc6 7 e 3 0-0 8 .te2 d 5 =.
B2 5 . . . d 5 e) 6 .if4!? 0-0 7 lt:l db5 lt:le4!? (7 . . .
5 lt:lc6 i s Chapter 1 3. 5 . . . b 6 6
... d5( !); 8 lt:lc7 lt:lh5) 8 't!fc2 lt:lxc3 9
1 90 2 li:Jf3 lt/6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6

be '@f6 I 0 e3 a6 I I l:i:c l .ta5 ! ? ( I I g2) 6 ... d5 7 .tf4 (7 a3? .txe3+ 8

. . . a b 12 cb e5 !?) 1 2 li:Jc7 e5 1 3 li:Jd5 li:Jxe3 d4 9 li:Ja2 0-0 1 0 e3 li:J e6 =!=; 7
't!i'e6 14 .tg3 d6 1 5 .td3 f5 =/oo ed ed 8 .tg5 0-0 9 e3 a6 10 a3 and
Murei- Shamkovich, Wij k aan Zee 10 . . . .ta5 = or 1 0 . . . ab I I ab l ha 1
1 9 83. 1 2 '@xa l li:Je6 1 3 .txb5 d4! =/oo
f) 6 '@b3 li:Ja6 (6 . . . .tc5 7 li:Jf3 '@b6 Kagan-Gulko, USSR 197 1 ) 7 . . . 0-
=, or 7 .te 3 li:Ja6!, or 7 e3 li:J c6 8 0 8 e3 (8 li:J e7 ? li:Jh5; 8 '@b3 li:J e6) 8
li:Jf3 0-0 9 .te2 d5 =) 7 .tg5 (7 e3? . .. li:Je6 (or 8 . . . a6(! ), and 9 li:Je7
li:Je4; 7 li:Jc2 .te7; 7 .td2 0-0 8 e 3 l:i:a7 1 0 li:Jxd5 ed I I .txb8 .txe3 1 2
b 6 = ) 7 . . . h6 ( 7 . . . '@a6 8 .td2 li:Jc5 be .tg4 or 9 a3 .t a 5 1 0 li:J d 6 li:Je6
9 't!i'e2 li:J ee4 10 li:J xe4 li:Jxe4 = +) 9 a3 .txe3+!? (or 9 . . . .ta5 10 b4
Bronstein; but 1 0 li:Jb 3 ! .txc3 I I a6 =) 10 li:Jxe3 h6 I I ed ed 1 2 .te2
.t.xe3 '@f5 1 2 f3 seems to favour ( 1 2 li:Jb5!? ) 1 2 . . . d4 = Szilagyi­
White) 8 .txf6 't!i'xf6 9 e3 '@g6 1 0 Fa ber, Bagneux 1 975.
llc l 0-0 I I a 3 .te7 1 2 g 3 li:Je5 1 3 h) 6 .td2 is the best of these slow
'@e2 '@xc 2 1 4 llxe2 a5 ro Gunawan­ moves: 6 . . . li:Je6 (6 . . . 0-0 7 a3
Rom anishin, De Pasar 1 984. .te7 ! ? 8 .tf4 d5 9 e3 li:Jbd7 10 .tg3
g) 6 li:Jb5 has two good replies: de I I .txe4 ! Velikov-Sem kov,
g l ) 6 . . . 0-0 7 a3 (7 .tf4 d5 or 7 . . . Bulgaria 1 9 80- 1 , or 7 . . . .txe3 8
li:Je4!?) 7 . . . .txe3+ 8 li:Jxe3 d 5 9 .txe3 li:Je4 9 '@e2!? d5 I 0 e3 li:Jxe3
.tg5 (9 e3 li:Je6 =; 9 ed ed 1 0 .te3 I I '@xe3 de 12 .txe4, C.Hansen­
li:Je6 I I .td4 lle8 12 e3 li:Jg4 ! ) Hjartarson, Esbjerg 1 985, and
9 . . . h6 1 0 .txf6 '@x6f I I e d e d instead of 12 . . . b6 1 3 0-0 ;!;, 12 . . .
'@xd 5 ? ! ( 1 2 e3 li:Je6!? - 1 2 . . . lld8 .td 7 was best, but 9 l:i: e l may
13 '@d4! w - 1 3 '@xd5 lld8 14 '@f3 improve) 7 a3 (7 li:Je2 .te5 8 .te3
't!i'g6 1 5 lid I llxd I + 1 6 li:J xd I .txe3 9 li:J xe3 0-0 =, or 7 . . . .te7 =)
=/oo; here 1 3 . . . .tg4!? 1 4 '@b3? ! 7 . . . .te7 8 .tg5 (8 .tf4 d6 9 .tg3 !?)
'@g6 1 5 f3 .te6 =F was Murei­ 8 . . . 0-0 9 e3 d5 ! ? 10 .te2 h6 I I
West, Biel 1 985; Murei gives 1 4 .th4 li:Je5 1 2 ed :t Karner-Gipslis,
.t b 5 llad8 1 5 't!i'e4 ! ;!;) 1 2 . . . lld8 Tallinn 1 975.
1 3 't!i'f3?! ( 1 3 '@b3 li:J a6 ! ? or 1 3 . . . A fter 6 g3:
li:Je6 oo K apengut) 1 3 . . . '@b6 ! 1 4 B I I 6 . . . li:Je4
l:i:d l l:i: xd l+ 1 5 li:Jxd l li:Je6 1 6 1i'e 3 B l 2 6 . . . 0-0
( 1 6 e3 .te6 =F ) 1 6 . . . li:Jd4 1 7 't!i'e8+ 6 . . . li:Je6 is Chapter 1 3, B 2 1 , and
'lt>h7 18 e3 li:Je2+ ! 19 'lt>d2 .tf5 ! 20 6 . . . '@e7 7 '@d3 is A22 above.
'@xa 8 't!i'd6+ 21 'lt>e l li:Ja l ! 22 Bll
1Wxb7 't!i'e7+ ! 0-1 Vaganian-Planinc, 6 li:Je4
Hastings 1 974- 5. 7 't!i'd3
 2 lLlf3 lLlf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6 1 91

No longer seen is 7 1tc2 'ira5 ! (8 be .i.xc3+ 10 'lt>d I 't!t'e5 ! I I .i.f4

t;Jb3 1!ff5!) or 7 .i.d2 .i.xc3 (7 . . . @f6 12 lit e ! .i.e5 ; 9 a3 lLle4+ I O ab
t;:Jxc3!?) 8 .i.xc3 lLlxc3 9 bc 't!t'a5 1 0 't!t'xb4+ I I lLld2 lLlc5 ! .
�d3 0-0 I I .i.g2 lLlc6 1 2 lLlb3 't!t'c7 9 lLle4
1 J c5 b6 = G rigorian-Savon, 10 't!t'xe4 .i.xd2+
U S SR 1 976. 11 lLlxd2 0-0
7 't!t'aS 12 .i.g2 lLlc6
Presumably 7 . . . .i.xc3 8 be lLlc5 13 't!t'e3
m ight be tried, but 7 . . . lLlxc3 8 be The best alternative is 1 3 't!t'd3 !?,
11.. c 7 9 lLlb5 ! favours White. e.g. 13 . . . 't!t'e5 14 li b ! lLld4 1 5
8 lLl b3 (198) 1t'b3(?!) a5 1 6 't!t'c3 f6 oo Suba­
8 lLlc2?! .i.xc3+! (8 . . . lLlxc3?! 9 Ftacnik , Prague 1 985; 1 5 't!t'c3 ! ,
tt:Jxb4 lLlxc2 1 0 lixa2 with pressure) but Black's 1 3th and 1 4th moves
9 be lLlc5 ! I 0 't!t'd2 ( 10 @e3 b6; 1 0 were hardly forced.
�d4 0-0 I I ..b 3 b 6 1 2 .i.g2 lLlc6 + , Lesser moves are 13 a3 lidS ( 1 3
o r I I . . . d6! 1 2 0-0-0 b6 ! Banas­ . . . d5 14 cd ed 1 5 't!t'xd5 't!t'c7 =
Lerner, Stary Smokovec 1977) 1 0 Padevsky) 14 't!t'c2 ( 1 4 't!t'f4!?) 1 4 . . .
. . . b 6 I I .i.g2 .i.b7 1 2 .i.xb7 lLlxb7 d5 1 5 0-0? lLl d 4 1 6 1t'd3 de 1 7
1 3 .i.a3 lLlc6 14 O-O d6 + Lombard­ lLlxc4 't!t'h 5 1 8 lilad l e 5 + -
Rogoff, Biel 1 9 76. Romanishin-lvkov, Sochi 1983;
and 1 3 't!t'f4 e 5 ! 14 'lrh4 ( 1 4 't!t'e3
lLld4 1 5 't!t'd3 d5 ! 1 6 cd .i.g4! +
Dorfm an-Makarichev, USSR Ch
1978) 14 . . . d6 1 5 a3 .i.e6 1 6 ll c l
lilad8 1 7 llc3 d 5 1 8 lLlb3 @b6 1 9
cd lixd5! =F LjubojeviC-Velimirovic,
Yugoslavian Ch 1 982.
13 dS
14 0-0 d4
IS @d3 ( 199)
see diagram
B I I I 8 . . . lLlxc3 IS lid8
B I I 2 8 . . . 't!t'f5 a) IS 't!t'b6 16 'ira3 ! e5 1 7 c5 't!t'b5
...

Bi l l ( 1 7 . . . 'i!t'c7 !? Gulko) 1 8 lil fe l lt:lb4

8 ltJxc3 19 lilac I .i.e6 20 lLle4 :! Gulko­
9 .i.d2! G . Agzamov, USSR 1982; 20 . . .
9 lLl xa 5 lLle4+ 10 .i.d2 .i.xd2+ lLlxa2 ! 2 1 lLld6 1!t'b3 2 2 't!t'xb3
I I 't!t'xd2 lLl xd 2 1 2 'lt>xd 2 lLlc6 = ; 9 .i.xb3 23 .i.xb7 ! t (Gulko).
192 2 liJf3 lf¥6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6

This leaves 16 . . . g6!? 17 b4 11fc7

199 (Informant), which favours White
B after 1 8 f4; and 1 6 . . . .ie6 1 7 b4
t!t"c7 1 8 f4! ? ( 1 8 liJe4 ( !), and 1 8 ..
.

g6 1 9 liJf6+ 'it>g7 20 liJd5, or 1 8 .. .

h6 1 9 liJc5 .ic8 20 f4 Informant) 1 8

. . . ef 1 9 gf g6 ! =/oo Giffard­
Cebalo, Sainte Maxime 1982. Over­
all, none of these 16th moves
seems fully equal for Black.
16 a3
b) After 1 5 . . . e 5 1 6 a3, Black has 1 6 llfd 1 ( Ftacnik).
tried just a bout everything, e.g. 1 6 16 liJe5
. . . f5 1 7 liJ b 3 ( 1 7 b4? ! "t!t'c7 1 8 c 5 1 6 . . . t!t"c7 ! ? (Gaprindashvili);
.i e 6 + Padevsky-Semkov, Bulgaria 1 7 f4 ! ( 1 7 . . . e5 1 8 f5 or 1 8 b4).
1 9 8 1 ; 1 7 .ixc6!? be 1 8 b4 "t!t'c7 1 9 17 b4(!)
f4 t Padevsky) 1 7 . . . 1rc7 1 8 1 7 @c2 'it'c7 18 1i'e4 ( 1 8 llac l
.id5+ ! 'it>h8 1 9 f4 lld8 2 0 fe 'irxe 5 .id7 =) 1 8 . . . a 5 ?! ( 1 8 . . . llb8 1 9
2 1 ll ad 1 ± Ljuboj evic-Szmetan, llac l b6 = S tohl; 1 8 . . . d3!?) 1 9
Buenos Aires 1 979. Or 16 ... @c 7 9 llac 1 a 4 20 c5 ;!; Polugayevsky­
1 7 f4 ( 1 7 b4 .ie6 1 8 liJe4 liJe7 ! oo) Ftacnik, Moscow 1985.
17 . . . ef 18 llxf4 .ie6?! ( 1 8 ... lle8 17 'iVc7!?
19 .id5 .ie6 20 ll af l "t!fb6 ? - 20 . . . The original idea was 1 7
llad8 - 2 1 b4 ± Popov-Chekov, liJxd3 1 8 ba liJc5. Then 1 9 llab 1
USSR 1 979) 19 .ixc 6! be ( 1 9 . . . llb8 20 llb4!? is natural, to stop
'it'xc6 2 0 b4 ± Informant) 2 0 c 5 . . . lLla4 , but 20 . . . b6 2 1 llab 1 lld6
t!t"e5 2 1 b 4 .id5 2 2 llxd4 liJe5 2 3 holds. So perhaps 20 liJe4, and 20
lLlc4 ± Catalan-Saeed , Dubai . . . liJxe4 2 1 .ixe4 or 20 . . . liJa4 2 1
1 9 8 1 . Or 16 ... .if5!? 17 liJe4?! ( 1 7 llb4 liJc3 22 liJ xc 3 de 23 llc l lld2
b4 .ixd3 1 8 ba .ixe2 1 9 llfe 1 .id3 24 .if3 c2 25 llb2 etc. Needs tests.
20 a6 llab8 21 ab liJa5 oo - 18 "t!t'b3 .id7
Prandstetter. But 1 7 1i'xf5 1rxd2 19 f4!
18 1lld 3( ! ) with the idea 18 . . . " ±" (Gaprindashvili): 19 . . .
1rxb2 1 9 llab l t!t"c3 20 ll xb 7 liJg6 ( 1 9 . . . lLlg4 2 0 1i'f3 ! lLle3 2 1
looks best) 1 7 . . . .if6 1 8 b 4 'iVc7 1 9 t!t"xb7 t!t"xb7 22 .ixb7 liJ x f l 2 3
f4 ( 1 9 c5!? f5 2 0 liJd6) 1 9 . . . f5 20 'it>xfl llb8 24 .i f3 ± Gaprindashvili)
liJeg5 e4 + Ftacnik-Prandstetter, 20 liJf3 .ic6 2 1 llfd l !? ( 2 1 llac l )
Czechoslovakian Ch 1982. 2 1 . . . e 5 22 f5 liJe7, Gaprindashvili-
 2 lLlf3 liJ/6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6 1 93

