classical

dutch

by Jan Pinski
EVERYMAN CHESS
Everyman Publishers pic www.everymanbooks.com
First published in 2002 by Everyman Publishers pIc, fonnerly Cadogan Books pIc,
Gloucester Mansions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD

Copyright © 2002 Jan Pinski

The right of J an Pinski to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in
accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a re-
trieval system or transmitted in any fonn or by any means, electronic, electrostatic,
magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the
publisher.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN 1 85744 3071

Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480,
246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480.

All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Gloucester Mansions,
140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD
tel: 020 7539 7600 fax: 020 7379 4060
email: chess@everymanbooks.com
website: www.everymanbooks.com

EVERYMAN CHESS SERIES (fonnerly Cadogan Chess)

Chief advisor: Garry Kasparov
Commissioning editor: Byron Jacobs

Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton.

Production by Book Production Services.
Printed and bound in Great Britain by The Cromwell Press Ltd., Trowbridge,
Wiltshire.
Everyman Chess
Popular opening books:

185744 218 0 Unusual QG Declined Chris Ward

185744 2539 Alekhine's Defence Nigel Davies
1 85744 256 4 Queen's Gambit Declined Matthew Sadler
185744 2326 French Classical Byron Jacobs
185744 2814 Modem Defence Speelman & McDonald
185744 292 X Symmetrical English David Cummings
1 85744 290 3 c3 Sicilian Joe Gallagher
185744 242 3 Offbeat Spanish Glenn Flear
185744 262 8 Classical Nimzo-Indian Bogdan Lalic
185744 2911 Sicilian Grand Prix Attack J ames Plaskett
1 85744 252 0 Dutch Stonewall Jacob Aagaard
185744 2571 Sicilian Kalashnikov Pinski & Aagaard
185744 2768 French Winawer Neil McDonald

Books for players serious about improving their game:

185744 2261 Starting Out in Chess Byron Jacobs

185744 2318 Tips for Young Players Matthew Sadler
185744 236 9 Improve Your Opening Play Chris Ward
185744 241 5 Improve Your Middlegame Play Andrew Kinsman
185744 2466 Improve Your Endgame Play GlennFlear
185744 2237 Mastering the Opening Byron Jacobs
185744 2288 Mastering the Middlegame Angus Dunnington
1 85744 2334 Mastering the Endgame Glenn Flear
185744 2385 Simple Chess JohnEmms

Books for the more advanced player:

185744 2334 Attacking with 1 e4 JohnEmms

185744 233 4 Attacking with 1 d4 Angus Dunnington
185744 2199 Meeting 1 e4 Alexander Raetsky
1 85744 2245 Meeting 1 d4 Aagaard and Lund
1 85744 2733 Excelling at Chess Jacob Aagaard
 classical
dutch

by Jan Pinski
EVERYMAN CHESS
Everyman Publishers pic www.everymanbooks.com
CONTENTS I

Acknowledgements 7
Introduction 9

1 d4 f5 2 c4 e6 3 93 lbf6 4 .192 .1e 7 5 lbf3 0-0 6 0-0 d6

1 Main Line: 7 lbc3 as 8 b3 'iVe8 15

2 Main Line: 7 lbc3 as Eighth Move Alternatives 38
3 Main Line: 7 lbc3 'iie8 and 7 lbc3 lbe4 52
4 Main Line: White Plays b2-b4 83
S Main Line: White Plays lbbd2 100

Other Systems

6 Systems with 'iVc2 and/or e3 111

7 Systems with lbh3 130
8 Second Move Alternatives 138

Index of Complete Games 159

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I

I would like to thank the following people for their help during the creation of this book. I
would particularly like to thank International Master Jacob Aagaard and National Master Ma-
ciej Nurkiewicz for their assistance. I would also like to thank National Master Candidate
Tomasz Olenderek, National Master Rafal przedmojski and my editor, International Master
Byron Jacobs, for their help.
This book is dedicated to the memory of my best friend and guide in the world of chess,
Fide Master Wojciech Ehrenfeucht (1955-2002).

Jan Pinski,
Warsaw,
September 2002
 INTRODUCTION
The Classical Dutch (or the Ilyin-Zhenevsky
system as it is also called) is no longer enjoy-
ing the popularity it once did. Today I can
only recall Nigel Short when I think of top
Grandmasters who would consider using it
in serious tournament games. The reasons
are probably the availability of a high number
of other possible defences and the reputation
of this line as being better for White. After
having gone deeply into all corners of the
variation, I have come to the conclusion that
Black can fight for equality as he can in all
other kinds of openings. The way to get
there, however, is very different.
The Classical Dutch covers the Dutch De-
fence (1 d4 f5) where the bishop is placed on
e7 and the pawn on d6 (with the pawn on dS
we have the Stonewall Dutch, which would
be the subject of a completely different
book). The main position in the Ilyin-
Zhenevsky system is given below.
see following diagram
This position is discussed in the first three
chapters of the book. Chapter 3 considers
7...'iie8 and 7...tbe4, both of which give
Black good chances for equality. Chapters 1
and 2 consider 7... aS, which is nowadays con-
sidered the main line and also gives Black a
fair chance to reach a level game.
I
Though this is a big part of the book,
there is much more to the Classical Dutch
than just this position. In Chapter 8 I have
included a good repertoire against all the
tricky sidelines White has at his disposal on
move two after 1 d4 f5, from the Gambit-
style 2 g4?! to the positional 2 tbc3. In Chap-
ter 6 I have included positions where White
develops the bishop via the fl-d3 diagonal
(mainly after e2-e3) and one game where
White plays g2-g3, .i.g2, e2-e3 and tbge2 (a
famous World Championship game between
Botvinnik and Bronstein, where Black could
have won).
In Chapter 7 I consider the awkward de-
velopment of the knight to h3 instead of £3,
an idea that has only had a few successes. A
9
Classical Dutch
more interesting idea for White is the early
advance of the b-pawn, with the intention of
grabbing maximum space on the queenside
as fast as possible. This is very much similar
to the Van Wely system of the Leningrad
Dutch (1 d4 f5 2 ttJf3 ttJf6 3 c4 g6 4 g3 J..g7
5 b4!?) and is considered in Chapter 4. From
time to time White players have also decided
on a more modest set-up with the knight on
d2 instead of c3. I have shown how to deal
with this kind of set-up in Chapter 5.
Before we turn to the different plans of
the main lines in the Classical Dutch, I would
like to show a very famous game that illus-
trates very well what the Ilyin-Zhenevsky sys-
tem is capable of, even though in a strict
sense it is a slightly different variation.
Bogoljubow-Alekhine
Hastings 1922
1 d4 f5 2 c4 lbf6 3 g3 e6 4 .ig2
.ib4+!?
Here the game departs from the trodden
path of the Classical Dutch, but it still has
many structural similarities to the subject of
our book.
5 .id2 .ixd2+ 6lbxd2?!
This is not very harmonic. 6 'iVxd2 fol-
lowed by ttJc3 is a more dynamic way to play
the position, and also the way Enryclopaedia 0/
Chess Openings (ECO) recommends that
White should play. After 6...0-0 7 ttJc3 d6 8
10
ttJf3 ttJe4 9 'iVc2 ttJxc3 10 'iVxc3 White sup-
posedly has a small advantage.
6 ...lbc6 7 lbgf3 0-0 S 0-0 d6 9 'ifb3
This manoeuvre is not impressive at all.
After 9 'Wc2 White could still play for an ad-
vantage, even though it would probably be
fruitless.
9 .. .'.tihS 10 'ifc3 e5!
This position has a lot in common with
the Ilyin-Zhenevsky system - the only differ-
ence is the exchange of the dark-squared
bishops.
11 e3
11 dxe5 dxe5 12 ttJxe5 ttJxe5 13 'iVxe5
does not work out due to the simple
13. ..'iVxd2 and Black wins.
11 ... a5 12 b3 'i!i'eS 13 a3 'ifh5 14 h4
The e-pawn is still defended by tactics. Af-
ter 14 dxe5 dxe5 15 ttJxe5 ttJxe5 16 'iVxe5
ttJg4 the queen and h2 are caught in a com-
mon fork.
14 ...lbg4 15 lbg5 .id7 16 f3 lbf6
Black is now threatening ... f5-f4, so White
now has no choice but to play it himself.
17 f4 e4 1Sl:[fd1 h6 19lbh3
19 ... d5!
It is now hard to see how White will be
able to create any kind of pressure on the
kingside. Black has the advantage.
20 lbf1 lbe7 21 a4lbc6
After the weakening of the b4-square the
knight returns. The final goal is, of course,
the d3-square in order to attack the kingside
 Introduction

once again.
22 ~d2 ttJb4 23 .i.h1 'ii'e8 24 ~g2 dxe4
25 bxe4
White gives up a pawn on account of the
positional deficit after 2S .....xc4, when Black
has the dS-square at his disposal and White
cannot hope to survive the game.
25 ... .i.xa4 26 ttJf2 .i.d7 27 ttJd2 b5!
Black takes over the dS-square anyway.
28 ttJd1
This is where the history of chess has one
of its most famous combinations.

48 ~xe2 fxe2 49 'iitf2 exf1'ii' + 50 ~xf1

~g7 51 'iite2 ~f7 52 'iite3 ~e6 53 'iite4
d5+ 0-1

Of course the main problems for Black in

this opening are to be found in Chapters 1-4
(see the diagram at the beginning of this
Chapter). There are a few standard positions
and plans that Black should know about. I
have tried to give a brief overview here, so
that you are aware of them when you play
28 ... ttJd3!! through the chapters.
The point of this move is revealed on The first one is very typical of what White
move 31, but Black had to see much further wants.
to guarantee to himself that the combination
was correct.
29 ~xa5 b4 30 ~xa8
30 .....a1 l:txaS 31 .....xaS .....a8 32 .....xa8
llxa8 is not much of a defence, as the rook
now penetrates with deadly effect.
30 ... bxe3 31 ~xe8 e2!
The point. Black will now get a new
queen.
32 llxf8+ 'iith7 33 ttJf2 e1'ii' + 34 ttJf1
ttJe1 35 llh2 'ii'xe4 36 ~b8 .i.b5 37 llxb5
'ii'xb5 38 g4 ttJf3+ 39 .i.xf3 exf3 40
gxf5 'ii'e2 41 d5 'iitg8 42 h5 ~h7 43 e4
ttJxe4 44 ttJxe4 'ilixe4 45 d6 exd6 46 f6 Suba-Gareia Lopez
gxf6 47 ~d2 'ii'e2! Seville 1994
Finally another small combination which
enables Black to enter a winning pawn end- White has been able to push with e2-e4
game. and now has pressure against the e6-pawn.

11
Classical Dutch

Black tries to gain counterplay in the stan- Another standard positional trade con-
dard way. nected to positions after the e-pawn has been
13 ... e5 14 dxe5 dxe5 15 .i.c3! exchanged for the f-pawn is the following.
TIlls move takes control over both d4 and
e5.
15....i.f5 16 ttJh4!
TIlls is a standard trick that is good to re-
member. After this White has the advantage
due to his superior control over the dark
squares and the strength of the bishop along
the h 1-a8 diagonal.
16....i.xh4 17 l:txh4 l:tae8 18 .i.d5+ 'itth8
19 'iVe3!
TIlls is prophylaxis. It is hard to see how
Black should proceed. He tries with a pawn
sacrifice.
19 ... ttJd4? TIlls position is taken from the game Am-
TIlls is not good. After 19".b6 White son-Korchnoi, Leningrad 1951 (see Game
would only have a small advantage. 32). Here Black played 16 ... gxf6! with a
20 .i.xd4 exd4 21 'iVxd4 c6 22 .i.f3 good game. TIlls is a standard recapture,
.i.b1 !? once White does not have the possibility to
An attempt to keep a1-rook out of the go behind the black pawns with SLh6-g7
game, but it's unsuccessful. later, or disturb the black kingside with simi-
23 l:tg4 l:te1 + 24 'ittg2 'iVf7 25 l:tf4 'ile7 lar moves.
Another similar example is the following:

26 l:txb1! 1:txb1 27 'ii'e4 1-0

Forking the queen and the rook on b1.
White will generally have a small advan-
tage if he opens up the centre with e2-e4, due
to the weakness of the pawn on e6, so often
emphasised by 'ufl-e1. Black will often pre-
vent e2-e4 with ".tt:Jf6-e4, or at least delay it
sufficiently to develop counterplay.
Oei-Lupu
Cap pelle la Grande 1994
Here Black achieved a good game after
15 ... gxf6! 16 ttJed2 ttJb4 17 'iVb3 .l:!.fd8
18 :te3 .i.c5 19 l:tc3 a5 20 ttJe4 .i.e 7 21
I:!.e3 a4 22 'iVc3 ttJc6 23 a3 'ii'h6 24
litee1 'ii'g7 25 h3 .i.xf3 26 .i.xf3 f5 27

12
 Introduction

ttJd2 e4 28 ttJxe4 fxe4 29 'ifxg7+ 'it>xg7 9 ... ttJaS!? 10 e3 cS 11 J:tc1 J:tb8

30 .txe4 .tfS 31 .tdS ttJd4 32 .txb7
J:tab8 33 .te4 J:!.xb2 34 J:tad 1 J:tb3 3S f4
J:txg3+ 3S 'it>h2 J:txa3 37 l:!.g1 + 'it>hS 38
.tdS l:!.e8 39 l:!.g2 J:te2 0-1

Going back to the first diagram in this

chapter, Black has two standard ways of de-
veloping counterplay. The more standard of
these is based on ...'i'd8-e8-hS followed by a
pawn storm on the centre. I will presume
that this method is known to the readers and,
if not, then it will be once you have made
your way through this book.
The second is more positional and less
known at club level.
Black is fully prepared for the ... b7-b5 ad-
vance. After this White will have to choose
between cxbS, which gives away control over
dS, and allowing ... bxc4, which opens the b-
file for Black's rook.
12 .tb2 bS 13 cxbS cxbS 14 ttJe1 .tb7!
It is the control over dS that is the most
important thing in the position.
1S .txb7 J:txb7 1S 'ife2 ttJc7 17 ttJd3 b4
18 ttJa4 gS 19 f3 g4 20 fxg4 ttJxg4 21
e4 .tgS 22 ttJf4 ttJfS 23 exfS .txf4 24
J:txf4 ttJcdS 2S J:tf2 exfS 2S 'it'xe8 l:!.xe8
27 J:txfS J:te2 28 J:tcf1 J:tc7 29 J:tSf2 l:!.xf2
30 l:!.xf2 'it>f7

In this position Black has developed his

knight to a6 instead of the standard c6. White
has taken control over the centre, but still
Black has a good position after 14... bS!, as
in Krivoshey-Salai, Slovakian League 1997
(see Game 7).

Another example of this strategy is pre-

sented here by a top German grandmaster.

Ribli-Lobron
Bundesliga 1996
1 ttJf3 dS 2 d4 fS 3 g3 ttJfS 4 .tg2 eS S
c4 .te7 S 0-0 0-0 7 ttJc3 as 8 b3 'ife8 9
.ta3
Probably the bishop is better on bZ.
This is a true image of positional triumph
for Black. There is no scope for the a4-
knight or the bZ-bishop, and the extra pawn
will not count in the long run.
31 h3 'it>gS 32 J:te2 hS 33 J:teS J:tc2 34

13
Classical Dutch
'it>f1 'it>f5 35 ~e2 ~c6 36 'it>f2 liJe4+ 37
'it>f3 liJg5+ 38 'it>g2 ~c8 39 h4 liJe4 40
'it>f3 liJef6 41 ~g2 ~c7 42 ~e2 ~c6 43
a3 .l:!.c7 44 axb4 axb4 45 ~e1 ~c2 46
.l:!.e2 ~xe2 47 'it>xe2 c;t;e4 48 .i.a 1 liJg4 49
liJb2 liJc3+ 50 'it>d2 liJh2 51 liJc4 liJf3+
52 'it>c1 liJxd4 53 liJxd6+ c;t;d3 54 c;t;b2
14
liJd1 + 55 'it>c1 liJc3 56 'it>b2 liJde2 57
liJf5 'it>d2 58 liJd6 liJxg3 59 liJc4+ 'it>d3
60 liJe5+ <t>e4 61 liJd7 liJge2 62 liJf6+
'it>d3 63 liJxh5 'it>d2 0-1
White trapped in zugzwang. His only logi-
cal idea is to move the knight from hS, and
after that ...ltJe2-f4-d3 with deliver mate.
 CHAPTER ONE I
Main Line:
7 'tJc3 a5 8 b3 iYe8
In the first two chapters we will investigate
the positions arising after 1 d4 f5 2 c4 lbf6
3 g3 e6 4 i.g2 i.e7 5 lbf3 0-0 6 0-0 d6
7lbc3 a5
TIlls is more or less the main line of the
Dutch Classical and certainly one of the most
critical lines in this book. White has tried a
broad range of different possibilities against
7... as, some of which are more dangerous
than others. In this chapter we deal with the
line a b3 'ilea, while in Chapter 2 we shall
look at eighth move alternatives for White.
The most popular and also the most natu-
ral choice for White is 8 b3. TIlls can be
played with the idea of both i.b2 and i.a3. I
have no doubt that the former is the health-
ier of the two, but I still have not been able
to prove any advantage for White in this line
after 9 i.b2 'i'hs 10 .l:te1 ltJe4 11 'i'c2 ltJxc3
12 i.xc3 f4. TIlls leads to unclear play, as can
be seen in Game 3.
After 9 i.b2, alternatives to 9...'i'hs, in-
cluding 9...ltJa6, 9...i.d8 and 9... c6, will be
discussed in Games 5-9, while 9 i.a3 is stud-
ied in Games 10-13.
Game 1
Yusupov-Hickl
Cologne 1999
1 d4 e6 2 lbf3 f5 3 g3 lbf6 4 i.g2 i.e 7
5 0-0 0-0 6 c4 d6 7 lbc3 a5 a b3 'ilea
Black has also tried 8...ltJa6?! but there is
no sense in placing the knight on c7 in this
position. 9 i.b2 c6 10 e3 ltJc7 11 'i'c2 bs 12
ltJd2! ds 13 ltJG! ltJd7 14 cxds cxds lsl::tfc1
i.b7 16 ltJe2 i.d6 17 ltJes 'i'e7 18 ltJf4 a4?
(18 .. .l:Hc8 19 ltJfd3 would just give White a
very clear advantage.
see following diagram
19 'i'xc7!! with a winning position for
White in Korchnoi-Bellin, Hastings 1975/76.
9 i.b2
The bishop is probably better placed here
than on a3.
9 ... 'ilh5 10 'ilc2lbc6 11 l:!.ad1 i.d7
15
Classical Dutch

Black needs to develop. After 11...i.d8 12

a3 (12 e3 eS 13 dxeS dxeS 14 lL'IdS .::te8
would be the kind of thing Black wishes for)
12...~e8 13 e4 fxe4 14lL'1xe4lL'1xe4 15 1t'xe4
White has a standard advantage.

16 ... exd5 17 Wxc7 f4!

Black is seeking counterplay.
18 tLld4 'oith8
After 18... fxg3 19 hxg3 i.f6 20 'ii'xd6
i.xd4 21 i.xd4 'ii'xe2 22 i.xd5+ 'it>h8 23
12 a3 .l::tae8?! 'ifc7 .l:te7 24 'ilxaS ~fe8 Black is slightly
Black is playing without a plan. The alter- worse.
natives are: 19 i.f3 'i'f7
a) 12... eS? 13 dxeS dxeS 14 lL'IdS ~f7 15 19 .. :iVeS 20 'ilt'xaS fxg3 21 hxg3 i.f6 22
i.xeS! and White just wins. 'iVb6 'ii'gS also leaves White with slightly bet-
b) However, after 12...lL'Id8 13 e4 fxe4 14 ter chances.
lL'Ixe4.:tb8! (14... i.c6 15 lL'Ifd2 is a little bet- 20 Wxa5 i.f6 21 'iid2 i.e5
ter for White) 15 ~fe1 lL'Ixe4 16 1t'xe4 bS! 21...fxg3 22 hxg3lL'1e6 23 i.xdS i.xd4 24
Black would have decent counterplay. i.xd4 gives White a tiny edge like in almost
13 d5! all lines.
Black had prepared himself for 13 e4 and 22 a4
planned to meet it with 13 ... fxe4 14 lL'Ixe4
lL'Ixe4 15 'ii'xe4 lL'Id8! 16 'ii'e3 i.c6 with an
acceptable position.
13 ... tLld8 14 tLlb5!?
This is an interesting positional sacrifice of
an exchange. The only question is why? After
the simple 14lL'1d4! c6 (14...eS? 1SlL'IdbS ex-
poses c7; after 1S ... f4 16 gxf4 i.h3 17 £3
i.xg2 18 'it>xg2 Black does not have a way to
organise an attack) 15 dxe6 i.xe6 16 lL'Ixe6
lL'Ixe6 17 e3 White is obviously better.
14...i.xb5 15 cxb5 tLlxd5

see following diagram

22 ...Wf6?!
16l:!.xd5! This allows White to advance on the
This was, of course, the idea. Otherwise queenside, after which I do not see a plan
White would just have lost a pawn. that will save the game for Black. Following

16
 Main Line: 7 {jjc3 a5 8 b3 ~e8

the stronger 22... b6! 23 b4ll'le6 24ll'lxe6 (24 with an unclear position in Danielian-Moser,
i.xds fxg3 25 hxg3 i.xg3! is an important Istanbul Olympiad 2000. The line
detail to remember) 24.,,'iVxe6 25 i.xds 'iVf6 20".ll'lh3+!? 21 i.xh3 'ilYxh3 also looked
26 i.xes dxes 27 as :d8 Black is struggling, worth a try.
but has fair chances of drawing. 11...c6 12 a3 i..d8 13 e4
23 a5! {jje6 24 {jjxe6 l:txe6 25 i..xeS
dxeS 26 ~xdS l:te7 27 b4 ~g6 28 i..e4
'iig4 29 ~d3 ~e6
After 29".:d7 30 'iVf3 'iVxf3 31 exf3
Black has a horrible endgame.
30 a6 l:td7 31 ~a3 ~c4 32 i..xb7 ~xb5
33 i..f3 l:ta7 34 l:ta1 l:tf6 3S ~c3 g6 36
l:taS ~b6 37 ~xeS fxg3 38 hxg3 l:txa6
39 l:.bS ~e6 40 l:tb8+ 'ittg7 41 l:.b7+
'itth6 42 ~c7 ~g8 43 'ii'c1 + gS 44 i..e4
:tf7 4S .idS ~h8 46 i..xf7 1-0

Game 2
Flohr-Kotov 13 ... e5!?
USSR Championship 1949 A really cool pawn sacrifice. This is mainly
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -... possible due to the move 12 a3, weakening
This game is very important for the un- the b3-square.
derstanding of the Ilyin-Zhenevsky system, 14 dxe5 dxe5 15 {jjxeS {jjcS!
as the pawn sacrifice Black plays is prototypi- The point. White now has a very incon-
cal. venient situation.
1 d4 e6 2 c4 fS 3 g3 {jjf6 4 i..g2 i..e7 S
{jjf3 d6 6 0-0 0-0 7 {jjc3 'ii'e8 8 'ii'c2
'ii'hS
Black should be careful not to develop his
queenside knight too soon with 8".ll'lc6?! 9
ds ll'lb4 10 'iVb3 ll'la6 11 dxe6 ll'lcs 12 'iVc2
i.xe6 13 b3. Now instead of 13".'iVhs? 14
ll'ld4 i.c8 15 b4 with a clear advantage in
Fain-Bogolubov, Nottingham 1936, Black
should play 13".ll'lfe4 14 i.b2 i.f6 with a
slightly inferior position.
9 b3 as 10 .ib2 {jja6 11 l:tae1
After 11 a3 Black can try to play originally
with 11...:b8 12 :ac1 c6 13 e4 es!. This is a 16 b4?!
temporary pawn sacrifice that gives breathing This does not seem to do anything other
space to the black pieces and puts pressure than get rid of the weak b3-pawn. Better was
on the white centre. 14 dxes dxes 15 ll'lxes 16 i.f3! 'iVh3 17 exfs (17 i.g2 'iVhs is of
ll'lcs (the point; White now cannot capture course just a draw) 17".i.xfS 18 'iVd1! and
on fS as after the bishop recaptures, White White has some chances of obtaining an ad-
will lose the b3-pawn) 16 b4 axb4 17 axb4 vantage with 18".i.c7 19 i.g2.
ll'lcxe4 18 f3 ll'lgs 19 ll'ld3 i.d6 20 ll'le2 ll'le6 16 ... {jjcxe4 17 {jjxe4 fxe4 18 cS?

17
Classical Dutch
This gives Black control over the dS-
square. 18 f4 1.h3 is also good for Black, but
this was the lesser evil.
18....i.e6 19 .i.xe4
19 'i¥d 1!? was perhaps betrer, but Black
still appears to be better.
19...llJxe4 20 l::txe4 .i.d5 21 l::te2 axb4
22 axb4 i.f6 23 f4 1:.a2 24 1:.ef2 1:.fa8
25 'ii'd3 1:.8a4
2S ...'iib3!?, with the idea of advancing the
h-pawn and to capture on g3 to weaken the
kingside, was an alternative. After 26 g4
'ii'xd3 27 lDxd3 1.xb2 28 1:1xb2 1:1xb2 29
lDxb2 l:ta3 and Black stands better in this
position.
26 g4 'ii'h4 27 'iWf5 1:.a8 28 g5 'ii'h5 29
h3 h6!
This is very precise play from Black. After
the continuation 29 ...1.xeS? 30 fxeS g6
White has an exceptionally beautiful mate
with 31 'i¥f8+!! 1:1xf8 32 .l:1xf8+ ~g7 33 e6+
1:1xb2 34 l:tlf7 mate!
30 lOd3
White also collapses after 30 'i¥g4 in the
face of the continuation 30...'i¥xg4+ 31 hxg4
hxgS.
30 ....i.xb2 31 lOxb2 1:.2a3 32 ~h2 1:.e3!
331:[g1
Or if instead 33 'i¥g4 then after 33 ...'i¥xg4
34 hxg4 naa3 35 1:1d2 l:th3+ 36 ~gl l:th1+
37 ~f2 1:18+ and White would have to re-
sign.
33 ....i.e60-1
18
Game}
Lalic-N.Pert,
British Championship 1999
My annotations for this game are partly
based on those by Lalic in Chess ltiformant 76.
1 d4 e6 2 c4 f5 3 g3 lOf6 4 i.g2 i.e7 5
lOf3 d6 6 0-0 0-0 7 lOc3 a5 8 b3 'ii'eS 9
.i.b2 'ii'h5 10 l::te1 lOe4
Black has some valid alternatives here:
a) 10... dS!? is of course only good for
players who like to play the Stonewall. After
11lDeS c6 12 e3 'i¥h6 13lDa4lDbd7 14 cS?!
(14 nc1 is better) 14...gS! Black developed an
initiative in Farago-Naumkin, Budapest 1991.
b) lo ...lDc6 looks sound. 11 dS lDd8 12
dxe6 (12 lDd4?! eS 13 lDdbS lDe8 does not
bring White any joy; this structure is better
for Black and the white knights have difficul-
ties finding good squares) 12...lDxe6 13 e4
fxe4 14 lDxe4 lDxe4 15 1:1xe4 1.f6 16 1.xf6
:txf6 17 lDd4 'i¥xd1+ 18 J:i.xdl lDxd4 19
.l:1exd4 and White had a small advantage due
to his lead in development. Sliva S-Langier,
Rancagua 1993.
11 'ii'c2 lOxc3 12 i.xc3 f4
After 12.. :iih6 13 e4 fxe4 14 'i¥xe4 White
is just better. The same goes for 12...lDc6 13
dS lDd8 14 lDd4 as now 14...eS 15 lDbS is
very uncomfortable.
13 e3 fxg3 14 fxg3 e5?!
Black cannot play 14...l:tx£3? due to 15

'it'e2 l::tfS 16 g4 and White wins, but he
should try 14...lbc6! 15 ~f1 i.f6 16 1:.£2 e5
when White does not seem to have any ad-
vantage at all. This is a standard rule in chess
(which of course has its limitations). First de-
velop, then open the position.
1S'ile4!
After 15 1:.f1? i.fS! 16 e4 i.g4 17 'it'd3
lbc6 Black's pieces have an easier life finding
good squares.
1S ....i.d7
Black has no easy way to develop. After
15...lbd7 16 'it'd5+ ~h8 17 dxe5 c6 18 'it'd4
he would have simply lost a pawn.
16 'ii'dS+ 'ito>hS 17 'ifxb7 tDc6
1S tDxeS!
This is the beginning of a nice sequence
giving White a winning advantage.
1S .. JUbS
After 18...~a7 19 'ifxc6! (19 lbxd7 ':xb7
20 lbxfB i.xfB 21 i.xc6 also looks excellent
for White) 19... i.xc6 20 lbxc6 'iff7 21lbxa7
White has a close-to-winning advantage.
18...dxe5 19 i.xc6 i.xc6 20 'ifxc6 does not
give Black any counterplay at all.
19 'ifxc7 l:ta7 20 'ifxd7
Well, she was never going to get out of
there alive but, just like a gladiator, she has
killed some beasts before going into the box.
20 ...l:txd7 21 tDxd7 l:tcS 22 tDb6 l:tbS 23
tDdS
White is winning comfortably. All the
pawns are just too much for Black to handle.
Main Line: 7 tDc3 a5 B b3 'ileB
23 ....i.gS 24 e4 tDb4 2S .i.xb4 axb4 26
l:tad1 l:taS 27 eS dxeS 2S tDf4 .i.xf4 29
.i.xaS .i.e3+ 30 'ito>g2 .i.xd4 31 .i.f3 1-0
Game 4
Markowski-Girinath
Calcutta 200 1
1 g3 fS 2 tDf3 tDf6 3 .i.g2 d6 4 d4 e6 S
0-0 .i.e7 6 c4 0-0 7 tDc3 as S b3 'ifeS 9
.i.b2 'ilhS 10 e3
10 ...'ii'h6
Black should be careful here. After
1O...lbe4?! 11 lbxe4 fxe4 12 lbd2 1li'xdl 13
~axd 1 d5 14 f3 exf3 15 i.xf3 White had a
great lead in development and was therefore
clearly better in Gligoric-Jarnieson, Buenos
Aires 1978. However, Black can try
1O...lba6!? and now:
a) 11 a3 ~b8 (11...i.d7 is weaker; 12lbel
'ifh6 13 lbd3 gives some advantage to White,
Timoshenko-Naumkin, Tashkent 1987) 12
lbel 'ifxdl 13 ~xdl c6 14 lbd3 i.d7, with
the idea of ... b7-b5, gives Black counterplay.
b) 11 lbel 'ifxdl 12 ~xdl c6 13 lbd3
i.d7 14 a3 %:tfd8 15 b4 axb4 16 axb4lbc7 17
l:tal ~xal 18 ~xal l:la8 and White might
have a very minor advantage, J.Ivanov-
Sciortimo, Montecatini Terme 2002. But
when you are Black, sometimes these kinds
of positions will end up on your plate. You
just have to make the most of them.
11 'ife2
19
Classical Dutch
11 lLJe1 has also been tried: 11...c6 12
lLJd3 lLJbd7 13 e4 e5 14 exfS exd4 15 .i.el
'ili'h5 16 lLJe2 c5 17 lLJef4 'ili'xd1 18 l:txd1
lLJe5 19 lLJe6 .i.xe6 20 fxe6 and White was
somewhat better, Bouton-Naumkin, Cap-
pelle la Grande 1995.
11".g5!?
Normally one would develop, but after
11...lLJc6 12 d5! exd5 13 cxd5 lLJb4 14 lLJd4
lLJa6 White was better in Sotnikov-
Poluljachov, Russia 1995.
12 litfd 1 ttJa6
12...lLJe4 13 lLJd2 lLJxc3 14 .i.xc3 .tf6 15
e4looks better for White.
13 a3l:!.b8 14 ttJd2 c6
Black can also choose to play with his
pieces. After 14....i.d7 15 e4 fxe4 16 lLJdxe4
lLJxe4 17lLJxe4 b5! the position is unclear.
15 e4 e5 16 exf5
White can also choose 16 dxe5 dxe5
(16 ...lLJg4 doesn't work due to 17 lLJf3 lLJxe5
18 lLJxe5 dxe5 19 exfS and the exchange of
pieces is to White's advantage. With the con-
trol over e4 he holds much the better
chances.) 17 lLJf3 (Note that though 17 exfS
might be interesting, the positio? after
17....txfS 18 'ili'xe5?? lLJg4! is only interesting
for Black!) 17....i.c5! 18 lLJxe5 fxe4 with a
complicated game ahead.
16" ..i.xf5 17 ttJce4
After 17 dxe5 dxe5 18 lLJf3 e4 19 lLJe5
.i.c5! the position is unclear. Still, Black
should not forget about his knight on a6. It
20
wants to join in the fight too.
17 ".exd4 18 .i.xd4
18lLJxg5? looks like a very foolish combi-
nation, as the reply is a natural improvement
of a badly placed piece: 18...l:tbe8 19 lLJge4
lLJc5 20 .i.xd4 (otherwise Black will domi-
nate the centre) 20... lLJfxe4 21 lLJxe4 lLJxb3
22 nab1 lLJxd4 23 l:txd4 d5! 24 cxd5 .tc5
and White is in great trouble - d4, e4 and f2
are all targets.
18 ...l:tbe8 19 lite 1 ttJxe4
This is rather tame. Black also has some
nice ideas with 19 ...lLJg4!? 20 h3 lLJe5 when
the knight is well placed. Now 21 c5?! d5 22
.i.xe5 dxe4 23 lLJxe4 .i.xe4 24 'ili'xe4 .i.xc5
25 l:ta2 'ili'e6 26 .i.f1 b5 27 .tg2 lLJb8 leaves
White struggling to find a good way to pro-
tect f2 and get out of the pin. After the im-
provement 21 g4! .tg6 22 'ii'e3 lLJd7 23 .i.b2
lLJac5 we have an open game.
20 ttJxe4 .i.xe4 21 .i.xe4 .i.f6 22 .i.xf6
'i'xf6 23 'i'c2l:!.e7 24 .i.d3 l:!.fe8 25l:!.f1!
Black has no play on the open e-file now.
After 25 .txh7+?? 'it>h8 26 :lxe7 'ii'xa1+
White would lose. The same goes for 25
1:txe7?? 'ili'xa1+.
25 ...ttJc5 26l:!.ad1!
Counterplay against d6 keeps the balance.
26" .ttJe6 27 'i'd2 ttJc5 28 'i'c2
28 .i.b1?! lLJxb3 29 'ii'xd6 'ili'xd6 301:txd6
lLJc5 would leave Black with a better knight.
28".ttJe6 29 'ii'd2 ttJc5 30 'ii'c2 Y:z - Y:z
Black has better placed pieces, but his weak

kingside has to be protected, so probably
there is no advantage.
Game 5
Golubovic-Moser
Obenvart 2001
1 d4 f5 2 g3 0,f6 3 .Jtg2 e6 4 0,f3 ~e7
5 c4 d6 6 0,c3 0-0 7 0-0 'ii'e8 8 b3 a5 9
~b2 0,a6 10 lite1
10 a3 is a relevant move too and is con-
sidered in Game 6. White can also consider
the following lines:
a) 10 lbe1 e5 11 dxe5 dxe5 12 e4 .ic5!
would give Black good counterplay.
b) 10 'ii'c2'ii'g6 11 ~ae1 .id7 12 a3 c6 13
lba4!? .ie8 14 c5 'ifh5 15 cxd6 .ixd6 16
lbb6 ~d8 17 lbc4 gave White the advantage
in Lutz-Weinzettl, Leibnitz 1990.
10 ...'ii'h5 11 e4 fxe4 12 0,xe4 0,xe4 13
l:txe4
In this line White has a small but very
clear advantage due to the weak pawn on e6.
This superiority might not be overwhelming
but it is practically eternal, as it is hard to
imagine that Black would get rid of this
weakness.
13 ... ~f6
There is no compensation after the
following:
a) 13... e5? 14 dxe5 lbc5 15 ~e3 .ig4 16
exd6 i.xd6 17 1Wd4 ~f6 18 lbe5 .ie6 and
even better than 19 :tae1?! with a clear ad-
Main Line: 7 0,c3 a5 8 b3 ~e8
vantage as in Koepcke-Perry, correspon-
dence 1997 is 19 .ia3! with a winning posi-
tion.
b) 13. ...id7 14 .l:te3 c6 15 'ji'd2 would
only be a little better for White after
15 ...lbc7, but after 15... b6?? 16 d5! e5 (or
16... cxd5 17 cxd5 e5 18lbxe5! dxe5 19 ':'xe5
1Wf7 [19 ....ib4 20 1Wxb4] 20 d6 and White
wins) 17 lbxe5! dxe5 18 ~xe5 'ji'f7 19 dxc6
.ib4 20 'ife3 .ie6 21 .l:!xe6 .ic5 22 .id4
Black had simply had enough and resigned in
Kachiani-Moser, Istanbul Olympiad 2000.
14 'ii'd2
This position has been played a few times
and other good moves have been tried:
a) 14 h4!? .id7 15 lbg5 'ji'xd1+ 16 ~xd1
.ixg5 17 hxg5 ~ad8 18 .ic3 and perhaps
White has more than just a small advantage
here, Markos-Moser, Liepzig 2002.
b) 14 1We2!? c5 15 l:td1 .id7 16 lbe5!
1Wxe2 17 l:txe2 .ic8 18 lbf3 was somewhat
better for White in Darnianovic-Gundersen,
Eupen 1999.
c) 14 ~e2 -Ub8 15 'ifd2 .id7 16lbe1lbb4
17 lbd3 was just a tiny bit better for White in
Grunberg-Lechtynski, Karlovy Vary 1973.
14 ... .Jtd7 15l:tae1 .l:[ae8
Or 15... .ic6 and now:
a) 16 g4?! is insufficient due to 16 ...'ifg6
17 ':'xe6 'ii'xg4 18 d5 .id7 19 ~6e4 'ji'g6 20
.ixf6 1Wxf6 21 'iVd4 'ii'xd4 22lbxd4lbc5 23
':'e7 ~fe8 24 ~xe8+ ':'xe8 25 ~xe8+ .ixe8
26 f4! and only with this move does White
21
Classical Dutch
keep the black advantage to a minimum. The
advantage is of course structural and will give
Black some good options in the endgame.
b) 16 :4e3 l:lae8 17 h3 b6 18 a3 and
White is better.
16lbe5??
A terrible blunder. After 16l:t4e3! iLc6 17
a3!, with the idea b3-b4, White has the ad-
vantage.
16 ... dxe5 17 dxe5 i..e7 18 'iixd7 lbc5
19 'i'xc7lbxe4 20 i..xe4??
White still has not found the problem
with his operation. 20 1:txe4 :d8! (20...1t'd1+
21 iLf1 gets Black nowhere) 21 iLc3 l:td1+
22 .l:te1 ':xe1+ 23 iLxe1 'i'e2 24 'ii'xa5 b6 25
'i'd2 1:txf2 gives Black a sttong position.
N ow he has the big trick.
20 ... .i.b4?!
Black should play 20 ...1:txf2!! 21 Wxf2
'ii'xh2+ 22 iLg2 (or 22 We3 iLg5+ and Black
22
wins) 22 ...l:tf8+ 23 We3 'ii'xg3+ and the
White king is not getting away. Remember
this standard trick - it is very useful.
211:.b1
White cannot escape. After 21 .l:tf1 'i'e2
22 a3 iLe7 Black wins one of the bishops.
21 .. Jlxf2!
Better late then never.
22 Wxf2 'i'xh2+ 23 We3 'i'd2+
All roads leads to Rome ...
24 Wf3 1:.f8+ 25 Wg4 'i'e2+ 26 Wh3
'iixe4 27 1:.g1 'iif5+ 28 g4 'i'f3+ 29
Wh2 i..d2 0-1
Game 6
Farago-Lucaroni
Marostica 1997
1 d4 f5 2 g3 lbf6 3 .i.g2 e6 4 c4 i..e7 5
lbf3 0-0 6 0-0 d6 7 lbc3 'i'e8 8 b3 a5 9
i..b2 lba6 10 a3 .i.d7
10... c6, followed by ...1:tb8, is in my opin-
ion the strongest continuation for Black, for
example 11 1:tel (or 11 'i'c2 b5 12 e3 iLb7
13liJg5 b4 14liJe21t'd7 with an unclear po-
sition) 11...:b8! (11...iLd7 12 e3 iLd8 13 :e1
e5 was okay for Black in Furman-Simagin,
USSR 1947, but White could have played
more dangerously) 12liJd2 (12 'i'd3 b5 does
not change anything) 12... e5 13 c5?! (13 e3 is
better) 13... exd4 14 cxd6 iLxd6 15 liJc4 was
played in V.Sokolov-Matulovic, Yugoslavia
1967. Now 15 ... iLc7 16 'i'xd4 b5! 17 liJd2

'We6 would have given Black a more com-
fortable position.
11 ti:::,e1 c6 12 ti:::,d3 .i.d8
After 12...tiJc7 13 e4 fxe4 14 tiJxe4 tiJxe4
15 i.xe4 White has a standard advantage in
Sosonko-Duckstein, ZUrich 1984.
13 e4 e5 14 dxe5 dxe5 15 '¥Ie2
Also possible was 15 exfS i.xfS 16 lle 1
i.c7 (16 ...e4? 17 tiJxe4 tiJxe4 18 i.xe4 i.xe4
19 'Wg4 obviously does not work out) 17
'We2 i.xd3! 18 'Wxd3 .l:td8 19 'Wc2 'Wh5
when Black has good counterplay.
15 ....i.b6
Here the alternatives should be investi-
gated:
a) 15... f4?! looks risky. The knight on a6 is
too far away from the centre of the action. 16
gxf4 exf4 17 e5 tiJg418 h3 tiJh6 19 .l:tfe1 f3!?
20 i.xf3 i.xh3 21 i.h5 'We7 22 tiJe4 and
White has control.
Main Line: 7 ti:::,c3 a5 8 b3 '¥Ie8
b) But 15...i.c7! 16 l::tfe1 (16 exfS i.xfS
should be okay for Black) 16.. .f4! gives Black
good play. After 17 gxf4 exf4 18 e5?! (18 h3!
would be better here) 18...tiJg4 Black has
considerable chances.
16 ti:::,a4
Here White has some alternatives:
a) 16 exfS i.xfS 17 tiJxe5 tiJc5 18 .l:tae 1
hld8 gives Black excellent play against b3, d3
and £2.
b) 16 tiJxe5!? is interesting. Play can con-
tinue 16...'Wxe5 (the only move; 16...tiJc5 17
tiJxd7 tiJfxd7 18 b4 tiJxe4 19 tiJxe4 fxe4 20
c5 is brilliant for White, and 16... fxe4 17
tiJxd7 'fixd7 18 l:r.ad1 'fifS 19 tiJxe4 is also
very good) 17 tiJd5 i.d4 18 i.xd4 'Wxd4 19
l:r.ad1 'iWe5 20 tiJxf6+ .l:txf6 21 l:r.xd7 tiJc5
(21...fxe4? 22 i.xe4 would lose time because
of the threat of i.xh7+) 22 f4 'iWe6 23 l:td4
tiJxb3 24 .l:tdd1 'We7 25 e5 .l:te6 26 'iWd3
'fixa3 27 'fixfS with a complete mess. White
needs to win on the kingside soon, as Black
will simply advance his a-pawn until it pro-
motes.
16 ... .i.d4!?
This is apparently necessary because of
16...i.a7 17 tiJxe5 fxe4 18 tiJxd7 'Wxd7 19
i.xf6 .l:txf6 20 i.xe4l:iaffi 21 c5! and White
seemingly has the advantage. However, after
21...tiJxc5 22 tiJxc5 i.xc5 23 "iic4+ 'We6
Black has found at least one way to keep the
balance. So probably 16...i.a7 was a better
choice.
23
Classical Dutch
17 .i.xd4 exd4 18 e5 liJe4
18...tDg4?! 19 h3 tDh6 20 l:r.fe1looks good
for White; the same goes for 18. ..l:r.d8 19
'ilVd2!, pointing at as.
19 f3liJg5 20 liJb6l:td8 21 _d2
Here it was also possible to play 21 l:tfe1
tDe6 22 f4 with an advantage.
21 ... liJe6 22 _xa5!?
This allows counterplay. Possible was 22
f4 and the advantage is not in doubt.
22 ...f4!
The only chance to fight back!
23liJxd7
23 g4 'ilVe7 24 tDxd7 l:r.xd7 25 b4 l:r.a8 26
'ilVa4 is also advantageous for White.
23 ... l:txd7 24 .i.h3 fxg3 25 hxg3 liJac7
26 _d2 'ifg6 27 'it>h2?
This steps into a minor combination. Bet-
ter was 27 ~g2 .l:.df7 28 f4! with an over-
whelming advantage.
27 ...liJg5 28 f4
This is also not accurate. After 28 i.xd7!
tDxf3+ 29 ':'xf3 lhf3 30 1:td1 l:r.e3!? (ambi-
tious; 30 ...'ilVxg3+ 31 ~h1 'ilVh4+ 32 'ilVh2
'ilVe4 33 'ilVg 2 'ilVh4+ leads to a draw) 31 tDe1
'ii'xg3+ 32 ~h1 d3 33 tDxd3 'ilVh4+ 34 'ilVh2
'ilVe4+ 35 'ilVg2 White is still okay.
28 ...liJxh3 29 'it>xh3
White has some problems with his king.
29 ...liJe6 30 l:tae1
30 ~h2 h5! and the attack is on the way.
30 ...l:tdf7 31 'it>g2?
31 ~h2! was still the cautious approach,
24
with Black's best reply being 31...h5!.
31 ... h5! 32 lU3
After 32 ~h2 comes 32... h4 331:tg1 tDg5!!
(tactics are required; 33 ...'ilVh7 34 g4 tDxf4 35
e6 'ilVxd3 36 exf7+ .I:[xf7 37 "iVxd3 tDxd3 38
1:te8+ ~h7 39 1:td1 is good for White) 34
'ilVe2! (34 fxg5 .:tf3! is cut-throat business)
34... hxg3+ 35 1:txg3 'ilVh6+ 36 ~g2 tDe6 37
"iVd2 tDxf4+ 38 tDxf4l:r.xf4 39 e6 'ilVf6 with a
clear advantage. Now the tables are turned
for the last time.
32 ... liJg5??
Just an oversight. After 32 ... h4! 33 'ii'f2
tDg5 34 e6 tDxe6 Black has a strong attack.
33 e6!
Now White just wins.
33 ... liJxe6 34 liJe5 _f5 35 liJxf7 l:txf7
36 'ifd3 _g4 37 l:te4 h4 38 f5 1-0
Gamel
Krivoshey-Salai
Slovakian League 1997
1 liJf3 f5 2 g3 liJf6 3 .i.g2 e6 4 0-0 .i.e 7
5 c4 0-0 6 liJc3 d6 7 d4 _e8 8 b3 a5 9
.i.b2liJa6 10 e3l:tb8!?
Black has two main ideas with this move.
He wants to protect the b 7-pawn and he is
also preparing the advance ... b7-b5 for later.
The alternatives are less recommendable:
a) 1O ... c6?! 11 'ilVe2 tDc7 (11...i.d7 12 e4
fxe4 13 tDxe4 is a standard advantage for
White) 12 tDa4 b5 13 tDb6 1:tb8 14 tDxc8

'ilfxc8 15 cxb5 cxb5 16 d5! was better for
White in Hehners-Duckstein, Lucerne 1979.
b) 1O....td8?! 11 a3 c6 12 b4 e5 13 b5
tbb8 14 tbd2 gave White a strong initiative in
Miles-Roos, Baden-Baden 1981. Almost all
the black pieces are on the back rank.
11 l:te1
White has also tried:
a) 11 tbe1 c6 12 a4 tbb4 13 tbd3 tbxd3
14 'ilfxd3 'ilfh5 15 'ilfd1 'ilfh6 16 'ilfe2 e5 17 f3
l::te8 18 l::tae1 .td8 19 'ilfc2 .tc7 and Black
had good counterplay in the game Bolbo-
chan-Pelikan, Buenos Aires 1978.
b) 11 a3 .td7 12 'ilfe2 c6 13 e4 fxe4 14
tbxe4 tbxe4 15 'ilfxe4 b5 and Black's posi-
tion was reasonable, Kulikov-Otrnan, Mos-
cow 1994. On 16 cxb5 there follows
16...:xb5 with an attack on b3 and the ma-
noeuvre ...tba6-c7-d5 in mind.
11 ...'ifh5
Main Line: 7 tDc3 a5 B b3 'iieB
12 e4
White needs to act. After 12 a3 c6! 13
tbd2 'ilfxd1 14 l::taxd1 .td7 15 e4 fxe4 16
tbcxe4 b5! Black is well in the game.
12 ... tDxe4 13 tDxe4 fxe4 14 l:txe4 b5!
15.lic3
It is natural to avoid getting a weakness in
the b-file. 15 cxb5l::txb5 16 tbd2 (on 16 'ilfe2
Black can try 16 ...tbb4!? 17 a3 tba6 when the
weakness on b3 is uncomfortable for White)
16...'ilfxd1+ 17 l::txd1 tbb4 and Black has a
good game.
15 ... bxc4 16 bxc4 .lid7?!
Too slow. Better was 16... c5! 17 l:f.e1 .tf6
18 :tel tbb4 with a perfect position for
Black.
17 'iie2?!
White is equally slow. After 17 tbe 1!
'ilfxd1 18 ':xd1 a4 19 .th3 Black has prob-
lems.
17 ....lif6
17... a4 18 l::te1 .tf6 19 tbd2 'ilfxe2 20
.l:l4xe2 c5 was a good alternative.
18l:te1
The pawn grabbing with 18 g4 would be
risky: 18...'ilfg6 19 .txa5 c5 20 lId1 cxd4 21
tbxd4 tbc5 and Black has good compensa-
tion.
18 ... c5 19 .lia1
The exchange sacrifice with 19 l::txe6?!
.txe6 20 'ilfxe6+ ~h8 21 'ilfxd6 cxd4 22
tbxd4l::tbd8! gives Black a better game.
19 ... cxd4 20 tDxd4
25
Classical Dutch
The alternative 20 i.xd4 ttJc5 is also fine
for Black.
20 ... 'ilxe2 21 .l:4xe2 tLlc5 22 .l:d2
White is defending. After 22 ttJb3 ttJxb3
23 axb3 .l:txb3 24 l:ld2 i.e7 25 c5 a4 26 cxd6
i.d8 the a-pawn would give Black a better
endgame.
22 ....l:b4 23 tLlb3 .i.xa1 24 .l:xa1 .l:xb3
25 axb3 tLlxb3 26 .l:xd6 tLlxa1 27 .l:xd7
.l:c8 28 .i.h3 .l:c6 29 .l:b7 Y2 -Y2
29 f4 ttJb3 30 ~f2 ~fB 31 .l:ta7 ttJd4
would also draw.
r----------------.
Game 8
Itkis-Shtyrenkov
Alushta 2001
'---------------..1
1 d4 e6 2 tLlf3 f5 3 g3 tLlf6 4 .i.g2 .i.e7
5 0-0 0-0 6 c4 d6 7 tLlc3 a5 8 b3 'ile8 9
.i.b2.i.d8
This idea does not impress.
10 e3 e5 11 dxe5 dxe5 12 e4 tLlc6 13
exf5 .i.xf5 14 .l:e 1 tLld7
Black also does not equalise after
14... i.g4?! 15 h3 i.h5 (15 ....i.xf3 16 'iWxf3 is
just a picnic for White) 16 g4 i.f7 17 ttJxe5
ttJxe5 18 f4 with a strong initiative for White.
15 tLld5 .i.g4 16 h3 .i.h5 17 .i.a3
Also good is 17 ttJf4 i.f7 18 ttJd3 with a
clear advantage.
17 ....l:f7 18 g4?!
But this is not good. Here White should
have played 18 ttJf4! i.xf3 19 i.xf3 ttJf6 20
26
i.b2 .l:te7 21 ttJd5 when the advantage is be-
yond question.
18 ....i.g6 19 'ild2 a4 20 b4
This is also not a very nice move to play,
but when things start to go wrong, they usu-
ally do so in style.
20 ... e4 21 .i.b2?!
This is also a bit slow. White has two bet-
ter options at his disposal.
a) 21 h4!? 'iWfB 22 ttJg5 i.xg5 23 'iWxg5
1::txf2 (23 ...ttJde5?! 24 h5 .l:.xf2 25 ':£1 would
give White a large advantage) 24 .l:t£1 ':xf1+
25 1:.x£1 'iWd8 26 b5 'iWxg5 27 hxg5 ttJce5 28
ttJe7+ ~h8 29 ttJxg6+ hxg6 (29 ...ttJxg6?! 30
i.xe4 and the knight on g6 is out of play) 30
i.xe4 ttJxc4 31 i.b4 and White has compen-
sation for the pawn, so the game is still unde-
cided.
b) But really strong looks 21 ttJf4!? i.f6
22 .l:tad1 .l:td8 23 ttJxg6! (23 'iWel!? still prom-
ises White a sizeable advantage) 23 ... ttJde5
(23 ... hxg6 24 'ii'c2 is just good for White; he
simply rules on the light squares) 24 'ii'xd8
ttJxf3+ (24...ttJxd8? 25 ttJfxe5 and Black can-
not defend his pieces) 25 i.xf3 ttJxd8 26
.l:txe4 i.e7 27 ttJe5 ':'f6 28 .l:te3 and now:
b1) 28...~h8 29 .l:tde1 c6 30 ttJxc6 ttJxc6
31 i.xc6 'ii'xc6 32 .l:txe7 'ii'f3 (32... h6? 33
i.b2 :g6 34 l:t1e4 gives White a technically
winning position as Black has no counter-
play) 33 .l:te8+ ':'fB 34 .l:txf8+ 'ii'xfB 35 b5
'ii'c8 36 l:t.e4 with good chances of winning
the endgame.
b2) 28...c6 29 b5 with a promising posi-
tion as White wins after both 29 ...i.xa3? 30
ttJxc6 'iWxe3 31 .l:txd8+ and 29 ....l:te6 30 i.xe7
.l:txe7 31 bxc6 bxc6 32 .l:ted3.
21 ...'ilf8 22 tLlg5 .i.xg5 23 'ilxg5 tLlxb4
Black again should stay clear of the tactics
after 23 ....l:txf2? 24 .l:t£1 .l:txf1+ 25 .l:tx£1 'ii'd6
(25 ...'ii'd8 26 'ii'f4 ttJfB 27 ttJxc7 .l:.c8 28
i.xe4! also wins for White) 26 c5 'iWg3 27
ttJe7+ ttJxe7 28 'ii'xe7 'ii'e3+ 29 ~h1 ttJf6 30
.l:txf6! gxf6 31 'iWxf6 when Black will soon
find himself mated.
24 tLlxc7 .l:c8?

Now it was high time to capture on f2,
something that can be very difficult to de-
tennine when things have been bad for so
many moves. After 24.. .l:hf2! there a quite a
few branches.
a) 25 i.xg7? 'ii'd6! (25...Wxg7?? 26 liJe6+
and White wins, but 25 ..1hg2+!? 26 Wxg2
'ii'f3+ gives a perpetual) 26 liJxa8 'ii'g3 27
'ii'd8+ liJf8 28 'ii'xf8+ ~xf8 29 i.xf8liJc2 30
l:tf11i'e3+ 31 WhlliJxal and Black wins.
b) 25 ~f1? ~xf1+ 26 ~xf1 1i'd8 27
'ikxd8+ ~xd8 is better for Black.
c) 25 liJxa8 l:txb2 (with the threat of
1i'f2+) 26 ~f11i'xa8 is also good for Black.
d) 25 i.d4! ~xg2+ 26 Wxg21i'f3+ 27 Wh2
~c8 28 liJd5 l:txc4 with a very complicated
game ahead.
25li:Je6 'fie7 26 ioxe4 ioxe4
26...1i'xe6?? 27 i.d5 and White wins.
27 .l:!.xe4 li:JfS 2S l:tae 1 ?
TIlls walks direcdy into a strong knight
move. After 28 i.a3 h6 (28...l:tc6? 29 i.xb4
'ii'xb4 30 liJd8! is very strong for White) 29
1i'xe7 ~xe7 30 ~bl ~xe6 31 l:txe6liJxe6 32
l:txb4 White has good chances to prove an
advantage in the endgame with his extra
pawn.
2S ...ltJd3! 29 'ii'xe7 lbe7 30 li:JxfS lbe4
31 l:txe4 li:Jxb2 32 li:Jd7 li:Jxc4 Yz -Yz
Here the players agreed a draw, which is a
lillie strange as Black can easily play on to
win the game with no risk at all for 100
moves.
Main Line: 7 li:Jc3 a5 B b3 'fieB
Game 9
Kiseleva-Zatonskih
Ukranian Girls Championship 1998
1 d4 e6 2 li:Jf3 f5 3 g3 li:Jf6 4 iog2 i.e7
5 0-0 0-0 6 c4 d6 7 li:Jc3 a5 S b3 'fieS 9
iob2 c6
In my opinion White has the better game
after this move.
10 l:te1
Also possible are the following:
a) 10 a3 i.d8 11 c5 (11 e3 e5 is probably
not too bad for Black) 11...dxc5 12 dxc5 i.c7
and Black has control over the centre.
b) 10 1i'c2liJa6 11 e4liJb4 12 'ii'e2liJxe4
13liJxe4 fxe4 14 'ii'xe4 e5 (14...'ii'h5 15 a3 is
also better for White) 15 liJh4 was played in
Vukic-Farago, Harrachov 1967. Now
15... i.xh4 16 1i'xh4 i.f5 17 dxe5 liJd3 18
i.c3 dxe5 19 i.e4 'ii'g6 20 f3 i.xe4 21 'ii'xe4
'ii'xe4 22 fxe4 leads to an edge for White.
10... d5
Now the game has changed into a'stone-
wall' structure. After 1O... b5 11 cxb5 cxb5 12
d5! e5 (12... b4 13liJa4liJxd5 14liJd41i'f7 15
i.xd5 exd5 16 liJb6 ~a7 17 liJxc8 ~xc8 18
1i'd3 is clearly better for White according to
Rudolf Maric) 13 liJxe5 b4 14liJa4 dxe5 15
d6 ~a7 16 ~cl! 16...i.a6 17 dxe7 'ii'xe7 18
'ii'c2 and White has a strong initiative and the
two bishops.
11 e3 b6
27
Classical Dutch
Black needs to restrain himself After
11...b5?! 12 tDe5 tDe4 13 tDe2 i.f6 14 £3
tDd6 15 cxb5 cxb5 16l1c1 b4 17 tDf4 i.a6
18 'it'd2 White was clearly better in Chu-
chelov-Spice, Eupen 1997.
12 ttJe5 ..ta6 13l:te1!?
TIlls is a natural move, but even stronger
was 13 tDa4! 'ili'd8 14 c5 with an advantage.
13 ...l:ta7 14 ttJe2?!
White still some advantage after 14 tDa4
tDfd7 15 tDd3 'it'f7 though it is nothing spec-
tacular.
14... g5 15 l:te2
White could also play 15 cxd5 exd5 16 a3!
with an unclear game, but should not go into
16 'ili'c2 i.b4 17 lIed1 tDg4 18 tDd3 'it'h5,
when Black is mobilising an attack.
15 .....tb4
TIlls loses time. Better was 15...tDfd7! 16
cxd5 cxd5 17 tDxd7 'it'xd7 with an unclear
position.
16..te3!
TIlls prepares c4-c5, creating a weakness
in Black's a-pawn. After 16 lin i.d6 17 f4
the game is unclear.
16 ....ltd6 17 e5!?
Opening up the long diagonal for the
bishop in order to dominate the weak
squares around the black king. 17 f4 'ili'h5 18
tDc1 g4 19 c5 bxc5 20 dxc5 i.c7 21 'iWd4 is a
big mess where White seems to have a slight
advantage too.
17 ... bxe5 18 dxe5 .lte7
28
18...i.xc5 19 i.d4 i.xd4 20 tDxd4 1:.c7 21
'it'd2! would win back the pawn at the same
time as all the pieces have been liberated.
19 'ifd4 ..td8 20 g4
20 :d2 with a small advantage was sim-
pler.
20 ....ltxe2 21 l:texe2 l:tg7 22 h3 ..te7 23
f4 h5!
Black needs to seek counterplay before
she is buried alive.
24..tf3?
White completely overlooks her only
move. It's not 24 gxh5 'it'xh5 25 'iWa4 gxf4
26 exf4 tDe4 when Black is fine, but rather
24 h4! gxh4 25 g5 and White has a small but
clear advantage.
24 ...ttJbd7 25 ttJxd7
Also after 25 tDxc6 Exg4 26 hxg4 'it'a8! 27
tDe5 tDxe5 28 ExeS tDd7 White is beginning
to face serious problems.
25 ...'ifxd7 26 l:tg2?
TIlls is passive, but Black also has a won-
derful position after 26 gxh5 gxf4+ 27 :g2
e5!.
26 .. .fxg4 27 hxg4 h4?
TIlls move is hard to understand. The cor-
rect winning line was 27 ... hxg4 28 i.xg4 gxf4
29 lIcf2 lIxg4 30 lIxg4+ tDxg4 31 'lIih8+
~f7 32 'iWh5+ ~e7 33 'iWxg4 'it'e8 and it is
the white king that is in trouble, not the black
one.
28 a3?
28l1cf2 gives White some chances.

