Gruenfeld Chess Defense

The Gruenfeld-Indian (Greenfield) Chess Defense belongs to the closed

games and is named after grandmaster Ernst Gruenfeld, who was a
professional player 1919.

The Gruenfeld begins with 1.d2-d4 Sg8-f6 2.c2-c4 g7-g6 3.Sb1-c3 d7-d5

The Gruenfeld Defense is still popular and was played by many famous
players like Viktor Korchnoi, Vasily Smyslov, Bobby Fischer and Garry
Kasparov.

The famous game of Donald Byrne - Bobby Fischer, called - Game of the
Century! - was played with the Gruenfeld Defense.

The Main Variation is the Exchange Variation 1.d2-d4 Sg8-f6 2.c2-c4 g7-g6
3.Sb1-c3 d7-d5 4.c4xd5 Sf6xd5 5.e2-e4 Sd5xc3 6.b2xc3 Lf8-g7 See below

White created a mighty pawn formation in the center and has space
advantage. Black has to attack and undermine this white pawn structure. On
the queenside Black has a pawn majority of two pawns against one white
pawn and could create a passed pawn in the endgame. This opening leads to
a game with lots of tactical chances for both sides.

The Modern Variation continues 7. Sg1-f3 c7-c5 8. Ta1-b1

Classical Variation 7. Lf1-c4 c7-c5 8. Sg1-e2 c5xd4 9. c3xd4 Sb8-c6 10. Lc1-
e3 0-0 11. 0-0
or 7. Lf1-c4 c7-c5 8. Sg1-e2 0-0 9. 0-0 Sc6 10. Lc1-e3 Lg4 11. f2-f3 Sc6-a5
12. Lc4xf7+ match Karpow-Kasparow 1987

Bobby Fischer played a different set up where he puts his queen to c7 and the
rook to d8. (from Smyslow) 10. Lc1-e3 Dd8-c7 11. Ta1-c1 Tf8-d8

Landa, K. - Areshchenko, A. 1-0

. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. Bf4 O-O 6. Rc1 dc4 7. e3 Be6 8. Ng5 Bd5 9.
e4 h6 10. ed5 hg5 11. Bg5 Nd5 12. Bc4 Nb6 13. Bb3 Nc6 14. Ne2 Rc8 15. O-O Nd4 16.
Nd4 Qd4 17. Qf3 e6 18. Qb7 Qb2 19. Qa7 Nd5 20. Qc5 c6 21. h4 Qd4 22. Rfd1 Qc5
23. Rc5 Nc3 24. Rd7 Ne4 25. Rc2 Ng5 26. hg5 c5 27. a4 Rb8 28. Bc4 Rb1 29. Kh2 Ra8
30. Bb5 Bd4 31. g3 Ra1 32. Kg2 Kf8 33. Re2 Re8 34. Re4 Re7 35. Rd8 Kg7 36. Rh4 f5
37. Rdh8 Kf7 38. R4h7 Bg7 39. Rc8 Ra2 40. Rc5 Kg8 41. Rh4 Bf8 42. Rd4 Kg7 43. Rc8
Rf7 44. Rdd8 f4 45. Bc4 Rc2 46. Be6 Rc8 47. Rc8 f3 48. Kh3 Ra7 49. Bb3 Be7 50. Kg4
Ra5 51. Rg8 Kh7 52. Re8 Rg5 53. Kf3 Rf5 54. Ke4 Bb4 55. f4 Rc5 56. Re7 Kh6 57.
Bg8 g5 58. Rh7 Kg6 59. f5 Rf5 60. Rb7

Grunfeld Defense
The Grunfeld Defense is a hypdermodern defense, meaning that it doesn’t try to control
the center early on with his pawns. Instead black tries to attack the center with this
minor pieces from the sides and then once the foundation is in place, then looks to
undermine the center control that white usually has.
There are three main lines in the Grunfeld Defense. The exchange variation is the main
line and is what most players study for when approaching the Grunfeld Defense. Black
allows white to completely dominate the center with his pawns while black focuses all
his energy on the d4 square. Instead of using his spacial advantage in the center, white
is forced to respond to the threat on d4 and focus all his energy on defending the d4
pawn. With all the pawns and pieces aimed at the center early on with no other strategy
in mind, things can quickly turn for the worst if one of the sides looses focus.
For those white players that do not like to defend and instead like to attack, attack,
attack, the Russian variation allows white to give up the potential strong pawn center
and instead get his queen involve and keep the pressure on black.
With the d4 pawn opening from white gaining popularity from GMs every year, it’s not
surprising that the Grunfeld defense is seen more regularly. It is deadly in the right
hands and can many times hault a very well trained d4 player.
Watch the video below to watch an explanation of the Grunfeld Defense.

Chess Openings: Grünfeld Defense

chessvictory
Nov 29, 2007, 12:00 AM 6 Opening Theory
Free Chess Openings Videos, Click Here Chess Openings

Category – Semi Closed Game

Opening Move Sequence – 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5

ECO Codes – D70 to D99

Grünfeld Defense is named after the player Ernst Grünfeld who used it in the
1920s. Since then, a lot of notable great players and world champions have
used it. However it is only occasionally used in tournament play. Vladimir
Kramnik is a leading supporter of this opening while playing White. Others
have shown its possibilities as Black. This opening can be reached from other
openings. For instance the so called Game of the century between Donald
Byrne and Bobby Fischer (age 13) in 1956 reached a Grünfeld position after
1.Nf3 Nf6, 2.c4 g6, 3.Nc3 Bg7, 4.d4 O-O, 5.Bf4 d5.
Grünfeld Defense, like other openings introduced in 1920s, uses the ideas of
hypermodern theory which consider a center made of pawns to be weak and
aims to attack it with pieces developed in the wings.

Grünfeld Defense is classed among Semi Closed Games and with Indian
systems (which are a subset of Semi Closed Games) which start with moves
1.d4 Nf6, 2.c4. Variations in Grünfeld Defense can be found under ECO
classification codes D70 to E99.

Moves and Variations

1 d4 Nf6

2 c4 g6

3 Nc3 d5

As explained above, Black is following the hypermodern theory and is aiming

to attack the White’s center using pieces in the flanks. White continues to
build the center and develop pieces.

Grünfeld Exchange Variation

This is the main line of Grünfeld defense and will continue with 4.cxd5 Nxd5,
5.e4. The center created by White appears truly formidable at this point. And
the following moves in the main line 5...Nxc3, 6.bxc3, bolster it even more.
Black will now try to threaten it through c5 and Bg7, and then cxd4, Bg4,
and Nc6. Meanwhile White will try to exploit the center to start an attack on
the Black’s position after Black castles short. A branch of the Exchange
Variation is known as Seville Variation and will continue with a different fifth
move: 5.e4 Nxc3, 6.bxc3 Bg7, 7.Bc4 c5, 8.Ne2 Nc6, 9.Be3 O-O, 10.O-O
Bg4, 11.f3 Na5, 12.Bxf7+ Rxf7, 13.fxg4 Rxf1+, 14.Kxf1.

White can follow several lines in developing pieces. The traditional way is to
develop Bc4, Ne2, 0-0, and f5 and to avoid Nf3 due to Black’s Bg4. However,
since the 1970s, different lines have been developed with the move Rb1 (to
get it out of the way from the diagonal) and cramp Black’s bishop at c8.
Other possibilities are moves Be3, Qd2, Rc1 and Rc1, strengthening the
center and enabling a pawn advance along d file.

4 Bf4

To simplify play, and thus avoid the complexities in Grünfeld Exchange

Variation, White can play 4 Bf4. White basically selects an attack in the
Queen-side and a lesser center. The main line here continues with 4...Bg7,
5.e3 c5, 6.dxc5 Qa5. White has several replies at this point: cxd5, Rc1, Qb3,
and Qa4. However, in spite of its simplifications, historical statistics show
that there is no significant improvement in White’s chances. As such this
variation’s popularity has declined.

Grünfeld Gambit

Another variation after 4.Bf4 is 4…Bg7, 5.e3 O-O and is known as Grünfeld
Gambit. If White accepts the gambit, play will continue 6.cxd5 Nxd5, 7.Nxd5
Qxd5, 8.Bxc7. Or if White wants to decline it, he can play 6.Qb3 or Rc1. In
that case Black will answer by 6…c5.
Neo-Grünfeld Defense

When White does not play the move Nc3 as the third move variation, it is
called Neo-Grünfeld Defense. Play will normally proceed along the lines of
1.d4 Nf6, 2.c4 g6, 3.f3 d5, or 1.d4 Nf6, 2.c4 g6, 3.g3 d5 (called Kemeri
Variation).

Other Variations in Grünfeld Defense

There are several other playable variations: 4.Bg5 (Taimanov Variation),

4.Nf3 Bg7, 5.Qb3 (Russian System), and 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.e3 (Quiet System, also
called Slow System).

For Free Chess Openings Videos Click Here Chess Openings

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d54. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4 Nxc3 6. bxc3Bg7 7. Be3 c5 8. Nf3 Qa

5Putting pressure on c3. As with all hypermodern openings, black wants to pressure the
white center with his pieces. 9. Qd2Nc6(9... cxd4 10. cxd4 Qxd2+11. Kxd2White is
thought to be slightly better here, I think just because he has quite a lead in
development, his king is well placed and he has more space. Akobian gave Rc1, Bd3,
and Ke2 as white's next likely moves. Still, searching this in the game explorer here will
give you quite a few draws so unless you like endgames it may not be too appealing. At
the same time, you have to consider that black might not want a slightly worse
endgame position as well.) 10. Rb1The idea is to play Rb5 and take on c5 with the
rook.10... O-OAkobian gives this as the main line of the variation! It may not seem so
surprising now, but...(10... a6This is a variation which stops Rb5, but now b6 is
weakened and white will attempt to play against
that. 11. Rc1 cxd412. cxd4 Qxd2+ 13. Kxd2) 11. Rb5Now if the queen retreats, black
will simply lose c5 and not have much to show for it and so he has to take somewhat
desperate measures. 11... cxd412. Rxa5 dxe3 13. Qxe3Nxa5Black has given his queen
for a rook and knight, but to my surprise black seems fine here. He has the bishop pair
and a target on c3 to work against, so it's not so simple for white. Of course, I'd have to
be in an extremely daring mood to try this in a game as black.

Grünfeld Defence
The Grünfeld Defence (ECO codes D70–D99) is a chess opening characterised by the moves:

1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 g6
3. Nc3 d5

Black offers White the possibility of cxd5, when after Nxd5 White further gets the opportunity to kick
the Black Knight around with e4, leading to an imposing central pawn duo for White. If White does
not take the d5 pawn, Black may eventually play dxc4, when a White response of e4 again leads to
the same pawn structure. In classical opening theory this imposing pawn centre was held to give
White a large advantage, but the hypermodern school, which was coming to the fore in the 1920s,
held that a large pawn centre could be a liability rather than an asset. The Grünfeld is therefore a
key hypermodern opening, showing in stark terms how a large pawn centre can either be a powerful
battering ram or a target for attack.
History[edit]

The first instance of this opening is in an 1855 game by Moheschunder Bannerjee, an Indian player
who had transitioned from Indian chess rules, playing Black against John Cochrane in Calcutta, in
May 1855:

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.e3 Bg7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.cxd5 Nxd5 7.Be2 Nxc3 8.bxc3 c5 9.0-0 cxd4
10.cxd4 Nc6 11.Bb2 Bg4 12.Rc1 Rc8 13.Ba3 Qa5 14.Qb3 Rfe8 15.Rc5 Qb6 16.Rb5 Qd8
17.Ng5 Bxe2 18.Nxf7 Na5

and White mates in three (19.Nh6+ double check Kh8 20.Qg8+ Rxg8 21.Nf7#).[1][2] Cochrane
published a book reporting his games with Moheshchunder and other Indians in 1864.

It gained popularity after Ernst Grünfeld introduced it into international play at Vienna 1922, where, in
his first game with the defense, he defeated future world champion Alexander Alekhine.[3] Grünfeld
usually employed a very classical style. The defence was later adopted by a number of prominent
players, including Vasily Smyslov, Viktor Korchnoi, Leonid Stein, and Bobby Fischer. Garry
Kasparov often used the defence, including in his World Championship matches against Anatoly
Karpov in 1986, 1987 and 1990, and Vladimir Kramnik in 2000. Currently active notable players who
employ the opening include Loek van Wely, Peter Svidler, Peter Leko, Viswanathan Anand, Luke
McShane and Gata Kamsky.[4] Anand employed it twice in the World Chess Championship 2010. In
the World Chess Championship 2012 between Anand and Boris Gelfand, each player used the
Grünfeld once with both games ending in draws. Anand faced the Grünfeld against Magnus
Carlsen during the first game of the World Chess Championship 2014 and drew in a Rook and
Queen ending.

The Game of the Century between Donald Byrne and 13-year-old Bobby Fischer on October 17,
1956, featured this opening, although arriving in the Grünfeld via a transpositionof moves (using
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.d4 0-0 5.Bf4 d5).

Exchange Variation: 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4

The main line of the Grünfeld, the Exchange Variation (ECO codes D85–D89), is defined by the
continuation 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4. Now White has an imposing looking centre – and the main
continuation 5... Nxc3 6. bxc3 strengthens it still further. Black generally attacks White's centre with
...c5 and ...Bg7, often followed by moves such as ...Qa5, ...cxd4, ...Bg4, and ...Nc6. White often uses
his big centre to launch an attack against Black's king. One subvariation, frequently played by
Karpov, including four games of his 1987 world championship match against Kasparov in Seville,
Spain, is the Seville Variation, after 6...Bg7 7.Bc4 c5 8.Ne2 Nc6 9.Be3 0-0 10.0-0 Bg4 11.f3 Na5
12.Bxf7+, long thought a poor move by theory, as the resultant light-square weakness had been
believed to give Black more than enough compensation for the pawn.

White can develop his pieces in a number of ways in the Exchange Variation. For decades, theory
held that the correct method of development was with Bc4 and Ne2, often followed by 0-0 and f4–f5,
playing for a central breakthrough or kingside attack. It was generally thought that an early Nf3 was
weak in the Exchange Variation because it allowed Black too much pressure on the centre with
...Bg4. In the late 1970s, however, Karpov, Kasparov and others found different methods to play the
Exchange Variation with White, often involving an early Rb1 to remove the rook from the sensitive
a1–h8 diagonal, as well as attempting to hinder the development of Black's queenside. Another,
relatively recently developed system involves quickly playing Be3, Qd2, and Rc1 or Rd1 to fortify
White's centre, remove White's rook from the diagonal, and possibly enable an early d5 push by
White.
Vladimir Kramnik and Boris Gelfand are the leading practitioners as White, and Ľubomír Ftáčnik has
had many fine results with the black pieces.[4]

Russian System: 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Qb3

In bringing more pressure to bear against Black's central outpost on d5, White practically forces
...dxc4, thus gaining a central preponderance; however, in return, his queen will often be exposed as
Black's queenside play unfolds in the middlegame. After 5... dxc4 6. Qxc4 0-0 7. e4, Black has
several primary options:

Hungarian Variation: 7...a6 [edit]

The Hungarian Variation, 7...a6, has been championed by Peter Leko.

Smyslov Variation: 7...Bg4 8.Be3 Nfd7 [edit]

7...Bg4 8.Be3 Nfd7 was a topical line from the 1950s through the mid-1970s.

Prins Variation: 7...Na6 [edit]

7...Na6 (Lodewijk Prins') idea, which Kasparov favoured in several of his World Championship
matches against Karpov.[5]

7...Nc6[edit]
This is recommended as the mainline by several recent Grünfeld texts.

Other lines[edit]
7...c6, 7...b6

Taimanov's Variation with 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Bg5

in this line, favoured by Yasser Seirawan, after the nearly universal 5...Ne4, White plays 6.Bh4 or
6.cxd5, with Black then opting for either 6...Nxc3 7.bxc3 Qxd5 or 6...Nxg5 7.Nxg5 e6. In the latter
case, 7...c6 is sometimes tried. 6. Nxd5? grabbing the pawn loses a piece after 6...Nxg5 7.Nxg5 e6.
After 6.cxd5 Nxg5 7.Nxg5 e6, White has 8.Qd2 exd5 9.Qe3+, with attacking chances (though the
interpolation 8...h6 9.Nf3 exd5 is a significant alternative), or the more usual 8.Nf3 exd5 after which
play generally proceeds on lines analogous to the Queen's Gambit Declined, Exchange Variation,
with a queenside minority attack by White (b2–b4–b5xc6), as Black aims for his traditional kingside
play with ...f7–f5–f4 and, in this case, ...g6–g5.

