(Suetin, A) Modern Chess Opening Theory (Insert Dia) (E - E)

PERGAMON CHESS SERIES
MODERN CHESS OPENING THEORY

by
A. S. SUETIN
Translated by DR. D.]. RI CHARDS
English Translation edited by P. H. CLARKE
P E RGAMON PRES S
OXFORD · LONDON . EDINBURGH . NEW YORK PARIS
· FRANKFURT
Pergamon Press Ltd., Headington Hill Hall, Oxford
& 5 Fitzroy Square, London W.l
Pergamon Press (Scotland) Ltd., 2 & 3 Teviot Place, Edinburgh 1
Pergamon Press Inc., 122 East 55th Street, New York 10022 Pergamon
Press GmbH, Kaiserstrasse 75, Frankfurt-am-Main
Copyright © 1965 Pergamon Press Ltd.
First edition 1965

Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 65-18375
Set in 11 on 13 pt Baskerville
and Printed in Great Britain by
The Whitefriars Press Ltd., London and Tonbridge
This book is sold subject to the condition that it

shall not, by way of trade, be lent, resold, hired
out, or otherwise disposed of without the
publisher's consent,
in any form of binding or cover

other than that in which
it is published.
(2259/65)
Contents
Page
PREFACE lX
FoREWORD Xl
Chapter
1 . THE HISTORY OF OPENING THEORY
2. BASIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMS OF THE OPENING 35

I. Opening Principles 35
(a) Space
(b) The Forces 44
0 The Concrete Approach to Opening
Principles 57
Ill. The Development of the Forces in the
Opening 65
IV. The Present State of Opening Theory 74
0 THE STRUGGLE FOR THE CENTRE IN THE MoDERN

OPENING 85
General Considerations 85
I. An Open Centre 106
II. Equal Pawns in the Centre 1 10
(a) An immobile fixed pawn chain in
the centre 1 10
(b) A closed pawn position in the centre
with an open K or Q file 121
Ill. A Pawn Majority in the Centre 134
V
Vl CONTENTS
Chapter Page
IV. A Mobile Pawn Centre 135
(a) Two mobile central pawns on the
fourth rank 135
(b) One mobile central pawn 144
(c) A mobile centre with a central
pawn and a BP 146
V. A Piece-Pawn Centre 151

VI. Pawn Weaknesses in the Centre for the
sake of Good Piece Play 155
(a) The isolated central pawn 155

(b) A backward pawn in the centre 161
(c) Doubled pawns in the centre 170
VII. The Problem of Weak Squares in the
Opening 172
VIII. A Fluid Pawn Structure in the Centre 181
4. NEW PATHS IN THE OPENING 186
General Considerations 186
(a) Pawn sacrifices for the initiative in the Ruy

Lopez 193
(b) Pawn sacrifices for the initiative 1n the
Sicilian Defence 198
(c) Pawn sacrifices for the initiative 1n the
French Defence 201
0 A pawn sacrifice for the initiative in the
Caro-Kann Defence 203
0 e) Pawn sacrifices for the initiative in the
Slav Defence 203

CONTENTS VU
Chapter Pag
e
I. A Tactical Battle with Active Operations before
Development is Complete
23 A concrete, tactical struggle for free-dom of
215
movement
24 A long-term positional advantage ob tained at
the expense of development and the initiative 215
(c) Piece manoeuvres before the com pletion of
development, aiming at improved co-ordination
5888 Unequal Material in the Opening
221
23 a) Queen against Rook and minor piece
23 Queen against three minor pieces
5888 c) Exchange sacrifices in the opening
(d) Piece against pawns 225
Ill. Operations on the Flanks and Play Over the Whole Board in 232
the Opening 235
(a) The destruction of the flanks 238
23 Capture of the centre from the flanks (c) 239
Castling on opposite sides 244
(d) King in the centre
IV. Simplification 1n the Opening and the Transition to a
246
Complicated Endgame
246
5888 How TO TEACH OPENING THEORY 251
256
CoNCLUSION
273
INDEX OF OPENINGS
275
283
317
321
Preface
A key factor in the many impressive victories scored by Soviet players in

international chess has been their ability to seize the initiative and surprise
their opponents right in the opening stages. The author of this book is a
leading Soviet grandmaster, who helped to coach and prepare Tigran
Petrosian for his successful bid for the world title. Here he fully explains the
basic ideas of opening play as practised by the great Russian masters.
Themes like the fight for the centre, pawn sacrifices for the initiative, and
attacks on opposite sides of the board occur in almost every opening,
whatever the grade of chess or the strength of the players. This book not only
teaches you how to handle such situations, but, just as important, shows the
vital process of transforming an opening advantage into a win in the
middlegame.
The reader of this book will find his game improved in two directions. First,
his handling of the openings he already plays will improve; Suetin will show
him the type of advan tage to aim for, and how to carry through opening plans
of campaign into the middlegame and even the ending. Secondly, if the reader
meets a new opening or is surprised by an unexpected move over the board,
he can judge its worth scientifically and utilize the methods illustrated in this
book to counter it successfully.
LEONARD BARDEN
IX
Foreword
Throughout the history of chess analysis of the opening stage of the game has
been the central interest of theoreticians. Today opening theory has been
studied extensively and deeply.
Particularly rapid strides in this field have been made during the present
century, thanks largely to the work of Russian and Soviet players, who have
raised the technique of opening study to an unprecedentedly high level. The
great Russian masters, Petrov, Tchigorin, Schiffers, Rubinstein, Nimzovitch,
Alekhine, Levenfish, Romanovsky, and others, were all outstanding
theoreticians, whose work has enor mously influenced the creative views of
Soviet players. The formation of the Soviet School of Chess then gave further
impetus to the development of opening theory. Here the most important role
was played by Botvinnik, the founder of the school. Great contributions to
opening theory were also made by other outstanding Soviet theoreticians
such as Smyslov, Keres, Boleslavsky, Bronstein, Geller, Belavenets, Rauzer,
and Konstantinopolsky.
Today the opening has long ceased to be regarded simply as that stage of
the game when the players mobilize their forces. The 'opening' is now the
name given to the sum total of our knowledge of various methods of treating
the original position, which in the vast majority of variations extend into
complicated middlegame positions, and sometimes even as far as the
endgame.
Xl
Xll F OREWORD
Naturally enough, as opening theory has developed, so have the

difficulties of mastering it. The number of extremely complicated opening
variations and systems is fast increasing, and the opening principles, which
were formulated in the nineteenth century to serve as a compass, facilitating
the learning of variations, are no longer a sufficient guide even for the
average chessplayer.
This situation makes necessary a new analysis of the forms which the
opening struggle may assume, in order to help the student of opening theory
to master the numerous systems and variations. Work has already been done
in this field and a large number of typical opening plans and positions are well
known. Unfortunately, this knowlege is acquired by most players only as the
result of long and often bitter practical experience.
This question of categorizing the various forms the open ing may assume
has so far been treated largely in articles in magazines. Very few larger works
on the general problems of opening theory have appeared, although
Romanovsky's books, Chess Paths and What Every Player Should Know
About the Opening, and also Lipnitsky's book, Problems of Modern Chess
Theory, must be mentioned. There is a real need for a general theory of the
opening, which analyses the general principles and logical patterns of play in
the opening, together with the strategy and tactics of this stage of the game.
The present work is an attempt to categorize the various forms which the
opening struggle may assume, by studying the theoretical researches and the
practical experience made in a number of different openings. My main aim
has been to work out a new method of teaching opening theory, based on the
study of typical positions, though, of course, I cannot
FOREWORD Xlll
claim to have made an exhaustive study of this extremely complicated

question. The book doubtless has faults, and I will be satisfied if it serves as a
spur to further work on this subject.
The book is intended for players of the higher grades (2nd Category-
candidate master; British Chess Federation grades 5a-2b approximately) as
well as for teachers of the game. If the present work is also of help to the
latter, I shall be doubly satisfied.
I would like to record here my indebtedness to Professor Gulyaev, who
first showed me the importance of this question and who gave much useful
advice during the writing of the book.
* * *
For the sake of clarity the following terms which appear frequently in the
text may be defined here:
1 ( 1) Defence-a defence is the name given to Black's lay out during his
first few moves.
23 Gambit-the term gambit is applied to any opening formation in which,
during the first few moves, a pawn or piece is sacrificed on positional grounds
with no immediate prospect of regaining it.
24 Variation-in the opening a variation is one of many possible lines
which logically link the original position with the middlegame.
25 System-in the opening a system is a group of variations (there is no
limit to their number) which are logically con nected by common ideas.
23 SuETIN
CHAPTER ONE
The History of Opening Theory
The earliest works on opening theory appeared towards the end of the
fifteenth century, i.e. shortly after the introduction of the reforms ( castling and
en passant capturing) which led to modern chess.
The famous Giittingen manuscript and Lucena's first book (1497) are wide-
ranging manuals of opening theory. In the Gottingen manuscript twelve
openings are analysed fairly thoroughly (twenty 'Or thirty moves deep) while
Lucena analyses eleven openings. He explains that these analyses were
collected during his travels through Italy, France, and Spain. Characteristic of
the opening analyses in both the Gottingen manuscript and Lucena's manual
is an attempt to mount a direct, early attack on the opposing King.
Fifty years later appeared Libro de la Invencion Liberal y Arte de Juego del
Ajedrez (Parts 11 and Ill, The Openings, 1561) by the best-known master of
the period, the Spaniard, Ruy Lopez. This book reflects the progress made in
chess thought over the preceding half-century; new openings have appeared,
methods of attack have improved and the question of the importance of the
pawn centre has been raised. Thus, Lopez, striving to prove the strength of
the pawn centre with pawns on K4 and Q4, insistently recommends the
opening 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 P-Q.B3. With his belief in the
1
5888 M OD ERN C HESS O P ENING THE ORY
power of a compact pawn centre, Lopez also values highly the King's Gam.bit
and the defence subsequently worked out by and named after Philidor (1 P-
K4, P-K4; 2 Kt KB3, P-Q,3, with •••P-KB4 to follow).
Although Lopez' ideas about the pawn centre were some what primitive,
they nevertheless marked a step forward in the development of opening
theory. On the whole, Lopez, like his predecessors, regarded the opening as
a prelude to a rapid opening-up of the game in the pursuit of immediate
tactical advantages. The basic plan was to attack the enemy King; play in the
centre and on the Queen's wing was neglected.
At the end of the sixteenth century a striking development of chess thought
took place in Italy. There a style of play evolved which was based on rapid
development, seizure of the initiative, and a subsequent attack on the
opposing King. To further the attack pieces and pawns were sacri ficed; since
these sacrifices were generally accepted, the game quickly became very
sharp. This period saw a flowering of combinational skill, to which all the
chess principles of the day were subordinated. Closed games were seldom
analysed and almost never figure in the literature of the period.
The outstanding Italian masters, Greco, Polerio, and Leonardo, invented
numerous opening gambits which still retain their value today, such as, for
instance, Polerio's Gambit (known also as the Fegatello Attack): 1 P-K4, P-
K4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q,B3; 3 B-B4, Kt-B3; 4 Kt-Kt5, P-Q,4; 5 PxP, KtxP; 6 KtxBP!
and Greco's Gambit (later called the Cunningham. Gam.bit): 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2
P-KB4, PxP; 3 Kt-KB3 B-K2; 4 B-B4, B-R5 eh; 5 P-Kt3, PxP; 6 0-0, PxP eh.
Greco's Attack in the Giuoco Piano, which is still analysed in all modern
opening manuals, was also very popular.
THE HISTORY OF O P ENING THEORY 3
The next step in the development of opening theory belongs to the middle
of the eighteenth century, when chess was flourishing in France. The chief
role was played by the famous eighteenth-century French master, Philidor,
who defeated all his contemporary rivals.
In his book L'AnalJ'se des Echecs, published in London in 1749, Philidor
introduced a number of new principles of opening play. He particularly
emphasized the role of the pawns. 'My first intention,' he writes in the Preface,
'is to offer to the public a new idea, which has not previously been considered,
or perhaps not understood. I mean pawn play. The pawns are the soul of the
game. They alone give birth to attack and defence and their placing decides
the fate of the game.'
Philidor, in contrast with the majority of his predecessors, favoured a
carefully planned method of play. In the opening he strove not to develop
rapidly and attack the enemy King but to set up a powerful pawn centre,
under cover of which the piece battle could be conducted.
Here is the opening of one of his games (Briihl-Philidor, 1793) : 1 P-K4, P-
K4; 2 B-B4, P-Q.B3 (Black meets White's rapid development with the plan of
establishing a strong pawn centre, even though this means neglecting his own
development); 3 Q.-K2? (This passive reply allows Black to carry out his plan.
Obviously, 3 Kt-KB3 followed by P-Q4, was more forceful, breaking up Black's
pawn centre), P-Q.3; 4 P-Q.B3, P-K.B4! (Black consistently strives to
establish a firm pawn chain in the centre, under cover of which he can
mobilize his pieces undisturbed); 5 P-Q.3, Kt-B3; 6 PxP, BxP; 7 P-Q.4, P-K5;
8 B-KKt5, P-Q.4; 9 B-Kt3, B-Q.3; 10 Kt-Q.2, Q.Kt-Q.2 and, thanks to his
superior centre, Black has the better position.
23 MODERN CHESS OPENING THEORY
Position
after
4 ... P-KB4
Basing his play on these ideas, Philidor made valuable contributions to the
defence 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3, P-Q,3; 3 P-Q,4, Kt-Q,2 (or first 3•••Kt-KB3).
Black attempts to set up a pawn centre as quickly as possible and then to
play •••P-KB4. It was Philidor who first put forward the idea of undermining the
central pawn wall by means of a flank attack.
Philidor's ideas exercised a strong influence on French masters, but they
were received quite differently by the Italians. In 1769 books appeared by the
Italian masters, Del Rio, Lolli and Ponziani. The Italians, preferring rapid
development of the pieces to Philidor's pawn manoeuvres, introduced into the
theory of the 1 P-K4, P-K4 openings a number of ideas based on 2 Kt-KB3.
Their views on the game, characterized by sharp attacking play, combinations
and risky sacrifices for the sake of the initiative, were the distinguishing
features of what came to be known in the history of chess as the Italian
School. This school was in effect a romantic movement in chess.
The beginning of the nineteenth century saw the first development of
chess theory in Russia. In 1821 the first chess manual (by the Russian
theoretician, I. Butrimov) appeared.
THE HISTORY OF OPENING THEORY 5
A few years later the talented Russion master, Petrov, began to make his
mark. For a long time the chief reference book used by Russian players was
his The Game of Chess Systematized, with a Supplement containing Philidor'
s Games and Annotations to Same, published in 1824. Incidentally, Petrov
criticized some of Philidor's views and analyses. For example, disputing
Philidor's view that White, having the first move, should win with best play,
Petrov wrote: 'We cannot agree with Philidor's opinion that the first player
must inevitably win.' Here Petrov was asserting the richness of chess, which
cannot be forced into any strict, narrow mould.
Petrov, together with other Russian masters who did research into the
openings, analysed the defence 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-KB3, which now
bears his name.
Petrov laid the general foundations for the development of chess theory,
but the first Russian to analyse openings in detail was Jaenish. In 1842-3
Jaenish published his two volume work, A New Ana?Jsis of the Chess
Openings, which contained a great deal of new research into opening theory.
In his work on this book he received great help from Petrov. For the first time
Jaenish analysed seriously the Slav Defence to the Queen's GaDlbit and
produced new ideas in the French Defence and in the Ruy Lopez (3•••Kt-B3
and 3 ...P-B4). He suggested an interesting system of defence for Black in the
King's Gam.bit, which is still considered the strongest line against the
Bishop's GaDlbit (1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 P-KB4, PxP; 3 B-B4, Kt-KB3; 4 Kt-Q,B3, P-
B3!).
Jaenish's book came out in several editions and was twice translated into
English. His work was well received by progressive Russian society of the
period. The journal Otechestvennye Zapiski wrote in 1842 in a detailed
review of his
5888 M OD ERN CHESS OPENING T HEORY
book: 'Jaenish's New Ana?Jsis of the Openings is indispensable to every

chessplayer, since it contains not only a detailed exposition of the true
theoretical foundations of the game but also a systematic summary of all that
has been discovered up to the present by writers of all nations, together with
a great many completely new openings.'
In the first half of the nineteenth century several extensive opening
manuals, which summarized the achievements of contemporary theoreticians,
appeared in England, France and Germany. In 183 1 the English theoretician,
Lewis, brought out, amongst other works, an interesting book entitled Lectures
on the Opening. This book analysed in detail the Scotch GaDle, the Giuoco
Piano, the King's Gam.bit and the Evans GaDlbit.
In 1833 Labourdonnais' textbook on the openings appeared. The famous
French master analysed in detail the opening 1 P-K4, P-K3, subsequently
called the French Defence. Labourdonnais was a disciple of Philidor, but his
ideas were much more dynamic than Philidor's. Labour donnais attributed
great importance to the centre, and in both his research and his practical play
he followed the principle of fighting for control of the central squares.
This treatment of the openings was continued in the works of the English
theoretician, Staunton. In his The Chess-Player's Handbook (1847) Staunton
methodically examines a number of openings, including the Queen's Pawn
games.
The first attempt to produce a general manual on the theory of the
openings was made by German masters, headed by the famous
theoreticians, Bilguer and Bledow. The encyclopaedic work which they began
in 1839 was completed in 1843 by the greatest of the German chess
historians and theoreticians, von der Lasa. (Bilguer died in
T HE HIST ORY O F O PENIN G THE ORY 7
1840, Bledow in 1846.) Under the title of Bilguers Handbuch this work went
through eight editions in the course of some eighty years.
In the middle of the nineteenth century the Romantic School, which was a
development of Italian romanticism of the eighteenth century, came to the fore
again. Representa tives of this school were Anderssen, Kolisch, Blackburne,
etc. The art of attacking the opposing King, especially with pieces, was
brought to a high level, but methods of defence were weak. It was
characteristic of the time that players disliked defending and strove at all costs
to carry out a counter-attack. The Giuoco Piano, the Two Knights' Defence
and the various gambits (the Danish, King's and Evans) were the most
popular openings of this era. The analysis of many variations of these
openings made great strides. However, these variations were often out of
harmony with the logic of chess. Attacking the enemy King and sacrifices
appear in many variations to be an end in them selves.
The development of opening theory progressed as a result of the clash
between two movements: on the one hand, the planned, methodical
mobilization of the pieces (Philidor, Labourdonnais, Staunton) and, on the
other, impetuous attacking play (the successors of the romantic Italian School
of the sixteenth century). These two movements, each one sided in its own
way, complemented one another. The slow, careful approach left too little
room for imaginative play, and right from the start the game would become
rather artificial, enveloped in a framework which restricted creative efforts.
The impetuous, attacking approach, which on the whole had predominated
up to this time, certainly led quickly to a tense creative struggle; however, the
combinations were
not always based on solid positional grounds but became an end in

themselves. Purely opening tasks were pushed into the background and the
middlegame seemed to start almost immediately.
Typical of the romantic school is the opening of a famous game of the
period, Anderssen-Kieseritzky (London, 1851), called 'The IDlmortal Gan1e'
because of White's concluding combination. 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 P-KB4, PxP; 3
B-B4, Q.-R5 eh; 4 K-B1, P-Q.Kt4 (A completely un justified counter sacrifice,
dictated by a desire to wrest the initiative at all costs); 5 BxP, Kt-KB3; 6 Kt-
KB3, Q.-R3 (Better is 6 ... Q-R4, but the text move is based on the following
tactical threat); 7 P-Q.3, Kt-R4 (Black threatens 8 . ..Kt-Kt6 eh. That is why he
played . .. Q-R3; the simplest reply to this threat is 8 K-K2, but Anderssen
strives for a quick attack, neglecting his development).
After the moves actually played (8 Kt-R4, Q.-Kt4; 9 Kt-B5) Black could
have obtained a good game by 9 . ..P-Kt3. Instead, he played 9...P-Q.B3, and
after 10
P-KKt4, Kt-B3; 11 R-Kt1,PxB; 12 P-KR4 succumbed to a powerful attack.
Play based on tempting but positionally unjustified
THE HISTORY O F O P ENING THE ORY 9
combinations was rebuffed by the genius of Paul Morphy, who worked out the
principles of open positions (i.e. posi tions in which the centre is quickly
cleared of pawns) . Morphy himself hardly ever committed his views to print,
but all his games were recorded, and his play was studied by his
contemporaries and after his death.
In his games Morphy met the Romantic School with a positionally based
treatment of open positions. Rejecting premature, unfounded attacks and
sacrifices, Morphy put forward the following principles for open positions:
23 1) The rapid, harmonious development of the pieces;
(2) Capture of the central squares, guaranteeing the pieces mobility and
freedom of movement.
Morphy's play is characterized by great energy and dyn amism and at the
same time by its sound strategic founda tions. Morphy extended considerably
the concept of a 'positional' sacrifice. Characteristic is the following example
from the game Schulten-Morphy (New York, 1857); after 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 P-
KB4, P-Q.4; 3 KPxP, P-K5; 4 Kt-Q.B3, Kt-KB3; 5 P-Q.3, B-Q.Kt5; 6 B-Q.2
Morphy offered a typical sacrifice with a view to obtaining open lines: 6...P-K6!
In this way Morphy exploits his advantage in develop ment. In order to

obtain the maximum possible freedom of movement, he sacrifices material to
open up lines of attack.
5888 BxP, 0-0; 8 B-Q.2, BxKt; 9 PxB, R-K1 eh; 10
B-K2, B-Kt5; 11 P-B4, P-B3!; 12 PxP, KtxP; 13 K-B1,
R x B!, and Black commenced a decisive attack.
Morphy, establishing the principles for the treatment of open positions, at
the same time laid the foundations for a new approach to the study of the
opening in general. It became clear to the best theoreticians of the time that a
game develops logically from the very first moves. The result of this was the
appearance, in Germany first, of the 'positional' school of L. Paulsen in the
seventies of the last century and then of the 'new' school of Steinitz.
Steinitz based his theories primarily on Morphy's games, which he
subjected to deep analysis. In formulating his theory, Steinitz's starting point
was the knowledge that a game of chess evolves logically, in accordance with
definite principles.
An attack can be successful only when the attacking player has a definite
positional superiority. This superiority, as a rule, is obtained by the amassing
of a number of slight, almost insignificant-looking advantages. According to
Steinitz, if a player has a superior position, he must attack; otherwise he will
lose the initiative.
Steinitz paid special attention to the principles of defence. He analysed the
games of his contemporaries and came to the conclusion that the brilliant
attacks and com binations of the masters of the day were successful largely
because of very weak defensive play, the principles of which had never been
analysed. Steinitz's first principle of defence was the principle of the strictest
economy in defensive
THE HISTORY O F O PENING THE ORY 11
moves. Steinitz maintained that the defender has to make concessions-but
these should be as few as possible (this is ultimately an extension of his
general principle of economy) .
Steinitz also analysed those positions where the chances are
approximately even and the game had become a manoeuvring battle for the
accumulation of small advan tages. Amongst such small advantages he
numbered the advantage of the two Bishops, the possession of an open file,
weak squares in the opponent's position, weak pawns, etc.
Steinitz's theory is based on obtaining small but permanent advantages.
Therefore, such factors as the bad position of an enemy piece or the cramped
position of his pieces at a given moment, provided it can be overcome during
the next few moves, are not taken into consideration. On the other hand,
weaknesses in the pawn structure are permanent and it is not easy to remove
them. Doubled, backward, or isolated pawns are particularly vulnerable, since
they have to be defended by pieces, whose mobility is consequently restricted
for a long time. A number of small advantages together amount to a
significant advantage, which provides an opportunity to attack. In this way a
planned positional battle forms the foundations of Steinitz's theory.
Steinitz's theory naturally determined his views on the aims of the opening.
He was critical of a number of open games, where play is rapid and forced; he
condemned many gambits. For the first time Steinitz turned attention to a
number of opening variations which result in the formation of isolated or
doubled pawns, methods of exploiting which he had worked out. Steinitz
warned against superfluous pawn moves in the opening, especially after
castling.
From this time dates the popularity of the closed games (especially the
Queen's Pawn Game) which led to posi-
tions corresponding most closely with the principles of Steinitz's new theory.
The new views revealed to theoreti cians the rich fund of ideas embedded in
these openings. The slow preparations for the opening-up of the game in the
centre and the steady accumulation of advantages which are typical of the
Q.ueen's Pawn openings considerably en riched opening theory.
The following closed-type position was reached after 12 moves in the
game Steinitz-Selm.an (1885).
Steinitz skilfully exploits his advantage in space in the centre and his
opponent's somewhat weak Queen's wing, where he creates strong pressure.
Play continued 13 P-Q.Kt4!, B-K2; 14 P-Q.R3, P-B4 (In closing the centre
Black makes White's task easier); 15 R-Q.B1, B-Kt2; 16 B-K3, Q.- Q.1; 17 Kt-
Q.4, Kt-B1; 18 0-0, P-KR4; 19 Kt-Q.B3, K-B2; 20 Kt-Kt1 (A subtle manoeuvre:
the Knight heads for QR5, after which White increases the pressure on the
Queen's wing), P-Kt3; 21 Kt-Q.2, Kt-Q.2; 22 Kt(2)-Kt3, R-Q.B1; 23 Kt-R5, and
White obtained an overwhelming position.
Steinitz's manual, The Modern Chess Instructor (1889) which reflected his
theories, played an enormous role in teaching the game.
The discovery of the principles of open positions and Steinitz's theory were
a great help in the teaching of opening theory. Manuals appeared, devoted
specifically to this subject. Their chief aim was to formulate precisely the
general principles of opening play and to analyse the main basic opening
variations. The variations amplified the general principles and revealed the
richness and variety of the opening.
In the field of the opening Steinitz exercised a great influence on many of
the best-known Western teachers of the game, whose works are still of great
importance today, such as Tarrasch, Lasker and Euwe. Their works on the
opening, whether intended for expert or beginner, are fundamentally based
on Steinitz's teachings. Steinitz founded a great school of chess, whose
representatives developed and perfected his ideas.
The weakness of Steinitz's teachings lay in a certain dogmatism and in a
tendency to underestimate the dynamic side of chess. This is particularly true
in his ideas on the opening. But if Steinitz himself often thought rather preten
tiously and recommended opening systems which were suspect from a
positional point of view (such as the variation with 9 Kt-R3 in the Two Knights'
Defence or the varia tion with 3 ...Q.-B3 in the Ruy Lopez) his followers
created a number of opening systems which were in full harmony with his
theory. For instance, the Q.ueen's Gam.bit was developed, particularly by the
German grandmaster, Zukertort.
An even more important contribution to opening theory was made by one
of Steinitz's most faithful disciples, the German grandmaster, Tarrasch,
whose play was particularly logical and methodical. Tarrasch, a talented
writer and
teacher, did much to popularize Steinitz's teachings. Tarrasch worked out a

number of systems for accumulating advantages in the opening, carefully
studying the Queen's Gambit, the Ruy Lopez, and the French Defence.
In the game Tarrasch-Noa (Hamburg 1889), after 1 P-K4, P-K3; 2 P-Q.4,
P-Q.4; 3 Kt-Q.B3, Kt-KB3; 4 P-K5, KKt-Q.2; 5 Q.Kt-K2, P-Q.B4; 6 P-Q.B3, Kt-
Q.B3; 7 P-KB4, P x P; 8 P x P, B-Kt5 eh, Tarrasch skilfully executed the plan
of seizing control of the black squares which today has become typical of
many variations of the French Defence. Play continued 9 B-Q.2.
The exchange of the black-squared Bishops is to White's advantage. Mter

9 ...Q.-Kt3; 10 Kt-KB3, 0-0; 11 BxB, Q.xB eh; 12 Q.-Q.2, Kt-Kt3; 13 Kt-B3!, R-
Q.1; 14 Kt Q.Kt5! White obtained a clear superiority, having carried out his
plan of controlling the black squares.
Tarrasch wrote no special textbook on opening theory, but his most
important works, Die Modeme Schachpartie and Dreihundert Schachpartien,
are in practice handbooks of both the middlegame and the opening. All the
main opening systems are logically and closely examined by the author,
who selects illustrative games, grouped together under various openings.
Naturally, this method of analysing openings in close connection with the
middlegame helps the reader to see the logical development of the opening
ideas. Tarrasch sets out his views on the opening clearly and skil fully with
striking illustrative games. Each separate case is illuminated in various ways
from the point of view of the general principles of Steinitz's theory.
The basic weakness of Tarrasch's textbooks, which are intended for fairly
advanced players, is the unnecessary dogmatism in his appraisal of various
opening systems and variations. Tarrasch restricts the richness of opening
ideas by forcing them, as it were, into the framework of Steinitz's teachings.
Perhaps more than Steinitz himself, he dogmatized about the nature of the
struggle in chess, over-simplifying it.
Tarrasch's discussions on the pawn centre, the initiative, and various
'rules' (e.g. the advantage of the two Bishops) are to a large extent isolated
from the essentially dynamic situation on the chess-board. (See Tarrasch's
views on the ideas behind the Slav Defence, given below, p. 20, which are
typical of his attitude.) He attributed great importance to advantage in space,
clearly overestimating its significance. Nevertheless, he contributed towards
the further develop ment of many opening systems in which superiority in
space has a real significance. (For instance, in the Steinitz Defence to the
Ruy Lopez with 3...P-Q.3 he suggested several methods of play leading to
White's advantage.)
The whole period from Morphy to Tarrasch is charac terized by a thorough
overhaul of opening systems in the light of the basic opening principles. The
next step in raising the level of chess thought in general and opening theory
in particular was taken by the great Russian master, Tchigorin.
A firm opponent of dogmatism, Tchigorin looked upon a game of chess as

an organic process and considered that the most important factor in
appraising a position was a con crete approach to any given situation on the
board. Tchigorin approached Steinitz's principles ·and rules from the point of
view of their real validity in a given position. His struggle against dogmatic
conceptions of 'the centre,' 'the advantage of the two Bishops,' the 'weakness'
of cramped positions, etc., may serve as an example of his approach.
Tchigorin insisted on the importance of finding counterplay in the face of an
attack. Indeed, counterplay in answer to active play or counter-attack in
answer to an attack, is the correct method of play, giving scope for the
development of ideas in chess. If attack is met only by passive defence chess
theory ceases to progress.
On the basis of his views Tchigorin developed a series of remarkable
strategic ideas in the opening, such as piece pressure on the centre, the
blockade of the pawn centre, the preparation for a pawn storm on the wings,
etc. He worked out a number of new opening systems in close conjunction
with the succeeding iniddlegame, laying the foundation for a similar approach
to all openings. This was a great contribu tion to theory by Tchigorin, whose
sys ems in the Ruy Lopez and King's Indian Defence are models of this
approach.
Tchigorin's contribution to the theory of specific openings was enormous.
A connoisseur of open games, he found new and interesting paths in the
King's Gam.bit, the Evans GaDtbit, the Two Knights' Defence and the
Ponziani. His analyses of the Ruy Lopez were particularly fruitful. Modern,
theories of this richest and most complicated of the open games have
developed under the influence of Tchi-
gorin's ideas. The main defence to the Ruy Lopez and the variation with the
manoeuvre 9•••Kt-Q.2 justly bear his name.
In the semi-open games· Tchigorin introduced new ideas for White in the
French Defence (2 Q.-K2) and the Sicilian Defence (2 Kt-Q.B3). In these
systems White makes early preparations to advance on the King's wing, often
by means of a pawn storm.
As White, Tchigorin avoided the Q.ueen's Pawn open ings. In reply to 1 P-
Q.4 he worked out a number of systems for Black, based on creating piece
pressure on the centre, with full counterplay for the second player. Examples
are the defence 1 P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 2 P-Q.B4, Kt-Q.B3, named after him, and the
King's Indian Defence.
A remarkable example of the creation of piece pressure on the opponent's
pawn centre is provided by the game Pillsbury-Tchigorin (St. Petersburg,
1896). 1 P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 2 P-Q.B4, Kt-Q.B3; 3 Kt-KB3, B-Kt5; 4 p X p ' B xKt; 5
PxKt, BxBP; 6 Kt-B3, P-K3; 7 P-K4, B-Kt5; 8 P-B3.
Pillsbury has managed to set up an 'ideal' pawn centre. However,

Tchigorin demonstrated the weakness of this
White pawn centre, unsupported by pieces: 8...P-B4!;

P-K5, Kt-K2; 10 P-Q,R3, B-R4; 11 B-Q,B4, B-Q,4!; 12
Q,-R4 eh, P-B3; 13 B-Q,3, Q,-Kt3; 14 B-B2, Q,-R3!; 15 B-Q,1, B-B5!, and
Black has seized the central squares and set up a powerful piece centre.
In all his openings Tchigorin strove for complicated posi tions with chances
for both sides. He was against those opening systems where the aim of one
side is the gradual
accumulation of small advantages and the aim of the other is to blunt the
opponent's initiative and achieve 'complete' equality. Possessing literary gifts,
Tchigorin was the teacher of many generations of Russian players.
Another of the outstanding Russian masters of this period, E. Schiffers,
was also a writer and theoretician in the field of the opening. His work on
opening theory was for many years a reference book for Russian players and
enjoyed
general recognition abroad. It contains not only analyses of the most
important openings of the day but also a collection of outstanding games from
the sixteenth century onwards.
Emmanuel Lasker, Steinitz's successor as World Cham
pion, introduced a new, psychological factor into the treatment of the opening.
Lasker's approach to the opening was a little superficial, since he strove to
transfer the main clash to later stages of the game, and his contribution to
opening theory is
comparatively small. Lasker's systems in the Q,ueen's Gambit and the Evans
Gambit are pre-eminently practi cal. They reject a sharp opening struggle and
attempt to
simplify the position. In doing this, Lasker bore in mind his superiority in the
middlegame and, above all, in the endgame.
In his manuals Lasker devoted much attention to ques tions of teaching
method regarding opening theory. For him the key lay in a rational approach.
'In our choice of variations,'
writes Lasker, 'we must limit ourselves to those which are most noteworthy,
basic and instructive and mention only briefly the numerous alternatives, in
order not only to pro vide material for the student's memory, but also to leave
room for his own initiative.'
Lasker recognizes as equally important 'the comparison of openings with
one another' (general principles) and 'the collection and choice of variations'
(the analysis of separate openings). His course on the openings is built to
such a plan. Later the author briefly analyses all the important open ings ten-
fifteen moves deep, i.e. in effect, he illustrates various methods of mobilizing
the forces.
Lasker's appraisal of the various opening systems is based entirely on
Steinitz's theory. The dynamic features of the opening are scarcely
considered; consequently, the con nection between the opening and the
succeeding middle game is not clearly expressed. Lasker's course on the
open ings is not written for players of any particular strength; its aim is to
provide instruction from the rudiments of chess up to the standard of a fairly
strong player in the shortest possible time.
At the end of the nineteenth century Tchigorin's approach to the opening
acquired greater and greater recognition. In his footsteps the American
grandmaster, Pillsbury, began to study opening systems in connection with
middlegame plans. Pillsbury analysed in detail numerous variations of the
Orthodox Defence to the Q,ueen's Gam.bit far into the middlegame.
The next step in this direction was taken by Tchigorin's talented follower,
Rubinstein, who had remarkable analytical gifts. Rubinstein's opening
researches are significant in that they are systems which determine the
course of the middle-
B
M.C.O.T,
game. Important contributions to opening theory, for ex ample, were his

systems in the Ruy Lopez (3•••P-QR3;
B-R4, P-Q3), in the Four Knights' Gam.e (4 ...Kt-Q5), in the Sicilian Defence
(2••• Kt-KB3) and the French Defence (3...P xP). But particularly valuable was
Rubin stein's system in the Slav Defence to the Queen's Gambit, where the
fight for control of the central squares was con ceived in a new way,
corresponding closely to modern ideas about the opening. The Slav Defence
arises after the moves 1 P-Q4, P-Q4; 2 P-QB4, P-QB3.
The basic idea of this defence is not to strive for equality (as was usual at
the end ofthe nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries, under
the influence of Steinitz) but for active counterplay.
Tarrasch, in his book The Defence to the Queen's Gambit, published just
over forty years ago, summed up the Slav Defence as follows: 'In the first
place Black's Queen's Knight is deprived of its best square. Secondly, the
QBP must move to QB4 in the Queen's Pawn openings. In general, the pawn
structure QB3, Q4, K3 is unfavourable, because it does not exert sufficient
pressure on the centre and cedes to
the opponent the aggressive pawn structure QB4, Q4, K3. Black's pawn
structure becomes particularly bad if the QB is shut in.' Modern practice has
completely refuted Tar rasch's formal judgements. At the root ofTarrasch's
error lie wrong conceptions about Black's opening strategy, which, in his
opinion, consists in striving to equalize the game.
Tchigorin, defending the Slav Defence, had already refuted Tarrasch's
theoretical views. One ofTchigorin's most remarkable ideas, which has now
been fully recognized, was that Black should play the opening actively.
Approaching the opening in the same way, Rubinstein showed that in the Slav
Defence the position of the Black pawn on QB3 can lead to interesting and
sharp counterplay based on . . .P x P followed by ...P-QKt4. From this idea
Rubinstein developed a whole system, which has been widely employed since
1924. After the moves 1 P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 2 P-Q.B4, P-Q.B3; 3 Kt-KB3, Kt-B3; 4
P-K3, P-K3; 5 Kt-B3, Q.Kt-Q.2; 6 B-Q.3, p X p; 7 B X BP, P-Q.Kt4!; 8 B-Q.3,
P-Q.R3; 9 P-K4, P-B4! Black, temporarily giving up the centre, is the first to
begin active operations on the Queen's wing, creating pressure on the central
squares by means of his pieces. The idea of counterplay runs right through
this important variation of the Slav Defence.
B2
Closer still to the spirit of Tchigorin were the ideas of Nimzovitch, whose
chess career also began in Russia. Nimzovitch developed further Tchigorin's
ideas about piece pressure on the central squares and worked out a series of
opening systems which occupy an important place in the modern opening
repertoire. Examples are his systems in the French Defence (3 P-K5 for White
and 3 ...B-Kt5 for Black).
A remarkable example of establishing a piece centre is provided by the
game Nimzovitch-Salwe (Carlsbad, 1911). 1 P-K4, P-K3; 2 P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 3 P-
K5, P-Q.B4; 4 P-Q.B3, Kt-Q.B3; 5 Kt-B3, Q.-Kt3; 6 B-Q.3, B-Q.2? (Salwe
does not suspect any danger. More accurate is 6 . ..PxP; 7 PxP, B-Q2. Now
Nimzovitch carries out his idea of establishing a piece centre) ; 7 PxP!, BxP; 8
0 -0, P-B3? (Black, following 'classical' principles, counts on eventually setting
up a pawn centre) ; 9 P-Q.Kt4!, B-K2; 10 B-KB4!
Now, after 10.,.PxP; 11 KtxP, KtxKt; 12 BxKt, Kt-B3; 13 Kt-Q.2, 0-0; 14 Kt-
B3, B-Q.3; 15 Q.-K2 the white pieces had seized the most important central
squares.
Nimzovitch fought against a mechanical understanding of
THE HISTORY OF OPENING THEORY
e pawn centre and emphasized in contrast the importance of piece pressure
th
on the centre. In the fight for the central squares pawns and pieces must
complement and replace each other, as was clearly illustrated in the above
example.
These views led to new openings, for instance, the Ni.mzo vitch Defence
to the Q,ueen's Pawn (1 P-Q,4, Kt-KB3; 2 P-Q,B4, P-K3; 3 Kt-Q,B3, B-Kt5)
and the Ni.mzovitch Attack (1 Kt-KB3, P-Q,4; 2 P-Q,Kt3, Kt-KB3; 3 B-Kt2).
The idea behind these openings is to exert piece pressure on the centre and
to follow up with the pawn advances P-Q4 and P-QB4 to undermine the
opponent's pawn centre.
Nimzovitch produced the highly original works Mein System (1927) which
came out in three volumes, and Die Praxis Meines Systems (1930). In them
he justified in detail a number of new ideas and sharply criticized the
mechanical views of the representatives of dogmatism, particularly Tarrasch.
Whereas in the systems suggested by Nimzovitch, the 'weak' central
square K5 or K4 is subjected to piece pressure, in the new opening worked
out by the Czech grandmaster Reti piece pressure is exerted against the
'strong' central square Q5. Reti was at the height of his powers in the
twenties, and the opening which now bears his name appeared at that time: 1
Kt-KB3, P-Q,4, 2 P-B4, P-K3; 3 P-KKt3!, etc. In many variations of this
opening White refrains from moving his central pawns for a considerable
time. Often Reti combined piece pressure on Q5 and K5, fianchettoing both
Bishops.
Reti would allow his opponents to set up an 'ideal' pawn centre and then,
having prepared his forces, attack and destroy it. A good example is his
game with Rubinstein ( Carlsbad, 1923). After 1 Kt-KB3, P-Q,4; 2 P-KKt3,
Kt-KB3; 3 B-Kt2, P-KKt3; 4 P-B4, P-Q.5 Reti carried out the plan of
'encircling' the important black pawn on Q4, preparing to seize that square. 5
P-Q.3, B-Kt2; 6 P-Q.Kt4, 0-0; 7 Q.Kt-Q.2, P-B4; 8 Kt-Kt3!, PxP; 9 B-Kt2, Kt-
B3; 10 Q.Kt xP, KtxKt; 11 BxKt, P-Kt3; 12 P-Q.R3, B-Kt2; 13 B-Kt2, PxP; 14
RxP, Q.-B1; 15 Q.-R1!, and White has carried out his plan. (Compare with
the diagram.)
Position
after
8Kt-Kt3!
Reti was also a gifted teacher and writer. His books Modern Ideas in
Chess and Masters of the Chessboard are models of the methodical
exposition of opening theory.
In his work on the general theory of the opening Reti was head and
shoulders above all other Western theoreticians in revealing the richness and
dynamic qualities of the opening struggle and in closely linking the opening
with the middle game. Setting out opening ideas in the order of their
historical appearance, Reti correctly showed that the evolution of the opening
depended on the general progress of chess thought. Consequently, he
warns the beginner against complicated strategic opening systems and
recommends him to concen trate on open games with their rich possibilities
for piece play.
The idea of exerting piece pressure on the pawn centre, first put forward by
Tchigorin, lies at the root of many modern opening structures. This idea is
executed extremely clearly in the popular Griinfeld Defence, named after the
Austrian theoretician and grandmaster who first suggested it. In one of the
main variations of the defence, after the moves 1 P-Q.4, Kt-KB3; 2 P-Q.B4, P-
KKt3; 3 Kt-Q.B3, P-Q.4; 4 PxP, KtxP; 5 P-K4, KtxKt; 6 PxKt, Black allows
White to set up a pawn centre, but organizes piece pressure against it,
supported by the undermining thrust
. .P-QB4.
These new ideas developed in the face of the strong opposi tion of
dogmatism, which became a serious barrier to the development of opening
theory.
In the twenties there arose a group of players who spoke of the need to
'reform' chess in order to avoid the death of the game through too many
drawn results. One of the sup porters of this idea was that genius and master
of chess technique, the then World Champion, Capablanca.
Possessing an enormous talent for the game, Capablanca, in the early
days of his chess career, played a big part in the development of theory.
From the very first moves he strove not so much for a rapid development of
his pieces as to achieve their harmonious co-ordination. His opening play was
very dynamic. It is interesting to note that in his text books Capablanca, when
considering how to teach the open ing, emphasizes above all this dynamic
aspect of the opening struggle. In this he took a step forward in comparison
with the teachers of the game who supported Steinitz's theory.
A characteristic example is provided by his treatment of the following
variation of the French Defence. 1 P-K4, P-K3; 2 P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 3 Kt-Q.B3,
PxP; 4 KtxP, Kt-Q.2;
Kt-KB3, KK.t-B3; 6 Kt x Kt eh, Kt x Kt; 7 Kt-K5. Seeing that Black's chief
difficulty is the development of his Queen's Bishop, Capablanca strives to
maintain this advan
tage for as long as possible. He prevents 7 ...P-QKt3 because of the reply 8
B-Kt5 eh!
In numerous openings Capablanca, proceeding from the concrete
demands of the position, rejected a hackneyed development of his pieces,
subordinating development to a definite plan and striving always to establish
the harmonious co-ordination of his pieces.
A favourite device of Capablanca's was the attempt to destroy the
harmony of his opponent's pieces. A contribution towards this could
sometimes be made in the opening by cutting off a piece from the main
theatre of operations. This is well illustrated in the game Capablanca-Biack
(New York, 1915).1 P-K4,P-K4; 2Kt-KB3,Kt-Q,B3; 3 B-Kt5,
P-Q,R3; 4 B-R4, Kt-B3; 5 0-0, B-K2; 6 R-K1, P-Q,3; 7 P-B3, 0-0; 8 P-Q,4, P-
Q,Kt4; 9 B-B2, B-Kt5; 10 P-Q,5!
·- w
a• = ii.1V-
.• - w ....-t
:1:11d 17. - -.
•-t-•ft --7. -
- _ft_.l._
- - -f.'-·
....
7.
- - -%
...!1. L -. U£
"§··z{)
.- . - fJ:. §···z.. 0l'//.
> • Z
";.... -- • . ,. _ _ _ ,7,
Capablanca links this closing of the centre with the following interesting
plan which has since become normal in such positions. 10... Kt-Kt1; 11 P-
KR3, B-R4; 12 Q,Kt-Q,2, Q.Kt-Q,2; 13 Kt-B1, R-K1; 14 P-KK.t4!
The point of White's scheme is that the Bishop is forced back to KKt3,
where it remains shut out of play for a long time. 14• • •B-Kt3; 15 Kt-Kt3, P-R3;
16 P-Q,R4, Kt-R2; 17 Q,-K2, R-Kt1; 18 PxP, PxP; 19 P-Kt4 (Having obtained
an advantage on the King's wing, White transfers his advance to the Queen's,
taking into account the isolation of Black's Queen's Bishop), Q,-B1; 20 B-Q,3,
P-B3; 21 PxP, Q.xP; 22 R-R5!, Q.xBP; 23 BxKtP, Q.-B2;
B-K3, KR-Q,1; 25 R-Q,B1!, with an overwhelming advantage for White.
Over the years, however, Capablanca placed greater
emphasis on pure technique, thus restricting the scope for creative ideas. As
a result of this, in the opening he strove to avoid complicated problems and
rapidly simplified the position, relying on his technical virtuosity. However, in
achieving this mastery of chess technique, Capablanca did not exhaust the
game itself, but simply his own narrow approach to it with its inevitable
monotony.
The first Russian World Champion, Alekhine, developed his talents in the
difficult struggle with this 'automatic' style of play (as it was called at the time).
In his play Alekhine managed to combine the new dynamic approach to the
appraisal of a position with a highly developed technique. Considering the
opening to be organically linked with the middlegame, Alekhine brought
forward numerous new strategic ideas in both. Characteristic of his style was
the attempt to engage in a sharp struggle from the very first moves. Alekhine
produced a new treatment of the concept of 'tempo,' closely linking 'time' in
chess with concrete ideas. In his play he correctly observed the dialectical
connection between chess 'time' and the achievement of various posi tional
advantages. To Alekhine belongs the strategic idea of
battle on both wings, with the sudden transfer of the attack from one sector of
the board to another. He was also parti cularly fond of suddenly bursting open
the game to carry through a piece attack.
In the years 1925-35 Alekhine was rightly considered to be the
outstanding connoisseur of the opening. His opening repertoire was
extensive, deep and subtle. He worked out a great many new variations, all
based on the idea of compli cated, aggressive play. He contributed many
valuable ideas to the theory of the Ruy Lopez, the French, Sicilian and King's
Indian defences and the Queen's Gambit. In the defence which bears his
name Alekhine carried further the idea of creating counterplay by means of
pieces against the opponent's centre. In the main variation of the Alekhine
Defence (1 P-K4, Kt-KB3; 2 P-K5, Kt-Q,4; 3 P-Q,B4, Kt-Kt3; 4 P-Q,4) White
obtains a clear pawn superiority in the centre, but by continuing 4 ...P-Q,3,
Black organizes a timely thrust against White's centre, creating interesting,
sharp counterplay.
In many opening variations Alekhine would carry out another of his
favourite strategic schemes-the sacrifice of a pawn for the initiative. In his
game with Nimzovitch (Bled,
Position
aft er
BQxP
1931), after the moves 1 P-K4, P-K3; 2 P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 3 Kt-Q.B3, B-Kt5,
Alekhine sacrificed a pawn with 4 Kt-K2, and after 4 • • •PxP; 5 P-Q.R3, BxKt
eh; 6 KtxB, P-KB4? (Later it was shown that 6 . . .Kt-QB3 ! is best here) ; 7 P-
B3!, PxP; 8 Q.xP, White obtained a strong initiative.
Now Nimzovitch incautiously accepted the second pawn, playing 8•••Q.xP,
and was subjected to an irresistible attack. 9 Q.-Kt3, Kt-KB3; 10 Q.xKtP, Q.-
K4 eh; 11 B-K2, R-Kt1; 12 Q.-R6, R-Kt3; 13 Q.-R4, B-Q.2; 14 B-KKt5, B-B3;
15 0-0-0!
Alekhine did not write any specific textbooks, but all his works contain
superb teaching material, and his annotations to his own games are
exceptionally valuable even today.
Another interesting theoretician and writer on the game was Tartakover,
one more grandmaster whose career began in Russia. Possessing superb
literary gifts, Tartakover wittily and picturesquely expounded chess theory and
contributed much towards its popularization. His most important work, Die
Hypermoderne Schachpartie, which appeared in the thirties, was a new
attempt to produce an opening encyclopaedia.
Similar work has been carried on abroad more recently by such
outstanding theoreticians as Euwe, Fine, and Pachman. Indeed, Euwe, the
Dutch grandmaster, is one of the greatest theoreticians today. Throughout his
long career he has written many works which are valuable from the point of
view of teaching methods. He treats the basic opening principles in an
interesting way, considering them to be particular manifestations of the
following general principles:
The mobility of the pieces (in the opening: rapid, active development) ;
Freedom of action on both wings (in the opening: control of the centre) ;
0 The long-term positioning of the pieces (in the open ing: the
establishment of firm co-ordination between pieces and pawns).
In recent years Euwe has concentrated principally on the analysis and

cataloguing of actual opening variations, based largely on the work of Soviet
theoreticians.
From the beginning of the forties the centre of theoretical work on the
opening moved to the U .S.S.R. In the field of the opening the Soviet School
of Chess was formed under the influence of the Russian School, above all
under that of Tchigorin and Alekhine. An important part was also played by
masters of the older generation, such as Levenfish, Romanovsky,
Rabinovitch and Nenarokov, etc. These masters' theoretical researches and
their textbooks contri buted considerably towards the rise of the new
generation of Soviet masters and laid the foundations for the Soviet School of
Chess.
A characteristic of Soviet textbooks on opening theory is an interest in
questions of teaching methods. Teaching methods are closely linked with the
grading system in the U .S.S.R. and with the teaching work continually
carried on in our chess clubs.
A particularly valuable contribution to this field was made by Levenfish and
Romanovsky. Their teaching work covered a wide range but paid particular
attention to the study of the openings. Romanovsky worked out a method of
open ing study for players of the lower grades, while Levenfish contributed
much to the working out of a method ofteaching the openings to the higher
grades.
Some of the questions raised by Levenfish are worth considering in more
detail. He links the range of a player's knowledge of opening theory directly
with the player's
general standard, considering that a player's knowledge of the openings

should increase in step with his general advance in skill. Levenfish
recommends players in the higher grades to limit themselves first of all to the
study of a few opening systems and only gradually to widen their repertoire. It
is essential to reach a correct understanding of the subsequent middlegame
struggle and to study its finer points. The basic aim in studying various
opening variations is to master the dynamic possibilities of the succeeding
middlegame. Leven fish recommends players to study openings by examining
the games played in master tournaments rather than theoretical articles. Of
great importance is his advice warning players against being distracted by
'fashionable' opening systems.
Levenfish suggests a detailed plan for the study of a new opening system,
consisting of the following stages :
1) The collection of material (the collection of games and analyses and
their systematic arrangement) ;
0 An analysis of this material;
1 Checking the results of the analysis in casual and tournament
games.
Levenfish emphasizes that without this painstaking work no chess player can
achieve mastery of the opening.
Another section of Levenfish's work is also extremely valuable. Analysing
the games of 1st category* players, he underlines the typical mistakes made
by them in the opening. The principal mistakes resulted from: (a) an
insufficient knowledge of chess literature; (b) an anti-positional treat ment of
the opening; (c) an inability to play 'defensive' openings; (d) a mechanical
swotting-up ofvariations; (e) a lack of understanding of the role of the opening
(i.e. that the
* Corresponds approximately to B.C.F. grades 4a-3h.
opening is not just the beginning of the game, but may in many cases
determine its whole course).
The appearance of a new generation of Soviet masters in the thirties and
forties began an unprecedented upsurge in opening theory. This upsurge was
started by Botvinnik. Botvinnik was the first player to analyse openings
scientifi cally, penetrating not only as far as the most intricate key moments in
the middlegame, but even as far as the ending. Botvinnik contributed a great
deal to the theory of the French, Sicilian, Slav and Dutch defences, as well as
to the Nhnzovitch and Griinfeld defences, and the English and Reti openings.
As a result of his researches the whole game appeared as a unified but
complex battle of ideas from the very first moves.
Botvinnik undertook a thorough-going study of opening problems.
Realizing the relationship between the various openings, Botvinnik worked
out a new system for preparing an opening repertoire. Thus, against 1 P-Q.4
one of his favourite systems was the Dutch Defence. In practice this defence
is often reached via l ...P-K3 (in order to avoid the Staunton Gambit) which
allows White to transpose into the French Defence. Botvinnik studied both
these openings in great detail.
At the same time Botvinnik strives to select the most critical and sharpest
paths in the opening. He mastered the secrets of the dynamism of the
opening. An illustration of this is his system in the Slav Defence, where from
the earliest moves an extremely sharp struggle is waged over the whole
board; in many variations material balance is disrupted very early. Botvinnik
contributed towards the solution of many problems
.of the struggle for the centre in modern opening practice and worked out
numerous new basic plans.
Botvinnik continually enriches his own opening repertoire, but only after a
preliminary study of the finer points of each new opening. The former World
Champion was the founder of a new advanced school of opening preparation,
which concentrates also on a deep study of the opponent's opening repertoire
and attempts to force him into those opening systems in which
psychologically he feels least at home. The value of this method has been
fully recognized and is now followed by all grandmasters and masters.
Of great importance for the theory of the opening are Botvinnik's works
The Botvinnik-Flohr Match, Championship Chess, 100 Selected Games and
The Botvinnik-Smyslov Match.
Botvinnik's example has been followed by other Soviet grandmasters and
by a whole army ofSovietplayerswhohave investigated the secrets of the
opening. Thanks to this col lective effort, headed by Soviet grandmasters and
masters, the study of opening theory has been raised to an unprece dented
level. In the first instance the enormous contribution made towards the
creation of the Soviet School of Chess by grandmasters Smyslov, Bronstein,
Keres and Boleslavsky and themastersRauzer,Konstantinopolsky,etc.,must
berecorded.
What, then, are the characteristic features of the modern opening? In the
first place, the unusually wide range of the opening repertoire and of new
opening ideas. Characteristic of the Soviet School are a continual search for
new ideas and the wide range of its creative views. The most important
opening systems have been examined from a concrete scientific point of view
and at the same time many old variations have been rehabilitated.
The following chapters will examine in detail modern problems of the
opening. Meanwhile a few of the most essential features must be mentioned.
Most important is the increasing study of the opening in connection with the
succeeding stages of the game. Since the opening is subject to the demands
of the coming middlegame struggle, patterns of development are continually
being refined and in many cases the basic struggle begins long before the
development of the pieces in the early middle game; it influences the opening
stage of the game. This dynamic approach to opening problems, taking into
account the later stages of the game, helps to create a large number of new
concrete opening systems and even entire openings (e.g. the King's Indian
Attack). Characteristic of many of these systems is a far more active treatment
of the opening, especially on Black's side.
A number of new gambit systems have appeared in closed games; from
the opening the struggle is waged over the whole board, and the opening
struggle for the centre takes on ever sharper forms; in many cases the
concept of pawn 'weaknesses' has been radically revised.
The Soviet School of Chess exercises a powerful influence on the
development of opening theory all over the world, but this influence has been
particularly fruitful in Eastern Europe. The successes achieved in recent years
by players from those countries are to a large extent a result of their scientific
approach to the study of the opening.
The development of opening theory has revealed an in exhaustible fund of
possibilities in the early stages of the game. Today opening theory is
flourishing and its future prospects are most promising.
CHAPTER TWO
Basic Principles and Aims

of the Opening
I. Opening Principles
It is customary to divide the game into three basic stages:
the opening, the middlegame and the endgame.
The first stage of the game, the opening, usually lasts about ten to fifteen
moves, during which both sides carry out the development of their pieces
before the basic struggle of the middlegame. In the opening the players
choose their course for the next stage of the game.
In the initial position before the start of the game there are two basic
features: space (or the board), on which the struggle will take place, and the
forces of each side, consisting of pieces and pawns.
(a) Space
The Central Squares and Their Role in the Opening
The squares on the chess-board are not all equal in value. Four of the
squares, Q4, Q5, K4 and K5, make up the centre. Any piece standing in the
centre exercises its maximum power and can quickly be transferred to either
wing. A comparison of the scope of centralized pieces with the scope
35
of the same pieces situated on the edge of the board illustrates the
superiority of the former.
It is easy to see that the black Knight on the edge of the board controls two
squares, while the white Knight in the centre controls eight. The black Bishop
controls seven squares while White's centralized Bishop controls thirteen. The
player who controls the centre can easily transfer his pieces to the wing, while
his opponent's forces are disunited and restricted in mobility.
Present-day understanding of the centre has been con siderably enriched

by the realization that 'pressure on the central squares may be more effective
than occupying them' ( Alekhine).
B ASIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMS OF THE OPENING 37
The central squares are especially important in the

opening. Until it has become clear where the main struggle will develop, it is
advisable to develop the pieces towards the centre. This chess axiom has
been confirmed by many centuries of practice. Neglect of the centre in the
opening for the sake of play on a wing may quite logically lead to defeat.
Modern masters pay particular attention to the centre in the opening. With
the improvement of modern technique even the slightest errors are swiftly
punished. A good example is provided by the famous game Botvinnik-
Capablanca. (A.V.R.O. Tournam.ent, Antsterdam., 1938). 1 P-Q.4,
Kt-KB3; 2 P-Q.B4, P-K3; 3 Kt-Q.B3, B-Kt5; 4 P-K3, P-Q.4; 5 P-Q.R3, BxKt eh.
5 . . .B-K2 is better, avoiding the concentration of white pawns in the
centre.
6 PxB, P-Q.B4; 7 BPxP.
White strives to set up a pawn centre. Exploiting the situation which has
arisen, White exchanges his doubled QBP against one of his opponent's
central pawns, thereby achieving a pawn majority in the centre.
7•••KPxP; 8 B-Q.3, 0-0; 9 Kt-K2, P-Q.Kt3.
Black underestimates White's basic plan. Striving to exchange his
opponent's King's Bishop, he gradually loses the opportunity of creating
effective pressure on the central squares. More energetic was 9 . ..Kt-B3.
10 0-0, B-R3; 11 BxB, KtxB; 12 B-Kt2, Q.- Q.2. Stronger was 12. . .Kt-B2
followed by . . .Kt-K3, increasing
the pressure on the important Q5 square.
13 P-Q.R4, KR-K1; 14 Q.- Q.3, P-B5; 15 Q.-B2, Kt-Kt1. Black continues the
incorrect plan begun on his twelfth move. Hoping to exploit the weak white
pawn on QR4, he carries out a long and mistaken manoeuvre on the Queen's
wing with ...Kt-Ktl-B3-QR4--Kt6. Instead, he should have concentrated on

setting up a defence along the K file.
Q.R-K1, Kt-B3; 17 Kt-Kt3, Kt-Q.R4; 18 P-B3, Kt-Kt6; 19 P-K4, Q.xP; 20 P-
K5!
Thus White, skilfully exploiting Black's opening mistakes, has carried out
his plan. His strong pawn centre, which in the given position cannot be
attacked by Black, gives him the chance to carry out a powerful attack on the
King's wing.
20...Kt-Q.2; 21 Q.-B2, P-Kt3; 22 P-B4, P-B4; 23 PxP e.p., KtxBP; 24 P-B5,
RxR; 25 RxR, R-K1; 26 R-K6!, and White soon crowned his attack with a
beautiful combina tion.
The conclusion may be drawn that firm control of the centre in the opening
guarantees the pieces freedom of movement and manoeuvrability.
The Wings
In addition to the difference between the central squares and those on the
edge of the board, the two wings, the King's and the Queen's, differ radically
from each other. This difference stems from the position of the two most
important pieces, the King and the Queen. The former stands, naturally,
closer to the King's wing, the latter to the Queen's wing and, because of this,
play on each wing is rather different through out the whole game.
A glance at the original position shows that the most vulnerable point on
the King's wing is the square KB2, which is protected only by the King.
Probably every beginner has striven at one time or another for a direct attack
on the King by means of 1 P-K4, 2 B-B4 and 3 Q,-R5. This attempt is
dictated, perhaps unconsciously, by a desire to exploit the weakness of the
most vulnerable point in the initial position. Naturally, this attack is easily
repulsed and is disadvantageous, but there are a number of interesting
opening combinations based on correct attacks against KB7. Most opening
manuals begin with such examples.
As a result of the initial position of the King and Queen there is a difference
between the two openings 1 P-K4 and
P-Q,4. In openings commencing with 1 P-K4 it is easier to castle quickly and
consequently to complete the mobiliza tion of the pieces than with 1 P-Q,4.
The struggle for the central squares is also different in these openings.
This is particularly clear if one compares openings arising after 1 P-K4, P-K4
and 1 P-Q,4, P-Q,4, in
which Black is guided by a natural attempt to preserve equality in space in the

centre. The subsequent struggle in the centre, however, takes on different
forms. Each side (and especially White, having the advantage of the first
move) attempts to remove the opponent's central pawn and thus to achieve a
definite superiority in the centre. In openings with 1 P-K4, P-K4 it is easier for
White to open up the game in the centre by means of P-Q4, since this square
is protected by the Queen. However, in his turn Black also has good chances
of retaliating in the centre with . . .P-Q4. That is why in openings with 1 P-K4,
P-K4 the centre is often quickly cleared of pawns.
After 1 P-Q.4, P-Q.4 the move P-K4 (and even more so
. .P-K4 for · Black) is much more difficult to carry out. Therefore, after 1 P-Q.4,
P-Q.4 the position in the centre generally remains closed for some time. After
1 P-Q.4, P-Q.4 it is much easier to try to undermine the centre by means of P-
QB4 (for Black as well as White). On the other hand, the analogous attempt to
undermine the centre by means of P-KB4 in openings with 1 P-K4, P-K4 is
fraught with much greater difficulties, since in this case the King's wing is
seriously weakened. More could be added to this discussion, but the
difference between the two wings should now be clear.
To sum up, in King's pawn openings it is easier to engage in a lively,
forced game and to develop a quick piece attack, while Queen's pawn
openings are of a much slower, prepara tory character. This had a great
influence on the historical development of opening theory.
The Demarcation Line

