GOOD BLACK OPENINGS
King’s Gambit: Keene Defense (C30)
1.e4 e5 2.f4 Qh4+
The Keene Defense involves two early moves by her majesty, since after 3.g3 the queen must retreat. What is the point of this maneuver? The basic idea is to set up tension on the e-file, where the pawn at g3 just gets in the way.
The opening has been considered rather unclear for a long time. In our opinion, it is a thoroughly respectable defense to the King’s Gambit, requiring knowledge of only a few lines. While there are many good alternatives, there is nothing wrong with the Keene Defense as a practical solution to the problems posed by the King’s Gambit.
Hosking – Schiller
London 1981
1.e4 e5 2.f4 Qh4+ 3.g3
3.Ke2 is rather silly, and after 3…d5 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.d3 dxe4 6.dxe4 Nc6, Black is already considerably better, Tejada-Padros Simon, Postal 1985.
3…Qe7 4.Nc3
This is the line recommended in Unorthodox Openings and in Nunn’s Chess Openings. Other moves:
A) 4.fxe5 Qxe5 (4…d6 5.Nc3 dxe5 6.Nf3 c6 Coelho-El Debs, Brasilia 2001; or 6…Nf6=) 5.Nc3 (5.Nf3 Qxe4+ 6.Be2 Nf6 7.Nc3 Qc6 8.0-0 with unclear compensation, Caldeira-Marra, Brasilia 2001) 5…Bb4 6.Nf3 Qe7 7.Qe2 Bxc3 8.bxc3 Nc6 9.Bg2 d6 10.0-0 (10.Nd4! with a pleasant advantage) 10…Nf6 11.d3 is Basman-Haik, London 1978. Here Black should just castle;
B) 4.Qe2 d6 (4…exf4 5.gxf4 Qh4+ 6.Qf2 Qxf2+ 7.Kxf2 Bc5+ is at least equal, so White would undoubtedly try 5.Nc3! and sacrifice a pawn for attack) 5.d3 Nc6 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.Be3 Bg4 8.Qf2 d5 9.exd5 exf4 10.dxc6 fxe3 11.Qf4 bxc6, and Black was on top in Machado-Garbarino, San Pedro de Jujuy 1981, albeit in a rather randomly played opening;
C) 4.d3 d5!? 5.Nc3 dxe4 6.dxe4 Nc6 is probably a touch better for White, but playable.
4…exf4
5.Nf3!?
White strives for rapid development, but this involves the investment of material.
A) One option is 5.Qf3 fxg3 6.Nd5 Qd8 7.Bc4 Nf6 8.Nxf6+ Qxf6 9.Qxf6 gxf6 10.hxg3 d6 11.Nf3 (11.b3!) 11…Be6 12.Bb3 Nc6 13.d3 0-0-0 14.Bh6 Ne5 15.Nd4 Kd7 and Black is a tad better, Tommiska-Lammi, Finland tt 1996/97;
B) 5.d4 fxg3 6.Qf3 is Nunn’s Chess Openings’ choice. (6.Bf4! gxh2 7.Rxh2 is scary for Black. 7…c6 can be met simply with 8.Qd2 and 0-0-0, so perhaps 7…Nf6 with the idea 8.Qe2 d5! is the way to go) 6…Nc6 7.Be3 Qf6 (7…Nf6 8.e5) 8.Qxg3 Bd6 9.e5 Nxe5 10.dxe5 Bxe5 11.Qg4 Bxc3+ 12.bxc3 Qxc3+ 13.Kf2. Nunn’s Chess Openings stops here, claiming a clear advantage for White. But even leaving our computer analysts working all night fails to demonstrate any advantage for White. Since the position is quite unbalanced, let’s follow the cited game a bit further: 13…Nf6 14.Qd4 Qxc2+ 15.Ne2 c5? (this is the culprit. 15…Qf5+ 16.Ke1 0-0 looks much more sensible. Granted, White has an extra piece, but the price is 5 pawns) 16.Qe5+ Kd8 17.Bg5 and White eventually won in Sorokin-Sorin, San Martin 1994;
C) 5.Bg2 c6 6.Nge2 fxg3 7.hxg3 d6 8.d4 Bg4 9.Bf4 Nf6 10.Qd2 Nbd7 11.0-0-0 0-0-0 is very solid for Black, who exploited her advantage in Seger-Trabert, 1989;
D) 5.Bc4 fxg3 6.hxg3 c6 7.Qe2 d6 8.d4 Nf6 9.Bg5 Bg4 and Black had the initiative in Morawietz-Busch, Bellheim 1994.
5…d5 6.e5!?
6.Nxd5!? Qxe4+ 7.Qe2 Qxe2+ 8.Bxe2 Bd6 9.Nxf4 is unclear.
6…fxg3 7.hxg3?!
White shouldn’t take time for this non-thematic move. 7.d4 and 7.Nxd5 Qd8 8.Ne3 are both about equal.
7…Bg4
7…d4! improves.
8.d4 c6
White doesn’t have enough for his pawn here.
9.Bd3
9.Be2 Nh6!? (9…Nd7!) 10.Bxh6 gxh6 11.Nh2 (or 11.Qd2!) 11…Bxe2 12.Qxe2 was seen in Rechel-Karimi, Giessen 1994, where Black should simply have continued development with 12…Nd7.
9…h5 10.Qe2 Nd7 11.Qf2 0-0-0 12.Bg5? f6 13.Nh4 fxg5 14.Ng6 Qb4 15.a3 Qxb2 16.Kd2 Qb6 17.Rhb1 Qa5 18.Nxh8
White is up the exchange for two pawns, but Black has a crushing tactic.
18…Nxe5! 19.Bf5+ Kb8 20.Bxg4 hxg4 21.dxe5 d4
And Black went on to win.
King‘s Gambit: Marshall Countergambit (C31)
1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 c6
This pawn sacrifice for Black has been revived to the point of respectability. Black gives up a pawn for rapid development, keeping in mind that the pawn at e5 is not under threat since …Qh4+ is then strong. White has tried all sorts of plans here, and we can just sample the menu.
Teichmann – Marshall
Ostende 1905
1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 c6 4.Nc3
This move is the overwhelming favorite. Other moves:
A) 4.Qf3 leads to the Breyer Gambit if Black captures on f4, which is considered equal. Alternatively, 4…e4!? 5.Qxe4+ Be7, followed by …Nf6 and …0-0, gives Black an attack that’s well worth a pawn. Then 6.dxc6? Nxc6 7.Nf3 Nf6, followed by …0-0 and …Re8, is simply too slow for White;
B) 4.Qe2 was played by Spassky: 4…cxd5 5.fxe5 Nc6 6.Nf3 Bc5 (6…Bg4! 7.Qf2 Bxf3 8.Qxf3 Qe7 looks equal. For example, after 9.Qg3, Black can choose either 9…Qxe5+ or the complex 9…Nxe5 10.Be2 Nf6 11.0-0 Nc6 12.Nc3 Qe6) 7.c3 d4!? 8.d3=, Spassky-Motwani, simul Glasgow 1987. But 8.b4! would have been much stronger, in view of 8…Bb6 9.b5 Nce7 (Cherushev-Soloviov, Moscow 1956) 10.Nxd4!;
C) 4.dxc6 Nxc6 gives Black much too rapid development and control of the center;
D) 4.d4 exd4 5.Qxd4 cxd5 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.Bd2 Nc6 8.Bb5 Be7 9.Nf3 0-0 of Lurje-Klaric, Zürich 1984, favors Black’s superior pawn structure;
E) 4.d3 exf4 5.Bxf4 cxd5 leaves White with internal weaknesses. For example, 6.Nf3 Nf6 (or 6…Nc6) 7.Be2 Qb6!? (7…Bd6! secure a nice advantage because of White’s dark-square weaknesses) 8.d4!? Qxb2 9.Nbd2 Nc6 10.0-0 Be7 11.Nb3, O’Donovan-Hebden, Cork 1985, and 11…Qa3 was fine, but 11…Ne4! is a clearer demonstration that White lacks compensation;
F) 4.fxe5?? (capturing on e5 is often a blunder in the King’s Gambit) 4…Qh4+ 5.Ke2 Qe4+ 6.Kf2 Bc5+ 7.d4 Bxd4+ 8.Kg3 Bxe5+ 9.Kf2 Bd4+ 10.Kg3 Qg6+ 11.Kf4 Qf5+ 0-1, Antler-Franklin, New Jersey 1986.
