David Willis - The Sicilian Four Knights - A Simple and Sound Defense To 1.e4

Table of Contents
Title page
Preface
Signs and Symbols
Foreword by Vassilios Kotronias
Introduction
Chapter 1 – 6.Ndb5
Sections 1-2
Sections 3-5
Sections 6-8
Sections 9-11
Sections 12-13
Chapter 2 – 6.Nxc6
Sections 1-3
Sections 4-5
Sections 6-8
Section 9
Chapter 3 – 6.g3
Chapter 4 – 6.Bg5
Chapter 5 – 6.Be2
Chapter 6 – 6.a3
Chapter 7 – 6.Be3
Chapter 8 – Other Sixth Moves
Bibliography
Index of Variations
2
The Sicilian Four Knights
A Simple and Sound Defense to 1.e4
David Willis
Foreword by Vassilios Kotronias
2021
Russell Enterprises, Inc.
Milford, CT USA
The Sicilian Four Knights

A Simple and Sound Defense to 1.e4
by David Willis
ISBN: 978-1-949859-36-2 (print)

ISBN: 978-1-949859-37-9 (eBook)
© Copyright 2021
David Willis
All Rights Reserved
No part of this book may be used, reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any
3
manner or form whatsoever or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying,
recording or otherwise, without the express written permission from the publisher except in the case
of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
Published by:
Russell Enterprises, Inc.
P.O. Box 3131
Milford, CT 06460 USA
http://www.russell-enterprises.com
info@russell-enterprises.com
Cover by Fierce Ponies
Printed in the United States of America
4
Preface
In my first encounter with the Sicilian Four Knights, I was playing White. I remember the
apprehension I felt when my opponent unleashed an early ...Bb4 and ...d5. When I studied this
variation and realized it was sound, I began playing it as Black. For 50 years now it has been my go-
to defense against 1.e4.
Any player of White who opens with the standard moves 1.e4, 2.Nf3, and 3.d4 against the Sicilian
will confront this variation and needs to know what to do against it. Yet not much has been published.
I had the idea to write this book as far back as 1976, when I put an ad in Chess Life asking for games.
The ad brought me back into contact with a former acquaintance, Bobby G. Dudley, who had one of
the world’s largest collections of chess books and magazines. I am grateful to him for sharing his
research of hundreds of long forgotten games and articles on this old defense.
In front of me is a computer containing Intel’s most powerful processor. With the engines Houdini,
Komodo, and Stockfish, this 3400-strength monster is especially effective with the wide-open
positions that are typical in the Sicilian Four Knights. It has made it possible for the lines in this book
to be analyzed and tested to the depth needed to understand and credibly evaluate them.
The fundamentals of the Sicilian Four Knights are not hard to learn. Black can reach the middlegame
quickly and safely against stronger players. Whatever your strength, and whether you are playing
Black or White, I hope your play will benefit from this book.
David Willis
San Diego
5
May 2021
6
Signs & Symbols
! a strong move
!! a brilliant move
? a weak move
?? a blunder
!? a move worth considering
?! a dubious move
² White stands slightly better
± White has a clear advantage
+– White has a winning position
³ Black stands slightly better
µ Black has a clear advantage
–+ Black has a winning position
= an even or drawn position
1-0 Black resigns
0-1 White resigns
½-½ draw
+ check
# checkmate
corr played by correspondence
INT played on the internet
7
Foreword
The Sicilian Four Knights is an opening that has not been seen at the highest levels very often, and to
some extent, that is understandable, considering that it may yield either an isolated d-pawn position
(the 6.Ndb5 Bb4 variation) or a slightly weakened dark-square central complex for Black (the
6.Nxc6 variation). On the bright side, the second player gets lively piece play in both cases, and that
is something that should gradually nullify White’s advantages, especially if someone is armed with a
decent knowledge and a love for open positions with very concrete roles for one’s pieces.
To play this opening as Black, one basically needs not to believe too much in stereotypes. What do I
mean by that? In the eternal fight of elements in chess, the bishop pair is considered one of the most
useful advantages one may possess, as is a superior pawn structure. White will often get these pluses
in the Four Knights but it is very hard to consolidate them. For example, if White gets the bishop pair,
Black can strive to exchange light-square bishops and he will often succeed. If he gets two pawn
islands vs. three, Black will have compensation in open files for his rooks and a central superiority.
So, there’s no easy ride for White here, and, in particular, if he gets over-ambitious, he can find
himself on the receiving end of a powerful attack very quickly.
Over the years, I have only met this variation sporadically, but I guess that after the publication of the
present work, that is going to change.
The material is very well structured, and the assessments are objective and backed with accurate
analysis which will not cause the reader fatigue by becoming exceedingly elaborate. The historical
explanations are enjoyable, and the statistics the author shares with the reader will allow a better
overview on how lines evolved and the sides’ respective chances. But, above all, this is an opening
that is definitely sound and this work proves it. It will improve your ability to score against both
weaker and stronger opposition, offering clear-cut and occasionally bold play.
Author David Willis has done a fine job of clearly presenting the analysis, providing us with
comprehensive explanations and sound lines in an opening that deserves more attention and
popularity. I can wholeheartedly recommend the Four Knights to all levels of players.
Vassilios Kotronias
Athens
May 2021
8
Introduction
The starting position of the Sicilian Four Knights is reached after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4
Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6. It may also be reached after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6.
Some prefer 2...e6 to 2...Nc6 because it avoids 3.Bb5.
White intends to play against Black’s weakened dark squares d6 and c7. Black intends immediate
action against the light squares in the center with ...Bb4 and ...d5. Play leads to open positions
different from those in a typical Sicilian.
Why Play the Sicilian Four Knights?
The Sicilian Four Knights is a straightforward way to meet 1.e4. It allows Black to reach the
middlegame quickly and safely against a stronger opponent, and can challenge any opponent who is
unprepared.
Immediate Counterplay
The starting position of the Sicilian Four Knights can be deceiving. It resembles the starting position
of a Taimanov or Scheveningen, and can even transpose to them. When confronted with the Sicilian
Four Knights starting position, White very often responds with ordinary moves such as 6.Be3, 6.Be2
or 6.Bg5. Such moves are not effective against the Sicilian Four Knights, because Black can respond
by immediately attacking White’s center with ...Bb4 and ...d5.
Most masters playing as White know that standard replies do not work well against the Sicilian Four
Knights. They prefer 6.Ndb5 or 6.Nxc6. After 6.Ndb5 Bb4 7.a3, White exacts a price for Black’s
aggressive play by forcing him to trade off his strong dark-square bishop. But White’s maneuver
concedes control of the center to Black, and it is difficult for White to achieve more than a draw in
this line. The other move, 6.Nxc6, can take the game out of Black’s favored lines of play, but here
9
too Black can equalize.
Easy to Understand
Because of Black’s early counterplay in the center, he avoids the drawn-out maneuvering that occurs
in other variations of the Sicilian. The position quickly clarifies and will settle into one or another of
relatively few pawn structures. The positions can be competently managed by those below the master
level.
Sound
Grandmasters have always considered the Sicilian Four Knights to be sound:
[It] is a strong alternative for Black. (Reuben Fine, 1948)
It tends to equality. (Savielly Tartakower, 1955)
[It is] an old, sound method against which it is not proven how White should best proceed. (Larry
Evans, 1965)
[It is] one of the most proven and best variations of the Sicilian Defense. It is at present, without
convincing grounds, not seen much in practice. (Former world champion Max Euwe, 1970)
In this old variation, Black strives to achieve quick development and an attack on the point e4.
Black’s position shows no particular defects, and thrusts White into enormous difficulties in
continuing to expand his advantage. (Alexey Suetin, 1973)
[It] has maintained a reputation for ruggedness. (Robert Byrne, 1995)
It is perfectly playable and will not face serious threats on its right to existence in the coming century.
(Alexander Raetsky, 2002)
The open positions typical of the Sicilian Four Knights lend themselves to accurate analysis by a
computer, and computers confirm that it is sound. For this book, many hundreds of its lines were
deeply analyzed with the aid of a PC containing Intel’s most powerful processor.
A Long History
The Sicilian Four Knights is one of the oldest variations of the Sicilian Defense. Its first proponents
were Emmanuel Schiffers (1850-1904) and GM Jacques Mieses (1865- 1954). If any player could be
said to be the father of the Sicilian Four Knights, he would be Emmanuel Schiffers, a champion of
Russia and world-class master during the late 1800s. The Sicilian Four Knights was a mainstay of his
repertoire throughout his career. GM Jacques Mieses further popularized it during the first decade of
the 1900s.
In 1910 the Sicilian Four Knights comprised about 25% of the Sicilians in Chess Player’s
Compendium (William Cook). It was not until the 1920s that hypermodernism, with its concept of
delayed center action, propelled other variations of the Sicilian to greater popularity.
In his 1947 book Theorie der schaakopeningen – No. 9 Half-Open Spelen II, former world champion
Max Euwe concluded that 6.Ndb5 was White’s best try, an opinion still held by many today. In the
late 1940s, the strong Croatian GM Petar Trifunovic began playing the Sicilian Four Knights and
influenced others to play it. In more recent years, it has been part of the repertoire of several
10
grandmasters, among them Igor Khenkin, Bachar Kouatly, Alexander Krapivin, Dorian Rogozenco,
Eltaj Safarli, and Milan Vukic.
Not much has been published about it. In 1976, a short book entitled Sicilian Defense 5: Four Knights
Variation was published by English authors L. M. Pickett and A. K. Swift. In February 1977, the
Argentine journal Ajedrez devoted its Issue 32 to it. In 2002 it was featured in a book entitled Meeting
1.e4, by Alexander Raetsky.
White’s Options
The following table shows White’s sixth-move options and their frequency in competitive over-
theboard and correspondence play. After 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6:
11
12
There now follows a brief overview of these sixth-move options.
Favored by Theory
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Ndb5
6.Ndb5 immediately attacks Black’s weakened dark squares d6 and c7 and threatens 7.Bf4, furthering
the attack. Black’s two major replies, about equal in popularity, are:
6...d6 This exits the Sicilian Four Knights. The game will transpose to the main line of the Sicilian
Sveshnikov Variation after 7.Bf4 e5 8.Bg5. Some Sveshnikov players prefer to use the Sicilian Four
Knights opening sequence to enter the Sveshnikov, because it limits White’s options.
6...Bb4 This stays in the Sicilian Four Knights.
With 6...Bb4, Black attacks White’s e4-pawn. The main line is 7.a3 Bxc3+ 8.Nxc3 d5 9.exd5 exd5
10.Bd3 0-0 11.0-0 d4 12.Ne2 Bg4.
13
White has achieved the two bishops in an open position. But this has taken time. Black has used that
time to obtain dominance of the center behind an isolated but strongly placed pawn on d4.
Throwing Black Off His Game
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Nxc6
The main line runs 6...bxc6 7.e5 Nd5 8.Ne4.
14
White has inflicted on Black an ugly hole on d6. But the price for White’s aggressive play is to
become exposed behind his lines. Black’s main response is 8...Qc7 9.f4 Qb6, when White’s g1-a7
diagonal is weak and he cannot castle.
White’s Other Sixth Moves – Playing into Black’s Hands
White’s other sixth moves are primarily 6.Be2, 6.a3, 6.g3, 6.Be3, and 6.Bg5. These are especially
popular among players below the master level. None pose any difficulty for Black.
In all these lines, Black has the option to transpose to another variation of the Sicilian with ...d6 or
...a6. But Black usually chooses to remain in the Sicilian Four Knights. He will attack White’s e-
pawn with ...d5 on the sixth or seventh move, either before or after playing ...Bb4.
15
White must decide what to do with his e-pawn: defend it, push it, sacrifice it, or trade it.
White Defends the e-Pawn
When White chooses to defend his e-pawn, he often does so by playing Bd3.
White has had to trade knights on c6 before playing Bd3, because otherwise his knight on d4 would
hang after Bd3. Unfortunately for White, the pawn on c6 created from that knight exchange
strengthens Black’s center.
This pawn structure occurs most often in the 6.Be3 and 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.Bd3 variations.
White Pushes the e-Pawn Forward
This structure arises when White first trades knights on c6, and then pushes his pawn to e5. This
causes Black’s f6-knight to retreat to d7.
16
The reason White first had to trade knights on c6 is that otherwise Black’s c6-knight could take
White’s e-pawn when it moved to e5. As mentioned above, a trade of knights on c6 bolsters Black’s
center.
White’s pawn on e5 and the absence of Black’s knight from f6 make a kingside attack look inviting
for White. But an attack will have little chance to succeed because of Black’s strong center. Among
the moves in Black’s defensive repertoire should White’s queen venture to h5 or g4, a common reply
is ...f5. After White replies exf6 (or else he has no attack), Black recaptures with ...Nxf6, which
brings his knight into the defense, clears the seventh rank for defense, and increases his center pawn
majority.
This pawn structure occurs most often in the 6.Be3 variation.
White Sacrifices the e-Pawn
This occurs when Black has moved his bishop to b4, traded it for White’s knight on c3, and then
captured White’s e-pawn with his knight.
17
Black gains a pawn, but this has cost time, and he has given up his strong dark-square bishop. In most
lines White plays Ba3, preventing Black from castling.
This structure arises primarily in the main line of the 6.Be2 variation.
White Trades the e-Pawn
When White takes on d5 with his e-pawn, Black will recapture with either his e-pawn or his king
knight.
Recapturing with the e-pawn gives Black an isolated d-pawn.
If all the minor pieces are still on the board, the position is close to even. If one pair of minor pieces
has been exchanged, which usually occurs after Black first recaptures on d5 with his knight, White
has better chances for an advantage. These comments do not apply to the 6.Ndb5 variation, when
Black has pushed his isolated pawn to d4. In that case, Black’s control of the center compensates.
This pawn structure occurs often in the 6.a3 and 6.g3 variations.
When Black recaptures on d5 with his king knight, his bishop usually is already on b4.
18
Black is now threatening to win a pawn by capturing White’s knight on c3. White is forced to find a
way to respond. A drawback for Black is that his e-pawn remains on the passive square e6, where it
hems in his light-square bishop. And with Black’s d-pawn gone, his center will not be improved if
White trades knights on c6.
This structure can occur in the 6.g3, 6.Be2 and 6.Be3 variations.
Conclusion
Against any of these less frequently played sixth moves, Black can achieve equality without much
difficulty.
One might ask why Black does not just skip 5...Nc6 and play 5...Bb4 immediately (the Sicilian Pin
Variation). The reason: 5...Nc6 is needed is to prevent 6.e5!. After 5...Bb4 6.e5! Nd5 7.Bd2, White is
better after either 7...Bxc3 8.bxc3 0-0 9.Bd3 or 7...Nxc3 8.bxc3 followed by 9.Qg4.
19
Chapter 1
This is White’s most popular sixth move. It attacks the dark squares in Black’s position and threatens
7.Bf4, furthering the attack.
The main line is 6.Ndb5 Bb4 7.a3 Bxc3+ 8.Nxc3 d5 9.exd5 exd5 10.Bd3 0-0 11.0-0 d4 12.Ne2 Bg4.
20
This position is examined in Sections 11, 12, and 13. The many side variations of this line are
examined in Sections 1 through 10: Section 1: 6...Bc5 (p. 21); Section 2: 7.Nd6+ (p. 27); Section 3:
7.Bf4 (p. 31); Section 4: 9.Bd3 (p. 42); Section 5: 9...Nxd5 (p. 47); Section 6: 10.Bg5 (p. 53); Section
7: 10...d4 (p. 58); Section 8: 11.0-0 Sidelines (p. 62); Section 9: 12.Ne4 (p. 67); Section 10: 12.Ne2
Sidelines (p. 71); Section 11: 12...Bg4 Sidelines (p. 79); Section 12: 13.f3 (p. 83); and Section 13:
13.Bg5 (p. 92).
Overview
After 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Ndb5, Black has three playable replies:
(1) 6...d6 leaves the Sicilian Four Knights and transposes to the Sveshnikov after 7.Bf4 e5 8.Bg5.
Good books are available for those interested in this popular defense;
(2) 6...Bc5 is sometimes played. It preserves Black’s strong bishop, but grants White a free hand to
attack Black’s dark squares with either 7.Nd6+ or 7.Bf4. It is covered in Section 1; and
(3) 6...Bb4 is standard. It counterattacks by threatening 7...Nxe4. It is covered in Sections 2 through
13.
Other sixth move replies are bad: 6...d5? 7.exd5 Nxd5 (7...exd5? 8.Bf4+–) 8.Nxd5 exd5 9.Bf4±,
Szalanczy-Wandy, Budapest, 2020.
6...a6? 7.Nd6+ Bxd6 8.Qxd6 Qe7 9.Bf4±, Kashdan-Vidmar, Prague 1931.
6...Bb4 7.a3
21
White forces Black to give up his strong dark-square bishop for a knight. This will leave White with
the powerful advantage of the two bishops in an open position. But this costs White time. This loss of
time was a big problem for GM Siegbert Tarrasch, who had bad things to say about 7.a3 back in 1901
in Deutsches Wochenschach:
[I am] indignant that such masters as Pillsbury and more Marco...should employ this idiotic move!
What would be said if the player of White offered to his opponent after his sixth move to take off the
board (by agreement) the Black king’s bishop and the knight on N’s 5th?
Tarrasch did not appreciate the compensating benefit to White of eliminating Black’s strong
darksquare bishop.
White has three less popular alternatives to 7.a3:
(1) 7.Nd6+ is innocuous. After 7...Ke7, White has 8.Nxc8 or 8.Bf4. Black can easily achieve
equality in either line. See Section 2;
(2) 7.Bg5 reaches a position that can also be reached in the 6.Bg5 variation after 6.Bg5 Bb4 7.Ndb5,
which is covered in Chapter 4, Section 2 (2A); and
(3) 7.Bf4 is the strongest of White’s less popular alternatives. White sacrifices his e-pawn. See
Section 3.
7...Bxc3+ 8.Nxc3 d5
22
Black occasionally tries 8...0-0?!, either forgetting the normal sequence or perhaps wanting to confuse
White. More often than not, Black skates by, and the game transposes to another line after 9.Bg5,
9.Bd3, or 9.Be2. But White can surprise Black with 9.Qd6! Ne8 (9...Qa5 10.Bd2 Qb6 11.b3±)
10.Qg3 d5 11.exd5 exd5 12.Bg5 f6 13.Be3², Brineva-Sorokin, Poltavskaya 2005.
9.exd5
A respectable sideline, once played by Fischer, is 9.Bd3. See Section 4.
9...exd5
23
The weaker option is 9...Nxd5, offering an exchange of knights. See Section 5.
10.Bd3
10.Bg5 is covered in Section 6. It poses no problems for Black. Rarely seen are:
(1) 10.Bb5? d4³ (threatening to follow with ...Qa5+) 11.Qe2+ Be6 12.Ne4 Nxe4 13.Bxc6+ bxc6
14.Qxe4 0-0 15.0-0 Re8³, with a lead in development;
(2) 10.Be2 (blocking his knight’s retreat square) 10...d4 11.Na2³/=, Fine-Mugridge, Washington DC,
blitz 1943;
(3) 10.Bf4 0-0 11.Be2 (White’s delay in developing his kingside has forced this bishop to an
undesirable square because of Black’s threat of 11...Re8+) 11...d4 12.Nb5 Bg4!³/=, Toerber-Lehmitz,
Hamburg 1946. If 13.Bxg4?, then 13...Qa5+µ, and White will not be able to castle; and
(4) 10.Qe2+ (intending to castle queenside) 10...Be6 11.Bg5 h6 12.Bh4 0-0 13.0-0-0 Rc8 14.Qb5
Qe7=, Papadopoulos- Tsorbatzoglou, Greece 2005, with equal chances.
10...0-0
Black occasionally tries to take advantage of White’s uncastled king by playing 10...d4, intending to
trade the light-square bishops. After either 11.Ne2 Bf5 12.Bxf5 or 11.Ne4 Nxe4 12.Bxe4 Bf5
13.Bxf5, Black will play ...Qa5+ recapturing on f5. But White can foil this plan with 11.Qe2+. See
Section 7.
11.0-0 d4
Black takes control of the center. Weaker are 11...Bg4 and 11...h6. See Section 8.
12.Ne2
24
This retreat is White’s only choice if he wants to play for an advantage. The alternative, 12.Ne4
(Section 9), has modest popularity, but it allows Black to find a good square for his bishop with
12...Bf5.
After 12.Ne2, Black’s primary reply is 12...Bg4, pinning White’s knight. Alternatives are covered in
Section 10.
12...Bg4
This position is the principle test of the Sicilian Four Knights. White has the two bishops. Black
controls the center. Black has good prospects for equality if he keeps in mind the following:
25
• Waste no time. This is especially important in an open position such as this. Every move must
count.
• Don’t play defensively. Look for an alternative to a defensive move such as ...Rad8 or ...a6.
• Don’t move a pawn without good reason. Moves like ...a6, ...h6, and ...g5 are fine only if there is a
clear purpose. For example, when White pins Black’s knight with Bg5, the move ...h6 is often good
because it creates luft without loss of time. But Black should not then follow with ...g5 unless his
position is strong.
• Be alert to an opportunity to use either knight to attack a weak square or go after a bishop. Black’s
c6-knight, a beautiful defender of the d4-pawn, is in some ways better placed than the f6-knight,
which blocks one of his queen’s diagonals and is subject to a pin by White’s dark-square bishop.
The Houston endgame composer Robert Brieger, an aficionado of the Sicilian Four Knights, was a
skilled user of Black’s knights. His fellow Texans called them “the Brieger Knights.”
• Allow White to pay a price if he wants to remove himself from the pin on his knight on e2. The
price could be White using a tempo for a move such as f3 or Qd2.
• Try to trade for White’s lightsquare bishop. It is the strongest minor piece on the board. On d3 it is
centrally placed and protects White’s weak c2- pawn. A good way for Black to neutralize it is to
oppose it by maneuvering his bishop to g6. This takes two moves, but White often generously
pushes the bishop halfway there by playing h3 or f3, driving it to h5. After a trade of the lightsquare
bishops, White will have an unobstructed target of Black’s d4-pawn, but Black can counterattack
White’s c2- pawn.
• If White has played f3 or f4, look for a way to take advantage of the weakened g1-a7 diagonal.
This is usually done by moving the queen to b6 where it takes aim at White’s king along the
diagonal while also attacking the b2-pawn.
• Don’t be in a hurry to exchange heavy pieces. Sometimes, however, it makes sense for Black to
play ...Re8 to oppose White’s rook on e1 when it is sitting behind the knight on e2. This can be
useful when White’s queen or other rook is on the d-file, putting pressure on Black’s d4-pawn.
Against that setup, Black’s rook on e8 indirectly protects the pawn. If White’s knight leaves its
position on e2 to capture the pawn, Black can play ...Rxe1+, forcing a recapture that pulls White’s
queen or rook away from the d-file.
After 12...Bg4, White has several options:
(1) 13.h3 creates luft for White, but it gives Black’s bishop a welcomed push on its way to g6, where
it will oppose White’s light-square bishop. See Section 11;
(2) 13.Re1 is a simple developing move that does not give Black anything specific to focus on.
Black’s best reply is 13...Re8. See Section 11;
(3) 13.f3 is popular. It blocks Black’s pin, but it creates weakness along the g1-a7 diagonal and gives
Black’s bishop a boost on its way to g6. See Section 12; and
(4) 13.Bg5, pinning Black’s knight, is a popular and strong option. See Section 13.
26
Section 1: 6...Bc5
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Ndb5 Bc5
Black places his good dark-square bishop on c5 instead of its normal square, b4. By doing so, he
avoids having to trade it for White’s c3- knight. The drawback is that White is not forced to defend
his e-pawn. Since Black’s bishop presents no threat, White can continue with his attack on Black’s
dark squares. White has two ways to do this:
(1A) 7.Bf4²/=; and (1B) 7.Nd6+²
Too ambitious in this position is 7.Be3 Bxe3 8.Nd6+ Ke7 9.fxe3 and now:
(1) 9...Qb6? 10.Qd2 Ne5 (10...Qxb2?? 11.Rb1 Qa3 12.Nc4+–, Grigore-Florescu, Bucharest 1999)
11.0-0-0 Ne8 12.Nf5+ Kd8 13.Nd4 a6 14.Nf3², Kosteniuk-Savina, Chita 2015. White has isolated
doubled e-pawns, but Black cannot castle and lags in development;
(2) 9...Qc7 (forcing White to defend the knight) and now:
(2a) 10.Ndb5 Qe5 11.Qd2 a6 12.Nd4, Wells-Hall, Germany 1999, 12...b5³. White has insufficient
compensation for isolated doubled e-pawns;
(2b) 10.Ncb5 Qb6 11.Qd2 Ng4 12.0-0-0 Qxe3³. Black will drive the knight away with ...a6 and
follow with ...b5, opening the queenside. White’s isolated e-pawn is a weakness; and
(2c) 10.Nc4 Rd8 11.Nb5 Qb8 12.Qd3 Kf8³/=, Kosanovic-Bakic, Kladovo 1992. Black can
undermine White’s control of d6 with the moves ...a6, ...b5, and ...Ne8.
(1A) 7.Bf4
27
7...0-0
7...e5? (creating holes on d5 and f5) 8.Be3!. This move did not work on the seventh move above,
when Black’s e-pawn is on e6, but it works here, when the pawn is on e5. The position has transposed
to an inferior sideline of the Sveshnikov, in which Black has placed his bishop on the c5-square.
Black does not have a satisfactory answer:
(1) 8...Bxe3? 9.Nd6+ Ke7 10.fxe3 Qc7 11.Ncb5 Qb6 12.Qd2 Ng4 (reaching the same position as the
one after 11...Ng4 in the 10.Ncb5 line in (2b) above, except that there Black’s e-pawn is on e6, a
better square than e5) 13.Be2 Nxe3 14.Qxe3 Qxe3 15.Nf5+, and White has won a piece.
(2) 8...Bb4 (losing a tempo) 9.a3 Bxc3+ 10.Nxc3±, Pavey-Daly, Baltimore 1948, and after 10...d6
11.Qd2, White will castle queenside, with strong pressure along the d-file.
(3) 8...d6 9.Bxc5 dxc5 10.Qxd8+ Kxd8 11.0-0-0+±, Cioara-Giffard, Le Touquet 2002, and if
11...Nd4, then 12.f4. Black’s king is exposed.
8.Bc7
Best.
(1) 8.e5 a6 9.Nd6 (9.exf6? Qxf6³) 9...Ne8=, Warszawski-Heberia, Warsaw 2009, intending a
possible ...f6 or ...Bd4, attacking White’s solitary e-pawn; or
(2) An immediate 8.Bd6, which allows Black’s queen too much freedom:
28
(2a) 8...Bxd6 9.Nxd6 Qb6 10.Nc4 Qd8 11.Nd6=, leading to a perpetual, Stevenson-Robertson,
Edinburgh 2003.
(2b) 8...Qb6 (threatening mate in two) 9.Bxc5 Qxc5 10.Qd6 Qb6 (The queen happily goes back to
b6, a square that is unavailable to it in the main line. As shown in the main-line diagram below, Black
cannot move his queen directly from e7 to b6.) 11.Qc7 (11.a4 Ne8 12.a5, Kosteniuk-M.Muzychuk,
Batumi 2012, and now best is 12...Qxa5 13.Rxa5 Nxd6³, intending 14...Ne8 and 15...a6, leaving
White a pawn down with insufficient compensation) 11...Qc5 12.Qd6 Qb6=, leading to a perpetual,
Gauri- Ringoir, Charlotte 2021.
8...Qe7 9.Bd6 Bxd6 10.Qxd6
29
White controls d6. Black’s tries are insufficient for full equality: 10...Ne8 (1A1), and 10...Qd8 (1A2).
(1A1) 10...Ne8 11.Qxe7 Nxe7 12.0-0-0 f5
13.Nd6
Alternatives:
(1) 13.f3 fxe4 14.Nxe4 (14.fxe4 Ng6 15.Be2 a6=, intending ...b5) 14...d5 15.Nc5²/=, with play
against Black’s hanging pawns.
(2) 13.e5 Ng6 14.Re1 a6 15.Nd4 b5 16.h4², Barua-Bellon Lopez, Gilbraltar 2004. White is ahead in
30
development.
13...Nxd6 14.Rxd6 fxe4 15.Nxe4 Nf5 16.Rd2 d5 17.Ng5
Black’s center pawns are hanging.
17...Nh4
Intending 18...h6. No better is 17...b6 18.Nf3 Nd6 19.Bd3², Carlsen-Vidonyak, Gausdal 2005.
18.g3 Nf3 19.Nxf3 Rxf3 20.Bg2 Rf7 21.f4
31
White is better, but Black has held a draw in the four GM and IM games that have reached this
position. Black’s strategy has been to play ...g6 and ...h5, first fortifying his kingside before attending
to the queenside.
21...g6 22.h4 h5 23.Re1 Rc7 24.Bf1 Bd7² Akopian-Bellon Lopez, Palma de Mallorca 2008.
(1A2) 10...Qd8
Black has fared better with this move. Part of the reason is that those who play 10...Qd8 are higher-
rated players wanting to avoid trading queens.
11.Nc7
A popular alternative is 11.0-0-0 a6 (11...Ne8 12.Qg3 a6 13.Nd6 Nxd6 14.Rxd6², Stepanyan-

Maltsevskaya, Moscow 2020, and White continues to occupy d6) 12.Nd4 (12.Nc7? Ra7µ threatens
the knight) and now:
(1) 12...Qb6 (This was formerly the standard move.) 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.f3 Ne8 15.Qd4 Qxd4
(15...Qc7, Kuipers-Janssen, Haarlem 2008, 16.Na4! maintaining control of the dark squares) 16.Rxd4
a5² (16...d5?! 17.Rb4±) 17.Na4 d5 18.Nc5², with a grip on Black’s queenside.; and
(2) 12...Ne7
32
A recent improvement. “Black intends to complete development with b5, Bb7, Rc8 and then to expel
the white queen by means of Ne8,” Milos Perunovic, Chess Informant 142, 2019. Black has
equalized after:
(2a) 13.Be2 b5 14.Nb3 Bb7 15.f3 Bc6 16.h4 Ne8=, Smirin-Fedorov, INT, rapid 2020. Both sides
have active play;
(2b) 13.h4 b5 14.h5 Ne8 15.Qb4 Bb7 16.h6 g6=, Sarana-Dreev, Russia 2019. Black has achieved his
objective; and
(2c) 13.f3 b5 14.Nb3 Ne8=, J.Geller-Perunovic, Moscow, blitz, 2019, 15.Qd2 d6=. Black has a
comfortable position.
(2d) 13.Qg3 b5 14.e5 Nfd5 15.Nxd5 (15.Ne4 Qb6, intending 16...f6, 16.Nf6+ Kh8=) 15...Nxd5
16.Nf5 exf5 17.Rxd5, Nevednichy- Navara, Greece, 2019, 17...Bb7=
Returning to the main line:
11...Rb8 12.Be2 b5 13.e5
Better than 13.N7xb5 a6=, Erdogdu-Navara, INT 2021, and Black recovers the pawn.
33
13...Ne8
13...b4 14.exf6 bxc3 15.fxg7 Kxg7 16.b3 Qf6, Van Kampen-Wiersma, Hoogeveen 2012, 17.0-0-0
Rb6 (17...Qxf2 18.Rd3 Rg8? 19.Nxe6++–) 18.Kb1². Black’s position is in disarray.
14.Nxe8 Rxe8 15.0-0 b4 16.Ne4 Rb6²/=
Black has done the best he can to deal with White’s unrelenting pressure on the dark squares, and has
reached a position that can be evaluated generously as ²/=. Possible continuations:
(1) 17.b3 Bb7 18.Qc5 d5 19.exd6 Nb8²/=, Antunes-Leonard, corr 2016; and
(2) 17.f4 Bb7 18.Qc5²/= (18.Qd2, Alexakis-Kouvidis, Rethymno 2019, 18...d5! 19.exd6 Nb8=).
(1B) 7.Nd6+
This is a simple way for White to obtain an advantage.
34
7...Ke7 8.Bf4
Maintaining the pressure. After 8.Nxc8+, White can achieve only equality: 8...Rxc8 9.Bd3 Qc7
(9...Rg8 10.0-0 g5=, Velicka- Navara, Cesko 2019) 10.0-0 h5 11.Bg5 Kf8, Poetz-Dreev, Trieste 2019
(threatening 12...Ng4, with a dangerous attack), 12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.Kh1=. Any further aggression by
Black will fail. White’s forces are closer to the action than Black’s.
8...e5
This move forces White to move his knight.

8...Qb6? (This has the look of a strong move, simultaneously attacking f2 and b2. Surprisingly, the
computer shows that Black is lost.) 9.Qd2 Bxf2+ (9...Ng4 10.0-0-0 Nxf2 11.Nxc8+ Rhxc8
12.Na4+–) 10.Qxf2 Qxb2 11.Qc5 b6 (11...Qxa1+ 12.Kd2 b6 13.Qa3+–, Glushenkov-Gromov, corr
2013) 12.Nc4+ bxc5, Rahman- Plaskett, London 1987, 13.Bd6+ Kd8 14.Nxb2+–. White’s
darksquare bishop has become a monster. Black is hamstrung.
9.Nf5+ Kf8 10.Bg5
35
Black’s position is similar to the one reached in the (to the line)6.Ndb5 Bb4 7.Nd6+ variation after
7...Ke7 8.Bf4 e5 9.Nf5+ Kf8 10.Bg5, Section 2 (2A1). There Black’s bishop is on b4, where it is
better placed because it pins White’s knight.
10.Be3?! (driving Black’s bishop to its preferred square) 10...Bb4=, Gavrilakis-Mastrovasilis,
Kallithea 2009.
10...d6
Other tries are no better:

(1) 10...Bb4?! puts Black one tempo behind the position in Section 2 (2A1), mentioned above. Play
could continue 11.Ne3 Qa5 12.Nc4 Bxc3+ 13.bxc3 Qxc3+ 14.Bd2 Qd4 15.f3 Kg8 16.c3 Qc5 (the
queen’s only square) 17.Bc1!±, with Ba3 to follow, Huschenbeth- Chernov, Pfalz 2017.
(2) 10...h6 11.Bxf6 Qxf6 12.Nd5 Qd8 13.c3 g6 14.Nfe3², Triapishko-Pridorozhni, Russia, rapid
2019. White intends b4, followed by Bc4, with control of the light squares.
11.Ne3 Be6 12.Qd2 Bb4 13.Bxf6²
Whichever way Black recaptures, he is left with a compromised pawn structure and poorly placed
king:
(1) 13...gxf6, Trkaljanov-Bjerring, Linares 2000, 14.0-0-0²; and
(2) 13...Qxf6 14.a3 Bxc3+ 15.Qxc3 Rc8 16.Qd2².
Section 2: 6...Bb4 7.Nd6+
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Ndb5 Bb4 7.Nd6+
36
This position is similar to the position after 7.Nd6+ in the 6.Ndb5 Bc5 7.Nd6+ variation in Section 1
(1B), where Black’s bishop is on c5. Here the bishop is on b4, where it is better placed because it
prevents White’s queen knight from participating in the battle.
The limitations of this variation have long been recognized: “The variation 7.Nd6+ has been proven
unfavorable for White” (Leopold Hoffer, The Field, 1902).
7...Ke7
Best. Alternatives allow White to force a trade of Black’s dark-square bishop, and thus improve
White’s control of d6:
(1) 7...Kf8? 8.a3! Bxc3+ 9.bxc3±, Janowski-Ingalls, New York 1899; and
(2) 7...Bxd6? 8.Qxd6 Qe7 9.Bf4±.
After 7...Ke7 White’s options are (2A) 8.Bf4³/= and (2B) 8.Nxc8+ =
(2A) 8.Bf4
37
8...e5
This is an excellent move. Just as it does in the analogous position in Section 1 (1B), when Black’s
bishop is on c5 instead of b4, it will force White to move his knight. Here it has an additional benefit,
because Black’s bishop pins White’s knight on c3. This will allow Black to follow with ...d5, which
will immediately put White on the defensive.
8...Qa5? 9.Qd2 e5 10.Nc4! Bxc3 11.bxc3 Qc7 12.Bg5 d6 13.Rd1², Zukertort-Pitschel, Paris 1878,
with pressure along the d-file.
9.Nf5+
9.Nxc8+?! Rxc8 10.Bg5 h6 11.Bxf6+ gxf6³, Pazos-Bolbochan, Buenos Aires 1946. Black is better
developed.
9...Kf8
Here the line splits into two branches: 10.Bg5 (2A1) and 10.Bd2 (2A2). Both of these lines can also
be reached from a minor sideline of the Sveshnikov Variation that arises after (to the line)5...e5 6.Ndb5
Bb4 7.Nd6+ Ke7 8.Nf5+ Kf8, when White can now move his bishop to g5.
(2A1) 10.Bg5
38
This is White’s most popular move, but it is too ambitious.
10...d5
10...Qa5 11.Bd2 d5 12.a3 Bxc3 13.Bxc3 Qc5 14.Ng3=, Schneider- Schmidt, Regensburg 1998.
Black has superior development but a bad king position.
11.Bxf6
11.exd5 Qxd5 12.Ng3 (12.Ne3? Qd4!µ) 12...h5 13.Qxd5 Nxd5 14.Nge4³. After trades on c3,
White’s isolated doubled pawns on the c-file will become targets.
11...Qxf6 12.Qxd5 Bxf5 13.exf5 Rd8
39
This is a difficult position for White.
14.Qf3
White’s queen does not have a good move:

(1) 14.Qb5? e4 15.Qc4 b5! 16.Qb3 Qd4 17.Bxb5 Na5–+, Aabling Thomsen-A.Larsen, Copenhagen
2003, and the c3-square loses White’s queen’s protection;
(2) 14.Qb3? Qd6! 15.Be2 Nd4–+, Campos Ruiz-Willis, San Antonio 1972, 16.Qa4 a6, to be
followed by 17...b5.
(3) 14.Qc4?! Rd4 15.Qb5 Qe7 16.a3 Re4+µ, Pastuszko-Majdan, Poland, rapid 2017, with a strong
attack.
(4) 14.Qe4 Rd4 15.Qe3 (15.Qf3 e4 16.Qh3 g6³) 15...Ne7 16.Be2 Nxf5 17.Qh3 g6 18.0-0 Kg7³,
Litz-Heilmann, corr 2005, with the initiative.
14...e4
Intending 15...e3.
15.Qe3 g6
15...Qxf5 16.Be2, Ragnoni- Gardon, Campobasso 2002, 16...g6³/=.
16.Bb5
16.fxg6? hxg6µ
16...gxf5 17.0-0
40
17.Bxc6 f4³
17...Nd4! 18.Rad1 Rg8³ with pressure on White’s kingside.
(2A2) 10.Bd2
This is White’s safer alternative.
10...Bxc3
A good move. Black intends to contest the light squares, so he trades his dark-square bishop, which is
no longer useful, for White’s light-square guardian.
More common is 10...d5 11.exd5 (11.Ng3? d4 12.Nb1 h5µ, Tarrasch- B.Richter, Halle, club game
between 1882-85), when Black has three options:
(1) 11...Bxf5 12.dxc6 bxc6 13.Bc4 Qd4 14.Qe2 Bxc2 15.0-0²/=, Keely-Recuero Guerra, Lisbon
2001. Black’s king is poorly placed. He will not be able to hold on to his extra pawn;
(2) 11...Nxd5 12.Nxd5 Qxd5 13.Bxb4+ Nxb4 14.Qxd5 Nxd5 15.0-0-0 Bxf5 16.Rxd5 Rc8 (16...f6
17.f4²) 17.Bd3²/= ½-½, Cheyney-Willis, San Antonio 1984. Very little play remains in the position;
and
(3) 11...Bxc3 12.bxc3 (12.Bxc3 transposes to the 12.exd5³/= sideline below) 12...Qxd5 13.Ne3
Qc5=, Werner-Frackowiak, Germany 2002. Black is better developed but will lose time improving
his king’s position.
11.Bxc3 d5
11...Nxe4 12.Qg4²
41
12.Ng3
12.exd5 Nxd5 13.Ne3 Nxc3 14.Qxd8+ Nxd8 15.bxc3 Be6³/=, Gumprich-Eisinger, Bad Neuenahr
1957. Black has play on the queenside.
12...h5 13.h4 g6³/=
White has the two bishops, but Black has more space in the center and his forces are more
comfortably placed.
(2B) 8.Nxc8+
White trades his itinerant knight for Black’s bad bishop and accelerates Black’s development at the
same time. But Black will need to pay attention to the safety of his king.
8...Rxc8 9.Bd3
Alternatives give Black a large advantage:

(1) 9.Bg5? h6 10.Bxf6+ gxf6µ. White will likely lose a pawn to Black’s pin on c3;
(2) 9.Bd2? (frequently played, but very bad) 9...Bxc3! 10.Bxc3 Nxe4 11.Bxg7 Rg8–+. Black’s far
superior development and open lines give Black a winning position:
(2a) 12.Bh6 Qb6 13.Qf3 Nd4–+;
(2b) 12.Bd4 Qa5+ 13.c3 Nxd4 14.Qxd4 Nxc3 15.bxc3 Rxc3 16.Qd2 Rg5–+, Trujillo Delgado-
Moreno Tejera, Mondariz 2002;
(2c) 12.Bd3 Qa5+ 13.c3, Pekarkova-Plat, Brno 2012, 13...f5–+; and
42
(2d) 12.Qg4 Qa5+ 13.c3 d5 (13...f5µ, Meitner-Schlechter, Vienna Chess Club, 1899) 14.Qh4+ f6
15.Qxh7 Qb6–+.
9...d5
Equally good are slower alternatives, where Black provides for his king before engaging in the center:
(1) 9...Re8 10.0-0 Kf8 11.Bd2 Kg8 12.a3 Be7 13.Kh1 d5=, Damjanovic-A.Zaitsev, Sochi 1965.
(2) 9...Ne5 10.0-0 Re8 11.Bd2 Kf8=, Tan-Sawalani, Cairnhill 2001.
10.exd5 Nxd5
A major alternative is 10...Qxd5 11.0-0 and now:

(1) 11...Bxc3 12.bxc3 Rhd8 (12...Qa5 13.Rb1 Rc7 14.Qf3±, intending 14.Qg3) 13.Ba3+ (hemming in
Black’s king) 13...Ke8, Zenaidi-Raetsky, Istanbul 2012, 14.Rb1²; and
(2) 11...Qh5 12.Qxh5 Nxh5 13.Ne4 Rhd8=, with equality. Against Fischer, Pavey tried 13...Ne5
14.Be2 Nf6 15.Nxf6 gxf6³/=, followed by 16.c3 and 17.Bf4, Fischer-Pavey, New York 1956, and
Fischer’s two-bishops advantage was all he needed to secure the win.
11.0-0
Or 11.Bd2 Bxc3 12.bxc3 Ne5 13.Qh5 (indirectly defending the c3-pawn) 13...f6, Nguyen-Azman,
Asia 2008 (13...Nxd3+ 14.cxd3 Nxc3 15.Qg5+ Kd7 16.Qxg7², and White will recover the pawn),
and play could continue 14.Rb1 b6 15.c4 Nxc4 16.Qg4 Nxd2 17.Qxg7+ Kd6 18.Kxd2=, with equal
chances.
11...Ne5
11...Nxc3 is more commonly played, but it opens White’s a3-f8 diagonal: 12.bxc3 Bd6 (12...Bxc3?
13.Rb1², Asharin-Chigorin, St. Petersburg 1877, opens too many lines against Black’s king) 13.Qh5
h6 14.Rb1 Qc7²/=, Jamal-Dewan, Khaka 2017. Black has minimized his king’s exposure.
12.Ne4 Qc7= Sredojevic- Basarava, Vrnjacka Banja 2006. Black’s exposed king is in no danger
because of his lead in development.
(back to the text)

Black’s position is similar to the one reached in the 6.Ndb5 Bb4 7.Nd6+ variation after
7...Ke7 8.Bf4 e5 9.Nf5+ Kf8 10.Bg5, Section 2 (2A1). There Black’s bishop is on b4, where it is
better placed because it pins White’s knight.
(back to the text) Both of these lines can also be reached from a minor sideline of the Sveshnikov
43
Variation that arises after 5...e5 6.Ndb5 Bb4 7.Nd6+ Ke7 8.Nf5+ Kf8, when White can now move
his bishop to g5.
44
Section 3: 6...Bb4 7.Bf4
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Ndb5 Bb4 7.Bf4
White offers his e-pawn so that he can intensify his attack on Black’s dark squares. This leads to
tactical complications.
7...Nxe4
Taking the pawn is Black’s usual reply and is best. Alternatives:

(1) 7...e5?! 8.Bg5 0-0 9.a3 Be7 (9...Ba5 10.Bc4 h6 11.Bxf6², and White will castle, then occupy d5
with a knight) leads to a position similar to an inferior line of the Sicilian Sveshnikov that occurs after
(to the line)6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bf4 e5 8.Bg5 Be7?!, the difference being that in the Sveshnikov, Black’s d-
pawn is on d6, not still on d7 as it is here. Here White is better after 10.Bxf6 Bxf6
45
and now:
(1a) 11.Nd5?! d6! 12.Nxf6+ Qxf6 13.Qxd6 Be6=, Medarde Santiago- Munoz Suarez, Marbella
2019, and with moves on the horizon such as ...Rad8, ...Qg6, and a later ...Nd4, Black has ample
compensation for the pawn; and
(1b) 11.Nd6 Be7, Schallopp- Schiffers, Nuremberg, 1896, 12.Qd5!² (allowing 13.0-0-0 if Black
plays 12...Nd4).
(2) 7...0-0 will likely transpose to the main line of the 6.Ndb5 Bc5 7.Bf4 variation, Section 1 (1A)
after 8.Bc7 Qe7 9.Bd6 Bxd6 10.Qxd6.
8.Qf3
8.Nc7+ will normally transpose to one of the two main lines, (3A) or (3B), but White can stumble
along the way:
(1) 8...Ke7 9.Qf3 d5 transposes to the 9...Ke7 variation (3A); and
(2) 8...Kf8 offers White two choices:
46
(2a) 9.Nxa8? Qf6 (attacking simultaneously the unguarded bishop, the knight on c3, and, indirectly,
the king) 10.Qf3 (10.Be3 Nxc3 11.Qf3 Nd5+ 12.c3 Bxc3+–+, Bone-Willis, Houston 1985)
10...Nxc3 11.Bd2 (11.a3 Nd4!–+) 11...Nd4 12.Qd3 Qe5+ 13.Be2 (13.Be3 Na4+! 14.c3 Nxb2
15.Qb1 Bxc3#, Reggio-Tarrasch, Monte Carlo 1902) 13...Nxc2+ 14.Kf1 Nxa1 15.bxc3µ, Nevded-
Poschel, Chicago 1951. White has insufficient compensation for Black’s two-pawn advantage; and
(2b) 9.Qf3 (best)
Black has three respectable replies:

(2b1) 9...e5!? (a novelty) Snyder- Erozber, corr 1979, which virtually forces White into a very tactical
line that he may not have been prepared to enter. After 10.Nxa8 d5, the game transposes to the
47
sideline to White’s 10th move in the (3B) main line where, instead of 10.0-0-0, White plays 10.Nxa8
and Black replies with 10...e5=;
(2b2) 9...Nxc3 10.bxc3 (10.Nxa8? Qa5–+) 10...Qf6 11.0-0-0 Ba3+ 12.Kb1 Rb8 13.Nb5 Bc5=, and
the chances are balanced, Romanenko- Bunkov, Alapayevsk 2007; and
(2b3) 9...d5 transposes to the starting position of the 9...Kf8 variation (3B).
Returning now to the main line, after 8.Qf3:
8...d5
8...Nxc3?! will give up a tempo when Black’s bishop retreats: 9.bxc3 Qf6 (9...Ba5 10.Nd6+ Kf8
11.0-0-0 Qf6 transposes) 10.0-0-0 Ba5 11.Nd6+ Kf8 12.Ne4 Qd8 13.Bd6+ Kg8 (Black’s king is a
target) 14.g4 Bc7 15.Bxc7 Qxc7 16.Nd6±, Kurylo- Rimkus, corr 2018.
9.Nc7+
The alternative 9.0-0-0 Bxc3 10.Nc7+ transposes to the (3A) main line if 10...Ke7, or to the (3B)
main line if 10...Kf8.
After 9.Nc7+, Black’s options are:
(3A) 9...Ke7?± and (3B) 9...Kf8=
With 9...Ke7, Black avoids blocking his rook and keeps his king involved in the fight for the center.
With 9...Kf8, Black safeguards his king, which is a wise decision in this position.
Before computers, these options were difficult to evaluate because of their tactical complexity. In
1901, in Nordisk Skaktidende, the Swedish analyst Ludvig Svenonius concluded that White is
winning against either move. In 1969, the August issue of Chess Archives (van den Berg and
48
Bouwmeester) concluded that Black’s best move was 9...Ke7 (3A). Today, it is known that 9...Ke7 is
bad and that the better move is 9...Kf8 (3B), which leads to equality.
(3A) 9...Ke7?
During the late 1960s and early 1970s, analysts devoted considerable effort studying this position.
Computers have since shown that on e7 the king is too exposed.
10.0-0-0 Bxc3 11.bxc3 g5
11...Rb8? 12.c4+– (Yankovsky- Bragina, St. Petersburg 2007) will tear apart the protection for
Black’s exposed king. Although 12.c4 wins for White here, it would lose in the 9...Kf8 variation (3B,
3B1), where Black can play 12...Qf6, winning.
12.Bg3
49
12...f5
12...Nxg3 (12...Rb8 13.Bc4 Nxg3 14.Qxg3 transposes) opens lines to Black’s king: 13.Qxg3 Rb8
14.Bc4! Kf8 15.Nxd5 exd5 16.Bxd5±, Kapengut-Begun, Minsk 1977. Black will have to return the
piece to have any chance to survive.
13.Bc4
White increases the pressure. If instead 13.c4, then 13...Kf7! (making room for the queen) 14.cxd5
(14.Nxa8 Qf6=) 14...Qf6=, with counterplay.
50
After 13.Bc4, it will be difficult for Black to survive.
13...Kf8
The best of a bad selection:

(1) 13...Bd7 (the most common move, but it loses quickly) 14.Rhe1!
All six of White’s pieces are in the fight. White is ready to remove the king’s cover, first by capturing
twice on d5, then by capturing the knight on e4 with the rook. Black has no defense:
(1a) 14...dxc4? 15.Rxe4 fxe4 16.Bd6 mate;
(1b) 14...Nxg3 15.Nxd5++–;
(1c) 14...Rc8 15.Nxd5+ exd5 16.Rxd5+–, Pesch-Heger, Hamburg 1970);
(1d) 14...Kf6 15.Rxe4 dxe4 16.Qh5 h6 17.Bxe6+–, Pesch-Albers, Kiel 1970.
(2) 13...f4 14.Nxd5+ exd5 15.Rxd5 Nd6, Kalinitschew-Zotkin, Moscow 1978, 16.Qd3+–, with Re1+
to follow (16.Re1+? Kd7²).
(3) 13...Kf7 14.Nxd5 Kg7 (looking for a safer square), Gorelov- Timoshchenko, Moscow 1985,
15.Nb4 Qf6 16.Nxc6 bxc6 17.Rhe1+–, intending 18.Rxe4 fxe4 19.Qxe4.
14.Nxa8
14.Nxd5? exd5 15.Bxd5 Nxg3 16.Bxc6 Qf6µ.
14...Qf6 15.Bb3 f4 16.h4 fxg3 17.Qxf6+ Nxf6 18.fxg3± White is up the exchange.
(3B) 9...Kf8
51
Best. Black moves his king away from the center.
10.0-0-0
10.Nxa8 is a sound alternative that calls for accurate play by Black. 10...e5
(10...Qa5?! 11.a3! Nxc3 12.Rc1!²)