A horizontal line, drawn across the middle of the board, dividing it into two
equal halves, may be called the demarca-
B A SIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMS OF THE OPENING 41
tion line. As a rule, the player with an advantage in space enjoys also greater
freedom of movement for his pieces. Therefore, acquiring a superiority in
space (i.e. when one of the sides crosses the demarcation line with his pieces
and pawns and consolidates their position) may become a definite advantage.
Conversely, the surrender of space to the opponent often leads to disaster.
Space must not be considered in isolation from the position on the board;
on the contrary, appraisal of the role of space depends on the position of the
forces of both sides. Thus, a hasty and unmotivated attempt to seize an
advantage in space generally fails. Space is important from the very first
moves of the game and is closely linked with the situation in the centre. This
is illustrated in the following examples.
Opening positions where one of the players has established an advanced
piece in the centre are well known. A typical example is provided by the
following variation of the French Defence. 1 P-K4, P-K3; 2 P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 3 Kt-
Q.B3, Kt-KB3; 4 B-Kt5, B-K2; 5 P-K5, KKt-Q.2; 6 BxB, Q.xB; 7 P-B4, P-Q.R3;
8 Kt-B3, P-Q.B4.
Without this thrust it is difficult for Black to obtain
counterplay, since White has a significant superiority in space on the King's

wing. However, White now obtains a strong forepost for his pieces in the
centre at Q4.
9 PxP, Q.xP; 10 Q.- Q.4 !
Having seized control of his Q4, White obtains a clear advantage in the
opening.
Naturally, the strength of such a central forepost is more effective the
nearer it is to the enemy camp, provided, of course, that the player can
maintain the post. Therefore, the capture of central squares beyond the
demarcation line is seldom effective in the opening. A good example is
provided by a variation in the King's Indian Defence, e.g. 1 P-Q.4, Kt-KB3; 2
P-Q.B4, P-KKt3; 3 Kt-Q.B3, B-Kt2; 4 P-K4, P-Q.3; 5 P-B3, 0-0; 6 B-Kt5, P-B4;
7 P-Q.5, P-K3!; 8 Q.- Q.2, PxP; 9 KtxP.
By exchanging in the centre Black surrenders to his opponent his Q4 and
gives himself a backward pawn on Q3. However, this operation allows a
quick and active develop ment of the black pieces. It soon becomes clear that
White cannot maintain his apparent advantage in the centre. For example,
after 9•••B-K3; 10 Kt-K2, Kt-B3; 11 KKt-B3, Kt-Q.Kt5! or 11 0-0-0, BxKt; 12
BPxB, Kt-K4, etc., Black obtains sufficient counterplay in the centre.
Analogous positions with a Knight on Q3 or K3 blocking an opposing
passed pawn similarly provide an active defence. The vitality of such
cramped positions was demonstrated more than once by Tchigorin. In the
Vienna Tournament of 1898 he twice carried out a plan of blockading his
oppo nent's advanced central pawn.
Right in the opening of his game withJanowski Tchigorin carried
out the Knight manoeuvre Kt-Q2-KB1-K3 and from the following
position of his game with Caro Tchigorin
B A SIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMS OF THE OPENING 43
Janowski
Tchigorin
carried through an energetic attack based on the powerful position of his

Knight on K3. 33 P-R4, R-Q,l; 34
Tchigorin
Caro
P-KKt3, P-B4; 35 Q,-K2, R-B2; 36 Q,-Q,2, Q,R-KBI; 37 Q,-B2, K-R2; 38 K-

R2, PxP; 39 PxP, P-B5!; 40 Q,-K2, PxP eh; 41 KxP, Kt-Kt2!; 42 RxR, RxR; 43
R-B6, Kt-B4 eh; 44 K-R2, RxR; 45 PxR, K-Ktl; 46 Q,-K5, K-B2; 47 Q,-Kt8, Q,-
Q,3 eh!, and Black soon won.
A similar structure often arises after an exchange of pieces in the King's

Indian Defence; for example, 1 P-Q.4,
Kt-KB3; 2 P-Q.B4, P-KKt3; 3 Kt-Q.B3, B-Kt2; 4 P-K4, P-Q.3; 5 B-K2, 0-0; 6
Kt-B3, P-K4; 7 0-0, Q.Kt-Q.2;
8 P-Q.5, Kt-B4; 9 Q-B2, P-Q.R4; 10 Kt-K1, P-QB3;
Kt-Q3, PxP; 12. KtxKt, PxKt; 13 BPxP, Kt-K1!, followed by • • •Kt-Q.3.
Here Black's position is very promising, since White's advantage in space
is more than compensated for by the strong black piece and pawn complex in
the centre.
To sum up, seizure of space is effective only when it is supported by co-
ordinated pieces and pawns.
The Forces
( 1) The Pieces
The Development of the Pieces in the Opening
The most important task of the opening is the rapid develop ment of the
pieces. In the opening, as in the rest of the game, every tempo is valuable
since it is a basic unit of chess time. In the opening and in the middlegame the
most vulnerable piece is the King, which can easily become an object of
attack; therefore, in the opening the King must be removed from the centre,
since the position in the centre, where battle is first joined, may be opened up
quickly and un expectedly. Neglect of development and leaving the King in the
centre may lead to disaster. Such cases are often met even nowadays in
master practice, which once again provides confirmation of this maxim.
Thus, in the game Spassky-Taimanov (Moscow, 1955), after the moves 1
P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 B-Kt5, P-Q.R3; 4 B-R4, P-Q.Kt4; 5 B-Kt3,
Kt-R4;
B A SIC PRI NCIPLES AND AIMS OF THE OPENING 45
0-0, P-Q.3; 7 P-Q.4, Kt X B; 8 RP X Kt, P-KB3; 9 l{t-B3,
B-Kt2; 10 Kt-KR4, Kt-K2; 11 PxP, Q.PxP; 12 Q.-B3, Q.-Q2; 13 R-Q,1, Q.-K3;
14 B-K3, P-Kt4? the following position was reached.
Black, with his King still in the centre and his K side undeveloped, begins
active operations, weakening decisively the position of his King. An immediate
tactical refutation followed: 15 KtxP, RPxKt; 16 Q.-R5 eh, Q.-B2; 17 RxR eh,
BxR; 18 R-Q.8 eh, KxR; 19 Q.xQ., PxKt; 20 Q.x BP, R-Kt1; 21 P-KB3!, and
White soon won.
During the first few moves it is better as a rule to preserve as many
possibilities as is practical, concentrating on the basic tasks of the opening,
i.e. the development of the pieces and the control of the central squares,
rather than committing oneself to any definite operations. Usually it is
advisable to avoid determining the structure in the centre and any exchanges
made at the expense of the basic task of develop ment. The first moves of a
Sicilian Defence should make this clearer: 1 P-K4, P-Q.B4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-
Q.B3; 3 P-Q.4, PxP; 4 KtxP, Kt-B3.
With his last move Black attacks the white KP and exerts pressure on the
central squares. White's strongest reply is
5 Kt-QB3 since it develops a piece to an active position and strengthens

White's pressure on the centre. Other methods of defending the pawn are far
inferior. Thus, 5 P-KB3 leads to a premature weakening of White's King's
wing, while 5 KtxKt, KtPxKt; 6 B-Q.3 or 6 Kt-Q.2 only helps to strengthen
Black's pawn centre.
Position
after
4 . . . Kt-B3
It is significant too that White's attempt in the French Defence to seize

space by means of 3 P-K5 is of doubtful value. With this move the position in
the centre is closed and Black, who has not yet begun the mobilization of his
pieces, has very good chances to undermine White's bases in the centre with
a pawn thrust. Often it is Black who seizes the initiative.
After the general opening moves, gradually the main battle develops.
Continuing, for example, the variation of the Sicilian Defence examined above
(with 5 Kt-Q.B3) after one more move on each side, 5 ...P-Q.3; 6 B-Q.B4, the
Sozin Attack, the battle clearly begins to acquire a far more concrete
character. Although the move 6 B-Q.B4 aims first of all to mobilize another
piece, it also determines to a certain extent the further plan of operations
along the diagonal QR2-KKt8. At the same time, concrete threats
arise, such as 7 KtxKt, PxKt; 8 P-K5!, PxP; 9 BxP eh, which Black must bear
in mind.
To sum up, a rapid and harmonious development of the pieces in the
opening guarantees active play.
The Advantage of the First Move

In the initial position at the start of the game the forces of both sides are
equal. This means that the chances of both sides in the opening are also
approximately equal. A tangible positional advantage may be achieved in the
opening only if one side makes a definite mistake. The balance of the position
in the opening may be destroyed, for example, if one of the players ignores
the opening principles or fails to adopt a concrete approach to the position,
etc.
Nevertheless, a real influence is exercised on the opening by the right of
first move, which belongs to White, the active side in the opening. The right of
the first move offers White some initiative at the beginning of the game. This
initiative gives White more active possibilities and a greater freedom of choice
of various plans. To a certain extent Black is subject to White's initiative;
Black's plans depend on the schemes of the first player. Of course, this does
not mean that Black is condemned to passive defence. On the contrary, in
modern openings Black's active play is increasing, but he experiences more
difficulties and bears more responsibility for his actions. Whereas a small
mistake on White's part generally leads only to loss of the initiative, a similar
mistake on Black's side may lead to more serious results. Naturally, in the
opening White must strive to maintain and to increase his initiative; Black
must strive to curb White and, if the occasion arises, seize the initiative
himself.
From the analysis of various concrete opening systems it is
clear that, depending on the inclinations of the players (not considering

obvious mistakes) the position after the opening may be completely equalized
(in chess literature this is sometimes called a static balance) ; on the other
hand, White may retain some initiative, which guarantees him a small but
lasting advantage (if White has played passively the initia tive may have
passed to Black) ; thirdly, complicated posi tions may arise with a dynamic
balance, in which the game preserves a lively and involved character with
approxi mately equal chances for both sides; finally, in many opening
variations a very sharp struggle evolves in which the chances can only be
established after a deep concrete analysis. The last two types are most typical
of the modern opening.
The Pawns
The Pawn Structure
The course of the game is determined to a large extent by the pawn
structure. Many opening positions in which organic weaknesses arise in the
pawn structure (such as isolated, doubled, or backward pawns) provided
there are no parti cular compensations, are recognized as unsatisfactory and
the opening variations which lead to them are condemned by opening theory.
Such pawns are not only weak in them selves, but the squares immediately in
front of them provide a convenient point for the invasion of the opponent's
pieces.
The presence of organic pawn weaknesses in the opponent's camp
facilitates the long-term positioning of the pieces.
Good examples of this are the positions which arise in a variation of the
Sicilian Defence, 1 P-K4, P-Q,B4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 P-Q,4, PxP; 4 KtxP,
Kt-B3; 5 Kt-Q,B3, P-K4?; 6 KK.t-Kt5, P-Q.3; 7 B-Kt5, P-Q,R3;
B ASIC PRIN CIPLES AND AIMS OF THE OPENING 49
8 Kt-R3, B-K3; 9 Kt-B4, Kt-Q.5; 10 BxKt, PxB; 11 Kt-K3 (see diagram), or in a

variation of the English Opening, 1 P-Q.B4, Kt-KB3; 2 Kt-Q.B3, P-B4; 3 P-
KKt3, P-Q.4; 4 PxP, KtxP; 5 B-Kt2, Kt-B2; 6 P-Q.3, Kt-B3?; 7 BxKt eh!, PxB;
8 Q.-R4.
In the first of these diagrams Black has a backward pawn on Q3, his Q4 is
weak, and White's pieces can settle there permanently; his KBP's are
doubled. All this guarantees a clear advantage to White, since Black has no
compensation for the weaknesses in his pawn structure. In the second
diagram Black has doubled pawns on the QB file which provide an object of
attack. Sooner or later White will be
able to establish one of his Knights on QB4. It cannot be said that Black's
position is bad, but he has great difficulties on the Queen's wing, since it is
difficult to defend the doubled pawns.
In these examples the weakness in the pawn structure of one of the sides
exercised a decisive influence on evaluating the opening struggle. However,
in the majority of modern opening systems it is possible to give a correct
evaluation of the pawn structure only by considering it in conjunction with the
general harmony of the pieces. In many cases pawn weaknesses can be
admitted in a position, provided they are compensated for by an active and
harmonious development of the pieces.
Co-operation between Pieces and- Pawns

Even in the opening it is of great importance that there should be harmony
between pieces and pawns, which can either complement each other's
activity or interfere with it; or again the pieces and pawns may act in isolation
from each other.
Firstly, a few cases will be examined where the pawns interfere with the
activity of some of the pieces, destroying the general harmony of the forces.
An extremely good example of this is provided by the main variation of the
Cam.bridge Springs Defence to the Queen's Ga:mbit. 1 P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 2 P-
Q.B4, P-K3; 3 Kt-Q.B3, Kt-KB3; 4 B-Kt5, Q.Kt-Q.2; 5 P-K3, P-B3; 6 Kt-B3, Q.-
R4; 7 Kt-Q.2, B-Kt5; 8 Q.-B2, PxP; 9 BxKt, KtxB; 10 KtxP, Q.-B2; 11 P-Q.R3,
B-K2 (see diagram) .
Black's pawn position restricts the activity of his Queen's Bishop, which is
deprived of any immediate chance to enter into active play. White's best
continuation is 12 P-KK.t3!
B ASIC PRINCIPLES A ND AIMS OF THE OPENING 51
Position
after
l . . . B-K2
followed by B-Kt2 and P-Q.Kt4, attempting to prevent the activation of Black's

Bishop by . . .P-QKt3, . . .B-Kt2, and
. . .P-QB4.
Clearly White's small advantage guarantees him manoeuv ring freedom
for his pieces. The central pawn on Q4 together with White's piece pressure
cramps Black's pawn position in the centre and consequently limits the scope
of all Black's pieces.
Whereas in this example Black has the chance to free his Bishop, often,
particularly with a locked pawn position, the pieces may be gradually 'stifled.'
In the game Scblechter John (Barmen, 1905) White carried out such a plan: 1
P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 2 P-Q.B4, P-K3; 3 Kt-Q.B3, P-KB4;
Position
after
8 P-KKt3
M.C.O.T. c
4 Kt-B3, P-B3; 5 B-B4, B-Q.3 (Black counts on 6 B x B,

QxB followed by . . .Kt-Q2 and . . .P-K4, freeing his game) ;
6 P-K3, Kt-B3; 7 B-Q,3, Q.-B2; 8 P-KKt3! (diagram) .
The strongest continuation. White is playing to 'stifle,
the black Queen's Bishop. Play went on 8 ...0-0; 9 0-0,
Kt-K5; 10 Q.-Kt3, K-R1; 11 Q.R-B1, BxB; 12 KPxB,
Q.-B2; 13 Kt-K5, Q.-K2; 14 B X Kt!, BP X B; 15 P-B3,
KPxP; 16 Q.R-K1, Q.-Q.B2; 17 Q.-R3!, and White easily
turned his advantage to account .
.- On the other hand, pieces should never restrict the move
ment of pawns. From the very first moves the pawns can
play an important part in the struggle for control of space,
provided they are supported by the pieces. Therefore a
stereotyped atten1pt to preserve at all costs an unweakened
pawn chain may lead to the co-ordination between the pieces
and the pawns being destroyed. Examine the following
examples. In the game Korchnoi-Szab6 (Bucharest,
1954) Black decided to mobilize his pieces, avoiding pawn
moves as far as possible. 1 P-Q.B4, P-K4; 2 Kt-Q.B3,
Kt-KB3; 3 P-KKt3, B-B4; 4 B-Kt2, 0-0; 5 P-K3,
R-K1; 6 KKt-K2, Kt-B3; 7 0-0, P-Q.3; 8 P-Q.4, B-Kt3;
9 P-KR3, B-KB4.
BASIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMS OF THE OPENIN G 53
It looks as though Black has solved the problem of develop ing his pieces,
preserved an elastic pawn chain, and has good chances. In actual fact his
position is very difficult, perhaps even lost. The point is that Black has
deprived his pawns of all mobility and is helpless against an advance of the
White pawns in the centre and on the King's wing. White, on the other hand,
has solved the problem of co-ordinating his pieces and his pawns. As a result
White obtains a con siderable advantage in space and an attack against the
black King.
10 P-Q.5, Kt-Kt1; 11 P-KKt4!, B-Q.2; 12 Kt-Kt3, P-KR3; 13 K-R2, P-Q.R4;
14 P-B4, p X p; 15 p X p'
K-R2; 16 P-Kt5!, commencing a decisive attack. Clearly Black, aiming only to
develop his pieces in active positions, was helpless against White's modern
closed structure,_
Black's plan would have been good if White had also aimed chiefly to
develop his pieces rapidly. This can be seen from the game Smyslov-Suetin
(20th U.S.S.R. Championship). 1 P-Q.B4, P-K3; 2 P-KKt3, P-Q.4; 3 B-Kt2, Kt-
KB3; 4 Kt-KB3, PxP; 5 Q.-R4 eh, B-Q.2; 6 Q,xBP, B-B3?; 7 Q.-B2, Q.Kt-Q.2;
8 0-0, P-K4; 9 Kt-B3, B-B4; 10 P-Q.3, 0-0; 11 P-K4!
White meets Black's stereotyped development by pre paring a pawn

advance in the centre, gradually repelling Black's pieces which are not
supported by his immobile pawns. 11. ..R-K1; 12 B-K3, Q-K2; 13 QR-B1. If
White had continued more energetically with 13 QR-Ql !, he would have
created the strong threat of P-Q4, which would have set Black difficult
problems. For example, if 13 . . . B-Kt3, then 14 P-Q4!, PxP; 15 KtxP, BxKt;
16 BxB!, and White has a clear superiority in the centre .
.. On the other hand, central pawns which are far advanced and unsupported
by pieces can become a serious weakness. They can also lead to a
weakening of the important central squares. There are a number of opening
systems in which one side or the other allows his opponent's pawns to
advance in order later to attack them. Such are, for example, the Alekhine
Defence (1 P-K4, Kt-KB3) and an analogous idea in the English Opening (1
P-QB4, Kt-KB3; 2 Kt-QB3, P-K3; 3 P-K4, P-QB4!; 4 P-K5, Kt-Kt1, etc.). These
questions will be considered in more detail in the section on the pawn centre,
with which they are closely connected.
It is clear from the above that in the opening both players must strive to co-
ordinate their pieces and pawns, at the same time attempting to destroy the
harmony of the oppo nent's pieces. Naturally, Black experiences more
difficulties in this. Often, in order to co-ordinate, Black has to allow
weaknesses in his position or to cede space to his opponent.
Several opening positions will now be examined in which Black's pieces
and pawns complement each other's activity. Each pawn weakness must be
appraised concretely, bearing in mind the gains which have been achieved in
exchange. A characteristic example is provided by the following structures
B A SI C PRINCIPLES A ND AIMS OF THE OPENING 55
in the Ruy Lopez: (a) 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 B-Kt5, P-Q.R3; 4 B-
R4, P-Q.3; 5 BxKt eh, PxB;
Position
after
6 . . . P-B3 !
6 P-Q.4, P-B3! and (b) 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 B-Kt5, P-Q.R3; 4
B-R4, P-Q.Kt4; 5 B-Kt3, Kt-R4; 6 0-0, KtxB; 7 RPxKt, P-Q.3; 8 P-Q.4, P-KB3.
The two positions are similar: in both Black has weakened his pawn
structure on the Queen's wing and his pawn position in the centre looks
doubtful, since the white squares are rather weak. Nevertheless, in spite of its
apparent pas sivity and weakness, Black's position is resilient. He has a
firm centre, which can later be mobilized by means of

. .P-Q4 or . . .P-KB4. The weakness on the white squares in the centre is
covered by Black's Queen's Bishop, which efficiently complements his pawns.
This sort of pawn structure is typical of the modern opening. For example,
very similar situations occur in the Samisch Variation of the Nitnzovitch
Defence, e.g. 1 P-Q.4, Kt-KB3; 2 P-Q.B4, P-K3; 3 Kt-Q.B3, B-Kt5;
4 P-Q.R3, B x Kt eh; 5 P x B followed by 6 P-K3 or even
6 P-B3 and P-K4.
In exchange for the pawn weaknesses White here (like Black in the
previous two examples) has a pawn superiority in the centre. Given the
chance, the Bishops may become very active. Later in the game these
potential advantages may prove decisive.
These examples illustrate the great importance of the harmonious
development of the forces in the opening. The various types of co-ordination
(and also its destruction) are numerous. The co-ordination of the pieces is an
important criterion in evaluating any position, including opening positions.
To sum up, the basic principles ofthe opening stage of the game may be
formulated as follows:
0 The struggle for the centre;
A rapid and purposeful development of the pieces to active positions and
the removal of the King from the centre by means of castling;
The creation of a sound pawn structure;
The co-ordination of the pieces and the pawns.
B ASIC PRINCIPLES A ND AIMS OF THE OPENING 57
The Concrete Approach to Opening Principles
The basic opening principles serve as a guide at the beginning of the

game, but the opening struggle is very complicated and cannot be entirely
subjected to general rules.
Strategic plans in the opening are numerous, flexible, and, from the very
first moves, consist of concrete variations. At the beginning of the game each
player has at his disposal various concrete strategic plans of development,
which are approximately equal with regard to their objective merits but which
differ from each other in the type of middlegame to which they lead.
As the pieces are developed so the game becomes more complicated.
From the very first moves the struggle is dynamic, since even in the opening
each player is attempting to destroy the harmony of his opponent's pieces
and pawns. This often leads to rapidly changing situations on the board. A
game of chess is a living process.
It must be emphasized that the dynamism of chess is not an arbitrary,
chance process of change, but on the con trary, is subjected to the iron logic
of chess. The positional and the material factors are continually transformed
during the course of the game, from its first moves onwards. Examine the
following example (Keres-Sm.yslov, World ChaDl pionship Tournam.ent, The
Hague, 1948). 1 P-Q.B4, Kt-KB3; 2 Kt-KB3, P-B3; 3 Kt-B3, P-Q.4; 4 P-K3, P-
KKt3; 5 P-Q.4, B-Kt2; 6 PxP, KtxP (6 . . . PxP was better; now White obtains
the superior centre) ; 7 B-B4, 0-0; 8 0 -0, P-Kt3? (More active was 8 . . . Kt-Kt3
followed by . . .QKt-Q2 and . . .P-K4, striving to create pressure on White's
centre) ; 9 Q.-Kt3, KtxKt; 10 PxKt, B-Q.R3; 11 B-R3, BxB; 12 Q.xB, R-K1; 13
P-K4,
P-Q.Kt4; 14 Q.-Kt3, Kt-Q.2; 15 P-B4, R-Kt1; 16 Q.R-Q.1, Q.-R4.
With his last few moves Black prepared to make the freeing advance ...P-
QB4. It looks as if this plan has succeeded, since White cannot maintain his
pawn centre ( 17. . .P x P is threatened; if17 P x P, then 1 7. . .RxPfollowed by
. . .P-QB4). However, White has at his disposal an interesting method of
preserving his opening advantage. He ignores Black's counter play in the
centre and begins an energetic advance on the King's wing.
17 P-B5!
In his book The 1948 World Championship Keres writes about this move:
'Black seems to have got over his worst diffi culties, but now a sharp tactical
battle begins in which Black pays the penalty for his previous imprecise
positional play. White had to calculate accurately the consequences of this
move, since Black is able to destroy his opponent's pawn centre by means of .
. .P-K4. The outcome of the game now depends on whether the tactical
advantages of the advance 17 P-B5 outweigh its positional drawbacks.'
17...P-Kt5; 18 B-Kt2 (18 B-Bl! was more accurate, but it was extremely
difficult to see this finesse), P-K4; 19 Kt-
B A SIC PRINCIPLES A ND AIMS OF THE OPENING 59
Kt5!, R-K2; 20 P-B4!, PxQ.P; 21 P-B5, KtxP? (The decisive mistake; essential
was 21. . . Qx BP with a satis factory game) ; 22 Q.-KR3, P-R4; 23 P-B6, B-
R3; 24 PxR, BxKt; 25 Q.-KB3!, P-B3; 26 BxP, Kt-Q.2; 27 P-KR4, Black
resigns.
This example clearly illustrates the dynamism of the middlegame. But often
sharp, rapidly changing situations arise in the opening. Because of this a
concrete approach to the position is essential from the first moves.
A concrete approach permits a more accurate appraisal of the position,
since the player bears in mind that certain advantages and disadvantages may
be transformed into others. For example, backward development may lead to
the creation of permanent pawn weaknesses, and the need to defend them
may in its turn allow the opponent to carry out an attack on the opposite wing,
etc. Or, players often lose when they hang on grimly to some 'advantage,'
forgetting the dynamic character of the position. A concrete approach means a
wide examination of the individual peculiarities of the position, both those which
depend on its external struc ture and those which are hidden. The basic aim of
this approach is to find the most effective plan corresponding to the demands
of the position. Each individual move, forming part of {he basic plan, must
attempt to resolve the most urgent problem in the given position. The solution
is sought through the concrete analysis of different variations and Jlleir
comparison one with another.
Of course, in the opening a player does not always find one effective plan
of play which is objectively superior to all other possibilities. At the beginning
of the game the battle has only just begun and there are usually a number of
objec tively equal plans, the choice between which depends on the
MODERN C HESS OPENING THEORY
player's taste and style. At the same time, it must be remem bered that in
many cases, even in the opening, there are occasions for deep concrete
analysis. The following examples provide illustrations.
In the variation of the Q,ueen's Gan1bit which com mences 1 P-Q,4, P-
Q,4; 2 P-Q,B4, P-K3; 3 Kt-Q,B3, Kt-KB3; 4 PxP, PxP; 5 B-Kt5, P-B3; 6 P-K3
the continuation 6 ...B-KB4 looks tempting, since it seems to solve the
important problem of developing Black's Queen's Bishop.
If White continues to develop quietly, Black does not experience any

difficulties, as for example in the game Botvinni.k-Geller (Moscow, 1955).
6 ...P-KR3; 7 B-R4, B-KB4; 8 B-Q,3, BxB; 9 Q,xB, B-K2; 10 KKt-K2, Q,Kt-Q,2;
11 0-0, 0-0; 12 P-B3, R-K1; 13 B-B2 ( 13 P-K4? is bad because of 13. . .PxP;
14 PxP, KtxP!, 15 Kt xKt, BxB; 16 Kt-Q6, R-KB1 ; 17 KtxKtP, Q-B2, with the
better game for Black), P-B4! (A timely thrust, destroying White's plans in the
centre) ; 14 PxP, BxP; 15 Q,R-Q,1, Kt-K4; 16 Q,-Kt5, Q,-Kt3; 17 Q,xQ,, PxQ,!,
and Black obtained an active game with many chances.
White can try to exploit the weakness of Black's Queen's
wing (created by the development of the Queen's Bishop) by 7 Q-.Kt3, but
this is no more successful after 7 ...Q.-Kt3; 8 Q.x Q, P x Q; 9 B x Kt, P x B,
since Black has chances of obtaining an attack by . . .P-QKt4-QKt5.
Nevertheless, the move 6 ...B-KB4 is dubious. A concrete analysis of the
position has shown that through an interesting manoeuvre White can obtain a
clear advantage, i.e. 7 Q,-B3! Superficially, this appears to be a violation of
the usual paths of development in this system. In fact, the move is the
beginning of a deep plan to weaken and blockade the Black K-side pawns.
Tactically the move is justified by the variation 7 ...Q,-Kt3; 8 Q,xB! (But not 8
0-0-0 ? because of8 . . .B-KKt5), Q,xKtP; 9 Q-B8 eh, K-K2; 10 KtxP eh!,
which is advantageous for White. The game Smyslov Pachman (12th
Olympiad, Moscow, 1956) continued 1 1. . .P x Kt (The moves 6 ...P-KR3; 7
B-R4 had been made) ; 12 Q,-Bl, Q,-Kt5 eh; 13 K-K2!, Q,-Kt4 eh; 14 K-B3,
Q,-Q,2; 15 BxKt eh, KxB; 16 P-Kt3, Q,-B4 eh; 17 K-Kt2, B-Q,3; 18 Q,-Q,l, P-
KKt3; 19 B-Q,3, Q,-K3; 20 R-Ktl, Kt-B3; 21 RxP, and White soon capitalized
his advantage in material. Therefore, after 7 Q,-B3 Black is
forced to retreat his Bishop, allowing White to carry out his

plan. In the game Suetin-Zaks (Minsk, 1957) there followed 7 o o oB-Kt3; 8 B
x Kt, Q,x B ( 8 ...P x B is no better
because of 9 Kt-K2 ! followed by 0-0-0 or Kt-Kt3) ; 9 Q,xQ, PxQ,; 10 R-B1,
Kt-Q,2; 11 KKt-K2, B-Q,3; 12 P-KR4, P-KR4; 13 P-KKt3, B-KB4; 14 P-B3!, R-
KKt1;
K-B2, K-K2; 16 Kt-B4, B X Kt; 17 KtP X B, Kt-Kt3;
B-K2, R-Kt2; 19 KR-Kt1, Q,R-KKt1; 20 R X R, R X R;
B-B1!, Kt-Q,2; 22 Kt-K2!, and White obtained a decisive advantage. Black
cannot prevent the Knight's
transfer to KKt3, since if 22 . . .B-Q6 ?, there follows 23 Kt Kt3, when Black
cannot play 23 ...B x B because of 24
Kt-B5 eh!
Another instructive example is provided by the sharp variation of the Ruy
Lopez 3oooP-B4; 4 Kt-B3, Kt-B3; 5 PxP, Kt-Q,5o
White achieves little by attempting to hold his extra pawn, as was shown,
for example, by the games Boleslavsky
Tolush and Tal-Spassky (Moscow, 1957) o The former contined 6 B-R4, B-
B4; 7 P-Q,3, 0-0; 8 0-0, P-Q,4;
9 KtxKP, BxP; 10 B-KKt5, Q,-Q,3; 11 R-K1, P-B3; 12 B-R4, Q,R-K1, and
Black obtained a lasting
initiative on the K side, which compensated for White's material plus. After 13
B-KKt3, Q.-Q.1; 14 Kt-K2, R xKt!; 15 BxR, B-KKt5; 16 Q.- Q.2, KtxKt eh; 17
RxKt, BxR; 18 Q.xB, Kt-K5! White only just managed to retain equality. In the
second game mentioned above White continued
6 KtxP, B-B4; 7 0-0, 0-0; 8 Kt-B3, P-B3; 9 KtxKt?, BxKt; 10 B-Q.3, P-Q.4; 11
Kt-K2, B-K4; 12 Kt-Kt3, Kt-K5!; 13 BxKt, PxB; 14 P-Q.3, PxP; 15 Q.xP, Q.xQ.;
16 PxQ., BxKt; 17 RPxB, BxP, which also led to com plete equality.
White should not strive at all costs to hang on to his extra pawn. In our
opinion, the only effective plan is to restrain Black's initiative on the K side.
The following variation seems to be worth examining: 6 Kt x P, B-B4; 7 0-0, 0-
0; 8 Kt-B3, P-B3 (Up to here as in Tal-Spassky, above) ; 9 P-Q.Kt4!, KtxKt
eh; 10 Q.xKt, BxP; 11 B-Q.3!, and White should be able to maintain his pawn
on KB5, the focal point of all Black's counterplay.
Position
after
8 . . . P-B3
This sort of analysis, which takes into account the concrete plans of both
sides from the very first moves, should always supplement the basic opening
principles. Without it a player's treatment of the opening becomes
mechanical.
Condemning a pointless loss of tempi in the opening, the first Russian

World Champion, Alekhine, wrote: 'A player should lose time only if this allows
him to gain control of important points.' A graphic example ofjust such a
concrete approach to the opening is provided by the game Alekhine Wolf
(Pistyan, 1922). 1 P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 2 Kt-KB3, P-Q.B4; 3 P-B4, BPxP; 4 PxP, Kt-
KB3; 5 KtxP, P-Q.R3?; 6 P-K4!, KtxKP; 7 Q.-R4 eh, B-Q.2; 8 Q.-Kt3, Kt-B4; 9
Q.-K3, P-KKt3; 10 Kt-KB3.
t=t d:h '0 wr
... .J
Jt JAmt - t
t- - -1-
•- tTA), - ft•---• -
- J
- m4J
'o•a'· " 'R
ii .. ... ii .J!.. ....ii
r.....--t -
Ro/) . -
re,;g,•
In this example the principle of economizing tempi in the opening has been
subordinated to the concrete interests of the position. The following note by
Alekhine is most instruc tive: 'This gain [at first glance loss !-A. S.] of a tempo
enables White to prevent Black's intended 10. . . B-Kt2 followed by . . . 0-0.
The black King is trapped in the centre and White soon starts a decisive
attack. In some ways the beginning of this game is reminiscent of my game
against Rubinstein (The Hague, 1921). (This game opened as follows: 1 P-
Q.4, P-Q.4; 2 Kt-KB3, P-K3; 3 P-B4, P-Q.R3; 4 P-B5, Kt-Q.B3; 5 B-B4, KKt-
K2; 6 Kt-B3,
Kt-Kt3; 7 B-K3!, P-Kt3; 8 PxP, PxP; 9 P-KR4, B-Q.3 (better is 9 ...P-R3)
; 10 P-R5, KKt-K2; 11 P-R6!, P-Kt3;
BASIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMS OF THE OPENING 65
12 B-Kt5, 0-0; 13 B-B6!) In both cases White secured an advantage through
several moves with the same piece (here out of eleven moves four were with
the Queen and three with the Knight). The possibility of making several
moves with the same piece in the opening was created solely by the
opponent's mistaken tactics, which had to be refuted energetically from the
very first moves.'
The game Alekhine-Wolf continued 10...Q-B2; 11 Q-B3!, R-Kt1; 12 B-K3,
P-Kt3; 13 QKt-Q2, B-Kt2; 14 B-Q4, BxB; 15 QxB, and White obtained an
over whelming positional superiority.
Firm control of the central squares in the opening is an important positional
advantage, since it guarantees greater freedom of movement, but the central
squares must not be captured prematurely. For example, in the games
Pillsbury Tchigorin and Nimzovitch-Salwe, quoted in Chapter 1, the pawn
centre, unsupported by pieces, proved to be weak and collapsed. In both
these cases the collapse of the pawn centre was caused by a reliance on
positional advantages, together with an underrating of the dynamic qualities
of the opening struggle.
Ill. The Development of the Forces in the Opening
A harmonious and purposeful disposition of the pieces and pawns plays an

important role throughout the game. With out it no strategic plan can be
carried through and no goal can be reached.
The co-ordination of the forces can be roughly divided into two main
aspects: ( 1) static or positional co-ordination, which implies the possession
of definite positional advantages (such as a strong pawn centre, weak
squares in the opponent's
pos1t10n, a material advantage, etc.) and (2) dynamic co ordination, which

enables a player to transform the situation on the board.
In evaluating any position, a player usually first examines its static aspects
and then turns to a more detailed analysis of its dynamic features by means of
concrete variations. Only after an examination of both these aspects can a
correct judgement be formed.
Often the possession of positional advantages guarantees a player the
better chances and enables him to transform the position advantageously. In
such cases the positional advantages have a real significance. (For example,
a strong pawn centre makes possible an attack on the wing; or the occupation
of weak squares in the opponent's position restricts his freedom of movement
and leads to gains in material, etc.)
Thus, for example, in this position from the game Aronin Aronson
(Moscow, 1957) White has clearly achieved a significant positional superiority.
Black is powerless in face of his advancing opponent, who has an advantage
in space and a powerful centralized Knight, while Black's 'bad' Bishop is
completely immobilized.
Play continued 1 P-Kt6! (Opening a way for his forces into Black's
position), R-Q.B1; 2 Kt-B7, R-K2; 3 Q.R-Kt1, Q,-Q.2; 4 R-Kt5!, R-K4; 5 Kt-
Q.5, R-Q.B4; 6 KR-Kt1, KR x Kt (Black had no defence against the threat of 7
R x R, P xR; 8 R-Kt5, winning a pawn) ; 7 KPxR, R-B1; 8 R-K1!, R-K1; 9 R-
K4, and Black resigned.
In this example White's positional superiority exercised a decisive
influence on the result of the game, since Black was deprived of any
counterplay. Often, however, the opposite case occurs, where positional
advantages have no real force and melt away in a dynamic conflict. The
following examples are instructive.
In the game Aronson-Tal (Moscow, 1957) the following position, which
superficially appears to be in White's favour, was reached after 21 moves.
White has an advantage in space and his Bishops point menacingly at

Black's position. Striving to exploit his position, White played the seemingly
natural move 22 P-B4? (This looks strong, but is probably the decisive
mistake. White does not see the hidden possibilities of the position but his
opponent does), PxP! (Now White sees that 23
QxR? is refuted by 23 ...Q-Kt3 eh and that on 23 B x Q there follows 23. . .P x

Q; 24 R x P eh, B-R2, with the better game for Black. On the other hand,
22. . .P-B3; 23 BP x P !, PxB; 24 PxQ!, etc. would have been bad for Black).
23 Q.-Q.2, Q.-Kt3 eh! (A very fine move, which reveals Black's insight into
the dynamic aspects of the position. Black lures the white Queen's Bishop
away from the defence of Kl and creates a tactical weakness there).
24 B-Q.4, Q.-Kt3; 25 Q.xP, K-R2 (He must defend himself against the
threat of RxP eh) ; 26 Q.xP (The critical moment; White has won a pawn and
seems to have gained a tangible advantage, but now the hidden possibili ties
in Black's position are fully revealed).
26 ...B-Kt8!! (A brilliant move, which Black must have seen much earlier. It
becomes clear that White is helpless against his opponent's attack on the K
side. White's forces are scattered and cut off from the King's wing. The white
Rooks are particularly badly placed: one is cut off on KR4 and the other has
been shut in by Black's last move.)
27 B-K5 (To prevent 27 R-K8 eh), Kt-K3! (It is instruc tive to see how
Black's pieces spring to life and how White's 'static gains' lose all meaning) ;
28 Q.-Q.6, Q.-B4; 29 B-B4, Kt-Kt4!; 30 Q.-Kt4, B-K5; 31 BxB, RxB; 32 R-KBI,
R-K7; 33 Q.-Q.6, RxQ.RP (Black avoids the trap 33 ...Kt R6 eh; 34 RxKt,
QxR; 35 Q-Q3 eh) ; 34 Q.-Q.5, Q.-B7; 35 P-B5, R-Q.l! (A necessary finesse.
On 35 . . .R-Kl White could play 36 R x P eh!) ; 36 B-Q.6, R-Kl, and Black
won.
In the game NezhDletdinov-Tal (Moscow, 1957) Black secured a clear
material superiority in the centre and seemed to have the better prospects.
In actual fact Black is strategically lost, since his centre not only
has no real significance, but constitutes a perma-
BASIC PRINCIPLES A ND AIMS OF THE OPENING 69
nent weakness and target for White's attack. White's pieces act in co-
ordination (in contrast with Black's), and Black never manages to regroup
advantageously. Play went on 22 R-B2, R-Kl (Black finds himself in a curious
positional Zugzwang, bereft of any active counterplay. For example, after
22 ...P-Q5 there would follow 23 B-B4 eh, K-Rl ; 24 QR-KBI. At the same
time, it is not easy to see any other defence to White's threat of 23 BxKt,
QxB; 24 QxP, QxP; 25 Q-K6 eh).
23 P-R3, B-Rl (A forced marking-time. Again 23 ...P-Q5 is bad because of
24 B-B4 eh, K-Rl ; 25 QR-KBl, Q-Bl ;
R-B7, RxR; 27 RxR, R-Ktl ; 28 B-Q2, with a very
strong attack for White) ; 24 B-R4, B-Kt2; 25 K-Rl, B-R I; 26 R-B5 (White
commences active operations), P-K5 (This loses by force, but there is
probably no satis
factory continuation. For instance 26 ...P-Kt3; 27 B x Kt, QxB; 28 KRxP, R-KBI ; 29
B-Q4 or 26 . . .P-Q5; 27 rh B-Kt3 eh, K-Rl ; 28 QR-KBI, Q-Ql ; 29 R-B7, RxR;
RxR, R-Ktl ; 31 B-Q2, P-K5; 32 B-Kt5, Q-Kl ; 33
R-B7, R-Bl ; 34 B-B6!, etc.) ; 27 Q.xQ.,RxQ.; 28 KRxP, P-K6; 29 R-Q.7, P-K7;
30 B-Kt3 eh, R-K3; 31 BxR eh, K-Bl; 32 BxP eh, and Black resigned.
MODERN C HESS OPENING THEORY
In all these examples counterplay, based on the co ordination of the

forces, more than compensated for the opponent's apparent positional
advantages. Clearly this dynamic co-ordination is an extremely important
factor in evaluating any position. Static advantages (i.e. the possession of a
positional superiority) are important only when they guarantee dynamic
possibilities. Static co-ordination is simply a part of dynamic co-ordination,
which includes both the obvious and the hidden features of any position.
Co-ordination is harmonious and purposeful only if it proves viable in a
dynamic conflict. It must be emphasized that the existence of co-ordination
(or its absence) can only be brought to light by concrete analysis. Therefore,
during a game (or in analysis) a player must concentrate principally on
calculating complex variations, with general considerations serving merely as
a guide.
Usually a specific pattern of development only begins to emerge in the
opening. Naturally, the player's first job is to mobilize his forces-without which
no co-ordination is possible. Nevertheless, while considering the active
posting, the manoeuvrability, and the broad deployn1ent of his forces, the
player should strive primarily for their har monious and purposeful co-
ordination.
Obviously, rapid development to active positions is an important prelude to
co-ordination, but development must not be stereotyped and aimless. This is
particularly important in those modern opening systems which have been
carefully analysed recently. Nowadays many familiar opening struc tures are
being re-examined in the hope of finding a chance to exploit some hidden
lack of co-ordination among the opponent's pieces.
The following example is instructive. In the Ruy Lopez,
BASIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMS OF THE OPENING 71
after 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 B-Kt5, P-Q.R3; 4 B-R4, P-Q.3; 5 P-

B3, B-Q.2; 6 P-Q.4, Kt-B3; 7 0-0, it used to be held that Black could equalize
by means of 7 • • •Kt x KP. Indeed, after the forced variation 8 R-K1, Kt-B3; 9
BxKt, BxB; 10 PxP, PxP; 11 Q.xQ. eh, RxQ.; 12 KtxP, B-K5; 13 Kt-Q.2, B-K2;
14 KtxB, Kt x Kt Black appears to have simplified the position and neutralized
White's pressure in the centre; Black has only to castle in order to complete
his development. However, recently Soviet analysts found an unexpected
move which completely alters this judgement of the position-and of the whole
variation.
15 B-R6!! This was first played in a game Geller Veltmander (Gorky,

1954). White has found a way to exploit dynamically the slight lack of co-
ordination among the black pieces (Black's Rooks are not yet united, his King
is in the centre and his minor pieces are loosely placed on the K file). Noting
the tactical weakness on Black's KKt2, White completes his development with
the gain of a tempo and is the first to co-ordinate his pieces. At the very least
Black will have to allow a significant weakening of his pawn structure. A game
Boleslavsky-Sliwa (Cracow, 1955)
MODERN CHESS OPENING THLORY
continued 15•••KtxQ.BP (A little better is 15. . . PxB; 16 RxKt, 0-0; 17 Kt-B6!,
PxKt; 18 RxB, etc.) ; 16 BxP, R-KKt1; 17 Kt-B6, PxKt; 18 BxKt, R-Kt3; 19 R-
K4, K-B1; 20 Q.R-K1, B-B3; 21 B-Kt4 eh!, and White soon won.
Returning to the critical position on the diagram, it must be said that Black
developed in a stereotyped way, striving not so much to co-ordinate his
forces, as simply to follow general principles; hence the collapse of his
system.
Researches in the modern opening consist principally in seeking ways to
destroy the co-ordination of the opponent's forces. Hence tactics play an
important part in the opening struggle. A graphic illustration is provided by the
game Kholmov-Khasin (Moscow, 1957), a King's Indian Defence. 1 P-Q.4, Kt-
KB3; 2 Kt-KB3, P-KKt3; 3 P KKt3, B-Kt2; 4 B-Kt2, 0-0; 5 0-0, P-Q.3; 6 P-Kt3,
P-K4; 7 PxP, PxP; 8 B-R3, Q.xQ.; 9 RxQ., R-Kl; 10 Kt-B3. Not suspecting any
danger, Black made the stereo typed developing move 10• • •B-Q.2.
There followed an immediate tactical refutation: 11 Kt x P! A brilliant

move. With a forced combination White completely destroys the co-ordination
of the black pieces.
11•••RxKt; 12 BxP, B-B3; 13 BxR, BxB; 14 R-Q.8 eh, R-K1; 15 QR-Q1, Kt-
B3; 16 RxR eh, KtxR; 17 Kt-Q5, B-B1; 18 BxB, KxB; 19 P-QB4, Kt-R4; 20
KtxP!
A fresh tactical blow, finally destroying all co-ordination between the black
pieces. 20•••Kt x Kt; 21 R-Q7 !, Kt-R3; 22 R x RP, and White soon won.
Often an opportunity to destroy the co-ordination of the opponent's position
is provided by the bad position of individual pieces, an unsatisfactory pawn
structure, a cramped game, etc. (See the examples on pp. 50-53.) Therefore,
a player must aim for the active co-ordination of all his forces.
For example, the following variation of the Ruy Lopez is rightly considered
unsatisfacory for Black. 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-QB3; 3 B-Kt5, P-QR3; 4
B-R4, Kt-B3;
0-0, B-K2; 6 R-K1, P-QKt4; 7 B-Kt3, P-Q3; 8 P-B3, Kt-QR4; 9 B-B2, P-B4; 10
P-Q3, B-Kt5?; 11 P-R3, B-R4; 12 Q.Kt-Q.2, 0-0; 13 P-KKt4!, etc. White shuts
the black Queen's Bishop out of the game for a long time and obtains a clear
superiority on both wings. Analogous ideas occur in other variations of the
Ruy Lopez.
In modern openings positions often arise in which one side secures

definite static advantages in exchange for his oppo nent's dynamic
advantages. Chances are equal only if the advantages and disadvantages of
a concrete position balance one another. For example, a strong centre can be
compensated for by sufficient pressure against it, a pawn sacrifice in the
opening may be balanced by superior development, etc.
To sum up, the chief task of mobilization in the opening is to co-ordinate
the pieces harmoniously. At the same time, the player must bear in mind the
strategic plan of the middle game and strive to seize the initiative, so as to
prevent the opponent executing his plans.
IV. The Present St te of Opening Theory
Opening theory is developing in closer and closer con junction with the
middlegame. For some time now study of the opening has given way to a
study of the middlegame evolving logically from it. This situation clearly
reflects the logic of chess: the different stages of the game are organically
linked, although each has its own importance and basic aims.
Opening research and modern techniques of opening play have reached
an unprecedentedly high level even in compari son with the 1930's and
1940's. The main reason for this has been the development of the Soviet
School of Chess in recent years. The opening struggle is becoming more and
more dynamic. Nowadays much less emphasis is laid on the purely positional
aspects of opening structures and on the approxi mate estimate of the
chances of the two sides on the basis of general principles. Modern opening
analysis seeks primarily a concrete plan for future middlegame operations
rather
B A SIC PRINCIPLES A ND AIMS OF THE OPENI N G 75
than structures which are sound from a positional point of view. Since modern
researches emphasize the dynamic aspects of opening structures, all the
peculiarities of any position must be examined in detail. Hence the new
approach to the role oftime in the opening (the linking of a tempo with a
concrete idea) which often enables an effective transforma tion of apparently
solid positional structures. This is a complex question and we can here give
only a few examples of how this new approach has led to radical changes in
the evaluation of many opening systems in recent years.
In 1931 Botvinnik worked out a system of play for Black in the English
Opening, the aim of which was to set up a strong piece and pawn centre: 1 P-
Q.B4, P-Q.B4; 2 Kt Q.B3, Kt-KB3; 3 P-KKt3, P-Q.4; 4 PxP, KtxP; 5 B-Kt2, Kt-
B2; 6 Kt-B3, Kt-B3; 7 0-0, P-K4; 8 P-Kt3, B-K2; 9 B-Kt2, 0-0; 10 R-B1, P-B3;
11 Kt-K1, B-B4; 12 Kt-R4, Kt-R3; 13 B-Q.R3, Q.-R4.
Without discussing the overall evaluation of this system as in Black's

favour, put forward by Botvinnik in 1938 (see M. Botvinnik: Selected Games),
let us examine one point. In the diagrammed position (and in similar
positions) Botvinnik
M ODERN CHESS OPENING THEORY
considered that 'the anti-positional exchange 14 B xKt would admittedly lead

to a weakening of the QBP's but would give Black, with his two powerful
Bishops [my italics-A. S.], good chances on White's bared King's side.'
At the time this judgement had not been checked in either practical play or
analysis, i.e. the treatment of this type of position had never been studied.
Today we can say quite definitely that White's weakening of his K side and
yielding to Black the 'advantage' of the two Bishops are more than
compensated by his pressure against the doubled QBP's. The technique of
this plan has been perfected and today there are few masters who would
freely choose Black's tempting but doubtful 'advantages.'
Botvinnik himself has certainly changed his evaluation of this type of
position. In the -following more recent game, Botvinnik-Goldenov (Moscow,
1952) he deliberately provoked just such a weakness in his opponent's pawn
structure. 1 P-QB4, P-K3; 2 P-KKt3, P-Q4; 3 B-Kt2, PxP; 4 Q-R4 eh, Q-Q2; 5
QxBP, P-QB4; 6 Kt-QR3, Kt-Q,B3; 7 Q-Kt5!, P-QR3?
Black should play 7 ...Kt-KtS ! Now Botvinnik carries out his plan: 8 BxKt!,
PxB (If 8 . . . PxQ, then 9 B xP(KtS)
B ASIC PRI NCIPLES AND AIMS O F THE O P EN IN G 77
wins a pawn) ; 9 Q.-R4, R-Kt1; 10 Kt-B3, P-B3; 11 P-Q.3, Kt-K2; 12 Kt-B4!,
and White, firmly entrenched on strong squares, obtained a clear advantage.
During 1940 and 1941 Rabinovitch's move in the Sicilian Defence (which,
incidentally, was comparatively rarely employed at that time) was subjected to
considerable analysis. This is reached by 1 P-K4, P-Q,B4; 2 Kt-KB3, P-Q,3; 3
P-Q,4, PxP; 4 KtxP, Kt-KB3; 5 P-KB3, P-K4; 6 Kt Kt5. The idea is to exploit
the weakness on Black's Q4. After the natural moves 6 . . .P-Q,R3; 7 KKt-B3,
B-K3; 8 Kt-Q,5 White provokes an exchange on Q5, hoping later to exploit his
Q-side pawn majority. This was the theoretical basis of White's plan, which at
the time seemed very promising.
Position
after
5 . . . P-K4
It is interesting that 6 Kt-Kt5 has not been analysed much since then. The
need to do so was removed chiefly by the appearance of the Boleslavsky
Variation (1 P-K4, P-Q,B4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q,B3; 3 P-Q,4, PxP; 4 KtxP, Kt-B3; 5
Kt-Q,B3, P-Q,3; 6 B-K2, P-K4) which was a direct challenge to older
conceptions of 'weak' squares in the centre. Today it is clear without any
detailed analysis that the manoeuvre Kt-Kt5-QB3-Q5, which attempts to
exploit
a purely positional advantage (the square Q5) at the expense of a great loss
of time, is quite out of harmony with the dynamism of the modern opening and
is therefore inadvisable.
It should also be noted that nowadays in many variations of the Sicilian
Defence where there is this type of central pawn structure Black himself
provokes an exchange on his Q4, since this considerably eases his game. It
has been shown that in such positions White's Q-side pawn majority does not
guarantee him any real advantage. For example, in the game Polugaevsky-
Simagin (Moscow, 1955) after 1 P-K4, P-Q.B4; 2 Kt-KB3, P-Q.3; 3 P-Q.4,
PxP; 4 KtxP,
Kt-KB3; 5 Kt-Q.B3, P-Q.R3; 6 P-KKt3, P-K4; 7 KKt K2, B-Q.2; 8 B-Kt2, B-B3;
9 0-0, B-K2; 10 Kt-Q5,
BxKt; 11 PxB, Q.Kt-Q.2; 12 P-KR3, 0-0; 13 B-K3, R-B1; 14 P-KB4, PxP; 15
KtxP, Kt-K4!, Black obtained very good counterplay in the centre, while
White's Q-side majority remained static.
Some years ago those variations of the Sicilian Defence where White is
able to play the 'blockading' move P-QB4 were considered bad for Black.
More recently, however, after 1 P-K4, P-Q.B4; 2 Kt-KB3, P-Q.3; 3 P-Q.4, PxP;
4 KtxP, Kt-KB3; 5 P-KB3, Black has avoided the usual 5 ...P-K4 and allowed
White to play P:-QB4, in the know ledge that he has good chances of
destroying White's centre. This plan, first suggested by Simagin in 1950, is
well illus trated in a game Sakharov-Chukaev (Tiflis, 1956) which continued
5 ...Kt-B3; 6 P-Q.B4, P-K3; 7 Kt-Q.B3, B-K2; 8 Kt-B2, 0-0; 9 B-K2, P-Q.4! (see
diagram) .
With this timely central thrust Black seizes the initiative. White has clearly
spent too much time setting up his centre and must now fight hard to retain
equality in the following lively piece play, e.g. 10 BPxP, PxP; 11 KtxP, KtxKt;
B ASIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMS OF THE OPE NING 79
Position
after
9 . . . P-Q4!
P x Kt, Kt-Kt5!; 13 Kt x Kt, B x Kt eh; 14 K-B1, R-K1, etc., with a good game
for Black.
In the Samisch Variation of the Nimzovitch Defence
after 1 P-Q.4, Kt-KB3; 2 P-Q.B4, P-K3; 3 Kt-Q.B3, B-Kt5; 4 P-Q.R3, BxKt eh;
5 PxB, P-B4; 6 P-K3 some theoreticians formerly maintained that Black
should aim first of all at liquidating White's 'advantage' of the two
Bishops. This is the aim, for example, of the continuation 6 ...Q.-R4; 7 B-Q.2,
Kt-K5, recommended in 1940 by such outstanding theoreticians as
Belavenets and Konstantino polsky. They held that by exchanging off one of
White's Bishops Black achieved equality.
It was not by chance that these and similar attempts by Black were short-
lived. Valuable time spent on neutralizing as yet non-existent positional
advantages (the advantage of the two Bishops) must make itselffelt. If Black
acts in this way, White immediately realizes his main aim in this system-the
establishment of a strong centre.
Much more effective for Black is the plan, originally put forward by
Nimzovitch himself but worked out in detail in recent years, consisting of
active counterplay against White's QBP's, while simultaneously blockading
White's pawn centre. This plan is clearly illustrated in the game Geller
Sim.agin (Gorky, 1954). Play proceeded from the previous diagram 6 ...0-0
(But not 6 . ..Q-R4? because of 7 B-Q2, Kt-K5; 8 Kt-B3, 0-0; 9 Q-B2, KtxB; 10
KtxKt! followed by P-B4, giving White the superior centre, as in the game
Borisenko-Sokolsky, Moscow, 1956); 7 B-Q3, Kt-B3; 8 Kt-K2, P-Q.Kt3; 9 P-
K4, Kt-Kl! (10 B-Kt5 was threatened) ; 10 B-K3, B-R3! (Resolutely following
the basic plan of attacking White's QB4) ; 11 Q-R4, Q-B1; 12 0-0, Kt-R4; 13
PxP, P-Q3!
This temporary pawn sacrifice is the best way to exploit the weakness of
White's Q side; Black seizes the initiative.
B ASI C PRIN CIPLES AND A IMS OF THE OPENING 81
14 PxKtP, PxP; 15 Q.-B2 (15 BxP is bad because of

15 ...KtxP, with the strong threat of ...Kt-Kt7 !), KtxP; 16 BxKt, BxB; 17 KR-
Q.1 (Again White must not play 1 7 BxP, this time because of 17...Q-R3 !), P-
Q.Kt4; 18 Kt Kt3, Q.-B3; 19 Q.-Q.2, P-Q.4, with a fine game for Black.
The above examples show how the old approach to the opening (the
approximate evaluation of chances) is giving way to the new (the analysis of
concrete plans, in which the middlegame is studied in conjunction with the
opening). In the light of concrete analysis such judgements as 'anti positional
exchange,' 'positionally justified capture of space,' etc., prove in many cases
to be completely out of touch with the essence of the struggle. This does not
mean that the modern approach to the opening rejects the elements of
positional play. It simply demands a deeper study of any opening formation,
so as to discover the essential, but often hidden characteristics of the given
system.
Analysing the development of opening ideas during the last ten to twenty
years, it is clear not only that study of the opening has merged with study of
the middlegame, but also that the basic opening principles are being re-
examined in each specific position.
Middlegame ideas, inherent in a fully developed position, are penetrating
further back into the opening stage of the game. An illustration of this is
provided by the· game Keres Tolush (Moscow, 1957). 1 P-K4, P-Q.B4; 2 Kt-
KB3, P Q.3; 3 P-Q.4, PxP; 4 KtxP, Kt-KB3; 5 Kt-Q.B3, P-Q.R3; 6 B-Kt5, P-K3;
7 P-B4, Q.-Kt3.
Long before completing his development White starts a sharp K-side
attack, which Black meets with a bold counter attack on the Queen's wing.
8 Q-Q2!, QxP; 9 R-QKt1, Q-R6; 10 P-K5, PxP!

(10...KKt-Q2 is bad after 11 P-B5!, as in Keres-Fuderer, Interzonal
Tournam.ent, Goteborg, 1955) ; 11 PxP, KKt-Q2; 12 B-QB4!, B-K2.
-. ..-fg- - •t. •- "- 1 1 1 - - 1 - -
• • ----- -
. . 'fi -
-ii
-
,.. .,%-r-; . ;- -
ft - ft E' -• £. iz
•
.R. -R
· · -
Development continues, but the battle is already at its height.
Consequently, each developing move has to take into account not simply
various general considerations but long concrete analyses. This situation is
typical of many new opening systems. Here 12...Q-B4 would have been bad
because of 13 B x KP !, with a powerful attack for White.
13 R-Kt3, BxB (Here 13...Q-B4 was stronger; after 14 Kt-K4, BxB; 15
KtxB, KtxP! Black would have been able to repel White's attack) ; 14 QxB, Q-
K2? (Stronger was 14. . .Q-B4!). A slight mistake on Black's part leads to his
defeat-a typical occurrence in this type of opening struggle.
15 Qx P, Q-B1; 16 Q-Kt5, R-Kt1; 17 Q-B4, Kt-B4; 18 0-0 !, Q-Kt2; 19 R-

B2, QKt-Q2; 20 Kt-Q,5, etc., with a decisive attack for White.
Systems like that met in the Keres-Tolush game are particularly dynamic
and to cope with them demands a high level of tactical skill and careful
concrete analysis.
B ASIC PRIN CIPLES A ND AIMS OF THE OPENING 83
Hence, from a teaching point of view, opening formations can be roughly
divided into two categories.
The first group consists of those which start with a systematic struggle for
control of the centre; development appears to precede the basic struggle,
although it is condi tioned to a large extent by the demands of the
middlegame. (This is characteristic of numerous systems worked out
recently.) Battle over the whole board and tactical compli cations arise later,
in the middlegame, and transition to the middlegame usually coincides with
the completion of develop ment.
The second group is characterized by a sharp tactical struggle arising from
the very first moves; often the opening struggle rages over the whole board,
while a typical feature of these systems is the sacrifice of material in the
opening. In many variations and systems of this group transition to the
middlegame takes place before development is completed.
Thus, the first group is characterized by an attempt to co-ordinate the
pieces while developing in accordance with opening principles. In the second
group co-ordination is achieved in the course of a tense struggle, and the
basic opening principles have to be checked in each concrete instance
against close analysis.
However, sharp continuations before the completion of development can
almost always be found in any opening. This is so not only in modern
openings where both sides strive at all costs to avoid symmetry, such as the
Sicilian and the Nitnzovitch and Griinfeld defences, but also in many
symmetrical openings, such as, for example, the Caro-Kann Defence and the
Queen's Gambit, in which the main struggle usually commences only after
development has been completed (e.g. 1 P-K4, P-Q.B3; 2 P-Q.4, P-Q.4;
MODE RN CHESS OPENING THEORY
3 P-KB3!?, PxP; 4 PxP, P-K4; 5 Kt-KB3!, B-K3! or

1 P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 2 P-Q.B4, P-K3; 3 Kt-Q.B3, Kt-KB3;
4 Kt-B3, P-B4; 5 BPxP, BPxP?!, etc.).
Thus, the first few moves, which determine the name of the opening, do not
limit the possibilities of the opening stage of the game. In the same system the
player can usually find both 'quiet' ways to develop and sharp situations with a
concrete tactical struggle in the opening.
A concrete plan is worked out after some nwbilization has taken place, i.e.
after a few necessary developing moves, and depends largely on the aims of
the two sides (their methods of play in the opening).
Since the two groups of opening formations mentioned above are
essentially different from each other, they will be examined separately, in
Chapters 3 and 4.
As has already been emphasized, the opening struggle is very

complicated and extremely rich in possibilities. Often the course of the conflict
in a given variation may change radically even in the opening. Numerous
factors can bring about such a change: the type of centre which is set up,
weak squares, the mobility of the pieces, the pawn structure on the wings,
etc., etc. But, it must be underlined again, the most important influence on the
course which the opening takes is the aims of the two sides-a circumstance
which reflects the dynamic quality of the opening struggle.
CHAPTER THREE
The Struggle for the Centre zn the Modern Opening
General Considerations
This chapter will examine those opening structures in which co-ordination is

achieved in the process of a systematic
struggle for control of the central squares.
This struggle is the chief content of the opening phase of the game. Out of
it evolve positional features which may not play an important role in the
opening but which exercise a significant influence on the middlegame.
In this type of structure transition to the middlegame and the main battle
does not generally take place before develop ment is completed. Only then
do tactical complications arise and only then do the two sides initiate a
systematic improvement of their positions, operations on the flanks, etc.
Methods of struggling for control of the centre are con tinually changing.
For a long time White generally attempted to seize immediate control of the
centre. This tendency is clearly illustrated in numerous open games which
are rarely employed today, such as the Centre Game, the Two Knights'
Defence, the Giuoco Piano, the Scotch Game, etc. In many of these systems
White hopes to capture the central squares very early on by means of the
pawn thrust
85 D2
P-K5. With this in mind White plays an early P-Q4 or P-KB4.

