Professional Documents
Culture Documents
with
by Angus Dunnington
EVERYMAN CHESS
Published by Everyman Publishers pie, London
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
ISBN 1 85744 258 X
Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480,
246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480.
All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Gloucester
Mansions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD
tel: 020 7539 7600 fax: 020 7379 4060
email: dan@everyman.uk.com
website: www.everyman.uk.com
The Everyman Chess Opening Guides were designed and developed by First
Rank Publishing.
(formerly Cadogan Chess)
Chief advisor: Garry Kasparov
Commissioning editor: Byron Jacobs
CONTENTS
Bibliography
Preface
41
67
80
101
113
Dutch Defence
130
Other Defences
139
160
I BIBLIOGRAPHY I
Books
The Modern Benoni,
Periodicals
Informator
ChessBase Magazine
The Week in Chess
Chess
British Chess Magazine
PREFACE
derstand.
In order to facilitate familiarisation with
major characteristics (structures, areas of
attack etc.) several of the systems involve
similar plans from White, and I have deliber
ately chosen variations that require certain
moves (and move orders) to be employed.
Additionally, for the sake of convenience,
and to avoid confusion, I have altered the
move orders of several games.
I must stress that this is not intended to be
a watertight repertoire book, rather a tool
with which to help the reader open 1 d4 with
confidence.
For their thoughts and advice I would like
to thank fellow Yorkshireman Richard Pal
liser and IM Andrew Kinsman (an honorary
Yorkshireman since winning the 2nd White
Rose Masters in 2000) .
IM Angus Dunnington,
Castleford,
June 2001
I CHAPTER ONE I
Queen's Gambit
Accepted with 3 e4
1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 e4
Game 1
Van Wely-V . M ilov
1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 e4 ll:lc6
4 ll:lf3
Attacking with
1 d4
4 . . . i.g4 5 d5
Q u e e n 's G a m b i t A c c ep t e d with 3 e 4
8 ..ixc4
...
..id6
A t t a c k in g w i t h
1 d4
..ib5+
In Smyslov-Semkov, Rome 1990, the for
mer world champion was in fighting mood.
After 9 h3 .i.d7 10 h4 h6 1 1 h5 lbf8 12 lbh4
lbe7 13 g4 White was in danger of clamping
down on both sides of the board. Conse
quently Black hit out with 13 ... b5 14 .i.b3 c6
15 tLlc3 b4 but 16 dxc6 .i.xc6 17 tLld5 tLie6
18 l:tc 1 -txd5 19 exd5 tLif8 20 -ta4+ tLld7 2 1
l:tc6! highlighted yet again how Black needs
to be careful on the light squares. The text
leads either to an exchange of light-squared
bishops that is favourable to White or a
misplacement of Black's king.
9
f8
.. .
Q u e en's G a m b i t A c c ep t e d with 3 e 4
1 1 ... h 5
:ha 1 s iWb3 b6 1 9 : ca gs 20
...
l:.ac 1 -.We7 21 a4 a5 22 h 1 !
24.....ltb4 25 d6!
fxe6 29 :7c4
..
A t t a c k ing w i t h
1 d4
axb4 31 a5
Yz-Yz
Game 2
Miton-Sadvakasov
Q u e e n 's G a m b i t A c c ep t e d with 3 e 4
A t ta c king with
1 d4
14
for White.
b2) 10 .te4 expresses an interest in the
centre rather than a kingside attack. In Tim
man-Korchnoi, European Team Ch. 1997,
10 ... tt:Jb4 1 1 'i'b3 a5 12 tt:Jf4! placed a fourth
white piece within range of the crucial d5square and consequently left Black struggling.
After 12 ... e6 13 a3 tt:J4d5 (13 ... tt:Jc6 14 .l:!.dl is
very pleasant for White) 14 tt:Jfxd5 exdS 15
.txdS (15 tt:Jxd5?? .i.e6) 15 ... a4 16 'i'a2 l:!.a5
(16 ...tt:Jxd5 17 'i'xd5) 17 .i.c4 tZ::ixc4 18 'i'xc4
Black did not have enough for a pawn.
8 ..li..e4 f5
A t t a c k ing w i th
1 d4
11 axb4
11
fxe4
...
Attacking with
1 d4
fo r 'playing safe'.