11.Bd2 and now:
(1) 11...Nxd2?! 12.Qxd5;
(1a) 12...Qxd5 13.Nxd5 Nb3+ 14.Nxb4 Nxa1 15.Nxc6 bxc6 16.Kd2±. Escaping from the corner
will be harder for Black’s knight than for White’s; and
52
(1b) 12...Bxc3 13.Qxd8+ Nxd8 14.bxc3 Nxf1². White will be up the exchange for a pawn.
(2) 11...Nd4 (best) 12.Qd1 Qh4! (12...Bg4 13.Qc1±, Kosteniuk- Savina, France 2018, and although
Black has all four minor pieces on White’s fourth rank, she does not have a good way to proceed)
13.g3 Qf6
The computers that have analyzed the pure tactics that branch from this position seem to agree that
the following continuation is best for both sides: 14.Nxe4 Nf3+ 15.Qxf3 (15.Ke2 Nd4+ leads to a
perpetual, Gukesh-Dreev, FIDE Chess.com Grand Swiss 2019) 15...Qxf3 16.Bxb4+ Kg8 17.Nd6
Qxh1 18.0-0-0 Be6 19.Nc7 Qxh2 20.Nxd5 Bxd5 21.Rxd5 Qxf2 22.Rxe5 Qxf1+ 23.Re1 Qxe1+
24.Bxe1 h5. An email game continued 25.Bc3 b6=, Brunori-Ploscaru, corr 2018.
10...Bxc3
10...Nxc3?! (giving up the better defender) 11.bxc3 Ba3+ 12.Kb1 e5 13.Nxa8 exf4 14.Qxd5±,
Kapengut-Begun, Minsk 1985. Black will lose time freeing his king rook.
11.bxc3
11.Nxa8? (giving life to Black’s queen) 11...Qa5 12.a3 e5 13.Be3 Be6–+, Prins-Gonzalez, Havana
1952. Black has a winning attack.
After 11.bxc3, a key position is reached. Black has three main alternatives: 11...Rb8 (3B1), 11...g5
(3B2), and 11...e5 (3B3).
53
A rarely seen alternative is 11...Qe7, which removes the queen from the pin and threatens 12...Qa3+.
It can lead to tactical play. The computer offers the following line of mostly forcing moves: 12.c4
Nb4 13.cxd5 Nxa2+ 14.Kb2 Nac3 15.Rd4 e5 16.d6 Qf6 17.Rxe4 Nxe4 18.Bc1 Qxf3 19.gxf3 Nxf2
20.Rg1 Rb8 21.Bc4². Black is up an exchange and two pawns, but his king is very badly placed, his
pieces lack mobility, and he must defend against a passed pawn on the sixth.
(3B1) 11...Rb8
12.Bc4!
54
This improvement was suggested by L. M. Pickett and A. K. Swift in their 1976 book on the Sicilian
Four Knights. Several years passed before it was tried in practice, perhaps because of its tactical
complexity. Computers have since weighed in and show that White is better.
12.Nxd5 was once the main move. It is still the one most frequently played. After 12...exd5 13.Qxe4
(13.Bxb8 Qe7!µ, threatening 14...Qa3+) 13...dxe4 14.Rxd8+ Nxd8 15.Bxb8 a6, a key position is
reached. (Not 15...Nc6? 16.Bd6+ Ke8 17.Bc4. Without the knight’s support from d8, Black cannot
comfortably oppose Bc4 with 17...Be6.)
In the diagrammed position, White has an edge. Although his queenside pawns are weak, he has the
two bishops, and Black’s king is hemmed in. In the examples shown below, Black’s king finds its
way to freedom:
(1) 16.Be2 Ke7 17.Rd1 Nc6 18.Bd6+ Kf6=, Kotov-Zaitsev, Ulyanovsk 1960;
(2) 16.Bd6+ Ke8 17.Be2 (17.Bc4 Be6 18.Bb3 Kd7²/= transposes to (3c) below) 17...Be6 18.Rd1,
Fichtl-Skacel, Bratislava 1956, 18...f5=. The king can go to f7; and
(3) 16.Bc4 Be6 and now:
55
(3a) 17.Bb3 Ke7 18.Re1 f5 19.f3 exf3 20.gxf3 Kf7=, Hinne-Eisinger, Bad Pyrmont 1963;
(3b) 17.Rd1 Ke7 18.Bd6+ Kf6 19.Rd4 (19.Bb3 Nc6=, Burton- Byway, Oldham 2010) 19...Bxc4
20.Rxc4, Oll-Shabanov, Kostroma 1985, 20...Re8=; or
(3c) 17.Bd6+ Ke8 18.Bb3 Kd7 19.Rd1 Kc8 20.Kd2²/=, ½-½, Nunn-Andersson, London 1984.
White’s king is closer to the center.
Returning to the main line, after 12.Bc4:
White is threatening 13.Nxd5. Black has many choices, none of which is satisfactory.
12...Qf6
56
Alternatives:
(1) 12...Bd7, Yoos-Van Riemsdijk, Vancouver 2003, 13.Nxd5 exd5 14.Rxd5 Nf6 15.Rhd1±, with a
near-winning attack;
(2) 12...Qe7, Mordue-Byway, Frome 2008, 13.Nxd5 exd5 14.Bxd5 Bg4 15.Qxe4±, regaining the
sacrificed piece, with an extra pawn;
(3) 12...e5 13.Nxd5 Ng5 14.Bxg5 Qxg5+ 15.Kb2². Black lags in development;
(4) 12...g5 13.Nxd5 gxf4 14.Nb4! (14.Nxf4?! Qg5 15.h4 Qh6=) 14...Qf6 15.Nxc6 bxc6 16.Qxe4².
Black has escaped the worst, but he will lose time activating his bishop; and
(5) 12...Nf6 13.Nxd5 exd5 14.Rxd5! Nxd5 15.Bxd5 (threatening 16.Bd6+, with mate in three)
15...Qf6 16.Bxc6 Ra8 17.Bd5². Black has an exchange for a pawn, but White’s dominating bishops
and lead in development more than compensate.
13.Bxd5
The following moves by Black are virtually forced.
13...Nxc3 14.Bd6+ Kg8 15.Qxf6 gxf6 16.Rd3 Ne2+ 17.Kd2 exd5 18.Nxd5 Ra8 19.Kxe2²
White has recovered his sacrificed material and his pieces remain more active.
(3B2) 11...g5
This is a sound move, but it has a low winning percentage.
12.Qxe4
57
12.Bg3 allows Black to transpose to a favorable version of a sideline of the 11...Rb8 variation (3B1).
After 12...Rb8 (12...Nxg3?! 13.Qxg3 Rb8 14.Bb5, J.Polgar- Maskova, Novi Sad 1990, 14...Bd7
15.Nxd5 exd5 16.Rxd5²) 13.Nxd5 exd5 14.Qxe4 dxe4 15.Rxd8+ Nxd8 16.Bxb8 a6=, the position is
similar to the position after 15...a6 in the 12.Nxd5 sideline in (3B1) above. There Black’s g-pawn is
still on g7. Here it is on g5, where it provides very helpful luft for Black’s king.
12...Qxc7
12...gxf4? 13.Qxf4 Rb8 14.Bb5±, Grechikhin-Karbashikov, USSR 1963. The position is similar to
the one reached after 14.Bb5 in the J. Polgar-Maskova game above.
13.Bxc7 dxe4 14.Bb5
White’s aim is to open the kingside with h4 and/or move his rook up the d-file. It will be difficult for
Black to find a comfortable home for his king. But Black has compensation because of the weakness
of White’s queenside pawn structure and because it will take time for White to recover his pawn.
14.h4 (attacking Black’s weakened kingside) 14...g4 15.Bb5 Kg7 (Slow. Better is 15...f6, transposing
to the main line.) 16.Rhe1 h5 17.Rxe4, Urzica-Illijin, Bucharest 1974, 17...f6 18.Rd6²/=.
14...f6!
Black intends ...e5, liberating his bishop while also restricting White’s dark-square bishop.
14...Kg7 15.h4 g4 transposes to the 14.h4 sideline above.
15.h4 g4 16.Rhe1 e5 17.Rxe4 Be6= Rasik-Rogozenco, Netherlands 1992. Black has achieved his
goals.
58
(3B3) 11...e5
12.Nxd5
12.Nxa8? Qa5–+. White is in trouble.
12...f5
This move offers Black a more certain path to equality than the more popular alternative, 12...Ng5.
After 12...Ng5, White has two choices:
59
(1) 13.Bxg5 Qxg5+ 14.Rd2 (14.Kb2 Qg4=, and if 15.Qe3 then 15...Qxd1 16.Qc5+ Kg8 17.Bb5
Qg4=, Santo Roman-Cerisier, Epinal 1986) 14...h5 (14...Qg4 15.Qe3±, threatening 16.Qc5+) 15.h4
Qh6 16.Bc4 Bg4 17.Qe4 (17.Qe3, Metz-Schiffer, corr 1973, 17...Qxe3=) 17...Rd8 18.Bb3 g6 19.f3
Be6 20.Rhd1 Kg7 21.Kb2=. White has created a strongpoint on d5, but Black’s position is solid.
(2) 13.Qe3!? (sacrificing the bishop) 13...exf4 14.Qc5+ Ke8 15.Bb5 Bd7 (15...Ne6 16.Rhe1 Bd7
transposes) 16.Rhe1+ Ne6 17.Qd6 (17.Nxf4? Qe7µ, DeBoer-Schiffer, Amsterdam 1980) 17...Rc8.
White is a piece down, but has a dominating position. Black’s options are limited. He can try to break
out either on the queenside with ...a6 and ...b5, or on the kingside with ...h5 and ...Rh6:
(2a) 18.Ba4 h5 19.g3 f3 20.Rd3 Rh6=, followed by 21...Nb8, Bauer- Heinicke, Germany 1981.
(2b) 18.g4! (A novelty. White brings new forces into play on the kingside.) 18...a6 (If 18...fxg3, then
19.hxg3 followed by 20.f4, threatening 21.f5.) 19.Ba4 b5 20.Bb3 Na5 21.g5 (threatening 21...--
22.Nf6+ gxf6 23.Bxe6 fxe6 24.Rxe6+ Kf7 25.Rxf6+ Kg7 26.Qd4+–). The computer offers the
following continuation: 21...Rc6 22.Qf4 h6 23.Qd4 Kf8 24.Qb4+ Ke8 25.f4 hxg5 26.f5±. White’s
attack continues.
13.Bg3 h5
60
14.Qe3!
This multipurpose move prepares 15.f3, prevents Black’s ...Qa5-c5 option, prevents a check on g5,
and avoids a later ...Bg4, pinning the queen.
14.h4 (giving Black a useful tempo) 14...Qa5 15.Bc4 (15.Kb2? Qc5 16.c4 Rh6µ, Marshall-
Demchenko, corr 2012) 15...Qc5 16.Bb3 a5³. Black has an attack.
14...Qa5
14...h4? 15.Bxe5 Nxe5 16.f3±
15.f3
White kicks the irritating knight.
15...Nxg3 16.hxg3
61
16...Be6
16...Qxa2?? 17.Qc5+ followed by 18.Bc4+–.
17.Bc4 Rd8 18.Nb6!=
The position will clarify after 18...Rxd1+ (or 18...Qxb6 19.Qxb6 axb6 20.Bxe6=) 19.Rxd1 Rh6
20.Bxe6 Rxe6 21.Nc4=.
Section 4: 6...Bb4 7.a3 Bxc3+ 8.Nxc3 d5 9.Bd3
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Ndb5 Bb4 7.a3 Bxc3+ 8.Nxc3 d5 9.Bd3
62
The unassuming 9.Bd3 has been played by world champions Capablanca, Fischer, and Carlsen, and
the first world correspondence champion Purdy. Black has four options: attack White’s bishop with
9...Ne5, temporize with 9...0-0, close the center with 9...d4, or open the center with 9...dxe4:
(4A) 9...Ne5²; (4B) 9...0-0²/=; (4C) 9...d4²/=; and (4D) 9...dxe4=
(4A) 9...Ne5
Black is not developed sufficiently to justify this time-wasting move. White gains an advantage by
simply continuing his own development.
10.0-0
63
Also good are 10.Bg5 and 10.Bf4. 10.Bb5+ is more popular, but it relieves Black of worry about his
undeveloped light-square bishop: 10...Bd7 11.Qd4 Nc6 12.Bxc6 Bxc6 13.exd5 Bxd5=, Christiansen-
Alburt, Parsippany 1996.
10...dxe4 11.Bxe4
11.Nxe4 Nxd3=
11...Qxd1 12.Rxd1 Nxe4 ½-½, Fernandez Romero-Franco Ocampos, Dos Hermanas 2005.
13.Nxe4² White has a lead in development.
(4B) 9...0-0
The game will usually transpose to another variation.
10.0-0
10.exd5 exd5 11.0-0 transposes to the main line of the 6.Ndb5

variation.
10...d4
10...Ne5² transposes to the 9...Ne5 variation (4A).

10...h6 11.exd5 exd5² transposes to the 9.exd5 exd5 10.Bd3 0-0 11.0-0 h6 variation, Section 8 (8B).
11.Ne2 e5²/= The game has transposed to the 9.Bd3 d4 variation below (4C).
64
(4C) 9...d4 10.Ne2 e5 11.0-0 0-0
12.h3
White intends f4, and wants to prevent ...Bg4 or ...Ng4.

White’s main alternative is 12.Ng3:
(1) 12...Bg4 13.f3 Be6 14.f4 exf4 15.Bxf4 Ng4=, Sychev-Tregubov, Moscow, blitz 2017, followed
by ...Nge5, with a comfortable position; or
(2) 12...Be6 13.f4 exf4 14.Bxf4 Ng4=, Barrientos Chavarriaga- Escobar Medina, Bogota 2010,
transposes to (1) above in one less move.
12...Re8
Black anticipates a possible pawn advance to f4 by White, after which Black intends to trade off his
e-pawn and place a knight on e5.
After the alternative 12...Nd7 (anticipating 13.f4), White has the shrewd reply 13.b4! (Black having
committed his knight, White nimbly changes direction; 13.f4 exf4 14.Bxf4 Nde5=, Pavlovic-Bousios,
Kalamaria 2004) 13...Nb6 (13...a5?! 14.b5 Ne7 15.c3 dxc3 16.Be3±, and White dominates the
queenside, Schroeder-Seifert, Germany 2014) 14.f4 (Now that Black’s knight is out of play on the
queenside, White has returned to his original plan.) 14...f6 15.f5².
13.Ng3 Nd7
Black prepares to defend against 14.f4.

An alternative is 13...Be6 (so that after ...Nd7 the bishop will not be blocked in) 14.f4 exf4 15.Bxf4
65
Nd7 16.Qh5 g6 17.Qh6, Shirov- Grischuk, Linares 2001, 17...f6²/=. White has some play on the
kingside, but Black has the e5-square for a knight and a sound position.
14.b4
White asks Black what he is going to do with his d7-knight.
Alternatives make things too easy for Black:

(1) 14.f4 exf4 15.Bxf4 Nde5=, Ponomariov-Korchnoi, Donetsk 2001.
(2) 14.Qh5, Carlsen-Nepomniachtchi, Moscow, blitz 2010, 14...Nc5 15.f4 Nxd3 16.cxd3 f6=.
14...Nf8
14...a6 15.Bd2 Nf8 16.Qf3 Be6, Gupte-Lalith, Dindugul 2007, 17.Nf5²/=. Black’s position is solid,
but White has the two bishops and can play on either wing.
15.Re1
15.b5 Ne7 16.a4 Neg6=, Sanal- Mamedyarov, INT, rapid 2020. The queen knight finds a good
square.
15...Ne6 16.Nf5²/= Black has a strong center, but White has the two bishops and play on the
kingside.
(4D) 9...dxe4 10.Nxe4 Nxe4 11.Bxe4 Qxd1+ 12.Kxd1
66
This is the key position of the 9.Bd3 variation. White has the two bishops and better mobility, but the
poor placement of his king badly hinders his development.
12...Bd7
A good move. Alternatives:

(1) 12...f5?! (This allows White to split Black’s queenside pawns and then exploit the weakened dark
squares.) 13.Bxc6+ bxc6 14.Re1 Kf7 15.c4 (creating space for the king) 15...Re8 16.Re5 Kf6
17.Rc5±, Zubov-Baron, Tel Aviv 2011.
(2) 12...0-0 (moving the king too far away) 13.Be3 e5 14.Kc1 Be6 (Kurenkov-Van Zutphen, Dieren
2005) 15.Bxc6 bxc6 16.b3².
(3) 12...e5 13.Bxc6+ (13.Re1 f6=, De Firmian-Ilescas Cordoba, Linares 1994) 13...bxc6 14.Be3 Be6
15.Kc1²/=, Hovhannisyan- Jimenez Lopez, Benasque 2019. Black is left with isolated pawns on the
queenside, but White cannot do much until he improves his king position.
13.Be3
67
White develops a piece and applies pressure to Black’s queenside. This natural move is played 80%
of the time. Its drawback, which is hard to see, is that it blocks the e-file. It gives Black time to safely
expand in the center with ...f5, followed by ...e5, without worrying about a white rook applying
pressure along the file.
After 13.Be3, Black should proceed as follows: (1) start center expansion with 13...f5, which attacks
White’s bishop on e4 and opens f7 for his king; (2) move the king to f7 to support his central pawns
and free his king rook; (3) push the e-pawn to e5, creating scope for his light-square bishop; and (4)
redeploy the light-square bishop.
Meanwhile, White must invest time finding a better position for his very badly placed king and
liberating his queen rook. Options include Kc1 followed by an eventual b3 and Kb2; a4 and Ra3; or
Ke2.
An odd-looking alternative to 13.Be3, which is preferred by the computer, is 13.f3!?
68
It might appear the computer just wants a place for White’s king on f2. But it also wants the e-file left
open for a rook, should Black push forward his central pawns.
Black’s options after 13.f3!? are:
(1) 13...e5 14.Re1! (14.Be3 f5 15.Bxc6 Bxc6=, Capablanca- Tartakower, Buenos Aires 1939) 14...0-
0-0 15.Ke2 f5 16.Bd3 Rhf8 17.Kf2². White’s two bishops will work together effectively in this open
position; and
(2) 13...0-0 14.Be3²/=. Black’s king is out of play.
Returning to the main line, after 13.Be3:
13...f5
Black begins mobilizing his central pawns. Castling on either wing moves Black’s king too far away:
(1) 13...0-0 (The better square for Black’s king is f7.) 14.Kc1 f5 15.Bf3² e5? 16.Bd5+±; or
(2) 13...0-0-0, and now options for White’s king are:
(2a) 14.Ke2 b6 (freeing the knight) 15.Rac1²/= (intending 16.c4);
(2b) 14.Kc1 f5 and now:
(2b1) 15.Bf3 e5²/= transposes to the 15...0-0-0²/= sideline of the mainline below.
(2b2) 15.Bd3 (Now that Black’s king protects b7, White’s bishop prefers d3 to f3; and in some lines
Black can attack a bishop on f3 with ...e5 and ...Nd4.) 15...e5, Cubas- Limp, Rio de Janeiro 2014,
16.b4 f4 17.Bd2². Black’s king is too far away to aid in defending his central pawns.
14.Bf3 e5
69
15.Kc1
Alternatives:
(1) 15.b4 Rc8=. Black attacks the newly created weak squares on the c-file; and
(2) 15.Re1 Kf7=. Black’s king is well placed for defense.
15...Rc8
Black plays actively. He contemplates 16...f4 17.Bd2 Nd4.

More defensive is 15...0-0-0 16.Re1 f4 (16...Kc7, Van der Wiel- Beckhuis, Amsterdam 2005, 17.a4
Nd4 18.Ra3²) 17.Bd2 Rhe8 (17...Nd4, S.Lu-X.Xu, Xinghua 2020, 18.Rxe5²) 18.a4 Nd4 19.Be4 Bg4
20.Bb4²/= (if 20...f3 21.Ra3²/=). Black will have to nurse his e-pawn.
16.Re1 Kf7 17.g3 Be6
Black has achieved his development goal. Possible continuations:

(1) 18.Rd1 Rc7 (or 18...b6=, Jakubowski-Mroziak, Krakow 2014) 19.b4 Rhc8 20.Rd2=.
(2) 18.b4 e4 19.Bh5+ g6 20.Be2 Rhd8=, Pilnik-Bolbochan, La Plata 1944.
Section 5: 6...Bb4 7.a3 Bxc3+ 8.Nxc3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Ndb5 Bb4 7.a3 Bxc3+ 8.Nxc3 d5 9.exd5
Nxd5
70
By capturing on d5 with the knight instead of the e-pawn, Black avoids isolating his d-pawn but
forgoes the opportunity to control the center. This idea was tested from the mid- 1960s through the
early 1970s and is no longer popular.
White has two options: 10.Nxd5 and 10.Bd2.
If 10.Nxd5, Black has the choice of 10...Qxd5 or 10...exd5:
(5A) 10.Nxd5 Qxd5² and (5B) 10.Nxd5 exd5=
10.Nxd5 leaves Black with the difficult task of defending an isolated pawn when one or more of his
pieces have already been traded, and with White having the two bishops. But its drawback is that it
opens up the position, giving freedom to Black’s bishop.
The more effective tenth-move option for White is 10.Bd2. Black’s three most frequent replies are
10...Nxc3, 10...Qh4, and 10...0-0:
(5C) 10.Bd2 Nxc3²; (5D) 10.Bd2 Qh4²; and (5E) 10.Bd2 0-0²
10.Bd2 keeps Black’s position cramped. It has a higher winning percentage (about 70%) than
10.Nxd5 (about 63%), but this difference is primarily because 10.Bd2 players average about an 80-
point higher rating than their opponents, compared with only a 40-point higher rating for players who
choose 10.Nxd5.
(5A) 10.Nxd5 Qxd5
71
Black allows White to exchange queens. This is not advisable when he will have to defend an isolated
pawn on d5.
For a period during the 1960s, grandmasters used this line for prearranged draws.
11.Qxd5 exd5 12.Bf4
White intends to castle queenside. This treatment has offered White a higher winning percentage than
the alternative 12.Bd3. An early game continued 12...Ne5 13.Be2 Bf5 14.Bf4 Ng6 15.Bg3 Bxc2
16.Rc1 Ba4 17.Rc7 Bc6²/=, Boleslavsky- Bannik, USSR 1960. White has an initiative in return for
his pawn deficit.
72
12...Bf5
Black intends to defend by castling queenside also. Another approach is 12...0-0 13.0-0-0 Be6
(13...d4 14.Bb5±) 14.Be2 Rfd8 15.Rd2 Rd7 16.Rhd1 Rad8 17.b3 f6 18.Kb2 Kf7 19.h4 a6 20.h5²,
Liang-Qi, Beijing 1995. With the moves h4 and h5, White has squeezed some play from the position.
13.0-0-0 0-0-0 14.Be2
Another option is 14.Bb5 Rhe8 15.Rd2 a6 16.Be2², Bobotsov- Makarczyk, Miedzyzdroje 1952.
White continues to maneuver.
14...Rhe8 15.Bf3²
Fluvia Poyatos-Andres Gonzalez, Mondariz 2002. White has retained his advantages of the two
bishops and play against the isolated d-pawn.
(5B) 10.Nxd5 exd5
Black keeps his queen on the board for now.
11.Bd3
11.Be2 (passive) 11...0-0 12.0-0 Bf5 13.Bf3 d4 14.b4 Qd7= (Black’s bishop is well placed)
Unzicker-Joppen, Bad Pyrmont 1961 (14...d3?! 15.cxd3 Bxd3 16.Re1², Vasiukov-V.Kuznetsov,
Moscow 1961, and White’s bishops are free to roam).
11...Qe7+
73
Black takes advantage of White’s exposed king.
Two alternatives are:
(1) 11...0-0 12.0-0 Re8 13.Re1 Rxe1+ 14.Qxe1 Be6 15.Be3 Qf6 16.c3²/=, Maksimovic-Basic,
Sarajevo 2018. White has the two bishops, but Black is well developed, with possibilities of ...Bf5
and ...d4; and
(2) 11...Ne5 12.0-0 Nxd3 13.Qxd3 0-0 14.Be3 Be6 15.Rfe1 Qd7 16.Bd4 Bf5 17.Qd2²/=,
Bogdanovic-Trifunovic, Sarajevo 1964. With opposite-colored bishops, it will be difficult for White
to take advantage of Black’s isolated pawn.
12.Qe2 Qxe2+ 13.Kxe2
The alternative 13.Bxe2?! makes things simpler for Black after 13...Bf5 14.c3 d4=, liquidating,
Ciocaltea-Gufeld, Sarajevo 1964.
13...Bf5
Black has two reasonable alternatives:

(1) 13...0-0 14.Bf4 (14.Rd1 Ne5²/=) 14...Bf5 15.Bxf5 (Black takes advantage of White’s king
position.) 15...Nd4+, followed by 16...Nxf5²/=, reaching a position similar to the main line; and
(2) 13...Ne5 14.Bb5+ Bd7 15.Bxd7+ Kxd7 16.Rd1 Ke6 17.b3 Rhd8 18.Bb2 f6²/=, Lanz Calavia-
Molodiuc, corr 2017, with the idea of 19...Nc6 and 20...d4.
14.Bxf5 Nd4+ 15.Kd3 Nxf5 16.Re1+ Kd7 17.Re5 Ne7 18.Bd2 f6 19.Re2 Husek- Splichal, Czech
Republic 2017.
74
If 19.Rh5, seeking opportunities on the kingside, Black can defend with 19...Ke6!= (not 19...Rae8?
20.Rae1!, Matanovic-Janosevic, Sarajevo 1951, keeping Black’s king from going the kingside and
intending to follow with Bb4).
19...Rhe8 20.Rae1 Nc6=
If the rooks are traded, the defensive wall Black has created in front of his isolated pawn will keep
White’s king away.
(5C) 10.Bd2 Nxc3
Black will trade queens and try to hold against White’s two-bishops advantage.
11.Bxc3 Qxd1+ 12.Rxd1
White’s queen bishop and queen rook are strongly placed, and soon White’s king bishop will be also.
12...f6
Black will adopt a defensive structure to include the pawn on f6, a bishop on d7, and queenside
castling. He delays ...e5.
Black’s other choices are unpleasant:
(1) 12...e5 13.f4! (Suetin) 13...Bf5 14.Rd2 f6 15.Bc4±. White’s bishops dominate; or
(2) 12...0-0 13.f4± Ciric-Bertok, Titograd 1965. White’s position is hopelessly passive.
13.f4
75
13.Bc4 Bd7 14.0-0 0-0-0 15.f4 transposes.
13...Bd7 14.Bc4 0-0-0 15.0-0 Rhe8
Contemplating 16...e5.
Against Fischer, Addison tried the tempo-wasting move 15...Kc7, and the game continued 16.Rde1
Rhe8 17.Rf3±, Fischer-Addison, New York 1962.
16.Rde1
“Note how White’s bishops control the queen side and center.” (Marty Appleberry, Mid-South Chess
Advocate, August 1977).
More aggressive is 16.b4 e5 17.b5 Nd4 18.fxe5 fxe5 19.Bxd4 Bg4 20.Rd2 Rxd4 21.Rxd4 exd4
22.Rf4², Wang-Safarli, Dubai, rapid 2014. The advance of White’s queen knight pawn led to the win
of a pawn for White, but now that the endgame has arrived, White must tend to a weakened queenside
pawn structure.
16...e5
16...Kc7 17.Rf3± would transpose to Fischer-Addison above.
17.fxe5 Nxe5 18.Bxe5 Rxe5 19.Rxe5 fxe5 20.Bd3²
Matulovic-Siaperas, Athens 1969. Black had enough play to hold on for a draw.
(5D) 10.Bd2 Qh4
76
Black prevents 11.Qh5, which White sometimes plays when Black castles. But it is doubtful whether
11.Qh5 is worth preventing.
11.Qf3
Another option is 11.Bd3 0-0, after which White has two main choices:
(1) 12.g3 Qh3 13.Qe2 (intending to castle queenside) 13...Nxc3 14.Bxc3 e5 15.0-0-0 Bf5 16.Bc4²,
Kantans-Lintchevski, Stockholm 2016. White has the two bishops and play against Black’s e-pawn.
(2) 12.0-0 Ne5 13.Nxd5 exd5 14.Bc3 Nxd3 15.Qxd3 Qc4 16.Qg3², Keres-Matulovic, Sukhumi
1965. Black’s d-pawn is isolated, and White has better piece placement, but it will be difficult for
White to prevail in this oppositecolor- bishops position.
11...Nd4
Passive is 11...0-0 12.0-0-0 Nxc3 13.Bxc3 e5 14.Bd3±, Tal- Matulovic, Kislovodsk 1966. White’s
two bishops rake Black’s position.
12.Qd3 Nf4
Here Black almost always makes the mistake of playing 12...e5?!, which fails tactically: 13.Nxd5 Bf5
14.Qc3 0-0 (14...Qe4+?? 15.Ne3+–, Hardicsay-Regan, Budapest 1978) 15.Ne3±, Kolar- Demian,
corr 2001. Black will be unable to fully recoup his material deficit.
13.Bxf4 Qxf4 14.Rd1 Nc6 Maxion-Laven, Germany 1985. 15.g3² Black will have difficulty
developing his queenside.
(5E) 10.Bd2 0-0
77
11.Bd3
The alternative is 11.Qh5, intending to castle queenside:

(1) 11...Nf6 12.Qh4 Qd4 13.Qxd4 Nxd4 14.0-0-0 e5 15.Be3 Ng4 16.Bxd4 exd4 17.Rxd4 Nxf2
18.Rg1 Ng4 19.Bc4², Schmid- Stahlberg, Yerevan 1965. White is better developed; and
(2) 11...e5 12.0-0-0 Be6 13.Bh6 gxh6 14.Nxd5 Qg5+ (14...Bxd5?! 15.Bc4±, Berg-Westerberg,
Sweden 2015) 15.Qxg5+ hxg5 16.Nc7 Bg4 17.f3 Rac8², Brasier- Ellis, corr 2015. Black’s position
has holes.
11...e5
11...Qh4 transposes to the 11.Bd3 0-0 sideline of the 10.Bd2 Qh4

variation (5D).
12.0-0
12.Qh5 (White keeps the option of castling queenside) 12...f5 13.0-0-0 Be6 14.Rhe1², Callaghan-
Wolf, corr 1969. Black’s extended pawns are targets for White’s pieces.
12...Be6
12...Nde7 13.Qh5 Bf5 14.Bxf5 Nxf5 15.Qxf5 Qxd2 16.Rad1 Qf4 (16...Qh6 17.Rd7², Keres-
Stahlberg, Stockholm 1961) 17.Qxf4 exf4 18.Rd7². White has an initiative.
13.Nxd5 Qxd5 14.Re1 f5 15.Bc3 e4 16.Bf1² Pinchon- Blondel, corr 2014. Black’s center is a target.
78
(back to the text)
Leads to a position similar to an inferior line of the Sicilian Sveshnikov that occurs after
6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bf4 e5 8.Bg5 Be7?!, the difference being that in the Sveshnikov, Black’s d-pawn is on
d6, not still on d7 as it is here.
79
Section 6: 10.Bg5
exd5 10.Bg5
The straightforward move 10.Bg5 is popular among players below the master level. Its problem is
that it causes White to delay castling. Black can take advantage of White’s exposed king to equalize
with either 10...d4 or 10...0-0!:
(6A) 10...d4= and (6B) 10...0-0!=
(6A) 10...d4
80
White’s best now is to check with his queen, with either 11.Qe2+ or 11.Bxf6 Qxf6 12.Qe2+. Black
can reach full equality, but must play carefully.
11.Qe2+
Alternatives:
(1) 11.Ne4? Qa5+ 12.Bd2 (12.b4?? Qe5–+; the bishop on g5 is vulnerable) 12...Qe5
13.Bd3 Nxe4 14.0-0 Be6 15.Re1 Nxf2 16.Kxf2 Qxh2³, Serra Olives- Peretz, Katerini 2014. White’s
initiative does not compensate for his two-pawn deficit; and
(2) 11.Bxf6 Qxf6 12.Qe2+ (12.Nd5? Qg5!µ 13.Nc7+? Kd8 14.Nxa8 Re8+–+) 12...Be6 13.Nd5 Qd8
81
14.Nf4 0-0 15.Nxe6 Qa5+ (15...fxe6? 16.Qxe6+ Kh8 17.0-0-0±, Mihalic-Podravec, Zagreb 2011)
16.Qd2 (16.b4?? Nxb4–+) 16...Qe5+ 17.Be2 Qxe6 18.0-0 Qf6=, with a comfortable position for
Black.
11...Be6
11...Qe7? 12.Bxf6±
After 11...Be6, White’s main alternatives are 12.0-0-0= (6A1) and 12.Ne4= (6A2). A respectable
sideline is 12.Bxf6 Qxf6 13.Nd5, which transposes to the position after 13.Nd5 in (2) above.
(6A1) 12.0-0-0
12...h6
Equally popular is 12...Qa5 13.Bxf6 gxf6 14.Ne4 0-0-0 15.Qb5 Qc7=, Solonar-Chernov, Kishinev
1982. Black’s pawns are scattered, but it will be difficult for White to exploit them (16.Nxf6??
Qf4+). Black controls the center and has free piece movement.
13.Bh4
13.Bxf6 Qxf6 14.Ne4 (14.Nd5?? Qg5+ picks up White’s knight) 14...Qf4+ 15.Kb1 0-0=,
Mogilevsky-Smyslov Kuibyshev 1942.
82
13...0-0
Simplest and best. Alternatives cede the advantage to White:

(1) 13...g5? (weakening) 14.Bg3 0-0 15.Nb5². White has play all over the board, with possibilities
such as h4, Nc7, and Nd6.
(2) 13...Qc7? 14.Bxf6 Qf4+ 15.Kb1 Qxf6 (The position is the same as in the sideline above after
13.Bxf6 Qxf6, except that White’s king is now on a better square, b1.) 16.Nd5 Qd8 (forced)
17.Nf4±, Radulov- Rossolimo, Novi Sad 1972. After Nxe6, Black’s hanging pawns will be difficult
to defend.
(3) 13...Qe7?! 14.Ne4 g5 15.Nxf6+ Qxf6 (Black’s extra queen move has cost a tempo.) 16.Bg3 0-0-
0², Platz-Lasker, New York, casual game, 1939. White has the two bishops. Black’s development is
complete, but his advanced pawns are potential targets.
14.Ne4 g5
Otherwise 15.Nxf6+ gxf6±.
15.Nxf6+
15.Bg3 Nxe4 16.Qxe4 (threatening 17.Bd3) 16...Qc8!= (Black reinforces his light squares. If 17.h4?,
17...Bf5µ 18.Qf3? Bxc2–+).
15...Qxf6 16.Bg3 Rac8=
Pilavov-Pap, blitz 2007. Black’s kingside is weak, but he has queenside prospects.
83
(6A2) 12.Ne4 Qa5+
13.Bd2
13.b4 Nxb4 (best) 14.Nxf6+ (14.Qb5+ Qxb5 15.Bxb5+ Kf8 16.axb4 Nxe4=) 14...gxf6 15.Qb5+
Qxb5 16.Bxb5+ Ke7=, Tuerk- Pinkus, Oberliga Mittlrhein 1995, with equal chances.
13...Qe5 14.Nxf6+ Qxf6 15.Qe4 0-0-0
15...Qe5 (giving up a tempo), Ashwin-Kogan, Helsingor 2008, 16.Qxe5 Nxe5 17.0-0-0².
16.Bd3
Hagesaether-Valmana Canto, Swansea 2006.
16...Bd5=
White’s two-bishop advantage is offset by Black’s control of the center.
(6B) 10...0-0!
84
This is an easy way for Black to achieve equality or better. White’s need to defend against Black’s
rook check will constrain his development.
Black’s d-pawn is poisoned. If 11.Bxf6?! there follows 11...Qxf6 12.Nxd5 (12.Qxd5? Rd8! 13.Qh5
Re8+ 14.Be2 Nd4–+, Popov- Sichinava, Litohoto 1999) 12...Qe5+ 13.Ne3 Qxb2 (threatening
14...Qc3+) 14.Bd3 Qc3+ 15.Kf1 Be6µ, Sarai Sanchez-Theissi Pokorna, St. Lorenzo 1995. White is
in trouble.
After 10...0-0, White must decide how to defend against Black’s threatened rook check on the e-file.
His two main choices are 11.Be2 (6B1) or 11.Bd3 (6B2), intending to defend the check with 12.Ne2.
(6B1) 11.Be2
85
Moving the bishop to this passive square is the usual way White defends against Black’s intent to
check, but is not necessarily the best.
11...Bf5
Black intends 12...d4 and wants to take the e4-square away from the knight. Black also has two other
ways to equalize:
(1) 11...d4 12.Ne4 Qa5+
Black will transfer the queen to e5:

(1a) 13.Bd2 Qe5 14.Ng3 (14.Nxf6+ Qxf6 15.0-0 Bf5³/=, Smistik- Berisha, Brno 2005) 14....h5
86
15.h4 Bg4 16.0-0 Rfe8=. Black has comfortable development; or
(1b) 13.b4 Qe5 14.Nxf6+ (14.Bxf6? Qxe4–+, with ...Qxg2 to follow, C.Lau-Willis, Houston 1985)
14...gxf6=, and 15...Re8=, and White cannot castle.
(2) 11...Re8 12.0-0 (12.Bxf6 Qxf6 13.Nxd5 Qe5 14.Ne3 (14.c3?! Rd8³) 14...Qxb2 15.0-0 Rd8
16.Qb1=, Ciornei-Manolache, Romania 2000), and now 12...d4 leaves White with uncomfortable
choices:
(2a) 13.Bxf6 Qxf6 14.Nd5 Qd6 15.Bf3 Be6 16.c4 Rad8 17.Re1, Zukertort-Blackburne, corr 1881,
17...Bf5³. Black’s passed pawn poses potential peril for White;
(2b) 13.Nb1 h6 14.Bh4 Bf5³ transposes to the De Firmian-Rey game in the (1) 13.Nb1 sideline
below after 14...Re8; and
(2c) 13.Na2 (best) 13...Bf5 14.Nc1=, Schmid-Blackburne, Berlin 1881. Also see the main line below.
Returning to the main line, after 11...Bf5:
12.0-0 d4 13.Na2
87
Alternatives:
(1) 13.Nb1 (not the best square) 13...h6 14.Bh4 Re8 15.Bd3 (De Firmian-Rey, Northern California
1993) 15...Bxd3 16.cxd3 Ne5³. White is behind in development; or
(2) 13.Bxf6 Qxf6 14.Nd5 Qd6 15.Ne3 (15.c4, Kindermann- Chandler, Germany 1988, offering
Black a passed pawn, 15...Rad8³/=) 15...Bg6 16.Nc4 Qd5 17.Re1=.
13...h6
Free luft.
13...Rc8 14.Bd3=
14.Bh4 Rc8
88
15.Bd3
15.Nc1 Ne5 16.Nd3 Ng6 17.Bxf6 (17.Bg3 Qb6³, C.Bill Jones- Denker, Ventura 1971)
17...Qxf6³/=. White’s position is passive.
15...Bxd3 16.Qxd3 Ne5 17.Qb3 Ng6
An option made possible thanks to the interpolation 13...h6 14.Bh4.
18.Bxf6 Qxf6 19.Nb4=
White has had to play carefully to equalize.
(6B2) 11.Bd3
89
White puts the bishop on a good square, but now he will have to retreat his knight after the upcoming
check.
11...Re8+ 12.Ne2 h6
12...Bg4 13.f3 Bh5 14.Qd2 Ne5 15.0-0-0 Nxd3+ 16.Qxd3 Bg6 17.Qd2, Drollinger-Zimmer,
Germany 1997, 17...Rc8=. Black’s activity on the queenside compensates for his isolated pawn.
13.Bh4
13...Qa5+
90
13...Ne5 14.0-0 Qb6 15.Bxf6 Qxf6=, Pedersen-Hansen, Aarhus 1972. Black has an isolated pawn,
but is better developed.
14.c3
14.b4? Nxb4µ
14...Ne4 15.f3
15.0-0 (too slow) 15...Qb6,Worek- Pavlidou, Riga 2017, 16.Qc2 Ne5 17.Nf4 Be6 18.Nxd5 Bxd5
19.Bxe4 Bxe4 20.Qxe4 Ng6³. Black has the initiative.
15...Nd6 16.b4 Qc7 17.Bg3 Ne5 18.0-0 Bf5
Voigt-Thinius, Germany 1996.
19.Bxf5 Nxf5 20.Bf2=.
Black still has better development, but he also has an isolated pawn. Both sides have weak squares.
Section 7: 10...d4
exd5 10.Bd3 d4
Black defers castling in the hope that he can trade off the light-square bishops by taking advantage of
White’s uncastled king. White usually accommodates Black by allowing either 11.Ne4 Nxe4
12.Bxe4 Bf5 13.Bxf5 Qa5+ followed by 14...Qxf5 or 11.Ne2 Bf5?! 12.Bxf5 Qa5+ followed by
91
13...Qxf5. White can quash Black’s hopes by playing 11.Qe2+. Now White has three options:
(7A) 11.Ne4=; (7B) 11.Ne2 Bf5?!²; and (7C) 11.Qe2+ ²/=
(7A) 11.Ne4
11...Nxe4
This method of exchanging lightsquare bishops is better than the alternative, 11...Bf5 12.Nxf6+ Qxf6
13.Qe2+ Kd7 14.0-0 Rae8 15.Qf3 Bxd3 16.Qxd3 Qg6 (Gorin- Witkowski, Krakow 2000)
17.Qb5²/=. White has bishop versus knight and play against Black’s exposed king.
12.Bxe4 Bf5 13.Bxf5
The alternative is 13.Qf3, which leads to equality after 13...Bxe4 14.Qxe4+ Qe7 15.Qxe7+ Kxe7
16.Bf4=, Stankovic-Brankovic, Valjevo 2010.
13...Qa5+ 14.Bd2
14.c3 Qxf5 15.0-0 0-0 16.cxd4 Rad8 17.Be3 Rd5=, Geller-Begun, Moscow 1983. Black will regain
the pawn.
14...Qxf5 15.Qe2+ Qe6 16.Qxe6+ fxe6 17.0-0-0 0-0 18.f3 e5 19.Rhe1=
Molchanova-Zimina, Kolontaevo 1997. Given Black’s knight’s secure base on c6, it will be difficult
for White to take advantage of Black’s hanging pawns.
(7B) 11.Ne2 Bf5?!
92
White will have access to the d-pawn after the light-square bishops have been traded. Unlike in (7A)
above, where White’s knight is on e4, here it is on e2, attacking the pawn.
Instead of 11...Bf5?!, Black can choose 11...0-0, transposing to the 6.Ndb5 variation’s main line
(Sections 10 through 14).
After 11...Bf5?! White has two options: 12.0-0 (7B1) and 12.Bxf5 (7B2).
(7B1) 12.0-0
This is the most popular move, but it is not as good as the alternative, 12.Bxf5 (7B2).
12...Bxd3
If 12...Bg6, then after 13.b4 0-0 14.Bb2² Black will lose his d-pawn, with insufficient compensation,
Sadkiewicz-Protaziuk, Poland 1992.
13.Qxd3 0-0
93
14.b4
White attacks a defender of the d-pawn. More popular, but no better, is 14.Bg5. Against Karpov,
Kuzmin continued 14...h6 15.Bh4 Re8 16.Rad1 Rc8 17.Rfe1 (In another game, Zinchenko tried 17.c3
g5 18.Bg3 dxc3=, Zinchenko- Kuzmin, Alushta 2004.) 17...Re6
Play continued 18.Kf1 Qc7 19.Bg3 Qb6 20.b4 a6 21.Nf4=, Karpov- Kuzmin, Leningrad 1977. Note
that the removal of White’s light-square bishop from d3 allowed a White rook sitting on d1 to have
access to Black’s d-pawn. This game shows two techniques Black can use to defend his d-pawn in
this situation:
94
(1) Threaten to trade rooks on e1 if White’s knight leaves e2 to capture the pawn. The trade would
pull White’s rook away from d1. In the above diagram, Karpov had to move his king to f1 to relieve
his rook on d1.
(2) Counterattack White’s c2-pawn. It is weakened by the absence of White’s light-square bishop.
14...Re8
Now that White has weakened c4, Black intends to give up the d-pawn in return for counterplay.
15.Bb2 Ne5 16.Qxd4 Qxd4
16...Nf3+? 17.gxf3 Rxe2 18.c4², Schumi-Boeven, Vienna 1998.
17.Nxd4
17.Bxd4 Nc6=
17...Nc4 18.Rfb1²/=
Black has counterplay for his pawn deficit.
(7B2) 12.Bxf5 Qa5+
13.c3!
White intends to take advantage of Black’s exposed king.
95
13...dxc3 14.0-0 Qxf5
14...cxb2? 15.Bxb2 Qxf5 16.Ng3+– followed by 17.Re1+.
15.Ng3²
Followed by 16.Re1+. Chazalette- Gromov, corr 2013.
(7C) 11.Qe2+
And so it is White, not Black, who benefits from his opponent not castling.
11...Be6
11...Qe7 12.Qxe7+ Kxe7 13.Ne2 (13.Ne4?! Nxe4 14.Bxe4 Kf6=, Vrublevskaya-Zimina, Sochi
1998) 13...Ne5 14.Bg5 Nxd3+ 15.cxd3 Rd8 16.Rc1². White’s pieces are better placed.
12.Ne4 0-0
Black keeps the queens on the board. More common is 12...Nxe4 13.Qxe4 Qd5. In Illescas Cordoba-
Sorokin, Baleares 1989, White continued 14.Bf4 0-0-0 15.0-0 g5 16.Bd2². White has the two
bishops, and Black’s position is disorganized.
13.Bg5 Qa5+ 14.Bd2
96
14...Qf5
The computer’s suggestion.

Alternatives allow White to press his advantage:
(1) 14...Qe5 15.f4 Qf5 16.g4² gives White a kingside attack; or
(2) 14...Qd8 15.0-0-0 (15.Bg5 Qa5+ 16.Bd2, ½-½, Varga- Somogyi Hungary 2003) 15...Bf5 16.Bg5
Bxe4 17.Bxe4 h6 18.Bxf6 Qxf6 19.Qf3². White has pressure on the d-pawn.
15.0-0
White has nothing better:

(1) 15.0-0-0 Ne5=; or
(2) 15.f4 Nxe4 16.Qxe4²/=.
15...Nxe4 16.Qxe4 Qxe4 17.Bxe4²/= White has the two bishops.
Section 8: 11.0-0 Sidelines
exd5 10.Bd3 0-0 11.0-0
97
begs for 11…d4 (Section 9). But Black also has (8A) 11...Bg4² and (8B) 11...h6²
(8A) 11...Bg4 12.f3
Black’s two main lines now are 12...Be6 (8A1) and 12...Bh5 (8A2). A third option is 12...Qb6+
13.Kh1, after which either 13...Be6 or 13...Bh5 will transpose to one of those two main lines.
(8A1) 12...Be6
This is the most popular move. But the bishop is passive. Black does not fare well in this line.
98
13.Bg5
Alternatives:
(1) 13.Kh1 (A waste of time. Black will use the extra tempo to prevent Bg5.) 13...h6=, Mahood-
Sergeant, London 1907; and
(2) 13.Re1 h6² transposes to a position reached in the 11...h6 variation (8B) below, which occurs after
11...h6 12.Re1 Bg4 13.f3 Be6².
13...Qb6+
Black puts his queen on its best square. Alternatives:

(1) 13...Ne5 14.Re1 Nxd3 15.Qxd3±, Denker-Bolbochan, La Plata-New York, radio match 1947.
Black’s knight’s journey has cost time. His pieces are passive; and
(2) 13...h6 14.Bh4 Qb6+ 15.Kh1 Nd7 16.f4 d4 17.Na4 Qa5 18.c4±, Matulovic-Lombardy, Zürich
1961, reaching the same position as in the Sylvander-Bullen game below, except for the insertion of
13...h6 14.Bh4.
14.Kh1 Nd7 15.f4
The position is uncomfortable for Black.
15...f5
Alternatives:
(1) 15...h6?! 16.Bxh6 gxh6 17.Qh5 Qd4 18.f5 Nc5 19.fxe6 fxe6 20.Rf3 Rxf3 21.gxf3±, with an
attack, Bakalarz-Grochowski, corr 2006;
99
(2) 15...d4 16.Na4 Qa5 17.c4±, Sylvander-Bullen, corr 2013. White dominates on both flanks; and
(3) 15...f6 16.Qh5 f5 17.Qf3 transposes to the main line.
16.Qf3
An alternative is 16.b4, Hübner- Eisinger, Ingolstadt 1962, 16...Nd4 17.Bh4 Rac8². White has
stopped Black’s knight from going to c5, but has given Black play on the c-file.
16...Rac8
Other tries:
(1) 16...Qxb2? 17.Nb5 (threatening to trap the queen) 17...g6 18.Nc7+–;
(2) 16...Qc5? (a common mistake) 17.b4! Qd6 (17...Qxc3 18.Bxf5+–) 18.Nb5 Qb8 19.Rae1+–,
Thorban- Rosen, corr 1997; or
17.Rae1 Nc5 18.Nxd5 Qxb2 19.Ne7+ Nxe7 20.Bxe7 Rfe8 21.Bxc5 Rxc5 22.Re3², Ehlvest-
Guseinov, Volgodonsk 1983. Black is vulnerable on the e-file, the h1-a8 diagonal, and his open
kingside.
(8A2) 12...Bh5 13.Bg5
13.Kh1 d4=
13...Qb6+
13...Bg6 14.Bxg6 hxg6 15.Bxf6 Qxf6 16.Qxd5 Rfd8 17.Qc5 Nd4², Kruger-Olland, Haarlem 1901.
Black’s initiative only partially compensates for his pawn deficit.
100
14.Kh1 Ne4
14...Qxb2? 15.Bxf6 gxf6 16.Qd2+–.
15.Nxe4 dxe4 16.Bxe4 Qxb2 17.Qb1 Qxb1 18.Rfxb1 f5 19.Bd3 b6²
Ehlvest-Romero Holmes, Logrono 1991. White has the two bishops and more active play.
(8B) 11...h6
Black stops Bg5, but slows his development.
12.Bf4
The main move. White anticipates 12...d4, which he intends to meet with 13.Nb5. Alternatives:
(1) 12.h3 (White prevents 12...Bg4, but uses a tempo.) 12...d4 13.Ne2 Re8²/= transposes to the 13.h3
sideline in Section 10 (10B), which occurs after 11...d4 12.Ne2 Re8 13.h3 h6;
(2) 12.Re1 leaves Black with two choices, neither of which is appealing:
(2a) 12...d4 13.Ne2 (13.Ne4 Bf5²/=, Dgebuadze-Raetsky, Sautron 2001) 13...Re8 14.Ng3. Black
does not have a good square for his bishop:
(2a1) 14...Bg4 15.Rxe8+ Qxe8 16.f3 Be6 17.Qe2²; or
(2a2) 14...Rxe1+ 15.Qxe1 Be6 16.b3².
(2b) 12...Bg4 13.f3 Be6 creates a muddled position. Black’s position is passive, but White’s queen is
hemmed in. An idea for White is 14.Qd2², Jovcic-Letic, Yugoslavia, corr 1954, allowing the queen to
transfer to f2 or f4. If 14...Qb6+, then 15.Qf2², and if 14...Nd7, then 15.Qf4².
101
12...d4 13.Nb5
Best. White deploys the knight aggressively. Alternatives:

