Professional Documents
Culture Documents
the
dark knight
system
a
EVERYMAN CHESS
Gloucester Publishers plc www.everymanchess.com
...
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
I S B N : 978 1 8 5744 995 2
Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480,
246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 0643 7-0480.
All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everym an Chess, Northburgh House,
10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V OAT
tel : 020 7 2 5 3 7887 fax: 020 7490 3 708
email : info@everymanchess.com; website: www.everymanchess.com
Everyman is the registered trade mark of Random House Inc. and is used in this
work under licence from Random House Inc.
James Schuyler
Conte nts
Introduction
13
15
2 lLlf3
18
2 C4
34
2 dS
43
55
2 d4
57
2 lLlf3
92
2 lbc3
114
119
1 c4 lbc6
120
1lL:lf3 lLlc6
127
Others
129
Miscellaneous Topics
132
Illustrative Games
134
Index of Variations
213
Index of Games
222
10
I nt rod uction
...
Coverage
This is a repertoire book, but I am not
adhering slavishly to the concept. Side
lines for Black are presented if they are
useful or enlightening. One situation
that sometimes comes up is that a
main line, while objectively fine for
Black, offers very few winning chances.
In this case, I will try to offer an alter
native which makes it more practical to
play for a win, normally with substan
tial additional risk (otherwise it would
have been chosen as the main line).
Transpositions to other openings
are obviously frequent, but I will not
abandon the reader just because we
h ave reached a position that happen s
to be known by a different name. I will
In troduction
mention transpositions when available
and cover the transpositions that I rec
ommend.
That being said, it is not simple to
fit a whole Black repertoire into one
volume, and decisions needed to be
made about what to devote space to.
Except for here, I will not waste space
expressing the wish that I h ad more
space. However, if certain positions
receive light treatment, this is gener
ally the reason . When deciding what to
focus on, I weighed both frequency and
danger, only intentionally ignoring
White moves that are both rare and
weak. Besides, space aside, I see no
point bogging down the reader with
information he won't need.
Transpositions? Aargh !
Why would anyone want t o learn inde
pendent Dark Knight and Kevitz posi
tions when they are just going to have
to learn regular (transpositional) open
ings on top of it? One part of the an
swer is that a player may greatly enjoy
the non-transpositional positions, and
these are reached frequently. Another
important part is that White normally
has to give up valuable options in order
to enter the tran sposition . For instance,
in the Pirc reached through the Dark
Knight System, White can only play the
Classical Variation which, though fairly
popular, is just not very challen ging for
Black. Admittedly, Black's knight
reaches the slightly unusual square c6,
and does so unusually early, but I will
Untested? (*gasp*!)
In opening books, untested - or lightly
tested - moves are typically treated like
embarrassing relatives, introduced
quickly for propriety's sake and then
shuffled off to somewhere they won't
bother anyone. Admittedly it is far eas
ier to discuss and analyse moves that
have been played repeatedly by GMs,
but ultimately moves need to stand on
their own merits, and we should not
shy away from a little work in order to
play better chess. Besides, isn't it good
to catch our opponents unprepared?
As for enemy novelties, it is also
sensible to be ready, especially if it is a
computer novelty. After all, if "my"
Houdini says a move is best, my oppo
nent's will too, and I will soon be facing
this move at the board.
Who?
"I" is me, James Martin Schuyler. "You"
is you, the reader. "We" is n ot the royal
we - it is me and you, the reader. "Our"
opening is the Dark Knight System. I
10
Assessments
Chess writers will often tell you that
your understanding of a position is
more important than the objective as
sessment. No doubt this is true, but this
is not a good reason to be unconcerned
with assessments. An objectively poor
position will require a great deal of
preparation and understanding in order
to be worth playing. Also, what if your
opponent happens to understand it
too?! Wouldn't it be better to take the
time to understand a sound position
instead of a questionable one?
I will try to convey as much of my
understanding as possible, but I am
also extremely concerned with the ob
jective quality of the position (to the
extent that it is possible to determine
it). I do not want to place us one or two
inaccuracies away from an extremely
difficult position, nor do I want our op
ponent to have the luxury of one or
two inaccuracies and still retain
chances for an advantage.
If you are not concerned with as
sessments, simply ignore them, or cross
out the words and write in crayon,
" Black is okay". I do not find this useful,
but it is sufficient for many and true as
far as it goes - if the position were not
extremely playable, it would not be in
the book.
In troduction
Houdini is not the final arbiter of
anything - especially since it is people
who must play the positions - but he is
a far stronger player than I am, and he is
nothing if not objective, so when look
ing for what passes for the truth, his
assessments carry considerable weight.
When his opinions have not made sense
to me, I have looked deeper. Typically, I
have become convinced, but sometimes
I am able to convince him - rarely do we
continue to disagree.
Assessments in this book are in
tended to apply to n arrow ranges.
"Equal" corresponds to an advantage
for one player of n o more than 0.09
pawns. "Comfortably equal" is the
more pleasant half of that range. "Tiny
advantage", "tiny edge", or "slightly
better" is an advantage of 0.10 to 0.17
pawns, while "nearly equal" would be a
similar disadvantage. In most chess
works, such positions are simply la
belled as equal, but I believe that there
is far too big a difference between
+0.15 and -0.15 (two to three inaccura
cies or even two to three tempi in many
positions) to let it go without mention.
An "edge" or "small advantage" is be
tween 0.18 and 0.25 pawns. In other
works, such positions are often called
"approximately equal" or 1=. I under
stand that the style of assessment I am
using implies a degree of precision that
is difficult to attain, but I would rather
strive for precision and risk falling
short than strive for vagueness in the
hopes of evading criticism.
ctJc6)
...
11
12
t
t
14
Section On e
d 4 ti:Jc6
Others:
a) 2 e3 e5 (or 2 ... d6 and 3 ... g6, to keep
things interesting - White's pawn on
e3 makes a poor impression in this
King's Indian type of position) 3 t2Jf3
sees White try to play a French with an
extra move, but this move order gives
Black a few good options. 3 ... e4 4 t2Jfd2
f5 5 c4 t2Jf6 6 t2Jc3 e7 ! transposes to
line B2 in Chapter Seven. Also possible
is 3 ... exd4 4 exd4 d5 (an Exchange
French) to dry up the game. Instead, 3
c4 transposes to A2; whereas 3 d5 is
schizophrenic nonsen se: 3 ...t2Jce7 4 c4
d6 5 t2Jc3 f5 6 d3 l2Jf6 7 c2 g6 gave
Black an extremely comfortable version
of a King's Indian in J.Paasikangas
Tella-T. Lindqvist, Finnish Team Cham
pion ship 1996 (see Game 1).
b) 2 t2Jc3 e5 will soon transpose, af
ter 3 d5 t2Jce7 4 e4 or 3 dxe5 l2Jxe5 4 e4,
15
16
1 d4 lLlc6
8 i.b2 as 9 bS e6 10 dxe6 i.cs ! 11
lLlxe4 lLlxe4 12 i.d4 d6 13 e3 i.xe6 14
i.d3 Wke7 with a bizarre position that
slightly favours Black) 7 ... e6 8 dxe6
lLlxe6 (8 ... dS ! ?) 9 i.d3 g6 10 o-o dS and
while Mr. H calls it equal, I would be far
more comfortable sitting behind the
black pieces.
Seeing how the black army con
verges upon the e4-square, White may
rethink his decision to evict the lLlb4,
but leaving it there is not convenient
either, since White must fortify the dS
pawn and he can no longer play i.d3;
e.g. 4 c4 lLlf6 S lLlc3 g 6 6 g 3 i.g7 7 i.g 2
0-0 8 lLlf3 e6 is equal.
Alternatively, White may try to ad
dress the weak e4-square by placing a
black pawn there: 4 e4! ? fxe4 S a3 (oth
erwise s ... c6!) s ... lLla6 6 lLlc3 lLlf6 7 i.e3
c6 ! ? (7 ... g6 leads to more "normal" po
sitions) 8 i.xa6 bxa6 9 dxc6 dS 10
lLlge2 e6.
17
Chapte r On e
d4 lt:Jc6
lt:Jf3
3 g3 30
E: 3 .tgs 33
18
Instead:
a) 3 e4 is covered via 1 e4 - see
Chapter Five.
b) 3 tt::l c 3 tt::lf6 4 e4 also reaches
Chapter Five.
c) 3 e3 can be met by 3 ... g6.
d) 3 h 3 ! ? may be a trick to induce
3 ... e5 4 e4, which is now some sort of
Philidor. 4 ... exd4 5 tt::l xd4 g 6 ! ? is not
really bad, but 3 ... tt::lf6 4 tt::l c 3 g 6 5 e4
will transpose into lines we are more
familiar with - see line Cl in Chapter
Five again.
e) 3 c3 was used to good effect in
B.Kurajica-Z.Mestrovic, Bosnian Team
1 d4 ltJc6 2 lDf3
Championship 2003, continuing 3 ... e5
e4 l2Jf6 5 i.d3 (5 i.b5 ! ?) 5 ... i.e7 6
-2lbd2 and White went on to win . In
stead, 3 ... l2Jf6 4 e4! g6 tran sposes to 4
c3 g6 at the beginning of Chapter Five.
A:
3 C4 g6!
Position One
4d5!
19
20
10 'ii'c 2
In
Y.Balashov-G .Kuzmin,
USSR
:hampionship, Vilnius 1980, White
ulayed 10 e5 tt:'lfd7 (10 ... tt:'lfe4! ?) 11 exd6
=xd6 12 d4 tt:'lf6 and the g ame soon
oetered out to a draw (see Game S).
10 xc 5 ? ! dxc5 11 e5?! (11 0-0 e 5 ! )
' s no good because of 11 . . .tt:'ld7 12 e6
"xe6 13 dxe6 tt:'le5 14 'ii'b 3 tt:'lc6 1 5 o-o
.i.xe6 16 'ifxb7 tt:'ld4 with the better
3ame for Black.
1o ... as 11 o-o tt:'lfd71
d4 ltJc6 2 tt:'lf3
21
3 dS
22
d4 liJc6 2 liJf3
81: 6li'Jc3 23
82: 6 i.. b S + 24
gli'Jxbs
White should capture neither the
queen n or the f-pawn, though this is
not simple for him to figure out.
a) 9 'i!fxd8+ :xd8 10 liJxbS h as been
23
Th e Dark Kn ig h t System
played four times, but it is slightly
weaker than the text. Then 9 .. .fxe6 ! 11
tbxc7+ ci;f7 12 ttJbs .l:.c8 ! (better than
12 ... ttJxe4?!, as in I. Kreitner-H.Stenzel,
Long Island 1997) 13 tbc3 i.b4 14 i.d2
.i.xc3 15 i.xc3 ttJxe4 16 .i.xe s :xc2 is
equal .
b) 9 exf7+ costs a move (as opposed
to waiting for .. .f7xe6) and improves
Black's king position, so it is n ot a good
idea. 9 ... ci;xf7 10 ttJxbs (or 10 'ii'x d8+
.l::tx d8 11 ttJxbs ttJxe4 12 f3 a6 13 fxes
axbs and Black has slightly the better
of the probable draw) 10 .. .'ilt'xd1+ 1 1
ci;xd1 ttJxe4 12 ci;e2 c 6 13 tb c 3 ttJxc3 1 4
bxc3 is roughly equal again.
9 1\Vxd1+ 10 ci;xd1 0-0-0+ 11 e2 a6
12 tbc3 i.b4 13 ttJds ttJxds 14 exd s
l:txd s 15 exf7
24
d4 tLlc6 2 tLlf3
25
26
d4 ltJc6 2 lLlf3
s e2 g7
White has:
C1: 6 0-0 2 7
C2: 6 h3 28
4e3
...
27
Th e Dark Kn ig h t System
b) 7 c4 e S ! 8 g S (or 8 dxe s lL:\e4 9
h 3 dxes 10 h 2 fs with an edge)
8 ... h6 9 h4 gS 10 g 3 exd4 11 lL:\xd4
lL:\xd4 12 exd4 lL:\e4 13 lZlc3 .l:f.e8 and
Black is a little better.
7 ...e51
After this unplayed novelty, White is
the one who must be careful to keep
the balance. Furthermore, in doing so,
he may not be able to maintain his
typically comfortable London structure.
8 h2
8 dxes gives up more of the centre
for no gain. Black's point is 8 ... lL:\e4! and
White's extra e-pawn is pinned to the
b2-pawn. 9 'ilVdS ? ! dxes 10 'ii'x e4 exf4
11lL:lc3 fxe3 just makes matters worse
for White.
8 ...exd41
gexd4
28
d4 lbc6 2 lbf3
...
29
0: 3 g3
4...ttJb 8
01: 4 d5 30
02: 4 i.g 2 31
01: 4 d5
If White is going to kick the knight,
he should do it now - though, accord-
30
1 d4 tt:ic6 2 tt:lf3
didn't work in the 1920s and still
doesn't work in the 21st century. Even
with the centre closed, Black will lose
too many tempi with his knights in
order to play .. .f7-fS. Another common
move, 8 ... c s ? ! , is equally illogical and
un successful.
02: 4 g2 g7 5 0-0
31
7 ...tbd71?
This prepares both ...e7-e5 and .. .f7fs, and holds up White's c4-c5 break.
The immediate 7 ... e5 is frequently
played, but White has done very well
with 8 ds tbe7 9 c 5 ! .
8 e4
8 d5 tba5 (or 8 ...tbce5 9 tbxe5 tbxe5
10 'iib 3 and now 10 ... c5, 10 ... a5 or
10 ... b6 is level) 9 'ifa4 c6 10 g5 tbc5 11
'ifb4 tba6 12 'i'a4 tLlc5 i s a draw.
s . es
.
9 d5
These other moves are almost as
common :
a) 9 g 5 f6 ! ? (9 .. .f6) 10 xf6 tbxf6
32
1
E:
3 i.gs?!
d4 t'Llc6 2 t'Llf3
..
33
Chapte r Two
d4 t2Jc6
c4
3 dS
Instead:
a) The lame 3 e3 offers Black a few
methods: 3 ... exd4 4 exd4 d5 5 tt::lf3 tt::lf6
is an equal Exchange French position.
3 ... d5 ! ? is a kind of Chigorin/Albin
which has been played repeatedly by
many GMs - with poor results, how
ever.
34
d4 lLlc6 2 c4
...
35
5 'ii'xd2
Alternatively, 5 t2Jxd2 t2Jce7 6 d6 ! ? (or
6 e4 d6 7 ..id3 t2Jf6 ! - in this particular
position it is too costly to play 7 .. .f5?!,
activating both White's ..id3 and his
ridiculous t2Jd2; instead, Black plans
... o-o, ...t2Jg6, ...'ii'e 7, ...tLlh 5, and/or ... a7a5, ... b7-b6, ... ..id7) 6 ... cxd6 7 t2Je4 'ii'a 5+
8 'i'd2 'i!Vxd2 9 xd2 tLlf5 10 g4 l2Jh4 11
t2Jxd6+ <:Ji;e7 12 c5 b6 13 b4 l2Jf6 14 t2Jf3
t2Jxf3+ 15 exf3 t2Je8 is equal.
s ...t2Jce 7
6 cxd6
A.Hoffman-A.Femandez, Mar del
Plata 1996, went 6 ... t2Jc6? ! 7 t2Jc3 cxd6 8
tLlb5 t2Jf6 9 t2Jxd6+, and gives a good
example of what Black must avoid (see
Game 19).
7 'i!Vxd6
7 t2Jc3 t2Jf6 (or 7 ... d5 8 t2Jxd5 t2Jxd5 9
'ii'x d5 'ii'e 7!) 8 t2Jf3 d5 9 cxd5 (or 9 t2Jxe5
d6 10 t2Jf3 ..ie6) 9 ... d6 10 e4 o-o is no
problem for Black.
7 t2Jf6! 8 t2Jc3
8 'ii'x e5 frees Black's d-pawn and
does nothing to address White's devel
opment - he is still four {!) moves away
from castling kingside and the queen
side is not a safe place: 8 ... 0-o 9 t2Jc3 d5 !
10 cxd5 (10 e3 ..ie6 11 t2Jf3 t2Jg6 12
'ii'd4 dxc4 13 'ii'x d8 .:taxd8 is equal; or
10 t2Jf3 t2Jc6 11 'ii'f4 'ii'a 5 12 cxd5 t2Jxd5
13 'ii'd2 t2Jxc3 ! 14 'ii'x c3 l2Jb4 15 l2Jd4
lld8 with considerable pressure; or 10
.
..
A1: 6 d6!? 3 6
A2: 6 t2Jc3 38
36
Position Two
d4 lbc6 2 c4
37
38
7 e4
7 lL'lf3 fs 8 g 3 was V. Rao-J.Schuyler,
New York 1986 (see below).
7 .. .fs
7 ...lL'lf6 is surely playable, hoping for
a better opportunity to play .. .f7-f5, but
I prefer this active move in spite of a
few down sides; i.e. weakening the e6square, and opening the game for
White's lousy bishop. Black's rook will
soon be enjoying the f-file, and the lL'le7
will gain access to d4 via the fS-square.
After 7 .. .fs, there is only one game
in my database, H .Titz-C.Barlocco,
Dresden 2004:
8 exfs .txfs 9 .td3 lL'lf6 10 lL'lge2!
d4 lL'Ic6 2 c4
39
8 g3!? li:Jf6 9 e4 h6
Generally a useful move, preventing
li:Jg 5 and making ... g 7-g 5 possible. Here
Black prepares to play 10 ... fxe4.
10 exf5 i..xf5 11 i.. g 2 o-o 12 o-o
I was justifiably h appy with my po
sition. Houdini prefers Black and sug
gests ...d7, ... i..h 7, .. JU7, .. Jlaf8. How
ever, I was a 15-year-old expert, therefore .. .
12 ... g5??! 13 h4 g4 14 li:Jh2 'it>h7 15 f3
gxf3 16 l::txf3 i.. g6?! 17 l:taf1 li:Jeg 8 18
g4 'ike7 19 h5 i..e 8 20 'iVd3+ 'it>g7 21
li:Je4?!
I h ave been barely hanging on, but
there is a light at the end of the tunnel
since I will be in good shape if I can
reach an endgame. Also, it seems that
White's attack is not simple to play.
21 ....l:tf7 22 li:Jg3 i.. d 7 23 'ii'e 3 b6 24 g 5?!
40
29 'ii'g 6??
White, short on time and frustrated
about being unable to break through,
commits a h orrible blunder, allowing
his queen and rook to be forked. In
stead, after 29 l:txf6 ! ? li:Jxf6 30 l:i.xf6
"fle7 3 1 ki.xf7 'ii'xg 5 3 2 l:lxf8+ 'it>h 7 a
crazy endgam e arises - presumably
White has some advantage.
29 li:Jh7???
From completely winning to com
pletely losing in one move, as we ap
proach the time control. In my haste I
both overlooked the fork and the fact
that 29 "flg6 attacks f7. White's posi
tion would have disintegrated com
pletely after 29 ...li:Je7. If you think I'm
over this after just 26 years, you would
be wrong . I resigned shortly.
..
4 li:Jd2
Considering the pawn structure and
the closed position, it will be fine for us
to trade off our dark-squared bishop
for a knight.
B:
1 d4 lbc6 2 c4
5 a3
Just about everyone plays this, but
White has more challenging moves:
a) 5 lLlf3 and now Black can't play
s ... d6?? 6 'ii'a4+, so 5 ... .i.xd2+ is nearly
41
42
C h a pter Th ree
d4 'Dc6
dS
43
4 dxe6!
4 f4? ! is seen here most often and
seemed fine the first 5 5 times it was
used, but on the 56th, the German
master Lutz Diebl played 4 ... exd5 ! and
drew with GM Gyimesi in the
Bundesliga. Bravo! If White takes the
knight, Black draws by perpetual : 5
fxe5 'ili'h4+ 6 'it>e2 'Ml 5 + 7 'it>d2 'ii'h 6+ 8
'iii> c 3 'ifc6+ 9 'it>d3 'ifa6+ etc.
If 6 g 3 ?, as Gyimesi actually played,
then 6 ... 'ifxe4+ 7 'ife2 'ifxh 1 8 lZ:lf3 b6 9
lZ:lc3 and now, rather than Diebl's pre
mature 9 ... SLa6?, the preliminary 9 ... c6!
maintains Black's nearly winning ad
vantage (10 ... SLa6 is still coming to ex
tricate the queen).
Meanwhile, White doesn't need to
go in for Gyimesi's contortion s (Gyim
n astics?) to avoid a forced draw; he can
play 5 exd5 or 5 'ifxd5, although he
cannot h ope for an opening advantage
after such concessions. The best re-
44
4 fxe6
This recapture is certainly dynamic,
although the somewhat exposed posi
tion of Black's king requires careful
treatment.
Many players prefer 4 ... dxe6 5
'ifxd8+ 'it>xd8, but Black's results have
been poor - pretty much draws and
losses. Nonetheless, Short m ade it look
easy to defend in S.Gordon-N.Short,
British Championship 2011, so his
m ethod could certainly be tried (see
Game 26); and M.Gurevich-M.Rohde,
Philadelphia {blitz) 1989, shows that it
is possible for Black to win if White
overextends (see Game 27).
...
1 d4 t'Llc6 2 d5
and occupies a diagonal which may
soon be lengthened by White's e4-e5 .
5 . . .t'Llc6 ! ?, a s recommended by Rybka 3 ,
is also possible - after all, the knight
retreats sooner or later, and c6 is not a
bad square.
t'Llc3
This flexible move makes it h ard for
Black to activate his f8-bishop, since
s .. ..ic5?? loses to 6 'ifh 5 + and 5 ... i..b 4?
i s met by 6 'ili'd4!, targeting Black's
loose bits on b4, e5, and g 7.
Alternatively:
a) 5 f4 t'Llg6 is line B below. 5 ... t'Llf7 ! ?
and 5 ... t'Llc6 ! ? are fine too, but no better
than the text.
b) 5 t'Llf3 t'Llxf3 6 'ii'xf3 'i!Vf6 is already
equal according to Kalinin, but 7 'i!Vg 3
will gain some advantage - White's
queen is active while Black's is m ainly
awkward. Therefore, just 5 ... t'Llf7 which
i s similar to the main line (and trans
poses after 6 t'Llc3 b6).
c) 5 ..if4 is untried but should lead
White to a normal plus; e.g. 5 ...t'Llg6
(5 ... t'Llf7 ! ?) 6 ..ig 3 ..ic5 7 t'Llc3 a6 8 t'Llf3
t'Llh 6 9 'i!Vd2 o-o 10 o-o-o d6 11 h4 b5.
d) 5 ..ie3 ? ! t'Llf6 6 t'Llc3 ..ib4 7 ..id4?!
t'Llc6 8 a3 ..ia5 9 e 5 t'Llxd4 10 'ii'xd4 t'Lld5
is a pleasant position for Black.
s ... b61
The fastest way for Black to mobi
lize. The fianchettoed bishop is active
5
6 t'Llf3
V.Burmakin-J.Ulko, Moscow 1995,
continued 6 ..if4 t'Llg6 ? ! 7 ..ig3 ..ib7 8
h4 h 5 ? ! , and after the simple 9 t'Llf3
White would h ave been much better.
Instead, 6 ... t'Llf7 7 t'Llf3 ..ib4! 8 ..id3
..ixc3 9 bxc3 ..ib7 10 o-o t'Llf6 11 l::t e 1
o-o 12 e 5 t'Lld5 13 ..id2 c5 14 'iVe2 c4! 15
..ixc4 llc8 16 i..b 3 'i!Vc7 is only a bit bet
ter for White.
6 ... t'Llf71
lt is a bad idea to activate White's
queen with 6 ...t'Llxf3+, as tried by
B.Savchenko.
7 ..ic4?1
Instead:
a) 7 ..if4 transposes to 6 ..if4 t'Llf7 7
t'Llf3 above.
b) 7 ..id3 is stronger - at this stage
White is more likely to play e5 than
Black is. After 7 ... ..ib7 8 o-o t'Llf6 9 'ii'e 2
45
46
4 e4
Other moves:
a) 4 h4 is an interesting attempt to
take advantage of Black's inflexible
knight. In the expert section of the
1985 New York Open, I fell for White's
trap and played 4... e5? 5 h S ! lt:\xf4 ! ? 6
e3, though I went on to win an ugly
miniature with 6 ... 'it'g 5 ! 7 iif3 lt:\xds 8
'ii'x d5 iig 3+ 9 'iii>d 1 d6 10 ..ibS+ 'it>d8 11
'ii'xf7 lt:\f6 12 lt:\f3 ?? \i'xg 2 13 :f1 ..ig4
14 ..ie2 'ii'xf1+! 15 i.. xf1 ..ixf3+ 16 ..ie2
..tds (trapping White's queen) o-1. Hi
larious!
Instead, 4 ... e6! 5 h 5 lt:\6e7 6 c4! ? (6
dxe6 fxe6 7 e4 d5 transposes to 6 h4 d5
7 h5 lt:\6e7 in the notes to Position
Three below) 6 ... lt:\f6 7 lt:\c3 lt:\f5 8 'ii'd 3
(if 8 dxe6 fxe6 9 g4, then 9 ... lt:\xg4! ? 10
e4 lt:\fe3 or 10 ... lt:\fh 6 is possible, but
relatively simplest is 9 ...lt:\g 3 10 l:th 3
1 d4 tbc6 2 d5
tbxf1 11 g 5 tbxh 5 12 .l:txh 5 tbg 3 13 .:i.h 3
tbf5 14 e4 tbd6 1 5 tbf3 tbxc4 16 tbh4
l:i.g 8 17 'ifh 5+ g 6 18 'i!Vxh 7 .U.g 7 19 'ifh6
l:i.g 8 with a draw) 8 ... i.c5 ! 9 e4 tbg4 is
fine for Black, according to Mr. H,
though there are some crazy variations
to con sider:
5 dxe6!
White's only good move.
a) 5 f5 ? could lead to the position
mentioned in the introduction to this
book after 5 ...'ifh4+ 6 'it>d2 1Vxe4 7 fxg 6
'iVxd5+ 8 'it>e1 'ii'x d1+ 9 'it>xd1 hxg6, as
sessed as unclear by Bogoljubow. The
endgame is favourable to Black, but
that is a moot point because 6 ...tbf6 ! is
even stronger - as one of my students,
Matthew Shih, was kind enough to
47
48
...