Mokry, Polanica Zdroj 1986; 23 14 . . . 'irxc5 1 5 lt:lxc6 de 1 6 't!t'xc5 be

g4 ! with the idea lilac l , lt:ld2-e4 1 7 .ixc6 lilb8 1 8 lilfd l , H uzman­
( Gaprindashvili). Tu k makov, USSR 1 983; "!" -
8112 H uzman . 1 8 . . . .ib7 1 9 JJ.. d 7 lilbd8
8 1tfS 20 JJ.f4 JJ..c 8 is one approach.
9 1We3 (200) It's interesting that (a) and (c)
are approximately equal, which
:!00 indicates that 8 . . . 't!t'f5 may be
B somewhat underest imated by com­
parison with 8 . . . lt:l xc3.
10 JJ..g 2 lt:ld6!?
11 cS lt:l c4
12 11t'd3!
As suggested in the first edi tion,
rather than 12 't!t'f4 't!t'xf4 1 3 gf
b6! =. After 1 2 't!t'd3, Miles-Sax,
D ubai 1 986, w ent 1 2 . . . 'irxd3 1 3
9 lt:lc6 e d lt:l4a5 1 4 lt:l xa5 lt:lxa5 1 5 JJ.e3
a) 9 ... lt:l xc3 1 0 be JJ..e 7 1 1 JJ..g 2 ( 1 5 .id2 JJ..x c5 1 6 lt:lb5 JJ.. b6 1 7
lt:lc6 ( 1 1 ... 0-0 12 0-0 lt:la6 1 3 c5! JJ..b 4 d 5 ! 1 8 lt:ld6+ �d7 1 9 liJxf7
.ixc5 1 4 lt:l xc 5 1Wxc5 1 5 Wxc 5 lt:lc6 ! oo Miles; 17 lt:ld6?! �e7 ! 1 8
lt:lxc5 1 6 JJ..a 3 d6 1 7 lilfd 1 ± JJ..b 4 �f6 = ) 1 5 . . . d6 1 6 c d JJ.d7 1 7
Donchenko-Saharov, USSR 1976) 0-0! ( 1 7 �e2 JJ..c 6 = Velikov­
1 2 c5! 0-0 1 3 .ia 3 lild8 ( 1 3 . . . b6!? Kurtenov, Vrnjacka Banja 1985)
14 lt:ld4 lt:lxd4 1 5 cd lilb8) 14 0-0 1 7 . . . JJ.. x d6 1 8 lt:le4 (" ±" Miles) 1 8
t!t'e5 15 Wd3 Wc7 16 lilfd l ;!;! ± . . . .ie7 1 9 lilfc 1 lt:lc6 ( 1 9 . . . JJ..c6 20
Fedorowicz-Kaufman, New York JJ..d 2) 20 ILleS .ixc5 2 1 .ixc5, and
1 9 79. 21 . . . f6 was best , but 22 b4 or 22
b) 9 ... lt:la6 1 0 JJ.g2 lt:lxc 3 1 1 be d4 is strong.
.icS 12 lt:l xc 5 lt:l xc5 1 3 1t"d4 ! B12
t!t'xd4 ( 1 3 . . . 0-0 1 4 JJ.f4) 1 4 cd 6 0-0
lt:lb4 15 �2 ± Lombardy-Hebert, 7 JJ..g 2
Lone Pine 1 98 1 . 7 11t'b3 JJ..c 5 (7 ... .txc3+ 8 be d5
c ) 9 ... 0-0 1 0 JJ..g 2 lt:l xc3 1 1 be JJ.. e 7 9 cd t Gulko, e.g. 9 ... lt:l xd5 1 0 e4
1 2 0-0 ( 1 2 c5 !?) 12 ... lt:lc6 1 3 c5 lt:lb6 1 1 JJ.. a 3 lile8 1 2 lt:lb5) 8 JJ..e 3
b6( !) 14 lt:ld4!? ( 1 4 cb ab 1 5 1Wxb6 (8 lt:lf3 ! ? 11t'b6 9 1!t"xb6) 8 . . . 1i'e7 9
.ia6 1 6 1We3 JJ.. c4 1 7 lt:ld4 lt:lxd4 1 8 JJ..g2 ! lt:l c6 (9 . . . lt:lg4 1 0 lt:le4 liJxe3
cd lilxa2 Huzman; 1 4 JJ.. a 3 lilb8)
= 1 1 1!rxe3 t Gulko) 10 lild 1 lt:l g4 1 1
194 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6

Ci:Jxc6 be 1 2 i.xc5 \!t'xc5 1 3 Ci:Je4

't!ta5+ 1 4 \!t'c3 ( 14 �fl !?) 14 . . .
202
\!t'xc3+ 1 5 Ci:Jxc3 litbS 1 6 b 3 d 5 1 7 B
0-0 i.a6 ? ! ( 1 7 . . . Ci:Jf6 = Gulko) I S
.
Ci:Ja4 ! d e 1 9 Ci:Jc5 i.cS 20 litd4 t
Gulko- Fedorowicz, Cl ichy 1 9S6-
7.
7 dS (20 1)

201
w

b) 9 ... 1raS 1 0 \!t'xa5 ( I 0 \!t'b5 e5 !)

1 0 . . . i.xa5 I I li::l d b5 lt::lc 6 12 litd I
( 1 2 i.g5 !?) 1 2 . . . e5 ( 1 2 . . . a6?! 1 3
li::ld 6 i.xc3 1 4 be li::l d5 - 1 4 . . . lLla5
15 i.e3! - 1 5 lt::l xc4! lbxc3 1 6 litd2
a5 17 i.a3 liteS IS lite! ±
Ke y for both the English and Romanishin-Ribli, Reggio Emilia
Nimzo-Indi an. White has: 19S5- 6) 1 3 lDd6 (or 13 i.e3 i.e6 1 4
8 1 2 1 S cd li::ld 6 t Suba) 1 3 . . . lbd4 ( 1 3 . . .
8 1 22 s \!t'b3 i.xc3!?) 1 4 �fl litdS ( 1 4 . . . i.g4 1 5
S 0-0 !? is an important recent h 3 k4') 1 5 lbxc4 i.xc3 1 6 b e i.e6 1 7
move. S . . . e5? 9 li::l c 2 i.xc3 10 be c d i. xc4 I S i.xb7 litabS 1 9 i.f3
de 1 1 i.a3 \!t'xd I 1 2 litfxd I liteS 1 3 ed 20 i.f4 lit b2, Condie-Suba,
lt::le 3 favours White, so play has D ubai 1 9S6; 21 a4! planning a5-
gone S . . . de 9 \!t'a4 (9 lt::l c 2!? i.xc3 a6 (Condie).
1 0 be 't!tc7 !? I I lt::l e 3 litdS 12 \!t'a4 c) 9 ... lba6 10 lb db5 lbd5 ( 1 0 . . .
- Conquest-I . Farago, Dortm und li::l d 7?! I I litd l 1re7 1 2 i.e3 lDdc5
1 9S6; 12 . . . i.d 7 1 3 't!txc4 't!txc4 1 4 - 1 2 . liJb6 13 i.xb6 14 a3 ± - 1 3
. .

lt::l x c4 i.c6 looks equal) (diagram) i.xc5! \!t'xc5 1 4 lbe4 \!t'b6 1 5 't!txc4
a) 9 ... 't!tb6 1 0 't!tb5 ( 1 0 lt::l c 2!?) 1 0 ± Georgadze-A. Rodriguez, Seville
. . . litdS I I \!t'xb6 a b 1 2 li::ld b5 lt::l c6 19S6) I I litd I i.d7 1 2 lbxd5 ed 1 3
1 3 i.e3 i.c5 1 4 i.xc5 be 1 5 litfd l litxd5 \!t'c8 ( 1 3 . . . 't!teS 1 4 i.e3 i.c5
lit xd l + 1 6 litxd l �f8 1 7 li::l d 6, = Zaitsev) 1 4 a3 i.e7 1 5 i.f4 i.f6
I . Sokolov-lzetu, Novi Sad 1 9S6; 1 6 lit c I c3! 1 7 be i.c6 I S 'tlrd I
" ±" , since Ci:Jxc4 is threatened and i.xd5 1 9 1Wxd5 ! Karpov-Portisch,
17 . . . lt::l a 5 I S lt::l a 4! is strong. Tilburg 1 9S6.
 2 0f3 ltJf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6 195

812 1 1976. The main option is 9 . . .

8 cd lt:Jxc3 1 0 be , and n o w 1 0 . . . .ie7 I I
The older move, not a m bitious lil b l e 5 1 2 lt:J c2 ( 1 2 lilxb7 ed =) 1 2
but still of i nterest. . . . lt:Ja6 1 3 c4 lt:Jc5 1 4 lt:Je3 .ie6 1 5
8 lt:Jxd5 0- 0 lilc8 1 6 .ib4 o f Grigorian­
9 .id2 (203) Tu kmakov, Erevan 1 980, slightly
9 'i!fb3 can lead to: favoured White, but both 1 0 . . .
a) 9 ... lbc6 10 lt:J xc 6 be I I 0-0! ( I I .ic5 I I lt:l b 3 ( I I 0- 0 e5 1 2 lt:Jc2
'i!fc2?! 1Wa5 1 2 .id2 .ta6 +) I I . . . lt:Jc6 1 3 lil b l a6! oo) I I . . . .ib6 1 2
lil b 8 1 2 1Wc2 .ie7 1 3 lil d I 'ti'b6 1 4 0-0 lt:Jc6 1 3 't!t'c2 e 5 1 4 e 3 .ig4,
lt:Ja4 't!t'b5 = /oo Belyavsky-Alburt, Santos-Ligterin k, Lucerne 1 983,
USSR 1 974; here 1 2 . . . .ia6 1 3 and 1 0 . . . .ia5 I I 0-0 ( I I 't!t'b3 !?) I I
lild l 'i!fb6 14 lt:Ja4 't!t'b5 1 5 e4 't!t'e2 . . . e5 1 2 lt:lb3 .ib6 1 3 c4 lt:Jc6,
oo Schm id- Klar, Neuhausen 1 96 1 . Osterman-M inic, Yugoslavia 1 976
b ) 9 ... 't!t'b6 1 0 e 3 ( 1 0 .txd5 ed seem equal.
I I .ie 3 .ih 3 ! Ho rt) 10 . . . lt:Jc6 ( 1 0 10 be e5!?
. . . .txc3+ I I be 'ifxb5 1 2 a b lt:J xc 3 Or I 0 . . . lt:Jb6( !), e.g. I I .if4
1 3 .ib2) I I lt:Jxc 6 be 1 2 0-0 ( 1 2 ( I I 0-0 e5 - 1 1 . . . ltJc4 - 1 2 lt:lb3
.id2? 't!t'a6! =!= Ho rt-Kindermann, lt:Jc4 1 3 i.e I !?) I I . . . 't!t'e7 12 lt:lb5
Dortmund 1 983) 12 . . . .ia6 1 3 e5 1 3 .tel lild8 = Aksharumova­
lild I lil ab8 = (Hort). Alexandria, Volgograd 1 985.
11 lt:l b5 ( !)
a) l l lt:Jc2 lt:Jc6 1 2 c4 ( 1 2 0-0 .ie6
= ) 1 2 . . . lt:lb6 1 3 lt:Je3 .ie6 1 4
lil c l =.
b ) 11 lt:lb3 lt:Jc6 12 0-0 lt:Jb6 ( 1 2 . . .
lt:Jde7 1 3 a4!? 't!t'c7 - 13 . . . ltJa5
Sunye - 14 't!t'c2 .ie6 1 5 c4 :t
Sunye-Agzamov, Cienfuegos 1 984)
1 3 .ie3 't!t'c7 14 't!t'd3 lild8 1 5 't!t'e4
.ie6 16 lilfd l =/oo Tai-Timman,
Bugojno 1 980.
9 .t xc3 11 lt:Jc6
9 . . . lt:Jb6 I 0 lt:Jc2 .ie7 I I b3 lt:Jc6 I I . . . a 6 1 2 .te l (or 1 2 c4! lt:lb6
1 2 0-0 .i f6 ( 1 2 . . . e5 1 3 e4 .ig4 1 4 13 lt:Ja3 lt:lc6 14 c5 ! :t Makarichev)
f3 .ie6 1 5 .ie3, Mascarinas­ 12 . . . ab ( 1 2 . . . .ie6 1 3 c4) 13 'i!fxd5
Ftacnik, Thessaloniki 1 984) 1 3 ( 1 3 .ixd5 ! f) 1 3 . . . 't!t'c7 1 4 0-0 lila5
lilc l ;! Karasev-A iburt, USSR Ch 15 .ie3 lt:Ja6 ( 1 5 . . . b4 16 't!t'b3 f) 1 6
1 96 2 liJf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6

lUc l lii:8 d 1 7 't!t'f3, - Stempin­ 1!fxc3 be I I 0- 0 't!t'e7 1 2 b3 lii: d 8 ( 1 2

Adamski, Poland 1982; 17 . . . lii:a 4 . . . e 5 1 3 .ib2 lii: e 8 1 4 f4 ! ) 1 3 e 3 a5
oo (Stempin). 14 a4 ± ( i.a3 lii: fc I follows)
12 e4! Polugayevsky-Holmov, Kiev 1 984.
With a small edge, d ue to the 9 be
bishops, e .g. 1 2 . . . tiJde7 ( 1 2 . . . 9 1!fxc3 e5 10 lbb3 ( 1 0 lbb5 a6
tiJc7 1 3 .ic3; 1 2 . . . tiJ f6 1 3 .ig5 or I I lba3 d4 +) 1 0 .. . d4 I I 't!t'd3
13 .ic3; 12 . . . tiJb6 1 3 c5 liJc4 1 4 lbc6 =, although this could re­
.ic3) 1 3 0- 0 .ie6 1 4 c 5 ! ? .id5 1 5 semble 8 0-0 de 9 't!t'a4 above after
tiJd6 t . 1 2 .ig5.
8122 8 1 22 1 9 . . . e5
8 't!t'b3 (204) B l 222 9 . . . de
8 1 223 9 . . . lbc6
204 8 1 22 1
B 9 e5
10 lbb5
a) 1 0 lbf3 de I I 1!fxc4 1!fa5 ( I I . . .
't!t'e7 =) 1 2 0-0 lb c6 1 3 a 4 .ie6 1 4
't!t'b 5 't!t'c7 + Kouatly-Portisch,
Toluca 1 982.
b) 1 0 lbc2!? de 1 1 1!fb5!? ( 1 1 1!fxc4
i.e6 and . . . .id5) I I . . . lb c6 ( I I . . .
lbbd7 !?; I I . . . 't!t'e8!?) 1 2 0-0 't!t'c7
An a ttempt to gain more activity 13 .ig5 i.e6 14 lii: ab I lii: a b8 1 5
than 8 cd provides. i.xf6 gf 1 6 lbe3 0.e7 1 7 f4 ! with
8 .ixe3+ attack, Farago-Szymczak, Polanica
a) 8 . . . tiJa6 9 0-0 't!t'a5 10 cd .ixc 3 Zdroj 198 1 .
I I 't!t'xc 3 't!t'xc3 1 2 be ed 1 3 .ia3 lii:e8 10 de
14 c4!? ( 1 4 lii: ab l !?) 14 . . . de 1 5 1 0 . . . a6!? I I tiJa3 ( I I 'ti'a3 !?) I I
li[fc l t Ghitescu-Short, Lucerne . . . d4 1 2 cd ed 1 3 0-0 0.c6 1 4 tiJc2
1 985. lle8 = - Ro manishin-Agzamov,
b) 8 . .. .ic5 9 .ie3 ! tiJa6 10 cd liJg4 USSR 1 98 1 ; 1 2 .ib2!? may improve
I I tiJc2! tiJxe3 1 2 liJxe3 .ixe3 ! He ( 1 2 . . . lbc6 1 3 lii: d l ).
ed 1 4 liJxd5 .ie6 1 5 0-0 tiJc5 1 6 11 't!t'a3
1!fc4 lic8 1 7 lii: a d I ± Gheorghiu­ A gambit. I I 't!t'xc4 a6 1 2 lbc7
Knaak, Romania v East Germany (205) ( 1 2 lba3 .ie6 1 3 'ird3 - 13
1 983. 'ikb4 .id5 - 1 3 . . . 1!fc7 !? 14 0-0 lii: d 8
c) 8 ... tiJ c6 9 tiJxc6 .ixc3+ 1 0 1 5 't!t'b l ! t Arbikov-Gavrikov,
 2 lilj] lbf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6 1 97