28 ...~e7
Also interesting was 28 ...lLle8!? with the
idea of 29 'iVd2 .l:th7 30 i.xas i.xas 31
'iVxas gxf4 32 'ilfc3 fxe3 33 'iVxe3 es and
Black is much better.
29 b4
There is also no adequate defence after 29
'iVa4 h3 30 l:tge2 gxf4 31 'iVxc6 fxe3 32 ~xe3
lLlxg4!.
29 ... e5! 30 fxe5 l'Dd7 31 ~d1 axb4 32
axb4 l'Dxe5 33 .l:!.ef2 ':gf7 34 .i.e2 h3 35
.l:!.xf70-1
White resigned as 3s ...'iVxf7 36 l:[h2 lLlf3+
37 i.xf3 i.xh2+ 38 ~xh2 'iVxf3 39 'iixf3
1:txf3 is a winning endgame for Black.
Game 10
Rajkovic-Poluljahov
Namestovo 1993
1 d4 f5 2 e4 e6 3 l'Df3 l'Df6 4 g3 .i.e7 5
.i.g2 0-0 6 0-0 d6 7 l'De3 a5 8 b3 ~e8 9
.i.a3l'Da6
The set-up with ...lLlc6 and ...'i'hs is in-
vestigated in Game 13.
10 lite 1 e6 11 l'Da4 l'Dd7 12 .i.b2
12 ds!?, as in Game 11, is probably better.
After the alternative 12 e4 bs!? we have:
a) 13 exf5!? is very brave, but 13. .. bxa4 14
fxe6 lLlf6 15 bxa4l:tb8 16 lLlh4 g6! (16 ...lLlc7
17 lLlf5 should not be allowed) 17 ds cxds
18 cxds lLlb4 shows that it's also not very
good.
Main Line: 7 l'Dc3 a5 8 b3 ~e8
b) 13 cxbs cxbs 14 es! (White has already
committed himself to this with 12 e4)
14... bxa4 15 exd6 i.f6 16 lLlgs lLlb6 17
i.xa8 i.xgs and the position is a wild mess.
12 ... b5 13 exb5 exb5 14 l'De3 b4 15
l'Da4.i.b7 16 lite 1 ~b8! 17 ~d2 .i.d5
17...lLlc7!? to control ds rather than occu-
pying it was worth considering.
18 l'Dg5 .i.xg2
18...'iWb7 19 i.xds 'iixds 20 lLlh3! would
give the white knight a pleasant gain of
tempo on arrival at f4.
19 ..t>xg2 .i.xg5 20 ~xg5l'Df6 21 'ii'f4?!
This is played without a plan. Better was
21 f3 'iWb7 22 i.al lLlds 23 lLlb2 f4
(23 ...lLlc3 24 lLlc4 would give White the ad-
vantage) 24 lLlc4 with an unclear position.
21 ...~b7+ 22 ..t>g1 .l:!.ad8 23 ~f3l'Dd5
White has not succeeded in bringing the
knight on a4 into the game and therefore
stands slighdy worse.
24e3
24 i.al?! f4! shows that White has wasted
his chance for free play, and should start to
be more careful.
24 ...l'Db8 25 'ii'g2!
White organises e3-e4, which gives him
counterplay against the e6-pawn.
25 ... l'Dd7 26 e4 fxe4 27 .l:!.xe4 1,116 28
.l:!.ee1 l'Df8 29 .l:t4e2 'ii'f7 30 .i.e1 .l:!.e8 31
~e4l'Dg6?!
It is not clear what the knight is doing
here. After 31...'iihs Black is just a little bit
29
Classical Dutch
better. The a4-knight is still not playing.
32 .tg5 .l:.f5 33 .td2 .l:.e8?!
Too passive. After 33 ... e5! 34 :c1 :f8 35
:f1 :0 Black would still have some initia-
tive.
34 liJb2 liJc3 35 i.xc3 bxc3 36 liJa4 .l:.f3
37 <t>g2 :'f8 38.1:.f1 e5 39 dxe5
White should still be careful. After 39
lDb6?! exd4 40 'iVxd4 'iVb7! 41 'iVd5+ 'i'xd5
42lDxd5 :d3 Black has some advantage.
39 ... liJxe5 40 liJb6 Wh5
White was planning lDc4.
41 Wd5+
41...'ii'f7
41...'it>h8 42 'iVxd6 lDg6 43 lDd7 l:.xg3+
44 hxg3lDf4+ 45 gxf4 'iVg4+ leads to a draw
by perpetual. check as after 45 'iVxf4 l:.xf4,
the queen protects e8.
42 Wxf7 + .l:.3xf7 43 liJd5 .l:.c8 44 .l:.c2
lIc5 45 .l:[d 1 liJg4 46 liJf4!
30
White is defending well. Black was threat-
ening the trick of 46 ...:xf2+! winning a vital
pawn.
46 ... g5 47 h3 liJxf2 48 <t>xf2 gxf4 49 g4
d5 50 .l:.d3 .l:.fc7 51 <t>f3 <t>f7 52 .l:!.d4
<t>e6 53 .l:.xf4 .l:.b5 54 <t>e3 .l:.b4 55 .l:.f5
a4 56 bxa4 l:!.xa4 57 <t>d3 .l:.a3 58 .l:.f8
<t>e5 59 .l:.e8 + <t>f4 60 .l:.d8 <t>e5 Yz -Yz
Game 11
Hlian-Poluljahov
Azov 1995
1 d4 f5 2 liJf3 liJf6 3 g3 e6 4 .tg2 .te7
5 0-0 0-0 6 c4 d6 7 b3 We8 8 .ta3 a5 9
liJc3 liJa6!?
10.l:.e1
Two strong Hungarian Grandmasters
have treated this position differently.
a) 10 e3 c6! 11 nc1 l:.b8 12 i.b2 b5 is the
main idea in the black set-up. The knight
might not look good at a6, but it will soon
find a pleasant future. In the meantime White
has to deal with the treat of ... bxc4. Probably
best is 13 lDd2 and not 13 cxb5 cxb5 after
which Black has won control over the light
squares in the centre. 14lDe1 i.b7 15 i.xb7
:xb7 16 'iVe2lDc7 17lDd3 b4 gave Black a
good game in Ribli-Lobron, Bundesliga 1996.
b) 10 l:.c1 and now:
b1) 10...i.d7 11 e3 lDb4 12 i.b2 'i'h5 13
a3 lDa6 14 lDd2 gave White the advantage in
Portisch-Corden, Hastings 1969/70. Black

obviously did not have any idea of why he
was putting the knight on a6.
b2) 1O.. J~bS! 11 i.b2 c6 12 'iWd3 bS! and
Black has good counterplay.
Neither e2-e3 nor %:tel does anything to
control the ... b7-bS idea.
10... c6 11 tiJa4
11 e4? would be premature due to
11...fxe4 12 ltJd2 (12 ltJxe4 ltJxe4 13 %:txe4
dS! and Black wins material) 12... dS 13 i.xe7
'iVxe7 and Black is just a pawn up. Danner-
Naumkin, Budapest 1995.
11 ...tiJd7
12 d5!?
The idea behind this is a pawn sacrifice.
White is gaining the d4-square for his knight
and preventing the bS idea in return. 12 i.b2
%:tbS! and ... b7-bS hurts White a lot more.
12... cxd5?!
Black should consider declining the sacri-
fice with 12... exdS! 13 cxdS cS and the posi-
tion remains unclear, but most likely not
worse for Black.
13 tiJd4!
13 cxdS eS would be a positional mistake,
allowing Black to get a preferable structure.
13....l:!.f6
Black has no obvious choices. After
13. ..eS? 14 i.xd5+ ~hS 15 ltJbS his position
is hideous, and after 13...ltJf6? 14ltJb6 %:tbS
15 cxdS eS 16ltJxcS 'iWxcs 17ltJe6 it is noth-
ing but awful. Also 13...ltJdcS?! 14 cxdS (14
ltJb6?! %:tbS 15 ltJxcs %:txcS 16 cxdS eS 17
Main Line: 7 tiJc3 a5 8 b3 'VJke8
ltJe6 %:tf6 would not be so bad for Black)
14... eS 15 ltJe6! ltJxe6 16 dxe6 'iWdS 17 %:tel
would give White good chances to develop
an initiative.
14.l:!.c1!?
After 14 ltJbS ltJdcS! 15 i.xcs dxcS 16
ltJb6 kIbS 17 ltJa7 i.d7 1S cxdS eS the posi-
tion would have been unclear.
14....l:!.b8
This time Black has a real alternative. Not
14...dxc4?! 15 ltJbS! which is uncomfortable,
but 14...ltJdcS!? is interesting:
a) 15 cxdS ltJxa4! (1S ... eS would be bad
due to 16 ltJxcS! ltJxcs 17 i.xcs dxcS 1S
ltJe6 with a lovely position for White) 16
bxa4 eS would give Black a fine position.
b) 15 ltJb6 1S...%:tbS 16 cxdS eS 17 ltJxcs
(17 ltJe6 ltJxe6 1SltJxcSltJecS! would be fine
for Black) 17...%:txcS 1S ltJe6 b6 would give
an unclear game. The knight looks well
placed on e6, but does not really do so much
on its own.
15 'ifd2 dxc4 16 bxc4
White has sacrificed a pawn, but his pieces
have gained a lot of activity in return. The
position is still very unclear.
16 ... tiJdc5
Also possible is 16...ltJacS 17 'i'xaS 'i'hs
1SltJxcS dxcS 19 %:tcd1 with a mess!
17 tiJb6 a4 18 .l:!.ed1 .lid7?!
This is not very ambitious. Black should
also look at 1S...ltJe4?! 19 i.xe4 fxe4 20 ltJbS
%:th6 21 i.xd6 'iWhS
31
Classical Dutch
and now:
a) 22 g4!? 'iixg4+ 23 .ig3 eS 24 lbxcs
l:txcs 2S'iid5+ and here Black can play both
2S ...l:te6 and 2S ...~f8 with a very unclear po-
sition as a result. Both kings are exposed and
both players have both good and bad pieces.
b) 22 'iixh6 'i'xh6 23 .ixe7 eS! 24 .id6
.ig4 25 .ixbslbxbS 26 l:tdS+ ~f7 27 l:tb1
lbc6 is also not clear.
c) 22 h4! .ixh4 23 gxh4 'iixh4 24 'iixh6
(the only move) 24...'iixh6 25 .ixbS lbxbS
26ltJxcS'iig5+ 27 ~fl'iih4 2S e3lbc6 and
White looks to be in pretty good shape.
However, after 1S... l:th6 19 lbbS eS
(19 ...'iihS? would be too soon due to 20
lbxd6! 20 ...'i'xh2+ 21 Wfl .id7 22 ltJxfS!
22... exfS 23 lbxd7 l:tdS 24 'i'd5+ and White
wins) 20 lbxcs l:txcs 21 .ixb7 lbxb7 22
'iid5+ ~hS 23 'ii'xb7 lbcs Black has a quite
attractive position, even though the chances
remain pretty balanced:
19l:tb1! 'i'dB
Or 19... .ic6!? 20 lbxc6 bxc6 21 'i'c2 (21
'ii'aS? 'i'dS! would leave the knight in per-
manent trouble) 21...dS! (Black finds his
compensation in the centre; 21...f4?! 22lbxa4
would not be sufficient) 22 lbxa4 l:txb1 23
l:txb1 lbe4 24 .ixe7 'ii'xe7 25 l:tb6 'ii'a7!
(aiming at f2!) 26 e3 lbacS and the game re-
mains unclear.
20 It:Ixd7! 'i'xd7 21 i.xc5lt:1xc5
21...dxcS? 22 lbxfS would be a terrible
blunder.
32
22 It:Ic6 li!.cB 23 It:Ixe7+ 'iixe7 24 'i'xd6
l:tf7 %-%
The endgame looks pretty level Bishop
and rook is better than knight and rook, but
the knight is well placed on cS.
Game 12
Kotov-Sokolsky
Moscow 1947
1 d4 e6 2 It:If3 f5 3 g3 It:If6 4 i.g2 i.e7
5 0-0 0-0 6 c4 d6 7 b3 'iieB B i.a3 a5
Also possible is S... eS .2.dxeS dxeS 10 .ib2
e4 11 lbd4 c6 12 lbc3 'iVg6 13 'iic2 with a
level game.
9 It:Ic3 It:\a6 10 i.b2
White has not received any benefits from
the loss of time he has suffered.
10 ...'i'h5 11 a3 c6 12lt:1a2?!
This move would not have been made by
a top player of our day. 1J e3, with the idea
of lbc3-e2, looks more prudent.
12...It:Ie4 13 It:Id2
13 ... e5!
White's pieces are not very well placed,
which gives Black the freedom of opening
the position with this pawn sacrifice.
14 It:Ixe4 fxe4 15 i.xe4 i.g4 16 f3 i.h3
17 l:tf2 exd4 1B i.xd4?!
Again this does not bring harmony to the
position. After 1S 'ii'xd4 .if6 19 'i'd2 the
position would h;;e remained unclear.
1B ... lt:Ic5 19 It:Ic3It:Ixe4 20 It:Ixe4 d5!

Black is not giving White any breathing
space to organise a defence.
21 g4 'ji'f7 22 exd5 'ji'xd5 23 .tb6 'ji'e6?
Black is counting on the ...SLh4 idea,
which turns out to be worthless. Better was
23 ...SLxg4 24 'ili'xdS+ cxdS 2S fxg4 dxe4 26
l:1xfB+ 'itxfB with a level endgame.
24 'ji'd3! .th4
~... a4! was probably better. It is always
hard to decide when things go wrong in a
downward trend. Black is playing his plan,
but it turns out to be no good.
25 'ji'e4 'ji'xe4 26 bxe4 h5
Black needs to free his bishop.
27 gxh5!!
A brilliant concept - White gives up the
exchange. If instead 27 liJg3 then 27 ... hxg4
28 f4l:tae8 and Black has a strong position.
27 ....i.xf2 + 28 c,t>xf2 .te6
28...l:tae8 29 liJd6 l:te6 30 cS %ks would
Main Line: 7 lUc3 a5 8 b3 ike8
perhaps have offered a bit more confusion,
even though Black is in trouble once he loses
the b7- and as-pawns.
29 l:rg 1 .txe4
This is not the way to defend. Now White
wins easily.
30 h6 g6 31 ltxg6+ c,t>h7 32l:rd6 1:.f5
33 h4!
Forcing liJgS after which the game is fin-
ished.
33 .. .1::tg8 34.te3!
Taking full control over gS.
34 ...1:.g6 35 1:.d7+!
3S liJg5+ l:1fxgS 36 l:1d7+ l:tg7 37 ':'xg7+
':'xg7 38 hxg7 'itxg7 also wins for White, but
this is faster.
35 ...1:.f7 36 l:.d8 1:.xh6 37 .txh6 c,t>xh6
38 lUd6 1:.f4 39 c,t>g3 1-0
Black is right out of luck.
Game 13
Paunovic-Naumkin
Namestovo 1987
1 d4 e6 2 lUf3 f5 3 g3 lUf6 4 .tg2 .te7
5 0-0 0-0 6 e4 d6 7 lUe3 a5 8 b3 'ji'e8 9
.ta3 'ji'h5 10 'ji'e2 lUe6
This is a standard position in the Classical
Dutch.
11 1:.ad1!
White should first develop and only then
think about advancing in the centre. After 11
dS liJb4! 12 SLxb4 axb4 13 liJbS SLd8 14
33
Classical Dutch
dxe6 i.xe6 15 ttJbd4 i.cs 16 cS, as in Mike-
nas-Rostein, Riga 1962, Black can get a
strong position with 16... dS!, when his con-
trol over the dark squares promises him an
advantage.
11 ... ~d7?!
Here Black should try 1LttJb4! 12 Vb1
ttJg4 13 i.c1 i.f6 14 a3 ttJc6 15 ttJbS (15
dS? would be a mistake on account of
1S...ttJd4!) 1S...i.dS 16 dS ttJceS with an un-
clear game, Csom-Glek, Moscow 19S9.
12 d5
12... l'Llb4!?
Black cannot play this passively - his
structure is not built for it. After 12...ttJdS!?
13 ttJeS! ttJg4 14 ttJxg4 fxg4 15 dxe6 i.xe6
16 ttJdS i.xdS 17 i.xd5+ ~hS 1S f3 White
would have the advantage, but still this is bet-
ter than the game.
13 ~xb4 axb4
34
14 dxe6!
This is the problem in this line for Black.
White gains the dS-square for his knight or
all the light squares.
14... bxc3?
After this White has a clear advantage. It
was better to try 14...i.xe6!? 15 ttJdS! i.xdS
(1S ... i.dS 16 ttJf4 'i'eS 17 ttJxe6 'i'xe6 1S
ttJd4 gives White a material advantage to
supplement the positional one) 16 cxdS ttJe4
17 ~d4!? i.f6 1Sl:txb4 and White apparently
has the advantage. The game should now
continue 1S...ttJc3 19 a4 %:tfeS (19 ... bS 20
ttJd4 i.xd4 21 i.f3! gives White a clear ad-
vantage) 20 1:txb7 ttJxe2+ 21 ~h1 f4 22 g4!
(22 'i'xc7? fxg3 23 'i'xd6 ~adS! would give
Black excellent counterplay) 22 ...'i'xg4 23
'i'xc7 and White has better prospects, but all
of this is not easy to see.
15 exd7 l'Llxd7 16 l'Lld4 c6 17 a4 f4 18
'ii'xc3 fxg3 19 'ii'xg3
19 fxg3! would leave White a clear pawn
up with Black having no serious compensa-
tion.
19 .. JU6 20 'ii'h3 'ire8 21 l'Llf5 ~f8
2LttJcS 22 e4 i.f8 23 l::tfe1 would trans-
pose to the game.
22 e4 l'Llc5 23 .l:!.fe1 'ire5 24 'ife3 l'Lle6
25 'it>h1?
I do not know what happened to White in
this phase of the game. He has a clear advan-
tage and only needs to play a few precise
moves to really prove it, but now it is slip-

ping away. Better was 25 liJxd6! I:th6
(25 .....txd6 26 ~xd6 lixf2 27 'iixf2 'iixd6 28
e5 would give White a clear plus) 26 liJf5
'iixh2+ 27 'itfl l:tg6 28 'iih3 'iie5 29 'iih5
and White is certainly better.
25 ... g6 26 lLlxd6?
Now this does not work out as the knight
has no good retreat square. 26 liJg3 liJf4
would give Black good compensation, but
things are about to change!
26 ... lLlc5!
Now the knight is trapped.
27 f4
27 b4 ..txd6! also doesn't work.
27 .. J:txf4 28 '¥td4 '¥txd4 29 l:txd4 lLlxb3
30 .l:[dd 1 .i.xd6 31 l:txd6 lLlc5
The knight is perfectly placed here and
cannot be removed in any way. Black is sim-
ply winning.
32 a5 l:txa5 33 l:td8+ Wg7 34 e5 l:ta2 35
Main Line: 7 lLlc3 a5 8 b3 '¥te8
h3 l:tff2 36 .l:[dd1 l:lxg2 37 e6 l:tge2 38
e7 Wf7 0-1
Game 14
Orlinkov-Kobalija
Moscow 1994
1 d4 f5 2 g3 lLlf6 3 .i.g2 e6 4 lLlf3 .i.e7
5 0-0 0-0 6 c4 d6 7 b3 a5 8 lLlc3 '¥te8 9
~c2
White is starting a hybrid between two
plans here. Instead he should choose be-
tween b2-b3 and ..tg5.
9 ...'¥th5 10 e4 e5 11 dxe5 dxe5 12 .i.g5
fxe4 13lLlxe4lLlc6 14lLlxf6+
After 14 ..txf6 gxf6! Black is already bet-
ter. White has really no compensation for the
weaknesses on the dark squares. 14.....txf6 15
life1, however, is good for White.
14....i.xf6 15 .i.xf6 litxf6
16 '¥te4?
Here White misplaces the queen. Instead
he should have tried 16liJh4! and now Black
has a choice:
a) 16...liJd4!? 17 'iie4 'ii'e2 and here 18
liae 1 keeps the balance.
b) 16...g5!? 17 ..td5+ 'ith8 18 ..txc6 .l:Ixc6
19liJf5 'iif3 20 liJe3 is unclear.
c) 16...a4 17 ..txc6 lixc6 18 'iie4 ..te6
with good play for Black.
16 ....i.g4!
A key aspect of utilising a lead in devel-
opment is to try to increase it.
35
Classical Dutch

17 ltJd2 ~d8! 'ili'g5l:[xg5+ 27 hxg5 'ili'g4+ 28 ~h2 ~5+ 29

'it'g3 "ii'xg5+ and the queen is stronger than
the uncoordinated rooks.
19...':'f5
Wrong would be 19 ...ltJe2+?! 20 ~h1 J:.h6
21 M 'ii'xh4+?! 22 gxM lIxh4+ 23 i..h3
:xh3+ (23 ...i..xh3?? 24 "iVg5! and suddenly
White wins) 24 'iVxh3 i..xh3 25 l:tfd1 and
White has some chances of saving the end-
game, even though it is clearly better for
Black.
20 nab1

All the black pieces are playing!

18 'i'e3 ltJd4!
Bringing the knight into the attack with
the creation of further threats. 18....l:th6? 19
h4ltJd4 20 i.xb7! ltJc2 21 ii'g5 would give
White counterplay.
19lDe4
White is under a cloud after 19 f3 Ith6 20
M (20 fxg4 ii'xh2+ 21 'it'f2 Itf6+ is good-
night for White) 20 ... Sii.fS 21 ltJe4 (or 21
%:tac1 l:tg6! 22 g4 ii'xh4 23 gxfS ':xg2+ 24
~xg2 ltJxfS 25 "ii'f2 'ili'g5+ 26 ~h1 lIxd2 20 ...ltJf3+!
and Black wins) 21...ltJc2 22 'tWg5 'iixg5 23 The simplest way. After 20...ltJe2+? 21
hxg5.l:tg6 24 %:tad1 %:.f8 25:f2 i..xe4 26 fxe4 'it'h 1 'iYxh2+ 22 'it'xh2 l:.h5+ 23 i..h3 i..xh3
%:txf2 27 'it'xf2 ltJd4 - Black has excellent 24 'ili'g5! l:txg5 25 ~xh3 White can still fight.
winning chances in the endgame. 21 i.xf3 i.xf3
19 i.d5+?! loses direcdy to 19 ...%:txd5! 20 The move ...'iWxh2+ is threatened.
cxd5 i.f3! 21 h4 'ili'g4 22 ltJxf3 ltJxf3+ 23 22 h4 11d4! 23 lDg5 l:I.xh4! 24 'ilixf3 11xf3
'iii>g2 ltJxh4+ 24 ~g1 'iWh3 25 gxh4 11g6+ 26 0-1

36
 Main Line: 7 ti:Jc3 a5 8 b3 ~e8

Summary
In this Chapter we have looked at 7... aS 8 b3 'iWe8. For now Black looks to be in good shape,
but the positions are very messy and nothing can be taken for granted just because it is now
written down in a book. This is probably the place where white players will try to come with
improvements in the future, and with good reason. This still looks like the most natural way to
organise the pieces.

1 d4 f5 2 c4 ti:Jf6 3 g3 e6 4 i.g2 i.e7 5 ti:Jf3 0-0 6 0-0 d6 7 ti:Jc3 as 8 b3 ~e8 (D) 9

i.b2
9 'iWc2 - Game 14
9 i..a3
9...'iWhS - Game 13
9 ...tDa6
10 i..b2 - Game 12
10 lte1 c6 11 tDa4 tDd7
12 dS - Game 11
12 i..b2 - Game 10
9 ... "iih5
9... i..d8 - Game 8
9... c6-Game9
9...tDa6
10 lte1- Game 5
10 a3 (D) - Game 6
10 e3 - Game 7
10 "iic2
10 .l::te1 - Game 3; 10 e3 - Game 4
10 ... ti:Jc6
1Q...tDa6 - Game 2
11 :tad1 i.d7 (D) - Game 1

10a3 11 ... i.d7

37
 CHAPTER TWO I
Main Line: 7 lDc3 a5 -
8th Move Alternatives

1 d4 f5 2 c4 e6 3 lbf3 lbf6 4 g3 !iLe7 5 9 e4 lbb4 10 'iie2 fxe4 11 lbxe4 lbxe4

!iLg2 0-0 6 0-0 d6 7 lbc3 a5 12 'iixe4 e5 13 g4
In this chapter we will be looking at eighth The more natural 13 dxe5 is considered in
move alternatives for White against 7...a5. the next game.
First of all there is 8 'iVc2!? (Games 15-16), 13 ... h5!
which is responsible for a quick break in the
centre with e2-e4. This line gives a slight ad-
vantage for White as far as I have been able
to deduce, but Black has plenty of play. One
of the critical positions is where Black sacri-
fices a pawn for full activity. I feel that the
pawn is perhaps more important than the ac-
tivity, but it is a very narrow choice, and I
might be wrong.
8 l:!.e1 (Games 19-22) is not really danger-
ous as after the idea 8...ttJe4, White has nei-
ther 9 ttJxe4 nor 9 'iVc2 ttJxc3 10 'iVxc3 fol-
lowed by b2-b4, as he has after 7...ttJe4 in
Chapter 3. The move 8 .i.g5 leads to a quite Fire versus fire! Black is not afraid.
interesting game after both 8...'iVe8 (Game 14 h3?!
17) and 8...ttJc6 (Game 18), but in both cases This has not worked out in practice. Also
without any great chances for an advantage possible are the following:
for White. a) 14 a3!? hxg4 15 axb4 gxf3 16 .i.xf3 c6
17 dxe5 .i.f5 18 'iVe3 dxe5 19 l:d1 'iVc7 20
Game 15 bxa5 :!.xa5 21 l:txa5 'iVxa5 with a level play-
Kallai-Poluljahov ingground.
Budapest 1992 b) 14 dxe5 i.xg4 (14... hxg4 15 exd6 'iVxd6
16 ttJg5 .i.f5 17 'iVxb7 c6 looks good for
1 d4 e6 2 c4 f5 3 lbf3 lbf6 4 g3 !iLe7 5 Black too) 15 l:td1 (15 'iVxb7? :!.b8 16 'iVe4
!iLg2 0-0 6 0-0 d6 7 lbc3 a5 8 'iic2 lbc6 i.f5 17 'iVd4 ttJc2 18 'iVd5+ ~h8 19 exd6

38
 Main Line: 7 tOc3 a5 - Eighth Move Alternatives
li'xd6 is more or less a catastrophe for
White) lS ...li'e8 16 a3 tLlc6 and Black's posi-
tion is preferable.
c) 14 gxhS?..ifS is in Black's favour.
14... hxg4 15 hxg4 e6?
Black is playing too slowly, and if there is
one thing you should try to avoid in the
Classical Dutch, it's to lose the momentum
once you've got it. Here the best move was
lS ...li'd7! 16 gS (uncomfortable, but proba-
bly necessary is 16 ..ih3 exd4 17 tLlxd4 ..if6
with a strong position for Black) and now:
a) 16...'iWfS? 17 tLlh4! 'iWxe4 18 ..ixe4 exd4
19 a3 tLlc6 (19 ... dS 20 ..ig2! does not im-
prove anything) 20 ..id5+ 'iti>h7 21 g6+ 'iti>h8
22 'iti>g2 and White will enter the h-file with
evil intentions.
b) 16...li'g4! 17 'iWxg4 i.xg4 18 tLlh4 i.e2
19 'ue1 ..ixc4 20 tLlg6 tLlc2 21 tLlxe7+ 'iti>f7
and Black is on his way to a very good result.
16 a3?
Now White in turn misses his chance. Af-
ter 16 dxeS! dS (16...dxeS 17 tLlxeS ..id6 18
lId1 li'f6 19 tLl£1 ..ic7 20 ..ie3 does not of-
fer full compensation for the pawn either) 17
li'g6 li'e8 18 'iWxe8 l:lxe8 19 cxdS cxdS 20
tLld4! ..ics 21 a3 ..ixd4 22 axb4 ..ixg4 23
..ixdS+ White is in great shape.
16 ... d5 17 exd5 exd5 18 'i'xe5 tOd3 19
'i'h5 tOf4
19...l:ta6?! 20 tLle1! would expose the
weakness of the dS-pawn.
20 .ltxf4l:1xf4 21 tOe5l:1a6 22 tOg6?
White could still have held a strong posi-
tion after 22 ~ac1! ~h6 23 tLlg6! ~xhS 24
l:.xc8 ~xg4 25 tLlxe7+ 'iti>f7 26 ~xd8 'iti>xe7
27 ~b8 'uhgS 28 ~xb7+ 'iti>d6 29l:td1 :txg2+
30 'iti>f1 ~g1+ 31 'iti>e2 J:txd1 32 'iti>xd1 l:lg433
'iti>e2 l:lxd4 34ltxg7 a4 35 B. Black has prac-
tical difficulties in defending this endgame.
22 .. J:txg6 23 'i'xg6 l:1xg4 24 'i'd3 .ltd6
25 lIae1
25 .l:tfe1?! 'iWh4 26 .l:te8+ 'iti>f7 27 l:.eS
..ixeS 28 dxeS ..ie6 is unclear, or maybe even
slightly better for Black, but 25 l:lfc1!? ..id7
26 'iti>f1 li'gS 27 'iWh3 ..ib5+ 28 'iti>gl ..id7 29
l:tel 'iWg6 would keep matters just 'unclear'.
25 ...l:1xg2+! 26 'it>xg2 'i'g5+ 27 'it>h1??
A terrible blunder by the Hungarian 1M,
who is now a GM. 27 li'g3! ..ixg3 28 .l:f.xc8+
'iti>h7 29 fxg3 li'd2+ 30 .l:f.f2 'iWxd4 with a
likely draw was necessary, even though Black
will probably insist on testing his opponent
for some moves.
27 ....ltf5! 28 l:1e8+
28 'ii'e3 'ii'h4+ 29 'iti>g2 'iWg4+ 30 'iti>h1
..ie4+ 31 £1 'ii'h3+ would lead to mate.
28 ... 'it>h70-1
Game 16
Pavlovic-Naumkin
Wildbad 1991
1 d4 e6 2 e4 f5 3 g3 tOf6 4 .ltg2 .lte7 5
tOf3 0-0 6 0-0 d6 7 tOe3 a5 8 'i'd3 tOe6
9 e4 tOb4 10 'i'e2 fxe4 11 tOxe4 tOxe4
39
Classical Dutch
12 'ii'xe4 e5 13 dxe5 .i.f5 14 'ii'xb7 l:1b8
15 'i'a7 i.d3
lS ...na8 16 'ii'd4 4Jc2 does not work due
to 17 'ii'dS+ 'ith8 18 4Jd4! and Black is in
trouble.
16 l:1e1
16 exd6 .ixd6? (or 16...cxd6? 17 l:ld1 .if6
18 a3!) 17 .igS'ii'd7 (17 ...'ii'e8 18 l:lfe1 'ii'hS
19 b3!) 18 ~Hc1 'ii'fS looks like a critical line
for the pawn sacrifice. After 19 .ie3, which
looks strongest, Black has 19...4Jc6 20 4Jd4
4Jxa7 21 4JxfS l:txfS 22 .ixa7 l::i.xb2 with a
very active position for the pawn, but maybe
this is not quite enough. A logical place for
further study!
16 ... lbc2 17 exd6 i.xd6
17 ...4Jxe1? 184Jxe1! and White wins.
18 .i.g5 'ii'd7?!
A dubious move. Better was 18...'ii'c8!,
threatening na8. 19 'ii'xaS 'iWfS 20 'ii'xfS
l:1xfS 21 b3 nbf8! (21...4Jxa1 22 l:txa1 l:tbf8
23 4Je1 .ixc4 24 bxc4 l:lxgS 2S .idS+ 'ith8
26 a4 neS 27 'itn gives White good chances
to bag a full point in the endgame) 22 l:tad1
4Jxe1 23 ltJxe1 .ie2 24 J:.dS .ics 2S l:lxcs
l:txcs 26 .ie7 l:.aS gives Black an active posi-
tion, and it seems like the rook is stronger
than the knight and two pawns. Notice that
after 27 .ixf8 'itxf8 28 a4 .id1! all the
queenside is exposed.
19 c5lbxe1
Not possible is 19...l:la8 20 'iVb7! (204JeS
.ixeS 21 .ixa8 .id4 22 .if44Jxa1 23 l:lxa1
40
.ixf2+ is less clear) 20 ....ixcs 21 4JeS .ixf2+
22 'ith1 and White has a winning position.
20 l:1xe1 l:1a8 21 'ii'b7 .i.xc5 22lbe5??
A terrible blunder. After 22 'ii'b3+!
22 ...'ith8 23 'ud1 .ixf2+ 24 'itxf2 'ii'fS 2S
'ii'xd3 'ii'xgS 26 'itg1 White is simply win-
ning.
22 ....i.xf2+ 23 'it>h1 'ii'f5?
Black also misses the chance. After
23 ...l:he8! 24 'iWdS+ l:lf7! White needs to play
2S l:le2! (as 2S 4Jxd7 'uxe1+ 26 .in .ie4+
decides) 2S ...'ii'xdS 26 .ixdS .ixe2 27 .ixf7+
'itf8 28 .ixe8 'itxe8, when Black remains
slightly better in the endgame.
24 'i'd5+?
White misses what would have been a
magnificent prize-winning combination. 24
.ih3!l 'i'xh3 (24... 'i'xgS 2S 'iWdS+ 'ith8 26
4Jf7+ and mate follows) 2S 'i'dS+ 'ith8 26
4Jf7+ with mate in a few moves.
24 ...'it>h825lbxd3?
White would still be better after 2S g4! c6
26 'i'xc6 'i'c8 (26 ...,Uac8? 27 gxfS l:lxc6 28
.ixc6 .ixe 1 29 4Jxd3 .l:.xfS 30 .ie3 and
White wins) 27 'i'xa8 'i'xa8 28 .ixa8.
25 ....i.xe1 26 'ii'xf5 l:1xf5 27 .i.xa8 l:1xg5!
Black needs the time. After 27 ... .ixg3?! 28
hxg3 .l:.xgS 29 'itg2 White is even better, as
the playing pieces are more important than
the pawn.
28 lbxe 1 l:1e5 29 lbf3
29 4Jd3 .l:.e3 30 4Jf4 gS 31 4JdS l:.e2
looks promising for Black too.
 Main Line: 7 ttJc3 a5 - Eighth Move Alternatives

29 ...l:te2 30 a4 l:txb2 31 ..te6 .li!.e2 32

ttJe5.l:!.e5!
Precise play. After 32...~g8? 33 tiJc4!
White picks up the a-pawn due to i.d5+.
33 ttJf7+ 'it>g8 34 ttJd8 .l:!.e2 35 ..td5+
'it>f8

White's idea is to fight for the control of

the centre.
8 ...'i'e8 9 .li!.e1 'i'h5
The deeper nuances behind 8 i.g5 are il-
lustrated in the following line: 9...'ii'g6 10 e4!
1O ... fxe4 11 tiJxe4 'ii'xe4 12 tiJh4!. Normally
36 ttJe6+?? the queen is trapped in such situations, but
36 tiJb7 ~e7 37 ~gl is probably just a here Black has the g4-square. Still, White is
drawn endgame, even though it is not de- not too unhappy. 12...'ii'g4 13 'ii'xg4 tiJxg4
cided yet. 14 i.xe7 ~f7 (14...:e8 15 i.g5 is a little bet-
36 ...'it>e7 37 ttJxg7 ter for White)
37 tiJd4 :d2 38 tiJc6+ ~d6 39 i.o l!f2
40 tiJd4 :a241 tiJb5+ ~e5 42 tiJxc7 ':xa4
would give excellent winning chances too.
37 ...'it>f6 38 ttJe6 e6 39 ..tb3 l:te3 40
ttJd8 'it>e7 41 ttJxe6+ .li!.xe6 42 'it>g2 .l:!.b6
43 ..td5 'it>d6 44 ..tf7 .li!.b2+ 45 'it>h3 .l:!.e2
46 ..te4 l:te4 47 ..tb5 l:tb4 48 ..te8 .l:!.b8
49 ..tf7 'it>e5 50 g4?
A tougher defence was 50 i.h5 l:[b4 51
i.e8 ~d5 though Black will probably win
this too.
50 ...'it>f6 51 ..td5 .li!.b4 52 ..te6 'it>g5 0-1

Game 17 and now:

Zaitsev-Naumkin
Moscow 1989
For annotating this game I have based my
notes on those by GM Igor Zaitsev pub-
lished in Chess I'!formant 48.
1 d4 e6 2 c4 f5 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 g3 ..te 7 5
..tg2 0-060-0 d6 7 ttJe3 a5 8 ..tg5!?
a) 15 c5 is very creative, but doesn't really
work: 15.. .Ihe7 16 cxd6 :f7! (16 .. .J::te8? 17
dxc7 tiJc6 18 :'xc6! bxc6 19 i.xc6 would
give White a clear advantage) 17 d5 c6 18
l:tfel e5 19 f4 e4 20 l:[xe4 tiJf6 and the con-
sequences of White's play are unclear.
b) 15 i.g5! with a small advantage.
10 .li!.e 1 ttJe6 11 ..txf6 ..txf6 12 e4

41
Classical Dutch
White has succeeded in carrying out his
plan, but at the price of giving up the two
bishops.
12 ... e5 13 dxe5 dxe5 14 lLld5 ~d8?
This is rather passive. The move
14... fxe4!? is something for the fans of 'the
wizard from Riga', Mikhail Tal.
a) 1Sl:Ixe4 (this puts the fire out) 1S... i.fS
16 lbxf6+ gxf6 (16.JIxf6 17 ~h4 'iie8 18
'iWd5+ iLe6 19 'iVbs looks better for White)
17 'i'd5+ <;t>h8 181Ieei with unclear play.
b) 15 lbxc7 (the most testing move)
IS ...l:!.d8 16 'i'e2 exf3 17 i.xf3 'i'gS 18
lbxa8 lbd4 19 'ii'dl (19 'ii'e4 iLfS 20 'i'xb7
:d7 21 .i.d5+ <;t>h8 22 f4 'ii'hS 23 'iWb6
lbe2+ 24 l:!xe2 'iWxe2 gives an unclear posi-
tion too) 19... e4! 20 .i.xe4 .i.g4 21 h4 'ii'hS
with wild complications.
15 exf5 'i'xf5
The only possible recapture. After
IS ....i.xfS? 16 lbxeS ~6 17 lbxc6 bxc6 18
lbe3 White has a clear edge, and if IS ...:xfS
16 g4! 'ii'xg417lbe3 he wins material.
16 'iie2 ~d7
After 16 ...'ii'£7 17 lbxeS lbxeS 18 'iVxeS
'ii'xf2+ 19 <;t>h11i'fS 20 'ii'xfS .i.xfS 21lbe7+
i.xe7 22 .l:!.xe7 White also has an over-
whelming position.
17l:l.cd1
Here White is somewhat slow. After 17
lbxeS! lbxeS 18 'ii'xeS 'ii'xf2+ 19 ~hl :fS
20 'ii'c3 c6 21 lbe7+ iLxe7 22 :xe7 :£7 23
l:ce1 he clearly has a strong initiative.
42
17 ... ~e8!?
Black is going for active counterplay.
18lLlxe5 ~h5 19 f3?!
Here White has 19 g4! lbxeS 20 gxhS lbg4
21 l:d4 with advantage, as after 21...'iWxf2+
22 'iWxf2 lbxf2 23 :£1
cS 24 :f4 ':xf4 25
lbxf4 lbg4 26 i.xb 7 the black position can-
not be saved.
19 .. J:!.e8 20 g4 'ifxe5 21 'iVxe5lLlxe5 22
gxh5 'it>f8 23 lie4?!
More exact was 23 f4 lbd7 24 l:txe8+
'ltxe8 25 .:I.e1+ ~f8 26 fS lbcs 27 lbf4 and
White has full control over the situation.
23 ... c624lLlf4
Or 24 f4!? cxd5 25 1:xeS dxc4 26 iLxb7
.l:.b8 27 l:tbS .l:te2 28 l:c1 l:le7 29 ':fS+ .:1.£7
30 l:[x£7+ <;t>x£7 31 i.dS+ <;t>f6 32 ttc2 <;t>fS
33 ,.i.xc4 i.f6 with a small advantage for
White.
24 ... Wf7 25 <.ti>f1 ~f6 26 b3 ~ed8?!
26 ... a4 27 b4 b6! 28 lbd3 lbxd3 29 l:I.xe8
l:.xe8 30 llxd3 l:td8 and, after the exchange
of rooks, the position is just a dead draw.
27 :z.xd8 ~xd8 28 c;t>e2 a4
Or 28... bS 29 i.h3!.
29 bxa4 ~a8
After 29...lbd7?! 30 lbd3 lLlb6 31 lLlcs
.i.c3 32 f4 .:I.d2+ 33 <;t>f3 lha2 34 lLlxb 7
lLlxa4 35 lLld8+ ~f8 36 lLlxc6 White has a
clear advantage.
30 c5!
Fixing some weaknesses for the light-
squared bishop to attack.
 Main Line: 7 I?Jc3 a5 - Eighth Move Alternatives

30 ... l?Jd7 31 I?Jd3 ~c3

Black is in a downward trend and should
have done something in order to get out of
it. The complicated 31...i.e7! 32 i.h3 ttJxc5
loses a piece to 33 llxe7+ (33 l:tf4+ <iii'e8 34
ttJxc5 i.xc5 35 l:tc4 with a little pressure is
also possible). But after 33 ...<iii'xe7 34 ttJxc5
b6 35 ttJd7 l:txa4 36 ttJxb6 l:txa2+ 37 <iii'd3
l:txh2 Black will escape with a draw.
32 ~h3 I?Jf6 33 .l:!.c4 .l:!.e8+ 34 'ittf2 ~a5
35~g4
White has good control here.
35 ... ~d2 36 .l:!.c2 ~e3+ 37 'ittn I?Jd5 38
.l:!.b2 ~d4 12 exf5 ~xf5 13 I?Jd4
38 ...l:te7 39 i.c8! is good for White and Here White could have decided to grab a
38...l:tb8 39 a5! would expose Black to a very pawn with 13 ttJxe5 i.xe5 14 i.xb7 J::tb8 15
annoying a-pawn. i.d5+ <iii'h8 16.d2 'iif6 17 l:tac1. However,
39 .l:!.xb7+ 'ittf6 40 ~d7 .l:!.e3 41 ~xc6 after a move like 17...a4!? it seems that Black
The queenside has finally collapsed and has found good counterplay with the dark-
White will cruise to victory. squared bishop and the pressure against b2.
41 ....l:!.xf3+ 42 'itte2 .l:!.e3+ 43 'ittd2 I?Jc3 13 ...i.g4 14 'ii'b3?
44 'ittc2 'ittg5 45 .l:!.d7 ~f6 46 ~b5 .l:!.e2+ This is not nearly as good as 14 B i.d7 15
47 'ittb3 l?Je4 48 .l:!.d5+ 'itth4 49 c6 ~e7 f4 ttJc6 16 i.d5+, even though Black is fine
50 .l:!.d4 'ittg5 51 .l:!.xe4 1-0 after 16...<iii'h8 17 ttJxc6 bxc6 18 i.e4 i.xc3
19 bxc3 .f6.
Game 18
Toistikh-Veresagin
Volgograd 1994
1 I?Jf3 e6 2 c4 f5 3 g3 I?Jf6 4 ~g2 i.e 7 5
0-0 0-0 6 I?Jc3 d6 7 d4 a5 8 i.g5 I?Jc6
There is no equality after 8...ttJe4. Follow-
ing 9 i.xe7 'ii'xe7 10 ttJxe4 fxe4 11 ttJd2 d5
12 e3 ttJc6 13 B exB 14l:txB l:txB 15 'ii'xB
dxc4 (an unhappy concession, but it is hard
to see how Black could avoid it) 16 ttJxc4
White is somewhat better, Piket-Lobron,
Wijk aan Zee 1993.
9 i.xf6 ~xf6 10 e4 e5 14... c5!
After 1O ... fxe4 11 ttJxe4 a4 12 :tel a3 13 Preventing c4-c5, gammg control over
b3 White is a little better due to the weakness central squares and gaining time too. The
of the pawn on e6. slight weakness of the d5-square is no great
11 dxe5 I?Jxe5 loss ...
This seems forced as 11...dxe5 12 'ii'd5+ 15I?Jc2
.xdS 13 ttJxd5 fxe4 14 ttJd2 i.d8 15 ttJxe4 15 i.d5+ <iii'h8 16 ttJdb5 ttJB+ 17 i.xB
gives White a typical advantage. i.xB looks very good for Black.

43
Classical Dutch
15 ... lbf3+
16 ~h1?!
It is a bitter pill to swallow, but White was
forced to play 16 ..ixf3 ..ixf3 after which
Black quite obviously has the advantage.
16 ... lbd2 17 'i'xb7 lbxf1 18 l:txf1 .llxc3
19 bxc3
19 1i'xaS 1i'xaS 20 ..ixaS .l:txaS 21 bxc3
..ie2 22 :e1 ..ixc4 would present White with
a very difficult endgame indeed.
19 ... 'i'f6
White does not have enough for the ex-
change.
20 'i'd5+ ~h8 21 'i'd2.llf3 22lbe3
22 ...l:tab8
22....l:taeS!? 23 ..ixf3 1i'xf3+ 24 'it>gl ':'f6
was another possibility, with a clear advan-
tage for Black.
23 .llxf3 'i'xf3+ 24 ~g1 a4?!
24...I;IbeS 25 a3 .l:r.e6 with a clear advan-
44
tage was better. A black rook on the 6th rank
protects d6 and threatens the white king.
25 a3?
The last chance was 25 1i'xd6 l:tb2 26 a3,
when Black would have had some problems
winning this position.
25 ...l:tb6 26lbd5 l:tb3
Now White has no counterplay and Black
will simply go and collect some pawns.
27 lbf4 J:tfb8 28 'i'e1 'i'xc3 29 'i'e6 'iid4
30 'i'd7 l:txa3 31 lbe6 'i'f6 32 l:te1 l:ta1
Cynical but effective!
33 l:txa1 'i'xaH 34 ~g2 'i'f6 35 'i'a7
l:te8 36 lbf4 'i'e7 37 'i'xa4 'ii'e4+ 38
~g1 l:ta8 39 'i'd1 0-1
White resigned before Black got around to
playing 39 ....:.bS!.
Game 19
Gallagher-Williams
Port Erin 2001
1 d4 f5 2 g3 lbf6 3 .llg2 e6 4 lbf3 .lle7
50-00-06 c4 d6 7lbc3 a5 8.l:!.e1
Another way to fight for the centre.
8 ... lbe4
The natural way to deal with this.
9 'ii'c2
White has other options in this position:
a) 9 ..if4!? ..if6 (9 ...g5!? 10 ..iel ..if6 with
unclear play would be a novel plan) 10 'iVc2
lLlxc3 11 bxc3 lLlc6 (11...lLld7 12 e4 fxe4 13
1i'xe4 would give White the usual small
 Main Line: 7 ttJc3 a5 - Eighth Move Alternatives
structural advantage) 12 'u'adl liJe7 13 h4
liJg6 14.tel d5?! (this gives Black problems)
15 cxd5 exd5 16 c4 c6 17 cxd5 cxd5 18 liJe5
and White has a strong initiative, Oll-Beim,
Diern 1996. Better for Black is 14...'iii'e8! (but
not 14...a4 15 e4 fxe4 16 'ii'xe4 and White is
better) 15 e4 fxe4 16 'ii'xe4 'ii'f? and Black is
better placed to meet the central pressure.
This position needs practical tests.
b) 9 liJxe4 fxe4 10 liJd2 d5 11 B exB 12
liJxB c5 gave Black good counterplay in
Notaros-R.Marcic, Novi Sad 1974.
9 ...ttJxc3 10 'ii'xc3
The alternative 10 bxc3 .tf6 11 e4 fxe4 12
'ii'xe4 liJc6 13 .ta3 e5 14 d5 liJe7 15 c5 b5
16 cxb6 cxb6 17 c4 .tfS 18 'ii'e3 was played
in Suba-Pamers, Suances 1997. Now
18... .tg6!, with the idea 19 liJd2liJfS, would
have given Black good counterplay.
10... ttJc6
Black obtained a decent posItIOn after
1O....tf6 11 'ii'c2 (11 b3?! liJc6 12 .tb2 e5 13
dxe5 dxe5 14 l:tadl 'ii'e7 15 e4 fxe4 16l::txe4
.tfS was better for Black in Ayas Fernandez-
Pomes Marcet, Barcelona 1996) 11...liJc6 12
l::tdl 'ii'e7 13 d5liJb4 14 'ii'd2 exd5 15 cxd5
.td7. The position is equally balanced,
though far from boring, San Segundo-Pomes
Marcet, San Sebastian 1995.
11 e4
After 11 d5 .tf6 12 'ii'd2liJe7 13 liJd4 e5
14liJb5 .td7 15 'ii'c2 h5! 16 .td2 h4 Black
was in the midst of organising a terrible at-
tack against the white king, Pigusov-Atalik,
1997.
11 ... e5 12 exf5 .i.xf5 13 .i.e3
Or 13 dxe5 dxe5 14 c5 .tf6 (not very
healthy is 14... e4 15 liJd2 'ii'd4 16 liJxe4
'ii'xc3 17 bxc3 .txe4 18 .txe4 .txc5 19 .te3
.txe3 20 l::txe3, when White has a dangerous
initiative) 15 'iib3+ (White takes the risk and
wins the pawn; 15 .te3 ~h8 16 l::tad1 'ii'e7
does not disturb Black) 15... ~h8 16 'ii'xb7
liJb4! 17 liJxe5 liJc2 18 .tf4l::tb8 19 l:tad1
'ii'e7 20 'ii'a7 (20 'iVc6 liJxe1 21 ltxel 'u'xb2
gives a rather messy game too) 20 ...liJxe1 21
l:he1l::txb2 and the position is unclear.
13 ....i.e4 14 ttJd2?!
This leaves Black with full control over
the centre. After 14 .td2!? Black plays
14....txB 15 .txB .tf6! with an even posi-
tion, but not 15 ...liJxd4 16 .txb7 ltb8 17
.td5+, which looks better for White.
14... .i.xg2 15 'iitxg2 d5!
White must have underestimated this in
someway.
16 a3
It is starting to look bad for White. After
16 'ii'b3 exd4! (16 ...liJxd4 17 .txd4 exd4 18
cxd5 .tb4 is less clear) 17 cxd5 a4 18 'ii'c4
dxe3 19 dxc6+ ~h8 20 liJe4 exf2 21 liJxf2
bxc6 White has an exposed king and some
other worries.
16 ....i.f6
The white centre is collapsing and Black is
clearly better.
45
Classical Dutch
17 ltJf3 exd4 18 ltJxd4 'iVd7 19 ~ad1
ltJe5 20 c5
It is painful for any player to make these
kind of inactive moves. So Gallagher, known
for his attacking style, must have felt pretty
bad here.
20 ... ltJf3!!
Obviously the knight is immune, but it's
also very annoying.
21 l:tf1 'iig4 22 'i'd3 i..xd4
Now the knight cannot be removed from
f3.
23 i..xd4 ltJh4+
Preventing h2-h3. After 23 ... ~a6?! 24 h3
'i¥h5 25 i.e3! White has bought himself
some time to solve his problems.
24 'ito>h 1 ltJf3 25 'ito>g2
25 ... c6
Well, some things you have to live with.
By the way, 25 ... h5?! 26 h3 'iVd7 27 i.e3
46
l:tad8 28 i.f4lDh4+ 29 ~h2 does not give
Black any advantage.
26 h3 'iVe6 27 i..e3 g5?!
This is too slow. Black missed his chance
with the strong 27 ...lDe5! 28 'i¥b3 a4 29
'ii'xb7 llab8 30 'ii'a6 llxb2 with a very strong
attack, for example 31 i.d4? lDf3! 32 'i¥a7
(or 32 i.xb2? 'ii'e4 and Black wins)
32 ...lDxd4 33 ~xd4 'ii'e3 and the white king-
side collapses.
28 i..d4?
Psychologically, White must already have
given up. He could still defend with 28 i.f4!
lDh4+ 29 gxh4 gxf4 30 l:lg1 and the exposure
of the black king causes a headache.
28 ...~ae8 29 b4 axb4 30 axb4 'iVd7 31
i..a1 'ii'e6 32 ~c1 d4 33 ~fd1 ~f7!
Preparing an attack on £2.
34 'iic4 'iVe4!
With deadly threats.
35 'ito>f1 ltJd2+! 0-1
The queen or the king. It's not hard to de-
cide.
Came 20
Van Wely-Comas Fabrego
Pamplona 1998
1 d4 e6 2 c4 f5 3 g3 ltJf6 4 i.g2 i.e7 5
ltJf3 d6 6 0-0 0-0 7 ltJc3 a5 8 J:!.e1 ltJe4
9 'iic2 ltJc6?!
This is less recommendable than 9... lDxc3.
White simply gtabs the pawns and gains a
 Main Line: 7 lDc3 a5 - Eighth Move Alternatives
clear advantage.
10 lDxe4lDb4 11 "b1 fxe4 12 "xe4 e5
This was of course Black's creative idea,
but White is still hungry!
13 dxe5 .i.f5 14 "xb7 .l:tb8 15 "a7lDc2
15.. J:ta8 16 'iVd4! does not gain anything,
as after 16...lbc2 17 'iVd5+ 'ith8 18 lbd4!
White has a clear advantage.
16.i.d2!
This is really strong play. Any computer
prefers 16 lbd4?! lbxe1 17 lbc6 'iVe8 18
'iVxc7 lbxg2 19 lbxe7+ 'ith8 20 'itxg2, but
now Black can gain good counterplay after
20 .....te4+ 21 f3 'ilVh5! - the threats are be-
coming serious.
16 ... dxe5 17 .i.c3 e4
Black is also in deep trouble after 17...:ta8
18 iVb7 %:tb8 19 'iVd5+ 'iVxd5 20 cxd5lbxe1
21%:txe1 e4 22lbd4 ..tb4 23 lbxfS ..txc3 24
bxc3 %:txfS 25 ..txe4 %:te5 26 ..td3, when
White has a clear advantage, though admit-
tedly Black has a little counterplay.
18 .l:tad1 "c8 19lDd4 .l:ta8
After the alternative 19 ...lbxe1 White has
a convenient choice between the replies 20
%:txe 1 with a clear advantage and the more
adventurous 20 lbc6!? with some aggressive
possibilities.
20 lDc6 .i.d6 21 .l:txd6 ':xa 7 22 lDe 7 +
'it>h8 23 lDxc8 .i.xc8 1-0
Here Black resigned - why? We11, after 24
%:tel cxd6 25 .l::txc2 ..tb7 26l:td2 :a6 27 %:td4
'itg8 28 ..txe4 ..txe4 29 ':xe4 the position is
simply not playable. Against a great player
like Van Wely, you are wasting your time de-
fending a lost endgame like this.
Game 21
Rajkovic-R.Maric
Bad Wbnshifen 1989
1 d4 e6 2 g3 f5 3 .i.g2 lDf6 4 lDf3 .i.e7
50-00-06 c4 d6 7 lDc3 a5 8.l:te1 lDe4
9 "c2lDc6 10 .lte3?!
For 10 lbxe4! see the previous game.
10 ... lDxc3 11 it'xc3
After 11 bxc3?! e5 12 ..tel e4 White has
no good square for his knight and Black is
slightly better.
11 ....i.f6 12 .l:tad1
12 c5 would be best met with a fight to
occupy d5: 12 ...lbb4! (12...'iVe8 13 cxd6 cxd6
14%:tael gives White the advantage) 1311eel
%:te8 14 cxd6 cxd6 15 'iVd2 b5 16 ..tg5 ..tb7
17 ..txf6 'iVxf6 and Black is in no way worse.
12 .....e8
This is where the queen belongs. After
12...'iVe7?! 13 'iVb3 a414 'ilVa3 White is on his
way to playing c4-c5 and has an edge.
13.i.g5
13 c5 lbb4 14 cxd6 cxd6 15 a3 lbd5 looks
very good for Black.
13 ... e5 14 .i.xf6
14 dxe5 dxe5 15 ..txf6 ':xf6 16 e4 f4 17
%IdS with unclear play was a viable option.
14.. Jbf6 15 d5?!
47
Classical Dutch

Positionally, this is a bad decision. After 21 .. J:th6! 22 lL'If3 .ltg4 23 lL'Ih4?

