Barry Attack with …g7-g6 (D00)
1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 g6 4.Bf4
The Barry Attack can also be met by a kingside fianchetto.
Welling – Van der Wiel
Dutch Championship, Hilversum 1985 (by transposition)
1.d4 d5
1…Nf6 brings up a move order issue. Then 2.Nc3 d5 3.Nf3 g6 4 Bf4 is a Barry Attack, but that order allows 3…e6 4.Bf4 Bb4! with an early …c7-c5 and perhaps …Ne4 in the air. So 2.Nf3 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bf4 would be a better way to reach the main line.
2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3
3.Bf4 g6 4.f3!? is the ‘Barva’ Variation. Black has few problems after 4…Bg7 5.e4 (5.Qd2 0-0 6.Bh6 c5!) 5…0-0, since on 6.Qd2 c5! is effective, and 6.e5 gains space but isn’t threatening in conjunction with f2-f3 and Bf4. Black might play 6…Nfd7 (or 6…Ne8 7.Qd2 c5 8.dxc5 Nc7=) 7.Nxd5 c5! 8.c3 Nc6 9.Ne2 cxd4 10.cxd4 Nb6 11.Nxb6 Qxb6 12.Qd2 Rd8=.
3…g6 4.Bf4 Bg7
There’s nothing wrong with 4…c6 (which was in fact played in the game, transposing after 5.e3 Bg4 6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 Nbd7 8.Bd3 Bg7), but here Black preserves the idea of …c7-c5 in one jump. A superficial disadvantage is that White can play Nb5.
5.e3
There are two important alternatives:
A) 5.Nb5 Na6 6.e3
looks awkward to meet, but Black can equalize and achieve double-edged play by different means:
A1) 6…Bg4 7.c4 (7.Nc3 Nb4 8.a3 Bxf3 9.gxf3 Nc6 10.Bb5 0-0 11.Qd2 a6 12.Bxc6 bxc6 13.0-0-0 e6, intending moves like …Nd7 and …c7-c5 or …e7-e5, with …Rb8 to aim at the queenside) 7…c5! 8.Be2 Qa5+ 9.Nc3?! (9.Qd2 Qxd2+ 10.Nxd2 Bxe2 11.Kxe2 cxd4 12.Nxd4 0-0 =) 9…cxd4 10.exd4 dxc4 11.Bxc4 0-0 12.0-0 Rac8 13.Be2 Rfd8, with a small advantage;
A2) 6…0-0 7.c4 (7.Be2 Bg4) 7…c5! (7…Bg4 8.h3 Bxf3 9.Qxf3 c6 10.Nc3 Qa5, with the idea 11.0-0-0?! b5!) 8.Rc1 Bg4 9.h3 Bxf3 10.Qxf3 Qa5+ 11.Nc3 Nb4! and Black can be satisfied with the turn of events;
A3) 6…c6 7.Nc3 Qb6 diverts White to the defense of b2. For example, 8.Rb1 Bg4 9.h3 Bxf3 10.Qxf3 Nd7= with the idea …e7-e5.
B) 5.Qd2 0-0 6.Bh6
6…Bxh6!? (or 6…Nbd7 with the idea 7.0-0-0 Ne4!) 7.Qxh6 c5 and Black has a meaningful counterattack: 8.dxc5 (8.0-0-0?Ng4! 9.Qh4 e5 10.Qxd8 Rxd8 11.dxe5 Be6 12.Ne4?? Nd7 0-1, Gurgenidze-Azmaiparashvili, Tbilisi 1986. After the knight on e4 moves, 13…Nxf2 is decisive) 8…d4! 9.0-0-0 (9.Rd1 e5! with the idea 10.Ng5 Qa5 or 10.Nxe5? Qe7) 9…Ng4! (9…e5? 10.Ng5) 10.Qf4 Qa5! 11.Rxd4 (11.Nxd4? e5; 11.Qxd4? Nc6) 11…e5! 12.Nxe5 Nxe5 13.Qxe5 Nc6 14.Qd6 Nxd4 15.Qxd4 Rd8 16.Qf6 Be6 with an edge.
5…Bg4
Clarifying matters, and also creating an imbalance. The sound continuation, 5…0-0 6.Be2 c5, tries to emphasize pressure along the long diagonal, when 7.dxc5 Nbd7 8.0-0 (8.Nxd5 Nxd5 9.Qxd5 Qa5+ 10.Qd2 Qxd2+ 11.Kxd2 Bxb2 12.Rab1 Bf6=) 8…Nxc5 looks about equal, especially in view of the line 9.Be5 Ncd7!? 10.Bf4 Nc5 (10…Nb6!?) 11.Be5 Ncd7=.
6.h3
This is natural and important, winning the bishop pair. But it takes time, so the alternatives are worth a look:
A) 6.Qd3 c6 (6…Bxf3? 7.Qb5+!) 7.Be2 (7.Ne5 Bf5 8.Qd2 Nbd7 7.0-0-0?! Ne4! with the idea 8.Nxe4? dxe4 9.Qxe4 Bf5, trapping the queen!) 7…Nbd7 8.h3 Bxf3 9.Bxf3 0-0 10.0-0 Re8 11.Bh2 e5=;
B) 6.Be2 Bxf3 (also fine is 6…0-0, or Kasparov’s own solution 6…c6 7.Ne5 Bxe2 8.Qxe2 Nh5!? 9.h4 Nxf4 10.exf4 h5 11.0-0-0 Nd7 12.Kb1 e6, Aparicio-Kasparov, Lima 1993. Here 8…Nbd7 was also good enough) 7.Bxf3 c6. An interesting position:
B1) 8.Qd2 0-0 9.0-0-0 Nbd7
10.g4 (10.e4 dxe4 11.Nxe4 Nxe4 12.Bxe4 Qb6 13.c3 Rad8, with the idea …e7-e5, and in this line 12…e5 is also satisfactory) 10…Nb6 (10…Ne8!?) 11.h4 (11.b3 Nfd7!? with the idea …e7-e5) 11…Nc4 12.Qd3 e5! 13.Bxe5 Nxe5 14.dxe5 Nd7 15.Be2 Nxe5 16.Qd2 b5 with a strong attack, Blatny-E Ragozin, Vienna 1991;
B2) 8.0-0 0-0 9.Re1 Re8!? 10.Qd2 Nbd7 11.e4?! (11.Rad1 Qb6=) 11…dxe4 12.Nxe4 Nxe4 13.Bxe4 (13.Rxe4 e5 14.dxe5 Nxe5 favors Black) 13…e5 14.dxe5 Nxe5 15.Qxd8 Raxd8 16.Bxe5 Bxe5 and Black stands better due to the dual ideas of …Bxb2 and …Rd2, Feletar-Cvitan, Pula 2000.
6…Bxf3 7.Qxf3
In return for the bishops, Black can play for the superior center:
7…c6 8.Bd3
8.0-0-0 has also been seen. Then the immediate counterattack 8…b5 is one strategy. For example, 9.g4 b4 10.Ne2 Nbd7 11.g5 (11.h4 Qa5 12.Kb1 h5 13.g5 Ne4 intending …e7-e5) 11…Ne4 12.Ng3 Nxg3 13.Bxg3 0-0 14.h4 e5 15.dxe5 Nxe5 16.Qf4 a5 17.h5 a4! with the idea 18.Qxb4 (18.Qh4 Re8 19.hxg6 hxg6 20.Qh7+? Kf8 is pointless for White) 18…Rb8 19.Qxa4 Ra8 20.Qb3 Qxg5 (20…Rb8=) 21.hxg6 hxg6 and …Rfb8 with complications.
8…Nbd7
Beginning to prepare for …e7-e5.
9.g4
Objectively too loosening, although an enterprising idea. Van der Wiel gives 9.0-0 0-0 10.Rad1 Nh5 11.Bh2 e5=.
9…0-0 10.h4 e5
10…h5! is at least equal and probably better.
11.dxe5 Ne8 12.Qg3 Qe7
13.Bg5?!
13.0-0-0 Nxe5 14.g5 Nd6! 15.h5 Ndc4 with good attacking chances on the queenside.
13…Qb4 14.f4 f6!?
14…Qxb2! improves, in view of 15.Kd2 f6! 16.Rab1 Qa3 17.Rxb7 Rd8.
15.exf6 Qxb2 16.fxg7! Qxa1+!?
16…Qxc3+! is better and roughly level. For example, 17.Ke2 Nxg7 18.h5 gxh5 19.gxh5 Nc5 20.Bh6 Rf7 21.Rhg1 Kh8 22.Bxg7+ Qxg7 23.Qxg7+ Rxg7 24.Rxg7 Kxg7 25.Rg1+ (25.h6+ Kxh6 26.Rh1+ Kg7 27.Rxh7+ Kf6=) 25…Kh6=.
17.Kd2 Qxh1 18.gxf8Q+ Nxf8 19.f5
Here Black played 19…b5?! 20Be7! and White had a very dangerous attack. A better alternative was:
19…Nd7 20.fxg6 hxg6 21.Bxg6 Qf1,
with only a minor disadvantage.
Queen’s Indian vs. Colle (A47)
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 b6 4.Bd3 Bb7
Black aims to fight for the center with piece play. In the system we’re showing, he plays without …g7-g6, and avoids …d7-d5 for the time being to keep the long diagonal open. The control of the e4-square gives Black the possibility of planting a knight there later. On the other hand, White controls more space and has his own chances.
Nickl – Eingorn
Graz 2002
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 b6 4.Bd3 Bb7
Black plays a Queen’s Indian setup, foregoing the move …d7-d5.
5.Nbd2 c5 6.c3
The basic Classical Colle structure and piece placement. 6.0-0 Nc6 7.c3 transposes.
6…Nc6 7.0-0 Qc7
Now Black can simply develop with …Be7 and …0-0 and/or play, for example, …Nd5 and …f7-f5. So at this point White needs to choose a plan.
8.a3
This stops Black’s idea of …cxd4 and …Nb4 after e3-e4; the move is a popular choice among strong players.
Other moves:
A) 8.e4?! cxd4 9.cxd4 (9.Nxd4 Ne5 10.Bc2 Neg4! 11.g3 h5!= threatening …h5-h4) 9…Nb4 10.Bb1 Rc8!
(or 10…Ba6 11.Re1 Nd3 12.Bxd3 Bxd3) 11.e5 (11.Re1 Nc2 12.Bxc2 Qxc2 13.Qe2 Bb4 with advantage) 11…Nfd5 12.Ng5 Be7 13.Nde4 h6 14.Nf3 f5!? (14…Nc2! demonstrates Black’s advantage) 15.exf6 gxf6 16.Ng3? (16.a3! Nc2 17.Ra2 Rg8, with a dangerous but unclear attack) 16…Nc2 17.Bxc2 Qxc2 18.Nh4 Qxd1 19.Rxd1 Kf7, with a clear advantage, Rotenstein-Sämisch, Berlin 1932. Black has a very big advantage with two bishops, much better placed pieces, and the coming invasion with …Rc2;
B) 8.Re1 Be7 (8…Rc8 9.Nf1 is passive; if White abandons the e3-e4 idea, Black almost always stands well. For example, 9…d5 10.Bd2 Bd6 11.Rc1 0-0 12.dxc5 Bxc5 13.e4, Przepiorka-Colle, Frankfurt 1930, and here Black’s easiest course was 13…dxe4 14.Bxe4 Nxe4 15.Rxe4 e5, with a big edge) 9.e4 cxd4 10.Nxd4 (after 10.cxd4 Nb4 11.Bb1 Rc8, Black is better, intending …Nc2) 10…Ne5 (or 10…0-0= with a nice Sicilian Defense) 11.Bc2 Ng6!? (11…0-0!) 12.N2f3 Ng4 13.h3 N4e5 14.Nxe5 Qxe5, with approximate equality, Colle-Euwe, Amsterdam (match) 1928.
8…d5
8…Be7 9.e4 d5 10.e5 Nd7 is the other option, in some cases preparing a kingside attack with …g7-g5.
9.Re1 Be7 10.b4
Again, 10.e4 produces an equal game after 10…dxe4 (10…0-0!? 11.e5 Nd7 is also playable) 11.Nxe4 cxd4 12.cxd4 Rd8, with pressure against White’s d-pawn.
10…0-0 11.b5?!
White doesn’t have much of a plan other than e3-e4, which is again equal at this juncture. 11.Qe2 e5 12.dxe5 Nxe5 13.Nxe5 Qxe5 gave Black his standard central advantage in Glienke-Atalik, Berlin 2000.
11…Na5
Black’s next moves are mainly concerned with light-square control.
12.Ne5 Bd6 13.f4 c4 14.Bc2 Ne4!
15.Bb2
15.Nxe4?! dxe4 is followed by …f7-f6.
15…f6 16.Nxe4?!
16.Nef3 limits the damage. For example, 16…Nxd2 17.Qxd2 a6 18.bxa6 Rxa6, with some advantage to Black.
16…dxe4 17.Ng4 Bd5 18.Nf2 f5 19.g4
White doesn’t want to wait around while he gets beat on the queenside, but it’s too late.
19…Nb3 20.Rb1 a6! 21.bxa6 Rxa6 22.gxf5 exf5 23.Bxb3 cxb3 24.Ra1 b5
0-1
This passive-looking but flexible move can lead to several systems, and here we examine important lines that arise from various move orders. In particular we want to look at the idea of a Stonewall Attack with f2-f4 and c2-c3, normally begun with 3.Bd3 and 4.f4.
1.d4 d5
After 1…Nf6, 2.e3 d5 would transpose, but Black can discourage White’s idea of f2-f4 and Nf3-e5 by playing 2…d6. For a brief analysis of this, see the section ‘1.d4 Nf6 Irregular Second Moves’.
2.e3
Retaining the f2-f4 Stonewall option. Of course 2.Nf3 followed by 3.e3, as we’ve seen elsewhere, is the normal route to a Colle System. But not to one with f2-f4.
2…Nf6
The most neutral move, which preserves all of Black’s major options.
A) 2…Bf5 prevents White’s plan, but after 3.c4 Black’s position can suffer because of the weakness at b7. For example, 3.c4 e6 4.Qb3 b6 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.Nf3 (or 6.cxd5 exd5 7.Nf3) 6…Bd6 (6…Be7 7.Nh4 Be4 8.cxd5 exd5 9.Nxe4 Nxe4 10.Nf5! etc.) 7.Nh4 Be4 8.cxd5 exd5 9.Nxe4 Nxe4 10.Nf5 0-0 11.f3 Nf6 12.Be2 Qd7 13.Nxd6 Qxd6 14.0-0 and White has the advantage in view of the bishop pair and an extra central pawn;
B) 2…c6 is the obvious choice for Slav and Semi-Slav players. Then 3.Bd3 e6 4.f4!? is not scary because, if White were to land a knight on e5, it could be exchanged or driven away, one sequence being 4…Bd6 5.Nf3 Nh6!? 6.0-0 Nd7 7.Nbd2 (7.Ne5 0-0 8.Nd2 f6!) 7…0-0 8.c3 c5 9.Qc2 Nf5!
