Centre Counter [B01]

Written by GM Nigel Davies & IM Andrew Martin

Last updated Thursday, September 23, 2004

XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwqkvlntr0
9zppzp-zppzpp0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+P+-+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzPPzP-zPPzP0
9tRNvLQmKLsNR0
xiiiiiiiiy

T
he Centre Counter is an excellent weapon particularly at club level, as it is sound
and solid yet rarely encountered, henceforth many of your opponents will be
unable to hit you with theory, increasing your chances of success.
Black has many dangerous gambit lines with which to surprise the opponent, and
White can so easily be blown away before move 20. Black can of course play safely and
solidly with 2...£xd5 but dynamic options are plentiful in this exciting and relatively
uncharted opening.

All the games given in blue can be accessed via ChessPub.exe, simply head for their
respective ECO code.
 Contents

1 e4 d5 2 exd5 £xd5
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnl+kvlntr0
9zppzp-zppzpp0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+q+-+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzPPzP-zPPzP0
9tRNvLQmKLsNR0
xiiiiiiiiy

2...¤f6 Centre Counter 2...Nf6 [B01]

XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwqkvl-tr0
9zppzp-zppzpp0
9-+-+-sn-+0
9+-+P+-+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzPPzP-zPPzP0
9tRNvLQmKLsNR0
xiiiiiiiiy

3 ¤c3 £a5 Centre Counter − 2...Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qa5− [B01]

3...£d6, 3...£d8 3...£e5+ Centre Counter − 2...Qxd5 not −3...Qa5 [B01]

Press F5 to toggle the Navigation Pane, then click on the appropriate bookmark to go
straight to that section.
Ctrl + 2 resizes the page.

All rights reserved Chess Publishing Ltd

2
3
 Centre Counter − 2...Nf6 [B01]

Last updated: 14/05/04 by Andy Martin

1 e4 d5
Centre Counter

2 exd5 ¤f6
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwqkvl-tr0
9zppzp-zppzpp0
9-+-+-sn-+0
9+-+P+-+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzPPzP-zPPzP0
9tRNvLQmKLsNR0
xiiiiiiiiy

2...c6?! Total rubbish but it works a treat in our featured game. 3 dxc6 ¤xc6 4 ¤f3 (4 ¤c3!)
4...e5 5 ¥b5 ¥d6 Vela Ignacio,J−Razmyslov,A/Coria del Rio ESP 2004, Black won,
but White played rather nervously...

3 d4
Others: 3 c4 e6!? The so−called "Icelandic Gambit", (3...c6 4 d4 cxd5 is a Panov Caro−Kann)
4 dxe6 ¥xe6 5 ¤f3 (5 d4 ¥b4+ Zarnicki,P−Fiorito,F/Buenos Aires Zonal Tournament
2000) 5...£e7 6 £e2 ¤c6 7 d4 ¥g4 8 ¥e3 0-0-0 9 d5 ¤e5 10 ¤c3 ¤fd7 11 h3
¤xf3+ 12 gxf3 ¥h5³ Very calm− Black plays for structural advantage− regaining
the pawn can come later, Kosmo,S−Smerdon,D/41st WJun, Goa IND 2002.
3 ¥e2! This calmly develops the kingside and certainly prevents any 3...¥g4 nonsense.
White intends to follow up with ¤f3, d2−d4 and 0-0 after which his d4 pawn gives
him a small space advantage. 3...¤xd5 now, 4 d4 transposes to a main line, whilst
cutting−out the possibility of Black's gambit line with 3... Bg4 and is, in my opinion,
more precise.
3 ¤c3 Of course, in playing this way White can hardly obtain an opening advantage and the
whole line is considered as quite harmless for Black. However it has occurred a few