In this type of system co-ordination is achieved and attempts are made to
impede the opponent's co-ordination simply by rapid development. Black
usually manages to carry out his own mobilization and sometimes also to pre
pare the freeing move ...P-Q4. A typical example of this type of fierce opening
struggle is provided by the Moller Attack in the Giuoco Piano. 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2
Kt-KB3, Kt-QB3; 3 B-B4, B-B4; 4 P-B3, Kt-B3!; 5 P-Q4, PxP; 6 P x P, B-Kt5
eh; 7 Kt-B3 (If White plays 7 B-Q2, Black equalizes easily with 7 ...BxB eh; 8
QKtxB, P-Q4!), Kt x KP; 8 0-0, B x Kt!; 9 P-Q5!, B-B3!; 10 R-K1, Kt K2; 11
RxKt, 0-0; 12 P-Q6, PxP; 13 QxP, Kt-B4; 14 Q-Q5, Kt-K2, etc. or 11 .. -.P-Q3;
12 B-KKt5, BxB; 13 KtxB, 0-0; 14 KtxRP, etc., in both cases with a forced
draw.
After a short and clearly defined opening stage a middle game

commences (thanks to the rapid development and opening of the centre) in
whi eh with correct play the chances of both sides are equal. Black's
strategical task is fairly simple: energetic, active defence.
Thus, attempts on the part of White to seize immediate control of the
centre by a direct application of opening principles give him no advantage
and lead to simplifica tion.
At the same time, many systems in the above-mentioned openings are
continually being enriched by new ideas. (For example, in recent years there
have been many new dis coveries in the Scotch Game, the Two Knight's
Defence, etc.) The tactical struggle in these systems can be very rich. But
new paths in these openings are usually attempts to
STRUGGLE F O R CENTRE IN M O DERN O P ENING 87
complicate the position rather than to force matters in the centre. Thus in the
Two Knights' Defence, the most promising continuation seems to be the
sharp 4 Kt-Kt5!?, while 4 P-Q.4 is almost never employed; in the Scotch
Ga111ethe following systems are attracting attention: 3 P Q.4, PxP; 4 KtxP,
Kt-B3; 5 KtxKt, KtPxKt; 6 P-K5!? and 4 ...B-B4 (instead of 4 . . . Kt-B3) ; 5 Kt-
Kt3!, B-Kt3;
P-Q.R4!-leading to very sharp play.
More characteristic of the modern opening is White's attempt to obtain a
solid and lasting initiative in the centre. This is promoted by steadily
increasing the pressure on the central squares; no attempt is made to force
the issue and the game remains comparatively closed. Thus, the most
popular of the open games is the Ruy Lopez (I P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-
Q.B3; 3 B-Kt5) in which White's main aim is to organize lasting pressure on
the centre. This tendency on White's part is seen even more clearly in the
closed openings popular today (e.g. I P-Q.4, I P-Q.B4, or I Kt-KB3).
The chief advantage of this method is that it leads to complicated positions
and a rich variety of middlegame possibilities. White avoids quick
simplification and the premature release of pressure in the centre, striving to
impede Black's development and gradually to deprive him of active play in the
centre. Hence, Black's problems here are much more difficult, even though he
has a rather wider choice of opening plans.
What are Black's main defensive schemes?
One consists in attempting to blunt White's initiative by purely defensive
measures. This means that from the first Black plays simply to hold his central
squares, restricting himself to passive defence in the opening. This scheme
was for a long time the most prominent in numerous systems for Black
88 M O D E RN CHESS O P ENING THE O RY
(for example, 3•••P-Q,3 in the Steinitz Defence to the Ruy Lopez; 3•• • P x P
in many Caro-Kann systems or in the Rubinstein Variation of the French
Defence; the Orthodox Defence and the Lasker Defence to the Queen's
Gambit, etc.).
In these systems Black generally tries to mobilize his pieces as quickly as
possible, often into very modest defen sive positions. He avoids pawn
weaknesses and preserves a strong pawn chain. Black sets up a strong
defensive position, which suffers, however, from an appreciable lack of space
and in which his pieces exercise little active pressure against the centre.
White, for his part, usually co ordinates his pieces unhindered and obtains a
lasting initiative.
A typical example is provided by the Steinitz Defence to the Ruy Lopez. 1
P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q,B3; 3 B-Kt5, P-Q,3; 4 P-Q,4, B-Q,2; 5 Kt-B3, Kt-
B3; 6 0-0, B-K2; 7 R-Kl.
Black has met White's slow positional pressure on the centre by passively
defending his K4, developing his pieces rapidly, but into very modest
positions. In the diagrammed position it turns out, however, that Black cannot
hold his K4, since if 7•••0-0, there follows 8 BxKt, BxB; 9 PxP,
STRUGGLE F O R CENTRE IN MODERN O P ENING 89
P xP; 10 Q.xQ., Q.R xQ.; 11 KtxP, BxP; 12 KtxB, KtxKt; 13 Kt-Q.3, P-KB4; 14
P-KB3, B-B4 eh; 15 KtxB, KtxKt; 16 B-Kt5!, with a forced win. Or, in the above
analysis, if 10• ••KRxQ., then 11 KtxP, BxP; 12 KtxB, KtxKt; 13 Kt-Q.3, P-
KB4; 14 P-KB3, B-B4 eh; 15 K-B1. Black is therefore forced to surrender the
centre with 7•• •PxP; 8 KtxP, 0-0. A position arises in which both sides have
completed their main development and have no weaknesses in their pawn
structure, but White has a considerable advantage in space in the centre
(White's pawn on K4 opposes Black's pawn on Q3) . This piece-pawn centre,
against which Black has practically no pressure, guarantees White greater
manoeuvrability and active play.
Black further tries to blunt White's initiative. He exchanges off minor
pieces, simplifying the game, and gradually prepares to undermine the White
KP by . . .P-Q4 or . . .P KB4. If he succeeds he will gain control of more
space. White must impede these operations. He attempts to con solidate his
advantage in the centre and later to transfer active operations on to the
wings.
Black follows an analogous strategy in several other open ings, for
instance, in the Rubinstein Variation of the French Defence (1 P-K4, P-K3; 2
P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 3 Kt Q.B3, PxP; 4 KtxP, Kt-Q.2; 5 Kt-KB3, KKt-B3). Here Black
plans later to undermine White's central pawn on Q4 by means of ...P-QB4.
Play is similar in many variations of the Caro-Kann, for example, 1 P-K4, P-
Q.B3; 2 P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 3 Kt-Q.B3, PxP; 4 KtxP, Kt-Q.2; 5 Kt-KB3, KKt-B3, etc.
In the above examples, when Black neutralizes White's initiative by purely

defensive means, he usually tries to avoid complications in the opening.
90 MODERN CHESS O P ENING T H E O RY
The external structure of such positions often remains stable for some
time. Black applies the opening principles too directly. He develops rapidly
and sets up a firm pawn chain, but his forces are posted too passively and are
insufficiently co-ordinated. White emerges from the opening with a small but
lasting initiative.
Naturally enough, these methods, aiming at blunting White's initiative by
defensive play, are seldom employed today. In modern opening systems
Black seeks more active play, striving from the first moves for active
counterplay in the centre.
This method of counterplay, which has led to the develop ment of a whole
series of new opening systems, is the most promising of Black's present
opening schemes. The most popular opening systems today are those in
which Black seeks active counterplay: 3 ...P-Q.R3 in the Ruy Lopez; the
French and Sicilian defences; the Griinfeld Defence; the various Indian
defences, etc. Other openings too have been re-examined from this point of
view.
If Black seeks active counterplay in this way, White must react concretely
and not merely rely on the advantage of the first move. If White develops in a
stereotyped fashion, relying simply on general opening principles, he can
quickly lose his advantage.
Take the following example from a game Kotov Botvinnik (Leningrad,
1939). 1 P-Q.4, Kt-KB3; 2 P Q.B4, P-K3; 3 Kt-Q.B3, B-Kt5; 4 Q.-B2, Kt-B3; 5
Kt-B3, P-Q.4; 6 P-K3, 0-0; 7 P-Q.R3, B x Kt eh; 8 Q.x B, B-Q.2.
The position is very instructive. Botvinnik wrote: 'This is one of the typical
modern systems of defence against
P-Q4. Black cedes to his opponent the advantage of the two Bishops and
accepts a somewhat cramped position.
STRUGGLE FOR CENTRE IN MODERN OPENING 91
Why ? Mainly for the sake of rapid development : the opening is in fact almost
over for Black, while White still has a long way to go. Black is prepared for
any operations, while White must play with great care because of his
backward develop ment. For example, 9 P-QKt4, P-QR4 ! ; 10 P-Kt5 ?, Kt-
R2 ;
P-QR4, P-B3 would be bad for White, since the game is opened up and Black
is better prepared. If Black treats the opening in this way, i.e. renouncing
symmetrical moves and striving instead for counterplay, the advantage of the
first move is less noticeable. In my opinion, this is Black's aim in all modern
openings.' [My italics-A. S.J
9 P-QKt3, P-QR4; 10 B-Q3. White meets Black's concrete schemes with a
stereotyped plan of development, relying on his supposed positional
'advantage'. He fails to bear in mind, however, the dynamic nature of the
conflict in this system and makes slight errors. Thus, here, since Black is
aiming to seize the white squares on the Q side, he should have played
immediately 10 B-Kt2 !, P-R5 ; 11 P-QKt4, PxP ; 1 2 B x P, Kt-R2 ; 1 3 0-0.
After 10 B-Q3 the above variation would give Black an extra tempo.
10...P-R5; 11 Kt-Q2. Better, nevertheless, was 11 P QKt4. Now Black gets
a chance to open up the game with
advantage, in spite of White's 'advantage' of the two Bishops, which cannot

be exploited because his pieces are so badly co-ordinated. 11 •••R-K1; 12 0-
0, P-K4!; 13 Q.P x P, KtxP; 14 B-Kt2, RPxP; 15 KtxP, Kt-K5!; 16 Q.-B2,
KtxQ.BP; 17 BxQ.Kt, PxB; 18 Q.xP, Q.-Kt4!; 19 P-B4, Q.-Kt3, and Black has a
strategically won position.
Counterplay is the best method of combating the opponent's initiative at
any stage of the game. Hence, the counterplay method is logically the most
effective in the struggle for the centre. Whereas the blunting of the initiative by
passive defence aims at achieving equality, counterplay aims at active play to
seize the initiative and to gain the advantage. A player should resort to
passive defence only in the direst emergency. Passive play limits Black's
chances in the opening. Of course, in the opening Black must be careful in his
choice of plan, making his main aim the achievement of equal chances in the
struggle. Nevertheless, the most promising method of equalizing (or more
accurately obtaining a fully viable game) is by active counterplay.
It is not accidental that often where Black in the opening plays to equalize,
he is eventually forced on to the path of counterplay, as the most effective
means of defence. A classic example is provided by the game Tarrasch-
Lasker (Diisseldorf, 1908). 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 B-Kt5, Kt-B3; 4
0-0, P-Q.3; 5 P-Q.4, B-Q.2; 6 Kt-B3, B-K2; 7 R-K1, PxP; 8 KtxP, KtxKt; 9
Q.xKt, BxB; 10 KtxB, 0-0; 11 B-Kt5 (More logical is 11 Q-B3 ! followed by Kt-
Q4-BS), R-K1; 12 Q.R-Q.1, P-KR3; 13 B-R4, Kt-Q.2; 14 BxB, RxB; 15 Q.-B4,
R-K4!
Refusing to limit himself to passive defence, Black com mences sharp
counterplay on the Q side. With this aim in view, he boldly throws his Rook
into battle via K4.
16 Kt-Q,4, R-Q,B4; 17 Q,-Kt3, Kt-Kt3; 18 P-KB4?, Q,-B3; 19 Q,-KB3, R-

K1; 20 P-B3, P-Q,R4!; 21 P-Q,Kt3, P-R5; 22 P-Q,Kt4, R-B5; 23 P-Kt3, R-Q,1!
Exploiting White's stereotyped play, Black has seized the initiative. The
threat to break through with . . .P-QB4 ! is very strong.
24 R-K3, P-B4; 25 Kt-Kt5, PxP; 26 RxP?, RxR;
27 P-K5, RxKBP!, and Black soon won.
In contrast with many 'old' opening systems, in which Black had no
counterplay, in modern openings Black strives to obtain it from the first
moves of the game. To this end he avoids symmetrical positions in
developing.
The basic problems of the opening are seen most clearly in precisely
those openings in which White strives for a lasting initiative and Black for
active counterplay. In these systems opening principles are not applied
mechanically : from the very first moves each side strives to destroy the co-
ordination of his opponent's pieces while struggling for control of the centre ;
at the same time concrete middlegame possibilities are borne in mind. As has
been mentioned before, a deep appraisal of the position cannot be reached
by considering merely its external features, but only after a concrete study
of all the (often hidden) peculiarities in the co-ordination of the pieces.

This approach is reflected in the counterplay method, which penetrates
deeper into the secrets of the opening. For instance, in the Ruy Lopez the
most popular continuation, 3 ...P-Q.R3, clearly contributes nothing towards
Black's development. The move forces either the exchange of an important
White piece or its retreat to a less active position. This type of continuation
demands accurate calculation and leads to a very complicated strategic
struggle.
Since the forcing variations 4 B x Kt, Q.P x B; 5 Kt x P?, Q.- Q.5! and 5 Kt-
B3, P-B3; 6 P-Q.4, PxP; 7 Q.xP, Q.xQ.; 8 Kt x Q., B-Q.2 bring White no
advantage, he is forced to play 4 B-R4. This move, however, later assists
Black's Q side advance, which gives him good chances. Very instruc tive from
this point of view is the main variation of the Tchigorin (or Closed) Defence:
4 ...Kt-B3; 5 0-0, B-K2; 6 R-K1, P-Q.Kt4; 7 B-Kt3, P-Q.3; 8 P-B3, 0-0; 9 P-
KR3, Kt-Q.R4; 10 B-B2, P-B4; 11 P-Q.4, Q.-B2; 12 Q.Kt-Q.2.
The opening struggle has given rise to a complicated position in which the
chances are approximately even. It is
precisely this sort of position which generally arises when Black goes in for
counterplay in the opening. The approxi mately equal chances do not presage
simplification and a quick draw, but emphasize the viability of both sides'
plans in the succeeding play. In this way 'equal chances' are distinguished
from static (full) 'equality,' which often arises in open games or when White
refuses to do battle ; the latter course severely restricts Black's chances of
finding counterplay (for example, after 3 PxP in the French
Defence).
In complicated positions with equal chances each side strives to increase
its advantage on those parts of the board where it is strong, while
simultaneously attempting to frus trate the opponent's intentions.
Before examining this type of position in more detail, it is worth noting the
most important problems of the struggle for the centre arising from the
counterplay method.
Typical of the modern method is the rejection of a mechani cal approach
towards occupation of the centre. In many modern openings the players
seemingly ignore the principle of occupying the centre by, for example, ceding
to the oppo nent a quantitative superiority, by allowing pawn 'weaknesses' in
the centre, etc. Such a 'transgression' is possible only if piece pressure is
created against the centre. Thus, one of the problems in the King's Indian
Defence (originally worked out by Tchigorin) is how best to concede to White
a piece pawn centre, so as to exercise co-ordinated piece pressure against it.
Positions arising from this sort of opening struggle may be called
dynamically equal: the positional advantages of one side (superiority in the
centre) appear to be balanced by the opponent's co-ordinated piece pressure.
During the future
course of the struggle active advantages can be achieved only at the cost of
positional concessions. In other words, with correct play, equal chances can
be retained only dynamically.
The course of events in one of the main variations of the King's Indian
Defence provides a typical example. 1 P Q.4, Kt-KB3; 2 P-Q.B4, P-KKt3; 3 Kt-
Q.B3, B-Kt2; 4 P-KK.t3, 0-0; 5 B-Kt2, P-Q.3; 6 Kt-B3, Q.Kt-Q.2; 7 0-0, P-K4; 8
P-K4, R-K1; 9 P-KR3, PxP; 10 KtxP, Kt-B4; 11 R-K1, P-Q.R4; 12 Q.-B2, P-
R5; 13 B-K3, P-B3; 14 Q.R-Q.1, KKt-Q.2; 15 P-B4, Q.-R4.
This position, and the whole system, has been thoroughly analysed,
largely by Boleslavsky, Bronstein, Geller and Konstan tinopolsky.
White has a clear advantage in the centre, in material and in space. In
Black's camp there is an obvious pawn weakness at Q3. But White's pieces
are tied to the defence of the central squares and he has no tangible
initiative. Practice has shown that in this position of dynamic equality, leading
to interest ing play, Black has good counter-chances.
The game Stahlberg-Boleslavsky (2nd Candidates'
TournaDlent, Ziirich, 1953) is a good example. Play continued 16 B-B2, Kt-

Kt3; 17 B-B1, B-Q.2; 18 P-R3 (This is necessary, even though it weakens
White's pawn structure on the Q side. How else can White consolidate his
position on that wing ? Without P-QR3, he would be cramped by Black's . . .P-
R6 !, etc.), Q.R-Q.1; 19 K-R2, B-Q.B1; 20 Kt-R2, Kt(3)-Q.2; 21 B-Kt2, Kt-B3;
22 Kt Q.B3, R-Q.2; 23 Kt-B3, Q.R-K2.
The weakness of Black's QP is minimal. In order to win it White must

remove his Knight from the important square Q4, where it controls the
squares QKt5, QB6, K6 and KB5, and neutralizes the black King's Bishop.
After long prepara tions to repel various Black counter-attacks ( . . .P-QR6,
. .B-K3, . • . P-KB4, and . . .P-Q4) White finally decides to attack the black
pawn on Q6. But meanwhile Black has regrouped and obtains full value for
the pawn.
24 Kt-KKt1, KKt-Q.2; 25 B-Q.4, Kt-Kt3; 26 B x B, KxB; 27 RxP, KtxBP; 28
Q.R-Q.1, B-K3.
A long struggle has resulted again in a position of dynamic balance. Its
external contours have changed. Now White has more pawn weaknesses
(the QKt3 and Q3 squares) and a
passive Bishop on KKt2, but in compensation he has attack ing chances

against Black's somewhat weakened castled position. After further lively play
the game ended in a draw.
Of course, it is impossible to be dogmatic about 'dynamic equality'. The
chief criterion in the evaluation of a position can only be concrete analysis.
Thus, the system of play for Black which has just been examined is going
through a crisis at the moment as a result of recent discoveries.
Recently ( 1954-5) the Leningrad masters Furman and Borisenko
suggested a new set-up for White, aimed at preventing Black's dangerous
counterplay on the Q side
. . .P-QR4-R5 and . . .Q-R4) . Black's difficulties are illus
trated by the game Korchnoi-lvkov (Hastings, 1955-6). 1 P-Q.4, Kt-KB3; 2 P-
Q.B4,_ P-Q.3; 3 Kt-Q.B3, P-K4; 4 Kt-B3, Q.Kt-Q.2; 5 P-KKt3, P-B3; 6 P-K4, P-
KKt3; 7 B-Kt2, B-Kt2; 8 0-0, 0-0; 9 P-KR3, R-K1; 10 B-K3, P-Q.R4; 11 Q.-B2,
P-R5; 12 KR-Q.1!, Q.-R4, 13 Q.R-Kt1! (The point : White prepares for P-QKt4
!, which drives Black's pieces from their active posts on the Q side) , PxP; 14
KtxQ.P, Kt-B4; 15 P-Q.Kt4, PxP e.p.; 16 PxP.
This position can hardly be called dynamically equal. With the strong threat
of P-QKt4 White's chances are obviously better. In the game, after 16...Q.-
Kt5; 17 B-B4!, B-B1; 18 B-Q.2!, Q.-Kt3; 19 B-K3, Q.-Kt5; 20 Q.-Q.2! it became
clear that White had the powerful threat of 21 Kt B2 !, setting Black insoluble
problems.
The term 'dynamic equality' can only be applied to those opening
structures where, as a result of a complicated struggle, the external positional
factors change, but chances remain equal. One side has definite positional
advantages, while the other has sufficient compensating counterplay.
Below, positions of dynamic equality will be examined in
which one side or the other has a pawn centre or a piece pawn centre.
Another feature of modern play in the centre is the rejec tion of a formal
approach to the 'ideal' pawn structure. In many instances pawn weaknesses
are allowed (this applies particularly to the central pawns) if they help to co-
ordinate the pieces. This can lead to most interesting positions.
Counterplay forms the basic theme of new opening paths. Let us note here
some of the new basic tendencies in the opening.
In many systems both sides strive to follow the most critical line. This is
sometimes helped by Black's resolve to engage in the most active possible
counterplay. A good illustration of this is the system 1 P-Q.4, Kt-KB3; 2 P-
Q.B4, P-KKt3; 3 Kt-Q.B3, B-Kt2; 4 P-K4, P-Q.3; 5 Kt-B3, 0-0; 6 B-K2, P-K4; 7
0-0, Kt-B3!? This is a very active means of attacking White's centre.
If he wants to keep the initiative, White must accept Black's challenge and
choose the most critical continuation, i.e. 8 P-Q.5!, Kt-K2; 9 P-Q.Kt4 (or first 9
Kt-Kl , etc.) since the quiet continuation 8 B-K3 gives Black the initiative after
8 ...R-K1!; 9 P-Q.5, Kt-Q.5!; 10 KtxKt, PxKt; 11 BxP, KtxKP; 12 BxB, KxB; 13
KtxKt, RxKt. (If Black develops more normally with 7 . . .QKt-Q2 ; 8 R-Kl, R-
Kl ; 9 Q-B2, P-B3 ; 10 B-B l , etc., play is far less forced.)
8 P-Q.5! leads to a complicated game in which, although chances are

approximately even, the positions which arise cannot be called dynamically
equal. The game proceeds with changing fortunes. The slightest inaccuracy
leads to a quick shift of balance. Hence few of the games in which this type of
system is employed end in a draw.
1 00 MODERN CHESS OPENING THEORY
In other cases White voluntarily permits Black dangerous counterplay but

tries to exploit the advantages of his posi tion. An example of this is given by
the Satnisch Varia tion of the Nimzovitch Defence ( 4 P-Q.R3). In order to
strengthen his pawn wedge in the centre and to obtain the two Bishops White
forces events immediately, permitting a lasting weakness in his Q-side pawn
position. At the moment this is the most critical problen1 in the Nin1zovitch
Defence. The following popular variation is typical. 4 P-Q.R3, BxKt eh; 5 PxB,
P-B4; 6 P-K3, P-Q.Kt3; 7 B-Q.3, B-Kt2; 8 P-B3, Kt-B3; 9 Kt-K2, 0-0; 10 0-0;
Kt Q.R4; 11 P--K4, Kt-K1; 12 Kt-Kt3?!, PxP; 13 PxP, R-B1; 14 P-B4! KtxP; 15
P-B5! with very sharp play, demanding deep concrete ar:alysis.
In the game Polugaevsky-Averbakh (Leningrad, 1956) play continued

15 ...P-B3! ( 1 6 P-B6 was threatened) ; 16 P-Q.R4! (Stronger than the direct
1 6 R-B4, as in Geller-Euwe, 2nd Candidates' Tournament, Ziirich,
1953, to which Black replied 1 6. . .P-QKt4, creating an important exit for the
Queen at QKt3), P-K4; 17 BxKt eh (Possibly 1 7 P-Q5 followed by Kt-R5 and
P-Kt4 was
stronger) , R xB; 18 PxP, PxP; 19 Q,-Kt3, P-Q4 (Stronger was 1 9. . .Q-B2!

and if 20 P-B6, Kt x P ; 21 Kt-B5, B xP ! ;
B-R3, B x Kt ; 23 B xR, K x B ; 24 R x B, Q-B4 eh ; 25 K-Rl , R-B8 eh ; 26 R-
Bl , R x R ; 27 R x R, Black obtains three pawns for the exchange. However,
it is difficult to condemn 'inaccuracies' of this sort) .
20 B-R3, R-KB2; 21 QR-Q1, KR-B2; 22 p X p' B X p;
B-Kt2, KR-B4; 24 P-B6, KtxP; 25 BxP (The decisive mistake. Correct was 25
Kt-B5 !, with very sharp play. Now Black works up a winning attack), R-B7; 26
BxKt, RxP eh; 27 K-R1, R-Q7 eh; 28 Kt-K4, RxR; 29 RxR, Q-K1!, etc.
In this type of opening system, although at first the players are concerned
with purely opening problems, the scheme of development foreshadows a
sharp and often forced battle in the middlegame. The opening fuses with the
middlegame and development is subordinated to a concrete strategic plan.
In many other popular opening systems White strives primarily to restrict
Black's counterplay in the centre. Thus, in the Queen's Gambit the Exchange
Variation is popular today : 1 P-Q4, P-Q.4; 2 P-Q.B4, P-K3; 3 Kt QB3, Kt-
KB3; 4 PxP, PxP. White quickly releases the tension in the centre and avoids
Black's counterplay based on . . .QP x BP. Illustrative of this idea are also
those systems in which White quickly goes over into a complicated end
game.
One method of restricting Black's counterplay lies in White's avoiding

clashes in the centre. Instead he exerts pressure from the flanks. (This idea
was first put forward by Reti.) In this connection many new systems have
arisen n the English Opening (1 P-QB4). Thus, in answer to a King's Indian
set-up, White often plays 1 P-QB4, Kt-
KB3; 2 Kt-QB3, P-KKt3; 3 P-KKt3, B-Kt2; 4 B-Kt2, P-Q3; 5 Kt-B3, 0-0; 6 0-0,
P-K4; 7 P-Q3 and then prepares for a Q-side pawn advance. Analogous
positions may also arise in a type of Griinfeld Defence, e.g. 1 P QB4, Kt-KB3;
2 Kt-QB3, P-Q4; 3 PxP, KtxP; 4 P-KKt3, P-KKt3; 5 B-Kt2, Kt-Kt3; 6 0-0, P-
QB4; 7 P-Q3, etc. Until mobilization is complete the central pawns occupy
very modest positions ; the struggle for the centre appears to be postponed till
the middlegame.
As a result of the success of the counterplay method, many opening

systems have appeared in which White copies well known Black formations.
The game proceeds almost with reversed colours. Particularly popular is the
King's Indian with colours reversed : 1 Kt-KB3, Kt-KB3; 2 P-KKt3, P-KKt3; 3
B-Kt2, B-KtZ; 4 P-Q3, P-Q4; 5 0-0, P-B4; 6 QKt-Q2, Kt-B3; 7 P-K4, etc.
Finally, the counterplay method has furthered the development of new
sharp methods of play in the openings (see Chapter IV) .
Analysing formations in openings which consist largely of a struggle for the
central squares, typical opening positions can be distinguished depending on
the type of piece-pawn pressure
exerted on the centre.
The chief external feature of these positions is the central pawn structure,
which influences the further course of the game. In the positions to be
examined tension is created in the centre. After this tension is released,
depending on the suc ceeding play, either a definite characteristic central
pawn structure arises or the central pawn structure remains indefinite for a
long time, without any clear external charac teristics. (It is a question of purely
external characteristics and has nothing to do with the ensuing play.) The
typical
STRUGGLE FOR CENTRE IN MODERN OPENING 1 03
central pawn structures should not be separated too rigidly from the indefinite
structures ; both can quickly change in the course of a dynamic struggle, and
plans may well have to be altered.
The typical pawn structures which arise in the opening are more liable to
change than analogous pawn structures in the middlegame, since in the
opening the co-ordination of pieces and pawns is only beginning to form a
pattern, which becomes much more sharply defined in the middlegame. A
committal plan is more a part of the middlegame ; the open ing still contains
several possibilities. Consequently, in the opening it is best not to impose any
formal pattern on to one's thinking and not to strive after any definite structure
or advantage.
Each side should aim to set up an advantageous central structure and to
impede his opponent. In this sort of struggle, even in the opening, the player
must accurately calculate the essential peculiarities of the position.
An interesting example is the opening of the game Bron stein-Szab6
(lnterzonal Tournam.ent, Stockholm., 1948). 1 P-K4, P-K3; 2 P-Q4, P-Q4; 3
Kt-Q2, Kt-QB3; 4 KKt-B3, Kt-B3; 5 P-K5, Kt-Q2.
The central pawn structure is closed, but play in the centre is lively and
this structure is soon completely changed.
6 Kt-Kt3, P-B3; 7 B-QKt5, P-QR3?
Black is aiming to obtain a pawn majority in the centre and then to set up a
strong pawn centre, but White's energetic play refutes this plan. Better was 7 .
. .QKt-Ktl!
8 BxKt, PxB; 9 0-0, P-QB4; 10 P-B4!
Now the centre is suddenly opened up and Black's active operations are
shown to be premature.
(In the game Aronin-Bondarevsky, Leningrad, 1947,
Position
after
10 P-B4!
White played the weaker 10 KP xP?, Q . xP ; 11 R-K1, P-B5 ; 12 Kt-B5, B X

Kt ; 13 p X B, 0-0; 14 P-B6, Kt-Kt1 ; 15 Kt-K5, P-Q.R4! ; 16 Q.-Q.4, R-R3 ; 17
B-Q.2, Kt xP; 18 Kt x Kt, R x Kt, and Black set up his strong centre) .
10...Q.Px P ; 11 Kt-R5, Kt-Kt3 ; 12 KP xP, Q . xP; 13 P x P!, and White
opened up the centre advantageously and began a strong attack against the
black King.
In this example during the course of five or six moves the pawn structure
was completely transformed : from tension to a closed position (5 P-K5) ;
from the closed position Black obtained a central pawn majority (8 B x Kt, P x
B;
0-0, P-Q.B4) ; finally, the centre was opened up by 10 P-B4-the most logical
consequence of the concrete dynamic struggle for the centre in this case.
Other sudden changes may occur in the central pawn structure, even
though the structure itself does not con tribute towards it. Take, for instance,
the following varia tions of the Sicilian Defence. 1 P-K4, P-Q.B4; 2 Kt-KB3,
P-Q.3; 3 P-Q.4, P xP; 4 Kt xP, Kt-KB3 ; 5 Kt-Q.B3, P-Q.R3; 6 B-K2, P-K4 ; 7
Kt-Kt3, B-K2 ; 8 0-0, 0-0;
9 P-Q.R4, P-Q.Kt3 ; 10 B-K3, B-Kt2 ; 11 P-B3, Q.Kt-Q.2 ; 12 Q.-Q.2, Q.-B2 ;
13 Kt-Q.5!, B xKt ; 14 P xB and 1 P-K4,
P-QB4; 2 Kt-KB3, P-Q3; 3 P-Q4, P xP ; 4 Kt x P, Kt-KB3 ; 5 Kt-QB3, P-QR3; 6

P-KKt3, P-K4; 7 KKt-K2, B-K2; 8 B-Kt2, 0-0; 9 0-0, B-Q2; 10 P-KR3, B-B3 ; 11
Kt-Q5, B xKt; 12 P xB. In both cases the dynamic struggle for control of Q5
ends in White's blockading the square and setting up an immobile pawn chain
in the centre.
The transformation of the pawn structure is usually brought about by

exchanges of pieces or pawns in the centre. Thus, the dynamic struggle in
the opening often leads to changing situations which determine various
central forma tions. In its turn a resulting stable formation influences the
further course of the game.
Therefore, although the opening struggle is dynamic and cannot be
stereotyped, it is important to bear in mind its general character in typical
opening formations. Typical formations arise in the opening and in the
middlegame out of widely varying opening systems. Thus, the variation of the
French Defence examined earlier (see pp. 41 and 42)
P-K4, P-K3 ; 2 P-Q4, P-Q4 ; 3 Kt-QB3, Kt-KB3 ; 4 B-KKt5, B-K2 ; 5 P-K5,
KKt-Q2 ; 6 B x B, Q x B; 7 P-B4, P-QR3 ; 8 Kt-B3, P-QB4 ; 9 P x P!, Q x P; 10
Q-Q4! is
typical not only of many other French Defence variations but also of various
systems in the Caro-Kann and Sicilian defences and of several other
openings. Thus, in the Sicilian Defence it is often reached from an indefinite
central pawn structure ; for example, 1 P-K4, P-Q.B4; 2 Kt-KB3, P-Q.3;
P-Q.4, PxP; 4 KtxP, Kt-KB3; 5 Kt-Q.B3, P-KKt3;
6 B-K3, B-Kt2; 7 P-B3, 0-0; 8 Q.-Q.2, P-Q.4; 9 P-K5!, Kt-K1; 10 P-B4, etc.
Although the struggle in each position with a similar structure has its
individual peculiarities, there are neverthe less general characteristic features,
imposed by the external contours ofthe position, which must be borne in
mind. Hence, knowledge of the general type of game arising from one or
another central pawn structure makes it easier for the player to find his way in
each concrete analogous position.
It follows that the study of typical opening structures is very important.
Without a knowledge and an understanding of the many characteristic
features of various positions, there can be no really creative approach to
modern opening systems.
A number of practical examples will now be examined.
I. An Open Centre
An open centre usually results from open games in which White aims for
immediate control of the central squares. If Black meets this correctly and
energetically White's attempt leads to an opening-up of the position and to
complete equality. IfWhite plays inaccurately, the initiative may pass to Black,
because with an open centre both sides engage in
sharp battle with the pieces-which demands great accuracy.
The game Konstantinopolsky-Keres (Moscow, 1940) is a good example. 1
P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-Q.B3, Kt-KB3; 3 P-B4, P-Q.4 (White's thrust P-B4 is met by
an energetic counter-attack on the central squares, leading to the forced
opening of the centre) ; 4 BPxP, KtxP; 5 Kt-B3, B-K2; 6 P-Q.4, 0-0; 7 B-Q.3,
P-KB4; 8 PxP e.p. BxP; 9 0-0, Kt-B3 (Black parries White's aggressive
intentions with the most natural and energetic moves) ; 10 Kt x Kt, P x Kt; 11
BxP, ·KtxP; 12 Kt-Kt5, B-B4!; 13 BxB ( 1 3 P-B3 is more accurate), KtxB; 14
Kt-K6?
An instructive position. With an open centre the mobility of the pieces,

freed from the fetters of the central pawns, greatly increases. A small
advantage in the lay-out of the pieces or the bad position of one piece may be
of great signifi cance in assessing the chances. The gain or loss of one tempo
may be decisive. In the present example, White, striving after a non-existent
advantage, wastes valuable time with this tempting Knight manoeuvre. The
correct continuation was 1 4 Qx Q!, QR x Q (or 14 . . .KR x Q; 1 5 R x Kt, R-
Q8 eh; 16 K-B2, B x Kt ; 17 R x B, R-B 1 eh followed by . . .QR B8) ; 1 5 Kt-
K6, B-Q5 eh ; 1 6 Kt x B, Kt x Kt ; 1 7 B-Kt5, with complete equality.
Now, however, Black finds an elegant way of obtaining an advantage.

14...Q.xQ.; 15 RxQ., KR-K1!; 16 KtxBP, Q.R-Q.1!; 17 B-B4, R-K7; 18 R x R
eh, B x R; 19 R-Q.1, B-B3. (As a result of the complications Black wins back
the sacrificed pawn and retains a positional superiority) .
In modern openings the centre is often cleared of pawns by a sudden
opening-up of the game, even in the most closed looking positions. This is
often brought about by a sacrifice. Such an opening-up of the centre always
rapidly alters the situation. Freed from the restricting influence of the pawns,
the pieces acquire great power and the succeeding play is combinational.
Naturally, the opening of the centre demands a far-sighted and accurate
calculation of all the peculiarities of the posi tion. An example of this -process
has been given in the Bronstein-Szab6 game, above. A similar idea is seen in
the game Boleslavsky-Smyslov (Leningrad, 1948). 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3,
Kt-Q.B3; 3 B-Kt5, P-Q.R3; 4 B-R4, P-Q.3; 5 P-B4, B-Kt5; 6 Kt-B3, Kt-B3; 7 P-
KR3, BxKt; 8 Q.xB, B-K2; 9 Kt-K2, 0-0; 10 BxKt, PxB; 11 P-Q.4?
With his last few moves White began active operations in

the centre, but his development is backward. Black countered with an

energetic thrust in the centre, i.e. 11 ...P-Q.4.
In his Selected Games Smyslov wrote about this move : 'Exploiting his
superior development, Black immediately initiates complications and at the
same time opens a path for his Bishop to give a powerful check on QKt5.
There is an interesting and typical pawn clash in the centre. If 12 KPxP, then
12. . .P-K5 ; 1 3 Q-B3, PxP. Hence, White chooses a different continuation,
but the initiative has already passed to Black.'
Q.PxP, B-Kt5 eh; 13 Kt-B3, KtxP; 14 0-0, BxKt; 15 PxB, Q.-K2; 16 PxP,
PxP; 17 P-B4!, Q.xP; 18 B-B4, Q.-B6, with advantage to Black.
The following interesting example is from the game Kotov-Boleslavsky
(Moscow, 1945).
There followed 12 ...P-Q.4! Exploiting White's bad development and the

fine co-ordination of his own forces, Black opens up the centre to advantage.
13 Q.P xP, Q.KtxP; 14 B-Kt5 eh, K-B1; 15 PxP, K-Kt2; 16 Kt-K2, P-Q.R3;
17 B-B4, R-K1; 18 R-Q.1, B-R6! (A brilliant move, which underlines the
disarray of
White's pieces and sets him insoluble problems) ; 19 K-Bl, KtxBP; 20 Q.-B4,
Kt-Kt5!; 21 Q.xKt(B6), Kt-K6 eh; 22 K-Kl, BxP, with a won position for Black.
Equal Pawns in the Centre
Many opening systems give rise to typical pawn clashes in the centre,
such as white pawns on K4 and Q4 opposed by black pawns on K4 and Q3
or white pawns on K4 and Q4 opposed by black pawns on Q4 and K3 (see
diagrams) .
The tension thus created is generally quickly released and a more stable
pawn structure arises. The centre may be closed by P-K5 or P-Q5, or the
pawns in the centre may be fixed by KP x P or QP x P. In both cases the two
sides retain an equal number of pawns in the centre (though they do not
always retain control of an equal amount of space) .
(a) An Immobile Fixed Pawn Chain in the Centre

This usually arises in the opening, for example in many variations of the
Ruy Lopez, the French, King's Indian and Nimzovitch defences.
The strategic struggle is complicated, since play in the
1
centre is connected with active operations on the flanks. Often the main
centre of the struggle is transferred to the flanks, communications between
which are weakened.
The closed centre arises most often from the moves P-K5 or P-Q5, which
give White some advantage in space. White tries to exploit this by initiating
operations on one of the flanks. Because of the difference between the two
flanks, much depends on the main component of White's pawn chain, the
pawn on K5 or Q5. (Of course, the most important factors in the choice of a
plan are the disposition of the pieces and the general character of the
position.)
With a pawn on K5 White has good prospects for a K-side attack. In this
case, Black must, as a rule, strive for counter play in the centre and on the
Queen's wing. It must be remembered though, that a K-side advance,
although more difficult to organize, is more dangerous.
With a pawn on Q5 operations on the flanks are very important. White
usually aims at a pawn storm on the Q side ; Black's most effective counter is
a counter-attack on the K side.
Each of these basic cases will be examined.
A closed pawn chain with a forepost on Q,5 is especially characteristic of
many structures in the King's Indian Defence, the treatment of which has
reached a high level. The following sharp system, analysed in detail by Soviet
players, may serve as an example. 1 P-Q4, Kt-KB3; 2 P-QB4, P-KKt3; 3 Kt-
QB3, B-Kt2; 4 P-K4, P-Q3; 5 Kt-B3, 0-0; 6 B-K2, P-K4; 7 0-0, Kt-B3.
With this last move Black challenges White to determine the position in the
centre. The most critical continuation is 8 P-Q5.
White, with gain of tempo, starts active operations on the
Queen's wing, where he has a superiority in space and the chance to

concentrate his pieces for a quick opening-up of the game. However, Black
has good chances of starting a counter-attack on the K side.
In such positions the game becomes tenser with every move and,
consequently, the significance of a won or lost tempo becomes greater. Play
is lively, sometimes forced, and both sides have to manoeuvre extremely
accurately, combining attack with defence. Defensive measures are
necessary and often difficult, but neither side should revert entirely to passive
defence.
This system was met for the first time in the game Tai manov-Aronin
(Moscow, 1952), which continued 8... Kt-K2 ; 9 Kt-K1 (White transfers his
Knight to Q3, where it is well posted for both attack and defence. At the same
time, a path is cleared for the advance of the KBP), Kt-Q.2 ; 10 B-K3, P-KB4 ;
11 P-B3. A typical position. White could enliven play in the centre by
continuing 1 1 P x P, P x P; 1 2 P-B4. Admittedly in the given position this
would not have brought him any advantages ; the point is that the possi bility
of the opening-up of the centre must be borne in mind during operations on
the wing.
3
11•••P-KR4? (A very poor move. Black, playing hap hazardly, simply loses
valuable time) ; 12 Kt-Q.3, P-B5; 13 B-B2, P-KKt4; 14 P-B5, Kt-KB3; 15 R-B1,
P-Kt5; 16 Q.-Kt3! (White opposes Black's headlong advance with a deep plan
combining attack and defence) .
16 •••B-R3?; 17 PxQ.P, BPxP; 18 KtxKP! (An impor tant supplementary
blow in the centre, which opens up the Q file), P-Kt6; 19 B-K1, P x Kt; 20 P-
Q.6 eh, K-R1; 21 P xKt, Q.xP; 22 Kt-Kt5, B-K3; 23 B-Kt4, Q.-KB2; 24 Q.-B3,
PxP eh; 25 K-R1, R-KKt1; 26 Q.xP, Q.-Kt3; 27 R-KB2, with a considerable
advantage for White.
In this game Black did not exploit his attacking chances on the K side. The
correct plan was soon found, however, and carried out in a number of games.
For example, in the game Taitnanov-Najdorf (2nd Candidates' Tournament,
Zurich, 1953) White failed to contain his opponent's attack. Instead of 1
1 . . .P-KR4 ?, Black played 11•••P-B5 and after 12 B-B2, P-KKt4; 13 Kt-Q.3
regrouped his forces on the King's wing very successfully, both for attack and
for the defence of the Q side. Play continued 13•••Kt-KB3; 14 P-B5, Kt-Kt3; 15
R-B1, R-B2! Black transfers the Rook to his second rank, from where it can
be switched to attack on the K side and also helps to defend QB2. At the
same time, KBI is cleared for t.he important defensive manoeuvre .. . B-KBI.
16 R-B2, B-B1; 17 PxP, PxP; 18 Q.-Q.2, P-Kt5; 19 KR-B1, P-Kt6! and

Black, sacrificing a pawn, obtained a strong attack on the K side.
Researches into this system have continued uninter ruptedly. Now it is
White's turn to improve his plan. The Argentine grandm£tster, Najdorf, for
example recommends, instead of 1 0 B-K3, 10 Kt-Q.3, and if 10•••P-KB4; 11
P-B3,
P-B5, then 12 B-Q.2, P-KKt4; 13 R-B1, considering that White's Queen's

Bishop stands better on the diagonal Kl-QR5.
This continuation was tested in the game Pachm.an Padevsky (Dresden,

1955), but Black's resourceful play threw doubt on Najdorf's plan. This game
continued
13...Kt-KB3; 14 P-B5, Kt-Kt3; 15 Kt-Kt5.
Here N ajdorf had analysed chiefly the continuation
15 . . .R-B2 ; 1 6 B-R5 !, P-Kt3 ; 1 7 p X KtP, RP X p ; 1 8 B-Kl !, and White
has weakened Black's Queen's wing (18 . . .R x P; 19 Kt-R3) . However,
Black now obtains a good game by a simple move.
15...P-Q.R3! (Black does not fear the sacrifice 1 6 P x P, since White's
attack can be repulsed by 16 . . .P x Kt ! ; 1 7 P x P, Q-Q2 ; 1 8 B-Kt4, - Kt-
Kl ! ; 1 9 B x R, B x B followed by . . .B-Q3) ; 16 Kt-R3, P-Kt5; 17 B-K1, P-Kt6!
(Black's attack is very dangerous and Najdorf's recommendation begins to
appear dubious) ; 18 RPxP, Kt-R4; 19 KtPxP, KPxP; 20 B-B3, BxB; 21 RxB,
Kt-Kt6; 22 R-K1, Q.-R5; 23 PxP, Q.-R8 eh; 24 K-B2, Q.-R7; 25 PxP, Kt-R5;
26 R-Ktl.
Here Black could have obtained an extremely dangerous

attack by means of the beautiful combination 26 . . .Kt x P eh ! ; 27 P x Kt, P-

B6 ! ; 28 Q-QBl !, P x B eh; 29 K x P, Kt-B6 ; 30 R-B1, B-Kt5.
More dangerous for Black is probably the plan recently worked out by the
Soviet master Veltmander. Instead of the manoeuvre Kt-K1-Q3, etc., he
suggests an immediate advance on the Q side with 9 P-Q.Kt4!
Further developments are well illustrated by the game Tai.tnanov-

Ciocaltea (Moscow, 1956) 9 ...P-Q.R4 (This tentative move is clearly wrong.
Better is 9 . . . Kt-R4; 10 P-Kt3, P-KB4, aiming to work up an attack on the K
side); 10 B-R3!, Kt-R4; 11 P-Kt3, P-KB4; 12 Kt-KKt5! (A completely new idea.
White does not limit himself to passive defence on the K side but seizes his
chance to begin active play on both flanks), Kt-KB3; 13 P-B5, P-KR3 (If
13 . . .
QP x P; 14 P x QBP, P-KR3 White would play 15 P-Q6,
P x Kt; 16 Q-Kt3 eh followed by P x Kt and P-B6) ; 14
BPxP!, PxQ.P; 15 Kt-K6, BxKt; 16 PxB, BPxP; 17
p X p' Kt-B4; 18 Kt-Kt5, P-Q.4!; 19 B X R, B X B; 20 R-B1, RxP; 21 Q.-Kt3, P-
Kt3; 22 Q.-Kt2!, and in the succeeding complications White retained a clear
plus.
M.C.O.T. E
116 MODERN CHESS O P ENIN G THE ORY
This plan, in which White aims at active play on both wings, seems to set
Black the most difficult problems.
The development of the theory of this variation is very instructive for the
problem in question. Black entices White into a line of play in which there is
no compromise. Both sides' games are so rich in possibilities, however, that
the last word is far from said on either side.
Of course, closing the centre with P-Q5 does not always lead to this sort of
pawn storm on opposite wings. Usually, as is generally the case in the
opening, . the strategic plans of the two sides are more elastic and varied.
An important factor in selecting a plan for the succeeding play is the type
of co-ordination of the forces, bearing in mind not only the external but also
the hidden features of the position.
Thus, there are many opening positions with this pawn structure, in which
White, after closing the centre with P-Q5, attacks on the K side (Ruy Lopez,
Four Knights' Gam.e, Nim.zovitch Defence, etc.) . For instance, in the
variation of the Ruy Lopez that runs 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 B-
Kt5, P-Q.R3; 4 B-R4, Kt-B3; 5 0-0, B-K2; 6 Q.-K2, P-Q.Kt4; 7 B-Kt3, P-Q.3; 8
P-B3, Kt-Q.R4; 9 B-B2, P-B4; 10 P-Q.4, Q.-B2 one of the most promising
plans consists in closing the centre with 11 P-Q.5, in preparation for a pawn
advance on the K side.
This plan has been employed in similar positions from the earliest times.
The closed centre impedes Black, and allows White to concentrate his pieces
quickly on the K side.
In this position White immediately posts his Rook on KKtl to support the
advance P-KKt4. To appreciate the further course of the struggle it is useful
to follow the development of the middlegame.
S T R U GGLE F O R CENTRE IN M O D E RN O P ENIN G 117
The game Suetin-Ponyakov (Minsk, 1953) continued

11 ...0-0; 12 Q.Kt-Q.2, Kt-Kt2; 13 K-R1, Kt-K1; 14 R-KKt1, P-Kt3; 15 P-KKt4,
P-B3; 16 P-Q.R4!, P-Kt5; 17 Kt-B4, P-Q.R4; 18 B-R6, Kt-Kt2; 19 Kt-K3, Kt-
Q.1; 20 Kt-B5!
This is a typical Knight sacrifice on KB5 to open up the KKt file. Since
Black's Queen's wing is almost cut off from the King's (a characteristic feature)
it is difficult for him to defend his King. In this closed position an extra piece is
of little importance. If the sacrifice is accepted, White obtains a decisive
attack, e.g. 20 . . . P x Kt ; 2 1 KtP x P, R-B2 ; 22 B x Kt, R x B ; 27 R x R eh,
K x R ; 24 Kt x P, QP x Kt; 25 R-Kt1 eh and 26 Q-Kt4.
Therefore, Black continued 20...B x Kt; 21 KtP x B, Kt-B2; 22 B xKt, K xB;
23 P xP, P xP; 24 Kt-R4, Kt-Kt4; 25 P-KB4!, R-Rl; 26 Q.-Kt4, RxKt; 27 Q.xR,
Kt-B6; 28 Q.-R5!, and White soon won.
In this type of position Black's main plan consists not in a pawn storm on
the Queen's wing, which has very little effect, but in the careful, active
defence of his K side, which becomes the centre of both sides' operations. If
Black manages to post his minor pieces successfully, he may be able to
counter-
E2
1 18 M OD ERN CHESS O PENING T H E ORY
attack. Often White's advanced pawns then become a weakness. An example

of this is found in the game Thomas Rubinstein (Baden-Baden, 1925). 1 P-K4,
P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-QB3; 3 B-Kt5, P-QR3; 4 B-R4, Kt-B3;
0-0, B-K2; 6 R-K1, P-Q.Kt4; 7 B-Kt3, P-Q3; 8 P-B3,
0-0; 9 P-KR3, Kt-QR4; 10 B-B2, P-B4; 11 P-Q4, Q-B2; 12 Q.Kt-Q2, Kt-B3; 13
P-Q5, Kt-Q1; 14 Kt-B1, Kt-K1!
An instructive manoeuvre. Black sets up a strong position on the K side, at

the same time retaining the option of opening up the game to his advantage.
15P-QR4, R-Kt1; 16PxP, PxP; 17P-KKt4,P-KKt3;

18 Kt-Kt3, Kt-Kt2; 19 K-R1, P-B3; 20 R-KKt1, Kt-B2; 21 Q-B1, B-Q2!; 22 B-
K3, R-R1; 23 Q-Kt2, RxR; 24 RxR, Q-Kt2; 25 K-R2, R-R1; 26 Q.-B1, R-R3; 27
Kt-Q2, Q-R1; 28 R x R, Qx R; 29 Kt-Kt3, Kt-Kt4; 30 K-Kt2, P-R4!; 31 P-R4, Kt-
B2; 32 PxP, PxP; 33 K-R2, Q.-B1; 34 Q-Kt2, K-B1; 35Kt-Q2,P-
B4;36PxP,BxRP,
and Black has seized the initiative on the K side.
A closed pawn position with a forepost on White's K5 helps White's K-side
operations. (This is typical, for example, of many variations of the French
Defence.)
Here Black usually strives to undermine White's central pawn chain.

Hence, White, attacking on the K side, must watch for possible Black counter-
attacks in the centre. Thus, both sides concentrate on the centre for some
time. An illustration is provided by the Advance Variation of the French
Defence. 1 P-K4, P-K3; 2 P-Q4, P-Q4; 3 P-K5, P-QB4; 4 P-QB3, Kt-QB3; 5
Kt-B3, Q-Kt3; 6 B-K2, PxP; 7 PxP, Kt-R3; 8 P-QKt3.
White has to contend with the weakness on his Q4, critical in this position.
In order to defend this point he must place his pieces passively and forego
castling. Black's pieces, on the other hand, work in co-ordination and very
actively. The continuation of the game Levin-Khasin (Leningrad, 1954) is
instructive. 8 .. . Kt-B4; 9 B-Kt2, B-Kt5 eh; 10 K-B1, 0-0; 11 P-Kt4?, Kt-R3; 12
R-Kt1, P-B3!
This timely thrust in the centre destroys White's schemes on the K side.
Black seizes the initiative and energetically exploits the positional
weaknesses in his opponent's King's wing.
13 PxP, RxP; 14 P-Kt5, RxKt!
With this exchange sacrifice Black smashes his opponent's
1 20 MODERN CHESS O P ENIN G THE ORY
pawn centre. 15 PxKt ( 1 5 B x R, Kt-B4! followed by

. .Kt x QP also led to Black's advantage, but that was the lesser evil, as the
game will show), R-B2; 16 Q-Q3, Kt-K4!; 17 Q-K3, Kt-Kt3; 18 B-R5, P-K4; 19
R-Kt5, B-Q2; 20 RPxP, R-K1; 21 BxKt, PxB; 22 RxKP, RxR; 23 QxR, Q-Kt4
eh; 24 K-Kt2, B-R6 eh; 25 KxB, Q-B8 eh; 26 K-Kt4, QxP, and White resigned.
Here Black's . . .P-KB3 was successful thanks to the more harmonious
position of his pieces, which guaranteed their superiority after the centre was
opened up.
Frequently, however, after the opening of the centre, White's pieces also
become very active. As a rule, the game then becomes very double-edged
and it is extremely difficult to weigh up the chances. This type of game arises
in one of the key systems of the French Defence. 1 P-K4, P-K3; 2 P-Q4, P-
Q4; 3 Kt-QB3, B-Kt5; 4 P-K5, P-QB4; 5 P-QR3, BxKt eh; 6 PxB, Kt-K2; 7 P-
QR4, QKt-B3; 8 Kt-B3, Q-R4; 9 B-Q2, P-B5.
Position
after
2l. .. P-B3!?
The position in the centre is closed, although, if the occa sion arises, Black
can open up the game there by . . .P-B3. In this connection the game
Smyslov-Botvinnik (Moscow,
STRUGGLE F O R CENTRE IN MODERN OPENING 121
1944) is very interesting. It continued 10 Kt-Kt5, P-KR3; 11 Kt-R3, Kt-Kt3!; 12

Q-B3, B-Q2; 13 Kt-B4, KtxKt; 14 QxKt, Kt-K2; 15 P-R4, BxP; 16 P-R5, Q-Kt4;
17 K-Q1, R-QB1; 18 B-B1, R-B3; 19 B-K2, R-R3!; 20 K-Q2 (20 . . .B x P eh
was threatened), 0-0 (It was better to leave the King in the centre, but
extremely difficult to foresee this in practical play) ; 21 P-Kt4, P-B3!? (see
diagram) .
From this move onward play becomes much more forced, as both sides'
pieces come into action.
22 PxP, RxP; 23 Q-B7, R-B2; 24 Q-Q8 eh, K-R2; 25 P-B4!, Q-R4 (25. . .Q-
Q2 was more prudent) ; 26 Q-Kt8, Kt-B3; 27 Q-K8, R-K2; 28 Q-Kt6 eh?
A serious mistake. He should have played 28 Q-KB8!, Q-Ql (Otherwise 29
P-Kt5 !, threatening P-Kt6 eh, is decisive) ; 29 Qx Q, Kt x Q; 30 P-Kt5,
retaining excellent chances on the K side.
28•••K-Kt1; 29 B-R3, P-K4?
In his turn, Black does not see a chance to win the game with 29 . . .Q-
B2! ; 30 KR-KBI, Kt-Kt5! followed by . . .B-Kl , winning the Queen.
30 BP x P? (But this is now the decisive mistake. With
QP x P White could have saved the game), KtxQP!;
B-Kt4, Q-Q1; 32 QxR, PxQ; 33 PxKt, R-Kt2!, and Black soon won.
More and more opening positions with a fixed central pawn chain are
being discovered and analysed. In recent years positions with a closed centre
and castling on opposite sides have become popular.
0 A Closed Pawn Position in the Centre with an Open K or Q,File

If tension in the centre is released by an exchange of centre pawns, one of
the central files will be opened and points
created for foreposts in the centre. This type of structure often arises in the
Ruy Lopez, the Queen's Ga:mbit, the Nim.zovitch, King's Indian and Caro-
Kann defences, etc.
In this type of position the flanks are not cut off from each other and piece
manoeuvres, aiming at control of the central squares-from which operations
can be transferred to the flanks-are very important.
Opening systems with this type of central pawn structure often lead to
pawn storms on the flanks. This is particularly so in various Ruy Lopez
systems. The success of this plan depends on combining the pawn storm with
piece manoeuvres in the centre.
For example, in one of the main lines of the Tchigorin Defence to the Ruy
Lopez, after 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 B-Kt5; P-Q.R3; 4 B-R4, Kt-
B3; 5 0-0, B-K2; 6 R-K1, P-Q.Kt4; 7 B-Kt3, P-Q.3; 8 P-B3, 0-0; 9 P-KR3, Kt-
Q.R4; 10 B-B2, P-B4; 11 P-Q.4, Q.-B2; 12 Q.Kt-Q.2, Kt-B3; 13 P x BP, P x P,
the position is compara tively closed, it being difficult to open up lines.
Generally, White combines active operations on the K side with pressure

on Q5 ; while Black combines a Q-side
pawn storm with play along the Q file and an attempt to transfer a Knight to
Q6. More often than not Black has to take defensive measures against
White's plan.
beautiful example of White's K-side attack is still provided by the game
Rauzer-Riuntin (Moscow, 1936), which commenced with an analogous
variation. 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 B-Kt5, P-Q.R3; 4 B-R4, Kt-B3; 5
0-0, B-K2; 6 R-K1, P-Q.Kt4; 7 B-Kt3, P-Q.3; 8 P-B3, Kt-Q.R4; 9 B-B2, P-B4;
10 P-Q.4, Q.-B2; 11
Q.Kt-Q.2, Kt-B3.
Play continued 12 P-Q.R4, R-Q.Kt1; 13 RPxP, RPxP; 14 PxBP, PxP; 15
Kt-B1, B-K3; 16 Kt-K3, 0-0; 17
Kt-Kt5, KR-Q.1 (At the time the treatment of this type of position had not been
analysed much. Here 1 7. . . P-Kt3 is better, keeping White's Knight out of
KB5) ; 18 Q.-B3, R-Q.3; 19 Kt-B5 (By provoking this exchange on KB5, White
activates his King's Bishop. At the same time, the pawn on KB5 furthers the
pawn storm against Black's King) .
19...B xKt; 20P xB, P-R3; 21 Kt-K4, Kt xKt; 22 B xKt, B-B3; 23 B-K3, Kt-K2;
24 P-Q.Kt4, P-B5; 25 P-Kt3 (Black has no counterplay and is helpless in the
face ofWhite's K-side attack), R-Q.2; 26 R-R7, Q.-Q.1; 27 RxR, Q.xR; 28 P-
R4!, etc. Today the technique of play in this sort of position has been further
refined.
modern example of a similar plan by White is the game Boleslavsky-Tal
(Moscow, 1957). 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 B-Kt5, P-Q.R3; 4 B-R4,
Kt-B3; 5 0-0, B-K2; 6 R-K1, P-Q.Kt4; 7 B-Kt3, 0-0; 8 P-B3, P-Q.3; 9 P-KR3,
Kt-Q.R4; 10 B-B2, P-B4; 11 P-Q.4, Q.-B2; 12 Q.Kt-Q.2, B-Q.2; 13 Kt-B1, KR-
K1; 14 Kt-K3, P-Kt3; 15 PxKP, PxP; 16 Kt-R2, Q.R-Q.1; 17 Q.-B3, B-K3; 18
Kt(R2)-Kt4.
124 MODERN CHESS OPENING T H EORY
In order to enliven the game on the K side and in the centre, White resorts
to subtle manoeuvres, which turn out successful.
18...Kt x Kt; 19 P x Kt, Q,-B3 (This slight error leads to great difficulties for
Black. He should have brought his Knight back into play with 1 9. . .Kt-Kt2
followed by . . .P-B5 and . . .Kt-B4) .
20 Q,-Kt3, P-B3; 21 P-Kt5!, K-R1; 22 P-Kt3! (Taking away the important
QB4 square from Black's Knight) ,
R-KB1.
23 Kt-Q,5! The beginning of an interesting combination. White increases

the scope of his King's Bishop by sacrificing a pawn and creates strong
pressure over the whole board (compare the Rauzer-Riumin game, where
White obtained similar advantages without sacrificing material) .
23 ...B x Kt; 24 P x B, Q,x P; 25 P x P, B x P; 26 B-R6, KR-K1; 27 B-K4!,
Q,-K3; 28 Q,-B3, Q.-K2; 29 Q,R-Q,1, B-Kt2; 30 B-K3!, and White, transferring
his strategic pressure to the Q side, obtained a clear advantage.
It is only on comparatively rare occasions that Black manages to carry out
his active strategic plan of advancing on the Qside. The main battle nearly
always centres around
S T RU G G L E F O R CENTRE I N MODERN O PENING 125
the strategic schemes for White which have just been exa mined. But if the
latter treats the opening colourlessly and Black seizes the initiative, then the
strategic battle may be quite different.
Thus, a game Suetin-Bannik (Erevan, 1954) which up to White's twelfth
move followed the same line as the Boleslavsky-Tal game, continued 12...R-
Q.1; 13 PxKP? (A passive plan, handing the initiative to Black. Better is
Kt-Bl , etc.), PxP; 14 Q.-K2, P-B5! (Since White is a long way from creating
active play on the K side, Black imposes his own active Q-side plans) .
15 Kt-B1, Kt-Kt2!; 16 P-Q.R4? (Another mistake, which only improves
Black's game. Both 1 6 B-Kt5 and 1 6 Kt-Kt3 were better, aiming at
counterplay on the K side), B-Q.2; 17 PxP, PxP; 18 RxR, RxR; 19 Kt-K3, Kt-
B4;
20 Kt-Q.5? (Belated active play ; by now passive defence was to be
preferred), KtxKt; 21 PxKt, P-B3; 22 Kt-R4, B-Q.3; 23 B-K3, P-Kt3; 24 B x Kt,
Q.x B; 25 R-Q.1, K-Kt2; 26 Kt-B3, R-R7!, and White's forces are all tied to the
defence of his Q-side weaknesses.
However, the basic plans in the Tchigorin Defence to the Ruy Lopez may
be quite different from those just examined. Often White carries out active
operations on the Q side, while Black counter-attacks on the King's,
transferring his Knight via KR4 to KB5. In this type of position each side must
be ready to act on both wings. In a game Suetin Kalllyshov (TiHis, 1951)-see
diagram, p. 122-play continued 14 Kt-B1, B-K3; 15 Kt-K3, Q.R-Q.1; 16 Q.-K2,
P-Kt3; 17 Kt-Kt5, B-B1.
Black should have played 17 . . .P-B5, allowing an ex change on his K3,

since, in compensation for his doubled KP's, he would have a half-open KB
file and a strong point
on KB5. Now White advances against Black's Q side-the most logical plan in
the position in view of the lay-out of the pieces. Black has firm control of the
approaches to his King and has sufficiently defended his Q4. But these
defensive measures have taken his pieces from the Q side. Conse quently,
White, who is not yet committed to any definite plan, has the concrete chance
of creating a fixed object of attack on his opponent's Q side, i.e. weak pawn.
Play continued 18 P-Q.R4!, P-B5 (18 . . . Q-Kt2 is some what better) ; 19

PxP, PxP; 20 P-Q.Kt3!, Kt-Q.R4 (Forced, since 20 . . .P x P; 21 B x P leads to
an opening of the position that is to White's advantage) .
21 PxP, PxP (The weak point is created ; Black's QBP will have to be
defended for a long time, which gives White a dangerous initiative) .
22 B-R3!, KR-K1; 23 B X B, R X B; 24 KR-Q.1, KR-Q.2;
25 RxR, RxR; 26 R-R4!, B-R3; 27 Q.-B1!, B-Kt4 (28 Q-Rl was threatened) ;
28 R-Kt4, Q.-B4; 29 Q.-Kt1, R-Kt2; 30 B-R4, B-R3; 31 Kt-B3!, Q.-Q.3; 32 B-
Kt5!,
and White has a considerable plus on the Q side.
This example shows how varied opening plans can be. Scarcely
noticeable differences in the co-ordination of the
pieces often allow the choice of a completely different strategic plan. This
choice of plan must, therefore, never be stereotyped. A plan of play in the
opening should be selected only after a most careful study of the co-ordination
of each sides' pieces.
It is much more difficult to organize operations on the wing if another file is
opened up near the centre, in addition to a centre file, as often occurs, for
example, in the Queen's Gam.bit, the Caro-Kann, and the Nim.zovitch
Defence to the Queen's Pawn. The strategy of such positions is simpler than
in systems with only one open file. In these opening formations, which are
generally strategically balanced, attention must be concentrated chiefly on the
central squares. Each side aims to set up a forepost in the centre and to
frustrate analogous attempts on the part of his opponent. Only then, and with
great care, can operations usually be initiated on the flanks. A high level of
technique is necessary in such positions.
A fine example of the treatment of this type of position is the game
Alekhine--Eliskases (Buenos Aires, 1939) which shows how many
possibilities lie hidden even in what appear to be the most simple positions.
P-K4, P-QB3; 2 P-Q4, P-Q4; 3 PxP, PxP; 4 P-QB4, Kt-KB3; 5 Kt-QB3, P-
K3; 6 Kt-B3, B-K2; 7 PxP, KtxP; 8 B-Kt5 eh, B-Q2; 9 BxB eh, KtxB; 10 Kt X Kt,
p X Kt; 11 0-0, 0-0; 12 Q-Kt3, Kt-Kt3.
Alekhine exploits Black's subsequent planless play in masterly fashion and
creates a win out of his minimal advantage (a slightly better development and
piece lay-out) . Combining threats against Q5 and QKt7 with play along the
open K and QB files, he gradually increases his superiority. 13 B-B4, B-Q3;
14 B x B, Qx B; 15 KR-K1, QR-B1 ;.
1 28 M O DERN CHESS OPENIN G THE ORY
Position
after
12. . . Kt-Kt3
16 QR-B1, P-KR3; 17 Kt-K5 (Threatening P-QR4), R-B2; 18 P-Kt3!, KR-B1;

