Harald Keilhack

Knight on the Left: 1.qc3

Studies of an Unorthodox Opening

Schachverlag Kania Contents 3 ------

Contents

Contents ...... 3 Symbols ...... 4 Preface ...... 5 Acknowledgements...... 8 Chapter I 1.qc3 e5...... 9 Chapter II The Van Geet Attack 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.qce2...... 44 Chapter III 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.qxe4...... 131 Chapter IV The False Semi-Open Games – 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 c6, 2...e6 and 2...qf6 ...... 180 Chapter V Against the Sicilian – 1.qc3 c5 2.qf3 ...... 251 Chapter VI Alternative Systems after 1...e5/...d5/...c5...... 304 Chapter VII Various Answers to 1.qc3 ...... 338 Index of Players ...... 379 Index of Variations ...... 380 Sources ...... 383 Preface 5 ------

Preface

This book covers the opening 1.qc3. Or strive for the very tricky indepen- Opening? - Oh, yes! Many consider dent lines, keeping the option of e2-e4, 1.qc3 to be just a move, which might be transposing to some standard lines, playable, but “hardly has any indepen- as an “emergency exit” in reserve? dent value”, rather transposing to 1.e4 • After 1.qc3 g6, should he return to systems. 2.e4, should he go for the fierce 2.h4 In this context, Khalifman’s five volume or should he stay flexible by 2.qf3 and q opus 1. f3 - Opening for White accord- 2.g3, not yet revealing his intentions? ing to Kramnik springs to mind. In an odyssey of more than 1300 pages, the In fact, every leading 1.qc3 player has his former FIDE world champion proves that own answers to those questions. Trans- the “ on the right” 1.qf3 is a good positions at a later stage are full of subtle- move, but not an opening in itself! He ties, which will be revealed in this work. If doesn’t at all cover the Reti (with which one wants to switch from 1.e4 to 1.qc3, 1.qf3 is usually connected), but a multi- this is even an advantage: you may start tude of openings including the ’s In- by playing 1.e4 e6/c6/qf6 2.qc3 (reach- dian, the ’s (Slav, Orthodox, ing some lines from Chapter IV), later on Accepted etc), the , the you play 1.qc3, firstly transposing quite and even some lines of often to 1.e4 systems, then less and less. the Sicilian (namely the Maroczy setup This book covers every possibility after against the Accelerated Dragon); besides, 1.qc3 which at least has some indepen- some peculiarities like the Grünfeld q dent value. Additionally, some “secret” without d2-d4. Quintessentially, 1. f3 is lines which belong to 1.e4 openings but presented as a very subtle in practice occur more often via 1.qc3, tool, by which - to simplify a bit - undesir- or which have some features of this able lines of the aforementioned openings opening. For example, such Anti-Caro- can be excluded. Kann lines as 1.e4 c6 2.qc3 d5 3.f4 or So, how are matters after 1.qc3? There’s 3.bf3!?. Typically such lines are neglected a bunch of established independent con- in opening manuals. cepts, e.g. after 1.qc3 e5 2.qf3 qc6 3.d4 A special focus is on late transpositions or 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.qce2. It’s mostly (e.g., on move 6) to 1.e4 positions under possible, but not always advisable to stay favourable circumstances! clear of all transpositions. Typical ques- I have excluded only 1.qc3 d5 2.d4, which tions that a 1.qc3 practitioner will face are: leads to the Veresov Opening after 2... q j • After 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 e6, should he f6 3. g5, to the French after 2...e6 go for a French by 3.d4 or try some 3.e4 or the Caro-Kann after 2...c6 3.e4. independent setup? Besides transpositions from 1.qc3 to 1.e4 • After 1.qc3 c5, should he play 2.e4 im- openings, there are also some in the other mediately, possibly going for a Closed direction, e.g. 1.e4 e5 2.qf3 d5 3.qc3!?, Sicilian (3.g3) or for the Grand Prix 1.e4 d5 2.qc3!?, 1.d4 qf6 2.qc3 c5 Attack (3.f4)? Or transpose to a stan- 3.qf3 (a basic position from Chapter V); dard Sicilian by 2.qf3 qc6 (2...d6, one can argue that 1.e4 c5 2.f4 d5 2...e6) 3.d4 cxd4 4.qxd4 and 5.e4 ? 3.qc3 is also truly a 1.qc3 position. 6 Preface ------

An unrecognised opening when one compares them carefully to related, but well-explored positions from Unlike unorthodox openings such as standard openings. Often enough, en- 1.b4 or 1.g4, 1.qc3 by no means com- thusiastic amateur authors of books promises White’s position, and at the about unorthodox or gambit openings same time it doesn’t limit the first player are lacking in general knowledge of to some extravagant strategy or other. standard positions, which results in On the contrary, this move is in perfect blatant misjudgements. In this book, I do harmony with classical principles of my best to transfer knowledge between opening play like development and these two, so different, worlds. This also gaining influence on the centre (keeping includes, by the way, comparisons to an eye on e4 and d5). Therefore, it positions with colours reversed, which sounds strange that 1.qc3 is not yet often allow striking insights. recognised as an opening in its own right. Admittedly, the c- is blocked, Some methodological issues: but in every opening, every move kills I agree very much with the maxim that if off some option or other. a given position can occur in various places (via transposition), all relevant q Actually, 1. c3 offers exceptionally games and analysis have to be presented good possibilities of winning a miniature, together. This necessarily leads to a thanks to knight tactics and supported huge number of cross references. When- by the accelerated development of the ever various move orders can lead to q minor pieces. The older 1. c3 literature the same position, I have tried to figure almost reads like a collection of traps out which one is most precise for both and miniatures. However, the general parties - sometimes this wasn’t easy at level of chess is increasing, and one all (e.g. in Section 17). Unfortunately, for cannot expect that the average player of instance, Dunnington’s book is rather our day will repeat the errors that some sloppy in this respect. semi-celebrities of the past committed - not to mention modern computer-aided “Between Worlds” was also a maxim . when choosing games from corre- So, this book isn’t at all about cheap spondence as well from over-the-board traps but will establish a deep theoretical chess, from as well as and strategic basis for the further ex- from amateur practice. This was the ploration of the Knight on the Left. case too in my methodological choice to keep the sample game approach (with Between Worlds deep strategic explanations), but at the same time to supply dense theoretical I was attracted by the unique hybrid stat- coverage. The fact that this book has us of a so-called “unorthodox” opening expanded to nearly 400 pages should which has nevertheless so many lines not distract from the fact that even with which connect to traditional openings. today’s knowledge some fundamental 1.qc3 is still labelled as an “unorthodox” issues around move 5 are still unresolved. opening and accordingly, it’s treated With regard to possible future discov- poorly in main-stream publications like eries I haven’t cut off lines that have to Encyclopedia or . On be regarded as unfavourable from the other hand, many positions which today’s point of view. arise can only be reliably assessed Preface 7 ------