4
 times at top level. Even Paul Keres has tried it once − and with great success!
3...¤xd5 4 ¤ge2 Keres,P−Mikenas,V/URS 1968 (see B02) contains a summary of
this line.
3 ¥b5+ ¥d7 (3...¤bd7! This move leads to a very sharp and interesting game. It allows
White to keep an extra pawn but Black has good prospects for gaining the initiative,
Movsesian,S−Damaso,R/Pula 1997.) 4 ¥e2 ¤xd5 5 d4 ¥f5 The most popular move.
(5...¤b6 6 c4 e5!? A rare but very interesting gambit line. Black's ideas are similar to
those in the well−known line 3.d4 Nxd5 4.c4 Nb6 5. Nc3 e5 which we have
considered already (see Remizov − Bezgodov) Movsesian,S−Biolek,R/Olomouc
1997. 5...g6?! Black plays in a similar fashion to the main line with 3.d4, but this is a
different position! The difference will become clear after White's 8th move,
Bronstein,D−Lutikov,A/ USSR (ch) 1960. 5...g6 6 c4! ¤b6 7 ¤c3 ¥g7 8 ¥e3 0-0 9 £d2
¥f5 10 g4 ¥c8 11 0-0-0 ¤c6 12 h4‚ Becquart,J−Sacliez,A/6th St Quentin Open,
Elancourt FRA 2003. If this is the best that Black can do 5...g6 is heading for the
scrapheap.) 6 ¤f3 e6 7 a3 (7 0-0 ¥e7 8 a3 h6 9 c4 ¤f6 10 £b3 £c8 11 ¤c3 0-0 12 d5 exd5 13
cxd5 c6„ Black's position cannot be taken by storm. 14 ¤d4 ¥g6 15 dxc6 ¤xc6 16 ¤xc6
bxc6 17 £c4 ¤d5 18 ¤e4 £e6 19 ¥d3 ¦ad8 20 £c2 ¦fe8∓ Collutiis,D−Genocchio,D/ch−
ITA, Montecatini Terme ITA 2002, activity towers over structure!) 7...¥e7 8 c4 ¤b6
9 ¤c3 0-0 10 h3 ¤c6 11 ¥e3 ¥f6 12 0-0 The "tabia" of this line. White has a certain
advantage in space while Black has counterchances due to his pressure on the d4−
pawn. By the way the position looks like one from the Alekhine Four Pawns Attack,
(without the f2 and f7 pawns it's just a position from Yudasin − Kengis!) and the
ideas of both sides are very similar, Kaminski,M−Gipslis,A/Cappelle la Grande
1998.
3 ¤f3 ¤xd5 4 d4 transposes

3...¤xd5
3...¥g4
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsn-wqkvl-tr0
9zppzp-zppzpp0
9-+-+-sn-+0
9+-+P+-+-0
9-+-zP-+l+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzPP+-zPPzP0
9tRNvLQmKLsNR0
xiiiiiiiiy

A very interesting but dubious line. Black sacrifices a pawn hoping to get active piece play,
but White's defensive resources are huge and it's quite difficult to get full
compensation. On the other hand White has to tread very carefully, otherwise
Black's initiative may become extremely dangerous. 4 f3 (4 ¤f3 is a good move here,

5
 (as is 4 ¥b5+) 4...£xd5 5 ¥e2 ¤c6 6 h3 ¥xf3 7 ¥xf3 £d7 8 c3 0-0-0 9 £b3 e5 10 dxe5 £d3 a
sacrifice which simply doesn't work, Spangenberg,H−Llanos,G/II American
Continental, Buenos Aires A 2003) 4...¥f5
a) 5 c4 is very natural but probably far from best. It may seem that now Black is in trouble
as White has an extra pawn and a very strong pawn centre. But Black has something
in mind! 5...e6! 6 dxe6 ¤c6! The point. 7 ¤e2 (White couldn't solve his problems
with 7 ¥e3 because of 7...¥b4+ 8 ¤c3 £e7!, Dutreeuw,M−Rocha,S/Batumi 1999, for
only a pawn Black has a huge advantage in development and great activity for all his
pieces. It's extremely difficult to find a sufficient defence for White.) 7...¤b4!
Aiming at the c2 and d3 squares, Burovic,I−Monange,S/Torcy 1991.
b) 5 ¥b5+ In my opinion only by playing this move can White hope for an opening
advantage. 5...¤bd7 6 c4 The position is somewhat similar to Movsesian − Damaso.
But compared to that game White has gained some tempi here, so it's not so easy for
Black to prove he has something for a pawn. 6...a6 (Black has also tried 6...e6 7 dxe6
¥xe6 Agnos,D−Santos,C/Pula 1997.) 7 ¥xd7+ £xd7 8 ¤e2 e6 9 dxe6 £xe6 10 b3 0-
0-0 11 0-0 ¥c5 12 ¢h1 ¥xd4 13 ¤xd4 £d7 14 ¥b2 c5 15 b4! cxd4 16 b5 ¦he8!? A
very interesting attempt to improve Black's play. (After 16...axb5?! White obtained
crushing attack with 17 ¤a3! Lanka,Z−Hauchard,A/Torcy 1991.) 17 bxa6 bxa6 18
¤d2 Volzhin,A−Gausel,E/Bergen 2000.