USSR 1 98 1 ; but 1 3 . . . 'tt'xd3 ! = 1 2 0-0 i.e6 1 3 i.e3 a6 (or 1 3 . . .

a nd . . . i. f5 - Gu feld). i.d5) 1 4 lild6 i.d5 ! 1 5 lb xb7 tlc7
16 lLld6 ..ixg2 1 7 't>xg2 lbd5 +.
:!1!5 12 i.e6
H 1 2 . . . i.g4!? (Olafsson).
13 litd 1 'it'b8
14 0-0
1 4 i.c5 a6 15 ..ixf8 ab 16 i.d6
lilxa2 1 7 i.xb8 /Dd7 ! 1 8 i.xc6 bc
1 9 i.xe5 f6 =t= (Hjartarson).
14 lidS
1 5 'it'c5 Ii: xd l 16 Ilxd l a6 1 7
lbd6! ( 1 7 lLla3 tlf8 ! = H . Olafsson­
a ) 1 2 ... bS 1 3 'tt'c 5 lLl bd7 1 4 'tt'a 3 Hjartarson, Gjovik 1985) 1 7 . . .
'iVxc7 15 i.xa8 lbb6 16 i.g2 lLlfd5 lil d 7 1 8 'ika3 'tt'c 7 1 9 1t'a4! ( 1 9
1 7 e4! lilxc3 1 8 i.d2 lbca4 1 9 ..ia5, lbb5 'it'b8 = ) 1 9 . . . lila5 20 lbxb7!
Sosonko-Timman, Tilburg 198 1 , lbxb7 2 1 tlc6 ! 'it'xc6 22 ..ixc6 lil b8
a nd instead o f 1 9 . . . lilc4?? 1 -0, 1 9 23 i.xd7 lild8 24 i.a4 lilxd l + 25
. . . 1Wc6! 2 0 i.xb6 lbxb6 2 1 0-0 lilc4 ..ixd I ot>f"8 (!) 26 i.e I 't>e 7 27
intending . . . i.b7, . . . f5 is u nclear. i.a3+ 't>d7 28 i.c2 g6 29 f3 , and
b) 12 ... lila7(!) 1 3 lLld5 lb xd 5 ( 1 3 White's two bishops eventually
. . . b5 1 4 'it'c5 lild7 =) 1 4 1t'xd 5 prevailed .
1!t'c7! 1 5 'it'd3 ( 1 5 0-0 b5 1 6 i.e3 B l 222
..ib7 1 7 1i'c5 i.xg 2 = Cebalo) 1 5 . . . 9 de
't>d8 1 6 tfe3 b 6 1 7 0-0 i.b7 = 10 'it'a3
Holzi-Portisch, Lucerne 01 1 982. 10 'it'xc4 e5 I I lilb5 is the last
II lLlc6 section . I nstead, I 0 . . . a6 I I ..ia3
a ) I I . . i.h3!? 12 i.xh 3 ( 1 2 i.xb7
. lile8 12 0-0 ( 12 Ild I) 12 . . . e5 1 3
lilbd7 1 3 i.xa8 tfxa8 14 f3 co) 1 2 lbb3 b5 !? 1 4 tlc5 lilbd7 1 5 'it'b4 e4
. . . 1t'd5 1 3 0-0 1t'xb 5, Basin-Aseev, 1 6 c4! ;t was Franco-Marcussi,
USSR Ch 1 985; 14 i.g5 ! lb bd7 1 5 Buenos A ires 1 985.
lHd l with the idea 1 5 . . . lilfd8 1 6 10 'it'b6
liab l co. Or 1 0 . . . lilbd7 1 1 lilb5 lilb6 1 2
b) 11 ... tfd7!? 1 2 'it'c5 lba6 1 3 0 -0 i. d 7 1 3 Il d l ( 1 3 lb d6 i.c6 1 4
1!t'xc4 lild8 + Ubilava-Georgadze, i.xc6 b e 1 5 lid I 'it'e7 ! = Ubilava­
USSR 1 983; but 12 li1 b I ! makes Tu kmak ov, Kujbysev 1 986) 1 3 . . .
the point of Black's I I th unclear. lLlfd5 1 4 lLl d 6 'it'f6! 1 5 lild4! i.c6
12 ..ie3 ! 16 e4 lil c7 ( 1 6 . . . lilc7!? K arpov) 1 7
1 98 2 &DfJ &Df6 J d4: 4 . . . e6

li b ! ( 17 &Dxb7 ..ixb7 1 8 e5 'tt' xe 5

oo; 1 7 ..ie3 h6! Ka rpov) 17 . . . e5 1 8 206
lid I lifd8 = Karpov-Portisch, B

Lucerne 1985.
11 ..ie3
Or I I ..ig5 e5 1 2 &Dc2 ..if5 !? 1 3
&De 3 ..ie4 oo (Polovodin), o r I I (}.0
e5 1 2 &Dc2 'tt'c7 1 3 ..ig5 &Dbd7 1 4
li fd I h 6 = Basin-Holmov, Mi nsk
1 9 85.
11 'tt'a6 !
No t I I . . . &Dg4 ? 1 2 &Dc6 ! &D xe 3 Kasparov) 1 4 0-0 lic8 ( 1 4 . . . ..ic6!
1 3 &De7+ 'i!lh8 1 4 &Dxg6+ ±± , or 15 ..ia3! ;t Kasparov) 1 5 li:lb3!
1 1 . . . &Dxd5? 1 2 ..ixd 5 ed 13 &Df5 li:lxc4 16 ..ixb7 lic7 1 7 ..ia6! ±
'tt'd 8 1 4 &De7+ 'i!lh8 1 5 &D xd5 ± Kasparov-Karpov, match (4) 1986.
(Polovodin). b) 12 ... b6!? (K orchnoi) has the
12 'tt'x a6 &Dxa6 idea . . . ..ib7, . . . lic8; 13 c4 ..ia6 14
13 &Db5 &Dd5 &Db5 is critical ( 1 4 . . . ..ixb5 15 cb
14 ..id4 lic8 16 ..id2 &Dc4 oo).
1 4 ..ixd5 and 1 5 li:lxa7 is only 13 &Db5
equal. After 14 ..id4, Ubilava­ Kasparov's 1 3 (}.0?! looked
Polovod in, U SSR Ch 1983, went weak after 1 3 . . . ..id7 1 4 e4 li:l b6 1 5
1 4 . . . b6 1 5 (}.0 ..id7 16 &Dd6 ..ic6 f4 o f Kasparov-Suba, D ubai 1 986;
( 1 6 . .. b5!?) 17 &Dxc4 &De7 =. and now 1 5 . . . liac8 =F with the
Generally, 9 . . . de looks superior idea . . . lUd8 .
to 9 . . . e 5. 13 'tt'c 6!
B1 223 14 ..ia3 !?
9 &Dc6 1 4 0-0 ..id7 15 a4 a6 1 6 e4 ab 17
Karpov's move, threatening . . . ed 'tt'c4 = ( K asparov). After 14
li:la5. ..ia3 , I zet a-Simagin, Novi Sad
10 cd &Da5 ! 1986, continued 14 . . . lid8! 1 5 e4
11 'tt'c2 &Dxd5 &Dc4 (or 15 . . . a6 =) 16 ed 'tt' x b5 1 7
12 'tt'd3 (206) lii: b l 'tt'a 6 1 8 ..ie7 lii: xd5 ! 1 9 ..ixd5
Else Black piles up on the c-file. ed 20 0-0 ( 20 'tt' x 5 ..ih3 oo) 20 . . .
12 'tt'c 7! ..ie6 2 1 f4!? ( 2 1 ..ic5 b 6 2 2 ..id4
a) 12 ... ..id7? ! 1 3 c4 &De7 ( 1 3 . . . 'tt'x a2 23 lii: a I 'tt'd 2 + Simagin)
&Db6 14 c5 &Dbc4 1 5 (}.0 t; 1 3 .. . 21 . . . ..ih 3! 22 lii: f2 'tt'e 6 23 'tt'e2 b6!
&Db4 1 4 'tt'c 3 &Dbc6 1 5 ..ia 3 ;!; 24 'tt'x e6 fe +; =F.
 2 lt:Jf3 lt:'l/6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6 199

This whole l ine with 4 . . . e6 5 h asn't been seen more often.

tt:Jc 3 .i.b4 6 g3 has opened up 821
greatly over the past few years. 6 .i.g5 e5
The key l ines at the moment seem 6 . . . .i.e7 7 cd (7 e3 or 7 lt:Jf3) 7 . . .
to be 6 . . . lt:Je4 7 'ti'd 3 'i!t'a5 8 lt:Jb3 lt:Jxd5 8 .i.xe7 lt:Jxe7 9 e 3 � (Filip).
"iff5 9 'ti'e 3 and 6 . . . 0-0 7 .i.g2 d5 8 7 lt:Jb3
0-0!?. a) 7 lt:Jc2 d4 8 lt:Jd5 .i.e6" ! " 9
R2 .i.xf6 gf 10 e4 rn (Mikhalehishin);
5 d5!? (207) or 8 ... .i.f5 = (Neistadt).
b) 7 lt:Jdb5!? a6 (7 . . . d4 8 lt:Jd5 lt:Ja6
_'() 7 9 'ti'a4 .i.d7 1 0 e4 ! Neistadt) 8 'it'a4
w (remarkably, even grandmasters
have fallen for 8 lt:Jxd5?? ab 9
lt:Jxf6+ 'it'xf6 ! ) 8 . . . .i.d7 9 cd (9
.i.xf6?! gf I 0 ed .i.xb5 1 1 ll'lxb5
ab! +) 9 . . . ..ixb5?! (9 . . . 'i!t'b6! 1 0
i.e 3 .i. xb 5 I I .i. x b6 .i.xa4 1 2
lt:Jxa4, and 1 2 . . . lt:J bd7 = or 1 2 . . .
.i.b4+ = Mikhalchishin; a t least)
10 lt:J xb5 ab I I 'i!t'xa8 .i.b4+ 1 2
82 1 6 .i. g5 .i.d 2 .i.xd2+ 1 3 �xd2 'i!t'xd5+ ( 1 3
822 6 cd . . . lt:J xd5 1 4 �e l lt:Jb4 1 5 Ile l ) 1 4
6 .i.f4!? is the only other which �e l 0-0 1 5 lid ! 'i!t'e5 1 6 'i!t'a3 ±
prevents ... e5 and does something Mi khalch ishin-Gorelov, USSR Ch
useful. Then 6 . . . lt:Jc6 7 lt:Jdb5 (7 198 1 .
lt:Jxc6 be 8 e3 is solid but uninspiring) 7 d4
is Chapter 1 3, B 1 2. 6 . . . lt:Jh5 7 8 lt:Jd5 .i.e7
.i.xb8 and 6 . . . de 7 lt:Jdb5 look 8 . . . .i.e6!? 9 e4 .i.e7 (Tal); 1 0
undesirable, so that leaves 6 . . . lt:Jxe7 'i!t'xe7 I I .i.d3 t.
.i.e7!? 7 e 3 (7 lt:Jdb5 0- 0 8 e 3 lt:Je6 9 9 lt:Jxe7 'i!t'xe7
cd lt:Jxd5 1 0 lt:J xd5 ed I I lt:Je7 10 e3 lt:Jc6
.i.b4+ 1 2 �e2 oo) 7 . . . lt:J e6 or 6 . . . 1 0 . . . a5 I I ed a4 1 2 lt:Je5 ed+ 1 3
.i.b4 7 'ira4+ lt:Jc6 8 lt:J xe6 .i.xc3+ 'ire 2 �; 1 0 . . . 0-0 I I ed ed+ 1 2 .i.e2
9 be be (9 . . . 'i!t'd 7 I 0 cd lt:Jxd5 I I t (Tal). Presu mably he doesn't like
lid ! !), and now 1 0 e3 lt:Je4!?, 1 0 1 0 . . . 'i!t'b4+ I I 'i!t'd2 'i!t'xd2+ 1 2
'i!t'xc6+ .i.d7 I I 'i!t'd6 d e , or 1 0 e4!? lt:Jxd2 with two bishops, but then
lt:Jxe4 I I ed 'i!t'xd 5 12 .i.c4 'i!t'c5. either 1 2 . . . lt:Jc6 or 1 2 . . . de 1 3
It's a bit surprising that 6 .i.f4 .i.xe3 lt:Jc6 looks playable.
200 2 liJf3 liJf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6

