GOOD WHITE OPENINGS
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4
The various forms of the Scotch Gambit strike irrational fear into the hearts of young and inexperienced players. It is a safe and sound opening, but there is little to be afraid of, provided that you know some specific variations. An important defensive idea is planting your knight at e4, either directly or by capturing White’s pawn there. Another key idea is the typical central break …d7-d5.
Here’s a sample game that illustrates a main line:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.0-0
There is a huge body of theory on 5.e5 d5!.
Here are just a few typical ideas: 6.Bb5 (White has no compensation for the pawn after 6.exf6? dxc4 7.0-0 Be6) 6…Ne4 7.Nxd4 Bc5 8.Be3 Bd7 9.Bxc6 bxc6! 10.Nd2 (this has replaced castling as the main line) 10…Qh4!? 11.0-0 Bb6 12.N2b3 (12.c4 0-0= Sarakauskas-Hebden, Port Erin 2006; 12.f4 Bg4 13.Qc1 c5 14.N4b3 c4 15.Nxe4 cxb3 16.Nc5 bxa2 17.Bd4 0-0= Opryatkin-Schwetlick, ICCF 2009; 12.N4f3 Qg4 13.Nxe4 Qxe4 14.Re1 Qg4 15.a4 0-0 16.a5 Bxe3 17.Rxe3 Rab8= Karpatchev-Daurelle, Creon 2007) 12…Qe7 13.Re1 0-0=, Nakamura-Hebden, Gibraltar 2008.
5…Nxe4
This is the simplest solution, requiring less memorization than 5…Bc5.
6.Re1 d5 7.Bxd5
The Canal Variation. With this pinning idea, White recovers his pawn. The tricky 7.Nc3!? is most easily met by 7…dxc4 8.Rxe4+ Be6 9.Nxd4 Nxd4 10.Rxd4 Qf6, and Black has the better prospects.
7…Qxd5 8.Nc3
White recovers his piece due to the pins and double attack on e4 and d5. But he won’t gain any advantage. This is a variation with a lot of theory attached to it, but Black can do well with simple moves.
8…Qa5
8…Qh5 is also satisfactory. For example, in the line 9.Nxe4 Be6
10.Neg5 (10.Bg5 can be answered by 10…Bd6! with equality, because the attractive-looking 11.Bf6?! is met by 11…Bxh2+! 12.Nxh2 Qxd1 and 13…gxf6) 10…0-0-0, when 11.Nxe6 fxe6 12.Rxe6?! Bd6 favors Black.
What follows is similar:
9.Nxe4 Be6 10.Neg5 0-0-0! 11.Nxe6 fxe6 12.Rxe6 Bd6 13.Bg5 Rde8 14.Qe1 Qxe1+ 15.Raxe1 Kd7! 16.Rxe8 Rxe8 17.Rxe8 Kxe8 18.Kf1
White’s best try.
18…Kd7! 19.Ke2 Ke6 20.Kd3 Kd5
The endgame gives equal chances to both sides, but that doesn’t mean it has to end in a draw.
21.c4+ dxc3 22.bxc3 Ne5+ 23.Nxe5 Bxe5
And Black managed to win in Hallaeva-Bjerke, Khanty-Mansiysk Olympiad 2010.
Caro-Kann: Fantasy Variation 3.f3 (B12)
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3
The Maroczy System, a.k.a. ‘Fantasy Variation’, dates back to the 19th Century, but has found some new advocates in recent decades. White defends the central pawn with a pawn rather than using the queen’s knight. This does not contribute to White’s development, but it does shore up the center and there’s no question that 3.f3 is a sound opening. In turn, we try to provide a safe and solid response.
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3 e6
The simplest solution. Black makes it into a kind of French Defense where both the moves f2-f3 and …c7-c6 are a bit out of place. He also threatens 4…dxe4 5.fxe4? Qh4+. The alternative 3…dxe4 4.fxe4 e5 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.Bc4 Nd7 with the idea …Ngf6 and …Bd6 is equal, according to theory, but it is riskier and requires a good deal of specific knowledge.
4.Nc3
After 4.Be3, Black can play 4…Nd7, a flexible move, or 4…Qb6 (and accept the gambit after 5.Nd2 Qxb2), or go for the direct capture with 4…dxe4 5.Nd2 (5.fxe4 Qh4+ and …Qxe4) 5…exf3 (5…Nf6 6.fxe4 c5 is less ambitious. For example, 7.dxc5 Nbd7 8.Ngf3 Bxc5 9.Bxc5 Nxc5=) 6.Ngxf3 Nf6
7.Nc4 (7.Ne5 Nbd7 8.Qf3 Qa5 favors Black) 7…Nbd7 (7…Be7 with advantage, according to Kasparov) 8.Bd3 Be7 9.Qd2 Nd5 10.Bg5 (10.Bf2 Nb4 11.Be2 Nf6!) 10…0-0 (or 10…f6 11.Bh4 c5) 11.0-0-0 b5 12.Nce5 Nxe5 13.dxe5 a6 (intending …c6-c5) 14.Bxe7 Qxe7 15.Ng5 h6 16.Ne4 (16.Nh7 Rd8 17.Nf6+ Kh8) 16…c5! 17.Nd6 Bb7 18.Be4 Bc6 19.g4? (19.Rhe1 c4) Turov-Galkin, Internet 2004. At this point, 19…Rad8! is very strong, since …f7-f6 threatens to win the trapped knight on d6. For example, 20.Rhf1 (20.Kb1 f6 21.c4 bxc4 22.Nxc4 Nc3+!) 20…f6 21.Bg6 Rd7! and …fxe5 follows, even after 22.g5 fxe5 23.Bf7+ Rxf7 24.Nxf7 Nf4! with a clear advantage.
4…Bb4!
This plan is approved by Kasparov and Shakarov. Black begins to develop his kingside and threatens …dxe4 again.
5.Bf4
A) 5.Ne2 dxe4 (or 5…Nf6) 6.fxe4 e5 7.Be3 Qh4+ 8.Ng3 Nf6 9.Qd3 0-0 10.0-0-0 Ng4 11.Bg1 exd4 12.Qxd4 Monin-Akopov, USSR Postal Championship 1986-88 and 12…Be7! with the idea …Rd8, is an easy solution to the position;
B) 5.Bd2 is best, according to Bücker. Then one line is 5…Ne7 6.a3 Ba5 7.Bd3 0-0=, with the possible continuation 8.Nge2 Nd7 9.b4 Bc7 10.0-0 e5!;
C) 5.Bd3 dxe4 6.Bxe4 f5! 7.Bd3 Qxd4 favors Black.
5…Ne7 6.Qd2
6.Qd3 is equally good. For example, 6…b6 7.Ne2 Ba6 8.Qe3 0-0 is considered equal, one game continuing 9.a3 Bxc3+ 10.Nxc3 Bxf1 11.Rxf1 c5 12.Ne2 Nbc6=, Yu Yangyi-Parligras, Khanty-Mansiysk 2011.
6…0-0
Black’s position is very solid. In our example game, things quickly became wild.
7.Nge2 Nd7 8.a3 Ba5 9.g3 c5!
10.exd5?
A) 10.dxc5 e5 traps the bishop, and Black emerges on top after 11.b4 d4! 12.Nb5 a6 13.Nd6 (13.Nbxd4 Bc7) 13…Bc7 14.Bg5 f6 15.Bh4 Bxd6 16.cxd6 Nc6 17.g4 Nb6;
B) 10.Bd6 cxd4 (10…dxe4!? 11.dxc5 exf3 12.Nd4, Antipov-Bulmaga, Marianske Lazne 2011, 12…b6!=) 11.Nxd4 dxe4 12.fxe4 Nf6 13.Bb4 e5 is also good for Black.
10…cxd4 11.dxe6
White has to give up a piece, in view of 11.Nxd4 e5! or 11.Qxd4 e5 12.Bxe5 Nf5 13.Qe4 Nxe5 14.Qxe5 Re8 and …Ne3, which is killing.
11…dxc3 12.exf7+ Rxf7 13.Nxc3 Kh8
Black’s extra piece is worth more than the pawns, especially since the one at f3 (placed there at move 3!), is weak, W.Watson-Sigfusson, Reykjavik 1989.
Semi-Slav Defense: Gunderam Gambit (D31)
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e4 dxe4 5.f3
This is a gambit based on the move f2-f3, like the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, but this time White has a pawn at c4 and Black has a bad bishop, which might make it a fun choice in practice, and sound enough to use in practice. Nevertheless, with accurate play Black can equalize, and has at least as many chances for an advantage as White does.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e4 dxe4 5.f3
The Gunderam Gambit, rarely played compared to 5.Nxe4, which is the normal Marshall Gambit.
5…exf3
Or 5…e5 6.dxe5 Qxd1+ 7.Nxd1
7…Nd7 (7…Bb4+ 8.Nc3 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Bf5 should provide at least equality for Black) 8.fxe4 Nxe5 9.Nf3 Bd6 10.Bd2 Be6 11.Bc3 f6 12.Ne3 Ne7 13.Nd4 Bd7 14.Be2 0-0 15.0-0-0 Rfd8, which offered equal chances in Sandmeier-Bürkle, Wittlich 1980.
6.Nxf3 Nf6 7.Bd3 Nbd7
7…c5 8.d5 exd5 9.cxd5 Bd6 10.0-0 0-0 11.Bg5 Nbd7 12.Ne4 c4 13.Kh1 cxd3 14.Nxd6 Qb6 15.Nf5 Nxd5 16.Qxd3 N7f6 was the original defense, seen in Richter-Michel, Berlin 1938.
8.0-0 Bd6 9.Qe1
Black has a solid position and an extra pawn, although he still has to defend carefully. Here are examples of how Black might emerge with the better game, although White’s play can certainly be improved:
9…h6
9…Qc7 10.Qh4 b6 11.Bd2 Bb7 12.a3 0-0-0 13.b4 e5! with a good game for Black in Jensen-Sylvan, Denmark 1993.
10.Ne5 Nxe5 11.dxe5 Bxe5 12.Qxe5 Qxd3 13.b3 Bd7 14.Rxf6 gxf6 15.Qxf6 Rg8 16.Ba3 Qe3+ 17.Kh1 Qg5 18.Qf2 f5 19.Bd6 b6 20.Re1 0-0-0
And White had no compensation for the exchange in Pejka-Drzemicki, Poznan B 1987.
Colle System: Classical Main Line (D05)
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.Bd3 c5 5.c3 Nc6 6.Nbd2
There are many opening setups that are called by the name ‘Colle’, producing a set of what can be called ‘Colle Systems’. The key moves in any Colle system are d2-d4, Nf3 and e2-e3. Sometimes White plays 1.d4 d5 2.e3 and delays Nf3, perhaps by first playing Bd3 or c2-c3. Most Classical Colle systems include the moves c2-c3, Bd3, and Nbd2. In the Zukertort-Rubinstein variations of the Colle, White substitutes the moves b2-b3 and Bb2 for c2-c3. All these variations are solid (hence the Colle is definitely a ‘Good’ opening), but they are also rather passive and arguably not very challenging. It’s been some time since a Colle system has appeared in a super tournament between world class players (at least at a slow time control). But Colle systems are great favorites among beginners and developing players, so the authors are continually asked to recommend lines of play for Black against them. Because White aims for so little and sets up no targets in the center, Black must create his own imbalances if he wants to play ambitiously. In this book we propose safe and hopefully interesting solutions to both the Classical Colle and the Zukertort-Rubinstein Colle. We also look at so-called ‘anti-Colle’ systems in which Black tries to disrupt White’s normal development. Because the Colle appears so often below the master level, we’re going to examine it in some detail.