4 c4
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwqkvl-tr0
9zppzp-zppzpp0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+n+-+-0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9tRNvLQmKLsNR0
xiiiiiiiiy

4 ¤f3
a) 4...¥g4 5 h3 (5 ¥e2 ¤c6 6 0-0 DeFirmian,N−Schroer,J/New York (USA) 1984.) 5...¥h5 6
c4 Svidler,P−Dreev,A/Elista 1997.
b) 4...g6 5 c4 transposes
4 ¥e2! g6 (4...¥f5 5 ¤f3 e6 6 0-0 Degraeve,J−De Wolf,J/Belgium 1996.) 5 ¤f3 ¥g7 6 0-0 0-0
7 ¦e1! Kotronias,V−Thorhallsson,T/Reykjavik (Iceland) 1988.

4...¤b6
4...¤b4 5 £a4+ Rohde−Tsitevic.

6
5 ¤f3
5 ¤c3 This move order prevents the 5. Nf3 Bg4 line but allows an interesting counterblow
in the centre. 5...e5!? (5...g6 6 c5! is the idea behind an early Nc3. 6...¤6d7 7 ¥c4 ¥g7 8
¤f3 0-0 9 0-0 b6 10 ¤g5 ¤f6 11 £b3 e6 12 d5 h6 13 dxe6 hxg5 14 exf7+ ¢h7 15 ¥xg5 with a
tremendous attack for White, Strikovic−Tissir/Dos Hermanas 2004)
a) 6 d5!? A continuation which deserves serious attention, Bielczyk,J−Slabek,G/Katowice
1992.
b) Let's see how Black might develop his attack against White's unpromising sixth move 6
dxe5?! In my opinion this is a dubious move, 6...£xd1+ 7 ¤xd1 (7 ¢xd1?!
Remizov,J−Bezgodov,A/St.Petersburg 1994) 7...¤c6 8 f4 f6! 9 exf6 gxf6 10 ¤f3
¥g4 11 ¤e3 ¥xf3 12 gxf3 ¤d4 13 ¢f2 ¥c5 Belaska,P−Sikora Lerch,J/TCh−CZE
2002 Already White's position is very difficult and he went on to lose quite
effortlessly.
c) 6 ¤f3 6...¥g4 7 ¥e2 Frolov,D−Vshivkov,K/Perm 1997.

5...g6
5...¥g4 is the alternative.

6 ¤c3
6 ¥e2 ¥g7 7 0-0 0-0 8 ¤c3 ¤c6 (8...¥g4 is the main alternative to the text, Rusanov,M−
Alekseev,E/St Petersburg RUS 1999.) 9 d5 ¤e5 10 c5! This move is the most
serious attempt to fight for an opening advantage, Solovjov,S−Alekseev,E/St
Petersburg 1999. (10 ¤xe5 Polgar,J−Stefansson,H/Egilsstadir 1988.)

6...¥g7 7 ¥e3 0-0 8 h3 ¤c6 9 £d2

9 ¥e2 e5 10 d5 ¤e7 11 g4!? This line should become more and more popular as recent
practice proves Black has difficult problems to solve here. 11...¦e8!? Psakhis,L−
Manor,I/Israel 2000, the alternative (11...a5 was played in Varavin,V−
Terekhin,A/Perm 1998, where Black failed to equalise)

9...e5 10 d5 ¤e7

7
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9zppzp-snpvlp0
9-sn-+-+p+0
9+-+Pzp-+-0
9-+P+-+-+0
9+-sN-vLN+P0
9PzP-wQ-zPP+0
9tR-+-mKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

Nowadays the old move 10...¤a5!? is becoming more and more popular Grischuk,A−
Malakhov,V/Lausanne 2000.

11 g4
Very typical for this kind of position. White prevents Ne7−f5 and prepares a kingside
attack.

11...f5 12 0-0-0 fxg4 13 ¤g5 g3!?

13...¤f5 Gipslis,A−Maric,R/Erevan 1971.

14 c5
Milos,G−Sapis,W/Cappelle La Grande 2000.

8
 Centre Counter − 2...Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qa5

[B01]

Last updated: 23/09/04 by Andy Martin

1 e4 d5 2 exd5 £xd5
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnl+kvlntr0
9zppzp-zppzpp0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+q+-+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzPPzP-zPPzP0
9tRNvLQmKLsNR0
xiiiiiiiiy