20 . . . c5
27 'i'a4
21 Wc 1
25 . . . cS
23 . . . i.d3
24 'i'g5+ i.e7
31 . . . i.d6 32 g3
Q u e en 's G a m b i t A c c ep t e d with 3 e 4
Game]
A talik-Gyimesi
8 . .i.e7
. .
5 . . . e x d 5 6 llJx d5
19
Attacking with
1 d4
Q u e en 's G a m b i t A c c ep t e d w i th 3 e 4
...
10
0-0 1 0 0-0
lll a 6
...
A t ta c k ing with 1 d4
Q u e en 's G a m b i t A c c ep t e d with 3 e4
1 1 . . .lbc7
Attacking with
1 d4
1 3 i.f4
14 . . . i.f6 ! ?
24
Q u e e n 's G a m b i t A c c ep t e d with 3 e 4
1 7 lDf3 !
A ttacking with
1 d4
Game 4
Sakaev-lbragimov
38 e3 !
1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 e4 c5 4 d5 l'Lif6 5
l'Lic3 b5
38 . . . Wc5?!
Q u e e n 's G a m b i t A c c ep t e d with 3 e 4
6 . . . i.a6
Vyzmanavin-Azmaiparashvili, Burgas
1994. After the forced 9 ... g6 (9 ... lt:Jhf6? 10
eS) Vyzmanavin proposes 10 eS i.h6 1 1
lt:Jge2 with the threat of snaring a piece by
launching the g-pawn. Black's best is the
obvious 1 1 . ..b4, e.g. 12 lt:Je4?! i.b7, so Ward
suggests 12 'i'a4 with an evaluation of un
clear. Instead the game went 10 i.e2 i.g7
(10 ... b4 1 1 'Wa4! is a reply given by Ftacnik)
1 1 es b4
27
A t t a c king with 1 d4
f3.
Q u e en 's G a m b i t A c c e p t e d with 3 e 4
strategy further by sacrificing the exchange and bagging a couple of pawns in the proc
ess! - after 18 'i'xcS l:!.cl 19 'ii'dS 'ii'el 20
'i'e4 l:!.d8 21 0-0 i.bl 22 l:!.xbl l:!.xbl 23
i.xa6 l:!.al 24 i.c4 'ii'dl 25 lZJg3.
7 e5
position.
c) 8 lZJf3. This looks a bit too sensible
compared with 'a' and 'b'! After 8 ... b4 9 lZJe4
lZJb6 10 d6 lZJ8dl 1 1 'i'e2 followed by cas
tling queenside White has compensation for
the pawn.
8 e6! ?
Attacking with
1 d4
Q u e en 's G a m b i t A c c e p t e d with 3 e 4
21
..
gxh4 22 lkxh4
Game 5
Sakaev-Rublevsky
Attacking with
1 d4
Q u e en 's G a m b i t A c c ep t e d with 3 e 4
A t t a c k in g with 1 d4
Q u e en 's G a m b i t A c c ep t e d with 3 e 4
22 ...l::tg8 23 'ti'h6.
20 'i'h4 llfe8
Kasparov-Anand
Linares 1999
Game 6
26 'i'f6
26 . . . ll:ld7
A t ta c k in g with 1 d4
Q u e e n 's G a m b i t A c c ep t e d with 3 e4
. . .
i.c5
A t t a c k in g with 1 d4
Q u e en 's G a m b i t A c c e p t e d with 3 e 4
A t t a c kin g with 1 d4
23 . . . d3 24 e6?!
Conclusion
I CHAPTER TWO I
Queen's Gambit
Declined and Slav Defences
1 d4 d 5 2 c4
Game l
A t t a c king w i th 1 d4
4 cxd5 exd5
A t ta c king with 1 d4
f3.
6 'ifc2
A t t a c king with
1 d4
10
11
. . .
ll'ifS
1 1 f3
. . .
i.e6
A t t a c king with 1 d4
1 4 .th4 a6
1 8 ..t g 1 !
Remember that 18 ... bS neglected the c6pawn as well as the cS-square, so White im
proves a rook before relocating his knight. 20
llld3 walks into 20 ... i.. fS.
20 . . . 'ifb8
A t ta c king with 1 d4
23 . . . a5
26 . . . lie7
28 . . . :ceS 29 l:te 1
25 . . . lt:lxc5 26 .!:!.xc5
50
27 i.xd6
29 . . . 'iff4?