15 dxe5 White could still transpose to the
previous note.
15 ...lL'Ib8 16 b3 lL'Id7 17 a3 lL'Ic5
The knight took his time to reach the cen-
tre, but White had nothing useful to do in the
meantime. Now White has to be careful not
to be overrun by the black initiative.
18 b4?

White simply collapses. 23 %:tfe1! would

have offered more resistance.
23 ... .ltxe2 24 .ltxe4 .ltxd1 25 f3 fxg3 26
hxg3 g5 27 lL'Ig2 lite8 28 'ifd2 .ltb3 29
'ifd3 'ifh2+ 30 cJi>f2l:th3 31 .ltxh7+ J:txh7
32 'ii'xb3 J:te2+ 0-1

Game 22
Necessary was 18lDd2 'iih5 (18.. .f4 19 b4 Anand-Lobron
axb4 20 axb4 lDa4 is another possibility) 19 Frankfurt 1997
b4lDa4 20 'iVc2 axb4 21 axb4 f4 with unclear
play. 1 d4 f5 2 g3 lL'If6 3 i.g2 e6 4 c4 i.e7 5
18 ...lL'Ie4 lL'Ic3 0-0 6 lL'If3 d6 7 0-0 a5 8 J:te1 lL'Ie4
Compared to a4, this is a fantastic square 9lL'1d2
for the knight. White uses all his force to fight for the e2-
19 'ifb2 f4 20 J:tf1 e4 advance.
White tries to defend, but really it is too
late. Black wins after 20 lDxe5? fxg3 21 fxg3
lDf2!.
20 ...'ifh5 21 lL'Ixe5
White is desperate. The following lines
show why:
a) 21 gxf4 %:tg6 22 'it>h1 %:txg2 23 'it>xg2
i.h3+ 24 'it>h1 'iig4! and the only way to
avoid mate is to give up the knight and then
an exchange, after which the game is over.
b) If White does nothing with a move like
21 l:ta1, there comes 21...i.h3 22 i.xh3
'iVxh3 23 'iic2 fxg3 with the idea of 24 fxg3
lDxg3! with a devastating attack. And after 24 9 ... lL'Ixc3
'iVxe4 l:!.f4!, the minimum White loses is his After 9...lDxd2 10 'iixd2 e5 11 dxe5 dxe5
queen! 12 'iid5+ 'iixd5 13 cxd5 lDa6 14 i.d2 Black

48
 Main Line: 7 t'iJc3 a5 - Eighth Move Alternatives
might be doing okay, for example:
a) 14.....tc5!? does not look natural as the
bishop is taking the knight's square, but after
15 l:.ac1 ..td7 16 d6 (otherwise ...l:.aeS and
... b5 are coming) 16...cxd6 17 ..txb7 .l:ta7 1S
..tg2 tDc7 Black has good counterplay. The
line 15 tDb5 i.d7 16 tDa3 a4 17 tDc4 l:taeS
should also not cause Black any problems.
b) 14.. J:tbS 15 tDb5 i.d7 16 tDa3 b6 17
tDc4 i.d6 1Sl::tac1 and White had some ad-
vantage in Ftacnik-Lobron, Germany 1996.
10 bxc3 e5 11 e4 f4
Black was fine after 11...tDc6 12 exf5
..txfS 13 tDfl ..tf6 14 tDe3 ..td7 15l:tb1 ~bS
16 ..tb2 'ito>hS 17 ifd2 ..tg5 1S h4 ..th6 in
Greenfeld-Bellin, Montecatini Terme 1997.
12 J:lb1
This is very natural. Worse is 12 tDf3?!
fxg3 13 fxg3 tDc6 14 ..te3 ..tg4 15 h3 i.xf3
16 ..txf3 i.g5 and Black already was slighdy
preferable, Ravic-Naumkin, Jyvaskyla 1993.
It is interesting to see how Black played in
the rest of the game: 17 i.f2? (this loses to
clever tactics; necessary was 17 'ito>g2)
17...iff6 1S 'ito>g2 ..td2! 19 ifxd2 'iWxf3+ 20
'ito>g1 'iWh5 (White is terminally ill on the light
squares) 21 d5 tDe7 22 'ito>g2 l:tf3 23 ~e3
l:taffi 24 ~fl tDg6! (after this White loses by
force) 25 'ii'e2
25 ...tDf4+! 26 gxf4 ifxh3+ 27 'ito>g1 ifg4+
0-1 After the rook check on h3 White will
have to part with his queen and his good
sense of humour.
12 ...t'iJc6 13 t'iJf3 fxg3
Black should be careful to avoid the fol-
lowing line: 13. .. nbS? (with the idea of de-
veloping the cS-bishop) 14 dxe5 dxe5 15
'ii'd5+ 'ito>hS 16 tDxe5 'ii'xd5 17 exd5 tDxe5
1Sl:he5 and there is of course no compensa-
tion for the pawn.
14 hxg3 .i.g4
Here I prefer 14.. .l:H7!? With this move,
Black creates the ffi-square for his queen and
stops the tricks with possible checks on d5 as
in the note to Black's 13th move. Play may
continue 15 c5 a4 16 ..ta3 (16 d5 tDbS 17
ife2 is also possible, but should Black really
fear this? Where is White's point of attack?)
16...'ii'ffi! 17 d5 tDdS with an unclear game.
14...'ito>hS, on the other hand, looks insuf-
ficient due to 15 c5 i.f6 16 cxd6 cxd6 17
i.a3 and d6 is weak.
1 5 J:lxb 7 'ifc8
15 ... exd4 16 cxd4..txf3 17 ..txf3 tDxd4 1S
'ii'xd4 l:txf3 19 'iWd5+ 'ito>hS 20 ..te3 would
give White a small but lasting advantage.
16 litb2 'ife8?!
Black wants to develop his queen to h5,
but this plan does not have a great sting. Bet-
ter looks to be 16... exd4! 17 cxd4 tDxd4 1S
'ii'xd4 ..txf3 19 ifd5+ 'ito>hS 20 i.xf3 ~xf3 21
..tf4!? (trying to exploit the position of the
rook; 21 ..te3 with a very small advantage is
of course possible) 21...l:txf4!? 22 gxf4 ifg4+
23 'ito>fl 'ii'h3+ 24 'ito>e2 l:tffi. Maybe White is
better here, but it would be hard to prove
49
Classical Dutch
this with a chess clock ticking on the side.
17 d5!
Now the knight is in big trouble.
17 ... tiJbS
17...liJd8 18 'iid3 'iVh5 19 liJh2 ~c8 20
~e3 ~g5 21 ~xg5 'iixg5 22liJf3 would give
White a clear advantage. The break c4-c5
cannot be prevented forever, after which
Black will have some weaknesses in his
camp.
1S 'ird3 tiJa6 19 tiJh2 tiJc5 20 'irc2 'irh5
20 ... ~c8 21 ~e3 ~a6 22 J.xc5 dxc5 23
liJg4 would leave Black in big trouble too.
21 .te3.l:!.f7 22 tiJxg4 'irxg4 23 'ird1
23 l:r.eb 1 ~g5 24 ~xc5 dxc5 25 .l::!.b8+
1:[f8 26 ':'xf8+ ':'xf8 27 .l::!.b7 is also very diffi-
50
cult for Black.
23 .. .'ii'g6 24 .txc5 dxc5 25 .th3
From a positional point of view, White is
winning. From here on the rest is easy for a
player of Anand's greatness.
25 .. .',l;>hS 26 .tf5 'ii'h6 27 'it>g2 g6 2S
lith1 'ii'g5 29 .te6 .l:!.ffS 30 'ii'g4 'ii'f6 31
'ii'e2 'it>g7 32 .l:!.hb1 .td6 33 l:i:b7 h5 34
.l:!.1 b6 'it>hS 35 'ii'e3 'ii'xf2+ 36 'ii'xf2
.l:!.xf2+ 37 'it>xf2 l:i:fS+ 3S 'it>g1 cxb6 39
.l:!.xb6 .l:!.dS 40 .l:!.a6 'it>g7 41 .l:!.xa5 'it>f6 42
.l:!.a6 'it>e7 43 1:[a7+ 'it>f6 44 .td7 1:[fS 45
'it>g2 g5 46 a4 g4 47 a5 'it>g5 4S 1:[a6
.tc7 49 .tf51:[f6 50 1:[a7 .tdS 51 a6.l:!.b6
52 l:i:g7+ 'it>f6 53 a7 l:i:b2+ 54 'it>f1 l:i:a2
55.l:!.gS 1-0
 Main Line: 7 0.c3 a5 - Eighth Move Alternatives

Summary
Neither 8 .l:te1 nor 8 ~g5 is really dangerous for Black. The real battle of the future is with 8
'iVc2. White looks better so far, but I have only been able to scratch a little on the surface. The
real truth about this move is found deep down below - a place you cannot travel to alone! You
need an opponent and tournament practice to know what is really going on.
A lot of these assessments are based solely on my analysis, as the Classical Dutch has been
out of favour for such a long time and there are few games with top class players trying to de-
fend the black side. Often what you see in published games in this opening is a strong Grand-
master beating a young ambitious player who does not quite back up his ambitious opening
with good moves. This leads to a misconception of the real value of the opening.

1 d4 f5 2 c40.f6 3 g3 e6 4 .ltg2 .lte7 5 0.f3 0-0 6 0-0 d6 7 0.c3 a5 8 'iVc2

811e1lbe4 (0)
9lbd2 - Game 22
9'iic2
9...lbxc3 - Game 19
9...lbc6
10 lbxe4 - Game 20; 10 ~e3 - Game 21
8 ~g5 (0)
8...'iie8 - Game 17
8...lbc6 - Game 18
8 ...0.c6 9 e40.b4 10 'iVe2 fxe4 11 0.xe40.xe4 12 'iVxe4 e5 (0) 13 g4
13 dxe5 - Game 16
13... h5 - Game 15

8 ... 0.e4 8.1tg5 12 ... e5

51
I CHAPTER THREE
Main line: 7 ttJc3 'iWe8
and 7 ttJc3 ttJe4
1 d4 f5 2 c4 e6 3 g3 tiJf6 4 .i.g2 i.e7 5
tiJf3 d6 6 0-0 0-0 7 tiJc3
In this Chapter we will look at the posi-
tions arising after the sequence 1 d4 f5 2 c4
liJf6 3 g3 e6 4 ..tg2 ..te7 5 liJf3 0-0 6 0-0 d6
7liJc3
and now either of the moves 7...'ii'e8 or
7...liJe4.
First of all 7...'fie8 seems like a very viable
option. The most dangerous lines are 8 b3
and 8l:te1, as after 8 'ii'd3, 8 ..tg5 and 8 ..tf4,
Black has no problems in gaining an easy
equality. Actually, White can easily be fight-
ing to keep the position level himself after
these moves.
8 .l:r.e1 includes a trick so that after 8...'ii'g6
9 e4 fxe4 10 liJxe4 liJxe4 11 l:txe4 (Games
52
I
23-25) the rook is immune - after 11 ...'iVxe4
12 liJh4! the queen quite surprisingly finds
herself trapped in the middle of the board.
So this line gives White the structure he is
looking for and therefore presumably a very
slight advantage, even though it is still a
struggle. The line 8...'ii'h5 9 e4 (Game 28)
also seems to be promising for White. But
Black has had some success with 8...liJe4
(Games 26-27) and this might still prove to
give him an equal game. This is certainly one
of the critical positions for the Classical
Dutch and its future life.
The move 8 b3 is a very natural way to
play the position, but so far White has not
been able to prove an advantage after the re-
ply 8 ...'ii'h5. This position remains far from
clear.
The move 7...liJe4 is slightly riskier than
7...'ii'e8, but also here it is not clear how
White can gain an advantage. Both 8 'fic2
liJxc3 9 'fixc3 ..tf6 10 b4 (Game 36) and 8
liJxe4 fxe4 9 liJe1 d5 10 f3 exf3 11 liJxf3
liJc6 12 b3 (Game 38) have been slightly
worse for Black in games played, but I be-
lieve that 9... a5!? can be tried in the first line,
should one consider the position really dan-
gerous, and 12... b6! in the second line, after
which the outcome of the opening battle is
still undecided.
 Main Line: 7 l'iJc3 ~e8 and 7 l'iJc3 l'iJe4
Game 23
Van Wely-Minasian,
European Team Ch., Batumi 1999
1 d4 e6 2 c4 f5 3 g3 l'iJf6 4 .i.g2 .i.e7 5
l'iJf3 d6 6 0-0 0-0 7l'iJc3 ~e8
Here's a brief look at some other seventh
move alternatives for Black:
a) 7...c6 8 'ifb3 (8 'ifc21L1bd7 9 e4 fxe4 10
lLlxe4 b6 II1L1xf6+ lLlxf6 12 nel 'ifc7 13 c5!
lLld5 14 cxd6 'ifxd6 15 lLle5 gave White a
minor advantage in Penrose-Mardle, England
1961) 8... ~h8 9 l:tel lLla6 10 e4 fxe4 11
lLlxe4 lLlxe4 12 ':xe4 and White is slightly
better, Roos-R.Maric, Monte Carlo 1967.
b) 7...1L1bd7 8 'iVd3 'ife8 9 e4 'iVh5 10 exfS
exfS 11 i.d2 c6 12 nae1 i.d8 13 b4 and
White is somewhat better, Esing-Prins,
Netherlands 1968.
c) 7...1L1c6 8 d5! lLle5 (8 ... exd5 9 cxd51Lle5
10 1Lld4 and White is better, Griinfeld-
Tartakower, Viena 1921) 9 lLld4! lLlxc4 10
lLlxe6 i.xe6 11 dxe6 was good for White in
Schweber-Torgalson, Argentina 1960.
8l:1e1
This is played with the idea of an early e2-
e4 advance in the centre. The positional con-
sequences of this are clearly illustrated in the
games with 8...'iVg6 (Games 23-25) and
8...'ifh5 (Game 28). White wants to open a
road down the centre to put pressure on the
pawn on e6 and use his slight space advan-
tage to obtain more freedom for his pieces.
8 ...~g6
Black has many alternatives here. Most of
them are considered in the following games.
But let us look at two lesser responses here:
a) 8... d5?! would be quite a good way to
transpose into the Stonewall set-up, if there
wasn't a tactical flaw connected to this move,
as the knight on c3 is misplaced for the
Stonewall: 9 cxd5! (White also achieved a lit-
tle something with 91L1e5?! c6 10 f31L1fd7 11
lLlxd71L1xd7 12 cxd5 cxd5 13 e4 fxe4 14 fxe4
dxe4 151L1xe4 'ifg6 16 d5 in Bertok-Spassky,
Varna 1958, but the main line is a simple
refutation of the Black idea) 9... exd5 10 'ifb3
c6 11 e4! lLlxe4 121L1xe4 fxe4 13 1:txe4 'ifd8
14 i.f4 lLla6 15 l:le2 lLlc7 16 liae1 and
White had an overwhelming advantage in
Iliwickij-Kotov, USSR Championship 1955.
b) 8...1L1bd7?! is also not really a way to
fight for central influence. After e2-e4 the
knight is not very well placed on f6. Play may
continue 9 e4 fxe4 10 lLlxe4 lLlxe4 11 .l:txe4
lLlf6 12 l:le1 'ifh5 13 i.d2 i.d7 14 h3 h6!,
when White has a small advantage.
14...l:tae8?! 15 lLlg5 was a minor disaster in
Palermo-Pina, Argentina 1972.
ge4
This is the main line of course. White has
also tried 9 'ifd3 but this does not make a lot
of sense after l:le1, as this move is only justi-
fied if White plays e2-e4. 9...1L1a6 10 i.f4 c5
11 dxc5 lLlxc5 12 'ifc2 lLlfe4 13 .l:ladl e5 14
lLld5 i.d8 15 i.c1 was the continuation of
Martin-Pelikan, Argentina 1954. Now Black
can play quietly with 15... i.e6 with equality
or go nuts with 15.. .f4!? with an unclear
game.
9 ... l'iJxe4 10 l'iJxe4 fxe4 11 l:1xe4
It should be stated that 11...'ifxe4? 12
lLlh4, trapping the queen, is an important de-
tail in the position!
11 ... e5!?
This move and the whole plan is very
risky. In my opinion Black does not achieve
equality.
53
Classical Dutch
12 l:te1
Critical might be 12 l:te3!? t'Llc6 13 dxe5
(13 dSt'Llb8 14 i.d2t'Lld7 15 'iWe2t'Llf6 16 h3
gave White a small advantage in Chuchelov-
Goldgewicht, Gifhom 1992) 13 ... i.g4 14
exd6 i.xd6 and now:
a) 15 h3? i.xf3 16 i.xf3 l:tad8! and sud-
denly White's missing development is badly
felt, for example:
a1) 17 i.d2 i.xg3 18 fxg3 (18 i.d5+
.l:[xd5 19 .l:r.xg3 'ili'f6 gives Black a more or
less winning position) 18...'iWxg3+ 19 <iio>h1
'iWxh3+ 20 <iio>g1 'iWg3+ 21 <iio>h1 'iWh4+ 22
<iio>g1 t'Lld4 23 i.g2 'iVf2+ 24 <iio>h2 .l:r.d6 gives
Black a winning attack. Both ....l:r.h6 and
...l:tg6 are deadly threats.
a2) 17 i.e4 i.c5! 18 'ili'c2 (18 'iWxd8! ~xd8
19 i.xg6 .l:r.d1+ 20 <iio>g2 i.xe3 21 fxe3 hxg6
22 <iio>f3t'Lle5+ 23 <iio>e2 .l:r.h1 gives Black some
chances to win the endgame, but it is by far
54
the best shot) 18...'iVh5 19 i.xc6? (19 cotg2
i.xe3 20 i.xe3 with some compensation for
the exchange was forced) 19 ... bxc6
(19 ....l::td1+!? 20 <iio>g2 bxc6 gives a winning at-
tack) 20 ~e2 'iVxh3?? (20...l:td1+!! 21 'iWxd1
i.xf2+ wins on the spot due to 22 <iio>h2
i.xg3+ 23 <iio>g1 i.f2+ 24 <iio>h2 'ili'f3 and the
threat of mate forces White into giving up
the queen) 21 i.e3 and White was at least
still alive, though in a crisis in Crispin-Wood,
Seattle 1986.
b) 15 cS! is an important move to remem-
ber. The only game played in this line con-
tinued 15 ...i.e7 16 'iVb3+ <iio>h8 (16 .. .'ii'f7? 17
t'Lle5 'iVxb3 18 axb3 t'LlxeS 19 .uxe5 i.f6 20
l:te4 gives White a winning advantage) 17
t'Lle5 t'LlxeS 18 .l::txe5 Itad8 (Bauza-Estrada
Degrandi, Uruguay 1961) 19 i.f4 i.f6 20
~~e1 i.d4. Black has some compensation
for the pawn but it's not clear that it's
enough.
12 ...ttJc6 13 dxe5 ..tg4 14 h3
Here White has some serious alternatives:
a) 14 'iWb3! is a new strong invention that
puts pressure on Black. Probably the best try
is to force an endgame with 14...'iVf7
(14...i.xf3?! 15 i.xf3 t'Lld4 16 i.d5+ <iio>h8 17
'iWd1 gives White a clear advantage, as does
14... Itxf3? 15 'iVxb7, while 14... dxe5? 15
t'LlxeS t'Llxe5 16 .l:r.xe5 .l:r.ae8 17 'iVxb7 does
not offer Black enough compensation for the
material) 15 i.f4 i.xf3 (1S ... t'Lla5? 16 'iWbs
t'Llxc4 17 .l:r.ac1! t'Llb6 [17 ...d5 18 t'Llg5Q 18
 Main Line: 7 0.c3 'ife8 and 7 0.c3 0.e4
J:txc7 and White is winning) 16 i.xB ttJd4
17 i.d5 'iVxd5 18 cxd5 ttJxb3 19 axb3 dxe5
20 Itac1! (White is playing for the 7th rank)
and now:
a1) After 20...exf4 21 J:txe7 l:Iae8 22
l::texc7 White has very good chances to win
the endgame, even though Black has some
counterplay with 22... B!? Then White has
the antidote in 23 d6!. Exchanges will have to
happen for Black to get rid of the annoying
d-pawn.
a2) 20 ... b6! (Black takes control over c5
with this move and thereby keeps himself in
the game) 21 i.xe5 (after 21 J:txe5 i.d6 22
J:te6 i.xf4 23 gxf4 J:tf7 the white pawn struc-
ture is terrible, so Black will be able to make
the draw after 24 .l:tec6 J:td8 25 l::txc7 .l:lxd5
26 l::txf7 <j;;;xf7 27 l:tc7+ <j;;;f6 28 l::txa7 l::tb5;
interesting though is 21 .l:hc7!? i.d8 22
i.xe5 i.xc7 23 i.xc7 l:tf7 24 d6 ILd7 25 f4
with good compensation for the pawn)
21...i.c5 22 .:tc2 .l:Ife8 23 <j;;;n l::tad8 24
i.xc7 ':'xe1+ 25 <j;;;xe1 l:Ixd5 and Black has
good chances to draw this endgame.
b) 14 exd6 only helps Black. Play contin-
ues 14...i.xd6
and now:
b1) 15 ttJh4 'ii'f6 16 i.d5+ <j;;;h8 17 B
i.d7 gives Black the advantage despite the
pawn deficit. White is completely uncoordi-
nated and will have trouble resisting an at-
tack.
b2) 15 'iVd5+ <j;;;h8 16 i.e3 l:Iad8 gives
Black good counterplay. Also possible is
16...i.b4!? but Black should realise that he
cannot solve all his problems with tactics af-
ter 17 .:ted1 i.xf3?! (17 ...l:tad8! would give
Black the advantage) 18 i.xB J:tfS 19 'iVe4
.l::te8. Now White has 20 l:td5!! .:txe4 21
i.xe4 with a clear advantage.
b3) 15 c5!? i.xB 16 i.xB i.xc5! offers
Black a good game too. The difference from
12 J:te3 is of course that the B-bishop is
hanging now.
b4) 15 h3?? with a further split:
b41) 15... i.e6?? 16 'ii'e2? (16 ttJg5 i.xc4
17 i.e4 'iVf6 18 it'c2 <j;;;h8 19 ttJxh7 and
White wins) 16...J:tae8 17 i.e3 'iVh5?
(17...i.b4 would have kept White's advan-
tage to a minimum) 18 g4! it'a5 19 ttJg5 <j;;;h8
20 c5 i.xc5 21 it'c2 1-0 Halasz-Forgacs,
Ballerup 1985.
b42) 15...i.xB! 16 i.xB
16... i.xg3!! 17 fxg3? (17 'ii'd5+! <j;;;h8 18
lIe6! i.x£1+ 19 <j;;;x£1 l::txB+ 20 <j;;;xB 'iVxe6
21 it'xe6 ttJd4+ 22 <j;;;g4 ttJxe6 gives Black
good chances to win the endgame, but White
still has a lot of resistance to offer)
17...'iVxg3+ 18 i.g2 J:tad8 19 'iVe2 (19 i.d2
1:[£1!) 19 ...ttJd4 and Black wins at least the
queen.
14 ....i.xf3 15 .i.xf3 dxe5!
For 15...ttJxe5 see Game 25.
16.i.e4
White looks slightly better at the first
glance, but in reality Black has good counter-
55
Classical Dutch

play due to his control over the d4-square.
~gl 'iiVe1+, though Black is by no means
forced to agree to a draw here.
24 ....i.c5 25 1:.d2?!
TIUs is a very risky decision exposing
White to a dangerous attack. Safer was 25
:f4 .I:i.xf4 26 gxf4 'iiVxh3 27 i.xc6, which
gives White some extra pawns but they are all
weak on the dark squares, so a draw is the
most likely outcome.
25 ... a5!

16 ... 'ii'f6 17 .i.e3 1:.ad8 18 'ii'c2 h6 19

l:rad1 1:.xd1 20 1:.xd1 liJd4!
TIUs pawn sacrifice should perhaps be re-
jected, as it is impossible to find a white ad-
vantage after this.
21 .lixd4 exd4 22 .i.xb7 c6!?

Stopping White's winning plan before it

has been conceived: i.a6, a2-a3, b2-b4 and
c4-cS. 2S ...'iiVeS!? was also possible, the idea
being that after 26 ~g2 'iiVc7 27 i.a6 'iiVaS 28
i.b7 'iiVc7 the position is drawn.
26 'ittg2 1:.b8 27 .i.a6 1:.a8 28 l:re2?
28 i.b7 ltb8, with a draw, was forced.
28 ...'ii'd7 29 1:.e5 .i.d4

Keeping the bishop out of the game.

Black has some compensation for the pawn,
but after a move like 23 cst?, with the idea of
23 ...i.xcs 24 i.xc6!, a player like Karpov
would give Black a very hard time. The move
22...i.cS! was for this reason the right way to
prove compensation.
231:.d3
After 23 'iiVe2!? i.cs 24 ltd3 as 25 h4
~h8 I do not see how White can play for a
win.
23 .. :ii'e6 241:.xd4 301:.xa5
Safer is 24 cS 'iiVe1+ 25 ~g2 'iiVe4+ 26 White has now won a second pawn but he

56
 Main Line: 7 t'i:Jc3 'ikeB and 7 t'i:Jc3 t'i:Je4
has completely abandoned his kingside and
will soon be under a bad storm.
30 ... l:r.f8 31 f3 'ike7
White pieces are too far from the scene of
the action.
32 h4?
After this White is in serious trouble. He
could still defend with 32 c5! 'iie1 33 'iic4+
~h8 34 'ii'xd4! 'ii'xa5 35 .lic4 1:Id8 36 'ii'e5
1:1d2+ 37 ~h1 1:Id1+ 38 ~h2 'ii'd2+ 39 .lie2
~e 1 and now White has a perpetual with 40
'ii'e8+ ~h7 41 'ii'e4+. On 32 'iid2 comes the
reply 32 ... .lie3! 33 'ii'e1 1:Id8 followed by
...Itd2+ with good chances to fight for an ad-
vantage.
32 ...'ike1 33.lir.f5
Not 33 l:ta3? when 33 ...'ii'g1+ 34 ~h3
.lif2 35 f4 'iin+ 36 ~g4 h5+! 37 ~xh5 'iih3
wins for Black.
33 ... l:r.e8??
This logical move does not work. Black
should have played 33 .. Jh8! 34 1:If4 (34.lib7
nb8 35 'ii'e4 'ii'xe4 36 fxe4 1:Ixb7 is probably
a winning endgame for Black) 34...'ii'g1+ 35
~h3 1:Ixa6 36 'iifS 1:Ia8 37 'ii'e6+ ~h8 38
'ifxc6 1:Ig8 39 1:IfS! (39 a4?? h5 and White is
mated) 39 ....lixb2 and Black has good win-
ning chances.
34 h5??
34 c5 'ii'g1+ 35 ~h3 .lif2 36 'ii'c4+ ~h7
37 'ii'f4 would let White escape with the full
point. Now it goes the other way.
34...•g1 + 35 ~h3 i.f2 0-1
Game 24
Yermolinsky-Zelikind
Chicago 1997
1 d4 e6 2 c4 f5 3 g3 t'i:Jf6 4 i.g2 i.e7 5
t'i:Jf3 d6 6 0-0 0-0 7 t'i:Jc3 'ike8 8 J:te1 'ikg6
9 e4 fxe4 10 t'i:Jxe4 t'i:Jxe4
Not very popular but quite interesting is
10...t2Jc6 and now:
a) 11 t2Jxf6+?! .lixf6 12 .lif4 does not
promise White anything. 12...t2Jb4 (12 ...'iffS?!
13 'ii'd2 ~h8 14 d5 e5? - 14...t2Je5 was much
better - 15 dxc6! exf4 16 t2Jd4 .lixd4 17
'ii'xd4 B 18 l:te7! gave White a big plus in
Krogius-A.Zaitsev, USSR) 13 .lin 1:Id8! 14
a3 e5 15 axb4 exf4 16 .lid3 .lifS! equalises.
b) 11 d5! and now:
b1) 11...t2Je5?! 12 dxe6 .lixe6 (12 ...t2Jfg4
13 t2Jxe5 t2Jxe5 14 t2Jc5! would promise
White a clear advantage) 13 t2Jeg5 .lig4 14 h3
.lixB 15 t2JxB with a definite White plus.
b2) 11...exd5 12 t2Jh4! 'ii'g4 13 .liB 'iVd7
14 t2Jxf6+ .lixf6 15 'iVxd5+ ~h8 16 'iVh5
.lixh4 17 .lie4 g6 18 'iVxh4 and White has a
large advantage, Greenfeld-Riedel, Munich
1992.
11 l:r.xe4 t'i:Jc6 12 .lir.e1 e5
Also possible is 12... .lif6 13 .lie3 e5 14
dxe5 and now:
a) 14...t2Jxe5 15 t2Jxe5 .lixe5 16 .lid4 with
a slight edge according to Yermolinsky.
b) I believe that after 14...dxe5! Black
57
Classical Dutch
should have a nice game. In the Ilyin-
Zhenevsky the positions with the isolated e-
pawns are usually good. Of course this im-
plies that Black needs to avoid exchanging
pieces. 15 lLld2?! (15 'iVd5+! ~h8 16 l:tad1
i.g4 gives an even game) 15...l:td8! and now:
b1) 16 i.xc6? is a computer move! Hu-
mans are animals - they have instinct!
16... bxc6 17 'iVa4 c5 18 'ii'c6 :tb8 19 b3 i.b7
gives Black a dangerous attack - the white
position looks like a Swiss cheese.
b2) 16 'ili'b1 i.f5 17 i.e4 lLld4 with a
comfortable position for Black.
13 dxe5 .i.g4 14 h3 .i.xf3 15 .i.xf3
iDxe5?
For the superior 15 ... dxe5! see the previ-
ousgame.
16 .i.e4 'iff6 17 f4!
White has the advantage.
17 ...iDe6 1S .i.e3 l:taeS
18...'ii'xb2?? 19 i.xc6 bxc6 20 i.d4 would
drop a piece.
19 'ii'd2?!
19 'fih5! g6 20 'ii'b5 would secure White a
very large advantage. Black's position is very
weak on the light squares.
19...>t>hS 20 >t>g2?
TIlls move allows counterplay. 20 i.f2!
'ii'h6 (20 ...d5? 21 'fixd5 'ii'xb2? now loses to
22 'ii'h5) 21 'it>g2 still gives White some ad-
vantage.
20 ... d5! 21 'ii'xd5
21 cxd5 i.b4 is one of the points behind
58
the pawn sacrifice.
21...'ifxb2+ 22 i.f2 .i.b4 23 l:ted1?
23l:teb1 'ii'f6 24 a3 i.a5 25l::ta2 is proba-
bly still fine for White.
23 ....i.e3?
Now Black returns the favour. After
23 ....l:te5! we have:
a) 24l:tab1?? .l:txd5 drops material.
b) 24 'ii'd3?! i.c5 25 ~f1 l:txe4 26 'ili'xe4
.ixf2 27 l:tab1 'ii'd4 28 'iVf3 i.e3 29 !!fe1
i.d2 30 :e4 (30 l:ted1? lLla5! and Black wins
the c-pawn too) 30...'iVd6 would give Black
brilliant winning chances.
c) 24 l:tdb1 'iVe2 25 i.f3 l:txd5 26 i.xe2
.l:td2 and Black has the advantage, though
nothing is decided yet.
24 l:tab1 'ifxa2 25 'ifd3 l:txe4?
TIlls loses by force. It was still possible to
play 25 ...lLld8 26 l:tbc1 i.f6 27 i.xh7 lLlf7
with problems, but still with a position to
play.
26 'ifxe4 .i.d4 27 J:[xd4 iDxd4 2S l:txb7
iDe2 29 l:txa7 'ifb2 30 l:taS 1-0
Game 25
Nielsen-Boe
J\[ybot;?, 200 1
1 d4 f5 2 c4 e6 3 iDf3 iDf6 4 iDe3 .i.e7 5
g3 0-0 6 .i.g2 d6 7 0-0 'ifeS S l:te1 iDe6
9 e4 fxe4 10 iDxe4 iDxe4 11 1:txe4 'ifg6
12 'ife2
TIlls move looks logical, but it's most
 Main Line: 7 t'i':,c3 'VJke8 and 7 t'i':,c3 t'i':,e4

likely that White will not be able to prove an 16 liJh4! .i.xe2 17 liJxg6 .i.d3 18 liJxffi i.xe4
advantage. 19 .i.xe4 l:txffi 20 .i.xc6 bxc6 21 .ue 1 gave
12 ....ltf6 13 ~d2 White a winning advantage in Kauppila-
Pessi, Finland 1998) 16 liJh4 i..xh4 17 .uxh4
.uae8 18 'ii'e3 White was slightly better in
Knaak-Schmittdiel, Bad Worishofen 1992.
15 t'i':,xe5 ~xe5 16 ~c3 ~xc3 17 bxc3
c6?!

Also possible is: 13 d5 exd5 (13...liJe5 14

liJd4 looks good for White) 14 cxd5 and
now:
a) 14....i.f5 is bad because of 15 liJh4!
.i.xh4 16 dxc6 .i.xe4 17 .i.xe4 'ii'f7 18 'ii'c2!
(18 cxb7? lIae8! 19 b8'ii' lhb8 gives Black a Here Black can equalise with 17 ....i.d7! 18
clear advantage) 18... i..e7 19 cxb7 lIab8 20 lie1 (or 18 :e7 :ae8 19 i.xb7 c6! and, as
.i.xh7+ ~h8 21 .i.g6 and White has a clear Adorjan likes to say, Black is OK!) 18....uae8
advantage. (18 ... b6!? is provocative; 19 :e7 lIae8 20
b) 14...liJe5 15 liJd4 with a further split: 'ii'd2 J:txe7 21 ':xe7 'ii'b1+ with a draw in
b1) 15....i.g4?! 16 f3 .i.f5 17 liJxf5 'ii'xf5 Taylor-O'Neal, correspondence 1994) 19 c5
18 .i.e3 (18 g4! 'ii'g6 19 g5 i..d8 20 f4 liJd7 i..c6 20 ':xe8 J:txe8 21 'ii'c4+ ~ffi 22 I:txe8+
21 .i.e3 would have given White a strong at- 'ii'xe8 and a draw was agteed in Liebert-
tacking position) 18...liJd7 19 :c1 'ii'xd5 20 Farago, Szolnok 1975.
f4? (20 lhc7 with a good position was bet- 18 J:td4
ter) 20 ...liJc5 21 :d4 'ii'f5 22 :d5?! (22 18 :e7!? 'ii'f6 19 'ii'e3 with good attacking
:dd1! would still have kept White in a possibilities was also interesting.
stronger position) 22 ...'ii'e6 23 'ii'd2 ~h8 24
b4 :ae8 25 .i.f2 liJe4 26 :e1 (26 .i.xe4
'ii'xe4 27 l:hc7 was still unclear) 26 ...liJxd2
and Black won in P.Kostenko-Gavritenkov,
Moscow 1999.
b2) Betrer is 15...:e8 16 liJe6 .i.xe6 17
dxe6 c5! (17 ...:xe6 18 f4 d5 19 :e3 d4 20
:xe5 and White has a clear advantage) 18 f4
liJc6 19 'ii'c4 .i.d4+ 20 ~h1 :e7 and the
consequences are as hard to evaluate as the
result is to predict.
13... e5 14 dxe5 t'i':,xe5
After 14... dxe5 15 .i.c3 .i.f5 (15 ... .i.g4?!

59
Classical Dutch

1S .. JU6 19 cS! dxcS?! This is not a very dangerous move.

Here Black has a better defence: 19... d5! 9 ... "g6 10 b3
20 c4 dxc4 21 l:d8+ l:tfS 22 :xfS+ ~xfS and
now:
a) 23 l:tel is too optimistic. After 23 ...'ii'f7
24 'ii'e5 ~g8 25 'ii'd6 i.f5! 26 l:te7 'ii'fS 27
i.d5+ (27 Ihb7? 'ii'xd6 28 cxd6 c3 would
win for Black) 27 ... cxd5 28 'ii'xd5+ ~h8 29
l:tf7 'ii'e8 White has some problems with the
pawn on c3.
b) 23 'ii'xc4 i.f5 24 l:tel l:td8 25 'ii'b4 and
White has a little pressure, but nothing more.

White should be careful not to fall for 10

ttJxe4? fxe4 11 ttJh4 (or 11 ttJd2 e3 and
Black wins) 11...i.xh4 12 i.xe4 'ii'f7 and
B~ck wins. 12 gxh4 e3! gives us the same re-
sult.
10 ... lZ'lxc3 11 'Wixc3 .i.f6 12 .i.a3?!
In the game it quickly becomes apparent
that the bishop is not placed well here, but
belongs on the long diagonal. After 12 i.b2
ttJc6 13 "ii'd2 (with the idea of d4-d5) the po-
20 J:tdS+ lUS 21 J:txfS+ c;t>xfS 22 J:te1 sition would be level.
'Wif7 23 "eS! .i.fS?? 12... lZ'lc6
This overlooks a simple win for White.
23 ... ~g8 24 'ii'd6! (24 'ii'xc5 i.e6 would just
be even) 24...'ii'fS 25 "ii'c7! is much better for
White, but Black would have some chances.
24 'WixcS+ c;t>gS 2S J:te7"f6 26 :'xb7
White has now regained his material in-
vestment and has retained his positional ad-
vantage.
26 ...J:tdS 27 h3 hS 2S J:txa7 J:td3 29
J:taS+ c;t>h7 30 :f8 1-0

Game 26
Flohr-Sokolsky
Moscow 1954 13 J:tad1
Here it is also possible to play 13 c5 d5 14
1 lZ'lf3 e6 2 c4 fS 3 g3 lZ'lf6 4 .i.g2 .i.e 7 S ttJe5 ttJxe5 15 dxe5 i.e7 with an unclear po-
0-0 0-0 6 lZ'lc3 d6 7 d4 "eS S J:te1 lZ'le4 sition - this is probably more in the spirit of
This is the main way to prevent e2-e4. 13 i.a3. In this case Black should be careful
9 'Wic2 not to fall for ...i.d7, which is met with c5-

60
 Main Line: 7 tiJc3 ~e8 and 7 tiJc3 tiJe4
c6! winning material.
13 .....td7 14 'i'c1
14... a5!
A strong and typical move in these lines,
preparing to meet d4-d5 with ...ltJc6-b4.
15 d5 tiJb4 16 dxe6 ..txe6 17 'i'd2?
White is wasting his time. It was necessary
to change the course of the game with 17
ltJd4 .ixd4 (17 ... .ic8!? with unclear play was
also an option) 18 .l::txd4ltJxa2 19 'iid2ltJb4
20 .ixb7 .l::tab8 21 .ig2 with even chances.
17 ... f4!
Black is fully mobilised and now starts a
kingside attack.
18 l:tc1
The f-pawn is immune. 18 gxf4? .ih3 19
ltJg5 .ixg2 20 cJtxg2 h6 would drop a piece
and 18 'iixf4 .ic3 wins the exchange for no
compensation. Remember that the pawn on
a2 is also hanging.
18 .. .fxg3 19 hxg3 h5 20 ..txb4 axb4 21
'i'xb4
Capturing this pawn is very risky and not
at all appropriate. Black now has strong op-
tions for all his pieces and decides that
White's queen departure is a good reason to
increase the pace of the kingside attack with a
pawn sacrifice.
21 ... h4 22 tiJxh4 ..txh4 23 gxh4 'i'f6 24
l:!.f1 l:txa2 25 'i'xb 7
White is in trouble. 25 c5 doesn't help:
25 ... d5 26 "ii'xb7 l:txe2 27 .ixd5 "ii'xh4 28
.ixe6+ .l::txe6 29 'iid5 l:f.ff6 and the kingside
cannot be defended.
25 ... l:txe2 26 ~xc7 'i'd4 27 ~e7 l:tfxf2
28..t>h1!?
28 .....th3! 0-1
A killer. But Black should avoid 28 .. .l:hg2
29 'iie8+ cJth7 30 'iih5+, when White gets an
undeserved perpetual.
Game 27
Reshevsky-Vee
Pasadena 1983
1 d4 f5 2 tiJf3 tiJf6 3 c4 e6 4 g3 d6 5
..tg2 ..te7 6 0-0 0-0 7 tiJc3 'i'e8 8 .l:!.e1
tiJe4 9 'i'c2 'i'g6 10 tiJd2 tiJxc3 11 'ifxc3
tiJc6 12 d5
This is the only ambitious move in the po-
sition. After 12 b4? ltJxd4! Black has just
won a pawn for nothing. The tragedy could
actually now continue with 13 e3? ltJe2+! 14
61
Classical Dutch

lhe2 i.f6 and Black wins the exchange and

probably also the game.
12 ....i.f6 13 'ifc2 liJd8?!
This is slightly passive and gives White
time to take over the centre. After 13...lDd4!
14 'ilYd3 exd5 15 cxd5 i.d7 Black is fully
mobilised and has equalised. 16 e3 :ae8! is
not something he should fear. The knight
will find time to get out of trouble. One trick
is 17 l:tEl i.b5 18 lDc4 f4! and White's posi-
tion is falling apart.

22 ....i.xg2 23 'itxg2 :th6 24 h4 'iig4 25

'ilff3.1:[xh4
A big difference from the line above.
26 'ifxb7 'ifh3+?
This move puts the rook on h4 en prise.
The right continuation is 26 .. ..l::te8! 27 ~g1 f4
28 lDEl fxg3 29 lDxg3 lDg5 and Black has
very good chances of conducting a successful
attack.

14 dxe6?
This move is silly and only helps Black to
develop. Far better is 14 e4!, playing against
the knight on d8. After 14... e5 15 exfS i.xfS
16 lDe4 White has a tiny advantage.
14...liJxe6 15 liJf3 .i.d7!
Black is simply developing his pieces to
good and natural squares.
16 .i.d2 .i.c6
Black's pieces are' harmoniously placed
and are all potential attacking forces.
17 .i.c3 'ifg4 27 'itg1 'ii'h2+ 28 'itf1 'ifh1 + 29 'ifxh1
Here it was worth considering 17...i.xc3!? .l:[xh1 + 30 'itg2 .l:[xe1 31 l:!.xe1 .l:[e8 32
18 'ilYxc3 f4, starting a kings ide offensive. liJf3 as 33 e3 g6 34 .l:[d1 :tb8 35 liJd4
18 b3 .i.e4 19 'ifb2 .i.xc3 20 'iixc3 .l:[f6 %-%
21 h3 'iih5 22 liJd2?!
Here White misses 22 lDd4! with the idea Came 28
of exchanging minor pieces and arriving at an Keres-Simagin
equal position. Play may continue 22...i.xg2 Moscow 1951
23 ~xg2l:th6 24 h4 'ii'g4 25 lDxe6 l:txe6 26
'ilYf3 and the most likely outcome of this will 1 d4 f5 2 g3 e6 3 .i.g2 liJf6 4 liJf3 ~e 7
be a draw. 50-00-06 c4

62
 Main Line: 7 0,c3 ~e8 and 7 0,c3 0,e4
White can choose to either transpose to
the main lines, or to playa less aggressive set-
up with 6 b3 and now Black has tried:
a) 6...lDe4 is good only if Black is planning
to play a Stonewall set-up. Otherwise he
should attend to his remaining development
first. 7 .tb2 .tf6 8lDbd2 d5 9 c4lDc6 10 e3
as 11 a3 .td7 12 ':'c1 .te8 13 lDe1 .tfl 14
lDd3 lDe 7 15 lDf3 .th5 16 'iii'c2 .txf3 17
.txf3 c6 and White had a small advantage in
Shabalov-Spraggett, Torey 1991. Of course,
Black could have played differently a dozen
times, but that lies beyond the realms of this
book.
b) 6...d6! (we want to play the Ilyin-
Zhenevsky!) 7 .tb2 'ili'e8 8 lDbd2 as 9 a3
lDc6 10 e3 .td8 11 'ili'e2 e5 and Black has al-
ready achieved full equality, Eperejsi-
Ovetchkin, Budapest 1996.
c) 6... b6!? has some logic to it considering
the pawn structure. Given his small posi-
tional advantage, White should probably
hesitate to answer this provocation.
c1) 7lDe5?! c6 8 c4 .tb7 9 .ta3 (it is not
easy to see what White is achieving by ex-
changing the bishops) 9....txa3 10 lDxa3 d6
11lDd3 e5 12lDc2 (12 dxe5 dxe5 13lDxe5??
'ili'e7 would fork the two knights and win the
game) 12...lDbd7 13 'iic1 'ifc7 (13. ..'ife7
looks more natural) 14 'iib2 l:!.ae8 15 dxe5
dxe5 16 l:!.ad1 e4 17lDf4lDe5 and Black had
a slightly more comfortable game in Bertok-
Tolush, Baden-Baden 1957. The b7-bishop
might not look like much, but the g2-bishop
also has a lot of problems finding a part to
play.
c2) 7 .ta3!? looks better. White has a
chance to weaken Black's influence on the
dark squares in the centre. However, 7 ...d6!
still doesn't look bad for Black.
6 ... d6 7 0,c3 ~e8 8 .l:[e1 ~h5 9 e4
This is what White is heading for, so he
should not hesitate to play it.
After 9 b3 lDc6 10 d5 lDe5 11 lDxe5 dxe5
12 e4 'ifxd1 13 l:!.xd1 exd5 14 lDxd5 lDxd5
15 cxd5 .td6 the players agreed a draw in
Taimanov-Spassky, USSR 1958.
9 .tg5 lDc6 10 .txf6 .txf6 11 e4 fxe4 12
lDxe4 .td7 13 l:!.c1 l:!.ae8 14 d5 lDd8 15
lDxf6+ l:!.xf6 16 dxe6 l:!.fxe6 was also agreed
drawn in the game Malich-Hort, USSR 1972.
9 .. .fxe4 10 0,xe4 0,xe4
After 1O...lDc6 11 .tf4 White is somewhat
better. Really foolish is 11...h6 12 lDc3 g5 13
.te3 e5?! 14 dxe5 dxe5 15lDd5, when White
had a very large advantage in Gilgoric-
Dueckstein, ZUrich 1953.
11 .l:!.xe40,c6 12 .i.f4 .i.f6
13 'ili'd2
White has emerged from the opening with
a slightly freer game. Alternatives to this
natural move are the following:
a) 13 h4!? h6 14 l:!.c1 was very slightly bet-
ter for White in Winter-Mikenas, Lodz 1935.
b) 13.l:[c1 'ili'fS 14 l:!.e2 was played in Frey-
Fridjonsson, Reykjavik 1982. Now Black
63
Classical Dutch
could have played 14...ltJb4! 15 l';lal ltJd3 16
i.e3 eS with an even game.
c) 13 dS ltJd8 14 'ii'd2?! (14 ltJgS 'ii'xd1+
15 l';lxdl eS would have been equal) 14... eS
15 i..gS i.g4 gave Black the better chances
in Kubicek-Lechetynsky, Bratislava 1967.
The change in pawn structure benefits Black
as the e6-pawn is no longer weak (or on e6!),
and the pressure down the f-file is now the
most important theme in the position.
13... 'itthS 14 .l:.ae1 .i.d7 15 e5!
White is quick to create extra weaknesses
right after completing his development.
15... dxe5
IS ... dS?! 16 .l:r.4e2 nac8 17 b4 would give
White a large positional plus, with the e-file
and the attack on the queenside.
16 dxe5 e5 17 ttJxe5
17 'ii'xd7? exf4 18 l';lxf4 'ii'xcs is better for
Black. Look at the f2-pawn - it is on a dark
square just like Black's bishop.
17 ... ttJxe5 1S .i.xe5 .i.e6 19 .i.xf6!
A very strong exchange sacrifice. After 19
.l:r.4e3 i..xg2 20 <itxg2 i..xeS 21 l';lxeS 'ii'f3+
22 <itgl .l:r.ad8 Black has some counterplay,
though not really enough to compensate for
the pawn.
19....i.xe4
19...l';lxf6 20 l';leS 'ii'g6 21 i..xc6 l';lxc6 22
'ii'd7 followed by l';le8+ would win quite eas-
ily for White.
20 .i.xg7+ 'ittxg7 21 'ili'd4+ .l:.f6 22.l:.xe4
.l:.afS 23 h4
64
Maybe it was more exact to play 23
.l:r.g4+!? <ith8 24 i..xb7, when the bishop and
three pawns defeat the rook.
23 ...'itthS 24 .l:!.e7 'ii'f5 25 f4 'ii'g6 26
'itth2 .l:.Sf7 27 .l:.eS+ 'ittg7 2S .i.e4 'iig4
29 .i.d5 'ii'd7 30 'ii'e5 h6 31 .i.xf7 'ittxf7
32 .l:!.fS+! 'ittxfS 33 'ii'xf6+ 'ittgS 34 'i'g6+
'itthS 35 'ili'xh6+ 'ittgS 36 'i'g6+ 'itthS 37
'ii'f6+ 'ittgS 3S h5 'i'd1 39 'i'g6+ 'itthS 40
'ii'eS+ 1-0
Game 29
Botvinnik -Kan
Moscow 1931
1 d4 e6 2 e4 f5 3 g3 ttJf6 4 .i.g2 .i.e7 5
ttJf3 d6 6 0-0 0-0 7 b3 'ii'eS S 'i'e2 'ii'h5
9 ttJe3 ttJe6 10 .i.a3 .i.d7
lO... aS!, to make ...ltJb4 a possibility, is the
standard move here (see Game 13).
11 d5!
Now White uses the moment to seize the
initiative in the centre .
11 ...ttJdS
l1...ltJeS?? 12 ltJxeS would leave the e7-
bishop hanging, so the knight has to retreat.
12 ttJe5 dxe5 13 .i.xe7 .l:.f7 14 .i.a3!
White keeps control over the dark squares
with this move, thus making it hard for Black
to coordinate his forces.
Less would have arisen from 14 i..xd8?!
.l:r.xd8 15 dxe6 i..xe6 16 i..xb7 ltJg4, when
the b 7-pawn is possibly less significant than
 Main Line: 7 !Dc3 'WIle8 and 7 !Dc3 !De4
Black's attack on the kingside. Also 14 d6?!
cxd6 15 .i.xd6 .i.c6 16 f3 e4 does not cause
Black any concern.
14... exd5 15 !Dxd5 f4!
Black needs to create counterplay as soon
as possible.
16 ~ad1 !Dxd5
This move highlights the difference in de-
velopment and coordination between the
two armies in a very unfavourable way as far
as Black is concerned. Better was 16....i.h3!
17 tDxf6+ l:txf6 18 .i.f3 'iff? 19 l:!fe1 and
White has only a small advantage.
17 ..txd5 ..te6 18 'ifd3!
White needs to keep his mobility and
flexibility. After 18 'it'e4?! c6! 19 .i.xe6 tDxe6
20 ~h1 l:!e8 Black has good chances of cre-
ating a kingside attack.
18.....txd5 19 'ifxd5
White needs to keep his pieces in domi-
nating positions. After the weaker 19 cxd5?!
l:!f6 20 ii'c4 tDf? White should be very care-
ful:
a) Black wins after 21 'ifxc7? f3! 22 exf3
tDg5 23 l:!d3 tDh3+ 24 ~h1 tDf4!! 25 ii'xb7
l:!e8 26 'iib51Ih6 27 h4 a6 28 'ifa4 tDxd3.
b) 21 .i.e7! l:!h6 22 h4 g5! 23 'it'xc7?! (23
d6!? or 23 e3 is better, with a very unclear
game ahead) 23 ...gxh4 24 'ifxb7 .l:te8 25
.i.xh4 'ifg4 and Black has the attack.
19...!Dc6 20 ..tc5!
Taking control over d4, thereby keeping
the advantage and preventing counterplay.
20 ...~e8
After 20 ...'ifxe2 21 'it'e6 'ifh5 22 :d7 'i!VfS
23 ii'xfS lIxfS 24 1:hc7 l:!f? 25 l:!xf? ~xf?
26 gxf4 exf4 27 l:!d1 White has excellent
chances of winning the endgame.
21 b4 a6?!
This speeds up events on the queenside.
The line 21...h6 22 b5 tDd8 was the lesser
evil, but of course Black is not singing in the
rain here.
22 b5 axb5 23 cxb5 !Da5
Or 23 ... tDe7 24 'ifd7 and White starts col-
lecting his reward.
24 'ife6!
With this little tactic there begins an un-
stoppable invasion of the black position.
24 ...~a8
Or 24...l:!xe6 25 l:!d8+ and Black will be
mated.
25 ~d7 'ifg6 26 'ifd5 h6 27 ~xc7 ~e8
28 ..tb4 b6 29 ..txa5 bxa5 30 b6 'ife6 31
'ifxe6 l:txe6 32 ~b1 ~e8 33 .l:!.xf7 ~xf7
34 b7 l:b8 35 gxf4 exf4 36 ~g2 ~e6 37
~f3 g5 38 c;t;>e4 1-0
Came 30
Botvinnik -Ryumin
Moscow 1936
In annotating this game, I have translated
parts of the original annotations by Botvin-
nik.
1 !Df3 f5
65
Classical Dutch

Botvinnik, who himself played the Stone-

wall in many important games, did not like
this move order as it gives White a wide
choice of set-ups. It also gives White the
chance to go for the gambit line 2 e4!?, which
is beyond the scope of this book.
2 g3 .!bf6 3 .i.g2 e6 4 0-0 .i.e 7 5 e4 0-0
6 b3
Botvinnik: 'If Black plays 6... dS then
White can reply 7 d3, and later, with advan-
tage, carry out a break with e4. Therefore
Black chooses to employ the Ilyin-
Zhenevsky set-up.'
6 ... 'ife8 7 .!be3 'ifh5 8 'ilVe2 .!be6 9 d4 14 e5! dxe5
Via a transposition of moves we are back This is forced as 15 cxd6 would be a posi-
into main lines. tional disaster for Black. Also unplayable is
9 ... d6 10 .i.a3l:[f7 14...ltJxcs 15 j.xcS dxcS 16 ltJeS and White
This move is played to avoid the trick with wins material. Black cannot escape with
dS, ...ltJd8 and ltJeS, when the bishop on e7 16....ltJg4 as White wins after 17 ltJxg4 fxg4
hangs after ... dxeS (see Game 29). 18 l:txd7.
11 l:tad 1 .i.d7 15 .!be5 .!bd4 16 'ilVd3 .!bg4
Botvinnik: 'Possibly slightly better was This is forced by the circumstances. After
l1...eS 12 dxeS dxeS 13 j.xe7 :'xe7 141tJdS most other moves White will exploit the pin
ltJxdS 15 cxdSltJd8 16 'ii'cs 'ii'e8 17 e41tJrT on the d4-knight with 17 e3.
and Black has somewhat freed his game at
the cost of the weakened eS-pawn.'
12 d5 .!bd8
Black cannot play 12...ltJeS 13 ltJxeS dxeS
14 dxe6 j.xe6 15 j.xb7 as there is no com-
pensation for the pawn. Botvinnik stops his
line here. After lS ...ltJg4 16 h4 j.xh4 17
'itg2! (preparing l:th1) 17...j.xg3 18 l:th1
'ii'gS 19 j.xa8 j.h4 20 'itnltJxf2 21 'ii'd2! it
seems that Black's attack has been repulsed.
13 dxe6
Black was planning to play 13. .. eS.
13 ....!bxe6
Botvinnik: 'Not 13 ... j.xe6, because of 14 1 7 .!bxg4 fxg4
ltJd4. In the 1931 USSR Championship, in a Botvinnik: 'Again forced as after
game against Kan, I employed this same sys- 17...'ii'xg4 18 e3 White wins.' But this is not
tem of development for White but did not entirely true, as after something like 18... c4!?
play the important move 11 l:td1, thanks to 19 'ii'xc4 j.e6 20 'ii'xd4 'ii'xd4 21 l:txd4
which Kan managed to equalise. Now, al- i.xa3 22 j.xb7 l:tb8 23 i.dS White has a
ready with the rook on d1, White spoils clear advantage, but it not too different from
Black's pawn formation with an interesting the ending arising in the game.
combination.' 18.i.xb7

66
 Main Line: 7 lDc3 ~e8 and 7 lDc3 lDe4
After 18 e3? ius Black would be back in
the game.
18 ....l:!.af8 19 .i.d5
Botvinnik: 'Exchanges are of course very
favourable for White as the advantage of his
better pawn structure must tell in the end-
game.'
19 ....i.e6 20 .i.xe6lDxe6 21 lDe4
Botvinnik: 'A very important move. Black
threatened ...l::txf2, or even to transfer a rook
via f6 to h6.'
Now Black tries to close the d-@e with a
knight, but even though the exchange of the
white bishop for the black knight resurrects
the black pawn structure, White has a large
positional advantage as all the pawns in the
centre are on the same colour as the bishop.
21 ... lDd4 22 .i.b2 .l:!.d8 23 ~c4 ~e5 24
.i.xd4 cxd4
Or 24.. J:txd4 25 l::txd4 cxd4 26 f3 gxf3 27
exf3 with a positional advantage for White.
This was Black's best shot nonetheless.
25 f3 gxf3
Better here was 25 ....l:!.d5 (unpinning the
:f7) 26 l::td3 gxf3 27 exf3, but although
Black has not suffered material loss, he can
hardly move and would have few chances of
saving the game against the great Botvinnik.
26.l:!.xf3
Black now loses a pawn by force. After
26 ... ~f6 27 .l:!.f4! the pawn cannot be saved.
The same goes for the move Black chose in
the game.
26 ... ~d5 27 .l:!.xf7 'it>xf7
Or 27 ...'ilfxc4 28 .l:!.xg7+.
28 .l:!.xd4 ~xc4 29 .l:!.xc4 c5 30 'it>f2 .l:!.d5
31 .l:!.a4.l:!.d4
Black has no chances left to save the
game, but still tries to fight on.
32 lDc3 .l:!.xa4 33 lDxa4 'it>e6 34 'it>e3 'it>f5
35 'it>f3 'it>e5 36 e3 .i.d6 37 lDb2 'it>d5 38
lDc4 i.c7 39 'it>e2 'it>e4 40 lDd2+ 'it>f5 41
'it>f3 'it>e5 42 lDc4+ 'it>d5 43 'it>e2 'it>e4 44
lDd2+ 'it>f5 45 'it>f3 'it>e5
46g4!
Taking the fS-square away from the Black
king.
46 ... 'it>d5 47 h3 .i.d8 48 'it>e2 .i.c7 49
'it>d3 .i.g3 50 lDe4 .i.e1 51 lDg5
Botvinnik: 'Provoking an important weak-
ening of the black position.'
51 ... h6 52lDe4 .i.h4 53lDc3+ 'it>c6
Botvinnik: 'Forced. On 53 ...'it>e5 follows
54 lZ'lb5 as and the black a-pawn is very
weak. Now, however, the white king obtains
the e4--square.'
54 'it>e4 i.f6 55 lDb1 'it>d6 56 lDa3 'it>e6
57 lDb5 a5 58 lDc7+ 'it>d7 59 lDd5 .i.b2
60 lDb6+ 1-0
Botvinnik: 'There might follow 60.. .'ili>e6
61 'it>d3 ~a3 62 'it>c4 'it>e5 63 'it>b5 ~b4 64
lZ'lc4+ 'it>e4 65 lZ'lxa5 'it>f3 66 a4 'it>g3 67 lZ'lc6
~d2 68 as ~xa5 69 'it>xa5 'it>xh3 70 lZ'le5
and further struggle is useless. Or 60...'it>c6
61 lZ'lc4 ~c3 62 a3 g6 63 a4 and Black is in
zugzwang.'
67
 Classical Dutch

r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -... edge in Filip-Jezek, Prague 1953.