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.Bd3 c5 5.c3 Nc6 6.Nbd2
There are many possible move orders arriving at this position. For example, 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nbd2 Nf6 6.Bd3.
6…Bd6
Black’s standard setup, with the move …e6-e5 in mind, as well as discouraging Ne5.
7.0-0
A) 7.e4 is premature: 7…cxd4 8.cxd4 Nb4 9.Bb1 dxe4 10.Nxe4 Nxe4 11.Bxe4 Bd7! 12.0-0 (Black stands better after both 12.a3 Bc6! and 12.Bxb7 Bb5!) 12…Bc6 13.Bxc6+ Nxc6, and Black has a good IQP position because of the simplification and White’s bad bishop;
B) 7.dxc5 Bxc5 will usually transpose unless White tries the decentralizing 8.Nb3?! Bb6 and then …e6-e5.
7…0-0
8.dxc5!
White apparently gives up the center, but only to strike back in that sector on the next move. The alternatives are instructive:
A) 8.h3 is slow, and in the line 8…e5 9.dxe5 Nxe5 10.Nxe5 Bxe5 11.Nf3, Black controls the center: 11…Bc7 12.Qc2 Qe7 13.c4 dxc4 14.Qxc4 Re8 15.Qc2 Bd7 16.Bd2 Bc6 with a clear advantage, Kavlie Jorgensen-Ahues, Hamburg Olympiad 1930;
B) 8.b3 weakens c3: 8…e5 9.dxe5 Nxe5 10.Nxe5 Bxe5 11.Qc2 Wahltuch-Atkins, London 1922, and here a strong idea was 11…Bc7! 12.Bb2 Qd6 13.g3 Bh3 14.Rfe1 Rfe8, etc.;
C) 8.Re1 e5 (8…Qc7 9.e4 cxd4 10.cxd4 e5!? 11.dxe5 Nxe5 12.Nxe5 Bxe5 13.h3 Babo-Neves, Lisbon ch-POR 1999; 13…Be6=) 9.dxc5 (9.dxe5 Nxe5 10.Nxe5 Bxe5 11.e4 Be6) 9…Bxc5 10.e4 Ng4 11.Rf1 (11.Re2?! f5!) 11…Be6=.
8…Bxc5 9.e4
9.Qc2 allows Black to play …e6-e5, but perhaps he should wait a move: 9…e5!? (9…Qc7! 10.e4; compare the main line) 10.e4 d4 (10…Be6) 11.cxd4 (11.Nb3! Bd6 12.cxd4 exd4 13.Bg5) 11…Bxd4 12.a3 Bg4 13.h3 Bxf3 14.Nxf3 Rc8, and Black stands better, Romanovsky-Salwe, St Petersburg 1905.
9…Qc7!
This prevents e4-e5 in many lines and at the same time eyes h2. Now we’ve arrived at a position from a Slav Defense (‘Anti-Meran Variation’), but with colors reversed. The extra tempo for White doesn’t mean much because he only fights for equality with colors reversed. In addition, Black can react to White’s specific move by adjusting to its strengths and weaknesses.
10.Qe2
This is White’s most dangerous move and the beginning point of many games. White threatens e4-e5 followed by the well-known sacrifice Bxh7+, when …Kxh7 is met by Ng5+ with a terrific attack. The most interesting and popular option is 10.exd5, to isolate Black’s d-pawn and then blockade it with Nb3 and Nd4 shortly thereafter. Normally the game continues 10…exd5 (10…Nxd5!? is rather unclear because Black has the idea …Nf4 and may achieve some pressure down the d-file. Ultimately his goal is …e6-e5. The game Schmitzer-Ophoff, Potsdam 1997, went 11.Ne4 Be7 12.Re1 Nf6 13.Nxf6+ Bxf6 14.Bg5! Qe7 15.Bxf6 Qxf6 16.Qc2 g6 17.Be4 Bd7 18.Rad1, with superior activity; instead, Lane suggests 12…Rd8!? when Bronznik points out that …Nf4 must be dealt with)
11.Nb3 (11.h3?? is a blunder due to 11…Bxh3! 12.Ng5 (12.gxh3 Qg3+ 13.Kh1 Qxh3+ 14.Kg1 Ng4 15.Bf5 Nce5 and White can hardly move) 12…Bd7 13.Nb3 Ng4 14.Bxh7+ Kh8 with an enormous advantage, Scafarelli-Lundin, Helsinki Olympiad 1952) 11…Bb6 (11…Bd6 12.h3 Re8 13.Be3 blockades d4, although Black has activity in return) 12.Bg5 (12.Re1 Bg4 13.Be3 Rad8 14.Bxb6 Qxb6 15.Be2 Rfe8, with very active pieces to compensate for the weak d-pawn; 12.Qc2 Bg4 13.Nbd4 Rac8; 12.Nbd4 Bg4! 13.Be2 Nxd4 14.Nxd4 Bxe2 15.Qxe2 Bxd4 16.cxd4, Lein-Eingorn, Moscow GMA Open 1989. After 16…Rfe8, Black has a good knight versus bad bishop with better development) 12…Ne4 13.Qc1!? (to avoid the pin after …Bg4 and set up Bf4; 13.Bh4 Bg4 14.Be2 Rfe8 is equal, intending 15.Qxd5? Nxc3 16.bxc3 Rxe2, as occurred in one game) 13…Bg4!? (13…Bf5! 14.Bf4 Qe7 looks better and equal. For example, 15.Nfd4 Nxd4 16.Nxd4 Bxd4 17.cxd4 Qb4!) 14.Bf4 Qe7 15.Nfd4 (threatening 16.f3) 15…Rac8 16.Qe3 Bd7 17.f3 Nf6 18.Qxe7 Nxe7, and White had an obvious advantage in Rygaard-Lugovoi, Chalkidiki tt 2002. White controls the key square d4, and his pieces have more scope. Exchanges generally favor White in these isolated queen pawn positions. But this variation is clearly fine for Black if he plays well.
10…h6
Black’s best-established move, preventing any sacrifices on h7 and thus rendering the move e4-e5 less effective. But this is a point where you can also play one of some lesser-known but interesting alternatives, including 10…Ne5 and 10…Bd6. One of the best seems to be 10…b6!?,
which protects the bishop on c5 and prepares to develop the queen’s bishop. It is given a thumbs up by Bronznik in his massive and brilliant work on the Colle System (from which we have gleaned much material). Then 11.e5 (11.Re1? Ng4; 11.h3?! Nh5! with the double threats of …Nf4 and …Ng3!; 11.b4 Bd6 12.Bb2 Bb7; 11.exd5 exd5 12.Nb3 Bg4 13.Nxc5 bxc5, with excellent play) 11…Ng4 12.Bxh7+ (12.Ng5? f5! and White’s e-pawn falls) 12…Kxh7 13.Ng5+ Kg8 14.Qxg4 Qxe5, and here Bronznik analyses in depth to show that Black’s powerful center is more important than a few threats. For example, 15.Qh5 (15.Ndf3 Qf6) 15…Qf5 16.Ndf3 Ba6! 17.Rd1 (17.Re1 f6!) 17…Be2 18.Re1 Bxf3 19.Qxf3 Qxf3 (19…Qg6!? is suggested by Bronznik) 20.Nxf3 Rac8=.
11.Bc2!
This retreat is generally considered the best move because it avoids Black’s attack by …Ne5 or …Nf4 in some variations but also prepares the dangerous battery of bishop and queen after Qd3, when Black’s king can be in trouble. If White tries 11.b4, Black retreats by 11…Bd6! 12.Bb2 and now Black has either 12…e5= or 12…Ne5 13.Nxe5 Bxe5 14.Nf3 dxe4 15.Nxe5 exd3 16.Nxd3=, Markus-Filippov, Bad Wörishofen 2001.
11…a6!?
A useful move that allows for a bishop retreat to a7 and covers the b5-square in some key lines. Instead, the moves 11…Re8, 11…Rd8, 11…Bb6, and 11…b6!? have all been played, and if you are attracted by intricate theoretical details, they are all fun to look at.
12.e5
12.h3, to prevent …Ng4 after White plays e4-e5, invites the move 12…Nh5!?, threatening …Ng3 and perhaps …Nf4.
12…Ng4 13.Nb3 Ba7 14.Bf4
Now White’s center is protected and h2-h3 is threatened, whereas Qd3 can be deadly in certain lines. Thus Black’s next move is virtually forced:
14…f6 15.Qd3
Trying to protect the e-pawn by 15.Rae1 is futile after 15…Ngxe5 16.Nxe5 fxe5 17.Bxe5 Nxe5 18.Qxe5 Qxe5 19.Rxe5 Bd7! with the bishop pair and multiple ideas, such as doubling on the f-file or expanding in the center by …Bb8 and …e6-e5. For example, 20.Nd4 Rae8 21.Rfe1 Bb8 22.R5e2 e5 23.Nf3 Bb5.
15…f5
Bronznik thinks that 15…g5!? may be playable and ‘not bad’. He gives 16.exf6 (16.Qg6+ Qg7 17.Qxg7+ Kxg7 18.exf6+ Rxf6 (or 18…Nxf6 19.Bd6 Rd8 20.Bg3 Nh5) 19.Bg3 e5 intending …e5-e4, when the situation is unclear but we think satisfactory for Black) 16…gxf4 17.Qg6+ Kh8 18.Qxg4 Rxf6 ‘unclear’. One plan for Black is …Qg7, …Bd7 and …Rg8.
16.h4
To stop …g7-g5. Black stands well enough after 16.h3 g5 (or 16…Nf6 17.exf6 Qxf4 18.fxg7 Kxg7=) 17.hxg4 gxf4 18.gxf5 Rxf5 19.Rae1 Qg7. 16.h4 was played in Pablo Marin-Röder, Barbera 1997, and instead of 16…g5?! 17.hxg5 hxg5 18.Nxg5, with insufficient compensation (18…Ncxe5 19.Qg3), Black could have played…
16…Bd7
Bronznik also suggests that 16…Nf6!? is ‘not bad’.
17.Rae1 Nf6
17…Ne7!? and 17…Na5 are also possible.
18.Nbd4 Nxd4 19.Nxd4 Ne4
… ‘with an approximately level position’ according to Bronznik. Black is at least okay, with …g7-g5 a genuine idea now.
Colle Zukertort-Rubinstein: A Defense with …Be7 (D05)
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.Bd3 c5 5.b3
The Zukertort-Rubinstein System is the most popular of the Colle formations among strong players. It affords White more flexible play than the Classical Colle (with c2-c3, Bd3, and Nbd2). In this section we offer a traditional Black setup with the move …Be7.