Position Three
1 d4 li:Jc6 2 ds
Not to put too fine a point on it, but
the players who have reached this posi
tion with the black pieces need collec
tively to have their heads examined.
White's main asset is his powerful
pawn duo on e4 and f4. Black's main
asset is his central pawn majority. One
need notice only one of these two
things in order to come up with the
correct plan (or at least the correct
sixth move) for Black. In fact, I'm not
even going to insult my readers by say
ing it out loud, so if you still don't
know, see Wood-Penrose below and
then read Pawn Power in Chess by Hans
Kmoch.
Instead of taking the opportunity to
strike in the centre, Black h as generally
been seduced by 6 ... c5, occupying the
a7-g 1 diagonal, presumably to stop
White from castling. N aturally this is
less important than the central battle
and, what's worse, it doesn't even
work. If White finds the bishop trouble
some, he can trade it off with a timely
tt:Ja4 or 'ii'e 2 and e3 . To add insult to
injury, White is usually better off cas
tled long anyway. Sometimes 7 ... c5 is
a good idea (or 7 ...b4+ 8 c3 c5), but
if there is a knight on c3, it is much bet
ter to put pressure on White's centre
with 7 ... b4, which prepares ...li:Jf6-e4.
Black's e4-knight can be a very an
noying piece. As we see in the following
analysis, White's light squares are usu
ally too weak (because he h as h ad to
play g 2-g3) to allow him to eliminate
the knight comfortably with .i.d3 and
49
50
dS 7 g 3 below.
d) 6 h4! ? has never been played, but
it's a venomous move. The tactical jus
tification is 6 ... lt:Jxh4? 7 'ii'g 4! i.e7
(7 ... lt:Jg 6 8 .l:i.xh 7) 8 'ii'xg 7 with a large
advantage for White. Correct is the
anti-shocker 6 ... ds even though 7 h s
lt:J6e7 blocks the f8-bishop. After 8 lL'lf3
lt:Jc6 9 l2Jc3 i.b4 10 i.d2 lt:Jf6 11 es
i.xc3 12 i.xc3 lt:Je4 13 i.d3 lt:Jxc3 14
bxc3 Black gets out of Dodge with
14 ... 'ife7 15 tt:Jg s i.d7 16 i.xh 7 o-o-o,
when White has space and a pawn, but
is badly overextended with nowhere
for his king. I will utter a naughty word:
unclear.
e) The rare 6 lt:Jc3 ! ? is logical, fight
ing for the dS-square, but Black forces
... d7-d5 anyway with 6 ...i.b4! 7 lt:Je2
(other moves, such as 7 lL'lf3 and 7 i.d3,
transpose elsewhere) 7 ... ds 8 'id3 c6 9
i.d2 lt:Jf6 (after 9 ... dxe4 10 "ikxd8 'ii;x d8
11 a3 i.as White is a little better in the
endgame) 10 es lt:Jg4 11 h 3 lt:Jh 6 12
o-o-o o-o 13 g4 bs 14 wb1 i.cs 1 5 i.g 2
as and although White h ad a head
start in the race, it is difficult for him to
advance further. Then 16 lt:Jd4 ! ? 'ifb6
17 tt:Jxc6 i.b7 18 lt:Jxds exds 19 lt:Jxas
lt:Jxf4 20 i.xf4 'ii'x as 21 i.xdS+ r;i;h8 22
i.xh 6 gxh 6 is certainly complicated,
but not unfavourable to Black.
The text move, 6 lL'lf3, is by far the
most common - apparently with good
reason since White h as won the last
five g ames in a row from this position,
most notably A.Onischuk-I.Shkuro,
Ukrainian Team Championship 2009,
1 d4 tLlc6 2 dS
which is a perfect example of what
Black must avoid (see Game 28). Clearly
we need some new and improved
ideas.
6 ds!
...
compen sation.
Notice that Black isn't actually
threatening 7 ... dxe4, so White has an
array of options:
b) 7 e5 may not be best, but it is cer
tainly critical.
51
52
1 d4 tL\c6 2 dS
11 tLic3 i.. d 7 12 tLie5 (12 e2 i..d 6! 13
tLie5 i.. xe5 14 fxe5 tLig4 nets a pawn)
12 ... 0-0-0! ! 13 tLif7 i..c 6+ 14 ttJxd8 xd8
15 h4 i..x g 2 16 l:i.h 2 i..f3+ 17 el i.. c 5
and how is White going to untangle
himself without shedding any mate
rial ?
e) 7 c4! ? does force 7 ... dxe4, but
weaken s White's position as well : 8
"O'xd8 xd8 9 ttJg 5 'ilo>e8 10 ttJxe4 tLif6
11 i.. d 3 b6 12 ttJbc3 ..ib7 13 o-o l:td8
and Black is comfortably equal.
f) 7 g 3
8 g3
White usually finds it necessary to
play this sooner or later. Otherwise:
a) 8 i.d3 i.. x c3 9 bxc3 dxe4 10 i.. xe4
li'xdl+ 11 xdl tiJf6 12 i.. d 3 o-o 13
.l:tel tL'lg4 14 i.. x g6 hxg6 15 h 3 tiJf6 16
tLie5 tLih 5 17 ttJxg6 l:!.f6 18 tLie7+ f7 19
ttJxc8 ttJxf4! with equal chances.
b) 8 e5 tiJ8e7 (8 ... c5 isn't bad either)
9 g3 0-0 10 ..td3 c5 and Black's good
centre and rapid deployment ensure
that he will not be rolled up on the
kingside and that his chances are not
worse.
c) 8 'ii'd 3 ! ? i.. xc3+! 9 'ii'x c3 tiJf6 10 e5
tLie4 1 1 a3 'ii'e 7 12 xe7 ttJxe7 13
i..d 3 b6 14 i..x e4 dxe4 1 5 tLig 5 h6 16
ttJxe4 i.b7 17 tL'lc3 tLif5 18 o-o o-o-o and
Black h as the d-file, while White's cl
bishop is a huge problem, a situation
which fully compensates for the pawn.
53
54
Section Two
e4 tt:Jc6
Other moves:
a) 2 ..ic4 commits the bishop way
too early: 2 ... tLlf6 3 lLlc3 e6! 4 d3 ..ib4 5
.id2 d5 6 exd5 exd5 7 ..ib5 o-o 8 tLlge2
tLle 5 ! 9 a3 ..id6 10 ..ig 5 c6! was P.Cruz
A.Kogan, Lisbon 2000. Black has a big
advantage, largely due to h aving shut
White's light-squared bishop out of
play.
b) 2 f4 is not as bad as it looks.
2 ... d5 ! 3 exd5 'ii'x d5 4 tLlc3 leads to a
bizarre kind of Scandin avian. Fortu
nately, 4 .. .'ii' e 6+! is more awkward for
White than it is for Black; e.g. 5 ..ie2
tLld4! or 5 'ife2 tLlb4! or 5 tLlge2 tLld4! 6
d3 tLlf6 7 l2Je4 tLlf5 8 c3 g 6 (8 .. tLlxe4 9
'ii'a4+) with some advantage to Black in
all cases, according to Houdini.
3 e5 is a good Nimzowitsch Defence
.
55
Th e Dark Kn ig h t System
for Black since White's pawn does not
belong on f4 {at least until .. .f7-f6 is
played). In R.Barkman-S.Lejlic, Karls
krona 1997, Black used this to good
effect: 3 ... tt:lh6 4 d4 .ltg4 5 .lte2 .ltxe2 6
tt:lxe2 tt:lf5 7 c3 e6 8 'ii'd 3 h 5 {8 .. .'ifh4+!)
9 tt:ld2? ! 4+ with advantage due to
White's light-square problem s - White
decided to pitch a pawn with 10 tt:lg 3
'ii'xf4 11 tt:lxf5 'ii'xf5 12 'ii'xf5 exf5, but
he had no compensation .
Alternatively, Black can throw a clog
in White's machinery with 3 ... g 5 ! ? 4 d4
gxf4 5 .ltxf4 .ltf5 6 c3 'i!Vd7 7 tt:lf3 h5 8
ie2 0-0-0 9 tt:lh4 ig4 10 tt:ld2 ih6 as
in H.Gohlke-S.Wiezer, Gorlitz 1985,
56
C h a pte r Fo u r
e 4 'Dc6
d4 es
A: 3 d s ll:Jce7
Al: 4 ll:Jf3 58
A2: 4 C4?! 62
Others:
a) 4 f4? is a fairly common mistake at
amateur level. The apparently hard-to
spot 4 ... ll:Jg6! transposes to 1 d4 li:lc6 2
d5 ll:Je5 3 f4 li:lg6 4 e4 e5 with the differ
ence that White's only good move, 5
dxe6 en passant, is not permitted by the
rules. How unfortunate! White does not
have my sympathy though, since
57
Th e Dark Kn ig h t System
4... exf4?! 5 i..xf4 lt:lg6 is also lousy.
b) Miles h ad a wonderful answer to
4 .i.e3 in 4 .. .f5 ! ?, with which he drew
with Beliavsky and beat Campora (see
Games 29 and 30). The point is to take
advantage of the newly moved bishop,
which is vulnerable to both ... f5-f4 and
5 exf5 lt:lxf5. If Black does not play 4 .. .f5,
White may be able to stop the f8-dark
bishop from developing comfortably,
e.g. 4 ... lt:lg6 5 a3 ! ?, though 5 ... b6 is sat
isfactory for Black.
c) 4 lt:lc3 lt:lg 6 5 Si.e3 lt:lf6 (5 ... .tb4!?)
6 a3 is very lightly tested. Then 6 ...b6 7
lt:lf3 .tc5 is fine, when 8 .txc5 bxc5 9
d6?! o-o and 10 ... .tb7 is at least equal.
d) 4 d6 has been played a few times
and Black usually just takes, which is fine
- but I prefer 4...lt:lg6, accelerating devel
opment after 5 dxc7 'i!i'xc7; e.g. 6 lt:lc3
li.b4 7 lt:le2 (after 7 Si.d2?! .txc3 ! 8 i..xc3
lt:lf6 9 Si.d3 o-o 10 lt:le2 .l:.d8 and 11 ... d5,
Black is better) 7 ...lt:lf6 8 a3 .tc5 9 b4 .tb6
and Black is fine, since 10 lt:lb5?! runs
into 10...1i.xf2+ 11 xf2 6+.
A1: 4 lt:lf3 lt:lg6
58
1 e4 tbc6 2 d4 e5
A11: 5 h4!
7 ...ii.b4
7 ... i.c5 is a possible alternative.
Then 8 ttla4?! ..tb4+ 9 c3 ..te7 10 ..txf6
..txf6 11 d6 was A.lvanov-J. Benjamin,
US Championship, Parsippany 1996,
which lvanov won, but Black's inaccu
racies are yet to come. Indeed, after
11 ... cxd6 12 g 3 ! ? d5 ? ! 13 'ili'xd5 d6? 14
..tb5+ 'iii>f8 White was much better, but
Benjamin could h ave played 12 ...b6 13
c4 (13 'i!Vxd6? ! ..tb7 14 'iid 3 ..tc6 15 b3
59
8 d6!
In E.Morten sen-C. Hoi, Ostrava 1992,
Black played 8 ... c6 9 i.e2 (9 g 3 ! ?)
...
60
1 e4 lbc6 2 d4 es
is strong on the g 5-square) 10 ii.b5+
8 (this time 10 ...1i.d7 doesn't work
well - White will gain the very useful
g2-g3 with tempo) 11 0-0 ii.g4 12 f3 (or
12 e1 Ji.d7 ! - the situation has
ch anged again already; the bishop ex
change now brings equality: 13 ii.xd7
o-xd7 and Black will follow with
14 .. .'g4 if possible, otherwise 14 ... c6,
or similarly 13 Ji.d3 ! ? c6) 1 2 ... c6! 13
..i.a4 ii.xc3 14 bxc3 ..td7 15 dxc6 ii.xc6
16 Ji.xc6 6+ 17 'it?h 1 xc6 18 Ji.xf4
exf4 19 lbb3 d5 20 e5 lbd7 2 1 l:le1 .:e8
22 "ikd4 .:i.h 6 is roughly equal.
There are many other ways the
game could go, and White does h ave
chances for an advantage, but the pre
ceding lines give a good indication of
Black's resources.
s lDf6 6 1i.d3
Not 6 lbbd2 c6! 7 c4? ! (this is n o
good, but the alternative is t o give up
the centre) 7 ... lbg4! 8 Ji.g 5 ? 6 9
e2 ? ! ii.c5 and White needs C PR.
6 .lbg41 7 Ji.d2
Or 7 ii.g 5 1i.e7 8 1i.d2 1i.c5, tran spos
ing.
1 ...ii.cs s o-o as 9 h 3 lDf6
A12: s ii.e3
..
..
61
A2: 4 C4?!
This weak move is almost as com
mon as 4 lLlf3 . lt wastes a tempo in a
critical position, obstructs the fl
bishop, and leaves a big hole on the d4square. In exchange, White h as forti
fied dS, but the price is too high - he
has already squandered his first move
advantage, and if he plays at all indif
ferently he will soon stand worse.
White imagines he will eventually be
playing c4-cS, but this is difficult to
achieve.
4 l2Jg6
...
62
67
A24: 5 i.d 3 68
A2 5 : 5 g3 70
A26: 5 a 3
71
1 e4 ltJc6 2 d4 es
0-0
Black will be playing ... d7-d6 and
usually ... a7-aS soon, but this move order is the most accurate since 7. . .d6? ! is
met by 8 b4 (8 ... il.xb4?? 9 a4+).
7 ... as is sometimes played, but
White is actually quite far from being
able to play lt:Ja4 because the e4-pawn
would hang. Holding off on ... a7-aS
makes sense because:
1. Black may change his mind and
play ... a7-a6.
2. Sometimes Black can prevent
!Lla4 with ... il.d7 instead.
3. lt is possible to allow the bishop
to be traded off under some circum
stances - I have recently noticed that
tempi sometimes matter in chess.
s o-o d6
8 ... as 9 lt:Je1 d6 (which could just as
easily have been 8 .. d6 9 lt:Je1 as) 10
li:Jd3 il.d4! was W.Weisser-L.Trumpp,
German League 2003, in which White
quickly reached a difficult position and
got abused tactically (see Gam e 34).
9 'if'c2
In B.Perrusset-I.Moullier, Paris 200S,
1
...
63
6 l2Jc3
Other moves:
a) 6 i.d3 b6! (6 ... tt::lh 4! ? 7 rio>f1 b6 8
g 3 tt::l g 6 9 Wg 2 i.cs is similar, but White
is certainly not suffering from his in
ability to castle) 7 tt::l c 3 i.. c s (in V.Vilkov
A.Provotorov, Kalug a 1996, the only
time this position has been reached,
Black played the highly inconsistent
7 ... i.b4?! and went on to lose) 8 tt::lf3
0-0 9 0-0 and there are many roads for
both players, but they all lead to equal
positions - the imminent and posi
tionally favourable bishop trade bal
ances White's space advantage; e.g.
9 ... as 10 'ii'd 2 'flle 7 1 1 .l:!.fe1 d6 12 .txcs
bxcs 13 g3 a4 and the game is still bal
anced.
64
...
1 e4 tt:lc6 2 d4 es
this possibly be right? ! Can you explain
yourself, Pablo?)
8 bxc3 d6 9 'if'd2!?
In fact, just about anything is better
than the lemon 9 c S ? ! that White
squeezes out most of the time, which
leads to:
Position Four
65
9 ... b6
Palliser concludes that there is no
point delaying castling, but I am find
ing that 9 ... 0-0 10 h4! (intending
10 ... lt:lh s 11 ..if2 or 11 lt:\e2) is very
66
1 e4 lDc6 2 d4 e5
while ...11i'h4+ is also sometimes useful)
13 Si.d3 liJd7 (Black is at least equal in
spite of White's space - his knights are
happy pieces, unlike White's sad bish
ops) 14 'iii>f2 ttJcs 15 'iii> g 2 as 16 ltJe2
ttJg s etc. lt is even safe to castle king
side now.
11 ...liJd7
This tran sposes to A.Karpov-D.Chev
allier, France 1993 (see Game 41). Ac
cording to Palliser, this game was very
influential and popularized the varia
tion with Sl.e3 for White. If so, the
game's true theoretical significance
was greatly overestimated - Black was
fine well into the middlegame, and
even better at one point. His only real
problem was that he was playing Kar
pov!
12 liJh3 ttJcs 13 liJf2
67
68
1 e4 tt:lc6 2 d4 e5
6 tt::l c 3
With 6 tt::l e 2 ! ? tt::lf6 7 o-o White gets
his knight to e2 without spending a
tempo on h 2-h 3 (as compared to the
main line), but he will still find that he
has not found a route to an advantage:
1 ...0-0 (7 ... d6? ! 8 b4!) 8 tt::lb c3 a6 9 tt::l g 3
d 6 1 0 tt::lfs tt::lf4! 11 e3 (not 11 xf4?!
exf4 12 li'f3 ? ! g 6 ! 13 tt::lh 6+ g 7 14
"ifxf4 tt::lh s 1 S 1id2 'i1Yh4! 16 b4 'iif4! 17
ifxf4 tt::l xf4 winning, because the tt::lh 6
i s still trapped) 11 . . .tt::l d 7! 12 c2 g6
with equal play.
6 tt::lf6
...
8 a6
Not the only good move. 8 ... as is
also worth considering - it slows down
White's b2-b4, though it does leave
Black's queenside less flexible and
weakens the bS-square.
Schwarzach
K.Ellmauer-D.Huber,
2001, went 8 ... d6 (8 ... as is a better
move order) 9 o-o aS 10 h 1 ? ! (10 tt::l g 3 )
1 o. . .tt::lh s 11 g 4 ? ? 4 ? ! (11 . . .tt::lh f4!) 12
g 2 xg4 13 hxg4 'ti'xg4+ 14 tt::l g 3 ? (14
h 2) 14 ... tt::lgf4+ 1 S xf4 tt::l xf4+ 16
g 1 'ti'xg 3+ o-1. Short and sweet.
I.Jelen-Z.Mestrovic, Slovenian Team
Championship 1996, saw 8 ...tt::lh s ! ? 9
g3?! (9 tt::l a4!), which is incorrectly as...
7 h3
Given an exclamation mark by some
sources, which to me seem s a little ex
treme - the move is more like an ar
guably necessary evil.
a) Admittedly 7 h3 is far superior to
7 tt::l g e2?? tt::l g 4 8 o-o? 4, winning.
b) 7 tt::lf3 isn't so great either. 7 ...0-0 8
o-o as (8 ... a6 is also reasonable, but the
text move is sound and Black is s-o with
it) 9 a3 d6 10 l:tb1 tt::lh s with a danger
ous initiative in practice. In A.Hahn
J.Bonin, New York (rapid) 2003, White
69
70
1 e4 tLlc6 2 d4 es
Taking the f4-square away from
Black's knight is sen sible, but this move
is slow, and the white bishop is not go
ing to be active on g2.
s .tbf6
..
Game 44).
6 il.cs 7 tLlc3
The popular 7 tLle2 allows Black to
take the initiative immediately with
7 ... h S !, when 8 ... h4 cannot be stopped
because 8 h4? tLlg4 9 o-o? (or 9 l:i.f1
'ii'f6 ! ) 9 ... tLlxh4! is awful for White, as is
8 il.g s ? il.xf2+.
7 0-0
...
...
6 il.g2
If 6 tLlc3, we have that choice again
- to take the strong diagonal or to
double White's c-pawns. I prefer to
have a queenside target, particularly
since White has taken measures
against our kingside play. Also, White's
fianchetto leaves the c4-pawn without
protection. So 6 ... il.b4 7 il.g 2 il.xc3 8
bxc3 d6 9 tLle2 (or 9 h4 h 6 with a com
fortably equal position very similar to
A.Karpov-D.Chevallier in A22 - if 10
h s ? ! then 10 ... tLlf8 ! with advantage)
9 ... 0-0 and Black has won every g ame.
White's plan to play f2-f4 is far too
weakening - after ... esxf4 g 3xf4, White
has problems on c4, e4, f4, g4, and h4.
While Black is waiting for f2-f4, he can
play ... b7-b6, ... tLld7, .. .tbcs, ...f7-f5 and
perhaps ... a7-a5 and ... il.a6. E.Schien
dorfer-D.Recuero Guerra, Herceg Novi
2006, is a typical disaster for White (see
71
7 .i.d3
Other moves:
a) 7 l2Jf3 ? lt:Jg4! or 7 l2Jge2 ? l2Jg4! is
terrible. Have you noticed that White
needs to be careful on the dark
squares? Eh?
b) I 've seen White play 7 h3 here, af
ter which he should h ave his right to
play White permanently revoked - but
the fact that he always loses here has
as much to do with his obviously pas
sive attitude as the defects of his posi
tion. 7 ... d6 8 ltJf3 as 9 g3 o-o 10 .i.g 2 c6
was C.Baluta-A.Cioara, Bucharest 1996
(see Game 45), in which White, an FM,
got manhandled while Black demon
strated all the available ideas ( ... c7-c6,
... b7-b5, ... l2Jg4, .. .f7-f5, etc).
c) 7 b4 certainly looks stupid and
has lost all the games so far, but in
analysis things are not so clear: 7 ... .i.d4
8 l2Jge2 l2Jxe4 {8 ... c s ! ? looks okay) 9
lbxe4 (not 9 l2Jxd4?? l2Jxc3 10 'ifd3 exd4
11 'ifxd4 'ii'e 7+, winning) 9 ... .i.xa1 10
d6 ! (stronger than 10 .i.e3 ? ! .i.d4 11
l2Jxd4 exd4, though after 12 'ifxd4! 0-0
13 d6 White still h as some play) 10 ... b6
72
1 e4 ltJc6 2 d4 es
fortable in Bu Xiangzhi-L.Christiansen,
Deizisau 2000 (see Game 46), and Bu's
12 g 3 ? ! should have worsened White's
situation after 12 ... c6 or 12 ... d7 (as
opposed to Christiansen's 12 ... l2Je8?!).
Black, who was better throughout most
of the opening and early middlegame,
...lost.
8:
3 dxes ltJxes
81: 4 lL'lf3 l2Jxf3 5 'iVxf3 lL'lf6!
White has:
81: 4 lL'lf3 73
8 2 : 4 f4 76
73
74
6 .....td6
6 ... d6 ! ? is not bad, and keeps things
very Philidor-esque, but I prefer the
bishop to be more active if possible.
7 lLlc3 o-o 8 ..tgs
Or 8 o-o 'iie 7 9 i.f4 (9 i.g s ? ! ii'es !
1 0 'iig 3 'ifcs 1 1 'iifh 4 ! i.es ! is level)
9 ... ..txf4 10 'ii'xf4 d6 11 l::!. a d1 !:te8, in
tending ... i.e6 or .. .'i'es. The exchanges
have eased Black's space problem, and
White's edge is tiny.
8 ... c6 9 i.xf6 'ii'xf6 10 'ifxf6 gxf6 11
o-o-o ..tcs 12 f3 bs 13 ..td3 d6
Black's
powerful
dark-squared
bishop is (nearly) enough to balance his
ugly pawn structure.
1 e4 lZJc6 2 d4 es
813: 6 es 'ife7
7 i..f4
7 'ii'e 2 tZ:Jds 8 c4 'ii'b4+ 9 lZ:Jd2 lZ:Jf4 10
'iVe4 lZ:Je6 is equal.
7 ... c6 8 lZ:Jd2
Other moves lead to equality:
a) 8 'iVe2 tZ:Jds 9 i.. g 3 fs ! 10 c4 lZ:Jc7
11 lZ:Jc3 lZ:Je6 12 f4 d6 ! 13 o-o-o "iic 7 14
'iVc2 g6 15 Wb1 dxes 16 fxes i.. g 7 (or
16 ... i.. e 7 or 16 .. .f4 ! ?).
b) 8 lZ:Jc3 d6! 9 o-o-o dxes 10 l:!.e1
lZ:Jd7 11 i.. c4 f6 and Black keeps his ex
tra pawn, although White has the ap
propriate compensation. Black intends
... lZ:Jb6 (or ... tZ:Jcs), ... .id7 and ...o-o-o.
8 ds 9 o-o-o lZ:Jd7 10 'Wi'g3 tZ:Jcs
75
Th e Dark Kn ig h t System
4 f4
This is far less popular than 4 4Jf3
among the strongest players, but gives
excellent results. Fortunately, it's easy
to see where Black has been going
wrong.
4... tt:Jc6
82:
White has:
821: 5
822: 5
76
.tc4 77
4Jf3 78
Alternatively:
a) 5 tt:Jc3 .tcs 6 4Jf3 transposes to
line B22.
b) 5 .ie3 prevents s ... .tcs, but Black
is okay after s ... .tb4+ 6 c3 .tas
(R.Hilbner-V.Hort, German
League
1984, see Game 47). Even better is the
unplayed novelty s ... d S ! which brings
equality; e.g. 6 exds tt:Jb4 7 .tbs+ .id7 8
.ixd7+ 'i!i'xd7 9 4Jf3 tt:Jxds 10 'i!i'e2 o-o-o
- come to think of it, White is much
worse here, so 8 1We2 tt:Jxc2+ 9 'ii'x c2
.ixbs 10 4Jc3 .ta6 11 4Jf3 .1i.d6 12 o-o-o
tt:Jf6 13 llhel o-o, when Black's bishop
pair balances White's space advantage.
1 e 4 lb c 6 2 d4 e s
821: 5 .i.c4
Preventing s ....i.cs because of 6
.i.xf7+ xf7 7 dS+.
s . ..tt:lf6!
77
Th e Dark Kn ig h t System
14...d4?!
14 ... .l::[e 8! allows less counterplay: 15
.i.e3 d4! 16 ll:\xd4 .l:txe3 17 'ji'xe3 ll:\xd4
18 'ili'd3 lLlf3+ 19 .l:.xf3 .i.xf3 .