4…cxd5
Objectively, 4…exf4 is probably best, when 5.Nf3 reaches a position similar to the Modern Variation in the King’s Gambit Accepted (1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d5 4.exd5 c6 5.Nc3). There’s nothing unorthodox at all about that, but Black can hold his own with 5…Bd6 6.dxc6? (6.d4! Ne7 is the main line, considered equal, and here 6…Nf6 7.Qe2+ Qe7 is unclear) 6…Nxc6 7.Bb5 Ne7 8.0-0 0-0 9.d4 Bg4, a position that has scored well for Black.
5.fxe5 d4 6.Ne4
This is almost always played, but McDonald and Shaw prefer 6.Bb5+! and make a good case that White retains a very limited advantage.
6…Nc6!?
6…Qd5 7.d3 (7.Bd3 Nc6 8.Nf3 Bg4 9.0-0 Nxe5 10.Ng3 Bxf3 11.gxf3 Nxd3 12.cxd3 Bd6 with an easy game, Skytte-Talla, Marianske Lazne 2012) 7…Nc6 8.Nf3 Bf5 9.Ng3 (9.c4!?) 9…Bg4 10.Be2 Bb4+ and Black equalized in Hebden-Tempone, Chicago tt 1983.
7.Nf3 Qd5 8.Nf2
Or 8.d3 Nxe5 9.Be2 Be7 (9…f5 may improve) 10.0-0 Nf6 11.Nxe5 Qxe5 12.Bf4 Qe6 is playable for Black, but somewhat in White’s favor.
8…Bf5?! 9.Bd3 Bg6 10.0-0
White remains a pawn to the good. 10.Qe2 is also good.
10…0-0-0 11.Qe2 Bc5 12.a3
12.c4! was strong, with the idea 12…dxc3 13.Bxg6 hxg6 14.bxc3.
12…Nh6 13.b4 Bb6
Now instead of 14.Bc4? d3 15.cxd3 Nd4 with excellent counterplay, simply 14.Bb2 would preserve White’s advantage.
King’s Gambit: Miles Defense (C30)
1.e4 e5 2.f4 Nc6 3.Nf3 f5
This complex line became all the rage in the 1990s. The late Tony Miles made important contributions to the theory, and some years ago we assigned his name to the opening. 2…Nc6 with 3…f5 is respectable, and indeed, the gambiteer who employs the venerable King’s Gambit without knowledge of the variation is foolhardy indeed!
1.e4 e5 2.f4 Nc6 3.Nf3 f5 4.exf5
The most important try. Alternatives give Black enough play:
A) 4.Bc4 fxe4! 5.Nxe5 Nxe5 6.fxe5 d5! 7.exd6 Bxd6 and Black already stands better: 8.0-0 Qh4 9.Bf7+ Kd8 with the idea 10.g3 (10.Qh5 Bxh2+ 11.Kh1 Qxh5 12.Bxh5 Bd6) 10…Bxg3 11.hxg3? Qxg3+ 12.Kh1 Bg4 and wins;
B) 4.d4 exd4 (4…fxe4 5.Nxe5 Nf6=) 5.Nxd4 (5.e5 Bb4+ 6.c3 dxc3 7.bxc3 Bc5 8.Bc4 Nge7 9.Ng5 d5! 10.exd6 Qxd6 isn’t very clear, but Black’s chances were no worse in Nowicki-Kaniak, Internet 1997; here 7.Nxc3 is worth a try) 5…Nxd4 (or 5…Nf6!? 5…fxe4 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.Qh5+ Ke7=, Balzar-Wahls, Neu Isenburg 1991) 6.Qxd4 fxe4 7.Qxe4+ Be7 8.Nc3 Nf6 9.Qf3 d5, with advantage, Gal-Pedersen, Golden Sands 2000;
C) 4.Nc3 fxe4 (4…Nf6 5.fxe5) 5.Nxe5 (5.Nxe4 d5 favors Black) 5…Nxe5? (5…Nf6=) 6.fxe5 Qe7 (Henriques-Sirgado, Lisbon 1998) 7.d4! exd3 8.Bf4 with a significant advantage;
D) 4.Bb5 fxe4 5.Bxc6 dxc6 6.Nxe5 Qh4+ 7.g3 Qh3 favored Black in McCollum-Kobernat, San Francisco 2000.
4…e4
4…exf4 5.d4 d5 6.Bxf4 Bxf5 7.Bb5 (7.Bd3 Qe7+ 8.Kf2) 7…Bd6 8.Bxd6 Qxd6= Pigott-Gottschalk, Islington 1975.
5.Ne5
5.Ng5!? Nf6 6.d3 (6.Be2 Bc5! 7.Bh5+ Kf8=) 6…Qe7 7.Be2 exd3 8.Qxd3 Nb4 9.Qd1 with a small advantage.
5…Nxe5
White obtains a good game after this exchange, so perhaps Black should attend to development instead. The other main move is 5…Nf6
6.Nc3 (6.Be2 Bc5! 7.Bh5+ Kf8 8.Nf7 Qe8 9.Nxh8 Qxh5 10.Qxh5 Nxh5 with a huge advantage, Solidakis-Markidis, Kallithea 2003) 6…Qe7 (6…Bd6? 7.Nxe4! with the idea 7…Bxe5 8.fxe5 Nxe4 9.Qh5+ Kf8 10.d3 Nc5 11.Be3, with two pawns and a mighty attack for the piece) 7.d4!? (7.Ng4!) 7…exd3 8.Bxd3 d6 9.0-0 dxe5 10.Re1 (analysis by Shaw) 10…Bd7 11.fxe5 Nxe5 12.Bf4 Nfg4 13.Qe2 Qc5+ 14.Kf1 Bd6 15.h3 0-0 (or 15…g5! with the idea 16.Ne4 gxf4! 17.Nxc5 Ne3+ 18.Kg1 Bxc5) 16.hxg4 Nxd3 17.Bxd6 Rxf5+! 18.gxf5 Qxf5+ 19.Qf3 Qxf3+ 20.gxf3 Nxe1, with the advantage.
6.fxe5 Qe7 7.Qh5+ Kd8
8.d4!
8.Bc4? Qxe5 9.Bxg8 g6 10.Qh4+ Be7 11.Qh6 Rxg8 12.Qxh7, Jansen-Ouellet, corr. 1999; and simply 12…Rf8 13.Qxg6 d5 is obviously great for Black.
8…exd3 9.Bxd3 Qxe5+ 10.Kd1
The position is unclear, according to Nunn’s Chess Openings.
10…Nf6
11.Qf3
11.Qh4!? is an interesting alternative: 11…Bd6 (11…Bc5) 12.Nc3 (12.Nd2) 12…Re8 13.Ne4 (13.g3 is Shaw’s suggestion, when 13…b5! works on the long diagonal, and 14.Bf4 Qd4 15.Bxd6 Qxd6 offers equal chances) 13…b6 14.Bd2 Qxb2 15.Bc3 Rxe4 16.Qxf6+ gxf6 17.Bxb2 Re5 18.Bxe5 Bxe5= Handoko-Motwani, Istanbul Olympiad 2000.
11…Bc5
11…d5!? 12.Nc3 c6 runs into 13.Bf4 Qd4 14.Kc1! intending moves such as Qg3, Ne2 and g4-g5.
12.Nc3 d6?!
This should work out badly. 12…Qd4! improves, even if White retains a small edge after 13.Qg3 Rg8! 14.Re1 Qf2 15.Ne4 Qxg3 16.hxg3.
13.Bf4
13.Re1! Qxh2 (13…Qd4 14.Ne4! Rut-Ganesan, World Correspondence Championship 1997; and instead of 14.Bg5, 14.Ne4! threatening Bf4 and Bg5, was good for a clear advantage.
13…Qd4 14.Kd2 Bxf5 15.Rhf1 Bxd3 16.cxd3
This position was reached in Gallagher-Wohl, Kuala Lumpur Open 1992. Black can try 16…c6 or 16…Re8 here, with equality, or the ambitious 16…Qb4. For example, 17.Kc2 Bd4 18.Rae1 Rf8 19.a3, and Black will still find it difficult to mobilize the queen’s rook. White has enough for the pawn, but no more.
