Queen's Gambit Declined

[D30−39] [D50−59] [E01−09]

Written by GM Ruslan Scherbakov

Last updated Monday, November 29, 2004

XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwqkvlntr0
9zppzp-+pzpp0
9-+-+p+-+0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzP-+PzPPzP0
9tRNvLQmKLsNR0
xiiiiiiiiy

T
he solid, classical, reply to 1 d4. Black defends his outpost in the centre and
looks to develop his kingside as quickly as possible. Perhaps not the most
exciting of variations, and one that will mostly appeal to positional players.
Black will normally aim to equalise, and must be wary of the Minority Attack.

All the games given in blue can be accessed via [Link], simply head for their
respective ECO code.
 Contents

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwqkvlntr0
9zppzp-+pzpp0
9-+-+p+-+0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzP-+PzPPzP0
9tRNvLQmKLsNR0
xiiiiiiiiy

3 ¤c3
3 ¤f3 ¤f6 4 g3 ¥e7 5 ¥g2 E01-E09 Catalan Opening

3...¤f6
3...c5 4 cxd5 exd5 (4...cxd4 D32 QGD/1−Shara−Hennig Gambit) 5 ¤f3 (5 dxc5 D32 QGD/2
Tarrasch Defence−Various White's moves) 5...¤c6 6 g3 ¤f6 (6...c4 7 ¥g2 ¥b4 D33
QGD/3 Tarrasch Defence−Swedish Variation) 7 ¥g2 ¥e7 8 0-0 0-0 9 ¥g5 with:
9...cxd4 D34 QGD/5 Tarrasch Defence−Main Lines 9. ¥g5 cd4
9...c4 D34 QGD/4 Tarrasch Defence−Main Lines 9. ¥g5 c4

4 ¤f3
4 cxd5 exd5 5 ¥g5 ¥e7 6 e3
a) 6...0-0 7 ¥d3 c6 8 ¤ge2 ¤bd7 9 £c2 (9 ¤g3 D35 QGD/6 Exchange Variation−Various
lines with ¤g1-e2) 9...¦e8 D36 QGD/7 Exchange Variation−Main lines with ¤g1-
e2
b) 6...¤bd7 7 ¥d3 (7 ¤f3 c6 8 £c2 D36 QGD/8 Exchange Variation−various lines with ¤g1-
f3) 7...0-0 8 ¤f3 ¦e8 9 0-0 D36 QGD/9 Exchange Variation−main lines ¤g1-f3 and
0-0

4...¥e7

2
 XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwqk+-tr0
9zppzp-vlpzpp0
9-+-+psn-+0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-sN-+N+-0
9PzP-+PzPPzP0
9tR-vLQmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

4...c6 5 ¥g5 ¤bd7 6 e3 £a5 7 cxd5 (7 ¤d2 D52 QGD/14 Cambridge Springs−9. ¤d2 +
other moves) 7...¤xd5 8 £d2 D52 QGD/15 & 16 Cambridge Springs−9. cd5

5 ¥f4
5 ¥g5 0-0 6 e3 h6 7 ¥h4 b6 (7...¤e4 D56/7 QGD/17 & 18 Lasker's Defence) 8 ¥d3 ¥b7
D58 QGD/19 & 20 Tartakower System

5...0-0 6 e3 c5
6...c6 7 £c2 D37 QGD/10 5. ¥f4− without ...c7−c5

7 dxc5 ¥xc5 8 £c2

8 ¦c1 D37 QGD/11 5. ¥f4 0−0 6. e3 c5 various White systems

8...¤c6 9 a3
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9zpp+-+pzpp0
9-+n+psn-+0
9+-vlp+-+-0
9-+P+-vL-+0
9zP-sN-zPN+-0
9-zPQ+-zPPzP0
9tR-+-mKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

9...£a5 10 0-0-0
10 ¤d2 D37 QGD/13 5. ¥f4 0−0 6. e3 c5 the lines with Qd1−c2 and 0−0

10...¥e7 D37 QGD/12 5. ¥f4 0−0 6. e3 c5 the line Qd1−c2 and 10. 0-0-0

3
Press F5 to toggle the Navigation Pane, then click on the appropriate bookmark to go
straight to that section.
Ctrl + 2 resizes the page.

All rights reserved [Link] Ltd

4
 Tarrasch Defence

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 c5

XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwqkvlntr0
9zpp+-+pzpp0
9-+-+p+-+0
9+-zpp+-+-0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-sN-+-+-0
9PzP-+PzPPzP0
9tR-vLQmKLsNR0
xiiiiiiiiy

This defence (or, rather, counter attack) became famous in 1887−1889 when
Siegbert Tarrasch used it in a couple of games. He considered 3...c5 to be the only move
which could help Black to achieve active counterplay. In doing so he allows the isolation of
his d−pawn after which his minor pieces can be developed much more actively than in the
"orthodox" systems, especially the bishop on c8 and the knight on b8.
After years of success with the move 3 ...c5, many respected players of that time
agreed with Tarrasch, (who considered the modest 4 e3 to be the best reply to his invention)
that the isolated d−pawn is not a weakness.
However a new set−up which was introduced by Carl Schlechter in Prague 1908 and
then developed by Akiba Rubinstein and Richard Réti struck a severe blow to the Tarrasch
Defence. It was connected with a fianchetto of the White Bishop by g2−g3 and Bf1−g2
which exerts additional pressure on the isolated pawn as well as reducing Black's active
possibilities on the kingside. After numerous examples of Black losing the game without
making any visible mistake, but rather just because the defects of his pawn structure
eventually told due to White's not only strong but accurate play, the defence lost its

5
popularity. Tarrasch himself made a lot of effort to prove that comfortable development
should compensate for the isolated d−pawn, but while he improved some lines, tournament
statistics relentlessly verified Black's failures and the defence began disappearing from
practice.
A long time has passed and a lot of variations have been reappraised. Nowadays the
Tarrasch Defence is still not very popular in spite of it being in the repertoire of Garry
Kasparov in the first half of 1980's when he used it on his way to the World Title. The
problem is still the same − Black should maintain the initiative with high creativity and
precision but just one mistake may force him to switch to an unpleasant defence. This is
obviously not to everyone's taste. However if the weapon is well−polished it may work very
well− there are lots of lines where White' simple and accurate play leads nowhere. He
should not only be generally well prepared but demonstrate something more than official
theoretical advice in order to prove an advantage. Just like in the almost every opening ...

6
 QGD/1 − Shara−Hennig Gambit [D32]

Last updated: 13/02/02 by [Link]

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 c5 4 cxd5 cxd4

XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwqkvlntr0
9zpp+-+pzpp0
9-+-+p+-+0
9+-+P+-+-0
9-+-zp-+-+0
9+-sN-+-+-0
9PzP-+PzPPzP0
9tR-vLQmKLsNR0
xiiiiiiiiy

The Shara−Hennig (or Von Hennig−Shara) Gambit. Thanks to a rather witty pawn
sacrifice, Black gains an advantage in development and takes the initiative. However
both theory and practice seem to prove that White has the better chances.
Nevertheless in many lines very sharp positions can arise and White needs to know
exactly what to do.

5 £a4+
5 £xd4 can lead to the main line after 5...¤c6 6 £d1 exd5 7 £xd5
a) From the 1930s to the 1950s the ending after 7...¥e6?! 8 £xd8+ ¦xd8 was thoroughly
tested and it was proved to be favourable for White after 9 e3 ¤b4 10 ¥b5+ ¢e7
a1) 11 ¢e2? is much weaker as after 11...¤c2 12 ¦b1 a6 there is no good square for the
bishop: 13 ¥a4 (13 ¥d3 ¤b4) 13...¥c4+ 14 ¢f3 ¤e1+ 15 ¢g3 ¦d6 16 f4 ¦g6+ 17
¢f2 ¤d3+ 18 ¢f3 ¤e1+ with the repetition of moves
a2) 11 ¢f1! 11...¤f6 (11...a6 12 ¥e2 g5 13 ¤f3 ¤c2 14 ¦b1 h6 15 ¤e1±) 12 ¤f3 ¤c2 13 ¦b1 ¥f5
14 ¥d2!± and Black doesn't have sufficient compensation for the pawn
b) 7...¥d7 and so on.

5...¥d7
The surprising 5...b5?! is probably worse: 6 £xd4 (White should not capture on b5: 6
£xb5+? ¥d7 7 £b7 dxc3 8 £xa8 cxb2 9 ¥xb2 £a5+ 10 ¢d1 ¥a4+ 11 ¢c1 £e1#

7
or 6 ¤xb5? ¥d7 7 dxe6 fxe6 followed by ...a6 and ...Qb6)
a) 6...b4? is bad due to 7 ¤b5! a6 (7...exd5 8 £xd5+−) 8 dxe6!+− and White is winning
b) 6...¤c6 7 £d2 exd5 8 £xd5 ¥d7 and now White can play 9 ¥g5 (9 £e4+? ¥e7 10 ¥g5 h6
11 ¥xe7 ¤gxe7©) 9...¤f6 10 ¥xf6 £xf6 11 e3± with a clear advantage.

6 £xd4 exd5 7 £xd5

XIIIIIIIIY
9rsn-wqkvlntr0
9zpp+l+pzpp0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+Q+-+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-sN-+-+-0
9PzP-+PzPPzP0
9tR-vL-mKLsNR0
xiiiiiiiiy

7...¤f6
7...¤c6 usually lead to the same variations after
a) 8 ¥g5 is weaker: 8...¤f6 9 £d2 £a5!? 10 ¥xf6 (10 £e3+!? is probably better although
after 10...¥e7 11 ¥xf6 gxf6 12 ¤f3 ¤b4ƒ Black has certain initiative to compensate for
the pawn) 10...gxf6 11 ¤d5? The text move allows Black to launch a very strong
attack with the queen's off. (11 ¤f3 seems to be safer but anyhow Black's initiative
looks to be more than sufficient to compensate for his minor material loss after 11...0-
0-0) 11...£xd2+ 12 ¢xd2 0-0-0 13 ¢c1 ¥h6+! 14 e3 ¥f5 15 ¤c3 ¦he8! Suddenly
the White king finds himself in big trouble: Rxe3 is threatened! 16 b3 and here in the
game Avrukh − Novgorodskij/Alma−Ata 1991 the king was invited to go for a walk
by 16...¦xe3!! 17 fxe3 ¥xe3+ 18 ¢b2 ¦d2+ 19 ¢a3 ¥c5+‚ with very strong attack.
b) 8 e3
b1) 8...¥b4 is weaker: 9 ¤f3 £e7 10 ¥e2 0-0-0 11 £b3 ¤f6 12 0-0 g5 In this standard
position the bishop is usually on c5. This difference favours White a great deal: 13
¤d4! ¤xd4 (13...g4 14 ¥d2 and White is clearly better) 14 exd4 ¥c6 15 ¥e3 ¥d6 16
¦fd1 ¤d5 17 ¤xd5 ¥xd5 18 ¦ac1+ ¢b8 19 ¥c4± with a huge advantage
b2) 8...¤f6
b2a) 9 £b3 is a promising plan, too: 9...¥c5 10 ¤f3 £e7 11 ¥e2 0-0-0 12 0-0 (By means of
12 a3 followed by Qc2 and b4 White can switch to the plan which was tried in the
game Grabliauskas − Hector/Copenhagen 1998) 12...g5
b2a1) 13 ¥d2!? is a good alternative: 13...g4 14 ¤d4 ¦hg8 (neither 14...¤xd4 15 exd4 ¥xd4 16
¥f4
nor 14...¥xd4 15 exd4 ¤xd4 16 £c4+ ¥c6 17 ¦fe1 solve Black's problems) 15 ¦ac1 ¢b8 16 ¦fd1
and White looks clearly better here but Black's play can probably be improved upon

8
b2a2) 13 ¤d4!?
b2a21) 13...¤xd4?! is dubious as 14 exd4 ¥xd4 15 ¥xg5 ¦hg8?! can be strongly met by
(15...¥c6 16 ¥b5!?) 16 ¥f3! ¥e6 17 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 18 ¤d5 with a huge advantage
b2a22) 13...¥xd4 14 exd4 ¤xd4 15 £c4+ ¥c6 16 ¥e3 £e5 (in case of 16...£e6?! 17 ¥xd4
£xc4 18 ¥xc4 ¦xd4 19 ¥xf7 ¦d2 20 b4 Black does not get sufficient compensation for the
pawn) 17 ¦ad1 ¤xe2+ 18 ¤xe2 ¦xd1 19 ¦xd1 This position arose in the game
Moreno − Vilela/La Habana (m/2) 1996. Despite of his good−looking pieces Black
still has the problems. He suffers not so much because of his slightly exposed king,
but because his kingside pawn structure is weak thanks to his 'active' g−pawn.
b2b) 9 £d1 9...¥c5 10 ¤f3 and so on.

8 £d1
Another retreat 8 £b3 ¤c6 9 e3 was just considered above.

8...¥c5 9 e3 ¤c6 10 ¤f3 £e7 11 ¥e2

White also tried 11 a3 0-0-0
a) 12 b4 ¥b6 13 £c2 ¢b8 14 ¥e2 g5 usually leads to similar positions. The attempt to
achieve more with 15 ¤a4 (15 ¥b2 g4 16 ¤d2) 15...¥c7 16 ¥b2 g4 17 ¤d4 fails to
17...¤xd4 18 ¥xd4 ¥xa4 19 £xa4 ¦xd4! 20 exd4 £e4 21 ¢f1 ¥b6÷ with very
unclear play, where Black seems to be at least not worse
b) 12 £c2
b1) Black can also try 12...¢b8 After the possible 13 ¥e2 g5 14 b4 g4 15 ¤d2 ¥d6 (15...¥b6
16 ¤a4!?) 16 ¤c4 ¥c7 17 ¥b2 a key position in this line arises. Practice has shown
that Black has acceptable play although White's chances are probably slightly better.
b2) 12...g5 13 ¥e2 g4 14 ¤h4!? A new idea − the knight blockades the Black's kingside
pawns and at the same time keeps an eye on the square f5. Nevertheless this looks
rather risky as the knight is offside and in the game Grabliauskas −
Hector/Copenhagen 1998 Black proved his superiority by playing 14...¢b8 15 ¥d2
¦c8 16 ¦d1 ¤e5 and so on.

11...0-0-0 12 0-0 g5

9
 XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-tr0
9zpp+lwqp+p0
9-+n+-sn-+0
9+-vl-+-zp-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-sN-zPN+-0
9PzP-+LzPPzP0
9tR-vLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

Starting immediate actions against White king.

13 b4!?
Recently this is one of White's most promising attempts to gain the advantage. He gives the
pawn back and tries to start an attack against the Black king, who can easily become
vulnerable as he is not well protected by pawns.
White can also try 13 ¤d4!? g4 14 b4! The position after 14...¥xb4 (in my opinion,
14...¤xd4!? 15 exd4 ¥xb4 is a more precise move order) 15 £b3 (15 ¥b2 could transpose
to the game) 15...¤xd4 16 exd4 ¥e6 17 £b2!ƒ is known to be in White's favour

13...¥xb4
13...g4 has also been played. White can win another pawn with 14 bxc5 (the position after
the more reliable 14 ¤d4!? was considered in the previous note) 14...gxf3 15 ¥xf3 but
after 15...¤e5© Black's pieces become very active.

14 ¥b2 g4 15 ¤d4 h5
15...¤xd4? is bad for Black due to 16 £xd4 ¥c5 17 ¤d5! ¤xd5 18 ¦ac1 ¥c6 19 ¦xc5+−
with an almost decisive advantage
after 15...¦hg8 16 ¤cb5 ¢b8 17 £b3 ¤e4 18 ¦fc1ƒ White also takes the initiative
the immediate 15...¢b8!? looks logical. After possible 16 ¤cb5 a6 17 ¤xc6+ ¥xc6 18 ¤d4
¥d5 19 ¥d3 ¦hg8„ Black can obtain a good counterplay

16 ¤cb5 ¢b8
16...¥c5?! is bad for Black due to 17 £c2‚ followed by Rc1 with a strong attack.

17 £a4 a6 18 ¤xc6+ ¥xc6 19 ¥xf6

It seems that White has solved all the problems and retains an extra pawn, but in actuality
the real fight only begins now.

10
19...£e4!!
XIIIIIIIIY
9-mk-tr-+-tr0
9+p+-+p+-0
9p+l+-vL-+0
9+N+-+-+p0
9Qvl-+q+p+0
9+-+-zP-+-0
9P+-+LzPPzP0
9tR-+-+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

The routine 19...£xf6? 20 £xb4 axb5 21 ¥xb5 is unsatisfactory for Black.

20 f3
By means of 20 ¥e5+ ¢a8 (20...£xe5? 21 £xb4 axb5 22 ¦fb1) 21 ¤c7+ ¢a7 22 ¤b5+ ¢a8=
White can force a draw.

20...£xe3+ 21 ¢h1 £xe2 22 £xb4 gxf3!?

A tempting 22...¦d2 can be strongly met by 23 £f4+ ¢a8 24 ¤c7+ ¢a7 25 ¥d4+ b6 26
¥f2 gxf3 27 g3 ¦hd8! 28 ¤d5!! (28 ¤e6? £xe6 28 ¦ab1?? £xf2!) 28...¦8xd5 29 £c7+
¥b7 30 £xb6+ ¢b8 and here both 31 ¢g1 (and 31 ¦ac1 give White a strong
initiative)

23 £f4+ ¢a8 24 ¤c7+ ¢a7

XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-tr-+-tr0
9mkpsN-+p+-0
9p+l+-vL-+0
9+-+-+-+p0
9-+-+-wQ-+0
9+-+-+p+-0
9P+-+q+PzP0
9tR-+-+R+K0
xiiiiiiiiy

11
This position arose in the game Krush − Kapnisis/WCh Boys Oropesa del Mar 1999. In my
opinion White should not waste time capturing on f3 as it does not solve her
problems on the long diagonal. A possible improvement is

25 ¥d4+! b6 26 ¦f2!
and it looks like White has an overwhelming advantage here.

12
QGD/2 Tarrasch Defence − Various White

moves [D32]

Last updated: 07/08/03 by [Link]

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 c5 4 cxd5
Slow development by 4 e3 ¤f6 5 ¤f3 leads to the Symmetrical Tarrasch which generally
doesn't promise too much for both sides. Yet, the typical position with isolated d−
pawn (it may be either White's or Black's one!) requires a good understanding of
such kind of position from both players. In the game Renet − Conquest/Clichy 2001
Black didn't follow the symmetry, having preferred 5...a6, keeping in mind ...d5xc4
followed by ...b7−b5. (5...¤c6 is a common option) 6 cxd5 exd5 7 ¥e2 (Black's
earlier useful ...a7−a6 move has ruled out 7 ¥b5+ ) 7...¤c6 8 0-0 ¥d6 9 dxc5 ¥xc5 10
b3 0-0 11 ¥b2 ¦e8 12 ¦c1 ¥a7 13 ¤a4 ¤e4
a) A fascinating possibility 14 ¥xa6 could have been met by 14...¥xe3! 15 ¦xc6 (15 fxe3
¦xa6) 15...bxc6 16 ¥xc8 ¤xf2! and the position after 17 ¦xf2 £xc8 should be in
Black's favour, although it's not a simple clear−cut matter after 18 ¥d4
b) 14 ¤d4 14...£g5!„ and Black started a typical play on the kingside.

4...exd5
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwqkvlntr0
9zpp+-+pzpp0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-zpp+-+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-sN-+-+-0
9PzP-+PzPPzP0
9tR-vLQmKLsNR0
xiiiiiiiiy

5 dxc5

13
It is interesting to realise this idea with inclusion of the moves Ng1-f3 and Nb8−c6: 5 ¤f3
¤c6 6 dxc5 d4 7 ¤a4
a) There are a lot of alternatives. 7...¥xc5?! leads to quite play with a stable advantage for
White: 8 ¤xc5 £a5+ 9 £d2!? (9 ¥d2 £xc5 10 e3 dxe3 11 ¥xe3 £b4+ 12 £d2 £xd2+ 13
¤xd2 ¤ge7²) 9...£xc5 10 e3 dxe3 11 £xe3+ £xe3+ 12 ¥xe3 ¤ge7 13 ¥c4 ¥e6
(Black should neutralise the bishop but it damages his pawn structure) 14 ¥xe6 fxe6
15 ¤g5 ¢d7 16 0-0-0+ ¤d5 17 ¦he1²
b) Both 7...¥f5
c) and 7...¥g4 were also tested but the problems seemed to be not completely solved.
d) 7...b5! A typical pawn sacrifice. 8 cxb6 axb6 9 e3 ¥b4+ (9...b5? doesn't work due to 10
¥xb5 £a5+ 11 ¤c3!+−) 10 ¥d2
d1) 10...dxe3?! is unsuccessful: 11 ¥xb4 £xd1+ 12 ¦xd1 ¦xa4 13 ¥c3 ¤ge7 (13...exf2+ 14
¢xf2 ¤ge7 15 ¥b5 ¦xa2 16 ¤e5 ¥b7 17 ¦d6+−) 14 fxe3 (here 14 ¥b5 gives nothing:
14...¦xa2 15 ¤e5 ¥b7 and White cannot win the knight on c6 because his rook has to
guard the first rank) 14...¦xa2 (14...0-0 15 a3) 15 ¥xg7 ¦g8 16 ¥c3+− with an almost
decisive advantage.
d2) 10...d3?! cannot bother White very much: 11 ¥xb4 ¤xb4 12 ¤d4 ¤f6 13 ¤c3 0-0 14
¥xd3 ¤xd3+ 15 £xd3 ¥a6 16 ¤cb5 with two extra pawns
d3) finally, 10...¥xd2+? can be simply met by 11 £xd2 ¦xa4 12 ¥b5 winning the piece
back in a favourable situation.
d4) 10...¥d7 The best continuation. 11 ¥b5
d4a) 11...¦a5?! seems to be dubious: 12 ¥xb4 (12 ¥xc6 ¥xd2+ 13 £xd2 ¥xc6 14 b3 ¥xa4 15 bxa4
dxe3 16 £xe3+ £e7 is drawn) 12...¦xb5 13 ¥d2± with a healthy extra pawn in a safe
position
d4b) 11...¤f6
d4b1) 12 0-0!? is probably more testing − it could secure an extra pawn and complete
development. After the possible 12...¥xd2 13 £xd2 ¦a5!? (13...0-0 14 b3) 14 £e2 0-0
15 b3 dxe3 16 fxe3 Black has some compensation for the pawn. He has good pieces
while White should be careful about his e−pawn, but an extra pawn is an extra pawn
− White's chances are preferable.
d4b2) 12 ¥xb4 This capture allows White to gain a big material advantage but the result is
a forced draw. 12...¤xb4 13 ¥xd7+ £xd7 14 ¤xb6 (In the case of 14 b3 dxe3 15 fxe3
¤d3+ followed by ...Rd8 Black has more than enough compensation for the minor
material losses.) 14...£b5 15 ¤xa8 ¤d3+ 16 ¢f1 (Of course, not 16 ¢d2?? ¤e4+ 17
¢c2 0-0!-+ and Black is winning.) 16...¤f4+ and here a draw was agreed in the game
Krasenkow − Halkias/Kavala 2001.
Another curious option is 5 e4

14
 XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwqkvlntr0
9zpp+-+pzpp0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-zpp+-+-0
9-+-zPP+-+0
9+-sN-+-+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9tR-vLQmKLsNR0
xiiiiiiiiy

This gambit was introduced into tournament practice by Frank Marshall at Monte−Carlo
1904. Recently it is out of fashion, which is quite understandable − instead of
sacrificing a pawn White can follow Rubinstein's set−up to pressurize Black in the
Tarrasch Defence. 5...dxe4 6 d5 (the idea 6 ¥c4?! cxd4 7 £b3?! ¤f6! 8 ¥xf7+ ¢e7∓ and
White's resources are not enough to make his action successful, Nadanian −
Godena/EU−ch Saint Vincent 2000)
a) 6...f5 is ambitious but somewhat weakening: 7 ¥f4 (other continuations seem to be
weaker, for example, 7 f3 ¥d6!? 8 ¤h3 ¤f6 9 ¥b5+ ¤bd7 10 fxe4 fxe4 11 ¤g5 a6 12 ¤e6
£e7 and the knight on e6 can easily be neutralized) 7...¥d6 8 ¥b5+ ¢f7 9 ¤h3 ¤f6
10 ¥c4 a6 11 a4 ¦e8 (11...h6!? looks quite good for Black) 12 £d2 £e7 This position
arose in the game Starck − Baumbach/Colditz 1967. A possible knight's raid to e6
may grant White compensation for a pawn, but it can hardly promise White serious
chances to fight for the initiative.
b) 6...¤f6 7 ¥g5 ¥e7 8 ¥b5+ Now Black has a good choice.
b1) The other continuations are also not bad: 8...¥d7 9 d6 (9 ¥c4 ¥f5 is fine for Black)
9...¥xb5 10 dxe7 £xd1+ 11 ¦xd1 ¥d3 12 ¥xf6 gxf6 13 ¤d5 (13 ¤xe4 ¥xe4 14 f3 ¢xe7
15 fxe4 ¤c6) 13...¤a6³
b2) 8...¢f8!? 9 ¤ge2 a6 10 ¥a4 h6 11 ¥h4 b5 12 ¥c2 ¥b7 with a good play for Black
b3) The game Knaak − Baumbach/Frankfurt/Oder 1977 continued 8...¤fd7 This knight's
retreat is double−edged. 9 ¥f4 0-0
b3a) 10 ¤ge2 can be met by 10...a6 11 ¥c4 ¥g5!? 12 £d2 (12 ¤xe4 ¥xf4 13 ¤xf4 ¦e8)
12...¥xf4 13 £xf4 b5 14 ¥b3 f5 and Black's chances look preferable.
b3b) 10 ¤xe4 ¤f6 11 ¤c3 ¥d6 is also in Black's favour
b3c) 10 £d2 10...a6 11 ¥e2 ¤b6!? 12 d6 e3!? A nice counterblow, which damages White's
pawn structure. 13 fxe3 ¥h4+! It is also useful to force some weakening of the
White's K−side. 14 g3 ¥f6 15 h4 (15 ¤e4 could not prevent 15...g5 since after 16 d7
¤8xd7 17 ¤xf6+ £xf6 18 ¥d6 ¦e8 White still couldn't develop his K−side as 19 ¤f3? was
met by 19...¤c4!) and now it seemed better to prevent Nc3−e4 by 15...¥f5!? with
excellent play. (15...¥e6!? was also worthy of consideration.)

5...d4

15
 XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwqkvlntr0
9zpp+-+pzpp0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-zP-+-+-0
9-+-zp-+-+0
9+-sN-+-+-0
9PzP-+PzPPzP0
9tR-vLQmKLsNR0
xiiiiiiiiy

Theory considers the move 5...¤f6 to be a good alternative. In ECO Kasparov gives the
line 6 ¥e3 ¤c6 7 ¤f3 £a5 8 a3 ¤e4 9 ¦c1 ¥e6 10 £a4 £xa4 11 ¤xa4 ¤a5 12 b4
¤c4 13 ¥d4 with 'equality' in a couple of moves, but in my opinion this position is
clearly better for White.

6 ¤e4!?
Recently White prefers to move his knight to the centre of the board, rather than the edge.
This allows Black to restore the material balance but as compensation White tries to
gain other advantages. The idea is not without poison, but does not seem to be a
serious attempt to fight for the advantage. Theory has never seriously considered this
continuation but Black obviously should know what to do.
6 ¤a4 b5! (6...¥xc5?! is weak, after 7 ¤xc5 £a5+ 8 ¥d2 £xc5 9 ¦c1 £f5 10 £a4+ ¤c6 11 ¤f3 £d5
12 e3 dxe3 13 ¥xe3 White obtains a clear advantage) 7 cxb6 axb6
a) 8 £b3?! is too dangerous for White because after 8...b5! 9 £xb5+ ¥d7 10 £e5+ ¥e7 11
b3 ¥xa4 (11...¤c6 followed by ...Nb4 also looks good) 12 bxa4 ¤c6 the attack looks
very strong.
b) 8 b3 The only move to prevent ...b6−b5. 8...¤f6 9 e3 (9 ¤f3 should be met by 9...¤e4! and
the pawn on d4 cannot be taken.)
b1) 9...¥d7 is the main line according to theory but the text move is probably not weaker.
After
b1a) the alternatives are 10 ¤f3 b5 11 ¤b2 dxe3 12 fxe3 (12 ¥xe3 ¥b4+ 13 ¥d2 £e7+ 14 ¥e2
¤e4 15 ¥xb4 £xb4+ 16 ¢f1 0-0 with compensation) 12...¤e4 13 £d4 £a5+ 14 ¤d2 f5
15 £e5+ ¥e7 16 ¥d3 £c3 17 £xc3 ¤xc3 with good compensation for the pawn in
the ending
b1b) and 10 exd4 ¥b4+ 11 ¥d2 £e7+ 12 £e2 ¤e4 13 ¤f3 ¥xa4 14 bxa4 0-0!? with the
initiative
b1c) 10 £xd4 10...¤c6 11 £b2 ¤e4 12 a3 b5 13 ¥d3 f5 14 ¥xe4 fxe4 15 ¤c3 ¤e5 16 ¢f1
¤d3© Black's initiative is probably sufficient compensation for two pawns
b2) 9...¤c6!? An interesting attempt.
b2a) 10 ¤f3!? looks more reliable although Black can achieve good play by 10...b5 11 ¤b2
¥b4+ (11...¤e4!?) 12 ¥d2 dxe3 13 fxe3 £b6 14 ¥xb4 ¤xb4 15 ¤d4 ¥d7 16 ¤d3
¤bd5 followed by ...0-0, ...Rfe8 and so on

16
b2b) 10 ¥b5 10...£d5! 11 £e2 (Of course 11 ¤xb6 £xb5 12 ¤xa8 £a5+ followed by Qxa8 is
not what White is playing for) Here in the game Ruban − Arencibia/Habana 1990
Black came up with excellent 11...¦a5! 12 exd4+ ¢d8!ƒ and seized a strong
initiative.

6...¤c6
The most natural reply.
6...¥f5!? also looks good: 7 ¤g3 (7 ¤d6+ ¥xd6 8 cxd6 £xd6 9 ¤f3 ¤c6 10 ¥d2 ¤f6 11 g3 0-0 12
¥g2 d3! gives Black the better chances) 7...¥e6 and so on.

7 ¤f3 ¥f5 8 ¤g3 ¥g4

XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wqkvlntr0
9zpp+-+pzpp0
9-+n+-+-+0
9+-zP-+-+-0
9-+-zp-+l+0
9+-+-+NsN-0
9PzP-+PzPPzP0
9tR-vLQmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

8...¥g6 9 e4 is in White's favour

but 8...¥e6!? is worthy of consideration.

9 b4!?
An interesting attempt!
9 £b3 does not promise much: 9...£a5+ 10 ¥d2 £xc5 11 ¤g5 (11 £xb7 is risky for White:
11...¦b8 12 £a6 ¤b4 13 £a4+ ¥d7 14 ¥xb4 ¦xb4 with some initiative) 11...¤h6 12 h3
¥c8 13 ¦c1 £b6 14 £xb6 axb6 15 a3 ¥e7 16 ¤f3 ¤f5 with a good ending.
9 £c2!? deserves attention. After 9...¤f6 (if 9...£a5+?! White could hope for a small edge
by playing 10 ¥d2 £xc5 11 £e4+! ¥e6 12 ¤g5) 10 h3 d3!? 11 £xd3 (11 exd3? is hardly
good for White: 11...¥xf3 12 gxf3 ¤d4 and so on) 11...£xd3 12 exd3 ¥xf3 13 gxf3
¥xc5 (13...¤d4 14 ¥e3 ¤c2+ 15 ¢d2 ¤xa1 16 d4 with compensation) 14 ¥e3 White has
the slightly better chances in the ending thanks to his extra pawn, but Black should
be able to hold the balance because White has a lot of weak pawns and a passive
light−squared bishop.

9...¤xb4 10 £a4+ ¤c6 11 ¦b1

11 ¤e5!? is worthy of consideration.

17
11...£d7 12 e3 ¥xf3
12...dxe3 13 ¥xe3 seems to be in White's favour.

13 gxf3 ¥xc5 14 ¤e4 ¥e7 15 ¦g1

XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+k+ntr0
9zpp+qvlpzpp0
9-+n+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9Q+-zpN+-+0
9+-+-zPP+-0
9P+-+-zP-zP0
9+RvL-mKLtR-0
xiiiiiiiiy

After rather logical play an important position was arisen in the game Babula −
Leito/EUCup 1997. The long−range White pieces are very good, but his king is not
totally safe. It seems that Black should be okay but of course concrete and precise
play is required.

18
 QGD/3 Tarrasch Defence − Swedish

Variation [D33]

Last updated: 13/02/02 by [Link]

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 c5 4 cxd5 exd5 5 ¤f3 ¤c6

5...¤f6?! is supposed to be less precise due to 6 ¥g5

6 g3 c4
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqkvlntr0
9zpp+-+pzpp0
9-+n+-+-+0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+pzP-+-+0
9+-sN-+NzP-0
9PzP-+PzP-zP0
9tR-vLQmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

The Swedish Variation. It was introduced and developed by famous Swedish players
Gideon Stahlberg, Erik Lundin and Goesta Stoltz. Black avoids an isolated d−pawn
and his pieces can come into play quickly by ...Bf8−b4 and ...Ng8−e7, after which
Black is not worried about Bc1-g5 in contrast to those lines where the knight is
developed to f6. However the advance ...c5−c4 unties White's hands in the centre
and increases the potential of the d−pawn very much.

7 ¥g2
The immediate 7 e4 is known to be not too dangerous for Black and can be met by the
brave 7...dxe4 8 ¤g5 £xd4!

7...¥b4 8 0-0 ¤ge7

19
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqk+-tr0
9zpp+-snpzpp0
9-+n+-+-+0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-vlpzP-+-+0
9+-sN-+NzP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tR-vLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

9 e4
In case of 9 a3 ¥a5 10 e4 0-0 11 exd5 ¤xd5
a) 12 ¤g5 with the idea of Qc2 can be parried by 12...¤xc3 13 bxc3 (13 £c2? £xg5!! 14 ¥xg5
¤xd4 and the queen is trapped!) 13...¥f5 with good play.
b) 12 ¥g5 the inclusion of the moves a3 and Ba5 allows Black to play 12...¤xc3!? (12...f6 13
¤xd5 £xd5 14 ¥e3) 13 bxc3 f6 14 ¥d2 ¥e6 with acceptable play.
9 ¤e5!? deserves serious attention. White intends to exchange on c6 weakening Black's
pawn structure, then to undermine it with b2−b3 or e2−e4. The game Van Scheltinga
− Stahlberg/Amsterdam 1950 continued by 9...0-0 10 ¤xc6 bxc6 11 e4 (Alternatives
such as 11 ¤a4
or 11 ¥d2 followed by b2−b3 would promise a small edge for White.) 11...¥e6 12 e5!? This
game was played half a century ago but strangely enough in that time, no−one has
repeated this pawn advance. (Recent attempts do not bother Black very much, for
example: 12 ¥f4 ¥xc3 13 bxc3 dxe4 14 ¥xe4 ¥d5 15 f3 ¤g6 16 £d2 ¤xf4 17 £xf4 £a5 18 £d2
¦ab8 and Black has no problems at all) 12...¦b8 (Black has a lot of possible
continuations such as 12...£d7 12...¤f5 and 12...¥f5 which are all worthy of
consideration.) 13 ¤e2! ¥a5 (13...¥f5!? deserves attention.) 14 b3 with certain
advantage.

9...0-0
The main line.
An alternative 9...dxe4 10 ¤xe4 0-0 doesn't promise a full equality due to the strong
a) The alternative 11 a3 ¥a5 12 £a4 ¥g4 13 ¥e3 (13 £xc4 ¥xf3 14 ¥xf3 ¤xd4= followed by
...Rc8 is good for Black) 13...¥b6 is thought not to be dangerous for Black
b) 11 £c2! The main idea is to free the square d1 for the Rook with tempo, after which the
passed d−pawn might become very powerful. Here Black has a lot of possible
continuations.
b1) 11...¤xd4?! is dubious, after 12 ¤xd4 £xd4 13 ¦d1 £e5 14 ¥f4 £h5 15 £xc4 White
wins the pawn back and gains tangible advantage

20
b2) If 11...¥g4 White proves his advantage by the simple 12 £xc4! ¥xf3 13 ¥xf3 £xd4
(13...¤xd4?! is weaker as after 14 ¥g2 ¦c8? does not work due to 15 £xb4 ¤c2 16 ¤f6+!
gxf6 17 £g4+ ¤g6 18 ¦b1 with an almost decisive advantage) 14 £b3 with a certain
edge thanks to the bishop pair
b3) 11...¥f5?! fails because of 12 ¤h4! ¦c8 (12...¥xe4 13 ¥xe4 £xd4 14 ¦d1 12...£xd4 13 ¤xf5
¤xf5 14 ¦d1 £e5 15 £xc4 12...¤xd4 13 £xc4 ¥e6?! 14 £xb4 ¤c2 15 £xb7 ¦b8 16 £xa7 ¤xa1
17 ¥g5 in all case with a certain edge) 13 ¤f6+!± with a clear advantage.
b4) 11...£d5 12 ¥e3 and White achieved better prospects in the game Reshevsky −
Stahlberg/Zurich (izt) 1953.

10 exd5
Another possible way is 10 ¤xd5 ¤xd5 11 exd5 £xd5
a) a good attempt seems to be 12 ¥e3 ¥f5 (If 12...¥g4 White gets the edge by playing 13
¤e5! £xg2+ 14 ¢xg2 ¥xd1 15 ¤xc6 bxc6 16 ¦fxd1 ¥d6 17 ¦ac1 ¦fb8 18 ¦xc4 ¦xb2 19 ¦xc6
¦d8 20 ¦a6) 13 ¤e5 £b5 (13...¥e4?! does not solve Black's problems because of 14
¤xc6! £xc6 15 ¥xe4 £xe4 16 £a4 a5 17 a3 winning the pawn on c4) 14 £f3 ¥d3 15
¤xd3 cxd3 and here a very strong idea 16 £d5! posed certain problems for Black in
the game Becerra Rivero − Palao/Cuba 1995
b) 12 a3 12...¥a5 With this retreat the Bishop doesn't allow the Rook on f1 to go to e1. 13
¤e5 (the sharp 13 ¤g5 £xd4 14 £a4 doesn't bother Black very much, as was proved in
the game Szabo − Bronstein/Amsterdam (ct) 1956) 13...£b5 (of course not
13...£xd4?? 14 ¤xc6+−) 14 a4 £a6 15 ¥e3!? An interesting approach. (White used to
capture on c6, damaging Black's pawn structure but after 15 ¤xc6 bxc6 the weak
pawns at c4, c6, b2 and d4 probably compensate each other.) 15...¥e6 (After
15...¤xe5 16 dxe5 the kingside pawn majority gives White reasonable chances for
attack.) 16 £h5!? A good idea − White begins kingside actions while Black's queen
on a6 and the bishop on a5 are far from their king. 16...¦ad8 17 ¦fd1 and White's
chances look preferable, Lautier − Conquest/Clichy 2001.