15 fs ! dxc3 16 ll:\f4! 'jjff7 17 ll:\e6+ 'iitg8
18 bxc3 .i.d6 19 'ji'e4 ll:\es 20 'i!i'xb7 lieS
21 ll:\d4 cs 22 'iVa6 cxd4 23 'ii'x d6 ll:\f3+
24 'iitg 2 'ii'b 7
White has had enough. Did I men
tion that Godena is my new h ero?
B22: s lLlf3
Rare at a high level, this lazy-looking
move is White's best, apparently doing
nothing to contest the a7-g 1 diagonal.
s ... .i.cs 6 lLlc3
6 ... d6
In stead:
a) 6 ... a6? ! 7 'iNe2 ! d6 8 .i.e3 .i.xe3 9
'iHxe3 ll:\f6 10 o-o-o is pleasant for
White.
b) 6 ... ll:\f6 ! ? leads to wild complica
tions and is fully playable if you enjoy
such positions. Here are some sample
variations: 7 e s ! ll:\g4 8 .i.c4 (or 8 ll:\e4!
.i.b6 9 i.c4 ds 10 'i!Vxds 'ii'e 7
{10 ...'ii'x dS ! ?} 1 1 h 3 i.e6 12 5 a6 13
'iWa4 .i.xc4 14 'ifxc4 ll:\e3 15 i.xe3 i.xe3
16 g3 0-0-0, when Black has compensa
tion for most of a pawn) 8 ... d6 9 ll:\g s
(or 9 lLle4 i.e3 10 exd6 0-0 {10 ... i.xc 1 ! ?}
11 i.xe3 ll:\xe3 12 'ife2 ll:\xc4 13 'i!Vxc4
cxd6 14 o-o-o i.e6 15 'iih s dS 16 fS a6
17 'iic s i.xfs 18 l:.xds 'iie 7 19 ll:\d6 i.e6
20 d2 i.xa2 ! 21 b3 'ii'f6 22 ll:\d4 as)
9 ...0-0 10 h3 ll:\h 6 11 ll:\a4 i.b6 12 ll:\xb6
axb6 13 o-o dxes 14 'i!Vxd8 l:txd8 1 5
fxes ll:\xes 16 i.b3 cs 17 .i.f4 c 4 with
equality.
78
1 e4 'Llc6 2 d4 es
merit the exclamation mark bestowed
by Kalinin - the simple text is best.
10 o-o o-o 11 .:!.e1
79
(12:
80
1 e4 tt:lc6 2 d4 es
the previous paragraph, while 7 a4 a6 8
.tg s f6 9 i..h 4 o-o is absolutely fine for
Black, who intends ... d7-d6, ... tt:lg6 and
.. .f6-fS, or else ... d7-d6, ... i.. e 6, ... 'ili'd7 (or
...'ili'e8) and .. .f6-fS.
b) 5 lbfs ? ! performs well if Black
doesn't know his stuff (he usually
doesn't). Surprise the surpriser by
knowing this short variation : s ... d S ! 6
tt:lxg 7+ 'iiif8 7 tt:lh s 'ifh4 8 tt:lg 3 tLlf6 ! 9
i.. e 2 dxe4 and Black has a small advan
tage with which he almost always
wins.
c) 5 c3?! indicates that White has
forgotten the move order. Don't lazily
transpose with s .. .'ii'f6? ! 6 i.. e 3, but
play s ...tt:lf6 ! in stead, with advantage.
C11: 5 i..e 3 'if6
6 C3
White can try 6 tt:lbs here, but after
6 ... i.. x e3 7 fxe3 'jjVh 4+ (this intermezzo
forces a concession) 8 g3 'ii'd 8 9 'ig4
g S ! 10 tt:l1c3 tt:Jes 11 'ie2 d6 12 h 3 c6
13 lbd4 tt:lf6 14 o-o-o 'iie 7 15 'ii'f2 i.. e 6
16 i.. e 2 o-o-o Black was obviously fine
and went on to win a marathon g ame
Others:
a) The unlikely-looking 7 'i!Ve2 has
also been popular. White hopes for
7 ...ilixe4?? 8 tt:Jxc6 i..x e3 9 tt:ld4, win
ning (this has yet to work, but hope
springs eternal). Instead, 7 ... tt:lxd4! 8
cxd4 (or 8 i..xd4 i.. xd4 9 cxd4 lbe7 10
tt:lc3 o-o 11 o-o-o c6 and with 12 ... ds
coming, Black is slightly better)
8 ... i..b4+ 9 i.. d 2 i..x d2+ 10 lbxd2 tt:le7
11 g 3 ! (to discourage ll...dS) 11...0-0 12
i.. g 2 6 and White will have compen-
81
82
8 'ii'f3
Other moves:
a) 8 f3 is more common, when Black
shoul d strike in the centre with 8 ... d S ! 9
il..b S ! (stronger than 9 c2 ? ! i..xd4 10
cxd4 0-0 11 0-0-0 dxe4 12 fxe4 l:te8 13
a3 lZ:lxe4 14 i.. d 3 i..fs 15 dS lZ:ld6 16
i..xfs Vxfs and Black keeps an extra
pawn; or 9 lLlbS ? ! i..x e3 10 lZ:lxc7 'it>f8
11 lZ:lxa8 dxe4 12 'ii'e 2 'ih6 13 lZ:lxe4
1 e4 tt:\c6 2 d4 es
lbxe4 14 fxe4 lbes and White needs
both to survive and to extricate the
knight, which is more hard than easy)
9 .. .'xg2 10 l:!.g 1 xh 2 11 J::t xg 7. Up un
til now we've been following E. Berg
I .Morovic Fernandez, European Cham
pionship, Saint Vincent 2000, which
continued 11 ... 1i.d7 12 'ifl>3 4+ 13
d1 and D& P says favours Black, but
Houdini calls even, and Black did go on
to lose. Instead, I am recommending
11 ...f8 ! ? 12 .l:.g 1 lbxd4 13 cxd4 1i.e7 14
'ifh3 c6 15 e s ! (after 15 1i.d3 dxe4 1 5
fxe4 'i!Vh4+ 16 1i.f2 'ii'f4 17 l:i.fl 1i.e6,
White's compensation is insufficient)
1S ... cxbs 16 exf6 'i!Vh4+ 17 e2 'ii'xf6 18
'it'xds 'li'fs 19 'ii'e 4 l!Vxe4 20 fxe4 hs 2 1
lbf3 li.g4 with approximate equality i n
an unbalanced endgame.
b) 8 1i.e2 dS ! transposes to Stavro
poulou-lkonomopoulou a few para
graphs above. I must say it's interesting
that Black so rarely captures on e4 or
g2. However, 6 .. .'ikg 6 has other points
to it, and White can't leave those
pawns hanging forever.
c) 8 'ii'c 2? ! lbg4! 9 o-o-o lbxe3 10
fxe3 o-o 11 lb2f3 d6 12 lbfs J::te 8 and
Black is on top - D&P.
d) 8 e2 lbg4 9 lbc2 lbxe3 10 tt:\xe3
lbe7 1 1 lbb3 1i.b6 12 lbfs 'ii'f6 13 tt:\xe7
'ii'x e7 14 g3 0-0 15 1i.g 2 d6 with a small
advantage in R.Roszkowski-A.Leniart,
Grodzisk Mazowiecki 2007 - D& P.
e) 8 lbfs (or 8 lbc2) 8 ... 1i.xe3 9 lbxe3
o-o 10 1i.d3 dS 1 1 exds xd3 12 dxc6
l:re8 13 lbb3 'ii'b s 14 a4 occurred in
J.Hoogendoorn-A.Van de Oudeweeter-
...
83
Th e Dark Kn ig h t System
So far this is B.Kharashkina
O.Stjazhkina, St. Petersburg 2001, and
now instead of 12 ... lLJg4? !, Black should
h ave preferred 12 ...iVxg 3 13 hxg 3 c6,
which D&P call "at least equal", though
I think is safe to call a small advantage
for Black.
c112: 1 tt:Jbs!?
84
1 e4 t'Dc6 2 d4 es
an endgame, two bishops are normally
equal to a rook and two pawns.
Black h ad a chance to show the
power of points #2 and #4 in
P.Hromada-L.Ostrowski,
Moravian
Team Champion ship 2002 (see Game
54).
In D.Campora-V.Tkachiev, Biel 199S,
White tried 11 iifs 'ii'xfs 12 exfs b6 13
tLla3 i..b 7. As I just mentioned, a queen
trade generally favours White, but the
price was too high: a tempo, a crippled
pawn majority, and a weakened centre
position. Black had no problems after
pocketing the knight, and had winning
chances, although the game ended in a
draw (see Game S S).
Dembo and Palliser recommend 11
ie2 t'Df6 12 o-o t'Dxe4 13 i.. d 3 (end of
analysis), but Houdini greatly prefers
Black's position after 13 .. .fs. N aturally,
Black will play ...b7-b6 and ... i..b 7 at his
earliest convenience; e.g. 14 t'Da3 t'Des !
(14 ... t'Dd2 1 S 'ilt'ds i s not worth it) 1 S
1Wh 3 (not 1 S 'ii'e 2? i..f4! 1 6 g 3 ? ! t'Dg s ! 17
f3 .i:!e8 with a brutal attack) 1 S ...b6 1S
:tad1 i..b 7 and it's still complicated,
but Black is trapping the knight, acti
vating his pieces, generating threats
against the enemy king, and not being
checkmated, which adds up to an ex
cellent position .
C12: 5 t'Dxc6
This move is popular among Ex
tremely Boring GMs and people with
no idea what's going on. (I'm thinking
of taking it up myself.) Experience
s 'iff6 6 11Vd2
Apparently, 6 'iff3 ! ? is topical at the
moment: 6 ...'iWxf3 7 gxf3 bxc6 8 i.. e 3
i..x e3 9 fxe3
...
85
7 l2JC3
Or:
a) 7 f4 i.. e 6 8 lZ:Ic3 0-0-0 9 i.d3
h 6 ! ? - kingside expansion with 10 ... g s
will be useful whether the queen s are
traded or not. In any case, Black h as
activity in exch ange for his crippled
queenside majority. For the adventur
ous, 9 ... h s ! ? is also possible: 10 o-o h4
11 h 3 lZ:Ie7 12 'ifxf6 gxf6 13 lZ:Ie2 l:.hg 8
with more weaknesses for more activ
ity.
b) 7 i.. d 3 i.e6 and (to make a long
story short) Black gets to castle long,
with excellent development.
7 ... i.. d 4!
White intended 8 'ii'f4 to enter an
annoying endgame. The text move
stops this insidious and somnolent
plan and equalizes, according to
Dembo and Palliser. In practical play,
Black seem s to do even better.
8 i.. d 3 lZ:Ie7 9 o-o lZ:Ig6
86
1 e4 lL\c6 2 d4 es
8 ... l2Jh6, White would have put a stop
to it immediately with 9 h 3 ! .
10 h1
Since the main variation offers noth
ing, White sometimes tries 10 t2Je2 ! ?
which frees his position after 1 0...il.b6.
So far, taking the pawn has performed
badly for Black, but it is the critical
move, and I do not believe in letting
White off so easily: 10 ...i.xb2 11 il.xb2
xb2 12 f4 'ika3 13 f5 t2Je5 14 1i'g 5 i.d7
is equal, as in J.Smeets-A.Beliavsky, Mar
ibor (rapid) 2004 (see Game 57). Even
better is 14 .. .'f8 ! followed by 15 .. .f6,
when White does not have quite
enough for the pawn. If 15 f6? ! 'ic5+ 16
cJo>h 1 g6, the threat of 17 ... l2Jxd3 gives
Black time for ...i.d7 and ... 0-0-0.
10...ttJes
The knight is strong, but if White
tries to dislodge it with 11 f4, then
11...t2Jg4 12 'ii'e 1 (12 l2Jd1? ? t2Jxh 2)
12 ... l2Jxh 2 (in B.Sultimov-N .Pokazanjev,
Russia 2007, Black tried for and got
more with the risky 12 ... i.d7 ! ? - see
Game 58) 13 cJo>xh 2 'iih 6+ 14 cJo>g 3 'ig6+
is a draw by perpetual.
87
Th e Dark Kn ig h t System
C2: 4 Si.c4
The Scotch Gambit.
4 ...lt:Jf6!
1o ...f5! 11 .l:If4
Or 11 Si.h 6 ! ?, when Black can take a
draw with 1 1 .. .fxe4 12 Si.xg 7 .l:!.f8 13
'iih s+ .l:l.f7 14 .l:Ld1 'it'd6 1 S lt:JdbS 'ii'f4 16
tt:Jds 'ifxf2+ 17 h 1 Si.d7 18 lt:Jf6+ ..txf6
19 lt:Jxc7+ e7 20 lt:JdS+ c.ii> e 6 2 1 lt:Jc7+,
or play on with 11 ... 0-0 12 lt:Jxc6 bxc6
13 .l:.d4 'ife8 14 il.f4 Si.f6 with equal
chances.
11 ...0-0 12 lt:Jxc6 'il'xd1+ 13 lt:Jxd1 bxc6
14 .l::t c4 c5 15 Si.e3 e8
(21: 5 0-0 88
C22: 5 e5 89
Or s tt:Jg s d S ! 6 exds 'ii'e 7+ 7 f1
tt:Jes 8 'ii'xd4 lt:Jxc4 9 'ifxc4 h 6 10 lt:Jf3
'iic s 11 'il'e2+ il.e7 12 c4 lt:Jxds
(12 ...b s ! ?) with an edge for Black.
C21: 5 o-o lt:Jxe4 6 .l:!.e1 d5 7 il.xd5 'ikxd 5
8 lt:Jc3 'iVdS!?
This is rare but sound. The idea is to
make it more difficult for White to re
cover the d-pawn.
g l:txe4+
Just as common is 9 lt:Jxe4? ! Si.e7 10
il.g s f6 ! and White, down a pawn and
lacking his light-squared bishop usu
ally panics with 11 lt:Jxf6+ gxf6 12 il.xf6
o-o 13 il.xe7 lbxe7, but there is no
88
1 e4 lbc6 2 d4 e5
C22: s es lbg4!?
(221: 6 'ike2 89
(22 2 : 6 0-0 90
C221: 6 'ii'e 2
Most often played, but White strug
gles to equalize in the main lines.
89
Th e Dark Kn ig h t System
There is still chess to be played, but
the position is equal after (among others) 10 ttJbd2 d6 11 ttJb3 d3 12 i..xd3
ttJb4 13 o-o-o ttJxd3 14 .l:!.xd3 h 6 and
1 S ... f7, though Black has man aged to
stir things up a bit. Worse for White is
10 i.. x c7? ! d6 ! 11 .i..b s i..d 7 1 2 i..x c6
i.. x c6 13 ttJxd4 i.. x g 2 14 .l:.g 1, as in
R.Stranz-K.Neumeier, Austrian Team
Championship 2004, when Black
should have continued 14 ... i..h 3 with
an edge.
7 l:.e1
Or 7 i..f4 g S ! 8 ttJxg s (8 i.. g 3 h S ! 9 h 3
h4!, D.Von Wantoch Rekowski-J.Peric,
Tivat 2001, was a strong case for Black
- see Game 59) 8 ... dS! 9 e6 (9 exd6? !
i..xg s 1 0 dxc7 1Wf6 11 1We2+ <;t>f8
doesn't give White enough for the
piece) 9 ... i.. xg s 10 'ixg4 i..x e6 1 1 i..xg s
i.. x g4 12 i.. x d8 .Uxd8 and Black keeps a
pawn, for which White has n ot nearly
enough.
7 d6 8 exd6 cxd6!
Only 8 ... 1Wxd6 has been played, but
...
90
1 e4 Ci:,c6 2 d4 e5
you won't be seeing the position for
the first time, unlike your poor oppo
nent. As it turns out, White has several
acceptable routes to a draw, but no
good way to play for a win :
91
C h a pter Five
e4 t2Jc6
tiJf3
92
4 tiJc3
Other moves:
a) 4 c3 is possible and does not ac
tually drop a pawn : 4... ttJxe4?? 5 d5
tiJb8 6 1Wa4+ picks up the e4-knight.
However, 4 ... g6 i s fine for Black. Miles
downed GMs Becerra Rivero and Zelcic
starting with this move (see Games 60
1 e4 ti:Jc6 2 tl:Jf3
and 61). Mestrovic is also 2-0 with 4 ... g 6
here. T o continue: 5 .i.d3 .il.g 7 6 o-o o-o
7 h 3 e5 8 .l:le1.
93
A: 5 .ib5 94
B: 5 d 5 9 6
94
6 i..xc6+
6 i.. a4 doesn't make much sense,
but it has been played several times,
most significantly in M.Kozakov
A.Zajarnyi, Lvov 1998, which continued
6 ...b5 7 i..b 3 i.. g 7 8 h3 o-o 9 o-o e6 10
a3 i..b 7 11 1:te1 tt:Ja5 12 i.. a 2 c5 13 d5
1 e4 l2Jc6 2 lZ'lf3
his advantage. Instead, Black could
have kept the balance with 13 ... exd 5 !
14 lZ'lxd5 ..txd5 1 5 ..txd5 l2Jxd5 16 xd5
lZ'lc4. The important feature of the posi
tion from Black's standpoint is the ac
tive g7-bishop.
The simple 8 ... lZ'la5, picking up the
bishop pair, also brings equality; e.g. 9
o-o ..tb7 10 e5 dxe5 11 dxe5 l2Jxb3 12
axb3 lZ'le4 13 'ii'x d8+ l:txd8 14 l2Jxe4
..txe4 15 llxa6 ..txf3 16 gxf3 ..txe5 and
if you're still awake after all these
trades, you'll notice that White's dis
gusting pawn structure is balanced by
some extra rook activity.
Based on the Kozakov g ame, 6 ..ta4
is recommended (sort of) by Andrew
Greet in Beating Unusual Chess De
fences: 1 e4, so it is a good idea to be
prepared.
6 bxc6 7 0-0 ..tg7
...
8 h3
White usually plays this move
sooner or later in the Dark Knight Pirc,
as he gets tired of worrying about
... ..tg4. Others:
a) 8 e 5 ! ? lZ'ld5 9 lZ'le4 o-o 10 l:te1 was
u ..tgs?!
The strong White and Black players
to hold this position were focused on
the ... e7-e5 break when they should be
preparing for ... c6-c5.
11 ..te3 is a bit better, though it still
doesn 't stop 11 ... c 5 ! ; e.g. 12 dxc5 .l:txb 2 !
13 .l:!.xb2 ..txc3 1 4 .Ub3 ..txe1 1 5 'i!i'xe1
l2Jxc5 16 ..txc5 dxc5 equal, or 12 Vi'd2
cxd4 13 ..txd4 l2Jf6 14 e5 lZ'lh 5 15 exd6
cxd6 16 ..txg7 lZ'lxg 7 with equality.
95
B: s d s tt:Jbs
96
1 e4 l'Llc6 2 l'Llf3
l'Llbd7 - White's "attack" is going no
where; e.g. 12 h3 i..xf3 13 i..xf3 'irb6 14
h4? ! tt:Jes, threatening ...l'Llc4) 8 ...i..xh6 ! 9
xh6 'i!Vb6 10 o-o-o i.. g 4 is an interest
ing position, not at all unfavourable for
Black; e.g. 11 l:.d2 i..xf3 12 gxf3 l'Llbd7 13
f4 cxds 14 exds .l:.c8 (14...0-o-o! ? and
15 ...<;i;>b8) with great interest in ....l:txc3;
or 11 i..e 2 'ii'xf2 12 .l:.hf1 'ii'c s and while
White is certainly well developed, he has
nothing concrete for the pawn. In
Team
Croatian
N.Sulava-M.Muse,
Championship 2002, White changed the
course of the game with 11 e s ? ! dxes 12
d6, but had Black spotted 12 ...l'Llbd7 13
dxe7 'ii'h4, followed by 14...'ili'xe7 and
15 ...0-0-0, White would have found him
self without sufficient compensation.
c) 6 i.. e 3 is very similar to 6 i.. g s,
into which it often transposes (i.e. after
i..e 3-h6). One time that didn't happen
was in K.Nemcova-F.Olafsson, Marian
ske Lazne 2008, which went 6 ... i.. g 7 7
'iWd2 c6 (by transposition) 8 h 3 b S ? !
( 8. . .0-o 9 i.. e 2 b s ! , a s i n J. Hjartarson
F.Olafsson, Reykjavik 1995, was a better
move order - see Game 68) 9 a3 ? ! (9
dxc6 ! b4 10 i..b s ! is unpleasant for
Black) 9 ... a6 10 dxc6 l'Llxc6 1 1 i..d 3 o-o
12 o-o i..b 7, resultin g in an equal
Dragodorf type of position which Black
went on to win (see Game 67).
d) 6 h 3 ! is the most accurate move,
reaching line B1 below after 6 ... i.. g 7 7
i.. e 2 o-o 8 o-o.
6 i.. g 7
There is something to be said for
6 ... i.. g 4 (or 7 ... i.. g 4), with a likely trans-
White has:
81: 8 h 3 9 7
82: Others 99
Or 8 a4 as ! - Black cannot allow
himself to become further cramped.
The insertion of the two a-pawn moves
is helpful to Black though, since it helps
him to establish knight outposts on the
cs- and b4-squares.
81: 8 h 3
...
97
sition where his normal play (with c2c4-c5) is blocked by the c3-knight. This
problem is serious for White, more so
than Black's funny knight on b8 (which
is n ormally on the e7-square). Black will
play carefully for .. .f7-fS. Part of being
careful is considering ...h 7-h 6 to pre
vent White's tt:lg s-e6.
g .ixe6
...
...
98
812: 10 tt:ld4 99
811: 10 .igs !
9 dxe6
If White does n ot play this m ove, he
winds up in a King's Indian type of po-
98
1 e4 tLlc6 2 lDf3
11 i.. e 3
In stead:
a) 11 i..h 4 tZ:lc6 12 'iid 2 gS 13 li.g 3
dS equalizes.
b) 11 i..f4 lL'lc6 12 'ikd2 gS 13 i..h 2
.ll e 8 1 4 l:tad1 tZ:ld7 offers White a tiny
edge, but typical dark-square play for
Black.
11 ... tZ:lc6 12 'id2 'it>h7 13 .l:tad1 l:te8 14
.U.fe1 a6 15 a4
99
1 00
1 e4 t'Dc6 2 tbf3
simple plan of ... a7-a5, ...t'Da6, ... t'Dacs,
... as-a4-a3 (if possible), and ...'i!Vb6 or
.. .'C7.
8 ..tg4
Black has done very well with 8 ... c6,
but Joel Benjamin (who played 1...l'Dc6
frequently in the 1990s) warned m e
that Black's position is difficult after 9
a4! as 10 h 3 (otherwise 10 ... ..tg4)
10 ... l'Da6 11 ..txa6 ! (an idea I have not
been able to find in any published
games - the point is to stop Black's ac
tive 1 1...l'Db4) 11...l:.xa6, when it is hard
to find a con structive plan for Black,
whereas White can still build; e.g. 12
'i!Vd2 .l:.a8 13 l':!.ad1 l:.e8 14 ..td4 'ilc7 15
.:tfe1. Black lacks space, development
and pawn play, while his only "asset",
the light-squared bishop, is more of a
problem than anything else. Indeed,
this type of position acts m ore closed
than open, in part because nobody
wants to relieve the tension between
the ds- and c6-pawns - for White to
trade would assist Black greatly in the
central battle, while if Black trades, he
has accessible weaknesses on the bs
and e7-squares.
A possible antidote is 8 ... as ! ? 9 a4
tt:Ja6, when White shoul d be less eager
to snap off the knight. N otice that since
Black h as not yet played ... c7-c6, he can
later try ... e7-e6 or ... e7-e5 instead.
However, there are other moves to
worry about besides 9 a4.
8 ... ..tg4 is simplest, transposing to a
favourite line of the great Pirc expert
Alexander Chemin, who used it with
...
9 h3
White must play this sooner or later
unless he is intending to allow the ex
change of light-squared bishops. White
should at least retain the bishop pair if
he is h oping to keep an advantage:
a) 9 t'Dd2 ..txe2 10 'ilxe2, and now
Chemin's recommendation 10 .. J:te8 11
f4 e6 has been tested only once, in
A.Czebe-N .Resika, Budapest 2000 Black, an FM, held the draw against the
GM.
b) 9 l'Dd4 ..txe2 10 'i/xe2 cs 11 l2Jf3
'iib 6 12 l1ab1 'ila6 13 'i/d2 l'Dg4 14 ..tg s
l:te8 with equality in B.Ch atalbashev
M.Popchev, Cacak 1991 (see Game 70).
c) 9 t'Dg s ..txe2 10 'ilxe2 c6 11 .l:.ad1
'i/as 12 f4 'i/a6 13 'ilf3 t'Dbd7 with
equality. Black, with more experience
in this type of position, went on to win
1 01
1 02
1 e4 ltJc6 2 lDj3
s .i.g7 6 .i.e3
By far the most common, but also
seen are:
a) 6 .i.g s o-o 7 'iii'd 2, when both
7 ... a6 and the surprising 7 ... ds have
worked extremely well for Black.
...
Tn e D a rk
Kn ig h t Sys tem
1 04
7 'id2
Or 7 .ie2 e5 (7 ... a6 is more aggres
sive, but riskier) 8 dxe5 (other moves
transpose elsewhere: 8 d5 lt::l e 7 9 fild2
is 9 i.e2 in the main line, while 9 o-o
and 8 0-0 are respectively notes 'b3'
and 'b2' above) 8 ... dxe5 (Didn't I just
say this was wrong ? - this is one of
those exceptions; actually, 8 ...lt::lx e5 is
fine too, but the text move h as per
formed much better, so why not?) 9 o-o
flle 7 with equal chances. The point is
that 10 lt::l d 5 is not dangerous because
of 1o ... lt::lx d5 11 exd5 lt::l d 4! 12 lle1 lLlf5 !
(chasing the more dangerous bishop)
and Black is comfortably equal.
