First published 1977

Second i mpression 1 978

Third impression 1 98 1
Fourth i mpression 1986

© Raymond Keene 1977

ISBN 0 7134 0244 X (cased )

ISBN 0 7134 0245 8 (limp)

Set by Willmer Brothers Limited, Birkenhead

Printed in Great Britain by
Billing & Son Ltd,
London and Worcester,
for t he publishers
B.T.Batsford L td, 4 Fitzhardinge Street,
London W l H OAH

A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK

Adviser: R . D. Keene GM, OBE
Technical Editor: P.A.Lamford
Contents

Preface VI

Symbols VIII

I ntroduction IX

I Classical D efence ( I . . . e5) : 3 c4

2 C lassical D efence ( I . . . e5) : 3 e3 d5 6
3 Classical D efence ( I . . . e5) : 3 e3 .:£)16 II
4 Classical D efence ( I . . . e5) : Other Second Moves 17
5 I . . . d5 & . . . c5: R eversed Nimzo--l ndian 25
6 I . . . d5 & . . c5: Diagonal Block
. 29
7 I . . . d5 & . . . c5: R eversed Queen's I ndian 30
8 I . . . d5: . . . c5 deferred or omitted 37
9 I . . . d5: Diagonal Block 43
10 I . . . d.Y. . . . Jtg-4 45
I I I . . d5: . . . Jtf5
. 50
1 2 Bayonet Theme: Systems with g4 52
1 3 Fianchetto Opposition 59
1 4 English-R elated Variations 64
1 5 Queen's Fianchetto Variations 73
1 6 Bird Systems 76
1 7 D u tch System 85
18 Transpositions 88
Index of Complete Games 113
Index of Variations 114
Preface

This book deals with one of the most interesting opening systems available
to t he modern player a system in which theory is still in a state ofllux and
therd(Jre is id�al for those who wish to avoid long theoretical lines and force
comparatively cerebral middle games.
The book has been constructed to a novel plan which I will now attempt
to explain . The period when I was commisioned to write a book on the
Nimzo Larsen Attack for Batslord coincided with a particularly busy
phase in my over-the-board activities, the demands of which simply did
not lea\· e me time to do all the necessary spade-work req uired by a
comprehensive opening work such as this. Accord ingly I solicited help
from a number of quarters to amass all of the vital references constituting
the raw material for the book. Tim H arding and I.M. Bob Wade came
forward to coll ect all recent games available from western sources, while
Sm·iet and I nternational Grandmaster Eduard Gufeld was kind enough to
provide me with a host of little-known games from obscure Soviet
publications. Finally Nevil Coles, with whom I had already enjoyed a
fruitful collaboration on our book Howard Staunton the English world chess
champion, dug into his archives to produce a wealth of 1 9th century games
by Owen , Skipworth, Bird, Chigorin, etc . . . which demonstrate
conclusively that I b3 and its oiTshoots are by no means the exclusive
prerogati\·e of the moderns.
I n order to gain experience with this opening at the in ternational level,
to equip myself thoroughly for the task of wri ting the book , I also began to
employ the l\"imzo Larsen At tack in my own international games, and
references to these as White i n this volume i nclude such opposi tion (my
resu lt given in parenthesis) as Korchnoi ( �), Tim man (0), Bellon ( I ) ,
Schmidt (I ), R adulov (A), Penrose (I ) and Sosonko ( � ) ; whilr with Black I
have defended it against Larsen (0). Ljubojevic OJ and Andersson ( � ) .
 Preface v

Once I had been presented with the basic material and acq uired some
personal experience with the opening, my task of producing a coherent
narrative was considerably simplified, but there still remained huge
problems of organization of material in this devilishly amorphous opening.
These were solved when Nevil Coles came to the rescue, offe ring to classify
and type the confusing variety of analytical sections I had concocted, and
in the course of this he also pruned any stylistic excesses, adding his own
common sense touches to the explanations.
I n conclusion, I would like to thank all those mentioned above
(especially Nevil-without him God alone knows when Batsford would
have received the typescript) and in addition: V. Buerger, for the loan of
Nimzowitsch scoresheets; Bill H artston for translations from R ussian;
David Levy (and his wife jacqueline-my sister) for access to their library;
ditto for Kevin O'Connell, and also Peter Kemmis-Betty of Batsford lor
not tearing up the contract after the second year overdue!
I n lieu of a detailed bibliography (which simply does not exist as yet
with this opening) I should mention Andrew Soltis' booklet on Larsen's
Opening which was an early attempt to come to grips with I b3, and one
which I found q uite useful. Also my own book Aron Ni�"T�.Zowitsch, A
Reappraisal, the preparation of which granted me many insights into
Nimzowitsch's hand ling of the b3 systems.
In view of the predominantly positional strategic nature of my treat­
ment of I b3 and the absence of any alarming innovations since the first
edition, it has not seemed necessary to revise this part of the book in any
way.
Raymond Keene
London, May 1 986

P.S. And many special thanks to Annette (my wife) for being her.
Symbols

+ slight advantage for White

+ slight advantage for Black
+ clear advantage for White
+ clear advantage for Black
++ White has a won position
++ Black has a won position
00 the position is unclear
d with the idea or
I ntroduction

I b3 as a means ofopening the contest was noted by Lucena in his L' Arte de
Axedres as long ago as 1 497 , only a few years after the Europeanisation of
the moves of the pawn, bishop and q ueen. To modern eyes Lucena's 'Arte'
looks pretty artless. Two lines he quotes are: I b3 d5 2 ..Q.b2 c5 3 g3 .£Jc6 4
..llg2 e5 5 .£Jc3 Jle6 6 .£Jf.3 h6 7 h3 a6 8 e4 d4, with Black for preference;
and secondly, I g3 e5 2 .ilg2 d5 3 b3 c5 4 ..Q.b2 .£Jc6 ( arriving at the same
position but continuing differently) 5 .£]f3 Jld6 6 .£Jc3 Jle6 7 .£Jb5 a6 8
.£jxdb+ 't'f x d6 9 .£Jg5 h6 10 .£j x e6 � x e6. White's double fianchettoes in
these examples show the still persisting influence of the older I ndo-Arabic
version of the game. The opening is also noticed by the author of the
practically contemporary Gottingen MS: I b3 d5 2 Jlb2 c6 3 g3 b5 4 .ilg2
e6 5 d4 f5 6 e3 g6 7 f4 .£lffi 8 .£lf.3 Jlg7 9 .§0 Jlb7 10 �el -gl ( the king's
Leap, which ultimatt'ly evolved into modern castling) 10 . . a5 I I .£jd2.

.£Jd7 1 2 h4 .§ffi 1 3 .£Jg5 �e7 .

Both Staunton and Morphy can b e found using the opening, but only
when giving the odds of the QN:
Staunton-Worrall, match game, 1 860 (Remove White's QN): I b3 e5 2
Jlb2 .£Jc6 3 e3 Jlc5 4 .£je2 d6 5 .£jg3 ..Q.e6 6 a3 .£jge7 7 Jle2 � 8 � f5?
(8 . . . a5! ) 9 d4 Jlb6 1 0 c4 ed I I ed Jld7 1 2 b4 a5 1 3 b5 .£jb8 1 4 .§ c l c6 1 5
c5 d e 1 6 d e Jlc7 1 7 �d4 .§ ffi 1 8 Jlc4+ (A)
1 8 . . . .£jd5 ( 1 8 . . . �h8? 19 �xffi!± ) 19 .§ c3 ..Q.x g3? 20 .§ x g3 �h8 21
�h4 ..Q.e6 22 .§el ..Q.fl ( 22 . . . .£Jd7 23 .§ x e6! .§ x e6 24 Jl x g7+ ± ) 23
A x d5 cd 24 ..Q.x ffi gf 25 �h6 1-0 .
Morphy-M aurian, New Orleans 1 869 (or 1 866 according t o M aroczy) .
(Remo\le White's QN) : I b3 e5 2 Jlb2 .£Jc6 3 t'3 d5 4 g3 f5 5 .£Jh3 .£Jffi 6
..llb5?! ..lld 6 7 f4 �e7 8 � 0-0 9 c4 a6 Morphy has played in venturesome
fashion, commencing with move 6. Now M aurian tries to break the coming
attack, but does not see so far as his opponent. Probably he thought by his
vm Introduction

A
B

1 3th and 1 5th moves to secure himself. He cannot, however, save the loss of
a piece. (P. Sergeant, 1 9 1 5 ) . 1 0 Jtx c6 be 1 1 fe Jtx e5 1 2 d4 Jtd6 1 3 c5
i!Y x e3+ 1 4 <;!i>g2 Jte7 1 5 .§ e l f)g4 1 6 J,tcl i!Yc3 1 7 Jtd 2 i!Y x d4 ! 8 .§ x e7
i!Yx c5 19 i!Ye2 d4 20 b4 i!Yd5+ 21 <;!i>gl d3? 22 Jtc3 ! ! (B)

B
B

22 . . . .§f7 (22 . . . de 23 .§ x g7 + and mates) 23 .§ e8+ .§ffi 24 i!Ye7 i!Yf7

25 f)g5 i!Y x e7 26 .§ x e7 f)ffi 27 .§ ae l a5 28 .§ x c7 .§ e8 29 .§ d l ab 30
Jl x ffi gf 3 1 f) x h7 .§ e6 32 .§ x d3 Jla6 33 .§ dd7 Jlc4 34 a4! (C leverly
protecting his 2nd rank) 34 . . . ba 35 .§g7 + <;fj>h8 36 f)ffi I �0.
The first of the Moderns ( i .e. the post-Philidorians) to take a serious
interest in the opening was the Reverend john Owen, who had played
Morphy under the name of 'Alter' and who took 3rd prize in the London
tournament of 1 862, behind Anderssm and Paulsen but ahead ofS teini tz,
Blackburne and Lowenthal. However, only a few of his cronies showed
even a portion of his devotion to the debu t, the chief one being the
Reverend A. B. Skipworth, whose opening conceptions were unfortunately
hardly matched by his middle and endgame capabili ties.
I n the present century I b3 was revived again by Nimzowitsch, and for
 Introduction zx

the first time with a supporting body of deep theoretical ideas, based on his
experience with the Queen's I nd ian Defence and methods of control and
exploitation of the key diagonal of the fianchettoed QB. Nimzowitsch's
ideas will be found q uoted throughout the book, but as a curiosity we give
one of his odds games at the open i ng .

Nimzowitsch- Leelaus, Riga, date unknown. (Remove White's q ueen

and Black's KN-an unusual type of odds) : I b3 eS 2 �b2 ffi 3 e4 c6 4 4Jc3
\l.b4 5 0-0-0 ltxc3 6 de 0-0 7 .lla 3 § e8 8 Jld6 �b6 9 4Jf3 -¥Yxf'2 1 0 h4
h6 l l i1,c4+ <tflh7 1 2 h5 bS 1 3 �.f7 § e6 1 4 <2)h4 §xd6 ! 5 § x d6 i!rcS 1 6
§ hd I 'l!Yx c3 1 7 § id3 'l!Ye I+ 1 8 <tff b 2 '1!r x h4 1 9 ..1U6+ <tflg8 20 § e6! (C)
I 0.

c
B

Nimzowitsch's example was followed from time to time by several

masters, such as Simagin, who wanted to vary their opening repertoire, but
the next major master to study the opening was Bent Larsen, and it is his
example that has stimu lated such interest in the opening today. What was
once known simply as the Queen's Fianchetto or Danish Opening (once
Larsen jokingly referred to it as the 'Baby Orang-O utang', I b4 being the
ad ult of the species! ) should now be regarded as the Ni mzowitsch-Larsen
Attack in recognit ion of the contributions to the development of the
opening by both of these great players. The attack does not begin every
time with I b3, for with opening transpositions a later b3 may equally lead
into \Trsions of the attack. I n the 1 9th century b3 was often preceded by I
e3, and in many of Nimzowitsch's games by I l£lf3.
1 Classical Defence (1
I b3 e5 2 Jlb2 �c6
Black aims, by a su bsequent . . .
d5 , to seize the centre against
White's slow opening. Of all the
various possible defences this is the
one which puts the question most
sharply to White, but the fi rst
player is not without means of
disputing the centre and Black can
often fi nd himself presented with
difficult problems to solve. The
defence is one of the few which is
unlikely to transpose into a line
(rom another opening.
3 c4
The Larsen Variation which seeks
to delay or deter Black's . . . d5.
1 . . . �Ill ( /)
1
w ell 6 a3 4J x c3 7 A·c3 Jld6 8 e3
. . . e5): 3 c4
4 e3!
A line favoured by Fischer.
O ther moves:
a) 4 �f3 (A move stigmatized by
Spassky as insufficient.) 4 . . . e4 5
�d4 Jlc5 (Developing, and at the
same time strengthening his
centre.) 6 � x c6 de 7 e3 Jl_£5 8 i!rc2
i!re7 9 Jte2 0-0- 0 and Black is now
ready for a K-side attack,
Larsen- Spassky, World ,. lJ SSR
match, Belgrade 1970 (sec p. 3) .
b) 4 g3 d5 5 cd #, d5! with a ,·cry
active position for Black.
c) 4 �c3 often comes to the same
thing as 4 e3, bu t it may well ])('
more accurate to defer the
development of the QN until Black
has committed his KB to e7, e.g. 4
. . . d5 5 cd �:xd5 and now:
0 0 9 d3 i!re7 10 Ab2 a5 II 4::)13
Ag4 12 J',te2 §. ad8 1 3 #c2 £5-t
Simagin Pachman , Sarajevo 1 963.
c2) Another example was Korchnoi
Gipslis, lJSSR Spartakiad 1976
which continued 6 4jf3 4Jxc3 7
A c3 Jtd6 8 d3 0-0 9 e3 "#re7 1 0
•
2 Classical Defence (I . . e5): 3 c4
.
Jle2 ..lld 7 II 0-0 .§adS 1 2 .£jd2 15
1 3 .£jc4 f4 1 4 .£j x d6 i!Y x d6 1 5 ef
§. x f4 1 6 .Q.f'3 §.dffi 1 7 Jle4. White
is a shade sounder, but Black is not
without chances, since his pieces
are aggressively posted. This
actually began life with the
interesting move order I c4 e5 2
.£lc3 .£\ffi 3 .£lf'3 .£lc6 4 b3!?
Two continuations (after 4 e3!)
are to be noted:
A 4 . . . ..lle 7!?
B 4 . . . d5!
A
4 ... Ae7! ?
5 a3 0 0 (2)
2
w
Here White has:
a) 6 d3 d5 7 cd i!Yx d5 S .£lc3 i!Yd6 9
.£lf'3 J,t15 10 �c2 §. fdS II §. d I h6
1 2 h3 "Y:lfe6 1 3 .£jd2 .£ld7 1 4 Jle2,
Fischer-Tukmakov, Buenos Aires
1 970. Now best is 1 4 . . . i!Yg6!
b) 6 �c2 §. eS /d3 Jlffi 8 4Jf'3 a5 9
Jle2 d5 10 cd .£lxd5 II .£lbd2 ffi 1 2
0 0 Jle6 1 3 \t>h l ! (Fischer's
method of building up a K-side
a t tack to com plement the
fianchettoed QB is noteworthy.) 1 3
. . . i!Yd7 1 4 §.gl §. adS 1 5 .£le4
i!Yf7 1 6 g4!± Fischer-Andersson ,
Exhibition game 1 970. White
followed up with §.g3 and §. agl
and won easily.
B
4 ... d5!
5 cd .£j x d5 (3)
3
w
6 a3!
6 J,tb5 Jld6 7 .£je2 0- 0 8 .£lbc3
.£jb6 9 0-0 15 is nothing special for
White, but even stronger for Black
is the pawn sacrifice 6 J,tb5 .£ldb4!
and if 7 J,txe5?! Jll5 or 7 . . . a6 S
Jlxc6 + be!
Now after 6 a3! Black has to
choose between e7 and d6 for his
KB. The former looks inferior, e.g.
6 . • .Jle7 7 �c2 a6 8 .£11'3 .Jlffi 9
.
.£lc3 .£�� c3 10 Jl.x:c3 0 - 0 II Jld3
g6 1 2 Jle4 .£jd4 1 3 '#b2! .£1" 13+
1 4 gf §. e8 150 0 O c5 1 6 h4 Jlg 7 1 7
h5 5 1 8 Jlbl b5 1 9 hg hg 20 §.dg l
with a terrific pull, CaiTerty­
Hempson, British Ch 1 97 1 . The

most aggressive for Black is of
course 6 ... Ad6! 7 �c2 0- 0 8 4:)13
#e7 and then, for example, 9 d3 f5
1 0 Ae2 \t>h8 II 4:)bd2 Ad7 1 2 0--0
§ ae8 1 3 �c4 a6 1 4 §lol ( 1 4
#,xdS Ae6++ ) 1 4 . . . e4! 1 5 de
4:J,x. e3 1 6 fe fe 17 4:J x e4 (if 17 4:Jd4
Jl:. h2+ 18 \t>x h2 �h4+ 19 \t>g1
��+ 20 \t>h2 §16-t+) 1 7 . . .
"# x e4+ C v e t kovic-M arovic,
Yugoslav Ch 1 9 7 1 . Also satisfactory
for Black is 9 4:Jc3 4:J x c3 10 �x c3
15 II Ab5 e4! Larsen-Spassky,
Leiden 1 970, which continued 1 2
Axc6 be 1 3 4:Je5 c5 1 4 b4 c b 1 5 ab
Ab7 and the game was soon
drawn.
Larsen Spassky
USSR -World, Belgrade 1 970
{:'iotes S by Spassky, L by Larsen)
I n the score of this game we give
in brackets after each move the
minutes consumed o\·er that move,
an idea of Bronstein's, 'as such
"chronometrisation" frequently
l ights up just what the player was
thinking about, and what were his
doubts and questionings. At any
rate it gives the chess appren tice the
possibility of a little insight into the
workings of the secret laboratory of
the chess master'. IS)
I b:{ (0)
Larsen willingly adopts irregular
openi ngs, striving to transfer the
weight of the ba ttle into the middle
game, bu t also posing his opponent
Classical Defence (1 . . . e5): 3 c4 3
unusual problems right from the
start. (S)
I e5 (0)
2 Ab2 (0) 4:Jc6 (0)
3 c4 (0) 4:Jf6 (6)
4 4:)13 (0) e4 (I)
5 4:Jd4 (I) Ac5 (4)
6 4:J x c6 (O) dc (I)
7 e3 (I) Af5 (4)
8 i!fc2 (3) i!fe7 (I)
9 Ae2 (5) 0-0-0 (4)
Black has completed the
mobilization of his forces and has
fortified the sq uare e4. He now
prepares K-side action , at the same
time organizing pressure on the d­
file against Whi te's backward d­
pawn. (S)
10 f4? (2)
A mistake, after which i t is
already doubtful if White can save
himself. The explanation? I t seems
to me that the move was linked with
the idea of II Ax f6 i!f l' f6 12 4:Jc3.
However, White's conception
invites a challt'nge from tht'
opponent . (S)
10 . . . 4:Jg4! (4)
This unsubtle move places White
in a critical position. (S)
I I g3 (I 5 ) h5 ( 18)
Sacrificing the rook by II
§ x d2 looked wry attractive. After
12 4:J x d2 4:Jxe3 13 ·¥Yc3 §dB
Black has a terrible at tack.
However, to prove a win for him is
not so easy, so I chose a more solid
path. (S)
-1 Classical Defence (I . . . e5): 3 c4
1 2 h3 (6)
It is difficult to offer White
advice in this situation . For
instance, 1 2 .:£Jc3 allows 1 2 . . .
.§. x d2! with decisive effect. (S)
12 . . . h4! (6)
Sacrificing a piece to force open
the white king's position . (S)
13 hg (53)
Larsen spent almost an hour over
this move, but there is no solution.
On 1 3 Jl x g4 there could have
followed 1 3 . . . Jl><g4 1 4 hg hg I S
_§ g) _§ h) ! )6 .§. X h J g 2 ) 7 _§ g)
"¥fh4+ 1 8 \t>e2 � x g4+ 19 <t,t>e I
�g3+ 20 \t>e2 (or 20 \t>d I �1'2 2 1
� >' . e 4 jy "' g I + 22 \t>c2 i!¥ 1'2 and
wins) 20 . . . i!¥13+ 21 \t>el Jle7
and mate is inevitable. (S)
13 hg ( I )
1 4 §gl (0) § hi!! ( 1 7) (-1)
-1
w own variation of the Sicilian
White placed all his hopes on 1 4
. . . #h4, which would have been
followed by I S .§ g2 jfhi-+ 1 6 Jl£1
Jt'.g4 1 7 �,x.e4 § he8 1 8 Jle5 ffi
19 .:£Jc3 and White might still try to
resist. ( L )
1 5 § x h l (4) g2 ( 3 )
1 6 .§fl (4)
16 .§ g l is no better. After 16 . . .
i!¥h4+ 1 7 \t>d I i!¥ h l 1 8 i!¥c3
i!¥ x g l + 19 \t>c2 �1'2 20 gf � x e2
21 .:£)a3 Black's most simple way to
win is 21 . . . Jtb4, though during
the game I was attracted by
another possibility, namely 21 . . .
i!¥d3+ 22 � x d3 ed+ 23 \t>c3
Ax e3 (23 . . . aS 24 .:£)c2! ) 24 de d2
25 .§. d I .§. h8 and Black will
promote one of his pawns. (S)
16 �h4+ ( I )
1 7 \t>d l (I) gf#+ (0)
0 I
After 1 8 Jlx£1 Jl><. g4+ mate is
unavoidable.
( Larsen I hr. 35 - Spassky I hr. I I )
For his lay-out in the above game
Larsen borrowed one of N imzo­
witsch 's ideas (with colours
reversed ) from the older master's
Defence:
Michell- N imzowitsch
Marienbad 1 925
I e4 c5 2 .:£Jf3 .:£)ffi 3 e5 .:£Jd5 4 .:£Jc3
.£):--<. c3 5 de b6?! ('A conception ol
hypermodern boldness'- N imzo­
witsch) 6 Jtd3?! Jtb7 7 Jtf4 #c7 8
Jtg3?! (8 Jlc4! , threatenting 9
Jt,x.f7+ \t> x f7 1 0 e6+, 8 . . . e6 9
jfe2 would be a direct transposition
into the Larsen- Spassky game
above! ) 8 . . . e6 9 0-0 Jle7 10 .:£)d2
hS I I h3 g5 1 2 Jte4 .:£Jc6 1 3 § e l

0--0-0 1 4 .f)c4 b5 1 5 .f)d6+ Jl x d6
1 6 ed i!fb6 1 7 11.1'3 g4 18 hg hg 1 9
Jlx g4 f5 20 11.1'3 .§. h7 (5)
21 �0 e5 22 Jl x c6 i!f x c6 23 1'3 e4
Classical Defence (I . . . e5): 3 c4 5
24 fe .§.g8 25 ltf'2 fe 26 i!fd2 e3 27
i!f x e3 "¥f x g2+ 28 �e2 .§.17 29
�d I �b8 30 .§. gl .§. .>< f'2! 3 1 .§. x g2
.§. fxg2 32 b3 .§. gl + 33 �d2
.§.8g2+ 34 �d3 .§..x:a l 35 i!f.>Cc5
.§. d l + 36 �e3 .§. e l + 37 �d3
Jle4 + 38 �d4 .§.d2+ 39 �e5
.§.d5+ 40 "¥¥ .x d5 Ah l + o- 1 .
A brilliant game by Nimzo­
witsch, bu t his opening idea would
be rendered extremely dubious by
the pawn sacrifice 6 e6! . e.g. 6 . . . fe
7 .f)e5 or 6 . . . de 7 i!rxd8+ �xd8
8 .f)e5 �e8 9 l,tb5 + Jld7 1 0
.f) x d7 .f)xd7 I I Af4±±.
2 Classical Defence (l . . . e5): 3 e3 d5

I b3 e5 2 Ab2 .!f:)c6 3 e3 in normal style with ilfc2 plus Jla3,

Larsen described this as an
'improvement' on 3 c4, apparently
unaware that it was regularly
played by the 1 9th century
aficionados of the opening.
3 d5
4 Ab5 (6)
6 .!f:)f4 Jle7 II cd c d 1 2 § c l 0 - 0 1 3
B .!f:)a4 g5! 1 4 .!f:)h5 .!£)g4 1 5 h3 .!f:)h6
40 0 0 Jld6
After 4 . . . ffi White has:
a) 5 �h5+ g6 6 �c2 Jld7 7 .!f:)c3
a6 8 Jl/ c6 Jl)" c6 9[2)13 Jld6 10 d4
e4 I I .!£)d2 �d 7 , Bird Clerc, Paris
! 878 Black won on the 78th move.
b) 5 c4 looks preferable.
c) 5 d4! e4 6 .!f:)e2 a6 7 Jlx c6+ be 8
c4 f5 9 .!f:)bc3? ( l f Whitc continues
he must surely have an excellent
reversed Winawer! The knight on
e2 is very good for restraining
Black's K-side ambitions. The text
stops . . . Aa3- so White is stuck
with his lousy bishop- and soon
Larsen encou rages Black to expand
on the K-side as well!) 9 . . . .!f:)ffi 1 0
1 6 § c6 Ad6 1 7 h4 14 18 hg fe! ! 1 9
.!f:) ffi + § x ffi 20 gf ef+ 21 �11
�x ffi (The position ofWhite's king
on 11 gives rise to a numb<:>r of
spec tacular combinative
possi bilities.) 22 �h5 Jld7 23
�xd5+ �g7 24 § x c7 §d8! 25
§ b7 .!£::)£5 ( trying for either . . . b5
or . . . g3 with a knockout blow) 26
§ h3 e3 27 ..gy<'4 �rn 28 d5 �g6 29
..gyG �e8 30 g4 .!f:)g3+ 3 1 § 7 g3
�bl+ 32 �g2 �gl1 33 �h3
11..gy + 34 ·iJb n #� n-+ 35 § g2
'#h i t 0 I !! ( and how)
Larsen- Balinas, Manila 1 975.
�nw:
A 5 c4
 Classical Defence (1 . . . e5): 3 e3 d5 7
B 5 f4 After 5 c4 5 . . . a6 6 ..\lx c6+ be 7
c 5 {)1'3 �c2! is good .
5 {)e2?! {)e7 6 c4 a6 7 cd ab 8 de B
{) x c6 9 {)bc3 b4 1 0 {)e4 0-0 II 5 £4
0-0 Ae7 1 2 �c2 f5 1 3 {)4g3 Ae6 And now:
14 f4 e4 1 5 {)c l .§ aS 1 6 d3 ed 1 7 Bl 5 . . . �h4+
{) x d3 '#a8+ Csom-Botterill, B2 5 . . . �e7 !?
Hastings 1 974 /5. B3 5 . . . ffi !?
A Bl
5 c4 de (7) 5 ... '#h4+
6 g3 �e7
7 7 {)1'3 (8)
w
8
B

Here White has tried:

a) 6 be Ad7 7 {)1'3 �e7 8 0-0 {)ffi
9 c5?! AxeS 10 A x c6 A x c6 II Now Black has:
{)<c5 ilb5 1 2 .§ e l 0-0 1 3 �b3 a) 7 ... Jlg4 8 fe (or 8 h3! Jlx f3 9
Jta6 14 a4 Ad6 15 f4 A· e5 16 -�x f3 {)ffi 1 0 {)c3 a6 II Ax c6+
-
A e5 {)g4=i Skipworth--Rosenthal,
• be 1 2 0-0-0 Planinc-- Lengyel, Novi
:hd match game, Bilsdale 1 87 1 . I f Sad 1 972) 8 . . . Ax eS 9 Ax eS
the bishop moves, . . . �h4 i s too Ax f3 1 0 � x l'3 �x eS II {)c3 {)ffi
strong. 12 ,ilx c6+ be 1 3 0-0 0--0 1 4 �15
b) 6 {)f3! ? {)e7 (An interesting �d6 1 5 .§ f4 .§ ac8 with chances for
speculation is 6 . . . cb 7 i!rx b3, both sides, though Black actually
given by Gligoric, or even 7 {) x eS won in 55 moves in Ljubqjevic­
�g5 8 {)x. c6 f:r 'g2 9 {)e5+ c6 1 0 Portisch, Teesside 1 972.
�-I�U 7 � - c 4 {)15 8 {)c3 {)h4 9
· b) 7 . . . f6 8 fe fe 9 Ax:c6+ ( I f 9
�!) J:J C). 10 � . 13 0 0 I I h4 -ij x e5 ,ilxe5 10 ,il x c6+
Ae6?? 12 A· e6 fe 1 3 �e2±:= 'i£1d8 ! !++, or 9 {):xeS ,ilxe5 10
Larsen Calferty, Teesside 1 972. .ghS-+- )!(d8!!.:i -f) 9 . . . be 10
8 Classical Defence ( 1 . . . e5) : 3 e3 d5
� x eS �f6 I I � x c6 i!fe4 1 2 § gl With the idea of 7 . . . Jl x eS 8
Jtg4 1 3 i!fc I 0-0 1 4 �c3 i!fe8 I S ,ll x c6+ be 9 i!fhS+ , or if Black
�d4 i!fhS 1 6 h4 Jlxg3+ 0-1 tries 8 . . . � 9 i!¥1'3+ �f6 10 d4,
Cvetkovic-Krnic, Vrnjacka Banja or if 8 . . . �e7 9 d4!
1 974. Krnic suggests 1 2 0-0! Jth3 7 .. . �h4+
13 §f2 �g4 1 4 § 1'3 � x h2 I S N imzowitsch recommended 7
�x h2 Jtg4 1 6 �g2 hSoo. . . . �f6!? believing Black got
82 sufficient compensation.
5 ... i!fe7! ? 8 g3 �e4+
6 �1'3 White is well advised to avoid
Or 6 i!fe2 �f6 7 fe .Q.x eS 8 d4 this sort of thing.
Jld6 9 �1'3 0-0 1 0 0-0 Jtg4 1 1 �c3 c
f! ae8 + Skipworth-Rosenthal, 1 st 5 �f3 ( 10)
match game, Bilsdale 1 87 1 .
6 . . . ffi /0
7 fe fe 8 Jtx c6+ be 9 � x eS �h4+ B
1 0 g3 i!fh3 I I i!fe2 �f6 1 2 �a3
�g4 1 3 d4 0-0 14 0-0-0 �f2 I S
§ hf1 A x eS 1 6 § x f2 Ag4 1 7 i!fel
§ x f2 18 de § affi 0-- 1 Szilagyi­
Vaisman, Wroclaw 1 974.
83
5 ... f6! ? (9)

9 s ... f6
w S . . . i!fe7 6 c4 �f6 7 cS A x eS 8
� x eS 0-0 9 � x c6 be 1 0 -'te2
Jl.d6, Zwaig-- Poulsson, Sandef)ord
i 97S, and now II d I! Thl"
advances of the c-pawn arc straight
out of Owen's old repertoire!
!Compare S teele-Owen, Liverpool
1866, p. l i S) .
6 c4 a6!
li k And now (after 6 . . . a6! ) :
Or 6 -#hS+ g6 7 '¥fh4 c .f. p. 1 1 9. a) 7 Ax c6+ bdl d4.
6 fe h) 7 cd (see Liljedahl-Cooper, p.
7 Ax eS 9).
 Classical Defence ( 1 . . . e5): 3 e3 d5 9
Liljedahi-Cooper 1 3 a3
Nice O lympiad 1 974 It would be exceedingly perilous
I b3 e5 for White to castle on either wing,
2 .Q.b2 {)c6 so he seeks to close up the position
3 e3 d5 by 14 b4, followed by {)b3 and
4 .Q.b5 .Q.d6 {)c5.
5 {)f3 ffi 13 �e8
6 c4 a6! 1 4 b4 .Q.e6
7 cd 1 5 {)b3 �h5
Leading to a highly unusual 16 d5?!
position. A fter the natural-looking
7 ab continuation 16 {)c5 ,ilc4! White's
8 de be position is horrible. He therefore
9 "¥rc2 {)e7 ( II) tries fishing in muddy waters, but
they are not nearly muddy enough
11 to confuse Black.
w 16 . . . .Q.xd5
Or even 1 6 . . . {)x d5-=t .
1 7 {) x d5 {) x d5
1 7 . . . cd is also excellent for
Black.
18 � x c6 f4
1 9 §. d l {)x b4!
20 ab
Or 20 �c3 #g4 21 ab #xg2 22
10 d-P
;t>e2 .ll.:x b4 23 "¥r x b4 fe+ i�.
An error which fails to take into 20 . . . J.lxb4+
acco u nt Black's i n gen i o u s 21 .ll.c 3
rejoinder. Stronger i s 1 0 {)c3! f5 I I Either 21 §.d2 or 21 {)d2 would
{)e2! oc . be answered by 21 . . . fe 22 fc "¥rf7
10 . . . e4! and mate is looming up on the l�fi le.
A terrible surprise lor White, 21 . . . fe (12)
who is now forced back, for if I I 22 §. c 1
·!4-"' e4 ..ll.£5 12 "¥rh4 h5! 1 3 d5 c5 22 0-0 loses t o 22 . . . e2 23
and White loses material to the .ll. x b4 ed #, while the acceptance
threat of . . . {)g6. of the second minor piece with 22
I I {)fd2 15 .ll.-" h-t- loses after 22 . . . ef+ 23
12 {)c3 0-0 �d2 §. adS+ 24 �c l §.' d l+ 25
10 C/a.l.lical Drjence ( 1 . . . 6): 3 r3 d5

12 24 � x c3 .§ ad8
25 4Jd4 c5!
w
The four passed pawns combined
with Black's fearsome attack are
more than sufficient compensation
for the sacrificed knight.
26 4Je2 �d5
Threatening 27 . . . �d l + ! 28
.§ x d l .§ x d l + 29 �e l fe �+
mate!
.§ x d l � x d l + ! 26 <3rxd l 0 �+ 27 4Jg3 <3rh8
27 <3rc2 �d3+ 28 <3rb2 .§ £2+ 29 28 <3re2 t>3
<3ra3 h6 and Black, with rook and 29 �c2
three pawns for two minor pieces l f 29 <3tO e2+ ! 30 4J x e2 �d l +
and with the initiative firmly in his or 30 <3r x e2 �x g2 threatening . . .
grasp, must triu mph. .§ fe8+ .
22 . . . ef+ 29 .. . � x g2
23 <310 A x c3 30 <3r x e3 �f3 mate
3 Classical Defence (1 ... e5): 3 e3 c:£jffi

I b3 e5 2 Jlb2 .f)c6 3 e3 ,f)ffi ( 13) A

I f Black steers clear of the critical 4 .f)£3 e4
3 . . . d5, he can either choose this Similar to Larsen-Spassky in
simple developing move or 3 . . . g6. chapter I , but White's position is
After the latter move there is a more solid.
distinct possibility of transposition Black can, of course, play the
to lines arising from I b3 e5 2 Jlb2 unpretentious 4 . . . d6.
d6 (see chapter 4) , but noteworthy 5. .f)d4 (14)
is 3 . . . g6 4 f4!? !J..g7 5 .f)f.3 d6 6
Jlb5 Jl.d7 7 �0 .f)ge7 8 fe de 9 14
.f) g 5 0-0 I0 Jl a 3 oo B
Forintos-Hoen, Skopje O lympiad
1 972. (�I in 62) .

