TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title page
Key to symbols
Foreword
Description

Part 1. The Queen’s Gambit Accepted (D23)

Chapter 1. Various Lines

Chapter 2. Main Lines
Chapter 3. Typical Middlegame Strategy
Chapter 4. Endgame Technique
Chapter 5. Tactical Motifs

Part 2. QGD — The Ragozin Variation (D38)

Chapter 1. Various Lines

Chapter 2. Main Lines
Chapter 3. Typical Middlegame Strategy
Chapter 4. Endgame Technique
Chapter 5. Tactical Motifs

Part 3. QGD — The Vienna Variation (D39)

Chapter 1. The 6...b5 Line

Chapter 2. The 6...c5 Line
Chapter 3. The 6...h6 Line
Chapter 4. Typical Middlegame Strategy
Chapter 5. Endgame Technique
Chapter 6. Tactical Motifs

Part 4. QGD — The Lasker Variation (D56)

Chapter 1. Various Lines

Chapter 2. Main Lines
Chapter 3. Typical Middlegame Strategy
Chapter 4. Endgame Technique
Chapter 5. Tactical Motifs

Bibliography
Curriculum Vitae
 Efstratios Grivas

Grivas opening laboratory

Volume 4

Cover designer
Piotr Pielach

Typesetting
i-Press ‹www.i-press.pl›

First edition 2020 by Chess Evolution

Grivas Opening Laboratory. Volume 4

Copyright © 2020 Chess Evolution
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without
prior permission of the publisher.

ISBN 978-615-5793-25-7

All sales or enquiries should be directed to Chess Evolution

2040 Budaors, Templom ter 19, Magyarorszag

e-mail: info@chess-evolution.com
website: www.chess-evolution.com

Printed in Hungary
 KEY TO SYMBOLS

= Equality or equal chances

² White has a slight advantage
³ Black has a slight advantage
± White is better
µ Black is better
+– White has a decisive advantage
–+ Black has a decisive advantage
∞ unclear
© with compensation
„ with counterplay
ƒ with initiative
‚ with an attack
… with the idea
™ only move

N novelty
! a good move
!! an excellent move
? a weak move
?? a blunder
!? an interesting move
?! a dubious move
+ check
# mate
 FOREWORD

Dear Reader,
The series continuing with this book is aimed in offering a full repertoire
for White based on 1.d4.
The idea of small opening repertoire books is not new, but here the purpose
and the presentation are different.
The choice of variations against each reply from Black will be mine and
will be based on my long experience, having played the game for over 40
years, and also served as a professional coach for approximately 20 of
those!
I hope that each book in the series will come out every two months and one
to three openings will be offered in each of them.
Maybe not all of the choices will appeal to you, but you should understand
that what is important is to learn them in depth, rather than looking for
something astounding — this is simply an illusion.
What I mean by this is that nowadays no opening offers all that much; what
you can expect is something between a tiny bit better and slightly better, if
you have done your homework! Otherwise there is no point in the Black
player following it!
The recommendations are geared towards posing Black unconventional
problems. Your opponents will not be able to churn out lengthy, memorised
variations but will need to solve problems at the board, in positions that are
somewhat different in character from those normally reached in the
openings under discussion.
I have also selected the systems within the repertoire in such a way that
they form a seamless whole and are also reachable by transpositions.
I have tried to describe the suggested systems in detail, giving my
assessments as clearly and responsibly as possible, and have generally
aimed to provide useful guidelines as well as many new ideas and moves.
Many things in chess theory, as in life, are relative and a matter of taste.
Actually, there are no ‘good’ or ‘bad’ openings. There are openings that you
know and understand, and openings that you do not know and do not
understand.
Thus, I believe that my recommended systems will offer a lot of
possibilities, new ideas and practical benefits, aspects that should not be
underestimated in modern chess. Among other things, I have tried to make
them ‘understandable’ to you.
This book series’ main purpose is to train and educate the reader in territory
that is ‘unknown’ to him. We must not forget that this is a theory book
series, where concrete reaction to the opponent’s moves is of primary
importance.
General principles and plans do merit a place in this project but, in my
opinion, move-by-move consideration is most significant.
Of course, it is not necessary to memorise all the variations and moves
mentioned in the books — this would probably be impossible. But then,
you may ask, what is the reason for someone to deal with a theory book,
one that he does not need to ‘memorise’ in full?
The theory of ‘subconscious education’ will help us to answer this question.
By playing through the moves and variations in the books, our
subconscious processes and stores similar motifs, repeated moves and
plans, and also ‘learns’ to avoid traps and unwelcome positions. Such
proper ‘subconscious memorisation’ will, at the critical moment, enforce
the correct choice upon us.
Many of the opening books I have read mainly focus on the general
characteristics of the opening or the variation in question, and much less so
on move-by-move theory.
This can lead to unresolved questions in the reader’s mind, and the danger
that he will mix things up at moments when it is necessary to find one
specific concrete move or sequence.
The recommended repertoire is that of a Grandmaster, without omissions or
hidden secrets. On the contrary, it contains a great number of new and
deeply analysed suggestions, plans, novelties, new ideas, moves, etc!
Let us not forget that the basic characteristics of the openings do not
frequently undergo radical changes. On the other hand, the development of
move-by-move theory is explosive.
Every chess player stands on the shoulders of those who came before him.
Every generation of good chess players learns from and builds upon the
experience and creativity of the previous generations.
The chess player of the year 2020 has encountered more types of positions
than the chess-player of 1980 and knows the proper ways to deal with these
positions.
Therefore, a chess player today would have a great advantage over a chess
player (even one of equal or greater talent) of 40 years ago, simply because
he could play the opening with deeper understanding; this understanding is
offered to him by the multitude of deeply-analysed variations.
On no occasion do I underestimate the necessity and value of learning the
general characteristics and plans of each opening or variation. However, I
do strongly believe that move-by-move theory and its (at least)
subconscious absorption are necessary in order to survive in the labyrinth of
the chess openings.
One question often posed by my students is whether we must
simultaneously prepare two or more different systems against an opening.
My personal opinion is that only professional Grandmasters can afford this
luxury.
All other chess players should focus on one specific system every time, so
as to specialise in it and reap maximum benefit. Only if this choice
eventually proves undesirable should one change his systems. As Ernest
Hemingway once wrote: ‘I guess really good soldiers are really good at
very little else’.
The massive development of theory in all openings has clarified that White
cannot hope for anything more than a slight advantage, but in some cases
even this is unattainable! My recommendations are purely based on a
healthy approach.
I must clarify that I took the liberty of changing the original move-order of
many games. In this way it was possible to provide clearer coverage and
guidance.
Of course, the way you reach a certain position is important, but equally
important is to examine how you want to proceed upon reaching it. True
value comes from knowing what to keep and what to throw away.
Finally, I would like to thank my ex-students GMs Antoaneta Stefanova,
Alex Ipatov, Emre Can and Ion Chirila (among others), for adopting the
variations, at least from time to time!

Efstratios Grivas
Sharjah, July 2020
 DESCRIPTION

In the fourth book of the series we will deal with ‘Queen’s Gambit’
structures, and more specifically:
The ‘Queen’s Gambit Accepted’, a quiet system which aims to preserve
simple and equal/drawish positions (from Black’s point of view!) and is
played today at all levels.
Our proposed system is based on the move 4.Na3, a system that I haven’t
played much (except lately!), but then the ‘QGA’ is a rare bird as well...
The 4.Na3 system scores approximately 52%, when the expectation of
51.5% to 52% is the average number of White’s ‘superiority’.
Then we will deal with how to face the ‘Ragozin Variation’ of the ‘QGD’,
an ambitious system which aims at getting lively positions and again is
played today at all levels.
Our proposed approach is based on the 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 system, with
which I have played a few good games over the last 30 years, but this
variation is rather a ‘rare bird’ as well...
The proposed system scores roughly 55%, a good number compared to the
average expected White ‘superiority’of 51.5% to 52%.
We then continue with the ‘brother’ variation of the Ragozin, the ‘Vienna
Variation’ of the ‘QGD’, which is also an ambitious system.
Our chosen system is based on the 6.Bg5 line, which is the main preference
of the top players.
The proposed system scores a healthy 53.5%, again against the average
expected score of 51.5% to 52%.
Finally, we will deal with the ‘Lasker Variation’ of the ‘QGD’, a quiet
system which, as with the QGA, aims to preserve simple and equal/drawish
positions (from Black’s point of view!) and is still played nowadays at all
levels.
The proposed system is based on the move 9.Rc1, a system that I have
played in a few games over the last 25 years, but the variation is not played
too much anyway.
The 9.Rc1 system scores an excellent 59%, again when 51.5% to 52% is the
natural average number of white ‘superiority’.
In the book you will find not only a concrete and well-structured, move-by-
move presentation, but also chapters on the middlegame, endgame and
tactics, those that are typical for this variation and will help you to
understand it better.
The only two things you have to do are to buy the book (!) and study it!
Note that the research on the games included is up to the middle of July
2020.

Efstratios Grivas
Sharjah, July 2020
 PART 1.
THE QUEEN’S GAMBIT ACCEPTED (D23)

The ‘Queen’s Gambit Accepted’ (QGA) is characterised by the moves 1.d4

d5 2.c4 dxc4

It is the third most popular option on Black’s second move, after 2...e6
(‘Queen’s Gambit Declined’) and 2...c6 (‘Slav Defence’).

This is an opening where slow and subtle manoeuvres are often necessary
to complete development. White will try to exploit an advantage in space
and development, while Black will defend the position and aim for
queenside (mainly) counterplay.
The ‘Queen’s Gambit’ is not considered a true gambit, in contrast to the
‘King’s Gambit’, because the pawn is either regained, or can only be held
unprofitably by Black.
Black usually allows the pawn to be recaptured, and uses the time expended
to play against White’s centre.

As Black’s 2...dxc4 surrenders the centre, White will try to seize space in
the centre and use it to launch an attack on Black’s position. Black’s game
is not devoid of counter-chances, however.

If the white centre can be held at bay, Black will try to weaken White’s
central pawns to gain an advantage in the ensuing endgame by playing ...c5
and ...cxd4, at some stage, and if White responds with exd4, the result will
be an isolated pawn on d4 — which can also lead to a keen middlegame
battle.
If White recaptures with a piece on d4 instead, the centre will be liquidated
and a fairly even game will usually ensue.
SYSTEM’S X-RAY

So, after 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Na3 we have the system that will serve us in our
proposed repertoire:
A ‘decent’ chess player might ask: What is this? Well, White avoids the
well-known paths and looks for some interesting new ways to try for an
advantage in the ‘QGA’.
What are White’s main play characteristics (‘desires’)? We could draw a
table as follows:
1. Recapturing the c4-pawn with his knight and not with his light-squared
bishop. He will then gain better control over the e5-square, and in general
his knight will be quite well placed.
2. He could try to achieve the f3/e4 pawn formation which will ensure him
a strong pawn centre.
3. He could place his light-squared bishop on the long diagonal (g3, Bg2)
achieving some nice ‘Catalan’ positions.
4. Of course, the familiar and modest set-up with e3 also comes to mind.
5. White must keep in mind that a queen sortie with Qb3 (when Black has
developed his light-squared bishop) might prove very helpful.
All of the above may well arm the player of the white pieces with numerous
nice feelings and a misleading opinion that he can simply grab a big, secure
advantage.
But, alas, no sound opening can offer more than a tiny opening advantage;
otherwise it would simply be a bad opening!
Black devotees of the ‘QGA’ have to work on more ‘serious’ problems and
usually pay no (or very little) attention to the line starting with 4.Na3.
But I have to confess that I am not fond of just ‘opening tricks’ in general,
so the question is if the line is also a serious one.
In my opinion it is a very interesting set-up and it is certainly worth trying.
By studying and getting the required knowledge, players of the white pieces
can have a big advantage over their opponents.
But of course, as long as he remembers the various possibilities, the various
patterns of pawn formations, piece placements and repeated tactics!
All these can easily form a strong weapon, which can also often prove
lethal.
HISTORICAL APPROACH
It seems that the 4.Na3 system was introduced quite late; in 1967, at least
according to ChessBase — MegaBase.
It was introduced by the great Paul Keres, but it could be hardly be called a
success for White, who was just lucky enough to save the draw:
Keres Paul
Gurgenidze Bukhuti
D23 Rapina 07.07.1967

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Na3 e5 5.Nxc4 e4 6.Ng1 Bb4+ 7.Bd2 Qxd4
8.Bxb4 Qxc4 9.Ba3 e3 10.fxe3 Nc6 11.Nf3 Bd7 12.Qd3 Qa4 13.g3 0-0-0
14.Bg2 Be6 15.Qc3 Ne4 16.Qc1 Qa5+ 17.b4 Nxb4 18.0-0 Nxa2 19.Qc2
Qxa3 20.Qxe4 Bd5 21.Qf4 Rhe8
22.Ne5 f6 23.Nd3 Bxg2 24.Kxg2 Qb3 25.Qf5+ Kb8 26.Rfb1 Qc4 27.Qc5
Qe4+ 28.Kg1 Rd5 29.Qc6 Qxe3+ 30.Kh1 Qe4+ 31.Kg1 ½-½

STARTING OUT

The system proposed against the ‘Queen’s Gambit Accepted’ commences

with the moves 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Na3

From here Black can choose between:

A. What we will call ‘Various Lines’, and these are: 4...c6, 4...Bf5, 4...Bg4,
4...c3, 4...Qd5, 4...g6, 4...a6 and 4...Nc6, and;

B. What we will call ‘Main Lines’, and these are: 4...Be6, 4...e5, 4...e6 and
4...c5.

CHAPTER 1.
VARIOUS LINES
 1.1 — 3...A6

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 a6

Before we dive into the main menu, we should be aware of an early 3...a6.
After

4.a4 Nf6 5.Nc3

If White doesn’t wish to enter the following positions, he can opt for 5.e3
e6 6.Bxc4 c5 7.0-0 Nc6 8.Qe2! (8.Nc3?! Be7 9.Qe2 cxd4 10.Rd1 e5=)
8...Be7 9.Rd1² Aronian,L-Morozevich,A Moscow 2006. But this of course
is another big chapter...
Now we have reached the starting point of the analysis:
a) 5...Nc6 6.a5 (the point of White’s play, not allowing ...Na5. But the a5-
pawn will soon be lost...)
a1) 6...e5?!
7.d5 Nd4 8.Nxd4 exd4 9.Qxd4 Bb4 10.Bg5 0-0 11.Bxf6 Qxf6 12.Qxf6 gxf6
13.e3± Genov,P-Ermenkov,E Elenite 1993.
a2) 6...Bg4 7.d5 Bxf3 (7...Na7 8.Ne5 Nb5 9.Nxg4 Nxg4 10.e4 Ne5 11.f4
Nd3+ 12.Bxd3 cxd3 13.Qxd3± Guliev,S-Mirzoev,A Baku 1997) 8.gxf3 Nb8
(8...Ne5 9.f4 Ned7 10.e4± Mamedyarov,S-Alekseenko,K Moscow 2019)
9.e4 e5 10.Bxc4 Bd6 11.Qb3² Saric,A-Deris,A Zagreb 2014.
a3) 6...e6
7.e3 (White can try to be more active by 7.e4!? Bb4 8.Bg5 h6 9.Bxf6 Qxf6
10.Bxc4 [10.e5 Qe7 11.Bxc4 0-0 12.Qe2 Nxa5 13.Bd3 Bd7 14.Qe4 g6
15.Qf4 Kg7 16.0-0 Bxc3 17.bxc3 Bb5 18.Bxb5 axb5 19.Rab1 c6³ Garcia,A-
Ibragimov,I Groningen 1994] 10...0-0 11.0-0 [White will lose the a5-pawn,
but hopes to use his superiority in the centre] 11...Rd8 [11...Bxa5 12.Ne2
Bb6 13.e5 Qe7 14.Qd3 Nb4 15.Qe4 Bd7 16.Ra3 Bc6 17.Qg4°
Autenrieth,M-Hertneck,G Germany 1985] 12.e5° Thorfinnsson,B-Postny,E
Budapest 2003) 7...Bb4 8.Bxc4 0-0 (8...Bxa5 9.0-0 Bxc3 10.bxc3° Claes,J-
Laruelle,L Tessenderlo 2003) 9.0-0 (Obviously White will lose the a5-
pawn, but he will try to create an initiative in the centre and on the kingside.
The truth is that Black can preserve a balanced position, but still, the
positions to come are quite interesting)
a31) 9...Bxa5 10.Qe2 (10.d5 exd5 11.Nxd5 Nxd5 12.Bxd5 Bb6 13.Qb3 Qf6
14.Ra4 h6 15.Rf4 Qe7 16.Nh4° Benito Alba,E-Hermida Rivero,E Calvia
2003) 10...Bb6 11.Rd1 Qe7 12.e4° Burillo Rodriguez,C-Villuendas
Valero,A Spain 2011.
a32) 9...Nxa5 10.Bd3 c5 11.dxc5 Nc6 (11...Bxc5 12.Qc2 Be7 13.Bd2 Nc6
14.Ne4°) 12.Qc2 (12.Ne4 Nxe4 13.Bxe4 Qxd1 14.Rxd1 Bxc5 15.Bd2°, or
12.Na4 e5 13.e4 Bg4 14.Be3 Qe7³ Galeev,S-Ponfilenok,V Kazan 2007)
12...h6 13.Ne4 (13.Na4 Qe7 14.e4 e5 15.h3 Be6 16.Be3 Rac8 17.Bc4 Rcd8
18.Bxe6 Qxe6 19.Rfd1 Ba5 ½-½ Dzanev,G-Todorov,K Ruse 2017)
13...Nxe4 14.Bxe4 Qe7 15.Nd4=
b) 5...e6 6.Bg5

b1) 6...c6 7.a5 c5 (7...Nbd7 8.e3 b5 9.axb6 Nxb6 10.Ne5² Girya,O-

Zhukova,N St Petersburg 2018) 8.d5 Be7 9.e4 (9.Bxf6 Bxf6 10.e4 Bxc3+
11.bxc3 exd5 12.Qxd5² Arkell,K-Juergens,P Copenhagen 1994) 9...exd5
(9...0-0? 10.d6! Bxd6 11.e5+– Rogozenco,D-Tran,M Moscow 2018;
9...Nxd5 10.Nxd5 exd5 11.Qxd5²) 10.exd5 0-0 11.Bxc4² Melkumyan,H-
Ragger,M Austria 2016.
b2) 6...Bb4 7.e3 c5 8.Bxc4 cxd4 9.exd4 Nc6 10.0-0 0-0 11.Rc1
11...Be7 (11...Bxc3?! 12.Rxc3 Na5 13.Bd3 h6 14.Bh4 Nc6 15.Ne5±
Deng,Y-Wang,Z Xingtai 2018; 11...Rb8 12.Bd3 [12.d5! Na5 13.Ba2±]
12...Be7 13.Bf4 Bd6 14.Ne5 Qc7 15.Ne4 Nxe4 16.Bxe4 Bd7 17.b4 f6
18.Qh5 fxe5 19.Bxh7+ 1–0 Krasteva,B-Arauco Celestino,A Porto Carras
2018) 12.Re1 (12.Bxf6?! Bxf6 13.d5 exd5 14.Bxd5 Qb6 15.Qb3 Qxb3
16.Bxb3 Bg4³ Polarczyk,P-Nasuta,G Lublin 2007) 12...h6 (12...Bd7
13.d5!? [13.Qd2 Nb4 14.Ne5 Bc6∞ Quinn,M-Magem Badals,J Escaldes
1998] 13...Nxd5 14.Nxd5 Bxg5 [14...exd5 15.Qxd5 Be6 16.Qxd8 Bxd8
17.Bxe6 fxe6 18.Bxd8 Raxd8 19.Rxe6±] 15.Nxg5 Qxg5 16.Nb6 Rad8
17.Nxd7 Qe7 18.Nxf8 Rxd1 19.Rexd1 Kxf8 20.Bxa6 bxa6 21.Rxc6²)
13.Bf4 Bd7 14.Ne5 Rc8 15.Nxd7 Qxd7 16.d5² Kasparov,G-Nogueiras
Santiago,J Belfort 1988.
b3) 6...c5 7.Bxf6 (7.e3 cxd4 8.exd4 Nc6 9.Bxc4 Be7 10.0-0 0-0 11.Re1²
Wang,H-Volokitin,A Calimanesti Caciulata 2016) 7...gxf6 (7...Qxf6 8.d5
exd5 9.Nxd5 Qd8 10.e3 Nc6 11.Bxc4 Bd6 12.0-0 0-0 13.h3 Re8 14.Qc2²
Khalifman,A-Ivanov,S St Petersburg 1998) 8.d5 exd5 9.Nxd5 Bg7 10.e3
Nc6 11.Bxc4 Be6 12.0-0 0-0
13.Qc1! Na5 (13...Bxd5 14.Rd1 Nd4 15.Nxd4 Bxc4 16.Nf3±) 14.Rd1²
Jakovenko,D-Lysyj,I Kazan 2014.
b4) 6...Nc6 7.e3 (7.e4 Na5 8.Qc2 Be7 9.Rd1 h6 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.e5 Be7
12.d5 0-0∞ Mamedyarov,S-Anand,V Kolkata 2018) 7...Na5 8.Nd2 (8.Ne5
c5 9.Nxc4 cxd4 10.Qxd4 Qxd4 11.exd4 Nxc4 12.Bxc4 Be7 13.Bf4 Bd7
14.d5 Rc8 15.dxe6 Rxc4 16.exd7+ Kxd7 17.0-0-0+ Kc6 18.Be5 Rd8
19.Rxd8 Bxd8 20.b3 Rc5 21.Bd4 Rf5 22.f3 Bb6 23.Bxb6 Kxb6 24.Re1 Rc5
25.Kd2 Nd5 26.Nxd5+ Rxd5+ 27.Kc3 Rc5+ 28.Kd2 Rd5+ 29.Kc3 ½-½
Topalov,V-Ding,L Abidjan 2019) 8...c5
9.dxc5 (9.Bxf6 Qxf6 10.d5 Qg6 11.Qf3 exd5 12.Nxd5 Bd6 13.h3 0-0
14.Nxc4 Nxc4 15.Bxc4 Bf5 16.Nc3 Be5 17.0-0 ½-½ Bruzon Batista,L-
Liang,A Saint Louis 2018) 9...Bxc5 10.Bxc4 Bd7 (10...Nxc4 11.Nxc4
Qxd1+ 12.Rxd1²) 11.0-0²/= Bu,X-Vallejo Pons,F China 2018.

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Na3

Here is the starting position of the ‘Various Lines’ Chapter. As has already
been mentioned, Black can opt for 4...c6, 4...Bf5, 4...Bg4, 4...c3, 4...Qd5,
4...g6, 4...a6 and 4...Nc6.

1.2 — 4...C6

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Na3 c6

Not really advisable, as Black transposes to an unfavourable ‘Slav Defence’

— compare, for example, with the line 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nbd2
dxc4 5.Nxc4.
5.Nxc4 e6 6.g3

Possible is 6.e3 c5 7.Be2 Nc6 8.0-0 cxd4 9.exd4 Be7 10.Bf4² Habershon,P-
Price,A Llandudno 2017, but the text is the principal continuation.

6...b5

6...Bb4+ 7.Bd2 Bxd2+ 8.Qxd2± Fahnenschmidt,G-Bebersdorf,C Biel 1979,

is an excellent ‘Catalan’ version for White, while 6...c5 is simply a tempo
down on the 4...c5 line: 7.Bg2 Nc6 8.0-0 cxd4 9.Bf4 (9.a3 Be7 10.b4 Nd5
11.Bb2 Nc3 12.Bxc3 dxc3 13.Rc1² Gagunashvili,M-Grachev,B Moscow
2006) 9...Be7 10.Nce5 (10.Nfe5 Nd5 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.Qxd4 0-0 13.Rfd1±
Mareco,S-Quintiliano Pinto,R Sao Paulo 2015) 10...Bd7 11.Nxd4 Nd5
12.Nf5± Murillo Tsijli,A-Alfaro Rojas,A San Jose 2010.

7.Nce5 Bb7 8.Bg2 Be7

Playable is 8...Nbd7 9.0-0 Be7 (10.Qb3 0-0 11.Rd1, looks better) 10.Bg5²
Smirnov,V-Sharevich,A Minsk 2010, but not 8...c5? 9.Nxf7!+–
Halldorsson,J-Dadason,G Reykjavik 2016, or 8...Qc7?! 9.0-0 Bd6 10.Bf4
(10.Bd2 Nbd7 11.Nxd7 Qxd7 12.Ba5 0-0 13.Rc1 Rac8 14.b4² Thomas,D-
Evans,N Stirling 2014) 10...0-0 11.Rc1±

9.0-0 0-0 10.Qb3

10.Qc2 Qb6 11.Bg5 c5 12.dxc5 Bxc5 13.Bxf6 (13.Nd3?! Be7 14.Be3²

Hari,M-Manish,A Saravanampatty 2017) 13...gxf6 14.Ng5 fxg5 15.Bxb7
Qxb7 16.Qxc5± is another good line.

10...Nbd7 11.Rd1 Qc7 12.Bf4

Mitrabha,G-Kadianis,G Porto Carras 2018. White has a clearly better

position, as Black will find it difficult to push ...c5 under acceptable
circumstances.
1.3 — 4...BF5

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Na3 Bf5

This a fair try for Black. White should go for a ‘Catalan’ set-up, preserving
a small but lasting advantage due to his spatial control.

5.Nxc4 g6

Of course, Black can opt for some other set-ups as well:

a) 5...c6 6.g3 e6 (6...h6?! 7.Bg2 Nbd7 8.0-0 Nb6 9.Na5 Qc8 10.Ne5±
Drabek,M-Schmid,J Czech Republic 1995) 7.a3 (7.Qb3! is even stronger)
7...Be7 8.Bg2 Nbd7 9.0-0 Nb6 10.Na5² Rychlik,H-Litwiniec,M Zakopane
2001.
b) 5...Nc6 6.e3
6...e6 (6...h6 7.Be2 e6 8.0-0 Be7 9.a3 0-0 10.b4 a6 11.Bb2² Koelking,H-
Krumbeck,H Germany 2014) 7.a3 Be7 8.Bd3 Bxd3 9.Qxd3 Qd5 10.0-0 0-
0-0 11.Qc2² Ladygin,A-Ozonov,E Novosibirsk 2009.
c) 5...e6 6.e3 (6.Qb3 Nc6 7.Nh4? Bb4+µ Rusak,J-Okruszko,M Bialystok
2014) 6...c5 7.Be2²

6.Nfe5!

A proposed novelty in place of 6.Bg5 Bg7 7.g3 0-0 8.Bg2 Nc6=

Schneider,J-Sedlacek,J Plzen 1998.

6...Bg7 7.f3 0-0 8.e4²

White has gained a powerful centre and the advantage.
1.4 — 4...BG4

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Na3 Bg4

This is also a move to avoid as White can continue with 5.Ne5, gaining a
strong, centralised piece on Black’s compliments (here the Qb3 idea is quite
helpful).

5.Ne5 Bh5

More ‘correct’ seems to be 5...Be6 6.Naxc4 Nbd7 7.f3 Nxe5 8.Nxe5 g6

(8...c5 9.Qa4+²) 9.e4 Bg7 10.Be3 0-0 11.Bc4 Bxc4 12.Nxc4²

6.Naxc4 e6

6...c6 7.a4 Nbd7 8.Qb3± seems to be the only acceptable follow-up for
Black.

7.Qb3! Qd5?!

Also unsatisfactory is 7...b6 8.Rg1! Nbd7 (8...Qxd4 9.g4 Bg6 10.Bg2 Be4
11.Be3 Qd5 12.f3 Bg6 13.Nxg6+–) 9.g4 Bg6 10.Bg2±, but Black is obliged
to go for 7...Nbd7 8.Bg5 Qc8 9.f3±

8.f3! b5

8...b6 9.e4 Qb7 10.Na5 Qc8 11.Bb5+ Nfd7 12.Nac6+–

9.e4 Nxe4

9...Qb7 10.Na5+–

10.fxe4 Qxe4+ 11.Qe3 Bb4+ 12.Bd2 Bxd2+ 13.Kxd2+– Johnsen,S-

Gausel,E Gausdal 1999.

1.5 — 4...C3

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Na3 c3

A ‘clever’ move, trying to hook White into the D77 lines by transposition
(6.g3). Actually this is also OK for White, who has at his disposal the
natural 6.e3. White can enjoy a small spatial and stronger centre advantage.

5.bxc3 g6 6.e3

Instead of the text move, White can try to transpose to a famous (Grünfeld-
type) position reached after 6.g3 Bg7 7.Bg2 0-0 8.0-0 c5
Here White continues with 9.e3 Nc6 10.Bb2 (10.Qe2 Qa5 11.Bb2 Nd5
12.Rfc1 Bg4 13.h3 Bxf3 14.Bxf3 Nb6 15.Rab1 cxd4 16.cxd4² Kasparov,G-
Svidler,P Internet 1998) 10...Be6 11.Qe2 Qb6 12.Rfb1 Bf5 13.Rd1 Be4
14.Nc4 Qa6 15.Bf1² Sakaev,K-Iljin,A Dresden 2007.

6...Bg7 7.Bd3

7.Be2 is possible as well: 7...0-0 8.0-0 c5 9.Nc4 Nc6 10.a4 Be6 11.Ba3²
Can,E-Birnboim,N Yerevan 2014.

7...0-0 8.0-0 c5 9.Bb2 Nc6 10.Nc4²

Ovsiannikov,M-Bukavshin,I Voronezh 2007. As long as White keeps the
...e5 advance under control he can state that he keeps a slight and secure
advantage.
1.6 — 4...QD5

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Na3 Qd5

A strange move with a logical intention; to make the recapture on c4 harder.

5.e3

A logical novelty. 5.Qa4+ c6 6.Qxc4 Reimche,V-Meschke,A Stuttgart 2017,

is possible, but White doesn’t achieve much. Another try is 5.g3?! e6
(5...e5!?) 6.Bg2 Bxa3 7.Qa4+ Nc6 8.Qxa3 Nxd4 Zuferi,E-Guliyev,N
Deizisau 2014.

5...b5 6.b3! e5!

6...e6 7.bxc4 bxc4 8.Nxc4²

7.bxc4 bxc4 8.Nxc4 exd4 9.exd4 Bb4+ 10.Bd2 Bxd2+ 11.Qxd2 0-0
12.Rc1
White’s position is preferable; the black queen has been centralised too
early.
1.7 — 4...G6

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Na3 g6

Black would simply like to transpose to a ‘Grünfeld Defence’ type of
position. A logical option, but in practice it is not so likely that a ‘QGA’
player would go for a ‘Grünfeld Defence’ position...

5.Nxc4 Bg7

From here White can opt for two types of position:

a) 6.g3 (The ‘Catalan’ type)
a1) 6...0-0 has been played in a number of games: 7.Bg2 Nbd7 (7...Be6
8.Nce5 Bd5 9.0-0 Nc6 10.Nxc6 Bxc6 11.e3 a5 12.Qe2 a4 13.Bd2 Bd5
14.Bb4 c6 15.Rfd1² Leiva Rodriguez,J-Slipak,S Mar del Plata 2012;
7...Bg4?! 8.Nfe5 c6 9.Nxg4 Nxg4 10.e3 Nf6 11.0-0 Nbd7 12.b3 Re8
13.Bb2± Gorka,C-Welte,C Bergneustadt 1999) 8.0-0 Nb6 9.Na5 c6 10.Nb3
a5 11.a4 Nbd5 12.Ne5² Can,E-Romanov,E Skopje 2013.
a2) 6...Be6 7.Nce5 (7.Ne3 Nc6 8.Bg2 h6 9.0-0 0-0= Fazekas,S-Wallis,P
Hastings East Sussex 1953) 7...c5 8.Bg2 cxd4 9.Nxd4 (9.Qxd4!? Nbd7
10.Nd3 0-0 11.0-0 h6 12.Bd2²) 9...Bd5 10.Qa4+ Nbd7 11.0-0 Bxg2
12.Kxg2 0-0 13.Nxd7 Nxd7 14.Nf3 Nb6 15.Qb3 Qd5 16.Rd1 ½-½
Petrosian,T-Polugaevsky,L Moscow 1964.
a3) 6...b5?! 7.Nce5 0-0 8.Bg2 Bb7 9.0-0 Nbd7 10.Qb3± a6? 11.Nxf7! Bd5
12.Nxd8 Bxb3 13.Nc6 Bc4 14.Re1 Rae8 15.e4 Bd3 16.Nfe5 Nxe5 17.Nxe5
Bc4 18.Be3 Be6 19.Rec1 1–0 Schebler,G-Poschke,M Ruhrgebiet 1999.
a4) 6...c5 7.Bg2 (7.Qa4+?! Bd7! [7...Qd7 8.Qxd7+ Bxd7 9.Bg2 Bc6 10.0-0
cxd4 11.Nxd4 Bxg2 12.Kxg2² Bruce,R-Thomas,A Harrogate North
Yorkshire 1947] 8.Qb3 cxd4 9.Nfe5 0-0 [9...Be6!µ] 10.Qxb7 Nc6 11.Nxc6
Bxc6 12.Qxc6 Rc8 13.Qb5 a6 14.Qxa6 Qd5 15.Nb6 Rxc1+ 16.Rxc1
Qxh1∞ Wichmann, C-Ivanov,M Leutersdorf 2000; 7.Nce5 Ng4 8.Qa4+
Bd7 9.Nxd7 Qxd7 10.Qxd7+ Nxd7 11.h3 Nh6 12.dxc5 Nxc5 13.Bg2 Nf5∞
Gelashvili,T-Bitoon,R Manila 2010) 7...Nc6

8.Be3 (The text looks much better than 8.Qa4 cxd4 [8...0-0?! 9.dxc5 Ne4
10.Be3 Be6 11.Rd1± Kalavannan,K-Altman,J High Wycombe 2014]
9.Nxd4 Qxd4 10.Bxc6+ Bd7 11.Be3 Qg4 12.Bxd7+ Qxd7 13.Qxd7+
Kxd7=) 8...Nd5 (8...Be6 9.Qa4 Nd5 10.dxc5 Nxe3 11.fxe3 0-0 12.Rd1 Qc7
13.Nd4 Bxc4 14.Qxc4 Ne5 15.Qc3 [15.Qb4 Rac8 16.Rc1 Ng4 17.Bxb7 a5
18.Qb3 a4 19.Qb4 Rb8 20.c6 Nxe3° Pantsulaia,L-Makarov,M St Petersburg
2018] 15...Rac8 16.b4 Ng4 17.Bh3² Marin,M-Perpinya Rofes,L Barcelona
2005; 8...Ng4 9.dxc5 Qxd1+ 10.Rxd1
10...Be6 [10...Nxe3 11.fxe3 Be6 12.Rc1 Bxc4 13.Rxc4 Bxb2 14.Nd4²
Forman,S-Svoboda,S Czech Republic 2011] 11.Nfd2 Nxe3 12.fxe3 0-0-0
13.Rc1² Cioara,A-Reich,T Germany 2010) 9.dxc5 Nxe3 10.Qxd8+ (Also
possible seems to be 10.fxe3 Be6 11.Qa4! [11.Nfd2 Bd5 12.Bf3 0-0 13.Rc1
Bxf3 14.Nxf3∞ Landau,S-Reti,R Rotterdam 1927] 11...0-0 12.Rd1 Qc7
13.Nd4²) 10...Nxd8 11.fxe3 Be6 12.Rc1 Rc8 13.b4 b5 14.Nce5! (A
proposed novelty in place of 14.Na5?! Bb2 15.Kf2 Bxc1 16.Rxc1 Bd5
17.Rd1° Pantsulaia,L-Saravana,K Dubai 2018) 14...Bxa2 15.Kf2 Bd5
16.Rhd1²
White stands slightly better, due to his better development and more
centralised pieces, while his passed and protected c5-pawn cannot be
underestimated. He will opt for Nd3 and Nd4 at a certain moment.
The other way for White approach matters is to head for a ‘Neo-Grünfeld
Defence’-type of position. An interesting continuation, but with a lot of
concrete moves:
b) 6.e3 0-0 (6...c5 7.b3 Nc6 8.Bb2 cxd4 [8...0-0 9.dxc5²] 9.Nxd4 Nxd4
10.Qxd4 Qxd4 11.Bxd4²)
b1) 7.Bd3 c5 (7...Nbd7 8.e4 Nb6 9.Nce5 Nfd7 10.Ng4 Nf6 11.Nh6+ Kh8
12.Qb3² Perkovic,B-Bajda,R Velenje 2005) 8.0-0 Nc6 9.dxc5 Nd7 10.Be4
Nxc5 11.Bxc6 bxc6 12.Nd4 Ba6³ Jauregui Andrade,C-Eliskases,E
Bariloche 1953.
b2) 7.Be2 Na6 (7...c5 8.0-0 cxd4 [8...Nc6 9.dxc5 Ne4 10.Qa4 Nxc5 11.Qa3
Na6 12.Rd1² Donner,J-Bouwmeester,H Beverwijk 1958] 9.Nxd4 Nbd7
10.Bf3 (10.Bd2!²) 10...e5 11.Nb3 e4∞ Lakat,G-Szlenka,A Budapest 2015;
7...Nfd7 8.0-0 Nb6 9.Qc2 c6 10.Rd1 Nxc4 11.Bxc4 Bg4 12.Qe2 Qc7 13.h3²
Decker,N-Mayer,H Berlin 2014 ; 7...b6 8.0-0 Bb7 9.b3 a5 10.Bb2²
Papadopoulos,P-Kekki,P Rethymnon 2011) 8.b3 c5 9.Bb2 b6 10.0-0 Bb7
11.Rc1 Rc8 12.a3 Ne4= El Mchaouri Mas,Y-Zalkind,K Escaldes 2018.
b3) 7.b3!? (An untested option, but it is important to have the d4-pawn
over-protected and be ready to recapture with a piece after ...c5 and cxd4)
7...c5 8.Bb2²
1.8 — 4...A6

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Na3 a6?!

This does not look like a reasonable option as Black just loses a valuable
tempo and White can prove a nice advantage — a ‘Catalan’ set-up will be
employed.

5.Nxc4 b5

Black’s alternatives are also unsatisfactory:

a) 5...c5 6.dxc5 Qxd1+ 7.Kxd1 Nbd7 8.b4 a5 9.Nxa5 Nxc5 10.e3±
b) 5...Nc6 6.g3 b5 7.Ne3
7...Bb7 (7...e5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.Bg2! Bb4+ 10.Bd2 Qxd4 11.Bxa8 Qxb2
12.Bxb4 Qxb4+ 13.Qd2±) 8.Bg2 e6 9.0-0 Be7 10.Ne5 Qd6 11.b3±
c) 5...e6 6.g3 (6.Bf4 Bb4+ 7.Ncd2 b5 8.e3 Nbd7 9.a4 Ne4 [9...c6? 10.axb5
cxb5 11.Bxb5± Rak,T-Golinski,D Ostroda 2008] 10.Bd3 Nxd2 11.Nxd2 e5!
∞) 6...Bb4+ 7.Bd2 Bxd2+ 8.Qxd2±

6.Nce5 e6
7.g3

It is too early for 7.Ng5? Bb4+ 8.Bd2 Qxd4 9.Nexf7 0-0!–+ Drachev,N-
Truschev,S Novokuznetsk 2014.

7...Bb7 8.Bg2 Bd5

Neither 8...Bb4+ 9.Bd2 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 0-0 11.Rc1 Nbd7 12.Nc6± nor
8...Nbd7? 9.Nxf7 Kxf7 10.Ng5++– can be recommended.

9.0-0 Be7 10.Bf4±

Eliseev,A-Stjazhkina,O St Petersburg 2002. White has a clear advantage, as
it is not easy for Black to play ...c5 under good conditions.
1.9 — 4...NC6

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Na3 Nc6

A bit artificial, but White should be on the alert and avoid some ‘minor
mistakes’. If he does so, he will be able to control the game, preserving a
small but pleasant advantage.
5.Nxc4 Bg4

Alternatives are:
a) 5...Bf5 6.e3! (6.g3? Be4! 7.Ncd2 Bd5 8.Qa4 g5³; 6.Nfe5? Nxe5
[6...Nxd4!µ] 7.Nxe5 e6 8.Qa4+ c6 9.f3 Qb6 10.Bd2 Qxb2 11.Rc1 Qa3
12.Qc4° Liesenfeld,H-Graewe,M Trier 2005) 6...e6 7.a3! (7.Bd3 Bb4+
8.Ke2 0-0∞; 7.Be2 Nb4 8.Na3 c5∞; 7.Nfe5
7...Nb4! [7...Nxe5 8.Nxe5 a6 9.Bd3 Be4 10.f3 Bb4+ 11.Bd2 Bxd2+
12.Qxd2 Bxd3 13.Qxd3² Londyn,R-Plachy,P Svetla nad Sazavou 1995]
8.Nd3 Nxd3+ 9.Bxd3 Bxd3 10.Qxd3 c5=) 7...Be7 8.Be2 Ne4 (8...0-0 9.0-0
a6 10.b4 b5 11.Nce5² Kovalev,D-Lau,W Wiesbaden 2001) 9.0-0 0-0
10.Nfe5 Nxe5 11.Nxe5 f6 (11...c5?! 12.f3 Nf6 13.e4 Bg6 14.Be3±) 12.Nc4
Nd6 13.b4²
b) 5...a6?! transposes to sub-chapter 1.8.
c) 5...e6
c1) 6.g3 Bb4+ 7.Bd2 Bxd2+ 8.Qxd2 0-0 9.Bg2 h6 10.0-0± Perondi,M-Braz
AG,J Florianopolis 2016.
c2) 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bf4 Bb4+ 8.Bd2 Bxd2+ 9.Qxd2 Ne4 10.Qc2 Nd6 11.e3 0-0
12.Be2² Koszo,A-Sapi,A Hungary 2007.
c3) 6.e3 Bd6 (6...Be7 7.Be2 0-0 8.0-0 Rb8 9.b3 b6 10.Bb2 Bb7 11.Rc1 Ne4
12.a3² Juurikainen,J-Nystrom,J Finland 2005) 7.Bd3 0-0 8.0-0 Re8 9.e4 e5
10.dxe5 Nxe5 11.Ncxe5 Bxe5 12.Nxe5 Rxe5 13.Re1± Meinders,B-Barnes,J
Parsippany 2010.
d) 5...g6 6.e3 (6.b3 Bg7 7.Bb2 Bf5 8.Rc1 [8.d5? Nb4µ Francalancia,M-
Costariol,E Porto San Giorgio 2004] 8...0-0 9.e3²) 6...Bg7 7.Be2 0-0 8.0-0²
Bautista Sanchez,J-Ridameya Tatche,J Sabadell 2009.
e) 5...Nd5? 6.e4 (6.a3 Rampelbergh,W-Nibbelink,M Namur 2007) 6...Nb6
7.d5±

6.Nce5

This is a proposed novelty over 6.e3 e5!? (Passive but safe is 6...e6 7.Be2
Qd5 8.Qb3 Bb4+ 9.Bd2 Bxd2+ 10.Ncxd2 Qxb3 11.Nxb3 0-0 12.Rc1²
Spiridonov,N-Petitcunot,P Le Touquet 2000) 7.Ncxe5 Nxe5 8.dxe5 Qxd1+
9.Kxd1 0-0-0+ (9...Ne4 10.Ke2 0-0-0 11.h3 Be6 12.Nd2 Nc5°) 10.Ke2 Nd7
11.h3 (11.Bd2 Nxe5 12.Bc3 Nxf3 13.gxf3 Be6! [13...Bh5? 14.Bh3+±]
14.b3 Rg8 15.h4 g6 16.h5 Bg7 17.Bxg7 Rxg7 18.hxg6 hxg6=) 11...Bxf3+
12.gxf3 (12.Kxf3 Nxe5+ 13.Ke4 Nc6 14.Bb5 Rd6 15.b3 Be7∞) 12...Nxe5

13.Bd2!? (13.h4 Be7 14.Bd2 Nc4 [14...Bxh4 15.f4 Ng6 16.Bh3+ Kb8
17.Bc3 Bf6 18.Bxf6 gxf6 19.Bg4²] 15.Bc3² Ivanov,M-Simon,L Guingamp
1999) 13...Nd3 (13...Nxf3 14.Bc3 Nh4 15.Rg1 f6 16.Rg4 Ng6 17.h4 Rd5
18.Bh3 Kb8 19.Rd1 Rxd1 20.Kxd1²) 14.Rb1 (14.Bc3 Bb4 15.Bxb4 Nxb4
16.h4 [16.f4 Rd6 17.Kf3 Rhd8 18.Bc4 f6 19.Rhg1 g6 20.a3 Nd3 21.b4 Rc6
22.Bxd3 Rxd3 23.f5 g5 24.h4 h6 25.hxg5 hxg5 26.Rh1 a5=] 16...Nd3
17.Bh3+ Kb8 18.b3 Rhe8 19.Bf5 Nf4+=) 14...Nxf2 15.Rg1 Nd3 16.h4°

6...Bxf3 7.exf3

7.Nxf3 e5!∞ is not what White was aiming for, but interesting is 7.gxf3
Nxd4! (7...Qxd4 8.Nxc6 Qxd1+ 9.Kxd1 bxc6 10.Kc2²) 8.e3 Nf5 9.Qb3 Nd6
10.Bd2°
7...Qxd4

7...Nxd4?! 8.Be3 Ne6 9.Qb3 Qd5 10.Qb5+ Qxb5 11.Bxb5+ c6 12.Nxc6 a6

13.Ba4±

8.Nxc6 Qxd1+ 9.Kxd1 bxc6 10.Be3 0-0-0+ 11.Kc2

White has a nice game, as his compensation for the sacrificed pawn (bishop
pair and shattered black pawn structure) should be sufficient.
 CHAPTER 2.
MAIN LINES

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Na3

Here is the starting position (as well!) of the ‘Main Lines’ Chapter. As has
already been mentioned, Black can opt for 4...Be6, 4...e5, 4...e6 and 4...c5.

2.1 — 4...BE6

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Na3 Be6

An early bishop sortie which can be quite dangerous if White doesn’t know
what to do... Black plans to centralise his light-squared bishop and, by the
...c5 advance, to get full equality. White has ways to put on good pressure,
but he must be rather accurate. The text is mainly classified under ECO
D25.
5.e3 Bd5

Generally the text is the natural follow-up, but Black has also tried some
other alternatives:
a) 5...c6 6.Nxc4 Bd5 7.Bd3 (7.Be2 e6 8.0-0 Be7 [8...c5 9.b3 Nbd7 10.Bb2
Be7 11.dxc5 Nxc5 12.Nd4² Makarov,M-Riazantsev,A Sochi 2004 {12.b4!?
Ncd7 13.a3²}] 9.b3! [9.Bd2 0-0 10.Rc1 Nbd7 11.b3 c5 12.Bc3 Rc8= Tan,Z-
Ushenina,A Batumi 2012] 9...h6 10.Bb2 0-0 11.Nfe5² Giorgadze,T-
Faulbaum,G Hamburg 1980) 7...e6 8.0-0 Nbd7 9.Qe2 Be4 10.Bxe4 Nxe4
11.Qc2 Nd6 12.b3 Be7 13.e4²
b) 5...g6 6.Bxc4 (6.Nxc4 Bg7 7.Bd3 0-0 8.0-0 Nbd7 9.b4 Nd5 10.Bd2²
Papin,V-Mishuchkov,N St Petersburg 2010) 6...Bxc4 (6...Bd5?! 7.Qb3 Bg7
8.e4 Bxc4 9.Nxc4 Qc8 10.e5 Nd5 11.Na5 Nb6 12.0-0 0-0 13.Bg5± Palo,D-
Hillarp Persson,T Helsinge 2003) 7.Nxc4
7...Qd5 (7...Bg7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Qe2 Qd5 10.b3 Nbd7 11.Ba3 Rfe8 12.Rac1
Rac8 13.Rfd1 Ne4 14.Nfe5² Finegold,B-Altounian,L Saint Louis 2010)
8.Qe2 (8.Qb3 Bg7 9.Bd2 0-0 10.Rc1 [10.Bb4 Re8 11.Rc1 Nbd7 12.Na5
Qxb3 13.axb3 c6= Nebolsina,V-Stefanova,A Moscow 2010] 10...c5=)
8...Bg7 9.0-0 0-0 10.b3 transposes to 7...Bg7.
c) 5...c5 6.Bxc4 (6.Nxc4?! Nc6 7.Qb3 Bd5 8.dxc5 e6 9.Nd4 [9.Qb5? Ne4
10.Nd6+ Nxd6 11.cxd6 Bxd6 12.Be2 a6µ Collins,S-Luther,T Liverpool
2008] 9...Bxc5 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.f3 0-0 12.Qc2 Rb8³ Braun,A-Luther,T
Germany 2008) 6...Bxc4 7.Nxc4
c1) 7...Nc6 8.Qb3 (8.dxc5 Qxd1+ 9.Kxd1 Ne4 10.Ke2 Nxc5 11.b3²
Shalimov,V-Lomakin,V Myrhorod 2011; 8.Qa4!? e6 9.0-0 a6 10.Nce5 b5
11.Qc2 Rc8 12.Nxc6 Rxc6 13.a4 Be7 14.axb5 axb5 15.Qb3 Qb8 16.Ne5²)
8...Qc7 (8...cxd4 9.Qxb7 Qc8 10.Qxc8+ Rxc8 11.exd4 Nxd4 12.Nd6+ exd6
13.Nxd4² Supatashvili,K-Gelazonia,P Tbilisi 2008) 9.0-0 e6 10.Bd2 Be7
11.dxc5² Halkias,S-Drazic,S Pancevo 2002.
c2) 7...cxd4 8.Nxd4 (8.Qxd4 Nc6 9.Qxd8+ Rxd8 10.Ke2 Ne4= Dobosz,H-
Platzgummer,F Austria 2013)
c21) 8...e5?! 9.Nb5!±
c22) 8...Qd5 9.Qa4+ Nbd7 10.0-0 Rb8

11.Na5² (11.Qb5 Qxb5 12.Nxb5 a6 13.Nd4 e6 14.Rd1 Be7 15.Bd2 0-0=

Novkovic,M-Platzgummer,F Austria 2013; 11.Na3 a6?! [11...e5! 12.Ndb5
Qc6∞] 12.Rd1 e5 13.Nf5 Qe4 14.Qxe4 Nxe4 15.f3± Lentrodt, T-
Platzgummer, F Austria 2014).
c23) 8...e6?! 9.0-0 a6 10.Bd2 Nbd7 11.Qf3 Rc8 12.Rac1± Mancini,M-
Brochet,P Nimes 2014.
c24) 8...g6 9.0-0 (9.Qe2 Bg7 10.0-0 0-0 11.b3 Nbd7 [It was originally
thought that Black is fine here, but in truth, the white pieces are better
placed in the centre] 12.Rd1! [12.Bb2 Nb6 13.Nxb6 Qxb6= Tennstedt,A-
Levin,F Bad Woerishofen 2005] 12...Rc8 13.Bb2 a6 14.a4 Qc7 15.Rac1²)
9...Bg7 10.b3 (10.Qb3!? Qc7 11.Bd2 Nc6 12.Nxc6 Qxc6 13.Na5 Qd5
14.Bc3²) 10...0-0 11.Qe2 Nbd7 12.Rd1! a6 13.Bb2²
c3) 7...e6 8.0-0 (8.dxc5 Qxd1+ 9.Kxd1 Bxc5 10.Ke2 Nc6 11.Bd2= Ivkov,B-
Bondick,K Davos 2006) 8...Nc6 9.Qa4 (9.Nce5 Qd5 [9...Nxe5! 10.Nxe5
a6=] 10.Qa4 a6 11.Nxc6 b5 12.Qc2 Qxc6 13.a4 b4 14.Bd2² Kharitonov,A-
Bebchuk,E Leningrad 1991) 9...a6 10.Nce5 transposes to lines above.
6.Nxc4 e6

7.Bd3

7.Be2 is possible: 7...c5 8.0-0 (8.Nce5 cxd4 9.0-0 Bd6 10.exd4 0-0 11.Bg5
Be7 12.Qd3 Nfd7= Sprotte,N-Drazic,S Dresden 2010; 8.dxc5 Bxc5 9.a3 0-
0 10.b4 Be7 11.Bb2 Nbd7 12.0-0² Parligras,M-Blomqvist,E Baku 2016)
8...Nbd7 (8...Nc6 9.b3 Be7 10.Bb2 0-0 11.Rc1 Ne4 12.dxc5 Nxc5 13.Nd4²
Shen,Y-Stefanova,A Ulaanbaatar 2010) 9.b3 Be7 10.Bb2 0-0 11.Rc1
(11.Nce5 b6 12.Rc1 Rc8 13.Bd3 (13.Rc2 cxd4 14.Rxc8 Qxc8 15.Qxd4
Rd8= Salmoiraghi,A-Drazic,S Milan 2009) 13...Rc7 14.Nxd7 Qxd7
15.Ne5² Balberov,A-Yarmonov,I Apatin 2014) 11...Rc8 12.Nfe5 (12.Rc2 b5
[12...a6 13.dxc5 Nxc5 14.Qa1 Ncd7 15.Rfc1 h6= Kveinys,A-Drazic,S
Fagernes 2013] 13.Ncd2 Qa5 14.dxc5 Rxc5 15.Rxc5 Bxc5 16.Qa1 Bb4=
Nosenko,A-Drazic,S Lienz 2015; 12.h3 h6 13.Nfe5 b5 14.Nxd7 Nxd7
15.Nd2 a6 16.dxc5 Nxc5 17.Rc2 Nd7 ½-½ Lajthajm,B-Drazic,S Bar 2007)
12...b5 13.Nxd7 Nxd7 14.Nd2 a6 15.Bf3 Bxf3 16.Nxf3 Bf6 17.Qd2 cxd4
18.Bxd4² ½-½ Martinez Romero,M-Drazic,S Tunja 2018.
7...Nbd7

The text looks to be modest compared with ...Nc6 lines, but it is also a hard
nut to crack. Alternatives are:
a) 7...c5 8.0-0 (8.dxc5 Bxc5 9.0-0 [9.Nce5 Nc6 10.Nxc6 Bxc6 11.0-0 0-0=
Allen,K-Zagema,W Hinnerup 1979] 9...0-0 10.a3 Nbd7 11.b4 Be7 12.Bb2²
Meskovs,N-Mishuchkov,N Pardubice 2015)
a1) 8...cxd4 9.Nxd4 (9.exd4 Be7 10.Nce5 0-0 11.Qe2 Nc6 12.Rd1 Rc8=
Socko,M-Turova,I Dresden 2004) 9...Bc5 (9...Nc6? 10.Nxc6 Bxc6
11.Ne5±) 10.b3 (10.Nb5!? 0-0 11.Nc3 Nc6 [11...Bc6 12.a3 a5 13.Ne5²]
12.a3 Rc8 13.Nxd5 Qxd5 14.Be2²) 10...0-0 (10...Bxd4 11.exd4 Nc6 12.Ba3
Bxc4 13.Bxc4² Wagner,A-Teske,H Paderborn 2013) 11.Bb2
11...b6 (11...Nc6? 12.Nxc6 Bxc6 13.Bxf6 gxf6 14.Bxh7+ Kxh7 15.Qh5+±)
12.Qe2 Nc6 13.Nxc6 Bxc6 14.Rfd1 Qe7 15.a3 a5 16.Bxf6 (16.Rac1 Bb7
17.b4 axb4 18.axb4 Bxb4 19.Nxb6 Rad8=) 16...Qxf6 17.Qc2 g6 18.Nxb6
Qg5 19.g3 Rab8 20.Nc4 Bf3 21.Rdb1²
a2) 8...Bxf3 9.Qxf3 Nc6 10.Rd1 cxd4 11.exd4 Qd5 12.Qg3²
a3) 8...Nc6
a31) 9.Nce5 Bd6 (9...Bxf3 10.Qxf3 Nxe5 11.dxe5 Qxd3 12.exf6 Qd5
13.e4± Jovanovic,Z-Drazic,S Bar 2007; 9...Nxe5 10.Nxe5 Bd6 11.Qa4+²
Hilverda,A-Kunin,V Werther 2015; 9...Be7 10.dxc5 Bxf3 11.Nxf3 0-0
12.a3 a5 13.Qc2 Qd5 14.e4 Qxc5 15.Qe2² Makhmutov,R-Mishuchkov,N
Moscow 2012) 10.Nxc6 Bxc6 11.dxc5 Bxc5 12.Ne5² Saborido Carre,R-
Puig Pulido,P Las Palmas 1964.
a32) 9.dxc5?! Bxc5 10.a3 Bxf3 11.gxf3 b5µ Gorjatschnik,D-Wegerle,J
Germany 2010.
a33) 9.Ncd2!?
The text move looks like a ‘semi-blunder’, as the well-placed knight
retreats for no obvious reason. However, White is playing against the d5-
bishop and Black has to be rather careful not to fall into a bad position:
9...Nb4 (9...Bxf3 10.Nxf3 cxd4 11.Nxd4 [11.Qb3 Qb6 12.Bb5 a6 13.Bxc6+
Qxc6 14.Nxd4 Qd5 15.Qxd5 Nxd5 16.e4 Nf6 17.f3 Bd6 18.Be3 Ke7
19.Rac1 Rhc8= Ortega,L-Godena,M Sarre 2009] 11...Nxd4 12.exd4 a6
13.Bf4 [13.Qb3!? Qd7 14.Bf4 Nd5 15.Be5 f6 16.Bg3²] 13...Bd6 [13...Be7
14.Be5 0-0 15.Rc1²] 14.Be5²) 10.Bb1 cxd4 11.e4! Bc6 12.a3 Na6 13.e5
Nd7 14.b4²
b) 7...Be7 8.0-0 0-0 (8...Ne4 9.Qc2! [9.Ncd2 f5 10.Ne5 0-0 11.f3∞
Lorenz,D-Wagner,G Dortmund 2001] 9...f5 10.Nfe5 0-0 11.f3 Nd6 12.b3²)
9.Qe2 (Here Black has to decide how to avoid ending up in a bad position
after the threatened e4 advance. There are two main ways to deal with this
advance...)
9...Be4 (9...c5 10.e4 [10.dxc5 Bxf3 11.gxf3 Bxc5 12.b3 Nc6 13.Bb2 Qe7
14.Kh1 Rfd8 15.Rg1∞ Camarena Gimenez,R-Kovacik,E Stare Mesto 2008]
10...Bxc4 11.Bxc4 cxd4 12.e5²) 10.Rd1 (10.Bxe4 Nxe4 11.Qc2 Qd5
12.Ncd2 Nxd2 13.Bxd2= Vidmar,M-Schlechter,C San Sebastian 1911)
10...Qd5 11.b3 c5 12.Bxe4 (12.dxc5 Bxd3 13.Rxd3 Qxc5 14.Ba3 Qc7
15.Bxe7 Qxe7 16.Nd4²) 12...Nxe4 13.Bb2 Nc6 14.Nfe5 cxd4 15.Bxd4
Nxe5 16.Bxe5 Qc6 17.Rac1²
c) 7...Bb4+ 8.Bd2 Bxd2+ 9.Ncxd2 Bxf3 (9...Nbd7?! 10.e4 Bc6 11.0-0
[11.b4!? b6 12.0-0±] 11...0-0 12.Rc1± Delmar,G-Prucha,K Trebic 1959)
10.Nxf3 c6 11.0-0 Nbd7 12.b4 0-0 13.Qb3² Krishna Teja,N-Drazic,S Novi
Sad 2020.

8.0-0 c5
9.Qe2!?

A proposed novelty. Not much is achieved by 9.Re1 Rc8 10.e4 Bxc4

11.Bxc4 cxd4 12.Qxd4 Bc5 13.Qd3 Ng4!³ Djurovic,G-Drazic,S Novi Sad
2010, or 9.b3 Be7 10.Bb2 0-0 11.Nfe5 cxd4 12.Nxd7 (12.exd4 b6 13.Re1
Rc8= Peng,H-Drazic,S Novi Sad 2019) 12...Nxd7 13.Bxd4 Nc5 14.Be2
Rc8= Turova,I-Drazic,S Rethymnon 2009.

9...cxd4

9...b5?! looks logical, but it fails to 10.Nce5 a6 11.e4 Bb7 12.Nxf7! Kxf7
13.Ng5+ Kg8 (13...Ke7 14.e5 Nd5 15.Qf3 Qe8 16.Nxe6±) 14.e5 Bd5
(14...Nd5 15.Qh5+–) 15.exf6 Qxf6 16.a4±

10.e4 Bxc4 11.Bxc4²

White will regain the pawn and, with his bishop pair and spatial advantage,
he can claim a plus.
2.2 — 4...E5

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Na3 e5

This (good) move is a rare bird. I have tried hard to prove a tiny advantage,
as you will see in the analysis, which was primarily made together with GM
Antoaneta Stefanova.

5.Nxe5

The text looks like the only valid move here, as the alternatives fail to
satisfy:
a) 5.Nxc4? e4! (5...exd4?! 6.Qxd4 Bb4+ 7.Bd2 [7.Ncd2 Qe7 8.e3 Nc6
9.Bb5 Bd7 10.Qh4 0-0-0=+ Vershinin,M-Volkov,P Novosibirsk 2007]
7...Bxd2+ 8.Qxd2 0-0 9.e3 [9.g3 Be6 10.Nce5 Qxd2+ 11.Nxd2 Bd5=]
9...Qe7 10.Be2=) 6.Ng1 (6.Nfe5 b5!µ) 6...Bb4+ 7.Bd2 Qxd4 8.Bxb4 Qxc4
9.Ba3 e3!µ Keres,P-Gurgenidze,B Rapina 1967.
b) 5.dxe5? Qxd1+ 6.Kxd1 Ne4 7.Be3 Bxa3 8.bxa3 Nc6µ
c) 5.Qa4+? Bd7 (5...c6 6.dxe5 b5 7.Qc2 Nd5³) 6.Qxc4 exd4 7.Nxd4 Nc6
8.Nac2 (8.Nxc6 Bxc6 9.f3²) 8...Ne5 9.Qb3 c5µ
d) 5.e3? Nc6 (5...exd4 6.Bxc4 [6.Nxd4?! c5 7.Ne2 Qxd1+ 8.Kxd1 Nc6µ
Stefanova,A-Goryachkina,A Skolkovo 2019] 6...Bb4+ 7.Bd2 Bxa3 8.bxa3
dxe3 9.Bxe3 Qxd1+ 10.Rxd1 0-0³; 5...e4? 6.Ne5 Bxa3 7.Qa4+ Nbd7
8.Bxc4! 0-0 9.Nxd7 Nxd7 10.Qxa3∞) 6.Bxc4 exd4 7.exd4 Bb4+ 8.Bd2
Qe7+µ Karl,H-Keller,D Zuerich 1984.

5...Bxa3

The text is a proposed novelty.