Game 31 a2) 12...e3!? 13 fxe3 i.g5 14ltJf1 ltJf6 15
Zinner-Flohr h3 e5 16 dxe5 dxe5 17 i.xe5 i.xh3 gave
Podebratfy 1936 Black good attacking chances in the game
' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.. Borisenko-Lazarevic, Leningrad 1964.
1 d4 f5 2 tbf3 tbf6 3 g3 e6 4 .i.g2 i..e7 b) 1O...a6?! (after this move Black is left
5 0-0 0-0 6 c4 d6 7 tbc3 'ife8 8 b3 'ifh5 with a weak pawn on e6) 11 e4 fxe4 12ltJxe4
Black has three alternatives here: ltJxe4 13 lIxe4 ltJf6 14 lIe2 lIbS (with the
a) S... c6 9 i.b2 ltJa6 10 lIc1 i.d7 11 a3 idea of ... b7-b5 - there are no other viable
ltJc 7 12 b4 as 13 'ii'b3 axb4 14 axb4 'iVh5 15 plans for Black) 15 'ii'd3 b5 16 Ihe 1 bxc4 17
b5 and White has a slightly better game, bxc4 i.dS lS h3 'ii'f5 19 'iVd2 (White has a
Sokolsky-Kofman, USSR 1947. positional advantage, but the game is not de-
b) S...ltJbd7 9 i.a3 e5 10 ltJb5 i.dS 11 cided) 19...ltJd7 20 c5!? (but not 20 lIxe6?
dxe5 ltJxe5 12 e3 ~hS 13 ltJxe5 'ii'xe5 14 ltJb6 21 l:.6e2ltJxc4 and Black is even better)
'ii'c2 a6 15 ltJc3 with advantage to White in 20 ...ltJf6? (necessary was 20... i.b7! 21 ltJh4
Najdorf-Heidfeld, Torremolinos 1961. i.xh4 22 c6 i.aS 23 cxd7 i.xg2 24 ~xg2
c) S...ltJc6 9 'ii'c2 (9 d5 should be investi- 'iVf3+ 25 ~h2 i.f6 26 i.c3 'ii'c6 27 ':xe6
gated) 9...'ii'g6 10 i.a3ltJe4 11ltJb5 i.dS 12 and White only has a small advantage) 21
d5 ltJbS 13 dxe6 i.xe6 14 ltJd2 ltJxd2 15 i.a3! ltJe8 22 d5 e5 23 cxd6 ltJxd6 24ltJxe5
'it'xd2 ltJc6 with an even game in Pettov- with a close-to-winning position in the game
Keres, USSR 1938. Sulava-Sale, Kastel Stari 1997.
9 i..b2 i..d8!? 10 a3
For 9 ...a5, see Chapter 1. Black has also After 10 e3 ltJbd7 11 ltJe2 ltJe4 12 ltJf4
tried 9...ltJbd7 10':e1 'iVh6 13 b4 c6 14 'iVc2 g5 15 ltJd3 i..c7 the
position remains unclear.
10 ... tbbd7 11 'ii'c2 e5 12 dxe5 dxe5 13
l:tad1 c6?!

and now:
a) 10...ltJe4 11 ltJxe4 (11 'iVd3 ltJdf6 12 a3
ltJxc3 13 i.xc3 ltJe4 14 i.b2 i.d7 15 ltJd2
would give White a minor advantage)
11...fxe4 12ltJd2 with a further split:
al) 12... d5 13 'iVc2 c6 (13 ... c5! 14 ':ac1
ltJf6 15 ltJf1 cxd4 16 i.xd4 e5, with good
play for Black, was better) 14 f3 ltJf6 15 ltJf1
exf3 16 exf3 i.d7 17 l:.e5 gave White a small
This move gives White the chance to seize
the initiative in the centre. It was better to
play 13. .. e4 14 ltJd4 ltJe5 15 ltJd5 c6!
(15 ...ltJxd5 16 cxd5 gives White an edge due
to the pressure down the c-file, while after
16...e3?! 17 h3 f4 18 ltJe6! i.xe6 19 dxe6

68
 Main Line: 7 tiJc3 'ileB and 7 tiJc3 tiJe4
Black does not have a sufficient attack to
compensate for his structural concessions) 16
t2Jf4 'iVh6 17 h3 ~e8 18 t2Jde6 ..txe6 19
..txe5 ..tf? with excellent play for Black.
14 b4?!
Here White had the chance to play 14 e4!
fxe4?! (not the best, but 14... f4 15 t2Je2 ..tc7
16 c5! also gives White the better chances) 15
t2Jxe4 ..tc7 16 t2Jfg5, when White is better in
every way.
14....i.c7 15 e3
After 15 c5 as 16 .l:Id2 axb4 17 axb4 e4
Black is okay.
15 ... e4 16 tiJd4 tiJe5 17 tiJb1?!
One wonders what makes anyone play
such a move. After 17 c5 ~d8 18 f3 exf3 19
t2Jxf3 ..te6 20 ~xd8+ l:txd8 21 t2Jb5!? cxb5
22 ..txe5 ..txe5 23 t2Jxe5 t2Je4! the position is
unclear. The point is, of course, that 24
..txe4? fxe4 25 'it'xe4 ~d2 26 t2Jf3 ..td5 27
g4 'it'xh2+ 28 t2Jxh2 ..txe4 leaves Black with
all the chances.
17...tiJf3+?!
Forcing moves like this one are good for
White in this position as he himself has no
active play and can only sit and wait for Black
to come running. Black probably wanted to
play this before White got time to play t2Jd2
(protecting f3), but stronger was 17 ...t2Jd3
with the idea of ... a7-a5 - Black is more than
just slightly better here.
18 .i.xf3 exf3 19 tiJd2 f4!
This is a typical pawn sacrifice. Black has
compensation on the light squares and with
this move he frees his bishop and weakens
White's kingside .
20 exf4 .i.xf4 21 tiJ2xf3 .i.g4 22 tiJh4?
White does not defend very well. After 22
~d3! ..tc7 23 t2Jh4 l:tae8 24 f3 ..th3 Black
has a lot of chances with his two bishops, but
White is still in the game.
22 ....i.xd1 23.l:1.xd1
23 'it'xdl ..te5 24 f4 'iVxdl 25 .l:f.xdl
.ixd4+ 26 i.xd4 ~ad8 would give Black
about a 90% chance of winning the end-
game.
23 ... .i.e5 24 tiJhf5
24 f3 l:tae8 25 'it'd3 b6 is another line
leading to a clear black advantage. Now
Black has a direct win.
24 ....l:I.ae8
This move is of course okay, but better
was 24...t2Jg4 25 f3 (or 25 h4 ..txd4 26 t2Je7+
~h8 27 ..txd4 t2Je5 with a winning position
for Black) 25 ... ..txd4+ 26 l:txd4 (26 t2Jxd4
t2Je3 wins) 26 ...t2Je5 27 ~f4 t2Jxf3+ and
White should resign.
25 f4 .i.xd4+ 26 tiJxd4 tiJg4 27 c5 1:I.f7
28 'ild2 1:I.fe7 29 tiJf3 tiJe3 0-1
Game 32
Arnson-Korchnoi
Leningrad 1951
1 d4 f5 2 tiJf3 tiJf6 3 g3 e6 4 .i.g2 .i.e7
50-00-06 c4 d6 7 tiJc3 'i'e8 8 'i'd3?!
69
Classical Dutch
Placing the queen in the centre is not ad-
visable.
8 ... tLlc6 9 .i.gS?!
This move is not particularly good. The al-
ternatives are:
a) 9 .ltf4 .ltd7 10 a3 as 11 l:Iab1 "ifh5 and
here Black has two plans. Firstly, to prepare
the advance in the centre with ... e6-e5 and
secondly, to organise an attack on the king-
side with ... h6 and ...g7-g5 etc. Overall, the
position is unclear.
b) 9 e4?! "ifh5! 10 l:te1 (after 10 exfS e5!
11 c5 .ltxfS 12 "ifc4+ 'iith8 13 cxd6 .ltxd6 14
dxe5 ttJg4! 15 h4 [15 exd6?? ttJce5 and the
knight on f3 is overloaded] 15... ttJgxe5 Black
is better) 10... e5! 11 dxe5 dxe5 12 ttJd5 fxe4
13 ttJxf6+ .ltxf6 14 "ifxe4 .ltfS and Black has
equalised - at least.
g ... eS! 10 dxeS dxeS 11 e4 fxe4
Even stronger is 11..."ifg6! 12 l:Ife1 'ud8
13 "ife2 fxe4 14 ttJxe4 .ltg4 and Black has
control over a lot of important squares in the
centre.
12 tLlxe4 .i.e6
Black also has the following moves at his
disposal: 12...ttJxe4 13 "ifxe4 .ltfS 14 "ifd5+
'iith8 15 .ltxe7 "ifxe7 16 l:Ife1 with equality
and 12..."iff7 13 ttJxf6+ gxf6 14 .lte3 .l:r.d8 15
"ifc2 .lte6 with even chances.
13 tLlxf6+ .i.xf6
Not so good is 13...gxf6?! 14 .lth6 "ifm
(14...:f7, with a slightly worse position, was
forced) 15 .ltxfS .ltxc4 16 'ii'd7 .ltxfl 17
70
ttJg5! and White has a clear advantage.
14 'iVe4l:td8
14...'ii'h5 15 .ltxf6 gxf6 (15 ...l:txf6?! 16
nfe 1 would expose the e-pawn to attack) 16
%:tfe 1 would be more or less even.
1S .l:!.ad1 ii'hS
Black also has 15.. .lhd1 16 .l:r.xd1 .ltxg5
17 ttJxg5 "ifh5 18 ttJf3 .ltg4 19 .l:Id3 'iith8,
with a level position.
16 .i.xf6 gxf6 17 b3 .i.fS
Black has two alternatives here:
a) 17... fS?! 18 "ifh4! "ifxh4 19 ttJxh4 gives
White a slight positional edge due to the
weakness of the e5/fS complex.
b) 17... .ltg418l:1xd8l:1xd8 19 .l:r.e1 results
in a level position.
18 'iVh4 'iVg6!
18...'ii'xh4?! 19 ttJxh4 .ltc2 20 l:Ixd8 l:Ixd8
21 f4! would give White the chance to gain
the initiative.
19 cS?!
19 l:Ife 1 with an even game was better.
N ow Black gains time.
19 ....i.d3 20 .l:!.fe1 tLld4!
White's queen is now clearly out of play
on the edge of the board.
21 'iVh3 tLlc2! 22 tLlh4?
After this move White cannot offer any
more resistance. Better was 22 "ife6+!? 'iith8
23 ttJxe5! fxe5 24 'ii'xe5+ "ifg7 (24... nf6 25
'ii'xc7 l:IdfS 26 l:Ie7 gives White a lot of un-
necessary counterplay) 25 'ii'xg7+ 'iitxg7 26
'ue7+ 'iitf6 27 l:txc7 .ltfS 28 l:Ixd8 .l:r.xd8 29
 Main Line: 7 0,c3 '¥IeB and 7 0,c3 0,e4

h4 J:td1+ 30 ~h2l:td2 and Black has a some niki 1984.

chances to win the endgame. b) 8...tLJe4!? 9 i.xe7 tLJxc3 10 bxc3 'ifxe7
22 .. :iig7 23 .i.xb7 0,xe1 24l:txe1 'ifd7 11 'ifd3 (11 J:tbl tLJd7 12 tLJd2l:tb8 13 'ifa4
24... fS 25 i.g2 'iff6, with an overwhehn- a6 seems to hold the position on the queen-
ing advantage, also seems natural. side together - the position is unclear)
25 'ifg2 e4! 11...tLJc6 12 tLJd2 e5 13 e3 i.d7 with an even
25 ... ~h8 26 'ifc6 i.b5 27 'ifxd7 i.xd7 is game in Rossolimo-Pachman, Hilversum
also very good for Black, but this is more 1947.
clean cut.
26.i.xe4
TIlls is forced, otherwise the bishop is
lost.
26 ...l:tfeS 27 .i.d5+ 'iti>hS 2S litxeS+
l:txeS 29 h3 l:te1 + 30 'iti>h2 .i.f1!

9 lite 1 0,c6 10 d5
After 10 tLJb5 tLJe8 11 i.xe7 tLJxe7 White
has no advantage.
10 ...0,e5
1O...tLJd8? 11 tLJb5! would make Black suf-
fer severely.
A nice little tactic to finish the game. Of
course it's h3 which is the problem.
31 .i.c6 '¥Ie6 32 .i.d5 .i.xg2 33 .i.xe6
.i.c6! 0-1

Game 33
Tregubov-Kobalija
St. Petersburg 1994
1 d4 e6 2 c4 f5 3 g3 0,f6 4 .i.g2 i..e7 5
0,c3 0-0 6 0,f3 d6 7 0-0 WeS S .i.g5
TIlls move is not at all dangerous for
Black.
S ...'i!ig6!? 11 .i.xf6
The natural move, but Black also has al- 11 tLJxe5 'ii'xg5 12 tLJf3 'ifg4 13 dxe6
ternatives: 'ifxc4 14 tLJd4 f4!? is unclear, but 14...i.xe6?
a) 8...tLJbd7 9 'ifb3 'ifh5 10 c5! d5 11 'ifa4 15 l:[c1! would expose the bad position of
h6 12 i.xf6 tLJxf6 13 tLJe5 with a small ad- the black queen. The line 14... c5 15 tLJxfS
vantage to White in Grivas-Palma, Thessalo- 'ii'xe6 16 e4 is also comfortable for White.

71
Classical Dutch
11 ... tt'lxf3+ 12 exf3
After 12 .i.xf3!? 'ifxf6! (12 ....i.xf6?! 13
dxe6 .i.xc3 14 bxc3 .i.xe6 15 .i.xb7 l:tae8 16
.i.dS would secure a white advantage) 13
ttJbS (13 dxe6 c6! 14 e3 .i.xe6 is slighdy bet-
ter for Black) 13... .i.d8 14 dxe6 .i.xe6 15
.i.xb7 :b8 16 .i.dS f4 the position is unclear.
12 ....txf6 13 tt'lb5 'iff7
13 ... ~f7? is completely wrong; 14 dxe6
:e7 15 f4 would give White a distinct advan-
tage.
14 f4?!
This allows Black to solve all his prob-
lems. After 14 dxe6 .i.xe6 15 ttJxc7! 'ifxc7 16
l:txe6 'ifxc4 17 f4! White still has some pres-
sure.
14... e5 15 c5
Worse would be 15 fxeS?! .i.xeS 16 'ifc2
a6 and the bishop on eS dominates the
board.
15 ... a6 16 cxd6 axb5 17 fxe5 .txe5!
Maybe White had not really realised that
Black would simply return the bishop.
17....i.gS? 18 e6 'ifg6 19 dxc7 would give
White an overwhelming advantage with three
passed pawns on the 5th, 6th and 7th ranks.
18 l:txe5 cxd6 19 l:te3
The rook is exposed here. Better is 19
l:te1!? f4 20 'ifd2 f3 21 .i.f1 with an unclear
position.
19.. .f4 20 gxf4l:ta4! 21 'ife2l:txf4
This is simply a perfect position for Black!
White can only sit and wait to see how Black
72
will irritate him.
22 l:tf1 b4 23 J:tg3
23 lIe7 'ifg6 24 'iith1 'ifh6 gives Black a
chance to attack the weakest spot in White's
position: h2.
23 ... h5! 24 .th3?
24 h3 was necessary. Now White is in
trouble.
24 ...l:te8!
24....i.xh3 25 l:txh3 l:tf5 26 'iVd2 'iVxdS 27
'ii'xb4 l:tf4 28 'iVb3 l:tg4+ 29 l:tg3 'iVxb3 30
axb3 l:tf3 31 l:txg4 hxg4 32 b4 l:.b3 33 l:td1
l:.xb4 would give White some, though not
many, chances to win the endgame.
25 l:te3 l:txe3 26 fxe3 l:txf1 + 27 .txf1
'ifxd5 28 b3 'ifg5+ 29 'it>f2 'ifh4+ 30
'it>g1 'iVg5+ 31 'it>f2 .te6 32 'iff3 'iVf5 33
e4 'iVe5 0-1
Black would eventually win this ending,
but I assume that here White lost the game
on time.
r---------------__
Game 34
Szily-Farago
Budapest 1967
1 d4 e6 2 g3 f5 3 i.g2 tt'lf6 4 c4 .te7 5
tt'lc3 0-0 6 tt'lf3 d6 7 0-0 'iVe8 8 i.f4
It is very hard to see exacdy what the posi-
tional justification is for putting the bishop
here. All I can think of are some ideas in-
volving c4-cS to try to weaken Black's queen-
side.
 Main Line: 7 4:Jc3 '¥ie8 and 7 4:Jc3 4:Je4

ter 19 ...i.d7 Black looks okay.

8 ... c6
S... liJh5 9 i.g5 i.xg5 10 liJxg5 h6 11 liJf3 12...'iiVh5!
(11 liJxe6!? i.xe6 12 i.xb7 liJd7 13 d5 i.f7 Suddenly all kinds of threats start to arise
14 i.xaS ~xaS would give an unclear posi- around White's king.
tion) 11...liJc6 12 d5 liJdS 13 dxe6 i.xe6 14 13 4:Je6 4:Jg4 14 h3 4:Jxe3
b3 liJf6 15 liJd4 gave White a slight edge in
R.Byme-Rossolimo, US Championship
1962/63. However, maybe Black can play
S...liJc6!? with the standard development
plan of ...i.d7, ... 'iVh5 and ...l:IaeS. After 9 d5
liJdS 10 dxe6 liJxe6 Black should be equal.
In this line the bishop on f4 is clearly ex-
posed.
9 'iiVb3 4:Jbd7
9.. :iih5 would allow White to obtain an
advantage after 10 ~a3! l:IdS 11 l:Ifel, when
Black's pieces are somewhat passively placed.
10 a4 a5
After the premature 10...liJe4?! 11 liJxe4 15 4:Jxf8?
fxe4 12 liJd2 d5 (12...e5? 13 dxe5 dxe5 14 Probably a miscalculation. 15 fxe3 l::tf6 16
i.e3 is just bad for Black) 13 f3! White liJc7 l:IbS 17 'it>h2 e4 would give Black good
would have the advantage as he is better pre- possibilities to create an attack, but this was
pared for the opening of the centre. still White's best path.
11 4:Jg5 e5 12 .i..e3? 15 ...4:Jxf1 16 4:Jxd7 4:Jd2 17 'iiVd1 4:Jxc4
Here White misses his chance. The line 12 18 b3?!
c5+! 'it>hS!? (12...d5 13 i.xe5! liJxe5 14 dxe5 This is too slow. The best chance is lS
liJg4! 15 liJxd5 cxd5 16 i.xd5+ 'it>hS 17 'iVb3 i.xd7 19 ~xc4+ 'iff7 20 d5 and White
liJf7+ l:Ixf7 lS i.xf7 'it'c6 19 e6 l:Ia6 20 is still kicking and screaming his way to his
l:Iadl and the position is anything but clear) execution.
13 cxd6 i.xd6 14 dxe5 liJxe5 15 l:Ifdl 'it'e7 18 ... 4:Jb2 19 'iiVd2 exd4!
would probably give White an advantage, but Now Black just wins everything.
he cannot force matters with 16l:Ixd6 'iVxd6 204:Jb6
17 i.xe5 'ifxe5 lSliJf7+ Itxf7 19 ~xf7 as af- 20 liJd5 i.g5 21 'ifxb2 i.xd7 22 liJb6

73
 Classical Dutch
J:td8 23 lLlxd7 J:txd7 24 b4 would give White
some chances to offer resistance.
20 ... dxc3 21 'ii'e3 .i.gS 22 f4 .i.f6 23
ttJxa8
White is an exchange up, but his position
is beyond help.
23 ...dS 24 'ii'cs 'ii'xe2 2S .i.xdS+ .i.e6
26 .i.xe6+ 'ili'xe6 27 J:!.f1
Or 27lLlc7 'iVd7!.
27 ... 'iIi'e40-1
. . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . have left this game in as an illustration of the
Game 35
Marin-Hamdouchi
Sitges 1994
1 d4 e6 2 c4 fS 3 g3 ttJf6 4 .i.g2 ~e 7 S
ttJf3 0-0 6 0-0 d6 7 ttJc3 ttJe4!?
This is the move that, besides 7...a5, holds
the best prospects for Black.
8 'ii'c2 ttJxc3 9 bxc3 ttJc6 10 dS
74
Here it is important to note the following
lines after 10 e4:
a) 10...lLla5 11 'iVa4 b6 12 exES i.d7 13
'iVc2 exES 14 l::tel i.f6 15 lLld2 c6 16 'fid3
-Ue8 17 J:txe8+ 'fixe8 18 lLlb3 was agreed
drawn in Cs.Horvath-Bricard, Bischwiller,
1999.
b) 10... e5! (Black has already equalised) 11
i.a3 f4! (This structure is perfect for Black.
The bishop on e 7 will do his part defending
the structure, while the bishop on c8 gets to
have all the fun.) 12 c5 c;t>h8 13l::tad1?! (Here
White is drifting. The structure is, in the long
run, very dangerous for him. Con:ect is 13
d5! lLla5 14 c4, an attempt to use the mis-
placement of Black's knight to his own ad-
vantage.) 13. ..'ii'e8! 14 d5 lLld8!. Black has
obtained a perfect version of the King's In-
dian Defence's main lines, where the race on
opposite flanks is the main agenda. Here
White has trouble creating weaknesses on the
queenside, While Black is only a few moves
away from a deadly attack on the kingside. I
way things can go wrong for White. 15 c4 b6
16 cxd6 cxd6 17 i.b4 'iVh5 18 J:td3 i.g4 19
'ii'c3 lLlb7 20 l:tb1 J:tf7 21 a4l::taf8 22 %:tb3
c;t>g8 23 c;t>h1 g5 24lLlg1 ':'f6 25 gxf4 ':'h6 26
h3 .l::f.xf4 27 f3
27 ... i.xh3! 28 lLlxh3 l:!.h4 29 f4 exf4 30
c;t>gl i.f6 31 'iVd2 i.e5 32 as g4 33 a6lLld8
34lLlxf4 J:th1+ 35 c;t>f2 :f6 36 i.xh1 'fixh1
37 c;t>e2l::txf4 38 'iVe1 'iVg2+ 39 c;t>d1 l::tn 40
 Main Line: 7 0,c3 ~e8 and 7 0,c3 0,e4
l:!.e3 tDf7 41 i..d2 i..d4 0-1 Hanko-
Ovetchkin, Pardubice 1996.
10... 0,a5 11 'ira4 e5
Here Black should have preferred
11...b6!? The point is that after 12 tDd4 e5
13 tDc6 i..d7! (13 ... tDxc6 14 dxc6 e4 15 f3
exf3 16 exf3 i..e6 17 f4 would give an equal
game) 14 tDxd8 i..xa4 15 tDe6 .l:f.fc8 Black
has a better position. Black also enjoys a
good position after 12 dxe6 i..xe6 13 tDd4
i..xc4! 14 i..xa8 'i!Vxa8. The control over the
light squares combined with a pawn is worth
more than the exchange.
12 dxe6 0,xe6 13 0,d4 .id7?
This changes the evaluation of the posi-
tion. After 13. .. tDe5! 14 f4 (but not 14 'i!Vb3?
'ilc7 15 i..e3 'ilxc4 16 i..f4 'i!Vxb3 17 axb3
tDg6 and Black is a pawn up for nothing)
14...tDg4 15 'ilb4 tDf6 Black has the better
chances.
Worse would have been 13...tDa5?! 14
tDb3 tDc6 (14...tDxb3 15 axb3 is better, but
White still has a favourable position) 15 c5
d5 16 c4 dxc4 17 'i!Vxc4, when White has a
distinct advantage.
140,xe6
White has no reason to reject the offer.
14... bxe6 15 .i.xe6 .ixe6 16 "xe6 .l:!.e8
17 'ira4 'ire7 18 .ia3 'irxe4?!
This gives away a vital pawn. After
18. ...l:f.fd8 Black is slightly worse. Now he is
in trouble.
19 'irxa7 .l:!.f7 20.i.b4!
With the obvious idea of aZ-a4.
20 .....xe2
Black has problems dealing with the pawn:
20 .. .f4 21 a4 i..f6 22 'ilb6 fxg3 23 hxg3
'ilxe2 24 as i..xc3 25 i..xc3 nxc3 26 a6 'it'f3
27 a7 .l::[c8 28 'it'xd6 and White has excellent
winning chances.
21 .l:!.fe1
21 'it'd7 'i!Vc4 22 i..xd6?? i..f6 would be a
foolish way for White to lose a good posi-
tion.
21 ... ~e4 22 "d4 d5?!
This more or less loses on the spot.
22...'ilxd4 23 cxd4 d5! (23....l:tc4 24 a3 i..f6
25 .l:txe6 l:td7 26 .l:td1 d5 27 i..c5 leaves
White in control) 24 i..xe7 l:txe7 25 a4 .l:f.c6
26 as na7 27 .l:teb1 rJ;;f7 gave Black good
chances to scrape a draw.
23 "xe4 .l:!.xe4 24 .l:!.xe6 .ixb4 25 exb4
.l:!.xb4 26 .l:!.e8+ .l:!.f8 27 .l:!.xf8+! ~xf8 28
a4
This endgame is without any chances for
Black. In order to stop the passed pawn he
will have to leave his rook in a very passive
place, after which the white king marches
into the centre.
28 ....l:!.b6 29 a5 :ta6 30 f4 ~e7 31 ~f2
~d6 32 ~e3 ~e5 33 ~d3 h5 34 :ta2 96
35.l:!.a1 d4 36 .l:!.a4 ~b5 37 .l:!.a2 ~e5 38
.l:!.a1 ~d5 39 l:.e1 .l:!.d6 40 .l:!.b1!
Precise play. White is toying with the idea
of 4O...rJ;;c5 41 .:tb6!? as the pawn ending
would win easily. After the reckless 40 .l:te7?
75
Classical Dutch
~c6 41 a6 ~c5 42 .l:r.c7+ ~d5 43 a7 .l:r.a6
Black's rook would suddenly have achieved a
perfect active position, from where it could
irritate White's king.
40 ... ~c5 41 .l:!.c1+
41 .l::tb6!? would not win on the spot as af-
ter 41....l:r.d7 42 .l:lxg6 .l:r.b7 43 ':b6 .l:te7 44
.l:r.f6 :e3+ 45 ~d2 .l:r.a3 46 .l:r.xf5+ ~c4 47
:xh5 :a2+, the d-pawn will give Black
enough counterplay to give White a serious
headache.
41 ... ~b5
After 41...~d5 42 .l:r.c4 the d-pawn is lost.
42.l:!.a1!
Threatening just to push the a-pawn. Now
Black has no choice but to leave the king as a
blockader.
42 ... ~a6 43l:!.a2 .l:!.d8 44 .l:!.a4 'ub8
Black cannot defend the d-pawn in the
long run and decides to get some counterplay
with an active rook as soon as possible. Still,
it is too late to make any difference.
45 l:!.xd4 .l:!.b2 46 l:!.d6+ ~xa5 47 .l:!.xg6
'uxh2 48 .l:!.g5 ~b6 49 l:!.xf5 'uh3 50 ~e4
.l:!.xg3 51 .l:!.xh5 ~c6 52 .l:!.e5 ~d6 53 ~f5
.l:!.g8 54 .l:!.e6+ ~d5
54... ~d7 55 ~e5 .l:r.gl 56 ~f6 .l:r.hl 57 f5
:th6+ 58 ~f7 :th7+ 59 ~g6 .l:r.h3 60 :te2
.:tg3+ 61 ~f7 ~d6 62 f6 would eventually
lead to a theoretically winning position.
55 .l:!.a6 .l:!.e8 56 ~g5 .:tg8+ 57 .:tg6 .:te8
58 f5 l:!.a8 59 .l:[b6 .l:[g8+ 60 ~6 .:tg1 61
~f7 ~e5 62 f6 .l:[a1 63 ~f8 1-0
76
Game 36
San Segundo-Vega Holm
Cala Galdana 1999
1 lLlf3 e6 2 c4 f5 3 g3 lLlf6 4 i.g2 i.e7 5
0-0 0-0 6 lLlc3 d6 7 d4lLle4 8 'it'c2 lLlxc3
9 'it'xc3
Tbis recapture is more natural than 9
bxc3.
9 ...i.f6 10 b4!?
White is playing the full-blown and quick
attack on the queenside. As this might give
White an edge, Black should seriously con-
sider 9... a5!? as a way to play the position. As
the centre is quite closed, development is of
less importance and Black might still have
time for some prophylaxis.
10 ... c5
Black has also tried 10...'ii'e7 11 .ib2 and
now:
a) 11...g5?! is too soon and does too little.
You cannot organise an attack when half of
your pieces are still, if not in the box, in their
starting positions: 12 'iWb3 g4 13 lbel lbc6
14 e3 lbd8 15 f4! gxf3 16 lbxf3 e5 17 dxe5
dxe5 18 e4! fxe4 19 lbd2 and White has a
large positional advantage. Irzhanov-Langier
1997.
b) 11...lbc612 b5lbd813 .l:r.fel g514 e4
fxe4 15 .l:r.xe4 'i'g7 16 h3 and White is a little
better, Tartar-Langier, Rogue 1997.
11 bxc5 dxc5 12 e3 lLlc6 13 i.b2
 Main Line: 7 0,c3 ~e8 and 7 0,c3 0,e4

White has a slightly more pleasant posi-
tion, but Black should not despair. He is very
close to equality. It is simply a question of
who plays the best chess from here!
13.. :ii'c7 14 ~a3
14 ~ad1 b6 15 'iWa3 .Jtb7 would give
Black time to equalise with normal develop-
ingmoves.
14... b61Sl:tab1!
White's pieces gives him good chances to
win the game.
b) 17....Jte7! is again the best try. After 18
cxb6 axb6 19 'iWc3 .Jtf6 20 "ikb4 lLlc6 21
'iWb3 lLla5 22 "ikb5 .Jta6 23 .Jte5 .Jtxb5 24
.Jtxc7 .Jtxc4 25 lLld4 .Jtxa2 26 ~xb6 White
would only have a slight initiative to show for
his efforts.

18 i..xf6 l:txf6 19 l:tbS

This is something that Nimzowitsch It is hard to see why White is not just a
would have called a mysterious rook move. pawn up for nothing.
There is more than one idea. First of all, 19 ... l:tff8 20 cxb6 axb6 21 ~b4 0,b7?!
there is an x-ray effect on the b7-square. Sec- This is a bad square for the knight. The
ondly, after dxc5 White does not have to re- idea is ...lLlc5-d3, but this is not dangerous.
capture on b2 with the queen. And thirdly, 21...lLlc6 22 1i'b2 would give White an extra
there is pure logic. There is nothing to attack pawn and good chances to win the game, but
in the d-@e, so why should the rook go no more.
there? 22 l:[xb6 0,cS 23 l:ta 1 !
1S... 0,aS 16 l:tfc1 i..b7?! Why give away the extra material?
Here Black should have played 16....Jte7! 23 ... eS?
with the idea 17 lLle5 .Jtb7 18 .Jtxb7 lLlxb7
19 d5 .Jtf6 20 lLlc6 lLld8! 21 lLlxd8 ~axd8
and Black has equalised. But maybe 17 d5!? is
better.
17 dxcS i..e4?!
Black has no idea of what he is doing. The
alternatives are:
a) 17... .Jtxb2 18 ~xb2 ~fc8 19 ~b5! (19
cxb6 axb6 20 'iWb4 lLlxc4 21 ~bc2 'iWd6 22
'ii'xd6 lLlxd6 would let Black escape with a
draw) 19...'ii'e7 20 ~c3 ~xc5 21 ~xc5 'ii'xc5
22 'ii'xc5 bxc5 23 lLle5 .Jtxg2 24 'itxg2 lLlb 7
25 .l:r.d3 and the superior placement of

77
Classical Dutch
This is played with little or no planning.
23 .. .l:1a4 24 'iib5 .l:txc4 25 'ii'xc4 fixb6 26
lLId4 i.xg2 27 <iitxg2 is technically winning
for White, but such positions are not always
easy to play in practice so Black should have
given it a try.
24 .l:!.b5 ltJd3 25 fic3 f4
Steinitz said that the player with the ad-
vantage has to attack or he will lose his ad-
vantage. Black must have misunderstood
something, or perhaps he is just hoping for
miracles.
26 ltJxe5 fxg3 27 ltJxd3 gxh2+ 28 Ilo>h1
fic6 29 .l:!.g5 .!i!.f7 30 ltJe5 fif6 31 iLxe4
'iifxg5 32 ltJxf7 1-0
After 33 i.xa8 Black is in trouble ...
Game 37
Czebe-Varga
Zalakaros 200 1
1 d4 f5 2 c4 d6 3 g3 ltJf6 4 iLg2 e6 5
ltJf3 iLe7 6 0-0 0-0 7 ltJc3 ltJe4 8 fic2
ltJxc3 9 fixc3 iLf6 10 .l:!.d1?!
Other White tries are:
a) 10 b4!? was seen in Game 36.
b) 10 i.e3 lLIc6 (1O ...fie7 with the idea e5
should give Black excellent play) 11 .:tadl
fie7 12 b4 lLId8 13 fib3 lLIf1 14 c5 g5 15
lLIel and White was slightly better in Khasin-
Simagin, USSR 1956.
c) 10 b3 'ii'e7 (10 ...lLIc6 11 i.b2 e5 with
unclear play seems logical) 11 i.a3 lLIc6
78
(11...c5!? is interesting) 12 c5 d5 13 b4 a6 14
i.b2 i.d7 15 a4lL1d8 16 e3 'iVe8 17 'iib3 b5
18 cxb6 (18 as with a slight advantage is
more logical. After 18...lLIc6 19 lLIe 1 'iVh5 20
lLId3 White has the plan B+e4.) 18... cxb6 19
'ufc1 b5 20 axb5 i.xb5 21 lLIe5 i.xe5 22
dxe5 lLIc6 23 i.fl i.xfl 24 <iitxfl 'ub8 25
l:txa6 lLIxb4 and the position is level.
Gulkov-Ovetchkin, Duban 2000.
10 ... fie711 b3e5! 12e3e413ltJe1 c5
Black is already close to being better.
14 ltJc2 ltJc6 15 'iVe1 a5 16 a3 iLd7 17
.!i!.b1 iLe8 18 'iVe2 iLf7 19 h4 .!i!.fd8 20
iLh3 g6 21 d5ltJe5
White has not been able to show anything.
The black advantage is now undisputed.
22ltJe1
22 i.b2 b5! 23 cxb5lL1S+ 24 <iith1 i.xb2
25 'l:txb2 'iVe5 26 lLIe 1 lLIxe1 27 'uxe 1 .ixd5
would give Black an overwhelming advan-
tage and a very strong centre.
22 ... h5?
This weakens the kingside for no reason.
After 22... b5! 23 cxb5 fib7 24 'iVd2 'ii'xb5
Black has a clear advantage due to all the
white weaknesses.
23 f3 exf3 24ltJxf3ltJxf3+
24...lLIg4 would give White hope: 25 e4!
l:.e8 26 .ixg4 hxg4 27 lLIg5 i.xg5 28 .ixg5
'iVxe4 29 fixe4 l:txe4 30 i.f4 .l:ta6 31 :tel
.l:txe1+ 32 .l:txe1 .l:tb6 33 .l:te3 and a draw is
the most likely result.
25 'iVxf3 .l:!.e8 26 a4 fie4 27 fixe4 .l:!.xe4
 Main Line: 7 liJc3 ~e8 and 7 liJc3 liJe4

28 'it>f2 .l:!.ae8 29 .i.g2 l:r4e7 30 .i.h3 'it>g7 'We8 15 llac1 i.d7 16 e4 l2Jb4 with an un-
This is not very ambitious. After 30 ... i.g7! clear position, Bromberger-Dobos, Bechofen
31 lId3 i.h6 Black has some practical 1998.
chances too and can play for a win. The idea
of ...g6-g5 sometime in the future is the only
active plan on the board.
31 l:re1 .i.c3 32 .i.b2 .i.xb2 33 l%:xb2 'it>f6
Y2-Y2

Game 38
Relange-Bricard
Besancon 1999

1 d4 e6 2 c4 f5 3 liJc3 liJf6 4 liJf3 d6 5

g3 .i.e 7 6 .i.g2 0-0 7 0-0 liJe4 8 liJxe4!
This is the right way to fight for an advan-
tage for White. 12... e5?
8 .. .fxe4 9liJe1 This is a very reckless pawn sacrifice. The
After 9 l2Jd2 d5 10 f3 exf3 11 l2Jxf3 (11 right way is: first development, then attack.
':xf3 i.f6 12 e3l2Ja6 13 'iit'c2 b6 14 b3l2Jb4 The line 12...i.f6 13 i.b2 b6 14l2Je5 i.b7
15 'iit'c3 c5 seems to give Black good coun- 15l2Jg4 i.e7 16 lIxfS+ i.xfS 17 'iit'd2 would
terplay; the knight is not well placed on d2 leave White with a small edge, but after
and therefore the natural recapture is with 12... b6! 13 i.b2 i.b7 14 'iit'd2 'Wd6 it's not
the knight) 11...l2Jc6 we are back in the main obvious that White has an advantage.
game. 13 liJxe5 liJxe5
9 ... d5 10 f3 exf3 11 liJxf3 liJc6 12 b3!
This is the most precise move. Black's
pawn structure in the centre is already
wrecked, so after 12 i.f4?! dxc4! (12...i.f6
gives Black counterplay according to Marin,
but after 13 l:tc1! White is somewhat better)
13 e4 b5 there is possibly not enough for the
pawn. 12 cxd5?! exd5leaves Black with a bet-
ter pawn structure - the e-pawn is ugly.
12 i.e3 is more complex, for example:
a) 12...dxc4? 13 'iit'a4l2Jb4 14l2Je5 .l:[xf1+
15 l:lxfl c6 16 i.e4 gives White a strong at-
tacking position.
b) 12...i.d7? 13 cxd5 exd5 14 ~3 gives 14 dxe5
Black major problems in the centre. After 14 1:txf8+ 'iit'xfS 15 dxe5 dxc4 16
c) 12... b6 13 lIc1 'iid7!? (natural devel- 'iit'd5+ Wh8 17 'iixc4 i.c5+ 18 Whl 'We7 we
opment with 13 ...i.b7 14 i.f4 'iit'd7 15 'iit'd2 are back to the game, only with a different
leaves White slightly better) 14 i.f4 i.a6! number of moves played.
gives Black good counterplay. 14...l%:xf1 + 15 'it>xf1 ~f8+ 16 'it>g 1 dxc4
d) 12...i.f6 13 i.f2 Wh8 (13 ... b6!? is also 17 ~d5+ 'it>h8 18 ~xc4 .i.c5+ 19 'it>h1
possible - see 12... b6 for the ideas) 14 'Wc2 ~e7 20.i.b2?!

79
Classical Dutch
White misses the chance to exploit his
lead in development. Much better is 20 i.g5!
'iVxe5 21 Itd1 i.e6 22 i.f4! 'iVfS (or
22...i.xc4 23 i.xe5 i.xe2 24 nd7 i.f8 25
:xc7 ne8 26 i.d4 b5 27 i.xa7 and White
should win) 23 'iVb5 i.b6 24 'iVxfS i.xfS 25
i.xb 7 and White has a healthy extra pawn in
the endgame.
20 ... c6 21 Si.d4
The position is still much better for White.
The question is: 'Is it enough to win?' In my
opinion the answer is, 'Yes'.
21 ... Si.a3 22 l:td1 Si.e6 23 'iVc2 a5 24
Si.e4 h6 25 Si.f3 l:tf8 26 Si.c3 'iVc7 27
'iVg6 Si.f5 28 'iVh5 Si.b4 29 Si.b2 Si.e6 30
Si.e4 'iVf7 31 'iVxf7 l:txf7 32 Si.g6
Here White misses the chance to play 32
.l:r.d8+! l:f.f8 33 l:hf8+ i.xf8 34 ~g2, when he
should win this endgame, or at least try to do
so until the end of the world.
32 ...l:tf8 33 e4??
This is an awful blunder that costs White
an exchange. After a normal move like 33 h4
he would have kept a clear advantage and
had good chances to win the game.
33 ... Si.g4 34 l:td3 il.c5! 35 Si.f5 Si.e2 36
Si.d4!
White is still able to make the draw after
this move due to his passed pawns in the
centre. After 36 l:tc3 i.d4 37 ~g2 i.xc3 38
i.xc3 b6 39 e6 the bishop would be less well
placed.
80
36 ... il.xd3 37 Si.xc5 .l::!.e8 38 il.d6 c5 39
'ittg1 il.b5 40 e6 g6 41 i.h3 c4 42 bxc4
Si.xc4 43 e7 Si.b5 44 'ittf2
44 i.e6 ~g7 45 i.eS+ Wh7 46 i.d6 is a
forced draw. Still, Black cannot win.
44 ...'ittg7 Yz-Yz
Game 39
Porat-Lys
Pizen 2001
1 d4 f5 2 g3 liJf6 3 Si.g2 e6 4 liJf3 Si.e7
5 0-0 0-0 6 c4 d6 7 b3 'iVe8 8 Si.b2
liJbd7 9 l:te1 'iVg6 10 e3 liJe4 11 liJc3
liJdf6
After 11...i.f6 12 ttJe2! b6 13 ttJf4 'iVf7 14
ttJd2 i.b7 15 'iVc2 White has a small advan-
tage.
12liJd2
The alternative knight move 12 ttJe2!? is
also a possibility.
12... d5?!
I'm not convinced that this is the best so-
lution. If Black wants to play the Stonewall,
he should do so directly in the opening.
12...ttJxc3 13 i.xc3 ttJe4 14 i.b2 i.d7 15 f3
ttJxd2 16 'iVxd2 i.f6 would have equalised
the position.
13 f3liJg5?
13. .. ttJxc3 14 i.xc3 i.d7 15 e4 is better,
when White has a small advantage. The
knight is not well placed on g5.
 Main Line: 7 lDc3 ~e8 and 7 lDc3 lDe4
14 e4
14 tiJe2, with some advantage, is also pos-
sible.
14... f4
This does not look good, but there are no
real alternatives. 14... c6? 15 exd5 cxd5 16
cxd5 and there is a problem with the bishop
one7.
15 exd5 fxg3 16 hxg3?!
Here White misses 16 h4! tiJf1 17 dxe6
tiJd6 18 tiJf1, with an overwhelming advan-
tage.
16 ... lDh517lDde4?
White continues to carelessly let Black set
up an attacking position. After 17 'iWb 1!
'iWxbl (17 ... tiJh3+? 18 ~xh3 'ii'xg3+ 19 ~g2
tiJf4 - 19... ~d6 20 tiJf1! - 20 :e2 exd5 21
'iWel tiJxe2+ 22 'iWxe2 ~d6 23 tiJf1 repulses
the attack and gives White the advantage) 18
lhxb 1 tiJxg3 we reach an unclear position.
17 ... lDxg3!
A brilliant sacrifice.
18lDxg5
White loses after 18 tiJxg3? tiJxf3+ 19
~xf3 "iVxg3+ 20 'iiihi (or 20 ~g2 n£2!)
20 ..."iVh3+ 21 'iiigl lhf3.
18 ....i.xg5 19 dxe6
19 tiJb5? ~f4! would leave White's king
all alone amongst the wolves.
19 .....txe6 20 lDe4?
This move gives Black time to develop a
winning attack. The last chance was 20 f4!
"iVf5 21 Ihe6 (21 fxg5? 'iW£2+ 22 'iiih2 l:H4
and Black wins) 21..."iVxf4 (21..."iVxe6?? 22
~d5) 22 "iVel (22 tiJd5? 'iW£2+ 23 'iiih2 "iVxb2
and Black is winning) 22 ... "iVxd4+ 23 'iiih2
'it'h4+ 24 ~h3 ~f4 25 'iiig2 'it'g5, when
Black has a strong attack for the piece, but
still the game is undecided.
20 ... lDxe4 21 l:txe4.i.f5
22 l:te5
This only forces the bishop to f4. Not im-
pressive play!
22 ....i.f4 23 l:te7 .i.d6 24 l:te2 'iVg3 25
l:td2 .i.h3 26 l:tf2 'ifh2+ 27 Wf1 l:tae8
0-1
The move .. :ii'h1+ is coming.
81
Classical Dutch

Summary
As we have seen, White has not yet proven beyond reasonable doubt that he has an advantage
after either 7.. :iIi'eS and 7 ...liJe4. It is true that both lines are risky for Black, but that is the na-
ture of the opening as a whole. In general, White is probably doing best in systems with b3 and
i.b2, but Black does not appear to have anything to fear.

1 d4 f5 2 c4 ttJf6 3 g3 e6 4 ~g2 i.e7 5 ttJf3 0-0 6 0-0 d6 7 ttJc3

7 b3 'ileS S i.b2liJbd7 9 .l:te1 'ilg6 10 e3liJe4 11liJc3 - Game 39
7 .. :ifeS
7 ...liJe4
SliJxe4 - Game 38
S 'iIc2 liJxc3
9 bxc3 - Game 35
9 'ilxc3 i.f6 (0)
10 b4 - Game 36; 10 .l:.d1 - Game 37
S .l:!.e1
S 'ild3 - Game 32; S i.gS - Game 33; S i.f4 - Game 34
S b3 'VWhs
9 i.b2 - Game 31
9 'iWc2liJc6 10 i.a3
1O... aS - Chapter 1; 1O ...1:1fl - Game 30; 10... i.d7 11 dS - Game 29
S .. :ifg6 (0)
S...'ilhS - Game 28
S...liJe49 'ilc2 'ili'g6
10 b3 - Game 26; 10 liJd2 - Game 27
9 e4 fxe4 10 ttJxe4 ttJxe4 11 .l:!.xe4 (0) e5
11...liJc6
12 .l:te1 i.f6 - Game 24 (notes)
12 'ili'e2 i.f6 - Game 25
12 .l:!.e 1 ttJc6 13 dxe5 i.g4 14 h3 i.xf3 15 ~xf3 dxe5 - Game 23
1S...liJxeS - Game 24

9 ... i..f6 8 ... "iig6 11lhe4

82
 CHAPTER FOUR I
Main Line:
White Plays b2-b4

1 d4 f5 2 c4 e6 3 g3 tiJf6 4 ~g2 ~e 7 5
tiJf3 0-0 6 0-0 d6 7 b4
The b4 system against the Classical Dutch
has never been considered a main line, but it
is nonetheless one of the most dangerous
ideas that White can employ. By advancing
quickly on the queenside, White forces Black
to create counterplay in the centre or the
queenside with great pace, or else White will
take over the initiative and Black will find
himself struggling.
Games 40-42 deal with White playing b2-
b4 as early as move seven, so that Black is
not able to prevent this idea with ... a7-a5 (as 7 ...'ii'e8
in Chapters 1-2). Games 43-45 see the move Black has also tried:
order 7 tbc3 'iVe8 8 b4, while Games 46-48 a) 7...e5 8 dxe5 dxe5 9 tbxe5 and now:
concentrate on the line 7 tbc3 'iVe8 8 'iic2 a1) 9... i.xb4 10 ~3 c5 (this is forced; af-
'iVh5 9 b4. ter 1O... i.c5? 11 i.xb7 i.xb7 12 'iixb7 i.d4
13 i.b2 i.xb2 14 'iixb2 White is just a pawn
Game 40 up, while following 1O...tba6? 11 c5+ ~h8 12
Baburin-Heidenfeld tbt7+ l:txt7 13 'iVxt7 Black does not have
Kilkemry 2000 compensation for the exchange) 11 a3 'iie7
' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.. 12 axb4 'iVxe5 13 i.b2 and White is a good
1 d4 e6 2 c4 f5 3 g3 tiJf6 4 ~g2 ~e 7 5 deal better.
liJf3 0-0 6 0-0 d6 7 b4 a2) 9...'iixd1 10 l::txd1 i.xb4 11 tbd3 i.e7
This is an interesting but not very popular 12 i.f4 and White has the advantage, Levitt-
move. In my opinion it is White's best Williams, British League 2000.
chance to fight for an advantage. After 7 b) 7...c6 8 i.b2 and now:
tbc3 Black can play both 7...a5 and 7...tbe4 b1) 8. .. d5 is somewhat of a misunder-
with good chances for equality. standing. Black played the Ilyin-Zhenevsky,

83
Classical Dutch
not the Stonewall! What Black did not realise
is that White can playa queenside advance in
the Stonewall, even though this is not his
usual plan. 9 c5 b6 10 tiJbd2 as 11 a3 axb4
12 axb4l:ha1 13 'iVxa1 ~a6 14l:te1 'iVc7 15
~c3 and White can play for a win without
any risk. In Smyslov-Letzelter, Monaco 1968,
the former World Champion shows us how:
15 .. Jie8 16 tiJg5 ~f8 17 f3! 17... bxc5 18
bxc5 f4? (18... e5 19 e4 dxe4 20 fxe4 exd4 21
~xd4 and White is only a little better) 19
~a5 'iIIe7 20 gxf4 tiJh5 21 e3 e5 22 dxe5
'iIIxc5 23 tiJb3 'iIIa7 24 ~h1 ~c4 25 tiJd2
~d3 26 ~h3 h6 27 tiJe6 'iIId7 28 'iVd4 and
Black resigned. White wins after 28. .. ~a6 29
tiJxg7 tiJg3+ 30 ~g2 'iVxg7 31 hxg3.
b2) Much stronger is 8...'iVe8 9 tiJc3
tiJbd7 10 b5 'iIIh5 11 a4 e5! 12 e3 e4 13 tiJd2
'illh6 with unclear play. Black's plan is the
following: ...l:tf7, ...tiJf8, ...g7-g5, ... ~d7,
...tiJg6 and then he is ready for the big break-
through.
8 .i.b2 ttJbd7
This is probably not a good path. The
right move appears to be 8...tiJc6, as shown
in Game 46. Black has also tried 8...'iVh5 and
now:
a) 9 tiJbd2 tiJbd7 10 'iVc2 e5 11 dxe5 dxe5
12 c5 e4 13 tiJd4 tiJe5 (13. .. tiJd5!? is a possi-
ble improvement) 14 f4 tiJeg4?! (14... tiJf7 15
tiJc4 would have kept White's advantage to a
minimum) 15 'iIIb3+ ~h8 16 h3 tiJh6 17
l:tfdl c6 18 tiJc4 and White is certainly bet-
ter, Birukov-Vager, St. Petersburg 1997.
b) 9 tiJc3 (the most natural) 9...g5!? 10 e3
tiJe4 11 tiJd2 'iVxd1 12 l:taxd1 tiJxc3 13
~xc3 ~f6 14 f4 tiJd7 15 e4 gxf4 16 exfS
exfS 17 ':xf4 ~g5 18 .l:.ff1 and White has a
small advantage, Mandl-Bocksberger, Ger-
many 1995.
9 ttJbd2
9 tiJc3!? looks more logical, while also
possible is 9 'iVb3 ~d8!? (I find that this
move is usually way too slow; 9...'illh5 10 c5,
with an edge to White, is probably better) 10
tiJc3 ~h8 11 c5 d5 12 a4 c6 13 tiJa2 ~c7 14
84
tiJcl e5 15 tiJxe5 tiJxe5 16 dxe5 ~xe5 17
tiJd3 ~xb2 18 'iVxb2 and White has a clear
advantage, Moskalenko-Sizykh, Alushta
1997.
9 ...ttJe4 10 ttJxe4
In a rare game of mine from this book,
Black escaped trouble after the sequence 10
'iVb3 'iVh5?! (1O... tiJdf6 11 a4 'iVh5 12 e3 g5,
with an unclear game, was better) 11 d5 (11
tiJxe4! fxe4 12 tiJd2 'iVxe2 13 tiJxe4 gives
White the advantage) 11...exd5 12 cxd5 ~f6
13 e3 ~xb2 14 'iVxb2 tiJdf6 15 'iVd4 'iVf7 16
tiJxe4 fxe4 17 tiJg5 'iVxd5 18 'iIIxd5+ tiJxd5
19 ~xe4 (19 tiJxh7?! does not work: 19...l:tfS
20 ~xe4 .l:1e5 21 ~g6 [or 21 ~b1 tiJc3 22 f4
l:txe3 23 tiJg5 as and Black has the initiative]
21...tiJe7 22 ~bl nh5 23 h4 l:txh7 24
~xh7+ ~xh 7 and the endgame favours
Bl~ck) 19 ...tiJf6 20 ~g2 h6 21 tiJe4 tiJxe4 22
~xe4 c6 with complete equality in Ehren-
feucht-Pinski, Warsaw (rapid) 2002.
10 ...fxe4 11 ttJd2 d5 12 'i'b3 c6 13 b5
~h8
Black needs to keep the control over the
b8-square. After 13. .. tiJf6 14 bxc6! (14 f3!?
14... exf3 15 nxf3 dxc4 16 tiJxc4 cxb5 17
tiJe5 with compensation is an interesting al-
ternative) 14... bxc6 15 nab1 White would
have the advantage.
14 f3
14 bxc6 bxc6 15 .l:.ab1 l:tb8 16 'iVa4 'illh5
would give Black sufficient counterplay.
14....i.g5