13
w

Two variations arise here:

AI 5 . . . il,c5
A2 5 . . . .f) x d4
AI
5 • • • il,c5
6 .f) x c6
F rom the position in the diagram Very in teresting is Tal's idea 6
White has a choice of: g4!? h6 7 d3 ed 8 Jlxd3 with an
A 4 ,f)f.3 (Larsen's earlier choice) aggressive posi t i o n . This
B 4 il,b5 ( the improvement) employment of the Bayonet Theme
12 Classical Defence ( 1 . . . e5): 3 e3 !i::f6
may be superior to the standard 1 3 <i:)f2 a5 1 4 g3 a4 1 5 b4 .Q.xb4!? 1 6
line! ab <i:) x b4 1 7 i!Yd I . White gradually
6 . . . de overcame his problems and won in
6 . . . be!? is not so clear, e.g. 7 c4 38.
0-0 8 <i:)c3 i!Ye7 9 i!Yc2 d5 10 <i:)a4 A2
.Q.d6 with play on the K-side to 5 ... <i:)xd4
compensate for the doubled pawns. 6 Axd4
7 <i:)c3 6 ed? as in Ragozin-Rauzer,
Soltis recommends 7 d4, gaining Leningrad 1 936, Is obviously
some room in the centre. ridiculous.
7 0-0 6 . .. .Q.e7
8 i!Ye2 "'#(e7 A playable alternative is 6 . . . d5
9 a3 .Q.g4 7 c4 ,ilf5 , but Black should beware
1 0 13 �J5 of weakening his K-side with . . .
1 0 . . . .Q.h5!? h5 . Simunck-- Cizek, M ezibor
II f4 <i:)d5 ( 15) 197 1 2, continued 8 ,ilb2 de 9
II . . . h5!- Pachman. ,ilxc4 ,ile7 10 <i:)c3 "¥rd 7 II �c2
The column is Larsen-- Lcdic, 0- 0 1 2 h3 .§ ad8 1 3 0--0- 0 h5?! 14 g4
Vinkovci 1 970. hg 1 5 hg <i:) X g4 )6 <i:) X e4 h5 ) 7
i!Yc3 <i:)f6 1 8 <i:) x 16+ .Q.x f6 19
yJfxf6! gf20 ,ilxf6 ,ilh3 21 .§dg)-+
�h7 22 Jld3+ �h6 23 ,ilg7+
�h5 24 ,ile2+ (16) 1 -0.

/{j
B

White should feel happy in

defenc e before he involves himself
in this position. He has the
advantages of Larsen- Spassky
w i t h ou t the acco m p a n y i n g
weaknesses i n the d-file, b u t Black I nstead of 7 . . . ,ilf5 , 7 . . c5!?
.

still enjoys a temporary initiative. was played in Basman Crouch,

The con tinuation was: 1 2 <i:)d l b5 Centymca London C . C . Invitation
 Classical Defence (1 . . . e5) : 3 e3 t;Y5
1975 ( notes by Basman): 7 . . . c5?
( Black hopes for 8 A,b2 when 8 . . .
d4 is q uite strong. But White's reply
weakens Black's central position. ) 8
Jt x ffi i!fxffi 9 <£)c3 ( Black's e and
d-pawns are now weak; i t will be
hard to defend them without losing
time.) 9 . . . de (9 . . . d4 10 <£) x e4
i!fe5 I I -'\,_d3 -'\._5 was the
alternative. Soltis gives I I <£)g3 de
12 fe h5!) 10 A, x c4 i!fg6 ( Black is
willing to forego castling, in the
hope that his king can escape to the
Q-side; e.g. if now I I -'\,.b5+ -'\._d7
12 ..Q. x d 7+ � x d 7 , followed by . . .
§.d8 and . . . �c8-b8 . So White
d ec id es i nstead on q u ick
development.) I I i!fc2 i!f x g2
( might as well be hung for a sheep
as a lamb) 1 2 0--0-0 A,d7 1 3 §. hgl
i!fr.3 1 4 .ll_e 2 (White must play
accurately if he wants to cash in on
Black's troubles.) 14 . . . i!ff5?
(Black wants to retain his e-pawn,
bu t the best chance was to play 1 4
. . . i!fffi 1 5 i!fx e4+ i!fe6 1 6 i!f x b 7
i!fc6 1 7 i!f x d7+ � x d 7 1 8 A,b5,
going into an ending a pawn down;
or 15 . . . A,e7 16 i!f x b7 §.d8, once
again coming out with fewer
pawns. Now the roof falls in.) 1 5
Jlg 4 i!fe5 1 6 A, x d7+ � x d 7 1 7 d4
ed 18 i!f x d 3+ 1 -0 ( 1 9 . . . .i},d6 20
<£)b5 wins a piece) .
7 c4
I nhibiting . . . d5.
7 0-0
8 i!fc2 c6?!
13
Stronger is 8 . . . d6! 9 <£)c3 A,f5
10 §. d i §. e8 I I d3 A,ffi 1 2 de
£j x e4 1 3 .l}_d3 <£) x c3 14 A, x c3
-'\._ x d3 1 5 §. x d3 §. e6 16 0--0 i!fh4
1 7 i!fe2 §.ae8 = Lju bojevic­
Gheorghiu, Balkaniad 1973.
9 <£)c3 d5
10 cd cd
I I -'\._e2 -'\._e6
1 2 0-0 §. c8
1 3 i!fb2 ( 17)
17
B
White's domination of the long
diagonal gives him a substantial
plus, Larsen--Parma, Vinkovci
1970. The advantage was expertly
turned to account by 1 3 . . . a6 1 4
§. fc l i!fd6 1 5 <£)a4 Ag4 1 6 JlO
Ad7 1 7 <£)b6 §. x c l 18 §. x c l <£)g4
19 g3 Jlffi 20 <£) x d7 i!fxd7 21 Jlh3
§.c8 22 §. x c8+ i!f x c8 23A x ffi gf
24 Jl x g4 i!f x g4 25 i!fx ffi i!fd i +
26 �g2 i!f x d 2 2 7 g4 i!f x a2 28
#g5+ �m 29 i!fx d5 b5 30 h4
i!fc2 3 1 b4 i!fc4 32 i!fd6+ �g7 33
h5 h6 34 g5 iJ¥e2 35 i!fffi + �ffi 36
14 Classical Defence (I . . e5) 3 e3 !£Jf6
.
�g3 i!fd l 37 �f4 i!Yf3+ 38 �e5
hg 39 h6 i!Y x ffi+ 40 � x ffi �g8 4 1
� x g5 �h7 42 � f5 � x h6 43
� x e4 �g5 44 f3 1 -0.
B
4 .Q.b5
I ntensifying the pressure against
e5 , which W hi te may later
reinforce with f4. The pin may not
be oqjectively stronger than 4 4Jf3
bu t White does at least retain the
initiative.
4 . . . d6
A very interesting idea is William
Hartston 's 4 . . . .Q.d6!? (18)
18
w White, but of a psychological rather
The move looks insane since it
jams Black's development, bu t the
justification is to be found in . . . a6
and if Jl, x c6 then . . . de! reaching
a kind of Exchange Lopez position .
Cohn-Jana Hartslon, Oxford 197 1 ,
went 4 . . . Jl,d6 5 4Je2?! (5 4Ja3
intending 4Jc4 deserves attention . )
5 . . . a6 6 Axc 6 d e 7 4Jg3 h S ! 8
4Jc3 h4 9 4Jge4 Jl,e7? (9 . . . h3 is
consistent; Black need not fear the
exchange on d6.) 10 4Jx ffi+ Jlx ffi
II 4Je4. Eventually !-!-
5 4Je2 (19)
1.9
B
Superior lo 5 4Jf3 which blocks
the f-pawn. Larsen-A ndersson,
Teesside 1 972, was a success for
than a theoretical nature: 5 4Jf3
Jld 7 6 0-0 Jle 7 7 Jle2 0 - 0 8 c4
.§;e8 9 4Jc3 Affi 1 0 d3 h6 II a3 a5
1 2 4Jd2 4Je 7 1 3 4Jde4 4Jg6 1 4
4Jxffi+ i!f x ffi 1 5 Ag4 Jlxg4 16
i!f x g4 c6 with a minimal White
initiative.
After the position in the
preceding diagram Black has a
mu ltiplicity of replies:
B! 5 . . . g6
B2 5 . . . a6
B3 5 . . . 4Jd7
B4 5 . . . Jle7
B5 5 . . . Jld7
BI
5 g6
Here t heory offers:
a) 6 d4 4Jd7 7 de Jlg7 8 4Jd4
 Classical Defence ( 1 . . . e5) 3 e3 t;Y6
<tl x d4 9 ed c6 10 ,ile2 de I I de
Jtx e5 1 2 .i}_ x e5 <tl x e5 = although
Larsen-S . Garcia, Palma 1 97 1 , was
1 -0 in 2 7 .
b) More promising for W hite is 6
f4! e.g. 6 . . . ef 7 <tlx f4 ( 7 0-0!?) 7
. . . .ilg4 8 ,ile2 .i}_ x e2 9 � x e2
.ilg7 1 0 0-0 0-0 I I c4 d5 1 2 cd
<tl x d5 1 3 .i}_ x g7 <tlx f4 1 4 §. x f4
� x g7 1 5 <tlc3 �d6 1 6 <tle4 �e5
1 7 §. c l <tld4 1 8 �£2 <tle6 1 9 d4
-r!fa5 20 §. ffi± Keene-Linton,
S.C.C . U . Jamboree, London 1 973.
B2
5 ... a6
R ather too simple.
Bellon-Browne, M alaga 1 972,
provides an excellent example of
White's possi bilities in this line: 6
Jlx c6+ be 7 d3 ..Q.e7 8 0-0 0-0 9
<tld2 c5 1 0 e4 <tld7 I I f4 ffi 1 2 <tlc4
ef l 3 <tl x f4 <tle5 1 4 <tle3 c6 1 5 �el
g6 1 6 §. d l -r!fe8 17 -r!fg3 �h8 1 8
§. £2 §.g8 1 9 §.dO h5 20 <tlh3 �h7
2 1 �hi -r!fd8 22 ..Q.x e.ide 23 <tlgl
..Q.e6 24 <tlf'3 §.g7 25 <tld2 -r!fd7 26
§. x ffi ..Q.x ffi 27 §. x ffi §. e8 28 <tlf'3
..Q.g8 29 -r!fg5 ..Q.f7 30 <tl x e5 -r!fd4
31 <tl x f7 �g8 32 h3 §. e7 33 <tlh6+
�h 7 34 §. fB §. e5 35 <tlhl5 -r!fa I +
36 �h2 .§ x l5 3 7 <tl x l5 -r!fe5+ 38
g3 1 -0.
Szilagyi- Tai manov, A l bena
1974, varied with 7 c4 ..Q.e7 8 d4 ed
9 <tlxd4 -r!fd7 ! (A very good move,
keeping a firm grip on 15.) 10 -r!ff'3
d5 I I <tlc3 ( I I 0--0 0 0 1 2 <tld2) I I
. . . 0 0 1 2 0 0 ..Q.d6 1 3 h3 §. b8 1 4
15
�e2 §. e8 1 5 §. ad l ? (Better is 1 5
<tlf3 to avoid the pin on the e-file.)
1 5 . . . c5 1 6 <tlc2 d4 1 7 <tld5 <tl x d5
1 8 c d "t'rf5 1 9 �d3 �h5! 2 0 e d c4!!
(.20)
.20
W
2 1 � x c4 { 2 1 ilfc3 c b 2 2 ab
� x d5=t=t) 21 . . . .Q.x h3! 22 <tle3
(22 gh �x h3 23 f4 ilfg4+ 24 �hi
§.e2+ +l 22 . . . ..Q.d7 23 g3 ..llb5
24 �cl .Q.e2! 25 §. fel ..\lf'3 26 <tlg2
�h3 0- 1 . This game appears to
highlight the dangers of d4 for
White rather than f4 in this line.
B3
5 ... <tld7
6 d4 -r!fg5 7 0-0 ed 8 ..ll x c6 be 9
.:fj x d4 .Q.b7 , Bel lon-O lsson,
Skopje Olympiad 1972, (0- 1 , 42) ,
and Black's bishop pair gives him
chances. I t would appear that the
advance f4 rather than d4 is more
theoretically accurate, thus
combining the action of the QB,
KR and f-pawn. For this reason 6
0-0! is the correct course.
B4
5 • • • ..lle7
/6 Classical Defence ( I . . . e5) : 3 e3 !£JI6
6 d4 f5 .£ld3 18 fg hg 19 § x f7 ! ! (21)
More sensible here than in the
previous variations since the pin on
21
c6 is still in existence.
6 .. . ed B
7 .£l x d4 j}_d7 8 j}_xc6 be 9 �f3 d5
10 .£lf5 j}_ x f5 I I � x f5 Bellon­
Schoneberg, S kopje 1 972. Black has
no compensation for his doubled
pawns, although this in itself by no
means constitutes a decisive
disadvantage.
85
5 ..
. j}_d7 19 . " . . '3t x f7 20 § 0 + .£l.f6 21
The most direct way of .£}. x ffi 1 -0.
challenging the pin, and probably 6 ed
Black's best choice. Lju bojevic- 7 .£lxd4 .£l x d4
U nzicker, M ilan 1 975, went: 8 .£}. x d7+ �xd7
6 d4 9 � x d4 .£l.e7
In Larsen-Eley, H as tings 10 0-0 0-0
1 97 2 / 3 , White won in crushing I I c4 d5
fashion, but Black's play is with equal chances . The
suceptible to improvement, viz. 6 continuation was 1 2 § d l § fd8 1 3
0--0 .£l.e7 ( 6 . . . a6! 7 .£}. x c6 .£}. x c6 , .£lc3 c 5 1 4 �f4 �e6 1 5 .£lb5 .£le8
avoiding the doubled pawn, 8 d4 1 6 �g3 g6 1 7 .£lc7? .£l x c7 1 8
#e7 9 c 4 g6= Bellon-S. Garcia, �xc7 de 1 9 be j}_d6 2 0 �a5
Palma 1 97 1 ) 7 f4 e4 8 .£lg3 0--0 9 � x c4+ (0- 1 in 1 27 ) . I always have
j}_x c6 be I 0 c4 d5 I I .£lc3 § e8 1 2 the impression i n these lines that
§ ci j}_g4 1 3 .£lce2 .£ld7 14 h3 White should aim for f4 rather than
Jlx e2 1 5 � x e2 .£lc5 1 6 �g4 g6 1 7 d4.
4 Classical Defence ( 1 ... e5): Other second moves
I b3 e5 2 -'l,b2
The following moves are now
examined:
A 2 . . . f6
B 2 . . . d6
And a curiosity: 2 . . . e4!? This is
an idea taken from the Polish (or
Sokol sky - o r O r a n g-O u t a n g )
Opening-which you will-where
White plays I b4, but there it has
more point, since the pawn on b4
hangs. The plan is to cramp White's
development, e.g. by 3 d3 {)f6 4 de
{)xe4, with the threat . . . d5 and
. . . Jtb4+ . White's best line is 3 c4
followed by e3, using the pawn on
e4 as a target and not exchanging it
off. Now the weakening of the
d i agonal a ! - h8 cou ld be
unpleasant for Black.
Also see p. 23 for I {)f3 {)f6 2 b3
d6
A 3 e3! ?
2 . .. ffi (22)
Black's last move constitutes the
Lowenthal Variation, which aims
to strongpoint the square e5 and so
frustrate the action of the white QB.
22
w
The line was very popular during
the 19th century, and Steinitz
described it as 'the most efficacious
method of counteracting the
adverse bishop's command of the
diagonal ' . The line, however, has
the disadvantage of weakening
Black's light squares.
Now White has:
AI 3 e3!?
A2 3 e4!
AI
d6
3 . . . d5 4 c4 c6 ( 4 . . . d4 comes
into consideration) 5 cd cd 6 Jtb5+
{)c6 (or 6 . . . Jtd7 c�) 7 {)e2 Jtd6
8 0- 0 {)e7 9 f4 0-0 1 0 {)bc3 Af5 I I
{)g3. At any time in the last three
/8 Classical Defence (I . . . e5): Other second moves
moves . . . a6 would have been
23
excellent, forcing Jlx c6 be,
B
considerably reinforcing the black
centre, S k i pworth-Wayte,
Malvern 1 87 1 .
4 c4
4 4Jf3 4Jh6 5 h3 4Jc6 6 ..llbS
Jle6 7 4Jc3 a6 8 Jlx c6+ be 9 d4
4Jf7 10 4Je2 g6 I I 4Jd2 Jlg7
(overprotection of eS ! ) 1 2 c4 0-0 1 3
i!fc2 i!fe7 14 0-0-0 a:>+ . White has 4J x f4 de 7 ..llc4± (Soltis) . White
wasted too much time in artificial obviously had other possibilities
manoeuvres, Owen-Blackburne, such as 4 d4!?
match game, M anchester 1 88 1 . b) 3 . d5?! 4 ed i!f x dS 5 4Jc3
. .

4 . . . Jle6 i!fd8 6 �c4± .

4 . . . 4Jc6 5 a3 4Jh6 6 Jld3?! g6 c) 3 . . �c5 4 ..llc4 4Je7 5 i!fh5+ ?!
.

7 4Je2 ..llg7 8 Jle4?! f5+ (The q uieter 5 .:£)£3 , playing for d4,
Owen- Wisker, match game, is sufficient to put White on top.) 5
Hooton 1 87 2 . . . . g6 6 i!f£3 4J bc6 7 4Je2 §. ffi 8 g4
5 4Jc3 4Jc6 f5 9 gfdS 1 0 ed §. x f5 I I i!fe4 4Jb4
6 4Jge2 1 2 4Jbc3 Axf2+ 1 3 c;t?d i c6 1 4 de
Or 6 .:£)13 4Jh6 7 Jle2 4Je7 8 0-0 be I S ..lla 3 4Jedf> and Black
"¥rd7 9 d4;:; Owen-Skipworth, 7 th eventually won, Nimzowitsch­
match game, Hooton 1 873. Winter, London 1 927 .
6 . . . i!fe7 d) 3 . . c6?! 4 f4 {4 d4!? deserves
.

7 a3 i!rf7 8 §. c l 4Jh6 9 g3 Jlg4 1 0 attention as a plan to open up the

Jlg2 i!fhS I I h 3 Jlf3 1 2 g4! A x e2 centre while Black's development
1 3 -¥r x e2 i!fh4 14 4Jb5± lags.) 4 . . . efS 4Jh3 (5 i!fh5+ g6 6
Owen- Skipworth , 6th match i!f£3;1;: ) 5 . . . i!fe7 6 4Jc3 dS 7
game, M alvern 1 87 1 . 4Jx f4 d4 8 4Jce2 i!f x e4 9 Jl x d4 ;1;:
A2 Larsen- M artinez, San Juan 1 969 .
3 e4! (23) B
Best. The KB belongs on c4 to 2 ... d6 (24)
exploi t the a2- g8 diagonal This defence is excellent in that it
weakness, though 3 c4 is not bad . offers the twin virtues of solidity and
From diagram 23, Black has four vitality. Black defers . . . 4Jc6, thus
moves: depriving White of the useful pin
a) 3 . . t;je7 4 14 ef 5 4Jh3 d5 6
. JlbS, but is still determined to
 Classical Defence (1 . . . e5): Other second moves
24
w .Q.e6 8 4:)f3 Ag7 , Ljubqjevic-Kav­
place a firm barrier in. the path of
White's QB. I f White plays d4
without pawn support he may fal l
behind in development, while the
plan of e3 plus d4 may allow Black
to play . . . e4, creating a dangerous
Ki ng's I ndian attacking structure.
Two main continuations are
open to White:
B t 3 g3
B2 3 e3
White has also tried:
a) 3 d4?! Premature, as
demonstrated by Bellon-Benko,
Palma 1 97 1 , which continued 3 . . .
ed! 4 � x d4 4:)c6 5 �d2 4:)ffi 6
4:)c3 (6 c4 4:)e4 7 ilfc2 Al5 ) 6 . . .
d5! 7 e3 .Q.b4 8 .Q.b5 0-0 9 0-0-0
4:)e4 1 0 �el d4 1 1 Ax c6 4:) x c3+.
b) 3 4::)£3. Now after 3 . . . c5! Black
has transposed to the variation I
4:)r.3 c5 2 b3 d6 3 .Q.b2 e5 examined
on p. 64.
c) 3 c4 4:)ffi 4 4:)c3 g6 5 d4!? (Safer is
5 e3 transposing to variation B2.) 5
. . . ed 6 �xd4 4:)c6 7 �e3+
(With this move White exposes his
queen and obstructs his own
19
development . Safer is 7 �d2 . ) 7 . . .
alek, Manila 1 973. Black fi nished the
game in brilliant fashion: 9 4:)g50- 0!
10 4:) x e6 fx e6 1 1 g3 d5 ! (insisting on
the capture) 1 2 �x e6+ �h8 1 3
4:) x d5 4:) x d5 1 4 Jlx g7+ � x g7 1 5
cd .§. e8 1 6 �g4 � x d5 (25)
25
w
(Black has a crushing lead in
development.) 1 7 r.3 4:)e5 1 8 .§. d l
4:) x r.3+ 1 9 �!2 � ,x d t 2 0 e f ilfd2-t
21 �gl .§. e l 22 ilfc4 .§. ae8 0- 1 .
Gambit play from a hypermodern
opening!
Bl
3 g3 4:)ffi
3• . g6 looks risky as it exposes
.
Black on the long dark diagonal
after 4 d4, viz. 4 . . . 4:)d 7 (Here 4
. . . ed 5 �xd4 is a disaster for
Black.) 5 de de 6 4:)r3 .Q.g7 7 4:)c3
4:)e7 8 ilfd2 4:)c6 9 0 0 0 0 0 10 e4
�e7 I I .Q.h3 4:)c5 1 2 A;< c8 .§. f, c8
13 f:re2 a5 and in this case Black has
adequate cou nterplay, Larsen
M inic, Palma 1 970. Another
example is 4 . . . .Q.g7 5 de A/ e5 6
20 Classical Defence ( 1 . . . e5) : Other second moves
{)c3 {)c6 7 {)f3 Jlg-7 8 Jlg- 2 {)ffi 9
{)d4 Jld7 1 0 {)d5 0-0 I I c4±
Larsen-Hort, Monaco 1 968 .
Black has a number of less usual
alternatives such as 3...c5, which
could transpose to p. 68, or 3...c6.
3 ... f5 occurred in Bellon-Bilek,
Palma 1972, which continued 4 d4
e4 5 d5 {)ffi 6 e3 Jle7 7 {)h3 {)bd 7
8 {)g5 {)e5 9 Jle2 0-0. Bilek
suggested 9 . . . {) x d5 as an
improvement- but he won anyway.
White's opening play is too
rigid.
4 Jlg2 g6
The KB is excellent in fianchct lo.
Less efficacious is 4 . . . Jle7 5 c4
0-0 6 {)c3 (A variant from this line
is 6 {)f3 c6 7 0- 0 {)bd7 8 {)c3 .§. e8
9 �c2 Jlffi 1 0 e3 and White is more
flexible, Larsen :\ledina, Palma
1 968 . ) 6 . . . c5 7 {)f3 {)c6 8 0-0
Jl£5 9 h3 a6 I 0 d3 �c8 I I \fth2
Jld8 12 {)d2 Jl.e6 13 f4 ±
Bronstcin- Kuzmin, 40th U SSR Ch
Baku 1 972.
5 c4
5 e4 leads· to the Pseudo King's
I ndian variation (p. !iO) e.g. 5 . . .
Jl.g7 6 {)e2 0-0 7 0-0 {)h5?! 8 d4
{)c6 9 {)a3 �c 7 10 {)c4 ed I I
{) x d4 {) x d4 1 2 J,t x d4 J,te6 1 3
c:£le3 c6 1 4 J,t x g7 c:£l x g7 1 5 .§. e l
"#fc7 16 tfd4± Larsen-Donner,
San juan 1 969.
5 . . . Jl.g7
6 {)c3
6 d4 is not so good as staying in
semi-English l ines, since White is
overexposed , viz. 6 . . . ed 7 i!r x d4
0-0 8 {)c3 .§. e8 9 i!rd2 {)bd7 1 0
c:£Jh3 c:£lc5 1 1 f3 d 5 1 2 0-0-0 c6 1 3 cd
cd 1 4 g4 -'td7 1 5 e3 .§. c8 1 6 {)£2
-'th6 1 7 .§.del i!re7 1 8 {)fd 1 d4 1 9
1!Y x d4 .Q.g7 2 0 \ftbl .§. ed8 2 1 e4
-'tx g4 22 {)d5 .§. x d5 23 ed J,t£5+
24 \fta1 i!rd6 25 Jlfl {)h5 26 .§. e5
{)d7 27 f4 c:£J x e5 28 fe Jlx e5 29
i!rd2 .§. c2 30 i!re3 Jlx b2+ 3 1
c:£l x b2 i!rffi 0- 1 Quinteros-Ree,
Amsterdam 1 973.
6 . . . 0-0
7 l'1 c6 (2fi\
The most eiTective move. Black
prepares . . . d5 to frustrate White's
fianchettoed bishops. For lines with
. . . c:£lc6 see p. 22.
26
w
Now 8 c:£lge2 .§. e8 9 h3?! (9 0-0!)
9 . . . d5 I 0 cd cd I I d4 e4 12 a3 c:£lc6
1 3 b4 b6 1 4 Jlfl a5 1 5 b5 c:£le7 16 g4
h5 1 7 g5 {)h7 1 8 h4 ffi 1 9 gf {) x ffi
20 �b3 \fth7 is Balashov-Stean ,
S tudent Olympiad, Teesside 1 974.
Black has a clear advantage and
though White's play can obviously
 Classical Defence ( 1 0 0 0 e5): Other second moves 21
be i mproved at a number of points 6 .Q.d3?! lLJb4? ! 7 Jibl 0--0 8 a3
this does nothing to detract from lLJa6 9 lLJge2 lLJc5 10 b4±
the u ndoubted strength and Owen-Skipworth, 3rd match
llcxibility of the Black system with game, Hooton 18730
0 0 c60
0 b) 3 0 .Q.e7 4 6LJf3 6LJffi 5 d4? e4 6
0 0

Another example is 8 d3 .§ e8 9 lLJfd�d5 7 c4 c6 8 .Q.e2 0-0 9 0- 0

lLJf3 .Q.f5 1 0 0-0 �d 7 I I lLJg5 h6 1 2 .§e8+ Owen-Skipworth, 5th
tLJge4 lLJ h7 1 3 .Q.a3 .Q.ffi 1 4 d4 match game, Hooton 1 8730
.Q.x e4 15 tLJ x e4 f5 16 lLJc3 e4, c) 3 • tLJc6
• • 4 .Q.b5 .Q.d7 5 6LJI'3 g6
Larsen-Benko, Monte Carlo 1 9680 6 d4 .Q.g7 7 lLJbd2 lLJge7 8 c3?! 0-0
White is now slightly better after 1 7 9 0-0 f5 1 0 c4 a6 Owen-Schull,
=

1'3 , but i n this case- it is Black who casual game, Liverpool 1877 0
can improve, with, for example, 1 6 d) 3 • g6• 4• c4 .Q.g7 5 lLJc3 tLJe7 6
0 0 0 lLJa60 .Q.d3?! b6 7 lLJI'3 .Q.b7 8 �c2 f5 9
B2 tLJg5 �d7 1 0 c4 lLJbc6 I I lLJd5 0- 0
3 e3 (27) 1 2 a3lLJd4 1 3 Jl x d4 ed 1 4 0-0- 0 c6
1 5 tLJ x e7+ � x e7 1 6 h4 fe 1 7
27 Jlx e4 d5 1 8 !1.1'3 � x a3+ + +
B Owen- S c h u l l , casual game,
Liverpool 18770
At this point we can resume with
some modern examples from the
position in the last diagram:
3 0 lLJffi
0 0

Or 3 0 lLJd7 4 f4 Jic7 5lLJc3 ef

0 0

6 ef Jlffi 7 �£3 lLJe7 8 0-0-0 0- 0 9

g4 lLJc6 1 0 g5 .Jld4 I I lLJge2 .Q.b6
A position already well-known, 1 2 h4 f5 1 3 h5 d5 1 4 �d3 .Q.c5 1 5 h6
for besides playing a large part in g6 1 6 a3 �e7 1 7 b4 Jlx b4 1 8 ab
the modern development of I b3, it lLJ x b4 1 9 �d4 c5 20 �h8+ \t>x h8
was qu ite popular in the 1 9th 21 tLJ x d5+ \t>g8 22 tLJ x e7+ \t>f7
ce-ntury Some specimens ofOwen's 23 lLJ x c8
0 1 -0 R azuva yev­
opening play in this variation, since Kapengut, U SSR Student Ch
he was the great pioneer, are now 1 9700
interpolated more as a matter of 4 c4 g6 (28)
historical interest than as There are now two lines
theoretical recommendations: B21 5 6LJI'3
a) 3 • Jl.e7 4 c4 tLJc6 5 lLJc3 lLJffi B22 5 lLJc3
• •
22 Classical Defence ( 1 . . . e5): Other second moves
The as�essment of this position
depends on Black's ability to
recapture with a pawn on e5 . I f he
has to recapture with a piece,
White's latent pressure on the
al -h8 diagonal combined with his
control ofd5 will give him much the
better chances. One example each
way will make the point:
a) 7 • •4Jd7 8 4Jc3 de 9 �d2 0-0
•

10 .§. d I .§. e8 I I h4 h6 1 2 h5 g5 1 3
which are strategically similar,
Ae2 e4 1 4 4Jh2 4Jffi 1 5 4JO ltg4
although differences can arise if
with a very complicated position,
White plays for a quick d4.
though Black has none of the worst
B21
of it, Lju bojevic-Savon, Wijk aan
5 4Jf3 4Jc6
Zee 1972.
5 . . . �7 is playable and can
b) 7 • 4Jg4 8 4Jc3 4Jgx e5 9
• •

transpose back into the line under

4Jx e5 Ax e5 10 .i1_e2 0-0 I I �d2
examination or into 822.
Ae6 I 2 0-0 �e7 I 3 f4 Ag7 14 A£3
6 d4
f5 15 4Jd5± Timman-Padevsky,
For 6 4Jc3 see 822.
Amsterdam 1 972. The instructive
6 . . . Jlg7
conclusion was 15 . . . A x d5 1 6
White has slightly the better of
J}_x g7 � x g7 1 7 cd 4Jd8 1 8 .§. ac l
things after 6 . . . ed 7 4J x d4
�d7 19 .§. c4 .§.17 20 .§. fc l .§. c8 2 1
4J x d4 8 � x d4 Ag7 9 4Jc3 0-0 10
e4 fe 2 2 .§. x e4 c6 2 3 .§. eel .§. c 7 24
Ae2 .§. e8 I I 4Jd5 4Jh5 12 i!rd2,
.§. e8+ .§. fl3 25 de 4J x c6 (or 25 . . .
Plan inc- I vkov, V rsac 197 1 .
be 26 .§. x ffi+ \t x ffi 27 -'tg4
7 de (29)
� x g4 28 � x d6+ ) 26 Ad5+ \tg7
27 ilfb2+ 1 -0.
29
B22
B 5 4Jc3 4Jc6 (30)
A position which could arise
from the common move order I b3
e5 2 Ab2 4Jc6 3 c4 4JI6 4 e3 d6 5
{)c3 g6 . I n the order of moves
under review Black could clearly
have played 5 . . . Jl.g7 , not fearing
6 d4, viz. 6 . . . ed 7 � x d4 0-0 8
 Classical Defmu (I . . . e5) : Otker second moves 23

_'f)
w

4Jf3 4Jbd7 (8 . . . 4Jc6 cannot be The Classical Defence

bad) 9 Jle2 4Jc5 10 .§. d l ? ( 1 0
�d2 ! ) 1 0 . . . 4Jg4! ( and not 1 0 . . .
4Jfe4? 1 1 �xg7+ )f;xg7 1 2
4Jx e4+±±) I I �d2 ( I I �f4 f5
threatening . . . Jlh6 and . . . 4Je4)
I I . . . 4J x f'2!!++ since 1 2 )f;xf'l
fails against . . . Jtx c3 and . . .
4Je4+, Ljubojevic-Stein, Las
Palmas 1 973. White managed to
struggle on to move 25 before
res1gmng.
6 4Jf3 Jlg7
7 d4
Also possible was 7 d3 followed
by ..Q.e2 or by g3 and Jtg2.
7 . . . Jlf5
8 d5 4Jb4 9 .§. c l a5 1 0 a3 4Ja6 I I h3
( I I Jte2! ) I I . . . 0-0 12 g4? Jtd7
= 3 . . .
13 g5 4Jh5 14 4Je4 f5 15 gf 4J x ffi 1 6
4Jfd2 4J x e4 1 7 4J x e4 �h4 1 8
4Jg3 4Jc5 19 Jtc3 .§. x f'l! (31)
20 \t> x f'l 4Je4+ 21 )f;g l � x g3+
22 Jtg2 �x e3+ 0- 1 Larsen­
Portisch, Siegen Olympiad 1970.
An unqualified disaster for White
caused by over-risky play .
Deferred
I 4Jf3 4Jffi
2 b3 d6
After White's opening move
Black can only play a Classical­
style defence following suitable
preparation.
3 g3
Permitting the deferred Classical
Defence. 3 d4, against . . . e5 ,
would probably transpose into the
double fianchf"tto variation of the
King's I ndian (p. 1 06) .
I f 3 Ab2 e5 4 c4 Jtg4 5 d4? e4 6
4Jfd2 e3! 7 fe �e7 with excellent
play for the pawn, Augustin­
U hlmann, Brno 1975.
e5
Compare chapter 4, variation B.
4 c4!?
4 d3 is possible, and since the
black KN is already on ffi a
transposi tion to pseudo-English
lines is l ihl y . C o m p are
Petrosian- Portisch, p. 65.
4 . . . e4
24 Classical Difence ( 1 ... e5): Other second moves
5 .£lh4 d5 1 3 0-0 (32)
6 cd �xd5 Nimzowitsch later suggested 1 3
Alekhine gave 6 .. . 4::Jx d5! 7 �c2! with some advantage.
�c2 A,e7 8 �x e4 0-0 with good The column is Nimzowitsch­
compensation for the pawn. Aiekhine, New York 1 92 7 , which
7 <£lc3 �c6 continued 1 3 . . . A,d6 I 4 f3 Jle5 1 5
8 e3 a6 Jtx e5 <£j x e5 1 6 fe <£jd3 1 7 §.c3
9 llb2 A.g4 0--0--0 1 8 �b1 <£jx e4! 19 §. x d3
1 0 Jte2 Jtx e2 <£j x d2 20 §. x d8+ §. x d8 2 1
I I <£j x e2 <£jbd7 �f5+ <itrb8 22 §. e l � x e3+ 23
1 2 §. c l �b6 � �d3 24 <£jf4 �c3 25 §. e3 !
Or 12 . . . <£!c5 1 3 0--0 �d7 ! �c l + 2 6 <itrg2 �c6+ 27 <£l f3 g5 28
(Aiekhine) . <£jd3 4::J x f3 29 � x f3 �c2+ 30
<£jf2 f5 31 §. e2 �c5 32 <£jd3 �d4
32
33 <£le5 f4! 34 <£!c4 fg? 35 §. d2 �h8
B 36 §. x d8+ � x d8 37 hg ilfd4 38
ilrffi+ <itra7 39 i!¥f2 i!f x f2+ 40
�X f2 h5 41 <itre3 c5 42 a4 b5 43 ab
ab 44 <£jd2 �b6 45 <£le4 h4 46 g4
h3 4 7 <itrf3 b4 48 <£jx g5 c4 49 <£je4
cb 50 g5 b2 5 1 <£jd2 <itrc5 52 g6 h2
53 <itrg2 <itrd4 54 g7 <itrd3 55 g8 ilf
<itr x d2 56 �a2 <itrc2 57 i!fc4+ 1 -0 .