10.Bxf5 exf5 11.Qxf5 Qe7 12.Re1 (12.Qd3 c4 13.Qe2 Bxf4) 12…Nf6 13.Qc2 Bd7 with complete control over the light squares, because if 14.e4, there follows 14…dxe4 15.Nxe4 Nxe4 16.Qxe4 Qxe4! 17.Rxe4 Bc6 18.Re1 (18.Re2 Bxf3 19.gxf3 Rae8.) 18…Bxf3 19.gxf3 cxd4 20.cxd4 Rac8 21.Be3 Rc2 and Black is better;
C) 2…e6. With White’s pawn already at e3, Black can also head for a Queen’s Gambit Declined formation. Again, 3.Bd3 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.f4!? could be met by 5…Bd6 6.Nf3 Nh6!? 7.0-0 0-0 8.Qc2!? and now 8…f5 (or even 8…Nf5!?) with the idea 9.g4 c4!.
3.Bd3
3.f4 can be met by 3…Bf5! when 4.Bd3 e6 will eventually lead to the favorable exchange of Black’s ‘bad’ bishop for White’s very good one, leaving the bishop on c1 out of play.
3…Bg4!?
A cute idea, frustrating White’s Stonewall ambitions and intending to get Black’s bishop out in front of his coming pawn chain after …e7-e6. 3…Nc6!? is also a very logical move…
… allowing Black to aspire to an early …e7-e5. Thus the Stonewall is a natural response: 4.f4 (4.Nf3 Bg4! intends 5.h3 (or 5.Nbd2 e5) 5…Bxf3 6.Qxf3 e5!) 4…Nb4 5.Be2 Bf5 6.Na3 e6 7.c3 Ne4! occupying a great outpost, and with a strong attack if White plays 8.cxb4? (8.Nf3 Nc6 threatens …Bxa3) 8…Bxb4+ 9.Kf1 Qh4 10.g3 (there’s nothing else) 10…Nxg3+ 11.hxg3 Qxh1 12.Qa4+ c6 13.Qxb4 Bh3+ 14.Ke1 Qxg1+ 15.Kd2 0-0-0, with a clear advantage.
4.f3
The obvious reply, but it weakens White’s center (especially e3). 4.Nf3 transposes to our Anti-Colle System, and the other options are too passive:
A) 4.Ne2 Nc6!?. With White’s rather artificial setup, Black can now adopt the plan of playing in the center, aiming for …e7-e5. 5.c3 (5.0-0 e5 6.f3 Be6=) 5…e5 6.Bb5 e4 7.Qa4 Bd7 8.Bxc6 Bxc6 9.Qb3 Qd7 with an edge, Lebel-Arias-Brochet, Uzes 1989;
B) 4.Be2 Bxe2 5.Qxe2. We’ve seen this idea before. Black already has the better bishop. Now he plays the wrong move order, but the strategy is sound: 5…e6? (5…c6! 6.Nf3 e6 or 5…Nbd7 6.Nf3 e6 7.0-0 c5) 6.Nf3? (6.Qb5+! Nc6! 7.Qxb7 Nb4 8.Qb5+ with an extra pawn) 6…Nbd7 7.Nbd2 c5 8.0-0 Be7!? (8…cxd4 9.exd4 Bd6) 9.e4 dxe4!? (9…0-0 10.e5 Ng4! 11.h3 Nh6 and …Nf5 or …cxd4 next) 10.Nxe4 cxd4 11.Nxd4 Nxe4 12.Qxe4 Nc5 13.Qe3 0-0 with a slight advantage due to the extra central pawn, Swiderski-Mieses, Hannover 1902.
4…Bh5
5.Ne2
A sensible continuation, planning to move the knight to g3 or f4 and annoy the bishop. White’s other tries are enormously instructive. He tends to gain space, but at the cost of development or exploitable weaknesses:
A) 5.Nh3 e6 6.Nf4 Bd6!? (6…Bg6 is safe and equal, since 7.Nxg6 hxg6 only opens the h-file for Black) 7.Nxh5 Nxh5 (threatening …Qh4+) 8.0-0 Qh4 9.f4 0-0 10.Nd2 f5!? 11.Nf3 Qe7 and Black’s stonewall is arguably better than White’s!;
B) 5.c4 tries to exploit the fact that the bishop is missing from Black’s queenside, but White’s center is shaky and he has only one piece out: 5…e5! (or 5…dxc4!? 6.Bxc4 Nbd7= when the bishop at h5 defends f7, and the knight on d7 supports the …e7-e5 advance) 6.dxe5 (6.Qb3 Nc6! 7.cxd5 Qxd5 8.Qxb7 Rb8 9.Qxc7 Bd6 10.e4 Bxc7 11.exd5 Nb4!) 6…dxc4 7.Bxc4 Nfd7! threatens …Qh4+!, winning a piece, or …Nxe5 with a positional advantage;
C) 5.c3 Nc6!? (Black threatens …e7-e5 and White can’t play f2-f4 to prevent it) 6.Qb3 (6.g4 Bg6 7.Bxg6 hxg6 8.g5 Nd7 9.f4 e6 10.Nf3 Bd6 11.Nbd2 Nb6 12.Qe2 Qe7 13.a4 a5 and …0-0-0, followed by …f7-f6 and …e7-e5) 6…Rb8!? 7.Ne2 e5=;
D) 5.Nd2 e5 6.c3 (after 6.dxe5 Nfd7 7.g4 Bg6 8.Bxg6 hxg6 9.f4 Qh4+ 10.Kf1 Nc6 we’d much rather be playing Black) 6…e4 7.Be2 Qe7 8.c4 exf3! 9.Bxf3 Qxe3+ with a clear advantage, Schuhmacher-Rotering, Postal 1995;
E) 5.g4 Bg6 6.h4!? e6 7.h5 Bxd3 8.Qxd3 Nc6 (versus Qb5+) 9.g5 Nd7 10.e4 Be7 11.Nh3 e5! leads to a big advantage after 12.exd5 Nxd4 intending 13.c3 Nc5!.
5…e6
We prefer this to 5…Bg6.
6.c3
A) 6.0-0 Bd6 7.Bd2 0-0 8.Be1 Nbd7 9.Ng3 Bg6 10.Nd2 c5 11.Bxg6 fxg6! 12.c3 e5 13.Bf2 Qe7 14.Qc2 Rac8 15.Rae1 Qf7=, Michalszczak-Opolski, Poznan 1995;
B) It’s still a bit early for the thematic 6.Nf4 because Black can hit the underprotected d4-pawn by 6…c5! 7.Bb5+ Nc6 8.c3 Bd6 (or 8…Qb6) 9.Nxh5 Nxh5 10.g3!? 0-0 11.f4 Nf6, with advantage, Ramon Sanchez Campins-Nadal Marti, Mallorca 2000. Black has control of e4 (imprisoning White’s bishop on c1) and has moves such as …Qb6, …Rac8, and an eventual …f7-f6 and …e7-e5;
C) 6.c4 Bg6 7.cxd5 exd5 8.Nbc3, Ponyi-Kovacs, Hungary 2006, and easiest is 8…c5!=.
6…c5 7.0-0 Nc6 8.Nd2
8.Qe1 (trying to sneak over to the kingside) 8…Bg6 9.Nf4 Bd6 10.Bb5!? (10.Bxg6 hxg6 leaves White with the usual problems defending the kingside and attending to his development) 10…Qb6 with a clear advantage, Heyman-Prié, Metz 1994.
8…Qb6 9.Kh1 Bd6 10.f4
White finally has built a stonewall, but it quickly crumbles.
10…Rd8
Black appreciates that in spite of appearances, the d-file may be opened up.
11.Nf3 Ne4!? 12.Bxe4 dxe4 13.Ng3!? exf3 14.Nxh5
Marshall-Alapin, Vienna 1908, and instead of 14…g6, Black could have played simply
14…fxg2+ 15.Kxg2 Kf8
when White’s pieces are less developed and his king is more exposed than Black’s.
Blackmar-Diemer: Ziegler Defense (D00)
1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.e4 dxe4 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 c6
The best defenses against gambits usually avoid weaknesses that can be exploited by the gambiteer. That is the idea behind the move …c7-c6, which resembles a Caro-Kann Defense.
1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.e4 dxe4
3…Nxe4 4.Nxe4 dxe4 is the Hübsch Gambit, which is also good for Black. An example of the play is 5.Bc4 Bf5 (5…Nc6! 6.c3 e5 7.d5 Ne7, with advantage) 6.c3 e6 7.Qb3!? Qc8 8.Ne2 Bd6 9.Ng3 0-0 10.0-0 Beaumont-Miraglia, ICCF email 2002; and here 10…Nc6 is good, with the idea …Na5. For example, 11.Re1 (11.Qc2 Bxg3 12.hxg3 Qd7) 11…Na5 12.Qb5 Nxc4 13.Qxc4 Bxg3 14.hxg3 Qd7.
4.f3 exf3
They say that the way to refute a gambit is to accept it. That is probably true against the Blackmar-Diemer. For 4…c6, another good reply, see the Blackmar-Diemer: O’Kelly Variation section.
5.Nxf3
5.Qxf3?!
has done terribly over the years; the f3-square should be reserved for White’s knight. A simple solution is 5…c6 (5…g6 and …Bg7 makes Black almost impervious to attack, and 5…a6 followed by …Nc6 is good. 5…Qxd4 is also fine, but at least in that case White gets some attack) 6.Bd3 Qxd4 (another easy solution is 6…Bg4. For example, 7.Qf2 Nbd7 8.Nge2 e5 9.0-0 Be7) 7.Nge2 Qg4 (7…Qh4+! 8.g3 Qh5!) 8.Qf2 e5 with a clear advantage, Cellucci-Imbrogno, Italy 1997.
5…c6
This is called the Ziegler Defense. Black plays a useful move that covers d5 and retains the options …Bg4 and …Bf5. White will have to work hard to demonstrate any compensation when he is faced with this rock-solid defense.
6.Bc4
A natural attacking move. Black’s position holds up against other attempts as well:
A) 6.Ne5 Nbd7! (6…Bf5 is also played, getting Black’s bishop out in front of the pawn chain on f7 and e6: 7.Bc4 e6 8.0-0 Bg6 (8…Bxc2!?) 9.g4 Nbd7 10.Nxg6 hxg6 11.g5 Qc7! 12.Bf4 Bd6 with a nice attack and an extra pawn, A.Rodriguez-Bricard, Toulouse 1998) 7.Bc4?! (one computer engine suggests the retreat 7.Nf3, which shows how bad it thinks White’s position is! Black stands better after 7.Bf4 Nxe5 8.Bxe5 Ng4 9.Bf4 Bf5) 7…Nxe5 8.dxe5 Qxd1+ 9.Nxd1 Ng4 (or 9…Nd5!) 10.Bf4 g5 11.Bxg5 Nxe5 with advantage;
B) 6.Bd3 looks aggressive, but now that Bxf7+ is no problem, Black can afford to play the desirable move 6…Bg4 7.0-0 (7.Be3 e6 8.h3 Bh5 9.g4 Bg6 favors Black, while 7.h3 Bxf3 8.Qxf3 Qxd4! leaves Black two pawns up, and 8…e6 should also retain some advantage) 7…e6 (7…Bxf3 8.Qxf3 Qxd4+ 9.Be3 is too greedy) 8.Be3 Nbd7 9.Qe1 Bxf3 10.Rxf3 Qc7, and Black can be happy, with a pawn to the good and no real problems. He will play …Bd6 and …0-0-0 soon;
C) 6.Bg5 is rather pointless. Black could play 6…Bg4 (or 6…h6 with the idea 7.Bxf6?! exf6) 7.Be2 e6 8.0-0 Nbd7 9.Qd2 Bd6 10.Rae1 Qc7 etc. White apparently has no compensation whatsoever for the pawn.
6…Bf5
6…Bg4? has been played 20 times in my database…
falling for 7.Ne5! (or the less spectacular 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Ne5+ Kg8 9.Nxg4
) 7…Be6 
(7…Bxd1?? 8.Bxf7+; one miniature went 7…Bh5?? 8.Qxh5 and Black resigned) 8.Bxe6 fxe6 (Black’s e-pawns are horrible and isolated, and they entomb the f8-bishop) 9.0-0 Nbd7 10.Bf4 Nxe5 11.Bxe5 Qd7 12.Qe2 and Black is suffering badly.
7.0-0 e6 8.Bg5
8.Ne5 transposes to lines after 6.Ne5 above.
8…Be7
Or 8…Nbd7 9.Qd2 Bd6 10.Rae1?! (10.Nh4 Bg4 11.h3 Bh5 12.g4 Bg6 13.Rae1 0-0 with an edge for Black) 10…Qc7 with a clear advantage, Rossato-Stroppa, San Martino di Castrozza 2003.
9.Qd2
9.Qe2 0-0 10.Rad1 Nbd7 11.Ne5 Nxe5 12.dxe5 was Alexander-Golombek, Nottingham 1946, when instead of 12…Nd5? 12…Nd7 would have been strong and even better was 12…Qb6+! 13.Kh1 Bg4 14.Rf3 Bxf3 15.gxf3 Nd5-+.
9…Nbd7 10.Rae1 0-0
Or 10…Bg6 with advantage.
11.Nh4
White gets nowhere with 11.Ne5 Nxe5 12.Rxe5 b5 13.Bb3 b4 14.Ne2 Ne4!.
11…Bg4
And White’s initiative has run out, especially in view of the following sequence:
12.h3 Bh5!
Or 12…Nb6 13.Bd3 Bh5.
13.g4 h6
Black also stands better after 13…Bg6! 14.Nxg6 hxg6.
14.Bxh6 Nxg4 15.hxg4 Bxh4 16.gxh5 gxh6
Taken as a whole, 5…c6 looks to be close to a refutation of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit.
London System: Morris Gambit (D00)
1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 c5 3.e4
The gambit move e4 is an attempt to punish the early …c7-c5 by striking back in the center and on the queenside.
1.d4 d5 2.Bf4
White’s move order (instead of the traditional 2.Nf3 and 3.Bf4) is often preferred these days to better cope with problems involving an early …c7-c5.
2…c5 3.e4!?
The Morris Gambit. 3.e3 is normal, when one common sequence is 3…Nc6 4.Nf3 (4.c3 Bf5 5.Qb3 Qd7 6.Nf3 e6=) 4…Nf6, with the idea …Qb6. For example, 5.c3 Qb6 6.Qb3 c4 7.Qxb6 axb6, with the idea …b5-b4. Of course there are many more details and those interested might want to refer to books and other sources of theory.
3…dxe4
3…Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 is also playable, but requires a lot of memorization.
4.d5
The point: White is playing an Albin Countergambit (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.exd5 d4) with a full extra tempo. The only problem is that the tempo is Bf4 and the bishop will sometimes be exposed to attack. 4.Nc3 doesn’t work out following 4…cxd4 5.Nb5 Na6 6.Nxd4 Bd7 7.Qd2 f6 (7…Nf6) 8.Nb5 e5 9.Be3 Be6.
4…Nf6 5.Nc3
5…a6
This prevents Nb5 or Bb5+.
5…e6?! isn’t as good due to 6.Bb5+! Bd7 7.dxe6 fxe6 8.Nh3!? (best is 8.Bxd7+ Nbxd7 9.Qe2, with a small advantage), and Black’s extra pawn on the e-file is worthless while he lags in development, although 8…Nc6 is possible, when 9.Ng5!? (probably not the best move) 9…Nd4 10.a4 a6 11.Bxd7+ Qxd7 12.Ngxe4 Be7 13.0-0 0-0 leaves a position in which Black’s activity ensures him of at least equality.