Lines with 4.Bf4 and the Grünfeld Gambit

For players who do not wish to take on the complexities of the Exchange Variation, the move 4.
Bf4 is generally considered a safer continuation for White.[6] White opts for the initiative on the
queenside with a smaller pawn center. In the main line (D82), play proceeds with 4...Bg7 5.e3 c5
6.dxc5 Qa5, with White's choices at his seventh move being cxd5, Qb3, Qa4, or Rc1. Despite its
reputation, in statistical databases this variation shows only a slightly higher percentage of White
wins and draws, as opposed to the Exchange variation.[7][8] The variation is not often met in top-flight
play today, its usage having declined significantly since its heyday in the 1930s

In this variation, play may also continue 4.Bf4 Bg7 5.e3 0-0, which is known as the Grünfeld
Gambit (ECO code D83). White can accept the gambit by playing 6.cxd5 Nxd5 7.Nxd5 Qxd5
8.Bxc7, or decline it with 6.Qb3 or 6.Rc1, to which Black responds with 6...c5.
 Neo-Grünfeld Defence

Systems in which White delays the development of his queen's knight to c3 are known as the Neo-
Grünfeld Defence (ECO code D70–D79); typical move orders are 1.d4 Nf6 2.g3 g6 3.c4 d5 or,
more commonly, 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 d5 (the latter is known as the Kemeri Variation, shown in
the diagram).

Illustrative game[edit]

Smyslov vs. Fischer, Herceg Novi Blitz Tournament, 1970:[9]

1.c4 g6 2.g3 Bg7 3.Bg2 Nf6 4.Nf3 0-0 5.0-0 c6 6.d4 d5 7.cxd5 cxd5 8.Nc3 Ne4 9.Qb3 Nc6
10.Be3 Na5 11.Qd1 Nxc3 12.bxc3 b6 13.Ne5 Ba6 14.Re1 Rc8 15.Bd2 e6 16.e4 Bb7
17.exd5 Bxd5 18.Bxd5 Qxd5 19.Qe2 Rfd8 20.Ng4 Nc4 21.Bh6 f5 22.Bxg7 Kxg7 23.Ne3
Nxe3 24.Qxe3 Rc6 25.Rac1 Rdc8 26.c4 Rxc4 27.Rxc4 Rxc4 28.Qxe6 Qxe6 29.Rxe6 Kf7
30.Re3 Rxd4 31.Ra3 a5 32.Rc3 Ke6 33.Kg2 Kd6 34.h4 Ra4 35.Rc2 b5 36.Kf3 b4 37.Ke3
Kd5 38.f3 Ra3+ 39.Kf4 a4 40.g4 fxg4 41.fxg4 b3 42.axb3 axb3 43.Rc7 Ra4+ 44.Kg5 Rb4
45.Rc1 Kd4 46.Kh6 Rb7 0–1

Other variations[edit]

Apart from the above, among the more popular continuations are:

 4.Bg5 (Taimanov Variation) ECO D80

 4.Qb3 (Accelerated Russian System) ECO D81
 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Qa4+ (Flohr Variation) ECO D90
 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.e3 (Quiet System or Slow System) ECO D94
 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.Na4 (Nadanian Variation) ECO D85

ECO Codes

The ECO Codes is a classification system for the chess openings moves. Below is a list of chess
openings organized by the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO) code. The openings are
divided in five volumes labeled from "A" through "E".

 D70 Neo-Gruenfeld defence

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. f3 d5

 D71-D72 Neo-Gruenfeld, 5.cd

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 d5 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. cxd5 Nxd5

 D73 Neo-Gruenfeld, 5.Nf3

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 d5 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. Nf3

 D74-D76 Neo-Gruenfeld, 6.cd Nxd5

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 d5 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. Nf3 O-O 6. cxd5 Nxd5 7. O-O

 D77-D79 Neo-Gruenfeld, 6.O-O

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 d5 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. Nf3 O-O 6. O-O
Slav Defense
The Slav Defense is a chess opening that begins with the moves:

1. d4 d5
2. c4 c6

The Slav is one of the primary defenses to the Queen's Gambit. Although it was analyzed as early
as 1590, it was not until the 1920s that it started to be explored extensively. Many masters
of Slavic descent helped develop the theory of this opening, including Alapin,Alekhine, Bogoljubov,
and Vidmar.

The Slav received an exhaustive test during the two Alekhine–Euwe World Championship matches
in 1935 and 1937. Played by 11 of the first 13 world champions, this defense was particularly
favored by Euwe, Botvinnik, and Smyslov. More recently the Slav has been adopted
by Anand, Ivanchuk, Lautier, Short, and other top grandmasters, including use in six of the eight
games that Vladimir Kramnikplayed as Black in the 2006 World Championship (in the other two, he
played the related Semi-Slav Defense).

Today the theory of the Slav is very extensive and well-developed.

General considerations[edit]

There are three main variations of the Slav:

 The "Pure" Slav or Main Line Slav where Black attempts to develop the light-squared bishop to
f5 or g4.
 The a6 Slav or Chebanenko Slav with 4...a6.
 The Semi-Slav with ...e6 (without developing the light-squared bishop). The Semi-Slav Defense,
a kind of a combination Queen's Gambit Declined and Slav Defense, is a very complex opening
in its own right. See the Semi-Slav Defense for details.
 There is also a lesser option, the Schlechter Slav with ...g6

Black faces two major problems in many variations of the Queen's Gambit Declined (QGD):

1. Development of his queen bishop is difficult, as it is often blocked by a pawn on e6.

2. The pawn structure offers White targets, especially the possibility of a minority attack on
the queenside in the Exchange variation of the QGD.

The "Pure" Slav and a6 Slav addresses these problems. Black's queen bishop is unblocked; the
pawn structure remains balanced. Also, if Black later takes the gambit pawn with ...dxc4, the support
provided by the pawn on c6 (and possibly ...a6) allows ...b5 which may threaten to keep the pawn, or
drive away a white piece that has captured it, gaining Black a tempo for queenside expansion. On
the other hand, Black usually will not be able to develop the queen bishop without first giving up the
center with ...dxc4, developing the bishop may leave the black queenside weak, and the thematic
break ...c5 incurs the loss of a tempo.

The Slav can be entered by many move orders. The possibilities include 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 c6,
1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 c6 3.d4 Nf6, and so on.

Alternatives to 3.Nf3[edit]

The main line is 3.Nf3. White can also try the following alternatives
3.e3[edit]
Black often plays 3...Nf6 but 3...Bf5 is considered to be an easier equalizer. Also, 3...Nf6 4.Nc3
(same as 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 below) may give Black some move-order issues for those wanting to play
the "Pure" Slav and not the semi-slav or ...a6 Slav.

Exchange Slav: 3.cxd5 [edit]

The Exchange Variation was once described as "the system that takes the fun out of playing the
Slav" for Black.[1] After 3.cxd5 cxd5, the symmetrical position offers White only the advantage of the
extra move, but the drawish position offers Black little chance to win unless White is overly
ambitious. The rooks will often be exchanged down the now open c-file. To avoid this possibility
Black often chooses the move order 2...e6 followed by 3...c6 to enter the Semi-Slav.

3.Nc3[edit]
The pressure on Black's center prevents 3...Bf5? since after 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.Qb3 White wins a pawn.
Black can try the Winawer Countergambit, 3...e5, which was introduced inMarshall–Winawer, Monte
Carlo 1901 but this is thought to be slightly better for White. The most common continuation is
3...Nf6 when 4.Nf3 transposes to the main line. White can also play 4.e3 when it was thought Black
could no longer play the "Pure" Slav with 4...Bf5 (and had to choose between 4...e6 or 4...a6) due to
5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Qb3. Therefore, "Pure" Slav players sometimes meet 3.Nc3 with 3...dxc4, the
Argentinian Defense, which can transpose to the main line of the "Pure" Slav. Recently the Gambit
4...Bf5 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Qb3 Nc6 7.Qxb7 Bd7 has revitalized 4...Bf5.

3.Nf3 introduction[edit]

Black usually plays 3...Nf6. 3...e6 transposes to the Semi-Slav. 3...Bf5? is a mistake due to 4.cxd5
cxd5 5.Qb3.

Alternatives to 4.Nc3[edit]

After 3...Nf6, the main line is 4.Nc3. White can also try the following alternatives:

4.Qc2 or 4.Qb3[edit]
A line that is similar to the Catalan Opening is 4.Qc2 or 4.Qb3. Often, White will fianchetto his light-
square bishop. This has the disadvantage of White's queen being somewhat exposed on c2. Black
can meet 4.Qc2 with 4...g6, intending 5...Bf5. White usually plays 5.Bf4 so that after 5...Bf5 6. Qb3
Qb6 White can play 7.c5! Black has to play 7...Qxb3, which will be met by 8.axb3. White has a
moderate advantage in this queenless middlegame, as White can expand on the queenside and try
to create play on the queenside, but Black's position is solid. The most common continuations are
4...dxc4 5.Qxc4 Bf5 or 5...Bg4.

Slow Slav: 4.e3[edit]

White can avoid the complexities of the main line 4.Nc3 by playing 4.e3. The most common
continuation is 4...Bf5 5.Nc3 e6 6.Nh4, when White wins the Bishop pair but Black gets a solid
position and often gets counterplay with ...e5. This line was tested several times in the 2006 World
Chess Championship. Alternatively, 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Qb3 Qc7 is fine for Black. White will try to take
advantage of the absence of Black's queen bishop on the queenside, but this isn't enough to gain an
advantage if Black plays accurately. Another way to play is 4...Bg4.
4.Nc3 introduction[edit]

Black should not play 4...Bf5 because White will gain the advantage with either 5.Qb3 or 5.cxd5
followed by 6.Qb3. Traditionally Black had a choice between 4...e6, the Semi-Slav, and 4...dxc4
before developing the queen bishop, but in the 1990s 4...a6 was introduced, with the idea of
developing the queenside without locking in the queen bishop or conceding the center.

a6 (Chebanenko) Slav: 4...a6 [edit]

The a6 Slav occurs after 4...a6. Black seeks an early b5, either before or after capturing at c4.

White can achieve an important space advantage with 5.c5. Both e5 and b6 become important pawn
breaks for Black. White will often play his bishop to f4, controlling the important dark squares e5, d6,
c7, and b8 (this last square reduces Black's control over the b-file should it open). The game can
continue 5...Bf5 6.Bf4 Nbd7 7.h3 e6 8.e3.[citation needed]

4...dxc4 – alternatives to 5.a4[edit]

After 4...dxc4, the main line is 5.a4. White can also try the following alternatives

Slav Geller Gambit: 5.e4 [edit]

White's sharpest try against 4...dxc4 is the Slav Geller Gambit, 5.e4. Play usually continues 5...b5
6.e5 Nd5 7.a4 e6, but it is unclear whether the attack is strong enough for the sacrificed pawn.
Evaluation of this line changes as improvements are found, but as of 2005 it is generally thought to
favor Black.

White maintains the pawn with 5.e3[edit]

5.e3 is a solid choice known as the Alekhine Variation. Play can proceed 5...b5 6.a4 b4

 7.Na2 e6 8.Bxc4
 7.Nb1 Ba6 8.Nbd2 c3 9.bxc3 Bxf1 10.Nxf1 bxc3

Alapin Variation: 5.a4; alternatives to 5...Bf5 [edit]

With 5.a4, White acts against ...b5 and prepares 6.e4 and 7.Bxc4. Black's main move is 5...Bf5.
Black can also try the following alternatives:

Steiner Variation: 5...Bg4 [edit]

In the Steiner Variation (also called the Bronstein Variation), 5...Bg4, White may be discouraged
from e4 by the possibility 6.e4 e5. More often the game continues 6.Ne5 Bh5.

Smyslov Variation: 5...Na6 [edit]

With the Smyslov Variation, 5...Na6, Black allows the e-pawn to come to e4 but can gain
counterplay by ...Bg4 and perhaps bringing the knight to b4 e.g. 6.e4 Bg4 7.Bxc4 e6 8.0-0 Nb4.

5...e6 (Soultanbéieff Variation)[edit]

Main line, Czech Variation: 5...Bf5 [edit]

The Czech Variation can be considered the main line. With 5...Bf5, Black prevents 6.e4.
Bled Attack 6.Nh4[edit]
Dutch Variation: 6.e3[edit]
If White plays 6.e3, the Dutch Variation, play can continue 6...e6 7.Bxc4 Bb4 8.0-0 0-0 with a
fairly quiet game. Black can also play 6...Na6 with the idea of 7...Nb4, known as the Dutch,
Lasker Variation.
Krause Attack: 6.Ne5[edit]
A more energetic line begins 6.Ne5 (Krause Attack) where White intends f2–f3 and e2–e4 or Nxc4,
perhaps followed by a fianchetto of the king bishop with g2–g3 and Bg2. Black can try either
6...Nbd7 7.Nxc4 Qc7 or 7...Nb6 or 6...e6 7.f3 Bb4, when 8.e4 Bxe4 9.fxe4 Nxe4 is a complex piece
sacrifice with the possible continuation 10.Bd2 Qxd4 11.Nxe4 Qxe4+ 12.Qe2 Bxd2+ 13.Kxd2 Qd5+
14.Kc2 Na6.

Slav Defense
The Slav Defense is one of the most popular openings with GM’s. This is for two
reasons. The first is that it is one of the most solid lines to play against the Queens
Gambit and with the Queens Gambit being a regular opening at high level play, many
top players have become fans of this opening.
The Slav also allows for lots of different variations so those players that like to be
creative and don’t like to play the same variation every game will really enjoy the Slav
Defense because it offers just that.
In the second move black looks to defend his pawn on d5 with his c6 pawn. This is done
so that his pawn on the e file can stay as needed and not block the way of the light
square bishop.
In the main line of the Slav Defense white looks to dominate the center of the board and
black looks to control the b4 square and later make a push towards the c5 and e5
squares.

Akiba Rubinstein vs Alexander Alekhine

"Rubin It In" (game of the day Jun-30-2015)
Karlsbad (1911), rd 23, Sep-21
Slav Defense: Suchting Variation (D15) · 1-0

1.d4d52.Nf3Nf63.c4c64.Nc3Qb65.Qc2Bg46.Bg5Nbd77.e3Ne48.Bf4e69.Bd3Qa510.O-
ONxc311.bxc3Bxf312.gxf3dxc413.Bxc4Nb614.Qb3Rd815.Be2Bd616.Bg3Bxg317.hxg3
O-
O18.f4c519.Bf3Rd720.a4Nd521.Rfc1g622.Qb5Qxb523.axb5cxd424.cxd4b625.Rc4f526
.Rc6Kf727.Bxd5exd528.Rac1Rfd829.Kf1Ke730.Ke2Rd631.R6c3R6d732.Kd3Ra833.Rc
6Rd634.Ke2Rxc635.Rxc6Kd736.f3Re837.Kd3Re738.g4Re639.Rc1Re740.Rh1Ke641.R
c1Kd742.Re1Rf743.Ra1Kd644.Rc1Kd745.Rc6Rf846.Ke2Rf747.Kf2Rf848.Kg3Re849.R
c3Re750.Kh4h651.Kg3h552.Kh4Rh753.Kg5fxg454.fxg4hxg455.Kxg4Rh156.Kg5Rb157.
Ra3Rxb558.Rxa7+Kd659.Kxg6Rb360.f5Rxe361.f6Rg3+62.Kh7Rf363.f7Rf464.Kg7Rg4
+65.Kf6Rf4+66.Kg5Rf167.Kg6Rg1+68.Kf6Rf1+69.Kg7Rg1+70.Kf8Rd171.Ke8Re1+72.K
d8Rf173.Rd7+Kc674.Ke8Rf475.Re7Kb576.Rc71-0
David Janowski vs Jose Raul Capablanca
"The Left-Right Hook" (game of the day Feb-24-2006)
Rice Memorial (1916), New York, NY USA, rd 3, Feb-08
Slav Defense: Three Knights Variation (D15) · 0-1