Clemens – Kraai
Hoogeveen 2009
1.d4 d5
A common 1…Nf6 order that gets to our main line is 1…Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 c5 4.Bd3 Nc6 5.0-0 d5 6.b3.
2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 e6
Also transposing is 3…c5 4.Bd3 Nc6 5.0-0 e6 6.b3.
4.Bd3 c5
Still another sequence of logical moves that ends up in the same place is 4…Be7 5.0-0 b6 6.b3 Bb7 7.Bb2 0-0 8.Nbd2 c5 9.Ne5 Nc6.
5.b3
This introduces the Colle-Zukertort System, which is played by some grandmasters, but has a particularly strong following on lower levels.
5…Nc6 6.0-0 Be7
The position of this bishop determines a lot about the following play. 6…Bd6 is featured in our next Colle-Zukertort game.
7.Bb2 0-0 8.Nbd2 b6
Safe and sound.
9.Ne5
This is the usual way in which White tries to make progress. The idea is to play f2-f4 with a Stonewall formation, and open a route for White’s queen to move to the kingside. 9.a3, to prevent …Nb4 and prepare Qe2, might run into 9…Bb7 (9…a5!?) 10.Qe2 a5, with the idea …a5-a4.
9…Bb7
10.f4
10.a3 can be played, to prevent the …Nb4 idea in the following note, but it allows 10…cxd4! 11.exd4 Nxe5 12.dxe5 Nd7=. For example, 13.Qh5 (13.b4 Qc7 14.Qh5 g6 15.Qh6 Rfd8 16.Nf3?! d4! 17.Nxd4 Nxe5) 13…h6 14.b4 (versus …Nc5) 14…a5 15.Qg4 Qc7 16.Nf3 axb4 17.axb4 Rxa1 18.Bxa1 Ra8 where we prefer Black, Summerscale-Luther, Oakham 1990.
10…Rc8
Black has an interesting option in 10…Nb4 11.Be2 cxd4 12.exd4 Ne4= with the idea 13.a3 Nc6 14.Bd3 Nxe5 15.fxe5 Bg5!.
11.a3 Nxe5
Another, similar route to equality is 11…cxd4 12.exd4 Nxe5 13.dxe5 (13.fxe5 Ne4 14.Qe2 Qc7 15.c4 Nxd2 16.Qxd2 h6 17.Qe2 a5!? 18.a4 Qd7=) 13…Ne4. This is comfortable for Black. For example, 14.Qe2 (14.b4 Qc7 15.Nf3 a5 favors the second player; after 14.Nf3 Bc5+ 15.Bd4 Qe7 16.b4 Bxd4+ 17.Nxd4 f5, Black again seems to have an edge) 14…Nc3 15.Bxc3 (15.Qh5 g6 16.Qh6 d4) 15…Rxc3 16.Nf3 d4! (or 16…b5!? with the idea 17.Bxb5? Qb6+ 18.Kh1 Re3!) 17.Rad1 Qd7 18.a4 Rd8 19.Ng5! g6 20.Ne4 Rc7=.
12.fxe5
12.dxe5 Ne4 doesn’t achieve anything for White. For example, 13.Nxe4 dxe4 14.Bc4 Bd5 15.Ba6 Rb8 16.Qe2 Qc7 17.Rad1 Rfd8=.
12…Ne4
13.Nxe4
13.Bxe4?! dxe4 eliminates one of White’s best attacking pieces, and c2 has to be covered, so 14.Rc1 might follow, when 14…Rc7! again discourages 15.Qg4?! due to 15…cxd4 16.exd4 Bg5.
13…dxe4 14.Bc4 Qc7
14…cxd4! 15.exd4 Bd5 16.Qe2 (better 16.Ba6 Rc7=) is described as ‘unclear’ by Palliser. Black already has somewhat better prospects after 16…Bxc4 17.bxc4 Qc7 18.Qxe4 Qxc4.
15.d5?!
15.Qg4 cxd4 16.Bxd4 Bc5 17.c3 Bd5!=.
15…exd5 16.Bxd5 Bg5 17.Re1 Bxd5
Or 17…Rcd8 18.c4 Qd7 19.Qh5 Bxd5 20.cxd5 f6! 21.Rad1 Qf5 22.Qe2 fxe5.
18.Qxd5 c4!? 19.Bd4 cxb3 20.cxb3 Qc6 21.Qxc6 Rxc6 22.Rec1?!
22.a4 Rfc8 23.a5 with an initiative for White.
22…Rfc8 23.Rxc6 Rxc6
This position may be drawn, but it isn’t easy for White to handle. In the game, Black managed to bring home the point:
24.a4 h6
24…Bd8! improves.
25.a5 bxa5 26.Rxa5 a6 27.g3 Kf8 28.Rd5 Ke7 29.Ra5 Ke6 30.b4 Bd8 31.Ra2 Bc7 32.b5 axb5 33.Rb2 Bxe5 34.Bxe5 Kxe5 35.Rxb5+ Ke6 36.Rb2 f5 37.Kf2 Kf6 38.Ra2 Kg5 39.h3 h5 40.h4+ Kg4 41.Kg2 Rc3 42.Rf2 g5 43.hxg5 Rxe3 44.g6 Ra3 45.g7 Ra8 46.Rb2 Rg8 47.Rb7 Kg5 48.Kh3 Kf6 49.Kh4 Rxg7 50.Rb6+ Ke5 51.Rb5+ Kd4 52.Rxf5 e3
0-1
Colle-Zukertort-Rubinstein: A Defense with …Bd6 (D05)
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.Bd3 c5 5.b3 Nc6 6.0-0 Bd6
Here we look at the same setup for Black as in the previous game, but with the move …Bd6 instead of …Be7.
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.Bd3 c5 5.b3 Nc6 6.0-0 Bd6
This is more active than 6…Be7.
7.Bb2 0-0
7…Qc7 is a fair alternative, preventing Ne5. For example, 8.c4 0-0 9.Nc3 a6= 10.Rc1 cxd4 11.exd4 Bf4 12.Rb1 dxc4 13.bxc4 Nb4 14.Ne2 Nxd3 15.Qxd3 b5 16.Nxf4 ½-½, Soppe-Arancibia Guzman, Santiago de Chile 1995.
8.Nbd2
A) 8.Ne5?! cxd4 9.exd4 Qc7! threatens both 10…Nxe5 and 10…Nb4, the latter move winning the bishop pair;
B) 8.a3 stops …Nb4. One setup for Black is 8…b6 9.Nbd2 Bb7 10.Ne5 Ne7!
when Aström-Agrest, Sweden 2000, continued 11.f4?! Ne4! 12.Nxe4 dxe4 13.Bc4 Nf5! 14.Qe2 Qe7 15.g4?! Nh4 with a big advantage: 16.f5 cxd4 17.exd4 exf5 18.Qe3 Bxe5 19.dxe5 fxg4 20.Rf4 Nf3+ 21.Kg2 Qh4 22.Rh1 Qh3+ 23.Kf2 0-1;
C) 8.c4 b6 9.Nbd2 Bb7 is solid. For example, 10.Rc1 Qe7 11.Qe2 Rad8 12.cxd5 Nxd5 13.Nc4 cxd4 14.Nxd4 Nxd4 15.Bxd4 Bb8=, Sepulveda Herrera-Valdes Escobar, Santiago de Chile 2008.
8…b6 9.Ne5 Bb7
This is the same setup we used with the bishop on e7 in the previous game.
10.a3
White wishes to stop …Nb4, since that can hurt his coordination. For example, 10.f4 Nb4 11.Be2 cxd4 12.exd4 Ne4 13.a3 Nc6 14.Bd3 f6! 15.Nxc6 (15.Nec4 dxc4 16.Bxe4 cxb3 17.Nxb3 f5 18.Bd3 Ne7, with advantage) 15…Bxc6 16.Qe2 f5 17.g3 Rc8 18.Nf3 b5!.
10…Rc8
There are many alternatives. The idea of playing …Ne7 to cover the kingside while preparing …Ne4 is a particularly good one, and can be implemented by either 10…Ne7, which can transpose to Astrom-Agrest in note ‘b’ to 8.Nbd2, or 10…a5 11.f4 Ne7.
11.f4
Palliser likes 11.Qf3 Qc7 12.Qg3 as an idea, but then 12…cxd4 13.exd4 Ne7! looks strong: 14.Qh3 (14.Rae1 Ne4 15.Nxe4?! dxe4 16.Bxe4?? Bxe4 17.Rxe4 Qxc2) 14…Ne4 15.Rfe1 (15.Ndf3 Nf5) 15…f5 with advantage. In a reversal of roles, Black might play …Rf6-h6.
11…Ne7! 12.Qf3
This is White’s usual method of attack, swinging his queen to the kingside. Otherwise …Ne4 is coming. For example, 12.Qe2 Ne4 13.c4 cxd4 14.exd4 Nxd2 15.Qxd2 Nf5! and Black is better.
12…Nf5!
This is simpler than 12…b5!? which is nevertheless fine. Then 13.dxc5!? Bxc5 14.b4 Bb6 15.Bd4 is a suggestion of Susan Polgar that is hardly intimidating. For example, Black can temporarily sacrifice a pawn with 15…Ne4! 16.Nxe4 dxe4 17.Bxb6 Qxb6 18.Bxe4 Bxe4 19.Qxe4 Nf5 (or 19…Rc3 20.Rfe1 Rd8) 20.Rfe1 Rfd8 21.Rac1 Nd6 22.Qf3 Rc3, etc.
13.dxc5
13.g4 is loosening: 13…Nh4 14.Qh3 (14.Qg3 Ne4 15.Bxe4 dxe4 16.Ndc4 Nf3+) 14…Ne4 15.Rad1 cxd4 16.Bxd4 (Black is clearly on top after 16.exd4?! Qe7 17.b4 Rc7) 16…Qe7 with advantage.
13…Bxc5 14.Rfe1
14.Rae1 b5 (14…a5 15.g4 Nd6) 15.Qh3 Ne4 16.Nxe4 dxe4 17.Bxb5 Bxe3+ 18.Rxe3 Qb6 19.Re1 Qxb5 20.c4 Qa6, Barreras Garcia-Reis, ICCF email 2011. Black stands slightly better because he will control the g1-a7 diagonal and the d-file.
14…Ne4!?
Or simply 14…a5! (Prusikin-Kurmann, Switzerland tt 2013) and Black stands better.
15.Nxe4 dxe4 16.Bxe4 Bxe4 17.Qxe4 Qd2
17…Nxe3!? 18.b4! Nxc2+ 19.bxc5 Nxa1 20.Bxa1 Rxc5 is difficult to assess.
18.Kh1 Nxe3 19.Nd3 Qxc2 20.Rec1 Qe2 21.Re1 Qc2=
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.d5
In the Anti-Grünfeld Variation, White’s third move prevents Black from playing …d7-d5. Black can choose between a King’s Indian formation (with …d7-d6) and a Benoni setup (with …c7-c5). We’ll recommend the King’s Indian strategy and show an instructive game without a great deal of analysis.
Csom – Kortchnoi
Gyula 1965
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.d5 Bg7 4.Nc3 0-0 5.e4 d6 6.Be2
We have transposed to a King’s Indian, but usually the d-pawn only advances when it can gain time against an enemy knight at c6.