As 5...Ne4 6.Nc2! (6.Naxc4?! Bb4+ 7.Bd2 Nxd2 [7...Bxd2+ 8.Nxd2 Qxd4

9.Nd3=] 8.Qa4+ Nc6 9.Nxc6 Nf3+ 10.Kd1 bxc6 11.Qxb4 Rb8 12.Qc3
Nxd4 13.Ke1 0-0 14.Rd1 c5 15.e3 Qe7∞) 6...Be6 (6...Qf6 7.Be3 Nc6
8.Nxc6 Qxc6 9.f3²) 7.g3 Nd7 8.Bg2 Nxe5 9.Bxe4 Bd5 10.f3² is fine for
White, the main Black alternative is 5...Bb4+ 6.Bd2
a) 6...Bxa3 7.Qa4+ b5 (7...Nbd7? 8.Qxa3 Nxe5 9.dxe5 Ne4 10.Be3!
[10.Bf4? Qd4! {10...Bd7 11.Rd1± Rohacek,M-Sosovicka,J Slovakia 2015}
11.Be3 Qxe5 12.Rd1°] 10...b6 11.Rd1 Qe7 12.Qa4+±) 8.Qxa3 Qxd4 9.Nf3
(9.Bc3 Qd6 10.Qa5 Qb6 11.a4 Qxa5 12.Bxa5 c6 13.g3² Dmitrenko,V-
Huch,R Bayern 2016) 9...Qe4 10.g3 Bb7 11.Bg2 Nc6 12.0-0² Repka,C-
Jurcik,M Banska Stiavnica 2017.
b) 6...Qxd4
b1) 7.Bxb4!? Qxb2 (7...Qxe5 8.Nxc4 Qb5 9.Qb3 Nc6 10.Bc3²) 8.Rb1 Qxe5
9.Nxc4 Qe6 10.e3° This is an interesting gambit which looks dangerous for
Black as his king will remain in the centre for some moves, and White also
possesses the bishop pair.

It is certainly worth a try: 10...Nc6 11.Ba3 a6 (11...a5 12.Be2 Nd5 13.Qb3

Ndb4 14.0-0 0-0 15.Bf3°) 12.Be2 b5 13.Nd2 Qxa2 (13...Bb7 14.Nb3 Rd8
15.Qc1 Nd7 16.0-0 b4 17.Bb2! 0-0 18.f3!°) 14.Qc1 Qe6 15.0-0 Bb7 16.Nb3
Nd7 17.Nc5 Nxc5 18.Qxc5 0-0-0 (18...Qe5 19.Qc2 0-0-0 20.Rfc1°)
19.Bxb5!? axb5 20.Qxb5 Na5! (20...Ba8? 21.Qa6+ Kd7 22.Rfd1+ Ke8
23.Rxd8+ Nxd8 24.Qxa8 Qc6 25.Qb8 Qa4 26.Bb2+–) 21.Qxa5 Qd5
22.Qxd5 Rxd5 23.f3 Rhd8 24.Bb2²
b2) 7.Naxc4 Bxd2+ 8.Qxd2 Qxd2+ 9.Nxd2 (9.Kxd2 Be6 10.f3 Nc6 11.e4
Nxe5 12.Nxe5 0-0-0+ 13.Kc3=) 9...Nbd7 10.Nec4 0-0 11.g3 Re8 12.Bg2
Rb8 13.Rc1²

6.bxa3

More-or-less forced, as 6.Qa4+? is not good due to 6...b5! 7.Qxa3

(7.Qxb5+? c6 8.Nxc6 Nxc6 9.Qxc6+ Bd7 10.Qxc4 Rc8 11.Qb3 Bd6–+)
7...Qxd4 8.Nf3 (8.Qf3 Qxe5! 9.Qxa8 c3µ) 8...Qb6µ

6...b5

This is a typical middlegame pawn structure, which can be seen in a

number of variations in the ‘Catalan’. Black has the better pawn structure,
while White has a slightly better centre, pressure on the queenside, and of
course the bishop pair. Also, keep in mind that the doubled white a-pawns
are not that bad, as they can attack the queenside twice! But, of course,
concrete moves have to be played and the analysis with the engines’
assistance is not that easy, as they tend to prefer the black pawn structure!
Well, for me this is natural as the chess engines tend to under-evaluate
dynamics, except if they are forced — in this case they are considered as
combinations!

7.a4

The text seems to be natural, but White stays a bit behind in his
development. 7.e3 is a decent alternative: 7...0-0 (7...Bb7 8.Rb1! Qd5 9.f3
a6 10.Rb2!²) 8.Be2 a6 (8...Bb7 9.Rb1 a6 10.Bxc4 Bxg2 11.Rg1²) 9.0-0
Bb7! (9...Nd5 10.Qc2 Nd7 11.Nxd7 Qxd7 12.a4 Bb7 13.Rb1²) 10.a4 Nbd7
11.Nxd7 Qxd7 12.Qc2 Rfe8

The position offers equal chances for success or failure! 13.Bd2 (13.axb5
axb5 14.a4 Ra6! 15.f3 [15.Bd2? Bxg2! 16.Kxg2 Ne4–+] 15...Rea8 16.Qb2
Rxa4 17.Rxa4 Rxa4 18.Bd2 Ne8 19.e4°) 13...Ne4 14.axb5 axb5 15.a4 c5
16.axb5 cxd4 17.Rxa8 Rxa8 18.exd4 Nxd2 19.Qxd2 Qxb5 20.Qc3 Bd5
21.Bf3=

7...a6 8.e3

White doesn’t have the luxury of ‘losing’ tempos. After 8.Ba3?! c5! 9.Bxc5
Qa5+ 10.Qd2 Qxd2+ 11.Kxd2 Ne4+ 12.Ke3 Nxc5 13.dxc5 Nd7=+, Black is
more than fine, while interesting looks 8.f3, but after 8...0-0! (8...c5?!
9.dxc5 Qxd1+ 10.Kxd1 Nbd7 11.Nxd7 Kxd7 [11...Nxd7 12.Rb1²] 12.e4
Kc6 13.axb5+ [13.Kc2 Be6! {13...Kxc5 14.Be3+ Kc6 15.Be2 Be6 16.Rhd1
Rhd8 {16...b4 17.Rd4±} 17.Rxd8 Rxd8 18.Kc3 Ra8 19.Bd1 Rb8 20.a3²}
14.Bb2 Rhd8 15.a3∞] 13...axb5 14.a4
14...Ba6 [14...Rxa4 15.Rxa4 bxa4 16.Bxc4 Be6 17.Bxe6 fxe6 18.Ba3 Rb8
19.Kc2 Nd7 {19...Rb3 20.Ra1 Nd7 {20...Rb5 21.Rd1±} 21.Bb2±} 20.Ra1
Rb5 21.Rd1 Nxc5 22.Rd4²] 15.axb5+ Bxb5 16.Rxa8 Rxa8 17.Kc2²), White
cannot go for the planned 9.e4? (9.Qd2 Ne8! 10.e4 Nd6µ) as this fails to
9...Nxe4! 10.fxe4 Qh4+ 11.Ke2 Bg4+ 12.Nf3 Nc6 13.Be3 Rfe8–+

8...Bb7

8...0-0 is another way to go, and although it seems there is no big difference
compared to the text, every concrete move creates new dynamics! 9.Be2
(9.Ba3 Re8 10.Be2 Ne4 11.Qc2 Bb7 12.0-0 f6 13.Nf3 Bd5 14.Rab1 c6∞)
9...Nd5! (9...Ne4 10.Qc2 Bb7 11.0-0 Nd7 12.f3 Nd6 13.Rd1²) 10.Qd2 f6
(10...c3 11.Qc2 b4 12.e4 Nf6 13.Be3∞) 11.Nf3 Re8 12.Qb2! c6 (12...c3
13.Qb1 b4 14.Bd3 h6 15.0-0 a5 16.e4 Nb6 17.a3 Ba6 18.axb4 Bxd3
19.Qxd3 axb4 20.a5²) 13.Bd2 Nb6 (13...Nd7 14.axb5 axb5 15.a4∞) 14.Ba5
(14.axb5 axb5 15.0-0 Be6 16.Rfc1∞) 14...Be6 (14...Nxa4 15.Qb4 Qd5
16.Rc1²) 15.Qd2 Bd5 16.0-0 N8d7 17.axb5 axb5 18.a4²

9.Rb1
The text seems quite logical, although 9.axb5 has its pros and cons: 9...axb5
10.a4 Ne4 (10...Nbd7 11.Bb2 Ne4 [11...c6 12.Nxd7 Qxd7 13.Be2 0-0 14.0-
0 Ra7 15.Qd2 Rfa8 16.axb5 cxb5 17.f3 Qc7 18.e4 Ra2 19.Rxa2 Rxa2
20.Qb4 Bc6 21.Ra1 Rxa1+ 22.Bxa1²] 12.Nxd7 Qxd7 13.f3 Nd6 14.axb5 0-
0 15.Be2 Qxb5 16.Qc1!²) 11.Qc2 Nd7 12.Nxd7 (12.Rb1 Nxe5 13.dxe5 Bd5
14.Be2 c6 15.0-0 Rxa4 16.f3 Nc5 17.e4 Be6 18.Be3°) 12...Qxd7 13.f3 Nd6
14.Be2 0-0 15.Bd2 Rxa4 16.Rxa4 bxa4 17.Kf2 Ra8 18.Ra1°

9...Nbd7

9...Qd5 10.f3 0-0 11.Be2 Nc6 12.Nxc6 Bxc6 13.0-0²

10.axb5 Nxe5 11.dxe5 Qxd1+ 12.Kxd1 Ne4 13.bxa6 Bxa6 14.Ke1²

All the above analysis took more than 50 hours of combined forces (various
analysis engines and my evaluations). The possibilities are several on each
move and not all of them can be published. What is for sure is that the
player who studies and understands these positions will bring home the
bacon!
2.3 — 4...E6
1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Na3 e6

This is connected with a coming ...Nc6, transposing to an interesting line of

the ‘Catalan’ (E04).

5.Nxc4 c5 6.g3 Nc6 7.Bg2 cxd4

The natural follow-up, although 7...Nxd4 must also be examined: 8.Nxd4

cxd4 (8...Qxd4?! 9.Qb3±) 9.0-0 Be7 (9...Bc5?! 10.b4 Be7 11.Bb2 0-0
12.a3± Sulava,N-Ghaem Maghami,E Lausanne 2005) 10.Bf4 0-0 11.Qd2
(11.Qd3!) 11...Nd5 (11...d3!? 12.Rfd1 dxe2 13.Qxe2 Nd5 14.Be5°)
12.Qxd4² Smejkal,J-Pachman,L Baden-Baden 1985.

8.0-0
8...Bc5

8...Be7?! looks quite passive: 9.b3!

a) 9...0-0 10.Bb2 d3 (10...Bc5 11.Rc1) 11.exd3 (11.e3! transposes to 9...d3;
11.Nfe5!? dxe2 12.Qxe2°) 11...Nd5 12.Nfe5 Nxe5 13.Nxe5 f6 14.Nc4 b5
15.Nd2 Re8= Housieaux, D- Humeau, C Marseille 2006.
b) 9...d3 10.e3 (10.Bb2!? dxe2 11.Qxe2 0-0 12.Rfd1°) 10...0-0 11.Bb2 Ne4
(11...a5?! 12.Nd4 Nxd4 13.Bxd4 a4 14.Qxd3± Zueger,B-Sokolov,A
Switzerland 1998; 11...Bd7 12.Qxd3 Nb4 13.Qe2 Bb5 14.Rfd1 Qc7
15.Nd4± Harikrishna,P-L’Ami,E Douglas 2019; 11...h6 12.Nfe5 Nxe5
13.Nxe5 Rb8 14.Bd4 Nd7 15.Nxd7 Qxd7 16.Bxa7 Ra8 17.Bd4 Bf6
18.Bxf6 gxf6 19.Qg4+ Kh8 20.Rfd1 Rd8 21.Rd2± Gelfand,B-Lu,S Khanty-
Mansiysk 2019) 12.Nfe5 Nxe5 13.Nxe5 Nc5 14.b4 (14.Bd4 Qa5 15.Nxd3
Nxd3 16.Qxd3±) 14...Nd7 15.Nxd3± Fridman, D-Inkiov, V Belgium 2008.
c) 9...Nd5
10.Nxd4! (10.Bb2 Nc3 11.Qc2 f6 12.e3 e5 13.exd4 Nxd4 14.Nxd4 exd4
15.Bxc3 dxc3 16.Rad1 Qc7 17.Ne3± Be6 18.Rfe1 Rd8 19.Bd5 Bc8 20.Bc4
Rxd1 21.Qxd1 Qd6 22.Nd5 Kd8 23.Rxe7 Be6 24.Rxe6 Qxe6 25.Nxf6+ 1–0
Shirov,A-Sveshnikov,E Riga 2020) 10...Nxd4 (10...Nc3 11.Nxc6±) 11.Qxd4
0-0 (11...Bf6 12.Ne5 0-0 13.Bb2±) 12.Bb2 Bf6 13.Ne5±

9.b3

The text came into fashion recently.

9.a3 is the old continuation: 9...a5 10.Bf4 0-0 11.Rc1
a) 11...Bd7?! 12.Nd6! Qb6 (12...b6?! 13.Nb7 Qe7 14.Rxc5 bxc5 15.Bd6
Qe8 16.Nxc5 Ne7 17.Nxd4±; 12...Bxd6?! 13.Bxd6 Re8 14.Nxd4±
Stepanov,M-Hsu,L Costa Serena 2009) 13.Nxb7² Avrukh,B-
Mikhalchishin,A Gothenburg 2005.
b) 11...Nd5 12.Bd2 (12.Nce5 Nxf4 13.Rxc5 Nxe5 14.gxf4 Nxf3+ 15.Bxf3°
Abasov,N-Rzayev,B Baku 2014; 12.Be5 Nxe5 13.Ncxe5° Sorokovikov,V-
Kuznetsov,V Irkutsk 2015) 12...f6 (12...Qe7 13.Qc2 Bd7 14.Ng5 g6
15.Ne4° Ivanov,M-Rasmussen,A Ballerup 2007; 12...a4 13.Qc2 f6 14.Nce5
fxe5 15.Qxc5°) 13.Nxa5 Rxa5 14.Bxa5 Qxa5 15.b4 Ncxb4 16.axb4 Qxb4
17.Qd3²
c) 11...Ba7 12.Nfe5 Nd5 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.Bd2 (14.Be5!? c5 15.e3 dxe3
16.Nxe3 Bb7 17.Qg4 g6 18.Rfd1°) 14...Bb6 15.b4 axb4 16.Bxb4 Nxb4
17.axb4 Bb7 18.Ne5 ½-½ Svidler,P-Naiditsch,A Khanty-Mansiysk 2009.
d) 11...Ra6 12.Nfe5 Ne7 13.b4 axb4 14.Nd3!² Bb6 15.Nxb6 Qxb6 16.Bc7
Qb5 17.a4 Rxa4 18.Bd6 Nc6 19.Bxf8 Kxf8 20.Rc5 Qa6 21.Rxc6 bxc6
22.Nc5 Qb5 23.Qxa4 Qxc5 24.Qa8 1–0 Kamsky,G-Kazmaier,D Calgary
2016.
e) 11...Qe7
e1) 12.Nce5 Nxe5 (12...Bd7 13.Qd3 Rac8 14.Ng5± Raetsky,A-Volodin,V
Cappelle-la-Grande 1995) 13.Bxe5 Rd8 14.Qc2 Rd5 15.Rfd1 Bd7 16.Bxd4
Rc8 17.Qb3²
e2) 12.Nfe5 Nxe5 13.Bxe5 Rd8 14.Qc2 a4 15.Nd2 Bb6 ½-½ Boensch,U-
Chernin,A Graz 2002.
e3) 12.Qc2 Bd7 13.Nfe5 Nxe5 (13...Rac8? 14.Nxc6 Bxc6 15.Bxc6 Rxc6
16.Nxa5 Rcc8 17.b4± Trompowsky,O-Cruz,W Rio de Janeiro 1939)
14.Nxe5 Rfc8 15.Bxb7 Ba4 16.Qxa4 Qxb7 17.Nd3²

9...0-0

Black has also opted for 9...Qe7 10.Bb2 (10.Nfe5 Nxe5 11.Nxe5 Nd7!
[11...0-0 12.Bb2 Rd8 13.Rc1 Rb8 14.Qc2 Bb6 15.Rfd1² Melkumyan,H-
Grachev,B Tbilisi 2017] 12.Bf4 (12.Nd3 Bd6 13.Bb2 e5 14.f4°) 12...0-0
13.Rc1° Carlsen,M-Anand,V London 2017) 10...e5 11.b4! Bxb4 (11...Nxb4
12.Nfxe5 0-0 13.a3²) 12.Nfxe5 Nxe5 13.Nxe5 Bc3 14.Bxc3 dxc3 15.Qa4+
Nd7 16.Nc4²

10.Bb2
10...Rb8

10...d3 11.e3 Rb8 12.Rc1 b6 13.Nfe5 Nxe5 14.Nxe5 Bb7 15.Qxd3 Qxd3
16.Nxd3² Caruana,F-Harikrishna,P Saint Louis 2019 is fine for White, but
critical is 10...a6 11.Rc1 Re8 (11...Ba7?! 12.Ba3± Shirov,A-Nihal,S
Moscow 2019) 12.Nce5 Nxe5 13.Nxe5 Qd6 14.Nc4 Qd8 15.e3! (15.Ne5
Qd6 16.Nc4 Qd8 ½-½ Svane,R-Bernadskiy,V Riga 2019) 15...dxe3 (15...e5
16.Nxe5! Rxe5 17.exd4±) 16.Nxe3°/²

11.Nce5

11.Nfe5 Bd7 (11...Nxe5 12.Nxe5 Qd6 transposes to 11.Nce5) 12.Rc1 Rc8

13.Qd2 Nxe5 14.Nxe5 Qb6 15.Rfd1² Short,N-Turner,M England 2012. This
was the stem-game.

11...Nxe5 12.Nxe5 Qd6

13.b4!

A proposed novelty in place of 13.Nc4 Qa6 14.Qc1 (14.Bxd4 Rd8 15.Be5

(15.e3 Bxd4 16.exd4 b6=) 15...Rxd1 16.Rfxd1 b5 17.Rd8+ Bf8 18.Bxb8
bxc4µ Becskei,Z-Gal,J Hungary 2018) 14...Bd7 15.Rd1 Bc6 16.Bxd4 Bxd4
17.Rxd4 Bxg2 18.Kxg2²

13...Bxb4

13...Bb6 14.Nc4 Qxb4 15.Rc1 Rd8 16.Ba3 Qb5 17.Bd6 Ra8 18.Be7 Rd7
19.Nd6 Rxd6 20.Bxd6²

14.Qxd4 Qxd4 15.Bxd4²

White’s superior development and queenside pressure should give him the
upper hand.
2.4 — 4...C5

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Na3 c5

The natural follow-up, trying to ‘cleanse’ the board of central pawns. But
still, White is better prepared for that, enjoying some advantage.

5.Nxc4 Nc6

The direct 5...cxd4 is possible: 6.Qxd4 (6.Nxd4 g6 7.Bf4 Bd7 8.e3 Bg7
9.Qb3 Qc8 10.Be2 0-0 11.0-0 Nc6 12.Rac1 Nxd4 13.exd4² Pinto,C-
Macedo,M Fortaleza 2010) 6...Qxd4 7.Nxd4 Bd7 8.Ne5² Stangl,M-
Heinbuch,D Germany 1988. Note that 5...e6 6.g3 transposes to 4...e6.

6.dxc5

6.Be3 has been tried lately and seems to be a good alternative:

6...cxd4 (6...Nd5 7.dxc5! [7.Bg5 h6 8.Bh4 Bf5 9.dxc5 g5 10.Bg3 Bg7
11.a3² De Jong,M-Sengupta,D Hoogeveen 2015] 7...Nxe3 [7...e5 8.Bg5 f6
9.e4 Ndb4 10.Be3±] 8.Qxd8+ Nxd8 9.Nxe3²) 7.Nxd4 Nxd4 8.Qxd4
(8.Bxd4 e6 9.a3 b5 10.Ne5 Bb7 11.e4 a6 12.f3 Bd6∞ Giri,A-Van
Kampen,R Germany 2014) 8...Qxd4 9.Bxd4 e6 10.0-0-0²

6...Qxd1+ 7.Kxd1
White’s early centralised king doesn’t appear particularly healthy, but Black
cannot take advantage of this fact. Still, precise play is required.

7...Ne4

7...e6 8.Nd6+ Bxd6 9.cxd6 Ne4 10.Be3² is pleasant for White, while quite
complicated seems to be the untested 7...Be6!?
8.e3 0-0-0+ (8...g6 9.Ke1 Bg7 10.Nd4 Nxd4 11.exd4 Nd5 12.Ne5 Bxe5
13.dxe5 Rc8 14.c6 bxc6 15.Bc4²) 9.Ke1 Nb4 (9...Ne4 10.Nd4 Nxd4
11.exd4 Rxd4 12.b3 Rd5 13.c6 bxc6 14.Bb2°) 10.Nd4! Rxd4 11.exd4 Nc2+
12.Kd1 Nxa1 13.Bd3 g6 14.Be3 Bg7 15.Kd2 Bxc4 16.Bxc4 Ne4+ 17.Kc1²

8.Be3 e6

8...g6 9.Nfd2 Be6 10.Rc1 0-0-0 11.Ke1²

9.Rc1 Nxc5
10.g3

White can also opt for:

a) 10.Nce5 Nxe5 11.Bxc5 Bxc5 12.Rxc5 Ng4 13.Ke1 0-0 14.e3 Bd7=
b) 10.a3 b6 11.b4 Ne4 12.Ncd2 Nxd2 13.Bxd2 Bb7 14.e4²
c) 10.Nd4 Nxd4 11.Bxd4
11...Bd7 (11...b6 12.f3 Bb7 13.Kc2 Rd8 14.e3 f6 15.Be2 Be7 16.Rhd1 Kf7
17.Bc3 e5 18.e4 Ne6 19.b4² Ipatov,A-Nyzhnyk,I Konya 2011) 12.Ne5
Ba4+ 13.b3 Rd8 14.e3 f6 15.Ke1 fxe5 16.Bxc5 Bc6 17.f3²
d) 10.Na5 Nxa5 11.Bxc5 Bd7 (11...Bxc5 12.Rxc5 b6 13.Rc7²) 12.e4 Ba4+
13.b3 Rd8+ 14.Ke1 Rc8 15.Ba3 Rxc1+ 16.Bxc1 Bd7 17.Bd3 Nc6 18.Bb2²

10...b6 11.Bg2 Bb7

12.Nfd2

Not much is offered by 12.a3 Be7 13.Kc2 Rc8 14.b4 Ne4 15.Kb3 b5∞, nor
by 12.Kc2 Nb4+ 13.Kb1 Be4+ 14.Ka1 Rd8 (14...Nc2+? 15.Rxc2 Bxc2
16.Bxc5 Bxc5 17.Ne1±) 15.Ne1 Bxg2 16.Nxg2 Be7 17.f3 0-0= Eliseev,A-
Zakharchenko,A St Petersburg 2002.

12...Rd8 13.a3 b5

13...Be7 14.Ke1 0-0 15.f4²

14.Nd6+ Bxd6 15.Bxc5²

Acosta,P-Tristan,L Buenos Aires 2016. Black’s queenside weaknesses give
White a small edge, with the plan of f4 and Ke1-f2.
 CHAPTER 3.
TYPICAL MIDDLEGAME STRATEGY

Knowing your good piece of opening theory in depth is a good start. But
alone it is not enough to gain and increase a significant advantage.
The knowledge of certain plans, manoeuvres, repeated motifs, etc, is an
essential piece of opening knowledge, as the journey continues via what we
call middlegame theory.
Yes, middlegame (and endgame) theory does exist. The great difficulty in
approaching it lies in the fact that it does not follow absolute and clear-cut
paths, but rather involves deep research into the ideas and logic by which
specific types of positions are treated.
Moreover, unlike opening theory, the theory of the middlegame (and the
endgame) does not change rapidly based on modern developments, and
instead remains almost intact through the years.
In middlegame theory we are obliged to study various or similar types of
positions with specific strategic and tactical attributes, so as to understand
the underlying ideas and be able to employ them ourselves in similar
situations. Besides, while many chess players have studied these topics and
acquired knowledge, it is the application of this knowledge in practice that
helps differentiate between them.
True, chess is not a simple activity, but it becomes so much more attractive
when we acquire this knowledge...
In view of the above, any chess player who wishes to follow a chess career
or simply become a better player must refrain from the commonplace and
assume a different approach.
He must develop a good understanding of middlegame (and endgame)
theory, so as to be able to proceed in a proper way after his chosen opening
has reached its conclusion.
And we must keep in mind that the most important asset is the pawn
structure; this is what guides us to understand what to do in the middlegame
— and even in the endgame!
Eliseev Alexey
Stjazhkina Olga
D23 St Petersburg 2002

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 dxc4 4.Na3 a6 5.Nxc4 b5 6.Nce5 e6 7.g3 Bb7
8.Bg2 Bd5 9.0-0 Be7 10.Bf4

White has a clear advantage, as it is not easy for Black to play ...c5 under
good conditions.

10...c5?

Opening the centre too early. 10...0-0 11.Rc1± should be considered

‘better’.

11.dxc5! Bxc5 12.Ng5!

A typical feature in this variation; both white knights attack the f7-square.

12...0-0

12...Bxg2 loses to 13.Qxd8+ Kxd8 14.Kxg2 Ke7 15.Ngxf7+–

13.e4

Also good is 13.Nexf7 Rxf7 14.Nxf7 Kxf7 15.e4+–

13...Bb7

Black’s position is a mess: 13...Bc4 14.Nxc4 bxc4 15.e5 Nd5 (15...Qxd1

16.Rfxd1 Nd5 17.Nxe6! fxe6 18.Rxd5+–) 16.Qc2+–

14.Qxd8 Rxd8 15.Nexf7 Re8

16.Nxe6!

The final touch — the white knights dance around!

16...Rxe6

All alternatives are losing as well: 16...Bb6 17.Nxg7! Kxg7 18.Nd6+– or

16...Bxe4 17.Nc7 Kxf7 18.Nxa8 Bxg2 19.Kxg2+– or, finally, 16...Be7
17.Nc7 Kxf7 18.e5 Bxg2 19.Kxg2+–

17.Nd8 Bc8

17...Re7 18.Nxb7 Rxb7 19.e5+–

18.e5 Nh5 19.Nxe6

Black loses too much material after 19...Bxe6 20.Bxa8, so he resigned.

1–0

Ivanov Mikhail
Simon Laurent
D23 Guingamp 1999

1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.c4 dxc4 4.Na3 Nc6 5.Nxc4 Bg4 6.e3 e5 7.Ncxe5
Nxe5 8.dxe5 Qxd1+ 9.Kxd1 0-0-0+ 10.Ke2 Nd7 11.h3 Bxf3+ 12.gxf3
Nxe5 13.h4 Be7 14.Bd2 Nc4 15.Bc3
White’s bishop pair gives him a lasting, pleasant advantage.

15...f6?!

The text goes nowhere. It is essential to exchange off one pair of bishops to
strip White of his main trump. Of course, this will not be done for free, as
Black will have to accept a wrecked pawn structure: 15...Bf6 16.Bh3+ Kb8
17.Bxf6 gxf6 18.b3 Nd6 19.Rhg1²

16.h5!

Planning Rhg1 with pressure down the g-file.

16...h6

The text makes Black’s position even more difficult. He should have opted
for 16...g5 17.hxg6 hxg6 18.Bh3+ Kb8 19.Be6 Nd6 20.Rag1±

17.Rg1
17...Bd6?

A blunder after which Black is lost.

His only try to survive is 17...Bf8 18.Bh3+ Kb8 19.Rad1 Rxd1 20.Rxd1
Nd6 21.Be6±

18.Bh3+ Kb8 19.Be6!

Missed by Black, who was only counting on 19.Rxg7 Be5, with some
counterplay...

19...Nb6 20.Rxg7

A pawn up and the bishop pair still on the board; a nightmare for Black!

20...Be5 21.Bxe5 fxe5 22.Rd1 Rdf8 23.b3

Dominating the black knight.

23...a5 24.a4 c6 25.Rg6 Kc7 26.Rg7+ Kb8 27.Rdg1!

After a small ‘test’, White goes for a lethal idea, preparing the doubling of
his rooks on the 7th rank.
The end is near, as Black lacks any form of counterplay and neither can he
oppose this plan without losing further material...

27...Re8 28.R1g6 Nc8

29.Bxc8!

Many moves win here, but simplicity is always welcomed!

29...Kxc8 30.Rf7 Kb8

30...Ref8 31.Rxf8+ Rxf8 32.Rxh6+–

31.Rgg7 Ref8 32.Rxb7+ 1–0

Carlsen Magnus
Anand Viswanathan
 E04 London 2017

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 dxc4 5.Nf3 c5 6.0-0 Nc6 7.Na3 cxd4
8.Nxc4 Bc5 9.b3 Qe7 10.Nfe5 Nxe5 11.Nxe5

In such positions the key issue is to prevent Black from connecting his
central pawns.

11...Nd7!

Black cuts to the chase. The issue of the strong white knight has to be
addressed immediately. Worse is 11...0-0 12.Bb2 Rd8 13.Rc1 Rb8 14.Qc2
Bb6 15.Rfd1² Melkumian,H-Grachev,B Tbilisi 2017.

12.Bf4 0-0 13.Rc1 Rd8?!

A more direct approach is seen with 13...f6! 14.Nxd7 Bxd7 15.Bxb7 Rae8
16.Qd3 Kh8, when Black’s chances seems to be a bit better.

14.Nd3?!
Perhaps M.Carlsen wasn’t entirely satisfied with his chances after 14.Nxd7
Rxd7 (14...Bxd7?! 15.Bxb7 e5 16.Bg5!±) 15.Rc4 e5 16.Qc2 exf4 17.Rxc5
Rd8, but nevertheless, it was the way to go.

14...Bb6 15.Bc7 Re8 16.Qc2 e5!

Black has accomplished his goal, and now it’s up to White not to end up
worse. Note that as long as Black doesn’t manage to develop his queenside,
White has enough compensation.

17.Rfd1 Nf8! 18.a4

It is not clear if White missed that he cannot go for 18.Bxe5? due to

18...Bf5 19.Bf4 g5 20.Bd2 Rac8µ
But then, where is he going? Where is his compensation for the sacrificed
pawn?

18...Bg4! 19.Bxb6 axb6

Black has managed to nearly complete his development, while he still
preserves his extra pawn; White seems to be in grave trouble...

20.h3 Rac8 21.Qd2

21...Be6?

The text is good only for the draw. Black had to try for a win with the
natural 21...Bh5 22.Rc4 f6 23.Rdc1 Rxc4 24.bxc4 Bf7³

22.Nxe5 Rxc1 23.Rxc1 Bxb3 24.Nf3! Bxa4 25.Nxd4 Ne6! 26.Nf5

White might suffer a bit after 26.Nxe6 Qxe6 27.e3 Bc6 28.Qb4 b5

26...Qf6 27.Ne3 Qd4 28.Qa2 Nc5 29.Rc4! Bb3 30.Rxd4 Bxa2 31.Rb4
Re6

Draw agreed due to 32.Bxb7! Nxb7 33.Ra4 g6 34.Rxa2 Nc5=

½-½
 Ovsiannikov Maxim
Bukavshin Ivan
D23 Voronezh 2007

1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.c4 dxc4 4.Na3 c3 5.bxc3 g6 6.e3 Bg7 7.Bd3 0-0 8.0-0
c5 9.Bb2 Nc6 10.Nc4

For as long as White keeps the ...e5 advance under control he can state that
he holds a slight and secure advantage.

10...Nd5 11.Qd2

11.Qe2!? seems to be a good alternative: 11...Be6 12.Rfc1 b5 13.Ncd2 c4

14.Bc2²

11...b5 12.Nce5 Nxe5 13.Nxe5 c4 14.Be4 Bb7

Black would love to double White’s central pawns by 14...Bxe5?! 15.dxe5

Bb7, but White keeps a nice edge: 16.Rfd1 e6 17.a4 a6 18.Ba3±
15.a4 f6 16.Nf3 a6 17.Rfe1

White’s idea of playing in the centre is not bad, although I would prefer
17.Bc2 f5 18.Rfb1 Qd7 19.Ba3²

17...f5 18.Bc2 Nf6 19.Ng5

19...Bh6!

A bold move, out of the blue! White only expected 19...Qd7 20.e4∞

20.h4

20.Ne6? Qd5–+

20...Bxg5 21.hxg5 Ne4 22.Bxe4 fxe4!

Much better than 22...Bxe4?! 23.Ba3 Bc6 24.f3²

23.axb5 axb5 24.Rxa8 Bxa8 25.Ba3 Rf5!

White starts to face problems on the kingside; this is assisted by the
opposite-coloured bishops, as is widely known!

26.Ra1

Logical, but White should try to find counterplay in a different way: 26.Qb2
Rxg5 27.Bc5 Bc6 28.Qa3 Kf7 29.Qa7°

26...Bb7 27.Bb4 Rxg5 28.Ra7 Qd7!

29.Kf1?

The text loses by force, so White had to opt for 29.Qc1 Rh5³

29...Qg4 30.Qe2

30.g3? Rh5, leads to mate.

30...Qxg2+ 31.Ke1 Qg1+?!

Easier was 31...Qh1+ 32.Kd2 Rg2 33.Rxb7 Qb1–+.

32.Qf1 Qh2 33.Rxb7 Rg1 34.Rxe7 Rxf1+ 35.Kxf1 Qh3+ 36.Ke2 Qf3+

Black has won the white queen in return for rook and pawn. Although the
game lasted for a fair number of moves, his win wasn’t in doubt.

37.Ke1 Qh1+ 38.Ke2 Qb1 39.Re8+ Kg7 40.Re7+ Kh6 41.Re5 Qd3+
42.Ke1
42...g5!

When the black g-pawn gets to g3, White’s position will fall apart.

43.d5 g4 44.d6 g3 45.fxg3 Qxe3+ 46.Kd1 Qd3+ 47.Kc1 e3 48.d7 Qxd7

Even better was 48...Qd2+ 49.Kb1 Qxd7 50.Rxe3 Qd1+ 51.Kb2 Qd2+–+

49.Rxe3 Kg6 50.Re4 Qh3 51.Re8 h5 52.Rb8 Qf1+ 53.Kc2 Qd3+ 54.Kc1
Qd5 55.Rc8 Qh1+ 56.Kc2 Qg2+ 57.Kc1 Qf1+ 58.Kb2 Qe2+ 59.Kc1 Kf5
60.Rf8+ Kg4 0–1

Rychlik Hanna
Litwiniec Miroslawa
D23 Zakopane 2001

1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 Nf6 3.d4 dxc4 4.Na3 Bf5 5.Nxc4 c6 6.g3 e6 7.a3 Be7 8.Bg2
Nbd7 9.0-0 Nb6 10.Na5
White has good pressure on the queenside and generally better prospects in
the upcoming middlegame.

10...Qc7 11.Bf4 Qc8 12.Ne5

12.Nh4!? Bg4 13.Qd3 Nfd5 14.Bd2± is also possible.

12...0-0 13.h3?!

Nearly anything gives White a healthy advantage, but most precise is here
13.Re1! h6 14.e4 Bh7 15.Rc1±

13...Nbd5 14.Bd2 Be4?!

Played without any big idea; better is 14...Ne4!²

15.f3 Bg6 16.e4 Nb6 17.b4

White fully dominates the centre, but she has to find a decisive punch!

17...Rd8 18.Be3 Bd6 19.Nxg6 hxg6 20.f4

The bishop pair and an impressive centre; what else can someone ask from
her position?

20...e5 21.Rc1?!

Based on a missed tactic. Strong is 21.fxe5 Bxe5 22.Rc1±

21...exd4?!

Black missed her chance here: 21...exf4! 22.Bxf4 (22.gxf4? Nxe4! 23.Bxe4
Qe6 24.Qd3 Re8 25.Nxb7 Qxe4 26.Qxe4 Rxe4=) 22...Bxf4 23.Rxf4²

22.Bxd4 Be7
23.Nb3

A nice manoeuvre, one which was seen in the game Capablanca,JR-

Znosko-Borovsky,E Paris 1938, would give White a strong edge here:
23.Rf2! Ne8 24.Rd2±

23...Qe6 24.Qc2 Nfd7

24...Rd7!? 25.Rfd1 Rad8 26.Kh2±

25.Bf2 g5 26.Nd4 Qf6 27.e5 Qh6

28.Nf5?!

28.fxg5! Bxg5 29.Rce1 Re8 30.h4 Bd8 31.e6+– should be decisive.

28...Qe6 29.Nxe7+ Qxe7 30.Kh2 Nf8 31.Bc5 Qe6 32.fxg5! Qxe5 33.Rf5
Qc7 34.Rcf1 Rd7
35.Bxf8

It is not easy to give up one of the strong bishops, but the text seems to be
good enough.

35...Rxf8 36.g6 Qd6

36...f6? 37.Qe4 and Qh4 is curtains.

37.R5f2 Nd5
38.Qf5?

It was time to give up the second bishop (!) by 38.Bxd5! Qxd5 (38...cxd5
39.Qf5+–) 39.Qe2+–

38...Nf6?

And Black returns the favour: 38...Ne3! 39.Qh5 Nxf1+ 40.Bxf1 Qxg6
41.Qxg6 fxg6 42.Bc4+ Rd5µ

39.Qg5 Qd3?

And with this second blunder, Black is done!

She had to opt for 39...fxg6 40.Qxg6 Re7∞

40.Rxf6! gxf6 41.gxf7+ Kh7 42.Rxf6 Rd6 43.Qh6# 1–0

 CHAPTER 4.
ENDGAME TECHNIQUE

The chess player who wishes to master an opening, should not only know
how to gain an advantage from it or how to increase it in the middlegame,
but also finally how to convert it in the endgame.
Knowledge of typical endgames with specific pawn structures is hugely
important, as it helps to evaluate correctly our chances in them and to make
middlegame decisions regarding choices and possibilities that are very
difficult to make otherwise.
The endgames that follow are characteristic of the system with 4.Na3. It is
not important that some of them arise via another opening or system; the
important thing is to understand and master them — endgame technique is
essential...
Eliseev Alexey
Zakharchenko Arnold
D23 St Petersburg 2002

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 dxc4 4.Na3 c5 5.Nxc4 Nc6 6.dxc5 Qxd1+ 7.Kxd1
Ne4 8.Be3 e6 9.Rc1 Nxc5 10.g3 b6 11.Bg2 Bb7 12.Kc2 Nb4+ 13.Kb1
Be4+ 14.Ka1 Rd8 15.Ne1 Bxg2 16.Nxg2 Be7 17.f3 0-0 18.Kb1 Nc6
19.Nf4 Nd4 20.Rhd1 Nf5 21.Bf2 g5 22.Ng2 Rxd1 23.Rxd1 Rc8 24.g4
Ng7 25.b3 Ne8 26.Ne1 Nc7 27.Rc1 Nd5 28.Ne5 Bf6 29.N1d3 Rc7
30.Bxc5 bxc5
White seems to stand slightly better due to his superior pawn structure, but
of course the black pieces are centralised and well-placed, so the position
should be considered balanced.

31.e4

There is not much else to try to improve.

31...Nf4! 32.Nxf4 Bxe5 33.Nd3 Bxh2

Black rightly avoided 33...Bd4?! 34.Rc4, when White can further improve
his rook and king.

34.Nxc5 Bd6 35.b4 a5?!

There was no need to give White an early passed pawn; 35...Kg7 was good
enough to preserve equality.

36.a3 axb4 37.axb4

37...Bxc5?

A kind of blunder and (as I call it) an ‘unforced’ one, as Black had a wide
choice of alternative moves here!
His position is fine after 37...Kg7 followed by ...h5 and/or ...f5, creating the
necessary counterplay on the kingside.

38.Rxc5! Rb7

The pawn ending is lost for Black after 38...Rxc5?! 39.bxc5 Kf8 40.Kc2
Ke8 41.Kc3 Kd7 42.Kc4+–

39.Rxg5+?

It is incredible that the capture of a ‘free’ pawn with check is a blunder!

White could prevail by 39.b5 Kf8 40.Kc2 f6 (40...Ke7 41.Rxg5+–) 41.Kb3
Ke7 42.Kb4 Kd7 43.Rc6+–

39...Kf8 40.b5
40...f6?

But not like this! After 40...f5! the b5-pawn is gone and the draw is not that
difficult: 41.gxf5 Rxb5+ 42.Kc2 exf5 43.f4 h6 44.Rh5 Kg7 45.e5 Kg6
46.Rh4 Rb4 47.Kd3 Re4=

41.Rc5 Ke7 42.e5?

The simple 42.Kc2 Kd6 43.Rh5 e5 44.Rh6! Ke6 45.g5 Rxb5 46.Rxf6+ Ke7
47.Rf5+– was enough for the full point.

42...fxe5 43.Rxe5 Kd6 44.f4

A better try would be by 44.Rh5, although after 44...e5 45.Kc2 Rxb5

46.Rxh7 Ke6 the position is a theoretical draw.

44...Rf7! 45.Re4 Kd5 46.Re5+ Kd6 47.Re4 Kd5 48.Ra4 Rb7 49.Rb4 Kc5
50.Re4 Rxb5+ 51.Kc2 Kd6 52.Kd2 h5! 53.g5 Rf5 54.Ke3 e5 55.g6 exf4+
½-½
 Reinoehl Christian
Bachmann Karlheinz
D23 Nordrheinwestfalen 2013

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Na3 e6 5.Nxc4 c5 6.Nce5 cxd4 7.Qa4+
Bd7 8.Nxd7 Qxd7 9.Qxd4 Qxd4 10.Nxd4 Bb4+ 11.Bd2 Bxd2+ 12.Kxd2
0-0 13.e3 Rd8 14.Ke1 a6 15.Bc4 e5 16.Nf3 Nc6 17.Ke2 h6 18.Rhd1 Kf8
19.a3 Ke7 20.Rac1 Rxd1 21.Rxd1 Rc8 22.Ba2 Rc7 23.Nd2 Nb8 24.Bb3
Nbd7

White possesses the superior light piece (bishop vs knight) with the ‘right’
pawn structure. Well, Black’s position is compact, without weaknesses, so it
will be difficult for White to win; netherless he can try for ‘free’.

25.Nc4 Rc6 26.f3 b5?!

Although the text cannot be considered too bad, in general Black should
avoid placing his pawns on the same colour squares as the enemy bishop.

27.Na5 Rc7 28.Rd2 Nc5 29.Rc2 Ne8 30.Ba2 Na4

31.Rd2

White should try 31.Kd2. After 31...f5 (31...Rxc2+ 32.Kxc2 f5 33.b4²)

32.Nc6+ Kd6 33.Nd8 Rxc2+ 34.Kxc2 Ke7 35.Ne6 g6 36.b4² he still exerts
pressure.

31...Nd6 32.Bd5 f6

The text is not that helpful. Black could have achieved full equality by
32...Nb6 33.Nc6+ Kf6 34.e4 Ndc8! 35.Ke3 Ne7=

33.Nc6+ Ke8 34.Nb4 Nc5?

A blunder which loses the game at once — this is what can happen when
under constant pressure! Black had to find 34...Nc4! 35.Bxc4 bxc4 36.Nxa6
Ra7 37.Nb4 c3! 38.bxc3 Nxc3+ 39.Kf2 Rxa3=

35.Bc6+! Ke7

And Black resigned due to the obvious 36.Nd5++–

1–0

Dmitrenko Viktor
Huch Reiner
D23 Bayern 2016

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 dxc4 4.Na3 e5 5.Nxe5 Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Bxa3 7.Qa4+
b5 8.Qxa3 Qxd4 9.Bc3 Qd6 10.Qa5 Qb6 11.a4 Qxa5 12.Bxa5 c6 13.g3
a6 14.Bg2 Bb7 15.0-0 0-0 16.axb5 axb5 17.Bb4 Rxa1 18.Rxa1 Re8

White has invested a pawn but he is obviously very much in the driving
seat. The bishop pair, mobile pawns and open a-file possession are facts
which should not be underestimated.

19.Bd6 Rd8 20.Bc7 Rc8 21.Bxb8!

A swift exchange of advantages — the bishop pair for the 7th rank — a
common feature in top players’ games!

21...Rxb8 22.Ra7 g6
23.e3

Recapturing the invested pawn by 23.Nxc6? Bxc6 24.Bxc6 b4=, or by

23.Bxc6? Bxc6 24.Nxc6 Rb6 25.Ne5 Ne4= is not what White wants, so
instead he maintains the pressure, waiting for something more tasty to come
along. Even better here looks to be 23.f4! when Black is struggling to find a
decent move...

23...Ba8 24.Nxf7 Nd5?!

Black had to seek his salvation in 24...b4 25.Ne5 c3 26.bxc3 bxc3 (26...b3
27.Nd3±) 27.Kf1 Bb7 28.Ke2± But this is not likely to happen by the way...

25.Ne5?!

A decent move, but 25.Nh6+ Kh8 26.Bxd5! cxd5 27.Ng4 was a killer:
27...Rf8 (27...b4 28.Nf6+–) 28.Ne5 Kg8 29.Nd7+–. Rook on the 7th is
heaven!

25...Nb4?
The text loses on the spot. Necessary was 25...Nb6 26.Bxc6 Bxc6 27.Nxc6
Ra8 28.Rb7±

26.Nd7! Rd8 27.Nf6+ Kf8 28.Nxh7+ Kg8 29.Nf6+ Kf8 30.Nd7+?!

No need for this. Easier was 30.Be4! Nd3 31.Bxg6 Ne5 32.Bh5+– and
curtains!

30...Ke8

30...Ke7 31.Nb6+ Kd6 32.Rxa8 Rxa8 33.Nxa8 Nd3 34.Be4 Nxb2 35.h4+–

31.Nb6

31.Ne5! Rd1+ 32.Bf1+–

31...Rd1+ 32.Bf1 Nd3

33.Kg2

33.Nxa8 Nxb2 34.Nc7+ Kd8 35.Ne6+ Ke8 36.Kg2+–

33...Nxb2 34.Be2

White is winning of course, but he somehow became afraid of the passed

black c-pawn and he offered a draw! Well, no comment; such things
happen... 34...Rd2 35.Rxa8+ Ke7 36.Kf1 c3 37.Ra1+–

½-½
 Show in Text Mode

CHAPTER 5.
TACTICAL MOTIFS

Tactics are the salt & pepper of chess. They crown every strategy and
appear in nearly every game, so we cannot live without them!
Typical tactical motifs repeat themselves, and their knowledge and
understanding are an essential asset to season our opening preparation.
Stefanova Antoaneta
Galliamova Alisa
D23 Kazan 2012

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Na3 e6 5.Nxc4 Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Bxd2+ 7.Qxd2
0-0 8.g3 b6 9.Bg2 Bb7 10.Rc1 Nbd7 11.b4 Qe7 12.0-0 Rfd8 13.Qb2 Rac8
14.Rfd1 h6 15.Qa3 Bd5 16.Nfe5 Nxe5 17.Nxe5 a5 18.Bxd5 Rxd5 19.Nc6
Qf8 20.Qd3 axb4 21.e4 Rd7 22.Rc2 Ra8 23.Rb1 Ra3 24.Qe2 Rc3
25.Rbc1 Rxc2 26.Qxc2 Qa8 27.Rb1 b3 28.axb3 Qa3 29.Kg2 h5 30.Rb2
g6 31.Ra2 Qf8 32.Ra7 Qd6 33.Ra8+ Kg7 34.f3 Ng8 35.e5

35.Qc1! Ne7 36.Ne5 Rd8 37.Rxd8 Qxd8

Show/Hide Solution

38.Qh6+! Kg8 (38...Kxh6 39.Nxf7++–) 39.Qh8+ Kxh8 40.Nxf7+ Kg7

41.Nxd8+–

35...Qd5 36.Re8 Nh6 37.Qc3 Qb5 38.Kf2 Nf5 39.Ra8 Ne7 40.Nxe7 Rxe7
41.Qc4 Qxc4 42.bxc4 g5 43.Ke3 c5 44.dxc5 bxc5 45.Rc8 Ra7 46.h4
Ra3+ 47.Ke4 g4 48.fxg4 Rxg3 49.gxh5 Rg4+ 50.Kd3 Rxh4 51.Rxc5
Rxh5 52.Rb5 Kg6 53.Kd4 Rh4+ 54.Kc5 Re4 55.Rb7 Rxe5+ 56.Kd6 Re1
57.c5 Rd1+ 58.Ke7 Rc1 59.Kd6 Rd1+ 60.Ke7 Rc1 61.Kd6 Rd1+

½-½

Stefanova Antoaneta
Goryachkina Aleksandra
D23 Skolkovo 2019
1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Na3 e5 5.e3 exd4 6.Nxd4 c5 7.Ne2 Qxd1+
8.Kxd1 Nc6 9.Nc3 a6 10.Nxc4 b5 11.Nb6 Bg4+ 12.f3 Rb8 13.a4 Rxb6
14.axb5 axb5 15.Ra8+ Kd7 16.fxg4 Nxg4 17.Kc2 Nf2 18.Rg1 Nb4+
19.Kb1 Nfd3 20.g3 g6 21.Bh3+ Kc7 22.Rf1 f6 23.Bg2 c4 24.Bd2 Rb8
25.Rxb8 Kxb8 26.Rxf6 Bc5 27.Nxb5 Rd8 28.Rf7 Ne1 29.Rb7+ Kc8
30.Rc7+ Kb8

Show/Hide Solution

31.Bxb4?

31.Rb7+ Kc8 32.Rc7+=; 31.Bc1 Bxe3 32.Bxe3 Rd1+ 33.Bc1 Nxg2

34.Rxc4 Nd3 35.Kc2 Rxc1+ 36.Kxd3 Ne1+ 37.Kd4 Nf3+ 38.Kd5 Rxc4
39.Kxc4 Nxh2=

31...Rd1+!

31...Bxb4? 32.Rb7+ Kc8 (32...Ka8 33.Nc7#) 33.Na7#

32.Ka2 Nc2! 33.b3 Nxb4+ 34.Kb2 Rd2+ 35.Kb1 Rxg2 36.bxc4 Nd3
37.Rxh7 Bxe3 38.Rd7 Nc5 39.Re7 Bg1 40.Na7 Nd3 41.Nc6+ Kc8 42.Rg7
Rb2+ 43.Ka1 Rb6 44.Na7+ Kd8 45.Nb5 Bxh2 46.Ka2 Bxg3 47.Kb3 Be5
48.Rh7 g5 49.Rh3 Nf4 50.Re3 Bf6 51.Kb4 Be7+ 52.Ka5 Rg6 53.Re4 Ne6
54.Rg4 Nc7

0–1

Ipatov Alexander
Nyzhnyk Illya
D23 Konya 2011

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Na3 c5 5.Nxc4 Nc6 6.dxc5 Qxd1+ 7.Kxd1
Ne4 8.Be3 e6 9.Rc1 Nxc5 10.Nd4 Nxd4 11.Bxd4 b6 12.f3 Bb7 13.Kc2
Rd8 14.e3 f6 15.Be2 Be7 16.Rhd1 Kf7 17.Bc3 e5 18.e4 Ne6 19.b4 Nd4+
20.Bxd4 exd4 21.Kb3 g6 22.Nb2 Bd6 23.Rxd4 Bxh2
Show/Hide Solution

24.Rxd8 Rxd8 25.Rh1! 1–0

Can Emre
Birnboim Nathan
D23 Yerevan 2014

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 dxc4 4.Na3 c3 5.bxc3 g6 6.e3 Bg7 7.Be2 0-0 8.0-0
c5 9.Nc4 Nc6 10.a4 Be6 11.Ba3 Qc7 12.Qb1 Bd5 13.Rc1 b6 14.Qb5 Ne4
15.Nfd2 Rfd8 16.Nxe4 Bxe4 17.Rd1 cxd4 18.cxd4 Rd5 19.Qb3 Rg5 20.f3
Bd5 21.Qd3 Qd7 22.Kh1 Rd8 23.Rac1 Rh5 24.Bb2 Rh6 25.Ne5 Qd6
26.e4 Nb4 27.Qe3 Bb7 28.Ba3 a5 29.f4 f5 30.Bxb4 axb4 31.Bf3 Bxe4
32.Bxe4 fxe4 33.Qxe4 b3 34.Qf3 Qb4

Show/Hide Solution
35.Rc8!

35...Rxc8 36.Qd5+

1–0

Acosta Pablo Ismael

Tristan Leonardo
D23 Buenos Aires 2016

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Na3 c5 5.Nxc4 Nc6 6.dxc5 Qxd1+ 7.Kxd1
Ne4 8.Be3 e6 9.Rc1 Nxc5 10.g3 b6 11.Bg2 Bb7 12.Nfd2 Rd8 13.a3 b5
14.Nd6+ Bxd6 15.Bxc5 Be5 16.Rc2 Ba8 17.e3 f5 18.Ke2 Ne7 19.Bxa8
Rxa8
Show/Hide Solution

20.f4! Bf6 21.Bxe7 Kxe7 22.Rc7+ Kd8 23.Rb7 a6 24.Rc1 Rc8 25.Rd1
Ke8 26.Nb3 Rc2+ 27.Kf3 Rxb2 28.Nc5 h6 29.Rdd7

1–0

Palmo Pentti
Adler Bo
D23 Jyvaskyla 2009

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 dxc4 4.Na3 c5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Bxc4 e6 7.Nc2 Be7 8.0-
0 0-0 9.Qe2 a6 10.dxc5 Bxc5 11.a3 Qc7 12.b4 Bd6 13.Bb2 b5 14.Bb3 Ne5
15.Ncd4 Bb7 16.Rac1 Qb6 17.Rfd1 Bd5 18.Bxd5 Nxd5

Show/Hide Solution
19.Nf5! Nxf3+

19...exf5 20.Bxe5 Bxe5 21.Rxd5 Bf6 22.Rxf5±

20.Qxf3 exf5 21.Qxd5 Rfd8 22.Qxf5 a5 23.Bd4 Qb7 24.Bc5 Bxc5

25.Rxd8+ Rxd8 26.Qxc5 axb4 27.axb4 h6 28.h3 Qd7 29.Kh2 Qd3
30.Qe7 Rd7 31.Rc8+ Kh7 32.Qc5 f5 33.Qc2 Qd6+ 34.g3 Qe6 35.Rc5
Rd5 36.g4 Qd6+ 37.Kg2 Rxc5 38.Qxc5

1–0

Saurabh Kherdekar
Gagare Shalmali
D23 Nagpur 2008

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Na3 e6 5.Nxc4 Be7 6.g3 b6 7.Bg2 Bb7
8.Nce5 0-0 9.0-0 c5 10.dxc5 Qxd1 11.Rxd1 Bxc5 12.Bf4 Na6 13.a3 b5
14.Rac1 Rad8
Show/Hide Solution

15.Rxd8! Rxd8 16.Nxf7! Rc8

16...Kxf7 17.Ne5+ Kg8 18.Bxb7+–; 16...Bxf3 17.Nxd8+–

17.Nd6 Bxd6 18.Rxc8+ Bxc8 19.Bxd6 Ne4 20.Be5 Bd7 21.Nd4 Nd2
22.Nc6 Nc5 23.Nxa7 Nc4 24.Bd4 Nb3 25.Bc3 Nc1 26.Kf1 Na2 27.Bd4
Kf7 28.Nc6 e5 29.Bxe5 Nxe5 30.Bd5+

1–0

Grivas Efstratios
Yasmin Ali
D23 Dubai 2016
1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Na3 e6 5.Nxc4 c5 6.g3 a6 7.Bg2 b5 8.Nce5
Bb7

Show/Hide Solution

9.Nxf7! Qd5

9...Kxf7 10.Ng5+ Kg8 11.Bxb7+–

10.Nxh8 cxd4 11.0-0 Bc5 12.Nf7 Ng4 13.N7g5 h6 14.Nh4 Qd7 15.Ne4
Be7 16.Ng6 Qd5 17.Nf6+ Nxf6 18.Bxd5 Bxd5 19.Nxe7 Kxe7 20.Qxd4
Nc6 21.Qc5+ Kd7 22.f3 Rc8 23.e4 Ne5 24.Qxc8+ 1–0
 PART 2.
QGD — THE RAGOZIN VARIATION (D38)

The ‘QGD — Ragozin Variation’ occurs after the moves 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6
3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Bb4

The father of this variation/system was Viacheslav Vasilyevich Ragozin

(Russian: Вячесла́в Васи́льевич Раго́зин; 8 October 1908 — 11 March
1962).
He was a Soviet Grandmaster, an International Arbiter and a World
Correspondence Chess Champion. He was also a chess writer and editor.
He didn’t achieve great successes over the board, but he became famous for
his successful work as a second of the FIDE World Champion, Mikhail
Botvinnik.
The variation/system is strongly reminiscent of both the ‘Nimzo-Indian
Defence’ and the ‘Queen’s Gambit Declined’ and this is quite logical —
Black plays both the ...Bb4 and ...d5 moves.
Transpositions are quite possible, however, despite the similarities, the
variation has its own typical ideas, manoeuvres, subtleties and concrete
lines.
It seems to be a positional opening like the ‘Nimzo-Indian Defence’, but at
the same time it is rather ambitious and White players cannot feel too
comfortable — in some lines Black begins to create threats very quickly!
Statistics tell us that the variation does not belong amongst the most popular
openings but perhaps it is somewhat underestimated and still waiting for its
time...
HISTORICAL APPROACH
According to ChessBase, the first recorded game was back in 1889. Do not
expect any brilliancy by the way:
Blackburne Joseph Henry
Gossip George Hatfeild
D38 New York (27) 04.1889

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Bb4 5.Ne5 0-0 6.e3 c5 7.dxc5 Bxc5
8.cxd5 exd5 9.Nd3 Bd6 10.Bd2 Nc6 11.Nb5 Bb8 12.Be2 a6 13.Na3 Re8
14.0-0 Ne4 15.Bf3 Qh4 16.g3 Qf6 17.Bg2 h5 18.Rc1 h4 19.Bc3 Qg5
20.Nf4 hxg3 21.hxg3 Be6 22.Bxe4 dxe4 23.Nxe6 Rxe6 24.Kg2 Rg6
25.Rh1 Ne5
26.Rh5 Qe7 27.Qh1 f6 28.Bxe5 fxe5 29.Rc8+ Kf7 30.Rf5+ Ke6 31.Qh3
Rf6 32.Rg5+ Kd5 33.Qg4 Rf7 34.Rg6 Rf6 35.Rxg7 Rxf2+ 36.Kxf2 Qf6+
37.Kg1 Qf3 38.Rd7+

1–0

The 2nd FIDE World Champion, Emanuel Lasker, played it in 1936, when
he was past his prime. Moves such as his 7th cannot be equated to such a
player...
Flohr Salo
Lasker Emanuel
D38 Nottingham (5) 14.08.1936

1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 Qd6 7.Bxf6
gxf6? 8.Qc2 Nc6 9.e3 Ne7 10.a3 Bxc3+ 11.Qxc3 f5 12.g3 Bd7 13.Ne5 Be6
14.Nd3 0-0 15.Be2 Rad8 16.0-0 Bc8 17.Rac1 c6 18.Qc5 Qxc5 19.Rxc5
Kg7 20.b4 a6 21.a4 Kf6 22.Rc2 Ke6 23.b5 axb5 24.axb5 Kd6 25.bxc6
bxc6 26.Nc5 Rde8 27.Ra1 Be6 28.Rca2 Rb8 29.Ra7 Rb6 30.Bh5 Rfb8?
31.Bxf7! Rb1+

31...Bxf7? 32.Rd7#

32.Rxb1 Rxb1+ 33.Kg2 Nc8 34.Rb7 Rxb7 35.Nxb7+ Ke7 36.Bxe6 Kxe6
37.Kf3 Ne7 38.Nc5+

1–0

Finally, Viacheslav Ragozin presented his variation in some training

matches with M.Botvinnik, in 1939. Well, again the quality wasn’t high...
Botvinnik Mikhail
Ragozin Viacheslav
D38 Moscow 04.1939

1.c4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bh4 c5
8.Rc1 Nc6 9.e3 c4 10.Be2 g5 11.Bg3 Ne4 12.Nd2 Nxg3 13.hxg3 Be6 14.a3
Ba5 15.b4 cxb3 16.Nxb3 Rc8 17.0-0 0-0 18.Nc5 Qe7 19.Qb3 Bxc3
20.Rxc3 Na5 21.Qb4 b6 22.Nxe6 Qxe6 23.Ba6 Rxc3 24.Qxc3
24...Nc4 25.Rc1 Re8 26.Bb7 b5 27.e4 dxe4 28.d5 Qb6 29.Bc6 Re5
30.Bxb5 Rf5 31.Rc2 Qxb5 32.Qxc4 Qxd5 33.Qxd5 Rxd5 34.Rc4 Ra5
35.a4 Re5 36.Rc7 a6 37.Rc6 Ra5 38.Rc4 Re5 39.Kf1 e3 40.f3 e2+ 41.Ke1
Kg7

½-½

Botvinnik Mikhail
Ragozin Viacheslav
D38 Moscow 10.1938

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nf3 d5 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 Qd6 7.Nd2
Nbd7 8.e3 c6 9.Bd3 0-0 10.0-0 Re8 11.a3 Ba5 12.b4 Bd8 13.Bf4 Qe7
14.e4 dxe4 15.Ndxe4 Nxe4 16.Nxe4 Nf6 17.Nd6 Nd5 18.Be5 Rf8
19.Nxc8 Rxc8 20.Qg4 f5 21.Bxf5 Ra8 22.Rae1 Qg5 23.Be6+ Kh8
24.Qxg5 Bxg5 25.Bxd5 cxd5 26.f4 Bd8 27.Bd6 Rg8 28.Re6 Bf6 29.Be5
Rge8 30.Rxe8+ Rxe8 31.Rc1

1–0

STARTING OUT

The system proposed against the ‘QGD — The Ragozin Variation’

commences with the moves 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.cxd5
exd5 6.Bg5
Here Black has a variety of moves at his disposal and all should be
examined.