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 d5 3. c4 c6 4. Nc3 Bf5 4...Bg4 would be a serious error. 5. Ne5 Bf5 6.
cxd5 cxd5 7. e4 refutes it outright. -- Marovic 5. Qb3 Qb6 6. Qb6 ab6 7. cd5 Nd5 8. Nd5
cd5 9. e3 Nc6 10. Bd2 Bd7 A deep and beautiful move. Black intends to exploit his
command of the a-file, and he conceives a deep strategic plan on the queenside
involving the advance of his doubled pawn. In order to carry this out, he needs his
bishop on d7. -- Marovic 11. Be2 This is bad. Capablanca suggested 11. Bb5, but 11.
Bd3 followed by Ke2 is also good. -- Marovic 11... e6 12. O-O Bd6 13. Rfc1 Ke7 14. Bc3
Rhc8 15. a3 Na5 16. Nd2 f5 17. g3 b5 18. f3 Nc4 19. Bc4 bc4 20. e4 Kf7 21. e5 Be7 22.
f4 b5 23. Kf2 Ra4 24. Ke3 Rca8 25. Rab1 h6 26. Nf3 g5 27. Ne1 Rg8 28. Kf3 gf4 29.
gf4 Raa8 30. Ng2 Rg4 31. Rg1 Rag8 32. Be1 b4 33. ab4 Ba4 34. Ra1 Bc2 35. Bg3 Be4
36. Kf2 h5 37. Ra7 Bg2 38. Rg2 h4 39. Bh4 Rg2 40. Kf3 Rh2 41. Be7 Rh3 42. Kf2 Rb3
43. Bg5 Kg6 44. Re7 Rb2 45. Kf3 Ra8 46. Re6 Kh7

Loek van Wely vs Veselin Topalov

Corus (2006), Wijk aan Zee NED, rd 4, Jan-17
Slav Defense: Chameleon Variation (D15) · 0-1

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 a6 5. a4 e6 6. Bg5 h6 7. Bh4 dc4 8. e3 b5 9. ab5

cb5 10. Bf6 gf6 11. Nb5 ab5 12. Ra8 Bb4 13. Ke2 Bb7 14. Ra1 f5 15. Ne5 Rg8 16. f4
Nc6 17. Nf3 Na5 18. Kf2 Nb3 19. Ra7 Be4 20. Ra2 e5 21. fe5 f4 22. Be2 fe3 23. Ke3
Qd5 24. g3 Nd4 25. Nd4 Bh1 26. Bf3 Qe5 27. Kf2 Bc5 28. Bh1 Bd4 29. Kf1 Rg5 30. Bf3
Kf8 31. Kg2 Qe3 32. Kh3 Kg7 33. b3 cb3 34. Ra3 b4 35. Rb3 Bc3 36. Qe2 Qc5 37. Qd3
Qc8 38. Kg2 Ra5 39. Qc2 Qe6 40. Qb1 Ra1 41. Qc2 Bd4 42. Bd1 Qe1 43. Bf3 Qf1#

Ruslan Ponomariov vs Wang Hao

"And Hao!" (game of the day Jan-12-2011)
World Chess Cup (2007), Khanty-Mansiysk RUS, rd 2, Nov-27
Slav Defense: Chameleon Variation (D15) · 0-1

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 a6 5. a4 e6 6. Bg5 a5 7. e3 Na6 8. Bd3 Nb4 9. e4

de4 10. Ne4 Be7 11. Nf6 gf6 12. Bh4 e5 13. O-O Be6 14. Re1 Qc7 15. Qb1 O-O-O 16.
Bf5 Bf5 17. Qf5 Qd7 18. Qb1 Rhg8 19. Bg3 ed4 20. Nd4 Bc5 21. Nb3 Ba7 22. c5 Nd3
23. Re3 Qd5 24. Qf1 Qb3 25. Rd1 Qd1 26. Qd1 Nb2 27. Qf1 Rd1 28. Re1 Re1 29. Qe1
Rd8 30. Bd6 Bc5 31. Bc5 Rd1 32. Qd1 Nd1 33. Bd4 b5 34. ab5 cb5 35. Kf1 b4 36. Ke2
Nc3 37. Kd3 f5 38. Bb6 a4 39. Bc5 Na2 40. Kc4 a3 41. Bd4 Kd7 42. Kb3 Nc1 43. Kb4
a2 44. Ba1 Nd3 45. Kb3 Nf2 46. Ka2 Ng4 47. Kb3 Ke6 48. Kc3 Nh2 49. Kd3 Ng4 50.
Bc3 Kd5 51. Ba5 Ne5 52. Ke2 f4 53. Bc7 Ke4 54. Kf2 h5 55. Bd6 Ng6 56. Bc7 Nf8 57.
Bd6 Ne6 58. Be7 Kf5 59. Kf3 Ng5 60. Kf2 Kg4 61. Bd8 Ne4 62. Kg1 f3 63. gf3 Kf3 64.
Kh2 Kg4 65. Bb6 f5 66. Bd4 h4 67. Bb6 Ng3 68. Bc5 f4 69. Kg2 Nf5 70. Bb4 Ne3 71.
Kh2 h3 72. Kg1 Kg3 73. Bd2 Kf3 74. Ba5 Ke2 75. Bc7 f3 76. Bg3 Nf5

Veselin Topalov vs Gata Kamsky

"Mtel Me Another One" (game of the day May-16-2006)
 MTel Masters (2006), Sofia BUL, rd 5, May-15
Slav Defense: Chameleon Variation. Advance System (D15) · 1-0

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 a6 5. c5 Nbd7 6. Bf4 Nh5 7. Bd2 Nhf6 8. Rc1 g6 9.

h3 Qc7 10. g3 Bg7 11. Bf4 Qd8 12. Bg2 Nh5 13. Bg5 h6 14. Bd2 O-O 15. e4 de4 16.
Ne4 Nhf6 17. Nc3 Re8 18. O-O Nf8 19. Qb3 Ne6 20. Be3 Nc7 21. Ne5 Nfd5 22. Nd5
Nd5 23. Bd2 Be5 24. de5 h5 25. Rfe1 Qc7 26. e6 Be6 27. Re6 fe6 28. Re1 Qd7 29.
Qd3 Kh7 30. Re5 Nf6 31. Qe3 Kg7 32. Be4 Kf7 33. Bc2 Rad8 34. Qh6 Rg8 35. Ba5
Qd4 36. Bc3 Qc4 37. Bb3 Qd3 38. Be6 Ke8 39. Kg2 Rf8 40. Qg7 Rd5 41. Bf5 Rf7 42.
Re7

Levon Aronian vs Valerij Popov

"Levon a Whim" (game of the day Jul-03-2011)
Aeroflot Open (2005), Moscow RUS, rd 4, Feb-18
Slav Defense: General (D15) · 1-0

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e3 a6 5. Nf3 b5 6. c5 g6 7. Qb3 a5 8. Ne5 Bg7 9. Nb5

cb5 10. Bb5 Kf8 11. O-O Ba6 12. a4 Ne4 13. Nd3 Bb7 14. f3 Nf6 15. Ne5 Qc7 16. Bd2
h5 17. c6 Bc8 18. e4 Qb6 19. Be3 Be6 20. Rac1 Na6 21. f4 Nc7 22. f5 gf5 23. ef5 Bc8
24. Rc5 Ba6 25. Bg5 Bc8 26. Kh1 Ne4 27. Be7 Ke7 28. Rd5 Nd5 29. Qd5 Ng5 30. Ng6
fg6 31. Re1 Be6 32. Re6 Kf8 33. Qd6 Kg8 34. Bc4 Kh7 35. Re7 gf5 36. Qf6 Rhg8 37.
Qg5

Queen's Gambit Declined Slav defence

D10 Sub-variants:

 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav defence

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6
 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav defence, Alekhine variation
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 dxc4 4. e4
 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav, Winawer counter-gambit
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 e5
 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav defence, exchange variation
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. cxd5

Possible continuations:
3. Nf3 44852 39.4 % 39 % 21.6 %

3. Nc3 27871 40.4 % 34.7 % 24.9 %

3. cxd5 9281 25.2 % 52.8 % 22.1 %

3. e3 4721 38 % 36.9 % 25.1 %

3. Bf4 169 38.5 % 24.3 % 37.3 %

3. g3 138 44.2 % 23.2 % 32.6 %

3. Qc2 95 37.9 % 34.7 % 27.4 %

15.2
3. c5 66 24.2 % 60.6 %
%

3. Nd2 51 31.4 % 29.4 % 39.2 %

3. b3 38 26.3 % 18.4 % 55.3 %

3. a4 32 34.4 % 25 % 40.6 %

3. Qb3 10 30 % 40 % 30 %

3. Bg5 4 25 % 75 %

3. e4 3 33.3 % 66.7 %

3. a3 3 33.3 % 66.7 %

3. h3 2 50 % 50 %

Alexey Shirov vs Sergei Rublevsky

Aerosvit (2007), Foros UKR, rd 1, Jun-18
Slav Defense: Czech. Wiesbaden Variation (D17) · 1-0

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 dc4 5. a4 Bf5 6. Ne5 e6 7. g3 Bb4 8. Bg2 Be4 9. f3

Bg6 10. O-O c5 11. Na2 Ba5 12. dc5 Qd5 13. Qd5 ed5 14. Nc3 Nc6 15. f4 Bc3 16. bc3
Be4 17. Bh3 O-O 18. a5 a6 19. Be3 Rfe8 20. Bd4 Re7 21. Ra2 Na7 22. Rb2 Nb5 23.
Ra1 Ne8 24. Rb5 ab5 25. c6 f5 26. g4 Ra6 27. Bc5 Rc7 28. cb7 Rb7 29. gf5 Nf6 30. Kf2
d4 31. Bd4 b4 32. cb4 Rb4 33. e3 Rb1 34. Rb1 Bb1 35. Nc4 Bd3 36. Ne5 Bb5 37. Bb6
Nd5 38. f6 Nb6 39. Be6 Kf8 40. fg7 Kg7 41. ab6 Rb6 42. Bd5 Ba4 43. e4 Bb3 44. Bc6
Be6 45. f5 Bc8 46. Kg3 Bb7 47. Bb7

Hikaru Nakamura vs Nicholas Pert

Gibraltar Masters (2005), Catalan Bay GIB, rd 10, Jan-03
Slav Defense: General (D15) · 1-0

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e3 a6 5. Nf3 b5 6. c5 Nbd7 7. Qb3 Rb8 8. Be2 e5 9. O-O

Be7 10. Ne1 O-O 11. Nd3 Qc7 12. f3 Re8 13. Bd2 Bd8 14. Qd1 a5 15. b4 e4 16. Ne1
ab4 17. Nb1 ef3 18. gf3 Nf8 19. Nc2 Nh5 20. Kh1 Ng3 21. hg3 Qg3 22. Rf2 Bc7 23.
Qg1 Qh3 24. Rh2 Bh2 25. Qh2 Qh2 26. Kh2 Re6 27. Nb4 Rh6 28. Kg1 Rg6 29. Kf2 Bh3
30. Bf1 Bf1 31. Kf1 Re8 32. Nc3 Rh6 33. Ke2 f5 34. Kd3 Ree6 35. a4 ba4 36. Ra4 Rh3
37. Ra6 Rf3 38. Rc6 g5 39. Ncd5 h5 40. Rc8 f4 41. c6 fe3 42. Be3 g4 43. c7 g3 44. Rd8
g2 45. c8Q Ree3 46. Ne3 g1Q 47. Qe6 Rf7 48. Nbc2
Levon Aronian vs Viswanathan Anand
"Levon For Good" (game of the day Jun-03-2008)
Linares - Morelia (2007), Morelia, Mexico, rd 5, Feb-22
Slav Defense: Modern Line (D23) · 1-0

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Qc2 dc4 5. Qc4 Bf5 6. g3 Nbd7 7. Nc3 e6 8. Bg2 Be7 9.
O-O O-O 10. Re1 Ne4 11. Qb3 Qb6 12. Nh4 Bh4 13. gh4 Nef6 14. e4 Bg6 15. Qb6 ab6
16. Bf4 Rfe8 17. Rad1 b5 18. Bd6 e5 19. d5 Nh5 20. Bf1 f6 21. b3 Nf4 22. a4 ba4 23.
ba4 Bf7 24. Rb1 Ra7 25. Red1 Rc8 26. Ne2 Ne2 27. Be2 cd5 28. ed5 Nf8 29. Bb5
Raa8 30. Be7 Ng6 31. d6 Ne7 32. Bd7 Nc6 33. Rb7 Nd4 34. Bc8 Rc8 35. Rdb1 Rf8 36.
Rb8 Be8 37. a5 Nf3 38. Kf1 Nd2 39. Ke1 Nb1 40. a6 Bc6 41. a7 Kf7 42. d7 Ke7 43. Rf8
Kd7 44. a8Q Ba8 45. Ra8 h5 46. Ra7 Ke6 47. Rg7 Kf5 48. Rg3

Loek van Wely vs Alexander Morozevich

Corus (2001), Wijk aan Zee NED, rd 3, Jan-16
Slav Defense: Alapin Variation (D16) · 0-1

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dc4 5. a4 c5 6. d5 Bf5 7. e3 e6 8. Bc4 ed5 9. Nd5

Nc6 10. Qb3 Qd7 11. Nf6 gf6 12. Bd2 Rg8 13. Bc3 O-O-O 14. Bf7 Rg2 15. Nh4 Ne5 16.
Nf5 Nd3 17. Kf1 Rf2 18. Kg1 Kb8 19. Qe6 Rf5 20. h4 Bd6 21. Rf1 Rg8

Vassily Ivanchuk vs Alexey Shirov

Tilburg (1993), Tilburg NED, rd 6
Slav Defense: Chameleon Variation (D15) · 1-0

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 a6 5. a4 e6 6. g3 Nbd7 7. Bg2 Bb4 8. O-O O-O 9.

Bf4 dc4 10. Qc2 c5 11. Na2 a5 12. Nb4 cb4 13. Qc4 b6 14. Rfc1 Ba6 15. Qc2 Rc8 16.
Qd1 Bb7 17. Rc8 Qc8 18. Rc1 Qa8 19. Ne1 Bg2 20. Ng2 Rc8 21. f3 h6 22. e4 Rc1 23.
Qc1 Qa6 24. Qc2 b3 25. Qb3 Qe2 26. h4 Nh5 27. Bd6 e5 28. de5 Ng3 29. e6 Qf1 30.
Kh2 Ne2 31. ef7 Kh7 32. Qe3 Qd1 33. f8N Nf8 34. Bf8 Nd4 35. Kg3 Qa4 36. Bd6 Qd1
37. Be5 Ne2 38. Kh2 Qf1 39. h5 a4 40. Qb6

Magnus Carlsen vs Wang Yue

"Wang and a Prayer" (game of the day Mar-10-2009)
Linares (2009), Linares ESP, rd 10, Mar-02
Slav Defense: General (D10) · 0-1

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e3 a6 5. Nf3 b5 6. b3 Bg4 7. Bd2 Nbd7 8. h3 Bf3 9. Qf3

b4 10. Na4 e5 11. Rc1 Bd6 12. cd5 cd5 13. de5 Ne5 14. Qd1 O-O 15. Be2 a5 16. Rc2
Qe7 17. Bc1 Rad8 18. Bb2 Ng6 19. O-O Ne4 20. Bd4 Nh4 21. Bd3 Nf5 22. Bb6 Rb8 23.
Be4 Qe4 24. Rd2 Rb6 25. Nb6 Qe5 26. Re1 Qh2 27. Kf1 Qh1 28. Ke2 Qg2 29. Rd5
Ng3 30. Kd3 Bc7 31. fg3 Bb6 32. Kc4 Rb8 33. Kb5 Bd4 34. Kc4 Bf6 35. Qd3 Qg3 36.
Rd1 Qc7 37. Rc5 Qb7 38. Qd6 Qe4 39. Rd4 Qc2 40. Kd5 Qg2 41. e4 Rd8 42. Qd8 Bd8
43. Rc8 g6 44. Rd8 Kg7 45. Rd3 Qc2 46. Kd4 a4 47. ba4 Qa2 48. Kc5 b3 49. Rb8 b2
50. Rdb3 Qa4 51. Rb2 Qe4 52. R8b3 Kh6 53. Rc3 f5 54. Rbb3 Qe5 55. Kc4 Kh5 56.
Kd3 Kh4 57. Kd2 f4 58. Rf3 g5 59. Rfd3 Qc5 60. Rbc3 Qf2 61. Kd1 Qf1 62. Kd2 Qg2
63. Kd1 Qe4 64. Kd2 h5
Alexander Grischuk vs Magnus Carlsen
World Rapid Championship (2016), Doha QAT, rd 9, Dec-27
Slav Defense: Soultanbeieff Variation (D16) · 0-1

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dc4 5. a4 e6 6. e3 c5 7. Bc4 cd4 8. ed4 Nc6 9. O-O