6…c6! 7.Be3 a6
A clever move, with the idea of …b7-b5. White is thereby encouraged to advance the a-pawn to a4 (to prevent …b7-b5), when Black can play …a6-a5 and place a piece on the outpost square at b4.
8.a4?! a5! 9.g4 Na6 10.f4 Nd7
Black’s knights do good work on the queenside. From c5 and b4, infiltration at d3 may become available. As it happens, only one knight is needed.
11.h4
White places all his hopes in a kingside attack.
11…Ndc5 12.Bf3 Qb6!
Boldly walking into a pin, but there is a tactical finesse here. If the knight gets to d3, it gives check to the king and covers b2.
13.Qe2?
13.Rb1 was necessary.
13…Qxb2!
14.Qxb2 Nd3+ 15.Kd2 Nxb2
Black has won a pawn and threatens a deadly fork at c4. On the other hand, the knight is trapped. So surely all White has to do is defend c4 and then play Kc2, right?
16.Be2 Bxg4!
An unexpected blow. The bishop at e2 is overloaded and can’t defend g4 and c4 simultaneously. White resigned, seeing the ugly fate lying before him. The play would proceed 17.Bxg4 Nxc4+ 18.Ke2 Nxe3 19.Kxe3 Bxc3 20.Rc1 Bb4 21.dxc6 Bc5+! when Black would regain the pawn at c6 with an insurmountable advantage.
Torre Attack with …e7-e6 (A46)
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5
Those who choose to defend the Nimzo-Indian and the Queen’s Indian as Black will end up in this position against the Torre Attack, which consists of 2.Nf3 and 3.Bg5.
Karaulov – Mihalichenko
Kharkov 2003
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5
In this game we show the most direct solution, limiting White’s options:
3…h6 4.Bh4
White retains his bishop for the moment. 4.Bxf6 Qxf6 5.e4 transposes to the Trompowsky Attack (1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 e6 3.e4 h6 4.Bxf6 Qxf6, the note on 5.Nf3).
4…g5 5.Bg3 Ne4
Black goes after the bishop on g3, securing the bishop pair. This costs some time and minor weaknesses, but it’s a fair tradeoff.
6.Nbd2 Nxg3 7.hxg3 Bg7 8.e3 d6 9.c3
This is a good pawn structure with which to oppose Black’s bishop on g7. If White plays 9.c4, an early …c7-c5 or even …e6-e5 might extend its range.
9…Nc6 10.Qc2 Bd7
In view of his weakened kingside, Black prepares to transfer his king to the other wing.
11.Bd3
11.a4 Qe7 12.Nc4 g4 13.Nfd2 h5 14.Bd3 h4 15.gxh4 Rxh4 16.0-0-0 0-0-0 gives Black the advantage of the bishop pair, Krivko-Kirillov, Novosibirsk 2001.
11…Qe7 12.e4 h5!
This not only gains space on the kingside, but deprives White of a potential outpost on h5.
13.0-0-0 0-0-0
Black has fully equalized. This is a reliable way to meet the Torre without having to learn much theory.
14.Kb1 g4 15.Ng1
15.Nh4 (Chernyshov-N.Maiorov, Pardubice 2004) looks more aggressive, but then it’s not clear whether the knight will be able to escape the edge of the board.
15…h4! 16.Ne2 hxg3 17.Nxg3 Qg5 18.Nc4 Ne7?!
The immediate 18…Rdf8 was more accurate.
19.Ne3
White should try 19.e5! with the idea 19…dxe5? (19…Bc6!) 20.Ne4.
19…Rdf8
20.Rxh8?!
Giving up an important file. 20.e5 Bc6 was equal.
20…Rxh8 21.a3 Rh2 22.Nef1?
Trying to trap Black’s rook, but it fails. Better is 22.Qe2 Rh4 23.Ka2 Ng6, although Black obtains the initiative.
22…Rxg2 23.e5 Bc6
Even 23…dxe5 24.Be4 Rg1 25.Ne2 isn’t very good for White following 25…Rxf1 26.Rxf1 f5 and …e5-e4.
24.exd6 cxd6 25.Be4 Bxe4 26.Nxe4 Qf4
0-1
White resigns a bit early, but he’s a pawn down, f2 is weak, and his pieces are about to be driven back.
Torre Attack: A Fianchetto Defense (D03)
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Bg5 Bg7
A kingside fianchetto is generally a good method for Black against the Queen’s pawn openings in which White refrains from an early c2-c4.
Kuhn – Burnier
Triesen 2011
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Bg5 Bg7
Now we have the Torre Attack versus a King’s Indian Defense setup.
4.Nbd2 0-0
4…d5! first avoids any issues with e2-e4 for White. Then 5.e3 0-0 6.c3 transposes.
5.c3
5.e4 d6 is a Terrapin, a type of Modern Defense that isn’t bad for Black, but you can avoid this by using the move order 4…d5. The alternative 5.e3 d5 6.c3 transposes to the game. One reason that White wants to get c2-c3 in is that, after …c7-c5, he can often play dxc5 with a small advantage, since b2-b4 is possible as a support. Instead of 6.c3, unique positions can arise from 6.Be2 c5 7.c3 (7.0-0 Qb6!) 7…Qb6 (less accurate is 7…cxd4 8.exd4 Nc6 9.0-0, with some advantage for White) 8.Qb3 Nc6 9.0-0 Bf5!.
Black has free piece play, and has done well from this position:
A) 10.dxc5 Qxc5 11.Nd4 Bc8 12.f4?! (versus …e7-e5; 12.Rfd1 e5 13.Qb5 Qd6=, Issler-Knobel, corr. 2002) 12…Nd7 13.Qb5 Qd6 14.Bf3 Nb6 15.Rad1 Bd7 16.Qe2 a6 17.N4b3 Qc7 18.e4?! d4! 19.Nb1 Be6, with a clear advantage, Gostisa-I.Sokolov, Bled/Rogaska Slatina 1991;
B) 10.Rfe1 Rfd8 (10…c4 11.Qa3 h6 12.Bh4 Qc7=) 11.h3 Ne4!? (11…c4!) 12.Bf4 (12.Nxe4 Qxb3 13.axb3 dxe4 14.Nh2 h6 15.Bh4 g5 16.Bg3 cxd4 17.exd4 e5=) 12…Nxd2 13.Nxd2 e5 14.dxe5 Nxe5 15.Bxe5 Bxe5, and Black stands better, Hug-Benjamin, Lucerne Wch-tt 1993;
C) Another plan is 10.Qa3 Nd7 11.dxc5 (11.Bh4 e5 12.dxe5 Ndxe5 13.Nxe5 Nxe5 14.Nf3 Nd3, with advantage, Wagenaar-Zengin, Kaunas 2011) 11…Qxc5 12.Qxc5 Nxc5. For example, 13.Nd4 Nxd4! 14.cxd4 f6 15.Bh4 Na4! 16.g4 Be6 17.Rfc1 Rac8 18.b3 Nc3, and Black retained pressure on White’s position and eventually won in Benjamin-Ftacnik, San Francisco 1991.
5…d5 6.e3
The most popular Torre Attack position in the kingside fianchetto complex.
6…Nbd7
7.Bd3
A) 7.Be2 is less challenging. Black can answer in various ways; for example, 7…Re8 (or 7…c5) 8.0-0 (8.b4 e5) 8…e5 9.dxe5 Nxe5 10.Nxe5 Rxe5 11.Bf4 Re8=;
B) 7.b4 has been played a fair amount, to prevent …c7-c5. Then Black’s easiest course is to take aim at …e7-e5: 7…c6 (7…Re8) 8.Be2 Re8 9.0-0 e5
10.a4 (after both 10.Nb3 h6 11.Bh4 g5 12.Bg3 Ne4 and 10.c4 e4 11.Ne1 dxc4! 12.Nxc4 Nb6, Black stands better. A logical continuation was 10.Rc1 Qe7 11.Qb3 a5 12.a4 exd4 13.Nxd4 Ne5= Lakdawala-Watson, San Diego 1994) 10…h6 11.Bh4 a5! 12.b5 c5 13.dxe5 Nxe5 14.Nxe5?! Rxe5 15.Bxf6 Bxf6 16.Rc1 b6 17.Bg4 Bb7 18.Bf3 Qe7 19.c4 Rd8, with a substantial advantage, Torre-Kasparov, Thessaloniki Olympiad 1988. Very often in the Torre, White’s surrender of the center by dxe5 leads to a classical advantage for Black.
7…Re8 8.0-0 e5 9.e4 exd4 10.cxd4 h6!
Our recommendation. This move is almost never played, but it simplifies matters enormously. There have been several games with 10…dxe4 11.Nxe4 h6 12.Qb3!, a lovely sacrifice that is at best difficult to defend against, and probably favors White.
11.Bxf6
11.Bh4? dxe4 (or 11…g5 12.e5 Ne4! 13.Bg3 Nxg3 14.hxg3 c5, when Black stands better) 12.Nxe4 Rxe4! 13.Bxe4 g5 and the two pieces will be better than the rook and pawns, especially with Black’s bishop pair and White’s weak d-pawn.
11…Nxf6!
Even 11…Qxf6!? played in Pekarek-W.Watson, Germany Bundesliga 1991/92 is playable, although not as good. The idea is 12.e5?! Qb6, intending either …Qxb2 or …c7-c5. That game went 12.Re1! and instead of 12…dxe4!? 12…Qd8! 13.Qb3 Nb6 14.exd5 Rxe1+ 15.Rxe1 Nxd5 16.Bc4 c6 looks all right for Black, although he still has to play accurately.
12.e5
12.exd5?! Nxd5 distinctly favors Black.
12…Nh5
13.g3
It makes sense to prevent …Nf4, but this move also somewhat weakens the kingside.
A) 13.Re1 Nf4 14.Bf1 is another logical idea. Black stands comfortably following 14…Bf8 (or 14…c6 15.Nb3 Ne6 and Black stands slightly better) 15.Nb3 Ne6 16.Rc1 b6!? (16…c6) 17.Bb5 (17.Qd2 Qd7 18.a3 c5. 17.a3 c5) 17…Bd7 18.Bxd7 Qxd7 19.Na1 c5 20.Nc2 h5;
B) 13.Nb3 Nf4 14.Qd2 Nxd3 15.Qxd3 a5 16.a4 b6 17.Rfd1 Bf5 18.Qc3 Rc8 gives Black a slight advantage.
13…c6
Or 13…Bf8! which gives better chances of an advantage because both …Ng7-e6 and …c7-c5 come more quickly.
14.b4! Bf8 15.a3
15.b5!? Bh3 16.Re1 c5!.
15…a5 16.bxa5?!
This leaves White with too many weak points. 16.b5 c5 17.dxc5 Bxc5 18.Nb3 Bb6 19.a4 had to be tried, when one move is 19…Bg4 with an edge for Black.
16…Rxa5 17.a4 Bg4 18.Qb1 Qd7 19.Re1 Ng7! 20.Nb3 Ra7 21.Nfd2 Rea8 22.Qc2 Ne6
Black is clearly better.
23.f3 Bh3 24.Bxg6?
Losing. The situation was certainly bad, but not completely desperate.