34 . . . l:txc5 35 l:.xc5 f5
30 lt:le4!
36 g3
Threatening 41 l:txd5.
40 . . . .i.xb3 41 .!:!.xc6! 'iff8
A t ta c k in g with 1 d4
Game 8
Pelletier-Chandler
._______________.
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ll:\c3 c5
4 cxd5 exd5
52
6 . . . lDf6
A t t a c k in g with 1 d4
. . .
cxd4
11
. . .
.l:.eS
12
. . .
i.e6
A t ta c k in g with 1 d4
Game 9
Wells-Korneev
22 l:.cd 1 b5
Ubeda 1996
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 l2Jc3 c6 4 e4 dxe4 5
23 'ii'x a7 'ife3+ 24 h 1 b4
l2Jxe4
'ii'xe4+ 8 lDe2
..i.b4+
..i.d2
'ii' xd4
i.. x b4
Others:
a) 8 ... c5 parts with a pawn in order to pro
vide Black with some breathing space and
facilitate the development of the queenside.
After 9 .txcS tl:ic6 10 'i'fd6 tl:ige7 1 1 'i'ff4!?
'i'fxf4 12 tl:ixf4 b6 13 .i.a3 eS 14 tl:idS
White's bishop pair guarantees an advantage.
The untouchable dark-squared bishop is a
57
A t ta c kin g with 1 d4
strong piece.
b) 8 ... es 9 'ifd.2 tll a6 10 .i.f8!
A t ta c k in g with 1 d4
1 0 .ta3 'ii' e 5
21 J:ihd 1
1 1 'ifd2
25 ..tb6 a4 26 d2
21 . . . :as 22 l2Jxc5
Finally.
22 . . J!xd6 23 J:ixd6 l2Jxc5 24 ..txc5 :es
White dominates.
26 . . . 16
air.
27 c3 f7 28 h4 e7 29 ..tc5 l2Jd7?
A t ta c king with 1 d4
. . .
lt:\e4
A t ta c k in g with
1 d4
Others.
a) 6 ... tt::l d7 7 e3 h5!? is typical 'make it up
as you go' chess - an approach with which
we have all been too well acquainted at one
time or another! To be fair Black does
threaten to trap the bishop with 8 .. .f6 etc. 8
i.. h4 g6 9 f4!? c5 10 tlle2 i.. g7 1 1 d5 tt::l b6 12
tt::lc3 i.. f5, Tosic-Misailovic, Kladovo 1994.
Both players, in fact, have coped well with
this line, as can be seen from the strategic
look of the respective pawn structures. The
game continued 13 i.. e2 tll c 8! 14 h3 tlld6
Gust in time) 15 f2 'if a5 16 l:tacl a6 17
'ifc2 and the prospect of Black either losing
touch with the e4-pawn or having to part
with his dark-squared bishop is enough to
keep White on top. Notice that the f4-pawn
fits in well in this example.
b) 6 ... g6 7 f3!? i.. g7 8 l:tdt i.. f5 9 e3 0-0
10 tt::l e2 c5 1 1 fxe4 i.. xe4 12 tt::l c3 i.. f5 was
approximately even in Ramon-Sieiro Gon
zalez, Garcia Memorial 1998. Instead of 8
l:tdl White can consider 8 0-0-0 (or 7 0-0-0)
followed by marching the kingside pawns.
7 e3
A t t a c k in g with
1 d4
iLd4
2 1 . . . lLlg6
22 i.d3 i.xe4
I CHAPTER THREE I
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 : Black's
Second M ove Alternatives
1 d4 d5 2 c4
Game 11
Goldin-Mengarini
New
York 1991
'------
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5
A t t a c k in g with 1 d4
68
. . .
.Jt g4
1 d4 d5 2 c 4 : Bla c k 's S e c o n d M o v e A l t e rn a t i v e s
. . .
'ii'e 7
Without the traditional threat of (after g2g3 and i.g2) ... i.g4, ... 'Wd7 and ... i.h3
Black's bishop struggles for a worthy role.
White already knows that his opponent's
queenside provides him with a target in the
shape of the b7-pawn (not forgetting more
serious attacking options should Black castle
queenside), so delaying the commitment of
the king's bishop with the useful S t:i:Jbd2 and
6 a3 is quite logical.