10...¤xd5
10...¥xc3? is bad due to 11 dxc6

11 ¥g5

21
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9zpp+-+pzpp0
9-+n+-+-+0
9+-+n+-vL-0
9-vlpzP-+-+0
9+-sN-+NzP-0
9PzP-+-zPLzP0
9tR-+Q+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

A recent attempt − White provokes f7−f6 before capturing on d5.

The immediate 11 ¤xd5 was considered above.

11...£a5!?
After 11...f6 White obtains better chances by 12 ¤xd5 £xd5 13 ¤e5 £b5 14 a4! £a6 15
¤xc6 (15 ¥d5+? ¢h8 16 ¥xc4 does not work due to 16...£a5 17 ¤xc6 bxc6 18 ¥e3 ¥h3
with a slight edge) 15...bxc6 16 ¥d2 ¥xd2 17 £xd2 ¥e6 18 ¦fe1ƒ with initiative.

12 ¤xd5
12 ¤e4?! can hardly be recommended: 12...f6 13 ¥d2 ¥g4 14 a3 ¥xd2 15 £xd2 £xd2 16
¤exd2 c3 17 bxc3 ¤xc3 with advantage for Black.

12...£xd5 13 a3 ¥a5 14 ¤e5 £b5 15 a4 £a6 16 ¤xc6 bxc6 17 £c2!?

After 17 ¥d2 ¥xd2 18 £xd2 ¥e6 Black does not have major problems as his bishop is
supported by the pawn on f7 as opposed to the line 11...f6.

17...¥e6 18 ¦fc1 ¦ab8 19 ¥f1²

22
 XIIIIIIIIY
9-tr-+-trk+0
9zp-+-+pzpp0
9q+p+l+-+0
9vl-+-+-vL-0
9P+pzP-+-+0
9+-+-+-zP-0
9-zPQ+-zP-zP0
9tR-tR-+LmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

This rather important position occurred in the game [Link] − [Link]/Palma

de Mallorca GMA 1989. The pawn weaknesses are likely to be eliminated soon but
White captures first and so Black should be very careful otherwise he may find
himself in trouble at the end of some forced line, as happened in the game. This is
one of the main drawbacks of the Swedish variation − White is quite often able to
play for a win without risk, while Black has to defend very precisely to get half a
point.

23
 QGD/4 Tarrasch Defence − Main Lines

9. Bg5 c4 [D34]

Last updated: 14/05/02 by [Link]

1 ¤f3 d5 2 d4 c5 3 c4 e6 4 cxd5 exd5 5 g3 ¤c6 6 ¥g2 ¤f6 7 0-0 ¥e7 8 ¤c3

0-0
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9zpp+-vlpzpp0
9-+n+-sn-+0
9+-zpp+-+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-sN-+NzP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tR-vLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

9 ¥g5
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9zpp+-vlpzpp0
9-+n+-sn-+0
9+-zpp+-vL-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-sN-+NzP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tR-+Q+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

Nowadays this is the main line of the Tarrasch Defence.

24
9 dxc5!? is less ambitious but rather annoying for Black because it seriously reduces his
possibilities of getting active counterplay, too. 9...¥xc5 10 ¥g5 d4 11 ¥xf6 £xf6 12
¤d5 (12 ¤e4 £e7 13 ¤xc5 £xc5 is fine for Black, for example: 14 ¤e1 ¦e8 15 ¤d3 £b6
16 £d2 ¥f5 17 ¦ac1 ¥e4! and Black has no problems thanks to the pressure on e−file)
12...£d8
a) 13 ¤e1 but it is much less popular probably because the knights begin to duplicate
functions. A possible continuation is 13...¦e8 14 ¤d3 ¥f8 15 £d2 (15 a3!? with the
idea of b2−b4 deserves attention) 15...¥f5 and now after 16 b4 Black can solve the
problems by 16...¥xd3! 17 exd3 ¦e5 18 b5 ¤e7= with equality
b) 13 ¤d2 Sometimes White plays
b1) 13...a6 14 ¦c1 ¥a7 15 ¤f4 ¥d7 16 ¤e4ƒ with an initiative
b2) 13...¥e6 14 ¤f4 £d7 15 ¦c1 ¥b6 16 ¤xe6 (16 £a4 ¦ac8 17 ¤c4²) 16...£xe6 17 ¥xc6
bxc6 18 ¤c4 ¦fe8 19 ¦c2 ¦ad8 20 £d3 ¦d5 21 ¦fc1² with a clear advantage
b3) 13...¦e8 There are some alternatives which seem to be less precise: 14 ¦c1 ¥f8 Another
possibility is (14...¥b6!? A lot of games were continued by 15 ¤c4 ¥g4 16 ¦e1 ¥a5 17
¤xa5 £xa5 18 b4! ¤xb4 19 £xd4 ¤xd5 20 £xg4 ¦ad8 21 ¦ed1 ¤f6 22 £c4 b5 23 £c2² with
small advantage thanks to the superiority of bishop over the knight) 15 ¤f4!? ¥g4 16
¥f3 and (16 ¦e1 16 ¤f3!? were worthy of consideration keeping the strong and very
useful bishop on the board.) 16...¥xf3 In the case of (16...¥f5 17 £b3² White keeps the
pressure as well.) 17 ¤xf3 with a slight edge, Miles − Lautier/Biel 1992.

9...c4
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9zpp+-vlpzpp0
9-+n+-sn-+0
9+-+p+-vL-0
9-+pzP-+-+0
9+-sN-+NzP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tR-+Q+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

Thanks to great efforts of Alexander Grischuk, this continuation recently gained popularity.
The position is similar to the Swedish variation but Black has more problems with
the d5 pawn as the white bishop is on g5. On the other hand, the knight on f6
reduces the possible sting from White's plans connected with e2−e4.
If Black does not want to play the position with an isolated pawn, he can also try 9...¥e6
However, it is recently not very popular, mostly because after 10 dxc5 (it seems that
in case of 10 ¦c1 Black can achieve acceptable play by playing 10...c4) 10...¥xc5
a) 11 ¦c1 after which Black chooses between 11...¥b6 and(11...¥e7 keeping a slightly worse
position but the text move is more popular.)

25
b) 11 ¥xf6 White achieves a very nice ending with a modest but definite and stable
advantage: 11...£xf6 12 ¤xd5 £xb2 13 ¤c7 ¦ad8 14 £c1 £xc1 15 ¦axc1 ¥e7 in
the case of (15...b6 16 ¤xe6 fxe6 17 e3 h6 18 ¦c4 ¦d6 19 ¦e4 ¦f5 20 h4² and Black is
suffering 15...¥b6 White plays the same 16 ¤xe6 fxe6 17 ¦c4 h6 18 ¦e4² with a typical
advantage.) 16 ¤xe6 fxe6 17 ¦c4!² That's why the ending is so attractive for White!
The excellent manoeuvre Rc1-c4−e4 allows him to obtain the initiative combining
pressure on the pawn on e6 with a possible advance of the kingside pawns. The fact
that the bishops are of the opposite colour as usual favours the side which has the
initiative. Black is forced to maintain endless defence without a sign of counterplay.
The game Yusupov − Spraggett/Quebec 1989 continued by 17...¥f6 18 e3! ¦d6 19
h4 h6 20 ¦e4 ¦fd8 21 ¥h3! ¢f7 22 ¢g2 ¦e8 23 ¦c1 ¦e7 24 ¦c2 and White
maintained the pressure.

10 ¤e5 ¥e6
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wq-trk+0
9zpp+-vlpzpp0
9-+n+lsn-+0
9+-+psN-vL-0
9-+pzP-+-+0
9+-sN-+-zP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tR-+Q+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

11 f4
11 ¤xc6 bxc6 12 b3 also looks promising but Grischuk successfully stand up for this kind
of position: 12...£a5
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+-trk+0
9zp-+-vlpzpp0
9-+p+lsn-+0
9wq-+p+-vL-0
9-+pzP-+-+0
9+PsN-+-zP-0
9P+-+PzPLzP0
9tR-+Q+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

26
a) In the game Bareev − Grischuk/Wijk aan Zee 2002 White has not achieved much after
13 ¤a4
a1) in case of 13...¦fd8 14 e3 c5 15 ¤xc5 ¥xc5 16 dxc5 £xc5 17 ¥xf6 (17 bxc4!? is an
alternative: 17...dxc4 18 ¥xa8 ¦xd1 19 ¦fxd1 ¤d7 20 ¥f4² with slightly better chances for
White) 17...gxf6 18 bxc4 dxc4 19 ¥xa8 ¦xd1 20 ¦fxd1² Black experienced certain
problems, Dzhandzhgava − Lputian/ch−URS (semifinal) Lvov 1987
a2) 13...¦ab8!? 14 ¥f4 ¦b7 15 £c2 ¦c8 16 bxc4 ¦b4 17 ¤b2 £b6 18 ¦ab1 dxc4„ with
quite acceptable play for Black. His pawn structure is somewhat damaged but in fact
the doubled c−pawns are more strong than weak. The pawn c6 gives additional
control over the center and is also ready to advance at appropriate moment while the
c4−pawn is passed and White should be always care about it.
b) 13 £c2 13...¦fd8
b1) In the game White has tried 14 e3 was also tested: 14...¦ac8 15 bxc4 (15 ¤a4 does not
bother Black very much: 15...c5 16 ¤xc5 ¥xc5 17 ¥xf6 gxf6 18 dxc5 £xc5 19 ¦fd1 d4 20 exd4
¦xd4 21 ¦xd4 £xd4 22 ¦d1 £e5 and Black is at least not worse, as was proved in a
number of games.) 15...dxc4 16 ¤e4 £f5 17 ¦ac1 (17 ¥xf6!? gxf6 18 ¦ab1!? deserves
attention, with idea to counter 18...c5 with 19 ¦b5 although everything is still too far
from clear) 17...c5 18 dxc5 ¦d3! (18...¥xc5? is just bad for Black: 19 ¤xf6+ gxf6 20 £xf5
¥xf5 21 ¥xf6 and so on.) 19 ¥xf6 gxf6© Thanks for his very good pieces Black has got
reasonable compensation for the sacrificed pawn, Lautier − Grischuk/Wijk aan Zee
2002.
b2) 14 ¤a4 14...¦ac8 15 ¦fd1 c5 The programmed pawn advance. 16 ¥d2!? (16 ¤xc5 ¥xc5
17 dxc5 £xc5 18 ¥xf6 gxf6 is acceptable for Black.) 16...£b5! Another fruitful idea by
Alexander Grischuk. (in the game Bareev − Gluzman/FIDE WCh, Moscow 2001 the
pair of bishops secured White's advantage after 16...£c7 17 ¥f4 £a5 18 ¤xc5 ¥xc5 19
dxc5 £xc5 20 e3²)
b2a) 17 ¤xc5 is a worthy alternative. Black can continue by 17...¥xc5 18 dxc5 £xc5 19 b4
(19 e3!?) 19...£b6 20 e3 ¥g4!? (20...¤e4) 21 ¦dc1 ¤e4„ with acceptable play.
b2b) 17 bxc4 17...cxd4! An excellent and far−sighted decision! Black sacrifices a pawn but
it will turn out later that White cannot support his extra pawn − Black's doubled d−
pawns keep many important squares under control and prevent White's manoeuvring
very well. (In case of 17...£xc4 Black could have achieved a safe but worse endgame:
18 £xc4 dxc4 19 ¤xc5 ¦xd4 20 ¤xe6 fxe6 21 ¥c3 ¦xd1+ 22 ¦xd1 ¢f7²) 18 £xh7+! ¢xh7 19
cxb5 ¤e4! 20 ¥a5 ¦d7© This important position was proved to be good for Black in
the game Bacrot − Grischuk/Dubai 2002 but White can obviously look for
improvements.

11...¤g4
11...¤xe5?! is dubious: 12 fxe5 ¤e4 13 ¥xe7 ¤xc3 14 bxc3 £xe7 15 e4 £d7 16 a4 ¦fd8
17 £h5±
11...£b6?! is also suspicious although things are maybe not so clear: 12 f5! ¤xe5 13 ¤a4!
£c7! (13...£a5 14 dxe5 ¥d7 15 exf6 gxf6 16 ¥h6±) 14 dxe5 £xe5 15 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 16 fxe6
fxe6 and Black has compensation for the piece although White's chances still look
preferable

27
12 ¤xg4
it seems that
12 ¥xe7 also does not promise too much. For example: 12...¤xe7 13 £d2 ¤h6!? 14 h3 f6
15 ¤f3 ¤hf5 16 g4 ¤d6 17 f5 ¥f7 18 £f4 b5! 19 ¦ad1 £d7÷ with complicated play

12...¥xg4
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wq-trk+0
9zpp+-vlpzpp0
9-+n+-+-+0
9+-+p+-vL-0
9-+pzP-zPl+0
9+-sN-+-zP-0
9PzP-+P+LzP0
9tR-+Q+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

13 ¤xd5!
Strangely enough, White always captured the pawn with the bishop, trying to get advantage
after
13 ¥xd5 ¥xg5 14 fxg5 £xg5 15 ¦f4 but after 15...¥e6 (15...¦ad8 16 £f1 ¥e6 17 ¥xe6 fxe6 18
e3² may promise an edge for White) 16 ¥g2 ¦ad8 17 ¢h1 ¤e7! Black can probably
achieve quite acceptable play

13...¥xg5 14 fxg5 £xg5 15 ¦f4 ¦ad8 16 £d2 ¦fe8 17 e4

XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-trr+k+0
9zpp+-+pzpp0
9-+n+-+-+0
9+-+N+-wq-0
9-+pzPPtRl+0
9+-+-+-zP-0
9PzP-wQ-+LzP0
9tR-+-+-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

28
17...¥e6
The immediate
17...b5!? was worthy of consideration.

18 ¦c1
White finds the way to take aim at the pawn on c4.

18...¥xd5
The swapping of the b−pawns deserved attention:
18...b5!? 19 b3 ¥xd5 20 exd5 ¤e7 21 bxc4 bxc4 22 ¦xc4 and now 22...¦b8!? only
not(22...¤xd5? 23 ¦c5 h6 24 £a5 ¤xf4 25 ¦xg5 ¤e2+ 26 ¢f2 hxg5 27 ¥c6+−)

19 exd5 ¤e7 20 ¦xc4 ¤xd5 21 ¦c5!

XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-trr+k+0
9zpp+-+pzpp0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-tRn+-wq-0
9-+-zP-tR-+0
9+-+-+-zP-0
9PzP-wQ-+LzP0
9+-+-+-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

and Black found himself under pressure, [Link] − Halkias/EU−ch Ohrid 2001.

29
 QGD/5 Tarrasch Defence − Main Lines

9. Bg5 cd4 [D34]

Last updated: 14/05/02 by [Link]

1 ¤f3 d5 2 d4 c5 3 c4 e6 4 cxd5 exd5 5 g3 ¤c6 6 ¥g2 ¤f6 7 0-0 ¥e7 8 ¤c3

0-0 9 ¥g5
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9zpp+-vlpzpp0
9-+n+-sn-+0
9+-zpp+-vL-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-sN-+NzP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tR-+Q+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

9...cxd4 10 ¤xd4 h6
The immediate 10...¦e8 is supposed to be less precise. After 11 ¦c1 in the game
[Link] − Magomedov/Cheliabinsk 1990 Black played an inaccurate
11...¥d7?! and after a rather unexpected 12 ¥f4!± he faced some concrete problems.

11 ¥e3
11 ¥f4 is much less popular but here Black should also work hard to solve his problems
completely: 11...¥g4 the alternative (11...£b6!? leads to more complicated play) 12 h3
¥e6 13 ¦c1!? £d7 (13...¦c8!?) 14 ¤xe6 fxe6 15 e4 d4 16 e5 dxc3 17 exf6 £xd1 18
¦fxd1 ¥xf6 19 bxc3² and White proved a small but stable advantage in a number of
games.

11...¦e8

30
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqr+k+0
9zpp+-vlpzp-0
9-+n+-sn-zp0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+-sN-+-+0
9+-sN-vL-zP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tR-+Q+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

This is a tabia of the Tarrasch Defence. Thousands of games have started from here. White
has a lot of possible plans.

12 ¦c1
12 a3 ¥e6
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wqr+k+0
9zpp+-vlpzp-0
9-+n+lsn-zp0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+-sN-+-+0
9zP-sN-vL-zP-0
9-zP-+PzPLzP0
9tR-+Q+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

a) 13 ¢h1!? However, it seems that Black can obtain a good counterplay by 13...¥g4! 14 f3
and (14 h3 14 £b3 seem to be the principled continuations, according to Kasparov)
14...¥h5 15 ¤xc6 after (15 ¥g1 £d7! 16 £a4 ¥c5! 17 ¦ad1 ¥b6 18 ¦fe1 ¥g6 Black has no
problems) 15...bxc6 16 ¤a4 £c8! 17 ¥d4 £e6 18 ¦c1 ¤d7 19 ¦c3 ¥g6÷ with
mutual chances.
b) 13 ¤xe6 in the earlier games of the match Smyslov tried to pose problems for Black by
playing 13...fxe6 14 £a4 ¦c8 15 ¦ad1 ¢h8 the immediate (15...a6!? deserved
attention.) 16 ¢h1 a6 17 f4 This position arose in the game Smyslov −
Kasparov/Vilnius 1984. White looks preferable but Black is not without a
counterplay. The plan, invented by Vassily Smyslov (Kg1-h1 with the idea of f4,
Bg1 and e2−e4), is really interesting.
12 £b3

31
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqr+k+0
9zpp+-vlpzp-0
9-+n+-sn-zp0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+-sN-+-+0
9+QsN-vL-zP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tR-+-+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

12...¤a5 13 £c2 ¥g4 14 ¤f5 another possibility is (14 h3 ¥h5 15 ¦ad1 ¦c8 16 g4 ¥g6 17 ¤f5)
14...¦c8 (14...¥b4 is the alternative.) 15 ¥d4 (15 ¤xe7+ does not promise too much)
15...¥c5 16 ¥xc5 ¦xc5 17 ¤e3 Increasing the pressure on the pawn on d5. 17...¥e6
18 ¦ad1 £d7!? after (18...£c8 19 £a4 ¦d8 20 ¦d3² White achieved a stable advantage
in the game Karpov − Kasparov/Moscow (m/9) 1984. His play is clear − to create as
much pressure as possible on the isolated pawn.) 19 £d3!? as it turns out, (19 b4 is
not dangerous for Black: 19...¦c7 20 bxa5 d4 21 ¦d3 ¥f5!) 19...¤c4 20 ¤xc4 dxc4! 21
£d6!? £xd6 22 ¦xd6ƒ White keeps the initiative in this ending but Black's position
is defensible as was proved in the game Lastin − Bezgodov/Moscow 1999.
12 £a4
12 £c2 are also well−known.

12...¥f8
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqrvlk+0
9zpp+-+pzp-0
9-+n+-sn-zp0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+-sN-+-+0
9+-sN-vL-zP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9+-tRQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

The main alternative

12...¥g4 gives Black less chances of obtain good counterplay: 13 h3 ¥e6
a) 14 ¢h2 is also not bad: 14...£d7 15 £c2 (15 £a4!?) 15...¦ac8 (15...¤e5!?) 16 ¦fd1 ¥f8 17
a3²
b) 14 £a4 14...¤e5!? 15 ¦cd1 a6 (15...¥d7 16 £b3 ¥c6 17 ¤f5±) 16 ¥f4!ƒ and White seizes a
strong initiative

32
13 ¤xc6
White has tried some other possibilities which also promise him a small advantage.
13 £a4 ¤e5 (13...¤a5 14 ¦cd1 ¥d7 15 £c2 ¦c8 16 £b1!²) 14 ¦cd1 ¥d7 15 £b3 ¥c6 16 ¤xc6
bxc6 17 ¥d4 ¦b8² with counterplay but White's chances are still preferable
13 ¤a4 ¥d7 14 ¤c5 ¤a5 (14...¤e5²) 15 b3 ¦c8 16 ¤xd7 £xd7 17 £d3 ¤c6 18 ¤xc6 bxc6
19 ¦fd1² with a small edge
13 a3!? ¥g4 14 h3 ¥e6 15 ¤xc6 bxc6 16 ¥d4 (16 ¤a4 £c8 17 ¢h2 £a6!„) 16...¥d7 in the
case of (16...¤e4 White secures the advantage by 17 ¤xe4 dxe4 18 ¥c5 ¥xc5 19 ¦xc5 ¥d5
20 b4²) 17 £d3² with a small but stable advantage.

13...bxc6 14 ¤a4
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqrvlk+0
9zp-+-+pzp-0
9-+p+-sn-zp0
9+-+p+-+-0
9N+-+-+-+0
9+-+-vL-zP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9+-tRQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

14...¥d7
14...£a5? is a well−known mistake due to 15 ¦xc6! ¥d7 16 ¥d2! ¥b4 (16...£b5 fails to 17
¦xf6! gxf6 18 ¤c3 £xb2 19 ¤xd5 with a huge advantage for White, for example:
19...¦ac8 20 ¥c3! ¦xc3 21 ¤xf6+! ¢g7 22 £d4!+−) 17 ¦c5 £xa4 18 £xa4 ¥xa4 19 ¥xb4
¦xe2 20 b3 ¥d7 21 ¦a1± with a big advantage in the ending.

15 ¥c5
An exchange of dark−square bishops is tempting in order to establish full control over the
squares d4 and c5 but this perhaps is not the only way to treat this kind of position.

15...¥xc5 16 ¤xc5

33
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wqr+k+0
9zp-+l+pzp-0
9-+p+-sn-zp0
9+-sNp+-+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-zP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9+-tRQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

At first sight White should be much better here but actually things are not so clear as Black
has counterplay because all his pieces are active. Both rooks have half open files to
operate on while the rest of his army also has good prospects. The main and fairly
serious drawback is of course his bad pawn structure which White is eager to
exploit.

16...¥g4
16...¥f5 does not solve the problems completely: 17 e3 ¦b8 18 b3² with small but stable
advantage, [Link] − Orsag/Polanica Zdroj 1996.

17 ¦e1 £a5
The preliminary
17...¦b8?! 18 b3 £a5 allows White to avoid the weakening of the queenside by playing a
natural 19 £c2

18 h3 ¥f5 19 £d4
The standard
19 ¤a4!? deserves attention, after 19...¤e4 20 e3² White's chances should be preferred.

19...¦ab8
Of course not
19...£xa2? 20 ¦a1 £c4 21 £xc4 dxc4 22 ¥xc6± and White wins an exchange.

20 a3

34
 XIIIIIIIIY
9-tr-+r+k+0
9zp-+-+pzp-0
9-+p+-sn-zp0
9wq-sNp+l+-0
9-+-wQ-+-+0
9zP-+-+-zPP0
9-zP-+PzPL+0
9+-tR-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

20...£b6!
The queen is much better placed on b6 not only because it is more mobile there (the only
way to retreat from b5 is actually to b6) but also pins the knight which is rather
important.
20...£b5 21 b3! Black cannot take on e2 anyway while the queen is not very useful on b5
(21 b4 a5!„)

21 b3
21 b4 is pointless due to 21...a5

21...¤e4! 22 ¥xe4 dxe4

22...¦xe4!?÷ also came into mind.

23 g4 ¥e6!
Transferring the bishop to d5.

24 ¦c3 ¦bd8 25 £e3²

35
 XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-trr+k+0
9zp-+-+pzp-0
9-wqp+l+-zp0
9+-sN-+-+-0
9-+-+p+P+0
9zPPtR-wQ-+P0
9-+-+PzP-+0
9+-+-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

Black's play looked fairly logical, however, the control over some important dark squares
probably gives White slightly better chances, Filippov − Bezgodov/Petropavlovsk
1999.

36
 Exchange Variation

This system includes all the lines where White makes an early exchange in the
center− c4xd5. After ...e6xd5 the pawn structure acquires a very specific nature:

XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwqkvl-tr0
9zppzp-+pzpp0
9-+-+-sn-+0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-sN-+-+-0
9PzP-+PzPPzP0
9tR-vLQmKLsNR0
xiiiiiiiiy

This kind of structure drew much attention after the Carlsbad 1923 tournament
where it was tested in a number of games. Therefore this is frequently referred to as the
"Carlsbad pawn structure".
The system is rather popular and occupies an important place in chess theory. It
contains a number of typical positions and strategic ideas and plans which are very
important for general chess understanding. Of course there are many concrete variations but
most of them originate from basic strategic concepts.
Let's take closer look at the possible plans for both sides. White usually selects one
of the following schemes:
1) A minority attack by means of b2−b4−b5xc6 with the aim of creating a weak
pawn on the side where the opponent has a pawn superiority. This plan is used in practice
very often.

37
 2) Central attack with e3−e4. This plan is much more dangerous with the Knight on
e2 than on f3.
3) Kingside attack with the kings on the same side.
4) Kingside attack with the kings castled opposite sides. Like the plan of e3−e4 this
also looks more promising with the Knight on e2.
Black's counterplay is connected with central and kingside operations. On the
queenside he usually defends passively. So the main defensive methods are:
1) Counter attack with pawns on the kingside.
2) Counter attack with pieces on the kingside. These kingside operations have more
chance of being successful if White has weakened his kingside pawn structure, especially
with the move h2−h3.
3) Positional methods of defence such as: creating a pawn barrier with ...b7−b5,
preparing for ...c6−c5 in reply to b4−b5, obtaining piece control over the b5, c4 squares, the
pawn advance ...a6−a5 with the aim of taking control over the b4 square, the knight lunge
...¤f6−e4 and various others.
4) Counter attack on the queenside in the case of White's long castling.
Of course this division is rather conventional and in practice the playing methods are
usually combined with each other. For those who want to get a good understanding of these
positions, thorough study of classic games are very important.
For example, one of the typical problems is in whose favour the exchange of light−
square bishops is? Taking into account some static features of the position (black pawns b7,
c6, d5 are on light squares) we can conclude that black's queen's bishop is worse than the
white counterpart and would be better off exchanged. Black has even invented a very
original plan to do this:... ¤d7−f8−e6,...g7−g6,...¤e6−g7 and ...¥c8−f5. But in some
situations this Bishop is very useful and it is Black who needs to secure it from exchange.
There are lots of such strategic problems which cannot be solved with move by
move calculations. But if you know what the best players did in similar situations the task
becomes much easier. It was one of my main openings till the end of '80s and I believe it
helped me greatly in understanding chess better.

38
 The main Black's adherents are: GMs Arthur Yusupov, Paul van der Sterren,
Alexander Beliavsky, Andrey Kharitonov, Sergey Smagin, Alexander Panchenko, Uwe
Bonsh, Janis Klovans, Ventzislav Inkiov and others.
A lot of famous GMs play the Exchange Variation with pleasure, including Garry
Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov, but they are often widely diverse in their approaches
So the whole system is strategically complex and looks attractive for White who has
clear and logical plans. Black's active possibilities are limited and he must defend carefully.
Nevertheless his position is quite safe and solid and if he understands it well and knows its
many subtleties then his chances to outplay the opponent are quite reasonable.
With the knight on e2 White's main plan seems to be a central pawn advance e3−e4.
Sometimes he realises this plan with a quite interesting method. First he makes it
appear that he is going for minority attack by a2−a3 and b4−b5 − notice that the Rook is not
used but then he completely switches for the e3−e4 break, having additional control over
the c5 square to prevent the quite typical Black reaction ...c6−c5.

39
 QGD/6 Exchange Variation − Various

lines with Ng1-e2 [D35]

Last updated: 13/02/02 by [Link]

1 d4 ¤f6 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 d5 4 cxd5 exd5 5 ¥g5

XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwqkvl-tr0
9zppzp-+pzpp0
9-+-+-sn-+0
9+-+p+-vL-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-sN-+-+-0
9PzP-+PzPPzP0
9tR-+QmKLsNR0
xiiiiiiiiy

5...¥e7
Sometimes Black opts for an early ...Nf6−h5, exchanging the dark−squared bishops: 5...c6
6 e3 ¥e7 7 ¥d3 ¤bd7
a) similar position would arise after 8 £c2 ¤h5 (of course, 8...0-0 any time can lead to the
main lines ) 9 ¥xe7 £xe7 10 ¤ge2 g6 11 0-0-0 ¤b6 12 ¤g3 ¤g7!? (After
12...¤xg3?! 13 hxg3 White is clearly better) 13 ¢b1 ¥d7 14 ¦c1 0-0-0 15 ¤a4 ¤xa4
(15...¢b8 16 ¤c5 ¥c8 17 b4ƒ would also allow White to seize a strong initiative on the
Q−side.) 16 £xa4 ¢b8 17 ¦c3ƒ with initiative on the queenside, Kasparov −
Andersson/Reykjavik 1988
b) 8 ¤ge2 8...¤h5 (The fact there is no queen on c2 allows Black to play 8...¤e4 but it does
not solve his opening problems: 9 ¥xe7 ¤xc3 10 bxc3 £xe7 11 £b3 followed by c3−c4
with a small but stable advantage.) 9 ¥xe7 £xe7

40
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+k+-tr0
9zpp+nwqpzpp0
9-+p+-+-+0
9+-+p+-+n0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-sNLzP-+-0
9PzP-+NzPPzP0
9tR-+QmK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

10 g4!? Taking an opportunity to get some space on the kingside. 10...¤hf6 11 ¤g3
b1) 11...¤b6 may lead to the transposition after 12 g5 ¤g8 13 h4
b1a) while 13...h6 looks risky as it allows White to advance the g−pawn. However, in the
game Petursson − Hjartarson/Reykjavik 2000 14 g6 ¤f6 15 £f3 (15 gxf7+!? £xf7 16
£c2 deserves attention: 16...0-0 17 ¥g6 £c7 18 0-0-0 ¤g4 19 ¦df1 ¥e6 20 ¤h5ƒ with
initiative on the kingside) 15...0-0 16 ¤f5 ¥xf5 17 £xf5 ¦ae8 18 ¦g1 Black proved
that White doesn't have real threats on the kingside: 18...£b4 19 0-0-0 ¤c4 and so
on.
b1b) 13...g6 and so on
b2) 11...h6 is not very popular: 12 h3 ¤b6 13 £d2 ¥d7 14 b3 g6 15 a4 a5 16 f3² with small
but stable advantage
b3) 11...g6 12 h4 (12 g5 ¤g8 13 h4 gives Black an extra possibility: 13...h6 14 gxh6 ¤df6!?)
12...¤b6 13 g5 ¤g8
b3a) Later in the game Milov − Andersson/Groningen 1997 White tried to improve with 14
¢d2!? , not giving Black the possibility to exchange all the kingside pawns but after
14...h6 15 f4 hxg5 16 fxg5 (16 hxg5!? ¦xh1 17 £xh1 was worthy of consideration.)
16...¥e6 17 £f3 0-0-0 18 ¤ge2 £d7 19 a4 ¤e7 has finished his development and
seemed to be fine.
b3b) 14 £e2 14...h6
b3b1) 15 f4 did not promise too much: 15...hxg5 16 hxg5 (16 fxg5!?) 16...¦xh1+ 17 ¤xh1
¥e6 18 ¤g3 0-0-0 19 0-0-0 £d7 20 ¦h1 ¤e7 with ...Nf5 to follow.
b3b2) 15 0-0-0!? An interesting pawn sacrifice. 15...hxg5 16 h5! This is the point. White is
trying to use his advantage in development to get at the Black king before it escapes
to the queenside. 16...gxh5 17 ¤xh5 ¦h6! 18 ¦dg1 White's initiative looks very
strong. Ng7+ followed by Bh6 and Qh5 is threatened as well as the simple f2−f4.
However, a very cool defence 18...¢d8! (This is probably the only move because all
the alternatives were bad: 18...¥d7? 19 ¤g7+ ¢f8 20 ¦xh6 ¤xh6 21 £h5+−
or 18...f6?! 19 ¤g3!± with a rather annoying initiative.) 19 £f3 ¥d7! allowed Black to defend
successfully in the game Vyzmanavin − Kharitonov/Helsinki 1992.

6 e3 0-0 7 ¥d3 c6

41
An attempt to treat the position without c7−c6 grants White an interesting options: 7...¤bd7
8 ¤ge2 ¦e8
a) 9 £c2 ¤f8 10 0-0-0 ¥e6 Black tries to advance his pawn to c5 in one step. 11 ¢b1 To
move the king from the c−file is rather useful in view of Black's plan. 11...¤g4
(11...¦c8!? deserves attention) 12 ¥xe7 £xe7 13 ¤f4 ¤f6 14 f3 White begins action
on the kingside so Black, who wasted a couple of tempi with the knight's
manoeuvring is forced now to undertake his plan without good preparation. 14...c5
(In the case of 14...¤g6 15 g4! ¤xf4 16 exf4± followed by f4−f5, g4−g5, etc and White's
attack seems to be very strong.) 15 g4! and Black faced problems, Kasparov −
Campora/Thessaloniki (ol) 1988
b) 9 0-0 9...¤f8 an now White has a rather unexpected 10 b4!
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqrsnk+0
9zppzp-vlpzpp0
9-+-+-sn-+0
9+-+p+-vL-0
9-zP-zP-+-+0
9+-sNLzP-+-0
9P+-+NzPPzP0
9tR-+Q+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

b1) The pawn cannot be taken for free: 10...¥xb4?! 11 ¥xf6 gxf6 12 ¤xd5! £xd5 13 £a4
¥h3!? (both 13...¥e7 14 £xe8 ¥h3 15 ¤f4!+−
and 13...¥d6 14 £xe8 ¥h3 15 £e4!+− do not seem to work) 14 ¤f4 £a5 15 £xa5 ¥xa5 16
¤xh3 ¤e6² and Black is far from equality because of his weakened kingside pawns
structure
b2) 10...h6!? is worthy of consideration: 11 ¥xf6 (11 ¥h4!? is interesting: 11...g5 12 ¥g3 ¥xb4
13 ¤b5 ¥a5 14 £c2 c6 15 ¤d6 ¦e7÷ with complicated play) 11...¥xf6 12 b5² with a
small advantage for White(or 12 £b3² )
b3) 10...¤g6 11 b5 ¤g4 doesn't promise a full equality due to 12 ¥xe7 ¦xe7 13 ¥xg6!
hxg6 14 ¤f4 c6 15 h3 ¤f6 16 bxc6 bxc6 17 ¤d3! ¥a6™ 18 ¦e1 ¥xd3 19 £xd3 ¤e4
20 ¦ec1! ¤xc3 21 £xc3 ¦e6 22 ¦ab1± with certain advantage
b4) 10...¤e4 does not solve Black's problems, too: 11 ¥xe7 ¦xe7 12 £c2 ¥f5 13 ¤f4 and
so on
b5) 10...a6 11 a3 c6 12 £c2 With a slightly different move order we have transposed to the
main lines. The game Kasparov − Short/London 1993 continued by 12...g6 13 f3
White's main plan should be connected with central pawn advance e3−e4. Black's
typical reaction is ...c6−c5 but here it is not so easy to realize as White has taken
additional control over the c5 square. 13...¤e6 14 ¥h4 ¤h5 (in case of 14...¤g7
White achieves the advantage by 15 ¥f2 h5 16 h3 ¤h7 17 e4 ¥h4 18 £d2 ¥xf2+ 19 ¦xf2±)
15 ¥xe7 (After 15 ¥f2 ¥d6„ Black was not without a counterplay.) and here
15...£xe7 seemed to be better. After the possible (15...¦xe7?! 16 £d2 b6?! 17 ¦ad1 ¥b7

42
 18 ¥b1!±) 16 ¦ae1 a5 17 £b2 axb4 18 axb4² White could have secured small but
lasting edge.

8 ¤ge2 ¤bd7
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9zpp+nvlpzpp0
9-+p+-sn-+0
9+-+p+-vL-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-sNLzP-+-0
9PzP-+NzPPzP0
9tR-+QmK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

9 ¤g3!?
This line is not very popular but actually is quite tricky. White postpones the move Qd1-c2
hoping to use the queen for some other purpose.

9...¤b6!?
This square is not very common for the knight but in this position more concrete reasoning
should prevail.
Black has tried a lot of alternatives. 9...h6 10 h4 ¤b6!
a) 11 £f3? is impossible: 11...¥g4! 12 £f4 hxg5! 13 hxg5 ¥d6 14 ¥h7+ (both 14 gxf6 ¥xf4
and 14 £xg4 ¤xg4 is not enough to make a perpetual check as every time Black is able to
cover the king with a minor piece on h6) 14...¤xh7 15 £xg4 £xg5 16 £h3 £g6-+
with a clear extra piece.
b) 11 £c2 11...¦e8 Here in the game Gulko − Van der Sterren/Amsterdam 1988 White
continued very consistently and creatively by 12 0-0-0 and confused his opponent in
the struggle although objectively the position was too far from clear.
White's idea works to its full in case of the "automatic" 9...¦e8?! 10 ¤f5 and Black is in
trouble: 10...¥f8 (the position after 10...¤f8 11 ¤xe7+ £xe7 is not much fun for Black)
11 £f3 h6 12 h4ƒ with a strong initiative on the kingside I have been lucky enough
to have this position a couple of times in rapid tournaments
an old alternative 9...¤e8!? deserves attention. After 10 h4 the best continuation is, in my
opinion 10...¤d6! with a fairly solid position

10 h3!?
Rather unusual in these positions.

43
In case of 10 £c2 h6 11 ¥f4 ¥d6 12 ¤ge2 (12 ¥e5? is impossible due to 12...¥xe5 13 dxe5
¤g4) 12...¦e8 Black obtains a solid position but probably do not equalises
completely.

10...h6 11 ¥f4
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9zpp+-vlpzp-0
9-snp+-sn-zp0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+-zP-vL-+0
9+-sNLzP-sNP0
9PzP-+-zPP+0
9tR-+QmK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

11...¦e8!
Intending to play ...Be7−d6 next.
Immediate 11...¥d6?! was an inaccuracy in the game, which allows White to prove the
advantage by 12 ¥e5! ¥xe5 Otherwise f2−f4 will follow. 13 dxe5 ¤fd7 Thanks to
the move 10. h3 the g4 square is unavailable for the knight. 14 f4 ¤c5 15 0-0²
[Link] − Boensch/EUCup Final Munich 1992.

12 £c2 ¥d6 13 ¤ge2²

White has a small advantage, keeping in mind queenside castling as well.