(1) 13.Ne4?! and now:
(1a) 13...Bf5? 14.Bc7! Qd7 (14...Qe7?? 15.Bd6+–) 15.Nxf6+ gxf6 16.Bf4 Ne5 17.Bxh6² and White
wins a pawn;
(1b) 13...Nd5 14.Qf3 Nxf4 15.Qxf4², Garbett-Sarapu, Auckland 1977). White is better developed;
and
(1c) 13...Nxe4! 14.Bxe4 Qf6= followed by 15...Bf5, Kopaev- Novopashin, Riga 1954. Black puts his
pieces on their best squares.
(2) 13.Ne2 Qd5 (intending 14...Bf5) (13...Nd5 14.Bg3 Qf6 15.Re1², Geller-Winants, Amsterdam
1987) 14.Ng3 Bd7 (Best. If 14...Bg4, 15.Qd2 g5 16.f3 Be6 17.Ne4², Geller-Ciric, Belgrade 1961)
15.f3 (15.Qd2? g5µ) 15...Rfe8 16.Qd2 Ne5²/=, Tseitlin-Faibisovich, Leningrad 1975.
Returning to the main line, after 13.Nb5, Black’s two options are 13...Nd5 (8B1) and 13...Bg4 (8B2).
(8B1) 13...Nd5
102
This move is chosen more than 80% of the time. It looks impressive. It guards c7, opens a diagonal
for the queen, and attacks a bishop. But it has disadvantages. First, there is limited value in defending
c7. White’s main target here is d6, not c7. Second, it moves the knight a second time. The knight was
fine on f6, where Black had already invested a tempo with 11...h6 to protect it from a pin.
14.Bg3
Best. The main alternative is 14.Qf3 (14.Bd6? a6! 15.Bxf8 Kxf8³), and Black’s options are (14.Qf3):
(1) 14...Be6?! (This bad move has been chosen in 90% of the games played in this line.) and now:
(1a) 15.Rad1?! (The usual reply. It gives Black the extra tempo he needs to eject White’s knight.)
15...a6! 16.Nd6 Nxf4! 17.Qxf4 Qc7=, Bjuhr-Lekander, corr 1970, threatening 18...Rfd8, and White
must retreat; and
(1b) 15.Bg3! Qd7 16.Nd6², Liberzon-Kharlamov, Vilnius 1966. White’s knight seriously interferes
with Black’s development.
(2) 14...a6! 15.Nd6 Nxf4 16.Qxf4 Qc7 (Threatening 17...Rd8–+. This position is similar to the
position after 17...Qc7 in (1a) above.) 17.Qe4 g6 18.Nxc8 Raxc8=, Grinwis-Clark, corr 2005. With
the queens on the board, it will be difficult for White to press his bishop-versus-knight advantage.
14...Be6 15.Re1 Qd7 16.Nd6 Rad8
103
17.Qf3
17.Qh5 Qe7 18.Ne4±, Bucsa- Vasile, corr 2008.
17...Qe7 18.Nc4± Naumann- Michna, Bundesliga 2017. White has a grip on the position. It will be
difficult for Black to find a plan.
(8B2) 13...Bg4
This is better than the more popular alternative, 13...Nd5 (8B1), but is not enough for equality.
14.Qd2 Ne8
Threatening 15...a6. If 14...Nd5, 15.Bg3±. White’s knight will gain access to d6.
15.c3
104
15...g5
15...dxc3 16.Nxc3 Bh5 17.Ne4 Nc7 18.Rfe1 Bg6 19.Bg3 Ne6 20.Rad1².
White has the two bishops and better development.
16.f3 Be6 17.Bg3 dxc3 18.Nxc3 Ng7 19.Qc2² I.Rodriguez-O.Morales, corr 2016. White has the two
bishops and a better pawn structure.
105
Section 9: 12.Ne4
exd5 10.Bd3 0-0 11.0-0 d4 12.Ne4
White chooses 12.Ne4 instead of the more common 12.Ne2 (Section 10). This choice has modest
popularity, but it allows Black a good square for his bishop on f5. The best White can achieve is a
drawish bishop versus knight ending.
12...Bf5
A sideline is 12...Nxe4 (12...Ng4 13.Re1 Nge5 14.Bf1²) 12...Nxe4 13.Bxe4 Qf6 and now:
106
(1) 14.Qh5 h6 15.Re1 Re8 16.Bd2 (16.Bh7+ Kxh7 17.Rxe8 Bg4³/=) 16...Re5= (taking advantage of
White’s queen’s placement on h5), Resende-Schutt, Sao Paulo 2003; or
(2) 14.Qd3 (best) 14...h6 15.Re1 Be6 (15...Re8? 16.Bh7+ Kf8 17.Rxe8+ Kxe8 18.Bd2±) 16.Bd2
(16.Qb5 Rab8=, Suetin-Zinn, Berlin 1968, 17.Bxc6?! bxc6 18.Qxc6 Rbc8 19.Qa4 Bd5³) 16...Rfe8
17.h3². White has the two bishops, and his light-square bishop is better placed than Black’s.
13.Bg5 Bxe4 14.Bxe4 h6
14...Qd6?! 15.Bxf6 (15.Bd3 h6 16.Bh4 Rfe8 17.Bg3 Qd5=, Della Morte-Ripare, Argentina 2006)
15...Qxf6=. The position is the same as after 15...Qxf6 in the 15.Bxf6 line (9B), except that in that
107
line Black’s h-pawn is on h6, a better square.
After 14...h6, White must decide which of his bishops he will have to trade off. His options are:
(9A) 15.Bh4= and (9B) 15.Bxf6=
If White chooses 15.Bh4, he will be forced to give up his strong, light-square bishop after 15...g5
16.Bxc6, but as compensation Black’s pawn structure will be weakened. If White chooses 15.Bxf6,
he will retain his lightsquare bishop, but Black’s pawn structure will remain intact. The two options
are about equal in strength.
(9A) 15.Bh4 g5 16.Bxc6 bxc6 17.Bg3
White has given up his better bishop. In return, Black’s pawns have been loosened. But Black
dominates the center, and his position is strong enough to withstand any threat. He can easily achieve
equality.
17...Qd5
Black intends to follow with ...Ne4. Another option for Black is an immediate 17...Ne4 18.Be5 c5
19.Qd3 Qd5 20.Rfe1 f5 21.f4 Rfe8=, Hoolt-Butschek, Willingen 2015, and Black maintains his
knight outpost.
After 17...Qd5, White’s main options are 18.f4 (9A1) and 18.Qd3 (9A2).
Another option is 18.Re1, which will usually transpose to the (9A2) line after 18...Ne4 19.Qd3 or
18...Rfe8 19.Qd3.
(9A1) 18.f4
White starts an attack.
108
18...Ne4
Best. On e4 the knight controls more territory and allows Black to push his f-pawn forward.
19.Qh5
If 19.fxg5, then 19...hxg5 20.Qf3 f5=, Fernandes-Plichta, Lisbon 2020, followed by ...Rad8 and ...c5.
Black’s position is impregnable.
19...Kg7
Or 19...Nxg3 20.hxg3 Kg7=, Mueller-Rosen, Oberliga 1996, weakening White’s attack.
20.Rad1 Rad8
20...f5 gives White time to annoy Black with 21.c4, pestering the defender of Black’s d-pawn,
Nguyen-Sawalani, Bandar Seri Begawan 2001. After 21...Qc5 22.b4 Qe7 23.Bf2 Nxf2 24.Rxf2²/=
Black is fine, but White has more play.
21.Rd3 f5
21...c5?! 22.fxg5, Kveinys-Sorokin, Slupsk 1992, 22...Qxg5 (22...hxg5 23.Bc7! clears the path for
White’s rook on d3) 23.Qd1². White’s king is vulnerable.
22.fxg5 hxg5= White will not be able to breach Black’s bulwark.
(9A2) 18.Qd3 Ne4
109
18...Rfe8 19.Rad1 Rad8 20.Rfe1 Ne4 transposes.
19.Rad1 Rad8 20.Rfe1 Rfe8
21.Bc7
21.f3 Nxg3 22.hxg3=, Milliet- Skripchenko, Chartres 2005.
21...Rc8 22.f3 Nc5 23.Rxe8+ Rxe8=
Honfi-Zaitsev, Ordzhonikidze 1964. Black has play.
(9B) 15.Bxf6 Qxf6
110
White has the advantage of bishop versus knight, but Black has a comfortable position. His d-pawn is
defended by his knight. White can take the knight with his bishop, but this would lead to a draw.
Black sometimes has time to prepare for the endgame by playing ...g6 and ...Kg7, getting his king
closer to the center. This can be important. If, from the current position, you were to remove all the
pieces from the board, leaving only the kings and pawns, White’s king could march over and take the
d-pawn before Black’s king could defend it.
Black’s general preference in this isolated-pawn position will be to keep the heavy pieces on the
board. Black knows the rooks should be moved to the center somewhere, but where? A good plan for
Black, as in Leko-Kramnik in the main line below, is to focus on the queenside: put the rooks on c8
and d8, play ...b6 to protect the b-pawn, and move the knight to a4 or e5.
16.Re1
Other choices for White that are often seen in this position are 16.Bxc6 and 16.Qf3:
(1) 16.Bxc6 (in effect offering a draw) 16...bxc6 17.Qd3 c5 18.Rfe1 Rfe8=, Gocheva-Slovineanu,
Chalkidiki 2007;
(2) 16.Qf3 (A trade of queens will divert White’s bishop from defense of the c2-pawn.) 16...Qxf3
17.Bxf3 and now:
(2a) 17...Ne5 18.Be4 Rac8=, Stean- Tompa, Graz 1972. Black’s luft and slight lead in development
compensate for White’s bishop vs. knight advantage.
(2b) 17...Rac8 18.Rfe1 Rfd8= transposes to the 17.Qf3 sideline in the main line below.
16...Rac8
Reminding White that c2 is vulnerable.
111
The endgame is approaching. White’s light-square bishop is attacking a knight on c6 that is guarding
an isolated pawn on d4, and all other minor pieces are off the board. White’s chances for an
advantage are minimal.
Alternatives:
(1) 16...Rad8 17.Qf3 Qxf3 18.Bxf3 d3 19.cxd3 Rxd3 20.Rad1 Rxd1 21.Rxd1 Rd8 22.Rxd8+
Nxd8²/=, Wyrwich-Rosen, Germany 2002. The only pieces remaining are White’s bishop and
Black’s knight;
(2) 16...Rfe8 17.Qf3 Qxf3 18.Bxf3 Kf8, Koehn-Lohr, Willingen 2004, 19.Rxe8+ Rxe8 20.Rd1 Re6
21.Kf1=. Black’s rook is well placed;
(3) 16...Rfd8 17.Qh5 Rac8 18.Rad1 (18.Qf5 Qxf5 19.Bxf5 Rc7 20.Rad1 g6=, Ninov-Petrov, Plovdiv
2004) 18...Rc7 19.Rd2 Ne5=, with counterplay; and
(4) 16...g6!? A novelty suggested by the computer. In the more than 50 games in my database which
have reached the position after 16.Re1, humans have always moved a rook to the center. But, as
indicated in (1), (2), and (3) above, there is no consensus on which rook should be moved where.
Perhaps the reason the computer likes 16...g6 is that it wants to see what White’s next move will be
before deciding where to place the rooks. The move ...g6 also has its own merits: it gets Black’s king
ready for the endgame, and it keeps White’s queen from going to h5. 17.Qf3 Qxf3 18.Bxf3 Rac8
19.Rad1 Rfd8 20.Re2 Rc7=.
17.Qh5
17.Qf3 invites a quick trade of queens: 17...Qxf3 18.Bxf3 Rfd8 19.Be4, guarding c2 (19.Rad1 Na5=,
Kilimar-Lots, Ukraine 2004), 19...g6 20.Bd3 Kg7=, Outomuro Nieves-Rivera Kuzawka, Burgas
2001.
17...b6
112
18.Rad1 Rfd8 19.Qf5 Qxf5 20.Bxf5 Rc7 21.Rd2 g6 22.Bd3 Kg7 23.g3 Na5 24.Kg2 Nb7= Leko-
Kramnik, Budapest, rapid 2001.
Section 10: 12.Ne2 Sidelines
exd5 10.Bd3 0-0 11.0-0 d4 12.Ne2
After 12.Ne2, Black’s best move is 12...Bg4. It is covered in Sections 11, 12, and 13. This Section 10
covers alternatives. These include 12...h6, 12...Re8, and 12...Qd5:
113
(10A) 12...h6²; (10B) 12...Re8²; and (10C) 12...Qd5²
A minor alternative is 12...Qb6 (This move is better when White has played f3, opening the g1-a7
diagonal.) 13.h3 (preventing 13...Bg4), followed by 14.b4², Csirik-Joo, Szeged 2010.
(10A) 12...h6
Black prevents 13.Bg5, but this costs time.
13.b4
White uses the extra time to get a head start on an attack on Black’s d-pawn. Although White’s
aggressive b-pawn advance leaves him with weak squares on the c-file, Black does not have enough
time to take advantage of them.
Alternatives:
(1) 13.Bf4²/= transposes to a sideline in Section 8 (8B) after 11.0-0 h6 12.Bf4 d4 13.Ne2²/=).
(2) 13.h3 Re8 14.Re1²/= transposes to a sideline of the 12...Re8 variation (10B) after 12...Re8 13.h3
h6 14.Re1.
13...Bg4
13...a6?! (wasting more time) 14.Bb2 Bg4 (14...Kh8, losing even more time, 15.Qd2±, Vogt-Gärtner,
Switzerland 1996) 15.f3 Be6 16.Kh1 (threatening the d-pawn) 16...Kh8 (defending the d-pawn)
17.Qe1 Re8 18.Qf2 Ne5 (Black gives up trying to defend the d-pawn.) 19.Nxd4 Nxd3 20.cxd3²,
Rytshagov-Liiva, Tallinn, rapid 1996. White is a pawn up. Bishops are of opposite color, but there is
still significant material remaining on the board.
114
14.Bb2
14.f3 Be6 15.Bb2 Nd5 (Black knows his d-pawn is going to fall, so he seeks counterplay against
White’s weak squares.) 16.Qd2 Nb6 (16...Ne3, Offermann-Kock, Wichem 2001, 17.Rfe1 Nc4
18.Bxc4 Bxc4 19.Nxd4²) 17.Rf2 (preventing Black’s queen from checking if it recaptures on d4; if
17.Rfd1?! Na4!=) 17...Nc4 18.Bxc4 Bxc4 19.Nxd4², winning the d-pawn.
14...Nd5 15.Qd2 Bxe2 16.Bxe2
Black is going to lose his d-pawn.
16...Nc3
16...Qf6 17.b5 Nf4 18.Rfd1 (18.bxc6 Qg5±) 18...Nxe2+ 19.Qxe2².
17.Bxc3 dxc3 18.Qxc3² Timoshenko-Begun, Minsk 1996.
(10B) 12...Re8
The e8-square is often a good one for Black’s king rook, but it is not necessary for Black to commit
the rook this early.
13.Bg5
Best. Other choices are:

(1) 13.b4 White intends Bb2, attacking the d-pawn. Black, having developed with 12...Re8, is better
prepared to meet 13.b4 here than after 12...h6, as in (10A) above. 13...Bg4=. The line transposes to a
minor sideline of the 12...Bg4 variation, that occurs after 12...Bg4 13.b4 Re8=. See the Section 11
115
introduction;
(2) 13.h3 h6
Black prevents Bg5. This is perhaps Black’s best try. 13...Ne4 does not work well here, because after
14.Ng3 Nxg3 15.fxg3, White’s king rook, which is still on f1, is given an open file for free. The
move ...Ne4 works better in (2b) below, when White has moved his rook from f1 to e1. White’s
options are:
(2a) 14.b4 (White applies pressure to Black’s d-pawn. Although this move works well in the 12...h6
variation (see (10A) above), when Black’s rook is still on f8, it is less effective here, when the rook is
on e8.) 14...a5! (Black’s position is strong enough to support this aggressive move) and now:
(2a1) 15.Bb2 axb4 16.axb4 Rxa1 17.Bxa1 Nxb4 18.Nxd4 Nxd3 19.Qxd3=, Okrugin-Kruschiov, Tula
2001. The position is completely even;
(2a2) 15.b5 Ne5 16.Bb2 (16.Nxd4 Bxh3!= 17.gxh3?? Qxd4–+) 16...Nh5! (with an attack) 17.Bxd4
(17.Nxd4 Nf4=, Ermenkov-Rusev, Sunny Beach 2007), and now Black can either continue his attack
with 17...Nf3+= or trade out with 17...Nxd3 18.Qxd3 Rxe2 19.Qxe2 Nf4, followed by 20...Qxd4=,
Huschenbeth-Karasik, Pardubice 2008.
(2b) 14.Re1 Ne4 15.Ng3 Nxg3 16.fxg3 Bd7 17.Rxe8+ Qxe8 18.Bf4 g5 19.Bd2 Ne5²/=. Black’s
kingside pawns are weaker, but otherwise the position is equal.
Returning to the main line, after 13.Bg5, Black’s main options are 13...Re5 (10B1), 13...h6 (10B2),
and 13...Bg4 (10B3).
Another option is 13...Qd6 14.Re1 Bg4 15.Qd2², transposing to the main line of Section 13 (13B1).
(10B1) 13...Re5
116
14.f4!
14.Bf4 Rd5 15.Ng3 Ne5 16.Bxe5 Rxe5 17.Qd2², Kamsky-Lautier, Paris, rapid 1992. White will have
play against the d-pawn.
14...Re8
14...Rd5? 15.Ng3 h6 16.Bh4 g5 17.fxg5 hxg5 18.Nh5 Ng4 19.Bg3 Ne3 20.Qf3+–, Cross-Bornholz,
corr 1971. Black’s kingside is ridden with holes. Black loses in all lines; for example, 20...f5 21.Rae1
Nxf1 22.Re8++–.
15.Qe1! h6 16.Qh4± Jansen- Reina Guerra, corr 2011. White dominates on the kingside.
(10B2) 13...h6
117
14.Bh4 g5 15.Bg3 Ne4 16.f3 Nc5
16...Nxg3 17.Nxg3 Ne5 18.f4±, Dom-Abeljusto, INT, rapid 2008. White will exploit Black’s
lightsquare weaknesses on the kingside.
17.Bf2 Nxd3
17...Qf6 18.Bb5± puts Black’s d-pawn in danger (Mista-Andres Gonzales, San Agustin 2001).
18.Qxd3 Ne5
Black gives up the d-pawn in return for activity.
19.Qxd4 Bf5 20.Qa4²
(10B3) 13...Bg4
The game will transpose to another line: 14.f3 Bh5²/= transposes to the main line of Section 12
(12C2) and 14.Re1 Qd6² transposes to the main line of Section 13 (13B1).
(10C) 12...Qd5
118
Black prevents 13.Bg5 and will move his bishop to f5 if allowed. For example, 13.Bf4 Bf5! 14.Ng3
(14.Bg3 Ne4=) 14...Bxd3 15.Qxd3 Rfe8 16.Rfe1 h6=, Baczynskji- Willis, San Diego 1988.
Options for White include 13.b3 (10C1); 13.b4 (10C2); 13.c4 (10C3); 13.Ng3 (10C4); and, best,
13.Nf4 (10C5).
(10C1) 13.b3
This is a rare move, but it requires correct defense by Black.
13...Bf5
119
13...Rd8 14.Bb2 a5? 15.Qd2², Browne-Willis, Houston, 1972. The d-pawn eventually fell, with
insufficient compensation for Black.
14.Bb2
14.Bxf5 Qxf5 15.Nxd4 Nxd4 16.Qxd4 Qxc2 (Black gives up his d-pawn, but wins White’s c-pawn.)
17.Bg5 Rfd8=.
14...Rfd8 15.Bxf5
15.Re1 Bxd3 16.Qxd3 Rd7=. The d-pawn is defended.
15...Qxf5 16.Nxd4 Nxd4 17.Bxd4
White’s c-pawn remains protected.
17...Rac8 18.Rc1
18.c3 Nd5=
18...Nd5
Black’s counterplay compensates for his pawn deficit.
19.Qd3
19.Bxa7 Nc3=
19...Qxd3 20.cxd3 Ra8= Avoiding an exchange of rooks.
(10C2) 13.b4
120
Play is comparable to that of the 13.b3 line above (10C1). On the plus side, 13.b4 immediately
threatens Black’s d-pawn defender, the knight on c6. Its drawback is that it weakens c4.
13...Rd8
13...a6 is passive. It gives White extra time to consolidate after capturing Black’s d-pawn. Play could
continue 14.Bb2 Rd8 15.Re1 Bf5 16.Bxf5 Qxf5 17.Nxd4 Nxd4 18.Bxd4 Rac8 19.c3², Bezgodov-
Hellegaard, Aars 1999.
14.Bb2 Bf5 15.Bxf5 Qxf5 16.Nxd4 Nxd4 17.Bxd4 Nd5 18.Re1 Rac8 19.Re5 Nevostrujev-
Zvjaginsev, Orel 1992. 19...Qxc2 20.Qxc2 Rxc2 21.Bxa7 f6= Black’s initiative fully compensates for
the absence of his a-pawn.
(10C3) 13.c4 dxc3 14.Nxc3 Qa5
121
White has the two bishops in an open position, but the position is too simplified for White to gain an
advantage.
15.Bf4
This is the standard move. Other tries for White include the following:
(1) 15.b4?! Nxb4 16.axb4 Qxa1 17.Qc2 b5! (creating a place for the queen on a6) 18.Ne4 (18.Bxb5?
Bf5µ) 18...Qa6³, Markun- Sostaric, Slovenia 1994. White does not have enough compensation for his
material deficit;
(2) 15.Re1 Rd8 16.Qe2 Bg4=, Short-Kramnik, Munich 1994. Black’s better development
compensates for White’s twobishops advantage; and
(3) 15.Bd2 Rd8 16.Nb5 Qa6 17.Qc2 Ne5= equalizes, Dvoirys- Maljutin, Moscow 1991, or even
simpler, 17...Bf5=.
15...Rd8
122
This is the key position. Black has free piece play in the center. White has several options, but all lead
to equality:
(1) 16.Qe2 Bf5=, Dvoirys- Khenkin, Gausdal 1991;
(2) 16.Qb1 Nd4 17.b4 Qh5 18.Rd1 (18.Re1? Nf3+ 19.gxf3 Qxf3µ, Sakharov-Alburt, Kharkov 1967)
18...Be6=; or
(3) 16.b4 Qb6 17.Be3 Qc7 18.Qc2 Ng4=, Brueske-Moyses, corr 2013.
(10C4) 13.Ng3
White stops 13...Bf5.
123
13...Ne5
Black attacks White’s strong bishop. 13...Re8 14.Bf4 Bd7 15.Qd2 Ne5 16.Bxe5 Rxe5 17.Rfe1 Rae8
18.Rxe5 Qxe5 19.Rd1 Bc6 20.Bf1², Robertson-Greenfield, corr 1997. Black’s d-pawn remains
vulnerable.
14.b3
White will keep pressure on the d-pawn. 14.Bf4 Nxd3 15.Qxd3, Tevtyuev-Savon, Orel 1998,
15...Bd7 (threatening 16...Bb5) 16.Rfd1 Rac8=. Black has counterplay against White’s weakened c2-
square.
14...Rd8 15.Bb2 h5!
Offering a pawn. Black threatens to gain the initiative after 16...Nxd3 17.Qxd3 h4, followed by
18...h3.
16.Nxh5
After 16.h4 Bg4 17.f3 Be6²/=, White has the two bishops, but Black has active play in the center.
16...Nxh5 17.Qxh5 Nxd3 18.Qxd5 Rxd5 19.cxd3 Bf5 20.b4 a5²/= Black’s pressure on White’s
position substantially compensates for his sacrificed pawn.
(10C5) 13.Nf4
Best. The knight gains a tempo by attacking the queen.
13...Qd6 14.Nh5
124
14...Qe5
Black had a poor selection of options. Occasionally seen are 14...Nd5 15.Qf3± and 14...Ng4 15.Bf4²,
but these knight moves lose time.
14...Nxh5 is Black’s usual reply. After 15.Qxh5 h6 16.Re1 Bd7 17.Qh4 (allowing the option of
18.Bf4) 17...Rfe8, White has a choice between two good moves, 18.Bd2 and 18.Bf4:
(1) 18.Bd2 Ne5 19.Bf4 Re7 20.Re4 g5 21.Qg3 Rae8 22.Rae1 f6 23.h4², Wippich-Zirwes, corr, 2004.
Black has holes in his position; or
(2) 18.Bf4 Qd5 19.f3 Bf5 20.Qh5 Be4 21.Qxd5 Bxd5², Mayer- Goncharenko, corr 2008. White has
125
the two bishops and will have play against Black’s d-pawn.
15.Ng3
15.Nxf6+ Qxf6 16.Qh5 h6²/=, Pohlig-Dietrich, corr 2013. This position is a little better for Black
than the position after 15...h6 in the 14...Nxh5 line above, because here Black’s queen is on f6, a
better square than d6.
15...Re8 16.Qd2² Fraser-Belmar Juaranz, corr 2010. Black’s bishop does not have a good square.
White has the two bishops and will fianchetto his queen bishop to attack Black’s d-pawn.
Section 11: 12...Bg4 13. Sidelines
exd5 10.Bd3 0-0 11.0-0 d4 12.Ne2 Bg4
12...Bg4 places an annoying pin on White’s knight. White’s two major replies, 13.f3 and 13.Bg5, are
covered in Sections 12 and 13, respectively. White’s sidelines are covered in this section.
White’s two main sidelines are (11A) 13.h3²/= and (11B) 13.Re1²/=
Other sidelines:
(1) 13.Bf4 (a move with no purpose) 13...Re8 14.Re1 Qb6 15.b4, Lobron-Chandler, Biel 1987,
15...a5=. All of Black’s pieces are active;
(2) 13.b4 (an aggressive move) 13...Re8 and now:
(2a) 14.Bb2 a5 15.b5 Ne5 16.f3 (opening the g1-a7 diagonal for Black) 16...Bh5 17.Nxd4 Bg6
(intending 18...Nxd3 followed by 19...Qb6) 18.Be2 (18.Bxg6 hxg6³, intending ...Qb6 and/or ...Nc4)
126
18...Nd5 19.Qd2 Nb6 20.Rfe1 Na4=. Black is a pawn down, but White’s position is full of holes; or
(2b) 14.f3 White blocks the pin on his knight, but at the cost of weakening the g1-a7 diagonal and
pushing Black’s bishop toward a good square, g6. 14...Bh5 15.Bb2 (not 15.b5?! Ne5 16.Nxd4??,
because 16...Qxd4+ now comes with a check) 15...Qb6 16.b5 Bg6=, Leijen-Apostolakis, corr 2013.
(11A) 13.h3
13...Bxe2
This capture gives White two bishops against two knights, but it further slows White’s development.
The more popular alternative is 13...Bh5 and now:
(1) 14.Bf4 (not a good square for this bishop) 14...Re8 15.Re1 Qb6=, Kaiumov-Shtyrenkov, Crimea
2002. Black’s pieces are comfortably placed.
(2) 14.Bg5 Re8 15.Re1 Qd6=, Macieja-Krasenkow, New Delhi 2000. The f6-knight will go to e4 if
White plays the natural Qd2.
(3) 14.f4!? (a novelty). White threatens 15.g4, trapping Black’s bishop. Black’s choices are 14...h6 or
14...Bxe2:
(3a) 14...h6 15.g4 Bg6 16.f5 Bh7 17.Nf4 Ne5 18.Qe2 Re8 19.Qg2 Qb6 20.Bd2 Rac8 21.b4²/=.
Black has counterplay, but his bishop is shut in; or
(3b) 14...Bxe2 15.Qxe2 Re8 16.Qf3. This position is the same as the one after 15.Qf3 in the 14.Qxe2
sideline below, except that here White’s f-pawn is on f4 instead of f2. This is helpful to White,
because the f-pawn controls the e5-square, preventing Black’s queen knight from attacking White’s
strong bishop on d3. It will also allow White’s king a quicker path to the center in the endgame.
127
White need not be concerned about his weak e3- square, because Black’s position is not strong
enough to capitalize on it. Play could continue 16...Qe7 17.Bd2 Ne4 18.Rad1²/=.
14.Bxe2
14.Qxe2 Re8 15.Qf3 Qb6 (15...Ne5? 16.Qxb7²) 16.Bf4 Ne5 17.Bxe5 Rxe5 18.Rfe1 Rae8 19.Rxe5
Rxe5 20.b3 g6=, Gochelashvili- Tregubov, Sochi 2012=. The game is headed toward a draw.
14...Re8 Hajnal-Chereches, Fuzesabony 2003. Black continues to activate his pieces.
15.Re1 Ne4 16.Bd3 Qh4 17.Re2
17.Rxe4 Rxe4 18.Bg5 Qxg5 19.Bxe4 Rd8=. The position is dry.
17...Nc5 18.Bc4 Qf6²/=
White has two bishops against two knights, but it will be difficult to take full advantage. Black
controls the center and his knights are well placed. A possible continuation is 19.Bd2 h6 20.Qe1 Rxe2
21.Qxe2 d3 22.cxd3 Qxb2 23.Re1²/=.
(11B) 13.Re1
13.Re1 is a quiet developing move. It does not provide Black with a clear focus of action.
13...Re8 14.Bg5
The alternative is 14.f3 Bh5 15.Bg5 (15.Nf4, Hartmann-Karapchanska, corr 2008, 15...Rxe1+
16.Qxe1 Bg6 17.Nxg6 hxg6 18.Bf4 Qb6 19.b3 Nd5=. White has the two bishops, but Black has an
128
initiative. The knight’s next stop will be e3.) 15...Bg6 16.Qd2 Qb6! The b6- square is a good one for
the queen when White has opened the g1-a7 diagonal. Black does not fear Bxf6, because his bishop
on g6 will protect the weakened light squares. 17.Bxf6 gxf6
reaching an equal position. It is similar to one reached in a main line of the 13.f3 variation, Section 12
(12C3), after 17...gxf6, the only difference being the position of White’s rooks. The following are
examples of how play could continue:
(1) 18.Ng3 Ne5!= Black forces a trade for White’s strong light-square bishop. White cannot play
19.Be4 or 19.Bf5 because of 19...d3+, taking advantage of White having a pawn on f3, which has
weakened his g1-a7 diagonal;
(2) 18.Rab1 Ne5 19.Nf4 Kg7=; or
(3) 18.Nf4 Qc5 19.Qf2 Re3=.
Returning to the main line, after 14.Bg5:
14...Bh5
Black will hurry the bishop to g6.

Alternatives:
(1) 14...Ne5 15.Bb5 (White preserves his strong bishop.) 15...Bxe2 16.Rxe2 Re6 17.Ba4², Karasova-
Karapchanska, corr 2008. Black does not have compensation for the unfavorable matchup of two
knights versus two active bishops.
(2) 14...Bxe2 (Black does not wait until White plays 15.Qd2 before taking the knight on e2. This
removes White’s option of interposing 16.Bf4 before recapturing on e2, but it also allows White to
delay moving his queen.) 15.Rxe2 Qd6 16.Bh4
129
White intends either Bg3 in some lines, or in others f3 and Bf2, attacking Black’s d-pawn. 16...Rxe2
17.Qxe2 Re8, Ewan- Ackley, corr 2011, 18.Qf3 Nd7 19.Rd1 Nc5 20.Bf1². White has two active
bishops versus two knights; or
(3) 14...Qd6. This is the move most commonly played. It transposes to the main line of the 13.Bg5
Qd6 14.Re1 variation, Section 13 (13B1), which continues 15.Qd2 Bxe2 16.Bf4²/=.
15.Qd2 Bg6
15...Qd6?! 16.Qf4 Qxf4 17.Nxf4 Bg6 18.Nxg6 hxg6², Kamsky- Ripari, Gibraltar 2016. Black does
not have compensation for his twoknights versus two-bishops disadvantage.
130
16.Nf4
16.Rad1 Bxd3 17.Qxd3 (With his light-square bishop gone, White has no serious threats.) 17...h6
18.Bh4 (18.Bxf6 Qxf6 19.Nxd4?? Rxe1+) 18...g5
Black frees himself from the pin. The move ...g5 can be risky for Black if played too early. But here
the resulting light-square weakness on Black’s kingside is mostly mitigated by the absence of White’s
lightsquare bishop, the inability, after 19.Bg3, of White’s knight to move to g3 to attack f5, and the
absence of a rook on f1 to support an f4- advance. The game could continue 19.Bg3 Qb6 20.b4 a6
21.h4 Rad8=.
16...Rxe1+
16...Qd6 (Black declines his chance to eliminate White’s light-square bishop.) 17.Nxg6 hxg6
18.Bf4², V.Small-B.Watson, New Zealand 1982.
17.Rxe1 Bxd3 18.Nxd3
The knight finds a good square.

18.Qxd3?? Qa5
18...h6 19.Bh4 Qd6²/=
White has a bishop-versus-knight advantage, but Black is otherwise close to equal.
131
Section 12: 13.f3
exd5 10.Bd3 0-0 11.0-0 d4 12.Ne2 Bg4 13.f3
13.f3 is a popular move. It blocks the pin on White’s knight. Its two drawbacks are that it weakens
White’s g1-a7 diagonal, and it pushes Black’s bishop toward a good square – g6.
13...Bh5
13...Be6?! (The bishop is passive on e6.) 14.Bg5 Rc8 15.Re1 Ne5, Tseshkovsky-Krogius, Sochi
1976, 16.Bh4². White’s bishop intends to go to f2 to apply pressure to Black’s d-pawn.
After 13...Bh5, White can take the game into either of two directions:
(1) Move his knight to f4 to trade for Black’s bishop. White can do this with either 14.b4 Qb6 15.Nf4
(12A) or an immediate 14.Nf4 (12B). After taking Black’s bishop, White will typically push his f-
pawn to f4, move his queen to f3, and look for an opportunity to push the fpawn onward to f5.
White’s attack should not be especially worrisome for Black, because his pieces are naturally placed
and free to move.
(2) Pin Black’s knight with 14.Bg5 (12C). This gives Black time to move his bishop to g6, which will
allow him to exchange it for White’s strong bishop on d3.
White now has three possibilities:
(12A) 14.b4=; (12B) 14.Nf4=; and (12C) 14.Bg5=
(12A) 14.b4
132
White pauses to attack the d-pawn. The drawback is that it slows White’s play on the kingside, which
is where his chances reside.
14...Qb6
Black occupies the weakened g1-a7 diagonal. 14...a6 also works here: 15.Bb2 Qb6 16.Kh1 Rad8
17.Qd2 Bg6 18.Rad1, Koenig-Schara, Vienna 1925, 18...Rfe8=. If now White takes Black’s d-pawn
with 19.Bxg6 hxg6 20.Nxd4, Black will regain it after 20...a5.
15.Nf4 Bg6 16.Nxg6 hxg6 17.f4
133
White creates space on f3 for his queen and prepares for a possible kingside attack, starting with f5.
17...Ne7
The knight defends f5 and g6 should White push his f-pawn to f5, but it also could go to e3 by way of
d5.
17...Nd5 will work also: 18.Qf3 Ne3 19.Rf2 Rfe8=, Karjakin- Raetsky, Biel 2003, with equal
chances.
18.Qf3 Ned5
Or:
(1) 18...Rfe8= transposes to the 18.b4 sideline in (12B1) below; or
(2) 18...Nf5=, Holzke-Shkapenko, Paleochora 2008.
19.Re1 Rfe8 20.Bd2 Ne3! 21.c4
White improves his pawn structure on the queenside. Black would prefer to disallow this by
responding with ...dxc3, but he cannot do so here. Black has a good position nevertheless.
21.c3 Re7 22.cxd4 Qxd4 23.Bxe3 Qxd3=
21...Re7 22.Rac1 Qe6= Funke- Csjernyik, corr 2009. The knight on e3 is a thorn in White’s position.
(12B) 14.Nf4
White will use his knight to eliminate Black’s bishop, thereby preserving his light-square bishop.
14...Bg6 15.Nxg6 hxg6 16.f4
16.Bg5 (now pointless) 16...Qb6=, Bratovic-Sebenik, Ptuj 2002.
134
After 16.f4, a key position is reached. White has two bishops against two knights and a chance for
kingside play with a pawn push to f5. Black has control of the center and will have play on White’s
weakened g1-a7 diagonal.
Black has several choices here:
(1) 16...Re8 (ineffective) 17.f5 gxf5 18.Bg5², Svetushkin-Prince, Kavala 2017, with kingside pressure
(18...g6? 19.g4±);
(2) 16...Nd5 17.f5 Ne5 (defending g6), Georgiadis-Frederic, Budva 2019, 18.fxg6 fxg6=. White has
the two bishops and Black’s pawns are scattered, but Black’s centralized knights control important
squares from their positions in the center of the board;
(3) 16...Qb6 is covered in (12B1); and
(4) 16...Ne7 is covered in (12B2).
(12B1) 16...Qb6
135
Black keeps his options open by leaving his queen knight on c6 for now.
17.Qf3
17.f5 Ne5 (Defending g6. 17...gxf5 18.Rxf5 Ne7 19.Rb5², Szadkowski-Barski, Ustron 2020, gives
White too much play with his two bishops versus two knights in this open position.) 18.fxg6 fxg6
19.Bf4 Nfg4 20.Bxe5 Rxf1+ 21.Qxf1 Nxe5 22.Re1 Nxd3 23.Qxd3 Qxb2 24.Qxg6 Qxa3=,
Shivdasani-Saxena, corr 2012, reaching an equal endgame.
17...Rfe8
136
17...Ne7 18.g4 Rad8 19.Bd2= transposes to the main line of the 16...Ne7 variation (12B2).
18.Bd2
Alternatives:
(1) 18.g4 Rad8 19.g5 Nd5³, intending 20...Ne3;
(2) 18.f5 Ne5=, guarding g6; or
(3) 18.b4 Ne7 19.g4 Rad8 20.Bd2 Qe6 21.f5 gxf5 22.gxf5 Qd6=, Merkuriev-Kurylo, corr 2017.
Black intends ...Ned5. His kingside is safe.
18...Re3
An exchange sacrifice. This is Black’s usual move.
19.Bxe3 dxe3 20.Kh1 Re8 21.Rae1
Alternatives do not achieve more than equality:

(1) 21.Qg3 Nd4 22.Rfe1 e2 23.b4 Nd5=, Giannetto-Salati, corr 2014. The d5-knight can go to e3 or
c3. Black has active play for the exchange; or
(2) 21.Rfe1 Nd4 22.Qg3 e2 23.Rab1 Nf5 24.Bxf5 Re3 25.Qf2 gxf5 26.Rxe2 Ng4 27.Qe1 Rxe2
28.Qxe2 Nf2+ 29.Kg1 Nh3+=, with a perpetual, Oechslein-Puzone, corr 2013.
21...Nd4 22.Qd1
If allowed, White will escape with an advantage after 23.c3 Nb3 24.Rf3².
137
22...Re7!!
This problem-like move is preferred by the computer. It is the only move for Black that leads to
complete equality in all lines. 22...Qxb2 23.Qc1 Qxc1 24.Rxc1²/=, Dolgov-Gromov, corr 2013, was
the line that was previously played.
23.c3
23.b4 Qc6 24.c4 a5 25.Qa1 e2 26.Qxd4 exf1=Q+=
23...Nb3 24.Rf3 Nd2 25.Rh3 Nfe4 26.Bxe4 Nxe4 27.Rf3 Nd2=
If Black’s rook had been on e8 instead of e7, White could play 28.Qxd2, followed by 29.Rxe8+ and
30.Rh3#.
(12B2) 16...Ne7
138
17.Qf3 Qb6
This is the best square for Black’s queen. Alternatives:

(1) 17...Ned5? (This knight had been keeping watch over Black’s vulnerable light squares – f5 and
g6.) 18.f5 (White proceeds with his attack.) 18...gxf5 19.Qxf5². White has a free hand on the
kingside; and
(2) 17...Qd5 18.Bd2 Nf5 19.Qxd5, ½-½, Senff-Lintchevski, Moscow 2006, 19...Nxd5 20.Rfe1 Nfe3
(Black has succeeded in embedding a knight on e3, but with the queens gone he will not be able to
make effective use of it.) 21.g3 Rfe8 22.Kf2 Rac8 23.b3², with Rac1 and c5 eventually to follow.
18.g4
18.Bd2 Nf5 19.Rfe1 Rfe8=, Guliyev-Lamorelle, France 2013. Black’s knight will go to e3.
18...Rad8
Black cannot now play 18...Ned5, because of 19.g5, winning a knight.
19.Bd2 Nfd5
19...Ned5 20.g5² sidelines the king knight.
20.Rfe1 Rfe8 21.b4 Ne3 22.Bxe3 dxe3 23.Qxe3 Qf6 24.Qf2= Onder-Keevil, corr 2011. White is a
pawn ahead, but his pawns are vulnerable and his king is exposed.
(12C) 14.Bg5
139
White pins the knight. This deters Black from moving his queen to b6, because White has (14...Qb6)
15.Bxf6 gxf6 16.Ng3 Bg6 17.f4±.
Black now has three options: 14...Qd6 (12C1), 14...Re8 (12C2), and 14...Bg6 (12C3).
(12C1) 14...Qd6
This is Black’s most popular option. He removes his queen from the pin and connects his rooks. But
the queen is otherwise not of much use on d6.This position is reached also after 13.Bg5 Qd6 14.f3
Bh5.
15.Qd2
140
This is White’s usual move. A worthy alternative is 15.Bh4. This gives the bishop the option to drop
back either to g3 or f2. Play may continue 15...Bg6 and now:
(1) 16.Bf2 Rad8 17.Qd2, Yildiz Kadioglu-Ince, Cesme 2016, 17...Bxd3 18.Qxd3 Rfe8 19.Rad1 Nd5!
20.c3 (20.Nxd4?! Nf4³/=) 20...Ne3=;
(2) 16.Bg3 Qd7 17.Bxg6 hxg6 18.Qd2
18...Rfd8 (With the light-square bishops off the board, Black reserves his queen rook to attack
White’s c2-pawn. If instead 18...Rad8, then 19.Rfd1 Rfe8 20.Bf2², Schuller-Shoenbeck, corr 2013,
and White will win the dpawn with a good position.) 19.Rfd1 Rac8 20.Bf2²/=. White has made good
use of his darksquare bishop, first pinning Black’s king knight, then attacking Black’s queen, and
141
then using the f2-square to attack Black’s d-pawn. Black will lose his d-pawn, but he has an initiative.
The computer offers the following continuation: 20...Qc7 21.Rac1 Qb6 22.Rb1 Qc7 23.Bxd4 Rd6
24.c3 Re8²/=.
Returning to the main line, after 15.Qd2:
15...Bg6
Black does not allow his bishop to be traded for White’s knight. He will trade it instead for White’s
strong bishop.
Black’s alternatives are:
(1) 15...Nd5 16.Be4 f6 17.c4 Nb6 (leading to a liquidating tactical sequence) 18.Bf4 Nxc4 19.Bxd6
Nxd2 20.Bxf8 Kxf8 21.Bxc6 Nxf1 22.Bxb7 Rb8 23.Rxf1 Rxb7 24.b4 d3 25.Nf4², Peiro Fernandez-
Serovey, corr 2017. Black will lose the d-pawn.
(2) 15...Rfe8 16.Rad1 Rad8 (16...Bg6? 17.Bxg6 hxg6 18.Nxd4±; 16...Nd5 17.Be4²) 17.Nf4 Bg6
18.Nxg6 hxg6 19.Rfe1 Rxe1+ 20.Rxe1², Poetsch-Jeitz, Vienna 2011. Black’s game is playable, but
his pieces are deployed defensively. He has no compensation for White’s advantage of two bishops
versus two knights. If 20...Ne5?!, then 21.Bf4 Re8 22.Bf1±, and Black’s center is fragile;
(3) 15...Rad8 16.Nf4 Bg6 17.Nxg6 hxg6 18.Rfe1 Rfe8 19.Bh4 (19.Rad1 transposes to (2) above)
19...a6 20.Rad1², Dedina-Bosak, corr 2003. See comments in (2) above.
16.Rad1 Rad8
16...Rfe8? 17.Bxg6 hxg6 18.Nxd4±.

After 16...Rad8 White has several options. Black has reasonable play against any of them.
142
17.Qf4
Alternatives:
(1) 17.Bxg6 hxg6 18.Be3 Rfe8 19.Bf2 (19.Nxd4 Rxe3 20.Qxe3 Nxd4=, Della Morte-Zarnicki, Villa
Martelli 2007) 19...Nd5 20.c3 (20.Nxd4 Nf4, threatening 21...Ne2+, 21.Kh1 Qf6, Zhigalko-
Lintchevski, Pardubice 2006, 22.Qc3 Nxd4 23.Rxd4 Re2=, not 23.Bxd4? Qg5, followed by
24...Ne2µ) 20...Na5=, with counterplay, Neiksans- Annaberdiev, Istanbul 2012; and
(2) 17.Rfe1 Rfe8 18.Bh4 Bxd3 19.Qxd3 a6! (Black cannot improve the position of his pieces, so he
takes the b5-square away from White’s queen. With White’s light-square bishop gone, Black should
not have difficulty defending the position.) 20.Nc1²/=, Balshaw-Ellis, corr 2014. If 20.c3, then
20...Ne5 21.Qf5 (21.Qxd4 Qf8 22.Qf2 Nd3=) 21...d3=, Law-Hyde, corr 2017, with counterplay.
17...Qxf4 18.Nxf4 Bxd3 19.Nxd3 Rd6 20.Rfe1 Rc8 21.Bxf6 Rxf6= Godzwon-Suder, Pokrzywna
2020. The endgame is equal.
(12C2) 14...Re8
15.Ng3
White will seek kingside play using his f-pawn.

Alternatives:
(1) 15.Nf4 (After Black’s bishop retreats to g6, White will capture it and Black will recapture with
his h-pawn. This will allow Black to move his queen to b6 without his kingside pawns being split
should White take Black’s knight on f6.) 15...Bg6 16.Nxg6 hxg6 17.f4 (17.Qd2 Qb6=, Stetsko-
Gunina, Skopje 2015) 17...Qb6 18.f5 (18.Qf3 Re3 19.Qf2 Ne4 20.Qh4 Qc5³/=) 18...Ne5 19.fxg6
143
fxg6=, Doric- Losonsky, corr 2015. Black’s superior activity fully compensates for his split pawns
and disadvantage of two knights versus two bishops; and
(2) 15.Qd2 will transpose to another line:
(2a) 15...Qd6?! 16.Rad1² transposes to the position after 14...Qd6 15.Qd2 Rfe8 16.Rad1 in (12C1);
or
(2b) 15...Bg6 16.Rad1= transposes to the (12C3) main line.
15...Bg6 16.f4
16.Ne4 Ne5=, Szczepkowska- Mroziak, Czech Republic 2010, with active play for both sides.
16...Bxd3
16...h6 17.Bh4 (17.Bxf6 Qxf6 transposes) 17...Qd6 18.Bxf6 Qxf6 19.f5 Bh7 20.Qf3 Re3 21.Qf4²/=,
Packroff-Klischat, corr 2014. Black has sufficient counterplay against White’s aggressive kingside
advance.
17.Qxd3 h6 18.Bh4 Re3 19.Qd2 Re6 20.f5 Re5 21.Nh5 Ne4 22.Qf4 f6= Zhou-Matras, Montreal
2017. Black’s control of the center offsets White’s space advantage on the kingside.
(12C3) 14...Bg6
Black neutralizes White’s strong light-square bishop. Black has good prospects for equality.
15.Qd2
White makes room for his queen rook. He has several other options:
144
(1) 15.Nf4 Bxd3 16.Nxd3 Qd6=, Asrian-Khenkin, Moscow 2001. White has a bishop, but also has
weak points on c2 and e3.
(2) 15.Re1 Re8 16.Qd2 Qb6 17.Bxf6 gxf6 18.Nf4 Qc5 19.Qf2 Re3=. Black exploits White’s
weakened g1-a7 diagonal; and
(3) 15.Bh4 (giving the bishop the option to move to f2) 15...Re8 16.Bxg6 hxg6 17.Bf2 Qb6
18.Qd2 (18.Nxd4 Rad8 19.Nxc6 Qxc6 20.Bd4 Nd5=, Hebel- Sagstetter, corr 2013, with full
compensation for the pawn) 18...Rad8 19.Rfe1 a5=, Kotronias- Janjgava, Ankara 1995. White has
bishop versus knight, but Black has a space advantage.
15...Re8
A good choice. Alternatives:

(1) 15...Bxd3 It is better to delay this exchange until after White’s knight departs e2. 16.Qxd3²/=.
White has some play against Black’s d-pawn.
(2) 15...Qd6²/= transposes to the position after 15...Bg6 in the main line of the 14...Qd6 variation
(12C1).
16.Rad1
145
16...Qb6
The queen’s favorite square. Or 16...Rc8 (reminding White that c2 can be vulnerable) 17.Rf2
(17.Bxg6 hxg6 18.c3 d3!=, Takacs-Fancsy, Hungary 2014) 17...Bxd3 18.Qxd3 h6 19.Bxf6 (19.Bh4
g5 20.Bg3 Qb6=) 19...Qxf6=, Backlund- Westerberg, Sweden 2015. The position is balanced.
17.Bxf6 gxf6 18.Ng3
White homes in on Black’s weakened light squares. He threatens 19.Qh6 with a winning attack.
Less threatening is 18.Nf4 Rad8 19.Qf2 Ne5 20.b4 Nxd3 21.cxd3 Qd6 22.Qg3 Re5 23.h4 Kh8=,
Shevchenko-Gutman, Pardubice, rapid 2015. Both sides have play.
18...Re3!
Black takes advantage of White’s weakened g1-a7 diagonal.
19.f4
19.Nf5 Bxf5 20.Bxf5 Qxb2 21.Qf2 Ne7=, Lage-Gwaltney, corr 2002. Black has won a pawn but
must now attend to White’s threats on the kingside. The position is complex, and chances are
balanced.
19...Bxd3 20.cxd3 Nersesian- Demchenko, corr 2014. 20...Ne7=
Black must defend his vulnerable light squares on the kingside, so he retreats the knight to keep
White’s knight out of f5. The rook Black implanted on e3 provides further defense because it
interferes with the movement of White’s pieces.
146
Section 13: 13.Bg5
exd5 10.Bd3 0-0 11.0-0 d4 12.Ne2 Bg4 13.Bg5
The pin on Black’s knight is annoying. Black has three main replies. One is 13...h6 (13A), where
Black can reach an equal but drawish endgame by sacrificing a pawn. A second reply, which is
Black’s most popular, is 13...Qd6 (13B), investing a tempo to remove himself from the pin. Now:
(13A) 13...h6= and (13B) 13...Qd6²/=
A third reply is 13...Re8. It will transpose to another line:
(1) 14.f3 Bh5= transposes to the 13.f3 variation, Section 12 (12C2).
(2) 14.Re1 Qd6 15.Qd2² transposes to (13B1) below.
(13A) 13...h6
147
This is a fairly new idea. There now follows a sequence of moves that ends with a sacrifice of Black’s
b-pawn.
14.Bh4 Bxe2
14...g5? (weakening Black’s kingside) 15.Bg3 Re8 16.f3 Bh5 17.Bf2±, Dworakowska-Jensen,
Istanbul 2000.
15.Qxe2
15.Bxe2 Re8 (15...g5?! again weakens Black’s kingside, 16.Bg3 Ne4 17.Bd3 Nxg3, Inarkiev-
Cuartas, Barcelona 2010, 18.fxg3²). White’s decision to use his bishop to recapture on e2 has slowed
his development. This provides Black with compensation for White’s two-bishops versus twoknights
advantage:
(1) 16.Bc4 Ne5 17.Bb3 Qb6 18.Re1 Rad8 19.Bg3 Nc6=, Khanin-Usmanov, Sochi 2019; or
(2) 16.Re1 Re4 17.Bg3 Qb6 18.b4 Rae8 19.Qd2=, Hovhannisyan- Kovalenko, Bayern 2018.
(3) 16.Qd3 Ne5 17.Qb3 Ng6 18.Bxf6 Qxf6 19.Qxb7 Rab8 20.Qxa7 Nf4=, Mammadzada-
Javakhishvili, EU-Cup, INT, rapid 2020, with 21...Rxb2 to follow.
15...Re8 16.Qf3
If 16.Qd2, then 16...Ne4! 17.Qf4 g5, Thogersen-Borge, Denmark 2019, 18.Qf3 Nc5 19.Bg3 Nxd3
20.cxd3 Kg7=. Not much play remains. Black’s f5-square is not a weakness, given that White’s only
remaining minor piece is his darksquare bishop.
16...Ne5!
148
Black offers a pawn for the initiative. This was first seen in Germany in Dorer-Pfaff, corr 2008.
17.Qxb7
17.Qf5 Nxd3 18.Qxd3 Qb6=, Korneev-Moreno Ruiz, Linares 2015. Black has a comfortable
position.
17...Nxd3 18.cxd3 Qd5
This is the key position. In an analysis of Lenderman’s loss with Black to Dominguez (New in Chess,
2019, #3), GM Shankland expressed his view that the position is equal, but requires precise play by
149
Black:
Objectively, Black has a fine position... White is, however, up a pawn. Any inaccuracy will change the
evaluation from dynamic equality into a simply worse position.
As of the end of 2020, there were twenty-three games from this position recorded in ChessBase, all
by players who were correspondence or FIDE rated. Eighteen games were drawn, and five were won
by White, a 61% winning percentage. These results are what would be expected for a player with
White, given that White’s average rating was 2305 and Black’s was 2255.
Black is a pawn down, but has more space and is better developed. His king has luft, and White’s
does not. His rook occupies the e-file and in some lines can go to e2. But he will have to relocate his
knight. Typically the knight will go first to d7, then c5, where it can threaten White’s d-pawn or
occupy b3.
If will be difficult for White to prevail in this position. Pushing the b-pawn weakens c3. White has
bishop versus knight, but the bishop is not well placed. In some lines it can be repositioned to attack
Black’s d-pawn. White’s wayward queen can annoy Black, but Black can gain time by harassing it
with a rook, the knight, or the rook pawn. The queen would rather be on d2.
From the diagrammed position above, White’s queen has four options: 19.Qc7 (13A1), 19.Qa6
(13A2), 19.Qxd5 (13A3), and White’s usual move, 19.Qb4 (13A4).
(13A1) 19.Qc7
19...Rac8 20.Qf4
After 20.Qxa7 (taking a second pawn), there follows 20...Ng4!. White’s pieces are out of play:
(1) 21.Bg3? Rc2 22.Qa4 Ree2µ, intending ...Ne3; or
150
(2) 21.Rfe1 Rxe1+ 22.Rxe1 Ne5 23.Qa4 (23.Qa6? Rc6µ, followed by 24...Nxd3) 23...Nxd3 24.Re8+
Rxe8 25.Qxe8+ Kh7 (threatening 26...Nf4 followed by 27...d3, winning) 26.Bg3 Nxb2=.
20...Nd7 21.Bg3 Nc5 22.Rad1 Na4 23.Rd2 Qa5
Threatening 24...g5.
24.b4 Qd5= Salzmann-Keevil, corr 2011. Black’s dominating position compensates for his onepawn
deficit.
(13A2) 19.Qa6 Nd7
Black begins a necessary but timeconsuming repositioning of his knight. In some lines, he can save a
tempo by using the knight to attack White’s queen.
Alternatives:
(1) 19...Re6 20.Qc4 Rc6 21.Qa4 Nd7 22.Rac1 Rac8 23.Rxc6 Rxc6
151
24.h3! (luft) (24.Bg3 does not improve White’s position: 24...Nc5=, Kosteniuk-Domont, Switzerland
2012) 24...Nc5 25.Qa5 Qd7 26.Rd1 (White’s luft proves useful.) 26...Nb3 27.Qa4 Qb7²/=. White is
a pawn ahead, but Black’s strongly placed knight on b3 is a commanding presence in White’s
queenside.
(2) 19...Nh5 (intending 20...Nf4) 20.Bg3 (20.Qc4 Nf4 21.Qxd5 Nxd5 transposes to the 19.Qxd5 line
13A3) 20...Nxg3 21.hxg3 Qb3 22.Rab1 Rec8 (preventing 23.Qc4 and intending 24.Rc2; 22...Re2?!
23.Qc4) 23.Rfe1 Rc2²/=, Martinez Alcantara-Triapishko, Moscow 2020. White is a pawn ahead, but
Black has pressure on White’s queenside pawns.
20.Bg3
20.Qc4 Qxc4 21.dxc4 Rac8=. Black’s active rooks will ensure recovery of the sacrificed pawn.
20...Re6
The immediate 20...Nc5?! does not work because of 21.Qb5², threatening 22.b4.
21.Qc4 Qxc4 22.dxc4 Rc8 23.Rfd1=
23.Rac1 Nc5 24.b4 Nb3 25.Rc2 Ra6=. White’s queenside pawns are targets for Black’s active rooks.
(13A3) 19.Qxd5 Nxd5
152
The trade of queens helps White, but the resulting improvement of the knight’s position helps Black.
20.Bg3
20.Rfe1 Rxe1+ 21.Rxe1 Nf4 22.Rd1 Rc8=. Black threatens both 23...Nxd3 and 23...Rc2.
20...Re2 21.Rab1
This is the key position in this line.
21...f6!
153
Black prevents a later Be5. Alternatives:
(1) 21...Rd2? 22.Rfd1 Rc2 (22...Re2 23.Kf1±) 23.Be5±, winning Black’s d-pawn;
(2) 21...Rc8? 22.Rfe1! Rxe1+ (22...Rd2 23.Be5 Rxd3 24.Red1±) 23.Rxe1 Rc2 24.Rb1±, followed by
Kf1-e1-d1, driving Black’s rook from the seventh rank.
(3) 21...f5 (After this move Black can draw, but must play precisely.) 22.Bd6 Rd8! (protecting the
dpawn; 22...Rc8? 23.Rfe1 Rxe1+ 24.Rxe1 Rc2 25.Rb1±, Dominguez-Lenderman, St. Louis 2019)
23.Bc5 Nf4 24.Bxa7 Rc2!= (constraining White’s bishop), Lanz Calavia-Hegelund, corr 2017.
22.Rfe1 Rd2 23.Red1 Rc2 24.Rdc1 Rd2
Black accepts White’s invitation to dance.
25.Kf1! Rd8!
Black must protect his d-pawn. 25...Rxd3? 26.Rd1±.
26.Ke1
26.Rd1 Rc2=
26...Rxd3 27.Rd1 Re8+ 28.Kf1 Rb3 29.Rxd4 Nc3= Black wins back his pawn.
(13A4) 19.Qb4
This is White’s most popular choice.
19...a5
154
Black puts the pawn to good use. Alternatives:
(1) 19...Rab8 20.Qd2 (threatening 21.Bxf6) 20...Nd7 21.Bg3 (taking advantage of the rook’s position
on b8; 21.b4 Rbc8=, Caspi-Porat, Israel 2012) 21...Rbc8 (21...Rb3 22.Rfe1², Drugda-Karapchanski,
corr 2010) 22.h3 Nc5 23.Rae1 Nb3 24.Rxe8+ Rxe8 25.Qc2². Black’s task became more difficult
after the rook trade.
(2) 19...Nd7 20.Rac1 Ne5 21.Rfd1 and now:
(2a) 21...Qd7 (This move was chosen in four recent correspondence games. Black wants to play
22...Rb8 and 23...Rb3 without allowing 23.Qa4, which would attack both the pawn on a7 and the rook
on e8.) 22.Qd2 Rab8 23.b4 Qa4²/=, Wojcik- Staniszewski, Poland, corr 2016.
(2b) 21...Rab8 (Black plays 21...Rab8 anyway.) 22.Qa4 Re6 (threatening 23...Rxb2) 23.b4 (23.Qc2
Rb3=) 23...Rbe8 (threatening 24...Nxd3) 24.h3 Nf3+! 25.gxf3 Qh5 26.Bg3 Qxh3= intending 27...h5.
20.Qd2 Nd7
155
Black envisions ...Nc5-b3.
21.b4
Stopping 21...Nc5.
21.Rae1 Qb5! (preparing 22...Nc5; 21...Nc5? 22.Rxe8+ Rxe8 23.Qxa5±) 22.Rxe8+ Rxe8 23.b4
(23.Bg3 a4=, followed by 24...Nc5 and 25...Nb3) 23...axb4 24.Qxb4 (24.axb4 Nb6 followed by
...Nd5=) 24...Qxd3 25.Qa4!
Pinning Black’s knight. 25...Qd2! (Black will take advantage of the White king’s lack of luft.)
26.Qxd7 Re1 27.Qb5 d3 28.g4 (forced) 28...Rxf1+ 29.Kxf1 Qc1+ 30.Kg2 d2 31.Qe8+=, with a
156
perpetual.
21...axb4
Black saves time by leaving his rooks in place for now.