6.Qe2
6.a4 is slow. For example, 6…g6 7.Bc4 Bg7 8.Nge2 (8.d6 Nh5) 8…0-0 9.0-0 Nbd7 10.Qd2 Nb6 11.Ba2 Bd7 12.a5 Nc8 13.Bb3 Nd6 and Black has a positional advantage.
6…g6
A solid move, preparing …0-0. Hanging on to the pawn with 6…Bf5 7.f3 exf3 8.Nxf3 gives White a cramping pawn on d5 and rapid development.
7.0-0-0 Bg7 8.Nxe4
8.d6 Nc6 9.dxe7 Qa5! and Black plans to aim both bishops at White’s king by …Be6, perhaps followed by an eventual …b5-b4.
8…Nxe4 9.Qxe4
9…Qa5
9…0-0 also achieves at least equality, a sample line being 10.Qe3 (10.Nf3 Nd7 11.d6 Qb6 12.c3 exd6 13.Bxd6 Nf6 14.Qf4 Re8) 10…Qb6 (or 10…Nd7) 11.c3 Qa5 12.Kb1 Qa4! 13.Rd2 Nd7 with advantage.
10.a3 Bf5 11.Qe3
After 11.Qe2 0-0, Black is better.
11…Nd7 12.Nf3 0-0
13.Bh6
13.Nh4 Bxc2! 14.Kxc2 Qa4+ 15.Kc1 (15.b3 Qxa3 with attack) 15…Bxb2+ 16.Kxb2 Qxd1 17.Qd3 Qxd3 (17…Qa4!?) 18.Bxd3 Nf6 with a clear advantage, the idea being 19.d6 exd6 20.Bxd6?? Rfd8 21.Be7 Rxd3 22.Bxf6 Rd2+ and …Rxf2.
13…Bxh6 14.Qxh6 Nf6 15.Ng5
15.Qh4 Qd8!? 16.Be2 Qd6 17.Rhe1 b5 favors Black.
15…c4! 16.Bxc4 Rac8 17.Bb3?
17.Bd3 Qxd5 18.Kb1 Bxd3 19.Rxd3 Qxg2 20.Rc1 Rfd8 with a clean extra pawn.
17…Qb6!
Threatening …Qxb3, and 18Kb1? Qxb3 doesn’t help.
18.Ba4 Rc4!
And Black wins the bishop.
Veresov Attack with 3…h6 (D01)
1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5 h6
In the Veresov Attack, White combines Nc3 and Bg5. It is a sound opening which has been used by many grandmasters. White develops quickly, but on the other hand has forfeited the possibility of putting pressure on Black’s center with the move c2-c4.
1.d4 d5
1…Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Bg5 transposes to the Veresov, and here some choices for Black are 2…g6 3.e4 d6, with a Pirc Defense, or 2…e6 3.e4 d5 with a French Defense.
2.Nc3
2.e4 dxe4 (2…e6 is a French, 2…c6 is a Caro-Kann) 3.Nc3 or 3 f3 is analyzed under the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit. 2.Bg5 is the Lewitsky Opening, which we also analyze in another game.
2…Nf6 3.Bg5
Alternatively:
A) 3.Nf3 can be slightly awkward after 3…c5 (3…g6 4.Bf4 transposes to a Barry Attack; the simple 3…c6 4.Bf4 Bf5 is also fine), when 4.Bf4 Nc6 (4…cxd4 5.Qxd4 Nc6=) 5.e3 Bg4 puts pressure on d4: 6.Bb5 e6 7.h3 (7.0-0 cxd4 8.exd4 Bd6 9.Bxd6 Qxd6) 7…Bxf3 8.Qxf3 cxd4 9.exd4 Bd6 with a comfortable game;
B) 3.e4 dxe4 or 3…Nxe4 is seen under the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit.
3…h6
Black calls White’s bluff. He’s happy to obtain the bishop pair in return for doubled pawns. 3…Nbd7 is our other solution, given in a separate game.
4.Bxf6
Otherwise there isn’t much point to 3.Bg5. If 4.Bh4, then 4…c5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Nf3 cxd4 7.exd4 Bg4 with pressure on d4. Apart from …Bxf3, …Qb6 is a serious idea, as is …e7-e6 or …Bb4.
4…exf6 5.e3 c6 6.Bd3 Bd6 7.Qf3 0-0 8.Nge2
8…Na6!
Planning to send the knight to the kingside with …Nc7, …Ne6, etc. while …Nb4 is another idea. Lakdawala gives the same idea, but with the order 7…Na6 8.Bxa6!? (his annotation) 8…bxa6 9.Nge2 Rb8 10.Rb1 0-0 11.0-0. This transposes to the next note, with the inclusion of Rb1 instead of b2-b3.
9.a3
9.Bxa6 bxa6 10.0-0 Be6 (10…Rb8 11.b3 Re8= is most flexible; two computer engines assess this as dead equal, which seems fair. The bishop pair is easy to underestimate) 11.Nf4 Rb8 12.b3 Bd7 13.Na4 Qc8 14.h3 Bf5, Dror-Flores, IECC 1998. Black enjoys a powerful pair of bishops and two open files in return for a damaged pawn structure.
9…Re8 10.0-0 Nc7=
Black stands solidly. White doesn’t have enough pieces on the kingside to mount a serious attack. For example:
11.Qh5 Bf8 12.Nf4
12…f5!?
With the idea …g7-g6. The other move is 12…Ne6 with no problems.
13.Qf3 Bd6=
Black controls e4 and White has no effective pawn breaks.
Veresov Attack with 3….bd7 (D01)
1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5 Nbd7
In the Veresov Attack, White often tries to storm the center with f2-f3 and e2-e4. Black can meet this plan with a well-timed central counterthrust.
Alburt – Tal
USSR Championship, Baku 1972
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Bg5 Nbd7
In the previous game we saw 3…h6.
4.f3
White has tried various setups here; when in doubt, Black can simply attack the center and develop. Against slow moves Black can play …c7-c5, and a plan that suffices against most other moves is …h7-h6, …e7-e6, and …Bb4. Finally, …c7-c6, followed by bringing the queen to the queenside, is reliable.
A) 4.Nf3 (now the e4-square can be occupied, as opposed to after 4.f3) 4…h6 5.Bh4 (5.Bf4 a6!? 6.Qd3 c5 7.e4 – Suetin. Then 7…dxe4 8.Nxe4 cxd4 9.Qxd4 Nxe4 10.Qxe4 Nf6 is playable. Here 5…e6 is also possible, in view of 6.Nb5 Bb4+ 7.c3 Ba5) 5…c6 (5…e6 has ideas of either …Bb4 or …c7-c5) 6.e3 e6 7.Bd3 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.h3
9…c5 (9…b5 is a good way to exploit the knight on c3. Black can expand on the queenside and develop the bishop at a6 with a good game) 10.Bg3, Miagmarsuren-Langeweg, Lugano Olympiad 1968.
Black has played passively but still has a perfectly good game. He could play 10…c4! 11.Be2 b5 with counterplay, in view of 12.Nxb5 Qb6 13.a4 a6 14.Bc7 Qc6 15.Ne5 Nxe5 16.dxe5 Nd7 (16…Ne8!) 17.Bd6 Bxd6 18.Nd4 Qb6 19.exd6 Qxd6=;
B) 4.e3 e6 5.Bd3 Be7 6.f4 c5! 7.Nf3 Yukhtman-Kolarov, Kiev 1966. Here after 7…c4! 8.Be2 Bb4, Black stands better. He threatens …Bxc3 followed by …Qa5 and …Ne4;
C) 4.Qd3 h6 5.Bh4 e6 (5…c6 sets the trap 6.e4? Nxe4 7.Nxe4 dxe4 8.Qxe4 g5 9.Bg3 Qa5+! 10.c3 f5! 11.Qe2 f4 12.Qh5+ Kd8 and White doesn’t get enough for a piece. 5…c5!? is also playable. For example, 6.dxc5 e6 7.0-0-0 Nxc5 8.Qd4 Bd6) 6.e4 (6.0-0-0 Be7 7.Kb1 c5) 6…dxe4 7.Nxe4 Be7 8.Nxf6+ (8.0-0-0?! Nxe4 9.Bxe7 Nxf2) 8…Bxf6 9.Bxf6 Nxf6 10.Nf3 0-0 11.g3 (11.Qe3 is recommended by Lakdawala to prevent …e7-e5. Then 11…b6 12.Ne5 Bb7 is equal) 11…b6 12.Bg2 Bb7 13.0-0 Be4 14.Qe2 Qd5 with advantage, Ansell-Whiteley, Newcastle-upon-Tyne 1995.
4…c6 5.e4 dxe4 6.fxe4 e5!
7.dxe5
Eric once tried 7.Nf3.
This is featured in Lakdawala’s book A Ferocious Opening Repertoire, but fails on several accounts. Eric’s game continued 7…exd4 (there are several other good moves here, including 7…h6. 7…Qb6! is also effective, when 8.Qd2 exd4 9.Nxd4 leaves Black with three advantageous moves, including 9…h6 and 9…Qxb2, whereas 9…Bb4 10.Nf5 of Krug-Bracker, Willingen jr 2006, could have been met by 10…Nxe4! 11.Qe2 Nf6 12.Nd6+ Bxd6 13.Bxf6, and now Lakdawala doesn’t mention 13…Qf2+! 14.Kxf2 Nxf2 15.Bxg7 Rg8, when Black stands better. Eric was hoping for 7…Qa5 8.Bxf6 Nxf6 9.Nxe5 Nxe4 (J.Brown-King, London 1978), and here Lakdawala gives 10.Qf3, but 10.Bc4! is practically winning, since 10…Nxc3 11.Bxf7+ Kd8 12.Qd2 Bb4 13.0-0! gives White a killing attack) 8.Nxd4 (8.Qxd4 Bc5 9.Bxf6 Qxf6 or 9…Bxd4 10.Bxd8 Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 Kxd8) 8…Bb4! 9.Nf5 0-0 Black has the better of it, with ideas such as …Qb6 and …Qa5. The game continued 10.Bd3 Ne5 11.Bxf6 Qxf6 12.0-0 Bxf5 13.Rxf5 Qe7 14.Qe2? (Black stands much better after either 14.Ne2? Ng4 or 14.Kh1 Rad8) 14…Bxc3 15.bxc3 Qc5+ 16.Kh1 Qxc3 17.Rb1 b5 and Black had both an extra pawn and beautiful knight versus bad bishop in Schiller-Ligterink, Reykjavik 1986.
7…Qa5!
This is Black’s point. White was hoping for 7…Nxe5 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.0-0-0+Kc7 10.Nf3 Bd6 11.Be2, with a double-edged game.
8.exf6
8.Bxf6 doesn’t quite achieve equality: 8…gxf6 9.e6!? (9.exf6 Ba3!) 9…fxe6 (9…Ne5 with the idea 10.exf7+ Kxf7 11.Qh5+ Kg7 also looks good) and now:
A) 10.Bc4 Bb4 (or 10…Ba3! 11.Qc1 Qxc3+! 12.bxc3 Bxc1 13.Rxc1 Nc5 with advantage) 11.Ne2 Ne5 12.Bb3 Rg8 Rossetto-Gufeld, Camagüey 1974;
B) Lakdawala’s book recommends 10.Qg4 Ne5 11.Qh5+, when we like the move 11…Ke7 (now White has to beware of the insidious threat of …Nd3+!) 12.Be2 (after 12.Qh3, Lakdawala gives 12…Bg7, but after the safe 12…h5! Black seems to have the better of it. For example, 13.Nf3 Nxf3+ 14.Qxf3 e5), and here Lakdawala has lines with 12…b6 and 12…Bd7, but 12…Qb6! is good, because 13.0-0-0 Qe3+ 14.Kb1 Qh6 forces the exchange of queens.
8…Qxg5 9.fxg7 Bxg7
10.Qd2
10.Nf3 Qe3+ 11.Be2 Bxc3+ 12.bxc3 Qxc3+ 13.Nd2 Ne5 and Black is better, Yelia-Chiburdanidze, USSR 1976.
10…Qxd2+! 11.Kxd2 Nc5
11…Ne5! is a good alternative.
12.Bd3 Be6 13.Nf3 0-0-0
Black has the bishop pair and the e5 outpost, while White is saddled with a bad bishop and an isolated pawn on an open file.
14.Ke2 b5 15.a3 a5 16.h3 Rhe8 17.Rhd1 f5
Still better is 17…Bf5! 18.Kf1 Bg6.
18.e5 Nd7 19.Re1 Bxe5 20.Kf2 Bf6 21.Re3 Nc5 22.Rae1 Kd7 23.Nxb5? f4! 24.Re5 Nxd3+ 25.cxd3 cxb5 26.Rxb5 Rb8 27.Ne5+ Kd6 28.Rxa5 Bh4+ 0-1
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4
You will see the move Bf4 appear in several variations after 1.d4. The most common order after 1…d5 is with 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4. This is a pretty conventional opening, sometimes dull, but here are a few ideas from Black’s point of view to keep things interesting.
Wochnik – Alves
ICCF email 2000
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3
For 2.Bf4, see the Morris Gambit.
2…Nf6
The main irregular second moves have their own sections:
A) 2…Nc6 3.c4 is a Chigorin Defense. Otherwise White usually plays 3.Bf4 or 3.g3, and Black often plays …Bg4;
B) 2…Bf5 3.c4 is a Baltic Defense;
C) 2…Bg4 is also dealt with in a separate section (3.Ne5! is strong).
3.Bf4 c5 4.dxc5
After the safe 4.c3, 4…Qb6 5.Qb3 Nc6
Black has already achieved an imbalance, which is what we’re after. The following is only a small sample of potential continuations, but shows some important tactical themes:
A) 6.Qxb6?! axb6 7.Bc7 b5! and Black takes over the initiative: 8.dxc5 b4
9.e3 (9.cxb4 Nxb4 10.Na3 Rxa3 11.bxa3 Nc2+ 12.Kd2 Nxa1 and the Black knight is trapped, but Black has rapid development and threats) 9…e6 10.Bd6 (10.Bb6 Nd7) 10…Ne4! 11.Bxf8 Kxf8 12.Bb5 Nxc5 13.Nbd2 (13.Bxc6 bxc6 14.cxb4 Nb3!) 13…bxc3 14.bxc3 Ke7 15.0-0 Na7 16.Be2 b5 (fixing the weaknesses after calculating that this pawn, itself, can be adequately defended) 17.a3? (17.Rfb1 was the only chance, according to Prié, with the idea 17…Bd7 18.Ne5 Be8 19.Nd3 Na4 20.Rb3 Bd7 21.e4 dxe4 22.Ne5! Nc5 Black still stands better, but White has counterplay) 17…f6 18.Ne1 Bd7 19.Nd3 Na4 20.Rac1 Rhc8 21.Nb1 Be8 22.h4 Rc4 23.Nf4 Rc7 (or 23…Rc5 24.Nd3 Rc7) 24.Bd3, Stentebjerg-Granberg, corr. 1982, and here Eric Prié suggests 24…h6! 25.e4? g5 26.Ne2 Nc5-+;
B) 6.e3 c4 7.Qxb6 (7.Qc2 Bf5 8.Qc1) 7…axb6 8.Na3 Rxa3!.