History and Naming Contemporary heroes 1.qc3 was first mentioned in the 1st From about 1965 up to nowadays, two edition (1843) of “Bilguer - Handbuch outstanding correspondence GMs have des Schachspiels” by Tassilo von been setting the trend: Ove Ekebjærg, Heydebrand und der Lasa. According to Denmark, and Dick van Geet from the Adrian Harvey/Stefan Bücker (Kaissiber Netherlands. The extrovert Dutchman 15), the first recorded 1.qc3 game was has published articles, booklets and a Kieseritzky-Desloges, France 1847 CD about the “Van Geet Opening”. In (p.21). The game Napoleon-Madame de his work, tactical finesses prevail. Of the Remusat, Malmaison Castle 1804 reclusive Dane, however, hardly anything (p.10), is probably a hoax. is known beyond the game scores them- Later on, 1.qc3 was occasionally tried selves. But his games are of unique by world class players, e. g. Blackburne- strategic depth. Noa, London 1883, or Bogoljubow- In the 14th correspondence world cham- Zubarev, St.Petersburg 1925. But these pionship 1994-2000, Ekebjærg1 came were solitary cases, comparable to close to his greatest triumph: he scored Morozevich-Kasparov, Frankfurt 2000 10½ out of 14, including 6 out of 7 in his (see Game 83) in our own days. It is not games with White, opened exclusively the professionals, but rather enthusiastic with 1.qc3, and almost looked like the amateurs and grandmasters of corre- sure winner. However, in the end Tinu Yim spondence chess who have advanced from Estonia, who finished his games the development of this opening. years later due to longer postal delivery Thus, about 1910 the Czech Johann times, overtook him by half a point. Kotrc started to play 1.qc3 regularly, as Besides van Geet and Ekebjærg, other did some years later Ted Dunst from correspondence GMs including Sarink, New York. After 1945, the Baden master van Perlo and Hector regularly start their Leonhard Hanke attracted attention by games with 1.qc3 (and there are only playing 1.qc3 in southern Germany. about 200 corr. GMs); and besides them, Further progress is closely connected numerous corr. players around 2400 too with the contemporary heroes mentioned - one could almost talk about a “corre- below. spondence ”! q In over-the-board chess, one will repeat- The opening 1. c3 has had many edly meet names like, IM Mestrovic, IM names; it is possible to say that every- Sydor and (again!) IM van Geet, see for body who wrote about it has used his instance his against the then world own name. So, there had been, among champion Spassky (Game 14). Nowadays, others, the Romanian, Kotrc, Dunst, 1.qc3 is occasionally used by modern Sleipner and the van Geet Openings (to grandmasters like Bellon, Buhmann mention just the most widespread (soon to be a GM), Ermenkov, Hector ones). Finally, I opted for the neutral

Linksspringer or Knight on the Left, 1 which was preferred by my mentor in In the years since publishing the German edition, Ekebjærg’s fortunes have turned. I chess publishing, the Randspringer have in mind his failures in the 16th World editor Rainer Schlenker. Championship and the 50th Jubilee Grand- master Tournament (a true all-star correspon- dence event). However, those results have been influenced by health problems. 8 Preface ------

(again! - he has both titles), Cs.Horvath, About this revised English Narciso, Rashkovsky, Rogers, Schmaltz language edition (limited to 1.e4 d5 2.qc3), Wi.Watson; all of these have a well-earned reputation Soon after the German edition of this as unprejudiced players. book was published in Spring 2003, I Other names include Dutch followers of received several requests for an English van Geet, namely Jongsma, Leeners, van edition. Well, this project took some q Bellen; the 1. c3 scene from Tübingen time, so that simultaneously the question (Frick, Schlenker, Moser and others) or of an update arose. the Estonian master Aarne Hermlin. In brief, this edition is totally revised in And finally Anker Aasum from Norway. the respect that I have included all im- His book, while being somewhat dated portant games played until August 2005 with regard to pure theoretical issues, (e.g. Morozevich-Köhler). On the other contains a lot more historical information, hand, I have kept the whole structure of including numerous short biographies of the book, including the 99 sample games, q enthusiastic 1. c3 players (or rather untouched. Partly for practical reasons, q 1. c3 riders, as Aasum uses to say). having the countless cross-references in mind. But besides this, I felt that those Acknowledgements 99 stem games perfectly illustrated the I would like to thank: original concept of the specific systems Jochen Bastian, Christian Beyer, Jonathan and variations - for modern refinements, Tait and Martin Weise for sending me see the more recent games and analysis their private game collections. in the notes. Also, some errors and misjudgements Gerson Berlinger, Petrus Burghouwt, have been corrected. There are many Gabriel Elefteriadis (who painstakingly more new games than it may look like at pointed out some inconsistencies in the first sight, as on correspondence games German edition), Wolfgang Finke, Tihomir mostly only the starting date is published, Glowatzky, Bernd Gräfrath, David Höffer, so “corr. 2001” reads: started in 2001, Marc Lacrosse, Tobias Lagemann, Ralph finished in 2004 (or so) and published Mallée, Davide Rozzoni, Rainer Stock- only in 2005, when the tournament mann, Dick van Geet, Martin Weise, Frank concluded. However, I haven’t included Zeller, who submitted games, analysis material from the recent Chessbase CD or general comments which have been on 1.qc3 - Carsten Hansen’s Chesscafe useful for this revised edition. review should give you an idea why. Henk van Bellen for the kind invitation to (www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen73.pdf) his nicely organised thematic tournament in Mariac 2001 (also including van Geet, Finally, although much recent stuff has Aasum, Hanke). been added, this edition is actually 16 pages smaller than the original one. Apart Stefan Bücker for historical references. from the fact that the German language And finally John (Ian) Adams for the takes up more space, I took van Geet’s proofreading, ensuring that this experi- advice in his review (New in Chess ment with an “author’s translation” didn’t Yearbook 68) to leave out some non- turn out too badly, or so I hope. essential things. Harald Keilhack Harald Keilhack Schwieberdingen, March 2003/August 2005 Schwieberdingen, August 2005

44 Chapter II ------

Chapter II – The Van Geet Attack

1.qc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.qce2

The Van Geet Attack 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3...e5 4.qg3 je6, and besides, one 3.qce2 followed by qe2-g3 is the core should be aware of the problem of finding of the 1.qc3 opening. While elsewhere the right timing for f2-f4 in the 3...c5 line. there are constantly possible transitions For all other cases, it’s much more impor- to the patterns of standard openings, the tant to develop a good understanding of Van Geet Attack is a fully independent the strategic issues. E.g., Section 10 is entity which strives for early knight activi- per se non-theoretical, as both parties ty on the kingside. may vary their moves in nearly any way VGGGGGGGGW (but it’s nearly always good for White!). 7pqljuoitjlrp. Therefore, I have included a lengthy in- 7xnnxn+xnnxnn. troduction to recurring strategic issues. This seemed necessary solely in the 7+)+)+)+). current chapter, as otherwise the mutual 7)+)+)+)+. strategy is mostly obvious, but this one has 7+)+xnN)+). a bold distinguished character, including various far from obvious manoeuvres. 7)+)+)+)+. Possibly, this is caused by the fact that 7NxNNxNLxNNxN. the Van Geet Attack has all characteristics of a closed opening, while all other lines 7rP+tJOkIJqLP. could belong to the semi-open games. Whvggggggggwite usually plays qg3, qf3, jc4 or 2...d4 is chosen either by somewhat jb5, d3, 0-0; while Black can vary the naive players who are attracted by the formation of his pawns and minor pieces fact that Black wins time and space (usu- in many ways, occasionally he even cas- ally going for the clumsy c5/e5/jd6/qf6 tles queenside. Due to the closed struc- setup afterwards), or by strong players ture of the position, move-orders can vary. who are aware of the strategic risks but One should know the concrete lines after are striving for a complex battle.

Overview:

Section 8: Strategic elements of the Van Geet Attack

Section 9: Early deviations

Section 10: 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.qce2 e5 4.qg3 various

Section 11: 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.qce2 e5 4.qg3 je6

Section 12: The 3...c5 system - 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.qce2 c5

Section 13: The Lizard Attack - 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.qce2 followed by g2-g3

Section 11 with 4...je6 is the theoretical mainline, while Section 13 shows a totally different approach, far from the intentions of the Van Geet Attack. The Van Geet Attack 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.qce2 45 ------