7
. . .
j.h5
Threatening 9 l?Jxd4.
. 0-0-0 9 b4
Ironically Black has sacrificed a pawn to
then find himself coming under attack, and
herein lies the problem. It is true that White
is yet to get his kingside in order but, for the
moment, his king is safer than Black's.
8
. .
. . .
b8
A t ta c king with 1 d4
1 0 g4
1 6 i.g2
1 d4 d5 2 c 4 : Bla c k 's S e c o n d Mo v e A l t e rn a t i v e s
xb7
25 'it'c6+ b8
26
'it'xc5 1 -0
Game 12
San Segundo-Gallego
Linares 1997
1 d4 d5 2 c4 tbc6 3 cxd5 'it'xd 5 4 e3 e5
5 tbc3 ..i. b4 6 ..i.d2 ..i.xc3 7 ..i.xc3 ! ?
8 tbe2
A t t a c k ing with 1 d4
1 d4 d5 2 c 4 : Bla c k 's S e c o n d M o v e A l t e rn a ti v e s
A t t a c k in g with
1 d4
1 3 . . . ifxh2
Others:
a) 13 ... 0-0 14 i.xf6 gxf6 15 'i'g4+ h8 16
0-0-0 .l:.!fd8 17 i.d3 didn't do Black's king
any favours in Galinsky-Prihotko, Pocztowy
1999.
b) 13 ... 'i'e4 might be best, 14 'Wd4 0-0 15
0-0-0 b6 16 tbc4 Wxd4 17 i.xd4 giving
White the usual bonus of superior fire power.
1 4 ifa4+ c6
1 5 0-0-0!
Game 13
V . l vanov-Rausis
Moscow 1994
1 d4 d5 2 c4 .i.t5
21 . . . l::. e 7
A t ta c k ing with 1 d4
3 cxd5
1 d4 d5 2 c 4 : Bla c k 's S e c o n d M o v e A l t e rn a ti v e s
A t ta c k in g with 1 d4
the pawns.
d3) 10 ... 'i!Vxb l is even more fun after 1 1
'i!Vb3!
'i'b4+
9 ...tt:lgf6 10 dl 'i!Vb4+ 1 1 Vxb4 .ixb4+
12 Wf2 0-0-0 13 g3! was the course of Kish
nev-Rausis, Moscow 1987. Even with such a
sound structure Black finds himself under
pressure on the light squares, this time the
h3-c8 diagonal the source of activity for
White's uncontested bishop. After 13 ... exd4
14 tt:lxd4 tt:leS 15 .ih3+ Wc7 16 .if4 he8
17 tt:le6+ fxe6 18 i.xeS+ White was well on
top. This example and White's undeniable
lead in the main game suggest that perhaps
Black should not exchange queens. In fact
Belov proposes (9 ... tt:lgf6 10 dl) 10 ... 'i!Vc7
as an improvement on Kishnev-Rausis,
above, and there seems nothing wrong with
this plan. Of course it does not alter the as
sessment of the game being in White's fa
vour, but Black's queen can contribute to
play on the dark squares in an effort to make
9
. . .
f4
Game 14
Banikas-Minasian
A t t a c k in g with 1 d4
Others:
a) 10 ... i.. xf3 is premature. 1 1 i.. xf3 tl:ibd7
12 g4!? h6 13 h4 tl:ih7 14 g5 is typical, when
82
boxing.
d2) 1 1 ...'ifb6 12 a4 c4+ 13 h l .ll xf3 14
.llxf3 ll'icS l S 'ife2 favours White, e.g.
1S ... ll'ixa4 16 l:!.xa4 'ifxbS 17 l:!.xc4 with a
grip on the light squares.
d3) In reply to 1 1...ll'if6 Vaiser suggests
12 eS!? without going any further. In fact he
appears to be on the right track once again,
since the natural 12 ... dxeS 13 fxeS ll'ixdS
(13 ... ll'ie8 14 .ll gS) 14 .ll c4 ll'ib6 walks into
lS .ll xf7+!
A t t a c k in g with 1 d4
b4
One of three moves, the best of which is
probably 'b', below.
a) 1S ... l:tac8?! 16 f2 a6 (16 ... c4?! 17 a4!)