CHAPTER 1.
VARIOUS LINES

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5

From this position Black has tried some second-hand moves, mostly played
by mid-level or weak players, who do not seem to have a clue!
Well, no problem — playing opponents who do not understand the positions
that they choose to play is always welcome! But, we have to know what to
do in our turn!
a) 6...Bf5
a1) 7.Qa4+ is nothing special: 7...Nc6 8.Ne5 Qd6 (8...0-0 9.Nxc6 Bxc3+
10.bxc3 bxc6 11.e3 Qb8 12.Qa3 Ne4 13.Bf4 g5 14.Bg3² Jurek,J-Sedlak,N
Schwaebisch Gmuend 2019) 9.Bf4 (9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.e3 0-0 11.Bf4 Qe7
12.Ba6∞) 9...0-0 10.e3 Nxe5 11.Bxe5 Qb6 12.Qb3
12...Ne4∞ Galaktionov,A-Triapishko,A Loo 2019.
a2) 7.e3 Nbd7 (7...0-0 8.Qb3 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Nbd7 10.Be2 b6 11.0-0 h6
12.Bh4 Re8 13.Bb5² Garmash,A-Chetverikov,G St Petersburg 2019; 7...h6
8.Bh4 c6 9.Qb3 Bxc3+ 10.bxc3 g5 11.Bg3² Vargas,E-Mengual Escobar,C
Dosquebradas 2018) 8.Bd3 Bg6 9.0-0 c6 10.Bxg6 hxg6 11.Qb3 Bxc3
12.bxc3 Qb6 13.Qa3² Yordanov,L-Eftovski,M Skopje 2018.
a3) 7.Qb3 Nc6 (7...Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 [8.Qxc3 c6 9.e3 Qd6 10.Bxf6 Qxf6
11.Bd3 0-0 12.0-0 Nd7= Jain,H-Kadam,L Mumbai 2019] 8...b6 [8...0-0
9.Bxf6 Qxf6
10.Qxd5 {10.Qxb7 Qc6 11.Qxc6 Nxc6 12.g3 Rab8° Marxen,T-Polonius,M
Germany 1992} 10...c6 11.Qb3±] 9.Bxf6 [9.Ne5 h6 10.e4 hxg5 11.exf5 0-0
12.Be2 Qd6∞ Boeira,D-Dos Santos,O Fraiburgo 2016] 9...gxf6 10.e3 0-0
11.c4±) 8.e3 0-0 [8...a6 9.Be2 Qd6 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.a3 Bxc3+ 12.bxc3 0-0-
0
13.Nd2 {13.Ra2 Rhg8∞ Dolnak,M-Homzova Fedora,K Slovakia 2011}
13...Rhg8 14.g3²; 8...Qd6 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.a3 Bxc3+ 11.Qxc3 Bg6 12.Be2
Nd8 13.Nd2 Ne6 14.Rc1 c6 15.b4² Dely,P-Kluger,G Budapest 1966] 9.Be2
Re8 10.0-0 Bxc3 11.bxc3 Na5 12.Qa4 c6 13.Bxf6 gxf6 14.Nd2 (14.Qb4
Qc7 15.Nd2 b5 16.Rfe1² Kogan,A-Djingarova,E Tarragona 2007) 14...b5
15.Qd1²

b) 6...Be6 7.e3 0-0 (7...c6 8.Qc2 Nbd7 9.Bd3 h6 10.Bh4 0-0 11.0-0²
Wawrzyniak,R-Reichert,J Slask 2007; 7...Nc6 8.Bd3 (8.Bb5 Bd7 9.0-0
Bxc3 10.bxc3± Praveen Kumar,C-Trisha,K Mumbai 2019) 8...0-0 9.0-0
Bg4?
10.Bxf6 Qxf6 11.Nxd5± Leonardi,C-Sorina,E Prague 2012; 7...Nbd7 8.Ne5
0-0 9.Nxd7 Bxd7 10.Bd3 Re8 11.0-0² Djafarova,E-Moser,E Szombathely
1993; 7...h6 8.Bh4 g5 9.Bg3 Ne4 10.Rc1 Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 Nxg3 12.hxg3²
Demir,Z-Nay,B Antalya 2020) 8.Bd3 Nbd7 (8...c6 9.Qc2 Bxc3+ 10.bxc3 h6
11.Bh4 Nbd7 12.0-0² Gajdamowicz,P-Mastalarz,J Wroclaw 2010) 9.0-0
(9.Qc2 h6 10.Bh4 c5 11.a3 Bxc3+ 12.bxc3 Qc7 13.0-0 Rac8∞ Dabic,S-
Bitkova,J Mureck 2016) 9...c5 (9...Bg4? 10.Nxd5 Bd6 11.e4 h6 12.Nxf6+
Nxf6 13.Be3 Re8 14.e5 1–0 Sirotkin,S-Budaev,V Gorodets 2011)
10.Ne5 (10.Rc1 c4 11.Be2 Bxc3 12.bxc3 Qc7∞ Nunes,A-Costa,R Sao
Paulo 2013) 10...Qa5 11.Nxd7 Nxd7 12.Ne2 c4 13.Bc2²
c) 6...Bxc3+ 7.bxc3
c1) 7...c6 8.Qc2 (8.Qb3 0-0 9.e3 Nbd7 10.Bd3 Re8 11.0-0² Disconzi da
Silva,R-Pontes,A Sao Paulo 2009) 8...Qd6 9.e3 Nbd7 10.Bd3 h6 11.Bh4 0-
0 12.0-0 Re8 13.c4± Sriram,J-Coker,O Accra 2014.
c2) 7...Qd6 8.Nd2 Bf5 9.e3 0-0 10.Qf3 Bg4 11.Qf4 Qxf4 12.Bxf4²
Forgacs,J-Bodis,L Hajduboszormeny 1998.
c3) 7...0-0 8.e3 Nbd7 9.Bd3 Re8 10.Qc2 h6 11.Bh4 c5 12.0-0 c4 13.Bh7+
Kh8 14.Bf5² Nyback,T-Lehtosaari,K Pori 2003.
d) 6...Nc6 7.e3
d1) 7...h6 8.Bxf6 (8.Bh4 g5 9.Bg3 Ne4 10.Nd2 [10.Qb3 h5∞ ½-½
Sandberg,P-Adler,B Vaxjo 2018] 10...Nxc3 11.bxc3 Bxc3 12.Rc1 Bb4
13.Bb5° Vadim M-Murat,D Internet 2006) 8...Qxf6 9.a3 Bxc3+ 10.bxc3
Bf5 (10...Bg4 11.Be2 0-0 12.Qb3 Qd6 13.0-0 a5 14.h3 Be6 15.Rfc1 a4
16.Qb2 Na5 17.Nd2 b6 18.c4² Althaus,L-Buchinger,A Heusenstamm 2019)
11.c4 dxc4 12.Bxc4 0-0 13.0-0² Garner,I-Wolf,P Rostock 2017.
d2) 7...Qd6 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Qc2 Ne7 10.a3 Bxc3+ 11.Qxc3 Rg8 12.0-0-0
(12.g3 Bg4 13.Nh4²) 12...Bd7 13.Kb1 0-0-0 14.g3 Kb8 15.Rc1 Qb6
16.Bd3² Peterwitz,K-Porth,H Hamburg 2001.
d3) 7...0-0 8.Bd3 h6 9.Bxf6 (9.Bh4 Qd6 10.0-0 Bxc3 11.bxc3 Bg4 12.Qb3
Ne4 13.Bxe4 dxe4 14.Nd2² Zuelle,B-Haussernot,C Germany 2014)
9...Qxf6 10.Qb3 Qd6 11.0-0 Be6 12.a3 Ba5 13.Qc2 Bg4 14.b4 Bb6 15.b5
Ne7 16.Ne5 Be6 17.Na4²

Schepetkova,M-Golovin,L Voronezh 2013.

 CHAPTER 2.
MAIN LINES

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5

As Main Lines, we will examine the moves 6...c5, 6...c6, 6...Qd6, 6...0-0,
6...Nbd7 and 6...h6 and their respective setups.

2.1 — 6...C5

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 c5

An aggressive continuation, but practice has proven that White can calm
down Black’s intentions — although not without extreme accuracy — and
(most of the time) play against the isolated black d5-pawn.
After the moves 7.dxc5 Nbd7 8.Rc1

Black has a choice between 8...Qa5 and 8...0-0. Note that Black can also
opt for a passive, but defensible, position with an isolated pawn, by 7...0-0
8.Rc1 Be6, which is analysed in Sub-Chapter 2.1.3.

Of course some ‘second-hand’ continuations will always be played:

a) 8...h6? 9.Bxf6 Nxf6? (9...Qxf6 10.a3±) 10.Qa4+ 1–0 Banikas,H-
Kalaitzoglou,P Kallithea 2008.
b) 8...Bxc3+?! 9.Rxc3 Qa5 10.Nd2 Qxa2 (10...d4 11.Rc4 Qxa2 12.Qc1 0-0
13.Rxd4 Nxc5 14.Bxf6 gxf6 15.e3 Nb3 16.Nxb3 Qxb3 17.Bc4 Qb4+
18.Ke2± Ipatov,A-Pastukhov,I Alushta 2011) 11.Qc1! (11.Re3+ Kf8 12.Bf4
Qxb2 13.Bd6+ Kg8 14.g3° Kuijf,M-Brenninkmeijer,J Eindhoven 1992)
11...Qa4 12.Re3+ Kf8 13.Ra3± Komarov,D-Delanoy,A Le Touquet 1993.
c) 8...Nxc5 9.Qd4!

9...Bxc3+ (9...a5 10.Bxf6 Qxf6 11.Qxf6 gxf6 12.e3 [12.a3 Nb3 13.Rd1
Bxc3+ 14.bxc3 Be6 15.Nd4 a4 16.e3² ½-½ Lalic,B-Jobava,B Sibenik 2007]
12...0-0 13.Bb5! Ne4 14.Ke2 Bxc3 [14...Nxc3+ 15.bxc3 Be7 16.Rb1±]
15.bxc3 Bg4 16.h3 Be6 [16...Bxf3+?! 17.gxf3 Nd6 18.Ba4±] 17.Nd4²)
10.Qxc3 (10.Rxc3!? Nce4 [10...Ne6? 11.Bxf6 Nxd4 12.Bxd8 Nxf3+
13.Rxf3 Kxd8 14.Rxf7±] 11.Bxf6 Qxf6 [11...Nxf6 12.e3 0-0 13.Bd3 Re8
14.0-0 Ne4 15.Rc2± Cvitan,O-Soffer,R Biel 1990] 12.Qxf6 Nxf6 13.e3² ½-
½ Cebalo,M-Braga,F Reggio Emilia 1991) 10...Nce4 11.Bxf6 Qxf6
(11...Nxf6 12.e3 0-0 13.Be2 Ne4 14.Qb4² Grivas,E-Gelashvili,T Kocaeli
2008) 12.Qxf6 Nxf6 13.Nd4 (13.e3 Ke7 14.Bb5 a6 15.Ba4 b5 16.Bb3 Be6
17.Ke2 Rhc8 18.Nd4² Svane,R-Langheinrich,F Apolda 2017) 13...Bd7
14.e3 (14.f3 Ke7 15.Kd2 Rhc8 16.Rxc8 Rxc8 17.e3 Ne8 18.Bd3 Nd6
19.b3² Cvitan,O-Braga,F Reggio Emilia 1991) 14...Ke7 15.Bd3 Rac8
16.Rxc8 Rxc8 17.Ke2 g6 18.f3² Zubov,A-Gasanov,E Alushta 2009.
2.1.1 — 8...QA5+

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 c5 7.dxc5 Nbd7
8.Rc1 Qa5

This is not advisable before White plays e3.

9.Bd2!

Best by test. Not much is offered by 9.a3 Bxc3+ 10.Rxc3 Ne4 11.Bd2
(11.b4 Nxc3 12.Qa1 Qa4 13.Qxc3 f6 14.Bd2 a5 15.Qe3+ Kd8∞ Duda,J-
Studer,N Maribor 2013) 11...Ndxc5! (11...Nxc3? 12.Bxc3 Qxc5 13.Bxg7
Rg8 14.Bd4 [14.Bc3 Nb6 15.g3 Be6 16.Bg2 0-0-0 17.0-0° Calderin,R-
Pazos,P Cienfuegos 1991] 14...Qd6 [14...Qe7 15.g3 Nc5 16.Qc2 Ne4
17.Bg2 Bf5 18.Qb3 Be6 19.0-0 f6 20.Bc3 Kf7 21.Nd4 b6 22.Rd1 Kg7
23.Bxe4 1–0 Edouard,R-Grandadam,N Plovdiv 2012] 15.g3 Nb6 [15...Nc5
16.Bg2 Bd7 17.0-0 f6 18.Qc2± Basencyan,M-Larsen,K Barbera del Valles
2013] 16.Bg2 Bf5 17.0-0° Donoso,C-Endara,N Pichincha 1962) 12.Rc1
Nxd2 13.Qxd2 Qxd2+ 14.Nxd2

14...b6! (14...Ne6 15.g3 b6 16.Bg2 Bb7 17.Nb3² ½-½ Bukavshin,I-

Korobov,A Moscow 2013) 15.e3 Ke7 16.b4 Ne6= Navara,D-Carlsen,M
Wijk aan Zee 2006.

9...Bxc5

9...Nxc5? 10.a3+– or 9...Qxc5?! 10.a3 Bxc3 11.Bxc3 Qb6 12.e3 0-0 13.Bd4
Qa5+ 14.Qd2 Qxd2+ 15.Nxd2 Ne4 16.Nxe4 dxe4 17.Rc7 a6 18.Bc4 Nf6
19.0-0 b5 20.Bb3 Bf5 21.Rfc1 Ne8 22.R7c6 g6 23.h3 h5 24.Bc5 1–0
Mirzoev,A-Onate Barbero,A Seville 2012.

10.e3 Qd8
10...Qb6 11.Na4 Qd6 12.Nxc5 Nxc5 13.Qc2 Nfe4 14.Nd4 a6 15.f3 Nxd2
16.Qxc5 Qxc5 17.Rxc5 Nxf1 18.Rxf1± Magerramov,E-Goldin,V Moscow
1991.

11.Qb3!

Better than the 11.Bd3 0-0 12.0-0 a6 13.Qc2 Ba7 14.Ne2² of Arsovic,G-
Ivanovic,B Herceg Novi 2007.

11...0-0

11...Qb6 12.Nxd5 Nxd5 (12...Qxb3 13.Nxf6+ Nxf6 14.axb3+–) 13.Qxd5 0-

0 14.Bd3 Qd6 15.Qxd6 Bxd6 16.Ke2+– Goldstern,F-Ruefenacht,M
Switzerland 1993.

12.Nxd5 Bd6

12...b6 13.Be2 (13.Bc4 Ne4 14.Qc2± Huzman,A-Dizdar,G Baku 1988)

13...Ne4 14.0-0 Nxd2 15.Nxd2 Bb7 16.Rfd1 Bxd5 17.Qxd5 Nf6 18.Qf3±
Lobron,E-Gulko,B Vienna 1991.
13.Nxf6+ Qxf6

13...Nxf6 14.Bb4±

14.Bc3 Qh6

14...Ne5 15.Nxe5 Bxe5 16.Bxe5 Qxe5 17.Bc4 Bf5 18.0-0± Grivas,E-

Dineley,R Yerevan 1996.

15.Bd4 Nb6 16.Be2±

Baryshpolets,A-Golichenko,I Kiev 2011. White has won a precious pawn

and Black cannot present any serious compensation.
2.1.2 — 8...0-0

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 c5 7.dxc5 Nbd7
8.Rc1 0-0
A logical way to continue; castling can rarely be bad!

9.e3 Qa5

9...Nxc5 10.Qd4! transposes to Sub-Chapter 2.1.

10.a3

10.Nd2 b6! (10...Qxc5 11.a3! Bxc3 12.Rxc3 Qb6 13.Qb3 Qxb3 [13...Qa5
14.Qb5 Qxb5 15.Bxb5± Piket,J-Sosonko,G Rotterdam 1998] 14.Rxb3 Nc5
15.Rb5²; 10...Nxc5 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Be2 [12.a3 Bxc3 13.Rxc3 Ne4
14.Nxe4 dxe4 15.Qd4²] 12...Bf5 13.0-0 Rac8 14.Nb3²; 10...Ne4 11.Ndxe4
dxe4 12.a3 Qxc5 13.axb4 Qxg5 14.Nxe4 Qe7 15.Qd4 Nb6 16.Nc3±) 11.c6!
d4 Now a mostly forced sequence follows: 12.cxd7 dxc3 13.bxc3 Bxc3
14.Bxf6 gxf6 15.dxc8=Q (15.Rxc3 Qxc3 16.dxc8=Q Raxc8 17.Ba6 Rcd8
18.Ke2 Rd6 19.Qc1 Qa5 20.Bc4 Rc8∞ Moiseenko,A-Giorgadze,G Sant
Lluis 2005; 15.Bd3 Bxd7 16.Rc2 Rfd8 17.0-0 Bxd2 18.Rxd2 Bf5 19.e4 Be6
20.e5 f5 21.Qe2 Rd4 22.Qe3 Rad8 23.Qg5+ Kf8 24.Qh6+ Ke8 25.Qf6
Rxd3 26.Qh8+ Ke7 27.Qf6+ Ke8 ½-½ Bacrot,E-Carlsen,M Cap d’Agde
2006; 15.Qc2 Bxd2+ 16.Qxd2 Qxd2+ 17.Kxd2 Bxd7
18.Ba6 Be6 19.a3 Rad8+ 20.Ke2 Rd5= Lymar,I-Kacheishvili,G Istanbul
2006) 15...Raxc8

A critical position. Black will regain his piece but in the meantime White
might get the time to prove an advantage. I think that White should go for
16.Bc4! (16.Rc2?! Rfd8 17.Bd3 f5 [17...Kh8 18.Qe2 Qd5 19.0-0 Qxd3
20.Qxd3 Rxd3 21.Nb1 Rc5= Skembris,S-Prusikin,M Bad Wiessee 2006]
18.Qe2 Qd5 19.0-0 Qxd3 20.Qxd3 Rxd3 21.Nb1 Rc5 22.g3 Bb4 23.Rxc5
Bxc5 24.Kg2 Kg7 25.Kf3 ½-½ Skembris,S-Drozdovskij,Y Bad
Woerishofen 2008) 16...Rfd8 (16...Rxc4 17.0-0 Rh4 18.Nb3±)

17.0-0! (A proposed novelty in place of 17.Qg4+ Kf8 18.0-0 Bxd2∞

Tregubov,P-Drozdovskij,Y Odessa 2008) 17...Bxd2 (17...Rxd2?
18.Qg4++–; 17...Rxc4? 18.Nxc4+–) 18.Rc2 Bxe3 19.Qf3 Bd4 (19...Bg5
20.Bxf7+!±) 20.Bxf7+! Kh8 (20...Kxf7? 21.Rxc8 Rxc8 22.Qb7++–)
21.Rxc8 Rxc8 22.Rd1 Qe5 23.g3± Rc2? 24.Qa8+ Kg7 25.Qg8+ Kh6
26.Qf8+ Kg5 27.Qg7+ Kf5 28.Qxh7+ Kg4 29.Rxd4+ Qxd4 30.Qh5#

10...Bxc3+ 11.Rxc3 Ne4 12.b4! Nxc3 13.Qa1! Qa4 14.Qxc3

White has sacrificed an exchange (for a pawn) but his position seems to be
quite strong. In practice he scores approximately 90%!

14...a5 15.b5 Nxc5

Black has also tried here:

a) 15...Re8 16.Be2 (16.Nd4 Ne5 17.Bf4 [17.Be2 Nc4 18.Bxc4 dxc4 19.Bf4
Bd7 20.b6 Rac8 21.Bd6 Re4² ½-½ Wirig,A-Sumets,A Metz St Symphorien
2008] 17...Nc4 18.Bxc4 dxc4 19.0-0² when White’s control over the centre
and better piece placement are more than enough to compensate for his
material deficit.) 16...Nf8 (16...h6 17.Bf4 Nf6 18.Nd4 Bd7 19.f3 g5 20.Bd6
Rec8 21.h4 Ne8 22.Bg3 g4 23.Kf2 Ng7 24.Rc1 Bf5 25.Qb2 1–0 Gallego
Alcaraz,A-Ramirez Garcia,J Barcelona 2013) 17.Nd4 Ne6 18.Nxe6 Rxe6
19.0-0± Kosintseva,N-Zdebskaja,N Dresden 2007.
b) 15...b6 16.c6 Nc5 17.Be2 (17.Bd3 Qg4 18.0-0 Nxd3 19.Qxd3 Bf5
20.Qe2 Be4 21.Bf4 d4∞ Khenkin,I-Maze,S Geneve 2007; 17.Bf4 Bg4
18.Be5 Ne6 19.Be2 f6 20.Bg3 Kh8± ½-½ Rios,C-Vidarte Morales,A Gijon
2016) 17...Re8 18.0-0² Bacrot,E-Korchnoi,V Novi Sad 2009.
c) 15...h6 16.Bf4 Nf6 17.Nd4 (17.Bd3 Ne4 18.Bxe4 dxe4 19.Nd4 Bd7
20.c6 Rac8 21.c7± Cruz,C-Bobadilla Viera,J Gijon 2019) 17...Ne4 18.Qc1
g5 (18...Bd7 19.f3 Ng5 [19...Nxc5 20.Qxc5 Rfc8 21.Bc7!+– Edouard,R-
Haria,R England 2015] 20.Bxg5 hxg5 21.Bd3 Rfe8 22.Kf2±) 19.Bc7 Re8
20.Be2 Bd7 21.0-0 Rac8 22.b6+– Ding,L-Liu,Q China 2015.

16.Qxc5

16...Bd7

The text is probably best:

a) 16...Be6 17.Qc1 (17.Qd4 Qxa3 18.Be2 Rfc8 19.0-0 a4 20.Qd2 Bg4
21.h3± Obsivac,J-Urban,L Pardubice 2016) 17...Rfc8 18.Qa1 Qc2 19.Be2
Qc1+ 20.Qxc1 Rxc1+ 21.Bd1 Ra1 22.a4 Rc8 23.Nd4 Rc4 24.0-0 f6
(24...Rb1 25.Bd8 Rcc1 26.Be2 Rxf1+ 27.Bxf1 Ra1 28.Bxa5 Rxa4
29.Bc7+– Reich,T-Kabatianski,A Germany 2008)
25.Bf4 Bf7 26.h4 1–0 Topalov,V-Carlsen,M Wijk aan Zee 2007.
b) 16...Bf5 17.Qc3! Rfc8 (17...Rac8 18.Qa1 Rc2 [18...Bb1 19.Qxb1 Qxa3
20.Kd2 Qc3+ 21.Kd1 a4 22.Bd3 a3 23.Ke2 h6 24.Be7 Rfe8 25.Qb4 Rxe7
26.Qxe7 Qb2+ 27.Nd2 a2 28.Qxb7 Rf8 29.Qa7 1–0 Bruno,F -Cocchi,A
Saint Vincent 2008; 18...Bg4 19.Be2 Bxf3 20.Bxf3 Qxb5 21.Be2 Qc5 22.0-
0± Hesham,A-Ivana Maria,F Ho Chi Minh City 2017] 19.Nd4 Rfc8
20.Nxc2 Rxc2 21.Be2 Qb3 22.Bd1 Bd3 23.e4 Bxb5 24.Qe5 h6 25.Qxd5
Qb1 26.Bd2 Ra2 27.f3 Qb2 28.Bb3 Ra1+ 29.Kf2 Rxh1 30.Qxf7+ Kh7
31.Qf5+ g6 32.Qd5 1–0 Wei,Y-Wan,Y Wuxi 2016) 18.Qa1 Qc2 (18...Rc5
19.Be2 Qc2 20.Nd4 Qc1+ 21.Qxc1 Rxc1+ 22.Bd1 Bg6 23.0-0+–; 18...Bb1
19.Qxb1 Qxa3 20.Kd2 Qb4+ 21.Qxb4 axb4 22.Be2 Ra2+ 23.Kd3 Rc3+
24.Kd4 Rxe2 25.Rb1 Rxf2 26.Rxb4 Rcc2 27.Kxd5 Rxg2 28.Bf4 f6 29.Nd4
Rgd2 30.Ra4+– Lysyj,I-Nakhapetiane,P Moscow 2010) 19.Nd4 Qc1+
20.Qxc1 Rxc1+ 21.Kd2 Rac8 22.Nxf5 R8c2+ 23.Kd3+– Aronian,L-
Nakamura,H Leuven 2016.

17.Be2
17.Qc1 Rfc8! (17...Rac8 18.Qa1 Bxb5 19.Nd4 Bxf1 20.Rxf1 Rfe8 21.Kd2
f6 22.Bf4 g5 23.Bg3 f5 24.f4+– Laznicka,V-Smerdon,D Pardubice 2007)
18.Qa1 Qc2 19.Be2 Qc1+ 20.Qxc1 Rxc1+ 21.Bd1 Bxb5 22.Nd4 Ba4
transposes below.

17...Rfc8 18.Qxd5 Rc1+ 19.Bd1 Qxb5 20.Qxb5 Bxb5 21.Nd4 Ba4!

A proposed novelty over the 21...Bd7?! 22.0-0 Rac8 23.Bf3± seen in

Wang,Y-Movsesian,S Pamplona 2007.

22.Ke2 Ra1 23.Rf1 Rxa3 24.Bxa4 Rxa4 25.Rb1²

Although White is on top and can play for two results, Black has fair
chances of saving the draw.
2.1.3 — 8...BE6

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 c5 7.dxc5 0-0
8.Rc1 Be6
A slightly passive but otherwise sound continuation, which leads to a
defensible position with an isolated pawn.

9.e3

9.a3 is more-or-less a transposition: 9...Bxc5 10.Bxf6?! (10.e3 transposes

below) 10...Qxf6 11.Nxd5?! Bxd5 12.Qxd5 Na6 13.Qb3?! Rac8 14.e3
Bb4+! 15.Kd1 Rfd8+ 16.Nd4 Bc5 17.Bxa6 bxa6 18.Rxc5 Rxc5 19.Ke2
Qg6 20.Qb7 Rc2+! 21.Nxc2 Qg4+ 0–1 Chuchelov,V-Jobava,B Dresden
2007.

9...Nbd7 10.a3 Bxc5 11.Be2

The text looks more logical than 11.Bb5 Be7 12.0-0 Nc5 13.Bf4 (13.Be2
Nfe4 14.Bf4 Nxc3 15.Rxc3 Ne4 16.Rc1 Qb6 17.Be5² Chuchelov,V-
Gaprindashvili,V Warsaw 2005) 13...Bd6 14.Bg5 Be7 15.Bf4²
Chuchelov,V-Gaprindashvili,V Warsaw 2005.

11...Rc8
11...h6 12.Bh4 a6 13.0-0 Rc8 14.Nd4 Ne5 15.Na4² Theulings,P-Estremera
Panos,S Groningen 2012.

12.0-0 a6

12...Be7 13.Nd4 Nc5 14.b4 (14.Nxe6 fxe6 15.Bxf6 Bxf6 16.Bg4² Ipatov,A-
Guramishvili,S Rethymnon 2011) 14...Nce4 (14...Ncd7?! 15.Qb3 Nb6
16.Rfd1± Bagirov,V-Lutikov,A Riga 1975) 15.Nxe4 Rxc1 16.Nxf6+ Bxf6
17.Qxc1 Bxg5 18.Qc5²

13.Nd4

Grivas,E-Arutinian,D Kocaeli 2008. White has a standard, slightly better,

isolated pawn position.
2.2 — 6...C6

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 c6

A solid continuation. Black accepts a ‘QGD — Orthodox Variation’ with a
tempo less, but on the other hand he will try to prove that White’s moves
Rc1 and a3 are ‘useless’. Well, it is difficult to accept that two tempos can
be totally useless, but chess has its exceptions and White has to prove his
side of the discussion!

7.Rc1 Nbd7 8.a3

From here Black can choose between 8...Bxc3+, 8...Bd6 and 8...Be7.

2.2.1 — 8...BXC3+

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 c6 7.Rc1 Nbd7
8.a3 Bxc3+
Black is willing to hand over the bishop pair to White, as he believes that
the position is favourable to the knights, owing to the fixed pawn structure.

9.Rxc3

Not much is offered by 9.bxc3 Qa5 10.Qb3 Ne4 11.Bh4 0-0= Ribli,Z-
Tischbierek,R Germany 1991.

9...0-0

Black has also tried:

a) 9...Qb6 10.Rb3 (10.Re3+ Ne4 11.Nd2 0-0 12.Nxe4 dxe4 13.Qd2 f5
14.Rg3 Nf6∞) 10...Qc7 11.e3 (11.Nd2 Ne4 12.Nxe4 dxe4 13.Qc2 Qa5+
14.Bd2 Qd5 15.Rg3 g6 16.h4² Gyimesi,Z-Sargissian,G Germany 2007)
11...Ne4 12.Bf4 Qa5+ 13.Rb4 0-0 14.Bd3 c5 15.dxc5 Ndxc5 16.0-0²
b) 9...h6 10.Re3+ Kf8 11.Bf4 (11.Bxf6 Nxf6 12.g3 g6 13.Bg2 Kg7 14.0-0
Bf5 [14...Ne4 15.Ne5 Nd6 16.Rc3 f6 17.Nf3 Re8 18.e3 Bg4 19.h3 Bxf3
20.Bxf3 Qd7 21.Kg2 a5 22.a4 Nf7 23.h4 h5 24.Qc2 f5 25.Rc1 ½-½
Ivekovic,B-Palac,M Zagreb 2015] 15.Ne5 Re8 16.Rc3 a5 17.e3 Ne4 18.Rc1
a4∞ Kasimov,A-Yakubboev,N Tashkent 2019) 11...Ne4 12.h3 a5 13.Nd2!
(13.Rd3 a4∞ Khusenkhojaev,M-Yakubboev,N Bhopal 2019) 13...Qf6
(13...Nxd2 14.Qxd2 Nb6 15.Qc1 Nc4 16.Rc3 Bf5 17.f3!²; 13...Ndf6
14.Rb3! a4 15.Rb4 b5 16.Qc2 Bd7 17.Nf3²) 14.g3 Ng5 (14...Qxd4 15.Nxe4
Qxd1+ 16.Kxd1 dxe4 17.Bd6+ Kg8 18.Rxe4²) 15.Rd3 Ne6 16.Be3 b6
17.Bg2 Bb7 18.0-0²

10.e3

10...h6

Also possible is 10...Qe8 11.Bf4 Ne4 12.Rc2 (12.Rc1 Nb6 13.Be2 f6 14.0-0
Bg4 15.h3 Bh5 16.Ne1 Bxe2 17.Qxe2 Qe7 18.Nd3 Rae8 19.Nc5 ½-½
Gormally,D-Conquest,S Liverpool 2008) 12...Ndf6 13.Ne5 Qe7 14.Bd3²
Bocharov,D-Vitiugov,N Plovdiv 2008.

11.Bh4 g5 12.Bg3 Ne4 13.Rc2 Ndf6 14.Bd3 Bf5

15.Ne5!

The text is a better try than 15.Be5 Nd7 16.h3 Nxe5 17.Nxe5 f6 18.Nf3 Qe7
19.Bxe4 Qxe4 20.Rc3 Rae8 21.0-0 Qe6= Huang Qian-Kosintseva,N Ergun
2006.

15...Kg7 16.f3 Nxg3 17.hxg3 Bxd3 18.Qxd3 Qe7

Or 18...Qd6 19.0-0 Nd7 (19...a5 20.Qf5 Qe6 21.Qxe6 fxe6 22.g4²) 20.f4
(20.Nxd7 Qxd7 21.e4²) 20...f5 (20...Nf6 21.fxg5 hxg5 22.Rcf2+–) 21.b4²

19.Re2!?

A proposed novelty in favour of 19.Kf2 Nd7 20.Ng4 Rh8 21.e4 dxe4

22.fxe4 Nf6 23.Nxf6 Qxf6+ 24.Ke3 Rhe8∞ Zhao Xue-Kosintseva,N
Ningbo 2009.

19...Rad8

19...Nd7?! 20.Ng4±
20.0-0 Rd6 21.g4 Rfd8 22.b4 Re6 23.g3!²

White has better prospects on the kingside, planning Rh2, f4, or e4,
depending on the situation.
Keep in mind that the minority attack on the queenside is still open as well.
2.2.2 — 8...BD6

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 c6 7.Rc1 Nbd7
8.a3 Bd6

A clear ‘QGD’, with the dark-squared bishop on d6, where it looks more
active than on e7.
Also, Black plans to play ...Nf8-g6/e6, improving his knight as well.
9.e3 0-0

Black can also think of the direct 9...Nf8

a) 10.Bd3 Ng6 11.Nh4!? (11.e4 dxe4 12.Nxe4 Be7 13.0-0 0-0 14.Ng3 Nd5
15.Bxe7 Qxe7 16.Re1 Qd8 17.Ne5² Stangl,M-Winants,L Nettetal 1992)
11...0-0 12.Nxg6 fxg6 (12...hxg6 13.h4!²) 13.0-0 Qe8 14.Bxf6 gxf6 15.e4
dxe4 16.Nxe4 Bf4 17.Rc2² Grivas,E-Milov,V Panormos 2002.
b) 10.Qa4!? Be6 (10...Bd7 11.Ne5 Qe7 12.Nxd7 N8xd7 13.Bd3 Qe6
14.Qb3 Rb8 15.Bh4 Qg4 16.Bg3 Bxg3 17.hxg3² Baramidze,D-
Grandadam,N Deizisau 2012) 11.Ne5 N8d7 12.Nxd7 Bxd7 13.Bd3 0-0
14.Qc2 h6 15.Bh4∞ Iordachescu,V-Wang Hao Khanty-Mansiysk 2010.
c) 10.e4 dxe4 11.Nxe4 Be7 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.Bc4 (13.d5!? Ng6 14.dxc6
Qe7 15.Qc2 [15.Bd3 0-0 16.0-0 bxc6 17.Nxf6+ Qxf6 18.Bxg6 hxg6
19.Qd4²] 15...0-0 16.Bd3 bxc6 17.0-0² Troff,K-Brown,M Saint Louis 2016)
13...Ng6 (13...Ne6 14.0-0 0-0 15.Re1 Be7 16.h3²) 14.0-0 0-0 15.h3!?
(15.Qd2 Bf5 16.Rfe1 Bxe4 17.Rxe4² Ipatov,A-Peralta,F Salou 2011)
15...Bf5 16.Ng3 Qd7 17.Nh5 (17.Qb3 Nh4 18.Nxh4 Bxh4 19.Nxf5 Qxf5
20.Rcd1 Rad8 21.d5 cxd5 22.Bxd5 b6=) 17...Be7 18.d5 Rfd8 (18...c5
19.g4±) 19.dxc6 Qxd1 20.Rfxd1 bxc6 (20...Rxd1+ 21.Rxd1 bxc6 22.Ng3
Bc8 23.Ne4 Bf5 24.Neg5 Bxg5 25.Nxg5 Ne5 26.Ba2²) 21.Re1 Kf8
(21...Bd7 22.Nf4 Kf8 23.Nxg6+ hxg6 24.Rc3²) 22.Ng3 Bc8 23.Ne4 f6
(23...Rb8 24.Neg5±) 24.Ba2²

10.Bd3 Re8

11.0-0

11.Qc2 is playable as well: 11...Nf8 12.0-0 Bg4 (12...Ng6 13.Rfe1 [13.Rce1

Bg4 14.Nh4 [The typical move in such positions — keep it in mind!
14.Nd2?! h6 15.Bxf6 Qxf6 16.b4 Nh4 17.f3 Bh3–+ Farago,I-Laske,M
Lienz 2007] 14...Bd7 15.f4 Nxh4 16.Bxh4² Tania,S-Kosintseva,T Dresden
2008] 13...Bg4
14.Nh4 Be7 15.h3 Bd7 16.Nxg6 hxg6 17.Bf4 Be6 18.Na4 Nd7 19.b4²
Teske,H-Alonso Garcia,R Seville 2011) 13.Nd2 Ng6 14.h3² Hertneck,G-
Milov,V Zillertal 1993.

11...Nf8

11...h6 12.Bh4 Nf8 13.Qb3 Ng6 14.Bg3 Bxg3 15.hxg3 Qe7 16.Bxg6 fxg6
17.Ne5² Bu Xiangzhi-Alekseev,E Ningpo 2008.
12.Bh4

Although the text is natural, it seems that White can also opt for 12.h3 h6
13.Bxf6 (13.Bh4 Ng6 14.Bxf6 Qxf6 15.e4 dxe4 16.Nxe4 Qd8 17.Re1 Be6
18.Nxd6 Qxd6 19.Bxg6 fxg6 20.Qd3 Bd5 21.Ne5² Almeida Quintana,O-
Peralta,F Sabadell 2010) 13...Qxf6
14.e4 dxe4 15.Nxe4 Qd8 16.Re1 Be6 17.Qc2 Bd5 18.Bc4 Bxc4 19.Qxc4
Ng6 20.Qb3 Re7 21.g3 Qd7 22.d5² Lobron,E-Dizdar,G Germany 1991.

12...Ng6

The main alternative for Black is 12...Bg4 (12...a5 13.e4 dxe4 14.Nxe4 Be7
15.Nc5 Ng6 16.Bg3 b6 [16...Bg4 17.Nxb7 Qb6 18.Nd6 Bxd6 19.Bxd6
Qxb2 20.Rxc6 Bxf3 21.Qxf3 Qxd4 22.Bc4²] 17.Ne4 Bb7 18.Re1²) 12...Bg4
13.Qc2 Bh5 (13...a5 14.Rfe1²)
14.Rfe1 (14.b4 Bg6 15.Bg3 Bxd3 16.Qxd3 a5 17.Qb1 [17.b5!°] 17...Bxg3
18.hxg3 Qd6 19.bxa5 Re7 20.Qb4 Qd8 21.Na4 Rxa5 22.Nc5 Rb5 23.Qc3
Ne6 24.a4 Ra5 25.Qb4 Nxc5 26.Rxc5 Ra7 27.Rb1 Ne4∞ Yilmaz,M-
Aleksandrov,A Plovdiv 2012; 14.Bg3 Bg6 15.Ne5∞ ½-½ Moiseenko,A-
Efimenko,Z Kiev 2011) 14...Bg6 15.e4! dxe4 16.Bxe4 Be7 17.Bxg6 Nxg6
18.Bxf6 Bxf6 19.Rxe8+ (19.Ne4 Re6 20.Qb3 b6 21.Nxf6+ Rxf6 22.Re4 h6
23.Rce1 Qd7 24.Ne5 Qd5 25.Qe3 Re6 26.f3 Rd8 27.Nxg6 Rxg6 28.h4
Rgd6 29.Kh2 a5 30.Qf4 Rf6 31.Re8+ ½-½ Yilmaz,M-Baron,T Athens
2012) 19...Qxe8 20.Ne4 Be7 21.Qb3 Qd7 22.g3²

13.Bg3
13...Bxg3

13...Bg4 (13...a5 14.Bxd6 Qxd6 15.h3²) is always one of Black’s main

ideas: 13...Bg4 14.b4 (14.Qc2 transposes above) 14...a5 (14...Ne4! 15.Qc2
Bxf3 16.gxf3 Nxc3 17.Qxc3 Nh4 18.f4 [18.Be2 Qf6 19.f4 Nf5 20.Qd3
g6∞] 18...g6 19.b5²) 15.Qb3 axb4 16.axb4 Bxf3 17.gxf3 Qe7 18.b5²
Laznicka,V-Arutinian,D Pardubice 2009.

14.hxg3 Qd6 15.Qc2 Ne7 16.b4²

Lerner,K-Sieglen,J Boeblingen 1997. White has a free hand on the
queenside for his usual minority attack. So, he should hold a small
advantage.
2.2.3 — 8...BE7

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 c6 7.Rc1 Nbd7
8.a3 Be7
A bit passive, but perfectly in keeping with the ‘QGD’ spirit.

9.e3 0-0

Black’s other options are:

a) 9...a5 10.Bd3 0-0 11.Qc2 Re8 12.0-0 Nf8 13.Ne5 (13.h3 Be6 14.Rfe1
Nh5 15.Bxe7 Qxe7 16.Na4 g6 17.Nc5² Teske,H-Horvath,P Linz 1999)
13...Ng4 14.Bxe7 Qxe7 15.Nxg4 Bxg4 16.Rce1 Rad8 17.f4² Grivas,E-
Toth,C Dortmund 1992.
b) 9...Ne4 10.Bxe7 (10.Nxe4 dxe4 11.Bxe7 Qxe7 12.Nd2 Nf6 13.Qc2 0-0
14.Qc5 Qe6 15.Be2 Rd8= Turova,I-Molchanova,T Chelyabinsk 2008;
10.Bf4?! g5 11.Be5 f6 12.Bg3 h5 13.h4 Nxg3 14.fxg3 g4 15.Ng1 Bd6
16.Kf2 Nb6³ Novikov,I-Krivoshey,S Alushta 1999) 10...Qxe7 11.Bd3 Ndf6
(11...0-0 12.0-0 f5 [12...Re8 13.Qc2 Nf8 14.Bxe4 dxe4 15.Nd2 Bf5 16.f3
Qg5 17.f4 Qe7 18.Ne2² Komljenovic,D-Reig Albero,F Valencia 1992]
13.b4 a6 14.Na4 a5 15.Nc5 axb4 16.axb4 Ndxc5 17.bxc5² Adianto,U-
Handoko,E Jakarta 1993) 12.Ne5 Nd6 13.Qc2 0-0 14.0-0² Koneru,H-
Satyapragyan,S Kolkata 2008.
10.Bd3

By now we have a clear ‘QGD’ pawn structure, at least from Black’s point
of view, who again would like to prove that White’s extra moves are not
that important and don’t really make a difference...

10...Re8

A well known ‘QGD’ move.

Alternatives are:
a) 10...g6?! 11.0-0 Nh5 12.Bxe7 Qxe7 13.b4 a6 14.Qb3 Ng7 15.a4 Ne8
16.b5 axb5 17.axb5± Grivas,E-Efthimiatos,G Athens 1991.
b) 10...Nh5 11.Bxe7 Qxe7 12.0-0 Ndf6 (12...Nhf6 13.b4 b5 14.a4 a6
15.Qb3 Nb6 16.Rfe1²) 13.b4! g6 14.Qb3 a6 15.a4 Ng7 16.b5 axb5 17.axb5²
Grivas,E-Soffer,R Tel Aviv 1991.
c) 10...Ne4 11.Bf4 f5 12.h3 Qe8 13.0-0 g5 14.Bc7 Qg6 15.Ne2²
Verdihanov,V-Harandi,K Iran 1994.

11.0-0
11.Qc2 is a move that White will need sooner or later and he can play it
immediately: 11...Nf8 (11...h6 12.Bf4 Nb6 13.h3 Be6 14.0-0 Rc8 15.Na4
Nxa4 16.Qxa4 a6 17.Qb3² ½-½ Nikolic,N-Kovacevic,V Zagreb 1993) 12.0-
0 Be6 (12...Ne4 13.Bf4 Nxc3 14.Qxc3 Ng6 15.Bg3² Tihonov,J-Zhigalko,A
Minsk 2007; 12...Ng6 13.Bxf6 Bxf6 14.Bf5 Be7 15.g3 Bd6 16.Kg2 Qf6
17.Bxc8 Raxc8 18.b4² Martinovic,S-Horvath,P Latschach 2001; 12...Bg4
13.Ne5 Bh5 14.f4 N6d7 15.Bxe7 Rxe7 16.Rce1² Vyzmanavin,A-Blatny,P
Pardubice 1993; 12...h6 13.Bxf6 Bxf6 14.b4 Be7 15.Rb1 Bd6 16.Bf5 g6
17.Bxc8 Rxc8 18.a4 a6 19.Rfc1² Jaracz,P-Polyakin,V Dos Hermanas 2003)
13.h3 N6d7 14.Bf4 Nb6 15.Rfe1 Bd6 16.Bxd6 Qxd6 17.Na4 Nxa4 18.Qxa4
Nd7 19.b4² Tkachiev,V-Shariyazdanov,A Kazan 2005.

11...Nf8

Black can also opt for 11...Ne4 12.Bf4 Nxc3 13.Rxc3 Nf8 14.Qc2 Bg4
15.Ne5 Be6 16.b4 a6 17.Rb1² Grigorov,G-David,A Kavala 2008, or 11...a5
12.Na4 Nf8 13.Ne5² Smirin,I-Kovacevic,V Solin 1999.

12.h3
Also good is 12.Ne5 a6 13.Na4 Be6 14.Nc5 Qc8 15.b4 Bxc5 16.bxc5 Ne4
17.Bf4² Schleifer,M-Hebert,J Montreal 1995, or; 12.b4 Bg4 13.Qc2 Bxf3
14.gxf3 Nh5 15.Bxe7 Qxe7 16.Kh1 Rad8 17.Rg1² Cvetkovic,S-Ravic,N
Belgrade 2009. Finally, 12.Qc2 transposes to 11.Qc2.

12...Ne6 13.Bh4 Nh5 14.Bxe7 Qxe7 15.Ne5²

Perez,D-Cordero,D Luque 2012.

White has all his options open and can go for the usual minority attack, or
for the initiative with f4.
2.3 — 6...QD6

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 Qd6
This flexible move was very rarely seen in top tournament chess, until
recently.

7.Nd2 Bf5

The text looks a bit more accurate than 7...c6 8.Qc2 (8.e3 Nbd7 9.Bd3 h6
10.Bf4 Qe7 11.Qc2 Nh5 12.Bg3 Nxg3 13.hxg3 Nf6 14.0-0-0 Bg4 15.Rde1
0-0-0 16.a3 Bd6 17.Nb5 Kb8 18.Nxd6 Qxd6 19.f3 Bc8 20.g4 Rhe8 21.Nb3
Re7= Vachier-Lagrave,M-Piorun,K Internet 2020) 8...h6 9.Nb5 Bxd2+
10.Bxd2 Qe7 (10...Qd8 11.Nc3 0-0 12.e3 Re8 13.Bd3 Nbd7 14.0-0² El
Arousy,A-Imam,A Cairo 2011) 11.Nc3 0-0 12.e3 c5 13.dxc5 (13.Ne2 Ne4
14.dxc5 Nc6 15.Ng3 Nxd2 16.Qxd2 Qxc5 17.Bd3 d4 18.e4∞ Inarkiev,E-
Khalifman,A Fuegen 2006) 13...Nc6 14.Rc1 Qxc5
15.Ne4!². Note that 7...Ne4?! is a bit artificial: 8.Ndxe4 dxe4 9.e3 0-0 10.a3
Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 Qd5 12.Bf4 b5 13.a4 c6 14.Qb1 Bd7 15.Be2 a6 16.0-0 g5
17.Bg3 h5 18.c4 Qe6 19.axb5 cxb5 20.cxb5 a5 21.Rc1 h4 22.Be5 h3
23.Qxe4 1–0 Psakhis,L-Gaprindashvili,V Ubeda 2001.

8.e3

8.Nb5 is interesting: 8...Qb6 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.e3 c6 11.Nc3 Nd7 12.Rc1 Bd6
13.Nb3 Qd8 14.Bd3² Grischuk,A-Yu,Y Dubai 2014 and 8.Qb3, has been
tried recently: 8...Bxc3 (8...Nc6 9.e3 0-0 10.Rc1²) 9.bxc3 Nbd7 10.e3 0-0
11.Bf4 Qb6 12.f3 Bg6 13.g4 c5 14.h4² Matlakov,M-Piorun,K Moscow
2019.

8...Nbd7

The other Black set-up is with 8...c6, but it looks to be a rather passive one:
9.Qb3 (9.a3 Bxc3 10.bxc3 Nbd7 11.Bf4 Qe6 12.Be2 0-0 13.Qb3 b5 14.a4
a6 15.0-0 Nb6 16.axb5 axb5 17.Qb4 Ne4 18.Nxe4 Bxe4= Istratescu,A-
Kollars,D Rome 2017) 9...Ne4 10.Ndxe4 Bxe4 11.a3 Bxc3+
12.bxc3 (12.Qxc3 Nd7 13.Bf4 Qe7 14.f3 Bg6 15.Be2 0-0 16.0-0 Rfe8
17.Rfe1² Dreev,A-Nguyen,N Doha 2016) 12...b6 13.Qb4 (13.Bf4 Qg6
14.h4 h6 [14...h5!?] 15.h5 Qe6 16.f3 Bh7 17.c4± Renman,N-Gaal,Z
Krakow 2020) 13...Qxb4 14.cxb4 a6 15.a4 Kd7 16.Kd2 Kc7 17.f3 Bg6
18.h4± Nakamura,H-Nguyen,N Doha 2016.

9.Bf4

9.a3 Bxc3 10.bxc3 c5 11.Be2 0-0 12.0-0 Ne4 13.Nxe4 Bxe4 14.Bf4 Qg6
15.f3 Bc2 16.Qd2² Kovalenko,I-Ladva,O Riga 2014, or 9.Be2 0-0 10.0-0
Bxc3 (10...c6 11.Qb3 b5 12.a3 Ba5 13.Rfc1² Checa,N-Shtembuliak,E
Irving 2018) 11.bxc3 c5 12.Bf4 Qc6 13.dxc5 Nxc5 14.Nf3² Malakhatko,V-
Karavade,E Abu Dhabi 2013. 9.Qb3, is not much: 9...c5 10.Bxf6 Nxf6
11.Bb5+ Ke7 12.0-0 cxd4 13.exd4 Rhc8∞ Xiu,D-Wei,Y Xinghua 2013.

9...Qb6 10.Be2 c5 11.dxc5 Nxc5 12.Be5 0-0 13.0-0²

Wojtaszek,R-Hou,Y Biel 2014. White has easy play against the isolated
black pawn.
2.4 — 6...0-0

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 0-0
Black delays the (potential) advance of his c-pawn, seeking the ‘right’ time.
Well, in most of the lines that can follow, we have purely transpositions, so
here we will examine something different.

7.Qb3

A direct way to clarify things.

7...Bxc3+

Black can also opt for:

a) 7...c5 8.dxc5 Nc6 9.e3 Be6 10.Nd4 Bxc5 (10...a5 11.a3 a4 12.Qc2 Bxc5
13.Nxe6 [13.Nxc6? bxc6 14.Nxa4 Qa5+ 15.Nc3 Ne4µ Litvinov,K-
Yapyndzhi,K Moscow 2009] 13...fxe6 14.Bd3²) 11.Nxe6 (11.Rd1 h6
12.Bh4 Bg4 13.Bxf6 [13.f3 Re8! 14.Nxc6 bxc6 15.fxg4 g5 16.Be2 gxh4
17.0-0 Rxe3 18.Kh1 Qd6 19.Qa4 Rb8 20.Rf5 Rxb2 21.g5 Ne4 22.Nxd5
Rexe2 23.Nf6+ Nxf6 24.gxf6 Rxg2 0–1 Gagunashvili,M-Jobava,B Warsaw
2005] 13...Qxf6 14.Be2 Nxd4 15.exd4 Bxd4 16.0-0 Bxe2 17.Nxe2 Bb6³
Wirig,A-Gajewski,G Cappelle-la-Grande 2011) 11...fxe6 12.Be2
12...Qb6 (12...Qe7 13.0-0 a6 14.Rac1² Pratyusha,B-Padmini,R Delhi 2016;
12...Bb4 13.0-0 Qb6 14.Bh4² Korchnoi,V-Dizdar,G Berlin West 1985)
13.Qxb6 Bxb6 14.0-0 Rac8 15.Rac1 d4 16.Na4 h6 17.Bh4 Rfd8 18.Nxb6
axb6 19.Bxf6 gxf6 20.Rfd1 dxe3 21.fxe3² Malakhatko,V-Hojjatova,A Baku
2017.
b) 7...Nc6 8.e3 (8.a3 Bxc3+ 9.Qxc3 Ne4?! [9...h6! 10.Bxf6 Qxf6 11.e3²]
10.Bxd8 Nxc3 11.Bxc7 Nb5 12.Be5 f6 13.e3 Nxa3 14.Rxa3 fxe5 15.Nxe5
Nxe5 16.dxe5± Uhoda,P-Lombart,P Charleroi 2010; 8.Bxf6 Qxf6 9.Qxd5?
Rd8µ Essich,G-Holler,W Leitersdorf 2016) 8...Be6 (8...Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Rb8
10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Bd3± Portes Junior,D-Souza Jr,H Sao Paulo 2019; 8...Re8
9.Bb5 h6 10.Bxf6 Qxf6 11.Ne5 Bf5 12.0-0 Bxc3 13.Qxc3 Re6 14.Bxc6
bxc6 15.Rac1± Ponceleusz,B-Costello,C Rewal 2006) 9.Bd3 h6 10.Bxf6
Qxf6 11.a3 Bxc3+ 12.Qxc3 Bf5 13.Bxf5 Qxf5 14.b4 a6 15.0-0² San
Marco,B-Metral,J Paris 1991.

8.bxc3

8.Qxc3 c6 9.Nd2 h6 10.Bh4² Kulkarni,V-Kathmale,S Mumbai 2012, is

possible.
8...Nbd7

Black rightly plans ...c5, as 8...c6 9.e3 Nbd7 10.Bd3 Qe8 11.Nd2²
Jorgensen,M-Raunkjaer,J Koge 1997, looks quite passive.

9.e3 c5

9...b6 10.Bb5 h6 11.Bh4 Bb7 (11...Kh8?! 12.Bc6 Rb8 13.Bxd5± Boa,B-

Marton,K Balatonlelle 2015) 12.0-0² or 9...Re8 10.Be2 c6 11.0-0 Nf8 12.c4
dxc4 13.Bxc4 Qe7 14.Ne5± Lombardy,W-Wozney,T Chicago 1973.

10.Be2

Modest but ‘pleasant’, especially when compared to 10.Bb5?! c4 11.Qa3

Nb6 12.0-0 a6 13.Ba4 Bf5 14.Nd2 Nxa4 15.Qxa4 Qd7= Miralles,G-
Salaun,Y France 1993, or 10.Ne5? cxd4 11.Nxd7 Bxd7 12.Bxf6 gxf6
13.exd4 Re8+µ Djordjevic,V-Savic,M Paracin 2019.

10...c4 11.Qc2 Qa5 12.Nd2 Re8 13.0-0 h6 14.Bh4²

Chatalbashev,B-Melaa,S Fornebu 2017. White has the bishop pair and good
control over the semi-open b-file, so he should hold a small but permanent
advantage.
2.5 — 6...NBD7
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 Nbd7

Here the 6...Nbd7 line is connected to other continuations that were

analysed in previous chapters.

7.Rc1 h6

After 7...c6, the suggested and analysed continuation is 8.a3 (Sub-Chapter

2.2), but an ‘extra’ line is 8.e3 Qa5 (8...0-0 transposes to 2.2 lines) 9.Qb3
Ne4
a) 10.Bh4 Nb6 11.a3 Bd6 12.Bd3 Bf5 13.0-0 Nxc3 14.Rxc3 Bxd3 15.Rxd3
0-0 16.Bg3 Bxg3 17.hxg3 Rfe8 18.Rc3 Qa4 19.Ne5 Qxb3 20.Rxb3 Re7=
Barbosa,O-Aleksandrov,A Chennai 2012.
b) 10.Bf4 c5 (10...Ndf6 11.a3 Bd6 12.Bxd6 Nxd6 13.Bd3 Bg4 14.Ne5 Bh5
15.0-0 Bg6 16.Qc2² Laxman,R-Aleksandrov,A Bhubaneswar 2011) 11.a3
Bxc3+ 12.bxc3 0-0 (12...c4 13.Qb4 Qxb4 14.axb4 a5 15.bxa5 Rxa5
16.Nd2 [16.Ng5 Nxg5 17.Bxg5 Nb6 18.Rb1 Na4 19.Kd2 b5 20.Be2²
Laznicka,V-Sargissian,G Germany 2006] 16...Nxd2 17.Kxd2 Nf6 18.f3²
Mamedyarov,S-Halkias,S Bursa 2010) 13.Be2 Nb6 14.dxc5 Qxc5 15.Qb4
Bd7 16.Nd2 Qc6 17.Nxe4 dxe4 18.0-0 Nd5 19.Qxe4 Nxc3 ½-½
Skembris,S-Peralta,F Vrachati 2011.
c) 10.Bd3 Nxg5 11.Nxg5 h6 (11...Nf6 12.0-0 0-0 13.h3 Re8 14.Rfe1 h6
15.Nf3 Qb6 16.Na4 Qa5 17.Nc3 Qb6 18.Qc2 Bd6 19.a3 Qd8= Wang Yue-
Eljanov,P Elista 2008) 12.Nf3 0-0 13.0-0 Nf6 (13...Re8 14.a3 Bxc3
[14...Be7 15.Qa2 Qd8 16.b4 a6 17.Na4 b5∞ Tomic,M-Jakovljevic,Z
Obrenovac 2005] 15.Qxc3 Qxc3 16.Rxc3 Nf6 17.b4 Be6 18.Rfc1 Ne4
19.Bxe4 dxe4 20.Nd2 Bd5= Kashdan,I-Steiner,L New York 1930; 13...Bd6
14.Qc2 Nf6 15.h3 Re8 16.Rb1 Bd7 17.a3 Qd8 18.Rfe1 Rc8 19.b4 b6
20.Bf5 Ne4= ½-½ Ikonnikov,V-Ashwath,R Dieren 2019) 14.a3 Bd6 15.Qc2
Re8 16.h3 Qd8 17.Nd2 Bd7 18.Bf5 Bxf5 19.Qxf5 Re6= Stefanova,A-
Koneru,H Rostov on Don 2011. But of course there is always room for
improvements...

8.Bxf6
8...Bxc3+

Of course not 8...Nxf6? 9.Qa4++– but Black could consider: 8...Qxf6 9.Qb3
(9.a3 Bxc3+ 10.Rxc3 c6 11.Re3+ Kf8 12.h4 [12.g3 g6=] 12...g6 13.h5 g5
14.g3∞; 9.e3 c6 10.Bd3 Nb6 11.0-0 Bg4 12.h3 Bxf3 13.Qxf3 Qxf3 14.gxf3
0-0-0 15.Kg2 Kb8 16.f4 Be7 17.Ne2 Nc8 18.f5 g6 19.fxg6 fxg6 20.Nf4²
Berkes,F-Eljanov,P Germany 2009) 9...Qd6 10.a3 (10.e3 0-0 11.a3 Ba5
12.Bd3 c6 13.0-0 Re8 14.Qc2 a6 15.Na4 Bc7 16.Bh7+ Kh8 17.Bf5 Qf6∞
Bjelobrk,I-Smerdon,D Sydney 2015) 10...Ba5 11.Qc2 c6 12.g3 0-0 13.Bg2
Nf6 14.b4 Bd8 15.0-0 a5 16.Rb1 g6 17.Qc1 Kg7 18.b5 Bf5 19.Ra1 Ne4
20.bxc6 bxc6 21.Nd2 Ng5 22.Na4 Bf6 23.e3 Ne6 (½-½ Papaioannou,I-
Barkhagen,J Sas van Gent 1992)
24.Nb3²

9.bxc3

9.Rxc3 seems to give Black no problems here: 9...Nxf6 10.e3 (10.Qa4+ c6

11.Qa3 Ne4 12.Rc1 Nd6 13.e3 Bf5 14.Be2 0-0 15.0-0 Re8 16.Bd3 Bxd3
17.Qxd3 Re6 18.Ne5 ½-½ Dolezal,R-Jirovsky,P Czech Republic 2014)
10...Ne4 11.Rc1 c6 12.a3 Qa5+ 13.Nd2 Bf5 14.Be2 0-0 15.Bf3 Nd6 16.0-0
Qb6= Muse,D-Rade,M Bol 2013.

9...Nxf6
10.e3

White also gains a small advantage with 10.Qa4+ Bd7 (10...c6 11.Qb4
[11.Qa3 Qe7 12.Qxe7+ Kxe7 13.e3 Bf5=] 11...Qe7 12.e3 Bf5 13.Be2 a5
14.Qb2 0-0 15.0-0 b5 16.Ne5²) 11.Qb4 b6 12.e3 Rc8 13.Bd3 c5 14.Qb2
(14.Qb1 0-0 15.0-0 Qe7=) 14...0-0 15.0-0 Be6 16.a4! Nd7 17.Ra1²
Atalik,S-Li,S Wijk aan Zee 2006, but probably not by 10.g3 0-0 11.Bg2 c5
12.0-0 Qa5 13.dxc5 Qxc5 14.Qb3 b6 15.Ne5 Ba6 16.Qb2 Rac8 17.Rfd1
Qb5 18.Qxb5 Bxb5³ Epishin,V-Filippov,V Linares 1998.

10...0-0

10...Bf5 11.c4 c6 12.cxd5 Nxd5 13.Bc4 0-0 14.0-0² Atalik,S-Thavandiran,S

Ottawa 2007.

11.c4

This immediate central assault seems fine, although White can also opt for
11.Be2 c5 (11...c6 12.0-0 Bg4 13.c4 dxc4 14.Rxc4 Ne4 15.Ne5 Bxe2
16.Qxe2 Qe7 17.Qc2² Van der Sterren,P-Oll,L Tallinn 1987) 12.0-0 Qa5
13.dxc5 Rd8 14.Qb3 Ne4 15.Rfd1 Be6 16.Nd4² Le Quang,L-Bu Xiangzhi
Ha Long City 2009, or for 11.Bd3 c5 12.Ne5 (12.0-0 Qa5 13.Bb1 Be6
14.Ne5∞ Bellaiche,A-Kosintseva,T Caleta 2011) 12...Qa5 13.0-0 Qxa2
14.f4 Qa5 15.g4 Ne4 16.Bxe4 dxe4 17.f5° Lobron,E-Serper,G Manila 1992.

11...Bg4

The endgame after 11...c5 12.cxd5 cxd4 13.Qxd4 Qa5+ 14.Qd2 Qxd2+
15.Kxd2 Rd8 16.Bc4 Be6 17.Nd4

17...Bxd5 18.f3² is more pleasant for White, as in Stefanova,A-

Kosintseva,N Rostov on Don 2011.

12.Be2

A proposed novelty in place of 12.c5 Ne4 13.Be2 b5 14.Ne5 Bxe2

15.Qxe2² Dokhoian,Y-Luther,T Bonn 1993. Also possible is 12.cxd5 Qxd5
13.Bc4 Bxf3 14.gxf3 Qd7 15.0-0 Rac8 16.Kh1²

12...dxc4 13.Rxc4 Be6 14.Rc2 Qe7 15.0-0 Rac8 16.Qc1²

White has the better centre and can also exert strong pressure on Black’s
queenside via his semi-open b- and c-files.
2.6 — 6...H6

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 h6

In this chapter, lines where Black opts for an early ...h6 will be examined.
After 7.Bxf6 Qxf6 8.Qb3

Black can choose between 8...Qd6, 8...Bxc3+, 8...Nc6, 8...Qb6 and 8...c5.
 2.6.1 — 8...QD6

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bxf6 Qxf6
8.Qb3 Qd6

Black wants to preserve his dark-squared bishop, or at least exchange it

under more favourable circumstances.

9.a3 Bxc3+

White retains some advantage even after 9...Ba5 10.Qa4+ (10.e3 c6 11.Bd3
0-0 12.Qc2 Qe7 13.0-0 Bc7 14.Rac1 Rd8 15.Bh7+ Kh8 16.Bf5²
Gavrilov,A-Khismatullin,D Zvenigorod 2008; 10.Qb5+ Nc6 11.b4 Bb6
12.Qxd5!? Nxd4 13.Nxd4 Bxd4 14.Qxd6 cxd6 [14...Bxc3+ 15.Qd2 Bxd2+
16.Kxd2 Bf5 17.f3 Rd8+ 18.Kc3²] 15.Rc1²) 10...Nc6 11.b4 Bb6 12.e3 0-0
13.Be2 Ne7 14.0-0 c6 15.b5 c5 16.dxc5 Bxc5 17.Rfd1² Kasparov,G-
Kupreichik,V Minsk 1978.

10.Qxc3
10...0-0

Quite similar are the other options:

a) 10...Bf5 11.e3 Nd7 12.Be2 0-0 13.0-0 a5 14.b4 axb4 15.axb4 c6
(15...Rfc8 16.Rfc1 Nf8 17.Ne5 Ne6 18.b5² Slipak,S-Van Riemsdijk,H
Vicente Lopez 2000) 16.Rfc1 Rfc8 17.b5 (17.h3 Nf6 18.Nd2 Qd8 19.Bf1
Ne8² ½-½ Bruzon Bautista,L-Onischuk,A Buenos Aires 2005) 17...Rxa1
18.Qxa1 c5 19.dxc5 Nxc5 20.Nd4² Mchedlishvili,M-Zelcic,R Bled 2002.
b) 10...c6 11.e3 Bf5 12.Be2 0-0 13.0-0 Nd7 14.b4 a6 (14...Bg4 15.a4 a6
16.h3 Bh5 17.Rfc1 Rfc8 18.b5² Shulman,Y-Perelshteyn,E Tulsa 2008;
14...Bh7 15.Rfc1 Rfc8 16.h3 Nf6 17.Qb2 Ne4 18.a4² Teh,E-Willson,O
Hastings 2016; 14...Nf6 15.Nd2 [15.Rfc1 Ne4 16.Qb2 Rfc8 17.Bd3 Be6
18.a4² Enchev,I-Kouskoutis,G Kavala 2016] 15...Rfc8 16.Rfc1 g6 17.Qb2
a6 18.Nb3² Walter,A-Kind,B Germany 2016) 15.Nd2 Nf6 16.a4²
Maiorov,N-Xu,Y Runavik 2017.