19 RxR, RxR; 20 Q,-Kt5, Kt-Q2; 21 Kt x Kt, R x Kt (Black has succeeded in
ex changing off the minor pieces, but White's heavy pieces have become very
active) f22 R-K8 eh, K-R2; 23 P-KR4, P-R3; 24 Q-K2, R-Q1; 25 R-K7, R-Q2;
26 R-K5, P-KKt3?; 27 P-R5!, Q-KB3; 28 Q-K3, R-Q3; 29 Q-Kt3, R-Kt3; 30
PxP eh, QxP; 31 QxP, RxP; 32 R-B5!
The harmonious co-ordination of the white pieces, the unsafe position of

the black King, and the passed QP are together sufficient to win. Alekhine
made good his advantage.
To sum up, positions with a fixed centre and two open files lead generally
to a technical struggle, since opportuni ties to simplify into an endgame are
very great.
Often the pawn structure in the centre is fixed in the opening by the
exchange of the QBP against the opponent's QP, as in many variations of the
Queen's Gambit and the Nimzovitch Defence to the Queen's Pawn. In this
case one side controls a half-open QB file, while the other has a half-open K
file. The pawn configuration in the centre generally remains stable for some
time.
S TRUGGLE F O R CENTRE IN MODERN O P ENING 1 29
The Queen's Gambit provides a good example in the following variation. 1

P-Q,4, P-Q,4; 2 P-Q,B4, P-K3; 3 Kt-Q,B3, Kt-KB3; 4 PxP, PxP. In this way the
tension is released and the pawn structure fixed ; White obtains a half open
QB file, while Black has the half-open K file. 5 B-Kt5, B-K2; 6 P-K3, P-B3; 7 B-
Q,3, Q,Kt-Q,2.
Examine the possibilities for play in the centre. It is clear that it is difficult
for either side to open the game up. If Black attempts to undermine White's
QP by means of
. .P-QB4 he may be left with an isolated QP, which is here disadvantageous.
Equally, it is difficult for White to play P-K4.
Naturally, White has a wider range of possibilities to choose from, and his
choice will determine the future course of the game. The well-tried plan in this
position is to transfer the main struggle to the flanks, leaving the centre alone
for the time being. White, exploiting his half-open QB file, begins a pawn
advance on the Qside (the so-called minority attack) . Black must not rely on
passive defence but must aim at a piece attack (or even a piece and pawn
attack) on the K side, exploiting his K5 as a forepost for his pieces.
In the game Sm.yslov-Keres (World Cham.pionship TournaDlent,

Moscow, 1948) play continued 8 Kt-B3, 0-0; 9 Q.-B2, R-K1; 10 0-0, Kt-B1; 11
Q.R-Kt1, Kt-Kt3; 12 P-Q.Kt4, when Black, instead of proceeding actively with
12 . . .P-QR3 ; 13 P-QR4, Kt-K5 !, chose to defend passively on the Q side.
12. • •B-Q.3?; 13 P-Kt5!, B-Q.2; 14 PxP, BxP. White accurately exploited

the weakness of Black's Q side, while Black has no compensating
counterplay on the King's wing.
Q.-Kt3, B-K2; 16 BxKt, BxB; 17 B-Kt5, Q.-Q.3;
K.R-B1, P-KR4; 19 Kt-K2, P-R5.
Black attempts to create threats on the K side, but his counterplay is too
late.
20 BxB, PxB; 21 Q.-R4, Kt-K2; 22 R-Kt7!, P-R4;
P-KR3, K.R-Kt1; 24 K.R-Kt1, RxR; 25 RxR, P-B4;
R-Kt5!, PxP; 27 Q.KtxP, R-Q.B1; 28 Kt-Kt3, B-B6;
Q.xKRP, and White soon exploited his advantage in material. Black's passive
play was the cause of his defeat.
Play is much sharper if Black works up his counter-attack
on the K side. In a game Taim.anov-Nezhm.etdinov (Kiev, 1954) Black
answered 11 Q.R-Kt1 with 11 • • •P-Q.R4, and there followed 12 P-Q.R3, Kt-
K5!; 13 BxB, Q.xB; 14 P-Q.Kt4, PxP; 15 PxP, Kt-Kt3; 16 P-Kt5?
White does not sense the danger on the K side and comes under a
crushing attack. Essential was 16 B x Kt !, P x B ; 1 7
Kt-Q2, to neutralize Black's threats.
16. • .B-Kt5; 17 Kt-Q.2, Kt x KKt; 18 Q.x Kt, Kt-R5, with the strong threats
of 19 . . .Kt-B6 eh and 19 . . .B-R6.
Sometimes in this system White aims to set up a mobile pawn centre. This
plan can be very effective if Black does not take steps to find counterplay in
the centre. In the game Botvinni.k-Keres (Moscow, 1952) play proceeded
(from
1
the diagrammed position, p . 1 29) 8 KKt-K2, 0-0; 9 0-0, R-K1; 10 R-Kt1, Kt-
B1; 11 Q.-B2, B-Q.3?
Black manoeuvres planlessly, underestimating White's central pawn
advance. Better was 1 1 . . .B-K3, in order to answer 12 P-B3 with 1 2. . .P-B4
!, undermining the centre.
12 K-R1, Kt-Kt3; 13 P-B3!
It is becoming clear that Black lacks a sufficient counter to White's plan to

set up a strong pawn centre.
13...B-K2; 14 Q.R-K1, Kt-Q.2?; 15 BxB, RxB; 16 Kt-Kt3, Kt-B3; 17 Q.-B2,
B-K3; 18 Kt-B5!, BxKt;
BxB, Q.-Kt3; 20 P-K4, PxP; 21 PxP, R-Q.1; 22 P-K5!
Having set up his pawn centre, White transfers his attack to the K side.
This advance frees the important square K4 for his pieces.
22...Kt-Q.4; 23 Kt-K4!, Kt-B1; 24 Kt-Q.6, Q.-B2; 25 B-K4, Kt-K3; 26 Q.-R4,
P-KKt3; 27 BxKt, PxB; 28 R-B1, Q.-Q.2; 29 R-Q.B3, R-KB1; 30 Kt-B5!, with
decisive threats.
In this system White sometimes castles long and tries to

organize a K-side pawn storm. The co-ordination of both
1 32 MODERN CHESS O P ENIN G T H EORY
sides' pieces must be very carefully examined before going in for this. The K-
side pawn storm can be successful only if Black has no chance to undermine
the centre with
. . .P-QB4.
The game Taimanov-Persitz (Hastings, 1955-56)
developed sharply (from the diagrammed position, p. 129)
8 Q.-B2, Kt-B1; 9 Kt-B3, Kt-K3; 10 B-R4, P-KKt3.
This system of defence, introduced into grandmaster practice by
Stahlberg, was considered safe for Black. Black strives to exchange off the
white-squared Bishops and subsequently to seize control of the white squares
in the centre. Taimanov strengthens White's play by meeting this plan with a
K-side attack, helped by the somewhat passive position of the black pieces.
P-KR3!, Kt-Kt2; 12 P-KKt4 (Depriving Black of the important KB4 square
and starting the K-side pawn storm in favourable circumstances. Here
12 . . .P-KR4 ? is bad
because of 1 3 Kt-K5 !, P xP ; 14 B x P !, etc.) .
12 • • •0-0; 13 0-0-0, KKt-K1; 14 BxB, Q.xB; 15 Q.R-Kt1, Kt-Q.3; 16 P-
KR4!, P-KB4; 17 P-R5!, BPxP; 18 Kt-K5, B-B4; 19 KtxP(Kt4), BxB ( 19 . . .Kt
x P is bad
because of 20 Kt-R6 eh, K-Rl ; 21 Kt x B, Kt x Kt; 22 R x Kt) ; 20 Q.xB, PxP;
21 Kt-K5, K-R1; 22 R-Kt2, Q.-K3; 23 KR-Kt1, and White soon forced the win.
The most common plans in this system have been exa mined. White
clearly obtains a lasting initiative. But each time the position must be
approached creatively, since the individual features of any position may
dictate a rejection of these familiar continuations.
For example, in the game Furman-Konstantinopolsky (Moscow,
1948) White carried out an original plan of advancing in the centre
and on the King's wing. From the
position in the diagram on p. 1 29 play proceeded 8 Kt-B3, 0-0; 9 Q.-B2, P-

Q.R3; 10 0-0, R-K1; 11 Q.R-B1, Kt-B1; 12 KR-K1.
If an opportunity occurs, White will open up the centre with P-K4.
12 . ••B-KKt5?; 13 Kt-K5, B-R4; 14 Q.-Kt3, R-Kt1; 15 P-KR3, KKt-Q.2; 16
B x B, Q.x B; 17 P-B4.
With his last few moves White has embarked on his plan of advancing in
the centre and on the K side.
17•••KtxKt; 18 Q.P xKt, P-B3; 19 P-K4!, BPxP; 20 KPxP, B-B2; 21 K-R1,
BPxP? (Correct was 21 . . .Q-R5 with some counterplay) ; 22 RxP, Q.-R5; 23
KtxP, P-Q.Kt4; 24 R-Kt5, and White has obtained a decisive advantage on
the K side.
Sometimes, even earlier in the game, White is able to open up the position
in the centre in order to exploit his superior development. This happened, for
example, in the game
Bronstein-Mi.kenas (Moscow, 1957). 1 P-Q.4, P-Q.4;
P-Q.B4, P-K3; 3 Kt-Q.B3, Kt-KB3; 4 PxP, PxP;
5 B-Kt5, P-B3; 6 P-K3, B-K2; 7 Q.-B2, Q.Kt-Q.2; 8 B-Q.3, Kt-B1; 9 KKt-K2, Kt-
R4; 10 BxB, Q.xB; 11 P-KR3, P-KKt3?; 12 0-0-0, Kt-Kt2.
Here White exploited his superior development in an original manner. 13

P-K4! A timely opening-up of the centre. Black has neglected the basic
opening principles and, in spite of simplification, White begins an attack
against his opponent's King, punishing his backward development.
13• • •PxP; 14 BxP, B-B4; 15 P-Q.5!, BxB; 16 Q.xB, Q.x Q.; 17 Kt x Q., P x
P; 18 Kt-B6 eh!, K-Q.1; 19 Kt x Q.P, R-B1 eh; 20 KK.t-B3, K-K1; 21 K-Kt1,
Kt(B1)-K3; 22 Kt-Kt5!, and White obtained a decisive advantage in material,
which forced the win.
A Pawn Majority in the Centre
Pawn thrusts on the flanks play an important role in the opening struggle
to sef up a pawn centre. The QBP is particularly active in many systems.
Often a wing pawn is exchanged against a central pawn, giving one side the
chance to set up a pawn centre with his KP and QP, i.e. to obtain a pawn
majority in the centre. This type of mobile pawn centre is most often set up by
White.
In other cases (for example, white pawns on K4 and Q4 ; black pawns on
K4 and Q3) Black may cede to White a superiority in the centre by
exchanging ( . . .KP x QP) ; this leads to the formation of a White piece-pawn
centre. These are the most usual cases in which the balance of pawns in the
centre is disturbed.
The yielding to the opponent of a pawn maJority in the centre
(usually by Black) , followed by creation of pressure against it, is one of the
chief problems of modern opening strategy.
There are two main cases.
One side has a firmly established pawn centre (e.g. pawns on K4 and Q4)
while the other has a pawn advantage
on the wing. This type of structure is met in the Queen's Gambit and the
Griinfeld and Nimzovitch defences, etc.
One side has a piece-pawn centre (e.g. pawns on K4 and QB4 and a
Knight on Q4) . This formation arises out of numerous variations of the
English Opening, Reti Opening, and the King's Indian and Sicilian defences,
etc.
IV. A Mobile Pawn Centre
(a) Two Mobile Central Pawns on the Fourth Rank

The old idea that an 'ideal' pawn centre (pawns on K4 and Q4) gives a
positional advantage is no longer accepted uncritically. It is true that a pawn
centre can be very strong, if it is firmly supported by pieces and if the
opponent has no chance of creating effective pressure against it. In many
modern opening systems the chief plan of one of the sides is to set up a
strong pawn centre, which has a powerful in fluence on the subsequent
middlegame. In these systems the pieces are immediately developed to
squares from where they can support the advance of the central pawns. In
many cases a secondary factor is the creation of a pawn 'wedge' in the
centre, when the active side allows doubled pawns for the sake of
concentrating them in the centre.
The plan of building a pawn centre was well illustrated in
the games Botvinni-Capablanca.k (see p. 37) and Botvinni-Keres.k (see p. 1
30) . In neither of these
games did Black manage to create effective counterplay against White's
centre, which developed great strength and enabled White later to carry out a
successful flank attack.
On the other hand, in many openings, the pawn centre, deprived of
sufficient piece support, is a weakness and may
1 36 M O D E RN CHESS O PENING T H E ORY
be destroyed, if co-ordinated pressure on it can be created. A typical example

of this is the game Pillsbury-Tchigorin (see p. 17) in which White seized the
central squares prematurely. White's central pawns were blockaded and the
advantage in the centre passed to Black who then set up a strong piece-pawn
centre.
In modern openings the possession by one side of a pawn centre leads
most often to positions of dynamic balance. Piece pressure against the
central squares counterbalances their occupation. There is generally a sharp
struggle for the initia tive, in which the player who occupies the centre strives
to strengthen his position there and gradually to deprive the opponent of
counterplay, while the opponent strives to increase his pressure on the
centre, to undermine and weaken it.
Naturally enough, if one side has a pawn centre, this becomes the main
concern of both players ; the main strategic battle takes place there.
Consequently, the formation in the centre may change-a point to be borne in
mind by both sides.
Usually the player without the pawn centre tries to force the advance of his
opponent's central pawns, in order better to be able to blockade them and
increase his pressure. The player with the centre must not avoid such
advances at all costs. As has been seen in earlier examples, a timely central
pawn advance is essential in order to free squares for the pieces. The
question whether to advance or not must be approached concretely.
An instructive example is provided by the game Fine Lilienthal (Moscow,
1937).
In the diagrammed position, which arose after 1 3 moves, White has a
pawn centre which guarantees him greater
STRUGGLE F O R CENTRE I N MODERN OPENIN G 137
freedom of movement. Bearing in mind the concrete indivi dual features of the
position, Fine took the irrevocable but correct decision to play 14 P-K5!
A bold advance ! White correctly sees that conceding his opponent the
square QS plays virtually no part in the given position. Much more important
is the chance White obtains to transfer his Knight via K4 to KB6 or Q6. The
former is particularly strong because of White's black-squared Bishop.
14...Kt-Kt3 (Otherwise White plays Kt-QKt5-Q6) ;
Q.-K2, P-KB4 (Black decides to allow his K-side pawns to be weakened.
Possibly the passive continuation . . .B-Q2 and . . .QR-Q1 was better) ; 16
PxP e.p., RxP; 17 Kt-K4, R-B4; 18 B-Kt4, R-Q.4; 19 Kt-K5!, R-Q.1 (Bad for
Black
are both 19. . .B x Kt; 20 P x B, R x P ; 21 B-Q6 and here
20 . . .Qx P; 2 1 B-B3 !) ; 20 Q.R-B1, Kt-Q.4; 21 B-R3,
Kt-K2 (Again 2 1 . . .B x Kt is bad because of 22 P x B, Qx P ;
2 3 B-K7 ! , threatening B x R and Kt-B6 eh) ; 22 Q.-B3, Kt-Q.4; 23 Q.-KKt3,
B-R3; 24 R-B2, B-B1; 25 P-R4!
Having achieved a superiority in the centre, White now transfers his attack
to his opponent's decisively weakened K side.
13a MODERN CHESS OPENING THEORY
A good example of dynamic balance in an opening with

pawn centre is given by the main variations of the Griin feld Defence. Black's key
scheme in the main systems of this defence is to exert pressure against White's
pawn centre.
i) The central system.: 1 P-Q.4, Kt-KB3; 2 P-Q.B4, P-KK.t3; 3 Kt-Q.B3,
P-Q.4; 4 PxP, KtxP; 5 P-K4, KtxKt; 6 PxKt, B-Kt2; 7 B-Q.B4, 0-0; 8 Kt-K2.
Black's piece pressure is concentrated on his opponent's Q4, the critical

point in this opening. Black threatens the pawn thrusts . . .P-QB4 and . . .P-
K4.
Black can play immediately 8 • • •P-Q.B4, entering the main variation of
the central system (9 B-K3, Kt-B3; 10 0-0,
xP; 11 PxP, B-Kt5!) or he can continue with 8 • • •P-Kt3;
B-K3, B-Kt2; 10 0-0, Kt-B3, postponing the thrust
. . . P-QB4. Practice has shown that in both cases Black has interesting and
apparently sufficient counterplay, since he is able to work up considerable
pressure against White's centre.
For example, in the game Petrosian-Korchnoi (Riga,
1954), in which the main variation of the system was em ployed, White
continued, after 11 • • •B-Kt5, with 12 P-B3,
Kt-R4; 13 B-Q.5 ( 1 3 B-Q3 is more logical), B-Q.2; 14 R-Kt1, P-Q.R3! Black

temporarily sacrifices a pawn but gains a valuable tempo for organizing
pressure against White's pawn centre. 15 B xP, R-R2; 16 B-Q.5, B-Kt4!; 17 B-
Kt5 (White cannot hold the centre because of the threat of
. .P-K3 followed by . . .B x Kt and . . .BxP, etc. Therefore he tries to tempt
Black to weaken his K side, but Black con tinues with his plan and achieves
an equal game) .
17...P-R3; 18 B-R4, P-Kt4; 19 B-B2, P-K3; 20 B-Q.Kt3, KtxB; 21 PxKt,
BxKt; 22 Q.xB, BxP.
The game has simplified out, and Black has complete equality in the
centre. In this game the dynamically balanced struggle soon ended in a draw.
In this system White usually does best to avoid premature pawn advances
in the centre. The move P-K5 is particularly weakening. However,
occasionally even this advance is the most energetic (and unforced)
continuation.
Examine, for instance, the following instructive example.
1 P-Q.4, Kt-KB3; 2 P-Q.B4, P-KKt3; 3 Kt-Q.B3, P-Q.4; 4 PxP, KtxP; 5 P-K4,
KtxKt; 6 PxKt, P-Q.B4; 7 B-Q.B4, B-Kt2; 8 Kt-K2, PxP; 9 PxP, Kt-B3; 10 B-K3,
0-0; 11 0-0, Kt-R4; 12 B-Q.3, Kt-B3.
1 40 MODERN CHESS O P ENING T H E ORY
In our view, the only way to preserve White's initiative in this position is 13
P-K5!, exploiting the tempo gained and not fearing the blockade set up after
13 ...Kt-Kt5; 14 B-K4, Kt-Q4. Concrete analysis shows that with 15 Kt-B4!
White retains a definite advantage, since Black cannot maintain his Q4,
possession of which can therefore give him no real advantage.
Similar 'exceptions' can doubtless be found in all the open ing systems
which we have examined, but this in no way lessens the importance of the
problems in question.
Another important Grii.nfeld system, worked out by Ragozin, arises after 1
P-Q4, Kt-KB3; 2 P-QB4, P-KKt3; 3 Kt-QB3, P-Q4; 4 Kt-B3, B-Kt2; 5 Q-Kt3,
PxP; 6
QxBP, 0-0; 7 P-K4; White again obtains a pawn 'pair' in the centre.
However, taking advantage of the advanced position of the white Queen,

Black can exert sufficient piece pressure on the centre. Black has a choice of
several systems.
( iia) The Smyslov Variation: 7 .. .B-Kt5; 8 B-K3, KKt-Q2!
The beginning of a subtle manoeuvre aimed at exerting pressure against

the critical point, White's Q4. Black opens
STRUGGLE FOR CENTRE IN MODERN O P ENIN G 141
the diagonal for his King's Bishop on to White's Q4, while the Knight on Q2
supports a possible . . .P-QB4 and is ready also to drive away the white
Queen by Kt-Kt3. If 9 R-Q.l, then 9o o oKt-Q.B3 followed by o o oKt-Kt3 is
good ; and if 9 Q.-Kt3, Black obtains good counterplay with 9oooBxKt; 10 P x
B, Kt-Q.B3!, exerting strong pressure on White's Q4.
Interesting complications ensued in the game Sha:mko viteh-Si:magin
(Leningrad, 1951)o 11 R-Q.l (Probably 1 1 0-0-0, with a double-edged game,
is stronger), P-K4; 12 P xP ( 1 2 P-Q5 is bad because of 1 2. . .Kt-Q5 !),
Q.KtxP;
B-R3 (If 1 3 B-K2, then 1 3. . .Q-R5 ! ; 14 P-B4, Kt-Kt5, and Black has no
difficulties) , Kt x P eh!; 14 K-K2, Q.Kt K4; 15 BxKt, KtxB; 16 Q.-Kt5, P:-Q.B3;
17 Q.xKtP, R-Ktl; 18 Q.xKt, RxP eh; 19 K-Bl, Q.-B3!!, and Black obtained a
winning attack.
(iib) The Boleslavsky Variation: 7 oo oP-B3.
The idea behind this move is to prepare the wing advance
. . .P-QKt4-Kt5, in order to undermine another important point in the centre,
White's K4. Practice has shown that here too Black obtains sufficient
counterplay.
For example, the game Flohr-Boleslavsky (1st Candi dates' Tourna:ment,
Budapest, 1950) continued 8 Q.-Kt3, P-Q.Kt4!; 9 P-K5, Kt-Kl; 10 P-Q.R4,
PxP; 11 KtxP (An inaccuracy. Stronger is 1 1 Qx P, maintaining control over
Q5), Kt-R3; 12 B-Q.2, R-Ktl; 13 Q.-B4, KKt-B2;
B-K2, B-K3; 15 Q.-Bl, B-Q.4; 16 B-K3, Kt-Kt5, and Black seized the initiative
in the centre and on the King's wing.
It can be seen from these examples that Black's main target in White's
centre may change, depending on concrete circumstances.
(iic) The Najdorf Syste:m: 7oooKt-R3 followed by
1 42 MODERN CHESS O P F NI N G THEORY
...P-Q.B4. Black exerts pressure against _, White's Q4 and develops rapidly.
In the game Kan-Averbakh (Moscow, 1950) Black obtained a favourable
position in the centre by instructive play. 7 ...Kt-R3; 8 B-K2, P-B4; 9 P-Q.5
(White gains nothing by 9 P x P, Q-R4 !, with easy equality for Black), P-K3;
10 0-0, PxP; 11 PxP, Q.-Kt3; 12 P-Q.R3, B-B4; 13 Q.-KR4, Kt-B2! (Stronger
than 1 3. . .KR-K l ; 1 4 B-R6 !, Kt-K5 ; 1 5 B x B, K x B ; 1 6 Kt-KKt5, with
advan tage to White, as in the game Smyslov-Florian, Moscow, 1949) ; 14 B-
Q.B4 (More energetic here is 14 B-KKt5 ! White's passive play allows Black
to seize the initiative),
Q.Kt-K1; 15 Kt-K5, Kt-Q.3.
Black has a very comfortable position in the centre.
16 B-R2, KR-K1; 17 Kt-B4, Kt x Kt; 18 Q.x Q.Kt, Kt-K5; 19 B-K3, Q.R-B1;.

20 B-Kt1, Kt-Q.3!; 21 Q.-K2, B-Q.5!; 22 K-R1, Q.B xB; 23 Q.R xB, Kt-B4; 24
Q.-B3, B x B; 25 P x B, R x P, and Black soon eapi talized his material
advantage.
In some opening systems one side allows the opponent a pawn centre, if
this leads to simplification. A typical example
is the following variation of the Queen's Gam.bit. 1 P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 2 P-Q.B4,

P-K3; 3 Kt-Q.B3, Kt-KB3; 4 Kt-B3, P-B4; 5 BPxP, KtxP; 6 P-K4, KtxKt; 7 PxKt,
PxP; 8 PxP, B-Kt5 eh; 9 B-Q.2, BxB eh; 10 Q.xB, 0-0.
Black counts on exploiting his pawn majority on the Q side, which grows in
importance as the endgame approaches. White's central pawns, on the other
hand, lose their strength with each piece exchange, since White's attacking
chances are thereby decreased.
The game Fogelevitch-Yudovitch (Moscow, 1937) continued 11 B-B4, Kt-
B3; 12 0-0, P-Q.Kt3; 13 Q.R-Q.1 (Better is 13 KR-Ql ), B-Kt2; 14 Q.-B4, Q.-
B3!
This move reveals the positional drawbacks of 13 Q.R-Q.1. If White

exchanges Queens, Black occupies the QB file with a good position.
15 Q.-K3, KR-Q.1; 16 P-K5, Q.-R3!
The correct continuation of Black's plan. The weakness of Black's K-side
pawns will be difficult to exploit, while White's QP needs defending and
Black's Queen's Rook will invade along the QB file. Black, with the promising
possibility of advancing on the Q side, has the better chances.
M ODERN CHESS OPENING THE ORY
This plan of simplifying in order to devalue the opponent's pawn centre

must always be borne in mind. Thus, in the variation of the Griinfeld Defence
which runs 1 P-Q,4, Kt-KB3; 2 P-Q,B4, P-KKt3; 3 Kt-Q,B3, P-Q,4; 4 p X p'
KtxP; 5 P-K4, KtxKt; 6 PxKt, B-Kt2; 7 B-Q,B4, P-Q,B4; 8 Kt-K2, PxP; 9 PxP,
Kt-B3; 10 B-K3, Q,-R4
eh White should not play 1 1 Q-Q2 because of 1 1 . . .Qx Qch ; 1 2 K x Q, 0-
0; for, Black then has a favourable endgame, since his Q-side pawn majority
can advance, while White's centre becomes a target for attack. The correct
move is 11 B-Q,2!, avoiding simplification.
(b) One Mobile Central Pawn

There are a number of opening formations in which one side has a mobile
central pawn (e.g. on K4 or Q4) while the other has an extra pawn on the
flank. Such a formation often arises in the Slav Defence, the Ragozin
Syste1n and the Catalan SysteDl, for example. In these formations the
struggle is closely analogous to that examined above in the case of a pawn
pair in the centre on K4 and Q4. Here again attention is focussed on the
centre. The side with the central pawn strives to organize an advance in the
centre, supported not only by his central pawn, but also by the pawns on
neighbouring files (usually the QBP or KBP) . The opponent attempts to
restrict the mobility of the central pawn. Here again simplification is generally
in favour of the player with out the central pawn, since he can then exploit his
wing majority.
One central pawn does not cramp the movements of the opponent's
pieces as severely as does the pawn pair (K4 and Q4) . But with the help of a
number of minor pieces the single central pawn can be very powerful. Take,
for example,
S T R U GGLE F O R CENTRE IN M O DERN O P ENING 1 45
the game Keres-Lipnitsky (Moscow, 1951). 1 P-Q4, Kt-KB3; 2 P-QB4, P-K3; 3

Kt-QB3, B-Kt5; 4 P-K3, P-Q4; 5 Kt-B3, Kt-B3; 6 B-Q3, 0-0; 7 0-0, P-KR3?; 8
P-KR3, PxP; 9 BxP, B-Q3; 10 P-K4, P-K4; 11 B-K3, P-R3; 12 R-K1, B-Q2; 13
Q-B2, R-K1; 14 P-R3, PxP; 15 KtxP, Kt-K4.
The pawn on K4 cramps Black's movements. White's pieces are placed

very harmoniously. Play continued 16 B-K.B1, Kt-Kt3; 17 QR-Q1, Q-K2; 18 P-
KKt3!
A far-sighted and correct decision. White sacrifices his central pawn in
order to exploit the superior position of his pieces in an open game. The
threat of B-Kt2 and P-B4, gaining space, forces Black to accept the sacrifice.
18• • •KtxP; 19 B-B1, P-KB4; 20 B-Kt2, Kt-K4; 21 KtxP, BxKt; 22 KtxKt, Kt-
B2; 23 Q-Kt3, QR-Kt1; 24 B-Q2, Q-K3; 25 QxQ, RxQ; 26 KtxB, PxKt; 27 B-
Q5, with a big advantage to White.
In this example the lack of co-ordination between Black's pieces and

pawns was very marked. His pawns played no active part, and hence his
pieces, deprived of support, were gradually driven back to passive positions.
However, in many variations of the Slav Defence and of the Ragozin

System. Black creates sufficient piece pressure on White's centre and obtains
an equal game. Sometimes, when White's pawn centre is not supported by
pieces, it becomes weak and collapses. A good example is the game
Bronstein-Evans (Moscow, 1955). 1 P-Q.4, Kt-KB3; 2 P-Q.B4, P-K3; 3 Kt-
KB3, P-Q.4; 4 Kt-B3, P-B3; 5 P-K3, Q.Kt-Q.2; 6 B-Q.3, B-Kt5; 7 P-QR3, B-R4;
8 Q.-B2, 0-0; 9 0-0, B-B2; 10 B-Q2, PxP!; 11 BxP, P-K4!; 12 B-R2, P-KR3; 13
QR-K1, R-K1; 14 PxP, KtxP; 15 KtxKt, RxKt; 16 P-B4?, B-B4; 17 P-K4.
Here Black demonstrated the weakness of White's centre, destroying it

with a series of energetic blows. 17...B-Kt3 eh; 18 K-R1, RxP!; 19 KtxR,
KtxKt; 20 RxKt (Forced because of the threats of20. . .Kt-B7 eh and 20. . .Kt-
Kt6 eh), B x R; 21 Q.x B, Q.x B. Black has won a pawn.
A Mobile Centre with a Central Pawn and a BP

This type of centre frequently arises, both for White and for Black. It is
particularly typical of many variations of the Queen's Gam.bit and the
Nim.zovitcb Defence to the
S T R U GGLE F O R CENTRE IN MODERN O PENING 1 47
Queen's Pawn. The centre with a central and a BP is more vulnerable than
the pawn pair on K4 and Q4, since it does not cramp the opponent's pieces so
successfully. But, if accompanied by active piece development, it too can be
both strong and 'mobile.
This type of centre arises for Black in many variations of the Tartakover
Defence to the Queen's Ga111bit. For instance, after 1 P-Q4, P-Q,4; 2 P-
Q,B4, P-K3; 3 Kt-Q,B3, Kt-KB3; 4 B-Kt5, B-K2; 5 P-K3, P-KR3; 6 B-R4, 0-0; 7
Kt-B3, P-Q,Kt3; 8 Q,-B2, B-Kt2; 9 PxP, KtxP; 10 BxB, Q,xB; 11 KtxKt, PxKt;
12 B-K2, P-Q,B4;
PxP; PxP; 14 0-0, Kt-Q,2 a position of dynamic balance is reached.
The succeeding play in the game Ragozin-Bondarevsky (Moscow, 1946)

was interesting.
15 P-Q,Kt4! (An interesting positional sacrifice. White's idea is to gain
control of Q4, which, together with an open file, could give him a dangerous
initiative, as, for example, after 15. . .P x P ; 16 Q-B 7, QR-Kt 1 ; 1 7 B-Kt5,
KR-Q1 ; 1 8 QR-Bl, K-B l ; 1 9 Kt-Q4, Kt-B3 ; 2 0 Q-R5 !) .
15 ...P-Q,5 (A counter blow, typical of such positions. Black unexpectedly
creates complications) ; 16 KPxP,
M.C.O.T.
1 48 MODERN CHESS O P ENING THE ORY
Q.R-K1; 17 Q.P xP (Forced ; if 17 QR-K 1 , then 17 . . .B x Kt, when 18 B x B

allows 18. . .Qx R), Q.xB; 18 Q.xQ.,RxQ.; 19 P-B6!, B x P; 20 Kt-Q.4, R-K3;
21 Kt x R, P x Kt. As a result of a forced line, an endgame has been reached
in which White has a Rook and pawn for two minor pieces. White has good
chances of a draw thanks to his Q-side pawn majority.
Q.R-B1, B-Q.4; 23 R-B7, Kt-K4; 24 P-Kt5, R-B5; 25 R-K1, Kt-Q.6; 26 R-
K3!, R-Q.Kt5 (26 . . .Kt x P is risky because of 27 R-KKt3, P-Kt4 ; 28 R-
QR3 !) ; 27 P-KR3, R-Kt8 eh; 28 K-R2, Kt x P; 29 R-R3!, and White has
retained enough counterplay to equalize the chances.
Very interesting, for example, is the following variation, pointed out by
Ragozin. 29...R-R8 eh; 30 K-Kt3, Kt-K5 eh; 31 K-B4, R-B8 eh; 32 K-K3, Kt-
Q.3; 33 R(R3) xP, KtxP; 34 RxP eh, K-B1; 35 R(R7)-Q.7, B-B3; 36 R(Q.7)-
K7, Kt-Q.3; 37 P-Kt4!, Kt-B2; 38 R(Kt7) xKt eh, RxR; 39 RxP, R-K2; 40 RxR,
KxR; 41 P-KR4!, with a draw, after the inevitable exchange of Black's last
pawn.
So far we have examined mobile central pawns with freedom of
movement. Another typical example arises after 1 P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 2 P-Q.B4,
PxP; 3 Kt-KB3, Kt-KB3;
Position
after
10 B-B2
S T R U GGLE F O R CENTRE IN M ODERN O P ENING 1 49
4 P-K3, P-K3; 5 BxP, P-B4; 6 0-0, P-Q.R3; 7 Q.-K2, P-Q.Kt4; 8 B-Kt3, B-Kt2;
9 P-Q.R4, P-B5; 10 B-B2.
In some opening systems, where one side has a pawn superiority in the
centre, these central pawns do not have freedom of movement. Such a
situation, for example, occurs in many variations of the Modern Benoni
Defence. 1 P-Q.4, Kt-KB3; 2 P-Q.B4, P-K3; 3 Kt-Q.B3, P-B4; 4 P-Q.5, PxP; 5
PxP, P-Q.3; 6 P-K4, P-KKt3; 7 Kt-B3, B-Kt2.
In these last two diagrammed positions, although in both cases White's

pawn majority in the centre is countered by Black's pawn majority on the Q
side, the further course of the struggle is quite different. In the first case
White's pawn centre is mobile; while in the second the position in the centre
has become more stabilized, and consequently Black has better counter-
chances on the Q side.
For the further development of events from the first example (diagram p.
148) the game Fine-Steiner (Holly· wood, 1945) is instructive. 10 ...Kt-B3; 11
PxP, PxP; 12 RxR, Q.xR; 13 Kt-B3, Q.-R4; 14 P-K4! (White's centre moves
into action very powerfully, while Black's Q-side pawns are nothing more than
a subsidiary target for White's
F2
1 50 MODERN CHESS O PENIN G THEORY
attack), Kt-Q.2; 15 P-Q.5, Kt-Q.1; 16 Kt-Q.4, P-Kt5; 17 Q.Kt-Kt5!, P-K4; 18

Q.xP! (With this piece sacrifice White opens up the centre and develops a
crushing attack on his opponent's King), PxKt; 19 Kt-B7 eh, K-K2; 20 P-K5,
KtxP; 21 R-K1, P-B3; 22 P-Q.6 eh, KxP; 23 Kt-Kt5
eh, and White forced home the win.
In the second case, when the pawns have no freedom of action (diagram p.
149) , the central struggle revolves round White's K5, the critical square.
Black's task is to prevent White's P-K5 at all costs. The complexity and the
rich range of possibilities in this system do not permit a detailed analysis here.
We will take just one example.
S:myslov-Ragozin (Training Tournament, 1953) con tinued 8 B-K2, 0-0; 9
0-0, P-Q.R3; 10 P-Q.R4, P-Kt3; 11 B-KB4, R-R2; 12 Kt-=Q.2, R-K2!; 13 B-B3,
Kt-K1; 14 Kt-B4, Q.-B2.
All these moves have been centred on the critical central squares. Black
has prepared to undermine White's centre and has strengthened his hold on
K4. He intends the manoeuvre
. . Kt-Q2-K4, neutralizing White's pressure in the centre. Seeing this, White
decides on the following thrust, which leads to interesting complications.
STRUGGLE F O R CENTRE I N M ODERN O PENING 15
1
15 P-K5!?, PxP; 16 P-Q.6, KtxP; 17 Kt-Q.5, KtxKt!

(A brilliant positional sacrifice ofthe Queen, refuting White's scheme. Black
seizes the initiative) ; 18 Kt x Q., R x Kt; 19 B-B1, B-K3; 20 Q.-B2, Kt-R4; 21
B-K3, Q.Kt-B3, and Black has the initiative over the whole board.
V. A Piece-Pawn Centre
A piece-pawn centre often arises out of various modern variations of the

Sicilian Defence, the King's Indian Defence, and the English and Reti
openings. This type of centre allows the pieces to be concentrated for a
subsequent wing attack.
The game Botvinni-Lilienthal.k (Moscow, 1936) may serve as an example.

1 Kt-KB3, Kt-KB3; 2 P-B4, P-Q.Kt3; 3 P-KKt3, B-Kt2; 4 B-Kt2, P-B4; 5 0-0, P-
KKt3; 6 P-Q.4, PxP; 7 KtxP, BxB; 8 KxB, B-Kt2; 9 Kt-Q.B3, 0-0?
stereotyped developing move. Correct was 9 . . . Q-B1 ! and if 1 0 P-Kt3 or

1 0 Q-Q3, then 1 0. . .Q-Kt2 eh followed by . . .P-Q4, neutralizing White's
central pressure.
10P-K4!, Kt-B3; 11 B-K3, Q.- B1 (Better is 1 1 . . .Kt-KKt5,
Position
after
15 . . . P-QR3
1 52 M O D E RN CHESS O PENING T H E O RY
attempting to simplify the position) ; 12 P-Kt3, Q.-Kt2; 13 P-B3, KR-Q.1; 14 R-

B1, Q.R-B1; 15 Q.-Q.2, P-Q.R3.
White, exploiting Black's passive and planless play, has set up a strong
piece-pawn centre. It is interesting to follow how White eliminates Black's
attempts to free himself with
. .P-QKt4 or . . .P-Q4 and gradually deprives him of all counterplay.
16 KR-Q.1, KtxKt (Not 1 6. . .P-QKt4 because of 1 7 P x P, Kt x Kt ; 1 8 P
x P, winning a pawn) ; 17 BxKt, P-Q.3 (lf here 1 7. . . P-QKt4, then 18 P x P,
P x P; 1 9 B x Kt, B xB ; 2 0 Kt-Q5 with the threat of P-K5, and Black is left at
best with a weak isolated QP. Therefore, he is forced to defend his KP, which
gives White time to prevent . . .P-QKt4 again) .
P-Q.R4!, Kt-K1; 19 Kt-Q.5, R-B3 (If 19. . . P-QKt4, then 20 BP x P, P x P ;
2 1 P-R5 !) ; 20 BxB, KtxB; 21 P-R4, R-Kl; 22 R-B3, Kt-R4; 23 Q.- Q.4.
Here the next instructive stage of the game begins. Having deprived his
opponent of counterplay in the centre, White
now transfers his attack to the K side. Seeing the uselessness of passive
defence, Black makes a desperate attempt to free himself by breaking out on
the Q side, but this only hastens the end.
...P-Q.Kt4?; 24 BPxP, PxP; 25 KR-Q.B1!, RxR; 26 R x R, P x P (Black
cannot prevent White's Rook from invading the seventh rank) ; 27 R-B7, Q.-
Kt4; 28 PxP, Q.-K7 eh; 29 Q.-B2, Q.x Q. eh; 30 K x Q., and White easily won
the endgame.
In recent years the significance of the piece-pawn centre has been
modified. It has been shown that good counterplay can be obtained by co-
ordinated piece pressure against such a centre. This type of position is rich in
chances for both sides.
It is clear from the previous xample that the slightest
S T RUGGLE F O R CENTRE IN M O DERN O PENIN G 1 53
hesitation in taking active measures may lead to the loss of chances of finding
counterplay. This next example, however, shows the reverse situation, i.e. of
successful co-ordinated piece pressure against a piece-pawn centre. (This
arises very frequently in the King's Indian Defence.)
This position was reached after White's 1 7th move in the game Zita-
Bronstein (Prague, 1946). With a series of energetic and beautiful moves
Black completely destroys the White piece-pawn centre. Play continued 17• •
•RxB!; 18 RxR, KtxBP!; 19 R-K3, KtxP eh; 20K-R2, Kt-B7!;
R-B3, Kt(B4) xKP; 22 Q.-B4, Kt-Kt5 eh; 23 K-R1, P-KB4!, and Black has a
won game. This example shows how careful White must be to contain Black's
counterplay in this type of opening system.
Another method of dealing with a piece-pawn centre is to undermine its
supports by means of a pawn advance. This plan is typical in many structures
arising out of the English Open ing and the Sicilian Defence. In the game
Keres-SIIlyslov (Leningrad, 1947) Black lost a valuable tempo in setting up his
centre.
1 P-Q.B4, Kt-KB3; 2 Kt-Q.B3, P-B4; 3 P-KKt3, P-Q.4;
1 54 M O DERN C HESS O PENING T H EORY
4 PxP, KtxP; 5 B-Kt2, P-K3; 6 Kt-B3, Kt-Q.B3; 7 0-0, B-K2; 8 P-Kt3, Kt-B2?; 9
B-Kt2, P-K4?; 10 R-B1, P-B3.
Here, taking advantage ofhis superior development, White initiates a fine

plan to undermine Black's central pawn structure. 11 Kt-K4!, P-Q.Kt3 ( 1
1 . . .Kt-K3 is better) ; 12 Kt-R4,B-Q.2 (If 1 2. . .B-Kt2, then 13 P-QKt4 !) ;
13P-K3!, 0-0; 14 P-Q.4!, KPxP; 15 PxP, R-B1; 16 PxP, P Q.Kt4; 17 Kt-Q.B3,
P-B4; 18 R-B2!, B xKt; 19 R-Q.2, R-B2; 20 PxB, with a won position for White.
Besides this central undermining thrust, similar man oeuvres may be
initiated on the wings by P-KB4 or P-QKt4.
Position
after
10 . . . P-B3
S T R U GGLE F O R CENTRE IN M O DERN O PENIN G 1 55
Take, for example, the game Kotov-Furm.an (Moscow, 1949). 1 P-Q,B4, Kt-
KB3; 2 Kt-Q,B3, P-B4; 3 P-KKt3, P-Q,4; 4 PxP, KtxP; 5 B-Kt2, Kt-Kt5; 6 Kt-
B3, Q,Kt B3; 7 0-0, P-K4; 8 P-Q,3, B-K2; 9 Kt-Q,2, Kt-Q,5; 10 Kt-B4, P-B3.
Exploiting his superior development, White obtained the advantage in the

centre by 11 P-B4! Play went on 11...P xP;
PxP, 0-0; 13 P-Q,R3, Kt(Kt5)-B3; 14 P-K3, Kt-B4;
B-Q,5 eh!, K-R1; 16 P-K4, Kt(B4)-Q,5; 17 P-B5!, and White successfully
launched an attack against the black King.
VI. Pawn Weaknesses in the Centre for the Sake of Good Piece Play
A whole complex of present-day opening problems centres around the
question of allowing weaknesses in the central pawn
structure in the interest of obtaining better co-ordination of
the pieces. ,.
(a) The Isolated Central Pawn

The problem of allowing an isolated central pawn (most frequently on Q4)
for the sake of free piece play is an old one.
The significance of a strong unisolated central pawn has already been
examined (see p. 144) . Such a pawn furthers the conquest of space and,
consequently, increases the mobi lity of the pieces ; it is also a base for the
establishment of foreposts in the centre.
An isolated central pawn is both a strength and a weakness : it helps the
player to gain space, but is a lasting weak ness in the position. Hence,
systems leading to the formation of an isolated central pawn often result in
positions of dynamic balance.
1 56 MODERN CHESS O PENING T HE ORY
White allows the formation of an isolated central pawn in his position more
often than Black ; in many systems it is the only plan which enables him to
retain the initiative.
The isolated central pawn is a characteristic feature of various systems in
the Queen's Gambit (Accepted and Declined), the Nimzovitch Defence to the
Queen's Pawn, the Caro-Kann Defence, etc. In this type of posi tion White
exploits his isolated pawn to support pieces (usually a Knight) and strives to
work up an attack on the wing ; or he may try to open up the centre by
advancing his isolated pawn.
Black's task is to blunt White's initiative. Hence it is often good, for

example, to simplify the position. Black must attempt to blockade the isolated
pawn, and his counterplay is closely tied to organizing pressure on the
weaknesses in White's position in the centre. With many pieces on the board
White's initiative, supported by superior space, can be very dangerous.
The following variation of the Queen's Gambit leads to a typical position
with an isolated white central pawn. 1 P-Q4, P-Q4; 2 P-QB4, P-K3; 3 Kt-QB3,
Kt-KB3; 4 Kt-B3 B-K2; 5 B-Kt5, 0-0; 6 P-K3, QKt-Q2; 7 B-Q3, P-B4!; 8 0-0,
BPxP; 9 KPxP, PxP; 10 BxP, Kt-Kt3; 11 B-Kt3, B-Q2; 12 Q-Q3.
In the game Botvinnik-Vidntar (Nottingham, 1936)

the continuation from this position was instructive ; it ran
12...QKt-Q4 (Correct was 1 2. . .KKt-Q4, aiming at
exchanges, e.g. 1 3 B-B2, P-Kt3 or 1 3 B-K3, Kt x Kt; 14
P x Kt, B-QR5 ! or 13 Kt-K4, B-QR5 !) ; 13 Kt-K5,
B-B3; 14 QR-Q1, Kt-QKt5; 15 Q-R3, B-Q.4; 16 KtxB,
Q.Kt x Kt (Better was 16. . .KKt x Kt ! ; 1 7 P-B4 (or 17
B-B 1 , R-B 1 ) , P-B4, with a defendable position) .
S T R U G G L E FOR CENTRE IN M O D ERN O P ENING 1 57
Position
after
Q-Q3
17 P-B4! (White starts a decisive K-side attack. He threatens 18 P-B5. On

17. . .Kt-K5 there follows 18 Kt x P!, R x Kt ; 19 Qx P !, and if 18 . . .K x Kt,
then 19 QR-K1 !), R-B1; 18 P-B5, PxP; 19 RxP, Q-Q3; 20 KtxP!, with a
decisive attack.
good example of counter-measures against White's initiative in this type of

position is provided by the game
Botvinni.k-Flohr (Groningen, 1946). 1 P-Q4, P-Q4; 2 P-QB4, P-K3; 3 Kt-KB3,
Kt-KB3; 4 Kt-B3, P-B4; 5
BPxP, KtxP; 6 P-K3, Kt-QB3; 7 B-Q3, PxP; 8 PxP, B-K2; 9 0-0, 0-0; 10 R-K1,
QKt-Kt5; 11 B-K4, Kt KB3; 12 B-Kt1, P-QKt3; 13 Kt-K5, B-Kt2; 14 R-K3, QKt-
Q4; 15 R-R3, P-Kt3; 16 B-R6, R-K1; 17 Q-Q2 .
.i- -. -
-.. ..- Jt-t
f..x •- t : t ......J
r=
-- - -
-H--
- • L-";• •
• - ••
.!.!..fE!.!.!..
;tj, -· -•
1 58 M O DERN CHESS O PENIN G T H E ORY
30 BP x R, Q.xQ.P
di:fficulty.
Play now continued 17...R-Q.B1; 18 B-Q.3, P-Q.R3; 19 R-K1, P-Q.Kt4

(Black defends convincingly. To counter White's threats on the K side he
attacks White's QB3 and
Q4) ; 20 R-Kt3 (Threatening 2 1 B x KKtP !, RP x B ; 22
R x P eh, P x R ; 23 Q-Kt5), Kt-R4; 21 R-R3 (Not 21
B x KKtP ?, RP x B ; 2 2 R x P eh, P x R ; 2 3 Q-B2, QKt-B5, and Black is
now attacking), KKt-B3; 22 B-Kt1, R-B2; 23 R-Kt3, Kt-R4; 24 R-R3, KKt-B3;
25 Q.-K2, KtxKt; 26 PxKt, P-Kt5; 27 R-Kt3, RxP; 28 KtxBP!, Q.-Q.4 ! Here
White blundered with 29 Kt-K5? and after 29 ...R x R; eh lost a pawn and
drew only with great
A worthy end to this game, in which attack and defence were equally
matched, would have been 29 R-Kt5, Q-B5 ; 3 0 B x P !, P x B ; 3 1 R x P ch, -
K x Kt ; 32 R-Kt7 eh, K-Bl ; 33 R-Kt3 eh, with perpetual check.
If White plays passively, Black can easily seize the initia tive and carry out
his active plans in the centre. The game Furm.an-Keres (Moscow, 1957) is
instructive. 1 P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 2 P-Q.B4, PxP; 3 Kt-KB3, Kt-KB3; 4 P-K3,
P-B4· 5 BxP P-K3· 6 0-0 P-OR3· 7 O-K2 P-OKt4·
' ' ' ' X; ' ' 'X.; '
8 B-Q.3 (Much stronger here is 8 B-Kt3, leaving the Bishop on the attacking
diagonal QR2-KKt8), PxP; 9 PxP, B-Kt2; 10 P-Q.R4, PxP!; 11 B-KKt5, B-K2;
12 Kt-B3, 0-0; 13 KtxP, Kt-B3; 14 KR-Q.1 (White starts defending much too
early. Better is 14 QR-Ql , leaving the KR to go to KI, so as to attack on the K
side) , Kt-Q.Kt5; 15 B-Kt1, Kt-Q.2!; 16 B-B4, Kt-Q.4; 17 B-Kt3, P-Kt3; 18 Kt-
B3, Q.-Kt3; 19 Kt-K4, Q.Kt-B3 (With his last moves Black has strengthened
his K-side defences and now starts to advance on the Q side and in the
centre) ; 20 Kt-B3, KR-B1; 21 B-R2, B-Kt5; 22 Q.-Q.3, P-Q.R4!; 23 Q.R-Kt1,
P-R5!, etc.
S T RU G G L E F O R CENTRE IN MODERN OPENING 1 59
The game develops rather differently if Black allows an isolated central

pawn. This occurs in the Tarrasch Varia tion of the French Defence, the
Tarrasch Defence to the Queen's Gam.bit and in the Sicilian Defence.
In exchange for the isolated pawn Black obtains neither a strong initiative
nor the sort of chances which White has in the formations examined above.
Whereas White's pieces, in the early stages at least, are not cramped by the
need to defend the isolated pawn, Black must often concentrate immediately
on this task. When he goes in for an isolated pawn Black is motivated usually
by the need to develop his pieces.
Another characteristic feature is the greater difficulty Black has in avoiding
simplifying exchanges. Often he is forced to go over to passive defence,
allowing White to blockade the central squares. In this case the basic draw
back of the isolated pawn is revealed-the weakness of the square in front of it,
which comes completely under White's control. A good illustration of how
Black may be gradually stifled by a blockade is the game Botvinni.k-
Boleslavsky (Moscow, 1941) which contributed much towards the theory of a
whole system in the French Defence. 1 P-K4,.
Position
after
B-K3
1 60 MODERN CHESS OP ENIN G T H E ORY
P-K3; 2 P-Q4, P-Q4; 3 Kt-Q2, P-QB4; 4 KP x P"
KP x P; 5 B-Kt5 eh, Kt-B3; 6 KKt-B3, B-Q3; 7 0-0,
Kt-K2; 8 PxP, BxP; 9 Kt-Kt3, B-Kt3; 10 B-K3!
A typical manoeuvre. White exchanges off the black squared Bishops and
gains control of his Q4 and QB5. The isolated white KP cannot be exploited
by Black.
10 ...BxB; 11 BxKt eh!
Again very instructive. At first glance White appears to ease Black's task
by forcing him to overcome his isolated pawn, but in fact White tightens his
grip on the central squares.
1l. ..PxB (If l l . . .Kt x B, then 1 2 R-Kl !) ; 12 PxB,
0-0; 13 Q-Q2, Q-Kt3; 14 Q-B3, R-Kt1; 15 QR-Kt1!, R-K1; 16 KR-K1, Kt-Kt3;
17 Kt-B5, B-Kt5; 18 Kt-Q4, Kt-K4; 19 P-Kt4, and White has a clear advantage
in the centre.
Black must aim for active piece play at all costs, exploiting the isolated
central pawn to support foreposts. In this case, which is met very frequently,
both sides strive to improve the position of their pieces in the centre, and the
game becomes very tense. In this type of struggle Black has good counter
chances.
The following variation of the French Defence is in-
Position
after
. . . R-Kl
S T R U GGLE F O R CENTRE IN M ODERN O PENING 16
1
structive. 1 P-K4, P-K3; 2 P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 3 Kt-Q.2, P Q.B4; 4 KPxP, KPxP; 5

B-Kt5 eh, B-Q.2; 6 Q.-K2 eh,
B-K2 (The simplification after 6 . . .Q-K2 ; 7 B x B eh,
Kt x B ; 8 PxP, Kt x P ; 9 Kt-Kt3 ! is in White's favour) ;
7 p X p' Kt-KB3; 8 KKt-B3, 0-0; 9 0-0, R-Kl.
The game Botvinnik-Bronstein (World Champion ship Match, Moscow,
1951) continued 10 Kt-Kt3, BxP; 11 Q.-Q.3, P-Q.R3; 12 BxB, Q.KtxB; 13 B-
Kt5, B-B1; 14 Q.R-Q.1, Q.-B2; 15 P-B3, P-R3; 16 B-R4, R-K5!,
with a fully viable game for Black.
A Backward Pawn in the Centre

Opening vadations which give rise to a backward pawn in the centre were
for a long time considered unsatisfactory and rejected on general grounds. As
a rule the backward pawn stands on the third rank, i.e. far back in the
position, and its disadvantages may prove more serious than those of the
isolated pawn. A typical case is the following example, taken from the
middlegame of Smyslov-Rudakovsky (Moscow, 1945).
White seized control of Q5 and settled a Knight there in the

following manner. 15 B-Kt5!, KR-K1; 16 B x Kt,
1 62 MODERN C H ESS O PENING THEORY
B xB; 17 Kt-Q.5, B-Q.1; 18 P-B3, P-Q.Kt4; 19 P-Q.Kt3, Q.-B4 eh; 20 K-R1,

Q.R-B1. Now followed a decisive attack on the K side. 21 R-B3, K-R1; 22 P-
B6!, etc.
The reason for Black's quick loss in this case was that he had nothing with
which to counter White's seizure of Q5. In 1 942-4 the Soviet grandmaster
Boleslavsky, proceeding from concrete considerations, suggested a new
system of defence for Black (similar systems are very rare for White) in the
Sicilian Defence: 1 P-K4, P-Q.B4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-QB3; 3 P-Q.4, PxP; 4 KtxP,
Kt-B3; 5 Kt-Q.B3, P-Q.3; 6 B-K2, P-K4!.
Black's pawn structure is analogous with that in the previous example.