21...Rec8 22.Bg3 Rc3 23.Rfe1 Rb3 24.h3 (24.h4?!, weakening g4, 24...axb4 25.axb4 Rxa1 26.Rxa1
Nf6, intending ...Ng4, 27.f3 Qf5=, Galliano-Norchenko, corr 2014. Black’s activity fully
compensates for his pawn deficit.) 24...axb4 25.axb4 Rxa1 26.Rxa1 Ne5 27.Qe2 Nxd3 (Black is fully
in the game, but White has the bishop and Black’s pieces are not as comfortably placed as they were
before he recovered his pawn.) 28.Qe8+ Kh7 29.Ra8²/=, threatening 30.Qh8+ Kg6 31.Rg8+–.
22.axb4
22.Qxb4 Nc5 23.Rfd1 Na4=
22...Qb3
23.Bg3
23.Rab1 Qc3 24.Qxc3 (24.Qd1 Ne5=) 24...dxc3=. Black has an advanced c-pawn and opportunities
to infiltrate a rook.
23...Qc3 24.Rxa8
24.Qxc3 dxc3 transposes.
24...Rxa8 25.Qxc3 dxc3 26.Rc1 Nf6= Followed by 27...Nd5. Black’s advanced c-pawn, his active
157
rook, his knight’s access to d5, and White’s lack of luft compensate Black for his pawn deficit.
(13B) 13...Qd6
This is Black’s standard move. Black removes his queen from the pin and connects the rooks.
Unfortunately, the queen goes to a square where it is otherwise not useful.
White now has three options. One is 14.f3 Bh5, which transposes to the 13.f3 Bh5 14.Qd6= variation
in Section 12 (12C1). The two other options for White are 14.Re1 (13B1) and 14.Qd2 (13B2).
(13B1) 14.Re1
158
14...Rfe8
Black continues his development. This is Black’s standard reply, but White’s next move will leave
Black with a two-knights vs. two-bishops disadvantage and a difficult challenge keeping control of
the center.
Perhaps better is 14...Bh5. The bishop begins a two-step journey to g6 to oppose White’s strong
lightsquare bishop. Black is developed sufficiently to withstand the loss of time. This move is feasible
because White’s 14.Re1 does not remove the pin on his knight. The knight will not be able to move to
f4 so that it can capture the bishop after it occupies g6. White avoids this drawback in the (13B2)
14.Qd2 variation.
After 14...Bh5, there follows 15.Qd2 Bg6 16.Rad1 Rfe8 (16...Rad8 is too defensive, Klundt- Heining,
Stuttgart 2001, 17.Ng3, putting the knight on a comfortable square, 17...h6 18.Bh4 Rfe8 19.Nf5²)
17.c3 (17.Ng3 Rxe1+ 18.Rxe1 Bxd3 19.Qxd3 Re8 20.Rxe8+ Nxe8²/=) 17...dxc3 18.Qxc3 Rad8²/=.
White’s advantage is minimal.
15.Qd2 Bxe2
15...Rad8?! 16.Ng3 (a good square for the knight) 16...Ne5 17.h3², Morovic Fernandez-Van
Riemsdijk, Corrientes 1985;
15...Bh5?! (too late) 16.Qf4 Qxf4 17.Nxf4 Bg6 18.Nxg6 hxg6², Kamsky-Ripari, Gibraltar 2016.
16.Bf4
16.Rxe2 Rxe2 17.Qxe2 Re8 18.Qd2 Ne5 19.Bf4 (19.Qf4 Re6=, Yarmolenko-Koshevoy, Moscow
2011) 19...Qb6 20.Bxe5 Rxe5 21.Qb4 Nd5²/=. White has a bishop vs. knight advantage.
159
16...Qd7
Black’s other choices are:

(1) 16...Qc5 17.b4 Qd5 18.Bxe2 Ne4 19.Bf3 f5 (19...Qf5?? 20.Bxe4 Rxe4 21.Rxe4 Qxe4 22.b5 Na5
23.Re1 Qf5 24.Qxa5 Qxf4 25.Qxa7+–) 20.Qd3 a5 21.g4 g6 22.gxf5 gxf5 23.c4², Karasova- Demian,
Slovakia, corr 2011. Black’s defense will be difficult.
(2) 16...Qd5 17.Bxe2 Ne4 18.Qd3 (18.Bf3 Qf5 19.Qd3 Qxf4 20.Rxe4 Rxe4²/=, Motylev-Zhang,
Wuxi 2008) 18...Nc5 19.Qc4 Qf5 20.Bg3², Tiviakov-Halkias, Amsterdam 2006. White has two
bishops vs. two knights and pressure on Black’s queenside.
17.Rxe2
17.Bxe2 Ne4 18.Qd3 Nc5 (18...Qf5 19.g3², threatening 20.Bf3, Korneev-Lenic, Nova Gorica 2006)
19.Qb5 Re4 20.Qxc5 Rxf4 21.Bd3 Rf6 22.Re2²/=, Pagerka-Federic, Slovakia 2010. White has bishop
vs. knight.
17...Rxe2 18.Qxe2 Re8 19.Qf1 Qe6 20.h3 h6 21.Rd1 Nd5
21...Ne5?! 22.Bb5 Nc6 23.Qc4².

21...Re7 22.Rd2 Ne5 23.Re2 Qd5 24.Bxe5 Rxe5 25.Rxe5 Qxe5 26.Qe2 Qxe2 27.Bxe2². In this
ending, c6 is a better square for a knight than f6.
22.Bg3 Nf6 23.Rd2
Intending 24.Re2.
23.Bf4 Nd5 24.Bd2?! (24.Bg3 Nf6 25.Rd2 transposes to the main line position that was reached after
23.Rd2 above.) 24...Ne3! 25.fxe3 dxe3=, Kasparov-Grischuk, Cannes, rapid 2001.
23....Qa2
Black cannot stop White’s challenge on the e-file, so he attempts counterplay.
24.Qc1 Qd5
Intending 25...Ne4.
25.c4²
White has two-bishops vs. twoknights and play on the queenside.
(13B2) 14.Qd2 Bxe2
160
With Black’s bishop having expended its usefulness, and with White’s knight now free to move,
Black gives up his bishop for the knight to gain time.
14...Rfe8 15.Rfe1² transposes to the 14...Rfe8 15.Qd2 sideline of the 13B1 variation above.
15.Bf4
White wants to discourage Black’s knight from moving to e5. 15.Qxe2?! will give Black a time
advantage sufficient to fully compensate for White’s twobishops advantage: 15...Rfe8 16.Qf3
(16.Qd2 Ne4=) 16...Ne5 17.Qg3 Nh5 18.Qh3 Nxd3 19.Qxd3 h6=, Petrukhin-Raetsky, Sochi 2007.
15...Qd8
A surprising move, but a good one. The square d8 gives the queen access to f6 and b6.
Alternatives:
(1) 15...Qd5 16.Bxe2
161
Black now has three options, none of which show a path to equality:
(1a) 16...Ne5 17.Rad1 Rad8 18.Rfe1 Ng6 19.Bg3 Ne4 20.Qb4 Nxg3 21.hxg3², Erenburg-Van
Riemsdijk, Vlissingen 2006. White has pressure on Black’s center.
(1b) 16...Rfe8 17.Rfe1 Ne4² transposes to the (2) 16...Qd5 17.Bxe2 Ne4 sideline to the mainline
move 16...Qd7 in the 13B1 variation above.
(1c) 16...Ne4 17.Qd3 Nc5 (17...Ne5, Bologan-Tregubov, Sochi 2015, 18.Qb5², forcing a favorable
trade of queens) 18.Qf3 (The queen’s presence on f3 is effective here, because a trade of queens will
leave White’s bishops well placed.) 18...Qxf3 19.Bxf3². White has two well-placed bishops versus
two knights.
(2) 15...Qd7 16.Bxe2 Ne4 (16...Rfe8 17.Rfe1²/= transposes to the 17.Bxe2 sideline after 16...Qd7 in
the 14.Re1 variation, 13B1.) 17.Qd3 Nc5 18.Qc4 Rfe8 19.Rfe1
162
19...Re4 (19...Qf5 20.Bg3² transposes to the (2) 16...Qd5 17.Bxe2 Ne4 sideline to the mainline move
16...Qd7 in the 13B1 variation above) 20.Qxc5²/=. The position has transposed to the position after
20.Bg3² in the (2) 16...Qd5 17.Bxe2 Ne4 sideline to the main-line move 16...Qd7 in the 13B1
variation above.
16.Bxe2
16...Re8
16...Ne4 17.Qd3 Nc5 (17...Re8 18.Rae1 Qf6 19.Bc1²) 18.Qf5². White has the two bishops and
163
active play.
17.Rfe1
17.Bf3 Qb6 18.b4 a5²/=
17...Ne4 18.Qd3 Qf6
19.Qf3
19.Bf3 Qxf4 20.Rxe4 (20.Be4 g6²/=, Vujakovic-Enchev, Zagreb 2018. White has a bishop versus
knight advantage.) 20...Rxe4 21.Qxe4 Qf6=. Black preserves his queen, with a comfortable position
(not 21...Qxe4?², Ladopoulos- Prince, Kavala 2018).
19...g5²/= White has the two bishops. Black controls the center.
164
Chapter 2
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Nxc6
The 6.Nxc6 variation has been popular since the 1970s. Its rise is indirectly tied to the rise in
popularity of the Sveshnikov. Many players of White who had formerly preferred 6.Ndb5 switched to
6.Nxc6 to avoid the transposition to the Sveshnikov Variation that occurs after 6.Ndb5 d6.
The positions that arise from the 6.Nxc6 variation are different from those in other variations of the
Sicilian Four Knights. After 6.Nxc6 bxc6, White usually follows with the aggressive 7.e5, creating a
hole on d6. This cramps Black, but White’s aggressive play creates weakness behind his lines.
The main line is 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.e5 Nd5 8.Ne4
Qc7 9.f4 Qb6 10.c4.
165
White has a grip on d6. Black controls the g1-a7 diagonal. This position is examined in Sections 8
and 9 of this chapter. The lines leading up to it are covered in Sections 1 through 7:
Section 1: 7.Bd3 (p. 108); Section 2: 8.Nxd5 (p. 113); Section 3: 8...f5 (p. 116); Section 4: 8...Bb7 (p.
118); Section 5: 8...Qa5+ (p. 123); Section 6: 9.f4 Sidelines (p. 130); Section 7: 9...Qa5+ (p. 134);
Section 8: 10...Ne3 (p. 141); and Section 9: 10...Bb4+ (p. 148).
Overview
6...bxc6
If instead 6...dxc6, there follows 7.Qxd8+ Kxd8. White then has the pleasant choice of either 8.e5,
hemming in Black’s light-square bishop, or 8.Bf4, taking advantage of Black’s awkward king
placement:
(1) 8.e5 Nd5 9.Ne4 Kc7 10.Bd2², Olofsson-Copar, corr 2012.
(2) 8.Bf4 Bb4 9.0-0-0+ Ke7 10.f3 Rd8 11.Be2, J.Polgar-Amura, Czech Republic 2002, 11...b6².
Either of the above is better than the more commonly played 8.Bg5?!, which allows Black’s king to
find a haven after 8...Bd6 (8...Be7?! 9.0-0-0+ Kc7?! 10.Bf4±; 8...e5 9.Bc4²/=, Donner-Penrose,
Amsterdam 1954) 9.0-0-0 Kc7=, Inkiov-Manolov, Bulgaria 1976.
6...bxc6 7.e5
This aggressive forward advance creates a hole on d6 and inhibits ...d5. Less challenging for Black is
7.Bd3 (Section 1), after which Black can equalize easily with either 7...e5 or the more popular 7...d5,
which gives Black a strong center.
Occasionally seen is 7.Bg5, which will usually transpose to another line. A good reply is 7...h6, when
White’s usual reply is 8.Bh4? (7.Bf4=), taking the bishop out of play. Black then has 8...Rb8,
166
followed by 9...Qa5µ.
7...Nd5 8.Ne4
The alternative, 8.Nxd5 (8.Bd3? Nxc3 9.bxc3 Qa5³, Batista-Van Riemskijk, Paulisto 2000) 8...cxd5
(Section 2), is weaker because Black’s recapture on d5 strengthens his center and ends his problem
with the d6-square.
After 8.Ne4, White has control over d6. His c-pawn is ready to move to c4, attacking Black’s knight.
Black’s preferred response is to use his queen to force White to weaken the g1-b8 diagonal. This
takes two moves. First is moving the queen to c7, attacking White’s e-pawn. This forces White to
play f4 to defend the pawn. By doing so, White weakens the g1-a7 diagonal. Next, Black will move
the queen again, to b6, seizing control of the newly weakened diagonal and preventing White from
castling.
8...Qc7
167
Black attacks White’s e-pawn. White is essentially forced to play 9.f4.
Alternatives to 8...Qc7 are:
(1) 8...f5 (Section 3) allows White to sink his knight effectively on d6 after 9.exf6 Nxf6 10.Nd6;
(2) 8...Bb7 (Section 4) was popular for a few years, but has fallen out of favor;
(3) 8...Qa5+ (Section 5) was highlighted by Raetsky in his book in 2002. It forces White to defend
the check with either 9.Bd2 or 9.c3. It is doubtful whether either of these interpolations improves
Black’s prospects; or
(4) Minor alternatives:
(4a) 8...Ba6 9.c4 (9.Bxa6 Qa5+ 10.Bd2 Qxa6 11.b3², intending 12.c4, Pavasovic-Lalic, Sibenik
2007) 9...Bb4+ 10.Bd2 Qh4 (10...f5?? 11.Bxb4 Nxb4 12.Nd6+, followed by 13.a3, winning the
knight) and now:
(4a1) 11.g4!? Ne3 12.Qc1! (12.Qa4? Bxd2+ 13.Kxd2 Nxg4=, J.Polgar-San Segundo Carrillo,
Madrid 1995) 12...Bxd2+ 13.Qxd2 Nxg4 14.Qf4±, pinning the knight. White dominates the board;
and
(4a2) 11.Qf3 f5 (11...Bxd2+ 12.Kxd2±) 12.exf6 Bxd2+ 13.Nxd2 Nxf6 14.Qa3², Narciso Dublan-
Almasi, Budapest 2001. Black cannot castle;
(4b) 8...Be7 (passive) 9.c4 Nb4 (9...Nb6?! 10.Nd6+ Bxd6 11.Qxd6±, Tate-Lushnikov, Pardubice
2017; 9...f5? 10.cxd5 fxe4 11.d6±) 10.Bd2 c5 11.a3 Nc6 12.Bc3 0-0 13.Bd3 Bb7 14.0-0±,
Banshchilov-Mostowik, corr 2013. White has opportunities on both sides of the board. If 14...Rc8,
then 15.Qh5 h6 16.Nf6!± or 14...Nd4 15.b4±;
(4c) 8...Qb6 9.a3!². This modest move is surprisingly strong in this position. White deprives Black of
use of the b4-square by either his knight or his bishop. He now threatens 10.c4, when Black cannot
168
play ...Ne3, as he could in the 8...Qc7 variation, because White’s pawn is still on f2;
(4d) 8...c5 9.c4 (9.Be2 Bb7 transposes to the 8...Bb7 variation, Section 4, 4B) 9...Nb4 10.g3 (10.a3
Bb7=) 10...Qc7 11.Bg2 Bb7 12.0-0 Nc6 13.f4², J.Geller-Krapivin, Moscow 2012.
9.f4
Virtually forced.
This allows Black, either now or on the next move, to prevent White from castling by occupying the
weakened g1-a7 diagonal with the queen.
9...Qb6
Black occupies the weakened diagonal.

A key position has been reached.
Considerations for Black:
• Black’s king is safe in the center.
• Black will try to unclog his queenside with ...c5 and ...Bb7.
• Black will look to dislodge Black’s knight with ...f5.
• Black’s ...f5 advance will drive White’s knight from e4. The knight can retreat to f2 or check on
d6, but more often than not, White first takes the f-pawn with exf6. This is usually followed with an
exchange of knights on f6, after which an evaluation of the position can depend on how Black is
able to recapture the knight. If Black’s bishop is not on e7, he will have to recapture with his
gpawn. This opens up his kingside and, if the queens are still on the board, White often can play
Qh5+, taking advantage of Black’s newly exposed king.
169
Considerations for White:
• White will keep a grip on d6.
• White will try to drive Black’s knight away with c4.
• Sitting on c1, White’s queen bishop guards both b2 and the weak square e3. Often it remains on
c1 well into the middle game.
• White will develop patiently, so that he has a strong position when Black breaks in the center.
Black’s main alternative to 9...Qb6 is 9...Qa5+ (Section 7). This check, as does Black’s eighth-move
option 8...Qa5+, forces White to defend with either Bd2 or c3.
Black has several minor ninth-move alternatives, the main ones being 9...f5 and 9...Rb8. They are
covered in Section 6.
10.c4
This is White’s most popular move. It was introduced by Jan Timman (Timman-Ligterink,
Amsterdam 1979), who realized that after 10...Bb4+ 11.Ke2 (virtually forced) White’s position is
better than it looks.
The main alternative, 10.Bd3, is less difficult for Black because it gives him time to play an
intermediate move that would blunt any attack on his knight. After 10.Bd3:
(1) 10...Ba6 (Black uses the potential gain of a tempo, granted by the movement of White’s bishop to
d3, to trade his queen bishop for the bishop on d3. This line is not sufficient for full equality with best
play by White.) 11.Bxa6 (11.c4? Qd4µ) 11...Qxa6 12.Qe2 Qxe2+ 13.Kxe2 f5 14.Nf2²/=, Van der
Wiel-Porat, Leiden 2010. This position is almost identical to a position reached after 14.Nf2 in a
main line of the 9...Qa5+ variation, Section 7 (7A1). The difference is that there the c-pawn is on c3,
where it is better placed because it keeps Black’s knight out of b4.
170
(2) 10...Be7 (White, by not having played c4 immediately, has given Black time to put his bishop on
e7. This will allow Black to respond with ...f5 under more favorable conditions when White plays c4.
Black can use the bishop instead of his g-pawn to recapture after trades on f6, and thereby avoid
exposing his king.) 11.Qe2 (11.c4 f5 12.exf6 Nxf6=, J.Ye-Ivanchuk, Manila 1992) 11...f5 12.exf6
Nxf6 13.Nxf6+ Bxf6 14.Rb1 (14.c3 Rb8=, Dembo-Horvath, Budapest 2003) 14...Rb8 15.Be3 Bd4
16.Bxd4 Qxd4 17.Qe5 Rb4=, Gantar-Zupec, corr 2007. Black has equalized.
10...Bb4+
Black forces 11.Ke2 (Section 9), blocking White’s light-square bishop.
An alternative is 10...Ne3 (Section 8), taking immediate advantage of White’s weakened g1-a7
diagonal.
11.Ke2 f5
171
White’s options now are 12.Nf2 or 12.exf6. See Section 9.
Section 1: 7.Bd3
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.Bd3
7.Bd3 avoids the more complex positions of the 6.Nxc6 variation. It is a popular move, but after
either of Black’s two main replies, 7...e5 or 7...d5, it is difficult for White to achieve more than
equality:
(1A) 7...e5= and (1B) 7...d5=
Other moves transpose to other variations:
172
(1) 7...Qc7 transposes to the Taimanov Variation;
(2) 7...d6 transposes to the Scheveningen Variation;
(3) 7...Bb4?! transposes to an inferior line of the Sicilian Pin Variation that is reached after (to the
line)1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Bd3 Nc6?! 7.Nxc6 bxc6. White’s best
reply is 8.e5!. Black suffers a hole on d6, similar to the hole created in the main lines of the 6.Nxc6
variation, but without the compensation of preventing White from castling. White is much better after
8...Nd5 9.Qg4! g6 (9...0-0 10.Bh6 g6 11.0-0±, Réti- Schlechter, Vienna 1915) 10.0-0±, Showalter-
Brody, Paris 1900;
(4) 7...Be7 and now:
(4a) 8.e5 Nd5 9.Ne4 Qc7 10.f4 (10.c4 Qxe5³) 10...Qb6= transposes to the 10.Bd3 Be7 sideline
discussed in the introduction to Chapter 2;
(4b) 8.0-0 d5 (8...0-0?! 9.e5²) transposes to the main line of (1B) below.
(1A) 7...e5
This is an alternative to Black’s more natural reply, 7...d5 (1B). Black intends ...Be7 and ...d6.
8.0-0 Be7
8...d6 (8...Bc5?! 9.Na4 Be7 10.c4 d6, Paveto-Ruperez, Buenos Aires 2015, 11.Qe2²) 9.Kh1 Be7
10.f4 transposes to the main line.
9.f4
9.Kh1 d6 10.f4 transposes.
173
9...d6 10.Kh1
10.fxe5 Ng4 (10...dxe5?!²/=, Calzetta Ruiz-Voicu Jagodzinsky, Khanty-Mansiysk 2010, isolates

Black’s c-pawn) 11.exd6 Bxd6 12.e5 (giving back the pawn) 12...Bxe5=.
10...0-0
11.Qf3
White’s main alternative is 11.fxe5 (11.f5 d5=) and now (11.fxe5):

(1) 11...dxe5 (the usual reply) 12.Be3 Be6 13.Qe1 Qc7 14.b3 Rad8 15.Na4 c5 16.Nb2²/=, Predke-
Maleev, Dagomys 2009. Black’s play will be more difficult because of his isolated c-pawn; or
(2) 11...Ng4! 12.exd6 Bxd6 13.h3 Qh4 14.e5 (14.Qe1?! Bg3³) 14...Bc7 (with ...Nxe5 to follow).
Both sides have free piece play.
11...Rb8 12.b3 exf4 13.Bxf4 Ng4 Panocki-Grabarczyk, Kochan 2009.
14.Rad1 Bf6 15.Ne2 Be5= After a trade of bishops, Black’s knight will find comfortable lodging on
e5.
(1B) 7...d5
174
This is the main move. The two most popular replies for White are 8.exd5 (1B1) and 8.0-0 (1B2).
Also seen is 8.e5 Nd7 9.f4.
With his strong center, Black can easily equalize:

(1) 9...Be7 10.0-0 Nc5 (10...0-0= transposes to the position after 10...Nd7 in the (4) 9.f4 sideline in
1B2 below) 11.Be2 Rb8, Smolkina- Hager, Dresden 2009, 12.Kh1 0-0 13.b3 f5³/=. Black dashes any
hope White may have had for an attack.
(2) 9...Nc5 10.Be2 (10.0-0 Be7=) 10...Qb6=, Appeldorn-Schwenger, corr 2003, occupying the open
g1-a7 diagonal.
175
(1B1) 8.exd5 cxd5
Black’s strong center and semi-open files on the queenside give him good long-term prospects.
8...exd5 arrives at a benign pawn structure often seen in the Scotch Game: 9.0-0 Bd6 10.Re1+ Be6=,
Ricaurte Lopez-Munoz Sanchez, Salinas 2005.
9.0-0
White will try to prevent Black from expanding in the center.
9...Bd6
9...Be7 10.Bf4 0-0 11.Qf3 Bb7 12.Rad1=, Kies-Klundt, St. Vincent 2002. White has kept the center
under control.
10.Bg5 0-0 11.Nb5 Bb8
11...Be7 12.Re1=, Inozemtsev- Ajrapetian, Dagomys 2004. White has deterred Black from expanding
in the center.
12.Re1 h6
12...e5?! (Black is not ready to advance in the center.) 13.c4!².
13.Bh4 Bd7 14.Nd4 e5 15.Nb3 Be6³/= Black controls the center.
(1B2) 8.0-0
176
The position after 8.0-0 is occasionally also reached when White plays Bd3 on the fifth move: (to the
line)1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Bd3 Nc6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.0-0 d5 8.Nc3.
8...Be7
The alternative 8...Bb4 reaches a position from the Sicilian Pin Variation after 5...Bb4 6.Bd3 Nc6
7.Nxc6 bxc6 8.0-0 d5. The game usually continues 9.e5 Nd7 10.Qg4 Bf8=, and Black will follow
with ...g6 and ...Bg7.
After 8...Be7, a key position arises. White has a surprisingly large variety of choices.
9.Re1
White has a great many other choices:

(1) 9.Kh1?! (a loss of time) 9...0-0 10.f4 Nd7³/=, Tan-Rossolimo, Skopje 1972, intending ...Nc5.
(2) 9.exd5 cxd5= transposes to the 9...Be7 sideline of the 8.exd5 line above (1B1).
(3) 9.Bg5 Nxe4 10.Bxe7 Nxc3 11.Qg4 Kxe7 12.bxc3 g6=, Horner- Pritchett, London 1975. Black’s
position is solid.
(4) 9.f4 0-0 (9...Ba6 10.Qe2 Bxd3 11.cxd3 0-0=, Ahues-Kmoch, Kecskemet 1927) 10.e5 Nd7
177
This position suggests prospects for a kingside attack. But owing to the strength of Black’s center, an
attack rarely works:
(4a) 11.Qh5?! f5³, Mason-Olland, Hannover 1902;
(4b) 11.Rf3?! f5³, Reindl-Beyer, Wuerttemberg 2017;
(4c) 11.g4?! c5 12.g5 g6³ (not 12...Bb7?? 13.Bxh7+ Kxh7 14.Qh5+ Kg8 15.Rf3+–, Horvath- Donko,
Hungary 1999). White is overextended;
(4d) 11.Bxh7+? Kxh7 12.Qh5+ Kg8 13.Rf3 Qb6+ (providing an escape square on d8 for the king;
13...f5 14.Rh3 Bc5+ 15.Kh1 Nb6=, Lychik-Abramov, St. Petersburg 2003) 14.Kh1 f6 15.Rh3 fxe5
16.Qh7+ Kf7 17.Qh5+ g6–+, and Black’s king will escape;
(4e) 11.Be3 f5 12.exf6 Bxf6=;
(5) 9.Bf4 0-0 10.Qf3 Nd7=, Lisitsin-Chernikov, Leningrad 1939, intending ...e5 and d4;
(6) 9.Qf3 0-0 10.Re1 and now:
178
(6a) 10...d4?! (playing into White’s hands) 11.e5 dxc3 (11...Nd5 12.Qh3 g6 13.Ne4± strengthens the
knight) 12.exf6 Bxf6 13.b3 (13.bxc3 Qa5! 14.Qxc6 Bd7!, Gholami-Braun, Riga 2017, 15.Qe4 g6
16.Bd2 Rac8=) 13...Bb7 14.Be4²/=. After 15.Be3 and 16.Rad1, White has more play;
(6b) 10...Re8 11.Bf4 Qb6 12.e5 Nd7 13.Na4 Qa5 14.b3 Ba6= (with equal chances after the bishops
are traded; 15.c4? dxc4 16.Be4, Saric- Kuljasevic, Rabac 2004, 16...Rac8³).
(7) 9.b3 0-0 10.Bb2 e5 11.Qe2 Bd6 12.Rad1 d4=, Escobar Forero- Trujillo Villega, San Cristobal,
Bolivar 2012). Black effectively counters White’s fianchetto;
(8) 9.e5 Nd7 10.Qg4 (10.f4 0-0 transposes to (4) above, and 10.Re1 0-0 transposes to the main line
below after 10.e5 Nd7) 10...g6 (10...Nxe5 11.Qxg7 Bf6 12.Qh6=, Chigaev-Ganichev, St. Petersburg,
rapid 2014) 11.Re1 Qc7=. The game has transposed to a line that more often arises from the
Taimanov Variation: 12.Bh6 Nxe5, Nunez-Vasquez Schroder, Andorra 1991, 13.Qh3 Nxd3 14.cxd3
Rg8 15.Bd2 h5=. White’s better development and safer king position provide reasonable
compensation for his sacrificed pawn; and
(9) 9.Qe2 0-0 10.b3 Nd7 11.Na4 (11.Bb2 Nc5³/=, Kholmov- Dolmatov, Daugavpils 1978) 11...Nb6
12.Nxb6 axb6 13.Bb2 Ba3=, Rochev-Nunn, Ireland 2000. The game is even.
Returning to the main line, after 9.Re1:
9...0-0
9...d4?! 10.e5! (10.Ne2 e5= leaves White without a clear plan) 10...dxc3 11.exf6 Bxf6 12.b3 0-0,
Korkmaz-Cansun, Ankara 2017, 13.Qf3 Bb7 14.Be4²/=, reaching the same position as in (6a) above.
10.e5
10.Qf3= transposes to the (6) 9.Qf3 line above.
179
10...Nd7
11.Bf4
Attacks with the Queen are stopped by 11...f5:

(1) 11.Qh5?! f5³, Yanofsky-Foltys, Karlovy Vary 1948.
(2) 11.Qg4?! f5 12.Qg3 Nc5 13.Be2³/=, Mishnaevsky-Iaselli, corr 2000.
11...g6
Prudent defense. Alternatives:

(1) 11...Nc5?!, Sartori-Sheppard, corr 2012, 12.Bxh7+! Kxh7 13.Qh5+ Kg8 14.Re3 f5 15.Rh3², with
an attack.
(2) 11...f5 12.exf6 Nxf6 (12...Bxf6=) 13.Be5 Bd6 14.f4, Torras Palau-Ayas Fernandez, Vilagarcia
2000, 14...g6 15.Qe2 Qe7=. Black is safe on the kingside and has play on the queenside.
12.Qd2 Rb8 13.Rab1= Larusson-Finnlaugsson, Iceland 2015. Play shifts to the queenside.
Section 2: 8.Nxd5
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.e5 Nd5 8.Nxd5
180
White gives Black a solid pawn center. Black can equalize easily.
8...cxd5
8...exd5?! 9.Bd3 d6 10.Bf4 dxe5 (10...Be7 11.0-0 0-0 12.Re1 Be6²/=, Carton-Mukic, Frankfurt 1988.
White’s pieces are more active.) 11.Bxe5 Bd6 12.Bxg7 Rg8, Trystman-Berman, New York 2009,
13.Bd4 Rxg2 14.Qh5²/=. White controls more space.
9.Bd3 Qc7
The main alternatives are 9...d6 and 9...Be7:
181
(1) 9...d6 10.Bf4 and now:
(a) 10...Be7 11.Qg4 g6 12.exd6 Bxd6 13.Bb5+ Kf8 14.Bh6+ Kg8 15.0-0²/=, Cunningham-Barbalic,
corr 2018. Black’s rook is shut in; and
(b) 10...dxe5 11.Bxe5 f6= limits White’s activity (not 11...Bd6 12.Bxg7 Rg8 13.Bc3 Rxg2², Larsen-
Fries Nielsen, Denmark 1989).
(2) 9...Ba6 10.0-0 Bxd3 11.Qxd3 Qc7 12.Re1=, Campora-Illescas Cordoba, Buenos Aires 1993.
After 9...Qc7 Black has a good reply no matter how White defends his e-pawn. Interesting play
evolves.
10.Qe2
This is better than 10.Bf4 (not 10.f4? Bc5³, Jovanovic-Saric, Otocac 2010, and White cannot castle)
10.Bf4 Rb8!
White is left with a poor selection of options:

(2a) 11.Rb1?! Rxb2 (winning a pawn) 12.Rxb2 Qc3+ 13.Ke2 Qxb2 14.Qa1 (14.Qb1 Qb6³, Marshall-
Mieses, Monte Carlo 1903) 14...Qxa1 15.Rxa1 Bc5³;
(2b) 11.Qc1 Bc5! (winning a pawn) 12.0-0 (12.c3 Qb6³) 12...Bd4³, Urban-Kuzmin, Alushta Pobeda
2003; and
(2c) 11.0-0 (giving up the b-pawn but gaining a lead in development) 11...Rxb2 12.Re1³/=,
Fedorchuk- Hasangatin, Chrudim 2003.
10...Bb4+ 11.Kf1
Unpleasant, but better than the alternatives:
182
(1) 11.c3?? Bxc3+–+; and
(2) 11.Bd2?! Bxd2+ 12.Kxd2³, Damjanovic-Fercec, Croatia 1996.
After 11.Kf1, White is still in the game. He will play h4 at some point and look for an attacking
opportunity on the kingside. Meanwhile, Black has play on the semi-open files on the queenside and
can challenge Black’s center with ...d6 and/or ...f6.
11...Rb8
Alternatives:
(1) 11...0-0 12.Bg5 (12.Qh5 g6 13.Qh4=, Puc-Trifunovic, Ljubljana 1947) 12...Re8 13.h4 Bf8 14.Rh3
d6=, countering White’s kingside attack with action in the center; and
(2) 11...Bc5 12.Bf4 Rb8 transposes to the main line.
With 11...Rb8! Black has set a trap.
12.Bf4
12.h4?? (falling into it) 12...Bc3! 13.bxc3 (13.Rb1 Bxe5µ) 13...Qxc3µ, Rigo-Horvath, Budapest
1990.
12...Bc5
Attacking the b-pawn.

12...Be7 13.b3=, Cappello-Pinter, Rome 1975.
13.c3
183
The alternative is 13.b3 0-0 14.h4 f6 15.Qh5 f5 and now
(1) 16.Qe2
16...Rb4! (a move not possible in the main line, where White plays 13.c3 instead of 13.b3),
Shabanov- Filippov, Elista 1996, 17.Qd2 (17.Bd2? Re4!µ 18.Bxe4? fxe4–+) 17...Bd4=; and
(2) 16.Rh3 Rb4 17.Qg5 d6=. Black counters in the center and brings the queen into the defense.
13...0-0 14.h4 f6 15.Qh5 f5 16.Qe2
Reaching a position similar to the one shown in the diagram above, the difference being that there
White’s queenside pawns are on a2, b3, and c2. Here they are on a2, b2, and c3.
16...a5 17.Rh3 a4= Both sides have chances.
Section 3: 8...f5
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.e5 Nd5 8.Ne4 f5
184
Black immediately attacks White’s knight. This was Black’s main reply to 8.Ne4 until the late 1970s,
when the improvement 8...Qc7 was discovered.
9.exf6
9.Nd6+ Bxd6 10.exd6 0-0 11.c4 Nf6 12.Be2 Qa5+ 13.Qd2 Qxd2+ 14.Bxd2², Mariano-Nascimento,
Brasilia 2010. White has the two bishops and more space.
9...Nxf6 10.Nd6+
10.Nxf6+ Qxf6=
10...Bxd6 11.Qxd6
185
Black’s main choices now are: (3A) 11...Qb6² and (3B) 11...Ba6²
Weaker is 11...Qe7 (11...Qa5+ 12.Bd2 Qd5 13.Bb4 Qxd6 14.Bxd6 transposes) 11...Qe7 12.Bf4
Qxd6 (12...Ne4 13.Qxe7+ Kxe7±, Michel-Guimard, Mar del Plata 1942. White has the two bishops
and Black’s lone bishop will require time to develop.) 13.Bxd6 Ne4 14.Ba3 d5 15.c4 Kf7 16.Bd3
Nf6 17.cxd5±, Tolstik-Lysovsky, corr 2016. No matter which way Black recaptures, White has the
two bishops, better pawns, and better development.
(3A) 11...Qb6
Black threatens 12...Qxf2+.
12.Bd3
186
12...c5
12...Ba6 13.Be3 Qa5+ (13...Qxb2?! 14.Bd4 Qb7 15.c4 (intending 16.Rb1) 15...Qb8 16.Qa3 Qf4
17.Rd1 Bb7 18.Qb2±, Krnan- Langner, Tatranske Zruby 2016, with a dominating position) 14.b4
Qa3 15.Rd1², Kuncar-Loubal, Czech Republic 2011. White controls the d-file and a3-f8 diagonal,
and Black cannot castle.
13.Bf4 Bb7 14.0-0 Rc8 15.c4 Qxd6
15...Rc6?! 16.Qe5 0-0 17.Rad1 Qd8 18.f3 Qe8 19.Bc2±, Zhang- Antonio, Kolkata 2001. White has
the two bishops and strong pressure on Black’s center pawns.
16.Bxd6 Rc6 17.Be5 d6 18.Bc3 Kf7² Illescas Cordoba- Cifuentes Parada, Seville 2004. White has
the two bishops and will have play against Black’s central pawns.
(3B) 11...Ba6
187
Here White has a choice. 12.c4 (3B1) will create tactics after 12...Qb6 13.Bd3 Bxc4. The alternative
is 12.Bxa6 (3B2), which is a quieter continuation.
(3B1) 12.c4 Qb6
Threatening 13...Qxf2+.
13.Bd3 Bxc4
13...c5 14.Qe5 0-0 (14...d5 15.0-0 Bxc4 16.Bxc4 dxc4 17.Qe2². Black’s pawns are scattered.) 15.0-
0², Manik-Svobodova, Lazne Bohdanec 1997. Black’s center pawns are weak.
14.Bxc4
14.0-0? (letting Black keep the pawn) 14...Bxd3 15.Qxd3 0-0µ, Furhoff-Limp, Rio de Janeiro 1999.
14...Ne4 15.Qa3
15.Qd3? Qxf2+ 16.Kd1, Kettner- B.Stein, Karlsruhe 1988, 16...d5 17.Bb3 0-0µ. White has a piece
for two pawns, but Black has a dominating position.
15...Qxf2+ 16.Kd1 Qd4+
16...Qxg2 17.Rf1 Qxh2 18.Be3². White’s two well-placed bishops are stronger than Black’s knight
and four pawns.
17.Bd3 Rb8
188
17...Nf2+ 18.Kc2, Bukal-B.Stein, Dortmund 1993 (18.Ke2? Nxh1 19.Be3 Qd5³, Adorjan-Quinteros,
Amsterdam 1977), 18...Nxh1 19.Be3! Qd5 20.Rf1!², followed by 21.Kb1. White has improved his
king’s position and his pieces sweep the board.
18.Re1 Nc5 19.Re3² White will follow with 20.Qc3. Black’s initiative does not fully compensate for
White’s material advantage of a piece for two pawns.
(3B2) 12.Bxa6 Qa5+ 13.Bd2 Qxa6 14.f3
14.Bb4 0-0-0 15.0-0-0 Qxa2 16.Rhe1 Nd5 17.Rd3², Khalifman- Yakovich, Novokuznetsk 2008.
Black has a pawn, but his king is more vulnerable than White’s.
14...Kf7
14...Rf8 15.a3² (preparing queenside castling).
15.a3² Grigoryev-Soltau, corr 2009. White has the bishop and better pawns. He will complete his
development by castling queenside.
(back to the text)

Sicilian Pin Variation that is reached after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6
5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Bd3 Nc6?! 7.Nxc6 bxc6.
(back to the text)
The position after 8.0-0 is occasionally also reached when White plays Bd3 on the fifth
move: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Bd3 Nc6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.0-0 d5 8.Nc3.
189
Section 4: 8...Bb7
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.e5 Nd5 8.Ne4 Bb7
This move was tested by some of the world’s best players for a few years starting in the late 1990s.
Black intends rapid development of his queenside. One of the ideas is that after 9.c4, Black can play
9...Nb4, an option he does not have in the 8...Qc7 variations. But the problem for Black is that
instead of 9.c4, White can play 9.Be2. This allows White to castle, which he cannot do in the 8...Qc7
variations. Now:
(4A) 9.c4²/= and (4B) 9.Be2²
Seldom seen is 9.Bd3 Qc7 10.f4 Nb4 11.Be2 c5 12.Bf3 c4²/=, Stojanovic-Vukic, Tuzla 2019,
allowing the knight a base on d5.
(4A) 9.c4 Nb4
190
The move 9...Nb4 works here because if 10.a3, Black has 10...Qa5, with double threats of 11...Nc2+
and 11...Qxe5. In the variation 8...Qc7 9.f4 Qb6 10.c4, the move ...Nb4 is not available to Black,
because White’s e-pawn is protected by a pawn on f4. Thus, 8...Qc7 9.f4 Qb6 10.c4 Nb4? 11.a3!
Qa5?? 12.Bd2, and now 12...Qxe5 is not possible.
10.c5
White reinforces his grip on d6, but Black’s knight gains a post on d5.
10.Bd2 (10.a3 Qa5 11.Nc3 Qxe5+ 12.Be2 Na6 13.0-0=) allows 10.Bd2 c5, and after 11.Bxb4 cxb4
12.Nd6+ Bxd6 13.Qxd6 Qb6=, Maurizzi-Fedorchuk, Paris 2019, followed by 14...Qxd6, the
endgame is equal.
10...Qb8
191
Best. The queen attacks the e-pawn, has play on the b-file, and will not be attacked after a pawn
capture on d6.
Alternatives:
(1) 10...Ba6 11.Bxa6 Nxa6 12.Qd4 Be7 13.0-0 0-0 14.Bd2², H.Wang- P.Zhang, Tiayuan 2005. Black
has traded off his bad bishop, but loses two tempos, one to trade the bishop and the other the extra
move Black’s knight will now need to access d5;
(2) 10...Nd5 11.Bg5! (11.Qd4 Ba6 12.Bxa6 Qa5+ 13.Bd2 Qxa6=, Brkic-Safarli, Belfort 2005, and
White cannot castle) 11...Qa5+ (11...Qc7 12.Qd4± Ba6? 13.Nd6+ Bxd6 14.exd6 Qb7 15.Qxg7+–)
12.Bd2 Qc7 (Black will have to move the queen again after a pawn recapture on d6.) 13.f4².
11.f4
11.Nd6+ Bxd6 12.cxd6 (12.exd6 Ba6=, Guseinov-Safarli, Abu Dhabi 2005) 12...Ba6 13.Qg4 Nd3+
14.Bxd3 Bxd3=, Ruefenacht- Chorfi, corr 2006. Black’s queen will have access to the queenside and
center. If 15.Qxg7, then 15...Qb4+ 16.Kd1 (16.Bd2 Qe4+ 17.Be3 Qb4+= leads to a perpetual) 16...0-
0-0=.
11...Ba6 12.a3
12.Bxa6 Nxa6 13.Qd4 Qb4+ 14.Qxb4 Nxb4=, with ...Nd5 to follow. The trade of queens favored
Black.
12...Bxf1 13.Rxf1 Nd5 14.Qd4 Be7 15.f5
192
White keeps his chances alive.
15.Bd2 0-0 16.0-0-0 f5 17.exf6 Bxf6 18.Nxf6+ Rxf6 19.Rf3 Qf8 20.Kb1 Rb8=, Najer-Yakovich,
Saransk 2005. Black has comfortably completed his development. His knight on d5 is untouchable.
15...exf5 16.Rxf5 0-0
Black’s powerful knight frustrates White’s threats.
17.Bd2
17.Bg5 Bxg5 18.Rxg5 Qb3 19.Rg3 Qc2 20.Nf6+ (20.Kf1 Rae8 21.Kg1 Re6 22.Rf1 Rg6=,
Butkiewicz-Paszewski, Poland 2020) 20...Nxf6 21.exf6 Rfe8+ 22.Kf1 g6 23.Qc3 Qe2+ 24.Kg1
Re5=, G.Jones-Carlsen, Gausdal 2007. Black’s activity compensates for his weaker pawn structure.
17...f6 18.0-0-0 fxe5 19.Rxe5 Qb3 20.Bg5 Rae8 21.Bxe7 Rxe7
21...Ne3?? 22.Nf6+ 1-0, Topalov- Illescas Cordoba, Cala Galdana 1999.
22.Rxe7 Nxe7 23.Qd3²/= Black has open lines and can return his knight to d5. White has pressure
on Black’s backward d-pawn. White’s knight can either sink itself into d6 or go to c3, opposing
Black’s knight on d5.
(4B) 9.Be2
This move allows White to castle.
9...c5
193
Black continues with his plan to develop his queenside. His king is safe on e8.
10.0-0
10.c4 (White should instead castle first, to protect g2.) 10...Nb4 (unveiling an attack on White’s
knight) 11.Bf3 (White cannot move his knight or his g-pawn will fall. If 11.Nd6+?, then 11...Bxd6
12.exd6 Bxg2 13.Rg1 Be4–+; or if 11.Nc3, then 11...Bxg2 12.Rg1 Bh3³) 11...Qc7 12.Bf4 Nc6=.
Black has a comfortable position.
10...Qc7 11.Nd6+
An alternative is 11.c4 (11.f4 c4=, S.Diaz-Sakai, corr 2003), which allows 11.c4 Ne3 (if 11...Qxe5?!
then 12.cxd5 Qxe4 13.Bf3 Qb4 14.Bd2, followed by 15.Bc3±; or if 11...Nb4, then 12.Nd6+ Bxd6
13.exd6 Qb6 14.a3 Nc6 15.b4 Nd4²/=, Penkin- Buczinski, corr 2008). After 11...Ne3, White has two
choices:
(1) 12.Nd6+ Bxd6 13.exd6 Qc6 14.Bf3 Nxd1 15.Bxc6 Bxc6 16.Rxd1 0-0 17.Be3 Rfc8 18.Rd3 a5=,
Kunzelmann-Banet, corr 2007. Black has play on the queenside; and
(2) 12.Bxe3 Bxe4 and now:
(2a) 13.f4 Be7 14.Bf3 Bxf3 15.Qxf3 0-0 16.Bd2 d5 17.exd6 Bxd6 18.Bc3²/=, Schlenther- Serovey,
corr 2013. White has pressure on e5.
(2b) 13.Bf4 Be7²/=. White has been unable to find a continuation that will yield more than a small
edge.
11...Bxd6 12.exd6 Qc6
12...Qxd6?? 13.c4+–
194
13.f3
Best. White defends against the mate threat on g2 by using his f-pawn instead of his bishop. The
bishop stays on e2, where it will attack Black’s c-pawn when it advances to c4. Alternatives:
13.c4? Nc3 14.Bf3 Qxf3 15.Qxf3 Bxf3 16.gxf3 Ne2+ 17.Kg2 Nxc1 18.Raxc1µ, Werbrouck-Cabrera
Pino, corr 2003. White has problems with his pawns. These include his isolated doubled f-pawns, an
advanced pawn on d6 that lacks protection, and the queenside pawns, which are subject to a minority
attack.
13.Bf3 c4=, securing the knight’s position, Perez Garcia-Guerra Mojena, Havana 2009.
13...c4
13...Nb6?! 14.a4!² (with the idea of a5, a6 and Ra3).
14.Qd4
White threatens both the g7-pawn and the c4-pawn.
14...0-0 15.Bxc4
195
15...Rfc8
Black occupies the c-file and attacks the bishop. Black just as often takes the d-pawn first, and then
moves the rook to c8 on the next move.
15...Qxd6 16.Bb3 (unnecessary; better are either 16.b3 Rfc8 17.Rd1² or 16.Rd1 Rfc8 17.b3², both of
which will transpose to the main line) 16...Qb6 17.Rd1 Rfc8 18.Qxb6 Nxb6 19.a4 d5 (19...Bd5 20.a5
Nc4 21.Ba4², Leko) 20.a5 Nc4 21.a6 Bc6 22.Bxc4 dxc4²/=, Kasparov-Leko, Linares 1999. Black’s
a-pawn is weak.
16.b3
16.Bxd5 Qxd5 (16...Qxd6 17.Bh6 gxh6 18.Qg4+²) 17.Qxd5 Bxd5 18.Rf2 Rc6, Anand-Leko, Monte
Carlo, rapid 2003, 19.b3 Rxd6 20.Rd2 Rb6 (20...Ra6? 21.c4 Bc6 22.b4±) 21.c4 Bc6 22.Rd6 a5
23.Bd2² (Kasparov). White has a better bishop and pressure on the d-file.
16...Qxd6
196
17.Rd1
White applies more pressure along the d-file. Alternatives:

(1) 17.Bb2 Qb6 (17...e5 18.Qf2 Nf4 19.Bc1², intending 20.Bxf4 followed by 21.Rad1) 18.Rf2
transposes to (2) below; and
(2) 17.Rf2 (White defends c2.) 17...Qb6 18.Bb2 Qxd4 19.Bxd4 Nb4 20.c3 Nc6 21.Be3 d5 22.Bf1
a5²/=, Kasparov-Grischuk, Cannes, rapid 2001. White has the two bishops. Black has play on the c-
file.
17...Qb6 18.Qxb6 axb6
197
The alternative is 18...Nxb6 19.Bd3 d5 20.Be3 Nd7 21.Rac1², Popov- Yagupov, St. Petersburg 2018.
White has two well placed bishops against an ineffectively placed bishop and knight.
19.a4 Nb4
Other moves are defensive.

19...Nf6 20.Rd6 Bc6 (20...Rc6 21.Ba3±) 21.Bf1±. White has the two bishops, pressure on Black’s
weak b- and d-pawns, and a queenside pawn advantage.
19...Bc6 20.Bd2 Nf6 21.Bf1 d5 22.Be3 Nd7 23.c4 Nc5±, Shirov- Westerberg, Skopje 2015. White is
advancing his queenside pawns.
20.Rxd7 Nxc2
20...Bc6? 21.Rd2 b5 22.Ba3 bxc4 23.Bxb4 cxb3 24.cxb3 Bd5 25.a5 Bxb3 26.a6±, J.Geller-
Lintchevski, Kazan 2015. It will be difficult for Black to stop the continued advance of White’s
passed a-pawn.
21.Rb1 Bc6 22.Rd2²
Fuzishawa-Silva Filho, corr 2016. White has the two bishops and a queenside pawn majority.
Section 5: 8...Qa5+
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.e5 Nd5 8.Ne4 Qa5+
198
Unlike the standard 8...Qc7, 8...Qa5+ does not force White to play f4. Therefore White is not forced
to weaken the g1-a7 diagonal. But the queen’s aggressive placement on a5 can provide Black with
other advantages.
White will defend the check with either (5A) 9.Bd2² or (5B) 9.c3²
(5A) 9.Bd2
By attacking Black’s queen, White obtains a developing move for the bishop with tempo. Black now
usually retreats the queen, assuming that White’s bishop is no better on d2 than it was on c1. On d2 it
blocks its queen’s oversight of the d-file and no longer protects the b-pawn.
199
9...Qb6
Black attacks the now unprotected b-pawn. Normally White would not be much concerned about it.
But with White not having played f4, if Black’s queen captures the b-pawn, it is then attacking the e5-
pawn.
Alternatives:
(1) 9...Nb4?! (Black’s knight maneuver unveils an attack by his queen on White’s e5-pawn. But it
loses time.) 10.f4 (10.Bc3 Qd5 11.f3 Nxa2 12.Bd4², Biro-Boros, Hungary 2002, intending 13.c3 or
13.c4) 10...Qd5
With correct play, White can obtain a significant advantage:

(1a) 11.Nc3?! (incorrect) 11...Qd4 12.Rc1 (White wants to reply with Qf3 if Black plays ...Bc5, but
first must take time to protect his cpawn.) 12...Nd5, Schroeder- B.Stein, Hamburg 1985, 13.Qf3
Nxc3 14.Qxc3 (14.Bxc3 Bb4=) 14...Qb6=. White cannot castle;
(1b) 11.Nf2! Black does not have a satisfactory reply:
(1b1) 11...Bc5 (threatening 12...Qd4) 12.c3 Bxf2+ 13.Kxf2 Nd3+ 14.Bxd3 Qxd3 15.Be3 Qd5,
Emms-Yakovich, Copenhagen 1992, 16.Qc2±, followed by 17.Rhd1. Black’s d-file is beyond repair.
(1b2) 11...a5 12.a3 Na6, Stevic- Vukic, Vogosca 2007, 13.Be2! Rb8 (13...Qxg2 14.Bf3 Qg6 15.Bh5
Qf5 16.Rg1 h6 17.Bf3±) 14.0-0 Rxb2 15.Qc1 Rb8 16.Be3 c5±. Black is poorly developed and his
queen is exposed; and
(2) 9...Qc7 (forcing 10.f4) 10.f4 Qb6 transposes to a line that occurs in the 8...Qc7 9.f4 Qa5+
variation after 10.Bd2 Qb6. It leads to an advantage for White after 11.Bd3, Section 7 (7B).
Returning now to the main line, after 9...Qb6:
The standard move here for White is 10.c4, which leads to equality. It is covered in (5A1). White can
200
do better with the rarely played 10.Bd3, which is covered in (5A2).
(5A1) 10.c4
This is by far the most popular move here. It might seem to be the most natural, given that in similar
positions White’s b-pawn is poisoned. But here White has not played the usual f4, so when Black’s
queen takes on b2 it attacks White’s undefended pawn on e5.
10...Qxb2
An alternative is 10...Qd4 (attacking White’s knight) 11.Nd6+ Bxd6 12.exd6 Qe5+ (12...Nf6
13.Bc3², Svidler-Lautier, Cannes, rapid 2001) 13.Be2 Nf4 and now best is 14.Bc3, which leads to the
tactical sequence 14...Qe4 15.f3 Qe3 16.g3 Ng2+ 17.Kf1 Qxc3 18.bxc3 Ne3+ 19.Kf2 Nxd1+
20.Rhxd1², Shaposhnikov- Pankov, St. Petersburg 2003. White is better developed.
11.cxd5
11.f4? Qd4 12.Qb1 f5–+
11...Qxe5
201
This capture is not available to Black in the 8...Qc7 9.f4 Qa4+ 10.Bd2 variation, Section 7 (7B),
where White’s f-pawn is on f4.
12.Bd3 cxd5 13.f4 Qd4 14.Nf2 Bc5 15.Rf1 e5
Black begins to open the center to take advantage of White’s exposed king. The alternative is 15...0-
0, Stoleriu-Nedelcu, Arad 2019, 16.Rb1 d6 17.Qc2 e5=, with play similar to the main line.
16.fxe5 0-0 17.Rc1 d6= Macieja-Halkias, Antalya 2004. Black has full compensation for the
sacrificed piece.
(5A2) 10.Bd3
202
This move was first played by Jorge Sanchez Almeyra in 1992. He lost, and the move has almost
been forgotten.
10...Qxb2
Threatening 11...Qxe5.
Alternatives:
(1) 10...Qd4 11.0-0 Qxe5 12.c4². Black is too far behind in development.
(2) 10...Ba6 11.Bxa6 Qxa6 12.b3 Be7 13.c4 f5 14.cxd5 fxe4 15.dxe6 dxe6 (15...0-0?! 16.Qe2±,
Drozdov- Kjeldsen, Budapest 1995) 16.Qh5+ g6 17.Qe2². Black’s pawns on c6 and e4 are weak.
11.c3
White stops any mischief in the center.