Section 8 Å Basic (knight) tactics

The following may look rather suited for Strategic elements of a beginner’s book. However, after the unaccustomed 1.qc3! such disasters the Van Geet Attack are not at all rare: 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.qce2 e5 4.qg3 c5 We’ll look at the following elements: 4...qc6 5.qf3 jd6 6.jc4 qge7??. This Å Basic (knight) tactics position was reached, via a ‘small’ trans- Ç Sudden attack on the king position (1.e4 e5 2.qf3 d5 3.qc3!? d4 É The thematic lever f2-f4 etc), in the top-flight Internet Ñ Exchanging bishops - some thoughts encounter Vlassov-Radjabov, 8th Febru- about ‘good’ and ‘bad’ bishops ary 2003 (the latter was just warming up Ö The march of the h-pawn: ...h5(-h4-h3) for Linares where he was going to beat Ü The black pawn wall on the kingside Kasparov). Unsuspecting, White contin- á The doubled c-pawns ued with 7.0-0, missing the chance to à The phantom pawn on d3 crush the youngster with 7.qg5! 0-0 â The pawn push b2-b4 (7...rf8 8.qxh7) 8.bh5 )+. ä ‘Defensive energy’ and sliding into a 5.jc4 messy position Or 5.qf3 jg4 6.jc4 f6? 7.qxe5! jxd1? j i q ! The discussion is not finished with this 8. f7+ e7 9. f5 , Moody-S.Bender, section. Some of those elements are the corr. 1985. q focus of attention in some critical lines. 5... f6 5...je7? 6.bh5 g6 7.bxe5 ., Leeners- Besides the above, the motif c2-c3 should Douwes, match 1972. be mentioned. White usually resorts to 6.qf3 jg4?? this measure when Black has prepared VGGGGGGGGW himself well against other plans like f2- 7pql+uoitj+rp. f4. Compare the King’s Indian, where (after d4-d5) ...f7-f5 is Black’s standard 7xnn)+)nxnn. thrust, but occasionally he plays ...c6 as 7+)+)+ql+). well. The logic behind this is hard to grasp, as in the King’s Indian, it’s usually White’s 7)+xn+xn+)+. task to take action on the queenside. 7+)JxnN)j). It’s hard to illustrate c2-c3 clearly, as it’s often only an adjunct to other plans, and 7)+)+)LqL+. its influence on the game is more subtle. 7NxNNxN+xNNxN. Concretely, c2-c3 indirectly helps to sta- 7rP+tJOkI+)P. bilize the position of the c4- (in the King’s Indian, Black often plays ...a5 and 7.jvggggggggwxf7+ ...c6 when he has a knight on c5), in some This motif finds its victims again and again. cases, it makes b2-b4 (item â) work; 7...ie7 8.qxe5! and it’s particularly beneficial to play c2-c3 And now even Legal’s mate: 8...jxd1 when Black has blocked his c-pawn by 9.qf5!. The move 7.qxe5 was already playing ...qc6. In this case, White has a possible in the diagram position (7...je6). good chance to gain superiority in the 8...bc7 9.qxg4 and 1-0/41, van Bellen- centre. Glende, Wildbad (Wch veterans) 1993. 46 Chapter II ------

The following game shows knight tactics 7.c3! c5 8.b4 would transpose to Game 24. in a less trivial manner. The victim, the 7...c5 late Hungarian IM Cserna, was a well- known open specialist at the time: ?! according to Moser, but I think the move isn’t that bad. Game 11 8.0-0 f6 9.d3 qe7 10.jb3 Frick – Cserna qf8? Vienna 1984 But this seems too artificial. In the game Salimäki-Franssila, Finland 1999, there 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.qce2 followed 10...jxb3 11.axb3 g6 12.ih1? e5 4.qf3 (better 12.qd2 or 12.qe1, with ideas like bg4 and/or f2-f4) 12...bc7 13.qg1?! h5 As we will see in Game 17, this is not q the best move. Also the next moves of 14. 3e2 g5, and now Black had the both parties are far from perfect. But in upper hand. the year 1984, even the few specialists 11.qh4 bd7 12.qh5 jxb3?! could not know everything. 12...rg8 was suggested as a possible 4...jd6 5.qg3 je6 improvement, but I think it’s already too late: 13.jh6! if7 14.bf3 gxh6 15. 5...qf6 6.jc4 jg4 7.d3 qh5? VGGGGGGGGW bxf6+ ie8 16.bxh6 id8 17.qf6 )+; 12...if7 13.f4 .. 7pql+uoi)+rp. q b )+ 7xnnxn+)nxnn. VGGGGGGGGW13.axb3 e6 14. g4! 7+)+tj+)+). 7p)+)i)+rp. 7)+)+xn+)l. 7xnn)oql+xnn. 7+)JxnN)j). 7+)+tjlxn+). 7)+)N)LqL+. 7)+xn+xn+)L. 7NxNN)+xNNxN. 7+)+xnN)OqL. 7rP+tJOkI+)P. 7)N)N)+)+. 7+xNN)+xNNxN. 8.jvggggggggwxf7+! ixf7 9.qxh5 jxh5 10.qxe5+ jxe5 11.bxh5+ ie6 12.bf5+ id6 13. 7rP+tJ+)PkI+. f4 )+ (1-0/19), Schleef-Menke, 1988/89. Thevggggggggw knight tactics decide the game: j 6. b5+ 14...rg8 15.qf5 qxf5 (15...qg6 16.qh6 Preferable is 6.c3 first. or 16.qfxg7+) 16.qxf6+, 14... if7 q j 6...qd7 15. xg7, 14...0-0 15. h6 or: q b b More logical is 6...c6 7.ja4 qa6 or 7... 14... c6 15. xe6+ xe6 16. qd7 (7...ba5 8.c3!). But the situation qxg7+ if7 17.qxe6 ixe6 after this is less favourable for Black Frick needed only seven minutes to reach than in Game 22 - here, the d6-bishop this endgame with a clear pawn up - whereas obstructs the d-file, which is a disadvan- the black clock showed 90 minutes. White tage in view of the typical motif ...d4-d3!. converted his advantage convincingly. 7.ja4 ... 1-0/41. The Van Geet Attack 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.qce2 47 ------

Ç Sudden attack on the king P. Bischoff – Fux Bern 1999 After , Black’s king is far from VGGGGGGGGW being safe. The c4-bishop plays an im- 7p)+uo+rp+). portant role in White’s attack, e.g. when 7xnn)+)nxni. pinning f7: 7+)ltj+ql+xn. Schäfer-Frey – Arndt 7)+xn+xnL)+. VGGGGGGGGWGermany 1991 7N)+xnN)+). 7p)juo+rpi). 7)+)N)OqL+. 7)n)+)n)+. 7PxNN)+xNNxN. 7n)+)+)n). 7)+tJ+)PkI+. 7)+xnJql+xNn. 15.qvggggggggwxg7! ixg7 7N)+xnNtJl). 15...qb4 16.q7h5. 7)+)N)+qL+. 16.qf5+ 16.jxh6+!? ixh6 (16...ih8 17.qh5 .) 7+xNN)O)N). 17.qf5+ ig6 (17...ih7? 18.bh3+ ig8 7)+)+rPPkI+. 19.bg3+) 18.bg3+ qg4 19.bxg4+ if6 20.bg7+ ie6 21.bh6+ f6 22.bh3 had Blacvggggggggwk has just driven the c4-bishop to to be considered. But not least because d5 by 16...qce5. Now he should de- of the offside position of the a2- activate this time bomb by 17...je6!, as Black retains chances for counter-play, 18.jxb7 rb8 19.jxa6 rxb24 can hardly e.g. after 22...id7 23.qxd4 f5. be in White’s intentions, e. g. 20.jb5 16...ih8 17.jxh6 c4. Instead there followed the leisurely: Probably 17.bh3!? was stronger. 17...ra7? 18.qxh5! 17...rg8 18.bh3 qh7 19.f4 exf4 An early ...h7-h5 is often tempting, while 20.jxf4, and 20...je5! should keep the disadvantages of ...h5 only show up Black in the game. later! More about this below in this chap- ter. M. Larsson – Lavoisier 18...gxh5 19.jxe5 )+ bxg5 corr. (1st North Sea team cup) 1998 19...qxe5 20.bxh5 je6 21.g6 )+. VGGGGGGGGW 20.jd6 qe3 21.jxf8 qxd5 22.exd5 7pql+uo+rpi). b6 23.be8 1-0 7xn+)+)+xnn. But even after exchanging the king’s 7+xn+tjlxn+). bishop Black should not wrongly believe 7)+xn+xnL)N. that he is safe. In the following game, the bishop swap 7+)NxnN)+qL. recently took place on a2. 7)+)N)+)+. 7N)NtJ+xNN). 7)P)OkI+)P. vggggggggw 48 Chapter II ------