1 e4 lL\c6 2 lZJf3
7-.eS 8 dS
Others:
a) 8 0-0-0 exd4 9 lZJxd4 l!e8 10 f3 3lack wins nearly every game from this
!Xlsition. Indeed, White's pawns on h3
and f3 make a ludicrous impression (he
's essentially down a full tempo in a
Philidor Defence Larsen Variation),
though White should not actually be
worse. 10 ...lZJxd4 11 .ixd4 i.e6 12 g4 (12
l.f2 a6 13 'iii>b 1 bS 14 h4 cs! was about
equal in G.Bastrikov-E.Geller, Tashkent
19 S8 - see Game 76) 12 ... cs ! 13 .ie3
;M;
waS .li'. (1 3 ... d S I. equa1lZeS ) 14 'B
IUrXd6i'
. .l (14
l.h6! i.xh6 1S 'ii'xh6 i.xa2 16 l:f.xd6 lle6
is slightly better for White) 14...l2Jxe4! 1S
fxe4 .ixc3 16 'ifxcs ? i.xb2+ 17 'it>xb2
xa2+ 18 'iii>c 1 l:lac8 and White soon
called it quits in D.Bescos Cortes-S.Garza
Marco, San Jose 1998. 16 bxc3? 'ii'a 3+ 17
'it>d2 l:!.ad8 wouldn't have worked either;
instead after 16 i.d3, closing the d-file,
the game still continues, though Black is
clearly better.
b) 8 dxes seems like it is headed for
dullness, but things could get interest
ing if nobody trades those queens; e.g.
8 ... l2Jxes 9 lZJxes dxes 10 o-o-o .ie6 11
g4 c6 12 g S (12 'ifxd8 .Ufxd8 13 xd8
l:i.xd8 14 Si.xa7 .ih6+ 1S .ie3 .ixe3+ 16
fxe3 hs 17 g s lLih7 18 h4 f6 19 gxf6
lL\xf6 is equal despite the slight pawn
deficit: Black's activity and future
passed h-pawn are sufficient) 12 ...tZ:'ld7
13 h4 'it'as and the race is on. Black has
no reason to be pessimistic about his
prospects.
8 tZ:'le7
.
1 05
...
1 06
1 e4 lbc6 2 lbf3
lbe1 fs most closely resembles a King's
Indian, where White's attack will be
greatly delayed by his pawn stuck on
the C2-square.
c) 8 il..f4 lbg4! 9 h3 (if White does
not play h 2-h 3, the game will transpose
to note 'b' just above; e.g. 9 dS es 10
.i.d2 lbe7, or 9 .id2 es, or even 9 .ic1
es 10 ds etc) 9 ... es 10 dxes ttJgxes 11
lbxe s ? ! (11 id2 is better, retaining a
tiny edge after 1 1 ...c.t>h 7; Black can consider ... lbxf3+ and ...lbd4, or ... .i.e6, or
.. .f7-f5, or ... l:te8) 11 ... dxes was level in
A.Sakharov-A.Adorjan, Sochi 1976,
though Black went on to win a wild
game (see Game 78).
7 es!
As usual, 7 ... a6 can be tried - the
main line is a bit drawish - but then 8
dS lbb8 9 a4 is an excellent answer.
Alternatively, 7 ... il..g 4 8 dS lbb8 trans
poses to line B2 (8 ... .ixf3 9 .ixf3 lbes
10 e2 c6 is a main line Classical Pirc
which will not be covered).
8 dxes
Or:
a) 8 dS lbe7 9 1i'd2 lbg4 10 g s h 6
11 il..h 4 g s 12 .ig 3 f s 13 h 3 lbf6 1 4 exfs
lbxfs 15 .ih 2 'ii'e 8 with a tiny edge as
Black considers a kingside attack based
on his space advantage there, or the
... eS-e4-e3 lunge, or ...'ii'f7 and ... lbe7,
building pressure on White's d-pawn.
White is not well situated to use his
asset - the e4-square.
b) 8 id2 (as usual, it is a bad idea
for White to try to maintain the tension
- this only works if Black is not h appy
107
,.., e :J a rtc
Knig h t System
1 08
1 e4 ltJc6 2 lLlf3
not the time for the exchange varia
tion, and 9 o-o-o 'Wie7 (or 9 .. .tL'lg4) 10
g 5 e6 11 lt:Jd5 ? ! i.xd5 12 exd5 .t'!.fd8
just makes matters worse for White.
c) 7 c4 lt:Jg4 8 i.g 5 h6 9 i.h4 g5 10
g 3 e5 11 d5 lt:Jd4 is about equal, but
not a very rational position - the tac
tics would take pages. Instead,
7 ... i.g4!? keeps things under control;
e.g. 8 d5 i.xf3 9 gxf3 lt:Je5 10 i.e2 c5 11
o-o-o 'i!Va5 12 ..t?b1 l:tab8, or 8 o-o-o
tt:Jxe4 9 tt:Jxe4 d5 10 d3 dxe4 11 xe4
li'd7 12 d5 xf3 13 xf3 tt:Je5 14 e2
lt:Jg4 15 d4 e5 16 dxe6 'i!Vxe6 17 xg 7
'it>xg 7 with near equality.
7 esl
Centre play beats wing play.
8 xg7 '>t>xg7 9 0-0-0
After 9 d5 lt:Je7 10 o-o-o .:tb8 11 d3
(if 11 h4 i.g4, or 11 '>t>b1 b5) 11 ... b5,
11 ... c6 or 11 ... g4, Black h as full coun
terplay.
9 g4 10 dxes dxes
...
And n ow:
...
110
110
C43 : 6 e 3 112
(41: 6 0-0
C42: 6 1i'e2
Instead:
a) 6 i.g 5 ? ! tt:Jxe4! 7 tt:Jxe4 (or 7
xf7+ '>t>xf7 8 t2Jxe4 d5 9 lt:Jc5 lif8)
7 ... d5 8 c3 ! ? dxc4 9 d5 f5 ! 10 dxc6
'ili'xdl+ 11 ltxd1 fxe4 12 lt:Jd2 bxc6 13
tt:Jxe4 l:.b8 is good for Black.
b) 6 f4 - As a novice, I remember
thinking that this was some kind of
ideal position for White. N owadays, it
looks like White is begging for trouble,
as the bishops are vulnerable and do
1 09
(41: 6 0-0
White has four knight retreats and
they're all bad - he h as reached an in
ferior version of 5 h 3 i.. g 7 6 i..c4 tt::l x e4!
etc in line Cl (see note 'c' to White's 6th
move). The most frequent is 10 tt::l c s ? !
and now, rather than 1 0. . .1\Vd6? ! a s al
ways played, 10 ...b6! 11 tt::lb 3 'iid 6 12
tt::l g s l:tf8 13 .:te1 es gives Black a com
fortable advantage.
6 ... 0-0
6 ... i.. g 4 is also good; e.g. 7 i.. e 3 0-0 8
h 3 i.. xf3 9 'ti'xf3 e s 10 dxes (or 10 ds
tt::l e 7) lO . . tt::l x es 11 'i!Ve2 tt::lx c4 with
equality.
7 h3?!
This is no good, but it is the most
common, and other moves are either
met by ... i.. g 4 or else are covered else
where: 7 dS tt::lb 8 is line B again, while 7
i.. e 3 tt::l g 4 is C43 below.
7 ..tt::lxe4 8 i..xf 7+
8 tt::l x e4? ! dS 9 i.. d 3 (9 c3 ! dxc4 is
110
7 i.. e 3
1 e4 ltJc6 2 tLlf3
GM Robert Zelcik has twice played 7
es and won (against much weaker op
ponents). If Black takes the bull by the
horns with 7 ... .i.xf3 8 gxf3 liJxd4 9 exf6
ttJxe2 10 fxg 7 l:tg8 11 xe2 ! ? (or simi
larly 11 .i.xe2 - White is 2-0 here as
well) 11 ...l:i.xg 7 we reach this mess:
7 es 8 dxes
8 d S ? ! tLld4! 9 .i.xd4 (or 9 'id1 .ltxf3
10 gxf3 o-o) 9 .. exd4 10 tLlbs (10 e s ?
0-0! 1 1 exf6 dxc3 wins) 1 0. . .0-0 11 0-0
l::te 8 was much better for Black in
M.Strubreiter-K.Rogetzer,
Austrian
Team Champion ship 2004, and after 12
liJbxd4? ! ltJxe4 13 d3 ttJcs 14 d2
Black should have cashed out: 14 ....txf3
15 ./tJxf3 .i.xb2, with a squeaky-clean
extra pawn to go with his positional
advantages.
8 ./tJxes 9 .itb3 o-o 10 o-o-o
10 h3 .i.h s 11 o-o-o as simply
transposes.
1o a s
...
...
...
111
7 0-0
7 'ii'd 2 transposes to 7 .ic4 in line
C3 (see note 'c' to White's 7th m ove).
1 .. .tbg4 s .igs
In stead:
a) 8 .if4?! tbxd4! (fork tricks every
where !) 9 tbxd4 es 10 .ie3 tbxe3 11
fxe3 exd4 12 exd4 .ie6 was H .Hughes
K.Richardson, British League 2004.
Black had the edge and went on to win
(see Game 82), although 12 ... c6! was
simpler with a comfortable advantage.
b) I don't know who would play it,
but Houdini likes 8 .ic1, when 8 ... es
allows White a small advantage after 9
.ig s ! i..f6 10 .ixf6 tbxf6 11 ds tbb8.
Instead, 8 ...tbf6 returns to 6 ...0-o in line
C41 and offers (or bluffs) a repetition.
s ... h6 9 .ih4
On 9 .if4?! tbxd4! is best, as in the
previous note, even though White has
the extra possibility 10 tbxd4 es 11
.ixh 6 ! (after 1 1 tbe6 ! ? fxe6 12 'ii'x g4
exf4 13 i..x e6+ h 7 14 .ixc8 'ir'xc8
Black's active bishop allows him a small
plus - which he m ay convert to a struc-
112
1 e4 lL\c6 2 ltJf3
a) 7 i.h4 g 5 8 g 3 ltJh 5 9 d5 t2Jb8 (it
is good form to delay ... t2Jxg 3 until the
last moment, even without any specific
idea in mind) 10 l2Jd4 c5 1 1 b5+ 'ifi>f8
was equal in A.Grilc-G.Mohr, Slovenian
Team Champion ship 2008, though the
better player (Black) went on to win
because White could not control the
dark squares (see Game 83).
b) 7 e3 l2Jg4 (8 f4 t2Jxd4! 9 t2Jxd4
e5 equalizes; e.g. 10 h3 exd4 11 l2Jb5
l2Je5 12 t2Jxd4 'Wie7 13 b5+ d7 14
xd7+ t2Jxd7 1 5 0-0-0 0-0-0) 8 0-0-0
t2Jxe3 9 'i!Vxe3 0-0 10 h3 a6 11 g4 b5 was
equal in D.Janowski-F.Yates, Marienbad
1925 (!), a wild game that ended in a
draw (see Game 84).
1 ds1
...
e3 f5 17 g 3 e5 18 'i'e2 5 19 'iVxb5
cxb5 20 dxe5 i.xe5 2 1 xa7 'it>b7 with
some chances in the endgame for Black
due to his extra space, superior bishop,
and "queenside" (i.e. away from the
kings) pawn majority.
s ttJxd s 9 ttJxd s 'Y.Ii'xd s 10 c3
10 xc7 is too greedy; e.g. 10 ...g4
11 c3 (11 i.e2 .l:.c8 12 i.g 3 xf3 13
i.xf3 'i!Ve6+ 14 ii'e3 t2Jxd4 1 5 xe6
t2Jxf3+ 16 gxf3 fxe6 is equal) 11...xf3
12 gxf3 :l.c8 13 f4 'i!Vxf3 14 .l:tg 1 e5 1 5
dxe5 xe5 16 xe5 t2Jxe5 17 i.b5+
'ifi>e7 and Black h as slightly fewer king
problem s than White.
10 g4 11 e2 o-o-o
...
...
113
C h a pte r S ix
e4 l2Jc6
l2Jc3
114
...
But first:
a) 4 i.e3 makes no sense because of
4....:Jg4!. If 5 .ig 5 h6 6 .ih4 g 5 7 .ig3
i.g7, we have gotten our fianchetto
with gain of time, reaching positions
similar to Chapter Five. While this does
not actually give easy equality, it is cer
tainly satisfactory - 4 .ie3 is almost
never played.
b) 4 f3 e5 5 lt:Jge2 exd4 6 lt:Jxd4 .ie7
is a kind of Philidor where White's f
pawn does not belong on f3. White
normally continues in "Argentinean"
style with 7 .ie3 o-o 8 'ifd2, when Black
has 8 ...lt:Jxd4 (8 ... d5 ! ? 9 o-o-o dxe4 10
lt:Jxc6 'ii'x d2+ 11 .l:.xd2 bxc6 12 lt:Jxe4
lt:Jxe4 13 fxe4 offers a tiny endgame
advantage for White) 9 .ixd4 c6 10
o-o-o and n ow 10 ...b5 with an equal
game (though perhaps we should call
such a position unclear), or 10 ... .ie6,
which transposes to A.Mista-M.Szelag,
e4 lt:Jc6 2 lt:Jc3
5 dxes
other moves don't offer much :
115
Th e Dark Kn ig h t System
a) 5 lt:Jf3 exd4 6 lt:Jxd4 is some sort
of Philidor where White's 4 f4 is prema
ture.
116
1 e4 ltJc6 2 ltJc3
to win . However, Black can equalize
with 9 ... h6! 10 fxes ltJg4 11 h3 (or 11
l:td1 ..tcs+ 12 f1 ..td7) 1 1 ... ltJgxes 12
..tf4 (or 12 ..tbs ..td7 13 ttJds ltJxf3+ 14
gxf3 ..td6) 12 ... ltJxd3 13 cxd3 e6.
B: 4 d S liJbB
6 dxc6
Other moves:
a) 6 liJf3 cxd5 7 exd5 g6 8 ..te3 .tg 7
is equal . Black will continue with ... 0-0,
... ltJbd7, .. ."ilie7, ... a7-a6, ...b7-b5, ... ltJc5
(or ... ltJb6), and ... b7 (or ... d7). Since
White's central pawns are split, the f
pawn is mainly a weakness. Then 9
.te2 o-o 10 0-0 ltJbd7 transposes to
M.Drasko-Z.Mestrovic, Bosnian Team
Champion ship 2003 (see Game 24).
b) 6 .te2 g6 will probably transpose
to 6 liJf3, after 7 liJf3 cxds 8 exd5 g7 9
.te3 for instance. Instead, A.Stefanova
M.Zielinska, Dresden 2004, continued 7
.te3 'i!Va5 8 .tf3 ! ? ..tg 7 9 ltJe2 cxds 10
exd5 ..tg4, which was about equal, but
117
8 i.c4
Alternatively:
a) 8 e 5 ! ? is a good try, though it has
never been played: 8 ... tLlh 5 (or 8 ... tZ:ld7 ! ?
9 exd6 i.g 7 ! 1 0 dxe7 'it'xe7+ 11 'ie2
tZ:lb4 12 1Wxe7+ <Ji;xe7 13 'itd1 l:td8 with
compensation) 9 exd6 i.g 7 10 i.c4 0-0
11 0-0 exd6 and White's holes balance
Black's holes.
b) 8 i.e3 i.g 7 9 'ifd2 o-o 10 o-o-o
tZ:lg4 11 i.g 1 'ii'a 5 12 h 3 i.xc3 13 'ii'x c3
118
Section Th ree
Others
1 c4 - Chapter Seven
1 tLlf3 - Chapter Eight
Others - Chapter Nine
Miscellaneous Topics - Chapter Ten
This section deals with almost eve
rything except the opening moves 1 e4
and 1 d4, including some quite un
usual openings. Except for 1 c4, which
needs to be taken seriously, the chal
lenge for Black is to give himself
chances to wrest the initiative early,
and/or make sure that White does not
reach the type of position with which
119
C h a pter Seve n
c4 ltJc6
120
A: 3 g3 1 2 1
B: 3 'bf3 123
A:
3 g3 fs!?
c4 lbc6
7 'bf3
121
1 c4 lbc6
8 dxe4 ..ixc3!
8 ... !Dxe4 will normally transpose,
but this new move order cuts down on
White's options.
9 ..ixc3 !Dxe4 10 l:tc1
I expect White to try to preserve his
pawn structure as he has in the analo
gous positions from the alternative
move order. However, if 10 o-o ! ?
!Dxc3 ? ! 11 bxc3, White's open lines
make it easy for him to pressure the
queenside. So Black should retain the
strong knight: 10 ... d6 11 'ir'c2 as 12
lbd4 fie7 and 13 .....id7 with just a
slight edge for White.
10 ... d6 11 0-0
8: 3 !Df3 fS
124
125
But also:
a) 5 ltJes - only larry Christiansen
(and Houdini) seems interested in play
ing this move, though he has an im
pressive 3-0 with it. After s ... l2Jf6 6 ..if4,
as in l.Christiansen-S.Conquest, Oviedo
(rapid) 1992, the new move 6 ... !Dh s ! ? 7
..id2 l2Jf6 is fine for Black if he is con
tent with a draw, because 8 e3 d6 9
l2Jxc6 bxc6 10 ..ie2 ..ie7 1 1 o-o o-o is
nothing for White. Otherwise Black can
try 6 ... d6 7 l2Jxc6 bxc6 8 e3 ..ie7 9 ..ie2
0-0 10 0-0 ..ie6, with a slight edge for
White.
b) s ..ig s ..ie7 6 ..ixe7 l2Jgxe7 7 !Dd2
l2Jxd4 8 l2Jdxe4 !De6 9 l2Jd2 b6! 10 e3
..ib7 1 1 liJf3 0-0 with easy equality and
chances for more; e.g. 12 ..ie2 f4! is
123
is 12 g 3 ? ! f4! 13 exf4
4 14 gxf4 :!.xf4 1 5 i.g 2 {or 1 5 i.e2)
15 ... 'iff8 ! .
as
6 lLlh 3
This retreat is necessary.
a) G.McKenna-J.Schuyler, Richmond
2008, instead continued 6 f3 ? ! h 6 ! 7
lLlh 3 exf3, threatening 8 ...'ifh4+ and
9 ...'iixd4. My opponent found 8 e3!
which keeps White in the game,
though 8 ...'ifh4+ 9 g3 i.xc3+ 10 bxc3
'iih 5 11 i.g 2 'ii'f7 12 i.xf3 'ii'xc4 13
.ih 5+ d8 would have allowed Black
an edge. {A. Beliavsky-V.Bagirov, Minsk
1983, also saw White play 6 f3 ?!, but
Black did not punish him and went on
to lose.)
b) 6 g 3 ? ! , as in J .Timman-I.Sokolov,
Dortmund 1999, is n ot a good idea ei
ther - the bishop should not be caught
dead on the g2-square. After 6 ... lLlf6 7
d5 lLle5 8 "ifb3 'ii'e 7 9 i.g 2 ? ! h 6 10 lLlh 3
'iic 5 11 i.f4? ! lLlxc4 White had little for
the pawn.
After the text move, the position
124
1 c4 lbc6
ing that Black's results have been excel
lent in this variation even without the
text move, though a few high-level
players have successfully advocated
White.
12 C5
If White does not play this now,
12 ... i.. a 6 is coming, and the c4-c5 break
will be forever ineffective.
12 ... bxcs
12 ... d5 ! ?.
13 i..c4
Naturally, if 13 dxc5 then 13 ... d5! 14
c4? d4 and White's structure is awful.
13 ... ds 14 i.. b s lbbs 15 i..x cs c6 16 i.. e 2
i.a6
1 25
Th e Dark Kn ig h t System
novelty that prevents Black from get
ting overrun on the queen side, reach
ing a satisfactory reversed Classical
French.
9 cxds
Or 9 a3 i.e6 10 b4 a6 !, strongly dis
couraging the further advance of
White's queenside pawns.
g lZ'lb4 10 'ib3 lZ'lbxds 11 lZ'lc4 c6 12
i.d2 filc7
..
6 ... i.e7l
6 ... g6 is just about always played,
but the fianchetto is slow and some
what accommodating, releasing the
b4-square. Sokolov and Sigurjonsson
both got squashed by White's huge
queenside after l:tbl and b2-b4. The
text move keeps Black focused on
where the play will actually take place.
7 i.e2 o-o 8 o-o d S I
Previously 8 . . .'it'e8 and 8 ... d 6 have
been tried. The text is an unplayed
126
C h a pte r E ight
t2Jf3 t2Jc6
4 if.. g 2 g61
An excellent recipe. White's extra
tempo amounts to little.
5 o-o i.g7 6 e4
White challenges the centre with 6
c4 less often. In Bu Xiangzhi
V.Ivanchuk, Khanty-Man siysk 2011,
Black played 6 ... dxc4 7 dxc4 'ii'x d1 8
.!:Ixd1 e4 9 tbfd2 fS, when White needed
10 f3 to equalize. Instead, after 10 tbc3
if.. e 6 11 tbdS ? ! o-o-o lvanchuk went on
to win (see Game 9 5).
6...tbge7 7 tbbd2 o-o 8 c3 a s 9 a4 h6
127
128
C h a pte r N i n e
Oth e rs
Larsen's Attack
Based on the counter-fianchetto, Hou-
129
...
...
Bird's Opening
Against 1 f4, I would warn against play
ing ... d7-dS, which gives White what he
wants: the eS-square. In stead, after
1 ... g6 2 t'Llf3 .ig7 3 e3 d6 4 d4 t'Lld7,
Oth ers
ii.d3 e5 6 c3 'flie7 was no fun at all for
White in A.Capaliku-J.Gombac, Nova
Gorica 2010 (see Game 98); while 5
3Lc4 e6 has scored 100% for Black, most
notably in A.Spichkin-D. Reinderman,
Rijeka 2010 (see Game 99).
Of course, White does not have to
play a Stonewall - just as popular is a
reversed Leningrad Dutch with 3 g3,
when one system has performed ex
tremely well for Black: 3 ... b6 ! ? 4 .ltg 2
b7 5 0-0 e6 6 d3 ti:Je7 7 e4 d6
Other others
As for 1 ti:Jc3 and 1 g3, 1 ... ti:Jc6 should
transpose to our repertoire at some
point.
As I m entioned already, 1 ... g6 is a
good an swer to 1 e3, and also to 1 a3,
when White is challenged to find any
use for his opening move. If 1 h3, 1 h4,
1 ti:Jh 3, 1 lLla3, 1 a4, or 1 f3, you're on
your own . 1 f3 is particularly troubling
because it is not clear whether White is
intending 2 ti:Jh 3 and 3 ti:Jf2, or 2 g4!, or
2 f2 ! and 3 g 3 ! ! . May you be confronted with these problem s fre
quently.
131
C h a pter Te n
132
133
I l l u st rative Ga mes
.t
.t
.t
.t
Illustrative Games
32 ... .i.b4! 3 3 lt:lb1 i.xc4 34 l:i.g1 ..ic5 3 5
l:!.e1 .i.f2
Black soon won.
J.Vialatte-F .Giroux
Pa ris 2006
17 lt:ld2 lt:lc5 18 ..ic2 l:!.a6 19 .i.b2 .i.g7
20 e4 f4?! 21 'it>h1 'i*'d7 22 f3?!
White weaken s his dark squares
unnecessarily. Black should have to
work for this.
22 ....l:!.fa8 2 3 lt:lab1 lt:lc8 24 lt:lc3 lt:lb6 25
..ib3 "iVf7 26 ..ic2 i.f8 27 i.a3 lt:lcxa4 28
lt:lxa4 lt:lxa4 29 i.xd6 .i.xd6 30 .l:txa4
lba4 31 i.xa4 "fic7
1 d4 lt:lc6 2 f4 d5
Black has not signed a contract to
play on the dark squares, and White
has already given himself a big hole on
e4. Furthermore, with Black not having
played ... lt:lf6, White is not guaranteed
an outpost on es.
3 lt:lf3 i.g4 4 e3 f6!?
Black may or may not get ... e7-e5 in,
but he has certainly stopped lt:les !
5 ..ib5 'ii'd 6 6 o-o a 6 7 ..ixc6+?!
This is not going to help the situa
tion on the light squares.
7 .. JWxc6 8 c3?! lt:lh6 9 lt:lbd2
9 ... 0-0-0?!
Black's knight needs to get to the
135
24 'ii'a 4?
An incomprehensible positional
mistake. The knight that lands on c4 is
worth far more than the "tall pawn" on
b4. However, in this roundabout way
we see the proper fruition of Black's
early advantage.
24...lZ'lc4 2 S .ics b6 26 'ii'a 6 'ii'c 6 27 l:tb1
'ifa8 28 'fibs? 'it>c8! 29 a4
29 i.b4 c6 traps the queen.
136
M. Tratar-M.Srebrnic
S l ove n i a n C h a m pion s h i p,
Lj u blja n a 2010
1 d4 d6 2 lZ'lf3 g6 3 c4 .ig7 4 lZ'lc3 lt:'lc6
We would reach this by 1 d4 lZ'lc6 2
lZ'lf3 d6 3 c4 g6 4 lZ'lc3 .ig7 - in this par
ticular game White did not even have
the option of playing 4 ds.
s ds ttJes 6 lt:'lxes .ixes 7 e4 lZ'lf6
lt seems odd to cut off the retreat
for the dark-squared bishop, but the
piece is very active where it is, and the
danger is far less than it appears.
White's lame attempt to trap the
bishop on move nine goes nowhere.
Such lovely dark square control !
8 .id3 o-o 9 lZ'le2
In addition to the threat of f2-f4,
White makes sure Black cannot dam
age his structure with ... .ixc3 - how
ever, this retreat is still not the most
accurate.
9 ... lt:'ld7 10 h4 hs 11 lZ'lf4 lt:'lcs 12 .ic2
e6!
White has forgotten about his de
velopment and now stands worse.
White is a GM, by the way. The rest of
the game is kind of brutal .
Illustrative Games
13 .l:::!. b 1 as 14 f3?1
Be careful on the dark squares,
White!