11.0-0 Qxe5 12.c4 (12.Re1?!, Sanchez Almeyra-Mellado Trivino, Barcelona 1992, 12...Nf4 13.Qf3
Nxd3³, and with another pair of pieces off the board, White’s initiative does not fully compensate for
his two-pawn deficit) and play could continue 12...f5 (12...Nf4 13.Bc2=) 13.Ng3 Nf6 14.Re1=.
White’s much better development is probably enough to compensate for his two-pawn deficit.
11...Qa3 12.0-0
203
12.Qe2 (Not best. The queen may be needed on g4.) 12...Be7! 13.0-0 f5=, Tologontegin-Bizopolis,
Vung Tau 2008.
12...Ba6
12...Be7?! 13.Qg4±
13.Bxa6 Qxa6 14.Re1 Be7 15.Qg4 Kf8 16.Bg5 Bxg5 17.Qxg5² White is down a pawn but has a
dominating position.
(5B) 9.c3
204
White allows Black to leave the queen on a5. Black can now leverage the queen’s position by
following with 9...f5 (5B1) or 9...Ba6 (5B2). Another option is 9...Qc7 10.f4 Qb6 11.c4, transposing
to the 8...Qc7 main lines (Sections 8 and 9).
(5B1) 9...f5
After exchanges on f6, Black’s queen on a5 will prevent White’s queen from checking on h5.
10.exf6 Nxf6 11.Nxf6+
Alternatives:
(1) 11.Bd3?! Nxe4 12.Bxe4 Ba6=, and White cannot castle.
(2) 11.Nd6+ Bxd6 12.Qxd6 Ba6 (12...Qd5 13.Bf4², Kotronias- Thorfinnsson, Caleta 2005) 13.Bxa6
Qxa6.
205
White now has three options:
(2a) 14.Be3 (passive) 14...Kf7 15.b3 Rhb8=, Sherzer-Ankerst, Budapest 1992;
(2b) 14.b3 (with the idea of 15.c4 followed by castling kingside) 14...Qa5 15.0-0 and now:
(2b1) 15...Qxc3 16.Ba3, Vujakovic- Mohr, Pula 2000, 16...Nd5²/=. White is a pawn down, but
Black’s king is exposed and White is about to add a rook to the attack.
(2b2) 15...Ne4 16.Qd1 Qxc3 (Florea-Vasile, corr 2006; 16...Nxc3? 17.Qe1 Qc5 18.Bb2²) 17.Ba3
Qa5 18.Qc1=. White is a pawn down, but has a strong bishop versus knight in an open position and
play against Black’s central pawns; and
(2c) 14.Bg5 Rf8 15.0-0-0, MuratDeniz-Abeljusto, INT, rapid 2006, 15...Qxa2 16.Bxf6 Rxf6
17.Qxd7+ Kf8 18.f3 Rg6 19.g3 Kg8 20.Qe7 Rf8²/=. Black has play on White’s kingside, but his
pawns are scattered.
Returning to the main line, after 11.Nxf6:
11...gxf6 12.Be2 Ba6 13.0-0 Bxe2 14.Qxe2² The line transposes to the position reached after 14.0-0
in the main line of the 9...Ba6 variation below (5B2).
(5B2) 9...Ba6
206
10.Be2
This is a good move, because when Black takes the bishop, White’s queen will recapture on e2,
which is a good square for it. White has two major alternatives, 10.Bxa6 and 10.Bd3:
(1) 10.Bxa6 Qxa6
(1a) 11.Qe2?! Qxe2+ 12.Kxe2 f5=. A similar position is reached in the line (to the line)8...Qc7 9.f4
Qa5+ 10.c3 Ba6 11.Bxa6 Qxa6 12.Qe2 Qxe2 13.Kxe2 f5 in Section 7 (7A1), the difference being
that there White’s f-pawn is on f4, which gives White’s knight the option to retreat to f2.
(1b) 11.b3 (intending 12.c4) and now:
207
(1b1) 11...f5?! 12.exf6 Nxf6 13.Nxf6+ gxf6 14.Qh5+ Kd8 15.Qf7 Be7 16.Qg7±, Madl-Medvegy,
Hungary 1995, followed by 17.Qxh7, winning a pawn; or
(1b2) 11...Qa5 (intending ...f5 without allowing White’s queen to check on h5 after exchanges on f6)
12.Bd2 f5 13.exf6 Nxf6 14.Nxf6+ gxf6 15.0-0²/=, Souleidis- Bousious, Greece 2004. The position is
similar to the position after 14.0-0 in the main line below, where White’s bishop is on c1 instead of
d2 and the queen is on e2 instead of d1;
(2) 10.Bd3 Bxd3 11.Qxd3 and now:
(2a) 11...f5 12.exf6 Nxf6 13.Nxf6+ gxf6 14.0-0 (White reaches a position similar to the one after
14.0-0 in the main line below, except that there White’s queen is on e2 instead of d3. On d3 the queen
has the advantage of preventing Black’s queen from going to its preferred square, f5.) 14...Qd5
15.Qh3 h5 16.Re1², Adams- Conquest, France 2000; or
(2b) 11...Qb5 12.Qxb5 (12.c4? Nb4µ) 12...cxb5 13.a4 bxa4 14.Rxa4 f6 15.exf6 gxf6²/=, Wilczek-
Soltau, corr 2010. White has the better pawn structure.
Returning to the main line, after 10.Be2:
10...Bxe2
Alternatives:
(1) 10...f5 11.exf6 Nxf6 12.Nxf6+ gxf6 13.0-0 Bxe2 14.Qxe2 transposes to the main line.
(2) After 10...Be7 11.0-0 Bxe2 12.Qxe2 f5 13.exf6 Nxf6, Fric- Rotaru, corr 2010, White finds a use
for his queen bishop: 14.Bg5 0-0 (14...Nxe4?! 15.Bxe7 Nxc3? 16.Qg4±) 15.Rad1². White has good
play against Black’s weak pawn center.
11.Qxe2 f5 12.exf6 Nxf6 13.Nxf6+ gxf6
208
Black’s queen prevents White from checking on h5.
14.0-0
This is a key position in the 8...Qa5+ variation. It can also be reached from the main line of the
8...Qa5+ 9.c3 f5 variation (5B1).
How good is this position for Black? Luis Rodi, in his article on the Sicilian Four Knights in New in
Chess 118 in 2016, considered it better for White. Alexander Raetsky, who featured the 8...Qa5+
variation in his book Meeting 1.e4 (Everyman Chess, 2002), opined that although Black’s king is
poorly positioned, he has a powerful central pawn mass and a half-open g-file. He further observed
that if queens were removed, Black would no longer have worries about his king’s safety and Black’s
chances would be preferable.
It will be difficult for Black to realize these potential strengths. White will avoid exchanging queens.
Black’s central pawns are currently backward and subject to attack by White’s rooks. Although
Black’s open g-file will allow Black to activate his rook, executing a successful kingside attack will
be difficult.
14...Qf5
Black moves his queen from the queenside to the kingside to be closer to the action. But as play
unfolds, Black may later need to protect his queenside from infiltration by a rook or queen. Black will
sometimes play ...a5, not just for offense, but also to prevent White’s queen from going to a6.
Alternatives:
(1) 14...Bd6 15.Be3 Qe5 16.f4 Qf5 17.Rad1², Koch-Cummings, corr 2004. White gains a tempo by
attacking the bishop; or
209
(2) 14...Rg8 (Black allows White more time to bring pressure on the center.)
(2a) 15.Bf4 Qf5 16.Bg3 h5 17.Rad1, and Black’s kingside attack will go nowhere:
(2a1) 17...d5? 18.Qa6+– (Rogozenco);
(2a2) 17...Qg6 18.Rd4±, stopping 18...h4 (Rogozenco);
(2a3) 17...Bc5, Sutovsky-Nijboer, Yerevan 1996, 18.Kh1 a5 19.Rd3², intending 20.Rf3. White’s
rooks will increase pressure on Black’s center; or
(2a4) 17...a5 (Raetsky) 18.Rd3² (18.Rd4?! Rg4, Schubert-Axmann, corr 2008, 19.Rd3 h4 20.h3 Re4
21.Re3 Rxe3 22.fxe3=), followed by 19.Rfd1.
(2b) 15.Be3 Qf5 16.Rad1 h5 (16...d5 17.Rd4 Bd6 18.Rh4², Hefka-Soltau, corr 2010) 17.g3². White
intends Rd4-a4, with queenside action.
15.Be3 a5 16.Rad1 d5 17.c4 Kf7
Black wants to connect his rooks. If 17...Rg8?!, then 18.cxd5 cxd5, Ibar- Geiger, corr 2003, and after
19.Rc1±, White will penetrate Black’s queenside.
18.cxd5 cxd5 19.Rc1². White has a queenside initiative.
(back to the text)

A similar position is reached in the line 8...Qc7 9.f4 Qa5+ 10.c3 Ba6 11.Bxa6 Qxa6
12.Qe2 Qxe2 13.Kxe2 f5 in Section 7 (7A1), the difference being that there White’s f-pawn is on f4,
which gives White’s knight the option to retreat to f2.
210
Section 6: 9.f4 Sidelines
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.e5 Nd5 8.Ne4 Qc7 9.f4
Covered in this Section are alternatives to Black’s main ninth moves 9...Qa5+ (Section 7) and 9...Qb6
(Sections 8 and 9). These sidelines do not take full advantage of White’s glaring weakness – his g1-a7
diagonal. Now:
(6A) 9...f5² and (6B) 9...Rb8²/=
Other sidelines:
(1) 9...Ba6? 10.c4 Bb4+ 11.Kf2 Qb6+ 12.Kf3 f5 13.exf6 Nxf6 14.c5± transposes to a position
reached in an inferior sideline of the 9...Qb6 variation after 9...Qb6 10.c4 Bb4+ 11.Ke2 Ba6? 12.Kf3
f5 13.exf6 Nxf6 14.c5±. See the Section 9 introduction;
(2) 9...Be7? 10.c4 Bb4+ (10...f5?? 11.Nd6+) 11.Ke2±, Matsuura- Dantas, Natal Potiguar 2012. Black
loses a piece for inadequate compensation. If Black’s knight moves, White will trap the bishop;
(3) 9...Bb4+? 10.c3 Be7 11.c4 Bb4+ 12.Ke2± transposes to the 9...Be7? 10.c4 line above; and
(4) 9...c5 (Black chooses early queenside development, similar to Black’s eighth-move alternatives
8...Bb7 or 8...c5. The difference is that here the moves 8...Qc7 9.f4 have been interposed. The
opportunity given to protect the e-pawn is beneficial to White.) 10.c4 Nb4 (10...Nb6 11.Be3 Bb7
12.Nd6+ Bxd6 13.Qxd6 Qxd6 14.exd6 Rc8, Reta-Jimenez, Posadas 2003, 15.a4±) 11.a3 Nc6
(11...Bb7?? 12.Nd6+, taking advantage of the presence of Black’s queen on c7, 12...Bxd6 13.exd6
Qa5 14.Bd2+–) 12.Be3 Rb8 13.Rb1±, Dashibalov-Kabanov, Tomsk 2003, with a clamp on Black’s
position.
(6A) 9...f5
211
It is too soon for Black to play this move. It would work better if Black had a bishop on e7, so that
after trades on f6 Black could recapture with his bishop instead of his gpawn.
10.exf6
10.Nd6+?! Bxd6 11.exd6 Qb6 (11...Qxd6?? 12.c4+–) 12.Qh5+ Kf8³/=, and Black’s knight can
move back to f6.
After 10.exf6, Black’s options are 10...Nxf6 (6A1) and 10...gxf6 (6A2).
(6A1) 10...Nxf6 11.Nxf6+ gxf6 12.Qh5+
212
12...Kd8
12...Ke7 13.Bd2 Rb8 14.0-0-0±, Matulovic-Kudinov, Bad Liebenzell 1995. Black will not have
enough time to make use of the open b-file.
13.Bd2
13.Qf7 Be7 14.Bd2²/=, Mestel- Grinberg, Pont-Sainte-Maxence, 1974. This is preferable to 14.Qg7
Rf8 15.Qxh7 d5=, E.Ahmed- Maynard, Moscow 1994. White’s greedy queen allows Black time to
obtain active play with moves such as ...d5, ...e5, and ...Rb8.
13...d5 14.0-0-0 Rb8 15.Qh4 Be7 16.Bc3 Rf8 17.Be2 Qb6 18.Kb1 Bd7 19.Rhf1± Unzicker-
Lehmitz, Weidenau 1947. Black’s weak kingside pawns are a target for White’s active forces.
(6A2) 10...gxf6
By keeping his knight on d5, Black forces White to pay attention to his vulnerable pawn on f4.
11.Bd2
White has no need to hurry. He creates an option to castle queenside, while also protecting his king
from checks on the e1-a5 diagonal.
Alternatives will give White no more than equality:
(1) 11.c4? Bb4+ 12.Kf2 (12.Bd2 Qxf4³) 12...Nxf4³;
(2) 11.Qh5+ Kd8 12.Qf3=, Heinatz-Kvetny, Germany 2012 (12.Bd2 Rb8 13.0-0-0?! Ba3! 14.bxa3
Qb6³); and
213
(3) 11.Bd3 Qb6 (preventing White from castling; 11...Nxf4?? 12.0-0+–, Low-Grichkevitch, Prague
2020) 12.a3 Ba6 13.Qh5+ Kd8 14.Qe2 Bxd3 15.Qxd3, Naiditsch- Moiseenko, Germany 2014, and
after 15...Rg8=, the chances are balanced.
11...Be7
A prudent move. Black defends f6. Alternatives:

(1) 11...Nxf4?? 12.Nxf6++–, followed by 13.Qf3;
(2) 11...Qb6?? 12.c4 Ne3 13.Qh5+ Kd8 14.c5+–;
(3) 11...h5? 12.c4 Nxf4 13.Nxf6+±, followed by 14.Qf3; and
(4) 11...Rb8 (inviting 12.Rb1, when White would lose the option to castle queenside) 12.c4 (12.Rb1
Be7=) 12...Nxf4 13.Qf3 Ng6 14.Nxf6+ Kd8 15.0-0-0 Be7 16.g4², Jacewicz-Zawadka, corr 2017,
with pressure on Black’s kingside.
12.Qh5+ Kd8 13.c4 Nxf4 14.Qh6 Ng6 15.0-0-0 d5 16.Bc3²
Bunk-Baranowski, corr 2016. White will recover his pawn while continuing his pressure on Black’s
kingside.
(6B) 9...Rb8
This variation has seen a small rise in popularity and success, perhaps partly due to its surprise value.
10.c4
Alternatives:
(1) 10.a3 Qb6 (10...Qa5+ 11.c3 Qb6 12.c4 transposes) 11.c4 (11.Bd3 Ba6=, Fridman-Thurlow, corr
2005) 11...Ne3 12.Qd3 Nxf1 (12...Nf5 13.b4²) 13.Rxf1, Fier- Pridorozhni, INT, blitz 2020, 13...c5
14.Rf2²/=. Black’s pressure on White’s weakened b-file provides substantial compensation for
White’s control of the d-file. Although the move 12...Nxf1 works in this line, it does not work in the
analogous main-line position (Section 8 introduction, after 11.Qd3 Nxf1). There, White’s apawn is
on a2, where it does not weaken the b-file; and
(2) 10.Bd3 provides White with a small edge after 10...Qb6 11.Qe2 Be7 12.c4 f5 13.Nd6+ Bxd6
14.exd6 Nf6 15.b3 0-0 16.Bb2²/=, Santos Ruiz-Praggnanandhaa, New Delhi 2019. Black has play on
the queenside. White has the two bishops and play on the kingside.
10...Bb4+
Black sacrifices a piece.
11.Ke2
214
By moving his king to the awkward square e2 instead of f2, White prevents Black from saving his
piece. After 11.Kf2, declining the piece offer (11.Bd2? Nxf4µ, Bengherabi-Farahat, Oran 2017),
Black equalizes after 11.Kf2 f5 12.exf6, Nabuurs-Kanmazalp, Barcelona 2015, 12...Nxf6 13.Nxf6+
gxf6 14.Qh5+ Kd8 15.Be2 Qa5 16.Qxa5+ Bxa5 17.c5=. Black’s central pawn structure is weak, but
his open band d-files compensate.
11...0-0
Castling kingside is the only move that will provide Black with compensation for his sacrificed piece:
(1) 11...Ne7?? 12.a3+–. The bishop is trapped;
(2) 11...f5? 12.Nd6+! Bxd6 13.exd6 (Because White’s king is on e2 and not f2, Black’s queen has no
check; therefore, Black must give up his knight.) 13...Qxd6 14.cxd5±;
(3) 11...Nb6? 12.c5 Nd5 13.a3±. The bishop is trapped; and
(4) 11...Ba6? 12.Kf3±.
12.cxd5
12.a3 Ba5 (12...Be7 13.cxd5 cxd5 14.Nd6², Shpakovsky-Troia, corr 2010) 13.cxd5 cxd5 14.Ng5 d6
15.exd6 transposes to the main line.
12...cxd5 13.Ng5
215
13.Nf2?! (This is a popular move, but is has a very low winning percentage. Black can force White to
step through a mine field.) 13...f6 14.exf6 Rxf6 15.Nd3 (15.Be3?? Rxf4!–+, Sliwicka-Polivanov,
Katowice, rapid 2017; or 15.Bd2?? Ba6+–+, Shtembuliak-Moiseenko, Rivne 2016) 15...e5 (opening
more lines) 16.Qb3 (16.Qa4?! d6 17.Nxb4 Qc4+ 18.Ke1 Qe4+ 19.Kf2 Rxb4 20.Qa3 Rxf4+ 21.Kg1
Rxf1+ 22.Kxf1 Rd4µ, Lukasova-Troia, corr 2012) 16...Bd6 17.Qd5+ Re6 18.Bd2=.
After 13.Ng5, White will provide protection for his king by returning his knight to f3:
(1) 13...f6?! 14.exf6 gxf6 (14...Rxf6 15.Qd3 g6, Karthikeyan-Borisenko, Pune 2014, 16.Kd1±)
15.Nf3±, Rombaldoni-Kanmazalp, Kemer 2007.
(2) 13...d6 14.a3 Ba5 15.exd6 Qxd6 16.Qc2 g6 17.b4 Bb6 18.Nf3 Bd7 19.Ke1²/=, Wernikiewica-
Troia, corr 2015.
Section 7: 9...Qa5+
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.e5 Nd5 8.Ne4 Qc7 9.f4 Qa5+
216
The move 9...Qa5+ is Black’s main alternative to 9...Qc7 (Sections 8 and 9). As in the 8...Qa5+
variation (Section 5), it requires White to block the check with an awkward move, either Bd2 or c3.
In the 8...Qa5+ variation, White’s f-pawn is on f2, whereas here it is on f4. For White, the
disadvantage of having the pawn on f4 is that it weakens his g1-a7 diagonal. This can permit Black to
prevent White from castling kingside by occupying the diagonal with his queen. Offsetting this
disadvantage is that the pawn on f4 will protect White’s e5-pawn against threats from Black’s queen
across the fifth rank.
White’s main options are: (7A) 10.c3²/= and (7B) 10.Bd2²
A minor alternative is 10.Qd2 Qb6 11.a3 f5 (This is a good move here, because after the exchange on
f6, Qh5+ is not available to White.) 12.exf6 Nxf6 13.Nxf6+ gxf6, Stellwagen-Carlsen, Schagen,
rapid 2005, 14.Be2 f5=, followed by ...Bg7.
(7A) 10.c3
217
After 10.c3, Black’s two main replies are 10...Ba6 (7A1) and 10...Be7 (7A2).
A third option is 10...Qb6, which will transpose to another line:
(1) 11.c4 transposes to main lines of the 8...Qc7 variation (Sections 8 and 9);
(2) 11.Bd3:
(2a) 11...Be7= transposes to the 11...Qb6 sideline of (7A2) below; and
(2b) 11...Ba6 12.Bxa6 Qxa6 13.Qe2²/= transposes to the position after 12.Qe2 in (7A1) below.
(7A1) 10...Ba6
218
Black usually prefers to wait until White’s bishop has moved to d3 before offering this exchange of
bishops.
11.Bxa6 Qxa6 12.Qe2
12.b3 (too slow) 12...Qb6=, Frichkovski-Schwarte, corr 2005, 13.c4? Ne3 14.Qe2 Qd4³.
12...Qxe2+ 13.Kxe2 f5 14.Nf2
With the queens off the board, it will be more difficult for Black to solve the problem of his backward
d-pawn.
This position is similar to a position reached in the (to the line)8...Qc7 9.f4 Qb6 sideline, 10.Bd3 Ba6
11.Bxa6 Qxa6 12.Qe2 Qxe2 13.Kxe2 f5 14.Nf2 (Chapter 2 Introduction). In that line, White’s c-
pawn is on c2 instead of c3. The pawn is perhaps slightly better on c3, because it keeps Black’s
knight out of b4. In either position, however, White has an advantage because of Black’s backward d-
pawn.
The alternative, 14.exf6 Nxf6 15.Nxf6+ gxf6 16.Be3= as in Villalba-Silva, Florianopolis 2015,
reaches a position that is not difficult for Black when the queens are off the board.
After 14.Nf2, Black has several options, but in all them White will maintain a strong grip on the
center:
(1) 14...d6 15.Nd3², I.Ivanov- Khenkin, Philadelphia 1994;
(2) 14...Rb8 15.Nd3 Be7 (In the line mentioned above, where White’s c-pawn is on c2 instead of c3,
Black can play 15...Nb4²/= here.) 16.Bd2², Van Riemsdijk- Riemens, Groningen 1994; and
(3) 14...Be7 15.Nd3 a5 16.Bd2², Nijboer-Rogozenco, Debrecen 1992.
219
(7A2) 10...Be7
Black prepares ...f5.
11.Bd3
11...Ba6
Black has waited until White moved his bishop to d3 before opposing it.
Alternatives:
(1) 11...f5 12.exf6 Nxf6 13.Nxf6+ Bxf6 14.0-0²/=, Grischuk- Andreikin, Moscow 2012. Black has
backward center pawns, but he will have play; or
(2) 11...Qb6 (Black occupies the weakened g1-a7 diagonal, preventing White from castling.) 12.Qe2
220
White’s queen and bishop are now effectively placed. Unnecessary is 12.c4 f5 13.exf6 (13.cxd5?
allows Black to take advantage of the placement of White’s bishop on d3: 13...fxe4 14.d6 Bh4++–),
J.Ye- Ivanchuk, Manila 1992. If White now recaptures on f6 with his knight, Black comfortably
recaptures with his bishop.
After 12.Qe2, options for Black include the following:
(2a) 12...0-0 (Black’s king is not much better on g8.) 13.h4 f5, X.Wang-X.Hong, Xibo 2017,
14.exf6², with an attack;
(2b) 12...a5 13.c4 Qb4+ 14.Kf1 f5, Aroshidze-Moreno Ruiz, Linares 2018, 15.a3 Qb6 16.Ng5 Bxg5
(16...Nc7 17.h4², followed by 18.Rh3) 17.cxd5 Be7 (17...Bd8?! 18.Be3 Qb3 19.dxe6 dxe6±) 18.d6
(18.Be3 Bc5=; 18.dxe6 dxe6 19.Be3 c5=) 18...Bd8 19.Be3². White has a space advantage; and
(2c) 12...Bb7 13.a3 (White prepares c4.) 13...0-0 14.c4 f5 15.Ng3 Nc7 16.Be3 c5 17.0-0²/=, Tauber-
Menke, corr 2014. Black intends ...d6 or ...d5, but after White captures on d6, Black will be left with
a backward pawn.
12.0-0 Qb6+
12...Bxd3 13.Qxd3 f5 14.exf6 Nxf6 15.Nxf6+ Bxf6 16.Be3 Rb8²/=, Zeitlein-Priehoda, Budapest
1996. Black has backward center pawns, but has play on the queenside.
221
With 12...Qb6+, Black takes control of the g1-a7 diagonal.
13.Kh1
The king is out of position for the endgame, but 13.Rf2, which creates a pin, is no better.
13...Bxd3
Black takes the opportunity to trade off the light-square bishops.

13...0-0?! 14.c4 f5 15.exf6 Nxf6 16.Ng5 h6 17.Nf3±, Sorcinelli- Corti, corr 2014. Black has a weak
center, and White’s well-placed bishop pawns limit Black’s activity.
14.Qxd3 f5 15.exf6 Nxf6 16.b3 Qb5 17.c4 Qf5 18.Nd6+ Bxd6 19.Qxd6 Ne4²/=
Y.Xu-Extremera Panos, Seville 2018. Black’s activity substantially compensates for his backward
center pawns.
(7B) 10.Bd2
A good move.
10...Qb6
222
Black occupies the weakened g1-a7 diagonal and attacks b2. White need not worry too much about
his undefended b2-pawn. More often than not, it is poisoned.
This position is similar to the main line of the 6.Nxc6 variation after 9...Qb6. In that position White’s
bishop is still on c1. Here it is on d2, where it can occupy the a1-h8 diagonal without White having to
expend a tempo with b3. The drawback is that on d2 the bishop blocks White’s queen’s view of the d-
file, as shown in the 11.c4 sideline below.
This position may also be reached from the 8...Qa5+ variation (Section 5) in one extra move, after (to
the line)8...Qa5+ 9.Bd2 Qc7 10.f4 Qb6.
11.Bd3
11.c4 Qd4!
223
This queen move is not available in the 9...Qb6 10.c4 lines, where White’s bishop is still on c1. After
11.c4 Qd4!, options for White are:
(1) 12.Qb1? (passive) 12...Rb8 and now:
(1a) 13.cxd5? Rxb2 14.Qd3 Rxd2µ, Clementsson-Loven, Sweden 1996;
(1b) 13.b3 (the usual move, but it fails to Black’s next) 13...Ne3! 14.Bd3, Shalimov-Budnikov,
Kharkov 2004, 14...d5! 15.exd6 f5 16.Bc3 Nxg2+ 17.Kf1 Qe3µ. Black will win back his piece with a
much more active position.
(2) 12.Qf3 Qxb2 13.Rd1 f5 14.Nd6+ (14.exf6 Nxf6=) 14...Bxd6 15.cxd5 (15.exd6 Nf6=) 15...Be7
16.dxe6 (16.d6=) 16...Qxa2 17.exd7+ Bxd7=, Harvey-Teeriaho, corr 2009. White has the center, but
Black has an extra pawn.
11...Be7
224
Intending 12...f5.
Alternatives:
(1) 11...Qxb2 (This capture works in a similar position in the 8...Qa5+ variation, but not here. In that
variation, after capturing on b2 the queen threatens to capture an undefended pawn on e5. Here,
however, White’s e5-pawn is protected by the pawn on f4.) 12.Rb1! Qd4 (12...Qxa2? 13.0-0 Qa4
14.Qf3 Ba6 15.Bxa6 Qxa6 16.f5+–. Black’s king has no place to run.) 13.Qe2 a5 14.c3 Qa7 15.c4
Nb4 16.Be3 Qc7 17.0-0±, Oates- Kopelevich, corr 2004. Black’s development lags too far behind;
(2) 11...Nb4 12.Qe2 Nxd3+ 13.Qxd3 Qxb2 14.0-0², Wunderlich-Wilczek, corr 2009. Black lags in
development.
(3) 11...Ba6 12.Bxa6 Qxa6 and now:
(3a) 13.Qe2 Qxe2+ 14.Kxe2 f5 15.Nf2 (keeping Black’s d-pawn backward) 15...d6 16.Nd3 dxe5
17.Nxe5², Fedorchuk-Timoshenko, France 2008. Black’s center is weak;
(3b) 13.b3 (preparing c4) 13...Qb6 14.Qe2², Lebled-Galliano, corr 2016.
12.Qe2
225
Action in the center is about to start. White has deferred playing c4 for now. He may not need to play
it, depending on how Black proceeds. If 12.c4, then 12...f5 13.cxd5 (13.Nd6+ Bxd6=) 13...fxe4
(attacking the bishop) 14.Bxe4 cxd5 15.Qh5+ Kf8 16.Bd3, Kosintseva-M.Muzychuk, Beijing, blitz
2014, 16...Qxb2=, followed by 17...Qd4. White has the initiative on the kingside, but Black has an
extra pawn.
12...f5
This is why White held off on playing c4. Black’s knight will leave d5 on its own. Alternatives make
it easier for White:
(1) 12...0-0 (Black’s king is no safer on g8.) 13.c4 Nb4 (13...f5 14.cxd5 fxe4 15.Qxe4 g6 16.d6±)
14.Bb1 Ba6 (14...f5? 15.exf6 Bxf6 16.Nxf6+ Rxf6, Adams-Lautier, Bordeaux 2000, 17.a3 Na6
18.Bc3+–) 15.b3 Nd5 Qf2±. White controls the center;
(2) 12...Rb8 13.c4 Nb4 (13...f5 14.Nd6+ Bxd6 15.exd6 Nf6 16.Bc3±, Sukhodolsky-Turati, corr
2008) 14.Bc3 0-0 15.h4², Binas- Ryska, corr 2015, with a kingside attack; or
(3) 12...a5 13.c4 f5 14.Nd6+ (14.exf6 Nf6 15.Be3 Qb4+ 16.Nc3 Rb8 17.Rb1², Noble-Banet, corr
2009. White has more space.) 14...Bxd6 15.exd6 Nf6 16.Bc3 0-0 17.0-0-0 c5 18.g4 Qxd6
(18...Nxg4?? 19.Rhg1+–, Borisek-Vukic, Slovakia 2010) 19.Rhf1±. White has strong pressure on
Black’s kingside.
13.exf6 Nxf6 14.Bc3
226
The bishop that Black had enticed to d2 now comes to life.
14...0-0 15.Nxf6+ Bxf6 16.Bxf6 Rxf6 17.0-0-0
Black’s backward center pawns are a problem, and he does not have enough firepower to generate a
serious threat on his semi-open bfile.
17...Rb8
Alternatives:
(1) 17...Rxf4?? 18.Qh5 g6 19.Bxg6+–, with a winning attack;
227
(2) 17...Bb7 18.g4 Qc7 19.f5 exf5 20.Rhf1 Raf8 21.Rxf5², Csjernyik- Ressler, corr 2008. White has
more space in the center and will have play against Black’s scattered pawns;
(3) 17...a5 18.Rhe1², Marcinkiewicz-Svacek, corr 2007, with pressure on Black’s backward center
pawns; and
(4) 17...d5 18.g3², Gebur-Troia, corr 2014. White will bring pressure on Black’s weakened e-file.
18.b3 d5 19.Rhf1 Bd7 20.Qh5 Rh6 21.Qe5² Steinbacher- Szerlak, corr 2018. Neither side has an
immediate threat, but White has a long-term advantage because of Black’s need to work around his
backward e-pawn. Black can choose either to play defensively, with moves such as ...Re8 and ...Qb8,
or offensively, starting with ...a5. White can choose either to patiently apply pressure on the center,
trading pieces when helpful, or to play aggressively by pushing his pawns forward on the kingside.
Section 8: 10...Ne3
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.e5 Nd5 8.Ne4 Qc7 9.f4 Qb6
10.c4 Ne3
Black inserts his knight into the center of White’s position. This maneuver disrupts White’s
development, but it will also delay Black’s own development, because this roving knight will soon
have to make yet another time-consuming move.
This move 10...Ne3 was once Black’s most popular, and its winning percentage is as good as the
alternative, 10...Bb4+. Yet it is out of favor, because Black has not found a way to equalize.
11.Qd3
Virtually forced. Black’s main options now are: (8A) 11...Nf5² and (8B) 11...Bb4+²
228
11...Nxf1?! (an ill-advised trade of a well-developed piece for an undeveloped piece) 12.Rxf1 c5
13.Bd2 Bb7 (13...Qxb2? 14.Rb1 Qxa2 15.Nc3 Qa6 16.Nb5 Qc6 17.Ba5+–) 14.0-0-0 Qc6 15.Bc3±,
Karjakin-Nepomniachtchi, Moscow, rapid 2010. White has better development and strong pressure
on the d-file.
(8A) 11...Nf5
Black intends to develop his queenside and then break in the center with ...Rd8 and ...d5 if allowed.
His kingside forces will sit and watch the action:
• Black’s king is safe on e8.
• The best use for Black’s darksquare bishop is to remain on f8 for now.
• Black’s king rook sits on h8 and waits for the endgame to start.
• The pawns on Black’s kingside, with the possible exception of the h-pawn, will avoid moving
forward.
A challenge for White is how to develop his queen bishop. If it goes to d2, it could later block a white
rook’s sight of d4, and in some lines will allow Black’s queen to safely capture White’s pawn on b2.
But the alternative, which is to move the bishop to b2 or c3, requires an extra tempo and, furthermore,
the bishop would no longer guard White’s vulnerable e3-square. In most lines, the best square for the
bishop is d2. Depending on how play proceeds, the bishop can later be moved to c3.
After 11...Nf5 White has two good choices: 12.Bd2 (8A1) and 12.g4 (8A2).
A weaker alternative is 12.b3
229
White intends to fianchetto the queen bishop, but this is too slow. 12...Bb7 13.g4 (13.Bb2 Bb4+!,
Nylander-Faldt, Gothenburg 1992, 14.Bc3 c5 15.0-0-0 Bxe4 16.Qxe4 Rd8³, with the initiative on the
queenside) 13...Nd4= transposes to the 13.b3 Bb7 sideline of the 12.g4 variation (8A2).
(8A1) 12.Bd2
This strong move was introduced by Ivanchuk in 2009. White does not mind losing the b-pawn. In
fact, he hopes Black will take it. If Black does not, White will castle queenside. Black’s best try is
12...c5, providing a base on d4 for his knight.
12...c5
230
Alternatives:
(1) 12...Qxb2 13.Rb1 (13.Bc3 Bb4=) 13...Qd4 (13...Qa3? 14.g4±; 13...Qxa2? 14.Be2±) 14.Qxd4
Nxd4 15.c5², Ivanchuk-Radjabov, Bazna 2009, with a large space advantage; and
(2) 12...Bb7 13.0-0-0 and now:
(2a) 13...Rd8 14.g4 leads to tactical play favorable to White. The computer offers the following
continuation: 14...Nd4 15.c5 Bxc5 16.Be3 Nb3+ 17.Kb1 Bxe3 18.Nd6+ Ke7 19.Nc4 Qb4
20.Qxe3±; or
(2b) 13...c5, transposing to the main line.
13.0-0-0
White protects the b-pawn and brings his rook to the center where it applies pressure up the d-file.
13...Bb7
14.Ba5
14.Bc3 Rd8 15.Be2 d5 16.exd6 Bxd6 17.Nxd6 Rxd6 18.Qh3²/=, Bersoult-Kouatly, France 1992.
White has the two bishops and chances on the kingside.
14...Qc6 15.Be2 Nd4 16.Bf3² Wahlund-Cacheiro Martinez, corr 2019. White is better developed.
(8A2) 12.g4
231
This aggressive pawn advance is White’s most popular move. It gains space, drives Black’s knight
back to d4 and prepares Bg2.
12...Nd4
Black will now work toward pushing the d-pawn to d5 and/or the c-pawn to c5 and bishop to b7.
13.Bg2
Best. Alternatives are either tactically deficient or too slow:

(1) 13.Be3? Nc2+ 14.Kf2 Qxb2, Strugnell-Taylor, Hastings 2014, 15.Rd1 Nxe3+ 16.Kxe3 Qxa2³.
232
White has insufficient compensation for his two-pawn deficit;
(2) 13.b3 Bb7 14.Bb2 c5 15.Bg2 Rd8 (preparing ...d5) (15...0-0-0?! 16.Bxd4!, moving Black’s c-
pawn out of the way, 16...cxd4 17.0-0±, and White will play c5 with an attack) 16.0-0-0 d5 (Black
achieves his objective.) 17.cxd5 Bxd5=, Jensen-Clever, corr 2014; and
(3) 13.Rb1 (threatening 14.b4) 13...a5 14.Bd2 Bb7 15.Bg2 h5 16.Bc3 c5 17.g5 h4 18.h3 Nf5
(18...Rd8 19.g6!?=) 19.Rd1²/=, Cloes-Broadway, corr 2014. Black has not freed his center, but
White’s time spent on developing his queen bishop (14.Bd2, 16.Bc3) allowed Black to speed his own
development (14...Bb7, 16...c5).
13...h5
This active move secures f5 for the knight. It is better than the alternatives:
(1) 13...Bb7?! 14.b4! a5 (14...Qxb4+? 15.Bd2 Qb2 16.Kf2+– followed by 17.Rhb1; 14...Bxb4+?
15.Kf1 d5 16.exd6±, Kanovsky-Kuncar, Karlovy Vary 2004) 15.Bb2 c5 (15...Bxb4+? 16.Kf1+–)
16.b5 Rd8 17.Rd1 d5 18.exd6 Bxe4 19.d7+ Rxd7 20.Bxe4 Rd6 21.0-0±, Bobel- Razumichin, corr
2010. Black has eliminated his backward d-pawn, but White has a passed pawn, is well ahead in
development, and controls the flanks; and
(2) 13...Rb8 (too slow) 14.Bd2±, Majcher-Dinckel, corr 2007.
14.g5
14.Kf1 (14.Be3? Nc2+ 15.Kf2 Nxe3µ) 14...hxg4 15.Be3 c5 16.b4 Qc7!=, Cimicki-Thomsen, corr
2007.
With 14.g5, White cedes f5 to Black’s knight, but the g-pawn limits Black’s kingside play. It can
sometimes even be pushed to g6.
233
14...h4
This move provides Black with options of 15...h3, attacking White’s bishop, and the possibility of a
later rook lift. Alternatives:
(1) 14...Bb7 allows White’s development to proceed without interruption: 15.Be3 Nc2+ (15...c5 16.0-
0-0±) 16.Kf2 Nxe3 17.Qxe3 Qxb2+ 18.Kg3 (White now threatens 19.Rab1, winning a bishop.)
18...Qb6 (18...Ba6? 19.Rab1+–, Kasparov-Illescas Cordoba, Linares 1992) 19.c5±. White has a large
space advantage and almost complete control of the board;
(2) 14...Nf5 and now:
(2a) 15.b3 (White intends to fianchetto his queen bishop. This is White’s usual move. Its drawbacks
are that the bishop will no longer defend the e3-square, and it can invite a minority attack.) 15...Bb7
16.Bb2 Qe3+ 17.Qxe3 Nxe3 18.Kf2 Nxg2 19.Kxg2 c5 20.Kf3 Be7 21.Rhd1 a5=, Behling-
Hildebrand, corr 2009. White will not be able to penetrate. The game continued: 22.a4 Kd8 23.Rd3
Kc7 24.Rad1 Rhd8 25.Ke3 Bxe4 26.Kxe4 g6=;
(2b) 15.Bd2 (White keeps an eye on e3 and intends castling queenside.) 15...Qxb2 16.Rb1 Qd4
17.Qxd4 Nxd4 18.Kf2². Black has given up a pawn, but he has more space, and four of his five
pieces are developed, compared with only one of Black’s.
15.Rf1²
White activates his rook and creates luft for his bishop. Alternatives:
(1) 15.Be3 (Surprisingly, although this move works when Black’s hpawn is on h5, it does not work
when it is on h4, as it is here.) 15...Nc2+ 16.Kf2 Nxe3 17.Qxe3 Qxb2+ (This position occurred in
the Kasparov-Illescas Cordoba game in (2) above, except that Black’s queen bishop there is on b7
and his h-pawn is still on h5.) 18.Qe2 (Black’s pawn on h4 prevents 18.Kg3. In the Kasparov game,
234
White’s king was able to go to g3, with a near-winning position.) 18...Qxe2+ 19.Kxe2 Ba6=. White
has more space and better development but is a pawn down;
(2) 15.b3 (not useful) 15...Bb7 16.Rf1 (16.h3 Nf5=, Matinian- Pavlov, Russia 2014) 16...Nf5 17.Bb2
(White has given up control of the e3-square.) 17...Qe3+ 18.Qxe3 Nxe3 19.Rf2 Nxg2+ 20.Rxg2,
Korzh-Matushkina, corr 2015, 20...h3 (Black creates options for his rook.) 21.Rg3 (21.Rd2 Rh5=)
21...c5=; and
(3) 15.Bd2 h3 and now:
(3a) 16.Bxh3 Qxb2 17.0-0 Nc2 18.Bc3 Qb6+ 19.Kh1 Qe3 20.Qxc2 Qxh3=, Ziese-Tucci, corr 2009.
Black has freed his game; or
(3b) 16.Bf3 Nxf3+ 17.Qxf3 Qxb2 18.Ke2 Ba6 19.Qd3 c5 20.Rab1 Qd4 21.Qxd4 cxd4 22.Kd3
Rd8²/=. White can recover his pawn and will have active play, but Black’s forces have also become
active.
Returning now to the main line, after 15.Rf1² (see previous diagram):
After 15.Rf1², Black has several ways to proceed. None of them allow him to achieve equality:
(1) 15...Bb7 16.Bd2 (intending queenside castling) 16...c5 17.Bc3 (protecting e3 is no longer a
concern for White) 17...Rd8 18.0-0-0 d5 (Black breaks out, but at the cost of a pawn.) 19.exd6 Bxd6
20.Bxd4 Be7 21.Nxc5 Bxg2 22.Rf2 h3 23.Nb3². After Black castles, he will be fully developed.
White is also fully developed. His queenside forces are awkwardly placed, but he is up a pawn;
(2) 15...Ba6, Vroombout-Wiersma, Amsterdam 2012, 16.b3 Nf5 17.Bd2 0-0-0 18.Qc3². White has
more space.
(3) 15...Nf5 16.Bd2 h3 17.Bf3 Qxb2 18.Rb1 Qd4 (18...Qxa2 19.Kf2±) 19.Qxd4 Nxd4 20.Kf2².
Black has a pawn, but White is much better developed and has more space.
(8B) 11...Bb4+
235
Black is willing to give up his darksquare bishop. This allows him to castle, but castling is not a
significant benefit to Black in this position. His king is not much better on g8 than on e8.
12.Bd2 0-0
An alternative is 12...Ba6.
Now:
(1) 13.b3 0-0 14.Bxb4 Qxb4+ 15.Kf2 Nd5 16.g3 Qb6+=, Degraeve-K.Müller, Germany 2008,
followed by 17...f6, with equality;
(2) 13.Bxb4 (best) 13...Qxb4+ 14.Kf2 Qxb2+ (14...Nd5? 15.Qb3±, Chandler-Nunn, Birmingham
236
1999) 15.Be2 Nxc4 (15...Nf5 16.Rab1 Qd4+ 17.Qxd4 Nxd4 18.Bd3², Solodovnichenko-Abdulov,
Ordu 2016) 16.Rhd1 Qb6+ 17.Qd4 (Black is two pawns ahead, but his knight is pinned.) 17...Qxd4+
18.Rxd4 Na3 19.Bxa6 Nc2 20.Rad1 Nxd4 21.Rxd4², Lukovic- Todorovic, Kragujevac 2016. Black
has a rook and two pawns for two pieces, but his dark squares are weak and White has superior
development.
13.Rc1
Threatening 14.c5.
13...a5
13...Nxf1? is played frequently here, but it makes things easy for White. Black gives up the knight
that is a thorn in White’s position without making him pay. In the many dozens of games in which
this move has been played, White has an 83% winning percentage. 14.Rxf1 Be7 (Black preserves his
dark-square bishop, but at the cost of time.) 15.Bc3±, Nilsson-Jacot, corr 2006. White has a grip on
the dark squares.
14.Bxb4 Qxb4+ 15.Rc3
237
Better than 15.Qd2. After the upcoming queen trade, Black’s active rook will allow him to equalize:
15...f5 16.Nd6 Rb8 17.Qxb4 Rxb4 18.Rc3 Nxf1 19.Rxf1 Rxb2 20.Ra3 Bb7 21.Rxa5 Rb8 22.c5
Rxg2=, Muck- Rubinas, corr 2010.
15...Nxf1 16.Rxf1 Qxb2 17.Rf2 Qa1+ 18.Qd1 Qxd1+ 19.Kxd1
Black is a pawn up, but his position is difficult.
19...a4 20.Kc1² Babic-Drugda, corr 2014.
(back to the text)

This position is similar to a position reached in the 8...Qc7 9.f4 Qb6 sideline, 10.Bd3
Ba6 11.Bxa6 Qxa6 12.Qe2 Qxe2 13.Kxe2 f5 14.Nf2 (Chapter 2 Introduction).
(back to the text)
This position may also be reached from the 8...Qa5+ variation (Section 5) in one extra
move, after 8...Qa5+ 9.Bd2 Qc7 10.f4 Qb6.
238
Section 9: 10...Bb4+
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.e5 Nd5 8.Ne4 Qc7 9.f4 Qb6
10.c4 Bb4+
This is Black’s best route to equality. Although b4 is not a comfortable square for Black’s strong
bishop, it forces White’s king to move up and block his light-square bishop. The exposed king will
remain a major weakness for White.
11.Ke2
11.Bd2? Qe3+ 12.Qe2 Bxd2+ 13.Nxd2 Qxe2+µ followed by 14...Nxf4, winning a pawn.
11...f5
11...Ba6?! (This is not as popular as it once was. Black’s queenside becomes congested.) 12.Kf3 f5
13.exf6 (Best. 13.Nf2 transposes to the main line of (9A) below) 13...Nxf6 14.c5!
239
14...Qa5 (14...Bxc5 15.Nxc5 Bxf1 16.Na4±, Kunzmann-Belanoff, corr 2001) 15.Nd6+ (15.Nxf6+
gxf6 16.Bxa6 Qxa6 17.Qd4±, Yakovich-Kramnik, Soviet Union 1988) 15...Ke7 16.Bxa6 Qxa6
17.Be3±, Salimova-Nurgali, Sharjah 2021, with a bind. If 17...Nd5, then 18.Qd4. If 17...Ba5, then
18.Bd4.
After 11...f5 White’s options are (9A) 12.Nf2= and (9B) 12.exf6=
(9A) 12.Nf2
White chooses to not take on f6 and instead keeps the kingside closed.
White’s knight has a future on d3. Black’s knight, however, does not have a good place to go.
240
Krisztian Szabo, whose analysis of this variation appeared in ChessBase Magazine 195 (May/June,
2020), aptly described the knight’s plight: “The d5-knight remains attacked by the c4-pawn and
White’s flexible pawn structure makes it difficult for Black to find a useful place where it will be
active.”
12...Ba6
Best. Three alternatives are:

(1) 12...Ne7?! 13.Nd3 (White will trade his knight for Black’s good bishop.) 13...Bc5 14.Nxc5 Qxc5
15.b3± (Navara-Vocaturo, Prague, rapid 2019);
(2) 12...Nc7?! 13.Nd3 Be7 14.Be3 (White develops comfortably.) 14...Qb8 (14...c5 15.b4±, R.Smith-
A.Nguyen, Singapore 1995) 15.Kf2 a5 16.Be2± (Barua-Swati, Edinburgh 2003). Black’s queenside
is entangled; and
(3) 12...Bc5?! (initiating a fairly fixed sequence of moves) 13.Nd3 Ne3 14.Qb3 (Best. In this and in
similar positions in this variation where White’s king is exposed, trading queens normally favors
White.) 14...Nxf1 15.Qxb6 (15.Rxf1 Be7=) 15...Bxb6 (15...axb6? 16.Nxc5±) 16.Rxf1 Ba6 17.b3
Black’s bishops are not effective in this closed position. Now:
(3a) 17...Bd4 18.Bb2 (18.Rb1 Rc8 19.Be3²) 18...Bxb2 19.Nxb2 c5 20.Na4 Rc8 21.Rad1 Bb7
22.Rg1± (22.Rf2², Kholmov- Sveshnikov, Lvov 1983). After h4, White will have a clamp on Black’s
position.
(3b) 17...Rc8 18.Be3 Bxe3 19.Kxe3 c5 20.Rg1 h5 21.h4±, Velicka-Frolik, Czechia 2006.
Returning to the main line, after 12...Ba6:
241
13.Kf3 Ne7
13...Nc7?! (The knight has no future on c7.) 14.Be3 Bc5 15.Bxc5 Qxc5 16.Qd6±, Kholmov-Gorelov,
Saratov 1981.
14.Be3 Bc5 15.Bxc5 Qxc5 16.Qd6
This is the tabiya of the 12.Nf2 variation. White has a grip on d6. His weakness remains his exposed
king. Black will harass it with moves such as ...g5 and ...Ng6, and/or ...c5 and ...Bb7+.
Here the variation branches into three lines: 16...Qxd6 (9A1), 16...Qa5 (9A2), and the main line,
242
16...Qb6 (9A3).
(9A1) 16...Qxd6 17.exd6
17...Ng6
17...Ng8 18.b4! (18.c5?! Bxf1= followed by 19...Nf6) 18...Rb8, Blank-Nowak, corr 2007, 19.Bd3!
Rxb4 (19...Nf6 20.Rhb1±) 20.Rhb1 (Black is in trouble on his first rank.) 20...c5 (forced) 21.Be2!±,
intending Nd3.
18.c5 Bxf1 19.Rhxf1
From g6, Black’s knight cannot access White’s weak light squares. If 19...e5, White will control the
board after 20.fxe5 Nxe5+ 21.Ke3², followed by 22.Kd4 and 23.Nd3.
19...Kf7 20.Nd3 h5 21.Ke3²/= Kulick-Stolz, corr 2018. Black has access to the b-file, but White
controls the center.
(9A2) 16...Qa5 17.h4
243
Stopping 17...g5. The alternative is 17.Be2 g5 18.Rhd1 g4+ 19.Kg3 Qd8 20.h3 h5 21.Kh2 Ng6=,
Pekin-Mostowik, corr 2016, and Black has play on the kingside.
17...c5 18.Kg3 Rd8
Black intends ...Nc8 followed by a later ...d6 or ...d5.

Another try is to bring the knight to c6: 18...Rc8 (not 18...Nc6? immediately because of 19.Nd3+–,
and Black’s c-pawn will drop) 19.Be2 Nc6 20.Bh5+ g6 21.Bf3 Qb6 (21...Nd4?? 22.b4!+–, Pirisi-
Krasenkow, Balatonbereny 1988) 22.Rhd1 Nd4 23.b3². Black is stretched thin. Possibilities for
White include Nd3 followed by Nxc5, or doubling rooks, then sacrificing a rook for the knight on d4.
19.b3
White fortifies c4. 19.Rh3 is not useful: 19...Nc8 20.Qd1 d5 21.exd6 Nxd6 22.Qe1 Qxe1 23.Rxe1
Bxc4 24.Bxc4 Nxc4 25.b3 Nb6 26.Rxe6+ Kf7 27.Re5 Rd5=, Saric- Blohberger, Skalica 2020.
19...Nc8 20.Qd1 0-0 21.Qe1 Qb6 22.Be2 d5 23.exd6 Nxd6 24.Bf3²/= Taras-K.Stein, corr 2017.
Black improved his position by eliminating his backward dpawn, but in doing so created a backward
e-pawn.
(9A3) 16...Qb6
244
Black intends ...c5 and ...Bb7+.
17.b3
17.b4 c5=, Mestel-Chandler, Blackpool 1988, 18.bxc5?! (18.Rd1=) 18...Qb2 19.Be2 (19.Rd1 Qa3+
20.Rd3 Qxa2³) 19...Qa3+ 20.Nd3 Bxc4³/=.
17...c5 18.Rd1 Bb7+
Better than 18...Rd8 19.Nd3 (freeing f2 for the king) 19...Rc8 (19...Bb7+ 20.Kf2² will transpose)
20.Nb2 Bb7+ 21.Kf2 Qxd6 22.Rxd6 g5 23.Be2², Santiago- Choma, Curitiba 2011). White maintains
245
pressure up the d-file.
19.Ke3
The king is safer in the middle. The alternative is 19.Kg3 and now:
(1) 19...Kf7 20.Be2 (20.Qxb6 axb6 21.Rxd7 Bc6 22.Rd2 g5=. White now wishes he had chosen
19.Ke3 instead of 19.Kg3.) 20...Rhd8 21.Bh5+ g6 22.Bf3 Bxf3 23.gxf3²/=, Adams-Nunn, Kilkenny
1996. White has a comfortable position and his king is safe; or
(2) 19...Qxd6 20.exd6 (20.Rxd6?! g5 21.fxg5 h6³, Mohammad Fahad- Ahmed, Dhaka 2021)
20...Ng8 21.Be2 (21.Nd3 Rc8=, Fedorchuk- Petrov, France 2009) 21...Nf6 22.Bf3 Bxf3 23.Kxf3=,
Gorelov- Sveshnikov, USSR 1981. Not much life is left in the position.
19...Qxd6
19...Kf7 offers a pawn for more activity. There follows 20.Qxb6 (20.Qxd7? Rhd8 21.Qb5 Rxd1
22.Qxb6 Re1+ 23.Kd2 axb6 24.Kxe1 Rxa2–+) 20...axb6 21.Rxd7 Bc6 22.Rd2 g5 23.fxg5 (23.Nh3
h6 24.Rg1=, Tandy-Swan, corr 1992) 23...Ng6 24.Nd3², A.Ivanov-Griego, Philadelphia 1991.
Black’s superior activity does not fully compensate for what is now a two-pawn deficit.
20.exd6
20.Rxd6 allows Black time for the strong reply 20...g5 21.fxg5 f4+ 22.Kd2=, Kovchan-Shtyrenkov,
Alushta 2002 (22.Kxf4 Rf8+ 23.Ke3 Nf5+=).
20...Ng6
20...Nc6?? 21.Nd3+– wins the cpawn.
246
From g6 Black’s knight can capture White’s knight if it goes to e5, and in some lines can support a
push of Black’s e-pawn to e5.
21.h4
21.Nd3 Rc8 22.h4 h5 23.Rh3 (23.Be2 Be4, Kluegel- Krzyzanowski, corr 2016, and if 24.Bf3,
24...Bxd3, or 24.Ne5 Nxe5 25.fxe5=) 23...Be4 24.Ne5 Nxe5 25.fxe5 Kf7 26.Kf4 a5= (Velicka-
Vidit, Czech Republic 2018). Not much play is left in the position.
21...h5 22.Be2!
Intending 23.Bf3, opposing Black’s bishop.

