UGLY BLACK OPENINGS
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3: Irregular Moves for Black (C40)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3
After 2.Nf3, Black normally plays 2…Nc6, 2…Nf6, or 2…d6. Other moves are rarely seen and considered inferior. Let’s take a look and find uncomplicated ways of meeting them.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Qe7
This Gunderam Defense develops the queen prematurely. It gets in the way of Black’s other pieces. We have analyzed 2…Qf6 (the McConnell Defense) and 2…d5 (the Elephant Gambit) in their own sections, and 2…f6? is the Damiano Defense, often played by beginners. Unfortunately for Black, 3.Nxe5!
exploits the weakening of the h5-e8 diagonal: 3…fxe5? (3…Qe7 is the best move, but Black gets an awful position after 4.Nf3 Qxe4+ 5.Be2 because White can play 0-0 and Re1 or Nc3 next, with a huge lead in development. For example, 5…Ne7 6.0-0 d5 7.Re1 (threatening Bb5+-) 7…Nbc6 8.d4, intending moves like c2-c4 and Nc3. A typical disaster for Black would be 8…Bd7 9.Nc3 Qg6 10.Ne5! fxe5 11.Bh5) 4.Qh5+,
and now Black has only two legal moves:
A) 4…g6 5.Qxe5+ Qe7 6.Qxh8 leaves White two pawns and an exchange ahead. Black’s only chance is to trap the queen on h8, but it doesn’t work: 6…Nf6 (6…Qxe4+ 7.Kd1! not only threatens Qxg8, but moves like d2-d4, Bd3 and Re1+ are coming fast) 7.d3, threatening Bg5, and White wins;
B) 4…Ke7 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+ (ouch!) 6…d5 (6…Kg6 7.Qf5+ Kh6 8.h4! and 9.d3+ will mop up everything, a cute line being 8…d5 9.d3+ g5 10.Qf7! followed by hxg5+ will mate in a few moves) 7.Bxd5+ Kg6 8.h4! (still killing; now the threat is h4-h5+ and d2-d3+) 8…h5 9.Bxb7! Bxb7 (9…Nf6 10.Bxa8; 9…Bd6 10.Qa5!) 10.Qf5+ Kh6 11.d4+ g5 12.Bxg5+ (12.Qf7 mates quickly, but this is simpler) 12…Qxg5 13.hxg5+ Kg7 14.Qe5+ and that’s that.
3.Nc3 c6
To prevent 4.Nd5. The point of this system is to curl up with moves like …c7-c6, …d7-d6, and …Nd7, perhaps adding to the overprotection of e5 by …g7-g6 and …Bg7. Black could also play 3…Nf6, but after 4.Bc4, he should probably play 4…c6 anyway. White is also clearly better after 4…h6 5.d3 d6 6.Be3 with rapid development and ideas of Qe2, d2-d4, and castling queenside.
4.d4 d6 5.Bd3
A simple developing move. Alternatively, 5.a4!? prevents …b7-b5, although that’s not much of a threat: 5…a5 6.Be2 Qc7 (Paul Motwani points out that the natural fianchetto by 6…g6 7.0-0 Bg7 allows 8.dxe5 dxe5 9.b3! and the move Ba3 follows quickly) 7.0-0 Be7 8.Be3 Nf6 9.Nd2! 0-0 10.Nc4 Nbd7 11.Qd2. This is from the game Nikolenko-Sadiku, Berlin 1995. White is intending to build up on the d-file. Black tried to break free by 11…Nxe4!? 12.Nxe4 d5, but after 13.dxe5 dxe4 14.Bf4 Qd8 15.Rfd1, White stood much better.
5…b5 6.a3
Now White has a simple space advantage and development, while the pawn looks funny on b5. For example:
6…Nf6
6…Bg4!? is a poor choice because of 7.d5! a6 8.dxc6 Nxc6 9.Nd5.
7.0-0 Nbd7 8.d5! cxd5 9.Bg5! dxe4 10.Bxe4 Rb8 11.Bc6! a6 12.Nd5 Qd8
13.Nd4!!
And Black is overwhelmed by ideas like Qf3, f2-f4, and Nf5, since 13…exd4 14.Re1+ Be7 15.Bxf6 gxf6 16.Qxd4! simply wins.
Spanish Game: Fishing Pole (C65)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Ng4 5.h3 h5
This is the Fishing Pole Variation, played extensively and studied in enormous detail by National Master Brian Wall, a lover of irregular openings. He has won countless games with it, and over-the-board White has had many bad experiences, but a little preparation should help avoid that.
Huerga Leache – Etxeberria Iriondo
San Sebastian 2010
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Ng4!?
A crazy way to defend e5, based on the following tactic:
5.h3 h5!
Baiting the hook. From now on, Black is fishing around for counterplay. He will normally continue with …Bc5.
6.d4!
The knight isn’t going away, and White fights for the initiative. You must avoid 6.hxg4? hxg4 and if the knight moves, …Qh4 follows, but Black can win material anyway: 7.c3 
(7.Nc3?? Nd4)
7…a6 8.Ba4 (8.Bxc6 dxc6 9.d4 gxf3, winning) 8…gxf3 9.Qxf3 Qh4 10.Qh3 Qxh3 11.gxh3 Bc5! followed by …Rxh3 or …d7-d6 and …Bxh3.
6…exd4 7.Nxd4
7.Bf4 is also good, when White is ready to capture the knight. For example, 7…a6 (7…Qf6 8.Bxc7 d6 9.Qxd4) 8.Bc4 Bc5 9.hxg4 hxg4 10.Nh2 Qf6 11.Bg3 Ne5 12.Nd2 with a clear advantage.
7…Bc5 8.c3!?
8.Nb3! is stronger, and clearer:
8…Bd6 (White stands clearly better after 8…Bxf2+ 9.Rxf2 Nxf2 10.Kxf2 Qh4+ 11.Kg1 d6 12.Qf3 Bd7 13.Nc3; and Black loses with 8…Bb6 9.hxg4 hxg4 10.Qxg4) 9.f4! Qe7 (9…Qh4 10.e5 Be7 11.Qf3 a6 12.Bxc6 dxc6 13.Bd2, with the idea Be1) 10.Nc3 Bc5+ 11.Nxc5 Qxc5+ 12.Kh1 Nf2+ 13.Rxf2 Qxf2 14.Nd5 and White is in charge.
8…a6
8…Qh4 creates more complications, even if they aren’t fully satisfactory. For example, 9.b4 (or 9.a4 with the idea 9…a5 10.Na3! or 9.Bf4 Nge5 10.Ne2) 9…Bb6 10.a4!. This intends a4-a5 and gives White an edge. For example, 10…a6?! (10…Nxd4! 11.cxd4 c6 is better, but 12.Be2 Bc7 13.f4 Nh6 14.Nc3 yields a central advantage) 11.Bxc6 dxc6 12.a5 Ba7 13.Bf4! and Black can’t be happy.
9.Bxc6 dxc6 10.hxg4 hxg4
11.g3
Directly preventing …Qh4. 11.Nf5 Bxf5 (11…Qf6 12.Qxg4 Kf8 13.Qg5) 12.Qxd8+ Rxd8 13.exf5 g3 also favors White but not by quite as much. For example, 14.Re1+ Kf8 15.Be3 Bxe3 16.fxe3 Rh5 17.e4 Rh2 18.c4 Ke7 19.Nc3! Rdh8 20.Kf1 R8h4 21.Ne2.
11…Qf6 12.Re1?!
Better is 12.Be3!.
For example, 12…Qg6 13.Re1 Qh5 14.Kf1 Qh1+ 15.Ke2 Qxe4 16.Nd2 Qd5 17.Qb3 and White’s extra piece is decisive.
12…Bd7 13.b4?
A more serious mistake. Again, 13.Be3 is best. For example, 13…0-0-0 14.Kg2 Rh3 15.Nd2 Rdh8 16.Rg1.
13…0-0-0 14.Be3 Bxd4! 15.cxd4 Rh3
Black has a wicked attack and more than enough for a piece.
16.Kg2 Rdh8 17.Rg1 c5! 18.bxc5
18.Nc3 Rh2+ 19.Kf1 Rh1 isn’t much better.
18…Qe6?!
Having finally obtained the advantage, Black slips up. He should play the forcing line 18…Rh2+ 19.Kf1 Rh1! 20.Nc3 Qf3! 21.Qxf3 gxf3 22.Ne2! Bg4! 23.Ke1 fxe2, when White will have problems holding.
19.Kf1 Rh1 20.Ke2 Ba4!?
20…Bb5+ draws: 21.Kd2 Rxg1 22.Qxg1 Qxe4 23.Qd1 Qd3+ 24.Kc1 Rh1! 25.Qxh1 Qc4+ 26.Kb2 Qb4+=.
21.Rxh1! Bxd1+ 22.Rxd1 Qxe4 23.Kd2
23.Nd2! and White has some advantage with his two pieces and a rook for the queen.
23…g5!?
And the game was agreed drawn. The main point, however, is that White seems to be winning the opening battle. Can you save the Fishing Pole?
Spanish Game: Vinogradov Variation (C60)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Qe7
This variation has two flaws. The queen on e7 interferes with the bishop at f8, and the queen is deployed prematurely. Black’s idea is to retreat the knight to d8 and then play …c7-c6, but this is very slow and therefore risky. Grandmaster Mihail Suba is probably the strongest player to use it consistently, although experimentally-minded theoreticians such as Duncan Suttles and Lawrence Day have tried it, and we will cite several games by Edward Formanek.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Qe7 4.0-0
Another good way to play is 4.Nc3 Nd8
5.d4 (or 5.0-0 c6 6.Bc4 d6 7.d4 g6 8.a4 Nh6 9.h3 f6 10.Be3 Bg7 11.Re1 Nhf7 12.Bf1 Bh6 13.Bxh6 Nxh6 14.Qd2 Nhf7 15.b4 0-0 16.a5 exd4 17.Nxd4 a6 18.Na4 and White is clearly better, Rizzitano-Formanek, World Open, Philadelphia 1988) 5…f6 6.dxe5 fxe5 7.Bg5 Qc5 8.Bxd8 Kxd8 9.Ng5 Qe7 10.Qh5 Nf6 11.Qh4 c6 12.Bc4 and White has powerful play on the light squares, Bailey-Day, Canada 1988.
4…Nd8 5.d4 c6 6.Ba4
6.Bd3 d6 7.dxe5 dxe5 8.b3 Qc7 9.Bb2 f6 10.Nbd2 Nh6 11.a4 is also good for White, De Firmian-Formanek, World Open, Philadelphia 1987.
6…d6
7.h3
7.c4 is very hard to meet. Then 7…g6 8.Nc3 Bg7 9.dxe5 dxe5 10.Nd5 Qd7 was seen in Ivanov-Formanek, Boston Open 1990. Now 11.Qc2 or 11.Be3, with the idea Bc5, looks practically winning and better than 11.b4, as played in the game.
7…f6?! 8.c4 a6 9.Be3 b5 10.Bb3 Rb8 11.cxb5 axb5 12.Nc3 g6 13.Qd2 g5 14.dxe5 dxe5 15.Rfd1
White has a killing advantage, Matanovic-Suttles, Belgrade 1969.
Spanish Game: Alapin Variation (C60)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bb4
This is the granddaddy of swinging bishop positions, already analyzed in depth by Simon Alapin in the 19th century. Black’s bishop at b4 attacks absolutely nothing and can be driven back by c2-c3, which is a normal move in the Spanish anyway. This simple logic kept the opening out of circulation for decades, but some players feel that the queenside is a good home for the bishop. The game can actually transpose to several popular variations if the bishop gets to b6. Still, White gets all the advantages of the Evans Gambit without having to invest a pawn. Johnny Hector is one of the few grandmasters willing to consistently defend the Black side, but recently so did Magnus Carlsen (in blitz against Karjakin).
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bb4 4.c3 Ba5 5.0-0
This is the most natural move, but others are also dangerous:
A) 5.d4 exd4 6.b4 Bb6 7.cxd4 Nge7 8.0-0 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 (De Wit-Welling, Belgium tt 1987). White’s pawns at d4 and b4 suddenly look weak and the game is up in the air: 10.Re1+ Be6 11.Bg5 should follow;
B) 5.Na3 Bb6 (5…Nf6 6.Nc4 Bb6 7.d3 d6 8.h3 a6 9.Nxb6 cxb6 10.Ba4 b5 11.Bb3 h6 12.0-0 0-0 was marginally better for White in Isupov-Gusev, Moscow 1995) 6.Nc4 d6?! (6…Nf6) 7.d4 exd4 8.a4? (after 8.cxd4! it’s hard for Black to defend) 8…Be6?! (8…dxc3) 9.Nxb6 axb6 10.Bg5 (10.cxd4 d5 11.e5) 10…Ne7 11.Nxd4 Bd7 and White had only a minor pull in Suarez Pousa-Hector, La Coruna 1995;
C) 5.Bxc6 dxc6 6.Qa4 Bb6 7.Nxe5?? Qg5 is not what White wants!