44
 QGD/7 Exchange Variation − Main lines

with Ng1-e2 [D36]

Last updated: 13/02/02 by [Link]

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 ¤f6 4 cxd5 exd5 5 ¥g5 ¥e7 6 e3 0-0 7 ¥d3 ¤bd7 8

¤ge2 c6 9 £c2 ¦e8
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqr+k+0
9zpp+nvlpzpp0
9-+p+-sn-+0
9+-+p+-vL-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-sNLzP-+-0
9PzPQ+NzPPzP0
9tR-+-mK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

10 0-0
Another option is 10 0-0-0 A long castling with the knight on e2 is rather dangerous plan
for Black who really has to know what he is doing. 10...¤f8 11 h3
a) Black has also tried for counterplay with other moves: 11...£a5 12 ¢b1 (12 g4 ¤e4 13
¥xe7 ¤xc3 14 ¤xc3 ¦xe7 15 ¢b1²) 12...¥e6 13 f4!? ¦ad8 14 g4 ¥c8 15 ¥h4 ¤e4 16
¥e1 ¤xc3+ 17 ¤xc3 £c7 18 ¥f2²
b) 11...¥e6 12 g4 ¦c8 13 ¢b1 a6 (13...c5!?) 14 f4 ¦c7 15 f5 ¥c8 16 ¥f4 ¥d6 17 ¦he1 ¦ce7²
with a small advantage in both cases
c) 11...b5 A queenside pawn avalanche remains to be the main Black's weapon in this line −
it is known to be double−edged and so is quite acceptable for Black. 12 ¢b1 a5 13
g4 a4 14 ¤g3 £a5 15 ¤ce2 ¥d7

45
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+rsnk+0
9+-+lvlpzpp0
9-+p+-sn-+0
9wqp+p+-vL-0
9p+-zP-+P+0
9+-+LzP-sNP0
9PzPQ+NzP-+0
9+K+R+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

This position has been tested many times and so is rather important. White has a number of
possibilities. (It seems that Black should not hurry with 15...a3 16 b3 as the rigidity of
the queenside pawn structure reduces Black's attacking possibilities: 16...¥d7 17 ¤f5
¥xf5 18 ¥xf5 with better chances.)
c1) 16 ¥f5 which is probably not so good for White due to 16...b4!
c1a) 17 ¥xd7 ¤8xd7 18 £xc6?? was impossible due to 18...¦ac8 19 £b7 ¦c7-+ and the
Queen is trapped
c1b) the superior attempt 17 ¥xf6!? did not promise too much either because of 17...b3! 18
£c3 (18 £c1 bxa2+ 19 ¢xa2 ¥xf6∓) 18...bxa2+ 19 ¢xa2 ¥xf6 20 £xa5 ¦xa5÷ and
Black should be satisfied with this position as the White king is still not quite safe.
However maybe it was the best way for White.
c1c) 17 £d2 17...g6 18 ¥xd7 ¤8xd7 19 ¦c1 ¦ac8 20 ¤f4 ¤b6ƒ Black's chances are
preferable − he has the initiative on the queenside and so White should defend
carefully, Cebalo − Inkiov/Roma 1985.
c2) Among the alternatives 16 ¤h5 deserves attention, a possible continuation being
16...¤xh5 17 ¥xe7 ¦xe7 18 gxh5 b4 19 £d2 ¦e6 20 ¦dg1 ¢h8 21 ¦h2 ¦f6 22 ¦hg2
¤e6 23 f4 h6 24 h4 a3 25 b3 ¦g8÷ with complicated play
c3) This position has been tested many times and so it is rather important. 16 ¤f5 Logical
and probably the best continuation. 16...¥xf5 17 ¥xf5!? (White would not achieve
too much with the open g−file: 17 gxf5 ¦ac8 18 ¦hg1 ¢h8 and c6−c5 comes soon, with
a good counterplay as was proved in a couple of games) 17...¦a6 18 ¥d3 (18 ¤f4
seems to be less precise: 18...b4 19 £d2 ¤e4! 20 ¥xe4 ¥xg5 with excellent play) 18...¦b6
19 ¤g3 b4 20 £d2 g6÷ with complicated and double−edged play where White's
chances are maybe slightly better.

10...¤f8

46
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqrsnk+0
9zpp+-vlpzpp0
9-+p+-sn-+0
9+-+p+-vL-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-sNLzP-+-0
9PzPQ+NzPPzP0
9tR-+-+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

A startposition of this system. White has a lot of possible continuations.

11 f3
The most direct and dangerous plan for Black. White is going to advance e3−e4
immediately or after some preparation.
11 a3 ¤g6 Black has in mind the standard ...Be7−d6 followed by ...h7−h6 trapping the
Bishop on g5. (11...g6 can lead to the game Kasparov − Short/London (m/15) 1993
after 12 b4 a6 and so on.) 12 b4 a6 13 ¤g3 (White can achieve a small advantage after
13 ¦ad1 ¤g4 14 ¥xe7 £xe7 15 h3 ¤f6 16 ¤g3 a5 17 £b2 axb4 18 axb4 ¥e6 19 b5 c5 20 dxc5
£xc5 21 ¤ce2²) 13...¥d6 14 ¦ae1 h6 15 ¥xg6?! (15 ¥xh6!? looked more promising,
although Black's chances should not be worse after 15...gxh6 16 ¥xg6 fxg6 17 £xg6+
¢h8 18 e4 ¥f4÷) 15...hxg5! 16 ¥d3 ¥e6³ and Black has achieved the better chances,
Shirov − [Link]/Borzhomi 1988
11 ¦ad1 A modern approach. White tries to keep his plan in secret for a while. Nevertheless
it is hard to believe he has something other than e3−e4 (after f2−f3) in mind.
11...¤g6 (11...¤h5!? deserves attention: 12 ¥xe7 £xe7 13 ¦fe1 ¤g6 14 ¤g3 ¤xg3 15 hxg3
¥e6 16 a3 £d6 with quite a solid position) 12 ¤g3 (By means of 12 f3 White can
transpose to the main lines) 12...¥e6 The manoeuvre ...Be7−d6 followed by ...h7−h6
is not possible every time. 13 h3 ¦c8 14 f4 White chooses another possible plan
connected with the f−pawn advance. This set−up is rather poisonous as the Black's
pieces look slightly overcrowded in the center. Besides this advance wins a couple
of tempi. Its main drawback is that the pawn e3 becomes detached and White's
central pawns cannot be improved with e3−e4 because the pawn d4 would become
isolated in this case. 14...¤f8 15 f5 ¥d7 16 £f2 (16 ¥f4 c5÷ would lead to unclear and
complicated play.) 16...¤g4! 17 hxg4 ¥xg5 18 e4 In the game Maksjutov −
[Link]/Magnitogorsk 1989 Black realised a strong rearrangement: 18...¥h6!
(after 18...dxe4?! 19 ¤cxe4 following with Bc4 White's pieces could become very
active) 19 ¦fe1 £g5! 20 £f3 ¦cd8!„ with very complicated play
11 ¥xf6 White parts with a dark−squared Bishop to gain a tempo for the minority attack.
This idea is not very popular with the knight on f3
here it is even less promising. 11...¥xf6 12 b4 a6 13 a4 g6 14 b5 a5! Nowadays this is well
known and typical reaction for the minority attack but twenty years ago it was rather

47
 a new method of defence. Now the weakness of the pawn c6 (and of the square c5 as
well) cannot be exploited directly as the square a4 is not available for a white knight.
As to the b−file, Black can use square b4 for his pieces while the square b5 is just
covered by the pawn on c6. 15 e4 (an attempt to put the knight on c5 by 15 ¤c1?!
doesn't work, as was proved in the very instructive game Vaganian −
Panchenko/Sochi (Russia) 1980: 15...¤e6 16 ¤b3 £d6 17 ¦fd1 ¥d7 18 £d2 ¦ed8 19 ¥e2
¥g7! Starting a very strong redeployment of pieces. While White has no active plan
Black finds a way to launch an initiative on the kingside. 20 ¦a2 ¥e8 At the same
time Black keeps pressure on the e4 pawn to deprive White from a possible e3−e4.
21 g3 ¥f8 22 ¦b1 £e7 23 ¦c2 £f6 and Black is ready to begin kingside actions by ...h5−
h4, then ...Kg7,...Rh8 and so on. A dark−squared Bishop is in no hurry to occupy its
ideal position on d6 − it might be useful on b4 as well. Notice that the square c5 is
still covered twice to prevent Nc5. Black's chances are clearly better.) 15...dxe4 16
¥xe4 £d6 17 ¦ad1 ¥d7÷ and Black is okay
Generally speaking, the minority attack itself is not too effective with the Knight on e2.
After 11 ¦ab1 Black has many possible answers, including strange looking 11...a6!?
(11...¥d6?! with idea ...Bxh2+ and ...Ng4 is not good as White suddenly switches to
the alternative plan: 12 ¢h1 ¤g6 13 f3! ¥e7 (there was no better way of meeting e3−
e4) 14 ¦be1 ¤d7 15 ¥xe7 ¦xe7 16 ¤g3 ¤f6 17 £f2
among other alternatives 11...¤g6 looks quite good, for example: 12 ¤f4 ¤g4!? 13 ¥xe7 £xe7
14 h3 ¤f6 15 ¤ce2 ¤h4 16 g3 ¤f3+ 17 ¢g2 ¤g5 18 h4 ¤ge4 19 ¦be1 ¤d6 20 ¤c3 h6 and
Black has no problems, Chernin − Inkiov, Saint John 1988) 12 b4 g6 (with the pawn
on b4 12...¥d6!? is maybe not so bad as compared to the game Botvinnik − Keres.
White cannot switch so easily to the plan with e3−e4 as the pawn on b4 is hanging.)
13 a4 a5!? Another interesting idea − Black himself provokes b4−b5. He would meet
b4−b5 with a6−a5 anyway but his idea is to deprive White from possible a4−a5 by
analogy to the game Kortchnoi − Karpov. However it gives White another option
which should be taken into account. 14 bxa5!? ¦xa5 15 ¤c1 ¤e6 16 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 17
¤b3 ¦a7 18 a5 ¥e7 19 ¦a1 ¥d6 20 ¤e2 ¥d7 with good play for Black.

11...¥e6
Nowadays Black begins with ...Be6 rather than with 11...¤g6 This seems reasonable
because, as we have already seen, 1) the idea to trap the bishop g5 by ...Be7−d6
followed by h7−h6 is hardly possible here and 2) the knight is quite often forced to
go back to f8 where it has more possibilities for the manoeuvring. Still, the same
positions arise quite often. 12 e4 A straightforward approach. (Both 12 ¦ad1
and 12 ¢h1 , trying to advance e3−e4 in the most favourable situation, seem to be more
dangerous for Black. Also deserving of attention is the plan of the f−pawn advance
by Rae1, Ng3, f3−f4 and so on.) 12...dxe4 13 fxe4 ¥e6
a) 14 h3!? leads to very sharp play after 14...c5!? 15 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 16 e5 ¥g5! (in case of
16...cxd4 White can achieve good attacking possibilities by 17 exf6 dxc3 18 bxc3 gxf6 19
¤g3!ƒ) 17 d5! − the position looks dangerous for Black but he is probably holding on
as was proved in a couple of games
b) 14 ¦ad1 14...¤g4! 15 ¥c1 (15 ¥xe7 is also in Black's favour: 15...£xe7 16 £d2 c5 17 d5 ¥d7
18 h3 ¤4e5³ with a small advantage) 15...c5! Getting a very good square e5 for the

48
 pieces. 16 d5 (16 ¥b5 £c7 17 g3 ¦ed8 18 d5 ¥c8³) 16...¥d7 and Black is at least not
worse, Nenashev − Panchenko/Minsk 1986

12 ¦ae1
There are some alternatives. 12 ¦ad1 may lead to the same positions after
a) 12...£a5?! was proved to be dubious in the game Baburin − Ziatdinov/Oak Bridge 2000
13 a3! (13 ¥h4? ¤g4!) 13...¦ac8 14 ¢h1 a6 15 b4! £c7 (15...£xa3?? 16 ¦b1+−) 16 ¤a4
¤h5 17 ¥xe7 ¦xe7 18 ¤c5± Black's position is difficult
there is no sign of counterplay and e3−e4 is coming.
b) while 12...¦c8 is one of the main continuations
c) 12...¤g6 13 ¢h1 and so on
12 ¢h1 ¦c8 13 ¦ad1 ¤g6 14 e4 is a quite logical play. Compared to the game Nenashev −
Panchenko White makes the programmed advance in a better situation − the
inclusion of the moves Kh1 and ... Rc8 is definitely in his favour as the king is
hidden from possible tricks over the g1-b6 diagonal. (14 ¤g3!? looks quite good
leaving the advance e3−e4 for later and trying to achieve some advantages
beforehand. A possible continuation is 14...a6 15 ¤f5 ¥f8 16 e4 ¥xf5 17 exf5 ¤e7 18 g4
£d6 19 £f2 ¤d7 20 ¥b1² and White' s chances look preferable) 14...dxe4 15 fxe4 ¤g4
16 ¥c1 c5 17 e5! In the game Nenashev − Panchenko White could not even think
about this possibility. 17...cxd4 18 ¤xd4 £xd4 19 ¥xg6 £xe5 20 ¥f4 £c5 21
¥xh7+ ¢h8 22 ¥e4 At first sight Black looks completely OK but actually he has
still to avoid some dangers connected with the slightly opened position of his king,
Sadler − Asrian/Las Vegas 1999.

12...¦c8 13 ¢h1
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+rwqrsnk+0
9zpp+-vlpzpp0
9-+p+lsn-+0
9+-+p+-vL-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-sNLzPP+-0
9PzPQ+N+PzP0
9+-+-tRR+K0
xiiiiiiiiy

13...¤6d7
After 13...c5 14 dxc5 ¦xc5 15 ¤d4² White has a certain advantage
13...a6 14 a3 h6 15 ¥h4 c5 is similar: 16 dxc5 ¥xc5 17 ¤d4² with a small edge.

49
14 ¥xe7 £xe7
14...¦xe7 has been played a couple of times but in my opinion a capture with queen looks
more natural.

15 £d2
The immediate 15 e4 could be met well by 15...dxe4 16 fxe4 c5„ with a good counterplay.

15...¤b6
The Knight is rather useful here.

16 b3
16 e4 c5= was fine for Black.

16...¦cd8
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-trrsnk+0
9zpp+-wqpzpp0
9-snp+l+-+0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+PsNLzPP+-0
9P+-wQN+PzP0
9+-+-tRR+K0
xiiiiiiiiy

Not only placing the rook on the d−file to meet e3−e4 head on but at same time keeping in
mind a possible knight transfer to d6 (via c8). Black's position looks quite solid now,
Lutz − Yusupov/Tilburg 1993.

50
 QGD/8 Exchange Variation − various

lines with Ng1-f3 [D36]

Last updated: 05/08/04 by [Link]

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 ¤f6 4 cxd5 exd5 5 ¥g5 ¥e7 6 e3 ¤bd7 7 ¤f3 c6 8

£c2
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqk+-tr0
9zpp+nvlpzpp0
9-+p+-sn-+0
9+-+p+-vL-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-sN-zPN+-0
9PzPQ+-zPPzP0
9tR-+-mKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

8...0-0
A simplifying manoeuvre 8...¤h5 is more popular when White develops his knight to e2. 9
¥xe7 £xe7 10 0-0-0 (10 ¥d3?! hardly promises White any advantage due to 10...¤f4!
and Black is okay: 11 0-0 ¤xd3 12 £xd3 0-0 13 ¦ab1 a5 14 a3 ¤b6 15 ¤d2 g6 16 f3 ¥e6=
with good play) 10...¤b6 11 ¤e5!? Beginning an interesting and rather promising
set−up. (another approach is 11 h3 g6 12 g4 ¤g7 13 ¥d3 ¥e6 14 ¢b1 0-0-0 and now White
begins queenside actions with 15 ¤a4 ¤xa4 16 £xa4 ¢b8 17 ¦c1 intending to
manoeuvre both rooks closer to the Black king via the c−file and the 3rd rank. Yet,
Black's defensive resources are not to be underestimated) 11...g6 12 g4 (in the game
Van Wely − Filippov/WCh Tripoli 2004 White achieved a typical slight edge after
12 h3!? f6 13 ¤d3 ¤g7 14 ¢b1 ¥e6 15 ¢a1 ¥f7 16 ¦c1 ¤e6 17 ¥e2²) 12...¤g7 13 h3 ¥e6
14 ¥e2 Keeping the d3−square available for the knight's retreat after ...f7−f6 as well
as for the rook's manoeuvring. 14...0-0-0 15 ¤a4 ¤xa4 16 £xa4 ¢b8 17 ¦d3! and
White has got a rather annoying initiative in the game Kasymdzhanov −

51
 Hertneck/GER−chT 2001. The White rook quickly gets to the queenside while Black
is late to transfer his knight to c8.

9 ¥d3 ¦e8 10 0-0-0 ¤f8 11 h3

XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqrsnk+0
9zpp+-vlpzpp0
9-+p+-sn-+0
9+-+p+-vL-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-sNLzPN+P0
9PzPQ+-zPP+0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

11...¥e6
Immediate queenside pawn attack does not seem to be well prepared: 11...a5 12 g4 a4
a) some faint−hearted alternatives are not good for Black, for example: 13 ¦dg1?! a3! 14 b3
¥e6 15 ¥xf6?! (15 ¢b1 with Rc1 to follow is much safer) 15...¥xf6 16 ¢b1 ¦c8 17
¤e2 g6 18 h4 ¤d7 19 h5 c5‚ and Black's attack comes first
b) 13 ¤xa4! Principal and probably the best. 13...£a5 14 ¤c3 b5 (14...¥e6!? deserves
attention) Black's initiative looks dangerous but it is White's turn at the moment. 15
¥xf6 ¥xf6 It's hard to believe but after this natural move Black can only look on at
the total destruction of his position. (after the game we can assume the ugly 15...gxf6!?
is the last chance for improvement. Yet, the position doesn't look so clear as Black's
initiative should not be underestimated) 16 g5 ¥e7 17 ¤e5 ¥b7 Not everything looks
so bad for Black here but unfortunately White can immediately start a strong and
probably decisive attack. (17...¥xg5 can be hardly called an improvement: 18 ¤xc6
£b6 19 h4 ¥d8 20 ¤xd5 £b7 21 ¢b1 ¥d7 22 ¤db4+− with a decisive advantage) 18
¥xh7+! ¤xh7 19 g6!‚ with decisive attack, Ruban − [Link]/Jyvaskyla 1991.

12 ¢b1 £a5 13 g4 ¦ac8

52
 XIIIIIIIIY
9-+r+rsnk+0
9zpp+-vlpzpp0
9-+p+lsn-+0
9wq-+p+-vL-0
9-+-zP-+P+0
9+-sNLzPN+P0
9PzPQ+-zP-+0
9+K+R+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

A solid approach against White's queenside castling − Black prefers to develop all his
pieces to active squares...
13...¤e4 is also quite good: 14 ¥xe7 (after 14 ¥xe4 dxe4 15 ¥xe7 ¦xe7 16 ¤d2 ¦ae8 Black gains
an extra tempo compared to Quinteros − Andersson/Mar del Plata 1981 which may
not be too important in itself but this clearly gives Black a good game) 14...¤xc3+
(14...¦xe7 was pretty good) 15 £xc3 (it's better to swap the queens as after 15 bxc3 ¦xe7
the White king is not safe) 15...£xc3 16 bxc3 ¦xe7 and Black is completely okay,
Bischoff − Van der Sterren/Munich 1990.

14 ¦c1 ¤e4
14...c5 gives White better chances after 15 dxc5 ¦xc5 16 ¤d4²

15 ¥xe4
15 ¥xe7 ¦xe7 was also acceptable for Black.

15...dxe4 16 ¥xe7 ¦xe7 17 ¤d2 ¦ce8 18 a3 ¥d5=

XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+rsnk+0
9zpp+-trpzpp0
9-+p+-+-+0
9wq-+l+-+-0
9-+-zPp+P+0
9zP-sN-zP-+P0
9-zPQsN-zP-+0
9+KtR-+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

53
This position arose in the game Quinteros − Andersson/Mar del Plata 1981. Black has
fortified his e4−pawn and his pieces are sufficiently good not to be worried about
possible White activity on the kingside.

54
 QGD/9 Exchange Variation − main lines

Ng1-f3 and 0-0 [D36]

Last updated: 13/02/02 by [Link]

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 ¤f6 4 cxd5 exd5 5 ¥g5 ¥e7 6 e3 ¤bd7 7 ¥d3 0-0 8

¤f3 ¦e8 9 0-0 c6 10 £c2 ¤f8
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqrsnk+0
9zpp+-vlpzpp0
9-+p+-sn-+0
9+-+p+-vL-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-sNLzPN+-0
9PzPQ+-zPPzP0
9tR-+-+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

A start position of this system. White has a lot of possible continuations and it's impossible
to say which is preferable. It's just a matter of taste but of course depends on the
plans which the player has in mind.

11 ¦ab1
This is an old and still most popular continuation. White is preparing for the "minority
attack".
11 h3 is one of the most promising attempts:
a) 11...¥e6 12 ¦fc1!? (12 ¥f4 was also tried. Black can obtain a good play by 12...¥d6 13 ¥xd6
£xd6 14 ¦ab1 ¦e7!? 15 b4 ¦ae8 16 ¦fc1 ¤g6 17 b5 c5 18 dxc5 £xc5 and White should be
careful about his kingside − such ideas as ...¥e6xh3 followed by ...¦e7xe3 are
hovering over the board, Van Wely − Yusupov/Frankfurt Masters 2000) 12...¤6d7
13 ¥f4 ¤b6 14 ¦ab1 ¥d6 (It was possible to include 14...¤g6!? 15 ¥h2 ¥d6 but it is
not so clear if the Knight is better placed on g6 ) 15 ¤e2 ¤g6 It seems that it was to
too bad to do it on the previous move. 16 ¥xd6 £xd6 17 a4! ¦ac8 18 £c5 £b8 19

55
 £a3 a6 20 ¦c3 £c7 21 ¦bc1 ¦a8 22 ¤d2² with a certain advantage, Karpov −
Kharitonov/USSR (ch) 1988
b) 11...¥d6?! is dubious as the standard ...¤f8−g6 and h7−h6 cannot be realised here. After
12 ¦ae1 ¥d7 (Of course not 12...¤g6?! 13 e4 dxe4 14 ¤xe4 ruining Black's pawn
structure on the K−side.) 13 a3!? ¤g6 14 e4 dxe4 15 ¤xe4 ¥e7 16 ¤c5 ¥c8 17 ¥c4
Black has got better chances, [Link] − Polovodin/Tula 1999
c) 11...g6 is playable. After 12 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 13 b4 a6 14 a4 ¥e6 15 b5 axb5 16 axb5 ¤d7!
White realised that he cannot prevent ...c6−c5 so Black's only problem will be the d5
pawn: 17 bxc6 bxc6 18 ¤e2 c5! and Black held this position without much
problems, Karpov − Ehlvest/Vienna 1996
d) 11...¤g6 12 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 13 b4
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqr+k+0
9zpp+-+pzpp0
9-+p+-vln+0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-zP-zP-+-+0
9+-sNLzPN+P0
9P+Q+-zPP+0
9tR-+-+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

13...a6 14 a4 can be met by 14...¥e7 15 b5 ¥d6 (15...axb5?! is a clear mistake as it made a4

square available for the White's knight: 16 axb5 ¥d7 17 bxc6 bxc6 18 ¤a4 ¦a5 19 ¤d2 £c7
20 ¤b3 ¦a7 21 ¤ac5± and Black's life is difficult) 16 bxc6 bxc6 17 ¥f5 a5 18 ¦fc1
£f6 19 ¥xc8 ¦exc8 with reasonable play for Black
A straightforward approach 11 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 12 b4 is not very popular nowadays. 12...¥g4 13
¤d2
a) in the game Kortchnoi − Karpov/Baguio City (m/31) 1978 White achieved a slight edge
after 13...¦c8 14 ¥f5 ¥xf5 15 £xf5 £d7 (15...¤e6!? was not so bad, keeping queens
on the board: 16 ¦ab1 g6 17 £d3 ¥g7 with acceptable play) 16 £xd7 ¤xd7 17 a4 ¥e7
18 ¦fb1 ¤f6 19 a5!? Since it is hard to realise the plan b4−b5xc6 White comes up
with an interesting scheme: he blockades the kingside and hopes to target the b7
pawn at a future date via the center or the kingside. Black's position is safe and solid
but he has no active possibilities at all. 19...a6 20 ¤a4 ¥f8 21 ¤c5 ¦e7 22 ¢f1 ¤e8
23 ¢e2 ¤d6 24 ¢d3² and Black has not managed to hold this endgame although it
is obviously drawn
b) 13...¥e7 A typical manoeuvre− Black moves the bishop to its best square on d6. 14 ¦ab1
(White cannot advance 14 b5?! without sufficient control over the c5 square: 14...c5! 15
dxc5 ¥xc5 16 ¤b3 ¥b6³ with already better chances for Black) 14...¥d6 15 ¥f5 ¥h5! A
modern and concrete approach to the dilemma of exchanging light−square bishops:
here Black's is more useful and so he refrains from its trade. 16 ¦fc1 (16 b5?! is still
in Black's favour: 16...c5 17 ¤xd5 cxd4 18 e4 ¥e2 19 ¦fe1 d3ƒ) 16...g6 17 ¥d3 (17 ¥h3?!
was dubious: 17...¤e6 18 ¥xe6 ¦xe6 19 h3 g5!³ with an advantage for Black.) 17...£g5„

56
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+rsnk+0
9zpp+-+p+p0
9-+pvl-+p+0
9+-+p+-wql0
9-zP-zP-+-+0
9+-sNLzP-+-0
9P+QsN-zPPzP0
9+RtR-+-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

with a good counterplay, Timman − Kasparov/London 1984

11 ¦ae1 Black has tried lots of continuations here.
a) 11...¥e6 seems to be weaker. After 12 ¤e5 ¤6d7 13 ¥xe7 ¦xe7 14 f4 f6 15 ¤f3 the
position looks similar to Browne − Lukov but with a little difference which is rather
important. Compared to the line 11. ¤e5 ¤g4 White has secured both knights so he
has much more active possibilities. In particular, the knight on f3 not only help with
a possible kingside attack with g2−g4, h2−h4, g4−g5− its potential is far greater ...
15...¦c8 16 f5 ¥f7 17 g4 c5 18 £f2 a6 19 ¤h4! A very good manoeuvre. The knight
is going to f4 to exert pressure on the d5 pawn. 19...b5 20 a3 It was dubious to allow
...b5−b4 followed by ...c5−c4. 20...£b6 21 ¤g2 ¦ce8 22 ¦c1! A subtle move.
22...£d6 23 £f4² with advantage, Rogers − Speelman/Spain 1994
b) Among the many possibilities which Black has tried in this position I would like to pay
attention to the move 11...g6 A possible continuation is 12 ¤e5 ¤e6 13 f4 (13 ¥h4!?
¤g7 14 f3 deserves attention) 13...¤g7 14 h3 ¥f5 15 g4 ¥xd3 16 £xd3 ¤d7! 17 ¥xe7
¦xe7 18 e4 ¤f6„ with mutual chances.
c) 11...¤e4 This manoeuvre is quite typical for the "Karlsbad structure". 12 ¥xe7 (12 ¥f4
has been played from time to time. Probably Black's most reliable answer is 12...¥f5
with the possible follow−up 13 h3 ¤xc3 14 bxc3 ¥xd3 15 £xd3 ¤g6 with acceptable play)
12...£xe7 13 ¥xe4 dxe4 14 ¤d2 f5
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+rsnk+0
9zpp+-wq-zpp0
9-+p+-+-+0
9+-+-+p+-0
9-+-zPp+-+0
9+-sN-zP-+-0
9PzPQsN-zPPzP0
9+-+-tRRmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

c1) 15 d5 does not pose any problems for Black: 15...¥d7! The best defence.

57
c1a) 16 £b3 is not dangerous for Black: 16...cxd5 17 £xb7 (17 ¤xd5?! allows Black to take
the initiative: 17...£f7 18 ¤c7 ¥e6 19 ¤xe6 ¤xe6ƒ) 17...¦eb8! 18 £xd5+ ¥e6 19 £c6
¥d7 and White should take a draw by repetition.
c1b) 16 f3 16...exf3 17 ¤xf3 cxd5 18 ¤xd5 £e4 19 £xe4 ¦xe4 20 ¤d4 ¦ae8 and Black
has no problems at all, Spassov − Van der Sterren/Albena 1983
c2) 15 f3 The main continuation which is quite consistent with previous play. 15...exf3 16
¤xf3 ¥e6 17 e4 fxe4 18 ¦xe4 h6
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+rsnk+0
9zpp+-wq-zp-0
9-+p+l+-zp0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+-zPR+-+0
9+-sN-+N+-0
9PzPQ+-+PzP0
9+-+-+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

This position has been played many of times but White has failed to prove any advantage.
19 ¦fe1 (in case of 19 ¤e2 Black can get a counterplay by 19...£b4! 20 a3 £b3 21 £d2
¥d5 22 ¦xe8 ¦xe8 23 ¤e5 ¤e6 24 ¤c3 £b6 25 ¤xd5 and now 25...£xd4+! 26 £xd4 ¤xd4=)
19...¦ad8 It is known that the pin over e−file cannot give anything tangible for
White.
c2a) White has tried many possibilities here, for example: 20 ¦1e3 £f7 21 £e2 ¥c4 22 £e1
¦xe4 23 ¦xe4 ¥e6 24 h4 ¦e8 25 ¤e5 £f6 26 £g3 £d8³ with a small edge for Black
c2b) 20 ¦e5 £f7 21 b4?! (¹21 a3) 21...¤d7 22 ¦a5? (¹22 ¦5e3) 22...¥g4ƒ with the initiative
c2c) 20 h3!? 20...£d6 21 ¦1e3 Both sides consolidated their armies. White's position does
not look promising to fight for advantage, Yussupow − Kramnik/Vienna Millenium
1996
11 ¤e5 This active−looking move only makes Black's defence easier. 11...¤g4! Black has
tried various moves here but the text seems to be the safest and most solid one. 12
¥xe7 £xe7 13 ¤xg4 ¥xg4 14 ¦ae1 ¥h5

58
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+rsnk+0
9zpp+-wqpzpp0
9-+p+-+-+0
9+-+p+-+l0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-sNLzP-+-0
9PzPQ+-zPPzP0
9+-+-tRRmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

Here a lot of continuations have been tested. The immediate bishop retreat seems to be one
of the most reliable. White's possible plan is: f2−f4−f5 then Rf4, Qf2, g4, h4 trying
to seize the initiative on the queenside. The first problem Black has to solve is:
where is the proper place for the Bishop in view of all this? The correct answer is on
f7 where it not only covers some important squares on the kingside but also helps to
create queenside counterplay with ...c6−c5. 15 f4 f6 16 £f2 (16 f5 ¥f7 17 £f2 ¦ad8= is
also good for Black) 16...¥g6!? Black provokes f4−f5 at the cost of a tempo so as to
make clarify the structure. 17 f5 (17 ¥xg6 ¤xg6 18 f5 was pointless as after 18...¤h8!
Black will transfer his knight to d6 obtaining small advantage) 17...¥f7 18 ¢h1 a6
19 ¦g1 c5 20 g4 h6 21 h4 ¤h7 22 a3 b5 Both sides are playing very logically. Black
has successfully defended on the kingside and now begins actions on the opposite
side of the board where he has a pawn majority. Of course White cannot wait
otherwise his queenside will be destroyed. 23 e4! cxd4 (23...dxe4? was just bad
because of 24 ¥xe4 ¦ad8 25 ¥c6+−) 24 ¤xd5 This position arose in the game Browne
− Lukov/Palma de Mallorca 1989. Here 24...£e5 seemed much more reliable: 25
¤f4 ¥c4 26 ¥b1 ¦ad8 27 ¦g3 a5 28 b3 ¥f7÷ with mutual chances.

11...¤g6
One of the safest and most solid continuations.
Instead of this standard approach Black tested a number of moves, the main possibilities
being: 11...a5
11...¤e4
11...g6

12 b4

59
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqr+k+0
9zpp+-vlpzpp0
9-+p+-snn+0
9+-+p+-vL-0
9-zP-zP-+-+0
9+-sNLzPN+-0
9P+Q+-zPPzP0
9+R+-+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

12...a6
12...¥d6 was also tried. At first sight the play without the inclusion ...a6 and a4 seems to be
in White's favour but Black is not without a counterplay anyway: 13 b5!? (13 ¥f5
¥xf5 14 £xf5 can be strongly met by 14...£d7! and White is forced to swap the queens:
15 £xd7 ¤xd7 16 b5 ¤b6 with roughly equal endgame) 13...h6 14 ¥xf6 (14 ¥xh6? does
not work: 14...gxh6 15 ¥xg6 fxg6 16 £xg6+ ¢h8 17 £xh6+ ¤h7∓ 14 bxc6 bxc6 15 ¥xf6 £xf6
16 e4 can be met by a standard 16...¤f4! 17 e5 £e6! 18 ¤e2 ¤xd3 19 £xd3 ¥e7 (the fact
the a−pawns are on the board deprives Black of the possibility of activating the
Bishop on a6) 20 ¦fc1 £f5 21 £c3 ¥d7 22 ¤g3 £e6 23 ¤e1 ¦eb8 24 ¤d3 £g6 25 ¦b3 ¦b6 26
¤c5 ¥c8 27 ¤f1 h5 28 ¦e1 h4 29 h3 ¦ab8 with excellent play) 14...£xf6 15 e4! (now 15
¦fe1 is out of the point: 15...¥g4 16 ¤d2 ¤h4 with initiative on the K−side.) 15...¤f4!
16 e5 £e6™
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+r+k+0
9zpp+-+pzp-0
9-+pvlq+-zp0
9+P+pzP-+-0
9-+-zP-sn-+0
9+-sNL+N+-0
9P+Q+-zPPzP0
9+R+-+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

a) 17 exd6?! was in Black's favour: 17...£g4 18 ¤h4 (18 ¤e1 ¦xe1 19 f3 ¦xf1+ 20 ¦xf1 £e6∓)
18...£xh4 19 ¦fe1 ¥h3‚ with an attack.
b) 17 ¤h4?! was also dubious: 17...£g4 18 g3 ¤xd3 19 exd6 ¤f4∓ and the Knight escapes.
c) 17 ¤e2!? deserved attention: 17...¤xd3 (17...¤xg2? 18 ¤g3!+− 17...¤xe2+ 18 ¥xe2! ¥c7 19
bxc6 bxc6 20 ¦fc1 ¥d7 21 ¥a6 <−>c6) 18 £xd3 ¥c7 19 bxc6 bxc6 20 ¦fc1÷ with
unclear play

60
d) 17 ¤e1 17...¥f8 18 ¤e2 (The preliminary 18 bxc6?! bxc6 gave Black an extra possibility in
activating the Bishop: 19 ¤e2 ¤xd3 20 ¤xd3 ¥a6„) 18...¤xd3 19 ¤xd3 cxb5!
Otherwise it could be very difficult to solve the problem of the c6 pawn.
d1) After the hasty 20 ¦xb5 Black could quickly activate his pieces: 20...£a6 21 £b1 (21
¦xd5? ¥e6 21 £b3 b6! 22 ¤ef4 ¥d7 23 ¦xd5 ¥a4 24 £c3 ¦ac8) 21...¥f5ƒ taking the
initiative.
d2) 20 ¤df4! and here Black should have played 20...£c6!? (20...£g4? 21 ¦xb5 b6 22 h3 £g5
23 ¦b3!± Dydyshko − Kveinys/Moscow 1994) 21 £b3 (21 £d3 b4! 22 ¦fc1 £d7÷)
21...b4 22 ¦fc1 (22 ¦bc1 £a6 23 £xd5÷) 22...£a6 23 ¦c7 ¥e6 24 ¦bc1© with
complicated play.

13 a4 ¥d6
Black is threatening to trap the Bishop with ...h7−h6.

14 ¦fe1!?
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqr+k+0
9+p+-+pzpp0
9p+pvl-snn+0
9+-+p+-vL-0
9PzP-zP-+-+0
9+-sNLzPN+-0
9-+Q+-zPPzP0
9+R+-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

An interesting attempt. White tries to combine both b4−b5 and e3−e4 ideas.
Before only 14 b5 was played: 14...axb5 15 axb5 h6 16 ¥xf6 £xf6 and now:
a) 17 bxc6 bxc6 18 e4 (18 ¦b6 ¥g4 19 ¤d2 ¦e6 20 ¤a4 ¤h4ƒ with the initiative) 18...¤f4! 19
e5 £e6! (a typical resource) 20 ¤e2 ¤xd3 21 £xd3 ¥a6 with excellent play
b) 17 e4 ¤f4! (17...dxe4 is weaker because of 18 ¤xe4 £f4 19 ¤xd6 £xd6 20 bxc6 bxc6 21 ¦fc1²
with a small advantage) 18 e5 £e6!
c) 17 ¦fe1 17...¥g4 18 ¤d2 ¤h4 with a queenside initiative.

14...¥g4!
14...h6?! 15 ¥xf6 £xf6 16 e4 may be unfavourable for Black.

15 ¤h4 ¥h5!?
After 15...¥d7 16 h3² White has a small advantage.

61
16 ¤xg6 ¥xg6 17 ¥h4!
(...Bh2 was threatened)

17...¥e7 18 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 19 ¥xg6

The immediate 19 b5? was a serious inaccuracy as after 19...¥xd3 20 £xd3 axb5 21 axb5
c5! 22 dxc5? ¦a3 is followed by ...£a5 capturing the Knight.

19...hxg6 20 b5
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wqr+k+0
9+p+-+pzp-0
9p+p+-vlp+0
9+P+p+-+-0
9P+-zP-+-+0
9+-sN-zP-+-0
9-+Q+-zPPzP0
9+R+-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

White has finally advanced his b−pawn and probably stands slightly better. But his
advantage is not so easy to increase as Black can successfully fight against the
possible transfer of the knight to c5.

20...¦c8!?
Black wisely refrains from exchanging the pawns so as not to make the a4 square available
for the knight. Notice another interesting idea: Black also does not play ... a6−a5,
trying to use the a5 square for the queen!

21 bxa6 bxa6 22 ¤e2 ¥e7 23 ¦ed1 c5²

with a slightly worse but quite defensible position, Knaak − Balashov/Berlin 1988.

62
 5. Bf4 System

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 ¥e7 4 ¤f3 ¤f6 5 ¥f4

XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwqk+-tr0
9zppzp-vlpzpp0
9-+-+psn-+0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+PzP-vL-+0
9+-sN-+N+-0
9PzP-+PzPPzP0
9tR-+QmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

The system with 5. ¥c1−f4 is rather popular nowadays. It offers many attractive
variations for those who like boring play with a small, often disappearing, advantage but
with no counter chances for the opponents, as well as for the tough fighters, who try to
destroy their rivals from the very beginning even if this involves conceding real
counterplay.
The theory of the system 5. ¥f4 is well developed but there are many different
variations and many strong players are searching for the truth, so surprises are quite
possible either in the well−beaten or in the almost forgotten paths. Read "Chess Publishing"
and be a pioneer− good luck!

63
 QGD/10 5. Bf4 − without ...c7−c5 [D37]

Last updated: 02/12/03 by [Link]

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 ¥e7 4 ¤f3 ¤f6 5 ¥f4

XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwqk+-tr0
9zppzp-vlpzpp0
9-+-+psn-+0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+PzP-vL-+0
9+-sN-+N+-0
9PzP-+PzPPzP0
9tR-+QmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

The system with 5. Bc1-f4 is rather popular nowadays. It offers many attractive variations
for those who like boring play with a small, often disappearing, advantage but with
no counter chances for the opponents, as well as for the tough fighters, who try to
destroy their rivals from the very beginning even if this involves conceding real
counterplay.