22.Nd3 Rc8 23.Rh3= transposes to the Velicka-Vidit game above.
22...e5!
The position demands accurate play by Black:

(1) 22...Bxg2?, Jakovenko- Mamedyarov, Jerusalem 2019, 23.Rh2! Bc6 24.Rg1 Kf7 25.Nd3±, with
Rg5 to follow;
(2) 22...a5 23.Nd3 Rc8 24.Bf3²; or
(3) 22...Rc8 23.Bf3².
23.fxe5 f4+ 24.Kd2 Nxe5
24...Bxg2? 25.Bd3 Rh6 26.Rhg1 f3 27.Rge1 Nxh4 28.b4 cxb4 29.c5±, Tyulenko-Shchepetnev, corr
2014. White’s pawns roll, while Black’s forces are tied up on the kingside.
247
25.Rde1 0-0-0 26.Nd3 Nxd3 27.Bxd3 Bxg2 28.Rhg1 Bc6=
28...f3? 29.Re5². Black has found his way through the complications. Possible continuations:
(1) 29.Rxg7 Kb7 30.Re5 Rh6=; and
(2) 29.Re5 Rh6 30.Rxc5 Rxd6=.
(9B) 12.exf6
White opens the position. This further reduces the safety of his king, but gives him more room to
maneuver.
12...Nxf6 13.Be3
This move is made possible by the position of White’s king on e2. Black must move his queen. White
would have been even happier if he could have first opened Black’s kingside with 13.Nxf6+ gxf6
before playing Be3. But after 13.Nxf6+ gxf6 14.Be3, Black can reply with 14...Bc5!, a move that was
not possible when White’s knight was still on e4. After 15.Bxc5 Qxc5=, Perunovic-Kuljasevic,
Balatonlelle 2002, Black keeps control of the g1-a7 diagonal, equalizing easily.
13...Qd8
248
Best. If White now captures on f6, Black will recapture with his queen.
Formerly, the most popular move was 13...Qa5. It is now out of favor, because after 14.Nxf6+ gxf6,
Black’s use of his g-pawn to recapture White’s knight loosens his position. After 14...gxf6, White’s
options are:
(1) 15.a3 Qh5+ (Best. A trade of queens will ease Black’s defense; 15...Be7 16.Kf2 0-0 17.Bd3±,
Ivic-Terbe, Zalakaros 2017) 16.Kf2 Qxd1 17.Rxd1 Be7 18.Be2 h5 19.Rd2 a5 20.Bf3 Rb8²/=, J.
Gomez-Palmadottir, corr 2011. White has more space in the center.
(2) 15.Kf2 0-0 (15...Ke7 16.Bd3 Bc5 17.Re1 Qb6 18.Rb1², Watson-A.Jones, Eastbourne 1990)
16.Bd3 Rf7 17.a3 Bc5
249
Or 17...Bf8 18.Qf3 Rg7 19.b4 Qc7 20.c5±, Ulasevich-Rusak, corr 2010. Black’s position is difficult.
18.Re1 Bxe3+ 19.Rxe3 Qb6 20.b4², Vetter-Barten, corr 1990. White controls the center.
Returning to the main line, after 13...Qd8:
14.Nd6+
14.Nxf6+ Qxf6 15.Qd4 Be7=, Matinian-Kokarev, St. Petersburg 2013.
14...Bxd6 15.Qxd6 Bb7
15...Qe7?! (15...c5 16.Rd1 Bb7 transposes to the 16...c5 sideline below) 16.Bc5 Qxd6 17.Bxd6 Ne4
18.Ba3 d5 19.Ke3±, Martin Gonzalez-Z.Li, Biel 1985. White has the two bishops, control of the dark
squares, and a better pawn structure.
White has maintained a grip on the dark squares, but his king remains badly placed.
16.Rd1
This is the main move. White plays actively.

The alternative 16.Kd1 frees White’s bishop, but disconnects his rooks. Black’s best reply is 16...c5!
(sacrificing a pawn) 17.Qxc5 Be4:
250
Black wants to drive the queen away with ...d6. He did not play 17...d6?! immediately because of
18.Qb5+, which would have forced an undesirable trade of queens after 18...Qd7. After 17...Be4,
White’s king’s position continues to be a problem. All lines lead to equality or better for Black:
(1) 18.Rg1 d6 19.Qd4 0-0 20.Be2 Qe8 21.Ke1 e5 22.fxe5 dxe5=, Tari-Vidit, Malmö 2018. Black’s
queen rook will soon become active;
(2) 18.Qd6 Rc8 and now:
(2a) 19.Bxa7 Rc6 20.Qb8 (20.Qa3 d6=, followed by 21...0-0, and White’s king’s exposure remains a
problem) 20...Rc8 21.Qd6 (21.Qe5?! 0-0 22.Bd4 Bf5µ, Petukhov-Kuosmanen, corr 2012, and Black
is ready to blow open the position with ...d6 and ...e5) 21...Rc6=, Najer-Khairullin, Plovdiv 2008,
leading to a perpetual;
(2b) 19.Be2= transposes to (3a) below;
(3) 18.Be2 Rc8 and now:
(3a) 19.Qd6 Rc6 20.Qa3 d6 21.Ke1 0-0 22.Rd1 Bxg2 23.Rg1 Be4 24.Qxa7 Rf7 25.Qd4 Qa5+=,
Lukesova-Rogos, corr 2009. White is still a pawn up, but his king’s placement remains a liability;
(3b) 19.Qa3 d6 20.Ke1 0-0 21.Rd1 d5³/=, Akopian-Radjabov, Heraklio 2007. Black advances in the
center; and
(3c) 19.Qxa7 0-0 20.Qd4 Qe7 21.c5 Bd5=. Black will follow with ...d6. His two-pawn deficit is
offset by White’s badly exposed king.
Returning to the main line, after 16.Rd1:
251
16...Rc8
Black prepares 17...c5. The immediate 16...c5 (16...Ne4? 17.Qe5²) sacrifices the c-pawn. This pawn
sacrifice is seen in several lines, but it is not effective when White’s rook is on d1. After 16...c5
17.Qxc5, White will focus on consolidating his material advantage:
(1) 17...Be4 18.Ke1 Rc8 19.Qa3 Rf8 20.Be2 Kf7, Daubenfeld- Anderson, corr 2009, 21.Kf2². White
will hold on to the extra pawn.
(2) 17...Rc8 (offering a second pawn) 18.Qxa7 (taking the pawn and attacking the bishop) 18...Be4,
Fawzy-Nassr, Lome 2017, 19.Bc5 Kf7 20.Ke3 Bc6 21.Be2². It will take Black too much time to
recover his two sacrificed pawns.
17.Rg1
17.g4 c5 (17...Nxg4? 18.Bc5+–) 18.Rg1 will transpose.

White has good control of the board. He intends to push forward his kingside pawns, although this
will further expose his king. An alternative plan is 17.Qc5, suppressing Black’s counterplay on the
queenside:
(1) 17...Qb6 18.b4 (18.Qxb6 axb6 19.Bxb6 c5=, Engel-Donchenko, blitz 2021) 18...Kf7, Jareno
Bautista-Hernaez Fernandez, corr 2018, 19.a4 Qc7 20.a5²/=, with a complex position.
(2) 17...d5 18.g3 Ne4 19.Qxa7, Sindarov-Tabatabaei, Gebze, 2018, 19...Nd6 (intending 20...Ra8)
20.Bh3 Ra8 21.Qd4 0-0! 22.Bxe6+ Kh8=. Black is two pawns down, but White’s king is an open
target.
17...c5 18.g4
252
This position is receiving attention in current over-the-board and correspondence play. White
dominates the d-file and is preventing Black from castling. White has more space, and can expand
further on the kingside. These strengths are offset by the very bad placement of his king.
Black has counterplay:
• Black’s king is in the center, but it sits behind pawns on d7 and e6, where it is safer than it looks.
• Black’s knight can go to e4, where it can attack White’s queen, protect the c5-pawn, and allow
Black’s queen to go to h4.
• Black’s bishop is strongly placed. White will often try to neutralize it with Bg2.
Two of several options here for Black are covered in separate subsections. They are 18...Rf8 (9B1)
and 18...Rc6 (9B2).
Other options are:
(1) 18...Ne4 19.Qe5 Qe7 (intending ...d6) 20.f5!², with pressure;
(2) 18...Qc7 19.g5 Qxd6 transposes to (3) below; and
(3) 18...Qb6 19.g5 Qxd6 (19...Qxb2+?? 20.Rd2+–) 20.Rxd6 Ne4 21.Rd3 d5 22.Ra3 d4 23.Rxa7 Nd6
24.Bc1 Rc7 (threatening 25...Bf3+) 25.Ke1 (25.Kf2 e5! 26.fxe5 0-0+ 27.Ke1 Re7=) 25...Kd7 26.Bd3
g6 27.Ra3 Rcc8 28.Kd1²/=, Ben Fredj-D.Fischer, corr 2015. Black has counterplay for his pawn
deficit.
(9B1) 18...Rf8
253
Although this rarely played move is not one that comes first to mind, it offers a path to equality that is
simpler than the alternative 18...Rc6 (9B2). Black’s rationale is that his king has defensive value on
e8 and that his king rook can become useful.
In 2015, Yu Yangyi tried this move against Karjakin but went awry. His loss in that game may have
discouraged others from using it.
19.f5
Alternatives:
(1) 19.Bxc5 Rf7 20.Bxa7 Rxc4³. The initiative shifts to Black;
(2) 19.Bg2 Bxg2 20.Rxg2 Qb6 21.Qxb6 axb6 22.Kf3 h5=, Rekhtman-Lukyanenko, corr 2017. The
game is even; and
(3) 19.g5 Ne4 and now:
(3a) 20.Qd3 Rc7 21.Bg2 Qa8=;
(3b) 20.Qe5 Qe7 21.Bh3 g6 22.Rd3 Kf7 23.Rgd1, Martin Duque-Stella, Figueira da Foz 2020,
23...Rfd8=. Both sides have play.
19...exf5
Best. Alternatives:
(1) 19...Qb6 20.fxe6 dxe6 21.g5 and now:
254
(1a) 21...Nd5 22.Qxb6 Nxb6 23.Ke1 Nd7 24.Be2², Karjakin- Yu Yangyi, Baku 2015. White has the
two bishops and better pawns.
(1b) 21...Qxd6 22.Rxd6 Ke7 23.Rxe6+ Kxe6 24.Bh3+ Kf7 25.Bxc8 Rxc8 26.gxf6 gxf6². Black’s
scattered pawns are vulnerable.
(2) 19...Ne4 20.Qe5 Qf6 21.Qxf6 Rxf6 22.Bg2 exf5 23.gxf5 Rxf5 24.Kd3 Re5 25.Rde1²/=. Black
has freed his position, but his dpawn is backward.
20.Bxc5
20.gxf5 Rf7 21.Bg2 Bxg2 22.Rxg2 Re7=. The rook makes itself useful.
20...Rg8
20...Rf7?? 21.Qe5+
21.gxf5
Other tries are:

(1) 21.g5 Rc6 22.Qe5+ Kf7=; and
(2) 21.Bg2 Bxg2 22.Rxg2 Kf7 23.gxf5 (23.g5 Rc6=; 23.Kf1 fxg4=) 23...Rc6= transposes to the
22.Bg2 sideline below.
21...Kf7
255
22.Bd4
Another possibility is 22.Bg2 Bxg2 23.Rxg2 Rc6 24.Qxc6 (24.Qd4 Re8+ 25.Kf1 Re4³, and Black
seizes the initiative) 24...Qe8+ 25.Kf3 dxc6 26.Re2 Ne4! (making room for the king) 27.Rxe4 Qc8=.
Black has queen for rook, bishop, and pawn. Both kings are exposed.
22...Rxc4
Threatening 23...Re8+, with a winning attack. Not 22...Re8+? 23.Kd3 Be4+ 24.Kd2±, when White’s
king escapes.
23.Bxf6 Qxf6=
256
White’s king remains badly placed. White will win a pawn, but Black can regain it:
(1) 24.Qxf6 Kxf6 25.Rxd7 Bc8 26.Rxa7 Bxf5 27.Kf3 Rc1=; or
(2) 24.Qxd7+ Qe7+ 25.Qe6+ (25.Qxe7+ Kxe7=) 25...Qxe6+ 26.fxe6+ Kxe6=.
(9B2) 18...Rc6
This is the usual move. The position requires careful play by Black. “Perhaps, Black does not stand
any worse, but he is forced to play with extreme precision and find some not so intuitive answers.”
(Milos Perunovic, Chess informant 142, 2019).
19.Qe5
19.Qd3 d5 20.g5 Nh5 21.Qb3 Qe7 22.cxd5 exd5³/=, with counterplay.
19...0-0
257
20.g5
Alternatives:
(1) 20.Bxc5 Rf7 21.b3 Ra6³;
(2) 20.Bg2 Nxg4 21.Qc3 d5 22.Rxd5 exd5 23.Bxd5+ Kh8 24.Bxc6 Bxc6 25.Rxg4 Qd7=, Freytag-
D.Fischer, corr 2015. White is a pawn up, but his king is still badly exposed; and
(3) 20.Bh3 d6! 21.Qxe6+ Kh8 22.g5 Nh5²/= transposes to the main line.
20...Nh5
Threatening 21...Rf5.
21.Bh3 d6!
A complex position. Black sacrifices a pawn to open the e-file.
258
Passive is 21...Qc7 22.g6 Nf6 (22...Qxe5? 23.fxe5 Rb6 24.Rxd7+–, Clarke-Garbett, Auckland 2019,
with a dominating position) 23.gxh7+ Kh8 (23...Kxh7 24.Rg5± forces the win of a pawn) 24.Rxg7
Kxg7 25.Rg1+ Kh8 (25...Kxh7?? 26.Qg5+– leads to mate) 26.Rg8+ Rxg8 27.hxg8=Q+ Kxg8
28.Qxf6 Qd6 29.Qd8+±. White has a strong initiative.
22.Qxe6+
The alternative is 22.Bxe6+ Kh8 23.Qc3 Nxf4+ 24.Bxf4 Rxf4 25.Rdf1! (White sacrifices a piece to
gain control of the f-file and seventh rank.) 25...Re4+
White’s king has a choice:
259
(1) 26.Kd2 (exposing the king along the second rank and c1-h6 diagonal) 26...Rxe6 27.Rf7 (Caletka-
Jasny, Czech Republic 2019) 27...Re5 28.Rxb7 (28.Qf3 Rc8 29.Rxb7 Rxg5=, a move not available to
Black were White’s king on d1 – see (2b) below) 28...Rb6=;
(2) 26.Kd1 Rxe6 27.Rf7 and now:
(2a) 27...Rg6 28.h4 Rc7 29.Qa5 Rc8 30.Qxd8 Rxd8, Kollars- Rogozenco, Germany 2020, 31.h5±;
(2b) 27...Re5 28.Qf3! (if 28.Rxb7, then 28...Rb6=, as in (1) above) 28...Re8 29.Rxb7 Rb6 30.Rxb6
axb6 31.Rf1², Kietzmann-Vekelis, corr 2017. White’s control of the f-file and aggressively placed
pawn on g5 are advantageous for White;
(2c) 27...Qg8 (best) 28.Rxb7, Rudenko-Sitorus, corr 2018, ½-½, 28...Rc8 29.g6 h6. The computer
prefers White in this complex position:
(2c1) 30.Rf7 Rb8²/=. White enjoys a rook on the seventh and an attack on g7. Black’s compensation
is his attack on White’s g-pawn and his potential to attack White’s exposed king. For example, if
31.Rxa7, then 31...d5 32.cxd5 Rxg6, opens the position for Black; and
(2c2) 30.Rxa7 Rf8 31.Kc1 Ref6 (intending 32...d5 attacking White’s exposed king) 32.Re7!
(32.Rd7?? Rf3–+) 32...d5²/=. Black has play against White’s king, but White is a pawn up.
Returning to the main line, after 22.Qxe6+:
22...Kh8
23.Rgf1
An alternative is 23.Qd7, seeking a trade of queens, which would reduce the risk to White’s king:
(1) 23...Qa8 24.f5 (24.Bg4? Nxf4+ 25.Bxf4 Bc8–+; 24.Rxd6 Rcc8=) 24...Rb6 25.Bg4 Bc6 26.Qc7=,
260
Mroczek-Zawadka, corr 2017. The computer’s assessment of the tactical complications is that Black
is equal after either 26...Qe8 or 26...Rxb2+.
(2) 23...Qb8 24.Bg4 (24.f5? Rb6 25.b3 Bc6 26.Qe6 Re8–+; 24.Qg4?! g6 25.Bd2? d5 26.cxd5
Nxf4+–+, Arizmendi Martinez- Ibarra Jerez, Marbella 2019) 24...Nxf4+ 25.Bxf4 Rd8=, Godart-
D.Fischer, corr 2015 (25...Rxf4 26.Rgf1± cedes the f-file to White), and the game is equal. After
25...Rd8, two of the possible continuations are: (1) 26.Qf5 Rf8 27.Qd7=, leading to a perpetual; and
(2) 26.Rg3 Rxd7 27.Bxd7 Qc7 28.Bxc6 Qxc6 29.Bxd6 Qe4=.
23...Rb6 24.b3 Ra6
25.Qd7
Alternatives:
(1) 25.Rd2 d5 26.Qe5 Re8 27.cxd5! Rxe5 28.fxe5 Bxd5 29.Bg2 Rxa2 (29...c4?? 30.Bxd5 c3 31.Bb7
cxd2 32.Bxa6+–, Wei Yi- Fier, Moscow 2019) 30.Bxd5 Rxd2+ 31.Bxd2 Nf6 32.Bc4 (32.exf6 Qxd5
33.f7 Qe4+=, with a perpetual) 32...Nd7=; and
(2) 25.Qg4 Rxa2+ 26.Rd2 Rxd2+ 27.Bxd2 (27.Kxd2 d5=) 27...Qe8+, Crielesi-Palladino, corr 2016,
transposes to the diagram below in one less move.
25...Qb8 26.Qg4 Rxa2+ 27.Rd2 Rxd2+ 28.Bxd2 Qe8+
261
29.Kd1
29.Kf2 Nxf4!! 30.Bxf4 h5!! (These are no doubt two of the “not so intuitive answers” Perunovic had
in mind when he offered his assessment of Black’s challenges in this line.) 31.gxh6 (31.Qh4 Qe4=)
31...gxh6=, Camps-Flitsch, corr 2018. White’s king is exposed.
29...Qe4!
Black sacrifices his knight. This keeps him in the game.
30.Qxh5 Qd3 31.f5 Qxb3+ 32.Ke1 g6 33.Qe2
33.fxg6 Qb1+ 34.Ke2, ½-½, Dmitriev-Fernandez, corr 2016, 34...Qe4+=, leads to a perpetual.
33...Qxh3 34.Qe7 Qh4+ 35.Rf2 Qe4+ 36.Qxe4 Bxe4 37.f6²/= Oren-Savio, corr 2017. White is a
pawn down, but has a protected passed pawn on the sixth rank.
262
Chapter 3
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.g3
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.g3
White will use his fianchettoed bishop to contest the light squares.
After Black plays ...d5 and White captures it with exd5, Black will feel the bishop’s presence no
matter which way he recaptures. If Black recaptures with his e-pawn, which creates an isolated pawn
on d5, White’s fianchettoed bishop will apply pressure on it. If Black recaptures with his king knight,
White’s fianchettoed bishop will apply pressure along the entire open diagonal.
A drawback for White is that fianchettoing his bishop makes it difficult for him to initiate any
kingside action. It also gives Black the option to transpose to a favorable variation of the
Scheveningen.
The major variations are: Section 1: 6...Qb6 (p. 163); Section 2: 6...Bb4 (p. 166); and Section 3:
6...d5 (p. 173).
Alternatives:
(1) 6...d6 transposes to the Scheveningen Variation;
(2) 6...Be7 7.Bg2 0-0 8.0-0 d5 (8...d6 transposes to the Scheveningen) 9.exd5 exd5²/= transposes to
Section 3 (3B1); and
(3) 6...Bc5 7.Nxc6 bxc6 8.e5 Nd5 9.Ne4², Anand-Novoselski, Rome 1990. White gains a tempo by
attacking the bishop.
263
Section 1: 6...Qb6
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.g3 Qb6 allows Black to avoid the isolated
pawn that often arises in the 6.g3 variation.
7.Nb3
This position can also arise from a line of the Sicilian where Black plays 4...Qb6 on his fourth move:
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Qb6 5.Nb3 Nf6 6.Nc3 e6 7.g3.
Black has two ways to proceed. One is 7...Bb4, remaining in the Sicilian Four Knights. The other is
7...d6 (or 7...a6), transposing to a line in the Scheveningen where White has fianchettoed his king
bishop. Black now has (1A) 7...Bb4²/= and (1B) 7...d6=
(1A) 7...Bb4
Black chooses to remain in the Sicilian Four Knights.
8.Bg2
264
8.Be3 (The bishop is not useful on e3.) 8...Qc7 9.Bg2 d5 10.Bd2= (better than 10.0-0 Bxc3 11.bxc3
0-0 12.exd5 Nxd5 13.Bxd5 exd5 14.Qxd5 Be6³/=).
After 8.Bg2, options for Black include 8...d5 (1A1) and 8...Qa6 (1A2).
(1A1) 8...d5 9.0-0
White frees his knight from the pin. If instead 9.exd5 Nxd5, his queen bishop would have had to go
to d2 to defend the knight, and after 10.Bd2 Nxc3 11.bxc3 Be7 12.0-0 0-0=, Stoinev-Kovalev,
Berliner Sommer 1992, the game reaches a quiet position where neither side’s forces extend beyond
their third rank.
265
9...Bxc3
9...d4 10.e5 (10.Ne2 e5=, Bruzon Batista-Leon Hoyos, Santo Domingo 2007) 10...Nxe5, Raetsky-
Womacka, Seefeld 2000, 11.Na4 Qd8 (11...Qb5 12.Qxd4²) 12.Qe2². White’s pieces are more active.
10.exd5
10.bxc3 Nxe4=, A.Ivanov-Gufeld, Soviet Union 1983.
10...exd5
10...Nxd5 11.bxc3 0-0 12.c4 Nde7², Guseinov-Heberla, Sharjah, rapid 2016. White has the two
bishops and open lines.
11.bxc3 0-0
Gutman-Winants, Ostend 1989. 11...Be6? 12.Ba3±, Solomunovic- Glicenstein, Nice 2002.
12.Bg5 Bg4 13.Qd3 Ne5 14.Qd4² White has the two bishops and more active play.
(1A2) 8...Qa6
Black invests a tempo to prevent White from castling.
9.Bd2
9.Qd3 Qxd3 10.cxd3 0-0²/=, Tuma-Rabatin, Czechia 2014. Black is behind in development.
9...0-0 10.a3 Be7 11.Be3
266
Threatening 12.Bf1 b5 13.a4±.
11...Ne5 Laubsch-Hahn, Kassel 2010.
12.f4 Nc4 13.Qe2 d5 14.Bd4 Nxe4 15.Nxe4 dxe4 16.Bxe4²/= White is better developed.
(1B) 7...d6
Black transposes to a line of the Scheveningen in which White fianchettoes his king bishop. The
following is an example of how play could proceed.
8.Bg2 Be7 9.0-0 0-0 10.Be3 Qc7
Black loses a tempo. But if White’s intent is to attack on the kingside, his slow setup has cost White
more than a tempo.
11.f4
White decides to attack.
11...a6
12.a4
12.g4 d5 13.exd5, Glavina- Rodriguez, Argentina 1989, 13...Nb4=.
12...b6 13.g4 Bb7
267
13...d5?! 14.exd5 Rd8 (14...Nb4?? 15.d6+–) 15.Qf3 Nxd5 16.Nxd5 exd5 17.Qf2 Rb8 18.f5 Bd6
19.Bf4². White has a stronger center.
14.g5 Nd7 15.Qh5 Rfe8 16.Rf3 g6 17.Qh6 Bf8 18.Qh4
White has an attractive setup on the kingside, but Black’s position is solid.
18...Nb4!
18...Bg7? 19.Rh3 Nf8 20.f5±, Kosteniuk-Hou, Beijing 2012.
19.Rc1
19.Rh3 h5=
19...Qd8
Intending ...h5=.
19...d5?? 20.Bd4, intending 21.Qxh7+.
20.Qf2 d5=
Section 2: 6...Bb4
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.g3 Bb4
268
This pin is Black’s most popular reply in the 6.g3 variation, but it is not the best. Black can equalize
but must play carefully.
In other variations of the Sicilian Four Knights, Bb4 forces White to do something about his
undefended pawn on e4. In the 6.g3 variation, however, White simply plays 7.Bg2, continuing with
his planned development while also protecting the pawn. As play progresses, Black’s bishop can find
itself stranded on b4.
7.Bg2
Black’s options here are (2A) 7...Qa5²/=; (2B) 7...d5 8.Sidelines=; (2C) 7...d5 8.exd5 Nxd5?!±;
(2D) 7...d5 8.exd5 exd5²; and (2E) 7...0-0=
Best is 7...0-0 (2E), first castling before playing ...d5.
(2A) 7...Qa5
269
White has nothing to fear from this aggressive move.
8.0-0
8.Nde2 (passive) 8...d5 9.exd5 (9.0-0 dxe4 10.Nxe4 Nxe4 11.Bxe4 e5=) 9...Nxd5 10.Bd2 Nxc3
11.Nxc3 Qe5+ 12.Qe2 Qxe2+ 13.Nxe2 Bxd2+ 14.Kxd2 Bd7=, Neumann- Nugel, Germany 1989,
½-½.
8...Bxc3 9.bxc3 0-0
9...Qxc3? 10.Nxc6 dxc6 (10...Qxc6?? 11.e5 Nd5 12.Qg4+–; 10...Qxa1?? 11.Qd6 bxc6 12.Ba3+–)
11.Qd6 Nd7 12.a4 (Black’s development has been retarded and he cannot block White’s control of
the a3-f8 diagonal.) 12...Qe5 (12...Qc5 13.Qd3±) 13.Qa3 Qc5 14.Qd3±, with 15.Ba3 to follow.
10.Bd2 d5 11.exd5 exd5 12.c4 Qa4 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.cxd5 Bg4
14...Nxd5? 15.c3 Qc4 16.Qb3, Castro Rojas-Sanz Alonso, Torremolinos 1976, 16...Ba6 17.Rfc1².
White has the two bishops and an initiative on the queenside.
15.f3 Bf5
Black counterattacks White’s c2- pawn.
16.dxc6 Qxc6²/= Black will recover the pawn.
(2B) 7...d5 8. Sidelines
After 7...d5, White’s normal reply is 8.exd5, Sections (2C) and (2D). Covered here are two sidelines:
270
8.Nxc6 (2B1) and 8.0-0 (2B2). Both permit Black to equalize.
(2B1) 8.Nxc6
White strengthens Black’s center.
8...bxc6
9.0-0
9.e5 Nd7 10.Qg4 Bf8 11.f4 Qb6 followed by 12...Ba6³, Bohosjan- Plachetka, Tirnavia 1979. White
does not have enough firepower to succeed with an attack on the kingside.
9...0-0 Delgado-Hernandez Onna, Skopje 1972.
10.Bd2= This defensive move is best for White, given Black’s solid position.
(2B2) 8.0-0
White sacrifices his e-pawn.
8...Bxc3
8...0-0 9.exd5 exd5= transposes to the position reached in the 7...d5 8.exd5 exd5 variation (2D1) after
9.0-0 0-0.
9.bxc3 Nxe4
271
Black’s position here is similar to one reached in the (to the line)6.Be2 variation after 6.Be2 Bb4 7.0-0
Bxc3 8.bxc3 Nxe4 9.Bf3 d5 (Chapter 5, Section 2), where White’s bishop is on f3 instead of
fianchettoed. In that position the best move for White is 10.Bxe4. But here this capture does not work
quite as well because it would weaken f3.
10.Re1
If 10.Ba3?, then 10...Qa5³, followed by 11...Nxc3.
10...0-0 11.c4= Gwaze-Meintjes, Pretoria 2012. The chances are equal.
(2C) 7...d5 8.exd5 Nxd5?!
272
This is Black’s standard recapture, but it is a bad choice. It looks natural on the surface because the
knight and bishop together are attacking White’s pinned knight on c3, and also because Black has
avoided an isolated pawn.
The problem for Black is that a capture on c3 does not hurt White. Besides opening a3-f8 diagonal for
White’s queen bishop, it allows his fianchettoed bishop to apply pressure along the h1-a8 diagonal
that has also been opened for him.
If Black does not capture White’s knight on c3, White’s knight will capture Black’s knight on d5.
This will leave Black with an isolated pawn on d5 with the benefit to White of having traded off a set
of minor pieces.
This variation is an example of why Black’s dark-square bishop is not useful on b4 in the 6.g3
variation.
9.0-0
Best. A capture on c3 is no threat to White.

The alternative 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.0-0 0-0 allows Black to equalize against any of White’s tries:
(1) 11.Ne2 Ba6 12.c3 Bc5 13.b3 Bxe2 14.Qxe2 Nxc3 15.Qc2=, Ocana Roca-Rodriguez Talavera,
San Fernando 2002. White will be able to recover his pawn;
(2) 11.Nxd5 cxd5=, Porubzky Angyalosine-Belavenets, Budapest 1976, strengthens Black’s center;
and
(3) 11.Qg4 Bxc3 12.bxc3 Qf6 13.Ba3=, Kuehn-Hablizel, Passau 2000. White has the two bishops,
but Black has better pawns.
After 9.0-0, White obtains a big advantage, no matter which of the following replies Black chooses:
9...Bxc3 (2C1), 9...0-0 (2C2), or 9...Nxc3 (2C3).
273
(2C1) 9...Bxc3 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.bxc3 Ba6
12.c4
White sacrifices a pawn to open the a1-h8 diagonal and prepare Qg4. A popular alternative is 12.Re1
0-0 13.Ba3 Re8 14.c4 Ne7 (14...Bxc4 15.Qg4± transposes to the main line) 15.Qg4±, Ivkov-Pilnik,
Bled 1950. White’s queen, rook, and two bishops control the majority of the board.
12...Bxc4 13.Re1 0-0 14.Ba3 Re8 15.Qg4 Ba6 16.Bb2 e5 17.Bxe5 f6 18.Bd4± Palkin- Vorobev,
USSR 1957. White’s queen and two bishops control the center.
(2C2) 9...0-0
274
10.Nxd5 exd5
Black’s dark-square bishop is not well placed.
11.c3
White gains a tempo.
11...Be7 12.Bf4
12.Be3 Bf6, Revelj-Orndahl, Stockholm 1945, 13.Nb3 Be6 14.Nc5±. Black’s b- and d-pawns are
under pressure from White’s queen and minor pieces.
12...Qb6 13.Bxd5 Nxd4
13....Bh3 14.Re1, Vilenchuk- Martirosov, USA 2012, 14...Bc5 15.Qh5 Nxd4 16.cxd4 Bxd4 17.Qxh3
Bxf2+ 18.Kh1 Bxe1 19.Rxe1 Qxb2 20.Qd7±. Black has the material advantage of rook and two
pawns for two bishops, but White’s two bishops are developed and Black’s rooks are not.
14.Qxd4 Qxd4 15.cxd4 Rd8 16.Bf3 Rxd4 17.Rfe1 Kf8 18.Be5± Capparelli-Rosandic, Cannes 1995.
Black’s queenside is under pressure.
(2C3) 9...Nxc3 10.Nxc6!
275
For many years 10.bxc3 was the standard move, after which Black can equalize with careful play:
10...Bxc3 (10...Nxd4? 11.cxb4±) 11.Nxc6 Qxd1 12.Rxd1 Bd7 13.Rb1 Bxc6 14.Bxc6+ bxc6 15.Ba3
At first sight, White’s control of the a3-f8 diagonal and unchallenged occupation of both open files
would seem to put Black in an untenable position. 15...a5! Black intends 16...Bb4, which will block
White’s bishop’s control over the a3-f8 diagonal. This is an improvement over Denker-Mieses,
Hastings 1945, where Black played 15...Be5? and lost quickly after 16.Rb7 Rd8 17.Re7+. After
15...a5! 16.Rb7 Bb4, Black can achieve an equal endgame. 17.Bxb4 axb4 18.Rdd7 0-0 19.Rxb4 Rxa2
20.Rc4 Ra6 21.Rc7 g6 22.R4xc6 Rxc6 23.Rxc6 Kg7=, Schubert-Dolmatov, Groningen 1977.
Returning to the main line, after 10.Nxc6!:
276
10...bxc6
10...Qxd1 11.Rxd1 Nxd1 12.Nxb4 0-0 (12...Bd7? 13.Bf3±) 13.Kf1 (intending 14.Ke1 followed by
15.Nd3 or 15.Bf3) 13...Bd7 14.Ke1 Nxb2 15.Bxb2 (White has two well placed pieces for rook and
pawn.) 15...Rac8 16.Rc1±, followed by 17.c4. White controls the board.
After 10...bxc6, the following moves are best for both sides.
11.bxc3 Bxc3 12.Bxc6+ Bd7 13.Qf3 Bxa1 14.Bxd7+ Qxd7 15.Qxa8+ Qd8 16.Qb7± Torrecillas
Martinez-Fernandez Garcia, Cordoba 1995. White has a near-winning endgame.
(2D) 7...d5 8.exd5 exd5
This is better than 8...Nxd5 (2C).
After 8...exd5, White’s options are 9.0-0 (2D1) and, best, 9.Qe2+ (2D2).
(2D1) 9.0-0
277
This is White’s most popular move, but it allows Black to equalize.
9...0-0
9...Bxc3 10.bxc3 0-0 11.Bg5 will transpose.
10.Bg5
10.Nce2 Bg4 11.h3 Bh5=, Skatchkov-Rodchenkov, Togliatti 2003. Black has counterplay.
10...Bxc3
10...Be7 (passive) 11.Re1 Nxd4 (11...h6? 12.Nxd5! Nxd5 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.Bxe7 Nxe7 15.Qxd8
Rxd8 16.Rxe7±, Svidler-Samhouri, Tromsø 2014, winning a pawn and seizing the initiative) 12.Qxd4
Be6 13.Rad1². White has pressure on the d-pawn and a lead in development.
11.bxc3 h6
278
12.Bxf6
12.Bf4 Bg4 13.Qd3 Qd7 14.Rfe1 Rfe8 15.Nxc6 bxc6=, Spassky- Garcia Gonzalez, Linares 1981.
12...Qxf6 13.Bxd5
13.Rb1 Rd8 14.Re1 (or 14.Rb5 Ne7 15.Re1 b6=) 14...Rb8 15.Rb5 Be6=, Marovic Fernandez-Illescas
Cordoba, Leon 1993. Black’s position is secure.
13...Rd8 14.Qf3 Qxf3 15.Bxf3 Nxd4 16.cxd4 Rxd4 17.Rfd1 Rxd1+ 18.Rxd1 Bf5= Solak-
Todorovic, Yugoslavia 2001, reaching an equal endgame.
(2D2) 9.Qe2+
279
This move causes a problem for Black. He has the unpleasant choice of either interposing his queen
which, after its exchange, will make it more difficult to defend his isolated pawn; or retreating his
bishop to e7, which costs a tempo.
9...Be7
9...Qe7 10.Qxe7+ Kxe7 11.Be3². White will castle queenside. Black’s king is exposed.
10.Be3 0-0 11.0-0
11...a6
280
Preventing White’s queen from going to b5.
11...Re8 12.Qb5! (White makes use of his queen.) 12...a6 (12...Bd7 13.Qxb7±, Kovalevskaya-
Shumiakina, Orel 1995) 13.Nxc6 axb5 14.Nxd8 b4 15.Nxd5 Nxd5 16.Bxd5 (winning a pawn)
16...Rxd8 17.Rfd1±. White is up a pawn.
12.Rad1
12.h3 (giving up a tempo) 12...Re8 13.Rad1²/=, Dmitriev-Gavrilov, Orel 1992.
12...Bg4 13.f3 Bc8 14.Nb3 Re8 15.Qf2² White’s pieces are trained on the weakened dark squares on
Black’s queenside.
(2E) 7...0-0
Best. Black removes the king from the e-file before playing ...d5, and so avoids the 9.Qe2+ line
(2D2).
8.0-0 d5
8...a6?! (the most popular move, but it loses a tempo) 9.Nxc6! and now:
(1) 9...bxc6? 10.e5 Nd5 11.Ne4 f5 12.Nd6 a5 13.c4±, Mack-Kaimer, Liechtenstein 2004. White
controls the center; or
(2) 9...dxc6 10.e5 Qxd1 (10...Nd7 11.Re1±) 11.Rxd1², Aagaard-Rej, Copenhagen 2010. Black’s
queen bishop is blocked in.
9.exd5 exd5= transposes to (2D1). 9...Nxd5?!± transposes to (2C2).
281
Section 3: 6...d5
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.g3 d5
Black prudently defers the decision on where to develop his dark-square bishop. White’s primary
reply is 7.exd5, after which Black can recapture with either 7...exd5 (3B) or 7...Nxd5 (3C). Another
popular reply is 7.Bg2 (3A).
(3A) 7.Bg2=; (3B) 7.exd5 exd5=; and (3C) 7.exd5 Nxd5=
(3A) 7.Bg2
282
7...Qb6
Alternatives:
(1) 7...Bb4 transposes to the 6...Bb4 7.Bg2 d5 variations, Section 2 (2B), (2C), and (2D);
(2) 7...dxe4 8.Nxc6 Qxd1+ 9.Kxd1 bxc6 10.Nxe4 Nxe4 11.Bxe4 Bb7 12.Be3 0-0-0 13.Ke2 c5
14.Bxb7+ Kxb7 15.Rhd1 Be7 16.Rd3 Rxd3 17.Kxd3=, Mista-Krassowizkij, Germany 2016, reaching
an even endgame; or
(3) 7...Bc5 8.Nb3 Bb4 9.0-0 Bxc3 10.exd5 exd5 11.bxc3 0-0 12.Re1=, Brodsky-Volzhin, Koszalen
1999. White has the two bishops and play against Black’s isolated pawn. Black’s pieces have
freedom of movement and potential for play against White’s isolated doubled c-pawns.
8.Nb3
8.Nxc6 strengthens Black’s center: 8...bxc6 9.exd5 (9.0-0 Ba6 10.Re1 Bc5 11.Qf3, Kolcak-Arendas,
Slovakia 2015, 11...0-0³. Black has all the play.) 9...cxd5 10.0-0 Be7 11.Re1=, Saatdjian-Chernov,
Wasselone 2013.
8...d4 9.e5
9.Ne2 e5 10.c3 a5 11.cxd4 a4 12.Nd2 Nxd4 13.Nxd4, Barczay- Kouatly, Budapest 1987, 13...Qxd4
14.0-0 Bc5 15.Qe1=. Black has complete equality.
9...Nd7 10.Ne2 Bb4+ 11.c3 dxc3 12.bxc3 Be7 13.Be3
13...Qa6
283
13...Qc7 14.f4 b6 15.Ned4 Bb7 16.Nb5 Qc8 17.0-0 0-0 18.Qe2²/=, Kagan-Arnason, Denmark 1982.
White has more space.
14.f4 0-0= Black intends to complete his development with ...Nb6, ...Rd8 and ...Bd7.
(3B) 7.exd5 exd5
Black accepts an isolated d-pawn to free his position. Equally good is the more popular 7...Nxd5
(3C).
8.Bg2
This position is much more often reached from the Closed Sicilian when Black plays an early ...e6.
Black’s isolated pawn on d5 is not difficult to defend when all the pieces are still on the board, as
they are here. But when White’s light-square bishop is fianchettoed, it can apply unpleasant pressure
to the pawn.
Black’s two main options are the modest 8...Be7 (3B1), which leads to a small edge for White, and
8...Bg4= (3B2), deferring the decision on where to develop his king bishop.
Other options for Black are:
(1) 8...Bb4 9.Qe2+ Be7² and 8...Bc5 9.Qe2+ Be7². Both will transpose to the (to the line)6...Bb4 7.Bg2
d5 8.exd5 exd5 9.Qe2+² variation, Section 2 (2D2); and
(2) 8...Qb6 and now:
284
(2a) 9.Nxc6 bxc6 (neutralizing White’s light-square bishop) 10.0-0 Be7 11.Re1 Be6 12.Na4 Qb5=,
Vasiukov-Panchenko, USSR 1980.
(2b) 9.Nb3 d4 10.Ne2 Bb4+, Plotkin-Kimelman, Toronto 2008, 11.c3 dxc3 12.bxc3 Be7 13.0-0 0-0
14.Be3 Qa6 15.Ned4²/=. White has pressure on Black’s queenside.
(3B1) 8...Be7 9.0-0 0-0
9...Bg4 10.Qd3 0-0 11.h3 Be6, Kontic-Sveshnikov, Tivat 1995, 12.Nxe6 fxe6 13.Re1². White has
play against Black’s backward epawn.
10.Be3
285
Other options White has tried are 10.Bf4, 10.Re1, and 10.h3:
(1) 10.Bf4 Bg4 11.Qd2 Qd7 12.Rfe1 Rfe8 13.Ndb5 d4=, Orehek-Kolaric, Radenci 2014;
(2) 10.Re1 Bg4 11.Qd3 Re8 12.h3 Bh5 (12...Bd7?, passive, Breitenstein-Struthoff, corr 2004,
13.Bf4²/=) 13.Bg5 Bg6 14.Nf5 h6 15.Bxf6 (15.Bh4 d4=) 15...Bxf6 16.Nxd5 Bxb2 17.Rxe8+ Qxe8
18.Rb1 Bd4=. White’s two centralized knights are equal in strength to Black’s two bishops; and
(3) 10.h3 (White invests a tempo to prevent Black’s bishop from going to g4.) and now:
(3a) 10...Qb6?! 11.Be3! (a pawn offer; 11.Nce2 is the usual move, but it is passive: 11...Re8 12.c3
Bd7 13.Qb3, Berend-Adianto, Beijing, rapid 2008, 13...Bc5 14.Qxb6 Bxb6=) 11...Qxb2 12.Nxd5
Nxd5 13.Bxd5 Bxh3 14.Rb1 Qa3 15.Rxb7 Nxd4 16.Bxd4 Bxf1, Suba- Castany, Germany 1993.
White has recovered his pawn, but now has sacrificed an exchange. The computer gives advantage to
White after 17.Bb2 Be2 18.Qxe2 (White’s bishops dominate.) 18...Qd6 19.c4 Bf6 20.Qf3! Rab8
(20...Bxb2 21.Rxf7 Kh8 22.Bxa8±) 21.Ba3 Qe5 22.Rxa7 Rfd8 23.Bc5±;
(3b) 10...Nxd4 11.Qxd4 Be6 12.Be3 b6 13.Rad1±, Leiro Giralt- Fabre Massana, Barcelona 2012,
with pressure on Black’s isolated d-pawn; or
(3c) 10...h6 11.Be3 Bb4 (11...Re8 12.a3²; 12.Re1 Bb4=, Carlsen- Kotsur, Astana, blitz 2012)
12.Nce2 (12.Na4 Re8 13.a3, Spieckermann- Koenig, Germany 2004, 13...Bf8=) 12...Bd6²/=. Finding
a good square for Black’s queen bishop will be a challenge, but otherwise the position is equal.
10...Bg4 11.Qd2
11.f3 Bd7= transposes to the position after 11...0-0 in (3B2) below.
11...Qd7 12.f3
12.Rfe1 Rfe8 13.Nb3 Rad8=, Weiss Sommerbauer, Mureck 2001. Black is fully developed.
12...Bh3 13.Bxh3 Qxh3 14.Nce2²/= Werner-Vogt, Germany 1998. White has active piece play.
(3B2) 8...Bg4
286
A good move. Black puts his bad bishop on a good square while preventing 9.Qe2+. White must
either move his queen or interpose with f3, which blocks his bishop.
9.f3
White forces the bishop to retreat, but obstructs his own bishop. Or 9.Qd3 Bc5:
(1) 10.Be3 Bxd4 11.Bxd4 Qe7+ 12.Kd2 (12.Be3?? Nb4 13.Qb5+ Bd7 14.Qe2 d4–+, Jurkovic-
Stocek, Pardubice 1995) 12...0-0 13.Rae1 Be6=. White’s king is exposed, but not in danger; and
(2) 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.0-0 0-0 12.Na4 Bd6 13.c4 Re8=, Krapivin- Stocek, Czech Republic 1996. Black
has open lines. His current threat is 14...Be2.
9...Bd7 10.0-0 Be7 11.Be3 0-0
287
12.Nb3
12.Bf2 Bc5=, Knoeppel-Farmer, corr 2005.
12...Be6 13.Re1
13.Ne2 Re8 14.Ned4 Bd7 15.Bf2 Ne5=, Van Reimsdijk-Fiorito, Mar del Plata 1992. Both sides have
play.
13...Re8 14.Bf2= Safarli- Tregubov, Sochi 2013. Black is completing his development and all the
pieces are still on the board. He should have no problem managing his isolated d-pawn.
(3C) 7.exd5 Nxd5
288
Black can use the knight to double White’s c-pawns.
8.Bg2
White’s fianchettoed bishop will make itself felt along the long diagonal.
Another try is 8.Nxc6 bxc6 9.Ne4 (9.Bg2 Ba6=), intending c4, 9...f5 (an aggressive advance, but
workable given White’s lag in development) and now:
(1) 10.Ng5?! Qf6, Sattarov- Rogozenko, corr 1991, 11.Be2 Bb4+ 12.Bd2 0-0 13.Bxb4 Nxb4 14.c3
Rd8 15.Qb3³/=. White is defending a Black initiative.
(2) 10.Nd2 Be7 11.Bg2 0-0 12.0-0 e5 (12...Bf6, Loginov-Tiulin, corr 1996, 13.c4 Ne7²/=) 13.c4
Nb4 14.a3 Nd3 15.Bxc6 Rb8=. Black has an initiative for his sacrificed pawn.
8...Nxc3
Best. Alternatives:
(1) 8...Bb4?!± transposes to the 6...Bb4 7.Bg2 d5 8.exd5 Nxd5?!
variation, Section 2 (2C); and
(2) 8...Ndb4 9.Nxc6 Qxd1+ 10.Kxd1 bxc6 (10...Nxc6 11.Nb5², Al Modiahki- Skripchenko, Cannes
1997) 11.a3 Nd5 12.Ne4 (intending c4) 12...Ba6, Kaidanov-Khenkin, New York 1994, 13.b3 0-0-0
14.Bd2², with c4 to follow, to block off Black’s light-square bishop.
9.bxc3 Bd7
9...Nxd4?! 10.Qxd4 and now:

(1) 10...Be7 11.Qxd8+ Bxd8 12.Rb1², Movsesian-Chekhov, Germany 1996. Black’s queenside is
289
under attack by White’s queen rook and fianchettoed bishop; or
(2) 10...Qxd4 (Black repairs White’s doubled pawns.) 11.cxd4 Bb4+ 12.Ke2 (Black’s undeveloped
queenside is under pressure.) 12...Bc3 (12...Bd6, Czerniak-Vizantiadis, Athens 1968, 13.c4²) 13.Rb1
Bxd4 14.Ba3 Bb6 15.Rhd1 e5, Cornette-Blomqvist, Oslo 2017, 16.Be4 f5 17.Bd5 Bd7 18.Bxb7 Rd8
19.Bd6². White has the initiative.
10.0-0 Be7 11.Rb1
11...Qc8! Vyskocil-Hofmann, Austria 2017. Black finds a defense against White’s queenside
pressure.
11...Na5?! (looking to attack White’s weakened c-file) 12.Qh5 0-0 13.Rd1 Rc8 and now:
(1) 14.Be4?! (wasting a tempo) 14...g6 15.Qf3 Qc7 16.Bh6 Rfd8 17.Bxb7 Rb8²/=, Bengtsson-
Helmertz, Gothenburg 1975; or
(2) 14.Bxb7 Nxb7 15.Rxb7 Rc7 16.Nc6±. White breaks through.
12.Qh5 0-0 13.Rd1 Nxd4 14.cxd4 Bc6 15.c4 Bxg2= White and Black are successfully managing
their respective weaknesses on the queenside.
(back to the text)

Black’s position here is similar to one reached in the 6.Be2 variation after 6.Be2 Bb4
7.0-0 Bxc3 8.bxc3 Nxe4 9.Bf3 d5 (Chapter 5, Section 2), where White’s bishop is on f3 instead of
fianchettoed. In that position the best move for White is 10.Bxe4. But here this capture does not work
290
quite as well because it would weaken f3.
(back to the text)
Both will transpose to the 6...Bb4 7.Bg2 d5 8.exd5 exd5 9.Qe2+² variation, Section 2
(2D2); and
291
Chapter 4
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bg5
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bg5
This pin may look aggressive, but actually it is defensive. It anticipates Black’s intended attack on the
light squares.
Section 1: 6...Sidelines (p. 180); Section 2: 6...Bb4 (p. 182); and Section 3: 6...Be7 (p. 185)
Section 1: 6... Sidelines
After 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6, Black’s main replies to 6.Bg5 are 6...Bb4,
(Section 2) and 6...Be7 (Section 3). Three sidelines, which are covered here in Section 1, are (1A)
6...Qa5²; (1B) 6...Qb6²/=; and (1C) 6...h6=
Other possibilities for Black are (1) 6...d5? 7.exd5 exd5 8.Qe2+±; and (2) 6...d6, transposing to the
Richter-Rauzer Variation.
(1A) 6...Qa5
Black invests a tempo with his queen to attack White’s bishop. It is too early for this move.
7.Bxf6 gxf6
292
8.Ndb5
The alternative is 8.Nb3 Qe5 9.Qd2 (9.a3?! f5³) 9...Bb4 10.Bd3, Vasquez Ramirez-Munoz Sanchez,
Ecuador 2003, 10...b6 11.f4 Bxc3 12.bxc3 Qc7=. Black has open lines on the c-file, the g-file, and
the h1-a8 diagonal.
8...Bc5
Alternatives transpose to other lines:

(1) 8...Bb4 9.a3± transposes to the 7...Qa5?! sideline in Section 2 (2A); and
(2) 8...a6 9.Nd6+ Bxd6 10.Qxd6 transposes to the main line, one move earlier.
9.Qd2
9.Nd6+ (time-wasting) 9...Ke7 10.Nc4 Qc7 11.Qd2 a6 12.0-0-0, Saldana Caballe-Pros Heras,
Tarragona 2000, 12...h5=. White has the better pawn structure, but Black has the two bishops, and his
queen and dark-square bishop are well positioned.
9...a6 10.Nd6+ Bxd6 11.Qxd6 Qb4 12.Qxb4 Nxb4 13.0-0-0 Ke7 14.a3 Nc6 15.Be2
15.Na4?! b5 16.Nb6 Rb8 17.Nxc8+ Rhxc8=, Tomnikova- Suslova, Moscow 2013.
15...b5 16.f4² White has the better pawn structure and better control of the center.
(1B) 6...Qb6
293
7.Bxf6
White trades bishop for knight to damage Black’s pawn structure.