5…Nge7
White has tried many moves here, and we will just look at a few logical systems.
6.Na3
White plans to attack the bishop with Nc4.
A) 6.Qa4 is interesting. For example, 6…Bb6 (6…a6!) 7.d4 exd4? (7…Ng6) 8.cxd4 Ng6 (8…a6 9.d5) 9.Nc3 and White’s strong center was very impressive in Maxiutov-Khudiakov, Orel 1996;
B) 6.b4 is a popular move. The main line continues 6…Bb6 7.Bxc6 Nxc6 8.b5 Na5 9.Nxe5 0-0 10.d4 Qe8
and after a whole century this position continues to find advocates for the Black side: 11.Qd3!? (probably not best. 11.Qe2 f6 12.Nc4 d5 13.Nxb6 cxb6 14.Nd2 Bd7 15.a4 and White was better in Chaplinsky-Gusev, Soviet Union 1967. Or 11.Nd2 f5 12.Nec4 fxe4 13.Ne3 c6 14.Ba3 Rf6 15.Bb4 d5 16.bxc6 bxc6 17.Qa4 and White had pressure on the Black pawn chain in Anand-Hector, Palma de Mallorca 1989) 11…f5 12.Qg3 Kh8 13.exf5 d6 14.Nf3 Qxb5 15.Be3 Bxf5 16.Nbd2 Qa4 17.Nh4 Nc4 and Black was not worse in Schlechter-Alapin, Berlin 1897;
C) 6.d4 exd4 7.cxd4 d5 (7…0-0 8.d5 a6 was played in Melekhin-Zubkov, Moscow 1995, where Black is worse if White retreats to e2) 8.e5 (8.exd5 Qxd5 9.Bxc6+ Nxc6 10.Nc3 Bxc3 11.bxc3 0-0 was about even in Lipke-Alapin, Vienna 1898) 8…0-0 (8…Bg4 9.h3 Bh5 10.Nc3 0-0 11.g4 Bg6 12.Nh4 Bb6 13.Be3 f6 14.exf6 Rxf6 and Black was doing quite OK in the blitz game Karjakin-Carlsen, Stavanger 2014) 9.Bg5 h6 (9…f6 10.exf6 gxf6 11.Be3 Bg4 is better for White but playable, Schmittdiel-Hector, Ostend 1990) 10.Bxc6? (10.Bh4) 10…hxg5 11.Ba4, Sören Boeck Petersen-Welling, Lyngby 1991, and here 11…g4! 12.Nfd2 Bb6 13.Nb3 f6 is simply good for Black.
6…0-0 7.Nc4 d5 8.Nxa5 Nxa5
Hector has defended this position many times, with mixed results but enough draws against grandmaster competition that one can certainly make the claim that the variation is playable for Black. Old Simon Alapin would be pleased!
9.d4 dxe4 10.Nxe5 f6 11.Ng4
11.b4 fxe5 12.bxa5 Qd5? (12…exd4 is correct, with White standing a bit better) 13.Ba4 Qd6 14.Rb1? (14.Qb3+ Be6 15.Ba3! Qa6 16.Qb2
) 14…Qg6 15.Kh1 and White had a small advantage in Kovalev-Hector, Gausdal 1990.
11…Qd5?!
11…c5! creates counterplay.
12.Ba4 Bxg4 13.Qxg4 f5
13…Nc4 14.Bb3 b5 keeps White’s advantage in check.
14.Qg3 Qc4 15.b3 Qa6 16.Qxc7
And White was a pawn up with the better position in Kindermann-Hector, Debrecen 1989.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5
The Latvian Gambit is a type of reversed King’s Gambit. Black attacks White’s center and tries to open his own f-file. In some respects White’s knight on f3 can be a drawback as well as an advantage, because either …fxe4 or …e5-e4 will gain time. Nevertheless, White can wend his way to advantage.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.exf5
This is a sort of reversed King’s Gambit Accepted, although Black’s next move will change the character of the struggle. There are several other good ways to attack the Latvian Gambit, but unlike the text move, they involve learning a lot of theory.
3…e4!
Black has a variety of options here, but they are all weaker:
A) A strange transposition is 3…d6?! 4.d4 e4 5.Ng5! which is the exact position we examine in our second solution to the Philidor Counter Gambit! This is good for White, but also good is 5.Qe2! Qe7 (5…d5 6.Ne5 with the idea g2-g4, and if 6…Bxf5, 7.Qb5+ wins material; 5…Nf6 6.Nc3 looks very promising for White. For example, 6…Qe7 7.Nh4 Nc6 8.Be3 d5 9.0-0-0) 6.Nfd2, as given by Dzindzichashvili. White would like to play Qh5+ or if 6…Nf6, 7.g4!. The natural 6…Bxf5? runs into 7.Qb5+ Bd7 8.Qxb7 Bc6 9.Bb5 Qd7 10.Qxa8 with material gain;
B) 3…Qf6?! 4.Nc3! Qxf5 5.d4 threatens Bd3 or Nxe5. For example, 5…e4 6.Nh4! Qe6 7.Qh5+ g6 8.Nxg6! Qxg6 9.Qe5+ Be7 10.Nd5! and Black can’t stop Qxh8, whereas Nxc7 threatens as well (but not 10.Qxh8?? Bf6);
C) 3…Bc5?! 4.Qe2!? (‘falling for it’ by 4.Nxe5! Bxf2+ 5.Kxf2 Qh4+ is also fine, when easiest is 6.g3 Qd4+ 7.Kg2 Qxe5 8.Qe2! and White stays a pawn up) 4…Qe7 (4…d6 5.d4! 4…Nc6 5.Nxe5 Qe7 6.Nxc6 dxc6 7.Qxe7+ Nxe7 8.f6 gxf6 9.Bc4) 5.Qxe5 Qxe5+ 6.Nxe5 d6 7.Nf3 Bxf5 8.d4 Bb6 9.c3, and again White is a pawn up for insufficient compensation;
D) 3…Nc6 4.d4 e4?! (4…exd4 5.Nxd4 Nf6 6.Be3 d5 7.Nc3 Bb4 8.Bd3) 5.Ng5 Nf6 6.d5! (6.Be2!?) 6…Ne7 (6…Ne5 7.Qd4! d6 8.Ne6) 7.Nc3 Nxf5 8.Ngxe4 Be7 9.Bc4 Nxe4 10.Nxe4 d6 11.Qh5+ g6 12.Qe2 0-0 13.0-0 with an extra pawn and a superior position.
4.Ng1!
An ‘!’ for uniqueness. 4.Ne5 is the normal move, and ultimately a good one, but the knight retreat is a nice, simple way to handle the Latvian. White tries to prove that Black’s position is already overextended by the move …e5-e4. His first threat is 5.Qh5+.
4…Nf6
Black has six plausible moves, but this is almost certainly best:
A) 4…Bc5?! 5.Qh5+ Kf8 6.f6! hitting the bishop on c5, with fxg7+ next;
B) 4…d5? 5.Qh5+ Ke7 (5…g6? 6.fxg6 Nf6?? 7.g7++–; 5…Kd7 6.Qf7+ Kc6 7.Nc3 Nf6 8.d3) 6.d3 (6.b3) 6…Nf6 7.Bg5 Bxf5 8.Nc3, with a huge advantage, Tiemann-Diepstraten, Atars Memorial 1985. Black’s center is collapsing;
C) 4…Qg5 5.d3 Qxf5 6.dxe4! Qxe4+ 7.Be2 Nf6 (7…Qxg2?? 8.Bf3 Qg6 9.Bh5) 8.Nf3 is simply good for White. For example:
C1) 8…Bb4+ 9.Nbd2 (9.c3 Bc5 10.0-0 0-0 11.Nbd2 is also promising, or 9.Bd2!? 0-0 10.0-0 Bxd2 11.Qxd2! d5 12.Nc3 Qf5 13.Rfe1!) 9…Qe7 10.0-0 0-0 11.a3 Bc5 12.b4 Bb6 13.Bb2 d5 14.c4 c6 15.Bd3 intending Re1;
C2) 8…Bc5 9.0-0 0-0 (9…d5 10.Nc3 Qe6 11.Bc4! dxc4 12.Re1) 10.Nc3 Qf5 (10…Qe6 11.Ng5! Qc6 12.Bc4+ etc.) 11.Bg5! Nc6 (11…d6 12.Bxf6 Qxf6 13.Ne4 Qf5 14.Bd3 Qf4 15.Nfg5) 12.Bd3 Qg4 13.Bxf6 gxf6 14.Nd5 Bb6 15.Re1 d6 16.Ne7+ Kh8 17.Re4 Qg7 18.Nxc8 Raxc8 19.Rh4 f5 20.Rh5 with a nearly decisive advantage.
D) 4…h5 tries to stop both Qh5+ and g2-g4, but as you can imagine, it costs time and is weakening: 5.d3 Nf6 (5…Qe7 6.dxe4 Qxe4+ 7.Be3! threatening Nf3 and Bd3 follow by 0-0 and perhaps Re1, with a winning lead in development. Black has terrible weaknesses on the kingside; 5…d5 6.dxe4 dxe4 7.Qxd8+ Kxd8 8.Ne2 Bxf5 9.Nbc3 Nf6 10.Bg5 Kc8 11.Nd4 Bg6 12.0-0-0 Nbd7 13.Bc4 is too good for White) 6.dxe4 Nxe4 7.Bd3 Qe7 8.Ne2. For example, 8…d5 9.0-0 Bxf5 10.Nd4 Bd7 11.Re1 Nc6 12.Nc3! and wins;
E) 4…Qf6 5.d3! d5?! (5…Qxf5 6.dxe4 Qxe4+ 7.Be2 transposes to 4…Qg5) 6.Qh5+ Qf7 (6…g6 7.fxg6 hxg6 8.Qxd5+–) 7.Qxf7+ Kxf7 8.dxe4 dxe4 9.Bc4+ Ke8 10.Ne2 Bxf5 11.Nbc3 c6 12.Ng3 Ne7 13.Bg5 Bg6 14.0-0-0 Nd7 15.Ngxe4 Rd8? 16.Nd6+ 1-0, Stummer-Nolden, corr. 1991.
5.d3
5…d5!
Black again has alternatives, but none so good as this:
A) 5…exd3 6.Bxd3 d5 7.Nf3 c5 8.0-0 c4 9.Be2 Bxf5 10.Bg5 Be7 11.Nc3 and White is well on top;
B) 5…Qe7 6.dxe4 (6.d4!? d5 7.g4 should also favor White) 6…d5 (6…Nxe4 7.Be3; 6…Qxe4+ 7.Be3 Bc5 8.Nc3 Qxf5 9.Bxc5 Qxc5 10.Qe2+) 7.Be2 Qxe4 8.Nc3 Qxf5 9.Nf3, with rapid development and attacking prospects;
C) 5…Bc5 6.dxe4 (or 6.Nc3) 6…Bxf2+?! (White is better after 6…Qe7 7.Nc3 Nxe4 8.Nxe4 Qxe4+ 9.Qe2 Qxe2+ 10.Bxe2 0-0 11.g4) 7.Kxf2 Nxe4+ 8.Ke1 Qh4+ 9.g3 Nxg3 10.hxg3 Qxh1 11.Qe2+ Kf7 12.Nf3 Re8 13.Be3 d5 14.Kf2! and White was winning in Bosch-Nuñez, Catalonia Championship 1998.
6.dxe4 Qe7!
6…Nxe4? 7.Qh5+ is obviously good for White, and 6…dxe4 7.Qxd8+ Kxd8 8.Nc3 (or 8.Bg5 Bxf5 9.Ne2 intending Nd4 or Ng3 and Nc3) 8…Bxf5 9.Nge2 Bc5 10.Ng3 Bg6 11.Bg5 also favors White. For example, 11…Re8 12.Bxf6+ gxf6 13.h4 h6 14.Bc4 e3 15.0-0-0+Nd7 16.f3.