17 g3 lt:'ib6 18 eS dxeS 19 fxeS lll fd7, and
in Elbilia-Grivas, Yerevan Olympiad 1996,
the Four Pawns specialist turned down 20
e6!, this familiar push presenting Black with
obvious problems on the light squares.
b) 1S ... lllb 6 is the most important move,
depending on how Black deals with 16 eS.
b l) 16 ... dxeS?! 17 fxeS l:txeS 18 xcS
l:txe l+ 19 'ifxe l l:te8 20 'iff2 and Black's
queen did not look too happy in B.Lalic
Zapata, Elista Olympiad 1998.
b2) 16 ... lll fd7!? is interesting. Banikas
Kotronias, Korinthos 1998 produced some
entertaining play: 17 e6 ll'lc4 18 exd7 l:txe3
19 l:txe3 ll'lxe3 20 'ife2 'it'd8 2 1 'ifxbS l:tb8
22 'it'c6 l:txb2 23 l:tcl l:tb6 and now instead
of acquiescing to a draw with 24 'it'c8 l:tb8
2S 'it'c6 l:tb6 White bravely sacrificed his
queen with 24 ll'lbS!?, but after 24 ... l:txc6 2S
dxc6 Kinsman's 2S ...f6 26 c7 'ifxd7 27
b7 'ifxbS 28 c8'if + g7 looks good for
15
. . .
A t t a c k i n g with
1 d4
46 g4 .llf6 47 g5 hxg5 % - %
Game 1 5
Chernyshov-Semeniuk
cxd5 b5
1 0 e5!
1 0 . . . dxeS
86
. . .
'iWb6
A t t a c k in g with 1 d4
An improvement on 17 ..tf3 g7 18
..txb7 'ii'xb7 19 ..txf8+ Iixf8 20 'ii'e2 c4 21
Game 16
Lautier-Shirov
Belgrade 1997
1 d4 lt:\f6 2 c4 g6 3 lt:\c3 iLg7 4 e4 d6 5
f4 0-0 6 lt:\f3 c5 7 d5 b5
Others:
a) Equally popular is 9 ... e6, adding to the
tension. White replies 10 i.. e2 and now:
al) 10 ... axbS 1 1 i..xbS
al l) 1 l...i.. a6 12 i.. xa6 t:Dxa6 13 dxe6
fxe6 14 0-0 is a Benko gone wrong for Black:
14 ... dS lS eS lLie8 16 lLigS 'ii'e7? 17 lLixdS!
1-0 Michaelsen-Binzenhoefer, Berlin 1993, is
one to remember.
a12) 1 1 ...l:Da6 12 0-0 lLib4 13 dxe6 fxe6 14
89
A t t a c k in g with 1 d4
1 2 axb5 !
1 5 . . .'iWb7
A t t a c k in g with 1 d4
on d5) .
1 6 e5!?
Game 17
Rausis-M cShane
Best. Others:
a) 7 ... dxeS?! 8 fxeS and now:
al) 8 ... tiJhS!? 9 i.. e3 f6 10 i.. e2 i.. g4 gives
White an edge and looks like the most ap
propriate follow-up for Black, although here
the a6-knight has a less promising future than
Black would have hoped.
a2) 8 ... tLld7 9 i.. f4 and White is clearly
better after both 9 .. .f6 10 e6 tLlb6 1 1 dS and
9 ... cS 10 dS. Even the lesser evil 9 ...tLlb6 10
h3 f6 1 1 'ifd2 cS 12 exf6 i.. xf6 (12 ... exf6 13
0-0-0) 13 i.. h6 ne8 14 0-0-0 was not too
appealing for Black in Vokac-Petrov, Ko
mercni Banka 1997.
a3) 8 ... tLie8 9 i.. e2 (Vaiser recommends 9
cS!?) 9 .. .f6 10 i.. f4. The problem with
7... dxeS is that it makes the f4-square avail
able and therefore helps White maintain the
healthy centre. Leitao-Ivanovic, Yerevan
Olympiad 1996 went 10 ... cS (10 ... fxeS 1 1
i.. xeS tLif6 1 2 0-0 cS 1 3 dS) 1 1 dxcS 'ifaS
(1 1...'ifxdl+ 12 nxdl tLlxcS 13 tiJdS) 12
i.. e3! fxeS 13 0-0 e4 14 'ifdS+ e6 lS 'ifxe4
tLixcS 16 'ifh4 and White enjoyed both supe
rior pawn structure and development.