24…fxg6 25.Qxg6+ Qg7 26.Qh5 Nf4
White resigned.
Dutch Defense: Kortchnoi Attack (A80)
1.d4 f5 2.h3
The Kortchnoi Attack threatens to undermine Black’s pawn at f5 by an early g2-g4, and is therefore related to the Manhattan Gambit and other Anti-Dutch systems involving g2-g4. It involves a fully justified pawn sacrifice. Kortchnoi didn’t invent the attack, which is ancient, but the game against Känel, cited here, attracted the attention of the chess world with White’s inventive handling of the opening.
1.d4 f5 2.h3 Nf6
Other logical responses:
A) 2…d6 3.Nf3 (3.g4 fxg4 4.hxg4 Bxg4 5.Qd3 is promising for White, along the lines of the Manhattan Gambit: 5…Qd7 6.f3 Bf5 7.e4 Bg6 8.Bh3, with some initiative for White in Zwick-Butzerin, Bad Ragaz 1995) 3…g6 4.g4! is strong. For example, 4…fxg4 5.hxg4 Bxg4 6.Qd3. I point out this resource because it is not mentioned in Alan Watson’s book (6.Bg2 has teeth, too. 6…Nd7 7.Ng5 c6 8.Be4 Nh6 9.Nxh7! and Black is busted, Rost-Petzold, Postal 1989). 6…Nf6 7.Ng5! Rg8 8.Bh3 Bxh3 9.Rxh3 Qd7 10.Qb3 and White went on to win in Welling-Timmerman, Strasbourg 1986. White’s play is a model of how this opening should be played;
B) 2…d5 is a decent defensive move: 3.g4 fxg4 (3…Nf6 4.Qd3 e6 5.Bg2 c6 6.Bf4 Bd6 7.Be5 (7.Bxd6 Qxd6 8.Nd2 is good, in the spirit of the normal Stonewall Dutch. Black suffers from an inactive bishop at c8) 7…0-0 8.Nc3 Ne4 9.Nf3 Bxe5 10.Nxe5 was better for White in A.Meszaros-Szeberenyi, Hajduszoboszlo 1995. Black has a very bad bishop) 4.hxg4 Bxg4 5.f3 Bf5 6.Nc3 e6? (6…e5 7.dxe5 Bb4 8.Bd2 Be7 is an interesting possibility for Black. 8…c6 comes into consideration, too) 7.e4. White had sufficient compensation for the pawn in Weber-Vogiatzis, Postal 1980.
3.g4
Anyway! This bold thrust introduces interesting complications.
3…fxg4 4.hxg4 Nxg4 5.e4
5.Qd3 is recommended by Alan Watson.
This is not just because of the trap 
5…Nf6?? 6.Rxh7!, as played in Guldner-Pantelimon, England 1990. Even if Black responds correctly with 5…Nh6 6.Bxh6 gxh6, Alan Watson’s 7.Qf5! with the idea of 8.Qh5# is effective, for example 7…Bg7 8.Qh5+ Kf8 9.Rh4! with a clear advantage, e.g., 9…e5 10.Nf3! (10.e3 scored a point in an old game, but this is clearer) 10…Qe8 11.Qf5+ Qf7 12.Qxf7+ Kxf7 13.Nxe5+ with a huge positional advantage. The same verdict applies to 7…d6 as a result of the forcing line 8.Qh5+ Kd7 9.Bh3+ e6 10.Qf7+ Qe7 11.Bxe6+ Kd8 12 Qxe7+ Bxe7 13.Bxc8 Kxc8 14.e4.
5…d6 6.Bg5!
White pins the e-pawn and makes it hard for Black to develop.
6…g6
6…c6 is preferred by Alan Watson. 7.Be2 (7.Nc3 Qb6 gave Black good counterplay in Sogin-Lampenfeld, Postal 1991) 7…Nf6 8.Bxf6 exf6 (8…Qa5+!? 9.Qd2 Qxd2+ 10.Nxd2 gxf6 11.Bh5+ and White has some play for the pawn) 9.Bh5+ Kd7 10.Bg6 h6 11.c4 and White has enough compensation for the pawn.
7.f3 Nf6 8.Nc3 c6 9.Qd2
This position, from Kortchnoi-Känel, Biel 1979, is typical of what White gets for the pawn in the Kortchnoi Attack. A slight lead in development isn’t much, but Black has more serious long-term challenges, such as defending the holes in his pawn structure and keeping the king safe. If Black castles kingside, then the open lines on that side of the board can prove fatal. Castling queenside is possible, but even in that case the open lines will prove dangerous for Black, who will have no obvious source of counterplay.
1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5
The Trompowsky Attack violates the popular rule of knights before bishops, but creates the immediate problem that White might double Black’s pawns on f6. It was originally considered eccentric, and our students are often at a loss how to meet it. Unfortunately, the Trompowsky has become respectable and used regularly by many grandmasters, so there is a great deal of theory about it, much of it involving sharp play. Rather than give comprehensive analysis, we’ll suggest a relatively simple and solid answer that has a good reputation, leaving some details for your own investigations.
Adams – Karpov
Las Palmas 1994
1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 e6
Black prevents the doubling of pawns. There are plenty of sound replies to the Trompowsky, but few of them have the relatively simplicity 2…e6 offers.
3.e4
3.Nf3 is the Torre Attack (versus …e7-e6), which we talk about in a separate section. There are two other common moves:
A) 3.Nd2 is interesting, with the idea that after e2-e4, Black won’t be able to acquire the bishop pair as he does after 3.e4. A good solution is 3…h6 4.Bh4 c5 (4…g5 5.Bg3 Nh5 seems to overextend, but may well be playable) 5.e3 (5.c3 can be answered in numerous ways. One is a sort of anti-Colle set-up with 5…d5 6.e3 Bd6 7.Ngf3 Nbd7=, intending an early …e6-e5) 5…cxd4 (or 5…Nc6) 6.exd4 Be7 7.Ngf3 b6 8.Bd3 (8.Bxf6 Bxf6 9.c3 Bb7 10.Bd3 0-0 is fine for Black with his bishop pair) 8…Bb7 9.0-0 d6. This defense has been used successfully by both Kasparov and Carlsen. For example, 10.Re1 (10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.Re1 0-0 12.Ne4 Be7 13.c3 Nd7 14.Bc2 Nf6=, Kamsky-Gelfand, Almaty Wch blitz 2008) 10…Nbd7 11.a4 a6 12.c3 0-0 13.Nc4 Qc7 14.Ne3 Rfe8=, Ivanchuk-Carlsen, Moscow Wch blitz 2009;
B) 3.e3 h6 4.Bh4 c5 5.c3 (once the bishop is on h4, where it is unable to defend the queenside, it’s important to be able to meet …Qb6. For example, 5.Nf3 cxd4 6.exd4 Qb6!) 5…b6 (5…Qb6 6.Qb3 or 6.b3) 6.Nd2 Be7 7.Ngf3 Bb7
8.Bd3 cxd4 (for the ambitious, there’s 8…g5!? 9.Bg3 g4, and 10.Nh4 Rg8! leaves White’s knight poorly placed, so 10.Ne5 h5 is critical. For example, 11.f3 d6 12.Bb5+?! Kf8 13.Nd3 a6 14.Ba4 h4 15.Bf2 h3 16.e4, Miles-Speelman, Mondariz Zonal 2000; at this point, Tsesarsky suggests simply 16…hxg2 17.Rg1 Rxh2, with a big advantage) 9.exd4 (9.cxd4 Nc6 10.a3 0-0 11.0-0 Rc8 12.Qe2 Nh5!? 13.Bxe7 Nxe7 14.Rfc1 Rc7 15.Ba6 Qb8 16.Rxc7 Qxc7 17.Bxb7 Qxb7 18.Rc1 Nf6=, Salov-Karpov, Alma-Ata 1st match game blitz 1995) 9…d6 (although Black has less space, his 2-1 central majority ensures an even game) 10.0-0 Nbd7 11.Re1 (11.a4 0-0 12.a5 Qc7 13.Qe2 Rab8 14.axb6 axb6=, Rogers-Kortchnoi, Lucerne Olympiad 1982) 11…0-0 12.Qa4 a6 13.Rad1 Re8 14.Bb1 Rc8 15.Qc2 Nf8=, Amura-San Segundo Carrillo, Benidorm 2002. One idea for Black is …Nh5, looking at the f4-square.
3…h6
Black should challenge the bishop right away, so as to force a commitment.
4.Bxf6
4.Bh4? g5 5.Bg3 Nxe4 loses a pawn.
4…Qxf6
5.Nc3
Black has satisfactory play against other setups as well:
A) 5.Nf3 (reaches a position that can also arise via 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5 h6 4.Bxf6 Qxf6 5.e4) Black’s bishop pair compensates for his lack of space. 5…d6 6.Nc3 g5!? (6…Nd7 7.Qd2 a6 8.0-0-0 g5 9.Kb1 b5= with plenty of play) 7.e5 (7.h3?! Bg7 8.Qd2 a6 9.0-0-0 Nc6 10.e5 dxe5 11.dxe5 Qe7 12.Ne4 Qb4! with advantage, Djurhuus-Olafsson, Reykjavik zonal play-off 1995) 7…Qe7 8.Bd3 Nc6 9.0-0 Bg7 10.exd6 cxd6 11.Ne2 (11.Re1 0-0 12.d5 Nb4 13.dxe6 Bxe6 is unclear) 11…0-0 12.c3 e5 13.d5 e4 14.Bxe4 Qxe4 15.dxc6 Qxc6. The bishop pair compensates for the weak pawn at d6, Hampe-Markus, corr. 2001;
B) 5.Qd2 c5! 6.c3 (6.e5 Qg6) 6…Nc6 (or 6…d5) 7.Nf3 (7.d5 exd5 8.exd5 Ne5 9.Be2 Bd6 10.Nf3 0-0 11.0-0 Re8) 7…d5 8.e5 Qg6 9.g3 Be7 10.Bd3 f5, with the idea 11.exf6 Qxf6 12.Be2 0-0 13.0-0 Bd6 and Black has attacking chances;
C) 5.c3 was popular for some time until it was discovered that 5…d5! was good. For example, 6.e5 Qd8 7.Nf3 c5 8.dxc5 Bxc5 9.Bd3 Qb6!? (or 9…Nc6 10.0-0 Qc7 with the idea of …0-0 and …f7-f6) 10.Qc2 Nc6 11.0-0 0-0 12.Nbd2 f6 13.exf6 Rxf6 with advantage.
5…d6 6.Qd2
Trying to get f2-f4 in and castle queenside. 6.Nf3 is well-met by 6…Nd7 followed by …g7-g5.
6…g5!
This stops f2-f4 and discourages Nf3. Karpov used 6…g5 against several of the world’s best players, including Anand and Topalov. 6…a6 and 6…c6 are also played.
7.0-0-0
7.Bc4 Nc6 8.Nge2 Bg7 9.Rd1 Bd7 10.0-0 0-0-0 11.Nb5 a6 12.Na3 g4 13.f4 gxf3 14.Rxf3 Qe7 15.c3 h5 was at least equal for Black in Anand-Karpov, FIDE Championship KO, Lausanne 1998. 7.g3 Nc6 8.0-0-0 Bg7, with pressure on the center.