3 ¤c3
3 d4?! Inaccurate. 3...¤c6 (3...e5! Clearly the best move. 4 ¤f3 ¤c6 5 ¤c3 ¥b4 6 ¥d2 ¥xc3 7
¥xc3 e4 8 ¤e5 ¤xe5 9 dxe5 ¤e7 10 £xd5 ¤xd5 11 ¥d4 ¤b4 12 ¥b5+ c6 13 ¥a4 ¥e6=
Fernandez Garcia,J−Karpov,A/Basque Country vs. World Advanced, Sant 2003
Black has a very free and easy game. The two bishops will never get to show their
strength.) 4 ¤f3 ¥g4 5 ¥e2 0-0-0 6 ¥e3 Morozevich,A−Rogers,I/Germany 1999. (6
c4 De Firmian,N−Waitzkin,J/New York (USA) 1996.)
3 ¤f3 intends to keep c4 as an option:
a) 3...¤f6 4 d4 ¥g4 (4...g6 5 c4 £d8 Tal,M−Bronstein,D/Moscow 1967) 5 ¥e2
a1) 5...¤c6?! 6 h3 ¥xf3 7 ¥xf3 £e6+ 8 ¥e3 0-0-0 9 0-0 ¤d5 (I think I prefer 9...£d7
attempting to unravel, but White is better anyway.) 10 £e2 ¤xe3 11 fxe3 £d7 12
¥xc6 £xc6 13 ¦xf7± Lee,G−Ledger,S/Scarborough ENG 2004
a2) 5...e6 6 0-0 ¥e7 7 ¥f4 (7 h3 ¥h5 8 c4 Degraeve,J−Kovarcik,G/Saint−Affrique (France)
1999 and Rowson,J−Martin,A/Southend 2002.) 7...£d8 8 c4 0-0 9 £b3 £c8 10 ¤c3
¤bd7 11 ¦ad1 a6 12 ¦fe1 ¦e8 13 ¤e5² White is surely better but if Black is rational

9
 he should be able to minimise his disadvantage, Ferguson,M−Martin,A/4NCL
Telford 2003.
b) 3...g6! 4 ¤c3 (4 d4 ¤f6 5 ¤c3 £d6 6 ¤e5 ¥g7 Zakharstov,V−Epishin,V/Elista RUS 2001)
4...£d8 (4...£d6 5 ¥c4 ¤f6 6 d3 Okrajek,A−Epishin,V/Werther GER 2002.) 5 d4 (5 ¥c4
¥g7 6 d4 ¤h6 7 ¥f4 ¤f5 this is a very risky, time−consuming idea for Black which can
only be recommended for experimentation. 8 ¥e5 0-0 9 ¥xg7 ¢xg7 10 £e2 ¤d6 11 h4
¥g4 12 h5 ¤d7 13 ¥d3 ¤f6 14 £e5! Hinks−Edwards,T−Martin,A/England T/T 2003 and
White has a strong initiative.) 5...¤h6 6 ¥f4 ¤f5 7 ¥e5 ¦g8 is an odd line which
might not be too bad for Black. The d4 pawn will come under pressure.

3...£a5
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnl+kvlntr0
9zppzp-zppzpp0
9-+-+-+-+0
9wq-+-+-+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-sN-+-+-0
9PzPPzP-zPPzP0
9tR-vLQmKLsNR0
xiiiiiiiiy

4 d4
The move 4 g3!? represents a much quieter way of playing this opening for White, aiming
to complete his development and hopefully develop pressure on the h1-a8 diagonal:
4...¤f6 5 ¥g2 c6 (5...¥g4 6 ¤ge2 ¤c6 7 h3 ¥h5 8 d3 Rozentalis,E−Milos,G/Tilburg
1992) 6 ¤f3 (6 ¤ge2 g6 7 0-0 ¥g7 8 ¦b1 0-0 9 b4 £d8 10 a4 ¤e8 11 b5 ¤d6 12 d3 c5„
Casper,T−Speelman,J/Bundesliga 2002, note the careful delay in developing the
queenside, giving Black the maximum chance to defend against b4−b5.) 6...¥g4 7 0-
0 e6 8 h3 ¥xf3 9 £xf3 ¥e7 (9...¤bd7 Tiviakov,S−Hansen,C/Wijk aan Zee 1994) 10
a3 0-0 11 ¦b1 £c7 12 b4 Rozentalis,E−Khalifman,A/Germany 1993.
4 ¤f3 ¤f6 (4...¥g4 5 h3 ¥h5 6 g4 ¥g6 7 ¥g2 Chiburdanidze,M−Klaric,Z/Banja Luka 1985) 5
¥c4 (5 h3 c6 6 ¥d3!? Suetin,A−Steiner,G/Velden op 1996) 5...¥g4 6 h3 ¥h5 7 £e2
¤bd7 8 g4 ¥g6 9 b4!? Rohde,M−Seirawan,Y/USA 1976.