5...0-0 6 e3
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwq-trk+0
9zppzp-vlpzpp0
9-+-+psn-+0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+PzP-vL-+0
9+-sN-zPN+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9tR-+QmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

64
6...c6
Instead of 6 ...c5, which often leads to positions with an isolated d−pawn, or the
complications with opposed−castled kings Black prefers to postpone a confrontation
in the center. However, it is somewhat passive and the future attempts to get active
counterplay won't be as easy as Black is hoping for.
There are also some alternatives of this kind. 6...¤bd7
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9zppzpnvlpzpp0
9-+-+psn-+0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+PzP-vL-+0
9+-sN-zPN+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9tR-+QmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

a) 7 £c2 is an alternative: 7...c5 (7...a6 seems dubious as after 8 cxd5 exd5 9 ¥d3 c6 the
transposition to the Carlsbad pawn structure seems to be clearly in White's favour.
The move a7−a6 might be a waste of time while the position of the bishop on f4
(instead of g5) has its benefits − such typical manoeuvres as ...Nf6−e4 (after Rf8−
e8) or ...Nf8−g6 have no effect as the bishop is already secured from exchange. The
game Khalifman − Kamsky/Wch (m/2) Las Vegas 1999 continued by 10 h3 ¦e8 11 g4
¤f8 12 0-0-0 ¥e6 13 ¤g5!? and White began direct actions on the kingside) 8 dxc5
¤xc5 with playable, probably slight worse position for Black
b) 7 a3 7...c5
b1) 8 dxc5 does not promise much: 8...¤xc5 9 cxd5 (9 ¥e2 ¤fe4) 9...¤xd5 10 ¤xd5 £xd5!?
with a good play for Black
b2) 8 cxd5 8...¤xd5 9 ¤xd5 exd5 10 dxc5 ¤xc5 11 ¥e5
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9zpp+-vlpzpp0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-snpvL-+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9zP-+-zPN+-0
9-zP-+-zPPzP0
9tR-+QmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

A typical position with isolated pawn is reached.

65
b2a) Black has also tried some other possibilities: 11...¥g4 12 ¥e2 ¥f6 (the other options
would help Black to get rid of the isolated pawn but they do not completely equalise:
12...¤e6 13 0-0 ¥f6 14 ¥xf6 £xf6 15 £xd5 £xb2 16 ¥d3²
or 12...¥xf3 13 ¥xf3 ¥f6 14 ¥xf6 £xf6 15 £xd5 £xb2 16 0-0² with a small advantage for White in
both cases.) 13 ¥xf6 £xf6 14 £d4 ¤e4 (or 14...£xd4 15 ¤xd4 ¥xe2 16 ¢xe2 ¦fc8 17
¦ac1 ¤e6 18 ¤f5 and so on) 15 £xf6 ¤xf6 16 ¤d4 ¥xe2 17 ¢xe2 ¦fc8 18 ¦ac1 a6 19
f3² White has got a typical small and stable advantage. Black should hold such
endgame with precise play but White can pressurize comfortably and long − in the
game Leitao − Bruzon/Havana 2003 Black has eventually failed to hold on.
b2b) Another bishop move 11...¥f5!? deserves attention: 12 ¥e2 a5 13 0-0 a4 14 ¦c1 ¥e4
15 ¦c3 ¥d6 16 ¥xd6 £xd6 17 ¤d4 ¦fd8 18 f3 ¥g6 19 £d2 h6 20 ¦fc1 b6 with a
good play
b2c) 11...¥f6 12 ¥xf6 £xf6 13 £d4 (in case of 13 ¦c1 an isolated pawn's dream would
come true after 13...¤e6 14 ¦c2 ¦d8 15 ¦d2 d4! 16 ¤xd4 ¤xd4 17 ¦xd4 ¥e6 18 ¥e2 ¦xd4 19
£xd4 £xd4 20 exd4 ¦d8 21 ¥f3 b6 22 ¢e2 ¦xd4 23 ¦c1 ¦c4 24 ¦xc4 ¥xc4+ 25 ¢e3 ¢f8= with
a dead draw)
b2c1) 13...£d6!? seems to be a good alternative: 14 ¦d1 ¦d8 15 ¥c4 (or 15 ¥d3 ¤xd3+ 16
¦xd3 ¥f5 17 ¦c3 ¥e4 18 0-0 ¥xf3 19 gxf3 £g6+ 20 ¢h1 £f5 with excellent play) 15...¥f5
16 0-0 ¥c2! 17 ¦c1 dxc4 18 ¦xc2 b5 19 £xd6 ¦xd6 20 ¤d4 a6 21 ¦b1 ¦ad8 and
Black is completely OK
b2c2) 13...£e7!? is also worthy of consideration: 14 ¦d1 ¦d8 15 ¥d3 (15 ¥e2 ¥f5 was fine
for Black) 15...¤xd3+ 16 ¦xd3 ¥f5 17 ¦c3 ¦ac8 18 0-0 ¦xc3 19 £xc3 ¦c8 20 £b3
¥e4 21 ¤d4 h6 22 f3 ¥g6 23 ¦e1 ¦c4 24 £d1 £c5 25 £d2 a5 and White cannot
achieve much
b2c3) 13...£xd4 14 ¤xd4 ¥d7 15 f3² White has achieved a typical small advantage in the
endgame thanks to the better pawn structure. Black can defend such positions with
isolated pawn but he should play accurately and in the game Zvjagintsev −
Lputian/Poikovsky 2003 he has failed to get half a point.
Sometimes Black plays 6...b6 7 cxd5 ¤xd5 8 ¤xd5
a) 8...exd5 is a less popular alternative. A possible line is 9 ¥d3 ¥b4+ 10 ¢e2 (10 ¤d2!?²)
10...¥d6 11 ¥xd6 £xd6 12 ¦c1 (12 £c2 ¥a6 13 ¦hd1²) 12...c5! (12...¥a6?! 13 ¥xa6 ¤xa6
14 £a4 b5 15 £c2±) 13 dxc5 bxc5 14 £a4 ¥a6 15 ¦hd1 ¥xd3+ 16 ¦xd3² with a
typical stable advantage for White thanks to the pressure over the "hanging pawns"
b) 8...£xd5 9 ¥d3 The game Sakaev − Tregubov, Tch−RUS [Link] 1999 continued
by 9...c5!? This programmed advance looks like a blunder as Black loses a pawn at
once. However everything is not so clear (The more reliable 9...¥a6 doesn't solve the
problems completely. After 10 0-0 c5 11 e4 £b7 12 d5 exd5 13 exd5 ¥xd3 14 £xd3 ¤a6 15
¦ad1² White keeps better chances thanks to the strong passed pawn) 10 £c2 Thanks
to the threat Bd3−e4 White wins a pawn h7. 10...¥b7 The only move. 11 ¥xh7+
¢h8
b1) 12 dxc5!? was also possible: 12...£xc5 (12...g6 13 ¥xg6 fxg6 14 £xg6±) 13 £xc5 ¥xc5 14
¥d3± with an extra pawn in the endgame but perhaps White didn't want to sacrifice
the bishop.
b2) 12 ¥d3 12...¤a6 A capture of the pawn h7 cost White two tempi and, as often happens,
Black gained the initiative. Now ...Na6−b4 should be prevented. 13 a3 cxd4 14 exd4
£a5+!

66
b2a) Unfortunately for White, 15 ¥d2 could have been strongly met by 15...¤b4! 16 ¥xb4
(16 £b1 ¤xd3+ 17 £xd3 £h5÷) 16...¥xb4+ 17 ¢e2 ¦ac8© with excellent compensation
for the pawn.
b2b) 15 ¢e2 15...¦ac8 16 £d2 £h5 All Black's pieces are very active. 17 ¦hc1 and here
17...¦cd8!? would promise Black satisfactory counterplay. Yet, this approach looks
risky and White's play would be definitely improved.

7 £c2 ¤bd7 8 h3 a6 9 ¦d1

Black keeps in mind a capture on c4 so White is in no hurry to develop the king's bishop,
playing as many useful moves as possible first. The rook is good on d1 in case of a
possible ...c6−c5 too.

9...h6
The queenside action 9...b5 would be met by 10 c5 and after 10...b4 11 ¤a4 a5 12 ¥d3 ¥a6
13 ¥xa6 ¦xa6 14 0-0 £c8 15 ¤e1 ¥d8 16 ¤d3 ¥c7 17 a3 bxa3 18 bxa3 ¦e8 19
¥xc7 £xc7 20 ¦b1 e5 21 ¦b6! ¦aa8 (21...¤xb6 22 cxb6 ¦xb6 23 ¤xb6 £xb6 24 ¤xe5 ¦e6
25 ¦c1+−) 22 £b2± White achieves a tangible advantage.

10 a3
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9+p+nvlpzp-0
9p+p+psn-zp0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+PzP-vL-+0
9zP-sN-zPN+P0
9-zPQ+-zPP+0
9+-+RmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

10...dxc4
It wasn't so easy for Black to keep patience in a rather dull situation but such a waiting
move as 10...¦e8!? would be playable.

11 ¥xc4 ¤d5
11...b5 12 ¥a2 ¥b7 13 e4 ¦e8 14 ¥b1± is clearly better for White.

12 0-0!

67
The routine 12 ¥g3 ¤xc3 13 £xc3² could also secure the edge but the text is more
energetic.

12...¤xf4 13 exf4
The downside of damaging the pawn structure would be probably outweighed by some
obvious benefits. White has secured control over the center, gained the e−file for the
rook − Black can only dream about getting his c8−bishop into play. The f−pawn
would be used as a ram at some point and, as we'll see, the d−pawn is not fixed,
either.

13...£c7
In the case of 13...¦e8 14 ¤e5 ¤f8 White would increase the pressure by 15 f5! ¥f6 16
¤e4 £e7 17 ¤g4 ¤h7 18 ¦fe1± and so on.

14 ¤e5 ¤f6
The attempt 14...c5!? deserved attention but White's pieces are too active to allow Black to
get activity. A possible line was 15 ¥a2!? (15 d5 ¤xe5 16 fxe5 £xe5 17 ¦fe1ƒ) 15...¤xe5
(15...cxd4? 16 ¥b1 ¤f6 17 ¤d5!+−) 16 dxe5 b5 17 ¥b1 g6 18 ¦d3!‚ with an attack on
the kingside.

15 ¥a2
A very good manoeuvre − the £+¥ battery will be very annoying for Black.

15...¥d7 16 ¥b1±
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+-trk+0
9+pwqlvlpzp-0
9p+p+psn-zp0
9+-+-sN-+-0
9-+-zP-zP-+0
9zP-sN-+-+P0
9-zPQ+-zPP+0
9+L+R+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

The game Kramnik − Lputian/Debrecen 1992 continued by

16...¥e8?

68
16...¦fd8™ was the only way: 17 ¤e4 ¢f8 18 ¤xf6 ¥xf6 19 £h7! ¢e7 20 ¦fe1 ¦h8 21
£c2± with a clear advantage (Kramnik) although Black can still fight.

17 d5!!
and Black found himself in big trouble.

69
 QGD/11 5. Bf4 0-0 6. e3 c5 − various

White systems [D37]

Last updated: 02/12/03 by [Link]

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 ¥e7 4 ¤f3 ¤f6 5 ¥f4 0-0 6 e3 c5 7 dxc5 ¥xc5 8 a3

¤c6 9 ¦c1
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9zpp+-+pzpp0
9-+n+psn-+0
9+-vlp+-+-0
9-+P+-vL-+0
9zP-sN-zPN+-0
9-zP-+-zPPzP0
9+-tRQmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

This continuation is less popular than the common 9. Qc2. Here Black has a wide choice.

9...a6
There are many possibilities. Some examples: 9...dxc4 10 ¥xc4 £xd1+ 11 ¦xd1 a6 12 ¥d3
¦d8 13 ¤a4!? ¥a7 14 ¥c7 ¦d7 15 ¥b6 ¤d5 16 ¥xa7 ¦xa7 17 ¥c4 b5 18 ¥xd5 ¦xd5
19 ¦xd5 exd5 20 ¤c3 ¥e6 21 ¤d4! ¤xd4 22 exd4² with stable advantage
9...¥e7 10 cxd5 exd5 11 ¥e2 ¥e6 12 ¤d4 ¦c8 13 0-0 a6 14 ¤xc6 ¦xc6 15 ¥e5², and Black
has not equalised
9...d4 10 exd4 (10 ¤xd4 can be met by an interesting 10...e5! 11 ¤b3 ¥xa3 12 bxa3 exf4 13 £xd8
¦xd8 14 exf4 ¥e6© with a compensation) 10...¤xd4
a) 11 ¥e2 is an alternative: 11...£e7 (11...¤xe2 12 £xe2²) 12 b4 ¦d8 13 ¥d2 ¤xf3+ (13...¤xe2
14 £xe2²) 14 ¥xf3 ¥d4 15 0-0 e5 16 £c2 ¥e6 17 c5² with small advantage
b) 11 ¤e5 11...b6 12 ¥d3 ¥b7 13 0-0 h6 14 b4!? ¥e7 15 ¤b5!² and Black still faces
problems.

10 b4

70
The alternative 10 cxd5 seems less promising as after 10...exd5 it's almost impossible for
White to prevent the simplifying ...d5−d4.
a) 11 ¥g5?! was proved to be dubious in the game which continued 11...d4! 12 ¤b5?!
(according to Nigel Short, White already faced problems: 12 ¤e4 £a5+ 13 b4 ¤xb4 14
axb4 ¥xb4+ 15 ¤ed2 ¤e4 16 ¥f4 dxe3 17 ¥xe3 ¦d8‚ 12 ¥xf6 gxf6 13 ¤e4 ¥b6ƒ 12 exd4 ¤xd4
13 ¤xd4 £xd4! 14 £xd4 ¥xd4 15 ¥e2 ¦e8³) 12...dxe3! 13 £xd8 (13 ¦xc5 exf2+ 14 ¢e2
£e7+-+) 13...exf2+ 14 ¢e2 ¦xd8∓ and White is in trouble
b) 11 ¥e2 is harmless for Black: 11...d4 12 exd4 (12 ¤b5 axb5 13 ¦xc5 dxe3 14 ¥xe3 b4=)
12...¤xd4 13 ¤xd4 ¥xd4 14 0-0 ¥e6 15 £d2 £b6 16 ¤a4 £a7 17 ¦cd1 ¦ad8÷ with
unclear play
c) 11 b4 ¥a7 12 ¥e2 d4 looks equal as well: 13 exd4 ¤xd4 14 ¤xd4 £xd4 15 ¥e3 £xd1+
16 ¤xd1 ¥d7 17 ¥f3 a5 18 ¥xb7 ¥xe3 19 ¤xe3 ¦ab8 20 ¥f3=
d) 11 ¥d3 11...¥a7 (11...¥g4 is also not so bad) 12 0-0 d4 13 exd4 ¤xd4 14 ¤xd4 £xd4 15
¥e3 £h4 16 ¥xa7 ¦xa7 17 £a4 £xa4 18 ¤xa4 The ending is drawish but Black
should play precisely. 18...¥e6! (18...b5 19 ¤c5²) 19 ¥e2 ¦e8 20 ¦fe1 ¢f8 21 h3 b5
22 ¤c5 ¥d5 with equality.

10...¥d6
Black has also tried the other bishop's retreat to e7 and a7, but it seems that White keeps the
advantage in all lines: 10...¥e7 11 c5 ¤h5 12 ¤a4 (12 ¥d3 ¤xf4 13 exf4²) 12...¤xf4 13
exf4 £c7 14 ¤b6 ¦b8 15 £d2 ¥d7 16 ¥d3 ¥f6 17 0-0 ¤e7 18 ¦fe1²
10...¥a7 11 c5 h6 12 ¥e2 ¥b8 13 0-0 e5 14 ¥g3²

11 ¥g5!?
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9+p+-+pzpp0
9p+nvlpsn-+0
9+-+p+-vL-0
9-zPP+-+-+0
9zP-sN-zPN+-0
9-+-+-zPPzP0
9+-tRQmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

An interesting idea to pressurise Black's position in the center.

11 ¥xd6 seems less promising: 11...£xd6 12 ¥e2 (or 12 cxd5 exd5 13 ¥e2 ¥g4 14 0-0 ¦fd8)
12...¦d8 13 cxd5 exd5 14 0-0 ¥g4 with good play for Black.

11...a5!?

71
In reply Black begins concrete actions against White's Q−side − a rather unusual and risky
approach.
11...¥e7 does not promise a full equality: 12 c5!? h6 13 ¥h4 ¤d7 14 ¥g3 b6 15 cxb6 ¤xb6
16 ¥e2 ¥b7 17 0-0²

12 b5 ¤e5 13 ¤xe5
13 c5 is an interesting idea. However, it does not promise real chances to get advantage:
13...¤xf3+ 14 gxf3! (in case of 14 £xf3?! White's idea did not work well: 14...¥xc5 15
¤xd5 exd5 16 ¦xc5 £d6ƒ with a strong initiative) 14...¥xc5 15 ¤xd5 £xd5 16 £xd5
¤xd5 17 ¦xc5 This position arose in the game Najer − Kaidanov/Moscow 2003.
White has got a pair of bishops in the endgame but a lack of development and the
poor position of the bishop on g5 do not give him real chances to obtain an
advantage. The game continued 17...f6 18 ¥h4 ¥d7 19 e4 ¤b6 20 ¥g3 e5 21 f4
¦ac8! with a good play for Black.

13...¥xe5 14 c5 a4!
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9+p+-+pzpp0
9-+-+psn-+0
9+PzPpvl-vL-0
9p+-+-+-+0
9zP-sN-zP-+-0
9-+-+-zPPzP0
9+-tRQmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

Preventing the annoying Nc3−a4.

15 f4 ¥xc3+ 16 ¦xc3
Black's position looks bad but a beautiful and fairly unexpected idea of Vishy Anand gives
him reasonable counter chances.

16...e5!!

72
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9+p+-+pzpp0
9-+-+-sn-+0
9+PzPpzp-vL-0
9p+-+-zP-+0
9zP-tR-zP-+-0
9-+-+-+PzP0
9+-+QmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

A brilliant resource − if White was able to put his queen on d4 then the whole Black's set−
up was just wrong.

17 ¥xf6
The point of Black's trick is that 17 fxe5? fails due to the unexpected 17...£a5!

17...£xf6 18 fxe5 £h4+

Before taking the pawn e5 Black can force some weakening of the White's K−side.

19 g3 £e4 20 ¦g1 ¥g4!?

20...£xe5 is also playable: 21 £d4 £h5 22 h4 ¥g4 23 ¥d3 ¥f3! 24 ¢f2 ¥e4 25 ¥xe4 dxe4
26 £xe4 ¦ad8© with good compensation for the pawn thanks to the vulnerable
position of the White king.

21 ¥g2 £xe5ƒ
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+-trk+0
9+p+-+pzpp0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+PzPpwq-+-0
9p+-+-+l+0
9zP-tR-zP-zP-0
9-+-+-+LzP0
9+-+QmK-tR-0
xiiiiiiiiy

73
It looks like White should be very careful in this complicated position. Black keeps the
initiative, [Link] − Kaidanov/Bled (ol) 2002.

74
QGD/12 5. Bf4 0-0 6. e3 c5 − the line Qd1-

c2 and 0-0-0 [D37]

Last updated: 02/12/03 by [Link]

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 ¥e7 4 ¤f3 ¤f6 5 ¥f4 0-0 6 e3 c5 7 dxc5 ¥xc5 8 £c2

¤c6 9 a3 £a5 10 0-0-0
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9zpp+-+pzpp0
9-+n+psn-+0
9wq-vlp+-+-0
9-+P+-vL-+0
9zP-sN-zPN+-0
9-zPQ+-zPPzP0
9+-mKR+L+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

At first sight it appears that White takes too much risk castling queenside − however, he
supposes that the activity of his pieces won't give Black the time to think about
attacking.

10...¥e7

75
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9zpp+-vlpzpp0
9-+n+psn-+0
9wq-+p+-+-0
9-+P+-vL-+0
9zP-sN-zPN+-0
9-zPQ+-zPPzP0
9+-mKR+L+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

This bishop's retreat is recently the most popular continuation.

Black has also tried a lot of possibilities. The position after 10...¥d7
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+-trk+0
9zpp+l+pzpp0
9-+n+psn-+0
9wq-vlp+-+-0
9-+P+-vL-+0
9zP-sN-zPN+-0
9-zPQ+-zPPzP0
9+-mKR+L+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

11 g4 (Both 11 ¢b1
and 11 ¤d2 were also tested) 11...¦fc8 12 ¢b1 is rather important. Here Black has a
surprising option.
a) 12...¥f8 is the alternative, after which the knight's attack
a1) 13 g5 is a promising alternative: 13...¤h5 14 ¥g3 ¤e7 15 ¥e2!? (15 ¤e5 ¥e8 16 ¥e2
f6!„) 15...¥e8 16 ¥d6!? g6 17 ¤e5 £d8 18 ¥xe7 £xe7 19 cxd5 exd5 20 f4!± with
certain advantage
a2) 13 ¤g5!? looks interesting. The game Vera − [Link]/Matanzas 1992 continued by
13...g6 14 h4 ¥g7 15 h5ƒ White has achieved better chances, but Black is also not
without counterplay
b) 12...b5!?
b1) 13 cxd5?! is strongly met by 13...b4! 14 dxc6 (14 ¤a4? bxa3!? 15 ¤xc5 a2+ 16 ¢a1 ¤b4-+)
14...¥xc6 15 axb4 ¥xb4‚ followed by ...Bc3 and ...Be4 with a decisive attack
b2) 13 b4? is hardly possible: 13...¤xb4 14 axb4 ¥xb4 15 ¥e5 ¤xg4 16 ¥d4 bxc4 followed
by ...Rab8 and so on.
b3) 13 ¤xb5 ¤e7!?÷ is unclear
b4) 13 g5 ¤h5 14 cxb5 ¤xf4 15 exf4 (15 bxc6 ¥xc6 16 exf4 d4 17 ¤e4 ¥xa3) 15...¤e7 16 ¤e5
¥e8„ also looks very good for Black

76
b5) 13 cxb5!? 13...¤e7 14 ¤d2 Bringing up the reserves. (There are some other
possibilities. After 14 ¥e5 ¤xg4 15 ¥xg7 ¤xe3!? 16 fxe3 ¢xg7÷ Black's chances are at
least not worse 14 £d2 ¥xa3 15 ¤xd5 £a4 16 ¤xf6+ gxf6÷ also looks quite good for
Black
Finally, 14 £a4!? deserves serious attention. A possible play is 14...£d8 15 ¤e5 ¥e8 16 £a6!?
¦cb8 17 ¤c4!? ¤xg4 18 ¦g1 ¤xf2 19 ¦d2± with clearly better chances for White)
14...£d8 (14...¥xa3? doesn't work due to 15 ¤b3 £b4? 16 ¦d4+−) 15 ¥e2 and Black
still has to do a good work to prove compensation for the pawn. (15 ¤b3?! was
proved to be weaker in the game Gelfand − Beliavsky/Linares 1991)
In case of 10...¦d8
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+ltr-+k+0
9zpp+-+pzpp0
9-+n+psn-+0
9wq-vlp+-+-0
9-+P+-vL-+0
9zP-sN-zPN+-0
9-zPQ+-zPPzP0
9+-mKR+L+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

White can probably prove better chances by 11 ¤d2!? dxc4 12 ¤xc4 (12 ¥xc4!? is also
worthy of consideration. Then possible is 12...¥e7 13 ¤b3 ¦xd1+ 14 ¦xd1 £h5 15 f3 ¤a5
16 g4 ¤xb3+ 17 £xb3 £c5 18 ¢b1 h6 19 e4 £c6 20 ¢a2² with small advantage)
12...¦xd1+ 13 £xd1 £d8 14 £xd8+ ¤xd8 15 ¥e2² with advantage in the ending,
Gelfand − [Link]/Novi Sad (ol) 1990
In the original game of the plan 10. 0-0-0 Black decided to capture on c4 before the knight
comes to d2: 10...dxc4 A quick disaster gave little credit to this move but later Black
found some improvements to prove it to be playable. 11 ¥xc4
a) 11...a6 gives White an interesting possibility to launch an attack by 12 ¤g5!? ¥e7
(12...b5? 13 ¤ce4+−) 13 ¥d3! g6 (13...h6!?) 14 h4 ¤e5 15 h5 ¤xd3+ 16 ¦xd3 e5 17
¤xh7!? exf4 18 ¤xf8 ¥xf8 19 hxg6 fxg6 20 ¦d5!‚ and Black can hardly survive
here
b) 11...¥e7 12 g4

77
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9zpp+-vlpzpp0
9-+n+psn-+0
9wq-+-+-+-0
9-+L+-vLP+0
9zP-sN-zPN+-0
9-zPQ+-zP-zP0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

Starting direct action on the kingside.

b1) There are some alternatives: 12...¤xg4?! looks risky: 13 ¦hg1 £h5 14 h3 ¤f6 15 ¥e2ƒ
gives White a strong initiative, for example: 15...¦d8 16 ¤e5 £h4 17 ¥g5! £xf2 18
¤f3! ¤d5 19 ¥h6 g6 20 ¤e4 £xg1 21 ¦xg1+− with decisive advantage
b2) 12...a6 is playable: 13 g5 ¤h5 (13...¤d7? is too passive: 14 ¤e4 ¤c5 15 ¤f6+!ƒ with a
strong initiative on the K−side) 14 ¥d3 (14 ¥d6!? is maybe more promising: 14...¥xd6
15 ¦xd6 ¤e5 16 ¥e2 ¤xf3 17 ¥xf3 £xg5 and here 18 ¦hd1!?© deserves serious attention
with a fairly promising compensation for the pawn) 14...g6 15 ¥e4 This position
arose in the game Khalifman − Onischuk/RUS−chT Togliatti 2003, which continued
15...e5! 16 ¥xe5 ¤xe5 17 ¦d5 £c7 18 ¦xe5 ¥e6 19 ¦d1 ¥d6 20 ¦xe6 fxe6 21 £b3
¤g7 22 £xb7² with better chances for White but Black's position should be
defendable.
b3) 12...b5?! seems to be an impatient reaction. After 13 ¥xb5 ¥b7 14 ¤d2!± Black
suddenly faces serious problems with his queen, [Link] − [Link]/USSR
(ch) 1988
b4) 12...¦d8!? is a solid continuation which seems to be a sufficient antidote to the g−pawn
advance. Here
b4a) 13 g5 gives nothing due to 13...¤d5 (13...¤h5!? is also not bad)
b4b) 13 e4 looks too risky: 13...¤xg4 A principled reply. 14 ¦hg1 ¦xd1+ 15 £xd1 (15 ¤xd1
¤ge5∓ looks comfortable for Black) 15...¤xf2 (15...¤ge5 16 ¤xe5 ¤xe5 17 £d4 ¤g6 18
¤b5© would promise some compensation for the pawn.) 16 £f1™ The only move to
prevent ...Nh3. 16...¥xa3 17 ¥d2 (Of course, not 17 £xf2? £xc3+-+) 17...¥c5 18 ¢b1
Black already gained three extra pawns but he still has to be very careful as White
has many pieces in action. Besides, the knight f2 is in danger. Yet, Black's chances
should be preferred, Shabalov − Kharitonov/USSR 1989
b5) 12...e5 The most principled continuation. 13 g5 exf4 14 gxf6 ¥xf6
b5a) 15 ¦d5!? looks interesting but it seems that its real effect is less than expected:
15...£c7
b5a1) 16 ¤e4 is met by
b5a11) 16...¤e7? is bad due to 17 ¤xf6+ gxf6 18 ¦g1+ ¤g6 (18...¢h8?? 19 £xh7+!!) 19
¦c5!+−
b5a12) 16...£e7! 17 h4 g6! 18 h5 ¥f5 19 ¤xf6+ £xf6 and Black is okay

78
b5a2) 16 ¦h5 16...g6 17 ¤d5 £d8 18 ¦g1 ¥e6 19 ¤xf6+ £xf6 20 ¥xe6 and here Black has
a strong counter resource: 20...£xe6! (after 20...fxe6 21 ¤g5ƒ White gets some
initiative) 21 ¤g5 £a2! and it seems that White is already in trouble: 22 ¤xh7 ¤e5!-
+ and White loses material in all lines
b5b) 15 ¤d5 15...¤e7! A very important defensive manoeuvre− otherwise White's attack is
really strong. (For example: 15...¥d8 16 ¦hg1 fxe3 17 fxe3 g6 18 h4‚ followed by h4−h5
and so on.) 16 ¤xf6+ gxf6
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9zpp+-snp+p0
9-+-+-zp-+0
9wq-+-+-+-0
9-+L+-zp-+0
9zP-+-zPN+-0
9-zPQ+-zP-zP0
9+-mKR+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

This position was tested many times and White failed to prove that he can provide serious
problems for Black.
b5b1) the alternative 17 ¤d4 does not bother Black very much: 17...fxe3 18 fxe3 £e5 19
¢b1 ¥f5 (19...¢h8!?) 20 ¤xf5 ¤xf5 with good play, Huebner − Van der
Sterren/Germany 1994
b5b2) 17 ¦hg1+ 17...¢h8 18 e4 (both 18 £e4 ¤g6 19 £d4 £b6 20 £xb6 axb6 21 ¦d6 ¥h3!?
and 18 ¤d4 fxe3 19 fxe3 ¥f5 20 ¤xf5 £xf5 21 ¥d3 £e5 22 ¢b1 f5÷ are acceptable for Black)
18...b5 19 ¥d5 ¤xd5 20 exd5 The game Anand (+C) − Kramnik (+C)/Advanced
Chess Match, Leon 2002 continued by 20...b4 21 axb4 £a1+! 22 ¢d2 £a6 23 £c6
¦d8 24 ¢c3 ¥b7 25 £xa6 ¥xa6 26 ¦d4 ¦ac8+ 27 ¢d2 ¥b7 28 ¦c1 ¦xc1 29 ¢xc1
¢g7 and this ending was once again proved to be drawn.

11 ¢b1

79
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9zpp+-vlpzpp0
9-+n+psn-+0
9wq-+p+-+-0
9-+P+-vL-+0
9zP-sN-zPN+-0
9-zPQ+-zPPzP0
9+K+R+L+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

Loek van Wely's favourite move. As we already saw many times this prophylactic king's
retreat is always useful so it is reasonable to play it before the active moves.
In case of 11 g4 dxc4 (the immediate 11...¦d8!? was also tested) 12 ¥xc4 we transpose to the
already considered position − see the line 10 ...dc4 11. ¥c4 ¥e7 12. g4 etc.
11 h4!?
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9zpp+-vlpzpp0
9-+n+psn-+0
9wq-+p+-+-0
9-+P+-vL-zP0
9zP-sN-zPN+-0
9-zPQ+-zPP+0
9+-mKR+L+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

is an interesting and rather unexpected idea of Garry Kasparov− instead of the g−pawn
advance, White moves his neighbour on the h−file. At first sight, it does not create
immediate threats (such as g4−g5) and requires further spending of time to achieve
the desired effect. On the other hand, it does not allow Black to respond with
immediate counter−actions in the center, utilising the advanced position of the g−
pawn. In the game Kasparov − Vaganian/Novgorod 1995 Black was smashed
quickly in very impressive style, but thorough analysis and further practice helped
him to find some good ways to achieve acceptable play.
a) 11...dxc4 12 ¥xc4 b6 was played in the just mentioned game. After 13 ¤g5 (White
shouldn't win the queen by 13 ¥b5 ¥b7 14 ¤d2 as after 14...a6 15 ¤c4 axb5 16 ¤xa5
¤xa5© as Black has achieved good compensation, for example: 17 ¥d6 ¥xd6 18 ¦xd6
b4 19 axb4 ¤c4 20 ¦dd1 ¦a1+ 21 ¤b1 ¦c8© and so on.) 13...¥a6 14 ¤ce4 g6 (The
preliminary 14...¤xe4 seems to be in White's favour: 15 £xe4 g6 16 ¥xa6 £xa6 17 h5±
and White is quicker) 15 ¤xf6+ ¥xf6 16 ¤e4 (Here White cannot capture the piece
for free− the position after 16 ¥xa6 £xa6 17 £xc6 ¦ac8 18 ¥c7 ¦xc7 19 £xc7 ¦c8 20

80
 £xc8+ £xc8+ 21 ¢b1÷ is good for Black) 16...¥e7 17 ¥xa6 £xa6 18 ¢b1² White has
obtained better chances
b) 11...¦d8!? looks solid. A possible play is 12 g4 ¥d7 (12...dxc4!? deserves attention: 13
¥xc4 ¥d7 14 g5 ¤h5 15 ¥d6 ¦ac8 16 ¥e2 ¥e8 17 ¥xe7 ¦xd1+ 18 ¦xd1 ¤xe7÷ with good play
for Black) 13 ¢b1 dxc4 (13...¥e8 14 g5 ¤e4 15 ¤xe4 dxe4 16 ¤d2 £b6 17 ¢a1 ¤a5 18 ¥e2
¦xd2™ 19 ¦xd2 ¤b3+ 20 ¢a2 ¤xd2 21 £xd2 a5 22 ¥e5² is slightly better for White) 14
¥xc4 ¦ac8 15 g5 ¤h5 16 ¥d6 ¥e8!? (16...g6 looks also playable) 17 ¥xe7 ¤xe7 18
¦xd8 ¦xd8 19 ¦d1 ¦c8 20 ¥b3² White has a small advantage but Black can be also
satisfied with the position
c) 11...a6
c1) There are many alternatives but the move h2−h4 does not seem to be a good
combination with some of them. 12 ¢b1 dxc4 13 ¤g5 £f5 14 £xf5 exf5 15 ¥xc4
h6 16 ¤f3 ¥e6 is fine for Black
c2) 12 g4 dxc4 13 ¥xc4 b5 14 g5 (14 ¥d3!?) is not dangerous for Black: 14...bxc4 15 gxf6
¥xf6 16 ¤e4 £f5 17 ¤xf6+ £xf6 18 ¤g5 £f5 19 ¥d6 £xc2+ 20 ¢xc2 ¦e8 21 ¢c3
e5 22 ¢xc4 f6 23 ¤e4 ¥e6+ 24 ¢c3 a5 with roughly equal ending
c3) the h−pawn advance 12 h5 dxc4 13 h6 doesn't bring much effect: 13...g6 14 ¥xc4 b5 15
¥d3 ¥b7÷ followed by ...Rac8 with good play for Black.
c4) 12 ¤g5 According to tournament practice and thorough analysis this aggressive
approach does not promise White very much. 12...¦d8 (Obviously not 12...h6? 13 cxd5
exd5 14 ¤xd5 hxg5? 15 hxg5+−) 13 cxd5 exd5 14 e4 (A slow line 14 ¢b1 h6 15 ¤f3 ¥g4 16
¥e2 ¦ac8ƒ just gives Black better chances − White has no possibility of attack while
he should be very careful about his own king) 14...dxe4 (14...¤xe4!? is maybe even
stronger) 15 ¥c4
c4a) 15...¥g4!? was also not so bad: 16 ¥xf7+ (16 ¦xd8+ ¤xd8 17 ¤cxe4 ¥f5) 16...¢f8 17
¦xd8+ ¦xd8 18 £b3 ¤d4 19 £xb7 ¥xa3! 20 ¢b1 and here the play may be ended
by the repetition of moves: 20...¦d7 21 £c8+ ¦d8 22 £b7= (22 £c4 £b6÷)
c4b) 15...¤d4 16 ¦xd4 ¦xd4 and here in the game Pelletier − Doettling/Essen 2000 White
should have played 17 ¥xf7+! ¢f8 18 ¥a2!© with good compensation for the
exchange thanks to the idea of possible invasion after Qc2−b3.

11...a6
11...¦d8 is a solid continuation. After 12 ¤d2 dxc4 (a careless 12...£b6? loses to the rather
unexpected 13 c5!! £xc5 14 ¤b3 £b6 15 ¤a4+− and the queen is trapped! 12...e5!? is
interesting. In case of 13 ¥g3 ¥e6 14 ¥e2 ¦ac8 Black's position looks very good) 13
¥xc4 £f5 A good idea− Black sends the queen to the kingside to make the
programmed pawn advance ...e6−e5 more efficient. 14 ¤de4 ¦xd1+ 15 ¦xd1 ¤xe4
16 ¤xe4 e5 17 ¥g3 ¥e6 18 f3 (18 ¥xe6 £xe6 19 ¤c5 ¥xc5 20 £xc5 f6 is also very good
for Black) 18...¦c8 19 £b3 ¥xc4 20 £xc4 h5! Black has achieved a very good play
in the game Van Wely − Van der Sterren/Wijk aan Zee 1998.

12 ¤d2 £b6 13 ¤b3 ¤a5 14 ¤xa5 £xa5 15 cxd5

81
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9+p+-vlpzpp0
9p+-+psn-+0
9wq-+P+-+-0
9-+-+-vL-+0
9zP-sN-zP-+-0
9-zPQ+-zPPzP0
9+K+R+L+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

15...exd5
15...¤xd5 16 ¤xd5 exd5² does not solve the problems completely.

16 ¥e5 ¥e6 17 ¥d3 ¦ac8 18 £d2²

XIIIIIIIIY
9-+r+-trk+0
9+p+-vlpzpp0
9p+-+lsn-+0
9wq-+pvL-+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9zP-sNLzP-+-0
9-zP-wQ-zPPzP0
9+K+R+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

After rather logical play White has achieved a small advantage thanks to the better pawn
structure, Van Wely − Kramnik/Wijk aan Zee 1998.

82
QGD/13 5. Bf4 0-0 6.e3 c5 − the lines with

Qd1-c2 and 0-0 [D37]

Last updated: 29/11/04 by [Link]

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 ¥e7 4 ¤f3 ¤f6 5 ¥f4 0-0 6 e3 c5 7 dxc5 ¥xc5 8 £c2

¤c6 9 a3 £a5
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9zpp+-+pzpp0
9-+n+psn-+0
9wq-vlp+-+-0
9-+P+-vL-+0
9zP-sN-zPN+-0
9-zPQ+-zPPzP0
9tR-+-mKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

10 ¤d2
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9zpp+-+pzpp0
9-+n+psn-+0
9wq-vlp+-+-0
9-+P+-vL-+0
9zP-sN-zP-+-0
9-zPQsN-zPPzP0
9tR-+-mKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

This continuation is recently becoming White's main attempt to fight for the advantage.