14 exds 15 cxd s c6 16 dxc6 bxc6 17
tZ'le2 a6 18 gs 'il'c8?1 [18 ... 'ilfb6] 19
f2 .l:tb8 20 b3 .l:!.e8 21 :e1 tZ'le6 22 i.. e 3
dSI 2 3 exd s cxd s 24 Itc1 d8 2 5 ..td3
'ii'x h4+ 26 f1 b7 2 7 'iid 2 d4 28 g1
lZ'lf4 29 tZ'lxf4 xf4 30 'it'xa s xf3 31
.!:l.c2 g3 0-1
.
A.lpatov-R.Antoniewski
G e rm a n League 2011
1 d 4 d6 2 tZ'lf3 g 6 3 c4 g7 4 lZ'lc3 tZ'lc6 5
ds tZ'les 6 tZ'lxes ..txes 1 e4 lZ'lf6 8 i.d3
o-o 9 lZ'le2 lZ'ld7 10 o-o tZ'lcs 11 f4 g7
12 fs?J
No sooner has White conquered the
es-square than he immediately relin
quishes it. White ( another grandm as
ter) receives the proper punishment eventually.
31 tZ'le6+??
White's position was very unpleas
ant anyway, but he gets no compensa
tion for the knight.
31 .fxe6 32 dxe6 tZ'les 33 l:tc1 gxfs 34
137
Cam e 6
R.Fischer-J.Schuyler
Rich mond 2008
Gam e s
Y.Balashov-G.Kuzmin
USSR C h a m pi o n s h i p
Vi l n i u s 1980
1 tt::lf3 tt::lf6 2 c4 g6 3 tt::lc 3 .ig7 4 e4 d6 5
d4 o-o 6 .ie2 tt::lc 6 7 d S tt::l b8
We would reach this by position
with the move order 1 d4 tt::l c 6 2 tt::lf3 d6
3 c4 g6 4 dS tt::lb 8 5 tt::l c 3 .ig 7 6 e4 tt::lf6 7
.ie2 o-o.
8 h3 tt::l a 6 9 .ie3 tt::lc s 10 es tt::lfd7 11
exd6 exd6 12 .id4
12 .l:.ad1
On 12 'ii'f3, I intend 12 ... tt::l e 8 fol
lowed by 13 ... c6.
12 exds 13 exd s?!
Instead 13 i.. xf6 ! .ixf6 13 tt::l x ds is
equal .
13 .. Jlae8 14 'iif3 tt::l g4 15 h3 tt::l e s 16
li'g3?!
16 e2 is the lesser evil .
16 .'i!Vfs!
12 tt::lf6
A valid choice, though Black could
just as comfortably have all owed the
exchange with 12 ... as or 12 ....U.e8.
13 0-0 a s 14 kte1 .:res 15 .if1 .id7 16
.l:.xe8+ 'ii'x e8 17 'iid 2 tt::lfe4 18 tt::lxe4
138
Illustrative Games
11 b3 ..tb6 12 h 3 ..tf5 13 h2 h6 14
c471
This only helps me find the right
plan. After this game, the knight tran s
fer became the standard way for me to
combat this whole variation with 3 ds.
The alternative try 14 a4 would at least
have given me a little problem to deal
with.
L.Aitounian-J.Schuyler
La s Vega s 2008
1 lt:Jf3 tt:Jc6 2 d4 d6 3 d5 tt:Je5 4 tt:Jxe5
dxe5 5 c4 e6 6 tt:Jc3 lt:Jf6 7 g3 exd 5 8
cxd 5 ..tc5 9 ..tg2 o-o 10 o-o ..tg4
White has managed to keep his
space plus without committing his e
pawn, which leaves me in some doubt
as to the best squares for my pieces. My
last is intended to provoke White to
weaken his king position, a pl an which
I continue throughout the game.
139
Th e Dark Kn ig h t System
levon mentioned to me after the
game that he played this to stop
21 ... l2Jfs, oddly overlooking the alter
nate route.
21 ...t2Jb5 22 .ic3 c5 23 dxc6 bxc6 24
l:tfd1
Yz-Yz
Gam e 8
J.Bonin-J.Schuyler
N ew Yo rk 1988
1 d4 l2Jc6 2 l2Jf3 d6 3 d5 l2Je5 4 l2Jxe5
dxe5 5 e4 e6?? [s ... l2Jf6 !] 6 .ib5+ .id7 7
dxe6!!
140
Ow!
12 ....txb2+ 13 'itt b 1 l2Je7 14 .ie3 .ic3 15
'i!i'xg7 .:gs 16 'i!i'xe5 1-0
The carnage is unspeakable.
Illustrative Games
H.Keskar-J.Sch uyler
H a m pton 2011
1 d4 lZ'lc6 2 lZ'lf3 d6 3 d S lZ'les 4 lbxes
dxes s e4 lZ'lf6 6 i.d3 e6 7 dxe6?!
Obviously White can forget about
an advantage after this - the question
is, how do I beat my lower-rated oppo
nent from this nearly symmetrical po
sition ? The fact is, if I play at all dy
namically and keep my eyes open,
there will be opportunities to create
imbalances. One way to start is to delay
castling.
7.....txe6 8 o-o ..tcs 9 ..tgs h6 10 ..th4
'Wie7 11 a3 l:td8?! [11 ... 0-o-o] 12 lZ'ld2 gS
13 i.g3 ..tg4 14 Wie1 lZ'lhs 1S ..te2 lbxg3
16 hxg3 ..te6 17 tLlf3 f6 18 l:td1 hs
141
D.Haessei-J.Schuyler
Pawtucket 2008
1 d4 tt::'lc6 2 tt::'lf3 d6 3 d s tt:Jes 4 e4 tt::'lf6
I am planning 5 ...tt:Jxf3+, but first I
want White to figure out how to de
fend his e-pawn.
Illustrative Games
s lLlxes dxes 6 i.bS+ i.d7 7 d3 a6 8
i..x d7+ 'ii'xd7 9 lLlc3 e6 10 ..tgs i.b4 11
o-o-o o-o-o 12 f3 1i'e7 13 c4 h6 14
i.xf6 gxf6 15 g4
143
Gam e 1 1
D.Rasic-Z.Mestrovic
C roatia n Tea m
C h a m pi o n s h i p 2001
1 e4 lt:\c6 2 d4 d6 3 ctJf3 '2Jf6 4 d s lt:\es s
lt:\xes dxes 6 i.bs+ i.d7 7 'i!Ve2 g6 8
i.xd7+ xd7 9 ctJd2?!
9 c4 and 10 lt:\c3 is simpler and
stronger.
g ....Jtg7 10 ctJC4
1o ...lt:\hs
10 ... 0-o ! ? 11 lt:\xes 'fia4! and Black
recovers the pawn one way or another.
11 g4?! ctJf4 12 i.xf4 exf4
144
Illustrative Games
Game 1 2
J.Barle-Z.Mestrovic
S l ove n i a n C h a m pion s h i p,
Krsko 1997
1 lbf3 t:Lic6 2 d 4 d6 3 e 4 t:Lif6 4 d 5 lL'le5 5
t:Lixe5 dxe5 6 .tb5+ i.d7 7 "ife2 g6 8 o-o
.ltg7 9 .txd7+ 'tlt'xd7 10 c4 o-o 11 lL'lc3
tLih 5 12 g3 c5 13 dxc6 "ifxc6 14 .te3 e6
15 b4 f5
P .B.Pedersen-D.Bekker Jensen
Da n i s h Tea m
C h a m pion s h i p 2008
1 d4 t:Lif6 2 lL'lf3 g6 3 .ltf4 .ltg7 4 e3 0-0 5
.i\.e2 d6 6 h 3 liJfd7 7 0-0 liJc6 8 C3 e5
We would reach this by 1 d4 t:Lic6 2
t:Lif3 d6 3 .ltf4 lL'lf6 4 e3 g6 5 .te2 .ltg 7 6
h3 o-o 7 c3 lL'ld7 8 o-o es.
9 .th2 f5 10 dxe5 dxe5 11 t:Lia3 g5 12
145
R.Valenti-V.Tkachiev
Corsica (ra p id) 1997
1 tL'lf3 tL'lf6 2 d 4 g 6 3 i.f4 i.g7 4 e3 d 6 5
h 3 o-o 6 i.e2 t2Jc6 7 o-o tL'ld7?! [7 ... e s ! ] 8
i.h2 e5 9 c3 "ilke7 10 a4 f5 11 t2Ja3 'ii>h8
12 b4 e4
V.Golod-E.Sutovsky
N ata nya (ra pid) 2009
26 bxc8'ii' :axeS 2 7 i.xg3 fxg3 28 xa7
'ii'h 6 29 .l::tfe1 .l:.a8 30 'ii'c 5 i.fB 0-1
146
Illustrative Games
H.Kmoch-F.Yates
H a sti ngs 1927/28
1 d 4 ctJf6 2 ctJf3 g 6 3 C 4 .i.g7 4 g3 0-0 S
.i.g2 d6 6 o-o ltJc6 1 d s ltJb8
Here 7 ... ttJas ! ? is recommended by
theory, and is objectively best, though
Yates makes a good case for the text
move - and note that we would nor
mally not have this option, reaching
the game position by 1 d4 ltJc6 2 ctJf3
d6 3 g 3 g6 4 ds ttJbs s .i.g 2 .i.g 7 6 o-o
ltJf6 7 c4 o-o or one of many similar
move orders.
8 ctJC3 aS! 9 ctJd4 ctJa6 10 h 3
White prevents 1 0. .ttJ g 4 but, a s I
am so fond of saying, a tempo is a
tempo. This also necessitates a later
h 2.
10...ttJcs 11 Si.e3 .i.d7 12 'iii'd 2 c8 13
h2 eS
.
2S .. Jlxd S?
147
14 tt::ld b5
White should have preferred 14
dxe6, though Black is fine after
14... tt:Jxe6, or even 14 ... .1txe6 1 5 tt:Jxe6
xe6 16 .ltxcs dxcs 17 .ltxb7 .l:.ad8 18
f4 'ifb6 19 .ltf3 'ii'xb2, when Black's
strong bishop and activity m ake up for
the crippled queen side.
14 ... b6 15 .l:.ac1 tt::l h 5 16 b3 f5
Yates's play has a very modern feel
to it, but his next move is too optimis
tic.
11 f4 g5?! 18 .ltxc5?!
After 18 fxg s f4 19 .ltf2 fxg 3+ 20
.ltxg 3 tt:Jxg 3 2 1 Wxg 3 White at least has
a pawn for his trouble.
18 ... gxf4?
Yates bluffs again with this fake
(and unnecessary) zwischenzug. How
ever, the rest of the game he conducts
masterfully.
19 gxf4? bxc5 20 e3 'iii> h 8 21 .ltf3 tt::lf6 22
g1 'iid 8 23 :g3 .lth6 24 .l::tf1 .lte8 25
tt:Je2 .ltg6 26 .l:tgg1 "W/e7 27 tt:Jbc3 l:tg8
28 tt::lg 3 af8 29 .ltd1 g7 30 Itg2 .l::tfg8
31 ff2 tt::ld 7 32 tt:Jce2 'if'h4 3 3 tt::l g 1?!
exf4 34 exf4 tt::lf6 35 Wh1 l:te7 36 .:!.f1
148
Gam e 1 7
A.Gal liamova-M.Krasenkow
Kosza l i n 1997
1 d4 d6 2 tt::lf3 g 6 3 g 3 .ltg7 4 .i.g2 tt::l c 6 5
d 5 tt:Ja 5
lt is possible to consider this square
any time White h as fianchettoed,
though it is more usual with a white
pawn on c4 to harass. As it turn s out,
White does not enjoy the omission of
c2-c4, as the ds-pawn becomes a tar
get. In any case, Black must be active
quickly on the queenside to justify the
knight's position . The typical method is
... c7-c5 to gain space and make sure the
knight doesn't get trapped - in this
Illustrative Games
gam e Black has other ideas.
6 o-o c6 7 e4 lbf6 8 'ii'e 2 cxd 5 9 exd5
.i.d7 10 lbfd2 b5 11 b4 lbc4 12 lbxc4
bxc4 13 xc4 .l:!.c8
14 'it'e2?!
lt was already dangerous to win the
pawn, and now White chooses the
wrong retreat: 14 "ii'h 3 lbxd5 ? ! 1 5 .i.xd5
.i.xa1 16 .i.xf7+ f8 17 c3 is good for
White.
14...lbxd5 15 .i.xd5 .i.xa1 16 c3 o-o 17
.i.g5 .i.c6?! [17 ... .i.f5 !] 18 .i.xc6 l:txc6 19
.i.xe7 l:te8 20 'iff3 d7 21 .i.f6 .l:.a6 22
lbd2 .Uxa2 23 f4 f5 24 'ifxd6
28 lba 5?
2 8 lbd2 was a better try, intending
28 ... .i.xc3? 29 lbb1.
28....i.xc3 29 lbc4 l:ta1! 30 .i.xc3 .l:txf1+
31 xf1 l:i.c6 32 .i.d4 .:.xc4 3 3 .i.xa7
l:!.xb4 34 h4 g7 3 5 g2 6 36 i.e3
e5 37 3 h5 38 g2 e4 39 i.c5 .l:tb5
40 i.e3 d3 41 .i.f4 e2 42 .i.e3 l:!.b3 43
i.c5 l:!.f3 44 .i.d4 f5 45 g1 .l:.d3 o-1
R.Aghasaryan-A.Chibukhchian
Kaj a ra n 2 0 1 1
24 ... .i.b2?!
Black should make space for his
149
A.Hoffman-A.Ferna ndez
Ma r d e l Plata 1996
1 d 4 ttJc6 2 c 4 es 3 ds .tb4+ 4 ..td2
.txd2+ 5 1!Vxd2 ttJce7 6 d6 ttJc6?
Illustrative Gam es
:Xd5 g6 23 lbxe4 lbxe4 24 .l:.e5+ d8
25 l:!.xe4 .l:.e8 26 .l:.ed4
Gam e 2 0
H. Titz-C.Ba rlocco
Dresd e n 2 004
1 C4 lbc6 2 d4 e5 3 d5 i.b4+ 4 .id2
.ixd2+ 5 xd2 tbce7 6 lbc3 d6 7 e4 f5 8
exf5 .ixf5 9 i.d3 lbf6 10 lb ge2 o-o 11
o-o i.xd3 12 iVxd3 tbh5 13 g3 d7 14
f3 a6 15 .l:!.ad1 l:.ae8 16 lbe4 h6 17 c5
lbf6 18 tb2c3 lbf5 19 b4 lbxe4 20 lbxe4
g 5 21 'it>g2 lbd4
Thi s is the position where we left off
when analysing in the theoretical sec
tion.
49 l:!.b6? 'it>c5
49 ... l:!.xb3 (or on the next move) so
llxh6 Itc3 reaches the winning end
game rather sooner.
50 .l:.f6 .l:!.h4? 51 'lt>e3 'it>d5 52 .l:tf5+ e6
53 l:tb5 Wd7 54 .l:.b6 h5 55 'lt>d3 l:!.g4 56
151
'iif2 'it>f7?1
11 .. .fxe4 12 fxe4 'it>f7 will allow
Black to finish castling artificially with
approximate equality.
12 exfs .i.xf5 13 g4 .i.d7 14 h4 :es 15
h s lbf4 16 o-o-o .i.a4 11 :te1 bs 18 lbh3
lbxh3 19 :txh3 'iid 7 20 :th4 bxc4 21 gS
lbxd s 22 ..txc4 c6 2 3 'it>b1 .i.b5 24
.i.a2 'it>fB 25 f4 e4?
Gam e 2 1
M.Gu revich-D.Zoler
Antwe rp 1998
1 d4 l2Jc6 2 C4 eS 3 dS .i.b4+ 4 l2Jd2
lbce7 5 a3 ..txd2+ 6 .i.xd2 d6 7 e4 fs 8
'ii'h 5+1?
8 ...'it>f8?1
8 ... g 6 9 'ii'h 4 fxe4 i s not the most
fun ever, but it does leave Black with a
pawn for his trouble. The text m ove is
less accurate and demands m ore preci
sion from Black in the coming moves in
order to avoid a disaster like the one in
the game.
9 f3 [9 exfS ! ] g...lbf6 10 'ii'h 4 lbg6 11
1 52
Game 22
E.Arlandi-M.Lanzani
Sa n Ma ri n o 1998
1 d4 l2Jc6 2 C4 e5 3 d S .i.b4+ 4 l2Jd2
lbce7 5 a 3 .i.xd2+ 6 .i.xd2 d6 7 e4 f5 8
exfs ..txf5 9 lbe2 lbf6 10 lbg3 .i.g6 11
..te2 o-o 12 o-o
Illustrative Games
Came 23
G.Grigore-P.Brochet
C reon 1999
1 d 4 t2Jc6 2 c 4 es 3 d s .i.b4+ 4 t2Jd2
t2Jce7 5 a3 .txd2+ 6 i.xd2 d6 1 e4 fs 8
exfs .i.xfs 9 t2Je2 t2Jf6 10 t2'lg3 o-ol?
1 53
Th e Dark Kn ig h t System
39 f7 'it'e8??
39 ... ..te8! holds.
40 'it'f6+?
40 l:r.xd7+! win s immediately.
40 .'it>c8 41 ..th7 'ifd8 42 'iWg7 l:te8 43
g4 ..txg4 44 'ifxg4+ b8 45 l:tg7 f8 46
'Wd7 'ii'x d7 47 l:txd7 f4 48 .l:td8+ a7
49 a4 e4 so .:tg8 .l:.h4 51 ..tfs .:tf4 52
..td7 e3 5 3 l:.e8 1-0
.
Came 24
M.Drasko-Z.Mestrovic
Bos n i a n Tea m
C h a m pio n s h i p 2003
38 'ii'g 6+?!
38 .tfs maintains more pressure.
Presumably the mistakes here are due
to a tim e scramble.
38 ...d8
1 54
1 d4 tt::l c6 2 d S tt::l e s 3 e4 d6
Previously Mestrovic h ad success
fully played 3 ... e6, but m aybe he no
longer believed in it? The text m ove
winds up leading to a position consid
ered in Chapter Six (see 6 tt::lf3 in line B).
4 f4 tt::ld 7 5 tt::l c 3 c6 6 tt::lf3 cxds 7 exds
tt::l gf6 8 ..te3 g6 9 ..te2 ..tg7 10 o-o o-o
11 'i!i'd2 a6 12 a4 'ikc7 13 ..td4
Illustrative Games
13 ...4Jb6?!
The position was equal, until this
time-waster hands White an advan
tage. 13 ... 4Jcs i s better.
14 as 4Jbd7 15 4Ja4 4Je4 16 'iie 3 xd4
17 4Jxd4 4Jef6 18 4Jc3 'ii'c s 19 l:tfd1 bS
20 axb6?! [20 b4] 20 ... 4Jxb6 21 b4 Yz-Yz
Perhaps nobody was in the m ood
for a fight - the position is equal again
anyway.
Game 25
V.Erdos-R.Ra pport
H u n ga ri a n Tea m
C h a m pions h i p 2012
1 d 4 4Jc6 2 d s tZJes 3 e 4 e 6 4 f4 exd s 5
fxes 'ifh4+ 6 'it>e2 'ii'h s+ 7 d2 'ii'h 6+ 8
c3 'ii'c 6+ 9 d2 'iVh6+ 10 d3 'ii'a 6+
11 d2 'i'h6+ 12 e1 'i'h4+ 13 d2
...
Gam e 2 6
S.Gordon-N.Short
B riti s h C h a m pio n s h i p,
S h effie l d 2011
1 d4 4Jc6
I must say, this warms my heart.
2 dS tZJes 3 e4 e6 4 dxe6 dxe6 5 'i'xd8+
'it>xd8 6 f4 4Jc6 7 c3 .tcs 8 4Jf3 as 9 a4
4Jh6
In this position, 9 ... 4Jf6 is also good.
1 55
A better advertisement
for 4 .. dxe6
.
Game 2 7
M.Gu revich-M.Rohde
Ph i l a d e l p h i a ( b l itz) 1989
1 d4 lt:lc6 2 d s lt:les 3 e4 e6 4 dxe6 dxe6
5 'ixd8+ Wxd8 6 i.f4 lt:lg6
10 i.d3 f6 11 'iii>e 2 ri;e7 12 lt:la 3 i.d7 13
lt:lc4 tiJf7 14 h4 hs! 15 i.e3 i.xe3 16
lt:lxe3 b6 17 l:thgl gS 18 g3 g4 19 lt:ld4
lt:ld6 20 l:.ac1 .l:Ihc8 21 b3 lt:le8 22 l:tgfl
lt:ld8 2 3 es fs 24 fd1 lt:lb7 2 5 .l:.d2 lt:lcs
26 l::lc d1 lt:lg7 27 lt:lc4 lt:lxd3 28 l:.xd3
.l::!.d 8 29 lLla3 lLle8
Illustrative Games
e2 tt::lf6 12 0-0-0 rJ;;e 7 13 f4?!
Again 13 f3.
13 ii.c6
..
Game 2 8
A.Onischuk-I.Shkuro
U kra i n i a n Tea m
C h a m p i o n s h i p 2 009
1 d4 tt::lc 6 2 ds l2Je5 3 f4 tt::lg 6 4 tt::lf3 e6 5
17 c4?
White should play 17 ii.xfs !, main
taining the wonderful d6-knight.
17 bxc4 18 tt::lxc4 tt::lfe7?1 [18 ... l:tb8] 19
h4 l2Jf5 20 I!g1 tt::lg e7 21 g4 l2Jd4 22
l2Jxd4 cxd4 23 l:tgf1 l::t b 8 24 rJi;b1 i..c 5 2 5
f5 tt::lc 6 26 g5 exf5 27 gxh6 YWxh4 2 8
..
157
A.Beliavsky-A.Miles
E u ro pea n C h a m pio n s h i p
Sa i nt Vi n ce nt 2000
1 d4 tt:lc6 2 e4 e5 3 d 5 ltJce7 4 i.e3 f5
5 f3
White resigns himself to allowing
Black a good King's Indian with an
early and easy .. .f7-fS. In stead, if 5 ltJc3
tt:lf6 6 tt:lf3 d6 7 exfs c6 (7 ... a6 ! ?),
White's centre disintegrates. (In fact,
White can still play for an advantage,
but it is easy to see why thi s was not
appealing.)
5 ...tt:lf6 6 liJh 3 d6 7 ltJf2
1 58
20 ... hxg4?!
I suppose it's a draw either way, but
there is no disadvantage to maintain
ing the favourable tension . After this,
I 'm not sure who's playing for the win,
or why.
21 hxg4 .:.xh1 22 l::tx h1 i.d7 23 "ii'a 3
l:i.b8 2 4 tt:lb1 'ili'b6 25 i.c3 l:l h 8 26 .l:g1
i.c8 27 ltJd2 'ii'a 6 28 'ii'x a6 i.xa6 29
l:tb1 i.d8 30 i.a4 i.c7 31 i.b5 i.c8 3 2
ltJf1 <;t;e7 3 3 i.c6 ltJh4 34 ltJd2 ltJg2 3 5
i.b7 i.d7 36 i.a6 i.b6 37 ltJf1 ltJh4 3 8
i.e1 ltJg2 39 i.d2 ltJh4 4 0 i.b5 i.c8 41
i.e1 ltJg2 42 i.d2 ltJh4 43 l:f.b3 'it>d8 44
i.c6 Yz-Yz
Illustrative Gam es
4
D.Cam pora-A.Miles
Sevi l l e 1993
1
M.Kravtsiv-K.Ta rlev
Evpatoria 2007
1 e4 tLlc6 2 d4 es 3 d s tLlce7 4 tLlf3 tLlf6?
1 59
10 .....txc3+
As I m entioned in the theoretical
section, it is better to retain thi s strong
bishop with 10 ... .tcs. This is particu
l arly true since Black will not inflict any
structural damage with the exchange.
White's queenside stays mobile and his
bishops should come into their own
sooner or l ater. Frankly, from thi s point
on, I do not care for Black's position
until the g ame is nearly over.
11 'ti'xc3 c6 12 'ii'b 37!
lt m akes more sen se for White to
open the game with 12 dxc6.
12 ...cxd5 13 exd 5 o-o?! [13 .. -'i!Vc7] 14
l2Je6! fxe6 15 dxe6 .i.xe6 16 'ixe6+
rJi>h8 17 .i.g5 'ii'b 6 18 o-o-o 'ii'xf2 19 i.f3
1 60
e4 20 .i.xf6 l:!.ae8
Game 3 2
H.Meissner-A.Miles
E u ro pea n C u p, S l o u g h 1997
1 e 4 l2Jc6 2 d 4 e5 3 d5 l2Jce7 4 l'Llf3 l2Jg6
5 h4 h5 6 g3 ii.c5 1 il.g5 f6 8 i.d2 d6 9
l'Llc3 .i.d7
Or 9 ... a6 - Black must play to pre
serve the dark-squared bishop.
10 .te2 l'Ll6e7
Miles prepares to defend the h
pawn, which was about to drop off.
11 l'Llh2 g6 12 cl c6 13 .te3 .txe3 14
'ifxe3 'ii'b 6 15 'i!Vxb6 axb6 16 dxc6 bxc6
Illustrative Games
11 o-o bs 18 a3 t2Jc8 19 .l:[fd1 t2Jh6 20
tbf1 rri;;e 7 21 t2Je3
21 a4.
21 tbb6 22 l:tac1 t2Jg4 23 i.xg4 i.xg4
24 .l':!.d3
37 .:a2?
White grows tired of the thankless
defensive task.
37 1i.b3 38 :a1 1i.xd1 39 rri;;xd1 :xb2
40 .l:txb2 :xb2 41 a4 .l:i.g2 42 .l:.a3 rri;;d 6
43 a s rri;;c 7 44 a6 '>t>b8 45 a7+ rri;;a 8 46
.l:ta6 .l:i.xg3 47 !:txf6 rri;;x a7 0-1
Came 33
L.Christiansen-J.Benjamin
U S C h a m pion s h i p,
Seattle 2000
1 e4 t2Jc6 2 d4 es 3 d s t2Jce7 4 t2Jf3 t2Jg6
s h4 hs 6 1i.gs t2Jf6 1 t2Jc3 1i.b4 8 a 3
Thi s seems odd. Doesn't White have
anything better to do? Indeed 8 tbd2 is
better, but one way or another White
does need to force our dark bishop off
the board or we will be happy to pre
serve it with 8 .. a6.