11.b4
11.e3 a5 12.Bd3 Be6 13.0-0 Nd7 14.b4² ½-½ Chuchelov,V-Izoria,Z Aghia
Pelagia 2004.

11...Bf5 12.e3 Nd7 13.Be2 Nf6 14.0-0

14...Rfe8

14...Ne4 15.Qb2 Bg4 16.b5². In general, in this simplified position White

has a plan: the minority attack. The big question is...what is Black’s plan?

15.Rfc1 Re7 16.Qc5!

By exchanging queens Black is restrained from a potential attack on the

white king.

16...Qe6

16...Ne4 17.Qxd6 Nxd6 (17...cxd6 18.h3 g6 19.Ra2²) 18.b5²

17.Nd2 g5 18.b5 h5 19.a4 Kg7 20.a5²

Grivas,E-Skalkotas,N Corfu 1989. White has good pressure on the
queenside, while Black lacks a good counter plan.
2.6.2 — 8...BXC3+

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bxf6 Qxf6
8.Qb3 Bxc3+
The text gives White an easy game and should probably be avoided.

9.bxc3

9.Qxc3 is quite possible: 9...c6 10.e3 0-0

a) 11.Bd3 Bf5 12.Bxf5 (12.0-0 Bxd3 13.Qxd3 Nd7 14.b4 a6 15.a4 Qd6
16.Qc3 Rfc8 17.Rfc1 Qf8 18.Qb3² Sarana,A-Riazantsev,A Moscow 2019)
12...Qxf5 13.0-0 Nd7 14.b4 Nf6 15.a4 a6 16.b5 axb5 17.axb5 cxb5 18.Qb3
Rfc8
19.Rxa8 Rxa8 20.Qxb5² Grivas,E- Sun,C Sharjah 2018.
b) 11.Be2 Qg6 (11...Bg4 12.0-0 Re8 13.b4 Nd7 14.a4 Qg6 15.Rfe1 Rac8
16.Bd3 Qf6 17.Nd2² Gerusel,M-Mudersbach,M Niederdreisbach 1981)
12.0-0 Bh3 13.Ne1 Nd7 14.Kh1 Bf5 15.Nd3 Qd6 16.b4² Butnorius,A-
Sarakauskas,G Kaunas 2001.
c) 11.b4 Bf5 12.Be2 Nd7 13.0-0 Rfe8 14.Rac1² Siegel,G-Malachowski,M
Baden 2010.

9...c6 10.e3 0-0

11.c4

11.Bd3 b6 (11...Nd7 12.0-0 Re8 13.a4 b6 14.c4 dxc4 15.Bxc4 Bb7 16.Rfd1
Re7 17.a5² Drenchev,P-Spassov,L Blagoevgrad 2013) 12.0-0 Be6 13.Ne5
c5 14.Be2 Rd8 15.f4² c4?! 16.Qa3 Bf5 17.Bh5 g6 18.Bf3 h5 19.Rae1±
Cramling,P-Vallin,G France 2001 and 11.a4 Nd7 12.Rc1 Qd6 13.c4 dxc4
14.Bxc4 Nb6 15.0-0 Nxc4 16.Qxc4 Be6 17.Qc5² Rakhmanov,A-
Provotorov,I Voronezh 2007, are quite similar continuations.

11...dxc4 12.Bxc4
12...Nd7

12...c5 is an active try: 13.0-0 cxd4 14.Nxd4 Nc6 15.Nxc6 (15.Rad1 Na5
16.Qb5 Nxc4 17.Qxc4 Be6 18.Nxe6 Qxe6 19.Qxe6 fxe6 20.Rd7 Rf7
21.Rxf7 Kxf7 22.Rc1² Shmavonyan,A-Muradyan,R Yerevan 2018)
15...Qxc6 16.Rac1 Qg6 17.Bd5± Aytekin,M-Nailer,A Antalya 2017.

13.0-0

13.a4 Nb6 14.Be2 Be6 15.Qa3 Nd5 16.0-0 a5 17.Rfc1 Nb4 18.Ne5² Cobo
Arteaga,E-Rossetto,H Helsinki 1952.
13...Nb6

White holds the advantage after both 13...Re8 14.Rfe1 Nb6 15.Bd3 Be6
16.Qc2 Rac8 17.Rab1 Re7 18.Nd2² Kvon,A-Khamrakulov,D Tashkent
2011, and 13...Rb8 14.Rfe1 b5 15.Bf1 c5 16.e4 cxd4 17.e5 Qf4 18.Qb4²
Knott,S-Condie,M London 1986.

14.Bd3

A proposed novelty over the 14.Ne5 Nxc4 15.Qxc4² of Bulo,P-

Liascovich,L San Bernardo 2002.

14...Be6 15.Qb4²
White has pressure down the semi-open b- and c-files, while his centre is
compact. Black lacks sufficient counterplay.
2.6.3 — 8...NC6

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bxf6 Qxf6
8.Qb3 Nc6
I am not really fond of this pawn sacrifice, as Black’s compensation is
suspicious.

9.e3

It seems that White can take the pawn at once: 9.Qxd5 Be6 10.Qb5
(10.Qe4? 0-0-0 11.e3 Bf5 12.Qh4 g5µ Detelic,M-Dengler,D Rabac 2004)
10...0-0-0 11.e3 Bd7 (11...g5 12.a3! [12.Be2 g4 13.Nd2 Nxd4! 14.exd4
Qxd4° Xu,H-Legaspi,R Ho Chi Minh City 2012] 12...Ba5 13.Rc1 g4
14.Nd2±) 12.Qc4 Be6 13.Qd3 (13.Qb5 Bd7 ½-½ Scoones,D-Moore,H
Victoria 2004) 13...Bf5 14.Qd2²

9...0-0

Maybe Black should protect his pawn, accepting a slightly worse position:
a) 9...Be6 10.Bb5 Bxc3+ 11.Qxc3 Bd7 12.Qc5 (12.0-0 0-0 13.Rfc1 Bg4
14.Ne1 Bd7 15.Qb3 Qd6 16.Bxc6 Bxc6 17.Nd3² Shishkin,V-Ginzburg,M
Polanica Zdroj 2001) 12...Qd6 13.Bxc6 Bxc6 14.Rc1² Ivanov,I-Manthe,B
Chicago 1989.
b) 9...Qd6 10.Bd3 Bg4 11.0-0 Bxf3 12.gxf3 0-0-0 13.Rfc1 a6 14.Na4²
Epishin,V-Tal,M Tallinn 1988.
c) 9...Qg6 10.Be2 (10.Bb5 0-0 11.0-0 Bxc3 12.Qxc3 Bh3 13.Ne1 Bd7
14.Bxc6 Bxc6 15.Nd3² Shchukin,D-Slavin,A St Petersburg 2015) 10...0-0
11.0-0 Bxc3 12.Qxc3 Qd6 13.Rfc1 Bg4 14.h3 Bh5 15.Qc5² Baikov,V-
Moiseenko,A Moscow 1996.

10.Qxd5

In principle, White should accept the sacrifice, although he can also opt for
10.Be2!? Qd6 11.0-0 Be6 12.Rfc1 Na5 13.Qc2 c6 14.Na4² Ivanov,I-
Murey,J New York 1983.

10...Be6

Black has also tried:

a) 10...Re8 11.Be2 Qg6 (11...Be6 12.Qb5 a6 13.Qd3 Rad8 14.0-0±
Cramling,D-Valkesalmi,K Groningen 1978; 11...a6 12.Qb3 Be6 13.Qd1
Rad8 14.0-0 Bf5 15.Rc1± Scheidt,E-Mahrla,H Bad Woerishofen 2005)
12.0-0 Be6 13.Qb5 Bh3 (13...Rad8? 14.Bd3 f5 15.Rfd1± Maric,A-
Randjelovic,D Herceg Novi 2005) 14.Nh4 Qf6 15.Qh5± Hort,V-Sofrevski,J
Skopje 1968.
b) 10...Rd8 11.Qb3 (11.Qb5 a6 12.Qd3 Bf5 13.Qd2 Bg4 14.Be2 Ne7
15.a3± Deac,B-Prueske,W Douglas 2017) 11...Bh3 12.0-0-0 Bxc3 13.Qxc3
Bg4 14.d5 Qd6 15.Bc4± Szypulski,A-Mandekic,I Warsaw 1988.
c) 10...Qg6 11.Qb3 Re8 12.d5 Bxc3+ 13.Qxc3 Ne7 14.0-0-0 Qb6 15.Bc4
Nf5 16.Kb1± Faizrakhmanov,R-Murzin,L Kazan 2017.

11.Qb5

The text is the natural follow-up; White has also tried 11.Qh5 Rfd8
(11...Rfe8 12.Be2 Bf5 13.0-0 Rad8 14.Bb5± Gavrilovic,V-Alempijevic,A
Serbia 2016) 12.Be2 Rd5 13.Qh4 g5 14.Qg3² Ponceleusz,B-Kwiatkowski,A
Warsaw 2008.

11...Qg6!
Best be test! 11...a6?! 12.Qd3 Bf5 (12...Na5 13.Be2± Roessel,F-
Filipowicz,A Varna 1958) 13.Qd2 Rad8 14.Be2 Na5 15.0-0± Maloberti,D-
Strugnell,C Lisbon 2017.

12.Qd3

A proposed novelty in place of 12.0-0-0 Bxc3 13.bxc3 Bxa2 14.d5 Ne7

15.c4 Qb6° Horvath,J-Bokros,A Budapest 2001.

12...Bf5 13.Qd2 Be4 14.a3 Bxc3 15.Qxc3±/²

White holds on to a healthy extra pawn, while Black is struggling to find

some compensation. 15...f5 16.Nd2 Bd5 17.f3 Ne7 18.Kf2 is a possible
continuation.
2.6.4 — 8...QB6

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bxf6 Qxf6
8.Qb3 Qb6
A similar idea to 8...Qd6; to preserve the dark-squared bishop.

9.e3

Not much is offered by the direct 9.a3 Ba5! 10.Qc2 (10.Qxb6 Bxc3+
11.bxc3 axb6³) 10...Bf5! 11.Qa4+ (11.Qxf5 Qxb2 12.Rb1 Qxc3+ 13.Kd1 0-
0 14.e3 Qxa3 15.Qxd5 Nc6 16.Bc4 Nb4 17.Qf5 b5 18.Qxb5 Na2 19.Bxa2
Qxa2 20.Rb2 Qa1+ 21.Rb1 Qa2 22.Rb2 Qa1+ ½-½ Portisch,L-Khenkin,I
Saint Vincent 2005; 11.Qc1 Qb3 12.Nd2 Bxc3 13.bxc3 Qb6 14.e3 0-0=
Hauchard,A-Dizdar,G Debrecen 1992) 11...Bd7= ½-½ Gostisa,L-Dizdar,G
Celje 2003.

9...0-0

Although the vast majority of the moves here simply transpose, Black has
also tried:
a) 9...c6 10.Bd3
a1) 10...Be6 11.0-0 Nd7 12.Na4 Qa5 13.a3 Be7 14.Qxb7 Nb6 15.Nxb6
axb6 16.Ne5 1–0 Paschall,W-Furdzik,R Stratton Mountain 2003.
a2) 10...Bd6 11.Qc2 Qd8 (11...Be6 12.0-0 Nd7 13.Rab1 a5 14.a3 [14.Bf5!
Bxf5 15.Qxf5²] 14...0-0 15.b4 axb4 16.axb4 Ra3 17.Na4 Qc7 18.Nc5 Bg4
19.Bh7+ Kh8 20.Bf5 Bxf3 21.Nxd7 Be4 22.Bxe4 Qxd7 23.Bf5 Qe7 24.b5
c5 25.dxc5 Bxc5 26.Rfd1 Rd8 27.Rd2 Bb4 28.Rd4 Bc5 29.Rd2 Bb4 30.Rd4
Bc5 31.Rd2 Bb4 ½-½ Stefanova,A-Hou,Y Istanbul 2012) 12.Rb1 0-0 13.b4
a6 14.a4 b5 15.a5 Qe7 16.Na2 Qf6 17.Nc1 Bg4 18.Nd2 Re8 19.0-0 Qh4
20.g3 Qe7 21.Qc3² Ipatov,A-Boruchovsky,A Plovdiv 2012.
a3) 10...Nd7 (½-½ Kempinski,R-Wojtkiewicz,A Brzeg Dolny 1996) 11.0-0
Bd6 12.Qc2 Nf6

13.Rab1 (13.Rac1 Be6 14.Na4 Qc7 15.Nc5 Bg4 16.Ne5² Lund,E-Nilsson,N

Copenhagen 1994) 13...a5 14.Bf5² Ristic,N-Vasiljevic,D Zlatibor 1989.
b) 9...Ba5 10.Bd3 (10.Qxb6 ½-½ Wojtkiewicz,A-Dizdar,G Hamburg 1993;
10.Qc2 Bf5 11.Qc1 Qe6 12.Be2 0-0 13.0-0 Nd7 14.Na4 c6 15.Nc5 Nxc5
16.Qxc5 Bc7 17.b4 Bg4 18.a4 a6∞ Nikolov,M-Galopoulos,N Paleochora
2017) 10...Be6 (10...Qxb3 11.axb3 Bb4 12.Ra4 a5 13.0-0 c6 14.Rfa1 Na6
15.Ne5 Nc7 16.Bc2²) 11.Qc2²

10.Bd3 c6 11.0-0
White has two main plans at his disposal here; either to go for a minority
attack, or for a central assault with e4.

11...Bd6

Or 11...Re8 12.Qc2 (12.Rab1 Nd7 13.Na4 Qa5 14.Qc2 Bd6 15.h3 Nf6
16.Nc5 Qd8 17.b4 b6∞ Ipatov,A-Matlakov,M Moscow 2012) 12...Nd7
13.a3 Bf8 14.e4 dxe4 15.Nxe4²

12.Qc2 Nd7

12...Bg4 is interesting: 13.Ne5!? (13.Nh4 Qd8 14.Nf5 Bxf5 15.Bxf5 Nd7

16.Rab1 [16.Bxd7 Qxd7 17.Rab1 a5 18.a3 Rfe8 19.b4 axb4 20.axb4 b5
21.e4 dxe4 22.Nxe4 Bf4∞] 16...Nf6 17.b4 g6 18.Bh3 a6 19.a4 Qe7 20.b5
axb5 21.axb5 c5 22.dxc5 Bxc5 23.Rfd1= Van Wely,L-Bluebaum,M
Netherlands 2016) 13...Bxe5 (13...Be6 14.f4²) 14.dxe5 Nd7 15.Na4 Qb4
16.a3 Qe7 17.h3 Be6 18.f4². And 12...Qd8 13.e4 dxe4 14.Nxe4 Be6 15.h3
Bd5 16.Bc4 Be7 17.Bxd5 cxd5 (17...Qxd5 18.Nc3 Qd6 19.Rfe1 Nd7
20.Re3 Nf6 21.Rae1²) 18.Nc3 Bb4 19.Qb3² Dreev,A-Petrosyan,M Moscow
2019, is pleasant for White.
13.Rab1

The proposed novelty 13.e4 dxe4 14.Nxe4 Be7 15.Rfe1 Qd8 16.Rad1², is
possible, but not much is offered by 13.a3 a5 (13...Nf6 14.b4 a6 15.h3 Re8
16.Rab1 Re7 17.Rfc1 Bd7 18.Na4 Qc7 19.Nc5 Rae8 20.a4 Ne4 21.Nxd7
Qxd7 22.b5² ½-½ Hebert,J-Kovacevic,V Toronto 1989) 14.Rfe1 Nf6
15.Rac1 Re8 16.h3 Qd8
17.Bf5 Bxf5 18.Qxf5 Ne4 19.Nxe4 dxe4 20.Nd2 g6 21.Qg4 Kh7= Pirc,V-
Kostic,B Zagreb 1946.

13...a5

Weakening the queenside is not that advisable...

Maybe Black should have opted instead for 13...Nf6 14.b4 a6 15.Na4 Qd8
16.Bf5 Bxf5 17.Qxf5 Ne4 18.Nc5 Qe7 19.Nxe4 dxe4 20.Nd2 Rae8 21.Nc4,
which seems unclear.

14.e4 dxe4 15.Nxe4²

Grivas,E-Thybo,J Aarhus 2019 — see the analysed game. Black has the
bishop pair, but the pressure in the centre and good centralised pieces are
far more important factors.
2.6.5 — 8...C5

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bxf6 Qxf6
8.Qb3 c5
By far the most-often-played line by Black; the immediate attack on the
centre is natural.

9.e3 0-0
The main alternative is 9...Nc6 10.Bb5 0-0 (10...Bxc3+ 11.Qxc3 c4
[11...cxd4 12.Nxd4 Bd7 13.Qc5±; 11...0-0 12.Qxc5±] 12.b3 Qg6 13.0-0
Bh3 14.Ne1 cxb3 15.Qxb3 Bf5 16.Qxd5 0-0 17.Qb3 Rac8 18.Bd3±
Kruppa,Y-Lomineishvili,M Berlin 1995; 10...cxd4 11.Nxd4 0-0 12.Bxc6
Bxc3+ 13.Qxc3 bxc6 14.Qxc6±) 11.dxc5 d4 (11...Bxc5? 12.Nxd5±;
11...Bxc3+ 12.Qxc3 Qg6 [12...Qxc3+ 13.bxc3±] 13.0-0-0±; 11...Ba5 12.0-0
Bxc3 13.Qxc3 Qxc3 14.bxc3 Na5 15.Nd4± Kanep,M-Piasetski,L Caleta
2012) 12.Bxc6 dxc3 13.Qxb4 cxb2 14.Rb1 bxc6 (14...Qxc6 15.0-0±)

15.0-0! Ba6 (15...Bh3 16.Rxb2 [16.Qxb2 Qg6 17.Nh4 Qh5°; 16.Qh4 Qxh4
17.Nxh4 Be6 18.Rxb2 Rab8 19.Rc2 Rb4 20.Nf3 Bd5 21.Nd4±
Nisipeanu,L-Gordievsky,D Pardubice 2014] 16...Rad8 17.Nd4± Dreev,A-
Aleksandrov,A Shenyang 2000) 16.Rfe1 Rab8 17.Qa3 Bc4 18.Nd4 Rfe8
19.Rxb2 (19.f3 Qg5 20.Nxc6± Seirawan,Y-Polgar,J Amsterdam 1995)
19...Rxb2 20.Qxb2 Bxa2 21.Qxa2 Qxd4 22.Qxa7 Qc3 (22...Qd5 23.Rc1 h5
24.Qa4± Ivanchuk,V-Shirov,A Monte Carlo 2004) 23.Rd1 Qc2 24.Ra1 Re6
25.h3 Rf6 26.Ra2± Ponomariov,R-Moiseenko,A Kiev 2013.

And here White can choose between 10.a3 and 10.dxc5.

 2.6.5.1 — 10.A3

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bxf6 Qxf6
8.Qb3 c5 9.e3 0-0 10.a3

White clarifies the uncertain situation on the queenside.

10...Bxc3+ 11.Qxc3 b6
Black’s alternatives are:
a) 11...Nd7 12.Be2 c4 (12...a6 13.0-0 b6 14.b3 Bb7 15.Rfc1 Rfc8 16.dxc5
bxc5 17.b4 Qxc3 18.Rxc3 c4 19.Nd4² Cmilyte,V-Pashikian,A Aix-les-
Bains 2011) 13.a4 (13.b3 b5! [13...cxb3 14.Qxb3 Qd6 15.Qb4 Qb8 16.0-0±
Miles,A-Silman,J Lone Pine 1979] 14.a4 b4! [14...bxa4? 15.bxc4 Ba6
16.c5² Dreev,A-Otikova,E Warsaw 2013] 15.Qxb4 Rb8 16.Qa5 cxb3µ)
13...b6 14.b3 Ba6 15.bxc4 Bxc4 16.Bxc4 Rac8 17.Nd2 a6 18.0-0 dxc4
(18...b5? 19.axb5 axb5 20.Qa5! bxc4 21.Qxd5 Nb6 22.Qb5 c3 23.Ne4 Qg6
24.Nc5 1–0 Zhou,J-Zhou,W China 2007) 19.Rfb1 Qc6 20.Rb4²
b) 11...c4
12.b3 (12.Be2 Nc6 13.a4 Qg6 14.0-0 Bh3 15.Ne1 Rfe8 16.Bf3 Be6 17.b3
cxb3 18.a5² Mchedlishvili,M-Kacheishvili,G Tbilisi 1998) 12...Be6 (12...b5
13.a4 b4 14.Qxb4 Na6 [14...Nc6 15.Qc3 Rb8 16.bxc4 Qg6 17.Be2±
Wang,Y-Zhou,W China 2007] 15.Qc3 cxb3 16.Qxb3 Rb8 17.Qd1 Bf5
18.Bd3 Bxd3 19.Qxd3² Tuomainen,F-Persson,A Sweden 2019)
13.a4 (13.bxc4 dxc4 14.Be2 Nc6 15.Bxc4 Nxd4 16.Qxd4 Qxd4 17.Nxd4
Bxc4 18.Kd2 Rac8 19.Rhc1 Rfd8 20.a4 Kf8= Dreev,A-Vidit,S Moscow
2019; 13.Be2 Nd7 14.0-0 b5 15.Nd2 Rfc8 16.Rfc1 Qd8 17.bxc4 bxc4
18.Rab1 Rab8 19.Bf3 Nf6 20.Rxb8 Rxb8 21.Rb1 Rxb1+ 22.Nxb1 Bg4
23.Qb4 Bxf3 24.gxf3 Qc8 25.Nc3 Kh7 26.Kg2= Brynell,S-Grandelius,N
Lund 2011) 13...Rc8 14.Be2²

12.dxc5

The main alternative is 12.Be2

a) 12...Ba6 13.dxc5 Qxc3+ 14.bxc3 bxc5 15.Rb1² Dias,P-Prusikin,M Evora

2006.
b) 12...Nd7 13.0-0 Bb7
b1) 14.Rfc1 c4 (14...Rac8 15.dxc5 Qxc3 16.Rxc3 Rxc5 [16...Nxc5 17.Rac1
{17.Nd4!? g6 18.Rcc1!} 17...Ne6 18.Rxc8 Rxc8 19.Rxc8+ Bxc8² Zhou
Jianchao-Hou,Y Xinghua 2010] 17.Rcc1!² Ivanchuk,V-Aronian,L Linares
2007) 15.a4 (15.Nd2 b5 16.a4 a6 17.Bg4 Qe7 18.Qa5 Nf6= Salem,A-
Palac,M Dresden 2008; 15.b3 b5 16.Rab1 Bc6 17.bxc4 bxc4∞ Iotov,V-
David,A Marrakesh 2010) 15...a6 16.Qb4 Bc6 17.Nd2 b5 18.axb5 axb5
19.b3 Qg6 20.Bf3 Rfb8 21.h3 Rxa1 22.Rxa1² Pelletier,Y-Alekseev,E Biel
2008.
b2) 14.Rac1 c4 15.Nd2 b5 16.Bf3 Qe7 17.Qa5 Bc6 18.b3 Qd6 19.bxc4
bxc4 20.Nb1 Rab8 21.Nc3² Shirov,A-Giri,A Hoogeveen 2014.
b3) 14.b3 Rac8 (14...Rfd8 15.Rfc1 Rac8 16.dxc5 Qxc3 17.Rxc3 Rxc5
18.Rac1 Rdc8= Roiz,M-Arutinian,D Rijeka 2010) 15.Rfc1 Rc7 16.dxc5
Qxc3 17.Rxc3 Rxc5 (17...bxc5 18.b4 c4 19.Nd4 a6 20.Nb3 Rfc8 21.Na5
Nf6 22.Bf3²) 18.Rcc1 (18.Rxc5 bxc5 [18...Nxc5 19.Nd4²] 19.b4²)

18...Rxc1+! (18...Rfc8?! 19.Rcb1!² Stefanova,A-Hou,Y Rogaska Slatina

2011) 19.Rxc1 Rc8 20.Rxc8+ (20.Ra1 Rc3 21.b4 g6=) 20...Bxc8 21.Nd4²
c) 12...Nc6 13.dxc5 (13.Bb5 Ne7 14.dxc5 Qxc3+ 15.bxc3 bxc5 16.Ke2 Be6
17.Rhb1 Rfb8= Gajewski,G-Morozevich,A Dresden 2008) 13...Qxc3+
14.bxc3 bxc5 15.Rb1 Be6 16.Rb5 c4 17.Kd2²
d) 12...Be6 13.0-0 Rc8 14.Rfc1 (14.Rac1 Nd7 15.dxc5 bxc5 16.b4 c4
17.Nd4 Qh4 18.g3 Qe7 19.e4 dxe4 20.Nxe6 Qxe6 21.Bxc4² Gunchenko,V-
Esipenko,A Taganrog 2017) 14...a6?! (14...Nd7 15.Bb5 Qe7=) 15.dxc5
Qxc3 16.Rxc3 bxc5 17.Rac1 Nd7 18.b4 c4 19.Nd4 Nf6 20.f3² Wang,H-
Zhang,Z Beijing 2008.
12...Qxc3+ 13.bxc3 bxc5 14.c4!

White will isolate the black c-pawn and turn it into a weakness, giving him
a clear target and a clear plan. Also possible is 14.0-0-0 Be6 15.Bb5 (15.c4
dxc4 16.Ne5 Re8 17.Bxc4²) 15...Rc8 16.Ne5 c4 17.Rd2 Rc5 18.Rb2²
Vavrak,P-Zilberstein,D Internet 2006.

14...Be6

14...dxc4 15.Bxc4 Nd7 16.Rc1 Rb8 17.0-0 Bb7 18.Rfd1² Khenkin,I-Xu,Y

Runavik 2017 is not much different.

15.cxd5

Possible is 15.Rc1 dxc4 (15...Rc8 16.cxd5 Bxd5 17.Bc4 [17.Bb5 a6 18.Ba4

Ra7 19.0-0 Nd7 20.Bxd7 Rxd7= Brown,M-Mitkov,N Las Vegas 2012]
17...Bxc4 18.Rxc4²) 16.Ne5 Nd7 17.Nxd7 Bxd7 18.Bxc4 Rab8 19.Kd2
Rfc8 20.Kc3 Kf8² ½-½ Khademalsharieh,S-Ju,W Changsha 2019.

15...Bxd5 16.0-0-0
16.Be2 Nd7 17.0-0 Rab8 18.Rfd1 Be6 19.a4 Rb4 20.Bb5² Tunik,G-
Dauletova,G Taganrog 2014.

16...Bb7

16...Be6?! 17.Bb5 Rc8 18.Rd6 a6 19.Ba4 Ra7 20.Rhd1± Ivanchuk,V-

Blatny,P Warsaw 1999.

17.Be2

A logical proposed novelty over 17.Rd6 Nc6 18.Ba6 Bxa6 19.Rxc6 Bb7
20.Rxc5 Rac8 21.Rxc8 Rxc8+ 22.Kd2 Rd8+ 23.Kc3 Rc8+ (½-½ Popov,V-
Bareev,E Kazan 1995) 24.Kd3 Rd8+ 25.Nd4 Bxg2 26.Rc1²

17...Nc6 18.Rd7 Rab8 19.Rhd1²

White has a pleasant position and a clear target, while his rooks can become
dangerous.
2.6.5.2 — 10.DXC5
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bxf6 Qxf6
8.Qb3 c5 9.e3 0-0 10.dxc5

The text leads to an endgame where White has a tiny advantage, playing for
two results.

10...Bxc3+

10...Nc6 11.Bb5 transposes to Sub-Chapter 2.6.5.

11.Qxc3 Qxc3+ 12.bxc3

12...Be6

The main alternative is 12...Nd7 13.Rd1

a) 13...Nf6 14.Nd4 (14.c4 Be6 15.Nd4² ½-½ Dubov,D-So,W Wijk aan Zee
2020) 14...Bd7 15.f3 Rfc8 16.Nb3 Kf8 (16...b6 17.Ba6 Rc7 18.c4 dxc4
19.Bxc4² Anton Guijarro,D-Inarkiev,E Poikovsky 2017) 17.Bd3 b6 18.cxb6
axb6 19.Ra1 Rxc3 20.Kd2 Rc7 21.Rhb1 Ba4 22.Nd4² Ding,L-Giri,A
Kolkata 2019.
b) 13...Nxc5 14.Rxd5 b6 15.Rd4 (15.c4 Ba6 16.Be2 Ne4 17.Nd2 Nxd2
18.Rxd2 Rac8 19.Rd4 Rfd8 20.Rxd8+ Rxd8
21.c5 Bxe2 22.Kxe2 bxc5 23.Rc1² Campos Moreno,J-Delchev,A Illes
Medes 2007) 15...Be6 (15...Bb7 16.Bc4²; 15...Ne6 16.Rd6 Bb7 17.Nd4
Nxd4 18.Rxd4 Rac8 19.Kd2 Rc5 20.Rg1² Li,C-Harikrishna,P Geneva
2017) 16.c4² Esen,B-Pashikian,A Aix-les-Bains 2011.

13.Bb5!

Based on practice, probably the only way to get something...

13...Rc8

Inserting 13...a6 14.Ba4 is another interesting ‘chapter’: 14...Rc8 15.Kd2

(15.Rb1 Ra7 16.Kd2 Rxc5 17.Rb6 Ra5 [17...Nd7? 18.Rxe6!+–] 18.Bb3
Nd7 19.Rd6 Kf8 20.Nd4 Ke7 21.Rc6=) 15...Rxc5 16.Rhb1 b5 (16...Rc7
17.Rb6 Bd7 18.Bc2 Bc6 19.Ne5²) 17.Bc2 Nd7 18.a4 Rac8 (18...bxa4?!
19.Nd4 Rac8 20.Bxa4 Ne5 21.h3 Rxc3 22.f4±) 19.axb5 Rxc3 20.Nd4 axb5
21.Rxb5 R3c7 22.f3!? (22.Bd3 Ne5 23.f4² Can,E-Grandelius,N Porto
Carras 2011) 22...Ne5 (22...g6 23.Bb3 Nc5 24.g4 Kg7 25.h4²) 23.Bb3 Nc4+
24.Bxc4 dxc4 25.Kc3 Bd7 26.Rba5 f6 27.e4²

14.Kd2

Starting by 14.Nd4 Rxc5 15.Kd2 is not much different: 15...Rc7 (15...a6

16.Be2 [16.Ba4 transposes above] 16...Nd7 17.Rhb1 Rc7 18.a4 Kf8 19.a5²
Cramling,P-Hou,Y Beijing 2011) 16.a4 Nd7 17.Bxd7 Bxd7 18.a5 Rac8
19.Rhb1 Kf8 20.Ra3² Sargissian,G-Riazantsev,A Tallinn 2019.

14...Rxc5 15.Rhb1 Rc7

Or 15...Nc6 16.Bxc6 bxc6 17.Nd4 Rc4 18.Rb4²

16.Nd4

16...Nc6

16...Kf8 17.a4 a6 18.Bd3 Nd7 19.a5 Rac8 20.Ra3² Leko,P-Wang Hao

Ningbo 2011 and 16...Nd7 17.Bxd7 Bxd7 18.a4 (18.Rb3 b6 19.Rab1 Kf8
20.Ra3 Rd8 21.Rb4 Ke7= Zhao,J-Ju,W Beijing 2017) 18...Kf8 19.a5 Ke7
20.Rb4² Doettling,F-Lazarev,V Guingamp 2010, are similar continuations.

17.Bxc6 bxc6 18.Rb3

18.Rb2 c5 19.Nxe6 fxe6 20.Rab1 Kf7 21.Rb7 Rac8 22.c4² Vaganian,R-

Goldin,A Mallorca 2004.

18...c5 19.Nxe6 fxe6 20.Rab1 Kf7 21.c4 Ke7 22.Kc3²

Onischuk,A-Vitiugov,N Poikovsky 2010. White has a slight endgame
advantage, but Black can defend with good technique.
 CHAPTER 3.
TYPICAL MIDDLEGAME STRATEGY

Knowing your good piece of opening theory in depth is a good start. But
alone it is not enough to gain and increase a significant advantage.
The knowledge of certain plans, manoeuvres, repeated motifs, etc, is an
essential piece of opening knowledge, as the journey continues via what we
call middlegame theory.
Yes, middlegame (and endgame) theory does exist. The great difficulty in
approaching it lies in the fact that it does not follow absolute and clear-cut
paths, but rather involves deep research into the ideas and logic by which
specific types of positions are treated.
Moreover, unlike opening theory, the theory of the middlegame (and the
endgame) does not change rapidly based on modern developments, and
instead remains almost intact through the years.
In middlegame theory we are obliged to study various or similar types of
positions with specific strategic and tactical attributes, so as to understand
the underlying ideas and be able to employ them ourselves in similar
situations. Besides, while many chess players have studied these topics and
acquired knowledge, it is the application of this knowledge in practice that
helps differentiate between them.
True, chess is not a simple activity, but it becomes so much more attractive
when we acquire this knowledge...
In view of the above, any chess player who wishes to follow a chess career
or simply become a better player must refrain from the commonplace and
assume a different approach.
He must develop a good understanding of middlegame (and endgame)
theory, so as to be able to proceed in a proper way after his chosen opening
has reached its conclusion.
And we must keep in mind that the most important asset is the pawn
structure; this is what guides us to understand what to do in the middlegame
— and even in the endgame!
Ivanchuk Vassily
Aronian Levon
D38 Linares 2007

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Bg5 Nbd7 6.cxd5 exd5 7.Qc2 c5
8.a3 Bxc3+ 9.Qxc3 h6 10.Bxf6 Qxf6 11.e3 0-0 12.Be2 b6 13.0-0 Bb7
14.Rfc1 Rac8 15.dxc5 Qxc3 16.Rxc3 Rxc5

17.Rcc1!

A paradoxical move and an impressive plan! White is not sufficiently well

prepared to fight for control of the c-file with 17.Rac1, because of
17...Rfc8, when 18.Rxc5 bxc5 19.b4 cxb4 leads to simplification and a
probable draw, in spite of Black’s isolated pawn. So, as we know, the
general rule states that the side playing against the isolani should keep as
many major pieces on board and try to provoke the exchange of minor
pieces, in order to successfully attack the relative weakness of the central
pawn. From this perspective, V.Ivanchuk’s willing retreat is easy to
understand, but still very difficult to play over the board.

17...Rfc8?!

Obviously missing White’s idea. Safer would have been 17...Rxc1+!

18.Rxc1 Rc8, with a defensible position for Black. As said before, major
pieces should be exchanged!

18.Rd1!

Of course. Black’s activity along the c-file will have a temporary character,
while the pressure against the d5-pawn will be permanent.

18...Rc2 19.Bb5 Nf8 20.Rab1!

Now White is ready to kick the black rook out of his camp, leaviing the
black rooks doing nothing on the c-file.

20...R2c7 21.Ba4 Ne6 22.Bb3

And now the light-squared bishop takes up an optimal position on b3,

pressing the isolated black d-pawn.

22...Kf8 23.h3!

Another interesting moment. White could win the weak pawn with 23.Bxd5
Bxd5 24.Rxd5 but after 24...Rc1+ 25.Rd1 Rxd1+ 26.Rxd1 Rc2 27.Rb1
Ke7, Black would have full compensation, and there seems to be no way for
White to improve his position. Ivanchuk prefers to strengthen his position
and wait for the right moment to grab this pawn — this is another
instructive moment.
23...Rc5 24.Kh2 Ke7 25.Rd2!

Doubling the rooks on the d-file is a natural follow-up.

25...Rb5 26.Ba2 Rbc5 27.Ne1!

Covering the c2-entrance.

27...a5

Unfortunately for Black he cannot exchange rooks yet: 27...Rc1 28.Rxc1

Rxc1 29.Nd3 Ra1 30.Nb4±

28.Rbd1 Rd8 29.Kg3 Rb5 30.f3

White has a pleasant position, but there is still a long way to go before he
achieves something more concrete.

30...Rc8?
Rather careless. Black should have brought the other rook to safety with
30...Rc5.

31.Nd3!

Suddenly, the rook is trapped.

The threat of a4 is hard to prevent in an adequate way.

31...d4

Other moves also lose this pawn, for instance 31...a4 32.Nb4 Nc7 33.e4,
when 33...dxe4 34.Rd7+ leads to a devastating attack, or 31...Nc5 32.Nf4
Na4 33.Bxd5 Bxd5 34.Nxd5+ when the central knight compensates for the
pressure against the b2-pawn.

32.Bxe6 Kxe6

Or 32...fxe6 33.exd4 Bd5 34.h4±

33.Nf4+ Ke7 34.Rxd4 Rc7 35.R1d2

White is basically winning now, but Black went down rather quickly,
possibly demoralised by the unexpected course of events.

35...Rbc5 36.e4 Rc4 37.Rd6 R4c6 38.e5 Rc2 39.Rxc2 Rxc2 40.Rxb6 Bc6
41.b4 g5 42.Nh5 axb4 43.axb4 Bd5 44.Ng7 Re2 45.Nf5+ Ke8 46.Nxh6
Be6 47.Rb5 Rb2 48.Rb8+ Kd7 49.Rg8 1–0

In 2010–2011 I was the coach/trainer of the FIDE ex-Women World

Champion Antoaneta Stefanova from Bulgaria. She was a ‘good’ trainee
and learned quickly!
After a deep study of the above example, she performed the following game
vs the Chinese prodigy and FIDE Women World Champion, Hou Yifan:
Stefanova Antoaneta
Hou Yifan
D38 Rogaska Slatina 2011

1.d4 e6 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bxf6 Qxf6
8.Qb3 c5 9.e3 0-0 10.a3 Bxc3+ 11.Qxc3 Nd7 12.Be2 b6 13.0-0 Bb7 14.b3
Rac8 15.Rfc1 Rc7 16.dxc5 Qxc3 17.Rxc3 Rxc5
18.Rcc1!?

According to the previous example by V.Ivanchuk (whose technique we had

studied extensively). But here White could also think of 18.Rxc5 bxc5
(18...Nxc5 19.Nd4²) 19.b4²

18...Rfc8?!

Black has the isolated pawn, so she should immediately go for the known
method: 18...Rxc1+! 19.Rxc1 Rc8 20.Rxc8+ (20.Ra1 Rc3 21.b4 g6=)
20...Bxc8. In this ending Black will suffer for 30–40 moves, but should be
be able to draw with correct play. Well, who wants to suffer? If not, do not
play such openings...

19.Rcb1!

The heavy pieces should be preserved on the board. Meanwhile, what are
the black rooks doing down the c-file? White’s pieces look temporarily
passive, but they will slowly become a force. This is not a nice position for
the aggressive style of Hou...

19...Nf8?!

Black is trying to post her knight on e6, but maybe she should think of
19...Kf8 (why do people forget that the king is a piece to work with as well?
— he is not a lazy old man, but a potential fighter!) as the ending is slowly
approaching. The text loses precious time and offers White extra
possibilities.

20.b4 Rc3 21.Nd4 a6

A move that I generally do not like as it places another pawn as a target for
White’s light-squared bishop, but somehow Black had to defend against the
Nb5 threat.

22.Nf5!
Forcing Black to surrender the c-file due to the twin threats of Ne7+ or
Nd6.

22...Rd8 23.Rc1

The text move is the natural continuation, but here White could also think
about the unnatural, but justified tactically, 23.b5!? a5 (23...axb5 24.Rxb5
Ba6 [24...Nd7 25.Ne7+ Kf8 26.Nxd5±] 25.Rxd5! Ra8! 26.Bxa6 Rxa6
27.h4! Rcxa3 28.Rxa3 Rxa3 29.Rd8 f6 30.Rb8±) 24.Ne7+ Kh7 25.Rc1±

23...Rxc1+ 24.Rxc1 Ne6

White’s position has improved, as now she also controls the c-file and the
knight has obtained a nice square on f5.

25.h4!

An excellent idea, intending h5 to secure the ‘outpost’ on f5. Black is in

trouble, mainly because she lacks counterplay.

25...h5?!

This puts another pawn on the light squares. Black could also not go for
25...d4?! 26.Nxd4 Nxd4 27.exd4 Rxd4 28.Rc7 Be4 29.Bxa6 Bd3 30.Bxd3
Rxd3 31.Ra7+–, but she should opt for 25...b5 26.Bf3 Rd7 27.h5± and
pray...

26.Nd4!

Missed by Black, making her position critical.

26...Nxd4 27.exd4 g6 28.Rc7 Bc8

White has a nearly won position. Her rook is already on the 7th rank and
her bishop is a monster compared to Black’s (nearly all the black pawns are
on light squares), with many targets. White’s plans consist of:
1. Centralise the king, protecting against a potential penetration of the black
rook when his white counterpart goes after a pawn.
2. Keep in mind the f3 and g4 advances, when she will create a new target
on h5 if Black stays put, or create a passed h-pawn if Black responds with
...hxg4 (after fxg4 and h5).
3. Prepare the a4 breakthrough when Black goes for ...b5.

29.a4

Not bad, but not necessary. White should simply go for 29.Kf1 Kf8 30.Ke1
b5 31.Kd2 Be6 32.Ra7 Rd6 33.a4! (33.f3 Bd7 34.g4 Kg7 35.g5 Kf8 36.a4
Ke8 37.axb5 axb5 38.f4 Rb6 39.Bf3 Be6 40.Ke3 Rd6 41.Be2 Rb6 42.Bd3
Kf8 43.Ra5 Bd7 44.Ra8+ [44.f5? Bxf5! 45.Bxf5 gxf5 46.Kf4 Re6! 47.Rxb5
Re4+ 48.Kxf5 Rxd4] 44...Kg7 45.Ra7 Bh3 46.Kd2±) 33...Rb6 (33...bxa4
34.Bxa6 [34.Rxa6 Rxa6 35.Bxa6 Ke7 36.Kc3 Bd7 37.Bd3 Kd6 38.b5+–]
34...Rb6 35.Kc3 Ke8 [35...Rc6+ 36.Kb2+–] 36.Bd3 Bd7 37.Ra6 Rb7
38.Ra5+–) 34.axb5 axb5 35.f3 Ke8 36.g4+– as White has fulfilled all the
above-mentioned plans.

29...Bd7 30.a5 b5

No better was 30...bxa5 31.bxa5 Bc8 32.Rc6+–

31.f3 Be8

The other option was 31...Kg7 32.g4 Kf6 33.Kf2 Ke6 34.gxh5 (34.Ra7 Bc8
35.gxh5 gxh5 36.f4+–) 34...gxh5 35.f4 Kf5 36.Bxh5 Kxf4 37.Bxf7 Ke4
38.Bg6+ Kxd4 39.h5+–

32.g4 Rd6 33.gxh5 gxh5

34.Rc8?!

Until now White had handled the game in almost world-class fashion, but
here she went astray, as the 7th rank is too important to abandon without a
concrete reason. Correct was 34.Kf2 Kf8 35.Ke3! (Maybe it is too early for
35.f4 f5! 36.Bf3 Bf7 and there is no entrance for the white king (!), but
check the lines below for the entire truth...) 35...Re6+ 36.Kd3 and now:
a) 36...Rf6?! 37.Rb7 Rd6 38.Bd1 (38.Rb6 Ke7 39.Ke3) 38...Rf6 (38...f6
39.Bb3 Bg6+ 40.Ke3 Bf7 41.Rc7+–) 39.Rb6! Ke7 40.Ke3 Rd6 41.Kf4+–
b) 36...f6! 37.Rb7 Bg6+ 38.Kd2 Ke8 39.Ra7! (39.Bd1 Rc6 40.Bb3 Bf7
41.Ra7 [41.Rxf7 Kxf7 42.Bxd5+ Re6 43.Kd3 f5 44.Bxe6+ Kxe6 45.Ke3
Kd5 46.Kf4 Kxd4 47.Kxf5 Kc4=; 41.Rb6 Rxb6 42.axb6 Kd7 43.Ke3 Kc6
44.Kf4 Be6 45.Bc2 Kxb6 46.Bg6 a5 47.bxa5+ Kxa5 48.Bxh5 b4 49.Bg6 b3
50.h5 f5 51.h6 b2 52.h7 b1=Q 53.h8=Q Qe1 54.Qd8+²] 41...f5! and Black
is holding) 39...Kd8 40.Bd3! (lt looks strange to offer the exchange of your
much-better bishop, but this is just a transformation of the advantage)
40...f5 (The rook ending is easily won after 40...Bxd3?! 41.Kxd3 Rc6
42.Rh7 Rc4 43.Rxh5 Rxb4 44.Rxd5+ Ke7 45.Rc5 Ra4 46.h5 Rxa5 47.h6
Kf7 48.h7 Kg7 49.Rc7+ Kh8 50.d5+–. 40...Be8, doesn’t help either after
41.Bf5 Rc6 42.Kd3 Rc4 43.Ra8+ Ke7 44.Rxa6 Rxb4 45.Re6+ Kd8 46.a6
Ra4 47.Rxf6+–) and now it seems that White should go for the bishop
sacrifice with 41.f4 Rf6 42.Bf1 Rd6 43.Be2 Re6 44.Bf3 Rd6 45.Ke3 Ke8
46.Bxd5! Rxd5 47.Rxa6 Bf7 48.Rb6 and she wins. All these wouldn’t be
necessary if White had a breakthrough with the a4 advance, creating an
extra target on b5 — see the note to her 29th move.

34...Kf8 35.Kf2 Ke7 36.Ra8 Rc6

37.Ke3

White is ‘refusing’ to take back the 7th rank! With 37.Ra7+ Kf8 (37...Ke6
38.Kg3 Kd6 39.Bd3 Bd7 40.Kf4+–) 38.Bd3 f6 39.Ke3 Re6+ 40.Kd2 Rc6
41.Rb7! she would again bring the bacon home.

37...Bd7 38.Kf4?

But this is bad — it was White’s last chance for 38.Ra7!

38...Kf6?

38...Be6! would have saved the day for Black:

39.Ke5 (39.Ra7+ Kf6 40.Rb7 Rc3! and the active rook should secure the
half point) 39...Bd7 40.Bd3 (40.Kxd5? Re6–+) 40...Rc3 41.Bh7 (41.Bf5
f6+ 42.Kf4 Bxf5 43.Kxf5 Rxf3+ 44.Kg6 Rf4=) 41...f6+ 42.Kf4 Rc4
43.Bf5! Bxf5 44.Kxf5 Rxd4 45.Ra7+ Kd8 46.Rxa6 Rxb4=

39.Bd3?

Time-trouble causes problems. Here again White should go for 39.Rb8!

although it is not as clear as before: 39...Ke7 40.Bd3 Rf6+ (40...Rc3
41.Bf5±) 41.Kg3 Rc6 42.Rb7 (42.Rb6 Rc3=) 42...Ke8 43.Kf4 Rf6+ 44.Ke3
Re6+ 45.Kd2 Rf6 46.Rb6! Ke7 47.Ke3±

39...Bc8?

An important tempo is lost. With 39...Be6 40.Ke3 Bf5 41.Kd2 Bc8!

(41...Bxd3 42.Kxd3 Rd6 43.Ra7 Ke6 44.Ke3 Rc6 45.Kf4 f6 46.Ra8±)
42.Rb8 Ke7 Black should be able to hold.
40.Rb8! Be6

There is no salvation anymore, although ‘more’ stubborn was 40...Ke7

41.Bf5 Bxf5 42.Kxf5 Rc4 43.Rb7+ Kf8 44.Ke5 Rxb4 45.Ra7 Ra4 46.Rxa6
b4 47.f4 b3 48.Rb6 Rxa5 49.Rxb3+–, or 40...Kg7 41.Rb6 Rc3 42.Bf5 Bxf5
43.Kxf5 Rxf3+ 44.Ke5 Rb3 45.Rxa6 Rxb4 46.Rb6+–

41.Rb6 Rc3 42.Ke3

Finally White wins the important black queenside...

42...Rb3 43.Rxa6 Rxb4 44.Rb6 Ra4 45.Rxb5

Simpler was 45.a6! b4 46.f4 Ke7 47.Rb7+ Kf6 48.a7 Ra3 49.Rc7 Kg7
(49...Bf5 50.Rc6+ Kg7 51.Ra6+–) 50.Kd2+–

45...Ra3 46.Kd2 Ra2+ 47.Kc3 Ra3+ 48.Kc2 Ra4

Or 48...Ke7 49.a6 Bc8 50.Rb6 Kd8 51.Rf6 Ke7 52.Rh6+–

49.Rc5! Rxd4

Black has equalised the material, but the a-pawn is too strong.

50.a6 Ra4

There is no longer a way out for Black: 50...Bd7 51.Rc7 Bf5 52.Bxf5 Kxf5
53.Kb3 Rd1 54.Rxf7+ Ke5 55.Rh7 Ra1 56.Rxh5+ Kf4 57.Rh6 Kxf3 58.h5
Kg4 59.Kb4 d4 60.Rd6 Kxh5 61.Kb5+–, or 50...Rxh4 51.Ra5 Bc8 52.a7
Bb7 53.Rb5! Ba8 54.Rb8 Ra4 55.Rxa8 h4 56.Bb5 Ra3 57.Kb2 Ra5 58.Bd7
d4 59.Bh3 Ra6 60.Kb3+–

51.Kb3 Ra1 52.Kb4 Ke5

53.Ra5!

The outside passed pawn is a force to remember!

53...Rxa5 54.Kxa5 Bc8 55.a7 Bb7 56.Kb6 Ba8 57.Kc7

The alternative 57.Ba6 d4 58.Bb7 d3 59.Bxa8 d2 60.f4+! Kxf4 61.Bf3 was

good as well.

57...d4 58.Be4 d3 59.Bxd3

And Black resigned due to 59...Bxf3 60.Bb5 f5 61.Bc6+–

1–0

Tkachiev Vladislav
Kovacevic Vlatko
D38 Solin 1999
1.d4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 Nbd7 7.Rc1 0-0
8.a3 Be7 9.e3 c6 10.Qc2 Re8 11.Bd3 Nf8 12.0-0 Be6

White has at his disposal the most typical plan of attack against the
‘Carlsbad’ pawn structure; the minority attack!

13.b4 a5?!

The text doesn’t help Black, who should have opted for 13...a6!? 14.Bxf6
Bxf6 15.a4² It is in White’s favour to preserve the a-pawns on the board in
nearly all minority attacks.

14.Bxf6! Bxf6

14...gxf6 15.Rb1² looks far from ‘ideal’.

15.b5! Bg4 16.bxc6 bxc6

Of course not 16...Bxf3? 17.cxb7±

17.Ne2!

An accurate idea; White is not frightened by the weakening of his king and
he simply transfers his knight on g3, to defend his monarch.
After 17.Nd2 Be7 18.Ra1 Bd6, Black does not stand so badly.

17...Bxf3 18.gxf3 Be7

A typical re-shuffling of the dark-squared bishop; attacking the a3-pawn

and the h2-b8 diagonal.
Of course, Black is giving up a pawn with the text, but he could hardly hold
it anyway after 18...Re6 19.Qa4 Qe8 20.Rc3±

19.Qa4 Bd6 20.Rxc6 Re6

Better than 20...Qg5+?! 21.Kh1 (21.Ng3? Bxg3 22.hxg3 Rxe3!=) 21...Re6

22.f4 Qh5 23.Ng3±
21.Rfc1

Stronger here is 21.Ng3! Qh4 22.Rb1 Rh6 23.Kf1 Qxh2 24.Nf5 and after
the exchanges on d6, White would have a clear plus.

21...Qg5+ 22.Ng3!

After 22.Kh1? Qh5 23.f4 Rh6 24.Kg1 Qxh2+ 25.Kf1 Qh3+µ, or 22.Kf1?!
Qh5∞ Black would feel happy!

22...Bxg3 23.hxg3 Rxe3!

This is what Black was aiming for...

24.Qd1!

Of course White should avoid 24.fxe3? Qxg3+ 25.Kf1 Qxf3+ 26.Ke1

Qxe3+ 27.Be2 Re8 28.Qd1 Qg1+ 29.Kd2 Qe3+ 30.Kc2 (30.Ke1=) 30...Qf2
(30...Qxe2+ 31.Qxe2 Rxe2+ 32.Kd3 Ra2∞) 31.Kd2=

24...Re6 25.f4 Qe7 26.R6c5

White fully controls the c-file and the black d5-pawn is rather weak, while
his bishop is a better minor piece than the black knight. And what is more
important, Black now lacks any serious counterplay.

26...Rd6 27.Qh5 g6 28.Qe5 Re6

Black decides to give up a pawn, hoping for some counterplay. Obviously

the ending after 28...Qxe5 29.dxe5 Rdd8 30.Rb5 Ne6 31.Kg2± offers him
no satisfaction.

29.Qxd5 Rd8 30.Qc4 Re1+ 31.Rxe1 Qxe1+ 32.Kg2 Qa1 33.Rxa5 Rxd4
33...Qxd4 34.Qxd4 Rxd4 35.Bb5± is a slow death.

34.Qb3

White has won a good pawn and now has to convert it...

34...Rd7 35.Bc4 Qd4 36.Re5 Rc7 37.Bd5 Kg7 38.Re4 Qd2 39.Bc4

39...Nd7?

A second pawn is lost in time trouble. Black had to continue the fight with
39...h5 40.Qb4 Qxb4 41.axb4±

40.Re2! Qd4 41.Bxf7 Nc5 42.Qd5!

This is what Black had missed!

42...Qf6 43.Be8 Qa6?

A bad position can easily turn into a completely lost one....

44.Qe5+ Kh6

45.Qg5+

45.Qxc7 Qxe2 46.Qxc5 (46.Bxg6+–) 46...Qxe8 47.Qg5+ Kg7 48.Qe5++–

was also good, but even better was 45.Re1! Qb7+ 46.f3 — curtains...

45...Kg7 46.Re7+ Rxe7 47.Qxe7+ Kh6 48.Qf8+ Kh5 49.Qxc5+

Game over.

49...Kh6 50.Qg5+

50.Qf8+ Kh5 51.Qg7!+–

50...Kg7 51.Qe7+ Kh6 52.Qf8+ Kh5 53.Qf5+ Kh6 54.Qe5 Qc4 55.a4
Qc8 56.a5 Qa8+ 57.Kg1 Qc8 58.Bb5 Qc1+ 59.Bf1 Qa3 60.Qg5+ Kg7
61.a6 Qa2 62.Qc5 Qa1 63.Qe5+ 1–0
 Grivas Efstratios
Thybo Jesper Sondergaard
D38 Aarhus 2019

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bxf6 Qxf6
8.Qb3 Qb6 9.e3 c6 10.Bd3 0-0 11.0-0 Bd6 12.Qc2 Nd7

13.Rab1

A novelty compared to 13.a3 a5 14.Rfe1 Nf6= Pirc,V-Kostic,B Zagreb

1946.

13...a5?!

Black weakens his queenside. Instead he should have opted for 13...Nf6
14.b4 a6 15.Na4 Qd8 16.Bf5 Bxf5 17.Qxf5 Ne4 18.Nc5 Qe7 19.Nxe4 dxe4
20.Nd2 Rae8 21.Nc4∞

14.e4!
A good moment to attack and open the centre. Well, the text doesn’t seem
logical, as Black has the bishop pair, but the pressure in the centre is more
important. Also White’s 13th move will prove useful...

14...dxe4 15.Nxe4 Be7

An understandable retreat, but probably better is 15...Qc7 16.Rfe1 Nb6

17.h3, when White has a somewhat preferable position.

16.Rfe1 Nf6

17.Bc4

17.Nc5 Qc7 18.Rbc1 is an alternative option.

17...Nd5 18.Nc3! Be6

A logical, developing move, but Black should have opted instead for
18...Qd8 19.Nxd5 cxd5 20.Bd3²
19.Bxd5

A quite typical exchange sacrifice by 19.Rxe6! fxe6 20.Qe4° was the

correct follow up. After 20...Rf6 21.Bd3 g6 22.Ne5 White’s position is
preferable.

19...cxd5 20.Qd3

20.Nxd5?! Bxd5 21.Rxe7 Bxf3 22.gxf3 Qxd4 23.Rxb7 Ra6° should be

excellent for Black — nobody can be happy with such a king and the
queens still on the board...

20...Rfc8

This is obviously a position for knights, as the centre is blocked and White
has a free hand there and on the kingside. He can double his rooks on the e-
file and then start some attacking operations. Black will try to play on the
queenside, but it’s likely that his play will not be so dangerous.

21.Ne5 Qa6
The queen exchange should be fine for Black, as White’s attack will be
weakened.

22.Qf3 Qd6

The other option is 22...Bb4 23.Re3 Qd6 24.h3 (24.a3 Bxc3 25.Rxc3 Rxc3
26.Qxc3 f6 27.Nd3 b6=) 24...a4 25.a3 Bxc3 26.Rxc3 Rxc3 27.Qxc3²

23.Re2 Bf6 24.Rbe1 a4 25.a3

‘Securing’ the knight’s position on c3.

25...b5

Trying for queenside activity, but weakening the c5-square. 25...Ra5 is an

interesting and complicated alternative: 26.h3 Bxe5 27.Rxe5 Qb6 28.Qe3!
(28.Nxd5 Bxd5 29.Rxd5 Rxd5 30.Qxd5 Qxb2=) 28...Rc4 29.Re2 Ra6
(29...Qxd4 30.Rxe6 fxe6 31.Qxe6+ Kh8 32.Qe8+ Kh7 33.Re6!±) 30.Nxd5
Qxd4 31.Qxd4 Rxd4 32.Nc7²
26.Nxb5?

The text gives Black excellent counterplay. After 26.h3 Ra5 27.Na2! the
knight is heading for d3 and later to c5, with domination.

26...Qb6 27.Qd3 Rab8?

Black misses his big chance and returns the favour! After 27...Ra5! White is
in trouble: 28.Nc3 Bxe5 29.Rxe5 (29.dxe5? d4! 30.Ne4 Bc4 31.Qh3 Rc6
32.Rd2 Rxe5–+) 29...Qxb2 30.Ne2 Rb5 31.Nf4 Bd7³

28.Nc3 Qa7?!

Again Black ‘refuses’ to go for the best move.

After 28...Bxe5 29.Rxe5 (29.dxe5? d4µ) 29...Qxb2 30.Nxa4 Qc2 31.Qxc2
Rxc2 32.Nc5 Rbb2 33.Rf1 Bg4 34.h3 Be2 35.Re1 Bc4 36.Rf5² he would
have fair chances to save the game.

29.f4!
Now Black is in trouble — and without a pawn for it!

29...g6 30.Kh1?

30.Nxg6? Qxd4+ 31.Qxd4 Bxd4+µ is out of the question, but 30.Rd2!± is

the correct move order.

30...Kg7?

Black’s compensation should be enough after 30...Bf5! 31.Qd2 (31.Qf3

Qxd4 32.Nxd5 Bh4 33.g3 Rb3 34.Nc3 Bf6°) 31...Rb3 32.Nxd5 Bh4 33.Rc1
(33.g3? Qb7µ) 33...Rxc1+ 34.Qxc1 Qxd4 35.Nc3 Bf6°

31.Rd2!

Back to business!
Well, a far from perfect middlegame example, but mistakes help us to better
understand the pros and cons of each specific pawn structure, which are the
backbone of every opening, as Andre Duncan Philidor noted quite a time
ago...

31...Rb6 32.Qf3 Rcb8 33.Ree2

White has everything under control and Black’s counterplay is near to

zero...

33...Qa5 34.h3

34.g4 was even stronger.

34...h5 35.Kh2 R8b7

36.g4!

The final attack begins!

36...hxg4 37.hxg4 Rd6

37...Bxe5 38.dxe5+–

38.Kg3!

Emptying the h-file for the rooks — White’s attack is lethal.

38...Rb8 39.Rh2 Kg8 40.f5 Bc8 41.fxg6 Bxe5+ 42.dxe5 Rxg6

43.Qh1! Rxg4+ 44.Kf3

No more checks...

44...Kf8 45.Rh8+ Ke7 46.Qh6! 1–0

 CHAPTER 4.
ENDGAME TECHNIQUE

The chess player who wishes to master an opening, should not only know
how to gain an advantage from it or how to increase it in the middlegame,
but also finally how to convert it in the endgame.
Knowledge of typical endgames with specific pawn structures is hugely
important, as it helps to evaluate correctly our chances in them and to make
middlegame decisions regarding choices and possibilities that are very
difficult to make otherwise.
The endgames that follow are characteristic of the system with 6.Bg5. It is
not important that some of them arise via another opening or system; the
important thing is to understand and master them — endgame technique is
essential...
Savon Vladimir
Mochalov Evgeny Veniaminovic
D38 Orel 1995

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 Nbd7 7.Qc2 h6
8.Bxf6 Bxc3+ 9.Qxc3 Nxf6 10.b4 Ne4 11.Qb2 c6 12.e3 Qd6 13.a3 0-0
14.Bd3 Re8 15.0-0 Be6 16.Rfc1 Rac8 17.a4 a6 18.Bf1 Qe7 19.Ne5 Nd6
20.Nd3 Bf5 21.Nc5 Ne4 22.Nxe4 Qxe4 23.b5 axb5 24.axb5 Bd7 25.g3
Ra8 26.bxc6 Bxc6 27.h4 h5
In such positions, White exerts very unpleasant pressure. He threatens to
create a weakness on c6 sooner or later, while Black has difficulties in
organising counterplay on the kingside — too many pieces have been
swapped off.

28.Bb5?!

Right idea but wrong execution! White should first exchange rooks by
28.Rxa8 Rxa8 and then go for the thematic bishop exchange 29.Bb5, which
will give him targets on the queenside.

28...Qe6?!

Passivity cannot be of help in this kind of ending. Black had to go for

28...Rxa1 29.Rxa1 g5! 30.Bxc6 bxc6 31.hxg5 h4 32.gxh4 Qxh4 33.Kf1
Qxg5 34.Qc2 Qh5, when his activity, based on the naked white king, should
be enough to preserve the balance.

29.Rxa8 Rxa8 30.Bxc6 bxc6

White has reached his aim.

31.Qb7 Rc8

32.Rc3

White is in no hurry, as there is little that Black can do. Although it seems
that his advantage is perhaps not enough to cash the full point, he risks
nothing and will be in the driver’s seat for many moves to come.

32...Qe8 33.Rc1 g6 34.Ra1 Rb8 35.Qc7 Rc8 36.Qf4 Ra8 37.Rc1

37.Rb1 Qe6 38.Kg2 Kg7 39.Rb7² was also possible.

37...Rc8 38.Qf6
38...Qe6?

Exchanging the queens on e6 is not helpful for Black, who should just wait
with 38...Kh7 39.Kh2 Qd7 40.Kg2²

39.Qxe6 fxe6 40.Kg2 Kg7 41.Kf3 Kf6 42.Kf4 Rc7

White’s healthy pawn structure and superior king should be enough to cash
the point.

43.f3?

A blunder. Good was 43.e4! dxe4 44.Kxe4 Rc8 45.Rc5 Rc7 46.f3 Rc8
47.g4 hxg4 48.fxg4± when Black would be in trouble.

43...Rc8?

Black missed a great opportunity here with 43...c5! 44.g4 (44.dxc5? e5#)
44...hxg4 45.fxg4 c4=

44.g4?!