Anti-Catalan: Hungarian Gambit (E00)
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 e5
No, this isn’t a Budapest Gambit. White’s pawn is at g3. Since that is not a good place for the pawn in the Budapest, the question is whether Black can get away with this move despite wasting a tempo with …e7-e6 and then …e6-e5. Some Hungarian players and the Brazilian Van Riemsdijk seem to think so.
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 e5 4.dxe5
4.Nf3 e4 5.Nfd2 c6 6.Bg2 d5 7.0-0 Bd6!? (7…Be7=) 8.cxd5 cxd5 with a solid game, Molnar-Portisch, Budapest 1956.
4…Ng4
5.e4
A) 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Bc5 7.Nh3 Ncxe5 8.0-0 0-0 9.Ne4 Be7 10.b3 d6 was roughly level in Tukmakov-Van Riemsdijk, Groningen 1990;
B) 5.Qd4 d6 6.exd6 Bxd6 7.Qe4+ Be7 gives Black some compensation, although perhaps not quite enough.
5…Nxe5 6.f4 Nec6!?
6…Ng6 7.Be3 Bb4+ 8.Nd2 Qe7 9.Bd3 b5?! 10.cxb5 turned out well for White in Flear-Ivell, London (Lloyds Bank) 1985.
7.Be3 Bb4+
White has a lot of space, safeguarded by the advanced pawns, but the pawns are to some extent in the way of the pieces.
8.Kf2
8.Nd2 Qe7 9.Bg2 Na6 (9…d6 seems more to the point. For example, 10.a3 Bc5 11.Bxc5 dxc5 12.Ne2 Bg4 13.Qb3 Bxe2 14.Qxb7 Nd4!? 15.Qxa8 0-0 16.Qd5 (Szelenyi-Percze, Hungary 1996), and here 16…Rd8 gave good chances) 10.Ne2 Nc5 11.Qc2 f5 12.Nc3 Bxc3 13.Qxc3!? Nxe4 14.Nxe4 fxe4=, Laznicka-Timman, Paks 2010.
8…Qe7 9.Bg2 Bc5 10.Qd2 Bxe3+
Or 10…Nb4! first.
11.Qxe3 Nb4
With complex play, Quinteros-Van Riemsdijk, Sao Paulo 1978.
Evans Gambit: Lasker Defense (C52)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4
The Evans Gambit is an old-fashioned 19th century opening, but Garry Kasparov revived it successfully towards the end of the 20th century! White trades a flank pawn in order to construct a big center and attack. Black’s best reaction to gambits is usually to develop quickly and get castled. Black cannot always manage both goals, but if the king is well protected in the center and some pieces can be traded off, then other defenses may be viable, as in the present example.
Vicente Haro – Flear
Castellar 1996
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4
This pawn sacrifice is the Evans Gambit. 4.Bxf7+? Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ is the Jerome Gambit which, however, is refuted by 5…Nxe5 6.Qh5+ (6.d4 Qh4! 7.0-0 Nf6 8.dxc5 Qxe4) 6…Kf8, or here 6…g6 7.Qxe5 Qe7, winning.
4…Bxb4
The main way to decline the gambit is 4…Bb6.
A) Then White should not try to win a pawn with 5.b5?! Na5 6.Nxe5? because of a tactic that appears in many double e-pawn openings: 6…Qg5! 7.Nxf7 (7.Qf3 Qxe5 8.Qxf7+ Kd8 9.Bb2 Qxe4+ 10.Kd1 Qe7 11.Qxg7 Nxc4 12.Qxe7+ Nxe7 13.Bxh8 d5 or 13…d6, and Black’s two pieces are clearly more effective than the rook) 7…Qxg2 8.Rf1 Nxc4 9.Nxh8 Qxe4+ 10.Qe2 Qxe2+ 11.Kxe2 Kf8, and with care, Black will be able to win the trapped knight on h8;
B) The conventional line for White goes 5.a4 a6 (5…a5 6.b5 Nd4 7.Nxd4 Bxd4 8.c3 Bb6 9.d4 exd4 10.0-0, with promising play in Kasparov-Piket, Amsterdam 1995) 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 Nd4 9.a5 Ba7 with equal chances. For example, 10.d6!? cxd6 11.c3 Ne6 12.0-0 0-0, Morozevich-Kamsky, Moscow (blitz) 2008.
5.c3 Ba5
Instead, 5…Bc5 6.0-0 d6 7.d4 Bb6 transposes to our main line.
6.0-0
Logically developing so that the c-pawn won’t be pinned after the advance d2-d4. Instead, 6.d4 mixes things up, as we will see in the next game (where Black accepts the pawn by 6…exd4). In the spirit of this contest, Black can head for a solid position with 6…d6 7.Qb3 (7.0-0 Bb6 again transposes to the game)
7…Qd7!? (watch out for the standard trap 7…Qf6? 8.d5 Nd4 9.Nxd4 exd4 10.Qa4+ and 11.Qxa5. …Qf6 tends to be a good defense so long as Black’s bishop is back on b6!; but 7…Nxd4 8.Nxd4 exd4 9.Bxf7+ Kf8 seems quite playable for Black) 8.Nbd2 (8.dxe5 Bb6 intends …Na5. A brief example is 9.Nbd2 Na5 10.Qb4 Nxc4 11.Nxc4 Bc5 12.Qb3 Ne7 13.exd6 cxd6 14.0-0 0-0 15.Ba3 Qc7 16.Bxc5 Qxc5 17.Ne3 ½-½, Nabaty-Turov, Pardubice 2008. In this line 10.Qc2 has been suggested, when 10…Ne7 11.0-0 0-0 might follow) 8…Bb6 (or 8…Nf6) 9.a4 exd4 (9…Na5 is an option, and after 9…Nf6, 10.a5!? Nxa5 11.Rxa5 Bxa5 12.dxe5 Ng4 13.exd6!? has ideas like 13…Bb6!? 14.h3!? Nxf2 15.Ne5 Qxd6 16.Bxf7+ Kd8, with a mess that Black probably survives) 10.cxd4 Nxd4 11.Qc3 Nxf3+ (11…Ne6 looks like a sound alternative) 12.gxf3! f6!? 13.a5 Bc5 14.Nb3 Ne7 15.Rg1 Ng6 16.Nxc5 dxc5 17.Be3 b6 18.Rd1 Qe7 and Black’s position is hard to get through, Nouro-Norri, Jyväskylä 2008.
6…d6 7.d4 Bb6
This is known as the Lasker Defense, and has held up for years as an Evans Gambit remedy.
8.dxe5
8.a4 Nf6 (Lasker also played 8…exd4 9.cxd4 Bg4, when 10.d5 complicates matters a bit, although 10…Ne5 11.Be2 Bxf3 12.gxf3 Qh4!? 13.a5 Bc5, with the idea …Nf6, stays a pawn up for modest compensation. Here 10.Bb2 Nf6 looks safe as well) 9.Bb5 a6 10.Bxc6+ bxc6 11.a5 Ba7 Chigorin-Lasker, 3rd match game, St Petersburg 1895. Black stands better with his bishop pair and extra pawn, although White has space and it’s still a game.
8…dxe5 9.Qb3
This may not achieve much, but White would like to avoid the simplifying 9.Qxd8+ Nxd8 10.Nxe5 Be6 (or 10…Nf6) 11.Be2 (11.Bb3 Nf6 12.Bc2 Nd7 isn’t any better, and 11.Bxe6 Nxe6 12.Nc4 Nf6 13.Nxb6 axb6 isn’t the type of position Black is aiming for. White’s c-pawn is isolated, as is his a-pawn, which can be attacked along the open file. In addition, Black’s knights have particularly good squares to occupy on the queenside) 11…Ne7 (11…Nf6 is a valid alternative) 12.Nc4 Ndc6!? (12…Bxc4 13.Bxc4 Ndc6 is fine, intending …Ng6-e5, when the d3-square is a target for Black’s knight) 13.Bf4?! Annageldiev-V.L.Ivanov, Ashkhabad 1996, and now 13…Bxc4 14.Bxc4 Ng6 15.Bg3 h5! 16.h4 Nce5 17.Bb3 0-0-0 would give Black some advantage.