I n the first four chapters w e have examined resolute occupation of the

centre by Black in answer to I b3. In the fol lowing six chapters we also look
at central occupation systems, but those in which Black has to adapt
himself to White's first move I <£jf3, which inhibits . . . e5.
5 1 . . . dS & . . . cS: Reversed Nimzo---l ndian

I f)f3 d5 2 b3 c5 3 e3 4Jc6 4 .Q.b2 a) 5 h3 .Q.x f3 6 i!f x f3 e5 7 .Q.b5

(33) For R ev. N-1 . without i!fd6 8 e4 d4 9 f)a3 f6 I 0 f)c4 i!fd 7
preliminary f)f3 consult p. 76. I I i!fh5+ g6 I 2 i!¥13 i!fc7 I 3 i!Yg4
<3tf7 1 4 f4!± Nimzowitsch-Rosselli
33
del Turco, Baden-Baden I 925.
B
b) 5 h3 Ah5 6 .Q.b5 § c8 7 g4 Jtg6
8 h4 .Q.e4 9 4Jc3 .Q.x f3 1 0 i!fx f3 e6
I I f)e2 4Je7 I 2 g5 with a heavy
a t tack, G u l ko-Kovelov,
'Burevestnik', Odessa I 97 3 .
5 . . . 4Jf6
5 . . . a6? amounts to a loss of
tempo after 6 Ax c6+ be 7 0--0 e6 8
:\t this point Black has to choose d3 4Jf6 9 f)bd2 .Q.e7 1 0 i!Yei Jtx f3
between agression or consolidation. I I f) x f3 0--0 I 2 e4 § b8 I 3 i!Ye2
The latter seems preferable and d4?! I 4 f)e5 i!Yc7 I 5 f)c4 e5 I 6 Jl.c l
more reliable. Thus, three moves 4Je8 I 7 f4± Owen-Gossip, match
come into consideration: game, H ooton I 8 74.
A 4 . . . .ilg4?! 6 .Q. x c6+
B 4 . . . a6!? Or 6 h3 A x f3 (6 . . . .Q.h5 7
c 4 . . . 4Jf6 Ax c6+ be 8 d3 fol lowed by f)bd2
A and g4± Nimzowitsch) 7 i!fx f3
4 • Jlg4?!
• • § c8 8 c4 de 9 be e6 1 0 Jt x f6 i!fxf6
5 Ab5 I I i!Y x f6 gf 1 2 f)c3 �d8 I 3 .Q.x c6!
5 h3 is also worth consideration, § x c6 I4 § b l �c8 I 5 �e2 f5 I 6
when Black's best is doubtless the g4± Andersson-Hort, Las Palma!i
humble surrender of a tempo with 5 1 975. ( l -0 in 40) .
. . . .Q.d 7 . Other possibilities are: Black could try 6 • • Jl.d7, but
•
26 1 . . . d5 & . . . c5: Reversed Nimzo-lndian
why waste the tempo? One
example was Lein-Donchenko,
U SSR Armed Forces Ch 1 968,
which went 6 h3 ltd7 7 0--0 e6 8 d3
lrte7 9 .f)l:xl2 .f)b8?! 1 0 a4 a6 I I
Axd7+ .f)bx d7 1 2 e4 0--0 1 3 aS
.f)b8 1 4 .f)eS .f)fd 7 I S .f) x d 7
.f) x d 7 1 6 f4 .f)b8 1 7 f5 ef 1 8 .§. x f5
d4 1 9 .f)c4 .f)d7 20 �g4 �c7 2 1
.§. afl ffi 22 itci �h8 23 .§. hS± ± .
6 be
7 h3 A x f3
8 � x f3 �c7
9 d3 e6
N imzowitsch recommended 9
. . . eS ! I 0 �g3 .f)d 7 I I e4 ffi 1 2
.f)c3 4Jb6.
10 .f)c3
I f 10 A x ffi gf I I" � x ffi .§. g8 1 2
�f3 Ag7 with fine play for the
pawn.
10 . . . .il_d6 (31)
34
w but not with the continuation S
White has some advantage.
Nimzowitsch -H. johner, Bern
193 1 . (Some sources erroneously
give this as Prague 1931 ) . White
con ti nued in sparkling style: I I
.f)a4 lrteS 1 2 A x eS �x eS 1 3 �0
.f)d7 1 4 �e2 �0 I S �d2 f5 1 6 �aS
.§.fb8 1 7 .f) x cS ! ! .§. bS 18 .f) x d 7
�x a l 19 �c7 �c3 20 a4 .§. b4 2 1
.f)eS .§. fB 2 2 .f) x c6 �h8 23 �d6
1 -0.
B
4 ... a6! ?
A bit cautious, but playable.
Andersson-Spassky , Goteborg
1 97 1 , continued S d4 cd 6 .f) x d4
.f)ffi 7 .f)d2 e6 8 lte2 ltd6 9 c4 (A
dubious line is 9 f4 in view of
White's weakened e-pawn, but it
turned out well in Owen-Wisker,
BCA Challenge Cup 1 868, after 9
. . . �b6 1 0 0-0 eS? I I .f) x c6 be 1 2
.f)c4!±.) 9 . . . 0-0 1 0 cd ed I I �0
.§. e8 1 2 .§. c l ltd7 1 3 .f) x c6 be 1 4
11.1"3 aS I S Jld4 ± .
c
4 • • .
The normal move.
Clearly 4 . . . e6 is also possible,
JlbS .f)ge7? 6 .f)eS! threatening
not only the doubling of Black's c­
pawns but also �hS, e.g. 6 . . . i!fc7
7 �hS g6 8 i!rf3± ± . More
reasonable is 5 . . Jld 7 . though G
.
0-0 .f)ge7 7 c4 a6 8 .il_ , c6 A -" c6 9
.f)eS gives White some initiative, as
in Andersson-Tatai, Palma 197 1 . I f
now 9 . . . i!fc7 (as played) then
White can either indulge in the
interesting speculation 10 i!fhS!?
.f)f5 or play q uietly with 10 d3.
s Jlb5 Jl.d7
 1 . . . d5 & : . . c5: Reversed Nimzo-lndian
There is no need to encourage
1 he weakening of the c-pawns ..
A urlersson-Pomar, Las Palmas
I '172, went 5 . . . g6 6 .i£Je5 Jtd7 7
.�. ) c6 be, while Plachetka-Zinn,
· central and K-side pawns, and
I )1·cin 1 974, continued 5 . . . e6 6
.:. )1".1 't'rc7 7 0--0 1.td6 8 .Q.x c6-t- be
' I r1 0-0 1 0 § f'3 .i£Jd 7 I I § h3 g6 1 2
�vh5 ! ! 1-0
6 0-0 e6
7 d3 .!J..e 7
8 .i£jbd2 0-0
Black should avoid a premature
. . . a6. I n order to carry out his
�l rategic occupation of e5 White
must voluntarily exchange on c6.
9 Jtx c6 .!J.. x c6
10 .i£Je5 (35)
35
B b5) 1 8 h3 § fd8 19 <;tJh2 §c7 20
The key posi tion , which
Nimzowitsch made his own
speciality, handling the white
s t r u c t u re with i n i m i table
virtuosity. White has the problem
of controlling Black's Q-side
expansion (and taming his bishop
pair) whilst creating chances for
himself on the K-side. There are
27
two q uite different methods of
procedure for White:
(i) the exchange of the N on e5
followed by the advance of the
( ii) the maintenance of the N on e5,
avoiding e4, with the intention of a
major piece attack ( 't'rg4 or
't'rh5 / § f'3-g3 or § f'3-h3) against
Black's king.
Now:
C l 10 . . . .i£Jd7?!
C2 1 0 . . . 1.te8
C3 1 0 . . . § c8
Cl
10 • • • .i£Jd7?!
I I .i£Jdf'3 ( I I .i£jx c6!?) I I . . . § c8 1 2
't're2 .i£J x e5 1 3 .i£J x e5 !J..e8 1 4 't'rg4
f5? ( 1 4 . . . l.tffi 1 5 f4± ) 1 5 't're2
Jtffi 16 c4 't're7 1 7 f4 .!J..f7 ( 1 7 . . .
§1'2 .!J..e8 2 1 §gl de 22 be Jtx e5?
(22 . . . b5 ! ) 23 Jtx e5 § cd7 24
g4± ± Nimzowitsch-Wolf, Carls­
bad 1 923. I n this extract Black was
too prodigal of his dark squares,
especially e5 .
C2
10 . . . Ae8
This gives Black a constipated
appearance but he wants the
bishops.
I I f4 .i£Jd7
I I . . . 't'rc7 12 § f'3 .i£Jd7 1 3 §g3
g6 1 4 i!rg4 Affi 15 .i£Jdf'3 Jtg7 1 6
§ h 3 f5 1 7 i!rh4 .i£j ffi 1 8 .i£Jg5± ±
Nimzowitsch-Samisch, Carlsbad
1929.
28 I . . . d5 & . . c5: Reversed Nimzo-/ndian
.

After I I . . . .:£Jd7 White has: I 7 15 ef 1 8 ef ..Q.ffi 19 .:£Jg4 .:£! x g4 20

a) 12 i!rg4! ? .:£jx e5 1 3 fx e5 i!ra5 1 4 i!r x g4 �h8 21 ffi± ( 1 -0 in 57)
.§ £'2 tfb4 1 5 e4 Jlc6 1 6 a 3 "#a5 1 7 Nimzowitsch-Rosselli del Turco,
ed A x d5 1 8 .:£10 "#c7 1 9 .:£je3 b5 Semmering 1 926 .
20 .:£J x d5 e x d5 2 1 e6 f6 22 .§ aO 1 2 "t!fg4! .:£j x e5
�h8 23 .§ 1'3 ( - h3) ± - analysis by I f 1 2 . . . 15? 1 3 "#x g7+ !
Nimzowitsch. 1 3 ..Q.x e5 Affi
b) 12 .:£J x d7 ty x d7 1 3 e4 f6 1 4 il¥1'3 1 4 .§ 1'3 (36)
�.f7 15 a4 b6 16 f! ae l ( 1 6 g4!?
Ni mzowitsch) 16 . . . a6 1 7 15 de 1 8 36
# x e 4 e 5 1 9 f! e3 ( 1 9 ilfh4 b5 20 B
.:£Je4) 19 . . . b5 20 .§ g3 �h8 2 1
.:£1 1'3 ( 21 "t'rg4 g6 2 2 .:£Je4) 21 . . . ba?
(2 1 . . . Jld6 ! ) 22 .:£J x e5!i" ± , since
22 . . . fx e5 loses to 23 �x e5 Affi
24 ·� x ffi gf 25 Jl x ffi mate. I n
Nimzowitsch Rubinstein, Semmer­
ing 1 926 , Black tried 22 . . . ilfe8
but still succumbed after 23 ilfg4
( 1 -0 in 42) . 14 . . . ..Q.x e5
c ) 1 2 a4 a6 1 3 #e2 .§ c8 1 4 a5 �h8 1 4 . . . i!Ye7 is much too passive;
15 c4 .:£Jb8! 16 cd ed 1 7 e4 f6 1 8 White now builds up an over­
.:£Jel'3 .:£Jc6 1 9 .:£jh4 d e 20 d e .:£jd4! whelming attack with 1 5 .§ aO a5
21 i!rg4 ilfd7 ! -f Simagin- Taim­ 1 6 .§ g3 ..Q.x e5 1 7 fe 15 18 ef .§ x ffi
anov, 20th U SSR Ch ! 953. 1 9 i!Y x g7+ ! ! "t!f x g7 20 .§ x ffi
Compared with 1\;imzowitsch's i!Y x g3 2 1 hg f! e8 22 g4± ±
pia)(, Simagin has made a complete Fischer-Mecking, Palma I nter­
pig's ear of White's position. Moves zonal 1 970.
like #e2 and c4 fi t into no coherent 15 fe i!Yc7
strategic scheme. It is worth 16 ilfh5 h6
studying the difference between this 1 6 . . . ..Q.e8 ! 1 7 f! h 3 h6 ! 8 .:£11'3
and Nimzowitsch's use of c4 in his 15;;!:: is Black's best, according to
game with Wolf. Nimzowitsch.
C3 1 7 .§ aO g6
16 . .
. .§c8 18 i!Yx h6 i!Y x e5
I I f4 .:£Jd7 19 .§ffi ±
I I . . . .:£Je8 1 2 e4 de 1 3 de .:£!f6 1 4 N imzowitsch-Spielmann, New
i!re2 "#c7 1 5 .§ ad ! .§ fd8 16 a4 b6 York 1 927 .
6 1 . . . d5 & . .
I .;£)f3 d5 2 b3 c5 3 .ll_b 2?
Although N imzowitsch himself
rq.(ularly used the above move
order, 3 e3! (intending 3 . . . ffi 4
d · l ! ) is the most accurate. The text
pl'rmits Black to place a grani te
block in the path of Whi te's QB, a
l i nt· only discovered during the
I ' l·lO 's! Nevertheless, 3 Jlb2 has
dai med many victims since then,
including the great Petrosian.
3 . . . ffi! (37)
37
w
The point is that without the
'II pport of a pawn on e3 the move 4
d·l does nothing to establish a
•«"ntral foothold for White, who
111av well look elsewhere for a
•ontinuation:
, I ) 4 d4 cd 5 � x d4 e5 6 �d2 t;:)c6 7
. c5 : Diagonal Block
e3 .ll_b 4! ( reducing the white QB to
a cypher) 8 c3 .ll_a 5+ Barcza ·
Benko, Budapest 1 946 .
b) 4 e3 e5 5 .ll_b5+ t;:)c6 (Alterna­
tively 5 . . . )fff7 ! ? leaves White's
KB looking very silly! ) 6 0-0 Jld6 7
Jle2? (Planless play; 7 Jl x c6+ be
8 t;:)el would at least give White a
definite strategic goal.) 7 . . . t;:)ge7
8 d3 Jle6 9 t;:)bd2 b6 10 .§ e l �d7
I I J.lfl 0- 0 1 2 c4 d4=t Lisi tsin-­
Botvinnik, U SSR C h 1 944.
c) 4 g3 e5 5 Ag2 t;:)c6 6 0-0 Jle6 7
d3 playing a Samisch K ing's I nd ian
with colours reversed (double
fi anchetto variation ) , which is
probably White's best chance
though he can hope for no more
than equality.
d) 4 c4 d4 5 d3 e5 6 e3?! (6 g3! ) 6 . . .
t;:)e7 7 ..Q.e2 t;:)ec6 8 t;:)bd2 .ll_e7 9
0-0 0-0 1 0 e4 a6 I I t;:)e I b5 and
Black has the i n i t i a t i ve,
Petrosian-F ischer, Cand idate's
Final Match, 6th game, Buenos
Aires 1 9 7 1 (0- 1 in 66) .
c) While checking the proofs
noticed the interesting gambit 4
e4! ? de 5 t;:)h4 or 5 t;:)gl .
7 1 . . . d5 & . . . c5 : Reversed Queen's I ndian

I 4:)£'3 d5 2 b3 c5 A reliable move, since White

I n chapters 5-8 Black aims for a
more positional type of game, often
allowing White to play one of the
normal Black defences with a move
in hand .
3 e3 f)ffi
This move, which leads to a
reversed Queen's I ndian Defence,
is considerably less taxing for Black
than the ambitious 3 . . . 4Jc6.
4 Ab2 (38)
38
dare not exchange on ffi
immediately. The pawn structure
on f7, f5 and g6 with a bishop on g7 ,
which Black can then easily attain,
is ideal when White lacks his QB.
Contrast this with the exchange o n
ffi arising from I . . . b6 on p. 7:i ,
where Black's K-side pawns are
doomed to be on f5, ffi and g6 or g7 .
5 Jlb5+
Is 5 c4 Jlg7 6 cd 0-0 playable?
Black can regain the pawn after 7
Jl ffi and 8 f)c3.?
v

B 50 0 0 .ll,d 7
6 '¥¥e2
I s 6 Jlx ffi!? possible now, since
one of Black's bishops will be
exchanged?
60 0 0 Jlg7
7 .ll, x d7+ f)bxd7 8 c4 0-- 0 9 0 -0
§ c8 1 0 § d l § e8 I I d3 e5 1 2 cd
f) x d5 1 3 4Jbd2 f)b8! 1 4 a3 4Jc6
Now Black can choose between: 1 5 § ac l b6 1 6 f)c4 �c7 and Black
A 4 g6 0 0 . has equalized extremely efficiently,
B4 e6 0 0 . Larsen-Donner, Palma 1 97 1 .
A B
4 ... g6 4 ... e6
 1 . . . d5 &
White now has three choices:
Ill .'"1 .:£)e5
II".';, Jlb5+
11'1 .'"1 c4
HI
5 .:£)e5! ? (39)
w
H
This was Nimzowitsch's ex-
1 rem ely aggressive method of
handling the position, and it may
well be White's best. Nimzowitsch­
M ichel, Semmering 1926, contin­
ued 5 . . . .:£)bd7 6 Jlb5 a6 (6 . . .
Jld6! 7 .:£) x d 7 Jt x d7 8 Jlxd7+
fr x d7 9 Jtx ffi gf was given by
N imzowitsch.) 7 Jlxd7+ .:£)xd7 8
·D x d7 Axd7 9 0-0 ffi 1 0 c4 de l l
he Ad6 1 2 �h5+ g6 1 3 �h6 .a.m
1 ·1 �h3± .
Another example was Kaplan­
Pritchett, Skopje Olympiad 1972,
which continued 5 . . . Ae7 6 f4!
0 0 7 -'i_d3! b6? (7 . . . .:£)e4 is
better, though 8 Ax e4 de 9 .:£)c3 ffi
I 0 .:£)c4 15 I I �e2 gives White a fine
position; he will castle long and
then play d3 or possibly prise open
the g-fi lc for an attack against
. . . c5: &versed Qpeen's Indian 31
Black's king.) 8 g4! A.b7 (8 . . . .:£)e4
9 g5 ffi 1 0 J},x e4 de l l gf Jl x ffi 1 2
�g4 Jlh4+ 1 3 c;ftd I ± ) 9 g5 .:£)e4
10 Jlx e4 de l l �h5 !± (40)
40
B
Black is probably lost. I f I I . . .
.:£)d7 1 2 .:£)g4 threatening §g l
followed by .:£)h6+ or § g3-h3. I f
1 2 . . . 15 1 3 g6 h g 1 4 � x g6 Affi 1 5
Jlx ffi .:ij x ffi 1 6 .:£)h6+ �h8 1 7
.:£)f7+ ± ± . Or 1 2 . . . �e8 1 3
.:iJffi+ ± ± . The actual game
continued l l . . . .:£)c6 1 2 .:£)g4 e5 1 3
fe Jl x g5 1 4 h4 Jle7 1 5 .:£)c3 and
)
Black lost. T he simple 1 3 .:£) x e5
would also have been very strong.
B2
5 Jtb5+ ltd7
6 Axd7-
0r 6 �e2 Ae7 7 Ax d7+
.:£)fx d 7 8 0-0 J;tffi 9 A x ffi � x ffi 1 0
.:£)c3 .:£)c6 I I .:£)b5 0-0 1 2 c 4 d e �
be? ( 1 3 � x c4=) 1 3 . . . .:£)de5+
Larsen-Bronstein, Las Palmas
1 972. 6 a4 is possible ( c.f. p. 78) .
6 . . . .:£)bxd7
6 . . . � x d 7 and 6 . . . .:£)fx d 7
32 1 . . . d5 & . . . c5: Reversed Open's Indian
are possible and may be improve­ B3
ments. 5 c4 (42)
7 c4 Ae7 And now:
8 0-0 0--0 B 3 l S . . . de
9 �e2 B32 S . . . Ae7
Premature is 9 cd ed 1 0 d4 .§ c8 B33 5 . . . �c6
( 1 0 . . . c4!? is worth examination. ) B34 s . . . Ad6
I I de �xcS I 2 �c3 �ce4! 1 3 �e2
Ad6 1 4 § c l �d7 and White's 42
advan tage was i n tangi b l e , B
Keene-N unn, H astings 197 S /6 .
9 ... a6?! (41)
Gligoric recommended 9 . . .
§ c8 .

41
w

B31
•5 . • de
Concedes White a central pawn
m aj o r i t y , but Black has
counterplay. See Keene-Denman,
p. 34.
B32
5
• .. !J.e7
This position is from Larsen­ 6 cd ed 7 ,ile2 transposes to B33,
Wade, Teesside 1972. White had to while 7 ..l}_bS+ ..l}_d 7 transposes to
play with extreme accuracy to Keene-Nunn under B2.
maintain the advantage conferred B33
on him by his more flexible central 5 ... �c6
pawns, viz. 10 �c3 �aS I I cd ed 1 2 This is the main line.
d4 § ac8 1 3 de � x eS ( 1 3 . . . 6 cd ed (43)
A x eS!) 1 4 �d4 �e6 I S �f5 ..l}_a3 6 . . . � x d5 is inferior since
1 6 § ac l §c7 1 7 �a4 ..l}_ x b2 1 8 White gains a central initiative. Set'
� x b2 b S 19 �cS ! �b6 ( 1 9 . . . Keene-Milbers, p. 36.
� x eS 20 b4 �b6 2 1 be § x eS 22 The text creates a kind of
�d4) 20 b4± . potential Tarrasch position where
 I . . . d5 & . . . c5: Reversed Qpeen's Indian
.f3
w
White cannot pursue the normal
strategy of a K-side fianchetto to
attack Black's isolated d-pawn.
7 ..Q.e2
7 JlbS is possible, e.g. 7 . . . ..Q.e7
(7 . . . ..Q..d 6 8 <£le5!?) 8 <£)e5 �b6 9
E.:Jc3 0-0 1 0 .:£) x c6 be I I ..Q.e2 ..Q..e6
1 2 .:£)a4 �b4 1 3 0-0 <£ld7 1 4 �c2
..Q..d6 1 5 f4 f5 16 .§. ac l .§. ae8 1 7 ..Q.f.3
.§ c8 18 <itJhl .§. feB 1 9 .§. gl
planning g4, with the ini't iative on
hoth wings, Keene-van Scheltinga,
Wijk aan Zee M asters 1 974.
7 . . . Jle7
I f 7 . . . d4 to block White's QB,
then 8 JlbS! is extremely powerful,
hu t very interesting is Kaplan's 7
. . . a6!? planning . . . d4 and if8 d4
cd 9 .:£) x d4 ..Q..b4+ .
A more straightforward alterna­
tive is 7 . . . Jld6 8 0-0 0-0 9 d4
�e7 10 de Jlx cS I I .:£)c3 .§.d8 1 2
.:£)b5 .:£)e4 1 3 .§. c l a6 1 4 .:£)bd4,
Keene--Korchnoi, H astings 1 97 1 /2
·
( �-! in 5 7 ) .
8 0-0 0-0
9 d4 Jlg4
1 0 de Jlx cS
33
I I .:£)c3 ( 44)
44
B
The evidence suggests that the
isoladed d-pawn position favours
White-possibly in view of his very
firm hold over the blockade square
d4. Two examples are:
a) Larsen-Pomar, Palma 197 1
which continued II . . . a6 1 2 <£lg5!
,ilf5 1 3 ..Q..d 3 ..Q..g4 1 4 �bl ! ;± , and
b) Petrosian-Hort, Sar�jevo 1 972,
which went I I . . . .§.c8 12 .§. cl
..Q..e 7 13 .:£)d4 Jl x e2 1 4 .:£)c x e2
�d7 1 5 .:£)f4 .§. fd8 1 6 �d3 .:£)e4 1 7
.:£)x c6 be 1 8 .§.c2 Jlffi 1 9 .§. fc l
�b7 20 �c2 .§. e8 21 �g4 g6 22
�d l Jld6 23 .:£) x dsr .§. cd8 24
.§. x c6 �b8 25 f4 .§. e6 26 �d4 1 -0.
Petrosian makes i t all look so
simple.
B34
5 ... Jld6
An old move from a century ago.
Our example is Owen-Gossip,
match game, Hooton 1 874, and
though the opening moves may be
bizarre to the modern taste, Owen's
34 1 . . . d5 & . . . c5: Reversed Queen's Indian
middle-game iqeas are very I 4Jf3 d5 2 b3 c5 3 e3 4Jf6 4 ..Q_b2 e6
i nteresting. 5 c4 de (This is B3 1 . )
6 4Jc3 0--0 · 6 be
7 4Jb5?! tJ..e 7 8 ..Q..d 3!? h6? (8 . . . de S tronger than 6 Jtx c4.
9 tJ.. x c4 a6! ) 9 ..Q.c2 a6 10 4Ja3 4Jc6 6 . . . ..Q..e7
I I 0-0 �c7 1 2 .§ c l b6 1 3 ..Q_bl ..Q.b7 7 �c2 4Jc6
14 d4 .§ ad8 1 5 cd .§ x d5 16 e4 .§ d 7 8 a3! b6
1 7 4Jc4 .§ c8 1 8 e5 4Jd5 19 �c2 g6 9 ..Q.d3
20 4Jd6! .Q.xd6 2 1 ed �xd6 22 de Or 9 4Jc3 0--0 1 0 ..Q.e2 ..Q.b7 I I
be 23 § fd l (45) 0--0 .§ c8 1 2 § ad l �c7 ( 1 2 . . .
h6!-Petrosian) 1 3 4Jg5 ! g6 1 4 f4
45 4Ja5 1 5 4Jb5 �b8 1 6 !5 ! ! (46)
B
46
B

White has tremendous compensation

for his pawn and soon won.
Compare the sacrifice in the
above game with Spassky-Ciric, 1 6 . . . ef I 7 .§ x !5 .§ c6 ( 1 7 . . . gf 1 8
Amsterdam 1 970, which went I d4 � x !5± ± ) 1 8 § f4 with a
d5 2 c4 e6 3 4Jf3 4:)£6 4 g3 SJ..e7 5 tremendous pull, Tal-Kapengut,
J,tg2 0-0 6 0-0 c6 7 b3 4Jbd7 8 Moscow 1972 ( 1 --0 in 48 ) .
..Q.b2 b6 9 4Jbd2 ..Q_b7 10 § c l .§ c8 9 .. . l,tb7
I I e3 c5 1 2 �e2 .§ c7 1 3 cd Ax d5 10 0-0 �d6
1 4 e4 .Q.b7 1 5 e5 4Jd5 16 4Jc4 �a8 I I 4Jc3 §dB
1 7 4Jd6! (exactly the same as 1 2 .lle2 0-0
Owen's idea) 1 7 . . . .Q.xd6 18 ed 1 3 § ad ! h6!
§ c6 19 de be 20 4Jg5 .§ x d6 2 1 14 §fel .§d7
.§ fd l §a6 2 2 �e4± . 1 5 �bl �b8
1 6 d3 § fd8
Kecne-Denman 1 7 h3 .ila8
National Club Ch Final 1974 1s .a.o .a.m
 1 . d5 & . . . c5: Reversed Qjleen's Indian 35
. .

Black should play consistently for better after the safer text move .
. . . b5 with 1 8 . . . a6. 29 . . . .£Jac4
19 .£je2! .£Je8 30 .a_ x c4 be
20 .£jg3 a6 3 1 i'fal ffi
21 d4 Jtd6 32 Jtc3 §. e8
After 21 . . . cd 22 ed b5 the 33 Ab4 §. cc8
intention was 23 d5! ed 24 c b ab 25 Possibly the self-pin 33 . . . §. ce7
i£)15 . offered more prospects.
22 .£je4 cd 34 §. d4
23 .£j x d6 .£j x d6 I ntending 35 'l_lfd I and 36
24 ed .£la5 'l_lfx h5 .
25 .£le5 §. c7 34 . . . c3?
26 d5! ed A miscalculation in time trouble,
I f 26 . . . .£jax c4 27 .£j x c4 but if 34 . . . .£jb5 35 §. h4 i'fe5 36
i£j x c4 28 Jt x c4 §. x c4 29 de fe 30 'l_lfx e5 §. x e5 37 a4.
'jlfg6. 35 Jt x c3 .£jb5
27 cd b5 36 §.d3 'l_lff4
28 .£jg4 3 7 Jtb4 i'fe4
Threatening 29 Jtxg7 <ifi> x g7 30 38 'l_lfd I §. cd8
'l_lfal + . 39 .£jc2 i'fc4
28 h5 (47) 40 §. x e8+ §. x e8
41 .£je3 i'fe4
42 i!r x h5 g6
47
43 i'fd I 15
w
44 'l_lfd2
A more elegant win resulted from
44 .£jg4!
44 . . . .£Jc7
45 §. d4 'l_lfbl+
46 <ifj>h2 .£Jb5
47 §. h4 �al
48 a4 �e5+
I f 48 . . . �x a4 49 .£j x l5 !
29 .£le3 49 g3 g5
Probably White "can still win by 50 §. c4 1 -0
:29 Jl x g7 <ifi> x g7 30 'Jlfa l + or 29 I f 50 . . . .£Ja7 5 1 .Q.c3 or if 50 . . .
. . . hg 30 Jlffi §. e8 3 1 §.d4. But f4 51 .£jg4 fg+ 52 fg �e2+ 53
time was short and White still stood ilf x e2 §. x e2+ 54 <ifi>gt ± ± .
36 I . . d5 & . . . c5: Reversed Queen's Indian
.

Keene- Milbers resistance. After his next move

Nice Olympiad 1 974 White has a winning advantage.
I Lfj£3 Lfjffi 2 c4 e6 3 b3 d5 4 Jlb2 c5 1 7 d5
5 e3 4.Jc6 6 cd 4.J x d5 (This is B33 .) The typical advance of the
7 Jlb5 Jld7 isolated d-pawn, which normally
R ightly avoiding the doubled leads either to a general liquidation
pawn. and equality or, if White's pieces
8 0-0 Lfjffi are well placed as here, to a
A necessary loss of tempo, crushing attack.
otherwise the development of his 17 ed
KB becomes difficult. 1 8 Lfj x d5 Lfj x d5
9 Lfjc3 Jlc7 19 .§ x d5 Jle6 (48)
10 �e2 a6
I I Jld3!
48
The bishop is retained for hostile
w
action against Black's king. The
blocking of the d-pawn is an evil of
purely temporary duration, a
feature similar to that occuring in
B34. I n fact my development of the
KB to d3 in front of the d-pawn, in
this game and in the preceding
example, was inspired by the game
of Owen I had discovered while
preparing this volume! 20 .§ h5 g6
II 0 -0 20 . . . h6 2 1 �e4 is also useless.
1 2 § ac t .§ c8 21 Jlxg6 fx g6
1 3 .§ fd J �c 7 Not 21 . . . hg 22 .§ h8 mate.
14 Jlbl b5 22 � x e6+ 1 -0
1 5 d4 cd After 22 . . . .§ f7 White can win
1 6 ed �b7 as he pleases, viz. 23 .§ x h7 <(t> x h7
Probably 1 6 4.Jd5 was the 24 � x f7+ , or 23 � x g6+ hg 24
sole possibility of prolonging .§ h8 mate .
8 l . . . d5: . . . c5 deferred or omitted

I l,;jf3 d5 2 b3 t,;Jffi 3 -'1,b2 e6 4 c4 i!rb2 �e7 1 5 a3? ( 1 5 A x ffi ! ;f;; ) 1 5

(FJ) . . . b5! �� , Keent:- R adulov, Nice
1 974. Or 7 . . . Jld6 8 4Jc3 c6 (8 . . .
-1.9
a6!? deserves attention . ) 9 '¥Yc2
'¥Ye7 10 0-0 .§ e8 I I .§ ac l ? ( I I 4Jd4
B
planning f4 and .§ ae l is good for
White.) I I . . . 4Jbd7 1 2 4Jd4 h6! 1 3
.§ fc l a6 1 4 4Jf3 4Jc5 1 5 4J x e5
i!rx e5 1 6 f4 i!re7 1 7 4Ja4 Jlb4! =

Keene-Sosonko, Vlissingen 1 974.