Black's Q4 is just as weak and the QP is backward. In the first example these
were real, undefendable weaknesses, but here Black is able to turn the
'weakness' to his advantage. In the Boleslavsky Variation Black develops his
pieces to active positions, controls the critical squares in the centre, and has
no disadvantage in space. A lively piece struggle begins, which does not
simply centre on White's attempts to exploit Black's weaknesses in the centre
(pro vided, of course, that Black makes no serious mistakes) .
The following example shows a typical course of events in
STRUGGLE F O R C E NTRE I N MODERN OPENING 1 63
the Boleslavsky Variation. 1 P-K4, P-QB4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-QB3; 3 P-Q4, p X p; 4

Kt X p' Kt-B3; 5 Kt-QB3, P-Q3; 6 B-K2, P-K4; 7 Kt-Kt3, B-K2; 8 0-0, 0-0; 9 P-
B4, P-QR4!
Black starts a bold advance on the Q side, striving to develop active

counterplay.
Now, after either 10 P-Q.R4, Kt-Q.Kt5! or 10 B-K3, P-R5; 11 Kt-Q2, P-R6!;

12 P-Q.Kt3, Kt-Q5 Black obtains excellent counterplay in the centre and on
the Q side.
In these variations an important part is played by the co-ordinated black

pieces, which become extremely active. White achieves nothing by moving
his Knight to Q5, as after its exchange the pawn position is closed and Black
obtains good play on the black squares.
The game Pilnik-Petrosian (Buenos Aires, 1954) went 1 P-K4, P-QB4; 2
Kt-KB3, Kt-QB3; 3 P-Q4, P xP; 4 KtxP, Kt-B3; 5 Kt-QB3, P-Q3; 6 B-K2, P-K4;
Kt-Kt3, B-K2; 8 0-0, 0-0; 9 B-K3, B-K3; 10
B-B3, P-QR4; 11 Kt-Q5, BxKt; 12 PxB, Kt-Kt1; 13 P-Q.R4, Q.Kt-Q.2; 14 B-K2,
Kt-Kt3!
164 M OD E RN C HESS O PENING THE ORY
Black provokes P-QB4 in order later to strengthen the position of his

Knight on QB4. Without this White would be able eventually to play P-QB3
followed by P-QKt4.
15 P-Q.B4, Q.Kt-Q.2; 10 Kt-Q.2, Kt-K1; 17 K-R1, B-Kt4! (This exchange is
to Black's advantage, since it facilitates the occupation of the important points
QB4, QKt5 and Q5) ; 18 BxB, Q.xB; 19 R-R3, Q.-K2, etc. Black dominates the
black squares.
The Boleslavsky Variation is at the moment one of the most effective and
popular systems in the Sicilian Defence.
This idea of Boleslavsky's has also helped to modernize other opening
systems. First note the similar system 1 P-K4, P-Q.B4; 2 Kt-KB3, P-Q.3; 3 P-
Q.4, PxP; 4 KtxP, Kt-KB3; 5 Kt-Q.B3, P-Q.R3; 6 B-K2, P-K4! In this system
Black temporarily delays the development of his Queen's Knight, intending to
play it to Q2, from where it can quickly exert pressure on the critical Q4
square.
In these systems the main struggle is centred on that critical square (i.e.
White's Q5) . Depending on circumstances, Black can not only control his Q4,
but even allow White's pieces to occupy it temporarily, provided he obtains
some compensation. A typical example is given by the game
S T R U GGLE F O R CENTRE I N MODERN O PENING 1 65
Reicher-Boleslavsky (Bucharest, I953). I P-K4, P QB4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-QB3; 3

P-Q4, p X p; 4 Kt X p' Kt-B3; 5 Kt-QB3, P-Q3; 6 B-K2, P-K4; 7 Kt-Kt3, B-K2; 8
B-KKt5.
Here, avoiding the exchanges which would follow from 8 . . . Kt x P, Black

played 8 . .. 0-0, allowing White tem porarily to occupy his Q5. Play continued
9 B x Kt, B x B; IO Kt-Q5, B-Kt4! (Preserving this important Bishop, Black
intends to exert pressure on the black squares) ; II B-B4, B-K3; I2 P-KR4, B-
R3; I3 P-Kt4?, B-B5! and, in spite of White's temporary occupation of Q5,
Black has the better chances, since his pieces are well co-ordinated. In this
position White's occupation of Q5 has no real strength.
On the other hand, after completing his development, Black can in many
cases take advantage of his extra central pawn to play . . .P-Q4. This is
particularly strong if White plays P-KB5 and P-KKt4, commencing a K-side
attack. Then the counter-thrust in the centre, often with a pawn sacrifice, may
completely turn the tables.
Take, for example, the game Kondratiev-Moiseev (Leningrad, I952). I P-
K4, P-QB4; 2 Kt-KB3, P-Q3; 3 P-Q4, PxP; 4 KtxP, Kt-KB3; 5 Kt-QB3, P-QR3;
6
1 66 MODERN CHESS OPENING THE ORY
B-K2, P-K4; 7 Kt-Kt3, B-K2; 8 0-0, 0-0; 9 P-B4, Q.Kt-Q.2; 10 P-Q.R4, Q.-B2.
Here White began a K-side attack with 11 P-B5, P-Q.Kt3; 12 B-B3, B-Kt2; 13
Q.-K2, KR-K1; 14 K-R1, Q.R-B1; 15 P-Kt4?!, P-R3; 16 B-K3.
Black now countered energetically in the centre with

16 ...P-Q.4!; 17 PxP, P-K5!, which allowed him to seize the initiative and work
up a powerful counter-attack.
Black must not treat this thrust . . .P-Q4 in a stereotyped manner : a
premature opening of the centre may be in White's favour, since he usually
has some advantage in space.
Black's first task is to seize a steady initiative on the Queen's wing, forcing
White's pieces into defensive positions, as, for example, in the game
Unzicker-Taimanov (Inter zonal Tournament, Stockholm, 1952). 1 P-K4, P-
Q.B4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 P-Q.4, PxP; 4 KtxP, Kt-B3; 5 Kt-Q.B3, P-Q.3; 6 B-
K2, P-K4; 7 Kt-B3, P-KR3; 8 0-0, B-K2; 9 R-K1, 0-0; 10 P-KR3?, P-R3; 11 B-
B1, P-Q.Kt4; 12 P-R3, B-Kt2; 13 P-Q.Kt3, R-B1; 14 B-Kt2, R-B2; 15 Kt-Ktl,
Q.-R1!
White has played the opening passively and allowed Black to seize the
initiative. Before opening the game in the centre,
STRUGGLE F O R CENTRE I N M ODERN O PENING 167
Black increases his pressure against White's K4 and the Q side to the
maximum. White has nothing with which to oppose this plan.
16 Q.Kt-Q.2, Kt-Q.1; 17 B-Q.3, Kt-K3; 18 R-Q.B1, KR-B1; 19 Kt-R2, Kt-
Q.2; 20 KKt-B1, Kt(Q.2)-B4; 21 Kt-Kt3, P-Kt3; 22 Kt-K2, B-Kt4; 23 Kt-Q.B3,
Kt-Q.5; 24 Kt(B3)-Kt1, P-Q.4!, and Black breaks open the centre very
forcefully.
Of course, the question of allowing a backward QP in the opening must

always be approached concretely. The criterion is whether Black can post his
pieces actively and prevent White from effectively occupying his Q5.
In the variations just examined White played the some what passive
developing move 6 B-K2, which contributed to the effectiveness of
Black's . . .P-K4. If, instead of 6 B-K2,
White plays 6 B-KKt5 or 6 B-Q.B4, Black's 6 ...P-K4 is dubious because of 7

Kt-B5!, which either provokes the exchange of Black's important Queen's
Bishop or allows White to transfer the Knight to K3, giving him a strong grip
on the centre. (Compare the position of the Knight on KB5 with that on QKt3.)
On the other hand, after 6 B-K2, P-K4 the move 7 Kt-B5 has no effect
because of 7 ...B xKt; 8 P xB, P-Q4!, and Black has quickly solved his
opening problems.
Apart from these variations of the Sicilian Defence, a backward pawn in
the centre arises in many systems of the King's Indian and Ni:mzovitch
defences, the English Opening, etc.
An interesting example is the game Khol:mov-Korchnoi (Wilna, 1953). 1 P-
Q4, Kt-KB3; 2 P-QB4, P-B4; 3 P-Q5, P-Q3; 4 Kt-QB3, P-KKt3; 5 P-K4, B-Kt2;
6 B-Q3, 0-0; 7 KKt-K2, QKt-Q2; 8 0-0 (Better is 8 P-B4, preventing the
exchange of the King's Bishop),
Kt-K4; 9 Kt-Kt3, KtxB; 10 QxKt, P-QR3; 11 B-Q2, P-K3! (A well-timed thrust in
the centre ; Black permits the formation of a backward central pawn in
exchange for good piece play) ; 12 P x P, B x P; 13 QR-Q1, Kt-Kt5!
Black has seized the initiative and begins an energetic advance on the
Queen's wing. The weakness of the backward
QP has no real significance. 14 P-QKt3, Kt-K4; 15 Q-B2, Kt-B3; 16 KKt-K2,
P-QKt4!; 17 PxP, Kt-Kt5; 18 Q-Kt1, P x P; 19 B-B4, Q-R4! (This sacrifice of
the QP
STRUGGLE F O R CENTRE IN MODERN O PENIN G 1 69
furthers Black's active plans) ; 20 BxP, KR-B1; 21 R-Q.2, Kt-B3; 22 R-B1, Kt-
Q.5!, and Black has a clear superiority.
Recent years have seen the development of a number of opening
variations in which White allows a backward pawn in the centre. For example
in the game Geller-Fiohr (Kiev, 1954), after 1 P-Q.B4, P-K4; 2 Kt-Q.B3, Kt-
KB3; 3 P-KKt3, P-Q.4; 4 PxP, KtxP; 5 B-Kt2, Kt-Kt3; 6 Kt-B3, Kt-B3; 7 0-0, B-
K2; 8 P-Q.R4, P-Q.R4; 9 P-Q.3, B-K3; 10 Kt-Q.Kt5, 0-0, White played 11 P-
K4!
Taking advantage of his extra tempo (the position is a Dragon Variation of

the Sicilian Defence with colours reversed) White decides on an active
advance in the centre, allowing a temporarily backward QP. He counts on
being able later to play P-Q4, which will guarantee him superiority in the
centre. The struggle revolves round the central squares.
11 ...B-B3; 12 B-K3, Kt-Kt5; 13 B-B5, R-K1; 14 R-R3, Kt-Q.2; 15 B-K3, Kt-

B1; 16 P-Q.4!, B-B5; 17 R-K1, PxP; 18 BxP, BxB; 19 Q.Kt xB, P-Q.B4; 20 R-
B3!, and White has successfully carried out his plan for active play in the
centre.
1 70 M O D E RN CHESS O PENING THEORY
(c) Doubled Pawns in the Centre

Doubled pawns, especially when also isolated, are a serious positional
weakness. Nevertheless, in a number of modern opening systems the player
allows doubled pawns to be created in the centre or on the wing. It is known
-that a concentration of pawns often facilitates the setting-up of a pawn
centre ; sometimes doubled pawns help the pieces to capture important
central squares.
A typical case is the use of doubled pawns to control important central
squares. One of the pawns supports the capture of a critical square, while the
other defends the corresponding square in the player's own camp. In this
case the most important consideration is not pawns but squares.
Many examples of this 9pening strategy can be found in Botvinnik's
games. Instructive is his game with Kan (Moscow, 1939). 1 P-Q.4, Kt-KB3; 2
P-Q.B4, P-K3; 3 Kt-Q.B3, B-Kt5; 4 Kt-B3, P-B4; 5 P-Q.R3, B x Kt eh; 6 PxB,
Q.-R4; 7 B-Q.2, Kt-K5; 8 Q.-B2, KtxB; 9 KtxKt, P-Q.3; 10 P-K3, P-K4; 11
PxKP, PxP.
The central formation is noteworthy. Botvinnik wrote : 'At first glance White
appears to have the inferior pawn structure
STRUGGLE F O R CENTRE IN M OD E RN OPENING 171
and, consequently, Black should have nothing to fear. This would be so if all
the pieces were removed from the board. As it is, many still remain and the
weakness of Black's Q4 is more significant than White's doubled QBP's. More
than that, the doubled pawns are advantageous to White. The point is that in
order to control his Q5 firmly White will have to play P-K4, when the pawn on
QB3 will protect Q4 against an invasion by Black's pieces.'
Play went on 12 B-Q.3, P-KR3; 13 0-0, 0-0; 14 P-B4! An instructive move.
White accurately calculates the concrete possibilities of the position. The
natural plan of moving the Knight to Q5 by 1 4 P-K4, Kt-B3 ; 15 KR-Ql , B-K3 ;
1 6 Kt-Bl , QR-Ql ; 1 7 Kt-K3, Kt-K2 would bring no advantage. As soon as
White plays Kt-Q5, Black replies . . .B x Kt ! and transfers his Knight to Q3,
after which
Black may even stand better.
14...Kt-Q.2 (After 14 . . .P x P ; 1 5 P x P the game is opened up to the
advantage of White, who is better developed) ;
P-B5, Kt-B3? (Better is 15. . .P-B3) ; 16 Kt-K4! (Another instructive move. It is
essential to exchange off the Knights since in this position the mobility of
White's Bishop is thereby greatly increased) .
Position
after
23 P-B4
1 72 MODERN C HESS O PENING THE ORY
16...Q-Ql; 17 KtxKt eh, QxKt; 18 B-K4, R-Ktl;

19 QR-QI, P-QKt3; 20 P-R3, B-R3; 21 B-Q5, P-QKt4;
22 PxP, BxP; 23 P-B4, with a clear advantage to White.
VII. . The Problem of Weak Squares in the Opening
An important requisite for a well co-ordinated position is a stable piece lay-

out. This can only be achieved if a player has firm control over the weak
squares in his position.
Weak squares are often created in the op ning. We have already
examined examples of positions with pawn weak nesses in the centre
(backward or isolated pawns, for instance) and have seen that control of
these squares gives a positional advantage. Consequently, this question of
weak squares must be borne in mind from the opening moves onwards.
Indeed, in some modern openings play centres on the attempt of one side
first to create and then to exploit a complex of weak squares of the same
colour in his opponent's position. This is the case in many systems of the
French, Caro-Kann, Slav, and Nimzovitch defences.
A complex of weak squares normally arises in connection with a pawn
chain.
The minor pieces may help or hinder the exploitation of weak squares.
Here Bishops are particularly important. A Bishop moving along squares of
the same colour as the complex of weak squares can defend the position ;
without the Bishop the complex would be a real weakness.
Compare the following two variations of the French Defence: (a) I P-K4, P-
K3; 2 P-Q4, P-Q4; 3 Kt-QB3, Kt-KB3; 4 B-Kt5, B-K2; 5 P-K5, KKt-Q2; 6 B x
B, Qx B; 7 P-B4;
STRUGGLE F O R CENTRE IN MODERN O P ENING 1 73
and (b) 1 P-K4, P-K3; 2 P-Q4, P-Q4; 3 Kt-QB3, Kt KB3; 4 B-Kt5, B-K2; 5
BxKt?, BxB; 6 P-K5, B-K2.
The first is considered advantageous for White, the second favourable for
Black, even though the pawn chains are analogous. The difference is that in
the first example Black has lost his important black-squared Bishop, while in
the second this Bishop covers the somewhat weak black squares in his
position.
Hence, in order to exploit a weak complex of squares of the
same colour, which often arises when a pawn chain is formed, it is
essential to exchange off the Bishop which covers those squares.
174 M ODERN CHESS OPENING T H EO RY
Many plans based on this idea are found in the Ragozin Systen1; for
example, 1 P-Q.4, Kt-KB3; 2 P-Q.B4, P-K3·; 3 Kt-Q.B3, B-Kt5; 4 Q.-B2, P-
Q.4; 5 P-Q.R3, B x Kt eh;
Q.x B, Kt-B3; 7 Kt-B3, 0-0; 8 P-K3, B-Q.2; 9 P-Q.Kt3, P-Q.R4!
Black hopes to provoke a weakness in the white squares of his opponent's
position. 10 B-Q.3? (Better 10 B-Kt2) , P-R5; 11 P-Q.Kt4, PxP; 12 BxP, Kt-R2
!
Having weakened the white squares, Black plays for the exchange of the
white-squared Bishops, which leads to a real weakening of the complex of
white squares. 13 0-0, B-Kt4!, etc. In this way Black paralyses White's King's
Bishop and forces its exchange.
Effective play against a weak complex of squares may at times even be
worth one or two pawns. This idea has led to the appearance of several new
gambit systems ; for example, 1 P-K4, P-K3; 2 P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 3 Kt-Q.B3, B-
Kt5; 4 P-K5, P-Q.B4; 5 P-Q.R3, PxP; 6 PxB, PxKt; 7 Kt-B3!, PxP, BxP;
and 1 P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 2 P-Q.B4, P-Q.B3; 3 Kt-Q.B3, P-K3; 4 P-K4, PxKP; 5

KtxP, B-Kt5 eh; 6 B-Q.2!, Q.xP; 7 B x B, Q.x Kt eh; 8 B-K2, etc.
STRUGGLE F O R CENTRE IN M ODERN OPENIN G 1 75
In both these cases the black squares in Black's position (Black having
lost his King's Bishop) are very weak. This, together with his better
development guarantees White more than full compensation for his slight
material inferiority. White will be able to exert very energetic piece pressure
on his opponent's position.
These examples show that positional factors may often be more important
than material considerations. Generally, control of squares of one colour
leads to a restriction of the opponent's game on squares of the other colour
also. His whole game is gradually 'stifled'.
An example of this is the game Benko-Averbakh (Moscow, 1949). 1 P-Q.4,
Kt-KB3; 2 P-Q.B4, P-K3; 3 Kt-Q.B3, B-Kt5; 4 P-K3, 0-0; 5 P-Q.R3, BxKt eh;
PxB, P-Q.3; 7 B-Q.3, P-K4!; 8 Kt-K2, P-K5; 9 B-B2, B-K3!; 10 Kt-Kt3, BxP; 11
KtxP, KtxKt; 12 BxKt, P-Q.B3; 13 P-KR4?
White starts premature action on the K side before completing his

development. In reply Black carries through a plan of seizing control of a
complex of white squares.
13...Kt-Q.2; 14 P-B3, Q.-R4; 15 B-Q.2, Q.R-K1; 16 K-B2, RxB!
1 76 MODERN CHESS O PENIN G THE ORY
This exchange sacrifice reveals a deep understanding of the position ;

thereby Black deprives his opponent's pieces of all mobility (note, for
instance, the white Queen's Bishop) .
17 PxR, Kt-B3; 18 B-K1, KtxP eh.
K-Kt1, R-K1; 20 R-R3, P-R4; 21 R-B3, Q-R3; 22 R-B4, B-K7; 23 Q-B2, P-

Q4; 24 R-R2, B-B5; 25 R-R1, P-Q.Kt3, etc., with a clear advantage to Black.
From these examples it is clear that play based on a weak complex can be
very dangerous, unless it is immediately blunted or some compensation
found elsewhere.
In modern openings which give rise to a weak complex, active
counterplay, preventing the opponent from exploiting the weakness, is the
order of the day. Take, for instance, one of the important modern systems in
the French Defence: 1 P-K4, P-K3; 2 P-Q4, P-Q4; 3 Kt-QB3, B-Kt5; 4 P-K5,
P-QB4; 5 P-QR3, BxKt eh; 6 PxB, Kt-K2; 7 P-QR4, Q-R4; 8 B-Q2, P-B5. This
system leads to a complicated game with approximately equal chances for
both sides.
'Vhite attempts to organize play against the weak black squares in his
opponent's position and to exploit his superi-
S TR U G G LE F O R CENTRE IN MODERN O P E NIN G 1 77
ority in space on the K side ; Black seeks active counterplay in attempting to

exploit White's weak Q-side pawns and the poor communications between
his two flanks. There is usually a tense struggle for the initiative (refer, for
example, to the game Smyslov-Botvinnik, p. 120) . For the moment Black
cannot exploit the weak white squares in his opponent's position, since White
still has his King's Bishop. Also Black's white-squared Bishop is very passive
and will not be able to take an active part in the game for some time.
Consequently, the weakness of White's white squares is not an important
positional factor for the time being.
The modern approach to the creation of weak squares in the opening is
based on a concrete approach to the indivi dual features of the position.
In recent years a number of new opening systems have appeared, in
which one side voluntarily weakens squares in his own position, hoping in
compensation to be able to seize the initiative. Thus, the game Smyslov-
Botvinnik (Mos cow, 1955) commenced with the familiar moves 1 P-K4, P-
Q.B4; 2 Kt-Q.B3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 P-KKt3, P-KKt3; 4 B-Kt2, B-Kt2; 5 P-Q.3, P-Q.3;
6 KKt-K2, whereupon Black introduced a new idea in the shape of 6 . . .P-K4!
1 78 MODERN C HESS OPENING THE ORY
Botvinnik wrote about this move : 'A good plan. The White King's Bishop is
blocked in ; it will be difficult for White to play P-Q4, while the possible P-KB4
will be parried by Black's own . . .P-KB4. The weakness of Black's Q4 is not
important, since White can occupy it with only two minor pieces, while Black
can defend it with three.'
Play continued 7 Kt-Q.5, KKt-K2!; 8 P-Q.B3?, KtxKt;
p X Kt, Kt-K2; 10 0-0, 0-0; 11 P-KB4? ' B-Q.2; 12 P-KR3, Q.-B2; 13 B-K3,
Q.R-K1; 14 Q.-Q.2?, Kt-B4; 15 B-B2, P-KR4; 16 Q.R-K1, Q.-Q.1!; 17 K-R2,
B-R3; 18 P-KR4, Q.-B3!, with advantage to Black.
An analogous idea led to the following system in the English Opening. 1 P-
Q.B4, Kt-KB3; 2 Kt-Q.B3, P KKt3; 3 P-KKt3, B-Kt2; 4 B-Kt2, 0-0; 5 P-K4, P-
Q.3; 6 KKt-K2, P-B4; 7 0-0, Kt-B3.
White allows a weak Q4 but obtains chances of active play in the centre
and on the Q side. A game Kholmov Boleslavsky (Moscow, 1957) continued 8
R-Kt1, Kt K1; 9 P-Q.R3, Kt-B2; 10 P-Q.Kt4, Kt-K3 (Black meets White's Q-
side advance with counterplay against the weak central square, White's Q4,
but this plan is not active enough) .
STRUGGLE F O R C ENTRE I N M O D E RN OP ENING 1 79
Position
aft er
. . . Kt-B3
11 P-Q.3, R-Kt1; 12 Kt-Q.5!, KKt-Q.5; 13 KtxKt, KtxKt; 14 B-Kt5, R-K1; 15

Q.-Q.2, P-Kt3; 16 KR-K1, P-B3; 17 B-K3, B-Q.2; 18 P-Kt5, P-K3; 19 Kt-B3, P-
B4; 20 P-B4!, Q.-B3; 21 P-Q.R4, Kt-B6 eh; 22 BxKt, Q.x Kt; 23 P-K5!, and
White retained a lasting initiative.
In this system Black should not strive at all costs to play against his
opponent's 'weak' central square. Here, as in the majority of modern opening
structures, play is based not simply on the external features of the position but
on an analysis of its individual characteristics and the co-ordination of the
pieces. Thus, in the given example, Black must first of all neutralize White's
attack on the Q side. With this in view
Black would have done better to play, after 8 R-Kt1, 8 • • •P-Q.R3!; 9 P-Q.R3,
R-Kt1; 10 P-Q.Kt4, PxP; 11 PxP, P-Q.Kt4; 12 PxP, PxP, halting White's
advance.
The game Sokolsky-Suetin (Minsk, 1957) then con tinued 13 P-Q.3, B-Q.2;
14 P-R3, Kt-K1; 15 B-K3, Kt B2; 16 Q.-Q.2, Kt-R3; 17 Kt-Q.1 (Better than 17
Kt-R2. It is essential to control QB4) , P-K4; 18 P-Q.4, R-B1!
(Better than 18 . . .P xP; 19 Kt x P, Kt-K4, since after
Kt-Kt2 Black's counterplay is halted. This variation shows the importance of
17 Kt-Ql !) ; 19 P-B4, PxQ.P;
M.C.O.T, G
1 80 M OD E RN C HESS OPENING THEORY
Position
after
1 2 . • • PxP
20 KtxP, KtxKt; 21 BxKt, BxB eh; 22 QxB, R-B5,

and Black has sufficient counterplay.
These examples show that a player is often justified in allowing
weaknesses in his position for the sake of the initia tive, but the question
whether the initiative compensates for the weakness must be carefully
weighed. If the initiative is only temporary and can be quickly blunted, the
weakness may well become a chronic liability.
Take, for example, the game Aronin-Sm.yslov (Moscow, 1951). After 1 P-
K4, P-Q3; 2 P-Q4, Kt-KB3; 3 Kt-QB3, P-KKt3; 4 Kt-B3, B-Kt2; 5 B-KK.t5, P-
KR3; 6 B-K3, P-B3; 7 Q-Q2, P-Q.Kt4; 8 B-Q3 Black selected the risky
Position
aft er
18 Kt x Kt
S TRUGGLE F O R CENTRE IN M O DERN OPENING 181
plan of advancing on the K side and exchanging off White's Queen's Bishop ;
this leads, however, to a weakening of the white squares in his position.
8•• . Kt-Kt5; 9 B-KB4, P-K4; 10 PxP, PxP; 11 B-Kt3, P-KR4; 12 B-R4!, P-
B3; 13 P-KR3, B-KR3; 14 Q.-K2, P-Kt5?; 15 Kt-R4, P-Kt4; 16 B-Kt3, P-R5; 17
B-R2, KtxB; 18 KtxKt.
Black has exchanged off White's important Queen's Bishop at a high price.
His initiative has dried up and the white squares on his King's side are
irreparably weakened. White has a strategically won game.
VIII. A Fluid Pawn Structure in the Centre
As was discussed above, the first moves of the game lead to pawn tension
in the centre. Generally this tension is quickly released by exchanges and the
pawn structure in the centre is stabilized. In many instances, however, even
when the tension in the centre is released, the central structure remains fluid
(i.e. without any clear external characteristics) right into the early middlegame.
The main difficulty in the treatment of this type of position lies in the need
to link play on one of the wings with possible operations in the centre. The
same problem is found with many definite central structures too, but with a
fluid struc ture developments are especially dynamic. The following game
illustrates how unexpected and powerful the play in the centre may become.
Botvinnik-Levenfish (Moscow, 1940) opened 1 P Q.B4, P-K4; 2 Kt-Q.B3,
Kt-KB3; 3 Kt-B3, Kt-B3; 4 P-Q.4, PxP; 5 KtxP, B-Kt5; 6 B-Kt5, P-KR3; 7 B-
R4, BxKt eh; 8 PxB, Kt-K4; 9 P-K3 (More energetic is 9
G2
182 M OD E RN CHESS O P ENING THE ORY
P-B4 !), Kt-Kt3; 10 B-Kt3, Kt-K5; 11 Q.-B2, KtxB; 12 RPxKt, P-Q.3; 13 P-B4,
Q.-K2; 14 K-B2, Kt-B1.
Here White made the unexpected central thrust 15 P Q.B5! and after
15 ...P x P; 16 B-Kt5 eh, Kt-Q.2; 17 Kt B5, Q.-B3; 18 Q.R-Q.1,- P-KKt3; 19
KtxP, R-B1; 20 P-Kt4! obtained a decisive attack.
Typical examples can be found in the Dragon Variation of the Sicilian
Defence, which often gives rise to a fluid central pawn structure. The game
Rauzer-Botvinnik (Moscow, 1933) is very instructive. 1 P-K4, P-Q.B4; 2 Kt-
KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 P-Q.4, PxP; 4 KtxP, Kt-B3; 5 Kt-Q.B3, P-Q.3; 6 B-K2, P-
KKt3; 7 B-K3, B-Kt2; 8
Position
after
1 5 QR-Bl
S T R U GGLE F O R CENTRE IN M ODERN OPENING 1 83
Kt-Kt3, B-K3; 9 P-B4, 0-0; 10 0-0, Kt-Q.R4; 11 KtxKt, Q.xKt; 12 B-B3, B-B5;
13 R-K1, KR-Q.1; 14 Q.-Q.2, Q.-B2; 15 Q.R-B1.
Up to here both sides have engaged in preparatory manoeuvres with their
pieces, and the pawn position in the centre has remained fluid. Now, Black,
whose pieces are placed much more actively, initiates energetic operations in
the centre. This plan, which after this game became standard in this type of
position, is extremely effective against White's passive play.
15...P-K4!; 16 P-Q.Kt3? (Underestimating Black's reply ; better was 1 6
PxP, P x P; 1 7 Q-B2, fixing the central pawn position), P-Q.4!!
Now the centre is unexpectedly opened to the advantage of Black, whose
forces are very harmoniously co-ordinated.
17 KPxP, P-K5!; 18 PxB, PxB; 19 P-B5, Q.-R4; 20 KR-Q.1, Kt-Kt5!; 21 B-
Q.4, P-B7 eh; 22 K-B1, Q.-R3 eh;
Q.-K2, BxB; 24 RxB, Q.-KB3!; 25 Q.R-Q.1, Q.-R5 (Black transfers the
decisive attack to White's poorly defended K side) ; 26 Q.-Q.3, R-K1; 27 R-
K4, P-B4!; 28 R-K6, Kt x P eh; 29 K-K2, Q.x P; and White resigned.
With a fluid central pawn structure, an especially careful
Position
aft er
1 0 . . . P-Q4 !
1 84 MODERN C HESS O PENING THE ORY
watch must be kept for counter-thrusts in the centre if one side is advancing
on the K side. Take the game Alekhine Botvinnik (Nottingham, 1936) which
opened 1 P-K4, P-Q.B4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 P-Q.4, PxP; 4 KtxP, Kt-B3; 5
Kt-Q.B3, P-Q.3; 6 B-K2, P-K.Kt3; 7 B-K3, B-Kt2; 8 Kt-Kt3, 0-0; 9 P-B4, B-K3;
10 P-K.Kt4, P-Q.4!
Black meets White's sharp K-side attack with an energetic counter-thrust

in the centre, the most logical plan in the given situation. Now events are in
fact forced but demand great accuracy on both sides.
P-B5! (If 1 1 P-K5 ?, then 1 1 . . .P-Q5 ! is very strong), B-B1; 12 KPxP,
Kt-Kt5; 13 P-Q.6, Q.xP; 14 B-B5!, Q.-B5!; 15 R-KB1, Q.xRP!; 16 BxKt, KtxP!;
17 BxKt, Q.-Kt6 eh, with a draw by -perpetual check.
This Sicilian Defence structure may give rise to other developments, such
as a backward pawn (see p. 1 62), a central forepost, etc., etc.
In positions with a fluid pawn structure in the centre the general aim of
each side is to bring about a pawn structure which will help his further plan of
play.
A fluid pawn structure in the centre often arises in the opening and may
assume various forms. There are, for example, several opening systems in
which during the open ing stage there are no pawn clashes in the centre. In
these systems an active role is played by pressure against the centre from
the flanks. A typical example of this is the Closed Variation of the Sicilian
Defence (1 P-K4, P-Q.B4; 2 Kt-Q.B3, Kt Q.B3; 3 P-K.Kt3, P-K.Kt3; 4 B-Kt2, B-
Kt2; 5 P-Q.3, P-Q.3, etc.). Recently the number of these systems has greatly
increased. In them the central pawn structure may remain fluid for a
considerable time.
S TRUGGLE FOR CENTRE IN MODERN OPENING 1 85
Naturally, openings with a fluid central pawn structure are even less open
to systemization than others. Hence, this chapter has concentrated chiefly on
the general character of play in this type of position.
CHAPTERFOUR
New Paths in the Opening
General Considerations
From the examples given in the foregoing chapters it is clear that the
initiative (i.e. the ability to initiate active operations) is a most important factor
in the modern opening. Posses sion of the initiative allows the player to
pursue his own strategic plans, while for_cing his opponent on to the defen
sive. As opening theory develops, the role of the initiative is being more and
more closely analysed.
A sharp tactical struggle for the initiative has atracted the attention of
students of open games from the earliest days of chess. Thus, the tactical
complicatioos of the King's Gambit, the Evans Gambit, and many other open
games were examined intensively several centuries ago.
In the half-open and the closed games, so popular today, masters tended
until recently to avoid complications before they had calmly developed all
their pieces. This attitude naturally influenced opening researches, which
have always been determined by the demands of practical play.
Today the new approach to the struggle for the initiative in modern
openings is leading to the development of many systems in which sharp
tactical play begins before the mobilization of the pieces is complete. Today
Black as well as White strives to seize the initiative, Black by means of
186
NEW PATHS IN T H E O PENIN G 1 87
active counterplay. Hence the struggle for the Initiative in many new systems
is tactical from the first moves, and the future course of the game is
established right in the opening.
The Slav Defence provides many good examples of this. After 1 P-Q.4, P-
Q.4; 2 P-Q.B4, P-Q.B3; 3 Kt-KB3, Kt B3; 4 Kt-B3, P-K3 White must either
release the tension by 5 P x P or be prepared to meet Black's sharp
counterplay
. . .P x P and . . .P-QKt4, etc.) . In the BotvinnikSystem (5 B-Kt5, PxP; 6 P-
K4, P-Kt4) and in the Meran Defence (5 P-K3, Q.Kt-Q.2; 6 B-Q.3, PxP; 7
BxBP, P-Q.Kt4) Black not only engages in a sharp struggle for the centre but
also in many variations campaigns over the whole
board with rich combinational play.
On the other hand, in some Slav Defence systems White initiates sharp
gambit play, as if to forestall Black ; for instance, 1 P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 2 P-Q.B4, P-
Q.B3; 3 Kt-Q.B3, P-K3; 4 P-K4, PxKP; 5 KtxP, B-Kt5 eh; 6 B-Q.2!, Q.xP; 7
BxB, Q.xKt eh; 8 B-K2, etc.
It is interesting to note that the Boleslavsky Variation of the Sicilian
Defence (1 P-K4, P-Q.B4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 P-Q.4, PxP; 4 KtxP, Kt-B3; 5
Kt-Q.B3, P-Q.3; 6 B-K2, P-K4) which gives Black active counter play, led to
the development of more aggressive systems for White such as 6 B-KKt5 and
6 B-Q.B4! These moves had been played before the appearance of the
Boleslavsky Variation but were seriously analysed only recently. It was found
that White's chances of seizing the initiative were greater than with 6 B-K2, in
spite of the resulting double edged play.
During these sharp exchanges in the opening the players not only bear in
mind tactical possibilities but often strive at the same time to accumulate
small positional advantages.
MODERN C HESS OPENING T H E O RY
Combinational play in the modern opening rests on a firm positional

foundation, while the aims of the opening are closely linked with those of the
middlegame. In this way modern variations differ from the same variations
employed in earlier times, when pure tactics often held sway.
In many modern opening systems, then, both players strive to seize the
initiative by sharp tactical play before completing their development.
This tendency is reflected in many sharp lines of play chosen voluntarily
by both sides. Attempts to avoid sharp play do not usually bring any
advantage. If White avoids the sharp lines invited by Black, he often simply
loses the initiative and gives Black easy equality. For example, in the system
1 P-K4, P-Q.B4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 P-Q.4, PxP; 4 KtxP, Kt-B3; 5 Kt-Q.B3,
P-KKt3, if White avoids the sharp 6 Kt x Kt, Kt. P x Kt; 7 P-KS ! and plays the
stereotyped 6 B-K2, B-Kt2; 7 B-K3, 0-0; 8 0-0, Black wins an important tempo
and easily equalizes with the energetic 8 ...P-Q.4!
Equally, Black rarely gains anything by avoiding compli cations. For

example, in the system 1 P-K4, P-K3; 2 P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 3 Kt-Q.B3, B-Kt5; 4 B-
Q.2!?, PxP; 5 Q.-Kt4, it is not good for Black to decline White's pawn sacrifice
(5 . . .
Qx P, etc.) by continuing 5...B-B1, since after 6 Q.xKP followed by 0-0-0
White has a clear advantage.
In the main variations of sharp opening systems, in which there is a fierce
struggle for the initiative, there is an un compromising clash of plans and
often the game develops along forced lines. In these cases the game is often
unusual,
original, and highly tactical.
A leading feature of these sharp opening systems is that development is
accompanied by the beginnings of the middle game clash. Sometimes, in an
attempt to seize the initiative,
NEW P ATHS IN T H E O PE N I N G 1 89
a player will break the principle of rapid development (i.e. he makes several
moves with the same piece, develops his heavy pieces early on, etc.,
provided, of course, that this furthers his strategic plan) .
A typical example of this is a variation of the English Opening, worked out
recently by some Leningrad players ; this runs 1 P-Q,B4, P-Q,B4; 2Kt-
Q,B3,Kt-KB3; 3P-KKt3, P-Q,4; 4 PxP, KtxP; 5 B-Kt2, Kt-B2; 6 Kt-B3, Kt-B3; 7
Q,-R4!?
White rejects stereotyped development schemes and brings his Queen

into active play early in the game. The idea is to impede Black's basic plan of
setting up a piece pawn centre (with . . .P-K4, . . .P-B3, etc.) and thus to seize
the initiative.
The continuation of a game Korchnoi-Fiohr (Kiev, 1954) is instructive.
7 . . .B-Q,2; 8 Q.-K4!, P-K3 (This stereotyped play prevents Black from
achieving any pur poseful co-ordination ofhis pieces. He should play 8 . . .Kt-
K3! followed by . . . P-KKt3, preventing White's P-Q4) ; 9 0-0, B-K2; 10 P-Q,4,
PxP; 11 KtxP, 0-0; 12 R-Q,1, Q.-B1; 13 B-K3, Kt-K1; 14 Q,R-B1, Kt-B3; 15
Q.-B4, with a clear advantage to White.
In these opening variations an important part is played by tactical

complications, arising out of the sharp struggle for the initiative. A typical
example is the following Sicilian Defence system, in many variations of which
an extremely sharp tactical battle begins right in the opening. 1 P-K4, P-QB4;
2 Kt-KB3, P-Q3; 3 P-Q4, PxP; 4 KtxP, Kt-KB3; 5 Kt-QB3, P-QR3; 6 B-Kt5, P-
K3; 7 P-B4!
In reply to 7o o oB-K2 White can play 8 Q-B3! and if 8ooo0-0, then 9 0-0-0!
\tVhite then threatens not only the wing attack 10 P-KKt4! but also the
energetic central thrust 10 P-K5! White stands better.
Black's attempt to repel White's K-side attack by 7o o oB-K2;
8 Q-B3, P-KR3; 9 B-R4, P-KKt4!?; 10 PxP, KKt-Q2? is refuted by the
beautiful forced line 11 KtxP!, PxKt; 12 Q-R5 eh, K-B1; 13 B-Kt5!!
This was shown by the games Geller-Panno, Keres Najdorf, and Spassky-
Pilnik (lnterzonal Tournament, Goteborg, 1955) in which this position arose.
The Geller Panno game concluded, for example, 13oooKt-K4 (No better is
13o o oK-Kt2; 14 0-0, Q-Kt1, as in Vasilchuk Suetin, Kharkov, 1956o After 15
P-Kt6, BxB; 16 BxKt, KtxB; 17 QxB!, Q-Q1; 18 R-B7 eh, KxP; 19 R-K7!
NEW PATHS IN THE OPENING 191
White had a winning attack); 14 B-Kt3, BxP; 15 0-0 eh, K-K2; 16 BxKt, Q.-Kt3
eh; 17 K-R1, Q.PxB; 18 Q.-B7 eh, K-Q.3; 19 Q.R-Q.1 eh, Q.-Q.5; 20 RxQ.eh,
PxR; 21 P-K5 eh!, K-B4; 22 Q.-B7 eh, Kt-B3; 23 BxKt and Black resigns.
Black seems to obtain better chances with 7 ...Q.-Kt3. Taking advantage

of the forward position of White's Queen's Bishop on Kt5, Black initiates
counterplay in the centre and on the Queen's wing. In reply to White's logical
continuation, 8 Q.-Q.2, Black can play 8 ...Kt-B3; 9 0-0-0, B-Q.2 or even
8•••Q.xP!?, with great complications.
In this type of system, with a concrete, tactical struggle, one side or the
other often has an advantage in material for a considerable time. Most often a
pawn is sacrificed for the initiative or for definite positional advantages. Even
in the opening there is a close link between material and positional factors.
Positional sacrifices in the opening appear in a variety of forms. Typical
examples are sacrifices for the sake of quick development, to divert strong
enemy pieces, to preserve one's own active pieces, to open up lines, to gain
space, etc. Usually these factors are closely connected and often lead on
logically from one to the other.
The general goal, uniting all these sacrifices, is a more active co-
ordination which guarantees some initiative and facilitates the carrying out of
some concrete plan.
Thus, recently the sacrifice of a Q-side pawn has become very popular in
many variations of the King's Indian Defence; for example, 1 P-Q.4, Kt-KB3; 2
P-Q.B4, P-B4; 3 P-Q.5, P-Q.3; 4 Kt-Q.B3, P-KKt3; 5 P-K4, P-Q.Kt4?!; 6 PxP,
P-Q.R3 or 1 P-Q.4, Kt-KB3; 2 P-Q.B4, P-KKt3; 3 Kt-Q.B3, B-Kt2; 4 P-K4, P-
Q.3; 5 B-Kt5, P-B4; 6 P-Q.5, 0-0; 7 B-K2, P-Kt4!?; 8 PxP, P-Q.R3.
192 M O DERN C HESS OPENING THEORY
Black selects the sharpest way to counter-attack on the Q side. Instead of

painstaking and protracted preparations for
...P-Kt4 by . ..Kt-QR3-B2, .. . B-Q2, etc., he prefers to force matters and seize
the initiative at the cost of a pawn.
This plan is especially clearly illustrated in the analogous gambit for White,
playing in fact with reversed colours and an extra tempo. 1 Kt-KB3, P-Q.4; 2
P-B4, P-Q.5; 3 P K.Kt3, P-Q.B4; 4 B--Kt2, Kt-Q.B3; 5 0-0, P-K4; 6 P-Q.3, B--
K2; 7 P-Q.Kt4!?, PxP; 8 P-Q.R3.
The game Geller-Mikenas (Moscow, 1955) continued 8•••PxP; 9 Q.-R4!,

B-Q.2; 10 BxP, Kt-B3; 11 Q.-Kt5, 0-0 (Better is 11. ..B xB and 12. . .Q-K2); 12
KtxKP,
NEW PATHS IN T H E O P ENING 193
KtxKt; 13 Q.xKt, BxB; 14 RxB!, B-B3; 15 BxB, PxB;

16 R-K1, Q.-Kt3; 17 Kt-Q.2, Q.-Kt5; 18 Q.-Q.R5, Q.-Q.3;
19 R-Kt3!, and White has decisively weakened Black's pawn structure.
Below we have further examples of modern gambits, in which a pawn is
sacrificed for the initiative or for practical reasons.
Pawn Sacrifices for the Initiative in the Ruy Lopez

0 The Panov Counter-attack: 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 B-
Kt5, P-Q.R3; 4 B-R4, Kt-B3; 5 0-0, B-K2; 6 R-K1, P-Q.Kt4; 7 B-Kt3, P-Q.3; 8
P-B3, 0-0; 9 P-KR3, Kt-Q.R4; 10 B-B2, P-B4; 11 P-Q.4, Q.-B2; 12 Q.Kt-Q.2,
B-Kt2; 13 Kt-B1, BPxP; 14 PxP, Q.R-B1; 15 B-Q.3, P-Q.4!?
16 Q.PxP, KtxP; 17 Kt-Kt3, P-B4; 18 PxP e.p., BxP; 19 BxKt, PxB; 20

KtxP, BxKt; 21 RxB.
Black has sacrificed a pawn for the initiative and created strong pressure
in the centre and on the Q side. White will try to neutralize this pressure and
exploit his material plus. The system has been thoroughly analysed, the
practice of
recent years showing that White has enough resources to blunt Black's
initiative. The game Suetin-Blatny (Lyons, 1955) continued 21 ...Q,-B7
(Considered the best); 22 Q,- Q,5 eh!, K-R1; 23 Kt-K1, Q,-B3; 24 Q,x Q,, Kt x
Q, (No better is 24...RxQ; 25 R-Ktl, Kt-B5; 26 P-QKt3, when White is out of
trouble and still has his pawn); 25 R-Kt1, Kt-Q,5; 26 B-Q,2, Kt-B4; 27 P-
Q,Kt3, Kt-Q,5; 28 R-B1, K-Kt1; 29 RxR, RxR; 30 P-KKt4!, and White soon
took the initiative.
At the present moment the Panov Counter-attack is undergoing a crisis.

The Keres Counter-attack: 12 ...R-Q,1 (instead of 1 2...B-Kt2); 13 Kt-B1,
BPxP; 14 PxP, P-Q,4!?
The idea behind this sacrifice is similar to that of the previous system.
Black strives for active play in the centre. The Keres Counter-attack has been
comparatively little analysed. In the main variation, after 15 KtxP!, PxP; 16 B-
B4!, B-Q,3; 17 Kt-Kt3, B-Kt2; 18 Kt-B5, White does not aim for material
advantages but tries to work up a piece attack on the K side. White's chances
seem better.
(3) 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q,B3; 3 B-Kt5,
NEW PATHS IN THE O PENING 195
P-Q.R3; 4 B-R4, Kt-B3; 5 0-0, B-K2; 6 Q.-K2, P-Q.Kt4; 7 B-Kt3, 0-0; 8 P-B3,
P-Q.4!?; 9 PxP, P-K5!
Black has a strong K-side attack. If 10 PxKt, B-KKt5;

11 P-Q.4, PxKt; 12 PxP, B-R4!, Black has very dangerous threats. Nowadays
White avoids this sharp counter-attack initiated by 9 ...P-K5.
(4) 9P-Q.3 (Instead of9 PxP), P-Q.5; 10PxP, B-KKt5!?
In sacrificing a pawn Black hopes to create strong pressure in the centre

and on the K side. If, for example, 11 P-Q,5, then 11...Kt-Q.5; 12 Q.-Q,1,
BxKt; 13 PxB, Kt-R4, etc.
196 MODERN CHESS O PENING THEORY
This interesting system has been little investigated. A final appraisal of its
worth depends largely on the variation 11 PxP!, Kt-Q5; 12 Q-K3!, BxKt; 13
PxKt, BxBP; 14 PxB, B-Kt4; 15 QxKt!, QxQ; 16 BxB, QxKtP; 17 Kt-Q2, when
the situation seems favourable for White. This continuation needs further
analysis.
The Bronstein-Nezhmetdinov Gambit: 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3
B-Kt5, P-QR3; 4 B-R4, Kt-B3; 5 0-0, P-Q.Kt4; 6 B-Kt3, P-Q.3; 7 P-B3, B-K2; 8
P-Q.4, B-Kt5; 9 P-KR3, BxKt; 10 Q.xB!?, PxP.
White sacrifices a pawn for active piece play in the centre and on the K
side. Until recently, in this and analogous positions (with White having played
R-Kl and Black
. . . 0-0) White used to continue 11 Q-Q.1, but Black had enough defensive
resources. White's play was strengthened by Nezhmetdinov. In his game with
Sham.kovitch (Kislovodsk, 1956) he played 11 Q.-Kt3! (This continua tion is
good in the given position (without R-Kl for White) since Black has not yet
castled), 0-0; 12 B-R6, Kt-K1; 13 B-Q.5, Q.-Q.2; 14 Q.-Kt4!, Q.xQ.; 15 PxQ.,
PxB; 16 BxKt, PxP; 17 KtxP, and White has a firm hold on the
NEW PATHS IN THE OPENING 1 97
initiative. It is Black's turn to find an improvement in this interesting system.
The Alekhine Attack: 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 B-Kt5, P-Q.R3; 4
B-R4, Kt-B3; 5 0-0, KtxP; 6 P-Q.4, P-Q.Kt4; 7 B-Kt3, P-Q.4; 8 PxP, B-K3; 9 P-
B3, B-K2; 10 P-Q.R4, P-Kt5; 11 Kt-Q.4!?, KtxKP.
White aims at an energetic K-side attack with P-KB4-5, etc. Practice has
shown that it is risky for Black to hold on to the pawn. He should strive for
active counterplay in the centre and attempt to seize the initiative. The game
Guldin-Gurgenidze (Tiflis, 1955) continued 12 P-KB4!, B-Kt5; 13 Q.-B2, P-
Q.B4!; 14 PxKt, PxKt; 15 PxQ.P, 0-0; 16 Kt-Q.2 (Stronger here is 16 Q.-Q.3,
as in the game Nezhm.etdinov-Suetin, Leningrad, 1953; after 16 ... B-R4; 17
Kt-Q.2, B-Kt3; 18 Q.-K2, KtxKt; 19 BxKt,
B-K5 the game was approximately equal).
16...B-K7!; 17 R-Kl, R-B1; 18 Q.-Kt1, B-R4; 19
KtxKt, B-Kt3; 20 Kt-B6 eh? (Better is 20 B-B2!,
P-Kt6!; 2 1 BxP!, Q-Kt3!, with about equal chances),
P x Kt; 21 Q.-R2, P x P; 22 B-R6, P x P !, and Black has
the initiative.
0 M O DERN CHESS O PENING THE ORY
Pawn Sacrifices for the Initiative in the Sicilian Defence

0 1 P-K4, P-QB4; 2 Kt-KB3, P-Q3; 3 P-Q4, PxP; 4 KtxP, Kt-KB3; 5 Kt-
QB3, P-QR3; 6 B-QB4, P-K3;
7 0-0, P-Q.Kt4; 8 B-Kt3, P-Kt5; 9 Kt-R4, Kt x P;
R-K1!
White sacrifices a pawn for better development, intend ing to attack in the
centre and on the K side.
This system of attack with 10 R-K1 was worked out by Estonian players.
The game Ney-Chu.kaev (Voroshilov grad, 1955) continued 10 ...P-Q4; 11 B-
KB4, B-Q.2 (If 1l. . . B-Kt2, then 1 2 Q-RS!, Q-B3; 13 RxKt, PxR; 14 KtxP! is
very strong); 12 P-B4!, PxP e.p.; 13 KtxBP, KtxKt; 14 PxKt, and White has a
strong attack which more than compensates for the pawn.
The Boleslavsky Attack: 1 P-K4, P-Q.B4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 P-Q.4,
PxP; 4 KtxP, Kt-B3; 5 Kt-Q.B3, P-Q.3; 6 B-Q.B4, P-K3; 7 0-0, P-Q.R3; 8 B
Kt3, Kt-Q.R4; 9 P-B4, P-Q.Kt4; 10 P-B5!?, KtxB; 11 RPxKt, P-K4; 12 KKt-K2,
B-Kt2; 13 Kt-Q.5!
Sacrificing a pawn, White exploits his better development and the
weakness of Black's central squares to achieve a superior position in the
centre.
The continuation of the game Suetin-Diivitsky (Erevan, 1954) is instructive.

13•••BxKt; 14 PxB, Q,-Kt3 eh; 15 K-R1, Q,-B4; 16 P-B4!, PxP; 17 PxP,
Q,xBP; 18 Kt-B3, B-K2; 19 B-Kt5!, and White has achieved his aim.
The Richter Attack: 1 P-K4, P-Q,B4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q,B3; 3 P-Q,4, p X p; 4
Kt X p' Kt-B3; 5 Kt-Q,B3, P-Q,3; 6 B-KKt5, P-K3; 7 KtxKt, PxKt; 8 P-K5!?
8 ...P X p; 9 Q,-B3.
With this pawn sacrifice White opens up the game in the centre and aims
for a piece attack.
The latest researches show that with energetic counter-
200 M ODERN CHESS O PENING THEORY
play Black has the better prospects. Thus, in the game Nilsson-Geller
(Stockholm., 1954) Black refused to accept the sacrifice, playing instead
8 ...Q-R4! After 9 B-Kt5!, PxB; 10 PxKt, P-Kt5; 11 Kt-K4, Q-K4; 12 P-KB3, P-
Q4; 13 Q-Q2, P-KR3; 14 B-R4, P-Kt4!; 15 B-Kt3, QxKtP! Black had a clear
advantage.
The Richter Attack has for some time been going through
CriSIS.
0 1 P-K4, P-QB4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-QB3; 3 P-Q4, PxP; 4 KtxP, P-Q4; 5 B-
Q.Kt5, PxP; 6 0-0!?
White strives for rapid development and active play in the centre. This
pawn sacrifice has been little investigated, but it is probably the strongest
answer to Black's system with 4 ...P-Q4. In the variation 6 ...B-Q2; 7 Kt x Kt, B
x Kt (If 7 ...PxKt, then 8 B-QB4! is strong); 8 BxB eh, PxB; 9 Q-K2, P-KB4; 10
Kt-B3, Kt-B3; 11 P-B3! White has a very active position.
The Morra Gam.bit: 1 P-K4, P-Q.B4; 2 P-Q4, PxP; 3 P-Q.B3!?, PxP; 4
KtxP, Kt-Q.B3; 5 Kt-B3.
A pawn sacrifice for rapid development and the initiative in the centre. In
recent years this gambit has been carefully analysed by Estonian players.
The game Ney-Koblents
Tallin, 1956) continued 5 ...P-Q.3; 6 B-Q.B4, P-K3; 7

0-0, KKt-K2; 8 B-KKt5, P-KR3? (8... Q-Q2! was essential); 9 Kt-Kt5!, P-Q.4;
10 PxP, PxB; 11 PxP, etc., with a winning attack. The Morra Gambit needs
further study.
0 1 P-K4, P-Q.B4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 P-Q.4, PxP; 4 KtxP, Kt-B3; 5

Kt-Q.B3, P-Q.3; 6 B-K3, Kt KKt5; 7 B-Q.Kt5, KtxB; 8 PxKt, B-Q.2; 9 0-0, P-
K3; 10 BxKt, PxB; 11 Q.-B3, Q.-B3!
With this pawn sacrifice Black blunts White's attack on the K side and
guarantees himself a favourable ending. Consequently, White has now
rejected 11 Q-B3 in favour of 11 P-K5!?, to which Black's best reply seems to
be 11. .. B-K2!; 12 Q.-R5, 0-0; 13 PxP, BxP; 14 Kt-K4, B-K2;
Q.R-Q.l, Q.-B2; 16 Kt-Q.Kt3, as in the game Karaklaic Taimanov (12th
Olympiad, Moscow, 1956) with about equal chances.
0 Pawn Sacrifices for the Initiative in the French Defence

(1) 1 P-K4, P-K3; 2 P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 3 Kt-Q.B3, B-Kt5;
4 B-Q.2!?, PxP; 5 Q.-Kt4, Q.xP; 6 0-0-0, Kt-KB3; 7
202 M OD ERN CHESS OPENING THE ORY
Q,xP, R-Kt1; 8 Q,-R6, B-B1! (The most active continua tion, first employed by
Bronstein in his match with Boleslavsky, Moscow, 1950); 9 Q,-R4.
A very sharp position in which an extremely stubborn battle for the initiative
is waged. Very instructive, for example, is the following variation, worked out
by Batygin. 9•••R-Kt5; 10 Q,-R3, Q,xP; 11 B-K2!, R-R5; 12 Q,xR, Q,xQ,; 13 P-
KKt3, P-K6!; 14 PxQ., PxB eh, etc., with approximately equal chances.
The Kondratiev Attack: 1 P-K4, P-K3; 2 P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 3 Kt-Q.B3, B-Kt5; 4
B-Q.3, P-Q.B4; 5 KP x P, Q.xP; 6 B-Q.2!?
With this pawn sacrifice White aims for an advantage in development and
a piece attack. Black's best defence, 6..• BxKt; 7 BxB, PxP; 8 BxQ.P, Q.xKtP;
9 Q.-B3, Q.x Q.; 10 KtxQ., P-B3, leads to a complicated game with about
equal chances.
A Pawn Sacrifice for the Initiative in the Caro-Kann Defence

0 The Boleslavsky Attack: 1 P-K4, P-Q.B3; 2 Kt-Q.B3, P-Q.4; 3 Kt-B3,
B-Kt5; 4 P-KR3, BxKt; 5 Q.x B, P-K3; 6 P-Q.4, PxP; 7 KtxP!?, Q.x P; 8 B-Q.3.
This system has been thoroughly analysed. In exchange for his slight
material inferiority White obtains a lasting initiative and excellent piece play.
Many of Boleslavsky's games with this system are instructive (see, for
example, the game Boleslavsky-Fiohr, 18th U.S.S.R. Championship,
Moscow, 1950).
Pawn Sacrifices for the Initiative in the Slav Defence

0 The Tolush-Geller Attack: 1 P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 2 P-Q.B4, P-Q.B3; 3 Kt-
Q.B3, Kt-B3; 4 Kt-B3, p X p; 5 P-K4!?, P-Q.Kt4; 6 P-K5, Kt-Q.4; 7 P-Q.R4, P-
K3; 8 PxP, KtxKt; 9 PxKt, PxP; 10 Kt-Kt5.
204 M ODERN CHESS O P E NING THEORY
With this pawn sacrifice White obtains an advantage in space on the K

side and starts a sharp attack there. Some instructive play is provided by the
game Geller-Unzicker (Interzonal TournaDlent, StockholDl, 1952) which
continued 10•••B-Kt2; 11 Q.-R5, P-Kt3; 12 Q.-Kt4, B-K2; 13 B-K2, Kt-Q.2; 14
B-B3, Q.-B2; 15 Kt-K4, Kt-Kt3; 16 B-R6, R-KKt1; 17 B-Kt5!, BxKt; 18 KBxB,
Kt-Q.4; 19 BxKt, PxB; 20 B-B6!, and White has a complete monopoly of the
initiative.
Much more promising for Black is the continuation
11•••Q.-Q.2! (Instead of the passive 1 1. . . P-Kt3); 12 KtxRP, Kt-B3!; 13 Kt-
B6 eh, PxKt; 14 Q.xR, PxP!, with a strong attack for the exchange. This
continuation has been little analysed.
6 Q.-B2 (Instead of{) P-KS), P-K3; 7 B-K2, B-Kt5; 8 0-0.
White sacrifices a pawn to set up a pawn centre, refraining for the time
being from forcing matters there. This variation has often been employed by
Tolush and Spassky.
(3) 1 P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 2 P-Q.B4, P-K3; 3 Kt-Q.B3, P-Q.B3;
4 Kt-B3, PxP; 5 P-K3, P-Q.Kt4; 6 P-Q.R4, B-Kt5; 7 B-Q.2, Q.-K2; 8 PxP,
BxK.t; 9 PxB, PxP; 10 B-B1!
NEW PATHS IN T H E O PENING 205
Sacrificing a pawn, White creates strong pressure against the black

squares in his opponent's position. This continua tion has hardly been
analysed at all.
Many other modern gambit continuations are examined below.
The method of play centred on a sharp struggle for the initiative in the
opening contributes towards achieving the general objects of the opening
stage of the game. With this type of game the opening is very closely
connected with the middlegame (and sometimes even with the endgame) .
Very often the middlegame commences almost imperceptibly before
mobilization is complete. (It is difficult to draw a formal dividing line.)
Since both players choose the sharpest and most critical lines, both try to
destroy the co-ordination of the other's pieces, while necessarily striving at
the same time to co-ordinate their own forces as harmoniously and
purposefully as possible.
It is not true to say that in this type of play opening principles are
neglected. The point is that the application of these principles often depends
on the execution of active plans usually associated with the middlegame.
More
206 M ODERN C HESS OPENING THEORY
accurately, this approach rejects a mechanical application of opening

principles. In numerous modern opening systems the basic opening principles
are examined in the light of each concrete situation.
Naturally, play in this type of system differs from play in the opening
structures examined in the previous chapter, where forced events begin only
after the completion of steady mobilization.
This must always be borne in mind when analysing open ing systems with
a concrete tactical struggle. Clearly, these opening systems are very dynamic
and require deep and accurate concrete analysis. When analysing them, such
'permanent' factors as material advantage, 'lasting' weak nesses in the
position, etc., should be viewed dynamically.
It must be remembered that since some of the undeveloped pieces do not
enter the field immediately, the balance can be quickly upset and the game
decided in short order. Such quick reversals usually result from an attempt to
carry out a bold strategic plan which is at variance with the basic opening
principles. An aggressive plan in the opening may be im practicable if
mobilization is incomplete, because the pieces (in some concrete situation)
are not active enough to achieve purposeful co-ordination. The player is
attempting to solve the complicated task of achieving purposeful co-ordination
without regard to the elementary opening principles and attempting to
transpose into the middlegame too early. In these cases the opponent often
seizes the initiative violently.
Numerous sharp variations of the open games illustrate this. Take, for
instance, a variation of the Centre Gam.e. 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 P-Q.4, PxP; 3
QxP, Kt-Q.B3; 4 Q.-K3, Kt-B3; 5 P-K5!?, Kt-KKt5; 6 Q.-K4, P-Q.4; 7 PxP e.p.
eh, B-K3; 8 B-Q.R6!?, QxP; 9 BxP, Q.-Kt5 eh!
Black, exploiting his superior development, finds a way to co-ordinate his

pieces, which energetically repulse White's attempts to seize the initiative.
The second player has much the better game.
Here, although White strives from the first moves to acti vate his pieces
purposefully, his plan is refuted for the simple reason that he neglected his
development.
Sometimes similar refutations are the fate of analogous plans in modern
closed openings. When seeking new paths of sharp play in the opening, a
player must always check carefully to see whether his active plan is not a
violation of opening principles. It is far from easy to find these refuta tions and
often they can be numbered among the most striking theoretical discoveries
made in tournament play or analysis.
The following Keres-Botvinni.k game (Moscow, 1941) is a good illustration
of a quick reversal in a modern opening. 1 P-Q.4, Kt-KB3; 2 P-Q.B4, P-K3; 3
Kt-Q.B3, B-Kt5; 4 Q.-B2, P-Q.4; 5 PxP, PxP; 6 B-Kt5, P-KR3; 7 B-R4, P-B4; 8
0-0-0.
White mistakenly bases this move on opening principles.
208 M OD ERN CHESS O PE NING THEORY
By castling (an opening task) White intends to exert pressure against Black's
Q4 (another opening task) but he fails to take account of the insecure position
of his King on the Q side. If Black mechanically followed opening principles on
his next moves, the position could turn in White's favour. But Black, exploiting
his opponent's undeveloped K side, unexpectedly starts a storming attack
against the white King. He opens lines on the Q side by force, without fearing
the resulting considerable positional weaknesses. The game becomes
combinational and demands the most accurate concrete calculations.
Black played 8...B x Kt! With this and his following moves he forces White
into a middlegame for which the undeveloped first player is not prepared.
9 Q,xB, P-KKt4; 10 B-Kt3, PxP!; 11 Q,xP, Kt-B3;
12 Q,-Q,R4, B-B4; 13 P-K3, R-Q.B1; 14 B-Q.3, Q,-Q,2!, and Black has a
winning attack against his opponent's King.
This example shows that today not only the type of game but also its
outcome is often determined in the opening. White's plan of castling long was
shown to be strategically unsound and no more than an attempt to seize the
initiative
NEW PATHS I N THE OPENING 209
by force, although it seemed at first to be positionally justified. The drawback

was that White neglected his K side development and in doing so violated the
principle of harmonious development.
Take another example, Boleslavsky-Stoltz (Inter zonal Tourna:m.ent,
Stockholm., 1948). 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 B-Kt5, P-Q.R3; 4 B-
R4, Kt-B3;
0-0, KtxP; 6 P-Q.4, P-Q.Kt4; 7 B-Kt3, P-Q.4; 8 PxP, B-K3; 9 Q.-K2. Here
Black boldly attempted to seize the initiative with 9 ...P-Kt4! With the threat of .
. .P-KKt5 Black does not seem to stand badly, but White finds a very strong
reply, which required deep calculation ; play went on 10 P-B4!, KtPxP (Rather
better is 1 0. . .QP x P ; 1 1 R-Q1 , P x B ; 1 2 R x Qch, R x R, with some
counterplay) ; 11 B-R4, B-Q.2; 12 P-K6, PxP; 13 BxKt, BxB; 14 Kt-K5, Q.-Q.3;
15 Q.-R5 eh, K-K2; 16 BxP eh, KtxB; 17 Q.xKt eh, K-K1; 18 Q.-R5 eh, K-K2;
19 Q.-B7 eh, K-Q.1; 20 Q.-B6 eh, and White has a winning attack.
Resourceful combinational play and great accuracy are also necessary in
opening systems in which strategic plans unfold in harmony with the basic
opening principles. Take, for instance, the following variation of the Slav
Gam.bit.
210 M O DERN C H E S S O PENING THEORY
I P-Q4, P-Q4; 2 P-QB4, P-QB3; 3 Kt-QB3, P-K3; 4 P-K4, PxP; 5 KtxP, B-Kt5
eh; 6 B-Q2, QxP; 7 BxB, QxKt eh; 8 B-K2, Kt-QR3; 9 B-B3.
Black needs to play extremely carefully in this critical position. Very
instructive are, for example, the slight errors made by Black in the games
Rovner-Kotov (Leningrad, 1949) and Bronstein-Kotov (1st Candidates'
Tourna ment, Budapest, 1950) which both led to his defeat in the opening.
The first game continued 9•••Kt-K2; 10 BxP, QxKtP? (The correct defence
is 1 0. . .R-KKtl) ; 11 B-B6!!, Kt-QB4 (lf l l . . .Qx R, then 1 2 Q-Q6 !, 0-0; 13 Q-
Kt3 eh, winning the Queen) ; 12 Q-Q6, 0-0; 13 B-KB3, Q-Kt3; 14 BxKt, Kt-Q6
eh; 15 K-K2, KtxKtP; 16 R-BI, and White won.
The second game proceeded 9 . ••Kt-K2; 10 B x P, R-KKtl; 11 B-B3,

QxKtP? (The correct continuation is the combinative 11 . . .Kt-Q4 !) ; 12 Q-
Q2, QxR?; 13 0-0-0, Kt-Q4; 14 Kt-B3, QxR eh; 15 BxQ, KtxB; 16 QxKt, K-K2;
17 Kt-K5, and White wins.
This type of system leads logically to original positions with approximately
equal chances, in which one side often has an advantage in material and
where there are considerable weaknesses on both sides (such as a shattered
pawn structure, etc.). These external disadvantages must have compensation
in the more active co-ordination of the pieces, giving the initiative in exchange
for positional drawbacks. Only if this is so are opening systems with a
concrete tactical struggle viable for both sides.
Thus the logical course of events in the Slav Gambit system just examined
leads to the following original position with approximately equal chances (see
diagram). 9•••Kt-K2;
10 BxP, R-KKt1; 11 B-B3, Kt-Q.4!; 12 PxKt, Q.xKtP;
PxKP ( 1 3 B-B3, Qx Kt eh ; 14 R x Q, R x R eh; 15
K-K2, R x Q; 16 R x R, KP x P is good for Black), BxP; 14 B-B6, Q.xR; 15 Q.-
Q.6!, RxKt eh; 16 K-Q.2, Q.-Q.4 eh!; 17 Q.xQ.11 BxQ.; 18 RxR, K-Q.2
(Analysis by Yudo vitch).
Another instructive example is provided by the Sozin Attack in the Sicilian

Defence. 1 P-K4, P-Q.B4; 2 Kt KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 P-Q.4, PxP; 4 KtxP, Kt-B3; 5
Kt Q.B3, P-Q.3; 6 B-Q.B4, P-K3; 7 B-K3, P-Q.R3; 8 0-0, Q.-B2; 9 B-Kt3, B-K2;
10 P-B4, Kt-Q.R4; 11 Q.-B3, P-Q.Kt4; 12 P-K5, B-Kt2; 13 Q.-Kt3, PxP; 14
PxP, Kt-R4.
M.C.O.T. H
212 M OD ERN CHESS OPENING THEORY
15 BxP!?
For a long time 15 Q.-R3 was considered the strongest move here. It was
first played in the game Averbakh Taim.anov (2nd Candidates' Tournam.ent,
Ziirieh, 1953) which continued 15•••Q.xP?; 16 BxP!, PxB (16. . .
0-0 is no better, e.g. 1 7 R-B5, Kt-KB5 ; 1 8 RxQ, Kt xQ eh; 1 9 B x Kt) ; 17
KtxKP, B-Q.B1; 18 Q.xKt eh!, Q.xQ.; 19 KtxP eh, K-Q.2; 20 KtxQ., and White
has won material.
Later Taimanov showed that 15 Q.-R3 is not dangerous for Black. Indeed,
after 15•••KtxB!; 16 KtxKt, Q.xP; 17 Kt-R5, P-Kt5! (As in Bannik-Taim.anov,
Kiev, 1954) ; 18 Kt-B4, Q.-B2; 19 Q.xKt, P-Kt3; 20 Q.-K2, P x Kt; 21 P-Q.Kt3,
0-0 White is facing the difficulties.
The move 15 B x P!? -and the following analysis were suggested by V.
Khenkin.
15•••Kt x Q. (Bad for Black are both 1 5. . .P x B? ; 1 6 Q-R3, QxP; 1 7 Kt
x KP ! and 15. . . 0-0? ; 1 6 RxP! In both cases White has a winning attack) .
BxP eh, K-Q.2; 17 B-K6 eh, K-K1 (If 1 7. . . K-Q1, then 1 8 QR-Q1 ! !) ; 18
B-B7 eh, with perpetual check.
This analysis does not of course exhaust all the hidden combinational
possibilities, but it is very instructive. Even these very sharp systems can lead
to positions of dynamic balance.
In sharp opening systems one should not rely on generally accepted
judgements. Often in variations which are con sidered to have been refuted
new ways can be found of achieving an equal game. Similarly, many positions
judged to be equal turn out to be advantageous to one side or the other.
The criterion for the viability of an active plan of play in
this type of opening system is : how firm and lasting is the initiative and what
counterplay can the defending side find?
A good illustration of this principle can be found in the variation of the Slav
Defence examined above (see p. 203). Here, when Black, in reply to White's
advance with 10 Kt-Kt5 and 11 Q,-R5, chose a positional plan of play (11...P-
Kt3 and 12 ...B-K2, etc.) trying to maintain his material plus, White's initiative
gradually grew into a fierce attack. When, however, Black chose active
counterplay with 11 ...Q,-Q,2, setting aside material considerations and
striving at all costs to seize the initiative, the picture changed radically. In that
case it is Black's initiative which is threaten ing to grow into a strong attack.
The following is another interesting example. In the Ruy Lopez, after 1 P-K4,
P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q,B3; 3 B-Kt5, P-Q,R3; 4 B-R4, Kt-B3; 5 0-0, KtxP; 6 P-
Q,4, P-Q,Kt4; 7 B-Kt3, P-Q,4; 8 PxP, B-K3; 9 P-B3, Black has the chance of
sharp play in the centre with 9 ...Kt-B4; 10 B-B2, B-Kt5; 11 R-K1, P-Q,5!?; 12
P-KR3, B-R4, striving to seize the initiative.
Naturally, White's prime aim is to frustrate Black's plan. To do this he must

adopt strong measures. One promising
H2
214 M O D E R N CHESS O PENING THEORY
attempt looks to be 13 B-Kt5!? Now 1 3. . .Q-Q2 is bad on account of 14 P x
P, when Black cannot play 14. . . B x Kt; 1 5 Qx B, Kt x QP, because his
Queen's Rook is left hanging. Therefore, Black is forced into great
complications.
13•••Q.xB; 14 KtxQ.,BxQ.; 15 BxB, Kt-Q.6; 16 B-B3,
0-0-0 (These last moves have seen a tense struggle for the initiative. Now
White must either cede it to his opponent by 1 7 R-Ql , Kt x KtP !, etc., or
continue the main forced variation).
17 BxKt, KtxR; 18 KtxBP, Kt-B7!; 19 KtxKR, KtxR; 20 Kt-B7, PxP!; 21
KtxP, R-Q.7; 22 P-K6, Kt-B7! The decisive moment. White's initiative has
dried up, and Black is left with a material plus.
In this case White's initiative was purely temporary. Yet in the diagrammed
positi0n White must consider only aggressive continuations. The path to a
firm and lasting initiative is opened by 13 P-K6!
Now, if 13•••BPxP, then 14 PxP, BxKt; 15 Q.xB, KtxP; 16 Q.-R5 eh, P-Kt3;
17 BxP eh, PxB; 18 Q.xR, Kt-B7; 19 B-R6! is very strong. If 13•••KtxP, then
14 B-K4, Q.-Q.2; 15 P-Q.R4, and White's initiative develops into a strong
attack.
New problems in the opening can be divided into various groups. Each
group gives rise to characteristic plans, which increasingly are initiated before
development is complete.
A tactical struggle; active operations before develop ment is complete :
(a) A concrete, tactical struggle for freedom of movement;
A long-term positional advantage obtained at the expense of

development and the initiative;
0Piece manoeuvres before the completion of development, aiming at

improved co-ordina tion.
Unequal material in the opening.