A strong exchange sacrifice, already ventured in 1936. 9.bxa3 Bf5 10.Nh4 Bc2 11.Rc1 Ba4 12.f3 (12.Be2 e6 13.Rb1 b5 14.Bd1 Bxd1 15.Kxd1 Ne4 – Prié) 12…e6 13.g4 (13.Be2 Bxa3 14.Rb1 b5 15.Bd1 Bxd1 16.Kxd1 b4 17.cxb4 (17.Bd6? g5) 17…Ke7! 18.b5 Nb4. Only Black has winning chances in this position) 13…Bxa3 14.Rb1 b5 15.Be2 b4
16.Bd6? (Prié suggests 16.Bd1! Bxd1 17.Kxd1 Kd7!) 16…Bc2 17.Bxb4? (a tougher defense was 17.Rxb4 Kd7! (or 17…Nxb4 18.Bxb4 Bxb4 19.cxb4 Ke7 20.g5 Nd7 21.Kd2 Ra8! 22.Ra1 Bb3 23.a3 b5) 18.Rxb7+ Kxd6 19.Kd2 Ba4 20.Rhb1 (20.Rxf7 Rb8) 20…Nd7 21.e4 Ra8, with a clear advantage) 17…Bxb1 18.Bxa3 Bxa2, Hoang-Gonda, Budapest 2001. Black is ahead materially and positionally (notes to 4.c3 based upon those by Eric Prié).
4…e6 5.b4?!
The bishop on f4 actually hurts White in what follows. Better 5.e3 Bxc5 6.Nbd2 Nc6=.
5…a5 6.c3 axb4 7.Bxb8?
Prié points out that 7.cxb4 is better, when one main line is 7…Nc6 8.Qb3 b6 9.e3 (9.cxb6 Bxb4+ 10.Bd2 Qxb6) 9…bxc5 10.Bb5 Bd7 11.bxc5 Bxc5 12.0-0 0-0 and Black stands better due to his central advantage.
7…Rxb8 8.cxb4 b6 9.Nd4 Qd7 10.Qc2 bxc5 11.bxc5 Ne4 12.Nb3 Qa4 13.Nc3 Qb4 14.Rc1 Bd7 15.Nd2
15.f3 Nxc5.
15…Nxd2 16.Qxd2 Bxc5 17.e3 Qa3! 18.Nb1 Qa7 19.a3 Bb6! 20.Ke2 d4! 21.Qd3 0-0 22.Kf3 Bc8! 23.e4 f5 24.e5 Bb7+ 25.Kg3 Be4 0-1
In view of 26.Qd2 f4+ 27.Kh3 Qf7, etc. (Notes in this section based upon those by Eric Prié, a great London System expert.)
1.d4 Nf6: Irregular 2nd Moves (A45)
1.d4 Nf6
In this chapter we look at some odd second moves for White following 1.d4 Nf6.
Stummer – Just
Postal 1993
1.d4 Nf6 2.g4
This wild thrust introduces the Gibbins-Weidenhagen Gambit, also known as the Bronstein or Stummer Gambit. An unsound offering by any name. White would naturally like to play g4-g5, and he also prepares to fianchetto his bishop. Of course, Black can simply capture a free pawn, when White hopes that his center will compensate for the material loss. Other irregular tries for White:
A) 2.Nd2 isn’t bad, but it blocks in White’s bishop on c1, so Black can equalize. One double-edged move is 2…c5!? (2…d5= is simplest, and some players may like the King’s Indian, Pirc Defense approach with 2…g6) 3.dxc5 (3.c3 cxd4 4.cxd4 d5=) 3…e5!? (3…Qa5 4.Nf3 Qxc5 5.e4 d6=) 4.Nc4 Bxc5
5.Nd6+ (5.Be3 can be answered by 5…Be7 6.Nd6+ Bxd6 7.Qxd6 Nc6 followed by …Ne4 or …Qe7, or Black can accept a repetition following 5…Bxe3 6.Nd6+ Ke7 7.Nf5+ Ke8 8.Nd6+, etc., since 8.Nxe3? d5 is nice for Black. But 5.Nxe5? Qa5+! 6.c3 Bxf2+ 7.Kxf2 Qxe5 favors Black) 5…Bxd6 (5…Ke7!? 6.Nxc8+ Qxc8 isn’t clear) 6.Qxd6 Nc6 7.e3 (7.Bg5 Qa5+ 7.c3 Ne4 8.Qd5 f5!) 7…Qa5+ (7…Ne4=) 8.Bd2 Qb6 9.Qa3 d6=;
B) 2.e4, the so-called ‘Arafat Gambit’, is really crazy, giving up a valuable center pawn for at most one tempo! Black stands better after 2…Nxe4 3.Bd3 d5 (or 3…Nf6) 4.Ne2 (or 4.Bxe4 dxe4 5.Nc3 Bf5) 4…Bf5 5.0-0 e6;
C) 2.e3 is sometimes used to keep the option of going into a Stonewall Attack, where the f-pawn advances to f4 before the knight on g1 is developed. Then 2…d5 would transpose to our Colle with 2.e3 section, but Black has other options. A simple idea is 2…d6 (preventing Nf3-e5. Black’s strategy might involve an early …e7-e5 with either a King’s Indian or an Old Indian strategy) 3.f4!? g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Bd3 0-0 6.0-0 c5 7.Nbd2 b6 8.Qe2 Bb7 9.c3 Nbd7 10.a4.
Here Soltis notes that White has the positional threat of a4-a5, but after 10…a6 with the idea 11.a5 b5, it is hard to see what Black has to worry about;
D) 2.Bf4 (Accelerated London System) looks logical and will often transpose to a normal opening. For example, after 2…d5 or 2…g6. Black can also strike in the center by 2…c5 3.d5
(3.dxc5 Na6 4.Qd4!? Qa5+ 5.Nc3 Nxc5=) 3…Qb6 (3…d6 4.Nc3 e5! is another nice equalizer: 5.dxe6 Bxe6 6.e4 Nc6 7.Nf3 Be7=) 4.Nc3 (4.b3 g6 5.c4 Bg7 6.Nc3 d6=) 4…e6! (4…Qxb2 5.Bd2! with the idea of Rb1 and e4 is a well-known gambit from the order 2.Bg5 c5 3.d5 Qb6 4.Nc3 Qxb2 5.Bd2 – it is unclear) 5.b3 Bd6! 6.Bxd6 Qxd6 7.dxe6 Qxe6= with the idea 8.Nb5 0-0 9.e3 (9.Nc7? Qe5 10.Nxa8? Qc3+) 9…Nc6! again with the idea 10.Nc7? Qe5 11.Nxa8? Qc3+ 12.Ke2 Nd4+! winning;
E) 2.Qd3 is known as the Siberian Attack. White’s idea is simple: to enforce e2-e4. But bringing the queen out so early will usually cost a tempo or two. One good answer is 2…d5 3.Nc3 g6 (not only will Black fianchetto his bishop, but he also has ideas of an eventual …Bf5. A solid alternative is 3…e6 4.Bg5 (4.e4 c5! 4.f3 c5 5.e4 Nc6) 4…Nbd7 5.e4 dxe4 (5…h6! 6.Bh4 dxe4 7.Nxe4 Be7 8.Nxf6+ Bxf6 9.Bxf6 Nxf6=) 6.Nxe4 Be7
7.Bxf6 Nxf6 8.Nf3 Nxe4 9.Qxe4 Bd7!? 10.Ne5 0-0 11.Bd3 f5 12.Qe2 (12.Qxb7!?) 12…Be8 13.c3 c5= Wade-Farrugia, La Valetta 1996) 4.Bg5 (4.e4 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Nxe4 6.Qxe4 Bg7 7.Nf3 0-0 8.Bc4 El Gindy-Ezat, Cairo 2003, and here a good move was 8…Nc6! intending 9.c3 Bf5 10.Qe2 Na5 11.Bd3 Bxd3 12.Qxd3 e5! with pressure on d4; 4.f3 can be answered various ways, especially 4…c5! 5.dxc5 (5.e3 Nc6) 5…Nc6 6.a3 d4 7.Ne4 Nxe4 8.Qxe4 Bf5 9.Qh4 Bg7 10.Bd2 (10.Bh6 Qa5+) 10…Qd5 11.b4 a5 12.Rc1 axb4 13.axb4 Ra2 and White is in big trouble) 4…Bg7 5.f3
Preparing e2-e4. 5…Nc6 (a careful solution, developing and contemplating a later …e7-e5; 5…c5 is, as usual, a good response to f2-f3. Play might continue 6.dxc5 d4 7.Nb5 Nc6 8.c3 h6 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 10.Rd1 Qa5! with excellent counterplay) 6.0-0-0 0-0 7.g4 Re8 8.Qd2 b6 9.h3 Bb7 10.e3 e5. Here Black has a central initiative, Vokac-Movsesian, Zlin 1995.
2…Nxg4 3.e4
White’s idea is to get a big ideal center for his pawn.
3…d6!
Our preferred solution. White will need an extra move to kick the knight away, and depending on circumstances, Black plans to fianchetto and play either …e7-e5 or …c7-c5 to challenge the center.
4.Be2 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6
Now Black has a Pirc Defense in which he’s a move behind (the fairly passive Be2) but a pawn ahead. Black can contest the center with two other direct, confrontational moves:
A) 5…d5 is direct.
For example, 6.e5 (6.f3 Nc6! 6.exd5 Nxd5 7.Nxd5 Qxd5 8.Bf3 Qd6 with a clear advantage) 6…Ne4, and Black stands better: 7.Nxe4 (7.Nb1!? with the idea of winning a piece with f2-f3, doesn’t achieve anything after 7…e6) 7…dxe4 8.c3 Bf5 (or 8…Nc6) 9.Qb3 b6 10.Be3 e6 11.0-0-0 Be7 and White lacks compensation;
B) 5…e5!? is also good. For example, 6.Be3 (6.d5 Be7 7.Be3 c6 8.dxc6 Nxc6 9.h3 Be6 10.Nf3 d5 and Black is winning, Calder-Li Shilong, Internet blitz 2004) 6…Nc6 7.d5 Ne7 8.h4 h5 9.Qd3 Ng6 10.0-0-0 Be7 11.Nh3 Ng4 12.Bd2 Bxh4, with a huge advantage, Pucarevic-Vuckovic, Serbian League 2012.
6.Bg5 Bg7 7.Qd2
7.Nf3 0-0 8.Rg1 develops quickly, but Black’s kingside is solid, and he can even strike back with 8…d5! intending 9.Bxf6 exf6 10.exd5 (10.Nxd5 f5) 10…Nd7 11.Qd2 Nb6, with a clear plus.
7…h6 8.Bf4
8.Be3 might be met by 8…Ng4.
8…c6
Black can also play 8…Nc6 with the idea 9.d5 e5!.
9.0-0-0 Qa5
9…b5! is strong.
For example, 10.Bd3 b4 11.Nce2 Qa5 12.Kb1 (12.a3 Ba6! with the idea 13.Qxb4 Qxb4 14.axb4 Bxd3 15.cxd3 Na6-+) 12…Be6 13.Nc1 Nbd7. Black is still a pawn to the good.
10.h4 b5!?
10…Be6 is safer, developing.
11.e5
11…b4?
A miscalculation. Simply 11…dxe5 has the same idea, albeit in better form: 12.dxe5 (12.Bxe5 b4 13.Nb1 Bf5!) 12…b4! 13.exf6 bxc3 14.Qd8+! (this time 14.Qxc3? fails to 14…Qxc3 15.bxc3 Bxf6) 14…Qxd8 15.Rxd8+ Kxd8 16.fxg7 cxb2+ 17.Kxb2 Rg8 18.Bxh6 Ba6. This is not an easy position, but Black is ahead by an exchange and has the better chances.
12.exf6 bxc3 13.Qxc3 Qf5
13…Qxc3?? 14.fxg7! and White comes out a piece ahead!
14.Bxd6!?
14.fxg7 Qxf4+ 15.Kb1 Rg8 16.d5 favors White, although 16…c5 isn’t so bad.
14…Bxf6
14…exd6? 15.fxg7 Rg8 16.d5! with the idea 16…c5 17.Rh3!.
15.Bf3 0-0 16.Be5 Be6 17.Bxf6 Qxf6
White stands slightly better, but the game was eventually drawn.
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g4
The idea here is to sacrifice a pawn to construct a big center. But it comes up a little short against straightforward moves.
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g4
Another of White’s many g2-g4 gambits. 3.g4 is not as crazy as it looks. If White gets e2-e4 in, he will have certain practical chances. Still, this is probably best used at shorter time controls.
3…Nxg4
Why not? Black has no weaknesses. Of course, 3…d5 is also good, since 4.g5 Ne4 is fine.
4.e4
This is consistent, taking over the center. 4.Nf3 d5 5.Rg1 Nf6 is very solid for Black, who is a pawn up for very little.
4…Qh4!
A) 4…f5 stays a pawn ahead at the cost of some looseness;
B) 4…Nf6 5.e5 Bb4+ (5…Ng8? concedes too much of the center. 6.Bd3 Ne7 7.Nf3 g6 8.h4 h5 9.Nc3 d5 10.exd6 Qxd6 11.Ne4 Qb4+ 12.Bd2 Qxb2 13.Rb1 Qa3 14.Nf6+!! Kd8 15.Rb3 Qa6 16.Ne5 1-0 Krasenkova-Hoffman, Internet blitz 2004) 6.Bd2 Bxd2+ 7.Nxd2 Ng8=, Forman-Caha, Svetla nad Sazavou 1995. This position is less dangerous with bishops off the board.
5.Qe2!
5.Nh3 Bb4+! has the cute idea 6.Bd2? (but 6.Nc3 leads to 6…Nf6 7.Bg2 Nxe4) 6…Ne3! 7.Qb3 Nxf1 8.Kxf1 Qxe4.
5…Bb4+!
The most accurate reply. 5…Nf6 6.e5 Ne4 7.Nf3 Bb4+ 8.Bd2 Qf4 9.Bxb4 Qc1+ 10.Qd1 Qxb2 11.Nbd2 Qxb4 12.Rb1 Qc3 13.Rb3 Qa5 14.Rb5 Qc3 15.Rb3=.
6.Bd2 Nc6 7.Nf3 Bxd2+ 8.Nbxd2 Qh6
Black intends …d7-d6 and …e7-e5. White has active pieces but still has to prove full compensation.
Dutch Defense: Sénéchaud Gambit (A40)
1.d4 e6 2.Bf4 f5 3.g4
As we have seen, there are many g2-g4 gambits in the Dutch, and they are especially prolific when …e7-e6 has been played. The bishop on f4 is only moderately well-placed, but see the note below to 4.h3. From a practical standpoint however, 1.d4 f5 2.Bf4 is more likely to elicit the …e7-e6 move than 2.h3 or 2.Qd3, which are clearer signals of White’s intentions.
1.d4 e6 2.Bf4 f5
Or 1.d4 f5 2.Bf4 e6.
3.g4
3.h3 and 3.Qd3 are still reasonable options.