10 .. l£Jc6 was Ortega-Tal, liJc4 i.c7 1 5 liJ e 3 .te6 1 6 l£Jd5

Erevan 1986. Ortega played I I t Polugayevsky-Dzindzihashvil i ,
.te2!? h6 1 2 .txf6 'ti'xf6 1 3 ed ed 1985.
14 0-0 0-0 =. Tal recommends 1 1 8 e4
ed ! ed+ 1 2 i.e2 h6 1 3 i.h4 ;!;(two 8 g3 liJb6 =; 8 liJxd5 'itxd5 9
bishops), and that seems correct. 6 .tc3 e5 =.
.tg 5 deserves a closer look . 8 liJb4
822 9 .te3
6 cd l£Jxd5 9 i.b5+ .td7 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 a3
7 .td2 liJ4c6 =.
7 l£J xd 5 'ti'xd5 8 e3 l£Jc6 9 l£Jxc6 9 0-0
1!t'xc6 I 0 .td2 .td7 I I .tc3 f6 = 10 .te2 liJ8c6
Adamski-Su etin, Lu blin 1 976. 7 11 liJxc6 l£Jxc6
l£Jdb5 a6 ( or 7 . . . l£Jxc3 8 'ihd8+ Quinteros- Kasparov, Moscow
�xd 8 9 be .tc5 = Gipslis) 8 liJxd5 1 98 2. The game went 12 0-0 'ti'a5
ed 9 liJd4 liJc6 10 e 3 1i'b6! 1 1 liJc2 1 3 1t'b3 .tc5 1 4 .txc5 1!t'xc5,
.te6 = ( Kapengut). and now instead of 1 5 li[fd l e5 1 6
7 .te7 'itc4 1!Ve7 1 7 liJd5 1!Vg5 = , Janicki
a) 7 ... liJb4 8 liJ f3 ! i.e7 9 g3 (9 a 3 suggests 15 llac1 liJ d4 1 6 't!t'a4
liJbc6 1 0 e4 :t ) 9 . . . b 6 1 0 .tg2 .tb7 liJxe2+ ( 1 6 . . . e5 may improve) 1 7
1 1 0-0 0-0 1 2 li[c 1 liJd7 1 3 .tf4 ! liJxe2 1i'e5 1 8 liJc3 a s " a strong
Kupreichik-Georgadze, Riga 1972. alternative". Here 1 5 . . . e5 1 6
b) 7 ... .tc5!? 8 liJb 3 i.b6 !? (8 . . . liJd5 1!ra5 1 7 .tc4 would favour
.te7 9 liJ xd5 'ti'xd5 I 0 .tc3 'ti'xd 1 + White.
1 1 li[ xd 1 f6 was Nimzowitsch­ I n any case, White's advantage
Rubinstein, Liege 1 930; 12 g3 ! !) 9 after 6 cd is very small, and for
g3 (9 e4 liJ xc 3 9 . . . liJb4!? 1 0
- - now, 6 i.g5 hasn't been shown to
.txc3 0-0 oo Polugayevsky) 9 . . . yield much either. Although Black
e 5 ! ? 1 0 .tg2 liJxc3 ( 1 0 . . . .t e 6 1 1 sacrifices his counterchances with
liJa4 !) 1 1 .txc3 'ite7 1 2 a4 (or 1 2 5 . . . d5, it looks like a good
liJd2 !) 1 2 . . . a 6 1 3 liJd2 liJc6 1 4 neutralising line.
 15 2 ltlf3 ltlf6 3 d4: Various 4th
Moves

1 c4 c5 A
2 lL:lf3 lL:lf6 4 d5
3 d4 cd 5 cd lL:lxd5
A good place to m ention 3 . . . d5 5 . . . a6!? 6 \!t'a4+ (6 f3!?, e.g. 6 . . .
4 cd cd 5 \!t'xd4 (5 lL:lxd4 is " A") 5 .. . lL:lxd5 7 e 4 llJc7 8 .i.f4) 6 . . . b5 7
'iWxd5 6 lL:lc3 't!fxd4 7 lL:lxd4 (!) 7 .. . lL:lxb5 .i.d7 8 llJ bc 3 lL:lxd5 (8 ...
a6 8 g3 e5 9 lL:lb3 ..t d7 (9 . . . lL:lc6 1 0 'tib6 9 \!t'd4 ! ) 9 lL:lxd5 ..txd5 1 0
..tg2 ..td7 1 1 0-0 ..td7 1 2 ..tg5 ! 'tid I Y ± - B rowne-Sosonko,
:t1 ± Reti-Grau, London 1 927) 1 0 Denpasar 1 982.
..tg2 ..tc6 1 1 e4!? with the idea 1 1 6 e4! (208)
. . . ..tb4 1 2 0-0 ..txc3 1 3 be llJxe4 1 4 6 g3 e5 7 lL:lc2 lL:lc6 8 e4 lL:ldb4 = ;
li e I etc. 6 lL:l b 5 't!t'a5+ 7 lL:lbc3 lL:lxc3 8
4 lbxd4 lL:lxc3 e5 9 e3 =.

The theory of Black's 4th move

alternatives to 4 . . . lL:lc6 and 4 . . . e6 208

has grown drama tically over the B

past decade. In particular, 4 . . .

b 6 and 4 . . . e 5 are n o w standard
systems.
A 4 . . . . d5
B 4 . . . g6
C 4 . . . a6
D 4 . . . e5
E 4 . . . b6
4 ... d6 5 lL:lc3 (5 g3 d5!, e.g. 6 ..tg2 6 lL:lc7
e5 etc) 5 . . . e6 6 e4 b6 transposes a) 6 . . . lL:lb4 7 tla4+ (everything
t o E2 after 7 f3, or to Chapter 9, looks good, e.g. 7 .i.e3 lL\8c6 8
C22, note (a) to 4 . . . ..t d7. lL:lxc6 'tixd I + 9 �xd 1 lL:lxc6 1 0
202 2 liJf3 liJf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves

liJ c3 !, 7 liJb5 !? .-xd I + 8 'it'xd I 0-0-0+ 1 2 'it'e l i.d7 1 3 l:lc l t ) I I ...

liJba6 9 a3 liJ4c6 I 0 liJ I c3 ! Savon­ be 1 2 liJd2 g6, and Tim man
Karasev, Moscow 1 974, or 7 liJa3 recomm ends 1 3 b3 i.g7 14 ll:c l
e 5 8 liJdb5 1t'xd I+ 9 ct'xd I liJ8a6 i.d4 1 5 'it'e2 c5 1 6 i.e3 !.
10 i.e3 !) 7 . . . liJ4c6 8 liJxc6 liJxc6 B
9 i.e3 i.d7 1 0 liJc3 e6 I I ll:c l i.d6 4 g6
1 2 i.e2 ! Dake-Muller, Folkestone 5 liJc3
19 33. 5 f3 d5! 6 cd liJ xd5 7 e4 liJc7 = (8
b) 6 ... liJf6 7 i.b5+ (or 7 liJc3 e5 - liJc3 e 5). Better 5 g3 d5 6 i.g2 de (6
7 . . . a6 8 e5 - 8 i.b5+ i.d7 9 ... e 5 ! ? 7 liJf3 d4 8 0-0 liJc6 9 e3
liJf5 !) 7 . . . i. d7 8 1t'e2 (8 e5 i.xb5 i.g4 - 9 . . . d3!? - 10 1t'b3 t
9 liJxb5 1t'xd 1 + =) 8 . . . a6 9 - Tu kmakov- Belyavsky, Vilnius
i.xd7+ lt:lbxd7 (9 . . 1t'xd7!? seems 1 978) 7 .-a4+ liJbd7 (7 . . . lt:lc6!?
better) I 0 0-0 e6 I I liJc3 1t'c7, looks strange, but is hard to
Yudovich- Kara k laic, Yugoslavia refute) 8 0-0 i.g7 9 ll:d l 0-0 1 0
1 9 5 1 ; 1 2 i.e3! ± intending f4 1t'xc4 liJ b 6 ( ? 1 0 . . . 1t'a5 = ) I I
(Minic). 'it'b3 i (Tu kma kov).
7 i.f4 5 d5 (209)
7 i.c4( !), e .g. 7 . . . e5 8 'ffh 5 ! 5 . . . i.g7 6 e4 is a S icilian, and
i.b4+ 9 liJc3 0-0 I 0 liJf3 ±, or 7 . . . here 6 g3 0-0 7 i.g2 is !.
g 6 8 0- 0 i.g7 9 i.e3 ! . Also 7 liJc3
e5 8 liJ db5 1t'xd 1+ 9 ct'xd I lt:lxb5 209

10 liJxb5 liJ a6 I I i.c4 ! ( I I i.e3 ? ! w

i.e6! 1 2 i.xa7 i.b4 !) I I . . . i.c5 1 2

'it'e2 i.d7 1 3 i.e3 'it'e7 1 4 ll:hd l
i.c6 1 5 f3 t (Browne).
7 liJe6!?
7 .. . liJd 7 may be better, bu t
White seems to keep some edge by
8 1t'a4 ( !) , e.g. 8 . . . a6 9 liJc3 or 8 . . .
e 6 9 liJc3 i.c5 I 0 ll: d I a 6 I I i.e2.
8 i.b5+ liJc6 6 i.g5!?
Forced, due to 8 . . . i.d7 9 Most common, although White
liJxe6 ±. After 8 . . . liJc6, Timman­ has a good option in (b):
Miles, Bugojno 1986, went 9 liJ xe6 a) 6 cd liJxd5 7 liJdb5 liJ xc3 8
(9 liJxc 6 1i'xd l + 10 'it'xd l a6 co) 9 .-xd8+ 'it'xd8 9 liJxc3 i.g7 (or 9 . . .
. . . 1t'xd I+ I 0 'it'xd I i.xe6 I I i.xc6+ liJc6 = Pac hman) 1 0 i.d2 i.e6 I I
(or just I I liJc3 intending I I . . . g3 liJd7 1 2 i.g2 ll:c8! 1 3 ll:c l 'it'c7!
 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves 203

= Flohr-Euwe, match (5) 1932. li:Jbd7 1 4 li:Je6! fe 1 5 i.xe6+ <&h8

h) 6 li:Jf3( ! ) ";!;" (Stean), e . g. 6 . . . de 16 i.xd7 b4 17 i.xf6 ef, Simagin­
7 �xd 8 <&xd8 8 e4. Korchnoi, Leningrad 1 95 6; 1 8
c ) 6 jJ4!? i.g7 7 e3 0-0!? (7 . . . li:Jc6 li:Ja4 t.
= ) 8 it'b3, Vaganian-Gulko, USSR After 9 ... i.d7, Portisch-Benko,
Ch 1 976; 8 . . . li:Jh5!? intending 9 Las Pa l mas 1 972, went 10 1Wd2!
i.xb8 llxb 8 1 0 cd i.xd4 1 1 ed e6 ( 1 0 it'b 3 li:Jc6!) 10 . . . li:Jc6 I I llfd 1
with attack. li:Jxd4?! ( I I . . . li:Je5 1 2 i.b3 ±) 1 2
6 de it'xd4 i.c6 ( 1 2 . . . 1Wc7 1 3 i.xf6
6 . . . li:Je4 7 li:Jxe4 de 8 li:Jb5! with i.xf6 14 i.xf7+ ±) 1 3 i.xf7+ ±±.
the idea 8 . . . li:J c6? 9 �xd8+ <&xd 8 c
1 0 0-0-0+ i.d7 1 1 li:Jd6 ±± or 8 . . . 4 a6
f6 9 '8'xd8 <&xd8 1 0 0-0-0+ i.d7 I I A tricky move which may be
i.c3 t ( Korchnoi), or 8 . . . i.g7 9 used as a transpositional device .
'ii'x d8+ <&xd8 1 0 0-0-0+ li:Jd7 ( I 0 . . . 5 li:Jc3
i.d7 ! ;!; Stean; I I g3 !) 1 1 i.e3 b 6 1 2 5 g3 d 5 ! 6 i.g2 e5 7 li:JO d4 ! and
g3 i.a6 1 3 i.g2 llc8 1 4 <& b I ! l hc4 Black has a Catalan with the extra
1 5 b3 llc6 16 li:Ja3 ± Stean­ move . . . a6 ( = ) . Here 7 . . . e4!? 8
Schmid, London 1 979. Finally, 8 li:Jfd2 ! (8 li:Jd4 de!) 8 . . . e3 ( 8 . . . de 9
. . . 1Wxd I+!? 9 llxd I li:J a6 of 0-0! t) 9 fe li:Jg4 1 0 cd li:Jxe3 I I
Speelman-A lburt, match (3) 1986 'tWa4+ li:Jd7 1 2 'tWe4+ 1We7 1 3
is less clear. The game went 1 0 g3 li:Jb3! U ± was Martz-Miles, Lone
i.g7 1 1 b3 f5 1 2 i.g2 i.d7 1 3 f3 Pine 1 976. 5 i.g5 !? d5 6 cd 't!Vxd5 =
i.xb5 1 4 cb li:Jb4 1 5 fe t. (Miles).
7 e3 5 d5!? (2 10)
Or 7 li:J db5 ( Korchnoi) with the 5 . . . e6 transposes to Chapter
idea 7 . . . i.d7 8 li:Jd5! 14.
7 i. g7
7 . . . 1Wa5 8 i.xf6 gf 9 i.xc4 i.b4 210
(9 . . . i_g7 t) 10 llc l a6?! 1 1 0-0 w

li:Jbd7 1 2 a3?! ( 1 2 li:Jd5! Su etin) 1 2

. . . i.e7? 1 3 b4! 1We5 1 4 f4! '8'b8 1 5
i.xf7+ ±± Petrosian-Korchnoi,
Curar;ao 1 962.
8 i.x c4 0-0
9 0-0 i.d7
9 . . . a6 10 a4! is t or 1 0 1We2 b5
I I i.b3 i.b 7 1 2 llfd l �a5 1 3 e4
 204 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves

6 li:Jb3!? li:Jxc6 1 4 .ixc6 threatens .ib8.

a) 6 e3 e5!? (6 . . . g6 ! =; 6 . . . e6) 7 7 cd ed
li:Jf3 e4 8 li:Jd2 de 9 i.xc4 b5 I 0 8 g3 li:Jc6
i.e2 i, b7, lightly ;!; Webb-Miles, 9 .ig2 .ie6
England I 975. 10 0-0 .ie7
b) 6 i.f4 e6 7 e3 li:Jc6 =. I I .ie3 �0 1 2 li:Ja4! (White
c) 6 i,g5 e 5 ! (6 . . . de 7 e4 ! :t) 7 li:Jc2 takes advantage of . . . a6) 12 o o .
(7 li:Jf3 d4 = planning 8 li:Jd5 i.e7 9 lie8 13 li:Jac5 (even better is I 3
li:J xe7 'i+'xe7 =, or here 8 . . . 'i+'a5+ 9 .ib6! ± Rashkovsky) 1 3 .ic8
0 0 .

i.d2 'i+'d8 =) 7 d4 8 li:Jd5 .if5 ! 9

0 0 0 14 l:.tc l h6 1 5 li:Ja4! with advantage,
.ixf6 gf 1 0 e3 li:J c6 1 I i.e2 'i+'a5+ = Rashkovsky-Chekhov, Minsk 1976.
G .Garcia-Jansa, Cienfuegos I 945. D
d) 6 li:Jf3!? e6 (6 . . . de 7 'i+'xd8+ 4 e5 (21 1)
�xd8 8 e4 e6 9 li:Je5 �e8 1 0
li:J xc4 ;!; Olafsson-Miles, Teesside 211

I 975) 7 cd (7 i. g5 .ie7 8 e3 li:Jc6 = ) w

7 ed 8 e3 (8 .i g 5 .ie7 9 e3 offers
000

more prospects) 8 o o . li:Jc6 9 .ie2 =,

e .g. 9 . . . .ic5 1 0 �0 �0 1 I li:Jd4
lii:e 8.
e ) 6 cd li:Jxd5 7 li:Jdb5 !? (7 .id2 e5 8
li:Jf3 li:Jc6 9 e4 li:Jdb4 = or 9 0 0 0

li:Jxc3 = ) 7 li:Jb 4! 8 'i+'xd8+ �xd8

0 0 0

9 li:Ja3 b5 (or 9 e 5 I 0 g3 .ie6 I I

0 0 .