b) In contrast to 'a', 7... tiJhS targets the f4pawn. Movsesian gives 8 i.. e2 i.. h 6 9 g3! f6
10 0-0 dxeS 1 1 fxeS i.. xcl 12 nxc t i..h 3 13
net as slightly better for White. In B.Lalic
Hebden, Iona Tech Masters 1998, Black first
pushed his c-pawn: 8 ... cS 9 dS i.. h6 10 g3
and now, in a bid to justify placing his minor
pieces on the edge of the board, Black hit out
in the centre with 10 ... e6, although after 1 1
dxe6 i.. xe6 1 2 exd6 i.. g7 1 3 0-0 i..h 3 1 4 nf2
93
A t t a c king w i th
1 d4
. . .
c5 9 exd6 exd6
. . .
es
A t t a c k i n g w i th 1 d4
placed.
1 9 . . J:te7!
'ii'g 5
'ilfxd6+ 41 'ifxd6 1 -0
Game 18
I .Sokolov-T opalov
cxd5 d6 6 e4 g6 7 f4 i.g7
96
Bundesliga 1993.
a2) With 10 ... 'ifd8 Black avoids any prob
lems on the e-file but has spent two moves
just to force a slight weakening of White's
kingside. In Olafsson-Psakhis, Moscow 1989
the extra time proved more significant than
g2-g3 after 1 1 tLif3 0-0 12 0-0 a6 13 c4!?
tLlb6 14 e2 g4 15 tLlg5! xe2 16 'ifxe2.
Also possible is 13 e2 l:!.e8 14 g2!?, ad
dressing the potential weak points on the
kingside while exploiting the additional space.
b) 9 ... 0-0 10 tLlf3 is far more popular.
b l) 10 ... a6 1 1 e2 is a natural reaction
from Black when the bishop stands provoca
tively on bS, but now Black finds that his
queen's knight is a problem and, conse
quently, the development of his queenside in
general. In order for the b8-knight to see
light Black has to move his other knight for a
third time! l 1...l:!.e8 12 0-0 tLif8 is too artifi
cial. Petursson-Perenyi, St John 1988 went 13
e5! tLibd7 14 tLlgS dxe5 15 f5!
. . .
lll b d7 ? !
A t t a c k in g w i th
1 d4
. . .
dxe5
1 2 g3
A t t a c k in g w i th
1 d4
20 .i.. x c5 .l:!.ac8 ? !
Conclusion
I CHAPTER FIVE I
Grli nfeld Defence
with 4 i.. f 4
Game 19
B . La lic J Polgar
-
cs.
5 . . . 0-0 6 c 1 c5
A t ta c kin g with 1 d4
square and not having to worry about the b2pawn since 9 ... 'it'b6 10 l::t c2 holds nicely.
7 dxc5
. . .
'ii' a 5
. . .
1:.dS
9 . . 'ii' x c5
.
A t ta c kin g with 1 d4
38 ... h4 39 l:!.b4!.
39 J:b4 l:g5 40 J:e4!
Game 20
l n k iov-Konopka
A rco
2000
bS 17 .ia2 l:k8 resulting in an unclear position. The battle is on between White's territorial, central supremacy and Black's queenside pawns and pressure on the c-file. As
usual with balanced chances familiarity with
the position will pay dividends.
Instead of returning the queen to a5 Black
can trade: 10 ...'iixd2+ 1 1 'iti>xd2 liJd7 12 .tbs
0-0 13 .ixd7 .ixd7 14 e4 and the struggle
revolves around White's central pawn mass.
7 . . . dxc4
A t ta c kin g with 1 d4
1 06
8 xc4 0-0
1 0 l2Jb5
A t ta c king with 1 d4
'ii'd 5 'ii'a 6
A t t a c k in g with 1 d4
-------
Game 21
6 ..tg5 h6 7 ..th4
Dreev-Leko
. . .
bS 1 2 f4! ?
9 .i.e2
. . .
lUf6
A t t a c k i n g w i th
1 d4
Black's next.