.
1 61
1 62
Game 34
W.Weisser-L.Trumpp
Germa n League 2004
1 d4 lLlc6 2 d s ttJes 3 e4 ltJg6
I don't believe in this move order
because of 4 h4!.
4 ltJf3 es s c4 .ics
5 ...lLlf6 is more accurate here, and if
Illustrative Games
6 lt:Jc3 then 6 ...i.b4. In addition to the
structural damage we can inflict, it is
not convenient for White to defend the
e-pawn. On the other hand, White could
force the game variation using the
move order 4 c4 es s lt:Jc3 ..tcs 6 lt:Jf3.
6 ..te2 lt:Jf6 7 lt:Jc3 0-0 8 0-0 a s ! 9 lt:Je1
d6 10 lt:Jd3
This is an odd way to pursue the
bishop - and quite unsuccessful, as
White has released the d4-square.
10 .i.d4 11 .i.f3 ltJh4?!
..
1 63
Th e Dark Kn ig h t System
'it>d6 47 <;itd3 wcs 48 'it>d2 i.c6 49 'iii>d 3
i.bS+ 50 'it>d2 i.f1 51 g3 fxg3 52 hxg3
hs 53 tbd1 gs 54 tbe3 i.bs ss tbfs i.d7
56 lbe3 bs 57 Wd3 h4 58 gxh4 gxh4 59
a3 h3 60 tbf1 i.fS+ 61 'it>c3 b4+ 62 axb4+
axb4+ 63 Wd2 Wd4 64 tbg3 i.d3 65 tbh1
h2 66 tbg3 i.f1 67 tbfS+ 'it>cs 0-1
Gam e 35
B.Perrusset-I.Moul l ier
Pa ris 2005
1 64
Game 3 6
D.Bara midze-E.Griezne
Ba u n ata I 1999
1 e4 tbc6 2 d4 es 3 dS tbce7 4 c4 tbg6 5
Illustrative Games
.::Jc 3 i.c5 6 lt::lf3 lt:Jf6 7 i.e2 o-o 8 o-o d6
g 11t'c2 a6
In the theoretical section I recom
m end 9 ... i.d7 and usually 10 ... as, but
the game move is quite reasonable. In
either case, Black uses the same attack
i n g ideas on the king side.
10 a3 'iiie 7
In addition to preparing ... lt::lh s, this
holds up White's c4-c5 advance.
1 1 b4 i.a7 12 lt::l d 1 lt:Jh5 [12 ... lt:Jf4! ?]
13 lLle3?!
Here 13 g3 i s best, which certainly
makes it clear why White needs to omit
h2-h 3 .
13 ...lt::lgf4 14 tt:Jf5?! Vi'f6?!
At some cost, White has arranged
not to be checkmated on the kingside.
Black should slow down and play
14 ... i.xfs 15 exfs e4 or 1 5 . J:tfe8 with
positional advantages based on space,
activity, and White's weak fs-pawn.
15 g3! i.xfS 16 exf5 e4 17 i.xf4 lt:Jxf4
18 gxf4 exf3 19 i.xf3
You don't see this every day. Black i s
still slightly better, and his position is
simpler to play, as we will see.
.
19 .. .'fih6
20 I;iae1?
White decides that with three f
pawns, he won't miss one. However,
even tripled pawns control squares,
and the f4-pawn is particularly impor
tant since it covers weak dark squares.
Far better to give up the fs-pawn which
is one m ore obstruction to White's sad
bishop (though in fact White should
not be eager to give up any of his
pawns). After this his gam e slowly de
teriorates.
20...'ii'xf4 21 'ile4 'ilg5+ 22 'ilg4 'ilf6 23
l:[e4 l:f.ae8 24 .l:i.fe1 l:.xe4 25 .l:i.xe4
Since the f4-pawn's disappearance
White h as had to be careful not to al
low ... i.d4 and ... i.es, but he can't de
fend everything.
25 .. .'ii' b 2 26 i.e2?! Vi'xa3 27 f6?
Tim e trouble?
27 ...'ii'a 1+ 28 g2 Vi'xf6 29 f3 'i!Vd8 30
'i!Vf4 g6 31 i.d3 g7 32 h4 h 5 3 3 'ili'g5
.U.e8 34 'ii'x d8 .l:r.xd8 3 5 .l:!.e7 i.b8 36 b5
axb5 3 7 cxb5 f6 38 l:te4 i.a7 39 f4+
g7 40 .Ue4 i.b6 41 g3 .l:ra8 42 4
l:.a3 43 i.e2 i.f2 44 .l:r.e7 lla4+ 45 .l:!.e4
1 65
Th e Dark Kn ig h t System
l'.txe4+ 46 'ii;lxe4 .i.xh4 4 7 f4 'ith6 48
.i.d1 .i.e1 49 .i.f3 .i.c3 50 .i.g2 .i.b2 51
.i.f1 fS+ 52 'itf3 gS 0-1
Gam e 3 7
G.Kaidanov-A.Miles
Pa l m a d e M a l l o rca 1989
1 d 4 ltJc6 2 e 4 eS 3 dS ltJce7 4 C4 ltJg6 5
.i.e3 .i.b4+ [ s ... lt'lf6] 6 ltJd2 lt'lf6 1 f3
"fie7 8 g3 o-o 9 .i.h3 c6!
16 lt'le2 as 17 lt'le3?! [17 bxas] 17 ... axb4
18 lt'lxc4 'ti'h s 19 .i.g2 cs 20 "fie3 .i.a6
21 lt'lb6 :ab8 22 axb4 l:!.xb6 23 bxcs
.l:lc6 24 :a s ttJes 25 lt'lf4 1/i'gs 26 d4
.l:tb8 27 .l:ta1 h6 28 .l:!.xa6 l:txa6 29 o-o
lt'lc6 30 "fic4 .l:!.a s o-1
1 66
S.Brudno-J.Benjamin
Boston 2001
1 d4 lt'lf6 2 c4 lt'lc6 3 lt'lc3 es 4 dS lt'le7 5
e4 lt'lg6 6 .i.e3 .i.b4 7 f3 .i.xc3+ 8 bxc3
d6 9 cs o-o 10 .i.d3 lt'ld7! 11 cxd6 cxd6
12 lt'le2 'if as 13 o-o lt'lcs 14 ..tc4 .id7 15
.i.b3 l:[ac8 16 g3 fs
After con structing an ideal position
on the queen side, Benjamin opens up
the second front. The m ore I look at the
Dark Knight System, the more I'm
struck by how often it is Black who h as
the convenient pawn breaks, and how
useful that is.
Illustrative Games
Came 39
R.Mitcheii-J.Schuyler
B l oom i n gton 1991
23 ... bxcs?
This g ame was a long time ago, but
I remember that I never even con sid
ered the right move, which is 2 3 ... as !,
even if Black i s actually not much bet-
167
Th e Dark Kn ig h t System
ter after 24 lLlg 3 ! lLJh4 2 5 lLlf1 h6 26
lLle3. Still, White must find these
moves. After the text, Black gets all
tangled up and is lucky to extricate
himself. The rest of the gam e is full of
inaccuracies, most of which I will not
bother to mention.
24 .:!.a6 .l:td8 2 5 .l:tca2 [25 b4! c4 26 l:l.c6]
2S ....l:Ib7 26 .U2a3 .l::.d d7 27 lLJc3 [27
.l:.c6 !] 2 7 ...'it>f8 28 lLla4 lLJf4 29 lLlb2 We7
30 f2 fs 31 g3 lLJhs 32 lLJc4 fxe4 3 3
fxe4 lLlf6 34 lLJa s lib6 3 5 lLJc6+ 'iii>f7 36
We3 lLJg4+ 3 7 d3 lLJxh2 38 .:.xa7 .l:!.xa7
39 l:!.xa7+ Wf6 40 'ifilc4 lLlf1 41 l:td7
lLJxg3 42 ltxd6+ gs 43 l:.d7 g6 44
.l:.xh7 lLJxe4 45 l:.e7 f4 46 b4 cxb4 47
lLJxb4 lLlf2 48 l':!.f7+ g3 49 WcS l:.b8 so
lLJc6??
1 68
Game 40
I.Jelen-E.Dizdarevic
Lj u b lj a n a 1992
1 d4 lLJf6 2 c4 lLJc6 3 lLJc3 es 4 dS lLJe7 5
e4 lLJg6 6 i.. e 3 i.. b4 7 f3 i..x c3+ 8 bxc3
d6 9 cs 0-0 10 h4?!
White must attack or Black will
tighten the screws one by one. How
ever, thi s is too soon and too crude.
1o ... lLJhs 11 ..tf2 c6!
Illustrative Games
18 .. ."i!Vxe4+, winning the rook.
11 gs 18 'ii b 3 i.d7 19 li:Je2
1 9 lt:Jeg6?
..
A.Karpov-D.Chevallier
Fra nce 1993
1 d4 li:Jf6 2 c4 lt:Jc6 3 lt:Jc3 es 4 ds lt:Je7 s
e4 lt:Jg6 6 i.e3 i.b4 7 f3 i.xc3+ 8 bxc3
d6 9 d2 lt:Jd7 10 h4 h6 11 g3 b6 12
tt:lh3 tt:Jcs 13 lt:Jf2 'i!Vd7
There i s nothing wrong with this
16 'i!Ve7?!
After this Black i s a little worse.
Meanwhile, should Black find 16 ...h s,
he is a little better! In one stroke, Black
stabilizes his knight, clamps down on
White's weak g4-square, and immobi
lizes White's i solated h-pawn. Of
course, with a small edge (or even a
small disadvantage) Karpov will proba
bly win - he does outrate Chevallier by
430 points.
17 .i.xcs ! bxcs 18 hs lt:Jf8 19 .l::!.g 1 f6 20
.i.d3 li:Jd7 21 'ii'e 2 i.a6?
Black's situation will not improve
with his king in the centre. For better or
for worse, he must castle and try for
.. .f6-fs.
22 tt:lg4 lt:Jb6 2 3 lt:Je3 i.c8 24 lli'g2 l:t.g8
2S 'i!Vg6+ 'iii>d 8?! [2S ... Wf8] 26 'it>d2 .i.d7
27 h7 'i!Vf8 28 .l:f.g2 Wc8 29 l:i.bg1 'it>b7
1 69
Gam e 4 2
W.M.Buehi-J.Benjam i n
Re no 1999
1 d4 lt::lf6 2 c4 lbc6 3 lt::l c 3 es 4 d S lt::le 7 S
e4 lt::lg 6 6 lt::lf3 .i.b4 7 i.. d 3 i..xc3+ 8 bxc3
d6 9 o-o o-o 10 h3? tt:Jhs 11 'it>h2!?
Game 43
A.Hahn-J.Bonin
New Yo rk (ra pid) 2003
11 ...lt::l hf4
Because of 11 Wh 2, Black's n ormal
attacking plan needs to be m odified 11 ... tt:Jgf4?! 12 .i.c2 1Wf6?? 13 g4 traps a
knight.
12 lbg1?! lbxd3!
They say bad bishops defend good
pawns - but they don't if they're dead.
13 'iikxd3 fs 14 exfs?! [14 f3] 14 ... .i.xfs
1S 'ii'g 3?! 'i!Vd7! 16 f4?! 'ii'a 4
1 70
Illustrative Games
E.Schiendorfer
D.Recuero Guerra
E u ro pea n J u n ior C h ' s h i ps,
H e rceg N ovi 2006
15 cs .i.g4 16 g3 'fif6?
Black is alm ost winning at once
with the alternative 16 .. .<!iJh 3+ 17 Wg 2
Yi'd7 18 .i.e3 fs !, bringing a rook into
the attack.
17 .l:1b3 .i.xcs 18 ltJxcs dxcs 19 bxcs
Ita1 20 gxf4 lLlxf4 21 'it>h1 lLlh3 22 e2
.l:!.fa8? [22 . .J::t a2!]
23 l:tc3??
Instead, with 2 3 e3 ! White has ex
cellent chances to realize her extra m a
terial . After the text, she is completely
busted.
23 ... It8a2 24 'iitg 2 .l:.xc1 25 .l:.xc1 lLlf4+
26 'it>f1 ltJxe2 2 7 '.t>xe2 'iff4 28 l::te 3
.ixf3+ 0-1
C.Baluta-A.Cioara
Buch a rest 1996
1 d4 liJc6 2 c4 es 3 d s ltJce7 4 e4 liJg6 s
1 71
17 bs?!
Black has built his position admira
bly so far, but now he starts to lose the
thread. 17 ... a7 18 axb4 bS was bet
ter.
18 tL:Ixcs 'ii'x cs 19 hS tL:Ie7?! [19 ...xe2]
20 i.h3?1 [20 e3 ! ) 20 d7?
After thi s lemon, Black is actually
worse for a mom ent.
21 g2?
But only for a m oment. 21 h 6 ! g6 2 2
'iiVb 3 was correct.
21 bxa3 22 .l:.xa 3 fs?! [22 ... bs ! ) 2 3
e3?! t2Jxe3 2 4 l:.exe3 fxe4 2 S l:txe4
l:tab8 26 'ii'd 2 a4 2 7 tL:Ih4 l:tb7 28 l:tee3
.l:.b4 29 l:.ac3?! 'ii'b 6 30 .l:.e2 h6 31 h2?
.:d4? [3 1...b5) 3 2 l'ld3?? xd3 3 3
'iixd3 bs!
Finally!
..
1 72
12 l2Je8?!
This awkward m ove prepares the
.. .f7-f5 break, but Black never gets to
execute this plan. Besides, 12 ... c6! is
just sitting there waiting to be played.
Yet again. One benefit to ... c7-c6 is th at
after ... c6xds c4xds White can no
longer shut out the monster a7-bishop .
Black would then be significantly bet
ter.
13 lLif3 d7
Black realizes that 13 .. .fS ? ! hurts his
Illustrative Games
position, trading off White's l ame light
squared bishop and allowing White to
castle without dropping the h 3 -pawn .
After the text m ove, White has equal
ized - though not for long.
14 .tg5?!
14 'itf1! 'ii'c 8 1 5 Wg 2 was correct.
14 ...iVc8 15 g4 c6 16 tt:Je2 h6 17 .td2
cxd5 18 cxd 5 'ilr'd8 19 tt:Jg3 .tb6 20 o-o
tZ:If4! 21 .txf4 exf4 22 tZ:Ih5 tZ:If6 23 tZ:Ixf4
.l:!.e8
39 ...f7??
39 ... .txh 3+ 40 "iii'xh 3 .l:.f7 or 40 ....l:.xf6
offers legitimate chances of survival.
1 73
15 i.t5?!
19 ... tt::lfs ! is better, forcing 20 tt::lf1
(or 20 tt::l e4, which is n ot very good ei
ther), because 20 .l:.g 1? loses to tt::l x g 3 !
2 1 l:txg 3 l:txd2 ! 22 <iii>x d2 i.xf4+ and
2 3 ... i.xg 3 .
20 tt::ld c4 tt::lxc4 21 tt::lxc4 i.d3
There is still some play, but Black
has no real advantage.
22 b3 .l:.ab8 2 3 Wf2 b5 24 tt::l e 3 c4 25
tt::l d 5 i.b6+ 26 'it>g2 wfs 2 7 1Ihe1 .l:te8 28
b4 i.f5 29 .l:lxe8+ l1xe8 30 a4 bxa4 31
.l:.xa4 h6 3 2 gxh6 gxh6 3 3 tt::lx b6 axb6
34 'it>f2 lidS
By now it is White who is trying for
a win, though it is unlikely.
35 .l:la8 .:txa8 36 i.xa8 We7 37 'it>e3 'it>d6
38 'it>d4 b5 39 i.d 5 f6 40 i.t1 i.d7 41
'it>e4 cJ;;e 7 42 i.g6 i.c6+ 43 'it>d4 'iii>d 6 44
i.h5 f5 45 i.g6 i.d7 46 i.f7 i.cs 47
i.eS i.a6 48 'it>e3 'it>e7 49 i.g6 i.c8 50
'it>d4 'iii>d 6 51 i.e8 i.a6 Yz-Yz
Gam e 4 7
R.H i.ibner-V.Hort
Germa n League 1984
1 e4 tt::lc 6 2 d4 e5 3 dxe5 tt::lxe5 4 f4 tt::lc6
5 i.e3 i.b4+ [s ... ds!] 6 c3 i.a5 1 tt::lf3
tt::lf6 s e5 [8 'ia4 ! ?] s tt::l g4 9 i.c5? d6!
10 exd6 o-o
1 74
..
Illustrative Games
Game 4 8
M.Orso-G.Bordas
B u d a pest 2000
1 e4 lt:lc6 2 d4 e5 3 dxe5 lt:lxe5 4 f4 lt:lc6
5 i.c4 l'Llf6 6 l'Llc3 i.b4 1 e5 d5 8 exf6
dxc4 9 e2+ 'iii>f8!? [9 ... i.e6 ! ] 10 .ie3
Had White been tempted by 10
fxg7+? <it>xg7, Black's l ast move would
have been amply rewarded. The rook's
rapid arrival on the e-file is a serious
problem for White.
10 .. .'ixf6 11 o-o-o i.e6
The inconvenience suffered by
Black's king is not enough to make up
for White's missing pawn and shortage
of light-squared bishops.
12 lt:le4 'iWe7?! [12 .. .'ifs] 13 l'Llf3 c3 14
b3?! [14 bxc3] 14 ... a5 15 'it>b1 a4 16
'iWb5??
White is now lost. 16 .i.f2 is essen
tial, though Black has a clear edge.
16 ...axb3 17 axb3
.l:!.he1?
25 ..ixc 3 ! i.xc3 26 lld1+ and Black
still has to show good technique.
25 .. Jla1+ 26 Wc2 .l:l1a2+ 27 rJitd3 l:!.d2+
28 'iii>e 4 f5+ 29 'iii>xf5 .l::!.x d4 30 c5 .i.xc5
31 l::tx c3 l:tf8+ 32 rJitg5 i.e7+ o-1
Gam e 49
S.Fedorchuk-A.Miles
E u ro pea n C h a m pio n s h i p,
Oh rid 2001
1 e4 l'Llc6 2 d4 e5 3 dxe5 lt:lxe5 4 l'Llc3
i.c5 5 f4 lt:lc6 6 lLlf3 d6 1 lt:la4 i.b6 8
.id3 d5?!
1 75
2 5 'i*'c3?1
The black knight becomes strong af
ter this. 2 5 g4 was best.
2S ... h4 26 gxh4 tLlxh4?1
26 .. .'ii'xc3 27 ..txc3 f7 ! was better.
27 "itxc6 bxc6 28 g3 tLlfS+ 29 g4 f7
30 l:.xe4 dxe4 31 .U.e1 Itd8 3 2 ..te3?1
.l:.d11 3 3 l:Ie2 e6 34 i.f2 Itf1 3 5 a4 cs
36 as?l bxa s 3 7 gs? .l:!.h1 38 ..txcs
xh3 39 xg6 .l::tg 3+ 40 h7 e3 41 g8
gs 42 fxgs .l:.xgs+ 43 h7 llg7+ 44 h8
.l:!.g3 45 .l::t h 2 xes 46 .i.a3 l:tg4 47 i.b2+
e4 48 ..tc3 .l:.h4+ 49 .l:!.xh4+ tLlxh4 50
..txa s e2 51 g7 tLlf3 52 f6 e3 0-1
Gam e 50
Illustrative Games
30 h3??
Instead of thi s blunder the simple
30 .Ug6+! h 7 31 ltee6 keeps White in
the game.
30....:1.xe7 31 .l:!.xe7 gxf4 3 2 hxg4 fxg3
0-1
Game 5 1
P Bontem pi O Jovanic
Nova Gorica 2008
.
26 ...ttJcd7?!
Black is reluctant to put any pawns
on light squares for long-term posi
tional reasons, but White won't reach
the long term after 26 ... ds ! 27 .:te1
tbce4+ 2 8 i.xe4 tLlxe4+ 29 lLlxe4 dxe4,
which exposes the ludicrous placement
of White's king ; e.g. 30 c1 as 3 1
b1 :i.g 2 3 2 'iWf1 'id2 3 3 l:tc1 xe3 34
xg 2 'ii'xf4 with a winning position.
Instead, soon comes an avalanche of
blunders that is presumably time
induced.
You know what? You don't want to
see the rest of this. lt's ridiculous and
embarrassing.
Black eventually won the game on
move 81.
1 77
Cam e 52
S.Vajda-S.Skembris
N a ujac 1999
1 e 4 es 2 lLlf3 ltJc6 3 d 4 exd4 4 ltJxd4
f6!?
Apparently this is a playable move
order, though it gives White the option
of 5 tLlbs ! ?, which is good enough for
some edge.
5 .i.e3 .i.cs 6 c3 'ili'g6 7 f3 ltJge7
In the theoretical section, I recom
mend the immediate 7 ... a6.
8 d2 a6 9 ltJc2 .i.xe3 10 ltJxe3 d6 11
.i.e2 fS
12 exfs .i.xfs
12 ... ltJxfS is equally good.
13 0-0 0-0
13 ... 0-0-0 is at least as good too.
14 tLla3 .l:tae8 15 .l:tae1 'it>h8
it's time to take away White's op
tion to snap off the bishop; i.e.
1S ... .i.e6.
16 ltJac2 'if'h6 17 .i.d3 .i.xd3 18 'if'xd3
ltJg6 19 ttJd s?! ltJces 20 d4 c6 21
ltJde3?! [21 f4!] 21 ...ltJf4 22 h1 'ii'g 6?!
1 78
Came 53
A.Motylev-S.Giigoric
Yugos lav Tea m
C h a m pio n s h i p 2000
1 e4 es 2 lLlf3 ltJc6 3 d4 exd4 4 ltJxd4
.i.cs 5 .i.e3 'ilif6 6 c3 g6 7 ltJd2 lLlf6 8
f4 ltJxd4 9 cxd4 .i.b4 10 fS 'ilig4 11
xg4 ltJxg4 12 .i.f4 d S 13 h3 lLlf6 14 es
lbe4 15 g4 g6 16 fxg6 fxg6 17 a3
.i.xd2+ 18 .i.xd2 hS 19 .l:.g1 hxg4 20
hxg4 .i.e6 21 0-0-0 d7 22 .i.g2
22 ... tLlf2?!
Black keeps an edge with 22 ... ltJxd2
23 .l:.xd2 .l:t.af8 or 23 xd2 .i.xg4.
23 .l:ldf1 .Uaf8 24 .i.gs ltJxg4 25 l:.xf8
.l::!.xf8 26 .i.xd s .i.xds 27 .l::!.xg4 .l:t.f1+ 28
'it>d2 l:tf2+ 29 'iii> c 3 a s 30 .i.h4 l:tf3+ 31
d2 .i.f7 3 2 d s .i.xds 3 3 l:txg6 l:.b3
Yz-Yz
Illustrative Games
Game 54
P.Hromada-L.Ostrowski
Moravia n Tea m
Cha m p ion s h i p 2003
13 l:i.e1?!
White should be willing to sacrifice
the e-pawn, for which he will gain easy
development; e.g. 13 g 3 ll:Jxe4 14 ll:Jxe4
'ifxe4 15 'ifxe4 l:txe4 16 .i.g 2 l:te7 17 f4
and, for one thing, it is no longer clear
how Black will ever corral the wayward
knight. The text move is far too passive,
a recurring problem for White as the
gam e goes on.
13 ... b6 14 .i.b5 .i.b7 15 ll:Jxb6 axb6 16
e3 .i.c7 17 f3 ll:Jd5 [17 ... 'it>c8] 18 'iVf2
ll:Jf4 19 g3 ll:Je6 20 .i.xc6?!
A bad idea, which weakens the light
squares around White's king and sim-
Game 55
D.Ca m pora-V.Tkachiev
B i e l 199 5
1 e4 e5 2 ll:Jf3 ll:Jc6 3 d4 exd4 4 ll:Jxd4
.i.c5 5 .i.e3 f6 6 c3 'i!Vg6 7 ll:Jb5 .i.xe3 8
ll:Jxc7+ ..ti>d8 9 ll:Jxa8 .i.f4 10 f3 .i.h6 11
'ii'f5?! 'ii'xf5 12 exf5 b6 13 ll:Ja3 .i.b7 14
ll:Jxb6 axb6 15 ll:Jc4 'it>c7 16 .l:.d1 d5!
A clever thrust.
1 79
17 lba3
If 17 l:txds?! lbf6 18 .l:.d1 .l:f.e8+ 19
e2 a6, White regrets his pawn grab.
11 ... lbf6 18 lDbS+ d7 19 e2 lieS 20
f1 l:r.es 21 h4 lbe4 22 l1h3 lbd2+ 23
e1 a6 24 a4 lbc4 2 5 b3 lbd6 26
.l::r. h d3 d4! 2 7 cxd4?!
White's rooks will not enjoy lan
guishing behind the i solated d-pawn .
However, the position i s n ot rich
enough to offer Black good winning
chances (in GM play).
27 .. J!e4 28 g4 f4 29 f1 lbxbs 30
axbs xbs 31 3d2!
1 80
Game 5 6
I.Grynfeld-A.Bisguier
H e l s i n ki O lym p i a d 1 9 5 2
1 e4 e5
Once, when GM Bisguier was ana
lysing one of my games, he said he'd
known all about ...lbc6 and ... e7-e5
since long before I'd been born. Thi s
m akes sense because he was coached
by Alexander Kevitz, by whose nam e
this system i s known .
2 lbf3 tbc6 3 d4 exd4 4 lbxd4 cs 5
lbxc6 'iVf6 6 lli'f3 'iVxf3 7 gxf3 bxc6 8
i.e3 xe3 9 fxe3
Illustrative Gam es
As I m entioned in the theoretical
section, White has done pretty well
here. Bisguier's plan takes care of any
potential problems, though I think it's
simpler to start with 9 ... d6.
9 .. l'Llf6 10 l'Llc3
After 10 e s ! ? l'Llg8 11 l:!.g 1 g6 12 l'Llc3
f6 13 exf6 l'Llxf6 14 o-o-o o-o, White has
little to nothing either, but I still see no
reason to allow him this option.