7.Nc3
Objectively, White might be better off with the moderate advantage resulting from 7.Be2 Qxe4 (7…Nxe4? 8.Bh5+; 7…dxe4?! 8.g4) 8.Nc3 Qxf5 9.Nf3 or 9.Bd3.
7…Bxf5 8.Bg5
Developing a piece, rather than trying to hold on to his material.
8…Bxe4
8…dxe4 is Kosten’s preference, intending …0-0-0, but then 9.Nd5 Qe5 (9…Qd6 10.Nxf6+ gxf6 11.Qxd6 Bxd6 12.Bxf6) 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Qh5+ is strong.
9.Qe2 Nc6!
9…c6 10.0-0-0 Nbd7 11.Re1! threatening Qd2 and then f2-f3.
10.Nxe4 Qxe4
10…dxe4 11.0-0-0 Qe6 12.Qc4! Qf5 13.Bxf6 gxf6 14.g3 Bd6 15.Bh3.
11.0-0-0
White has only a limited advantage, but endings will favor his two bishops and development. For example:
11…Qxe2
11…0-0-0 12.Qxe4 dxe4 13.Rxd8+ Nxd8 14.f3! with the bishop pair.
12.Bxe2 0-0-0 13.Nh3 Be7 14.Bf3 d4?! 15.Rhe1 Rhe8 16.Nf4 h6 17.Bxf6 Bxf6 18.Ne6 Rd6 19.Nxd4!? Rxe1 20.Bg4+ Kb8 21.Nxc6+ Rxc6 22.Rxe1
Even with opposite-colored bishops, White has good practical chances of converting his extra pawn.
Philidor Defense: Albin-Blackburne Gambit (C41)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Bg4 4.dxe5 Nd7
Despite being dismissed as unplayable by many authorities, this gambit has retained some popularity for a diehard fan base. Black gives away a pawn for rapid development and, if he only had an extra tempo, the gambit might be justified. As things stand, Black has to struggle for compensation. Nevertheless, the opening can be used in amateur events and blitz games.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Bg4 4.dxe5 Nd7
This is the gambit. 4…Bxf3? is familiar to all chess players from this devastating Morphy demonstration: 5.Qxf3 dxe5 6.Bc4 Nf6 7.Qb3 Qe7 8.Nc3 (8.Qxb7 Qb4+ 9.Qxb4 Bxb4+ 10.c3) 8…c6 9.Bg5 b5 10.Nxb5! cxb5 (10…Qb4+ 11.Nc3) 11.Bxb5+ Nbd7 12.0-0-0 Rd8 13.Rxd7! (13.Bxf6 Qxf6 14.Rxd7 Rxd7 15.Rd1 Bd6) 13…Rxd7 14.Rd1 Qe6 15.Bxd7+!! Nxd7 16.Qb8+! Nxb8 17.Rd8+ Morphy-Duke of Brunswick and Count Isouard, Paris 1857.
5.exd6 Bxd6
White should certainly accept the Albin-Blackburne Gambit. Black gets a little play for the pawn, but not enough to create serious problems if White plays sensibly. Trading pieces and eliminating the light-squared bishop are important goals.
6.Be2
6…Ngf6
A) 6…Qe7 7.Nd4! h5 (7…Bxe2 8.Qxe2 0-0-0 9.Nf5) 8.h3 Be6 9.Nc3 Ngf6 10.Bd3 0-0-0 11.Qe2 Bb4 12.0-0 Rhe8 13.a3 Bxc3 14.bxc3 Nc5 15.a4 Qd7 16.Ba3 Nxa4 17.Bb5 c6 18.Bxa4 Bxh3 19.gxh3 Qxh3 and Black resigned, Macieja-Kolkin, Plock (rapid) 1994;
B) 6…Bxf3 7.Bxf3 Qh4 8.g3 (or 8.Qd5) 8…Qf6 9.Nc3 Ne7 10.Nd5 Nxd5 11.exd5 and White is a pawn up with the bishop pair, Jakob-Fritz, Düsseldorf ch-GER 1908.
7.Nd4
This move actually aids development. Black is more or less obliged to trade his strong bishop, bringing White’s queen to e2. 7.Nc3 is a main line which is also good.
Bücker recommends 7…Qe7, with the idea of queenside castling and play on the central files. That’s fine, but Black has no pawn breaks and is still short of compensation. The play might proceed 8.Nd4 Bxe2 9.Qxe2 Bb4 10.0-0 (or 10.f3 Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 Qc5 12.Bd2 0-0-0 13.0-0 with a substantial advantage) 10…Bxc3 11.bxc3 0-0-0!? (11…Nxe4?? 12.Re1; 11…0-0 12.f3) 12.f3 Qc5 13.Be3!.
7…Bxe2 8.Qxe2 0-0 9.f3!
This is considered best by Bücker. 9.0-0 is the main option, but it allows 9…Nc5! 10.f3 Bxh2+ 11.Kxh2 Qxd4, with only a small advantage for White.
9…Re8 10.Nf5
10.Nc3! is even stronger, when after 10…c6 11.Be3, White has an extra pawn and the superior position.
10…Be5
Bücker admits that this is also better for White. Apparently there’s a clear advantage with accurate play. For example:
11.0-0 c6?
11…g6 improves, but 12.Nh6+ Kg7 13.Rd1 Qe7 14.Na3 clearly favors White.
12.f4 Bc7
12…Qb6+?? 13.Be3 Qxb2 14.fxe5 Qxa1 15.Bd4! Qxa2 16.exf6 and wins.
13.e5 Nd5 14.Qg4 g6 15.Nh6+ Kg7 16.Qh3 Qe7
16…N7b6? 17.Nxf7!.
17.Nc3 Nxc3 18.bxc3
Apart from the extra pawn, White has a powerful attack on the dark squares.
King’s Gambit: Mafia Defense (C30)
1.e4 e5 2.f4 c5
The Mafia is a Sicilian reaction to the King’s Gambit. This position can also be reached from the Sicilian via c5 2.f4 e5. It is a typical example of disclosing one’s defenses prematurely, while Black is also failing to develop his pieces.
1.e4 e5 2.f4 c5 3.Nf3 d6
3…exf4 4.Bc4 scores well for White, as …c7-c5 is rather a loss of time and does not fit well with standard lines.
4.Bc4 Qf6?
Here we see a type of the Nordwalde Variation in the King’s Gambit Declined (2…Qf6), but an even worse version. 4…Nc6 is a much safer line, but White has a good attacking position. Then 5.0-0 Be7 (5…h6? 6.fxe5 dxe5 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Nxe5+ Ke6 9.Ng6+-) 6.fxe5 dxe5 7.d4!? is an interesting approach for White, since 7…cxd4 8.Bxf7+! gives him a strong attack.
5.Nc3 Be6
6.Bxe6
A) 6.Nd5 Qd8 7.0-0 is also strong;
B) 6.Bb5+ Nc6 7.f5!? (7.fxe5! dxe5 8.0-0) 7…Bd7 8.0-0 Qd8 9.d3 was a little better for White in Morphy-Thrupp, London 1859.
6…Qxe6
6…fxe6 7.fxe5 dxe5 8.0-0 is clearly better for White, with better development and pawn structure.
7.0-0 Nf6 8.d3
And White stands clearly better. Black has poor development and a very bad bishop.
Sicilian Defense: O’Kelly Variation (B28)
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 a6
The O’Kelly Sicilian. Black thinks that …a7-a6 will be useful in any Sicilian, and intends …b7-b5 at an early stage.
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 a6 3.c3
This is a commonsense solution. White plays the 2.c3 Sicilian with the extra move Nf3 versus Black’s …a7-a6. Most players would probably rather have the former move in than the latter. 3.c4 followed by d2-d4 is another way to play. Black’s main point is seen in the line 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 (4…e5 is also fine) 5.Nc3 e5! with ideas of …Bb4 and perhaps …d7-d5.
3…d5
Against most other moves, White simply plays 4.d4 and takes over the center with advantage. The main alternative is 3…Nf6 4.e5 Nd5 5.d4 cxd4
6.cxd4 (or 6.Bc4 Nb6 7.Bb3, since 7…dxc3 8.Nxc3 gives White terrific attacking chances) 6…d6 7.Bc4 e6 8.0-0, and we have a standard position from the Alapin Sicilian (1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6) in which …a7-a6 is a slow way to develop, so White stands a bit better.
4.exd5 Qxd5
4…Nf6 is another try, when 5.d4 cxd4 (5…Qxd5 transposes to 4…Qxd5) 6.Qa4+!
is critical. For example, 6…Qd7 7.Qxd7+ Nbxd7 8.c4! b5! 9.b3 bxc4 10.bxc4 e6!? 11.dxe6 J Frijling-Leoni, corr. 2003, and now Emms suggests the further pawn sacrifice 11…Nc5!? (11…fxe6 12.Nxd4 Nc5 13.Nd2 and Black is a pawn down) 12.exf7+ Kxf7 13.Nxd4 Bb7. Now Black has activity, but it’s hard to compensate for two whole pawns. For example, 14.Nc3 Re8+ 15.Be3 Ng4 16.Nd5 (or 16.Be2 Nxe3 17.fxe3 Bxg2 18.Rg1 Bh3 19.Rg3 with advantage) 16…Bxd5 17.cxd5 Nxe3 18.fxe3 Rxe3+ 19.Be2 g6 20.0-0+ Kg7 (20…Kg8? 21.Bc4) 21.Rac1 with a moderate advantage.
5.d4
5…Nf6
5…e6 6.Bd3 is a standard setup where White’s actively-placed bishop on d3 gives him good attacking chances, especially against the slow move …a7-a6, which doesn’t help Black’s development or kingside.
6.Be2
6.Be3 cxd4 7.cxd4 e6 8.Nc3 followed by Bd3 is another typical setup. In practice, these positions with an isolated queen’s pawn give White good attacking chances based on his superior activity. Compare the next note. But the immediate 6.Bd3 can be met by 6…Bg4! with equality.
6…e6 7.0-0 cxd4
An instructive variation is 7…Nc6 8.Be3 cxd4 9.cxd4 Be7 10.Nc3 Qd8 11.Bd3 0-0 12.Re1 b6 (12…b5 13.a4 b4 14.Ne4 and White has a queenside positional advantage as well as kingside attacking chances) 13.Rc1 Bb7 14.Bb1 Nb4 15.Ne5 Nbd5 16.Qf3, with the idea Qh3 and pressure against Black’s kingside.
8.cxd4
Sometimes 8.Nxd4 is played, with a small positional advantage, but it’s more fun to play actively with the isolated pawn.
8…Nc6 9.Nc3
9…Qd8
9…Qd6 10.Be3 Be7 allows the interesting 11.Nd2! intending 11…0-0 (11…b5?! 12.a4 b4 13.Nce4 Qd8 14.Nxf6+ Bxf6 15.Bf3) 12.Nc4 Qd8 13.Bf3, with the better game.
10.Bg5
10.Be3 is also played.
10…Be7 11.Rc1 0-0 12.a3 b6 13.Bd3
And White can take aim at Black’s kingside. For example:
13…Bb7 14.Bb1 Rc8 15.Qd3 g6 16.Rfd1 b5 17.Ba2 Nd5 18.Bh6
Or 18.h4.
18…Re8 19.Nxd5 exd5 20.b4
And Black’s bishop on b7 puts him at a disadvantage.
Sicilian Defense: Bücker Variation (B27)
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 h6
Even though Black’s …h7-h6 move is often seen in variations of the Sicilian Defense, it is premature here, as White can choose to enter a variation where the move is not of much use. This is not a popular line at any level and is very rarely seen in the tournament arena.
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 h6 3.Nc3
We recommend that White play along the lines of the Closed Sicilian, as Black’s second move will seem irrelevant in those schemes. Not surprisingly, other moves, like 3.c3, intending 4.d4, are also good.
3…Nc6
The most common response, probably because it is normally Black’s reaction to the Closed Sicilian. Other moves:
A) 3…d6 4.Bb5+ Bd7 5.d4! Bxb5 6.Nxb5 cxd4 7.Qxd4 Nc6 8.Qd3 gives White a lead in development;
B) 3…g5?! 4.d4 g4 5.Ne5 Nc6 (5…cxd4 6.Bc4 e6 7.Qxd4 Bg7 8.Nb5 Qf6 9.Nd6+ Kf8 10.Ndxf7+– De Oliveira-Backes, Brazil 1994) 6.Bc4 e6 7.Nxc6 dxc6 8.Be3 b5 9.Be2 Nf6 10.e5 b4 11.exf6 bxc3 12.b3, when Black’s pawns are hideous, Riha-Domingo, Internet 2010.