16.bg4! bd7 19.qh5! gxh5 20.rg3! Or 16...ih8 17.qg6+. It is as if the black pawns did not exist. 16...qg5 17.qxd6 (17.g3!? S f4) 17... 20...fxg3 21.rxf6 qxg5 22.bxg5+ bxd6 18.jxg5 fxg5 19.bxg5 costs a pawn, ih8 23.rxd6 cxd6 24.bf6+ ig8 16...if7. was a less than ideal solution. 25.bxd6 rfd8 26.bxg3+ if8 27.jxh5 17.qh6+ and 1-0 due to 18.qg6+ hxg6 with a winning position, 1-0/35. 19.hxg6 gxh6 20.rxh6+ ig8 21.bh3. See, besides other examples in the cur- The final example leads to the f2-f4 rent chapter, particularly Game 58 for a theme. However, here this is not played piece attack with this very ! as a pawn lever but to make space for the rooks! É The thematic lever f2-f4 Jo. Bastian – Luz Bastos VGGGGGGGGWcorr. 1999 Game 12 Schlindwein – S. Förster 7p)+)+rpi). Germany (Youth-ch U17) 1991 7xnnxnj)n)n. 7+)luo+qlnuO. 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.qce2 e5 7)+)+xn+qL+. 4.qg3 jd6 5.jc4 qe7!? Concerning other possibilities see Game 7+)+xnN)+). 18. 7xN+)N)+qLN. 6.d3 0-0 7.q1e2!? 7+xNN)JxNN). 7.qf3. 7rP+)+)PkI+. 7...qg6 8.0-0 ih8?! The c4-bishop makes Black nervous. Ex- 16.fvggggggggw4 exf4 17.rf3! changing it with ...be8 and ...je6 is by After 17.e5 bxe5 18.q3e4 rfe8 19.qxf6+ far not sufficient for equality - White can bxf6 20.bxh7+ if8 Black escapes. point to the potential f5, the bad 17...qd8 S q r )+ d6-bishop as well as the lever c2-c3. ... e6. 17...fxg3? 18. xf6 and 17... Concerning the question, how bad (or not!) qe5? 18.rxf4 )+ are out of the question; the are after 8...je6!? 17...rfe8!? 18.raf1 bf8 19.qxf7! .. 9.jxe6 fxe6 are, see Game 18. In the 18.raf1 qe6 VGGGGGGGGW current situation, the g6-knight would be perfectly placed, while the ‘bad’ bishop pro- 7p)+)+rpi). tects everything, e.g. 10.c3 (10.jd2 qf4! 7xnnxnj)n)n. looks too slow) 10...c5 11.bb3 (11.b4!?) 7+)+uolqlnuO. 11...bd7 - White has only a tiny edge. 7)+)+)+qL+. 9.f4 exf4 9...f6 10.f5 would be a dream-like King’s 7+)+xnNxn+). Indian constellation - the king’s bishop 7xN+)N)PqLN. takes part in the attack, instead of idling 7+xNN)J)N). on g2 (or g7 respectively). However, 9...jg4!? 10.f5 qf4 11.jxf4 7)+)+)PkI+. exf4 12.qh1! was worth considering. vggggggggw The Van Geet Attack 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.qce2 49 ------

10.qxf4 qxf4 11.jxf4 jxf4 Glowatzky – ‘Irlknight’ 12.rxf4 je6 13.bh5 VGGGGGGGGWcorr. 2003/04 Dunnington mentions 13.jxe6 fxe6 14. rxf8+ bxf8 15.bg4. White has qe2-f4 7+)puoi)+rp. in reserve, but attacking with bh5 is 7xnn)+tjnxnn. mucVGGGGGGGGWh more natural. 7+ql+)+ql+). 7pql+uo+rp+ki. 7)+)+xn+)+. 7xnnxn+)nxnn. 7+)+xnN)+). 7+)+)j)+). 7)J)N)OqLN. 7)+)+)+)O. 7NxN+)+xNN). 7+)JxnNrP+). 7rP+tJ+)PkI+. 7)+)N)+qL+. Thevggggggggw f2-f4 push seems to be out of reach 7NxNN)+)NxN. for the time being, but it easily decides 7rP+)+)+kI+. the game within a few moves: 14.qf5 0-0 15.bg3 g6 vggggggggw13...jxc4?! 15...qh5 16.bxe5 )+. j q q b i Thus Black increases his problems (V f7). 16. g5 bd7 17. xe7+ xe7 18.f4 g7 q b A natural defensive move was 13...qd7, 18... h5 19. h4 with overwhelming r q j pressure on the kingside. and now 14. af1 f6 (14... xc4 15. q j q r dxc4 f6 16.rh4 h6 17.qf5 )+). If now 19.fxe5 h5 20. xe7 xg3 21. f2, 15.bh4 with kingside pressure or and Black may resign. 15.bb5 with some ideas against b7 If Black has not yet castled, the advance seem too vague, then the f2-f4 may cause tactical fireworks on the 15.rxf6 gxf6 16.bh6 (S qh5) j r critical f7-square, similar to the King’s could be interesting: 16... xc4 17. f5 Gambit. Black frequently goes to the r r r q b b g8 18. h5 g7 19. f5 g8 20. xf6 dogs; I’ve chosen a comparatively com- j q b r i e6 21. e7 f8 22. xh7+! xh7 plicated - but nice! - example: 23.bh4! or 19...bf8 20.bxf6 je6 q r 21. e7! with the decisive threat xh7+!. H. Steiner – Liedl 16...rg8 looks forced, but after 17.rxf6 Vienna 1991 White has at least . VGGGGGGGGW 14.dxc4 be8 7p)j)i)+rp. 14...ig8 15.rh4 h6 16.qf5 or 14...f6 r q 7xnn)+)ntj+. 15. h4 h6 16. f5 with decisive threats. 7+)luo+)nql. 15.rh4 h6 16.qf5 be6 16...f6 17.qxd4 was the lesser evil. 7)+xn+xn+qLn. 17.bg5! bg6 18.qxh6! 7+)JxnN)+xN. 1-0 7)+xNN)+qL+. due to 18...bxg5 19.qxf7+ ig8 20. 7NxN+)+xNN). qxg5 with two extra pawns. Some minor omissions caused this drastic defeat. 7rP+tJO)PkI+. vggggggggw 50 Chapter II ------

12.f4 jg4!? 13.qxf7!? be7 Roques – Balaian After 13...qxf7 14.jxf7+ ixf7 15.fxe5+ corr. 1990 ig8 16.exd6 jxd1 17.rxd1 dxc3 VGGGGGGGGW 18.bxc3 jxc3 19.rb1 jd4+ (19...b6 7p)+)+rpi). 20.qe2) 20.ih1 b6 21.jf4 if7 Black should have obtained equality. 7xnn)+ql+xnn. 14.qxh8 jxd1 15.qxg6 bf6? 7+)+tjoxn+). b 3 15... d6 16.f5 . 7)+xn+xn+)+. 16.f5 The f-pawn now becomes a real force. 7+)+xnN)+). j j b 16..VGGGGGGGGW. g4 17. g5 d6 18.f6 7)+)N)+qL+. 7p)+)i)+). 7NxNN)+xNNxN. 7xnn)+)+tj+. 7rP+tJO)PkI+. vggggggggw 7+)luo+xNLql. 14.f4 After this Black can exchange his bad 7)+xn+xn+tJn. bishop. But that’s no reason for White to 7+)JxnN)jxN. refrain from f2-f4, as he has no other 7)+xNN)+qL+. sensible plan. This should indicate how questionable the concept of good and 7NxN+)+)N). bad bishops is here, See also m. 7rP+)+)PkI+. 14...exf4 15.jxf4 jxf4 16.rxf4 qg6 17.rf2 qe5 18.h3 bb6 19.b3 rac8 18..vggggggggw.jf8 20.bd2 bc7 21.qf5 bd7 22.a4 b6 Better was 18...0-0-0 19.fxg7 bxg6, after VGGGGGGGGW which 20.rf6! is strongest: 20...bxg7 21. 7+)p)+rpi). rxh6 rh8 (21...rf8 22.qxh5.) 22.qf5 jxf5 23.rxh8+ bxh8 24.exf5. With the 7xn+)o)+xnn. material balance being roughly even, the 7+xn+)+xn+). new-born passed f-pawn as well as the 7)+xn+qlL)+. bishop pair are factors in White’s favour. 19.f7+ qxf7 7N)+xnN)+). 19...id7 20.rf6 bc7 21.qxf8+ )+. 7)N)N)+)N. 20.jxf7+ In the final stage, the king is attacked by 7+)NuO+rPN). the white pieces. 7rP+)+)+kI+. 20...id7 21.rf6 bc7 22.qxh5?! vggggggggw Even stronger was 22.jd5!. Both parties have obtained a nice square 22...jxh5? for their knight. The position is equal. After 22...jd6 Black could play on for 23.raf1 a6 24.bf4 b5 25.axb5 axb5 some time. 26.bg3 rc7?? 23.je6+ id6 24.jc8! 1-0 Counter-balancing the slight pressure on the kingside, Black prepares the lever ...c5- Basically, accomplishing f2-f4 does not c4. 26...ih8 would have kept the equi- guarantee an advantage in itself - it’s just librium, but after Black’s it’s over. what one normally does: 27.qh6+ ih8 28.bxe5 rd8 29.rxf6 1-0 The Van Geet Attack 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.qce2 51 ------