14... ex£3 15 lIx£3 l:tx£3 16 'iVx£3 would
leave White too much in control.
15 e3
15 f4 iL.f6 (lS ... iL.e 7?! 16 iL.a3! gIves
White a positional advantage) 16 bxc6 bxc6
17 'iVc2 iL.a6 would result in an unclear posi-
tion.
15 ... exf316liJxf3
The alternatives are not dangerous for
Black:
a) 16 l:tx£3 l:tx£3 17 iL.x£3 cxbS 18 cxbS
ttJf6 19 l:tel iL.d7 20 a4 l:f.c8 and the position
is completely even.
b) 16 iL.x£3 cxbS (16 ... eS?! does not work
tactically: 17 cxdS exd4 18 iL.xd4 cS 19 iL.c3
iL.xe3+ 20 ~g2 and after l:f.ae 1, Black will
find himself in major trouble) 17 cxbS (17
cxdS exdS 18 l:tae1 ttJf6 19 iL.xdS iL.h3 20
iL.g2 iL.xg2 21 ~xg2 iL.h6! gives Black good
counterplay against the white centre)
17... ttJf6 with a balanced position.
16 ... dxc4?
This move should have been punished.
After 16...iL.h6 (the natural square for this
bishop, keeping an eye on e3) 17 bxc6 (17 g4
dxc4 18 'iVc3 cxbS 19 gS l:tx£3 20 l:[x£3
iL.xgS 21 a4 bxa4 22 'iVxc4 ttJb6 would give
Black three pawns for the exchange and a
better position) 17... bxc6 18 iL.a3 (18 g4?
iL.a6! immediately puts White in his own cof-
fin) 18 ...:0 19 ttJd2 iL.a6 an unclear struggle
lies ahead.
17 'i'xc4?
Main Line: White Plays b2-b4
Here White should have played in a less
forcing fashion with 17 'iVc3! and now Black
has two possibilities:
a) 17...iL.h6?! 18 bxc6 bxc6 19 g4! with a
further split:
a1) 19... iL.b7 20 gS l:tx£3 21 .u.x£3 iL.xgS
22 .l:!.afl is just very good for White.
a2) 19...'iVd8 20 h4 and White has a strong
initiative. In fact, Black has no better move
than 20...l:f.x£3.
a3) 19 ...'ii'g6? 20 ttJeS! just wins after
20.J:txf1+ 21 l:txfl 'ii'e8 22 iL.xc6 l:tb8 23
iL.a3.
a4) 19 ... ttJf6 20 gS ttJe4 21 'iVa3 also ex-
poses the problems of the back rank. The
main line is 21...ttJxgS 22 ttJxgS l:txf1+ 23
l:txfl iL.xgS 24 'iVfB+ and Black is getting
mated.
b) 17...iL.f6 18 bxc6 bxc6 19 ttJd2! (19
'iVxc4 cS 20 ttJeS with a strong initiative for
White is also possible) 19... ttJb6 20 iL.a3l:f.0
21 ttJxc4 gives White a clear advantage.
17 .....txe3+ 18 ~h1 cxb5 19 'ii'xb5
..th6!
Excellent defence. After 19...ttJf6? 20
'iVe2! iL.h6 21 iL.a3 l:f.g8 (or 21...l:f.0 22 ttJeS
and White wins the exchange) 22 ttJeS White
is close to winning. Black simply cannot de-
velop freely.
20 J:[ae1
This rook needs to enter the scene of ac-
tion. After 20 ttJeS?! ttJxeS 21 'iVxeS iL.d7 22
lhfB+ 'ii'xfB 23 iL.xb7 l:tc8! Black is suddenly
85
Classical Dutch
ahead in development and on his way to tak-
ing over the initiative. Note that 24 i.xc8
'iff3+ 25 'iitg1 i.e3+ is not an option for
White.
20 ... ttJf6 21 'i'b3
21 'ii'xe8 l:txe8 22 ttJe5 with good com-
pensation for the pawn was another viable
option.
21 ... i.d7 22 i.a3 i.a4 23 'ii'xe6 'ii'xe6
24 .li!.xe6 lUeS 25 l:txeS+ lIxeS 26 ttJe5
i.e3 27 ttJf7 + >ti>gS 2S ttJd6 .li!.dS 29 d5
White should not be tempted into 29
l:txf6?? gxf6 30 i.d5+ 'iitg7! 31 ttJf5+ 'iitg6 32
ttJxe3, when Black has the counter-
combination 32 .. .l::txd5! 33 ttJxd5 i.c6. Not
only is the knight lost but also the pawn on
a2, giving Black a realistic hope of converting
an extra pawn into a full point.
29 ... b6 %-%
Game 41
Edvardsson-Grivas
Panormo 2001
1 d4 f5 2 g3 d6 3 i.g2 ttJf6 4 ttJf3 e6 5
c4 i.e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 b4 a5 S b5 'ii'eS 9
a4 ttJbd7 10 i.b2 'ii'h5 11 ttJbd2 .li!.bS
This move makes good sense as it takes
care of the development of the c8-bishop.
The alternatives are less attractive:
a) 11...ttJe4 12 ttJxe4 fxe4 13 ttJd2 d5 14
i.a3! i.xa3 15 l::txa3 and White has a struc-
tural advantage.
86
b) 11...g5 12 'iVb3 .~.f7 13 e3 ttJfB 14 ttJe1
ttJg6 15 f4! and White's queenside offensive
seems to move faster than Black's on the
kingside.
12 lIc1 b6
Also interesting is 12 ...c5!? 13 e3 b6 with
unclear play.
13 i.a3 i.b7 14 ttJe1 i.xg2 15 >ti>xg2
f4?!
Black underestimates White's reply. The
position would have remained unclear after
15... e5 16 dxe5 ttJxe5 17 ttJd3 l:.be8 18 ttJf4
'iVf7 19 'ii'c2, when Black can go for three re-
sults after 19...g5!? 20 ttJd3 'iVh5.
16 e4 'ii'g6
16...'ii'xd1 17 l:txd1 fxg3 18 hxg3 is better
for White as Black has space problems and a
bad bishop.
17 e5 ttJg4 1S ttJef3 lIbeS 19 exd6 cxd6
20 'ii'e2 e5 21 'ii'e4 'i'xe4 22 ttJxe4 d5
Black should probably have tried 22... fxg3
23 hxg3 exd4 (23 ...l:txf3?! 24 'iitxf3 ttJh2+ 25
'iite3 ttJxfl + 26 l:txfl exd4+ 27 'iitxd4 would
give White very good chances to win the
endgame) 24 ttJxd4 (24 ttJxd6 i.xd6 25
i.xd6 l:t.xf3 26 'iitxf3 ttJh2+ 27 'iitg2 ttJxfl 28
'iitxfl d3 29 l:.d 1 l:.e4 30 l:txd3 l:.xc4 gives
Black good counterplay) 24...i.f6 25 ttJxf6+
l:txf6, when Black has good practical
chances, even if White is slightly better.
23 i.xe7 dxe4 24 i.xfS exf3+ 25 >ti>h3
h5 26 i.d6 exd4 27 gxf4
Black does not have enough compensa-

tion for the sacrificed exchange.
27 ... lL'ldf6 28 c5 lL'le4
After 28. .. d3 29 cxb6 dZ 30 l:.al lbe4 31
.ic7lbgxf2+ 32 ~h4 dl'iV 33 l:.axdl lbxdl
34l!xdl White's b-pawn decides the game.
29 ~c7 lL'lxc5 30 ~xb6 lL'ld3
31 ~xd4!
The simplest. Now the endgame becomes
easier for White to controL That said, White
also wins after 31 ~g3! lbxc1 321Xxc1 d3 33
.ixaS.
31 ... lL'lxc1 32 .l:txc1 .l:!.e4 33 b6!
Winning the exchange again.
33 ....l:!.xd4 34 b7 lL'lxf2+ 35 ~g3 lL'le4+
36 ~xf3 .l:!.b4 37 .l:!.c8+ ~h7 38 b8'ili
.l:txb8 39 .l:!.xb8 lL'lc3 40 .l:!.a8 lL'lxa4 41
.l:!.xa5 lL'lb6 42 lhh5+ ~g6 43 .l:!.c5 lL'ld7
44 .l:tc6+ lL'lf6 45 .l:ta6 ~5 46 h3 ~g6
47 .l:!.a 7 ~h6 48 ~g3 ~g6 49 .l:!.a5 ~h6
50 ~h4 ~g6 51 f5+ ~h6 52 .l:!.a6 ~h7
53 .l:!.b6 ~h6 54 .lite6 ~h7 55 ~g5 lL'ld5
56 h4 ~g8 57 .l:!.d6 1-0
r-----------------.
Game 42
Krush-N.Pert
Hastings 2001/02
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.. lbfd2?! does not really work because the ob-
1 d4 e6 2 c4 f5 3 g3 lL'lf6 4 ~g2 ~e 7 5
lL'lf3 0-0 6 0-0 d6 7 b4 lL'le4 8 ~b2 a5
S....if6 is not a good plan at all. A good il- terrible for White] 16 ...lbxe3 17 fxe3 .ixe3+
lustration are the following games:
a) 9 'lWb3 ~hS 10 lbc3 c6 11 lbxe4 fxe4
12 lbd2 dS 13 B. Black's pieces are not de-
Main Line: White Plays b2-b4
veloped, so White has a clear advantage, Lev-
tchouk-Charbonneau, Quebec 1997.
b) 9lbbdZ 'iIIe7 10 lbxe4 fxe4 11 lbd2 dS
12 'lWb3 c6 13 bS! 'i'n 14 B dxc4 15 lbxc4
'iIId716 bxc6lbxc6 17 e3 bS IslbdZ exB 19
.ixB .l:r.bS 20 l:tac1 .l:tb6 21 lbe4 lbaS 22
lbxf6+ l:i.xf6 23 'ill c3 and White again has a
clear advantage, Stefansson-Heidfeld,
Panormo 200l.
c) 9lbc3! (the simplest) 9...lbxc3 10 .ixc3
lbd711 'iWc2lbb612lbd2 dS 13 cSlbd7 14
bS and White has a very large advantage,
Milos-Pelikan, Sao Paulo 2000.
9 a3?!
This is slow. It is better simply to play 9
bS 'iWeS 10 lbfd2 dS 11 lbxe4 fxe4 12 lbc3
c6 13 a4 with a small advantage.
9 ... axb4 10 axb4 .litxa1 11 ~xa1 b5!?
This pawn sacrifice is positionally unjusti-
fied as Black cannot keep control of the light
squares in the centre and has problems pro-
tecting the c7-pawn. But there is a tactical
justification.
12 cxb5lL'ld7 13 d5!?
White is afraid of the dS-square, but after
13 'i'c2!? lbb6 14 lbfdZ (14 .l:tc1 lbdS 15
vious IS....igS! 16 e3 [16 f4 lbxf4 17 gxf4
.ixf4 ISlbxe4 fxe4 with the idea of ...'i'h4 is
IS ~f1 .id7! gives Black good play for the
piece) 14... dS 15 l:.c1 lbxd2 16 lbxd2 .id7,
Black is also in the game.
87
Classical Dutch
13 ... e514lbfd2
14 'iWc2 ttJb6 15 l:td1 i.d7 16 ttJa3 'iWa8!
looks good for Black.
14...lbxd2 15 'i'xd2 lbb6 16 lbe3
Interesting is 16 e4!? i.g5! (16 ... fxe4 17
ttJc3 i.g5 18 'iWe2 e3! gives Black a pleasant
game too) 17 f4 (17 'iWc2 f4 is dangerous for
White) 17...i.h6 with an unclear position.
But not 17... exf4?! 18 gxf4 i.h6 19 e5 dxe5
20 i.xe5 l:te8 21 'iWc3, which would give
White the advantage.
16 ...i.d7 17 e3 'i'a8 18 i.b2 lbe4 19
'ilfe2 lbxb2 20 'i'xb2 e4 21 lIa1 'ilfb7 22
i.f1 i.f6 23 .!:ta5 .!:tb8 24 'i'a3 'ilfe8
Black prepares to answer l:ta7 with ... ~b7
because 24...i.e5 25 l:ta7 'iWc8 26 i.h3!
would give White the better chances. Then
26 ... ~b7 27 ttJxe4! l:txa7 28 'iWxa7 fxe4 29
i.xd7 'iWxd7 30 b6! wins for White.
25 i.e4
25 l:ta7l:tb7 26l:ta8l:tb8 is a draw. Maybe
White should start thinking along those
lines .. .
25 ...'ilfe8 26 J:ta7 .!:te8 27 .!:ta5
27 i.n i.xc3 28 'ii'xc3 i.xb5 29 i.xb5
'iWxb5 30 'ii'c6 was another possibility. After
30 ...'ii'e2!? Black would keep the balance.
27 ....!:tb8 28 .!:ta7 .!:te8 29 .!:ta5 lIb8 30
lbe2
30 .l:[a7, with a draw, should be consid-
ered.
30 ...i.xb5 31 i.xb5 .!:txb5 32lbf4
After 32 l:[xb5! 'ii'xb5 33 ttJf4 ~f7 34
aa
'ikc1 White has a very small advantage, but
generally the position is drawish.
32 ....!:tb8 33lbe6 h6 34 .!:ta7 'ilfh5?!
Both players are probably running short
of time around here. Better was probably
34... c5!, with the idea of 35 bxc5 ~b 1+ 36
~g2 l:ta1 37 'ii'xa1 i.xa1 38 :xa1 dxc5 39
.l:[a7 g5 40 ttJxc5 'ii'd8 41 ttJd7 'ii'e7 42 .l:I.b7
'ii'd6 and Black might have some winning
chances.
35 'ilfa4 'it>h7 36 lbxe7 'ife2 37 b5 i.e3
38lbe6??
A terrible blunder. After 38 'iWa2 Black
has nothing better than 38 ...'ii'd1+ 39 ~g2
'iWf3+ with a perpetual check.
38 ....!:txb5 39 'ifa2 .!:tb2! 0-1
Game 43
G. Buckley-N. Pert
British Championship, Torquqy 1998
1 d4 e6 2 e4 f5 3 g3 lbf6 4 i.g2 i.e7 5
lbf3 d6 6 0-0 0-0 7 lbe3 'ilfe8 8 b4 lbbd7
Alternatively:
a) 8...a5!? 9 b5 ttJbd7 10 a4 e5 11 c5 h6?
(11...exd4 12 cxd6 i.xd6 13 ttJxd4 ttJc5 14
i.a3 would have given approximate equality)
12 dxe5 dxe5 13 c6 bxc6 14 bxc6 ttJb6 15
'iWb3+ ~h7 16 ttJxe5 i.b4 17 ttJd7! and
White has a clear advantage. Sarkisian-
Hobart, Houston 1999.
b) 8... i.d8 (this plan is too slow) 9 c5! (9
'ikc2 would miss the chance; after 9... e5 10

dxeS dxeS 11 nd1 c6 the position is equal)
9... eS 10 dxeS dxeS 11 e4! 'ith8?! (it was bet-
ter to play 11...fxe4 12 tLlgS - 12 tLlxe4 also
gives White some advantage - 12...tLlc6 13
tLlgxe4 tLlxe4 14 tLlxe4 with some advantage
to White) 12 exfS! ~xfS 13 ne1 e4 14 tLlgs
tLlc6 15 tLlgxe4 tLlxe4 16 tLlxe4 with an extra
pawn for White in Pezerovic-Rasidovic, Bi-
hac 1999.
9 'ifb3 h6?!
This is too slow. When Black wants to
play ...g7-gS, he normally plays something
like ...'ii'hS or ...tLle4 first. The move ... h7-h6
does nothing to enhance Black's position.
After 9...c6 White has the following two
paths:
a) 10 ~f4 'ifhs (1O...tLle4 11 tLlxe4 fxe4
12 tLld2 dS 13 f3 would give White the initia-
tive in the centre) 11 bS tLle4 12 tLlxe4 fxe4
13 tLld2 cxbS 14 cxbS dS with an unclear po-
sition.
b) 10 ~b2 'ifhs 11 a4 tLle4 12 as tLldf6 13
bS tLlxc3 14 ~xc3 cxbS 15 cxbS ~d7 with
even chances in a rather unbalanced position.
10 d5?
This is simply a positional mistake. After
the typical 10 cS! Black has serious problems.
Play may continue 10... ~d8 (10...dS 11 tLlbS
iLd8 12 ~f4 gives White a clear advantage
too) 11 cxd6 cxd6 12 a4 and Black has no
good plan, while White can improve his posi-
tion with ~a3, b4-bS, nfd and tLlf3-d2-c4
with heavy pressure on Black's centre and
Main Line: White Plays b2-b4
queenside.
10 ... e5 11 c5 :tf7?!
This is too passive. Better is 11...'ii'f7 12
tLlbS (12 cxd6?! ~xd6! 13 nd1 tLlb6 would
give Black a superior structure and therefore
a small advantage) 12... e4!? (Fritz wants to
see the proof112 ...tLle8 13 ~b2 ~f6 14 cxd6
cxd6 15 tLld2 a6 16 tLlc3 e4 17 l:.ad b6
would give an interesting position with
chances for both players.) 13 tLlfd4 tLlxdS 14
tLlxfS tLl7f6 15 tLlxe7+ 'ii'xe7 16 cxd6 cxd6
17 tLlc3 ~e6 18 tLlxe4 tLlf4 19 tLlxf6+ l:hf6
20 'ii'd1 tLlxg2 21 'itxg2 ~c4 and Black has
good compensation for the sacrificed mate-
rial.
12.i.a3?
This is silly - White loses a pawn without
compensation. After 12 tLlbS! 'iid8 13 Si.b2
a6 14 cxd6 cxd6 15 tLlc3 White would be
slightly betrer.
12... dxc5 13 bxc5
After 13 tLlbS c4! (probably this is what
White overlooked) 14 'ii'c2 (14 'ii'xc4??
14...tLlb6 would drop a piece) 14... ~d8 15
tLlc3 tLlb6 16 nad1 ~d7 Black has a close-
to-winning advantage.
13 ...lbxc5 14 'ifc4lbce4 15 .i.xe7 'ili'xe7
16 l:.ac1 lbd6 17 'ili'b3 .i.d7 18 l:.fd1 ne8
Now Black is in full controL
19 lba4 .i.xa4 20 'ili'xa4 a6 21 lbe1 'ili'd7
22 'ili'xd7
White's position is of course lost, but he
should still have kept the queens in order to
89
 Classical Dutch

create some counterplay later. i.xfS 15 Itae 1 i.g5 was equal in

22 .. Jbd7 23 ttJd3 b6 24 f4 ttJf7 25 fxe5
ttJxe5 26 ttJf4 ttJeg4 27 l:td3 ttJe3 28 .i.f3
g5 29 l:te6 l:td6 30 .l:txd6 exd6 31 ttJe6
ttJexd5 32 l:txd5 l:txe6 33 .l:txf5 'iti>g7 34
'iti>f2 l:te7 35 i.g2?!
This invites the knight into the position.
35 g4l:[c7 would give Black a 90% chance of
winning the endgame. Now it's much higher
than that!
35 ...ttJg4+ 36 'iti>e1 ttJe3 37 l:tf2 ttJxg2+
38 l:txg2 l:te3!
Cs.Horvath-Danner, Budapest 1994.
9 'ii'b3
A good alternative is 9 c5!? as! (9 ...a6?!
would give White too much space; 10 l:[b1
liJe4 11 'i'c2 1Wg6 12 i.f4 with an advantage
for White) 10 cxd6 i.xd6 11 bxa5 l:ha5 12
'i'b3 liJc6 13 a4 with an unclear position,
Dus Chotimirsky-Rovner, Vilnius 1947.
9 ... 'iti'h8 10 e5 ttJe6
After 1O...liJe4 11 i.b2 i.f6 12 cxd6 cxd6
13l!ac1 White stands a little better.
11 b5 ttJd8 12 .i.a3 ttJf7

White is completely dominated.

39 'iti>d 1 l:ta3 40 e4 'iti>f6 41 l:te2 'iti>e5 0-1 13l:tae1?!
White loses a second pawn and the game. Here White misses the most dangerous
r------------------. continuation: 13 c6! liJe4 (13...liJd8 141Wa4
Game 44 liJe4 15 l::tfc1 i.f6 16l:tab1 looks very dan-
Vaganian-Andersson gerous for Black) 14 'i'c2 bxc6 15 bxc6 with
Groningen 1969 a complex position, where White possibly
' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -... has the better chances.
1 d4 e6 2 e4 f5 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 g3 i.e7 5 13 ... g5 14 exd6
i.g2 0-0 6 0-0 d6 7 ttJe3 We8 8 b4 'ii'h5 14 c6!? is still a good move.
This move is risky as White has a free 14... exd6
hand on the queenside. Black could also try 14... i.xd6 15 ':'c2 g4 16 liJd2 would be
the following moves: slightly better for White.
a) 8...a5 9 bxa5 (9 b5 with a slight advan- 15 ttJd1 f4!
tage is more logical) 9...liJc6 10 d5 liJxa5 11 Black is playing the attack with great pre-
dxe6 c6 12 liJd4 'iib5 13 h3 liJxc4 14 1Wd3 cision - now liJe3 is impossible. After
d5 15 liJxfS i.b4 gave an unclear game in 15 ...liJd5 16liJe3! liJxe3 17 'i'xe3 g4 18liJd2
Kluger-Farago, Hungarian Championship i.g5 19 1Wd3 the exchange favours White,
1998. who is slightly better.
b) 8...liJe4 9 i.b2 i.f6 10 1Wd3 'i'g6 11 16 'ii'b2 ttJd5 17 ttJe3 g4!
liJd2 liJxd2 12 'iVxd2 c6 13 e4 e5! 14 exfS Black does not want to give up the control

90

over d5, even if it means putting a pawn
there.
18lbxd5 exd5 19lbe1
19 4:Jd2 i.g5 would be unclear, but 19
4:Je5? 4:Jg5! 20 i.xd5 l;lf6! would not be to
White's benefit.
19 ... lbg5 20 ~e7??
TIlls is a terrible move. After 20 gxf4 .l:txf4
(20...4:Jh3+ 21 i.xh3 gxh3 22 ~h1 :xf4 with
an unclear game is also possible, but nor-
mally Black should not exchange pieces be-
fore an attack) 21 :c74:Jh3+ 22 i.xh3 gxh3
23 ~h1 i.d8 24 :c3 the consequences are
unclear.
20 ... f3?
Here Black misses a chance: 20 ... i.d8! 21
:xc8 (21 i.xd6 i.xc7 22 i.xc7 f3 wins as
the bishop can never go to h1!) 21...:xc8 22
i.xd6 fxg3 23 hxg3 ':'£5 24 4:Jd3 i.f6 gives
Black a clear advantage.
21 1:I.xe7 fxg2 22 <t>xg2l:tf6 23 h4?
Better was 23 'ii'c1, even though after
23 ...i.d7! 24 ~h1 (24 :xd7 ~h3+ 25 ~g1
l;lh6 would lose on the spot) 24 ...i.xb5 25
4:Jg2 :afB Black has a very dangerous attack-
ing position.
23 ... gxh3+ 24 <t>h2 .llf5?
Here Black could have ended it all with
24...4:Je4! 254:Jd3 ~g6! 26 e34:Jxg3! 27 :g1
4:Jf1+ 28 ~h1 'ii'xg1+!! 29 ~xg1 h2+ 30 ~h1
l;lg6 31 :e8+ ~g7 32 :e7+ ~h6 and there is
no defence!
25 'ile3 1:I.g8
Main Line: White Plays b2-b4
25 ... ne8 26 'ii'c7 4:Je4 with an unclear
game was better.
26 'ife3 'ifg6 27 lbf3 lbe4
After 27 ...4:Jxf3+ 28 exf3 i.d3 29 l:tc1
:gfB 30 f4 i.c4! 31 ~f3 White is slightly
better. TIlls shows how quickly the game can
turn in the Classical Dutch.
28 lbh4 'ifh5 29 lbxf5?!
TIlls exchange does not make any sense.
After 29 :g1 White should feel good about
his position.
29 ...'ifxf5 301:l.xe4!
White needs to get rid of the knight now
as after a careless move like 30 nxb 7, then
30...l:[xg3! would decide the game in Black's
favour.
30 ... dxe4 31 d5!
Unleashing the a3-bishop.
31 ... 'ile5
Also possible was 31...'iVxd5 32 i.b2 .l:IgfB
33 ~h6 'ii'fl 34 'iVxh3 ~g8 35 i.xf6 'iVxf6
with equality.
3211b1
Now Black needs to pay attention. After
32...~xd5 33 i.b2 :gfB 34 ~xa7 ~g8 35
i.xf6 :xf6 he would still have a level posi-
tion. After Black's choice, however, White
begins to take over.
32 ...1:I.gf8 33 .llb2 'ilf5 34 1:I.e1 <t>g8 35
.llxf6 'ifxf6?!
Black should not leave the e-pawn unde-
fended. After 35 ...:xf6 36 'ii'xa7 ~xf2+ 37
'ii'xf2 l:txf2+ 38 ~xh3 :xe2 39 ~g4 :xa2 40
91
Classical Dutch
'itf4 White is better in the endgame, but it is
not a lot and Black should be able to draw.
36 >itxh3?!
TIlls gives the wrong pawn away. After 36
'ii'xe4! 'ii'xf2+ 37 'itxh3 'ii'f7 38 'ii'g4+ 'ith8
39 e4 'ii'f6 40 'ii'h4 'ii'f3 41 a4 b6 42 'iWg4
White has a clear extra pawn and good
chances to win the game.
36 ... 'ii'f5+ 37 >itg2 'ii'xd5 3S l:tc7!
3S .. .l::tf7 39 l:tcS+
Here the best is 39 .l:f.xf7 'itxf7 40 a4 b6
41 'iWh6 'itg8 42 e3 'ii'e5 43 'ii'h3 with a
minimal advantage in the endgame.
39 ... l:tfS 40 l:tc7 l:tf7 41 l:tcS+?!
Still 41 .l:.xf7!.
41 ... >itg7?
TIlls mistake is truly amazing. After
41....l:f.fB 42 :xf8+ (or 42 l:tc7 :f7 and it is
time to call in the arbiter and claim a draw!)
42 ...'itxfB 43 'iWxa7 'i'xb5 44 'i'd4 'iWxe2 45
'ii'xd6+ 'iii>f7 46 'i'd5+ Wg6 47'ii'e6+ 'itg7 48
'iWe7+ 'itg6 the game is a draw.
42 l:teS!
Had Black forgotten about this move?
42 ...l:tf5 43 l:te7+ >itg6 44 'ii'xa7 l:tf7 45
!leS 'ii'xb5 46 l:txe4 'ii'f5 47 'ifd4 l:tf6 4S
l:tf41-0
Game 45
Postl-Moser
Austrian League 2000
1 d4 e6 2 c4 f5 3 g3 ttJf6 4 .lig2 .lie 7 5
92
ttJf3 d6 6 0-0 0-0 7 ttJc3 'ifeS S b4 e5!?
9 dxe5
After 9 Zibl!? e4 10 ttJg5 h6! (10 ... c6?!
would be too slow; after 11 f3! h6 12 ttJh3 d5
13 cxd5 cxd5 14 fxe4 fxe4 15 ttJf4 Black has
problems with d5 and his entire structure in
the centre) 11 ttJh3 'iWf7 12 d5 ttJbd7 13 ttJf4
ttJe5 the game would be unclear.
9 ... dxe5
10 'ii'b3
White could also tty:
a) 10 c5?! e4 11 ttJd4 as! (11...'ii'f7?! 12 f3!
exf3 13 .l:f.xf3 l:td8 14 :d3 ttJa6 15 a3 was
better for White in Sheldon-Spice, British
League 1996) 12 ttJcb5 ttJa6 13 a3 'ith8! and
Black is slightly better. One line is 14 ttJc3 b6
15 cxb6 axb4 16 axb4 ~xb4 17 ttJa2 ~c5 18
bxc7 ttJxc7 and Black is better coordinated.
b) 10 ttJd5 ~d8 11 ~b2 c6 12 ttJxf6+
~xf6 13 e4 f4! (13. .. fxe4 14 ttJd2 is better for
White) 14 'ii'd6 ~g4 15 b5 cxb5 16 'ii'd5+
'ith8 17 cxb5 ttJd7 18 l:tac1'ii'h5 19 Zic7 was
played in Hemdl-Weinzettl, Austrian League
1990. Now 19...ttJb6! 20 'i'b3 .l:.ac8! 21 .l:f.xc8
(21 :xb7? ttJc4! with the threat of ... ttJa5 and
...ttJxb2 would not be in White's interests)
21...l:txc8 would have given Black full equal-
ity.
10 ... e4 11 ttJd4
White should not blunder with 11 lLJe5?
~xb4 12 'i'xb4 (12 c5+ 'i'e6! is an important
detail, but not 12... 'ith8 13'ii'xb4 'iWxe5 14 c6
and White wins) 12...'ii'xe5 13 ~f4 'i'e6,

when Black is clearly better as 14 .i.xc7 al-
lows 14...ltJa6! 15 'ilid6 'iYxc4.
11.. .c5! 12 bxc5 .i.xc5
12...ltJa6?!, with the idea of ...ltJxc5, would
be met with 13 c6! bxc6 14 'ilia4 and White
still has some pressure.
13 tZ:ldb5 tZ:la6 14 .i.a3 .i.e6
Also possible is 14....i.xa3 15 'iYxa3 'iVc6
16 nab1!? b6! with equality (16 ...'iYxc4!? 17
nfc1 would give White good compensation
for the pawn).
15l:!.fd1 'i'c6?!
This is careless. After 15... .i.xa3! 16 'iYxa3
'iVc6 Black has equalised.
16 tZ:ld5 'ito>h8 17 tZ:ld4!
White is slightly better here.
17 ....i.xd4
After 17...'iYd7 18 ltJxe6 'iYxe6 19 .i.b2
White has a strong attack on the a1-h8 di-
agonal.
18 ltxd4 tZ:lc5 19 'ife3 b6
19...ltJg4!? 20 'iYd2 b6 21 l:r.d1 ltJe5 22
'iVc3 was perhaps better, even though White
keeps a small advantage.
20 ltad1 tZ:lg4 21 'ifc1!
From here the queen takes care of the a3-
bishop and the c4-pawn.
21 .. JIfd8 22 f3?!
This is not well prepared. Better is 22
.i.b2! l:td7 23 B! and Black has to lose a
pawn: 23 ...ltJe5 (23 ...exf3? 24 exB ltJe5 25 f4
would open up the deadly g2-a8 diagonal) 24
fxe4 fxe4 25 .i.xe4 and White has good
Main Line: White Plays b2-b4
chances for the full point.
22 ... tZ:le5 23 fxe4?!
23 .i.b2!, to put pressure on the long di-
agonal, is the most logical move.
23 ... tZ:lxe4 24 .i.xe4 fxe4 25 .li!.xe4 .i.xd5
26 cxd5 .li!.xd5 27 J:txd5?!
After this there is no advantage for White.
27 nfl! is the right move.
27 ... 'i'xd5 28 'i'e3 tZ:lc4 29 J:te8+ lilxe8
30 'i'xe8+ 'ifg8 31 'i'xg8+ 'ito>xg8 32
.i.e1 'ito>f7 33 'ito>f2 'ito>e6 34 'ito>f3 'ito>e5 35
g4 b5 36 .i.f4+ 'ito>d4 37 .i.e7 a5 38 e3+
'ito>d3 39 'ito>f4 b4 40 e4 a4 41 e5 tZ:le3 42
.i.d6 b3 43 axb3 axb3 44 .i.a3 tZ:le4 45
e6 tZ:lxa3 46 e7 b2 47 e8'i' b1'ii' 48
'ife3+ 'ito>c4 49 'ifxa3· 'ifb8+ 50 'ito>e4
'ife8+ 51 'ito>f3 %-%
Game 46
Geller-Milic
Leningrad 1957
1 e4 e6 2 tZ:le3 f5 3 g3 tZ:lf6 4 .i.g2 j.,e7
5 tZ:lf3 0-0 6 0-0 d6 7 d4 'ife8 8 'i'e2
'i'h5 9 b4 tZ:le6
This plan is the most dangerous that
White can face. Who will be fastest? I think
that White has better chances, something
that could be defined as a small advantage,
but Black has a nice position to play. Why?
Because he is attacking the king! That is the
way it is with the Classical Dutch, and I
would be dishonest if I tried to tell you oth-
93
Classical Dutch

erwise. White has a small positional advan-

tage, but the games are exiting and Black of-
ten gets good chances to attack the king. So,
if you decide to play the Classical Dutch, you
let go of the idea of the perfect game, and in-
stead indulge yourself in a terrible fight. You
will lose more games than in the Queen's
Gambit Declined, but I promise you that you
will win many more too, and you will have
more fun doing so! No opening really prom-
ises Black even chances in all the critical
lines. It is the nature of the game.

16 liJeS?
This combinatorial move does not work
out. Better is 16 hxg4 ttJxg4 17 gxf4 (17
'iVxf4? ttJg5 18 'iVxg4 e5 would put White's
queen in an embarrassing situation) 17...ttJh8!
18 f5 'iVh5 19 e4 ttJg6 20 nfe1 ttJh4 with a
very unclear position.
16... gxh3 17 liJxf7l:!.xf7 18 iof3

10 bS
White has also tried 10 l:[b1 i..d7 11 d5?!
(I do not know why, but in the Ilyin-
Zhenevsky this move is very often not good
for White; 11 b5 ttJd8 12 ~d1 ttJf7 with an
unclear game is more to the point) 11...ttJd8
12 dxe6 (otherwise Black simply plays ... e6-
e5) 12...ttJxe6 13 ttJd5 i..d8 14 ~d1 ttJe4 15
i..b2 and in this even position the players
agreed a draw, Geller-Franz, Dresden 1959. 18 ... liJhS?!
10 ...liJd8 11 a4 liJf7 12 ioa3 gS 13l:tad1 Not the best. After 18...ttJd7! 19 ttJe4 (19
13 as!?, to put immediate pressure on the ~h2 ttJb6 20 c5 fxg3+ 21 fxg3 i..g5 221i'a1
queenside, was worth a consideration. ttJc4 would give White a winning advantage)
13 .. .f4 14 'ifc1 'ii'h6 19 ... d5 20 ttJc5 'iVg6 Black has an over-
Protecting the f-pawn as after 14...g4?! 15 whelming positional advantage.
ttJe1 fxg3 16 fxg3 e5 17 'iVe3!, White has a 19 'lith1 h2?!
positional advantage. This move makes little sense. The idea is
1S h3 g4 to prevent ~gl, but more to the point was
After 15...ttJh5 16 g4 ttJf6 17 e4 ~e8 18 19...i..g5! 20 gxf4 i..xf4 21 :gH ttJg7 22
e5 White would have a dangerous initiative in 'iWc2 'iWh4 and Black is clearly better.
the centre. 20 l:td3 eS?

94

Black has no idea of what he is doing. Af-
ter 20 ...lLlg7 21 c5 d5 he would remain
slightly better. Now it is less clear.
21 dxe5 i.f5!?
This gives White the opportunity to grab
the initiative. But after 21...dxe5 22 i.xe7
l::txe7 23 .l::td8+ rJ;;g7 24 'i'a3 .l::tfl 25 i.d5
White has the advantage.
22 exd6 i.g5
22...i.xd6 23 .l::txd6 cxd6 24 g4 is quite
clearly better for White.
23lLle4
This loses time and allows Black to reor-
ganise his attack. Time is of the greatest im-
portance here, and after 23 g4!? there would
follow 23 ...i.xd3 24 gxh5 i.xc4 25 lLle4
i.d5 26 dxc7 .l::tc8 27 lLlf6+, when White
would have the advantage.
23 ...i.xe4 24 i.xe4 fxg3 25 'ifd1 exd6
Or 25 ....l::txf2 26 .l::txf2 gxf2 27 dxc7 and
it's White's passed pawn which is the most
dangerous.
26 fxg3 i.e3 27 i.xd6 1:xf1 + 28 'ifxf1
'ifxd6! 29 1:xe3
White should not fall for 29 i.xh 7+?
29 ...rJ;;g7 (29 ...Wxh7 30 'ii'fl+ and White
wins) 30 'ii'a1+ 'il'f6 31 'il'xf6+ lLlxf6 32
.l::txe3 rJ;;xh7 33 ne7+ rJ;;g6 34 rJ;;xh2 b6,
which gives Black good chances to win the
endgame.
29 ...lLlxg3+ 30 1:xg3+ 'ifxg3 31 i.d5+
~h8
31...rJ;;g7 32 'ii'fl+! (32 'il'a1+ rJ;;g6 33
Main Line: White Plays b2-b4
'ilVb1+ rJ;;f6 would allow Black's king to dance
away) 32... rJ;;h6 33 'il'f6+ 'ii'g6 is a minor im-
provement over the game, but it's hardly
enough for Black to save it.
32 'iff6+ 'ifg7 33 'i'xg7+ ~xg7 34
i.xb7
I doubt if Black can save this position.
34 ...1:e8 35 i.f3 1:e8 36 i.d5 ~f6 37 a5
~e5 38 a6
Now the a-pawn queens.
38 ...~d4
38....l::tc7 39 b6 axb6 40 i.b7! is an impor-
tant variation.
39 b6 axb6 40 a7 ~e5 41 e4 .litf8 42
~xh2 1:f2+ 43 ~g3 1:a2 44 a8'i' 1:xa8
45 i.xa8 ~xe4 46 e5 ~e5 47 e6 ~d6
48 i.d5 1-0
Game 47
Ponomarenko-Gavritenko
Tufa 1998
1 lLlf3 e6 2 e4 f5 3 g3lLlf6 4 i.g2 i.e7 5
0-0 0-0 6 lLle3 d6 7 d4 'ife8 8 'i'e2 'ifh5
9 b4 lLle6 10 b5 lLld8 11 a4 lLlf7 12 i.b2
The following game proves that humans
make mistakes ...
12 i.a3 g5 13 as f4 14 'il'd2 lLlh6?
(14 ... fxg3 15 fxg3 i.d716 i.c1 h6 17 e4 with
unclear play was the right choice) 15 c5?
(here 15 gxf4! gxf4 16 'ii'xf4 lLlfg4 17 'ii'g3
lLlf5 18 'il'h3 'ii'g6 19 e4 would give White an
overwhelming position) 15...lLlfg4? (15 ... dxc5
95
Classical Dutch
16 dxc5 :d8 17 ~c2 g4 18 tDd2 fxg3 19
hxg3 i.xc5 20 tDde4 gives unclear play) 16
h3 tDxf2 17 'iti>xf2 (17 .l:1xf2 should repulse
the attack) 17...g4 18 hxg4 tDxg4+ 19 'iti>e1
(19 'iti>gl fxg3 20 cxd6 cxd6 21 tDe4 tDh2 22
.l:Ifdl tDxf3+ 23 ex£3 ~h2+ 24 'iti>f1 i.d7 25
l:tabl and there is no attack) 19 ...tDe3 20.l:Igl
(20 .l:If2 ~g6 21 .l:Ic1 is best for White)
20 ...'i'g6 21 gxf4?? (21 i.hl still wins)
21...~g3 mate (!), Rausch-Klawa, Germany
1997.
12 ... eS 13 dxeS
Also possible is 13 as e4 14 tDd2. Now
why does Black not play ... a7-a6 in this posi-
tion? Well, there is one thing you should
know. In these kind of positions you should
avoid playing where you are weakest (the
queenside), and try to direct your efforts to
exploiting your strengths (the kingside). The
continuation 14... tDg5! 15 h4 tDe6 16 tDd5
i.d8 17 tDb3 g5 leads to an unclear position.
13 ... dxeS 14lOdS?
This is a grave positional mistake as Black
does not have problems closing the queen-
side after this. 14 i.a3 i.xa3 15 ':xa3 .l:Id8
16 .l:Idl ':xd1+ 17 'i'xdl i.e6 18 c5 .l:Id8
would be better for Black too, but after 14
.l:Ifdl the game would still be open.
14 ...lOxdS 1S cxdS .i.d6 16 .i.a3?
16 e3 f4 17 'i'c3 fxe3 18 fxe3 i.g4 looks
good for Black, but the position is still not so
clear. After the text move White is in trouble.
16 .. .f4 17 .i.xd6 cxd6 18lOd2
96
Black has obtained his perfect position.
He will swiftly create an attack on the king-
side.
18 ... .i.fS
18... i.g4!? was also very annoying for
White.
19 .i.e4 .i.h3 20 .i.f3 'it'h6 21 Itfc1 lOgS
22 'it'd1
After 22 'i'd3? i.fS! 23 'i'c3 (or 23 'i'a3
fxg3 24 hxg3 tDh3+ 25 'iti>f1 ~xd2)
23 ...tDh3+ 24 'iti>f1 tDxf2! Black has a winning
attack.
22 ....i.fS
After 22 ...tDx£3+!? 23 tDx£3 (23 ex£3!
l:tac8 is more resilient) 23 ... e4 24 tDd4 fxg3
25 hxg3 e3 Black should win - the attack is
very strong.
23 .i.g2 Itf6!
Black is slowly including all his pieces in
the offensive.
24 Ita3
Another line that illustrates Black's poten-
tial is 24 .l:Ic7 i.h3! 25 i.hl .l:IafS 26 .l:Ia3
fxg3 27 ':'xg3 'iti>h8! (27 ....l:.xf2 28 i.£3! would
help only White) 28 £3 tDe6 29 .l:Ic3 tDf4 and
White's pieces look ridiculous.
24 ...Itaf8 2S e4
25 gxf4 tDh3+ 26 i.xh3 i.xh3 27 fS .l:IxfS
28 tDe4 .l:If4 29 £3 ~g6+ 30 tDg3 h5 would
give Black a winning initiative.
2S ... .i.h3 26 g4
This is pure frustration. After 26 gxf4
.l:Ixf4! 27 £3 .l:I4f6 28 :c2 i.xg2 29 'iti>xg2
 Main Line: White Plays b2-b4

.l:[g6 30 ~hl liJh3 White is taken to the on those used by Baburin in Chess Itiformant
cleaners. 75.
26 ... f3! 1 d4 e6 2 c4 f5 3 g3 lLlf6 4 i.g2 i.e7 5
lLlf3 d6 6 0-0 0-0 7 lLlc3 'ife8 8 'ifc2
'ifh5 9 b4 lLlbd7
This move is not as good as 9...liJc6 (see
Game 47).
One should not open the position before
one has developed, as shown by the follow-
ing miniature: 9...e5?! 10 dxe5 dxe5 11 liJxe5
.txb4 12 liJd5 .td6 13 liJd3 c6 (13. ..liJxd5
14 .txd5+ ~h8 15 c5 would have given
Black a very difficult game too) 14 .tf4 .txf4
15 liJe7+! ~h8 16liJxf4 'ire8 17liJxfS .txfS
18 'irxfSliJdS

This little tactic undennines all White's

hopes of building up a defence.
27 lLlxf3 .Jtxg2 28 lLlxg5 J:txf2 29 litc2
J:txc2 30 'ifxc2 'ifxg5 31 <ot>xg2 'ifxg4+
32 J:tg3 J:tc8!
Bringing another friend to the party.
33 'iff2?
33 'iid3 puts up more resistance, although
it does not change the outcome.

19 liJg6+! 1-0 Petrosian-Rantanen, Tallinn

1979. After 19...hxg6 20 'irh3+ ~g8 21 cxd5
White is a pawn and a position ahead.

33 ...'ifxe4+ 34 <ot>h3 J:tf8 35 'ifxa7 'iff5+

36 <ot>h4 g6 37 'ifxb7 'ifh5 mate

Game 48
Baburin-Pert
British Lague 1999
10 i.b2
I have based the annotations to this game This is a little slow - the game is a race!

97
Classical Dutch
Better is 10 cSt as 11 cxd6 cxd6 (11...i.xd6
12 bxaS l:haS 13 'iWb3 lLlb6 14 lLlbS looks
good for White) 12 bxaS l:haS 13 'iVb3 and
White is slightly better.
10 ... e6 11 e5!
After 11 e4 fxe4 12lLlxe4lLlxe4 13 'ii'xe4
lLlb6 Black is okay. The same goes for 11 bS
eS 12 bxc6 bxc6 13 dxeS dxeS, when the c6-
pawn is a hard to attack. White should not
fall for 14 'ii'a4?t lLlcs 15 'i'xc6 i.d7 16 'ii'c7
e4 17 lLleS ~Hc8 18 'i'aS lLlb7 19 'ii'a6lLlcs
and Black has at least a draw.
11 ... lbd5 12 exd6 .i.xd6 13 b5 lbxe3 14
'ii'xe3 exb5 15 .i.a3 .i.xa3 16 'ii'xa3 lbf6
17 l:tae1 .i.d7
18lbe5!
White should be careful. After 18 ~c7?!
i.c6 19 'ii'e7 'ii'f7 20 'ii'xf7+ ~xf7 21 nxf7
r3;;xf7 22 lLle5+ r3;;e 7 23 lLlxc6+ bxc6 24
i.xc6 .l:.b8 Black has a better endgame with a
chance of a distant passed pawn and his
more active king.
18 ....i.e6 19 lbxe6 bxe6 20 .i.xe6 1:[ad8
21 .i.f3?!
This is unnecessary. After 21 'ii'xa7! 'ii'xe2
22 ~fe1 White has a very clear advantage.
98
21 ...lbg4 22 .i.xg4 'ii'xg4 23 e3 f4 24
exf4 l:txf4 25 'ii'xa7 l:tfxd4 26 'ifb6
'ii'f5??
This seems to be just a blunder. After
26 ...'ii'e2 27 ~fe1 'ii'xa2 Black will draw.
27 l:re5 'ire4
27 ...:4dS 28 ~xbS! might have been what
Black overlooked. 27 ...'ii'h3 28 ne1 .l:.d1 29
l:tceS also leaves him with little hope.
28 l:txb5l:t4d6 29 'ii'b7 'ife4
29 ...'i'xb7 30 nxb7 ~d2 31 nel!
31...l:!d1+ 32 l:f.xd1 :lxd1+ 33 r3;;g2 .f!a1 34
l:f.a7 gives White a winning rook endgame.
30 1:[g5 'ii'e3 31 'ire4 'ii'f6 32 l:te5 .li!.d4
33 'ire3 l:td3 34 'ire5 .li!.d2 35 a4
White is steadily making improvements to
his position...
35 ... h6 36 a5 l:ta2 37 'ii'e3 'ii'f7 38 h4
.li!.d6 39 h5 litd5 40 l:txd5 exd5 41 lite1
'ii'xh5?
... not that it really matters!
42 l:te8+ <;t>h7 43 'ird3+ 'irg6
Or if instead 43 ...g6 44 'i'd4 and White
wins.
44 l:th8+ <;t>xh8 45 'ii'xg6 1:[xa5 46 <;t>g2
l:te5 47 'ii'd6l:tb5 48 'ire6 1-0
 Main Line: White Plays b2-b4

Summary
With the b4 system White has put Black face to face with a difficult task in the fight for equal-
ity. Black needs to act quickly with the break ... e6-eS or with a kingside offensive in order to
keep the balance. It is probably not a good idea to play ... a7-aS as after b4-bS White wins a
tempo for his march on the queenside, and Black has lost some control over the dark squares.
The right paths seem to be the ones chosen by Moser in Game 4S and Milic in Game 46. After
this it should be possible for Black to equalise.

1 d4 f5 2 c4liJf6 3 g3 e6 4 i.g2 i.e7 5liJf3 0-0 6 0-0 d6 7 b4

7 ttJc3 'ife8
8b4
8... ttJbd7 - Game 43
8.. :ii'hS - Game 44
8...eS - Game 45
8 'ifc2 ifhs 9 b4 (D)
9...ttJbd7 - Game 48
9 ... ttJc6 10 bS ttJd8 11 a4 ttJf7 (D)
12 iLa3 - Game 46; 12 iLb2 - Game 47
7 .. :ife8
7 ... aS - Game 41
7 ... ttJe4 - Game 42
8 i.b2 liJbd7 9 liJbd2 liJe4 (D) - Game 40

9b4 TT ... liJ'7 9 ... liJe4

99
I CHAPTER FIVE I
Main Line:
White Plays lZJbd2

1 d4 e6 2 tiJf3 f5 3 g3 tiJf6 4 .i.g2 .i.e 7

5 0-0 0-0 6 c4 d6 7 b3 a5 8 .i.b2 'ii'e8 9
tiJbd2
In this Chapter we will study some games
in which White plays t'i:Jbd2 against both
7... a5 and 7.. :ii'eS. For some reason, espe-
cially against 7...a5 (Games 49-52), this is
quite popular, even though the knight gets
no additional options on d2 rather than c3.
The minor differences from the critical lines
in Chapter 1 are to Black's advantage. Never-
theless, Game 51 does offer an independent
idea, after which Black needs to play ener-
getically in order not to gradually slip into a 11 tiJe1 e5 12 e3
worse position (as he indeed does in this Another idea is 12 d5 t'i:Je7 13 t'i:Jb1, head-
game). ing for b5, but after 13. .. b5! Black is fine.
r--------------_ 12 ... .i.d7 13 tiJc2 exd4 14 tiJxd4
Game 49
Averbakh-Boleslavsky
Zurich 1953
1 d4 e6 2 tiJf3 f5 3 g3 tiJf6 4 .i.g2 .i.e7
5 0-0 0-0 6 c4 d6 7 b3 a5 8 .i.b2 'ii'e8 9
tiJbd2 tiJc6 10 a3 .i.d8
In this position Black has no problems at
all. Very often this move is not very good
(it's slow after all), but in here White has
been very peaceful too, and cannot really an-
swer this with anything active. This is a
drawback of the knight development on d2.

100

Ibis is more or less forced. After 14
exd4?! f4! Black has good attacking chances
on the kingside. One possible line is 15 ~e 1
~g6 16 ds tLJes 17 .txes dxes 18 ~xes tLJg4
with a serious initiative and the two bishops
in return for the sacrificed pawn.
14...0,xd4 15 ~xd4?!
Safer was 15 exd4 c6 16 ne1 ~g6 17 ~f3
f4! 18 h3 fxg3 (18 ....tc7?! 19 ~xf4 ~c2 20
l'.:tab 1 tLJg4 looks tempting, but White has the
computer move 21 .te4!, securing a clear ad-
vantage) 19 'iixg3 'iixg3 20 fxg3 with an
even game.
15 ...~c6 16 0,f3?!
White plays this move to avoid exchang-
ing the bishop and thereby exposing the light
squares around his king to an attack. But
now the bishop on c6 is the stronger of the
two and Black is therefore on his way to ob-
taining a small advantage. 16 .txc6 'iixc6 17
f3 tLJd7 18 b4 would have been completely
level.
16 ... ~e4 17 0,e1 b6
Ibis is very solid. However, 17... bs!? looks
strong. White would have to be careful not
to be lumbered with serious weaknesses on
the queenside.
18 a4 0,d7 19 0,d3 g5!
Taking the f4-square away from the
knight.
20 0,c1 0,e5?!
Ibis lets White escape into an acceptable
endgame. 20 ... .tf6! 21 .txe4 fxe4 22 :a2
Main Line: White Plays 0,bd2
tLJeS would give Black some chances to fight
for an advantage.
21 ..txe4 fxe4 22 ~xe5 'i'xe5 23 'i'd5+
'i'xd5 24 cxd5 .l:!.b8!?
:f5
24... 25 ~d1 .tf6 26 l:!.a2 .t:.f8 27 Itc2
is equal too.
25 l:td1 b5 26 g4 ~f6 27 :ta2 ~e5 28
'i¥;>g2 l:tf7 29 axb5 l:txb5 30 l:ta4 ~b2 31
:txe4 Y2-Y2
Came 50
Chuchelov-Krings
Eupen 1994
1 d4 e6 2 c4 f5 3 g3 0,f6 4 ~g2 ~e7 5
0,f3 d6 6 0-0 0-0 7 b3 a5 8 ~b2 'i'e8 9
0,bd20,c6 10 :te1 0,e4!
Black quite sensibly prevents e2-e4. After
1O... ~g6 11 e4! fxe4 12 tLJxe4 tLJxe4 131:f.xe4
.tf6 (13. .. ~xe4? 14 tLJh4! is an old favourite)
14 'ii'e2 .td7 15 .th3 White can put Black
under some pressure.
11 0,xe4
This is the only active plan that is immedi-
ately apparent, but 11 a3 is also possible. Af-
ter 11 ds tLJd8 12 ~c2 tLJxd2 13 ~xd2 (or
13 tLJxd2 es 14 e3, when only White can
have problems in this position) 13 ... es! Black
has some chances to mobilise an attack on
the kingside. He could also choose to play
13....tf6 14 i.xf6 ~xf6 15 dxe6 tLJxe6 with a
typical equality.
11 ... fxe4 12 0,d2 d5
101
Classical Dutch
Here Black should seriously consider
12... e3!? 13 fxe3 Ji.g5 14liJn and now:
a) 14... e5! is the logical advance. 15 c5 'iVf7
16 cJth1 Ji.g4 and Black has achieved a lot of
activity for his investment of a pawn.
b) 14...'iVf7 15 Ji.f3 'ii'f6 (15 ...liJe7 is too
slow; after 16 e4 liJg6 17 e5 dxe5 18 dxe5
White's positions looks promising) 16 a3 e5
also gives Black good play for the pawn.
13 f3 exf3?!
After this White has a slightly better struc-
ture. The right move was 13...e3! and now:
a) 14 liJb1 is too passive. After 14... dxc4
15 bxc4 Ji.f6 16 liJa3 'iVf7 (or 16...'ii'd7 17
liJb5 .l:f.d8 18 'ii'b3 liJxd4 19 liJxd4 a4 20
'ii'xe3 Ji.xd4 21 Ji.xd4 'ii'xd4 22 'ii'xd4 ~xd4
and Black has regained his pawn with equal-
ity) 17 liJb5 liJxd4! 18 Ji.xd4 l:td8 19 'iVb3
Ji.xd4 20 liJxd4 l:txd4 21 l:ted1 the position
is equal.
b) I believe White should sacrifice the ex-
change for good compensation with 14 liJn!
Ji.b4 15 liJxe3 Ji.xe1 16 'iVxe1 'ii'f7 17 f4
l:td8 18 a3!. The game is rather unclear.
14 exf3 'iif7?!
Black continues without a plan. Better was
14...liJb4!? 15 'iWb1 c5 16 f4 cxd4 17 Ji.xd4
liJc6 18 Ji.b2 'iVf7 19 liJf3, even though
White remains slightly better because of the
weak e6-pawn.
15 f4 .i.f6?!
Still too slow. The line 15... a4 16 bxa4
Ji.f6 17 cxd5 exd5 18 liJf3 Ji.g4 19 h3 Ji.xf3
20 Ji.xf3 g5! was the last chance to create
complications.
16 tLlf3 tLle 7
16...dxc4?! 17 bxc4 l:td8 18 .l:f.e2! liJxd4 19
liJxd4 c5 20 .l:f.d2 cxd4 21 Ji.xd4 Ji.d7 22
Ji.b6! (22 Ji.xb7? Ji.a4! 23 'iVxa4 nxd4 would
give Black good counterplay) 22...Ji.a4 23
':'xd8+ Ji.xd8 24 'iVxa4 Ji.xb6+ 25 cJth1
would give Black a tough time defending the
light-squared weaknesses all around his posi-
tion. White has a clear advantage.
17.ia3!
The black knight is the only piece that has
102
a good square.
17 ....l::.d8 18 .i.xe7 .i.xe7 19 tLle5 'it'f8
19...'ii'fS 20 c5 is also clearly better for
White.
20 e5! b6 21 tLle6 bxe5
Black is trying to complicate. After
21...l:te8 22 liJxe7+ l:txe7 (22...'iVxe7? 23
i.xd5! cannot be recommended) 23 .l:r.c1
White has a major plus.
22 tLlxd8 'iixd8 23 lIe1 exd4 24 'ii'xd4
e5 25 lIxe5!
Putting a stop to all ideas of compensation
and tactics. White is positionally winning and
this is the simplest way to exploit it.
25 ....ixe5
Or 25 ...'ii'b6 26 ':'xc8+! and White wins.
26 'iixe5 'it'f8 27 "iie7 "iib4
27...a4 28 bxa4 l::txa4 29 .l:tc1 na8 30 i.h3
also gives White, who threatens 'iVxc8, a clear
advantage.
28 .l::.e1 .i.b7 29 'iid7 'it'b6+ 30 ~h1 1-0
Why did the game end here? Perhaps time?
Or maybe Black couldn't face the idea of
':'c7, which apparently cannot be prevented.
Game 51
Latzel-Oestreich
Detmold 1958
This game is not marked by excellent play,
but White's plan is rather interesting.
1 e4 f5 2 d4 e6 3 g3 tLlf6 4 .i.g2 .i.e 7 5
tLlf3 0-0 6 0-0 d6 7 b3 'it'e8 8 .i.b2 a5 9

lbbd2lbc6 10 lbe1!?
Evidently Black does not really under-
stand this move at all. The knight is on its
way to d3 in some cases, but is also clearing
the path for the g2-bishop. Black should re-
act immediately not to be worse.
10 .. :iig6?
This does not do Black any good. Instead
I suggest lO ... e5!. If this move is really possi-
ble then Black is okay! Now 11 i.xc6?!
seems very risky. After 11...'iVxc6 12 dxe5
dxe5 13 i.xe5 f4! 14lLlef3 (14 i.xf4 i.h3 15
lLlef3 giving up the exchange is possibly bet-
ter; the game is unclear but Black's rooks
have good files at their disposal) 14... fxg3 15
hxg3 i.h3 16 .l:r.e1lLlg4 there are many black
pieces crowded around the White king.
lO...'iVh5!? also deserves a practical test.
11 lbd3!
After this move Black is a little worse.
11 ... .ltd7 12.l:!.e 1
12 f4?! would be premature because of
12...lLlg4 13l::tf3 i.f6!, when ... e6-e5 is on the
way.
12 ...'i'h6 13 e4
13 'iVc2!? was also good.
13 .. .fxe4 14 lbxe4lbxe4 15 .ltxe4!
After 15 ~xe4 i.f6 16 'iVe2 a4 Black has
counterplay - the rook is not really well
placed on e4. Following 17 i.c3 axb3 18
axb3 l::txaH 19 i.xa1 .:ta8 20 i.c3 lLld8
Black is fine.
15 .. .l:tae8?!
Main Line: White Plays lbbd2
This is too passive. The move 15... a4! was
the last chance to find some counterplay. 16
bxa4 i.f6 17 lLlf4 lLld8 gives White the bet-
ter chances, but nothing is decided.
16 f4!
After this White has complete control
over the centre. 16 h4 was also possible, and
after 16...lLld8 (16...i.f6?? would lose to 17
i.c1 g5 18 hxg5 i.xg5 19 'iVg4) 17 'iVg4
would give White some advantage.
16 ... .ltf6?!
16... lLld8 is better.
17lbf2 e5?
Black is desperate and tries to gain coun-
terplay. In the end this gives him some
chances, but really it should lose on the spot.
18 dxe5 .ltxe5 19 fxe5?
This is tactically unsound. White should
play 19 i.xe5 lLlxe5 20 'iVdS+! ~h8 (or
20... i.e6 21 'iVxb7 and White will win on
pawns instead of pieces) 21 'iVxb7 lLlg4 22
lLlxg4 i.xg4 23 i.c6, when Black has no
visible counterplay for his material invest-
ments.
19 .. .l:txf2!
This trick is as old as the world.
20 ~xf2 'i'xh2+ 21 ~e3 'iixb2 22 'iid2
After 22 exd6 Black plays actively with
22...lLle5! 23 ~e2 lLlg4+ 24 ~d3 lLlf2+ 25
l:hf2 'ii'xf2 26 'ii'gl 'iVf6 27 dxc7 i.fS 28
~e1 ~xe4 29 ~xe4 (29 c8'iV+ ~e8+ 30 'it'xfS
'iVxf5+ would only be good for Black)
29 ...i.xe4+ 30 ~xe4 'ii'c6+ and the game
103
Classical Dutch
should be drawn.
22 ...'ii'a37
22...'iIi'xe5 23 'itf2 'ii'f6+ 24 'ii'f4 gives
White a very minor advantage, but this is
what Black should do. After the text move
he is in trouble.
23.txh7+??
This combination might be dangerous for
the black king, but White is removing all the
pieces sheltering his own king, which is still
stuck in the centre. 23 exd6 'iVcs+ 24 'its
'ilVhs+ 25 'itg2 'ilVh3+ 26 'itg1 'ii'xg3+ 27
.i.g2 would have secured White a large plus.
23 ... 'it>xh7 24l:th1 + 'it>g8 25 'ii'h2 'ii'c5+
Now all the black pieces will deal with the
white king
26 'it>d2 'l'd4+ 27 'it>c1 0-1
Game 52
Eliskases-Larsen
Mar de! Plata 1958
The annotations to this game are based on
those by Bent Larsen in his excellent book 50
Selected Games. ~-
1 d4 f5 2 ttJf3 ttJf6 3 g3 e6 4 .tg2 .te7
5 c4 0-0 6 0-0 d6 7 b3 'ii'e8 8 .tb2 a5 9
a3 ttJbd7
This knight manoeuvre is probably slightly
inferior to ~.tt:k6, as two knights shouldn't
normally head for the same squares. Of
course there are exceptions, but in this case it
is clear that both knights cannot be on the
104
e4-square at the same time. From c6 the
knight is more active and fights for control
of the dark squares in the centre full-
heartedly.
10 ttJbd2 'ii'h5 11 l:te1
The following concept IS tmportant to
remember: 11 e3 g5 g tLle1 'ili'xd1!
(12...'ilVh6?! 13 tLld3 tLlb6 14 'iWe2 would give
White a more pleasant position as Black does
not have an immediate plan) 13 .l:[xd1 nb8
(this is not a defensive move; Black prepares
the advance ... b7-b5) 14 f4 g4 15 tLld3 b5!
and Black is not worse.
11.. .ttJe4 12 e3 ttJdf6 13 ttJxe4 fxe4!
The position after 13. .. tLlxe4 14 tLld2 'fg6
15 'ili'c2 tLlxd2 16 'iVxd2 .i.f6 17 b4 a4 18
:ad1 is considered better for White by Lar-
sen. It is easy to see why - Black has no real
counterplay. 1:l...'ii'xd1 15 :axd1 tLlxd2 16
:xd2 :b8 is also slightly worse for Black.
14 ttJd2 'l'g6 15 f37!
By recapturing on e4 with the pawn, Black
has agreed to sacrifice a pawn after 15 'iVc2
d5 16 cxd5 exd5 17 'ii'xc7 :f7. It's uncertain
if Black has enough compensation for the
pawn, though to me it seems very likely. In
the game White is supposedly better, but my
analysis suggests that Larsen overestimated
his opponent's resources.
15 ... exf3 16 ttJxf3 ttJg4 17 e4 e5! 18
.tc3
The pawn is taboo. After 18 dxe5? dxe5
White has only succeeded in opening a line