.ig2 li:J 8c6 =) 1 0 e4 e5 1 1 .ie3 .ie 6 Still experim ental at the time of
1 2 ��0+ !? ( 1 2 .ie2) 1 2 o o . li:Jd7 1 3 the first edition , this is now a well­
�b I llc8 + Karasev-Tseshkovsky, established line with a solid repu­
USSR 1976. tation.
6 e6 5 li:Jb5
6 o o . de 7 'i+'xd8+ 'it>xd8 8 li:Ja5 e6 a) 5 li:Jc2 d5 6 cd 'i+'xd5 (6 .ic5 7
000

9 li:J xc 4 ;!; transposes to Olafsson­ li:Jc3 0-0, and 8 .ie3 ! is critical) 7

Miles in note (d) a bove. Otherwise tixd5 ( 7 .id2 li:Je4 - or 7 . . li:Jc6 -
.

8 . . . li:J bd7 9 a4 b6 10 li:Jxc4 ± or 8 8 li:Je3 'tid4 9 'tic2 li:Jc6 10 .ic3

o o • b5 9 g3 (or 9 .if4) 9 e6 (9 . . . e5
0 0 0 .ib4 = - Su khanov-Sinelnikov,
1 0 i.g2 lit a 7 I I .ie3 lii:d 7 12 li:Jc6+ Moscow 1 980) 7 li:Jxd5 8 e4 li:Jb4
0 0 .

li:Jxc6 1 3 .ib6+ 'it>e7 14 .ixc6 lii: d 4 9 .ib5+ (or 9 li:Jxb4 .ixb4+ 10

15 a4 ! b4 1 6 li:Ja 2 ±) 1 0 .if4! li:J fd7 .id2 li:Jc6 =) 9 . . . li:J8c6 10 li:Jxb4
I I ��0 �e8 1 2 .ig2 lla7 1 3 li:Jc6 .ixb4+ I I .id2 .id7 = Adamski-
 2 fiJ/3 fiJj6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves 205

Gufeld, Tbi lisi 1983. =; 8 a3 b4 9 W'a4+ 't!Vxa4 10 lt:l xa4

b) 5 fiJf3 fiJc6 6 fiJc3 i.b4 7 i.d2 lt:lxd5 I I e4 lt:lc7 + Adamski­
0-0 (or 7 . . . e4 !? 8 fiJ g5 1!t'e7 Barlov, Prague 1 98 1 ) 8 b4 9 0 0 .

i ntending 9 'i!t"b l e3) 8 e3 (8 a3 ll:lce4! (9 lt:lb3 1!t'b6 ! ) 9 ll:l xe4!? 0 0 0

i.xc3 9 i.xc3 �e8 intending . . . d 5 (not 9 ... ll:l xd5? 1 0 lt:lc4 'it'c7 I I
- Scoones) 8 . . . e 4 9 fiJg5 (9 fiJd4 lt:led6+, but 9 't!Vxd5!? is given
0 0 .

fiJ xd4 10 ed d5!, e.g. I I fiJxe4? by Scoones, when both I 0 1!t'c2

fiJxe4 12 i.xb4 lle8 1 3 i.e2 i.g4 ! i.e6 I I g3 !? and 1 0 ll:lxf6+ gf I I e4
Scoones) 9 . .. �e 8 1 0 a3 i.xc3 intending i.c4, 'tWh5/b3 seem good)
+ Novikov-Bu khman , Leningrad 10 lt:lxe4 i.b7 ( 1 0 f5 I I ll:lg5) I I 0 0 0

1 9 75. g4 ! lt:la6 (better I I ·W"xd5 1 2 0 0 .

5 d5! 1!t'xd5 i.xd5 1 3 i.g2 lt:l d7 1 4

a) 5 ... d6 6 i.g5 fiJa6 7 fiJbc3 !. i.e3 ;!; o r 14 lt:ld6+ ;!; Cvetkovic) 1 2
b) 5 . . . i.c5 6 i.e3 ! i.xe3 7 fiJd6+ i.g2 �d8 1 3 0-0 i.xd5 ( 1 3 . . . lhd5
'i!;>fll 8 fe U ±, e .g. 8 fiJg4 9 ll:lc3 !
0 0 . ;!;) 14 i.g5 i.e7 1 5 i.xe7 'i!i>xe7 1 6
fiJ xe3 1 0 'tWd3 lt:lg4 I I g3 ll:lf6 1 2 1!t'c l ! ± Lombardy-M artin, Olot
i.h3 ll:l f6 1 3 0-0 ±. 8 . . . lt:lc6 1974.
would transpose to Chapter 1 3 , B, c) 6 . . . i.b4+ 7 i.d2 (I gave 7
note to 5 . . . e6. ll:l l c3 a6 , but then 8 1!t'a4 ! . So 7
c) 5 ... i.b4+ 6 i.d2 (or 6 ll:l l c3 liJ l c3 0-0! with the idea 8 a3 i.a5 9
intending 6 . . . 0-0 7 a3 i.e7 8 lt:ld6 b4 i.b6. If 7 ll:l5c3 , best is 7 . . .
;!;) 6 . . . i.xd2+ ( 6 . . . i.c5 7 i.e3 ! is W'xd� 8 1!t'xd5 ll:l xd5 1 0 i.d2 i. e6
note (b), or 7 i.c 3 1!Vb6 8 e3 a6 = ) 7 . . . i.c5 8 d6 ! (212) ( 8 1!t'c2!?
9 b4! ;!;) 7 'tWxd2 0-0 8 ll:\ 1 c3 lt:la6 lt:la6 9 b4!? i.b6 1 0 ll:l l c3 0-0 I I
9 g3 li:lc5 10 i.g2 a6 I I ll:ld6 'i!t'b3 i.f5 I 2 e3 i.e4! 1 3 ll:lxe4
± Capablanca-Torres, Barcelona ll:lxe4 - threatening . . . W'f6 - 1 4
1 9 29. ll:lc3 lt:l xd2 1 5 'i!i>xd2 'i!t"h4 1 6 g3 ,
6 cd i.c5! Palatnik-Agzamov, Odessa 1977;
a) 6 . .. a6 !? 7 .ll:l5c3 i.c5 8 ll:ld2 ( 8 and here 1 6 . . . 1!Vf6! gives a strong
b4 !? i.a 7 9 e3 0- 0 1 0 i. e 2 li e8 I I attack).
i.b2 Uoo; 8 'i!t"d3 ! ? lt:lg4 9 lt:ld l f5) 8000 ll:la6 ( 8 0-0? 9 lt:lc7 ll:le4
0 0 .

8 . . . 0-0 9 ll:lb3 i.b4 10 i.d2 lie8 10 e3 ; 8 ll:le4 ! ? 9 e3 ll:l xd6 10 b4

0 0 0

I I 'tWc2 i.xc3 12 i.xc3 'tWxd5 1 3 i.b6 I I i.c3 ll:l xb5 12 i.xb5+

lid l 't!Vc6 1 4 e4 ! i.e6 1 5 i.d3, .id7 13 'i!t"d5 ! ; 8 . . . i.xd6 9 i.g5 ! ,
lightly ;!; Palatnik-Lutikov, Yurmala e .g. 9 .ie7 1 0 '@xd8+ 'i!i>xd8 I I
0 0 0

1 98 1 . ll:l l c3 or 9 .ib4 1 0 ll:\ 1 c3 'i!t'xd I +

0 0 0

b ) 6 . . . 'tWaS+ 7 ll:\ 5 c3 b 5 8 fiJd2 ( 8 I I li xd I li:l a6 1 2 .ixf6 gf 1 3 a3 t) 9

g3 b4 9 W'a4+ W'xa4 I 0 li:lxa4 i.b7 e3 0-0 1 0 i.c3 .ig4? ( 1 0 . . . lieS I I
206 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves
li:Jxa8 lid8 ++ ) 8 . . . �xe3 9 fe
li:Ja6 ( 9 . . . li:Jc6 ! ) 1 0 li:J i c3 �d 7 1 1
:!/2 'i!t'd2 ( I I a4) I I . . . �xbS 1 2 li:JxbS
8
li:Je4 =/oo Svedchikov-M .Tseitlin,
Lvov 1977.
d) 7 'i!t'c2 !? has m ore poi nt , e.g. 7 . . .
li:Ja6 ( 7 . . . 'i!t'b6 8 �e3 li:Jbd7 9
�xeS �xeS 10 li:J Sc 3 ; 7 . . . �aS !? 8
lt:J I c3 li:J xdS planning 9 'i!t'e4? li:J xc3
10 't!Vxe5+?? �e6 I I li:Jxc3 �xf2+
Scoones. Here 9 �d2! li:Jxc3 1 0
li:Jd2 �xd6 1 2 li:J c4 !) I I �e2 li:Jxc3 with t h e idea li:J d S i s more
�xe2 1 2 'i!t'xe2 � xd6 1 3 0-0 �b8 cri tical , e.g. 1 0 . . . �d8 I I g3 0-0 1 2
( 1 3 . . . 'i!t'e7) 14 li:Jd2 'i!fe7 IS 'i!t'c4 �g2) 8 a3 0-0 (8 . . . li:JxdS!?) 9
'i!t'd7 16 lifd l lic8 1 7 li:Je4! ± lt:J l c 3 �d 7?! (9 . . . lt:J xdS t Scoones ;
Zilberstein-Semeniuk, No vosibirsk probably jus t equal) 1 0 e3 lic8 I I
1 9 76. �d2 li:J xdS 1 2 'i!fe4! �c6 1 3 'i!t'xeS
7 li:J5c3 lie8 14 '8'g3 ± - Tsamrjuk­
Almost exclusivel y chosen. Pukshansky, corres 1979-80.
a) 7 li:J l c3 0-0 (7 . . . a6 8 li:Ja3! 0-0!? 7 0-0 (213)
9 li:Jc4 Scoones) 8 d6 ( 8 �gS a6! ; 8 7 . . . e4? 8 li:Jxe4 ! li:J xe4 9 'i!t'a4+
e3 a6 9 li:Ja3 bS planning . . . b4 , . . . wins a second pawn.
�b7) 8 . . . li:J c6 9 e 3 �fS 1 0 �e2 a6
I I li:Jc7 lic8 1 2 0-0 e4 +! +
Dzindzihashvili-Alburt, New York
1980.
b) 7 e3 0-0 8 �c4 !? (8 li:JSc3 is the
main line; 8 d6? a6 ! ; 8 a3 lt:JxdS 9
�c4 � e6) 8 . . . li:Jbd7 (or 8 . . .
li:Jbd7 ( or 8 . . . a6 9 li:J S c3 bS 1 0
�b3 li e8 1 1 0-0 e4 = ) 9 li:J Sc3 e4 1 0
h 3 , Co rneli us-Schroer, U S A ( tele­
phone) 1 977; 10 . . . lie8 ! =.
c) 7 d6 0-0! (7 . . . li:Je4? 8 e3 li:Jxd6 9 8 e3
'i!t'dS; 7 . . . 1!VaS+ 8 li:J I c3 li:Je4 9 e3 Most common. 8 e4? lt:Jg4 or 8
li:Jxc3 1 0 be li:Ja6 I I a4 !) 8 �e3 (8 �g5 �xf2+ come up short; but
li:Jc7? li:Je4! 9 e3 �b4+! 10 li:Jc3 others are of in terest:
li:l xc3 H or 1 0 li:Jd2 'i!fxd6 I I a) 8 g3 li:Jg4!? (8 . . . e4 9 �g2 e3!?
 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves 207

10 i.xe3 i.xe3 1 1 fe 'tWb6 1 2 1Wd4 i.e2 ) 1 6 . . . li:Jd4! 1 7 i.xh7+ 'it>f8

=

'ti'xb2 1 3 li:Jd I :!;. 8 . . . l:l:e8 9 i.g2 1 8 'it'e4 li:Jb3 ± Palatnik-Kasparov,

e4 1 0 0-0 i.f5 oo. 8 . . . 'tWb6 9 e3 e4!? Kislovodsk 1 982.
1 0 i.g2 i.f5 oo; here 9 ... ..ig4 1 0 b) 9 ... li:Jbd7 1 0 li:Jd2 l:l: e8 I I 'tWc2
..ie2 i.h3 I I a3 l:l:d8 1 2 l:l: g l ! i.f5 'tWe7 1 2 b4( ! ) transposes to 02,
1 3 b4 ..ie7 1 4 g4 intends g5 , e4 note to 1 0 ... i.f5 .
Kui ndzi) 9 e3 (9 li:Je4 f5 ! ) 9 . . . f5 1 0 c) 9 ... "tie7 10 li:J d 2 i.f5 ( 10 . . . l:l:d8
..ie2 li:J f6 I I a 3 li:Jbd7 1 2 b 4 i.d6 I I b4 i.d6 I 2 li:Jc4 li:Ja6 - 12 . . .
1 3 li:J d2 li:Jb6 14 li:J b3 'it>h8 =/oo li:Jc6 1 3 d6!? Scoones - 1 3 li:Jxd6
Pesh ina-Vaganian, USSR 1979. 'tWxd6 14 i.c4 t Scoones) I I b4
b) 8 h3!? hasn't been tried , bu t i.d6 I 2 li:J c4 li:Jbd7 13 i.b2 a6 14
would intend active play based on 't!Vd4 l:l: fe8 I5 ..ie2 Ii:ad8 I 6 g4!
i.g5 and or g4/ i.g2. Black could i.xg4 ( 1 6 . . . ..ig6 1 7 h4! Scoones)
reply sharply by 8 . . . e4 9 g4 !? e3 1 0 17 i.xg4! li:J xg4 18 li:Jxe4 i.e5 I 9
..ixe3 i.xe3 I I fe li:Je8 1 2 'ti'd4 lb xe5 'ti'xe5 ( ? I 9 . . . li:Jgxe5 20
\!t'h4+ 1 3 'it>d2 00 . 'it>e2!?) 20 li:Jc6 ± A lterman­
8 e4 Faerman , U SSR I 979.
Similar are 8 . . . i.f5 9 a3 li:J bd7 Dl
10 li:Jbd2 e4 I I b4 ..id6 1 2 li:Jc4 9 i.e2 (21 4)
li:Jb6 oo Mascarinas-Buturin, Lvov
1 98 1 ; and 8 . . . a6 9 i.e2 e4 10 0-0? 214