As we have seen, Black’s equalizing meas- 18...bb8 ure is ...exf4, plus afterwards taking e5 under Gritting his teeth, he allows f4-f5. control. He should not allow the advance After 18...exf4 19.jxf4 (19.qgf5!?) Black f4-f5. Regarding this, I would like to outline is not yet ready to fight for the vital con- some differences to the King’s Indian: trol over e5, e.g. 19...qg4 20.e5 jb8 VGGGGGGGGW 21.qgf5 qxf5 22.bxg4.. The resource 7+)+)+)+). ...qg6 (e.g. after taking on f4 twice) is not 7xnnxn+)+tjn. available due to the of the b3-bishop. 19...jxf4 20.rxf4 g5!? looks faulty, but 7+)+xn+)n). it isn’t easy to refute: 21.rxf6! bxf6 22. 7)+)Nxnn)+. qh5 be5 (22...bb6 23.e5 or 22...bh8 23.rc7, with very good compensation) 7+)N)N)+). 23.qf3! jg4 (23...bh8 24.e5) 24.qxe5 7)+qL+)N)+. jxe2 25.qg3 (the point, the bishop is trap- 7NxN+)+)NxN. ped) 25...jxd3 26.qxd3 rac8 27.rf1 with an advantageous endgame for White. 7)+)+)+)+. Ù concerning the ...g7-g5 after f2-f4, compare Game 21, note g2 to Black’s 6th Whvggggggggwite doesn’t take on f5 because after move, including the insert which follows it. e4xf5 g6xf5! (White is missing the analo- 19.f5 ih8 20.qh5 qxh5? gous move in the Van Geet Attack) he More stubborn was 20...qeg8, after which cannot keep the g7-bishop under control White continues his attack with 21.qxf6 in the long run - ...e5-e4 is in the air. On qxf6 22.g4. Black lacks counter-play but the other hand, Black doesn’t play ...f5xe4 retains some chances for defence. (after qxe4 White has a nice square on b )+ q e4) but ...f5-f4. The kingside attack with 21. xh5 g8 21...f6 22.jxh6. ...g5-g4 etc is strong but not superior to q b White’s queenside attack with c4-c5 as 22.f6! g6 23. xg6+ fxg6 24. xg6 r r b r the g7-bishop is only obstructing its own xf6 25. xf6 d8 26. f7 1-0 pieces on the g-file. With a bishop on c5 A possible disadvantage of f2-f4 had al- - this would correspond to the Van Geet ready been mentioned: The weakening Attack, with colours reversed - the attack of the e3-square. In the following exam- would be much more vigorous: ple this weakness turns out to be illusory: Mazzoleni – Briozzo Casper – Möbius VGGGGGGGGWVilla Ballester 1993 VGGGGGGGGWEast Germany (ch) Plauen 1980 7p)+)+rpi). 7p)juo+rpi). 7)+)jqlnxn+. 7xnn)+qlntjn. 7+uo+tj+ql+xn. 7+)l)+)n). 7xnn)+xn+)+. 7)+xn+)+)+. 7+)+xnNxN+qL. 7+)JxnNtJ+). 7xNJ)N)+qL+. 7)+)N)+qL+. 7+xN+tJO)NxN. 7NxNNuOL)NxN. 7)+rP+)PkI+. 7rP+)+)PkI+. vggggggggw vggggggggw 52 Chapter II ------

Black’s position looks solid, and the sec- Ñ Exchanging bishops - some ond player continues with some plausible thoughts about ‘good’ and ‘bad’ exchanges, hoping for further relief. It looks like the slight resulting bishops from f2-f4 should peter out. But exactly the opposite happens: As already indicated, the issue of ‘good’ 11...je6 12.jxe6 fxe6 13.jh6 bd6 and ‘bad’ bishops may be irritating. Tech- 14.bg5 jxh6 nically, White’s light-squared bishop is Also after 14...be5!? 15.qf4 White re- ‘bad’ and his dark-squared bishop ‘good’, tains the initiative. accordingly, Black’s dark-squared bish- 15.bxh6 qe5 16.qf4 qg4 17.bg5 qe3 op (e.g. placed on d6) is ‘bad’ and his VGGGGGGGGW light-squared (e.g. on e6) is ‘good’. Particularly with regard to the white bish- 7p)+)+rpi). ops, this categorization is problematic. 7xnn)+ql+)n. The f1-bishop is played to c4 or b5, in 7+)+uon)n). front of its own pawn chain c2/d3/e4, which overrules the labelling as a bad 7)+xn+)+uO+. one. On the contrary, the c1-bishop is 7+)+xnNqL+). often restricted by Black’s pawn chain, e.g. d4/e5/f6/g7 or even -g5 (see Ü, the 7)+)Nql+qL+. pawn wall). Often Black uses his ‘good’ 7NxNN)+)NxN. c8-bishop only to neutralize White’s 7rP+)+)PkI+. king’s bishop, while his ‘big pawn’ on d6 effectively works against White’s f2-f4 lever 18.evggggggggw5! bc6 19.qe4 rf7 and helps to stabilize Black’s position. So not e3 but f6 is the crucial weakness. “Bad bishops protect good pawns” - 19...qxf1 20.bxe7 (20.rxf1!?) 20...rae8 Suba, cited after John Watson, Secrets (20...rf7? 21.qf6+ ig7 22.qxe6+) 21. of Modern ; p.159, I bg5 qe3 22.qf6+ (22.qxg6 hxg6 23. recommend the study of the relevant bxg6+ ih8 24.qf6 bxg2+ 25.bxg2 chapter. qxg2 26.qxe8 qe3 ;) 22...rxf6 (22... ig7? 23.q6h5+ ig8/ih8 24.qxg6 )+) D. Blau – Guzek (1) 23.exf6 with advantage for White, Black’s cVGGGGGGGGWorr. (preliminary World Cup) 1994 king’s position remains threatened (e.g. after h2-h4-h5). Still this was Black’s 7+)+)+rpi). best chance. 7xn+tj+)oxn+. 20.rf3 On his e3 outpost, the black knight is 7+)n)+rp+xn. only a spectator. 7)+xn+xn+)+. 20...raf8 21.qf6+ ih8 22.rh3 rg7?! 7+)NxnO)+). Black was lost anyway, e.g. 22...q3f5 23.g4 qe3 24.bh6 or 22...q3d5 23. 7)N)N)N)N. b S b q q h6 ( xh7+!) 23... xf6 24.exf6 f5 7N)+tJP)N). 25.qxg6+. 23.qxh7 rxh7 24.bxe7! 1-0 7)+)+)PkI+. vggggggggw 196 Chapter IV ------