4...¤f6
4...e5 A rare continuation which can confuse the White player if he does not know what to
do, Ritov−Skuya/USSR 1971.
4...c6! A good move order, sidestepping a number of attacking ideas.

10
a) 5 ¤f3 ¥f5 6 ¥c4 ¤d7 (6...e6! also seems good: 7 0-0 ¤f6 8 £e2 ¥b4 9 ¥b3 0-0 10 ¥d2 ¤bd7 11
a3 ¥xc3 12 ¥xc3 £c7 13 ¥d2 c5!= Kosintseva,N−Zhukova,N/Elista RUS 2004, a good
moment to begin active play with the Bishop on b3 unimpressive. Black is fully
equal.) 7 ¥d2 e6 8 ¤e4 £c7 9 ¤g3 ¥g6 10 h4 h6 11 h5 ¥h7 12 £e2 ¥xc2!∓
Heinatz,T−Keitlinghaus,L/Stuttgart GER 2004 Why not? After this cold−blooded
capture, White never proved that he had enough compensation.
b) 5 ¥c4 5...¥f5 6 ¥d2 e6 (6...¤f6 may transpose to a later line) 7 g4 ¥g6 8 £e2 (8 h4 h5 9 d5!
Leyva,R−Matamoros,C/Capablanca Mem Premier II, Var 2000.) 8...¥b4 9 0-0-0
¤e7 10 ¤h3 ¤d5 11 ¥xd5 cxd5 12 ¤f4 ¤c6 13 ¤fxd5 ¥xc2! 14 ¦de1 0-0 15 ¤xb4
£xb4 Handke,F−Zill,C/7th BayEM, Bad Wiessee GER 2003, Black has a virtually
winning attack.

5 ¤f3
5 ¥c4!? is a dangerous move, directed against an early ...¥f5.In that case White will play
¤ge2−g3 and probably f4−f5. Martyn tries to sidestep that plan, 5...¥g4 6 f3 ¥h5 7
¤ge2 ¤c6 8 ¥d2 0-0-0 9 ¤b5 £b6 10 a4 ¤xd4 (10...a5) 11 ¤bxd4 ¦xd4!? an
interesting exchange sac, Sprenger,J−Martyn,R/Open, Vienna AUT 2003.
5 ¥d2 c6 6 ¥c4 ¥f5 7 £e2 e6 8 d5!? is less dangerous than it looks. White releases the
tension too early, enabling Black to equalize: 8...cxd5 9 ¤xd5 £d8 10 ¤xf6+ £xf6
11 ¤f3 ¤c6= Handke,F−Motwani,P/12th Monarch Assurance, Port Erin IOM 2003.

5...c6
This is the most common move here, because if necessary Black's queen can later retreat to
c7 or d8.
5...¤c6 6 ¥d2 (6 ¥b5 ¥d7 7 d5!? Kalegin,E−Galkin,S/Perm 1997.) 6...a6?! (6...¥g4 is better,
Kristensen,B−Bern,I/Gausdal 1993.) 7 ¥c4 £f5 8 h3 ¤e4 is a very fishy way to
handle Black's position which cannot be recommended. 9 ¤d5 £d7 10 ¥f4 ¤d6 11
£e2 e6 12 0-0 ¥e7 13 ¤xe7 ¤xe7 14 ¥b3± Li Shilong−Mariano,N/Tagaytay City
PHI 2004 White has two good Bishops and excellent development.
5...¥g4!? 6 h3 (6 ¥e3?! ¤c6 7 ¥b5 ¤e4 8 ¥d2 ¤xd2 9 £xd2 ¥xf3 10 gxf3 e6 Black has no
particular problems, Perez Ferris,M−Hernando Rodrigo,J/VII Pablo Gorbea, Madrid
ESP 2003) 6...¥h5 7 g4 (7 ¥d2 e6?! 8 g4 Diringer,B−Link,M/Wurttemberg 1990.)
7...¥g6 8 ¤e5 Karpov,A−Rogers,I/Bath 1983.

6 ¥c4
6 ¥d2 £b6 7 ¥c4 ¥f5 8 0-0 e6 9 ¦e1 ¥e7 10 ¥b3 0-0 11 ¥g5 ¤bd7= Myhrvold,R−
Pedersen,L/Oslo NOR 2004, effortless equality for Black against a bog−standard,
routine White set−up.

6...¥f5
6...¥g4 7 h3 ¥h5 8 g4 ¥g6 Roth,P−Rogers,I/Baden 1999.