83
Before the long castling 10. 0-0-0 appeared on the scene at the end of 1980s, the main
White's attempt was 10 ¦d1 ¥e7 11 ¤d2 e5 12 ¥g5 d4 13 ¤b3 £d8 (The alternative
13...£b6 leads to the quiet play with small advantage for White: 14 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 15
¤d5 £d8 16 ¥d3² g6 17 exd4 ¤xd4 18 ¤xd4 exd4 19 0-0 (19 ¤xf6+ £xf6 20 0-0 ¥e6
21 ¦fe1 ¦ac8 22 b3 ¦fd8²) 19...¥g7 20 ¦de1 ¥e6 21 ¤f4 ¥d7 22 ¥e4 ¦b8 23 ¤d3 £c7
24 b3², although Black usually holds the balance without much problem) 14 ¥e2
(An attempt to win the pawn on d4 without the development of the kingside is
double−edged: 14 exd4 ¤xd4 15 ¤xd4 exd4 16 ¤b5 ¥g4!? 17 ¦xd4 ¦e8! 18 ¥e3
(18 ¦xd8? ¥b4# 18 f3 ¥b4+ 19 ¢f2 ¥e1+ 18 ¥e2 £b6) 18...£b6 19 ¥d3 (19 ¦xg4? ¤xg4 20
¥xb6 ¥b4+ 21 ¢d1 ¦e1#) 19...¥c5 20 0-0 (20 ¥xh7+ ¤xh7 21 ¦xg4 ¥xe3-+) 20...¥xd4 21
¥xd4 £d8 22 ¥xf6 gxf6 (22...£xf6 23 ¤c7) 23 h3 ¥h5 24 ¥xh7+ ¢g7÷ with roughly
equal chances.) The pawn d4 seems to be in trouble but Black has got an excellent
resource. 14...a5!
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9+p+-vlpzpp0
9-+n+-sn-+0
9zp-+-zp-vL-0
9-+Pzp-+-+0
9zPNsN-zP-+-0
9-zPQ+LzPPzP0
9+-+RmK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

The idea of Efim Geller − Black intends to push the attacker of the d4−square by ...a5−a4.
15 ¤a4 The main field of investigation before the plan with 10. 0-0-0 became
popular.
a) in case of 15 exd4 Black obtains good counter chances by 15...a4! Black sacrifices this
pawn in order to disturb the coordination of White's pieces. 16 ¤xa4 ¤xd4 17 ¤xd4
exd4 18 b3 (18 0-0 is harmless for Black: 18...£a5 19 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 20 b3 ¥d7= while the
attempt to bring the knight back to the center by 18 ¤c3 fails to 18...£a5 19 ¥xf6 ¥xf6
20 b4 ¥f5!ƒ and Black takes the initiative.) 18...£a5+ 19 ¥d2 (19 £d2 can be parried
easily by 19...¥d7!?) 19...¥f5! An excellent counter attack. 20 £b2 £e5 21 ¥b4 A
principled attempt. (White could think about 21 ¥e3 £a5+ 22 ¥d2 with repetition of
moves and it was really not such a bad idea.) 21...¥xb4+ 22 axb4 ¦fe8 23 ¦xd4
White has got two extra pawn and everything looks well−protected... 23...¥c2!
Wonderful!!! 24 ¦d2! The only move. (24 £xc2 £xd4) 24...¥xb3! 25 £xb3 £a1+ 26
£d1 £xd1+ 27 ¦xd1 ¦xa4 28 f3 ¦xb4³ Black restored material balance and still has
the initiative, Portisch − Beliavsky/Moscow 1981
b) other continuations also do not promise too much: 15 0-0 a4 16 ¤c1 ¥e6
c) and 15 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 16 0-0 a4 17 ¤c5 £a5 18 ¤3xa4 ¥e7 19 b4 £a7© are good for Black
15...g6 (15...h6!? 16 ¥h4 ¥d7 was tried several times with good results for Black.) 16 ¥xf6
(The alternative 16 exd4 is usually met by 16...¥f5 17 £c1 ¤xd4 18 ¤xd4 exd4 19 0-0 ¦c8
with acceptable play for Black.) 16...¥xf6 17 c5 White is hoping to exploit the

84
 weaknesses which were created by the a−pawn advance. However, Black has
sufficient counterplay. (17 0-0 £c7 18 c5 ¥e6 19 e4 ¥g5÷ is also good for Black)
17...¥e6 18 e4!? Consistent play − White should keep the center closed. (yet, a
natural 18 0-0 is worthy of consideration.) and here Black started interesting counter
actions by 18...£e8!?„ Alterman − Kasparov/Tel Aviv (simul) 1998.

10...¥e7
10...¥b4!?
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9zpp+-+pzpp0
9-+n+psn-+0
9wq-+p+-+-0
9-vlP+-vL-+0
9zP-sN-zP-+-0
9-zPQsN-zPPzP0
9tR-+-mKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

was put in doubt in the game Topalov − Kramnik/Monaco 2001: 11 cxd5 exd5 (11...¤xd5
doesn't solve the problems: 12 ¤xd5 exd5 13 ¥d3 h6 14 ¦c1 ¥e7 (14...¥xd2+ 15
£xd2²) 15 0-0 ¥e6 16 ¤b3 £b6 17 ¤c5 ¥xc5 (17...¦ac8 18 ¤xe6 fxe6 19 £e2 ¥f6 20
£h5! ¤e7 21 b4± is clearly better for White ) 18 £xc5 £xb2 19 ¦b1 £d2 20 ¦fd1 £a5
21 ¦b5 £a4 22 ¦a1 ¦fc8 23 ¦xb7 ¤a5 24 £b5 £xb5 25 ¦xb5² with certain
advantage.) 12 ¥d3 (12 ¤b3 ¥xc3+ 13 bxc3 £a4 14 ¥d3 doesn't promise too much due
to 14...b6 followed by ....Ba6. For example: 15 ¤d4 £xc2 16 ¥xc2 ¥d7 17 f3 ¦ac8 18 ¢d2
¤a5 19 ¥d3 ¥a4 with a slightly worse but obviously drawn ending.) 12...d4 13 0-0!
¥xc3 (13...dxc3?! is dubious because of 14 axb4 £xb4 15 bxc3±) 14 ¤c4 £h5 15 bxc3
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9zpp+-+pzpp0
9-+n+-sn-+0
9+-+-+-+q0
9-+Nzp-vL-+0
9zP-zPLzP-+-0
9-+Q+-zPPzP0
9tR-+-+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

85
An important position for this line. Black has two possibilities. 15...¤d5 (15...dxe3 is a
serious alternative but White's chances still look preferable. A possible line is 16
¤xe3 ¥d7!?
a) 16...¥e6 seems to be worse due to 17 ¦ab1 ¤d5 18 ¦b5! ¦fd8 (18...¤xe3 19 ¦xh5 ¤xc2 20
¥xh7+ ¢h8 21 ¥xc2+ ¢g8 22 ¥h7+ ¢h8 23 ¥f5+ ¢g8 24 ¥xe6 fxe6 25 ¥e3+−) 19 c4 ¤d4
(19...¤xe3 20 fxe3 £h4 21 ¦xb7+−) 20 £b2 ¤xb5 21 cxd5 ¥xd5 22 ¥xb5± with a huge
advantage
b) 16...¦e8 17 ¦ab1 a6 18 ¤c4 b5 19 ¤d6ƒ gives White a certain initiative.
17 ¦ab1 ¤a5!? (this is much safer than 17...¤e5? 18 ¥e2! and Black is in troubles) 18 ¤f5²
and White keeps better chances.) 16 ¥g3 dxe3 17 ¦ae1!? ¥e6 (In case of 17...exf2+ 18
¦xf2© White's initiative is more than enough to compensate minor material loss.) 18
fxe3 ¦ad8 19 ¤d6 (19 e4?! could be strongly met by 19...¤f4! 20 ¥xf4 ¥xc4 21 ¥xc4
£c5+ followed by ...Qc4.) 19...¤e5
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-tr-trk+0
9zpp+-+pzpp0
9-+-sNl+-+0
9+-+nsn-+q0
9-+-+-+-+0
9zP-zPLzP-vL-0
9-+Q+-+PzP0
9+-+-tRRmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

Here Veselin Topalov came up with the strong novelty 20 ¥xh7+! £xh7 21 £xh7+ ¢xh7
22 ¥xe5± and gained an extra pawn although his pawn structure is far from perfect
and it makes his task not so easy.
10...£d8
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9zpp+-+pzpp0
9-+n+psn-+0
9+-vlp+-+-0
9-+P+-vL-+0
9zP-sN-zP-+-0
9-zPQsN-zPPzP0
9tR-+-mKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

is a rare, and fairly surprising continuation − Black simply retreats the queen back.
Strangely enough, such a waste of time is not so bad here as he has to defend against
¤d2−b3 anyway. 11 ¦d1 (11 cxd5 exd5 12 ¤b5 ¥b6 13 ¥d3 d4 looks satisfactory for

86
 Black.) 11...h6 12 cxd5 exd5 13 ¤de4!? (The routine 13 ¤f3!? looked quite good,
keeping the better chances.) 13...¥f5 The only move. (13...¤xe4? was bad due to 14
¦xd5!) 14 ¤xf6+ £xf6 15 ¥d3 (15 ¤xd5 gives nothing: 15...¥xc2 16 ¤xf6+ gxf6 17 ¦c1
¤b4! and Black is okay, for example: 18 f3 ¢g7 19 ¥e2 ¦ac8 20 axb4 ¥xb4+ 21 ¢f2 ¦fd8
and so on. 15 £c1 is too risky as after 15...¤e7 16 ¤xd5 ¤xd5 17 ¦xd5 ¥e7© he is late in
development.) 15...¥e6 (15...¥xd3 16 £xd3 ¦fd8 17 0-0² is worse for Black but quite
playable.) This position occurred in the game Kaidanov − Shabalov/WCC Moscow
2001. Now the simple 16 0-0!?² would have secured the better prospects.

11 ¥g3
11 ¦d1 may lead to the line, which is known to be good for Black: 11...e5 12 ¥g5 d4 13
¤b3 £d8 14 ¥e2 a5! and so on − refer to 10. ¦d1.
11 ¤b3!? is worthy of consideration.

11...¥d7
11...£b6 does not seem fully equalising: 12 ¥e2 (12 b4 is acceptable for Black: 12...d4 13 c5
£d8 14 ¤ce4 and here Black can try 14...dxe3!? 15 fxe3 ¤d5„ followed by ...f7−f5−f4
with good counter chances. The rather unexpected change of course 12 ¤f3!?
deserves more attention) 12...d4 13 ¤a4 £d8 14 0-0² and White has got a slight
edge in the game Kaidanov − Lputian/Calvia (ol) 2004.

12 ¥e2
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+-trk+0
9zpp+lvlpzpp0
9-+n+psn-+0
9wq-+p+-+-0
9-+P+-+-+0
9zP-sN-zP-vL-0
9-zPQsNLzPPzP0
9tR-+-mK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

An important position is arisen. Black has a wide choice.

12...¦fc8
Preparing the queen's return.
12...£b6?! does not seem to be the best. 13 b4!? White does not spend time for castling,
gaining space on the Q−side at first.

87
a) 13 cxd5 exd5 14 0-0 ¦ac8 15 ¦fd1 ¥e6 16 ¤b3 a6 17 ¦ac1 ¤e4„ gives Black a good
counterplay.
b) after 13 0-0 d4 14 ¤a4 £d8 Black still faces problems: 15 b4 (15 e4!? deserves attention)
15...dxe3!? (in case of 15...¦c8 16 ¤b2 e5 White would have proved the advantage by
17 e4!±) 16 fxe3 ¤e5!? A tricky way to simplify the position. However, it doesn't
bring the desired relief. 17 ¥xe5 ¥xa4 18 £b2² The pawn majority on the queenside
and more active pieces secure White's advantage, Lautier − Khalifman/FIDE WCh
KO (3.1) Moscow 2001.
13...d4 14 ¤a4 £d8 15 e4² White has got clear advantage. The d4−pawn can excellently be
blocked by the knight, after which White would think about flank actions, [Link]
− Short/Bled (ol) 2002.
A deep retreat 12...£d8 is not as bad as it looks like. A possible play is 13 cxd5 ¤xd5 14
¤xd5 exd5 15 0-0 d4 16 e4 ¦c8 17 £d3 f5 18 f3 ¢h8„ with good play for Black.

13 0-0 £d8
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+rwq-+k+0
9zpp+lvlpzpp0
9-+n+psn-+0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+P+-+-+0
9zP-sN-zP-vL-0
9-zPQsNLzPPzP0
9tR-+-+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

13...£b6 is a bit inconsistent with previous move: 14 b4 d4 15 c5 £d8 16 ¤b5ƒ and White
takes the initiative.

14 ¦ad1
The alternative is 14 cxd5 exd5 (14...¤xd5 15 ¤de4² gives better chances for White) 15 ¤f3²
with a typical slight edge.

14...¤a5!?
14...d4 15 ¤b5 dxe3 16 fxe3 £b6 17 £d3! followed by b2−b4 and c4−c5 seems better for
White.

15 cxd5 ¤xd5 16 ¤de4 £e8 17 £d3²

88
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+r+q+k+0
9zpp+lvlpzpp0
9-+-+p+-+0
9sn-+n+-+-0
9-+-+N+-+0
9zP-sNQzP-vL-0
9-zP-+LzPPzP0
9+-+R+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

White keeps a small advantage.

89
 Cambridge Springs System

1 d4 ¤f6 2 c4 e6 3 ¤f3 d5 4 ¤c3 c6 5 ¥g5 ¤bd7 6 e3 £a5

XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+kvl-tr0
9zpp+n+pzpp0
9-+p+psn-+0
9wq-+p+-vL-0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-sN-zPN+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9tR-+QmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

Cambridge Springs was the original venue for the most important early games with
this defence. However twice US Champion Harry Pillsbury played it even earlier and so it
is sometimes called the Pillsbury Attack.
Black intends to attack the Knight on c3 by ...¤e4 followed by ...¥b4 (and vice−
versa). The Queen is also keeping an eye on the Bishop on g5 so it's not so easy for White
to develop his pieces to their most comfortable squares (for example, the Bishop to d3, due
to some tactical tricks connected with ...¤e4 or ...d5xc4).
A peak of its popularity was in the 1920−1930's when the defence was included in
the repertoire of many top players. It was thoroughly tested (and passed successfully!) in
such World Title matches as Capablanca − Alekhine, Alekhine − Bogoljubow, Alekhine −
Euwe. A lot of important ideas on which the modern theory of the system is based were
invented at that time.
Later the Defence lost much of its popularity not only because a dangerous line for
Black was found but also because White quite often opted for the Exchange Variation by

90
capturing on d5. Other reasons such as the growth of popularity in Indian systems should
also be taken into account.
A new wave of popularity was registered in the 1980's. The Cambridge Springs is
closely linked with the Exchange Variation which was always on the agenda when Black
discovered some new and interesting ideas.
In my opinion there is another good motive to include the opening in one's repertoire
nowadays: Black's life in the Moscow Variation 5...h6 and especially the Botvinnik System
5...dxc4 are not so easy.
Since the Cambridge Springs was in the repertoire of almost every respected player
in the 20's and 30's it's just impossible to name all the players whose great efforts
constructed the theory of the defence but such players as Harry Pillsbury, Alexander
Alekhine, Efim Bogoljubow, Jose Raul Capablanca, Rudolf Spielmann, Frank Marshall,
Gideon Stahlberg and Paul Keres should be mentioned.
Nowadays for the popularity of the system we have to thank such players as Sergey
Smagin, Alexander Panchenko, Lembit Oll, Vassily Ivanchuk, Arthur Yusupov, Jan
Timman, Sdrjan Cvetkovic and World Champion Vassily Smyslov who bravely defended
the Cambridge Springs in his Candidates Final match. Objectively speaking he was
suffering in the opening but his opponent was none other than Garry Kasparov who should
be also mentioned as one of White's adherents.
White has two main ways to fight for an advantage:
1) He prevents possible ...d5xc4 and gains a pawn majority in center by an early
exchange 7 cxd5.
This continuation often leads to very sharp and interesting play. In turn Black has
two main possibilities:
a)...¤7b6 followed by ...¤xc3 then ...¤a4 (...¤d5) attacking the pawn on c3. White
cannot defend it so he usually develops his kingside obtaining a long lasting initiative as
Black is getting seriously behind in development. This set−up has proved to be dangerous
for Black so ...
b) nowadays 8...¥b4 9 Rc1 is the main line and its popularity increases. White has
still failed to show a tangible advantage.
2) He prevents a possible ...¤e4 by means of 7 ¤d2.

91
 This continuation more often leads to a rather quiet play but complications may
sometimes occur. Black has two possible plans:
a) to give up the center by 7...dxc4 after which White is forced to part with the
Bishop by capturing to f6. This leads to rather boring play where Black has a pair of
bishops in return for White's space advantage− the character of play reminds one of some
lines of the Moscow variation after 5...h6 6 ¥xf6 £xf6. This set−up is more reliable but
rather passive.
b) the classical 7...¥b4 intending to solve the problem of the light−squared Bishop
by the breaks ...c6−c5 or ...e6−e5 at some point − this leads to the usual complications.
Generally the Cambridge Springs Defence has a fairly solid reputation. White has
still failed to come up with anything really dangerous for Black but it must be said that
sometimes the nature of Black's play is not to everyone's taste.

92
 QGD/14 Cambridge Springs − 9. Nd2 +

other moves [D52]

Last updated: 11/09/04 by [Link]

1 d4 ¤f6 2 c4 e6 3 ¤f3 d5 4 ¤c3 c6 5 ¥g5 ¤bd7 6 e3 £a5

XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+kvl-tr0
9zpp+n+pzpp0
9-+p+psn-+0
9wq-+p+-vL-0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-sN-zPN+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9tR-+QmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

The Cambridge Springs variation. Black intends to attack the knight on c3 by ...¤f6−e4
followed by ...¥f8−b4 (and vice−versa). The queen is also keeping an eye on the
bishop on g5 so it's not so easy for White to develop his pieces to their most
comfortable squares, for example, the bishop to d3, due to some tactical tricks
connected with ...¤f6−e4 or ...d5xc4.

7 ¤d2
Radically preventing ...¤f6−e4. This continuation usually leads to a rather quiet play but
complications may sometimes occur.
7 ¥xf6

93
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+kvl-tr0
9zpp+n+pzpp0
9-+p+pvL-+0
9wq-+p+-+-0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-sN-zPN+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9tR-+QmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

7...¤xf6 8 ¥d3 can hardly be dangerous for Black: 8...¥b4 9 £b3 dxc4 10 ¥xc4
a) 10...0-0 is also good: 11 0-0 ¥xc3 12 bxc3 (12 £xc3!? deserves attention) 12...b6 13 ¤e5
¥b7 14 ¥e2 c5! 15 ¤c4 £a6 16 £b2 ¥d5! and White's initiative is slowing down:
17 ¤e5 £c8 18 a4 ¤d7 19 c4 ¥e4 20 ¤xd7 £xd7 21 dxc5 bxc5= with equality
b) 10...c5 Black's main problem is his bishop on c8 which has to be activated somehow. 11
0-0 cxd4 12 ¥b5+ ¥d7 13 ¥xd7+ ¤xd7 14 exd4 0-0 and Black has nothing to worry
about, Romanovsky − Smyslov/Leningrad 1939.
Problems for White may really start to occur after some thoughtless moves like 7 ¥d3 ¤e4,
7 £c2 ¤e4, 7 £b3 ¤e4 followed by ...Bb4.

7...¥b4
The active approach − Black keeps in mind both the ...e6−e5 and ...c6−c5 options
attempting to solve the problem of the light−squared bishop.
7...dxc4 is an important alternative. Black gives up the center, after which White is forced
to part with the bishop by capturing to f6. This leads to rather boring play where
Black has a pair of bishops in return for White's space advantage − the character of
play reminds one of some lines of the Moscow variation after 5...h6 6. ¥xf6 £xf6.
This set−up is more reliable than 7...¥b4 but rather passive. 8 ¥xf6 ¤xf6 9 ¤xc4
£c7
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+kvl-tr0
9zppwq-+pzpp0
9-+p+psn-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+NzP-+-+0
9+-sN-zP-+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9tR-+QmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

94
a) There are some other moves. 10 g3 The idea of developing the bishop to the long
diagonal looks promising but it seems Black can successfully realize his
programmed advance ...c6−c5 here.
a1) here 10...c5 11 ¤b5 (11 ¥g2 cxd4 12 £xd4 ¥d7 13 0-0 ¦c8 14 ¤d2 ¥c5 15 £d3 0-0 is fine for
Black) 11...£b8 is maybe not so bad for Black but there is no need to hurry with
...c6−c5 as after 10...Bd7 it follows anyway
a2) 10...¥d7 11 ¥g2 c5! 12 d5 Looks strong but is in fact harmless for Black. Timman −
Seirawan/Amsterdam 1983 continued 12...exd5 13 ¤xd5 ¤xd5 14 ¥xd5 (14 £xd5
can be parried by the simple 14...¦b8 and after 15 0-0-0 ¥e6 16 ¤d6+! ¥xd6 17 £xd6 £xd6
18 ¦xd6 ¢e7 19 ¦hd1 b6 20 ¦6d3 ¦hd8= Black has no problems) 14...0-0-0! An excellent
decision. I don't remember any other game where the Black king was castled to the
queenside in the Cambridge−Springs but in this situation it feels quite comfortable
there. 15 a4 f5 16 £f3 ¢b8 17 0-0 h5 18 ¦fd1 ¥c8÷ with a good play for Black.
b) After 10 ¥e2 ¥d7!? (10...c5 is risky due to 11 ¤b5ƒ with a strong initiative) White can
prevent ...c6−c5 by 11 £b3!? Black should now switch to his typical plan: 11...¥e7
(11...c5 12 ¤b5ƒ) 12 0-0 0-0 13 ¦ac1 ¦fd8 and so on
c) 10 a3 is another possibility: 10...¥e7 11 b4 White has prevented ...c6−c5 but Black has
got an opportunity to exchange the knights which is desirable in such positions.
11...¤d5!? 12 ¦c1 (An attempt to avoid the exchange was too risky as after 12 ¤e4?!
¤b6 followed by ...a5 or ...c5 Black could begin active operations while White still
has not developed his kingside) 12...0-0 13 ¥d3 ¤xc3! 14 ¦xc3 ¦d8 Starting a quite
typical regrouping plan for this kind of positions: ...Be7−f8, ...Bc8−d7−e8 and
...Qc7−e7. Then Black would play ...g7−g6 and use both the a3−f8 and a1-h8
diagonals for the bishop keeping in mind both the ...a7−a5 and ...e6−e5 breaks. The
queen's rook can just stay on a8 but can also move to b8 or after ...b7−b6 to c8 to
keep in mind ...c6−c5 as well but this is connected with risk. The game Khenkin −
[Link]/Sochi 1989 continued 15 0-0 ¥f8 16 f4 £e7 17 ¤e5 ¥d7 and here
White should have better played something like 18 £b1!? g6 19 ¦fc1², keeping a
typical slight edge.
d) 10 ¦c1 A good possibility in preventing an early ...c6−c5 and thus keeping Black
passive.
d1) 10...¥d7 deserves attention not only so as to advance ...c6−c5 but also not to allow
White to develop his bishop to the long diagonal immediately. After 11 ¥e2 (11 g3
c5!) 11...¥e7 12 0-0 0-0 13 a3 both 13...¦fd8 (and 13...¤d5 are normal continuations)
d2) Immediate 10...¤d5!? also springs to mind. After 11 a3 (in case of 11 ¥d3 Black has got
a possibility to close the c−file by 11...¤xc3 12 bxc3 and after 12...¥e7 followed by
...b6, Bb7, c5 he seems to be okay) 11...¤xc3 12 ¦xc3 and so on we can probably
reach the position, which is considered after 10...¥e7.
d3) 10...¥e7 11 ¥e2 ¤d5!? 12 0-0 ¤xc3! (In the case of 12...0-0 White could think about 13
¤e4) 13 ¦xc3 0-0 14 a3 ¦d8 15 b4 ¥f8 16 £c2 ¥d7 17 ¥f3 (17 ¤e5 £d6 is nothing
special) 17...g6 18 £b2 ¥e8 19 ¦fc1 £e7 20 g3 ¦ab8² After logical play a typical
position was arisen in the game Janjgava − [Link]/Odessa 1989. White has a
small advantage as Black has no active plan but it is extremely difficult for White
himself to make progress as he always should be careful about a possible ...e6−e5,
...c6−c5 or ...a7−a5 (after ...b6−b6) which may open the position and increase the
power of the two bishops.

95
8 £c2
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+k+-tr0
9zpp+n+pzpp0
9-+p+psn-+0
9wq-+p+-vL-0
9-vlPzP-+-+0
9+-sN-zP-+-0
9PzPQsN-zPPzP0
9tR-+-mKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

8...0-0
8...e5 looks rather risky. Black usually advances this pawn only after the castling. In the
game White tried to refute it by
a) 9 ¤b3 is the alternative − it may lead to the main line 8 ...0-0 after 9...£c7 10 ¥e2 dxc4
(10...¤e4!? deserves attention: 11 ¥h4 exd4 12 ¤xd4! £a5 13 0-0! ¥xc3 14 cxd5! cxd5 15 bxc3
£xc3 16 £d1© with good compensation for the pawn) 11 ¥xc4 0-0 12 0-0 exd4 13
¤xd4 and so on
b) 9 dxe5!? 9...¤e4 (9...¤g4?! is bad: 10 cxd5 cxd5 11 ¦c1 ¤gxe5 and now White has the
beautiful 12 ¤xd5!
in the ending after 9...¥xc3 10 £xc3 £xc3 11 bxc3 ¤xe5 12 ¥xf6 gxf6 13 cxd5 cxd5 14 ¤b3² White
has a small but stable advantage) 10 ¤dxe4 dxe4 This position occurred in the game
Lutz − [Link]/Munich 1993, which continued 11 0-0-0! f6!? 12 exf6! £xg5 13
¤xe4ƒ and White has obtained not only a strong initiative but also enough pawns for
the sacrificed piece.
The immediate 8...¤e4 is suspicious: 9 ¤dxe4 dxe4 10 ¥h4! e5 11 ¥e2 0-0 12 0-0
a) 12...f5?! leads to troubles due to an old but still promising idea of Russian master
Solomon Gotthilf 13 ¤xe4! (13 d5 cxd5 14 cxd5 was also better for White in the game
Garcia Ilundain − Rojo Gomez/chT−ESP Cala Galdana 2001) 13...exd4 (13...fxe4?! 14
a3 ¥d6 15 b4 £c7 16 c5 exd4 17 cxd6 £xd6 18 £xe4+− gives White an almost decisive
advantage) 14 a3 fxe4 (14...d3 15 axb4 £xa1 16 ¥xd3 £a6 17 ¤d6+−) 15 axb4 £xb4 16
exd4± with a huge advantage for White
b) 12...exd4 13 exd4 g5!? 14 ¥g3 f5 15 f4² White's chances should be preferred without
any doubts.
8...dxc4 is possible at this moment and leads to the same kind of position as was considered
in the previous games. Generally speaking, this exchange is more reasonable on the
previous move as here White gains an extra tempo for the move a2−a3 as the bishop
will obviously retreat to e7.

9 ¥e2

96
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9zpp+n+pzpp0
9-+p+psn-+0
9wq-+p+-vL-0
9-vlPzP-+-+0
9+-sN-zP-+-0
9PzPQsNLzPPzP0
9tR-+-mK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

9 ¥h4
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9zpp+n+pzpp0
9-+p+psn-+0
9wq-+p+-+-0
9-vlPzP-+-vL0
9+-sN-zP-+-0
9PzPQsN-zPPzP0
9tR-+-mKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

is an alternative. White intends to develop his another bishop to d3 which was impossible
straight away because of ...d5xc4. However this waste of time allows Black to
achieve acceptable play without much problem.
a) The other standard advance 9...e5!? is also not bad. It may lead to complications after 10
dxe5 ¤e4 11 ¤dxe4 dxe4 12 e6! ¤e5!
a1) 13 e7?! would lead to nothing but trouble: 13...¦e8 14 ¥e2 (14 0-0-0 ¤g6 15 ¦d8 ¥f5)
14...¥e6 with excellent play
a2) 13 exf7+ 13...¦xf7 14 0-0-0 ¥f5!© with good compensation for the pawn
b) 9...c5 10 ¤b3
b1) Other moves seemed to be worse: 10...£c7?! 11 dxc5 (11 ¥g3!?)
b2) or 10...£b6?! 11 dxc5
b3) 10...£a4! Quite a typical retreat for these positions. Strangely enough this is not as bad
a place for the queen as it looks. 11 ¥xf6 (In the case of 11 dxc5 ¤e4ƒ Black would
have gained real initiative on the queenside. White had to be careful about his bishop
on h4 − the 4th rank is closed at the moment but who knows what may happen...)
11...¤xf6 12 dxc5 A rather important position.
b3a) 12...¤e4?! is the wrong moment for this standard knight lunge due to 13 cxd5 ¥xc3+
14 bxc3 ¤xc5 (14...exd5 did not solve the problems: 15 ¦d1 ¥e6 16 ¦d4 £c6 17 ¥d3 f5 18
¦b4! with idea Nd4) 15 ¦d1 exd5 16 ¦xd5± and Black has not proved sufficient

97
 compensation for the pawn in the game Capablanca − Alekhine/WCh Buenos Aires
(m/7) 1927.
b3b) 12...¥xc3+ leads to slightly better ending for White after 13 £xc3 ¤e4 14 £a5 £xa5+
15 ¤xa5 ¤xc5 16 cxd5 exd5²
b3c) 12...£c6!? 13 cxd5 exd5 14 a3 ¥xc5 Black seems to be okay thanks to White's lack in
development. Now 15 ¤xd5?! looks risky for White because of 15...£xd5 16 ¤xc5
¥f5ƒ with an initiative.
9 a3 is a rare continuation. After 9...dxc4!? 10 ¥xf6 ¤xf6 11 ¤xc4 ¥xc3+ 12 bxc3 (the
ending after 12 £xc3 £xc3+ 13 bxc3 c5 14 ¥e2 promises nothing) 12...£d5!? is a rather
interesting idea which leads to complicated play. (12...£c7 does not solve the
problems completely: 13 e4 c5 14 e5 ¤d5 15 ¥d3 cxd4 16 cxd4 g6 17 0-0²) 13 ¥d3! A
principled decision. White is going to advance e4−e5 so Black should accept the
sacrifice otherwise he will be much worse. The game Timman − Kasparov/Prague
(m/6) 1998 continued 13...b5!? 14 e4 £g5 15 ¤e5 £xg2 16 0-0-0 £g5+ 17 £d2
£xd2+ 18 ¢xd2© with a complicated endgame. White has a superior position but
his chances are reduced to rough equality because he happens to be a pawn down.

9...e5
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9zpp+n+pzpp0
9-+p+-sn-+0
9wq-+pzp-vL-0
9-vlPzP-+-+0
9+-sN-zP-+-0
9PzPQsNLzPPzP0
9tR-+-mK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

The main continuation. This position was popular in 20-30's and still is one of most
important and critical lines in the whole Cambridge−Springs system.
9...c5!?

98
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9zpp+n+pzpp0
9-+-+psn-+0
9wq-zpp+-vL-0
9-vlPzP-+-+0
9+-sN-zP-+-0
9PzPQsNLzPPzP0
9tR-+-mK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

is the more recent alternative.

a) 10 ¤b3!? deserves attention. Black can continue with a typical 10...£a4!? (10...£c7!? is
also worthy of consideration. After 11 0-0 dxc4 12 ¥xc4 cxd4 13 ¤b5 £b8 14 ¤5xd4 ¥d6 15
f4 h6 16 ¥h4 a6 17 ¥e2 ¤d5 18 £d2² White has the slightly better chances) 11 ¥xf6 (11
cxd5? suddenly loses a piece after 11...c4! 12 ¥xc4 ¥xc3+ 13 £xc3 ¤e4 followed by ...ed5
and ...Ne4−g5) 11...¤xf6 12 dxc5 dxc4 13 ¥xc4 £c6 14 0-0 ¥xc5 and here White
can probably achieve a small edge by playing 15 ¤xc5!? £xc5 16 ¤e4 ¤xe4 17
£xe4 £b6 18 ¥d3 g6 19 £e5² although Black should hold this position
b) 10 0-0 11 ¤b3 (11 exd4 promises nothing: 11...dxc4 12 ¥h4 ¤b6! 13 ¤xc4 ¤xc4 14 ¥xc4 ¥d7=
15 ¥xf6 gxf6 16 d5™ ¥xc3 17 dxe6 ¥xe6! 18 ¥xe6 fxe6 19 bxc3 ¦ac8= with equality) 11...£b6
12 exd4 dxc4 13 ¥xc4 The bishop on c8 is still at home and everything would be
fine for White... if only his knight was on f3 instead of b3. 13...£c7! Winning a
tempo for ...Nd7−b6, ...Bd7−c6 or ...b7−b6 and ...Bc8−b7. 14 £e2 (14 ¤b5!? is
worthy of consideration and would lead to complications after 14...£c6 15 a3 ¥e7 16
¤a5 £b6 17 b4 a6 18 ¤c3 £xd4 19 ¦ad1 £g4 20 f4÷ with unclear consequences)
14...¥xc3 15 bxc3 In the game Azmaiparashvili − Ivanchuk/Tilburg 1994 Black
achieved a very good play thanks to an excellent resource 15...¤e4! 16 £xe4 £xc4÷
Other continuations are probably weaker: 9...b6 does not solve the problems: 10 0-0 ¥xc3
11 bxc3 ¥a6 12 ¥h4!? ¦ac8 (12...dxc4 13 e4! b5 14 a4 £b6 15 ¦fb1±) 13 a4! dxc4™ 14
¤xc4 ¥xc4 (14...£d5? 15 ¤xb6± 14...£f5!? 15 ¥d3 £g4 16 ¥g3 c5 17 ¤d6²) 15 ¥xc4 with
a clear advantage
9...¦e8 looks too slow: 10 0-0 and now 10...e5 does not have desired effect: 11 dxe5 ¦xe5
12 ¤b3 £d8 13 ¥f4 ¥xc3 (13...¦e8 14 cxd5) 14 £xc3 ¦e8 15 ¦fd1² with certain
advantage
9...dxc4 is not without its points at this moment although White has got an extra tempo after
10 ¥xf6 ¤xf6 11 ¤xc4 £c7 12 a3 ¥e7 13 b4 and so on. The main reason to realize
the exchange ...dxc4 at this particular moment is to deprive White with a possibility
of fianchettoing his light−squared bishop.

10 0-0

99
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9zpp+n+pzpp0
9-+p+-sn-+0
9wq-+pzp-vL-0
9-vlPzP-+-+0
9+-sN-zP-+-0
9PzPQsNLzPPzP0
9tR-+-+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

10 dxe5 leads to simplifications and does not bother Black too much: 10...¤e4 11 ¤dxe4
dxe4
a) 12 e6 can be parried by 12...¤e5! and after 13 exf7+ ¦xf7 14 ¥f4 (14 0-0? ¤f3+!ƒ)
14...¤d3+! 15 ¥xd3 exd3 16 £xd3 ¥f5 17 £d4 ¦e8 with the idea ...Rd7 Black gains
excellent play
b) 12 0-0 12...¥xc3 13 bxc3 (the ending after 13 £xc3 £xc3 14 bxc3 ¤xe5= is good for Black)
13...¦e8 (13...£xe5?! is weaker: 14 ¥f4 £e6 15 ¦fd1² with an upper hand
in case of 13...¤xe5 White would think about 14 ¥e7!? ¦e8 15 ¥b4²)
b1) 14 ¥f4 ¤xe5 15 £xe4 can be met by a rather unexpected 15...¥f5! 16 £d4 ¦ad8
Luckily enough the position after 17 ¥xe5 ¦xd4 (17...¦xe5 18 £h4 ¦d2 19 ¦fd1) 18
cxd4 £d2 19 ¥f3÷ is not so bad for White
b2) 14 ¦fd1 14...¤xe5!? (14...£xe5 15 ¥f4 £a5² does not seem to be fully equalizing) 15
£xe4 ¥e6 16 ¥h4 (again, 16 ¥f4 is met by 16...¥f5! 17 £d4 ¦ad8 18 ¥xe5 ¦xd4 19 cxd4÷)
16...£xc3 17 ¦ac1 £a5÷ The position seems to be roughly equal. White can hardly
hope to realise his pair of bishops as he has to defend queenside weaknesses and
Black's minor pieces are very good, Vaganian − Jussupow/Erevan 1982.
10 ¥xf6 is also known to be not too dangerous for Black: 10...¤xf6 11 dxe5 ¤e4 12 ¤dxe4
(after 12 cxd5 ¤xc3 13 bxc3 ¥xc3 14 ¦c1 ¥xe5 15 dxc6 bxc6 16 0-0² White keeps only a
symbolic edge) 12...dxe4 13 0-0 ¥xc3 14 £xc3 (14 bxc3?! £xe5) 14...£xc3 15 bxc3
¦e8 16 ¦fd1 ¢f8 and Black is okay.

10...exd4
10...¥d6?! does not look very good because of 11 cxd5 (11 ¤b3 £c7 12 cxd5 cxd5! is okay for
Black) 11...exd4 (11...cxd5 12 ¤b5 ¥b8 13 dxe5 ¥xe5 14 ¤f3 gives White a clear
advantage) 12 ¤c4 £c7 13 ¤xd6 dxc3 14 dxc6 £xc6 15 ¦ad1± with a big
advantage.

11 ¤b3

100
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9zpp+n+pzpp0
9-+p+-sn-+0
9wq-+p+-vL-0
9-vlPzp-+-+0
9+NsN-zP-+-0
9PzPQ+LzPPzP0
9tR-+-+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

11 exd4?! is dubious as after 11...dxc4 White has to part with the bishop: 12 ¥xf6 ¤xf6 13
¤xc4 £c7³ with a slight edge for Black.

11...£c7
11...£b6!? is interesting. Yet, after some unsuccessful attempts White has probably found a
good way to prove small advantage by playing
a) 12 ¤xd4?! is weaker due to 12...¥xc3! 13 bxc3 dxc4 14 ¥xf6 (14 ¥xc4 £c5) 14...¤xf6 15
¥xc4= with equal play
b) 12 exd4 12...dxc4 13 ¥xc4 £c7 14 ¤d2! ¤g4 15 ¤f3 ¥d6 16 g3 ¤b6 17 ¥b3 ¢h8!? 18
¦fe1² with a certain advantage as Black has problems with some pieces, mainly the
knight on g4 and the bishop on c8.

12 ¤xd4 dxc4
The position after 12...¥xc3 13 bxc3 (not 13 ¥f4? £xf4! 14 exf4 ¥xd4∓) 13...dxc4 14 ¥xc4 will
be considered in the notes to 13 ....Bd6.

13 ¥xc4
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9zppwqn+pzpp0
9-+p+-sn-+0
9+-+-+-vL-0
9-vlLsN-+-+0
9+-sN-zP-+-0
9PzPQ+-zPPzP0
9tR-+-+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

101
A rather important position is arisen. White probably has a small advantage thanks to his
easier development and the pawn majority in center. Nevertheless Black can be also
satisfied with his position as he has no pawn weaknesses and not such bad pieces.