19...qxe5 20.fxe5 (20.dxe5 qe8 /) 20... • The interesting duel for the kingside cxd4 21.jxd4 qd7 22.qg4 qxe5 23. dominance between White’s queen qxe5 jxe5 24.jxe5 bxe5 25.bxf7+ .. and Black’s minor pieces, beginning q j 20.qxd7 rxd7 21.dxc5 bxc5 e.g. with ... f6, ... g4. r b r b • The repeated sacrifice of the d4-pawn. 22. xd7 xd7 23. d1 c7 24.qe4 jf8 25.jd2 rd8 26. The latter motif is rather uncommon for jc3 rxd1 27.bxd1 je7 28. the 1.qc3 player who normally refrains bf3 f6 29.jb2 if7 30.g4 qd6! from playing d2-d4. But here the sacrifice q j of this pawn - not protected by the queen 30...f5 31.gxf5 exf5 32. g5+ xg5 or a knight on f3 - is very characteristic. 33.fxg5 be7 34.bd5+ if8 35.if1!! qc7 (35...be3 36.ja3 bh3+ 37.ig1 The idea occasionally appeared in the be3+ 38.ig2 be2+ 39.ig3 bg4+ fifties and sixties, it was re-discovered 40.if2 )+) 36.bc6 qe6 37.jf6! .. by in 101 Chess Opening Surprises and elaborated on 3 1.je5!? fxe5! ; 32.qxd6+ j i b by Michael Negele in Kaissiber 15. Most xd6 33.fxe5+ e7 34. f6+ cited games and analysis stem from this id7 35.exd6 bxd6 36.bg7+ article. Negele calls this line the Goldman ic6! Variation after Warren H. Goldman.

36...be7 37.bh6! /. Whoever would like to learn more about b this and other interesting historical 3 7. xa7 references, should study the said article, 37.bxh7 bd2+ 38.if3 bxa2 39.bxg6 which particularly stands out with its bxb3+ followed by …bxc4(+) ;. extensive research in old sources. A 37...bd2+ pleasing exception in times, where the publications of the leading British houses ½ -½ are usually limited to Chess Informant, TWIC and MegaBase and perhaps the immediate predecessor. Section 23 VGGGGGGGGW

1 .qc3 d5 2.e4 c6 3.bf3 7pqljuoitjlrp. 7xnn)+xnnxnn. A largely underestimated sideline against 7+)n)+)+). the Caro-Kann, which in my opinion fits well into the 1.qc3 master plan. 7)+)n)+)+. The reason for this disrespect is not the 7+)+)N)+). lack of success of this move but that it 7)+qL+)O)+. contradicts a beginner’s rule: 7NxNNxN+xNNxN. You must not bring your queen into the game too early, etc 7rP+tJ+kIJqLP.

Nowadays one is less dogmatic. Modern vggggggggw We’ll examine: master practice is full of concrete opening lines which seemingly contradict the Game 51: 3...d4 4.jc4! classical principles. Concrete motifs of Game 52: 3...qf6 (3...e6, 3...e5) 3.bf3 are: Game 53: 3...dxe4 The False Semi-Open Games: 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 c6, 2...e6 and 2...qf6 197 ------

Game 51 Diaconescu, corr. 1982/86, quickly went j Negele – T. Bialas out of control: 5.b3!? (5.g4!? xe4 6. b q b q j q corr. 1996 xe4 f6 7. f3 e6 8. h3!? e7 9. f4 q q q bd7 10. h5 xh5 11.gxh5, Mitrovic- b q 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 c6 3.bf3 Mijajlovic, Zimski 2005) 5... d4!? 6. c3 jxc2 7.qf3 bf6 8.qe5 qd7 9.qxd7 The ‘other’ queen move, b , is of a 3. e2 ixd7 10.ja3 3. b very different character. While 3. f3 is j obviously aggressive, 3.be2 appeals 3 ...d4 4. c4! rather introverted, clearing d1 for the The first point. Capturing the knight would knight and planning to manoeuvre in be suicidal, although Black doesn’t lose home territory for the time being. by force: 4...dxc3? 5.bxf7+ id7 6.dxc3 VGGGGGGGGW ic7 7.jf4+ ib6 8.rd1 . (Goldman) 7pqljuoitjlrp. with more than just compensation. 7xnn)+xnnxnn. 4...qf6 7+)n)+)+). 4 ...e6 leads to a different kind of play: 7)+)n)+)+. 5 .qce2 5.qb1 is inferior. The following game of 7+)+)N)+). the 1.qc3 pioneer Leeners must be shown 7)+qL+)+)+. due to the nice pawn mate at the end: 5... qd7 6.bg3 qe7 7.qe2 b5 8.jb3 c5 9. 7NxNNxNOxNNxN. d3 qb6 10.c3 qc6 11.cxd4 cxd4 12.0-0 7rP+tJ+kIJqLP. bd6 13.f4 jb7 14.qa3 a6 15.jd2 g6 vggggggggw 16.rac1 jg7 17.f5 bxg3 18.qxg3 exf5 a) 3...g6? 4.exd5 cxd5 5.bb5+, clumsy 19.exf5 0-0 20.f6 jh8 21.qe4 rad8 22. but effective. j r j i q i h6 fe8 23. xf7+! xf7 24. g5+ g8 b) 3...d4 4.qd1! e5 5.g3, playing the 25.f7!, Leeners-van Dijk, Amsterdam 1980. Lizard Attack after d2-d3 and finally f2- 5 ...c5 f4. This setup is impossible to refute, as Black has tried various other moves; White’s pieces control every critical square. some idea: 5...g6 6.d3 jg7 7.h4, 5...b5 The wandering knight will enter action on 6.jb3 jb7 7.d3 c5 8.c3 or 8.bg3, 5... f2 (compare 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 c6 3.f4 dxe4 bf6 6.c3 or 6.bg3, 5...qf6 6.e5 qfd7 4.qxe4 qf6 5.qf2! and similar). 7.be4/7.bg3. Invariably, the kingside- After a stereotyped approach (...c5, placed queen plays a leading part. ...qc6, ...jd6, ...qf6/qe7 etc) Black VGGGGGGGGW may miss a real prospect. Therefore, I’d 7pqljuoitjlrp. like to suggest 5...h5!, the f2-f4 lever by ...h5-h4 and possibly 7xnn)+)nxnn. securing an outpost on g4 - compare 7+)+)n)+). the game van den Doel-Sosonko within Game 31 (notes to 5.qf3). 7)+xn+)+)+.

c) 3...qf6 4.e5 qfd7 5.f4 in the spirit 7+)JxnN)+). of Game 60, Nimzowitsch-Alekhine. 7)+)+)O)+.

d) 3...dxe4 4.qxe4 jf5 (4...qd7?? 7NxNNxNLxNNxN. 5.qd6!), and instead of the usual Caro- Kann like squabble, the game van Geet- 7rP+tJ+kI+qLP. vggggggggw 198 Chapter IV ------