Be7 10. Qe2 O-O 11. Rd1 Nb4 12. Bg5 h6 13. Bd2 Bd7 14. Ne5 Rc8 15. Bb3 Bc6 16.
a5 a6 17. Qe3 Bd5 18. Nd5 Nbd5 19. Qf3 Rc7 20. Ra4 Bd6 21. h4 Qe7 22. Re1 Rfc8
23. g3 Qe8 24. Ra2 Bb4 25. Bb4 Nb4 26. Raa1 Nfd5 27. Rad1 Qd8 28. Kg2 Nc6 29.
Nc6 Rc6 30. Bd5 ed5 31. Re5 Qa5 32. Rd5 Qb4 33. Rf5 R6c7 34. d5 Qb2 35. h5 Qb4
36. d6 Rd7 37. Rd3 b5 38. Rfd5 Qc4 39. Re3 Qc6 40. Re7 Rf8 41. Rd7 Qd7 42. Qd3
Rb8 43. Rc5 Rd8 44. Rd5 Qc6 45. Kh2 Rd7 46. Qd4 b4 47. Qe5 Qc8 48. Qb2 Qb8 49.
Qd2 b3 50. Qb2 a5 51. Ra5 Rd6 52. Qe5 Rb6 53. Qb2 Qb7 54. Re5 Re6 55. Re6 fe6
56. Qe5 Qd5 57. Qb8 Kh7 58. Qe8 Qf5

Vassily Ivanchuk vs Magnus Carlsen

World Rapid Championship (2016), Doha QAT, rd 7, Dec-26
Slav Defense: Modern Line (D11) · 1-0

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Qc2 e6 5. Nbd2 dc4 6. Nc4 c5 7. dc5 Bc5 8. a3 O-O 9.

b4 Be7 10. Bb2 Qc7 11. Rc1 Nbd7 12. e4 b5 13. Na5 Qc2 14. Rc2 Ne4 15. Bb5 Nd6
16. Bc6 Rb8 17. O-O Nb6 18. Rd1 Rd8 19. Ne5 f6 20. Bf3 fe5 21. Nc6 Bb7 22. Ne7 Kf8
23. Be5 Nbc4 24. Bd6 Nd6 25. Nc6 Bc6 26. Rc6 Nb5 27. Rd8 Rd8 28. Ra6 Rc8 29. h4
Rc7 30. Bg4 e5 31. Ra5 Nd6 32. Re5 Nc4 33. Rf5 Ke7 34. Rf3 Ne5 35. Re3 Kd6 36.
Be2 h6 37. f4 Rc1 38. Kf2 Nd7 39. Bf3 Rc2 40. Kg3 Ra2 41. Rd3 Ke7 42. Rc3 Kd8 43.
Kg4 Rd2 44. Rc6 Rd3 45. Ra6 Nf6 46. Kf5 Rd7 47. g4 Ne8 48. g5 hg5 49. hg5 Nd6 50.
Kg6 Nb5 51. Ra5 Nd4 52. Bg4

Alexander Riazantsev vs Magnus Carlsen

World Blitz Championship (2016), Doha QAT, rd 9, Dec-29
Slav Defense: General (D10) · 0-1

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e3 a6 5. Nf3 Bf5 6. Qb3 Ra7 7. Nh4 Bc8 8. a4 e6 9. a5

c5 10. Nf3 Nc6 11. cd5 ed5 12. Qb6 Ra8 13. dc5 Qb6 14. cb6 Bb4 15. Bd2 Ba5 16. Na4
Bd2 17. Nd2 d4 18. Nc4 Ke7 19. Be2 Rd8 20. O-O Be6 21. b3 de3 22. fe3 Rab8 23.
Nc5 Rd5 24. Ne6 fe6 25. Bf3 Rc5 26. Rfd1 Nd5 27. Rac1 Rd8 28. Kf2 Rb5 29. Rd3
Ncb4 30. Rd2 Nc6 31. Rd3 Rd7 32. Rcd1 Nb6 33. Bc6 Rd3 34. Rd3 bc6 35. Nb6 Rb6
36. Ke2 Rb5 37. Rc3 Kd6 38. Kf3 a5 39. Ke4 Rb4 40. Kd3 c5 41. Kc2 Kc6 42. Rd3 c4
43. bc4 Rc4 44. Kb3 Rb4 45. Kc3 Rb8 46. Rd4 Rb5 47. Rg4 g5 48. h4 h6 49. hg5 hg5
50. Rd4 Rc5 51. Kb3 Re5 52. e4 Rb5 53. Kc3 Rb4 54. Rb4 ab4 55. Kb4 Kd6 56. Kc4
Ke5 57. Kd3 Kf4 58. Kd4 g4 59. e5 Kg3 60. Kc5 Kg2 61. Kd6 Kf3 62. Ke6 g3 63. Kf7 g2
64. e6 g1Q 65. e7 Qa7

The Slav Defense (Semi Slav)

solid Chess Opening for Black against 1.d4

The Slav Defense is a good and solid chess opening for Black. If you like it
then study it and use it in the future to gain experience in this opening.
The Slav was played by the world champions Euwe, Botvinnik and Smyslov
and played by the top grandmasters Anand, Kramnik, Ivanchuk, Lautier and
Short.

The theory of the Slav has grown and became quite extensive.

It starts with the moves:

1. d2-d4 d7-d5
2. c2-c4 c7-c6

It is classified as closed opening. In the Slav Defense Black keeps the

diagonal c8-h3 open to be able to develop the bishop on c8 to f5 or g4 which
would otherwise be locked in, if you play 2...e6 instead of 2...c6. Black
prepares to take the c-pawn (dxc) and protect it with b5, but this will not
happen in the popular setup below, as White prevents b5 playing a4. This
stops b5.

There is also the so-called Semi-Slav Defense, that is a variation of the

Queen's Gambit chess opening. It is reached after the moves:

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 c6

In the Semi-Slav above the bishop at c8 will be locked in for some time as
Black has played e6. He does not bring the bishop out to f5 as in the Open
Slav where Black gets his queenside bishop out quickly to avoid that it is
locked in after playing e6.

At the World Chess Championship 2012 Anand defended game 2 with the
Semi-Slav.

Please note that there is also the The Exchange Variation

3. c4xd5 c6xd5

If White exchanges the pawns right away (3.cxd) then he has given away his
opening advantage. The position is even. For that reason the exchange
variation is seldom played in grandmaster chess.
Aronian, L. - Anand, V. 0-1

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Bd3 dc4 7. Bc4 b5 8. Bd3

Bd6 9. O-O O-O 10. Qc2 Bb7 11. a3 Rc8 12. Ng5 c5 13. Nh7 Ng4 14. f4 cd4
15. ed4 Bc5 16. Be2 Nde5 17. Bg4 Bd4 18. Kh1 Ng4 19. Nf8 f5 20. Ng6 Qf6
21. h3 Qg6 22. Qe2 Qh5 23. Qd3 Be3

Slav Defense
In the Slav Defense Black does not close the diagonal c8-h3 with e7-e6 and
this makes it possible to develop the bishop at c8 to f5 or g4 before e7-e6 is
played. Black also prepares to capture the c4-pawn playing d5xc4 and then is
able to hold on to his c4-pawn and protect it playing b5 afterwards.
If Black captures the white c-pawn with d5xc4 then he gives up pawn
influence in the center but he tries to compensate for this generating active
piece play.
If the queenside bishop moves out to f5 or g4 the queenside pawn b7
becomes weak and can be attacked with Qb3.
If Black plays e6 and closes in his queenside bishop then this is called the
Semi-Slav. In this case you have to develop your bishop c8 to b7 playing first
b5 to make available the square b7.

1. d4 d5 2.c4 c6

Slav Accepted - Main Line 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3dxc 5.a4 Bg4
(don't play 4...Bf5? (but 4...dxc) because Slav Steiner Variation
White will gain the advantage with either Black plays his bishop to g4 instead of the
5.Qb3 or 5.cxd5 followed by 6.Qb3) usual Bf5
Alapin Variation
5.a4 Bf5
White plays 5.a4 to stop b5 which would
protect the c-pawn.

1. d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc 5.e3 1. d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 a6
Alekhine Variation Chebanenko Slav
Black can protect his c-pawn now. 5...b5 Best move for White here is 5.c5 which
6.a4 b4 7.Na2 and White gets his pawn gives space advantage. Later Pawn breaks
back as two black pawns (b and c pawn) for Black are b6 and e5.
are hanging.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3
dxc5.e4 b5 Slav Declined
Slav Gambit White protects his c-pawn playing e3 and
White tries to go ahead without bothering avoids the Slav Accepted. As Black gets
to regain his pawn playing a4 first to his bishop out without problems this line
prevent b5. He rather wants to get active in does not pose serious problems for Black.
the center. This gambit is unclear and
seldom played in top level chess.

1. d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.cxd
Exchange Variation
Not much gain can be expected here as you trade pawns early and this frees
up the natural square c6 for the black knight where it will go later.

Semi-Slav
The systems below belong to the Semi-Slav because Black pushed the e-
pawn to e6 and locked in his queenside bishop.
I like these chess openings and recommend them for Black. Study them and
try them out yourself.

If White plays 5.Bg5 the following systems can

arise
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 e6 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 e6
5.Bg5 dxc 5.Bg5 Nbd7 6.e3 Qa5
Botvinnik System Cambridge Springs Defense
This system is extremely complicated with This opening is fairly easy to learn for
lots of theory. Black captures a pawn by beginners, I suggest you start with this
5...dxc4 and defends it with 6 e4 b5. For opening when you need a defense for
that White gets control in the center. In the Black against 1.d4.
end after 7 e5 h6 8 Bh4 g5 9 Nxg5 hxg5
10 Bxg5 Nbd7 Black is a pawn down but
has great dynamic compensation.

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 e6 5.Bg5 h6

The Moscow Variation below is very solid for Black as he has the bishop
pair, which gives him long-term chances. But Black runs behind in
development and should not open up the position too early.
If White plays 5.e3 (instead of 5.Bg5) you enter the Meran
variation

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 e6 5.e3 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 e6 5.e3
Nbd7 6.Bd3 dxc4 7.Bxc b5 Nbd7 6.Qc2
Meran Variation Anti-Meran Variation (6 Qc2)
This system is solid for Black but requires
good positional play. Black captures the c-
pawn by 6...dxc4 as soon as the white
bishop goes to d3. This wins a tempi
(time) as the bishop must move again to
recapture the c-pawn. After this Black
pushes the b-pawn winning time again
attacking the bishop. This is done to
develop the queenside bishop to b7.

Slav or Semi-Slav?
I've been discussing a choice of defence to 1.d4; defending classically with 1...d5 can't
be bad, but what to play after 2.c4?

The Slav (2...c6, ECO D10-D19) and Semi-Slav (...c6 with ...e6, D43-D49) have a
reputation for being solid, although the main lines of these systems are as sharp and
bookish as any defence. We've seen several lines contested in World Championship
matches between Alekhin and Bogolyubow and Euwe; other lines have been examined
in Kramnik's matches (against Leko, Topalov and Anand) in recent years and, as you
might imagine, the approaches have got quite sharp and sophisticated.

You can avoid all this lofty sophistication and go for solidity, but, as usual in chess, if
Black declines to confront White in a theoretical line, Black must accept less than full
dynamic equality. There is no easy route to equality in chess; if there were, no-one
would play the game!

1 The ideas behind the Slav defence

1.1 Winning with the Slav

Both Slav/Semi-Slav: Grab the c-pawn
A rodeo variation... Grab something and try and hold on!

 Reefschlaeger H. - Huebner R. [D15]

Take the c-pawn...
...and, while White is recovering the material, get developed, maybe hit back with either
...c5 or ...e5.
This is a very important theme. Black can often park their pieces on natural squares in
the Slav and think themselves solid, but White's centre can roll over the Black
position. So Black has to do something about White's centre. If you consider the pawn
formation after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6, White can expand in the centre with e4. Black can
deter or defuse this advance by making their own assault on the centre with ...e5 or
...c5. However, ...e5 played now allows White to isolate the d-Pawn after 4.cxd5 cxd5
5.dxe5; a similar possibility exists after ...e6 and ...c5. So, first Black plays ....dxc4
(Czech and Meran Variations), then hits back with ...e5. This is a delicate operation,
since it leaves White with a dangerous central majority for a move or ten, so you will
need to restrain White's pawns in the manner of the hypermoderns.

 Alekhin A - Euwe M [D17]

Here's the other counterblow in a game where Black was happy, even a move behind:
 Leko P. - Kramnik V. [D16]
[Not a bad surprise weapon, although probably a poor first choice for a defensive
system. Svidler, Kramnik's second, got a couple of black eyes pushing his luck with it.]

Slav: early development of the Bc8

This is the main selling point of the pure Slav; we will solve the problem of where to
place this wretched piece by developing it first, and then every other piece will fall into
place (Nbd7 and Bd6 or Bb4). A common post is f5, restraining the e-pawn which is
liberated by ...dxc4, or g4, pinning the Nf3.

1.2 Losing with the Slav (ideas for White):

[Gambit the c-pawn]
The brighter side of Black being tempted to grab it. It was quite in Kasparov's early
style to sacrifice a pawn for the initiative:

 Kasparov G. - Petursson M. [D44]

Current theory suggests this is better for Black, but at club level, the initiative is a more
powerful weapon than "=+".

Take over the centre

If Black is so good as to relinquish their stake in the centre, let White rejoice!

 Alekhin A - Bogoljubow E [D16]

 Polugaevsky L. - Navarro [D48]
Harass the Black Queen's Bishop
Similarly, if Black is so insistent on getting out the Bc8, then White can see it coming
and work to take advantage of what may be a premature decision.

 Topalov V. - Kramnik V. [D12]

Semi-Slav: Gambit the d-pawn
Black has an option of delaying the development of the Ng8, and setting up a little
triangle of pawns after 1...d5 followed by, in one order or another, 2...c6 and
3...e6. This is a particularly handy move-order for Black if you think White might play an
Exchange Variation, and essential if you want to play the Abrahams-Noteboom
Variation. However, if White wishes to encourage Black to play ...Nf6 (hoping perhaps
to avoid the Noteboom) then 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 e6 can be followed with 4.e4!? Now
4...dxe4 5.Nxe4 will lead to a simple White plus unless Black grasps the nettle with
5...Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Qxd4 7.Bxb4 Qxe4. Instead Black can dodge with 4...Bb4 5.e5 c5 (an
old idea which I think is still holding up well enough, but maybe White will get on Black's
case before long).

 Wood B. - Alexander C. [D31]

2 The Variations

2.1 The Big Four

The four big sharp main lines, all still in use at the top level, are:
Slav: Czech System (Krause Attack)
White tries to swamp the centre, Black may have to sacrifice to hold the balance.
 Kramnik V. - Lautier J. [D17]
Even if White plays less sharply, it's by no means a calm game: take a look at this one!
 Kramnik V. - Morozevich A. [D17]
Someone commented 'perhaps only Kramnik understands these positions', but when
asked the question about what is best for Black in 2006, he demurred:
 Topalov V. - Kramnik V. [D17]
Semi-Slav: Noteboom Variation
In the Abrahams-Noteboom Variation, Black all but abandons the centre in favour of
trying to score a try on the wing.

 Neverov V. - Kramnik V. [D31]

Semi-Slav: Meran Variation

A finely poised battle between central occupation and counterplay. After the natural
6.Bd3 dxc4 7.Bxc4 b5 8.Bd3 a6 (Black can try instead 8...b4 or the uncommital 8...Bb7;
there is also 8...Qc7) 9.e4 c5 White can play Reynold's 10.d5 or 10.e5 cxd4 11.Nxb5...

 Kramnik V. - Topalov V. [D47]

I have seen top SW County players play all these lines (I've played one or two myself), but they
can all draw you into a theoretical arms race where only the publishers win... These variations
have been around for a long while, I don't suppose they're likely to be refuted, but it seems the
exact dance steps you need to stay upright change very often in some of these lines, even
monthly. So, rather than face the Botvinnik line, Black invented the Moscow Variation with
5...h6 (6.Bxf6), but now the Anti-Moscow (6.Bh4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.Bg3 b5 9.Be2 Bb7 9.h4!) is
accreting layers of theory faster than a black hole in a galaxy centre...

 Anand V. - Kramnik V. [D43]

2.2 Quieter play for White
Eschewing the arms race of theory, White has many quieter options, which a club player might
prefer:

Slav: Czech system, Dutch Variation

White defers the attempt to take over the centre with e4 until development is complete. I say
'quieter', but White can push the accelerator if they wish... Nunn's Chess Openings [NCO] says
that after 6.e3 e6 7.Bxc4 Bb4 8.O-O Nbd7 (discouraging Ne5), White can force a draw in some
lines after 9.Qb3, so, if that's an issue, then play 8...O-O to keep the three possible results
alive.

 Topalov V. - Kramnik V. [D19]

Slav: Slow Variation

I used to think of this as an unconvincing attempt by White to keep some play going in the
Colle (1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 Bf5! 4.c4 c6); I'm tempted to name it the Colloid, in recognition of
its gooey nature.... Now it turns out to be cutting-edge World Championship theory. The
continued interest by GMs in teasing out the subtleties of this line is lost on me, but let us put it
down to the inexhaustible richness of the chessboard rather than a collective exercise in
stodginess. I guess while Black is solid, White is very flexible and has the two Bishops; Black
must wait for White to reveal their plan. Topalov stung Kramnik with an innovation in the
middle of their 2006 match but neither side chose to repeat the line with either colour later in
the match (Kramnik choosing the old 8.g3 and Topalov 8.Rb1: most cagey...). 4...Bf5 is natural
but 4...Bg4 is OK and even 4...g6 is playable, although not a formation Slav players will be very
familiar with.