3…fxg4
3…g5!? is a strange possibility, and 3…Nf6 4.gxf5 exf5 5.Qd3 d5 6.Nc3, with an edge for White, was Lukasiewicz-Schoebel, Germany Bundesliga B 1997/98.
4.e4
A classical approach, though 4.h3! comes into consideration…
… now that 4…g3?! can be countered by 5.Bxg3. Perhaps 4…gxh3 5.Nxh3 Nf6 6.e3 could follow, and White has promising play against Black’s kingside.
4…Nf6
One example after 4…d6 is 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bg2?! e5 7.dxe5 dxe5 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.0-0-0+Bd6 10.Be3 Nf6 and Black stands somewhat better, Rithnovszky-Bagoly, Hungary tt-2 1997/98.
5.Bg2?!
Too slow. 5.e5 Nd5 6.Qxg4 is unclear.
5…Be7?!
A) 5…Nc6 is advantageous, especially in view of 6.d5 Nh5! 7.Be3 Ne5;
B) 5…c5! is also quite good.
6.e5
Otherwise the bishop on f4 will feel uncomfortable after Black castles. The alternative 6.h3 is slow after 6…0-0 7.hxg4 d5!.
6…Nd5 7.Qxg4!?
7.Bxd5 exd5 8.Qxg4 0-0 9.Ne2 d6 10.Qg2 c6=.
7…Nxf4 8.Qxf4 Bg5!? 9.Qf3 Nc6
9…Bc1 is a strange but apparently good alternative, intending 10.Qc3 Qg5.
10.Ne2 Qe7
10…Nb4 11.Na3 Qe7 12.h4 Bh6 13.c3 Nd5 14.Nc2 Rf8 15.Qg4 (15.Qh5+!?) 15…Nf4=, Sénéchaud-Flament, La Rochelle 1995.
11.c3 b6!
This is suggested in Gambit Revue. Now White can try…
12.h4 Bh6
Not 12…Bxh4?? because of 13.Qh5+ g6 14.Qxh4.
13.Qh5+ Qf7
Or 13…Kd8!? 14.Nd2 Ba6.
14.Qxf7+ Kxf7 15.Nd2!
15.d5!? exd5 16.Bxd5+ Ke7 17.Bxc6 (17.Na3 Ba6 18.Nd4 Rhf8!) 17…dxc6 18.Rg1 c5 19.Nd2 Bb7 with a clear advantage.
15…Ba6 16.Ne4
With the idea Ng5. The position is dynamically equal.
Dutch Defense: Krejcik Gambit (A80)
1.d4 f5 2.g4
The Krejcik Gambit is a radical method of confronting the Dutch Defense. White has many ways to play g2-g4 against the Dutch, but this immediate push gives Black more defensive options. In general, delaying the g2-g4 advance is more effective, and it is often most appropriate when Black has played …e7-e6.
Martinovsky – Glek
Linares Open 1996
1.d4 f5 2.g4 fxg4
2…e5 is the crazy-looking Hevendehl Gambit, which should result in a White advantage after 3.gxf5 exd4 4.Nf3! (4.e4 Bc5! 5.Qh5+ Kf8 and …Nf6). For example, 4…c5! 5.c3! d5 6.Bh3 Ne7 7.cxd4 Bxf5 8.Bxf5 Nxf5 9.Nc3 and Black’s position is loose, although hardly lost.
3.Bf4
This is the best move, according to Alan Watson, author of an excellent book on the opening.
A) 3.h3 is less effective here than the plan with h2-h3 and g2-g4, which we will see in the Kortchnoi Gambit section. After 3.h3, play can continue 3…g3!? (3…d6 is also playable. Accepting the second pawn at h3 is not exactly suicide, but it’s close: 3…Nf6 4.hxg4 Nxg4 5.Qd3 Nf6 6.Rxh7 Rxh7 7.Qg6+ is a typical trap) 4.fxg3 Nf6
5.Nc3 d5 6.Bg2 e6 (6…c5 7.Nf3 Nc6 8.Bg5?! cxd4 9.Nxd4, Teske-Kristiansen, Voronezh 1987, and here 9…Qc7! was strong) 7.Nf3?! (7.e4) 7…Bd6 8.Ne5 c5 9.Bf4 Nh5 10.0-0 0-0 11.e3 Nxf4 12.exf4 Nc6 13.Nxc6 bxc6 and Black had a substantial advantage in Tregubov-Malaniuk, Linares 1996;
B) 3.e4?! d5! 4.Nc3 is the Tate Gambit (which was reached in this example by transposition from 1.d4 f5 2.Nc3 d5 3.g4 fxg4 4.e4): 4…dxe4 5.h3 gxh3 (5…Nf6! refutes the whole idea) 6.Nxh3 Nf6 7.Nf4 and White had some compensation in Tate-Blaine, Illinois 1992, although 7…Nc6! maintains an objective advantage.
3…Nf6 4.h3 d5
Here 4…c5! appears to be a better test of White’s strategy, since 5.d5 Qb6 is awkward for White.
5.Nc3 c6?!
Passive. He should try 5…c5!.
6.Qd2
6…b5!?
A novelty. There were a few previous experiences that were rewarding for Eugene Martinovsky:
A) 6…gxh3 7.0-0-0 Bf5 8.Bxh3 Qd7 9.f3 Na6 10.e4 dxe4 11.fxe4 Bxh3 12.Nxh3 0-0-0 13.d5 e6, Martinovsky-Alexander Ivanov, Chicago Open 1994, 14.d6! with a large advantage;
B) 6…Bf5 7.hxg4 Bxg4 8.f3 Bf5 9.0-0-0 e6 10.a3 Bd6 11.Bxd6 Qxd6 12.Bg2 Qc7 13.e4 dxe4 14.fxe4 Bg4 15.Rf1 gave White a powerful attack in Martinovsky-McDonald, New York 1991;
C) 6…g6 7.0-0-0 Bg7 8.hxg4 Bxg4 9.f3 Bf5, Martinovsky-Weinberger, Long Beach 1988; and here simply 10.Re1 with the idea e2-e4 was good.
7.Bg2 Na6 8.0-0-0
White should play 8.hxg4! Bxg4 9.Nf3, with more than enough compensation.
8…Qa5 9.a3 e6 10.Kb1 b4 11.Na2 Qb6 12.axb4 Nxb4
13.Nxb4?!
13.Nc3! is complex and unclear.
13…Bxb4 14.c3?? e5! 15.cxb4
Black wins after 15.Bxe5 Bf5+ 16.Kc1 Qa5.
15…exf4 16.hxg4 Bxg4 17.Qxf4 Qxb4 18.Qe5+ Kd8 19.Bh3 Rb8 20.Rd2 Re8
And Black has a winning position.
Dutch Defense: Kingfisher Gambit (A80)
1.d4 f5 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4
White gives up a pawn in order to develop quickly and attack in the center. Volker Drüke lists it as the Euwe Gambit, but we know of no real justification for that name. The kingfisher feeds by snatching fish in shallow waters, and that could well be the fate that weaker players face as Black. The idea is playable for White, especially against amateur players, and potentially scary for the unprepared opponent!
1.d4 f5 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4
Another wild line. Arguably more flexible for White is 3.f3, when 3…c5 4.e4 e5! has been recommended.
Black has made four moves, all with pawns, and offers White no less than 5 possible captures in the center, not to mention a check on b5.
White should choose the capture at e5, according to Martin: 5.dxe5 d4 6.Bc4! Nc6 (6…dxc3?? 7.Bf7+ Ke7 8.Bg5+ and there goes the queen!) 7.Nd5 Nxe5 8.Qe2 (8.Bf4 Nxc4 9.Nc7+ Kf7 10.Nxa8 Nxb2 is unclear) 8…Nxc4 9.Qxc4 Bd6 and Black was no worse in Rossetto-Pelikan, Quilmes 1959.
But 3.f3 is a reasonable alternative for White.
3…dxe4
A) 3…fxe4? 4.Qh5+;
B) 3…e6?! 4.exf5 exf5 5.Qe2+! Be7 6.Bg5 gives White a big advantage. For example, 6…Nc6 7.0-0-0 Kf7 8.Bxe7 Ngxe7 9.Nh3 h6 10.g3 Qd6 11.Bg2.
4.Bf4
White naturally plays on the weak dark squares. 4.f3 is a form of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, also playable.
4…Nf6
4…e6 5.f3 (5.d5 Bd6 is quite interesting) 5…exf3 6.Nxf3 Bb4 7.Bc4 Nf6 8.0-0 Bxc3 9.bxc3 0-0 10.Ne5 (or 10.Re1!) and White has more than enough compensation for the pawn, Yui-Douthwaite, Toronto 1993.
5.f3
A) 5.Bc4 e6 6.Nge2 Bd6 7.0-0 0-0 8.f3 exf3 9.Rxf3 Kh8 10.Qd2 Nc6 11.Rd1 is Ginsburg-Fishbein, Manhattan 1990. Here 11…Bxf4 (or 11…a6!) 12.Qxf4 Nb4 followed by …Nbd5 gives Black a better game;
B) 5.Qd2 e6 6.Bc4 Bd6 7.0-0-0 c6 (7…0-0 is likely a better choice) 8.f3 (8.Bxd6 Qxd6 9.f3 is a slight improvement for White) 8…Bxf4 9.Qxf4 Nd5 10.Nxd5 exd5 11.Bb3 Qe7 12.fxe4 fxe4 and Black has a big advantage, Barnes-Wilson, London 1994.
5…exf3!?
Greedy. Other moves give Black good chances of obtaining some advantage:
A) 5…e6 6.fxe4 (6.Bc4 Nd5 should be fine for Black) 6…fxe4 7.Bc4 Nc6 8.Nge2 Na5 9.Bb3 Nxb3 10.axb3 Bd7 11.Ng3 Bc6 and Black held on to the pawn in Benjamin-Malaniuk, Moscow 1987;
B) 5…Nc6 6.Bb5 Bd7 7.fxe4 fxe4 8.Nd5 Nxd5 9.Qh5+ g6 10.Qxd5 Nb4 11.Bxd7+ Qxd7 12.Qxd7+ Kxd7 is another good line for Black, Galeev-A.Karpov, Harkany 1994.
6.Nxf3 e6 7.Bc4 Bd6 8.Qd2
8.Bg5 c6 9.Qd3 b5 10.Bb3 Na6 11.a3 Nc7 12.0-0 h6 13.Bh4 g5 and Black is simply better, Tarjan-Gutierrez Castillo, Bogota 1979.
8…0-0 9.0-0-0 c6
10.Bg5?!
10.Rhe1 Bxf4 11.Qxf4 Nd5, with a strong knight, results in an unclear position.
10…Na6 11.Qe1 Nc7 12.g4 b5 13.Bb3 b4 14.Ne2
Better is 14.Na4.
14…Ncd5!? 15.gxf5 exf5 16.Ne5
And although White eventually won, Black’s position is the superior one, Gelfand-Nikolic, Munich 1994.
Dutch Defense: Spielmann Gambit (A80)
1.d4 f5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g4
The Spielmann Gambit is another member of the family of Anti-Dutch Spike gambits with the move g2-g4. It benefits from the presence of a Black knight at f6 that can be exploited as a target, but this still does not justify the investment of a full pawn.
1.d4 f5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g4 d5
3…Nxg4 is perfectly adequate. For example, 4.e4 d6 5.Bg2 fxe4 6.f3 exf3 7.Nxf3 e5 8.0-0 Be7 9.dxe5 0-0 10.exd6 Qxd6 11.Qe2 Nc6 12.Ne4 Qg6 13.Ng3 Be6 14.Bd2 Rae8 15.Qb5 Bc8 16.Qc4+ Kh8 17.Rae1 Bd6?? (17…Be6 and Black is much better. For example, 18.Rxe6 Qxe6 19.Qxe6 Bc5+ wins for Black) 18.Nh4 and Black resigned in Kerchev-Nisi, Elhovo 1985.
4.g5 Ne4 5.Nxe4 fxe4 6.f3
6.c3 is a better plan.
6…Bf5 7.Bg2 e6
7…Qd7!? 7…e5 8.dxe5 Nc6 Abdulla-Sulskis, Elista Olympiad 1998.
8.fxe4 dxe4 9.Be3 Be7 10.Qd2 Na6 11.Nh3 Nb4 12.c4 c5 13.dxc5 Qa5 14.0-0 Bxc5
And Black is slightly better, Spielmann-Mieses, Berlin 1920.
1.d4 g6 2.h4
This is also called the Lizard Opening. What we have here is a reversed Drill Opening (involving …h7-h5-h4 for Black). Probably White doesn’t get quite enough for his pawn, but with central control and open lines, it’s pretty close, and not such a bad practical choice.
Samovojska – Dizdar
Makarska 1995
1.d4 g6 2.h4 Nf6 3.h5 Nxh5 4.e4
4.Rxh5? simply isn’t justified: 4…gxh5 5.e4 (5.e3 c5 6.Qxh5 cxd4 7.exd4 Qb6 8.Nf3 Qg6 9.Qh2 Qxc2 and Black stands very well, Novik-Klimakovs, playchess.com blitz 2005) 5…c5 6.Qxh5 cxd4 7.Nf3 Qb6 8.Na3 Qg6, with a clear advantage, Alberts-Wiese, ICCF email 2009.
4…d6 5.Nc3 Nf6
Or 5…c6 6.Bc4 Nf6 7.Qe2 Bg7 8.e5 Nd5 9.Nxd5 cxd5, Mukic-Sarno, Turin 2002.
6.Bg5!?
6.Bf4 Bg7 7.Qd2 would give interesting counterplay. Compare the following note.
6…c6
A good alternative is 6…Bg7 7.Qd2 h6! with the idea 8.Bxh6?? (8.Bf4) 8…Ng4.
7.a4
Slow. White should try 7.Qd2 b5 8.Bd3! with fair attacking chances, although with good defense Black should at least hold the balance.
7…Nbd7 8.f4!? Qa5
Or 8…h6 9.Bh4 Bg7 10.e5 Nd5 11.Nxd5 cxd5.
9.Qd2 Bg7 10.0-0-0?
10.e5! Nd5 11.exd6 exd6 12.Nxd5 Qxd5 13.0-0-0! is complex and unclear.
10…b5! 11.Qe1 b4 12.Nb1 Qxa4
With an extra pawn and queenside attack, Black is winning.
13.e5 dxe5 14.fxe5 Nd5 15.e6 fxe6
16.b3??
Even after the better 16.Nf3, 16…N7b6 17.Ne5 Qa1 threatens …Na4, and 18.Rh3 Rb8! is quite good for Black, since 19.Nxc6 Rb7 has ideas of both …a7-a5 and …Rc7.
16…Qa1
Threatening 17…Nc3.
17.Kd2?!
17.Ne2 e5!.
17…Qxd4+
And Black went on to win.
English Opening: Porcupine (A10)
1.c4 f5 2.e4 fxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.g4
The paternity of this gambit remains unclear. With the …f7-f5 and g2-g4 moves, it is in the Spike family, so perhaps Porcupine makes sense.
1.c4 f5 2.e4
The immediate 2 g4!? is the Wade Gambit below.