a) 6.bg3 qc6 7.a3 qf6 8.d3 h5! 9. accept a slightly inferior position (doubled jg5 h4! 10.jxh4 qxe4 11.dxe4 bxh40 pawns) or to grab a ‘hot’ pawn. b 12. d3?!, Brat-Zita, CSSR (ch) Prague 6 ...cxd2+?! 1953, 12...qe5 13.jb5+ ie7 followed Besides: by ...bxe4. In my opinion, White has not a) 6...cxb2? 7.jxf7+! ixf7? (7...id7 enough compensation. 8.jxb2 exf6., first happened in T.Schiller- q b q b) 6.d3 c6 7. g3 a5 (7...g6 8.h4, G.Kuhn, Pinneberg 2001) 8.fxg7+ ixg7 q j j j b 7... f6 8.f4) 8. b5+ d7 9. xd7+ xd7 9.jxb2+ ig8 10.bg3+ if7 11.jxh8 q q b j 10. f3 c6 11.0-0 f6 12. h3 d6 1-0, Dieu-N. N., Tours 1993. b i 13.c3 e5 14. xd7+ xd7 15.cxd4 cxd4, b) 6...gxf6 7.dxc3 qd7 8.jf4 with Ardeleanu-Lupu, Romania (ch) 1996. A some initiative for White, Shamkovich- typical King’s Indian endgame with colours N.Kopylov, Chigorin memorial 1951. reversed, however, White already ex- White may insist on gambit play by changed his bad bishop, approx. ;. b 7. h5!? cxd2+ (7...e6 8.dxc3 is a slight c) 6.b4!? (6.e5!?) 6...cxb4 7.jb2 qc6 improvement on 7.dxc3) 8.jxd2 e6 9. 8.bd3 jc5 9.qf3 e5?! (else 10.qexd4) qf3 (9.0-0-0 bd4!?, Eraclides-Y.Kotov, 10.jxf7+! ixf7 11.bc4+ Goldman (at corr. 2002). the end Black’s position is not as bad as c) 6...exf6 it looks). The most solid move - White keeps the 5 .e5! advantage of the first player but nothing 5 .qce2!? e5 as in Van Geet Attack with more. the queen in play. 7 .bxc3 7.dxc3 and 7.bxc3 are equally good - a 5 ...dxc3 matter of taste. 5 ...jg4 6.bd3! . Goldman. 7 ...jd6 8.be3+ 5 ...qbd7!? is a weird idea that results in Or 8.qf3 be7+ 9.be3. some compensation for a pawn after 8 ...be7 9.qf3 6.exf6 qe5 7.jxf7+ qxf7 8.fxg7 jxg7 9.d4 je6 10.jd3 0-0 11.qe2 qd7 12. 9.qe4 d3 (Gypla-Solya, corr. 2003) or 0-0 rfe8, Lipnitzky-Goldberg, Baku 1951, 7.be2 qxc4 8.fxg7 jxg7 9.bxc4 je6 / according to Negele. Devotees of the followed by dxc3. Caro-Kann with 4...exf6 might protest 6 .exf6 and rather call this a standard position. VGGGGGGGGW 9 ...je6 10.jb3 jxb3 11.axb3 bxe3+ 7pqljuoitj+rp. 12.fVGGGGGGGGWxe3, 7xnn)+xnnxnn. 7pql+)i)+rp. 7+)n)+xN+). 7xnn)+)nxnn. 7)+)+)+)+. 7+)ntj+xn+). 7+)J)+)+). 7)+)+)+)+. 7)+xn+)O)+. 7+)+)+)+). 7NxNNxN+xNNxN. 7)N)+xNL)+. 7rP+tJ+kI+qLP. 7+xNNxN+)NxN. Nowvggggggggw the question for Black is whether to 7rP+tJ+kI+)P. vggggggggw The False Semi-Open Games: 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 c6, 2...e6 and 2...qf6 199 ------

Gallegos-Pinto, Palo Alto 1991. White rxg7! ixg7 14.rg1+ ih6 15.be3+ carried forward the concept of the more ih5 16.je2+, and Black disconnected, centralized pawn mass into the rook Keilhack-N. N., 1 min game Internet ending: 12...qa6 13.0-0 qb4 14.c3 ChessClub 2002). qd3 15.qe1 qc5 16.ra3 qe6 17.b4 8 ...je6 9.re1 (9.jb4!?) 9...bd7 10. ie7 18.d3 rhd8 19.ra1 g6 20.e4 h5 bg4 b5, Bryant-Melia, corr. 2000, is 21.je3 a6 22.d4 jc7 23.qd3 jb6 24. also insufficient for equality. White might qc5 jxc5 25.bxc5 rd7 26.rad1 rad8 even consider 11.rxe6+!?. 27.b4 a5 28.rb1 axb4 29.rxb4 ra8 30. 9.jf4! rfb1 ra3 31.r4b3 rxb3 32.rxb3 qg5 33.jxg5 fxg5 34.if2 ie6 35.ie3 f5 9.re1+ je7 10.bg3 g6 11.jf4 qb6! 36.rb6 fxe4 37.ixe4 if7 - Black par- 12.jc7 bd4 3 Negele. ried all winning tries and finally even took 9 ...je7? the full point after White over-pressed. 9...ba5 (only move) 10.bb3! bh5 11. j 7 . xd2 exf6 re1+ je7 / Negele (rather .; Black will Also after 7...gxf6 White has very strong need some luck to free himself by return- compensation: 8.bh5 (or 8.0-0-0 bc7 ing the pawn on e5). q q j i q 9. h3 d7? 10. xf7+ xf7 11. g5+ 10.bg3 if8 ig6 12.be4+ 1-0, Ribeiro-Lloret, 10...0-0 11.jh6 g6 12.h4! re8? 13. Linares Open 1995) 8...e6 9.0-0-0 be7 jxf7+! )+ Negele. 10.jc3 jg7 11.rd3 b5 12.rg3 bxc4 13.rxg7 ., Bellin-J.Pribyl, Graz 1979. 11.qf3 b5 12.rhe1! bxc4 8 .0-0-0 12...ig8 13.qd4 qe5 14.jxe5 fxe5 VGGGGGGGGW 15.qxc6 )+ Negele. 7pqljuoitj+rp. 13.jc7 be8 14.rxe7 bxe7 7xnn)+)nxnn. 14...ixe7 15.bd6!. 7+)n)+xn+). 15.jd6 c3 16.jxe7+ ixe7 7)+)+)+)+. 17.bd6+ 7+)J)+)+). 1 -0 7)+)+)O)+. 7NxNNtJ+xNNxN. Game 52 S myslov – Flohr 7)+kIP)+qLP. Budapest (candidates) 1950 vggggggggw According to Negele in Kaissiber 15 und q b Goldman (whom I can only cite indirectly 1 .e4 c6 2. c3 d5 3. f3 from said source), White has more than According to the investigations in Kais- just compensation. Indeed, the rest of siber 15, this was the first game with this correspondence game turned into a 3.bf3, the Spielmann games mentioned massacre: elsewhere had turned out to be a hoax. 8 ...qd7 3...qf6 8 ...je7 9.bg3!. (9.jc3 bc7 10.qh3 3 ...e6 leads even more directly to a jxh3? 11.gxh3 0-0 12.rhg1 ih8 13. French-type position: 380 Index of Variations ------

Index of Variations

Chapter I 1.qc3 e5...... 9 Section 1 1.qc3 e5 2.qf3 d6 3.d4 (3.e4)...... 9 Digression A brief introduction to the “g3-Pirc” ...... 11 Section 2 1.qc3 e5 2.qf3 jc5 (2...d5) ...... 16 Section 3 1.qc3 e5 2.qf3 qc6 3.d4 exd4 4.qxd4 various ...... 18 Section 4 1.qc3 e5 2.qf3 qc6 3.d4 (3.e4, 3.g3) 3...exd4 (3... various) 4.qxd4 qxd4 5.bxd4 ...... 21 Section 5 1.qc3 e5 2.qf3 qc6 3.d4 exd4 4.qxd4 qf6 5.jg5 (5.g3) ...... 26 Section 6 1.qc3 e5 2.qf3 qc6 3.d4 exd4 4.qxd4 jb4 ...... 33 Section 7 1.qc3 e5 2.qf3 qc6 3.d4 exd4 4.qxd4 jc5 ...... 36 Chapter II The Van Geet Attack 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.qce2...... 44 Section 8 Strategic elements of the Van Geet Attack ...... 45 Å Basic (knight) Tactics ...... 45 Ç Sudden attack on the king...... 47 É The thematic lever f2-f4...... 48 Ñ Exchanging bishops - some thoughts about ‘good’ and ‘bad’ bishops...... 52 Ö The march of the h-Pawn: ...h7-h5(-h4-h3) ...... 56 Ü The black pawn wall on the kingside...... 59 á The doubled c-pawns ...... 62 à The phantom pawn on d3...... 67 â The pawn push b2-b4...... 68 ä ‘Defensive energy’ and sliding into a messy position ...... 68 Section 9 Early deviations ...... 69 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.qb1...... 69 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.qce2 g6 (3... various)...... 70 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.qce2 e5 4.f4 ...... 74 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.qce2 e5 4.qf3?!...... 77 Section 10 Different answers to 4.qg3 ...... 79 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.qce2 e5 4.qg3 qf6 (4...jd6) ...... 80 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.qce2 e5 4.qg3 g6 (4...c5)...... 87 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.qce2 e5 4.qg3 qe7...... 91 Section 11 4.qg3 je6...... 93 4.qg3 je6 5.qf3 (5.je2) 5...f6 6.je2 (6.d3) ...... 93 4.qg3 je6 5.qf3 (5.jb5+?!) 5...f6 (5...qd7 6.jb5?!) 6.jb5+?! ...... 98 4.qg3 je6 5.c3 c5 (5... various) 6.jb5+ qd7 7.qf3 f6...... 101 4.qg3 je6 5.qf3 qd7 (5...qc6, 5...jd6) 6.c3 c5 7.jb5 (7.cxd4) 7...jd6 8.b4 .104 4.qg3 je6 5.qf3 f6 6.c3 (6.qh4, 6.b3) 6...d3 (6...c5 7.ba4+) 7.qxe5! ...... 108 Section 12 The system 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.qce2 c5...... 113 Section 13 The Lizard Attack (1.qc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.qce2 and 4.d3/4.g3) ...125 Index of Variations 381 ------