 Topalov V. - Kramnik V. [D12]

Semi-Slav: Anti-Meran Stodge

White secures the centre but puts less pressure on Black.

 Kramnik V. - Topalov V. [D45]

White can be even more dull with 4.e3 e6 5.Nbd2, after which you can try 5...c5!?, hoping to
sharpen the play. As usual, it's hard for Black to insist on active play if White wants a quiet
game.

Having libelled this variation as 'stodge', I must mention that Shabalov came up with 7.g4!?,
now known as the Latvian Bayonet after Shirov got hold of it. Here's an influential game:

 Shirov A. - Fressinet L. [D45]

Since then, Shirov has been obliged to defend against his own weapon:

 Radjabov T. - Shirov A. [D45]

It seems that, as White is likely to castle Queen's-side, 7...Bb4 8.Bd2 c5! is also an effective
antidote.
White has one last 'slow' option that is often seen as unspeakably dull:

Slav: Exchange Variation

Well there are still 30 bits on the board, you can still try and make something happen...

 Kramnik V. - Anand V. [D14]

These days there are some delicate negotiations about exactly when to exchange and whether Black
can tease White by reserving options for the Bc8 with ...a6:

 Mozetic D. - Shirov A. [D10]

One example of the move order subtleties being negotiated is that after 3.cxd5 cxd5 4.Nc3,
Black can play an improved version of the Winawer Counter-Gambit with 4...e5! [NCO]. So,
White might prefer to play 3.Nc3 or 3.Nf3 before exchanging (but 3.Nc3 allows not just 3...e5?!
but 3...dxc4!?). Players of the Semi-Slav at least have the opportunity of recapturing with the
e-pawn, which offers more unbalanced play. Vigus says Black can chase the Bf4 with ...Nh5, an
idea played by Botvinnik and Basman...

Semi-Slav: Botvinnik's Anti-Meran Gambit

Even among GM theory, this is regarded as a poisonously complicated line, bewilderingly
unbalanced.

 Ponomariov R. - Shirov A. [D44]

All exhilarating stuff, but not for the faint-hearted and not to be undertaken lightly (i.e. only
with a big book and a bigger database and preferably a team of seconds and perhaps a
computer in the toilet).

2.3 Unconfrontational play by Black

Black can also avoid the sharpest lines. For example, rather than face Botvinnik's Anti-Meran
Gambit, Black can dodge with 5...h6 (Moscow Variation) or slide out into the Queen's Gambit
Declined by 5...Nbd7, when, after 6.e3, 6...Qa5 is a Cambridge Springs and 6...Be7 is a true
Orthodox.

Slav: Alternatives in the main line

James Vigus has built a repertoire book around the soild Sokolov Variation: 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3.
Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. a4 Bf5 6. Ne5 Nbd7 7. Nxc4 Nb6 (rather than 7...Qc7), and that's got
to be worth a look.

There are other alternatives which are surely playable but perhaps not so dynamic. I used be
be a believer in the Bronstein (Steiner) variation with 5...Bg4; 6.e3 looks a bit limp, but after
6.e4 e5!? or 6...e6 and 7...Bb4 Black gets good play, and after 6.Ne5 Bh5 7.e3 or 7.g3 or 7.h3
Black can equalise. This variation was recommended a long while ago in a repertoire book by
Andy Soltis, and I've had a sort of avuncular interest in it over the years, but when I caught up
with recent developments(*) it started to feel like too much of a struggle: too much theory for
too little play. NCO gives 5 rows for this variation, and lots of notes, the bottom line is +=... But
you can always walk into a +=, it depends if you fancy it! Nikolic, Flear, Conquest and Vigus
have all dabbled in it over the years.

 Schmidt W. - Stempin P. [D16]

 Piket J. - Romanishin O. [D16]

(*) The current recommendation for White is to sharpen the game more, with 6.Ne5 Bh5 7.f3,
after which there are complications and promising conclusions for White. 7...Nfd7!? has the
bright idea of 8.Nxc4 e5! (9.dxe5? Qh4+) but even if, after 9.Ne4 Bb4+ 10.Bd2 Qe7 11.Bxb4
Qxb4+ 12.Qd2 Qxd2+ 13.Kxd2 exd4 14.Ned6+ Ke7 15.Nf5, Black can hold with 15...Kd8, Sadler
still reckons White has promising play after 9.g3, 9.Be3 and the bonkers 9.e4.

Cox suggests 9.g3 f6 10.dxe5 Nxe5 11.Qxd8 gives a small advantage, while 9.g3 Bb4 10.dxe5 O-
O 11.Nh3 Qe7 12.f4!? (12.Bf4!?) is still up for grabs.

So perhaps Black should play the less common 7...e6 and hope either that White doesn't have
the bottle for 8.g4, or that it's no worse a position to be in than many in the Slav. White's score
from games at www.chesslive.de was pretty impressive, but GM Illescas managed to drop a
game against it. Cox reports the critical line is 8.g4 Nd5 9.e4 Qh4+ 10.Ke2 Nxc3+ 11.bxc3 Bxg6
which Burgess gives as unclear but Cox thinks is better for White. Presumably people have
pondered this over the years but the ChessBase site turned up exactly one Black win in that
line, a correspondence encounter which continued instead 11...f6!? Alternatively 8...Nfd7 was
the line that Illescas lost to... Over to you!

 Tennant S. - Jacobs R. [D16]

 Illescas Cordoba M. - Imanaliev T. [D16]

There are other choices here; 5...Na6 is a typically flexible try by Smyslov (with just one row of
NCO) which has been played by other independent spirits like Ivanchuk and Nikolic and
parochially Conquest, Speelman and Short (who beat Kramnik with it). One point is 6.Ne5
Ng4! 7.Nxc4 e5!, so White normally submits to the ...Bg4 pin with 6.e3 or the more
characteristic 6.e4; after 6.e4 Bg4 7.Bxc4 Black can now or later double the f-pawns by 7...Bxf3,
another theme typical of the variation.

 Kramnik V. - Ivanchuk V. [D16]

 Atalik S. - Nikolic P. [D16]

I've been watching local players get away with 5...a5 for years: it's theoretically += but who
knows the theory? [6.e4 Bg4 7.Bxc4 e6 8.0-0 Bb4 9.Re1 Bxf3 10.gxf3 Nbd7 11.f4 0-0 12.Qf3+=
(Sosonko)]. Bogolyubov's 5...e6 is also probably 'playable' but concedes the main advantage of
the Slav move order, namely, developing the Bc8.

 Wheeler J. F. - Menadue J. F. S. [D16]

Semi-Slav: Alternatives to the Meran
Against the Tchigorin Variation with 6...Bd6, White often gets a space advantage which Black
can patiently wrestle down. As far as I understand it, White is currently recommended to play
7.e4 immediately, as 7.O-O O-O 8.e4 allows the familar counter-blow ...dxc4 and ...e5; with the
Black King uncastled, this is riskier.

 Polgar Z. - Donaldson J. [D46]

I wrote about the Tchigorin and Romih (6...Bb4) in a booklet many years ago. In these lines,
you can write all the theory you need to know on the back of a postage stamp. Maybe they're
short of full equality, but you can end up += in the main lines, too! Perhaps a worse drawback is
that you get less dynamic play. The idea of the Romih is to deter e3-e4 and perhaps later
return to the b8-h2 diagonal to support ...e5.

Slav: Chebanenko Variation

The latest fashion in the Slav is the Chebanenko (Chamaeleon) variation with an early 4...a6,
which is essentially a way of deferring a decision about any of those ideas and tempting White
to make some sort of commitment first. I haven't attempted to tackle any of this theory, but
there are some recent books on it.

 Gurevich D. - Hodgson J. [D15]

Early ...a6s have been popping up all over the place, in fact. Here's a line popular in the 1930s
which has had renewed interest:

 Krainski A. - Popov V. [D46]

3 Playing Slav-style against hypermodern openings.

The main hypermodern systems are the Catalan, English and Réti openings.

Grabbing the c-pawn

The Closed Catalan with ...c6 concedes space and initiative to White, but grabbing the c-pawn
can be the usual rodeo ride.

 Butnorius A. - Pushkov N. [E06]

 Dzindzihashvili R. - Bagirov V. [A11]

Compare also:

 Lengyel - Karpov A. [E04]

...b5 against the Catalan.

Playing Semi-Slav with both ...c6 and ...e6 looks rather too modest against hypermodern
systems; not exactly bad, but White can set up their position just as they wish then work out
where to punch you. There is a line with ...c6 and ...b5 which is easy enough to understand and
might be worth a try:

 Petrosian A. - Bischoff K. [E08]

Slav-style against the Réti with b3
The systems with ...c6, ...d5, ...Nf6 and either ...Bf5 or ...Bg4 are well-respected tries against
the Réti, with a long history:

 Reti R. - Capablanca J. [A12]

 Reti R. - Lasker E. [A12]

Slav-style against the English and Réti without b3

The lines with an early development of the Bishop can run into trouble if White declines to
defend the c-pawn and instead harasses the Bishop which has been developed to f5 or g4; the
tempi saved by omitting b3 and d4 mean that White's initiative is more difficult to contain.

 Romanishin O. - Suba M. [A11]

 Portisch L. - Smyslov V. [A07]

N.B. If White starts with 1.c4, you cannot guarantee to play a Slav system, because if
1...c6, perhaps 2.e4. If Black goes ahead with 2...d5, the game can transpose into the
Panov-Botvinnik Attack in the Caro-Kann 3.exd5 cxd5 4.d4, or into a related variation
with 4.cxd5. Neither are bad for Black, but these are sharp lines which may be outside
your repertoire. If so, you may prefer to slide into a version of the Old Indian with 2...e5.

4 The Slav in club play

Club theory:
Many of us have a repertoire book on which we base our opening choices, so it would be worth
checking out these lines too; working from the present to the past:

John Cox (2006) recommends playing proper grown-up chess against everything, so that
means meeting the Slav with the Modern Ne5 and finding something against Morozevich's
fabulous 11...g5. He then goes on to recommend the Botvinnik Anti-Meran Gambit and the
Marshall Gambit. [I honestly don't know how suitable these lines are for people 'starting out'; if
your opponents allow you to enter such lines they may know enough to duff you up without
ever playing a move of their own.]

Richard Palliser (2003) has recommended the Slow Slav with 4.e3 (against which I like to play
4...Bf5 while Vigus suggests 4...Bg4). Palliser also honestly gives what may be an equalising
line against his variation: Palliser,R (2455) - Houska,J (2386) [D12]
4NCL Telford ENG (4), 19.01.2003 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 Bf5 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Qb3 Qc7
7.Bd2 e6 8.Bb5+ Nbd7 (8...Nfd7!? DR) 9.0-0 a6 10.Bxd7+ Nxd7 11.Ne5 and now 11...Bc2
12.Qc3 Rc8

Angus Dunnington (2001) recommended the QGD Exchange Variation against the Semi-Slav
while against the Slav itself chose the anti-theoretical 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 -- not
critical, but of course very playable.

Ray Keene and Byron Jacobs (1995) also recommended the QGD Exchange but also chose the
Exchange against the Slav.
Like Cox, Graham Burgess and Steffen Pedersen, recommend, in their thorough 1994
repertoire book, rather grown-up main lines across the board: 6.Ne5 against the Slav and the
Marshall Gambit against the Semi-Slav, balking at the Botvinnik Anti-Meran but finding a
promising early diversion (7.a4).

Glenn Flear suggested 5.Qb3 for White in 1988; I think 5...dxc4 6.Qxc4 b5 7.Qb3 Nbd7! is the
recipe for Black.

So, be prepared for any of these... depending on when the most recent date that your
opponent's visit to a chess bookstall coincided with a rush of blood to the head.

Club practice:
I have a database of local games (see www.chessdevon.co.uk) and wondered what ordinary
players adopted. So, of 409 local games (with every standard of player from Minor to GMs),
we had 270 Slavs and 112 Semis. White scores an absolutely average 55% against both
defences (I believe White does a little better than this at GM level).

In the Slav, the single largest group was D10, a grab-bag of non-standard systems, followed by
D13 (standard exchanges) and D15 (non-standard Czechs). In the Semi, the leading system was
D45 (non-standard Semis). I think the only conclusion we can draw is "so much for theory...":
our opponents are so busy fighting shy of whatever theory they think we know, that our
inadequacies are unlikely to be exposed. Just eight brave players negotiated with their
opponents to play 4 examples of the very main line of the Meran.

5 Heroes of the Slav

Capablanca played the Slav throughout his career, I think losing just one game. [Avoiding loss
doesn't quite have the 'heroic' stamp about it, but is something many of us would settle for.]
Contemporary supporters include Shirov, Anand and Kramnik of course, but if their
stratospheric displays are more daunting than inspiring, it may be that we need to look
elsewhere for a model to follow. Glenn Flear has played the Slav all his career, I think, and so
his games and comments are always worth looking at. Gurevich is a hero of the Semi-Slav,
happy to play the sharpest lines of the Meran and Botvinnik.

 Ragozin V. - Capablanca J. [D19]

 Stapfer J. - Capablanca J. [D45]
 Johner P. - Capablanca J. [D46]
 Saemisch F. - Capablanca J. [D46]
6 Slav variations
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 (or ...e6 first, depending on how you feel about various versions of the
Exchange)

Black's key choices are highlighted in orange.

7 So, Slav, or Semi-Slav?

 If you prefer the main QGD Exchange to the Slav Exchange, or your previous defence was the
QGD Orthodox, that's a clear push for the Semi-Slav.
 If you can't bear to have a blocked Bc8, then play the Slav.
 If you play the Caro-Kann or the Scandinavian with 2...Qxd5, then play the Slav; the French fits
with the Semi-Slav.
  If you play a lot of Colles, then the Semi is a natural partner.
 If you're happy attacking a big centre, try the Slav; the Semi-Slav seems to me to concede less
ground.

8. Bibliography
As befits a player of my mature standing, all my books on the Slav are ancient and out of date
(Harding, Flear, Silman & Donaldson...). The Slav is pretty popular these days, and so are
opening books, so I won't recommend any of the books I actually own... Our younger readers
might even prefer something databasey. Depending on what depth of coverage you're after:

Semi-Slav Defense
The Semi-Slav Defense is a variation of the Queen's Gambit chess opening defined by
the position reached after the moves:
1. d4 d5
2. c4 c6
3. Nf3 Nf6
4. Nc3 e6
The position may readily be reached by a number of different move orders. With Black
advancing pawns to both e6 and c6, the opening resembles a mixture of the
Orthodox Queen's Gambit Declined (QGD) and the Slav Defense.
Black is threatening to capture the white pawn on c4, and hold it with b7–b5. White can
avoid this in a number of ways. About 80% of games continue 5.Bg5 or 5.e3: the former
constitutes a sharp pawn sacrifice, while the latter restricts the dark-
squared bishop from its natural development to g5. Other possible moves
are 5.Qb3, 5.g3 and 5.cxd5, the last of which, after 5...exd5, leads to a line of the QGD
Exchange Variation where White's early Nf3 enables Black's queen bishop to freely
develop, which should give equality (ECO codes D43 and D45).