l f Black wishcs to avoid the
K ncrsed Queen's I ndian which
would arise after 4 . . . c5, he has
two alternative choices:
A 4 . . . Jte7
8 4 . . . c6
A this line his KB is really required on
4 .. . Jte7
5 e3
I n teresting is 5 cd , playing for
control of 15 and c5 , e.g. 5 . . . ed 6
c3 0 - 0 7 ..Q..e 2 c6 8 0-0 4Jbd7 9 4Jc3
.§ e8 I 0 4Jd4 4Jffi I I i!rc2 4Je6 1 2
4Ja4 4J x d4 1 3 ..Q.. x d4 ..Q..d 6 1 4
White's strategy in both the above
games was inspired by Nimzo­
witsch-Maroczy in Section B. 5 g3
leads to a R eti System (see p. 89) .
5 . . . 0-0
6 4Jc3
White could play 6 -'1,e2, wi th
the intention of 0-0 and d4,
heading for a q uiet line of the
Queen's Gambit D eclined , but in
d3. Equally he could play it with
the intention of 0-0 and d3, but his
game would be less dynamic than
with the KB in fianchetto. The
immediate 6 d4 is risky after 6 . . .
c5 or even 6 . . . Jlb4+ and . . .
4Jc4.
31/ I . . . d5: . . . c5 deferred or omitted
6 . . . c5
6 . . . de could transpose to
Keene-D enman (see p. 34) or to
Avrrbakh-Spassky, 23rd U SSR Ch
1 956, which went 7 be c5 8 .l}.e2
l£lc6 9 0-0 b6 1 0 d3 .l}.b7 I I l£lel
�c7 12 f4 .§. ad8 13 .�.13 .§.d7 1 4
�e2 .§. fd8 1 5 a 3 a6 with a highly
complicated position. White will
play g4 and g5, while Black must
try to support . . . b5 .
7 cd
White has to prevent . . . d4.
With the text move White's aim is
to leave Black with hanging pawns
or an isolated d -paw n .
Alternatively he might gain time by
attacking Black's q ueen.
7 . . . l£) x d5
7 . . . ed is similar to variations
examined on p. 33, e.g. 8 d4 l£lc6 9
.l}.e2 b6 1 0 0-0 .l}.b7 I I .§. cJ l£le4 1 2
d e l£) x c3 1 3 .l}. x c3 be 1 4 �d2 �d6
15 .§. fdt .§. ad8 1 6 .l}.fl �h6 =
Botvinnik-Euwe, AVRO 1 938 .
8 l£) x d5 �xd5
I nteresting is 8 . . . ed 9 d4 l£lc6
and White will have to watch out
for checks on b4.
9 .llc 4 (50)
White has a slight advantage in
this position due to the active
posting of his bishops.
9 . . . �d8
9 . . . �h5 1 0 0-0 l£lc6 I I .l}.e2
�h6 1 2 .§. c l b6 1 3 l£)e5 l£)x e5 1 4
,ilx e5 ,ilb7 1 5 b4 ! �g5 1 6 .l}.g3
�d5? 1 7 Af3 �d7 1 8 .l}.x b7
�x b7 19 be 11_ x c5 20 d4 and
White takes control of the c-file,
Larsen-Kestler, Busum 1 969.
Now:
AI 10 l£)e5 !
A2 1 0 0-0
AI
10 l£le5! l£ld7 I I 0-0 ( I I f4!
l£) x e5 1 2 fe-Smyslov) I I . . . l£) x e5
1 2 -'t x e5 Affi 1 3 d4 cd 1 4 ed -'td7
1 5 �h5 11_c6 1 6 .§. ad l , Smyslov­
Trifunovic, Zagreb 1 955. Black
could now have equalized with 1 6
. . . -'t x e5 1 7 d e �a5 . I nstead he
played 16 . . . 11_e4 and lost
instructively: 1 7 .§. fe l 11_c2 18 .§.d2
.l}.g6 I 9 �e2 ,ile7 20 .§.ddt �b6 21
d5 ed 22 .§. x d5 -'tffi 23 .§. d6 �c5
24 .§. x ffi! (emphasizing the power
of the long diagonal) 24 . . . gf 25
A x ffi �h5 26 �e3 h6 27 h3 �(5
28 .l}.c3 <ifth7 29 g4 i!fg5 30 f4 i!rh4
31 <iftg2 .§. g8 32 �e7 � x e7 33
.§. x e7 .§. ae8 34 .§. x e8 .§. x e8 35
f5 ± ± ( 1 -0 in 48) .
A2
10 " l£)c6 I I �e2 .l}.ffi 1 2
.l}. x ffi � x ffi 1 3 .§.acl (51)
 I . . . d5: c5 . . . deferred or omitted 39
51
B
This position was already well
known in the 1 930s and was con­
sidered equal, e.g.:
a ) 13 . . . <£Je5 14 <£J x e5 i!Y x e5 1 5
.§. fd l .§. d8 1 6 d4 cd 1 7 ed i!rf4 =
Lisitsin-Lilienthal, Tbilisi 1 937 .
b) 13 . . . b6 1 4 JtbS <£Je5 1 5 <£J x e5
i!Y x e5 1 6 d4 cd 1 7 ed i!Yd6 ( 1 7 . . .
i!¥x d4 1 8 .§ fd I "t!rf4 1 9 .§ c4 "t!rb8
20 .§ h4± ) 18 "t!reS Botvinnik­
Levenfish, match game 1937 .
B avoiding d4 which is a strategic
4 ... c6
A super-solid move. Black
intends to hold the centre while
developing internally. L ater
expansion will follow with . . . cS or
. . . e5 .
5 e3 <£Jbd7
6 <£Jc3
Quite mistaken is 6 Jle2 Jld6 7
<£ld4? eS ! 8 <£lf5 ..Q.f8 9 f4 ef 1 0 ef
<£Jc5 + M ikenas-Alexander, H ast­
ings 1 938.
Now:
Bt 6 . . . ..Q.d6
B2 6 . . . ..Q.e7
B1
6 ... Jtd6
This fi ts in best with the system,
since e7 is reserved for the queen.
7 "t!rc2 (52)
52
B
N imzowitsch 's idea as a
prophylactic waiting move. White
will resist the formation of an ideal
black pawn centre (with pawns on
c6, dS and e5 ) by subtle means,
error, blocking his QB. I f now 7 . . .
eS 8 cd cd 9 <£J b5 ! ± .
7 . .. 0--0
N imzowi tsch-Ahues, Frankfort
1 930, was a brilliant illustration of
White's possibilities after 7 . . .
"t!re7 . White continued 8 �d4 a6 9
Jle2 0--0 I O O--O c5 1 1 <£lf.3 �b6? ( I I
. . . b6 ) 1 2 e4! <£J x e4 1 3 <£J x e4 de 1 4
"t!r x e4 e5?! 1 5 � x eS ! ! .§ e8 1 6 f4 f6
1 7 JlhS .§ffi 1 8 d3 fe 1 9 fe !J...c 7 20
.§. x ffi+ "t!r x m 21 .§ n "t!rd8 22
.11.17+ �h8 23 e6 Jtx e6 24 ..Q.x e6
"t!rgS 25 .§ f7 1 -0. Note that
Nimzowitsch (unlike Mikenas)
40 1 . . . d5: . . . c5 d�ferred or omitted
waited for . . . �e7 before playing
.£Jd4.
8 §. c l !
More prophylaxis. I f 8 . . . eS 9
cd cd 1 0 .£JbS jlb8 1 1 .£Jc7± . I n
Tartakower-Su ltan Khan, 1 2th
match game, Semmering 1 93 1 ,
White went hopelessly wrong with
8 j}_e2 a6 9 e4? (Emulating
Nimzowitsch-Ahues, but here
White lacks development and his
king is still in the centre, so that the
tactic backfires.) 9 . . . de 10 .£J x e4
.£J x e4 1 1 � x e4 eS 1 2 �c2 �e7 1 3
0-0-0 e4 1 4 .£Jd4 .£Jf6 1 S g4 cS 1 6
.£Jf5 j}_xf5 1 7 gf j}_es! + .
8 . . . �e7
9 .£Jd4
I nhibiting . . . cS and . . . eS,
whilst playing in deep fashion for
control of cS and f5. The column is
Nimzowitsch-Maroczy, Bled 1 93 1 .
9 ... j}_a3?
Nimzowitsch: 'Played without
fi nesse, for now the dark squares
become weak. Black should have
prepared . . . eS either with 9 . . .
.£JcS or the dauntless . . . g6 . '
Following one of Nimzowitsch's
recommendations Black could have
counted on a struggle with level
chances.
10 j}_x a3 � x a3
l l cd ed
1 2 .£Ja4 .£Je4?
Nimzowitsch recommended 1 2
. . . .£JeS and . . . j}_d7 .
1 3 f3!
Nimzowitsch: 'Of course! The
pawn formation d2, e3, f3 is
anything but weak and, with d4
and cS in White's hands, . . . b6 plus
. . . cS cannot even be dreamt of. '
13 . . . .£Jef6
1 4 j}_d3 §. e8
1 5 0-0 h6
16 �c3 aS
1 7 j}_f5 (53)
53
B
White's advantage, with his dark
square control, is of nearly decisive
proportions. The conclusion was 1 7
. . . �b4 1 8 j}_xd7 � x c3 1 9 §. x c3
j}_xd7 20 E!,fc l g6 2 1 g4 §. e7 22 h4
.£Je8 23 c;f(f2 .£Jd6 24 .£JcS j}_e8 25
.£Ja4 j}_d7 26 E!,gl )fj>h7 27 .£JcS
j}_e8 28 §. ee l §. d8 29 .£Ja4 § a8 30
gS hS 3 1 .£Jb6 §. a6 32 .£Ja4 §. a8 3 3
d3 .£J f5 3 4 .£J x f5 gf3S .£Jc3 j}_d 7 3 6
.£Je2 a 4 37 §. a l cS 38 .£Jf4 jle6 3�
.£J x hS b5 40 .£Jf4 b4 4 l hS §. ea7 42
§. ac l ab 43 ab d4 44 .£J x e6 fe 45
§. x cS §. a2+ 46 .£Jg3 de 4 7 §. e l e2
48 §. eS l -0 .
B2
6 • • • j}_e7
 1 . . . d5: . . . c5 deferred or omitted 41
Possible but passive. However, it Black is now losing, and 1 9 . . .
claims a place in the book since it 1,tc6 followed by . . . Jte8 and . . .
led ( unwillingly) to one of the most �g6 has been suggested as an
brilliant achievements of the improvement.
Nimzowitsch-Larsen A tt ac k . 20 �1'2 i!t"b8
Botvinnik-Chekhover, Moscow 21 �h3 h6
1935, continued: 22 �g.'i ! hg
7 _Q_e2 0--0 23 fg �8d7
8 0--0 a6 l f 23 . . . �6h7 24 � x f7 �x g5
9 �d4 de? (or 24 . . . _Q_xg5 25 _Q_x h7+
This is quite wrong since JJiack �x h7 26 i!t" x e6) 25 i!t"h5 �5h7
can no longer gain a foothold in the (25 . . . �8h7 26 d5!) 26 d5 ed (if26
centre. ( Contrast Averbakh­ . . . _Q_c5+ 27 <jfj>h1 _Q_a8 28
Spassky, p. 38, and Keene­ _Q,x g7 ! ) 27 �h6+ <jfj>h8 28 i!t"f7
Denman, p. 34. After the central �ffi 29 i!t"g8+ � x g-8 30 �f7 mate.
surrender by . . . de, Black should 24 � X f7! (54)
be able q uickly to achieve a pawn
structure with a6, b6, c5 plus _Q_b7 , 54
but . . . c6 vitiates this. Black's next
B
move compounds the error by
blocking the square for the c­
pawn's advance.
10 be �c5
I I f4!
As a result White has obtained a
pawn advantage in the centre.
II i!t"c7
1 2 �n §. d8
1 3 i!t"c2 �cd7 Effective, though 24 �xd7
13 0 0 Jtd7 14 d4.
0 §. x d7 25 gf _Q, x ffi 26 §. x ffi gf 27
14 d4 c5 i!t"g4+ <jfj>ffi 28 _Q_a3+ §. d6 29 i!t"g3
15 �e5 b6 �e7 30 c5 also gained material for
1 6 Jtd3 cd White.
1 7 ed Jtb7 24 . . . <jfj> x f7
18 i!t"e2 �m 25 g6+ <jfj>gB
19 �d l ! lf25 . . . <it>fB 26 i!t" x e6 �e5 and
Setting out for g5! now neither 27 de drawing nor 2 7
19 . . . §. a7 i!t"h3 �f3+ but 27 §. x ffi + gf 28
-1:! I . . . d5: . . c5 deferred or omitted
.

�h3 �b4 (if28 . . . �e8 29 Jlf5 or 32 .§. X £6!

if 28 . . . Jlc5 29 de Jlc8 30 �h4) Black could now resign .
29 .§. e i ! Jlc8 (29 . . . ..Q.xg2 30 32 . . . J}. x £6
�h6+ �e8 31 de l,tx e l 32 Jlf5) 33 �h7+ �ffi 34 .§. e l Jle5 3 5
30 �h6+ �e8 3 1 de Jlx e l ( 3 1 . . . �h8+ �e7 36 � x g7+ �d6 37
.§. x d3 32 g7 .§. x g7 33 ef+ A x e l � x e5+ �d7 38 �f5+ �c6 (if38
3 4 fg) 3 2 �h8+ �d7 3 3 �g7+ . . . �c7 39 .§. e7+ ) 39 d5+ �c5
�c6 34 � x ffi+ �c7 35 e6, while if (As Yudovich remarked, the king
25 . . . �e8 26 � x e6 �ffi 27 leaves the black pieces, who look on
�f7+ �d7 28 Jla3 .§. e8 29 .§. x £6 sadly at their king's destruction. ) 40
gf 30 g7 . Jla3+ � x c4 41 �e4+ �c3 42
26 � x e6+ �h8 Jlb4+ �b2 43 �bl mate. The
27 �h3+ �g8 influence of Nimzowitsch on
28 Jlf5 Botvinnik's play in the 1 930's was
Threatening Jle6+ . striking. Apart from his liking for
28 . . . �ffi systems with �f.3 and b3, one may
l f 28 . . . Jld6 29 Jle6+ �ffi 30 also note Botvinnik's passion for I
�h8+ �e7 3 1 � x g7 + � x e6 32 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 �c3 Jlb4, which
�f7 mate. Nimzowitsch did so much to
29 Jle6+ ! � x e6 rehabilitate in the 1 920's that it is
30 � x e6+ �h8 known on the Continent by his
31 �h3+ �g8 name.
9 1 . . . . d5: Diagonal Block

I 6Llf3 d5 2 b3 ffi!? 14 Jle2 Jld6

A blunt declaration of intent 15 b4 t1 g8!
which has been spectacularly Black's conduct of the attack
successful for Black, though the exhibits a refreshing directness.
practical material is extremely 16 6Lld2 Jlb8
l i m i t ed . R o batsc h- B i s g u i e r , 17 6Llb3 g5
Beverwijk 1962, continued: 18 6Llc5 'tlfe 7
3 c4 -'tg4 19 fg t1 x g5
4 e3 e5 20 h4? § x g2+ ! (55)
5 h3 Jlx f3
6 'tlfx f3 e4 55
7 'tlfd I f5 w
8 c4 c6
R eaching a kind of French
position, with colours reversed ,
where Black lacks the useful QB. I n
return the move b3 blocks an
avenue for the white q ueen to
attack Black's centre from b3 or a4.
9 cd cd
1 0 Jlb5+ 6Llc6 2 1 <ift x g2 'tlfg7+ 22 -'tg4 (or 22
I I 0-0 CL:lffi <;fth l 'tlfg3 23 t1 f4 Jlx f4 24 ef
1 2 f4 �h3+ 25 <;ftgl <;fte7 followed by
A highly questionable decision . . . t1 g8) 22 . . . 6Ll x g4 23 <;fth l
which offers Black a target for 6Lle7 24 § a2 t1 c6 25 t1 g l t1 h6 26
attack. 1 2 f3 looks more sensible. �e 1 �ffi 27 <;ftg2 t1 x h4 28 <;ftn
12 t1 c8 6Llh2+ 29 t1 x h2 § x h2 30 'Yl:Yd l
1 3 a3 a6 �h4 0- 1 .
44 1 .
. . d5: Diagonal Block

I t must be conceded that . . . d5 development with no senous

and . . ffi, avoiding the lines in
. weaknesses.
chapters 5-8, is an excellent Another unusual idea is I 4.::)1 3 d5
method of obtaining active play if 2 b3 4.Jc6!?, which, as above, will
White has opened with I 4.Jf'3 and 2 normally be associated with a
b3. Even I b3 d5 2 Jlb2 ffi must be subsequent . . . Ag-4; the reader
considered, since 3 d4 4.Jc6 4 4.Jf'3 should also consult chapter 1 0 ,
.Qg4 gJvt•s Black a free illustrative game Keene- Kovacevic.
10 1 . . . d5: . . . Ag4

I n this section we consider three Palma I nterzonal 1 970, went 7 h3

lines, which obviously have a high Ax P.3 8 �x P.3 �d6 9 0-0 0-0 1 0
quotient of transposition. 4Jc3 �e7 1 1 �c2 § fc8 1 2 § fc l b5 !
A I 4JP.3 d5 2 b3 4Jffi 3 �b2 c6 4 e3 1 3 cb c b 1 4 �d l a6 1 5 a4 b4 1 6 4Ja2
.ilg4 e5 1 7 �e2 a5 and Black held the
B I 4JP.3 d5 2 b3 �4 initiative on all fronts. In fact,
C I b3 d5 2 �b2 �4 White's bishops arc spectacularly
A mnocuous.
I 4JP.3 d5 7 . . . �d6 (56)
2 b3 4Jffi
3 Ab2 c6 56
4 e3 w
I t is probably more effective to
continue with 4 g3 . The central
placement of the KB to which
White is now commi tted lacks real
bite if Black is free to develop his
QB on f5 or g4.
4 �4
5 c4 4Jbd7
6 Jlc2 c6 Here we reach a minor parting of
7 0--0 the ways:
7 h3 accomplishes very little. AI 8 d4
Black's QB can either retreat or A2 8 d3
exchange on 13, when the solid A3 8 cd
black pawn triangle in the centre AI
proves an unpleasant obstacle to 8 d4 is q uite feeble since it shuts
Whi te's KB. Rubinetti-U hlmann, the QB out of play, viz. 8 . . . 0-0 9
46 I . . . d5: . . J1g4
.
h3 Jth5 10 {)bd2 �e7 I I {)e5
_Q_x e2 1 2 � x e2 a5 1 3 a3 § fd8 1 4
§ fd l _Q_c7 1 5 § a b l {)e4 and the
game is completely equal,
Stein-Vaganian, 39th U SSR Ch
Leningrad 197 1 .
A2
8 d3 gives more chances for a
c o m p l i c ated middle game ,
although objectively it doesn 't
promise much, e.g. 8 . . . 0-0 9
{)bd2 �e7 10 f)d4 (White's
strategic idea is to exchange light­
squared bishops when the squares
b5 and f5 may become open to
occupation by the white knights. I t
is more congenial for White to
exchange the bishops than to
provoke Black into swapping his
QB for White's KN , as m
Ru binetti-U hlmann . ) 10
_Q_x e2 I I � x e2 ,ila3?! 1 2 ,il x a3
�x a3 1 3 f4 �e7 1 4 {)2f3 c5?! 1 5
{)b5 e5 1 6 § fe l e4, Andersson­
Hort, Goteborg 1 97 1 . Black is
overpressing and the resul t was 1 -0
in 37 moves. The next variation
shows similar problems handled
with more caution.
A3
Petrosian- Mecking, Las Palmas
1975, continued 8 cd cd 9 f)d4
,ilx e2 10 � x e2 0-0 I I f4 § c8 1 2
{)c3 a6 1 3 § fc l �e7 1 4 a3 §fe8 ! 5
b4 ,ilb8 1 6 {)f3 e5 1 7 fe {) x e5 1 8
{)a4 !--- � , although by this stage
Black's position looks excellent.
I f all Black wants is equality,
then this line must be considered
one of the most effective systems. As
indicated, White does better to
avoid the main lines by substituting
g3 tor e3. This strategy, which is not
a thoroughbred Nimzowitsch-- Larsen
A ttack, is examined on p. 48 and
p. 99.
B
I {)f3 d5
2 b3 Ag4
3 e3
Normally White prefers to
prevent the doubling of his f-pawns.
For 3 ,ilb2 see Keene-Kovacevic
(p. 48) . 3 {)e5 looks like a good
idea, attacking Black's bishop and
breaking up the potential pin, but is
really a time-waster since White's
queen has no access to b3 or a4
whence it can put pressure on
Black's Q-side. Black can reply
either . . . ,ilf5 or . . . ,ilh5 and then
White's knight on e5 will be
exchanged or driven off.
3 0 0 0 {)ffi
Or 3 . . . {)d 7 4 ,ile2 e5 5 ,ilb2
,ild6 6 d3 {)h6 7 {)bd2 0-0 8 c4 c6
9 0-0 § e8 = A ndersson-Portisch,
Teesside 1 972. Here Black has
attained all he can aim for with this
variation-a solid position with free
development.
4 _Q_b2 e6
There is little difference between
this and 4 . . . {)bd7, a line which
was twice put to Nimzowitsch in
the New York ·totitnament of l 927 .

He first played 5 h3 .Q.h5 6 Jle2 e6
7 4Je5 (An aimless exchange which
shows even Nimzowitsch was
unable to formulate a positive
White strategy against the rock-like
Black system.) 7 . . . .Q.x e2 8 �X e2
Jld6 9 4j x d 7 �xd7 10 c4 c6 I I
0-0 0-0-0 1 2 4Jc3 Jlc7 1 3 d4 h5 1 4
f4 g5 1 5 b 4 h4 1 6 b5 .§ dg8+ -Black
was Vidmar. Against M arshall,
Nimzowitsch varied with 6 d3 h6 7
4Jbd2 e6 8 "t!fe2 Jtb4 9 g4 Jtg6 1 0
4Je5 4J x e5 I I .Q.x e5 .Q.d6 1 2 4Jf3
�e7 1 3 Ag2 0-0-0 1 4 0-0-0 with a
sharp struggle in which Black's
chances are absolutely no worse.
5 h3
Or 5 J;te2 4Jbd7 6 h3 Ax f3?! 7
Jlx f3 Ad6 8 d3 0-- 0 9 0-0 �e7 1 0
a4 a5 I I 4Jd2 c6 1 2 �e2 e5 1 3 e4
d4;± A ndersson- Donner, Wijk aan
Zee 1 97 1 . I n this situation,
compared with R u binetti- U hl­
mann, White can derive more
profi t from his light square control
and bishop pair since he has not
opened the Q-side (for Black) with
c4 and cd . After 14 g3 .ilb4 15 Ag2
4Je8 1 6 h4 4Jc7 1 7 4:)1'3 b5 1 8 h5
4Je6 1 9 Ah3 .§fb8 20 4jh4 Ac3 2 1
Ax c 3 d e 2 2 A x e6 fe 2 3 �g4
White has developed a powerful
attack against Black's king ( 1 -0 in
41 ).
50 0 0 .ilh5
There is no necessity to rush into
the exchange of bishop for knight.
6 d3 c5
1 0 0 0 d5: 0 0 0 fu.4 47
7 g4
Similar to the play in Nimzo­
witsch--Marshall. I t should be
noted that the K-side advance here
is not intended as an attack, but
purely as a means of acquiring the
bishop pair.
7 Ag6
8 4je5 4Jbd7
9 4Jx g6 hg
1 0 .Q.g2 "t!f b6 (57)
57
w
The tolumn is Korchnoi - Meck­
ing, Candidates' Quarter-fi nal, 5th
game, Augusta 1 974. Black's
position is fi ne, since his pawn
structure is fireproof, which cannot
be said of White's K-side, and
Whi te's bishops arc as yet inactive.
Black's loss must be attributed to
inaccurate handling of the
middle game, viz. I I "t!fe2 Ad6 1 2
4Jd2 AeS! 1 3 c 3 #aS 1 4 d 4 cd I S
cd Ad6 1 6 a3 .§ c8 1 7 b4 �a4 1 8
0- 0 0-- 0 1 9 .§ fc l . Now after 1 9 . . .
.§c2 20 �d l .§ fc8 Black would
stand appreciably better with
White's KB having little influence
48 1 . . . d5: . . . Ag4
on Q-side affairs. I nstead, M ecking 6 f4 e6
chose 19 . . . �b6? and was slowly 7 ..ilg2
pushed back with 20 �d3 �d7 2 1 A stereotyped decision. 7 Jth3! is
.§ a b l .§ x c l + 2 2 .§ x c l .§ c8 23 more active .
.§c2 ( 1 -0 in 43) . 7 Ji..e 7
c 8 0--0 0--0
I b3 dS 2 ..ilb2 ..ilg4. This move 9 d3 aS
order has been favoured by 1 0 a4
Timman . Black need hardly fear Creating a target for . . . bS, but
an advance of White's K-side to allow . . . a4 is unthinkable.
pawns, while 3 f3 -'tf5 (or 3 . . . 10 c6
Jl.hS) is only a temporary I I �d2 bS
expedient since White's f-pawn 1 2 �e2 ba?
will soon have to go to f4, creating A premature release of tension.
a kind of Bird System. In view of Black should first strengthen his
this the variation will normally position with I I . . . .§ e8 ! , which at
transpose into A or B. worst gives him equality.
1 3 .§ x a4 �b6
Keene-Kovacevic 14 .§ a2 a4
Amsterdam 1 973 I S .§fat ab
I �f3 d5 1 6 .§ x a8 � x a8
2 b3 ilg4 1 7 � x b3 �b6
3 ll,b2 �d7 1 8 f5!
Very interesting is 3 . . . �c6!? White's pieces have seized key
e.g. 4 c4? -'t x f3 S gf d4 6 a3 eS+ , squares and now the combinational
Andersson-Bisguier, Palma 1 97 1 . explosion commences.
White had to play 4 e3! and if 4 . . . 18 ef
eS S h3! 1 9 �d4 �d7
4 g3 20 l;th3 g6
Seeking to transpose into a type 21 ll,xf5! gf
of Reti position with a double 22 .§ a7 ! ! (58)
fianchetto (see p. 99) . The A cascade of sacrifices which
diiTerence with the Nimzowitsch­ emphasises the hitherto concealed
Larsen move order is that Black dynamism of the diagonal a l -h8.
can choose to double White's 22 . . . � x a7
f-pawns. 23 � x c6 �d7
4 Jlx f3!? Alternatives are:
5 er �gf6 a) 23 . . . �a2 24 � x e7+ \fj>g7 25
 I . d5: . .
. . . !J.g4 49

58 <£)e7 mate, or
b) 23 . . . Jla3! 24 <£) x a7 Jtx b2 25
B
c4! Jtd4 26 <£lb5 .§. e8 27 �f.3 Jtc5
28 d4 Jtffi 29 c5 <£)c4 30 �x f5 and
the c-pawn should triumph;
nevertheless, this line would have
been the best chance for Black.
After the text he is swiftly crushed .
24 <£) x e7+ )f;g7
25 �h5 1 -0
25 . . . .§. a8 26 �g5+ c;f;ffi 27
<£) x 5 + )f;g8 26 �g4+ ! <£) x g4 27 Jtx ffi is decisive.
II 1 . . . d5: . .
I b3 d5 2 Ab2 Af5
Although less pointed than
defence by . . . .ilg4, this 1s a
perfectly solid developing move
should White continue along
normal N imzowitsch- Larsen lines.
If doubt can be cast on the move it
is by fi anchettoing tht" KB and tht>n
playing for d3 and e4 to blot the
black QB out of play. ( See pp. 92
and 97) .
3 4)11 4)16
4 e3
4 4)h4?! is simply a waste of time,
as was dt>monstrated in one of'
Larsen's very early gamt"s, viz. 4 . . .
Jld7 5 c4 e6 6 4)11 c5 7 cd ed 8 d4
4Jc6 and White has not accom­
plished wry much, Larsen
Sorensen, Copenhagen 1 952, (O I
in 56) .
4 4Jbd7
5 c4 t"6
6 4)c3!
The best method for White. I t is
imp!•Jrtant to de\'elop the knight on
c3 and to a\'oid the rno\'e d3, which
would deprive White
. ..Q.£5
possibility of playing for control of
£5. I n contrast, 6 Jte2 c6 7 0 0 Jtd6
8 d3 h6 9 4)bd2 yields White
nothing sinct" his KB has little
influt>nce on the centre. Equally
insipid is 8 d4 ( instead of d3) 8 . . .
h6 9 Jtd3 Jtxd3 10 � x d3 4)e4 1 1
Jta3 Jtc7 1 2 4Jfd2 f5 1 3 �e2 #h4
and Black's minor pieces are all
more active than Whi te's. I n
gent"ral, the exchange o f light­
squared bishops is to Black's
advantage with a white pawn
structure of b3 /c4 fd4 fe3 opposed
by b7 fc6 fd5 fe6. The exc hange
would help White only if he could
ket>p the outpost square d4 free lor
oc c u pa t ion by a knight.
6 c6
7 Jle2 Jld6
8 0 0 ·�e7?!
I m mediate castling would be
considerably more accurate.
9 cd ed
O bliga tory, i n that 9 . . . cd 1 0
4Jb5! would n e t t h e black KB.
Herein the evils of Black's 8th move
of the become apparent, for White can
 1 . . . d5: . . . Af5 51
now play for control of 15. 59
1 0 ;§ c l 4Je5
B
I I 4Jd4! Jld7
12 �c2 4Jg6
1 3 4Jl5 Ax l5
14 � x l5 Jla3
To deprive White of the bishop
pair.
1 5 �c2 Jlx b2
16 �x b2 (59) ( ;-t )
N i mzowitsch- Voellmy, Bern game continued instructively 16 . . .
1 93 1 . White has cleverly avoided a 0- 0 1 7 4Ja4 ;§fe8 18 �d4 �e5 1 9
move of his d-pawn and retains d4 � x e 5 ;g x eS 2 0 {)c5 ;§ e7 2 1 b4 a6
as a base for his knight. His control 22 a4 4Je4 23 {)b3 {)d6 24 ;§ a l
of the dark squares together with ;§ac8 2 5 ;§ fc l {)e5 2 6 b5 a b 2 7 a b
the free diagonal O - a6 for his KB {):x b 5 28 Jlx b 5 c b 29 ;§ c5 ;§ d 7
enables him to set in motion a 3 0 ;g _x b 5 and Black soon shed his
vigorous minority attack. The b-pawn in addition. (I 0 in 62 ) .
12 Bayonet Theme: systems with g4

The Canadian I M L . Day once enthusiasm by the Yugoslav GM

wrote to me: 'I have a new Plan inc. I t is a strategy with such
idea-roughly: I b3, 2 Ab2, 3 f4, 4 wide a p p l ic a tions in the
{)13 , and now 5 g4! or §.gl and g-4 � i mzowi tsch L a rs e n A l l a c k that
or h3 /g4 and Jlg2, with heav) this section is intended as a review
munching on the long diagonal. l t's of the ideas germane to the concept
actually a right-handed English.' of b3 plus g4 rather than as an
The English strategy of I r4 analysis of specific vanattons,
followed by {)r3, g3, Jl� 2, §. b l , though cross-references will be
b4 etc. with a Q-side initiative can i n d u clecl where appropriate. I t is
indeed be applied to the opposite
side of the board , and the Bayonet
Theme with the early advance of g4
recurs in many separate variations
of the Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack.
In these cases, however, it involves
a nu mber of risks since White must
not thrust his bayonet at the enemy
in such a way as to leave his exposed
king at the mercy of a counter­
thrust. The strategy is most often
found in the slower l ines, though it
will be seen that it can be applied
even in the sharp Classical Defence. the essence or the theme that the
The idea was not as new as Day move g-4 should portend aggression
had thought but was first pioneered on the K-side and not merely be a
by Ni mzowitsch in 1 925 and more means of driving off a black QB ( . . .
recently it has been adopted with .�.g4 met by h3, . . . Ah5 g4, etc.) .

N imzowitsch--Grunfeld
Marienbad 1 925
(Notes N translated from Nimzo­
witsch's own in Kagan's Neueste
Schachnachrichten 1 92S, Sonderheft
No. 2)
I e3 .f)ffi
2 f4 dS
3 €)11 ltg4
4 b3 .f)l:xi7
S �b2 e6
An ambitious plan for Black is S
. . . c6 and if 6 �e2 �xf.3 7 �x l1
�c7 8 0-0 eS 9 fe .f)x eS followed
by . . . �d6 and . . . 0-0--0 . The
preceding moves actually occurred
in a simultaneous display against
computers given by David Levy
during the U SA Computer C h
197S, Levy playing Black. The
continuation then was 1 0 .f)c3 �d6
I I h3 hS! 1 2 �e2 .f)eg4!! 1 3 hg
Ah2+ 14 �h i hg I S �xg4
�I + ! 1 6 � x g l �h2+ 1 7 �
�h4+ 18 �f3 .f) x g4+ + . Thank
goodness man can still beat
machine!
6 c4 �e7
7 h3 �xl1
8 � x f3 0-0
9 g4
Now that White, with 6 c4, has
placed d ifficulties in the path of . . .
eS , he tries to make something out
of the b2 -g7 diagonai . ( N )
9 . . . .f)e4
1 0 gS
To prevent . . . Jlffi. ( N )
Bayonet Theme: systems with g4 53
10 . . . c6
I I d3 �aS+
12 �e2 €)d6
1 3 �c3
White feared . . . b5 . I t was
tempting to allow this thrust in
order to win a piece, e.g. 1 3 h4 bS 1 4
c S €) x eS I S b4 �x b4 1 6 �a3 but
then 16 . . . �a4 17 �xeS
�c2+ + . ( N )
13 . . . �b6
14 h4 .f)f5
IS �h3 (61)
61
B
I t is interesting to compare this
with Planinc-Hartoch, W ijk aan
Zee 1 973, which went I b3 dS 2
�b2 �4 3 h3 �hS 4 €)11 (see p.
45) 4 . . . .f)d7 (Now was the
moment to exchange on f3. ) S e3 c6
6 d3 �x f3? (Absolutely pointless
since Black loses a tempo and
White's q ueen comes into play.) 7
� x f.3 .f)gffi 8 g4 (intending to
sweep down the long diagonal) 8
. . . eS 9 gS .f)g8 I 0 h4 (to soften
Black up on the key diagonal) 1 0
. . . �b4+ I I �e2! .f)e7 1 2 �h3
54 Bayonet Theme: systems with g4
Jld6 1 3 <£jd2 <£lc5 1 4 h5 <£Jc8 1 5 g6
Vl!re7 1 6 .§ ag l (62)
62
B
(preparing a pawn sacrifice which
exposes g7 ) 16 . . . fg 1 7 hg h6 1 8
�f7+ ! � x f7 1 9 gf+ <it( x f7 20 f4
.§ e8 2 1 �4 <it(g8 22 fe Jlf8 23
.§ x h6 <£!b6 24 Jlf5 .§ e7 25 e6 1 -0.
The parallel between these two
games was fi rst drawn in my article
for Chess Canada, May 1 973,
entitled 'Nimzo got there fi rst! '
When N imzowitsch's game was
demonstrated to Planinc at Zagreb
in 1 97 5 he was surprised at the
similarity and had no notion that he
had been recreating an idea of one
of the greatest players of former
times.
15 d4
16 Ax f5 de
1 7 Ax h7+ ! !
The ! ! i s Nimzowitsch's note. He
also mentions the exchange
sacrifice 1 7 Jlh3 c2 18 <£jd2 Jla3,
considering it roughly = .
17 <it(x h7
18 <£j x c3 �aS
19 <£je4 ( 63)
63
B
Nimzowitsch won on move 45
after a breakthrough with his K­
side pawns (although his own notes
claimed that an advance of the
central pawns would have been
more correct) . Of course, his piece
sacrifice is speculative and in
resulting positions Black too has his
chances, but N imzowitsch proved
hi mself superior 1n the
complications.
We have to appreciate that
N imzowitsch did not reveal all that
he knew in My System and Chess
Praxis; in neither of these works
does his game with Grunfeld
appear-a game employing a
strategy recently regarded as
original but now seen to be actually
a rediscovery. As proof that the
methods used against Grunfeld
were not fortuitous, examine
N imzowitsch-Kmoch, Kecskemet
1 92 7 , where, although the
fianchetto of the QB is roundabout
and long in its coming, the basic
 Bayonet Theme: systems with g4 55
ideas are the same: I f4 d5 2 �{3 5 -'tb5 -'tg4
�ffi 3 e3 Jlg4 4 h3 .a_x n 5 i!fxfl For a full analysis of this
�bd7 6 �c3 e6 7 g4 -'tb4 8 g5 variation see p. 25 .
.a_x c3 9 be �e4 1 0 d 3 �d6 I I c4 c6 6 h3 A x f3
I 2 e4?! ( 1 2 -'tb2) I 2 . . . de I 3 de f5? 7 i!f x fl e6
( 1 3 . . . �c5! ) I 4 ef i!fa5+ I 5 j}_d2 8 g4!
i!f x f5 I6 0-0-0 0-0--0 I 7 .a_c3 �e8 The omens for the attack
18 h4 .§ffi 19 -'th3± (64) heralded by this move are
excellent. White has complete
64 domination of the long dark
B diagonal; his development is speed y
and his king is only two moves from
castling away from the loosened K­
side.
8 . . . .A,e7
9 g5 �d 7
1 0 h4 0-0
I I �c3 f5
1 2 �xd5 ed
The game was 1-0 in 33 moves. 1 3 i!fx d5+ \t>h8
The d iagonal strategy triumphed; I4 -'tx c6 be
White captured a pawn on g7 and 1 5 i!f x c6 �b6
then proceeded to advance his K­ Overlooking the threat.
side pawns. 16 i!fh6! (65) 1 0 -

Now for a charming modern

miniature which, in a reverse 65
version of the strategy used by the B
Pirc / M odern D efence, exemplifies
the theme of the softening up of the
a l - h8 d iagonal .