4.Bb5
This is a favorable form of the Rossolimo Sicilian (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5).
4…e6 5.0-0
White has three pieces in the game and is already castled, while Black has only one piece developed and a few pawn moves.
5…Nge7 6.d4 Nxd4
6…cxd4 7.Nxd4 Nxd4 8.Qxd4 Nc6 9.Qe3, with the idea 9…Be7?! (9…Qc7) 10.Qg3! g6 11.Bf4 threatening Bc7 and preparing 0-0-0. White has a strong initiative.
7.Nxd4 cxd4 8.Qxd4 Nc6 9.Qe3 a6 10.Be2! d6 11.f4
White has extra space.
11…Be7 12.Rd1 Qc7 13.Na4
This threatens 14.Nb6.
13…Bd8 14.Qg3 0-0 15.Be3
Black is on the defensive.
Sicilian Defense: Nimzowitsch Variation (B29)
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6
Instead of the usual moves 2…d6, 2…Nc6, and 2…e6, Black immediately attacks the e4-pawn. The idea is to provoke White into advancing the e-pawn and then attack it, much as in the Alekhine Defence. This is a playable variation, if perhaps a bit difficult to handle.
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.d4
White develops rapidly and intends to attack. The more common approach is 4.Nc3, which may ultimately be the way to discredit 2…Nf6, but involves enormous amounts of theory, especially in the line 4…e6 5.Nxd5 exd5 6.d4. In this line, a quick-developing alternative is the obscure 5.Bc4.
White seeks a limited positional advantage:
A) 5…d6 6.Bxd5 (6.exd6 Nb6! 7.Be2 Bxd6 8.d4 cxd4 9.Qxd4 0-0 10.Nb5 Be7 11.Qxd8 Bxd8 12.Bf4) 6…exd5 7.exd6 Be6 (7…Qxd6 8.d4, with the better development and the initiative) 8.Qe2 Qxd6 9.d4 Nc6 10.dxc5 Qxc5 11.Nb5 0-0-0 12.c3, with the idea Be3, gives White a positional edge;
B) 5…Nxc3 6.dxc3 d5 7.exd6 Bxd6 8.Bb5+ (or 8.Qd3 Nc6 9.0-0) 8…Nc6 9.Bxc6+ bxc6 10.Qd3, with a positional advantage based on Black’s weak c-pawns;
C) 5…Nb6! is the obvious reply, when 6.d3!? is the surprising idea. For example, 6…Nxc4 (6…Nc6 7.Bg5; 6…d5 7.exd6 Bxd6 8.Bb3 0-0 9.Bg5 f6 10.Be3 Nc6 11.0-0 with the idea Ne4 or a4-a5) 7.dxc4
7…d6? (7…a6 8.Ne4; 7…Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Bf4 Nc6 10.Qd3 and Black is badly tied down) 8.Nb5! d5 (8…dxe5 9.Qxd8+ Kxd8 10.Nxe5, when Black can’t cover both c7 and f7) 9.cxd5 exd5 10.Qxd5! Qxd5 (10…Qa5+ doesn’t improve matters after 11.Nc3. For example, 11…Nc6 12.Ng5! Nd8 13.0-0 with the idea 13…h6 14.Nxf7! Nxf7 15.e6 Nd6 16.Qh5+ Kd8 17.Rd1 Bxe6 18.Bf4 Kc7 19.Ne4 Rd8 20.Qe5 and Black won’t last long) 11.Nc7+ with a clear extra pawn and ongoing pressure.
4…cxd4 5.Qxd4 e6
To protect the knight and develop the bishop on f8.
6.Bc4 Nc6 7.Qe4
7…d6
7…Nb6 8.Bb3 d5 9.exd6 Bxd6 10.0-0 is a typical tradeoff.
Black has an extra center pawn, but White has rapid and natural development with moves like Nc3, Rd1, and Bg5 in store. This can lead to a direct attack with a wallop: 10…Bd7 (10…0-0 11.Ng5 g6 12.Nc3, with the ideas Rd1 or Qh4, and Black is in big trouble) 11.Nc3 Qe7 (11…0-0 12.Ng5 g6 13.Qh4 h5 14.Rd1 Be7 15.Qg3, with a terrific attack) 12.Rd1 0-0-0 13.Nb5 Bb8 14.Be3 and Black is on the ropes. For example, 14…Na5 15.Nbd4 Bc6 16.Nxc6 Nxc6 17.Rxd8+ Rxd8 18.Bg5 f6 19.Bxe6+, etc.
8.exd6 Nf6
This is the move played by masters. 8…Qxd6 9.0-0 Be7 isn’t bad, but White can get the initiative with 10.Rd1 (or 10.Nc3 Nxc3 11.bxc3) 10…0-0 11.Bg5!.
9.Qh4 Bxd6 10.0-0 0-0
10…a6 11.Nc3 b5 has been suggested, but then 12.Rd1! is strong, intending 12…bxc4 (12…Qc7? 13.Bxb5! 12…Ne7 13.Bd3 Bb7 14.Bg5!) 13.Bf4 and White gets his piece back with a good game. For example, 13…Nd5 14.Qxd8+ Nxd8 15.Bxd6 Nxc3 16.bxc3 Bb7 17.Nd4 f6 18.Rab1 Bd5 19.Rb6.
11.Nc3 a6 12.Bg5
12…Ne5
Amazingly, Black is already in big trouble, as you can see in the following lines:
A) 12…h6? 13.Rad1 hxg5 14.Nxg5 and Black can’t stop Nce4, so White is winning;
B) 12…Be7 13.Bd3 (threatening Bxf6) 13…h6 14.Bxh6 gxh6 and White is winning quickly after 15.Qxh6 followed by Ng5.
13.Nxe5 Bxe5 14.Bd3 h6 15.Bxh6!
15.Ne4 is also good.
15…gxh6 16.Qxh6
Now all White needs to do is bring a rook into play.
16…Bxc3
16…Bd4 17.Rae1 Re8 18.Re3! with the idea 18…Bxe3 19.fxe3+–.
17.bxc3 Re8 18.Rad1 e5
19.Rfe1!
Threatening Re3-h3. 19.Bh7+?! Nxh7 20.Rxd8 Rxd8 gives away too much.
19…e4 20.Bb5
Or 20.Qg5+ Kf8 21.Bc4 Qe7 22.Qh6+ Kg8 23.Re3 Bg4 24.Rg3+–.
20…Qe7 21.Bxe8 Nxe8 22.Rd5 f5 23.Re3
And White will end up with a big material advantage.
Pterodactyl (aka Sniper) (B06)
1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nf3 c5
The Pterodactyl is a form of Hyper-Accelerated Dragon that can easily transpose into a Sicilian Dragon proper. It was developed by Hungarian GM Bilek in the 1960s, and evangelized in the early 1980s by the London-based analysis team of Ray Keene, Jonathan Speelman, Lawrence Day and Andrew Whiteley, later joined by Eric Schiller and Jon Tisdall. It avoids many White systems in the Dragon but sometimes commits the queen to an early deployment at a5. We’ll demonstrate that there are important unique positions if White plays d4xc5.
1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nf3
Lines with 3.Nc3 c5 lead to quite different play, with less chance for an advantage for White. For example:
A) 4.dxc5 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 Qa5 6.Nf3 Qxc3+ 7.Bd2 Qxc5 8.Bd3 Nf6 9.0-0 d6 10.Rb1 0-0 with no compensation for the pawn, Kanep-Schiller, Internet (blitz) 2004;
B) 4.d5 Qa5 5.Bd2 d6 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.Be2 Nd7 8.0-0 Ngf6 9.h3 Bxf3 10.Bxf3 0-0 11.a3 a6 12.Be2 b5 13.Nxb5 Qb6 14.Nc3 Qxb2 15.Qb1 Rfb8 16.Bd3 Ne5 17.Qe1 Nxd3 18.cxd3, with a big advantage for Black in Hebden-Schiller, Internet (blitz) 2004.
3…c5
This move is an old one. The position can also arise from the Sicilian Defense via 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 Bg7. Recently 3…c5 has been called ‘The Sniper’, and promoted in a book by Charlie Storey. In fact, it looks dubious.
4.dxc5!
This bypasses not only many transpositions to Sicilian variations such as the Dragon, Accelerated Fianchetto, and Alapin, but also slightly irregular ideas such as 4.c4 d6 and 4.c4 Qa5+.
4…Qa5+
Black needs to recover his pawn, and 4…Na6? runs into trouble after 5.Bxa6 Qa5+ (5…bxa6 6.Qd5 Rb8 7.Ne5! e6 8.Qd6 Bb7 9.Nc3) 6.Nc3 bxa6 (6…Qxa6 7.Nd5; 6…Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 bxa6 8.Qd4 f6 9.0-0) 7.Qd5 Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 Qxc3+ (8…Rb8? 9.Qe5 forks the rooks!) 9.Ke2! Rb8 (9…Qxa1 10.Qxa8 Kd8 11.Bd2 Qxa2 12.Ne5! wins, threatening 13.Nxf7+ Qxf7 14.Ba5+) 10.Bd2 Qxc2 11.Nd4 and Black has no good defense.
5.c3 Qxc5 6.Na3!
This threatens Nb5 and Be3, aiming at the a-pawn. Years of analysis have cast this line into doubt for Black, with the line Black used to count on now considered bad. 6.Be3 is seen just as often, but holds no promise of an advantage.
6…Nf6
A) 6…a6? 7.Nc4 followed by Be3 and Nb6;
B) 6…d6 7.Nb5 Nf6 (7…a6 8.Be3 Qc6 9.Na7 Qc7 10.Nxc8 Qxc8 11.Qb3 Nf6 12.e5 dxe5 13.Nxe5 0-0 14.Nxf7! Rxf7 15.Bc4 e6 16.Bxe6 Qc7 17.0-0 Nc6 18.Rad1 with the idea 18…Rd8? 19.Bb6) 8.Be3 Qc6 9.e5! and White has a clear advantage, with the idea 9…dxe5?? 10.Nxe5 and Black’s queen is lost!;
C) 6…Bxc3+?? falls for the trap 7.bxc3 Qxc3+ 8.Qd2! Qxa1 9.Nb5, threatening both Nc7+ and Nc3, imprisoning Black’s queen. For example, 9…Na6 (9…Nf6 10.Bd3 0-0 11.0-0+–) 10.Nc3 Nc5 11.Nd4 a6 (11…Nf6 12.f3 d6 13.Bc4+–) 12.Be2 b5 13.0-0 Nf6 (13…b4 14.Nd5 Nxe4 15.Qxb4+–) 14.Ba3 Ncxe4 15.Nxe4 Nxe4 16.Qb4, threatening checkmate and the queen, Konopka-Degraeve, Ohrid Ech 2001.
7.Nb5
7…b6
Black can’t equalize:
A) 7…Ng4 8.Nfd4 hits the knight on g4. For example, 8…d6 9.h3 Nxf2 (9…a6 10.hxg4 axb5 11.Be3!) 10.Kxf2 e5. This recovers the piece, but at a positional cost: 11.Be3 exd4 12.cxd4 Qb6 13.Rc1 Na6 14.e5 0-0 15.Nxd6 with a clear advantage;
B) 7…d6 8.Be3 Qc6 9.Nxa7 is simply bad;
C) 7…0-0 8.Be3 Qc6 9.Nfd4! Qxe4 10.Nc7 b6 (Black tries to get compensation for the exchange by exploiting his big center, but it’s not enough) 11.Be2 (11.Qf3 Qxf3 12.Nxf3 Bb7 13.Nxa8 Bxa8 14.Rd1 also gives White the advantage) 11…Qb7 12.Nxa8 Qxa8 13.0-0 Bb7 14.Bf3 d5 15.a4. This is Bruzon-Malakhov, Yerevan Wch-jr 2000. Here Storey suggests 15…e5 16.Nb5 (16.Nb3 and 17.a5 may improve) 16…Bc6, when White can prepare to break up Black’s ideal center by playing 17.Be2! with the idea f2-f4. For example, 17…Qb7! (Black comes up short after 17…d4 18.cxd4 exd4 19.Bxd4 Bxg2 20.Re1 Rd8 21.Qc1 Nbd7 22.Qf4 Bb7 23.Nc7 Qb8 24.Bc4 or 17…a6 18.f4! exf4 19.Bxf4 Ne4 20.Bd3 Nc5 21.Nd4) 18.f4 Nbd7 (18…Ne4 19.fxe5 Bxe5 20.Bd3) 19.fxe5 (or 19.a5) 19…Nxe5 20.Nd4 and White has a material edge, while he has managed to blockade the isolated queen’s pawn.