7…Bg7 8.e5
8.g3 Nc6 9.Nb5 Qd8! has been played several times.
For example, 10.Ne2 (10.d5 Ne7 11.f4 exd5 12.exd5 gxf4 13.gxf4 0-0=) 10…a6 11.Nbc3 b5!? 12.Bg2 Bb7 13.f4 Ne7!=, Adams-Topalov, Madrid 1996.
8…dxe5 9.dxe5 Qe7 10.f4 Nc6 11.Nf3 Bd7
12.h4!?
Trying to force Black’s hand. 12.g3 0-0-0 13.Bg2 f6! breaks up White’s center and activates Black’s bishops. The resulting positions are equal.
12…gxf4 13.Qxf4 0-0-0 14.Ne4 Nb8!
A remarkable move, typical of Karpov. His bishop will come to c6, with full equality.
15.Nf6
15.g4 Bc6 16.Bg2 Nd7=.
15…Bc6 16.Be2 Nd7
16…Qc5 is another good move, intending …Qf2 in some lines.
17.Nh5!?
Initiating a small combination. If 17.Nxd7 Rxd7, Black has an edge due to the weakness of e5.
17…Bxf3 18.Bxf3 Bxe5 19.Qe4 c6 20.Rxd7 Bxb2+ 21.Kxb2 Rxd7
The material is fairly even, but Black controls the d-file and White’s king is exposed.
22.Qe3 Rhd8 23.a3 Rd4 24.g3 Qc5 25.Re1 Rc4!? 26.Qxc5 Rxc5 27.Re2 Rd1 28.Nf4
Or 28.Rxe6 Rd2.
28…Rb5+ 29.Ka2 Rbb1 30.Bh5 Ra1+ 31.Kb3 Rdb1+ 32.Kc4 Rxa3 33.Bxf7 Rxg3 34.Bxe6+ Kc7 35.Nd3 a5 36.Rf2 Re3!
White’s king is too exposed, and Karpov converts easily:
37.Rf7+ Kb8! 38.Re7 Re4+ 39.Kc3 Rb5
0-1
Black’s a-pawn marches forward and costs White too much material.
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nxe4 4.Nc3
This ancient gambit was used by the great Paul Morphy and has no known refutation. White gives up a pawn and trades a pair of knights but in return Black will have difficulties castling. While White certainly can’t claim a forced advantage, there are enough possibilities to justify using the Morphy Gambit as the foundation of a scholastic repertoire. For the purposes of our book, we consider it at least ‘good enough’, especially for hunting rabbits! We’ll show ways for Black to play in the notes below, but the course of our 15-move main game shows how easy it is for the second player to go wrong.
Spitzer – Szen
Budapest 1857
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nxe4
3…Nc6 4.Ng5 is a Two Knights Defense.
4.Nc3
The Morphy Gambit: White sacrifices a pawn for speedy development.
4…Nxc3
This is generally considered equal. Black has many alternatives, but on a lower level he will often lose his way.
A) 4…Nc5? 5.Nxe5 f6? 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Bf7+ Ke7 8.Nd5+ Kd6 9.Nc4+ Kc6 10.Nb4+ Kb5 11.a4+ Kxb4 12.c3+ Kb3 13.Qd1+, T.Taylor-Amateur, London 1862;
B) 4…Nxf2? 5.Kxf2 Bc5+ 6.d4 exd4 7.Re1+ Kf8 8.Ne4 Bb6 9.Qd3 d5 10.Qa3+ Kg8 11.Bxd5 Qxd5 12.Nf6+ gxf6 13.Qf8+ Kxf8 14.Bh6+ Kg8 15.Re8#, Richardson-Delmar, New York 1887;
C) 4…Nf6 is fine and will lead to an equal game: 5.Nxe5 d5 (or 5..Nd6 6 Bb3 e4=) 6.Be2 (6.Bb3!) 6…d4 7.Nb1 Qd5 and Black commands more space, Summermatter-Ferri, Ravenna jr 1983;
D) 4…Nd6! is recommended in one of our earlier books.
Then a good example of the play is 5.Bb3 e4 (5…Nc6 is safer: 6.Qe2 Be7 7.0-0 Nf5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.Qxe5 d6=; here 6.0-0 Be7 7.Re1 is also equal) 6.Qe2 Be7!? (6…Qe7 7.Nd4 Nc6 8.Nxc6 dxc6 9.0-0, followed by Re1, gives White the initiative for a pawn. This is playable for both sides) 7.Nxe4 Nxe4 8.Qxe4 0-0 9.0-0, Ceferino-Bartolome Alvarez, Spain tt 1994, and now 9…c6, with the idea …d7-d5, is still quite playable for Black, if modestly better for White;
E) 4…Be7? allows 5.Bxf7+! (5.Nxe5 is a promising alternative, Lasker-Martinez, Philadelphia simul 1892) 5…Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Ke6? (White stands better after 6…Kg8 7.Nxe4, but 6…Ke6 is suicide) 7.Nxe4 (7.d4! with the idea 8.Qg4+ wins straightaway) 7…Kxe5 8.d4+ (and here 8.Qg4! wins) 8…Ke6 9.Qh5 (by now it was time to go for 9.d5+! Kf7 10.d6 cxd6 11.Qd5+ Kf8 12.Qf5+, drawing by perpetual check) 9…g6 (9…d5! is clearly better for Black) 10.Qe5+ Kf7, Diaz Moron-Costa Trave, Canovelles 1999. Here 11.Bh6! should be tried: 11…d6? (11…Rg8 12.Qd5+ Ke8 13.Qxg8+ Bf8 14.Qxf8#; 11…d5! maintains the balance) 12.Qg7+ Ke6 13.d5+! Kxd5 14.0-0-0+Kc6 (14…Kxe4 15.Rhe1+ Kf5 16.Rd5+ Kg4 17.Re4#) 15.Qc3+ Kb6 (15…Kd7 16.Nc5+) 16.Be3+ c5 17.b4 and White’s attack is decisive.
5.dxc3
Although the general rule is that pawn captures should be made toward the center, in this case White goes in the other direction in order to maximize the availability of firepower. Notice how similar this position is to the Boden-Kieseritzky Gambit analyzed earlier, which goes 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4! 5.0-0 Nxc3 6.dxc3.
5…f6!
This move may seem a bit surprising as it definitely limits Black’s ability to castle. However, over a century of practice has supported the conclusion that this is the best move. That conclusion is one of the reasons that Eric has recommended this opening for his students, when they are playing White. In scholastic games, failure to castle is generally punished by death to the king, and Black needs to know exactly what he’s doing. Observe from these examples how easily he can get into trouble:
A) 5…d6 6.Ng5 Be6 7.Bxe6 fxe6 8.Qf3 Qd7 9.Qxb7 Qc6 10.Qc8+ has appeared in several games. Black resigned in Perez-Pastrana, Malaga 1999, and waited until after 10…Ke7 11.Qxe6+ to resign in Dohr-Thalmeier, Graz 1993, in view of 11…Kd8 12.Nf7 mate!;
B) 5…Qf6 6.0-0 d6 7.Bg5 Qg6 8.Nxe5 dxe5 9.Qd8+, winning, Stanka-Koban, Graz 1995;
C) 5…Nc6 6.Ng5 Qf6 7.Bxf7+ Kd8 8.Bd5 Bc5 9.Ne4 Qf8 10.0-0 Be7 11.f4 Bc5+ 12.Kh1 h6 13.fxe5 Qe8 14.Nxc5 and Black resigned in Brunke-Rackisch, Werther jr 1997;
D) 5…Bc5 6.Ng5 0-0 7.Nxf7? (7.Qh5! is immediately decisive) 7…Rxf7? (7…Bxf2+ 8.Ke2 Qh4 9.Nxe5+ Kh8 10.Qd5 Qh5+ 11.Kd2; 7…Qf6 8.Ng5+ Kh8 9.0-0 h6 10.Qh5, in both cases with a large advantage for White) 8.Bxf7+ Kxf7 9.Qd5+ 1-0, Hsieh-Mont-Reynaud, 1991.
6.0-0
6.Nh4!? with the idea 7.Qh5+ is an interesting alternative that can lead to murky and unclear positions. For example, 6…g6 (6…d6 7.Qh5+ Kd7 8.0-0 c6 9.f4 d5 10.fxe5 dxc4 11.Qf7+ Be7 12.Rd1+ 1-0, Vandivier-H.Thomas, Lansing 1993) 7.f4!? c6! (7…f5 8.Nxf5 d5 9.Bxd5 gxf5 10.Qh5+ Ke7 11.Qf7+ Kd6 12.fxe5+ Kxe5 13.0-0 Bc5+ 14.Kh1 Qh4 15.g3 1-0, Cernousek-Sturz, Czech Republic 1996. 8.Nf3! is even better. Another example is 7…d6 8.f5 d5 9.Bxd5 c6 10.Bf7+ Ke7 11.Qxd8+ Kxd8 12.fxg6 Bc5 13.g7 1-0, Vatter-Dieterle, Triberg 1991) 8.f5 d5 9.fxg6! dxc4 (9…Qe7 10.Qh5 Qg7! is safer from Black’s point of view) 10.Qh5 Ke7 (10…Kd7 11.g7! Bxg7 12.Qg4+ Kc7 13.Qxg7+ Nd7 is unclear) 11.gxh7 Qe8 12.Ng6+ Kd8 13.Qd1+ (13.Rf1! with the idea g2-g4 is more promising) 13…Kc7 14.Nxh8 Bg7 15.0-0, with unclear complications.
6…d6
Here are some more examples of White trouncing Black:
A) 6…Nc6 7.Nh4 g6 (7…Ne7 8.Bd3 g6 9.f4 Bg7 10.fxe5 fxe5 11.Bg5 c6 12.Nf5 gxf5 13.Qh5+ Kf8 14.Rxf5+ 1-0, Saburov Mirzo-Lutze, 1906) 8.f4 Be7 (8…Qe7 9.Kh1 d6 10.f5 Qg7 11.Qf3 Bd7 12.Bg5 0-0-0 13.Bxf6 Qxf6 14.fxg6 Qxh4 0-1, Willson-Gross, Berkeley 1963) 9.f5 Bc5+ 10.Kh1 Ne7 11.Bd3 Kf7 12.fxg6+ Nxg6 13.Qh5 d6 14.Bg5 1-0, Trussler-Thierry, corr. 1990;
B) 6…c6 7.Nxe5 d5 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Nxg6 hxg6 10.Qxh8 dxc4 11.Bh6 Qe7 12.Rfe1 Be6 13.Bxf8 1-0, Schinke-Jungmichel, Germany tt 1996/97;
C) 6…g6 7.Re1 d6 8.Nxe5 fxe5 9.Rxe5+ Be7 10.Re2 Nc6 11.Qd5 Qd7 12.Bg5 Kd8 13.Rae1 Re8 14.Bb5 1-0, Röder-Hartl, Fürth 1999.
7.Nh4 g6 8.f4
8…f5?