Ill. Operations on the flanks and play over the whole board in the opening :
The destruction of the flanks in the opening ;
Capture of the centre from the flanks;
Castling on opposite sides ;
King in the centre.
IV. Simplification in the opening and the transition to a complicated
endgame.
These problems are often closely connected with each other. When the
game becomes sharp early, play is likely to develop over the whole board ;
one side may have a material plus ; piece manoeuvres may start early ; the
heavy pieces may enter the game, etc. However, each time one of these
factors will be the most important, and it is there that any 'infringement' of
opening principles begins.
0 A Tactical Battle with Active Operations before Developm.ent is

Com.plete
A Concrete, Tactical Struggle for Freedom of Movement
The examples in the previous chapter showed how, as the opening
develops, a favourable central structure is gradually built and the pieces'
freedom of movement methodically increases.
At the same time, several other tactical methods of obtain ing freedom of
movement can be seen in the opening. These methods lead to a much
sharper game. The active side,
striving for the initiative and a quick conquest of space, goes in for great
complications which may involve accepting positional weaknesses or
sacrificing material. (In modern systems this approach is adopted more often
by Black, whose opening strategy is becoming increasingly aggressive.) In
these systems special attention must be paid to the dynamic side of the
game, to various tactical chances.
Typical examples are the popular gambit systems in the Slav Defence. 1
P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 2 P-Q.B4, P-Q.B3; 3 Kt KB3, Kt-B3; 4 Kt-B3, P x P; 5 P-K4!?
and 1 P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 2 P-Q.B4, P-Q.B3; 3 Kt-Q.B3, P-K3; 4 P-K4!?, PxP; 5
KtxP, B-Kt5 eh; 6 B-Q.2; the sharp Ruy Lopez continuation 3 ...P-Q.R3; 4 B-
R4, Kt-B3; 5 P-Q.4!?; many popular systems in the Ruy Lopez where Black
sacrifices a pawn ; for example, 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 B-Kt5, P-
Q.R3; 4 B-R4, Kt-B3; 5 0-0, B-K2; 6 R-K1, P-Q.Kt4; 7 B-Kt3, 0-0; 8 P-B3, P-
Q.4!?, etc. Among older, highly analysed systems one could cite many
variations of the King's Gambit Accepted, the Evans Gambit, etc.
A few examples will now be examined in more detail. Play develops

interestingly in the following comparatively
new Queen's Gambit system. 1 P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 2 P-Q.B4, P-K3; 3 Kt-Q.B3, Kt-
KB3; 4 B-Kt5; in this position Black used to continue with the purely defensive
developing moves 4 ...B-K2 or 4 ...Q.Kt-Q.2. Today Keres' 4 ...P-B4 is
becoming more and more widely accepted. Black, choosing a suitable
moment, makes an important central thrust. He begins an ingenious though
risky struggle for the central squares, basing his schemes on deep concrete
calculations.
If White avoids complications and chooses the quiet
5 P-K3, then after 5 ...BP x P; 6 KP x P, B-K2 Black has
7
transposed into a not unfavourable variation of the

Caro-Kann Defence (1 P-K4, P-Q.B3; 2 P-Q.4, P-Q.4;
3 PxP, PxP; 4 P-Q.B4, Kt-KB3; 5 Kt-Q.B3, P-K3; 6 B-Kt5, B-K2). This leads
to a typical position, in which White has an isolated central pawn which
Black's pieces are well placed to combat.
Let us examine the most critical line, which can be con sidered the main
variation ofthe system : 5 BPxP!, BPxP!?; 6 Q.xP, B-K2; 7 P-K4, Kt-B3.
A very sharp position has been reached, in which there is a tense struggle
for the initiative. Interesting are the following variations, which can only be
evaluated by a precise analysis of the subsequent complications. 8 Q.-K3, Kt
x Q.P!; 9 PxKt, BxB; 10 P-B4, Kt-Kt5 and 8 Q.-Q.2, KtxKP!; 9 KtxKt, PxP!; 10
BxB, Q.xB; 11 Q.xP, 0-0!?
Instead of 1 1. . . 0-0 !?, Black could regain the piece by
11• • •P-B4, but White can then obtain a strong initiative in the centre with 12
0-0-0, PxKt; 13 R-Kl! If, in answer to 12 0-0-0, Black plays 12•••Q.x Kt, there
follows
B-B4!, Q.xQ.; 14 BxQ., B-Q.2; 15 Kt-B3, 0-0-0; 16 Kt-Kt5!, and Black can
hardly avoid loss of material.
Therefore, Black purposely chooses a sharp game, striving above all to

retain the initiative. Practice suggests that after 11...0-0!? White has the better
chances and Black's initiative is only temporary; on the other hand, the subse
quent complications have not been thoroughly analysed, and it is possible
that the system will yet prove viable. Interesting, for example, is the game
Sm.yslov-Geller (Moscow, 1955) which continued 12 P-B3, Kt-Kt5; 13 Q.-Q.6
( 1 3 Q-B5 ! seems stronger), Q.x Q.; 14 Kt x Q., Kt-B7 eh; 15 K-Q.2, KtxR;
16 B-Q.3, R-Q.1; 17 Kt-K4, RxB eh; 18 KxR, P-Q.Kt3?
This is a decisive mistake. Black must play 18. . . B-K3 ! ; 1 9 Kt-K2, R-Q1
eh ; 20 K-B3, R-B1 eh ; 2 1 K-Q2, R-Q1 eh, with equal chances.
Kt-R3, BxKt (No better is 1 9. . .B-R3 eh because of 20 K-Q2, R-Q1 eh ; 2
1 K-B1, B-Q6 ; 22 Kt-B4, R-B 1 eh ; 23 Kt-B3, and White retains the extra
piece) ; 20 PxB, R-Q.1 eh; 21 K-B3, P-B4; 22 Kt-Kt3, R-B1 eh; 23 K-Q.2, R-
B7 eh; 24 K-Q.3, and White soon won.
The central thrust . . .P-QB4 seems to promise Black more in the system 1
P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 2 P-Q.B4, P-K3; 3 Kt-Q.B3, Kt-KB3; 4 Kt-B3, P-B4.
After 5 BPxP, BPxP Black has fewer difficulties, because

4 Kt-B3 plays a lesser role in the struggle for White's Q5 and K 4 than does 4
B-Kt5.
The main variation runs 6 Q,xP, PxP; 7 P-K4, Kt-B3;
B-Q,Kt5, Kt x P (Weaker is 8 ...P-Q,R3; 9 B x Kt eh, PxB; 10 Kt-K5!, with a
strong initiative for White, as in Najdorf-Keres, 2nd Candidates' Tournament,
Zurich, 1953) ; 9 0-0, Kt-B3; 10 R-K1 eh, B-K2; 11 Q,-K3, K-B1, when Black
keeps his extra pawn with a solid position. It is not easy for White to organize
an attack against the black King.
If, in answer to 5•••BP x P, White plays 6 Kt x P, then after 6 ...Kt x P!
Black easily equalizes the position in the centre.
The old move 3 ...P-B4 in the Ruy Lopez, by which Black immediately
starts active operations in the centre, is now being analysed from a
completely new point of view. As in the previous example, Black meets
White's central pressure with sharp tactical play right at the beginning of the
game. This leads in many of the most critical variations to positions which are
quite original in structure and play.
The basic disadvantage of these bold plans is their posi tional drawbacks.
If the opponent manages to negotiate the
complications and to blunt Black's initiative, which has been bought at the
expense of positional concessions, the second player's game may be
strategically lost. Then the permanent features of the position become more
important.
Thus, a material disadvantage, sacrificed for the initiative, may be
decisive. A good example is provided by the follow ing gambit system in the
Ruy Lopez. 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 B-Kt5, P-Q.R3; 4 B-R4, Kt-
B3; 5 0-0, B-K2; 6 R-K1, P-Q.Kt4; 7 B-Kt3, 0-0; 8 P-B3, P-Q.3; 9 P-KR3, B-
K3; 10 P-Q.4, BxB; 11 RPxB!, PxP?!; 12 PxP, P-Q.4; 13 P-K5, Kt-K5; 14 Kt-
B3, P-B4; 15 PxP e.p., BxP; 16 KtxKt, PxKt; 17 RxKP, Q.-Q.4 ; 18 R-Kt4.
s.• •- a1V= •
-• P' -- w: t
t- - -
-t- - -
- D -E!-
-ft- -4j-ft
w: •• w: .JJ,--.
M0'iB-
r
This position has arisen after a series of forced moves in a variation in

which Black sacrificed a pawn for the sake of freedom of movement for his
pieces. However, practice showed that this sacrifice is not sound. White
gradually neutralizes Black's initiative and, exploiting his extra pawn and the
weak black squares on the Qside, quickly capitalizes his advantage.
The game Suetin-Kholm.ov (Minsk, 1952) continued
18...Kt-Q.1 (The attempt to trap White's Rook by 18 ...
NEW PATHS IN T HE O PE NI N G 221
P-KR4; 19 R-B4, P-Kt4 loses quickly, as in Bonch Osm.olovsky-Yudovitch

(Odessa, 1952), to 20 KtxP!); 19 Q.-B2, Kt-K3; 20 B-K3, KR-K1; 21 P-Kt4!
Fixing the black Q-side pawns, White gradually increases his positional
advantage, while Black's counterplay grows weaker with every move.
21 ...P-B3; 22 R-K4, R-K2; 23 Kt-K5!, Kt-Q.1; 24 P-B4, Kt-B2; 25 B-B2, Kt-
Q.3; 26 R-K2, R-Q.B2; 27 R-Q.B1, and White, having completely seized the
initiative, soon realized his material advantage.
A Long-term Positional Advantage Obtained at the Expense of Development

and the Initiative
A feature of many modern systems and variations is the attempt to obtain
long-term positional advantages at the expense of rapid development and the
initiative. Here opening play is also forced.
The dynamic side of the position is extremely important here, since the
generally static positional advantage has to stand up to the initiative and the
concrete tactical threats of a better-developed opponent.
A typical example is the opening play in the main varia-
Position
after
10 B-B4
222 M ODERN CHESS O P ENING THE ORY
tion of the following Sicilian Defence system. I P-K4,

P-Q.B4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 P-Q.4, PxP; 4 KtxP, Kt-B3; 5 Kt-Q.B3, P-KKt3;
6 Kt X Kt!, KtP X Kt; 7 P-K5, Kt-Kti; 8 B-Q.B4, B-KKt2; 9 Q.-B3, P-KB4; IO B-
B4.
Black has a strong central pawn structure, but he is behind in development
and his pieces are restricted in mobility.
The game Ravinsky-Shamkovitch (Wilna, I953) continued interestingly
IO...P-K3; II 0-0-0, Q.-B2; I2 Q.-Kt3 (Perhaps better was 12 Q-K2 followed by
B-KKt3 and P-KB4, attempting to restrain Black's active operations in the
centre) .
I2•• . Kt-R3; I3 K-Kti, Kt-B2; I4 KR-KI, R-Q.Kti;
I5 B-Kt3? (White does not sense the danger. He had to play 15 P-QR3), R-
Kt5!; I6 P-Q.R3, RxQ.B!; I7 Q.xR, BxP, and Black, at the expense of a slight
material loss, mobilized his central pawns very powerfully and soon obtained
a decisive advantage.
Here Black determinedly exploited the central pawn superiority which he
obtained early in the game, while White played in stereotyped fashion, failing
to exploit his initiative and advantage in development.
In the MacCutcheon Variation of the French Defence, after I P-K4, P-K3; 2
P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 3 Kt-Q.B3, Kt-KB3; 4 B-Kt5, B-Kt5; 5 P-K5, P-KR3; 6 B-Q.2,
BxKt; 7 PxB, Kt-K5; 8 Q.-Kt4, P-KKt3, a promising continuation for White is 9
B-B I!, in spite of the fact that this seems to infringe basic opening principles.
White retreats his Bishop to its original square, while his K side is
completely undeveloped. The justification for this manoeuvre is found firstly in
Black's equally backward development (his only active piece is the Knight on
K5). Secondly, in view of the weak complex of black squares in
his opponent's position, White must preserve the Bishop which can effectively
exploit this. Naturally, this decision must also be supported by a concrete
calculation of the individual features of the position. Often sharp situations
arise early on.
A typical example is the variation 9 ...P-Q.B4; 10 B-Q.3, PxP; 11 Kt-K2,
PxP?; 12 BxKt, PxB; 13 Kt-Kt3!! Black has gained material but succumbs to a
crushing attack. White's attack is helped by Black's weak black squares and
backward development ; White's Queen's Bishop is very powerful.
After 9 B-B1! Black should strive not for material gains but for the initiative,
taking advantage of his strong Knight on K5 and his chances of opening up
the game on the Q side. This aim is pursued, for example, by the variation
9 ...KtxQ.BP; 10 B-Q.3, P-Q.B4; 11 PxP, Kt-B3; 12 Kt-B3, Q.-R4; 13 B-Q.2,
Q.-R5!, and Black preserves equal chances, since it is difficult for White to
organize pressure against the weak complex of black squares.
In this line of the MacCutcheon Variation White sometimes answers 5 ...P-
KR3 with 6 B-B1!?, immediately saving his Bishop from possible exchange.
The resulting
224 MODERN CHESS O PENING THE ORY
complications are rather in Black's favour, largely because of White's

backward development, e.g. 6 ...Kt-K5; 7 Q,-Kt4, K-B1; 8 Kt-K2, P-Q,B4; 9 P-
Q,R3, B-R4 (An important move. Black preserves his vital Bishop) ; 10P-
Kt4!?,KtxKt; 11 Kt x Kt, P x KtP; 12 Kt-Kt5, P-Kt6 eh! The move 6 B-B1 fails to
justify itself. White merely loses the initiative and remains behind in
development.
This type of structure, based on a strategic idea, is often refuted in the
opening tactically. It is precisely a tactical refutation, based on the dynamic
features of a position, which must be feared by a player seeking positional or
material advantages at the expense of development.
An important feature of this problem is the close link between material and
positional factors. Often a player will attempt to retain his material advantage,
ceding to his opponent in exchange the initiative or even an attack.
For instance, play develops very sharply in the following variation of the
Two Knights' Defence. 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q,B3; 3 B-B4, Kt-B3; 4 Kt-
Kt5, P-Q,4; 5 PxP, Kt-Q,R4; 6 B-Kt5 eh, P-B3; 7 PxP, PxP; 8 Q,-B3!?
NEW PATH S I N T H E O PENING 225
White selects the most dangerous and at the same time the most active
path in this system. He immediately initiates a sharp tactical battle, the
outcome of which is often decided in the opening (i.e. before development is
complete) . A typical example is the variation 8•••PxB; 9 Q.xR, Q.-Q.2!; 10 0-
0?, Kt-B3. White's Queen is trapped. The game Kapustin-Khripin (Kiev, 1951)
continued 11 P-Q.4, K-K2? (Much stronger is 1 1. . .Kt-Q4 !) ; 12 PxP, B-Kt2;
13 PxKt eh, KxP; 14 Kt-K4 eh? (Essential was 14 Qx KB !, R x Q; 15 Kt x P
eh and 16 Kt x R, with the better prospects for White), K-Kt3; 15 Kt-B5, BxKt;
16 Q.xR, Kt-K4!; 17 K-R1, B xP eh, with a decisive attack for Black. This far
from perfect game is very typical of play in the sharp opening system in
question.
Piece Manoeuvres Before the Completion of Development, Aiming at

Improved Co-ordination
Opening principles condemn manoeuvres with any one piece before
development is complete. Nevertheless, in many modern openings actively
placed pieces are often moved again before general mobilization has been
carried out. Occasionally they may even return to their original squares to be
redeveloped. The general aim of these manoeuvres, which are based on the
concrete individual features of the position, is to improve the co-ordination of
the pieces and pawns. Thus, in the variation of the French Defence which
opens 1 P-K4, P-K3; 2 P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 3 Kt-Q.2, Kt-Q.B3; 4 KKt-B3, Kt-B3; 5
P-K5, Kt-Q.2; 6 Kt-Kt3, B-K2; 7 B-Q.Kt5 an interesting continuation for Black
is
7...Q.Kt-Kt1!? Seeing that a closed pawn structure has been set up in the
centre, Black temporarily retreats his Queen's Knight (which had played an
active part in the first stage of
the struggle for the centre) so as to make way for the important undermining
thrust . . .P-QB4. At the same time, White's King's Bishop is left in the air. The
move 7. . .Q,Kt-Ktl appears to be the strongest in the given position.
The problem of improving co-ordination is rather different in the variation
of the Ruy Lopez worked out recently by Leningrad players ; this runs 1 P-K4,
P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q,B3; 3 B-Kt5, P-Q,R3; 4 B-R4, Kt-B3; 5 0-0, B-K2; 6 R-
Kl, P-Q,Kt4; 7 B-Kt3, P-Q,3; 8 P-B3, 0-0; 9 P-KR3, Kt-Ktl!?
At first sight this withdrawal of a well-developed piece to its original square

seems illogical, but it is based on an
interesting strategic idea. The Knight will go to Q2 from where it will defend
the KP and have chances oflater moving to QB4. At the same time, the
diagonal QR1-KR8 is opened up for the Queen's Bishop, which will exert
pressure on the important squares Q4 and K5. The slight weakness arising
on KB4 Black will cover with . . . P-KKt3, which will also help to strengthen his
King position.
White's attempt to exploit the backward development of the Black's Q-side
pieces by the standard 10 P-Q.R4 leads nowhere after 10...B-Kt2; 11 P-Q.4
(or 1 1 P-Q3), Q.Kt Q.2, since Black completes his development with
advantage. The game Milic-Spassky (Lyons, 1955) continued 10 P-Q.R4, B-
Kt2; 11 P-Q.3, Q.Kt-Q.2; 12 B-B2, R-K1; 13 Q.Kt-Q.2, B-KB1; 14 Kt-B1, P-B4;
15 Kt-Kt3, P KKt3!; 16 B-Kt5, Q.-B2; 17 Kt-R2?
White's standard attack on the K side is not justifiable in the given
situation. Black has a very solid position and excellent prospects of active
counterplay in the centre and on the Q side, which soon gives him the
initiative. Better was 1 7 P x P, P x P ; 1 8 R x R and 1 9 P-Q4, simplifying the
position.
17...P-Q.4!; 18 Q.-B3, B-Kt2; 19 P-R4, P-Q.5; 20 P-KR5, P-B5; 21 Q.R-B1,
Q.-Kt3; 22 Q.RPxP, RPxP;
B-Kt1, Q.R-B1; 24 B-R2, B-Q.R3; 25 RPxP, RPxP;
KR-Q.1, Kt-R2; 27 B-Q.2, Kt-B4! Black has a strategi cally won game,
dominating the centre and the Q side.
This example is a good illustration of the positive sides of the system
initiated by 9 ...Kt-Ktl. If White selects the modest continuation 10 P-Q.3, B-
Kt2; 11 Q.Kt-Q.2, Q.Kt-Q.2; 12 Kt-B1, aiming to complete his development,
Black experiences no opening difficulties. For example,
...R-K1; 13 Kt-Kt3, P-Kt3; 14 B-B2, B-KB1!, with a
good game for Black, as in Arulaid-Lipnitsky (Voro shilovgrad, 1955).

If Black changes his plan of development so radically, White in his turn
must seek new paths, which may not quite be in accordance with his previous
designs. Mter 9 ... Kt-Kt1!? White's most energetic continuation is 10 P-Q.4,
Q.Kt-Q.2; 11 P-B4!?
Exploiting Black's temporary weakness in the centre, White completely
changes his plan of development and posts his Q-side pieces more actively,
so as to exert pressure on the central squares. Instructive is the variation
11 ...P-Kt5 (To keep the white Queen's Knight from its QB3) ; 12 P-B5, B-
Kt2?; 13 Q.-B2, KPxP?; 14 P-B6!, P-Q.6; 15 Q.-B4, Kt-Kt3; 16 PxB, KtxQ.; 17
PxR = Q., Q.xQ.; 18 BxKt, and as a result of his subtle and original Q-side
advance White has a material plus, as in Geller-Filip (3rd Candi dates'
Tournam.ent, Amsterdam, 1956).
Instead of 1 2. . .B-Kt2, Black must play 12•••KPxP!, retaining a defensible
position.
If, after 10 P-Q.4, Black tries to avoid his opponent's plan by 10...B-Kt2,
White keeps the initiative by the interesting line 11 PxP!, PxP (If ll. . . Kt x P,
then 1 2 P-K6 ! is very strong) ; 12 Q.xQ., BxQ.; 13 KtxP, KtxP.
White forces events in the centre and even allows con siderable
simplification, but in the resulting open position the more active development
of the whites pieces tells. For example, after 14 B-K3! (suggested by
Boleslavsky), B-KB3; 15 Kt-Kt4, Kt-Q.2; 16 B-KB4!, Black has serious diffi
culties in developing and defending his Q side.
The player carrying out this type of regrouping at an early stage of the
game must consider the possibility of his opponent's finding a tactical
refutation. For example, take
I
the following variation of the Ruy Lopez. 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3
B-Kt5, P-Q.R3; 4 B-R4, P-Q.3; 5 P-B3, B-Q.2; 6 P-Q.4, KKt-K2; 7 B-Kt3, P-
R3; 8 Kt-R4!?
Long before completing his development White aims to post an already

developed piece more actively on KB5. The manoeuvre is supported by the
threats of 9 Q-B3 and 9 Q-R5, gaining time. For a long time Black met this
plan passively with either 8.. . Kt-R4 or 8. . .Kt-B1, which gave White a lasting
initiative. Recently, however, some Ukrainian players worked out a new
sharp, tactical plan of play, i.e. 8...PxP; 9 PxP, KtxP!?; 10 Q.xKt, Kt-B3! The
fact that White's King's Knight is unprotected at the moment now plays an
important part in appraising the entire White plan as favourable for Black.
Thus, in the game Tal-Bannik (Leningrad, 1956) after 11 BxP eh, KxB; 12 Q.-
Q.5 eh, B-K3; 13 Q.-R5 eh, K-Kt1; 14 0-0?, Kt-K4! White's position was
already very difficult.
Co-ordination is often improved in the opening by exchanges, which may
lead to a delay in development or to weaknesses in the pawn structure. A
good exampie is provided by the opening of the game Bondarevsky-
Boleslavsky
(Moscow, 1945). 1 P-Q4, Kt-KB3; 2 B-Kt5, Kt-K5; 3 B-R4?, P-QB4; 4 P-KB3,

P-KKt4!
Black allows a serious weakness in his K-side pawn structure, but
exchanges off White's important Queen's Bishop. This gives him the initiative
with strong pressure against White's position ; for a long time the first player
has no counterplay.
5 PxKt, PxB; 6 P-K3, B-R3; 7 Q-Q3, Kt-B3; 8 Kt Q2, PxP; 9 PxP, Q-Kt3; 10
Kt-Kt3, P-R4; 11 P-R4, P-Q4!, and Black has a definite advantage.
When the centre is closed early in the opening, there often arise 'bad'
Bishops, hemmed in by their own pawns. The exchange of these bad
Bishops, even with loss of time, very often improves co-ordination.
This situation often arises in the Sam.isch Variation of the King's Indian
Defence after the centre has been closed by White's P-Q5. Black's
fianchettoed King's Bishop becomes very restricted in mobility and he finds it
useful to exchange it, especially for White's Queen's Bishop, which guards the
black squares in White's position. This idea was well carried out by
Gurgenidze (Black) in a game with Zurakhov (Tiflis, 1956). 1 P-Q4, Kt-KB3; 2
P-Q.B4,
NEW PATHS IN THE O P ENING 23 1
P-KKt3; 3 Kt-Q.B3, B-Kt2; 4 P-K4, P-Q.3; 5 P-B3,

P-K4; 6 P-Q.5, KKt-Q.2!; 7 B-K3, B-R3!; 8 Q.-Q.2,
B xB; 9 Q.xB, P-Q.R4; 10 B-Q.3, Kt-R3; 11 0-0-0,
Q.-K2; 12 KKt-K2, KKt-B4; 13 B-Kt1, B-Q.2; 14 Kt Kt5, BxKt; 15 PxB, Kt-Kt1;
16 P-KR4, Q.Kt-Q.2!' and Black has strong pressure on the black squares.
Often pieces are exchanged in the opening in order to weaken squares in
the opponent's position, as was examined above (see p. 1 72).
In the opening it is rarely possible to carry on active play with the heavy
pieces, since as a rule they are liable to be attacked by the opponent's minor
pieces and pawns. Usually the heavy pieces show their strength later, in the
middlegame. Nevertheless, in some modern opening systems the heavy
pieces enter the game early, when they may help to frustrate the opponent's
plans or improve co-ordination.
For example, an active employment of the Queen was illustrated in the
English Opening system given earlier (see p. 1 89). Numerous variations
have appeared in which Rook manoeuvres play an important part, as, for
instance, in the game Konstantinopolsky-Lipnitsky (Moscow, 1956). 1 Kt-KB3,
Kt-KB3; 2 P-B4, P-K3; 3 P-KKt3,
Position
after
1 3 QR-K2
232 M ODERN CHESS OPENING THEO RY
P-Q4; 4 P-Kt3, P-B4; 5 B-KKt2, P-Q5; 6 0-0, Kt-B3; 7 P-K3, P-K4; 8 PxP,
KPxP; 9 P-QR3, P-QR4; 10 P-Q3, B-K2; 11 R-K1, 0-0. Here White carried
out an interesting Rook manoeuvre, playing 12 R-R2!, P-R3; 13 QR-K2.
After 13 ...B-Q3; 14 Q.Kt-Q2, B-K3 (Essential was 1 4. . .B-B4 with

chances of equalizing, e.g. 1 5 Q-B2, Q-Q2 ; 1 6 Kt-R4, B-Kt5) ; 15 Kt-R4, Q-
Q2; 16 Kt-K4, B-K2; 17 Kt-Kt6!, and White's pressure along the K file was
decisive.
To sum up, in the modern opening players reject a stereotyped

development of the pieces in the interests of achieving their more purposeful
co-ordination ; this approach has enriched numerous systems with fresh
ideas.
Unequal Material in the Opening
A very complicated and not uncommon problem in the opening is play with
unequal material, such as Queen against Rook and minor piece, Rook
against minor piece and pawn, piece against several pawns, etc.
Often one side has an advantage in material, while the other has a more
active position and the initiative. With unequal material the game, although
sharp, is also compli cated positionally. Very often the unequal balance of
material remains constant for a long time.
Opening theory has known this type of position from early times. Until
recently, however, these positions were not seriously analysed, being treated
as exceptional and rele gated to the status of sub-variations. An example is
the follow ing line in the Dragon Variation of the Sicilian Defence. 1 P-K4, P-
QB4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 P-Q4, PxP; 4
NEW PATHS IN THE O P ENING 233
KtxP, Kt-B3; 5 Kt-Q.B3, P-Q.3; 6 B-K2, P-KKt3; 7 B-K3, B-Kt2; 8 0-0, 0-0; 9
P-B4, Q.-Kt3; 10 Q.-Q.3!? (Here 1 0 P-K5 ! ?, etc. is considered the main line)
, Kt KKt5!; 11 Kt-Q.5, BxKt!; 12 KtxQ.,BxB eh; 13 K-R1, B xKt; 14 B xKt, B xB;
15 P-B5, P-Q.4!, etc.
In recent years the number of opening variations with unequal material
has greatly increased. It must be empha sized that these variations are not
simply of secondary importance but have arisen as the most critical lines in
the struggle for the initiative. The appraisal of these variations is problematical
and there is great scope for research.
In attempting to evaluate this type of opening position, it is often useful to
remember the relative value of the pieces which middlegame practice has
established ; for example, three minor pieces (with the initiative) are slightly
stronger than a Queen ; a Queen is stronger than a Rook and minor piece.
These middlegame precepts have been confirmed by numerous researches
into new opening systems. A good example is the Dragon Variation, given
above, which is in Black's favour.
Here again, however, the concrete individual features of the position and
the dynamic side of the game are of supreme importance. An instructive
example is provided by the sacrifice of the Queen for Rook and Knight in the
game Najdorf-Ragozin (Interzonal Tourna:ment, Stock hol:m, 1948), carried
out in the following middlegame position (see diagram, p. 234) .
With his last move, 17 Q.-R3, White threatens 18 Kt x P eh followed by 19
Qx Kt and appears to have strong pres sure along the Q file. But White
reckoned without Black's original counterplay, involving a Queen sacrifice.
17...KtxP!; 18 Kt-B6 eh (White must accept the
234 M ODERN CHESS O P ENING THEORY
challenge ; otherwise he is left simply a pawn down), KtxKt; 19 RxQ, KRxR;

20 B-Q,2.
As a result of Black's combination there is now unequal material,
seemingly in White's favour, but Black has the initiative. The succeeding
pl.ay, in which Black's well co ordinated pieces tie down White's Queen
completely, is very instructive.
20...Kt-K5; 21 B-K3, Kt-Q,3; 22 R-Q,B1, Kt-B4; 23 B-KB4, B-Q,4; 24 B-B4,
BxB; 25 RxB, P-K4!; 26 B-Kt5? (Possibly the decisive mistake. After 26 R x
Kt !,
P xR; 27 B x P White had drawing chances), R-Q,8 eh; 27 K-R2, P-KR3; 28
R-B1, R-Q,2; 29 B-K3, P-K5; 30 Kt-K1, Q,R-Q,1; 31 B-B5, B-K4 eh; 32 P-Kt3,
R-Q,7; 33 R-B2, BxP eh; 34 K-Kt2, B-K4; 35 K-B1, RxR; 36 KtxR, R-Q,8 eh;
37 K-K2, R-Q,Kt8; 38 P-Kt4, R-Kt7, and Black has a decisive superiority.
White's Queen did not make a single move ! This example shows that even in
a game with unequal material the initiative may more than compensate for a
material inferiority.
This approach applies not only to the middlegame but also to many
openings where analogous play develops. The evaluation of many systems
with unequal material depends
NEW PATHS IN THE O PENING
largely on the strength of the initiative acquired in exchange for material

inferiority.
A number of cases will now be examined.
(a) Q,ueen against Rook and Minor Piece

In recent years the Moscow Variation of the Open Defence to the Ruy
Lopez has been closely analysed ; it is reached by 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3,
Kt-QB3; 3 B-Kt5, P-QR3; 4 B-R4, Kt-B3; 5 0-0, KtxP; 6 P-Q4, P-QKt4; 7 B-
Kt3, P-Q4; 8 PxP, B-K3; 9 Q-K2.
Preparing for 10 R-Q1, White aims to exert active pres sure along the Q
file against Black's important point at Q4.
At first, when he attempted to defend himself straight forwardly, Black
failed to get a fully viable game. For example, in the game Keres-Euwe
(World Champion ship Tournament, Moscow, 1948) play went on 9 ...B-K2;
10 R-Q1, 0-0; 11 P-B4!, KtPxP; 12 BxP, B-QB4?; 13 B-K3, BxB; 14 QxB, Q-
Kt1; 15 B-Kt3, Kt-R4; 16 QKt-Q2!, KtxKt; 17 RxKt, KtxB; 18 PxKt, R-B1; 19 R-
QB1, P-QB4; 20 RxBP, RxR; 21 QxR, QxKtP; 22 Kt-Q4, and White seized the
central squares and soon began
236 M O D ERN CHESS O PENING THE ORY
decisive K-side attack, 22... Q.-Kt2; 23 P-R3, R-Q.1; 24 K-R2, P-Kt3; 25 P-

B4!, etc.
Later, however, Soviet theorists found interesting systems of defence in
which Black sacrifices his Queen for Rook and Bishop and takes the initiative.
One of these systems was worked out by the Soviet master, Grechkin ; it runs
9...B K2; 10 R-Q.1, 0-0; 11 P-B4, KtPxP; 12 BxP, PxB!; 13 RxQ.,KRxR.
As a result of his combination Black, in exchange for a slight material

deficit, has obtained strong co-ordinated pressure in the centre and on the Q
side, giving him good chances. The game Khohnov-Grechkin (Tiftis, 1949)
continued 14 Q.Kt-Q.2 ( 1 4 Kt-B3 is probably stronger), Kt-B4; 15 P-KR3, Kt-
Q.6; 16 P-Q.Kt3, Kt(Q.6) xKP!; 17 KtxKt, KtxKt; 18 KtxP (Of course, not 1 8
Qx Kt because of 1 8. . .B-B3), KtxKt; 19 PxKt, R-Q.5; 20 B-R3, P-Q.B4; 21
B-Kt2, RxP, and Black has excellent counter-chances.
Even more promising for Black seems to be the system worked out by
Soviet and foreign theorists whereby, after 9 Q-K2, B-K2; 10 R-Q.1, Black
plays 10...Kt-B4! This practically forces White to continue 11 BxP!, for if11 P-
B4,
then 11...P-Q.5; 12 PxP, P-Q.6; 13 Q.-B1, BxB; 14 PxB, Kt-Kt5!, and Black
has a dangerous initiative. A game Konstantinov-Lutikov (Rostov-on-Don,
1954) con tinued 15 B-K3, 0-0; 16 Kt-Kl, Q.-Q.2!; 17 BxKt, BxB; 18 PxP, KR-
Q.1, and Black has the better game.
The main line is very rich in combinational play, e.g. 11 BxP, BxB; 12 Kt-
B3, B-B5!; 13 RxQ.eh, RxR (This is all forced) .
14 Q.-K3, P-Kt5!; 15 P-Q.Kt3!, B-K3!; 16 Kt-K4, R-Q.8 eh; 17 Kt-K1, Kt-

Q.5; 18 B-Kt2, Kt x BP; 19 Q.-K2, RxR; 20 BxR, KtxB; 21 KtxKt, BxKt; 22 Kt-
Q.3. A most interesting position has arisen, in which Black has far better
counter-chances than he would obtain by quiet play.
It is interesting to follow the continuation of the game Shagaloviteh-
Ravinsky (Voroshilovgrad, 1955). 22 ...
B-Kt3 (Better than 22 . . .B-K2, on which 23 Kt-B4 ! is strong) ; 23 Kt x P (23
Kt-B4 followed by Kt x B is worth considering, as in Suetin-Ravinsky, Wilna,
1953), 0-0; 24 Kt-B6, P-B3 (Not so good is 24...K-R1!? because of 25 Q.-Q.1!,
as in Boleslavsky-Gurgenidze, Riga, 1955); 25 Kt-K7 eh? (A serious mistake.
After the stronger 25 P-KR3 chances are about equal), K-R1; 26 Q.-R5, B-B2;
238 MODERN CH ESS OP ENING THE ORY
27 Q.-B5, P xP! (Now Black has the initiative in addition to his material plus) ;
28 P-KR4, B-B4; 29 Q.-Kt5, Kt-B7, and Black has a clear advantage.
This system needs further analysis. Black seems to have sufficient
resources to maintain good counterplay.
(b) Q,ueen against Three Minor Pieces

In a number of important opening variations one side may exchange (or
sacrifice) his Queen for three minor pieces. This situation may arise, for
example, in one of the important variations of the Sozin Attack in the Sicilian
Defence. 1 P-K4, P-Q.B4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 P-Q.4, PxP; 4 KtxP, Kt-B3; 5
Kt-Q.B3, P-Q.3; 6 B-Q.B4, P-K3; 7 0-0, P-Q.R3; 8 B-K3, Q.-B2; 9 B-Kt3, Kt-
Q.R4; 10
P-B4, P-Q.Kt4; 11 P-B5!, KtxB; 12 BPxKt!, B-K2; 13 R-B1, Q.-Q.2 ; 14 Q.-B3,

0-0; 15 P-K5! (This is stronger
than 1 5 P-KKt4, as was played in the game Geller
Tai:m.anov, Kiev, 1954), B-Kt2 (If 1 5. . .QP x P ; 16 P x P,
P x P, White obtains an advantage by 1 7 Kt x KP !) ; 16
PxKt!, BxQ.; 17 BPxB, Q.xP; 18 RxB.
The earlier discussions about relative piece values apply
to this position, where White, with good value for his Queen, has a strong
initiative. Here, for example, if 18...P-K4, White plays 19 P-B6, PxP; 20 Kt-
B5, etc.
The same considerations throw doubt on Black's play in another variation
of the Sozin Attack. 1 P-K4, P-Q,B4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q,B3; 3 P-Q,4, PxP; 4
KtxP, Kt-B3; 5 Kt-Q,B3, P-Q,3; 6 B-Q,B4, P-K3; 7 0-0, P-Q,R3; 8 B-K3, B-K2;
9 B-Kt3, Kt-Q,R4; 10 P-B4, 0-0; 11 Q,-B3, P-Q,Kt4; 12 P-K5!, B-Kt2; 13 PxKt,
BxQ,; 14 BPxB, Q,xP; 15 RxB.
Here White's initiative is not as strong as in the previous example, but his
chances of a K-side attack with P-B5, etc., give him the better game. White's
three minor pieces will be much more active than Black's Queen.
Black's defensive system with . . . P-QR3, . . .P-QKt4, and
. .Kt-QR4 against the Sozin Attack has disappeared from practice.
0 Exchange Sacrifices in the Opening

The sacrifice (or exchange) of the Queen against an equivalent weight of
minor pieces in the opening is rare. The
possibility of sacrificing a Rook for a minor piece anses much more often.
In many variations of the Sicilian Defence Black sacri fices the exchange
on White's QB3 . Thus, in the variation 1 P-K4, P-Q.B4; 2 Kt-KB3, P-Q.3; 3 P-
Q.4, PxP; 4 KtxP, Kt-KB3; 5 Kt-Q.B3, P-Q.R3; 6 P-KKt3, P-Q.Kt4; 7 B-Kt2, B-
Kt2; 8 P-Q.R3, P-K3; 9 0-0,Q. Kt-Q.2; 10 P-B4, R-B1; 11 P-B5, P-K4; 12 Kt-
Kt3?, RxKt!; 13 P x R, Kt x P Black, at the cost of a small material deficit,
destroys White's pawn position in the centre and on the Queen's wing, at the
same time seizing the initiative.
This type of 'sacrifice' is as a rule good for Black, and White must keep a
careful watch for it.
An interesting game arises in one of the main variations of the Griinfeld
Defence, where White sacrifices the exchange for the initiative and obtains
attacking chances and a strong pawn centre. 1 P-Q.4, Kt-KB3; 2 P-Q.4, P-
KKt3; 3 Kt Q.B3, P-Q.4; 4 PxP, KtxP; 5 P-K4, KtxKt; 6 PxKt, P-Q.B4; 7 B-
Q.B4, B-Kt2; 8 Kt-K2, PxP; 9 PxP, 0-0; 10 B-K3, Kt-B3; 11 0-0, B-Kt5.
It is important to provoke White's next move. The follow-
NEW PATHS I N THE O PENI N G 241
ing exchange sacrifice was first made in the game Sokolsky Tolush (Om.sk,
1944) where Black played immediately 11 ...Kt-R4; 12 B-Q.3, B-K3. Mter 13
P-Q.5!, BxR; 14 Q.x B, P-B3; 15 B-KR6, R-K1; 16 Kt-B4, B-Q.2; 17 P
K5, P-K3 (Bad is 1 7. . .P-QR3 ; 1 8 P-K6 !, B-Kt4 ; 1 9
B xP !, P xB ; 2 0 Q-Kt1 , P-B4; 21 Q-R1 , and mate is
unavoidable) ; 18 Q.P xP, BxP; 19 B-Q.Kt5, B-Q.2; 20
P-B3, Kt-R4; 13 B-Q.3, B-K3. This is the critical position. Here White, in
order to prevent his opponent's
active plans on the Q side and in the centre ( 14 . . .B-B5 or
. . Kt-B5) must go in for the most critical line, sacrificing the xchange with 14
P-Q.5!, BxR; 15 Q.xB.
At the cost of a small material deficit White has a strong >awn centre and
good attacking chances against the black Gng.
In the succeeding sharp struggle for the initiative tactics >lay an important
part. For some time theorists have been tudying this most interesting
position, which can be evalu
.ted only by the most accurate concrete analysis. The slightest rror can
quickly lead to defeat.
A good example of this is the game Bannik-Novotelnov
(Tiflis, 1951) which continued 15...P-B3; 16 B-KR6,

R-K1 (But not 16 ...Q.-Kt3 eh? because of 17 K-R1, KR-Q.1; 18 R-Q.Kt1, Q.-
B4; 19 B-Q.2!, with a strong attack for White, as in Bronstein-Boleslavsky,
Moscow, 1950) ; 17 Kt-B4, B-Q.2 (Probably 1 7. . . B-B2 is stronger. If then 18
P-K5, B xP ! ; 19 Q-Ktl , then 19. . . B-B5 ! Shamko vitch recommends 19 R-
Q1 instead of 19 Q-Kt1 ) ; 18 P-K5, R-Q.B1; 19 K-R1?
Here Shamkovitch recently discovered a strong attack for White with 19
Q.-K1! For instance, if 19 ...Kt-B5, then 20 Q.-Kt3, KtxP; 21 KtxP!, etc.
White's seemingly useful move, 19 K-R1, in reality gives Black the
initiative-and the game, 19...Kt-B5; 20 P-K6, B-R5; 21 KtxP, PxKt; 22 BxP,
Kt-K4; 23 B-K4, B-B7! Black has beaten off White's attack and retained his
material plus.
In the opening and middlegame two minor pieces are generally stronger
than a Rook, even if the side with the Rook has two extra pawns, i.e. more
than sufficient compen sation. Hence this exchange is disadvantageous,
even though often possible.
Thus, the following familiar variation of the Philidor Defence has long been
recognized as bad for White. 1 P K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3, P-Q.3; 3 P-Q.4, Kt-KB3;
4 Kt-B3, Q.Kt-Q.2; 5 B-Q.B4, B-K2; 6 Kt-KKt5?, 0-0; 7 BxP eh, RxB; 8 Kt-K6,
Q.-K1; 9 KtxBP, Q.-Q.1; 10 KtxR, PxP!, etc.
Of course, this type of exchange, which is not usually to be recommended,

may sometimes be advantageous, if it destroys the opponent's co-ordination
or forces lasting positional weaknesses. However, in the middlegame minor
pieces are usually easy to co-ordinate and the situation must be analysed
deeply.
Take, for example, the following variation of the Ruy Lopez. 1 P-K4, P-K4;
2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 B-Kt5, P-B4; 4 Kt-B3, PxP; 5 Q.Kt xP, P-Q.4; 6 KtxP,
PxKt; 7 KtxKt, PxKt!?; 8 BxP eh, B-Q.2; 9 Q.-R5 eh, K-K2; 10 Q.-K5 eh, B-K3;
11 BxR, Q.xB.
- - .JJS)B
- - ·t
····" ····" "
- -A- -
-- - -t ---
• • M'fE! .
----
g -%
.!1. .!1. u .!1.
0:.:.
r . R'r) - 'M
A position has arisen in which White has more than suffi cient material
compensation for his two minor pieces ; also Black's King has lost the right to
castle. Until recently this position was considered unsatisfactory for Black.
Recently, however, deep concrete analysis has shown that Black has good
counter-chances since his minor pieces can become very active. It is
interesting to note that White is now recommended not to take the Rook
immediately but rather to play for an attack against the black King. Instead of
1 1 B x R, the Yugoslav theoretician, Vukovic, suggests 11 P KB4!, Kt-R3; 12
Q.xP (But not 12 P-Q.4?, Kt-Kt5; 13 Q.x P, Kt-B3; 14 Q.-K5, K-B2; 15 P B5,
B-Q4; 16 0-0, B-K2; 17 B x R, Q.x B, with good counterplay for Black, as in
Ivkov-Porreca, Belgrade, 1954), R-QKt1; 13 P-Q4, K-B2; 14 P-B5!, KtxP; 15
0-0, etc.
M.C.O.T,
(d) Piece against Pawns

The exchange of a minor piece for an approximately equivalent weight of
pawns also occurs in the opening. In the opening and middlegame a minor
piece is usually slightly stronger than three pawns. Nevertheless, each
position has its individual features, which in the last analysis are decisive in
evaluating chances. The initiative is again of great impor tance.
Take the position which arises in the Slav Defence after
1 P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 2 P-Q.B4, P-Q.B3; 3 Kt-Q.B3, Kt-KB3; 4 Kt-B3, P x P; 5 P-
Q.R4, B-B4; 6 Kt-K5, P-K3; 7 P-B3, B-Q.Kt5; 8 P-K4, BxP; 9 PxB, KtxP; 10 B-
Q.2, Q.xP; 11 KtxKt, Q.xKt eh; 12 Q.-K2, BxB eh; 13 KxB.
Here Black has four pawns against White's Bishop, i.e. more than
sufficient compensation. In view of the more active potential of the white
pieces, however, chances are about even, perhaps slightly in White's favour,
as, for example, in the variation recommended by Tolush : 13...
Q.-Q.4 eh; 14 K-B2, Kt-R3; 15 KtxP(B4)!, 0-0-0; 16 Q.-K3, Kt-B4; 17 Q.-K5,
P-B3; 18 Q.x Q., BP x Q.; 19 19 Kt-Q.2.
On the other hand, in a number of opening systems a minor piece is
sacrificed for only one or two pawns-but together with chances of attacking
the opponent's King. In older opening systems and in several modern ones
Black's KB2 is often the main target of such an attack.
Recently the following interesting gambit appeared.
1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 B-Kt5, P-Q.R3; 4 B-R4, P-Q.Kt4; 5 B-Kt3,
Kt-R4!?; 6 BxP eh!?, KxB; 7 Kt x P eh, K-K2.
The move 5 ...Kt-R4, examined earlier, is the beginning of a deep and
involved plan. Approaching the opening concretely, Black strives, at the cost
of development, to exchange off White's important King's Bishop. In doing so
he must of course be prepared for the sacrifice on his KB2, after which play
becomes very sharp.
The game Spas sky-Taimanov (Leningrad, 1956) continued 8 Q.-B3, Kt-
KB3; 9 Kt-B3, Q.-K1; 10 P-Q.4, B-Kt2; 11 B-B4, K-Q.1; 12 0-0-0, B-K2; 13 Kt-
Kt4, KtxKt; 14 Q.xKt, Q.-Kt3; 15 Q.xQ., PxQ.; 16 P-B3, Kt-B5; 17 P-Q.Kt3, P-
Kt4; 18 B-Kt3, Kt-Q.3; 19 KR K1, P-Q.Kt5; 20 Kt-R4, B-Q.B3; 21 Kt-B5, Kt-
Kt4; 22 P-Q.5, B x Kt; 23 P x B, P-Q.3, and Black has held off his opponent's
attack, while retaining his material plus.
The interesting piece sacrifice in the following variation of the Ruy Lopez
was suggested by Bronstein and Kon stantinopolsky. 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3,
Kt-Q.B3; 3 B-Kt5, P-Q.R3; 4 B-R4, P-Q.3; 5 P-B3, P-B4; 6 PxP, BxP; 7 P-
Q.4, P-K5; 8 0-0!?
This sacrifice has been called the 'opening of the future' by its authors. 8 •
• • PxKt; 9 Q.xP leads to a sharp, little analysed combinational game. White's
initiative compen sates for the sacrificed material. This was shown by the
12
game Grechkin-Estrin (1st Soviet Correspondence Championship, 1949)

which continued 9 ...Kt-K2 (9 . . .
B-Q2 is stronger) ; 10 R-Kl, B-Kt3; 11 B-KKt5, P-Q.4; 12 BxKt eh, PxB; 13 Kt-
Q.2, P-R3; 14 B-R4, B-B2; 15 R-K3, P-Kt4; 16 B-Kt3, B-Kt2; 17 Q.R-Kl, 0-0;
18 RxKt, B-K3; 19 Q.R xB!
A brilliant final combination, winning the game. 19...
RxQ.; 20 KtxR, B-B3; 21 KRxP, P-Kt5; 22 Kt-R4!, B x Kt; 23 R-Kt6 eh, K-Bl;
24 B-Q.6 eh, B-K2; 25 B x B eh, Q.x B; 26 R x Q., and Black resigned.
Ill. Operations on the Flanks and Play Over the Whole Board in the
Opening
a) The Destruction of the Flanks in the Opening
When basic opening principles are applied directly, active operations on

the flanks are initiated only when development is complete and the central
structure has been determined. In many modern systems, however, a sharp
struggle is waged over the whole board before the completion of
development. Often the struggle concentrates on a wing rather than in the
centre. Sharp tactical attacks on a wing in the opening may lead to the
destruction of the pawn formation on that sector of the board. (This arises
particularly often in the French and Slav defences.)
Thus, at a very early stage of the game one side begins an energetic
piece attack on a wing. The most energetic strategic counter to this plan is
either a counter-attack in the centre or an attack on the opposite wing (or
sometimes the two combined).
Good illustrations of this are some of the French Defence systems worked
out by Rauzer, Botvinnik, Smyslov, and
others. Let us examine one of them. 1 P-K4, P-K3; 2 P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 3 Kt-
Q.B3, B-Kt5; 4 P-K5, P-Q.B4; 5 P-Q.R3, BxKt eh; 6 PxB, Kt-K2; 7 Q.-Kt4.
White starts to exert piece pressure on the K side, based on his superiority
in space and greater mobility on that sector of the board.
7 ...P xP!
The most logical continuation. Black does not try to defend his KKt2 but
instead initiates active operations in the centre and on the Q side, where he
has chances of working up a successful counter-attack.
Q.xKtP, R-Kt1; 9 Q.xP, Q.-B2!;10Kt-K2,Q.Kt-B3!; 11 P-KB4, B-Q.2; 12 Q.-
Q.3, PxP.
Thus, White's Q-side pawn structure has been shattered, while Black's K-
side pawns have been seriously weakened. There follows a sharp struggle
for the initiative. In the game Bagin-Konstantinov (Saratov, 1948) White de
cided to win the pawn by 13 KtxP, but came under attack after 13 ...P-R3; 14
P-Kt3, R-Q.B1!; 15 Kt-K2, Kt-B4; 16 B-R3, Q.Kt-K2; 17 Kt-Q.4, KtxKt; 18
Q.xKt, Q.xP.
248 MODERN CHES O PENING THE ORY
Probably 13 R-Q.Kt1, with a very complicated game, is better.

Recently the following French Defence system, analo gous to the above,
has been analysed. 1 P-K4, P-K3; 2 P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 3 Kt-Q.B3, B-Kt5; 4 P-K5,
P-Q.B4; 5 P-Q.R3, B-R4!?; 6 P-Q.Kt4, PxQ.P; 7 Q.-Kt4!?, Kt-K2; 8 PxB,
PxKt; 9 Q.xKtP, R-Kt1; 10 Q.xP.
The ninth game of the 1954 Botvinnik-Smyslov match continued (Smyslov

was White) 10 ...Kt-Q.2 (Better is 1 0. . . QKt-B3 ; 1 1 P-B4, Qx P) ; 11 Kt-B3,
Kt-B1!?
A strategic mistake, leading to great difficulties for Black. He goes over to

passive defence when he should strive for immediate counterplay in the
centre and on the Queen's wing with 1 1 . . .Q-B2 !
12 Q.-Q.3, Q.xP; 13 P-KR4!, B-Q.2; 14 B-Kt5, R-B1; 15 Kt-Q.4, Kt-B4; 16
R-Q.Kt1! (White is excellently conducting a tactical campaign over the whole
board long before completing his development), R-B5; 17 Kt xKt, PxKt; 18
RxP, and White has a decisive advantage.
Often the pawn formation on a wing is shattered as a
result of pawn advances. This occurs in many Slav Defence systems. Very
instructive, for example, are the systems worked out by Rubinstein and
Botvinnik.
In the main variation of the Botvinnik Variation, which commences 1 P-
Q.4, P-Q.4; 2 P-Q.B4, P-Q.B3; 3 Kt-Q.B3, Kt-KB3; 4 Kt-B3, P-K3; 5 B-Kt5, P
x P; 6 P-K4, P-Kt4; 7 P-K5, P-KR3; 8 B-R4,P-Kt4;9KKtxP, PxKt; 10 BxKtP,
Q.Kt-Q.2; 11 PxKt, Black allows his K-side pawns to be destroyed but sets up
a powerful pawn wedge on the opposite wing.
The succeeding play is extremely complicated, as, for instance, in the

game Smyslov-Botvinnik (World Cham pionship Match, Moscow, 1954) which
continued 11. ..B-Q.Kt2; 12 P-KKt3, Q.-Kt3; 13 B-Kt2, 0-0-0; 14 0-0, Kt-K4!;
15 Q.-K2, Q.xP; 16 B-K3, Q.-Q.6; 17, KR-Q.1, Q.xQ.; 18 RxR eh, KxR; 19
KtxQ., Kt-Q.6, and in this complicated ending Black maintained the balance.
Black carries out the same Q-side advance (with . . .P x P and ...P-QKt4)
in Rubinstein's system (the Meran Defence). Let us look at one interesting
variation of this
system, which has been deeply analysed by Soviet players.
P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 2 P-Q.B4, P-Q.B3; 3 Kt-KB3, Kt-B3; 4 Kt-B3, P-K3; 5 P-K3,
Q.Kt-Q.2; 6 B-Q.3, p X p; 7 B X BP ' P-Q.Kt4; 8 B-K2, B-Kt2; 9 P-K4, P-Kt5; 10
P-K5, PxKt; 11 PxKt, BPxP; 12 PxP, PxR=Q.; 13 PxR
As a result of the destruction of the flanks in the opening an almost forced

variation has led to an extraordinary position with four Queens. Play in this
curious position has been little analysed.
It is interesting to note that a similar position with several Queens in the
middlegame arose in one of Alekhine's games (Alekhine was White): 1 P-K4,
P-K3; 2 P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 3 Kt-Q.B3, Kt-KB3; 4 B-Kt5, B-Kt5; 5 P-K5, P-KR3; 6
PxKt, PxB; 7 PxP, R-Kt1; 8 P-KR4, PxP; 9 Q.-Kt4!, B-K2; 10 P-KKt3, P-Q.B4;
11 Kt PxP, PxP; 12 P-R5!, PxKt; 13 P-R6, PxP; 14 R-Kt1, Q.-R4 eh; 15 K-K2,
Q.xP; 16 P-R7, Q.xR; 17 PxR=Q. eh, K-Q.2; 18 Q.xP, Q.xP eh; 19 K-B3, Kt-
B3!; 20 Q. (Kt4) xP eh, K-B2; 21 Q.-B4 eh, K-Kt3; 22 Q.(K6)-K3 eh, B-B4; 23
P-Kt8=Q., P-Kt8=Q..
Here Alekhine found an elegant win by 24 R-R6! !

NEW PATHS IN T H E OP ENING 251
(Threatening 25 Q-Q8 mate), Q.xB; 25 Q.-Kt4 eh, Q.-Kt4; 26 Q-Q.8 eh, K-

R3; 27 Q.(K3)-R3 eh, and White won.
Capture of the Centre from the Flanks

The idea of seizing control of the centre with the help of opera tions on the
flanks is often seen in modern opening structures. (Usually a wing advance is
considered to be purely a local operation.) With this plan the active side
strives to weaken his opponent's pressure on the centre in order to be able to
gain control of it later.
The most frequently met cases of this are undermining thrusts with the
BP's or even with the KtP's. In modern opening systems pressure on the
centre is often exerted by P-KKt4 or P-QKt4 !
P-KKt4 in the opening (before the completion of
development) can be very strong. Instructive examples
can be found in Alekhine's games. For instance, in
the game Alekhine-Euwe (A.V.R.O. Tourna:ment,
A:msterda:m, 1938) which opened 1 P-Q.4, P-Q.4;
2 P-Q.B4 P-Q.B3; 3 Kt-Q.B3, Kt-B3; 4 PxP, PxP;
5 Kt-B3, Kt-B3; 6 B-B4, B-B4; 7 P-K3, P-Q.R3; 8 Kt-
Position
after
8 . . . R-Bl
252 MODERN C HESS O PENING THE ORY
K5, R-B1, White unexpectedly played 9 P-KKt4!, initiat ing an original plan of
advance on the K side, aiming at undermining the centre.
9 ...B-Q.2; 10 B-Kt2, P-K3; 11 0-0, P-R3 (White's basic scheme is
revealed most clearly in the variation 1 1. . .P-KR4; 12 P-Kt5 !, Kt-KKtl ; 1 3
P-K4 !, opening up
the centre after achieving an advantage in space) ; 12 B-Kt3, P-KR4; 13 KtxB
(If here 13 P-Kt5 ?, then 13. . .P-R5), KtxKt; 14 PxP!, Kt-B3; 15 B-B3, and
White has a clear advantage in the centre and on the K side.
In many modern opening systems an important part is played by the move
P-QKt4, exerting indirect pressure on the centre.
Quite recently, for example, in many variations of the Tchigorin Defence to
the Ruy Lopez White introduced a new plan for creating active pressure on the
centre with P-QKt4. The idea was first seen in the variation 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2
Kt-KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 B-Kt5, P-Q.R3; 4 B-R4, Kt-B3; 5 0-0, B-K2; 6 R-K1, P-
Q.Kt4; 7 B-Kt3, P-Q.3; 8 P-B3, 0-0; 9 P-KR3, Kt-Q.R4; 10 B-B2, P-B4; 11 P-
Q.4, Q.-B2; 12 Q.Kt-Q.2, P-Kt3!?; 13 Kt-B1, R-K1; 14 Kt-K3, K-Kt2.
Mobilization has been carried out and the middlegame begins. Black has
made good preparations to ward off White's traditional K-side attack (P-KKt4,
etc.) but has spent several tempi on them. Black's forces are disposed for a
game with a closed centre. If the centre is opened, the drawbacks in Black's
position may emerge (the lack of co ordination among his pieces and the
weak black squares around his King) . The tactical thrust P-Q,Kt4, discovered
by Boleslavsky, undermines Black's central supports and opens up the game
to White's advantage.
This plan is particularly strong if White has an advantage in development
or in the position of his pieces. If the game is opened up, White's pieces may
then become very active. Take, for instance, the following line of the Ruy
Lopez. 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q,B3; 3 B-Kt5, P-Q,R3; 4 B-R4, Kt-B3; 5
0-0, P-Q,Kt4; 6 B-Kt3, P-Q,3; 7 P-B3, Kt-Q,R4; 8 B-B2, P-B4; 9 P-Q,4, Q,-B2;
10 Q,Kt-Q,2, P-Kt3.
Here the most energetic plan for White is the wing attack
P-Q,Kt4!, PxKtP; 12 BPxP, Kt-B3 ( 1 2 . . .Kt-B5 is also insufficient, because
of 1 3 Kt x Kt, P x Kt; 14 B-R4 eh, B-Q2 ; 1 5 B-KKt5 !, with a strong attack for
White) ;
MODERN CHESS OP ENING THEORY
13 B-Kt2!, B-KKt2 (If 1 3. . . Kt x KtP, then 14 B-Kt1 !) ;

14 R-B1, B-Kt2; 15 B-Kt3.
White has forced open the game in the centre and on the Q side and is
now able to exploit his advantage in develop ment. White's attack developed
quickly, for example, in the game Bronstein-Evans (Moscow, 1955) ; play
continued 15...Q.-K2? (Rather better is 15...Q.-Kt3, as in Suetin Ragozin,
Kiev, 1954; after 16 PxP, PxP; 17 KtxP, KtxKt; 18 BxKt, 0-0 Black gave up a
pawn but avoided immediate defeat) ; 16 RxKt!, BxR; 17 PxP, Kt-R4
1 7. . . P x P is not good because of 18 Kt x P, attacking both QB6 and KB
7) ; 18 P-Kt4, Kt-B5; 19 P x P, Q.-Q.2; 20 Kt-K5, and White soon won.
Of course, P-QKt4 is not always good for White in the Tchigorin Defence.
It must_ be remembered that the move also leads to a serious weakening of
White's Q side. If Black can find active counterplay, P-QKt4 can be double
edged or even disadvantageous. Thus, in the following popular system the
value of P-QKt4 is doubtful. 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 B-Kt5, P-
Q.R3; 4 B-R4, Kt-B3; 5 0-0, B-K2; 6 R-K1, P-Q.Kt4; 7 B-Kt3, 0-0; 8 P-B3, P-
Q.3; 9 P-KR3, Kt-Q.R4; 10 B-B2, P-B4; 11
Position
after
P-QKt4! ?
P-Q.4, Q.-B2; 12 Q.Kt-Q.2, B-Q.2; 13 Kt-B1, KR-K1; 14 Kt-K3, P-Kt3; 15 P-

Q.Kt4!?
After 15...P x KtP; 16 BP x P, Kt-B5!; 17 Kt x Kt,
PxKt; 18 R-K3 Black should play 18 ...P-B6! (Not 18 ...
B-KB1, as in Tal-lvkov, Uppsala, 1956, whereupon White blockaded the
passed pawn by 19 B-Kt2 and achieved a clear advantage) and the passed
QBP gives him equal chances.
In the game Keres-Matanovic (Belgrade, 1955) instead of 18 R-K3, White
played 18 R-Kt1 (If 18 B-Q.2, P-B6; 19 B-R6, as in Bronstein-Gligoric,
Moscow, 1956, Black can play 19...B-KB1; 20 B-Kt5, B-Kt2, with sufficient
counterplay) . However, after 18...Q.R-Kt1; 19 B-Q.2, P-B6; 20 B-R6, P-R4!
Black had a fine game.
In this case, when White cannot open up the game to his advantage, it
may be better (instead of 1 5 P-QKt4) to go in for active operations on the K
side with 15 PxKP, P x P; 16 Kt-R2, etc. (See the game Boleslavsky-Tal, p.
123.)
Finally, in many variations of the Tchigorin Defence there are no grounds

at all for P-QKt4. For example, after 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 B-
Kt5, P-Q.R3; 4
Position
after
15 . . . P-Q4!
B-R4, Kt-B3; 5 0-0, B-K2; 6 R-K1, P-QKt4; 7 B-Kt3, P-Q3; 8 P-B3, 0-0; 9 P-
KR3, Kt-QR4; 10 B-B2, P-B4; 11 P-Q4, Q-B2; 12 QKt-Q2, R-Q1 White is not
advised to play 13 P-QKt4, because 13...P x KtP; 14 BP x P, Kt-B3; 15 P-
QR3, P-Q4! sees Black counter-attacking very strongly.
Black's . . . P-QKt4 in many cases also contributes towards obtaining a

favourable position in the centre. Thus, in one of the variations of the Pirc
Defence after 1 P-K4, P-Q3; 2 P-Q4, Kt-KB3; 3 Kt-QB3, P-KKt3; 4 P-B4, B-
Kt2; 5 Kt-B3, P-B4; 6 P-Q5, 0-0; 7 B-K2? (Correct is 7 P-QR4 !) Black's most
active continuation is 7 ...P-QKt4! Choosing the right moment, Black makes
this tactical advance on the flank and seriously weakens White's centre. Both
8 B x P and 8 Kt x P allow Black to shatter the White centre by 8 ...Kt x KP!,
while if 8 Kt-Q2, Black replies 8 ...P-Kt5, weakening White's grip on the centre
and preparing for active operations on the Q side.
This idea of exerting pressure on the centre from the flank is important and
promising. Thus, it is quite possible that the opening 1 P-QKt4!?, deeply
analysed by Sokolsky in recent years, may have a future.
(c) Castling on Opposite Sides

Castling on opposite sides in the opening leads to a fierce combinational
battle. Having the first move, White more often finds the opportunity to castle
long, and opening systems with castling on opposite sides most often see
White castled long and Black castled short. This occurs, for example, in the
Sicilian, Caro-Kann, and King's Indian defences. Further plans of both sides
are often more or less closely connected with attacks on the opponent's King.
The following Sicilian Defence system may serve as a typical example. 1

P-K4, P-Q.B4; 2 Kt-KB3, P-Q.3; 3 P-Q.4, PxP; 4 KtxP, Kt-KB3; 5 Kt-Q.B3, P-
KKt3; 6 B-K3, B-Kt2; 7 P-B3, 0-0; 8 Q.-Q.2, Kt-B3; 9 0-0-0, KtxKt; 10 BxKt,
Q.-R4; 11 B-B4!, B-K3; 12 B-Kt3!, BxB; 13 BPxB.
After this exchange on White's QKt3 Black has an extra pawn in the
centre, which seems to give him a positional superiority. In this position,
however, with castling on opposite sides, a more important factor is the
location of the two Kings.
White has strengthened his own King's position and has good prospects of
attacking the somewhat weakened castled position of his opponent. Practice
and research have shown that White's chances are preferable. Naturally,
Black's basic plan consists in active counterplay in the centre. Meanwhile,
however, White, exploiting his advantage in space, has enough chances of
creating piece pressure on the centre and thereby parrying Black's threats.
Let us examine the main variation. 13...KR-Q.1; 14 K-Kt1, R-Q.2; 15 P-
KKt4, Q.R-Q.1; 16 Q.-K2!
258 MODERN CHESS O PENI N G THEORY
In the well-known game Boleslavsky-Ilivitsky (Mos cow, 1945) where this

variation first appeared, White played less accurately 16 P-Kt5 and after
16...Kt-R4 White had much greater difficulty in advancing. The move 16 Q.-
K2 was later recommended by Boleslavsky. White holds up Black's . . .P-K4
and . . .P-Q4 and at the same time prepares the decisive advance P-KR4-R5.
16 ...B-R1 ( 1 6. . .P-K4; 1 7 B-K3, P-Q4 leads to the loss of a pawn after
18 P-Kt5. Now, however, Black threatens this central advance) ; 17 P-KR4,
P-K4 (He cannot play more slowly, as White's K-side attack develops very
quickly) ; 18 B-K3, P-Q.4; 19 B-Kt5!, PxP; 20 PxP, and White controls his Q5
and has the advantage.
Another plan for Black in the critical diagrammed position consists in
striving for an attack on the Q side. Practice shows that here too White's
chances are better.
For example, the game Suetin-Lisitsyn (Riga, 1954) continued from the
diagram 13...KR-B1; 14 K-Kt1, P-R4 (Black attempts to hold up White's pawn
storm, but in vain) ; 15 P-KR3, R-B3; 16 P-KKt4, Q.R-Q.B1; 17 KR-Kt1, Kt-K1;
18 B X B, Kt X B; 19 P-B4, P-K3; 20 P-B5 (While Black's attack is condemned
to failure, White's pawn storm gathers strength), Q.-K4; 21 KtPxP, KPxP; 22
RPxP, PxKtP; 23 RxP, P-Q.4; 24 RxR, PxR; 25 PxQ.P, PxP; 26 KtxP, and
White soon won.
In answer to Black's Q-side attack in this variation White can sometimes
organize active operations in the centre. Thus, in the game Aronin-Lisitsyn
(Riga, 1954) where Black played, instead of 12 . . .B x B, 12 ...KR-B1 and
then 13 K-Kt1, Q.R-Kt1, White made an unexpected and very interesting
advance in the centre : 14 KR-K1, BxB; 15 RPxB!, P-Q.Kt4; 16 P-K5, PxP; 17
RxP, P-K3;
18 Q.-K2, R-Q.1; 19 RxKtP, RxR; 20 KtxR, and White obtained a

considerable advantage.
Recently, in answer to 9 0-0-0, Black has chosen the sharp 9 ...P-Q.4!?,
sacrificing a pawn in the hope of quickly opening lines of attack on the Q side.
This leads to very interesting complications, which in many variations put the
white King in grave danger.
If the sacrifice is accepted, by 10 P x P, Kt x P; 11 KKtxKt, PxKt; 12 KtxKt,

PxKt; 13 Q.xP, then 13 ...Q-B2! enables Black to develop a very dangerous
attack on the white King.
For example, the game Byvshev-Beilin (Leningrad, 1955) continued 14 Q.-
Q.B5 (lfhere 14 Q.xR, then a possible follow-up is 14...B-B4; 15 Q.xR eh,
KxQ.; 16 R-Q.2, P-KR4; 17 B-K2, Q.-Kt1!; 18 P-Q.Kt3, B-B6; 19 R-Q.5, B-K3;
20 R-Q.3, Q.-Kt5!; 21 K-Kt1, B-B4; 22 R-Q.8 eh, K-Kt2; 23 KR-Q,1, B-B3, with
an irresistible attack for Black, as in Stolyar-Beilin, Leningrad, 1955), Q.-Kt2;
15 P-B3?
The best reply, 1 5 Q-R3 !, leads to an approximately

260 M O DERN C HESS O PENING THE ORY
even game after 15. . .B-B4; 16 B-QR6, Q-B2 ; 1 7 Q-B5,

Q-Kt3 (suggested by Averbakh). Now Black obtains a
crushing attack.
15 ...B-B4!; 16 Q.-Kt5, Q.-B2; 17 Q.-B4, Q.-K4; 18
B-Q.2, KR-Q.1; 19 P-B4, Q.-R4; 20 B-K2, Q.R-B1; 21 Q.-R6, BxP!, and Black
won.
White probably does best to decline the pawn sacrifice and to play 10 PxP,
KtxP; 11 KKtxKt, PxKt; 12 B-Q.4, striving to blunt Black's Q-side attack.
In this case Black must play very actively if he wants to maintain his
counterplay, e.g. 12...P-K4; 13 B-B5, B-K3! Black offers the exchange, the
acceptance of which ( 14 B x R, QxB) gives the second player irresistible
threats.
Play was interesting in the game Trifunovic-Averbakh (Belgrade, 1956).
Here White continued 14 B-B4 (14 Kt-K4 is perhaps stronger), KtxKt; 15
Q.xKt, Q.-Kt4 eh; 16 B-K3, Q.xP; 17 BxB, PxB; 18 Q.xBP, Q.R-B1; 19 Q.-K4,
RxP; 20 KR-B1, R-B7; 21 Q.xQ., Q.R xP eh; 22 K-Kt1, R x P eh, and draws
by perpetual check.
These examples show that the evaluation of positions in which the players
castle on opposite sides in the opening depends on the respective chances of
building up an attack on the opposing King.
Of course, plans in the opening are many and varied, and even with
castling on opposite sides other schemes may be preferable, such as play in
the centre, exchanges, etc. However, we must first examine those cases in
which the basic strategic plan, with castling on opposite sides, is an attack on
the enemy King. Before analysing this question more concr etely, we shall
make a few general points.
In carrying out an attack against a castled King the following general aims
must be borne in mind :
1 ) Attacking operations must be fused with the necessary defensive

means to ensure the safety of the player's own King.
An attempt must be made to force the opponent to resort to passive
defence. The initiative is of supreme importance in these positions.
Play is often forced, especially when both sides initiate pawn storms
leading to the opening of lines on the flanks. These operations
require deep calculation of the various possibilities.
The most important factors in the development of a quick attack on the
flank are :
1 ) a weakness in the opponent's castled position ;
(2) open lines on the flank;
(3) the chance of organizing a pawn storm against the opponent's castled
position ;
( 4) the mobility of the pieces, the ability quickly to transfer them to key
points.
Only in this last case can pawn storms be successful, since a pawn storm
is effective only when supported by pieces. Freedom of manoeuvre is
determined by the earlier opening play, which has usually concentrated on
the centre. Hence an important role is played by the central pawn structure
which has evolved in the opening.
The central pawn structure may be either open or closed.
Both cases will now be examined.
1 ) Castling on opposite sides when the central pawn structure is open
occurs in various systems of the Ruy Lopez, the Queen's Gam.bit and the
French, Caro-Kann, Sicilian, and King's Indian defences. The advantage is
usually on the side which emerges from the opening with greater control of
the centre. This guarantees a lasting initiative
262 M O D ERN CHESS OPENING THEORY
(provided, of course, that the opponent has no definite compensation) .