13...¥d6
Black has tried lots of possibilities here. 13...£e5 is unsuccessful: 14 ¤f3 £e7 15 a3 ¥a5
16 ¦ad1 ¥c7 17 ¥a2 ¦e8?! 18 ¥h4! h6 (18...¤f8 19 ¤g5) 19 ¦d4! £c5 (19...¤f8 20 ¤e4)
20 ¦fd1± and Black is in serious troubles
13...¥xc3 14 bxc3 £e5 is not without problems: 15 ¤f3 (15 ¥f4 £c5 16 ¥d3 ¤e5 17 ¤b3
£d5!? is good for Black: 18 ¥e2 ¥f5 19 c4!? ¥xc2 20 cxd5 ¤g6 21 dxc6 ¤xf4 22 exf4 bxc6=
and White should already play carefully to equalise) 15...£c5 Here White has tried
some possibilities, one of the most promising seems to be 16 £d3!? For example,
16...¦e8 17 £d4 ¤e4 18 ¥f4 ¤b6 19 ¥d3 £xd4 20 cxd4 f6 21 h3 ¤d5 22 ¥h2 ¤b4
23 ¥xe4 ¦xe4 24 ¦fc1 ¦e8 25 a3 ¤d5 26 ¦ab1 ¦e7 27 ¤d2² with a small but stable
advantage in the ending
13...¤e5 does not solve the problems: 14 ¥b3! ¤eg4 15 ¥f4 £e7 16 h3 ¤e5 17 ¥g5² with
advantage
13...¤g4?! is dubious due to 14 ¥f4 and 14...¥d6 is impossible: 15 ¤cb5! cxb5 16 ¤xb5
¥xf4 17 ¤xc7 ¥xc7 18 ¥xf7+ ¦xf7 19 £xc7+− and the Queen + pawns is much
stronger than 3 minor pieces.
This position after 13 ...Bd6 occurred in the game [Link] − Smagin/Kopenhagen 1991.
Here both

14 f4!?
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9zppwqn+pzpp0
9-+pvl-sn-+0
9+-+-+-vL-0
9-+LsN-zP-+0
9+-sN-zP-+-0
9PzPQ+-+PzP0
9tR-+-+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

and 14 h3 would promise a small advantage for White.

102
 QGD/15 Cambridge Springs − 9. cd5

Nxd5 10. Qd2 ...e6−e5 [D52]

Last updated: 11/09/04 by [Link]

1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ¤f3 ¤f6 4 ¤c3 e6 5 ¥g5 ¤bd7 6 e3 £a5

XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+kvl-tr0
9zpp+n+pzpp0
9-+p+psn-+0
9wq-+p+-vL-0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-sN-zPN+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9tR-+QmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

7 cxd5
White prevents possible...d5xc4 and gains a pawn majority in the center. This continuation
often leads to very sharp and interesting play.

7...¤xd5

103
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+kvl-tr0
9zpp+n+pzpp0
9-+p+p+-+0
9wq-+n+-vL-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-sN-zPN+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9tR-+QmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

8 £d2
8 £b3 is known to be in Black's favour after 8...¥b4 9 ¦c1 e5! (this strong move was
played first by Tartakower in 1925)
a) White has a number of possibilities: 10 dxe5? is just bad due to 10...¤c5 11 £c2 ¤a4 (or
11...£xa2 )
b) 10 ¤xe5 is fine for Black: 10...¤xe5 11 dxe5 ¥e6 12 a3 ¤xc3 13 axb4 £xe5 14 £xc3
£xg5 15 £c5 £xc5=
c) after 10 e4 ¤xc3 11 bxc3 ¥a3 12 ¦d1 exd4 13 ¦xd4 ¥c5 14 ¦d2 0-0 15 ¥d3 ¥b6! 16 0-0
¤c5 17 £c2 ¥g4³ Black takes the initiative
d) 10 ¥c4 10...¤7b6 11 ¥xd5 ¤xd5 12 ¤xe5 ¥e6 (of course not 12...f6? because of 13 ¤c4
followed by Bh4)
d1) 13 a3? is bad for White: 13...¤xc3 14 £xb4 (14 axb4 ¥xb3 15 bxa5 ¤a2) 14...£xb4 15
axb4 ¤a2 followed by ...f7−f6
d2) 13 ¤c4 13...¤xc3! 14 ¤xa5 ¤xa2+ 15 £xb4 ¤xb4 16 ¢d2 f6 17 ¥f4 0-0-0= with at
least equal ending for Black.

8...¥b4
This is one of the main continuations in the whole Cambridge Springs system nowadays.
White still fails to prove a tangible advantage.
8...¤7b6

104
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+kvl-tr0
9zpp+-+pzpp0
9-snp+p+-+0
9wq-+n+-vL-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-sN-zPN+-0
9PzP-wQ-zPPzP0
9tR-+-mKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

is an alternative, which was popular 15−20 years ago but recently has disappeared from
practice. Black wins a pawn almost by force but leaves White a strong initiative in
return.
a) In the case of 9 ¦c1 ¤xc3 10 bxc3 ¤d5
a1) 11 ¥c4 is good for Black: 11...¤xc3 12 0-0 b5! (12...¥b4? 13 a3 £xa3 14 ¦a1 ¤e4 15 £e2 is
bad for Black)
a1a) in the ending after 13 £xc3 £xc3 14 ¦xc3 bxc4 Black has no problems: 15 ¦b1 (15
¦xc4? ¥a6) 15...¥a6 16 ¤d2 c5! 17 ¤xc4 cxd4 18 exd4 f6 followed by ...Rc8
a1b) 13 ¥b3 13...b4 14 e4 h6 (14...¤xe4 15 £f4) 15 ¥h4 ¥d6! (15...¥e7 16 ¥xe7 ¢xe7 17 ¤e5±)
16 ¦fe1 ¥b7!∓ and White's compensation for the pawn is insufficient
a2) 11 ¥d3 we transpose to the one of main lines which, however, seems not to be the most
dangerous for Black.
b) 9 ¥d3 9...¤xc3
b1) A rather unexpected 10 0-0!? deserves serious attention.
b1a) The alternative 10...¥b4 does not solve the problems: 11 a3 ¤e4 12 axb4!? (12 £xb4
£xb4 13 axb4 ¤xg5 14 ¤xg5²) 12...£xa1 (both 12...¤xd2 13 bxa5 ¤xf3+ 14 gxf3±
and 12...£xg5 13 ¥xe4² are in White's favour) 13 ¥xe4 £a4 14 ¤e5!© with a strong initiative
for the big material losses. For example, 14...f6? is bad because of 15 £e2! and after
15...fxe5 16 £h5+ ¢f8 17 f4! exd4 18 f5+− the attack is irresistible
b1b) 10...¤ba4 11 a3!? An interesting attempt. (By the simple 11 bxc3 White can transpose
to the main line) 11...h6 12 ¥h4 This position occurred in the game Vladimirov −
Shabanov/Tashkent 1987. Black played unsuccessfully: 12...¥d6?! (12...¤xb2 13 £xb2
¤d5 was better with a complicated position after 14 ¤e5©) 13 e4! ¥f4? (13...¤xb2 had
to be played again.) 14 £xf4 ¤xb2 15 £d2! (Of course not 15 £d6?? g5-+ 15 ¤e5 0-0
was also nothing special.) 15...¤xd3 16 £xd3± and Black faces serious troubles
b2) 10 bxc3
b2a) For a long time the main continuation was known to be 10...¤d5 11 0-0 £xc3 12 £e2
¥d6 (12...¥e7?! is dubious: 13 ¥xe7 ¤xe7 14 ¤e5! ¤g6 15 ¥xg6!? hxg6 16 £f3 0-0 17 h4ƒ
and White's initiative is very strong) 13 ¤d2 £a5 14 ¤c4 (14 e4 can be parried by
14...¥f4! 15 ¤c4 ¤c3!) 14...£c7 with a very complicated position, in which White was
supposed to have more than enough compensation for the pawn
b2b) 10...¤a4 Strangely enough the knight seems to be safer on the edge of the board as
White does not have a chance to advance e3−e4 with increased effect. It is also more

105
 useful there − it can allow Black to slightly disorganise White's pieces by some
curious manoeuvres.
b2b1) The alternative 11 ¦c1 is not without interest. 11...¤xc3 (11...¥a3?! is weak due to 12
¦b1! and now 12...¤xc3 is bad: 13 ¦b3 ¥b4 14 a3! ¥xa3 15 £xc3 £xc3+ 16 ¦xc3 ¥b4 17
¢d2± with a big advantage.) 12 0-0 ¥b4 13 £b2!? (13 a3 £xa3 14 ¦a1 £b3 was tested
several times. Here White has some possibilities, the most testing seems to be 15
¦fc1!? ¤a2 16 £xa2 £xd3 17 d5!? and now 17...0-0! is the most reliable way which
promises better chances for Black: 18 ¦d1 £f5 19 d6 f6!? 20 d7 ¥xd7 21 ¦xd7 fxg5 and so
on) 13...¤d5 (Black should probably not include 13...h6 14 ¥h4 as it not only makes a
square e5 available for the knight but weakens a kingside pawn structure − the main
White plans are obviously connected with a center and kingside activity.) 14 ¦c4
The position arose in the game Loginov − [Link]/USSR 1986. After
14...¥e7 (An inclusion of 14...¥a3!? 15 £b1 ¥e7 dislodging the queen from the long
diagonal might be an improvement) 15 ¥xe7 ¤xe7 White came up with a powerful
16 d5! However, by playing a cool 16...0-0 17 ¦g4 ¤g6 Black has parried direct
threats and has achieved more or less acceptable play although White's initiative
after 18 dxc6 bxc6 19 h4ƒ more than enough compensated a minor material loss
b2b2) 11 0-0 The main continuation. 11...£xc3 12 £e2 £b2! A highly unusual approach −
Black's queen and knight invaded deeply into White's camp and are not in a hurry to
go back! Actually they are trying to slightly disorganise White's pieces and slow
down the development of his initiative. 13 ¥c2 £b5
b2b21) It seems that the queen on b2 makes the development of White's initiative more
difficult: 14 ¥d3 £b2 15 £d1 ¤c3 16 £e1 f6! (16...¥b4 17 e4©) 17 ¥h4 (here White
can force the draw by a curious 17 ¤d2 fxg5 18 ¤c4 £b4 19 a3 £b3 20 ¤a5 £b2 21 ¤c4
£b3= with repetition) 17...¥b4÷ with a good counterplay
b2b22) 14 £d1 14...¤c3 15 £d2
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+kvl-tr0
9zpp+-+pzpp0
9-+p+p+-+0
9+q+-+-vL-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-sn-zPN+-0
9P+LwQ-zPPzP0
9tR-+-+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

b2b221) 15...¤e2+!? was unexpectedly played in the game Gauglitz −

Cvetkovic/Balatonbereny 1987. Where the knight is going to?! 16 ¢h1 ¥b4
b2b2211) After 17 £d1 ¤c3 18 £c1 h6! 19 ¥h4 (19 ¥f4 ¤e2) 19...g5 20 ¥g3 ¤e2³ Black
has the better chances
b2b2212) 17 a4! A strong reply. 17...¥xd2 The only move otherwise the knight would just
be lost. 18 axb5 ¥c3 19 ¦ab1 (Surprisingly enough, the knight cannot be trapped by
19 ¦a3?! due to 19...cxb5! 20 ¥d3 b4 followed by ...h7−h6 and ...g7−g5 and the bishop

106
 has no other way than to go under the knight's attack!) 19...h6™ 20 bxc6 bxc6
(20...hxg5? 21 cxb7+− is bad for Black.) 21 ¥e4!? ¥d7 and here White should have
played 22 ¥h4 (in the game White has fallen into a very beautiful trap: 22 ¤e5? hxg5
23 ¦b7? 0-0-0!! 24 ¦fb1 ¦xh2+! with a checkmate on the next move! ) 22...g5 23 ¤e5!?©
with a very good compensation for the pawn when Black has no chance to open the
h−file.
b2b222) 15...¥b4 16 ¥d3 £a4 (This is clearly not the best square for the queen but 16...£a5?
was bad because of 17 a3 ¥xa3 18 ¦fc1 ¥xc1 19 ¦xc1± with a big advantage.) 17 a3 ¥a5
18 £b2 f6 19 ¥h4 ¤d5 20 ¦fc1ƒ This position arose in the game Magerramov −
[Link]/Cheliabinsk 1991. White has a strong initiative which more than
compensates for his minor material loss. Black has no time to develop the rest of his
pieces as he has to take care of his stuck queen first of all.

9 ¦c1
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+k+-tr0
9zpp+n+pzpp0
9-+p+p+-+0
9wq-+n+-vL-0
9-vl-zP-+-+0
9+-sN-zPN+-0
9PzP-wQ-zPPzP0
9+-tR-mKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

9...h6
An immediate 9...e5 is suspicious. The game Kasparov − Smyslov/Vilnius (m/9) 1984
continued by 10 a3! and now the pawn should have been accepted: 10...¥xc3!?
(10...¥d6?! gave White very pleasant play with no obstacle: 11 dxe5 ¤xe5 12 ¤xe5 ¥xe5
13 b4! ¥xc3 14 £xc3! ¤xc3 15 bxa5 ¤e4 16 ¥f4 0-0 17 f3 ¤f6 18 e4± with a big advantage in
the ending) 11 bxc3 £xa3 (11...e4 12 c4!) 12 e4 ¤5b6 13 ¥d3© with more than enough
compensation.
In case of 9...0-0 White should probably continue his development by a natural 10 ¥d3 (an
old continuation 10 e4 promises nothing: 10...¤xc3 11 bxc3 ¥a3 12 ¦b1 e5! 13 ¥d3 exd4 14
cxd4 £xd2+ 15 ¤xd2 ¤b6 with a very good counterplay in the ending) and after 10...h6
11 ¥h4 e5 one of the main lines arises − see 9 ...h6 10. ¥h4 0-0.

10 ¥h4 0-0

107
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9zpp+n+pzp-0
9-+p+p+-zp0
9wq-+n+-+-0
9-vl-zP-+-vL0
9+-sN-zPN+-0
9PzP-wQ-zPPzP0
9+-tR-mKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

A natural continuation.
However, 10...c5 is maybe more reliable.

11 ¥d3
The ending after 11 e4 ¤xc3 12 bxc3 ¥a3 13 ¦b1 e5 14 ¥g3 exd4 15 cxd4 £xd2+ 16
¤xd2 ¤b6 is good for Black
11 a3!? is rather interesting, clarifying situation on the Q−side as early as possible.
11...¥xc3 12 bxc3 £xa3 A principled continuation. Otherwise White will get a
certain advantage thank to the strong pawn center and the pair of bishops. 13 e4 ¤e7
(13...¤5b6 was also tried: 14 ¥d3 ¦e8 15 0-0 e5 16 ¥g3 exd4 17 cxd4 ¤f8 18 ¦fe1 ¥e6 19 ¦a1
£e7 20 £b2 and White keeps the position under control) 14 ¥d3 ¤g6 15 ¥g3 This
position arose in the game Khalifman − [Link]/Lanzarote 2003, in which,
despite of the good novelty 15...e5!? Black has failed to solve the problems
completely: 16 h4! exd4 17 cxd4 ¦e8 18 h5 ¤gf8 19 0-0 ¤f6 20 ¦a1 £e7 21 ¥h4
£e6 22 ¦a5!?ƒ with better chances for White.

11...e5
11...¦e8!? may lead to the main line as after 12 a3 ¥xc3 13 bxc3 £xa3 14 0-0 Black should
probably play 14...e5 anyway. (14...£f8!? looks passive but quite possible − it has not
been tested yet.) 15 ¤xe5 ¤xe5 16 dxe5 and so on − see 11 ...e5

12 a3
12 0-0 ¦e8! is known to be good for Black. This strong move was first played by Efim
Bogoljubow as long ago as 1929. (An inclusion of 12...exd4 13 exd4 ¦e8 gives White
far more possibilities, perhaps one of the most promising is 14 a3!? ¥xc3 15 bxc3 for
example, 15...¤f8 16 ¤e5 ¥e6 17 f4 f6 18 ¤c4 £d8 19 f5 ¥f7 20 ¥g3ƒ with certain
initiative) 13 £c2!? (13 e4 does not promise too much: 13...¤f4 14 ¥c4 ¤g6 15 a3 ¤xh4
16 ¤xh4 ¥e7 17 ¤f5 ¥f8 18 b4 £d8 19 £a2 £f6 20 d5 ¤b6= and so on) 13...exd4 14 ¤xd5
(14 exd4 ¤7b6 15 ¤e5 ¥e6 looks quite good for Black) 14...£xd5 15 exd4 (15 ¤xd4=
does not promise anything real) 15...¤b6 This position is good for Black. In the

108
 game Shirov − Piket, Aruba (m/6) White has tried to get the initiative by 16 ¥g3!?
(After the quiet 16 a3 ¥d6 followed by ...Bc8−g4 Black had nothing to worry about.)
but after the brave 16...£xa2! 17 ¤e5 ¥e6 18 f4 he could have achieved almost
nothing for the pawn if Black had played 18...£d5 (the immediate 18...f6!? was also
worthy of consideration.) 19 ¢h1 f6! 20 f5 (20 ¥h7+ ¢h8 21 ¤g6+ does not work
because of 21...¢xh7 22 ¤e7+ ¥f5! 23 ¤xf5 £e4) 20...¥f7 and so on.

12...¥xc3 13 bxc3
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9zpp+n+pzp-0
9-+p+-+-zp0
9wq-+nzp-+-0
9-+-zP-+-vL0
9zP-zPLzPN+-0
9-+-wQ-zPPzP0
9+-tR-mK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

13...£xa3
13...exd4!? is an interesting option. The position after 14 cxd4 (14 exd4?! looks suspicious:
14...¦e8+ 15 ¥e2 ¤7f6 and Black takes the initiative.) 14...£xa3 15 0-0 ¦e8 is rather
important. White should probably play 16 e4!? (16 ¥b1 £b4!? 17 £d3 ¤f8 was good
for Black in the game Rogers − Smagin/Prague 1992) 16...¤5b6 (16...¤b4 17 ¥c4 ¤b6
18 ¤e5ƒ) 17 ¦fe1© with good compensation for the pawn.
13...¦e8!? deserves attention although White's chances are preferable in the ending after 14
c4 £xd2+ 15 ¤xd2 Yet, a strong 15...¤e7! (15...¤c7? is much weaker: 16 0-0 ¤e6 17
¦fe1 b6 18 ¥f5 exd4 19 exd4± with a certain advantage ) 16 0-0 (16 ¥xe7 ¦xe7 17 d5² could
promise a small edge for White) 16...exd4 17 exd4 ¤f8 18 ¦fe1 ¥f5!„ gives Black
reasonable chances to equalise.

14 0-0
in the case of 14 ¤xe5 ¤xe5 15 dxe5 Black can try 15...¤e7!? (instead of 15...¦e8 16 0-0! −
the main line) For example, 16 e4 ¤g6 17 ¥g3 ¦d8 followed by ...Qa3−c5 and
...Ng6−e5

14...¦e8 15 ¤xe5 ¤xe5 16 dxe5

109
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+r+k+0
9zpp+-+pzp-0
9-+p+-+-zp0
9+-+nzP-+-0
9-+-+-+-vL0
9wq-zPLzP-+-0
9-+-wQ-zPPzP0
9+-tR-+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

This important position arose in the game Shirov − Piket/Amsterdam 1995.

16...£c5!?
After 16...¦xe5 17 e4 ¤b6 18 f4 followed by f4−f5 White would have achieved sufficient
compensation for the pawn.

17 ¢h1!
Still not defending the pawn − the bishop on h4 keeps under control the very important h4−
d8 diagonal.

17...¥e6!?
Black ignores it too!

18 e4 ¤b6 19 f4 ¥c4 20 ¦f3! ¥xd3 21 ¦xd3

and here a prophylactic

21...¢h7²

110
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+r+-+0
9zpp+-+pzpk0
9-snp+-+-zp0
9+-wq-zP-+-0
9-+-+PzP-vL0
9+-zPR+-+-0
9-+-wQ-+PzP0
9+-tR-+-+K0
xiiiiiiiiy

was more to the point although White still had good attacking chances.

111
 QGD/16 Cambridge Springs − 9. cd5

Nxd5 10. Qd2 ...c6−c5 [D52]

Last updated: 17/11/04 by [Link]

1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ¤f3 ¤f6 4 ¤c3 e6 5 ¥g5 ¤bd7 6 e3 £a5 7 cxd5 ¤xd5 8

£d2 ¥b4 9 ¦c1 h6
The immediate 9...c5 can lead to the same positions if Black plays ...h7−h6 on the next few
moves.

10 ¥h4 c5
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+k+-tr0
9zpp+n+pzp-0
9-+-+p+-zp0
9wq-zpn+-+-0
9-vl-zP-+-vL0
9+-sN-zPN+-0
9PzP-wQ-zPPzP0
9+-tR-mKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

This was played by Mikhail Botvinnik as long ago as 1926. Now it is one of the main lines
in the whole Cambridge Springs system.

11 a3
A natural 11 ¥d3 is known to be not dangerous for Black: 11...cxd4 12 exd4 b6 (or 12...0-0
13 0-0 b6 with a good play for Black according to the tournament practice) 13 0-0 (13
a3 ¥xc3 14 bxc3 ¥b7 is also good for Black. Then in case of 15 ¥g3 he can think about
15...£xa3!? 16 ¥b5 ¤5f6 17 ¤e5 £e7 18 0-0 0-0 19 ¥h4 £d6!) 13...0-0 (in case of 13...¥b7
White can try to exploit that Black hasn't castled yet: 14 ¥b5!? £xb5 15 ¤xb5 ¥xd2 16
¤d6+ ¢f8 17 ¤xd2 ¥a6 18 ¦fe1 g5 19 ¥g3 ¢g7 20 ¤f3 ¦hd8 21 h4 g4 22 ¤e5 ¤xe5 23 dxe5±
with a certain advantage) 14 a3 (after 14 ¥b1 ¥a6 15 £c2 f5 16 ¤xd5 £xd5 17 ¦fd1 ¥d6!

112
 18 £d2 ¦ac8³ Black looks already slightly better) 14...¥xc3 15 bxc3 ¥b7 with a solid
position.

11...¥xc3 12 bxc3 b6!

XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+k+-tr0
9zp-+n+pzp-0
9-zp-+p+-zp0
9wq-zpn+-+-0
9-+-zP-+-vL0
9zP-zP-zPN+-0
9-+-wQ-zPPzP0
9+-tR-mKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

12...£xa3?! is suspicious for Black: 13 e4 ¤5f6 14 ¥d3 £a5 15 d5! c4!? (15...exd5?! leads to
serious trouble for Black after 16 e5! ¤e4 17 ¥xe4 dxe4 18 £d6 g5 19 ¤xg5! £b6 20 ¤xe4
£xd6 21 ¤xd6+ ¢f8 22 f4±) 16 ¥xc4 exd5 17 ¥xd5!? ¤xd5 18 exd5 0-0 19 0-0 f6!?
(19...¤b6 20 ¥e7 ¦e8 21 d6²) 20 ¦fe1 ¤b6 21 c4!? £xd2 22 ¤xd2 ¥f5 23 f3! with a
certain advantage in the endgame.

13 ¥d3
13 e4 is a logical alternative: 13...¤5f6 14 ¥d3 ¥b7 (14...¥a6 does not solve the problems
completely: 15 ¥xa6 £xa6 16 e5 ¤h7 17 d5 £c4 18 dxe6 £xe6 19 0-0 0-0 20 ¦fe1 ¦fe8 21
¦cd1² with a small edge for White thanks to his possession of the d−file and in
particular the possibility to place his rook on d6) 15 d5 Otherwise it seems
impossible to pose problems for Black. This position arose in the game Kramnik −
Ivanchuk/Novgorod 1995 which continued 15...c4! 16 dxe6 cxd3 17 exd7+ ¤xd7 18
£xd3 g5 19 ¥g3 ¤c5 20 £d6 and in this complicated position a draw was agreed.

13...¥a6!?

113
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+k+-tr0
9zp-+n+pzp-0
9lzp-+p+-zp0
9wq-zpn+-+-0
9-+-zP-+-vL0
9zP-zPLzPN+-0
9-+-wQ-zPPzP0
9+-tR-mK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

13...¥b7 has also been tried: 14 0-0

a) in case of 14...cxd4 15 cxd4 £xa3 (15...£xd2 16 ¤xd2±) 16 ¥b5© White has good
compensation for the pawn
b) 14...¤5f6 15 £e2 0-0 16 ¤d2 (16 e4 ¦fc8 17 e5 ¤d5 18 £e4 ¤f8 looks acceptable for Black)
16...cxd4 17 cxd4 ¦ac8 (17...£xa3!? deserves attention although the invasion 18 ¦c7ƒ
gives White the initiative.) 18 ¤c4 £a4 19 f3!² and White secures a small
advantage.

14 0-0
After 14 c4 £xd2+ 15 ¤xd2 ¤5f6 16 ¢e2² White can hope for a small advantage although
Black's position is quite solid.

14...cxd4!?
A principled continuation.
14...¤5f6 does not promise a full equality: 15 e4 ¥xd3 16 £xd3 cxd4 17 cxd4 0-0² with a
small advantage for White.

15 ¥xa6
15 exd4 ¦c8 is very good for Black.

15...£xa6 16 £xd4 0-0!

The only way.
16...¤5f6?! is suspicious for Black due to 17 ¤e5ƒ with the initiative.

17 e4

114
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+-trk+0
9zp-+n+pzp-0
9qzp-+p+-zp0
9+-+n+-+-0
9-+-wQP+-vL0
9zP-zP-+N+-0
9-+-+-zPPzP0
9+-tR-+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

17 c4 does not promise much: 17...¤5f6 18 e4 e5! 19 ¤xe5 (or 19 £e3 ¤g4 20 £c3 ¦fe8 with
a good play) 19...¤xe5 20 £xe5 ¦fe8 21 £b5 £xb5 22 cxb5 ¤xe4 23 f3 ¤c5= with
a drawish endgame.

17...¤f4
Of course, not 17...¤5f6?? 18 e5 ¤d5 19 c4+− and Black loses a piece.

18 £xd7 ¤e2+ 19 ¢h1 ¤xc1 20 ¦xc1 £xa3 21 £d2 ¦ac8

21...¦fc8 is also worthy of consideration.

22 ¤d4
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+r+-trk+0
9zp-+-+pzp-0
9-zp-+p+-zp0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+-sNP+-vL0
9wq-zP-+-+-0
9-+-wQ-zPPzP0
9+-tR-+-+K0
xiiiiiiiiy

A rather important for the assessment of the whole line position is reached. With the queens
on the board two minor pieces are often stronger than the rook but it is usually
thanks to the attacking possibilities against the rival's king. Here it seems to be not
easy as White has to take care about his c−pawn first of all.

22...a6

115
22...£d6 is an alternative: 23 f4!? It is quite logical to use the pawns more actively −
White's main plan should be connected with the K−side actions. (23 £e3 ¦c4 24 f3 ¦fc8
did not give White real chances to get advantage in the game Rogozenko −
[Link]/FIDE WCh KO Moscow 2001) 23...¦c4 24 e5 £d5 25 £e3 ¦fc8 26
¥e1 b5 27 ¦b1 a6 28 h3²
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+r+-+k+0
9+-+-+pzp-0
9p+-+p+-zp0
9+p+qzP-+-0
9-+rsN-zP-+0
9+-zP-wQ-+P0
9-+-+-+P+0
9+R+-vL-+K0
xiiiiiiiiy

Quite natural play has led to this position, in which White's chances look preferable as he
has managed to stop Black's Q−side pawns and to prevent other counter attempts.
Yet, to do this White was forced to place his pieces rather passively so now it's not
so easy for him to start active actions, Ruck − Grabarczyk/Griesheim 2003.

23 f4
A restrained 23 f3 can hardly bother Black.

23...b5
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+r+-trk+0
9+-+-+pzp-0
9p+-+p+-zp0
9+p+-+-+-0
9-+-sNPzP-vL0
9wq-zP-+-+-0
9-+-wQ-+PzP0
9+-tR-+-+K0
xiiiiiiiiy

This position has been tested in the game Nyback − Fridman/Calvia (ol) 2004, which
continued

24 ¤e2 a5

116
An immediate 24...¦c4!? was worthy of consideration.

25 ¦b1 ¦c4 26 ¦xb5

26 £d3 was well met by 26...¦fc8 since 27 ¦xb5? was impossible due to 27...¦xc3!

26...£a1+ 27 ¥e1 ¦xe4

XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-trk+0
9+-+-+pzp-0
9-+-+p+-zp0
9zpR+-+-+-0
9-+-+rzP-+0
9+-zP-+-+-0
9-+-wQN+PzP0
9wq-+-vL-+K0
xiiiiiiiiy

with acceptable play for Black.

117
 Lasker's Defence

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 ¥e7 4 ¤f3 ¤f6 5 ¥g5 0-0 6 e3 h6 7 ¥h4 ¤e4

XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwq-trk+0
9zppzp-vlpzp-0
9-+-+p+-zp0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+PzPn+-vL0
9+-sN-zPN+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9tR-+QmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

The main idea of this manoeuvre, which was introduced by Emanuel Lasker in his match
against Frank Marschall in 1907 is obvious − to force some exchanges. Black really
obtains a solid position but is getting a bit late in development. The main drawback
of the Lasker Defence is that Black's chances to take the initiative are very limited.
But if a draw is an acceptable result then this system is quite playable and it gives
Black very reasonable chances to achieve this aim although a good work still has to
be done.
By the way, Lasker himself played this manoeuvre ...¤f6−e4, which is quite typical for
some systems of the QGD, without the preliminary ...h7−h6 but this pawn advance
is quite useful. Black prevents possible ¤f3−g5, removes this pawn from possible
attack on the b1-h7 diagonal and creates a hole for the king in case of possible
invasion on the 8th rank.

118
 QGD/17 Lasker Defence − Various lines

[D57]

Last updated: 11/09/04 by [Link]

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 ¥e7 4 ¤f3 ¤f6 5 ¥g5 0-0 6 e3 h6 7 ¥h4 ¤e4 8 ¥xe7

£xe7
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnl+-trk+0
9zppzp-wqpzp-0
9-+-+p+-zp0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+PzPn+-+0
9+-sN-zPN+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9tR-+QmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

9 cxd5
This option gives White a strong center and opened files on the Q−side. The drawback is
obvious − it promotes Black's development.
9 ¤xe4 dxe4 10 ¤d2 does not give White any advantage: 10...f5
a) 11 ¦c1 is passive: 11...¤d7 (11...c5!?) 12 £c2 c6 13 c5 e5 14 ¥c4+ ¢h8 15 0-0 ¤f6 16
¦fe1 ¦d8 17 £c3 exd4 18 exd4 ¥e6 with excellent play
b) 11 c5!? 11...e5 12 £b3+ ¢h8 13 ¤c4 exd4 14 exd4 ¤c6 15 0-0-0 ¦d8!?„ (or 15...b6!?„
with good counter chances)
9 £c2 is rarely played: 9...¤xc3 10 £xc3 dxc4
a) 11 ¥xc4 allows the program advance 11...c5!? (in case of 11...b6 12 0-0 ¥b7 13 ¥e2 ¦c8 14
b4 ¤d7 15 ¦fc1 c5 16 dxc5 bxc5 17 b5 a6 18 a4²) 12 0-0 ¤c6 13 dxc5 £xc5 14 ¦ac1 ¦d8
15 a3 ¥d7 16 b4 £b6² Yet, White still keeps some advantage thanks to his lead in
development
b) 11 £xc4 11...b6 12 ¦c1 White's pressure over the c−file looks irritating but Black can
still continue his plan: 12...c5! 13 dxc5 ¥a6! The point. 14 £h4! (14 £e4 is well met

119
 by 14...¥b7 and after 15 £f4 ¦c8 is fine) 14...£xh4 15 ¤xh4 ¦c8 16 ¥e2 (16 b4
promises nothing: 16...¥xf1 17 ¦xf1 bxc5 18 bxc5 ¤a6 19 c6 ¤b4 and Black wins the pawn
back) 16...bxc5 17 ¤f3 ¥xe2 18 ¢xe2² Thanks to the Black's Q−side weaknesses
White keeps small advantage. The question is whether it would promise him
winning chances. In the game Lputian − Pigusov/ECC Halkidiki 2002 Black held
this endgame without many problems.

9...¤xc3 10 bxc3 exd5 11 £b3 ¦d8 12 c4

XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnltr-+k+0
9zppzp-wqpzp-0
9-+-+-+-zp0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+Q+-zPN+-0
9P+-+-zPPzP0
9tR-+-mKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

Now Black has a choice.

12...dxc4
A rather unexpected 12...c5!? was introduced in the game Kalin − Bezgodov/Russia 1999.
Black tries to open position by any cost before White completes his development.
The idea looks interesting but White can probably prove his advantage by precise
play: 13 cxd5 (13 £a3 ¤a6 was fine for Black) 13...cxd4 14 ¤xd4 ¤c6!? 15 ¦d1 ¤a5
16 £b5 £c7 and here a simple 17 ¥e2!? deserved serious attention since actually it
was not so easy for Black to win the d5−pawn: 17...a6 18 £a4 £c3+ (18...¦xd5?? 19
£e8+ ¢h7 20 £e4++−) 19 ¦d2 £c1+ 20 ¥d1 and Black still cannot capture the pawn.
12...¥e6!? is rare continuation. Black is going to make things complicated. 13 £xb7!? A
principled but risky continuation − White is trying to win material without
completing his development. (13 ¦c1 is harmless for Black due to a simple 13...c5
but 13 c5!? deserves serious attention.)
a) a preliminary 13...dxc4 gives White an important tempo: 14 £xa8 £a3 15 ¦b1 ¥d5 and
now 16 £xd5! ¦xd5 17 ¦xb8+ ¢h7 18 ¦b1 £xa2 (a tricky 18...¦f5!? can be well met
by 19 ¤d2 c3 20 ¥d3 cxd2+ 21 ¢e2 g6 22 ¥xf5 gxf5 23 ¦hd1 £xa2 24 ¦a1 £c4+ 25 ¢xd2 c5 26
dxc5 £xc5 27 ¢e1 and the rooks should collect the Black pawns) 19 ¤d2 c3 20 ¥d3+
g6 21 ¤e4± with a big advantage
b) 13...£a3! This strong idea, which was introduced in the game Jobava −
Shengelia/Batumi 2002, casts doubts upon White's approach. 14 ¦b1 (14 ¤d2?! can
be well met by 14...dxc4 15 ¥xc4 ¥xc4 16 £xc7 ¤c6! 17 £xc6 ¦ac8‚ and the White king
is in trouble in center.) 14...£xa2!? 15 cxd5 and here Black could have achieved the

120
 advantage by 15...¥xd5!? 16 £b2 £xb2 17 ¦xb2 ¤c6³ with initiative since White
has still not finished his K−side development.
The immediate 12...¤c6 seems worse: 13 cxd5
a) or 13...£b4+ 14 ¤d2 £xb3 15 ¤xb3 ¤b4 16 ¦c1 (16 ¢d2 ¤xd5 17 g3 b6 18 ¥g2²)
16...¤xd5 17 e4 ¦e8 18 f3 f5!? (18...c6 19 ¢f2 ¤e7 20 g4! b6 21 h4 ¥e6 22 ¥c4 ¥xc4 23
¦xc4 ¦ad8 24 a4±) 19 ¥c4 c6 20 ¤c5! fxe4 21 fxe4 ¥f5 22 0-0 ¥xe4 23 ¤xb7 ¦ab8
24 ¤d6 ¦e6 25 ¤xe4 ¦xe4 26 ¥b3 ¦xd4 27 ¦xc6 ¦d8 28 ¦c7±
b) 13...¤a5 14 £b5 £a3 15 ¥d3 ¥g4 16 0-0 with better chances for White, for example:
16...c6 17 dxc6 bxc6 18 £b1 ¥xf3 19 gxf3 ¦ab8 20 ¥h7+! ¢h8 21 £d3 £e7 22
¥e4± and Black has not achieved sufficient compensation for the pawn.

13 ¥xc4 ¤c6
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+ltr-+k+0
9zppzp-wqpzp-0
9-+n+-+-zp0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+LzP-+-+0
9+Q+-zPN+-0
9P+-+-zPPzP0
9tR-+-mK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

14 ¥e2
14 £c3 is an alternative: 14...¥g4 15 0-0 ¥xf3 16 gxf3 White has got pawn superiority in
center and the bishop against the knight but on the other hand Black has no
weaknesses and no problems with development so he should be more or less
satisfied with the position. Now
a) 16...£h4?! did not prevented White's plans in the game Beliavsky − Vaganian/Reggio
Emilia 1995: 17 ¢h1 ¦d6 (17...£h3 18 ¥e2 ¦d6 19 ¦g1²) 18 ¦g1! ¤e7 (It turned out
that the f2−pawn was untouchable: 18...£xf2?? 19 ¦af1 £h4 20 d5 £f6 21 £xf6 ¦xf6 22
dxc6+−) 19 ¦g4 £h5 (19...£xf2? 20 ¦f1 ¤d5 21 £b3 £xe3 22 ¥xd5+−) 20 ¦ag1ƒ with
annoying initiative.
b) 16...£f6 seems to be the most precise continuation. 17 ¥e2 ¦ac8! and the idea ...¤c6−e7
and ...c7−c5 gives Black a good play. For example, 18 ¦ab1 b6 19 ¦fc1 (19 ¥a6 £xf3
20 ¥xc8 ¦xc8 21 ¦fc1 ¤e7© with initiative on the K−side) 19...¤e7 20 ¢h1 (20 ¥a6
¤d5!?ƒ) 20...¦d5!?„ with good counter chances.

14...b6
An old and very solid approach.

121
15 0-0 ¥b7
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-tr-+k+0
9zplzp-wqpzp-0
9-zpn+-+-zp0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+Q+-zPN+-0
9P+-+LzPPzP0
9tR-+-+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

16 ¦fc1
16 ¦ac1 is similar since White is going to double the rooks on the c−file: 16...¤a5 17 £b2
¦ac8 18 h3 c5 and Black almost equalises.

16...¦ac8
The immediate 16...¤a5 leads to similar play: 17 £b2 ¦ac8 18 ¦c3 c5 19 ¦ac1 cxd4 20
¤xd4 ¦xc3 21 ¦xc3 £e5 22 £c2 ¦d5 with idea ...Rd5−c5 with good play for Black.

17 £a4 ¤a5 18 ¦c3 c5

XIIIIIIIIY
9-+rtr-+k+0
9zpl+-wqpzp-0
9-zp-+-+-zp0
9sn-zp-+-+-0
9Q+-zP-+-+0
9+-tR-zPN+-0
9P+-+LzPPzP0
9tR-+-+-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

As a rule, this program advance gives Black good play − he has no more pawn weaknesses
and no problems with development. Yet, White still keeps some pressure and so
Black has to defend accurately − in fact, such a great player as Vladimir Kramnik
failed to solve the problems completely in the game Deep Fritz − Kramnik/Bahrain
(m/5) 2002.

122
 QGD/18 Lasker Defence − Main line 9.

Rc1 [D56]

Last updated: 17/11/04 by [Link]

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 ¥e7 4 ¤f3 ¤f6 5 ¥g5 0-0 6 e3 h6 7 ¥h4 ¤e4 8 ¥xe7

£xe7
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnl+-trk+0
9zppzp-wqpzp-0
9-+-+p+-zp0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+PzPn+-+0
9+-sN-zPN+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9tR-+QmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

9 ¦c1
Recently this is the most popular continuation. Since one of the main Black's option is the
advance ...c7−c5 White is trying to create pressure over the c−file.