9…Qf6 10.Bg5 Qg6 11.Bd5
White wants to deal with …Na5 followed by …Nxc4.
11…Nge7
The most frequently-played move. Sadly for White’s attacking ambitions, Black has several ways to equality or better. 11…Nh6, for example, has proven playable, as have:
A) 11…f6! 12.Bxg8 fxg5! with the idea 13.Nxg5? Kf8 Kogan-Anand, Venaco (rapid) 2005;
B) 11…Na5 12.Qa4+ (12.Nxe5 Nxb3 13.Nxg6 hxg6 14.axb3 Nf6) 12…c6 (12…Bd7 13.Qxd7+ Kxd7 14.Nxe5+ Ke8 15.Nxg6 hxg6 16.e5!?) 13.Nxe5 Qxg5 14.Nxf7 Qe7 15.Nxh8 Kf8! or here 15…Nh6. In both cases the knight on h8 is in major trouble.
12.Bxe7 Kxe7 13.Bxc6 Qxc6 14.Nxe5 Qe6
Black has done well in this position because of his pawn structure and bishop pair. For example,
15.Nd3?!
A) 15.Nc4 Rd8 16.Qa3+ Ke8 17.Nxb6 Qxb6 favours Black’s activity and pawn structure, but at least White retains queens when Black’s king is exposed, so this is likely White’s best;
B) 15.Qa3+ Qd6 16.Qxd6+ cxd6 17.Nd3 (17.Nc4 Bc5 18.Nbd2 Be6) 17…Be6 18.Nd2 Rhc8 Ebeling-Rantanen, Jyväskylä 1987; compare the game.
15…Qxb3! 16.axb3 Rd8 17.Nf4 c6 18.Na3 Bc7 19.Nh5 Be5 20.Rac1 Bg4 21.Ng3 Rd3
With the bishop pair, targets, and active rooks, White doesn’t stand a chance here. The game concluded
22.Nb1 Bf4 23.Rc2 Rad8 24.Na3 Bd1 25.Ra2 Bxg3 26.hxg3 Bxb3 27.Rb2 Rxc3 28.Nb1 Rcd3 29.Rc1 a5 30.Nc3 a4 31.Kh2 Rd2 32.Nd5+ R8xd5 33.Rxb3 Rh5+
0-1
Evans Gambit: 7…Nge7 Defense with 8.cxd4 (C52)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 Nge7
The move 7…Nge7 is our second recommendation, returning the pawn in order to establish Black’s central presence with the move …d7-d5, and to play against weaknesses in White’s position.
One of the main advantages of 7…Nge7 is that it avoids the volumes of theory on the main lines of the Evans Gambit and makes life relatively simple.
Ilczuk – Ostrowski
Polish Team Championship 1999
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 Nge7 8.cxd4
In the next game we will see 8.Ng5.
8…d5
Black’s idea is to grab a fair share of the center and develop his light-squared bishop at the same time.
9.exd5 Nxd5
10.Qb3
After 10.Ba3 Be6, Black will usually play …Bb4 next to block the bishop and then castle, while …f7-f6 and …Kf7 is perfectly fine if White develops slowly. A possible continuation is 11.Nbd2 (Black stands well after 11.Bb5 Bb4 12.Qa4 Qd6 or 11.Qb3 Rb8) 11…Bb4 12.Bxb4 Ncxb4 13.Qa4+ Nc6 14.Ba6! (otherwise White is left with a weak d-pawn after Black castles) 14…Qc8 15.Ne5 0-0! 16.Nxc6 bxa6 17.Rac1 Re8 18.Rfe1 Nf4! with good minor pieces.
10…Be6! 11.Ba3
11.Qxb7?! fails to 11…Ndb4! 12.d5! (12.Bxe6 Rb8; 12.Qb5? Rb8; 12.Bb5 0-0 13.Bxc6 Rb8 14.Qxa7 Nxc6 15.Qc5 Bd5-+ is already known from Anderssen-Mieses, Breslau 1867) 12…Rb8 13.Qxb8 Qxb8 14.dxe6 fxe6, and White lacks adequate compensation.
11…Bb4!?
There are two other interesting moves:
A) 11…Qd7 is satisfactory: 12.Ne5! (12.Qxb7?? Rb8 13.Qa6 Rb6) 12…Nxe5 13.Qxb7 Nf3+!? (the most interesting move, although objectively, 13…Qc8! is the easiest way to equalize: 14.Bxd5 Qxb7 15.Bxb7 Rb8 16.Be4 f5 17.Bc2 Nc4=) 14.gxf3 Rc8 15.Ba6 (15.Qa6 looks slightly better for White, although the sequence 15…Bb6 16.Re1 c6 17.Nd2 Nc7 18.Bxe6 fxe6 19.Qc4 Rd8 20.Nb3 Kf7 21.Rac1 Rhe8 22.Qxc6 Nb5! is fine for Black) 15…f6! 16.Qxc8+ Qxc8 17.Bxc8 Bxc8 and Black has ample compensation for the exchange in view of his active bishops, ideal knight, and White’s weakened pawns;
B) 11…Rb8 has the idea …a7-a6 and …b7-b5 and is also equal. For example, 12.Rc1!? (12.Rd1 a6 13.Nc3 Bxc3 14.Bxd5 Qxd5 15.Qxc3 f6 and …Kf7 gives Black a slight advantage) 12…Bb4 13.Bxb4 Ncxb4 14.a3 Nc6 15.Nc3 Nxc3 16.Rxc3 Bxc4 17.Re1+ Ne7 18.Qxc4 0-0! 19.Qxc7 Nd5 20.Qxd8 Rfxd8, with advantage.
12.Bxb4 Ncxb4 13.a3
13.Bxd5 Nxd5 14.Qxb7 0-0 gives up White’s best piece and leaves him slightly worse.
13…Nc6 14.Qxb7 Na5 15.Bb5+?
15.Qb5+ c6 16.Qc5 Qb6!=.
15…Kf8 16.Qa6 Nb3 17.Ra2
17…Nb6!?
Laying a trap. Probably 17…c5! is objectively correct.
18.Rc2??
18.Be2! gives White an escape square on d3. Then 18…g6 19.Rd1 Kg7 is equal.
18…Bc8
The queen is trapped. Backward moves are the hardest to spot.
Evans Gambit: 7…Nge7 Defense with 8.Ng5 (C52)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 Nge7 8.Ng5
Short – Adams
Sarajevo 2000
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 Nge7 8.Ng5
In the previous game we saw 8.cxd4.
8…d5!
8…0-0?? 9.Qh5 leaves Black in deadly double trouble at f7 and h7, and you should avoid 8…Ne5?! 9.Nxf7 Nxf7 10.Bxf7+ Kxf7 11.Qh5+ g6 12.Qxa5+/=.
9.exd5 Ne5!
Attacking c4 and defending f7.
10.Bb3
10.Qxd4 has two excellent replies:
A) 10…N7g6 is safe and good: 11.Re1 0-0 12.Rxe5 b5! 13.Nxh7 (13.d6 Bb6 14.Nxf7 Qd7! with a clear advantage) 13…Bb6! (13…Kxh7 14.Rh5+ Kg8 15.Bxb5) 14.Qe4 Nxe5 15.Nxf8 (15.Qxe5 Qh4) 15…Qxf8! (15…Nxc4 16.Qh7+ Kxf8 17.Qh8+ Ke7 18.Bg5+ f6 19.Qxg7+ Kd6 20.Bxf6 Qe8 21.Na3! Nxa3 22.Qg3+ Kd7 23.Qg4+ Kd6 24.Qf4+ Kd7 25.Qf5+ Kd6 26.Qf4+=) 16.Qxe5 bxc4 17.Ba3 Qd8 18.Nd2 Bb7 19.Nxc4 Bxf2+! 20.Kxf2 Qh4+ 21.Kg1 Qxc4, with an edge;
B) 10…f6 takes more chances: 11.Re1 (11.Bb3 Bb6 12.Qa4+ Bd7 13.Qe4 Bf5 14.Qa4+ Qd7, with a small advantage) 11…Bb6 12.Qh4 Nxc4 (12…Bf5= with the idea 13.Ne6?! N7g6! 14.Qh5 Bxe6 15.dxe6 Nxc4 16.Qb5+ c6 17.Qxc4 Ne5 18.Qe2 Qd3) 13.Qxc4 fxg5 14.d6 (14.Bxg5? Bxf2+! 15.Kxf2 0-0+ 16.Kg1 Qxd5 and Black stands well) 14…Qxd6 15.Bxg5
15…Be6! 16.Qxe6 (16.Rxe6? Qd1+ 17.Qf1 Bxf2+ 18.Kxf2 0-0+) 16…Qxe6 17.Rxe6 0-0 18.Bxe7 Rae8! 19.Bxf8 (19.Nd2? Bxf2+ 20.Kh1 Rf7 21.Rf1 Bh4 22.Bxh4 Rxf1+ 23.Nxf1 Rxe6) 19…Rxe6 20.Kf1 Kxf8 with a small advantage.