8…Qe7! 9.f5 Qg7 is better, but not 8…c6 9.fxe5 fxe5 10.Bf7+ Kd7 11.Qg4+ Kc7 12.Be6 Bxe6 13.Qxe6 Qxh4 14.Rf7+ Kd8 15.Be3+–.
9.Nxf5!?
A very nice idea, but objectively, 9.Nf3! is the best try for an advantage, threatening Ng5 and fxe5. Black should reply 9…d5! 10.Bxd5 Bc5+ 11.Kh1 c6, with a subsequent exchange of queens on d1, Konieczka-Andruet, Germany Bundesliga 1985/86.
9…Bxf5?
9…d5! 10.Bxd5 c6 is correct. Then White should try 11.Bf7+ Kxf7 12.Nd6+! Bxd6 13.fxe5+ Bf5 14.exd6, but the attack may not be worth a whole piece.
10.Qd5 Be7 11.fxe5 Nc6 12.Rxf5 Nxe5
12…gxf5 13.Qf7+ Kd7 14.Be6+.
13.Rxe5 dxe5 14.Qf7+ Kd7 15.Bg5 1-0
A beautiful attacking game. But please examine the notes to see how Black can get satisfactory play against this gambit.
Nimzo-Larsen Attack – Ringelbach Gambit (A01)
1.b3 e6 2.Bb2 f5 3.e4
When Black adopts a Dutch formation against 1.b3, we recommend vigorous action in the center by White.
1.b3
This queenside fianchetto doesn’t put much pressure on Black, but it’s perfectly sound and has been used repeatedly at the super grandmaster level by Baadur Jobava.
1…e6 2.Bb2 f5
Black sets up a Classical Dutch structure, and probably intends to play …Nf6, …Be7, …0-0 and …d7-d6 or …b7-b6 or …d7-d5, depending on White’s setup.
3.e4
This dynamic solution is called the Ringelbach Gambit, a good way of taking control of the center. It’s not very risky since Black can hardly accept the pawn.
3…Nf6
3…fxe4? strands Black’s king in the center after 4.Qh5+ Ke7 (4…g6? 5.Qe5 and White wins material) 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.Qh4 (6.Qe2 gives White the advantage, since 6…d5 7.f3! exf3 8.Nxf3 initiates a strong attack against Black’s exposed king) 6…d5 7.d3 exd3 8.Bxd3 Kf7 9.0-0-0 (9.Nf3! Be7 10.0-0 c5 11.Ng5+ Kg8 12.Rae1 is extremely strong, especially in view of 12…Ne4 13.Ncxe4 dxe4 14.Nxe6!) 9…Be7 10.Nf3 Ne8? 11.Ne5+ Kg8 12.Qh5 Nd6 13.Nb5 Nd7 14.Nxd6 Nxe5 15.Nxc8 Nxd3+ 16.Rxd3 Bg5+ 17.Kb1 Rxc8 18.Qg4 Qe7 19.Re1 h5 20.Qxe6+ Qxe6 21.Rxe6 c6 22.Rg3 Kf7 23.Rd6 Rhd8 1-0, Jadoul-Fontaine, Belgium League 2003/04.
4.exf5 exf5 5.Qe2+!?
White displaces Black’s king. 5.Bd3 can be similar and may well be better. For example, 5…d5 6.Qe2+ Qe7 (6…Kf7! improves, with a complex game in store. For example, 7.Nh3! Bd6 8.0-0 Re8 9.Bxf6! Qxf6 10.Qh5+ Qg6 11.Ng5+ Kg8 12.Qxg6 hxg6 13.Nc3 c6 14.Rfe1, with some initiative) 7.Bxf6 gxf6 8.Nc3 c6 9.0-0-0 Qxe2 10.Ncxe2 and White has the better pawn structure, A.Vajda-F.Grunberg, Gyula 2000.
5…Kf7
Two inferior moves are 5…Qe7 6.Bxf6 gxf6 7.Nc3 and 5…Be7 6.Bxf6 gxf6 7.Qh5+.
6.Nf3 Nc6!
This is the best defense. It’s easy for Black to get into trouble:
A) White would stand better after 6…Be7 7.Ne5+ Kg8 8.Nc3 d6 9.Qc4+ d5 10.Qe2, with the idea 0-0-0. White’s pieces have come out quickly and Black’s king is poorly placed;
B) 6…g6 7.Nc3 c6 8.0-0-0 Na6 9.h4 Qe7 10.Ng5+ Kg7? (10…Kg8 11.Qxe7 Bxe7 12.Re1 Bd8 13.Bc4+ d5 14.Bxd5+!) 11.Nce4! fxe4 12.Nxe4 Kf7 13.Bxf6 Qa3+ 14.Bb2 Qa5 15.Ng5+ Kg8 16.Qf3 Qf5 17.Qc3 1-0, Johannesson-Duncanson, Gibraltar 2005;
C) 6…Bd6 7.Qc4+ Kf8 8.Bd3 Qe7+ 9.Kf1 (9.Kd1! intending Re1) 9…Ne4 10.Qd5 Nc5 11.Qxf5+ Ke8 12.Nc3 c6 13.Re1 Ne6 14.Ne4 Bc7 15.Neg5 Bb6 16.Qg4 h5 17.Bg6+ 1-0, Morales Camacho-Lopez Pereyra, Santa Cruz 2010.
7.Nc3 Bb4 8.Qd3 Re8+ 9.Be2 d5
This should be about equal. A sample line would be 10.0-0 Kg8 11.a3 Be7 12.Rfe1 a6 13.Bf1 with perhaps a slight edge, but nothing significant.
Nimzowitsch Defense – Panov Gambit (B00)
1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.d5 Nb8 5.f3!?
The Panov Gambit. White’s control of d5 justifies the investment of the pawn. If necessary, however, Black can reply calmly and sidestep any potential attack.
Saunders – Morrison
London 1926
1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.d5 Nb8 5.f3!?
This is a sound gambit, mainly because Black is so underdeveloped.
5…exf3
Acceptance is critical, but there are simple and perhaps better ways to maintain a balance:
A) 5…e3 6.Bxe3 g6 is an acceptable alternative;
B) 5…Nf6 6.fxe4 e5 7.Nf3 Bd6 is a solid equalizer suggested by Rolf Schwarz.
6.Nxf3
6.Qxf3 isn’t as dynamic. Black has no weaknesses and can defend easily. For example, 6…c6 7.Bg5 Nf6 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.0-0-0 Qa5, when Black has the bishop pair and extra pawn as long-term advantages, as in the game Gutheil-Hammes, Trier 1991.
6…e6!?
6…g6.
This may improve. Yates recommended 7.Qd4 at this point, but we don’t see anything special for White after 7…Nf6. For example, 8.Bf4 Bg7 9.Nb5 (9.Qc4 c6 10.0-0-0 Qb6) 9…Na6 10.0-0-0 0-0 11.Bc4 Bf5. On the other hand, 7.Bf4 Bg7 8.Bb5+ offers White compensation after 8…Nd7 (8…Bd7 9.Qe2!) 9.Qe2 Bxc3+ 10.bxc3 Nf6 11.Rd1.
7.Bc4 exd5
Black should be in search for more reliable defensive moves, such as 7…Bb4 or 7…c6.
8.Nxd5
White has a substantial and dangerous lead in development.
8…Bg4?
8…Be6 was suggested by the British Chess Magazine in 1926 and it is indeed the best move. Still, White has good chances after 9.Bf4, and 9.Ng5 also promises some advantage.
9.Qe2+ Be7 10.Bf4 Na6 11.0-0-0
White’s pressure is overpowering and Black cannot hold out for long.
11…Bxf3 12.Qxf3 Bd6 13.Nxc7+! Qxc7 14.Bb5+ Kd8 15.Bxd6 Qc8 16.Bc5+
Black resigned, faced with mate in two.
1.Nc3
The move 1.Nc3 has a range of names, including the Van Geet Opening, the Sleipnir, the Dunst, and Linksspringer (‘knight on the left side’). It can’t be too bad to develop a piece toward the center on the first move and control the squares e4 and d5, but since Nc3 is very committal (and invites …d5-d4), it has never become terribly popular.
Nevertheless, strong grandmasters periodically use the move and it’s a decent surprise weapon. One fun feature, as you’ll see, is that depending on Black’s first move, play can proceed in almost any direction, and transpositions to more conventional openings abound. We’ll demonstrate a variety of attractive ideas that can arise for both sides.
1.Nc3 d5
This direct and thematic move will be our main recommendation. In addition to occupying the center, it has the idea of …d5-d4. Black has a fascinating array of options, and it’s worth showing a few other ideas that you might find more congenial to your style, especially if you aren’t worried about transpositions to other openings:
A) 1…e5 can be answered by 2.e4, transposing into a Vienna Game. This needn’t scare you if you’re Black, but you’ll have to learn how to play against it. White can also play 2.d4 exd4 3.Qxd4, which we’ve analysed in the section called ‘Reversed Scandinavian’.
White’s best independent move is 2.Nf3 Nc6 (2…d6 3.e4 Nf6 4.d4 is a Philidor Defense, as is 3.d4 Nd7 4.e4; and still another version of the Philidor arises after 3…exd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.e4) 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4
4…Nf6 (4…d5 may also be playable. White has all the fun after 4…g6?! 5.Nd5! (threatening 6.Nb5) 5…a6 6.Bg5! with the idea 6…Qxg5 7.Nxc7+ Kd8?? 8.Nde6+, or 6…f6 7.Bh4 Bg7 8.e4 Nh6 9.Bc4 with the advantage, Van Geet-V.Sokolov, Wijk aan Zee B 1970) 5.Bg5 (5.e4 is a Scotch Game. This is a problem when you play 1…e5 as Black; you need to know some other openings) 5…Bb4 (or 5…Bc5) 6.Nxc6 (6.e3 0-0 7.Be2!? h6 8.Bxf6 Bxc3+!? 9.bxc3 Qxf6 10.0-0 d5=, Ivanchuk-Anand, Monaco (blind) 1998) 6…bxc6 7.Qd4 Be7!=. For example, 8.0-0-0 0-0 9.e4 c5! 10.Qd2 d6 11.f4?! h6 12.Bxf6 (12.Bh4? Nxe4!) 12…Bxf6 and Black stands better, Pel-Bellin, Montecatini Terme 1995;
B) 1…c5 is a possible choice for the Sicilian Defense player. Indeed, 1.Nc3 c5 2.e4 transposes to a Closed Sicilian. White has two other logical moves that you would want to study on your own if you choose 1…c5. Here are a few ideas for Black and for White:
B1) 2.d4!? cxd4 3.Qxd4 is called the Novosibirsk Variation.