Petkevich- Vdovin
U SSR Armed Forces Ch !-final
1 972
I �f3 �ffi
2 b3 d5 I f i 6 . . . .§ g8 I 7 g6 ± ± or 1 6 . . .
,

3 Jlb2 c5 Jlffi 1 7 gf gh 1 8 f7+ ± ± .

4 e3 �c6 Now as an antidote a game in
56 Bayonet Theme: systems with g4
which the traffic was flowing m 1 4 h4 b5
entirely the opposite direction. Counter-attack, but Bronstein
presses on.
Bronstein-Tal 1 5 g5 be
40th U SSR Ch 1 97 2 1 6 de e5
I b3 d5 1 7 b4 a5
2 Jlb2 Jlg4 1 8 c5
3 h3 Jlh5 Or 18 b5 {)c5 1 9 be d4 20 ed ed
-1- {)f3 {)d 7 21 ..Q.xd4 ..Q.e5 and the centralized
5 e3 {)gffi white king proves a handicap.
6 ..Q.e2 e6 18 ..Q.bB
7 d3 ..Q.d6 1 9 i!ra4 i!re6
8 {)bd2 20 § g l
l f8 g4 Jlg6 9 g5 {)h5 10 §gl h6 A better chance would have been
I I h4 hg 1 2 hg i!re7+ . 20 ..Q.n intending ..Q.h3 .
8 . . . i!re7 20 . . . {)c 7
9 a3 21 Jlg4 i!rf7
To avoid the exchange of his QB. 22 0-0-0 ab
9 . . . c6 23 i!r x c6 ba (66)
10 c4 0-0
I I g4 66
I f I I 0-0 e5 is good for Black. w
Bronstein succeeds in creating
complications, bu t Black's efficient
development IS proof against
accidents.
II . .
. Jlg6
1 2 {)h4
White can play to win a piece but
comes under severe pressure after
12 h4 {) x g4 1 3 h5 ..Q.g5 1 4 e4 de 1 5 Black's attack is the more
d e ..Q.c5! 1 6 ef efwith threats against virulent and he soon simplifies into
1'2 . a winning ending.
12 . . . {)e8 24 �xd7 ab+
1 3 {) •. g6 fg! 25 �x b2 Jla7 26 � x f7+ § x f7
An excellent decision which 2 7 § gO ..Q. x c5 28 {)b3 ..Q.a3+ 29
deadens White's ojfensive on the h­ �c2 § e7 30 �d3 § b8 3 1 {)a5
fi le and opens an avenue against f2. e4+ 32 �d4 § b4+ 33 �c5
 Bayonet Theme: systems with g4 57
.§ b5+ 34 �c6 .§ x a5 35 .§ a ! I b3 c£lffi
.§ c5+ 3 6 �b6 c£la8+ 3 7 �a6 2 ...Q.b 2 g6
.§ c6+ 38 �b5 .§ b6+ 39 �a4 3 g4!? (68)
.§ a7 mate.
Now a game in which the
68
Bayonet Theme goes berserk!
B
Pian inc-I vkov
Novi Sad 1 972
I b3 c5
2 ...Q.b '2 c£)c6
3 e3 c£)ffi
4 g4?! h6
5 h4?! d5
6 ...Q_h 3 d4!
7 g5 �d5! Alternative third moves for
With a decisive advantage. White are dealt with on p. 59.
8 .§ h2 (67) Now:
A 3 . . . Jtg7
67 B 3 . . . h6
B A
3 ... .fU7
4 g5 c£lh5 5 ...Q. x g7 c£l x g7 6 i!rc l
0-0 7 �b2 d5 (Soltis gives . . . d6
planning . . . e5 and . . . 15 ) 8 c .

Jtg2 c6 9 c£lf3 c£ld 7 1 0 d4 c£lh5 I I

c£lbd2 a.'i 1 2 e3 a4 1 3 c£)0 c£lb6 1 4
c£lg3 c£lg7 1 5 c£le5 16 1 6 gf e f 1 7
c£ld3 �e7 1 8 0-- 0 ( 1 -0 in 6 1 )
8 hg Holmov-Oplachkin, Kirgiz 1 966.
9 hg i!r x g.'i Black had such a huge choice at
1 0 c£)13 i!Yd5 most stages that this isolated case
I I ...Q. x c8 .§ x h2 can hardly be considered of
1 2 cf:l x h2 .§ x c8 theoretical importance, although i t
and Black soon won. can prove a basis lor more concrete
F inally, a look at a specific investigation .
variation in which the advance g4 B
has become 'accepted' theory. 'Better for Black is 3 . •h6 4 h4
•
58 Bayonet Theme: systems with g4
Jlg7 and it will be White who is 69
overextended . ' (Soltis)
B
This judgement gained some
confirmation from Wade- Gilberto
Garcia, Cienfuegos 1 975, which
went I b3 4Jffi 2 Jlb2 c5 3 c4 4Jc6 4
4Jf3 g6 5 g4!? h6 6 h4 d6 7 .§gl (69)
7 . . . e5 8 g5 hg 9 hg 4Jg4 10 d3
Jle7 I I i!rd2 4Jd4 1 2 Jlg2 4Jx 13+
1 3 Jlx f3 Jlx g5 14 e3 f5 15 Jl x g4
fg 1 6 4Jc3. The game was up g5 for more than on(' move.
even tually drawn but White always White has to play h4 and also
seemed to be on the defensive. protect, or move, his rook on h i
Th(' point of . . . h6 is that it holds before g5 becom('s a threat.
13 Fianchetto Opposition

I b3 4Jf6 2 Ab2 g6 AI 3 . . . Jtg7

The two main con tinuations A2 3 . . . d6
retaining individual significance to AI
be exami ned are 3 ... lb,7
A 3 e4 An invitation to the hunt.
B 3 c£)13 4 e.) .;:Jd ."J 170\
Also:
a) The wild move 3 g4! ? was dealt 70
with under the Bayonet Theme on w
p . ."17.
b ) 3 c4 would transpose into a type
of English .
c) 3 g3 is likely to transpose into A2,
but there is also plenty of scope for
individual significance. Nimzo­
wi tsc h Morrison, London 1 92 7 ,
went 3 g 3 Jtg7 4 Jtg2 d 6 ( 4 . . .
d5!?) 5 d4 0- 0 6 c4 4Jc6 7 d5 4Jb8?! This might be christrned the
(7 . . . 4Ja5) 8 4Jc3 4Jbd7 9 c£)13 a5 Alekhine Variation, since it could
1 0 4Ja4 e5 I I de fe 1 2 0- 0 "'#;e7 1 3 arise from I e4 4Jf6 2 e5 4Jd5 3 b3.
c£)et .;l- . U nderstandably this weird linr has
d) 3 A · ffi! ? is interesting bu t occurred infreq u e n t l y . Two
du bious since Black's KB will soon examples:
control the weakened dark squares a) Smyslov- Adorjan, Amsterd am
on White's Q-side. 1 97 1 , now went 5 c£)£3 c5 6 4Jc3
A 4Jf4?! 7 d4 4Jc6 8 g3 cd 9 4J x d4
3 e4 c£) x d4 1 0 "'#; :x d4 4Je6 1 1 #e3 d6 1 2
Now: f4 d e 1 3 Ab5+ \t>ffi 1 4 fe #d4 1 5
60 Fianchetto Opposition
i!Y x d4 � x d4 1 6 0-0-0 J,tx e5 1 7
�d5 � x b5 1 8 il,x e5 ffi 1 9 � x ffi!
ef20 .§d8+ r:;g7 21 il, x ffi+ r:; x ffi
2 2 .§ x h8 r:;g7 23 .§ d8 �c7 24
.§ e l 1-0. A very attractive
miniature.
b) Gipslis-Gu tman, Latvian Ch
1 974, continued 5 c4 �b4 6 a3
�4c6 7 d4 d6 8 f4 de 9 fe 0-0 1 0
i!Yd2 �d7 I I J,te2 .§ d8 1 2 �f3 ffi
1 3 ef ef 1 4 d5 �e5 1 5 � x e5 fe 1 6
0- 0 �c6 1 7 c 5 �d4 1 8 il,c4 b5 1 9
cb a b 2 0 i!Yd l b 5 2 1 Ad3 �xd5 2 2
�c3 "f!V x b3 23 ilfx b3+ �x b3 24
.§ ad I Jlg4 0- 1 .
A2
3 ... d6
Preventing e5 and possibly
planning . . . e5 himself to blunt the
power of White's QB.
4 g3
Since 4 d4 is impossible, this
represents the most sensible
deployment ofWhite's forces. More
artificial is 4 �e2!?, in order to form
a broad centre wi th d4; after 4 . . .
Ag7 5 d4 c5 6 de �a5+ Black has
good prospects.
4 Ag7
s Ag2 o-o
6 �e2 e5
Or 6 . . . c5 7 d4 �bd7 ( 7 . . . cd
8 � x d4 is a strange kind ofSicilian
Dragon . ) 8 0-0 .§ b8 9 a4 b6 1 0
�a3 cd I I � x d4 J,tb7 1 2 .§ e l
�c5 1 3 f3 and Black had no
reason to fee l d issatisfi ed ,
Larsen - U itumen, Lugano 1 968 .
However, Black now screwed his
position up with the unpositional 1 3
. . . d5? 1 4 e5 �fd 7 1 5 f4± .
7 0-0 ( 71)
7 d4 ed 8 � x d4 .§ e8 would
leave White very exposed.
I n Bellon-Smejkal, Siegen
Olympiad 1 970, White pro­
crastinated with 7 c4 �c6 8 �bc3
�d7 9 d3 �c5 10 �d5 a5 I I J,tc3?
when I I . . . f5 1 2 f3 �d4 1 3 �x d4
ed 14 Ab2 �e6 1 5 ef .§ x f5 1 6 Ah3
.§ e5+ 1 7 r:;f'2 c6 was+ .
71
L=;.-.--·==
B
From the diagram Black has:
A21 7 . . . c5
A 22 7 . . . �c6
A23 7 . . . .§ �8
I n each case playing for control
of d4, but in the fi rst case risking a
weak d5 and in the second a
possibility of bringing insufficient
force to bear on the key squarr.
A21
7 ... c5
8 �bc3
The most sensible move, securing
r4 in preparation for an advance of
the f-pawn. 8 c4 would be drawish.
 Fianchetto Opposition 61
8 .£la3 is rather off thC' point; Van f'3 Jld7 10 c4 a5 I I .£!a3 h5,
Geet-Piket, Beverwijk 1 970, went 8 Bellon-Lju bojevic, Palma 1 97 1 .
.£!a3 .§ e8 9 .£!c4 .£j x e4 1 0 Ax e4 Black won, but at this point White's
d5 I I -'tg2 de 1 2 be .£!c6 1 3 .£lc3 huge space advantage must count
Ae6 1 4 d3 .§ c8 1 5 .§ bl b6 1 6 .§ e l for something and he surely stands
�d7 1 7 .£ld5 .§ cd8 with a better, perhaps with d5 plus c5 and
balanced pos1 11on since the eventually f4.
apparently powerful 18 �f'3, as 8 . . . a5
played, failed against . . . Jlxd5! Less convincing is 8 . . . Ag4?! 9
and . . . .£!b4. Black of course need 13 Jld7 10 .£!bc3 �c8 I I .£ld5
not go seeking adventures on his 9th .£j x d5 1 2 cd .£jd4 1 3 .£j x d4 ed 1 4
move but can continue with normal f4 when White's central pawns are
development. extremely mobile and he can exrrt
8 . . . .£!c6 pressure on the c-file, Larscn- D iez
9 h3 .§ b8 del Corral, Palma 1 968 . 1 -0 in 48
10 f4 b5 9 .£!bc 3 .£!d7
I I d3 b4 10 .£ld5 .£!d4
12 .£!a4 .£!h5 I I .£j x d4 ed
1 3 <ifth2 .£!d4 1 2 .£jf4 c6
14 .£! x d4 cd 1 3 d3 tr b6
1 5 f5 Ah6 1 4 .§ b l .£!c5 (72)
1 6 Jlc i J;tx c l
72
17 �xcl �ffi
w
18 a3!
Bagirov-Kapengut, 40th USSR
Ch 1 972. White has a slight
initiative and will defend his
backward c-pawn by {)b2-c4.
U nfortunately, however, his KB is
such a rotten piece that real
winning chances are absent, and
the game was duly agreed drawn at Larsen-T ringov, T eesside 1972.
the adjournment on move 4 1 . If White has any advantage, a
A22 microscope is needed to reveal it.
7 . . • .£!c6 Black's position is solid and his
8 c4 pieces are well placed, but he soon
Bellon has tried R d4!?, e.g. 8 . . . became very short of time, which
Ag4?! (8 . . . ed!? 9 .£! x d4 .§ e8) 9 probably accounted for White's
62 Fianchetto Opposition
eventual victory. I b3 does have
many prac tical advantages,
including being less usual than the
normal opening repertoire, and
these Larsen understands very well ,
turning them regularly to account.
A23
7 . . . .§e8 8 .§ e l c5! 9 a4 .£lc6 1 0
.£la3 Jte6 I I .£lc4? ( I I d3) I I . . .
.£) x e4 1 2 f4 �4 1 3 Axe4 d5+
Bellon-Polugayevsky, Palma 1972.
B '§'a5+ ! 9 .£ld2 .£le4 I 0 �c2
3 .:£) £3 Jlg7
4 e3
For 4 g3 and 4 c4 see trans­
position to King's I nd ian Defence,
p. 1 06.
4 0 0 0 0- 0 ( 73)
White has chosen a rather
passive system which should place
few difficulties in Black's route to
equality. Black can choose a very
solid Grunfeld set-up with . . . d5
and c6, or play more
a m b i t iously w i th c5.
Alternatively, h e can employ a
King's I ndian strategy with . . . d6,
. . . .£lbd7 , . . . e5, etc . Since this
unambitious line hardly lends itself
to specific and concrete analysis,
our investigations are limited to a
few salient examples:
BI 5 c4
B2 5 Ae2
Bl
5 c4 c5
6 Jle2
6 df cd 7 .£l · d4 .£lc6 8 Jle2
i!f x d 2-t-
= Pohla-S hi anovsky,
R iga 1 968 .
6 4Jc3 .£lc6 7 �c l e6 8 Jle2 dS C)
cd cd I 0 .£la4 b6 I I d4 .£lc4 1 2 0- 0
Jtb7 ± Holmov-Hermlin, R iga
1 968 . or course, there was no need
to hurry so with . . . d5.
6 . . . .£lc6
7 0-0
Now:
a) 7 . . . dS 8 .£la3 d4 9 ed cd 10 d3
.£)d7 I I .§el .£lc5 12 Jlf1 .§e8 1 3
.§ b l e5 1 4 Jlal .£lb4 1 5 i!fd2 a5 1 6
.£lc2 A£5+ Lju b�jevic-Smejkal,
Palma 1972, where White's play
was q uite devoid of energy. I f
White tries simplification b y 8 cd he
will give Black few problems, but
alternative attempts to maintain
tension have not been impressive,
e.g. 8 d3 .Q.g4 9 .£le5 Ax e2 1 0
i!fx e2 §c8 I I .£ld2 = Pohla­
Kagan, R iga 1 968 .
b) 7 . . . b6 8 d3 (8 d4 cd 9 ed d5 ) -=
8 . . . Jlb7 9 .£)bd2 e6 1 0 a3 i!fe7 I I
.§ c l .§ ad8 1 2 .§ c2 d6 1 3 �a l e5 1 4
 Fianchetto OppositioTI f• 'I

.§. e l .§. feB = Andersson-Keene, a) 6 0-0 e5 7 d3 .£lbd7 8 .£)bd:l •·h ' l

Montilla 1 974 ( !- ! in 57 ) . �c ) �c7 1 0 .§. d t + Klingov
82 Podrazhanskaya, Riga 1 968. (Was
5 Jle2 d6 (74) Riga 1 968 a theme tournament!?)
b) 6 d4 e5 7 c4 (7 de .£)g4) 7 . . .
.£lbd7 8 .£lc3 .§. e8 9 �c2 c6 1 0 0-0
�e7 I I .§. fd l e4! 1 2 .£)d2 .£)ffi 1 3 b4
h5 1 4 d5! Lein-Lapenis, R iga 1968 .
Black's K-side attack with . . .
.£)8h7, . . . .£lg5, . . . Jlg4 or even
with . . . h4 and . . . h3 is rather
slow, but it is vtaying for higher
stakes than Whi te's offensive on the
other wing. Both sides have
chances, but Black should have
played 1 3 . . . d5! while he still had
Now: the possibility.
14 English-Related Variations

This chapter covers vanous <£Jc6. I n that case, however, White

English-related vanauons arising can obtain a decent position of a
out of the move orders: Grunfeld type with colours reversed
A I <£lf.3 c5 2 b3?! after 3 ,ilb2 d6 4 d4! cd 5 <£j x d4
B I b3 c5 2 r4 and if the <£jd4 is attacked then
A <£j x c6 and g3 .
I <£jf.3 c5 AI
2 b3?! 2 ... d6! (75)
At this precise moment the Q­
side fianchetto can hardly be
recommended . The point is that
Black can play for the V formation
with pawns on c5, d6 and e5, which
reduces the white QB to something
of a spectator. The disadvantage of
the V formation is the weakness of
d5, but with White's knight already
on f.3 it is difficult for him to derive
any profi t from this weakness. With
White's KN on e2 the story would The most accurate.
be quite diiTerent (see section B) . 3 Ab2
Now: After 3 d4 cd 4 <£j x d4 d5!
AI 2 . . . d6! followed by . . . e5 , Black will
A2 2 . . . <£116 dominate the centre, since White's
Apart from the obvious trans­ KN, unable to exchange on c6 as in
posi tions which bedevil classifica­ the note to the previous move, must
tion in this opening (e.g. 2 . . . d5 3 retreat with consequent loss of
e3) , Black can also choose 2 . . . tempo.

3 . . . eS
4 c4
An immediate attempt to fight
back in the centre by 4 e3 4Jc6 S d4
is doomed to failure, viz. S . . . cd 6
ed e4 7 4Jfd2 dS 8 c4 4Jffi 9 cd
� x dS (According to Soltis 9 . . .
4J x dS 1 0 4J x e4 .ilb4+ with . . .
�e7 to follow is also good for
Black.) 1 0 4Jc3!? � x d4 I I 4Ja4
Nikolayevsky-Popov, U kraine­
Bulgaria 1 968 . Now Black played
I I . . . i!fdS 1 2 .i}_c4 �gS and lost,
but I I . . . �d8! is excellent for
Black.
4 d3 4Jc6 S c4 transposes back to
the column, but 4 d3 () S g3 4Jc6 6
..il.g2 4Jffi 7 4Jbd2 _ile7 8 0-0 4Jg4
9 c4 hS! 10 a3 aS I I h3 4Jh6 1 2 e3
h4! is convincingly in Black's
favour, A n toshin-Gurgenidze,
USSR 1 974 (0� I in 20) . White was
too passive all through.
4 . . . 4Jc6
4 . . . e4 gains time, but
ultimately undermines Black's
central position. With the text he
continues his thematic effort to stifle
White's QB.
S 4Jc3
Solid, if unambitious, 1s the
Andersson method: S d3 g6 6 4Jc3
.ilg7 7 e3 4Jge7 8 ,ile2 0-0 9 0-0 and
White wi ll wait for his chances when
Black plays . . . dS. He adopted this
method against Stean at H astings
1 974 /S.
English-&lated Variations 65
s g6
6 g3 Ag7
7 d3 4Jge7
Two possible plans are now
instantly available to Black: (i) a
central advance with . . . dS, or ( ii)
a K-side attack with . . . t:i.
7 . . . 4Jffi is less flexible since
territorial conquest with . . . dS is
hindered by lack of protection for
eS, while the knight must move
again to allow . . . 5. One example,
Petrosian-Portisch, Candidates !­
final, 9th match game, Palma 1 974,
went 7 . . . 4Jffi 8 �2 0-0 9 0-0
4JhS 10 4Jd2 Ag4 ( 1 0 . . . () I I f4 ef
1 2 gf Jld4+ 1 3 'lfth l �h4 14 �e l
� x e l I S .§. a x e l .i}_e3 1 6 ,.il.dS+
�g7 1 7 4Jd l -t- _ild4 is unclear,
according to M atanovic . ) I I a3
Jlh6?! ( I I . . . �d7 ! 1 2 .§. e l .i}_h3
13 .i}_h l ()) 1 2 b4 4Jd4 (or 1 2 . . . cb
13 ab 4J x b4 1 4 Jla3 aS IS h3 .i}_e6
1 6 ..Q.x b7 Jlx h3 1 7 ..Q. x a8 � x a8
18 4Jf3 _ilx fl 19 Jl x b4 J1.h3 20
A x d6 .§. e8 21 4JdS J ) 1 3 h3 (On
1 3 ..Q. x b7 M atanovic gives the
amazing 1 3 . . . 4Jf4! which seems
to give Black a dangerous attack,
e.g. 1 4 gf ..Q.x f4 threatening . . .
i!rh4.) 1 3 . . . J1.e6 1 4 e3 cb I S ah
4Jc6 1 6 bS 4Je7 17 Jlx b7 A>< h3 18
Jl x a8 ..Q. x fl 1 9 'lft x fl � x a8 20
�f3 �b8 21 g4 .£Jg7 22 '#ffi 4Jg()
23 gf 4:) / () 24 c4 4Jg7 25 'lftci .£Jh5
26 i!rh4 f5 27 4Jd5 I -0.
8 .a,g2 0 -0
9 0- 0 h6
66 English-Related Variations
I n preparation for . . . Jle6 . this is not a wonderful advertise­
10 {)d 2 1.1.e6 ment for White's system.
I I a3 A2
U nfortunately White has to 2 • . {)£6
•

waste a move since I I {)d5 is 3 Jlb2 e6

defeated by I I . . . J1x d5 followed 4 c4 i.te7
by . . . {)b4, winning a pawn. 5 g3 b6
II . . . d5!? (76) 6 Jtg2 Jlb7
I I . . . �d 7 followed by . . . 7 0-0 0--0
§. ae8 and . . . f5 is also a solid idea, 8 {)c3 d5
the more so given the passive role 9 {)e5 ( 77)
played by White's QB. 9 cd {) x d5 1 0 {) x d5 Jl x d5 I I
�bl {)d7 1 2 §. d i J}.f6 ! 3 d4 cd 1 4
76 {) x d4 J1 x g2 1 5 � x g2 �c7
Larsen - Poluga yevsk y, H avana
w
1 967. White has very little,
although the pressure against c6
(e.g. by 1 6 �e4) could turn into
something against inaccurate
d e fe n c e . H oweve r , Larsen
abandoned 9 cd for 9 c:£le5,
reaching the position m the
d iagram.

The column is Keene-Timman, 77

Reykjavik 1 972, 'one of my less B
happy expenences with the
N i mzowitsch-Larsen Attac k ' .
Black's choice of I I t h move cuts
right across White's strategic idea of
occupying d5, so White decided to
inaugurate murky complications
with 1 2 b4!? the game continuing 1 2
. . . c b 1 3 a b {) x b4 1 4 J1a3 a5 1 5 cd
{)e x d5 1 6 {)xd5 {) x d5 1 7 Jlx f8 Now:
{)c3 18 �e l ? J1 x f8+ . 18 Jlx g7 ! a) 9 • {)c6 10 f4 §. c8 I I e3 a6 1 2
• •

{) x d ! 1 9 Jlx e5 would have left cd ed 1 3 §. c l b5 1 4 a4 {)a5 ( 1 4 . . .

the situation obscure. All the same, b4) 1 5 ab ab 1 6 b4! cb 1 7 c:£) 7 b5

.§. x c l 18 't!rx c l J}.a6 1 9 €)c6
€) x c6 20 't!r x c6 't!rc8 21 €)a7 't!re6
22 §. a I ± for Black's pieces are
loose and his Q-side pawns weak,
Larsen-Matulovic, Sousse 1 967 .
b) 9 . . . 't!rc7 1 0 €)b5 't!rc8 I I e3 de
12 be €)bd7 13 J}.x b7 't!rx b7 1 4
't!r£3 't!r '"' f3 1 5 €) x f3 .§. fd8 1 6 .§. fd I
€)e8 1 7 � a6 18 €)c3 €)d6 1 9 d3
b5 20 c b ab 21 �e2 Larsen-Keres,
Winnipeg 1 967 ( !- � in 45) . Keres
defended very easily and seemed to
be getting the upper hand after 1 9
. . . b5 .
c) 9 • • €)bd7 J O f4 "t!rc8 I I e3 dc l 2
• to put the bishop on d3, but after 6
be J}. x g2 1 3 � x g2 €) x e5 1 4 fe
€)d7 1 5 €)c4 15 J 6 efand W hite has
something since Black's K-side
pawns arc weakened , Larsen­
Pachman, H avana 1 967 . Larsen­
Donner from the same tournament
varied with 10 . . . €) x e5 I I fe €)g4
1 2 e4 4J x e5 1 3 ed Affi 1 4 d4 €)g6
15 de ed ( �- � in 3 1 ) .
B suggested 1 4 . . . � 1 5 i!Ya2 €)g4
1 b3 c5
2 c4 (78)
Besides this switch to an English
type game, White has the option of
2 e4 leading to a variation of the
Sicilian Defence (see p. 109) .
We now examine:
BI 2 . . . b6
B2 2 . . . €)f6
H:l 2 . . . €)c6
Bl
2 ... b6
A good , solid defence is afforded
'
English-Related Variations 67
by the Q-fianchetto, as m
Petrosian-Saidy, San Antonio
1 972. After 3 J}.b2 Jtb7 4 €)£3 €)f6
5 e3 e6 6 Jte2 ( I t is more aggressive
d4 cd 7 €) x d4 W hite's position
lacks dynamism, while 7 ed d5 is
very satisfactory for Black.) 6 . . .
J}.e7 7 0-0 0-0 8 d4 d5 (also 8 . . . cd
9 ed c5 ! ) 9 de Jtxc5 10 €)bd2 €)c6
I I cd "t!r x d5 1 2 a3 .§. fd8 1 3 i!Ybl
Jte7 14 .§. d l .§. ac8 Black obtained
a position which held out every
prospect of a draw. Larsen
as a good alternative. I n the game
Saidy blundered with 15 b4 � 1 6
i!Ya2 €)e4 1 7 €) x e4 't!r x e4 1 8 't!rb3
h6 1 9 h3 .§. x d l + ( 1 9
€)b8!-Larsen) 20 .§. x d l §.dB?? 2 1
Ad3 't!rd5 2 2 Jlh 7 + ± ± .
B2
2 • • • €)£6
3 J}.b2 g6?!
A less reliable defence, e.g. -l
A x ffi ef 5 €)c3 Jlg7 6 g3 €)c6 I
Jlg2 15 reaching the J?cal' pawn
structure with the bishop on g7
68 English-Related Variations
when the white bishop is missing,
though here it is not so ideal since
White has a total grip on d5 . The
whole question of when a
fi anchettoed bishop can be
exchanged for a knight is highly
complex, but this looks like one of
the cases where the exchange is a
very reasonable proposition .
Karpov-Browne, San Antonio
1972, continued 8 e3 0--0 9 <£Jge2 a6
10 §. c l b5 I I d3 ..Q.b 7 1 2 0--0 d6 1 3
�d2 �a5 1 4 §. fa ! §. ab8 1 5 <£ld5
�xd2 1 6 §. xd2 b4 1 7 d4 §. fd8
and now Karpov gives 1 8 de de 19
§. cd I threatening <£Je7+ ± .
I nstead the fu ture World
Champion played 1 8 §.cdl cd 19 ed
\t>ffi 20 c5 when 20 . . . <£la7 ! kept
Black in the game a while longer.
See also Keene-Bellon (p. 7 1 ) .
I t is also extremely risky for Black
to strive for a Maroczy set-up with
colours reversed after 2 . . . <£116 3
..Q.b2, e.g. 3 . . . d5 4 cd <£Jxd5 5
<£11'3 <£Jc6 and now:
a) 6 a3 ffi?! (6 . . . e6) 7 e3 e5 8 �c2
Jie6 9 .Q.d3 g6 1 0 h4! Jig7 ( 79)
79
w to that in section A, but here White's
I I <£Jc3 <tJx c3 1 2 ..ll x c3 §. c8 1 3 h5
�d4 1 4 ed cd 1 5 hg dc 16 de �b6 ! 7
.Q.c4! with a strong attack,
Timman-Adorjan, Wijk aan Zee
1 974.
b) 6 <£lc3 e5 7 e3 <£Jc7?! 8 §. cl ..lld 6
9 <£le4 0--0 (a pawn sacrifice which
White refutes brilliantly) 10 <£J x c5
f5 I I h4! �e7 1 2 <£Jg5 .Q.x c5 1 3
§. x c5 <£Je6 (or 1 3 . . . �xc5 1 4
..llc4+ <{t>h8 1 5 �h5 h6 1 6
�g6± ± ) 1 4 ..llc 4! §. ffi 1 5 §. x c6
be 1 6 ..ll x e5 §. g6 1 7 � .Q.d7 1 8
� x £5 with a dominating position
for White, Stean-S. Webb,
National Club Ch 1 974.
B3
2• • • <£Jc6
A genuine English, but Black
cannot employ the equalizing
system with knights on c6 and e7
and pawns on c5, e6, g6 etc.
3 .Q.b2 e5
4 g3 d6
4 . . . d5 is risky in view of 5 cd
�xd5 6 <£11'3, e.g. 6 . . . e4!? 7 <£Jc3
�e6 8 <£lg5 �g6 9 h4;;!;: , but not 9
<tJgx e4? 15 ! The text plans solid
development followed eventually
by . . . d5 or . . . 15, strategy similar
position is more adaptable.
4 . . . <£Jge7 , planning a quick . . .
d5, has not been tried but is
obviously worth consideration, now
that White is committed to a K-side
fi anchetto.
5 .Q.g2 g6

Also possible is 5 . . . f5, e.g. 6 d3
.£lffi 7 .£)c3 .$1.e7 8 e3 0-0 9 .£lh3 h6
1 0 f4 .$1.d7 I I 0-0 .£lg4 1 2 i:!fd2 ..llffi
1 3 .£)d5 .§. e8 1 4 .£)x ffi+ gf 1 5
.§. ae l ± Horwitz-Harrwitz, match
game, London 1 849. Black's
inferior handling of the later
opening is no condemnation of 5
0 0 f5 .
0
6 e3 Ag7
7 .£jc3 .£lge7
8 .£)ge2!
Less accurate is 8 d3?! ..lle 6!
(Positionally unsound is 8 . . . h5? 9
.£)£3 .£lf5 1 0 h3 Ae6 I I .£ld5 h4 1 2
g4 .£lh6 1 3 a3! f5 1 4 gf gf 1 5 .§. g l
.$1.ffi 1 6 Ah l Axd5 1 7 c d .£je7
Timman-Velimirovic, Amsterdam
1 974. Best now is 18 .£ld2 .£lf7 19 b4
b6 20 be be 21 .£lc4 and f4± .) 9
.£)ge2 (9 .£)d5?! j1xd5 1 0 cd
i!fa5+ ! I I i!fd2 .£lb4 or I I c;!ile2
.£lb4 1 2 e4 leaving White's king
badly placed, though he has the
bishop pair in compensation .) 9 . . .
d5 10 0-0 0-0 I I .§. c l b6 1 2 cd ( 1 2
e4) 1 2 . . . .£j x d5 1 3 .§.c2 i!fd7 1 4
i!fa l .§. ads+ Williams-Radulov,
Nice Olympiad 1 974.
8 0 0 0 0-0
Black runs a number of risks ifhe
tries to push through with . . . d5
without the tempo granted by 8
d3? , e.g. 8 . . . Ae6 9 0-0 d5 1 0 cd
.£)x d5 I I .£la4 b6 1 2 d4! or even I I
.£)e4 b6 1 2 .£)f4!!? .£) x f4 1 3 .£lffi+
J}.x ffi 1 4 Jl:x! c6+ c;fjlffi 1 5 ef .§. c8 1 6
fe! ± .
English-Related Variations 69
9 d3 Ae6 (80)
80
w
This development of the bishop is
more thematic than 9 . . . Af5
which not only fails to fight for the
d5 square, but blocks any advance
of the f-pawn. Keene-Penrose,
Counties Ch 1 974, continued 9 . . .
.$1.f5 1 0 0-0 i!fd7 1 1 .£)d5 .£jxd5 1 2
cd .£le7 1 3 e4 j1h3 (Black has no
choice but to exchange the l ight­
squared bishops, which favours
White.) 14 i!fd2 .§. ae8 1 5 .§. ael h5
16 f4 b6 1 7 J}.c3 c;fjlh7 18 i!fb2 .£)g8
19 f5 Ax g2 20 c;!il x g2 .i}.h6 2 1 .£)gl
.£lffi 22 Ad2 i!fd8 23 .£)£3 .£ld7 24
fg+ fg 25 Ax h6 c;!ilx h6 26 i!fd2+
c;fjlg7 27 .£jg5 .§_X fl 28 .§_X fl .£jffi
29 i!¥1'2! i!fe7 30 .£le6+ c;fjlf7 31 h3
.§.g8 32 g4 hg 33 hg g5 34 i!rf5 .§.g6
35 .§. h i i!fe8 36 .§. h7+ c;!ilg8 37
f! x a7 1 - 0.
1 0 .£ld5 i!fd7
Or 10 . . . .§. b8 I I i!fd2 i!fd7 1 2
h4 h5 1 3 .£lec3 a6 1 4 0-0-0 b5 1 5 f4
.$1.g4 1 6 .§. dfl .£) x d5 ( I f 1 6 . . . b4
1 7 .£)e4 and Black cannot protect
g5 with his h-pawn, which is one of
70 English-Related Variations
the cunning points of 1 2 M.) 1 7
� x d5 �e7 Larsen-Hecht, Busum
1 969. Larsen considered . . . h5 an
essential reply to the threat of
White's h-pawn, but this opinion is
certainly open to doubt. Anyway,
Black managed to draw in this
particular case, albeit with some
difficulty.
I I M!?
White's most ambitious line. H e
could play positionally with I I 0-0.
II . . . f5
'The only good move was I I . . .
h5.' ( Larsen)
1 2 �d2 .§. ae8
1 3 h5 b5
I f 1 3 . . . g5 1 4 h6 Ah8 1 5
0-0-0± . The column i s Larsen­
Kavalek, Lugano 1 970, and
Larsen's own notes appeared m
Chess Life & Review, July 1 970.
14 hg hg
1 5 �ec3 be
16 de e4
1 7 0-0-0 �e5
Aiming at the d3 square.
18 �f4 .§.d8
Not 18 . . . g5? 19 � x e6 �d3+
20 �xd3 ed 21 � x g7 r31 x g7 22
�d5+ r3ig6 23 Af3± ± .
1 9 r3ib l (81)
To avoid unpleasant checks on
d3, but there are other drawbacks.
This position is critical for an
assessment of White's whole plan
with h4 and 0-0-0, as well as
Black's omission of . . . h5. Larsen's
81
B
o\\ 11 uutt: i udica tes that Kavale k
spent 1 6 of his remaining 28
minutes over his move here, and
goes on 'he was probably looking
for a good continuation after 19 . . .
..Q.x c4 20 be � x c4 2 1 �e2, but it is
not there. I n the end he made a
plausible move which makes i t
easier for White t o start his attack.
I t is very important to find the best
in such difficult positions. I n my
opinion, Black had only one good
move, 1 9 . . . a6 . I t looks strange,
but in many variations �b5 is a
strong move for W hi te. The move
chosen blocks a Oight square lor the
king.' But all this is incorrect. After
19 . . . .i1, x c4!! 20 be � x c4 21 �e2
� x b2 22 r31x b2 (22 �x b2? .§. b8)
22 . . . �a4! (82) it is Black who
wins!
Possibly Larsen overlooked 23 .§.d4
cd! 24 � x a4 d3+ , or maybe 23
�c2 .§. b8+ ( not 23 . . . �b4+ 24
�b3+ ) 24 r3ic l �a3+ 25 �2
.§. b2+ . I t is clear that White has no
defence to the threat of . . . �b4+
or . . . .§. b8+ after 22 . . . �a4. I t
 English-Related Variatiom 71