Thus, after 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-QB3; 3 B-Kt5, P-Q.3; 4 P-Q4, B-
Q2; 5 Kt-B3, Kt-B3; 6 B x Kt, BxB; 7 Q-Q.3!, PxP; 8 KtxP, B-Q2; 9 B-Kt5, B-
K2; 10 0-0-0, 0-0 White's superiority in the centre enables him
to organize a K-side advance. Black, on the other hand, with his cramped
position cannot so easily work up a counter-attack on the Q side. Castling
long is probably White's strongest plan in this opening system.
This was confirmed, for instance, by the game Spielm.ann Maroczy (1920)
in which, after 11 P-B4, Kt-K1; 12 BxB, QxB; 13 Kt-Q5, Q.- Ql; 14 P-KKt4!,
White obtained a clear advantage.
A similar picture is seen in many lines of the Rubinstein Variation of the
French Defence. For example 1 P-K4, P-K3; 2 P-Q.4, P-Q4; 3 Kt-Q.B3, PxP;
4 KtxP, Kt-Q2; 5 Kt-KB3, B-K2; 6 B-Q3, KK.t-B3; 7 Q-K2, Kt x Kt; 8 BxKt, Kt-
B3? (Stronger is 8 . . .P-QB4; 9 P x P, Kt x P. The passive text move furthers
White's plan of castling long) ;
9 B-Q.3, P-B4; 10 PxP, Q.-R4 eh; 11 B-Q.2, Q.xBP; 12
0-0-0, 0-0.
From this position White, exploiting his greater freedom of movement,

carried through a brilliant attack in the game Keres-Petrov (Riga, 1939). Play
continued 13 Kt-K5, P-Q.Kt3; 14 P-KKt4, B-Kt2; 15 P-Kt5!, Kt-Q.4 (Bad for
Black is 15. . . B x R ; 16 P x Kt, B x P ; 1 7 Kt-Q7, Q-B3 ; 1 8
Kt x B eh, P x Kt; 19 Q-Kt4 eh, K-R1 ; 2 0 B-B3, P-K4 ; 2 1 Q-B5 !, etc.) ; 16
KR-Kt1, Q.-B2; 17 R-Kt4, P-Kt3
1 8 B x P eh ! was threatened) ; 18 R-R4, B-Q.3; 19 Kt Kt4, KR-B1; 20 K-Kt1,
P-Kt4; 21 R-Kt1, B-K2; 22 Kt-R6 eh, K-B1; 23 Kt x P!, and Black's position is
hope less.
The richest and sharpest games with castling on opposite sides occur
when the central pawn structure is fluid, when neither side has a clear
superiority. This arises in many Sicilian Defence systems.
Thus, in the main variation of the Richter Attack the situation in the centre
is worth noting : 1 P-K4, P-Q.B4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 P-Q.4, PxP; 4 KtxP,
Kt-B3; 5
Kt-Q.B3, P-Q.3; 6 B-KKt5, P-K3; 7 Q.-Q.2, B-K2; 8 0-0-0, 0-0.
264 M O D E RN CHESS OP ENING THE ORY
White has an advantage in space and, consequently, greater freedom of

action for his pieces, but Black's pawns on his Q3 and K3 keep firm control of
the important central squares. Later one of these pawns may advance,
gaining space and driving back White's centralized pieces. Other important
factors in Black's position which facilitate active play on the Q side are the
half-open QB file and the dia gonal Ql-QR4.
Black's pieces also have sufficient chances of active play. This makes the
succeeding play extremely sharp. The struggle for the initiative is fierce.
Since White has a slightly greater choice of plans of attack, Black needs to be
very resourceful in seeking active counterplay. At all costs Black must avoid
resorting to purely passive defence.
Interesting play results from the continuation 9 Kt-Kt3, Q.-Kt3; 10 P-B3, R-
Q.1; 11 B-K3, Q.-B2; 12 Q.-B2! White creates pressure along the diagonal
KKtl -QR7, preventing Black's pawn storm . . . P-QR3 and . . .P-QKt4, and at
the same time preparing for a K-side advance. If Black resorts to passive
defence here, he soon obtains a positionally lost game.
This happened, for example, in the game Arkhangelsky-
Livshin (Moscow, 1955) which continued 12 ...P-Q
Kt3?
(A much too passive move, which allows White to develop
his K-side advance unhindered) ; 13 P-Kt4, B-Kt2; 14 P-Kt5, Kt-Q2; 15 P-KR4,
Kt-B4; 16 P-R5, Kt-K4; 17 B-K2, QR-B1; 18 Kt X Kt, QP X Kt; 19 QR-Kt1, Kt-
B3. Black defends stubbornly, but cannot save a strategically lost game.
20 P-B4, Kt-Q5; 21 P-Kt6, Kt x B eh; 22 Qx Kt, B-B1; 23 PxRP eh, KxP; 24
R-R3, P-B4; 25 Q-Kt2, Q-B2; 26 Q-Kt6 eh, K-Kt1; 27 P-R6, Qx Q; 28 R x Q,
R-K1; 29 KR-Kt3, R-B2; 30 Kt-Kt5, R-Q2; 31 RPxP!, and White obtained a
decisive advantage in material.
The correct plan for Black is to seek counterplay on the Q side. This aim is
best pursued by 12...Kt-Q2! and if
P-Kt4, then 13 ...P-QR3 and 14...P-QKt4. In the game Lein-Tairnanov
(Leningrad, 1955) White, in reply to
...Kt-Q2, played 13Kt-Kt5. However, after 13...Q-Kt1;
P-Kt4, P-QR3; 15 Kt(Kt5)-Q4, Q-B2; 16 P-KR4, QKt-K4; 17 P-Kt5, P-Kt4; 18
P-R5, Kt-B1; 19 P-KB4 (Better is 19 R-Ktl), Kt-Kt5; 20 Q-Kt3, KtxB; 21 QxKt,
P-K4; 22 Kt-B3, B-Kt5, Black had the initiative.
An example of the beautiful play which can arise when both sides initiate
pawn storms against the opponent's castled King is provided by the game
Nezhrnetdinov Tairnanov (Baku, 1951) which continued, from the previous
diagrammed position, 9 Kt-Kt3, Q-Kt3; 10 B-K3, Q-B2; 11 P-B3, P-QR3; 12
P-Kt4, P-QKt4; 13 P-Kt5,
Kt-Q2; 14 P-B4, Kt-Kt3; 15 Q-B2, R-Kt1; 16 P-KR4, Kt-R5!; 17 B-Q2, Kt X Kt;
18 B X Kt, P-Kt5; 19 B-Q2, P-QR4; 20 K-Kt1, P-R5; 21 Kt-B1, B-Q2; 22 B-
Q3, KR-B1; 23 P-R5, Kt-R4; 24 P-B5, Kt-B5; 25 P-B6,
B-B1; 26 P-Kt6, Q-B4!
266 M O D E RN CHESS O PENING THEORY
P x RP eh?
The decisive moment. Correct was 27 Q-Kt2 !, declining the exchange of
Queens, after which White has much better attacking chances. For example,
27 . . . P-R6 ; 28 P x RP eh, K-R l (If 28 . . . K x P, then 29 _?-K5 eh, K-Ktl ;
30 Q-K4 !) ;
B x Kt, QxB (If 29 . . . Q-Q5, then 30 B-B3 !) ; 30 B-R6, and White has an
irresistible attack. Now, however, the initiative passes to Black, which here
decides the outcome of the game.
27... K-R1; 28 Q,xQ,, RxQ,; 29 B-B4, PxP; 30 Kt-K2, Kt-K4; 31 B-K3, KR-
B1; 32 KR-Kt1, KxP; 33 P-R6, P-Kt6!; 34 BPxP, PxP; 35 P-R3, KtxB; 36 RxKt,
B-Kt4; 37 R-Q,2, R-B7, and Black soon won.
In this system the attacks on the opponent's castled posi tion are often
accompanied by sacrifices of pawns or pieces in an early stage of the game.
The aim of these sacrifices is usually to open files or diagonals for attack.
Thus (from the diagram on p. 264) in the variation
9 P-B4, KtxKt; 10 Q,xKt, Q,-R4; 11 Q,-Q,2, P-KR3 a very active continuation
for White is 12 P-KR4!, sacrificing a piece to open up lines of attack on the K
side.
Acceptance of the sacrifice, as was shown by the game
Averbakh-Fridstein (Moscow, 1951) gives White a deci sive attack after
12•••PxB; 13 RPxP, KtxP; 14 KtxKt, QxQ eh; 15 RxQ., followed by P-KKt4
and QR-R2.
Instead of 12 ...P x B, correct is 12 ...P-Kt4!, striving for a counter-attack
on the Q side, as in the game Zagorovsky Divitsky (Tiflis, 1951) which went
on 13 BxKtP, R-Kt1; 14 P-R4, B-R3; 15 K-Kt1, BxB; 16 PxB, PxB; 17 RPxP,
KtxP; 18 KtxKt, QxP; 19 P-B4, QxP; 20 Q-QB2, R x P eh! Interesting
complications soon led to a draw.
A similar piece sacrifice is found in several other varia tions of this
system. For instance, 9 P-B4, P-KR3; 10
P-KR4, KtxKt; 11 QxKt, PxB; 12 RPxP, Kt-Kt5, as in Sokolsky-Livshin (Kiev,
1954).
After 13 P-K5, BxP (Stronger is 1 3. . .Q-Kt3 ! ; 14 Q-Q3, Q-K6 eh ; 1 5
Qx Q, Kt x Q; 16 R-Q3 !, with very sharp play) ; 14 PxB, Q.xP eh; 15 K-Kt1,
PxP; 16 Q-Q6, Kt-R3; 17 B-Kt5, White obtained a strong attack.
If the central structure has not been fixed, both players must watch for
possible operations there. Often operations on the flank are connected with
play in the centre. Some times play may move entirely into the centre.
Thus in the above variation of the Sicilian (1 P-K4, P-QB4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-
QB3; 3 P-Q4, PxP; 4 KtxP, Kt-B3; 5 Kt-QB3, P-Q.3; 6 B-KKt5, P-K3; 7 Q-Q2,
B-K2; 8 0-0-0, 0-0; 9 P-B4) after 9•••KtxKt; 10 QxKt, Q-R4 a good plan is 11
P-K5!, PxP; 12 QxKP. Forced play leads to a complicated ending : 12•••Qx Q
(If 1 2. . .Q-Kt3, then 13 Kt-R4 !) ; 13 PxQ, Kt-Q.4; 14 BxB, KtxB.
In view of White's strong pressure along the Q file, it is not easy for Black
to develop his Q side. The character of the
268 M O D ERN CHESS O PENING THE ORY
game has completely changed. This is a further illustration of the wide variety
of possibilities found in the opening.
Another example is provided by the following variation of the King's Indian
Defence. 1 P-Q.4, Kt-KB3; 2 P-Q.B4, P-KKt3; 3 Kt-Q.B3, B-Kt2; 4 P-K4, P-
Q.3; 5 P-B3, 0-0; 6 B-K3, P-K4; 7 KKt-K2, P-B3; 8 Q.-Q.2, Q.Kt Q.2; 9 0-0-0,
P-Q.R3; 10 K-Kt1, Q.-R4; 11 Kt-B1, R K1.
In this position the most active plan for White is un doubtedly play in the
centre, which best paralyses Black's counterplay on the Q side. The game
Geller-Boleslavsky (Moscow, 1952) continued 12 Kt-Kt3, Q.-B2; 13 PxP!,
PxP; 14 P-B5, Kt-B1; 15 Q.-Q.6, Kt-K3; 16 B-Q.B4!, B-B1; 17 Q.x Q., Kt x Q.;
18 Kt-R5, R-Kt1, 19 Kt-R4!, and White, transposing into a favourable ending,
obtains a decisive superiority.
A similar plan may be successfully employed in analogous opening
structures. For example, 1 P-Q.4, Kt-KB3; 2 P Q.B4, P-KKt3; 3 Kt-Q.B3, B-
Kt2; 4 P-K4, P-Q.3; 5 P-B3, 0-0; 6 B-K3, P-K4; 7 KKt-K2, P-B3; 8 Q.-Kt3,
Q.Kt-Q.2; 9 0-0-0, Q.-R4?; 10 K-Kt1, R-Kt1; 11 PxP, P x P; 12 Q.-R4!, Q.x Q.;
13 Kt x Q..
The game Korchnoi-Kotov (Erevan, 1954) continued
13...R-K1; 14 Kt-B1, Kt-B1; 15 Kt-Kt3, KKt-Q.2; 16 B-K2, B-B3; 17 R-Q.2, K-
Kt2; 18 KR-Q.1, P-KR3; 19 Kt(R4)-B5!, KtxKt; 20 BxKt, R-R1; 21 B-B2, B-Kt4;
22 R-B2, B-K3; 23 Kt-R5!, and White has a clear advan tage in the centre
and on the Q side.
These examples show that with castling on opposite sides it is sometimes
better to reject stereotyped wing advances in favour of play in the centre.
In the game Mikenas-Ragozin (Moscow, 1955) Black in this system
played much more ingeniously (instead of 9 . . .Q R4 ?) 9 ...Q.-K2! The
continuation was 10 Q.-R3?, Kt-Kt3; 11 P-Q.Kt3, PxP!; 12 KtxP, P-B4; 13
KKt-K2, B-K3! and later •••P-Q.R5-R5. Only after establishing a favour able
position in the centre did Black start his Q-side storm.
Play over the whole board, after castling on opposite sides, is seen most
graphically in two sharp and similar variations of the French and Caro-Kann
defences. First, 1 P-K4, P-K3; 2 P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 3 Kt-Q.B3, Kt-KB3; 4 B-Kt5,
PxP; 5 KtxP, B-K2; 6 BxKt, PxB.
Play becomes particularly sharp i n these and similar variations if White

castles short and Black castles long. Then Black attempts to exploit his open
KKt file for active opera tions on the K side, while White tries to organize an
attack on the opposite wing. But it m]lst also be remembered that with
tension in the centre unresolved an unexpected counter thrust here may
radically alter the picture.
In the game Zurakhov-Ilivitsky (K.islovodsk, 1956) play continued from
the first diagram 7 Kt-KB3, P-Kt3; 8 B-B4, B-Kt2; 9 Q,-K2, P-B3; 10 0-0, Kt-
Q,2; 11 B-R6, B x B; 12 Q.x B, Q,-B2; 13 Q,-K2, Kt-B1; 14 P-B4, 0-0-0. A
sharp position has arisen with castling on opposite sides.
Possibly strongest for White here was 15 P-Q,R4, aiming at opening lines
on the Q side as quickly as possible, but White chose a different plan, based
on a breakthrough in the centre. Thanks to his opponent's stereotyped play
this brought him quick success. 15 Kt-B3, Kt-Kt3; 16 KR-Q,1, P-KB4?
(Stronger was 16. . . P-KR4. By loosening the centre Black only helps his
opponent) ; 17 P-Q,5, B-B3; 18 Kt-Q,4!, Kt-B5? (Relatively better was 18. . .
B x Kt ; 19 R x B, P-K4) ; 19 Q,-B3, BxKt; 20 RxB, P-K4; 21 RxKt!, PxR; 22 P
x P, and White, by this exchange sacrifice, obtained a clear
advantage in the centre and on the Q side, which decided the outcome of the
game.
In the game Sokolsky-Konstantinopolsky (Moscow,
1950) play continued from the diagram on p. 270 6 B-B4, R-Kt1; 7 P-Q.4, B-
B4; 8 B-B4, P-K3; 9 0-0, B-Q.3; 10 BxB (Stronger is 1 0 B-KKt3, strengthening
the King's defences), Q.xB; 11 Kt-R4, B-Kt3; 12 P-B4, P-KB4; 13 P-B3, Kt-
Q.2; 14 P-R4? (White would do better to assemble his forces in the centre
with 14 Q-K2 followed by QR-Q1. This reckless attack on the wing leads to
defeat), 0-0-0!; 15 P-R5, Kt-B3; 16 P-R6, P-Kt3; 17 Q.-Kt3? (Rather better
was 1 7 Q-Q2), B-R4; 18 P-Kt3, P-B4! (A decisive counter-thrust in the centre.
Black's pieces invade White's camp via the centre) ; 19 Q.-B2, P xP;
Q.-Kt2, Kt-K5; 21 B-Q.3, P x P; 22 B x Kt, Q.-Q.5 eh, etc., with a won position
for Black.
0 If the centre is closed when the players castle on opposite sides, the
succeeding play is less forced. Often in these positions strong defensive set-
ups are established and the struggle on the flanks consists of prolonged
manoeuvring.
Typical are many lines of the Samisch Variation of the King's Indian
Defence. For example, 1 P-Q.4, Kt-KB3; 2 P-Q.B4, P-KKt3; 3 Kt-Q.B3, B-Kt2;
4 P-K4, P-Q.3; 5 P-B3, 0-0; 6 B-K3, P-K4; 7 P-Q.5, Kt-R4; 8 Q.-Q.2, P-KB4; 9
0-0-0.
The game Makagonov-Tolush (Parnu, 1947) continued 9 ...P-Q.R3; 10

KKt-K2, Kt-Q.2; 11 K-Kt1, Q.Kt-B3; 12 P-KR3.
A typical situation. White provokes Black's next move, which almost
completely closes the game on the K side.
12...P-B5 (Otherwise White's P-KKt4 leads to a K-side attack) ; 13 B-B2,
B-Q.2; 14 P-B5!
272 M O D E RN C HESS OPENING THEORY
Position
aft er
9 0-0-0
This type of pawn advance on the wing where the player's own King
stands is typical of many closed positions with castling on opposite sides.
Exploiting his advantage in space on the Q side, White starts active
operations there.
14 ...Q.-K2; 15 PxP, PxP-; 16 Kt-B1, P-Q.Kt4; 17 P-Q,Kt4!?,Kt-Kt6; 18R-
Kt1,P-Q.R4; 19 B-Q.3, PxP; 20 Kt(B3)-K2, KR-B1 ?; 21 Q.xKtP, R-R5; 22 Q.-
Q.2, P-Kt5; 23 Kt-Kt3, K.R-R1; 24 R-Q.B1, Q.-K1; 25 R-B2, Q.-Kt1; 26 KR-
Q.B1, Kt(Kt6)-R4? (Stronger was 26 . . .
Kt x Kt) ; 27 R-Kt2, B-Kt4? (This exchange of the white squared Bishops
plays in to White's hands) ; 28 B x B, Q.x B; 29 R-B6, B-B1; 30 R-Kt6!, and
White has an overwhelming position on the Q side.
Naturally enough, when the players castle on opposite sides, the most
typical plan is the attack against the oppo nent's King, but the advance of the
pawns in front of a player's own King can be very effective. Take, for instance,
the game Bronstein-Saigin (Moscow, 1944). 1 P-K4, P-K3; 2 P-Q.4, P-Q,4; 3
Kt-Q.B3, B-Kt5; 4 P-K5, P-Q,B4; 5 P-Q.R3, BxKt eh; 6 PxB, Kt-K2; 7 Kt-B3,
Kt-Q,2; 8 P-Q.R4, Q,-R4; 9 B-Q.2, P-B5; 10 Kt-Kt5, P-KR3; 11 Kt-R3, Kt-
Q.Kt3; 12 Kt-B4, P-Kt3.
Here, exploiting the closed centre and his advantage in space on the K
side, White starts an energetic pawn storm.
P-R4, B-Q.2; 14 P-R5, P-Kt4; 15 Kt-K2, 0-0-0; 16 P-Kt4, Q.R-Kt1; 17 B-R3,
Kt X p; 18 P-B4!, p X p; 19 0-0. By later attacking the weak points KB7 and
KR6 White obtained a decisive advantage.
0 King in the Centre

In some openings a player may leave his King in the centre for a long
time, preserving the choice of castling on either side. Leaving the King in the
centre is often connected not only with a new treatment of the role of tempi in
the opening but also with a new approach to the struggle for the initia tive in
this stage of the game.
Often a player delays castling in order to be the first to start an attack or in
order to tie down his opponent's pieces and impede his active plans. This
was the case, for example, in the game Boleslavsky-Aronin (Moscow, 1957)
which opened 1 P-K4, P-Q.B4; 2 Kt-KB3, P-Q.3; 3 P-Q.4, PxP; 4 KtxP, Kt-
KB3; 5 Kt-Q.B3, P-Q.R3; 6 B-Kt5, P-K3; 7 P-B4, B-K2; 8 Q.-B3, Q.-B2; 9 0-0-
0, Q.Kt-Q.2; 10 P-KKt4.
274 M O D E RN C HESS O PENING THEORY
Black now still refrains from castling, which would only help White's attack,
and instead begins an energetic Q-side advance aiming to seize the initiative.
10...P-Kt4; 11 B X Kt, Kt X B; 12 P-Kt5, Kt-Q.2; 13 P-B5, Kt-B4; 14 R-Kt1
(Much stronger appears to be 14 P x P !, opening up lines on the K side), P-
Kt5!; 15 Q.Kt-K2, P-K4; 16 P-B6, P x Kt; 17 P x B, P-Q.6; 18 P x P, P-Kt6!,
and Black has the initiative. The position of the black King in the centre is not
an important factor.
In some modern opening structures a player, striving for lasting positional
advantages, may leave his King in the centre (or even forfeit altogether the
right to castle) calcu lating that his opponent's initiative will dry up. Take, for
example, the game Makarov-Suetin (Kharkov, 1956). 1 P-K4, P-Q.B4; 2 Kt-
KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 P-Q.4, PxP; 4 KtxP,Kt-B3; 5Kt-Q.B3,P-Q.3; 6B-KKt5,P-
K3;7Q.-Q.2, P-Q.R3; 8 B-K2, B-Q.2; 9 Kt-Kt3, P-Kt4!; 10 P-Q.R3, Kt-K4; 11
R-Q.1, Kt-B5; 12 KBxKt, PxB; 13 Kt-B1, B-K2; 14 0-0, R-Q.Kt1; 15 B X Kt, p X
B; 16 P-Q.Kt3, P xP; 17 KtxP.
Black has a strong pawn centre and two promising Bishops ; he has
avoided castling, fearing a K-side attack. Subse-
NEW PATHS IN T H E O P ENING 2 75
quently he strives to neutralize White's initiative, hoping eventually to exploit

his positional advantages.
Play continued 17 ...Q.-B2; 18 Kt-K2, Q.-B3; 19 Kt Kt3, P-KR4!; 20 P-KR4,
R-Q.B1; 21 Kt-Q.4, Q.-B4; 22 KR-K1, B-B1; 23 Q.-K2, P-R4; 24 Q.-B3, B-K2;
25 Kt(Q.4)-K2, Q.- K4; 26 R-Q.2, P-R5; 27 R-Kt1, Q.-R4;
P-B3, Q.-K4; 29 R-Q.3, B-Kt4; 30 R-Q.4, B-B3;
Kt-B4, P-B4!, and Black, mobilizing his central pawns, seized the initiative.
(Black eventually castled on move 41 !) .
IV. Simplification in the Opening and the Transition to a Complicated

Endgame
In many opening systems an important part is played by simplification

which leads quickly to a complicated endgame position. This transition into a
complicated endgame often occurs when one side avoids a sharp,
combinational main line of play in such openings as the Ruy Lopez, the
French, Sicilian, Caro-Kann, and King's Indian defences.
This method is perhaps not very promising objectively, but is often
employed in practice by players with a highly
M.C.O.T. K
2 76 MODERN CHESS O PENING THE ORY
developed endgame technique. Below we shall examine a number of typical

opening systems with an early exchange of Queens.
In the resulting positions there are usually both middle game and endgame
themes. On the one hand, the dynamic features of the position must not be
underestimated. For example, not too much emphasis should be laid on the
advantages of one or other of the pawn structures. Thus, in the variation of
the Caro-Kann which opens 1 P-K4, P-Q.B3; 2 P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 3 Kt-Q.B3, PxP;
4 KtxP, Kt-B3; 5 Kt x Kt eh, KP x Kt; 6 B-Q.B4, B-Q.3; 7 Q.-K2 eh, Q.-K2; 8
Q.xQ. eh, KxQ., Black has doubled KBP's and White has a pawn majority on
the Q side. These factors are certainly important and might indeed play a
decisive role in a pawn ending, but the position is much more com plicated
than that. Black can develop his pieces easily, his King is well placed in the
centre and he has chances of counterplay along the K file. All these factors
give Black fair chances in the succeeding play, in which the pawn formation
will play only a secondary role.
This appraisal is even more applicable to the following variation of the Ruy
Lopez, which was examined earlier.
Position
after
Kt x Q
NEW P ATHS IN THE O PENING 277
P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 B-Kt5, P-Q.R3; 4 BxKt, Q.P xB; 5 P-Q.4,
PxP; 6 Q.xP, Q.xQ.; 7 KtxQ .
The pawn structure is analogous with that in the previous position. There is
again a long way to go before the ending is reached. A complicated
middlegame position (but without Queens) has arisen, in which Black has two
strong Bishops and good chances for piece play. The continuation of the
game Verlinsky-Alekhine (St. Petersburg, 1909) is instructive. 7 ...P-Q.B4;8Kt-
K2,B-Q.2;9P-Q.Kt3?,P-B5!; 10 PxP, B-R5; 11 P-Q.B3, 0-0-0; 12 Kt-Q.2, B-B7;
13 P-B3, B-B4; 14 P-Q.R4, Kt-B3; 15 B-R3, B-K6!; 16 Kt-KB1, B-R2; 17 P-R5,
R-Q.6; 18 P-B5, KR-Q.1; 19 K-B2, Kt-Q.2; 20 Kt-K3, KtxP!; 21 Kt-Q.4, B-Kt6,
etc. Black has disorganized the white pieces and has a decisive advantage.
On the other hand, it must be remembered that many middlegame ideas
are no longer effective. Thus, an attack on the King is usually less sharp,
material cannot so often be sacrificed, etc.
A typical example of this sort of opening structure is provided by the game
Chistiakov-Suetin (Riga, 1954).
P-Q.4, Kt-KB3; 2 P-Q.B4, P-B4; 3 Kt-KB3, P-KKt3;
Position
after
Kt x Kt
278 M O D ERN C HESS O PENING THE ORY
4 Kt-B3, PxP; 5 KtxP, P-Q.4; 6 PxP, KtxP; 7 K.Kt Kt5, KtxKt; 8 Q.xQ. eh,
KxQ.; 9 KtxKt.
White has prevented Black from castling and tries to work up an attack in
the centre, but the absence of Queens makes his task very difficult. 9 • • • B-
Kt2; 10 B-B4, B-K3; 11 P-KKt3 (More accurate is 1 1 R-B 1 ) , BxKt eh.
An important exchange. Black simplifies the position, blocking White's
open QB file and weakening his Q-side pawns. The two Bishops are not of
great importance in this position.
P x B, Kt-B3; 13 B-Kt2, K-B1; 14 0-0, R-Q.1; 15 P-Q.R4, B-Q.4; 16 B-R3
eh, P-K3; 17 P-B3, B-B5; 18 K-B2, P-Kt3; 19 KR-Q.1, K-Kt2; 20 B-Kt5, R-Q.4!;
21 RxR, PxR; 22 R-Q.1, R-K1; 23 R-Q.2, Kt-Kt1; 24 P-K4?, PxP; 25 PxP, B-
K3.
Trying to activate his pieces, White has merely weakened his pawn
formation still further. His position is already very difficult. For example, if 26 B
x B, R x B ; 27 R-Q8, P-B3 ! ; 28 B-B4, Kt-B3 ; 29 R-Q7 eh, K-R3 ; 30 R x P,
R x P ; 3 1 R-KB7, R-K3 !, Black threatens to capture both White's weak Q-
side pawns.
B-B1, R-Q.B1; 27 B-B6, Kt-Q.2; 28 B-Q.4, Kt-B4!, and Black exploited his
opponent's weak pawns to win the endgame.
Play also develops interestingly in a Sicilian Defence system which has
been popular in recent years. 1 P-K4, P-Q.B4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 P-Q.4,
PxP; 4 KtxP, Kt-B3; 5 Kt-Q.B3, P-Q.3; 6 B-KKt5, P-K3; 7 Q.-Q.2, B-K2; 8 0-0-
0, 0-0; 9 P-B4, KtxKt; 10 Q.xKt, P-KR3; 11 B-R4, Q.-R4.
In this position Soviet players have worked out an interesting new plan,
based on transposing into a complicated
NEW PATHS IN T H E O PENING
ending after 12 P-K5!, PxP; 13 Q.xKP, Q.xQ. (As was mentioned above,
Black cannot avoid exchanging Queens, since 1 3. . .Q-Kt3 is answered by 1
4 Kt-R4, winning material) .
14 p X Q., Kt-Q.4; 15 B X B, Kt X B; 16 B-Q.3.
In this critical position in the system's main vanatwn White has allowed the
formation of a pawn weakness (his isolated KP) which could be
disadvantageous in the ending. White initiated the exchanging operations in
order to obtain advantages in development and in space, since these guaran
tee him a lasting initiative. Black has several difficulties to overcome before he
can successfully develop his pieces.
The straightforward developing move 16...B-Q.2 leads to great difficulties
for Black, even though the position is simplified. This was shown by the game
Ivkov-Taimanov (Belgrade, 1956) which continued 17 B-R7 eh, KxB; 18 RxB,
Kt-B3; 19 RxKtP, KtxP; 20 R-K1!, P-B3.
At first it appears that the game must quickly end in a draw, but a closer
analysis shows that White has good chances of advancing on the Q side,
while Black's central passed pawns are difficult to mobilize.
280 MODERN C HESS O PENING THE ORY
21 R-K3, KR-Q.Kt1; 22 R-Q.B7, R-Q.B1; 23 Kt-Kt5!, Q.R-Kt1; 24 R-Q.R3!,

P-Q.R4; 25 RxR, RxR; 26 Kt-Q.4, Kt-B5; 27 R-Q.B3, P-K4; 28 P-Q.Kt3, Kt-
Q.3; 29 RxR, KtxR; 30 Kt-B6, P-R5; 31 PxP, K-Kt3; 32 P-R5!, and White has
a decisive advantage.
In this game, where Black developed his Q side at a high price, the
endgame features of the position came quickly to the fore.
Of course, in the diagrammed position Black has sufficient defensive
resources. He must, however, not force events, but gradually strengthen his
position on the Q side and in the centre. A possible continuation is 16...Kt-B3;
17 KR-K1, R-Q.1; 18 P-Q.Kt4, B-Q.2; 19 P-Kt5, Kt-R4; 20 Kt-K4, Q.R-B1; 21
Kt-Q.6, R-B4 followed by • • • K-B1-K2, aiming to reinforce the Q file .and
gradually to exert pressure against White's KP. Black has good chances of
equalizing.
Recently White has sought new paths in this variation. Thus, in the game
Keres-Boleslavsky (Moscow, 1957) White, instead of 1 6 B-Q3, played 16 B-
Kt5!?
This brought him success after Black's 16...R-Ktl? Play continued 17 KR-
K1, P-Q.Kt3; 18 P-KKt3, R-Kt2; 19
NEW PATHS IN T H E O PENING 28 1
Kt-K4, R-B2; 20 Kt-Q.6, R-B4; 21 P-Q.Kt4!, R-B2; 22 K-Kt2, B-Q.2; 23 K-Kt3,
BxB; 24 KtxB, etc.
But, instead of the passive 16. . .R-Ktl ?, Black should probably have
played, without worrying about weakening his Q side, 16...P-R3; 17 B-Q.3, P-
Q.Kt4! (But not 1 7. . .
Kt-B3 because of 18 Kt-R4, and White's plan is justified) followed by •••R-R2-
B2. In this way Black should obtain an equal game.
In the complex endgame positions which arise directly out of the opening,
middlegame themes and endgame themes are closely interwoven, but may
conflict.
The task of each player is naturally to exploit the advan tages of his own
position while striving to neutralize his opponent's attempts to do the same.
Generally, one side will have some permanent advantage which can best be
exploited by further simplification, while the other will have certain dynamic
advantages. Either may eventually prove to be superior. In these positions
also much depends on who has the initiative and on how lasting it is.
Play is very interesting, for instance, in the following variation of the French
Defence which has only just begun to be analysed. 1 P-K4, P-K3; 2 P-Q.4, P-
Q.4; 3 Kt-Q.2, P-K4!?
Position
after
6KxQ
282 M ODERN CHESS O PENING T H E ORY
Black forces simplification-that is provided White intends to fight for the

initiative. 4 Q.PxP, P xP; 5 KtxP, Q.x Q.ch; 6 KxQ.
White's task is to preserve his extra pawn and to exploit it in the endgame.
To this end he seeks further simplification. On the other hand, Black must
attempt to exploit his active pieces and, given the chance, work up an attack
on the white King, which has lost the right to castle.
The game Kan-Egiazarov (Moscow, 1956) developed interestingly 6 ...Kt-
Q.B3; 7 P-KB4, P-B3; 8 PxP, B-Kt5 eh; 9 B-K2, 0-0-0 eh; 10 B-Q.2, BxB eh;
11 KtxB, KtxP; 12 KtxKt.
A natural but stereotyped simplification. More accurate was 1 2 Kt-B2 !, in
order to transfer the Knight to Q3, where it would strengthen the white King
position. After that Black's initiative would soon dry up and White's material
plus would be decisive.
12 ...P x Kt; 13 P-B3, B-B4; 14 K-B2, KR-K1; 15 Kt-B1, P-KR4!; 16 R-K1,
RxR; 17 BxR, R-Kt1; 18 P-KKt3, R-K1; 19 K-Q.1, B-Kt8!, and Black has equal
chances.
In this game White played too slackly, striving chiefly for simplification-and
lost the initiative. A creative, non stereotyped approach is just as essential in
this sort of position as in others !
Thus, simplification in the opening often gives rise to original positions with
approximately equal chances, the treatment of which requires a high level of
endgame technique.
CHAPTER FIVE
How to Teach Opening Theory
The opening should be studied in close connection with the middlegame, the
endgame, and practical play. The player can successfully increase his
knowledge of the openings only if he at the same time raises his general
standard.
Problems of teaching opening theory are very complicated, since they are
linked with this general standard of the player, but leaving this question aside
for the moment, a course on the openings should consist of:
1 ) The history of the development of opening ideas.
The basic aims and principles of the opening and questions of opening
strategy and tactics (the general theory of the opening).
The concrete systems and variations which make up the various openings.
( 4) Questions concerning the teaching of opening theory to players of
various grades.
Depending on the player's grade, a teacher must consider on the one hand
how much knowledge about opening theory is necessary and on the other his
method of teaching. The question of the criterion for what is needed by
players of different grades is particularly difficult and relative. In our opinion
there are three basic stages on the road to the mastery of opening theory.
283
284 M OD E RN C HESS OPENING THEORY
The first stage embraces 6th-4th category* players ; the second stage 3rd
and 2nd category players ; while the third includes players of the 1st category
and candidate masters.
At the first stage, in our opinion, the player needs :
1 ) To know something of the main openings, which will reveal the wide
variety of forms which the opening struggle may take and will widen his
mental horizon.
(2) To master opening principles, which will train him to think for himself
and will help him to find his way through opening systems of various types.
(As a guide the appropriate sections in V. Panov's Manual ofChess may be
recommended.)
With players ofthe 4th and 5th categories emphasis should be laid on the
formal assimilation of opening principles, while for players of the 3rd category
_it is better to give a wider idea of general principles (see Chapter 3). This
should put the student on his guard against a stereotyped treatment of the
opening.
The historical development of the opening should be included in the
course of study. For a player of the 3rd category, for example, Reti's book, A
Modern Manual ofChess, in which the material is set out historically, is very
useful.
Players of the 2nd and 3rd categories would do well to have a fairly wide
range of reference material on all the main openings. There are unfortunately
very few such books, but two may be recommended : Sokolsky's The Chess
Opening and Panov's A Course in the Openings, both of which should be
supplemented by up-to-date games and analyses.
Higher-ranked players (1st category and candidate master) need a much
deeper understanding and knowledge
Approximately corresponding B. C. F. grades are as follows: 6th-4th
category-9a-6b; 3rd and 2nd category-6a-4b; 1st category and candidate
masters-4a-2b.
HOW T O TEACH O PENING THEORY 285
of opening theory. The various opening structures must be studied in close

connection with the subsequent middlegame play. Players of this standard
should have a fairly detailed knowledge of the historical development of
opening ideas. Very important also is work on the assimilation of typical
opening plans and modern methods in the opening. The key to further
increasing one's opening knowledge lies in the mastery of the general theory
of the chess openings. A good guide in this is Lipnitsky's book Problems of
Modern Chess Theory, where these questions are examined in detail.
A player who has reached the lst category must work under the guidance
of a trainer on the selection and study of his opening repertoire, which should
consist of a comparatively small number of opening systems. (This method
must be recommended only to players of the 1st category or higher.)
The selected systems must be thoroughly studied. The basic strategic
ideas and middlegame plans and the tactical peculiarities of the given
structures must be clearly envisaged. At the 1st category level it is better not
to be sidetracked too much by opening finesses or by variations which
although tempting are not essential, etc. At this stage the main aim is to
develop the player's creative abilities, for him to work out his own orientation
in the various opening structures and to grasp the chief strategic ideas. Here
again methods of teach ing the opening must be closely linked with the
general scope of the player's knowledge. A player's opening repertoire and
the development of his general opening ideas must be built on the foundation
of his personal practical experience. From the first, a player should study the
opening on the basis of his own games, analysing them at the same time as
he studies master games and works on opening theory.
Players of the 4th and 5th categories are recommended to
286 M OD E RN C HESS O PENING THE O RY
play as far as possible open games (except for the Ruy Lopez). It is useful to
employ gambits. Always bearing in mind the general principles, the student
should avoid pointless moves and aim primarily for active play and an attack.
Players of the 4th and 5th categories should not be sidetracked by opening
analyses. It is far more useful to study as a whole games played with the
opening in which they are interested. At the 3rd category level it is not a bad
idea for a player to try his hand at different openings, without concentrating
too much, however, on those closed structures which give rise to a slow
positional game.
In addition to this independent study, work under the guidance of a trainer
is important. In the early days of his development it is better for a player to
take part in group instruction, which should be in the form of a discussion.
The trainer should point out typical opening mistakes ofbeginners and how to
avoid them, and attempt to widen the horizon of his students. Here it is very
useful to analyse, for example, games of Anderssen, Morphy, and Tchigorin.
From the earliest steps the teaching of opening theory should be carried on
in accordance with the creative views of Tchigorin and Alekhine, which have
received further develop ment in the Soviet School of Chess. This is
particularly important during the next stage of a player's progress, i.e. to the
2nd category level.
Methods of working on opening theory are much more complicated for
players of the higher categories than for those of the 3rd to 5th categories.
Here the centre of atten tion must be transferred to independent work. It is
very important to learn to work correctly and rationally on an opening
repertoire. Naturally, the basis of this work must lie in purposeful practice.
The student must subject to careful analysis the games which he plays with
his selected opening. He should not be sidetracked too much by collecting a
large number of variations. After gathering a suitable amount of practical and
theoretical material the player should systematize it, since this considerably
facilitates future analytical work.
Players of the 2nd and 3rd categories do not usually have correct analytical
habits. Consequently, the analysis of complicated opening structures is more
difficult for them. At this stage collective analysis, in groups of two or three, is
preferable. This collective analysis will largely comprise earlier independent
work.
Very useful too are consultation games on a given theme under the
guidance of a trainer. Also of great benefit is participation in tournaments on
given themes, both over the board and by correspondence. The students'
independent work should be carried on parallel with work under the
Yamediate guidance of a trainer.
With players of the 1st category the trainer should devote more attention to
individual work. (This system is practised by all the leading Soviet trainers.)
One of the aims of their work is to help the player to choose an opening
repertoire which corresponds to his personal bent. At the level of the 1st
category some players begin to lean towards combinational, tactical play,
others to positional manoeuvring and the logical accumulation of advantages.
This must be borne in mind when the opening repertoire is being chosen.
Correct advice from a trainer is important. At this stage in a player's
development, in our opinion, an opening repertoire should be selected which
will lead to the most rapid development of the strong sides of his play.
Thus, a chessplayer who tends towards sharp piece play
288 M O D ERN CHESS O PENING T H E O RY
may be recommended to study more deeply various gambits, avoiding for the
moment openings which give less scope to combinational play, such as, for
example, the Orthodox Defence to the Q.ueen's Gambit or the Caro-Kann
Defence. At the same time, of course, the other side of the player's game
must be developed (otherwise it will atrophy) but this must be carried out
carefully and logically.
It is impossible to establish firm criteria in this work and it must be
remembered that even at fairly high levels of his development (possibly even
as a candidate master) a player may have to go through a certain revision of
his habits. But this revision should not be carried out at too early a stage (for
example at the 2nd category level) because the creative abilities of players of
the 2nd category, and even of the 1st category, are generally still too brittle.
For group studies with players from the 3rd category upwards the work is
best carried on through lectures. These lectures must help the player to
develop his personal initiative during his private follow-up work on the
material. They must throw light on not only individual concrete opening
problems but also questions of general opening theory. Thus, examining any
opening system at a lecture to highly ranked players (1st category and
candidate-masters) it is useful to contrast a creative with a dogmatic
approach to its study, underlining the essential difference between them. The
following variation of the Caro-Kann Defence may serve as an example of
this. 1 P-K4, P-Q.B3; 2 P-Q.4, P-Q.4; 3 Kt-Q.B3, PxP; 4 KtxP, Kt-B3; 5 KtxKt
eh, KP x Kt; 6 B-Q.B4, B-Q.3; 7 Q.-K2 eh, B-K2; 8 Kt-B3, 0-0; 9 0-0.
In accordance with Steinitz's theory, in Lasker's manual, for example, we
find the following appraisal of this position :
H OW T O TEACH O PENING THE ORY 289
'White's plan consists in realizing his pawn superiority on the Queen's wing,
while remaining passive on the King's. Black, on the other hand, will attempt to
force his opponent to advance one of his pawns on the King's wing in order to
start play against it with his own pawns.'
The modern dynamic treatment of the opening gives rise to much wider
creative views. This is underlined by the subsequent play in the game
Ragozin-Boleslavsky (Sverd lovsk, 1942): 9 ...B-Q.3; 10 R-K1, B-KKt5; 11 Q.-
K4!, B-R4; 12 Kt-R4, Kt-Q.2; 13 Q.-B5.
Evaluating the position concretely, White begins an energetic piece attack
on the King's wing, exploiting the
Position
aft er
15 B-R6 ! !
290 MODERN C HESS O PENING THEORY
immobility of Black's K-side pawns and the somewhat uncomfortable position

of the Bishop on KR4.
13...Kt-Kt3; 14 QxB, KtxB; 15 B-R6!! (see diagram) . 15 ...Q-Q2 (If 1 5. . . P x
B, then 1 6 P-QKt3, Kt-Kt3 ; 1 7 Kt-B5, K-Rl ; 18 Qx RP, R-KKtl ; 1 9 R-
K8 ! !) ; 16 BxP, KxB; 17 Kt-B5 eh, K-R1; 18 R-K4, BxP eh; 19 K-R1,
Black resigns.
Such comparisons develop a player's horizons, warn him against
formalistic 'geometrical' thinking and reveal to him the complicated nature of
the opening struggle.
Another important lecture theme could be an exposition of the method of
studying typical opening plans. Thus, for example, in the opening the Rooks
seldom enter into early active play. At the same time the method of
manoeuvring Rooks towards the centre in the middlegame along the third
rank is well known. This is a typical manoeuvre, for example, in many
systems of the Queen's Gambit Accepted (QR Ql-Q3-KKt3). It is interesting to
see how this manoeuvre is beginning to penetrate into other openings.
In the 22nd U.S.S.R. Championship, 1955, the game Keres-Smyslov

opened 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-QB3; 3 B-Kt5, P-QR3; 4 B-R4, Kt-B3; 5 0-
0, B-K2; 6 R-K1, P-QKt4; 7 B-Kt3, P-Q3; 8 P-B3, 0-0; 9 P-QR4, P-Kt5!; 10 P-
Q4, KtPxP; 11 QPxP, QKtxP; 12 KtxKt, PxKt; 13 KtxP, P-QR4; 14 Kt-Q5,
KtxKt; 15 B x Kt, whereupon Black astutely played 15...R-R3 and, after
transferring the Rook to Q3, obtained an excellent game.
It is quite possible that grandmaster Ragozin, who worked on a theoretical
survey of this tournament, noted the idea of transferring the Rook along the
third rank and that this helped him to incorporate it in a different opening
system. In a game with the author (Black) played in Moscow in
HOW T O TEACH O PENING THEORY 29 1
1955, which opened 1 P-Q.B4, Kt-KB3; 2 Kt-Q.B3, P-KKt3; 3 P-Q.4, P-B4; 4

P-Q.5, P-Q.3; 5 P-K4, B-Kt2; 6 B-Q.3, 0-0; 7 KKt-K2, P-K3?; 8 B-Kt5, p X p; 9
KtxP, B-K3; 10 0-0, BxKt; 11 KPxB, Q.Kt-Q.2; 12 Kt-B3, R-K1; 13 P-Q.R4, P-
Q.R3, Ragozin played 14 R-R3!, and it soon became clear that the Rook was
posted very actively.
Clearly, up to now this had been a strategic idea in the middlegame. But
then came the time to introduce it into the opening stage of a game. At the
Dresden Tournament of 1956 grandmaster Averbakh, in his game with Fuchs
(Black), in carrying out this idea employed a new move in the following
opening system. 1 P-Q.4, Kt-KB3; 2 P-Q.B4, P-KKt3; 3 Kt-Q.B3, B-Kt2; 4 P-
K4, P-Q.3; 5 B-K2, 0-0; 6 B-Kt5, P-B4; 7 P-Q.5, P-Q.R3; 8 P-Q.R4, P-K3; 9
Q,-Q,2, Q,-R4; 10 R-R3!
With this manoeuvre White defends himself against the threat of . . .P-
QKt4 and threatens to employ the Rook in an attack. In this game the Rook
later transferred to KR3 and played an important part in an attack against
Black's King's wing.
Analysing this theme further, a more general conclusion could be drawn

concerning play with the heavy pieces in the modern opening.
,_ The basic aim of lecture and independent work in the field of the opening is
for the students to master an opening repertoire. Below, for example, are
suggestions for a course of lectures on the Ruy Lopez for players of the 1st
category.
A PrograDlDle of Studies in the Ruy Lopez

Introduction
An explanation of the basic strategic ideas behind the most important
systems in the Ruy Lopez. It is essential to discuss in more detail the ideas
behind the Tchigorin system of defence.
An outline of methods of working on the selection and study of material, for
example : ( 1 ) Selection is limited to the theoretically most important games.
(2) Games of the same system are collected together in their entirety, together
with the most important notes on the opening and middlegame play. (3) Study
of the material begins with those games in which the basic strategic ideas of
the system in question are clearly illustrated. ( 4) Then from other games
which have been collected the complicated dynamic character of the struggle
in various systems can be studied.
0 Systems Arising after 3 ...P-Q.R3 I. The

Basic Position in the Tchigorin Defence
1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 Kt-KB3, Kt-Q.B3; 3 B-Kt5, P-Q.R3;
4 B-R4, Kt-B3; 5 0-0, B-K2; 6 R-K1, P-Q.Kt4; 7 B-Kt3, 0-0; 8 P-B3, P-Q.3; 9
P-KR3, Kt-Q.R4; 10 B-B2, P-B4; 11 P-Q.4, Q.-B2; 12 Q.Kt-Q.2.
H OW TO TEACH O PENING THEORY 293
The basic characteristic of this position is the pawn tension in the centre,
which gives rise to the following middle game plans : ( 1 ) Black attempts to
provoke an immediate loosening of the pawn tension in the centre by means
of
12 • • • Kt-B3. There can arise :
A fixed centre. 13 PxBP, PxP.
Model games for analysis :
Rauzer-Riu:min (Moscow, 1936)-White attacks on
the King's wing (see p. 123) .
Suetin-Ka:myshov (Tifiis, 1951)-White attacks on the Queen's wing : 14 Kt-
Bl, B-K3; 15 Kt-K3, Q.R-Q.l; 16 Q.-K2, P-Kt3; 17 Kt-Kt5, B-Bl; 18 P-Q.R4, P-
B5; 19 PxP, PxP; 20 P-Q,Kt3, Kt-Q.R4; 21 PxP, PxP; 22 B-R3!, etc.
S:myslov-Botvinnik (Ga:mes 10 and 16 of 1957 World Cha:mpionship

Match)-a complicated struggle : 14 Kt-Bl, B-K3; 15 Kt-K3, Q.R-Q.l; 16 Q.-K2,
P-Kt3; 17 Kt-Kt5, B-Bl; 18 P-Q.R4, Q.-Kt2; 19 p X P, p X p; 20 P R4!?, B-Q.3;
21 Kt-Q.5, Kt-KR4; 22 Kt-B3, P-B3; 23 B-R6, R-B2 (lOth ga:me); 14 Kt-Bl, B-
Q.3; 15 Kt-R4, P-Kt3; 16 B-R6, R-Q.l; 17 Q.-B3 (16th ga:me).
A closed centre. 13 P-Q.5. Model
games for analysis :
Tho:mas-Rubinstein (Baden-Baden, 1925, see p. 1 1 8) . Evans-
Rossoli:mo (New York, 1955): 13 P-Q.5, Kt-Q.l;
14 P-Q.R4, R-Ktl; 15 P-B4, P-Kt5; 16 K-R2, Kt-Kl; 17 Kt-Bl, P-Kt3; 18 P-Kt4,
Kt-KKt2; 19 Kt-Kt3, P-B3; 20 R-KKtl, Kt-B2; 21 P-Kt3, B-Q.2; 22 B-K3, K-Rl;
23 Q.-Q.2, Q.R-Kl, etc.
A pawn sacrifice. 13 Kt-Bl!?, BPxP; 14 PxP, PxP.

Ragozin-Botvinnik (Leningrad, 1941) : 15 B-B4,
MODERN CHESS O PENING THE ORY
Q.-Kt3; 16 P-K5?, PxP; 17 KtxKP, B-K3; 18 KtxKt, Q.xKt; 19 B-K5, KR-Q.1;

20 R-B1, Q.-Q.2; 21 Q.- Q.3, B-B5!, etc.
Abramov-Polyak (Moscow, 1949): 15 B-B4, B-K3; 16 R-B1, Q.-Kt3; 17 Kt-

Kt3, P-Kt3? ( 1 7. . .Kt-Q2); 18 Kt-K2, Kt-Q.Kt5; 19 Kt(K2) xP!, etc.
Black completes his development without attempting to ease the tension
in the centre. The characteristics of play with tension in the centre in the
Tchigorin Defence. Possibilities of opening up the centre : for White P-Q.Kt4!;
for Black • • • P-Q.4!
(a) Black completes his development with 12• • •B-Q.2 or
12.• • R-K1.
Model games for analysis;
Boleslavsky-Smyslov (Groningen, 1946): 12• • • B-Q.2;
13 p X KP' p X p; 14 Kt-B1, Kt-B5; 15 P-Q.Kt3, Kt-Kt3; 16 P-Q.R4?, P-B5; 17
P-R5, PxP; 18 PxKt, Q.xBP; 19 BxP, Q.xQ.R; 20 Q.-Q.2, B-R6!, etc.
Suetin-Lilienthal (Moscow, 1955) : 12.• .B-Q.2; 13 Kt-B1, Kt-B5; 14 P-
Q.Kt3, Kt-Kt3; 15 Kt-K3, P-B5; 16 KtPxP, KtxBP; 17 KtxKt, PxKt; 18 B-R3,
KR-K1; 19 R-Kt1, Q.R-Kt1; 20 Q.-K2, etc.
Milev-Smyslov (Bucharest, 1953) : 12.• .B-Q.2; 13 Kt-B1, KR-K1; 14 PxKP,
PxP; 15 KKt-R2, Q.R-Q.1; 16 Q.-B3, B-K3; 17 Kt-K3, Kt-B5; 18 Kt-B5, BxKt;
19 PxB, P-K5!; 20 Q.-K2, B-Q.3; 21 Kt-Kt4, Kt-Q.4!, etc.
Byvshev-Smyslov (20th U.S.S.R. Chan1pionship) : 17 Kt-Kt4 (Up to here
the moves were the same as in the previous game), Kt x Kt; 18 P x Kt, P-R3;
19 Kt-K3, B-Kt4; 20 Kt-Q.5!, BxKt; 21 BxB, PxB; 22 PxB, etc.
Boleslavsky-Kholmov (23rd U.S.S.R. ChaDlpion ship) : 12• • • B-Q.2; 13
Kt-B1, KR-K1; 14 Kt-K3, B-KB1;
HOW TO TEACH O PENING THE ORY 295
15 P-Q.Kt4, PxKtP; 16 BPxP, Kt-B3; 17 B-Kt2, Q.-Q.l;
18 P-R3, PxP; 19 KtxP, etc.
Bronstein-Gligoric (Alekhine Memorial Tourna Dlent, 1956): 12 . • . B-Q.2;
13 Kt-Bl, KR-Kl; 14 Kt-K3, P-Kt3; 15 P-Q.Kt4, PxKtP; 16 BPxP, Kt-B5; 17 Kt X
Kt, p X Kt; 18 B-Q.2, P-B6; 19 B-R6.
Black strives for an active defence on the King's wing : 12 •••P-Kt3; 13 Kt-
Bl, K-Kt2. If the centre is not closed this set-up can be dangerous.
Boleslavsky-Furman (17th U.S.S.R. Championship):
14 Kt-K3, R-Kl; 15 PxKP?, PxP; 16 P-KKt4, P-KR4! Boleslavsky-Suetin
(Leningrad, 1949): 14 Kt-K3,
R-Kl; 15 P-Q.Kt4!, PxKtP; 16 BPxP, Kt-B5; 17 Ktx Kt, p X Kt; 18 Q.-Q.2.
It is important to show how a knowledge of the basic ideas of a system
can help a player to find his way in new positions. For example, see
Bronstein-Evans (Moscow, 1955).
(3) Black prepares to open up the centre after 12 . • .B-Kt2. Model games
for analysis :
Bronstein-Panov (Moscow, 1946) : 13 Kt-Bl, BP x P; 14 PxP, Q.R-Bl; 15
B-Q.3, P-Q.4; 16 Q.P xP, KKtxP; 17 Kt-Kt3, B-Kt5; 18 R-K2, KtxKt; 19 PxKt.
Ravinsky-Panov (Moscow, 1947): 17•• . P-B4! (Up to here the moves were
as in the previous game) ; 18 P x P e. p., BxP; 19 Kt-B5!, Kt-B5; 20 R-K2,
KtxKtP!; 21 Q.B xKt, BxB, etc.
Suetin-Blatny (Lyons, 1955) : 19 B x Kt (Up to here the moves were as in
the previous game) , P x B; 20 Kt x P, BxKt; 21 RxB, Q.-B7; 22 Q.-Q.5 eh!, K-
Rl; 23 Kt-Kl.
Boleslavsky-Bondarevsky (Ti:Ois, 1951) : 12•• .BP x P;
296 MODERN CHESS O PENING T H E ORY
13 PxP, B-Kt2; 14 P-Q.5, B-BI; 15 Kt-BI, Kt-KI; 16 P-Q.Kt3, P-Kt3; 17 Kt-K3,

Kt-KKt2; 18 B-Q.2, Kt-Kt2; 19 R-Q.BI, B-Q.2; 20 P-Q.Kt4.
Vasiukov-Nezh:metdinov (Kharkov, 1956): 12 •• •
BPxP; 13 PxP, B-Kt2; 14 Kt-BI, Q.R-BI; 15 B-Q.3, Kt-B5; 16 P-Q.Kt3, PxP; 17
KtxP, Kt-K4; 18 B-Kt2, KR-KI; 19 Kt-Kt3, B-B I; 20 R-Q.BI, Q.-Kt3; 21 B-Ktl, R
x R; 22 Q.xR, Q.-B4.
4) Black prepares to open up the centre after 12 . ••R-Q.I. Model games
for analysis :
Boleslavsky-Keres (2nd Candidates' Tourna:ment,
1953) : 12 . • . R-Q.I; 13 Kt-BI, P-Q.4; 14 p X Q.P' KP X p;
15 p X P, Kt X p; 16 Q.-K2, B-Kt2.
Shagalovitch-Tsyrulnikov (Minsk, 1955): 12. ••R-Q.I;
13 Kt-BI, P-Q.4; 14 PxKP, PxP; 15 Q.Kt-Q.2, PxKt; 16 PxKt, BxBP; 17 Q.xP,
B-K3; 18 Kt-K4, B-K2; 19 B-B4.
Nilsson-Keres (IIth Oly:mpiad, A:msterdaDl, 1954):

12• . •R-Q.I; 13 Kt-BI, BPxP!; 14 PxP, P-Q.4; 15 KtxP, PxP; 16 Kt-Kt3, B-Q.3;
17 Q.-K2, BxKt; 18 PxB, Q.xP; 19 KtxP, B-B4.
Unzicker-Pach:man (Hastings, 1954-55) : 16•• . B-Kt2 (Up to here as in the
previous game) ; 17 Kt-B5!, B-Q.3; 18 Kt-Kt4, KtxKt; 19 Q.xKt, P-Kt3; 20 BxP,
R-KI; 21 B-R6!, B-Kt5!; 22 BxB, KtxB; 23 Q.-R4.
Black opens up the QB file in search of active play on the Queen's wing :
12 ...BPxP; 13 PxP. The main struggle is transferred to the Queen's wing and
White seizes the initiative.
Aronin-Lisitsyn (Leningrad, 1947): 13...Kt-B3; 14 Kt-Kt3, P-Q.R4; 15 B-K3,
P-R5; 16 Q.Kt-Q.2, P-R6;
H O W T O TEACH O P ENING THEORY 297
17 KtPxP, RxP; 18 Q.-B1, Q.-R4; 19 B-Kt3, B-Kt2;
20 Q.-Kt2, PxP; 21 KtxP, KtxKt; 22 BxKt, Q.-R1;
23 P-K5.
Bronstein-Keres (3rd Candidates' Tournament, 1956) : 13•••Kt-B3; 14 Kt-
Kt3, B-Kt2; 15 B-Kt5, P-R3; 16 B-R4, Kt-KR4; 17 P-Q.5, Kt-Q.1; 18 BxB,
Q.xB; 19 KKt-Q4, Kt-B5; 20 Kt-B5, Q.-B3; 21 R-K3.
Unzicker-Keres (Alekhine Memorial Tournament, 1956) : 16 . • . Kt-Q.Kt5
(Up to here as in the previous game) ; 17 B-Kt1, Q.R-B1; 18 R-K2, Kt-R4; 19
P-Q.R3, Kt-Q.B3; 20 P-Q5, Kt-Kt1; 21 R-B2, Q.-Q.1.
Other Systems in the Tchigorin Defence

1 ) 9 • . •B-K3. Black attempts to exchange the white squared Bishops and
to simplify the position. Here White's
chances are clearly better. Model
games for analysis :
Bonch-Osmolovsky-Yudovitch and Suetin-Kholmov (see pp. 220 and 22
1 ).
Aronin-Kholmov (24th U.S.S.R. Championship) :
10 P-Q4, BxB; 11 PxB, Q.-Q.2; 12 P-Q.5, Kt-Kt1; 13
P-B4, P-B3; 14 Kt-B3, BPxP; 15 KtxQ.P, KtxKt; 16 Q.xKt, Kt-B3; 17 B-Q.2, Q.-
Kt2; 18 KR-Q.B1, P-Kt5;
19 P-KR4, P-R3; 20 P-Kt3.
(2) 9 • • • KKt-Q.2. Black regroups, attempting to strengthen his K4.
M odd games for analysis :
Pinkus-Ragozin (U.S.S.R. v. U.S.A. Match, 1946):
10 P-Q,4, B-B3; 11 P-Q.R4, Kt-R4; 12 B-B2, P-Kt5; 13 BPxP?, Kt-B3; 14 B-
K3, KtxKtP.
Alatortsev-Bannik (Druskeniki, 1947): 13 P-Q.5! (Up to here as in the
previous game), P x P; 14 P-Q.Kt4, Kt-
298 M ODERN CHESS O PENING THEORY
Kt2; 15 P-R5!, Kt-Kt1; 16 KtxBP, P-B4; 17 PxP e.p., Kt X BP; 18 Kt-Q.5.