1 8 .l:.xg2
1 3 . . . tt:Jxc3 1 4 bxc3
1 3 'i'd2
Denying White's queen the use of the e4square, although 20 ...'ii'xh2 is also possible
here.
21 .i.f3 'i'h3 22 .i.g4 'i'g2 23 .i.f3 % - %
Conclusion
1 4 . . . i.d5 1 5 'i'c2
CHAPTER SIX
Game 22
d5 lLih5
Doha 1993
Sakaev-G useinov
. .
1 13
A t ta c king with
1 d4
i.. d 2
A t ta c king with 1 d4
. . .
0-0
A t ta c king with 1 d4
33 i.. e3!.
3 3 . . . hxg6 3 4 ..i e 3 ..i e 6 3 5 'i'f3 ..i d 5 3 6
'i'g3 l:.c4 3 7 1:.d3 'i'e6 3 8 1:.ad 1
White is winning.
43 . . . 1:.cS 44 1:.dS+ 1:.xdS 45 1:.xdS+ h7
46 1:.d4 1:.xd4 47 ..ixd4 a6 48 f2 gs
49 e3 f7 50 ..ic3 g5 51 d4 e6 52
h3 f5 53 c5 g6 54 b6 1 -0
Game 23
Yakovich-A .Sokolov
Moscow 1990
1 d4 lt:lt6 2
c4
e6 3 lt:lc3 ..ib4 4 f3 d5 5
a3 ..ixc3+ 6 bxc3
1 19
A t ta c king with 1 d4
. . .
c5
8 dxc5
8 .'iWa5
..
A t ta c king with 1 d4
A ttacking with
1 d4
1 2 lt:\h3 lbec6
Game 24
Prudnikova -G .Sakhatova
USSR 1 991
1 d4 l2Jf6 2 c4 e6 3 l2Jc3 i.. b4 4 f3 d 5 5
a3 i.. e 7
Others:
a) The major alternative is 6 ... c5 when 7
cxd5 exd5 8 dxc5 gives the game a different
character. Black has two options.
al) 8 . . .i..xc5 is the most popular, one reason being that 5 ... i..d6 might have been
played instead of 5 ... .i.e7, thus ruling out 'a2',
below. Black has already moved the bishop
three times but the current post highlights
the downside to the 4 f3 system, namely the
potential weakness of the gl-a7 diagonal. In
A tt a c king with
1 d4
. . .
i.c5
A ttacking with
1 d4
Nim z o - / n di a n D e fe n c e with 4 f3
26 . . . l:b6
Others:
a) 26 ...'iie7 27 'ifh8+ Wf7 28 es :b6 29
e6+! nxe6 30 dxe6+ i..xe6 3 1 lt:JeS mate.
b) 26 ... .tfs 27 'ifh8+ f7 28 exfS :b6 29
f6!.
c) 26 ... l:e7 27 l:h8+ Wf7 28 lt:JxgS+ e8
29 :xf8+ xf8 30 'ifh8 mate.
cl) 26 ... :b7 27 'ifh8+ Wf7 28 :h7+ tt:Jxh7
29 'ifxh7+ Wf8 30 'ifh8+ f7 3 1 tt:Jes+.
e) 26 ...Wf7 27 Wh8 'ifaS+ 28 dl! We7
29 tt:Jes ! :b6 30 'ifg7+ Wd8 3 1 :xb6 i..g4+
32 lt:Jxg4 'ifxb6 33 i..xa4.
22 . . .:ea 23 l:h5!
27
'i'xh7+ f8 30 'ifhS+ f7
23 . . . lbfS?
%-%
24 g 5 !
'i'h8+
f7
28
l:h7+!
lbxh7
29
24 . . . fxg 5
Conclusion
25 l:xh6! !
White is winning.
1 29
I CHAPTER SEVEN I
Dutch Defence
1 d4 f 5
Game 25
Zsinka-Timoscenko
Budapest 1989
______________.
1 d4 f5 2 c4 ll'if6 3 ll'ic3 g6
D u t c h D e fe n c e
. . .
d6
A t t a c king with 1 d4
the offer?
b l) 5 ... lDxh5 6 e4 lDf6 7 e5! lDe4 (7... lDg8
8 f4 looks ridiculous for Black) 8 lDxe4 fxe4
puts Black under a lot of pressure for a mere
pawn.
b 1 1) Piket-Onischuk, Biel (blitz) 1999
ended in a quick win for White: 9 i.h6 i.xh6
10 l:txh6
D u tc h D e fen c e
7 . . . fxe4
Others:
a) 7... i.e6 intends to meet 8 'ifxhS+ with
8 ... .iV 9 WxfS 'ifd7 etc. Therefore White
prefers 8 .ie2.