10…0-0
11.Nxh7!?
A tricky way to exchange some material, first played by Fischer in a simultaneous display in 1964. 11.cxd4?! isn’t as good after 11…Ng4 with an edge. For example, 12.Qf3 (12.Ba3 Nxd5! 13.Bxf8 Qxg5, with a nice attack (Anderssen-Mieses, Breslau 1867) 14.Qf3 and 14…Ngf6 or simply 14…Qf4 15.Qxf4 Nxf4 16.Be7 Ne2+ 17.Kh1 Nxd4 and Black stands better) 12…Nf6 13.Ba3 h6 14.Ne4 Nxe4 15.Qxe4 Re8, with a clear advantage, Morozevich-Adams, Wijk aan Zee 2001.
11…Kxh7 12.Qh5+ Kg8 13.Qxe5 Nf5! 14.Bd2
14.cxd4 Re8 15.Qf4 Bb4! with the idea …Bd6 or 15…Qd6, also with an edge.
14…c5!?
14…Re8 15.Qf4 Qd6 gives Black a modest advantage.
15.dxc6 bxc6 16.Re1 Bc7 17.Qe4 Qf6?!
17…Bd7! threatens …Re8. For example, 18.cxd4 Re8 19.Qf3 Rxe1+ 20.Bxe1 Qe7 and Black retains some initiative.
18.Bf4=
Draw agreed.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.0-0
Unknown – Maude
1878
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.0-0
This is at best playable for White, and not really very attractive, since he will struggle to develop the attacking chances he wants out of this opening. The normal line is 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0, as we saw in the previous games.
6…Nf6 7.d4 0-0
Here’s the difference: Black doesn’t have to surrender the center with …exd4 or shore it up with …d7-d6. After over 100 games, this position has a plus score for Black, with a lead in performance rating.
8.dxe5
Other moves aren’t convincing either:
A) 8.Qc2 Qe7 (Black has the upper hand after 8…d6 9.dxe5 Nxe5) 9.dxe5 (9.Nbd2 exd4 10.cxd4 Bxd2 11.Bxd2 Qxe4 12.Bd3 Greenaway-Anderssen, London 1851; here Black had 12…Qd5!) 9…Nxe5 10.Nxe5?! Qxe5 11.Bd3 Ng4 12.g3 Bb6 13.Na3 d5 14.Bf4 Qh5 15.h4 h6! 16.Kg2 g5 17.f3 gxf4 18.fxg4 Qxg4 19.Rxf4 Qh3+ 20.Kf3 h5 and Black was winning in Dufresne-Anderssen, Berlin 1851;
B) 8.d5 releases the pressure: 8…Ne7 9.Qc2 d6 10.Nbd2 Ng6 11.Nb3 Bb6 12.a4 a6 13.a5 Ba7 14.Be3 Bg4 15.Be2 Bxe3 16.fxe3 c6, with a serious advantage, Büktas-Süess, ICCF email 2009.
8…Nxe4 9.Qd3
9.Qc2 is no improvement after 9…d5 10.exd6 Nxd6 11.Bg5 Bf5! 12.Qa4 Qd7 13.Bd5 Bb6, Perigal-Popert, London 1840.
9…d5?!
A) This is definitely not a bad move, but 9…Nc5! keeps a pawn and a clear advantage.
Neumann-Seidl, Vienna 1897, went 10.Qd5 (10.Qc2 d5 and 10.Qd1 d6 11.Bg5 Qd7 are good for Black) 10…Ne6, with an extra pawn. Alternatively, Black can retain the advantage with 10…d6, intending 11.Bg5 Ne7 (or 11…Qd7);
B) You might also want to check out the interesting is 9…b5!? from Wieland-Cozma, Sebnitz jr 2007.
10.Bxd5 Bf5!?
Black still had time for 10…Nc5! with an edge: 11.Qc4 Bb6 (or 11…Be6) 12.Ba3 Na5 13.Qd4 Ncb3! 14.Qe4 Nxa1 15.Bxf8 Kxf8, with advantage.
11.Bc4?
A blunder. 11.Qc4! is best. The probable continuation would be 11…Nxc3 12.Nxc3 Bxc3 13.Bxf7+ (13.Bg5 Qd7 14.Rad1 – Harding; then 14…Ba5 is unclear) 13…Rxf7 14.Ng5! Nxe5 15.Qxc3 Re7 16.Qb3+ Kh8 17.Re1 Rd7! with dynamically balanced chances.
11…Nd6 12.Qe2 Nxc4 13.Rd1
13…Nd6?!
This retains a big advantage, but 13…Qe7! 14.Qxc4 Nxe5 15.Nxe5 Qxe5 (Harding) is practically winning for Black.
14.exd6 cxd6 15.Ba3!?
15.Bf4 d5 16.Qb2 Bb6 17.Nbd2 Qf6!.
15…Re8 16.Qc4
White is also in serious trouble after 16.Qb5 Ne5! with the idea 17.Nd4 Bd3! or 16.Qb2 Qf6 17.Rxd6 Rad8!.
16…Re6
16…Ne5! 17.Nxe5 Rxe5 is strong.
17.Nbd2 Qf6 18.Rac1 Rae8 19.Nf1 Be4 20.Nd4 Bb6
And here 20…Nxd4! 21.Qxd4 Qg6.
21.Ng3 Ne5! 22.Qe2 Bc6 23.Qc2?
23.Nxe6 Rxe6 (threatening …Nf3+) 24.Qf1 Nc4! (Harding).
23…Bxd4 24.cxd4 Nf3+ 25.Kh1?
25.gxf3 Qxf3 26.d5 Bxd5 27.Rxd5 Qxd5 28.Bb4, covering e1 (Harding); but then 28…h5! is good.
25…Re1+ 26.Nf1 Rxf1+ 27.Rxf1 Qf4 28.Bxd6
Alternatively, 28.g3 Qh6 29.h4 loses to 29…Qe6!.
28…Qxd6 29.gxf3 Qf4
0-1
Blackmar-Diemer Gambit: O’Kelly Variation (D00)
1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 c6
This reliable defense can also be used in the Caro-Kann Defense, against 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.f3 and then 4…Nf6. White has tried all kinds of plans, but none of them appear to be effective.
1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 c6
The O’Kelly Defense.
5.Nxe4
This is the main line in the Blackmar-Diemer Keybook, one of the bibles of Blackmar-Diemer fans. Other tries are:
A) 5.Bc4 Qa5!