There can follow 3…Nc6 4.Qh4 g6 (4…d5 is a simple and sound move. 4…Nf6 5.Nf3 d5 6.Bg5 Qa5 7.0-0-0 Be6 occurred in no less elevated a game than Morozevich-Kasparov, Frankfurt 2000, when apart from the game’s 8.Bd2, 8.Nd4! Nxd4 9.Qxd4 is promising for White) 5.Bd2 (5.e4 Bg7 6.Bd2 transposes) 5…Bg7 6.e4 (6.0-0-0 d5 is equal, with the idea 7.Nf3 d4 8.Be3 e5 9.Qxd8+ Nxd8, with a slight advantage for Black)
6…Nb4 (6…a6 7.Nf3 d6 8.Bc4 Bd7 led to typical Sicilian Defense play in Leeners-Thorstensen, Postal 1978) 7.Bd3 (7.0-0-0? Bxc3 8.Bxc3 Nxa2+ 9.Kb1 Nxc3+ 10.bxc3 Qb6+ 11.Kc1 Qf6 and Black should win without much difficulty) 7…d6 8.Nf3 Nxd3+ 9.cxd3 Nf6, and Black has the bishop pair, good development and a better pawn structure;
B2) White more often plays 2.Nf3
2…Nc6 (there are other moves. For example, 2…g6, allowing 3.d4 cxd4 4.Qxd4 Nf6 5.Qh4 with the idea Bh6. 2…d5 3.d4 transposes to 1…d5 2.Nf3 c5 3.d4, and the other moves 2…Nf6; 2…e6; 2…d6; 2…a6; and 2…b6 are all reasonable ways to dig up original play) 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 (or 4…d5, which can be answered by 5.Bf4!?. Or 5.e4; 4…g6 5.e4 Bg7 6.Be3 is an Accelerated Fianchetto Sicilian, and 5.g3 and 5.Be3 are also possible) 5.Bg5
(5.e4 is a main line Sicilian Defense; instead, 5.g3!? d5 6.Bg2 e5 7.Nxc6 bxc6 is a reversed Exchange Grünfeld, with White having the extra move Nc3) 5…e6 (5…e5?! 6.Ndb5 is promising for White. For example, 6…d6? 7.Nd5, etc.; 5…d6 is sound enough; White might try 6.Qd2 with the idea 0-0-0) 6.Qd2 (in order to play 0-0-0; 6.Bxf6 Qxf6 7.Ndb5 can be answered by 7…Qe5!) 6…Bb4 7.a3 Qa5 (Keilhack points out that after 7…Be7! the move a2-a3 may be a weakening) 8.Nb3 Bxc3 9.Nxa5 Bxd2+ 10.Bxd2, Beyer-Ortmann, Stuttgart 1999; and now Black should try 10…Nxa5 11.Bxa5 Ne4 with the idea …b7-b6.
C) 1…Nf6 2.Nf3 (the most independent move. After 2.e4, 2…e5 is a Vienna Game and 2…d5 transposes to the Alekhine Defense line 1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5. Black has a choice after 2.d4 as well. Then 2…g6 3.e4 d6 is a Pirc Defense, and 2…d5 3.Bg5 transposes to the Veresov Attack, which we analyse elsewhere in this book) 2…d5 (not the only move, of course, but it prevents e2-e4), and an example of what might happen is 3.d3!? Nc6 (or 3…Bf5, or 3…c5) 4.g3 e5 5.Bg2 d4 6.Ne4 Nxe4 7.dxe4 Bb4+ 8.Bd2 Bxd2+ 9.Qxd2 Qd6=;
D) 1…e6 will often be met by 2.e4, when 2…d5 is a French Defense and 2…c5 is a Closed Sicilian Defense;
E) 1…c6 2.e4 d5 3.d4 and 3.Nf3 are normal Caro-Kann Variations. Here 3.Qf3!? (with the idea 3…d4 4.Bc4) transposes to the note on 1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 c6 3.Qf3 and leads to original play.
2.e4
White’s most challenging move, and the one the most players of 1.Nc3 use. By attacking the d5-pawn, White forces the pace a little. 2.d4 can transpose to the Veresov Opening after 2…Nf6 3.Bg5, and another possibility is 3.Nf3 g6 (or 3…e6) 4.Bf4, the Barry Attack. We demonstrate how to play against these lines elsewhere in this book. An independent alternative is 2.Nf3, but this isn’t played much because of 2…d4, with the idea 3.Ne4 Nf6. Most other moves can be answered by 2…e5.
2…dxe4
An interesting juncture. Black has other healthy possibilities:
A) 2…e6 is a French Defense. Then 3.d4 transposes to main lines, and 3.Nf3 is a slightly irregular line that is playable;
B) 2…c6 3.d4 is a main line Caro-Kann Defense. White can play the Two Knights Variation with 3.Nf3, and an interesting irregular line is 3.Qf3 d4 4.Bc4! (threatening 5.Qxf7+). Then 4…Nf6! 5.e5 Nbd7 6.exf6 Ne5 7.Bxf7+ is unclear regardless of which way Black recaptures the bishop;
C) 2…Nf6 transposes to an Alekhine Defense: 1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5. This is looked upon as relatively harmless after 3.exd5 Nxd5 or 3.e5 Nfd7. For all these lines, refer to books on those openings;
D) 2…d4 is perfectly good and often played. An important line that often arises is 3.Nce2 e5 4.Ng3 Be6!, stopping White from developing smoothly with Bc4 and d2-d3. There is a fair amount of theory associated with 2…d4, so we prefer the simpler 2…dxe4.
3.Nxe4 Nd7
We like this move because it’s easy to play. Black develops and prepares …Ngf6. There are plenty of alternatives, of course. For example, 3…Nc6 (3…Qd5 4.Nc3 is actually the same position that arises from 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3, a Scandinavian Defense! Another solid move is 3…Bf5, when 4.Ng3 (4.Qf3!?) 4…Bg6 5.h4 h6 6.Nf3 Nd7 7.d4 is a main-line Caro-Kann) 4.Nf3 Bf5 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.Bc4 (6.d4? Nb4! is very strong for Black) 6…Nf6 7.0-0 e6. All of these moves give plenty of scope for individual interpretation.
4.Nf3
A) 4.Bc4 has two good answers:
A1) 4…Ngf6 is an ambitious move that leads to tactics. It looks like a mistake at first because of the trick 5.Bxf7+ (5.Ng5 e6 6.Qe2 Nb6) 5…Kxf7 6.Ng5+ Kg8 7.Ne6 Qe8 8.Nxc7
but after 8…Qg6 9.Nxa8 b6, with the ideas …Bb7 and …Qxg2, Black has enough play. For example, 10.Qf3 (10.Nf3 Bb7) 10…Nc5! 11.d4 Bb7 12.Qg3 Bxg2 13.Qxg6 hxg6 14.dxc5 Bxh1 15.Nc7 bxc5 16.Ne6 Rxh2 17.Bf4 Rh5 18.0-0-0 Bd5;
A2) 4…e6 is slow and solid: 5.Nf3 (5.d3 Ngf6 6.Nf3 Be7 7.0-0 a6 8.Qe2 b5 9.Bb3 Bb7= has been played in two games) 5…Ngf6 6.Nxf6+, playing along Rubinstein lines with 6…Nxf6 7.d4 Bd6 8.0-0 0-0=.
B) 4.d4 Ngf6 5.Nxf6+ Nxf6 6.Nf3 Bf5 (or 6…Bg4) 7.c3 e6 8.Ne5 Rogers-Lukacs, Budapest 1991; and here the most active solution is 8…Bd6 9.Qb3 Rb8! with the idea 10.Qa4+ (10.Be2 0-0 11.0-0 c5 is at least equal) 10…c6 11.Qxa7 Nd5! 12.Qa4 0-0 13.Be2 Qc7 14.Nf3 Rfd8 15.0-0 Ra8, giving Black excellent compensation for the pawn.
4…Ngf6 5.Nxf6+ Nxf6 6.Bc4
6.d4 transposes to 4.d4.
6…Bf5
Black gets this bishop active before it would be blocked in by …e7-e6.
7.d4
There are two other moves of note:
A) 7.Ne5 is very tricky, hitting f7. Then the brave response is 7…e6! (7…Bg6 8.Qf3 Rb8 isn’t bad) 8.Bb5+ (8.Qf3 Be4 9.Qg3 Qd6!) 8…c6 9.Nxc6 Qd5!? (9…bxc6 10.Bxc6+ Nd7 11.Bxa8 Qxa8 12.0-0 Bd6 is messy and unclear) 10.Nd4+ Kd8 11.Nxf5 exf5 12.Bf1 Qe4+ 13.Qe2 Qxc2 14.Qd3+ Qxd3 15.Bxd3 Bc5 16.0-0 Re8! 17.Bxf5 Re5 18.Bh3 Re2=;
B) 7.0-0 e6 8.d4 Be7 is slower, for example, 9.c3 0-0 10.Qe2 c5 11.dxc5 Bxc5 12.Bg5 Andreikin-Shirov, Saratov 2011, and the simplest equalizer was 12…Be7 13.Rad1 Qc7=.
7… e6 8.c3
To get the queen quickly to b3. Instead, 8.0-0 Bd6 9.Re1 0-0 is comfortably equal.
8…Be7 9.Qb3
Or 9.Ne5 0-0 (9…Nd7!?) 10.0-0 c5=.
9…0-0!?
Ambitious. 9…Be4 is equal.
10.Qxb7 Be4 11.Qa6 c5!=
With the idea …Bxf3 and …cxd4. Now 12.Be3 Nd5 only hurts White’s position.
1.d3 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nf3
The Venezolana formation involves a kingside fianchetto and a pawn at d3, which is found in many flank openings. The main difference is the stationing of the knight at c3, in front of the c-pawn. White, therefore, makes no effort to occupy the center and this opening will probably only appeal to those with strong hypermodern tendencies. For example, it’s no surprise that the opening was a major part of the repertoire of the eccentric grandmaster Duncan Suttles.
Tischbierek – Jo.Horvath
Deizisau 2000
1.d3 c5
Black plans to transpose to the Sicilian Defense when White advances the e-pawn. 1…e5 is a more principled reply, planting the flag in the center of the board as recommended by opening principles. One example is 2.g3 d5 3.Bg2 c5 (3…Bc5 4.Nf3 Qe7 5.Nc3 c6 6.e4 dxe4 7.Nxe4 Bb6 8.0-0 Bg4 9.a4 f5 10.Ned2 Nf6= Suttles-Sampouw, Surakarta 1982) 4.Nc3 Be6 5.e4 d4 6.Nce2 (6.Nd5 Ne7), and here Black can play normally with 6…Nc6 7.f4 f6, or more aggressively with 6…g5!? 7.f4 gxf4 8.gxf4 Qh4+ 9.Ng3 exf4 10.Qh5 Qxh5 11.Nxh5 Nc6, with complex play in Suttles-Portisch, Sousse Interzonal 1967.
2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nf3
Perhaps more in the spirit of the opening is 5.f4, with a sort of reversed Leningrad Dutch.
5…d5
5…e6 6.0-0 Nge7 7.e4 is a Closed Sicilian.
6.0-0 e6 7.Bg5 Nge7 8.e4
With 8.Qc1 White can hit on the weakened light squares on Black’s kingside. After 8…h6 9.Bd2 Black can’t castle. In Kramnik-Milliet, London (rapid) 2014, Black solved that problem in radical fashion: 9…g5, prompting Kramnik to initiate a queenside attack with 10.a3, 11.Rb1 and 12.b4, discouraging queenside castling.
8…0-0 9.Qd2 d4 10.Ne2 e5 11.Ne1 Be6 12.Bh6
Black has more space and stands comfortably after 12…Bxh6 13.Qxh6 Kh8, with the idea 14.f4? Ng8.