Attacking with
1 d4
. .
lL:ic6 1 6 c5?!
Game 26
Kempinski-Grabarczyk
D u tch D e fen c e
Attacking with
1 d4
D u t c h D e fe n c e
4 f3 ! ?
A t ta c k i n g with
1 d4
1 9 . . . l2ld5
22 ..lii. x h7+
. .
28 ... g6 29 g4.
29 Wt5 g6 30 'ii'f6+ <ot>gS 3 1 ..ta2+ <it>h7
32 g4! ..txg4 33 ..lii. f7 WtS 34 Wxg6+
hS 35 l:te4 1 -0
Conclusion
I CHAPTER EIGHT I
Other Defences
Game 27
Summerscale-Mannion
Not even mentioned in Nunn Chess OpenI am sure this move will continue to
ings,
. . .
bxc4
1 39
A ttacking with
1 d4
O th e r D e fe n c e s
. .
14 1
Attacking with
1 d4
.1:.bS
. . .
tl'ieS
. . .
. .
i.c1 i.f7
O th e r D e fe n c e s
Threatening 52 l:txa4.
With his queenside well protected White is
able to enjoy a considerable space advantage
that gives him much more than his fair share
of freedom both in the centre and on the
kingside. Black has weaknesses on e6 and e7
and his once mighty dark-squared bishop is
awful (the other bishop is not much better).
In order to convert his advantages White
needs to step up a gear and find an effective
plan.
25 lt:la 5?r
Game 28
Stohl-Socko
Attacking with
1 d4
O th er D e fe n c e s
12... axb3 13 axb4 l:txal 14 'ifxal the b3pawn soon drops) 13 ll'id4 i.b6 14 ll'ib5 d6
15 ll'ic3 'ii'e8 16 ll'id5 i.a5
Attacking with
1 d4
8 xf2 i.xh3
9 g3! i.xf1
1 2 . . . l2Jd7?
146
O th e r D e fen c e s
19
'i'xc4
. .
26 ...J:lxf8 27 l:ld7.
27 l:!.d5 .:!.cS 2S l:ta5 l:!.c7 29 f3
A t t a c king w i th 1 d4
Game 29
Volzhin-Kakageldyev
Calcutta 1996
1 d4 d6 2 c4 g6
O th e r D e fe n c e s
A t t a c k in g w i th
1 d4
O th er Defences
5 d5 li:Jd4
6 iLe3 c 5
. . .
..ll d 7
151
A t ta c king with 1 d4
O th e r D e fen c e s
9 . . . a5
22 . . .f6
1 0 l:l. d 1
29 'ifa3 !
32 ... g5 33 li:fxf6!.
ltJxb5 22 f5!
1 -0
Game JO
Pribyl-Vokac
1 d4 c5 2 d5 e5
1 53
A t ta c king with 1 d4
1 54
O th e r D e fen c e s
4 . . . .i.. e 7
1 55
A t t a c k in g with 1 d4
. . .
exf4
O th er Defences
A t t a c k i n g w i th
1 d4
not easy.
1 4 . . . i.g5
O th e r D e fe n c e s
37 f!i'd3
fxe4
43 'ii'xe4?! 'iff2+.
43 . . . h7 44 fi'f5+ gs 45 h5 i.. xc3 46
fits+ h7 47 fi'f5+ gS 4S fi'xe4 f!i'b7
49 tll c 5 ! ? fi'xb4 50 fi'xb4 i.. xb4 51 tll e4
g6 52 g4! f7 53 f3 gxh5 54 gxh5
i..a 3 55 f4 i.. b 2 56 f5 i.. d4 57 tll d 2
i..f 6 5S tll c4 .i.h4
Conclusion
2S . . . exf3 29 .i.xf3
29 ... h6 30 .tg2.
30 lt:Jg5 .i.f5 31 .i.e4
1 59
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............................................................
57