towards his own king (the a7-g1 diagonal).
And after 19 lLlxeS? (or 19 .lixe5 l:hf3!)
19...'iIi'b6+ 20.lid4 .lics he can simply resign.
18 dS?! .ligS would not put Black under
any pressure.
18 ....Jtg5 19 0,xg5 'it'xg5
20.l:!.a2!
The idea behind 18 .lic3. The rook joins
the game.
20 ... 'it'h6 21 .Jtf3?
According to Larsen, White would be
slightly better after 21 h3 exd4 22 .lixd4lLles
23 .lixeS dxeS 24 'ili'd5+. First of all, Black
should not be shy about playing -M... .lie6
with the idea of 25 'ii'xeS a4!, when Black has
a very active position - probably the chances
are equal. But 24...l:i.f7 also seems to be fine,
while ~ ...lLle3!?is also worth a look. All in
all, Black should have good chances.
21 ... exd4 22 .Jtxd4 0,e5 23 .i.xe5 dxe5
Main Line: White Plays 0,bd2
24 'it'd3 .Jte6 25 a4 litad8
This position is dearly better for Black be-
cause of one very important factor: all
White's queenside pawns, plus the one in the
centre, are on the same colour as the bishop.
Probably White should not enter the end-
game, but the position would be very hard to
save no matter what.
26 'it'e3 'it'xe3+ 27 .l:!.xe3 .Jth3! 28 lita1
litd2 29.l:!.b1 h5?!
Black unnecessarily employs tactics. After
29 ...l:i.f6, with the plan .. .'~f8-e7, Black is im-
proving his position steadily without White
having the chance to do the same.
30 .Jtxh5 .l:!.g2+ 31 ~h1 litff2 32 .Jtf3
.l:!.xh2+ 33 ~g1 g5?
Black is doing really well in a positional
sense, so the best move would have been
33 ... ~f8! to be prepared to invade the queen-
side the moment the rooks are exchanged.
34.l:!.be1 litb2 35 .l:!.1e2 .l:!.hxe2 36 .Jtxe2
.Jte6 37 ~f1 ~f8 38 ~e1 ~e7 39 ~d1
~d6 40 ~c1 .l:!.a2 41 ~b1 .l:!.d2 42 ~c1
J:!.d4 43 ~c2 ~c5 44 ~c3 c6 45 .Jtf3
.l:!.d8 46 .Jte2 .l:!.h8 47 .Jtf3 .l:!.h3 48 .Jtg2
J:!.h2 49 .Jtf3 .Jtf7
Because of his small mistakes earlier,
Black is now forced to exchange his good
bishop for White's bad one if he wants to
play for a win.
50 .Jtg4 .Jth5 51 .Jtc8
White chooses activity.
51 ....Jte2 52 .Jtxb7 .Jtg4
105
Classical Dutch
Also possible was 52...g4!? 53 .i.c8 :g2 54
.i.d7 .i.dl and Black plans ...l:tc2+ followed
by the winning ...~b2 and ...~b4.
53 1::.d3 1::.g2
54.i.xe6
White simply surrenders under the pres-
sure. But Black also wins after 54 ~e3 .i.dl
g; .i.c8 ~c2+ 56 ~d3 ~b4. White achieves
nothing with 57 Ite1l:1c3+.
54 .. .'ti'xe6 55 b4 axb4+ 56 'litxb4 .:tb2+
57 'lite3 1:[e2 58 a5 1::.xe4 59 a6 .i.e6 60
'litb2 1::.xe4 61 1::.a3 1::.b4+ 62 'lite3 1::.b8 63
a7 1:[a8 64 lla6+ 'litd5 65 'litb4 .i.d7 66
lla 1 e4 67 'lite3 .i.b5 68 'litd2 'litd4 69
lla3 g4 70 llb3 .i.a6 71 1:[b4+ .i.e4 72
lla4 e3+ 73 'lite2 e2 74 'litd2 'lite5 75
lla1 'litb60-1
Game 53
Villa Izquierdo-Gonzalez Velez
Sant Boi 1996
1 d4 f5 2 e4 tLlf6 3 tLlf3 e6 4 g3 .i.e 7 5
.i.g2 0-0 6 0-0 d6 7 b3 ~e8 8 .i.b2 fih5
9 tLlbd2
This move is, of course, harmless. Why on
earth should the knight be better placed on
d2 than on c3? The answer is, of course, that
it is not.
9 ... tLle6
9...tDbd7!? 10 e3 c6 11 tDel 'it'xdl 12 ~xdl
e5 with equality is also possible.
10 a3!?
106
Alternatively:
a) 10 tDe1!? g5 (This is too soon - 10...e5!
is better. After 11 e3 'it'h6 12 .i.xc6 bxc6 13
dxe5 tDg4 14 tDef3 c5 15 'it'e2 .ib7 Black
has excellent compensation for the pawn.) 11
tDd3 .i.d7 12 e4 'it'xdl 13 Itaxdl fxe4 14
tDxe4tDxe4 15 .ixe4 with a small advantage
for White in Salo-Dueckstein, Moscow 1956.
b) 10 e3 .i.d7 (Black should develop. Af-
ter 1O...g5 IltDel 'it'h6 12 ttJd3 .i.d7 13 !tel
Itae8 14 d5 ttJd8 15 f4 White has a structural
advantage, Eliskases-Pelikan, Mar del Plata
1956) 11 ttJel and now:
bl) l1...'it'xdl 12 Itxdl Itae8 13 ttJd3 ttJd8
with the following plan: ...tDf1, ....id8 and
... e6-e5, reaching an even position.
b2) 11...'it'h6 (this move means that Black
is hoping for an attack, but defending against
a coming attack is exactly what White has
prepared himself for) 12 ttJd3 .:tae8 13 h3
ttJd8 14 Itcl ttJf1?! (this is too committal) 15
f4 .i.c6?! (15 ...g5 was probably better) 16
.i.xc6 bxc6 17 ~g2 g5 18 ttJb4 e5 (Goldin-
Naumkin, Moscow 1992) and now 19 fxe5!
dxe5 20 ttJxc6 would give White a very clear
advantage. Better is simply 14....i.c6! 15
.i.xc6 (15 ttJf3 g5 would now be justified as
White cannot play £2-f4) 15...tDxc6 16 ~g2
ttJe4, which would keep the position unclear.
11 ....i.d7
Another good move was 1O... a5!? to re-
strain White play on the queenside.
11 fie2
11 b4 was stronger. It is not obvious that
the white queen belongs on c2. Maybe b3 or
even a4 could come into consideration.
11 ...1::.ae8 12 b4
It would help Black should White decide
to test 12 e4?! e5! 13 d5 (13 dxe5 dxe5 14
ttJxe5 ttJxe5 15 .i.xe5 ttJg4! is an important
detail to notice) 13 ...ttJd8 14 exfS .i.xfS 15
'it'c3tDf1. In this position all the black pieces
are gathered on the right side of the board,
near the enemy king. Here White should start
to be careful and not fall for temptations like
16 'it'a5?! .i.d3 17 .l:tfel e4 18 tDd4 ttJg5!,

when Black has a devastating attack.
12 ... lDd813l:tad1?!
White is stalling. The right strategy was to
proceed on the queenside as soon as possible
(to have something else to do other than de-
fending). The continuation 13 bs t'i:.f7 14 a4
gs would have given chances for both play-
ers.
13...lDg4!?
Black sees that White is not going to
hurry, so he wastes a little time on provoking
a weakness. Possibly White should just have
ignored the knight for now, and proceeded
with his own business.
14 h3lDf6 15 b5 g5 16lDe1?!
It is too late to generate a successful attack
on the queenside. But now Black has played
...g7-gs, he has left a lot of weak squares be-
hind the kingside pawns. To get access to
these, White should have opened the centre
with 16 e4! g4 (16 ... fxe4?! 17 t'i:.xe4 would
only help White and 16... f4?? 17 es would be
quite embarrassing) 17 hxg4 and now:
a) 17 ...fxg4!? would be met with 18 t'i:.es!
dxes 19 dxes i.c8 20 exf6 i.xf6 21 i.xf6
lhf6 22 cs es with an unclear position.
White should now take care of the threat of
...l:r.h6, ...'iVh2+ and .. J:lh3, when the g3-
pawn cannot be defended. So probably the
right move is 23 f4!.
b) 17...t'i:.xg4! 18 exES exES 19 ':fe1 f4 and
Black is about to organise a serious attack on
the kingside. Still, the chances are level.
Main Line: White Plays lDbd2
16 ... g4 17 h4
This is more or less forced as 17 hxg4
t'i:.xg4 18 t'i:.ef3 f4 19 gxf4 I1xf4 20 e3 ':f6 21
e4 es, followed by moves like ...l:tg6 and
....:h6, would leave White in great trouble.
17 .. .f4 18 lDd3 'ifg6!
A nice move, pinning the knight.
19 'ifb3lDh5 20 ..te4 'ifh6 21 lDe1 c6!
Preparing ... d6-ds and ... i.d6, so White
now has to react.
22 bxc6 bxc6 23 d5
This is forced. 23 i.g2 ds 24 i.el i.d6 25
t'i:.b1 'iWg6 would give the Black an attack
with very good chances of success.
23 ... cxd5 24 cxd5 e5 25 lDg2 a6 26
..txe5?
This is a pseudo-combination that just
does not work. White could still stay in the
game with 26 i.c2! t'i:.f7! (bringing all the
pieces to the scene; after 26 ...i.bs?! 27 l:r.fe1
t'i:.b 7 28 t'i:.e4 t'i:.as 29 'iWb4 t'i:.c4 30 ..Itd3
White still has some counterplay, so the right
route for the knight is surely via the kingside)
27 t'i:.c4 l:1b8 28 'iWd3 l:1fc8 29 .l:.b1 i.bs 30
i.b3 'iWg6!, although Black keeps a clear ad-
vantage.
26 ... dxe5 27 d6+ ..te6
White must have underestimated some-
thing here.
28 dxe7
This is not really resistance. White could
have offered more with 28 'iWd3 i.f6 29
t'i:.b3, even though Black will most likely win
107
Classical Dutch

in the end. 28 l2Jc4 also does not save White
as after 28 ... .i.xd6! 29 ':xd6 fxg3, White can-
not let Black capture on f2 without going
under. However, after 30 fxg3 .l:f.xf1+ 31
~xf1 'Yi'c1+ 32 J:.d1 'Yi'xc4 he can only re-
SIgn.
2S ... ~xb3
There is, of course, no real compensation
for the queen.
29 exfS'iIf + l:[xfS 30 liJxb3 fxg3 31
~d5+ 'it>hS 32 liJc5 gxf2+ 33 l:[xf2 litxf2
34 'it>xf2 'iii'fS+ 0-1
r-----------------.
Game 54
Umanskaya-Stepovaia
Ore! 1995
1 d4 f5 2 g3 e6 3 ~g2 liJf6 4 c4 d6 5
liJf3 ~e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 b3 'iii'eS S ~b2
~dS
This move is not well timed. True, some-
times the bishop is well placed here, but
sometimes it is also well placed on f6. And
sometimes it's simply in the way on d8. Black
should playas in Game 53 with 8... 'Yi'h5.
9 liJbd2
White should pay attention to how passive
his set-up can become, for example 9 'Yi'c2
l2Jc6 10 l2Jbd2?! (10 l2Jc3, to cover d5 and b5
as well, is better here) 1O...'Yi'h5 11 e4 e5! 12
dxe5 dxe5 13 ~ae1 f4 14 a3? (14 gxf4? .i.h3
15 .i.xh3 'Yi'xh3 16 .i.xe5 l2Jg4 gets White
mated, while 14 c5! fxg3 15 'Yi'c4+ ~h8 16
fxg3 would keep the game unclear) 14... fxg3
15 hxg3?! (15 fxg3, with a slighdy worse posi-
tion, was better) 15...l2Jg4 and Black had se-
rious attacking chances in Kozlowski-Pytel,
Creon 1998.
9.: .liJbd7 10 'iii'c2 'iii'g6 11 d5?!
Here White misses the chance that has
arisen from Black's slow play. After 11 ':ae1!
(improving the worst placed piece!) l1...c6 12
e4 l2Jxe4 13 l2Jxe4 fxe4 14 'Yi'xe4 'Yi'xe4 15
.l:f.xe4 l2Jf6 16 .l:f.e2 the weak pawn on e6
gives White the better chances, while
l1...l2Je4?! 12l2Jxe4 fxe4 13 l2Jd2 d5 14 f3
would give White a clear advantage.

11 ... exd5 12 liJh4 'ilff7

More accurate was 12...'Yi'h5! and now:
a) 13 'Yi'xf5 'Yi'xe2 14 .i.xd5+ ~h8 15 'Yi'g5
(15 'Yi'f4? l2Jxd5 16l2Jg6+ does not work due
to 16...~g8! 17 'Yi'd4l2J5f6 18 l2JxfSl2JxfS 19
':ae1 'Yi'g4 and Black is winning) 15... l2Je5 16

108

JLxeS ifxeS 17 ~xeS dxeS and the nvo
bishops secure Black a small advantage.
b) 13 ttJxfS ttJeS 14 ttJe3 dxc4 15 ttJdxc4
(15 JLxeS ~xeS 16 ttJdxc4 ifhS does not
really improve White's chances - in the long
run he will miss the bishop) 1S...ttJeg4 16
ttJxg4 ttJxg4 and Black has a dangerous at-
tack.
13 0,xf5 dxc4
13 ...ttJb6!? was also possible.
14 0,xe4 0,e5
Black has managed to equalise completely.
The knight on fS is temporarily annoying,
but it will go away.
15 0,ee3 a5
Black needs to guard his knight. After
1S... ~hS?! 16 JLf3 ifgS 17 b4! ttJcd7 18
];tad1 White controls the centre.
16 .i.d4 0,e6 17 .i.e3 'ii'g6
Black should not get too optimistic with
17... dS?! 18 nfd1 c6 19 ttJd6 ifd7 20 ttJxc8
~xc8 21 ttJfS, when White has a distinct ad-
vantage because of his superior bishop.
18 0,d4 0,xd4 19 .i.xd4 'ii'xe2 20 0,xe2
.l:!.e8 21 0,e3?!
More elastic was 21l:Hel.
21 ... e6! 22 l:tae1 d5 23 l:te2 0,g4 24
0,xg4 .i.xg4
The opening has finished and the middle-
game is also almost over. Black has a better
structure in the centre and can attack down
the a-file and against e2. Overall, his chances
Main Line: White Plays 0,bd2
are better.
25 .l:!.e1 .i.f5 26 .l:!.ee1 .i.e7
26 ... JLgS!?, trying to provoke 27 f4, was an
idea, but 27 e3 would be better of course.
27 .i.e5 .i.f6 28 .i.a3 .i.g5 29 e3 a4 30
.i.e5?!
This gives Black good control over the a-
file. White was forced into the ugly 30 b4
JLf6, when Black has the advantage and
nothing more.
30 ... axb3 31 axb3 .i.f6
32 e4?
This move just loses a pawn for absolutely
nothing. After 32 l::te2 .l::ta6 33 h3 White has
some chances to save the game with a tough
defence, even though it will be difficult.
32 ... dxe4 33 .i.f1 g5 34 .i.e3 <i;g7 35 b4
.i.e6 36 b5 .i.d5 37 bxe6 bxe6 38 .l:!.b1
h5 39l:tb7+ <i;g6 40 l:teb1 .l:!.a1 41 l:txa1
.i.xa1 42 h3 .i.e5 43 .i.a6 l:!.a8 44 I:r.a7
l:!.xa 7 45 .i.xa 7 .i.d6 46 .i.b 7 <i;f6 47 .i.e3
.i.e7 48 <i;f1 <i;e5 49 .i.a6 .i.e6 50 <i;g2
e5 51 .i.e2 .i.f7 52 f3 e4 53 <i;f2 <i;d5 54
<i;e1 e3 55 <i;d1 exf3 56 .i.xf3+ <i;c4 57
.i.e4 .i.e6 58 <i;e2 .i.f6 59 h4 gxh4 60
gxh4 .i.xh4 61 .i.g6 .i.g4 62 .i.d3+ <i;b4
63 .i.d4 .i.e1 64 .i.f6 .i.e6 65 .i.e7+ <i;a4
66 <i;d1 .i.g3 67 .i.e2+ .i.b3 68 .i.xb3+
<i;xb3 69 .i.g5 h4 70 <i;e2 h3 71 <i;f1
.i.e1 72 .i.f6 e2 73 .i.g5 <i;e3 74 .i.f6+
<i;d3 75 .i.b2 .i.e3 76 .i.e1 .i.d4 77 .i.a3
<i;e40-1
109
Classical Dutch

Summary
This treatment of the white side of the Classical Dutch does not impress. If Black uses his
chance to make a quick advance in the centre with ... e6-e5 at the right moment, he should be
fine. Only Game 51 holds any real danger for Black, but with an energetic pawn sacrifice he
can take over the initiative and secure a good game.

1 d4 f5 2 c4lDf6 3 g3 e6 4 .i.g2 .i.e7 5lDf3 0-0 6 0-0 d6 7 b3 a5

7...'i¥eS S .i.b2 (D)
S...'i¥h5 9 tZ'lbd2 tZ'lc6 - Game 53
S....i.dS 9 tZ'lbd2 - Game 54
8 .i.b2 'iie8 (D) 9 lDbd2
9 a3 tZ'lbd7 10 tZ'lbd2 'iVh5 - Game 52
9 ...lDc6 (D) 10 a3
10 l:tel - Game 50
10 tZ'lel- Game 51
10 ....i.d811lDe1-Game49

B .i.b2 B... 'iieB 9 ... lDc6

110
 CHAPTER SIX I
Systems with iYc2 and/or e3
1 d4 f5 2 c4 lbf6 3 lbc3 e6
In this chapter we will look further into
more unusual ways of meeting the Classical
Dutch. In most of the games White develops
his kingside with e2-e3, .id3 and ttJge2 (or
ttJf3) or tries to gain control over the centre
with f3 and e4. It is my general belief that all
these systems should prove to be completely
harmless for Black if he has just a little clue
to what he is doing.
One idea for White is to play .if4 and h2-
h3, and sometimes even g2-g4 (Game 61).
This should not worry Black at all. A well-
timed response in the centre will in most
cases give Black a good game.
Against the more modest set-ups, Black
can do more or less whatever he likes. A nice
way to develop is with ... b7-b6 and ....ib7 to
take control over the light squares in the cen-
tre. Black should not have any problems if he
develops normally.
Game 55
Titorenko-Stepovaia
Russian Women's Championship 1994
1 d4 f5 2 c4lbf6 3lbc3 e6 4 'ii'c2
White has tried all kinds of other fourth
moves. These lines don't need to be memo-
rised as they are not forcing. It is more im-
portant to know the standard system of de-
velopment for Black.
a) 4 b3!? .ie7 5 .ib2 0-0 6 e3 d6 7 ttJf3
.id7 8 .ie2 and now:
a1) 8....ie8 9 d5!? e5 10 0-0 ttJbd7 11 ttJg5
.tfl 12 ttJxfl lhfl 13 .id3 e4?! (13. ..g6!?
with an unclear game was much better) 14
.ic2 ttJg4 15 h3 ttJge5 16 ttJe2 .if6 17 lab1
a6 18 ttJd4 and White had some advantage in
Anderson-Karim, Novi Sad Women's
Olympiad 1990.
a2) 8 ...ttJe4 9 iVd3 ttJxc3 10 .ixc3 .if6 11
e4 c5! equalises.
b) 4 a3 cannot really be dangerous. A logi-
cal way to continue is 4 ....ie7 5 e3 0-0 6 .id3
d6 7 'iii'c2 g6!? (preparing ... e6-e5) 8 ttJge2 e5
9 f3 c5 10 d5 a6 11 .id2 ttJbd7 12 a4 l:tb8
with an even struggle in Bansch-Knaak,
Dresden 1988.
4 ....i.e7
This is the natural move for someone de-
termined to play the Classical Dutch. Also
possible is 4... b6!? 5 e3 .ib7 6 f3 .ie7 7.id3
0-0 8 ttJge2 and now:
a) 8...ttJh5?! (this does not make a lot of
sense) 9 0-0 g6 10 .id2 d6 11 l:tael e5 12
ttJd5 (12 e4! would have offered White the
possibility for an advantage) 12... ttJd7 13
ttJxe7+ 'ili'xe7 14 ttJc3 iVg7 15 ttJd5 .!:tac8 16
dxe5 ttJxe5 with equality in Sowray-
111
Classical Dutch
D.Ledger, British League 2002.
b) It is better to play in the centre with
8... c5 9 0-0 liJc6 10 a3 l:tc8, when Black is
fully developed and has equality.
For 4... d6, see Game 58.
5 e3
5 liJf3 0-0 6 e4 fxe4 7 liJxe4liJc6 8 liJxf6+
i.xf6 9 i.e3 e5 was equal in Pachman-
Larsen, Havana Olympiad 1966, but in prac-
tice White's position is already more difficult
to play. The line 5 e4 fxe4 6 liJxe4 liJxe4 7
'i¥xe4 i.b4+ does not need a lot of investiga-
tion - Black has at least a decent game.
5 ... 0-0 6 .1l.d3 d6
For 6...liJc6 see Game 57.
7liJge2
Or 7 i.d2 as 8 0-0-0 liJa6 9 a3 i.d7 10 f3
c5 (possibly it was a good idea to play
10...c6!?, with the idea 11 e4 b5 and Black has
good counterplay) 11 ~bl 'i¥b6 12 liJge2
~fc8 13 d5! (13 dxc5? liJxc5 14 ~c1 liJxd3
15 'i¥xd3 'iVb3 gave Black a clear advantage
in Hansen-Nishimura Novi Sad Olympiad
1990) 13 ... exd5 14 i.xfS i.xfS 15 'i¥xfS dxc4
16 'i¥e6+ ~f8 17 e4 and White has compen-
sation for the pawn.
7 ... c6
Black has also tried the following:
a) 7...g6!? 8 e4 liJc6 9 exfS liJb4 10 'iVdl
liJxd3+ 11 'i¥xd3 exfS 12 0-0 l:te8 13 f3 i.f8
14 i.d2 c6 15 ~fel i.e6 16 b3 'i¥d7 17 i.g5
i.g7 18 'i¥d2 i.v with complete equality in
Yuferov-Gavritenkov, Moscow 2000.
b) 7...'i¥e8 8 0-0 liJc6 9 a3 as 10 i.d2 g6
11 f3 e5 12l:tael (12 d5liJd8 13 e4 f4 14 b4
g5 would give a typical King's Indian-style
race on the two flanks, the consequences of
which are rather unclear) 12... i.d8 with
equality in Emma-Palermo, Buenos Aires
1965.
8 .1l.d2 a5 9 h3
Here White missed the chance to obtain
an advantage with 9 e4! liJa6 10 a3 fxe4 11
liJxe4liJe8 120-0 d5 13 cxd5 cxd5 14liJ4c3
liJf6.
9 .. :ii'e8 10 0-0-0 liJa6 11 a3 .1l.d7 12 g4
112
12 ... b5!
After this move one cannot speak of a
white advantage anymore.
13 gxf5
13 g5? liJe4 14liJxe4 bxc4 15 i.xc4 fxe4
would give Black the advantage - all the
open lines are in Black's possession.
13 ... b4?
Here Black is too optimistic. It was better
to play 13 ... exfS 14 l:tdgl (14 cxb5 cxb5 15
liJxb5 l:tc8 16 liJbc3 liJb4! would give Black
good play; so would 14 liJg3 d5 15 liJxfS
bxc4 16 liJxe7+ 'i¥xe7) 14... b4 15 liJdl bxa3
16 bxa3 d5 17 c5 liJe4 and the chances are
more or less level.
14liJb1?!
White returns the favour. Here she could
have tried 14 liJa4! bxa3 (14...:b8 15 fxe6
i.xe6 16 liJf4 i.v 17 e4 gives White a little
edge and 14... e5 15 c5liJc7 16 liJb6 l:.d8 17
dxe5 dxe5 18 e4 gives her more) 15 bxa3
exfS 16 liJb6! (the point) 16...l:tb8 17 liJxd7
liJxd7 18 i.xfS d5 19 c5 and White has the
advantage. Note that 19 ...liJaxc5?! 20 dxc5
i.xc5 21 i.xh7+ ~h8 is not likely to break
through for Black after 22 l:f.dfl.
14... e5
It might have been better to play 14... bxa3
15 bxa3 c5 16 ~dgl cxd4 17 exd4 e5 with a
complete mess.
15 liJg3
An alternative worth considering is 15 c5!?
e4! 16 i.xa6 d5 17 i.c4 (17 i.b7 lh7 18

i.xc6 i.xc6 would give Black good compen-
sation on the light squares) 17... dxc4 18
'ifxc4+ lbd5 and Black has some play for the
pawn, but is it enough?
1S... bxa3 16 bxa3 exd4 17 exd4 cS 18
.l:tde1
18l:the1 was logical as the action is in the
centre. The main point is, of course, 18... i.a4
19 lhe7! i.xc2 20 lhe8 i.xd3 21 l:txa8
l:txa8 22 i.g5 i.xc4 23 i.xf6 gxf6 24 lbe4
d5 25 lbxf6+ ~f7 26 lbd7 with a small ad-
vantage for White.
18... cxd4 19 .i.xaS
White is greedy and this will be her down-
fall. Also dangerous was 19 lbe4 lbc5! (acti-
vating the pieces - the key concept in attack-
ing) 20 lbxd6 'it'd8 21 lbb5 l:tc8 with a
strong position for Black.
19... ~f7
Also possible was 19 ...lbc5 20 i.b4 'it'f7
21 i.xc5 dxc5 with some black advantage.
20.i.b6
White is in some trouble. Her king is airy
while Black's is perfecdy safe. One line to
illustrate White's problems is 20 lbe4 lbxe4
21 i.xe4 i.xf5 22 i.xf5 (22 i.xa8 i.g5+ 23
.i.d2 l:txa8! with a winning attack) 22... i.g5+
23 i.d2 'it'xf5 24 'ifxf5 i.xd2+ 25 lbxd2
l:txf5 and White has nothing but a collection
of weaknesses.
20 ... lLlcS 21 .i.xcS dxcS
Black has a clear advantage.
22l:teS?!
Systems with ~c2 and/or e3
This exchange sacrifice does not work out
as White is not fit to fight for the dark
squares. Better was 22 l:te2 i.d6 23 'it'd2
i.c6 24 l:the1 'it'c7 with a clear edge for
Black
22 ....i.d6 23 f4 lLlhS!
24.i.e4
Or 24 lbxh5 'it'xh5 25 f6 i.xe5 26 fxe5
gxf6 27 exf6 ~h8 and White has absolutely
no compensation.
24 ...lLlxf4 2S .i.xa8 .i.xeS
Black has a winning position. There is lit-
de White can do to resist a direct attack.
26 l:te1
Or 26 i.e4 d3! 27 i.xd3 (27 'it'b3 ~b8
and Black wins) 27 ... i.a4! 28 'it'xa4 lbxd3+
29 ~c2 i.xg3 and Black is winning.
26 ... d3
Also possible is the prosaic 26 .. .lha8 27
lIxe5 i.a4 28 'ife4 'it'xc4+ 29 ~d2 l:tb8 and
White will soon be mated.
27 ~a2 .i.d4 28 .i.h1 .lite8
28 .. J:tb8 makes more sense. Why ex-
change pieces when you are the one attack-
ing?
29 .l:tf1 lLle2+ 30 lLlxe2 dxe2 31 .l:te1
~xfS 32 .i.dS+ ..ti>h8 33 lLld2 'ii'd3?!
The alternative 33 ...'it'f2 was more to the
point.
34 'ii'b3 .i.c3 3S 'ii'c2 .i.xd2+
35 ...'ifg3 wins on the spot.
36 'ii'xd2 ~xa3+ 37 'ii'b2 ~xb2+ 38
..ti>xb2 .i.xh3 0-1
113
Classical Dutch
Game 56
Seirawan-Short
Tilburg, 1990
1 d4 e6 2 c4 15 3 lLlc3 lLl16 4 e3 i.e7 5
i.d3 0-0 6 lLlge2 d6 7 'ii'c2 lLlc6 S a3
i.d7 9 i.d2 'tics 10 13 e5
11 O-O-O?!
Seirawan is a great fighter and a player of
great originality. But here he should have
taken the safer road with 11 d5! ltJd8 12 0-0,
when White has more space and generally
good play. Now the position is wild, fierce
and not at all clear.
11 ... a6 12 h3 b5 13 cxb5
White is more or less forced to accept the
pawn sacrifice, as after 13 g4?! b4! 14 ltJd5
bxa3 15 bxa3 exd4 16 ltJxe7+ ltJxe7 17
ltJxd4 llb8 his king looks a bit open.
13... axb5 14 i.xb5 'ifo>hS
Short has a good feeling for positional as-
pects of tactical positions. Here he makes a
move that can always come in handy later.
Also possible was 14...ltJa5!? 15 J.xd7ltJxd7
(15 ...'ii'xd7?! 16 dxe5 dxe5 17 ltJg3!, with
problems for Black, would be wrong) 16
ltJd5 J.d8 17 dxe5 ltJxe5 and Black has
some compensation for the pawn here too.
15 i.c4 1416 d5
White is trying to keep the position closed
in the centre, as it is obvious that he will not
be able to mobilise an attack himself. The
114
continuation 16 dxe5 ltJxe5 17 J.a2 fxe3 18
J.xe3 J.f5 would give Black good chances.
16 ...lLla5 1 7 i.a2 1xe3 1S i.xe3 c6?
This is the beginning of a long variation in
which Black wins the exchange but in return
gets a lost position. It was better to play
18... J.f5! 19ltJe4 c6 20 ltJ2c3 cxd5 21 J.xd5
with unclear play.
19 lLlg3 cxd5 20 lLlxd5 lLlxd5 21 i.xd5
i.a4 22 'ii'xcS l:!.axcS+ 23 'ifo>b1 i.xd1 24
l:!.xd1 lLlc4 25 i.cH
Here the bishop is misplaced. After 25
J.g1! White remains active. One possible line
is 25 ...J.g5 26 ltJe4 ltJe3 27 J.xe3 J.xe3 28
ltJxd6 and White wins. Another is 25.J:tc7
26 cJi>a2 llb8 27 b4 ltJb6 28 J.xb6 lhb6 29
cJi>b3 and White has full control over the cen-
tre while his passed pawns will sail right
down the queenside.
25 .. Jlc7 26 lLle4 h6 27 b4 l:!.dS 2S l:!.d3
lLlb6 29 i.e3 lLlxd5
This exchange is a great relief for Black, as
now White's light-squared blockade comes
under threat.
30 l:!.xd5 l:!.b7 31 lLlc3
Here White could have engaged in a race,
but after 31 b5 cJi>g8 32 b6 cJi>f7 33 a4 cJi>e6 34
llb5 d5 35 as dxe4 36 a6 exf3! 37 gxf3 (37
axb 7 fxg2! would be good for Black)
37 ...11d3 38 axb7 J.d6 39 J.c5 J.b8 40 l:ta5
cJi>d5 41 J.f8+ cJi>c6 42 J.xg7 cJi>xb6 43 .l:.a4
cJi>xb7 the game will be drawn.
31 .. .'if<>gS 32 l:!.d3 'ifo>17 33 lLld5 'ifo>e6 34

Wb2 l:taS 35 Wb3 ~dS 36 a4 ~a5 37
Wa3 ~dS 3S Wb3 ~a5 39 Wa3 ~dS
40 l:td1
40 i..d2!?, with the idea of a4-a5 and ~a4,
would perhaps srill give White some chances
to win.
40 .. J:tcS 41 Wb3 ~a5 42 b5 l:tbbS 43
~a7 l:tb7 44 .i.e3 l:tbbS 45 ~a7 l:tb7 46
.i.e3 'h-'h
Game 57
Ivanov-Glek
Tomsk2001
1 d4 e6 2 c4 f5 3 ttJc3 ttJf6 4 'i'c2 ~e7
5 e3 0-0 6 ~d3 ttJc6 7 a3 e5!?
This pawn sacrifice is an attempt to profit
from White's rather slow development.
White has made four pawn moves and one
with the queen, while this is only Black's
Systems with 'iVc2 and/or e3
third pawn move.
S dxe5
8 d5 e4 9 i..xe4?! (9 i..e2 ttJe5 10 b3 d6 11
i..b2 i..d7 12 ttJh3 We8 13 0-0 a6!?, with the
idea of ... b7-b5, would give an unclear posi-
tion) 9... fxe4 10 dxc6 dxc6! gives Black good
chances to take over the initiative.
S ...ttJxe5 9 .i.xf5 d5 10 ttJxd5
Black is opening the position and develop-
ing fast, while White is trying to have it all.
10 ... ttJxd5 11 ~xh7+ WhS 12 cxd5
'i'xd5 13 .i.e4
13 ... ~f5! 14 ~xd5
14 i..xfS should be met with 14....l:.xfS!
with an ongoing attack, but not 14...Wxg2 15
i..e4!.
14... ~xc2 15 .i.f3?
15 f4 .l::tad8, with an unclear game, was
probably stronger.
15 ... ~h4 16 ttJe2
115
Classical Dutch
16 ... .l:!.xf3??
This is an attempt to be creative, but it is
foolish. After 16...lLlxf3+ 17 gxf3 .l::txf3 18
lLlg3 naffi 19 0-0 c5 Black has the advantage,
despite the missing pawn. For example, 20 e4
i.f6! and Black will regain some material
very soon.
17 gxf3 tLlxf3+ 18 'itf1 .lid3 19 b4 J:!.f8
19... i.f6 20 lla2 i.bl, winning back some
material, was better but one feels that Black
was still creating his masterpiece.
20 J::ta2 tLle5 21 f4 tLle4 22 J::tg1 .tf6 23
'itf2 J:!.e8 24 .td2
White has successfully untangled and is
now simply a pawn and an exchange up.
24 ... tLld6 25 tLlg3 .lih4 26 'itf3 'ith7 27
.te3 g6 28 a4 .lie4 29 J::td2 .lib3 30 .lie5
tLle4 31 J::td7+ 'itg8 32 tLlf5 J::txe5 33
fxe5 tLlxe5+ 34 'itf4 tLlxd7 35 tLlxh4
.txa4 36 tLlxg6 tLlb6 37 e4 'itf7 38
tLle5+ 'itf8 39 'itf5 tbe8 40 'itf6 .tb3 41
J::tg3 .lia2 42 tLlg6+ 'ite8 43 e5 tLlb6 44
e6 tLld5+ 45 'ite5 tLlxb4 46 .l:!.h3 tLle6+
47 'itf6 .txe6 48 'itxe6 tLld4+ 49 'itd5
tLlf5 50 14h 7 1-0
Game 58
Hulse-Oliveira
New York 1993
1 d4 f5 2 e4 e6 3 tLle3 tLlf6 4 'iie2 d6 5
tLlf3
Also possible was the immediate attack in
116
the centre with 5 e4 fxe4 6 lLlxe4 and now:
a) The exchange on e4 generally benefits
White, as the queen likes to be in front of the
bishop when attacking h7: 6...lLlxe4 7 'iVxe4
d5 8 it'e3 c5 9 dxc5 it'a5+ (9 ... d4!? 10 'iVa3
e5 11 b4 e4 12 i.b2 d3 13 'iVc3 also looks
somewhat better for White) 10 i.d2 'iVxc5
11 lLlf3 lLlc6 12 :tdl! (12 'it'xc5 i.xc5 13
cxd5 exd5 14l:tc1 i.b6 15 i.b5 i.d7 is just
equal; the same goes for 12 i.c3 it'xe3+ 13
fxe3 lLlb4) 12... d4 13 it'e4 g6 14 a3 i.g7 15
i.d3 0-0 16 h4 and White seems to be better.
Certainly 16... e5 17 'iVd5+ it'xd5 18 cxd5
lLle7 19 h5! would give him the initiative.
b) 6... i.e7 7lLlf3 0-0 8 i.d3 h6 9 0-0 lLlc6
10 lLlxf6+ i.xf6 11 i.e3 d5 and Black has no
problems. The e6-pawn might look a little
weak, but the d4-pawn is under just as much
pressure.
5 ....lie7 6 e4
This is what White is playing for. Not so
impressive is 6 h3?!, with the plan of a later
g2-g4. These things never work out in prac-
tice. After 6...lLlc6 7 i.g5 0-0 8 e3 as 9 a3 e5
10 d5?! (10 dxe5 dxe5 11 :tdl i.d7 12 i.e2
h6 13 i.h4 e4 would have been equal)
1O ...lLlb8 11 i.e2 lLla6 12 0-0 lLlc5 13 lLld2
a4 Black has a more pleasant position, Ui-
monen-Pessi, Finnish League 1997.
6 ... 0-0 7 .lid3 tLle6 8 a3 e5!?
This is a very interesting pawn sacrifice.
While White is busy finishing his develop-
ment, Black takes over in the centre!

9 dxe5 dxe5 10 exf5
10 ... 'iii'h8
To avoid any tricks. After 1O...liJd4 11
liJxd4 exd4 12liJe4liJg4 13 f6 gxf6 14liJg3
White would come out with a better position.
11 .lte3 ttJd4! 12 .ltxd4 exd4 13 ttJe2 c5
Black has some compensation for the
pawn. White will have to casde kingside and
then the two bishops will prove to be power-
ful artillery on the long diagonals towards the
white king.
140-0.ltd6 15 ttJg3 b6 16l:!.fe1 .ltb7
17 ttJg5!
This is stronger than 17 liJe4, after which
the position would remain unclear.
17 ...ttJg4 18 ttJh3?
18 'ifd2! would have given White the ad-
vantage. Now Black takes over.
18... h5 19 ttJf1 'iic7 20 .lte4 .ltxh2+ 21
'iii'h 1 .ltxe4 22 l:!.xe4 .ltd6 23 :rae 1 'iif7
Systems with 'iic2 and/or e3
24 f3 'iixf5 25 'iie2 ttJf6 26 l:!.e6 l:!.ae8
27 ttJf2 .ltf4 28 'iid3 J:txe6 29 'ilt'xf5
l:!.xe 1 30 'iii'g 1 .lte3 0-1
Game 59
Filip-Estrada
Varna OlYmpiad 1962
1 d4 f5 2 c4 ttJf6 3 ttJc3 e6 4 e3
4 ... d6
This decision could wait. Black can play
4... ~e 7 and now:
a) 5 liJh3?! looks strange: 5... 0-0 6 ~d3 d6
7 f4 e5! (J ... c6 8 0-0 d5 9 liJf2 liJe4 was equal
in Kuhn-Elis Germany 1991, but this is a
stonewall set-up, and not everybody wants to
play this type of position - it can be rather
boring at times ...) 8 0-0 e4 9 ~c2 liJa6 10 a3
c6 11 b3 d5 with equality.
b) 5 ~d3 0-0 6 liJge2 liJc6 7 a3 d6 8 0-0
(for 811i'c2 see Game 56) 8... a6 and now:
b1) 9 b311i'e8 10 ~b2 e5 11 d5liJd8 12 f3
g5 13 1Ii'c211i'g6 14 g4!? (14 b4 ~d7 is equal)
14... e4 15 fxe4 liJxg4 16 'ifd2 liJxh2 17
'itxh2 'ifh5+ 18 'itg1 'ifg4+ gives a perpetual
check.
b2) 9liJg311i'e8 10 d5liJe5 11 dxe6 ~xe6
12 liJxfS liJxc4 13 liJxe7+ (13 liJd4 ~f7 14
~fS ~d8 15 b3liJb6 is equal) 13...'ifxe7 14
liJe4 with an even game, Roehl-Von Zwey-
dorf Germany 2000.
For 4... b6 see Game 60.
5 ttJf3 .lte 7 6 .ltd3 0-0 7 0-0 ttJc6 8 d5
117
Classical Dutch
exd5
8...lDe5 9 i..e2 (9 lDd4 exd5 10 cxd5
lDxd3 11 'iVxd3 lDg4 gives Black sufficient
counterplay) 9... exd5 10 cxd5 gives White a
small structural advantage.
9 cxd5 lbe5 10 .i.e2 c5
Another path to equality is 10...'iVe8 11
'iVb3 lDxf3+ 12 i..xf3lDd7 13 lDb5 i..d8 14
i..d2 lDe5 15 i..e2 a6.
11 dxc6
White also has no advantage after 11
lDxe5 dxe5 12 'iVa4 (12 'iVc2 a6 13 .l:tdl i..d6
14 b3 e4 gives good scope to Black's pieces)
12...a6 13 .l::tdl i..d6 14 b3 lDd7 15 'iVa3 b6.
Black has a strong blockade of the passed
pawn and good squares for his pieces.
11 ... bxc6 12 b3
12 lDxe5 dxe5 13 'iVb3+ ..ti>h8 14 l:tdl
'iVb6 15 'iVc4 .l::.b8 16 b3 'iVc7 also gives
Black a good game.
12... lbxf3+ 13 .i.xf3 d5 14 'iVc2 .i.d7
This move looks a bit awkward. It would
have been better to improve the other bishop
with 14...i..d6 15 l:dl lDg4 16 h3 lDe5 17
i..e2 'iVf6, when Black's pieces are very well
placed. The chances are probably even.
15 .i.b2 lbe4 16 93
16 .l:tadl l:tb8 17 'iVd3 i..f6 also gives
White no advantage.
16....i.f6 17 %:lac1 .i.xc3?!
This is a very strange decision when one
considers the colour of the squares on which
the black pawns are placed. It was better to
118
play 17 ....l::te8 18 i..g2 .l:tb8 19 lDxe4 i..xb2
20 'iVxb2 fxe4, when White has made some
positional concessions in order to trade two
sets of minor pieces. In this case Black has a
good position.
1S .i.xc3 lbxc3 19 'iVxc3
White has a lasting advantage due to his
superior pawn structure.
19... 'iVf6
19 ...'iVb6 20 l:tfdl llfe8 21 'iVc5 .l::tab8 22
i..g2 shows that Black can only defend.
20 'iVxf6 %:lxf6 21 l:[fd1 'it>fS 22 %:lc5 .i.eS
23 %:ld4 .l:.bS 24 'it>f1 ':'f7 25 'it>e1 'it>e7 26
%:la5 'it>d6 27 b4!
White keeps control over the dark squares
in the centre, and thereby emphasises the dif-
ference between the two bishops. Also one
should notice that the white rooks are far
more active than their counterparts.
27 ...%:le7
27...g5 28 h4 h6 29 a3 .l:!.e7, to at least try
to gain some influence on the dark squares,
was probably a better set-up.
2S a3
28 h4, to first prevent ...g7-g5, was more
logical.
2S ....i.f7 29 .i.e2 l:!.c7 30 .u.c5 95 31
.i.d3 .i.e6 32 'it>d2 %:lfS
32 ...g4? 33 i..f1 lte7 34 h4 i..c8 35 i..d3
h6 36 .l:tf4 'ue5 37 ..ti>c3 gives White a clear
advantage.
33 h4 h6 34 .i.e2 94?
This is an amazing positional mistake.

Black hopes to be able to block the position
pennanently, but he loses all his flexibility,
and now White has a lot of freedom to ma-
noeuvre. Black should play 34....l:.e7 35 J.d3
(35 'iitc3 f4! would gain enough counterplay
for a draw, as White cannot keep the pawn:
36 exf4 gxh4 37 gxh4 .l:!.ef7 38 .l:!.cc4 'iitc7 39
':'c5 .uxf4) 35 ....l:!.ef7 36 h5 f4 37 gxf4 gxf4 38
e4 and White retains some advantage.
35 1:.d3 1:[b8 36 1:.dc3 1:[b6 37 <t>d3 .i.c8
38 <t>d41:[e7 39 .i.d3 a6 40 1:[c1 1:.e841
<t>c3 .i.d7 42 .l:!.a5 .i.c8 43 <t>d4 h5 44
.l:!.f1 1:.g8 45 f3?!
TIlls gives Black the chance to gain some
counterplay. Better was 45 %:rc5 %:rg7 46l::tfc1
%:rg8 (or 46 ....l:!.e7 47 %:rxd5+! cxd5 48 .!:.xc8
and the black rooks cannot hold the position
together) 47 J.f1 .!:.e8 48 J.g2 J.e6 49 %:r1c2,
which would keep Black completely passive.
45 ...1:.g7
Systems with 'iVc2 and/or e3
Black does not see his chance first time
around. After 45 ...gxf3! 46 '!:'xf3 l::tg4+ 47
'iitc3 (47 l:tf4 .!:.xg3 would make Black's day)
47 ...'iite5 Black has regained a lot of activity.
46.i.e2?!
Here White has the chance to prove his
advantage with 46 e4! gxf3 47 e5+ 'iitc7 48
.l:!.xf3 %:rg4+ 49 'iite3, when the f-pawn is in
trouble.
46 ... gxf3 47 1:.xf3 1:.g4+ 48 <t>c3 <t>e5 49
<t>d2 1:[g7 50 <t>e1 1:.g6 51 <t>f2 :lh6 52
1:[f4 1:.h8 53 :lc5 .i.d7 54 1:[d4 .i.e6 55
:la5 .i.c8 56 a4 1:[h6 57 1:.c5 <t>d6 58
:lc21:[h7 59 <t>f3 ~hb7??
The tiresome waiting game induces Black
to commit a serious blunder. After 59 ....l:!.e7
60 as %:rb8 61 'iitf4 ':'e4+ 62 .l:!.xe4 fxe4 63
.l:.b2 J.d7 (63 ... J.g4 64 J.xg4 hxg4 65 'iitxg4
'iite5 66 %:rc2 is similar) 64 J.xh5 %:r£8+ 65
'iit g5 'iite5 66 g4 White has serious winning
chances, but still nothing is decided.
60 a5!
Oops!
60 ...1:.xb4 61 i.xa6 .l:!.b3
Or 61...%:rxd4 62 J.xb 7! and White wins.
62 .i.xb 7 .i.xb 7 63 1:.a4 .i.a6 64 <t>f4 c5
65 1:.aa2 1:.b4+ 66 <t>g5 1:.g4+ 67 <t>xh5
.l:!.xg3 68 1:.cb2 <t>e5 69 1:.b6 .i.c4 70 a6!
.i.xa6
If 70...J.xa2 71 a7 %:rg8 72 %:rb8 and White
wins.
71 lIaxa6 1:.xe3 72 1:[e6+ <t>f4 73 1:.xe3
<t>xe3 74 <t>g5 1-0
119
Classical Dutch
Game 60
Holst-Jorgensen
Copenhagen 1991
1 d4 f5 2 c4 lbf6 3 lbc3 e6 4 e3 b6
This looks like it should be the strongest
move. Black transposes to positions similar
to those reached from the Queen's Indian
defence.
5 .i.d3 .lib 7 6 f3
6 ... d6
There is no reason for playing this yet. Ac-
tually, it only weakens the light squares in the
centre and on the kingside.
It was more precise simply to play 6... i.e 7
7 lbge2 0-0 8 'it'c2 c5!? 9 d5 lba6 10 a3 lbc7
11 i.d2 a6 12 e4 fxe4 (not 12... b5? 13 e5
lbfe8 14 d6 with a clear advantage to White
in Holst-Olesen, Copenhagen 1991) 13lbxe4
120
(13 fxe4 lbg4 looks good for Black) 13... exd5
14 lbxf6+ i.xf6 15 i.xh7+ c;th8 16 cxd5
lbxd5 17 i.e4 'it'c7, with at least equality for
Black.
7 lbge2 'ifd7 8 'ifc2 g6!?
An alternative way to develop. Still, this
puts some demands on Black. He must avoid
carelessness later.
9 0-0 lbc6 10 a3 .i.g7
11 d5
11 e4 fxe4 12 fxe4 0-0 13 'iii'a4 1:[f7 would
be equal.
11 ...lbd8
Black also has the possibility of 11...lbe5
12 e4 (12 dxe6?! 'iii'xe6 13 lbd4 'iii'e7 looks
good for Black) 12...lbxd3 (12 ... fxe4 13 fxe4
exd5 14 exd5 0-0 15 lbd4 lbxd3 16 'it'xd3
lbg4 17 i.f4 would give White a slight edge)
13 'iii'xd3 e5 with equality.
12 e4 fxe4 13 fxe4 0-0 14 .i.g5
Here the position should be equal, but
now Black goes astray.
14... h6?
14 ... e5 15 'it'd2 'iii'e7, followed by ...lbf7,
would have more or less kept the balance.
15 .i.xf6 .l:[xf6 16 .l:[xf6 .i.xf6 17 e5!
Now all White's pieces invade on those
weakened light squares.
17 ... dxe5 18 .lixg6 exd5 19 cxd5 c6?
There is no time for this. For some reason
Black does not care about defence.
20.l:[f1 .i.g7 21 .i.h7+ ~h8 22 'ii'g6 'ife7
23lbe4 cxd5

24 .i.g8! dxe4
Or 24...'ifi>xgS 25 ltJf6+ 'ifi>fS 26 ltJxd5+ possible is 11...i.f6 12 'ii'c2 'ii'e7 13 :adl,
and White wins.
25 ~h7 mate
, . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . 'ii'xdS ~xdS 14 i.xc7 ':eS 15 ~fdl gave
Game 61
Granados Gomez-Vega Holm
Barcelona 2000
' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.. and Black has no problems.
1 d4 f5 2 c4 liJf6 3 liJc3 e6 4 liJf3
Quieter tries by White include the follow-
mg:
a) 4 i.g5 will be studied in Game 62.
b) 4 i.f4 d6 and now:
bl) Harmless is 5 ltJf3 i.e7 6 'ii'c2 0-0 7
h3 c6 S e3 ltJa6 9 a3 ltJc7 10 i.d3 i.d7 11
i.h2 b5 (completely wrong is 11...d5? 12
ltJe5 i.eS 13 g4! g6 14 i.f4 'ifi>hS 15 0-0-0
ltJe4 16 i.h6, with a clear advantage for
White in Moutousis-Panagiotopoulos, Ateny
Systems with ~c2 and/or e3
1999) 12 0-0 bxc4 13 i.xc4 ltJcd5 14 .l:tfel
'ii'eS and Black has complete equality.
b2) 5 e3 (this way of development is more
flexible) 5... i.e7 6 i.d3 0-0 7 ltJg e2 ltJc6 S
'iVb3 as 9 a3 'ifi>hS 100-0-0 'ii'eS 11 h3 e5 12
i.h2 e4 13 i.c2 i.d7 14 i.f4 (14 'ii'xb7 ~bS
15 'ii'xc7 ~cS 16 'iVb7 ~bS would be an im-
mediate draw) 14... a4 15 'ii'a2ltJa5 and Black
has a good game, Paasikangas-Pess~ Finland
1995.
4 ....i.e7 5 .i.f4
Alternatively:
a) 5 h3 0-0 6 i.f4 ltJe4 7 e3 ltJxc3 S bxc3
d6 9 c5!? dxc5 10 i.c4ltJc6 11 0-0 i.d6 (also
when White has compensation for the pawn,
but no more) 12 dxc5 i.xf4 (12...i.xc5 13
White a pleasant game in M.Piket-Den Broe-
der, Netherlands 1994) 13 exf4 (or 13 'ii'xdS
':xdS 14 exf4 ltJa5 with equality) 13. ..'ii'e7
b) Black should not fear 5 d5 0-0 6 g3 and
now:
bl) 6... d6?! 7 dxe6 i.xe6 S ltJd4 i.xc4 9
ltJxfSltJc6 10 i.g2 i.e6 11 ltJxe7+ 'ii'xe7 12
0-0 'ii'd7 13 i.g5 'ifi>hS 14 i.xf6 l:i.xf6 15
ltJd5 gave White the advantage in Uhlmann-
Schneider, Havana Olympiad 1996.
b2) 6...ltJe4 7 ltJxe4 fxe4 S ltJd2 e3!? 9
fxe3 exd5 10 cxd5 i.b4 11 i.g2 d6 12 l:i.f1
i.fS 13 e4 i.g6 14 :xfS+ 'ii'xfS gives Black
good compensation for the pawn.
b3) 6...i.c5! 7 i.g2 (7 i.g5 h6 S i.xf6
'ii'xf6 allows Black to dominate on the dark
squares) 7...ltJe4 S 0-0 ltJxc3 9 bxc3 'ii'f6 and
Black has a better sttucture and conttol over
the dark squares. Even though he suffers
somewhat in development, Black is slightly
better.
5 ... d6 6 h3 0-0 7 e3 ~e8
Equally good was 7...ltJe4!? SltJxe4 fxe4 9
ltJd2 d5 10 i.e2ltJc6 11 i.h2 i.d6 12 i.xd6
'ii'xd6 13 :tel ltJe7 14 'ii'b3 c6 15 0-0 ltJfS
with equality in Piket-Nikolic, Wijk aan Zee
1992.
121
Classical Dutch
8 'iVc2 liJc6
9 g4!
This is the right timing as Black has prob-
lems achieving ... e6-e5 quickly. Another ag-
gressive path was 9 0-0-0 i.d8! 10 a3 e5 11
i.h2 a6 12 d5liJe7 13liJg5liJg6 14 g4liJxg4
15 hxg4 i.xg5 16 gxfS i.xfS 17 liJe4 with
compensation for the pawn in Gurevich-
Short, Rotterdam 1990.
9 ....i.d8 10 9xf5 e5!?
Black decides to play ... e6-e5 anyway. The
alternatives were:
a) W...exfS?! 11 .!:tg1 liJe4 12 liJd5! liJe7
13liJxe7+ i.xe7 14 i.g2 with a small advan-
tage for White.
b) 10 ...liJh5 11 i.h2 nxfS 12 i.g2 e5 13
dxe5 dxe5 14 .!:td1 'ii'f8 with chances for
both players.
11 dxe5 dxe5 12 .i.g5 'ifh5
This looks quite strong, but also possible
was 12...e413liJh4 (n i.xf6?! exf3 14 i.xd8
i.xfS! 15 'ii'a4 .!:txd8 would give Black good
chances, while 13 liJd4 liJxd4 14 exd4 i.xfS
would just be equal) 13. ..h6 14 i.f4 (14 i.xf6
i.xf6 15 liJg6 .!:tfl would not give Black
problems proving compensation for the
pawn) 14...liJh5 15liJg2 i.xfS with equality.
13.i.e2
Forced, as 13 i.g2 e4 14 liJxe4 liJxe4 15
i.xd8 i.xfS 16 i.xc7liJg3 would give Black
the better chances.
13... e4 14 liJxe4 liJxe4 15 .i.xd8 .i.xf5!
The same trick! Black wins a lot of time.
122
16liJh4
16 ...'iVf1?!
Black loses momentum with this move.
After 16 ...liJx£1! 17 i.xh5 (17 liJxfS 'ii'xfS 18
'iVxfS .l:f.xfS 19 n£1 liJb4! secures Black a
large advantage) 17...i.xc2 18 l:t£1 .l:r.axd8 19
nx£1 ':x£1 20 Wx£1 l:td2+ (20 ...liJe5 also
gives Black a better position) 21 Wg3 i.d3
22 b3 liJb4 23 i.f3 b6 24 a3 liJc2 25 na2
White has some defending to do.
17 liJxf5 'iixf5 18 .i.h4 liJb4
Also possible was the continuation
18.. ..l:he8!? 19 c5 Wh8 (19 ...liJxc5 20 'iVxfS
.l:txfS 21 nd1 liJe5 would be equal) 20 l:td1
liJb4, when Black has good compensation
for the pawn.
19 'ifb1 l:tae8 20 a3liJc6 21 'ifc2?
This just loses. Necessary was 21 f4 and
now Black has the following choices:
a) 2L..liJd4 22 i.g4 (but not 22 exd4?
'iVxf4 and Black wins) 22 ...'iVc5 23 'iVd3liJd6
24 0-0-0 liJ4fS with an even struggle ahead.
b) 21...'ii'g6 22 'ii'd3 'ii'g2 23 0-0-0 liJc5 24
'ii'd5+ 'ii'xd5 25 cxd5 (25 nxd5 nxe3 26
i.g4 liJa4 would be better for Black, the
main idea being 27 fS liJb6 28 ':c5 .!:te4 and
Black is doing well) 25 .. ..l:he3 26 dxc6 ':xe2
27 cxb 7 liJxb7 28 .!:th£1 with level chances in
the endgame.
21 ...'ifa5+ 22 'iti1 95
Now White loses material because of the
pressure against £1.
23 l:tg1 'iVf5! 24 c;1;>e1 c;1;>h8
 Systems with 'itc2 and/or e3

lDf4 would have given White a very clear ad-

vantage) 13 i.xf6+ I:txf6 14lDh4 gave White
an extra pawn without any real compensation
in Fernando-Hussein, New Delhi 1995.
b) 11...lDe4 logically untangles the black
pieces: 12 i.xe7 'i'xe7 13 .l:tad1 a6 14 b4 c5
and Black has equalised.