7.Nb3 (This is a popular alternative. The position is more often reached from the variation of the
Sicilian where Black plays ...Qb6 on the fourth move: (to the line)1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4
Qb6 5.Nb3 Nf6 6.Nc3 e6 7.Bg5.) 7...Be7 8.Qd2 0-0 (8...a6 9.0-0-0 0-0 10.f4 d6 transposes to the
Richter Rauzer Variation) 9.0-0-0 Rd8=, Ismagambetov-Alekseev, Khanty-Mansiysk 2007. The
position is fluid. Black can choose either ...d5, breaking in the center, or ...d6, reverting to a Richter
Rauzer formation.
7...gxf6
7...Qxb2?? 8.Ndb5+–, followed by 9.Rb1, trapping the queen.
8.Nb3 a6 9.Qd2 Qc7 10.0-0-0²/= Zivkovic-Rosandic, Pula 1996. Black has the two bishops, but
White has the better pawn structure and is ahead in development.
(1C) 6...h6
294
7.Bh4
7.Bxf6?! (White trades off his good bishop for inadequate compensation.) 7...Qxf6 8.Ndb5 Bc5
9.Nd6+ Kf8 10.Qd2 Qd4 11.Qxd4 Nxd4 12.0-0-0 Bxd6 13.Rxd4 Ke7 14.g3 b6 15.Nb5 Be5³, Binet-
Kruk, corr 2016. After ...Bb7 and ...g5, Black’s two bishops will exert pressure on the long diagonals.
7...Be7
7...Bb4 8.Nxc6 bxc6 9.Bd3= (9.e5? Qa5µ) transposes to the main line of the 6...Bb4 variation,
Section 2 (2B).
8.Nxc6 bxc6 9.e5
9.Bd3?! Nxe4 10.Bxe7 Nxc3 11.Qg4 Kxe7 12.Qb4+ Ke8 13.Qxc3 Qf6³. White does not have
sufficient compensation for his pawn deficit.
9...Nd5 10.Bxe7 Qxe7 11.Qd4
11.Nxd5? exd5 12.Qd4, Panella- Frank Nielsen, Beijing, blitz 2008, 12...d6 13.f4 0-0µ. White’s e-
pawn will fall.
11...f6= Siedler-Augustin, Germany, corr 2010. The position is essentially the same as the position
reached after 10...f6 in the main line of the 6...Be7 variation (Section 3 below).
Section 2: 6...Bg4
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bg5 Bb4
295
This pin is more aggressive than the equally good 6...Be7 (Section 3). White’s options are (2A)
7.Ndb5³/= and (2B) 7.Nxc6=
(2A) 7.Ndb5
This position can also be reached after 6.Ndb5 Bb4 7.Bg5.
7...h6!
Best. This leaves White without good options. Alternatives:

(1) 7...Qa5?! 8.Bxf6 (White trades bishop for knight to damage Black’s pawn structure.) 8...gxf6 9.a3
Bxc3+ 10.Nxc3 a6 11.Qf3±, Gheorghiu- Reicher, Bucharest 1966;
(2) 7...a6 and now:
(2a) 8.Nd6+ Ke7 9.Nc4 d5 10.exd5 exd5, Judd-Alberoni, Cleveland 1876, 11.Bxf6+ gxf6 12.Qe2+
Be6 13.0-0-0 Bxc3 14.bxc3=. The two sides have an equal number of weaknesses.
(2b) 8.a3! axb5 9.axb4 Rxa1 10.Qxa1 Nxb4 11.Qd1², Szabo- Navarovszky, Budapest 1961. White
will be better developed after recovering his pawn.
(3) 7...0-0 8.a3 and now:
296
(3a) 8...Be7 9.Nd6 (9.Qd2 d5=) 9...Qa5 10.Qd2 Bxd6 11.Bxf6 Bc7 12.Qg5 Qxg5 13.Bxg5²/=.
Black’s undeveloped queen bishop will need attention; or
(3b) 8...Bxc3+ 9.Nxc3 d5 10.Qf3 (10.exd5 exd5= transposes to the 10.Bg5 0-0 line of the 6.Ndb5
variation; see Chapter 1, Section 6, 6B) 10...Nd4 (10...d4 11.0-0-0², Ivanenko-Zingaylo, Poltava
2010) 11.Qd3 dxe4 12.Nxe4 Qa5+ 13.b4 Qe5 14.Bxf6 gxf6=. The chances are equal.
8.Nd6+
The best of a poor selection:

(1) 8.Bf4? e5µ, with 9...Nxe4 to follow. White’s bishop cannot now go to g5, as it does in the line
6.Ndb5 Bb4 7.Bf4 e5 8.Bg5;
(2) 8.Bxf6?! Qxf6 9.a3 Bc5 (attacking f2) 10.Qd2 0-0 11.f4, Lukasiewicz-Graf, Lyon 1995, 11...d6!
(11...Rd8 12.e5²; 11...d5 12.exd5 exd5 13.0-0-0=) 12.0-0-0 Rd8³, intending 13...a6;
(3) 8.Bh4?! g5 9.Bg3 Nxe4
297
Black’s position here is better than the one in Chapter 1, Section 3, which occurs after 6.Ndb5 Bb4
7.Bf4 Nxe4, because here Black’s knight on e4 attacks White’s bishop on g3. White does not have a
good answer:
(3a) 10.Nc7+ Ke7 11.Qf3 Nxg3! (a resource Black does not have in the Chapter 1, Section 3 line)
12.Qxg3 d5 13.Nxa8 d4 14.0-0-0 Bd6µ; or
(3b) 10.a3 Nxg3 11.hxg3 Bxc3+ 12.Nxc3 d5 13.Qf3 Kf8 14.0-0-0 Kg7³/=. Black’s center pawns
limit the mobility of White’s pieces.
8...Ke7 9.Bf4 e5 10.Nf5+ Kf8 11.Bd2
298
White has reached the same position as in the (to the line)6.Ndb5 Bb4 7.Nd6+ variation after 7...Ke7
8.Bf4 e5 9.Nf5+ Kf8 10.Bd2= (Chapter 1, Section 2 (2A2), except in that position Black’s h-pawn is
on h7. Here it is favorably placed on h6.
11...d5 12.exd5
12.Ng3?! d4µ, Pimenov-Antoshin, Yerevan 1954. Black has a dominating position.
12...Bxc3 13.Bxc3 Nxd5 14.Ne3 Nxc3 15.Qxd8+ Nxd8 16.bxc3 Be6³/= White is vulnerable along
the c-file.
(2B) 7.Nxc6 bxc6
Black will equalize easily.
8.Bd3
Alternatives:
(1) 8.e5? (the most popular move, but a mistake) 8...Qa5 9.exf6 (9.Qd4 Ne4µ) 9...Qxg5 10.fxg7
Qxg7µ, Ragsdale-S.Jones, San Antonio 1962. Black has the two bishops, open lines, and an
unassailable phalanx of central pawns that control the light squares in the center;
(2) 8.Qf3 h6 9.Bh4 (9.Bxf6 Qxf6 10.Qxf6 gxf6³/=, Jelinek-Fuskova, Czech Republic 2014. White
has a better pawn structure, but Black has the two bishops and semi-open band g-files for his rooks.)
9...Be7 (9...e5=, Felcir-Privara, Tatranske Zubry 2000) 10.e5 Nd5 11.Bxe7 Qxe7=, Jiang-Prakhov,
Quebec 2008. Black is weak on the kingside and White is vulnerable on the queenside. Neither side
has enough resources to press its advantage; or
299
(3) 8.Qd4 c5 9.Qe3 Bb7=, Tjagun- Melnik, Kramatorsk 2007.
8...h6
8...Qa5 (ineffective) 9.Bd2 Qc7 10.0-0 Rb8, Kineva-Ertel, Vladimir 2002, 11.Qe1 (preparing an e5-
push) 11...Be7 12.e5 Nd5 13.Nxd5 cxd5 14.Ba5². White is better developed and has play on the
queenside.
9.Bh4
9.Bd2 e5=, Krauss-Oberst, Bavaria 2006. White has no way forward.
9...d5 10.e5
10.exd5 cxd5 11.0-0 0-0=, Plukkel- Rijnaarts, Leiden 1998.
10...g5 11.Bg3 Nd7=
Black’s kingside is weak, but he has a strong center. If 12.Qh5, Black can reply 12...d4 13.a3 Ba5=.
Section 3: 6...Be7
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bg5 Be7
This is a solid way to equalize.
7.Nxc6
White has many alternatives:
300
(1) 7.Be2? Nxe4 8.Bxe7 Nxc3 9.Bxd8 Nxd1 10.Nxc6 bxc6³. White has insufficient compensation
for the pawn;
(2) 7.Bc4? Nxe4 8.Nxe4 Bxg5 9.Nd6+ Kf8 10.0-0 Bf4³. As in (1) above, White does not have
sufficient compensation;
(3) 7.f4 h6 (7...d6 transposes to the Richter Rauzer) 8.Bxf6 (8.Bh4? Qb6! 9.Ndb5 Nxe4 10.Nxe4
Bxh4+ 11.g3 Be7µ) 8...Bxf6 9.Ndb5= (9.e5?, Grushetskaia- Petrovic, Frydek-Miskek 1997,
9...Bxe5! 10.fxe5 Qh4+µ);
(4) 7.Ndb5 0-0 and now
(4a) 8.Nd6?! Qb6! 9.Nc4 (9.Rb1 Ne5³, attacking the knight on d6) 9...Qc7³/=, Leone-Supino, corr
2011. White has lost more time with his knight than Black has with his queen; or
(4b) 8.Qd2 d5 9.exd5 exd5 10.0-0-0 Be6=. Black can proceed comfortably on the queenside with
moves such as ...a6, ...Qa5, and ...Rc8.
(5) 7.Qd2 (White’s most popular reply) 7...Nxe4!
8.Nxe4 Bxg5 9.Nxg5 Nxd4 10.Nxf7 Nxc2+ 11.Qxc2 Qa5+ 12.Qd2 Qxd2+ 13.Kxd2 Kxf7 14.Rc1=
(14.f4?, giving up a tempo, 14...b6µ, Bekemann-Svajdler, corr 2008). Black begins the endgame up a
pawn, but he will likely not be able to hold on to it. Returning to the main line:
7...bxc6
301
8.e5
White thwarts Black’s intended ...d5.

8.Bd3 d5 9.0-0 Nxe4 10.Bxe7 Nxc3 11.Qg4 Kxe7 12.bxc3 g6=, Horner-Pritchett, London 1975.
White has the initiative, but he is a pawn down.
8...Nd5 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.Qd4
Alternatives:
(1) 10.Nxd5? exd5 11.Qe2 (a sad move) 11...0-0µ, Ben Abud-Casas, Spain 1944-45; or
(2) 10.Qd2 f6=, and if 11.f4?, then 11...fxe5 12.fxe5 Nxc3 13.Qxc3 Qh4+ 14.Kd2 0-0³/=, and
White’s king is exposed.
10...f6
302
11.0-0-0
11.Bd3 Rb8 (11...0-0=) 12.exf6 Nxf6 13.Qxa7 Rxb2=, Bissonnette- Pohle, corr 2000.
11...fxe5 12.Qxe5 Qf6
Best. Black eliminates White’s active queen.

Alternatives:
(1) 12...Nxc3 13.Qxc3 0-0 14.Rd2²/=, Gutierrez Dopino- Moujan, corr 2018. Black’s center pawns
are vulnerable.
(2) 12...0-0 13.Ne4 Rf5 14.Qg3 Qf8 15.Bc4 a5 16.Rhe1 Qb4 17.Bf1²/=, Da Maia-Adriano, corr
2007. Both sides have play, but Black’s center pawns will be a liability.
13.Qxf6 Nxf6 14.Bd3 d5 15.Rhe1 Ke7= with ...Kd6 to follow. Black’s backward e-pawn is not in
danger.
(back to the text)

The position is more often reached from the variation of the Sicilian where Black plays
...Qb6 on the fourth move: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Qb6 5.Nb3 Nf6 6.Nc3 e6 7.Bg5.
(back to the text)
White has reached the same position as in the 6.Ndb5 Bb4 7.Nd6+ variation after
7...Ke7 8.Bf4 e5 9.Nf5+ Kf8 10.Bd2= (Chapter 1, Section 2 (2A2), except in that position Black’s h-
pawn is on h7. Here it is favorably placed on h6.
303
Chapter 5
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Be2
This seemingly modest move was popular in the early 1900s and is still respectable. After 6...Bb4,
White’s main reply is 7.0-0, allowing Black to take his e-pawn after 7...Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 Nxe4. In
return, White gains an advantage in development and an open a3-f8 diagonal for his queen bishop
that prevents Black from castling.
6...Bb4
This is the main move. Alternatives:

(1) 6...d6 transposes to the Scheveningen;
(2) 6...Qc7 will transpose to the Scheveningen or Taimanov Variations;
(3) 6...a6?! 7.Nxc6! bxc6 8.e5 Nd5 9.Ne4 forces Black into an inferior version of the 6.Nxc6
variation, where Black has wasted a tempo with ...a6. After 9...Qc7 10.Nd6+ Bxd6 11.exd6± Black
cannot play 11...Qxd6, as he could in the 6.Nxc6 variation where White’s bishop is still on f1,
because of 12.c4, winning;
(4) 6...Bc5?! 7.Nxc6! dxc6 (7...bxc6? 8.e5 Nd5 9.Ne4±, attacking the bishop, Tiuinas-Latinis,
Vilnius 2009) 8.Qxd8+²;
(5) 6...d5 7.exd5 exd5 8.0-0 Be7 (8...Bc5 9.Nb3²/=) 9.Bf4 (On f4 the bishop controls more dark
304
squares than it does on e3. 9.Be3 0-0= transposes to the diagram below) 9...0-0 10.Bf3 Be6²/=,
Areshchenko-Safarli, Dresden 2007; and
(6) 6...Be7 (keeping things simple) 7.0-0 0-0 8.Be3 d5 (8...d6 transposes to the Scheveningen; 8...a6
transposes to the Taimanov) 9.exd5 exd5 (9...Nxd5 10.Nxd5 exd5², Sämisch-Spielmann, Dortmund
1928)
10.Bf3 (10.Nb3 Be6=, Alekhine- Boekdrukker, Bussum simultaneous 1933) 10...Be6 11.Re1 Qd7
12.Qd2=, Spencer-Louis, Scarborough 1925. With all the pieces on the board, Black’s isolated pawn
is not a significant weakness.
After 6...Bb4, options for White are Section 1, 7.Sidelines (p. 189) and Section 2, 7.0-0 (p. 195).
Section 1: Sidelines
305
After 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6, the 6.Be2 variation poses no danger to
Black unless after 6...Bb4 White follows up with 7.0-0, sacrificing his e-pawn. Yet, more often than
not, White chooses a move other than 7.0-0. The most popular of these sidelines, listed below, are
covered in separate subsections. (1A) 7.f3³/=; (1B) 7.Bf3=; (1C) 7.Qd3=; and (1D) 7.Nxc6=
Other sidelines:
(1) 7.Bg5? Qa5 (with a double attack) 8.Bxf6 (8.Nxc6? Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Qxg5µ) 8...Bxc3+ 9.bxc3
Qxc3+ 10.Kf1 gxf6 11.Nb5 Qe5µ, Grigoriev-Schiffers, Moscow 1902. White does not have
sufficient compensation for his pawn deficit because of the poor position of his king; or
(2) 7.Ndb5?! Nxe4 8.0-0 and now:
306
(2a) 8...Nxc3 (the usual move) 9.bxc3 Be7 10.Nd6+ Bxd6 11.Qxd6 Qe7 12.Qg3 0-0³/=, Shabala-
Kozlov, Alushta 2006. White’s two bishops and open lines do not fully compensate for his pawn
deficit; or
(2b) 8...Bxc3! (Since Black will have to trade off this bishop whether he plays 8...Nxc3, as in (2a)
above, or 8...Bxc3, it is better to trade it off this way. By capturing on c3 with the bishop instead of
the knight, Black avoids losing a tempo by having to move the bishop again after White recaptures.)
9.bxc3 (9.Nxc3 Nxc3³) 9...d5 10.f3 (10.Ba3? a6 11.Nd4 Qa5µ) 10...Nd6 11.a4, Maier-Horvath,
Thessalonika 1996, 11...Nf5³, and White cannot now play 12.Ba3? because of 12...a6 13.Nd4 Ne3µ.
(1A) 7.f3
Frequently played, but ineffective.
7...d5
Alternatives:
(1) 7...Qa5 8.Qd3= (8.0-0?? Nxd4 9.Qxd4 Bc5–+); and
(2) 7...0-0 8.Bg5 Qa5 9.Bxf6 Bxc3+ 10.bxc3 Qxc3+ 11.Qd2 Qxd2+ (11...Qxa1+?? 12.Kf2 Qxh1
13.Qg5+–) 12.Kxd2 gxf6³/=. In this quiet position, White’s better development does not completely
compensate for his pawn deficit.
8.Nxc6
This trade strengthens Black’s center, but alternatives are no better:

(1) 8.0-0?? Bc5 9.Be3 e5–+, Tardif-Belkhodja, Issy-les- Moulineaux 1996;
(2) 8.exd5 Nxd5 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.Bd2 0-0 11.0-0 Rb8 12.Nxd5 exd5³/=, Didijer-Fakhiridou, Dresden
307
2008. Black has more space; or
(3) 8.Bg5 Qa5 9.Qd2 dxe4 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.fxe4³/=, Sandoval Mercado- Tabatabaei,
Kemer 2009. Black has the two bishops and a small initiative.
8...bxc6 9.0-0
Or (1) 9.exd5 exd5 10.0-0 0-0³, Podhorsky-Federic, Bratislava 2002. Black has the two bishops and a
semi-open b-file; and
(2) 9.e5 Nd7 10.f4 Qb6³, De Oliveira-Salama, Sao Paulo 2014. White has lost a tempo with his f-
pawn.
9...0-0 10.Bg5³/= Armas- Illescas Cordoba, France 1991. Black has a stronger center.
(1B) 7.Bf3
White’s position here is inferior to the position reached after 6.g3 Bb4 7.Bg2, Chapter 3, Section 3
(3B). That position is better for several reasons. The main reason is that on g2 the bishop is safe from
attack by Black’s queen knight. Other reasons are that g3 creates luft for White’s king, and that
White’s f-pawn has freedom to move forward.
7...0-0
Alternatives:
(1) 7...d5 8.exd5 and now:
(1a) 8...Nxd5 (the usual move) 9.0-0 0-0 10.Nxd5 exd5 11.c3², Rebizzo- Villegas, Argentina 1931.
This is the position White had in mind when he played 7.Bf3. Black’s d-pawn will be a target; or
308
(1b) 8...Ne5!? (A novelty. Black sacrifices a pawn.) 9.0-0 0-0 10.dxe6 Nxf3+ 11.Nxf3 Bxe6=.
Black’s two bishops and pressure on the queenside compensate for his pawn deficit.
(2) 7...Qa5 8.0-0 and now:
(2a) 8...Bxc3 9.bxc3 0-0 (9...Qxc3? 10.Nxc6 dxc6 11.Qd6!²) 10.Nxc6 dxc6, Vinuesa-Bolbochan,
Mar del Plata 1941, 11.c4 e5=, with equality; or
(2b) 8...0-0 9.Nb3 Qc7=, Suhomlin- Odnorozhenko, Kharkov 2004.
(3) 7...Ne5 8.0-0 0-0= transposes to the main line.
8.0-0 Ne5 9.Bf4
9...Nxf3+
9...d6, Tregubov-Utrera, Calvi Balagne 2002, 10.Ndb5 a6 11.a3 Bc5 12.b4 axb5 13.bxc5 Qa5=, with
play for both sides.
10.Qxf3 Bxc3 11.bxc3 d5 12.e5 Ne4= L.Steiner-Kostic, Bad Niendorf 1927.
(1C) 7.Qd3
309
White protects his e-pawn by moving his queen to d3, a somewhat awkward square for it. Black
usually responds with ...d5, either immediately or after castling, and White then usually trades pawns
on d5. This can leave Black with an isolated pawn on d5.
7...d5
The alternative is 7...0-0 8.0-0 d5 9.exd5 and now:

(1) 9...Nxd5?! (Trading off a minor piece will make it more difficult for Black to defend the isolated
pawn.) 10.Nxd5 exd5, Styblo-Salai, Czechia 1995 (10...Qxd5 11.Nxc6², Janetschek-Gaertner,
Austria 1997), 11.Be3²; or
(2) 9...exd5 10.Bg5 h6 11.Bh4 Re8 12.Rfe1 Bd7=, Daianu-Tunaru, Romania 2015, intending
13...Ne5.
8.exd5
8.Nxc6 will transpose to the (3) 8.Qd3 sideline of the (1D) 7.Nxc6 bxc6 line below.
8...Nxd5 9.Nxc6
9.0-0 Nxd4 10.Qxd4 Nxc3 11.bxc3 Qxd4 12.cxd4 Bc3 13.Rb1 Bxd4 14.Ba3, Kountz-Reiss, corr
2008, 14...f6=. White’s play compensates for his pawn deficit.
9...bxc6 10.Bd2 0-0 11.0-0 Rb8= Verduga Zavala-Sisniega, Buenos Aires 1978. White has no clear
path forward.
(1D) 7.Nxc6
310
This move is very popular, but offers White little hope for an advantage. The better time for White to
take Black’s knight was on the sixth move (Chapter 2) when, after 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.e5 Nd5, White has
8.Ne4, putting stress on Black’s position. Here White’s knight cannot move to e4 because it is
pinned.
7...bxc6
White now has many options:

(1) 8.Bd3 (This unfortunate move is one of White’s most frequent in this position. It puts White a
tempo behind the starting position of Chapter 2, Section 1: 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.Bd3.);
(2) 8.Qd4 Qb6 9.Qd3 d5 10.0-0 0-0 11.e5 Nd7 12.Qg3 Qc7= (or 12...f6=) 13.Bf4=, Khukhashvili-
Nurgali, Sharjah, 2021. Black has a strong center;
(3) 8.Qd3 d5 (8...0-0 9.0-0 d5 will transpose) 9.0-0 (9.exd5 exd5 10.0-0 0-0 11.Bf4 Re8³/=, Seuffert-
Schiffers, Leipzig 1894) 9...0-0 10.e5 Nd7 11.Qg3 Kh8 (or 11...Qc7=, transposing to the final
position of (2) above) 12.Bd3 f5=, Miljanic-Vlahovic Kladovo 1990. Black’s position is solid;
(4) 8.e5 is covered in (1D1);
(5) 8.Bg5 is covered in (1D2); and
(6) 8.0-0 is covered in (1D3).
(1D1) 8.e5
This move is popular, but White should castle first, see (1D3). The pawn can become a target.
8...Ne4
311
8...Nd5 9.Bd2 Nxc3 10.bxc3, Van Assendelft-Van der Wiel, Hoogeveen 2008, 10...Be7 11.0-0
Qa5=. Black has play.
9.Qd4
9.Bd2 Nxd2 10.Qxd2 Qa5 (attacking White’s e-pawn) 11.Qe3 Bc5³, Krokos-Mastrokoukos,
Chalkida 2000. Black has the two bishops and an initiative.
9...Qa5 10.a3!
This is the only move that does not give Black a significant advantage:
(1) 10.Qxe4? Bxc3+ 11.Kf1, Terzic-Atalik, Neum 2000, 11...Bxe5µ; or
(2) 10.Bd2? Nxd2µ, Blake-Monck, corr 1884.
10...Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 Qxc3+ 12.Qxc3 Nxc3 13.Bd3³/= Solomon-Zhau, Adelaide 2003. White has the
two bishops and more space, but is down a pawn.
(1D2) 8.Bg5 h6
8...Qa5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.0-0 Bxc3 11.bxc3 Qxc3 12.Rb1=. White has allowed Black’s queen to grab a
pawn in return for the initiative.
9.Bh4
9.Bxf6?! Qxf6³, Giustina-Pilnik, Mar del Plata 1945, hands the initiative to Black.
9...d5
312
9...g5?! (Black’s position is not strong enough to justify this move. Black’s dark squares are
vulnerable and his g-pawn can become a target.) 10.Bg3 d5 (10...Nxe4?? 11.Qd4 Bxc3+ 12.bxc3 Nf6
13.Be5+–) 11.exd5².
10.Qd4 Be7= Black’s center is solid.
(1D3) 8.0-0 d5
Alternatives:
(1) 8...Bxc3?! 9.bxc3 Nxe4?! (9...Qc7², Buldaev-Zhabanov, Ulan- Ude 2006.) 10.Qd4 d5 (10...Nf6
11.Ba3±, J.Meyer-Weltevreede, Holland 1928) 11.Qxg7 Qf6 12.Qxf6 Nxf6 13.Re1 Rg8 14.Rb1±,
Fetcu- Lorin, corr 2005. Black will have difficulty deploying his pieces.
(2) 8...0-0 9.e5² transposes to the (4) 8.Nxc6 bxc6 9.e5 line in Section 2 below.
9.e5
Alternatives:
(1) 9.exd5. Black can comfortably recapture with either pawn:
(1a) 9...cxd5= gives Black a favorable pawn structure; or
(1b) 9...exd5 (The pawn structure here is the same as in the completely equal position reached in the
classical variation of the Scotch game.) 10.Qd4 Be7 11.Bf4 0-0=, Traore-Jurcik, Batumi 2018.
(2) 9.Qd4 Be7=, L’Hermet- Schmitt, Magdeburg 1927. Black has a solid center.
9...Nd7 10.f4
313
After 10.Qd4 Bc5 11.Qg4 Kf8³, Roofthoofd-Vanderwaeren, Belgium 1995. White will have
difficulty defending his e-pawn.
10...0-0
11.Na4
White safeguards his queenside.

11.Bd3?! Nc5³, Arp-Cifuentes Parada, Netherlands 1992. Black has the initiative on the queenside.
11...Be7 12.Be3 Qa5 13.b3= Djurasevic-Janosevic, Belgrade 1961. White’s prudent defensive play
has enabled him to keep the balance.
Section 2: 7.0-0
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Be2 Bb4 7.0-0
314
White sacrifices a pawn. This offers the best chance for an advantage.
7...Bxc3
Black accepts the pawn offer. Otherwise the bishop is of little use on b4.
The alternative is 7...0-0:
(1) 8.Bg5?! h6 9.Bh4 g5 10.Bg3 Bxc3 11.bxc3 Nxe4 (Having castled, Black has captured White’s e-
pawn in more favorable circumstances than in the main line, where Black’s king is stuck in the
center.) 12.Nxc6, Solovjov- Balakirev, St. Petersburg 2010, 12...bxc6 13.Bd6 Nxd6 14.Qxd6
Re8³/=, followed by 15...Qe7. Black has a strong pawn center;
(2) 8.Bf3 Ne5= transposes to the 6...Bb4 7.Bf3 0-0 8.0-0 Ne5 line, Section 1 (1B);
(3) 8.Qd3= transposes to the 6...Bb4 7.Qd3 0-0 8.0-0 line, Section 1 (1C); and
(4) 8.Nxc6 (best) 8...bxc6 (8...dxc6 9.e5 Nd5 10.Ne4 Qc7 11.f4 Rd8 12.Bd3², Meissner-Penkin, corr
2009. Black’s kingside is vulnerable.) 9.e5 Nd5 10.Ne4.
315
White has reached a position similar to those in the 6.Nxc6 variation, but here White has been able to
castle safely and Black’s dark-square bishop is misplaced on b4. In the following examples, White
gains the two bishops and controls the center:
(1) 10...f5 11.Nd6 Bxd6 12.exd6², Kobalia-M.Petrov, Tromsø 2010; and
(2) 10...Qc7 11.Nd6 Bc5, Firouzja- Peng, Al Ain 2013, 12.c4 Ne7 13.Bf4 Ng6 14.Bg3 Bxd6
15.exd6².
8.bxc3 Nxe4
This is the key position of the 6.Be2 variation. White has sacrificed a pawn. He intends Ba3,
316
preventing Black from castling. He cannot do this immediately because of 9...Nxc3³, forking White’s
queen and bishop. Therefore he first sidesteps the fork by attacking the threatening knight, which he
may do with 9.Bf3, 9.Qd3, or 9.Bd3.
A minor sideline is 9.Nxc6 dxc6 (9...bxc6?! 10.Qd4!± transposes to 8...Bxc3?!, Section 1 (1D3))
10.Bd3 (10.Qxd8+ Kxd8 11.Bf3 Nf6 12.Rd1+ Bd7=, Kevicky-Keber, corr 2015. White’s two
bishops and open lines offset his pawn deficit.) 10...Nc5 11.Qg4 Qf6 12.Bg5 Qxc3 13.Rad1 h6
14.Be3 0-0 (14...Nxd3?? 15.Bd4 Qxc2 16.Qxg7 Rf8 17.Rxd3+–, Frolov-Bragina, St. Petersburg
2007) 15.Bxh6 f5=. White’s superior development compensates for his pawn deficit.
White’s main variations are: (2A) 9.Bf3=; (2B) 9.Qd3=; and (2C) 9.Bd3=
In each of these variations White will move his bishop to a3, where it restricts Black’s king to the
center and hinders Black’s development. Black can equalize if he keeps the following in mind:
• Black’s queen’s best square is a5, where it forces White to defend his bishop on a3 and applies
pressure along the e1-a5 diagonal.
• Options for Black’s knight on e4 include grabbing another pawn with ...Nxc3, or retreating to c5
or d6, blocking the range of White’s bishop.
• Black’s bishop usually goes to d7, rather than b7, because b7 would require Black to play ...b6,
which expends a tempo and weakens c6.
• For the time being, Black’s rooks remain passive.
• When time is available, the king can be moved to a better square, usually f7. It should normally
not be moved to the queenside, because of White’s open lines there.
(2A) 9.Bf3
This was the favored move until 1955, when Geller discovered 9.Bd3. The 9.Bd3 variation and the
317
9.Bf3 variation can merge after 9...d5 10.Bxe4, which can occur in either variation. That line is
covered here, in (2A).
9...d5
9...Nxc3 (a respectable alternative) 10.Qd3 and now:

(1) 10...Nxd4? 11.Qxd4 Qf6 12.Qxf6 gxf6 13.Bb2 Na4 14.Bxf6 Rg8 15.Be4 h6 16.f3±, Mierins-
Lavendelis, Olaine, rapid 2018. Black is still up a pawn, but his position is cramped. White’s two
bishops dominate, and White can win the exchange at his leisure.
(2) 10...Qf6 11.Be3 Nd5 12.Bxd5 exd5 13.Nb5 0-0=, Weeramantry- Ippolito, Hawaii 1998. White
will be a pawn down, but is much better developed and has active play.
10.Bxe4
As mentioned above, this position can also be reached in the 9.Bd3 variation (2C) after 9...d5
10.Bxe4.
The alternative 10.Nxc6 (10.Ba3? Qa5 11.Qc1 Nxd4 12.cxd4 Nd2³, Quparadze-Baghdasaryan,
Georgia 2015) 10.Nxc6 bxc6 strengthens Black’s center:
(1) 11.Ba3 Nd6 12.Qd4 f6 (12...0-0 13.Qc5 Nb5 14.Qxf8+=, Velimirovic-Vukic, Borovo 1980)
13.Rfd1 Kf7 14.Bxd6 Qxd6 15.c4 Rd8³/=. White will have to attack d5 using both c-pawns to
recover his pawn; or
(2) 11.Bxe4 dxe4 reaches a position that can also be reached from the 9.Bd3 variation (2C). There
follows 12.Qxd8+ (12.Qg4?! 0-0 13.Qxe4 Qd5³/=, Wade-Foltys, Trencianske Teplice 1949)
12...Kxd8
318
13.Re1 (13.Rd1+ Ke7 14.Ba3+ Kf6³/=, Ashwin-Sutovsky, Caleta 2014. Black’s king has become
energized.) 13...f5 14.Bf4 (14.Bg5+ Ke8 15.Rad1, Morovic Fernandez- Franzoni, Graz 1978,
15...Kf7! 16.Rd6 Rb8³. Black will counterattack on the queenside.) 14...Ke7 15.f3 exf3 16.gxf3=.
White is a pawn down, but has good play on the dark squares.
Returning to the main line, after 10.Bxe4:
10...dxe4 11.Ba3 Nxd4 12.cxd4 Qa5 13.Qc1
After 13.Bd6 Qd5 14.Ba3 Bd7 15.c4 Qxc4 16.Qg4 Qxd4=, Tseshkovsky-Sveshnikov, Odessa 1968,
Black has a three-pawn advantage, but he must meet the difficult defensive challenge presented by his
exposed king and White’s open lines.
319
After 13.Qc1, Black has two paths to choose from to safeguard his king and connect his rooks: either
...f6 and ...Kf7 or ...Bd7 and ...0-0-0.
13...Bd7
13...f6 14.Re1 (14.c4 Kf7=) 14...Bd7 15.Rxe4 Kf7 16.c4=, Ponomariov-Eljanov, Kiev 2012. White
has quickly recaptured his sacrificed pawn, but it will be difficult for him to make further progress.
14.c4 Bc6
Black allows White an option of sacrificing a second pawn to open the position and strand Black’s
320
king in the center.
Quieter is 14...f6 15.f3 (15.Re1?! Bc6 16.Qe3, Kosteniuk-Ushenina, Xian 2019, 16...0-0-0!³. Black
completes a head fake.) 15...exf3 16.Rxf3 Kf7=.
15.d5
White sacrifices another pawn.

Alternatives:
(1) 15.Bd6 (a waste of time) 15...f6³, followed by 16...Kf7, Kabanov-Yakovich, Salekhard 2006;
(2) 15.Qe3 0-0-0 16.Rab1 h6=, Groenegress-Budt, Ennigerloh 1965. White is still a pawn down, but
has queenside pressure; or
(3) 15.Rb1 f6 16.d5 (sacrificing a second pawn) 16...exd5 17.cxd5 Qxd5 18.Rd1 Qf5 19.Rxb7!
(19.Qc4?! Rd8, Sumits-Decsi, corr 1981, 20.Rxd8+ Kxd8 21.Rd1+ Kc8³) 19...Bxb7 20.Qc7 Qe6
21.Qxb7 Rd8 22.Rxd8+ Kxd8 23.Qb8+ Qc8=, with a perpetual.
15...exd5 16.cxd5 Qxd5 17.Rd1 Qe5 18.Qe3
18.Qc4?!, Do Valle Cardoso-Silva, Sao Paulo 2020, 18...e3! 19.Rdc1 (19.f4 Qe4³) 19...e2 20.Re1 0-
0-0³.
18...Rd8 19.Rxd8+ Kxd8 20.Rd1+ Kc8 21.Qxa7 e3= Black has given back both of White’s
sacrificed pawns.
(2B) 9.Qd3
White uses his queen to defend the c-pawn. The d3-square is usually not best for the queen, but White
321
saves time by not moving his king bishop again.
9...d5
9...Nc5 10.Qe3 (threatening 11.Nxc6) 10...b6 11.Nxc6 dxc6 12.a4 0-0 13.a5²/=, Dietrich- Koenig,
corr 2014. Black’s queenside is under attack.
10.Ba3 Qa5
10...Ne7 (allowing Black to castle) 11.c4 (11.Qb5+ Bd7! 12.Qxb7 Rb8³/=) 11...0-0 12.Rad1 Re8
(12...b6? 13.cxd5 exd5 14.c4², Golubov-Yagupov, Voronezh 2018) 13.cxd5 exd5 14.c4 Ng6=. White
has the two bishops and better development in return for his sacrificed pawn.
11.Nb5 a6 12.Nd6+ Nxd6 13.Bxd6
Reaching the key position for the 9.Qd3 variation. White, as compensation for his pawn deficit and
shattered queenside pawns, has better development, the two bishops, and has confined Black’s king.
His next step, if allowed, will be to attack the center with c4.
13...Ne7!
Black counters White’s control of the a3-f8 diagonal. He intends to follow with 14...Qd8, attacking
the bishop, and then castle. By playing 13...Ne7 before ...Qd8, Black discourages 14.c4, when he can
reply 14...Nf5, attacking the darksquare bishop and eliminating his problem with the a3-f8 diagonal.
If 13...Qd8, then 14.Qg3², Nisipeanu-Schneider, Germany 2010, and White’s control of the a3-f8
diagonal will make it difficult for Black to castle.
Returning to the main line:
322
14.Bxe7
Alternatives:
(1) 14.Qg3? Nf5µ;
(2) 14.c4?! Nf5 15.Bf4 (15.Ba3? dxc4µ) 15...dxc4 16.Qxc4 Bd7³, Riff-Nataf, France 2011 (better
than 16...0-0 17.Rfd1=, which retards development of Black’s bishop). White has insufficient
compensation for his pawn deficit; and
(3) 14.Rfe1 Qd8 15.Bb4 (15.Ba3 b5³, Meissner-Keevil, corr 2011, stopping 16.c4) 15...0-0 16.c4 Re8
17.Bf3 Nc6=, Bauer-Martins, corr 2010. White is down a pawn, but in return has a large space
advantage, supported by two well-placed bishops.
14...Kxe7
White’s queen will take advantage of Black’s exposed king.
15.c4 dxc4 16.Qd4
Or 16.Qxc4=.
16...Bd7 17.Bf3 e5 18.Qxc4 Be6 19.Qh4+ f6 20.Bxb7 Rab8= Norchenko-Foulds, corr 2013. White
has recovered his twopawn deficit and reached an equal endgame.
(2C) 9.Bd3
323
This is White’s favored move. It was introduced in Geller- Trifunovic, Zagreb 1955.
9...d5
This is the best among several alternatives:

(1) 9...Nf6 (passive) 10.Nb5 (10.Ba3 Nxd4 11.cxd4 d6²/=) 10...0-0 11.Ba3 Ne7 12.c4 b6, Dragovic-
Mainka, Jelenia Gora 1979, 13.Qd2². White’s two bishops and threats along the a3-f8 diagonal more
than compensate for his sacrificed pawn;
(2) 9...Nxd4 10.cxd4 (10.Bxe4 Nc6 11.Qd6 Qe7 12.Qg3²/=) 10...d5 11.Ba3 Qa5 12.Qf3!²
transposes to 10.Ba3 Nxd4?! 11.cxd4 Qa5 12.Qf3! (2C1) below;
(3) 9...Nc5 10.Ba3 (10.Qg4 g6=, Bielczyk-Krasenkow, Lubniewice 1995) 10...d6 (10...Qa5?
11.Nb5+–, shutting Black’s queen out of the defense, Bering-P.Larsen, Koge 2004; 10...Nxd3?
11.Nb5!±) 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.Bxc5 dxc5 13.Qh5². Black will have difficulty developing his queen
bishop, and his kingside is exposed to attack; and
(4) 9...Nxc3 grabs a second pawn. White’s standard reply is 10.Qg4 (4a), after which Black can
equalize. An interesting alternative for White is the rare move 10.Nxc6 (4b), which leads to a difficult
position for Black:
(4a) 10.Qg4 (the standard reply) 10...Qf6 (10...0-0 11.Bb2! f5 12.Nxf5 exf5 13.Qc4+ d5 14.Qxc3²,
Ermenkov-Minic, Plovdiv 1978) 11.Nxc6
324
11...h5! Black avoids immediately recapturing on c6 because he sees (11...bxc6) 12.Bg5 coming.
That would force his queen to e5, where he would lose a tempo after (12...Qe5) 13.Rfe1. So instead
of recapturing immediately, he first drives back White’s queen, which will allow him to move his
queen to d4. 12.Qg3 and now:
(4a1) 12...bxc6 13.h4 (13.Bd2 h4³/=, Rantanen-Ivanovic, Tallinn 1979) 13...Qd4 14.Re1 0-0 15.Bf4
Nd5 16.Bd6 Re8 17.c4 Ne7 18.Be4 (threatening 19.Be5) 18...Qf6 19.Be5 Qh6 20.Bf4 Qh8
21.Bd6²/=, Novikov-Fedak, corr 2015. White’s initiative is worth at least the two pawns he has
sacrificed;
(4a2) 12...dxc6 (safer) 13.h4 0-0 14.Bd2 (14.Bg5 Qd4 15.Rae1 f6=; 14.Bf4 Nd5 15.Be5 Qh6 16.c4
Ne7 17.Bf4 Qf6 18.Be5 Qh6= leads to a perpetual) 14...Nd5 15.Rfe1 Qd4!=, intending 16...Qg4.
(4b) 10.Nxc6!? Qf6 (10...bxc6 11.Qg4²; or 10...dxc6, Codina Garcia-Mellado Trivino, Catalunya
1992, 11.Qh5²) 11.Qh5 dxc6 12.Bg5 Qd4 13.Rfe1²/=. White is two pawns down, but has a
dominating position.
10.Ba3
325
The bishop will keep Black’s king in the center.
Alternatives transpose to other lines:
(1) 10.Bxe4 transposes to the 9...d5 10.Bxe4 line of the 9.Bf3 variation (2A); and
(2) 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.Bxe4 (11.Ba3 c5 12.Re1 Bb7=) transposes to the 9...d5 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.Bxe4
sideline in the 9.Bf3 variation (2A).
After 10.Ba3, Black’s main replies are 10...Nxd4?! (2C1) and 10...Qa5 (2C2). Too greedy is
10...Nxc3? 11.Qg4 Qf6 12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.Qg3 Bd7 14.Bd6±, threatening 15.Be5.
(2C1) 10...Nxd4?!
This capture repairs White’s pawn structure.
11.cxd4 Qa5
326
12.Qf3!
White intends to capture Black’s knight, then move the queen to g3 to increase his control over the
dark squares. Black cannot take White’s bishop because of 13.Bb5+.
12.Qc1 has been the usual move:
(1) 12...Bd7 This is the standard reply, but not best. It allows White time to banish Black’s knight.
13.Rb1! Bc6
13...Nd2?? 14.Bb4+–. This was the point of 13.Rb1!. After 13...Bc6:
327
(1a) 14.Bb4 Qc7 15.Qa3 a5 16.Bxe4 (if 16.f3, then 16...Qd8!, protecting the rook, 17.Be1 Nd6³/=)
16...dxe4 17.c4 f6 18.Bd6 Qd7 19.Rfd1 Kf7=, Geller- Khasin, Moscow 1961. Black is safe. If 20.d5,
then 20...exd5 21.cxd5 Bb5, followed by 22...Bd3, with an equal opposite-coloredbishops endgame;
or
(1b) 14.f3! (forcing the knight back to f6, where it hinders Black’s defense) 14...Nf6 (14...Nd2??
15.Bb4+–) 15.Bb4 Qc7 16.Re1!², Filev-Kirilov, Sofia 2004. Black’s king has no safe haven.
(2) 12...Nd2 (Best. The knight is heading to c4.) 13.Rd1 (If 13.Re1, Black can equalize with 13...f6=,
Rantanen-Povah, London 1978, but not 13...Nc4?, because of 14.Bxc4 dxc4 15.Re5, activating the
rook, 15...Qa4 16.Rg5 Rg8 17.Rg3 f6 18.Qf4±) 13...Nc4 14.Bxc4 dxc4 15.d5 f6! 16.Qe3 Kf7=.
Black is safe.
12...Bd7
Black did not have a good choice:

(1) 12...Nd2? 13.Qg3! (Black is paralyzed.) 13...Nxf1 14.Qd6 Qd8 15.Bb5+ Bd7 16.Re1+–; or
(2) 12...f5 13.Bxe4 dxe4 14.Qh5+ g6 15.Qh3±. Black’s extra pawn does not compensate for his weak
dark squares and stranded king.
13.Bxe4 dxe4 14.Qg3 Kovacs- Horvath, Copenhagen 1983.
14...0-0-0 15.Rab1² White’s open lines, safer king, and control of the dark squares are more than
enough compensation for his onepawn deficit.
(2C2) 10...Qa5
328
Best.
11.Qc1 Nxc3
Black takes another pawn and puts the question to White’s knight. 11...Nxd4 12.cxd4= transposes to
the 12.Qc1 sideline in (2C1) above.
12.Nb3
An alternative is 12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.Bd6 (threatening 13...Qg5) 13...f6 14.Qf4, Lelekova-Mukhlisov,

St. Petersburg 2004, 14...Ne4 (prudent) 15.Bxe4 dxe4 16.Qxe4 Qd5 17.Qb4=. White’s better
329
development compensates for his one-pawn deficit.
12...Qd8
12...Qc7, Balashov-Filippov, Maikop 1998, 13.Qd2 d4 14.Rae1=.
13.Qd2 d4 14.Rae1 Qd5 Filev- Lilov, Plovdiv 2008
15.Bb2
15.Bc5 Na5 16.Bb4 Nc6 17.Bc5=
15...0-0 16.Nxd4 Qxd4 17.Bxc3 Qc5= In return for a pawn, White has the two bishops and better
development.
330
Chapter 6
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.a3
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.a3
This modest move prevents ...Bb4. It diverts Black from his familiar plan of play.
Black now has a choice. He can transpose to comfortable variations of the Taimanov or Scheveningen
with 6...a6, 6...Qc7, or 6...d6, or he can remain in the Sicilian Four Knights with a sound, but benign,
position.
If Black chooses to remain in the Sicilian Four Knights, his main options are 6...d5 or 6...Be7
followed by a later ...d5. White will usually take the pawn on d5 with exd5. Black will then recapture
with either his e-pawn, obtaining an isolated pawn on d5, or his king knight, obtaining a safe, but
cramped, position.
After 6.a3, Black’s two main replies are:
Section 1: 6...d5 (p. 205) and Section 2: 6...Be7 (p. 208)
Other options for Black are:
(1) 6...a6 or 6...Qc7 transposing to the Taimanov Variation;
(2) 6...d6 transposing to the Scheveningen; and
(3) 6...Bc5?! 7.Nxc6! dxc6 (7...bxc6? 8.e5± followed by 9.Ne4) 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.e5² (hemming in
Black’s light-square bishop), Papp Zoltan- Binder, Hungary 1998.
331
Section 1: 6...d5
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.a3 d5
White’s options are (1A) 7.exd5= and (1B) 7.Bb5=
(1A) 7.exd5
Black’s choices now are 7...exd5 (1A1), taking on an isolated pawn, or 7...Nxd5 (1A2), reaching a
solid but passive position.
(1A1) 7...exd5
332
Black accepts an isolated pawn.
8.Be3!?
Black intends to castle queenside, aiming his rook at Black’s d-pawn. Alternatives are more popular,
but they do not allow White to achieve more than equality:
(1) 8.Bb5 Bd7 transposes to the 7.Bb5 variation (1B) after 7...Bd7 8.exd5 exd5=;
(2) 8.Be2 Be7 9.0-0 0-0 10.Be3 and now:
(2a) 10...a6 (Black contemplates an eventual ...Bd6 and/or ...Qc7.) 11.Re1 Be6=;
(2b) 10...Re8 11.Bf3 Ne5=, Nuenchert-Krueger, Colditz 1967; or
(2c) 10...Be6 11.Re1 Re8 12.Qd2 a6 13.Rad1 Qc7 14.Bg5 h6 15.Nxe6 fxe6=, Duplenko-Littke, corr
2006. If 16.Bxh6, 16...Bd6=.
8...Be6 9.Qd2 a6 10.h3 Bd6 11.0-0-0 0-0 12.g4² Boydia- Abdi Hassaan, Doha, rapid 2011. White is
applying pressure on Black’s center.
(1A2) 7...Nxd5
333
Black avoids an isolated pawn.
8.Nxd5
The alternative is 8.Nxc6 bxc6 9.Ne4, intending to drive Black’s knight away with c4:
(1) 9...Be7?! 10.c4 Nf6 11.Qxd8+ Bxd8 (11...Kxd8 12.Bd3²) 12.Nd6+ Ke7 13.Bf4², with the
initiative, Shevchenko-Rudyak, Moscow 2019.
(2) 9...Qc7 10.c4, Zakharov- Meizlin, Katerini 2014, 10...Nb6 11.Qh5 (White tries to seize the
initiative, but comes up short.) 11...Be7 12.Bd3 g6 13.Qh6 f5=. Black’s seventh rank is protected
(14.Qg7?? Bb4+–+).
8...Qxd5 9.Be3
9.Nb5 Qxd1+ 10.Kxd1 Rb8=, M.Petrov-Fakhiridou, Kavala 2001.
9...Be7 10.c4
10.Nxc6 Qxc6=, Kissel-Schmitt, Duerkheim 1996.
10...Qe4= De Metz-Bouwmeester, Nijmegen, rapid 1978. Black has a modest, but solid, position.
(1B) 7.Bb5
334
7...Bd7 8.exd5 exd5
Alternatives inadvisably trade pieces before accepting the isolated pawn:

(1) 8...Nxd4? 9.Bxd7+ Qxd7 10.Qxd4 Nxd5 11.Nxd5 Qxd5 12.Qxd5 exd5 13.Be3
and the d-pawn will fall:

(1a) 13...Kd7 14.0-0-0 Kc6 15.Rd3 b6 16.Rhd1 Rd8 17.c4 Bc5 18.Rxd5 Rxd5 19.Rxd5±, Shanava-
Sharbaf, Dubai 2010;
(1b) 13...b6 14.0-0-0 0-0-0 15.Rd3 Bc5 16.Bxc5 bxc5, Vasiukov- Khenkin, Moscow 1960, 17.Rc3±;
335
(2) 8...Nxd5 9.Nxd5 exd5 10.0-0 Be7 11.Be3 0-0 12.Bd3 g6 13.Qf3 Bc8, Purgar-Hibner, Zagreb
2007, 14.Rad1 Ne5 15.Qg3². White will apply pressure to the d-pawn.
9.0-0 Be7
Defending the isolated pawn should not be difficult for Black. He has what is essentially an extra
tempo (White’s pawn on a3), and all his pieces are still on the board:
(1) 10.Be3 0-0 11.h3 Re8 12.Re1=, Bazeev-Bragina, St. Petersburg 2007;
(2) 10.Re1 0-0 11.Bg5 h6 12.Bh4 Re8=, Konstantinov-Krutikhin, Novosibirsk 1962.
Section 2: 6...Be7
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.a3 Be7
336
This move offers Black the easiest path to equality. It avoids the isolated pawn on d5 that occurs
almost by force after 6...d5 7.Bb5 Bd7 8.exd5 exd5, Section 1 (1B).
Another advantage is that it forces White to make a commitment in the absence of information about
Black’s intentions, which could include transposition to the Scheveningen or Taimanov Variation.
White’s choices are (2A) 7.Nxc6=; (2B) 7.f4=; (2C) 7.Be3=; and (2D) 7.Be2=
(2A) 7.Nxc6 bxc6 8.e5 Nd5 9.Ne4
This position is similar to the one arising in the main line of the 6.Nxc6 variation after 6.Nxc6 bxc6
7.e5 Nd5 8.Ne4, except for the interpolation of a3 for White and ...Be7 for Black. The pawn on a3 is
337
useful for White, but the bishop on e7 is even more favorable for Black, because it supports an early
...f5.
An alternative for White is 9.Qg4 g6 10.Qg3, Lupulescu-Kovalenko, Khanty-Mansiysk 2019,
10...d6=. If 11.exd6?!, then 11...Bxd6, gaining time at the expense of White’s queen.
9...Qc7 10.f4 f5!
This move works better here, when Black’s bishop is on e7, than it does in the analogous position in
the 6.Nxc6 variation after 9...f5, Chapter 2, Section 6 (6A). There Black’s bishop is still on f8. In that
variation, after 10.exf6 Nxf6 11.Nxf6+, Black has to recapture with his g-pawn, which exposes his
kingside to attack.
11.Nd6+
11.exf6 Nxf6 12.Bd3, Petrienko- Skrobek, Bielsko Biala 1990, 12...Nxe4 13.Bxe4 Bh4+ 14.g3
Bf6³/=. Black has a strong pawn center, supported by his c-pawn.
11...Bxd6 12.exd6 Qb6
Black grabs the g1-a7 diagonal. If 12...Qxd6??, then 13.c4±, and if 12...Qb8, then 13.Qd4²/=,
Stephan-Hutois, Pornic 2008.
13.c4 Nf6 14.b4 a5 15.c5 Qb8= White has the two bishops, but his position has holes.
(2B) 7.f4
7...0-0
338
Alternatives:
(1) 7...d6 transposes to the Scheveningen Variation; and
(2) 7...d5 8.e5 Nxd4 (8...Nd7 9.Be3 0-0²/= transposes to the (2) 8...d5 sideline below) 9.Qxd4 Nd7
10.Be3 0-0 11.Qd2²/=, Tischbierek-Gauglitz, Salzwedel 1982. Black’s undeveloped queen bishop
will require attention.
8.Be3 e5
Alternatives:
(1) 8...d6 transposes to the Scheveningen; and
(2) 8...d5 9.e5 Nd7 10.Be2 Nxd4 11.Bxd4 a6 12.0-0 Qc7, De Rosa- Gallo, Naples 2007, 13.Qd2
Bc5²/=. White has a lead in development.
9.Nxc6 dxc6 10.f5
10.fxe5? Ng4³
10...Qxd1+ 11.Rxd1 b5 12.Bd3 a5= Schmaltz-Nekrasov, Baden 2017. Black has freed his position.
(2C) 7.Be3
This will transpose to another line.
7...0-0 8.Be2
8.f4 will transpose to the position after 8.Be3 in (2B) above.
339
8...d5
Alternatives transpose to other variations of the Sicilian. 8...d6 transposes to the Scheveningen. 8...a6
transposes to the Taimanov Variation.
9.exd5 Nxd5
9...exd5 10.0-0= transposes to the (2) 8.Be2 sideline of Section 1 (1A1).
10.Nxd5 Qxd5 11.0-0= This transposes to the main line of the 7.Be2 variation below after 11.Be3.
(2D) 7.Be2 0-0
7...d5 (7...d6 transposes to the Scheveningen; 7...a6 transposes to the Taimanov.) 8.exd5 Nxd5
(8...exd5 9.0-0 0-0= transposes to the (2) 8.Be2 sideline of Section 1 (1A1)) 9.Nxd5 Qxd5 10.Bf3
Qe5+ 11.Be3 Bd7 12.Nxc6 Bxc6 13.Bxc6+ bxc6 14.Qd4 Qf5 15.Qa4 0-0=, Savickas-Pileckis,
Lithuania 2007. Each side’s queen keeps the other side honest.
8.0-0
8.Be3 d5 (8...d6 transposes to the Scheveningen; 8...a6 transposes to the Taimanov.) 9.exd5 Nxd5
(9...exd5 10.0-0= transposes to the (2) 8.Be2 sideline of Section 1 (1A1)) 10.Nxd5 Qxd5 11.0-0
transposes to the main line after 11.Be3.
8...d5
8...a6 transposes to the Taimanov and 8...d6 transposes to the Scheveningen.
340
9.exd5 Nxd5
Black chooses not to create an isolated pawn on d5. 9...exd5= transposes to the (2) 8.Be2 sideline of
Section 1 (1A1).
10.Nxd5
An alternative is 10.Nxc6 bxc6 and now:

(1) 11.Ne4 f5 12.Ng3 Qc7 13.c4 Nf4, Damm-Zaerban, Leipzig 2016, 14.Bxf4 Qxf4 15.b4 c5=.
Black has the two bishops, but his pawns are vulnerable; or
(2) 11.Bd2=, Sredojevic-Yonal, Paracin 2021, with equal chances.
10...Qxd5, leading to drawish positions:
(1) 11.Nxc6 Qxc6 12.Bf3 Qc7 13.Qe2 Bd7=, Ellis-Chorfi, corr 2006; or
(2) 11.Be3 Nxd4 12.Qxd4 Qxd4 13.Bxd4 Rd8 14.Rad1 Bd7=, J.Van Foreest-Vidit, Riyadh, blitz
2017.
341
Chapter 7
The e3-square is a good one for White’s queen bishop in most variations of the Sicilian, but not in the
Sicilian Four Knights. On e3, the bishop has no offensive value, because it does not apply pressure to
Black’s weakened dark squares, d6 and c7. It has little defensive value, because it does not contest
Black’s control of d5 and e4.
The main line is 6...Bb4 7.Bd3 d5, after which White’s choices are 8.Nxc6 and 8.exd5. A frequently
played sideline is 7.f3.
Section 1: 7.f3 (p. 215); Section 2: 7.Bd3 d5 8.Nxc6 (p. 218); and Section 3: 7.Bd3 d5 8.exd5 (p.
223)
6...Bb4
This is the standard move.
342
After 6...a6, 6...Qc7, 6...d6, or 6...Be7, the game will usually transpose to another variation of the
Sicilian. After 6...d5, there follows 7.exd5 exd5 8.a3², which transposes to the 6.a3 variation, Chapter
6, Section 1 (1A1) after 8.Be3. White intends 9.Qd2, followed by 10.0-0-0². Black should delay ...d5
until White has committed his bishop to d3.
Returning to the main line, after 6...Bb4:
7.Bd3
7.Bd3 is the most natural move. The main alternative is 7.f3, which is the subject of Section 1.
Other alternatives:
343
(1) 7.Ndb5? Nxe4 8.Qg4 Nf6! (8...Nxc3? 9.bxc3 Bf8 10.Qg3², Denisov-Samarin, Zeleny Shum
2000) 9.Qxg7 Rg8 10.Qh6 Rg6 11.Qh4 Rg4 12.Qh3, Sheaf-Frias, Pablaza, Las Vegas 1995, 12...d5µ.
Black will continue his attack by pushing forward his center pawns; or
(2) 7.Nxc6 (a very popular move, but it strengthens Black’s center) 7...bxc6 and now:
(2a) 8.Qd4 c5 9.Qd3 Bb7 10.f3, Anders-Bonk, Pfalz 2012, 10...Rc8³. Black has more active play;
(2b) 8.e5 Nd5 (8...Ne4 9.Qd4 Nxc3 10.bxc3=) 9.Bd2 (taking two moves to go from c1 to d2; 9.Qg4
Qa5µ) 9...Qc7 and now:
(2b1) 10.Nxd5 Bxd2+ 11.Qxd2 cxd5 12.f4 0-0 13.Bd3 a5 14.0-0 Ba6³/=, Pirklova-Ptacnikova,
Czech Republic 1999. Black has play on the b- and c-files; or
(2b2) 10.f4 Qb6 11.Qf3 0-0 12.a3 Bxc3 13.bxc3 Ba6 14.Bxa6 Qxa6 15.Qd3=, Spassky-Hübner,
Tilburg 1981. The position is balanced.
(2c) 8.f3 d5 transposes to the 7.f3 variation, Section 1;
(2d) 8.Bd3 d5 transposes to the main line of the 8.Nxc6 bxc6 variation, Section 2.
Returning to the main line, after 7.Bd3:
7...d5
Forcing White’s hand. This is the standard move, but Black has many other choices:
(1) 7...Qa5?! (Black does not have time to go after a pawn on c3.):
344
(1a) 8.Qd2 Nxd4 9.Bxd4 e5 10.Be3 d5 11.exd5 Nxd5 12.Bb5+ Qxb5 13.Nxb5 Bxd2+=, Rodrigues-
Petersen, corr 1996.
(1b) 8.0-0 Bxc3 9.bxc3 0-0 (9...Qxc3?? 10.Nb5 Qa5 11.Bc5+–, Borsavolgyi-Sipos,
Hajduboszormeny 1998) 10.f4², Harasta-Rossa, Slovakia 2002. White controls the center, and Black
lags in development.
(2) 7...Ne5 (wasting time) 8.f4 (best), Lasker-Lutton, simultaneous, USA 1901 (This move must be
made before White castles. Otherwise Black will gain counterplay along the g1-a7 diagonal.)
8...Nxd3+ (8...Neg4 9.Bd2 Bc5 10.h3²) 9.cxd3 0-0 10.0-0 d6²/=, Paluszek-Lata, Warsaw 2011.
White has more space in the center.
(3) 7...Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 d6 (Black has weakened White’s queenside pawns at the expense of trading off
his strong dark-square bishop. He will compensate by moving his center pawns to d6 and e5, which
will protect his weakened dark squares and bring life to his light-square bishop.) 9.0-0 e5=,
Shcherbakov- Gorin, corr 1997. White has the two bishops but his c-pawns are weak. Black’s
weakened light squares are protected by his bishop.
(4) 7...e5 8.Nxc6 bxc6 9.0-0 0-0=, Djurovic-Spasojevic, Yugoslavia 1973, with ...d5 to follow.
(5) 7...0-0 8.0-0 d5 (8...Bxc3 9.bxc3 e5 10.Ndb5 d6 11.c4²/=, Baldas- Müller, Germany 1994)
345
Black does not stand badly, but he would have had more options if he had played ...d5 before White
castled, when White’s queen knight was pinned. After 9.exd5 (9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.e5 Nd7 11.f4 Bc5=,
Barwick-Grobler, Buxton 2013) Black’s choices are:
(5a) 9...Nxd5?! 10.Nxd5 exd5 (10...Qxd5 11.c4±, Chahlov- M.Zaitsev, Verkhnedneprovsk 2006,
with the initiative) 11.c3², Roganovic-Zegarac, Vojvodina 2017, gaining a tempo; and
(5b) 9...exd5 10.h3 Re8 11.Re1 Bd7 12.a3 Ba5 13.Qd2 Bb6 14.Be2 Rc8=, Volkov-Zabrovsky, corr
2013. Black is fully developed. He has an isolated d-pawn, but it is not a significant weakness
because, unlike (5a) above, he has avoided trading pieces.
Returning to the main line, after 7...d5:
346
The two major options here for White are 8.Nxc6 (Section 2) and 8.exd5 (Section 3). Others are:
(1) 8.f3 (weak) will transpose to the 8.Bd3 sideline of the 7.f3 variation (Section 1); and
(2) 8.0-0 Bxc3 (8...0-0 transposes to (5) above.) 9.bxc3 dxe4
Forcing White’s bishop to move. Now:

(2a) 10.Bb5 Qc7 11.Bg5 Bd7³, Markgraf-Kehne, Dortmund 2009, giving life to Black’s bishop; or
(2b) 10.Nxc6 (best) 10...bxc6 11.Bc4 0-0 12.Bc5 Re8, Jadvishena- Zatonsky, Alushta 1998, 13.Qxd8
Rxd8=. Black is a pawn up, but White has two active bishops, while Black’s lone bishop is blocked
in.
Section 1: 7.f3
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Be3 Bb4 7.f3
347
Against other variations of the Sicilian, the moves Be3 and f3 aim to set up a formation called the
English Attack, where White follows with Qd2, 0-0-0, and g4, attacking on the kingside. This
formation is of no use against the open pawn structures of the Sicilian Four Knights. The only use
7.f3 has is to protect the e4-pawn, but for that purpose it is inferior to the natural developing move,
7.Bd3.
7...d5
Best. Alternatives:
(1) 7...a6 transposes to the Taimanov, bestowing undeserved validation on White’s poor 7th move;
(2) 7...Qa5 8.Qd2 d5 9.Nb3 Qc7
348
This position more often arises from the 4...Qb6 line in the Sicilian after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4
cxd4 4.Nxd4 Qb6 5.Nb3 Nf6 6.Nc3 e6 7.Be3 Qc7 8.f3 Bb4 9.Qd2 d5, and a typical continuation is
10.a3 Bxc3 11.Qxc3 dxe4 12.fxe4 0-0 13.Bd3 Ng4 14.Bg1=, Balinov-Milov, Neckar 2003. The
game is even;
(3) 7...0-0 and now:
(3a) 8.Be2 d5 9.0-0 e5 10.Nxc6 bxc6³/=, Trevelyan-I.Rees, Swansea 2002.
(3b) 8.Qd2 d5 (8...a6?! transposes to the Taimanov, which allows White to successfully complete his
English Attack opening sequence: 9.0-0-0 Qc7 10.g4) 9.a3 Ba5, Volas-Jovic, Belgrade 2008, 10.Rd1
(White senses danger.) 10...e5 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.b4 Bb6 13.exd5 cxd5 14.Bxb6 axb6 15.Nxd5 Rxa3
16.Ne3=. White’s careful play has kept him safe.
Returning to the main line, after 7...d5:
349
Black’s position is better. He has a center pawn majority ready to roll through White’s center starting
with ...e5. If White exchanges pawns on d5, the recapture by Black’s knight attacks White’s bishop
on e3 and threatens White’s knight on c3. If White expands on the kingside with e5 and f4, he will
have wasted a tempo by having played f3.
Here White’s two main choices are (1A) 8.Nxc6³ and (1B) 8.Bb5³
Alternatives:
(1) 8.exd5 Nxd5 (attacking the bishop) 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.Bd2 (10.Bd4?? e5! 11.Bxe5 0-0–+,
Rosenauer-Mladenov, Solingen 2010) 10...0-0³, Toth-Szaszak, Hungary 2005. White lost time with
his extra bishop move; and
(2) 8.Bd3 0-0 9.Nxc6 (9.0-0?? Bc5µ) 9...bxc6 (threatening d4) 10.a3, Thorold-Zukertort, England
1880, 10...Bd6 11.0-0 Rb8 12.Rb1 Qc7³. Black has a stronger center.
(1A) 8.Nxc6 bxc6
350
This capture strengthens Black’s center.
9.e5
9.exd5 Nxd5³ (9...exd5³) transposes to the (1) 8.exd5 sideline above.
9...Nd7 10.f4
White is a tempo behind, having spent two tempos to move his f-pawn to f4.
10...0-0
10...c5 11.Bd2 (White gives up another tempo.) 11...Bb7 12.a3 Bxc3 13.bxc3 0-0 14.Be2, Ungerer-
Geiger, Baden 2014, 14...Qh4+ 15.g3 Qe7 16.0-0 Nb6³. Black has play on the queenside; and
11.Be2 f6 12.exf6 Nxf6 13.0-0 Bd6³ Sedgwick-Poschel, Detroit 1983. Black’s central pawns restrict
White’s play.
(1B) 8.Bb5
351
Black’s alternatives here are 8...Bd7 (1B1) and 8...Qc7 (1B2).
(1B1) 8...Bd7 9.Bxc6
9.0-0? This common mistake is seen almost as often as the main-line move. After 9...e5, White is in
trouble regardless of what he does:
(1) 10.Nb3 d4–+;
(2) 10.exd5 Nxd4–+;
(3) 10.Nxd5 Nxd5 11.exd5 Nxd4–+; or
(4) 10.Nde2 d4 11.Nd5 Nxd5 12.exd5 dxe3 13.dxc6 Bxc6µ, Palm-Byrn, Copenhagen 1998, winning
a pawn.
9...Bxc6
Making room for the knight. 9...bxc6?! 10.e5 Ng8 11.Nb3 Nh6 12.0-0 Nf5 13.Bf2=, Camarena-
Janetschek, Havana 1966. Black’s knight moves have allowed White time to contest the dark squares
on the queenside.
10.e5 Nd7 11.f4
352
11...Qh4+ 12.g3 Bxc3+ 13.bxc3 Qh3³ Salazar Moran- Bichik, corr 2012. Black has an initiative.
(1B2) 8...Qc7 9.0-0 0-0 10.exd5 Bxc3!
Black wants to avoid a trade when his knight goes to d5.
11.dxc6
11.bxc3 Nxd5³
11...Bxb2 12.Rb1 Nd5
353
13.Qd3
13.cxb7 Bxb7 14.Qd3 Nxe3 15.Qxe3 Bc3µ, Muhren-Peng, Netherlands 2005, intending ...Ba5 and
...Bb6. Black’s two bishops are powerful in this open position.
13...Bxd4 14.Qxd4 bxc6³ White is down a pawn with insufficient compensation.
Section 2: 8.Nxc6
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Be3 Bb4 7.Bd3 d5 8.Nxc6
354
This is a popular try but not best because it solidifies Black’s center.
8...bxc6
The main lines are (2A) 9.e5= and (2B) 9.exd5=

Sometimes seen is 9.Bd2 0-0 10.0-0 (10.e5 Nd7 11.f4 Qb6³, Ulunque Villazon-Lagemann, Steinfurt
2013. White cannot castle.) 10...Rb8 11.Bf4 Rb7 12.e5 Nd7, Nelikov- Pankov, Rybinsk 2004,
13.Na4=. White neutralizes Black’s play on the queenside.
(2A) 9.e5
White looks toward Black’s kingside. Black has two replies: 9...Nd7 (2A1) and 9...d4 (2A2).
(2A1) 9...Nd7
10.Qg4
Attacking both the g-pawn and the bishop. 10.f4 Bc5 11.Bxc5 Nxc5³/=, Grochal-Rietveld, Nijmegen
2002. Black has play on the queenside.
10...Bf8
Black can keep White’s aggression in check because of his solid center. His king is safe on e8.
10...Qa5 11.0-0 (11.Qxg7 Bxc3+ 12.bxc3 Qxc3+ 13.Ke2=) 11...g6=.
11.f4
355
11.Qg3 Qc7 12.f4 Rb8=, Naegeli- Eliskases, Munich 1936.
11...Rb8
Alternatives:
(1) 11...c5? (Surprisingly, this natural move does not work here. In key lines where Black’s knight
leaves its position on d7, White can play Bb5+, disrupting Black’s defense.) 12.0-0!, intending to
follow with 13.f5. Black has no effective answer:
(1a) 12...d4? 13.f5! Nxe5 (13...dxe3 14.fxe6+–) 14.Bb5+! Bd7 15.Qe4±, with a double attack on
Black’s rook and knight;
(1b) 12...Rb8? 13.f5! Nxe5 14.Qg3±, Dimitrov-Klimov, Spain 2002, pinning the knight;
(1c) 12...g6?, Hater-J.Brooks, Detroit, 1999, 13.f5! gxf5 (13...Nxe5 14.Bb5+ Bd7 15.Qg3±) 14.Qh5
Nxe5 15.Bg5 Be7 16.Bb5+ Bd7 17.Rae1 (White attacks from every side of Black’s massive pawn
center.) 17...Bxg5 18.Rxe5 0-0 19.Bxd7 Qf6 20.Rfe1±, intending 21.Nxd5; and
(1d) 12...c4 (This move prevents an immediate 13.f5, because White’s bishop cannot check on b5
after 13...Nxe5. But it creates a hole on d4.) 13.Be2².
(2) 11...g6 12.0-0 Bc5 (stopping White’s attack) 13.Bxc5 Nxc5=, Hector-Hansen, Skaenninge 1998.
12.Rb1
Simplest and best among the alternatives:

(1) 12.b3? (weakening c3) 12...d4! 13.Bxd4 Nf6 14.Qd1 Qxd4 15.Ne2 Bb4+ 16.Kf1 Qd8 17.exf6
Qxf6µ, Melia-Tsereteli, Georgia 2002. White’s position is in disarray;
(2) 12.Nd1?! Qa5+ 13.Bd2 Qb6 14.Qg3 Nc5 15.b3 Nxd3+ 16.cxd3 (16.Qxd3 Ba6µ) 16...Ba6³,
356
Mitkov-Illescas Cordoba, Ponferrada 1997. Black has the two bishops and has potential to expand on
the queenside; or
(3) 12.0-0?! Rxb2³, Chekhlov- Deev, USSR 1980. White gives up the pawn without sufficient
compensation.
12...c5 13.Bf2 g6 14.0-0 Be7= Kubala-Theissl Pokorna, Slovakia 1997. Black is stronger on the
queenside and White is stronger on the kingside.
(2A2) 9...d4
The position opens. This is no better or worse than the alternative 9...Nd7 (2A1).
10.exf6
10.Bd2 Nd7 11.Ne4 Bxd2+ 12.Qxd2 Nxe5 13.0-0-0 (If 13.Qb4, Taubenhaus-Mieses, Monte Carlo
1903, the computer offers 13...a5! 14.Nd6+ Ke7 15.Nxc8+ Kf6 16.Qd2 Nxd3+ 17.cxd3 Qc7³, and
White has insufficient compensation for his pawn deficit.) 13...Qd5 14.f4 Nxd3 15.Qxd3 c5
16.Rhe1=. White’s lead in development compensates for his pawn deficit.
10...dxe3
Alternatives:
(1) 10...dxc3?! (frequently played, but inferior) 11.b3 Qxf6 12.Qg4 (attacking the bishop) 12...a5
13.0-0 (13.Bd4?! e5=, Gaevsky-Vilner, Kharkov 1925) 13...e5 14.Qe4 Qe6 (intending 15...f5)
15.Bc4². White’s attack focuses on e5; or
(2) 10...Qxf6 11.Be4 dxe3 (11...e5 12.Bg5 Qxg5 13.Bxc6+², Lacroix- Bolzoni, Belgium 1997)
357
12.Bxc6+ Ke7 13.0-0 exf2+ 14.Kh1, Zilberstein-Glik, USSR 1973 (14.Rxf2? Bc5³), 14...Rb8
15.Qe2=. White will recover the pawn.
11.fxg7 exf2+ 12.Kf1
12.Kxf2? Qd4+ 13.Kf1 Qxg7µ, Skolarski-Noetzel, Germany 2001. Black has the two bishops and
White has an exposed king.
12...Rg8
13.Qg4
White attacks the bishop and protects his pawn. Alternatives give Black the upper hand:
(1) 13.Qf3?! Rxg7 14.Rd1 Bb7 15.Ne4 f5, Soos-Szeberenyi, Hungary 2015, 16.Qh5+ Kf8 17.Bc4
Qe7 18.Nxf2³. Black has the two bishops and White’s king rook is blocked in; or
(2) 13.Bxh7?! Rxg7 (13...Qh4?! 14.Qd3! Rxg7 15.Be4 Bb7 16.g3 Qh3+ 17.Bg2=, Cardelli-Banet,
corr 2009) 14.Qxd8+ Kxd8 15.Bd3 f5 16.Kxf2 e5³, Schlosser-Fauland, Austria 1987. Black has the
two bishops and control of the center.
13...Bxc3 14.bxc3 Qf6 15.Qd4 e5 16.Qxf2 Qxf2+ 17.Kxf2 Rxg7= Leino-Franssila, Finland 1997,
reaching an equal endgame.
(2B) 9.exd5
358
This move offers White no chance for an advantage. Black can reply with 9...cxd5 (2B1), 9...exd5
(2B2), or 9...Nxd5 (Section 3).
(2B1) 9...cxd5
Black will try to make use of his center pawns and open lines on the queenside. White will try to keep
Black’s center pawns in check by controlling the dark squares in the center.
The pawn structure here is the same as in the line 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.Bd3 d5 8.exd5 cxd5, Chapter 2,
Section 1 (1B1).
10.0-0
359
Alternatives:
(1) 10.Bd2?! (unnecessary) 10...0-0 11.0-0 Bb7 12.Re1³. Black controls the center.
(2) 10.Bd4 0-0 11.0-0 transposes to the main line.
10...0-0 11.Bd4
This bishop move is a first step in preventing expansion of Black’s center pawns. As seen in the
following lines, White usually follows with f4:
(1) 11...Re8 12.f4 Qe7= followed by 13...Bc5, Appendino- Krivokapic, Paris 1999;
(2) 11...Bb7 12.Qe2 Re8 13.Bb5 Rf8 14.Bd3 Qe7 15.Qe3 Bd6 16.f4=, Buscher-Haag, Bad
Godesberg 1991;
(3) 11...Bd6 12.f4 Qe7 13.Qe1 Bc5=; and
(4) 11...Qe7 12.Qe2 (12.f4?! Bc5! 13.Ne2 Rb8 14.b3, Sepesi- Plachetka, Slovakia 2013, 14...Bxd4+
15.Nxd4 Qc5 16.Kh1 Ne4³, with queenside pressure) 12...Bd7 13.Qe3 Bd6 14.f4=.
(2B2) 9...exd5
360
White’s position here is similar to a position in the Scotch Game that arises after (to the line)1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.Bd3 0-0 8.0-0 d5 9.exd5 cxd5 10.Bg5
c6, which is considered equal. There, White’s queen bishop is on g5, a better square than e3.
Black threatens 10...d4.
10.Bd4
Alternatives:
(1) 10.Bd2?! (a popular move) 10...0-0 11.0-0 Bd6 12.Bg5 Rb8 13.Rb1 Rb4³, Kostornih- Mkrtchan,
Odessa 2010. Black dominates the center; or
(2) 10.a3 Bd6 11.h3 (11.0-0? Ng4µ) 11...0-0 12.0-0= (Kondopoulos- Valden, Athens 2013). White
has avoided trouble.
10...0-0
10...c5? 11.Bxf6 Qxf6 12.0-0 Be6 13.Bb5+±.
11.0-0 Bd6 12.h3
Alternatives:
(1) 12.Qf3 Ng4 13.h3 Qh4 14.Rfe1 Nh2 15.Qe3, Pappenheim-Erlbeck, Nuremberg 2009, 15...Nf3+
16.Qxf3 Qxd4 17.Rad1 Qb6³/=. White is well developed, but Black has the two bishops and a strong
center; or
(2) 12.Na4 (counterattacking on the queenside) 12...Qe7 13.Re1 Be6 14.c4=.
12...Be6 13.Qf3 Nd7 14.Qh5 g6 15.Qh6 Be5= Al Zendani- Mohammad, Istanbul 2000. The position
361
is balanced.
Section 3: 8.exd5
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Be3 Bb4 7.Bd3 d5 8.exd5
8...Nxd5
This is the sensible choice. Black’s knight attacks pieces on both e3 and c3. The alternative, 8...exd5,
does not leverage Black’s bishop on b4.
9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.Bd2
Sidelines:
(1) 10.Qg4 0-0 11.0-0 Nxe3 12.Qe4 g6 13.Qxe3 Qb6=. Black has the two bishops and a comfortable
position; and
(2) 10.0-0 Nxe3 11.fxe3 Bxc3 12.bxc3 0-0 13.Qf3 Qc7 14.Rab1 e5=, Zaragatski-Kalinitschew, blitz
2004. Black is safe.
362
This is the key position of the 6.Be3 variation. After 10.Bd2, Black will usually play ...Nxc3, now or
later, which will double and isolate White’s c-pawns. But this costs time, because after White
recaptures with bxc3, Black will have to relocate his bishop. White’s doubled c-pawns will not be a
major problem for White, because any attack down the c-file by Black is blocked by Black’s own c-
pawn.
Black’s most popular choice is the immediate capture, (3A) 10...Nxc3. Black’s other main choice is
(3B) 10...0-0, delaying the Nxc3 capture until after White has castled.
Or:
(1) 10...Bxc3?! 11.bxc3 Qf6 12.0-0 0-0 13.Qh5 (13.c4 Nf4²/=, Monokroussos-Willis, Los Angeles
1988) 13...g6 14.Qh6 e5 15.Bg5 Qe6 16.Rae1², Frolov-Beshukov, St. Petersburg 1994. Black’s
center is weak;
(2) 10...Qa5?! (The queen is out of place on a5.) 11.Qg4 0-0 12.0-0 (threatening 13.Nxd5 Bxd2
14.Nf6++–) 12...f5 13.Qc4². Black’s center is weak and White has the two bishops; and
(3) 10...Qf6 and now:
(3a) 11.Nxd5 (consolidating Black’s pawns) 11...Bxd2+ 12.Qxd2 cxd5=, G.Akopian- Khairullin,
Khallithea 2008.
(3b) 11.0-0 (threatening 12.Nxd5) 11...Nxc3 12.Qg4! Nxa2 13.Bxb4 Nxb4 14.Qxb4 Qe7 15.Qe4
Bb7 16.h4²/=. White has a comfortable initiative for his sacrificed pawn.
(3A) 10...Nxc3
363
Black immediately trades off his king knight. Doing this before White castles entails some risk,
because it gives up a potential kingside defender.
11.bxc3
Black’s options now are 11...Be7 (3A1) and 11...Bd6 (3A2).
(3A1) 11...Be7
What is the best square for the bishop – e7 or d6? On e7, Black’s queen has open sight down the d-
file, which is helpful in some lines (see (1) and (2) below). But it allows White the option to occupy
364
the h2-b8 diagonal with his queen bishop (see Black’s 13th move below).
12.Qf3
An alternative is for White to castle first. After 12.0-0 0-0, White’s options are:
(1) 13.Qf3 Ba6! 14.Bxa6 Qxd2=;
(2) 13.Qh5 g6! 14.Qe2 (14.Qf3 Ba6=) 14...Qc7=, Kumala-Dragun, Hucisko, rapid 2016; and
(3) 13.Re1²/= (bringing in another piece) transposes to the 12...Be7 sideline in (3B) below.
12...Qc7 13.0-0
13.Bf4 does not work here because of 13...e5 14.Bg3 f5 15.Qe2 Bf6=, allowing Black to expand his
center.
13...Bd6
If Black castles here, White can play Bf4 with effect: 13...0-0? 14.Bf4! e5 (14...Bd6? 15.Bxh7+ Kxh7
16.Qd3++–, Frolov-Lependin, Novokuznetsk 1999) 15.Qe4 g6 16.Qxe5 Qxe5 17.Bxe5², winning a
pawn.
14.Qh5
14.h3= (passive), Schiffer-Mainka, Bad Zwesten 2000.
14...g6 15.Qh6 Bf8 Pils-Stulik, Austria 1992
16.Qf4²/= White is better developed.
365
(3A2) 11...Bd6
Black’s bishop occupies the h2-b8 diagonal.
12.Qh5
White provokes the weakening ...g6. He delays castling for now, to preserve the option of a kingside
attack.
Alternatives:
(1) 12.Qf3 Qc7 13.Qh5 g6=, Kugelmann-Melamed, Arber 2018;
(2) 12.Qg4 and now:
(2a) 12...Qf6?! (The queen is more useful on c7.) 13.0-0 Bd7 (13...0-0? 14.Qe4 g6 15.Qxc6±)
14.Rab1 e5 15.Qe4 Qg6, Ehsandar-Bullen, Cardiff 2018, 16.Qc4². White has pressure on Black’s
queenside; or
(2b) 12...0-0 13.0-0 Qc7 14.Qh5 h6=;
(3) 12.0-0 0-0= transposes to the main line of (3B) below.
12...g6 13.Qf3
366
13.Qh6 Bf8 14.Qf4 Bg7=, Gorbunov-Yagupov, Tula 2004.
13...0-0
Alternatives:
(1) 13...Qc7? 14.Bh6 (Black will not be able to castle kingside.) 14...Be5 (14...Bf8 15.Qf6²) 15.0-0
Bxh2+ 16.Kh1 Be5, Bottyan-Zila, Hungary 1998, 17.Rfe1! Bxc3 18.Be4 Bxa1 19.Bxc6+ Bd7
20.Bxd7+ Kxd7 21.Rxa1±. Black’s king is badly exposed; or
(2) 13...Bd7 14.h4 (14.Bh6 Be5 15.Be4 Qf6=) 14...Be5 15.Be4 0-0 16.Rd1²/=, Spaan-Le Quang,
Belgium 2012. White will continue with h5, with a small initiative.
14.h4²/= Klein-Ruszin, Budapest 2004. White has some initiative on the kingside.
(3B) 10...0-0
367
Black waits to see what White’s intentions are on the kingside before capturing on c3 with his knight.
11.0-0
11.Qh5 (This move works in the 10...Nxc3 11.bxc3 Bd6 line (3A2), but not here. Black’s knight is
still on d5 and is well-positioned for defense.) 11...g6, Faase-Buytaert, Dortmund 1975 (or 11...f5=),
12.Qf3 Qc7=. White has no attack.
11...Nxc3 12.bxc3
12...Bd6
368
A good square for the bishop.
12...Be7 13.Re1 Qc7 14.Qh5 g6 15.Qf3+²/= (15.Qh6 Bf6=, Votava-Rogozenco, Stockerau 1993).
White intends 16.Bf4 or if 15...e5, then 16.Bh6 followed by 17.Bc4 with play on the kingside.
13.Qh5 g6 14.Qf3 Qc7= Eretova-Albulet, Plovdiv 1959. Black’s position is solid. She can continue
her development with ...Bb7 and ...c5.
(back to the text)

White’s position here is similar to a position in the Scotch Game that arises after 1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.Bd3 0-0 8.0-0 d5 9.exd5 cxd5 10.Bg5
c6, which is considered equal. There, White’s queen bishop is on g5, a better square than e3.
369
Chapter 8
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6
6. Other Sixth Moves
This chapter covers White’s less frequent sixth-moves:

(8A) 6.f4= (p. 228); (8B) 6.f3= (p. 229); (8C) 6.Bb5= (p. 229); (8D) 6.Nf3= (p. 230); (8E) 6.Nb3=
(p. 231); (8F) 6.Bc4= (p. 232); (8G) 6.Bf4= (p. 234); and (8H) 6.Qd3= (p. 235)
(8A) 6.f4
370
6...Bb4
6...d6 transposes to the Scheveningen.
7.Nxc6
The usual move. Alternatives:

(1) 7.e5 Ne4 8.Qd3, Thom- Schmidt, Baden 1989, 8...Qh4+ 9.g3 Nxg3 (winning a pawn) 10.Nf3³/=.
White has play, but Black is a pawn up.
(2) 7.Qd3 d5 8.e5 Ne4 9.a3 Bxc3+ (9...Qa5?? 10.axb4 Qxa1 11.Nb3 Qa6 12.b5+–, Laake-Kubikova,
Germany 2014) 10.bxc3, J.Mueller- Javet, Zürich 1982, 10...0-0 11.Be2 Na5³. Black’s knights are
exploiting holes in White’s position.
7...bxc6 8.Bd3
8.e5?! Ne4 9.Qf3 Qa5 10.Qxe4 Bxc3+ 11.Kf2 Rb8! 12.Bc4 Bxb2 13.Bxb2, Rheinheimer-Barucker,
corr 1988, 13...Rxb2 14.Bb3 c5³. White has insufficient compensation for his pawn deficit.
8...d5 9.e5 Nd7= The game has transposed to a level position sometimes reached in the Sicilian Pin
Variation.
(8B) 6.f3
371
The move f3 is often seen in other variations of the Sicilian, but is not useful against Sicilian Four
Knights pawn structures.
6...Bb4
6...d5 7.Bb5 Bd7 8.exd5 exd5 9.Bg5 (White decides to castle queenside because of his weak g1- a7
diagonal; 9.0-0 Be7=, Babula- Borik, Vrbno pod Pradedem 1965) 9...Be7 10.Qd2 0-0 11.0-0-0 h6
12.Bh4 Rc8=. Both sides have play.
7.Nxc6
7.Be3?! transposes to an inferior line in the 6.Be3 variation, Chapter 7, Section 1.
7...bxc6 8.a3
372
White will accept isolated doubled pawns if Black trades off his strong bishop.
8.Bd2 (the usual move) 8...d5 9.Bd3 0-0 10.0-0 Nd7³/=, Eluekezie-Erhirhie, Benin 2014. Black has a
stronger center.
8...Bxc3+ 9.bxc3
White’s isolated doubled c-pawn formation is seen often in the Sicilian Four Knights. In this position
it is not a significant weakness. Black’s access to the pawns is blocked and they can be pushed
forward to oppose a black pawn on d5.
9...d5= Pantelic-Valuet, Saint- Quentin 1998. White has the two bishops, but Black has a stronger
center.
(8C) 6.Bb5
373
This move prevents an immediate ...d5, but otherwise it has no value.
6...Bb4
6...Qc7 (Black shifts to a Taimanov formation.) 7.0-0 Be7 8.Be3 0-0 9.f4 a6 10.Be2 d6=, Rut-Lorenc,
Harrachov 2009. White’s extra bishop move (6.Bb5 and then 10.Be2) has put Black a tempo up in a
standard Sicilian.
7.0-0
Alternatives:
(1) 7.Bg5? Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 Qa5µ, Nascimento-Danilo, Sindilegis 2009. White will lose a pawn; or
(2) 7.Nxc6 bxc6 8.Bd3= (White is essentially a tempo down, because the bishop has taken two moves
to go from f1 to d3. The line has transposed to a position that is reached in a sideline of the 6.Be2
variation that occurs after (to the line)6.Be2 Bb4 7.Nxc6 bxc6 8.Bd3, Chapter 5, Section 1 (1D).
7...0-0
7...Bxc3?! 8.bxc3 Nxe4 9.Qg4², Martinez Martin-Andres Gonzalez, Cantabria 2000. Black drops a
pawn.
8.Re1
8.Bxc6 dxc6 9.e5=, Van Esbroeck- Raluy Lopez, corr 2009. White has more space, but Black has the
two bishops.
8...e5= Followed by ...d6, with a comfortable game for Black.
374
(8D) 6.Nf3
This move wastes time. The best that can be said for it is that it avoids a knight exchange on c6.
6...Bb4
6...d6= transposes to a line of the Scheveningen that is inferior for White.
7.Bd3
7.Bd2 (White prevents exchanges on c3 which will weaken his cpawns.) 7...0-0 8.Bd3 d5 9.exd5
exd5 (9...Nxd5 10.Nxd5=. This move is possible because of the presence of White’s bishop on d2.)
10.0-0 Bg4 11.h3 Bh5=, Motycka- Jandecka, Svetla and Sazavou 1995, with equal chances.
7...d5
7...0-0 8.e5 Ng4 9.Bxh7+² with an attack.
8.exd5 Nxd5 9.Bd2 Nxc3 10.bxc3
375
Black has weakened White’s cpawns, but will have to give up a tempo moving his bishop. In the
following examples, Black has play against White’s weak queenside pawns, and White has play on
the kingside:
(1) 10...Be7 11.0-0 0-0 12.Qe2 Qc7=, Von Popiel-Janowski, Cologne 1898; or
(2) 10...Bd6 11.0-0 0-0 12.Qe2= (not 12.Bxh7+? Kxh7 13.Ng5+, G.Szabo-Lukacs, Torokbalint
2004, 13...Kg6! 14.Qg4 f5–+).
(8E) 6.Nb3
This move avoids an exchange of knights on c6, but wastes time, just like 6.Nf3 (8D).
376
6...Bb4
6...a6 transposes to the Taimanov Variation. After 6...Bb4, options for White are 7.Bd3 (8E1) and
8.Bd2 (8E2).
(8E1) 7.Bd3
This is the usual move, but not as good as the alternative, 7.Bd2 (8E2).
7...d5 8.exd5 Nxd5 9.Bd2 Nxc3 10.bxc3
10.Bxc3 Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 Qc7³/=. White must defend his c-pawns. If 12.Qh5 g6 13.Qh6, then
13...Qe5+³.
After 10.bxc3, White’s doubled c-pawns are especially weak. The pawns cannot be un-doubled by
pushing them forward, because Black does not have a pawn on d5. And unlike the analogous position
after 10.bxc3 in the 6.Nf3 variation, (8D) above, White does not have kingside play as compensation.
10...Be7
10...Bd6 11.Qg4 (White draws Black’s attention away from his c-pawns.) 11...0-0 12.Bg5 Be7,
Asmar-Degondo, Beirut 2014, 13.Bxe7 Nxe7 14.0-0-0 Qc7 15.Qg3=. White’s lead in development
compensates for his weak c-pawns.
11.Qe2
Best. 11.0-0 Ne5! (disrupting White’s development) 12.Bb5+ Bd7 13.Qe2 a6 14.Bxd7+ Nxd7
15.Rfd1 Qc7³, Heinz-Boese, Postbauer 2000. White will have difficulty defending his weakened
377
queenside.
11...0-0 12.0-0 Qc7 13.Nd4³/= Metev-Todorov, Vidin 2016. White’s more centralized pieces
provide some compensation for his weak queenside pawns.
(8E2) 7.Bd2
7...0-0 8.Bd3 d5 9.exd5 exd5
9...Nxd5 10.Nxd5 (10.0-0 Nxc3 11.bxc3 Bd6³/=. White’s c-pawns are vulnerable.) 10...Qxd5 11.0-0
Bxd2=, ½-½, Mitrovic-Vukic, Niksic 1997. Reaching a quiet position, where neither side has
weaknesses.
10.0-0 Bg4 11.f3 Be6= Oliva Meneses-Puppi Lazo, Pocos de Caldas 2013. Black’s pieces are
usefully placed.
(8F) 6.Bc4
In almost all other variations of the Sicilian, the square c4 is a good one for this bishop, but not in the
Sicilian Four Knights. The bishop bites on granite.
6...Bb4
6...a6, 6...d6 and 6...Be7 will likely transpose to another variation of the Sicilian.
A worthy alternative for Black is 6...Qc7!?. White often replies 7.Bb3 (7.0-0 Nxd4 8.Qxd4 Bc5=),
which gives Black the nice option of 7...Nxe4 8.Nxe4 (8.Nxe6 dxe6 9.Nxe4 Qe5 10.Qe2 Nd4³/=,
Olafsson-Ligterink, Amsterdam 1976) 8...Qe5 9.Be3 Qxe4 10.0-0 Be7 11.Re1 0-0³/=. White is better
378
developed, but Black is a pawn up.
After 6...Bb4 White’s main alternatives are 7.Nxc6 (8F1) and 7.0-0 (8F2). Others are:
(1) 7.Bg5?? (a surprisingly common mistake) 7...Qa5–+; and
(2) 7.f3 (weakening the g1-a7 diagonal) 7...d5 8.Nxc6 (or 8.exd5 exd5 9.Be2 0-0 10.a3, Motheron-
Sally, Avoine 2016, 10...Ba5 11.Be3³) 8...bxc6 9.Bd3 Qb6³. White cannot castle.
(8F1) 7.Nxc6
7...bxc6 8.e5 Ne4!
8...Qa5 9.Qd4 Ne4 transposes.

The alternative, 8...Nd5?!, is met by 9.Qg4!. Black does not have a good answer:
(1) 9...Bxc3+? 10.bxc3 Qa5? (10...Ne7²) 11.Qxg7 Rf8 (11...Qxc3+ would work if Black’s knight
were instead on e4, as it is in the analogous position after 11.Qxg7 in the 9.Qg4 Bxc3+ sideline of the
main line below. But here White has 12.Bd2, and after 12...Qa1+ 13.Ke2, Black has no defense
against 14.Qxh8+, followed by 15.Bg5++–.) 12.0-0+–; or
(2) 9...Nxc3 10.Qxg7 Rf8 11.a3 Qh4, Cunha-Sant’Anna, Rio de Janeiro 1991, and play could
continue 12.Bd3 Na2+ 13.axb4 Nxc1 14.Rxc1 Qxb4+ 15.c3 Qxb2 16.0-0². White has control of the
board.
9.Qd4
9.Qg4 does not work here: 9...Bxc3+ 10.bxc3 Qa5 11.0-0 (11.Qxg7? Qxc3+ 12.Kd1 Kd8–+;
11.Qxe4? Qxc3+ 12.Ke2 Qxa1µ, Mueller-Knobel, Zürich 1983) 11...Qxe5 12.Bd3 d5= (better than
12...Nxc3?! 13.Bf4 Qf6 14.Bg5 Qe5 15.Rfe1 h5 16.Qh4 Qc5 17.Be3 Qe7 18.Qg3², Tirard-
Shkapenko, Krakow 2000). Black is up a pawn, but White has good play on the dark squares.
9...Qa5 Benedetti-Pereyra, Buenos Aires 2013. 10.0-0 Nxc3 11.a3 Bc5 12.Qxc3 Qxc3 13.bxc3 a5=
The game is completely even.
(8F2) 7.0-0
White offers his e-pawn.
7...Bxc3
Black accepts the offer.

7...0-0 8.Nxc6 bxc6 9.e5 Nd5 10.Bd3 (10.Nxd5=, Sahetchian- Tregubov, Perticciu 2004) 10...f5=.
8.bxc3 Nxe4
379
9.Qg4
Alternatives transpose:
(1) 9.Bd3 transposes to the main line of the 6.Be2 variation, Chapter 5, Section 2 (2C).
(2) 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.Qg4 (10.Bd3 d5 11.Bxe4 transposes to another line in the 6.Be2 variation; see
Chapter 5, Section 2 2A) 10...0-0 11.Qxe4 d5= transposes to the main line below.
9...0-0
9...d5? 10.Qxg7 Qf6 11.Qxf6 Nxf6 12.Bd3±, Zuberec-Hrtko, Slovakia 1998. Black has given back
the pawn, but still has dark-square weaknesses and an undeveloped bishop.
10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.Qxe4 d5 12.Qf3 dxc4 13.Ba3 Re8 14.Rfd1 Qa5 ½-½, Piqueras Jimenez-Laliga,
corr 2015. 15.Qxc6= White has recovered his pawn.
(8G) 6.Bf4
380
After this move the game usually transposes to another variation.
6...Bb4
6...d6 and now:

(1) 7.Nxc6 bxc6 8.e5 Nd5 9.Nxd5 cxd5 10.Bd3= transposes to the position after 9...d6 10.Bf4 in the
6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.e5 Nd5 8.Nxd5 variation, Chapter 2, Section 2; or
(2) 7.Ndb5 e5 8.Bg5 transposes to the main line of the Sveshnikov Variation.
7.Ndb5
The game transposes to the 6.Ndb5 Bb4 7.Bf4 variation, Chapter 1, Section 3.
7.Nxc6 bxc6 8.Bd3 d5 9.e5 Nd7 10.0-0 0-0 11.Qh5 g6=, Kett- Kotepalli, INT, blitz 2020. Black’s
solid center can repel any attack by White.
(8H) 6.Qd3
381
This rare move was tried by Caruana against Grischuk in the 2021 Candidates Tournament. The
queen’s exposed position on d3 invites Black to gain a tempo by attacking it. White can shift it to g3,
putting pressure on Black’s kingside.
6...d5
6...Bb4 (6...Ne5?! 7.Qg3²) 6...Bb4 7.Nxc6 (7.Bd2 0-0 8.0-0-0 d5=, Barros Perez-Morilla Morilla,
Asturias 1998) 7...bxc6 8.e5 (8.Bd2 d5 9.e5 Nd7 10.Qg3 g6 11.Bd3=, Physick-Lee, London 1900)
8...Nd5 9.Qg3 Qa5 10.Bd2 (10.Qxg7? Rf8µ, followed by 11...Nxc3) 10...0-0 11.Bd3 f5 12.exf6
(12.0-0? Nxc3³/=, Karius- Haucke, Germany 1996) 12...Nxf6 13.Rad1²/=. White retains a small
initiative.
7.exd5 Nb4 8.Qc4
8.Qg3 Bc5 9.Bb5+ Kf8 10.a3 Nbxd5 11.Nde2 Bd7 12.Bxd7 Qxd7 13.0-0, Tari-Vidit, INT, Rapid
2021, 13...h5=, intending 14...h4. Both sides have play.
8...Nbxd5 9.Be2
9.Bg5 (It is too soon to move this bishop. After trades on c3, its presence may be required on the a3-
f8 diagonal.) 9...Bb4 (or 9...Nxc3 10.Qxc3 Bd7³/=, and Black has open lines on the queenside.)
10.Bd3 Bxc3+ (10...Bd7 11.0-0 Bxc3 12.bxc3 Rc8 13.Qb3=, counterattacking Black’s b-pawn,
Caruana-Grischuk, Yekaterinburg 2021) 11.bxc3 h6³/=. White’s possession of the two bishops does
not fully compensate for his exposed queen and poor pawn structure.
9...Bb4 10.0-0 Bxc3
382
Best. After 10...Nxc3 11.Qxb4 Nxe2+ 12.Nxe2², White’s wellplaced queen inhibits Black’s
development.
11.bxc3 0-0 12.Ba3 Re8 13.Nb5 e5 14.Rfd1 Be6= White has the two bishops, but bad pawns.
(back to the text)

The line has transposed to a position that is reached in a sideline of the 6.Be2 variation
that occurs after 6.Be2 Bb4 7.Nxc6 bxc6 8.Bd3, Chapter 5, Section 1 (1D).
383
Bibliography
Appleberry, Martin, “Master’s Corner,” Mid-South Chess Advocate (August 1977): 38.
Byrne, Robert, New York Times, January 29, 1995.
Cook, William, Chess Player’s Compendium (David McKay, 1910).
Euwe, Max, Theorie der schaakopeningen – No. 9 Half-Open Spelen II (Van Goor, 1947).
Euwe, Max, Theorie der Schach-Eröffnungen: Teil IX (Siegfried Engelhardt Verlag, 1970).
Evans, Larry, Modern Chess Openings, 10th Edition (Pitman Publishing, 1965).
Fine, Reuben, Practical Chess Openings (David McKay, 1948).
Hoffer, Leopold, The Field (1902), reported in Cook, William, Chess Player’s Compendium (David
McKay, 1910): 231.
Oltof, René, “Sicilian Defense Four Knights Variation,” New in Chess Yearbook 25 (1992): 19-27.
Perunovic, Milos, “Four Knights Sicilian, New Ideas and Developments,” Chess Informant 142
(2019): 139-145.
Pickett, L.M., and A.K.Swift, Sicilian Defense 5: Four Knights Variation (The Chess Player Ltd.,
1976).
Raetsky, Alexander, Meeting . (Everyman Chess, 2002).
Rodi, Luis, “Karjakin Shows the Way,” New in Chess Yearbook 118 (2016): 87-96.
Shankland, Samuel, New in Chess 3 (2019): 13-15.
Suetin, Alexey, Lehrbuch der Schachtheorie (Sportverlag Berlin, 1973).
Svenonius, Ludvig, Nordisk Skaktidende (1901), reported in “A Sicilian Symposium,” British Chess
Magazine (December 1901): 473-474.
Szabo, Krisztian, “Sicilian Four Knights 6.Nxc6 bxc6,” ChessBase Magazine 195 (May/June 2020).
Tarrasch, Siegbert, Deutsches Wonchenschach (1901), reported in “A Sicilian Symposium,” British
Chess Magazine (December 1901): 473-474.
Tartakower, Savielly, My Best Games of Chess, 1905-1954 (Russell Enterprises, 2015).
van den Berg, Carel, and Bouwmeester, Hans, Chess Archives (August 1969): 728-730.
van der Tak, A.C., “Active Play by Black is Required,” New in Chess Yearbook 92 (2009): 55-59.
Videnova, Iva, “Black is Fine in the Four Knights,” New in Chess Yearbook 128 (2018): 61-68.
384
Index of Variations
Numbers refer to pages
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Ndb5 16
6...Bc5 21 7.Nd6+ 25 (7.Bf4 22)

6...Bb4 7.Bf4 31 (7.Nd6+ 27)
6...Bb4 7.a3 Bxc3+ 8.Nxc3 d5 9.Bd3 42
6...Bb4 7.a3 Bxc3+ 8.Nxc3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 47
6...Bb4 7.a3 Bxc3+ 8.Nxc3 d5 9.exd5 exd5 10.Bg5 53 10...0-0 55 (10...d4 53)
6...Bb4 7.a3 Bxc3+ 8.Nxc3 d5 9.exd5 exd5 10.Bd3 d4 58 11.Qe2+ 61 (11.Ne2 59; 11.Ne4 59)
6...Bb4 7.a3 Bxc3+ 8.Nxc3 d5 9.exd5 exd5 10.Bd3 0-0 11.0-0 d4 (11...Bg4 62; 11...h6 64)
12.Ne2 (12.Ne4 67) 12...Bg4 (12...h6 72; 12...Re8 73; 12...Qd5 75) 13.Bg5 92 (13.h3 79; 13.Re1
80; 13.f3 83 13...Bh5 14.Bg5 87; 14.b4 83; 14.Nf4 84) 13...Qd6 98 (13...h6 92)
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Nxc6 103
6...bxc6 7.Bd3 108 7...d5 109 (7...e5 108) 8.0-0 111 (8.exd5 110)
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.e5 Nd5 8.Nxd5 113
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.e5 Nd5 8.Ne4
8...f5 116
8...Bb7 118 9.Be2 120 (9.c4 118)

8...Qa5+ 123 9.c3 126 (9.Bd2 123)
8...Qc7 9.f4
9...Qa5+ 134 (9...f5 130; 9...Rb8 133) 10.Bd2 138 (10.c3 135)
9...Qb6 10.c4 Bb4+ 148 (10...Ne3 141) 11.Ke2 f5 12.exf6 153 (12.Nf2 149)
6.g3 163 6...d5 173 (6...Qb6 163; 6...Bb4 166) 7.exd5 (7.Bg2 174) 7...exd5 175 (7...Nxd5 178)
8.Bg2 Bg4 177 (8...Be7 176)
6.Bg5 180 6...Bb4 182 (6...Qa5 180; 6...Qb6 181; 6...h6 182; 6...Be7 185) 7.Nxc6 184 (7.Ndb5
385
182)
6.Be2 188 6...Bb4 7.0-0 195 (7.f3 190; 7.Bf3 191; 7.Qd3 192; 7.Nxc6 192) 7...Bxc3 8.bxc3 Nxe4
9.Bd3 201 (9.Bf3 197; 9.Qd3 199) 9...d5 10.Ba3 Qa5 204 (10...Nxd4 202)
6.a3 205 6...Be7 208 (6...d5 205 7.Bb5 207; 7.exd5 206) 7.Be2 210 (7.Nxc6 208; 7.f4 209; 7.Be3
210)
6.Be3 212 6...Bb4 7.Bd3 (7.f3 215) 7...d5 8.exd5 223 (8.Nxc6 218) 8...Nxd5 9.Nxc6 bxc6
10.Bd2 0-0 227 (10...Nxc3 224)
6.f4 228
6.f3 229
6.Bb5 229
6.Nf3 230
6.Nb3 231
6.Bc4 232
6.Bf4 234
6.Qd3 235
386
Table of Contents
Title page 3
Preface 5
Signs and Symbols 7
Foreword by Vassilios Kotronias 8
Introduction 9
Chapter 1 – 6.Ndb5 20
Sections 3-5 45
Sections 6-8 80
Sections 9-11 106
Sections 12-13 132
Chapter 2 – 6.Nxc6 165
Sections 4-5 190
Section 9 239
Chapter 3 – 6.g3 263
Chapter 4 – 6.Bg5 292
Chapter 5 – 6.Be2 304
Chapter 6 – 6.a3 331
Chapter 7 – 6.Be3 342
Chapter 8 – Other Sixth Moves 370
Bibliography 384
Index of Variations 385
387

David Willis - The Sicilian Four Knights - A Simple and Sound Defense To 1.e4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

David Willis - The Sicilian Four Knights - A Simple and Sound Defense To 1.e4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Table of Contents

Foreword by Vassilios Kotronias

Russell Enterprises, Inc.

The Sicilian Four Knights

ISBN: 978-1-949859-36-2 (print)

Cover by Fierce Ponies

Printed in the United States of America

6...Bb4 This stays in the Sicilian Four Knights.

The main line runs 6...bxc6 7.e5 Nd5 8.Ne4.

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Ndb5

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Ndb5

A respectable sideline, once played by Fischer, is 9.Bd3. See Section 4.

8...Qe7 9.Bd6 Bxd6 10.Qxd6

(1A1) 10...Ne8 11.Qxe7 Nxe7 12.0-0-0 f5

13...Nxd6 14.Rxd6 fxe4 15.Nxe4 Nf5 16.Rd2 d5 17.Ng5

Black’s center pawns are hanging.

18.g3 Nf3 19.Nxf3 Rxf3 20.Bg2 Rf7 21.f4

A popular alternative is 11.0-0-0 a6 (11...Ne8 12.Qg3 a6 13.Nd6 Nxd6 14.Rxd6², Stepanyan-

11...Rb8 12.Be2 b5 13.e5

14.Nxe8 Rxe8 15.0-0 b4 16.Ne4 Rb6²/=

This is a simple way for White to obtain an advantage.

This move forces White to move his knight.

9.Nf5+ Kf8 10.Bg5

Other tries are no better:

11.Ne3 Be6 12.Qd2 Bb4 13.Bxf6²

11...Qxf6 12.Qxd5 Bxf5 13.exf5 Rd8

White’s queen does not have a good move:

15...Qxf5 16.Be2, Ragnoni- Gardon, Campobasso 2002, 16...g6³/=.

17...Nd4! 18.Rad1 Rg8³ with pressure on White’s kingside.

This is White’s safer alternative.

12...h5 13.h4 g6³/=

Alternatives give Black a large advantage:

A major alternative is 10...Qxd5 11.0-0 and now:

(back to the text)

Taking the pawn is Black’s usual reply and is best. Alternatives:

Black has three respectable replies:

10.0-0-0 Bxc3 11.bxc3 g5

The best of a bad selection:

14.Nxd5? exd5 15.Bxd5 Nxg3 16.Bxc6 Qf6µ.

(10...Qa5?! 11.a3! Nxc3 12.Rc1!²)

The following moves by Black are virtually forced.

This is a sound move, but it has a low winning percentage.

13.Bxc7 dxe4 14.Bb5

12.Nxa8? Qa5–+. White is in trouble.

After 12...Ng5, White has two choices:

14...h4? 15.Bxe5 Nxe5 16.f3±

White kicks the irritating knight.

16...Qxa2?? 17.Qc5+ followed by 18.Bc4+–.

17.Bc4 Rd8 18.Nb6!=

13.Nxe4² White has a lead in development.

The game will usually transpose to another variation.

10.exd5 exd5 11.0-0 transposes to the main line of the 6.Ndb5

10...Ne5² transposes to the 9...Ne5 variation (4A).

White intends f4, and wants to prevent ...Bg4 or ...Ng4.

Black prepares to defend against 14.f4.

White asks Black what he is going to do with his d7-knight.

Alternatives make things too easy for Black:

(4D) 9...dxe4 10.Nxe4 Nxe4 11.Bxe4 Qxd1+ 12.Kxd1

A good move. Alternatives:

Black plays actively. He contemplates 16...f4 17.Bd2 Nd4.

16.Re1 Kf7 17.g3 Be6

Black has achieved his development goal. Possible continuations:

(5A) 10.Nxd5 Qxd5