11
7 ¥d2
7 ¤e5 is the main alternative, 7...e6 8 g4 ¥g6 9 h4 ¤bd7!
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+kvl-tr0
9zpp+n+pzpp0
9-+p+psnl+0
9wq-+-sN-+-0
9-+LzP-+PzP0
9+-sN-+-+-0
9PzPP+-zP-+0
9tR-vLQmK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

The best line 10 ¤xd7 ¤xd7 11 h5 ¥e4 12 ¦h3 ¥g2 The idea of this move is that if White
plays Rg3, then Black will gain a tempo with a later Bd6. 13 ¦e3! (Stronger than 13
¦g3 ¥d5 Fedorov,A−Hauchard,A/Belfort FRA 1999.) 13...¤b6 Anand,V−
Lautier,J/Biel 1997.

7...e6 8 ¤d5
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsn-+kvl-tr0
9zpp+-+pzpp0
9-+p+psn-+0
9wq-+N+l+-0
9-+LzP-+-+0
9+-+-+N+-0
9PzPPvL-zPPzP0
9tR-+QmK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

8 ¤e4 £c7 Votava,J−Mueller,K/Hamburg 2002.

8 £e2 ¥b4 9 0-0-0 ¤bd7 10 a3 ¥xc3 (10...¤b6 Chytilek,R−Konopka,M/Ostrava CZE 2002.)
11 ¥xc3 £c7 12 ¤e5 b5 13 ¥d3 ¥xd3 (13...0-0 14 ¥xf5 exf5 Brynell,S−
Hodgson,J/Hamburg GER 2002) 14 ¦xd3 ¤xe5 15 dxe5 ¤d5 equal, Pavlogianni,D−
Makropoulou,M/Aghia Pelagia GRE 2004.

8...£d8 9 ¤xf6+ £xf6

After 9...gxf6!? the position is similar to a Caro−Kann line: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.
Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nxf6 gxf6. In my opinion White has the better chances here.

12
10 £e2!? ¤d7
10...¥g4! is probably best, 11 0-0-0 ¤d7 12 d5 ¥xf3 13 gxf3 cxd5 14 ¥xd5 0-0-0 (14...¥a3
Shirov,A−Salov,V/Madrid 1997) 15 ¥xb7+ leading to a draw, as in Ye Jiangchuan−
Malakhov/Moscow 2004.

11 0-0-0
11 d5 David,A−Tkachiev,V/Cannes 1999.

11...¤b6 12 ¤e5
This hardly seems testing. Black obtains comfortable play:

12...¤xc4 13 £xc4 ¥d6

Jaulin,P−Prie,E/2nd Open, Nantes FRA 2003.

13
 Centre Counter − 2...Qxd5 not 3...Qa5

[B01]

Last updated: 10/08/04 by Andy Martin

1 e4 d5 2 exd5 £xd5 3 ¤c3

Here we will discuss the other black queen moves, which have become rather fashionable
recently.

3...£d6
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnl+kvlntr0
9zppzp-zppzpp0
9-+-wq-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-sN-+-+-0
9PzPPzP-zPPzP0
9tR-vLQmKLsNR0
xiiiiiiiiy

Recently this move became quite popular in tournament practice− it is not clear how White
conclusively demonstrates any advantage and the statistics of this line are improving
rapidly from the Black side of the board.
Alternatives:
3...£d8

14
 XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwqkvlntr0
9zppzp-zppzpp0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-sN-+-+-0
9PzPPzP-zPPzP0
9tR-vLQmKLsNR0
xiiiiiiiiy

The BANKER variation, completely underestimated in my opinion. From time to time it