And here White would be on the right track again by 44.e4! as in the
previous comments.

44...hxg4 45.fxg4 Rh8 46.g5+ Ke7 47.Kg4 Kd6

48.Rf1!

The white rook will be optimally placed on f6, attacking the black pawns.

48...Ke7 49.Rf6 Rg8 50.h5

It is important to create a passed pawn as quickly as is possible. Not much

is given by 50.Kf4?! Rh8 51.Ke5 Rxh4 52.Rxe6+ Kd7 53.Rxg6 Re4+
54.Kf5 Rxe3 55.Rf6 Rg3 56.g6 Rg2 57.Rf7+ Kd6 58.g7 Rf2+ 59.Kg6
Rg2+ 60.Kh7 c5!=

50...gxh5+ 51.Kxh5 c5?

A critical moment. Black is in a hurry to exchange pawns, but instead he

should activate his rook by 51...Ra8! 52.Rf3 Rh8+ 53.Kg6 Rh2 54.Kg7 e5!
55.g6 (55.Rf7+ Ke6 56.Rf6+ Ke7 57.dxe5 c5 58.Rd6 c4! 59.Rxd5 c3
60.Rd6 c2 61.Rc6 Kd7 62.Rc5 Ke6 63.g6 Rg2 64.e4 Rh2 65.Kg8 Ke7
66.g7 Ke6=) 55...exd4 56.exd4 Rh4=

52.dxc5 Rc8 53.Rf3 Rxc5 54.g6 Rc1

Or 54...d4+ 55.Kh6 d3 56.e4!+–

55.Rf7+! Kd6 56.g7 Rg1 57.Kh6 Rg3

57...e5 loses to 58.Rf6+ Kc5 59.Rg6+–

58.Rf6 Rh3+ 59.Kg6 Rxe3 60.Kf7 Rg3 61.Rxe6+ Kc5 62.Rg6 Rf3+
63.Ke7 Re3+ 64.Kd7 1–0

Jakovenko Dmitrij
Fressinet Laurent
D38 Plovdiv 2012

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 Nbd7 7.e3 c5
8.dxc5 Qa5 9.Rc1 Bxc3+ 10.bxc3 0-0 11.Nd4 Qxc5 12.Bd3 Re8 13.0-0
Ne4 14.Bf4 Ne5 15.Bxe5 Rxe5 16.c4 Nf6 17.Qb3 Re7 18.Rfd1 Bg4 19.f3
Be6 20.cxd5 Qxd5 21.Bc4 Qe5 22.f4 Qe4 23.Nxe6 fxe6 24.Be2 Nd5
25.Kf2 Qb4 26.Bc4 Qxb3 27.Bxb3 Nc7
White’s immediate threats have been repulsed, but the defence remains very
difficult for Black. Advancing the queenside pawns only leads to their loss;
the weakness of the e6-pawn prevents the knight from being activated, and
meanwhile, White plans a storm with the h- and g-pawns. And of course, as
positional facts we must admit that White has the better minor piece and the
healthier pawn structure.

28.Rc5 Kf8 29.Re5 g6

The permanent threat of f5 is unpleasant, but now White has a new target to
attack; the g6/h7 pawn complex.

30.h4! Kg7 31.h5 Rf8 32.g4 Rff7

In reply to 32...gxh5 33.Rxh5 e5, there would follow 34.Rdh1 Kh8 35.g5!
(35.Bc2 Rff7 36.f5±) 35...exf4 36.g6+– With the text move, Black creates
the threat of ...Rd7 — the exchange of a pair of rooks would greatly ease
his position.
33.Rg5!

As the endgame after 33.Kf3 Rd7 34.Rxd7 Rxd7 35.Bxe6 Re7 36.Bb3
Rxe5 37.fxe5 may not be winning, White instead maintains the pressure.

33...Rd7?!

It was necessary to continue the passive defence, although it is possible that

Black’s position is indefensible in the long-run anyway: 33...Rf8 34.Kg3
Kf6 35.e4 Rg8 36.h6!, followed by Re5, g5 and f5.

34.hxg6 hxg6
35.Bc2!

Winning the g6-pawn, and with it, the game.

35...Kf8

After 35...Rxd1, White can go for 36.Rxg6+ Kh7 37.Rxe6+ Kh8 38.Rh6+
Kg7 39.Rg6+ Kh7 40.Rg5++–

36.Rxg6 Rxd1 37.Bxd1 Rh7

By starting the advance of his queenside majority with 37...b5, it was still
possible to prolong the intrigue.

38.Bb3 Ke7 39.f5

Now it is all very simple.

39...exf5 40.gxf5 Ne8 41.e4 Nd6 42.f6+

1–0

Grivas Efstratios
Skalkotas Nikolaos
D38 Corfu 1989

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bxf6 Qxf6
8.Qb3 Qd6 9.a3 Bxc3+ 10.Qxc3 0-0 11.b4 Bf5 12.e3 Nd7 13.Be2 Nf6
14.0-0 Rfe8 15.Rfc1 Re7 16.Qc5 Qe6 17.Nd2 g5 18.b5 h5 19.a4 Kg7
20.a5 b6 21.Qc6 Rc8 22.axb6 cxb6 23.Qxe6 Bxe6 24.Rxc8 Bxc8 25.Rc1
Bb7

White stands better as he has a number of small positional pluses; less pawn
islands, weak pawns on a7 and d5, the c-file and the better bishop.

26.Nf3

Improving the position of the knight.

26...g4?
The text doesn’t help Black’s position, so he should instead opt for 26...Ne4
27.Bd3 f6 28.g3±

27.Nh4! Kf8

28.h3!

An excellent breakthrough, creating a new target; either the g4- or the h5-
pawn.

28...g3

After 28...gxh3 29.Nf5 Rd7 30.gxh3, the h5-pawn is doomed (Ng3-f5) and
after 28...Rd7 29.hxg4 hxg4 30.Kh2, the g4-pawn is in danger as well!
Probably Black’s position is beyond repair...

29.Nf5! gxf2+ 30.Kxf2 Rd7 31.Ng3

And White wins material.

31...Ke7

31...h4 32.Nf5+–

32.Nxh5 Ne4+ 33.Ke1 f5 34.Bd3 Nd6 35.g4!

The extra kingside pawn will be pushed as far as it can go!

35...fxg4 36.hxg4 Kf8 37.g5 Re7 38.Kd2 Bc8 39.Rc6 Re6 40.g6 Bd7
41.Rc7 Be8 42.Nf4

Black’s position is falling apart and there is nothing left to play for.

42...Rf6 43.Nxd5 Rf2+ 44.Ke1 Rg2 45.Nf4 1–0

Istratescu Andrei
Milov Vadim
D38 Antalya 2004
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 Nbd7 7.e3 c5
8.Bb5 Qb6 9.Bxd7+ Nxd7 10.0-0 Bxc3 11.bxc3 h6 12.Bh4 0-0 13.a4 Re8
14.a5 Qc6 15.Qb3 c4 16.Qb4 Nf8 17.Rfb1 f6 18.Bg3 Ng6 19.Qd6 Bd7
20.h3 Rad8 21.Qc7 Bc8 22.a6 Rd7 23.Qxc6 bxc6 24.Rb8 Kf7

White controls the b-file and his bishop seems to be far better than its
counterpart. But further improvement is required.

25.Ne1!

Heading for b4, to exert pressure on the c6-pawn.

25...Ne7 26.Nc2 Nf5 27.Bh2 Nd6 28.Bxd6?!

There is no need for the text, but White was afraid that the black knight
would come to b5, attacking the c3-pawn.
Better is 28.Nb4 Nb5 29.Nxc6 Nxc3 30.f3!±

28...Rxd6 29.Nb4
At least White preserves a huge advantage, as his plan of Ra5-c5 is rather
strong.

29...Bf5 30.Rb7+ Re7 31.Ra5! Bc8 32.Rb8 Rc7 33.Rc5 Ke7 34.e4!

A nice break in the centre; positional domination offers good tactics!

34...dxe4 35.d5

35.Rxc4 Be6 36.Rc5 Kd7 37.Kf1± is also possible, but the text seems
stronger.

35...f5 36.dxc6 Be6

Not much is changed by 36...Rd1+ 37.Kh2 Kd6 38.Rxc4 g5 39.Rd4+ Rxd4

40.cxd4±

37.Rcb5 Bc8

There is no real alternative: 37...Rd8 38.R5b7 Rxb8 39.Rxc7++–

38.Nd5+?!

The direct 38.R5b7! Bxb7 (38...Kd8 39.Ra8+–) 39.axb7+– is curtains!

38...Rxd5! 39.Rxd5 Rxc6

Black will not save the game, but at least he can breathe a bit now...

40.Ra8 Rc7

40...Bxa6 41.Rxf5+–

41.Kf1 Ke6 42.Rd2 Bxa6 43.Ra2 Bc8 44.R8xa7 Rxa7 45.Rxa7 Kf6 46.h4
f4

46...g5 47.h5 Be6 48.Rh7+–

47.Rc7 Be6 48.h5 g6

48...Bf7 49.Rc5 Be6 50.g3+–

49.hxg6 Kxg6
50.Rc5!

Now the white king will follow via the dark squares.

50...h5 51.g3! Bh3+ 52.Ke1 Bf5

52...fxg3 53.fxg3 Be6 54.Kf2+–

53.gxf4

53.Rxc4 Kg5 54.Rc7+–

53...h4 54.Kf1 Be6 55.Rg5+

55.f3 exf3 56.Kf2+–

55...Kf6 56.Rh5 h3 57.Kg1 Bg4 58.Rg5 Be2 59.Kh2 Bf1 60.Kg3 Bg2
61.Rh5 Kg6
62.Rxh3!

Black resigned: 62...Bxh3 63.Kxh3 Kf5 64.Kg3+–

1–0
 Show in Text Mode

CHAPTER 5.
TACTICAL MOTIFS

Tactics are the salt & pepper of chess. They crown every strategy and
appear in nearly every game, so we cannot live without them!
Typical tactical motifs repeat themselves, and their knowledge and
understanding are an essential asset to season our opening preparation.
Kempinski Robert
Gajewski Grzegorz
D38 Krakow 2006

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 c5 7.e3 0-0
8.Qc2 cxd4 9.Nxd4 Nc6 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.a3 Bd6 12.Be2 Be5 13.Rc1 Rb8
14.Na4 h6 15.Bh4 Qa5+ 16.Kf1 Bf5 17.Qxf5 Qxa4 18.Qxe5 Qxh4 19.g3
Qh3+ 20.Kg1 Rfe8 21.Qd4 Qf5 22.g4 Qd7 23.Bf3 Ne4 24.b4 a5 25.Kg2
axb4 26.axb4 Ng5 27.h3 f5 28.Be2 Re4 29.Qc3 fxg4 30.Bxg4 Rxg4+
31.hxg4 Qxg4+ 32.Kf1 Ne4 33.Qb2
Show/Hide Solution

33...Ng3+! 34.fxg3

34.Kg2 Nxh1+ 35.Kxh1 Rxb4–+

34...Qf3+ 35.Kg1 Qxg3+ 36.Qg2 Qxe3+ 37.Kh2 Rxb4! 38.Qg3 Rb2+

39.Kh3 Qe6+ 40.Qg4 Rb3+ 41.Kh4 Qf6+ 42.Kh5 Qf7+

0–1

Gagunashvili Merab
Jobava Baadur
D38 Warsaw 2005
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 0-0 7.Qb3 c5
8.dxc5 Nc6 9.e3 Be6 10.Nd4 Bxc5 11.Rd1 h6 12.Bh4 Bg4 13.f3

Show/Hide Solution

13...Re8! 14.Nxc6

14.fxg4 Nxd4–+

14...bxc6 15.fxg4 g5 16.Be2 gxh4 17.0-0 Rxe3 18.Kh1 Qd6 19.Qa4 Rb8
20.Rf5 Rxb2 21.g5 Ne4 22.Nxd5 Rexe2 23.Nf6+ Nxf6 24.gxf6 Rxg2

0–1

Petrosian Tigran
Pachman Ludek
 D38 Saltsjobaden 1952

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bxf6 Qxf6
8.e3 0-0 9.Be2 c6 10.0-0 Bg4 11.Ne5 Bxe2 12.Qxe2 Qe7 13.Rad1 Re8
14.Qg4 Bd6 15.e4 dxe4 16.Nxe4 f6 17.f4 Bc7

Show/Hide Solution

18.Ng3! fxe5 19.Nf5 Qf6 20.dxe5! h5 21.Qxh5 Qf7 22.Qg4 Re6 23.Rf3
Rg6 24.Qxg6 Qxg6 25.Ne7+ Kf7 26.Nxg6 Kxg6 27.g4 Na6 28.Rd7 Rd8
29.f5+ Kg5 30.Rxg7+ Kh4 31.e6 Bb6+ 32.Kf1 Rd1+ 33.Ke2 Rd5 34.f6
Re5+ 35.Kf1 Nc5 36.Rf5 1–0

Gorelov Sergey
Rashkovsky Nukhim
D38 Volgodonsk 1981
1.c4 e6 2.Nc3 d5 3.d4 Nf6 4.Bg5 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Nf3 Qd6 7.Rc1 Ne4
8.Bh4 0-0 9.e3 c5 10.Be2 Bf5 11.dxc5 Qxc5 12.Qb3 Nc6 13.0-0 Bxc3
14.bxc3 Na5 15.Qb4 Rfc8 16.Nd4 Bd7 17.Bd3 b6 18.Be7 Qc7 19.c4 Qb7
20.f3 Nc5 21.Bxc5 Rxc5 22.cxd5 Rxc1 23.Rxc1 Qxd5 24.Qb1 Qh5
25.Rc7 Be8 26.Nf5 Qg5 27.Qb2 Rd8 28.h4 Qf6 29.Qxf6 gxf6 30.Be4 a6

Show/Hide Solution

31.Bd5! Kf8 32.e4 Bd7 33.Nh6 Ke7 34.Nf5+ Kf8 35.Ne3 b5 36.Ra7 Be6
37.Rxa6 Nc4 38.Bxe6 Nxe3 39.Bb3 Rd2 40.Rxf6 Rxg2+ 1–0

Osterman Rudolf
Rotstein Arkadij
D38 Bled 1996
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 d5 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bh4 c6
8.Qb3 Qe7 9.Bxf6 Bxc3+ 10.bxc3 Qxf6 11.e3 0-0 12.Be2 Nd7 13.0-0 Re8
14.a4 h5 15.a5 h4 16.h3 Nf8 17.Ne5 Ng6 18.f4 Nxe5 19.fxe5 Qg5 20.Rf3
Bf5 21.c4 Be4 22.Rf2 Re7 23.cxd5 Bxd5 24.Qd3 Rd8 25.Raf1 b5 26.axb6
axb6 27.Bg4 b5 28.Rf5 Qg6 29.Qa3 Rb7 30.Qa5 Rdb8 31.Qe1 Ra7 32.e4
Bc4 33.R1f3 b4 34.Qxh4 b3

Show/Hide Solution

35.Rxb3! Bxb3 36.Rh5 Qxh5 37.Qxh5 Rd8 38.Bf5 g6 39.Qg5 Rxd4

40.Qe3 Rd1+ 41.Kh2 Rb7 42.Bg4 Rd8 43.e6 Re8 44.exf7+ Bxf7 45.h4
Rbe7 46.Bf3 Re5 47.g4 Rb5 48.Qd4 c5 49.Qf6 c4 50.g5 Rbe5 51.Qc6
R5e7 52.Kg3 Rf8 53.Bg4 Re5 54.h5 gxh5 55.Bf5 Re7 56.g6 Be8
57.Qxc4+ Kg7 58.Qd4+ Rf6 59.Kh4 Bxg6 60.Kg5 Ref7 1–0
 Grivas Efstratios
Arutinian David
D38 Kocaeli 2008

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 0-0 7.Rc1 c5
8.dxc5 Be6 9.e3 Nbd7 10.a3 Bxc5 11.Be2 Rc8 12.0-0 a6 13.Nd4 Be7
14.Bd3 Ne5 15.Bb1 Nc4 16.Qb3 b5 17.Rfd1 g6 18.Nde2 Rc5 19.Rd4 Qc8
20.Rcd1

Show/Hide Solution

20...Rd8?

20...Na5 21.Qb4!? (21.Qc2 Bf5 22.Qd2 Bxb1 23.Rxb1 Nb3µ) 21...Nc6

22.Bxf6 Nxb4 23.Bxe7 Rxc3 24.Nxc3 Nc6 25.Bxf8 Nxd4 26.Be7 Nc6
27.Bf6 b4 28.axb4 Nxb4µ

21.Nf4 Kg7 22.Nd3 Rc7 23.Nf4 Rc5 24.Nd3 Rc7 25.Nf4

½-½

Grivas Efstratios
Toth Christian Endre
D38 Dortmund 1992

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.d4 d5 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 Nbd7 7.Rc1 c6
8.a3 Be7 9.e3 a5 10.Bd3 0-0 11.Qc2 Re8 12.0-0 Nf8 13.Ne5 Ng4 14.Bxe7
Qxe7 15.Nxg4 Bxg4 16.Rce1 Rad8 17.f4 Bh5 18.Qf2 f6 19.Qh4 Bg6
20.f5 Bf7 21.Rf3 Kh8 22.Ref1 Qd6 23.Rg3 Re7 24.Ne2 b6 25.Rf4 c5
26.Rfg4 c4 27.Bc2 Be8 28.Nf4 c3 29.bxc3 Qxa3

Show/Hide Solution

30.h3! Qd6?!
30...Qc1+ 31.Kh2 Qxc2 32.Qxf6!+–; 30...Qxc3 31.Kh2! Qc6 32.Qh6 Rdd7
33.Bb3±

31.Ne6! Nxe6 32.fxe6 g5

32...g6 33.Bxg6 Bxg6 34.Rxg6 Qxe6 35.Rxf6 Qd7 36.Qf4+–

33.Qh6 Bg6

33...Rg7 34.Bxh7 Rxh7 35.Qxf6+ Rg7 36.Rxg5+–

34.Bxg6 Qxe6 35.Bc2 b5 36.Rf3 Rf7 37.Rxg5 Qe7 38.Rgf5 Rd6 39.Bb3

1–0

Kallai Gabor
Wirthensohn Heinz
D38 Germany 1997

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 Nbd7 7.Rc1 0-0
8.a3 Bxc3+ 9.Rxc3 h6 10.Bf4 Ne4 11.Rc1 c6 12.h3 Re8 13.e3 Qa5+
14.Nd2 Nf8 15.Bd3 Ng6 16.Bh2 Nh4 17.Bxe4 dxe4 18.Rc5 Qa6 19.Rg1
Be6 20.Qh5 b6 21.Rc3 Nf5 22.g4 Ne7 23.Nxe4 Nd5
Show/Hide Solution

24.g5! Nxc3 25.Nxc3 Bf5 26.gxh6 Bg6 27.Rxg6! fxg6 28.Qxg6 Qb7
29.Ne4 Rxe4 30.Qxe4 gxh6 31.Qe6+ Qf7 32.Qxh6 Qf5 33.Be5 Qh7
34.Qe6+ Qf7 35.Qxc6 Rf8 36.Qg2+ Kh7 37.Qe4+ Kg8 38.Qh4 Qc4
39.Qg4+ Kf7 40.Qd7+ Kg6 41.Qg7+

1–0
 PART 3.
QGD — THE VIENNA VARIATION (D39)

The ‘QGD — Vienna Variation’ arises with the moves 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6
3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 dxc4 5.e4 Bb4 6.Bg5

The so called ‘QGD — Vienna Variation’ has been a frequent guest in top
tournaments during the last few decades.

The main continuation, 6...c5, has been played in thousands of games and
analysed for dozens of moves. Many of the lines are well-known for their
forced sequences and often lead to a theoretical draw.

However, White has managed to devise some fresh ideas and pose some
problems to the second player. Therefore the previously-considered side
line 6...h6, has also come to the front of the stage.
It is curious that the initiator of most of the theoretical discussions in the
variation, with both colours, is the ex FIDE World Champion Vladimir
Kramnik, who has employed it quite a few times.
HISTORICAL APPROACH
According to ChessBase, the first recorded game with a ‘real Vienna’ was
back in 1923:
Bogoljubow Efim
Tartakower Saviely
D39 Moravska Ostrava 1923

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bf4 dxc4 6.e4 Bb4 7.Bg5 h6
8.Bxf6 Qxf6 9.Bxc4 0-0 10.0-0 c5 11.e5 Qd8 12.a3 cxd4 13.axb4 dxc3
14.bxc3 Qc7 15.Qe2 Bd7 16.b5 Be8 17.Bd3 Nd7 18.Qe4 g6 19.Qe3 Kg7
20.Ra3

20...Qc5! 21.Qxc5 Nxc5 22.Be2 a5 23.bxa6 bxa6 24.Rfa1 Rc8

½-½
But I feel that there is a good chance that the glorious capital of one of the
most beautiful European countries, Austria, gave its name to the variation
with the following game.
Well, Black had a nearly won ending, but in the end he even managed to
lose it:
Fuss Immo
Becker Albert
D39 Vienna 1934

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Bg5 Bb4+ 5.Nc3 dxc4 6.e4 c5 7.Bxc4 cxd4
8.Bxf6 Qxf6 9.Qxd4 Nc6 10.Qxf6 gxf6 11.0-0-0 a6 12.Nd4 Bd7 13.Nxc6
Bxc6 14.f3 Rc8 15.Bb3 Rg8 16.Rd2 Rg5 17.Kb1 Ke7 18.a3 Ba5 19.Rc2
Rcg8 20.g4 Bxc3 21.Rxc3 Rd8 22.Rd1 Rxd1+ 23.Bxd1 h5 24.h3 hxg4
25.hxg4 Kd6 26.Kc2 Ke5 27.Rc5+ Kf4 28.Rxg5 fxg5

29.Kd2 Bb5 30.a4 Bf1 31.Ke1 Bd3 32.Kf2 a5 33.Bb3 Ba6 34.Bc2 Bc4
35.Bd1 f6 36.Bc2 Ke5 37.Ke3 Kd6 38.Kd4 Be2 39.Ke3 Ba6 40.Bd3 Kc5
41.Bxa6 bxa6 42.e5
42...fxe5? 43.Ke4 Kb4 44.Kxe5 Kxa4 45.f4 gxf4 46.Kxf4 e5+ 47.Kxe5
Kb3 48.g5 Kxb2 49.g6 a4 50.g7 a3 51.g8=Q a2 52.Qg2+ Kb1 53.Qf1+
Kb2 54.Qe2+ Kb1 55.Qd1+ Kb2 56.Qd2+ Kb1 57.Qb4+ Kc2 58.Qa3
Kb1 59.Qb3+ Ka1 60.Qc2

1–0

In the famous AVRO tournament of 1938, two legends crossed swords,

giving the variation quite a good reputation by the way:
Fine Reuben
Euwe Max
D39 Rotterdam 1938

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Bg5 Bb4+ 5.Nc3 dxc4 6.e4 c5 7.e5 cxd4
8.Qa4+ Nc6 9.0-0-0 Bd7 10.Ne4 Be7 11.exf6 gxf6 12.Bh4 Rc8 13.Kb1
Na5 14.Qc2 e5 15.Nxd4 exd4 16.Rxd4 Qb6 17.Qc3 Bf5 18.g4 Bg6 19.f4
19...Bc5 20.Rxc4 Nxc4 21.f5 Bd4 22.Qb3 Qc6 23.Bg2 Qxe4+ 24.Bxe4
Nd2+ 25.Ka1 Nxb3+ 26.axb3 0-0 27.fxg6 hxg6 28.Kb1 Rfe8 29.Bd3 Re3
30.Rd1 Be5

0–1

STARTING OUT

The system proposed against the ‘QGD — Vienna Variation’ commences

with the moves 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 dxc4 5.e4 Bb4 6.Bg5
Here Black has a variety of moves at his disposal and all should be
examined. But, of course, the main lines are 6...b5, 6...c5 and 6...h6.

CHAPTER 1.
THE 6...B5 LINE

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 dxc4 5.e4 Bb4 6.Bg5 b5

A risky continuation, which should make White happy, although many top
players have played it.

7.a4 c6

Lately 7...c5 has come into fashion. This is a bit illogical: Black loses his
b5-pawn but doesn’t achieve any considerable benefits compared to the
positions arising when he plays 6...c5 at once. On the other hand, it is very
difficult for White to make use of his doubled extra pawn: 8.axb5 cxd4
9.Nxd4 h6 (9...Bb7 10.f3 0-0 11.Bxc4 Qc7 12.Qb3 Bd6 13.b6 Qxb6
14.Qxb6 axb6 15.Rxa8 Bxa8 16.Ke2² Staniszewski,P-Panczyk,K Bytom
1986; 9...Qb6 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Bxc4+– Stempin,P-Panczyk,K Poznan 1985;
9...e5 10.Nc2 Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 Nbd7 12.Bxf6 Qxf6 13.Bxc4 Bb7 14.Bd5
Bxd5 15.Qxd5 Nb6 16.Qb3± Chernikov,O-Shereshevski,M Belarus 1983)
10.Be3 (10.Bxf6 Qxf6 11.Bxc4 0-0 12.0-0 Bb7 [12...Rd8 13.Qb3² So,W-
Aronian,L Leuven 2017] 13.Qa4 [13.Qb3 Bc5 14.Nxe6 fxe6 15.Bxe6+ Kh8
16.Bd5 Qe7 17.Rad1 Bb6 18.Na4 Qc7 19.Bxb7 Qxb7 20.Qe6 Ba5 21.Rd5²
Basso,P-Ankit,R Cattolica 2019; 13.Nde2 Qe7 14.Qc2 ½-½ Brunner,N-
Kaczmarczyk,D Baden 2019] 13...a5 [13...Bc5 14.Nc6 Nd7 15.e5 Nxe5
16.Ne4 Qf4 17.Nxc5 Bxc6 18.bxc6 Qxc4 19.Qxc4 Nxc4 20.Rfc1±
Sulava,N-Petrov,N Bratto 2017] 14.bxa6 Nxa6 15.Nde2 Bd6° Vidit,S-
Duda,J Wijk aan Zee 2019) 10...Nxe4 11.Qc2 (11.Qa4 Bxc3+ 12.bxc3 Nxc3
13.Qa3 Nd5 14.Bxc4 Bb7 15.0-0 Qe7 16.Bxd5 Bxd5 17.Rfc1± Illescas
Cordoba,M-Mingarro Carceller,S Barcelona 2018) 11...Bb7 12.Bxc4 Qc7
(12...0-0 13.0-0 Nxc3 14.bxc3 Bd6 15.Be2 Qc7 16.h3² Shchekachev,A-
Sukandar,I Biel 2019) 13.Qb3 Bxc3+ 14.bxc3 0-0 15.0-0² Ding,L-
Carlsen,M Saint Louis 2019.

8.e5 h6 9.exf6 hxg5 10.fxg7 Rg8 11.g3

11.h4 is possible as well: 11...g4 (11...Nd7 12.hxg5 Bb7 13.Rh8 Ke7

14.Rh7± Gustafsson,J-Meister,Y Hoeckendorf 2004; 11...gxh4 12.Rxh4
Qf6 13.Rh5 [13.g3 Nd7 14.Bg2 Bb7 15.Kf1 Bxc3 16.bxc3 c5 17.axb5
Qxg7 18.dxc5 Nxc5 19.Rxc4 Rd8 20.Qe2 Nb3 21.Rd1 Qf6 22.Rc7 Be4
23.b6 axb6 24.Qb5+ Kf8 25.Qxb3 Rxg3 26.Rxd8+ Qxd8 27.Qb4+ 1–0
Hansen,C-Hansen,S Reykjavik 1995] 13...Bb7 14.axb5 Nd7 15.Ne5 Nxe5
16.dxe5 Qf4 17.g3 Qe4+ 18.Qe2 Qg6 19.bxc6 Bxc3+ 20.bxc3 Bxc6
21.Qxc4 Rc8 22.Be2 Rxg7 23.Rh8+ Rg8 24.Rxg8+ Qxg8 25.Rxa7 Qg5
26.Ra8 Qd8 27.Rxc8 Qxc8 28.Bf3 1–0 Garcia Ilundain,D-Dominguez
Santas,M Las Palmas 1994) 12.Ne5 Rxg7 (12...f5 13.Qd2 Qf6 14.g3 Bb7
15.Bg2 Rxg7 16.0-0 c5 17.axb5 Bxg2 18.Kxg2 Nd7 19.Rfe1 Nxe5 20.dxe5
Qe7 21.Ra6 Rd8 22.Qh6 Kf7 23.Rea1 Rd7 24.b6 axb6 25.Ra8 Bxc3
26.bxc3 1–0 Greenfeld,A-Vasilevich,T Port Erin 2006) 13.h5 f5 14.Be2 Qf6
(14...Qg5 15.Kf1 Bb7 16.axb5 Bxc3 17.bxc6 Nxc6 18.bxc3 Nxe5 19.dxe5
Bd5 20.Qa4+± Kramnik,V-Yudasin,L Pamplona 1992) 15.f3 Bb7 16.fxg4
Nd7 17.h6 Rh7 18.Qd2² Argandona Riveiro,I-Perez Candelario,M Elgoibar
2006.

11...Bb7

11...g4 12.Ne5 Qd5 13.Rg1 (13.Nxg4 Nd7 14.f3 Bb7 15.Bg2 0-0-0 16.0-0±
Riazantsev,A-Wang,H St Petersburg 2018) 13...Qe4+ 14.Be2 Rxg7 (14...f5
15.Kf1 Bxc3 16.bxc3 Nd7 17.f3± Farago,I-Miroshnichenko,E Austria
2010) 15.Kf1! Bxc3 16.bxc3 f5 17.f3± Esen,B-Yakovich,Y Ankara 2010.

12.Bg2 c5

12...Nd7 13.0-0 Rxg7 14.axb5 cxb5 15.Nxb5 a6 16.Qa4 axb5 17.Qxb4±

Nielsen,P-Agrest,E Sweden 2006.

13.0-0 g4
14.Nh4

14.axb5 seems quite possible: 14...gxf3 (14...Rxg7 15.Ne5 Bxg2 16.Kxg2

cxd4 17.Qa4 Bxc3 18.b6+ Kf8 19.Qxc4 Nd7 20.Nxd7+ Qxd7 21.Qc5+ Kg8
22.bxc3 Qb7+ 23.Kg1 Rc8 24.Qxc8+ Qxc8 25.bxa7 Qa8 26.Rfb1 Kh7
27.Rb8 Rg8 28.Rxa8 Rxa8 29.cxd4 Kg6 30.Ra5 1–0 Postny,E-Nikolov,M
Aghios Kirykos 2008) 15.Bxf3 Bxf3 16.Qxf3 Nd7 17.dxc5 Bxc3 18.bxc3
Nxc5 19.Rfd1 Qc8 20.Rd6 Qb7 21.Qh5 Rc8 22.Rc6 Nd3 23.Rxc8+ Qxc8
24.Rxa7 1–0 Kramnik,V-Carlsen,M Monte Carlo 2007.

14...Bxg2 15.Nxg2 Rxg7

15...cxd4 16.Nxb5 Nc6 (16...Rxg7 17.Rc1±) 17.Qxg4 a6 (17...Rc8 18.Rad1

Bc5 19.Nf4± Shtyrenkov,V-Rodin,M Briansk 1995) 18.Qe4 Rc8 (18...Qd7
19.Nxd4+–; 18...Ne7 19.Qxa8! Qxa8 20.Nc7++–) 19.Rfd1 Bc5 20.Qh7
Kd7 (20...Ne7 21.Na3±) 21.Na3 Bxa3 (21...Qf6 22.Nxc4 Rxg7 23.Qe4±)
22.Rxa3 Qg5 23.Ne3 Rxg7 (23...Qxg7 24.Qxg7 Rxg7 25.Nxc4±) 24.Qe4±
Jussupow,A-Van Wely,L Groningen 1994.
16.dxc5!

16.axb5 cxd4 17.Ne4∞ Ivanchuk,V-Vallejo Pons,F Morelia/Linares 2006.

16...Bxc5 17.axb5 Nd7

17...Qxd1 18.Rfxd1 Nd7 19.Ne4 Bb6 20.Nd6+ Ke7 21.Nxc4± Yrjola,J-De

Verdier,M Norrköping 2009.

18.Qe2

18.Re1 Qc7 19.Qd5 Nb6 20.Qe5?! (20.Qd2±) 20...Qxe5 21.Rxe5 Nd7∞

Vallejo Pons,F-Perez Candelario,M Leon 2006.

18...Qc7 19.Rfe1 Kf8

20.Ne3

The text is a proposed novelty over 20.Rad1 Rc8 21.Nf4 Nf6∞ Dobrev,N-
Nikolov,M Sunny Beach 2007.
20...Nf6 21.h4!±

White’s position is to be highly preferred.

 CHAPTER 2.
THE 6...C5 LINE

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.e4 Bb4 6.Bg5 c5

The ‘oldest’ line, which was quite a fashionable one in the period 1990–
2010. In these 20 years many interesting and wild games were played, but
without the help of strong engines Black was somehow surviving.

7.Bxc4 cxd4

There is no point to 7...Nc6? 8.d5 exd5 9.exd5 (9.Bxd5 Ne7 10.Bxf6 gxf6
11.0-0± Kupchik,A-Bisguier,A Pittsburgh 1946) 9...Na5 10.Bb5+± Baron
Rodriguez,J-Jario Garcia,R Zaragoza 2001, or in 7...Qa5 8.Bd2 0-0?!
(8...cxd4! 9.Nxd4, transposes below) 9.0-0 Nc6 10.a3 Bxc3 11.Bxc3 Qb6
12.dxc5 Qxc5 13.Qe2± Noizet,R-Seninck,M Champagne Ardenne 2009.

8.Nxd4 Bxc3+
Black can do without this capture: 8...Qa5 9.Bd2 Qc5 (9...0-0 10.Qe2 e5
11.Nc2 Nc6 12.a3 Nd4 13.Qd3 Bxc3 [13...Nxc2+ 14.Qxc2 Qc7 15.Bb3 Be7
16.Rc1² Azmaiparashvili,Z-Delchev,A Nova Gorica 2005] 14.Bxc3 Nxc2+
15.Qxc2 Qc7 16.Qe2 Bg4 17.f3 Rac8 18.Ba2² Shulman,Y-Khachiyan,M
Lindsborg 2002) 10.Bb5+ Bd7 (10...Nbd7 11.Nb3 Qb6 12.0-0 Bxc3
[12...a6?! 13.Bxd7+ Nxd7 14.Qg4 Bf8 15.Rac1± Teske,H-Naumann,A
Germany 2003] 13.Bxd7+ Bxd7 14.Bxc3 Nxe4 15.Bxg7 Rg8 16.Bd4 Qb5
17.Re1

17...Bc6 [17...Rxg2+? 18.Kxg2 Qg5+ 19.Kf3!± Tregubov,P-Delorme,A Aix

les Bains 2011] 18.f3 Qg5 19.Qe2²) 11.Nb3 Qc7 (11...Qe7 12.Bd3 Nc6
13.0-0 0-0 14.a3 Bd6 15.f4² Saric,A-Martinovic,S Mali Losinj 2019;
11...Qe5 12.Bd3 Na6 13.Qe2 Nc5 14.Nxc5 Bxc5 15.f4 Qd4 16.e5 Nd5
17.Nxd5 Qxd5 18.Be4² Kozul,Z-Petkov,V Zagreb 2011) 12.Rc1 Nc6 13.0-0
0-0 14.Qe2 Rfd8 15.Bg5 Be7 16.Be3! a6 17.Bd3!² Kramnik,V-Vallejo
Pons,F Tromsoe 2014.

9.bxc3 Qa5 10.Bb5+

For the latest try 10.Bd2, see the analysed game Carlsen,M-Aronian,L
Baden-Baden 2019.

Black can now choose between 10...Nbd7 and 10...Bd7.

2.1 — 10...NBD7

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.e4 Bb4 6.Bg5 c5 7.Bxc4 cxd4
8.Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Qa5 10.Bb5+ Nbd7
This system has been almost forgotten and during recent years Black has
mostly played 10...Bd7 and tried to equalise. The text move is very risky;
Black is winning a pawn, but seriously lagging in development. On the
other hand he’ll have an extra pawn and White has to act very resolutely to
set him concrete problems.

11.Bxf6 Qxc3+

Black is more or less ‘obliged’ to win the pawn. After 11...gxf6?! 12.0-0 a6
(12...Ke7 13.Re1 Rd8 14.Qd2 Ne5 15.Qe3 a6 16.Be2 Bd7 17.f4 Ng6 18.f5±
Savchenko,S-Rajskij,E Yerevan 1988) 13.Be2 (13.Ba4 Ke7 14.Re1 [14.Qb3
Qc5 15.Bxd7 {½-½ Almasi,I-Gyimesi,Z Hungary 1998} 15...Bxd7
16.Rfd1²] 14...Rd8 15.Bb3 Nc5 16.Qh5 Rxd4 17.cxd4 Nxb3 18.e5 1–0
Szeberenyi,A-Sarosi,Z Hungary 1999) 13...Nc5 (13...Ke7 14.f4 Rd8 15.Qe1
Nc5 16.e5! Ne4 17.exf6+ Kxf6 18.Bd3 Nxc3 19.Qh4+ Kg7 20.Qxh7+ Kf8
21.Nf3 Bd7 22.Ne5 Qb6+ 23.Kh1 Be8 24.f5 1–0 Veingold,A-Rantanen,Y
Finland 1997; 13...Qc7 14.Qd2 Nc5 15.Qe3 Bd7 16.f4± Riazantsev,A-
Aleksandrov,A Tallinn 2019) 14.Nb3 Nxb3 15.Qxb3 (15.axb3 Qe5 16.f4!
Qc5+ [16...Qxe4 17.Qd6±] 17.Kh1±) 15...0-0 16.Rad1 b6 17.Rd6± Li
Wenliang-Richter,M Budapest 1999, White is simply on top.

12.Kf1 gxf6 13.h4!

Best by test. Not good is 13.Nxe6? Qe5! 14.Nd4 (14.Ng7+? Kf8 15.Nf5
Qxb5+ 16.Kg1 Qe5 17.h4 Rg8 18.Rh3 Rg6 19.Rc1 Nb6–+ Lobron,E-
Polgar,Z Dortmund 1990) 14...0-0 15.Qd3 Nc5 16.Qg3+ Kh8 17.Qxe5 fxe5
18.Nf3 a6 19.Bc4 Nxe4 20.Nxe5 f6µ Ponomariov,R-Ivanchuk,V Khanty-
Mansiysk 2011, while 13.Nf5 exf5 only gives a draw: 14.Rc1 Qe5
(14...Qb2 15.Rxc8+ Rxc8 16.Qxd7+ Kf8 17.Qd6+ Kg7 18.Qg3+ ½-½
Vidit,S-Aronian,L Doha 2016) 15.Rxc8+ Rxc8 16.Qxd7+ Kf8 17.Qxc8+
Kg7 18.Qxf5 Qa1+ 19.Ke2 Qxh1 20.e5 (20.Qg4+ Kf8=) 20...Qxg2
21.Qxf6+ Kg8=

The text move focuses on activating the poorly-placed h1-rook, which can
be transferred via the 3rd rank either to the centre or the queenside/kingside,
depending on the needs of the position. From here Black chooses from
13...Ke7, 13...Qb4 and 13...Qa5.
 2.1.1 — 13...KE7

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.e4 Bb4 6.Bg5 c5 7.Bxc4 cxd4
8.Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Qa5 10.Bb5+ Nbd7 11.Bxf6 Qxc3+ 12.Kf1 gxf6
13.h4 Ke7?!

Black decides that his king should stay in the centre, but this is an ‘early’
decision...

14.Rh3 Qa5

Worst is 14...Qc5? 15.Rc1 Qe5 16.Qd2+–

15.Rb1! Rd8

15...Rg8 16.Qc1±

16.Qc1
All White’s pieces are mobilised, while Black is still struggling to get his
position together...

16...Qb6

The alternatives seem to be worse than the text:

a) 16...Ne5?! 17.Qc5+ Rd6 18.Rd1 Qb6 (18...Qd8 19.f4!+–) 19.Nc6+! bxc6
20.Qxd6+ Ke8 21.Rg3 Qxb5+ 22.Kg1 1–0 Adorjan,A-Chernin,A Debrecen
1990.
b) 16...a6 17.Ra3 Qb6
18.Nf5+! (18.Nc6+? bxc6 19.Bxc6 Qa7 20.Rc3 Rb8 21.Qa3+ Nc5 22.Rxc5
Rxb1+ 23.Rc1+ Rd6 24.Rxb1² Lukacs,P-Dzevlan,M Budapest 1991)
18...exf5 19.Bxd7 Qd6 20.Bxf5±

17.Nf5+!

A strong but not very difficult suggested novelty in place of 17.Bxd7? Qxd4
18.Qa3+ Qd6 19.Bxc8 Raxc8 20.Rxb7+ Ke8 21.Kg1 a6 22.Ra7 Rc4
23.Qxd6 Rxd6 24.Rb3 Rd7 25.Rxa6 Rxe4 26.g3 f5 27.Kg2 Ke7 28.a3 ½-½
Groszpeter,A-Horvath,J Hungary 1992.

17...exf5 18.Bxd7 Qd4 19.Bxf5±

White has regained his pawn and he has the better pawn structure, while the
black king is suffering.
2.1.2 — 13...QB4

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.e4 Bb4 6.Bg5 c5 7.Bxc4 cxd4
8.Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Qa5 10.Bb5+ Nbd7 11.Bxf6 Qxc3+ 12.Kf1 gxf6
13.h4 Qb4
Black hurries to bring his queen back, to support his position and his king.
It must be noted that sometimes the move order is 13...a6 14.Rh3 Qb4
15.Be2.

14.Rh3 a6 15.Be2

It is too early for 15.Rb3 Qd6 16.Bxd7+ Bxd7 17.Rxb7 Rd8∞ Pogorelov,R-
Campos Gambuti,L Zaragoza 1998.

15...Ne5

After 15...Qd6
White should go for the suggested novelty 16.Qa4! (16.Rc3 b6 [16...Qh2
17.Nf3 Qf4 18.Qd4 0-0 19.Rd1 b5 20.g3 Qb8 21.Qe3 Kg7 22.Rc6 Rg8
23.Rcd6± Predke,A-Lintchevski,D Samara 2017] 17.Bf3 Ne5 18.Qb3 0-0∞;
16.Rc1 Ne5 17.h5 ½-½ Sarana,A-Aleksandrov,A Moscow 2019) 16...0-0
17.Rd1 Qe7 18.h5 Nc5 19.Qa3²

16.Rb1 Qd6
White seems to have some nice compensation for the sacrificed pawn
(better development, active pieces, safer king, open files, etc), but concrete
measures should be taken.

17.Rc3

The main alternative is 17.Qd2 Bd7 18.Rxb7 Bb5 19.Rc3 (19.Rb3 Rc8
20.Bxb5+ axb5 21.Qb4 Qxb4 22.Rxb4 0-0 23.R7xb5 Rfd8° Giri,A-
Aronian,L Stavanger 2015) 19...Rd8 20.Nf3 Qxd2 21.Bxb5+ axb5 22.Nxd2
0-0 23.Nf3 Nxf3 24.Rxf3 Rb8 25.Rg3+ Kh8 26.Rxb8 Rxb8 27.Rb3 Ra8
28.Rxb5 Rxa2= So,W-Aronian,L Wijk aan Zee 2017.

17...0-0

Black has also tried:

a) 17...Bd7 18.Rxb7 0-0 (18...Rd8?! 19.Rb2 0-0 20.Rd2 Bb5 21.Bxb5 axb5
22.Nf3! [22.Nb3?! Qb6 23.Qc1 h5 24.Rg3+ Ng6 25.Rxd8 Rxd8 26.Qh6
Qc7 27.Rxg6+ fxg6 28.Qxg6+ Qg7 29.Qxh5 Qd7 30.Qg6+ Qg7 31.Qh5
Qd7 32.Qg6+ ½-½ Goryachkina,A-Badelka,O Antalya 2019] 22...Qe7
23.Nxe5 fxe5 24.Rxd8 Rxd8 [24...Qxd8 25.Qh5 f6 26.Kg1±] 25.Qh5!
[25.Qg4+?! Kh8 26.Rg3 Qf6 27.h5 b4= Baenziger,F-Engel,L Bratislava
2019] 25...f6 26.Kg1±) 19.f4 Ng6 20.g3 Rfb8 21.Rxb8+ Rxb8 22.Nb3
Qxd1+ 23.Bxd1²

Jumabayev,R-Aleksandrov,A Moscow 2020.

b) 17...b5 18.Nb3! (18.Qc2 Bd7 19.Rd1 Qb6 20.f4 Nc4 21.Bxc4 bxc4
22.Rxc4 0-0 23.Nc6 Bxc6 24.Rxc6 Qe3∞ Merario Alarcon,A-Alvarez
Serrano,C Linares 2018) 18...Qxd1+ 19.Rxd1 0-0 20.Rc7² Ramirez
Alvarez,A-Macieja,B Puebla 2013.
c) 17...Ke7 18.f4 Nc6 (18...Nd7?! 19.Qd2 Rd8 20.Rd1 Qb6 21.Rb3 Qc5
22.Rc1 Qd6 23.Rd3 Qb6 24.a4! [24.Rb3 Qd6 25.Rd3 Qb6 26.Rb3 ½-½
Farago,I-Szabo,K Balatonlelle 2006] 24...Nc5 25.a5+–) 19.Nxc6+ bxc6
20.Qc1 Rb8 21.Rxb8 Qxb8 22.Rxc6± Grochal,J-Gascon del Nogal,J
Cappelle-la-Grande 2018.

18.h5!

A good way to gain control of critical kingside squares. Not much is given
by 18.Qd2?! Ng6! 19.h5 Nf4 20.Qe3 e5∞ Grischuk,A-Karjakin,S Saint
Louis 2018.
18...Rd8

19.Rg3+

Unclear is 19.Qb3 Bd7 20.Rd1 Qf8 21.Rc7 Qh6 22.Rxb7 Qf4∞ Giri,A-
Harikrishna,P Shenzhen 2017.

19...Kf8

Of course not 19...Kh8?! 20.Qd2!±

20.Qe1

20.Qb3 is also possible: 20...Bd7 21.Rd1 Qc5 22.Qe3 Rac8 23.f4 Nc4
24.Bxc4 Qxc4+ 25.Kg1 Qb4 (25...Ke7?! 26.Kh2 Rc5 27.e5! f5 28.Rg7
[28.Qd2!+–] 28...Ba4
29.Nxe6! 1–0 Grigoriants,S-Janik,I Skopje 2019) 26.Kh2 Ba4 27.Rd3 Ke7
28.e5! f5 29.a3° Qb2? 30.Rd2 Qc1 31.Qf2 Rc4 32.Rgd3 Rd7 33.Qh4+ Ke8
34.Rg3 Rdxd4 35.Rxd4 1–0 Sarana,A-Lu,S Moscow 2019. In general,
White’s compensation is nice, as a mere pawn deficit is not really much.

20...Bd7 21.Rd1 Qb6 22.Rb3

Kuljasevic,D-Martinovic,S Pozega 2018. White, despite his minus pawn,
has better prospects based on his activity, safer king and centralised pieces.
2.1.3 — 13...QA5

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.e4 Bb4 6.Bg5 c5 7.Bxc4 cxd4
8.Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Qa5 10.Bb5+ Nbd7 11.Bxf6 Qxc3+ 12.Kf1 gxf6
13.h4 Qa5
As in the previous chapter, Black hurries to retreat with his queen, but this
time he is heading mostly for the queenside. It must be noted that
sometimes the move order is 13...a6 14.Rh3 Qa5 15.Be2.

14.Rh3 a6

A natural move. Black should be rather careful about other continuations:

a) 14...e5? 15.Nf5! (15.Bxd7+? Bxd7 16.Nf5 Bxf5 17.exf5 Rd8 18.Qc1
Rg8 19.Qc4 h5 20.a4 Rg4µ Farago,I-Hoelzl,F Budapest 1995) 15...Qxb5+
16.Rd3 Qb6 (16...Kf8 17.Nd6 Qa6 18.Qb3+–; 16...Qa6 17.Kg1+–) 17.Rb1
Qa6 18.Kg1! Qxa2 19.Rc1 b5 (19...Kf8 20.Rdc3+–) 20.Rc7 Qa4 21.Qc1
Qa6 22.Rd6 Qxd6 (22...Qa5 23.Rdc6+–) 23.Nxd6+ Ke7 24.Rxc8 1–0
Dreev,A-Kishnev,S Khalkidiki 2002.
b) 14...Ke7?! 15.Rb1! transposes to Sub-Chapter 2.1.1.

15.Be2

The best retreat, although 15.Ba4 shouldn’t be underestimated either:

15...Ke7 (15...b5 16.Bb3 Qb6 17.Rc1 Bb7 18.Rhc3 Ne5 19.f4 Rd8 20.fxe5
Rxd4 21.Qf3 f5 22.Qf2 fxe4 23.Rc7 1–0 Khalifman,A-Kachar,V Voronezh
2014) 16.Rc1 Nc5 17.Nb3 Qxa4 18.Rxc5 Bd7 19.Rc7 b6 20.Rd3 Rhd8
21.Rd4 1–0 Shulman,Y-Mulyar,M San Francisco 2001.

15...Nc5

The most preferable continuation. Black has also opted for:

a) 15...Ke7 16.Qc1! Rd8 17.Nb3 (17.Rc3 Qe5 18.Nf3 Qxe4 19.Qa3+ Ke8
20.Rd1± Horvath,C-Ekstroem,R Montecatini Terme 1997) 17...Qb4
18.Rc3! (18.Rd3?! Ne5 19.Qc7+? Rd7 20.Rxd7+ Bxd7µ Nickoloff,B-
Livshits,R Hamilton 1994) 18...Ne5 19.f4 Nc6 20.Rb1±
b) 15...Ne5 16.Qb3
b1) 16...b5 17.Rd1 Bd7
18.Qe3! (18.f4 Nc4 19.Bxc4 bxc4 20.Qb7 Rd8 21.Nc6 Bxc6 22.Qxc6+ Ke7
23.Qb7+ Ke8 24.Qc6+ [24.Rxd8+ Qxd8 25.Qc6+ Ke7 26.Qc5+ ½-½
Greenfeld,A-Gyimesi,Z Tel Aviv 2001] 24...Ke7 25.Qb7+ Ke8 26.Qc6+ ½-
½ San Segundo Carrillo,P-Wells,P Plovdiv 2003) 18...Rg8 19.Qf4 Ke7
20.g4!±
b2) 16...Ke7 17.Rd1 Rd8 18.a4 Bd7 19.Qa3+ Ke8 20.Rg3 Ng6 21.h5±
Maksimenko,A-Wells,P Germany 2001.
b3) 16...Bd7 17.Qxb7 0-0 (17...Rc8 18.Nb3 Qc7 19.Qxa6±) 18.Qb2!
(18.Qb3 Rfd8 19.Qe3² Merario Alarcon,A-Cuenca Jimenez,J Roquetas de
Mar 2018) 18...Rab8 19.Rg3+ Kh8 20.Rb3±
c) 15...Qe5 16.Rc1 Qxe4 (16...Qf4 17.Rhc3 0-0 18.Qc2±) 17.Re3 Qxh4
18.Kg1± Fang,J-Sarkar,J Connecticut 2003.
d) 15...0-0 16.Rc1 (16.Nb3 Qe5 17.Rc1 b6? [17...Kh8 18.Kg1²]
18.Qd2 Nc5 19.Nxc5 bxc5 20.Qh6 1–0 Oll,L-Wolff,P New York 1994)
16...Ne5 17.Nb3 (17.Qb3 Qd2 18.Rd1 Qf4∞ Stefansson,H-Petursson,M
Reykjavik 1996) 17...Qb4 18.Nc5 b6 19.Rb3 Qa5 20.Rg3+ Kh8 21.Qd6
Rg8 22.Rxg8+ Kxg8 23.Qd8+ Kg7 24.Nxe6+ fxe6 25.Qe7+ Kg8 26.Rc7!
(26.Qxf6? Bd7∞ Sharavdorj,D-Van Buskirk,C Burbank 2004) 26...Bd7
27.Bc4!+–

16.Nb3! Nxb3 17.Qxb3

17...b6

Most Black players go for the text.

Alternatives are:
a) 17...e5 18.Rf3 Qd8 19.Rc1!± Kramnik,V-Kaidanov,G Groningen 1993.
b) 17...Qc7 18.Rd1 (18.Rb1 Bd7 19.Qxb7 Qxb7 20.Rxb7 Bc6 21.Rc7 Bxe4
22.Bxa6 0-0 23.Rg3+= ½-½ Gruenberg,H-Horvath,C Budapest 1991)
18...Bd7 19.Qb2 0-0-0 20.Rc1 Bc6 21.Bxa6 Rd6 22.Be2 Rhd8 23.Qxf6²
Akopian,V-Horvath,C Niksic 1991. Maybe Black should try this line
instead of the text...

18.Rd1

18.Rb1 is inferior, but it shouldn’t be underestimated: 18...Bd7 (18...Bb7

19.Re3 [19.Qxb6 Qxb6 20.Rxb6 Bxe4 21.Bxa6 f5 22.Rc3 Ke7= Van
Wely,L-Movsesian,S Polanica Zdroj 2000] 19...Rc8 20.Kg1 b5 21.a4²
Nielsen,P-Sargissian,G Istanbul 2003) 19.Qb2 Ke7 20.Ra3 Qe5 21.Qxe5
fxe5 22.Rxb6 Rhb8 23.Rxb8 Rxb8 24.g4 Bc6 25.f3 Rb1+= Atalik,S-
Richter,M Berlin 2000.

18...Bb7

After 18...Bd7

19.Kg1! (19.Qb2 Qe5 20.Qxb6 Bb5 21.Kg1 0-0 22.Qe3 Bxe2 23.Qxe2²
Bu,X-Aronian,L Goa 2002) 19...Qe5 (19...Ba4 20.Qc4 Qb5 21.Qd4+–)
20.Qxb6± White should feel quite happy.

19.Rf3 Qe5

19...0-0 won’t leave Black any happier after the suggested novelty 20.Qe3!
(20.Rg3+ Kh8 21.Qe3 Rg8 22.Qh6 Rxg3 23.Qxf6+ Rg7 24.Rd8+ ½-½
Solozhenkin,E-Khenkin,I Reggio Emilia 2000) 20...Rfd8 21.Qh6 Rxd1+
22.Bxd1 Bxe4 23.Rg3+ Bg6 24.h5±

20.Qxb6 Bxe4 21.Rg3 f5

22.Kg1!

Accurate. Black should be OK after 22.Bxa6 Ke7 23.Qb4+ Kf6 24.Qd2 h6

25.f4 Qc5 26.Qb2+ Ke7 27.Rg6 e5 28.Rgd6 Rhg8∞ Dautov,R-Schlosser,P
Lippstadt 2000.

22...h6

22...Ke7? loses to 23.Qb4+ Kf6 24.Rd7 Rae8 25.f4! (25.Rxf7+? Kxf7

26.Bh5+ Kf6–+ Wendt,J-Sebastian,D Germany 2005) 25...Qa1+ 26.Kh2+–

23.Qb4!

White loses all his advantage after 23.Bxa6? Ke7 24.Qb4+ Kf6 25.Rd7
Rhe8 26.Bb7 Rad8 27.Qd2 Rxd7 28.Qxd7 Rb8 29.Bxe4 ½-½ Wendt,J-
Galyas,M Budapest 2003.

23...f4 24.Rg4 Rb8

25.Qa4+!

A proposed novelty over the 25.Qa3 a5 26.Bf3 Rb4∞ of Topalov,V-Van

Wely,L Wijk aan Zee 2001.

25...Ke7 26.Bf3 Bxf3

26...Bg6 27.Rxf4±

27.Rd7+ Kf6 28.Rxf4+ Kg6 29.Qc2+ f5 30.Rxf3± White is a pawn up and

has the safer king.

2.2 — 10...BD7

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.e4 Bb4 6.Bg5 c5 7.Bxc4 cxd4
8.Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Qa5 10.Bb5+ Bd7
The text is still valid and is met quite often.

11.Bxf6 gxf6

A bad idea should now is 11...Qxc3+? 12.Kf1 gxf6 13.Rc1+– Malakhov,V-

Kosteniuk,A Moscow 2005.

12.Bxd7+ Nxd7 13.0-0 a6

The text is considered to be the main move, but sometimes Black captures
the pawn: 13...Qxc3
a) 14.Rc1 Qa5 15.Rb1 Rd8 16.Rxb7 Ne5 17.f4 Nc6 18.Nxc6 Qc5+ 19.Kh1
Qxc6 (19...Rxd1? 20.Rb8+ Kd7 21.Rxd1+ Kxc6 22.Rxh8±) 20.Qb1
(20.Qb3 Qxe4 21.f5 0-0∞ Aronian,L-Bluebaum,M Baden-Baden 2018)
20...0-0 21.Rxa7²
b) 14.Rb1 Rd8 15.Nb5 Qc6 16.Nd6+ Kf8 17.Nxb7 Rb8
18.Qc1! (18.Na5 Qxe4 19.Qd6+ Kg7 20.Rxb8 Nxb8 21.Qg3+ Qg6 22.Qc7
Na6 23.Qd6 Nb8 24.Qc7 Na6 25.Qd6 Nb8 26.Qc7 ½-½ Ipatov,A-Van
Foreest,J Saint Louis 2019) 18...Qxc1 19.Rfxc1²
c) 14.Qa4 0-0 15.Nxe6 (15.Qxd7?! Rad8 16.Qxb7 Qxd4= Leitao,R-
Morozevich,A Bursa 2010) 15...Nb6 16.Qd4 Rfc8 (16...Qxd4 17.Nxd4²
Antic,D-Zontakh,A Jagodina 1998) 17.Qxc3 Rxc3 18.Nf4 (18.Nd4 Rc4
19.Rfd1 Na4!= Gajewski,G-Wojtaszek,R Warsaw 2012) 18...Rc5 19.Rfd1
(19.g4 Kf8 20.Nh5 Ke7 21.Ng3 Rd8 22.Rfc1 Na4 23.Rd1 Nc3=
Ponomariov,R-Morozevich,A Saratov 2011) 19...f5 20.exf5 Rac8 (20...Rxf5
21.g3 Rc8 22.Rd3 Rc2 23.Ra3 a6 24.Rd3 Nc4 25.a4²) 21.f6! Rf5 22.g3
Rxf6 23.Rd3 Rfc6 24.Ra3² Carlsen,M-Anand,V Zagreb 2019.

14.Rb1

The main move, which by the way is considered holdable for Black, though
not without considerable suffering.

14...Qc7

Two other moves have been tried by Black here:

a) 14...0-0-0?! 15.Qe2 Qc7 16.Rb4 Nc5 17.Rfb1 Kb8 18.Rc4± Sonntag,H-
Miedema,D Eupen 2008.
b) 14...Nc5?! 15.Qf3 Qd8 (15...0-0 16.Rbe1 [16.Qg4+ Kh8 17.Qh4±]
16...Qd8 17.Qh5 Qd6 18.Re3± Orizondo,H-Nunez,J Santo Domingo 2015)
16.Rfe1 Rc8 17.Rbd1± Radjabov,T-Toth,C Biel 2000.

15.Qh5

An interesting and little-tested line is seen after 15.Qf3

a) 15...0-0-0?! 16.Rb4 Ne5 (16...Nc5 17.Rfb1± Le Quang,L-Naiditsch,A
Dortmund 2010) 17.Qxf6 Ng4 (17...Qxc3 18.Qxe5+–; 17...Nd3 18.Rbb1
Qxc3 19.Qxf7 Rd7 20.Ne2±) 18.Qh4 Qxc3 19.Nxe6 fxe6 20.Rb3 Qg7
21.Qg3±
b) 15...0-0?! 16.Rfd1 Rac8 17.Ne2! Nc5 18.Ng3±
c) 15...Rc8 16.Rfd1 b5 (16...b6 17.Ne2 Ke7 18.Rd4 Rhd8 19.h3 Ne5
20.Qh5² Kosic, D-Wittmann,W Budapest 2008; 16...0-0 17.Ne2 Rfd8
18.Ng3 Kf8 19.Nh5 Qe5 20.Rd4 Ke7 21.Rbd1± Kazhgaleyev,M-Kulaots,K
Khanty-Mansiysk 2010) 17.Rb2! (17.Ne2?! Ke7 18.c4 bxc4 19.Qa3+ Qc5
20.Qxa6 Rhd8∞ Nisipeanu,L-Gyimesi,Z Zalaegerszeg 2011) 17...0-0
(17...Qxc3? 18.Rc2 Qxf3 19.Rxc8+ Ke7 20.Nc6#) 18.Rbd2 Nc5 (18...Rfd8
19.Rd3 Kf8 20.e5! f5 21.Qh5±) 19.Qg4+ Kh8 20.Qh4 Qe5 21.Nf3 Qxe4
22.Qxf6+ Kg8 23.c4!²

Here Black can choose between 15...Qe5 and 15...Nc5.

15...Qxc3? 16.Nxe6!+– is out of the question. For 15...Ke7 see the analysed
game Gustafsson,J-Naiditsch,A Dortmund 2008.
2.2.1 — 15...QE5

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.e4 Bb4 6.Bg5 c5 7.Bxc4 cxd4
8.Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Qa5 10.Bb5+ Bd7 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Bxd7+ Nxd7
13.0-0 a6 14.Rb1 Qc7 15.Qh5 Qe5
Challenging the enemy queen at once, but Black hasn’t yet ‘secured’ his
queenside.

16.Qh4

16.Qe2 seems to be playable, but not so dangerous: 16...Nc5! (16...Qc7?!

17.Rb4 Rc8 18.Rd1 Rg8 19.a4 Rg5 20.h4 Rg8 21.Qh5 Qxc3?! 22.Rb3! Qc4
23.Rxb7 Qxa4 24.Nf5! exf5 25.Rbxd7 Rg7 26.Qxf5 1–0 Peng,Z-Holl,H
Leiden 2015) 17.Rfe1 0-0 18.Qe3 Rac8 19.f4 Qh5∞

16...Nc5

16...0-0-0 is not the best option here: 17.Rb4 Qg5 (17...Rhg8 18.Rfb1!
[18.f4 Qc5 19.Qf2 Nb8 20.Qe2 b5∞ Atalik,E-Dzagnidze,N Izmir 2016]
18...Nc5 19.Rc4 b5 20.Nc6 Qd6 21.Nxd8 bxc4 22.Nxf7±) 18.Qh3 Qd2
19.Rfb1 Nc5 20.Rc4 b6 21.Qh5! Rd7 22.Rcb4 Rb7 23.Rxb6 Qxc3 24.Rxb7
Nxb7 25.Qxf7 1–0 Ramirez Alvarez,A-Horvath,A Cappelle-la-Grande
2012. The alternative 16...Rc8 does not satisfy either: 17.Rxb7 (17.Nf3 Qc7
18.Rfd1 h5 19.Rb4 Rd8 20.h3 Ke7 21.Rbd4! [21.Rd3 ½-½ Flumbort,A-
Horvath,A Hungary 2005] 21...Ne5 22.Nxe5 Qxe5 23.f4! Rxd4 24.fxe5
Rxd1+ 25.Kh2 Rg8 26.exf6+ Kd8 27.Qf2²) 17...Rxc3 18.Nf3 Qc5 (18...Qd6
19.Rxd7 Kxd7 20.Qxf6 Rhc8 21.Ne5+ Kc7 22.Nxf7±) 19.Qf4±

17.f4! Qxe4 18.Rfe1 Qg6

Or 18...Qd5 19.Qxf6 Rg8 20.Rb2! Ne4 (20...Qd8 21.Qh6±) 21.Qh4 Nxc3

22.f5! Rd8 23.Rd2 (23.Nxe6 fxe6 24.Qxh7+–) 23...Rxg2+ 24.Rxg2 Qxd4+
25.Qxd4 Rxd4 26.fxe6 fxe6 27.Rg7 b5 28.Rxe6+ Kf8 29.Rxh7 Nxa2
30.Rxa6 Kg8 31.Rb7 Rd1+ 32.Kf2 1–0 Kozul,Z-Diermair,A Graz 2009.