5.e3
The main line continues with 5...Nbd7. The bishop moves 5...Bd6 and 5...Be7 are
seldom seen, as masters realized early on that at e7, the bishop was passively placed
and does nothing to further one of Black's aims, the freeing move ...e5. The unusual
move 5...a6 is considered solid for Black. Some sources call 5...a6 the "accelerated
Meran".[1]
Meran Variation: 6.Bd3 [edit]
The main variation of the Semi-Slav is the Meran Variation, 6... dxc4 7. Bxc4
b5 (ECO codes D46 to D49), when play usually continues with 8.Bd3, with 8.Be2 and
8.Bb3 less common alternatives. The line was first played in 1906 in the game
Schlechter–Perlis.[2] The variation takes its name from the town of Meran (Merano) in
northern Italy. During a 1924 tournament in Meran, it was used successfully in the
game Gruenfeld–Rubinstein. Gruenfeld adopted the same variation two rounds later
against Spielmann, winning as well.[3] Viswanathan Anand won two games with Black in
his World Chess Championship 2008 match with Vladimir Kramnik. Black surrenders
his outpost on d5, gaining a tempo forqueenside space expansion by b7–b5. White will
play in the center, leading to a rich, complicated game. These opposing strategies, with
the ensuing keen play, have long made the Meran a favorite for enterprising players of
either color. An example is Gligoric v Ljubojevic, Belgrade, 1979.[4]
After the move 8.Bd3, Black usually plays 8...a6. Bent Larsen introduced the move
8...Bb7, which has been dubbed the "improved Meran".[5] According to one source, the
move was first played in 1923, but since it was developed by Larsen, it carries his
name. Black can also play 8...Bd6, which is the move Anand played in his victory
over Levon Aronian in the Tata Steel Chess Tournament 2013.[6]
Though appearing in contemporary master play with less frequency than the Meran,
there are other possibilities: 6...Be7, 6...Bb4, introduced by the Italian master Max
Romih, and 6...Bd6, which was much the most popular line before the debut of the
Meran, and espoused by the American grandmaster Arthur Bisguier throughout his
career.
6...Bd6 and now 7. 0-0 0-0 8. e4 dxe4 9. Nxe4 Nxe4 10. Bxe4 is the most common
line. There are now several alternatives for Black, with one a clear error, as it loses a
pawn:10... e5 11. dxe5 Nxe5 12. Nxe5 Bxe5 13. Bxh7+ Kxh7 14. Qh5+ Kg8 15. Qxe5.
This line, however, has a strong drawish tendency in practice, due to the opposite-
colored bishops, although all the heavy pieces remain on the board.
Black's other choices include 10...c5, although theory regards this as premature as it
enables White to play for a kingside attack with 11.Bc2, followed by Qd3 and Bg5.
10...Nf6 has also been played, but this misplaces the knight and does nothing to further
Black's play against the center by means of the pawn breaks c6–c5 or e6–e5. Bisguier
preferred 10...h6 and it has come to be considered the strongest plan.
The other ideas, 6...Be7, which has the same drawback as after 5.e3 Be7, and 6...Bb4,
have become sidelines in modern play.
Anti-Meran Variation: 6.Qc2 [edit]
The main alternative to 6.Bd3 has become 6.Qc2, once a sideline, this move exploded
in popularity in the 1990s, in large part due to Anatoly Karpov's advocacy. The idea is to
wait for Black to commit to ...dxc4 before playing Bd3. Black commonly replies
with 6...Bd6 and now White can choose between two very different continuations:
Karpov Variation: 7.Bd3 [edit]
7.Bd3, Karpov first played 7.Be2 but it soon transpired that the d3-square gives White
better chances.
Shirov–Shabalov Gambit: 7.g4
Another increasingly common gambit line used in the Anti-Meran is the sharp 7.g4.
Popularized by Alexander Shabalov and Alexey Shirov, the gambit destabilizes the
center for Black and has been successful for several grandmasters, including Kasparov,
who won the first game of his 2003 match against the computer chess program Deep
Junior with it.[7]

5.Bg5
The Anti-Meran Gambit (ECO code D44) arises after 5.Bg5. Possible replies include
5...Nbd7, 5...dxc4, 5...h6, and 5...Be7. White refuses to shut in the dark-squared bishop,
instead developing it to an active square where it pins the black knight. It is now
possible for Black to transpose to either the Cambridge Springs Defence with 5... Nbd7
6. e3 Qa5, or enter the Orthodox Defense with 6...Be7.
Botvinnik Variation: 5...dxc4 [edit]
This line is extremely complicated, with theory stretching past move thirty in some
variations. Black captures a pawn by 5...dxc4. White takes control of the center
with 6.e4 as Black defends with 6...b5. The main line of the Botvinnik now continues 7.
e5 h6 8. Bh4 g5 9. Nxg5 hxg5 10. Bxg5 Nbd7. White will regain his piece with interest,
emerging with an extra pawn, but Black will soon complete his development, gaining
great dynamic compensation, whereas White's task is rather more difficult. White
will fianchetto his king bishop and castle kingside, while Black will play c5, Qb6, castle
queenside, and can carry out an attack in the center or on either flank, leading to
complex play. The opening was introduced by Mikhail Botvinnik in the 1945 USSR vs
USA radio match vs Arnold Denker. Today, Alex Yermolinsky has an excellent record
with the white pieces and Alexei Shirov has been Black's chief proponent in this
variation. Although this variation bears Botvinnik's name, he was not the first person
known to have played it—Klaus Junge is credited as the actual inventor.[8]
Moscow Variation: 5...h6 [edit]
The Moscow Variation 5... h6 6. Bxf6 Qxf6 gives rise to play of a different character
from the Botvinnik variation. Black has the bishop pair, which gives him good long-term
chances, but must avoid prematurely opening the position in the face of White's superior
development and central control, as his position is initially solid but passive. Alexei
Dreevhas played this line successfully as Black. The gambit line 6.Bh4 (the Anti-
Moscow Variation) was once considered dubious, but has seen a recent resurgence. In
return for the pawn, White receives a lead in development and a strong initiative. This
dynamic line, which is characteristic of the modern game, has been played by many
strong grandmasters, with the theoretical verdict remaining inconclusive.

Vishy Anand And The Semi-Slav Defense

Like Veselin Topalov, Viswanathan Anand became FIDE world champion by virtue of
his victory in a world championship tournament -- this one held in Mexico City, 2007.
However, the chess public, which has always tended to see the championship changing
hands only when the previous holder was defeated, probably considers his 2008 match
victory against Vladimir Kramnik as the point where Anand gained the title.

A major factor leading to Anand's victory was his two wins with the black pieces in the
same ultra-sharp line of the Semi-Slav. One win with Black in a world championship
match is very fortunate; two wins, essentially back-to-back, are practically decisive.
Thus, while like most modern players Anand has a wide opening repertoire, making it
hard to say that he is considered a connoisseur of any one particular opening. We will
focus on this line:

The first game of the match had been a tame draw, where Kramnik chose the exchange
variation against Anand's Slav Defense. In the second, Anand pressed hard but agreed
to a draw in a better position due to his time pressure. In the third game, Kramnik
decided to take on the Slav in a more critical manner, and the above position arose after
the moves 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 dxc4 7.Bxc4 b5
8.Bb3 a6!? 9.e4 c5 10.e5.

The move 8...a6 constitutes the so-called "Reynolds Variation" of the Meran Slav, with
8...Bb7 being considered the main line. Anand had only played this variation once
before. Kramnik, in turn, chose the move 10.e5 -- clearly a critical attempt, although
nowadays less common than the other way of piercing the center, 10.d5.

In choosing this variation -- among the many other defenses he could choose against
Kramnik's practically inevitable closed openings -- Anand had to prepare for a great
number of sharp variations. This 10.e5 move was one of them, and as can be seen by
the resulting games, his preparation was phenomenal.

Kramnik, Vladimir (2772) vs. Anand, Viswanathan (2783)

World Championship | Bonn | Round 3 | 17 Oct 2008 | ECO: D49 | 0-1
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3Nbd7 6. Bd3 dxc4 7. Bxc4 b5 8. Bd3 a6!?
Prior to this match, the Reynold's Variation had taken a back seat to the move 8...Bb7,
although it was actually Akiba Rubinstein's original idea when he developed the Meran
variation. 9. e4 c5 10. e5The other - and nowadays more common - move is 10.d5.
Kramnik's move is obviously a critical response to Black's system, and it sets off a
confusing variety of desperado captures, which - however - had long been explored.
Kramnik, who plays the Semi-Slav with Black, was certainly well acquainted with this
line, although he ran into a minefield in Anand's
preparation. 10... cxd4 11. Nxb5 axb5!?By this simple recapture, Black forces the
opening of the g-file, which will be a vital factor. Attention has also focused on the
counter-desperado 11...Nxe5, and 11...Ng4, with which Kasparov once won a famous
game against Tony Miles. 12. exf6 gxf613. O-O Qb6In the resulting position White is
down a pawn, but will likely regain it on b5 or d4. The black king is condemned to the
center, but on the other hand he will have enormous attacking resources on the
kingside. 14. Qe2 Bb7!?This was Anand's idea - simply developing, abandoning the b5-
pawn and trying to aim every piece at the kingside. The move had been played before,
but was not highly considered, nor had Black followed up in the best way in previous
games. 15. Bxb5Capturing the pawn is of course critical. If White tries to strengthen the
kingside immediately by 15.Bf4 then Black can defend the c6-pawn in a comfortable
way by 15...Bc6, which was not possible on the previous move. 15... Bd6In this game
Anand decides to prevent Bf4. In the next game as black, he showed that his prepared
line was not one-sided, as there he chose the strong alternative 15...Rg8.16. Rd1White
attacks d4 in order to constrain Black's play. There was an alternative, the tactical
stroke 16.Nxd4, although Black is able to handle that, and Anand had surely prepared
for that possibility.(16. Nxd4 Qxd4 (16... Rg8had happened in the previous game
Doeppner-Voigt, Germany 1992. But now 17. g3!was an improvment on Doeppner's
17.Nf3.) 17. Rd1Bxh2+!Black must walk a narrow forced line. Retreating to protect the
bishop would be
bad. (17... Qc5 18. Be3 Qc7 19. Rac1Qb8 20. Bxd7+ Kxd7 21. Qb5+ Ke722. Rxd6! K
xd6 23. Bc5+et cetera.)18. Kxh2 Qh4+ 19. Kg1 Bxg2!The double-bishop sacrifice, as
seen in classical games like Lasker-Bauer, Nimzowitsch-Tarrasch, et cetera. But here it
only leads to a draw.20. Kxg2 Rg8+ 21. Kf3 Qh5+ 22. Ke3 Qc5+23. Kd2?!Perhaps
better would be to take a draw right away with 23.Kf3. 23... O-O-O!White's king is
caught in the firing line - the position is very dangerous.) 16... Rg8 17. g3Weakening the
long diagonal, but it was impossible to avoid this move in the long-term. Now White
plans to capture on d4 and quickly exploit the situation on the d-file. The utmost balance
is called for. 17... Rg4!This was the first new move of the game, although it had been
mentioned - and condemned - in old Infortmant annotations. Black elegantly combines
defense (of the d4-pawn) with the gathering of pieces on the kingside. Anand had
prepared this move for the game.18. Bf4White hopes to buy some time to capture d4
and slow the pressure against g3. The move 17...Rg4 had previously been rejected due
to 18.Nd2. Certainly, 18.Nd2 (threatening the rook as well as 19.Nc4) is a clever move,
but Black has an even more clever answer - 18... Ke7!!, showing that the threat of
19.Qxg4 was rather ficticious!(18. Nd2 Ke7!!Black unpins the knight and prepares
...Rag8. Given a single move, Blacks buildup would be decisive. 19. Bxd7Not 19.Qxg4
Qxb5, when White is hopelessly exposed on the light squares - moves like ...Qd5 and
...Ne5 are coming. (19. Qxg4Qxb5) 19... Rag8 20. Bb5White saves the piece and thus
forces the crisis.20... Rxg3+!?The most spectacular variation. Also possible was
20...d3, which supposedly leads to a forced draw as
well.(20... d3) 21. hxg3 Rxg3+ 22. Kf1 (22. fxg3d3+ 23. Qf2 Bc5 24. Rf1 Qxb5Black
will win the queen with enough attack to compensate for his small material
disadvantage.)22... Bg2+ 23. Ke1 Re3!! 24. fxe3 Bg3+25. Qf2 Bxf2+ 26. Kxf2 dxe3+ 2
7. Kxg2Qxb5Black will have to give perpetual check soon.) 18... Bxf4 19. Nxd4Kramnik
decide to sacrifice a piece. Had Anand repeated 15...Bd6 in the next game, perhaps
Kramnik had prepared 19.Rxd4 here.(19. Rxd4 Bxf3 (19... O-O-
O!?) 20. Qxf3Qxd4 21. Rd1White will get the material back, while Black's position looks
very dangerous.) 19... h5Protecting the rook. White is down a piece with no specific way
to regain it yet, so he must continue and gain a couple pawns for
it. 20. Nxe6 fxe6 21. Rxd7 Kf822. Qd3Threatening the powerful
23.Qh7.22... Rg7(22... Bxg3!? 23. hxg3 h424. Qd6+Otherwise it is Black's attack
which is faster, for instance 24.Qh7
Rxg3+.24... Qxd6 25. Rxd6 Rb4 26. Bc6 Bxc627. Rxc6 hxg3 28. fxg3 Rxb2Liquidates
to a drawn endgame.) 23. Rxg7 Kxg7 24. gxf4 Rd8Black intends to attack on the g-file,
but first kicks the white queen to a worse place. By this point, the game is more difficult
for White - Black's play is clearer. 25. Qe2Perhaps the alternative 25.Qb3 was more
accurate, although that is very hard to appreciate at this point. It has the (almost
impossible to forsee) virtue of preventing Black's ...Bh3 maneuver which occured in the
game.(25. Qb3 Kh6 26. a4 Rg8+ 27. Kf1Rg2Unlike in the game, here 27...Bg2+ is not
as strong. 28. Qe3 Qxe3 29. fxe3Rxh2Black is certainly fine here, with his bishop and
rook being well placed. However, it might not be enough for a real
advantage.) 25... Kh6 26. Kf1 Rg8 27. a4White has to protect the bishop, and pushing
the passed pawn is also useful. Black was threatening 27...Bg2+ 28.Ke1 Bc6, with dual
threats of ... Rg1+ and ...Bc6. 27... Bg2+ 28. Ke1 Bh3!A good decision - it was not time
to agree to a draw with 28...Bc6 29.Kf1 Bg2+. By bringing the bishop to f5 or g4 Black
poses White considerable problems, although White can actually defend. 29. Ra3?A
serious mistake, although the real difficulties of the position make mistakes likely. White
loses control of his first rank, which makes it impossible to escape with the king to c1 in
the variation in the game. White had to play the only move,
29.Rd1.(29. Rd1 Rg1+ (29... Bf5!?This would present great long-term difficulties for
White, since he is practically in Zugzwang. He has to make some strange move like
30.Qf1. Nevertheless, it is hard to see how Black will make progress.) (29... Bg4?is an
instructive mistake. 30. Qe3!forces the queen trade at the cost of the exchange, but
then the character of the game changes, making White's queenside passed pawns very
dangerous. 30... Qxe3+ 31. fxe3 Bxd132. Kxd1 Rg2 33. Kc1As it turns out, White
should win - the rook will not be able to stop White's passed pawns, while the bishop
from c6 will perfectly both support the pawns and stop the black h-
pawn.33... Rxh2 34. a5 Rh1+ 35. Kc2 Ra136. b4followed by Kb2.) 30. Kd2 Rg2Here
White has to find (If30... Qd4+as in the game, now White has
31.Kc1.) 31. Qe3!(31. Ke1? Bg4is now decisive.) 31... Rxf2+32. Be2and Black has to
make a draw.32... Rxe2+ 33. Qxe2 Bg4 34. Qd3 Qxb2+35. Qc2 Qd4+with a
draw.) 29... Rg1+ 30. Kd2 Qd4+ 31. Kc2 Bg4?As so often, an excess of riches leads to
problems...Black has a strong move 31...Bf5+, but he wants to be particularly accurate
and induce the move f2-f3 first. However, this move overlooks White's possible
response, which would safe the game. Instead, 31...Bf5+ was very strong, nearly
decisive.(31... Bf5+ 32. Bd3Now Black actually can induce f2-f3. (32. Kb3 Rc1The
white king is caught in the crossfire - for instance 33...Qd5+ is
threatened.) (32. Rd3!Perhaps the best practical attempt. In principle White would love
to trade the rook for the
bishop.32... Rg2! (32... Rg4!?) 33. Kb3 Bxd334. Qxd3 Qxf2 35. Qc3 Qxf4 36. a5Black
must be better, but the game is still quite complicated. The white king is finally safe, and
the exchange is not so relevent with both sides having passed
pawns.) 32... Bg4!33. f3 Bh3with this funny pendulum maneuver, Black in fact
transposes to the game, which is winning.) 32. f3?Kramnik falls in with Anand's wishes.
He had the counterattack 32.Rd3!, holding on.(32. Rd3 Bf5 (32... Qc5+ 33. Rc3Taking
the exchange by 33... Qxc3+ followed by 34...Bxe2, as usual, is not
good.) 33. Kb3Bxd3 34. Qxd3 Qxf2As before, trading queens would be bad - the
connected passed pawns would be unstoppable.35. Qd8and White will give perpetual
check soon.) 32... Bf5+ 33. Bd3 Bh3?!Anand saw one win, and in time pressure did not
look for another. Instead the simple 33...Bxd3+ would end the game
immediately.(33... Bxd3+ 34. Rxd3Or 34.Qxd3 Rg2+.34... Qc4+winning the queen,
since if 35.Kd2 Qc1#.) 34. a5White gives up the queen; there was no other good
defense.(34. Qd2 Rg2 35. Be2 Bf5+ 36. Kc1 Qg1+37. Qd1 Qxh2winning
easily.)(34. Qe4 Rg2+ 35. Kd1 Qg1+ 36. Qe1Qxh2with a decisive threat of
37...Rg1.) 34... Rg2 35. a6 Rxe2+ 36. Bxe2 Bf5+37. Kb3 Qe3+ 38. Ka2 Qxe2 39. a7 Q
c4+40. Ka1 Qf1+ 41. Ka2 Bb1+Kramnik resigned in view of 42.Kb3 Qxf3+.