10 ... 0-o 11 o-o-o [11 e s l'Llds] 11 ... Ile8
12 i.h3 d6
Also possible i s 12 ... g6 (a useful
semi-waiting move}, intending ....l:!.e s
h s . After the text, Black slips into a pas
sive position.
13 i.xc8 .l:.axc8 14 .l:[d4 as?! [14 ... l'Lld7]
15 .l:.c4 cs 16 .l:.a4 :as 17 l'Llbs .l:.ec8 18
l'Lla 3?! [18 e s ! ?] 18 ...l'Lld7 19 l'Llc4 l'Llb6
20 l'Llxb6 cxb6
.
Came 5 7
J .Smeets-A.Beliavsky
N et h e rl a n d s-Siove n ia
ra pid m atch, Ma ri bor 2004
1 e4 es 2 l'Llf3 l'Llc6 3 d4 exd4 4 l'Llxd4
i.cs 5 l'Llxc6 f6 6 d2 dxc6 7 l'Llc3
i.d4 8 i.d3 l'Lle7 9 o-o l'Llg6 10 l'Lle2
i.xb2!
1 81
20 ...l:thg8?
Black is nearly wmnmg with
20 ... tt:Jxd3 2 1 cxd3 'ilf2 22 lt:Jf4 .l:!.hg8,
because White's queen, knight, and
king's rook are stuck in a very un
healthy eo-dependent relation ship.
21 f1 l:!.d6 22 'ir'e7 'ila 5?! 23 llxh 5 l::[d 7
24 'ii'f6 .l:td6 2 5 'fie7 .l:i.d7 26 'ii'f6 J::r.d 6 27
'fie7 .l:!.d7 Yz-Yz
Instead of repeating moves, Black
was much better after 27 ... tt:Jxd3 28
cxd3 (or 2 8 'ii'xf7 lt:Jf2+!) 28 .. .'fVxa2 29
lt:Jf4 xd3 ! (and not 30 tt:Jxd3 ?? 'ii'xg 2
m ate).
Cam e 58
B.Sultimov-N.Pokazanjev
Russia 2007
1 e4 e5 2 lt:Jf3 lt:Jc6 3 d4 exd4 4 tt:Jxd4
1i.c5 5 tt:Jxc6 'ir'f6 6 'ifd2 dxc6 7 lt:Jc3
1i.d4 8 1i.d3 lt:Je7 9 o-o lt:Jg6 10 Wh1 lt:Je5
11 f4 lt:Jg4 12 e1
White h as certainly lost the theoretical battle since 12 ...lt:Jxh 2 13 'it>xh 2
Vi'h6+ is a draw by perpetual. But what
1 82
Illustrative Games
queenside demonstration, which is
mainly bark and has little bite.
11 g3 h 5 18 h3? i..f5!!
..tf4?!
Game 59
D.Von Wa ntoch
Rekowski-J.Peric
Yugoslav J u n ior C h ' s h i ps,
Tivat 2001
19 tt:Jc5
The bishop should not be taken : 19
exfs ? tLlf2+! 20 l:txf2 'ii'e 1+ 21 i..f1 (or
21 Wh 2 i.. xf2 and 22 ... 'i!Vg 1 m ate)
21 ... i.. xf2 22 i.. d 2 xb1 23 'i!Vxf2 .l:!.xd2
and wins - though White is just about
lost anyway.
19 i..x c5 20 bxc5 i..xe4 21 i..xe4 'ii'xe4
22 .l::t b4 'i!Ve2 23 it'f3
10 i.. h 2?!
10 hxg4 hxg 3 11 fxg 3 d6 is relatively
best, though still with advantage to
Black.
1o tt:Jxh2 11 'it>xh2 d6 12 i.. b 5 dxe5 13
tt:Jxe5 'ii'd 6 14 f4 i.. e 6 15 c4? gxf4 16
'ili'f3 Wd8?! [16 ... f8 ! ] 17 tt:Jxc6+ bxc6 18
i..xc6 .i:.b8 19 b3 .l:tg8 20 tt:Jd2 l:i.g3 21 c5
'ixc5 2 2 .:tfc1 .l:.xf3 2 3 i..x c5 l:.xh3+ 24
gxh3 i..x c5 2 5 tt:Je4 .:!.b6 26 i.. a 4 i.. d 6 27
.
1 83
Gam e 60
J.Becerra Rivero-A.Miles
Ando rra 199 5
1 e4 tt:Jc6 2 lt:Jf3
Like most high-rated players, White
tries to narrow the knowledge g ap with
thi s second move. Instead, 2 d4 es ( or
in some cases 2 ... d5 ) fights in Black's
home territory. Of course, there is noth
ing stopping Black from also knowing 2
lt:Jf3 d6 positions well.
2 ... d6 3 d4 lt:Jf6 4 C3 g6 5 .id3 .ig7 6
lt:Ja3
Becerra Rivero i s the only one to
have tried thi s m ove h ere. Although
decentralizing, it has the merit of not
interfering with White's other pieces.
6 ...0-0 7 0-0 e5 8 dxe5?1 tt:Jxe5 9 tt:Jxe5
dxe5
1 84
Illustrative Games
story of the old lady who swallowed a
fly, and a spider to catch the fly, and a
bird to catch the spider, etc. White pre
vents ... .i.h6 for now, but the new prob
lems are bigger than the old ones.
23 ... exf4 24 'iixf4 b5 2 5 tt::l e 3 Si.e5
Game 6 1
R.Zelcic-A.Miles
P u l a 1994
1 e4 tt::l c6 2 tt::lf3 d6 3 d4 tt::lf6 4 c3 g6 5
i.b5 Si.d7
1 85
Gam e 62
L.Rozman-J.Schuyler
Wa s h i ngto n 2012
1 86
Illustrative Games
18 f8! 19 'ii'a s i.d6+ 20 'it>g1 xh3
2 1 gxh3 'i!Vxh 3 22 l:td3 lLl g 3 ! 2 3 fxg3
'it'xg3+ 24 'it>h1 .ri.e2 0-1
..
Game 63
A.Zapata-A.Miles
Mata nzas 199 5
1 e4 lbc6 2 ll:lf3 d6 3 d4 lbf6 4 lbbd2 g6
s c3 g7 6 i.bs o-o 1 o-o i.d7
7 ... a6 is better, trying to pick up the
bishop pair. Black's bishop m ay prefer
to deploy on b7 or a6.
8 .l:i.e1 li'e8 9 i.f1 es 10 h3 'ii'd 8 11 a4
l:te8 12 as a6 13 dS lbe7 14 c4 lU8
F .Nijboer-A.Miles
Li n a res 1995
1 e4 lbc6 2 lLlf3 d6 3 d 4 ll:lf6 4 lbbd2 g6
187
Th e Dark Kn ig h t System
s bs a6 6 xc6+ bxc6
As we will see, thi s position is much
easier to play than ... i.d7 of the previ
ous game. Miles's m ethods of play are
worth remembering and repeating.
7 o-o g7 s es tt:ld s 9 c4 tt::l b 6 10 'it'e2
0-0 11 l:!.d1 a s 12 tt:lf1 a6 [12 . .f6 ! ?] 13
b3 d7 14 tt:lgs cs 1S f4 a4 16 e3
f6! 17 tt:lf3 'ii'es 1S h 3 fxes 19 fxes h6
20 l:!.ac1 axb3 21 axb3 g5
.
Gam e 65
E.Sveshnikov-T.Gelashvili
Ca p pe l le l a G ra nd e 2009
1 88
Illustrative Games
46 ... exf3 47 .l::r.x d6+ e7 48 'ii'a 7+ f6
49 l:!.xe6+ l:.xe6 so 'ifxcs g6 51 'ifd4
'ii'fs 52 g4 hxg4 5 3 hxg4 'iff7? 54 .l:Ul?l
And h ere 54 b4! .
5 4...l::.f6 s s 'it>f2?1 'it'b3 56 'ii'd 3+ Wg7 57
.:d1 xb2+ 58 lld2 'fibS 59 'i!id7+ 'iii> h 6
60 f1 'ii'b 1+ 61 l:!.d1 'ii'e 4 62 'ii'd 2??
After thi s move White i s losing. 62
:d2 held the bal ance.
62 ...f2 63 d s 'ii'xg4 64 'ii'h 1+ 'it>g6
[64 ... g 7 ! ] 6S l:d4
6s .. JWc8?
6S .. .'e6 (or 6s ...'ii'fs) 66 'ii'e 4+
(forced) 66 ... 'i!Vxe4 67 l:.xe4 h S win s,
since if 68 .Ue2 then 68 ...g4 69 I!xf2
l:.xf2+ 70 xf2 f4 etc.
66 'ii'e4+ h6 67 'iYe3 'ii'f s 68 'ti'd3?
xd3+ 69 l:!.xd3 .l:!.g6??
69 ... h 5 still wins.
70 C4 Yz-Yz
Gam e 6 6
Game 6 7
N.Praznik-A.Beliavsky
B l ed 1999
K.Nemcova-F .Oiafsson
Mari a n s ke La zne 2008
1 89
190
Illustrative Gam es
Game 68
J.Hjartarson-F.Oiafsson
Reykjavi k 199 5
1 e4 g6 2 d4 d6 3 tZ:lc3 .i.g7 4 .i.e3 tZ:lc6 5
ds tZ:lbS 6 'it'd2 c6 7 tZ:lf3 tZ:lf6 8 h 3 o-o 9
i..e 2 b51 10 a3
17 'i!Vc1
Very soon Black has all the play he
needs. White can make him work
harder with 17 a4.
17 .. -'i!Vcs 18 a3 bs 19 tZ:ld4 tZ:lxd4 20
.i.xd4 't!Vb7 21 f4 tbd7 22 .i.xg7 'it>xg7
23 d2 'i!Yb6 24 .l:.e3 adS 25 g3 tZ:lf6 26
.i.g2 a s 27 b3 .l::. b 8 28 a4 bxa4?1 [28 ...b4]
29 tZ:lxa4 'ii'b4 30 tl:\c3 tl:\d7 31 Wh2 tZ:lcs
32 f4 f6?1 33 'i!Ve2?l [33 fs !] 33 ....i.f7 34
tZ:lds .i.xds 35 exd s .l:be3 36 'ili'xe3 l:tf8
37 fs gs 38 e2 tbd7 39 l:ta1 tbes 40
l:!.a4 c3 41 l:!.e4 .:!.b8 42 h s .l::!. b4 43
.:!.e2 a4 44 'iVeS axb3 Yz-Yz
Game 70
Game 69
Y.Gruenfeld-I.Smirin
I s ra e l i Tea m
C h a m pion s h i p 1997
1 e 4 d6 2 d 4 tbf6 3 tbc3 g 6 4 tbf3 .i.g7 5
.i.e2 o-o 6 o-o tbc6 7 d s tbbs 8 h3 es 9
dxe6 .i.xe6 10 ..tgs h6 11 .i.e3 tbc6 12
B.Chatalbashev-M.Popchev
Caca k 1991
1 d 4 d6 2 e 4 tbf6 3 tZ:lc3 g6 4 tZ:lf3 i..g 7 5
.i.e2 o-o 6 o-o i.. g4 7 i..e 3 tZ:lc6 8 d S
tbb8 9 tZ:ld4 .i.xe2 1 0 xe2 cs 11 tbf3
'i'ib6 12 I:tab1 1lia6
Chemin points out that this queen
191
18 .l::!. b e1
White gains nothing by grabbing
the pawn : 18 ..txe7 tt'ld7 19 f4 ..id4+ 20
Wh 1 ..txc3 21 bxc3 "YWxe4 is equal .
18 ..txc3 19 bxc3 f6 20 ..ih6 tt'ld7 21
'fi'g4 e6 22 f4 .Uad8 2 3 dxe6 xe6 24
'i!Vg3 'ii'x a2 2 5 f5 'i!Vf7 26 fxg6 hxg6 27
'i!Vxd6 h7 28 'iff4?1
lt i s tim e to extricate the bishop.
28 l:.e5 29 ..tg5 .:tfs 30 "YWh4+ 'ifilgs 31
..if4 e6 32 llf3 g5 33 'ii'g4 lUeS 34
..tg3 tt'le5 35 ..txe5 .l:.xe5 36 h4?1 'ii'e 6
37 'ii'h 5 g7 38 .l::tef1??
Oops! Black had an advantage, but
thi s throws the game.
38 .l:th8 39 'ii'x h8+ 'ifilxh8 40 .Uxf6 'ir'c4
0-1
Gam e 71
Game 72
R.Ziatdinov-A.Chernin
N ew York Open 1998
So.Polgar-J.Fries Nielsen
R i m a vs ka Sobota 1991
..
Illustrative Games
If 4 i.e3, Fries Niel sen intended
4 ... ds, an interesting and surprising
m ove that I don't believe in.
4 ... d6 s h 3 tt:Jf6 6 i.gs o-o 1 'ii'd 2 ds
In the next game, Black tries the en
terprising 7 ... a6.
8 exd s tt:Jxd s 9 i.h6 tt:Jxc3 10 i.xg 7
Wxg7 11 xc3 dS 12 0-0-0!
12 .ltc4? ! 'fias is ineffective.
12 ... i.e6 13 b3 i.fs 14 tt:Jh4 i.d7 1S
.J:td2?! g8 16 e3 'i!Vd6 17 C3 aS 18
tbf3 'fia3+
Game 73
M.Yilmazyerli-D.Arutinian
I sta n b u l 2007
1 e4 tt:Jc6 2 tt:Jf3 d6 3 d4 tt:Jf6 4 tt:Jc3 g6 S
h3 i.g7 6 i.gs o-o 7 d2 a6 8 o-o-o bs
9 a3 .l:tb8 10 i.h6 b4 11 axb4 tt:Jxb4 12
i.xg7 'iitx g7 13 es tt:Jfds 14 tt:Jxds tt:Jxds
1s h4 h s 16 tt:Jgs?!
19 d1?!
Asking for trouble. 19 .l:!.b2 was cor
rect.
19 ... a4 20 'ii'h 6 f6 21 i.c4+ e6 22 dS
tbe7?
Since White has counterplay in ei
ther case, it does not help to give up
the pawn. Hence 2 2 ... tt:Jd8 ! .
2 3 dxe6 i.c6 2 4 tt:Jd4 axb3 2S tt:Jxc6
bxc6 26 i.xb3 .l:tab8 27 :e1?!
The way to extricate the king i s 27
We2 ! l:txb3 2 8 axb3 'itxb3 29 l:thd1.
27 ....l:i.xb3 28 axb3 'itxb3+ 29 'ite2 'itc4+
30 l:td3?
Walking into a dangerous pin . 30
193
Th e Dark Kn ig h t System
..ixd s cxd s 26 .l:.d1 :c8 21 .l:!.d2 a4 28
b2 axb3 29 cxb3 .l:.cc4 30 ltJf4 .l:.xd4
31 .l:!.xd4 .l:!.xd4 32 ltJxh5+ 'iitf8 3 3 lt:lf6
.Ud1 34 h s gxhs 3 5 lt:lxh s d4 36 l:i.gs?!
.l:!.d2+ 3 7 'iii>c 1 .l:!.xf2 38 lt:lg3 ..ig6 39 .:td s
I:. g 2 40 ltJhs .l:.f2 41 ltJg 3 l:!.f3 42 lbe2 d3
43 lt:lc3 e7 44 b4 e6 45 l:i.d4 .U.f2 46
ltJbs .l:.c2+ 47 'it>d1 ..ih5+ 48 'iit e 1 .l:!.e2+
49 Wf1 d2 o-1
Gam e 74
N.Ryba-J.Schuyler
Wa s h i n gto n 2012
1 e4 ltJc6 2 lbf3 d6 3 d4 ltJf6 4 ltJc3 g6 5
i.e2 ..ig7 6 o-o o-o 7 h 3 a6!?
Against a lower-rated opponent
there is some concern that the natural
m ove, 7 ... es, will lead to a position with
too few winning chances, in which case
7 ... a6 is often a good alternative.
8 a4 e5
lt is nice for m e to have the bS
square covered and his b4-square
weak. Therefore, if 9 dxes, Black will
play 9 ... dxes, keeping the extra pair of
knights on the board.
9 ..ie3?!
lt i s alm ost always a bad idea for
White to try to preserve the central
ten sion in the Dark Knight Pirc. This is
especially true when he has played h2h 3 . Black i s already at least equal.
9 ... exd4 10 ltJxd4 J:le8
One Pirc author recomm ends
10 ... .i.d7 first in this type of position,
but I prefer to have my c-pawns dou1 94
Illustrative Games
Threatening 4S ....l:!.xh 3+ 46 g l
.l:!.xg 2+ and wins ! Somehow I over
looked both of White's defences.
45 'ii'x h7
Or 45 h4+! 'it>xh4 46 'i!Vxh 7+ 'i.t>g s 47
.lhe4, when Black has to find
47 .. Jixg 2+! 48 xg 2 l:td2+ 49 l::t e 2 lid4!
and draws (apparently).
4S ...l:!.dd2
Thi s i s the m ove that would have
won l ast turn.
46 .l:.g1??
Snatching defeat from the jaws of a
draw. My opponent saw the correct
continuation but misevaluated it: 46
h4+ fs 47 l:t8es+ "il/xes (47 .. .fxes 48
"ilif7+ g4 49 .l:!e4+ .l:!f4 so 1Wxg 6+ 'i.t>xh4
51 'ii'h 6+ draws) 48 I!.xes fxe s 49 'ii'f7+
We4 so 1!i'b7+ is no worse for White.
46 ...Wkc6 47 h4+ 'it>fs o-1
Not the most beautiful game, but
the opening was a success.
Gam e 75
N.J h u njhnuwala-S.Giigoric
Luce r n e O lym piad 1982
1 tt:lf3 g6 2 e 4 d6 3 d 4 .i.g7 4 tt:lc3 tt:lf6 5
.i.e2 0-0 6 0-0 tt:lc6 7 h3 es 8 dS tt:le7 9
.i.e3 c6!
White is unable to keep his centre
intact, nor is he fast enough on the d
file to inconvenience Black.
10 dxc6 bxc6 11 'ii'd 2 Wkc7 12 .l:rad1 d s
13 exds tbexds 1 4 tt:lxds?!
Helpfully completing the opposing
centre. Black starts building his edge.
195
Th e Dark Kn ig h t System
14 ... cxds 15 c3 i.. b 7 16 i.. h 6 lL'le4 17
'iWc1 lUeS 18 i..xg 7 xg 7 19 ltJd2 lL'lcs
20 lL'lb3 lL'le6 21 .l:tfe1 as
22 i.. b s .l:.e7?!
Black does not h ave a good reason
to disconnect his rooks. However,
White's next makes it easy to fix the
problem.
2 3 i..f1? [23 a4] 2 3 ... a4 24 lL'la1 l::t d 8 2 5
lL'lc2 f6 26 lL'lb4 1Wb6 2 7 1Wc2 ttJ c s 28 a3
l:.ed7 29 .l:te3 lL'lb3 30 .l:.ee1 :Ld6 31 1We2
d4 3 2 'iib s 'tWxbs 3 3 i..x bs dxc3 34
.l:.xd6 .:txd6 35 bxc3 ttJcs 36 .1:te2 .l:f.d1+
37 h2 e4 38 g3 fs 39 h4 'iW6 40
i.. e s? h6? [40 ...l:.h 1!) 41 i.. b s? [41 h 2 ! )
4 1. .Jih1 42 f4 gs 43 hxgS+ hxgs 44
fxgS+?! 'ii?xg s 45 f2 f4 46 i.. c 6? i..xc6
0-1
Since after 47 lt:'Jxc6 the reply
47 ... lL'ld3 is mate.
Gam e 76
G.Bastrikov-E.Gel ler
Ta s h kent 1958
1 e 4 es 2 lL'lf3 lL'lc6 3 lL'lc3 d6 4 h 3 g6 s
196
16 ...1Was?
Black g ets a big advantage with
16 ... ttJxe4! 17 fxe4 'ii'f6, threatening
m ate and White's bishop .
17 lL'lc1 i.xg4?! 18 i..g 2?
Black's sacrifice is thematic, but not
quite sound. 18 fxg4 lt:'Jxe4 19 'iWf4
lL'lc3+?! 20 bxc3 bxc3 2 1 i.. c4 is defence
and counterattack.
18 ... i.. e 6 19 'ii'x d6 .:!.ac8 20 lL'lb3 'Yi'a4 21
i.. h 3? i..f8?
Unnecessarily removing the bishop
from the m ain diagonal and misevalu
ating the m ost direct continuation :
2 1 ... i.. xh 3 2 2 l:txh 3 c4 2 3 lL'lc5 'ifh5
threatens 24 .. J:tc6.
22 'ii'h 2?! i..x h3 23 'i!Vxh 3 c4 24 lL'lc1 c3
25 i.. d 4 cxb2 26 lL'lb3 i.. g 7 27 i.xb2 'tWc6
28 .l:.h2 J:.ed8 29 .l:thd? .l:!.xd2 30 .l:.xd2
Illustrative Games
Preparing ... c7-c6 and/or ...b7-bS.
10 i.. d 3 c6
10 ...bs 11 a3 as and 12 ...b4 is also
good.
11 dxc6 ..ixc6 12 .ixg 7 'it>xg 7 13 o-o
'iic 7 [13 ... b s ! ?] 14 e2 l':[fe8 15 ..ibs a6
[1S ... d S ! ] 16 i..xc6 'i!Vxc6 17 l:tadl :ac8
18 lbd2?! ds 19 exd s lbexd s 20 lbxd s
lbxds 2 1 c4 lDf4 22 'ii'e4 fs 2 3 'ii'xc6
l:!.xc6 24 b3 tLle2+ 25 'iii> h 2 lDc3 26 Ua1
l:i.d6 2 7 lDb1 lDxb1 28 liaxb1 d2
Game 7 7
D.Saduakassova
Art.Minasian
D u ba i 2011
1 e4 lbc6 2 lDf3 d 6 3 lDc3 lDf6 4 d 4 g6 5 h 3
..ig7 6 ..ie3 o-o 7 'tWd2 e s 8 ds lDe7 9 ..ih6
White trades her best minor piece
for Black's obstructed bishop in the
hope of weakening his king position .
9 i.. d 7!
197
Gam e 78
A.Sakha rov-A.Adorjan
Soch i 1976
1 e 4 d6 2 d4 ltJf6 3 lbc3 g6 4 lbf3 .i. g7 5
.i.e2 o-o 6 o-o ltJc6 7 .i.gs h6 8 .i.f4 ltJg4
9 h3 es 10 dxes ltJ gxes 11 ltJxes dxes
12 .i.e3 ltJd4 13 .i.c4 'ih4 14 lbd s?!
Not appreciating the danger. By re
linquishing control over e4, White sub
jects him self to a powerful attack. 14 f3
or 14 .i.d3 is still approximately equal,
but nobody likes to play such m oves.
14 ... c6! 1S lbc7 .i.xh3 !
198
Game 79
Illustrative Games
best is the first step on the road to a
win.
19 .i.xgs hxgs 20 l:tad1 axb4 21 axb4
'i.t> g 7 22 f3 l:!.a2 23 tt:'lc4 Z:.xd1 24 .i.xd1
.i.a6 2 5 .i.b3 .i.xc4 26 .i.xa2 .i.xa2 27
.l:!.a1 .i.c4 28 l:i.a7 bs 29 .l:!.xc7 'it>f6
Perhaps White should hold this, but
he has a long and thankless defensive
task ahead of him. Black's task is to
penetrate with his king .
3 0 .l:!.a7 'it>e6 31 .l::t a 6+ W d 7 3 2 1:1a7+ Wd6
33 .l:!.a6+ tt:'lc6 34 <;t>f2 <;t>d7 35 Wg3 tt:'ld8
36 h4 gxh4+ 37 xh4 e7 38 g3 tt:'le6
39 f2 tt:'lf4 40 g3 tt:'le2 41 lla3 f6 42
'lt>g 2 gs
And now White is lost. How did that
happen ?
43 'it>f2 fs 44 exfs gxfs 45 'iio> g 2 f4 46
gxf4+ xf4 47 '>W2 tt:'lc1 48 .l::ta 8 tt:'ld3+
49 <;t>g2 e3 so <;t>g3 Wd2 51 l:!.a3 'iii>c 2
52 <;t>g4 <;t>b2 53 .l:!.a7 xc3 54 'it>fs Wxb4
0-1
Game Bo
K. Wang-J.Schuyler
Wa s h i ngton 2012
1 e 4 tt:'lc6 2 tt:'lf3 d6 3 d 4 tt:'lf6 4 tt:'lc3 g6 5
.i.e3 .i.g7 6 'ili'd2 o-o 7 .i.e2
White tries to play without h 2-h 3 an uncomm on plan. I was aware that
7 ... e s was the main m ove, but as in
Game 74, I wanted to spice things up. I
couldn't remember for sure, but 7 ... a6
is usually a reasonable option.
7 ... a6?!
As it turns out, thi s i s one position
1 99
Came 8 1
R.Zelcic-M.Djurkovic
P u l a 2001
1 e 4 g6 2 d4 i.g7 3 tt:Jc3 d6 4 i.c4 tt:Jc6 5
lLif3 tt:Jf6 6 'ii'e 2 i.g4 7 es i..xf3 8 gxf3
tt:Jxd4 9 exf6 tt:Jxe2 10 fxg7 l::t g 8 11
200
13 ... c6!
An important move to control
White's minors, and uses those extra
Illustrative Games
pawns well.
14 J:.he1 'ii'd 7! 15 .U.ad1 'ii'fs
Activating the queen quickly is cer
tainly the right idea, but 1S .. JWh 3 ! (16
.S.h 1 'iVfs) is m ore accurate.
16 i.gs o-o-o
17 f1?
The queen is supposed to be h arder
to play, but not when the pieces h ave
an exposed king. lt is the GM who
makes the first big mistake.
11 ... ds 18 i.d3?! 'it'h3+?!
This check would have been m ore
useful to Black after grabbin g the f
pawn .