19.f5 Qg5 20.Qxg5 fxg5 21.fxe6 fxe6 22.Nxe6 Nxe6 23.Rxe6+ Kf7
24.Reb6
Gonzalez Garcia,J-Oms Pallisse,J Barcelona 2011. White wins material.
The stem game continued 24...Rad8 25.Rxb7+ Kf6 26.R7b6+ Kf5 27.Rxa6
Rhe8 1–0.
2.2.2 — 15...NC5

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.e4 Bb4 6.Bg5 c5 7.Bxc4 cxd4
8.Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Qa5 10.Bb5+ Bd7 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Bxd7+ Nxd7
13.0-0 a6 14.Rb1 Qc7 15.Qh5 Nc5
A hard nut to crack!

16.Rb4

This manoeuvre prepares Rc4 and Nxe6 and is considered to be the main
line, with long theoretical variations. 16.Rfe1 is interesting: 16...Qe5
(16...0-0-0 17.Re3 e5 18.Nb3 Nxb3 19.axb3 Qd7 20.g3 Qe6 21.Rf3 Kd7
22.b4 Ke7 23.Qh4 Rdg8 24.Rd1± Anand,V-Naiditsch,A Mainz 2009)
17.Qf3 (17.Qh6 Qg5 18.Qh3 h5 19.Qf3 0-0-0 20.Rb4 Rd7 21.Rc4 Rc7∞
Jakovenko,D-Frolyanov,D Olginka 2011) 17...0-0-0 (17...Rg8 18.g3 h5
19.Qe3² Jakovenko,D-Frolyanov,D Khanty-Mansiysk 2013) 18.Qe3 Rd7
19.Rb4 Rc7 20.Nf3 Qd6 21.Rd4 (21.e5
21...Qd3! [21...fxe5 22.Nxe5 Rd8 23.Rd4² Smirnov,P-Frolyanov,D Khanty-
Mansiysk 2017] 22.exf6 Qxe3 23.Rxe3 Nd7=) 21...Qe7 22.Nd2². White
should dig a bit deeper into these lines...

16...Qe5

16...0-0-0? 17.Rc4 b6 18.Nb3±

17.Qh4

There are many alternatives here for White, which deserve a second and
deeper look:
a) 17.Qh6 Rc8 (17...Qg5 18.Qh3 Rg8 19.g3 h5 20.Rc4²)
a1) 18.a4 Qxe4 19.Qxf6 Rg8 20.Qf3 Rg4 21.Qh3 h5 22.Nb3 Qg6 23.Nxc5
Rxc5 24.Qf3 Rd5 25.g3 Rxb4 26.cxb4 Qc2 27.Qf4 Qxa4 ½-½ Leko,P-
Naiditsch,A Dortmund 2009.
a2) 18.Nf3!? Qxc3 19.Rd4 Ke7 20.e5 Nd7 21.Qh4° (White has obtained
unpleasant pressure for the sacrificed pawn. In practice it is difficult for
Black to defend) 21...Rhg8 22.Kh1 b5 23.h3 (23.Rfd1 Rgd8 24.Rxd7+
Rxd7 25.Qxf6+ Ke8 26.Qh8+ Ke7 27.Qf6+=) 23...Rc4 24.Rxd7+!? Kxd7
25.Qxf6° Kramnik,V-Naiditsch,A Dortmund 2009.
a3) 18.f4 Qxe4 19.f5 (19.Qxf6? Rg8 20.Nf3 Qe3+ 21.Kh1 Qe2 22.Rg1
Ne4–+)

19...Rg8! (19...e5?! 20.Qxf6 Rg8 21.Nf3 Qe3+ 22.Kh1 Nd7 [22...Qe2?!

23.Qxe5+ Qxe5 24.Nxe5±] 23.Qd6±) 20.Rb2! e5 21.Re2 Qd5 22.Qxf6
Nd7∞
a4) 18.Ne2 Nxe4 19.Qg7 Rf8 20.Rxb7 Nd6! 21.Rb2 Nc4=
b) 17.Qxe5 fxe5 18.Nb3 Nxb3 19.axb3 0-0-0 20.f4! exf4 21.Rc4+ (21.e5
Rd3 22.Rc4+ Kd7 23.Rfxf4 Rf8 24.Kf2 Rd5 25.Rcd4 Kc6 26.Rc4+ Kd7
27.Rcd4 Kc6 28.Rc4+ ½-½ Dautov,R-Naumann,A Germany 2009)
21...Kb8 22.Rxf4 Rd7 (22...Rd1+ 23.Kf2 Rd2+ 24.Kf3 Rhd8 25.e5²)
23.Rd4 Rc7 (23...Rxd4 24.cxd4 Rd8 25.e5 Rd7 26.Kf2²) 24.Rd3 Rg8
25.Kf2 a5! 26.c4 Ka7 27.Rh3 Rg7 28.Rh5 Ka6 29.Rfh4
29...a4! 30.bxa4 Rxc4= Gulko,B-Salov,V Linares 1990.
c) 17.Qf3 Rd8 18.Nb3 Nxb3 (18...Rd3 19.Qe2 Rxc3 20.Nxc5 Rxc5
21.Rxb7 0-0 22.h3²) 19.axb3 b5 (19...Rd7 20.Qe3 0-0 21.Rd4²) 20.Qe3 0-0
21.Rd4 a5 22.f4² Romanov,E-Sargissian,G Moscow 2009.
d) 17.Qh3 Rd8 18.Qe3 Qxe4 19.Qxe4 Nxe4 20.Nxe6 fxe6 ½-½ Arun
Prasad,S-Swapnil,S Chennai 2010.

17...Rd8

The other big chapter begins with 17...Qg5 18.Qh3

a) 18...Rg8?! 19.g3 (19.Rc4 b5 20.Rxc5 Qxc5 21.Nxe6 fxe6 22.Qxe6+ Kf8
23.Qxf6+ Ke8 24.Qe6+ ½-½ Khismatullin,D-Nielsen,P Plovdiv 2008)
19...h5 20.Rc4 b6 (20...Rc8?
21.Nxe6! [21.Nb3 b6 22.Nxc5 Rxc5 23.f4 Qg4 24.Qxg4 hxg4 25.Rxc5
bxc5 26.Rb1² Werle,J-Macieja,B Germany 2008] 21...fxe6 22.Rxc5 Rxc5
23.Qxe6+ Kf8 24.Rd1 Kg7 25.h4 Qg6 26.Qe7+ Kh6 27.Qxc5 Qxe4
28.Rd6+– Meier,G-Acs,P Paks 2009) 21.f4 Qg4 22.Qxg4 hxg4 23.Rb1²
b) 18...Qe5 19.Re1 Rd8 20.Qe3 Rg8 21.Nf3! Qc7 22.Rd4 Nd7 23.Red1
Ke7 24.g3² Gelfand,B-Jakovenko,D Moscow 2007.
c) 18...h5!
19.Rc4 (19.f4 Qg4 20.Qe3 Rg8 21.Rb2 Rc8 22.Rd2 h4 23.Nf3 h3 24.g3
Kf8 25.Rd4 Kg7 26.Rfd1 ½-½ Sasikiran,K-Macieja,B Warsaw 2008)
19...Rc8 20.Nb3 b6 21.f4 (21.Nxc5 Rxc5 22.Qd3 0-0 23.f4 Qg6 24.f5²
Meier,G-Macieja,B Kallithea 2008) 21...Qg4 22.Qe3 Rg8 23.Qf2±
Moiseenko,A-Macieja,B Barbera del Valles 2009.
18.Nf3

18.f4 has been tried in a number of games: 18...Qxe4 19.Re1

a) 19...Qd5?! 20.Qxf6 Rg8 21.g3 Rg6 (21...Ne4 22.Qh4 Nxc3 23.Qxh7 Kf8
24.f5!+–) 22.Qh8+ Ke7 23.Qe5 Qxe5 (23...Rd7 24.f5 Rf6 25.Qe3±)
24.Rxe5 Rd5 (24...Rc8?! 25.Nb3! Nd3 [25...Nxb3 26.Rxb7+ Kf6
27.Rxb3±] 26.Rxb7+ Kf8 27.Rh5! Rg7 28.f5!± Leko,P-Naiditsch,A
Dortmund 2010) 25.Rxd5 exd5 26.Nb3²
b) 19...Qg6 20.f5 Qg5 21.Qxg5 fxg5 22.fxe6 fxe6 23.Nxe6 Nxe6 24.Rxe6+
Kf7 25.Reb6 Rd1+ 26.Kf2 Rd2+ 27.Kg3 Rc8 28.Rxb7+ Kg6 29.R4b6+ Kf5
30.Rf7+ Ke5 31.Re7+ Kf5 32.Rf7+ ½-½ Beliavsky,A-Naiditsch,A Sibenik
2010.
c) 19...Qd3 20.Qxf6 Rg8 21.Nf5 (21.Nxe6 fxe6 22.Rxe6+ Nxe6 23.Qxe6+
Kf8 24.Qf6+ Ke8 25.Qe6+ Kf8 26.Qf6+ Ke8 27.Qe6+ ½-½ Molner,M-
Vazquez,G Internet 2017) 21...Rd7 22.Rd4 Qxc3 23.Red1 exf5 24.Qe5+
Kf8 25.Qb8+ Kg7 26.Qe5+ Kf8 27.Qb8+ Kg7 28.Qe5+ ½-½ Khenkin,I-
Khairullin,I Belgium 2013.

18...Qxc3 19.e5

19.Rbb1!? is a proposed novelty, which might prove to be dangerous:

19...Rg8 20.Qxh7 Ke7 (20...Kf8?! 21.Qh5±) 21.Qh5 Rh8 22.Qg4 Rhg8
(22...Rdg8 23.Qf4²) 23.Qf4 e5 24.Qf5 Qd3 25.Rfe1²
19...Rg8!

Reliable and good. Worse is 19...f5?! 20.Rc4 Qa5 21.Ng5!± Tkachiev,V-

Balogh,C Khanty-Mansiysk 2007.

20.Qxh7 Ke7

20...Kf8 21.Rf4 (21.Rbb1!? Qd3 22.Qh6+ Ke8 23.Qxf6 Ne4 24.Qf4 Nc3
25.Rbe1 Ne2+ 26.Rxe2 Qxe2 27.h4°) 21...f5 22.Qh6+ Ke8 23.Qh7 Kf8
24.Ng5 Rxg5 25.Qh4 Ne4 26.Rxe4 fxe4 27.Qxg5 Rd5 28.Qh6+ Kg8
29.Qg5+ Kf8 30.Qh6+ Kg8 31.Qg5+ ½-½ Radjabov,T-Leko,P Astrakhan
2010.

21.Rf4 f5
22.Qh4+

22.Rd4 Rxg2+ 23.Kxg2 Rxd4 24.Nxd4 Qxd4 25.Qg7 Nd3 26.Qg5+ Kf8
27.Qe3 Qd5+ 28.Qf3 Qc4 29.Rg1 b5 30.Qa8+ Ke7 31.Qb7+ Kf8 32.Qa8+
(32.Qb8+ Ke7 33.Qd6+ Ke8 34.Qb8+ Ke7 ½-½ Khenkin,I-Vakhidov,J
Hastings 2016) 32...Ke7 ½-½ Kozul,Z-Horvath,C Austria 2009.

22...Ke8 23.g3 Ne4 24.Rxe4 fxe4 25.Qxe4 Rd5 26.Qf4 Qc2 27.Ng5 Qf5
28.Qxf5 exf5 29.Nh7 Rg6 30.Nf6+ Rxf6 31.exf6 Rd6 32.Re1+ Kf8
33.Re5 Rxf6 ½-½ Gelfand,B-Aronian,L Nalchik 2009.

White should follow one of the suggestions above, especially those given
on the 19th move.
 CHAPTER 3.
THE 6...H6 LINE

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.e4 Bb4 6.Bg5 h6

As the players of the black pieces weren’t too happy with the previous lines
(they could achieve at maximum a draw after hard defence), the text started
to come into fashion. Black gets the bishop pair but White will have more
space and attacking chances on the kingside.

7.Bxf6 Qxf6 8.Bxc4 c5

8...0-0 is mainly a transposition, as Black will have to play ...c5 sooner or

later.

9.0-0

Again 9.e5 is a transposition to the main line.

9...0-0

The immediate 9...cxd4 gives White an extra option:

10.Nb5!? Qe7 (10...Na6? 11.a3±; 10...Qd8 11.Qa4 Nc6 12.Nbxd4±)

11.Qxd4 0-0 12.Nxa7! Bc5 (12...Bd7 13.Nb5 Nc6 14.Qe3 Rfc8 15.Qe2 Bc5
16.Rad1 Be8 17.a3± Antic,D-Solomunovic,I Bar 2005) 13.Nxc8 Rxc8
14.Qd3 (14.Qd2 Nc6 15.Rac1 Rd8 16.Qe2 Nd4 17.Nxd4 Rxd4 18.Rfd1
Rad8 19.Rxd4 Rxd4 20.g3² Hammer,J-Pelletier,Y Cap d’Agde 2010)
14...Nc6 15.Qe2 White has won a pawn, but Black can put up a defence.
All he needs to do is to exchange every possible piece except the bishops,
of course. Still, the defence is not so trivial... 15...Rd8 (15...Nd4 16.Nxd4
Bxd4
17.Bb3 [17.Rac1 Qf6 18.Rc2 b5 19.Bxb5 Rxc2 20.Qxc2 Rxa2 21.Rb1
Rxb2 22.Rxb2 Bxb2 23.Bd3 Be5 24.g3 g5 25.Qe2 Kg7 26.Kg2 Bd4 27.Qf3
Qxf3+ 28.Kxf3 f5 29.exf5 exf5 30.Bxf5 h5 31.h4 gxh4 32.gxh4 Bxf2 ½-½
Sanikidze,T-Margvelashvili,G Konya 2010] 17...Qf6 18.Rab1 [18.Rad1!?
Rd8 {18...Bxb2 19.Rd7 b6 20.f4!±} 19.Rd2! Be5 20.Rfd1 Bf4 21.Rxd8+
Rxd8 22.Rxd8+ Qxd8 23.g3 Be5 24.Qb5 Qc7 25.Kg2² Ruck,R-Hera,I
Nagykanizsa 2010] 18...Rc5 19.g3 Rd8 20.Kg2 Qe7 21.Rbd1 Rcc8 22.f4²
Lysyj,I-Movsesian,S Rijeka 2010) 16.Rad1 Qf6 (16...Nd4 17.Nxd4 Rxd4
18.Rxd4 Bxd4 19.Kh1 g6 20.f4 Kg7 21.b3 Rd8 22.Qf3 b6 23.f5 exf5
24.exf5 h5 25.fxg6 fxg6 26.Qf4 Bc5 27.Qc1 Rf8 28.Qc3+ Kh6 29.Qd2+
Qg5 30.Qxg5+ ½-½ Grachev,B-Inarkiev,E Mali Losinj 2019) 17.e5 Qe7
18.Qe4 Rxd1 19.Rxd1² Ding,L-Carlsen,M Abidjan 2019.

10.e5 Qd8

10...Qe7? is bad in view of 11.d5 (11.Ne4 cxd4 12.Qe2 Bd7 13.Rfd1 Bc6
14.Nxd4² Firouzja,A-Aronian,L Internet 2019) 11...Bxc3 12.d6 Qd8
(12...Qe8 13.bxc3 b5 14.Bd3 Bb7 15.Rb1± Seel,C-Choukri,A Berlin 2015)
13.bxc3± Zeng,C-Petrosyan,H Moscow 2008.
11.Qe2

Lately 11.dxc5 has been tried:

a) 11...Qxd1 12.Rfxd1 Bxc3 13.bxc3 Nd7 14.c6 bxc6 15.a4 (15.Rab1 Nb6
16.Bd3²; 15.Rd6 Nb6 16.Be2 c5 17.Nd2² Schoppen,C-Bindrich,F Belgium
2018) 15...Nb6 16.Bf1² Richter,M-Grandelius,N Germany 2012.
b) 11...Bxc3 12.bxc3 (12.Qxd8 Rxd8 13.bxc3 Bd7 14.Rab1 Bc6 15.Nd4
Nd7= Bagaturov,G-Petrosyan,M Batumi 2018) 12...Nd7 13.Qd6 Qa5 14.c6
bxc6 15.Bd3 Rb8 16.Rfd1² Barbot,P- Hera,I Ruzomberok 2014.
c) 11...Bxc5 12.Ne4 Be7 13.Qe2 Nc6 14.Rfd1 Qc7 15.Nc3! (15.Rac1 Nxe5
16.Bxe6 Nxf3+ 17.Qxf3 Qe5 18.Bb3 Be6=; 15.Nd6 Nxe5 16.Qxe5 Bxd6
17.Qxd6 Qxc4=) 15...a6 16.Qe4±

11...cxd4
11...Nc6?! is pleasant for White after 12.dxc5! Bxc5 (12...Bxc3?! 13.bxc3
Qa5 14.Qe4!±) 13.Rfd1 Qe7 14.Bd3!±. 11...Bd7 is also not that accurate:
12.d5!? Bxc3 13.bxc3 (13.dxe6!? Bxe6 14.Bxe6 Bxb2 15.Bxf7+ Rxf7
16.Qxb2 Nc6 17.Rad1²) 13...exd5 14.Bxd5 Qc7 15.Nd2!? (15.Qe3 Nc6
16.Qxc5 Rac8 17.Rfe1²) 15...Nc6 16.f4 Ne7 17.Be4 Rad8 18.a4!²,
preparing Nc4.

From here White can choose between 12.Rad1, 12.Rfd1 and 12.Ne4.

3.1 — 12.RAD1

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.e4 Bb4 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bxf6 Qxf6
8.Bxc4 c5 9.0-0 0-0 10.e5 Qd8 11.Qe2 cxd4 12.Rad1

White intends to play in the centre and on the kingside, but Black can
preserve the balance with accurate play.
12...Nc6

Black has also tried:

a) 12...Bd7 13.Rxd4 (13.Ne4 transposes to 12.Ne4) 13...Bxc3 (13...Nc6
14.Rd3 Qc8 15.Rfd1 Rd8 16.Bb3 Be8 17.Nb5²) 14.bxc3 Qa5 15.Nd2
(15.Qe3 Bc6 16.Rg4 Bxf3 17.gxf3 Nc6! 18.Qxh6 Qxe5∞; 15.Rg4 Bc6
16.Nd4 Nd7 17.f4∞ Parligras,M-Petrosyan,M Batumi 2018) 15...Bc6
16.Nb3 Qc7 17.Qe3! (17.Rd6 Nd7 18.Nd4 Nb6
19.Nxc6 [19.Bxe6 fxe6 20.Nxe6 Qf7 21.Nxf8 Rxf8∞] 19...Nxc4 20.Qxc4
bxc6∞) 17...Nd7 18.Re1 Rac8 19.Rg4 Kh8 20.Qg3 Rg8 21.Bd3²
b) 12...Bxc3 13.bxc3 Bd7 (13...Qc7 14.cxd4 Nc6 15.Qe4 Nb4 16.Rc1 Qc6
17.Qg4 [17.Qe1!? Qa4 18.Bb3 Qb5 19.Rc5 Qb6 20.Qd2²] 17...b5 18.Bb3²
Rapport,J-Ushenina,A Batumi 2019) 14.cxd4 Bc6 15.Rfe1 Re8 16.Qe3 Nd7
17.d5 Bxd5 18.Bxd5 exd5 19.Rxd5² Radjabov,T-Salgado Lopez,I Iraklion
2017.

13.Nb5

13.Nxd4 Nxd4 14.Qe4 Bxc3 15.bxc3 Nf3+! 16.Qxf3 Qc7 17.Qe4 Bd7
18.Bd3 g6= is not much and 13.Ne4 Bd7 transposes to 12.Ne4.

13...Bc5

After 13...Bd7 14.Nfxd4! (14.Nbxd4 Qb6 15.Qe4 Nxd4 16.Nxd4 Rfd8

17.h4 Be8∞ Fier,A-Istratescu,A Basel 2013) 14...Nxd4 15.Rxd4 Qe7
16.Rfd1 Bc6 17.Nd6², White keeps a small advantage.

14.Qe4 Bd7 15.Nbxd4 Nxd4!

(½-½ Bubalik,J-Horvath,C Slovakia 2018) 15...Qe7 16.Bd3 g6 17.Nb3 Bb6
18.Qf4² Guimard,C-Fine,R New York 1951.

16.Nxd4 Qb6 17.Bd3 g6 18.Qg4

18.Nb3 Be7 19.Qg4 h5 20.Qg3 Be8∞ Nestorovic,D-Pavlov,S Paracin 2010.

18...Kg7

18...Bxd4? 19.Bxg6!±

This looks perfectly playable for Black. He still possesses the bishop pair,
while White’s attack seems to have reached an impasse. Therefore, the line
is not recommended for White.
3.2 — 12.RFD1

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.e4 Bb4 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bxf6 Qxf6
8.Bxc4 c5 9.0-0 0-0 10.e5 Qd8 11.Qe2 cxd4 12.Rfd1
Quite similar to the previous chapter, but here White leaves his a1-rook to
deal with the c-file at certain moments.

12...Nc6

12...Bxc3 is an interesting idea; by exchanging the knight Black prevents

White’s main idea of Ne4, but now the latter gets a strong initiative:
13.bxc3 Bd7! (13...Nd7 14.Rxd4! Qe7 15.Nd2²; 13...Nc6?! 14.Nxd4 Qc7
15.Nxc6 bxc6 (15...Qxc6 16.Rd6±) 16.Rd6 Rb8 17.Rad1± Petrosian,T-
Zurakhov,V Tbilisi 1956) 14.Nxd4 Qc7 15.Bd3 Nc6 16.Qe4 g6 17.Nf3²

13.Qe4

13.Ne4 transposes to 12.Ne4.

13...Bxc3

Black has also tried:

a) 13...Bd7 14.Bd3 g6 15.Ne2! Bc5 (15...Be7 16.a3!²) 16.Rac1 Bb6 17.h4!?
(17.a3 Kg7 18.Nf4 Rh8 19.b4! [19.Bb1 Rc8 20.h4 Qe7 21.h5 g5 22.Ne2 f5
23.exf6+ Qxf6∞ Dumitrache,D-Meier,G France 2010] 19...a6 20.Rc4 Rc8
21.h4²) 17...f5!? (17...Nb4 18.Nexd4 Rc8 [18...Nxd3 19.Rxd3 Rc8
20.Rcd1±] 19.Bc4!²) 18.exf6 Qxf6 19.Nf4 Ne7 20.Nh5!²;
b) 13...Bc5 14.Na4 Be7 15.Nxd4²

14.bxc3 Bd7
15.Rab1

A proposed novelty. Not much is offered by 15.cxd4 Ne7 16.Bd3 g6 17.Qf4

Kg7 18.Be4 Bc6 (18...Nd5 19.Bxd5 exd5 20.Rdc1 Be6 21.Qd2 [21.Rab1
½-½ Fressinet,L-Movsesian,S Heidelberg 2010] 21...Qe7 22.Ne1 Rac8
23.Nd3 Rxc1+ 24.Rxc1 Rc8 25.Rxc8 Bxc8 26.Nf4 Be6 27.Qc3 h5 28.g3²)
19.Bxc6 Nxc6 20.Qe4=

15...b6

Alternatives are 15...Na5?! 16.Bd3 g6 17.Nxd4 Qc7 18.h4 Bc6 19.Qf4 h5

20.g4!± and 15...Rb8 16.Bd3 g6 17.Qf4 Kg7 18.Be4! dxc3 19.Rb3! Ne7
(19...Qe7? 20.Qf6+! Qxf6 21.exf6+ Kxf6 22.Rxd7 Rfd8 23.Rxd8 Rxd8
24.Kf1 Rd1+ 25.Ke2 Ra1 26.Rxb7 Rxa2+ 27.Ke3±; 19...c2!? 20.Bxc2 Ne7
21.Rd6°) 20.Rxc3 Qa5 21.Qf6+ Kg8 22.Re3 (22.Qxe7 Qxc3 23.Qxd7 Rbd8
24.Qxd8 Rxd8 25.Rxd8+ Kg7 26.Rd1 Qb2! 27.Bb1²) 22...Ba4 23.Rde1°

16.Bb5
16.Bd3 deserves attention as well: 16...g6 17.Bb5 Qc7 18.cxd4 Ne7
19.Rdc1 Qd8 20.Ba6 Rb8 21.Bd3 Rc8 22.Rxc8 Bxc8 23.h4²

16...Qc7

Again we have alternatives:

a) 16...Rc8 17.Nxd4 Qc7 18.Nf3 (18.Bd3 g6 19.Nb5 Qxe5 20.Nxa7 Qxe4
21.Bxe4 Nxa7 22.Rxd7 Nc6 23.f4²) 18...Rfd8 19.Ba6 Rb8 20.Bd3 g6
21.Qf4±
b) 16...Qe8 17.Bd3 g6 18.Qf4 Kg7 19.cxd4 Ne7 20.Be4 Bc6 21.Bxc6 Nxc6
22.d5 exd5 23.Qf6+ Kg8 24.Rxd5 Rd8 25.Rd6 Rxd6 26.exd6²

17.cxd4 Ne7 18.Rdc1 Qd8 19.Bd3 g6 20.Qf4 Kg7 21.Nd2

White heads for d6 or f6 with his knight. His initiative, space advantage and
attack on the black king give him the better prospects.
3.3 — 12.NE4

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.e4 Bb4 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bxf6 Qxf6
8.Bxc4 c5 9.0-0 0-0 10.e5 Qd8 11.Qe2 cxd4 12.Ne4
An interesting set-up. White forgets about the d4-pawn and tries to build an
initiative against the black king, ‘stating’ that his minus pawn reduces
Black’s chances of exchanging pieces, reducing the pressure. Here we see
traces of the c3 ‘Sicilian Defence’.

12...Be7 13.Rfd1

The other main line is by 13.Rad1 Qc7 (13...Nc6 14.Ng3 g6 15.Qe4 Bd7
16.h4 Na5 17.Be2 Bc6 18.Qg4 Qc7 19.h5 Bxf3 20.Bxf3 g5
21.Nf5!? exf5 22.Qxf5 Qc8 23.e6 Qxe6 24.Qxa5 Bd8 25.Qb5 Bb6 26.Rfe1
Qf6∞ Andreikin,D-Li,D China 2019) 14.Bd3 (14.Ng3 Rd8 15.Bd3 Nd7
16.Qe4 [16.Bb1 Nf8 17.Nh5 d3 18.Qe4 Bd7 19.Qg4 g6 20.Nf6+ Kg7
21.Rxd3 Bc6∞ Istratescu,A-Macovei,A Mamaia 2019] 16...Nf8 17.Rc1
Qa5 18.Nh5 Bd7 19.Qg4 g6∞ Stella,A-Lodici,L Padova 2019) 14...Nd7
15.Rc1 Qa5 16.g4!? — see the analysed game Aronian,L-Caruana,F Berlin
2018.

13...Qc7

Black’s alternatives are:

a) 13...Qa5 14.a3 Rd8 15.b4 (15.Ng3 Bd7 16.b4 Qb6 17.Bd3 Be8 18.Qe4
g6 19.h4 Nd7 20.Qf4° Handler,L-Bartos,J Vienna 2019) 15...Qb6 16.Bd3
Bd7 17.Ned2 Bc6 18.Nc4 Qc7 19.Rac1²
b) 13...Qb6 14.Rxd4 (14.g4 Bd7 15.g5 Bc6 16.gxh6 Nd7 17.hxg7 Kxg7∞
Eliseev,E-Pavlov,S Dnipro 2019) 14...Nc6 15.Rd2²

14.Ng3
Another approach is 14.Rac1 Bd7 15.Bxe6 (15.Rxd4 Bc6 16.Nf6+ gxf6
17.Qe3 fxe5 18.Rg4+ Kh7 19.Nxe5 f5∞ Martirosyan,H-Sargsyan,S Jermuk
2019) 15...Nc6 16.Bd5 Bg4 17.Ned2 Bg5 18.Bxc6 bxc6 19.Rc4 (19.Qe4
Bxf3 20.gxf3 Bxd2 21.Rxd2 Qa5 22.Rxd4 Qxa2 23.Rxc6 Qxb2 24.Kg2²
Anton Guijarro,D-Santos Ruiz,M Linares 2019) 19...Bxd2 20.Rxd2²

14...Bd7 15.Rac1 Nc6 16.Bd3 Qa5 17.a3²

Sargsyan,A-Mochalin,F Moscow 2020. White has the better prospects, as

his pieces are optimally placed.
 CHAPTER 4.
TYPICAL MIDDLEGAME STRATEGY

Knowing your good piece of opening theory in depth is a good start. But
alone it is not enough to gain and increase a significant advantage.
The knowledge of certain plans, manoeuvres, repeated motifs, etc, is an
essential piece of opening knowledge, as the journey continues via what we
call middlegame theory.
Yes, middlegame (and endgame) theory does exist. The great difficulty in
approaching it lies in the fact that it does not follow absolute and clear-cut
paths, but rather involves deep research into the ideas and logic by which
specific types of positions are treated.
Moreover, unlike opening theory, the theory of the middlegame (and the
endgame) does not change rapidly based on modern developments, and
instead remains almost intact through the years.
In middlegame theory we are obliged to study various or similar types of
positions with specific strategic and tactical attributes, so as to understand
the underlying ideas and be able to employ them ourselves in similar
situations. Besides, while many chess players have studied these topics and
acquired knowledge, it is the application of this knowledge in practice that
helps differentiate between them.
True, chess is not a simple activity, but it becomes so much more attractive
when we acquire this knowledge...
In view of the above, any chess player who wishes to follow a chess career
or simply become a better player must refrain from the commonplace and
assume a different approach.
He must develop a good understanding of middlegame (and endgame)
theory, so as to be able to proceed in a proper way after his chosen opening
has reached its conclusion.
And we must keep in mind that the most important asset is the pawn
structure; this is what guides us to understand what to do in the middlegame
— and even in the endgame!
Carlsen Magnus
Aronian Levon
D39 Baden-Baden 2019

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.e4 Bb4 6.Bg5 c5 7.Bxc4 cxd4
8.Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Qa5 10.Bd2!?

An absolutely new move in this well-known position!

10.Bb5+, 10.Bxf6 and 10.Nb5 have been seen in hundreds or even
thousands of games.

10...0-0

10...Nxe4 is the critical continuation: 11.Qg4! Nxd2 12.Qxg7 Nxc4

(12...Rf8 13.Kxd2 Qc5 14.Bd3²) 13.Qxh8+ Ke7! 14.0-0 Nd7° Handler,L-
Fedorovsky,M Vienna 2019.

11.Qe2 e5 12.Nb3 Qc7 13.0-0

An interesting position. White has the bishop pair and Black the healthier
pawn structure.

13...Bg4?!

Black has a lot of other options, including 13...Re8 and 13...b6. The
position he goes for is strategically risky.

14.f3 Rc8 15.Bd5! Nxd5

15...Be6?! 16.c4 Nc6 17.Rfd1± is not what Black would wish for.

16.exd5 Bh5

16...Bf5 17.Rac1 or 17.f4 are both quite pleasant for White.

17.c4!

The point! This pawn is invulnerable, and White’s protected d5-passer

becomes strong!
17...Nd7

17...Qxc4? 18.Rac1+–

18.Rfc1

As the battle will be convened on the queenside, White keeps his other rook
on a1.

18...b6 19.a4

Now it is clear why the rook remained on a1.

19...a5

Not good is 19...Nc5?! 20.Nxc5 Qxc5+ 21.Be3 Qd6 22.a5± but Black could
think of 19...Qd6 20.Qe1! (20.a5 b5!) 20...a5 21.Rc3²

20.Qf2 Qd6
21.Be3

The text is not much. White should opt instead for 21.f4! exf4 22.Qxf4
Qxf4 23.Bxf4² to increase the power of his bishop.

21...Bg6

21...Qb4 could have been played: 22.Qc2 Bg6 23.Qc3 Qd6 (23...Qxc3
24.Rxc3²) 24.Ra2²

22.Qd2 f6 23.Qb2 Rc7 24.Nd2 Nc5 25.Qa3 Rd8

Passive. 25...Qf8!? 26.Rc3 Rb7 27.Ra2 Be8 28.Ne4 Rab8! offers sufficient
counterplay.

26.Rc3 f5?

This is a faulty advance, which weakens Black’s position. 26...Rb7 27.Bxc5

bxc5 28.Nb3 Rb4 29.Nxa5 Ra8 30.Nb3 e4! should give Black what he
wants; counterplay!

27.Re1

Not bad, but even better looks to be the simple 27.Nb3! Nxb3 28.Qxb3±

27...e4 28.fxe4 fxe4 29.Bxc5 Rxc5 30.Nxe4 Qe5

31.Rce3!

Black has lost a pawn without compensation.

31...Rcc8

31...Rxc4?! loses to 32.Nd2+–

32.h3 Qc7

32...Qd4 33.Nd6!±

33.Nd2 Re8 34.Re7! Rxe7 35.Rxe7 Qd8?!

35...Qf4 36.Qc3 Bf7 is better but hopeless enough: 37.Qe3 Qxe3+ 38.Rxe3
Kf8 39.Rb3+–

36.Qe3

36.d6 Bf5 37.Qc3 Qf8 38.Qe5+–

36...Rc7 37.Re6 Rc5 38.Qb3 1–0

Aronian Levon
Caruana Fabiano
D39 Berlin 2018

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.e4 Bb4 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bxf6 Qxf6
8.Bxc4 c5 9.0-0 cxd4 10.e5 Qd8

11.Ne4

11.Nxd4 didn’t give White much: 11...0-0 12.Rc1 Bd7 13.Qb3 Qb6 14.Rfd1
Bc5 15.Qxb6 Bxb6 16.Ndb5 a6 17.Nd6 Bc6= Khegay,D-Lysyj,I
Cheliabinsk 2017.

11...0-0 12.Qe2 Be7 13.Rad1

Unclear also is 13.Rfd1 Qa5 14.Ng3 Rd8 15.Qe4 Nd7∞ Grandelius,N-

Bluebaum,M Germany 2018.
13...Qc7

14.Bd3

This natural move was a novelty here, as White players used to go for
14.Ng3 Rd8 15.Nh5 g6 16.Nf4 Nc6 17.Qe4 Bf8 18.h4 Bg7 19.Rfe1 Bd7
20.Bd3 Be8 21.Bb1 d3 22.Nxd3 Ne7 23.h5 g5 24.Rc1 Bc6 25.Nb4 Bxe4
26.Rxc7 Bxf3 27.gxf3 Nc6 28.Nxc6 bxc6 29.Rxc6 Rac8 30.Rxc8 Rxc8
31.Kg2 ½-½ Moiseenko,A-Meier,G Jerusalem 2017.

14...Nd7 15.Rc1

Maybe White should have considered 15.Ng3 Rd8 16.Nh5∞ (16.Qe4 Nf8
17.Nh5 Bd7 18.Qg4 ½-½ Basso,P-Vorobiov,E Cutro 2019).

15...Qa5 16.g4!?

I am sure that the entire continuation came from the ‘Levon Lab’ and it
looks quite dangerous for both sides! 16.Ng3 Nc5 (16...Qxa2? 17.Nh5±)
17.Bb1 d3 18.Qe3∞ was the ‘human’ way...
16...Nxe5 17.Nxe5 Qxe5

Black is now two pawns-up but White can claim slightly better
development and attacking pieces on the kingside. Is the investment good? I
can’t really tell with 100% accuracy, but during a practical game, when
your opponent is not fully prepared, it can prove to be a lethal option! To
sum-up, L.Aronian’s idea shouldn’t work to the full (point!) but should be
enough for a draw — nobody at this level plays something just to lose!

18.f4! Qa5

18...Qd5 was the main alternative queen move, but it seems that the black
queen isn’t entirely ‘perfect’ on d5: 19.g5 Bd7 20.gxh6 Rfc8 (20...g6
21.Rc5! Qxa2 22.Bc4 d3 23.Qxd3 Qxb2 24.Rc7 [24.Rb1 Qh8 25.Rc7 Qxh6
26.Rxd7 Rfd8∞] 24...Qb6+ 25.Rf2 Rad8 [25...Qxc7? 26.Qc3 f6 27.Bxe6+
Bxe6 28.Qxc7±] 26.Rxd7 Rxd7 27.Qxd7 Bh4 28.Ng3∞) 21.Qg2 g6
22.Rxc8+ Rxc8 23.f5!°

19.g5 Qd8
Being greedy is a sin and F.Caruana could have fallen for this sin with
19...hxg5? Then after 20.Qh5 f5 (20...g6 21.Qh6 g4 22.Rc5!+–; 20...Qf5
21.fxg5 g6 22.Qh4 Qe5 23.Rf6!+–) 21.fxg5 fxe4 22.Rxf8+ Kxf8 (22...Bxf8
23.Bxe4 Be7 24.Qe8+ Bf8 25.Rf1+–) 23.Qh8+ Kf7 24.Rf1++–, when
L.Aronian would have cashed the point! Critical was 19...Bd7 20.gxh6
(20.h4? Rac8–+) 20...g6 21.Nc5 Bxc5 22.Qe5 f6 23.Qxc5 Qxc5 24.Rxc5,
where although the engines prefer Black, I feel that White should share the
point in the end. Finally, 19...g6 20.gxh6 Kh7 (20...Qd8!? 21.Qg4 Bd7
22.Nc5°) 21.h4 Kxh6 22.Ng5° has to be noted. But we have to admit that
the position is rather complicated and the calculation difficult...

20.h4!?

20.gxh6 g6 21.Qg4° was noted above as well.

20...Bd7

Natural development, which had to be played sooner or later.

21.gxh6
21...g6

21...f5 22.hxg7 Rf7 23.Ng5 Rxg7 24.Kh2° is simply messy...

22.h5 Kh8!

Black should be careful and this was his best move.

Bad would be 22...g5? 23.fxg5 Bxg5 24.Qg2 f6 25.Nxf6++– and also
inferior is 22...Rc8?! 23.Rxc8 Qxc8 24.hxg6 fxg6 25.Ng5²

23.Kh2

White tries for something more, but objectively 23.hxg6 fxg6 24.Nc5 Rc8
25.Nxd7 (25.Qe5+ Bf6 26.Qe2 Be7=) 25...Qxd7 26.Qe5+ Bf6 27.Qe4 was
equal.

23...Bc6
From now on a series of bad moves by both players took place. Well, the
position was rather difficult to play and we shouldn’t be too critical, as to
err is human...

24.Rf3?

24.Rf2 was more-or-less forced: 24...Qd5 25.hxg6 fxg6 26.Rg1 Be8

27.Qg4°

24...Bd6?

Black missed 24...Qa5 25.Rh3 Bxe4 26.Bxe4 g5µ, or either 24...Qd5

25.hxg6 (25.Rh3 Rg8µ) 25...Qh5+ 26.Kg1 fxg6µ

25.Qf2?

25.Kh3! stopping ...Qh4+ was necessary.

25...Bc7?
Black again missed his best chance:
25...Bxe4! 26.Qxd4+ e5 27.Qxe4 Qh4+ 28.Rh3 Qxf4+ 29.Qxf4 exf4
30.hxg6 (30.Rg1 Rae8µ) 30...fxg6 31.Bxg6 f3+ 32.Kh1 f2 33.Rf1 Rf6
34.Be4 Rg8µ

26.Kh3! Qe7

27.Ng5?

27.Rg1! preserves equal chances. A sample variation might run 27...Rg8

28.Rfg3 Bd7 29.Rxg6! fxg6 30.hxg6 Rxg6 31.Rxg6 Bxf4! 32.Nf6!
(32.Qxf4? e5+–+) 32...e5+ 33.Nxd7 Qxd7+ 34.Kg2 Qh7 35.Qf3 Rg8
36.Rxg8+ Qxg8+ 37.Kf1 Bxh6 38.Qf6+ Qg7 (38...Bg7? 39.Qh4++–)
39.Qe6!=
In many continuations the opposite-coloured bishops help White to preserve
the draw.

27...e5?

27...gxh5! was winning on the spot: 28.Rg3 e5 29.Re1 Qd7+ 30.f5 e4–+

28.Rxc6!

With a series of two sacrifices, White stays in the game!

28.Nxf7+ Rxf7 29.hxg6 transposes.

28...bxc6
29.Nxf7+! Rxf7 30.hxg6

White is down a rook in total, but is compensated by a strong pawn duo.

30...Rf6

Black tries for something more, as the alternative 30...Rxf4 31.Rxf4 exf4
32.Qxd4+ Qe5 (32...Be5 33.g7+ Bxg7 34.hxg7+ Qxg7 35.Qxf4=) 33.g7+
Kg8 34.Bc4+ Kh7 35.Qd3+ Kxh6 36.g8=Q Rxg8 37.Bxg8 should end in a
draw.

31.g7+ Kg8
32.Bc4+?

It’s a blunderfull life! L. Aronian missed his last chance to draw: 32.Qh4!
e4 (32...exf4 33.Bc4+ Kh7 34.Bd3+=; 32...Qe6+? 33.f5 Qd6 34.Kg4+–)
33.h7+ Kxg7 34.Rg3+ Kh8 35.Rg8+ Rxg8 36.hxg8=Q+ Kxg8 37.Bc4+
Kg7 38.Qg5+ Kh7 39.Qg8+ Kh6 40.Qg5+=

32...Kh7 33.Qh4 e4

And as the diagonal b1-h7 is closed, Black is winning.

34.Rg3 Bxf4 35.g8=Q+ Rxg8 36.Bxg8+ Kh8

37.Rg7

37.Rg6 Qd7+ 38.Qg4 Qxg4+ 39.Rxg4 d3–+

37...Qf8

White resigned, as h6 falls...

0–1

Karjakin Sergey
Aronian Levon
D39 Berlin 2018

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Bg5 dxc4 6.e4 c5 7.Bxc4 cxd4
8.Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Qa5 10.Bb5+ Nbd7 11.Bxf6 Qxc3+ 12.Kf1 gxf6
13.h4 Qb4
14.Rb1?!

A suspicious continuation — something went wrong in S.Karjakin’s

generally-excellent opening preparation... Another recent game continued
instead: 14.Rh3 a6 15.Be2 Ne5 16.Rb1 Qd6 17.Rc3 0-0 18.h5 Rd8∞
Giri,A-Harikrishna,P Shenzhen 2017.

14...Qd6 15.Rh3 a6 16.Be2

16...Nc5!

L.Aronian had done his homework and this was a good novelty in place of
16...Ne5?! 17.h5 b5 18.Rc3 Bd7 19.Nb3 Qxd1+ 20.Rxd1 Ke7 21.f4 Nc4
22.Nc5 Bc6 23.Bxc4 bxc4 24.a4 Rhc8 25.Rd4 ½-½ Lalith,B-Bindrich,F
Chotowa 2010.

17.Rc3

As 17.Nb3 Qxd1+ 18.Rxd1 Nxe4 19.Rhd3 0-0 is simply bad for White, he
might have tried 17.Re3 Bd7 18.Rc1, trying to fish around... The text was a
try to muddy the waters, as anything ‘normal’ simply wasn’t appealing to
him.

17...Nxe4 18.Rd3 0-0

There is no knight move to make Black afraid, so castling is a good option!

19.Qc1 Qe5?!
19...Qh2! looks even better: 20.Bf3 (20.Rh3 Qe5 21.Nf3 Qc5 22.Qe1 Qc3µ
Sarana,A-Aleksandrov,A Skopje 2019) 20...Qh1+ 21.Ke2 Qxh4 (21...Qxc1
22.Rxc1 f5µ) 22.g3 Nxg3+ 23.fxg3 Qh2+ 24.Ke1 e5µ

20.Bf3 f5 21.Qh6?

White could claim compensation after 21.Kg1 Kh8 22.Qe3 due to his better
development and pressure in the centre, but he failed to notice it.

21...Qf6!

Black returns one of his two extra pawns and the endgame should be more-
or-less decisive. Returning a part of your material gains is good advice, to
convert the rest without too much risk...

22.Qxf6 Nxf6 23.Bxb7 Bxb7

Also possible was 23...Rb8 24.Rdb3 Rxb7 25.Rxb7 Bxb7 26.Rxb7 Rd8
27.Nf3 Rd1+ 28.Ke2 Ra1µ
24.Rxb7 Rac8 25.Rg3+ Kh8

26.Rgb3?!

There was no time for passivity. White had to opt for 26.Ra3 Ne4 27.Rd7
Rc1+ 28.Ke2 Rg1µ

26...Ne4! 27.Rb2 Rfd8 28.Nb3 Rd1+ 29.Ke2 Nc3+ 30.Ke3 Kg7 31.g3
Kf6

31...Rg1! 32.Kf3 e5–+

32.Ra7 Rc6 33.Kf3 Nb5 34.Ra8

34...e5?!

The white king in the centre can’t be allowed to feel safe, so better here was
34...Rg1! 35.Ke2 and only now 35...e5!–+

35.Kg2! e4 36.a4?!

White’s last hope lay in 36.Rd2 Rxd2 37.Nxd2 Nc3µ, or 37...e3 38.fxe3
Rc2 39.Rd8 Ke7 40.Rd3 Rxa2µ

36...Na3 37.Rd2 Rxd2 38.Nxd2

38...e3!

Now this advance proves strong and decisive.

39.Nf3

39.fxe3?! loses to 39...Rc2 40.Rd8 Nc4–+

39...Rc2!

The white kingside pawn structure should be taken — the white a-pawn is
going nowhere...

40.Rxa6+ Kg7 41.Nd4 Rxf2+ 42.Kg1 Nc2!

The rook ending is clearly decisive for Black, so he goes for it.

43.Nxc2 Rxc2
44.Kf1

44.a5?! Rc1+ 45.Kg2 e2–+

44...Rf2+ 45.Ke1

45.Kg1 Rf3 46.Kg2 e2–+

45...Rg2 46.Rb6 Rxg3 47.Rb4 Rg2! 48.Rf4 Kg6 49.Rf3 Rg4 50.Rxe3
Rxa4 51.Kf2 Rxh4
If one of the f-pawns was missing, White could save himself (the notorious
f- & h-pawns rook ending), but three pawns are too many...

52.Re8 Rg4 53.Kf3 Kg7 54.Re5 Kf6 55.Re8 h5 56.Rh8 Kg6 57.Kf2 Rg5
58.Kf3 Kg7 59.Ra8 h4 60.Kf2 h3 61.Ra3 Rh5 62.Kg1 Kg6 63.Kh2 f4
64.Ra7 f3 65.Ra1 f2 66.Rf1 Rf5 67.Kxh3 Kg5 68.Kg3 Rf4

White resigned: 69.Rxf2 Rxf2 70.Kxf2 Kf4–+

0–1

Gustafsson Jan
Naiditsch Arkadij
D39 Dortmund 2008

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.e4 Bb4 6.Bg5 c5 7.Bxc4 cxd4
8.Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Qa5 10.Bb5+ Bd7 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Bxd7+ Nxd7
13.0-0 a6 14.Rb1 Qc7 15.Qh5 Ke7
A typical position of the ‘QGD — Vienna Variation’ has arisen. Both sides’
pawn structures have their weaknesses, but the most important factor is the
‘centralised’ black king. If the queens were off the board, then Black would
feel more than OK, but this is not the case! Maybe better is 15...Nc5 16.Rb4
Qe5 17.Qh4 Qg5 18.Qh3² as in Gelfand,B-Jakovenko,D Moscow 2007.

16.f4

Reinforcing the attack. There is no point in guarding weak pawns when

there is a clear target; the black king: 16.Rfd1 b5 17.Rb2 Rac8 18.Rbd2
Nc5 19.Re2 Qf4∞ Avrukh,B-Grischuk,A Biel 2007.

16...Qxc3

Black grabs a pawn in order to compensate for his centralised king! After
16...Rac8 17.e5! or 16...Rag8 17.Qf3 White enjoys a pleasant advantage.
But maybe Black should opt for the latter.

17.Rfd1!
A difficult to find but correct follow-up, as the alternative rook move fails
to satisfy: 17.Rbd1?! Rhd8! (17...Qe3+? 18.Kh1 Rhg8

19.Nxe6! Kxe6 20.Qf5+ Ke7 21.Rxd7+ Ke8 22.Qd5 1–0 Nguyen,N-

Karthikeyan,P Vung Tau 2008) 18.f5? Ne5!µ

17...Rab8

It is not easy for Black to find shelter. The other options are:
a) 17...Qe3+ 18.Kh1 Qxe4 19.Nf5+! Qxf5 (19...exf5 20.Re1+–) 20.Rxd7+
Kxd7 21.Qxf7+ leads to mate.
b) 17...Qc7 18.e5 fxe5 19.fxe5 Qxe5 (19...Nxe5 20.Qg5+ Kf8 21.Qf6 Kg8
22.Rbc1+–) 20.Nc6+! bxc6 21.Rxd7+ Kxd7 22.Qxe5+–
c) 17...b5 18.Rbc1 Qe3+ 19.Kh1 Qxf4 20.Ne2+–
d) 17...Rhd8 18.f5 Nc5 (18...e5 19.Ne6!) 19.fxe6! Rxd4 20.Qxf7+ Kd6
21.Rb6+ Ke5 22.Qh5+ Kxe4 (22...Kf4 23.Qf5+ Ke3 24.Qf3#) 23.Rf1!
Qe3+ 24.Kh1 Qg5 25.Qxh7+ f5 26.e7 Re8 27.Re1+ Kd3 28.Qf7+–

18.e5!
Almost every attack needs open files!

18...Qe3+?!

Black’s defence becomes difficult.

The alternative was 18...Rhd8 19.exf6+ Nxf6 20.Qe5 Nd5 21.Re1! (21.Rb3
Qc7 22.Nf5+ Kd7 23.Rxd5+ exd5 24.Qxd5+ Kc8 25.Ne7+! Qxe7 26.Rc3+
Qc7 27.Rxc7+ Kxc7 28.Qxf7+ Rd7 29.Qc4+± is less clear-cut) 21...Qc5
22.Rbc1 Qb6 23.Kh1 Kf8 24.f5+– but Black should have gone for it, as
White would have to find some difficult moves.

19.Kh1 Rhd8

20.exf6+! Ke8

As the c6-square is now unguarded, Black cannot play 20...Nxf6 due to

21.Rxb7+! Rxb7 22.Nc6+ Kf8 23.Qh6+ Kg8 24.Rxd8+ Ne8 25.Rxe8#

21.Nxe6
White is clearly winning now.

21...Nxf6

21...Qxe6 22.Re1 Nf8 23.Rxe6+ Nxe6 24.Re1+–

22.Nc7+ Ke7

22...Kf8 23.Qh6+ Kg8 (23...Ke7 24.Re1) 24.Qg5+ Kf8 25.Qxf6+–

23.Qh4

The combined threats of Re1 and Nd5 are impossible to parry without
heavy material losses, so Black resigned.

1–0

Eljanov Pavel
Sargissian Gabriel
D39 Merida 2005
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.e4 Bb4 6.Bg5 c5 7.Bxc4 cxd4
8.Nxd4 Qa5 9.Bb5+ Bd7 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.0-0 Bxb5 12.Ncxb5 Nc6 13.a3
Nxd4 14.axb4 Qxb5 15.Qxd4 Ke7

This heavy pieces middlegame is rather unpleasant for the black side. The
black king stands badly, while the open and semi-open files help White to
get an attack either directly on the black king, or the black pawns.

16.Ra5!

16.Rxa7? Rxa7 17.Qxa7 Qxb4= is simply exchanging material for no profit.

16...Qd7

16...Qb6 17.Rc5 Rad8 18.Qe3 Rc8 19.e5!± opens more lines for the white
pieces.

17.Qe3 b6

Black has no time to lose: 17...a6 18.e5 fxe5 19.Qg5+ Kf8 20.Qh6+ Ke7
21.Rxe5±
18.Rh5! Rhg8

18...Rad8 19.Qa3 Qb7 20.b5+ Ke8 21.Qa4±

19.g3

19.Rxh7 is also possible: 19...Rad8 20.h4±

19...Rad8
20.Ra1!

All White’s forces must be activated. Although White has no direct threats,
Black cannot defend in the long run — only computers can truly fight in
such positions!

20...Rg7 21.Qf4

With the threat of Rh6, winning material.

21...e5 22.Qf3

22.Qh4 Qc7 23.Rf5 Rg6 24.Qxh7 is a killer as well.

22...Qc7

Black cannot get rid of the pressure on a7: 22...a5 23.bxa5 bxa5 24.Qa3++–
23.b5!

Fixing the a7-target.

Black is nearly lost, because beside his weak king, he has to care for his
rook pawn weaknesses as well.

23...Rd6

23...Rd4 24.Rh6 Rd6 25.Kg2 leaves Black without a decent move.

24.Rh6 Qd7 25.Kg2 Qb7

26.Ra4!

Preparing the lethal Qa3.

26...Ke8 27.Rxf6

Finally material is won and the end is near.

27...Rg6 28.Rxd6 Rxd6 29.Qh5! Qe7 30.Qxh7 1–0

 CHAPTER 5.
ENDGAME TECHNIQUE

The chess player who wishes to master an opening should not only know
how to gain an advantage from it, or how to increase it in the middlegame,
but also finally how to convert it in the endgame.
Knowledge of typical endgames with specific pawn structures is hugely
important, as it helps to evaluate correctly our chances in them and to make
middlegame decisions regarding choices and possibilities that are very
difficult to make otherwise.
The endgames that follow are characteristic of the system with 6.Bg5. It is
not important that some of them arise via another opening or system; the
important thing is to understand and master them — endgame technique is
essential...
Alekseev Evgeny
Grischuk Alexander
D39 Plovdiv 2010

1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.Bg5 Bb4 6.e4 h6 7.Bxf6 Qxf6
8.e5 Qd8 9.Qa4+ Nc6 10.Bxc4 Bd7 11.Qc2 Ne7 12.0-0 Bc6 13.Ne4 Nd5
14.a3 Be7 15.Rac1 a5 16.Rfe1 a4 17.Ba2 Nb6 18.Qe2 Bxe4 19.Qxe4 c6
20.Red1 Ra5 21.Ne1 Nd5 22.Nd3 h5 23.Rc2 g6 24.Nc5 Bxc5 25.dxc5 0-0
26.Rd4 Qe7 27.Rxa4 Rxc5 28.Rxc5 Qxc5 29.Rc4 Qb6 30.Qd4 Rd8 31.g3
Qc7 32.Qe4 Ne7 33.Rd4 Nf5 34.Rxd8+ Qxd8 35.Qe2 Qd4
In this ending Black stands better. His dominant queen can’t be dislodged
and he now vindicates J.R. Capablanca’s maxim — ‘A queen cooperates
better with a knight, than with a bishop’ — with superior technique and in
model fashion.

36.Kg2

36.Bb1 Ne7 doesn’t change the character of the position.

36...Kg7 37.Bc4 Nh6!

By threatening ...Ng4, Black forces a new weakness.

38.h3

The alternative is 38.Bd3 Ng4 39.f4 Ne3+ 40.Kf3 Nd5µ

38...Nf5

Now Black’s ideas, such as ...h4, ...g5 and ...Ne7-g6, or ...c5 and ...Ne7-c6,
make White’s life miserable.
39.a4?!

The text loses material almost by force.

More resilient was 39.Bd3 Ne7 40.h4 c5 41.f4 b6µ

39...h4! 40.g4

Even here White had to try 40.Bd3, although 40...hxg3 41.Bxf5 exf5
42.fxg3 Qxa4 should gradually win.

40...Ne7

Now, based on the above comments, the e5-pawn is doomed...

41.Kg1

41.g5 loses to 41...Qf4–+

41...c5 42.b3
42.Bb5 Nd5 43.Kh2 g5!–+ is a dead story; the knight on f4 is gold.

42...Nc6 43.Qf3 Qxe5 44.Bb5 Na5

44...Nd4 45.Qxb7 Qd5 46.Qxd5 exd5–+ is equally good, but Black

preserves queens on the board, as the white king is weak as well.

45.Qd3 b6 46.Qd8

White cannot find counterplay: 46.Be8 Qe1+ 47.Kg2 Qb4 48.Qf3 f5–+

46...Nxb3 47.Qxb6 Nd2 48.a5 Qe1+ 49.Kg2 Ne4

50.Kf3 Ng5+ 51.Kg2 Ne4

Repetition to win some time.

52.Kf3 Ng5+ 53.Kg2 Qe4+! 54.Kf1

54.Kh2 loses to 54...Qf4+ 55.Kg2 Qf3+ 56.Kf1 Ne4–+

54...Qh1+ 55.Ke2 Qf3+ 56.Ke1 Ne4

White resigned: 57.Be2 Qxf2+ 58.Kd1 Qd4+ 59.Kc2 Qc3+ 60.Kb1 Qd2–+

0–1

Leko Peter
Naiditsch Arkadij
D39 Dortmund 2010

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.e4 Bb4 6.Bg5 c5 7.Bxc4 cxd4
8.Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Qa5 10.Bb5+ Bd7 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Bxd7+ Nxd7
13.0-0 a6 14.Rb1 Qc7 15.Qh5 Nc5 16.Rb4 Qe5 17.Qh4 Rd8 18.f4 Qxe4
19.Re1 Qd5 20.Qxf6 Rg8 21.g3 Rg6 22.Qh8+ Ke7 23.Qe5 Qxe5 24.Rxe5
Rc8 25.Nb3 Nd3 26.Rxb7+ Kf8 27.Rh5 Rg7 28.f5 Nf4 29.Rh4 Ne2+
30.Kf2 Nxc3 31.fxe6 fxe6 32.Rxh7 Rxb7 33.Rxb7

Black seems to be in trouble, as he is a pawn down and his king is stuck on

the 8th rank. His survival chances lie in potential counterplay...
33...e5!

33...Nxa2?! 34.h4 e5 35.h5 is far worse, as the white pawns are stronger.

34.Rb6 Nxa2 35.Rxa6 Rc2+! 36.Kg1 Nc3

Now the black forces are fully cooperating and the extra white pawn
doesn’t make any real difference. Well, there is still a way to go...

37.Rf6+! Kg7 38.Rf2

38...Ne2+! 39.Kg2

39.Kf1?! Nxg3+! 40.hxg3 Rc3 is simply equal.

39...Kg6 40.Na5

After 40.Nc1, Black should continue with 40...Nf4+! (40...Rxc1 41.Rxe2

Kf5 is a theoretical draw as well) 41.gxf4 Rxc1 42.fxe5 Re1=
40...Kh5 41.Nb7

41.Nc6 again allows 41...Nf4+! 42.gxf4 Rxc6 43.fxe5 Re6 44.Re2 Kg4=

41...e4 42.Kf1 Nd4 43.Rxc2 Nxc2 44.h3 Nd4

The knight ending is holdable for Black, as his forces are active.

45.Kf2 Ne6 46.Nd6 Ng5 47.Kg2

47.h4 Nf3! 48.Nf5 Kg4 49.Ne3+ Kh5=

47...e3!

Accurate.
Black wants to force White to push his pawns, so he can attack them
efficiently, mostly sacrificing his knight for them.
48.g4+

48.h4 e2 49.Kf2 Nf3=

48...Kg6

Natural, but still the only move:

48...Kh4? 49.Nf5#, or 48...Kh6? 49.Nf5+ Kg6 50.Nxe3+–

49.Nc4 e2 50.Ne5+ Kh6

50...Kf6!? is good enough: 51.Nd3 Ne4 52.h4 Nc5 53.Ne1 Nd7 54.Kf2 Ne5
55.Kg3 Kg7 56.Kf4 Ng6+ 57.Kg5 Nf8= White can’t make any progress
without his knight.

51.Nd3 Nf7

51...Ne4 52.h4 Nc5 53.Ne1 Nd7 54.Kf2 Ne5 55.Kg3 Kg7! transposes to the
previous comment.
52.Kf2 Kg5 53.Kg3 Ne5 54.Ne1 Kg6 55.Kf4

Surprisingly, the black king is placed worse on g6 than on g7!

55...Kf6 56.Ke4

56...Ng6?

After a good defence, Black finally goes astray. The only drawing line was
to be found in 56...Nf7! 57.Ke3 Ng5! 58.h4 Nf7 59.Kf4 (59.Kxe2 Ne5
60.g5+ Kf5=) 59...Kg7=

57.Ke3! Kg5 58.Nf3+ Kf6 59.Kf2!

59.Kxe2? Nf4+=

59...Nf4 60.h4

Black loses his e2-pawn without blocking White’s passed pawns.

Now White wins easily.
1–0

Mamedyarov Shakhriyar
Kolev Atanas
D39 Leon 2001

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.e4 Bb4 6.Bg5 c5 7.Bxc4 cxd4
8.Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Qa5 10.Bb5+ Nbd7 11.Bxf6 Qxc3+ 12.Kf1 gxf6
13.Rc1 Qb4 14.h4 a6 15.Be2 Ne5 16.Rh3 Bd7 17.Rb3 Qd6 18.Rxb7 0-0
19.f4 Ng6 20.g3 Rfc8 21.Rxc8+ Rxc8 22.Nb3 Qxd1+ 23.Bxd1 Bc6
24.Rb4 Bb5+ 25.Kf2 Ne7 26.Nd4 Bc4

White has the better ending, based on his healthier pawn structure and the
activity of his centralised pieces. Meanwhile, it looks quite difficult for
Black to create some counterplay.

27.a4!

Not only protecting his pawn, but also thinking of a5, fixing the black a-
pawn.
27...e5

The text might create another weakness on e5, so Black could stay put with
something like 27...Kg7.

28.fxe5 fxe5 29.Nf3 a5

The only way to protect the e5-pawn, as the immediate 29...f6? fails to
30.Rxc4+–

30.Rb6 Nc6

31.g4!

It is time for expansion on the kingside!

31...h6

Worse seems to be 31...f6?! 32.g5 fxg5 33.hxg5±

32.Ke3?!

The text doesn’t offer much, so White should have opted for 32.Be2! Bxe2
33.Kxe2 f6 34.Ke3 Kf7 35.g5 hxg5 36.hxg5²

32...Be6! 33.g5

What else? If 33.Be2 then Black can escape by 33...Bxg4 34.Rxc6 Rxc6
35.Nxe5 Rc3+ 36.Kd4 Bxe2! (36...Ra3 37.Nxg4 Rxa4+²) 37.Kxc3 Bd1=

33...hxg5 34.hxg5 Bc4?!

34...Bg4! is the right way: 35.Rxc6 Rxc6 36.Nxe5 Bxd1 37.Nxc6 Bxa4
38.Nxa5 Kg7 39.e5 Bb5=

35.Bb3! Bxb3 36.Rxb3

36...Nb4!
Counterplay is important! The passive 36...Kg7? would allow White a great
position after 37.Rb5! (37.Rc3? Ne7! 38.Rxc8 Nxc8 39.Nxe5 Nb6 40.Nc6
Nxa4 41.Nxa5 f6=) 37...Re8 38.Rc5 Re6 39.Nh4 Kf8 40.Kf3 Ke8 41.Nf5±

37.Nxe5 Rc5?