25.i.g4
There was no salvation: 25 i.h5 .l:te7 26
i.xg5 lDxg5 27 'iVxfS I:txfS and 25 f3 gxh4
26 fxe4 'i'f2+ 27 ~d2 .l:td8+ 28 ~c3 'ii'xe3+
29 i.d3 'i'd4+ are both winning for Black.
25 ...'ita5+ 26 b4 'ite5 27 1:.a2 gxh4 28
f4 'itf6
More precise was 28 ...'i'c3+! 29 'ii'xc3+ 5 e3
lDxc3 30 .l:tag2 .l:txe3+ 31 ~d2 .l:tg3! and Here White has some additional options:
White has no counterplay at all. a) 5 f3!? 0-0 6 e3 (6 e4? loses to a well
29 'itd3 tiJg3 30 'itf2 tiJe5 31 'ifb3 1:.d8 known combination: 6... fxe4 7 fxe4 lDxe4! 8
32.l:!.d1 tiJxg4+ 33 hxg4 1:.xd1 34 'itxd1 i.xe7 lDxc3 9 i.xd8 lDxd1 10 1:lxd1 I:txd8
1:.d8 and Black has won a pawn) 6... d6 7 i.d3
34...lDe4+ 35 ~g1 lDc3 was also possible. 'iVe8 8 lDge2 c6 (8... e5 9 0-0 'iVg6 10 i.h4
35 'ita1 tiJe4+ 36 'itf3 'itxa1 37 .l:!.xa1 lDa6 was another easy way to equalise) 9
tiJd2+ 38 ~e2 tLlxc4 39 .l:!.c1 b5 40 a4 'iVd2 lDa6 10 0-0-0 .id7.11 h4 b5 with un-
a641 axb5 axb5 42 e4 .l:!.d2+ 43 'itf3 h3 clear play in Epure-Sajter, Romania 1999.
44 e5 'itg7 45 g5 'itf7 46 .l:!.e1 .l:!.d3+ 47 b) 5 i.xf6 (this idea should never be dan-
'itg4 tiJe3+ 48 'ith5 h2 49 .l:!.h1 .l:!.d2 50 gerous) 5....ixf6 and now:
'ith6.l:!.d1 51 .l:!.xh2 tiJg4+ 52 'itxh7 tiJxh2 b1) 6 lDf3 (this is not ideal) 6... d6 7 'iVc2
53 g6+ 'ite7 54 g7 .l:!.h1 0-1 (7 e4 fxe4 8 lDxe4 0-0 9 lDxf6+ 'iVxf6 10
r---------------." .ie2 b611 0-0 i.b712I:tb1lDd7 and Black
Game 62 was already better in Caldaroni-Jabbusch,
Sostaric-Volcansek Cattolica 1993) 7...0-0 8 e4 fxe4 9 lDxe4lDc6
Maribor 1997 10 lDxf6+ 'ii'xf6 11 'iVd2 e5 12 d5lDe7 (even
' - - - - - - - - - - - - - -... stronger was 12...lDd4 13 lDxd4 exd4 14
1 d4 f5 2 c4 e6 3 tiJc3 tiJf6 4 .i.g5 .i.e7 i.d3I:te8+ 15 ~f1 c5 with a better game for
This is the natural move, but Black can Black) 13 i.d3 i.fS 14 i.xfS lDxfS and
also obtain a good position with 4... b6!? 5 e3 Black had equalised in Yakimova-
.ib7 6 lDf3 i.e7 7 i.e2 0-0 8 0-0 d6 9 'i'c2 Portnjagina, Moscow 2000.
lDbd7 10 :tfe1 h6 11 i.h4 and now: b2) 6 e4 (this is the logical follow up)
a) 11...g5? (this is careless) 12 i.xg5! ~g7 6... fxe4 7 lDxe4 b6 8 'i'h5+? (8 lDxf6+ 'i'xf6
(12...hxg5 13 lDxg5 'i'e8 14 lDxe6 'i'g6 15 9 lDf3 .ib7 10 i.e2 0-0 11 0-0 is about

123
Classical Dutch
equal, even if Black's pieces seem to be more
actively placed) 8. ..g6 9 lDxf6+ 'ii'xf6 10 'iVf3
(10 'iVd1 was necessary) 10 ...'it'xd4! 11 'ii'xa8
O-O! 12 lDf3 'it'xb2 13 l::td1 lDc6 14 .l:td2
'ii'a1+ 15 l::td1 'ii'c3+ 16 lId2 .i.a6 and Black
went on to win in Penttinen-Kosonen,
Finland 1998.
5 ... 0-0
6liJf3
White has also tried 6 .i.d3 and now:
a) 6... b6 7lDge2 (7 'ii'f3lDc6 8lDge2 .i.b7
9 'it'h3lDb4 10 .i.b1 lDe4 11 .i.xe7 'it'xe7 12
a3 lDa6 13 lDxe4 .i.xe4 14 .i.xe4 fxe4 15
lDc3 'iffl 16 0-0 'ii' fS 17 'ii' xfS exfS was
completely level in Tosic-Notaros, Yugosla-
via 1994) 7... .i.b7 8 f3 lDc6 9 .l:tc1 lDhs 10
.i.xe7 'ii'xe7 11 0-0 'ifgs 12 'ifd2 a6 13 l:tf2
.l:f.f6 14 l::td1 .l:!.h6 15 g3 .1:£8 with equality in
Szilagyi-Hapala Balatonbereny 1993.
b) 6... d6 7 lDf3 'iVe8 8 'iVc2 and now
Black has two equally good options:
b1) 8...lDa6 9 a3 .i.d7 (9 ...'ii'g6?! would
run into 10 g4! 'ii'fl 11 gxfS exfS 12lIgl and
White is better) 10 0-0-0 h6 11 .i.f4 'iVf7 12
h3 .i.c6 13 lIhe 1 lIad8 with an equal game.
b2) 8. ..lDbd7 9 0-0-0 a6 10 ]::the1
(Komljenovic-Crespo, Olot 1992) and now
10... bs!? 11 cxbs i..b7 would give Black good
play for the sacrificed pawn.
6 ... d6
Just as good is 6 ... b6 7 .i.d3 .i.b7 8 0-0
'ii'e8 9 'ii'e2 lDe4 10 .i.xe7 lDxc3 11 bxc3
'ii'xe7 with equality in Capablanca-Tartako-
124
wer, New York 1924.
7 i.e2liJc6
Black can also equalise with 7...lDbd7 8
0-0 and now:
a) 8...lDe4!? seems very safe. 9 .i.xe7
'ii'xe7 and now:
al) 10 lDxe4 fxe4 11 lDd2 lDf6 12 'ii'c2
es! 13 lDxe4 (13 ds .i.fS is fine for Black as
14 f3 fails to 14... exf3!) 13. .. exd4 14 lDxf6+
'ii'xf6 and Black equalises.
a2) 10 'iVc2lDxc3 11 'iVxc3 es and appar-
ently Black has a decent game. However,
White should probably try to start his queen-
side action immediately with 12 cSt, when he
looks slightly better.
b) 8... h6 9 .i.xf6 lDxf6 10 'ii'c2 'ii'e8
(1O ....i.d7!? would keep the balance; now
Black plays some strange-looking moves) 11
lDbs 'iVc6 12 lIac1 (12 ds!, with the idea of
12... exds 13lDfd4, is probably more danger-
ous) 12... a6 13lDc3 'ii'e8 14lDd2 gs 15 f4 g4
(ls ...gxf4 16 exf4 es 17 fxes dxes 18 dxes
.i.cS+ 19 'ifilh1 'ifxes 20 lIcd1 gives an inter-
esting game, where Black appears to be
slightly worse, while ls ...'ii'g6!?, reaching an
unclear position, is another possibility) 16
g3?! (16 e4 'ifg6 17 eslDd7, with great com-
plications, was more testing) 16... hs 17 e4 h4
with equality in Kiviharju-Leukkunen, Lap-
peenranta 2000.
7...lDe4?! is too soon. 8 .i.xe7 'ii'xe7 9
lDxe4 fxe4 10 lDd2 ds (lO...es 11lDxe4 exd4
12 "iixd4 lDc6 13 'ii'dS+ .i.e6 14 'ii'gs does
 Systems with 'ikc2 and/or e3

not give Black sufficient compensation for 12 .. .f4 13 exf4 1:[xf4 14 h3 tLlh6
the pawn) 11 0-0 'ii'g5 12l:I.c1 and now:
a) 12... e5 13 Wh1 exd4 (13. .. c6 14 cxd5
cxd5 15 'ii'b3 exd4 16 ttJxe4 'ii'e5 17 ttJc5
would give Black and his undeveloped army
a lot of problems) 14 exd4 c6 15 cxd5 cxd5
16 ~c5 .i.e6 17 ttJxe4 'iih4 1S ttJd6 ttJc6 19
i.f3 and White is better.
b) 12... c6 13 'iib3! (13 b4? allows 13. .. e5!
and Black has the initiative, Wagner-
Leschom, Velden 1995) 13 ...'iig6 14 f3 exf3
15 i.xf3 with a small plus for White.
8 d5!?
White is trying to create complications.
After S 0-0 e5 9 'iib3 (9 d5 ttJbS gives no Objectively the position might be equal
advantage for White) 9... e4 10 ttJd2 h6 11 here, but in practice Black has a more pleas-
c5+ WhS 12 cxd6 .i.xd6 13 .i.xf6 l:txf6 14 ant position with attacking prospects. In this
ttJc4 b6 Black has no problems. Black also game between two young players, Black
equalises easily after S 'iic2 e5 9 dxe5 dxe5 manages to win a pawn and go into the 4th
10 l:tdl .i.d7 11 0-0 e4. phase with a winning position, until a terrible
8 ... tLle5 accident finishes him off.
Here Black misses the easiest way to ob- 15 tLld5 ii.xd5 16 cxd5 l:td4 17 'iVc2
tain a good game. He should play S... ttJe4! 1:[xd5 18 'ii'b3 c6 19 l:tfe 1 'ii'f7 20 tLlf3
and now: tLlxf3+ 21 ii.xf3 l:tg5 22 'iVe3 l:te5 23
a) 9 .i.f4?! ttJxc3 10 bxc3 ttJbS 11 .i.g3 'ii'd3 l:txe1 + 24 l:txe1 d5 25 'it'e3 a6 26
(totally careless would be 11 dxe6?! g5! 12 a4 1:[f8 27 b4 tLlf5 28 'it'c5 'iVg6 29 ii.g4
.i.g3 f4 13 'iid3 ttJa6 14 ttJxg5 .i.xg5 15 exf4 h5 30 ii.xf5 'it'xf5 31 li!.e7 1:[f7 32 li!.e8+
ttJc5 16 'iie3 .i.e7 and the black pieces are so 'it>h7 33 l:td8 'it'b1 + 34 'it>h2 'it'f5 35 'it>g1
well placed, and the White pawns so shat- 'it'b1 + 36 'it>h2 'it'd1 37 'it'e3 'iVc2 38
tered, that Black has the advantage) 11...e5 'ii'e8 'ikxf2 39 'it'g8+ 'it>h6 40 l:td6+ 'it>g5
and Black has the most promising position. 41 'it'd8+ l:tf6 42li!.d7 g6 43 1:[xb7 'iVf4+
b) 9 i.xe7 ttJxe7 10 ~c1 ttJxc3 11 ~xc3 44 'it>h1 'it'd6 45 1:[d7 'it'xb4 46 l:tf7 'ikf4
e5 with equality. 47 'it>g1 'it'd6??
9 dxe6 ii.xe6 10 tLld2?!
Too passive. Better was 10 ttJd4!? i.d7 11
'ii'b3 c5 12 ttJf3 .i.c6 with an even game.
10 ...tLlfg4
Also possible was 1O...ttJe4 11 ttJdxe4 (11
.i.xe7?! 'iixe7 12 ttJcxe4 fxe4 13 0-0 i.f5
gives Black the better chances because of
White's cramped kingside) 11...i.xg5 12
ttJxg5 'iixg5 13 g3 and White will have some
problems keeping the balance.
11 ii.xe7 'ii'xe7 12 0-0
12 ttJd5 .i.xd5 13 cxd5 ttJf6 14 'iib3 'iif7
would also give White some problems.

125
Classical Dutch
A great blunder. 47.JWeS gives Black a
clearly better game. But still, these are young
players.
48 h4+! >fi>f5 49 'iixd6!
N ow the rook is pinned!
49 ... J:[xf7 50 'iixc6 >fi>e4 51 'iie6+ 1-0
Game 63
Kempinski-Gleizerov
Stockholm 2000
1 d4 f5 2 c4 ttJf6 3 ttJc3 e6 4 f3!? .i.b4
This move is the strongest. Black does not
concede the fight for the e4-square. Still, the
alternatives are worth a look:
a) 4... .te7 S e4 d6 6 .td3 0-0 7lDge2 fxe4
8 lDxe4 lDxe4 9 .txe4 dS 10 .td3 dxc4 (the
safest; 1O...cS!? 11 'iVc2 cxd4 12 .txh7+ ~h8
13 .td3 lDc6 14 a3 .th4+ lS lDg3 dxc4 16
'ii'xc4 'iVd6 reached a more or less level posi-
tion in Karl-Schmidt, Bad Ragaz 1988) 11
.txc4 cS 12 0-0 lDc6 and Black has equal-
ised.
b) 4...lDc6!? S a3 (this cannot be the right way
for White to play) S... d6 6 e3 g6 7 b4 .tg7 8
.td3 eS 9 lDge2 exd4 10 exd4 lDhS 11 .te3
f4! and Black has taken over the initiative in
Kempinski-Gleizerov, Bydgoszcz 2000, al-
though White could have played the opening
a lot better. Still, it is noteworthy that 4...lDc6
is the choice of one of the greatest advocates
of the Dutch Defence (even though Gleize-
rov normally prefers the Stonewall set-up to
126
the Classical). The game concluded 12 .tf2
'iVgs 13 lDdS 'ii'xg2 14l:tg1 'iVxB lslDxc7+
~d8 16 lDxa8 l:.e8 17 .th4+ ~d7 18 'ii'c2
lDxd4 19 'iVa4+ lDc6 20 0-0-0 lhe2 21 .txe2
'ii'c3+ 22 'ii'c2 'iVxa3+ 23 ~d2 'iVxb4+()'1.
5 .i.d2 0-0 6 a3 .i.xc3 7 .i.xc3 d6 8 e3
'iie8 9 'iid2 ttJc6 10 .i.d3 e5 11 ttJe2 e4
12 .i.c2 b5!
A great positional sacrifice.
13 cxb5 ttJe7 14 fxe4
14 lDg3 .tb7 lS fxe4 lDxe4 16 lDxe4
.txe4 17 .txe4 fxe4, followed by ...lDdS,
would ensure Black more than sufficient
compensation for the sacrificed pawn. Actu-
ally, White should probably return the pawn
(for the sake of the bishop) straight away
with 18 dS!?, although he will still be worse.
14...ttJxe4
14... fxe4! is a more reliable idea. The
knight on f6 is in no way inferior to the
bishop on c2. And in some lines the c3-g7
diagonal can seem infected with danger.
15 .i.xe4 fxe4 16 d5 'iixb5 17 ttJf4 ttJg6
18 'iid4 J:[f7 19 ttJxg6
19 lDe6 .txe6 20 dxe6 l:.e7 21 'iVxe4
lhe8 would give Black a strong attacking po-
sition.
19... hxg6 20 0-0-0 .i.g4
Black is close to equality now. The big
mistake he commits in this game is to let
White enter the f-file and then he completely
overlooks a combination.
21 J:[d2 llaf8
 Systems with '¥ic2 and/or e3

21...':'e8!?, with the idea of ...l:Ie5, was also
possible.
22 .!:te1 'ii'b3 23 .!:tf2 'ii'a2?
What exactly the queen is doing down
there is hard to tell.
24 .!:tf4! .ltd7 25 .!:ten
Now all of a sudden this is possible and
Black no longer has any defence.
25 ... c5
decides to close the centre, but this takes
time and Black will be ready for it.
9 d5 'ife8! 10 e4 'ii'h5
Black is fighting for the advantage!
After 10...tOa6 the position should be
equal, unless White becomes greedy and falls
for U dxc6 bxc6 12 exfS i.xfS 13 'iia4tOc5
14 'iixc6 'iih5, when Black has good com-
pensation for the sacrificed pawn,
Golombek-Nikolac, Opatija 1953.
11 exf5 .ltxf5

26 'ii'xg7+!!
Winning by force.
26 ....!:txg7 27 .!:txf8+ ~h7 28 .!:t1f7 .lta4 12 f3
29 .!:txg7+ ~h6 30 ~d2 .ltb5 31 J:th8+ Just how dangerous this attack is for
~g5 32 h4+ ~5 33 l:lh5+ ~g4 34 White is illustrated by the following analysis.
.!:tg5+ ~xh4 35 .ltf6 1-0 12 c5 ..ih3! and now White can try a lot of
different lines:
Game 64 a) 13 dxc6tOxc6 14 'iib3+ <iith8 15 'iixb7
Botvinnik -Bronstein l:tac8 .l2. ..ixc6 ..ixfl 17 <iitxfl tOg4 18 h4
Moscow 1951 ..ixh4 19 'it>el tOx.f2 and Black has a very
...- - - - - - - - - - - - - -.... dangerous attack.
Many of the lines in this game originate b) 13 'iib3? tOg4 14 dxc6+ 'it>h8 15 cxb7
from the annotations of Mikhail Botvinnik. ..ixg2 16 h4 ..if3! (16 ... ..ixh4? 17 <iitxg2
1 d4 e6 2 c4 f5 3 g3 lZ'lf6 4 .ltg2 .lte7 5 ..ixg3 18 J:.hl l:txf2+ 19 <iitxg3 'iixhl 20
lZ'lc3 0-0 6 e3 d6! 7 ltlge2 bxa8'ii ~a8 21 tOd5 is not clear at all) 17
I have decided to put this game into this bxa8'ii (17 tOd5 ..ixh4 18 'iixf3 l:txf3 19
chapter as it really does not belong in the tra- bxa8'ii ..id8! 20 <iitg2.f.1 21 l:thl l:txf2+ 22
ditional g3 chapters. White can also trans- 'it>gl l:th2 would be the end for White)
pose to this position via 1 d4 fS 2 c4 tOf6 3 17... ..ixa8 18 tOd5 tOh2 and Black retains a
tOc3 e6 4 e3 ..ie7 5 g3. It should be said that menacing attack.
this line is not dangerous for Black at all and c) 13 cxd6 ..ixd6 14 dxc6tOxc6 15 'iixd6
should not be feared. l:tad8 16 'iic5 tOg4 17 f3 ..ixg2 18 fxg4 (18
7 ... c6 8 0-0 e5 'iic4+ <iith8 19 fxg4 'iih3~~xf8+ .l:txf8 21
Black has already equalised. White now tOf4 exf4 22 ..ixf4 ..if3 23 'iifl 'iixg4 would

127
Classical Dutch
give Black a very large advantage) 18...l:.xf1+
19 ~xg2 'it'f7 ~ lbf4 ~xc1 (20 ... ~e1? 21
'it'f2! and White defends) 21 ~xc1 exf4 22
~f1 I1d2+ 23 ~g1 f3 and Black has a rather
obvious advantage.
d) 13 f3! J..xg2 14 ~xg2 dxc5 15 'ib3 b5
16 dxc6+ 'it'f7 17 c7lba6 with equality.
12... 'ii'g6 13 .i.e3lbbd7 14 'ii'd2 cxd5 15
cxd5
15 lbxd5 lbxd5 16 cxd5 was stronger. As
it is Black who is considering an attack, ex-
changes might favour White. Also, the e2-
knight now has somewhere useful to go.
15....ltd8! 16l:tac1?!
This runs into an ugly pin. Better was 16
lbb5 J..d3 (16 ...lbe8 17 f4 would give White
counterplay) 17 lbxd6 lbxd5 18 J..f2! J..g5
19 f4 lbxf4 20 gxf4 J..xf4 21 lbxf4 exf4 22
:tfe1! f3 23 J..g3 fxg2 24 'it'xg2lZJf6 and now
25 l:.e7 would keep things going. Here White
is quite active and will probably regain his
pawn. Still, his inferior king position might
give problems if he does not play exactly.
16 ....i.a5!
This move really exposes the problems in
the white camp. His only hope for active play
was connected to a lZJb5 sortie, but now this
is out of the question. And ...lZJb6-c4 is a se-
rious threat.
17 g4
White is forced to do something, other-
wise he ends up in trouble beyond his imagi-
nation: 17l::tfd1?! lbb6! 18 g4 (after 18 J..xb6
128
J..xb6+ 19 ~h1 Black also has a strong initia-
tive) 18 ...lbc4 19 gxf5 'it'xf5 20 'it'd3 "iVxd3
21 l'.:txd3 lZJxe3 22 ~xe3 J..66 23 lZJd1 (23
~f2 lZJg4+) 23 ...lZJxd5 and White is suffering
badly.
17 ....ltd318l:tfd1.i.c419"ii'c2?
Here it was better to play 19 b3 J..xe2! (or
19 ...lbb6 20 lZJg3 J..xd5 21 g5 lZJfd7 22 b4
J..xb4 23 'it'xd5+! lbxd5 24 lbxd5 ;U 25
lZJxb4 lZJc5 and Black might be a little bit
better, but White has created counter-
chances) 20 'it'xe2 J..b6 21lZJb5lZJe8 22 'iVf2
'iVf7 and White is structurally worse, but still
fighting.
19 ... 'ii'xc2 20 l:txc2lbb6! 21 l:tcd2 .i.a6
21...~ac8 was a natural move, giving Black
a good game too.
22 .i.f2 lbc4?
This is simply a matter of tactics. After
22...J..xe2! 23 ~xe2 J..xc3 24 J..xb6 axb6 25
bxc3lbd7, followed by ... ~f4!, ... ~f7-e7 and
...lbc5, Black will have a winning endgame.
23 l:tc2 .i.b6
Or 23 ...~ac8 24 g5! and g2-bishop comes
to life; the game is level.
24 .i.xb6 axb6 25 l:te 1 lbe3
25 .. J::tac8 26 lZJg3 lZJxb2 27 ~xb2 l'.:txc3
28 :txb6 lZJxd5 29 I1xd6 lZJe3 is also a draw.
26 l:td2 lbc4 27 J:[c2 lbe3 28 J:[d2 lbc4
%-%
The advantage has gone and g4-g5 is per-
haps on the way, so Black takes a draw by
repetition.
 Systems with 'ikc2 and/or e3

Summary
White has tried many kinds of fourth moves in the e3 systems. The only one I would recom-
mend to be studied a little bit closer is the system with 4 f3!?, which can prove rather poison-
ous. Otherwise, playing through these games and making note of the main ideas and concepts
should be adequate for success.

1 d4f52c4tZ:lf63tZ:lc3
3 g3 e6 4 lLg2 lLe7 5 tDc3 0-0 6 e3 - Game 64
3 ... e6 4 'ikc2
4 tDf3 lLe7 5 lLf4 d6 6 h3 0-0 7 e3 - Game 61
4 lLgS lLe7 5 e3 - Game 62
4 f3 - Game 63
4 e3 (D)
4 ... d6 5 tDf3 - Game 59
4... b6 - Game 60
4 ... ~e7
4...d6 5 ttJf3 lLe7 6 e4 - Game 58
5 e3 0-0 6 ~d3 (D) d6
6...tDc6 - Game 57
7 tZ:lge2 (D) c6
7 ...tDc6 - Game 56
8 ~d2 - Game 55

4 e3 6~d3 7tZ:lge2

129
 CHAPTER SEVEN
Systems with ~h3
1 d4 f5 2 g3 liJf6 3 .i.g2 e6 4 liJh3
In this chapter we will look at three games
in which White develops in typical fashion
with g2-g3 and iLg2, but then chooses to put
the knight on h3 instead of B. This presents
some advantages and some disadvantages.
On the positive side, it can be said that the
knight is quite actively placed on f4 (when it
gets there), and in some cases it finds a good
resting point at dS. In this way the knight can
have a more active role than in the usual lines
with ltlB. Finally, White has some options
with e2-e4 he might not have in other situa-
tions, as the knight no longer impedes the
g2-bishop.
The problems with ltlh3 are just as obvi-
ous. First of all, there is the matter of time. It
130
I
takes another move before the knight joins
the fight for the central squares. Secondly,
Black's main dream in this system is often to
find the right time to play ...e6-eS. Not only
is the white knight not involved in preventing
this, but it also might allow Black to gain
time by being kicked away from f4 to a less
convenient square. Finally, the knight might
actually get stuck out there on h3 as in Game
67!
Game 65
Karpov-Short
Unares 1992
1 d4 f5 2 g3 liJf6 3 i.g2 e6 4 liJh3
This idea belongs to Joseph Blackbume.

According to the famous Grandmaster Paul
Keres, this move is good only if Black plays
the Stonewall system. In that case it is actu-
ally the most critical continuation. Here it is
less dangerous.
4 ... j.e7 50-00-06 c4 d6 7 tiJc3 'ii'e8
This is the main move here, although
some alternatives have been tested.
a) 7...c6 8 e4 e5 9 dxe5 dxe5 10 1i'e21i'c7
11 f4 lLlxe4 12 lLlxe4 fxe4 13 .ixe4 h6 14
~g2 lLld7 15 .ic2 gave White a better posi-
tion in Koch-Enigk, Germany 1961 - Black's
development is not easy.
b) The immediate ~..e5!? makes more
sense: 8 dxe5 dxe5 9 1i'xd8 .ixd8 (9 .. Jhd8
10 e4 fxe4 11 lLlg5 is better for White
according to Keres, but of course Black
doesn't play that way) 10 b3 (after 10 e4?!
lLlc6! White is experiencing serious problems
with the knight on h3) 1O...lLla6 11 .ia3 %:te8
12lLlb5.ie7 13 .ixe7 %:txe7 14 %:tadl (or 14
lLlg5 e4 15 %:tadl .id7 and Black has equal-
ised) 14... c6 15lLld6 h6! 16 f3 .ie6 17lLlf2
lLle8! 18 .ih3 lLlxd6 19 :xd6 lLlc5 with
equality in Vladimirov-Psakhis, USSR 1985.
8 tiJf4 95?
This surprisingly proves to be a big posi-
tional mistake. Both alternatives are stronger.
@ 8... c6!? 9 e4?! (this is not fully sound;
bett~r is 9 lLld3 lLlbd7 with equality, or 9 d5
e5 10 dxc6 bxc6 11 lLlfd5 lLlxd5 12 lLlxd5
.id8 13 b3 .ib7 14lLlc3 with a level position
in Taulbut-Rumens, London 1977) 9... fxe4
Systems with tiJh3
10 lLlxe4lLlxe4 11 .ixe4 e5 12 dxe5 dxe5 13
lLld3 .ih3 14 %:tel lLld7 15 .ig2 .ixg2 16
~xg2 'fif7 with a plus for Black in Gon-
charov-Malysev, Russia 1996. Note that due
to the easy development of the Black pieces,
the weak e-pawn is not really important.
Black has a lot of pressure on the f-file and
an attack against the weakened position of
White's king.
b) 8... .id8!? is an alternative way to pro-
tect c7 and prepare ... e6-e5: 9 lLld3 e5 10 d5
lLlbd7 11 f3! (fitting the circumstances; the
d3-knight conttols c5, so the d7-knight has
really made a fool of himself) 11 ... a5 12 e4
fxe4 (12... f4? 13 gxf4 exf4 14 lLlxf4 lLle5 15
b3 lLlh5 16 lLle6 .ixe6 17 dxe6 1i'xe6 18 f4
lLlg4 19 e5 would give White a positionally
and tactically winning position) 13 fxe4 'fig6
and White was a little better in Poliak-Kan,
Moscow 1949.
9 tiJd3 'iii'96
This position is unclear according to Paul
Keres.
10 f4!
But this position gives White a clear ad-
vantage according to Anatoly Karpov!
10... h6 11 d5 tiJa6 12 b4!
White has a strong initiative on the queen-
side, while Black has got more or less noth-
ing going on the kingside.
12... exd5
How bad a state Black is really in can be
seen from these lines:
131
Classical Dutch

a) 12... tDe4 13 tDxe4 fxe4 14 tDf2 exdS 15 21 .ltg2 .Itf6

cxdS..tfS 16 g4 and White wins. This move is forced. After 21...cxbS 22 g4
b) 12...eS 13 bS tDb8 (13 ...tDcS 14 tDxcs (with the idea of l:th3) and 21.....te6 22 l:te3!
dxcS 15 fxeS tDg4 16 e6 ..tf6 17 'ii'e1 and Black is facing too many problems.
White is just a protected passed pawn up for
nothing) 14 fxeS dxeS 15 tDxeS 'ii'g7 16 ..tb2
and White has a winning position.
13 tbxdS tbxdS 14 .ltxdS+ <Jo>h7 1S bS
tbcs 16 tbxcs dxcS

22.lte3!
This again prevents the opponent's plan.
After 22 g4 ..td4+ (22 .....teS!? is another pos-
sibility, protecting fS and the king at the same
time) 23 e3 ..teS 24 ..te4 ~g7 25 gxfS White
17 'ii'c2! is doing very well, but his rook on a3 is shut
Typical of Karpov's style - a move of real out of the game unnecessarily.
prophylaxis. The idea is to prevent Black 22 ....ltd4 23 .ltxd4 cxd4 24 e3 dxe3 2S
from freeing his queenside. After 17 .l:Ib1?! l:txe3 .lte6
..te6 18 ..txb7 l:tad8 Black would gain some
unnecessary counterplay.
17 ... a6
17... c6 18 bxc6 bxc6 19 ..tg2 gives White a
lasting structural advantage.
18 a4!
This is more precise than 18 ..tb2?! gxf4
19 l:txf4 ..tgS, when it's obvious that the
bishop has abandoned the squares nearest to
his own king - the position is unclear.
18 ...1Ib8
18... axbS 19 cxbS c6 20 bxc6 bxc6 21 ..tc4
would give White a clear advantage due to
his outside passed pawn. 26 g4!
19 fxgS! Finally this comes, and now with deadly
Time for actioh! effect.
19... hxgS 20 1Ia3 c6 26 ... l:tbe8 27 bxc6 bxc6 28 cS!
Black still cannot free his queenside. One Precise to the end. After the automatic
example is 20.....te6 21 ..txe6 'iixe6 22 l:te3 and greedy 28 ..txc6? .l:Ic8 29 gxfS ':'xfS 30
'iif6 23 g4 and White wins. l:txfS ..txfS 31 l:te7+ ~h6 32 ..te4 ..txe4 33

132

'iVxe4 'iVxe4 34l:txe4 Black has real chances
of saving this endgame.
28 .. :iff6 29 .txc6 .l:l.b8
White wins after 29 ...'iVd4 30 'iVc3 'iVxg4+
31 l:tg3 'iVc4 32 i.xe8 'iWxc3 33 .l:r.xc3 lhe8
34 c6, when the exchange and passed pawn
decide matters.
30 gxf5 .tf7 31 .tg2 .l:!.b2 32 'ii'c3 'ii'xc3
33 .l:!.xc3 ':d8 34 c6 .l:!.dd2 35 .te4 .l:!.e2
36 c7 ':xe4 37 c8'ii' 1-0
Game 66
Reshevsky-Botvinnik
The Hague 1948
I have in some part based my annotations
on those by Keres from the tournament
book.
1 d4 e6 2 c4 f5 3 g3 l'Df6 4 .tg2 .te7 5
l'Dh3 0-0 6 0-0 d6 7 l'Dc3 'ii'e8 8 e4
8 tUf4 was considered in the previous
game.
8 .. .fxe4
9 l'Df4
Also possible is 9 tUxe4. In Enryclopaedia 0/
Chess Openings by Chess Informant this posi-
tion is regarded as much better for White.
This is, of course, not true. After 9... eS 10
dxeS (or 10 tUhgS tUc6 with an unclear posi-
tion) 10... dxeS 11 tUhgS tUc6 12 tUxf6+
..txf6 13 l:te1 i.f5 Black seems to have
equalised without any problems. White has
the e4-square, but Black is active and can
Systems with l'Dh3
make good use of the d4-square.
9 ... c6
9 ... eS would be too soon due to 10 dxeS
dxeS 11 tUfdS and White is better.
10 l'Dxe4 l'Dxe4 11 .txe4 e5 12 l'Dg2?!
12 dxeS dxeS 13 tUd3 with an unclear
game was more prudent.
12 ... l'Dd7 13 l'De3 exd4!
13 ...tUf6 14 i.g2 e4 15 dS!, with the plan
i.d2-c3, would give White the advantage as
the e4-pawn is in trouble.
14 'ii'xd4 l'De5 15 f4 l'Dg4 16 l'Dxg4 iLxg4
17 ':e1
17 'iWd3 'iWhS 18 i.£3, to play for a draw,
was also possible.
17 ....tf6 18 'ii'd3
18 'iVxd6l:td8 19 'ii'a3 (19 i.xh7+? <Jtxh7
20 l:txe8 l:tfxe8 is a nice tactic as the black
rooks go in for the kill) 19 ...1Whs would leave
White in trouble. Black has serious attacking
chances.
18 ...'ii'h5 19 .td2 ':fe8 20 J:Iab1?
Both 20 i.c3 i.xc3 21 'iVxc3 l:r.e6 22l:r.e3
.l::tae8 23 l:tae1, with a defensible position,
and maybe even 20 l:r.e3!? were better.
20 ...:e7?
This is careless play. Black leaves the d6-
pawn en prise unnecessarily. 20...l:te6! 21 b4
(21 l:te3? l:tae8 22 l:r.be1 can simply be meet
with 22...i.xb2 23l:tb1 l:r.xe4! 24 l:r.xe4l:txe4
25 'ii'xe4 i.f5 26 'iVe1 i.d4+ with a winning
position) 21...l:tae8 22 l:tbc1 <Jth8 would give
Black a large advantage. If you think it is not
133
Classical Dutch
so apparent, then try to look at what threats
the black pieces create, and then tum to the
white pieces and see what they can do!
21 i..b4!
Reshevsky does not miss this chance to
win a pawn with tempo.
21 ...:taeS 22 i..xd6 :te6
Maybe Botvinnik had miscalculated the
following line: 22.. Jhe4? 23 l:txe4 l:txe4 24
'iVxe4 i.fS and it looks good for Black. Yet
after 25 'iWe3 i.xb1 26 'iWe6+ <lith8 27 'iWc8+
it is White who wins.
23.l:!.e3?
Much better was 23 c5! i.fS 24 i.e5
i.xe5 25 i.xfS i.d4+ 26 <litfl and White liq-
uidates into a highly advantageous endgame.
23 .. Jbd6!?
Also possible was 23 ...i.fS 24 i.e5 i.xe4
(24...i.xe5?! 25 i.xfS %:td6 26 i.xh7+ <lith8
27 l:txe5l:txe5 28 'iVxd6l:te2 29 'iVd8+ <litxh7
30 'iVh4 'iVxh4 31 gxh4 would give White
some chances in the endgame, even though it
does not look like many) 25 l:txe4 i.xe5 26
l:tbe1 'iWfS 27 fxe5 l:txe5 28 l:txe5 'iWxd3 29
l:txe8+ <¥;fl and, because the position of the
white king is so open, Black will not have any
problems drawing this position.
24 'ifxd6 l:t.dS
24...i.e7 25 i.d5+! and White wins.
25 'iic7
25 'iWb4? i.d4 26 l:tbe1 l1e8 would tum
the tables. Also not good is 25 'iWa3l:td2 and
Black is penetrating into White's position.
134
One possible line is 26 i.g2 i.d4 27 l:tbe1
(otherwise ...l:te2) 27 ... i.h3! and White has
no defence. But not 27 ... i.f3? after which
White has the miracle save with 28 'iWe7
i.xe3+ 29 nxe3l:txg2+ 30 ~fl h6 31 'iVd8+
<lith7 32 'iWd3+.
25 ... 'ifc5?!
This is probably an attempt to win the
game, which is rather foolish. 25 ...l:td2?? 26
i.d5+ also does not work, but 25 ...:d7 26
'iWc8+ l:td8 would draw. Black even wins af-
ter 27 'iWxb7? i.d4 28l:tbe1 i.xe3+ 29 .l:txe3
nd1+ with mate to follow in just a few
moves.
26 l:tbe1 l:tcS 27 'iixb7 .i.d4 2S ..tf2?!
Now it is White's tum to miss his golden
chance. After 28 'ifb3 :d8 29 <litg2 i.xe3 30
'iWxe3 'iVxe3 31 l:txe3 nd2+ 32 <litfl :xb2 33
i.xc6 White has some chances to win the
endgame.
2S ...i..xe3+
The alternatives were:
a) 28 ...'iVa5? 29 i.f3 'iVd2+ (29 ...l:te8 30
i.xg4 l:txe3 31 l:txe3 'iWd2+ 32 <litfl! 'iVxe3
33 'iWc8+ <litfl 34 'iid7+ <litf8 35 'iWd6+ ~fl
36 <litg2 would give White very good chances
to win the game) 30 l:t1e2 i.xe3+ 31 ~g2
and White has won a pawn.
b) 28 ...l:td8?! 29 Wb3 i.xe3+ 30 'iWxe3
l:td2+ 31 <litg1 'iixe3+ 32l:txe3l:td1+ 33 ~f2
l:td2+ 34 <litfl l:txb2 35 i.xc6 transposes to
the line above.
29 .l:!.xe3 'ifd4?!
Here Black misses the chance to draw di-
rectly with 29 ...l:td8 30 Wb3 l:td2+ 31 <litg1
l:td1+ 32 <litf2 and the natural continuation
leads to a perpetual check.
30 'ifb3?
30 i.f3! l:te8 31 'iWb3 l:txe3 32 'iVxe3
'iWxb2+ 33 'iie2 'iVd4+ 34 <litg2 i.xf3+ 35
<litxf3 would give White an extra pawn in the
queen ending. Sure, it is still very hard to win,
but in practice it is just as hard to draw, so if
White just continues to play normal moves,
then he will most likely obtain some reason-
able chances.

30 .. :ifd2+ 31 'oti>g1 "c1 + 32 'oti>f2 "d2+
33'oti>g1"c1+ Y2-Y2
Black chooses to take the perpetual check.
This is probably a good decision, as after
33 ... ~e2 34 h4 'ife1+ 35 c,t>h2 'iff2+ 36 c,t>h3
White has good chances to prove an advan-
tage.
Game 67
Sliwa-Tolush
Riga 1959
1 c4 f5 2 d4 tiJf6 3 g3 e6 4 .i.g2 .i.e 7 5
tiJh3 0-0 6 0-0 d6 7 b3
There are some alternatives here:
a) 7 'iWb3 c6 and now:
a1) 8 liJd2 e5! 9 c5+ d5 10 e3 (10 dxe5
liJg4 and Black regains his pawn without any
problems) W ...Wc7 and Black probably al-
ready has the better position.
Systems with tiJh3
a2) 8 liJc3 liJa6 9 liJg 5 e5 10 .l:Id1 'ife8 11
d5 h6 12 liJB liJc5?! (12...cxd5 with unclear
play is better according to Karpov) 13 'ifa3
cxd5 14 liJxd5 liJxd5 15 cxd5 with a slight
advantage to White, Karpov-Nikolic, Reykja-
vik 1991.
b) 7 liJf4 c6 8 liJc3 e5 9 dxeS dxe5 10
liJd3 Wc7 11 b3 liJa6 12 a3liJc5 gives Black
a good game.
7 .....e8 8 tiJd2?!
This move does not do anything to pre-
vent Black from his main advance ... e6-eS. It
was better to play 8 ~b2 ~d8 9 liJf4 liJa6
(9 ... e5?! 10 dxe5 dxe5 11 liJdS would give
White a small advantage and - what is worse
- would completely justify his play, Ulybin-
Poluljahov, Budapest 1992) 10 liJc3 c6! and
now, fully prepared for ...e6-e5, Black has
equalised.
8 ... e5 9 dxe5 dxe5 10 .i.b2 tiJg4!
A main difference from the vanatlons
with the knight in B. In those lines White
would have h2-h3, but now he has nothing
of the sort, only a misplaced knight out there.
11 e3 a5 12 'ife2?
12 .l:Ie1!, with the idea of 13liJf1 and 14 B
followed by liJf2, would still give White
some chances for equality.
12...tiJa6 13 tiJf3
13 B? liJxe3 would just drop a pawn.
13....i.d6 14 'oti>h1 tiJc5 15 :ad1 .i.d7
Black has a clear advantage. The white po-
sition might not look so bad at first glance,
135
Classical Dutch

but really, all of his pieces are beautifully con- 19 ...'ifh5!?

trolled by their black counterparts. The Played with the idea of 20 ...g5 and 21..,£4.
knights, especially, have no future at all. Also possible was 19...li)xd4 with a solid po-
16 ttJe1 sitional advantage.
So White tries to do something to change 20 f4
the course of the game and untangle himself The only move, otherwise ...li)g5 was dis-
from all this mess. turbing.
16 ... e4! 20 ... exf3
Preventing £2-f3. This is not the most logical move as the
17 ~d4 b6 18 'ifb2 ttJe6 knight is rather inactive on e1, but now it
protects h2. 20 ...li)xd4 21 'iixd4 i.e6 would
give a winning position.
21 ttJxf3 ttJxd4 22 'ifxd4
Or 22 exd4 li)e3! (22... f4?!, with threat of
...li)e3, would give White time to defend a lit-
tle with 23 li)e5! f3 24 1:[xf3 i.xe5 25 dxe5
i.c6 26 1:[xf8+ 1:[xf8 27 ~d5 and White is
still hanging in there, though only by a fine
thread) 23 1:[££2 li)xg2 24 cJi>xg2 f4 25 li)xf4
i.xf4 26 gxf4 l::txf4 and Black has an easily
winning attack
22 .. J~ae8 23 ttJf4 'Wh6 24 ':!'e2?!·

Black has a clear advantage and so he

takes it easy. The sacrificial line with
18...'iih5? 19 i.xg7 1:[f7 20 i.d4 li)xe3 21
fxe3 'iixd1 apparently wins material, but after
22 li)f3! 'ilfxfl+! (or 22...'ilfd3? 23 li)fg5
1:[ff8?! - not the best defence, but the posi-
tion is falling apart - 24 i.h8! and White
wins) 23 i.xfl exf3 24li)g5 i.c6 25 cJi>gl the
position is deeply unclear.
19 l:td2?!
White needed to change the course of the
game, as if everything continues down the
same lane, Black will just win. Better was 19 24 li)h4!? was stronger, the idea being that
i.xb6!?, when Black has a lot of pleasant op- after 24...li)xe3 25 1:[e1 White only loses a
tions, as the loss of this pawn wasn't critical. pawn. Now it is the king that is in danger.
Probably he should go for the direct kill with 24 .....te6 25 'ifd2 ..tb4 26 'We1 ~e5 27
19...'iih5!? 20 i.xc7 (White's main idea) ttJh4 g5 28 ~xe6 'ii'xe6+ 29 ttJd5 gxh4
20... i.xc7 21 1:[xd7 1:[ad8!, with ideas of 30 e4 fxe4 31 .l:.xf8+ lbf8 32 h3 ttJf2+
...li)g5 and ...1:[f6-h6 with a very dangerous 33 r;t>g2 'ifg6 34 g4 ttJxg4 35 r;t>h1 ttJf2+
attack. 36 ':!'xf2 ':!'xf2 0-1

136
 Systems with 'Dh3

Summary
White probably cannot hope for an opening advantage at all after playing the knight to h3. The
simplest way to equalise seems to be a quick ... e6-eS. Black should be careful about playing
...g6-gS as Short did against Karpov. The structure arising after 10 f4! in that game is surely
much better for White. The right way for Black to play is to play in the centre.

1 d4 f5 2 c4 'Df6 3 g3 e6 4 ..ltg2 ..lte7 5 'Dh3 0-0 6 0-0 d6 (D) 7 'Dc3

7 b3 'if'e8 (D) - Game 67
7 ... 'iie8 8 'Df4
8 e4-Game66
8 ... g5 9 'Dd3 (D) - Game 65

6 ... d6 7... 'iie8 9 'Dd3

137
Classical Dutch

CHAPTER EIGHT I
Second Move Alternatives

1 d4 f5 overwhelming attack) 11...d6 12 h5 l:te8 13

In this chapter we will look at more un-
usual second move options for White. The
Staunton Gambit with 2 e4 (Game 68) is
perhaps the most violent try against the
Dutch. White immediately sacrifices a pawn
in order to speed up development while try-
ing to exploit the slight weakness on Black's
kingside. However, Black's resources in this
line seem to be more than adequate. An-
other, more subtle, approach from White is
early piece play with either 2 liJc3 or 2 .ig5
(Games 69-72). These lines are tricky but the
well-versed Dutch player should have noth-
ingto fear.
hxg6 hxg6 14liJe2liJbd7 15liJh4liJffi 16 g4
liJ8h7 17 liJxg6 liJe4 18 i.xd8 liJxd2+ 19
~g2 liJffi?! (or 19...lXxd8 20 liJe7+ ~f7 21
:xh7) 20 i.a5 liJe4 21 liJxffi .ixffi 22 f3 b6
23 gxf5 liJf6 24 .id2liJd5 25 neg1 .ig726
c;t>f2 ~ffi 27 lth 7 1-0 Sveshnikov-Trajkovic,
Pula 1990.
b) 2... d6?! 3 liJc3 liJf6 4 .id3 fxe4 5 liJxe4
g6 6 liJf3 .ig4 7 h3 .ixf3 8 'iifxf3 liJxe4 9
.ixe4 c6 10 h4 with a clear advantage for
White in Grosar-Blatnik, Sen~ur 1996. Two
bishops, a clear attacking point and a lead in
development - Black is more or less busted if
you think about it.

Game 68
Gulko-Gurevich
USSR 1985
1 d4 f5 2 e4 fxe4
This is the only serious move. Here are
the passive alternatives:
a) 2...e6?! gives White a better structure
right from the start. A good illustration of
what this can lead to is given in the following
game: 3 exf5 exf5 4 .id3 g6 (4... d5!? 5 .if4
gives White only a slight advantage) 5 liJf3
'iVe7+ 6 c;t>f1! liJf6 7 liJc3 .ig7 8 .ig5 c6 9 3lbc3
'iVd2 0-0 10 :e1 'iifd8 11 h4 (White has an On 3 f3!? I recommend 3...liJf6! 4liJc3 or

138

3...d5 4 lDc3 d5, both of which transpose to
the main text. In the latter case Black
shouldn't continue with 4... exB 5 lDxB i.g4
6 h3 i.xB 7 1VxB e6 8 i.d3 as this gives
White a lead in development and a possible
attack on the light squares.
3 . ..lt:Jf6
On 3...g6!? White has the logical 4 h4!, us-
ing his lead in development to attack, not to
regain a ridiculous pawn (4 lDxe4 d5 5 lDg3
i.g7 6 h4lDc6 7 i.b51Vd6 8 i.xc6+ bxc6 9
lD1e2 i.a6 10 c3 e5 was preferable for Black
in Fuderer-Alexander, Belgrade 1952). After
4... d5 5 h5 i.g7 6 B lDc6 7 i.b5 1Vd6 the
position is a mess.
4 f3
The most aggressive line here is 4 i.g5
after which Black can play:
a) 4...g6 5 h4! (5 B!? exB 6 lDxB d5 7
i.d3 i.g7 8 1Ve2lDc6 9 0-0-0 i.g4 10 1Ve3
Second Move Alternatives
0-0 11 h3 i.xB 12 gxB lDh5 and the posi-
tion is unclear according to Cabrilo) 5...d5 6
h5 i.g7 7 h6 i.f8 8 B 1Vd6 9lDge2 exB 10
gxB c6 11 1Vd2lDbd7 12 0-0-0 lDb6 13 lDf4
with a strong attacking position in Rabar-
Kluzinski, Yugoslavia 1949.
b) 4... e6 5lDxe4 i.e7 6 i.xf6 i.xf6 7lDB
transposes to Game 72.
c) 4...c6 looks awkward. 5 B! exB 6lDxB
d6 7 i.d3 i.g4 8 0-0 1Va5 9 1Vd2 lDbd7 10
b41Vc7 11 .l:tae1 0-0-0 12 b5 c5 13 b6! 1Vxb6
14 l:tb1 with a strong white attack in Sere-
brinsky-Makarov, USSR 1950.
d) The most popular choice is 4...lDc6!.
Time has shown that this aggressive-looking
move is also the strongest. One of the key
ideas is that after 5 i.xf6 exf6 6 lDxe4 d5!
Black is developing fast and has a pleasant
position to look forward to. Instead White
can choose:
d1) 5 B!? d5 (5 ...e5 6 d5 lDd4 7 lDxe4
i.e7 8 i.xf6 i.xf6 91Vd2 0-0 10 0-0-0 d6 11
c3 lDf5 leads to equality, H0rberg-Larsen,
Stockholm 1966/67) 6 fxe4 lDxe4 7 lDxe4
dxe4 8 d5 lDe5 91Vd4lDf7 10 i.h4 c6 with
an unclear game according to Mark Tai-
manov.
d2) 5 i.b5?! does not make a lot of sense.
After 5...g6! 6 i.xf6 exf6 7 lDxe4 'it'e7! 8
i.xc6 dxc6 91Ve2 f5 10 lDc3 3l.g7 111Vxe7+
~xe7 Black has the comfortable advantage
of having the two bishops in an ending, Ze-
lic-Palac, Pula 2000.
d3) 5 d5lDe5 6 1Vd4lDf7 7 i.xf6 (7 h4 c6
8 0-0-0 ~6 9 'iVd2lDxg5 10 hxg5lDxd5 11
lDxd5 cxd5 121Vxd51Vc6 13 ~31Vc5 was
unclear in Schuster-Calaviere, Ezeiza 2000,
but more logical is 13... a6!? 14 i.e2 g6 15
i.c4 e6 16 1Vc3 l:.g8 17 :xh7 i.e7 18 1Vd4
d5, when the powerful centre guarantees
Black the advantage) 7 i.xf6 and now:
d31) 7...gxf6!? 8 lDxe4 (81Vxe4!?) 8... c6 9
i.c4?! (9 0-0-0 is more logical) 9...1Vb6! 10
lDB 1Vxd4 11 lDxd4 cxd5 12 i.xd5 e6 13
i.b3 f5 14 lDf6+ ~e7 15 lDh5 :g8 16 g3
l:.g4 and Black's strong centre gives him the
139
Classical Dutch
advantage, Osman-Sebe, Bucharest 2001.
d32) 7...exf6 (the normal move) 8 ttJxe4
i.e7 (equally good is 8... fS!? 9 ttJg3 g6 10
0-0-0 i.h6+ 11 f4 0-0 12 ttJf3 i.g7 13 'iWd2
b5 14 ttJd4 ttJd6 and Black has no problems,
Shumitsev-Shaposnikov, correspondence
1969; actually this is the line I would recom-
mend) 9 0-0-0 0-0 10 ttJg3 d6 11 f4 (logical is
11 ttJh3 c5 12 'iWc3 g6 13 ttJf4 ttJe5, when
Black has a strong knight on e5, but White
perhaps can use the e6-square for something)
11...c5 12 'iWc3 ttJh6 13 i.d3 with an unclear
game in Krvatsov-Vyzmanavin, Novgorod
1997.
4 g4 has been played quite a few times, but
the annoyance of the knight on f6 is not
nearly as important as the weaknesses created
in the white camp. One game continued
4...h6 5 g5 hxg5 6 i.xg5 d5 7 h4 ttJc6 8 f3
i.fS 9 i.h3 'ii'd7 10 i.xfS 'iWxfS 11 a3 0-0-0
and Black was fine in Dalkiran-Onischuk,
Heraklio 1997. But here Konikowski sug-
gests that Black could play even better with
11...exf3! 12 ttJxf3 (12 'iWxf3 'iWxc2
[12...ttJxd4!?] 13i.xf6 gxf6 14 .l:td1 'iWxb2 15
ttJxd5 0-0-0 and Black wins) 12... 0-0-0 and
White has no compensation for the sacrificed
pawn.
4 ... d5
Black's alternatives are risky:
a) 4...ttJc6 5 fxe4 e5 6 dxe5! (never mind
structure - time is the important aspect right
here) 6...ttJxe5 7 ttJf3 i.d6 8 i.g5 h6 9 i.h4
140
ttJg6 10 i.g3 i.xg3+ 11 hxg3 'iVe7 12 'ii'd4
with an advantage to White in Grigorian-Tal,
USSR 1972.
b) 4 ...exf3 5 ttJxf3 g6 6 i.f4 i.g7 7 'iWd2
0-0 8 i.h6 d5 gives White good compensa-
tion for the pawn, but Black also has his re-
sources, Bronstein-Alexander, Hastings
1953/54. Most players would probably like
to avoid playing like this with Black, as this
was clearly the type of game White was hop-
ing for.
5 fxe4 dxe4 6 iLg5 iLf5 7 tiJge2
7 i.c4 ttJc6 8 ttJge2 'ii'd7 9 0-0 e6 10 'ii'e1
0-0-0 11 .l:td1 ttJa5 was equal in Schultz-
Wille, correspondence 1956/57.
7 ... e6
7...ttJc6? 8 d5 ttJe5 9 'ii'd4 ttJfl 10 i.xf6
exf6 11 ttJg3 would give White time to de-
velop an attack, so Black should be a little
careful.
8 tiJg3 iLe7
Also possible is 8...i.b4!? 9 i.b5+ c6 10
i.e2 (10 i.c4 'iWa5 11 0-0 i.xc3 12 bxc3
'iWxc3 and the compensation is not really ap-
parent) 10... 0-0 11 0-0 i.xc3 12 bxc3 'ii'a5
and Black has a better game.
9 'ifd2
Or 9 i.c4 ttJc6! (attacking the weak spot
in the White position) 10 i.xf6 i.xf6 11 d5
ttJe5 12 i.b3 i.g4 13 'iWd2 c6! 14 d6?! (14
dxc6 'iWxd2+ 15 ~xd2 0-0-0+ 16 ~e1 ttJxc6
17 ttJgxe4 ttJd4 is only slightly better for
Black) 14... i.g5 15 'iWd4 'ii'f6 16 'iWxe4 0-0

with a very promising Black position.
9 ... h6 10 .i.e3
After 10 i.xf6 i.xf6 11 ltJcxe4 i.xe4 12
ltJxe4 'ii'xd4 Black is just a pawn up.
10 ... liJbd7
Also possible is 10...ltJc6 11 d5?! (11 i.b5
0-0 12 0-0 ltJg4 is only slightly better for
Black) 11...ltJb4 12 i.bS+ (12 i.c4 ltJg4! 13
i.b3 c6! and White is in trouble) 12... c6 13
dxc6 "it'xd2+ 14 ~xd2 bxc6 15 i.c4 ltJg4
and Black has an overwhelming advantage.
11 .i.e2 liJb6 12 0-0
White could also try 12 ltJh5!?, with the
trap 12...0-0? 13 ltJxg7! ~xg7 14 i.xh6+
~h8 15 i.xf8 i.xf8 16 0-0-0 and the posi-
tion is less clear. But Black can beat White
off with 12...i.g6! 13 ltJxg7+? (13 ltJf4 i.f7
14 0-0 0-0 and Black is better) 13 ... ~f7 14
i.xh6 i.f8 15 ltJxe6 ~xe6 16 i.xf8 "it'xf8
and Black wins.
12 .. :ifd7!
Black is preparing to castle queenside as
White's king seems a bit open. Also possible
is 12...i.g6 13 .l:r.ae1 and White is only slightly
worse.
13liJh5
If White does nothing he is in trouble as
the following line illustrates: 13 a4 0-0-0 14
as ltJbd5 15 a6 b6 16 :tadl .l:r.hf8 and Black
has a clear advantage.
13 ....l:!.g8 14 liJxf6+ .i.xf6 15 i.h5+ g6
16 .i.e2 'i'g7!
16... 0-0-0? is not good due to 17 g4! (17
Second Move Alternatives
.l:r.ad 1? would return the favour after
17...'ii'g7! with a clear advantage) 17 ...i.xd4
18 'ii'xd4 "it'xd4 19 i.xd4 :txd4 20 gxfS exfS
and, though Black has lost a piece, the posi-
tion remains unclear.
17 i.xh6?
After this the game is just lost. Better was
17 g4 0-0-0 18 ~hl (18 l:tad1 h5 would pro-
vide Black with a terrifying attack) 18... i.xd4
19 gxfS gxfS 20 :tg1 i.xc3 and Black is bet-
ter, but it is still a game.
17 ... .i.xd4+ 18 'it>h1 'i'h8 19 i.f4
There is no longer time for 19 g4; Black
plays 19 ... 0-0-020 gxfS e3 21 i.xe3 i.e5 22
i.d3 ltJc4 and wins.
19 ... 0-0-01
Finishing development.
20 liJb5
Or 20 "it'e1 ltJd5 21 ltJxd5 exd5 and the
game is more or less over.
20 ... e5 21 .i.e3
Another long line looks like this: 21 i.g5
i.xb2! 22 i.xd8 l:txd8 23 'iWb4 i.xal 24
l:txal l:td7! 25 ltJxa7+ ~b8 26 "it'a5 :h7 27
h3 i.xh3 and White should resign.
21 ... a6 22 liJc3 .l:!.g7 23 .l:!.f2 .l:!.h7 24 g3
'i'e8 25 i.n 'i'c6 26 'i'e2 liJd7
Clearer was 26 ... i.xc3! 27 bxc3 'ii'xc3 28
l:tb 1 ltJd5.
27 liJd1 liJf6 28 c3 i.g4?!
Here Black is not playing his best. After
28 ...ltJg4! 29 cxd4 exd4 30 :tel ltJxf2+ 31
ltJxf2 "it'f6 Black wins everything.
141
Classical Dutch
29.1:[xf6?!
29 'iWc4! ft'xc4 30 i.xc4 i.xe3 31 liJxe3
i.f3+ 32 ~gl .l:r.d6, with the idea of ....l:r.hd7,
still gives Black a large advantage, but the
blockade of the central pawns provides
White with some hope.
29 ....i.xe2 30 .l:[xc6 .i.f3+
Over and out.
31 <t>g1
Or 31 i.g2 i.xg2+ 32 ~xg2 i.xe3 33 .l:r.f6
.l:r.d2+ and White probably resigns.
31 ....i.xe3+ 32 ttJxe3 bxc6 33 .i.xa6+
<t>b8 34 :f1 .l:[d2 35 .l:[f2 .l:[xf2 36 <t>xf2
.l:[xh2+ 0-1
r-----------------.
Game 69
Kasparov-lIIescas Cordoba
Dos Hermanas 1996
The annotations to this game are based on
those by Illescas Cordoba in Chess Itiformant
66.
1 d4 f5 2 .i.g5
This move should not be dangerous for
Black, though he will have to be carefuL
2 ... h6
In my opinion this is the best choice for
Black. Of the alternatives only 2...g6 has a
good reputation:
a) 2...d5?! 3 c4 liJf6 4 liJc3 dxc4 5 e4
liJxe4 6 liJxe4 fXe4 7 i.xc4 gave White good
compensation for the material in Agdestein-
Yilmaz, Yerevan 1996.
142
b) 2...liJf6 is very popular. White should
obtain a slight edge due to Black's weak
pawn structure. 3 i.xf6 exf6 4 e3 (White is
better after the simple 4 c4!, or 4 g3!? d5 5
ft'd3 i.d6 6liJc3 c6 7liJe 0-0 8 0-0-0, as in
Chistakov-Antoshin, Moscow 1948) and
now:
bl) 4... d5 5 c4 c6 6 cxd5 'it'xd5 7 liJc3
'it'f7 8 i.d3 i.d6 9 h4 f4 10 exf4 i.xf4 11
'ii'c2 g6 12liJge2 i.c7 13 0-0-0 with a crush-
ing attack on the way, Cebalo-Wiley Basle
1999.
b2) 4...c6 5 c4 i.b4+ 6 liJc3 i.xc3+ 7 bxc3
0-0 8 i.d3 'it'a5 9 'it'c2 d6 10 liJe2 is some-
what better for White, Radzhabov-Yueferov,
Moscow 1996.
b3) 4... i.e7 5 i.d3 d5 6 liJe2 0-0 7 c3
i.d6 8 liJd2 c6 9 'iWc2 g6 10 0-0-0 b6 11 h3
i.a6 12 g4 i.xd3 13 'it'xd3 fXg4 14 hxg4
liJd7 15 l:.h6 with a strong position for
White in Mchedeishvili-Froeyman, Rotter-
dam 1998.
b4) 4...'it'e7! 5liJc3 c6 6 'it'e d5 7 i.d3 g6
8 h3 i.e6 with equality. In the game
Moiseenko-Moroz, Ordzhonikidze 2000,
Black played the weak 8...liJa6 and after 9
i.xa6 bxa6 10 liJge2 .l:r.b8 11 liJa4 'ilfb4 12
liJec3 as 13 0-0 White obtained a much bet-
ter position.
c) 2...g6 and now:
el) 3 liJd2 i.g7 4 c3 h6 5 i.f4 d6 6 e3 e5
7 i.g3 'ii'e7 gave Black an easy game,
Kunter-Mering, East Germany 1969.
c2) 3 c3 liJh6! (this is Grandmaster Vlast-
mil Jansa's idea) 4 liJe liJf7 5 h4 i.g7 6 e3
h6 7 i.f4 d6 8 i.c4 e6 9 'it'c2 'iWe7 with
equality in Staiger-Glek, Bern 1994. Black is
finally ready to play ... e6-e5.
c3) 3 h4!? i.g7 4 h5 h6 5 i.el g5 6 'iWd3
e6 7 e4 d6 8liJe f49 e5 liJe7 10 exd6 cxd6
11 liJbd2 0-0 12 c3 liJES with an even game
in Gipslis-Reize, Leningrad 1960.
c4) 3liJc3 i.g7 (3 ...d5!? 4 e3 i.g7 5 h4 c6
6 i.d3 'iWb6 7 .l:r.bl liJd7 8 liJe liJgf6 9 h5
liJe4 10 hxg6 hxg6 11 .l:r.xh8+ i.xh8
[Zsu.Polgar-Beliavsky, Munich 1991] and