2…fxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.g4 e6
A bit slow. Black has three good alternatives:
A) 4…d5!? is bold: 5.g5 (5.cxd5 Bxg4 6.Qb3 Qc8 7.Bg2 e5! and Black stands better) 5…d4 (5…Ng4 6.cxd5 e5?! 7.Nxe4 Bc5 Persson-Muller, Eger 1993, and here 8.Qa4+! Bd7 9.Qb3 would refute Black’s idea, while the game’s 8.Nxc5 Qxd5 9.f3 Qxc5 10.fxg4 could have been met by 10…Nc6, with complications) 6.gxf6 dxc3 7.fxg7 cxd2+ 8.Bxd2 Bxg7 9.Qh5+. White has compensation for the pawn, although 9…Kf8 10.0-0-0 Qe8 is balanced;
B) 4…h6! stops g4-g5 and gives Black time to get …e7-e5 in: 5.d3 (5.Bg2 e5 6.Nxe4 (6.h4 d5) 6…d5! 7.Nxf6+ Qxf6 8.cxd5 Bc5 9.Qf3 0-0, or here 9…Qh4 10.Qxf6 Rxf6 with a big positional advantage. Then 11.f3 can even be answered by 11…c6, intending 12.dxc6 Nxc6) 5…e5! 6.dxe4 Bc5 7.g5 hxg5 8.Bxg5 Nc6 9.Nf3 d6 (with a modest advantage; White has weaknesses on d4 and along the f- and h-files) 10.Rg1 Be6 11.a3 (11.Nd5!) 11…Qd7 12.Na4 Bd4 13.Qc2 0-0-0 with a clear advantage, Tsebenko-Kofman, Ukraine 1964, Championship ‘Spartak’;
C) 4…g6 is also acceptable: 5.g5 (5.h4 d5 6.g5 Nh5 7.cxd5 Bg7 8.Qa4+ c6 9.Bg2 0-0 with a lead in development, Mellado Trivino-Del Rio de Angelis Zamora 1996; 5.Bg2 Bg7 6.g5 Nh5 7.Nxe4 Nf4 8.Bf1 d5 with a clear advantage, Bellon Lopez-Walton, Gibraltar 2008) 5…Nh5 6.Nge2 e6 7.d3 exd3 8.Ng3 Nxg3 9.hxg3 Nc6=, Mellado Trivino-Garbisu de Goni, Zamora ch-ESP 1996.
5.g5 Ng8
6.d4
6.d3 looks better, when 6…d5 (6…exd3 7.Bxd3 g6 8.h4) 7.cxd5 exd5 8.dxe4 d4 is unclear. A desperate try for White is 9.Bc4? (9.Nd5! c6 10.Nf4) 9…dxc3 10.Bf7+ Ke7 11.Qb3 as in Lipp-Storm, Germany tt 1991/92, when the simple 11…Qd3! would have left White with a bad position.
6…d5 7.f3 e3!?
This isn’t bad, but it’s also not necessary. Black could play. For example, 7…Ne7 with the idea …Nf5, and if 8.fxe4 dxe4 9.Nxe4 Nf5 10.Nf3, then 10…Nc6 puts hard-to-meet pressure on d4.
8.Bxe3 Ne7 9.Bd3
9.Qd2 Nf5 10.f4 is hard to assess.
9…dxc4 10.Qa4+?!
10.Bxc4 Nbc6 11.Nge2 Nf5 12.Qd2 Be7 13.0-0-0! has the idea 13…Nxe3? 14.Qxe3 Bxg5? 15.f4 Bf6 16.d5.
10…Nbc6 11.Qxc4 Nd5
(A.Vooremaa-M.Vooremaa, Estonia 1965) Black has the advantage, as the isolated pawn is blockaded and the bishop at e3 has a hard time keeping an eye on both the d-pawn and the g-pawn. Now…
12.Nxd5 exd5 13.Qb3 Bb4+ 14.Kf2 0-0
… is pretty ugly.
English Opening: Wade Gambit (A10)
1.c4 f5 2.g4 fxg4 3.e4
The Wade Gambit is similar to the Krejcik Gambit against the Dutch Defense, but c2-c4 is a little less useful than d2-d4.
1.c4 f5 2.g4
A typical wing gambit, designed to lure Black’s pawn away from central control.
2…fxg4 3.e4
3.h3 gxh3 (3…g3! is correct) 4.Nxh3 (4.Bxh3!) 4…e5 5.Qc2!? Nc6 6.Nc3 d6 7.Nd5 Nd4 8.Qd1 c6 and Black was clearly in control in Persson-Hogberg, Lidköping 1994.
3…d6
Or 3…e5 4.Qxg4 Nf6 5.Qe2 Nc6 6.d3 Nd4 7.Qd1 Bc5 and Black could be very happy with his position, Guth-Marzolf, France tt-2 2002/03.
4.d4
4…Nf6
4…e5 seems more forceful, since 5.dxe5 dxe5 6.Qxd8+ Kxd8 7.Nc3 Bb4 doesn’t give White anything for the pawn. Notice how confined White’s light-squared bishop is.
5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.Qa4+ c6?
7…Bd7! is strong, since 8.Qb3 can be met with 8…Nc6!.
8.0-0-0 0-0
It is easier to play gambits against opponents who insist on justifying your investment. Here opposite-wing castling encourages White to open up lines.
9.h3! Na6 10.Be2 gxh3 11.Nxh3
White has compensation for the pawn here. In fact, Black’s king is very exposed.
11…Ng4 12.Rdg1?
12.c5! is unclear.
12…Nxe3 13.fxe3 Bh6 14.Ng5 Kg7? 15.Qd1! e5? 16.Rxh6!
White has a decisive attack.
16…Kxh6 17.Rh1+ Kxg5 18.Rxh7 exd4 19.Qh1 Kf6 20.exd4 Bf5 21.exf5
Black resigned, Laco-Lanzani, Italy 1992. Mate will inevitably follow.
1.a3
White hopes to achieve a reversed opening where a2-a3 will prove useful. This odd first move is ultra-flexible, so we won’t try to analyze the multitude of possible replies. But it can’t be bad to play in the center and develop expeditiously. Here’s a classic struggle between two 19th century giants.
Anderssen – Morphy
6th Match Game, Paris 1858
1.a3 e5
Naturally Black has many other moves. For example, 1…d5 and 1…Nf6. Another good answer to many irregular moves is 1…g6. In this case, it discourages 2.b4 due to 2…Bg7.
2.c4
Anderssen’s idea in the mid-19th century. 2.b4 d5 is analyzed in the section on the Polish Opening (1.b4 e5 2.a3 d5).
2…Nf6 3.Nc3 d5
Open play, typical of Morphy. A solid alternative is 3…g6, and 3…c6 is also fine.
4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e3
A reversed Taimanov Sicilian has arisen.
5…Be6 6.Nf3 Bd6 7.Be2
7.d3 and 7.d4 are typical Sicilian moves, while 7.e4!? followed by d2-d4 is an intriguing option.
7…0-0
Now White plays the traditional Sicilian freeing move:
8.d4 Nxc3 9.bxc3 e4 10.Nd2 f5 11.f4
This is loosening. 11.c4 is a good option, or simply 11.0-0.
11…g5!?
Awfully committal. 11…Qh4+ and 11…exf3 12.Nxf3 Nd7 are possible alternatives.
12.Bc4! Bxc4 13.Nxc4 gxf4 14.exf4 Qe8 15.0-0 Qc6
16.Qb3
White has handled the Sicilian structure and ideas well, and here 16.Qe2 would maintain a pleasant advantage, intending 16…b5 17.Ne3! Qxc3 18.Rb1 with the threat of 19.Nxf5! as well as 19.Rxb5.
16…Qd5 17.Rb1 b6 18.Qa2
18.Ne5 gives Black more problems to solve.
18…c6!? 19.Qe2 Nd7 20.Ne3 Qe6 21.c4 Nf6 22.Rb3 Kf7?!
After 22…Rf7 23.Bb2 Rc8, Black stands only slightly worse.
23.Bb2 Rac8 24.Kh1 Rg8 25.d5!
With this breakthrough White stands better.
25…cxd5 26.cxd5 Qd7 27.Nc4! Ke7?
27…Rg6 was the best try, although White has a nice advantage.
28.Bxf6+
28.Rh3 is even more efficient, with Bxf6 to follow, winning.
28…Kxf6 29.Qb2+?
Again, 29.Rh3! is winning.
29…Kf7 30.Rh3
30.Qd4 Ke8 is no longer an easy position.
30…Rg7 31.Qd4 Kg8 32.Rh6!? Bf8 33.d6 Rf7?!
Black should switch blockaders with 33…Qb5 34.Ne3 Rd7.
34.Rh3 Qa4 35.Rc1 Rc5 36.Rg3+ Bg7 37.h3 Kh8? 38.Rxg7?
38.Qd2! with the idea Ne5, was quite good for White.
38…Rxg7 39.Rc3 e3!
40.Rxe3??
40.Qf6 led to a draw.
40…Rxc4! 41.Qf6 Rc1+ 42.Kh2 Qxf4+
White resigned.
Bird’s Opening: Batavo-Polish Attack (A02)
1.f4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.b4
This combination of Bird’s Opening and the Polish Opening was first played by the Great Dane Bent Larsen in the late 1950’s. White tries to play on both flanks, but creates weaknesses. The fianchetto defense with 2…g6 is particularly effective.
1.f4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.b4 Bg7
Simplest. 3…Nd5!? (attacking f4 and b4) is playable, but a tad greedy: 4.Bb2 f6 5.f5 (5.c4! Nxb4 6.d4 gives White plenty of compensation) 5…Nxb4 6.e4 (6.fxg6 Campioli-Columbo, Italy 1974, and simply 6…hxg6 with a small advantage was best) 6…d5! 7.a3 N4c6 8.Nc3 d4 (8…dxe4! 9.Nh4 Ne5 10.Nxe4 Qd5! 11.Nc3 Qd4 with a clear advantage) 9.Nd5 (9.Nb5! e5 10.fxe6 Bc5 11.c3 dxc3 12.Bxc3 Bxe6 13.d4 is unclear) 9…Bxf5 10.Nxc7+!? Qxc7 11.exf5 Nd7 and White has insufficient compensation for the pawn, Thieme-Puth, Nickenich 2012
4.Bb2 0-0 5.e3 d6
With typical King’s Indian Defense themes. A perfectly fine alternative is 5…d5.
6.Be2
6…e5!?
Also fine is 6…Nbd7 7.0-0 Re8 and …e7-e5.
7.fxe5 Ng4 8.0-0 Nxe5=
1.Nc3 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Qxd4
White has set up a formation which is a reversed Scandinavian Defense with an extra tempo. But in the Scandinavian, Black is usually working to achieve equality, and the extra tempo here just means that reaching equality is not so difficult. Gaining any sort of advantage for White is another matter.
1.Nc3 e5 2.d4
This is a form of the Van Geet Opening, but since White is playing a Scandinavian Defense with the extra move Nc3, we’re analyzing it separately.
2…exd4 3.Qxd4 Nc6
4.Qe3+
The other move analogous to the Scandinavian is 4.Qa4. Then play can proceed 4…Nf6 5.Bg5 (5.e4 Bb4 6.Bd2 0-0) 5…Be7 6.Nf3 0-0 7.Qh4?! (7.0-0-0 d6 8.e3 is double-edged) 7…d6 followed by …h7-h6 and Black has an edge, Schlenker-Müller, casual game 1987. He would also stand better after simply 7…h6!.
4…Nge7
4…Qe7 5.Nb5 Qxe3 6.Bxe3 should favor White. For example, 6…Bb4+ 7.c3 Ba5 8.b4 a6 9.Nd6+ cxd6 10.bxa5 Nxa5 11.Bb6 Nc4 12.Bd4.
5.Nd5 d6 6.Nf3
6.b3 Be6 7.Nf4 Qd7=, Kozidub-Khalilov, Kislovodsk 2010.
6…Be6
6…Ne5! equalizes.
7.Nf4 Bf5 8.Qb3
8.Bd2 Bxc2 9.Rc1 Bf5 10.g3 is an interesting gambit played in Hendriks-Bladyko, IECC 2007.
8…Rb8 9.e4! Bxe4 10.Ng5 d5 11.Nxe4 dxe4 12.Bc4 Ne5 13.0-0
White will get his pawn back, and Black has to get untangled and castled.
13…N7c6!
White keeps an edge after both 13…b5 14.Be2 Nf5 15.Ne6! Qe7 16.Nxf8 Kxf8 17.Qd5 and 13…Nxc4 14.Qxc4 Nc6 15.Nd5! with the idea Qxe4+ or Bf4.
14.Bd5 Bd6 15.Bxe4 0-0 16.Re1
And Black has almost equalized, but White still has the bishop pair and the easier position to play.
1.h3
There really is no point to this move. It weakens the kingside, and all Black has to do is choose an opening that does not involve placing a piece at g4! We follow a classic game by early masters.
Mead – Morphy
Casual Game, New York 1857
1.h3 e5
This to some extent justifies h2-h3, because White can play the Black side of a double e-pawn opening. 1…d5! is perhaps the best way to make 1.h3 look silly.
2.e4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Bc5 4.Bc4
So far we have a reversed Italian Game, where the move h2-h3 performs a small but useful function, keeping pieces out of g4. But in the Evans Gambit that is not a key part of the strategy, so Morphy jumps right in.
4…b5!?
Naturally 4…d6 is playable, and 4…c6 5.Nf3 d5 6.exd5 cxd5 7.Bb5+ Bd7 8.Bxd7+ Nbxd7 9.d4 exd4 10.Nxd4 is the traditional main line of the Giuoco Piano, with colors reversed and the extra move h2-h3. Black can either castle, with equality, or try 10…Qb6 11.Nce2 (11.Na4 Qa5+ 12.Nc3 Qb6 13.Na4 Qa5+ 14.Nc3 is a well-known repetition) 11…0-0 12.0-0 Rfe8. If anything, the move h2-h3 weakens White slightly.
5.Bxb5 c6 6.Ba4 0-0 7.Nge2
7.Nf3 was also possible.
7…d5 8.exd5 cxd5 9.d4
9.d3 Qa5 (9…d4!) 10.a3 was suggested by Maroczy.
9…exd4 10.Nxd4
White will try to blockade the isolated pawn, Black to break down the blockade.
10…Qb6
10…Ba6 is a reasonable option; Black may play this on his next move anyway.
11.Nce2?!
Passive. 11.Be3! develops quickly, since 11…Qxb2? (11…Ba6) 12.Ndb5 Bxe3 13.Rb1 wins the queen for insufficient compensation.
11…Ba6
The Black bishops already exert considerable pressure.
12.c3 Bxe2 13.Kxe2
There is no better capture. For example, 13.Qxe2 Bxd4 14.cxd4 Qb4+ 15.Bd2 Qxa4, or 13.Nxe2 Bxf2+ 14.Kf1 Bc5.
13…Bxd4 14.Qxd4
Inviting an exchange of queens, which is declined.
14…Qa6+ 15.Kf3 Rc8
16.b3!?