9...c6
If Black plays 9...¤xc3 10 ¦xc3 c6 then White can think about 11 ¥e2!? ¤d7 12 0-0
a) here 12...e5?! is dubious: 13 cxd5 e4 14 ¤d2 (14 d6 £xd6 15 ¤d2 ¤f6 looks OK for Black)
14...cxd5 15 £c2 and White takes advantage
b) 12...dxc4 13 ¥xc4 and White successfully reaches the main position.

10 ¥d3 ¤xc3 11 ¦xc3

123
 XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnl+-trk+0
9zpp+-wqpzp-0
9-+p+p+-zp0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-tRLzPN+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9+-+QmK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

11...dxc4
11...¤d7 may lead to the same position but it gives some extra options for both sides. In
particular, White can think about
a) after 12 0-0 the immediate 12...e5!? deserves serious attention. (12...dxc4 13 ¥xc4 leads to
the main position − see 11...dc4)
a1) 13 ¥b1 does not seem too harmful for Black but it still worthy of consideration. After
13...exd4 (13...e4!? 14 ¤d2 ¤f6 deserved attention) 14 ¤xd4!? (14 exd4 dxc4= and
...Nd7−b6 is just equal) 14...¤b6 15 c5 ¤c4 16 b3 ¤e5 17 h3² White can obtain a
small advantage
a2) Then after 13 dxe5 13...dxc4
a2a) 14 ¦xc4 ¤xe5 15 ¦e4 does not promise too much: (15 ¤xe5 £xe5) 15...¤xf3+ 16 £xf3
¥e6 17 ¥c4 ¦ad8 18 ¥xe6 fxe6 19 £e2 (19 £g4 ¦d6) 19...¦d5² and White has very
little chances to exploit the weakness on e6, as was tested in a number of games.
a2b) 14 ¥xc4 14...¤xe5 15 ¤xe5 £xe5
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9zpp+-+pzp-0
9-+p+-+-zp0
9+-+-wq-+-0
9-+L+-+-+0
9+-tR-zP-+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9+-+Q+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

This position is well−known for the theory. Thanks to the possibility to advance his e− and
f−pawns White's chances are preferable but it was usually not so easy for him to
maintain the advantage on practice.

124
a2b1) 16 £c2 is harmless: 16...¥f5 17 ¥d3 ¥xd3 18 ¦xd3 ¦fd8 19 ¦fd1 ¦xd3 20 ¦xd3 £a5
21 £b1 ¦d8 22 ¦xd8+ £xd8³ with slightly better chances for Black thanks to his
Q−side pawn majority.
a2b2) 16 £e2 is also fine for Black: 16...¥e6 17 ¥xe6 £xe6 18 b3 ¦ad8 19 ¦d3 ¦d6 20 h3
¦fd8 21 ¦fd1 g6 22 ¦xd6 ¦xd6 23 ¦xd6 £xd6³
a2b3) 16 £b3!? can be met by an interesting 16...b5!? (a slow 16...b6 seems playable as
well: 17 ¦d1 ¥f5 18 ¥d3 ¥e6 19 £a4 c5 wit acceptable play) 17 ¥e2 ¥e6 18 £c2 ¥d5
and the strong bishop on d5 prevents White's active possibilities very well, Lautier −
Kramnik/Monaco 1999.
a2b4) 16 f4!? seems to be the most principled way − White should try to advance his
central pawns. The e3−pawn is temporarily detached but White is going either to
take control over the e4−square soon or to advance his f−pawn further, trying to
create direct K−side attack.
a2b41) Other moves were also tested. It seems that White keeps good attacking chances on
the K−side after 16...£f6 17 e4 (17 f5!?)
a2b42) or 16...£e7 17 f5ƒ
a2b43) 16...£e4!? 17 £e2 (17 ¦e1 ¥e6 18 ¥xe6 £xe6 should be OK for Black) 17...¦d8 18
¥b3 (18 ¥d3 can be strongly met by 18...¥g4!) 18...¥f5 19 ¥c2 £d5 20 e4 £d4+ 21
¢h1 ¦e8 22 ¦d1 £b4 23 ¦b3 £e7 24 ¦e3 ¥h7 25 e5² White has managed to
advance his e− and f−pawns so his chances are preferable but it is very difficult to
get something more substantial.
b) while the move 12 £c2 may not be the best in the forthcoming play: 12...dxc4 13 ¥xc4
b1) A plan with 13...e5 is also playable: 14 0-0 e4!? (14...¦e8?! is weaker: 15 d5 e4 16 ¤d4 c5
17 ¤b5 £e5 18 d6 with a big advantage) 15 ¤d2 (15 ¤e5 ¤xe5 16 £xe4 ¦e8 17 dxe5 £xe5
18 £xe5 ¦xe5 19 ¦d1 ¢f8 20 f3 ¥e6 21 ¥xe6 ¦xe6 22 e4 ¦ae8² and Black should hold this
position without serious problems) 15...¤f6 with acceptable play although here
White can probably find something else than a trasposition to the game Anastasian −
Miladinovic/Moscow (ol) 1994 by 16 ¥b3 ¥g4!?„ − see the line 11 ...dxc4 12.
Bxc4 Nd7 13. 0-0 e5 14. Bb3 e4!?
b2) 13...b6 14 ¥d3 c5 15 ¥e4 ¦b8 16 0-0 a5 − see the main line with 16. Qc2 instead of 16.
Qa4.
c) 12 cxd5!?, transposing into the Carlsbad pawn structure. Yet, it also helps Black to solve
the problem of his bishop. 12...exd5 13 0-0 ¤f6² White looks preferable but he
should play very precisely to prove the advantage since Black can find good counter
chances. For example: 14 ¤e5 ¤e4!? 15 ¦a3 (15 ¥xe4!? dxe4 16 £b1 deserves
attention) 15...¥f5 16 £c2 ¥h7 17 ¢h1?! f6 18 ¤f3 g5!? 19 ¤e1 a6 20 ¦b3 ¦ae8 21
£c1 h5 22 ¥e2 ¥g6 23 ¤d3 h4ƒ and Black has made certain progress on the K−
side.

12 ¥xc4
12 ¦xc4 is an old continuation, which is recently not popular. 12...¤d7 Since ...c6−c5
seems to be hardly possible Black is logically preparing the other way to get the c8−
bishop into play − the advance ...e6−e5. 13 ¥b1!? Creating the battery over the
diagonal b1-h7. (13 ¥c2 is similar to the text move: 13...e5 14 £d3 f5 15 dxe5 ¤xe5 16
¤xe5 £xe5 17 ¦d4 ¥e6 and Black has almost equalised.) 13...e5 (13...¦d8?! 14 £c2 ¤f8 is

125
 weaker as Black does not solve the problem of his bishop on c8. After 15 0-0 White
keeps certain advantage as now it is impossible for Black to advance ...e6−e5 or
...c6−c5.) 14 £c2 f5 (14...g6 is less active and White gets better chances. For example,
15 0-0 ¦e8 16 e4 exd4 17 ¤xd4 ¤b6 18 ¦c3 £f6 19 ¤b3 ¤a4 20 ¦f3 £e7 21 a3 ¤b6 22 ¦c3 ¥e6
23 ¤c5 ¦ad8 24 f4±) 15 dxe5 (15 0-0 can be well met by 15...e4 16 ¤d2 ¤b6 17 ¦c5 ¥e6
and Black has no problems at all) 15...¤xe5 16 ¤xe5 £xe5 17 ¦c5 £f6 18 0-0 ¥e6
Black can be satisfied with his position. Apart from slight problems with the
diagonal b1-h7 he has nothing to worry about, Tkachiev − Morovic Fernandez/Solin
1999.

12...¤d7 13 0-0
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9zpp+nwqpzp-0
9-+p+p+-zp0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+LzP-+-+0
9+-tR-zPN+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9+-+Q+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

The main position of the Lasker Defence. By the way, it can be also reached in one of the
lines of the QGD − 6. Bh4 0-0 7. e3 Nbd7 8. Rc1 c6 9. Bd3 dc4 10. Bxc4 Nd5 11.
Bxe7 Qxe7 12. 0-0 Nxc3 13. Rxc3. Now Black has two obvious ways to solve the
problem of his bishop on c8 − ...c6−c5 and ...e6−e5. Usually Black chooses between
the immediate 13 ...e5 and 13 ...b6, preparing for ...c6−c5.

13...b6
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9zp-+nwqpzp-0
9-zpp+p+-zp0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+LzP-+-+0
9+-tR-zPN+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9+-+Q+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

126
13...e5 is the main alternative. 14 ¥b3
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9zpp+nwqpzp-0
9-+p+-+-zp0
9+-+-zp-+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+LtR-zPN+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9+-+Q+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

A typical prophylactic move. Now it is not easy for Black to keep tension in center if he is
going to develop his bishop.
a) The exchange 14...exd4 opens files for White's pieces: 15 exd4!
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9zpp+nwqpzp-0
9-+p+-+-zp0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+LtR-+N+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9+-+Q+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

Here the isolated d4−pawn helps White to develop the initiative very much. The opened e−
file, the control over e5−square, the possibility to bring the rook to the K−side via
the 3rd rank, the strong bishop on b3 − all these factors make White's position fairly
attractive. 15...¤f6 (A different route of the knight 15...¤b6 does not affect White's
play: 16 ¦e1 £d6 17 ¤e5 ¥e6 18 ¥xe6 fxe6 19 ¦g3 and Black has no compensation for the
his weaknesses: 19...¦f5 20 ¦g6± with annoying initiative) 16 ¦e1 £d6 17 ¤e5 Black
has no pawn weaknesses but White's initiative looks rather annoying − all his pieces
are very active. The main Black's problem is still his bishop, which cannot be
developed without any concessions.
a1) 17...¥f5?! is strongly met by 18 ¤xf7! ¦xf7 19 ¥xf7+ ¢xf7 20 £b3+ ¢f8 21 £xb7
¦b8 22 £xa7 ¦xb2 23 ¦xc6! ¦xa2 (23...£xc6 24 £a3+ ¢g8 25 £xb2+−) and here White
can secure the decisive advantage by 24 £b6! £e7 (24...£d5 25 ¦xf6+ gxf6 26 £xf6+
£f7 27 £h8+ £g8 28 ¦e8++−) 25 ¦xf6+! gxf6 (25...£xf6 26 £b8+ ¢f7 27 £e8#) 26 £b8+
followed by 27.Rxe7+−
a2) 17...¥e6 does not solve the problems either: 18 ¥xe6

127
a2a) a tricky 18...£xe6 it should be in White's favour: 19 ¤g6 ¤e4 (19...£xa2 20 ¤xf8 ¦xf8 21
¦a3 £xb2 22 ¦b3 £a2 23 ¦xb7±) 20 ¤xf8 ¤xc3 21 bxc3 £d5 The knight is trapped but
Black cannot win it for free. For example, here White can simply gain a healthy
extra pawn by 22 £b1!? ¦xf8 23 £xb7±
a2b) 18...fxe6 19 ¦g3 ¦ad8 20 £b3ƒ with initiative.
a3) 17...¤d5 18 ¦g3ƒ This position arose in the game Karpov − Yusupov/ London (m/8)
1989. Black was unable to extinguish White's initiative.
b) 14...¦e8 is not so bad but it still does not seem fully equalising:
b1) 15 d5 is harmless for Black: 15...cxd5 16 £xd5 ¤f6 17 £c5 ¤e4 18 £xe7 ¦xe7 with
drawish endgame.
b2) 15 £b1!? is an interesting alternative. In some cases the queen would be more active on
c2 but, on the other hand, the position of the queen on b1 would help White to avoid
the exchange of the light−squared bishop: 15...exd4 (in case of 15...e4 16 ¤d2 ¤f6 17
¦c5 ¥e6 18 ¦e5 Black does not have the simplifying ...Be6xb3) 16 exd4 ¤f8 (16...¤f6
17 ¦e3 ¥e6 18 ¥xe6 fxe6 19 ¦fe1 is clearly better for White) 17 ¦e1 ¥e6 18 ¦ce3 £d7 19
¥c2!² and White maintains a small advantage.
b3) 15 £c2
b3a) 15...exd4 is an obvious alternative. White would continue by 16 ¤xd4 (here in case of
16 exd4 ¤f8 17 ¦e3 ¥e6 18 ¦fe1 £d7 White could not secure his bishop from exchange!)
16...¤f8 (16...¤f6 17 f3 (with idea e3−e4) 17...c5!? 18 ¦xc5 £xe3+ 19 £f2² with
advantage) 17 ¦d1 g6 18 f3 ¥d7 19 e4² with a certain advantage
b3b) 15...e4 16 ¤d2 ¤f6 17 ¦c5 A typical move − White is trying to prevent comfortable
development of the Black bishop. By the way, now Black should be care about his
e4−pawn − Rc5−e5 is threatened. Now 17...¥e6! is a principled continuation:
(17...£c7?! is dubious: 18 h3 ¥d7 19 f4! exf3 20 ¦xf3 £d8 21 ¦e5 ¥e6 22 ¥xe6 ¦xe6 23 ¦xe6
fxe6 24 ¤c4 £e7 25 ¤e5± 17...£d8?! is too passive: 18 ¦e5! ¦xe5 19 dxe5 ¤g4 20 ¤xe4 ¤xe5
21 £c5! and Black has found himself in trouble since he has no good defence against
Ne4−d6, Vyzhmanavin − Klovans/Bern 1993.) 18 ¦e5 ¥xb3 19 axb3!? (19 £xb3 can
give White a slight edge after 19...£d7 20 £c2 ¦xe5 21 dxe5 ¤g4 22 ¤xe4 ¤xe5 23 ¦d1
£e7 24 £c5!²)
b3b1) 19...£d7?! can be met by 20 ¤xe4 ¦xe5 21 dxe5 ¤g4 22 ¤c5 £e7 23 e6! fxe6 24
£c4 with advantage
b3b2) 19...£b4!? deserves attention: 20 ¦a1 ¦xe5 (in case of 20...a6 21 ¦a4 £b6 22 h3² White
keeps better chances) 21 dxe5 ¤d7 here White can try an interesting 22 e6!?
b3b3) 19...£c7!? 20 ¤xe4 ¦xe5 21 ¤xf6+ gxf6 22 dxe5 fxe5 and Black has almost nothing
to worry about.
c) 14...¦d8 was also tried. Black's plan is to play ...Nd7−f8 after exchange on d4. 15 ¦e1
exd4 16 exd4 (16 £xd4 is harmless for Black: 16...¤f8 17 £e5 £xe5 18 ¤xe5 ¥e6= with
equal endgame) 16...£d6
c1) 17 ¦ce3 is simply met by 17...¤f8 and after 18 ¤e5 (18 ¦e7? ¤e6-+) 18...¥e6 19 £h5
¥xb3 20 ¦xb3 £c7 21 £g4 ¤e6 22 ¤xf7 £xf7 23 ¦xe6 ¦xd4 24 £xd4 £xe6= and
Black has no problems
c2) while 17 d5 gives White some initiative in the endgame after 17...cxd5 18 £xd5 £xd5
19 ¥xd5 ¤f8 20 ¥e4²
c3) 17 £e2! A strong idea − White finds the way to disturb Black's development! 17...¤f8
Black is ready to neutralise White's strong bishop by ...Bc8−e6 so White should

128
 hurry up. 18 £e7! The only way to keep the bishop on c8 − now it's tied up with the
b7−pawn.
c3a) The endgame after 18...£xe7 19 ¦xe7 is difficult for Black: 19...¤e6 20 ¤e5! ¦xd4 21
¦f3! ¦e4 (21...f6 22 ¦e8+ ¢h7 23 ¥c2++−) 22 ¦e8+ ¢h7 23 ¥c2+−
c3b) 18...¤e6 19 £h4! Now the path for the Black bishop is closed so White can retreat his
queen. This position arose in the game Zakharevich − Biriukov/St. Petersburg 2000.
It seems that Black should have still moved his knight back: 19...¤f8!, resuming the
idea to get the bishop into play. (19...£f4? was met by a brilliant 20 £xd8+!! ¤xd8 21
¦e8+ ¢h7 22 ¦xd8‚ and Black has found himself in trouble due to the very annoying
8th rank pin.) Then it was not easy for White to maintain the initiative since the
direct 20 ¦e7 could have been met by 20...¤g6! 21 ¥xf7+ ¢f8! and Black wins the
exchange.
d) 14...e4!? This active pawn advance is maybe the most promising continuation for Black.
15 ¤d2 ¤f6
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9zpp+-wqpzp-0
9-+p+-sn-zp0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+-zPp+-+0
9+LtR-zP-+-0
9PzP-sN-zPPzP0
9+-+Q+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

16 £c2 (The immediate 16 ¦c5 looks interesting but Black can still play the same 16...¥g4!?
17 £b1 ¥e2 18 ¦e1 ¥d3 19 ¥c2 ¤d7 20 ¦c3 ¥xc2 21 £xc2 ¦fe8 22 a3 ¤f6 23 ¦c5 ¤d7 and
Black is OK) 16...¥g4!? A strong idea − Black is going to play ...Be2−d3. (if Black
continued 16...¦e8 then the position from the game could have been reached.) 17 ¦e1
¤d5! Clarifying the situation. (17...¦ad8 18 ¦c5!² seems to be better for White) 18
¥xd5 cxd5 This position arose in the game Anastasian − Miladinovic/Moscow (ol)
1994. Perhaps it was the time to simplify position by 19 ¦c7 (19 ¦c1?! gave Black the
initiative after 19...£g5 20 ¢f1 ¦ad8!? 21 ¦c7 ¦d6ƒ) 19...¦fc8 20 ¦c1 ¦xc7 21 £xc7
£xc7 22 ¦xc7 ¦c8! 23 ¦xc8+ ¥xc8 24 ¤b1 ¥d7 25 ¤c3 ¥c6= with a drawish
endgame.
This immediate c−pawn advance 13...c5 is very rare and probably dubious. The c−pawn
advance is usually played after the preliminary ...b7−b6 as otherwise Black reveals
his plans earlier than he is really ready to get the bishop into play and so it would be
easier for White to plan his actions:
a) 14 £c2!? is also quite interesting. After 14...b6 15 ¥b5 Black cannot stand White's
pressure over the c−file. An attempt to radically solve this problem by 15...¥b7
(15...cxd4 16 ¤xd4±) 16 ¥xd7 ¥xf3 17 gxf3 cxd4 (after 17...£xd7 18 dxc5 bxc5 19 ¦xc5
White got a healthy extra pawn but it was maybe more stubborn) 18 ¦c7 ¦ad8 fails

129
 to 19 £c6 £g5+ 20 ¢h1 dxe3 21 fxe3 £xe3 22 £c3+− and Black does not get
sufficient compensation for the bishop.
b) 14 £e2
b1) 14...¦d8 does not solve the problems: 15 ¦fc1 cxd4 16 ¤xd4 (16 exd4!? is maybe even
stronger) 16...¤b6 17 ¥b3 with a certain advantage.
b2) 14...cxd4 15 exd4 ¤f6 16 ¥b3 This position was played in the game Chekhov −
[Link]/Dresden 1997. White's superiority is beyond doubt − Black still cannot
develop his bishop as now he has got one more problem − the possible advance d4−
d5.
13...¦d8 is not popular. It is not so clear if the rook is well placed on d8 in case of both
...e6−e5 and ...c6−c5. Besides, this move costs Black one tempo: 14 ¥d3 (In case of
14 £c2 Black could think about 14...b5!? 15 ¥d3 ¥b7 with idea ...b5−b4 with real
chances to get his bishop into play) 14...c5 15 £c2 cxd4 (15...b6 16 ¥b5²) 16 ¤xd4 (16
exd4!? also came to mind, keeping the better chances.) 16...¤f6 17 ¦c7 £d6 18 ¦d1!
White has already got all his pieces so there are small doubts about his superiority,
[Link] − Timoshchenko/Maribor 1990.

14 ¥d3
After 14 £e2 Black should probably continue
a) in case of 14...c5 White can think about
a1) 15 ¥a6 can be well met by 15...¥xa6!? (in the game Zvjagintsev −
Cherepkov/[Link] 1994 White has got advantage thanks to the weakness of
the c6−square in the typical endgame after 15...cxd4 16 ¤xd4 ¥xa6 17 £xa6 ¤c5 18 £e2
£f6 19 £f3!? £xf3 20 gxf3²) 16 £xa6 e5! getting an extra tempo compare to the line 14
...Bb7.
a2) 15 ¥b5!?, increasing pressure over the c5−pawn.
b) 14...a5 was also tried: 15 ¦fc1 ¥b7 16 h3!? (16 a3 ¦fd8 17 h3 a4 18 ¦d1 c5= is good for
Black) 16...c5 (16...¦fd8!? seems to be more accurate) 17 ¥b5 e5 and here White can
get the pawn superiority on the K−side, keeping Black's Q−side pawns blocked: 18
dxe5! (18 ¥xd7? exd4³) 18...¤xe5 19 ¤xe5 £xe5 20 ¦d3² with advantage.
c) 14...¥b7 15 ¥a6 (15 ¦d1 does not seem to be necessary: 15...¦fd8 16 ¥a6 ¥xa6 17 £xa6 c5
with similar play) 15...¥xa6 16 £xa6 c5 17 ¦fc1 (17 £a3 does not promise much:
17...e5 18 dxc5 ¤xc5 19 b4 ¤e4 20 ¦c4 ¤g5 21 ¤xg5 hxg5 22 £c3 with a very small
advantage) 17...e5! This advance helps Black to clarify the position. White tried to
get advantage many times but it did not seem to be an easy task. For example: 18
dxc5 ¤xc5 19 £b5 e4 20 ¤d4 ¦fe8 21 a3 a6 22 £e2 a5= and Black is completely
OK.

14...c5

130
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9zp-+nwqpzp-0
9-zp-+p+-zp0
9+-zp-+-+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-tRLzPN+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9+-+Q+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

15 ¥e4
15 ¥b5 is the less promising alternative:
a) 15...cxd4 gives White a slight edge after 16 ¤xd4 ¤c5 17 ¥c6 ¥b7 18 £f3 ¥xc6 19
¤xc6 £b7! 20 ¤e5! (20 b4 ¦fc8=) 20...£xf3 21 gxf3² f6 22 ¤c6 (22 ¤g6 ¦f7=) 22...a5
23 ¦d1 ¦f7 24 ¦d6² − a similar position was considered in the game Zvjagintsev −
Cherepkov/[Link] 1994. The endgame looks drawish but Black should defend
very precisely.
b) Other options are much worse: 15...¥b7?! 16 ¥xd7±, winning the pawn
c) or 15...¤f6 16 dxc5 ¤e4 17 ¦c4 ¤xc5 18 b4± and Black is too late in development of
his Q−side.
d) 15...¦d8 16 ¥c6 (here 16 £e2?! is dubious as after 16...¥b7 17 ¥xd7?! Black has an
important 17...cxd4!³ with better chances) 16...¦b8 17 £c2 cxd4 18 ¤xd4 e5 19 ¤f5
£f6 20 ¦d1 ¤c5= and Black has successfully solved the problems.
15 ¥b1 ¥b7 16 £c2 does not promise much: 16...g6 17 £e2 ¦ac8 18 ¦fc1 ¦fd8 19 h3 e5
20 dxc5 ¦xc5 21 ¦xc5 ¤xc5 22 b4 ¥xf3 and Black is OK.

15...¦b8
15...¥a6?! is dubious: 16 ¥xa8 ¥xf1 17 ¥c6 ¥a6 18 £a4 ¤b8 19 dxc5 bxc5 20 h3± with a
clear advantage.

16 £a4

131
 XIIIIIIIIY
9-trl+-trk+0
9zp-+nwqpzp-0
9-zp-+p+-zp0
9+-zp-+-+-0
9Q+-zPL+-+0
9+-tR-zPN+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9+-+-+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

16 £c2 seems to be the less promising alternative: 16...a5 (16...¥a6 does not equalises: 17
¦d1 ¤f6 18 dxc5 ¤xe4 19 £xe4 bxc5 20 b3² with a certain advantage thanks to the Black's
bad Q−side pawn structure.)
a) 17 ¦d1 has also been tried: 17...¦d8 (17...¥b7 is maybe less precise: 18 ¥xb7 ¦xb7 19 a3 ¦e8
20 h3 with a whole extra tempo compare to the game Karpov − Yussupow/Dortmund
1997 because White hasn't spent time for the move Qd1-a4. Yet, in the game Van
Wely − Azmaiparashvili/Calvia (ol) 2004 White failed to achieve anything
substantial after 20...e5 21 £e4 ¦bb8 22 dxe5 ¤xe5 23 £xe5 £xe5 24 ¤xe5 ¦xe5² with only
a slight edge in the endgame − a draw is obviously the most likely result) 18 ¥c6
¥b7 19 ¥xb7 ¦xb7 20 ¦cd3 ¦bb8 21 h3 ¦bc8 with a good play for Black, for
example: 22 d5 exd5 23 ¦xd5 ¤f6 24 ¦xd8+ ¦xd8 25 ¦xd8+ £xd8 26 a4 £d5 27
¤d2 £e6 28 ¤c4 ¤d5=
b) 17 ¦c1 17...¥b7 (17...¦d8!? deserves attention) 18 ¥xb7 ¦xb7 19 dxc5 ¤xc5 20 ¤e5 £f6
21 ¤d3 ¦d8! A strong idea − Black is playing for activity, supposing it would
compensate his Q−side pawn weaknesses. (A routine 21...¤xd3?! could lead to the
problems as it gave White control over the important files after 22 £xd3 since 22...¦d8
is met by 23 ¦c8) 22 ¤xc5 bxc5 23 £e2 ¦bd7 24 ¦3c2² Thanks to the better Q−side
pawn structure White keeps small advantage but Black's activity over the d−file
gives him reasonable chances to hold the position. In the game Khalifman −
Yusupov/GER−chT 1993 he has successfully solved this task.

16...¤f6
16...¥b7 is not completely equalising: 17 ¥xb7 ¦xb7
a) 18 £c6 can be met by 18...¤b8 19 £e4 ¦c7 20 ¦fc1 ¦fc8 and Black is more or less OK
b) In case of 18 ¦d1 Black can think about
b1) 18...b5 does not seem equalising:
b1a) in case of 19 £b3 Black can probably solve the problems by 19...a5!? (19...c4?? 20
¦xc4+−) 20 dxc5 ¤xc5 21 £c2 ¤a6 22 a3 b4 23 ¦c6 ¦c7! 24 ¤d4 bxa3 25 bxa3
¦fc8 26 ¦xc7 £xc7 27 £e2 £c4 28 £f3 ¤c7 with equality
b1b) 19 £a5 19...c4 20 b3 ¤b6 21 ¦c2 cxb3 22 axb3 ¤d5 23 ¦c5 b4 24 ¦a1 ¤c3 25 £a6
¦a8 26 ¤e5 ¦c7 27 ¦xc7 £xc7 28 h3 ¤d5 29 ¤c4 g6 30 ¦a5± with a clear
advantage

132
b2) 18...e5!? 19 d5 (19 £c6 ¤b8) 19...e4 20 ¤d2 ¤f6„ with a complicated play.
c) 18 £c2! This queen retreat seems to be the most annoying for Black. 18...a5!? (18...¦c8 is
dubious because of 19 ¦c1 ¦bc7 20 b4!± and Black faces serious problems) 19 a3
¦e8!? Intending to advance the e−pawn. 20 ¦d1! (A slow move like 20 h3?! allows
Black to equalise comfortably by 20...e5 21 £e4 exd4! 22 £xb7 dxc3 23 bxc3 ¤e5!=)
20...¦bb8 (Now 20...e5 can be met by 21 £e4 exd4 22 £xb7 dxc3 23 bxc3 ¤e5 24 £xb6
¤xf3+ 25 gxf3 £g5+ 26 ¢f1!?±) 21 h3² White keeps small advantage. Obviously Black
has reasonable chances to hold this position but he must defend precisely. Yet,
sometimes it is not so easy to choose between some good looking continuations and
in the game Karpov − Yusupov/Dortmund 1997 Black failed to solve the problems.

17 ¥c6
17 dxc5 is simply met by 17...bxc5 with two ideas − ...Rb8xb2 and ...Rb8−b4.

17...cxd4!
17...¤d5?! gives White real advantage after 18 ¥xd5 exd5 19 dxc5 bxc5 20 £a3 ¥e6 21
¦fc1 ¦fc8 22 b3± with annoying pressure over the c5−pawn.

18 exd4
18 ¤xd4 e5 looks fine for Black.

18...a6 19 ¤e5 ¥b7

XIIIIIIIIY
9-tr-+-trk+0
9+l+-wqpzp-0
9pzpL+psn-zp0
9+-+-sN-+-0
9Q+-zP-+-+0
9+-tR-+-+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9+-+-+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

20 ¦fc1
20 ¥xb7 £xb7 followed by ...Nf6−d5 is OK for Black.

20...¤d5
This position arose in the game Zvjagintsev − Bologan/Poikovsky 2003, which continued

133
21 ¥xd5 ¥xd5 22 £xa6 ¦a8 23 £xb6 £g5 24 g3 ¦xa2©
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-trk+0
9+-+-+pzp-0
9-wQ-+p+-zp0
9+-+lsN-wq-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-tR-+-zP-0
9rzP-+-zP-zP0
9+-tR-+-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

with a good play for Black. It is hard to believe White can promote his extra b−pawn here,
taking into account Black's dominating bishop on d5 and the weakness of the light
squares around White's king.

134
 Tartakower System

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 ¥e7 4 ¤f3 ¤f6 5 ¥g5 h6 6 ¥h4 0-0 7 e3 b6

XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwq-trk+0
9zp-zp-vlpzp-0
9-zp-+psn-zp0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+PzP-+-vL0
9+-sN-zPN+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9tR-+QmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

The fianchetto of the Queen's bishop in the Queen's Gambit Declined was played as
early as the end of the 19th century. It can be found in the games of giants like Emanuel
Lasker and Jose−Raul Capablanca, but they omitted the preliminary ...h7−h6.
It was Saviely Tartakower who introduced the modern treatment of the system in
1922 by combining ...h7−h6 and ...b7−b6. He played it regularly and successfully so the
system was named after him. Later Russian players such as Vladimir Makogonov and Igor
Bondarevsky made important contributions to the system, so in Russian the line is often
called the "Tartakower−Makogonov−Bondarevsky" or simply the TMB−system.
A lot of great players have polished their positional skills by playing the Tartakower
System (and, of course, all the connected QGD systems). It was really astonishing to see the
numerous Karpov − Kasparov games in their World Title matches when they played the
same positions with either colour. Many famous players, for example Alexander Beliavsky
and Rafael Vaganian, also do the same. Recently Vladimir Kramnik has joined their
company ... Other notable experts in this system are Nigel Short and Smbat Lputian.

135
 The play is usually more quiet than sharp in this complex system. Playing with the
Black pieces you get a solid position but you may find yourself under a certain amount of
pressure throughout the whole game, while with White you may find it difficult to maintain
a small, often vanishing advantage. Both players need to have a good understanding of
some typical kinds of positions such as those with hanging pawns or an isolated pawn, so
studying books and articles concerning these strategical themes is a very useful way to
improve your play in the Tartakower system.

136
QGD/19 Tartakower − White develops Q−

side first [D58]

Last updated: 11/09/04 by [Link]

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 ¥e7
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwqk+ntr0
9zppzp-vlpzpp0
9-+-+p+-+0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-sN-+-+-0
9PzP-+PzPPzP0
9tR-vLQmKLsNR0
xiiiiiiiiy

The Tartakower System can be also reached by 3...¤f6 4 ¥g5 (Of course, White can prefer
the Exchange variation: 4 cxd5 exd5 5 ¥g5 ¥e7 6 e3 However, it sometimes may also
lead to the Tartakower but only to the favourable line for White: 6...h6 7 ¥h4 0-0 8 ¥d3
b6 and so on − this position will be considered in the line 8. cd5. If possible, Black
usually takes on d5 with the knight, while here he has already recaptured with the
pawn. 4 ¤f3 ¥e7 5 ¥g5 0-0 6 e3 h6 7 ¥h4 b6 is another way) 4...¥e7 5 e3 0-0 6 ¤f3 h6 7
¥h4 b6 and so on.

4 ¤f3 ¤f6 5 ¥g5 h6 6 ¥h4 0-0 7 e3 b6

137
 XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwq-trk+0
9zp-zp-vlpzp-0
9-zp-+psn-zp0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+PzP-+-vL0
9+-sN-zPN+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9tR-+QmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

A starting position of the Tartakower System. White has a number of possibilities.

8 £b3
White is going to increase pressure over the d5−pawn and so make it difficult for Black to
carry on his program advance ...c6−c5.
Let's take a look at the other options. 8 ¦c1 ¥b7 9 ¥e2 ¤bd7 10 cxd5 exd5 11 0-0 c5 12
dxc5 (12 ¤e5 ¤xe5 13 dxe5 ¤e4 is good for Black) 12...bxc5 A typical position with
hanging pawns has arisen. These pawns definitely require attention as White can
create pressure down the open "c" and "d" files. Black must defend carefully, but has
reasonable chances of counterplay − he has the b− and e− files for his rooks, and his
central pawns are not blockaded − sometimes they can move forward! 13 ¦c2!?
Karpov's improvement. (In the game Korchnoi − Karpov/WCh Merano (m/1) 1981
White treated the position unsuccessfully: 13 £c2 ¦c8 14 ¦fd1 £b6 and Black
eventually advanced his hanging pawns with great effect) 13...¦c8 14 ¦d2² White
created some pressure over the hanging pawns but it seems that Black can hold the
position with careful defence.
8 £c2 is often connected with a long castling. 8...¥b7 9 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 10 cxd5 exd5
a) 11 0-0-0 c5 12 dxc5 (12 g4!? is a transposition to the main line) should be met by
12...¤d7! with an excellent counterplay for Black, as was shown in the game
Kasparov − [Link]/Baku 1980. (12...bxc5 is weak due to 13 ¤xd5! ¥xd5 14 ¥c4 ¤d7 15
¦xd5 ¦b8 16 b3 and Black does not have sufficient compensation for the pawn)
b) 11 g4!? 11...c5 12 0-0-0

138
 XIIIIIIIIY
9rsn-wq-trk+0
9zpl+-+pzp-0
9-zp-+-vl-zp0
9+-zpp+-+-0
9-+-zP-+P+0
9+-sN-zPN+-0
9PzPQ+-zP-zP0
9+-mKR+L+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

12...cxd4 13 exd4 ¤c6 14 h4

b1) 14...¥c8!? is interesting but probably too risky. A possible play is 15 g5!? hxg5 16
hxg5 ¥xg5+ 17 ¢b1 g6 18 ¤xg5 £xg5 (18...¥f5? does not work due to the
astonishing 19 £xf5!! gxf5 20 ¦g1 £d6 21 ¤e6+! ¢h7 22 ¤xf8+ ¦xf8 23 ¦d3 followed by
Rh3+ winning) 19 f4!? £xf4 20 ¤xd5 £f5 (20...£d6?? 21 £xc6!) 21 ¥d3 £xd5 22
£h2 ¢g7 23 £h6+ ¢f6 24 £xf8 and now Black equalises with the spectacular
24...£xa2+!! 25 ¢xa2 (Not 25 ¢c1 £a1+ 26 ¥b1? £xb1+-+) 25...¥e6+ 26 ¢a3 ¦xf8=
but perhaps White's play may be improved
b2) 14...g6 15 g5 hxg5 16 hxg5
b2a) 16...¥g7!? is an alternative which promises good play for Black, for example 17 ¦h4
¦e8 (17...¦c8 is also not bad: 18 ¢b1 ¦e8 19 ¥h3 ¦c7 20 £d2 ¦ce7) 18 ¥h3 b5 19 ¢b1
¥c8 20 ¥xc8 ¦xc8 21 £d2 £d7 with good play for Black
b2b) 16...¥xg5+ A principled continuation. 17 ¢b1 ¥f6÷ The opened g− and h−files may
promise good attacking chances for White but actually Black should be okay, Bellon
Lopez − [Link]/Tarrasa 1990.
8 cxd5 As a rule, White only takes on d5 when Black's bishop has already moved to b7 and
only after the preliminary ¥h4xf6.
a) In the very first game in which this system was played, Tartakower preferred 8...exd5
which is definitely weaker. The position after 9 ¥d3 (9 £b3 ¥e6 10 ¦d1 was strongly
met by Tartakower in 1923: 10...¤e4!? 11 ¥xe7 £xe7 12 ¥e2 and now 12...¤xc3 followed
by 13 ...c5 would have led to a position in which Ra1-d1 looks odd.) 9...¥b7 10 0-0
would have been also arisen from the Exchange Variation but it would be too easy
way to solve Black's problems there! In the World Championship quarter−final
match between Kasparov and Beliavsky this position was tested four times!
a1) An attempt 10...¤e4 does not solve the problems completely: 11 ¥xe7 £xe7 12 ¤e5
¤d7 13 f4 ¤xe5 14 fxe5 c5 15 £e1! ¦ad8 16 ¦d1! £g5 (the ending after 16...f6 17
¥xe4 dxe4 18 exf6 ¦xf6 19 ¦xf6 £xf6 20 dxc5 bxc5 21 ¦xd8+ £xd8 22 ¤a4 is no fun for
Black) and now both 17 h4!? (and 17 £e2 ) 17...£h5 18 ¤e2! can prove White's
advantage
a2) 10...c5 11 ¤e5 ¤bd7 (11...¤c6?! is weak because of 12 ¥a6! £c8 13 ¥xb7 £xb7 14 ¥xf6 ¥xf6
15 ¤g4 ¥d8 16 ¤xd5 ¤xd4! 17 ¤df6+! ¥xf6 18 ¤xf6+ gxf6 19 exd4 cxd4 20 £xd4± with a big
advantage thanks to the weakened position of the Black king) 12 ¥f5! ¤xe5 (Now
12...cxd4 leads to a position which is not much fun to defend: 13 ¤xd7! ¤xd7 14 ¥xe7

139
 £xe7 15 £xd4 with a clear advantage) 13 dxe5 ¤e8 (It is important that the typical
13...¤e4? is not possible due to 14 ¤xd5! 13...¤h7!? was maybe more to the point) 14
¥g3 ¤c7 (14...g6 was a more precise defence, but of course after 15 ¥c2 White keeps
a tangible advantage.) 15 £g4ƒ and White's superiority was proved in the game
Kasparov − Beliavsky/Moscow (m/5) 1983
b) 8...¤xd5 The main line which was introduced by Savely Tartakower in 1926. The
knight's recapture allows Black to reduce White's active possibilities by exchanging
a couple of pieces. 9 ¥xe7 (9 ¤xd5 is less precise as Black has 9...¥xh4!? For example,
10 ¤xc7!? ¥xf2+! 11 ¢xf2 £xc7 12 ¦c1 £e7 with a roughly equal position. White has got
pawn advantage in center but Black's pressure over the d−file does not let him to
advance pawns with all conveniences. Besides, White's king is not quite safe. The
game Mamedyarov − Lputian/WCh Tripoli 2004 continued 13 £c2 ¤d7 14 £c7 £b4 15
£c3!? £a4 16 £c4 £xc4 17 ¦xc4 ¤f6 18 ¦c7 ¤d5 19 ¦c1 ¥b7 20 a3 ¦ac8 21 ¥d3 ¤f6 with a
good play for Black) 9...£xe7 10 ¤xd5 exd5 Now the bishop can be comfortably
placed on e6, then Black can oppose White's pressure on the c−file with the typical
advance ...c7−c5, being prepared to play a position with hanging pawns. 11 ¦c1 ¥e6
12 £a4 c5 13 £a3 A standard manoeuvre, White increases the pressure on the pawn
on c5 and prevents the possible ...c5−c4. (13 dxc5 bxc5 14 £a3 is less popular. In the
game Mamedyarov − Lputian/WCh Tripoli (m/2.5) 2004 Black has achieved very
good play after 14...¦c8 15 ¥e2 a5 16 ¤d4 ¤a6! 17 ¥xa6 ¦xa6 18 0-0 ¥d7, freeing the 6th
rank for the rook's transfer) 13...¦c8 14 ¥e2
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnr+-+k+0
9zp-+-wqpzp-0
9-zp-+l+-zp0
9+-zpp+-+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9wQ-+-zPN+-0
9PzP-+LzPPzP0
9+-tR-mK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

An important and well−known position has arisen. 14...¢f8 In view of the possible ending
Black defends his queen with his king, also bringing it closer to the centre. This
continuation is very logical, but possibly not best according to theory. (Black has a
lot of alternatives: 14...£f8 14...a5 14...£b7 which promise him good play. However,
the question is not which move is the best. You can choose any of them, but the
move chosen should be part of your defensive plan) 15 dxc5 bxc5 16 0-0 a5!? (in
case of 16...¤d7 17 ¦fd1 ¤f6 White is able to place his bishop on a6 by 18 ¥a6 ¦c7 19
¤d4 creating some pressure) 17 ¦c3 ¤d7 18 ¦fc1 ¦cb8
b1) in case of 19 b3 Black solves his problems instantly by playing 19...a4! (19...¦b4 20 ¤e1!
with a clear edge) 20 bxa4 c4! cutting off White's pieces from his a−pawns
b2) 19 ¦b3 19...c4 A typical pawn advance. Of course, Black is worried about the d4 square
but not overly so − creating pressure on the b−file in order to obtain counterplay is

140
 more important. The game, Winants − Kasparov/Bruxelles 1987 continued 20
¦xb8+ ¦xb8 21 £xa5 ¦xb2 22 ¤d4 ¢g8 23 ¦a1 ¤c5= with a good play for Black.
A direct attempt to prevent ...c6−c5 8 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 9 cxd5 exd5 10 £d2 can be well met by
10...¥e6 11 ¦d1 £e7! 12 g3 c5! (12...¤d7 13 ¥g2 ¦fd8 14 0-0 ¦ac8 15 ¦c1 c5 is also good
for Black)
a) 13 dxc5?! looks risky as White is behind in development: 13...¦d8! 14 cxb6? (14 ¥g2 bxc5
15 0-0 ¤c6³) 14...d4! 15 ¥g2 ¤c6 16 ¤xd4 ¤xd4 17 exd4 ¥h3+ 18 ¢f1 ¦xd4ƒ with
a strong initiative
b) 13 ¥g2 13...¤c6 14 0-0 cxd4 15 ¤xd4 ¤xd4 16 exd4 £d7= with equal play.