( 1 0 li:Jd2!) 1 0 . . . l:l:e8 I I li:Jd2 i.f5 , B

Antunac-Sh amkovich, Ne w York

1 98 1 .
After 8 . . . e4:
D l 9 i.e2
02 9 li:Jd2
9 a3 will usually transpose, e.g.
9 . . . Ii:e8 1 0 b4 i.f8 I I li:J d2 is
discussed u nder 9 li:Jd2 . Quasi­
independent are: 9 'tWe7!?
a) 9 . . . aS !? 10 li:J d2 'tlt'e7 ( 1 0 . . . a) An apparently simple solution
l:l:e8) I I d6!? ( I I i.e2 l:l:d8 1 2 'tWd 2 is 9 ... li:Ja6 (!) 10 a3 l:l:e8 I I b4
..i f5 1 3 g4 i.g6 oo Hansen­ i.f8 12 ..ib2 li:Jc7 1 3 li:Jd2 li:Jcxd5
Reinert, De nmark 1985) 1 1 . . . = Lerner-Tverdokhlebov, Odessa
i.xd6 1 2 li:J dxe4 li:Jxe4 1 3 li:J xe4 I98 1 .
l:l:d8 1 4 li:Jxd6 ( 1 4 'tWc2 i.f5 =) 1 4 b) 9 ... .trs 1 0 li:Jd2 l:l:e8 ( 1 0 . . .
. . . Ii: xd6 1 5 't!Vc2 li:J c6 1 6 ..id3?! ( 1 6 i.b4 I I g4! i.g6 1 2 h4 h6 1 3
208 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves

'it'b3 ;!;) I I li:Jc4 .i.g6 ?! ( I I . . . a6; I I Now 9 . . . 1t'e7 1 0 a3 leads to

. . . .i.b4 Scoones) 1 2 a3 ;!; van der note (c) to 9 a3. Also 10 li:J b 3 !?
Vliet-Alburt, Be rgen 1 9S2. lidS I I li:Jxc5 1t'xc5 1 2 ..td2
c) 9 ... lle8 10 li:Jd2 ( 1 0 0-0 .i.f5 I I inten ding ll c 1 favoured White in
a3 li:Ja6 = ; 1 0 a3 li:Jb7d I I li:Jd 2 Ivanov-Popovich, New York l 9S2.
li:Jb6 1 2 b4 .i.d6 1 3 Wb3 .i.f5 = 9 . . . ..tf5 l 0 ..t2 .i. b4 !? I I g4 ..tg6
Mamuzic-Barczay, Subotica 1 9S l ) 1 2 h4 h6 l 3 1t'b3 .i.xc3 1 4 be 'it'xd5
1 0 . . . .i. b4 I I 'it'b3 .i.xc3 1 2 be 1 5 .i.a3 llcS 1 6 h5 favoured W hi te
'tixd5 1 3 'tixd 5 li:Jxd5 = Pekovic­ in Hasin-Karasev, USSR 1977.
Barczay, Subotica 1 9S l . 10 a3 ..trs
1 0 li:Jd2 I O . . . li:Jbd7 1 1 1t'c2 ( ! ) 1t'e7 1 2 b4
10 a3 .i.f5 would be note (c) to 9 .i.d6 1 3 li:Jc4 a6 ( 1 3 . . . li:Jb6? 1 4
a3 above, but Black also has e.g. li:Jxd6 'ihd6 1 5 li:Jb5) 14 ..tb2 b5
1 0 ... lidS ( 10 ... 'it'e5 !? I I li:Jd2 15 li:J xd6 'ihd6 16 ..te2 li:Jb6 1 7
lieS 12 li:Jc4!? 1t'g5 1 3 g3 .i.h3 1 4 ll d 1 ..t b7 I S ll d4, Kalinsky­
b4 planning 1t'd4, .i.b2 looks safe Pu kshansky, USSR l 9S l ; " ±"
for White) 1 1 b4 .i.d 6 1 2 .i.b2 (Scoones, Janicki), although the
li:Jbd7 1 3 li:Jd2 li:Jb6 14 't!Vb3 .i.e5 situation is still complex. Here 1 7
15 li:J c4 li:J xc 4 16 .i.xc4 .i.f5 = . . . .i.f5 !? followed b y . . . liacS
Hodos-Gofstein, Daugavpils l 97S. should also be considered.
10 lld8 1 1 li:Jb3!?
11 a3 li:Jxd5 The "main line" has been I I b4
1 1 . . . .i.f5 1 2 b4 .i.d6 13 li:Jc4 !. .i.f8 l 2 li:Jc4 li:Jbd7 1 3 .i.b2 a6 ( 1 3
12 li:Jxd5 . . . lieS l 4 li:Jb5! li:Jb6 1 5 li:J xb6 a b
12 li:Jcxe4 li:Jxe3 ! 1 3 fe ..txe3 ! 1 6 d 6 ± Ljubojevic-Browne, Yugo­
was Ba rkovsky-Tseitlin, Leningrad slavia l 9S l ) 14 1t'b3 b5 1 5 li:Ja5
1 9S l : 14 1t'b3 .i.xd2+ 1 5 li:J xd2 li:Jc5 ! 1 6 be 1t'xa5 17 d6 llacS I S
li:Jc6 1 6 li:Jf3 lieS 17 'it'c4 li:la5 ! +. 1t'b4 'tidS = .

12 lixd5 11 ..tf8
1 3 'it'c2 ..tf5 1 4 b4 i.b6 1 5 i.b2 12 ..te2 ..tg6
li:Jc6 16 0-0 1t'g5 ! 17 'it'h l ! lid6?! Better 1 2 . . . h6, according to
( 17 .. . lieS Kasparov) IS li:Jxe4 ! Scoones, when he suggests g4-g5
..txe4 1 9 'it'xe4 lid2, Mikhalchishin­ and 0-0-0 for White. After 1 2 . . .
Kasparov, USSR ch l 9S l ; and i.g6, Litvinov-Shereshevsky, USSR
now 20 ..t a6 ! ! (Kasparov) would l 9SO, went 13 0-0 li:Ja6 1 4 .i.d2
have kept some advantage. li:Jc7 1 5 lic l :t After Black wins
02 the d-pawn, his bishop is still
9 li:Jd2 lieS m isplaced on g6, although this
 2 ti:Jf3 tl:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves 209

disadvantage should probably not

be decisive. 215

Conclusion: Now that White has B

some experience versus 4 . . . e5, the

results are beginnig to even out.
This last line with 9 ti:Jd2 seems
to be the most serious try for an
advantage.
E
4 b6
The Sicilian/Hedgehog-like posi­
tions w hich often result from this 6 a6
move are now standard fare in a) 6 ... ti:Je4?! 7 ti:Jxe4 .ixe4 8 f3
international chess. .ib7 9 e4 g6 (9 . . . f6 1 0 .ie3 l0c6 I I
5 ti:Jc3 ti:Jb5! ± Alekhine-Samisch, Baden
The only serious al ternative is 5 Baden 1 925 ) 10 .ie2 ( 10 ti:Jb5
f3 e6 ( 5 . . . d5 6 cd ti:Jxd5 7 e4 ti:Jc7 8 intending ti:Jd6+ - K otov - looks
.if4 ;t; 5 . . . .i b7 6 e4 d6 7 ti:J c3 good, e.g. 10 . . . d6 I I 'W'd4 f6 1 2
transposes) 6 e4 .ib4+!? (agai n, 6 .ie2, o r just I I ti:Jc3 ;t) 1 0 . . . .ig7
. . . d6 transposes to mai n lines) 7 I I 0-0 ;!; Menchik-Canal, Carlsbad
ti:Jc3 (7 .id2 .ic5 8 .ie3 0-0, or 8 1929.
ti:Jb3? ti:Jxe4 ! ) 7 . . . 0-0 8 .ie2 .ib7 9 b) 6 . ti:Jc(j 7 e4 d6 8 .ie2 e6 9
..

0-0 ti:Jc6 10 .ie3 'tWb8 , Pomar­ 0-0 !; Black's knight is better on

Jansson, Lugano OJ 1 968, and now d7.
instead of I I a3 .id6 ! +, I I ti:Jc2 c) 6 ... 'W'c7 7 lilc l ti:Ja6 8 a3 (8
.ixc3 1 2 be d6 = was best. e3 ;!;) 8 . . . :IileS 9 e3 ti:J c5 10 f3 d6 I I
5 .ib7 .ie2 e6 1 2 .ixf6 gf 1 3 0- 0 .ie7
E l 6 .ig5 14 b4 ti:Jd7 1 5 f4! ;t Rashkovsky­
E2 6 f3 Grigori an , USSR 198 1 .
6 'iic 2 d6 7 e4 e6 (7 . . . g6 8 .ie2 d ) 6 h6 7 .ixf6 gf8 e4 ! ? e6 9 .ie2
•.•

.ig7 is also playable) 8 .ie2 d6 9 lilg8 10 .if3 ( 1 0 .ih5!? lil xg2 I I

.ie3 ti:Jbd7 1 0 0-0 .ie7 =. White's 'W'f3 lilg8 1 2 0-0-0) I 0 .. . ti:Jc6 =
queen is rather poorly placed on Khasin- Karasev, USSR 1 976. I
c2. recom mended 8 ti:Jf5, but then 8 . . .
El 'iic 7! i s n ot clear, e . g. 9 e 4 e 6 1 0
6 .ig5 (215) ti:Je3 ( 1 0 ti:Jg3 !?) 1 0 . . . .ib4 I I .id3
A logical move which hopes to 'W'e5 1 2 'tlrc2 .ixc3+ 1 3 be ti:J a6 etc.
disrupt Black's kingside . Perhaps 8 e3 is best, e.g. 8 . . . a6 9
210 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves

._.g4!? ._.c7 1 0 .te 2 and I I .tO , or a) The gambit 7 e4! ? is extremely

here 9 li:J de2 !? intending li:Jf4, in teresting after 7 . . . li:Jxe4 8 li:Jxe4
.te2-0. .txe4 9 t!fe2: (216)
e) 6 . . . e6 7 li:Jdb5! (7 e4 h6) 7 . . . d6
8 .tf4 e5 9 .ig5 a6 10 .txf6 gf I I 2 16
B
li:Ja3 d5 ( I I . . . b5 1 2 li:Jd5 ! t; I I . . .
f5 1 2 ...d3 !) 1 2 cd t, e.g. 1 2 . . . b5
1 3 li:Jc2 f5 ( 1 3 . . . b4 1 4 li:Jxb4) 1 4 a3 .
I) 6 . . . d6 !? i s the m ain alternative:
7 .txf6 (7 e4 !? intending 7 . . . li:J xe4
8 li:J xe4 .txe4 9 ._.e2 with attack is
well met by 7 . . . li:J bd7! =) 7 . . . gf
8 e3 ( 8 e4 li:Jc6 9 .te2 litg8 1 0 �0
li:J xd4 I I ._.xd4 .tg7 = Vera­
Lebredo, Cuban Ch 1982; Lebredo's Now Black has:
9 li:Jc2!? should be tried) 8 . . . li:Jc6 a l ) 9 . .. .tb7 10 li:Jf5 ! d5 ( 10 . . . d6?
(8 . . . h5!? 9 h4 e6 I 0 li:Jde2 t with I I 0-0-0) I I 0-0-0 ( I I cd t!fd7 ! - 1 1
the idea li:Jf4, .te2-f3; 8 . . . e6 9 . . . t!Vxd5 ?? 1 2 li:Jxg 7+ - 1 2 li:J e 3 f6!
'ii'h5 'ii' c8 !? 10 .te2 li:Jc6 I I .tf3 in tending . . . e6 ro) is complex but
li:Jd8 1 2 0-0 .txO 1 3 'ii' xO .te7 1 4 promising for White.
litfd l ± Kavalek-Kudrin, Berkeley a2) 9 ... d5 10 f3 .tg6 I I t!fe3 ( I I
1 984. H ere 9 . . . 1!re7 10 .te2 li:Jc6 �0-0!?) I I . . . 'ii'd 7 ( I I . . . 'ii'd6 !?) 1 2
I I .if3 li:Jxd4 1 2 ed .txO 1 3 'ii'xf3 ll c l e6 1 3 cd .tb4+ 1 4 � f2 0-0 1 5
was t in Agza mov- Bonsch, Sochi d e (Scoones).
1 984) 9 'ii' h 5 (9 li:Jde2!? intending a3) 9 . . . .i g6 10 g4! f6 I I .tg2 lita7
li:Jf4 should be considered) 9 . . . 12 .id2 !? e6 1 3 lld l ( l 3 0-0 looks
'ii'd7 1 0 li:J d5 li:J xd4 I I e d llg8 !? more accuxate) 1 3 . . . flc7 (or 1 3 . . .
(intending . . . litg6, . . . e6) 12 'ii'c 8) 1 4 0-0 h5? ( 1 4 . . . �f7! 1 5 f4
.td3 ! ? lit xg2 1 3 .tf5 Wa4 1 4 1irf3 .tc5 1 6 .tc3 lite8 - Kotov) 1 5
1i'a5+ 1 5 b4 ?! ( 1 5 �fl .txd5 1 6 cd li:J xe6! de 1 6 11Vxe6+ t!fe7 ( 1 6 . . .
lit d8 1 7 a3 is crucial - Scoones) 1 5 .te7 K otov, but 1 7 .if4) 1 7 t!fxb6
. . . .txd5 1 6 'ii'b3 'ii'b5 ! 1 7 cb 'ikc7 1 8 ll fe l + .ie7 1 9 lhe7+!
.txb3 1 8 .te4 ( 1 8 ab litg5 ! ) 18 . . . �xe7 20 .tb4+ �f7 2 1 .idS+ �e8
litg4 1 9 .txa8 .t a4 and Black 22 'ii'e 6+ �d8 23 .tb7+ t!fd7 24
stood well in Butnorius-Palatnik , .ta5 mate, Zilberstein-Kim, USSR
Krasnodar 1 980. A very unclear 1978.
line. This gambit has gone unrepeated,
7 .txf6 as far as I k now, but has obvious
 2 li:J./3 li:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves 2J J

merits i n terms o f development Sueti n , USSR 1 974; 1 4 li:Je5 ! 15

0 0 0

and o pe n lines. .ie2 ifc7 1 6 llad l 'i!Vxd6 1 7 li[ xd6

b ) 7 f3 e6 8 e4 'ti'c7 ( 8 d6 9 'ti'd 2
0 0 0 �e7 1 8 ll fd l llc6 = (Suetin ). Still
li:J bd7 1 0 .ie2 .ie7 I I 0-0 0-0 = bet t er 8 ifc7 ( ! ) 9 li:Jd5 !? ( best
o o .