A highly interesting move, not mentioned by Lane’s Blackmar-Diemer analysis nor in the BDG Keybook III. The pin on the c3-knight is awkward, and the knight at g1 doesn’t have much of a future. In addition, Black can open up the center with …e7-e5 in many situations. Play can continue 6.fxe4 (6.Bd2 Qb6 7.Qe2! is an interesting gambit; Black can play more solidly with 6…Qb4! 7.Qe2 e3! 8.Bc1 Bf5=) 6…Nxe4 7.Qf3 Nd6 (this fine knight defends f7 and attacks the unguarded bishop at c4…) 8.Bb3 Bf5! (… and also supports f5!) 9.Ne2 e6 10.Bf4 Nd7 11.0-0 h6 12.Rad1 0-0-0 13.Ng3 Nf6. This is analysis by Howell. Black is a pawn up with no weaknesses;
B) After 5.Bg5 Nbd7! the game has transposed to a Veresov Attack. To see how difficult this line is for White, take a look at the section ‘Veresov Attack with 3…Nbd7’;
C) 5.fxe4 e5! 6.Nf3 (6.dxe5 Qxd1+ 7.Kxd1 Ng4 8.Ke1 Nxe5, and Black’s outpost on e5 in front of the isolated pawn gives him the advantage) 6…exd4 7.Qxd4 Qxd4 8.Nxd4 Bb4 is awkward for White. For example:
C1) 9.e5 Ne4 10.Bd2 Nxd2 11.Kxd2 0-0, with a superior endgame for Black who has the bishop pair and an isolated pawn target at e5;
C2) 9.Bc4 0-0! 10.0-0 Bc5! 11.Rd1 (11.Ne2 Nxe4) 11…Rd8 12.Be3 Bg4! 13.Rd3 (13.Rd2 Bh5! intending …Ng4 or …Bg6) 13…Nbd7 14.Nf5 Bxe3+ 15.Rxe3 Ne5 16.Bb3 Rd2, with advantage;
C3) 9.Bd3 0-0 10.Bd2 Nbd7 11.0-0-0 (11.a3 Bxc3 12.Bxc3 Nxe4!) 11…Nc5 gives Black some advantage.
D) 5.Be3 is quite slow (the bishop is purely defensive), so an easy solution is 5…exf3 (5…Qa5!? looks interesting as well) 6.Nxf3 Bg4 7.Bc4 (7.Be2 e6 8.0-0 Bd6 9.Qe1 Nbd7 10.Qh4 Bf5!) 7…e6 8.0-0 Bd6 9.h3 Bh5 (or 9…Bxf3 10.Qxf3 0-0) 10.g4 Bg6 11.Qe2 Nbd7 and Black has consolidated his pawn;
E) 5.Bf4 Qa5 6.Bc4 Nbd7 retains the pawn with a good position.
5…Nxe4
Actually, White’s move f2-f3 really doesn’t go with a knight on e4, so Black has all kinds of routes to equality or better. For example:
A) 5…Nbd7 is probably the best alternative and leads to an effortless game. Black would like to play …e7-e5 (and in fact, …Nxe4 followed by …e7-e5 would be an improved version of 5…Nxe4). Play might continue 6.Bc4 (6.Bd3 e5! 7.Qe2 Nxe4 8.Qxe4 Bd6! 9.dxe5 Nc5 10.Qe2 Nxd3+ 11.cxd3 Qa5+ 12.Bd2 Qxe5 with a big advantage, since …Bf5 and …Rd8 or …0-0-0 will soon follow, with pressure against White’s weak d-pawn)
6…Nb6 (or 6…e5 intending 7.Ng5 Nd5) 7.Bb3 Bf5 8.Nc5 (8.Ng3 Bg6) 8…Qc7 9.Ne2 e5;
B) 5…Bf5 isn’t as effective, but it’s good for equality after 6.Nxf6+ exf6 7.Bd3 Bd6 8.Bxf5 Qa5+ 9.c3 Qxf5= intending 10.Qe2+ Kd7! and …Re8;
C) 5…e5 immediately should be just as good as 5…Nxe4 and 5…e5. There might follow 6.dxe5 Qxd1+ 7.Kxd1 Nxe4 8.fxe4 Be6 9.Nf3 Nd7 10.Bf4 Nc5 (or 10…0-0-0) 11.Bd3 0-0-0 12.Ke2 h6 13.h4 Be7, with more than enough play considering that White’s ‘extra’ pawn comes at the cost of two isolated pawns on an open file.
6.fxe4 e5 7.Nf3
Almost forced in order to stop 7…Qh4+.
7…exd4
8.Bc4
Undoubtedly best. 8.Qxd4 Qxd4 9.Nxd4 Bc5 can be evaluated as better for Black on the basis of a much superior pawn structure. The pawn on the e-file is much harder to support than the standard isolated d-pawn, and it’s hardly the kind of position that BDG-ers aspire to as White! A practical example is 10.Be3 0-0 11.0-0-0 Bg4 12.Re1 Nd7 13.c3 Rfe8 14.Bf4 Nf6 (14…Ne5! with an ideal blockade) 15.e5!? Nd5 16.Bg3 Rad8 17.h3 Bh5 18.Bh4 (18.e6 fxe6 19.Rxe6 Rxe6 20.Nxe6 Be3+! 21.Kc2 Re8 and Black is clearly better) 18…Rd7 19.Bf2 Bg6 20.Bc4 b5 21.Bxd5 Rxd5 22.Re2 b4 23.Nxc6 bxc3 24.Rd1 cxb2+? (24…Rxd1+! 25.Kxd1 Bd3! wins material) 25.Rxb2 Rxd1+ 26.Kxd1 Bxf2 27.Rxf2 ½-½, Anuruddha-Maung, Singapore 1995.
8…Qa5+
This improves on the weaker 8…Bb4+ 9.c3! (9.Bd2 is safe and yields a big lead in development in return for the pawn) 9…dxc3 10.Bxf7+! 10…Kxf7 (10…Ke7 loses to 11.Bg5+ Kxf7 12.Ne5+ Ke6 13.Qg4+ Kxe5 14.Qf4+ Ke6 15.Qf5+ Kd6 16.Rd1+ Kc7 17.Qe5+ Bd6 18.Bxd8+, winning) 11.Qb3+ Ke8 12.Qxb4 cxb2 13.Bxb2, which favors White.
9.Kf2?!
9.Bd2 Qc5 10.Qe2 is equal after 10…a5 (versus b2-b4) or 10…Bg4. White’s development is still worth about a pawn.
9…Bc5 10.Ne5
10.Nxd4 Qb4! wins a piece. For example, 11.Qd3 b5.
10…d3+! 11.Kf1
11.Kf3? Bd4! 12.Nxf7 Qh5+.
11…0-0 12.Nxd3 Be6 13.Bd2 Qd8 14.Bb3 Nd7
And Black obviously stands much better, since White has no attack, his e-pawn is weak, and his king is exposed.
Anti-Colle: 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 Bg4 (D04)
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 Bg4
The pin on the knight is a popular scheme for Black. White should now abandon the Colle plan in favor of a light-square strategy with c2-c4, but even so Black has a comfortable position.
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 Bg4 4.c4
Other moves by White are relatively harmless:
A) 4.Nbd2 e6 5.h3 (for 5.Bd3 see 4.Bd3) 5…Bh5
and White can play:
A1) 6.c4 c5 7.cxd5 exd5 8.Qa4+ Nbd7 9.Ne5 a6 10.dxc5 Bxc5 11.Nxd7 Nxd7 12.b4 Be7 13.Bb2 0-0=, Pita-Pomar Salamanca, Madrid 1943;
A2) 6.c3 Nbd7 7.Bd3 (7.Qb3 Nb6 8.a4 a5=) 7…e5! with good play;
A3) 6.g4 Bg6 7.Bg2 Nbd7 8.Nh4, Krause-Michalik, Verden 1996; and here 8…Be4!= with the idea 9.f3 Nh5!;
A4) 6.Be2 c5 7.0-0 Nc6 8.Ne5 Bxe2 9.Qxe2 cxd4 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.exd4 Be7=, Rossetto-Stein, Amsterdam Interzonal 1964.