8.b4!
This move was discovered recently and casts doubt on 7…b6, which has been considered Black’s best chance in this line. Of the 9 games with this move White has won 6 and drawn 3.
8…Qc6 9.e5
9…Ne4
A) 9…Nh5 10.Nbd4 Qe4+ 11.Be3 Bxe5 (11…Bb7 12.Bd3+–; 11…Nf4?? 12.g3) 12.Bd3 Qd5 13.Nxe5 Qxe5 14.Qf3 d5 15.0-0 and White is threatening Nb5 and Bd4, as well as g2-g4 followed by Bf4. For example, 15…a6 16.g4 Ng7 17.Bf4 Qf6 18.g5 and the queen is trapped on the open board!;
B) 9…Ng4 10.Nfd4 Qe4+ 11.Qe2 Qxe5 12.f4 Qh5 (12…Qxe2+ 13.Bxe2 attacking c7 and g4) 13.Nc7+ Kd8 14.Nxa8 Bb7 15.Nxb6 axb6 16.Be3 and White is solidly ahead.
10.Nfd4 Qb7 11.Bd3
Now 12.f3, winning the trapped knight, is threatening, so play continues…
11…Bxe5
Knaak shows that Black is also badly off after 11…a6 12.Qe2 Nc5 13.bxc5 axb5 14.Nxb5 0-0 15.0-0 bxc5 16.f4 and 11…d5 12.exd6 0-0 13.0-0 Nxd6 14.Nxd6 exd6 15.Bf4.
12.Qe2
Now the knight on e4 is immobilized.
12…d5
12…f5 13.f3 d5 transposes.
13.f3 f5
A) 13…Bxd4 temporarily saves Black’s piece, but 14.cxd4 a6 (14…Nf6?? 15.Nd6+) 15.fxe4 axb5 16.Bh6! gives White a winning game;
B) 13…a6 14.fxe4 axb5 15.Nxb5 (or 15.Bh6 and Black can’t even castle) 15…0-0 16.exd5 Nd7 17.0-0.
14.fxe4 fxe4 15.0-0 a6 16.Bf4!
White’s pieces are flying into play while Black recovers his piece.
16…Bxf4 17.Rxf4 axb5 18.Bxb5+ Bd7 19.Raf1
This threatens 20.Ne6, among other things. Sörenfors-Muri, ICCF email 2008, continued
19…Nc6 20.Bxc6 Bxc6 21.Ne6 Kd7 22.Qg4 h5 23.Qh3 Kd6 24.c4 Bd7 25.c5+ bxc5 26.bxc5+ Kc6 27.Nd4+ Kc7 28.Qg3 Rhe8 29.c6 Qb6 30.Kh1 Kd8 31.cxd7 Kxd7 32.Qh3+ 1-0
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Ng8
The Brooklyn Defense, or Retreat Variation, is a radical twist on Alekhine’s plan. There is still the hypermodern goal of encouraging the opponent to overextend, but in this case Black tucks the knight away at g8 instead of moving it to d5, where it is vulnerable to attack by White’s pawns. The opening has been used by Eric Schiller and former United States Champion Joel Benjamin, but it is best used as a surprise weapon, or against inexperienced players. White obtains a small advantage by developing normally.
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Ng8 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3
Oddly enough, 4.exd6 Qxd6 5.Nc3 transposes to the Modern Scandinavian Defense, 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 4.d4.
4…Bg4
4…g6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Bc4 c6 7.h3 (or 7.Bf4!) 7…b5 8.Bb3 a5 of Schuster-Tettinek, corr. 1991, is a bit too ambitious after 9.a4 (or 9.a3) 9…b4 10.Ne4.
5.h3 Bh5 6.g4 Bg6 7.Nc3
7.Bg2 e6 8.0-0 (8.Qe2) 8…Nd7 9.Qe2 d5 was about equal in Tischbierek-Welling, Copenhagen 1990. The position is similar to the advanced variation of the Caro-Kann Defense.
7…e6
8.d5
Our recommendation for White. 8.Bf4 is good, but not as forceful. For example, 8…d5 9.Bd3 c5 (Ernst-Welling, Copenhagen 1988), and 10.dxc5 Bxc5 11.Nb5! is one way to cause problems, intending 11…a6 12.Nd6+ Bxd6 13.exd6, with ideas of c2-c4 and 0-0.
8…Nd7
8…exd5 9.Qe2 (or 9.Qxd5) 9…dxe5 10.Nxe5 Ne7 (10…Be7 11.Qb5+) 11.Bf4 and Black is all tied up.
9.dxe6 fxe6 10.Bf4 dxe5 11.Nxe5 Nxe5 12.Bxe5 Nf6 13.Bc4
White has a structural advantage and good prospects for his bishops.
French Defense Advance: Bishop Swap (C02)
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bd7
Black’s idea is to play …a7-a6 and …Bb5, exchanging off his ‘bad’ bishop for White’s ‘good’ one. But Black’s ‘bad’ light-squared bishop tends to be an important piece in the French Defense, and to take three moves just to get rid of it isn’t a terribly promising idea.
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bd7 4.Nf3
Another way to play this is 4.c3 a6 5.Nd2 (or 5.Bd3 Bb5 6.Bc2, avoiding the exchange) 5…Bb5 6.Bxb5+ axb5 7.Ne2 Nd7 8.0-0 h5 9.Nf4 g6 10.Nf3 Nb6 11.h4!? (White immediately takes this opportunity to grab space on the kingside, but 11.Qe2 c6 12.Nd3 Be7 13.h3 is more flexible) 11…Nh6 12.Nd3 Nf5 13.g3 Be7 14.Bg5!. White exchanges dark-squared bishops, giving his knights good posts on the kingside, which offers a small but safe advantage. Motylev-Rustemov, Tomsk 2004, continued 14…Ra7 15.Qc1 Kf8 16.Kg2 Kg7 17.Rh1 Nc4 18.Qf4 and White soon broke through with the move g3-g4.
4…a6
5.c4
Temporarily preventing …Bb5 and attacking Black’s center. 5.Bg5 is also good, for example, 5…Qc8!? 6.c4 h6 7.Be3 dxc4 8.Bxc4 Ne7 9.Nc3 Bc6 10.0-0 Qd7 11.Rc1! a5 12.d5! exd5 (12…Nxd5 13.Bxd5 exd5 14.e6! Qxe6 15.Re1, winning) 13.Bd3! Na6 14.a3 g6 15.e6! Qxe6 16.Bd4 f6 17.Bxg6+ Kd8 18.Re1 Qd6 19.Bf7 Bg7 20.Re6 Qd7 21.Bxf6 Bxf6 22.Rxf6 1-0, D. Bronstein-Kärner, Tallinn 1981.
5…Ne7!?
Black can, and probably should, pursue his idea with 5…dxc4 6.Bxc4 (6.Nc3 b5 7.a4! is also promising) 6…Bb5. Then 7.Bb3 intends 8.Nc3, with ideas of either Nxb5 or d5, so 7…Bb4+ 8.Nc3 Ne7 9.a4 Bc6 10.0-0 may follow, when White is moderately better.
6.Nc3 dxc4 7.Bxc4 Bc6 8.0-0 Nd5 9.Ng5!
A typical idea when Black is well behind in development.
9…Be7
9…Nxc3 10.bxc3 h6 is just as bad: 11.Qh5 g6 12.Qh3 Bd5 13.Bd3 and Black is struggling.
10.Qh5 Bxg5 11.Bxg5 Qd7 12.Rac1 Nxc3 13.Rxc3 Be4 14.Qe2
Erturan-Esen, Antalya Ech 2004. White has a strong initiative and is objectively winning. For example, 14…Bd5 15.Bxd5 exd5 16.Qh5 threatens 17.e6!.
1.e4 g6 2.d4 Nf6 3.e5 Nh5
This opening got its name long before Norwegian superstar Magnus Carlsen took it up in a game. It is a brash opening, sending the knight to the edge of the board. It has not found many followers yet, with most of the interest being confined to Scandinavia. The main test of the opening is a pawn sacrifice offered by Black that is usually declined.
1.e4 g6 2.d4 Nf6
At first sight this looks like a simple mistake, since White can advance with tempo. But Black has a special route planned for his knight.
3.e5 Nh5 4.Be2
The main alternative is 4.Nf3 d6 5.Bc4!?.
For example:
A) 5…Bg7 6.Ng5! 0-0 7.g4 (trapping the knight) 7…d5 8.Bf1! f6 9.Nxh7 (or 9.Nh3 fxe5 10.dxe5) 9…Bxg4 10.Qxg4 Kxh7 11.Rg1, with a substantial advantage;
B) 5…Nc6 6.Ng5!? (6.c3 with the idea 6…dxe5 7.Qb3! might be better) 6…e6 7.g4. This move tries to prove that the knight really doesn’t stand well on g7:
B1) 7…Be7 attacks White’s knight and presents a counterattack to deal with the threat at h5. For example, 8.Nf3 (8.Nxf7 Kxf7 9.gxh5 dxe5 10.d5 Nd4 11.Nc3 c6 12.dxe6+ Bxe6 13.Bxe6+ Kxe6 14.Qd3 Qf8 15.Be3 Qf3 16.Rg1 Qxh5 17.Qc4+ Kd7 18.Bxd4 exd4 19.Qxd4+ leaves Black’s naked king in an awkward position, Gazik-Skjotrup Jensen, Koszalin 1996) 8…Ng7 9.Bh6 Rg8 10.Nbd2 d5 11.Bb5 Bd7 12.Qe2 Nb4 13.Bxd7+ Kxd7 14.Nb3 and White stands much better, Stern-Hjorth, Sweden 1994;
B2) 7…Ng7! improves: 8.f4?! (8.Qf3 Qe7 9.Bb5 d5! 10.Nc3 h6 11.Qh3 is only slightly better for White) 8…d5 9.Be2 h5 10.Be3 hxg4 11.Bxg4, Melander-Larsson, Sweden 1995; and here 11…f6! 12.exf6 Qxf6, with the idea …Nf5, should favor Black.
4…d6!
This gambit is the point of Black’s opening strategy. 4…Ng7 5.Nf3 d5 6.c4 c6 7.Nc3 dxc4 8.Bxc4 gives White complete control of the center, Burmakin-Morozevich, Sochi 2005.
5.Nf3
A) 5.exd6 Qxd6 6.Bxh5 gxh5 7.Nc3 Rg8 8.g3 Bg4 and Black was already better in B.Savchenko-Carlsen, Moscow (blitz) 2010;
B) White can accept the pawn, but Black counterattacks: 5.Bxh5 gxh5 6.Qxh5 dxe5 7.dxe5 Nc6 8.Nf3 Qd7! 9.b4 Qf5 10.Qxf5 Bxf5 and …0-0-0, with approximate equality.
5…Nc6 6.exd6
6.0-0 Bg7 7.exd6 Qxd6 8.Na3 0-0 9.c3 Nf6 10.Nc4 Qd8 11.Nfe5 Nxe5 12.Nxe5 Be6 13.Bf3 c6, with only a spatial edge for White, M.Taylor-Hillarp Persson, Guernsey 2005.
6…exd6!?
6…Qxd6 improves.
7.d5
7.Bg5! Be7 8.Bh6.
7…Ne7 8.c4 Bg7 9.Nc3 0-0 10.0-0 Bg4?! 11.Re1 Re8 12.h3! Bxf3 13.Bxf3
With his bishop pair and extra space, White has a nice advantage that he was able to convert in the Olympiad game Adams-Carlsen, Khanty-Mansiysk 2010.
Caro-Kann Defense: Gurgenidze Counterattack (B15)
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 b5
This is an attempt to improve on the standard Caro-Kann by launching queenside operations early in the opening. White can play along fairly normal lines and achieve a moderate advantage. Nevertheless, this strange-looking opening is not to be dismissed lightly. It can cause confusion, especially when played against inexperienced players.
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 b5 4.a3
Simple and straightforward. The pawn looks a little funny on b5.