Smyslov- Botvinnik, USSR 1 967 ) see ms 9 c4 e6 1 0 li:Jg3) 9 .i xd5

0 0 0

9 'ti'd2 li:Jc6 I 0 li:Jxc6 de I I 0-0-0 1 0 'i!fxd5 ( I 0 cd? c6 ! I I d6 'ilc5 1 2

.ie7 = Zi l berstei n-Suetin, USSR ll c l 'ifa5+ etc) 1 0 . . . li:Jc6 I I ll d l
1 974. e6 1 2 li:Jd6 .i xd6 +.
c) 7 l:lcl e6 8 f3 h6 9 .ih4 .ie7 I 0 b) 8 e4 e6 9 g3 ( 9 .ie2 'ti'c7 1 0 0-0
'ti'b3 'ti'c7 = Dzibuan- Vaiser, A lma h5 ! ? I I a3 li:Jc6 1 2 �h I h4 1 3 f4 f5!
A t a 1 978. 14 ef h3 1 5 .i f3 hg+ 16 .ixg2 0- 0-0
d ) 7 'ti'c2 h6 (or 7 c6 8 e4 d6 = )
o o • with an attac k , C. H ansen-Piaskett,
8 .ih4 'i!fc7 9 e3 c6 I 0 li:Jf3 d 6 Co pen hagen 1 98 5 ) 9 . . . .ib4 10
= Po mar- Lj u bojevic, Pa lma d e .ig2 .ixc3+ ( 10 . . . 'ti'c7 ) I I be 'i!Vc7
Mallorca 1 972. 1 2 0-0 d6 1 3 ll e l li:J d7 1 4 't!fh5 �e7
e ) 7 li:JfS!? 'ti'c7 8 'ti'd4( ! ) is o f note, with play against t he c-pawns,
e.g. 8 . . . li:Jc6 9 li:Jd5 li:Jxd5 I 0 H ausner-Tseshkovsky, Banja L uka
li:J xg7+ .i xg7 I I 1!t'xg7 1!t'e5 1 2 1 98 1 .
'ti'xe5 li:J xe5 1 3 cd .ixd5 1 4 f3 1;2 - 1;2 8 e6
Rash kovsky-Psa khis , U S S R 1 9 79 . 9 'ti'hS!?
White is better if he c a n neutralise a) 9 a3 f5 ! ? 1 0 ll g l .ig7 I I g4 f4 !?
Blac k's lead in development. 1 2 ef li:Jc6 1 3 li:J xc6 .i xc6 1 4 llg3
7 gf (2 1 7) 'ti'c7 oo Peresipkin-Zaid, Alma
Ata 1 977; simply 9 ... 't!fc7 (prevent­
21 7 ing 1 0 ll g l ) was easier.
w b) 9 li:Jde2!? is again i nterest ing,
with the idea 9 . . . .ih6 10 li:Jg3 or 9
. . . 't!fc7 1 0 li:Jf4. I feel that this is
W h ite's best chance for advantage.
9 'ti'c7!
"=" ( Psakhis), t hreatening . . .
'i!fe5 , e . g . 1 0 0-0-0 'ti'e5 I I 'i!fh3
.ib4!? etc. Lerner- Psak h i s, R iga
1 98 5 , went 1 0 li:Jf3 'i!fc5 I I 'ti'h4 f5
8 e3 1 2 .ie2 .ig7 1 3 0-0 li:Jc6 1 4 ll a c l
a ) 8 li:J fS !? b 5 ! ? 9 a 3 ! be 1 0 e4 li:Jc6 li:J e 5 1 5 'i!fg3 li:J g6 1 6 ll fd l llc8 ! 1 7
I I .ixc4 e6 1 2 li:Jd6 + .ixc6 1 3 a3 'ti'c7 = .
'i!Vxd6 llc8 1 4 0-0, Rash k ovsky- The two k ey li nes w i t h regard t o
212 2 &i:Jf3 &i:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves

6 i.g5 are 6 . . . d6, when 7 .txf6 gf line. 7 . . . lt:l xd4 8 't!Vxd4 e6 ( 8 . . .

8 e3 is critical , and 6 . . . a6, when d6!? 9 i.g5 e6 1 0 c5 ! b e I I 't!Va4+
both 7 e4! ? and the line 7 .txf6 gf �e7 1 2 e5 ! with a big attack,
8 e3 should be investigated. Santos-Soylu, Budva 1 98 1 ) 9 .te3
E2 .tc5 I 0 1t"d2 0-0 I I 0-0-0 .txe3 1 2
6 f3 (2 18) 1Wxe3 e5 1 3 g4! with attack ,
Pomar-Robatsch, Sant Feliu 1 973.
8 .te3
8 lt:l xc6 .txc6!? (8 . . . de =) 9 e5
lt:lh5! (Spraggett).
8 "i!n>8
a) 8 . . .te7 9 .te2 0-0 l 0 0-0 1t"bS
.

( 1 0 . . . d6 I I 't!Vd2 lt:le5 1 2 lifd l ::t:)

I I f4 ( I I lt:lc2 was recommended .
Then I I . . . lidS - Scoones - would
meet 1 2 f4 by 1 2 . . . d 5 ! 1 3 cd ed 1 4
e 5 d 4 1 5 lt:lxd4 lt:lxd4 etc) I I . . .
E2 l 6 . . . &i:Jc6 lt:lxd4 1 2 1t"xd4 ! d5 ! 1 3 cd e d 1 4 e5
E22 6 . . . d6 .tc5 1 5 t!t'd3 d4 =/ ro Khasin­
a) 6 ... d5 7 cd &i:J xd 5 8 &i:Jxd5 Zelandinov, USSR 1 975. This is
(8 &i:Jdb5!?) 8 ... 1t"xd5 9 e4 ±. an important sidelin e.
b7 6 ... e5 7 &i:Jdb5 d5 (7 . . . e4 8 b) 8 . . i.b4 !? 9 lic l lieS 1 0 a3 .te7
.

&i:Jd6+ .txd6 9 t!t'xd6 ±) 8 &i:J xd5 (Zai tsev) is untested.

.txd5 (8 ... lt:lxd5 9 cd i.b4+ 10 c) 8 ... i.c5!? 9 1t"d2 (9 .te2 0-0 10
i.d2 a6 - 10 ... .txd5 11 e4! - I I 0-0 d5 !) 9 . . . 0-0 10 0-0-0 ..We7 I I
lt:lc7+ ..Wxc7 1 2 .txb4 1t"c4 1 3 .tc3 i.e2 li fdS 1 2 li he l d5 1 3 cd lt:lxd4
± Mi nev) 9 cd .tb4+ 10 .td2 1 4 i.xd4 ed 1 5 e5 lt:ld7 1 6 f4
lt:lxd5 I I e4 a6 ( I I . .. lt:l e3 1 2 - Spraggett-Spassky, M ontpellier
.txb4 ±± ) 1 2 e d a b 1 3 .txb5+ 19S5; 16 . . . .txd4 ! 17 1t"xd4 lt:lc5 =
lt:ld7 1 4 0-0 ±± Hort-Si kora, and . . . lt:le6 (Spraggett).
Trzyniec 1 972. 9 't!Vd2
c) 6 . . . e6 7 e4 is the main line; h ere 9 i.e2 i.d6 ! is harder to meet.
7 .. . i.b4 transposes to 5 f3 e6 9 .td6
above. 9 . .. .tc5 1 0 i.e2 0-0 I I lid I
E21 &i:Je5 ? ! ( I I . . . lidS + Taima nov) 1 2
6 lt:lc6 lt:ldb5 ! a6 1 3 lt:ld6 V ± Taimanov­
7 e4 e6 Ta l, USSR Ch 1 973.
7 . . . 1i'b8 8 .te3 e6 is the main 1 0 lt:ldb5! .te5
 2 ti:Jf3 ti:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves 213

10 . . . i.xh2 I I l hh2 ! . 8 i.e2 i.e7 9 0-0 ti:Jbd7 (9 . . . 0-0

II f4 i.xc3 10 b3 !? ti:J bd7 I I 'it>h i a6 I 2 i.b2
1 2 ti:Jxc3 0-0 (2 19) l:te8 13 't!t'd2, Uhlmann-Ljubojevic,
Madrid I 973; I 3 . . . llf8 = with the
2/9 · � i. � · · � idea . . . 't!t'c7 , . . . Ii: ac8, . . . 't!t'b8 ) 1 0
w �� ... •
�
� �
-• & • & � &
• • �•a • ti:Jdb5 !? ( 1 0 i. e 3 transposes) 1 0 . . .
� --
- .·- �- . . 't!t'b8 I I i.f4 ti:Je5 1 2 a4 0- 0 1 3 'it>h i
� � � � ll c8 I 4 't!t'b3 a6 1 5 ti:Ja3 i.c6 =/oo
����� � Htibner-Ljubojevic, Montreal I979.
•
• � �ffl, wr� •.
8 i.e7
8 . . . a6 9 i.e2 ti:Jbd7 I 0 a4 ! ? i.e7
� � �D1. - � �-
�-� � . � �
is also playable, but not 1 0 . . . d5?!
�--·� � �-� i.. � g I I ed ed I2 0-0 de 13 i.xc4 ti:Je5 I 4
Now harmless is 1 3 e5 ti:Jg4 ll e l ! ± Pomar-Gheorghiu, Torre­
1 4 i. g l f6 1 5 1!fxd7 ( 1 5 h3 ti:Jh6 1 6 molinos 1 973.
ef lhf6 1 7 i.e3 ti:Jf5 = Scoones­ 9 i.e2
Spraggett, Budapest 1 984. But 9 't!t'd2 0-0 10 0-0-0!? a6 I I g4
White has two other advantageous ti:Jfd7 !? ( I I . . . ti:Jc6; 1 1 . . . ti:Jbd7
moves: 1 3 0-0-0 J:ld8 1 4 e5 ti:Je8 I 5 Plask ett) I 2 h4 ti:Jc6 1 3 g5 1!fc7 I4
c5 ti:Jb4! 1 6 'it>b i ti:Jc7 I 7 h4 i.c6 I 8 'it>bl ti:Jxd4 1 5 't!t'xd4 l:t fc8 =/oo
a3 ti:Jbd5 1 9 ti:Jxd5 ti:Jxd5 was Plaskett- A kesson, Esbjerg 1982.
Gheorghiu-Adorjan, Biel I983; 20 9 0-0
llh3! ti:Jxe3 2 1 1!fxe3 ± (Gheorghiu); 10 0-0 (220)
or 1 3 i.e2 ('T Informant) I 3 . . .
lld8 I 4 0-0 d 5 ! ( 1 4 . . . ti:Je7? 1 5 220
i.d4 ! ti:Je8 I 6 llae i ± G reenfeld­ B

Miles, London I 984) I 5 cd ed I 6

e5 t (Mi les), the point being that
I 6 . . . d4 I 7 ef de I8 't!t'xe3 favours
Wh ite.
E22
6 d6
7 e4 e6
7 . . . g6 8 i.d3 i.g7 9 i.e3 0-0 I 0
0-0 ti:Jbd7 I I 't!t'd2 a6 I 2 ll fd i is a 10 ti:Jbd7
Kan Sicilian, c onsidered better for IO . . . a6 I l 't!t'e l ( ! , since l l . . . d5
White after 't!t'f2, b4, ti:Jb3 etco. 1 2 cd ed 13 e5 is strong) I I . . .
8 i.e3 lt:lbd7 ( I I . . . lle8 1 2 't!t'f2 ti:J bd7 1 3
 214 2 fi:Jj3 fi:Jj6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves

lilfd l ;I;) 1 2 1t'f2 ( 1 2 Wg3 ! ? with the .i ffi 1 4 lilac l t!i'c7 1 5 b4 litacS 1 6
idea 12 . . . 1t'c7 1 3 fi:Jd 5 ! 'it'dS 1 4 a 3 't!t'bS 1 7 fi:Jb3 t Polugayevsky­
fi:Jxe7+ 1t'xe7 1 5 lilfe l ! can be met Ljubojevic, Bugojno 1 9SO) 14
by 1 2 . . . li eS) 12 ... lieS ( 1 2 . . . lilac l 't!t'c7 1 5 �h l ( l 5 b4? d5! 1 6 cd
lilbS!? Byrne) 1 3 lilac l 1t'c7 1 4 b4 .ixb4; 1 5 a3) 15 . . . 't!t'b8 16 .ig 1 .iffi
'it'bS 1 5 a3 lileS 1 6 lilfd l .idS 1 7 = Yusupov-Tses hkovsky, USSR
fi:Jb3 ( 1 7 �h l .ic7 l S t!i'g l ! 19S l .
Gurevich) 1 7 . . . .ic7 l S g3 .iaS ! 13 liac1 't!t'c7
( l S . . . h6 1 9 .id4 lilcdS 20 a4 ! ± Or 1 3 . . . lileS 1 4 .ifl ( 1 4 lLlc2
Seirawan-Benj amin, US Ch 19S l ) .iffi 1 5 .if2 't!t'c7 1 6 fi:Je3 fi:Je5 =
1 9 lil b l !? ( l 9 c5!? Gurevich) 1 9 . . . Eising-Tarjan, Wij k aa n Zee 1 974)
d 5 ( 1 9 . . . h5!? Gu revich) 20 cd ed 14 . . . .iffi 15 .if2, Ogaard-Omstein,
21 fi:Jxd5 .ixd5 22 ed .ixg3 ! 23 hg Eksjo 1 975; 1 5 . . . 't!Vc7 16 a3 li:le5
lilxe3 = Strauss-D.Gurevich, USA 17 b3 't!t'b8 = .
1 9S5. 1 4 .ifl
This bodes well for Black's 14 b4 d5!?. 14 't!Ve l lifeS ( 1 4 . . .
main line position, since White 't!VbS 1 5 't!t'f2 .idS) 1 5 t!i'g3 .iffi 1 6
has effectively saved the tempo li:l b 3 li:l e 5 1 7 t!i'f2 li:lfd7 l S li:la4
.ifl in the above line. li:lc5 19 lLl xeS - I vanov-Sa von,
11 t!i'd2 Kishinev 1 975; 19 . . . be intending
1 1 fi:J db5 'it'bS 1 2 t!i'd2 lildS ( 1 2 . . . li:lc6, . . . e5 , . . . li:ld4 (Gufeld).
. . . a6 1 3 fi:Jd4 lil eS = ) 1 3 lifd l a6 1 4 14 't!t'b8
fi:Ja3 ? ! d5! + Gheorghi u-Ma rovi c, Or, as usual, 1 4 . . . lieS. Here 1 5
Skopje 1 96S. a3 !? 't!t'bS ( 1 5 . . . li:le5 !?) 1 6 b4 .idS
11 a6 17 li:l b3 li:le5 l S li:la4 d5 ! =/ro
Versus fi:Jdb5. 1 1 . . . fi:Jc5 !? 1 2
lifd l d5!? 1 3 cd e d 1 4 fi:Jf5 de 1 5
't!t'e l fi:Jed7 1 6 't!t'g3 oo, with attac k .
12 lilfd 1
1 2 a 4 li e S 1 3 lifd l lieS 1 4 a 5 ? !
d5! 1 5 cd ed 1 6 fi:Jxd5 ?! .ixd5 1 7
ed fi:Jxd5 =F Panno- Lj uboj evic,
Madrid 1 973.
12 lic8
a) 12 ... t!i'c7 1 3 a4 !?. Else 1 3 li ac l
lilfeS 1 4 .ifl lilacS 1 5 t!i'f2 't!t'bS = ,
a typical line.
b) 1 2 .. lile8 13 .ifl lilacS ( 1 3 . . .
.
 2 li:Jj3 li:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves 2 15

a) 16 li:Jc2 i.fl! 1 7 b3 b5 =, or here intending . . . 1l h5 , . . . d5 was also