Suetin-Borisenko (Kharkov, 1956): 10 P-Q.4, B-B3;
11 P-Q.R4, B-Kt2; 12 RPxP, RPxP; 13 RxR, Q.xR; 14 P-Q.5, Kt-K2; 15 Kt-
R3, B-R3; 16 Kt-B2, Kt-Q.B4; 17 Kt-Kt4, Kt x B; 18 Q.x Kt, B-Kt2; 19 B-K3, R-
Kt1;
Kt-Q.2.
Aronin-Antoshin (24th U.S.S.R. Championship):
10 P-Q.4, Kt-Kt3; 11 P-Q.R4, KtPxP; 12 BxP, KtxB;
13 Q.xKt, B-Q.2; 14 Q.-B4, Q.-B1; 15 Q.Kt-Q.2, Q.-Kt2;
16 Kt-B1, PxP; 17 PxP, Kt-Kt5; 18 Kt-K3, P-B4.
Tal-Antoshin (24th U.S.S.R. Cham.pionship): 10 P-Q.4, Kt-Kt3; 11 B-K3,
PxP; 12 PxP, P-Q.4; 13 Kt-B3, PxP; 14 KtxKP, B-B4; 15 P-Q.5, Kt-R4; 16 P-
Q.6!
9•••P-Q.R4. Black starts active operations on the Queen's wing.

Model game for analysis :
Unzicker-Keres (lnterzonal Tournam.ent, 1955): 10 P-Q.4, PxP; 11 KtxP,
KtxKt; 12 PxKt, B-Kt2; 13 Kt-Q.2, P-B4!
Pachman's analysis : 11 PxP, P-R5; 12B-B2, Kt-Q.Kt5; 13 P-Q.5!

9 ...Kt-Kt1. Black carries out a complicated re grouping, strengthening his
K4 and creating pressure against White's KP.
Shcherbakov-Furm.an (22nd U.S.S.R. Cham.pion ship) : 10 P-Q.3, Q.Kt-
Q.2; 11 Q.Kt-Q.2, P-Q.R4; 12 Kt-B1, P-R5; 13 B-B2, R-K1.
Arulaid-Lipnitsky (Voroshilovgrad, 1955): 10 P-Q.4, Q.Kt-Q.2; 11 Q.Kt-Q.2,
B-Kt2; 12 B-B2, R-K1; 13 Kt-B1,
HOW TO TEACH O P ENING THEORY 299
B-KB1; 14 Kt-Kt3, P-Kt3; 15 PxP, PxP; 16 Q.-K2, P-B4; 17 B-K3, Q.-K2; 18 P-
Q.R4, P-B5.
Geller-Filip (3rd Candidates' Tournament, 1956):
10 P-Q.4, Q.Kt-Q.2; 11 P-B4!, P-Kt5; 12 P-B5, B-Kt2; 13 Q.-B2, KPxP; 14 P-
B6, P-Q.6; 15 Q.-B4, Kt-Kt3; 16 PxB, KtxQ.; 17 PxR=Q., Q.xQ.; 18 BxKt,
KtxP; 19 B x Q.P, P-Q.4; 20 P-R3, P-Q.R4; 21 B-K3, Kt-B4; 22 B-KB1, P-Kt6;
23 Q.Kt-Q.2.
Matanovic-Smyslov (Belgrade, 1956) : 10 P-Q.4, Q.Kt-Q.2; 11 P-B4, B-Kt2;
12 Kt-B3, P-B3; 13 P-R3, R-Kt1; 14 B-R2, P-Q.R4; 15 BPxP, BPxP; 16 P-
Q.Kt4, RPxP; 17 RPxP, PxP; 18 KtxQ .P, P-Q.4; 19 KtxQ.P (Boleslavsky
recommends 19 P-K5), KtxKt; 20 PxKt, BxKtP.
Kotkov-Krogius (Tifiis, 1956): 10 P-Q.4, B-Kt2; 11 PxP, KtxP; 12 B-B2, Kt-

B4; 13 PxP, Q.xP; 14 Q.-K2, B-KB3; 15 B-K3, Q.Kt-Q.2 ; 16 Q.Kt-Q.2, Q.-B3;
17 B-B4, Kt-Kt3.
The gambit variation : 9•• .B-Kt2; 10 P-Q.4, PxP; 11 PxP, Kt-Q.R4; 12 B-

B2, P-Q.4; 13 P-K5, Kt-K5; 14 Q.Kt-Q.2, P-KB4; 15 P xP e.p., BxP; 16 KtxKt,
PxKt; 17 BxP, BxB; 18 RxB, P-B4.
With this pawn sacrifice Black hopes to seize the initiative in the centre.
Practice has shown that White's chances are better.
Levenfish-Flohr (15th U.S.S.R. Championship): 19
P-Q.5, Kt-B5; 20 R-Kt1, Q.-Q.2; 21 P-Q.Kt3, Q.-B4; 22 Q.-B2, Kt-Q.3; 23 R-
K2, Q.x Q.P; 24 B-R3!
Byvshev-Lilienthal (21st U.S.S.R. Championship): 19 R-Kt4, PxP; 20 B-
Kt5, P-Q.6; 21 BxB, Q.xB; 22 Q.xP, Q.xP; 23 Q.-Q.5 eh, K-R1; 24 R-K1.
Bogdanov-Persits: 19 R-Kt4, P x P; 20 B-Kt5, Kt-
B3; 21 KtxP, KtxKt; 22 BxB, Q.xB; 23 Q.xKt, Q.R-Q.l;

Q.x Q., R x Q.; 25 R-Q.Bl.
0 The Marshall Attack: 8 P-B3, P-Q.4!? Black sacrifices a pawn,
attempting to seize the initiative in the centre and on the King's wing.
Aronin-Suetin (Leningrad, 1949): 9 PxP, KtxP; 10 KtxP, KtxKt; 11 RxKt, P-
Q.B3; 12 P-Q.4, B-Q.3;
R-Kl, Q.-R5; 14 P-Kt3, Q.-R6; 15 Q.-Q.3, B-KB4; 16 Q.-Bl, Q.-R4; 17 B-K3,
Q.R-Kl; 18 Kt-Q.2, R-K3;
B-Q.l, B-KKt5; 20 BxB, Q.xB; 21 P-B3, Q.-Kt3; 22
B-B2.
Boleslavsky-Saigin (Sverdlovsk, 1951): 17•••B-KR6 (Up to here as in the
previous game) ; 18 B-Q.l, Q.-B4; 19 Q.-K2, Q.R-Kl; 20 Kt-Q.2; P-B4; 21 Kt-
B3!, Kt-B5;
Q.-B2, Kt-Q.6; 23 Kt-R4!, Kt x R; 24 Q.x Q., B x Q.;
KtxB.
Boleslavsky-Shamkovitch (Kharkov, 1956): 9 P x P, KtxP; 10 KtxP, KtxKt;
11 RxKt, Kt-B3; 12 P-Q.4,
B-Q.3; 13 R-Kl, Kt-Kt5; 14 P-KR3, Q.-R5; 15 Q.-B3, P-KR4; 16 Kt-Q.2, B-Kt2;
17 Kt-K4, Q.R-Kl; 18 B Kt5, BxKt; 19 RxB, B-R7 eh; 20 K-Bl.
0 9 P-Q.3. White strives to develop his Queen's wing as rapidly as
possible, postponing for the time being any active operations in the centre.
Aronin-Geller (19th U.S.S.R. Championship): 9 . •• Kt-Q.R4; 10 B-B2, P-
B4; 11 Q.Kt-Q.2, Kt-B3; 12 Kt-Bl, Kt-Q.2; 13 P-Q.4, KPxP; 14 PxP, Kt-Kt3; 15
P-Q.5, Kt-K4; 16 KtxKt, PxKt; 17 P-B4, B-B3.
Grechkin-Geller (Sverdlovsk, 1951) : 12 Q.-K2 (Up to here as in the
previous game), Kt-Q.2; 13 Kt-Bl, Kt-
H O W T O TEACH O PENING THEORY 301
Kt3; 14 Kt-K3, B-K3; 15 B-Q.2, R-Kl; 16 Q.R-Q.l,

Q.-B2; 17 B-Ktl, Q.R-Q.l; 18 B-Bl, P-Q.4!; 19 PxQ.P,
KtxP; 20 KtxKt, BxKt; 21 KtxP, B-B3.
Pilnik-Keres (IIth Olympiad, Amsterdam, 1954):
13 P-Q.R4! (Up to here as in Aronin-Geller), Kt-Kt3; 14 PxP, PxP; 15 RxR,
KtxR; 16 Kt-K3, Kt-Kt3; 17 P-Q.4, R-Kl; 18 p X BP' p X p; 19 Q.-K2.
Gipslis-Vistanetskis (Tallin, 1956) : 13 P-Q.4 (Up to here as in the previous
game), KP x P; 14 P x P, B-B3; 15 P-K5, Q.P xP; 16 B-K4, B-Kt2; 17 PxKP,
B-K2; 18 Q.-B2, P-R3; 19 B-B4, Kt-Kt5; 20 Q.-K2, B x B; 21 Q.xB, P-B5.
Kondratiev-Aronson (Leningrad, 1956) : 13 Kt-K3 (Up to here as in the

previous game), R-Kl; 14 P-Q.4, BPxP; 15 PxP, PxP; 16 KtxP, KtxKt; 17
Q.xKt, B-Kt2; 18 B-Q.2.
9 P-Q.4. White aims for an immediate attack on Black's central position,

allowing sharp counterplay begin ning with 9•••B-Kt5.
Ragozin-Lilienthal (Leningrad, 1939) : 9•••B-Kt5; 10 B-K3, PxP; 11 PxP,
Kt-Q.R4; 12 B-B2, Kt-B5; 13 B-Bl, P-B4; 14 P-Q.Kt3, Kt-Q.R4; 15 Q.Kt-Q.2,
Kt-B3; 16 P-KR3, B-R4; 17 B-Kt2, KtxQ.P; 18 BxKt, PxB; 19 P-KKt4, KtxKtP!;
20 PxKt, BxP; 21 Q.-K2, R-Bl.
Boleslavsky-Keres (17th U.S.S.R. Championship):
10 P-KR3, B-R4; 11 P-Q.5, Kt-R4; 12 B-B2, P-B3; 13 PxP, Q.-B2; 14 Q.Kt-
Q.2, KtxBP; 15 Kt-Bl, KR-Bl; 16 Kt-Kt3, B-Kt3; 17 Kt-R4, P-Kt5; 18 Kt(R4)-B5,
P xP; 19 PxP, B-Bl; 20 B-Kt5, Kt-Q.2.
Bronstein-Keres (1st Candidates' Tournament, 1950) : 9•••B-Kt5; 10 P-
KR3, BxKt; 11 Q.xB, PxP; 12
Q.-Q.1, PxP; 13 KtxP, Kt-Q.R4; 14 B-B2, R-K1; 15 P-B4, P-Kt5; 16 Kt-Q.5, Kt

X Kt.
Shishov-Kan1yshov (Tiflis, 1951) : 9 . ••B-Kt5; 10 B K3, KtxKP; 11 B-Q.5,
Q.- Q.2; 12 BxKKt, P-Q.4; 13 BxP eh, KxB; 14 PxP, Q.-B4; 15 Kt-Q.4!, Q.-Kt3;
16 P-B3, KtxKt; 17 PxKt, B-KR6; 18 Q.-K2.
NezhDletdinov-Shatnkovitch (Kislovodsk, 1956}: 8• . •B-Kt5 (omit 6 R-K1
and 7• . •0-0); 9 P-KR3, BxKt; 10 Q.xB, PxP; 11 Q.-Kt3, 0-0; 12 B-R6, Kt-K1;
13 B-Q.5, Q.-Q.2; 14 Q.-Kt4, Q.x Q.; 15 P x Q., P x B; 16 B x Kt, PxP; 17
KtxP, R-Ktl.
Ill. Other Systems after 3•••P-Q.R3; 4 B-R4, Kt-B3; 5 0-0, B-K2
1) 6 Q.-K2 (or 5 Q.-K2) ; White develops his Queen and frees his Ql for a
Rook.
Bronstein-Ulvestad (U.S.S.R. v. U.S.A. Match, 1946):
5 Q.-K2, P-Q.Kt4; 6 B-Kt3, B-K2; 7 P-B3, 0-0; 8 0-0, P-Q.3; 9 P-Q.4, B-Kt5;
10 R-Q.1, PxP; 11 PxP, P-Q.4; 12 P-K5, Kt-K5; 13 Kt-B3, KtxKt; 14 PxKt, Q.-
Q.2; 15 P-KR3, B-R4; 16 B-B2, B-Kt3; 17 Kt-K1, Kt-Q.1; 18 Kt-Q.3, Kt-K3; 19
P-Q.R4, Q.-B3; 20 B-Kt2, Q.-B5.
Suetin-Poniakov (Minsk, 1953) : 6 Q.-K2, P-Q.Kt4; 7 B-Kt3, P-Q.3; 8 P-B3,
Kt-Q.R4; 9 B-B2, P-B4; 10 P Q.4, Q.-B2; 11 P-Q.5, 0-0; 12 Q.Kt-Q.2, Kt-Kt2;
13 K-R1, Kt-K1; 14 R-KKt1, P-Kt3; 15 P-KKt4, P-B3; 16 P-Q.R4, P-Kt5; 17
Kt-B4, P-Q.R4; 18 B-R6, Kt-Kt2; 19 Kt-K3, Kt-Q.1; 20 Kt-B5.
Keres-Rabar (U.S.S.R. v. Yugoslavia Match, 1956):

6 Q.-K2, P-Q.Kt4; 7 B-Kt3, P-Q.3; 8 P-Q.R4, B-Kt5; 9 P-B3, 0-0; 10 P-R3, Kt-
Q.R4; 11 B-B2, B-K3; 12 PxP,
HOW T O TEACH OPENING T H E O RY 303
PxP; 13 P-Q4, B-B5; 14 B-Q3, BxB; 15 QxB, Kt-B5; 16 RxR, QxR; 17 P-QKt3,
Q-R7; 18 PxKt, PxBP; 19 Q-K3, QxKt; 20 PxP, KtxP; 21 R-Kl, Kt-B4; 22 B-R3,
Q-QKt3; 23 Q-Q4, Kt-Kt2?; 24 QxQ, PxQ; 25 Kt-Q4.
Szabo-Cuellar (12th OlyDlpiad, Moscow, 1956):

23•••R-Rl! (Up to here as in the previous game) ; 24 P xP, BxP; 25 Q-Q5, Q-
Kt2; 26 QxP, Q-Kt6; 27 Q.xQ, KtxQ; 28 BxB, PxB.
Keres-Euwe (World Chan1pionship Tournament, 1948) : 6 Q.-K2, P-Q.Kt4;
7 B-Kt3, 0-0; 8 P-B3, P-Q.4; 9 P-Q.3, P-Q5; 10 PxP, KtxQ.P; 11 KtxKt, Q.xKt;
12 B-K3, Q.-Q3; 13 Kt-B3, B-K3; 14 BxB, PxB.
Spassky-Taim.anov (23rd U.S.S.R. Chan1pionship, 1956) : 5 Q-K2, B-K2;
6 P-B3, P-Q.Kt4; 7 B-Kt3, 0-0; 8 0-0, P-Q.4; 9 P-Q.3, P-Q.5; 10 Q.Kt-Q.2, R-
Ktl; 11 P-QR4, QPxP; 12 KtPxP, P-Kt5; 13 Kt-B4, B-Kt5; 14 B-Kt2, B-QB4.
6 Kt-B3. White allows the exchange of his King's Bishop, striving for active
play in the centre (Kt-Q.5!).
Keres-Spassky (3rd Candidates' Tournament, 1956):
6 . ••P-Q.Kt4; 7 B-Kt3, P-Q.3; 8 Kt-Q.5, Kt-Q.R4; 9 KtxB, QxKt; 10 P-Q.4, B-
Kt2; 11 B-Kt5, KtxB; 12 RPxKt, BxP; 13 KtxP, PxKt; 14 R-Kl, PxP; 15 BxKt,
Q.xB; 16 RxB eh, K-Q.2; 17 Q-Kt4 eh.
Mikenas-NezhDletdinov (24th U.S.S.R. Champion ship) : 6•• . P-Q.Kt4; 7
B-Kt3, P-Q.3; 8 Kt-Q.5, Kt-Q.R4; 9 KtxB, Q.xKt; 10 R-Kl, 0-0; 11 P-Q.4, KtxB;
12 RPxKt, P-Q.B4; 13 PxKP, PxP; 14 Q.-Q.3, P-KR3; 15 Kt-R4, R-Q.l; 16 Q.-
KB3, P-Kt3; 17 Q.-K3.
0 6 BxKt, Q.P xB; 7 P-Q.3 (or 7 Q.-Kl or 7 Kt-B3).
304 M O D ERN CHESS O PENING THE O RY
An attempt to avoid the main variations of the Tchigorin Defence. White

exchanges his King's Bishop, hoping to create pressure on K5.
Tahnanov-Pogacs (Sczawno-Zdroj, 1950): 7 P-Q.3, Kt-Q.2; 8 Q.Kt-Q.2, 0-
0; 9 Kt-B4, B-B3; 10 P-Q.Kt3, R-Kl; 11 B-Kt2, P-B4; 12 P-Q.R4, Q.-K2; 13 Kt-
K3, Kt-Bl; 14 Kt-Q.5, Q.-Q.3; 15 KtxB eh, Q.xKt; 16KtxP, Kt-Kt3; 17 Kt-B4.
Nezh:metdinov-Krogius (Saratov, 1953): 7 Q.-Kl, P-B4; 8 P-Q.Kt3, B-Q.3;

9 B-Kt2, Q.-K2; 10 Kt-B3, 0-0; 11 P-KR3, B-K3; 12 Q.-K3, P-B5; 13 PxP,
BxBP; 14 P-Q.3, B-K3; 15 P-Q.4, PxP; 16 KtxP, B-Q.B4; 17 P-K5, Kt-Q.2; 18
Kt-K4, B-R2; 19 Q.-KKt3.
Nezhmetdinov-Bannik (24th U.S.S.R. Champion ship) : 7 Kt-B3, B-KKt5; 8
P-Q.3, Kt-Q.2; 9 Q.-K2, B-Q.3; 10 P-KR3, B x Kt; 11 Q.x B, Kt-B4; 12 Kt-K2,
Kt-K3; 13 Q.-Kt3, Q.-B3; 14 P-Q.B3, P-KR4; 15 P-KR4, 0-0-0; 16 P-KB4, B-
B4 eh; 17 K-Rl, Q.-Kt3.
Nezhmetdinov-Romanovsky (Kharkov, 1956): 7 Kt-B3, Kt-Q.2; 8 P-Q.4,
PxP; 9 KtxP, Kt-K4; 10 B-B4, Kt-Kt3; 11 B-Kt3, 0-0; 12 Kt-B5, B-B3; 13 Q.xQ.,
B X Q.; 14 Q.R-Q.l, P-KR4; 15 P-KR3, P-R5; 16 B-R2, P-R4; 17 KR-Kl.
6 P-Q.4, PxP; 7 P-K5 or 7 R-Kl. White avoids the main variations in the
Tchigorin Defence and immediately forces events in the centre.
Suetin-Petrosian (18th U.S.S.R. Championship): 7 R-Kl, 0-0; 8 P-K5, Kt-
Q.4; 9 B-Kt3, Kt-Kt3; 10 KtxP, KtxKt; 11 Q.xKt, P-Q.4; 12 PxP e.p., Q.xP; 13
Q.-K4, B-B3; 14 Kt-B3.
Nezhm.etdinov-Lipnitsky (Baku, 1951) : 7 R-Kl,

HOW T O TEACH O P ENING THEORY 305
0-0; 8 P-K5, Kt-Kl; 9 KtxP, KtxKt; 10 Q.xKt, P-Q.3; 11 Kt-B3, P-Q.B4; 12 Q.-
K4, PxP; 13 Q.xP, B-K3.
Vesely-Krogius (Oslo, 1954): 7 P-K5, Kt-K5; 8 KtxP, 0-0; 9 Kt-B5, P-Q.4;
10 BxKt, PxB; 11 KtxB eh, Q.x Kt; 12 R-Kl, P-B3; 13 P-KB3, Kt-B4; 14 P
Q.Kt3, PxP; 15 B-R3, R-B3; 16 Kt-B3, R-Kt3; 17 P-Kt3, Q.-R5; 18 BxKT, RxP
eh; 19 PxR, Q.xP eh; 20 K-Bl, Q.-R7; 21 R-K2.
4 BxKt, Q.P xB; 5 Kt-B3. White aims for a pawn superiority on the King's
wing or to create pressure against K5. This variation is rarely met in practice.
Model games for analysis : Romanovsky-Botvinnik (Moscow, 1935).
Smyslov-Keres (12th U .S.S.R. Championship). Goldenov-Bronstein (20th
U.S.S.R. Championship).
IV. The Open Defence to the Ruy Lopez
3 ...P-Q.R3; 4 B-R4, Kt-B3; 5 0-0, KtxP.

The basic position arises after 6 P-Q.4, P-Q.Kt4; 7 B-Kt3, P-Q.4; 8 PxP, B-
K3. This leads to a sharp game, rich in combinational possibilities. Black
strives for rapid develop ment and fights actively for the initiative at the
expense of some weakening of his pawn structure.
1 ) 9 P-B3. The most usual continuation. White pre serves his King's
Bishop and plans to drive away the black Knight on K4.
(a) 9 ...B-K2, completing the development of his King's wing. Black plans
later on to organize a pawn storm on his Queen's wing, at the same time
leaving QB4 open to his Knight.
Boleslavsky-Lutikov (Voroshilovgrad, 1955) : 10 Q.Kt-Q.2, 0-0; 11 B-B2, P-
B4; 12 Kt-Kt3, Q.-Q.2; 13
306 M O D ERN C HESS O PENING THE O RY
KKt-Q.4, Q.R-Q.1; 14 Kt x Kt, Q.x Kt; 15 Kt-Q.4, Q.-Q.2; 16 P-B3, Kt-Kt4; 17

P-Q.Kt4, Kt-B2; 18 P-KB4, P-B4; 19 PxP, BxP; 20 K-R1, BxKt; 21 PxB, P-
Q.R4.
Goldin-Gurgenidze (Tiflis, 1955): 10 P-Q.R4, P-Kt5;
11 Kt-Q.4, KtxKP; 12 P-KB4, B-Kt5; 13 Q.-B2, P-Q.B4; 14 PxKt, PxKt; 15
PxP, 0-0; 16 Kt-Q.2, B-K7; 17 R-K1, R-B1; 18 Q.-Kt1, B-R4; 19 KtxKt, B-Kt3;
20 Kt-B6 eh, PxKt; 21 Q.-R2, PxP; 22 B-R6, PxP.
Tal-Korchnoi (Riga, 1955): 10 Q.Kt-Q.2, 0-0; 11 Q.-K2, KtxKt; 12 BxKt, Kt-
R4; 13 B-B2, P-Q.B4; 14 Q.-Q.3, P-Kt3; 15 B-R6, R-K1; 16 Q.-Q.2, Kt-B5; 17
Q. B4, KtxKtP; 18 B-Kt5, P-Q.5; 19 PxP, PxP; 20 B-K4, B-Q.4.
0 9• • • B-Q.B4. Black posts his pieces actively, creating pressure

against White's KB2. -At the same time, however, Black restricts his choice of
future plans somewhat, since both the manoeuvre . . .Kt-QB4 and a K-side
advance are made more difficult.
Rabar-Geller (U.S.S.R. v. Yugoslavia Match, 1956):
10 Q.-Q.3, 0-0; 11 B-K3, P-B3; 12 PxP, BxB; 13 Q.xB, Q.x P; 14 Q.Kt-Q.2, Kt
x Kt; 15 Q.x Kt. Zbandutto-Salygo (Correspondence, 1954) : 10 Q.Kt Q.2, 0-0;
11 B-B2, P-B4; 12 Kt-Kt3, B-Kt3; 13 Q.Kt Q.4, KtxKt; 14 KtxKt, BxKt; 15 PxB,
P-B5; 16 P-B3, Kt-Kt6; 17 PxKt, PxP; 18 Q.-Q.3, B-B4; 19 Q.xB, R x Q.; 20 B
x R, Q.-R5; 21 B-R3, Q.xP eh; 22 K-R1, Q.xKP.
9 Q.-K2. The Moscow Variation, which has been very popular in recent
years. White aims to exert pressure against Q5, allowing the exchange of his
King's Bishop.
Zurakhov-Ragozin (Leningrad, 1954): 9• • • B-K2; 10 R-Q.1, Kt-B4; 11 P-
B4, P-Q.5; 12 PxP, P-Q.6; 13 Q.-B1,
B xB; 14 PxB, Kt-Kt5; 15 B-K3, PxP; 16 RxR, Q.xR; 17 BxKt, BxB; 18 Kt-K1,
0-0; 19 KtxP, KtxKt; 20 Q.xKt.
Vasiukov-Gurgenidze (Voroshilovgrad, 1955): 9••• B-K2; 10 R-Q.1, Kt-B4;

11 P-B4, P-Q.5; 12 PxP, P-Q.6; 13 Q.-B1, BxB; 14 PxB, Kt-Kt5; 15 Kt-B3,
KtxP; 16 R-R4, KtxB; 17 KRxKt, 0-0; 18 R-Q.1, PxP; 19 RxR, Q.xR; 20 Kt-K1,
R-Q.1; 21 KtxQ .P, KtxKt;
R X Kt, P-Kt5.
Shagalovitch-Ravinsky (Voroshilovgrad, 1955): 9•••
B-K2; 10 R-Q.1, Kt-B4; 11 BxP, BxB; 12 Kt-B3, B-B5; 13 R x Q. eh, R x R; 14
Q.-K3, P-Kt5; 15 P-Q.Kt3, B-K3; 16 Kt-K4, R-Q.8 eh; 17 Kt-K1, Kt-Q.5; 18 B-
Kt2, KtxBP; 19 Q.-K2, RxR; 20 BxR, KtxB; 21 KtxKt, BxKt; 22 Kt-Q.3, B-Kt3;
23 KtxP, 0-0; 24 Kt-B6, P-KB3; 25 Kt-K7 eh, K-R1; 26 Q.-R5, B-B2.
Osmakov-Chekhover (Voroshilovgrad, 1955): 9•••
B-Q.B4; 10 B-K3, Q.-K2; 11 R-Q.1, R-Q.1; 12 Q.Kt-Q.2, BxB; 13 Q.xB, KtxKt;
14 RxKt, Kt-R4; 15 Q.R-Q.1, KtxB; 16 RPxKt, P-Q.B4; 17 P-B3, 0-0; 18 P-R3,
R-Q.2.
The Steinitz Defence Deferred

3 ...P-Q.R3; 4 B-R4, P-Q.3.
This system leads to a complicated game. Black's main task is to maintain
and reinforce his K4.
1 ) 5 BxKt eh, PxB; 6 P-Q.4, P-B3. White exchanges his King's Bishop but
obtains an advantage in space.
Lipnitsky-Sazhaev (Kiev, 1949): 7 P-B4, P-Kt3; 8 Kt-B3, B-KKt2; 9 Q.-R4,
Kt-K2; 10 PxP, BPxP; 11 P-B5, 0-0; 12 B-Kt5.
308 MODERN CHESS O P ENING T H EORY
Sokolsky-Goldenov (Kiev, 1950): 7 B-K3, Kt-K2; 8 Kt-B3, Kt-Kt3; 9 Q.-Q.2,

B-K2; 10 0-0-0, 0-0; 11 P-KR4, B-Kt5; 12 P-R5.
lvkov-Smyslov (U.S.S.R. v. Yugoslavia Match, 1956):
7 B-K3, Kt-K2; 8 Kt-B3, Kt-Kt3; 9 Q.-Q.2, B-K2; 10 0-0-0, B-K3; 11 P-KR4, P-
KR4; 12 PxP, BPxP; 13 Kt-Kt5, BxKt; 14 BxB, Q.-Ktl; 15 P-Q.Kt3, Q.-Kt5;
P-B3, P-R4; 17 Kt-R4, P-B4; 18 K-Kt2, 0-0.
0 5 P-B3, B-Q.2; 6 P-Q.4. White preserves his King's Bishop and
strives for the initiative itl the centre.
(a) The Rom.anovsky Variation: 6.• .Kt-B3; 7 0-0, B-K2; 8 Q.Kt-Q.2, 0-0; 9
R-Kl, PxP; 10 PxP, Kt Q.Kt5. Black gives up the centre, hoping to find
counterplay.
Suetin-Aronin (Tula, 1952) : 11 B x B, Q.x B; 12 Kt-Bl, P-Q.4; 13 Kt-K5, Q.-
K3; 14 P-Q.R3, Kt-B3; 15 KtxKt, Q.xKt; 16 P-K5.
Averbakh-Smyslov (19th U.S.S.R. Championship):
BxB, Q.xB; 12 Kt-Bl, P-B4; 13 P-Q.R3, Kt-B3; 14 P-Q.5, Kt-K4; 15 KtxKt,
PxKt; 16 Kt-Kt3.
Lilienthal-Sokolsky (Erevan, 1954) : 15 Kt-Kt3 (Up to here as in the
previous game), Q.R-Q.l; 16 Kt-B5, KR Kl; 17 KtxKt, PxKt; 18 Q.-B3, K-Rl; 19
KtxB, Q.xKt;
B-Kt5, R-Q.3; 21 Q.R-Bl, P-Q.Kt3; 22 P-Q.Kt4!
( a1) 7 0-0, Kt x KP. Black tries to force matters in the centre, hoping to
simplify the position.
Geller-Veltmander (Gorky, 1954): 8 R-Kl, Kt-B3;
9 BxKt, BxB; 10 PxP, PxP; 11 Q.xQ. eh, RxQ.; 12 KtxP, B-K5; 13 Kt-Q.2, B-
K2; 14 KtxB, KtxKt;
B-R6! (see p . 7 1 ) .
(a2) The Kecskem.et Variation: 9•••B-Kl (instead of
9 . . . P x P) .
H O W T O TEACH O PENING THE ORY 309
S nyslov-Liublinsky (17th U.S.S.R. Championship):

10 B-Kt3, Kt-Q.2; 11 Kt-Bl, B-B3; 12 Kt-K3, Kt-K2; 13 Kt-Kt4, Kt-KKt3; 14 P-
Kt3, B-K2; 15 P-KR4, Kt-B3;
Kt-Kt5.
0 6•• . P-KKt3; 7 0-0, B-Kt2. Black reinforces his K 4 and prepares to
advance later on the K side with •••P-KB4.
Fine-Alekhine (A.V.R.O. Tournament, 1938) : 8 PxP, KtxP; 9 KtxKt, PxKt;
10 P-KB4.
Aronin-Bronstein (24th U.S.S.R. Championship): 8 PxP, PxP; 9 B-KKt5,
KKt-K2; 10 Q.-Q.3, P-R3; 11 B-K3, P-Kt3; 12 R-Q.l, Q.-Bl; 13 B-Kt3, B-Kt5;
Q.Kt-Q.2, 0-0; 15 P-KR3, B-K3; 16 Kt-Bl, R-Q.l;
Q.-K2, RxR; 18 RxR, BxB; 19 PxB, Q.-K3. Boleslavsky-Nezhmetdinov (24th
U.S.S.R. Cham
pionship): 8 B-K3, KKt-K2; 9 PxP, PxP; 10 B-B5, P-Kt3; 11 B-R3, P-Q.Kt4; 12
B-B2, 0-0; 13 Q.Kt-Q.2, P-Q.R4; 14 B-B5, P-R5; 15 P-Q.Kt3, PxP; 16 PxP, R-
Ktl; 17 P-Q.Kt4, Q.-Kl; 18 Kt-Kt3, Kt-Q.l; 19 B-K3, Kt-K3; 20 Kt-B5.
c) 6 ••• KKt-K2. Black attempts to reinforce his K4 by transferring his King's

Knight to KKt3.
Tal-Bannik (Kharkov, 1956) : 7 B-Kt3, P-KR3; 8 Kt-R4, PxP; 9 PxP, KtxP;
10 Q.xKt, Kt-B3.
Vasiukov-Bannik (Kharkov, 1956) : 7 0-0, Kt-Kt3;
8 B-K3, B-K2; 9 Q.Kt-Q.2, 0-0; 10 B-B2, Kt-R5; 11
KtxKt, BxKt; 12 P-KB4, PxBP; 13 BxP, B-Kt4; 14 Q.-R5, P-R3; 15 B-Q.Kt3, B
X B; 16 R X B, Q.-K2; 17 Kt-Bl, Kt-Q.l; 18 Kt-K3.
Boleslavsky-Tarasov (24th U.S.S.R. Championship):
7 0-0, Kt-Kt3; 8 B-K3, B-K2; 9 Q.Kt-Q.2, 0-0; 10
310 MODERN CHESS O PENING THE O RY
P-Q.R3, K-Rl; 11 R-Kl, PxP; 12 PxP, P-B4; 13 PxP, BxP; 14 R-Q.Bl, P-Q.4;
15 BxKt, PxB; 16 RxP, B-Q.3.
5 P-B4. White exerts pressure against Q5 but weakens his Q4 somewhat.

Boleslavsky-Fine (U.S.S.R. v. U.S.A. Radio Match, 1946) : 5 • • . B-Q.2; 6
Kt-B3, P-KKt3; 7 P-Q.4, p X p; 8 KtxP, B-Kt2; 9 KtxKt, PxKt; 10 0-0, Kt-K2; 11
P-B5.
Goldenov-Yudovitch (15th U.S.S.R. Cha:mpionship): 5• . . B-Kt5; 6 Kt-B3,

Kt-B3; 7 P-KR3, B x Kt; 8 Q.x B, B-K2; 9 P-Q.3, 0-0; 10 B-K3, Kt-Q.2; 11 Kt-
Q.5, Kt-B4; 12 Q.B xKt, PxB; 13 BxKt, PxB; 14 KtxB eh, Q.xKt.
Keres-Reshevsky (World Cha:mpionship Tourna

:ment, 1948) : 5 • • . B-Kt5; 6 Kt-B3, Kt-K2; 7 P-KR3, B x Kt; 8 Q.x B, Kt-Kt3; 9
Kt-Q.5.
(B) Systems without 3 • ••P-Q.R3

( 1 ) The old defences 3 • • • Kt-B3 or 3 • • •P-Q.3 (The
Steinitz Defence). Black strives for rapid development. The most recent
theoretical discoveries in these systems.
Boleslavsky-Bronstein (8th m.atch ga:me, 1951) : 3• . . Kt-B3; 4 0-0, P-
Q.3; 5 P-Q.4, B-Q.2; 6 Kt-B3, B-K2; 7 BxKt, BxB; 8 Q.-Q.3, PxP; 9 KtxP, 0-0;
10 B-B4, Kt-Q.2; 11 Q.R-Q.l, B-B3; 12 P-Q.Kt4, R-Kl; 13 KR-K1, BxKt; 14
Q.xB, P-Q.Kt4; 15 R-Q.3.
Spassky-Antoshin (24th U.S.S.R. Championship) : 3 • • . Kt-B3; 4 0-0,
KtxP; 5 P-Q.4, Kt-Q.3; 6 PxP, KtxB; 7 P-Q.R4, P-Q.3; 8 P-K6, BxP; 9 PxKt,
Kt-K4; 10 Kt-Q.4, B-Q.2; 11 P-KB4, Kt-Kt3; 12 Kt-Q.B3, B-K2;
HOW T O TEACH O PENING THE ORY 311
13 Kt-Q.5, P-KB4; 14 P-Kt6, BPxP; 15 B-Q.2, 0-0; 16 B-B3o

Keres-Unzicker (Match, Ham.burg, 1956) : 3o o oKt B3; 4 0-0, Kt x P; 5 P-
Q.4, B-K2; 6 Q.-K2, Kt-Q.3; 7 BxKt, KtPxB; 8 PxP, Kt-Kt2; 9 Kt-B3, 0-0; 10 Kt
Q.4, B-B4; 11 R-Q.1, BxKt; 12 RxB, P-Q.4; 13 PxP eopo, P x P; 14 P-Q.Kt4,
R-K1; 15 B-K3, B-K3; 16 Q.-B3o
3o o oB-B4o Black strives for rapid development and initiates sharp play
with his pieces.
Sm.yslov-Barcza (lOth Olym.piad, Helsinki, 1952):
4 P-B3, Kt-B3; 5 P-Q.4, P x P; 6 P-K5, Kt-Q.4; 7 0-0, 0-0; 8 PxP, B-Kt3; 9 B-
Q.B4, Q.Kt-K2; 10 B-KKt5,
Q.-Kl; 11 Q.-Kt3, P-Q.B3; 12 Q.Kt-Q.2o Bronstein-O'Kelly (Hastings, 1953-
54): 4 P-B3,
Kt-B3; 5 P-Q.4, B-Kt3; 6 0-0, 0-0; 7 PxP, KKtxP; 8 Q.-Q.5, Kt-B4; 9 B-Kt5, Kt-
K2; 10 Q.-Q.1, Kt-K5; 11 B-KR4, P-Q.4; 12 Q.Kt-Q.2, P-Q.B3; 13 B-Q.3, P-
KB4; 14 PxP eopo, KtxP(B3); 15 Q.-B2o
Boleslavsky-Mukhitdinov (Voroshilovgrad, 1955):
4 P-B3, KKt-K2; 5 P-Q.4, PxP; 6 PxP, B-Kt5 eh; 7 B-Q.2, BxB eh; 8 Q.xB, P-
Q.4; 9 PxPo
Boleslavsky-Klam.an (24th UoSoSoRo Championship):
4 P-B3, Kt-B3; 5 P-Q.4, B-Kt3; 6 Kt X p' Q.-K2; 7 B-KB4, P-Q.3; 8 KtxKt, Q.xP
eh; 9 Q.-K2, Q.xQ. eh; 10 KxQ., P-Q.R3; 11 B-R4, B-Q.2o
3o o oP-B4!? Black counter-attacks sharply against the centre. Recently
this system, which had been considered disadvantageous, has been re-
established ; it gives Black good chances.
Ivkov-Porreca (Belgrade, 1954): 4 Kt-B3, PxP; 5
312 MODERN CHESS OPENING T H E O RY
Q.KtxP, P-Q.4; 6 KtxP, PxKt; 7 KtxKt, PxKt; 8 BxP eh, B-Q.2; 9 Q.-R5 eh, K-
K2; 10 Q.-K5 eh, B-K3; 11 P-KB4, Kt-R3; 12 P-Q.4, Kt-Kt5; 13 Q.xKP, Kt-B3;
Q.-K5, K-B2; 15 P-B5, B-Q.4; 16 0-0, B-K2; 17 BxR, Q.xB.
Analysis by Vukovic : 12 Q.xKP (Up to ere as in the previous game), R-
Q.Kt1; 13 P-Q.4, K-B2; 14 P-B5, KtxP; 15 0-0.
Tai-Spassky (24th U.S.S.R. Championship): 4 Kt B3, Kt-B3; 5 PxP, Kt-Q.5;
6 KtxP, B-B4; 7 0-0, 0-0; 8 Kt-B3, P-B3; 9 KtxKt, BxKt; 10 B-Q.3, P-Q.4; 11 Kt-
K2, B-K4; 12 Kt-Kt3, Kt-K5; 13 BxKt, PxB; 14 P-Q.3, PxP; 15 Q.xP, Q.xQ.; 16
PxQ., BxKt; 17 RPxB, BxP.
Boleslavsky-Tolush (24th U.S.S.R. Championship):

4 Kt-B3, Kt-Q.5; 5 B-R4, Kt-KB3; 6 PxP, B-B4; 7 P-Q.3, 0-0; 8 0-0, P-Q.4; 9
KtxKP, BxP; 10 B-KKt5, Q.-Q.3; 11 R-K1, P-B3; 12 B-R4, Q.R-K1; 13 B-KKt3,
Q.-Q.l; 14 Kt-K2, RxKt; 15 BxR, B-KKt5; 16 Q.- Q.2, KtxKt eh; 17 RxKt, BxR;
18 Q.xB, Kt-K5; 19 R-KB1.
( 4) 3• • .Kt-Q.5. Black blockades his Q5 and prepares to counter-attack in
the centre with •••P-Q.B3 and •••P-Q.4.
Geller-Kholmov (17th U.S.S.R. Championship): 4 KtxKt, PxKt; 5 0-0, P-
Q.B3; 6 B-B4, Kt-B3; 7 Q.-K2, P-Q.3; 8 P-K5, P x P; 9 Q.x P eh, B-K2; 10 R-
K1, P Q.Kt4; 11 B-Kt3, P-Q.R4; 12 P-Q.R4, R-R2; 13 PxP, 0-0.
Lipnitsky-Bondarevsky (18th U.S.S.R. Champion ship) : 4 Kt x Kt, P x Kt; 5

0-0, P-Q.B3; 6 B-B4, Kt-B3;
7 R-K1, P-Q.3; 8 P-Q.B3, B-K2; 9 PxP, P-Q.4; 10 PxP, Kt x P; 11 Kt-B3, 0-0;
12 P-Q.3, B-B3; 13 B-K3.
HOW TO TEACH O PENING THE O RY 3 13
Suetin-Tolush (20th U.S.S.R. Championship): 4 Kt X Kt, p X Kt; 5 0-0, P-

Q.B3; 6 B-B4, Kt-B3; 7 P-Q.3, P-Q.4; 8 p X p' Kt X p; 9 Kt-Q.2, B-K2; 10 Kt-
B3, B-B3; 11 R-K1 eh, B-K3; 12 R-K4, P-B4; 13 Q.-K2, Q.-Q.2; 14 Kt-Kt5,
BxKt; 15 BxB, 0-0; 16 R-K1, KR-Kl.
3 . ••P-KKt3. Black aims to exert pressure on his Q5 by developing his
Bishop at KKt2.
Boleslavsky-Trifunovic (U.S.S.R. v. Yugoslavia Match, 1956) : 4 P-Q.4, P x
P; 5 B-Kt5, B-K2; 6 B x B, KKtxB; 7 KtxP, P-Q.4; 8 Kt-Q.B3, PxP; 9 KtxP, 0-0;
10 BxKt, KtxB; 11 KtxKt, PxKt; 12 0-0, B-B4.
Geller-Trifunovic (U.S.S.R. v. Yugoslavia Match, 1957) : 4 P-B3, P-Q.3; 5

P-Q.4, B-Q.2; 6 0-0, B-Kt2; 7 PxP, KtxP; 8 KtxKt, PxKt; 9 Q.-Kt3, Kt-B3; 10
BxB. eh, Q.xB; 11 Q.xP, 0-0; 12 Kt-Q.2, B-R3; 13 Kt-B4, B X B; 14 Q.R X B,
KR-Kt1; 15 Q.-R6.
(C) Other Systems

1 ) 3 . • . P-Q.R3; 4 B-R4, Kt-B3; 5 0-0, B-B4; 6 P-B3, P-Q.Kt4. Black
posts his King's Bishop actively, aiming to exert pressure along the diagonal
QR2-KKt8.
Model game for analysis :
Padevsky-Gasharov (Bulgarian Championship,
1955) : 6 P-B3, P-Q.Kt4; 7 B-B2, B-R2; 8 P-Q.4, Q.-K2; 9 P-Q.R4, 0-0; 10
RPxP, RPxP; 11 B-K3, Kt-KKt5;
12 B-Kt5, P-B3; 13 B-B1, K-R1; 14 Kt-R4, Kt-R3; 15 B X Kt, p X B; 16 Kt-B5,
Q.-K1; 17 Kt-R3.
(2) 3•• . P-Q.R3; 4 B-R4, P-Q.3; 5 P-B3, P-B4.
Euwe-Keres (World Championship Tournament,
1948) : 6 PxP, BxP; 7 P-Q.4, P-K5; 8 Kt-Kt5, P-Q.4; 9 P-B3, P-K6.

Grechkin-Estrin (U.S.S.R. Correspondence Cham pionship, 1949) : 6 P x
P, B x P; 7 P-Q.4, P-K5; 8 0-0, PxKt; 9 Q.xP, Kt-K2; 10 R-K1, B-Kt3; 11 B-
KKt5, P-Q.4; 12 BxKt eh, PxB; 13 Kt-Q.2, P-R3; 14 B-R4, B-B2; 15 R-K3.
Boleslavsky-Ragozin (17th U.S.S.R. Championship): 6 PxP, BxP; 7 0-0, B-

Q.6; 8 R-K1, B-K2; 9 R-K3, P-K5; 10 Kt-K1.
3 . • •P-Q.R3; 4 B-R4, P-Q.Kt4; 5 B-Kt3, Kt-R4. Black exchanges off
White's valuable King's Bishop at the cost of allowing his opponent some
initiative in the opening.
Model games for analysis : - Antoshin-Taimanov (22nd U.S.S.R.

Championship):
6 P-Q.4, PxP; 7 Q.xP, KtxB; 8 RPxKt, Kt-K2; 9 0-0, Kt-B3; 10 Q.-Q.5, B-Kt2;
11 Kt-K5, Q.-K2; 12 B-B4,
Kt-Q.1 ; 13 Q.-Q.2, Kt-K3; 14 B-Kt3, P-Q.3; 15 Kt-Q.3, Q.-Q.2; 16 Kt-B3, B-
K2; 17 P-B4, P-KB4.
Spassky-Taimanov (22nd U.S.S.R. Championship):
6 0-0, P-Q.3; 7 P-Q.4, Kt X B; 8 RP X Kt, P-KB3; 9 Kt B3, B-Kt2; 10 Kt-KR4;
Kt-K2; 11 PxP, Q.P xP; 12 Q.-B3, Q.-Q.2; 13 R-Q.l, Q.-K3; 14 B-K3 (For
continuation see p. 45) .
3 . . •P-Q.R3; 4 B-R4, Kt-B3; 5 0-0, P-Q.3; 6 BxKt eh, PxB; 7 P-Q.4. White
exchanges his King's Bishop aiming to obtain an advantage in the centre.
Boleslavsky-Smyslov (Absolute Championship of the U.S.S.R, 1941):
7•••PxP; 8 KtxP, P-B4; 9 Kt-KB3, B-K2; 10 Kt-B3, 0-0; 11 R-Kl, B-Kt2; 12 B-
Kt5.
HOW T O TEACH O PENING THE ORY 315
Suetin-Lipnitsky (20th U .S.S.R. Championship) : 7 .. .B-Kt5; 8 PxP, KtxP;
9 PxP, BxP; 10 P-KR3, B-KB4; 11 Kt-Q.4, Q.-B3; 12 Q.-Q.3, R-Q.1.
Any plan of studies, such as the one outlined above, must be periodically
revised to include both new systems and new examples from practical play.
From the teaching point of view, the question of opening manuals for
players of various grades is very important. Naturally, it is impossible to lay
down any hard and fast schemes for textbooks on chess. Any scheme must
depend on the author. Thus, one may prefer an historical treatment of his
material, while another may give greater weight to the present state of opening
knowledge, etc. However, any textbook must be clearly intended for a definite
grade of player (i.e. within a range of two to three grades) . This means that,
firstly, only a limited range of questions on opening theory are discussed and,
secondly, the layout of the material must be appropriate to the standard of the
players in view.
Thus, for players of the 4th and 5th categories a course on the openings
should be an integral part of a general text book. The main emphasis should
be given to illustrating opening principles and typical mistakes. The openings
must be set out very briefly with no more than the main schemes of
development. There, is, of course, no need to give illustrative games after
each opening, but at the end of the course an 'Illustrative Games' section is
useful. This should include mainly richly combinational games to illustrate the
opening principles. This section could be arranged historically.
For players of the 3rd category upwards a course on the openings should
consist of several parts, such as the following :
( 1 ) A history of the development of opening ideas.
316 M O D E R N C H E S S O PENI N G T H E O RY
General questions of modern opening theory.
A theoretical course on actual openings, consisting of an analysis of the
basic systems in each opening, illustrated by games of theoretical importance.
These games should come immediately after the analysis of each opening. In
the theoretical analysis the nature of the various opening systems should be
borne in mind, Thus, for example, it is useful to examine gambits in greater
detail than the so-called 'posi tional' openings. More attention should be given
to modern openings, and the development of ideas in the succeeding
middlegame should be explained.
Questions of teaching method. Here it is essential to discuss not only lines
of independent work but also typical mistakes made in studying the openings.
It should not be impossible -to produce handbooks on the openings for
players of higher grades, but this problem is in practice still very far from
solution.
Conclusion
In this book the author has tried to give a general picture of modern
opening play. Below are summarized a few brief conclusions.
With the development of opening theory the wide range of creative
possibilities present in the early stage of the game is increasingly revealed.
Study of the opening, far from ex hausting the content of the game, facilitates
the discovery of new ideas and plans. The technique of opening play has now
reached a very high level. Today mistakes in the open ing are punished swiftly
and with great accuracy.
The chief task of development in the modern opening is to establish
harmonious co-ordination of the pieces and pawns, directed towards a
definite strategic middlegame plan. Opening structures are now studied in
close connection with the middlegame, and in this way the value of opening
ideas is checked. As has been noted, study of the opening has long since
extended into study of the middlegame arising logically from the opening
structure.
The player has great freedom of choice in the opening, since there are
generally many possible plans of play, corresponding to different tastes and
styles.
Since each player attempts right from the opening to 3 1 7
3 18 MODERN CHESS O PENING THE ORY
disrupt the co-ordination of his opponent's pieces, our attention has been
focused on the dynamism of the opening struggle. By the dynamism of chess
is meant the logical transformation of various external situations on the board.
Positional (and material) factors are constantly changing during the course of
a game, starting in the opening. Co ordination is harmonious and purposeful
only if it proves viable in this dynamic situation. This can only be established
by a concrete analysis of the position, by contrasting various plans of play in
the dynamic situation.
Consequently, the last few years have seen the rejection of the
approximate evaluation of chances, made on the basis of 'general
considerations,' in favour of a deeper, concrete analysis which reveals the
essential individual features of any given position.
Opening principles must be applied concretely; there is no room for a
stereotyped approach. It must be remembered that the choice of plan is
influenced not only by the external contours of the opening structure but also
by internal, perhaps hidden, features in the positions which arise during the
process of development.
In the modern opening each player tries to impose his own active plan of
play on to his opponent. Naturally, White's chances are greater in this : he
strives for a lasting and solid initiative. On the other hand, Black long ago
rejected playing for passive equality; instead, he strives to initiate active
counterplay from the first moves, aiming to wrest the initiative from White.
Hence the struggle for the initiative is of primary impor tance in the modern
opening. Consequently, when develop ment precedes the main battle, it is
logically directed towards the succeeding complicated middlegame play.
H OW TO TEACH O PENING THEORY 319
As a result of the sharp struggle for the initiative waged in many new
opening systems, great tactical complications, including material sacrifices,
may arise very early in the game. In many other new systems one side strives
for posi tional advantages in the opening, temporarily ceding the initiative, but
preparing to wrest it back later. In such new opening systems the opening
principles are seemingly reviewed in each concrete case, and middlegame
ideas, belonging to a fully developed position, penetrate into the opening.
In these cases the player must check whether his bold strategic plan is in
accord with or at variance with the open ing principles. The seizure of the
initiative must be soundly based; if not, it will soon be blunted. This applies
particu larly to sharp gambit systems. It is very important in the modern
opening to establish how firmly based and how lasting the initiative is.
The most important task of the general theory of the opening is to draw
general conclusions from the various forms the opening struggle may assume,
in order to put forward, if only approximately, the basic logical patterns of play
at this stage of the game.
The basic principles give a general picture of the opening struggle. The
next step in establishing the logical patterns of play consists in studying typical
plans and stratagems of the early stage of the game, many of which are
already well known.
A stereotyped approach must be rejected, not only to the basic opening
principles but also to the treatment of these typical opening plans. In spite of
external similarities between different positions, every concrete opening
position possesses its own individual features, which exercise a decisive in
fluence on the future course of events.
Nevertheless, knowledge of even the most approximate logical patterns of

play is a step forward, since it greatly facilitates the correct treatment of the
position. A clear understanding of play in any opening system, however, can
be achieved only through deep analytical study.
Index of Openings
Alekhine Defence 28, 54 Nimzovitch Defence 1 16
Caro-Kann Defence 83-4, 88-9, Petrov Defence 5

106, 122, 127-8, 156, 172, 203, Philidor Defence 2-4, 242
217, 256, 261, 269-71, 275-6, Pirc Defence 180-1, 256
288-90 Ponziani 16
Catalan System 53-4, 144
Centre Game 85, 206-7 Queen's Gambit (in general)
13-14, 28, 122, 127-8, 135,
Danish Gambit 7 146, 156, 261
Queen's Gambit Accepted 148-
English 32, 49, 52-4, 75-7, 101-2, 50, 156, 158, 290
135, 151-5, 168-9, 178-82, Queen's Gambit Declined
189, 231, 277-8 Cambridge Springs Defence
Evans Gambit 6-7, 16, 18, 186, 50-1
216 Exchange Variation 60-2, 101,
129-34
Four Knights' Game 20, 1 16 Irregular Defence 64-5
French Defence 5-6, 14, 17, 20, Lasker Defence 18, 88
22, 25-6, 28-9, 32, 41-2, 46, Orthodox Defence 19, 88,
88-90, 95, 103-6, 1 10, 1 18-21' 156-7, 216-18, 288
159-61, 172-4, 176-7, 201-3, Ragozin System 144-6, 174
222-6, 246-8, 250-1, 261-3, Semi-Tarrasch Defence 83-4,
269-70, 272-3, 275, 281-2 143, 157-8, 218-19
Slav Defence 5, 15, 20-1, 32,
144
Giuoco Piano 2, 6-7, 85-6 , 146, 172, 174-5, 187,
203-5, 209-1 1, 213, 216, 244,
King's Gambit 2, 5-10, 16, 186, 246, 249-52
216 Stonewall Defence 51-2
King's Indian Attack 102 Symmetrical Defence 64-5
Tarrasch Defence 159
Nimzovitch Attack 23 Tartakover Defence 147-8
32 1
322 I N D EX OF O PENINGS
Queen·s Gambit Declined (con Reti 23--4, 32, 135, 151, 192-3,
tinued) 231-2
Tchigorin Defence 17-18 Ruy Lopez 5, 13-17, 20, 26-8,
Queen's Pawn (in general) 6, 44-5, 55, 62-3, 70-3, 87-90,
1 1-12, 17'T 20 92-4, 108-10, 116-8, 122-6,
Queen's Pawn 193-7, 209, 213-14, 216,
Dutch Defence 32 219-21, 226-9, 235-8, 243,
Griinfeld Defence 25, 32, 57-9, 245-6, 252-6, 261-2, 275-7,
83, 90, 102, 135, 138--42, 144, 286, 290, 292-315
240-2
King's Indian Defence 16-17, Scotch Game 6, 85-6
28, 34, 42, 44, 72-3, 95-9, Sicilian Defence 17, 20, 28, 32,
101-2, 110-15, 122, 135, 151, 45-9, 77-9, 81-3, 90, 104-6,
153, 168-9, 191-2, 230-1, 135, 151, 153, 159, 162-8,
256, 261, 268-9, 271-2, 275, 177-8, 182-4, 187-8, 190-1,
291 198-201, 21 1-2, 221-2, 232-4,
Modern Benoni Defence 149- 238-40, 256-61, 263-7, 273-5,
51 278-81
Nimzovitch Defence 23, 32, Sokolsky 256
37-8, 56, 79-81, 83, 90-2,-
100-1, 1 10, 122, 127-8, 135, Two Knights' Defence 2, 7, 13,
146, 156, 168, 170-2, 175-6, 16, 85-7, 224-5
207-8
Torre Attack 229-30 Vienna Game 107-8
PERGAMON CHESS SERIES
H . O'D. ALEXAN DER and T. J . BEACH Learn

Chess
Volumes 1 and 2
LERNARD BARDEN
The Ruy Lopez
V. VUKOVIC
The Art of Attack in Chess
A. S. SUETIN
Modern Chess Opening Theory
COUNT A. O'KELLY DE GALWAY Tigran

Petrosian, World Champion
Y. AVERBAKH
Chess Endings-Essential Knowledge

(Suetin, A) Modern Chess Opening Theory (Insert Dia) (E - E)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Suetin, A) Modern Chess Opening Theory (Insert Dia) (E - E)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PERGAMON CHESS SERIES

MODERN CHESS OPENING THEORY

Translated by DR. D.]. RI CHARDS

English Translation edited by P. H. CLARKE

Pergamon Press (Scotland) Ltd., 2 & 3 Teviot Place, Edinburgh 1

Press GmbH, Kaiserstrasse 75, Frankfurt-am-Main

Copyright © 1965 Pergamon Press Ltd.

First edition 1965

This book is sold subject to the condition that it

in any form of binding or cover

2. BASIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMS OF THE OPENING 35

0 THE STRUGGLE FOR THE CENTRE IN THE MoDERN

V. A Piece-Pawn Centre 151

(a) The isolated central pawn 155

VIII. A Fluid Pawn Structure in the Centre 181

4. NEW PATHS IN THE OPENING 186

General Considerations 186

(a) Pawn sacrifices for the initiative in the Ruy

Slav Defence 203

A key factor in the many impressive victories scored by Soviet players in

Naturally enough, as opening theory has developed, so have the

claim to have made an exhaustive study of this extremely complicated

The History of Opening Theory

book: 'Jaenish's New Ana?Jsis of the Openings is indispensable to every

not always based on solid positional grounds but became an end in

In this way Morphy exploits his advantage in develop ment. In order to

teacher, did much to popularize Steinitz's teachings. Tarrasch worked out a

The exchange of the black-squared Bishops is to White's advantage. Mter

A firm opponent of dogmatism, Tchigorin looked upon a game of chess as

Pillsbury has managed to set up an 'ideal' pawn centre. However,

White pawn centre, unsupported by pieces: 8...P-B4!;

game. Important contributions to opening theory, for ex ample, were his

In recent years Euwe has concentrated principally on the analysis and

general standard, considering that a player's knowledge of the openings

Basic Principles and Aims

Present-day understanding of the centre has been con siderably enriched

The central squares are especially important in the

wing with ...Kt-Ktl-B3-QR4--Kt6. Instead, he should have concentrated on

which Black is guided by a natural attempt to preserve equality in space in the

The Demarcation Line

counterplay, since White has a significant superiority in space on the King's

carried through an energetic attack based on the powerful position of his

P-KKt3, P-B4; 35 Q,-K2, R-B2; 36 Q,-Q,2, Q,R-KBI; 37 Q,-B2, K-R2; 38 K-

A similar structure often arises after an exchange of pieces in the King's

5 Kt-QB3 since it develops a piece to an active position and strengthens

It is significant too that White's attempt in the French Defence to seize

The Advantage of the First Move

clear that, depending on the inclinations of the players (not considering

8 Kt-R3, B-K3; 9 Kt-B4, Kt-Q.5; 10 BxKt, PxB; 11 Kt-K3 (see diagram), or in a

Co-operation between Pieces and- Pawns

followed by B-Kt2 and P-Q.Kt4, attempting to prevent the activation of Black's

4 Kt-B3, P-B3; 5 B-B4, B-Q.3 (Black counts on 6 B x B,

White meets Black's stereotyped development by pre paring a pawn

firm centre, which can later be mobilized by means of

The Concrete Approach to Opening Principles

The basic opening principles serve as a guide at the beginning of the

P-Q.Kt4; 14 Q.-Kt3, Kt-Q.2; 15 P-B4, R-Kt1; 16 Q.R-Q.1, Q.-R4.

If White continues to develop quietly, Black does not experience any

forced to retreat his Bishop, allowing White to carry out his

Condemning a pointless loss of tempi in the opening, the first Russian

Ill. The Development of the Forces in the Opening

A harmonious and purposeful disposition of the pieces and pawns plays an

pos1t10n, a material advantage, etc.) and (2) dynamic co ordination, which