Kramnik publicly stated after this game that Anand's position after the opening was
dubious. And thus, in the fifth game (the next one where Anand had Black), the line was
repeated. Anand anticipated Kramnik's improvement by varying on his own, at move 15.

Kramnik, Vladimir (2772) vs. Anand, Viswanathan (2783)

World Championship | Bonn | Round 5 | 20 Oct 2008 | ECO: D49 | 0-1
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3Nbd7 6. Bd3 dxc4 7. Bxc4 b5 8. Bd3a6An
and shows confidence in his choice. Kramnik also is ready to take on the position which
he considered questionable for Black, but Anand proves to be one step
ahead.9. e4 c5 10. e5 cxd4 11. Nxb5 axb5 12. exf6gxf6 13. O-
O Qb6 14. Qe2 Bb7 15. Bxb5All as in game three so far. Now Kramnik had certainly
prepared something after 15...Bd6, which Anand used in that game, but Anand varied
first! 15... Rg8!?It is telling that in practically all recent games Black has preferred
Anand's improvement on his own play. Here Black hastens his play but allows 16.Bf4.
Meanwwhile, Black avoids the potential problems on the d-file.16. Bf4Kramnik logically
uses the opportunity which was afforded him. Trying to transpose to the earlier game by
16.Rd1 would allow Anand to show another possible development of the rook:
16...Ra5!(16. Rd1 Ra5 17. a4A natural move, but very dangerous due to Black's
exchange sacrifice. (17. Bxd7+ Kxd7 18. Rxd4+when Black should force a draw
by 18... Qxd4!19. Nxd4 Bxg2the queen will have to relocate to a dark square, after
which Black will give perpetual check by ...Bh3+/...Bg2+.)) 16... Bd6 17. Bg3White
blocks the g-file.17... f5!Once again, this was Anand's preparation. He must disturb the
bishop in order to renew his attack on the g-file. The black king becomes more exposed,
but Anand judged that this was not sufficiently important. 18. Rfc1Kramnik has a move
to prepare for the coming events, and after long thought he chose this one, preventing
the later transfer of the black queen by c5, while also potentially opening f1 for the white
king.(18. a4 f4 19. Bh4 Qc5With ...Qh5 to follow, shows why White might like to prevent
...Qc5.)(18. Ne5 d3!is an elegant answer. Now if 19.Qxd3 Bxe5 and White is in trouble
on g2, while after 19. Bxd7+ Ke7 20. Qe1 f4!White cannot hold all his hanging pieces
as well as the g2 square.) 18... f4 19. Bh4 Be7The bishop no longer had a role on d6,
so it retreats, making it possible for the black king - as in game three - to come to
e7. 20. a4 Bxh4 21. Nxh4Ke7Black prepares to bring the other rook into the attack. In
particular, there is a threat of 22...Rxg2+ 23.Nxg2 Rg8. 22. Ra3This gives Black an
easy and active game. By far the best is 22.g3, when Black has enough play but must
be extremely accurate.(22. g3 fxg3 23. hxg3 Rg5 24. Bxd7 Rag8!(24... Kxd7 25. Nf3is
very bad for Black.)25. a525...d3 was a threat, so White chases the
queen. 25... Qd6 26. Ra3 (26. Ba4Rxg3+ 27. fxg3 Rxg3+) 26... Rxg3+!(26... Kxd7is
possible, although the position is dangerous for
Black.) 27. fxg3Rxg3+ 28. Rxg3 Qxg3+ 29. Ng2 Bxg230. Qf2 (30. Qxg2 Qe3+) 30... Q
g5! 31. Rc7Be4+ 32. Kh2 Qh5+ 33. Kg3 Qg5+with a draw.) 22... Rac8!Now White has
to deal with the c-file and back rank, while the exchange of a pair of rooks makes the
black king safer.23. Rxc8 Rxc8 24. Ra1 Qc5Another advantage of the trade of rooks is
that the black queen can now activate. 25. Qg4Qe5The black queen comes over to the
kingside. 26. Nf3 Qf6 27. Re1The position is highly intricate, with complicated variations
holding each side at bay, meaning that it is not so easy for either side to make useful
moves without comprimising their position. The safest was to play 27.Bxd7 Kxd7
28.Nxd4, but after 28...Ke7 Black is fine - 29.Rc1 Rc4 wins back the pawn with an equal
position. Meanwhile, 27.Ne1 was very
interesting.(27. Bxd7 Kxd7 28. Nxd4 Ke7)(27. Ne1!?Defending c2 and g2, and
allowing another retreat, Bf1. Black's position looks more active, but if he cannot
achieve anything, in the long term he will face practical problems due to his shaky king
position and White's passed pawns. Nevertheless, Black should theoretically be able to
hold the balance.) 27... Rc5The black rook has some prospects on the fifth
rank. 28. b4 Rc3White advanced with gain of time, but gave the rook this excellent
square. Now with threats of ...Bxf3 and ...Ne5 coming, White should be very
careful. 29. Nxd4??A fatal blunder - Kramnik probably missed Black's 34th move. He
could instead play some move like 29.Bxd7 or 29.Qh5, although Black's position, by this
point, is somewhat easier to play.29... Qxd4 30. Rd1 Nf6Queen moves would be met
by 31.Rxd7+, with a winning attack, but Kramnik presumably saw this
move.31. Rxd4 Nxg4 32. Rd7+ Kf633. Rxb7White recovered the piece, but entering
such a line requires the utmost attention, since the tactics are not over yet, and
intuitively White's position looks dangerous. 33... Rc1+ 34. Bf1Ne3!Presumably this
was the move Kramnik missed - the scorpion's sting at the end of the tactical sequence.
Maybe he was counting on 34...Nxh2 from the outset, when the rook and pawn ending
should be lost for Black.(34... Nxh2?? 35. Kxh2 Rxf1 36. f3) 35. fxe3 fxe3The threat of
36...e2 can only be delayed by 36.Rc7, but after 36...Rxc7 White does not even
manage to save the bishop - 37.g3 Rc1 38.Kg2 Rc2+ followed by 39...e2 (or 39.Kf3
Rf2+). Therefore, Kramnik
resigned.(36. Rc7 Rxc7 37. g3 Rc1 38. Kg2 Rc2+39. Kf3 Rf2+)

In recent world championship matches there have not been many repeated opening
debates in sharp variations. The players instead try to surprise each other and then
move on. Carrying on a debate in a sharp variation, in the age of computer analysis,
can be quite scary -- if you miss one tricky possibility that the opponent carefully
analyzed and memorized (perhaps even a reasonable move which isn't, however, the
computer's top line), you come into serious danger. In recent years, most players have
preferred to play "over the board."

But in this match, Anand had faith in the basic positional soundness of this line in the
Meran -- however sharp and complicated. The initial surprise struck one blow, but not
only that: Kramnik got drawn into the wrong debate, a second blow was struck, and this
practically guaranteed Anand victory.
Semi-Slav Defense
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 c6

The Semi-Slav Defense is a variation of the Queen's Gambit chess opening, defined by the
position reached after

1. d4 d5
2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. Nf3 c6,

though the position may readily be reached by a number of different move-orders. The
opening resembles a mixture of the Orthodox Queen's Gambit Declined and the Slav
Defense, with Black advancing pawns to both c6 and e6.

With 4...c6, Black threatens to capture the white pawn on c4, and hold it with ...b7-b5.
White can avoid this with 5.e3, though at the cost of restricting the dark-
squared bishopfrom its natural development to g5. Alternatively, White often gambits a
pawn with 5.Bg5, the Anti-Meran Gambit, which Black may accept with 5...dxc4 6.e4
b5, leading to sharp play, or decline with 5...h6, the Moscow Variation. If Black plays
the latter variation, White can play 6.Bxf6 Qxf6, ceding the bishop pair in exchange for a
lead in development and a freer game, or again offer a gambit with 6.Bh4!?
The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings designates the Semi-Slav with codes D43
through D49.
Main variations

5.e3

The main line continues with 5.e3, when Black usually develops with 5... Nbd7; though a
developing move, 5....Be7 is seldom seen nowadays, as players realised early on that at
e7, the bishop was passively placed and does nothing to further one of Black's aims, the
freeing move ....e5.
Meran Variation

The main variation of the Semi-Slav is the Meran Variation, 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 dxc4 7.Bxc4
b5, (ECO codes D46 to D49), when play usually continues with 8.Bd3, with 8.Be2 and
8.Bb3 less common alternatives. The variation is named after the town
of Meran (Merano) in northern Italy, after its successful use in the game Gruenfeld-
Rubinstein during a tournament held in that city in 1924.[1] Viswanathan Anand won two
games with Black in his World Chess Championship 2008 match with Vladimir Kramnik.
Black surrenders his outpost on d5, gaining a tempofor queenside space expansion by
...b7-b5. White will play in the centre, leading to a rich, complicated game. These
opposing strategies, with the ensuing keen play, have long made the Meran a favourite
for enterprising players of either color.
Anti-Meran Variation

If White wants to avoid the Meran Variation without entering the muddy waters of the
Anti-Meran, 5.cxd5 or 5.Qb3 are possibilities, though after 5....exd5, the former leads to
a line of the QGD Exchange where White's Nf3 enables the Black QB to freely develop,
which should give equality (ECO code D43 and D45). After 5.e3 Nbd7, the main
alternative to 6.Bd3 has become 6.Qc2, waiting for Black to commit to ....dxc4 before
playing Bd3. Once a sideline, this move exploded in popularity, in large part due
to Anatoly Karpov's advocacy during the 1990s.
Shirov-Shabalov Gambit in Anti-Meran

Another increasingly common gambit line used in the Anti-Meran system varition is the
sharp 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Qc2 Bd6 7.g4. Popularized by Alexander Shabalov and Alexey
Shirov, the gambit destabilizes the center for Black and has been successful for
several grandmasters, including Kasparov.
5.Bg5
The Anti-Meran Gambit (ECO code D44) arises after 5.Bg5. White refuses to shut in the
dark-squared bishop, instead developing it to an active square where it pins the
black knight. It is now possible for Black to transpose to either the Cambridge Springs
Defence with 5....Nbd7 6.e3 Qa5, or enter the Orthodox Defense with 6....Be7, though in
practice he usually opts for either of the variations given below.

Botvinnik Variation

This line is extremely complicated, with theory stretching past move thirty in some
variations. Black captures a pawn by 5...dxc4. White takes control of the centre with 6.e4
as Black defends his booty with 6...b5. The main line of the Botvinnik now continues with
7.e5 h6 8.Bh4 g5 9.Nxg5 hxg5 10.Bxg5 Nbd7. White will regain his piece with interest,
emerging with an extra pawn ahead, but Black will soon complete his development,
gaining great dynamic compensation, whereas White's task is rather more difficult.
White will fianchetto his king's bishop andcastle kingside, while Black will play ...c5,
...Qb6, castle queenside, and can carry out an attack in the centre or on either flank,
leading to complex play. The opening was introduced by Mikhail Botvinnik in the 1945
USSR vs USA radio match vs Arnold Denker. Today, Alex Yermolinsky has an excellent
record with the White pieces and Alexei Shirov has been Black's chief proponent in this
variation.
Moscow Variation

The Moscow Variation 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bxf6 Qxf6, gives rise to play of a different character
than the lines after 5....dxc4. Black has the bishop pair, but must avoid prematurely
opening the position in the face of White's superior development and central control.
The gambit line 6.Bh4 (the Anti-Moscow Variation) was once considered dubious, but
has seen a recent resurgence. In return for the pawn, White receives a lead in
development and a strong initiative. This dynamic mode of play, which is characteristic
of the modern game, has seen this line being played by many strong grandmasters,
though the verdict on the line is unclear.
Alternatives after 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3

Though appearing in contemporary master play with less frequency than the Meran,
there are other playable moves: 6....Be7, 6....Bb4, introduced by the Italian master Max
Romih, and 6....Bd6, which was much the most popular line before the debut of the
Meran, and espoused by the American grandmaster Arthur Bisguier throughout his
career.

After 6....Bd6, 7.0-0 0-0 8.e4 dxe4 9.Nxe4 Nxe4 10.Bxe4 is the most commom line line in
practice. There are now several alternatives for Black, with one a clear error, as it loses a
pawn: 10....e5 11.dxe5 Nxe5 12.Nxe5 Bxe5 13.Bxh7+ Kxh7 14.Qh5+ Kg8 15.Qxe5. This
line, however, has a strong drawish tendency in practice, due to the opposite-coloured
bishops, though all the heavy pieces remain on the board.

Black's other choices include 10....c5, though theory regards this as premature as it
enables White to play for a kingside attack with 11.Bc2, followed by Qd3 and Bg5.
10....Nf6 has also been played, but this misplaces the knight, as it does nothing to
further Black's play against the centre by means of either ....c5 or ....e5. 10....h6 is the
move preferred by Bisguier and has come to be considered strongest.

The other ideas, 6....Be7, which has the same drawback as after 5.e3 Be7, and 6....Bb4,
have become sidelines in modern play.

Semi-Slav
The Semi-Slav Defense is one of the most popular defenses for black against the
Queen’s Gambit line from white. This opening is seen at all levels of chess competition
and is often seen as one of the most sound defenses at top level play.
Black spends most of the time in the Semi-Slav developing pawns and pieces to control
the light sqaures in the middle of the board. It differs from the Slav opening in that the
light square bishop on c8 is not developed before the pawn structure is formed with e6.
This allows more time for black to build up a solid pawn structure around the d5 pawn,
but at the cost of slower development from his light square bishop.
White typically has two main ideas that he can play for. The first is to develop his dark
square bishop on c1 befor he closes the pawn structure with e3. The second is to
immediately play e3, protecting the pawn on c4, while delaying the development of the
dark square bishop. Depending on how white responds many times will determine much
of the dynamics in the game.
Black will typically counter attack on the queen side of the board and try to make a push
for the center control of the light squares. If black can equalize, he should be better off
in the end game with a much better pawn structure.
For those players looking to play sound, fundamental chess, this is a must have
defense against the Queen’s Gambit opening.
Watch the video below to watch more detailed explanations of the opening, multiple
variations, and extended lines.
Benoni Defense
The Benoni Defense is a chess opening characterized by the moves:

1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 c5
3. d5

Black can then sacrifice a pawn by 3...b5 (the Benko Gambit), but if Black does not elect this line
then 3...e6 is the most common move (though 3...d6 or 3...g6 are also seen, typically leading to main
lines).

Etymology[edit]

“Ben oni” (‫ )בֶּ ן אֹונִי‬is a Hebrew term meaning “son of my sorrow” (cf. Genesis 35:18) – the name of an
1825 book by Aaron Reinganum about several defenses against the King's Gambit and the Queen's
Gambit.[1]

Old Benoni: 1.d4 c5

The Old Benoni starts with 1.d4 c5. The Old Benoni may transpose to the Czech Benoni, but there
are a few independent variations. This form has never attracted serious interest in high-level play,
though Alexander Alekhine defeated Efim Bogoljubow with it in one game of their second match, in
1934. The Old Benoni is sometimes called the Blackburne Defense, after Englishman Joseph
Henry Blackburne, the first player known to have used it successfully.[2]

Czech Benoni: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e5

In the Czech Benoni, also sometimes known as the Hromadka Benoni, after Karel Hromádka,
Black plays 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e5. The Czech Benoni is much more solid than the Modern
Benoni, but it is also more passive. The middlegames arising from this line are characterised by
much manoeuvring; in most lines, Black will look to break with b7–b5 or f7–f5 after due preparation,
while White may play Nc3–e4–h3–Bd3–Nf3–g4, in order to gain space on the kingside and prevent
...f5 by Black.[3]

Modern Benoni: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6

The Modern Benoni, 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6, is the most common form of Benoni apart from
the Benko Gambit. Black's intention is to play ...exd5 and create a queenside pawn majority, whose
advance will be supported by fianchettoed bishop on g7. The combination of these two features
differentiates Black's setup from the other Benoni defenses and the King's Indian Defense,
although transpositionsbetween these openings are common. The Modern Benoni is classified under
the ECO codes A60–A79.