4…dxe4 5.Nxe4
5…Nf6
5…Bf5 6.Ng3 Bg6 7.h4 h6 8.Nf3 Nd7 9.h5 Bh7 10.Bd3 Bxd3 11.Qxd3. Here White has a much-improved version of the main line of the Caro-Kann, and can take advantage of Black’s queenside weaknesses. For example, 11…e6 12.Bd2 Ngf6 13.a4 a6 14.axb5 axb5 15.0-0, with a significant lead in development and the superior pawn structure, Stanau-Hobusch, Osnabrück 2011.
6.Nxf6+ exf6 7.a4 b4 8.Bc4 Bd6 9.Qe2+
9.Qf3 and 9.Nf3 are legitimate options.
9…Qe7 10.Qxe7+ Kxe7 11.Ne2
With a poor endgame for Black, Klovans-Gurgenidze, Alma-Ata ch-RUS 1968.
Caro-Kann: De Bruycker Defense (A40)
1.d4 Na6 2.e4 c6
This is known as the De Bruycker Defense, and is based on the idea that 3.Bxa6 can be met by 3…Qa5+ followed by …Qxa6, avoiding doubled pawns. Other than that, it has little merit and is just an inferior sort of Caro-Kann. The knight’s only future is at c7, but that is not the best square. It’s interesting to compare this line with a more standard Advance Variation of the Caro Kann,
Cvitan – Zwick
Bad Ragaz 1995
1.d4 Na6 2.e4 c6
The normal Caro-Kann order would be 1.e4 c6 2.d4 Na6.
3.Nf3
3.Bxa6 Qa5+ 4.Nc3 Qxa6 5.Nge2 d6 6.0-0 g6 7.Bg5 Bg7 8.f4 b5 9.f5?! b4 10.Nb1 Qb6 (10…c5!) 11.c4? (11.a3 Ba6 12.axb4 is unclear) 11…Nf6 (11…gxf5 12.exf5 c5) 12.Qd3 Nd7 13.Nd2 MEPHISTO-Van Geet, The Hague 1995, and here 13…c5! was best.
3…Nc7
3…g6 4.Nc3 Nc7 5.a4 Bg7 6.h3 d6 7.Bd3 e5 8.Be3 Qe7 9.0-0 Nf6 10.Re1 0-0 11.Qd2 Nh5!? (11…b6 improves slightly) 12.Bc4 Be6 13.d5!? (13.Bf1 also gives White some advantage) 13…cxd5 14.Nxd5 (14.exd5! keeps White on top) 14…Nxd5 15.Bxd5 Bxd5 16.Qxd5, Gorgs-Welling, Budapest 1996. Black has a hole at d5, although 16…Nf6 17.Qd3 d5! 18.Bg5 d4 isn’t too bad.
4.c4
Why not?
4…d5
White has an easy time of it after 4…d6 5.Nc3 g6 6.h3 Bg7 7.Be3 Nf6 8.Bd3 0-0 9.Qd2, Galanakis-Tsilidis, Heraklion 2011.
5.exd5
A) 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.e5 also favors White;
B) 5.Nc3 dxe4 6.Nxe4 g6 7.Be2 Bg7 8.0-0 Nh6 offers Black some counterplay.
5…cxd5 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.Bf4 Be6?
A very artificial move, but White was threatening to capture on c7 and win the d-pawn, and Black did not want to play …e7-e6, locking in the bishop at c8. Instead, 7…dxc4 is playable. Then White gets some advantage from 8.Ne5!? (8.Bxc4 e6 9.Ne5 Be7) 8…e6 9.Qa4+ Bd7 10.Nxd7 Nxd7 (10…Qxd7?? 11.Bxc7) 11.Qxc4 Rc8 12.Qb3 b6 13.Rd1 Be7 14.Bc4.
8.Qa4+ Bd7 9.Qb3 Ne6?
Another piece on the e6-square and another mistake! But Black is in bad shape anyway.
10.Be5 dxc4 11.Bxc4 b6 12.0-0 g6?
But it’s too late to prevent a very quick defeat. For example, 12…a6 13.Nd5! Nxd5 (13…b5 14.Nc7+ Nxc7 15.Bxf7+) 14.Bxd5 Ra7 15.Rfe1.
13.Bxe6! Bxe6
Or 13…fxe6 14.d5.
14.d5
Now White wins by force.
14…Bd7
14…Bg4 15.Bxf6 exf6 16.Rfe1+ Be7 17.Nd4!+–.
15.Bxf6 exf6 16.Rfe1+ Be7 17.d6 Be6 18.dxe7
And Black resigned.
1.e4 b6 2.d4 Ba6
The Guatemala Defense cedes the center and loses time. The goal is to eliminate White’s light-squared bishop, but while Black is preoccupied with this, White is able to establish a lead in development and control of the center.
Schoor – Nunnally
Email 1995
1.e4 b6 2.d4 Ba6?!
For 2…Bb7, see the Owen Defense section (as well as the introduction to the book).
3.Bxa6 Nxa6 4.Qe2
4.Nf3 Qc8 5.0-0 Qb7
is a slow and ineffective plan, which Eric used in a few games in Erik Knoppert’s world-record setting blitz marathon at London Docklands in 1985: 6.Re1 e6 (6…d6 7.c4) 7.Bg5 (better 7.d5! or 7.c4 g6 8.Nc3 Bg7 9.e5) 7…h6 8.Bh4 Ne7 9.c4 g5 10.Bg3 Ng6 11.Nc3 d6, with a complicated position. But the queen does look a bit silly at b7, and 12.Qa4+! c6 13.b4!, intending b4-b5, would be one good followup.
4…Qc8 5.Nf3 d6 6.Nc3
White reacts to irregular play in exemplary fashion: take the center and develop quickly!
6…g6 7.e5
Or 7.0-0 Bg7 8.e5.
7…Bg7 8.Bf4
8…Kd8?!
Already in despair. However, 8…Nh6 9.Nd5! (9.exd6 cxd6 10.Bxd6 0-0 11.Be5) 9…Qb7 10.Nxe7! crashes through, one cute line going 10…Kxe7 11.exd6+ Kf8 12.Qe7+ Kg8 13.d7 Qb8 14.Ne5 Qf8 15.Nc6! Qxe7+ 16.Nxe7+ Kf8 17.Nc8.
9.0-0 h6 10.Rfe1 Kd7 11.exd6 cxd6 12.Qb5+ Kd8 13.Bxd6! Nc7 14.Bxc7+ Qxc7 15.Qd5+
1-0
Nimzowitsch Defense: 2…e5 (B00)
1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 e5
The move 2…e5, sometimes called the Kennedy Variation, was dismissed in the early days of the Nimzowitsch Defense and the Great Experimenter, Savielly Tartakower, condemned it as a mistake because White will capture at e5 and then play f2-f4. Modern thinking is not so harsh, and the line has advocates even at the grandmaster level. It is useful to remember that the position can also be reached via 1.d4 Nc6 2.e4 e5, or even 1.e4 e5 2.d4 Nc6.
1.e4 Nc6
This first move is highly transpositional.
2.d4 e5
2…d6 can be met by 3.d5, with the idea 3…Ne5 4.f4 Ng6 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.Nc3, with advantage.
Instead, 3.Nf3 Nf6 has been played often and is James Schuyler’s choice in his book The Dark Knight System, meeting 4.Nc3 with 4…g6, transposing to a Pirc. Now 5.d5 is still strong, and 5.Bb5 has scored well, with 5…a6 6.Bxc6+ bxc6 7.0-0 Bg7 8.h3 0-0 9.Re1, providing White with the usual comfortable advantage. Schuyler recommends 9…Rb8, when 10.e5 Nd5 11.Ne4 retains an edge due to White’s space and superior center.
3.dxe5
If White does not confront Black’s plan directly, then transposition into the conservative Scotch Game (3.Nf3) or a variety of gambits (Scotch, Göring, Relfsson) is possible. An important alternative is 3.d5 Nce7, when the main line is arguably 4.Nf3 (4.Be3 d6 5.c4 f5 6.f3 Nf6 7.Nc3 f4 8.Bf2 g5 gave Black counterplay in Rumyantsev-Pandavos, Naleczow 1989) 4…d6 (4…Ng6 5.Nc3 Bc5 6.h4 h5 7.Bg5 Nf6 8.Na4 Bb4+ 9.c3 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.d6 cxd6 12.g3 d5 13.Qxd5 d6 14.Bb5+ gave White a huge advantage in Ivanov-Benjamin, US Championship, Parsippany 1996) 5.c4
and now White has the better prospects, but an interesting try is 5…f5!?. For example, 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.exf5 Nxf5 8.Bd3 g6 9.0-0 Bg7 10.Ng5 0-0 with a solid position for Black, Seeman-Olde, Estonian Championship 1996.
3…Nxe5
A) 3…Qh4!? 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Bd2 Nxe5 6.Nf3 Nxf3+ 7.Qxf3 d6 8.Nd5 Bxd2+ 9.Kxd2 Qg5+ 10.Ke1 Kf8 11.Nxc7 Qa5+ 12.Qc3 Qxc3+ 13.bxc3 Rb8 14.Nb5 and White eventually won the endgame in Ulibin-Vlassov, Berlin 1996;
B) 3…Bc5 4.Nf3 Nge7 is an unsound gambit: 5.Bc4 0-0 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bh4 Qe8 8.Bg3 Ng6 9.Qd5 and Black never recovered his pawn in Chevallier-Ribreau, French Team Championship 1996.
4.Nf3
A) 4.f4 is surprisingly ineffective, and 4…Ng6 is now established as comfortable for Black. For example, 5.Nf3 Bc5 6.Bc4 d6 7.Ng5 Nh6 8.h3 0-0, Kuusela-Kiltti, Finland tt 1996/97. Black’s position is well-protected, and eventually pressure will be placed on the e-file. In fact, 4…Nc6 is also considered equal;
B) 4.Nc3 is a good option, since 4…Bb4 can be met by 5.Qd4! and 4…Bc5 5.Bf4 Ng6 6.Bg3 d6 7.h4! h5 8.Qd2 Nf6 9.0-0-0 worked out to White’s advantage in Dolmatov-Gulko, Hastings 1989/90.
4…Nxf3+
Black has two alternative approaches, both involving the move …Qf6:
A) 4…Bb4+ 5.c3 Nxf3+ 6.Qxf3 Bc5 7.Bc4 Qf6 8.Bf4 d6 9.Nd2 Ne7 10.Bb5+ c6 11.Be2 0-0 12.0-0 Ng6 13.Bg3 Qe7, with a balanced game, Perdomo-Miles, Ubeda 1997;
B) 4…Qf6 5.Nxe5 Qxe5 6.Bd3 Bc5 7.0-0 Nf6 8.Kh1 d6 9.f4 Qe7 10.Nc3 would have been roughly even if Black had simply castled, but after the adventurous 10…Ng4, White simply played 11.Qe1 a6 12.Nd5 Qd8 13.f5, after which he had a strong bind in Klichev-Feoktistov, Moscow 1996.
5.Qxf3 Qf6 6.Qg3
6.Qe2 Bc5 7.Nc3 Ne7 8.e5?! Qb6 9.Bd2? Qxb2 10.Rb1 Qxc2 11.Rc1 Qg6 gave White no compensation in in Johansson-Johansson, Gotland 1997.
6…Bc5 7.Nc3 Ne7 8.Bd3 d6 9.Nb5 Bb6 10.Be3!
And Black can’t defend c7 without major concessions, Beliavsky-Mestrovic, Portoroz Open 1996.
Nimzowitsch Defense: Colorado Counter (B00)
1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 f5
The Colorado Counter has achieved a certain following among the thrill-seekers with an unorthodox bent. It is a fierce opening, sacrificing a pawn, and hoping that the airy e8-h5 diagonal will not prove fatal.
1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 f5 3.exf5
There is no doubt that White should capture the pawn.
3…d5
The battle for the e4-square continues. Black is ready to reclaim the pawn, and perhaps White can even afford to be greedy.
4.Bb5
A) Or 4.Nh4!? and Black must not fall for the tempting 4…e5? (4…Nf6 5.Bb5 e5 is the right way to play) 5.Qh5+ g6 6.fxg6
6…Nf6 7.g7+ Nxh5 8.gxh8Q Qxh4 9.Qxh7 (9.d4? Bf5 10.Bd3 e4 11.Be2 0-0-0 and White, with his queen helplessly trapped in the corner, resigned in Hallier-Winckelmann, Postal 1989) 9…Nd4 10.Qg6+ Ke7 11.d3 Nf4, McAleer-Toll, Viborg tt 1996, and here 12.Bxf4! was strong;
B) 4.d4 Bxf5 5.Be2 (5 c3! and Bd3 secures a nice advantage) 5…Nf6 6.0-0 e6 (this sort of structure favors White, as the e-pawn is backward and the bishop at f5 is exposed) 7.c3 Bd6 8.Nbd2, with a small advantage, Sorsa-Juslin, Naantali 1996.