8...¥b7 9 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 10 cxd5 exd5 11 ¦d1

XIIIIIIIIY
9rsn-wq-trk+0
9zplzp-+pzp-0
9-zp-+-vl-zp0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+QsN-zPN+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9+-+RmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

11...c6
Black has some good alternatives, for example: 11...¦e8 12 ¥d3 c5 13 dxc5 ¤d7 14 c6
¥xc6 15 0-0 ¤c5 16 £c2 ¦c8 and Black can be more or less satisfied with this
position − he has a pair of bishops and good development to compensate for the
isolated pawn on d5.

12 ¥d3 ¥c8!?
An interesting idea: Black improves the bishop on b7 first.
Both 12...¦e8 13 0-0 ¤d7
and 12...¤a6 13 0-0 ¤c7 are usually played.
In the game Karpov − Beliavsky/chT−JUG, Niksic 1996 White treated the position in a
rather unexpected way which did not seem to be very promising:

13 0-0!?
13 h3 ¥e6 14 ¥b1 ¦e8 15 ¤e2 £d6 16 0-0 ¤d7= gives Black acceptable play.

13...¥g4 14 ¤e2!?

141
 XIIIIIIIIY
9rsn-wq-trk+0
9zp-+-+pzp-0
9-zpp+-vl-zp0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+-zP-+l+0
9+Q+LzPN+-0
9PzP-+NzPPzP0
9+-+R+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

Consistent with his previous move − White is not worried about the doubling of the pawns
on the f−file.

14...£e7 15 ¥b1 ¦c8 16 h3 ¥xf3 17 gxf3 ¤d7 18 ¤f4 ¤f8

XIIIIIIIIY
9r+r+-snk+0
9zp-+-wqpzp-0
9-zpp+-vl-zp0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+-zP-sN-+0
9+Q+-zPP+P0
9PzP-+-zP-+0
9+L+R+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

The position looks very good for Black and probably it is but the unbelievable Karpov
technique which allowed him to outplay his opponent.

142
QGD/20 Tartakower − White develops K−

side first [D58]

Last updated: 11/09/04 by [Link]

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 ¥e7 4 ¤f3 ¤f6 5 ¥g5 h6 6 ¥h4 0-0 7 e3 b6 8 ¥e2

XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwq-trk+0
9zp-zp-vlpzp-0
9-zp-+psn-zp0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+PzP-+-vL0
9+-sN-zPN+-0
9PzP-+LzPPzP0
9tR-+QmK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

Anatoly Karpov's pet variation. It was thoroughly tested in several World Title matches
between him and Garry Kasparov, curiously enough with both players playing both
colours at different times.
8 ¥d3 ¥b7 9 0-0
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsn-wq-trk+0
9zplzp-vlpzp-0
9-zp-+psn-zp0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+PzP-+-vL0
9+-sNLzPN+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9tR-+Q+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

143
is also a good method − White keeps the tension in the centre. (Another standard approach
is 9 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 10 cxd5 exd5 11 b4 c6 12 0-0 £d6 13 £b3 with a slight edge) 9...¤bd7 10
£e2 The main line. (Both 10 ¥g3
and 10 ¦c1 are less popular continuations) 10...c5 (10...dxc4 11 ¥xc4 ¤e4 is known to be a good
alternative.) 11 ¥g3 ¤e4 (Both 11...cxd4 12 exd4 dxc4 13 ¥xc4
and 11...dxc4 12 ¥xc4 promise White a small advantage) 12 cxd5 exd5 13 ¦ad1
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wq-trk+0
9zpl+nvlpzp-0
9-zp-+-+-zp0
9+-zpp+-+-0
9-+-zPn+-+0
9+-sNLzPNvL-0
9PzP-+QzPPzP0
9+-+R+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

13...¤xg3 The most popular continuation. 14 hxg3 a6 (14...c4 15 ¥b1 seems to be in White's
favour 14...¤f6 looks natural although White can hope for a slight edge by playing 15
dxc5 bxc5 16 ¥a6 £b6 17 ¥xb7 £xb7 18 ¦d2 ¦fd8 19 ¦fd1²) 15 dxc5 bxc5 (15...¤xc5? is bad
due to 16 ¥c4
while 15...¥xc5 does not solve Black's problems completely, as after 16 ¥c2 ¤f6 17 ¥b3 White
creates rather annoying pressure on the isolated d−pawn) 16 ¥b1 An ambitious
approach but it also gives Black more possibilities of active counterplay. (16 e4!? d4
17 ¤b1 would promise White a small but long−term advantage) 16...¤b6 (It is
impossible to find a comfortable place for the knight 16...¤f6? would have been
strongly met by 17 ¤xd5! ¤xd5 18 e4 with a clear advantage.) 17 a4!²
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wq-trk+0
9+l+-vlpzp-0
9psn-+-+-zp0
9+-zpp+-+-0
9P+-+-+-+0
9+-sN-zPNzP-0
9-zP-+QzPP+0
9+L+R+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

It is useful to compare this position with the game Korchnoi − Karpov/WCh Merano (m/1)
1981 − the material and the pawn structure is the same, but here White has managed
to place his pieces much more successfully and so has secured better chances,
Kramnik − Jussupow/Dortmund 1998.

144
8...¥b7 9 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 10 cxd5 exd5 11 b4
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsn-wq-trk+0
9zplzp-+pzp-0
9-zp-+-vl-zp0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-zP-zP-+-+0
9+-sN-zPN+-0
9P+-+LzPPzP0
9tR-+QmK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

11 0-0 is an alternative which can lead to the same positions: 11...¤d7 (there are a lot of
alternatives: 11...¦e8 12 b4 c6 11...£e7 12 £b3 ¦d8 11...c5 12 dxc5 ¥xc3 13 bxc3 bxc5) 12 b4
c5 (12...c6) 13 bxc5 bxc5 14 ¦b1 (14 £b3 can be met by 14...cxd4 15 ¤xd4 ¥xd4! 16 exd4
¤b6 17 a4 ¦b8 18 a5 ¤c4 19 ¥xc4 dxc4 20 £xc4 £d6© with a good play) 14...¥c6 and so
on.

11...c5
Black often postpones ...c7−c5 and plays 11...c6, concentrating on development first of all.
He hopes either to advance the c−pawn later in a more favourable situation, or to
find counterplay elsewhere − maybe with ...a7−a5 or ...b6−b5 followed by ...¤b6−c4
or some kind of kingside activity. 12 0-0
a) There are some alternatives: 12...¦e8 13 £b3 a5!? 14 bxa5 (14 a3 ¤d7 15 b5 can be
strongly met by 15...c5! 16 ¤xd5 ¥xd4! 17 ¦ad1 ¤e5! 18 ¤xe5 ¥xd5 19 ¤c4 £g5 20 g3 £f5
with initiative: 21 ¦fe1 £e4 22 f3 £xe3+! 23 £xe3 ¦xe3 24 ¤xe3 ¥xe3+ 25 ¢f1 ¥d4 with
excellent ending) 14...¦xa5 15 ¦fe1 ¤d7 16 a4 and here 16...£a8!? looks
interesting: 17 ¦ab1 ¥a6 18 ¥xa6 £xa6 19 h3 ¦e6 20 e4 dxe4 21 ¦xe4 ¦xe4 22
¤xe4 ¥e7= and Black has no problems
b) 12...£d6 13 £b3 ¤d7 14 ¦fe1 ¥e7 (The following idea deserves attention: 14...a5!? 15
bxa5 ¦xa5 16 a4 ¥d8! 17 ¥f1 ¤f6 18 g3 ¥c7= and Black seems to be fine) 15 ¦ab1 a5 16
bxa5 (16 b5 c5 is good for Black) 16...¦xa5 17 a4 This typical position arose in the
game Karpov − [Link]/Tilburg 1994. White keeps a small pressure but
generally Black should be satisfied with his position.
c) 12...a5 13 b5 (13 bxa5 ¦xa5 14 a4 does not bother Black too much: 14...c5 (with the idea
...Nc6−b4) 15 £b3 ¤a6 16 ¦fb1 ¤b4 17 ¤a2 ¤xa2 18 ¦xa2 ¥a6! 19 ¥xa6 ¦xa6= with an
equal game) 13...c5 14 ¤e5!? This continuation has recently become popular −
White tries to make Black's development more difficult. (Slow play does not bother
Black very much. For example, 14 ¦e1 ¦e8 15 ¦c1 ¤d7 16 g3 ¤f8 17 ¤a4 c4 with good
play.)
c1) 14...¥xe5!? is a principled alternative. After 15 dxe5 d4 16 exd4 cxd4 17 ¤a4 Black
should probably continue by 17...£g5!? (the ugly move 17...¦a7?! creates the threat

145
 ...Qd7−d5. However, it can be easily parried while the rook will feel uncomfortable
on a7. In the game Khalifman − Beliavsky/FIDE GP Moscow 2002 White has
achieved a big advantage after 18 f4 £d5 19 ¦f2 ¤d7 20 ¦c1±) 18 ¥g4 £xe5 19 ¤xb6
¦a7 20 ¦b1 ¥e4 (20...¦d8!?) 21 ¦e1 f5 22 ¥f3 ¢h8 23 ¤c4² White has achieved
better chances but Black was able to hold balance
c2) 14...£c7 15 ¤g4 ¥e7 This attempt to secure the bishop is logical but risky − Black
postpones the development of his Q−side. (15...¤d7!? looks safer. A possible play
would be 16 ¥f3 ¦ad8! 17 ¤xd5 ¥xd5 18 ¥xd5 cxd4„ with a good counterplay.) 16 ¥f3
¦d8 17 ¦c1 c4 (17...¦a7 was also tried but without much success: 18 ¤e5!? £d6 19
¥g4! Locking up the knight b8. 19...¥a8 20 ¤a4 ¦c7 21 £c2 ¥b7 22 f4 c4 23 ¤c3± with a
certain advantage) 18 ¤e5 ¥b4 Black is going to decrease the pressure on d5 by
exchanging one of the attackers, after then exchanging the knight e5 by ...Nb8−d7.
In the game Onischuk − Rychagov/Moscow Aeroflot 2002 White came up with a
very interesting idea: 19 ¤xd5! ¥xd5 20 ¥xd5 ¦xd5 21 ¦xc4 £d8 22 £f3ƒ with
annoying initiative for the piece although everything is still far from clear.
d) 12...¤d7 13 £b3 b5!? This is not the most popular but also quite a typical method of
playing this type of position. Of course, it creates some weaknesses and the bishop
on b7 is not the Black's proud but, on the other hand, he is going to move his knight
to c4, after which White would hardly find much play on the Q−side. 14 a4 a6 15 a5
White prevents the Black knight's manoeuvre but, on the other hand, it completely
closes the Q−side − the now the only way to open the position is the advance e3−e4.
(The idea to keep tension is also worthy of consideration: 15 ¥d3 ¦e8 16 ¦fe1 ¤b6 17 e4
dxe4 18 ¥xe4 ¤c4 19 ¦ad1 £c7 20 ¥b1² followed by Qb3−c2 and White's chances are
preferable) 15...¦e8 This position arose in the game Sturua − Lputian/Bled (ol) 2002
which continued 16 ¤a2 White begins to exploit the Black weaknesses − the knight
is going to d3, then maybe to c5. However, he can hardly pose problems without e3−
e4. (At least, White should keep Black in tension by the possibility to advance e3−e4
so it seems more logical to move another knight to d3: 16 ¤e1!? followed by Ne1-d3
would be an improvement) 16...¥e7 17 ¤c1 ¥d6 18 ¤d3 ¦e6 19 ¦ad1 £f6 and
Black began his K−side manoeuvres although White's position is still not so bad.

12 bxc5 bxc5 13 ¦b1 ¥c6

13...£a5 does not solve Black's problems completely: 14 £d2 cxd4 15 ¤xd4 ¥xd4 16 exd4
¥c6 (16...¥a6 17 ¤b5 £d8 18 0-0) 17 ¤b5 £d8 18 0-0² with a small but stable
advantage.

14 0-0 ¤d7 15 ¥b5 £c7

146
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+-trk+0
9zp-wqn+pzp-0
9-+l+-vl-zp0
9+Lzpp+-+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-sN-zPN+-0
9P+-+-zPPzP0
9+R+Q+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

This position was tested many times in the games between Karpov and Kasparov. As usual
Black managed to hold the balance, but only after very careful defence.

16 £d3
White has also tried other possibilities, but it is not so easy to put serious problems for
Black. The idea of Karpov's second Vladimir Epishin deserves attention: 16 £d2
¦fd8 17 ¦fc1 ¦ab8 18 a4!? The game Epishin − Lugovoi/[Link] 1996
continued by 18...£d6 19 h3 cxd4 (19...¦b6!? 20 a5 ¦bb8 deserves serious attention) 20
exd4! (the play against the isolated pawn does not promise much: 20 ¤xd4 ¥a8 21 ¥f1
¤e5 with good counterplay) and now Black should have preferred 20...¦dc8 21 ¥f1
(21 £d3 g6 21 ¥xc6 ¦xb1 22 ¦xb1 £xc6=) 21...¤f8= moving the knight to e6 and Black
seems to be fine.

16...¦fd8 17 ¦fd1
17 ¦fc1 is another possibility.

17...¦ab8
XIIIIIIIIY
9-tr-tr-+k+0
9zp-wqn+pzp-0
9-+l+-vl-zp0
9+Lzpp+-+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-sNQzPN+-0
9P+-+-zPPzP0
9+R+R+-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

147
18 ¥xc6 £xc6
The preliminary 18...¦xb1 19 £xb1 £xc6 allows White to create some pressure on the
queenside by 20 £b5 ¤b8 21 £a5 £b6 22 £xb6 axb6 23 ¦b1

19 ¦xb8 ¦xb8 20 dxc5 ¥xc3 21 £xc3 £xc5 22 £xc5 ¤xc5 23 h3²

XIIIIIIIIY
9-tr-+-+k+0
9zp-+-+pzp-0
9-+-+-+-zp0
9+-snp+-+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-zPN+P0
9P+-+-zPP+0
9+-+R+-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

The position has simplified to the endgame which is drawn but not completely equal −
Black still has to play precisely to achieve his desired result, Karpov −
Kasparov/WCh Moscow (m/8) 1985.

148
 Catalan Opening

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤f3 ¤f6 4 g3
The Catalan can be also reached by 1...¤f6 2 c4 e6 3 g3 d5 4 ¥g2 and so on.

XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwqkvl-tr0
9zppzp-+pzpp0
9-+-+psn-+0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9PzP-+PzP-zP0
9tRNvLQmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

The secret of the Catalan's strength can basically be summed up in one sentence;
insidious pressure with a hint of sharpness! The position of White's bishop on g2 seems
quiet enough but should Black tries to free his game with a later ...dxc4 followed by ...c7−
c5 (as he does in many lines of the Queen's Gambit Declined) he opens up a beautiful
diagonal for this piece. If, on the other hand, he doesn't take on c4 this same Catalan bishop
supports a later e2−e4 for White.
History
The name for this opening stems from Saveilly Tartakover who introduced this set−
up at the 1929 Barcelona Tournament. There and in subsequent games he showed that the
apparently less active development of White's bishop on g2 has a number of subtle effects.
Tartakover's 'Catalan' was reached by playing 1 d4 followed 2 g3, whether Black
played 1...d5 or 1...¤f6. But with the proliferation of new openings in the following few
years it became impractical to dub every single White opening with d2−d4 and g2−g3 a

149
'Catalan'. So as Tartakover's pet reached maturity it acquired an clear identity of its own − 1
d4 ¤f6 2 c4 e6 3 g3 d5 4 ¥g2 or 4 ¤f3.
The patronage of Alexander Alekhine and then Mikhail Botvinnik did wonders for
the Catalan's popularity and has it since been adopted by every World Champion except the
1 e4 toting Bobby Fischer.
Heros
Many top players have played the Catalan but there are a few names that particularly
stand out. Top honours must undoubtedly go to Vasily Smyslov, World Champion from
1957−58, whose silky touch in thematic Catalan endgames was the scourge of his
opponents throughout his career.
Smyslov wasn't the only top Russian to have specialised in the Catalan, amongst
other top names there is the old warrior Viktor Korchnoi. The Catalan role of honour
continues with Lev Polugaevsky, Leonid Stein, Vladimir Tukmakov, Rafael Vaganian,
Lajos Portisch, Zoltan Ribli and Jan Smejkal.
Amongst today's top players you can regularly find the Catalan being played by
Garry Kasparov, Anatoly Karpov, Alexander Belyavsky, Vassily Ivanchuk and Yasser
Seirawan.

150
 Catalan − Sharp approach early ...d5xc4

[E01−04]

Last updated: 11/09/04 by [Link]

1 d4 d5
The Catalan can be also reached by 1...¤f6 2 c4 e6 3 g3 d5 4 ¥g2 and so on.

2 c4 e6 3 ¤f3 ¤f6 4 g3
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwqkvl-tr0
9zppzp-+pzpp0
9-+-+psn-+0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9PzP-+PzP-zP0
9tRNvLQmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

The secret of the Catalan's strength can basically be summed up in one sentence
insidious pressure with a hint of sharpness! The position of White bishop on g2 seems quiet
enough but should Black tries to free his game with a later ...dxc4 followed by ...c7−
c5 (as he does in many lines of the Queen's Gambit Declined) he opens up a
beautiful diagonal for this piece. If, on the other hand, he doesn't take on c4 this
same Catalan bishop supports a later e2−e4 for White.

4...dxc4

151
 XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwqkvl-tr0
9zppzp-+pzpp0
9-+-+psn-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+pzP-+-+0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9PzP-+PzP-zP0
9tRNvLQmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

A sharp and risky approach.

Sometimes Black begins with 4...¥b4+, after which White usually plays 5 ¥d2 (5 ¤bd2 is a
rare but interesting gambit line: 5...dxc4 6 ¥g2 Black has tried a huge number of
moves here. In the game Kozul − Topalov/WCh Tripoli 2004 he came up with an
interesting novelty 6...b5!? 7 0-0 0-0 8 a4 c6 9 e4 c3 10 ¤b3 ¥a6!? 11 a5 ¤xe4 12 £c2 cxb2 13
¥xb2 ¤f6 14 ¤e5 ¤d5 15 ¦fc1 ¥b7 16 ¤c5 ¥xc5 17 dxc5© and White has achieved good
compensation for two pawns thanks to his much more active pieces) 5...¥e7 6 ¥g2
0-0 7 0-0 c6 8 £c2 with a slight edge for White but Black's position is also quite
solid and playable after 8...b6, intending to develop the bishop to a6.

5 ¥g2
By delaying the recapture of the c4 pawn White is essentially offering a pawn sacrifice. He
can also regain the pawn immediately with 5 £a4+ but after 5...¤bd7 6 £xc4 a6 7
¥g2 b5 8 £c6 ¦b8 9 ¥f4 ¤d5 10 ¥g5 ¥e7 11 ¥xe7 £xe7 Black will drive White
queen away with ....Bc8−b7 and then free his game with ....c7−c5.

5...c5
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwqkvl-tr0
9zpp+-+pzpp0
9-+-+psn-+0
9+-zp-+-+-0
9-+pzP-+-+0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tRNvLQmK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

152
A very principled line, by playing the thematic ...c7−c5 immediately Black gets to bring his
b8 knight out to c6.
There are a lot of possible continuations. 5...¤c6
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqkvl-tr0
9zppzp-+pzpp0
9-+n+psn-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+pzP-+-+0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tRNvLQmK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

6 £a4 (White can also play 6 0-0 after which 6...¦b8 makes an interesting gambit out of it. If
White doesn't want to sac a pawn at all he should definitely go for 5.Qa4+.) 6...¥b4+
(Black can also play 6...¤d7 after which White's best chance for an edge is in the
endgame that arises after 7 £xc4 ¤b6 8 £d3 e5 9 ¤xe5 ¤b4 10 £c3 £xd4 11 0-0 £xc3 12
¤xc3 − he still has that Catalan bishop bearing down on Black's queenside! 6...¥d6 is
another interesting line for Black, aiming simply for ...e6−e5. White should probably
play 7 0-0 0-0 8 ¦d1 in order to delay this.) 7 ¥d2 ¤d5
a) The solid line is 8 ¥xb4 ¤dxb4 9 0-0 but this hardly promises anything after (9 a3 b5! is
very dangerous for White.) 9...¦b8 10 ¤c3 a6 11 ¤e5 0-0 12 ¤xc6 ¤xc6 13 ¥xc6
bxc6 14 £xc4 ¦xb2
b) 8 £b5!? An interesting gambit continuation which certainly puts the most pressure on
Black. 8...¥xd2+ 9 ¤bxd2 c3 10 bxc3 ¤xc3 11 £d3 (White also has compensation
for the pawn after 11 £b3 for example, 11...¤d5 12 0-0 0-0 13 ¦fd1 ¤a5 14 £c2 b6 15 e4©)
11...¤d5 12 0-0 0-0 13 ¦fc1 ¤ce7 14 ¦ab1© At first glance Black is just a pawn up
and has no weaknesses. However, White's superiority in center and much more
active pieces promise him more than enough compensation for the pawn, Davies −
Nikoloff/Toronto 1998.
5...¥d7

153
 XIIIIIIIIY
9rsn-wqkvl-tr0
9zppzpl+pzpp0
9-+-+psn-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+pzP-+-+0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tRNvLQmK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

a) 6 ¤e5 ¥c6 7 ¤xc6 ¤xc6 8 0-0 is an alternative way to play the position, offering a pawn
sacrifice.
a1) In case of 8...£d7 White can proceed with 9 e3 ¦b8 10 £e2 b5 11 b3 cxb3 12 axb3 ¥e7
13 ¤c3 b4 14 £c4 ¤d8 and here 15 ¤a4! looks strong enough: (15 ¤e4 ¤xe4 16 ¥xe4
c6) 15...0-0 16 ¤c5 £b5 17 ¤a6! £xc4 18 bxc4 ¦c8 19 c5! with almost decisive
advantage
a2) 8...¥e7 9 e3 0-0 10 ¤d2 ¤a5 11 £a4 c6 12 b4! A very strong and surprising idea that is
borrowed from a line of the Chigorin Defence. (12 ¤xc4 ¤xc4 13 £xc4 a5 would only
give White a marginally better game.) 12...c3 (After 12...cxb3 13 axb3 b6 14 b4 White
wins material.) 13 bxa5 cxd2 14 ¥xd2 The smoke has cleared to reveal a position in
which White will accentuate the pressure from the Catalan bishop on g2 by placing
his rooks on the b− and c−files, Davies − Lukacs/Budapest 1993.
b) 6 £c2 6...c5 7 0-0 ¥c6 8 £xc4 ¤bd7 9 ¥g5 ¦c8 10 ¥xf6! An idea worth noting. White
often voluntarily captures this knight in the Catalan in order to take the knight on d7
away from the defence of c5. 10...¤xf6 (Recapturing with the knight is certainly the
natural way to play it as after 10...£xf6 11 ¤c3 Black queen on f6 is badly placed but
perhaps everything is not so clear yet) 11 dxc5 ¥xf3 Regaining the pawn but leaving
White's Catalan bishop on g2 without an opponent. 12 ¥xf3 ¥xc5 13 £b5+ £d7 14
¤c3! (White gets nothing after 14 £xb7 £xb7 15 ¥xb7 ¦b8 16 ¥c6+ ¢e7 because 17 b3 is
answered by 17...¥d4) 14...£xb5 15 ¤xb5 ¢e7 (Or if 15...0-0 there follows 16 ¦ac1
¤d5 17 ¥xd5 exd5 18 ¦fd1 with a small but clear advantage for White.) In the game
Kasparov − Kortchnoi/London (m/7) 1983 White came up with a strong 16 b4!
which created problems for Black. 16...¥xb4 (After 16...¥b6 White can play 17 ¥xb7)
17 ¤xa7 Here the more stubborn seemed to be 17...¦a8 but even then Black faced a
difficult endgame after 18 ¦fb1 ¦xa7 19 ¦xb4 ¦b8 20 a4± The Catalan bishop
reigns supreme!
5...b5

154
 XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwqkvl-tr0
9zp-zp-+pzpp0
9-+-+psn-+0
9+p+-+-+-0
9-+pzP-+-+0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tRNvLQmK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

One of a number of variations in which Black attempts to hold onto the gambit pawn. 6
¤e5 ¤d5 7 a4 c6 8 axb5 (White has tried a number of different lines in this position.
Another possibility is 8 0-0 ¥b7 9 b3 cxb3 10 axb5 cxb5 11 £xb3 a6 12 e4 followed by
13.d5, once again with a dangerous initiative.) 8...cxb5 9 ¤c3 ¥b4 10 0-0 ¥xc3 11
e4 ¥xb2 12 exd5 ¥xa1 13 ¥a3 a5 This important and extremely sharp line occurred
in the game Chernin − Yudasin/Sverdlovsk 1984. Further analysis and tournament
practice supposed that 14 dxe6 is White's best continuation. (in the line 14 £g4 b4 15
£xg7 ¦f8 16 ¦xa1 Black later improved on this game with 16...¦a6! with good chances
to parry White's attack) Then possible is 14...¥xe6 15 ¥xa8 b4 (15...¥xd4? 16 ¤c6
¥xf2+ 17 ¢xf2 £c7 18 ¥d6 £b6+ 19 £d4 £xd4+ 20 ¤xd4 b4 21 ¦a1 leads to a win for
White) 16 £a4+ƒ with a strong looking initiative.
5...a6
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwqkvl-tr0
9+pzp-+pzpp0
9p+-+psn-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+pzP-+-+0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tRNvLQmK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

6 0-0 (6 ¤e5 c5 is the alternative line

while 6 ¥g5 does not look very promising. In Catalan White sometimes parts with his
bishop this way (see, for example, the game Kasparov − Korchnoi/London (m/7)
1983) but in more clarified situation. After 6...¥e7 7 ¤c3 ¤bd7! 8 ¤d2 ¤b6 9 e3 e5!
Black has got better chances in the game Fridman − Zvjagintsev/Essen 2002)
6...¤c6 (6...b5 7 ¤e5 ¤d5 8 a4 ¥b7 leads to the complicated play) 7 e3 White supports
his d4−pawn and intends to get the Black c4−pawn with all conveniences. (7 ¤c3 is
less popular) 7...¥d7 (Here 7...¦b8 could be well met by 8 ¤fd2! and Black cannot

155
 support his pawn by ...b7−b5) 8 ¤c3 (8 £e2 b5 9 ¦d1 with idea e3−e4, Nb1-c3 is
another option) 8...¤d5 Black has tried a lot of continuations here and this
manoeuvre was supposed to be rather suspicious for him as the knight is moving
away from the K−side. However, in the game Radjabov − Adams/WCh Tripoli 2004
he introduced an interesting approach and achieved an excellent play after 9 ¤d2
¤b6!? 10 £e2 ¤a5 11 e4 ¥b4 12 £g4 (Perhaps it was better to begin with 12 ¦d1!? )
12...£f6 13 ¤f3 h5! 14 £f4 £xf4 15 ¥xf4 0-0-0 16 ¦ac1 f6 and has eventually
outplayed his opponent.

6 0-0 ¤c6
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqkvl-tr0
9zpp+-+pzpp0
9-+n+psn-+0
9+-zp-+-+-0
9-+pzP-+-+0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tRNvLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

7 ¤e5
An interesting gambit continuation.
7 £a4 cxd4 8 ¤xd4 £xd4 9 ¥xc6+ ¥d7 10 ¦d1 £xd1+ 11 £xd1 ¥xc6 is now known to
give Black adequate compensation for the queen.
7 dxc5 leads to a virtually even endgame.
7 ¤a3 is another interesting gambit line.

7...¥d7 8 ¤a3 cxd4 9 ¤axc4 ¥c5

156
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wqk+-tr0
9zpp+l+pzpp0
9-+n+psn-+0
9+-vl-sN-+-0
9-+Nzp-+-+0
9+-+-+-zP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tR-vLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

The best way.

In case of 9...¦c8 10 £b3 ¤xe5 11 ¤xe5 ¥c6 12 ¤xc6 bxc6 13 ¦d1 c5 14 e3 Black still
has some difficulties because of White's lead in development
9...¤d5?! was proved to be unsuccessful in the game Kasparov − Andersson/Belgrade
1985, which continued by 10 ¤xc6 ¥xc6 11 £xd4 ¤b4 12 ¥xc6+ ¤xc6 13 £c3! f6
(After 13...£d4 White can play the unpleasant 14 £b3) 14 ¥e3 ¥e7 15 ¦fd1 £c7 16
£b3!± and Black faced serious problems.

10 £b3©
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wqk+-tr0
9zpp+l+pzpp0
9-+n+psn-+0
9+-vl-sN-+-0
9-+Nzp-+-+0
9+Q+-+-zP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tR-vL-+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

White has good compensation for the pawn.

157
 Catalan − Solid approach ...Be7 and 0-0

[E05−09]

Last updated: 11/09/04 by [Link]

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤f3 ¤f6 4 g3 ¥e7 5 ¥g2 0-0 6 0-0

XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwq-trk+0
9zppzp-vlpzpp0
9-+-+psn-+0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tRNvLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

6...dxc4
The main continuation. Black also has some other possibilities.
6...c5 According to the classicists, if Black gets ...c7−c5 in safely against the Queen's
Gambit he should be well on his way to an equal game. Yet against the subtle
Catalan this often only serves to liberate White's bishop on g2. 7 cxd5 ¤xd5 8 dxc5
¥xc5 9 £c2 Gaining a tempo against Black's bishop on c5 and preparing to bring a
rook to d1. White now comes a clear first in the race to occupy the d− and c− files
with his major pieces. 9...¥e7 10 ¦d1 ¤d7 11 ¤c3 ¤xc3 12 £xc3 Black life is
difficult, Smyslov − Donner/Havana 1965.
6...c6

158
 XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwq-trk+0
9zpp+-vlpzpp0
9-+p+psn-+0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tRNvLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

is a solid continuation. Black is going to fianchetto his queen's bishop, complete his
development and only then free the position with ....c6−c5. The problem with the
immediate 6...b6 is that 7.cxd5 exd5 would leave Black facing some annoying
pressure on the c−file whereas now he can meet 7.cxd5 with 7... cxd5. 7 £c2 (White
can also develop his pieces in other way: 7 b3 ¤bd7 8 ¥b2 b6 9 £c2 ¥b7 10 ¤bd2
Apparently a less active post for the knight but White is preparing e2−e4 in any case.
One of the points behind developing the knight here is that the c4 pawn is better
defended should Black try to counterattack with ...Ba6 or ...c6−c5. 10...¦c8 11 ¦ad1!
In positions in which White will definitely be able to play e2−e4, this is the most
aggressive post for this rook. After the opening of the centre the other rook will
come to e1. 11...£c7 12 e4 dxe4 13 ¤xe4 ¤xe4 14 £xe4 c5 15 d5! and White has obtained
better chances, Geller − Ciric/Oberhausen 1961) 7...b6 8 ¦d1 ¥b7 9 ¤c3 ¤bd7
(Black cannot win the pawn on c4 as after 9...dxc4 there follows 10 ¤e5 b5 11 ¤xb5!) 10
b3 ¦c8 11 e4 c5! Rightly ignoring the possibility of the pawn advancing to e5 in
order to pursue his policy of counterattack. (11...dxe4 12 ¤xe4 leaves Black in a
cramped position.) 12 exd5 exd5 13 dxc5 dxc4 The best. (13...¤xc5 14 ¤g5 sets up
some very nasty pressure against h7 and d5 − 14...d4 15 ¥xb7 ¤xb7 16 ¤d5 g6 17 ¤xe7+
£xe7 18 ¤f3 would, for example, lead to the win of the Black d−pawn.) 14 b4! A
clever pawn sacrifice which sets up a queenside pawn majority on the a− and b−
files. (14 bxc4 ¥xc5 and 14 cxb6 cxb3 are both fine for Black.) 14...bxc5 (A preliminary
14...a5!? deserved consideration as after 15 a3 axb4 16 axb4 bxc5 17 b5 ¦a8 Black's
position is more comfortable than with a−pawns on the board) 15 b5 This position
arose in the game Stein − Tal/Leningrad 1971. Had Tal been at his brilliant best in
this game he would have seen the fantastic 15...¥xf3!! (15...£b6 16 ¥f4 ¦fd8 17 a4 £a5
18 ¤d2! ¥xg2 19 ¤xc4 £b4 20 ¤a2 ¥e4 21 ¤xb4 ¥xc2 22 ¤xc2± led to difficult endgame
for Black) 16 ¥xf3 ¤e5 17 ¦xd8 ¤xf3+ 18 ¢h1 (18 ¢g2?? ¤e1+) 18...¦cxd8© with a
good compensation for his queen.

7 £c2 a6

159
 XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwq-trk+0
9+pzp-vlpzpp0
9p+-+psn-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+pzP-+-+0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9PzPQ+PzPLzP0
9tRNvL-+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

8 a4
This prophylactic move, which prevents 8...b5, can probably be regarded as the main line.
It leads to rich and complex middlegames in which White's advantage in space is
partially offset by the hole on b4.
8 £xc4 b5 9 £c2 ¥b7
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsn-wq-trk+0
9+lzp-vlpzpp0
9p+-+psn-+0
9+p+-+-+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9PzPQ+PzPLzP0
9tRNvL-+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

is also a well−known path. 10 ¥f4 Immediately attacking the c7 pawn. White's other main
options are 10.Bd2 and 10.Bg5 but none of these moves has caused insuperable
difficulties for Black. 10...¤d5 Attacking the bishop on f4 looks natural but Black
may have fewer difficulties to contend with after either 10...Bd6 or 10...Nc6. 11 ¤c3
¤xf4 12 gxf4 ¤d7 13 ¦fd1 £c8 14 ¤e4! An important innovation by Ribli which
creates problems for Black in a position that was once considered harmless for him.
Black's next move looks like an equaliser yet slight difficulties remain. The problem
is that White was first onto the d−file and he is able to launch an invasion with his
rooks. 14...c5 (And not 14...¥xe4 15 £xe4 c5 because of 16 ¤g5!) 15 dxc5 ¤xc5 16
¤xc5 £xc5 17 £xc5 ¥xc5 18 ¦ac1 ¦fc8 19 ¤e5 ¥xg2 20 ¢xg2² The position is
'almost' a draw, but actually achieving this result is far from easy, Ribli −
Karpov/Amsterdam 1980.

160
8...¥d7
The most usual move.
8...¤c6 9 £xc4 £d5 looks artificial and does not solve the problems: 10 £d3 (10 ¤bd2 ¦d8
11 e3 £xc4 12 ¤xc4 ¥d7 13 ¤fe5 ¤xe5 14 ¤xe5 ¦ab8 15 ¤xd7 ¦xd7 16 b3 gives White only
a minimal advantage. Black's pieces will use b4 as a base and make it virtually
impossible for White to improve his position on the queenside) 10...¤b4 (10...¦d8 11
¤c3 £h5 has been tried but after 12 £c4! Black's queen looks misplaced on h5.) 11
£d1 c5 12 ¤c3 £c4 13 dxc5 ¦d8 14 ¥d2 £xc5 15 £b3² White is developing
typical Catalan pressure. The b7 square has been marked out as a weakness and a the
rook is coming to the c−file, Polugaevsky − Ivkov/Hilversum 1973.

9 £xc4 ¥c6 10 ¥g5 a5 11 ¤c3²

XIIIIIIIIY
9rsn-wq-trk+0
9+pzp-vlpzpp0
9-+l+psn-+0
9zp-+-+-vL-0
9P+QzP-+-+0
9+-sN-+NzP-0
9-zP-+PzPLzP0
9tR-+-+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

The position is well−known in theory. White's usual option is ¥xf6 followed by e2−e4,
which gives him superiority in center. On the other hand, Black has a solid position,
a good post b4 for his pieces and a pair of bishops, which would be an important
factor if the position is opened. Objectively, White has a slight edge, but an
extraordinary technique is required to convert it into something substantial.

161