occurs even at the very highest level, mainly in the games of Michael Adams. 4 d4
The initial position of the variation. Now Black has two different plans. One
possibility is the fianchetto of his dark−squared Bishop, and the other is to play the
light−squared Bishop to f5 when the position looks like a typical Caro−Kann. The
latter plan is the most reliable. (4 ¥c4 e6 5 d4 c6 Ridiculously passive. 6 ¤f3 ¤f6 7 0-0
¥e7 8 ¦e1 0-0 9 ¥g5 ¤bd7 10 £e2 ¤b6 11 ¥d3 ¤bd5 12 ¤xd5 cxd5 13 c3 ¥d7 14 ¤e5±
Ristic,N−Markovic,M/ch−Serbia, Dimitrovgrad YUG 2003 White is in total control
and has more than a chance to win with direct attack against the Black King.)
a) 4...g6 5 ¥f4! (5 ¥e3?! ¤h6 6 £d2 ¤f5 7 ¥d3 ¥g7 8 ¥xf5 ¥xf5 9 h3 was nice for Black in
Winawer,S−Blackburne,J/Nuremberg 1883) 5...¥g7 6 £d2! Fischer,R−
Robatsch,K/Varna 1962.
b) 4...c6 5 ¥g5 ¤f6 6 ¥c4 ¥f5 7 ¤f3 e6 8 £e2 ¥b4 9 0-0 0-0 10 ¦ad1 White has decided
that simple development will do but this will not provide enough impetus to contest
the advantage, 10...¤bd7 11 ¤e5 ¥xc3 12 bxc3 £a5 Ibragimov,I−Fierro
Baquero,M/North American Open, Las Vegas USA 2003. The game soon took a
downhill turn from White's point of view.
c) 4...¤f6 5 ¤f3 c6 6 ¥c4 ¥f5 (6...b5 is weakening, but may be playable: 7 ¥b3 e6 8 0-0 ¤bd7
9 ¥g5 £c7 10 £e2 ¥d6 11 ¤e4 ¥f4 12 ¤xf6+ ¤xf6 13 ¥xf4 £xf4 14 £e5 £xe5 15 ¤xe5
Zorko,J−Vukovic,Z/24th Open, Bled SLO 2003 White approached the problem
sensibly and has a slightly better ending.) 7 ¤e5! This move is the only way to fight
for any real opening advantage. 7...e6 8 g4!? ¥g6 9 h4 ¥b4 10 f3!? is the most
ambitious continuation. White hopes to trap the Bishop (11 h5), (10 ¦h3!? An
interesting attempt to fight for an opening advantage. White intends transferring the
rook to the e3−square threatening h4−h5, and meanwhile the Knight on c3 is
"overprotected" which is important in many lines (for example, ...Bxc2 will never
work), Ponomariov,R−Garcia Ilundain,D/ Pamplona 1996.) 10...¤d5 (10...¥xc2?! A
striking blow but does it really favor Black? 11 £xc2 £xd4 Perez,L−Lopez
Martinez,J/ Varadero 2000, when 12 f4! is best) 11 ¥xd5 cxd5 12 £e2 £c8?
(12...¥xc3+ 13 bxc3 £a5 gives Black excellent counterplay.) 13 ¥d2 ¤c6 14 ¤b5 ¥e7
15 ¥f4 ¤xe5 16 ¥xe5 f6 17 ¤c7+ ¢f7 18 ¥f4± Kotronias,V−Candela Perez,J/X
Anibal Open, Linares ESP 2003. Cool control.
3...£e5+

15
 XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnl+kvlntr0
9zppzp-zppzpp0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-wq-+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-sN-+-+-0
9PzPPzP-zPPzP0
9tR-vLQmKLsNR0
xiiiiiiiiy

is a very unusual line which I have developed and christened the 'Patzer Variation', 4 ¥e2
c6 5 ¤f3 £c7 6 d4 ¥f5 7 ¤e5! this is the most testing, (7 d5 is not dangerous. Black
continues developing calmly: 7...¤f6! 8 dxc6 ¤xc6 9 ¤b5 £b8 10 ¤bd4 ¥d7 11 0-0 e5 12
¤xc6 ¥xc6 13 ¦e1 ¥d6 14 ¥d3 0-0 15 ¤g5 £c7 16 ¤e4 ¤xe4 17 ¥xe4 ¦ad8 18 £e2 ¥xe4 19
£xe4 f5ƒ Webb,R−Buckley,S/Open, Portsmouth ENG 2003 The central pawns are
about to take a walk towards the White King. 7 0-0 e6 8 ¥g5 ¤d7 9 ¥h4 ¥d6 See the
Dec 02 Update for theoretical notes.) 7...¤d7 8 ¥f4 ¤xe5 9 ¥xe5 £b6 10 ¤a4 £a5+
11 c3 f6 12 b4 £d5 13 ¥g3 with a critical position, Shaw,J−Zeidler,S/EuTCh,
Plovdiv BUL 2003. Black has some serious work to do if he wishes to rehabilitate
this line.