82 5 -'i.g2 g6?!
w Very risky, although Black's play
can possibly be justified .
6 Ax ffi
The only way to punish Black's
5th move. White devalues Black's
K-side pawns and takes fi rm
control of dS, bu t Black does obtain
some dark-square counterplay.
6 ef
seems that White's last chance 7 �c3 hS!
would have been 19 � x e6! and if 8 h4! ,ilh6! (83)
19 . . . � x e6 20 �e2, planning to
give up the exchange on d3. 83
Kavalek missed 19 . . . Jtx c4, w
continuing with the meek 19 . . .
ilP , when the game concluded
with 20 g4 � x g4 (20 . . . Jix c4!?)
21 f3 ef 22 Ax f3 �eS 23 �h2
Axc4 ( much too late now, of
course) 24 be �x f3 25 �h7+ <;!;>f7
26 �cdS .§. g8 27 � x e7 .§. b8 28
<;!tal � x e7 29 � x g6+ <;!;>ffi 30
�e6+ � x e6 31 Jl.x g7+ <;!;>e7 32 Black's last two moves constitute
Affi+ .§. b x ffi 33 .§. h7+ 1 -0. an excellent plan which gains some
space for him on the K-side and also
Keene-Bellon places the KB on an extremely
Clare Benedict, Menorca 1 974 aggressive post. By comparison, 7
I c4 cS ilg7 would be merely
2 b3 stereotyped .
Preferring this version of the 9 �f3
Nimzowitsch- Larsen Attack to the White would prefer to develop
equalizing line in the English by 2 this piece on e2 in order to maintain
�c3 �c6 3 g3 g6 with . . . e6 to contact with dS, but after 9 e3 Jlg4
follow. 10 �ge2 �eS is unpleasant.
2 �ffi 90 0 0 Jlg4
3 Jlb2 d6 10 �dS 0-0
4 g3 �c6 I I 0-0 .§. e8
72 English-&lated Variations
1 2 e3 <£je5 84
A good move which provokes
B
White into playing d4, when Black
has a target for counter-attack.
1 3 d4 cd
14 ed <£jc6
1 5 't!Yd3 1J.s7
Less consistent would be 1 5 . . .
-'tf5 1 6 't!Yc3 .§ e2 1 7 .§ ael .§c2 1 8
't!Ya l when White has the threat of
.§ e8+ followed by <£j x ffi.
16 .§ ael 't!Ya5 followed by <£lf7 + and <£Jd6± ± . I f
1 7 <£le3 f5? i n this variation 21 . . . ef+ 22
An over-ambitious advance � x f2 �d2+ 23 �gl .Q.x d4+ 24
which places Black in a precarious �h i and wins.
situation. With 1 7 . . . Ax f3 18 19 Jle6
Ax f3 f5! he would have 20 Jlx e6 fe
maintained equal chances. 21 't!Y x g6 .§ e7
1 8 . <£lg5 Or 21 . . . fe 22 fe and �h7 mate
White now destroys the to follow.
opposition with a few tactical 22 <£ld5 ! ed
strokes. 18 . . . <£J x d4 is no answer 23 .§ x e7 <£j x e7
because of 19 f3 f4 20 fg fe 21 24 �+ �h8
-'td5± ± . 25 �x h5+ �g8
18 . . . f4 26 i!Yf7+ �h8
Necessary to salvage his QB, and 27 <£le6 Axd4
if 19 gf? Af5 20 't!Yd I <£j x d4+ . 28 <£j x d4 �c3
1 9 Jld5 ! ! (84) 29 � x f4 <£Jc6
Forcing the win. 19 . . . fe 20 1 -0
Ax f7+ �h8 2 1 i!Yx g6 �f5 22 Black resigned without waiting
�x f5 Ax f5 23 fe 1J.g4 24 Ax e8 for any more.
15 Queen's Fianchetto Variations
Where Black meets I b3 with a
Queen's fi anchetto, two versions
may be noted:
A I . . b6-Symmetrical
. Symmetrical Variation on a
B I . . . b5-Extended
A able
I b3 b6
Whi te's slow opening allows
Black such latitude of response that
defence by symmetry is by no
means rukd out.
2 ilb2 Jlb7 (85)
This posi tion can clearly
transpose into a Rird system (see p.
76) or into the English ( I c4 c5 2
h3 b6 p. fy7 ) or even into the
quieter lines of the Queen's I ndian
Defence.
Larsen has had to face the
number of occasions but has been
to d emonstrate little
conclusive for White against Black's
best defence.
3 f4
3 e3 <£jffi 4 f4 transpostes to p. 80,
but 3 e3 f5?! is too loosening, e.g. 4
Jle2! <£lffi (4 . . . Jl>< g2 5 Jlh5 +
g6 6 Jll'3 ! i: j- l 5 A;< ffi! ef 6 A1'3
4Jc6 7 <£)e2 g6 8 c4 Jld6 9 4Jbc3
0- 0 10 a3 .§ e8 I I b4 ilfc8 1 2 d4
l2Jd8 1 3 c5 Jlffi 14 <£)f4 �g7 15 h4
<£le6 1 6 <£) >< e6+ .§ Y e6 I 7 <£ld5
.§ e8 1 8 h5 ± Larsen- Bellon, Palma
1 97 1 ( 1 - 0 m 3 3 ) . A more
symmetrical continuation for
White promises very little at best a
transposition into the Queen's
I ndian Defence.
3 . . . e6
For a dou ble fianchetto by Black
I . . . t:)fl) and . . . �) see Bird
systems l p. HO) .
1 1" 3 . . f5 4 e3 <£)1"6?! 5 A / ffi! effi
.
74 Queen's Fianchetto Variations
{lf.3 lle7 7 {lc3 g6 8 h3 l;tb4 9
{lb5 a6 1 0 {lbd4 {lc6 I I {l x c6
Jlxc6 1 2 Jld3 i!fe7 1 3 i!fe2 a5 1 4
g4! ± Larsen-Colon, San J uan
1 969, which continued 1 4 . . . fg 1 5
hg 0-0-0 1 6 c3 Jld6 1 7 0-0-0
.§.deS 1 8 i!ffl Jla3+ 1 9 'iftc2 l;te4
20 .§. h3 ( I -0 in 39) . After 3 . . . f5 4
e3 Soltis gives 4 . . . e6 5 i!fh5+ g6 6
i!fh3 {lffi 7 l;te2 J;tg7 8 J;tf.3± . I n
fact, it seems that Black i s taking on
an unnecessary burden by inserting
. . . f5 in the early opening.
4 e3 {lffi
5 {lf.3 c5
6 Jld3!? {lc6
There cannot be much wrong
with . . . Jle7 .
7 0-0 i!fc7
8 {lc3 a6
9 a3 d5
With a complicated and unclear
position . Larsen-Wade, Hastings
197 2 / 3 , went on 10 {le2 b5 I I
Ax f6 ( this move seems to be a real
favourite with Larsen. ) I I . . . gf 1 2
c4 d e 1 3 be b4 1 4 Jlc2 0-0-0 1 5
i!fbl and though Larsen won on
move 52 it had little to do with the
opemng.
Larsen's capture Jlb2 x ffi is very
interesting in these lines. I t appears
that, given White's flexible pawn
structure (with the doubled pawns
rend ering Black's relatively
immobile) and the lack of central
contact between the opposing
pawn armies, knights will show to
grl'ater ad \·a n tage than bishops.
Compare here the games Karpov­
Browne (p. 68) and N imzowitsch­
Tartokower ( p. 85) . In the latter
game the exchange was less
opportune, since the possessor of the
bishops was able to organize a
breakthrough in the centre.
B
I b3 b5 (86)
Black shows a slightly greater
degree of optimism in the Extended
Variation .
86
w
I t is interesting at this point to
refer back to the extract from the
Gottingen MS, quoted in the
i ntrod unor y section (p. i x ) , in
which . . . b5 was a rell'vant move.
Compare too the opening of
� i mzowi tsch Tarta km, n in t h l'
D u tc h D di.·m·1· ! p . Wl
One cannot say that I . . . b5 is at
all inferior. In a different context (I
<£)13 {lffi 2 g3 b5 ) the move has
been employed a number of times
by such masters as Spassky,
Lj ub�jevic and Hecht. Practical
 Queen's Fianchetto Variations 75
examples of the E xtended 87
Variation are, however, scarce-to
w
say the least.
Pritchard-Basman, British Ch,
Brighton 1972, went 2 e3 Jlb7 3
Jlb2 e6 4 f4 {)ffi 5 {)f3 b4 6 Jle2
Jl.e7 7 0-0 0-0 8 {)e5 a5 9 a4?! {)c6
1 0 Jl.f3 .§. a6 I I i!i'e2 i!i'a8! 1 2 d3
{) x e5 13 fe {)d5 and Black stood
well although he eventually lost.
TimmarP-Bohm, Amsterdam looked like making any headway at
1975, continued with 2 Jl.b2 Jl.b7 3 all after Black's eccentric fi rst move.
{)f3 {)ffi 4 e3 a6 5 Jle2 e6 6 0-0 Larsen-Menvielle, Las Palmas
Jl.e7 7 d3 d5 8 {)bd2 {)bd7 9 .§. e l 1972, went 2 e3 Jl.b7 3 {)f3 a6 4
b4 1 0 a 3 a 5 I I Jl.fl {)c5 1 2 {)e5 0-0 Jl.b2 e6 5 c4 b4?! (5 . . . be!?) 6 d4
1 3 {)df3 {)fd7 1 4 {) x d 7 {) x d 7 1 5 {)ffi 7 {)bd2 Jl.e7 8 Jld 3 0-0 9
.§. a2 Jlffi 1 6 i!ra l c 5 (87) i!rc2 d6 1 0 e4 {)bd7 I I 0-0± .
1 7 A x ffi i!rx ffi 18 i!r x ffi gf 19 Larsen also gives I I 0-0-0!? H ardly
.§. ea l {)e5 20 ab !- ! . White never a refutation of I . : . b5 .
16 Bird Systems
This c hapter deals with:
A R eversed Nimzo-I ndian
I b3 d5 2 .Q.b2 c5 3 e3 �c6
B Symmetrical Variation
C Double Fianchetto
I b3 �ffi 2 .Q.b2 b6 3 e3 .Q.b7 4 fl
D Other lines
I b3 �ffi 2 Jtb2 d5 /g6
A Reversed Ninlzo-- lndian
Among the lines examined
elsewhere in the book, we have
considered those in which White
played �f3 before f4. The
N imzo I ndian Defence was, of
course, only introduced into
tournament play in the second
decade of the 20th century, when
�imzowitsch was able to convince
lead ing players of the dav that the
delayed occupation of the centre
was a viable al ternative to the
Qu een ' s Gambit D e c l i ned .
However, he made little distinction
between the black and white forces
when applying his theory (which
may explain his great successes as
Black) and freq uently played the
Nimzo-l ndian with White during
the period when he was establishing
the correctness of his Black defence
to I d4. He played �f3- e5 followed
by f4 and several examples haw
been quoted in the R eversed
:\ imzo- I ndian section of chapters
;} 8 (p. 27) .
White can, however, play 14- first
and follow with �f3 . I t is a little
known fact that in this way several
1 9th century games by S taunton,
Elijah Williams and Anderssen
prefigured Nimzowitsch's strategic
notions concerning prophylaxis
and doubled pawns, but these
games were later forgotten.
Nimzowitsch's achievement was to
revive these neglected systems and
weld them into smooth theoretical
weapons which everyone could
employ in perfect safety.
For example, Staunton··Bristol
Chrss C l u b , correspondence
1841 · 2, went I f4 d5 2 �f3 c5 3 e3
�c6 4 .Q.b5! a6? 5 Jtx c6-t- bc 6 0- 0
e6 7 c4 �h6 8 i:!re2 .Q.d6 9 �c3
�e7 10 b3 ffi I I d3 (118)

88
B w
White has an excellent position
and can either play e4 or attack c5
with Jla3 and f)a4. In the event
White's Q-side fianchetto never
materialized since he was able to
play the bishop even more
effectively to e3.
Black's opening play may appear
antiquated , but compare Larsen­
Dominguez, Las Palmas 1 972: I b3
d5 2 ..Q.b2 c5 3 e3 f)c6 4 Jlb5 a6? 5
Jlx c6+ be 6 d3 f)h6 7 f)c3 e5 S e4
f5 9 f)f3 f)£7 1 0 f)a4 Jld6 I I �e2
0-0 1 2 0-0-0 .§ eS 1 3 c4 .§ b8 1 4
�b l �ffi 1 5 f)d2 f)dS 1 6 ed cd 1 7
cd Jlb7 I S f)c3 f)£7 1 9 g4 f4 20 h4
a5 21 .§dgl 1-0.
Of the older games an even more
Nimzowitschian example was
Anderssen-Kolisch, 4th match
game, London I S6 1 , which went I
f4 e6 2 f)f3 d5 3 e3 c5 4 ..Q.b5+ f)c6
5 ..Q.x c6+ bc 6 c4 ..Q.a6 7 f)a3 ..Q.d6
S 0-0 f)ffi 9 b3 0-0 1 0 Jlb2 f)d7 I I
�c2 f5?! ( I I . . ffi ! ) 1 2 .§ ae l f)ffi
. (stamping this as a close relation to
1 3 f)bl �a5 14 Jlc3 �c7 15 d3
.§ ae8 16 Jlb2 f)d7 1 7 f)bd2 e5
(89)
Bird Systems 77
89
IS g3 d4? (He should maintain the
tension wi th IS . . . .§ e7 . ) 19 fe
f) x e5 20 f) x e5 Jlx e5 2 1 f)f3
Affi 22 ed cd 23 Jlxd4 Jlx d4+ 24
f) x d4 c5 25 .§ x eS .§ x eS 26
f) x f5 ..Q.b7 27 �1'.2 h6 2S d4 cd 29
� x d4 .§ e2 30 f)x h6+ �h7 ( 30
. . . gh? 31 �g4+ ) 3 1 .§ £7 1 -0.
I b3 d5
2 ..Q.b2 c5
3 e3 f)c6
With White's KN still at home
on gl the Diagonal Block by 3 . . . ffi
is not particularly effective, e.g. 4
d4 cd 5 ed f)c6 6 f)f3 Jlg4 7 f)bd2
e6 S h3 Jlh5 9 ..Q.d3 Jld6 10 �e2
-&,e7 I I c4 with some initiatiw for
White. Also interesting is -! e-!!? de 5
�h5+ g6 6 � x c5. 3 . . . f)ffi 4 f4
e6 5 ..Q.b5+ ..Q.d 7 6 a4 f)c6
transposes to the main col umn.
4 Jlb5
f4 often fi ts into White's plans
the Bird systems) but 4 £4 at once is
normally avoided in view of 4 . . .
d4!? although after 5 ..Q.b5 it is not
78 Bird Systems
clear that Black has gained very
much. I f Biack can safely manage to
play d4 as a reaction to b3 jf4 he
should normally stand better since
e3 will be weakened and White's
QB shut out of play.
4 . . . Jld7
With the colours the other way
round 4 Jld2 is an insipid reply to
the Nimzo-l ndian Defence, but in
the R eversed N imzo- l ndian it is
quite acceptable as a defensive
manoeuvre. A lternatives, such as 4
. . . e6 or 4 . . . <£)ffi will probably
transpose to the main line; 4 . . .
�b6 may also be playable, but it
crashed badly in Bellon-Padevsky,
Skopje Olympiad 1 972, viz. 4 . . .
�b6 5 a4 a6 6 Jle2 <£)ffi 7 <£)13 e6 8
0-0 iie7 9 d3 0-0 10 <£)bd2 §. d8?
I I <£)e5 lid7 1 2 �e l �c7 1 3 f4 d4
1 4 �g3 de 15 <£) x c6 Jl x c6 1 6 Jle5
i!rb6 1 7 <£)c4 �a7 18 a5 §.ffi 1 9 15
§. ae8 20 §.f4 g6 21 i!rg5 ef22 ilfh6
Jld8 23 Jlb2 §. e6 24 §. h4 §. fe8 25
§. ll Jle7 26 §. x l5! gf 27 ilfg5+
�h8 28 ilfx l5 �g8 29 ilfg5+ 1 -0.
Here the queen became exposed on
b6 and never discovered a truly
satisfactt!ry haven .
5 f4
Bird and many other 1 9th century
masters (e.g. Chigorin at London
1 883) developed thewhite KBond3,
the true Bird's Opening. Compare
also Lasker Bauer. (p. 82) .
5 <£)ffi
6 <£)13 e6
6 . . . g6 is possible, but led to
disaster in M urei-Schechtman,
Moscow C h 1 97 1 , after 7 <£)c3 a6 8
Jlx c6 Ax c6 9 <£)e5 §. c8 I 0 �13
e6 I I g4 Jlg7 1 2 g5 <£)d7 1 3 <£)g4 d4
14 <£)e4 h5 15 gh _Q_ffi 16 ed f5 17 d5
ilfh4+ 18 �g3 1 -0.
7 0-0 .!J.e7
8 a4
Normally this will come as a
result of 3 . . . <£)ffi and thc;­
R eversed Nimzo- l ndian in chapter
5 ( p. 25) . Here we take the insertion
of an early a4 as a distinguishing
mark, but the transposi tional
possibilities are obvious.
8 . . . 0--0 (90)
90
w
Now White has:
a) 9 .!J.xc6 .!J. x c6 10 <£)e5 §. ::8 I I
d3 <£)d7 1 2 <£)d2 ffi 1 3 <£) x c6 §. x c6
1 4 e4 §. e8 1 5 ed ed 16 �h5 ;i= A .
Zaitsev-Klovan, U SSR Ch' Tbilisi
1 967 .
b) 9 ilfe2 a6 10 .ll x c6 .ll x c6 I I
<£)e5 §. c8 1 2 a5? (A strategic
blunder; White should fortify c4
 Bird Systems 79
with d3 and .:£)d2 as in a.) 1 2 . . . 9]
.:£)d7 1 3 .:£) x c6 § x c6 1 4 d3 c4! I S
B
be de 1 6 d4 <t)ffi 1 7 c 3 bS 1 8 ab
�x b6 1 9 il,a3 il, x a3 20 § x a3
<t)dS=t Larsen-Najdorf, Lugano
Olympiad 1 968.
c) 9 .:£)e5! ? .:£) x eS I 0 fe .:£)e8 I I
il,d 3! (White's clever 9th move has
at least made use of the pawn at a4
to protect the JtbS . ) I I . . . Jtc6 ( I I
. . . 15!? deserves a test.) 1 2 �g4 g6 in the centre. Compare the game
1 3 .:£)c3 .:£)g7 1 4 § f4± Ljub�jevic­ R eti-Yates, New York 1 924, from
Z uidema, Skopje Olympiad 1 972. the annus mirabilis of hypermodern
achievement: I .:£)£3 dS 2 c4 e6 3 g3
<t)ffi 4 Jtg2 il,d6 s b3 0-0 6 0-0
B Synunetrical Variation § e8 7 Ab2 .:£)bd7 8 d3 c6 9 .:£)bd2
I n the ! 9th century the symmetrical eS 10 cd cd I I .§ c l .:£)18 1 2 .§ c2
defence to Bird's Opening was quite Jtd7 1 3 �a ! .:£)g6 14 § fc l Jtc6 I S
popular but, as already indicated, .:£)0 �d7 1 6 .:£)e3 h 6 1 7 d4! (92)
( p. 71) , the attempt to defend
symmetrically against I b3, 2 Jtb2 92
and 3 f4 tends to fail for tactical B
reasons. However, it can still be
valid if White transposes into I b3
via quieter methods. I t is difficult to
reduce such posi tions to theoretical
variations, bu t we append a short
review of three older games and two
modern examples of this rare line.
a) Buckle- Lowenthal , 7th match
game, London 1 85 1 : I f4 15 2 b3 After 1 7 . . . e4 18 .:£)e5 White again
<t)ffi 3 g3 e6 4 Ab2 Jtc7 S �g2 c6 6 stood very well.
.:£)c3 .:£)a6 7 .:£)h3 d6 8 0- 0 0-0 9 e3 b) Staunton-Elijah Williams, 8th
Jl.d7 1 0 �e2 h6 I I § fe l f!rc7 1 2 match game, London ! 8S I : I f4 e6 2
.:£)f2 eS 1 3 fe d e 1 4 .:£)d3 Jtd6 I S e4! e3 15 3 g3 <t)ffi 4 Jtg2 dS S .:£)£3 c5 6
(91 ) b3 .:£)c6 7 0-0 Jtd6 8 Ab2 0-0 9
White's remarkably hypermodern �e2 Jtc7 1 0 .:£)a3 a6 1 1 § ad ! b5 1 2
play has secu red him an advantage c4:f: .
80 Bird Systems
c) Anderssen-Kolisch, 6th match
game, London 1 86 1 : I f4 f5 2 .£!1'3
.ifjffi 3 e3 e6 4 jte2 Jle7 S 0-0 0-0 6
b3 b6 7 .ifjeS?! Jlb7 8 Jlf3 c6 9 .£Jc3
�c7 1 0 Ab2 d6 I I .£Jd3 .£Jbd7 1 2
.£!1'2 eS . W hi te has wasted too much
time and Black stands better.
d) Larsen -Bilek, Busum 1 969: I b3
f5 2 Jlb2 d6 3 f4 .ifjffi 4 .£!1'3 g6 S c4
..llg 7 6 .£Jc3 0-0 7 g3 cS 8 ltg2 .£Jc6
9 d3 eS 1 0 i!fd2, transposing into a
type of English Opening where the
chances are level.
e) Torrc - R . Byrne, Leningrad
I ntcrzonal 1 973: I g3 f5 2 Jlg2 .ifjffi
3 c4 e6 4 b3 Ae7 S Jlb2 0-0 6 f4 dS
7 .£!1'3 cS 8 0-0 b6 9 e3 !J_b7 1 0 �e2
.£Jc6 (Compare Staunton-Williams­
b above) I I .£Jc3 �d7 1 2 .ifjd l
.§. adS 1 3 .£!1'2 .£Je4 1 4 d 3 .£J x 1'2 I S
� x l'2 Affi 1 6 Jlx ffi .§. x ffi 1 7 cd
i!Y x dS 18 .ifjcS �d6 19 !J_ x c6
Jlx c6 20 .§. g l Jlb7 2 1 g4 i!fc7 22
.§. g3 .§.dS 23 .§. agl ? (23 "J#"b2 ! ) 23
. . . §. x eS! 24 fe i!f x eS+ .
C Double Fianchetto Defence
I b3 .ifjffi
2 .A,b2 b6
3 e3 Jlb7
Compare the Queen's F ian­
chetto Defence proper (p. 73) ,
from which this could equally arise.
4 f4 g6
s .£!1'3 Ag7
A flexible defensive system,
which promises Black some
prospects of aggression in the centre
with . . . dS and . . . d4. The chief
danger Black must avoid is an
untimely exchange of dark-squared
bishops, which would weaken the
defences of his king.
6 Ae2
Since White often follows this
with Jlf3, one must also consider 6
g3 . Bronstein-Tukmakov, 40th
U SSR Ch 1 972, went 6 g3. 0-0 7
Jlg2 cS 8 0-0 .£Jc6 9 a4 d6 I 0 .£Ja3
a6 I I "J#"e2 .§. b8 1 2 d3 Jla8 1 3 c4 e6
14 .§. fd ! �e7 I S e4 .£Jd7 16 Jl x g7
� x g7 1 7 .ifjc2 eS !-!. Black's idea
of keeping the d-pawn on d6 to
protect eS looks very reliable.
Another line is 6 a4 a6 7 !J_e2 0--0
8 0-0 d6 9 .ifja3 c6 1 0 b4 .£Jbd7 I I
.£Jc4 �c 7 1 2 .§. a3 cS = Larsen ­
Bellin, Teesside 1 972 .
6 0 0 0 0-0
7 0-0 cS
8 a4
An interesting move, fighting
against . . . a6 plus . . . bS , and also
preparing the longer-term thrust
. . . aS .
8 .£Jc6
9 .£Ja3 dS (93)
93
w

Black's move order has allowed
him to wait u ntil this moment
before declaring his intentions. 9
. . . d6 was of course also a valid
option.
From the diagram White can
continue with either:
a) 10 i!fel e6 ( to parry i:j h4 with
. . . �e4) I I �eS ( I I d3!?) I I . . .
d4! 1 2 -'1.1'3 �dS 1 3 ed � x d4 1 4
j',txd4 c d I S ilfe4 j',tc6 1 6 .§. fe l
ilfc7 1 7 '/!r x d4 .§. adS 1 8 g 3 .§. feB
Black's bishop pair and beautiful
centralization are more than
adequate compensation for the
pawn, and White was crushed in 3S
moves, Lj u boj e v i c- S m ys l o v ,
Skopje Olympiad 1 972. Or,
b) 10 �e5 (intended as an
improvement) 10 . . . .§. c8 ( 1 0 . . .
d4!?) I I -'1.1'3 e6 1 2 i!fe2 ilfe 7 ( I f 1 2
. . . �d 7 1 3 d4! comes strongly into
consideration . White's grip on thr
centre would overshadow the slight
exposure of the light squares.) 13 d3
.§. fd8 1 4 � x c6 ,il x c6 1 S e4 �e8 ( a
good moment to offer the
exchange) 16 eS a6 1 7 c4 "t!rb7 1 8
�c2 .§. d 7
'= ( !- ! m 41 )
Lju bqjevic- Keene, Orense 197S.
D Other Lines
I b3 �ffi
2 ,ilb2 dS
Of course Black can opt for a
method without . . . dS but where
the Bird strategy is still applicable.
Bird �stems BJ
For example, 2 . . . g6 3 f4 Ag7 4
�1'3 0-0 S e3 d6 6 Jle2
(Nimzowitsch-Euwe, C arlsbad
1 929, varied with 6 i!fc l -'lg4 7
.Q.e2 �c6 8 0--0 eS 9 fe .f) x eS = ,
although White eventually won . ) 6
. . . eS !? (Another idea is 6 . . . cS
keeping a watch on the dark
squares, e.g. 7 0-0 Ag4 8 h6 j',td7 9
ilfe I �c6 10 ilfh4 e6 I I g4 �e4
Naysmith--Coles, club match,
Guildford 1976.) 7 fe �g4 8 0-0
�c6 9 �c3! with a complicated
position . I f instead White tries 9 h3
�gx eS 10 � x eS � x eS I I d4 �c6
1 2 e4 his position looks impressive
but he is over-extended after 1 2 . . .
i!fgS ! 1 3 .§. 1'3 f5 .
3 f4
Only necessary if White is in an
avian mood, since the alternatives
are legion (3 c4, 3 g3 , 3 e3, 3 �f3,
etc . ) , as we have seen.
:5 . . . g6
By no means the only feasible
defence. Black could choose 3 . . .
,ilf5 or 3 . . . e6:
a) 3 . . ,il£5 4 e3 e6 S �1'3 �bd7 6
.
g3 (6 ,ild3!?) 6 . . . ,ild6 7 Ag2
#e7 8 0- 0 eS! 9 fe � x eS 10 � / e5
Jlx eS I I d4 Jll:\"4 1 2 �d3 .i}_d6 1 3
c4 c6 and White has very little,
N imzowitsch- Strange Petersen,
Copenhagen 1 928 .
b) 3 . . e6 4 �1'3 ,ile7 5 e3 (S g3!?)
.
5 . . . �bd7 (5 . . . a6!? 6 ,ile2 c5 7
0- 0 �c6 8 "¥Vel d4! 9 �a3 b5,
Thorold - M ac kenzie, Bradford
82 Bird Systems
! 888) 6 Jld3! (Bird 's favourite
square, and also one much favoured
by Owen.) 6 . . . 4:)e4 7 4:)e5 0-0 8
0- 0 4:) x e5 9 ..Q.. x e4 4:)d7 1 0 ..Q..f3
Jlffi I I 4:)c3 c5 1 2 �el b6 1 3 g4
Jla6 1 4 d3 d4? 15 4:)e4 .§. e8 1 6
4:)x l6+ 4:) x 16 1 7 e4± Nimzo­
witsch-Buerger, London 1927.
Correct for Black would have been
14 . . . .§. c8! retaining the options of
either . . . c4 or . . . d4. The move
chosen was an error of principle in
that it stabil ized the centre for
White's K-side attack.
Lasker- Bauer, Amsterdam ! 889,
a game probably known to every­
one, followed similar lines: I f4 d5 2
e3 4:)16 3 b3 e6 (3 . . . d4) 4 ..Q..b 2
..Q..e7 5 ..Q..d 3 (One idea behind this
is 6 '/#"f3 and 7 4:)h3-Tartakower. !
5 . . . b6 6 4:)c3 ..Q..b 7 7 4:)f3 4:)bd7 8
0 0 0-- 0 9 4:)e2?! c5? (9 . . . 4:)c5!
followed by . . . 4:) ,< d 3 . The pawn
structure d2, d3, e3, which is strong
after an exchange of bishops on d3,
is less good after the bishop has been
exchanged for a knight, for the
opponent can then generate
unpleasant pressure with . . . Jla6 . )
1 0 4:)g3 �c7 I I 4:)e5 4:) Y e5 1 2
A/ e 5 �c6 1 3 "#e2 a 6 1 4 4:)h5
4:) .· h5 15 Jl · h7+ );t>_x h7 1 6
·i-W � h5+ \t>g8 1 7 Jl x g7 ! ! );t> x g7 18
�g-1- + );t>h7 1 9 .§. f3 e5 20 .§. h3+
�h6 21 .§. / h6+ \tJ;t h6 22
�d7 ' + 1 973.
Jlg7 (94)
94
w
I n this case the best, since i t
retains control over d4.
5 g3?! We have seen this move at
� ork against the D ou bl e
Fianchetto Defence, bu t Black can
pack more punch if he avoids the
fianchetto of the QB, e.g. 5 . . 0- 0 .
6 Jlg2 c5 7 0--0 4:)c6 ( threatening
. . . d4) and now:
a \ 8 .:Je5 '_j c.'l C) Jl. 1·S (9 fe 4:)g4-
· ·
since the QB still controls g4! ) 9 . . .
Jle6 1 0 e3 �d7 I I 4:)c3 d4 1 2
..Q.. x ffi ef 1 3 4:)a4 .§. ac8 1 4 e4 c4 1 5
4:)b2 b5 1 6 \t>h l f5 1 7 ef Jlx f5 1 8 be
be 1 9 d3 cd 20 4:) x d3 .§. c3 21 .§. £2
.§. feB+ R aaste Pytel, Aarhus 1 97 1 .
h Sol t is s l l !!;l!;l"stl·d t h a t 8 e3 was a 1 1
i m pro\TIIH" I l t o n H <2Je.J, but then 8
. . . d4 9 4:)a3 Jlf5 is good for Black,
e.g. 1 0 4:)e5 4:) x e5 1 1 fe 4:)g4 1 2 ed
cd 1 3 Jl x b7 4:) _x e5! 1 4 d3 (taking
the exchange could hardly be
worse) 1 4 . . . .§. b8 1 5 Jlg2 -gyd 7 1 6
Jlc l ..Q..g4 1 7 -gyei .§. b6 1 8 Jlf4
.§. e6+ Bellon- Furman, Madrid
5 0-0
6 Jle2 c5