B) 4.h3 Bxf3 (Black can play 4…Bh5, but the capture introduces a thematic plan worth knowing) 5.Qxf3
5…c6 (5…e6 is more flexible. It may transpose, but it also leaves the option of meeting White’s natural plan of 6.c4 with 6…c5, which should be satisfactory for Black) 6.c4 e6 (6…g6 is a variation of the Schlechter Slav Defence) 7.Nc3 Nbd7 with the idea …Bd6, …0-0 and …e7-e5, preceded by …dxc4 if necessary. For example, 8.Bd3 Bd6 9.0-0 (9.e4 e5! 10.exd5 exd4=) 9…0-0 10.e4 (10.b3 dxc4 11.bxc4 e5 12.Bb2 Qe7 is a typical formation) 10…dxe4 (10…dxc4 11.Bxc4 e5) 11.Nxe4 Nxe4 12.Qxe4 Nf6 13.Qe2 Re8 intending …e7-e5. White has a formal edge in this type of position, but not a serious one;
C) 4.b3 e6 5.Bb2 (a sort of Colle-Zukertort Opening) 5…c5 6.Be2 Nc6 7.Nbd2 cxd4 8.exd4 Qa5!? (8…Bd6 9.0-0 0-0 is at least equal) 9.a3 Rc8 10.0-0 Bd6 11.c4 Bf4= Vanek-Hromadka, Brno 1921;
D) 4.Bd3 misplaces the bishop slightly: 4…Nc6! 5.0-0?! (5.Bb5 e6 6.Nbd2 Be7 7.c4 0-0=) 5…e5! 6.dxe5 Nxe5 7.Be2 Bxf3 8.Bxf3 (Perez-Fadel, Uzes Open 1989) 8…Bc5, with the superior center and the freer game.
4…c6
4…Bxf3!? 5.Qxf3 e6 is also possible.
5.cxd5
White gains little from 5.Qb3 Qb6 6.Qxb6 (6.Ne5 Bf5 is equal) 6…axb6 7.Ne5 Bf5.
5…cxd5 6.Qb3
6…Qc7!?
Attacking the bishop on c1. A simpler solution is 6…Bxf3 7.Qxb7 (7.gxf3 Qd7) 7…Bxg2 8.Bxg2 Nbd7=.
7.Nc3
7.Bb5+ Nc6 8.Ne5 Bd7 (or 8…a6 9.Bxc6+ bxc6) 9.Nxd7 Qxd7 10.0-0 e6 is equal.
7…Bxf3 8.gxf3 e6 9.Bd2 Nc6 10.Rc1 Be7
With balanced play. White has the bishop pair, but a poor pawn structure (weak kingside).
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 g6
The Grünfeld formation is one of the best defenses against the Colle System and virtually guarantees Black a good game. Even the most enthusiastic supporters of the Colle system, such as David Rudel in his book Zuke ‘Em, admit this is the case.
1.d4 d5
Or, if you prefer 1…Nf6 defenses, 1…Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.e3 transposes. If White tries to set up a Stonewall formation with 2.e3, then one approach is 2…g6 3.f4 d6 (naturally, 3…d5 isn’t bad, but Black wants to stop Nf3-e5) 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Bd3 0-0 6.0-0 c5 (or 6…Nc6 7.c3 e5=) 7.Nbd2 and again, 7…Nc6! prepares …e7-e5, while 8.dxc5 (or 8.c3 e5!) 8…dxc5 9.Ne4 Nxe4 10.Bxe4 Qb6 gives Black free play and the better chances.
2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 g6
Black plays in a Grünfeld Defense or King’s Indian fashion. This one of the simplest and soundest defenses to the Classical Colle. 3…c5 4.c3 Nbd7 5.Nbd2 g6 transposes to the main line.
4.Bd3
A) White’s last logical chance to bypass a true Colle would be 4.c4 Bg7 5.Nc3, which is a variation of the Grünfeld that is considered harmless. In fact, White almost never plays against the Grünfeld this way. The normal line is 5…0-0 6.Be2 c5 (or 6…dxc4 7.Bxc4 a6 8.a4 c5=) 7.0-0 cxd4 8.exd4 Nc6=, a Tarrasch Queen’s Gambit with colors reversed;
B) 4.b3 (The Rubinstein Attack is particularly ineffective against the Grünfeld setup) 4…Bg7 5.Bb2 0-0 6.Nbd2 c5 7.Bd3 Nc6 8.0-0 e5! 9.Nxe5 Nxe5 10.dxe5 Ng4, with an edge for Black, Galliamova-Skripchenko, Halle 2000.
4…Bg7 5.c3 Nbd7 6.Nbd2
6.b4 (to prevent …c5) 6…0-0 (6…a5 is also good) 7.Nbd2 c6 8.0-0 Re8, intending …e7-e5, is very easy to play, especially as c3 can be exposed on the long diagonal, which discourages dxe5.
6…c5
If Black doesn’t like this move order, he can usually play …c6-c5 earlier and transpose.
7.0-0 0-0
8.e4
White would rather not play this so quickly, given Black’s counterpressure in the center, but the options are unattractive:
A) 8.Qe2 Re8 has the idea of …e7-e5, with Black’s rook opposing White’s queen: 9.e4 e5! 10.dxe5 Nxe5!? (10…Nxe4 is perhaps best: 11.Nxe4 dxe4 12.Bxe4 Nxe5 13.Nxe5 Bxe5 threatens …Bh2+ or …Qh4 and 14.f4? of Colle-Fairhurst, Scarborough 1927, fails most easily to 14…Bxc3! 15.bxc3 Bf5. Here 14.g3 was still equal) 11.Nxe5 Rxe5 12.f4 Rh5!
13.e5!? (13.h3 c4 14.Bc2 Bf8! and …Bc5) 13…c4 14.Bc2 Ng4 15.Nf3 Qb6+ 16.Kh1 f6 17.exf6 Qxf6 18.Qe8+ Qf8=;
B) 8.b4!? is a common idea, when 8…b6 is completely equal, and Black can be more ambitious with 8…c4 (8…e5!? 9.Nxe5 Nxe5 10.dxe5 Ng4 11.bxc5 Nxe5 12.Be2 Qc7=) 9.Bc2 e5! 10.Nxe5 (10.dxe5 Ng4 and …Ngxe5) 10…Nxe5 11.dxe5 Ng4 12.Nf3 Nxe5 13.Nd4 Re8 and White has d4, but otherwise Black controls more space and is more active.
8…dxe4
Another interesting line is 8…cxd4 9.e5 (otherwise on 9.cxd4 Black isolates White’s QP under very favorable circumstances by 9…dxe4 10.Nxe4 Nxe4 11.Bxe4 Nf6 12.Bc2 Be6!, O’Sullivan-Pachman, Hilversum 1947) 9…Nh5 10.cxd4 Nf4 11.Bc2 f6, when 12.exf6 Nxf6 13.Ne5 Nd7 14.Ndf3 leaves White with a limited edge.
9.Nxe4 cxd4 10.Nxd4
Black can be quite happy with 10.cxd4 Nxe4 11.Bxe4 Nf6 12.Bd3 Bg4 or 13…Nd5.
10…Nxe4
10…e5 is at least playable. For example, 11.Nb5 Nxe4 12.Bxe4 Nf6.
11.Bxe4 Nf6!?
Another equalizing sequence is 11…Nc5 12.Bc2 (12.Bf3 e5 13.Nb3 Nd3) 12…e5 (12…b6=) 13.Nb3 (13.Nb5 Bd7 14.Nd6 Qc7) 13…Ne6!? intending …b7-b6.
12.Bf3!?
12.Bc2 e5 13.Nf3 Qc7=.
12…e5! 13.Nb5 Qb6!?
There are two more promising ideas:
A) 13…Bd7 has the idea 14.Qb3 (14.Nd6 Qc7) 14…e4 15.Be2 a6 16.Nd6 Be6 17.Qa3 Qc7;
B) 13…Qa5, with the idea 14.a4 a6 15.b4 Qd8, favors Black, who has the superior center and will open his long diagonal with …e5-e4.
14.a4 Rd8?
14…e4=.
15.Qe1?
15.a5! Rxd1 16.axb6 Rxf1+ 17.Kxf1 a6 18.Nd6 with a clear advantage.
15…e4! 16.Be2 a6 17.Be3 Qc6
Black’s command of space gives him good play.
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5
The Budapest is a perfectly respectable opening for Black, and White has no clear path to a significant advantage. The fact that such top players as Ivanchuk and Short have adopted the opening is indicative. Still, many inexperienced players are thrown for a loop by 2…e5, so we’d like to recommend a line that is safe and offers a small edge.
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6
4…Bb4+ is the alternative way to play.