4…Bxf5
5.Ne5
Two other moves demonstrate the drawbacks of Black’s position:
A) 5.0-0 Qd6 6.d4 0-0-0 7.Bxc6 Qxc6 8.Ne5 Qe8 9.Bf4, with a bind, Silman-Root, Lone Pine 1979;
B) 5.d4 e6 6.0-0 Bd6 7.Re1 Qf6 8.Ne5 Bxe5 9.Rxe5 and Black still has a nasty hole at e5, Sack-Pöthig, Germany Bundesliga 1981/82.
5…Qd6
5…Bd7 6.Bxc6 bxc6 7.Qh5+ g6, Gueroff-Becker, Germany tt 1995/96. Now White should play 8.Nxg6 Nf6 9.Qh4 Rg8 10.Nxf8 Rxf8 11.d4, with a clear advantage.
6.d4 Nf6
Black is already in big trouble:
A) 6…a6 7.Bxc6+ bxc6 8.0-0 c5 Fedorowicz-Finegold, Dearborn 1992; 9 Bf4!, virtually winning, e.g., 9…Qb6 10.Nc3 e6 11.dxc5 Bxc5 (11…Qxc5 12.g4 Bg6 13.Re1) 12.Nxd5.
B) 6…Bd7 7.Bxc6 Bxc6 8.0-0 g6 9.b3 (or 9.Re1 Bg7 10.Bf4 Qf6 11.Bg3 0-0-0 12.Qd2! intending Qa5 or Qc3 and a4/b4) 9…Nf6 10.Re1 Nd7 Glek-Oudejans, Haarlem 1994; and here 11.Nf6 h6 12.a4 with the idea Qe2 and Ba3 was extremely strong.
7.0-0 Nd7 8.Nc3! Ncxe5 9.dxe5 Qxe5 10.Bxd7+?!
10.Re1! Qd6 11.Qf3 results in a very big advantage for White.
10…Bxd7 11.Re1 Qd6 12.Qxd5
And White is still better, Hintikka-Heinola, Postal 1985.
Modern Defense: Beefeater (A40)
1.d4 g6 2.c4 Bg7 3.Nc3 c5 4.d5 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 f5
This is the Beefeater, a defense promoted by Dutch analysts and then taken up by Grandmaster Roman Dzindzichashvili. Black’s counterplay comes from unusual angles, involving …Qa5 and sometimes …Ne4-d6. It has something in common with the Vulture, except that here Black has given up the bishop to fracture White’s queenside pawn structure and has held onto the knight instead. The opening isn’t used much at higher levels, but is a useful weapon among non-grandmasters.
1.d4 g6 2.c4 Bg7 3.Nc3 c5 4.d5 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 f5 6.h4
White has tried all sorts of ideas here, but we’ll stick with this popular one because it creates attacking prospects.
6…Nf6
6…Qa5 is interesting: 7.h5! d6 (7…Qxc3+ 8.Bd2 Qg7 9.Nf3 a6 10.Rb1 with the bishop pair, development, and activity) 8.Qc2! with the idea hxg6, forces major weaknesses on Black (and not 8.hxg6? hxg6! 9.Rxh8 Qxc3+).
7.h5
Black has three options here. The pawn at h5 can be captured by the pawn or the knight, or the pawn at g6 can be defended by the rook. Each involves a compromise.
7…Rg8!
A) 7…gxh5 8.Nh3 Qa5 has been played a few times, when 9.Nf4! Qxc3+!? (9…d6 10.Qb3, with the idea Nxh5, retains a positional advantage) 10.Bd2 Qb2 11.e3 gives White excellent compensation;
B) 7…Nxh5 8.e4! d6 (8…fxe4?? 9.Rxh5) 9.exf5 Qa5 10.fxg6 Qxc3+ 11.Bd2 Qe5+ 12.Ne2 Nf6 13.Bc3 and White stands better, Remlinger-Ashley, New York (Marshall GM) 1995.
8.hxg6 hxg6 9.Qa4
Pinning the d-pawn and preventing Black’s favorite move …Qa5. There are numerous ways to play this position (for example, 9.f3!? deserves testing), but this seems sufficient to claim a small advantage.
9…Qb6
9…Ne4 10.f3! with the idea 10…Nxc3? 11.Qb3.
10.Nf3 Qa6
10…Ne4 11.Ng5 Qf6 12.Nxe4 fxe4 Sakaev-Reinderman, Cappelle la Grande 1995; and 13.Qc2 was fine, but 13.Rb1! is most active. For example, 13…Rf8 14.f3 Qxc3+ 15.Bd2 Qe5 16.Rb3!.
11.Qxa6
White also had an edge following 11.Qb3 d6 12.Ng5 Qa5 13.Bf4 in Vincent-Bonnafous, French Team Championship 1996.
11…Nxa6 12.Bg5 d6 13.Nd2 Kf7 14.e4 fxe4
14…Nxe4 15.Rh7+ Rg7 16.Rxg7+ Kxg7 17.Nxe4 fxe4 18.Bxe7.
15.Bxf6 Kxf6 16.Nxe4+ Kg7 17.Ng5 Rh8 18.Rxh8 Kxh8 19.Bd3 Kg7 20.Kd2
And White had a clear advantage in Volkov-Eliseev, St Petersburg 2010.
1.e4 b6
The Owen Defense is slow but not entirely bad. GM Tony Miles was a famous advocate who had success with it. We showed two illustrative games with 1…b6 in the introduction to this book. Here’s a more concrete and detailed recommendation for White.
1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.Bd3
This is the most ambitious move because it develops without interfering with White’s other pieces.
3…f5
A violent move, trying to exploit the pin on the e-pawn (that is, exf5 is answered by …Bxg2). Since this seems to fall short, let’s take a look at a few logical alternatives:
A) 3…e6 4 Nf3 is a good line for White, when you would answer 4…c5 with 5.c3 (or 5.0-0, as in the Capablanca game in the introduction to this book). Another effective move is 4.Qe2!:
A1) 4…c5 5.d5! is the first point of 4.Qe2 – 5…Nf6 6.Nf3 transposes to 4…Nf6;
A2) 4…Nc6 5.c3 Nf6 6.Nf3 Be7 7.0-0 0-0 8.e5 Nd5 9.a3, with the idea of trapping the knight with c3-c4. Black is in terrible shape after 9…Na5 10.Qc2 c5 11.c4 (or 11.b4) 11…Nc7 12.d5! with the idea 12…exd5 13.Bxh7+ Kh8 14.Qf5;
A3) 4…Nf6 5.Nf3 c5 6.d5! (this threatens 7.d6) 6…exd5 7.exd5+ Qe7 8.c4 Qxe2+ 9.Bxe2. Here White not only has more space, but Black’s bishops are hemmed in.
B) For 3…Nc6 4.c3, see Steinitz-De Vere, Paris 1867. This game is analyzed and given in its entirety in the introduction.
4.exf5! Bxg2 5.Qh5+ g6 6.fxg6 Bg7
The only way to defend against 7.g7+, since 6…Nf6 7.gxh7+ Nxh5 8.Bg6 is checkmate.
7.gxh7+
The traditional ‘refutation’. In the early 1980s a Dutch correspondence player discovered the amazing 7.Qf5 Nf6 8.Bh6!?.
Now 8…Bxh6 9.gxh7 Bxh1? 10.Qg6+ Kf8 11.Qxh6+ transposes to the stem game given below. 9…e6! is more tenacious, e.g. 10.Qg6+ Ke7 11.Qxg2 Nc6 12.Nf3, and it’s not absolutely clear. 8…e6 9.Qg5 Bxh6 10.Qxg2 Nc6 11.gxh7 Ke7 is the same thing.
7…Kf8 8.Nf3!
The computer finds this move quickly, but it had already been analyzed by the Dutch analyst Spinhoven in 1970. Previously 8.hxg8Q+ Kxg8 9.Qg4 (or 9.Qg6) 9…Bxh1 was the common reply, with varying results. 8.Qf5+ Nf6 9.Bh6 is possible here too:
A) 9…Bxh6? 10.Qg6 Bg7 (if 10…Bxh1? 11.Qxh6+ Kf7 12.Nh3 will mate or win massive material, first shown in the postal game Den Broeder-Wegener, 1981) 11.Qxg2 Nc6 12.Nf3, with two extra pawns and the better position;
B) 9…Rxh7! improves significantly: 10.Qg5 Be4! 11.Bxe4 Bxh6 12.Qf5 d5 13.Bd3 c5+/= and Black has a little counterplay.
8…Nf6
Black is lost following:
A) 8…Bxh1 9.Ne5 Bxe5 (9…Qe8 10.hxg8Q+ Rxg8 11.Qf5+ Bf6 12.Bh6+ Rg7 13.Bxg7+ Kxg7 14.Qh7+ Kf8 15.Bg6) 10.dxe5 and White will not only win material, but will also maintain a matting attack;
B) 8…Rxh7 9.Bxh7 Bxh1 10.Ng5 Nh6 (10…Bd5 11.Bg6 Nf6 12.Nh7+ Nxh7 13.Qxd5 e6 14.Qxa8) 11.Bg6;
C) 8…Bxf3 9.Qxf3+ Nf6 10.Rg1! (with the idea Qg2. This is even better than 10.Qxa8) 10…Qe8 11.Rxg7 Kxg7 12.Qg3+.
9.Qg6
Threatening both 10.Rg1 and 10.Bh6.
9…Bxf3
9…Bxh1 10.Bh6 Rxh7 11.Ng5 Bxh6 12.Nxh7+ Nxh7 13.Qxh6+ and mate soon.
10.Rg1 Rxh7 11.Qg3
Attacking f3 and h7.
11…Be4 12.Bxe4 Nxe4 13.Qf3+ Kg8 14.Qxe4
White is a pawn up, and has a winning position due to the placement of Black’s king. Play might continue:
14…d5 15.Qe6+ Kh8 16.Nc3 c6 17.Bf4
17.Be3 Qd7 18.Qg6.
17…Qd7 18.Qg6 e6 19.Be5 Na6 20.Qg3 Rf8 21.0-0-0 c5 22.Ne2 cxd4 23.Nf4
Threatening Nxe6, Rde1, and Ng6+.
1.e4 a6 2.d4 b5
This is called the Saint George Defense. By comparison with 1…b6, Black takes an extra tempo to get a bishop to b7, but his pawn on b5 prevents White from broadening his center with c2-c4, and discourages White from placing a knight on c3. On the other hand, neglecting the center and development has its price, especially as Black.
Leski – Boog
Geneva 1986
1.e4 a6 2.d4 b5
It’s also possible to play 2…e6 with the idea 3.Nf3 c5, and if 4.d5, 4…d6 with a sort of Benoni where …a7-a6 helps to support the threat of …b7-b5 at some point. Of course, White can maintain the advantage with an early c2-c4, or even c2-c3 and Bd3, but at least Black achieves original play.
3.Nf3 Bb7 4.Bd3
Simple development ensures an advantage.
4…Nf6
Attacking e4. Black’s idea is that after e4-e5, he will have a solid post on d5.
A) 4…e6 will usually transpose, although White gets time to play more flexibly. The main point would be to avoid the following note ‘b’. On the other hand, White can try the immediate 5.a4, with the idea 5…b4 6.c4!;
B) 4…d6!? is the San Jorge Defense, sometimes played by Eric. Black heads for a Spanish formation with …e7-e5. 5.0-0 Nd7 6.a4!, for example 6…Ngf6 7.Qe2 b4 8.c3 bxc3 9.Nxc3 (9.bxc3) with the idea 9…e5 10.Bc4!.
5.Nbd2
Another effective line is 5.Qe2 e6 6.a4, when play can continue 6…c5 7.dxc5 Bxc5 8.Nbd2 b4 9.e5 Nd5 10.Ne4 Be7 11.Bg5! (Karpov played 11.0-0 versus Miles, Skara Ech-tt 1980) 11…0-0 (11…f6 12.exf6 gxf6 13.Bh6 and White has the advantage) 12.Nd6!