Also possible is 6 . . . Jlg4 (or 6
. . . a5 7 a4 Jlg4) 7 0-0 4)bd7 8 d3
(8 4)g5 Jl x c2 9 � x e2 may be
slightly better for White as he has
the more flexible pawn structure in
the centre and on the K-side.) 8 . . .
c6 9 4)bd2 .£Je8 1 0 4)e5 (or 10
Jlxg7) 1 0 . . . Jlx e2 I I � x e2
4) x e5 1 2 fe 4)c7 1 3 �g4 f5 1 4 �h3
4)e6 with a thoroughly satisfactory
position for Black, Simagin­
Bikhovsky, 38th U SSR Ch Tallinn
1 965.
7 0-0 4)c6
8 4)e5! (95)
Best. He has to take measures
against . . . d4.
95
B 9 . . . 4)g4 is no longt'r availablt',
Now there are four moves, of
which the last is possibly the most
reliable:
D I 8 . . . Jld7
D2 8 . . . .£J x e5
D3 8 . . . d4?!
D4 8 . . . "#fc7
DI
8 • . . Jl_d7
Bird Systems 83
Not fearing 9 4)xd7 � x d 7
followed by . . . d4.
9 d3
9 Jlf3!?
9 . . . e6?!
Good alternatives are 9 . . . .£Je8!
or 9 . . . d4 10 4) x c6 ( 1 0 4)xd7
4)xd7 I I e4 e5 ! ) 1 0 . . . Jl x c6 I I
e4?! 4) x e4! 1 2 de d3.
10 4)d2 �c7
I I �el 4)e8 1 2 4)df3 4)d6!? 1 3
4)xd7 i!fxd7 1 4 Jl x g7 � x g7 1 5
�c3+ d4! Bellon-Keene, Palma
1 97 1 . After 16 � x c5 b6! or 1 6 ed
4)b5! 1 7 � x c5 4)cx d4. Black has
value for the pawn and the game
was eventually drawn.
02
8 ... .£J x e5
9 fe 4)d7
bu t 9 . . . 4)e4 may be an improve-
ment, e.g. 10 d3 .£Jd6! exploit­
ing the pin and aiming for
15.
1 0 d4 .£Jb8
I I Jlf3 .£Jc6 1 2 4)c3 t'6 1 3 4)a4 cd
1 4 ed Lju bojcvic-Tringov, Skopje
Olympiad 1972. Black has
completely fai led to equalize and
succumbed as follows: 14 . . . ffi 1 5 ef
Jl_ x ffi 1 6 "#fd3 b6 1 7 .§ ae l Jl.d7 1 8
c3 .§ c8 1 9 Jlc ! Jl_g5 20 Jl_a3 Jl.e7
21 ll_x e7 4) x e7 22 4)b2 "#fc7 23
4)d l �g7 24 g3 .§ffi 25 Jl_g4
.§ x O + 26 � x n �d6 27 "#:e2
4)g8 28 "#fd2 4)h6 29 4)P2 .§ e8 30
.§ e3 4)17 3 1 ll_h3 a5 32 .£jd3 a4 33
84 Bird Systems .
4Jf4 ab 34 ab 4Jg5 35 Ag2 .§ aS 36 Black has counterplay. White is a
h4 .§ a l + 37 )f(h2 4Je4 38 J;t x e4 tempo up on the comparable
dc 39 .§ x e4 �a3 40 .§ e2 � x b3 41 variation of the Queen's I ndian
4Jh5+ ! ! 1 -0. Black's whole plan of D efence.
4Jd7- b8-c6 was artificial and 04
should have been replaced by 1 0 8 . . . �c7
b6 and J;tb7 . The Possibly the most reliable move.
dissolution of White's doubled e­ Now: '

pawns also looks premature. a) 9 4J x c6 �_,< c6 10 ..llf3 ..lle6 I I

03 d3 �d7 = ( Euwe)
8• . d4?! 9 4J x c6 be 10 4Ja3
• b) 9 4Jc3! ? (Pirc) 9 . . . 4J x e5 1 0
4Jd5 I I 4Jc4. White's pawn 4Jb5 �b6 1 1 ..ll x e5 4Jc8 1 2 ..ll < g7
structure is superior, although 'lft • g7 1 3 a4 4Jd6 14 a5 �d8
17 Dutch System
b3 £3 (96)
96
w chances at this stage must be
I n this position almost anything
is possible, so to start with we give
three examples:
a) 2 ltb2 {)ffi 3 d3 d6 4 e4 e5 5 ef
Ax £3 6 {)e2 {)c6 7 d4 ite7 8 {)g3
itg6 9 de de 10 � x d8+ .§. x d8 I I
ltb5 0- 0. Black has active play and
won in 23 moves! Planinc Bilek,
Vrsac 1 97 1 .
b) 2 Jtb2 d6 3 c4 ( 3 f4!?) 3 . . . e5 4
e3 {)c6 5 {)P.3 {)16 6 ite2 g6 7 h4
itg7 8 {)c3 e4 9 {)g5 {)e5 10 �c2
h6 I I {)h3 ite6 1 2 0 - 0-0 �d7 1 3
{)f4 ltf7 1 4 f3 g5 1 5 {)fd5 {) X d5
16 cd with extremely complicated
play in a position which arose, by a
slightly d i fferent rou te, m
Lj u boj evic-Szabo , H i lversum
1 973. Although Black won, White's
superior.
c) 2 {)P.3 b6 3 ltb2 Jlb7 4 g3
Ax P.3?! 5 ef e6 6 f4 {)ffi 7 Jlg2 c6 8
0 - 0 Ae7 9 �e2 0-0 10 {)a3 a5 I I
{)c4 a4 1 2 Ad4 b5 1 3 {)e5 {)d5
( 1 3 . . . {)a6!) 1 4 c4 be 1 5 be {)b4
16 ltc3 a3 1 7 d4+ (97)
Nimzowitsch-Tartakower, Carls­
bad 1923.
97
B
Black's 4th move was out of place
since he had no real chance of
getting a grip on d4. Moreover,
White was able to attain the ideal
86 Dutch System
structure with pawns on f2, f4 and
g3 and with a bishop on g2 to
support the advance of his centre
pawns to c4 and d4. ( Had the pawn
on f2 been on f3 it would have been
a different story. )
Dutch formations already have
been examined to some extent in
section B Bird Systems (The
Symmetrical Defence) (p. 79) .
Apart from various highly irregular
examples, such as those q uoted
above, the most useful exercise is to
indicate possible transpositions to
more normal lines of the Dutch
Defence in which the fianchetto of
the white QB is played. We
conclude with two recent examples.
(See also note on Transpositions) .
a) Korchnoi-Bellin, Hastings
1 975 /6: I c4 l5 2 <£)f3 4Jffi 3 g3 e6 4
A_�2 !J.e7 5 0-0 0-0 6 b3 aS 7 <£Jc3
<£Ja6 8 d4 d6 9 e3 c6 1 0 .!J_b2 <£Jc7 I I
"#fc2 b5 1 2 <£)d2 d5 1 3 <£)f3 <£)d7 1 4
cd cd 1 5 §fc l !J.b7 1 6 <£)e2 _itd6 1 7
<£)e5 i#/e7 1 8 <£)f4 a4? (98)
98
w
(Black had to protect the <£Jc7 by
some such move as 18 . . . § fc8 .) 1 9
i#fx c7 ! .il,xc7 20 § x c7 § fd8 (20
. . . .ll,c8 21 <£) x d5 ! ) 21 § x b7
§ ac8 22 <£Jfd3 a3 23 _ilcl i#fd6 24
<£) x d 7 § x d7 25 Jl x a3 i#f x a3 26
§ x d 7 § c2 27 .!J_fl g5 28 § b7 h5
29 § x b5 h4 30 §c5 §d2 3 1 § ac l
h g 3 2 h g �g7 3 3 §c7+ �h6 34
§ l c6 1 -0.
b) Fraguela-Keene, Torremolinos
1 976. Against the early fianchetto
of the white QB the Basman
Variation of the Leningrad Dutch
is worth trying since White has
deprived himself of various active
possibilities. I d4 l5 2 g3 g6 3 !J.g2
Ag7 4 <£)f3 d6 5 0-0 (5 c4 c6 6 <£)c3
<£)h6 7 h4! is a good aggressive l ine.)
5 . . . <£Jh6 6 c4 0-0 7 <£Jc3 c6 8 b3 (8
e4 is the most dangerous try,
opening the e-fi le for action against
Black's e-pawn and also trying for
an eventual bishop exchange with
.llh6 .) 8 . . . <£Ja6 9 A,b2 e5 (.9.9)
(Arriving at a position which might
have arisen from an early b3. Black
has no problems and the position of
99
U'

the knight on h6 eases his task of
playing . . . eS. )
1 0 d e d e I I � x d8 § x d8 1 2 § fd 1
§ e8 ( 1 2 . . . § x d 1 + 1 3 § x d 1
4) 17 ) 1 3 4)g5 and the position is
equal. The conclusion was 1 3 . . .
Jtffi 1 4 h4 4)17 I S 4) x l7 )!( x l7 1 6
4)a4 Ae6 1 7 § d 2 § adS 1 8 § ad !
§ x d2 1 9 § x d2 § c8 20 e3 e4 21
A x ffi )!(xffi 22 Afl b6 23 Ae2
Dutch System 87
)!(eS 24 )!(fl h6 25 )!(g2 § b8 26
4)c3 4)c5 27 )!(g1 aS 28 )!(g2 § g8
29 � gS 30 hg hg 31 f4+ gf32 gf+
)!(f6 33 )!(f2 )!(e7 34 § d l § h8 35
)!(g2 Al7 36 § h i §d8 37 §d1
§ g8+ 38 � § h8 39 )!(g3 AhS
40 Ax hS § x hS 41 4)a4 4)d3 42
4)x b6 § h3+ 43 )!( x h3 4)f2+ 44
)!(g3 4) x d l 45 4)a4 )!(d6 46 )!(h4
4) x e3 ( !- ! in 54) .
18 Transpositions
From time to time in the preceding
analyses and games reference has
been made to the possibility of
transpositions to other openings.
With so amorphous a move as I b3
transpos i t ions are a l most
inevitable, and at times t o systems
q uite alien to the spirit of the
Nimzowitsch-Larsen A ttack. I ts
flexibility is of course one of the
attractions about I b3, since White
may often have the option of
switching to a Reti or King's I ndian
Attack, a Queen's I ndian D efence
or even to a Sicilian or F rench
Defence. Black also often has the
option of imposing his own choices
upon the game and can employ a
Du tch structure or may even invite
W h i t e i n t o the l a by ri n thi n e paths or
th e K i ng's I nd i an Deknre.
I t is be yond the scope of this
volume to deal in minute detail
with every t ra n spus i t ional
possibility, but it would be a
dereliction of responsibility to the
reader simply to lob him off with a
vague remark that transpositions
can logically and do frequently
occur. So, apart from some
illustrative games to demonstrate
some of the more important
transpositions, a list is appended of
all the transpositions likely to occur,
together with a recommendation of
good and reliable manuals for
further study by those interested .
Transpositions are possible to
any of the following openings:
I ) English Opening (English
Opening, B . Cafferty)
2) R eti and Catalan Systems (Reti's
Opening, N . Weinstein; Reti's Best
Games of Chess, H . Golombek;
.Nim;:owitsch-lndisch his Katalanisch,
M . Taimanov)
3) Modern Defence R eversed
compare Modern Defence, R . D .
Keene, G . S . Bo t L e rill)
-t) King's I nd ian Attack (lndische
Spe;:ialitiiten, M . Euwc)
5 ) Queen's Gambit Declined,
Tarrasch D efence ( Q.ueen's Gambit
Declined, S. Samarian)
6) Queen's I ndian D efence
( .Novoindiiskaya Zashchita, B .
 Transpositions 89

Voronkov; Q]leen's Indian Defence, B . I dS

Cafferty) 2 jlb2 4:%
7) King's I ndian D efence ( The 3 �f3 e6
King's Indian Defence, L. W. Barden, 4 g3
W. R. Hartston, R. D . Keene) The standard Nirnwwitsch-Larsen
8) Neo-Griinfeld D efence ( The A ttack arises after 4 c4 or 4 e3, but
Grunfild Defence, W . R . Hartston) the K-side fianchetto is an ex­
9) Dutch D efence (Damengambit his tremely common alternative option
Holliindisch, M . Taim� nov; The in many lines and must therefore be
Leningrad Dutch, T . D . Harding) examined.
10) Bird's Opening (Bird's Opening, 4 Ae7
A. Soltis) 5 Ag-2 0-0
I I ) French, Sicilian or Caro-Kann 6 0--0 cS
Defences ( Encyclopaedia of Chess 7 c4 .:£)c6
Openings volumes B and C , ed . A . After 7 . . . d4 White could
M atanovic) proceed to undermine Black's
Numbers I , 2, 4 and 8 are also centre with 8 b4 or 8 e3.
dealt with in great detail in the 8 cd {) x dS
book Flank Openings which was 8 . . . ed 9 d4 transposes to a
written by the author of the present version of the Queen's Gambit
volume. Declined, Tarrasch D efence (see p.
We have already examined 101).
English, D u tch and Bird style 9 �c3 .l}_ffi
formations within the framework of 10 �c l b6
the main text, so now we proceed to 10 . . . � x c3 I I Ax c3 eS
scan the other possibilities. certainly comes into consideration,
the more so since Black always has
Fischer-F ilip slightly the worse of the draw in the
Palma 1 970 main line.
(Transposition to Reti System , I I {) x dS ed
Classical Variation) 1 2 d4 Jta6
I b3 The immediate 1 2 . . . .:£) x d4
An uncommon choice for Fischer, gives White less choice.
who normally uses more direct 1 3 §el .:£) x d4
openings. However, his score with I 1 4 .Q. x d4
b3 is excellent, comprising wins The only way to preserve the
against Andersson, Tukmakov, initiative. If 14 4J x d4 cd IS �d2
Filip and Mecking. § e8 16 .Q.xd4 .Q. x e2 I 7 § x e2
90 Transpositions
.§. x e2 1 8 i!f x e2 Jtxd4 1 9 .§. d ! Thematically gaining control of
i!fffi = Keres-Pirc, M unich 1 936. the long dark diagonal.
14 cd 23 .§.fe8
I S i!fa3 ( /00) 24 i!fb2 .§. cS
2S h4 .§. ec8
100 26 .§. d2 .§. c3
B 27 .§. ed I i!fcS
Filip is resigned to the eventual
loss of his d-pawn but hopes to gain
compensation by virtue of his active
major pieces. I t is notoriously
difficult to win from positions with
only major pieces when , as here, i t
is impossible to create a passed
pawn without allowing too many
IS . . . Jtb7? weaknesses.
After the game Filip gave I S . . . 28 b4 i!fe7
i!fc8! as an improvement, viz. 1 6 29 e3 hS
.§. ac l i!fb7 1 7 .§.cd! d3 1 8 ed 30 a3 �h7 ( 101)
.§. fe8 = . The problem now is that
White not only regains his pawn /OJ
but also keeps the d-fi le open for w
subsequent pressure against Black's
rear isolated d-pawn.
16 .§. ad ! Jte7
1 7 i!fa4 i!fe8
1 8 i!f x d4 .§. c8
19 i!f!4 Jlffi
20 <£)d4 JteS
21 i!fe3 g6
22 <£)bS i!fx bS? A better chance would be 30 . . .
A very bad decision which leads aS ! to reduce the total of pawns on
him with the worse pawn position the Q-side.
and the inferior mi nor piece. 31 JlxdS Jl x dS
Correct was 22 . . . .§. cS! retaining 32 .§. x dS i!fe4
his valuable KB, for if then 23 33 .§.d8 fff'3
<£)x a7? d4! 34 �h2 .§.8c4
23 ff x eS 3S .§. ! d7 gS?
 Transpositions 91
A losing blunder, bu t Black's 1 2 cd 4:) x d5
defence is already d ifficult. The Or 1 2 . . . ed 1 3 d4 fixing Black's
point is that Black's rooks are tied d-pawn. By continually capturing
down, in spite of their aggressive with pieces on d5 Padevsky hopes to
appearance, by the latent weakness avoid any structural weakness.
of the a l - h8 diagonal. 1 3 4:) x d5 §. x d5
The game concluded 36 §.ffi 1 4 d4 §.d7
<;t>g6 37 §. g8+ <;t>h7 38 §. x g5 To escape any danger emanating
§.c8 39 §. 7d5 <;t>h6 40 §.df5 1-0. from the bishop on g2.
15 de il,x c5
Szabo-Padevsky 16 4:)g5!
Amsterdam 1 972 Suddenly White's 'quiet' pieces
(Transposition to Reti System, are aiming at Black's king.
Classical Variation) 16 §. x d l +
I 4:)1'3 4:) ffi 1 7 §. x d l h6
2 c4 e6 18 4:)e4 ,llffi
3 b3 d5 8r 1 8 . . . il,e7 1 9 i!rg4± ± .
4 il,b2 il,e7 1 9 4:)16+ ! ! ( 102)
5 g3 0-0
6 il,g2 c5 102
7 0· 0 4:)c6 B
8 e3
For the positional 8 eel see
Fischer Filip ( p . 89) . The text can
grant White a vicious attack, bu t if
Black plays correctly he has little to
fear.
8 b6
9 "#e2 il,b7
1 0 §. d l #c7 The combination runs like
I I 4:)c3 §.fd8? clockwork, aesthetically stressing
One natural move too many. White's play on the long dark
Best is I I . . . de 1 2 be §. ad8 diagonal .
followed by doubling rooks on the 19 . . . gf
d-filc. That way Black would 20 i!rg4+ <;t>h 7
obtain a lin·ly middle game with 21 il,c4+ 5
equal chances, along the lines of 22 ..Q.x f5 + ef
Averbakh Spassky ( p. 38) . 23 "#x f5+ <;t>g8
92 TranspositionJ
24 .§d7 i!r x d7 103
25 i!rxd7 .§ b8 B
26 i!rg4+ <it'h7
27 i!rf5+ 1 -0
After 27 . . . <it'g8 28 i!rffi± ::!:: .

Sm�jkai-Hubner
Wijk aan Zee 1 975
(Transposition to Reti System,
New York Variation)
I .:£)f.3 {)ffi a) 1 2 . . . b5 1 3 cb cb 1 4 b4 i!rci 1 5
2 g3 d5 i!rb2 {)b6 1 6 Ae5 i!rd7 =

3 .ilg2 c6 Botvinnik-Smyslov, 1 2th match

4 0 0 j}.f5 game, World Ch 1 958. Botvinnik
5 d3 e6 afterwards recommended 14 .Q.d4!
6 {)bd2 Ae7 {)e8 1 5 .fth3 as an improvement.
7 b3 b) 12 . . . i!rb8?! 1 3 i!rb2 .Q.d6 1 4
The key move. I n the slow Oank e4! � S m ej k a l - L a n g e w e g ,
systems the moment when the Q­ Amsterdam 1 973.
side fi anchetto occurs is not always 12 llc3 b5
of importance, since Oexibility is 1 2 . . . i!rb6 Is also a sound
one of the strengths of such possi bility.
openings. Clearly, White could 1 3 cb cb
simply continue with i!re l and e4, 1 4 �b2
omitting b3 altogether, but in that The second major hint ofWhite's
case the game would not have come pressure along the diagonal al- h8,
within our ambit . with a constant drive towards the
7 0-0 point g7 .
8 llb2 a5 14 . . . b4
9 a3 h6 I n order to prevmt White
10 c4 Ah7 playing b4 himself.
I I i!rc2 ( !03) 1 5 ab {) x b4
II . . . {)a6?! 1 6 .§ fcl �b6
It is probably better to develop White's control of the important
this knight on d7 in order to react to squares d4 and e5 gives him a plus.
White's b4 with a timely . . . {)b6, 1 7 lld4 #b7?
taking con trol of a4, e.g. I I . . . An error which places the black
{)bd7 1 2 .Q.c3 and now: q ueen on the vulnerable h l - a8
 Transpositions 93
diagonal . I t would have been an Naturally 27 § x eS § x eS 2S
improvement to play 1 7 . . . �b5 i!fx b4 is also good .
when White might continue with 27 .:£)X d5
IS �c3 . 2S i!fx d5+ <it>h8
1 8 .f)e5 .f)eS? 29 § f7 .f) x c7
A second mistake. Necessary was 30 § x ffi gf
I S . . . § fc8 , although White's 3 1 �c6 § f7
advantage is by now clear. 3 2 b4 <it>g7
19 .f)dc4! 33 b5 ilg8
Threatening 20 .f)b6 and 2 1 The pawn cannot be slopped,
.:£) bd 7 ± -±: . e.g. 33 . . . i1,5 34 b6 .f)a6 35 b7
19 . . . ffi .f)bS 36 #cS:+ + .
20 .f) x a5 !'! x a5 34 b6 .f)a6
Or 20 . . . i!rb5 2 1 .f)ac6± ± . 35 #cS .f)b4
2 1 § .x: a5 fe 36 i!fc4 .f) x d3
22 § a7 37 ed §d7
With a clear advantage. Of 38 ilfg4+ 1 -0
course not 22 �x e5 .f)c6.
22 . . . �bB Petrosian -Korchnoi
23 § x e7 ed Candidates' �-fi nal, 9th game,
24 � x d4 i!rd6 Moscow 1 9 7 1
25 § cc7 ( 104) (Modern Defence Reversed )
I c4 e5
JO.I 2 g3 c6
B 3 b3 d5
4 i1,b2 ( 105)

105
B

25 . . . e5
26 #c5 �ffi
Alter 26 . . . � x c5 27 § x c5 all
Black's pawns drop.
27 i1_ x: d5+ R eaching a position reminiscent
94 Transpositions
of one of Larsen's ideas in the the enemy king to declare his
Modern Defence (with colours intentions.
reversed) , viz. I e4 g6 2 d4 .!J..g7 3 c3 9 . . . 0-0
b6!? 10 {)bd2 ,ile6
4 .. . d4 1 1 e4 ( 106)
A committal decision, but the
pawns are no more exposed now 106
than before, and the text move does B
have the merit of blocking White's
QB.
5 {)£3 1,td6
6 d3
Suetin recommends 6 b4, but
after 6 . . . a5 i t is not clear whose
Q-side has been weakened more. As
played, White's position bears a
strong resemblance to the normal W hite would gain nothing now
Black position m a Benoni De­ from ed, when . . . ed in reply
fence. maintains easy equality. So White
6 c5 adopts a typical 'Old' or 'Czech'
7 ..llg2 {)e7 Benoni set-up, but with the extra
8 0-0 {)ec6 moves b3 and 1,tb2, though that
Strengthening his grip on the gain in time may only represent a
squares b4 and e5, traditionally the structural weakness.
sensitive points for the man with the 11 . . . {)d7
centre in such Benoni positions. By Also to be taken into account was
choos i n g this ' q u a l i t a t ive' . . . {)a6 followed by . . . {)c7 , . . .
developing move rather than the a6 and . . . b5.
'q uantitative' . . . {)bc6, he also 1 2 {)h4 g6
prepares a haven on e7 for his KB if 1 3 .il.,£3
W hite plays {)bd2 and {)e4. I ntending Ag4 with exchange of
9 e3 the light-squared bishops, or else
In view of subsequent develop­ tempting Black to lash out with . . .
ments e4 might seem more logical, f5 . 1 3 . . . 1,th3 will be met with 1 4
but with a closed centre Black could {)g2 and then Ag4 or ,ile2 and f4.
consider . . . 0-0-0 with K-side Even so, the text move looks a little
aggression . By thus threatening to weird .
prise open the centre, White forces 13 . . . ,ilc7

Suetin suggested the regrouping
. . . .§. e8 followed by . . . lf)ffi. But
the threat to control the diagonal
aS-e l looks to be the most positive
and promising course.
14 a3
Not 14 ..Q.g4 Jtxg4 I S "t'r x g4
JlaS 1 6 .§. ad ! Jlc3! with
advantage to Black.
14 . . . JtaS
I S .l}.c l
Scurrying away from the
unwelcome visit of the bishop on
aS . Even if White were to gain a
pawn on c3 (e.g. after IS .§. c l .Q.c3
1 6 .l}.x c3 de 1 7 .§. x c3) he might
still be at a disadvantage as a result
of Black's total control of the dark
squares. Nor need Black hurry to
surrender material in this way,
since he could quietly strengthen
his position by . . . "t're7 and
.§. ad8 in preparation for the
episcopal incursion on c3.
IS . . . "t're7
Now I S . . . .l}.c3 16 .§.a2 would
be no more than a blow into empty
space.
16 ..Q.g4 15? ( 107)
A critical moment with a far­
reaching influence on events to
come. Where is Korchnoi's decisive
mistake in this game? Assessing the
game at the time Korchnoi's coach,
IM Osnos, said: 'Korchnoi is in an
aggressive mood ' . With 1 6 . . . 15 he
obtains a position which certainly
looks imposing, but the move is an
Transpositions 95
107
w
error in the psychological sense,
playing into the cunning hands of
his opponent. I t is probably a
positional and objective error too.
1 7 ef gf
18 .ll(3 lf)ffi
19 .llg 2 .§. ad8
Playing for . . . e4 and . . . d3, the
stock break-through in such
positions, but so far Petrosian has
succeeded in placing the massive
black centre under Nimzowitsch­
ian restraint, and as yet no violent
methods are feasible ·for Black.
20 .§. a2
A deep move, preparing for
action on the Queen's wing and on
the d-file and e-file, ready too both
for defence and attack.
20 . . . Jlc8
2 1 .§. e l �h8 ( JOB)
According to Suetin, the press­
room analysts were in favour of 21
. . . "t'rg7 , but White's coming blow
is apparently equally efficacious
against the press suggestion.
Presumably the watching grand-
96 Transpositions
JOB
w
masters were all thinking in terms of
a Black initiative. After all, what
has W hite achieved in 21 moves?
His KB has moved five times to
reach g2; his QB twice to return to
its original square; the knight on d2
and the rook on e l are badly tied up
by the opponent's dark-squared
bishop; W hite has the traditionally
condemned 'Randspringer' ( the
knight on h4) and on top of all this
Black possesses a pawn centre of
immense proportions. Yet-amaz­
ingly-the position is in White's
favour!
22 b4!
Described by Suetin as opening
an offensive on all fronts.
I mperceptibly the diagonals to the
black king have been weakened
and White can now press
successfully against the points d4
and eS . Black's centre is like a huge,
lumbering war elephant, menacing
and trumpeting but wounded, and
fearful of penetrating the enemy
lines, lest worse should befall.
22 . . . cb
23 �b3 _Q_b6
23 . . . ba 24 �x aS � x aS 25
_Q_x a3 is ruinous for Black, but an
improvement might be 23 . . . _Q_c7,
guarding eS.
24 ..Q_x c6
A remarkable move, but without
it White would have nothing.
Probably it was this move which
escaped the attention of the press­
room analysts three moves earlier.
The principal defender of the black
centre disappears, which proves to
be of much more significance than
the exposure of the light squares
round the white king.
24 . . . be
25 ab
Threatening 26 cS and 2 7
§. x a7 .
25 . . . a6
A meek defensive move, but
against the more aggressive 25 . . .
�g4 26 cS ..Q.c 7 27 §. x a7 f4 Suetin
gives 28 �f3 fg 29 hg � x l'l 30
<i!(x l'l -'tg-4 31 _Q_f4! and White
WinS.
26 �f3 e4
What else? 26 . . . _Q_c7 allows 27
ctJfx d4. So the elephant lumbers
forward in to the trap prepared for i t.
27 cS ..Q.c7
28 �fX d4 't!ff7
With the crude threat of . . .
§. x d4.
29 §.d2 _Q_d7
30 _Q_b2
Back to the key diagonal, this
 Transpositions 9i
time glaring at the black king. I 4:\13 d5
30 �g8 2 b3 ..Q.£5
3 1 .£:la5 ..Q.x a5 3 ..Q.b2 e6
32 ba ( 109) 4 g3 h6
5 ..Q.g2 .£:ld7
/09 6 0--0 .£:\gffi
B 7 d3 ..Q.e7
8 e3
One of the very first games in
which White applied the strategy of
the King's I ndian Attack (with e4
rather than c4) combined with the
double fianchetto. Nimzowitsch's
method of playing for the advance
e4 is noteworthy. He delays the
Black's resources are whittled development of his QN, which may
away. The white dark-square want to go to c3 or d2, and also
offensive against the king is more places his queen on its most
important than the extra pawn. favourable square prior to the
32 §. b8 advance. This is a valid alternative
3 3 ..Q.al §.fe8 to the plan of .£:lbd2 and �el .
34 §. de2 i!Yh5 80 0 0 0---0
35 i!Yd2 �£7 9 i!Ye2 c6
Or 35 . . . .£:\g4 36 13 e3 37 i!Ya2+ 10 <;t>h l
(Suetin) . White's next pre-empts A subtle positional precaution .
.£:\g4, and Black's game falls to White will eventually attack with
pieces: e4 and f4 and wishes to avoid
36 h4 ed possible unpleasantness on the
37 ·l!Yx d 3 f4 38 .£:\13 §. x e2 39 gl -a7 diagonal, such as a pin or
i!Y x e2 i!Y x c5 40 .£:le5+ )\Jffi 4 1 tempo saving check .
.£:\ x d 7 + .£:\ x d 7 1 -0. Black threw i n 10 . . . a5
his hand without waiting for 42 I I a4 ( 110)
�e6. In such situations it is often
difficult to know whether one
N imzowitsch-R u binstein should react to . . . a5 with a4
Berlin 1 928 (which weakens b4 and creates a
(Transposition to King's I ndian target for . . . b5) or with a3 (which
Attack) allows . . . a4, b4, . . . c5) . In this
98 Transpositions
case I I a4 is justified, since . . . bS 27 § h4! _(t x e2 2B 11.5+ �hB 29
by Black requires much prepar­ § x h6+ § h7 30 § x h7 mate) .
ation. 1 2 {)d4 Jlh7
1 3 f4
'The white pawn formation
110
makes a very reliable impression.
B Think, on the one hand, how weak
it would have been, if White had
been tempted into c4, e.g. on the
7th move. I t is often just as
important to know which pawn
move one should forego as to fi nd
out which pawn should go
forward . ' (Nimzowitsch)
13 {)fd 7
II . . . {)cS 1 4 {)d2 ilfc7
On I I . . . bS 1 2 {)d4! is crushing, I S e4 de
but the text is also inferior since it 16 {) x e4 {) x e4
does little to challenge White's 1 7 de
central advance. The best plan is I I Also good is I 7 Ax e4 _(tffi I B
. . . Ah7 ! 1 2 {)bd2 ilfbB! 1 3 e4 § cB _(tx h7+ �x h7 1 9 _(ta3 § feB 20
14 {)h4 bS I S f4 ba 16 §. x a4 {)cS I 7 §ael Jl x d4 21 ilfe4+ �g8 22
§a2 with a sharp situation, ilfxd4 ± .
Polugayevsky - Spassky, Sochi 1 966. 17 eS
This example shows how essen tial it I B {)1'3 ef
is for Black to create rapid Q-side 1 9 gf § feB
counterplay. 1 9 . . . ilf x f4? 20 {)eS± .
After I I . . . Jih 7 1 2 {)bd2 a less 20 eS
effec tive line was seen m The q uestion is whether White's
Keene-J anetschek, Barcelona e- and f-pawns can be blockaded.
Zonal 197S, where W hi te Nimzowitsch, the great master of
conducted the play on consciously blockade, believes that they
Nimzowitschian lines: 1 2 . . . {)eB cannot.
1 3 e4 {)c7 14 eS {)cS I S {)d4 § a6 20 {)cS
1 6 f4 bS 1 7 g4 15 IB ef gf 19 §. 1'3 §. f7 21 {)d4 {)e6
20 .Q.h3 ba 2 1 ba Jld6 22 gS! -'l,x f4 22 § ad ! {) x d4
23 g6! Ax g6 24 § x f4 eS 2S § g4 2 3 -'l,x d4 .Q.15
)t>h7 26 § agl 1 -0 (if 26 . . . AhS 24 Jle4 .Q.x e4+
 Transpositions 99

Or 24 . . . �c8 25 �d3 and Korchnoi-Reshevsky

White conquers f5 . 4th game, Candidates' match,
2 5 � x e4 .§. adS Amsterdam 1 968
26 e6 (Transposition to King's I ndian
Possibly 26 .§. gl was even Attack)
stronger. (Notes based on those by F urman)
26 . . . Jlf8 I 4.:)£'3 {)ffi
27 Jle5 2 g3 d5
A nd here 27 f5 may be more 3 ilg2 c6
accurate, but the text has the merit 4 b3 ( 112)
ofleading to a very beautiful finish.
27 . . . �c8? 1 12
Best was 27 . . . �e7 ! 28 .§. x d8
B
i!f x d8 29 ef+ � x f7 30 c4 ± .
28 f5 fe
29 ffi .§. x d l
30 f7 + �h8
3 1 .§. x d l .§. dB
32 i!tg6!! (111) 1 -0

111
B 4 . . .
After 32 . . . .§. x d l + 33 �g2
.§.d2+ 34 �h3 Black can no longer
prevent i!fx h6 mate. The diagram
of the final position highlights
White's single-minded displace­
ment of obstructions from the key
a l -h8 diagonal.
Jlf5
4 . . . ilg4 is a very playable
alternative. Black will avoid the
normal problems associated with
the exclusion of his QB by
exchanging it for White's KN, or at
least forcing White to loosen himself
with h3 and g4 if he wants to drive
the QB out of play. Some examples:
a) 5 Jlb2 4.Jbd7 6 d3 e6 7 {)bd2
Jle7 8 h3?! (This could wait.) 8 . . .
Jlx f3 9 A x f3 (White would prefer
to recapture with the knight, but
after 9 4.J x f3 Jla3! 10 Jl x a3
i!fa5+ he has nothing.) 9 . . . 0-0
1 0 0-0 a5 I I a3 ( I I a4 b5) I I . . . b5
()() Transpositions
'2 d frb6 1 3 .§abl ( 1 3 ltg2! and target, whereas now the solid pawn
t;h'2 is better.) 13 . . . b4 1 4 a4 ,ilc5 chain shuts ou t this bishop .
.'"> Jlg2 Jld4+ Ribli-Geller, Buda­ I I �e2 aS
>l'sl 1973. The pawn formation in 1 2 a4 �b6
Ill' cen tre is inimical to White's Not a bad move in itself, l inking
>ishop pair. the rooks and pinning the f-pawn
>) I g3 <£jf6 2 ltg2 d5 3 d3 c6 4 <£jd2 whose advance forms part of
�4 5 h3 JlhS 6 <£Jgf3 <£jbd7 7 �0 White's plan. But Black has no
h B b3 JlcS!? 9 Jlh2 0-0 1 0 e4! ( 1 0 concrete plan and the interference
·1 fre 7 I I a 3 aS gives Black an with the b-pawn reduces his Q-side
11"1 ive position . ) 10 . . . aS I I a3 play. As 1 2 . . . b5 at once would be
i!fc 7 12 eS <£Je8 1 3 i!re2 ..\le7 14 g4 wrong because of 1 3 <£jd4 �b6 1 4
a_gti 15 <£jd4 i!r x eS 16 i!r x eS ed, winning a pawn because of the
21 · eS 1 7 <£j x e6 fe 1 8 Ax eS <£jf6 unguarded black KB, Black should
9 Jlb2 JlcS 20 .§ ae l .§ ae8 21 play 1 2 . . . � b8 or 1 2 . . . <£jcS .
�r� <£jd 7 22 a4 h6 23 Jlc3 Jlb6 = 1 3 eS
/an Wijgeren-Keene, Rotterdam Or 1 3 <;fth l ! .§ ae8? 1 4 eS .
!176. I n order to make any 13 . . . <£je8
>rogress, White had to c-reate 1 4 ..\lh3 <£jc7
argels for black counterplay. IS <ifth l .§ ae8
S Jlb2 e6 1 6 <£jh4 f6
6 0-- 0 Jle7 1 7 ef ..\l x ffi
7 d3 h6 1 8 -'l, x ffi .§ x ffi
8 <£jbd2 0-0 1 9 f4 �cS
9 i!rel <£jbd7 20 <£jdf.3 �c3 ( 113)
1 0 e4 Jlh7
In the true R eti System, where 113
tVhile has played c4, he finds i t w
lillicult to attack o n the K-side and
he black pawn triangle limits the
·fli:c tivcness of his KB, so that his
,!_-side prospects are not great
it her. But now White can play eS,
!riving away the knight, and so
nake some more K-side progress.
\lso, as Nimzowitsch pointed out in
Ill' preced ing game, if c4 had been I ntending . . . d4 followed by . . .
>layed the black KB would have a <£jdS and . . . <£je3 .
 Transpositions 101
2 1 -llg4 43 �e4 g5
The i ntention was 2 1 . . . J1,f5 22 44 g4 1 -0
Jth5 g6 23 g4! with a strong attack. l f44 . . . � x c5 45 e7 and not45 a7
But a more natural line was 21 � x a7 46 e7 �c8 .
.§. ae l b5 22 .§. a ! .
21 d4 Larsen-Pen rose
22 �e5 � x e5 Palma 1 969
23 fe .§. x fl + (Transposition to Queen's Gambit
Failing to scent the danger. Declined, Tarrasch D efence)
Better was 23 . . . .§. 6ffi. I b3 c5
24 .§. X fl i!Yc5?! 2 J1,b2 �c6
And here 24 . . . .§.ffi 25 .§. x ffi+ 3 c4 e6
� x ffi 26 Jth5 �d5! was to be 4 �£1 �f6
preferred . 5 g3 lte7
25 i!¥1'2 .§. £8 6 -llg2 0-- 0
26 i!Y x ffi+ i!Y x ffi 7 �c3 d5
27 .§. x ffi+ � x ffi 8 cd ed
28 �£1 c5 9 .§. c l ( 1 14)
29 �d2 �d5
30 �c4 �b4?
114
The decisive mistake. Correct
B
was 30 . . . �e7 , though W hite
retains winning chances by
bringing his king across to defend c2
or even advance c3.
3 1 � x a5 �xc2
32 � x b7 c4
33 be Axd3
34 �c5! Jtx c4
35 Ax e6 A x e6
36 � x e6+ �e7 9 d4 �e4 10 0--0 ltf6 I I �a4
37 �c5 �b4 .§. e8 is a direct Tarrasch
38 a5 �c6 transposition where Black has good
If 38 . . . d3 39 � x d3! c h a n c es for equality, as
39 a6 �d8 demonstrated in Samarian's book
40 �g2 g6 The Qyeen's Gambit Declined.
41 e6 �e7 Larsen-Spassky, W innipeg 1967 ,
42 �£1 �6 went 9 d4 Ag4 1 0 0--0 .§. e8 I I de
102 Transpositions
j},x c5 1 2 §. c l j},b6 1 3 .:£)a4 �e7! ,ilh3 or by 1 6 . . . .,il5 and if 1 7
(Black does not mind the doubling .:£)d4 ,ilh3!
of his b-pawns; in return he would 1 7 §. fd l j},ffi
control c5 and get light square 1 8 e3 �e7
counterptay due to the absence of 19 h3 h6
White's QN .) 1 4 §.c2 j},f5 1 5 §.d2 20 .\lx ffi � x ffi
.,ila5 1 6 .\}_c3 b5 ( !-- ! in 50) . 2 1 §.c3 .,ilf5
9 ... .,ile6 22 §.del §. cd8
Black allows himself to be 23 .:£)d4! ( 1 15)
intimidated and places his QB on a
passive square. 9 . . . .ilg4 merited 115
consideration, while the ultra­ B
sharp 9 . . . d4 10 .:£)a4 .:£)d7 is by no
means ridiculous.
10 d4 §. c8
I I 0-0 §. e8
1 2 de .\}_xeS
13 .:£)a4
The c lassic a n ti-Tarrasch
strategy. W hite occupies the dark
squares c5 and d4. Although White cannot main­
13 .\le7 tain a piece on this square it is
1 4 .:£)c5 .:£)d7 necessary to prevent . . . d4. With
1 5 .:£) x d 7 the pawn position fixed Black must
Also promising and perhaps even constantly guard his d-pawn, and
stronger was 1 5 .:£) x e6 followed by the important factor becomes
e4. One feels that R u binstein, the White's control of the open c-fi le.
original anti-Tarrasch exponent, 23 .:£) x d4
would have selected that method in 24 �xd4 �xd4
preference to the text. 25 ed §. e7?!
15 . . . i!rxd7 Whatever the outcome he had to
1 6 �d2 �d8? try 25 . . . §. e2! After the move
Black wants to contest the a l -h8 chosen Black can achieve nothing
diagonal, but it is wrong, in in the e-fi le.
principle, to aim for an exchange of 26 g4 ,ile6
dark-squared bishops. I t is, in fact, 27 f4 ffi
the light-squared bishops he should Whether it 1s theoretically
swap, e.g. by 16 . . . §. ed8 and . . . possible for Black to hold this