Black returns the favour in no time! Good here is the active 37...Kg7
38.Kf4 Rc1 39.Kg4².

38.Kd4 Rc2 39.Rc3 Ra2

The knight ending after 39...Rxc3 40.Kxc3+– is simply lost.

40.Rc8+ Kg7 41.Rc7

And the f7-pawn is doomed, allowing White two passed pawns.

41...Rxa4 42.Rxf7+ Kg8 43.Rb7!

43.g6? looks natural (passed pawns must be pushed), but Black can escape:
43...Nc6+ 44.Kd5 Nxe5 45.Kxe5 Ra1=

43...Nc6+ 44.Kd5 Nxe5 45.Kxe5

But this is a lost position, as the white king can find his shelter on g6 —
note the comment on move 43.

45...Ra1 46.Ra7 Kf8

Or 46...a4 47.Kf6 a3 48.Kg6 Kf8 49.e5+–

47.Kf6 Rf1+ 48.Ke6 Ra1 49.Kf6 Rf1+ 50.Kg6!

The right way!

50...Ra1 51.Ra8+ Ke7 52.Kg7 a4 53.g6 a3 54.Kg8 a2 55.g7 Ke6

56.Ra5!

The most accurate. White needs to transfer his rook to the 2nd rank and
more specifically to h2. From there he will keep an eye on the black a-pawn
and at the same time will allow his king to escape from g8, promoting his
pawn.

56...Kd6

If 56...Ke7 then 57.Re5+! Kd6 (57...Kf6 58.Rf5+ Ke6 59.Rf2+–) 58.Rd5+

Ke6 59.Rd2+–

57.Rd5+ Ke7 58.Rd2 Rh1

58...Ke6 59.Rh2+– as the white king will escape on the h-file.

59.Rxa2

Two pawns up!

Note that White can win this position even without his e4-pawn — and it’s
actually easier, as now he doesn’t have a (good) check from the e-file.

59...Rh4 60.Ra7+ Ke8

60...Ke6 61.Kf8 Rf4+ 62.Ke8 Rg4 63.Re7++–

61.Ra5

Easier is 61.Ra6 Ke7 62.Ra5 Ke6 63.Ra7+–

61...Ke7 62.Re5+ Kd6

63.Kf7

Choosing an ending of queen vs rook, which might be a bit difficult with

limited time. He could go back to the note on the 61st move.

63...Kxe5 64.g8=Q Rf4+ 65.Ke7 Rxe4

And White wins the queen vs rook ending.

66.Qg5+ Kd4+ 67.Kd6 Kd3 68.Qg3+ Kd4 69.Qf3 Re3 70.Qf4+ Kd3
71.Kd5

1–0
 Show in Text Mode

CHAPTER 6.
TACTICAL MOTIFS

Tactics are the salt & pepper of chess. They crown every strategy and
appear in every game, so we cannot live without them!
Typical tactical motifs repeat themselves, and their knowledge and
understanding are an essential asset to season our opening preparation.
Kramnik Vladimir
Vallejo Pons Francisco
D39 Tromsoe 2014

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.e4 Bb4 6.Bg5 c5 7.Bxc4 cxd4
8.Nxd4 Qa5 9.Bd2 Qc5 10.Bb5+ Bd7 11.Nb3 Qc7 12.Rc1 Nc6 13.0-0 0-0
14.Qe2 Rfd8 15.Bg5 Be7 16.Be3 a6 17.Bd3 Be8 18.f4 Ng4 19.Qxg4 Rxd3
20.Bf2 Qd8 21.e5 Nb4 22.Nc5 Rd2 23.N3e4 Rxb2 24.Rfd1 Nd5 25.Nf6+
Bxf6 26.exf6 g6 27.Bd4 Rxa2 28.Qh4 Bc6 29.Ne4 Re2 30.Ng3
Show/Hide Solution

30...Nxf4! 31.Qxf4

31.Nxe2 Nxe2+ 32.Kh1 Nxc1 33.Qh6 Qf8 34.Qxc1 Rc8–+

31...Qd5 32.Ne4 Qxe4 33.Qxe4 Rxe4–+ 34.Bb6 g5 35.Rd2 h6 36.Bd8 a5

37.Be7 a4 38.Rc3 Kh7 39.h3 Kg6 40.Kh2 Rf4

0–1

Alekseev Evgeny
Grischuk Alexander
D39 Plovdiv 2010
1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.Bg5 Bb4 6.e4 h6 7.Bxf6 Qxf6
8.e5 Qd8 9.Qa4+ Nc6 10.Bxc4 Bd7 11.Qc2 Ne7 12.0-0 Bc6 13.Ne4 Nd5
14.a3 Be7 15.Rac1 a5 16.Rfe1 a4 17.Ba2 Nb6 18.Qe2 Bxe4 19.Qxe4 c6
20.Red1 Ra5 21.Ne1 Nd5 22.Nd3 h5 23.Rc2 g6 24.Nc5 Bxc5 25.dxc5 0-0
26.Rd4 Qe7 27.Rxa4 Rxc5 28.Rxc5 Qxc5 29.Rc4 Qb6 30.Qd4 Rd8 31.g3

Show/Hide Solution

31...Qc7?

31...Ne3! 32.Qxe3 Qxe3 33.fxe3 Rd1+ 34.Kf2 Rd2+ 35.Kf3 Rxb2µ;

31...c5! 32.Qxc5 Qxb2µ

32.Qe4 Ne7 33.Rd4 Nf5 34.Rxd8+ Qxd8 35.Qe2 Qd4 36.Kg2 Kg7
37.Bc4 Nh6 38.h3 Nf5 39.a4 h4 40.g4 Ne7 41.Kg1 c5 42.b3 Nc6 43.Qf3
Qxe5 44.Bb5 Na5 45.Qd3 b6 46.Qd8 Nxb3 47.Qxb6 Nd2 48.a5 Qe1+
49.Kg2 Ne4 50.Kf3 Ng5+ 51.Kg2 Ne4 52.Kf3 Ng5+ 53.Kg2 Qe4+ 54.Kf1
Qh1+ 55.Ke2 Qf3+ 56.Ke1 Ne4
0–1

Khenkin Igor
Horvath Csaba
D39 Dieren 2016

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.e4 Bb4 6.Bg5 c5 7.Bxc4 cxd4
8.Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Qa5 10.Bb5+ Bd7 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Bxd7+ Nxd7
13.0-0 a6 14.Rb1 Qc7 15.Qh5 Nc5 16.Rb4 Qe5 17.Qh6 Qg5 18.Qh3 Rg8
19.g3 b5 20.Qxh7 Nd3 21.Nf3 Qg4 22.h3 Qg7 23.Qxg7 Rxg7 24.Rd4 Nf4
25.Kh2 Ne2 26.Rd3 Rc8 27.a3 a5 28.c4 Rxc4 29.Rfd1 Rc7 30.R1d2 Nc3
31.Nd4 Nxe4

Show/Hide Solution

32.Nc6!
32...Rxc6 (32...Nxd2 33.Rd8#; 32...Rc8 33.Rd8+ Rxd8 34.Rxd8#) 33.Rd8+
Ke7 34.R2d7#

1–0

Kozul Zdenko
Georgiev Kiril
D39 Skopje 2013

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.e4 Bb4 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bxf6 Qxf6
8.Bxc4 c5 9.0-0 cxd4 10.e5 Qe7 11.Ne4 Nc6 12.Qe2 0-0 13.a3 Ba5
14.Rad1 Bd7 15.b4 Bc7 16.Nc5 Rfc8 17.Qe4 Be8 18.Bd3 g6 19.Qf4 Kg7
20.Rc1 Rab8 21.Ne4 a6 22.Nf6 Bd7 23.Ng4 Rh8 24.h4 h5 25.Ngh2 Rbc8
26.Rfe1 f5 27.Nf1 Rhd8 28.Ng3 Bb8 29.Ne2 Kh8 30.Qg3 Qg7 31.Nf4
Rg8 32.Bc4 Rce8 33.Ba2 Bc8 34.Rcd1 Re7 35.Rc1 Bd7 36.Qg5 Ree8
37.Nd3 Kh7 38.Qf4 Kh8 39.Nc5 Bc8
Show/Hide Solution

40.Ng5! Bxe5 41.Rxe5 Nxe5 42.Qxe5 Qxe5 43.Nf7+ Kh7 44.Nxe5+– g5

45.Ncd3 gxh4 46.Nf4 Re7 47.Kf1 Kh6 48.Bb3 Kg5 49.Nfd3 Kf6 50.Rc4
b5 51.Rxd4 Bb7 52.f3 Bd5 53.Bxd5 exd5 54.Rxd5 Rc8 55.Nd7+ Kg5
56.N7c5 Rc6 57.Ne4+ Kh6 58.Rxf5 Rc2 59.Nf4 Rd7 60.Kg1 Rd1+
61.Kh2 Ra1 62.Rf6+ Kh7 63.Ng5+ Kg7 64.Nxh5+ Kg8 65.Rf7

1–0

Le Quang Liem
Shulman Yuri
D39 Lubbock 2011

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.e4 Bb4 6.Bg5 c5 7.Bxc4 cxd4
8.Nxd4 Qa5 9.Bd2 Qc5 10.Bb5+ Bd7 11.Nb3 Qe7 12.Bd3 Nc6 13.0-0 0-0
14.a3 Bd6 15.Kh1 Ne5 16.Be2 Ng6 17.f4 e5 18.f5 Nf4 19.Bf3 Bc6 20.Qc2
Rfc8 21.g3 Ne2 22.Nxe2 Bxe4 23.Bxe4 Rxc2 24.Bxc2 Qc7 25.Nc3 Qc6+
26.Kg1 Bc5+ 27.Nxc5 Qxc5+ 28.Kg2 Qb6 29.Rab1 Rd8 30.Bc1 h6
31.Re1 Qc6+ 32.Kg1 Ng4 33.Re2 Qf3
Show/Hide Solution

34.Bg5! Rd4

34...hxg5 35.Be4+–; 34...Nxh2 35.Bh4+–

35.Rf1 Qc6 36.Bc1+– Qc5 37.Kg2 b5 38.Be4 a5 39.Bf3 Qc4 40.Ne4

Nxh2 41.b3 Qd3 42.Nc5 Qc3 43.Kxh2 Qxc5 44.Be3 a4 45.Rc1 Qd6
46.Bxd4 Qxd4 47.bxa4 bxa4 48.Kg2 Qd7 49.Rb1 Kh7 50.Rxe5 Qd3
51.Rb8 Qxa3 52.Ree8 g5 53.Rg8 Qd3 54.f6 Qc2+ 55.Kh3 Qf5+ 56.Kh2
1–0

Smirnov Pavel
Popov Valerij
D39 Moscow 2005
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.e4 Bb4 6.Bg5 c5 7.Bxc4 cxd4
8.Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Qa5 10.Bb5+ Bd7 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Bxd7+ Nxd7
13.0-0 a6 14.Rb1 Qc7 15.Qd2 Rc8 16.Rfd1 b5 17.f4 Nc5 18.Qe3 Rg8
19.Ne2 Na4 20.Kh1 Ke7 21.e5 f5 22.Rd6 Nxc3 23.Rxa6 Nd5 24.Qa3+
Qc5

Show/Hide Solution

25.Ra7+! Kf8

25...Kd8 26.Qa6+–

26.Rc1!

26...Qxa3 27.Rxc8+ Kg7 28.Rxg8+ Kxg8 29.Rxa3+–

1–0
 Cramling Pia
Zhu Chen
D39 Shenyang 2000

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.e4 Bb4 6.Bg5 c5 7.Bxc4 cxd4
8.Nxd4 Qa5 9.Bd2 Qc5 10.Bb5+ Bd7 11.Nb3 Qe7 12.Bd3 Nc6 13.0-0 0-0
14.a3 Bd6 15.f4 e5 16.f5 Nd4 17.Bg5 Bc6 18.Bc4 Nxb3 19.Qxb3 Rad8
20.Kh1 Bc5 21.Nd5 Bxd5 22.Bxd5 Rd6 23.Rac1 Bd4 24.Rc2 h6 25.Bxf6
Rxf6 26.Qg3 Rd6 27.b4 Rfd8 28.Qb3 R6d7 29.f6 gxf6 30.Qh3 Kh7
31.Qf5+ Kh8 32.Rf3 Rg8 33.Rh3 Rg6 34.Rc8+ Kg7

Show/Hide Solution

35.Rg8+! Kxg8 36.Qxg6+ Kf8 37.Qxh6+ Ke8 38.Qh8+ Qf8 39.Qxf6 Rc7
40.Rf3 Qg7 41.h4 Qxf6 42.Rxf6 Kf8 43.g4 Bb2 44.g5 Bxa3 45.b5 Kg7
46.Kg2 a5 47.bxa6 bxa6 48.Kh3 a5 49.h5 Bc1 50.Kg4 a4 51.h6+ Kh8
52.Rxf7 Rxf7 53.Bxf7 a3 54.Kh5 a2 55.g6
1–0

Grabliauskas Virginijus
Lindinger Markus
D39 Hamburg 1997

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.e4 Bb4 6.Bg5 c5 7.Bxc4 cxd4
8.Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Qa5 10.Bxf6 Qxc3+ 11.Kf1 Qxc4+ 12.Kg1 Nd7
13.Bxg7 Rg8 14.Rc1 Qa6 15.Bh6 Ne5 16.h4 Bd7 17.Rh3 Qxa2 18.Rhc3
Ng4 19.Bd2 Qa6 20.Bg5 Qd6 21.Qxg4 Qxd4 22.Rc7 Qd6 23.Rxb7 Bc6
24.e5 Qd5

Show/Hide Solution

25.Rxc6!
25...Qxc6 26.Qb4+–

1–0
 PART 4.
QGD — THE LASKER VARIATION (D56)

The ‘QGD — Lasker Variation’ is characterised (mainly) by the moves

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 0-0 7.e3 Ne4

It must be mentioned that Black can also go for this variation without
inserting the move ...h6.
The 2nd FIDE World Champion, Emanuel Lasker, was hardly an opening
innovator. Nevertheless, there are a few variations which he introduced.
In the early 20th century, most of the top players had thoroughly abandoned
the romantic and aggressive chess of the mid-19th century, instead
preferring ‘scientific’ chess, especially with 1.d4.
For this reason, the ‘Queen’s Gambit Declined’ dominated as the opening
of the elite.
Emanuel Lasker in general was not concerned about White’s capture Nxe4.
The following ...dxe4 would double the black pawns, but also impede the
development of White’s king knight (or attack that knight). Black could
then follow up with ...c5 and thoroughly free his position.
While Lasker is generally considered the author of the ...Ne4 concept, he
played it a few moves before what is now known as the ‘Lasker Variation’.
His first games using this idea were against Frank Marshall from their 1907
World Championship match. In those games he played ...Ne4 as early as
move five, before White even developed his g1-knight and without the
inclusion of ...h6 and Bh4.
Only later, in the Moscow 1935 tournament, did he use what is now
formally known as the ‘Lasker Variation’.
HISTORICAL APPROACH
According to ChessBase, and of course in what we call today the ‘Lasker
Variation’, the first time this was met was back in 1895, in an exhibition
game by the great American player Harry Nelson Pillsbury:
Pillsbury Harry Nelson
Voigt Hermann
A85 Philadelphia 29.10.1895

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Nf3 Ne4 7.Bxe7 Qxe7
8.Qc2 f5 9.Bd3 c6 10.Ne5 Nd7 11.Nxd7 Bxd7 12.f3 Qh4+ 13.g3 Nxg3
14.Qf2 f4 15.e4 Qh6 16.Rg1 Nh5 17.0-0-0 Nf6
18.e5 Ne8 19.Rg4 g6 20.Rdg1 Ng7 21.Bxg6 hxg6 22.Rxg6 Qh7 23.Qg2
Rf7 24.Qg5 Kf8 25.Rh6 Qg8 26.Qh4 Rf5 27.Rf6+ Ke8 28.Qh6 Kd8
29.Rxg7 Qe8 30.Rxf5 exf5 31.Qf6+ Kc8 32.cxd5 cxd5 33.Nxd5 Be6
34.Ne7+ Kd7 35.d5 1–0

Emanuel Lasker, in his 1907 match, showed how (seemingly) effortlessly

he was able to outplay a world-class opponent once he reached a
satisfactory position.
These games with Frank Marshall are the reason why the variation with
...Ne4 is called the ‘Lasker Variation’.
However, nowadays the moves order 5...0-0 6.Nf3 h6 7.Bh4 Ne4 is
considered to be the main way.
Marshall Frank James
Lasker Emanuel
D55 New York 31.01.1907

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 Ne4 6.Bxe7 Qxe7 7.Bd3 Nxc3
8.bxc3 Nd7 9.Nf3 0-0 10.0-0 Rd8 11.Qc2 Nf8 12.Ne5 c5 13.Rab1 Qc7
14.Qb3 b6 15.cxd5 exd5 16.Qa4 Bb7 17.Qd1 Rd6 18.Qg4 Re8 19.Qg3
Rde6 20.Bf5 R6e7 21.f4 Bc8 22.Bxc8 Rxc8 23.Qf3 Qd6 24.Rfc1 Rec7
25.h3 h6 26.Kh2 Nh7 27.Qh5 Nf6 28.Qf5 cxd4 29.exd4 Ne4

30.Nxf7 Rxf7 31.Qxc8+ Rf8 32.Qb7 Qxf4+ 33.Kg1 Qg5 34.Kh2 Qg3+
35.Kg1 Nd2 36.Qxd5+ Kh8 37.Kh1 Nf3 38.gxf3 Qxh3+ 39.Kg1 Qg3+
40.Kh1 Rf4 41.Qd8+ Kh7 42.Rf1 Rf5 43.Qe8 Qh4+

0–1

And the first game with the 9.Rc1 system:

Dake Arthur William
Staehelin Adolf
D56 Warsaw 22.08.1935

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Rc1 h6 7.Bh4 Ne4 8.Bxe7
Qxe7 9.Nf3 Nxc3 10.Rxc3 c6 11.Bd3 Nd7 12.0-0 dxc4 13.Bxc4 b6 14.Bd3
Bb7 15.Be4 Rac8 16.Qa4 Nf6 17.Bxc6 Nd5 18.Bxd5 Bxd5 19.Rfc1 Rxc3
20.Rxc3 Bxf3 21.gxf3 Rd8 22.Kf1 e5 23.Rd3 exd4 24.Rxd4 Rxd4
25.Qxd4

25...Qe6 26.Qa4 Qf6 27.Kg2 Qg6+ 28.Qg4 Qb1 29.Qc8+ Kh7 30.Qc4
Kg8 31.b4 Qg6+ 32.Qg4 Qc2 33.a3 Qb3 34.Qc8+ Kh7 35.Qa6 Qe6
36.Qd3+ Kg8 37.Qe4 Qd6 38.f4 Qd7 39.h3 Qa4 40.Qd3 Qc6+ 41.e4 Qc1
42.Qf3 Qc4 43.e5 Kh7 44.f5 a5 45.bxa5 bxa5 46.Qe3 Kg8 47.e6 Qd5+
48.Kg3 Kf8 49.Qf4 Qb3+ 50.f3 Ke8 51.Qd6 Qb5 52.h4 Qb7 53.Qc5
Qb8+ 54.Kg4 Qd8 55.a4 g6 56.exf7+ Kxf7 57.Qa7+ Kf8 58.fxg6 h5+
59.Kh3

1–0

STARTING OUT

The system proposed against the ‘QGD — Lasker Variation’ commences

with the moves 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 0-0
7.e3 Ne4 8.Bxe7 Qxe7 9.Rc1
From here Black can choose between various ‘second-hand’ lines and the
main one, which is 9...c6 10.Bd3 Nxc3 11.Rxc3.

CHAPTER 1.
VARIOUS LINES

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5

Before we go on with what we will consider the modern lines, we have to
examine some ‘unusual’ stuff!

5...h6

Black has tried to do without the text move, either here or after castling:
a) 5...Ne4 6.Bxe7 Qxe7 (6...Nxc3?! 7.Bxd8 Nxd1 8.Bxc7 [8.Rxd1 Kxd8
9.e3 Ke7 10.Rc1²] 8...Nxb2 9.c5 [9.cxd5!? exd5 10.Rb1±] 9...Na6
[9...Nc6!? 10.e3 Kd7 11.Bg3 Nc4 12.Rc1 N6a5 13.Bd3±] 10.Bg3±
Zakharevich,I-Loginov,A St Petersburg 2000) 7.Rc1 0-0 (7...Nxc3 8.Rxc3
c6 9.e3 0-0 10.Qc2 Nd7 11.Bd3
And we have a position where Black has to spend a tempo: 11...h6 (11...g6
12.0-0 Re8 13.Rd1 Kg7 14.h3± Morovic Fernandez,I-Dorin,M Argentina
1995) 12.0-0 Rd8 (12...dxc4 13.Bxc4 e5 14.Bb3 exd4 15.exd4 Nf6 16.Re1²
Mchedlishvili,M-Al Zendani,Z Istanbul 2012) 13.a3 Nf8 14.Re1 Bd7 15.e4²
Li,C-Wang,C China 2017) 8.e3 b6 9.cxd5 Nxc3 10.Rxc3 exd5 11.Bd3
(11.Qc2 c6 12.Bd3 h6 13.0-0 Bb7 14.a3 Nd7 15.Bh7+ Kh8 16.Bf5 Nf6
17.b4± Sebenik,M-Peric,B Bled 2018) 11...h6 (11...c5 12.dxc5 bxc5 13.0-0
Nd7 14.Qc2 g6 15.Bb5± Petran,P-Frigieri,F Budapest 2011) 12.Qc2 Na6
13.Bxa6 (13.Qa4 Nb4 14.Bb1±) 13...Bxa6 14.Qa4 Qe4 15.Kd2 Bc4 16.b3
b5 17.Qa5 b4 18.Qxb4 Rab8 19.Qc5 a5 20.Rhc1 Bb5 21.a4 Bd7 22.Qxc7
Bh3 23.Qg3 Bf5 24.Ne5 f6 25.f3 Qb1 26.Rxb1 Bxb1 27.Rc7 g5 28.Qh3 1–
0 Stupak,K-Arul Anandh,S Chennai 2020.
b) 5...0-0 6.e3 Ne4 7.Bxe7 Qxe7 8.Rc1
8...c6 (8...Nc6 9.Qb3 Na5 10.Qa4 b6 11.cxd5 Nxc3 12.Rxc3 exd5 13.Bd3
c6 14.0-0 Bd7 15.Ne5± Korchnoi,V-Bohm,H Amsterdam 1976) 9.Bd3
Nxc3 10.Rxc3 (1–0 Anand,V-Zdebik,B Bad Mergentheim 1993) 10...Nd7
11.0-0 dxc4 12.Bxc4 (12.Rxc4 e5 13.Qc2 h6 14.Rd1 exd4 15.Rxd4²
Nikolic,P-Vaganian,R Venacu 2006) 12...b6 13.Qc2 c5 14.Bd3 h6 15.Be4
Rb8 Cori,J-Firouzja,A Internet 2020, when White is a tempo-up in the
variations of the 2nd Chapter. So, it is obvious that Black needs this ‘extra’
move (...h6).

6.Bh4 0-0 7.e3 Ne4 8.Bxe7 Qxe7 9.Rc1

Here is the starting position of our examination. Instead of the main line
(9...c6), Black has tried some ‘second-hand’ moves:
a) 9...Qb4?! (There’s nothing to be proud of in such moves...) 10.Qc2 c5
(10...c6 11.Bd3 Nxc3 12.bxc3 Qe7 13.0-0 Nd7 14.Rfe1 Nf6 15.Ne5 Bd7
16.Rb1 Rab8 17.Qa4± Estremera Panos,S-Martinez Rubio,F Mondariz
1997; 10...Nxc3 11.Qxc3 [11.bxc3!? Qa3 12.Rb1 b6 13.cxd5 exd5 14.Bd3²]
11...Qxc3+ 12.Rxc3 c6 13.Bd3 Nd7 14.0-0² Garcia,J-Garcia Perez,S
Asturias 1993) 11.a3 Qa5 12.dxc5 Nxc3 13.Qxc3 Qxc5 14.b4± Eriksson,J-
Lehti,J Helsinki 2003.
b) 9...Nc6 (A playable continuation, planning to attack the centre with ...e5)
10.Bd3 Nxc3 (10...f5 11.0-0 Nxc3 12.Rxc3 Bd7 13.cxd5 exd5 14.Qb3±
Carrai,G-Mussap,A Codogno 2012; 10...Nf6 11.0-0 dxc4 12.Bxc4 e5
13.d5 [13.Nd5! Nxd5 14.Bxd5±] 13...Na5 14.Be2² Bjornes,L-Emborg,J
Helsingor 2013; 10...Qb4 11.Qc2 Na5 12.0-0 Nxc4 13.Bxc4 dxc4?
14.Nxe4+– Villegas Carrasco,E-Molina Rosa,C San Bartolome de Tirajana
2013) 11.Rxc3 (11.bxc3 Na5 12.Qa4 Nxc4 13.Bxc4 dxc4 14.Qxc4 b6 15.0-
0 Bb7∞ Wojszkun,T-Piepiorka,P Poland 2013) 11...Nb4 (11...e5 12.cxd5
Nxd4 [12...exd4 13.Rc4 Nb4 14.Rxd4±] 13.0-0 Nxf3+ 14.Qxf3± Flear,G-
Chaplin,E Saint Affrique 2001) 12.Bb1 dxc4 13.Rxc4 b6 14.a3² Sakelsek,T-
Lesjak,M Rogaska Slatina 2009.
c) 9...c5?! (Black is not ready for the opening of the centre and should avoid
it) 10.cxd5 Nxc3 11.Rxc3 cxd4 12.Nxd4 (12.Qxd4 exd5 13.Qxd5 Be6
14.Qe4 Nc6 15.Bd3± Micklich,R-Rogasch,M Willingen 2007) 12...exd5
13.Be2 Nd7 (13...Be6 14.0-0 Nd7 15.Qc2 Nb6 16.Rc7± Yanase,S-
Figueiredo,F Brazil 1995) 14.0-0± Matthiesen,A-Pihlajasalo,A Finland
1996.
d) 9...b6 (The text should be considered as a transposition to the ‘QGD —
Tartakower Variation’, but here Black doesn’t have the ‘ideal’ set-up)
10.cxd5 Nxc3 11.Rxc3 exd5 12.Qc2 c6 13.Bd3 Bb7
14.0-0 (14.Bh7+ Kh8 15.Bf5² Babula,V-Aepfler,C Pardubice 2009)
14...Nd7 15.Rc1 (15.a3 a5 16.Bh7+ Kh8 17.Bf5² Malinin,Y-Ivanov,S
Gatchina 2001) 15...g6 16.b4 Kg7 (16...a6 17.e4!± Liascovich,L-Ibar,M
Villa Martelli 2017; 16...Qxb4? 17.Bxg6±) 17.Qb2 (17.a3 a5 18.Rb1 axb4
19.axb4 Ra7∞ Maksimenko,A-Osmanodja,F Dresden 2014) 17...Kg8 18.h4
h5 19.Ra3²
e) 9...Nf6 (A passive but not illogical retreat) 10.Bd3 (10.Be2 Rd8 11.0-0
dxc4 12.Qa4 b6 13.Qxc4 Bb7 14.Rfd1² Sakaev,K-Pavlovic,M Vrnjacka
Banja 2010; 10.a3 a6 11.cxd5 exd5 12.Qb3 c6 13.Bd3 Nbd7 14.0-0²
Arutinian,D-Danielian,O Cappelle-la-Grande 2007; 10.Qb3 Rd8 11.Be2
dxc4 12.Qxc4 a6 13.0-0 b5 14.Qb3 Bb7 15.a4 b4 16.a5² Beliavsky,A-
Short,N Belgrade 1987) 10...Rd8 11.cxd5 exd5
12.Ne5 c5 13.0-0 Nc6 14.Nxc6 bxc6 15.Re1 (15.dxc5 Qxc5 16.Ne4 Qe7
17.Nxf6+ Qxf6 18.b3²) 15...Bg4 16.f3 Be6 17.Na4 cxd4 18.exd4² Vallejo
Pons,F-Lalic,B Andorra 1999.
f) 9...Rd8 10.Bd3 Nxc3 (10...Nc5 11.Be2 dxc4 12.Bxc4± Ivchenko,A-
Lebed,P Kiev 2007) 11.Rxc3 dxc4 (11...c5 12.cxd5 cxd4 13.Nxd4 exd5
14.0-0± Miljkovic,M-Janjos,S Kragujevac 2014) 12.Rxc4 c6 13.0-0 Nd7
(13...b6 14.Ne5 Bb7 15.Qc2 Qd6 16.Be4± Ginsburg,G-Hammes,M
Germany 2008) 14.Bb1 (14.h3² Mohota,N-Sachdev,T Chennai 2011) 14...e5
(14...Nf8 15.Qc2 Bd7 16.Ne5 Be8 17.f4² Perez Martin,J-Junquera,R
Asturias 1998; 14...g6 15.Qc1 e5 16.dxe5 Nxe5 17.Nxe5 Qxe5 18.f4 Qa5
19.Rc3 Kg7 20.e4² Fajans,H-Blackstone,J San Francisco 1961) 15.Qc2 g6
16.Rc3 (16.Rd1 Nb6 17.Rc5 exd4 18.Rxd4∞ Hegeler,F-Jordan,W Hamburg
1990) 16...Qf6 17.Re1²
 CHAPTER 2.
MAIN LINES

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 0-0 7.e3 Ne4 8.Bxe7
Qxe7 9.Rc1

Now we will move on to what we can call the main lines of the system.

9...c6

9...Nxc3 10.Rxc3 c6 is just a transposition.

10.Bd3 Nxc3

10...f5?! leads to a bad version of the ‘Dutch Defence — Stonewall

Variation’: 11.Ne5 Qf6 12.0-0 Nd7 13.f4² Paldanius,P-Raaste,E Finland
1993. The point is that after 13...Nxc3 14.Rxc3 Nxe5 15.fxe5, White will
(sooner or later) play cxd5, either getting the open c-file (after ...cxd5) or a
good passed pawn after ...exd5, with pressure on the f5-pawn and a good
minority attack on the queenside.

11.Rxc3 Nd7

11...dxc4 12.Bxc4 b6 is a try for a ‘good’ transposition, but it seems that it

fails to 13.Ne5 Bb7 14.Be2! (14.0-0 Nd7 15.f4 Nxe5 16.fxe5 c5=
Mileika,J-Klasups,K Riga 1954) 14...Rc8 (14...c5 15.dxc5 bxc5 16.0-0²)
15.Bh5! (15.0-0 Nd7 16.Nxd7 Qxd7 17.Qa4² Makogonov,V-Antoshin,V
Leningrad 1953) 15...g6 16.Bf3±

12.Qc2

It must be noted that after 12.0-0 Black achieves a good game: 12...e5!
13.dxe5 dxc4 14.Rxc4 Nxe5 15.Re4 Nxf3+ 16.Qxf3 Be6 (16...Qc7 17.Bc4
b5 18.Bb3 c5∞ Grivas,E-Tzouvelekis,I Athens 2008) 17.Bc4 Rad8 18.Bxe6
fxe6 19.Qe2 Rd5= Andersson,U-Rivas Pastor,M Hastings 1982.

12...dxc4 13.Bxc4
Black now has to choose his pawn structure, a choice between 13...e5 and
13...b6 (with ...c5 to follow usually).

2.1 — 13...E5

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 0-0 7.e3 Ne4 8.Bxe7
Qxe7 9.Rc1 c6 10.Bd3 Nxc3 11.Rxc3 Nd7 12.Qc2 dxc4 13.Bxc4 e5

A straightforward central assault. Black plans to exchange another central

pawn and develop his bishop to the c8-h3 diagonal.

14.0-0 exd4

Black has tried to delay the capture on d4, but this doesn’t seem to be
healthy:
a) 14...Re8 15.d5!² Gurevich,M-Hamdouchi,H Belfort 2003.
b) 14...Rd8 15.Qe4! (15.Rd1?! exd4 [15...e4 16.Nd2 Nf6 17.Bb3 Bg4∞]
16.Rxd4 Nb6 17.Rxd8+ Qxd8 18.Bb3² Kourousis,E-Chigladze,I Plovdiv
2008) 15...Re8 16.Rd1 exd4 17.Qxe7 Rxe7 18.Nxd4²
c) 14...e4 15.Ne5 (15.Nd2 Nf6 16.Bb3 Bg4 [16...Bd7?! 17.Rc5! Rae8
18.Re5 Qb4 19.Nxe4± Giri,A-Schroer,M Leiden 2008] 17.Rc5 Nd7 18.Ra5
[18.Rc3 ½-½ Gorbatenko,K-Tsyhanchuk,S Shepsi 2011] 18...Qd8 19.Qc3
Re8 20.Nc4²) 15...Nxe5 16.Qxe4 Re8 17.dxe5 Qxe5 18.Qxe5 Rxe5 19.Rd1
Kf8 20.f3 Be6 21.Bxe6 Rxe6

22.e4 (22.Kf2 f5 23.h4 Rae8 24.h5 f4 25.e4 Re5 26.Rh1 Rd8 27.Rc2 Ke7
28.Rh4 Rg5 29.Rxf4 Rxh5 30.Re2 Ra5 31.b3 Ke6 ½-½ Nguyen,A- Zhou,W
Al Ain 2008) 22...Rae8 (22...b6 23.Kf2 Ke8 24.Rcd3 c5 25.Rd5± Spirin,O-
Grabarczyk,M Teplice 2010; 22...Re5 23.Rd7 Re7 24.Rd2 Ke8 25.Rcd3
Rc7 26.Kf2 Rac8 27.Rb3² ½-½ Jaracz,P-Michalik,P Czech Republic 2012)
23.Kf2² Gyimesi,Z-Zupe,M Austria 2003.
White is at a cross-roads here. He can choose between 15.Nxd4 and
15.exd4.

2.1.1 — 15.NXD4

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 0-0 7.e3 Ne4 8.Bxe7
Qxe7 9.Rc1 c6 10.Bd3 Nxc3 11.Rxc3 Nd7 12.Qc2 dxc4 13.Bxc4 e5 14.0-0
exd4 15.Nxd4
A positional line. White plans to exert pressure in the centre and on the
queenside, based on his strong centralised pieces.

15...Nf6

The text looks to be best, although Black has tried some alternatives:
a) 15...c5?! 16.Nf5 Qf6 17.Ng3 b6 18.f4!± Bb7 19.Rd1 Rad8 20.Nh5 Qc6
21.Bd5 Qxd5 22.Rxd5 Bxd5 23.e4 Bb7 24.Rg3 g6 25.Qc3 f6 26.Rxg6+
Kh7 27.Rg7+ Kh8 28.Qg3 1–0 Camarena Gimenez,R-Steiner,B Olomouc
2019.
b) 15...Nb6 16.Bb3 (16.Be2 Nd5 17.Rb3 a5∞ Steinheimer,J-Hoefer,H
Germany 1997) 16...Rd8 (16...Bd7 17.Rd1 Rad8 18.e4 Bc8 19.f3 Qf6
20.Rcd3² Valden,P-Makka,I Agia Pelagia 2003) 17.Rc5 Nd7
18.Rc3 (18.Rh5 Nf8 19.Qc3 Qf6 20.Rc5 Ne6 21.Nxe6 Qxc3 22.Rxc3
Bxe6= Haessel,D-Casella,M Los Angeles 2011) 18...Nf6 (18...Nb6 19.Rc1
a5 20.a4±) 19.Rd3 Bg4 20.f3 Bh5 21.e4 Qe5 22.Rfd1² Sedykh,E-Jibuti,D
Prague 2012.
c) 15...Ne5 16.Bb3 Rd8 17.h3 (½-½ Debarnot,R-Panno,O Buenos Aires
1985) 17...Qf6 18.Rd1²

16.Rd1 a6

16...Rd8 17.Rcd3 Bd7 18.a4 a6 19.a5²

17.Bb3²
Khairullin,I-Korneev,O Loo 2013. White preserves a small advantage, as it
is not easy for Black to complete his development, while his kingside pawn
majority seems to be more mobile.
2.1.2 — 15.EXD4

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 0-0 7.e3 Ne4 8.Bxe7
Qxe7 9.Rc1 c6 10.Bd3 Nxc3 11.Rxc3 Nd7 12.Qc2 dxc4 13.Bxc4 e5 14.0-0
exd4 15.exd4

White accepts an isolated pawn, but he argues that his pieces are better
placed and that he can make good use of the open e-file.
15...Qd6

There are many transpositions here and Black has tried to ‘benefit’ from
them:
a) 15...Nf6 16.Re1 Qd6 (½-½ Bogosavlje-vic,B-Savic,M Belgrade 2016)
17.Rce3 (17.Bb3 Bg4 18.Ne5 Be6=) 17...Nd5 18.Re5 Be6 (18...Bg4
19.Nd2²) 19.Nh4!²
b) 15...Nb6 16.Bb3 (16.Re1 Qf6 17.Bb3 Bf5 [17...Be6 18.Bxe6 fxe6
19.Rce3 Rae8 20.Ne5² Udovcic,M-Bradvarevic,A Zenica 1963] 18.Qe2
Rad8 19.Qe7 Qxe7 20.Rxe7 Bc8 21.Rc5² Hawkins,J-Hanley,C Reading
2017)
b1) 16...Qf6 17.Ne5 Be6 (17...Bf5 18.Qe2 Rad8 19.Rf3² Schafranietz,S-
Hoffmann,H Neuhausen 2004) 18.Rf3 Bxb3 19.Qxb3 Qe6 20.Qxe6
(20.Rxf7 Qxb3 21.Rxf8+ Kxf8 22.axb3 Rd8 23.Nf3 [23.Rd1 Rd5 24.h4
Nd7 25.Nf3 Nc5 26.Ra1 Nxb3 27.Rxa7 Nxd4 28.Nxd4 Rxd4 29.Rxb7 ½-½
Hjartarson,J-Inkiov,V Dubai 1986] 23...Rd5° Straka,V-Smid,M Czech
Republic 2013) 20...fxe6 21.Re3²
b2) 16...Be6 17.Qe2 Rae8 18.Re3 Qd6 19.Bxe6 Rxe6 20.Rxe6 Qxe6
21.Qxe6 fxe6 22.Re1² Lingnau,C-Kroencke,M Baden-Baden 1991.
b3) 16...Qd6 17.Qe4! Be6 (17...Bd7?! 18.Bc2 f5 19.Bb3+ Kh7 20.Qh4 Qf6
21.Qxf6 Rxf6 22.Re1± Najdorf,M-Medina Garcia,A Barcelona 1946)
18.Bxe6 Qxe6 19.Qxe6 fxe6

20.Re1 Rae8 (20...Rf6 21.Rb3 Rd8 22.Kf1 [22.a4 Rd7 23.a5 Nd5 24.Ne5
Rc7 25.g3 Rf8 26.Rc1 Ne7 27.Rc4 Rd8 28.Rcb4² Bolbochan,J-Maderna,C
Mar del Plata 1952] 22...Rd7 23.Rc1 Rf5 24.g3 Ra5 25.a3 Ra4 26.Re1 Re7
27.Rbe3 Nc4 28.R3e2 Ra5 29.Rc1² Najdorf,M-Eliskases,E Buenos Aires
1955) 21.Ra3! Nc8 22.g3 Nd6 23.Kg2 Nb5 24.Rb3² Portisch,L-Prusikin,M
Miskolc 2004.

16.Re1 Nb6 17.Bb3 Nd5

17...Be6 18.Bxe6 fxe6 19.Qe4 Rf6 20.Rb3² is pleasant for White; the black
e6-pawn is obviously much weaker than White’s on d4.
18.Ne5! Be6

Of course not 18...Nxc3? 19.Nxf7! Rxf7 20.Re8++–

19.Rg3 Nc7!

A logical move, intending to exchange the light-squared bishops.

19...Rfe8 is another option: 20.Qc1! Kh8 (20...Ne7? 21.Qxh6! Nf5
22.Rxg7+! Nxg7 [22...Kf8 23.Rxf7+ Kg8 24.Qh7#] 23.Re4+–) 21.Re4 Qe7
22.Bc2²
20.Re4

20.Qe4 Bxb3 (20...Rae8 21.Bc2 f5 22.Qf4 Rf6∞) 21.Rxb3 Rab8 22.h3

(22.Ree3 Nd5 23.Rg3 Qe6 24.h3 Rfe8 25.Rbf3 Re7∞ Grivas,E-
Managadze,N Amfissa 2010) 22...Rfe8 23.Ree3 Nb5∞ Zude,E-Becker,M
Germany 2006.

20...Rad8

20...Rae8!? is a proposed novelty for Black, further protecting the kingside

and the e6-square: 21.h3 (21.Qc1?! Bxb3 22.Reg4?! Rxe5! 23.dxe5 Qd1+
24.Qxd1 Bxd1 25.Rxg7+ Kh8µ) 21...Bxb3 22.Qxb3 Ne6 (22...Nb5?
23.Nxf7!+–) 23.Qxb7 Nxd4
24.Rge3! (24.Nxf7 Qxg3! 25.Rxe8 Nf3+ 26.Kf1 Nd2+ 27.Kg1 Nf3+=)
24...Nf5 (24...f5 25.Rg3! Re7 26.Rxd4 Qxe5 27.Qb3+ Kh7 28.Re3²)
25.Re1 (25.Nc4 Qd1+ 26.Re1 Qxe1+ 27.Rxe1 Rxe1+ 28.Kh2 looks quite
interesting, but Black can preserve the balance by accurate play: 28...g6!
29.Qxa7 Rd8 30.g4 Ng7 31.a4 Ne6 32.a5 Kg7! 33.Qb6 Rd4 34.Ne3 Rd2
35.Kg3 Rg1+=) 25...Qd5! 26.Qb4 c5 (26...f6 27.Nf3²) 27.Qa4 (27.Qb3
Qxb3 28.axb3 f6 29.Nd7 Rxe4 30.Rxe4 Rd8 31.Nxc5 Rd1+ 32.Kh2 Rd2=)
27...Nd4 28.f3 Re6
29.Nc4, when White has the better pawn structure, but Black’s active play
in the centre should be sufficient compensation. Of course, all the above are
just some sample lines and it seems that there exist a lot of hidden
possibilities for both sides.

21.h3 Bxb3 22.Qxb3²

Grischuk,A-Jakovenko,D Khanty- Mansiysk 2009.
White exerts some pressure on b7 and f7, while his pieces are more mobile.
2.2 — 13...B6

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 0-0 7.e3 Ne4 8.Bxe7
Qxe7 9.Rc1 c6 10.Bd3 Nxc3 11.Rxc3
11...Nd7

If Black wishes to go for the ...b6 type of position, this is the right move
order, as it avoids some extra white possibilities. Maybe these alternatives
are not actually that scary, but they still demand extra work!
So, after 11...dxc4 12.Bxc4 Nd7 13.0-0 b6
White can opt for:
a) 14.Qe2 c5 (14...a5 15.Bd3 c5 16.Bb5 [16.Rfc1 Bb7 17.Bb5 Rad8
18.Bxd7 Bxf3 19.Qxf3 cxd4= Rogozenco,D-Grigore,G Sovata 2018]
16...Rd8 [16...cxd4 17.Nxd4² Bacak,M-Chigladze,I Malatya 2016] 17.a3
[17.Bxd7 Qxd7 18.Rfc1 cxd4 19.Nxd4 Bb7=] 17...Bb7 18.Rd1²; 14...Bb7
15.Ba6 Bxa6 16.Qxa6 c5 17.Rfc1 e5 18.Qb7 Qd6 19.Rc4 Rfb8 20.Qe4
exd4 21.exd4 Re8 22.Qc2 ½-½ Gulko,B-Jussupow,A Reykjavik 1990)
15.Bb5 (15.Ba6 cxd4 [15...Bxa6 16.Qxa6 e5 17.dxc5 Nxc5 18.Qb5 Rad8
19.h3 Qe8=]
16.Nxd4 [16.exd4 Nf6 17.Rfc1 Bxa6 18.Qxa6 Nd5=] 16...Bxa6 17.Qxa6
Nc5 18.Qe2 Qf6 19.Qf3!? Qxf3 20.gxf3² Zvjaginsev,V-Cherepkov,A St
Petersburg 1994) 15...cxd4 (15...a6 16.Bxd7 Bxd7 17.Rfc1 cxd4 18.exd4
Qb4 19.h3+–; 15...Nf6 16.dxc5! Ne4 17.Rc2 Nxc5 18.b4 Ne4 19.Rfc1!±)
16.Nxd4 Nc5 17.b4² Rychagov, A-Prasanna Raghuram,R Paleohora 2009.
b) 14.Bd3 c5
b1) 15.Bb5 Rd8 (15...Bb7 16.Bxd7±; 15...Nf6 16.dxc5 Ne4 17.Rc4 Nxc5
18.b4±; 15...cxd4 16.Qxd4 [16.Nxd4 Nc5 17.Bc6 Bb7 18.Qf3²
Polugaevsky,L-Andersson,U Reggio Emilia 1991] 16...Nf6 [16...Nc5 17.b4
Ba6 18.Bxa6 Nxa6 19.a3 Nc7 20.Rc2²] 17.Rfc1 Nd5 [17...Rd8 18.Rc7±]
18.Rc4 Rd8 19.Qe5² Polugaevsky,L-Enklaar,B Amsterdam 1972; 15...a6
16.Bxd7 Bxd7 17.dxc5 bxc5 18.Qc2 Rfc8 19.Rc1 Rab8 20.Ne5 Be8
21.Nd3 c4 22.Ne5 Rc5 23.Nxc4 Rbc8 24.Nb6 1–0 Grivas,E-Ermachkov,S
Dubai 2016) 16.Bc6
16...Rb8 (16...Ba6 17.Re1 [17.Bxa8 Bxf1 18.Kxf1 Rxa8 19.Qc2 a5 20.Qe4
Rc8 21.Qb7 Qd8 22.Qa6 Ra8 23.Qb7 Rb8 24.Qa6 cxd4 25.exd4 Nf6
26.Qa7 Ra8 27.Qb7 Rb8 28.Qa7 Ra8 29.Qb7 Rb8 30.Qa7 Ra8 ½-½
Dautov,R-Ekstroem,R Geneve 1997] 17...Rac8 18.Qa4 Nb8 19.Be4 cxd4
20.exd4 Rxc3 21.bxc3 Qc7 ½-½ Vyzmanavin,A-Janjgava,L Manila 1992)
17.Qc2 cxd4 18.Nxd4 e5 19.Nf5 Qf6 20.Rd1 Nc5 21.Rxd8+ Qxd8 22.Ng3
Be6= Smyslov,V-Kasparov,G Vilnius 1984.
b2) 15.Be4 Rb8 (15...Ba6 16.Bxa8 Bxf1 17.Bc6 Ba6 18.Qa4 Nb8 19.dxc5
bxc5 20.Be4²) 16.Qa4 Nf6! 17.Bc6 cxd4! 18.exd4 (18.Qxd4 Rd8 19.Qe5
Bb7= Wang,Y-Ghaem Maghami,E Guangzhou 2010) 18...a6 19.Ne5 Bb7
20.Rfc1 Nd5! 21.Bxd5 Bxd5 22.Qxa6 Ra8 23.Qxb6 Qg5 24.g3 Rxa2
25.Nd7 Qd2! 26.Rc8 (26.Nxf8 Rxb2 27.Qxb2 Qxb2 28.Rc8 Bb7 29.Nxe6+
Bxc8 30.Rxc8+ Kh7 31.Nf8+ ½-½ Zvjaginsev,V-Bologan,V Poikovsky
2003) 26...Rxb2 27.Rxf8+ Kh7
28.Rh8+ (28.Qxb2 Qxb2 29.Rf1 Qe2 30.Rxf7 e5 31.Nf6+ Kg6 32.Nxd5
Kxf7 33.dxe5 Qxe5 34.Ne3=) 28...Kxh8? (28...Kg6! 29.Ne5+ Kh5 30.Qxb2
[30.g4+? Kh4 31.Qd8+ Kh3 32.Rf1 Qf4–+] 30...Qxb2 31.Nd3 Qxd4
32.Nf4+ Kg4 [32...Kg5 33.Nxd5=] 33.Rhc8 g5 34.h3+ Kf5 35.Nxd5=)
29.Rc8+ Kh7 30.Nf8+ Kg8 31.Nxe6+ Kh7 32.Nf8+ Kg8 33.Ng6+ Kh7
34.Rh8# 1–0 Grivas,E- Krivonosov,O Internet 2008.

12.Qc2 dxc4 13.Bxc4 b6

Black plans to develop his bishop on the b7/a6 squares and go for an
eventual ...c5 advance, seeking exchanges that could relieve his position.
14.Bd3 c5

14...Nf6 is the latest try. After 15.e4 (15.Rxc6 Nd5 16.Qb3 Nb4 17.Rc1
Nxd3+ 18.Qxd3 Bb7 is analysed in Radjabov,T-Kramnik,V Kazan 2011 —
Typical Middlegame Strategy) 15...Bb7 16.0-0 Rfd8 (16...Rac8 17.Rc1 c5
18.dxc5 Rxc5 19.Rxc5 Qxc5 20.Qxc5 bxc5 21.Ne5! Bxe4 22.Bxe4 Nxe4
23.Nc6 [23.f3 Nf6 24.Rxc5 Rd8 25.Rc2 Rd1+ 26.Kf2 Nd5 27.a3 a5 28.Nc4
a4 29.Ne3 Rd3 30.Nxd5 exd5 ½-½ Hawkins,J-Fridman,D Douglas 2014]
23...Kh7 24.f3 Rc8 25.Nxa7² Hawkins,J-Turner,M England 2015) 17.a3 (A
proposed novelty over 17.Rc1 Nd7 18.e5 c5∞ Girya,O-Khotenashvili,B
Geneve 2013) 17...Nd7!? (17...a5 18.Re1 Rac8 19.h3 Nd7 20.Qd2 e5
[20...c5 21.d5²] 21.Qe3²) 18.b4 (18.e5 c5 19.Be4 Bxe4 20.Qxe4 cxd4
21.Nxd4 Nc5 22.Qe3 Qd7 23.Nf3=) 18...e5 19.Rd1 a5 (19...exd4 20.Nxd4
Ne5 21.Nf5 Qg5 22.g3²) 20.bxa5 (20.Rb3 axb4 21.axb4 Qf6∞) 20...Rxa5
White seems to stand somewhat better;
Some sample lines continue 21.Bc4 Raa8 (21...exd4 22.Nxd4 Ne5
[22...Rxa3? 23.Nf5 Qb4 24.Rxa3 Qxa3 25.e5+–]; 21...Rxa3 22.Rxa3 Qxa3
23.dxe5 b5 24.Bf1 Qe7 25.Qd2²) 22.dxe5 Nxe5 23.Nxe5 Rxd1+ (23...Qxe5
24.Rf3 Rf8 25.Qb3²) 24.Qxd1 Qxe5 25.Rf3 Rf8 26.h3 Qe7 (26...Qxe4?
27.Bxf7+!+–) 27.Rg3 Qxe4 28.Qa1 g5 29.Bd3²/° Of course, as the analysed
position is relatively new, there is much ground for improvement, for both
sides.

15.Be4

It is not clear that the inclusion of 15.Bh7+ Kh8 16.Be4 Rb8 17.0-0 is
beneficial to White.

15...Rb8 16.0-0
Here Black can choose between 16...a5 and 16...Nf6.

It must be mentioned that he has tried some alternatives as well:

a) 16...Bb7 17.Bxb7 (17.Rc1 Bxe4 18.Qxe4 Nf6 19.Qh4 cxd4 20.Rc7 Qb4
21.Qxd4 Qa5 22.a3 Rbd8 23.Qc3 Qxc3 24.R7xc3² Majorovas,V-Schulz,K
Augsburg 1991) 17...Rxb7
a1) 18.h3 Re8 19.Rd1 a5 20.Rd2 cxd4 21.Nxd4 Nc5 22.Nc6 Qf8 23.Ne5
Rc8 24.Rd4 Qe7 25.a3 Rbc7 26.b4 axb4 27.axb4 Nb7 28.Rxc7 Rxc7
29.Qd3² Kramnik,V-Karpov,A Monte Carlo 2000.
a2) 18.dxc5 Nxc5 19.b4 Na6 20.a3 Rc7 21.Ne5 Rfc8 22.Nc6² Jaworski,M-
Armstrong,M Stare Mesto 2003.
a3) 18.Rd1 a5 19.a4!? (19.h3 Rc8 20.dxc5 Rxc5 21.Rxc5 Qxc5 22.Qxc5
Nxc5 23.Rd8+ Kh7 24.Ne5 g6 25.Kf1 Kg7 ½-½ Maki Uuro,M-Parkkinen,J
Jyvaskyla 2006) 19...Qe8 20.d5 exd5 21.Rxd5 Nf6 22.Rd1 Rd7 23.Rxd7
Qxd7 24.Rd3 Qe6
25.Nd2² Buckley,G-Varley,P Swansea 2006.
a4) 18.Rc1 Re8 (18...a5 19.dxc5 Nxc5 20.Ne5 Rc8 21.a3 Ra8 22.b4 axb4
23.axb4 Na4 24.Rc8+ 1–0 Nieminen,S-Sassi,P Finland 2016) 19.dxc5
(19.h3 e5 20.dxc5 Nxc5 21.b4 Nd7 22.Rc8 e4 23.Nd4± Knott,S-Fox,A
London 2004) 19...Nxc5 20.b4 Na6 21.a3± Gomez Esteban,J-Garcia
Vicente,N Corte Ingles 1998.
b) 16...b5 17.Rc1 b4 18.Rd3 Nf6
19.Bc6 cxd4 20.Rxd4 e5 21.Rc4 (21.Rdd1 Bg4 22.h3 Bxf3 23.Bxf3²
Babula,V-Zilka,S Havlickuv Brod 2008; 21.Rd2 Bb7 22.Bxb7 Rxb7 23.h3
g6 24.Qc6² Gelfand,B-Kramnik,V Monte Carlo 2001) 21...Bg4 22.h3 Bxf3
23.Bxf3²
c) 16...Ba6 17.Rc1 Rfc8 18.Qa4 Bb7 (18...Nf6 19.Qxa6 Nxe4 20.R3c2²)
19.Bxb7 Rxb7 20.Qc2 a5 21.a3 Rbc7 (21...Re8 22.h3 e5 23.dxc5 (23.dxe5
Nxe5 24.Nxe5 Qxe5 25.Rd1 Rbe7 26.Rcd3² Harika,D-Pan Qian Jiangsu
Wuxi 2008) 23...Nxc5 24.b4 axb4 25.axb4 Nd7 26.Rc7 Rxc7 27.Qxc7±
Ipatov,A-Zherebukh,Y Saint Louis 2018) 22.b4!? axb4 23.axb4
23...Nf6! (23...c4 24.Qa4 Nf6? 25.Ne5± Van Wely,L-Volokitin,A Foros
2008 — with the black king on the h8-square) 24.e4! (24.dxc5 Nd5 25.Rc4
Nxb4!µ; 24.bxc5 Nd5 25.Rc4 b5 26.Rc3 Nxc3 27.Qxc3°) 24...c4 25.b5
Qd7 26.Rb1²
2.2.1 — 16...A5

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 0-0 7.e3 Ne4 8.Bxe7
Qxe7 9.Rc1 c6 10.Bd3 Nxc3 11.Rxc3 Nd7 12.Qc2 dxc4 13.Bxc4 b6
14.Bd3 c5 15.Be4 Rb8 16.0-0 a5

Before any pawn exchange, Black tries to secure a future outpost for his
knight on c5.
17.Rc1 Ba6

Black has two other options here:

a) 17...Rd8
a1) 18.dxc5 Nxc5 19.Nd4 Bb7 (19...Nxe4 20.Qxe4 Bb7 21.Qe5 Rbc8
22.Rxc8 Rxc8 23.Rxc8+ Bxc8 24.Qb8 Qc5 25.h3 Kh7 26.Nb3 Qc6 27.Nd4
Qc5 28.Nb3 Qc6 29.Nd4 Qc5 ½-½ Harstad,C-Hermansen,T Fornebu 2016)
20.Bxb7 ½-½ Greenfeld,A-Pigusov,E Khalkidiki 2002.
a2) 18.h3 e5 (18...Bb7 19.Bxb7 Rxb7 20.a3 Rbb8 [20...Rc7?! 21.b4±
Knott,S-Eggleston,T Douglas 2005] 21.Rb1²) 19.Re1 Ba6 20.Bc6 exd4
21.exd4 Qd6 22.Bxd7 cxd4 23.Nxd4 Qxd4=
a3) 18.Bc6! cxd4 19.exd4 Nf6 20.Qd3! Bb7 21.Ne5 Rbc8 22.Bxb7 Rxc3
23.bxc3 Qxb7 24.c4²
b) 17...Bb7?! 18.Bxb7 Rxb7
b1) 19.dxc5 Nxc5 20.Ne5 Qf6 21.Nd3 Rd8 22.Nxc5 bxc5 23.Qe2
23...Rbd7 (23...c4 24.g3 g6 25.Kg2 Kg7 26.h4 h5 27.a3 Qe5=
Carlhammar,M-Krivonosov,O Gothenburg 2004) 24.R3c2 a4 (24...c4 25.g3
e5 26.Kg2 e4 27.Qg4! Rd2 28.Qf4 Qe6 29.Rxc4 Re8 [29...Rxb2 30.Rc6
Qxa2 31.Rc8 Rbd2 32.R1c5 Qe6 33.Rxd8+ Rxd8 34.Rxa5 Re8=] 30.Rc6
Qxa2 31.Rc7 Rf8 32.Rc8 Rdd8 33.Rxd8 Rxd8 34.Qc7 [34.Qe5 Qd5 35.Rc5
Qxe5 36.Rxe5 Rb8 37.Rxa5 Rxb2=] 34...Re8 35.Qc6 Qe6 ½-½
Khalifman,A-Jussupow,A Germany 1992) 25.g3 Rd5 26.Kg2 g6=
Karpov,A-Jussupow,A Baden-Baden 1995.
b2) Note that 19.h3, transposes to lines above.
b3) White cannot expect much after the text, so he should preserve the
tension by 19.a3 (like in the previous chapter) 19...Re8 20.h3 e5 (20...Rbb8
21.dxc5 Nxc5 22.Ne5 Qf6 23.Nc6 Ra8 24.Rd1² might be Black’s best.)
21.dxc5 Nxc5 (21...bxc5 22.Nd2±) 22.b4 axb4 23.axb4 Nd7 (23...e4
24.bxc5 exf3 25.c6 Rc7 26.Qf5±; 23...Na6 24.Qa4! Nxb4 25.Rc8 Rb8
[25...Rxc8 26.Rxc8+ Kh7 27.Qa8+–] 26.R1c7 Qf8 27.Rxb8 Rxb8
28.Nxe5±) 24.Rc7 Rxc7 25.Qxc7± Ipatov,A-Zherebukh,Y Saint Louis
2018.

18.Bc6
The text seems to lead to a drawish ending. The suggested novelty is
18.Bh7+ Kh8 19.Bd3 Bb7 (19...Bxd3 20.Rxd3 Kg8 21.h3²) 20.Be4 Bxe4
(20...Ba6 21.Bc6 Rfc8 22.Bxd7 Qxd7 23.dxc5 Rxc5 24.Rxc5 bxc5 25.b3²
when the undefended f7-pawn makes the difference: 25...a4 26.bxa4 c4
[26...Rb4?! 27.Ne5 Qc7 28.Rd1±] 27.h3 Kg8 28.Rd1 Qc7 29.Nd4²)
21.Qxe4 Kg8 22.a3²

18...Rfc8 19.Bxd7 Qxd7 20.dxc5 Rxc5 21.Rxc5 bxc5

22.b3 Rc8

22...a4 23.h3 (23.bxa4 Rb4 24.Rd1 Rc4=) 23...axb3 24.axb3 Qd5 25.Qxc5
Qxc5 26.Rxc5 Rxb3 27.Nd4 Rb1+ 28.Kh2 Rb8 29.h4 g6 30.g4 Rc8
31.Rxc8+ Bxc8 32.g5 hxg5 33.hxg5 Kg7 34.f4 f6 35.Kg3 ½-½ Banikas,H-
Halkias,S Porto Rio 2015.

23.Qc3
23.h3 Bb7 24.Ne5 Qd5 25.f4 a4! (25...Rd8 26.Nc4 Qe4 27.Qxe4 Bxe4
28.Kf2² Sadikhov,U-Dobrenko,A Rilsk 2017) 26.Rd1 axb3 27.axb3 Qe4=

23...a4 24.Qa5 Bb7 25.Qxa4 Qxa4 26.bxa4 Ra8 27.Rxc5 Rxa4 28.Rc2
Bd5 29.Ne5 Rxa2 30.Rc8+ Kh7 31.f3 f6 32.Nd7 e5 33.e4 Bb3 34.Rc7 ½-
½ Radjabov,T-Caruana,F Baku 2014.

White has to follow the suggested novelty at move 18.

2.2.2 — 16...NF6

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 0-0 7.e3 Ne4 8.Bxe7
Qxe7 9.Rc1 c6 10.Bd3 Nxc3 11.Rxc3 Nd7 12.Qc2 dxc4 13.Bxc4 b6
14.Bd3 c5 15.Be4 Rb8 16.0-0 Nf6

With the text Black accepts a worse pawn structure in return for some piece
activity.

17.dxc5
Not much is gained by 17.Bc6 Qc7 (17...cxd4 18.Nxd4 e5 19.Nf3 [19.Nf5
Bxf5 20.Qxf5 Rfd8 21.Rfc1 {21.Qc2 Nd5 22.Bxd5 Rxd5=} 21...Rd2
22.Ba4 Rbd8 23.h3 g6 24.Qf3 e4= Babula,V-Toufighi,H Khanty-Mansiysk
2010] 19...Bg4 [19...Rd8 20.h3 Qd6 21.Qa4 a5 22.Qb5² Babula,V-
Cyborowski,L Legnica 2013] 20.h3 Bxf3 21.Bxf3 e4 22.Be2²) 18.Ne5 cxd4
19.exd4 Qd6 20.Qa4 a6 21.Bf3 b5 22.Qa5 Bb7= Pekar,V-Sabuk,P Czech
Republic 2014.