16 . . . i.d8 - com pare (b). favourable for Black in Grigorian­
b) 16 li:Jb3 i.d8 1 7 i.d4 i.c7 1 8 g3 Agza mov , USSR 1 98 1 .
lil cd8 1 9 li:Jd2, B radford-Sh apiro, A fter the text move, Ani kayev­
St. Paul 1 982, and simplest is 19 . . . Merkulov, USSR 1982, went 17 . . .
i.c6 =. li:Je5 (Ani kayev gives 1 7 . . . i.c7
16 .td8 18 b4 1le7 19 a3 1lce8 20 i.f2
Several games have gone 16 . . . with advantage to White; however,
.t fl! 1 7 li:Jc2? ( 1 7 a 3 o r 1 7 li:Jb3) 1 7 1 8 . . . ct>h8 may be possible,
. . . li:Je5! e.g. 1 8 i.xb6 ( 1 8 li:Ja3 d5 ! ) intending . . . lilg8, . . . g5 , as above)
1 8 . . . li:Jxc4 1 9 i.xc4 li xc4 20 li:Je3 1 8 b3 h6 19 li:Ja4, and instead of 19
( 20 i.d4 li:Jd7 2 1 't!rg3 lil c6 22 li:Je3 . . . d5? 20 ed ed 21 c5 b5 2 2 li:J b6 ±,
e5 23 li:Jf5 d5! =F Hort-Lj ubojevic, Anikayev gives 1 9 ... li:Jfd7 20 b4
Wij k a an Zee 1 973) 20 . . . lilc6 2 1 g5!? 2 1 a3 <tig7 (or 2 1 . . . ct>h7
i.a5 d5 ! 22 ed ed 23 li:Jf5 d4 ! 24 Scoones) with a complex position,
li:Jxd4 l:lc5 25 i.b6 1lh5 =F Webb­ perhaps a bit in White's favou r.
Hartston, British Ch 1977. Conclusion: White may have
17 't!rgl some kind of theoretical edge if
Not 1 7 b4 ?! li:Je5 1 8 li:Ja4 d5 ! or there is some sequence by which
1 7 li:Jb3? ! i.c7 1 8 't!rg 1 ct>h 8 1 9 he achieves the a3, b4, li:Jb3 bind.
lilc2 l:lg8 ! 20 1lcd2 g5! with Practice shows that this is a very
attack, Taimanov-Yusupov, USSR big "if', however. For now, both
1 982. And 17 b3 i.c7 1 8 't!rh4 ( 1 8 of B lack's basic plans - with . . .
li:Jde2 Yus upov) 1 8 . . . li:Je5 1 9 't!rh3 i.d8-c7 a n d . . . i.f8 - look quite
li:Jg6 20 i.g5 i.d8 2 1 lile I l:lc5 ! playable.
Index of Variations and Transpositions

Transpositions a bound in the Symmetrical English, and are mentioned

throughout the text. This i ndex is designed to help the reader find h is
way through the various move orders to the pages which cover a
particular sequence of interes t. Transpositions on later moves are dealt
with in the text.
Unless o therwise i ndicated, parentheses without a page n umber mean
that the enclosed moves are analysed in the note to the move preceding
the parentheses, or that they are minor alternatives (discussed in the text
at the beginning of the spli t into major alternatives). If the move in
parentheses transposes to another part of the book, the relevant page
n umber follows.

1 c4 c5 and·
2 lil c3 lilc6 ( 2 . . . Others)
II 2 lilc3 lilf6
III 2 lilf3
IV 2 O thers

2 lil c3 lilc6
2 . . . e6 3 lilf3 (3 e4 lilf6 is English 1 . . . N-KB3 Systems) 3 . . . lilf6 (3 . . . d5
4 cd ed 5 d4 or 4 d4 is a Queen's Gambit) 4 g3 (4 d4 cd 5 lil xd4 is
Chapter 1 4) is Chapter 7
2 . . . g6 3 d4 6
2 . . . e5 3 g3 ( 3 lilf3 lilc6 121 ) 3 . . . lil c6 4 .ig2 d6 5 e3 6
2 . . . b6 3 e3 6
3 g3
3 e3 6
3 lilf3:
3 . . . e5 121
3 . . . g6 Chapter 1 0
 Index of Variations and Transpositions 21 7

3 . . . e6 4 g3 (4 d4 cd 5 lLlxd4 189) 4 . . . lLlf6 Chapter 7

3 . . . lLl f6 4 g3 (4 d4 cd is Chapter 1 3) 4 . . . g6
5 J.g2 J,g7 Chapters 3. 4
3 ... g6 (3 . .. e6, 3 . . . e5) 4 J.gl (4 b3 , 4 a3) 4 .. J,g7 5 lLlf3
.

5 a3 (5 lLlh3):
5 ... lLl f6 (5 . . . . e5, 5 . . . J.xc3, 5 ... a5, 5 ... b6) 8
5 . . . e6 9
5 . .. d6 12
5 . . . a6 12
5 b3 :
5 . . . lLl f6 (5 . . . e5, 5 . . . b6, 5 ... d6, 5 . . . J.xc3) 14
5 . . . e6 15
5 d3:
5 . . . e6 ( 5 ... e5, 5 ... lLlf6, 5 . . . l:t b8 ) 1 7
5 . . . d6 1 7
5 e4:
5 . . . e6 ( 5 . . . e5, 5 . . . b6, 5 . . . a6) 20
5 . . . lLl f6 2 1
5 e3:
5 . . . e 5 ( 5 . . . a6, 5 . . . lLlh6, 5 . . . J.xc3+, 5 . . . h 5 , 5 . . . d6) 26
5 . . . lLl f6 2 7
5 . . . e 6 29
s ... lLl f6
5 . . . a6 ( 5 . . . l:t b8, 5 . . . lLlh6) 50
5 . . . d6 5 1
5 . . . e 6 52
6 0-0 (6 d3, 6 b3 , 6 h4, 6 e3, 6 a3) 54
6 d4 58
5 . . . e5 60
6 0-0 (6 d3)
6 d4 38
6 ... 0-0
6 . . . d6 38
6 . . . d5 7 cd lLlxd5 8 lLlxd5 (8 d3, 8 ira4 , 8 irb3 , 8 lLlg5) 34
7 d4 (7 d3 9) 7 ... cd (7 . . . d5, 7 . . d6) 8 lLlxd4
. Chapter 4
218 Index of Variations and Transpositions

II
2 lt:lc3 lt:lf6
3 g3
3 lLl f3 and:
3 . . . g6 4 d4 (4 e3 i.g7 5 d4 cd 6 ed d5 is a Grti nfeld) 4 . . . cd
5 lt:lxd4 202
3 . . . b6 4 e4 (4 e3) 4 . . . i.b7 (4 . . . d6, 4 . . . lt:lc6) 125
3 . . . e6 4 g3 (4 d4 cd 5 lt:lxd4 is Chapter 1 4 ) Chapter 7
3 . . . d5 4 cd lt:lxd5:
5 e4 (5 li:lxd5, 5 1i'a4):
5 ... lt:l xc3 99
5 . . . lt:lb4 100
5 d4 109
5 e3 1 1 1
5 g3:
5 ... lt:lc7 is Chapter 6
5 . . . lt:lc6 6 i.g2 (6 'i!t'b3 , 6 lt:lxd5 ) 6 . . . g6 32
5 . . . g6 (5 . . . lt:lf6) 6 i.g2 (6 'i!t'a4+, 6 'i!t'b3) 1 13
3 ... e6
3 . . . d5 4 cd lt:lxd5 5 i.g2 lt:lc7 (5 . . . lt:l f6, 5 . . . lt:lb4, 5 . . . e6 , 5 . . . lt:l b6,
5 ... lt:lxc 3 68 ) and:
6 'i!t'b3 (6 a3, 6 lt:lh3, 6 f4, 6 b3, 6 'i!t'a4+) 70
6 d3 71
6 lt:lf3 73
4 li:lf3
4 i.g2 d5 82
4 ... lt:lc6
4 . . . d5 5 cd ed (5 . . . lt:l xd5 83 ) 6 d4 is a Queen's Gambi t
4 . . . a6 83
4 . . . b6 5 e4 (5 i.g2 i.b7 is Chapter 1 1 ) 5 . . . i.b7 126
5 i.g2 i.e7 (5 . . . 'i!t'b6 83 ) 6 0-0 d5 (6 . . . 0-0 83 ) 7 cd lt:l xd5
( 7 . . . ed is a Queen's Gambit ) :
8 d4 0-0 (8 . . . lt:l xc3 84) 9 e4 (9 de, 9 lit b 1 ) 84
8 lt:lxd5 ed (8 . . . 1i'xd5) 9 d4 91
 Index of Variations and Transpositions 219

Ill

2 lLl f3 lLlf6
2 b6 3 g3 .i.b7 4 .i.g2 lLlf6, see Chapters 1 1 and 1 2
. ..
2 . ..
e6 3 d4 cd 4 ll:l xd4 ll:lc6 120
2 f5 1 20
...
2 ...
g6 155
2 lbc6 :
. ..
3 d4 cd 4 ll:lxd4 e6 (4 . . . d5 , 4 . . . 't!t'b6 ) 120
3 lil c3 g6 ( 3 . . . e5 12 1 ) 4 e3 (4 a3 , 4 d4 128 ) 129
3 g3 e5 (3 . . . g6) 4 .i.g2 f5 121
3 d4 (3 e3, 3 b4, 3 b3 122 )
3 lil c3, see I I
3 g3 b6 ( 3 . . . d5 1 22 ; 3 . . . g6 124 ) 4 .i.g2 .i.b7 5 0-0 (5 ll:lc3 e6
6 d4 132 ; 5 ll:lc3 g6 155 ) and:
5 . . . e6 6 ll:lc3 (6 d3, 6 d4 133 ) 6 . . . .i.e7 (6 . . . a6 152 ) 7 d4
(7 b3, 7 l:i:e 1 135 ; 7 d3 137) 7 . . . cd (7 .. 0-0, 7 . . . ll:le4 139 )
.

8 Wxd4 (8 ll:lxd4 139):

8 ... ll:l c6 140
8 . . . 0-0 140
8 . . . d6 142
5 . . . g6:
6 lil c3 (6 d4, 6 e3) 6 . . . .i.g7 7 d4 (7 d3 160) 7 . . . cd
(7 . . . ll:le4 156 ) 1 5 7
6 b 3 .i.g7 (6 . . . d5 161 ) 7 .i.b2 0-0 8 ll:lc3 (8 d 4 162 ) 1 63
3 ... cd (3 . . . d5 201 ) 4 lilxd4 ll:lc6
4 ... d5 ( 4 . . . d6) 201
4 ... g6 202
4 ... a6 203
4 ... e5 204
4 ... b6 209
4 ... e6:
5 g3 (5 e3, 5 ll:ldb5 ) 5 . . . Wc7 (5 . . . d5, 5 . . . a6, 5 . . . Wb6 185 ;
5 . . . Wa5 + , 5 . . . .i.b4+ 185 ) 187
5 ll:l c3:
5 ... .i.b4 (5 ... b6, 5 ... a6) 6 g3 (6 Others 189 ) :
220 Index of Variations and Transpositions

6 . . . ltJe4 190
6 . . . 0-0 193
5 . . . d5 199
5 ltJ c3 (5 g3, 5 Others 166 ) 5 ..• e6 (5 . . . Others 168 ):
6 ltJ db5 :
6 ... .i.b4 (6 . . . .i.c 5, 6 . . . d6 ) 1 70
6 ... d5 1 72
6 g3:
6 ... .i.b4 (6 . . . Others) 1 76
6 ... .i.c5 1 77
6 ... 't!t'b6 1 79

IV
2 b3
2 e4 ltJc6 3 ltJ c3 g6 4 .i.g2, see Chapter 2
2 e3 ltJf6 3 ltJc3 d5 4 cd ltJxd5 5 ltJO 1 1 1
2 g3:
2 ... g6 ( 2 ... d5 1 19) 3 .i.g2 ( 3 d4 1 19 ) 3 ... .i.g7 4 ltJc3 , see
Chapters l -5
2 . . . e6 3 .ig2 (3 ltJf3 ltJf6 4 .ig2 b6 is Chapter I I ) 3 . . . d5 120
2 ... ltJf6 (2 . . . Others 1 1 7 ; 2 . . . e5 1 1 9 ) 3 .ib2:
3 . . . g6 ( 3 . . . Others) 118
3 ... ltJ c6 118