4 d4 ¤f6 5 ¤f3
The most natural, but there are others:
5 ¥e2 a6 6 ¥f3 ¤c6 (6...h6 7 ¤ge2 g5!? Solak,D−Nadanian,A/Saint Vincent ITA 2000) 7
¤ge2 ¥f5 8 ¥f4 £d7 9 £d2 0-0-0 10 ¦d1 e6 11 a3 h6 12 h3 g5 13 ¥g3 ¥d6 14
¥xd6 £xd6 15 ¥xc6 £xc6 16 0-0 ¤e4 17 ¤xe4 ¥xe4 18 f3 ¥f5 19 c3 h5 20 £xg5
¥xh3 21 £c5 £xc5 22 dxc5 ¥f5³ Rosandic,D−Zelcic,R/9th Open, Bosnjaci CRO
2003 In order to beat back the Black attack, White has to accept a slightly worse
ending.
5 ¥d3 is favoured by Kasparov. 5...¥g4 (5...c6 6 ¤ge2 e6!? 7 0-0 ¥e7 8 ¤e4 ¤xe4 9 ¥xe4 0-0 10
£d3 g6 11 ¥h6 ¦e8 12 ¦ad1 ¤d7 13 ¦fe1 ¤f6 14 ¥f3 b6 15 c3 ¥b7 16 ¤g3 ¦ad8=
Stripunsky,A−Lein,A/ch−USA, Seattle USA 2003 Lein knows how to handle his
manageable disadvantage.) 6 f3 ¥h5 7 ¤ge2 a6 Perhaps 7...c6 is most appropriate. 8
¥f4 £d7 9 d5!ƒ Kasparov,G−Rogers,I/EUR−ASIA Rapid Match, Batumi GEO
2001.
5 ¥c4 a6 6 ¤ge2!? £c6!? The Poisoned Pawn variation of the Scandinavian. Very risky,
although unrefuted, 7 ¥b3 £xg2 8 ¦g1 £h3 (For me, learn the lines after 8...£xh2
and go the whole hog!) 9 ¥f4 £d7 10 £d3 ¤c6 11 a3 e6 12 0-0-0 ¤e7 13 ¥e5 ¤g6
14 ¥xf6 gxf6 15 d5!‚ McShane,L−Lalic,B/Gibraltar Masters, Catalan Bay ENG
2003. Some might like the Black position, I don't.

5...a6 6 g3!

16
This introduces a plan which permits ¥f4 but at the same time puts pressure on Black's
queenside. It seems effective against an early ....a6.
Others:
6 ¥c4 e6 (6...¤bd7 7 0-0 b5 8 ¥b3 ¥b7 9 ¤g5! Ponomariov,R−Fressinet,L/Batumi 1999) 7 £e2
b5 8 ¥b3 ¥b7 9 ¥g5 ¤bd7 10 0-0-0 ¤d5 11 ¤e4 £b6 12 ¢b1 h6 13 ¥c1 ¥e7 14
¦he1 0-0-0 15 c4?! With this move, Zelcic is more or less saying that he isn't
satisfied. Safer and equal was (15 c3 ¤7f6 16 ¤xf6 ¥xf6 17 ¥c2 ¦he8 18 g3=) 15...bxc4 16
¥xc4 ¤7f6 17 ¥xd5 ¤xd5 18 ¢a1 ¤b4 19 a3 ¤c6 20 ¥e3 £b5!³ Zelcic,R−
Kurajica,B/Salona Rapid 1hr, Solin−Spilt CRO 2002.
6 ¤e5 ¤c6 7 ¥f4 Arakhamia,K−Mashinskaya,I/Varna BUL 2002.
6 ¥e3 ¥f5 7 £d2 e6 8 0-0-0 Golubev,M−Jirovsky,M/Bundesliga 2002.
6 ¥e2 e6 7 0-0 ¤bd7 8 g3!?N obviously planning Bf4. Black must be modest in his
ambitions: 8...c5 A little too sharp. Safer was 8...¥e7 or 8...£b6 9 ¥f4 £c6 10 ¦e1
b5? 11 d5! Bologan,V−Gofshtein,Z/playchess.com INT 2004.

6...b5
6...g6 7 ¥f4 £d8 8 ¤e5 ¥g7 9 ¥g2 0-0 10 0-0 c6 11 £d2 ¥e6 12 ¦fe1² Sakaev,K−
Kurajica,B/4th IECC, Istanbul TUR 2003.

7 ¥f4 £b6 8 ¥g2 ¥b7 9 0-0 e6

XIIIIIIIIY
9rsn-+kvl-tr0
9+lzp-+pzpp0
9pwq-+psn-+0
9+p+-+-+-0
9-+-zP-vL-+0
9+-sN-+NzP-0
9PzPP+-zPLzP0
9tR-+Q+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

10 a4 b4
Brustkern has also played 10...¥d6 and to me this seems more effective.

11 a5 £a7 12 ¤e2 ¥d5 13 c4

13 ¥g5 intending ¤f4, is more to the point.

13...bxc3 14 bxc3 ¥d6 15 ¥xd6 cxd6 16 ¤f4 ¥e4

Fairly equal, Steiner,B−Brustkern,J/FSIM September, Budapest HUN 2003.

17