White has a pawn and the better structure, but he needs to get his pieces out:
A) 16.Re1 Rc4! 17.Qxd5! Nc6 (17…Nxd5?? 18.Re8+) 18.Bxc6 Nxd5 19.Bxa8 Nf6! with advantage;
B) 16.Qd1! Nc6 (16…Rc4 17.Bb3; 16…d4!?) 17.Re1 Rd8! 18.Kg3!? (or 18.Bxc6 Qxc6 19.Qd4) 18…Ne4+ 19.Kh2 Nxf2 20.Qe2 Qxa4 21.Qxf2 d4 22.b3 Qb5 23.cxd4 Nxd4 24.Be3 with a small edge for White, but not much of one.
16…Ne4!?
16…Nc6 17.Bxc6 Rxc6 with the idea …Re8. Black has sufficient compensation for the pawn.
17.Bb2?
This wastes time and removes the bishop from the defense of White’s king. There are two better moves:
A) 17.Qxd5 may well be drawn due to the forcing sequence 17…Nxc3 18.Qxa8 Nd7! (18…Qe2+? 19.Kg3) 19.Qxc8+ Qxc8 20.Bxd7 Qxd7 21.Be3 Qf5+! 22.Kg3 Qe5+ 23.Kf3 Qf5+=;
B) 17.c4 is a winning try, but riskier: 17…Nc6 18.Bxc6 Rxc6 19.g3 Nf6 (19…Rf6+ 20.Bf4) 20.Rd1 Rac8 21.Be3 dxc4 22.Qxa7. This isn’t clear, but White has some practical chances.
17…Nc6 18.Bxc6 Rxc6
Now 19…Rf6 is a huge threat.
19.Ke3
19.Qxd5 Rf6+ 20.Kg4 Qe2+ 21.f3 Qxg2+ 22.Kh4 Qg3+ 23.Kh5 Rh6+.
19…Re8 20.Rhe1 Nxc3+?
20…Rg6! wins immediately.
21.Kf3 Rf6+ 22.Kg3 Qd6+ 23.f4 Ne2+
24.Rxe2?
24.Kh2! Re4! 25.Qe5 Rxe5 26.fxe5 Qc7 27.Rxe2 Rc6 28.Rd1 Qa5 29.Bd4 h6 and White has stabilized the position, but Black has a material advantage and good chances to break through.
24…Rxe2 25.Rf1 Rg6+ 26.Kf3 Rgxg2
White resigned.
1.d3
This is a solid move that can’t be too bad. On the other hand, White shouldn’t expect any advantage if he doesn’t play a move contesting the four central squares.
A. Day – Schiller
Brighton 1985
1.d3 e5
Of course Black can play almost any logical move. For example, 1…d5, 1…c5, or 1…Nf6.
2.e4
Now it’s as though White played 1.e4 e5 and then the lame 2.d3. 2.Nf3 is a more interesting approach, and after 2…Nc6, 3.c4 is an English Opening, and 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 is a reversed Pirc Defense.
2…Bc5 3.c3
White neglects to develop his pieces on useful squares.
3…Nf6 4.b4?!
If White intended 4.d4…
Black has a few options. For example, 4…Bb6! (4…exd4 5.cxd4 Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Bxd2+ 7.Nxd2 Qe7!? 8.Qe2 d6 9.Ngf3 0-0=) 5.Nf3 (5.dxe5 Nxe4 6.Qg4 Bxf2+ 7.Ke2 d5 8.Qxg7 Rf8 9.Bh6 Bc5 10.Nf3 Bf5 with ongoing attack) 5…Nc6!? 6.Bd3 (6.d5 Nxe4 7.dxc6 Nxf2 8.Qd5 Nxh1 9.cxb7 Bxb7 10.Qxb7 0-0 with a clear advantage) 6…d5! 7.exd5 Qxd5 with an early initiative.
4…Bb6 5.Bb2 d6
Or 5…d5!.
6.Nd2
White’s formation is suspect.
6…Nc6 7.Nc4 Be6 8.Nxb6 axb6
White has the bishop pair, but lags in development and has a strange queenside structure.
9.a3 0-0 10.Nf3 Ne7!
An interesting transboard knight, taking the trip from c6 to g6.
11.Be2 Ng6 12.0-0 h6
Or 12…Nf4.
13.Re1 Nf4 14.Bf1
14…g5?!
14…Nh7!, preparing …Qf6, would set up interesting attacking prospects.
15.Kh1?!
White should counter the flank attack with the central break 15.d4!.
15…Ng4 16.Qd2 f5!
This leads to some wild complications.
17.h3 fxe4 18.hxg4?
18.dxe4 Nf6 has the idea …Qe8-h5.
18…exf3 19.gxf3 Bd5
The pressure at f3 is too much, so White sacrifices an exchange.
20.Re4 Bxe4 21.dxe4 Qf6 22.Qe3 h5 23.Bc1 Kg7
With …Rh8 coming, it’s all over.
24.Kg1 Rh8 25.Bg2 Qh6 26.Kf1 hxg4 27.Kg1 Qh2+ 28.Kf1 Qh1+
0-1
1.a3 g6 2.b3 Bg7 3.c3 d5 4.d3 c5 5.e3 e5 6.f3 Ne7 7.g3
When White places a long series of pawns on the third rank, with none on the fourth, the opening is often referred to as the ‘Hippopotamus’. We saw the same idea in the ‘Drunken Hippo’ variation and, in fact, could have combined the two. But here White plays 1.a3 first and Black responds with 1…g6, which is perhaps the most accurate move, since a bishop on g7 interferes with White’s plan of b2-b4 and Bb2.
1.a3
This is a legitimate independent move, but here we’re using it only to demonstrate a particular pawn formation. Perhaps a better way to set up a Hippopotamus formation is 1.d3 d5 2.e3 (or something similar), followed by double fianchettoing before committing the other pawns to the third rank. Black sometimes also plays a Hippopotamus set-up himself, usually with fianchettos preceding some of the pawn moves. An example on the very highest levels is Kramnik-Nakamura, Geneva Masters KO 2013, which went 1.c4 b6 2.Nf3 Bb7 3.Nc3 e6 4.e4 g6 5.d4 Bg7 6.Be2 Ne7 7.0-0 d6 8.Be3 Nd7 9.Qd2 h6.
There it is! Black has put most of his pawns on the third rank and no pieces beyond the second rank. Notice how Kramnik follows our general recipe against irregular openings. That is, he grabs the center and space, then develops, connects rooks, and breaks through: 10.d5 e5 11.b4 f5 12.c5 bxc5 13.bxc5 dxc5 14.Rab1 Rb8 15.Bb5 0-0 16.d6 cxd6 17.Qxd6 Nb6 18.Bxc5 Bf6 19.Nxe5 Qxd6 20.Bxd6, with a very large advantage.
1…g6
A good response to 1.a3, because White usually intends an early b2-b4 and Bb2, which is now ineffective. Of course, if you know that your opponent is determined to play on the 3rd rank, you can play as in our Drunken Hippo example, where Black grabs the center in classical fashion with …e7-e5, …d7-d5, etc.
2.b3 Bg7 3.c3 d5 4.d3 c5 5.e3 e5
Black sees the light and takes over the center, as in the Drunken Hippo sample.
6.f3
Somewhere along the way the Hippopotamus goes from being very ugly to very bad. White should get some pieces out.
6…Ne7 7.g3 Nbc6
A hippopotamus is a strong and ugly creature. The Hippopotamus Opening is also ugly, but weak. The advance of the pawns to the third rank has a weakening effect not only on the pawn structure, but also on king safety. It also hampers development, because the squares along the third rank, usually the best home for pieces, are occupied by pawns. As John Henderson says, ‘Recent research by The World Conservation Union has placed Hippos on the endangered species list – and it could well be the same over the chessboard’.
8.Nh3
Playing 8.h3 is really a bridge too far. Often the idea Nh3-f2 is associated with the ‘Hippopotamus’ brand.
8…0-0
8…h5 would be well justified here, threatening …h5-h4. There is no need to act so precipitously, however, and by continuing to develop in normal fashion Black obtains the better game.
9.Nf2 f5 10.Bg2 Be6 11.0-0 Qc7
Black has played very sensibly and can be extremely satisfied with the position.
12.e4
White acts in the center, despite the backward development. But at some point action needs to be taken, else Black will play …Rad8 and advance to e4 himself.
12…dxe4!
12…Rad8 13.Qc2 c4!? was played in Kühl-Bornack, Berlin 1985 (13…d4 and 13…Rd7 are good alternatives). After 14.dxc4 dxc4 15.b4 b5? (15…f4! keeps White somewhat tied up) 16.a4 a6 17.axb5 axb5 18.Be3, White had play on the dark squares and the a-file. This illustrates an important point regarding unorthodox formations. If you choose an inappropriate plan, any advantage inherited from the opening stage of the game is soon dissipated and your opponent, despite awkward or even ridiculous play, can gain the advantage.
13.dxe4 Rad8 14.Qc2 Qb6
The plan is to target weaknesses in the White camp and make them even more vulnerable. Here the b3-square is the target. 14…Na5 15.Nd2 Bh6 is another way to make progress.
15.b4 f4
15…a5 16.Be3 is less clear.
16.Nd2 a5!
Attacking b4 and forcing concessions. Black obviously stands better.
1.a3 e5 2.h3
The Creepy Crawly is an attempt to show that White can get away with anything.
Basman – T.Wall
Eastbourne ch-GBR 1990
1.a3 e5 2.h3
This is Basman’s creepy crawly opening. We’ve seen examples of 1.a3 and 1.h3, but not both together!
2…d5 3.c4
3.d3 c6 4.Nf3 Bd6 5.c4 Nf6 6.Nc3 d4 7.Ne4 Nxe4 8.dxe4, Basman-Speelman, Eastbourne ch-GBR 1990; and although Black went on to win after 8…a5 9.e3=, 8…c5 9.e3 Nc6 would have secured an advantage.
3…c6
Or 3…d4 4.d3 c5 with space; the move h2-h3 looks out of place.
4.cxd5
4.e3 is a move from Gerard Welling. Then 4…Nf6 5.b4 can lead to some wild antics on the queenside: 5…a5 6.Bb2 axb4 7.axb4 Rxa1 8.Bxa1 e4!? (8…d4!) 9.cxd5 cxd5 10.Bxf6! Qxf6 11.Nc3 Be6? 12.Qa4+ followed by Bb5 and Black was in trouble in Welling-Obers, Den Bosch 1992.
4…cxd5
5.g4!?
Crazy. 5.d3 Bd6 6.g4 Ne7 7.Bg2 Nbc6 8.Nc3 Bc7 9.Nf3 0-0, Basman-Emms, Plymouth ch-GBR 1992, is an example of how common-sense development gives Black the better game.
5…Nc6 6.Bg2 Be6 7.d3 Nge7 8.Nc3 Ng6 9.Nf3 Be7 10.g5 f5! 11.gxf6 gxf6
11…Bxf6! secures a clear advantage.
12.Rg1 Qd7 13.h4 h5 14.Qa4 0-0-0 15.b4 b6 16.Bd2 Kb8 17.b5 Na5 18.Na2 Nb7
Or 18…Rc8 intending 19.Bxa5 bxa5 20.Qxa5 Rc5 21.a4 Rc2! with a clear advantage.
19.Nb4 Bxb4! 20.axb4 Nd6 21.Bh3
21…Bxh3??
A complete turnaround. 21…Bg4! gives Black a very big advantage.
22.Rxg6 Rhg8?
Now Black is losing. Instead, 22…Nxb5 23.Rxf6 Rhe8 limits his disadvantage.
23.Rxf6 Rg7? 24.Bg5
24.Bh6! is better still.
24…Qc8? 25.Rc1 Rc7 26.Rc6! 1-0
After 26…Rxc6 27.bxc6, Nxe5 follows, or something even worse like 27…e4 28.Nd4 Ka8 29.Bf4.
Nimzo-Larsen Attack: Spike Variation (A01)
1.b3 Nf6 2.Bb2 g6 3.g4!?
This is a somewhat more logical advance of the g-pawn than is usually seen in the opening. White is trying to immediately exploit the pin on the knight at f6 and perhaps prepare Bg2. Nevertheless, g2-g4 is weakening.
1.b3 Nf6 2.Bb2 g6 3.g4!?
Once again we associate the move g2-g4 with the name ‘Spike’. Normally White plays 3.e3, 3.Nf3, 3.c4, or 3.g3 here.
3…Bg7 4.g5 Nh5 5.Bxg7 Nxg7
A fianchettoed knight. Given White’s extended pawn structure, it is not badly placed.
6.Qc1?!
The bishop is gone, so now White contemplates fianchettoing the queen! But this is slow. 6.d4 0-0 7.Nc3 d5 8.Bg2 c6 9.Qd2 Bf5 10.0-0-0 Nd7 is double-edged, even if slightly in Black’s favor.
6…0-0
6…d5! 7.Qb2 0-0 8.Bg2 c5 9.Nf3 Nc6 and with space and more harmonious development, Black has the better game.
7.e3
A shame. White forgoes the fianchetto with 7.Qb2.
7…e5 8.h4 d5 9.Be2 Nc6
This position clearly favors Black, since White has no pieces out to support the primitive attack. For example:
10.h5?
Giving up a pawn and position.
10…Qxg5 11.hxg6? fxg6 12.Nf3 Qf6
And because of the threats of …e5-e4 and …Bg4, White can resign.
1.a4
The Ware Opening, or Meadow Hay, is a pretty bad opening, although there’s no refutation. The move 1.a4 is committal, and does little that’s positive. One way of looking at it is that there are very few openings for Black where …a7-a5 is appropriate before the pawn structure is determined, exceptions being certain formations in the Bogo-Indian, Budapest and Fajarowicz Defense. So with colors reversed, Black should avoid those particular types of positions, but just about any other logical setup is good. The best choice is probably 1…e5, since the move a2-a4 will generally not be useful if Black proceeds intelligently.
1.a4 e5
A) 1…d5 2.Nf3 c5 would be cooperative, because after 3.e4!? dxe4 4.Ne5, the pawn at a4 controls the important b5-square. Among other things, that means that a knight can find a safe haven at c4. This sequence is a reversed Fajarowicz Defense (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ne4). Also, 3.g3 with a reversed King’s Indian isn’t bad. Instead, the developing move 2…Nf6 is logical and noncommittal;
B) 1…Nf6 is also fine, of course. White might want to try to set up a King’s Indian formation where a2-a4 is often useful. For example, 2.Nf3 d5 3.g3 c5 4.Bg2 Nc6 5.d3 e5 6.0-0 Be7 7.Nbd2 0-0 8.e4, securing c4 for his knight. But it’s not as though he gets an advantage.
2.e4
The move 1.a4 actually hurts White in most variations of a reversed Alekhine Defense (2.Nf3), a reversed Scandinavian Defense (2.d4), and a reversed Pirc Defense (2.d3). It might be fun or instructive for the reader to play around with those positions to see why.
2…Nf6 3.Nc3
3…Bb4
This is a logical strategy for Black, because in the Spanish Game Black usually chases the bishop with …a7-a6, a continuation that is not possible in this case with colors reversed. Another approach is 3…Nc6 4.Nf3 Bb4 5.Bb5 0-0 6.0-0 d6 7.d3 Bg4=, Carlsen-Radjabov, Astana 2012. And in several lines after 3…d5 4.exd5 Nxd5 (or 4…Bc5), having a2-a4 in can be disadvantageous for White. But our idea is to keep things simple.