For example, 5.Nc3 (5.Nd2 is also good, probably transposing to the main line) 5…Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Qe7 7.Nf3 (7.Qd5 f6 8.exf6 Nxf6 9.Qd3 d6 10.g3 Bg4 11.Bg2. White’s bishops provide some hope for an advantage, Aronian-Ivanchuk, London 2013) 7…Nc6 8.Qd5 f6 9.exf6 Nxf6 10.Qd3 d6 11.g3 0-0 12.Bg2 Bg4 13.0-0 Rae8 was reached in Aronian-Ivanchuk by transposition. Now the question is, which rook should White bring to e1? Given the presence of open b- and d- files, we think that the king’s rook is a better choice: 14.Rfe1 Nd7 15.Nd4 Nce5 16.Qb1 Rb8 17.h3
, Johansson-Percze, IECG email 2005.
5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.e3 Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.Be2 0-0 10.0-0
For once, we’ve chosen a main line. White simply develops following the standard opening rules. This position has arisen many hundreds of times in master praxis; it is somewhat better for White, and quite safe. Rather than analyze it thoroughly, we’ll just give a couple of excerpts to get you started.
10…Bxd2
Black has options, but this move and the next are the most common. Black exchanges because White was intending Nb3, stranding the bishop in an awkward position on b4.
11.Qxd2 d6
This is where White needs to choose a plan, and we recommend advancing on the queenside to gain an advantage in space.
12.b4
12…Rd8
Normunds Miezis has tried other moves, without much success:
A) 12…Be6 13.Qc3 (13.c5! Rfd8 14.cxd6 is a better way to play) 13…f6 14.Rac1 b6 15.a3 a5 16.c5 axb4 17.axb4 bxc5 18.bxc5 Ra2 19.Rc2 Rxc2 20.Qxc2 Rd8 21.Ra1 Bf7 22.h3 g6 23.Qc3 Kg7 24.Ra7 with pressure, Smirnov-Miezis, Tallinn 2005;
B) 12…f6 13.Qc3 Bd7 14.Bg3 Rae8 15.Rac1 (15.Rfd1!?) 15…Be6 16.a3 Bf7 17.c5 d5 18.c6 b6 19.Rfd1. White’s bishops provide an advantage, Mikhalevski-Miezis, Dieren 1997.
13.Qc3 f6 14.Rfd1 Bf5 15.Rd2 Bg6 16.Rad1 Bf7 17.a3
White’s pieces are better placed and he controls greater space on the queenside, so he has the better prospects, Bluvshtein-Miezis, Calvia Olympiad 2004.
1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4
The Wade Defense had a period of high popularity in the 1990s, when even some top grandmasters were playing it, mainly via the move order 1.Nf3 d6 2.d4 Bg4. It isn’t seen as much now at the master level and above, partly because Black so often has to exchange his bishop and give White the advantage of the bishop pair.
Still, the Wade is a solid choice for Black if he’s willing to accept a minor positional disadvantage. Sometimes a capture on f3 will lead to Black achieving …e7-e5. More often, Black will adopt a small center approach with …e7-e6, now that the queen’s bishop is gone and won’t be hemmed in on c8. One downside of this strategy is that White is able to grab the center.
Ponomariov – Grischuk
Khanty-Mansiysk 2005
1.d4 d6 2.Nf3
2.e4 is a Pirc Defense and 2.c4 is often answered by 2…e5, since the endgame after 3.dxe5 dxe5 4.Qxd8+ Kxd8 is considered harmless. That’s why you’ll see 2.Nf3 in many games.
2…Bg4
2…Nc6 is another form of the Dark Knight defense.
3.e4
Direct occupation of the center makes the most sense for the average player and gives White some advantage. So do other moves. Very briefly:
A) 3.Nbd2 defends the knight at f3 and prevents doubled pawns. For example, 3…Nf6 4.h3 Bh5 5.g4 Bg6 6.Bg2 c6 7.Nh4, Larsen-Hodgson, London 1991, where the best reply, according to Larsen, is 7…e6, but 8.Nxg6 hxg6 9.g5 Nh5 10.Nf3 is still better for White;
B) 3.c4 with the idea Qb3 is frequently played and also good, but gives Black more options. For example, 3…Nd7 and 3…Nf6, so it may not be worth playing. One high-level example was 3…Bxf3 4.exf3 c6 5.Nc3 Nd7 6.Be2 g6 7.0-0 Bg7 8.Be3 Ngf6 9.d5 0-0 10.Qb3 Qb8 and White stood a bit better, Gelfand-Ivanchuk, Belgrade 1997;
C) 3.Qd3 covers f3, but also contains a threat to win a pawn: 3…e6? (3…c6 4.e4 with a central advantage; 3…Nf6 4.e4 is similar to 3.e4) 4.Qb5+! Nc6 5.Qxb7 Nge7 6.c3 and Black has a little compensation for the pawn, but not enough.
3…Nf6
By far the main move and most challenging, attacking e4. Rarely seen are:
A) 3…e5? transposes to a line of the Philidor Defense made famous by the following Morphy masterpiece which we’ve also cited elsewhere: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Bg4? 4.dxe5 Bxf3 5.Qxf3 dxe5 6.Bc4 Nf6 7.Qb3 Qe7 8.Nc3!? (8.Qxb7 Qb4+ 9.Qxb4 Bxb4+ 10.Bd2) 8…c6 9.Bg5 b5? 10.Nxb5! cxb5 11.Bxb5+ Nbd7 12.0-0-0 Rd8 13.Rxd7! Rxd7 14.Rd1 Qe6 15.Bxd7+ Nxd7 16.Qb8+! Nxb8 17.Rd8+, Morphy-Isouard, Paris 1858. See the section on the Philidor: Albin-Blackburne Gambit in the ‘Ugly Black Openings’ part;
B) 3…Nd7 4.h3 (4.c4) 4…Bh5 5.Nc3 e6 6.Bd3 Be7 7.Qe2 c6 8.g4 Bg6 9.Bf4 h5 10.0-0-0, with a clear advantage for White in Kasparov-Oblitas Guerrero, Lima 1993;
C) 3…e6 4.c4 (or 4.h3 Bh5 5.Nc3) 4…Nf6 5.Nc3 c6 6.h3 Bh5 7.d5 (7.Be2 with an edge) 7…e5 8.Be2, Stohl-Hort, Tilburg 1992.
4.Nc3
4.Nbd2 is a good alternative, and Kasparov used the move 4.h3 successfully in Kasparov-Anand, Paris 1992: 4…Bh5 5.Bd3 e6 6.c4!? (or 6.0-0) 6…Be7 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.Be3 0-0 9.Qe2 Bg6 10.Rd1 d5 11.cxd5 exd5 12.e5 Ne4 13.0-0 Qd7 14.Bc1! with a limited but definite advantage.
4…e6 5.Be2
This is very quiet, and White cannot hope for more than a small advantage. Another example is 5.h3 Bh5 6.Qe2 c6 (versus Qb5+) 7.g4 Bg6 8.Bg5 (8.h4! h6 9.h5 Bh7 10.g5 hxg5 11.Bxg5) 8…Be7 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 10.h4 h6, which is roughly equal, I.Rogers-Milos, Manila Olympiad 1992.
5…Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.h3 Bh5 8.Be3 c6 9.Nd2!?
This is safe, and slightly better for White because of his superior center.
9…Bxe2 10.Nxe2 d5 11.e5 Nfd7 12.Nf4
12.c4 is a good alternative, since 12…c5? (12…dxc4 13.Nxc4 Nb6) 13.cxd5 exd5 14.Nf3 Nc6 15.Nf4 gives White a big advantage.
12…c5 13.c3 Nc6 14.Qg4
Going directly for the king.
14…cxd4 15.cxd4 Nb4 16.Nh5 g6 17.Bh6 Re8 18.Ng7 Bf8?
18…Rf8 may leave White nothing better than to reset with 19.Nh5 Re8, and then switch to 20.a3 Nc6 21.Nf3 with a small advantage.
19.Bg5! Be7 20.Nxe8 Bxg5 21.Nf3 Be7 22.Nd6 Qb6 23.Qf4 Rf8 24.Qh6!?
24.Rfd1! with material and position.
24…f6 25.Rac1 Nc6?!
25…Bxd6 26.exd6 Qxd6 27.Rc3⩱.
26.Rc3
26.exf6! Bxf6 27.Qe3.
26…fxe5 27.dxe5 Qa6 28.Ng5 Bxg5 29.Qxg5 Nd4? 30.Rc7 Ne2+ 31.Kh2 Nf4 32.Rfc1
1-0