17...Nxe4 18.Qxe4 bxc5

19.b3

A natural way to protect the queenside and keep the white queen
centralised. The main alternative is 19.Qc2 Bb7
a) 20.Nd2 Rfd8 21.f3 (21.Nb3 c4 22.Nd2 Qg5 23.f3 Ba6 24.Re1 Qa5³
Stachowiak,K-Sabuk,P Wroclaw 2012) 21...Ba6 22.Rf2 Rd7 23.g3 Rbd8
24.Kg2 Bd3 25.Qc1 Ba6 26.Qc2 (26.Ra3 Bb7 27.Nb3 Rc7 28.Na5 Ba8
29.Nc4 e5∞ Topalov,V-Anand,V Sofia 2010) 26...Bd3 27.Qc1 Ba6 28.Qc2
Bd3 (½-½ Sebenik,M-Lenic,L Gostovanja 2010) 29.Qd1 ½-½
Dumitrache,D-Doettling,F Guingamp 2010.
b) 20.e4 f5! (20...Rfd8 21.Re1 [21.Rc1!?] 21...Rbc8 [21...Ba6 22.b3
{22.Rxc5 Rxb2∞} 22...Rbc8 23.Qc1²] 22.h3 Qd7 23.Rxc5 [23.Ra3 Ba8=
Iasman,I-Song,J Syre 2010] 23...Rxc5 24.Qxc5²)

This is one of the important features of Black’s position, which offers

enough activity to compensate for the weak pawn structure. Black ‘forgets’
about his pawn structure weaknesses and goes for kingside activity: 21.exf5
(21.Nd2 Rfd8 22.exf5 Bxg2 23.Kxg2 Qg5+ 24.Rg3 Qxd2 25.Qxc5 exf5=)
21...Rxf5 22.Nd2 Qf6 23.Nc4 (23.Rxc5? Qg5–+) 23...Ba6 24.b3 Rf4!
25.Rc1 (25.h3 Rb4=) 25...Rd8 26.h3 Bxc4 27.Rxc4 Rxc4 (27...Rfd4
28.Rxc5 Rd2 29.Qe4 Qxf2+ 30.Kh2 Rxa2 31.Rc8 Rf8 32.Rxf8+ Qxf8
33.Qxe6+ Kh7=) 28.Qxc4 Rd2 29.Qxc5 Rxa2= Mamedyarov,S-
Nakamura,H Moscow 2010.

19...Bb7 20.Qe5!?

The white queen is optimally placed in the centre. This is an improvement

over 20.Qf4 Bxf3 21.Qxf3 Rfd8 22.Rfc1 Rd2 23.R1c2 (23.R3c2 Qd6 24.h3
Rd8 25.Rxd2 Qxd2 26.Rxc5 Qxa2 27.Rc7 Qa1+ 28.Kh2 Qe5+ 29.Qg3
Qxg3+ 30.Kxg3 Rb8 31.Rxa7 Rxb3 ½-½ Grandelius,N-Nakamura,H
Douglas 2016) 23...Rbd8 24.g3 Rxc2 25.Rxc2 Rd5 26.Kg2 Qd6 27.h4
(27.Qf4 Qa6 28.Qb8+ Kh7 29.Qf4 Kg8 30.Qb8+ Kh7 31.Qf4 ½-½
Martinovic,S-Bosiocic,M Bjelovar 2019) 27...a6 28.Rc4 Rd2 29.Ra4 Qd3
30.h5 f6 31.g4 Kh7 ½-½ Kulaots,K-Grabarczyk,M Borup 2008.

20...Bxf3 21.gxf3 Rbc8 22.Rd1

Olsen,H-Grabarczyk,M Klaksvik 2008. White stands slightly better due to

the weak black c-pawn and his d-file control.
 CHAPTER 3.
TYPICAL MIDDLEGAME STRATEGY

Knowing your good piece of opening theory in depth is a good start. But
alone it is not enough to gain and increase a significant advantage.
The knowledge of certain plans, manoeuvres, repeated motifs, etc, is an
essential piece of opening knowledge, as the journey continues via what we
call middlegame theory.
Yes, middlegame (and endgame) theory does exist. The great difficulty in
approaching it lies in the fact that it does not follow absolute and clear-cut
paths, but rather involves deep research into the ideas and logic by which
specific types of positions are treated.
Moreover, unlike opening theory, the theory of the middlegame (and the
endgame) does not change rapidly based on modern developments, and
instead remains almost intact through the years.
In middlegame theory we are obliged to study various or similar types of
positions with specific strategic and tactical attributes, so as to understand
the underlying ideas and be able to employ them ourselves in similar
situations. Besides, while many chess players have studied these topics and
acquired knowledge, it is the application of this knowledge in practice that
helps differentiate between them.
True, chess is not a simple activity, but it becomes so much more attractive
when we acquire this knowledge...
In view of the above, any chess player who wishes to follow a chess career
or simply become a better player must refrain from the commonplace and
assume a different approach.
He must develop a good understanding of middlegame (and endgame)
theory, so as to be able to proceed in a proper way after his chosen opening
has reached its conclusion.
And we must keep in mind that the most important asset is the pawn
structure; this is what guides us to understand what to do in the middlegame
— and even in the endgame!
Topalov Veselin
Anand Viswanathan
D56 Sofia 2010

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 0-0 7.e3 Ne4 8.Bxe7
Qxe7 9.Rc1 Nxc3 10.Rxc3 c6 11.Be2 dxc4 12.Bxc4 Nd7 13.0-0 b6

13...e5 14.Bb3 Rd8 (14...exd4 15.exd4 Nf6 16.Re1 Qd6 17.Ne5 Nd5
18.Rg3² was the famous 8th game of the FIDE-Wch Candidates match
Karpov,A-Jussupow,A London 1989, which clinched the match 4½:3½ for
A.Karpov — yes, he won this last game!) 15.Re1 exd4 16.exd4 Qd6 was
played in Topalov,V-Carlsen,M Sofia 2009.

14.Bd3 c5 15.Be4 Rb8 16.Qc2 Nf6! 17.dxc5 Nxe4 18.Qxe4 bxc5

White has the better pawn structure and Black a good bishop and
counterplay on the queenside.
But generally White is very safe and can play for two results in principle.

19.Qc2

In this game the text was a novelty over the previously-seen 19.b3. In
general White stands slightly better due to the weak black c-pawn and his d-
file control and he should continue the battle with minimal risk.

19...Bb7 20.Nd2

The careless 20.Rxc5? Bxf3 21.gxf3 Rxb2 22.Qxb2 Qxc5, can only be good
for Black. Also not good is 20.Ne5? Bxg2! (20...Qg5? 21.f4±) 21.Kxg2
Qg5+µ

20...Rfd8 21.f3

White wants to take full control of the d5 square (by an eventual e4) and
block the h1-a8 diagonal of the black bishop, and then start pressing the
weak c-pawn. It’s clear that White has a tiny but quite secure advantage —
Black has to be on the alert in order to keep this tiny advantage at bay.

21...Ba6

Another option for Black was 21...Qg5 22.Rc1 (22.Rf2!?) 22...Rbc8 23.Nc4
Bd5 24.Qe2²

22.Rf2?!

V.Topalov wishes to protect his second rank, but probably the rook is not
living its brightest days on f2. The alternative was 22.Rc1 Rd5 23.e4 Rh5
24.Nc4²

22...Rd7!

Black doesn’t need to protect his c-pawn directly — doubling on the d-file
is a priority.

23.g3

Black can pose White some problems after 23.Nb3 Rbd8 24.Rd2 Qh4!,
although the balance can be kept by precise play: 25.Qc1 (25.Rxd7?? Qe1#)
25...c4 26.Rxd7 Rxd7 27.Nc5 Rd5! 28.Ne4 (28.Nxa6? Qd8!–+) 28...Qd8
29.Nf2 Qb6=

23...Rbd8 24.Kg2

White has to move his king from the first rank, as 24.Nb3? loses to 24...Bd3
25.Qc1 Be4 26.Nd2 Bxf3!

24...Bd3 25.Qc1 Ba6

A silent draw proposal. Black could think of 25...e5!? 26.Rxc5 Bf5°, or

even 25...h5∞
26.Ra3

V. Topalov doesn’t agree and tries his chances; either that he didn’t want to
give Black the opportunity to go for the above-mentioned unclear lines after
26.Qc2 Bd3. But I think he should accept the ‘draw offer’, as he no longer
has an advantage.

26...Bb7

27.Nb3

It looks like White’s pieces and especially his rooks are uncoordinated.
More harmonious is 27.Nc4 Rd1 28.Qc2 Bc6 29.e4. Of course 27.Rxa7?
(here or later) 27...Bxf3+–+ is out of the question.

27...Rc7

Again V.Anand could think of 27...c4 28.Qxc4 Rc8 29.Qa4 e5° but he
prefers to play it safe.
28.Na5

Exchanging a pair of rook swith 28.Rd2 is not a bad idea, although White
loses a defender of his king.

28...Ba8

V. Anand decided to stay on the long diagonal and moves his bishop to a8.
He wanted to keep his bishop on this diagonal in order to have the move
...f5 if White plays e4. White always has to keep in his mind this dangerous
bishop who is looking directly at the white monarch. 28...Ba6 29.Nc4 Bb5
was also possible.

29.Nc4 e5 30.e4

Too provocative and too optimistic. Why not 30.Rc3 e4 31.f4∞

30...f5! 31.exf5?

A critical mistake.
White had to go for 31.Nd2 fxe4 32.Nxe4 Bxe4 33.fxe4 Rd4, when Black
has some initiative but White should hold the position without too much
difficulty. Now, all Black’s pieces and especially his light-squared bishop
are rather active and this factor decides the game.
31...e4! 32.fxe4?!

This loses and it is another optimistic move, in accordance with V.

Topalov’s character. After he ‘declined’ the ‘silent draw’ he felt obliged to
prove the correctness of his decision and he just failed...
White had to try to defend with 32.Kg1 Rcd7 33.Ne3 exf3 34.Rc3, although
his position doesn’t look attractive at all.

32...Qxe4+ 33.Kh3 Rd4!

Mate is already threatened!

34.Ne3
34...Qe8!

The final difficult move Black had to find — White is lost.

35.g4 h5! 36.Kh4 g5+?!

36...Qd8+ is cleaner: 37.f6 (37.Kh3 Qg5 38.Qg1 hxg4+ 39.Kg3 Bf3–+)

37...hxg4–+

37.fxg6

37.Kxg5 Rg7+–+, as Black attacks with all his pieces and 37.Kg3 Qe5+
leads to mate.

37...Qxg6

37...hxg4? 38.Nxg4 Qxg6 39.Rf4∞

38.Qf1
At least V.Topalov puts up the most stubborn resistance, ‘forcing’ V.Anand
to be on the alert with every move.

38...Rxg4+ 39.Kh3 Re7

39...Rf7 40.Rxf7 Bg2+ 41.Qxg2 (41.Nxg2 Rh4+ 42.Nxh4 Qg4#)

41...Rxg2–+, or 39...Qg5 40.Rf8+ Kg7–+ were good alternative wins.

40.Rf8+

A nice line appears after 40.Rb3 Rxe3+ 41.Rxe3 Rh4+ 42.Kxh4 Qg4#

40...Kg7

Again 40...Kh7 wins more easily: 41.Rh8+ Kxh8 42.Qf8+ Qg8 43.Qh6+
Rh7 44.Qf6+ Rhg7–+

41.Nf5+ Kh7

41...Kxf8? 42.Nxe7+ Kxe7 43.Rxa7+± would be criminal.

42.Rg3 Rxg3+ 43.hxg3

Now V. Anand finishes off his opponent in style:

43...Qg4+ 44.Kh2 Re2+ 45.Kg1 Rg2+ 46.Qxg2 Bxg2 47.Kxg2

Or 47.Rf7+ Kg6 48.Rg7+ Kxf5 49.Rxg4 hxg4 50.Kxg2 Ke4 and the pawn
ending is won for Black.

47...Qe2+

Of course Black is winning but some accuracy is required, e.g. to avoid an

ending of queen and a-pawn vs rook and a- and g-pawns, which might be
drawish — there is an old study by J.Timman.

48.Kh3 c4 49.a4 a5 50.Rf6 Kg8 51.Nh6+ Kg7 52.Rb6 Qe4!

Centralisation of the queen underlines White’s problem in this ending.

Black will win White’s b-pawn without losing any of his — zugzwang will
help this concept.
53.Kh2 Kh7 54.Rd6 Qe5 55.Nf7 Qxb2+ 56.Kh3 Qg7

And V.Topalov resigned, awarding the FIDE World Champion title to

V.Anand! This was the first win of the match with the black pieces — and
in the final game! It allowed V.Anand to retain his FIDE World
Championship title, winning the match by the minimum score of 6½:5½.

0–1

Radjabov Teimour
Kramnik Vladimir
D56 Kazan 2011

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 0-0 7.e3 Ne4 8.Bxe7
Qxe7 9.Rc1 c6 10.Bd3 Nxc3 11.Rxc3 dxc4 12.Bxc4 Nd7 13.Qc2 b6
14.Bd3 Nf6
An interesting and relatively fresh idea from GM Rustam Kasimdzhanov.

15.Rxc6 Nd5 16.Qb3 Nb4 17.Rc1 Nxd3+ 18.Qxd3 Bb7

This is the point.

Black’s development advantage compensates for his material deficit.

19.0-0

19.a3!? with the idea of not giving up the a2-pawn can be met by 19...a5!?,
preventing castling.

19...Bxf3 20.gxf3 Qg5+ 21.Kh1

A draw was agreed here in the stem game Van Wely,L-Kasimdzhanov,R

Khanty-Mansiysk 2010.

21...Qd5 22.Qe4 Qxa2

Black has regained the pawn; White has insufficient resources to create a
dangerous attack along the g-file, but he can still try!

23.Rg1! Rfc8

23...Qxb2?! is quite dangerous: 24.Qe5! g6 25.Rc7! g5 26.Kg2!, with the

idea of h4, when it seems that Black is in trouble.

24.Qb7

24.Rcf1?! Qd5 is even preferable for Black.

24...Rf8!

Back to base!

25.Rc7 Qxb2

Again best. Worse is 25...Rad8?! 26.Qe4 Qd5 27.Rxa7±

26.Rxf7! Rxf7 27.Qxa8+ Kh7

27...Rf8? 28.Qxa7+–

28.Qe8 Rc7 29.Qxe6 Qxf2 30.Qe4+ Kg8 31.Qe8+ Kh7 32.Qe4+ Kg8

33.Qe8+

White decided to end the game by perpetual check. He could have

continued with 33.h3!? (planning Rg2) 33...Qc2 34.Qe8+ Kh7 35.d5 Qf5
36.Qe4 Qxe4 37.fxe4, but after 37...Re7! (37...Kg8? 38.e5 Kf7 39.Rf1+
Ke8 40.e6 Ke7 41.e4 Kd6 42.Rf8 Rb7 43.Rd8+ Ke7 44.Rc8 Kd6 45.Kg2
b5 46.Kf3 b4 47.Kf4 b3 48.Rc6+ Ke7 49.Ke5 b2 50.d6+ Kd8 51.e7+ Kd7
52.Rc8 Rb5+ 53.Kd4 Rb4+ 54.Kc3 Kxc8 55.e8=Q+ Kb7 56.Qd7+ Ka6
57.Qc8+ Rb7 58.Qc4+ Rb5 59.Qa2+ Kb6 60.d7 1–0 Jakovenko,D-
Gelfand,B Rogaska Slatina 2011) 38.d6

38...Re8! and the rook ending proves to be drawn.

½-½

Gurevich Mikhail
Hamdouchi Hicham
D56 Belfort 2003

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Be7 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 0-0 7.e3 Ne4 8.Bxe7
Qxe7 9.Rc1 c6 10.Bd3 Nxc3 11.Rxc3 Nd7 12.Qc2 dxc4 13.Bxc4 e5 14.0-0
Re8

With his text move, Black decides to play a waiting policy...

15.d5!

Opening the queenside seems to be rather good for White, who is more
‘ready’ for it.
Not much is offered by 15.Rd1 exd4 16.Nxd4 Ne5 17.Bb3 Bg4 18.f3 Bh5
19.e4 Rad8 20.Qf2 Qb4 21.Rcc1 a5 22.Nf5 Bg6 23.Rxd8 Rxd8 24.Qc5
Rd1+ 0–1 Nihal,S-Sevian,S Internet 2019.
15...e4?!

a) 15...c5 16.Rd1 e4 17.d6 Qf6 18.Nd2± or 15...cxd5 16.Bxd5 Nf6 17.Rc7±

are both great for White.
b) 15...Nb6! has been also tried: 16.dxc6 bxc6 17.Bb3 (17.Rc1 Nd5 18.Ra3
a5 19.Be2² Riazantsev,A-Korneev,O France 2009) 17...Bb7 18.Rd1 Rad8
19.Rxd8 Rxd8 20.Qe4²

16.Nd4 c5

16...Ne5 17.Qxe4 Nxc4 18.Qxe7 Rxe7 19.Rxc4 cxd5 20.Rc5± is a painful

ending for Black...

17.Nb5!

With many lethal threats, such as Nc7 or d6 and Nc7.

17...Qe5 18.d6 Rf8 19.Rd1 Nf6?!

Good or bad, Black had to opt for 19...Nb6 20.Be2 c4 21.Nc7 Rb8 22.Rd4±
20.Bxf7+!

A typical f7 attack in this variation.

But also good was 20.Nc7 Bg4 21.Rd2 Rac8 22.Bxf7+ Rxf7 23.Rxc5
Rfxc7 24.dxc7±

20...Rxf7

Or 20...Kxf7 21.Rxc5 Qe6 22.Nc7+–

21.Rxc5 Qe8

Black is just plain lost after 21...Qe6 22.Nc7 Rxc7 23.dxc7 Qxa2 24.h3±

22.Nc7 Rxc7 23.dxc7

White has traded two pieces for rook and two pawns, but the passer on c7 in
particular looks like a monster.

23...Kh7

There is not much difference in 23...Be6 24.Re5 Rc8 25.Rd8!+–, or

23...Bg4 24.Rc1 Rc8 25.Qb3+ Kh7 26.Qxb7+–
24.Rd8! Qe6

24...Qg6 loses to 25.f4 Ng4 (25...exf3 26.Rh8+ Kxh8 27.Qxg6+–) 26.h3

Nxe3 27.Qe2 Nf5 28.Qxe4+–

25.Qc4 Qe7

25...Qxc4 26.Rxc4 Kg6 27.Rc5 Kf7 28.Re5+– is already hopeless...

26.Qd4 Qf7 27.a3 Qg6

27...Qa2 28.Rc1+–

28.Qd6
28...Qg4

28...Bh3 29.Qg3 Qxg3 30.hxg3 Bc8 31.Re5+–

29.h3 Qe2 30.Rxc8

30.Qf4 a6 31.Kh2, with the idea of Re5-e7, was also lethal.

30...Rxc8 31.Qd8 Ng8

There is nothing that Black can do: 31...Rxd8 32.cxd8=Q Qe1+ 33.Kh2
Qxf2 34.Rc7 Nh5 35.Qd6!+–, or 31...Ne8 32.Qxc8 Qd1+ 33.Kh2 Qd6+
34.g3 Qxc5 35.Qxe8 Qxc7 36.Qxe4++–, or, finally, 31...Ng4 32.hxg4 Qe1+
33.Kh2 Qxf2 34.Rf5+–
32.Rf5!

Of course there was no need for 32.Qxc8? Qd1+ 33.Kh2 Qd6+ 34.g3 Qxc5
35.Qxb7 Qc2 36.Kg2 Ne7 37.h4±

32...Ne7 33.Qxe7 Qxb2 34.Rf7 Kg8 35.g3

Also good was 35.Rxg7+ Qxg7 36.Qe6+ Kh7 37.Qf5+ Qg6 38.Qxc8+–.
Anyway, Black resigned, as there is not much left to hope for.

1–0

Grivas Efstratios
Tzouvelekis Ioannis
D56 Athens 2008

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 0-0 6.e3 h6 7.Bh4 Ne4 8.Bxe7
Qxe7 9.Rc1 Nxc3 10.Rxc3 c6 11.Bd3 Nd7 12.0-0 e5 13.dxe5 dxc4
14.Rxc4 Nxe5 15.Re4 Nxf3+ 16.Qxf3 Qc7 17.Bc4 b5 18.Bb3
White hasn’t achieved much from the opening, but as this was a Rapid
time-control game, he could still hope for something...

18...c5

Logical and best.

The alternative is 18...Rb8 19.Rd1 (½-½ Banikas,H-Managadze,N Aigialias
2008; 19.Qg3 Qxg3 20.fxg3 Rb7 21.Rc1 Rc7=) 19...c5 20.Bd5 Bb7 21.g3
(21.Rg4 Bxd5 22.Rxd5 Rbd8 23.Qf6 g6µ) 21...Rbd8 22.Bxb7 Rxd1+
23.Qxd1 Qxb7 24.Re5²

19.Bxf7+?

A faulty combination. White had to settle for 19.Bd5 Bb7 (19...Rb8 20.Qh5
Bb7 21.Bxb7 Rxb7 22.Rd1 c4 23.Rg4 Rd8 24.Rxd8+ Qxd8 25.Rd4 Rd7
26.Qxb5 Rxd4 27.exd4 Qxd4 28.g3= Vitiugov,N- Radjabov,T Doha 2016)
20.Bxb7 Qxb7 21.Re5 Qb6 (21...Qxf3 22.gxf3 c4 23.Rxb5 Rab8 24.Rxb8
[24.a4 Rxb5 25.axb5 Rb8 26.Rc1 Rxb5 27.Rxc4 Rxb2 28.Rc8+ Kh7
29.Rc7 Kg6 30.Rxa7=] 24...Rxb8 25.Rb1²) 22.Qf5 Rac8 23.Rd1 (23.Rc1
Rfd8 24.g3 g6 25.Qf4 Kg7 26.Re7 Qf6 27.Qxf6+ Kxf6 28.Rxa7 Rd2 29.b3
c4 30.bxc4 Rxc4 31.Rxc4 bxc4 32.Rc7 Rxa2 33.Rxc4 h5= Petrosian,T-
Tahbaz,A Moscow 2019) 23...g6 24.Qf3 Rfd8 25.Rxd8+ Qxd8 26.g3 Kg7
27.Qb7 Qc7 28.Re7 Qxb7 29.Rxb7 a6 30.Rb6 (30.Kf1 c4 31.Ke2 h5 ½-½
Mohammed,Z-Noah,A Baghdad 2013) 30...c4 31.Kf1 h5 32.Ke2 c3
33.bxc3 Rxc3 34.Rxa6 Rc2+ 35.Kf3 b4 36.h3 Rb2 37.g4 hxg4+ 38.hxg4 b3
39.axb3 Rxb3= Timman,J-Becker,M Germany 2008.

19...Qxf7

Both 19...Kh8? 20.Rh4 Bf5 21.Qxf5 Rxf7± and 19...Rxf7? 20.Re8+ Kh7
21.Qxa8+– are out of the question.

20.Rf4 Bb7?

Black returns the favour.

Good for him was the simple 20...Bf5! 21.e4 (21.g4 Bxg4 22.Qxg4 Qxa2µ)
21...Bxe4! (21...Qxa2 22.exf5 Qxb2 23.f6°) 22.Rxe4 Qxf3 23.gxf3 Rad8³

21.Rxf7 Bxf3 22.Rxf3 Rxf3 23.gxf3

White has won a pawn but Black has ample compensation as can he control
the only open file on the board.

23...Rd8! 24.Rc1 c4

24...Rd2?! 25.Rxc5 Rxb2 26.a4 bxa4 27.Ra5 Rb4 28.Rxa7±

25.b3! cxb3

25...Rc8?! looks worse: 26.bxc4 bxc4 27.Kf1±

26.axb3 Rd3

26...a5 seems to be attractive at first, but White can hold on to his

advantage: 27.Rc5 Rb8 28.Rf5!±

27.Ra1 Rd7?

Passivity cannot be helpful in any rook ending!

Black had to try 27...Rxb3 28.Rxa7 Kh7 29.Kg2 Kg6 30.f4±

28.f4 Kf7
29.Ra6!

Typical and strong. White stops any black king or rook activity and then he
will advance his king and pawns, with an easy win.

29...Kg8 30.Kg2 Kf8 31.Kf3 Ke7 32.f5 Kd8 33.h4 Kc8 34.Ra5 b4 35.Ra4
Rd5

35...Rb7 36.e4 Kd8 37.e5+–

36.Ke4 Rb5 37.Rxa7

1–0

Van Wely Loek

Volokitin Andrei
D56 Foros 2008

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Be7 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 0-0 7.e3 Ne4 8.Bxe7
Qxe7 9.Rc1 c6 10.Bd3 Nxc3 11.Rxc3 Nd7 12.Qc2 dxc4 13.Bxc4 b6
14.Bd3 c5 15.Bh7+ Kh8 16.Be4 Rb8 17.0-0 a5 18.Rd1 Bb7 19.Bxb7
Rxb7 20.a3 Rc8 21.b4 axb4 22.axb4 Rbc7 23.Rc1

White has an edge, thanks to his pressure along the c-file. Defending such
passive positions is a difficult task.

23...c4

Black could think about 23...Nf6!? 24.e4! (24.bxc5 Nd5 25.Rc4 b5 26.Rc3
Nxc3 27.Qxc3 Ra7 28.Rb1∞; 24.dxc5? Nd5 25.Rc4 Nxb4! 26.Rxb4 Rxc5–
+) 24...c4 25.b5²

24.Qa4

24.b5 Nf6 25.Qa4 Ra7 26.Qd1 Qb4 27.Ne5 Qxb5 28.Rxc4 Rxc4 29.Rxc4²
was also a good alternative.

24...Nf6?
A miscalculation. Black had to opt for 24...Qd6 25.b5 Qd5 26.h3², or for
24...e5 25.Qb5 exd4 26.exd4²

25.Ne5

Now the c4-pawn is lost...

25...Ra7

In such cases the damage should be reduced as much as is humanly

possible. So, Black had to try 25...Nd5! 26.Rxc4 Rxc4 27.Rxc4 Rxc4
28.Nxc4 Qxb4 29.Qxb4 Nxb4 30.Nxb6± Note that the rook ending after
25...Nd7 26.Nxd7 Qxd7 27.Qxd7 Rxd7 28.Rxc4 Rxc4 29.Rxc4 Ra7 30.h4!
Ra1+ 31.Kh2 Rb1 32.h5+– is not a great deal for Black...

26.Qb5 Qe8

Or 26...Nd5 27.Rxc4 Rxc4 28.Qxc4 Rc7 29.Nc6±

27.Qxb6 Qa4 28.Rxc4 Rxc4 29.Nxc4 Nd5 30.Qb8+ Kh7 31.Ne5

31...Nc3?

A blunder in a difficult position. Black had to opt for 31...Rc7 32.Rf1

Qxb4±

32.Re1 Qa2 33.h4 Ne4 34.Rf1 Nd2 35.Rc1 Ne4 36.Nd3

And White emerges two pawns up...

36...Ra3 37.Qb7! Nd6 38.Qc6 Rxd3 39.Qxd6 Qd2 40.Rf1 h5 41.Qe7!

1–0
 CHAPTER 4.
ENDGAME TECHNIQUE

The chess player who wishes to master an opening should not only know
how to gain an advantage from it or how to increase it in the middlegame,
but also finally how to convert it in the endgame.
Knowledge of typical endgames with specific pawn structures is hugely
important, as it helps to evaluate correctly our chances in them and to make
middlegame decisions regarding choices and possibilities that are very
difficult to make otherwise.
The endgames that follow are characteristic of the system with 9.Rc1. It is
not important that some of them arise via another opening or system; the
important thing is to understand and master them — endgame technique is
essential...
Andersson Ulf
Rivas Pastor Manuel
D56 Hastings 1982

1.c4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 d5 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Nc3 h6 7.Bh4 Ne4 8.Bxe7
Qxe7 9.Rc1 c6 10.Bd3 Nxc3 11.Rxc3 dxc4 12.Rxc4 Nd7 13.0-0 e5
14.dxe5 Nxe5 15.Re4 Nxf3+ 16.Qxf3 Be6 17.Bc4 Rad8 18.Bxe6 fxe6
19.Qe2 Rd5 20.b4 Qd6 21.Qc4 Kh8 22.h3 e5 23.f4 exf4 24.exf4 Rd2
25.Rf2 Rd1+ 26.Kh2 Qf6 27.Qc5 b6 28.Qe3 Qd6 29.Rf3
The isolated e-pawn which appeared at the 18th move was no real burden to
Black; it could not conveniently be brought under fire and was actually
depriving the white pieces of certain useful squares in the centre. White
therefore exchanged it off within a few moves and now plans Re7 and/or
Rg3. However this will require some preparation and if Black remains
reasonably active he has nothing to fear at this stage.

29...c5

29...Qd2! looks a bit more accurate, keeping an even game.

30.bxc5 Qxc5?!

30...bxc5 was perfectly sound, but the exchange of the queens is a mistake
which leaves White with a strong endgame initiative. It was essential for
Black to preserve the queens on the board, as then it wouldn’t be so easy for
White to activate his kingside majority and expose his king. After this
alternative, play might continue 31.Rg3 a5 32.Re7 Rd3 33.Rgxg7 Rxf4
34.Rh7+ Kg8 35.Reg7+ Kf8 36.Qe7+ Qxe7 37.Rxe7 Ra3²
31.Qxc5 bxc5 32.Re7

White’s advantage lies in the simple fact that his rooks are more active and
that he can efficiently activate his kingside pawn-majority.
At the same time, Black’s passed c-pawn is going nowhere.

32...Rd4

Black is obliged to counterattack, as the obvious 32...a5?! 33.Rg3 Rg8

34.Ra7, loses material and 32...a6 33.Rg3 Rg8 (33...Rxf4?! 34.Rexg7+–)
34.Rg6 Rd4 35.f5± is not advisable either.

33.Rg3 Rg8 34.f5!

Of course White must preserve his active majority: 34.Rxa7? Rxf4 35.Rc7
Ra4 36.a3 c4 37.Rc3 Rga8=

34...Rf4 35.Rf7 a5

35...Ra4?! was of no help: 36.a3! c4 37.Rc7 Ra5 38.Rf3 Rf8 39.g4±

36.Rg6

36...c4?

Black missed his best defence: 36...Ra4! 37.Rc6 (37.f6 Rxa2 38.Rfxg7
Rxg7 39.fxg7+ [39.Rxg7 Rf2=] 39...Kg8 40.Rxh6 Kxg7=) 37...Rxa2
38.Rxc5 a4 39.Rcc7 a3 40.Ra7²

37.Rc6! Rf2

Black seems to have run-out of good moves: 37...a4 38.a3 Rd4 39.Rfc7±, or
37...Ra8 38.Rcc7 Rg8 39.Rc5 Ra8 40.a3 a4 41.Rcc7 Rg8 42.Kg1±

38.a4 Rf4 39.Kg3 Rd4 40.Ra7

This now wins material by force.

40...Rb8
There is no longer a defence: 40...Rd5 41.Kf4 Rf8 (41...Rd4+ 42.Ke5 Rd2
43.g4 Re8+ 44.Kf4 Rd4+ 45.Kg3 Re3+ 46.Kh4 Rdd3 47.Kh5 Rxh3+
48.Kg6 Rd8 49.Rxg7+–) 42.g4 Rd4+ 43.Ke5 Rd3 44.Rxc4 Rxh3 45.Rxa5±

41.Rxa5 Rd3+ 42.Kh2 c3 43.Rc7 Rf8 44.Rb5 h5 45.a5 Rf6 46.Rbc5 Ra6
47.f6 Rxf6

Or 47...gxf6 48.Rxh5+ Kg8 49.Rb5 Ra8 50.a6 c2 51.a7! c1=Q 52.Rb8+

Rd8 53.Rxd8+ Rxd8 54.Rxc1+–

48.Rxh5+ Kg8

49.Rhc5 Ra6 50.Rg5 Kf8

Black is simply lost: 50...g6 51.Rb5 Ra8 52.a6 c2 53.a7 c1=Q 54.Rb8+ Rd8
55.Rxd8+ Rxd8 56.Rxc1+–

51.Rgxg7 Rxa5 52.Rh7 Kg8 53.Rcg7+ Kf8 54.Rb7 Kg8 55.Rhc7 Rf5
56.Rb3

The last black pawn falls...

56...Rf2 1–0

Karpov Anatoly
Jussupow Artur
D56 Dortmund 1997

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 0-0 7.e3 Ne4 8.Bxe7
Qxe7 9.Rc1 c6 10.Bd3 Nxc3 11.Rxc3 dxc4 12.Bxc4 Nd7 13.0-0 b6
14.Bd3 c5 15.Be4 Rb8 16.Qa4 Bb7 17.Bxb7 Rxb7 18.Qc2 a5 19.a3 Re8
20.Rd1 Rbb8 21.h3 Rbd8 22.Rcd3 Rc8 23.d5 exd5 24.Rxd5 Nf6 25.Re5
Qc7 26.Rxe8+ Rxe8
It seems that Black has solved all his opening and middlegame problems
and he is even ready to take over the initiative by mobilising his 3:2
queenside majority. White’s kingside majority doesn’t seem to be
dangerous, as it cannot be mobilised immediately. But it is White to move
and he can immobilise his opponent’s majority by means of his next move.
And this is a great first step, firstly destroying his opponent’s intentions and
then he will try to mobilise his kingside majority. He can also post his
knight on c4, from where it will attack Black’s pawn queenside base, the
b6-pawn. So, White holds an edge!

27.a4!

A great move which suddenly immobilises this majority and, in a way, turns
the tables.

27...Rd8

Or 27...Nd7 (planning ...Ne5) 28.Nd4! Nf6 29.Nb5±

28.Rxd8+ Qxd8 29.Ne5!

Also improving the knight. From its future square on c4, it will exert
pressure on the weak black b6-pawn.

29...Qd5 30.Nc4 Nd7 31.b3

Mission complete!
Now the next steps for White must be the mobilisation of the king and his
kingside majority.

31...f5?!

Such central pawn advances are not particularly helpful and at the end of
the day often become targets for the opponent. Preferable was 31...h5
32.Kf1, planning to exchange queens with Qd2.

32.Kf1!

It was too early for 32.g4? fxg4 (32...g6 33.gxf5 gxf5 34.Qc3²) 33.hxg4, as
Black gets strong counterplay after 33...Qf3! and probably White has
nothing better than 34.Qf5 Qd1+ (34...Qxf5? 35.gxf5±) 35.Kg2 Qxb3=
32...Kf7

33.f3 Ke7 34.Ke2 Qe6 35.Qc3 Nf6

35...Qf6 36.Qxf6+ Kxf6 37.e4 is what White would love to play, as his e-
pawn looks like an extra one — compare it with Black’s c-pawn.

36.Kf2 Kd7

Black is short of good alternatives: 36...h5 37.h4±, or 36...g5 37.g4±

37.g4
37...Kc6?!

Hastening the end. Black had to choose between 37...fxg4 38.hxg4± or

37...g6 38.Qe5±. But ultimately it wasn’t an easy decision; Black is
obviously in trouble...

38.Qe5! Qxe5 39.Nxe5+ Kd5 40.Nc4 fxg4 41.Nxb6+!

41.hxg4± was natural but White takes the opportunity to increase his
advantage.

41...Kc6 42.Nc4 gxf3

42...gxh3 43.Nxa5+ Kc7 44.Kg3+–

43.Kxf3 Kd5 44.Nxa5

White has won a good pawn and the rest is not that difficult. Knight endings
are similar to pawn endings, so the extra material is much more important
than in other endings!
44...g5 45.Nc4 h5 46.Nd2 Ke5 47.e4

Or 47.a5 Kd5 48.e4+ Kc6 49.e5 Ne8 50.Ke4 Ng7 51.Nf1 g4 52.h4+–

47...Ne8

47...Kd4, loses to 48.a5! Nd7 49.a6 Ne5+ 50.Kg3 Nc6 51.Nf3+ Kxe4
52.Nxg5+ Kd4 53.Ne6++–

48.Ke3 Nc7 49.Nc4+ Kf6 50.Kf2 Na6 51.Kg3 Nb4 52.h4 Nc6

53.a5! Nb4 54.Nd2 Nc6

54...Na6 doesn’t hold either: 55.hxg5+ Kxg5 56.Nf3++–

55.a6 gxh4+ 56.Kxh4 Ke6 57.Kxh5 Kd7 58.Kg6 Kc7 59.Nc4

White could also win by 59.Kf6 Kb6 60.e5 Kxa6 61.e6 Kb5 62.e7 Nxe7
63.Kxe7 Kb4 64.Kd6+–
59...Kb8 60.Kf6 Ka7 61.e5 Kxa6 62.e6 Kb5 63.e7

Black resigned due to 63...Nxe7 64.Kxe7 Kb4 65.Nd2 Kc3 66.Kd6 Kxd2
67.Kxc5, when the last white pawn decides...

1–0

Carlsen Magnus
Aronian Levon
D56 Saint Louis 2014

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 0-0 7.e3 Ne4 8.Bxe7
Qxe7 9.Rc1 c6 10.Qc2 Nxc3 11.Qxc3 Nd7 12.Be2 dxc4 13.Qxc4 e5 14.0-0
exd4 15.Nxd4 Nf6 16.b4 Bd7 17.Rfd1 Rfe8 18.Qc5 g6 19.a4 Qxc5
20.bxc5 a5 21.Nb3 Re5 22.Rd4 Kf8 23.Kf1 Ke7 24.Bc4 g5 25.h3 b5
26.cxb6 Rb8 27.f4 Rxe3 28.Nc5 Rxb6 29.Kf2 gxf4 30.Rxf4 Re5 31.Rxf6
Be8 32.Rf4 Rxc5 33.Re4+ Kf8 34.Rxe8+ Kxe8 35.Bxf7+ Kxf7 36.Rxc5
Rb4 37.Rxa5 c5 38.Ke3 Rd4 39.Ra6 Kg7 40.a5 Ra4 41.g4 h5 42.gxh5
Ra3+ 43.Ke4 c4 44.Kd4 c3 45.Kd3 Kh7 46.h6 Rb3 47.Kc2
A mistake left L.Aronian in a difficult rook endgame that required an
incredible amount of precision. M.Carlsen reached a winning position but
blundered it away beforehand. With this error L.Aronian was able to
beautifully show the ‘Vancura Position’ defence and obtain a draw out of
seemingly nowhere. Many spectators without access to tablebases were
confused online as the engines kept saying this position is a win, but it most
certainly was not. The ‘Vancura Position’ defence works even against two
additional h-pawns:

47...Rb5!

The only way! The rook moves into position to force White’s rook to stay
in front of the a-pawn. 47...Ra3? 48.h4, is a lost case...

48.Kxc3 Rf5 49.Ra8 Rb5 50.Kc4 Rf5 51.Kb4 Rf4+ 52.Kc5 Rf5+ 53.Kd4
Rb5 54.Ke4 Rc5 55.Ra6 Rb5 56.h4 Rc5 57.Kd4 Rb5 58.Kc4 Rf5 59.Kb4

59...Rf4+
As the white rook is ready to improve, Black must start checking.

60.Kc5 Rf5+ 61.Kb6 Rf6+ 62.Kb7 Rf7+ 63.Kc8 Rf8+ 64.Kd7 Rf5
65.Ra8 Rd5+ 66.Ke6

66.Kc6 doesn’t change anything: 66...Rf5 67.a6 Rf6+ 68.Kb5 Rf5+ 69.Kc4
Rf4+ 70.Kd3 Rf6=

66...Rb5 67.Kf6 Rc5 68.Ra7+ Kxh6 69.Kf7 Rb5 70.a6

Finally White moves his pawn to a6, so now Black must be on the alert...

70...Rb6!

The only drawing move!

71.Kg8 Rb8+!

This check is necessary.

The waiting 71...Rc6? would lose to 72.Rh7+ Kg6 73.Rg7+ Kh6 74.a7+–
72.Kf7 Rb6!

The 6th rank!

73.Ke7 Kg6 74.Kd7 Rf6 75.Ra8 Kg7 76.Kc7 Rf7+ 77.Kd6 Rf6+ 78.Ke5
Rb6 79.Ra7+ Kg6

79...Kg8= works as well.

80.h5+ Kh6!

After 80...Kxh5? 81.Ra8, Black’s king does not reach the drawing zone in
time: 81...Kg6 82.a7 Ra6 83.Rg8++–

81.Kf5 Rc6 82.Re7

82.Ra8 Kg7 83.h6+ Kh7 (83...Rxh6, draws as well) 84.Kg5 Rg6+ 85.Kf5
Rb6=

82...Rxa6 83.Re6+ Rxe6 84.Kxe6 Kxh5

Knowledge is power...

½-½

Gelfand Boris
Azmaiparashvili Zurab
D56 Moscow 2001

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 0-0 7.e3 Ne4 8.Bxe7
Qxe7 9.Rc1 c6 10.Bd3 Nxc3 11.Rxc3 dxc4 12.Bxc4 b6 13.Bd3 Bb7
14.Be4 Na6 15.Bxc6 Bxc6 16.Rxc6 Nb4 17.Rc4 b5 18.Rc5 Rac8
19.Rxb5!?

A very interesting and brave decision, as White is now forced to sac his
queen.
19.a3 Rxc5 20.dxc5 Rd8! 21.Nd4 Nc6! (21...Qxc5 22.axb4 Qxb4+ 23.Qd2
Qxd2+ 24.Kxd2 e5 25.Kd3²) 22.Qd3 (22.Qc2 Nxd4 23.exd4 Rxd4 24.b4
a5µ; 22.0-0 Qxc5³) 22...Qxc5 23.Qc2= is not much.

19...Rc1! 20.Qxc1 Nd3+ 21.Ke2 Nxc1+ 22.Rxc1 Qd6

22...Qd7 23.a4 is not a big difference.

23.a4 Rb8
So, White sacced his queen and got a rook, a knight and two pawns for her.
The position should be balanced, but it is easier for White to do something,
especially if he succeeds in creating a passed pawn on the queenside.

24.Rc4

24.Rc6 Qxc6 25.Rxb8+ Kh7 26.b3 Qc2+ 27.Nd2 Qc7² is also possible.

24...Rxb5 25.axb5 Qb8 26.Rc5 a6! 27.Kd3

Black can feel safe after 27.bxa6 Qxb2+ 28.Nd2 Qb6 29.Rc8+ Kh7 30.Ra8
Qc6 31.Ra7 Qb6 32.Rxf7 Qxa6+= but perhaps this is what White should
have opted for.

27...axb5 28.Kc3?

The text allows the black queen to enter White’s camp and collect important
pawns.
White should re-allocate his pieces before anything else: 28.Kd2! b4 29.g3
Qb7 30.Ne1 g5 31.h4 gxh4 32.gxh4 Qh1 33.h5∞
28...Qb6

28...b4+ 29.Kb3 g5 30.Rc4², is OK for White, but interesting is 28...Qa8

29.Rxb5 Qa1 30.Nd2 (30.Rb8+ Kh7 31.Rb7 f6µ) 30...Qg1 31.b4∞

29.Kb4?!

Too optimistic. Again 29.Kd2 should have been tried.

29...Qa6! 30.Rxb5 Qa1

Black has to be active: 30...Kf8? 31.Ne5 Ke7 32.f3²

31.Kc5!

White as well!
Everything depends on the white b-passer and there is no time for
retreating!

31...Qf1 32.b4 Qxg2 33.Ne5 f6?

The position is surprisingly difficult to evaluate, since the white b-pawn
poses great danger, while the black queen is extremely active.
But it seems that Black is on top after 33...Qxf2 34.Rb8+ (34.Nc4 Qxh2
35.Rb7 Qh5+ 36.Kb6 Qd5–+) 34...Kh7 35.Rb7 (35.b5 Qxe3 36.b6 Qa3+
37.Kc6 Qc3+–+) 35...f6 (35...Qxe3? 36.Rxf7 Qc1+ 37.Nc4 Qg5+=) 36.Nc4
Qxh2 37.b5 Qh5+ 38.Kb4 Qd1! (38...Qd5? 39.Rc7 h5 40.b6 h4 [40...Qd8
41.Rc5 g5 {41...Qd7 42.Na5+–} 42.b7 h4 43.Na5 h3 44.Nc6 Qb6+ 45.Rb5
Qc7 46.b8=Q Qxb8 47.Rxb8 h2 48.Rb7+ Kh6 49.Rb8 Kh7=] 41.b7 Qd8
42.Rc5 h3 43.Kb5 g5! [43...Kg6 44.Rc8 Qd5+ {44...Qd7+? 45.Kb6 h2
46.Rh8+–} 45.Kb6 h2 46.Rh8 Qxc4 47.b8=Q Qb4+=] 44.Ka6 Qb8–+)
39.Ra7 h5 40.b6 h4 41.b7 Qb1+ 42.Kc5 h3–+. Well, all these variations
cannot really be played with accuracy by anyone in a practical game...

34.Rb8+ Kh7 35.Nc6 Qxh2 36.b5

36...Qh5+?

Black felt that his queen had to return as soon as possible.

In fact, eliminating the opponent’s pawn was more important and 36...Qxf2!
would have made a draw: 37.b6 Qxe3 38.b7 Qb3 39.Kd6 (39.Rh8+ Kxh8
40.b8=Q+ Qxb8 41.Nxb8 h5 42.Nc6 h4 43.Nb4 h3 44.Nd3 h2 45.Nf2 Kg8
46.Kd6 Kf7 47.Nh1 g5 48.d5 exd5 49.Kxd5=) 39...Kg6 40.Kc7 Qg3+
41.Kd7 Qb3 42.Nd8 Qb5+ 43.Ke7 Qb4+ 44.Ke8 Qb5+=

37.Kd6 Qd5+ 38.Kc7 e5

38...Qh5 39.b6 Qf7+ 40.Kd6 e5 41.b7+–

39.b6 Qf7+ 40.Kd6 exd4 41.exd4 h5

41...Kg6, is not helpful: 42.Ne7+ Kg5 43.Rd8 Qb3 44.Kc7 Qf7 45.Rd7+–

42.b7 h4

Or 42...Qb3 43.d5 h4 44.Kc7 h3 45.Re8 h2 46.Re1 Qxd5 47.b8=Q h1=Q

48.Qb1++–

43.Rh8+!
The most practical solution.

43...Kxh8 44.b8=Q+ Kh7 45.Qb1+ f5

45...Kh6 46.Ne7 g6 47.Qe4+–, or 45...Kh8 46.Ne7 g5 47.Qf5+–

46.Qh1 g5

46...Qf6+ 47.Kc5 g5 48.d5+–

47.d5 Qf6+ 48.Kc7 Qg7+ 49.Kd6 Qf6+ 50.Kd7 g4

50...Qf7+ 51.Ne7+–

51.d6 f4

51...h3 52.Kc7 Qf7+ 53.d7+–

52.Qe4+ Kh6

52...Kg7 53.Qe7+ Kg6 54.Ne5+ Kf5 55.Qxf6+ Kxf6 56.Nxg4++–

53.Qe6!

The triumph of White’s strategy; the queens are exchanged in order to open
the way for the passed d-pawn.

53...Qxe6+

53...Kg5 54.Qxf6+ Kxf6 55.Kc7 g3 56.d7+–

54.Kxe6 g3 55.fxg3 f3

55...fxg3 56.d7 g2 57.d8=Q g1=Q 58.Qh8+ Kg5 59.Qg7++–

56.Ne5

Black resigned: 56...f2 57.Ng4+ Kg5 58.Nxf2 hxg3 59.Nh3+ Kg4

60.Ng1+–.
56.d7, was winning as well: 56...f2 57.d8=Q f1=Q 58.Qh8+ Kg5 (58...Kg6
59.Ne7+ Kg5 60.Qxh4#) 59.Qg7+ Kh5 60.g4#

1–0

Zvjaginsev Vadim
Cherepkov Alexander
D56 St Petersburg 1994

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Nf3 Be7 5.Bg5 0-0 6.e3 h6 7.Bh4 Ne4 8.Bxe7
Qxe7 9.Rc1 Nxc3 10.Rxc3 c6 11.Be2 Nd7 12.0-0 dxc4 13.Bxc4 b6 14.Qe2
c5 15.Ba6 cxd4 16.Nxd4 Bxa6 17.Qxa6 Nc5 18.Qe2 Qf6
Black seems to be well on his way to fully equalising; he only needs to play
...a5.

19.Qf3!

An interesting concept. After the queen exchange, the white knight will
land on c6, from where it will be difficult to expel, while the white rooks
can exert pressure on the black queenside.

19...Qxf3 20.gxf3 a5

Although the text is logical, here Black could consider 20...Rfc8!? 21.b4
(21.Rfc1 Rd8 22.b4²) 21...Na4 (21...Nd7 22.Rfc1²) 22.Ra3 Nb2 23.b5²
21.Nc6! f6

White exerts pressure even after 21...Rfe8 22.Rd1 Rac8 23.Rd6²

22.a3 a4

Now White has access to the b6-pawn, so Black might have gone instead
for 22...Rf7 23.b4 axb4 24.axb4 Nd7 25.Rd1²

23.Rd1 Kf7 24.Rd6 Rfc8

25.Rc4!

The rook is heading for b4, to attack the weak black b6-pawn

25...Rc7 26.Nd4 Rb7 27.Rb4 Ra6?!

Every picture tells a story... A rook ending is what Black should wish for, so
he ought to play 27...b5 28.Rc6 Nd3 29.Rxb5 Rxb5 30.Nxb5
30...e5! (30...Nxb2 31.Nd4 e5 32.Rc7+ Kg6 33.Ne6±) 31.Nd6+ Kg6
32.Nc4 Rb8 33.Ra6 Nxb2 34.Nxb2 Rxb2 35.Rxa4 Ra2. This is a theoretical
rook ending, which should be a draw with accurate play. But, of course,
Black will suffer for a long time.

28.Rb5 e5

What else? If 28...Ke7 29.Rc6 Kd7, then 30.Rcxc5 (30.Rbxc5? bxc5

31.Rxa6 cxd4 32.exd4 Rxb2 33.Rxa4 Rb7=) 30...bxc5 31.Rxb7+ Kc8
32.Nxe6! Rxe6 33.Rxg7+–

29.Nf5 g6?

The text should be considered the decisive mistake. Black had to be

stubborn and opt instead for 29...Ne6 30.Rc6 Rb8 31.Nd6+ Ke7 32.Rcxb6
Rbxb6 33.Nc8+±, or for 29...Raa7 30.h4 Kg6 31.Ng3 h5 32.Kg2 Rd7
33.Rbxb6±

30.Nxh6+
30.Rxc5 bxc5 31.Nxh6+ Kg7 32.Rxa6 Kxh6 33.Rxf6 Rxb2 34.Ra6+– was
also good enough.

30...Ke7

30...Kg7 loses to 31.Rxc5 bxc5 32.Rxa6 Kxh6 33.Rxf6+–

31.Rc6 Nd7 32.Rd5 Ra5 33.Rdd6!

Now all Black’s 6th rank pawns are targets and ready to fall!

33...Rb5 34.Ng8+ Kf7 35.Nxf6 Nf8 36.Rd2 Ne6 37.Ne4 Ke7 38.Rc4

38.Nd6 Rd7 39.Nc8+ Kd8 40.Rdc2+–

38...Ra7 39.Nc3 Rb3 40.Rxa4 Rxa4 41.Nxa4 Ng5 42.Kg2 e4 43.fxe4 1–0
 Show in Text Mode

CHAPTER 5.
TACTICAL MOTIFS

Tactics are the salt & pepper of chess. They crown every strategy and
appear in nearly every game, so we cannot live without them!
Typical tactical motifs repeat themselves, and their knowledge and
understanding are an essential asset to season our opening preparation.
Grivas Efstratios
Krivonosov Oleg
D56 Internet 2008

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 0-0 7.e3 Ne4 8.Bxe7
Qxe7 9.Rc1 Nxc3 10.Rxc3 c6 11.Bd3 dxc4 12.Bxc4 Nd7 13.0-0 b6
14.Bd3 c5 15.Be4 Rb8 16.Qa4 Nf6 17.Bc6 cxd4 18.exd4 a6 19.Ne5 Bb7
20.Rfc1 Nd5 21.Bxd5 Bxd5 22.Qxa6 Ra8 23.Qxb6 Qg5 24.g3 Rxa2
25.Nd7 Qd2 26.Rc8 Rxb2 27.Rxf8+ Kh7 28.Rh8+ Kxh8
Show/Hide Solution

29.Rc8+ Kh7 30.Nf8+ Kg8 31.Nxe6+ Kh7 32.Nf8+ Kg8 33.Ng6+ Kh7
34.Rh8#

1–0

Topalov Veselin
Anand Viswanathan
D56 Sofia 2010

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 0-0 7.e3 Ne4 8.Bxe7
Qxe7 9.Rc1 Nxc3 10.Rxc3 c6 11.Be2 dxc4 12.Bxc4 Nd7 13.0-0 b6 14.Bd3
c5 15.Be4 Rb8 16.Qc2 Nf6 17.dxc5 Nxe4 18.Qxe4 bxc5 19.Qc2 Bb7
20.Nd2 Rfd8 21.f3 Ba6 22.Rf2 Rd7 23.g3 Rbd8 24.Kg2 Bd3 25.Qc1 Ba6
26.Ra3 Bb7 27.Nb3 Rc7 28.Na5 Ba8 29.Nc4 e5 30.e4 f5 31.exf5 e4
32.fxe4 Qxe4+ 33.Kh3 Rd4 34.Ne3

Show/Hide Solution

34...Qe8! 35.g4 h5! 36.Kh4 g5+ 37.fxg6 Qxg6 38.Qf1 Rxg4+ 39.Kh3 Re7
40.Rf8+ Kg7 41.Nf5+ Kh7 42.Rg3 Rxg3+ 43.hxg3 Qg4+ 44.Kh2 Re2+
45.Kg1 Rg2+ 46.Qxg2 Bxg2 47.Kxg2 Qe2+ 48.Kh3 c4 49.a4 a5 50.Rf6
Kg8 51.Nh6+ Kg7 52.Rb6 Qe4 53.Kh2 Kh7 54.Rd6 Qe5 55.Nf7 Qxb2+
56.Kh3 Qg7

0–1

Grivas Efstratios
Managadze Nikoloz
D56 Amfissa 2010
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 0-0 7.e3 Ne4 8.Bxe7
Qxe7 9.Rc1 c6 10.Bd3 Nxc3 11.Rxc3 Nd7 12.Qc2 dxc4 13.Bxc4 e5 14.0-0
exd4 15.exd4 Nb6 16.Bb3 Qd6 17.Re1 Nd5 18.Ne5 Be6 19.Rg3 Nc7
20.Qe4 Bxb3 21.Rxb3 Rab8 22.Ree3 Nd5 23.Rg3 Qe6 24.h3 Rfe8
25.Rbf3 Re7 26.Qh4 Kh7 27.a3 a5 28.Kh2 Nf6 29.Rg5 Nd5 30.Nc4 f6
31.Rgg3 Qe4

Show/Hide Solution

32.Rg4

32.Rxg7+! Kxg7 (32...Rxg7? 33.Qxe4++–) 33.Qg3+ Kh7 34.Qxb8+–

32...Qb1 33.Nd6 g5 34.Qh5 Qg6 35.Qxg6+ Kxg6 36.Re4 Rxe4 37.Nxe4

Re8 38.Nc3 Nxc3 39.Rxc3 Rd8 40.Rb3 b5 41.Rc3 Rxd4 42.Rxc6 Rd2
43.b4 axb4 44.axb4 Rb2 45.Rb6 Rxb4 46.g4 Rb1 47.Rb7 h5 48.Kg2 b4
49.Kh2

½-½
 Zakharevich Igor
Biriukov Oleg
D56 St Petersburg 2000

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Bg5 Be7 5.Nc3 h6 6.Bh4 0-0 7.e3 Ne4 8.Bxe7
Qxe7 9.Rc1 Nxc3 10.Rxc3 c6 11.Bd3 dxc4 12.Bxc4 Nd7 13.0-0 e5 14.Bb3
Rd8 15.Re1 exd4 16.exd4 Qd6 17.Qe2 Nf8 18.Qe7 Ne6 19.Qh4 Qf4

Show/Hide Solution

20.Qxd8+! Nxd8 21.Re8+ Kh7 22.Rxd8 Qc7 23.Rf8 Rb8 24.Rxf7 Qd6
25.Re3 Bg4 26.Ree7 Rg8 27.Ne5 Qxd4 28.Bc2+ Kh8 29.Rf4

1–0
 Portisch Lajos
Chiburdanidze Maia
D56 Marbella 1999

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Be7 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bg5 0-0 6.e3 h6 7.Bh4 Ne4 8.Bxe7
Qxe7 9.Rc1 c6 10.Bd3 Nxc3 11.Rxc3 dxc4 12.Bxc4 Nd7 13.0-0 e5 14.Bb3
Rd8 15.Re1 exd4 16.exd4 Qd6 17.h3 Nf8 18.Ne5 Be6 19.Qh5 Qe7 20.Nf3
Rd6 21.Qc5 Qd8 22.Qb4 Qc7 23.Rce3 Rad8 24.Qa3 a6 25.Bc2 Rd5
26.Qc3 Qa5 27.b4 Qb6 28.a4 a5 29.Rb1 axb4 30.Rxb4 Qa7 31.Qb2
R5d7 32.Ne5 Rc7 33.Rg3 Bd5 34.Ng4 Rd6 35.Ne3 Rcd7 36.Bf5 Re7
37.Bd3 Red7 38.Bf5 Re7 39.h4 Rc7 40.Bd3 Re6 41.h5 Rf6 42.Ng4 Re6
43.Qd2 Kh8 44.Bf5 c5 45.Bxe6 Nxe6

Show/Hide Solution

46.Nf6! Rc8

46...cxb4 47.Qxh6+ gxh6 48.Rg8#

47.dxc5

47...Qxc5 48.Nxd5+–

1–0

Piket Jeroen
Pliester Leon
D56 Hilversum 1990

1.d4 e6 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 0-0 6.e3 h6 7.Bh4 Ne4 8.Bxe7
Qxe7 9.Rc1 c6 10.Bd3 Nxc3 11.Rxc3 Nd7 12.0-0 dxc4 13.Bxc4 e5 14.Bb3
exd4 15.exd4 Nf6 16.Re1 Qd6 17.Ne5 Bf5

Show/Hide Solution
18.Nxf7! Rxf7 19.Bxf7+ Kxf7 20.Qb3+ Kf8 21.Qxb7 Rb8 22.Qxa7 Rxb2
23.Rxc6 Rxa2 24.Qb7 Rb2 25.Qxg7+ Kxg7 26.Rxd6 Ne4 27.Ra6 Nc3
28.h3 Ne2+ 29.Kh2 h5 30.d5 Rd2 31.d6 Kf6 32.d7+ Ke7 33.Ra5 Be6
34.Re5 Nd4 35.d8=Q+ Kxd8 36.Rxe6 Nxe6 37.Rxe6 Rxf2 38.Kg3 Rf5
39.Kh4

1–0

L’Ami Erwin
Jussupow Artur
D56 Amsterdam 2008

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Nf3 h6 7.Bh4 Ne4 8.Bxe7
Qxe7 9.Rc1 c6 10.Be2 Nd7 11.0-0 Nxc3 12.Rxc3 dxc4 13.Bxc4 b6 14.Bd3
c5 15.Be4 Rb8 16.Qc2 a5 17.Rd1 Ba6 18.Bc6 cxd4 19.Nxd4 Nc5 20.a3
Qf6 21.Bf3 a4 22.Nc6 Ra8 23.Rd6 Bb7 24.Rc4 Rfc8
Show/Hide Solution

25.Rf4! Rxc6 26.Bxc6 Qe7 27.Bxb7 Qxb7 28.Rb4 Rc8 29.Rbxb6 Qa8
30.h3 Nb7 31.Rdc6 Rd8 32.Rc7 Na5 33.Qxa4 Rd2 34.Rbc6 Kh7 35.Rc5
Qd8 36.Qxa5 Rd1+ 37.Kh2 Qd6+ 38.f4 Qd3 39.Rc1 Rd2 40.Qc3 Qe2
41.Rg1 1–0

Portisch Lajos
Prusikin Michael
D56 Miskolc 2004

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 0-0 7.e3 Ne4 8.Bxe7
Qxe7 9.Rc1 c6 10.Bd3 Nxc3 11.Rxc3 dxc4 12.Bxc4 Nd7 13.0-0 e5
14.Qb1 exd4 15.exd4 Nb6 16.Bb3 Qd6 17.Qe4 Be6 18.Bxe6 Qxe6
19.Qxe6 fxe6 20.Re1 Rae8 21.Ra3 Nc8 22.g3 Nd6 23.Kg2 Nb5 24.Rb3
Re7
Show/Hide Solution

25.d5! Rd8 26.a4 Nc7 27.dxc6 bxc6 28.Rc1 e5 29.Rxc6 e4 30.Nh4 Nd5
31.Nf5 Rf7 32.Rd6 Rxd6 33.Nxd6 Rc7 34.Rb8+ Kh7 35.Rb7 Rxb7
36.Nxb7 Kg6 37.Nd6 e3 38.f4 Nb4 39.Kf3 Nd3 40.Nc4 Nc5 41.a5

1–0
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

ChessBase Magazine Surveys; Efstratios Grivas; 2008

ChessBase Magazine Surveys; Efstratios Grivas; 2009
ChessBase Magazine Surveys; Various Contributors; 2009–2020
ChessBase Mega Database; Various Contributors; ChessBase 2020
Informator; Various Contributors; Informator 1966–2020
New In Chess (Magazine & Yearbook); Various Contributors; Interchess
BV 1984–2020
New In Chess Yearbook; Efstratios Grivas; 2008
Wikipedia Various Articles; Wikipedia 2020
 CURRICULUM VITAE

Efstratios Grivas (30.03.1966) is a highly experienced chess trainer and

chess author. He has been awarded by the International Chess Federation
(FIDE) the titles of:
– International Chess Grandmaster,
– FIDE Senior Trainer,
– International Chess Arbiter,
– International Chess Organiser.
His main successes over the board are:
– Silver Medal Olympiad 1998 (3rd Board),
– Gold Medal European Team Championship 1989 (3rd Board)
– 4th Position World Junior Championship U.20 1985.
He has also won 5 Balkan Medals (2× Gold, 1× Silver, 2× Bronze) and he
was 3 times Winner of the International ‘Acropolis’ Tournament. He also
has to his credit 28 times first position in Greek Individual & Team
Championships and has won various international tournaments as well.
He has also been awarded six FIDE Medals in the Annual FIDE Awards
(Winner of the FIDE Boleslavsky Medal 2009 & 2015 (best author) —
Winner of the FIDE Euwe Medal 2011 & 2012 & 2017 (best junior trainer)
— Winner of the FIDE Razuvaev Medal 2014 (Trainers’ education) and has
been a professional Lecturer at FIDE Seminars for Training & Certifying
Trainers. During the period 2009-2018 he served as Secretary of the FIDE
Trainers’ Commission. Since 2012 he has been Director of the FIDE Grivas
Chess International Academy (Athens) and since 2019 he has been the
Technical Director of the Sharjah International Chess Academy (Sharjah).
He has published a large number of Books & DVDs in Arabic, English,
French, Greek, Iranian, Italian, Mongolian, Spanish & Turkish. His 105
books/editions can be indexed in the following categories: Beginners (10),
Dvds & E-Books (6), Endgame (5), History (19), Middlegame & Endgame
(14), Opening (6), Plan (8), Strategy (7), Strategy Series (20) and Trainers’
Education (10). And his publishers & languages are: Apollon Ektipotiki
(Greek), Chess Evolution (English), ChessBase (English), ChessCastle
(English), Everyman Chess (English), FIDE (English & French), Gambit
Publications (English), Grivas Chess International Academy (English &
Greek), IChess (English), Kaissa Chess Center (Greek), Kedros Publishers
(Greek), Klitharitmos Publishers (Greek), La Casa del Ajedrez (Spanish),
Mongolian Chess Federation (Mongolian), New In Chess (English), Prisma
(Italian), Russell Enterprises (English), Sabah Chess Academy (English),
Sharjah Cultural & Chess Club (Arabic & English), Skyfos Ekdotiki
(Greek), Soheil Hooshdaran Chess Academy (Iranian), Thinkers Publishing
(English) and Turkiye Santranc Federasyonu (Turkish).