now according to Polgar White is slightly
better after 12 ~f4) 4 e4 fxe4 5 ltJxe4 d5! (an
essential move; Black is stalling slightly with
his development and wins time this way) 6
ltJc5 b6 (6 ...'ii'd6?! 7 ltJf3 e5 does not work
out due to 8 ltJxe5 ~xe5 9 'ii'e2 ltJc6 10
ltJb3 ltJxd4 11 ltJxd4 ~f7 12 ltJb5 'ii'e6 13
f4 ~d6 14 0-0-0 h6 15 'ii'xe6+ ~xe6 16
ltJxd6 ~xd6 17 ~h4 nh7 18 ~e2 ~e6 19
g4 c6 20 h3 with a clear advantage for White,
Hodgson-Lim, Manila 1992 - the idea is
simply ~d3xg6) 7 ltJb3 ltJf6 8 ltJf3 0-0 9
~e2 'ii'd6! (this is an important move; after
9... c5?! 10 c3ltJe411 ~e3 cxd4 12 cxd4ltJd7
13 0-0 ltJd6 14 %:tel ltJc4 15 %:txc4! dxc4 16
~xc4+ ~h8 17 ltJg5 White has a good at-
tacking position) 10 0-0 ltJbd7 11 ~h4 (11
'ii'el e5! is unclear according to Grandmaster
Mikhail Tseitlin; 11 c4 ~b7 also looks like
just another game of chess) 11...ltJh5 12 ne1
ltJf4 13 ~b5 ltJf6 with unclear play in
Fominyh-Dubinsky, Nizhny Novgorod 1998.
3~h4
Also possible is 3 ~f4ltJf6 4ltJc3 (4 e4!?
fxe4 5 ltJc3 d5 6 f3 ~fS 7 fxe4 dxe4 8 ~c4
g5 9 ~e5ltJbd7 10 ltJb5ltJxe5 11 dxe5ltJg4
12 ~e2 [Finegold-Tukmakov, Reykjavik
1990] and now after 12...'ii'xd1+ 13 %:txd1
%:tc8 14ltJd4 e6 15ltJxfS exfS 16 ~xg4 fxg4
17 :d4! is unclear) 4...d5 5 e3 e6 6 ~d3 ~d6
7 ltJf3 0-0 8 ltJe5 ltJc6! (fighting for the e5-
square) 9ltJxc6 bxc6 10 ltJa4 'ii'e7 11 0-0 e5!
with equality in Soffer-Rechlis, Bern 1990.
Second Move Alternatives
3 ... 95
3...c5?! is too optimistic. A good illustra-
tion of how White should fight for the initia-
tive can be seen in the following game: 4 e3
'ii'b6 (this does not look good, but that is
Black's idea...) 5 ltJc3! cxd4 6 exd4 'ife6+ 7
~e2 g5 8 ltJf3! gxh4 9 ltJe5 ltJf6 10 0-0 h5
11 %:tel 'ii'b6 12ltJd5! ltJxd5 13 ~xh5+ ~d8
14 ltJf7+ ~c7 15 ltJxh8 ~g7 16 ltJg6 e6 17
c4ltJf6 18 d5ltJe4 19 c5 'ii'xb2 20 d6+ ~d8
21 %:r.el 'ii'xf2+ 22 ~hl 'ii'b2 23 %:txe4 fxe4
24 'ii'el ltJa6 25 'ii'xh4+ ~f6 26 :f1! 1-0,
Gormally-Zeidler, Dyfed 1999.
4e3
The alternatives pose no dangers for Black
if he knows what he is doing.
a) 4 ~g3 and now:
al) 4... f4? 5 e3! and White wins a pawn.
An old classic is meant to run 5... h5 6 ~d3
%:th6 7 'ii'xhS+! %:txh5 8 ~g6 mate, but which
one? It is not in my database ...
a2) 4...ltJf6! 5 e4 (5 e3 ttansposes to the
main game) 5... fxe4 6 ltJc3 ~g7 7 f3 d5 8
fxe4 dxe4 9 ~c4 ~g4 10 ltJge2ltJc6 11 h3?!
(11 0-0 was better, but White has still not
really justified the pawn sacrifice) 11...ltJa5 12
~b5+ ~d7 13 b4 c6 14 bxa5 cxb5 15 ~e5
'ii'xa5 16 0-0 0-0 with a clear advantage for
Black, Machulsky-Sarwinsky, Poznan 1986.
b) 4 e4 was the big trick the English came
up with in the 1990s. But the antidote has
been found. Black should be fine:
bl) 4...%:th7?! 5 'ii'hS+ %:tf7 6 ltJf3! ltJc6 7
143
Classical Dutch
i.c4 (J i.xg5 fxe4 8 lDc3! is also interesting;
the main idea is 8...exf3 9 i.c4! and White
wins) 7...e6 8 i.xg5 hxg5 9 lDxg5 gives
White a strong attack.
b2) 4...i.g7 5 i.g3 f4? (5 ... fxe4 6 lDc3
lDf6 is probably okay - see variation 'a2') 6
i.xf4! gxf4 7 'it'h5+ 'iii>f8 8 'ilf5+ lDf6 (or
8...'iii>e8 9 i.e2lDf6 10 e5 d6 11 'ii'xf4 e6 12
exf6 'ilxf6 13 'ii'xf6 and White has a clear
advantage) 9 e5 d6 10 'ilxf4 dxe5 11 dxe5
lDc6 12 lDf3 'ild5 13 exf6 'ile6+ 14 i.e2
i.xf6 15 lDc3 gave White a clear advantage
in Ward-Rasmussen, Copenhagen 2000.
b3) 4...lDf6! (this is by far the best move)
5 e5 e6 and now:
b31) Trying to win material with 6 i.g3 f4
7 i.xf4 gxf4 8 exf6 'ilxf6 9 'ilh5+ 'ii'f7 10
'ile5 i.g7 11 'ilxc7 leads nowhere after
11...lDc6 12 c3 (12lDa3lDxd4 13 c3lDc6 14
lDc4 0-0 15 lDd6 'ilg6 16 0-0-0 i.f6 looks
good for Black) 12...e5 with an initiative. Af-
ter 13 dxe5 i.xe5 the white queen is trapped,
so White has serious problems.
b32) 6 exf6 'ilxf6 7 i.g3 f4 8 i.d3 (8 lDf3
lDc6 9 c3 b6 10 i.b5 i.b7 11 i.xc6 dxc6 12
lDbd2 0-0-0 13 'ii'e2 c5 14 dxc5 i.xc5 15
0-0-0 l:the8 was slightly better for Black in
Prie-Santo Roman, Narbonne 1997) 8...lDc6
9 'ilh5+ 'iii>d8 10 c3 d5 11 lDf3 i.d7 12 0-0
i.d6 13lDbd2 'iii>e7 14 ~ae1 l:tag8 and Black
has a good position in Moiseenko-Jakubiec,
Poland 1999. The key point to this set-up for
Black is that he will not capture on g3 until
144
he absolutely has to. If White captures on f4
he will open a highway down to his own king
and if he plays h2-h3 he will lose a pawn. So
for now the situation is most annoying for
White.
4 ...ltJf6 5 i.g3 d6 6 h41:g8?!
This leaves White the h-file. Better was
6...g4 7 h5 i.e6! 8 lDe2 (or 8 i.d3 'ild7 9
lDe2 i.f7 10 lDf4 %:tg8, with the idea of
...lDc6, ...0-0-0 and ...e7-e5 with an excellent
position for Black) 8...i.f7 9 lDf4 lDc6 10
i.b5 a6 11 i.a4 i.g7 12 i.b3 d5 with un-
clear play in Seirawan-D.Gurevich, Durango
1992.
7 hxg5 hxg5 8 ltJc3! e6 9 f3 "ile7 10
"ild2
Development, development!
10 ... ltJc6 11 0-0-0 i.d7 12 e4!
12 'iii>b1 0-0-0 13 lDge2 i.g7 would give
Black a chance to develop in peace and then
equalise later.
12.. .fxe4
Time is important here. 12... f4 13 i.f2
i.g7 (or 13 ... a6 14 eSt dxe5 15 dxe5lDxe5 16
i.d4 and White wins) 14lDb5 would expose
the black king to danger as d4-d5 is coming.
13 fxe4 0-0-014 d5?!
This gives Black a good game. Better was
14 i.c4 i.g7 (14 ...lDxe4 15lDxe4 d5 16 i.d3
dxe4 17 i.xe4 leaves e6 as a weakness) 15
lDf3 (15 'ii'xg5?! i.h8 16 'ilf4 l:tdf8 gives
good play) 15...lDg4 16 i.e2 and White re-
tains a slight advantage. Also possible were

14 SLb5!? and 14 Wb1.
14... exdS 1S exdS
15 tDxd5 tDxd5 16 exd5 tDe5 is equal ac-
cording to Illescas Cordoba's annotations,
and he is probably right. White has no way to
exploit the weakening of the king's position
after 17 'iid4 Wb8 18 .l::!.e1 SLg7 19 SLf2 b6!.
15 ... lbeS 16 l:te1?!
White has some alternatives to this:
a) 16 tDf3 tDxf3 17 gxf3 g4looks okay for
Black after 18 .l::!.e1 'iig7 19 'iie3 Wb8 20
SLf2 b6 as White has no apparent way to im-
prove his position.
b) But 16 'iid4! Wb8 17 tDb5! would per-
haps give Black some problems after 17... b6
18 'iic3l:!c8 19 'iia3 as 20 tDf3 and the king
seems to be somewhat exposed now. Note
that 17 SLf2 b6 18 SLb5 SLg7 is okay for
Black.
16 ... 'it>b8 17 'it>b1 .i.g7
18 a3
Alternatively:
a) 18 'iixg5?! tDxd5 is good for Black.
b) 18 tDf3 tDxf3 19 gxf3 'iVf7 20 SLf2 (20
'iVxg5? SLh8 21 'iVf4 'iVg7! would leave White
in trouble as ... tDxd5 is threatened and
probably White is forced to play 22 .l::!.xh8)
20...g4 with equality.
c) 18 SLb5 .l::!.h8! 19 .l::!.xh8 .l::!.xh8 20 SLxe5
dxe5 21 SLxd7 (21 tDf3?! SLxb5 22 tDxb5 g4!
23 l:txe5 [not 23 tDxe5 tDe4!! 24 l:txe4 .l::!.h1+
25 :e1 'iVxe5 and Black wins] 23 ... tDe4 24
Ihe 7 tDxd2+ 25 Wc1 gxf3 and Black has
Second Move Alternatives
good winning chances) 21...tDxd7 22 tDe4
tDf6 with equality.
18 .. J:th8!?
18...g4 19 SLb5 SLxb5 20 tDxb5 a6! would
also equalise as 21 tDd4 is met by 21...tDxd5!.
19 l:txh8 l'.bh8 20 .i.xeS!?
Trying to create an imbalance. After 20
tDf3 tDxf3 21 gxf3 'iif7 22 'iixg5 SLh6 23
'iih4 tDxd5 24 tDxd5 'iixd5 White has no
advantage, nor a chance to get any.
20 ... dxeS 21 lbf3 e4!
Opening things up for the g7-bishop.
22 'ii'xgS
After 22 tDxg5? SLh6 White is in trouble.
22 SLd3 g4 23 tDd4 SLh6 also looks good for
Black.
22 ...I!.hS! 23 'ii'd2
23 'i'f4 l:th1 24 'iie5 (24 tDe5?! tDxd5 25
tDxd7+ 'iixd7 26 tDxd5 'i'xd5 gives Black
the advantage) 24...'iixe5 25 tDxe5 SLf5 is
better for Black.
23 ... 'ii'd6?!
Correct was 23 ...l:th1 24 SLd3 e3! 25 'iie2
lhe1+ 26 'iixe1 tDg4 with a good position
for Black, even though White should not be
in real danger.
24lbd4?!
Illescas thinks that White is better after 24
tDxe4 tDxe4 25 .l::!.xe4 l:txd5 26 SLd3 but
. something like 26 ...'iif6 27 'iic1 .l::!.h5 seems
to me to give Black sufficient compensation
for a draw. Still, this is clearly the winning at-
tempt.
145
Classical Dutch
24 ... a6
24.. J:th1!?, with the idea of 25 i.c4?
':'xe1+ 26 'ili'xe1 'ili'cs, looks strong.
2S iLe4.l:th4 26 iLb3 .l:tg4?!
Here Black could have given White more
headaches with 26 ...i.h6! and now:
a) 27 'ili'e2 e3 28 liJf3 i.g4! (not 28....:.g4
29 ':'h1 ':'g6 30 i.c4! i.f5 31 i.d3 i.xd3 32
'ili'xd3 with an advantage for White) 29liJd1!
i.xf3 30 gxf3 (30 'ii'xf3 liJe4 is good for
Black) 30....:.h2 31 'ili'n 'ii'g3! with good play
for Black.
b) 27 'iii'f2 ':'f4 28 'iii'e2 i.g4 29 'ii'c4! e3
30 ':'xe3 cS 31 liJc6+ is unclear.
27l:[e2 e3
Or 27...'ii'h2 28 liJe6! i.h8 29 liJd1 and
White keeps control over the situation.
28 'irxe3 lLlxdS 29lLlxdS?!
More dangerous for Black was 29 i.xdS
i.xd4 30 'ii'e7! 'ii'xe7 31 ':'xe7 i.xc3 32 bxc3
i.co 33 i.xc6 bxc6 34 ':'e2 with a few
chances for some advantage in the rook end-
game, even though a player like Illescas Cor-
doba should be able to draw this.
29 ... iLxd4 30 'fie7 'fixe7 31 .l:txe7 iLe6
32lLlxe7 .l:txg2 33 iLdS
33 liJe6 would have kept some pressure
on Black.
33 ....l:tg1+ 34 'it>a2 :g7! 3S l:[xg7
iLxdS+
3S ...i.xg7 36 liJxa6+ bxa6 37 i.xc6 as is
also drawn.
36 lLlxdS iLxg7 37 e4 'it>e8 38 a4 'it>d7
146
39 as 'it>d6 40 b4 iLd4 41 'it>b3 iLf2 42
lLlf4 iLe3 43 lLld3 'it>e6 44 'it>a4 iLg 1 4S
bS+ axbS+ 46 exbS+ 'it>e7 47 lLlb4 iLf2
48 b6+ 'it>b8 %-%
Game 70
Salov-Malaniuk
USSR 1988
The annotations to this game are partly
based on those by Valery Salov in Chess In-
formant 46.
1 d4 fS 2 lLle3
This game illustrates well what it is that
White wishes for in this system.
2 ... dS
This and 2...liJf6 are the most logical
moves. After 2...g6?! White can play:
a) 3 e4!? fxe4 4 liJxe4 i.g7 S i.f4 d6
(S ...liJf6 6liJxf6+ exf6?! 7 'iVe2+ c;;i;>f8 8 0-0-0
looks very promising for White, Mikhal-
chishin-Grigoriev, Lvov 1986) 6 'iVd2 liJf6 7
liJxf6+ exf6 8 0-0-0 0-0 9 h4 with a white at-
tack.
3 h4! (the most logical) 3...liJf6 (3 ... i.g7 4
hS dS S hxg6 hxg6 6 ':'xh8 i.xh8 7 i.f4 is
just somewhat better for White) 4 hS i.g7 S
h6 i.f8 6 i.gS d5 7 'i'd2 e6 8 0-0-0 i.b4 9
f3 with a clear advantage in Mohring-
Knezevic, Hradec Kralove 1977/78.
3 iLgS
This is the main attempt. The alternatives
are:
 Second Move Alternatives

a) 3 i.f4 ltJf6 4 e3 e6 (the odd develop-

ment with 4... c6?! 5 i.d3 g6 6 ltJf3 i.g7 7
0-0 i.e6 8 ltJe2 ltJbd7 9 ':'el 0-0 10 c4 ltJb6
11 b3 ltJe4 12 ltJe5 ltJd7 13 f3 gave White
some advantage in Dokhoian-Zidkov, Tula
1987) 5 ltJb5 i.d6! (a very strong idea origi-
nating from the talented Polish national mas-
ter Rafal przedmojski) 6 ltJxd6+ cxd6 (the
control over e5 and e4 compensates fully for
the loss of the bishop) 7ltJf3 0-0 8 i.e2 b6 9
'iWd3 i.a6 10 'iWa3 i.xe2 11 'it>xe2 ltJe4 12
ltJd2 g5! 13 ltJxe4 gxf4 14 ltJxd6 ltJc6 15
ltJb5 a6 16ltJc3 fxe3 with an attack for Black
in Va.Shishkin-przedmojski, Police 1997. 12 ... tLIxf4 13tL1xf4 dxc4 14 i.xc4+ 'it>g7
b) 3 e4!? dxe4 4 i.f4 (4 f3 is probably best 15 l:lc1
met with 4... e5!? 5 dxe5 'i'xd1+ 6 'it>xd1 i.e6! It is more natural to castle directly. 15
7 ltJb5 ltJa6 8 i.e3 0-0-0+ 9 'it>el i.c5 10 O-O!? i.d6 16 g3 i.xf4 17 gxf4 'fie7 18 :tel
i.xc5 ltJxc5, as in Miralles-M.Gurevich, i.e6?! (18 .. .l:~d8!, with close to equality, is
France 1988, when 11 ltJxa7+ 'it>b8 12 ltJb5 better) 19 i.xe6 'iWxe6 20 d5! cxd5 21 ':'c7+
ltJe 7 gives Black compensation for the pawn 'it>h6 22 ':'xb7 :thb8 23 'fib3 would give
according to Grandmaster Adrian Mikhal- White a promising initiative.
chishin) 4...ltJf6 5 f3 exf3 6 ltJxf3 e6 7 i.c4 15 ...i.d6 16 'ii'f3 :le8 17 0-0
i.d6 8 'i'd2 c6 9 i.g5 0-0 10 0-0-0 ltJa6 11 17 ':'h3 i.xf4 18 'iWxf4 i.e6 would equal-
'iWe1 ltJc7 12 g4 b5 13 i.b3 b4 with an un- ise.
clear position in Gelfand-Nikolic, Munich 17 ...i.xf4 18 'ii'xf4 i.e6
1994.
c) 3 g4?! ltJf6! (3 ... fxg4 4 i.f4! ltJf6 5 'iWd3
c6 6 h3 gives White compensation) 4 g5 (4
h3!?) 4...ltJe4 5 ltJxe4 fxe4 6 f3 i.fS and
Black stands slightly better, Spielmann-
Mieses, Berlin 1920.
d) 3 f3 c5! (3 ...e6?! 4 e4 i.b4 5 exfS exfS 6
ltJh3 and White stands slightly better) 4 e4
e5! 5 deS (after 5 i.b5? i.d7 6 i.xd7+ ltJxd7
7 ltJd5 cxd4 8 ltJe2 fxe4 9 fxe4 ltJgf6, Black
stands much better, Pomar-Larsen 1975)
5... d46 i.c4ltJc6 7 ltJd5 ltJe5 8 'iWe2ltJc4 9
'iWc4 i.d6 10 i.f4ltJe7 11 i.g5 i.e6 12ltJe2
fxe4 13 fxe4 is equal, Rossetto-Pelikan, Ar- 19 i.d3!
gentina 1959. It is to White's advantage to keep pieces
3 ... tLIf6 4 i.xf6 exf6 5 e3 c6 on the board when he has the safer king. 19
5...i.e6! is considered in the next game. i.xe6 1::txe6 20 d5? does not work this time
6 i.d3 tLIa6 7 a3 tLIc7 8 h4 h5 9 tLIh3 g6 around (20 :tc5 is equal): 20.. J:te4! 21 'i'h2
10 tLIf4 <;i;>f7 11 tLIce2 tLIe6 12 c4! 'fixd5 22 'iWc7+ 'fin and Black has won a
White has a slight edge. The knights are in pawn. Also, 19 d5?!, with the idea of
no ways inferior to the bishops. 19...cxd5 20 i.b5 ':'e7 21 ':'c2 .l:r.c8 221:tfel

147
Classical Dutch

.l:i.xc2 23 l:txc2 with compensation, does not 30 d5!

work due to 19... ~xd5! 20 ~xd5 'iWxd5 21 The strongest as this provides the rooks
J:tfd1 'iWf7 and the compensation cannot be with all the freedom in the world. After 30
found! b5 l:ta5! 31 bxc6 .l:lxc5 32 .l:lxc5 bxc6 33 .l:Ia5
19 ... a5?! ncs 34 na7 c5 35 dxc5+ :xc5 36 ng7 ~e6
This unnecessarily weakens the queenside. 37 ~f3 :a5 3S .l:lxg6 ~f7 39 I.i.h6 f4 40 l:thS
After both 19...'iWbS and 19... ~d5 20 b4 fxe3 41 fxe3 Black has good drawing
'iWbs the position is completely level. chances.
20 J:[c2 i.b3 21 J:[c5 Wb8 22 'ii'xb8
J:[exb8 23 g3 J:[e8
23 ... a4?! 24 nfc1 .l:teS 25 ~c2 ~xc2 26
1I1xc2 would provide White with a better
endgame.
24 J:[fc1 i.d5 25 i.f1 !

30 ... cxd5 31 J:[b5 J:[ac8 32 J:[xc8 li!.xc8

33 J:[xb7 g5 34 hxg5
34 .l:lh7 gxh4 35 gxh4 .l:IbS 36 .l:.xh5 ~e6
would allow Black to escape with a draw
quite easily.
34 .. .fxg5 35 li!.h7
The main defender in the black camp is
the bishop on d5. By eliminating this piece,
White is improving his chances of winning
the endgame.
25 b4 axb4 26 axb4 b6! (26 ... b5?? 27
~xb5) 27 .l:txc6 is unclear, while 27 l::t.5c3 b5!
gives Black counterplay on the a-file and
against the weak b-pawn.
25 ... 'ito>f7 26 i.g2 i.xg2 27 'ito>xg2 'ito>e6
28 b4
2S b3!?, to keep all doors open, was also
interesting.
28 ... axb4 29 axb4 'ito>d6?!
This is the wrong piece to focus on. The 35 ... g4?
main rule of rook endgames is to keep the This is the first real mistake Black com-
rooks active. Better moves are 29 ....l:ta2 30 b5 mits in this game, and the reason why it
cxb5 31 .l:txb5 .l:te7 and 29 ....l:led8 30 b5 cxb5 comes right now is obvious. After a couple
311hb5 .l:td7, both with only a slight advan- of inaccuracies his task has been more and
tage for White. more difficult, and the necessity to find exact

148

moves has increased. Here he fails.
35 ... h4! 36 gxh4 gxh4 37 l:txh4 l:tc4 was
the right way to defend. Now after 3Sl:th6+
(or 3S .!:!xc4 dxc4 39 'it>f3 'it>c6 40 e4 fxe4+
41 'it>xe4 'it>b5 42 f4 'it>xb4 and the pawn
ending is drawn) 3S ...'it>e5 39 b5 f4 40 b6
fxe3 41 fxe3 l:tb4 Black should be able to
draw as his rook and his king are both very
well placed.
36 J:txh5 ..t?e5 37 lXh1 l:tb8
37 ... d4 3S exd4+ 'it>xd4 39 l:!.d1+! would
cut off the black king from the queenside
and give White excellent winning chances.
38l:tb1 d4
The passive 3S...l:tb5 holds no chances for
survival: 39 f3 d4 40 exd4+ 'it>xd4 41 fxg4
fxg4 42 .:t£1 'it>e3 43l:tf4l:tg5 44 b5l:txb5 45
.!:!xg4 with a theoretically winning endgame
for White.
39 exd4+ ..t?xd4
40 b5?
The right path was to bring the king into
the game. After 40 f3! Black is in trouble:
a) 4O ...'it>c4 41 bS! l:tb6 (41...'it>c5 42 b6
would just continue the march forward) 42
'it>f2 'it>c5 43 fxg4! fxg4 44 'it>e3 and White
wins.
b) 4O ...l:taS 41 b5 l:[a2+ 42 'it>£1 gxf3 43 b6
naS 44 b7 .!:!bS 45 'it>f2 and White wins.
c) 40 ... nbS 41 'it>f2 'it>d3 42l:td1+ 'it>c3 43
'it>e3 and now:
c1) 43 ...l:hb4 44 .!:!d5 is a close-to-winning
position for White.
Second Move Alternatives
c2) 43 ...gxf3 44 'it>xf3 lhb4 45 l:td5 is
worse for Black, as the king is cut off. Still,
there might be a few practical chances.
40 .....t?c5 41 f3 ..t?b6 42l:tb4
White would also not be able to force a
win after 42 fxg4 fxg443 :b4 .l:tgS 44 'it>f2
'it>c5! (removing the rook from its brilliant
place on the fourth rank) 45 lIb3 'it>b6 46
'it>e2 l:tg7 47 'it>e3 :f7! - White cannot make
serious progress.
42 .....t?a5
Simpler was 42...gxf3+! 43 'it>xf3 :gS! and
White cannot win. After 44 l:!.d4 'it>xb5 45
.l:td5+ 'it>c6 46 l:txfS 'it>d6 47 'it>f4 'it>e6 4S g4
l:taS we have a theoretical draw.
43l:tb3
Or 43 l:td4 'it>xb5! 44 l:td5+ (44 fxg4
'it>c5!) 44...'it>c6 45 l:txfS :b2+ and Black
draws.
43 .....t?b6 44 .li!.b4 ..t?a5 45 .li!.b3 ..t?b6 46
..t?f2l:ta8?
After this Black is in trouble. Better was
46 ...l:tgS! with the idea of 47 'it>e3 gxf3 and
White will not be able to make progress. Af-
ter 4S 'it>xf3 l:tg4 49 l:tb 1 ':'gS 50 'it>f4 l:tg4+
Black has reached a drawing position.
47 fxg4 fxg4 48 J:tb4!
Now this comes with a tempo.
48 ...l:tf8+ 49 ..t?e2 l:te8+ 50 ..t?f2 l:tf8+
51 ..t?e2l:te8+ 52 ..t?d3 ..t?c5
52...l:tgS 53 'it>e3! 'it>c5 54 .l:.b 1 'it>b6
(54...l:tfS 55 b6! and White wins) 55 'it>f4 and
White will win the g-pawn and the game.
149
 Classical Dutch

53 .l:!.e4 .l:!.d8+ 54 'it>e3 'it>xb5 55 .l:!.xg4 14...lLlxd3+ 15 cxd3 with an unclear game
'it>c5 where it might be more fun to be Black.
55 .. .'~c6 56 ':c4+! decides. 13 ...'it>a7 14 ttJac3 ~d6 15 g3 b6 16
56 .l:!.g6 'it>d5 57 'it>f4 .l:!.f8+ 58 'it>g4 'it>e4 ttJa2 ttJb8
59 .l:!.e6+ 'it>d5 60 .l:!.h6 'it'e4 61 'it>h5 16...lLle7!? seems more natural.
.l:!.f5+ 62 'it'h4 'it>f3 63 g4 .l:!.f8 64 g5 17 .l:!.c1 c5 18 c4 ttJc6 19 'ilfc2 f4 20
:Lf4+ 65 'it>h5 'it>g3 66 .l:!.a6 .l:!.h4+ 67 gxf4
'it'g6 .l:!.b4 68 'it>h7 'it>g4 69 .l:!.a5 .l:!.b7+ 70 Or 20 hxg5 fxe3! 21 ':xh6 ':xh6 22 gxh6
'it>h6 :Lb2 71 g6 .l:!.h2+ 72 'it'g7 'it>f4 73 exf2 with unclear play.
'it>f7 1-0 20 ... gxf4 21 dxc5 bxc5 22 cxd5
White is dragging Black's pieces to their
Game 71 ideal squares. 22 lLlac3 dxc4 23 .lte4, with
Gavrilov-Yagupov unclear play, seems better.
Moscow 1992 22 ...~xd5 23 ~e4 ~xe4 24 'ifxe4 .l:!.he8
' - - - - - - - - - - - - - -... 25 'ilfd3 fxe3 26 fxe3 ttJe5 27 'ilfd5 ttJg4
1 d4 f5 2 ttJc3 d5 3 ~g5 ttJf6 4 ~xf6 28 .l:!.c3 ttJxe3 29 'ilff3 'ilff5+ 30 'ii'xf5
exf6 5 e3 ~e6! ttJxf5 31 ttJac1 ~e5 32 .l:!.xc5 litd2 33
.l:!.c2 Ibc2 34 'it>xc2 ttJe3+ 35 'it>b1
ttJc4?!

This is a more logical way to develop.

6 ~d3 ttJc6
Very similar is 6...'ii'd7 7 lLlge2 lLlc6 8
lLlf4.ltf7 9 a3lLle7 10 h3 h5 11 h4 c6, which
was equal in Zsu.Polgar-Winants, Wijk aan
Zee 1990.
7 a3 'ii'd7 8 ttJge2
8 'ii's g5 9 lLlge2 0-0-0 10 h3?! (10 h4,
with unclear play, was clearly better) 10... h5
11 g3 h4 gave Black a small plus in Agrest-
Yagupov, Czestochowa 1992.
8 ... g5 9 'ii'd2 0-0-0 10 0-0-0 a6 11 h4
h6 12 ttJa4 'it>b8 13 'it>b1
Good careful play. 13 'ii'c3 would invite
13...lLlb4! 14 'iWb3 (14 lLlc5? lLla2+ 15 ~d2
.ltxc5! 16 'ii'xc5 b6 and the queen is trapped)
35 ...:d8!, with the threat of ...l:td2, would
have caused White much more trouble. In-
stead Black plays a combination that leads to
a draw.
36 ttJd3 ~xb2 37 ttJxb2 ttJxb2 38 'it>xb2
.l:!.xe2+ 39 'it>b3 .l:!.e3+ 40 'it>b4 'it>b6 41
:Lf1 a5+ 42 'it>c4 .l:!.e4+ 43 'it>b3 a4+ 44
'it>c3 .l:!.xh4 45 litxf6+ 'it>c5 46 .l:!.f5+ 'it>c6
471%a5
The extra pawn does not matter as the
White rook and king are more active than
their counterparts.
47 ... h5 48 .l:!.a6+ 'it'c5 49 .l:!.a5+ 'it>c6 50
.l:!.f5 'it'd6 51 :La5 %-%

150
 Second Move Alternatives

11 ... eS!
Game 72 Opening up for the c8-bishop, which
Hei-Piskov needs to be developed.
Copenhagen 1991
1 d4 fS 2 lLlc3
This game can also arise from the move
order in variation cd'. After 2 tiJf3 we have:
a) The position after 2...e6 3 d5 is uncom-
fortable for Black.
b) 2...g6 3 h4! i.g7 4 h5 d5 5 hxg6 hxg6 6
:xh8 i.xh8 7 i.f4 with positional weak-
nesses and an unsafe king position for Black.
c) 2...d6 3 tiJc3 tiJf6 4 i.g5 d5 5 e3 e6 6
g4! fxg4?! (it is better simply to ignore this
kind of stuff) 7 tiJe5 i.e7 8 i.d3 tiJbd7 9
l:tg1 tiJxe5 10 dxe5 tiJd7 11 'ii'xg4 i.xg5 12 12lLlegS
'ii'hS+ g6 13 i.xg6+ and White is very close This is an adventure, but after 12 d5 tiJe7
to winning, Kempinski-Jakubiec, Polanica it is not obvious that White has made pro-
Zdroj 1999. gress. After 13 c4 i.g4!, the idea of ...tiJfS,
d) 2...tiJf6! (this is the safest) 3 i.g5 e6 4 ... i.xf3 and ...tiJd4 with the advantage is
tiJbd2 i.e7 5 i.xf6 i.xf6 6 e4 0-0 7 i.d3 something that will force White to make
d5!? (7... fxe4 8 tiJxe4 tiJc6 9 c3 would trans- awkward moves. And the fully-fledged gam-
pose to the main game) 8 exfS (8 e5!?) ble with 13 tiJfg5 tiJfS 14 g4?! tiJxh4 15
8... exfS 9 0-0 tiJc6 10 c3 'ii'd6 11 'ii'c2 g6 12 tiJxf6+ 'ii'xf6 16 tiJh7 loses to 16...tiJg2+! 17
lIfe1 i.d7 with equality in Piasetsky-Larsen, ~d1 'ii'f3+ and White resigned in Gonsior-
St.John 1970. Gazik, Stary Smokovec 1979. Black wins ma-
2 ...lLlf6 3 .i.gS e6 4 e4 terial after 18 ~c1 tiJe3!.
4 d5 is a potential threat to this set-up for 12... dS!
Black. Also 4 g4!? seems to be worth a try.
4 ... fxe4 S lLlxe4 .i.e7 6 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 7
lLlf3
The alternative is 7 'ii'hs+ g6 8 'ii'h6 'ii'e7
9 tiJxf6+ 'ii'xf6 10 0-0-0 tiJc6, but so far no
advantage has been discovered for White.
The following game shows that White can-
not do exactly as he pleases: 11 tiJf3 d6 12
d5? exd5 13 i.b5 i.d7 14 lIhe1+ tiJe7 15
i.xd7+ ~xd7 16 tiJd4 lIae8 17 'ii'h3+ tiJfS
18l:txe8l:txe8 19 'ii'xh7+ lIe7 20'ii'h3 'ii'gS+
21 ~b1 'ii'd2 22 'ii'f3 lIe1 0-1 Kouatly-
Tseshkovsky, Wijk aan Zee 1988.
7 ...lLlc6 8 c3 0-0 9 ~d3 d6 10 'i'c2 h6 This is the most logical move. White is at-
11 h4 tacking only on the light squares, and espe-
This position is known to be unclear in cially on the c2-h7 diagonal. The threat of
theory, but Black has a very good score. ... e5-e4 now has to be dealt with.

151
Classical Dutch

12...i.xg5 13 hxg5 l:txf3 14 gxf3 'ii'xg5 15 leave the board.

'ii'e2 i.f5 16 i.c4+ 'iith8 17 'iife3 was better 19 .l:[xd6 cxd6 20 'ii'xe4 .l:[xf2 21 tt'lgS
for White in Wagner-Kerzdoerfer, Bayem hxgS 22 'ii'dS+ 'ito>h7 23 hxgS+ 'ito>g6 24
1995, while 12...exd4 13 i.c4+ forced resig- 'ii'g8 'ito>xgS 2S 'ii'e8 .l:[c2+ 26 'ito>b1 .i.fS!
nation in Leskiewicz-Quintero, Yerevan
1999.
13 dxeS tt'lxeS
Also possible was 13...i.xe5 14 0-0-0
i.f4+ 15 'iitb1 lDe7 16 lDh3 i.d6 17 l:tde1
i.f5 with a good game for Black in Merta-
nen-Tella, Kuopio 1995.
14 tt'lxeS .i.xeS

A little finesse to finish the game.

27 'ii'e7+ 'ito>g6 28 g4 .i.e4 29 'ii'e6+ 'ito>gS
30 'ii'e7+ 'ito>f4 0-1

Game 73
Tregubov-Malaniuk
Unares 1996

1S tt'lh7 1 d4 fS 2 g4?!
Apparendy Carsten H0i, now a GM, This line should only hold dangers for
showed this game to everyone who wanted White, if Black has any idea of what he
to see it after it was played, just to show this should do.
move. 'Daddy does not take the early train 2 ...fxg4!?
home' he proclaimed, 'Daddy is going to hit This move is adventurous, but it's better
the Town!' Unfortunately, the attack is not simply to be calm and play for the positional
taking off, and Black already has a better factors with 2...d5!.
game.
1S .. JU4!
The rook is naturally safest on the dark
squares.
160-0-0 'ii'd6 17 g3 .l:[f3 18 .i.e4!?
18 l:the 1 i.g4 19 'iitb 1 was stronger, but
Black must be better in the long run. Just a
move like 19...l:txd3 20 'ii'xd3 i.xdl 21
l:txd1 should expose the knight's problems.
18 ... dxe4!
Black has no reason to hesitate with this
queen sacrifice as the knight is and will re-
main lost. The only question is when it will

152

The main problem for White in this line is
that the loss of the g-pawn is a greater posi-
tional minus than the loss of the f-pawn.
Now we have the following possibilities:
a) 3 gxfS .itxfS and Black is slightly better
according to Malaniuk.
b) 3 g5 e6 4 ttJf3 c5 5 c3 ttJc6 6 h4 'ili'c7 7
.itg2 .itd7 8 ~f1 0-0-0 9 dxc5 .itxc5 10 b4
.itd6 was better for Black in Movsziszian-
Gracia, Manresa 1997.
c) 3 ttJc3 ttJf6 4 g5 ttJe4 5 ttJxe4 fxe4 6 f3
.itfS 7 .itg2 e5! (the typical refutation of such
flank gambits is to return the pawn in the
centre at the right time in order to secure flu-
ent development) 8 dxe5 ttJc6 9 fxe4 .itxe4
10 .itxe4 dxe4 11 .itf4 .itc5 12 e3 ttJb4 13 a3
ttJdS 14 'ili'h5+ g6 15 'ili'e2 'ili'e7 and Black
had a very large positional advantage in Ab-
dulla-Sulskis, Elista 1998.
d) 3 'ili'd3 g6 4 gxfS .itxfS 5 1ib5+?! (5
'it'b3 was better, but the opening strategy is
not impressive) 5... ttJc6 6 c3 (after 6 'ili'xb7
ttJxd4 White is in trouble, while 6 ttJf3 i.g7
7 'ili'xb7 ttJxd4 8 ttJxd4 .itxd4 9 'it'c6+ ~f7
10 .itg2 e6 11 c3 .itb6 gave Black the advan-
tage in Arnalds-Einarsson Reykjavik 2000)
and now:
d1) 6...'it'd6! 7 i.h3 (1 'ili'xb7? 'ub8 8 'ili'a6
ttJxd4! 9 'ili'a4+ ttJc6 and Black has benefited
most from the pawn exchange and has a
clear advantage) 7... .itxh3 8 ttJxh3 0-0-0 9
.itf4 'ili'd7 10 'it'd3 .itg7 11 ttJd2 eS!
and Black stands much better, Tregubov-
Second Move Alternatives
Malaniuk, Moscow 1996.
d2) Also possible is the wild and creative
6...e5!? 7 'ili'xb7 (1 dxe5 a6 8 'ili'xb7?? ttJa5
would trap the queen. This does not work di-
rectly though, as after 6... a6 7 'it'xb7 ttJa5
White has 8 'it'b4.) 7... ttJg e7 8 dxe5 .itg7 and
Black has a very speedy development for his
material investment.
3 h3
This is the natural way to continue the
gambit. Other tries include:
a) 3 e4 d5! (3 ... e5 4 dxe5 ttJc6 5 'it'xg4 d6 6
'it'g5 'it'xg5 7 .itxg5 ttJxe5 was only equal in
Kozlovskaya-Prudnikowa, Rjazan 1992) 4 e5
.it fS 5 ttJe2 e6 6 ttJg3 ttJe 7 7 .itg5 'it'd7 8
.ite2 'ili'a4!? 9 ttJc3 1ib4 10 0-0 c6 11 .ub1
~d7 and Black has the better position,
Drogou-Marcelin, France 2000. There must
be a million ways for Black to gain an advan-
tage in this line. The main problem for White
is not the pawn, but rather that he lost con-
trol of some important squares on the king-
side.
b) 3 .itf4?! does not mix well with White's
sacrifice: 3...ttJf6 4 h3 d5 5 ttJc3 c6 6 'it'd2 b5
7 .itg2 ttJa6 8 O-O-O? (it seems crazy to castle
straight into the attack) 8...'it'a5 9 a3 e6 10
~b1 b4 11 ttJa2 1ib6 12 axb4 ttJxb4 13
ttJxb4 .itxb4 14 c3 e5! and Black had a very
powerful attack in Martinovsky-Glek, Spain
1996 (... .itfS+ is coming) .
3 ... g3!
Black refuses to play with pieces other
153
Classical Dutch
than this pawn. Actually, this move is very
logical. White has earned a little space for de-
velopment, but after this his structural weak-
nesses on the kingside are an important fac-
tor in the game as well.
Very risky is 3...gxh3?! 4 e4!, when White
has more than enough compensation for the
pawn. Here the White king is not exposed as
in the other line, and the lead in development
has increased. Possible, though, is 3... d5!? 4
hxg4 i..xg4 5 'iWd3 ttJf6 6 i..h3 i..xh3 7
ttJxh3 ttJc6 8 ttJg5 'iWd6 9 ttJc3 a6 with a
slight edge for Black according to Andrew
Martin. Still, it is not so easy for Black to fin-
ish his development, as a potential ttJf7 is
looking him in t:h.e eye at every tum.
4 fxg3 lLlf6 S lLlc3 dS 6 .i.g2 e6 7 lLlf3
White decides to finish his development
before he opens the position, which adheres
to the old guidelines. Still, it was possible to
try 7 e4 i..b4 and now:
a) 8 exd5 exd5 9 'iWe2+ seems inferior be-
cause of9...'it'f7! (9 ...'iWe7 10 'iWxe7+ 'it'xe7 11
ttJge2 would be slightly better for White) 10
ttJf3 :e8 11 ttJe5+ 'it'g8 12 0-0 ttJc6 and
Black's position looks preferable.
b) 8 e5 ttJe4 9 i..xe4 dxe4 10 ttJge2 0-0 11
a3 i..xc3+ 12 ttJxc3 b6 13 i..e3 :f3!
(13 ...i..b7 14 'ii'g4 is very good for White) 14
'ii'd2 i..b7 15 0-0-0 with a very unclear posi-
tion.
7 ....i.d6 8 lLleS?!
This move seems to be a misconception.
154
White was ready to sacrifice a pawn earlier
for free development, and should still be so.
Better was 8 O-O! i..xg3 (8 ...0-0!, with equal
chances, is a safer and probably better op-
tion) 9 e4!? (9 'iWd3 ttJc6 10 e4 dxe4 11 ttJxe4
ttJxe4 12 'iWxe4 0-0 - 12...'iWd5? 13 'iWg4 i..d6
14 'iWxg7 would be a disaster - 13 i..e3
would give White good compensation for the
pawn too) 9...dxe4 10 ttJg5 0-0 11 ttJcxe4
ttJxe4 12 l:1xfS+ 'iWxfS 13 ttJxe4 and White
has a very active position - Black should be
very careful.
8 ... cS 9 .i.f4 lLlhS!
After 9...0-0?! White would have time for
10 e3!, preventing this sortie.
100-0
White is losing control over the dark
squares. One line is 10 e3 ttJxf4 11 exf4 0-0
12 ttJe2 cxd4 13 'iWxd4 'iWa5+ 14 ttJc3 ttJc6
15 ttJxc6 bxc6 16 0-0-0 :b8 and Black has
good attacking prospects against b2, which
(lo and behold!) is on a dark square.
10 .•. 0-0 11 e3 lLlxf4 12 exf4 lLlc6 13
lLlxc6 bxc6 14 ~h2 .i.a6 1S l:te 1 "f6 16
dxcS .i.xcs
Black has a nice position with two domi-
nating bishops. White has nothing active to
do, so he will have to wait.
17 "d2 1:ae8 18l:tab1
White takes it easy. He can win a pawn
with 18 ttJa4 i..d6 19 'ii'a5 i..c8 20 'iWxa7,
but I doubt that he can save his position after
20... h5!, tearing up the dark squares on the
 Second Move Alternatives

kingside. After 21 h4 eS! White is already ..ixc3 30 .l:txaZ ..ixe1, when White has 31
lost, but it is not apparent which way Black liJxdS! l:txb6 32 liJf6+ 'iiifl 33 liJxe8 'iiixe8
will wield the knife. 34 .l:txa7 with a draw.
18 ... h6 29 1:1xb6 axb6 30 tUxd5
18... hS!? also makes sense. 30 liJxc4 dxc4 31 .l:tb1 ..ixc3 32 l:txb6
19 b4?! ..id2 would give White an eternal headache
This is no good. Better was 19 .l:teS! ..ib6 in the fonn of an extra passed pawn for
(19 .....id6? 20 liJe4! would bring White back Black.
in business, while 19...gS? 20 liJe4! would 30 ... b5
also give some unnecessary counterplay) 20
.l:tbe1 'iiih8! (20 .....ic7? 21 liJxdS! cxdS 22
lhe6 .l:txe6 23 l:txe6 'ii'xe6 24 ..ixdS and
suddenly White has a very strong position)
21 liJa4 ..ic7 22 liJcs ..ic8 23 .l:tSe2 eS and
Black has the advantage. 23 ...hS!? also looks
good.
19...'iWd4 20 'iWxd4!
20 .l:ted1 'ii'xd2 21l:txd2 ..ie3 22.l:tdd1 gS
and the white position collapses on the dark
squares. A possible line is 23 fxgS :f2! and
the second rank belongs to Black, who is also
enjoying the two bishops and the passed e-
pawn. 31.l:!.e3?!
Better was 31 liJb6, with the idea of
31.....ixc3? 32 l:tc1 with a draw. 31.....id3!
would keep White under pressure.
31 ...1:1d8 32 tUb6
Or 32liJb4 .l:td2 and Black has control.
32 ....i.b3 33 .i.f1 1:1d6 34 tUc8 1:1d2+! 35
1:1e21:1d1 36 1:1f2 .txc3 37 tUe7+ ~g7 38
.i.xb5.td4?

20 ....i.xd421 tUd1 g5
Black has the initiative, but has some
trouble in converting his advantage in the
most effective way. Still, the way he does it is
good enough.
22 fxg5 hxg5 23 a4! i..c4 24 c3 .i.g7 25
b5 cxb5
2S ...cS!? was more double edged.
26 axb5 1:1f7 27 b6l:tb7 28 tUe3 1:1xb6 A slip in time trouble. After 38 ... ..if6! 39
Black should not fall for 28.....iaZ? 29l:ta1 liJc6 (or 39 liJc8 ..idS 40 ..in ..id4 and

155
Classical Dutch
Black wins) 39 ...i.dS 40 g4 l:tc1 White can-
not keep his pieces together. Now Black has
to play on for some moves before the game
is decided.
391:[f3 l:td2+ 40 <ith1 i..a241 l:td3l:txd3
42 i..xd3 <itf7 43 liJg6
The knight is also in trouble after 43 liJc8
i.d5+ 44 cJi>h2 i.c5 45 i.a6 e5 46 h4 g4 47
h5 i.f3 and Black will win.
43 ... i..dS+ 44 <ith2 eS! 4S i..fS e4 46 h4
e3 47 i..d3 i..e4! 0-1
White has had enough.
Game 74
Kmoch-Alekhine
Semmering 1926
1 d4 fS
2 'i'd3?!
Other second move alternatives for White
include:
a) 2 h3 liJf6 3 g4 d5! 4 g5 liJe4 5 liJf3 e6 6
i.f4 i.d6! and now:
a1) 7 liJe5? h6! and White has a lot of
problems, as his position is lost after 8 gxh6
'it'h4!.
a2) 7 i.xd6 cxd6 and Black has a good
position with complete control over the cen-
tre.
a3) 7 'it'c1 and 7 e3!? are perhaps better
tries and Black should not feel too sure about
having an advantage. But afraid? No way!
b) 2 i.f4 liJf6 3 e3 e6! (3 ...g6 4 h4 i.g7 5
156
h5 gxh5 6 llxh5 liJxh5 7 'it'xh5+ cJi>f8 8
'it'xf5+ cJi>g8 9 liJf3 looked very dangerous
for Black in Sapis-Lukasiewicz, Poland 1990)
4 i.d3 b6 5 c4 i.b7 6 liJf3 and the position
is equal. One move could be 6...liJh5!?, trying
to gain the two bishops.
c) 2 c3 liJf6 3 i.g5 g6 (3 ... e6!? cannot be bad
here) 4 i.xf6 exf6 5 e3 d5 6 h4 h5 7 liJh3
i.d6 8 g3 c6 9 'it'f3 cJi>f7 10 liJd2 liJd7 11
i.d3 liJf8 was equal in Bohm-Timman, Wijk
aan Zee 1975.
2 ... dS!
2... d6 3 g4 fxg4 4 h3 g3 5 fxg3 liJf6 6 e4 is
unclear according to Andrew Martin. The
text move makes more sense.
3 i..f4
Or 3 g4 g6! and Black is OK! Look at the
line 2 g4 d5 3 'it'd3 g6 from the previous
game.
3 ... e64liJf3
After 4 'it'g3 liJa6 5 e3 c6! Black is equal. 6
i.xa6 is mistake due to 6...'it'a5+, when Black
stands better.
4 ... liJf6 S e3 i..d6 6 i..e2
This is rather cautious, but White has no
advantage - 6 c4 c6 7 liJc3 would also have
been equal. This kind of Stonewall holds no
dangers for Black, despite the exchange of
the dark bishops, as the queen is slightly mis-
placed on d3. Black will always find time to
regroup the c8-bishop to a useful square.
6 ... 0-0 7 liJeS cS 8 c3 liJc6 9 liJd2 "fic7
10 liJdf3liJd7!

Black has with simple means used his ex-
tra space to take control over e5. Now he is
simply better.
11 ttJxd7 iLxd7 12 iLxd6 'i'xd6 13 0-0
c4
This is the ambitious try. White has no
way to create anything on the kingside or in
the centte, and now Black starts an advance
on the queenside.
After 13. ..e5?! 14 dxe5 ttJxe5 15 ttJxe5
'ii'xe5 16 ~ad1 i.c6 17 i.e llad8 18 lld2
White is only slightly worse, and seems to
have improved his position.
14 'i'd2 b5 15 ttJe1 g5!
Alekhine is fully prepared for a war on
two fronts.
16 f4 g4 17 b3 .l:!.fb8 18 ttJc2 a5 19 bxc4
bxc4 20 .l:!.fb1 ttJa7 21 'i'e1 iLa4 22 iLd1
White is forced into retreating. After 22
Second Move Alternatives
'ii'h4? Black simply dances out of the checks:
22...i.xc2 23 'iVgS+ rJi;f7 24 'ii'h5+ rJi;f8 25
'ii'h6+ rJi;e8 and Black wins.
22 ... 'i'e7 23 'i'd2 ttJb5 24 .l:!.b2 .l:!.b7 25
.l:!.ab1 .l:!.ab8 26 .te2 h5
Black has strengthened his position to the
maximum on the queenside and White has
so far kept his pieces together. Now Black
exploits his space advantage on the kingside
to create further weaknesses.
27 g3 h4 28 e4
Clever, but why should Black care?
28 ... ttJd6 29 .l:!.xb7 .l:!.xb7 30 .l:!.xb7 'i'xb7
31 'i'c1
Now everything falls apart. After 31 exd5
'ii'b2 32 i.d1 ttJe4 33 'ii'e2 exd5 34 ttJe3
'ii'c1 Black wins material.
31 ... ttJxe4 32 ttJe3 hxg3 33 hxg3 ttJxg3
34 <t>f2 ttJe4+ 0-1
157
Classical Dutch

Summary
White does not have any real alternatives to the main lines if he wants to fight for an advan-
tage. In this Chapter a sound strategy has been provided against 2 g4, 2 'ii'd3 and all the other
strange second move alternatives. The strategy is simple: develop normally and do not go on
unnecessary pawn hunts.
2 e4 is not a bad move, but Black has more than one way to reach equality. 2 lDc3 is best
met with 2...dS, when Black will normally obtain the two bishops in and a set of doubled
pawns. If Black knows how to place his pieces, this should not be a problem.
2 .i.gS was hot in the 1990s. Some English professionals won some easy games, but the
solution has been found and this should not be considered dangerous for Black at all.

1d4f52e4
2 .i.gS (0) - Game 69
2g4- Game 73
2 'ii'd3 - Game 74
2 lDc3
2...dS 3 .i.gS lDf6 4 .i.xf6 exf6 S e3
S...c6 - Game 70
S... .i.e6 - Game 71
2 ...lDf6 3 .i.gS e6 (0) - Game 72
2 .. .fxe4 3 ibc3 ibf6 (0) - Game 68

2~g5 3 ... e6 3 ... ibf6

158
 INVEX OF COMPLETE GAMES I

Anand-Lobron, Frankfurt 1997............................................................................................... 48

Arnson-Korchnoi, Leningrad 1951 .......................................................................................... 69
Averbakh-Boleslavsky, Zurich 1953.................................................................................... 100
Baburin-Heidenfeld, Kilkenny 2000 ...................................................................................... 83
Baburin-Pert, British League 1999 ........................................................................................... 97
Botvinnik-Bronstein, Moscow 1951 ..................................................................................... 127
Botvinnik-Kan, Moscow 1931 ................................................................................................... 64
Botvinnik-Ryumin, Moscow 1936........................................................................................... 65
Buckley.G-Pert.N, British Championship, Torquq)! 1998 ....................................................... 88
Chuchelov-Krings, Eupen 1994............................................................................................ 101
Czebe-Varga, Zalakaros 2001 .................................................................................................. 78
Edvardsson-Grivas, PanoT7l1o 2001 ........................................................................................ 86
Eliskases-Larsen, Mar del Plata 1958 .................................................................................. 104
Farago-Lucaroni, Marostica 1997........................................................................................... 22
Filip-Estrada, Varna OlYmpiad 1962 .................................................................................... 117
Flohr-Kotov, USSR Championship 1949 ................................................................................. 17
Flohr-Sokolsky, Moscow 1954 .................................................................................................. 60
Gallagher-Williams, Port Erin 2001 ...................................................................................... 44
Gavrilov-Yagupov, Moscow 1992 .......................................................................................... 150
Geller-Mille, Leningrad 1957 .................................................................................................... 93
Golubovic-Moser, Obenvart 2001 ........................................................................................... 21
Granados Gomez-Vega Holm, Barcelona 2000 ................................................................ 121
Gulko-Gurevich, USSR 1985 ............................................................................................... 138
Hlian-Poluljahov,AifltlI995 ................................................................................................. 30
Hoi-Piskov, Copenhagen 1991 .............................................:......~ ............................................ 151
Holst-Jorgensen, Copenhagen 1991 ....................................................................................... 120
Hulse-Oliveira, New York 1993 ........................................................................................... 116
Itkis-Shtyrenkov,Alushta 2001 .............................................................................................. 26
Ivanov-Glek, Tomsk 2001 ...................................................................................................... 115

159
Classical Dutch

Kallai-Poluljahov, Budapest 1992............................................................................................ 38

Karpov-Short, Linares 1992.................................................................................................... 130
Kasparov-Illescas Cordoba, Dos Hermanas 1996 ............................................................. 142
Kempinski-Gleizerov, Stockholm 2000 ................................................................................ 126
Keres-Simagin,Moscow 1951 ................................................................................................... 62
Kiseleva-Zatonskih, Ukranian Girls Championship 1998 ..................................................... 27
Kmoch-Alekhine, Semmering 1926........................................................................................ 156
Kotov-Sokolsky, Moscow 1947................................................................................................. 32
Krivoshey-Salai, Slovakian League 1997 ................................................................................. 24
Krush-Pert.N, Hastings 2001 /02............................................................................................. 87
Lalic-Pert.N, British Championship 1999 ................................................................................. 18
Latzel-Oestreich, Detmold 1958............................................................................................ 102
Marin-Hamdouchi, Sitges 1994 .............................................................................................. 74
Markowski-Girinath, Calcutta 2001 ...................................................................................... 19
Nielsen-Boe, Jl{ybo'l!, 2001 ....................................................................................................... 58
Orlinkov-Kobalija, Moscow 1994 ............................................................................................ 35
Paunovic-Naumkin, Namestovo 1987.................................................................................... 33
Pavlovic-Naumkin, Wildbad 1991 ......................................................................................... 39
Ponomarenko-Gavritenko, Tufa 1998 ................................................................................. 95
Porat-Lys, Piiffn 2001 ................................................................................................................ 80
Posd-Moser, Austrian League 2000 ......................................................................................... 92
Rajkovic-Maric.R, Bad Wijrishrjen 1989................................................................................ 47
Rajkovic-Poluljahov,Namestovo 1993 ................................................................................... 29
Relange-Bricard, Besancon 1999 ............................................................................................. 79
Reshevsky-Botvinnik, The Hague 1948 .............................................................................. 133
Reshevsky-Yee,Pasadena 1983 ............................................................................................... 61
Salov-Malaniuk, USSR 1988 ................................................................................................ 146
San Segundo-Vega Holm, Cala Galdana 1999 ................................................................... 76
Seirawan-Short, Tilbu'l!, 1990 ................................................................................................ 114
Sliwa-Tolush, Riga 1959 ........................................................................................................ 135
Sostaric-Vo1cansek, Maribor 199 7 ....................................................................................... 123
Szily-Farago, Budapest 1967..................................................................................................... 72
Titorenko-Stepovaia, Russian Women's Championship 1994 .............................................. 111
Toistikh-Veresagin, Volgograd 1994 ...................................................................................... 43
Tregubov-Kobalija, St. Petersbu'l!, 1994 ................................................................................. 71
Tregubov-Malaniuk,Linares 1996 ...................................................................................... 152
Umanskaya-Stepovaia, OreI1995 ....................................................................................... 108
Vaganian-Andersson, Groningen 1969 .................................................................................. 90
Van Wely-Comas Fabrego, Pamplona 1998 ........................................................................ 46
Van Wely-Minasian, European Team Ch., Batumi 1999....................................................... 53
Villa Izquierdo-Gonzalez Velez, Sant Boi 1996............................................................... 106
Yermolinsky-Zelikind, Chicago 1997 .................................................................................... 57
Yusupov-Hickl, Cologne 1999.................................................................................................. 15
Zaitsev-Naumkin, Moscow 1989............................................................................................. 41
Zinner-Flohr, Podebra4J 1936 .................................................................................................. 68

160
 underrated

Ir.lternational

........
~V1857443071