12…Bc6, Volovik-Kozlov, USSR 1987, and the most efficient solution is 13.Bxe7! Qxe7 (13…Nxe7 14.Bxh7+ Kxh7 15.Ng5+ Kg6 16.Qg4) 14.Qe4 f5 15.Qd4 and the knight on d6 establishes White’s superiority.
5…e6 6.0-0 c5
A thematic attack on the center. 6…Be7 is safe but passive. For example, 7.e5 Nd5 8.a4 b4 9.Ne4 0-0 10.Nfg5! (or 10.c4 bxc3 11.bxc3) 10…h6 (10…g6 11.Qg4 is getting very dangerous) 11.Nh7 Kxh7 12.Nc5+ Kg8 13.Nxb7 Qc8 14.Na5, threatening Bxh6.
7.dxc5!? Bxc5 8.e5 Nd5 9.Ne4 Be7 10.a4 b4 11.Nfd2!
White plans Nc4 followed by placing a knight on d6. Here 11.c4 bxc3 12.bxc3, with the idea Ba3, is also good, if less direct.
11…0-0
11…Nc6 12.Nc4 0-0 13.Qh5 g6 14.Qh6 f5 15.exf6 (or 15.Ng5 Bxg5 16.Bxg5) 15…Bxf6 (15…Nxf6 16.Ng5 Qe8 17.Bf4) 16.Nxf6+ Qxf6 17.Bg5 Qg7 18.a5 with a terrible bind and the bishop pair.
12.Qh5
Or 12.Nc4 f5 13.exf6 Nxf6 14.Nxf6+ Bxf6, Khasangatin-Kutuzov, Pardubice 2004, and the game’s 15.Qh5 yielded some advantage, but 15.Qg4! gives White a significant positional edge and the initiative.
12…g6 13.Qh6 f5 14.exf6 Bxf6 15.Nxf6+ Nxf6 16.Nc4!?
Even better is 16.Qh4!
with dark-square control and a clear advantage. Moves like Qxb4, Nc4 and then Bg5 are threatened, but covering b4 and getting queens off by 16…Nd5 17.Qxd8 Rxd8 isn’t very good either because of 18.Nc4 Nc6 19.Bg5 Rdc8 (19…Rf8 20.Nd6 Ra7 21.Nxb7 Rxb7 22.Bxa6) 20.Be4, threatening Bxd5 and Nb6, so Black will lose material.
16…Ne4??
16…Bd5 would limit White’s advantage, although Black certainly wouldn’t be happy. At this point, White should have played…
17.Bxe4! Bxe4 18.Nd6
… when White is winning. For example:
18…Bxc2
No better is 18…Bc6 19.Bg5 Qc7 20.Be7.
19.Bg5 Qb6 20.Ne8!
A cute finish, threatening mate on g7.
20…Rf7
Or 20…Rxe8 21.Bf6; or 20…Qd4 21.Bf6.
21.Nf6+ Kh8 22.Nxh7!
Black will be mated shortly.
Queen’s Gambit: Baltic Defense (D06)
1.d4 d5 2.c4 Bf5
In contrast to the Queen’s Gambit Declined with 2…e6, Black plays 2…Bf5 because he wants to get his bishop in front of his pawns. The main drawback is that White can undermine Black’s center and force concessions.
Shipov – Radmacher
Berlin 1992
1.d4 d5 2.c4 Bf5 3.cxd5
The simplest answer, setting up a 2-1 central pawn majority and gaining time.
3…Bxb1
Sadly, Black has to give White the bishop pair and a long-term advantage.
A) After 3…Qxd5?! 4.Nc3, White can set up an ideal center. For example, 4…Qa5 5.Bd2 c6 6.e4 Bg6 7.f4 e6 8.Nf3;
B) 3…Nf6 also doesn’t solve Black’s central problem following 4.Nc3 (or 4.Nf3 Nxd5 5.Nbd2 and e2-e4) 4…Nxd5 5.Qb3 Nxc3 6.bxc3 b6 7.Nf3 (7.Ba3!?) 7…e6 8.Nd2! Bg6 9.g3! Nd7 10.Bg2 Rb8 11.Qa4! Be7 12.Bc6 and Black is so tied down that he might be tempted to give up a pawn by 12…a6 13.Qxa6 0-0 in order to get castled, although 14.Qb5 Nf6 15.e4 follows.
4.Qa4+!
4…c6
Black recovers his pawn after 4…Qd7 5.Qxd7+ Nxd7 6.Rxb1 Ngf6, but leaves White with the bishop pair and an ideal center. For example, 7.Nf3 (or 7.Bd2 Nxd5 8.e4 N5f6 9.f3 and White stands better) 7…Nb6 8.e3 Nbxd5 9.a3 (or 9.Be2 e6 10.0-0 with some advantage for White, Euwe-Tylor, Weston-super-Mare 1926!) 9…e6 10.Bd3 Be7 11.e4 Nb6 12.0-0 0-0 13.Be3 Rfd8 14.Rfc1, with the bishop pair, activity, and the better center, Inkiov-Trzaska, Recklinghausen 2000.
5.dxc6!?
Nothing fancy. White is playing for a modest endgame advantage. The normal line is 5.Rxb1 Qxd5 6.Nf3 Nd7, and now White gains an edge by 7.b4! intending b4-b5 (sometimes e2-e3 comes first).
5…Nxc6 6.Rxb1
6…e5!
Trying for …Bb4+. The ending after 6…Qxd4 7.Qxd4 Nxd4 favours White, who possesses the bishop pair. For example, 8.e3 (8.Nf3 Nc2+ 9.Kd1 Nb4 is given by Shirov, but White still gets the better game by 10.e4! a6 11.Bd2 Nc6 12.Bd3) 8…Nc6 9.Bb5 Rc8 10.Bd2 (or 10.Nf3) 10…e6 11.Rc1 a6 12.Bxc6+ Rxc6 13.Rxc6 bxc6 and Black’s weaknesses put him in a passive position after 14.Nf3 Bd6 15.Ke2 Nf6 16.Rc1+/=, Gomez Esteban-Rausis, Bordeaux 1990. Rc4 and Bc3 can follow.
7.Bd2
7.a3 has the same idea and may be more precise. For example, 7…Qxd4 8.Qxd4 Nxd4 9.e3 Nc6 10.Nf3!? (or 10.b4) 10…e4 (10…Nf6 11.b4) 11.Nd2 f5 12.g4! g6 13.b4 Bg7 14.gxf5 gxf5 15.Rg1 Bc3 16.Bb2 Bxb2 17.Rxb2 Nf6 18.Rc2! with the idea b4-b5 and Rc7, as well as Rg7.
7…Qxd4
7…exd4 8.g3! illustrates White’s two-bishop advantage. For example, 8…Bc5 (8…Nf6 9.Bg2 Rc8 10.Nf3 Bc5 11.Rc1 Bb6 12.Ne5) 9.Bg2 Ne7 10.b4 Bb6 11.b5 Na5 12.Nf3 0-0 13.0-0 Nf5 14.Rfd1 and the d-pawn falls.
8.Qxd4 Nxd4
Black can’t be happy with 8…exd4?! 9.g3 Nf6 10.Bg2 Be7 11.b4!. White has a great score in this kind of position.
9.e3!
Or 9.Nf3 Nc6 (9…Nxf3+ 10.exf3 a6 11.Bc3 f6 12.Bd3 has the idea 12…0-0-0 13.Be4 Kb8 14.Ke2 with advantage) 10.e3+/= and White stands better. For example, 10…f6 11.b4 a6 12.a4 Bd6 13.Bd3 Nge7 14.0-0 0-0 15.Rfd1 Rfd8 16.b5 and White is kicking Black around.
9…Nc6 10.Bb5 Rc8 11.Nf3 Bd6 12.Bc3 f6 13.Ke2
Shipov suggests 13.Nd2 when 13…a6 14.Ne4 Be7 15.Bc4 might follow.
13…Ne7 14.Rhd1 Rd8 15.Nd2! a6 16.Ne4!
White has a clear advantage.
16…Bc7 17.Bxc6+?!
This is good enough to keep White on top, but 17.Bc4! is terribly strong, because White has the bishop pair and more active pieces, whereas Black can’t even get his rook on h8 into play.
17…Nxc6 18.Nc5 Rxd1 19.Rxd1 Nd8 20.Bb4! Bb6
20…0-0 21.Nxb7! Nxb7 22.Bxf8 Kxf8 23.Rd7.
21.Ne4 Bc7 22.a4
22.Bd6! Bb6 23.Rd3.
22…Nc6 23.Bc5 h5 24.h4 Nd8 25.b4 Ne6 26.Bd6 Bd8 27.Bc5 Bc7 28.b5
Or 28.Rd5.
28…axb5 29.axb5 b6 30.Bb4 Rh6?
But it’s hard to find a good move.
31.Nd6+ Bxd6 32.Rxd6 Nc7 33.Rxb6
And White is winning.
Queen’s Gambit: Austrian Defense (D06)
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c5
This symmetrical move introduces the Austrian Defense. When your opponent copies your moves it can be annoying, but normally there’s a way to break the symmetry in your favor. As usual, we’ll recommend a line where White plays for a small but definite advantage:
Portisch – Bronstein
Monte Carlo 1969
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c5 3.cxd5
3…Nf6
This is Black’s best chance to equalize. Other options:
A) 3…cxd4 4.Qxd4 leaves White a pawn ahead: 4…e6 5.e4 Nc6 6.Qd1 exd5 7.exd5 Nb4 8.Nc3 Nf6 9.Bb5+ Bd7 10.Qe2+ Qe7 11.Bxd7+ Nxd7 12.Be3;
B) 3…Qxd5 4.Nf3 cxd4 5.Nc3! Qd8 6.Qxd4 Qxd4 7.Nxd4 and White has two more pieces developed while threatening Ndb5. For example, 7…e5 (7…a6? 8.Nd5!) 8.Ndb5 Na6 9.Nd5 (9.Be3 b6 10.Nd5 Kd8? 11.Nxa7! 9.g3!? is another good move) 9…Rb8 (or 9…Kd8 10.e4) 10.a3! Be6 11.e4 Bxd5 12.exd5 Nf6 13.Bc4; White’s passed pawn and bishop pair are effective.
4.e4!
White returns the pawn in order to develop quickly and maintain an advanced pawn on d5.
4…Nxe4 5.dxc5 Nxc5 6.Nf3 e6 7.Nc3 exd5 8.Qxd5!
White has aggressive development and doesn’t mind exchanging queens.
8…Qe7+
A) Black is thrown on the defensive after 8…Qxd5 9.Nxd5 Ne6 10.Be3. For example, 10…Bd6 11.0-0-0 Nc6 12.Bb5 Bb8 13.Rhe1 0-0 14.Bxc6 bxc6 15.Ne7+ Kh8 16.Nxc8! Rxc8 17.Rd7 Rc7 18.Red1, with a solid plus;
B) 8…Be7 9.Qxd8+ Bxd8 10.Be3 Nba6 11.Bb5+ Bd7 12.Bxd7+ Nxd7 13.0-0-0, with superior activity, Gleizerov-Berkell, Stockholm 2002/03;
C) 8…Nc6 9.Qxd8+ Nxd8 10.Nd5 Nde6 11.Be3 Bd7 12.Ne5 Ba4 13.Nc3 a6 Donner-O’Kelly de Galway, Havana 1965; and here 14.Bxc5! Nxc5 15.Bc4! achieves a winning position.
9.Be3 Nc6?
But 9…a6 is slow. For example, 10.Nd4 Qc7 11.Rd1 Nc6 12.Bb5! with the idea 12…axb5 13.Ndxb5 Qb6 14.0-0 Be6 15.Nd6+ Bxd6 16.Qxd6 followed by capture on c5, since 16…Ra5 17.Rfe1! leaves Black with no useful moves.
10.Bb5 Bd7 11.0-0 Ne6
12.Ne5
12.Rfe1! is also very strong. Black’s lack of development dooms him.
12…Nxe5 13.Qxe5 Bxb5 14.Nxb5 a6 15.Rad1! Rd8 16.Bb6! Rxd1 17.Rxd1 f6 18.Qf5
Or 18.Qd5 Kf7 19.Nc7.
18…g6 19.Nc7+! Kf7
19…Nxc7 20.Qc8+ Kf7 21.Rd7.
20.Qd5
Black resigned. 21.Re1 is threatened, and…
20…Bh6 21.Nxe6 Qxe6 22.Qxb7+ Kg8 23.Rd8+ Bf8 24.g3!
… leaves Black no defense.