posttlon is purely an academic
question. The result in practice is a
foregone conclusion and Black
actually ends up in the grip of a
spectacular paralysis.
2S � !J...fl
29 .ll,f3 <iftf8 30 a4 .§ deS 31 a5 f!d7
32 b4 f! edS 33 .ll,e 2 -'teS 34 j}_d3
f!e7 35 f! cS .§ x eS 36 .§ x eS �
37 b5 b6 3S ab ab 39 f! b8 f! e6 40
Jig6+ ! <iftf8 (if 40 . . . � x g6 41
f5+ ) 41 h4 f! e7 42 h5 f! e6 43 �
f!e7 44 g5 1 -0.
Filip-Botvinnik
Varna O lympiad 1 962
(Transposition to Queen's I nd ian
Defence)
(Notes B by Botvinnik)
I d4 4Jf6
2 c4 e6
3 4Jf3 b6
4 e3
In spite of its apparent simplicity
this variation is by no means
innocuous and Black must play
accurately to avoid a difficult
position . (B) . As the game goes, it
could arise by transposition after I
b3 4Jffi 2 -'tb2 e6 3 4Jf3 b6 4 d4
Jlb7 5 e3 d5 6 -'td3 etc.
4 . . . -'tb7
5 Jld3
D eserving of men tion ts
Zukertort's favouri te 5 ..Q,e2, e.g. 5
. . . d5 6 0-0 _Q,d6 7 4Jc3 0-0 8 b3
4Jbd7 9 Jlb2 i!fe7? (9 . . . a6! ) 1 0
= Zukertort-Biackburne, London
4Jb5! 4Je4 I I 4J x d6 c d 1 2 4Jd2
Transpositions 103
4Jdffi 1 3 f3 4J x d 2 1 4 i!fxd2 de 1 5
_Q_x c4 d S 1 6 .ll,d 3 .§ fcS 1 7 f!ael
f! c7 IS e4 f! acS 19 eS 4Je8 20 f4 g6
21 f! e3! f5 22 ef 4J x ffi 23 f5! 4Je4
24 -'t x e4 de 25 fg f!c2 (if25 . . . hg
26 f!g3 i!fg7-or 26 . . . i!fh7 27
.§ ffi or 26 . . . i!feS 27 i!fh6 or 26
. . . �g7 27 d5+ e5 28 d&-27 d5 eS
28 i!fgS f! e8 29 .§ ffi) 26 gh+ �h8
(26 . . . i!f x h7 27 .§ g3+ or 26 . . .
� x h7 27 f! h3+ �g8 2S i!fh6) 27
·
d5+ eS 28 i!fb4! ! (I 16)
1/6
B
(A move which was said to have
'electrified' the spectators) 28 . . .
.§8c5 ( I f 28 . . . i!f x b4 29 Ax eS+
�x h7 30 .§ h3+ �g6 3 1 .§g3+
�h6 32 .§ ffi+ �hS 33 .§ £5+ �h6
34 Jlf4+ �h7 3S .§hS mate. Note
that 28 . . . .§ 2cS fails against 29
i!f x e4 .§ x dS 30 _Q,x eS+ .§ x eS 3 l
i!fx eS+ i!f x eS 32 .§ x eS . ) 29
.§ ffi+ ! �x h7 (or 29 . . . i!fx ffi 30
Ax eS+ � x h7 31 i!fx e4+·) 30
�x e4+ �g7 31 Jlx eS+ � x ffi 32
.il_g7+ �g8 33 i!f x e7 1 -0
1 883.
/04 Transpositions
50 0 0 d5 grants White the initiative, Black
This order of moves is necessary must look round for something else.
to enable the black KB to assume (B) .
an active post at d6. ( B) . But 5 . . . 12 0 0 04Jdffi
l,le7 or 5 . . . c5 are other A fine reply. Now f5 IS
possibilities. neutralized since the l,ld3 is
6 0-0 1,ld6 completely blocked . The further
7 b3 0-0 course of the game shows that it is
8 l,lb2 4Jbd7 Black who profi ts from White's
9 4Je5?! seizure of the bishop pair. ( B) .
Ostensibly energetic but actually 1 3 4Jb5 i!Ye7
too early; now Black obtains 14 .£) x d6 .£) x d6 ( 1 /7)
eiTective counterplay. (B) . M uch The important factor is Black's
Stronger is 9 4Jc3! a6 1 0 .§. c l 4Je4 dominance of e4. (B) .
I I 4Je2 i!Ye7 and only now 1 2
4Je5 :;l= (RDK) . /17
9 . .. c5 w
1 0 ilfe2?!
An improvement is 10 4Jd2! e.g.
10 . . . cd I I ed de 12 4Jd x c4 = (B) .
10 . . . i!Yc7 !
U nless White i s prepared to
surrender his forepost on e5 without
a struggle, he has to play I I f4,
when Black will control e4 and
maintain a thoroughly sound 1 5 de be
position. White can try for a draw 1 6 .§. ac l 4Jfe4
by I I .£) x d 7 4J x d 7 1 2 de be 1 3 1 7 .§.fd l a5?
A x h7+ � x h7 1 4 i!Yh5+ �g8 1 5 A rash advance which amounts
Ji Y g7 � x g7 1 6 ilfg5+ , b u t 1 2 . . . to the loss of a tempo. 1 7 . . . .§. fd8!
A>< h2+ ! 1 3 �h i Jie5! frustrates would have been far superior. (B) .
this plan. (B) . 18 4Jf'3
I I f4 4Je4 Since his mistake on move ten
1 2 4Jc3! grandmaster Filip has played very
Excellent! White attacks the accurately to reduce his
knight on e4 and simultaneously disadvantage; he now plans to
threatens 4Jb5 and 4J x d6 . Since exchange one pair of knights which
1 2 . . . 4J !' c3 1 3 A ' c3 .£)16 1 4 f5! should draw. (B) .
 Transpositions 105
18 §.fd8 118
1 9 l£jd2 l£j x d2
w
20 �x d2?!
20 §. x d2! de 21 be .lte4 22
§.cdl = (B) .
20 0 0 0 de
2 1 be?
21 �c3 ! ffi 22 ,ilx c4 was
essential, when Black's c-pawn
remains as a weakness. Now the
presence of both c-pawns merely 29 h3 h6
acts as an impediment to the white 30 �h2 l£Jd6
pieces and Black can methodically 3 1 g4
exploit his cen tral superiority, What is he to do? Black had the
namely his control over e4. (B) . strong threat of 3 1 . . . l£jf5 32 i!fd2
21 . . . Jle4 h5 and after . . . h4 the black knight
22 �c3 will settle on g3. (B) .
Too late! 31° 0 0 ilf3
22 0 0 0 ffi 32 �d3 �f7
23 J,tn l£Jb7 ! Planning . . . l£je4! + (B) .
The simplest. Black will ex­ 33 g5?
change rooks, for White's rooks A blunder. Clearly the nervous
could still have become active, and strain of defend ing a difficult
then his minor pieces will prove by position had become too much for
far the more effective. The move is him. Nevertheless, White's position
also psychologically good since it was already q uitr beyond repair.
might persuade White that his (B) .
opponent is thinking in terms of a 330 0 0 hg
draw. (B) . 34 fg l£je4
24 ilfb3 �c7 Threatening mate in 3. White
25 §. x d8-t- §. x d8 played 35 �g l but then r<'signrd
26 §. d l §. x d l (0- 1 ) .
27 �xdl "¥¥c6 ( I 18)
Whit<' proposed a d raw at this Keenr- Schmid t
point bu t it was a fruitless gesture. Tbilisi 1974
In fact Black's pieces dominate the (Transposition to King's I ndian
board . (B) . Defence, Doublr Fianchetto
28 Jlc3 a4 Variation)
106 Transpositions
I �f3 �f6 1/9
2 c4 g1) B
3 b3 Ag7
4 Ab2 0-0
5 g3 d6
6 d4 e5
7 de �fd7
8 �c3 de
9 i!rd2
A very sharp interpretation of
the variation, planning 0-0-0 and .§ x h5 and Ax e5+ after which
an attack along the h-file. Black is helpless. If instead 18 . . .
9 . . . �c6 "¥f'e7 1 9 .§ x h7 Jlg7 20 f4 �ffi 2 1
10 0-0- 0 �d4 .§ x g7+ \t' x g7 22 Ax eS+ \t'g8
Assuming that the square d4 is his 23 .§ h8 mate. Black prefers to
natural birthright. But much strong­ sacrifice the exchange, but this is
er was . . . .§ e8 planning . . . e4 and eq ually hopeless and the rest is
. . . f5 to blot out the white KB. simply a matter of gradual
I I Ag2 �e6 technique.
1 2 h4 f5 17 . . . h5
He should play 1 2 . . . h5 . 18 �f6+ .§ x f6 19 gf i!r/ f6 20 f4
1 3 �g5! � x g5 Ag7 2 1 .§ d I i:'ff7 22 i:'fd6 a5 23 fe
1 4 hg c6 �ffi 24 a4 Ae6 25 \t'bl .§ c8 26 e4
His king is already over­ g5 27 .§ hh l ( Both rooks rather
shadowed by combinational cloud­ amusingly slide back off the h-file
storms. I f 14 . . . .§ e8 15 Ad5+ for central action . ) 27 . . . b5 28 ab
\t'h8 J6 _§ / h7+ \t' ;< h7 ( 7 cb 29 ef i!r / f5+ 30 \t'a l be 31
.§ h i + + + . .§ hfl i!rg6 32 AdS! c3 33 .§ x ffi+
1 5 .§ h4 .§ f7 \t'h 7 34 .§ J'. c8+ c b+ 35 \t' x b2
Or 1 5 . . . .§ c8 1 6 Ad5+ ! cd 1 7 �/ c8 36 AgB+ \t'h6 37 \t'a3?
'¥r X d5+ \t'h8 (if 1 7 . . . \t'ffi ! 8 (Owing to time trouble White only
Aa3+ .§e7 1 9 .§ x h7 ) 1 8 § ? h7+ fi nds the correct move �,17 ! three
'lt'/ h7 1 9 .§ h i + Ah6 20 ·� + · '- + . moves later.) 37 . . . g4 38 i!rd 2 �
16 .§dhl AlB ·�g5 39 '¥rd6-t '¥rg6 40 Jlf7! 1-0.
1 7 �d 5 ! ! ( I 19)
The decisive move. I f in reply 1 7 Keene Pares
. . . cd 1 8 A d5 hS 1 9 .§ / h5 gh 20
· Torremoli nos 1 975
� \t'g7 2 1 Jl/ f7 , threatening (Transposition to King's I ndian

Defence, Double Fianchetto
Variation)
I �f3 �ffi
2 g3 g6
3 b3 Jlg7
4 Jlb2 ( /20)
J:._)(J
B and White begins to undermine the
4 . . . 0-0
The most efficient method of
equalizing for Black is 4 . . . d6! S d4
cS before . . . 0- 0, with the
following possible continuations:
a) 6 dS bS! and Black painlessly
achieves a key advance. 6 . . . e6 is
another possibility.
b) 6 c4 cd 7 �x d4 d5! 8 Jlg2 (8 cd?
#x: dS) 8 . . . de! 9 be 0 0 with at
least equality for Black in view of
White's split pawns.
c) 6 Jlg2 cd 7 � :x d4 dS! and Black
has gained an important central
fiJOthold.
d) 6 de! #aS +- 7 �bd2 # ,><' cS 8
Jld4 #hS 9 c4 and Black has easy
eq uality. An i nteresting alternative
is 7 �fd2?! #x: c5 8 c4 planning
�c3, when Black can try the Q­
sacrifice 8 . . . "¥>- , f2 !? 9 <;!t x f2
+ Smyslov-Polugayevsky, Palma
Transpositions 107
�g4+ 1 0 �f3 Ax b2 I I �a3
Jlx a3 with excellent compensa­
tion for the queen in view ofWhite 's
exposed king and weak dark
squares.
s .llg2 d6
S . . . dS certainly comes into
account, e.g. 6 0-0 cS 7 c4 d4?! 8 b4!
black centre. Think of it as a kind of
Benko Gambit R eversed ( I d4 �ffi
2 c4 cS 3 dS bS is the Benko Gambit
proper) where White has not
needed to sacrifice a pawn.
If Black wants to play S . . . dS,
he should react to 6 0-0 with the
lllore circumspect 6 . . . c6 7 c4 and
t hen either 7 . . . .l}.£5 or 7 . . . Ag4,
going into the Ne�Grunfeld.
6 d4 eS
Or 6 �bd 7 , as m
Larsen-Westerinen, Palma 1 968 ,
which continued 7 0-0 .§ e8 8
�bd2 eS 9 de de 1 0 e4 b6 I I #e2
,llb 7 12 .§ fd l #e7 1 3 a4 aS 1 4 .l}.a3
#e6 1S �gS #c6 1 6 #c4 # x c4 1 7
� x c4 �ffi 1 8 f3 h6 1 9 �h3 .§ ad8
20 �f2 �e6. This looks equal but
Larsen won in 4S .
7 de �g4
8 h3
Smyslov's idea.
8 . . . � x eS
9 � x eS .l}. x eS
After 9 . . . de 10 ·� / d8, .§ x d8
I I �d2 followed by 0-0-0 the
ending Is good for White,
JOB Transpositions
1 970. But if now 1 0 J,t x eS de I I allowed White's last move in order
� x d8 § x d8 1 2 .£)d7 the to trap the knight.
exchange of the dark-squared 22 § a7
bishops has considerably eased 23 �b2! ( 121)
Black's game.
10 .£)c3 c6 121
I I �d2 dS B
1 2 0-0-0 �e7
1 3 h4 aS
1 4 f4 J,tg7
I S hS a4
An over-reac tion. After I S . . .
.£)d7 the position is far from
clear.
16 .£) x a4 Jlx b2+
1 7 <tfrx b2 bS He can let the knight go, for now
18 .£)c3 .£)d7 if 23 . . . cd 24 Ax d5+ §f7 25
18 . . . �a3+ leads to nothing § x h7 <tfr x h7 26 § h i + and
with the white knight a firm mates.
defender. 23 . . . b4
19 hg �a3+ Cu tting off the knight's last
If now 1 9 . . . fg 20 J,tx dS+ ! -±: ± . retreat, bu t disaster strikes from a
20 <{ftbl fg different angle.
2 1 �c l �cS? 24 J,th3! 1-0
He had to try 21 . . . �aS. The bishop check Is now
White's in tention then was 22 �b2 threatened on e6, while anotht'r
.£)b6 23 § x h7 <tfrx h7 24 § h i + threat is 25 Ax d 7 and .£)f6 t . A
<{ftg8 2 S .£) x dS .£) x dS 26 Ax d5+ move by the black knight allows 2S
cd 27 �h8+ <{ftf7 28 § h7+ <{ft<"8 .£)£6 -t- at once.
29 �<"5+ but tht' whole line is
nullified by the zwischenzug 23 . . . The Caro--Kann, French and
d4! So after 22 �b2 .£)b6 White Sicilian Defences
would have had to play the quieter After I b3 c6 or I . . . !"6 or I . . . c.'i
23 § h 2 . White has the option with 2 c4 of
22 .£) x d5! transposing into one of the half­
Naturally the con tinuation 22 open defences. Although the
. . . cd 23 Jl , d5+ is an immediate fi anchetto of the white QB looks
win for White, but Black has odd under these circumstances, it
 Transpositions 109
has nevertheless attracted a I n view of all this after I b3 e6 2
number of devotees. Tartakower e4 the best recommendation must
often used 2 b3 against the F rench be 2 . . . c5! , transposing from the
Defence, while Westerinen and French to the Sicilian, which is the
Czerniak have both made a subject of the illustrative game
speciality of b3 as an anti-Sicilian which follows.
weapon.
I n the Caro-Kann the line I b3 W esterinen�Tal
c6 2 e4 d5 3 ed cd is completely Tallinn 1973
insipid and poses Black no problems (Notes by Tal)
at all. The sequence is hardly ever I e4 c5
used, while the gambit idea I b3 c6 2 <tlf3 e6
2 e4 d5 3 ..Q..b 2 de 4 <tlc3 <tlffi 5 i!fe2 3 b3
is dubious in view of 5 . . . ..Q..f5 ! The Finnish master quite often
I n the French D efence I b3 e6 2 employs this move. At Tallinn 197 1
e4 d5 3 .Q_b2! de 4 <tlc3 <tlffi 5 �e2 he beat Stein in this variation.
is actually rather promising for Literally half an hour before the
White, who will easily regain his start of this game, I came across the
pawn (5 . . . <tlc6 6 <tl x e4 <tld4 7 score of Westerinen - Kaplan,
i!fd3 is a poinLless adventure for Skopje 1 972, which White had lost
Black.) and obtain fine play for his in 20 moves. Without further
pieces in the middle game, e.g. 5 examination I decided to follow
. . . c5 6 <tl x e4 .!)_e7 7 0�0-0 <tlc6 8 Kaplan's example .
<tlf3 0--0 9 )ftb I <tl X e4 I 0 � x e4 3 <tlf6
Affi I I ..Q..d 3 g6 1 2 ..Q.. x ffi � x ffi 1 3 4 e5 <tld5
�e3 b6 1 4 h4± Ochoa de 5 .!)_b2 .!)_e7
Echaguen-R enman, Ca'n Picafort 6 c4 <tlc7
1975. One would normally play 6 . . .
It should also be mentioned thal <tlb4, but Kaplan won quickly with
the apparently harmless exchange the text.
line I b3 e6 2 e4 d5 3 l,tb2 <tlffi 4 ed 7 <tlc3 f6
ed (Superior are . . . � x d5 or . . . 8 <tle4 fe
<tl x d5 bu t either would involve 9 <tl x e5 0--0
Black in loss of time.) is fatal for 10 d4
Black after 5 �e2+ ! ..Q..e7 (or 5 . . . At Skopje Westerinen played 1 0
i!fe7 ) 6 .!)_ x ffi! shattering Black's i!fg4? here and after 1 0 . . . <tle8 , I I
pawns, or 5 �e2+ ! .,ktefl 6 i!fb5+ . . . d6 and 1 2 . . . e5 the active
!)_d 7 7 i!fx b7 ..Q..c6 8 .!)_b5!± . influence of White's QB is brought
110 Transpositions
to an end and Black soon seizes the
initiative. I t was extremely naive to
think that White would repeat that
game. After the text White has a
definite advantage. On 1 0 . . . d6
there could follow I I .t'Jf'3 cd 1 2
i!Y x d4 e5 1 3 i!Ye3 and the pressure
on the d-file guarantees White
excellent prospects.
10 cd
I I i!Yxd4 Jtb4+
1 2 )f(d l
W esterinen is a very active
player and was not content with the
continuation 1 2 Jtc3 .t'Jc6 1 3
.t'J x c6 Ax c3+ 1 4 i!Y x c3 be, when
he would have only a slight
positional advantage. The desire to
preserve his QB also rests on a
posi tional basis, but his solution to
this task is inaccurate and 1 2 )f(e2
was much more dangerous for
Black. The dilTerence will become
obvious at once.
12 . . . d6!
Surprising as it may seem, this
simple move escaped Westerinen's
attention . After 13 .t'Jc6 e5 White is
left a piece down. But with his king
on e2 White could play 13 a3 de
(There is nothing else.) 14 i!Yxd8
.§ x d8 1 5 ab .t'J c6 when the
endgame Is unclear. I n this
variation 14 � x e5 is also worth
examination .
1 3 .t'Jd3 e5
14 'V#'e3 Jta5!
Another argu ment for 1 2 )f(e2 is
that he could now play 1 5 .§d l .
The position of the king on the d­
fi le even justfied Black in thinking
about 14 . . . d5 but it seemed to me
that after 15 .t'J x b4 de+ 16 )f(c2
White will succeed in completing
his development. The modest text is
much more unpleasant, for now
White must seriously consider the
threat by Black to advance his
centre pawn.
1 5 i!Yg5 i!Yd7 !
Even the exchange of queens left
Black with a clear advantage.
1 6 <;!(c2 i!f'c6! ( 122)
122
w
Black spent a long time
examining the immediate 16 . . . b5
with sharp variations like 1 7 .§d I
be 1 8 .t'J x e5 i!Yf5 19 Jtx c4+ d5 20
.§ x d5 etc. But the seemingly
awkward q ueen move leads to a
great and perhaps decisive
advantage. Black develops his
pieces at once with gain of tempo,
and c6 is by no means the only
station for the knight.
1 7 f3
 Transpositions Ill

1 7 ll:lxd6 't!t'xd6 1 8 i.xe5 't!t'd7 4 e3 llJf6

gives W,h ite nothing. 5 ll:lc3 g6
17 i.f5 6 d4 ed
18 ll:lg3 7 ed i.g7
18 i.e2 was more stubborn, 8 d5!?
against which Black intended 1 8 Plaskett decides to strike with
. . . ll:lba6. both kings in the centre and the
18 i.g6 dark-squared bishop unprotected.
Naturally not 1 8 . . . ll:le6 1 9 8 ll:le4
ll:lxf5. 9 'fi'c l llJe5
19 li c l ll:lba6 10 f4!
Threatening a lethal check on Spassky was full of praise for
b4. If 20 a3 llJc5 21 b4 lLl xd3 22 this boat-burning lunge. White's
i.xd3 'irxc4+, so White's only next is forced since I I g3? ll:lxg3 1 2
escape from the pin, avoiding rapid h g 't!t'xh 1 1 3 't!t'e3 loses t o 1 3
material losses, is 20 ct>d 1 , giving a 't!t'xg 1 ! .
position which does not, I suggest, 10 'irh4+
call for appraisal. 11 wd l ! ll:lf7
20 i.a3 ll:lb5 With obvious reluctance, Black
21 �b2 ll:lxa3 sounds the retreat: I I . ll:lf2+ 1 2
..

22 't!t'e3 <t>c2 ll:lxh 1 1 3 fe 't!t'f2+ 14 ll:lce2,

Black wins at once after 22 with ll:lf3 and i.d4 to follow, gives
�xa3 i.xd3 23 i.xd3 't!t'c5+ 24 White tremendous compensation.
ct>b2 't!t'd4+. 12 ll:lf3 't!t'h6!
22 ll:lb4! Defending the bishop and hoping
Quicker than the prosaic 22 . . . to swoop on f4.
i.xd3 and 2 3 . . . i.b4. 13 ll:lxe4 fe
23 �xa3 i.xd3 14 ll:lg5 d6
24 i.xd3 't!t'a6! 15 ll:lxe4?!
0- 1 This instantly releases Black's
kingside pieces, which flood into
Plaskett-Spassky the open spaces behind White's
London 1 986 pawns. 1 5 i.e2 is more sensible:
(Notes based on those by Watson the players analysed 15 . . . 0-0 1 6
in the tournament bulletin) h 4 ll:lxg5 1 7 fg i.xb2 1 8 'irxb2 1!t'g7
1 c4 e5 as marginally better for White.
2 b3 ll:lc6 15 i.xb2
3 i.b2 f5 16 't!t'xb2 1!t'xf4
1 12 Transpositions

17 .id3 lead on the clock. White is a little

17 !fd4! threatens li:Jf6+ or worse and is unable to resist
llJxd6+ depending on circum­ Spassky's probing and energetic
stances. Since 17 . . . .ig4+ 1 8 �c2 manoeuvring.
0-0-0 again allows 19 li:Jxd6+ Black 21 :S:ae l 't!rh6
must venture 1 7 . . . �e7!? or accept 22 h3 .tf5
equality with 1 7 . . . !fe5. 23 llJc5 !? llJxd3
17 llJe5 24 llJxd3 lit he8
18 :a:n .tg4+?! 25 !fd2 't!rh4
Hasty checks are temptations 26 litxe8 l:l:xe8
even to world champions! 1 8 . . . 27 :S:f4 't!Vg3
!fe3 ! 1 9 :S:f3 't!Vg l + wins a safe 28 l:[f3 1!re5
pawn. 29 g4 .ie4
19 �c2 !fe3 30 l:l:e3 't!ra l !
20 't!Vc3 0-0-0 31 a4 �d7!
Spassky may have intended 20 Guarding the rook.
. . . .ie2 but then White can indulge 32 1!Vd 1 't!rd4
in the fantastic 21 llJxd6+! (threat­ 33 1!rd2 a6
ening discovered check with the . . . b5 is in the air. White, already
bishop) 21 . . . �e7 22 lU7+ ! ! llJxf7 without useful moves, blunders to
23 ;Ie l ! . Here 23 . . . .i.xd3+ 24 let in the rook.
�b2 !fxe 1 25 't!rxe 1 + �xd6 26 34 �d l? .ixd3!
!fe6+ �c5 27 �c3 ! li:Jd6 28 't!re3 is 35 :S:xd3 1!ra l +
mate, so the best Black can hope 36 �c2 lite 1
for is the unclear 23 . . . cd 24 lhe2 37 lite3 :S: b l
!fxe2+ 25 .ixe2 b6! . It was, natu­ 38 �d3
rally, the second of these variations White resigned, a s 38 . . . litd l
that Plaskett had in mind! The rest wins the queen. A splendidly im­
of the game is dominated by Black's pressive struggle!
I ndex of Com plete Games
.\KESSON Short 1 2 2
AND ERSSEN-Kolisch 7 7
BASMAN-Crouch 1 3
BELLON -Browne 1 5 , Padevsky 78
BLACKBU R N E -Owen 1 1 4
BOTVI N N I K-Chekhover 4 1
BRONST E I N-Tal 5 6 , Tukmakov 80
BRO\\' :'I: E Miles 1 2 1
CHIGOR I N -Skipworth 1 1 7
F I L I P-Botvinnik 1 03
F I SCHER-Filip 89
G I PS L I S- Gutman 60
K E ENE-Bellon 71, Denman
Janetschek 98, Kovacevic
Milbers 36, Pares 1 06, Penrose 69,
Schmidt 1 05
KORCHNOI-Bellin 86, R t'shevsky 99
LARSEN-Balinas 6, Dominguez 7 7 ,
Eley 1 6 K avalek 7 0 , Parma
Penrose 1 0 1 , Portisch 2 3 , Spassky 3
L I LJEDAHL-Cooper 9
LJU BOJEVI C-Kavalt'k 1 9 , Tri ngov
83
M I CHELL- N imzowitsch 4
MORPHY- Maurian ix
M U R EI-Schechtman 78
N I M ZO W I TS C H - A l e k h i n e 24,
Ahues 39, H . Johner 26, Leelaus xi,
Maroczy 40, R u binstein 97
PETKEVI CH-Vdovin 55
PETROSI AN-Hort 33, Korchnoi 93,
M ecking 46, Portisch 6 'l
PLACHETKA--Zinn 27
PLANI NC-H artoch 53
POLUGAYE\"SKY Korchnoi 1 2 1
QU I NTEROS-Ree 20
RAZU VAYEV-Kapengut 2 1
ROBATSCH-Bisguier 43
S I M U NEK-Cizek 1 2
34, SKI PWORTH-Owen 1 1 6
48 , S M EJKAL-H ubner 92
STE.\:\ :\ I iles 1 '2 '2
S MYSLOV -Ado�jan 59, Trifunovic 38
SPEELMAN - M iles 1 1 9
STAU NTON-Worrall ix
SZABO-Padevsky 9 1
13, SZI LAGYI-Taimanov 1 5 , Vaisman 8
TI M MAN- Bohm 75, Padevsky 22
WESTER I NEN--Tal 1 09
WHITELEY-Keene 1 1 9
Z U K E R TORT-Biackburne 1 03
I ndex of Variations

A
I b3 e5
I . b5 74
. .

I . b6 73
. .

I . . c5.

a) 2 .,ilb2 �c6 3 e3 ( 3 c4 1 0 1 ) 3 . . . �ffi 4 g4 57

b) 2 c4 b6 67
c) 2 c4 �c6 68
d) 2 c4 �fx 6 67
e) 2 �f3 e6 3 e4 1 09
I . c6 1 09
. .

I . d5 2 Jl.b2
. .

a) 2 . . . c5 3 e3 �c6 4 .,ilb5 7 7
b ) 2 . . . Jl.f5 50
c) 2 . . . �ffi 89
d) 2 . . . Jl.g4 48, 53, 56
l . e6 1 09
. .

I . . f5 2 .,ilb2 (2 �f3 b6 85) 2 . . . d6 ( 2 . . . �ffi 3 d3 d6 4 e4 e5 85) 3 c4 (3

.

f4 80) 3 . . . e5 85
I . �£6 2 Ab2
. .
 Index of Variations 115
a) 2 . . b6 80
.

b) 2 . . . d5 3 f4 g6 (3 . . . e6; 3 . . . ,llf5 8 1 ) 4 .:£)£3 Jlg7 5 e3 (5 g3 82) 5 . . .

0--0 6 ,ile2 c5 7 0-0 .:£)c6 83
c) 2 . . . g6 3 e4 59
d) 2 . . . g6 3 .:£)£3 Ag7 4 e3 0-0 62
e) 2 . . . g6 3 g4 57
2 j},b2 .:£)c6
2 . . . d6 18
2 . . . ffi l 7
3 e3
3 c4 .:£)ffi
a) 4 .:£)c3 I
b) 4 e3 2
c) 4 .:£)£3 I
d) 4 g3 I
3 • • . .:£)£6
3 . . . d5 4 Jlb5 Jld6 (4 . . . ffi 6)
a) 5 c4 7
b) 5 .:£)£3 8
c) 5 f4 7

4 .:£)£3 e4 5 .:£)d4 I I
4 . . . d6
4 . . . Jld6 1 4
5 .:£)e2
5 .:£)£3 1 4
After 5 .:£)e2:
5 . . . a6 1 5
5 . . . .:£) d 7 15
5 . . . Jld 7 16
5 . . . Ae7 1 5
5 . . . g6 1 4

B
1 c4
a) I . . . c5 2 b3 .:£)ffi 3 Ab2 d6 4 g3 .:£)c6 5 Jlg2 g6 6 Ax ffi ef 7 .:£)c3 7 1
b ) I . . . e5 2 g 3 c6 3 b 3 d 5 4 Jlb2 93
c) I . . . f5 2 .:£)£3 .:£)ffi 3 g3 e6 4 Ag2 Ae 7 5 0-0 0--0 6 b3 86
116 Index of Variations

c
I d4
a) I f5 2 g3 g6 3 Jtg-2 Ag7 4 �f3 d6 5 0--0 �h6 6 c4 0--0 7 �c3 c6 8 b3
0 0 0

86
b) I �ffi 2 c4 e6 3 �f3 b6 4 e3 Jlb7 5 Jtd3 (5 Jle2 1 03) 5
0 0 0 d5 6 0--0 0 0 0

Jtd6 7 b3 0--0 8 Jlb2 1 04

D
I e3
I 0 0 0 �ffi 2 f4 d5 3 �f3 Jtg-4 4 b3 �bd7 5 Jlb2 e6 53

E
I �f3 d5
I . c5 2 b3
• .

a) 2 d6 640 0 0

b) 2 �ffi 66 0 0 0

1 . . �f6 .

a) 2 b3 d6 3 g3 (3 d4; 3 ,ilb2 23) 3 e5 23 0 0 0

b) 2 b3 d5 3 ,ilb2 c5 4 e3 �c6 5 Jlb5 llg4 55

c) 2 c4 g6 3 b3 Jlg7 4 Jlb2 0--0 5 g3 1 06
d) 2 g3 d5 3 Jtg-2 c6 4 0--0 (4 b3 Jlf5 1 00; 4 Jtg-4 99) 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jl5 5 d3 e6 6
�bd2 Jle7 7 b3 92
e) 2 g3 g6 3 b3 Jtg7 4 Jlb2 0-0 5 Jlg2 d6 6 d4 1 07
2 b3
2 c4 e6 3 g3 �ffi 4 Jlg2 Jld6 5 b3 79
2 ... c5
2 0 11.5 97
0 0

2 0 ffi 43
0 0

2 0 �ffi 3 Jlb2
0 0

a) 3 c6 450 0 0

b) 3 e6 37 0 0 0

2 0 Jlg3
0 0

a ) 3 Jlb2 48
b) 3 e3 46
3 e3
3 .Q.b2 ffi 29
3 ... �c6
3 0 �ffi 4 .Q.b2 "30
0 0
 Index of Variationr 117

4 . . . a 6 26
4 . . . .:£!ffi 26
4 . . . Jlg4 25

F
1 f4
I . . . e6 2 e3 f5 3 g3 .:£!ffi 4 .,ilg2 d5 5 .:£!f3 c5 6 b3 79 I . f5 2 .:£!f3 ( 2 b3 .:£!ffi
. .

3 g3 79) 2 . . . .:£!ffi 3 e3 e6 4 .,ile2 .,ile7 5 0-0 0-0 6 b3 b6 80

G
I g3
I . . . f5 2 .,ilg2 .:£!ffi 3 c4 e6 4 b3 80