4.Nf3 0-0 5.Nxe5 Re8
5…d5 6.Nd3 Bxc3 7.dxc3 dxe4 8.Nf4 Qxd1+ 9.Kxd1 is a reversed Berlin Defense in which a2-a4 might be mildly useful, but not enough to give White any chances for an advantage.
6.Nd3 Nxe4 7.Be2 Bf8 8.Nf4
Or 8.Nxe4 Rxe4 9.0-0=.
8…c6 9.Nxe4 Rxe4=
Jo.Rogers-Morris, England tt 2009/10.
1.b4
‘This move, which has so bizarre an aspect, occupies a place of honor amongst the “freak” openings. Later, at the New York Tournament of 1924, I termed this the “Orangutan” Opening, not only because I employed it there – against Maroczy – after a previous consultation with a young orangutang (during a visit by all the masters to the New York Zoo on the eve of the game in question) but also since the climbing movement of the pawn to b4 and then b5 is reminiscent of that inventive animal. The name has stuck.’ (Savielly Tartakower, in his collection My Best Games)
Lindqvist – Sörenfors
corr. 1975
1.b4 e5
1…d5 2.Bb2 Qd6
is fully playable. The queen supports the center and attacks the pawn at b4. White is not likely to be well prepared for this line:
A) 3.b5?! Qb4! (3…e5 4.e3 Nf6 5.Nf3 e4 6.Nd4 c5 7.bxc6 Nxc6=) 4.Bc3 (4.Ba3 Qxb5 5.e4 Qa5 6.exd5 Nf6) 4…Qxb5 5.e4 Qd7 6.exd5 Qxd5 7.Nf3 Nc6 and White has very little compensation;
B) 3.a3 e5 4.e3 Nf6 5.Nf3 (5.d3 is designed to discourage any further advance of the e-pawn. 5…Nbd7 6.Nf3 Be7 7.Be2 0-0 8.0-0= might follow. 5.c4 c6 6.Nf3 e4 7.Nd4 Be7 is double-edged) 5…e4! (5…Nbd7=) 6.Ne5 (6.Nd4 Nc6) 6…a5 7.b5 Be7 with advantage.
2.Bb2
2.a3 is slow and has a variety of good answers.
For example, 2…a5!? (2…d5 3.Bb2 f6 is a Reversed St. George Defense, in a system where White’s tempo is of little use. Also logical is 2…g6 3.Bb2 Bg7 4.Nf3 d6 5.c4 f5 6.e3 Nf6 7.Qc2 (Basman-Hardy, Cambridge 1980) and here 7…0-0 8.Nc3 Nc6 is an easy solution) 3.b5 Bc5 (or 3…d5) 4.e3 Nf6 (4…Qe7!? to prevent d2-d4) 5.Bb2 (5.d4 exd4 6.exd4 Be7 7.Nf3 0-0 8.Bd3 d5 9.0-0=) 5…Qe7 6.c4 0-0=, Wilk-Pinkas, Katowice 1995.
2…Bxb4! 3.Bxe5 Nf6
Black emphasizes rapid development.
4.e3
4.c4 0-0 5.Nf3 Re8 6.e3 d5 7.Bb2 transposes.
4…0-0 5.Nf3
White has traded a flank pawn for a center pawn, but Black is already castled and ahead in development, and he will win another tempo by attacking the bishop on e5. Black also gets pressure down the e-file, and his bishop on b4 interferes with White’s control of the center by pinning the d-pawn.
5…Re8
The alternative 5…d5 6.Be2 c5 is also good: 7.0-0 Nc6 8.Bb2 Ba5!. This both prepares …d5-d4 without allowing the answer c2-c3, and in some cases lets the bishop participate in a kingside attack after …Bc7. For example, 9.c4!? (9.d3 d4! with the idea …Nd5) 9…d4 10.exd4 cxd4 11.d3 Re8 12.Nbd2, Kocacandrle-Bertel, IEGG 2004, and there are a number of good moves, but 12…Bc3! is particularly effective.
6.c4
6.Be2 d5 7.0-0 Bc5 transposes to the previous note.
6…d5 7.cxd5
After 7.Bb2 c5 (or 7…Bf5 8.Be2 c6 9.0-0 Nbd7) 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.Be2 Bf5 10.0-0 Nc6, White lacks space and is a little tied down.
7…Nxd5
8.Be2?
This innocent move is punished horribly. But other moves aren’t so great either:
A) 8.Bc4 Be6 9.Be2 Nd7 10.Bb2 Bf5 11.0-0 Nc5!
B) 8.Bb2 Nf4! is awkward for White.
For example:
B1) 9.Ne5 Qg5! 10.exf4 Qxf4 11.Be2 Rxe5 12.Bxe5 Qxe5 13.Nc3 Bxc3 14.dxc3 Qxc3+ 15.Kf1 Nc6, Illing-Bogert, corr. 1993. Black has two pawns for the exchange and White’s king is exposed;
B2) 9.a3 Bd6! (9…Ba5?? 10.Qa4!) 10.Qc2 Bg4 11.Nc3 Nc6 12.0-0-0!? Ng6, with advantage (analysis by Richard Palliser);
B3) 9.Qb3 Nc6 10.Bc4?! (10.a3 Be6 11.Qc2 Ba5 is less harmful) 10…Nxg2+ 11.Kf1? Bh3 12.Bxf7+ Kh8 13.Bxe8 Qxe8 and Black is winning, especially in view of 14.Ng5 Nd4!! 15.Nf7+ (or 15.Bxd4 Qb5+) 15…Qxf7 16.Qxf7 Nf4+ 17.Ke1 Nd3+ 18.Kd1 Nxb2+ 19.Kc1 Nd3+ 20.Kd1 Bg4+ 21.f3 Bxf3+.
8…Rxe5! 9.Nxe5 Qf6
The knight is pinned to the rook on a1, and White can’t play 10.d4. So:
10.f4 Nxe3! 11.Qb3
11.Qa4 Nc6 (or 11…Bd7 12.Nxd7 Qxa1 or 11…Nxg2+ 12.Kf2 Qxf4+) 12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.a3 Nxg2+ 14.Kd1 Bxd2! 15.Kxd2 Bf5! 16.Ra2 Rb8! and wins.
11…Nxg2+ 12.Kd1 Nxf4 13.Nxf7
What else? 13.Qxb4 Qxe5 14.Qb5 Qe4 15.Rg1 Bf5, with three pawns for the exchange and a great attack.
13…Qxf7 14.Bc4 Be6 15.Bxe6 Nxe6 16.Re1
At this point in the game, 16…Nc6?! eventually led to a win, but…
16…Nd4! 17.Qxb4 Nbc6
… has ideas of …Qh5+ and ..Rd8, and there’s no defense. For example:
18.Qc3 Qh5+ 19.Kc1 Ne2+ 20.Rxe2 Qxe2 21.Na3 Rf8
And White could stop the clocks here.
1.e4 c5 2.b4
The Sicilian Wing Gambit has a simple idea: White gives up a wing pawn to establish a central presence. The problem is that Black still has his two center pawns and fairly easy development.
J.Madsen – Barfoed
correspondence 1994
1.e4 c5 2.b4 cxb4
3.a3
The best try to get some compensation. Other moves:
A) 3.c4?! hopes for 3…bxc3 4.Nxc3 with a development edge, but Black achieves a clear advantage by 3…e5! 4.Bb2 Nc6 5.Nf3 Nf6! (or 5…d6) 6.d3 (6.Nxe5 Nxe5 7.Bxe5 Nxe4 8.Qe2 Qe7 9.Qxe4 d6) 6…Bc5! 7.Nxe5 Qb6;
B) 3.d4 d5 (3…Nf6 4.Bd3 Nc6 5.Ne2 d6 6.0-0 g6 is another good approach)
This lets Black contest the center:
B1) Even Alekhine didn’t know why he gambited a pawn after 4.e5 Nc6 5.Be3 (5.Nf3 Bg4 6.Be2 e6 7.0-0 Nge7 8.a3 Nf5 and Black was already in charge in Kadas-Varnusz, Hungary 1986; 5.a3 Qb6 6.Ne2 Bf5, with the idea 7.axb4? Nxb4 8.Na3 Rc8, Janachkov-Liangov, Elenite 1986) 5…g6 6.Ne2 Bh6!? 7.Qd2 Bxe3 8.Qxe3 Bf5 9.Qd2 Qb6 10.c3 e6 11.f3 Rc8! 12.Qe3 h5 13.g3 bxc3 14.Nbxc3 Nb4 and Black is winning, Alekhine-Surber, Surabaya (simul) 1933;
B2) 4.exd5 Nf6 5.a3 Nxd5 (or 5…Qxd5 with the idea 6.axb4 e5!) 6.axb4 e5! (6…Bf5) 7.c3 (no better is 7.dxe5 Bxb4+ 8.Bd2 Nc6) 7…exd4 8.Qxd4 Nc6 9.Qe4+ Be7 10.Bc4 Nf6 11.Qe2 0-0 12.Nf3 Bg4 and Black has the initiative as well as the superior pawn structure.
C) 3.Bb2 is slow: 3…d5 (or 3…Nf6 4.e5 Nd5 5.Nf3 e6 6.d4 b6 7.a3 Bb7 8.axb4 Bxb4+ 9.c3 Be7 10.c4 Nb4, Pedersen-Taimanov, Kapfenberg Ech-tt 1970) 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.a3 e5 6.axb4 Bxb4 7.c4 Qc5! 8.f4 Nc6 9.fxe5 Nh6! 10.Nf3 0-0 with a clear advantage, Suarez-Zapata, Colombia 1988.
3…d5
This is the traditional main move, giving Black more space and development to work with. It is a comfortable way to call White’s pawn sacrifice into question. But Black has alternatives:
A) There’s nothing wrong with taking the pawn. For example, 3…bxa3 4.Nxa3 (4.Bxa3 d6! 5.d4 when 5…Nf6 6.Bd3 Nc6 7.c3 g6 8.Nf3 Bg7 9.0-0 0-0 – Black has no weaknesses. Instead, 4.d4 d6 5.Nxa3 transposes to 4.Nxa3) 4…d6 5.d4 Nf6 6.Bd3 e5 (or 6…e6) 7.c3 Nc6 8.Ne2 Be7 9.0-0 0-0, with advantage;
B) A simple move that counterattacks the e-pawn is 3…Nf6 4.e5 Nd5, and to be able to get his pawns moving, White should probably try recovering the pawn with 5.axb4, but then his center becomes fragile: 5…d6! 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.exd6 Qxd6 8.c3 Bf5 with a big lead in development.
4.exd5 Qxd5 5.Nf3
White had better not fall for 5.axb4?? Qe5+-+ 0-1 Peters-Shirazi, US Championship, Berkeley 1984. But 5.Bb2 e5! 6.axb4 Bxb4 is also depressing for White. For example, 7.Nc3 (7.Nf3 Nc6 8.Be2?! Nf6 9.0-0 e4!) 7…Bxc3 8.Bxc3 Nc6 9.Nf3 Nge7 10.Be2 (R.Spielmann-Sämisch, Marienbad 1925) 10…Ng6! 11.0-0 0-0 12.d3 Nf4 and White has less than nothing for his pawn.
5…e5!
Not only does Black have an extra pawn, but he has good control of the center. White has some play because of his development, but not enough.
6.axb4
Or 6.Bb2 Nc6 7.c4!? (7.Nxe5 Nxe5 8.Qe2 f6 9.d4 (Van Dijk-Winslow, New York Open 1993) 9…Be6! 10.dxe5 0-0-0 and Black stands better) 7…Qe6 (easiest) 8.Bd3 and now:
A) 8…Nf6 9.0-0 Bd6 10.Re1 0-0 11.axb4 Nxb4 12.Bf1 e4 13.d3 Qd7! 14.dxe4 (14.Bxf6 exf3 15.Bh4 fxg2 16.Bxg2 Nxd3! with material and position) 14…Nxe4! 15.Rxe4?? (15.Nc3 Nxf2!) 15…Bxh2+;
B) 8…e4!? 9.0-0 (9.Ng5 Qg6 10.Nxe4 Bf5 11.0-0 0-0-0) 9…f5! 10.Re1 Nf6 11.Ng5 Qd6 with the idea 12.Bc2? Ng4! 13.g3 Be7.
6…Bxb4 7.Na3
Perhaps the best try for some concrete compensation, hoping to play Nb5. Others:
A) 7.Ba3 gives limited compensation after, for example, 7…Bxa3 8.Nxa3 Nc6 9.Nb5, when apart from hanging onto the pawn by 9…Kf8, Black can keep a modest edge by 9…Qd8 10.Nxe5! Nxe5 11.Qe2 Ne7! 12.Qxe5 0-0 with superior development. Then 13.Nc7?! makes matters worse in view of 13…Nd5! 14.Qxd5 (14.Nxd5 Re8) 14…Qxc7 and …Re8;
B) 7.c3 Bd6 8.Na3 Bg4 9.Be2 Nc6 10.Nc4 (10.Nb5 Bb8 doesn’t help) 10…Bc5 11.Ncxe5 Nxe5 12.Nxe5 Qxe5 13.f3 Qf6 14.d4 Bd7 15.dxc5 Qxc3+ 16.Bd2 Qxc5.
7…Nf6 8.Nb5
8.Bc4 is too slow: 8…Qe4+ 9.Be2 0-0 10.Nb5 Nc6 with a clear advantage.
8…0-0!
Black grabs the initiative.
9.Nc7
9.c3 Bc5 10.Nc7 Bxf2+! 11.Kxf2 Qc5+ 12.d4 Qxc7; 9.Be2 e4 10.Nfd4 Nc6 11.Nxc6 bxc6-+, Rossetto-Iliesco, Mar del Plata 1944.
9…Qc5 10.Nxa8 e4 11.Ng1
There’s no good square for this piece. If 11.Nh4, 11…Ng4 12.Qe2 Rd8! is winning in view of multiple threats. For example, 13.h3 Nxf2 14.Qxf2 e3 15.Qf3 exd2+ 16.Bxd2 Bxd2+ 17.Ke2 Bg5!.
11…Ng4! 12.Nh3
White’s opening employs two drunken knights! 12.Qe2 Rd8! is similar to the previous note (even 12…e3 13.fxe3 Nxe3 will win – Rogozenco) 13.Nh3 (13.c3 Bxc3 14.Ba3 Qa5) 13…e3! 14.fxe3 Nxe3.
12…e3! 13.Bd3?
13.Be2! exd2+ 14.Bxd2 Rd8 is better for Black in view of 15.Bd3? Qe5+ 16.Kf1 Bxd2. Note that White’s knight is trapped on a8.
However, White can limit his disadvantage with 15.0-0! Rxd2 16.Bxg4 Rxd1 17.Rfxd1! Qc3! 18.Bxc8 Qxc8 19.Rxa7 Bc5 20.Raa1 Na6 21.Rd5 Nb4 22.Rd2 Nc6 and Black eventually wins the knight on a8, although the complications aren’t over yet.
13…Nxf2 14.Nxf2 exf2+ 15.Kf1 Re8
Black is winning, since 16.Be2 Bg4! 17.Bxg4 Re1+ 18.Qxe1 fxe1Q+ 19.Kxe1 Qe5+ picks up the rook on a1.