Chapter III 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.qxe4 ...... 131 Section 14 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.qxe4 e5 ...... 131 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.qxe4 e5 4.jc4 qf6? (4... various) 5.qg5!...... 132 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.qxe4 e5 4.jc4 (4.qf3) 4...qc6 5.d3 je7 6.qf3 jg4 .....135 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.qxe4 e5 4.jc4 qc6 5.d3 je7 6.qf3 qf6?!...... 139 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.qxe4 e5 4.jc4 qc6 5.d3 jf5 ...... 141 Section 15 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.qxe4 f5 ...... 143 Section 16 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.qxe4 qc6!?...... 144 Section 17 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.qxe4 jf5 ...... 146 Section 18 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.qxe4 qd7 ...... 158 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.qxe4 qd7 4.jc4 qgf6 5.jxf7+ (5. various) ...... 158 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.qxe4 qd7 (3...e6) 4.jc4 e6!...... 163 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.qxe4 qd7 4.jc4 qdf6 ...... 170 Section 19 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.qxe4 qf6 ...... 172 Section 20 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.qxe4 bd5!? (3...g6) ...... 176 Section 21 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.jc4!? (3.d3)...... 178 Chapter IV The False Semi-Open Games – 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 c6, 2...e6 and 2...qf6...... 180 Section 22 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 c6 3.f4 (3...dxe4 4.qxe4)...... 181 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 c6 3.f4 g6 (3... various)...... 182 Digression The white-squared blockading system in the Modern Defence .183 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 c6 3.f4 dxe4 4.qxe4 qf6 (4...qd7) 5.qf2 c5...... 186 Digression The Sicilian Grand-Prix Connection ...... 186 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 c6 3.f4 dxe4 4.qxe4 qf6 5.qf2 qbd7...... 189 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 c6 3.f4 dxe4 4.qxe4 qf6 5.qf2 bc7 ...... 192 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 c6 3.f4 dxe4 4.qxe4 qf6 5.qf2 g6 (5...jf5, 5...h5)...... 194 Section 23 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 c6 3.bf3 ...... 196 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 c6 3.bf3 (3.be2) 3...d4 4.jc4! ...... 197 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 c6 3.bf3 qf6 (3...e6) ...... 199 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 c6 3.bf3 dxe4 4.qxe4 ...... 205 Section 24 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 c6 3.g3!? ...... 211 Section 25 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 c6 3.d3...... 212 Section 26 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 e6 3.qf3 ...... 215 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 e6 3.qf3 dxe4 (3...qf6, 3...jb4) ...... 216 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 e6 3.qf3 je7 (3...qe7, 3...qc6) ...... 219 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 e6 3.qf3 d4 4.qce2 c5 ...... 221 Section 27 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 e6 3.g3...... 225 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 e6 3.g3 (3. various) 3...dxe4 ...... 225 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 e6 3.g3 qf6 4.e5! qfd7 5.f4 c5 6.jg2...... 229 Section 28 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 e6 3.f4...... 232 Section 29 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 qf6 ...... 238 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 qf6 3.exd5 qxd5 4.g3 ...... 238 382 Index of Variations ------

1.qc3 d5 2.e4 qf6 3.e5...... 241 1.qc3 d5 2.e4 qf6 3.d3!? dxe4 4.jg5...... 249 Chapter V Against the Sicilian – 1.qc3 c5 2.qf3...... 251 Section 30 Variations on the Dragon Theme ...... 253 1.qc3 c5 2.qf3 qc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.qxd4 g6 (4...d6 5.g3) 5.je3 (5.g3, 5.qxc6)...253 1.qc3 c5 2.qf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.bxd4 ...... 261 1.qc3 c5 2.qf3 d6 (2...qc6 3.g3, 2...qf6 3.g3) 3.g3 (3.d4) 3...g6 4.jg2...... 265 Section 31 Black plays ...cxd4 and ...d5 ...... 269 1.qc3 c5 2.qf3 qc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.qxd4 d5 5.jf4 (5.g3, 5.e4) 5...qf6...... 269 1.qc3 c5 2.qf3 qf6 3.d4 cxd4 4.qxd4 (4.bxd4!?) 4...d5 5.jg5!...... 272 1.qc3 c5 2.qf3 qc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.qxd4 qf6 5.g3 d5(!) (5...e6, 5...d6 etc)...... 275 1.qc3 c5 2.qf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.qxd4 a6 (4...qf6 5.qdb5) 5.g3 qf6 6.jg2 d5 ..279 Section 32 How self-evident is ...cxd4? ...... 283 1.qc3 c5 2.qf3 e6 (2...qc6 3.d4 d5!?, 2...d5 3.e4/3.d4, 2...qf6 3.d4 e6, 2...a6, 2...b6 etc) 3.d4 d5!? 4.g3 (4.dxc5) 4...qc6 5.jg2 qf6 6.0-0...... 283 Digression The French-Marshall-Connection...... 290 1.qc3 c5 2.qf3 e6 3.d4 d5 4.e4! ...... 291 Section 33 2...qc6 - heading for a Sveshnikov or a Rauzer Sicilian ...... 293 1.qc3 c5 2.qf3 qc6 3.d4 (3.e3) 3...cxd4 4.qxd4 qf6 (4... various) 5.jg5 ...... 293 Section 34 An alternative against the Najdorf: 1.qc3 c5 2.qf3 qf6 3.e4 d6 4.e5 298 Chapter VI Alternative Systems after 1..e5/...d5/...c5 ...... 304 Section 35 1.qc3 e5 2.d4 (2. various) 2...exd4 3.bxd4...... 304 q b q Section 36 The Müller game 1. c3 d5 2.e3 e5 (2... various) 3. h5! (3. f3)..307 Section 37 The Aasum System 1.qc3 d5 (1...c5 etc) 2.f4...... 311 1.qc3 d5 2.f4 qf6 (2... various) 3.e3...... 313 1.qc3 c5 (1..g6/1...qf6/1..c6/1...e6 2.f4) 2.f4 d5 (2...qc6, 2...g6) 3.g3 ...... 318 Section 38 1.qc3 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.bxd4 qc6 (3...e6!) 4.bh4...... 323 Section 39 1.qc3 c5 2.g4!?...... 331 Section 40 1.qc3 c5 2.qe4...... 336 Chapter VII Various Answers to 1.qc3...... 338 Section 41 1.qc3 qf6...... 338 2.b3!? (2.e4, 2.d4, 2.qf3 d5 3.d3/3.d4, 2.g3) ...... 339 1.qc3 qf6 2.g4 ...... 347 Section 42 1.qc3 g6 (and 1...d6)...... 350 The Larsen System 1.qc3 g6 2.g3 (2.e4, 2.qf3) 2...jg7 3.jg2 ...... 350 The Frick-Suttles System 1.qc3 g6 2.d3 jg7 3.g3 S jd2, bc1...... 355 1.qc3 g6 2.h4!? ...... 358 1.qc3 d6 2.g3 (2.d4, 2.qf3) 2...e5 ...... 362 Section 43 1.qc3 e6 (and 1...c6)...... 365 Section 44 1.qc3 f5 2.e4!...... 369 Section 45 1.qc3 b6 (and 1...a6)...... 374 Section 46 1.qc3 qc6 (1...b5) ...... 376