19 g1 f6 20 i.f1 'ii'xf3 21 l:i.d3 'ii'g4+
22 l:!.g 3 Vi'b4!
Black's queen is not done making
trouble.
23 a3?! a s?
White's bluff works. Every white
pawn that disappears de-stabilizes
White's pieces m ore. They are running
short on support points, and they can't
be left lying around loose. H ence
23 ...xb2 ! .
2 4 i.d2 es?! 2 5 tt:le4 Vi'b6? [2S . . .c7] 2 6
Game 82
H.H ughes-K.Richardson
British League 2004
1 e4 g6 2 d4 i.g7 3 tbc3 d6 4 i.c4 tt:lc6 5
tt:lf3 tt:lf6 6 o-o o-o 7 i.e3 tt:lg4 8 i.f4?!
tt:lxd4! 9 tt:lxd4 es 10 i.e3 tt:lxe3 11 fxe3
exd4 12 exd4 i.e6 [12 ... c6!] 13 'ii'd 3
i.xc4 [13 ... cs] 14 xc4 c6 15 h1?!
b6 16 l:.ad1 l:tad8?! [16 ...'i!Vxb2] 17 b3
'ii'a s 18 :f3 ds
201
Gam e 83
A.Grilc-G.Moh r
Slove n ia n Tea m
C h a m pion s h i p 2008
1 e4 tt:Jc6 2 4:Jf3 d6 3 d4 tt:Jf6 4 4:Jc3 g6 5
.tg5 .i.g7 6 d2
Thanks to thi s move, and the fact
that White i s giving Black ... h 7-h 6 for
free, the bishop n o longer has enough
squares to escape.
6 ... h6 1 .i.f4 g5 8 .i.g3 tt:Jh5 9 d5 tt:Jb8 10
2 02
21 .i.xc4?
White is understandably unhappy
with his position, but things are not yet
as desperate as this. There will be no
compensation for the piece.
21 ....l::!.xc4 22 xe7+ Wg7 2 3 1i'e3 Wf8
24 e7+ Wg7 2 5 l:!.xb7 .l:.f8 26 Wxd6
Illustrative Games
xd s 27 a6 l:f.xc3 28 g4 :xc2 29 llxa7
d4 0-1
Game 84
D.Janowski-F. Yates
Marien bad 1 9 2 5
1 d 4 l'Lif6 2 l'Lif3 g6 3 l'Lic3 i.g7 4 e4 d 6 5
i.gs ltJc6 6 'ii'd 2 h6 7 i.e3 l'Lig4 8 o-o-o
If the white bishop tries to slip away
with 8 i.f4, Black equalizes immedi
ately with 8 ... ll:ixd4!.
8...ltJxe3 9 xe3 0-0 10 h3 a6
With the two players castled on op
posite wings, the race is on.
11 g4 bs 12 I:!.g1 ll:ia s 13 i.d3 c6 14
ll:ie2?!
White i s "racing" a little slowly. 14
e5 or 14 h4 is better.
14 ...lLJc4 15 Ji.xc4 bxc4 16 C3 aS 17 eS
'it'b6 18 exd6 exd6 19 l'Li g 3
203
Game 85
Game 8 6
A.Mista-M.Szelag
Kosza li n 1999
I.Jakic-Z.Mestrovic
Zad a r 2001
1s ...lt:les?!
Initiating complication s that should
not work out well for Black. 1 S ...l:!.c8 ! ?
was better, with ideas of ... cS-c4.
16 it'e3 it'a s 17 f4 c4 18 fxes c3 19
lt:lxc3 bxc3 20 i..x c3 'ii'xa2 21 exd6?!
2 1 'iit d 2 ! it'a3 (or 2 1 ... i..xb3 2 2 i.. d 3
i..x c2 23 .U.a1) 22 :tal it'cs 23 'ii'x cs
dxcs 23 'it>e3 is good for White.
21 ...i..x d6 22 i..x g7 i.. a 3+
2 2 ... .l:r.fc8! was stronger.
23 'iitd 2 i.. b4+ 24 'it>c1??
Better is 24 i.. c 3 .l:.fd8+ 25 Wel
l:txdl+ 26 'iitx dl .l:Id8+ 27 'iit e 1 when
White can still defend.
24...f6 25 i..xf6 l:txf6 26 'ii'd 4 f2 2 7
b2 i.. a 3 0-1
204
Illustrative Games
Game 8 7
Game BB
R.Zelcic-Z.Mestrovic
Nova Gorica 2003
L.Gofshtein-N.Mitkov
Lis bo n 1999
19 ... h6?!
After this, White has an edge. lt is
simpler and better to keep the knight
out with 19 ... b6.
20 tDa s i.xg 2 21 xg2 gs?l [2 1...b6] 22
h3 1i'g6? 23 tbxb7 hs 24 .:tad1 g4 2 5
tt'lxd6 cxd6 2 6 .l:.xd6 1-0
Black h as no real counterplay.
J.Ramirez-J.Sch uyler
La s Vega s 2007
1 c4 tt'lc6 2 tt'lc3 es 3 g 3 fs 4 i.g2 tt'lf6 5
2 05
Th e Dark Kn ig h t System
d3 i.b4 6 a3?
White greatly overestimates the
value of the bishop pair and h alf-open
b-file, spending a tempo to reach a po
sition Black would happily play with a
tempo less.
6...i.xc3+ 1 bxc3 d6 8 l:b1 o-o 9 e3?
Game 90
O.Foisor-J.M.Degraeve
Le Tou q uet 1996
1 c 4 e5 2 g3 tt:Jc6 3 i.g2 f S 4 lt:Jc3 tt:Jf6 5
d3 i.b4 6 i.d2 o-o 7 e3 i.xc3 8 i.xc3
d5! 9 tt:Je2 i.e6 10 b3 'fie7 11 a3 l:tad8
White's previous sin s are minor
relative to thi s positional catastrophe
(which is nonetheless an extremely
common mistake among amateurs).
White's pawn structure will self
destruct in 5 .. .4 ... 3 ... 2 ... 1...
9 ...e4! 10 d4 b6! 11 tt:Je2 i.a6 12 lt:Jf4
i.xc4
13 d5?
206
Illustrative Games
17 b4 dxc4 18 dxc4 l::tfd8 19 i.xc6?
Black's pieces are already poised to
jump into White's holes after thi s ill
conceived trade.
19 .. Jbc6?
After 19 ... bxc6 ! White doesn't even
get the e-pawn for his trouble (20
.txes ? l::td 2).
20 .txes lt:Jg4 21 l:led1 .l:i.e8 22 .tf4
lt:Jxh2!? 2 3 Wxh2 i.f3 24 g4 fxg4 2 5
lt:Jg3 'if6
Black i s already better.
15 dxc6 i.xc6 16 e4 l:f.c8 17 i.e3 i.xe4
18 i.xe4?!
26 'ilt'd3??
26 'it>g 1 ! 4 27 Wfl holds on . The
text just loses.
26 ... g5 27 'ii'd 4 gxf4 0-1
Came 9 1
J.lruzubieta
Villal uenga-B.Gu l ko
Sa n Sebasti a n 1996
1 c 4 es 2 lt:Jc3 lt:Jc6 3 g3 f s 4 ..tg2 lt:Jf6 5
d3 i.b4 6 ..td2 o-o 7 e3 ctJe7 8 lt:Jge2?!
8 a3 or 8 ctJf3 is preferable.
8 ... c6 9 o-o d6 10 d4 h8 11 a 3 .tas 12
b4 i.c7 13 d s i.d7 14 a4 'i!Ve8
18 ...lt:Jxe4?
After 18 .. .fxe4, Black keeps his
pawn, and with it a large advantage.
19 lt:Jxe4 fxe4 20 lt:Jc3 i.b8 21 ctJxe4 iVc6
22 lt:Jd2 ct:Jfs 23 1We2 i.c7 24 bs 'ii'd 7 25
.txa7 b6? 26 as bxas 27 b6 ctJd4 28 e4
lt:Jc6 29 bxc7?! lt:Jxa7 30 l:;Ixas lt:Jc6 Yz-Yz
Cam e 92
N.Spiridonov-K.Spraggett
Ca n nes 1992
1 c4 es 2 g3 lt:Jc6 3 .tg 2 f s 4 d3 lt:Jf6 s
207
15 dxe5?!
Black's aggression usually pays
dividends, but it is not without risk.
Even at thi s late stage, White can es
cape to a good position with 15 i.. xh 3
'ii'xh 3 16 lt:'lxes lt:'lxes 17 dxes lt:'lg4 (or
17 ... .l:tad8 18 'if4 and 19 'ii'g 3) 18 dS+
.laf7 19 'ifg 2 .
15 ....l:!.ad8 16 'ii'f4 i..xg2 17 Wxg2?! [17
exf6 !] 11 ...l2Jd 5
Gam e 93
F Bruno
.
Kurajica
Luga n o 1985
1 c 4 e5 2 lt:'lc3 lt:'lc6 3 g3 f5 4 d 3 lt:'lf6 5
.i.g2 i.. b4 6 i..d 2 o-o 7 lt:'lf3 d6 [7 ... e4!] 8
a3 i..x c3 9 i..x c3 'ili'e8 10 o-o 'ii'h 5 11
ii'd2 f4 12 gxf4 h6
Otherwise White will play 13 fxe s
208
18 'ii'c 1??
White is worse now, but he survives
after 18 1i'h4.
18 ... lt:'lf4+ 0-1
Illustrative Games
Came 94
M.Sher-K.Spraggett
Andorra 1993
1 C 4 eS 2 g3 l2Jc6 3 i.g2 f S 4 l2Jc3 l2Jf6 5
d3 i.b4 6 i.d2 o-o 7 lL'lf3 d6 8 o-o i.xc3
9 i.xc3 'ii'e 8 10 e3 i.d7
Black, who is down a tempo on the
previous game, is not ready for 10 .. .f4? ! .
Instead, 1 0. . .e 4 11 dxe4 l2Jxe4 i s fine for
Black, but this is not why a player like
Spraggett plays the reversed Grand Prix
Attack.
11 cl 'it>h8 12 b4 lt:Jd8 13 bS .l:.b8 14 a4
lt:Je6 1S lt:Jd2 f4! 16 exf4 exf4 17 i.xf6
Removing one of Black's m ost dan
gerous attacking pieces, but pulling his
rook into the action. Besides, that was a
very good bishop !
11 ... l:txf6 18 lt:Je4 h6 19 d4 'ii'g 6 20
.l:!.e1 .l:!.f8 21 .l:.c3 b6 22 .l:f.d3 i.c8 2 3 as
hs 24 i.f3 l:!.h6 2 5 axb6 axb6
Cam e 95
Bu Xiangzhi-V.Ivanchuk
FIDE World C u p,
K h a nty-Ma n s iys k 2011
1 lt:Jf3 d s 2 g3 g6 3 i.g2 i.g7 4 o-o es s
d3 lbc6 6 c4 dxc4 7 dxc4 'ili'xd1 8 .l:[xd1
e4 9 lt:Jfd2?! [9 ttJg s] 9 ... fs 10 lt:Jc3 i.e6
11 tt:Jd s? o-o-o
2 09
Gam e 9 6
K.Arakhamia G rant
A.Raetsky
Bern 1 9 9 5
1 lZJf3 d s 2 g3 g6 3 i.g2 i.g7 4 o-o e s s
d3 lLJc6 6 lZJbd2 lLJge7 7 e4 0-0 8 C3 aS 9
a4 h6 10 l:le1 i.e6 11 exds i.xd s !
210
Game 9 7
V.Frias Pa blaza-A.Baburin
Sa n Fra ncisco 1 9 9 7
1 lLlf3 ds 2 d3 g 6 3 g3 i. g 7 4 i.g2 es s
o-o lbe7 6 e4 o-o 7 tLlbd2 tLlbc6 8 c3 a s
9 a 4 h6 1 0 exd s tLlxd s 11 lbc4 ..tfs 12
.l:.e1 :es 13 lLlh4 i.e6 14 i.d2 'ii'd 7 1S
b3 tLlde7 16 i.f1 .l:.ad8 17 .l:.ad1 b6 18
i.c1 gs 19 lbg2 i.g4 20 i.e2 i.xe2 21
.l:.xe2 lLlfs 22 .l:.ee1??
Game 98
A.Capaliku-J.Gombac
N ova Gorica 2010
1 f4 g6 2 tLlf3 i.g7 3 e3 d6 4 d4 tLld7 5
Illustrative Games
il..d 3 es 6 c3 'W/e7 1 e4 lDgf6 8 fxes dxes
9 o-o o-o 10 il.. g s h6 11 il.. h 4 cs 12
ttJbd2?1
12 ds c4 13 il.. c 2 'ii'd 6 i s best, though
this is not a problem for Black.
12 ... cxd4 13 cxd4 exd4 14 ttJxd4?1 ttJes
1S il.. c 2 .Ud8 16 ltJ4b3?1 [16 lD2b3]
16 ... il..e 6?1
White is in trouble, but 16 ... as! is
stronger; e.g. 17 a4 b6 and 18 .....ta6.
17 'ife2 l:tac8 18 llac1 ..tg4 19 'iff2 gS
20 ..tg3 ttJhs
..tc4 e6
lt i s m ost important to blunt the
bishop.
6 o-o ttJe7 1 lDc3 o-o 8 i.b3 cs 9 'it'e2 d s
Game 99
A.Spichkin-D.Reinderman
E u ro pea n C h a m pion s h i p,
R ij e ka 2010
1 f4 g6 2 lDf3 il.. g 7 3 e3 d6 4 d4 ltJd7 S
211
Gam e 1 00
P .Auchenberg
To.Christensen
H e l s i ngor 1997
1 f4 g 6 2 tiJf3 i..g 7 3 g3 b 6 4 i.. g 2 .i.b7 5
o-o e6 6 d 3 d6 7 e4 tDe7 8 e2 tiJd7 9
tiJbd2 0-0 10 g4 cs
Black h as actually gained the ad
vantage with his simple development
scheme. White's plan to attack on the
king side is slow.
11 f2 'ilic7 12 tiJf1 c4 13 tiJg3 cxd3 14
cxd3
Adieu
With this, I bid my readers adieu. I hope
this book was more fun for you to read
than it was for me to write. Har! I wish
you many successes with 1...tiJc6 and
the Dark Knight System .
212
I nd ex of Va riatio n s
Chapter One
1 d4 t2Jc6 2 t2Jf3 (others - 15) 2 ... d6
A1: 8 h 3 - 20
A2: 8 0-0 - 2 1
8 : 3 d5 t2Je5 4 t2Jxe5 dxe 5 5 e 4 t2Jf6 - 2 2
81: 6 t2Jc3 - 2 3
8 2 : 6 i.b5+ - 2 4
C: 3 i.f4 t2Jf6 4 e3 g6 5 i.e2 i.g7 - 2 6
213
Cl: 6 0-0 - 27
(2: 6 h 3 - 2 8
D: 3 g 3 g 6
D l : 4 ds - 3o
D2: 4 .i.g 2 - 3 1
E : 3 ..tg s - 3 3
Chapter Two
1 d4 ltJc6 2 c4 es 3 ds ..tb4+
214
Index of Variations
A: 4 i.d2 i.xd2+ 5 'ii'x d2 ti'Jce7 - 3 6
A l : 6 d6 - 3 6
A2: 6 ti'J c 3 - 3 8
B: 4 ti'Jd2 - 40
Chapter Three
1 d4 ti'Jc6 2 ds ti'Jes
A: 3 e4 - 43
B: 3 f4 - 46
215
A: 3 d5 l2Jce7 - 57
Al: 4 l2Jf3 l2Jg 6 - 5 8
All: 5 h 4 ! - 59
A12: 5 .te3 - 6 1
A 2 : 4 C4? ! l2Jg6 - 62
A21: 5 lLlc3 - 62
216
Index of Variations
A22: 5 e3 - 64
A2 3 : 5 tLlf3 - 67
A24: 5 d3 - 68
A2 5 : 5 g 3 - 70
A26: 5 a3 - 71
t2Jxe5 - 73
dxe5
B: 3
B11: 6 tL::l c 3 - 74
812: 6 c4 - 74
B13: 6 e 5 - 75
814: 6 d3 - 75
B15: 6 e2 - 75
B16: 6 9 5 - 76
B2: 4 f4 tL::l c 6 - 76
821: 5 C4 - 77
B22: 5 tLlf3 - 78
21 7
(21: 5 0-0 - 8 8
218
Index of Variations
C22: 5 e 5 tt:\g4 - 89
C221: 6 'ii'e 2 - 89
(222: 6 0-0 - 90
Chapter Five
1 e4 tt:\c6 2 tt:\f3 d6 3 d4 tt:\f6 4 tt:\c3 g 6
A : 5 i.b5 - 94
B: 5 d5 tt:\b8 6 i.e2 i.g 7 7 o-o o-o - 96
219
Chapter Six
1 e4 t'Llc6 2 t'Llc3 t'Llf6 3 d4 d6
A: 4 f4 - 115
8: 4 d5 - 117
Chapter Seven
1 C4 t2Jc6 2 t2Jc3 e S
A : 3 g 3 - 121
8: 3 t'Llf3 fs 4 d4 e4 - 123
81: s t'Llg s - 124
82: 5 t'Lld2 - 1 2 5
Chapter Eight
1 t'Llf3 t'Llc6 - 127
220
Oth ers - 1 3 1
1 b 3 - 129
1 b4 - 1 3 0
1 f4 - 1 3 0
221
I n dex of Ga mes
.............................................................................
........................................................................
..............................................................................
...............................................................
...........................................
.....................................................................................
.............................................................................
..........................................
..................................................................................
.............................................................................
..........................
......................................................................................
.........................................................................
...........................
.....................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.......................................................................
.....................................................................................
.........................................................................................
..........................................................................
........................................
........................................
...........................................
.......................................
..................................................................................
222
Index of Games
Foisor.O-Degraeve.J.M, Le Touq uet 1996
.
. .
206
Frias Pablaza.V-Baburin.A, San Fra ncisco 1997
. . ..
. .
210
Galliamova.A-Krasenkow.M, Kosza l i n 1997 . . .. . . .
148
Gofshtein.L-Mitkov.N, Lisbon 1999
. .
. .
.
. .
205
Goh Wei Ming-Bellini.F, Turin Olym piad 2006
.
.
1 76
Golod.V-Sutovsky.E, Nata nya (ra pid) 2009 ... .. .
.. .
146
Gordon.S-Short.N, British C h a m pion s h i p, Sheffield 2011 . .
.
. . 155
Grigore.G-Brochet.P, C reon 1999
.
..
.. .
.
. .. . 1 53
Grilc.A-Mohr.G, Slove n i a n Tea m C h a m pionsh i p 2008
.
. .
202
Gruenfeld.V-Smirin.l, Isra e l i Tea m C h a m pionsh i p 1997
. 191
Grynfeld.I-Bisguier.A, Helsi n ki Olym piad 1952
.
.
1 80
Gurevich.M-Rohde.M, Ph i ladel p h ia (bl itz) 1989 .. . . .. ....
.
.. . 156
Gurevich.M-Zoler.D, Antwerp 1998
.
.
152
Haessei.D-Schuyler.J, Pawtucket 2008 . . . .. .. ..
.
.
.
142
Hahn.A-Bonin.J, New York (ra pid) 2003
. .
.
. .
1 70
Hjartarson.J-Oiafsson.F, Reykjavi k 1995 .
. .
191
Hoffman.A-Fernandez.A, Ma r del Plata 1996
.
150
Hromada.P-Ostrowski.L, Moravi a n Tea m C h a m p i o n s h i p 2003
.
1 79
Hubner.R-Hort.V, Germ a n League 1984
.
.
1 74
Hu g hes.H-Richardson.K, B ritis h League 2004 ................................................................. .201
lpatov.A-Antoniewski.R, Germ a n League 2011 ............................................................... 1 3 7
lruzubieta Villaluenga.J-Gulko.B, Sa n Sebastian 1996 .
. ... .
.207
Jakic.I-Mestrovic.Z, Zada r 2001
204
Janowski.D-Vates.F, Marienbad 192 5 ................................................................................ 203
Jelen.I-Dizdarevic.E, Lj u b lj a n a 1992 .
.. .
.
. . .. .
.
. ..
1 68
Jhunjhnuwala.N-Giigoric.S, Lucerne O lym piad 1982 ..................................................... 195
Kaidanov.G-Miles.A, Pa l m a de Ma l lorca 1989 ................................................................. 1 66
Karpov.A-Chevallier.D, Fra n ce 1993 ................................................................................... 1 69
Keskar.H-Schuyler.J, H a m pton 2011 .................................................................................. 141
Kmoch.H-Vates.F, Hastings 1927/28
.. .. .
. . . .. . .
. . ..
147
Kravtsiv.M-Tarlev.K, Evpatoria 2007 .................................................................................. 159
Meissner.H-Miles.A, E u rop'n C u p, Slough 1997 ..
..
1 60
Mista.A-Szelag.M, Kosza l i n 1999 ......................................................................................... 204
Mitcheii.R-Schuyler.J, B l oo m i n gton 1991
.. . . . . .
. .
. .
. . . 167
Motylev.A-Giigoric.S, Yugos lav Tea m Cha m pion s h i p 2000 ......................................... 1 78
Nemcova.K-Oiafsson.F, Ma ria n ske Lazne 2008 ............................................................... 1 89
Nijboer.F-Miles.A, Li n a res 1995 ............................................................................................ 1 8 7
Onischuk.A-Shkuro.l, U k ra i n i a n Tea m Cha m pions h i p 2009 ........................................ 1 5 7
............................
............
...
..............
..
..
....
.......
.....
....
.......................
....
...
..
...
.......
..................
...........
...........
....
.....
................
..........................
...............
......
.....
............
...............
.................
..........................................
.......................
......................
.....
.....
....
.....
.................
.....................
.........
..............
..................................
..................
........
........
......
...
...
...............
...........................................
........................................
...
....................
......................................
..
..
.......
..
..
................
......
...............
.......................
...........
...
....
............
...
.........
.................
....
.................................
............
.......................
.......................
.....
........
................
...
.............................................
.....................
.............................................
...........................
...........
......................
.........................
......................
....
......................
...
.............
............................................................................................
.........
..
.......
...............
........
..
......
..
....
..........
.....
............
......
.............
..
..
....
...........
....
........
..............
....
.........
............................................
............
..
.........
.....
........
..
...
223
Th e Dark Kn ig h t System
Orso.M-Bordas.G, Buda pest 2000
.
. .
..
. 1 75
Paasikan gas Tella.J-Lindqvist.T, F i n n ish Tea m Cham pio n s h i p 1996
. 134
Pedersen.P.B-Bekker Jensen.D, Da nish Tea m C h a m pions h i p 2008
.. ... . ... 145
Perrusset.B-Moullier.l, Pa ris 2005
.
.
1 64
Pol gar.So-Fries Nielsen.J, Rimavska Sobota 1991
192
Praznik.N-Beliavsky.A, B led 1999
..
..
..
1 89
Ramirez.J-Schuyler.J, La s Vega s 2007
..
.
. ...... . .. .... . 205
Rasic.D-Mestrovic.Z, C roatia n Tea m Cha m pions h i p 2001.. .. . . ...... . . . .
. 144
Rozman.L-Schuyler.J, Was h i ngton 2012
. .
.
. 186
Ryba.N-Schuyler.J, Was h i n gton 2012
.
.
194
Saduakassova.D-Minasian.Art, D u ba i 2011
. ..
....
..
197
Sakharov.A-Adorjan.A, Soc h i 1976
. . .
. ... ..
.
198
Schiendorfer.E-Recuero Guerra.D, E u ro J u n ior Ch'sh i ps, Herceg Novi 2006 . . . 1 71
Sher.M-Spraggett.K, Andorra 1993
.
. .
209
Smeets.J-Beliavsky.A, Netherla nd s-Siove n ia ra pid m atch, Maribor 2004
1 81
Spichkin.A-Reinderman.D, E u ro pea n C h a m pionsh i p, Rijeka 2010 .
211
Spiridonov.N-Spraggett.K, Ca n nes 1992
.. .
.
. ..
207
Sultimov.B-Pokazanjev.N, Russia 2007
.
1 82
Sveshnikov.E-Gelashvili.T, Ca ppelle la G ra nde 2009
. ..
1 88
Titz.H-Barlocco.C, D resden 2004
.
.
151
Tratar.M-Srebrnic.M, Slove n i a n Cham pions h i p, Lj ublj a n a 2010
136
Vajda.S-Skembris.S, N a ujac 1999
..
1 78
Valenti.R-Tkachiev.V, Corsica (ra pid) 1997
.
.. . ..
146
Vialatte.J-Giroux.F, Paris 2006
.
. . 135
Von Wantoch Rekowski.D-Peric.P,Yugoslav J u n ior Ch'shi ps, Tivat 2001 . . ..
1 83
Wang.K-Schuyler.J, Was h i ngton 2012
.
199
Weisser.W-Trumpp.L, Germa n League 2004 .................................................................... 1 62
Vilmazyerli.M-Arutinian.D, I sta n bu l 2007
. .
193
Zapata.A-Miles.A, Mata nzas 1995 .
...
.
.. 187
Zelcic.R-Djurkovic.M, P u l a 2001
.
.
.
200
Zelcic.R-Mestrovic.Z, Nova Gorica 2003
205
Zelcic.R-Miles.A, P u l a 1994
1 85
Ziatdinov.R-Chernin.A, New York Open 1998
.
192
........
...................................................
......
........
........
......................
.........
...................................
......
.......................................
..
............
...........................................................
.......................
.................
....................
................................
.................
..............
...
..................
.......................
......
.......
...
..
..............
..
......
.....
...
..
........
................................
........
.........
....
...................
.......
........................
..
...........................
........
.........................................
........................
......................
...............
....
......................................
...
..
....
..............
...............
...
.............
..............
.........................
.....................
...
................
...................................................................
...................................
................................
...
..........
............
............................................
............
.................................
.......
...............................................................................
......................................
............
............
..
..
.........................................
.....................................
......
.....
..........
.....................................
.........................................................
.......
............
...................................................................
.......
..
............
..............................
.............................................................
........
...
............
.............................................................................
....................................................................................................
..............................
224
...................................