Snake Benoni: 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 Bd6

The Snake Benoni refers to a variant of the Modern Benoni where the bishop is developed to d6
rather than g7. This opening was invented in 1982 by Rolf Olav Martens, who gave it its name
because of the sinuous movement of the bishop—in Martens's original concept, Black follows up
with 6...Bc7 and sometimes ...Ba5—and because the Swedish word for "snake", orm, was
an anagram of his initials.[4] Normunds Miezis has been a regular exponent of this variation.[5] Aside
from Martens's plan, 6...0-0 intending ...Re8, ...Bf8 and a potential redevelopment of the bishop to
g7, has also been tried.[5] White appears to retain the advantage against both setups.[6]
ECO[edit]

The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO) has many codes for the Benoni Defense.

Old Benoni Defense:

 A43 1.d4 c5
 A44 1.d4 c5 2.d5 e5

Benoni Defense:

 A56 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 (includes Czech Benoni)

 A57–A59 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 (Benko Gambit)
 A60 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6
 A61 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.Nf3 g6

Fianchetto Variation:

 A62 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.Nf3 g6 7.g3 Bg7 8.Bg2 0-0
 A63 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.Nf3 g6 7.g3 Bg7 8.Bg2 0-0 9.0-0
Nbd7
 A64 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.Nf3 g6 7.g3 Bg7 8.Bg2 0-0 9.0-0
Nbd7 10.Nd2 a6 11.a4 Re8

Modern Benoni:

 A65 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4

 A66 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.f4

Taimanov Variation:

 A67 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.f4 Bg7 8.Bb5+

Four Pawns Attack:

 A68 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.f4 Bg7 8.Nf3 0-0
 A69 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.f4 Bg7 8.Nf3 0-0 9.Be2
Re8

Classical Benoni:

 A70 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Nf3
 A71 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Bg5
 A72 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Be2 0-0
 A73 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Be2 0-0 9.0-0
 A74 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Be2 0-0 9.0-0
a6
 A75 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Be2 0-0 9.0-0
a6 10.a4 Bg4
 A76 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Be2 0-0 9.0-0
Re8
  A77 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Be2 0-0 9.0-0
Re8 10.Nd2
 A78 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Be2 0-0 9.0-0
Re8 10.Nd2 Na6
 A79 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Be2 0-0 9.0-0
Re8 10.Nd2 Na6 11.f3

Benoni Defense
The Benoni Defense is a very aggressive line that black can play to counter the very
common open by white d4. While many defenses against the queen pawn opening are
closed and drawish, the Benoni Defense gives black many opportunities to not only
equalize the position, but also to gain an advantage and play for the win.

In the Modern Benoni Defense, the main focus of the game is white’s center control of
the light squares with it’s key pawn on d5 and black’s control of the center from the dark
squares. Black will usually fianchetto his bishop on the kingside to g7 to add extra
support to the dark squares.

For a white player you want to keep constant pressure on the d5 square and use it later
on to set up outposts for your minor pieces and to apply pressure on black. For black
players you want to keep white from applying pressure and keep them from getting any
outposts on the e6 and c6 squares. The Benoni Defense usually opens up after the
opening which means that bishops are more powerful than knights so be cautious about
trading off your bishop.

Black should get lots of counter play and should have a very good game after things
open up in the middle.

Watch the video below to watch more detailed explanations of the opening, multiple
variations, and extended lines.

Boris Spassky vs Robert James Fischer

Fischer - Spassky (1992), Sveti Stefan & Belgrade YUG, rd 16, Oct-07
Benoni Defense: Hromadka System (A56) · 0-1

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 d6 4. Nc3 g6 5. e4 Bg7 6. Bg5 h6 7. Bh4 g5 8. Bg3 Qa5 9. Bd3

Ne4 10. Be4 Bc3 11. bc3 Qc3 12. Kf1 f5 13. Rc1 Qf6 14. h4 g4 15. Bd3 f4 16. Ne2 fg3
17. Ng3 Rf8 18. Rc2 Nd7 19. Qg4 Ne5 20. Qe4 Bd7 21. Kg1 O-O-O 22. Bf1 Rg8 23. f4
Nc4 24. Nh5 Qf7 25. Qc4 Qh5 26. Rb2 Rg3 27. Be2 Qf7 28. Bf3 Rdg8 29. Qb3 b6 30.
Qe3 Qf6 31. Re2 Bb5 32. Rd2 e5 33. de6 Bc6 34. Kf1 Bf3

Viktor Artsukevich vs Viktor Korchnoi

Leningrad (1953)
King's Indian Defense: Four Pawns Attack. Dynamic Attack (A56) · 0-1

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 d6 4. Nc3 g6 5. e4 Bg7 6. f4 O-O 7. Nf3 e6 8. Qc2 Re8 9. Be2

ed5 10. cd5 Ne4 11. Ne4 Bf5 12. Nfd2 Qe7 13. Bf3 Be4 14. Ne4 f5 15. O-O fe4 16. Re1
Bd4 17. Kh1 ef3 18. Re7 Re7 19. gf3 Re1 20. Kg2 Nd7 21. Rb1 Rae8 22. Bd2 R8e2 23.
Kh3 Rd2 24. Qd2 Rb1
Mark Taimanov vs David Bronstein
Zurich Candidates (1953), Zurich SUI, rd 1, Aug-30
Benoni Defense: Modern Variation (A56) · 0-1

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 g6 4. Nc3 d6 5. e4 b5 6. cb5 Bg7 7. Nf3 O-O 8. Be2 a6 9. ba6

Ba6 10. O-O Qc7 11. Re1 Nbd7 12. Ba6 Ra6 13. Qe2 Rfa8 14. h3 Nb6 15. Bg5 Ne8 16.
Bd2 Na4 17. Na4 Ra4 18. Bc3 Bc3 19. bc3 Qa5 20. Qd3 Qa6 21. Qd2 Ra2 22. Ra2
Qa2 23. e5 Qd2 24. Nd2 de5 25. Re5 Kf8 26. Nb3 c4 27. Nc5 Ra1 28. Kh2 Nf6 29. Ne4
Nd7 30. Rg5 Ra2 31. Rg4 f5 32. Rf4 Nb6 33. Ng5 Nd5 34. Rd4 Nb6 35. Rd8 Kg7 36. f4
h6 37. Ne6 Kf7 38. Nd4 Na4 39. Rc8 Nc3 40. Rc4 Nd5 41. Nf3 Rg2 42. Kh1

Garry Kasparov vs Stuart Rachels

Simul (1988), New York, NY USA
Benoni Defense: Hromadka System (A56) · 1-0

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 d6 4. Nc3 g6 5. e4 Bg7 6. Bd3 O-O 7. Nge2 e6 8. O-O ed5 9.

cd5 a6 10. a4 Qc7 11. h3 Nbd7 12. f4 Rb8 13. Be3 Re8 14. Ng3 c4 15. Bc2 Nc5 16.
Qf3 b5 17. ab5 ab5 18. e5 de5 19. fe5 Re5 20. Bd4 b4 21. Be5 Qe5 22. Rae1 Qd4 23.
Kh1 Bh3 24. Nce2 Qb2 25. Qf4 Rc8 26. Bb1 Bd7 27. Nd4 Rf8 28. Nf3 c3 29. Qd6 Nb3
30. Ne5 Bb5 31. Rf6 Bf6 32. Qf6 c2 33. Nf5 gf5 34. Qg5 Kh8 35. Qh6 Kg8 36. Bc2 Qc2
37. Re3 f4 38. Qf4 Qc1 39. Kh2 f6 40. Rg3 Kh8 41. Nf7 Rf7 42. Qb8

Boris Spassky vs Robert James Fischer

Fischer - Spassky (1992), Sveti Stefan & Belgrade YUG, rd 26, Oct-29
Benoni Defense: Hromadka System (A56) · 1-0

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 d6 4. Nc3 g6 5. e4 Bg7 6. Bd3 O-O 7. Nf3 Bg4 8. h3 Bf3 9. Qf3

Nbd7 10. Qd1 e6 11. O-O ed5 12. ed5 Ne8 13. Bd2 Ne5 14. Be2 f5 15. f4 Nf7 16. g4
Nh6 17. Kg2 Nc7 18. g5 Nf7 19. Rb1 Re8 20. Bd3 Rb8 21. h4 a6 22. Qc2 b5 23. b3
Rb7 24. Rbe1 Re1 25. Re1 Qb8 26. Bc1 Qd8 27. Ne2 bc4 28. bc4 Ne8 29. h5 Re7 30.
h6 Bh8 31. Bd2 Rb7 32. Rb1 Qb8 33. Ng3 Rb1 34. Qb1 Qb1 35. Bb1 Bb2 36. Kf3 Kf8
37. Ke2 Nh8 38. Kd1 Ke7 39. Kc2 Bd4 40. Kb3 Bf2 41. Nh1 Bh4 42. Ka4 Nc7 43. Ka5
Kd7 44. Kb6 Kc8 45. Bc2 Nf7 46. Ba4 Kb8 47. Bd7 Nd8 48. Bc3 Na8 49. Ka6 Nc7 50.
Kb6 Na8 51. Ka5 Kb7 52. Kb5 Nc7 53. Ka4 Na8 54. Kb3 Kc7 55. Be8 Kc8 56. Bf6 Nc7
57. Bg6 hg6 58. Bd8

Lubomir Kavalek vs Milan Matulovic

"Phony Benoni" (game of the day Apr-29-2005)
Bucharest (1966), Bucharest ROU, rd 7, May-??
Benoni Defense: Hromadka System (A56) · 1-0

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 d6 4. Nc3 g6 5. e4 Bg7 6. f4 O-O 7. Bd3 e6 8. de6 fe6 9. Nge2

Nc6 10. O-O Nd4 11. Ng3 Ne8 12. Be3 Qh4 13. f5 ef5 14. Qd2 f4 15. Bf4 Ne6 16. Be3
Rf1 17. Rf1 Bd7 18. Nd5 Nf6 19. Rf6 Bf6 20. Nf5 gf5 21. g3 Bc3 22. bc3 Qd8 23. ef5
Ng7 24. Bg5 Qf8 25. Nf6 Kh8 26. Nd7 Qf7 27. Nf6 Nh5 28. Nh5 Qh5 29. Bf6 Kg8 30.
Be4 h6 31. Qd6 Re8 32. Bd5
A Quick Guide to the Benoni Defense
The Benoni Defense
The Old Benoni
1. d4 c5
The Old Benoni, also known as the Benoni Gambit, is good for challenging white’s
control of the center. Of all the main variations of the Benoni, this one is the least sound,
but it is easier to pick up for less skilled players and is a good introduction to the Benoni
Defense. Typically, white responds to 1…c5 with 2. d5, allowing white to keep control of
the center. From here, black should try to transpose to the main position of the Czech
Benoni. However, in lower level play, white will often accept the pawn, playing 2. dxc5?!
This takes tension away from the center and loses a tempo, and is not a strong move
for white. However, if you encounter this 2…e6 is the strongest response, gaining some
control of the center, threatening the c5 pawn, and keeping with the general passive
nature of the Benoni. White players eager to keep their material advantage will typically
play 3. b4, which can be challenged by 3…a4. More often than not, this is met with 4.
c3??. This leaves white’s queenside vulnerable to 4…Qf6!, winning the a1 rook.
1. d4 c5 2. dxc5?! e6 3. b4?! a54. c3?! axb4 5. cxb4? Qf6!

The Benko Gambit

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5
The Benko Gambit is the most popular form of the Benoni, as it leads to strong
development and control for black, and puts white in an awkward, difficult to play
position. It is typically continued with 4. cxb5 a6 5. bxa6 Bxa6, pinning the e pawn to
white’s bishop. If white chooses to release the pin by fianchettoing the bishop, it is only
to gain control of the center through e4, as the bishop on g2 would be blocked by the d5
pawn. If white ignores the pin and plays e4 without fianchettoing, black captures the
bishop and white has to recapture with the king, losing the ability to castle. Either way,
black should fianchetto the kingside bishop to strengthen control of the board. It is ideal
to tempt a queen for queen exchange because the queen is white’s best chance at
equalizing after the opening.
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. cxb5a6 5. bxa6 Bxa6

The Czech Benoni

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e5
The Czech Benoni is the most solid line, but is often criticized for being too passive. It
follows classical chess strategy, with white building a strong pawn center and focusing
on development over long term position. The main line continues 4. Nc3 d6 5. e4 Be7 6.
Nf3 Nbd7 7. Be2 O-O 8. O-O Ne8! 9. Qc2 g6 10. Bh6 Ng7 11. Nd2 a6 12. a3 f5!? 13.
exf5! gxf5 14. f4. After this sequence, white has a slight advantage, but black is ready to
continue a powerful kingside attack that white will have to devote everything to in order
to defend successfully. If white ignores black’s powerful position and strays too greatly
from this line, he is unlikely to be able to defend against black’s f7-f5 push. If white’s
kingside is built up powerfully, a b7-b5 push should suffice to launch a queenside
attack. If white doesn’t set up a counter to f7-f5 early enough, it can be pushed early,
however it is crucial that you have a pawn on g6 and a knight on g7 to defend the pawn
and strengthen the push. One fatal weakness of this defense is that if white plays Ne6!,
the entire defense can fall apart. Capturing the knight with the bishop is recommended if
this happens. When launching the attack on the kingside, a pawnstorm can put white in
a tricky position, often forcing material sacrifices or destroying white’s pawn structure.
This opening has much more information than I can reasonably cover so if you’re
interested you should study it in more depth independently.
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e5 4. Nc3 d6 5. e4 Be7 6. Nf3 Nbd7 7. Be2 O-O 8. O-O Ne8!
9. Qc2 g6 10. Bh6 Ng7 11. Nd2 a6 12. a3 f5!? 13. exf5! gxf5 14. f4

The Modern Czech Benoni

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e5 4. Nc3 d6 5. e4 Be7
This is the response that a player who is more familiar with the Benoni will likely play.
Right off the bat, white sets himself up to counter the crucial f5-f7 push. This is very
difficult to play for black, because white has many options and it is difficult to be
prepared for them all. However, because Nf3 and Bd3 are almost always played by
white, I will assume that white plays this for turns 6 and 7, respectively. Black should
play 6…O-O, but 6…Nbd7 is also playable, especially if white plans to play g2-g4.
7…Nbd7 8. h3 Ne8?! 9. g4 will lead to the main position of this opening, however
moves are often played in different orders or played with slightly different moves by
white. If white chooses to play 9. O-O, it will lead to a slight variation of the Classical
Czech Benoni. Black needs to be extremely careful when white plays the modern line,
and needs to be creative to counter white’s setup. Black needs to play with caution. Any
player who wants to play the Benoni needs to study master games to see how it can be
countered and played against. Personally I find 9…Kh8!? a good trap to lure white’s
bishop away from d3, but the more experienced white player will likely not fall for this.
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e5 4. Nc3 d6 5. e4 Be7 6. Nf3 O-O 7. Bd3 Nbd7 8. h3 Ne8 9.
g4

The Modern Czech Benoni Fianchetto Variation

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e5 4. Nc3 d6 5. e4 Be7
This is more or less the same as the regular variation, but white plays 9.g3 and
fianchettos the bishop. This lets white play a pawn break of f2-f4. White will likely tear
through black’s position like this and black should take white out of book, best done with
Na6 and switching over to a queenside attack, eventually playing a b7-b5 pawn break.
h5 has also proven to be a sound counter by challenging white’s kingside control.
Players who tend to use this variation usually will fianchetto earlier than turn 9, playing
6. g3 O-O 7. Bg2 Nbd7. Unlike in the normal modern Benoni, black must castle before
playing Nbd7 because white can play h2-h4 and support a bishop on g5 and with
support from the queen this attack can be fatal for black. Black should play passively if
white is able to set up too much control over the center, and hope to counter with f2-f4,
but unlike the classical variation, black intends for white to take this pawn with exf4 and
relinquish some control over the center.
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e5 4. Nc3 d6 5. e4 Be7 6. g3 O-O 7. Bg2 Nbd7

The Snake Benoni

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 Bd6?!
The idea in the Snake Benoni is to play 6…Bc7 7…Ba5 pinning the knight to the king.
This is not the best opening; it defies basic opening principles by not developing pieces
and by moving the same piece three times in the opening. 6…O-O 7…Re8 8…Bf8
9…g6 10…Bg7 is typically considered the most sound continuation of this opening,
however the same position can be reached with 5…g6 6…Bg7 7…O-O 8…Re8.
However, all of this does not mean the Snake Benoni is not playable. 6. Nf3 Bc7 7. d6
Ba5 8. Bg5 Qb6 9. Bxf6 Qxb2 is the best way to play the Snake Benoni that I’ve seen.
This variation contrasts greatly from other Benoni lines because it ignores positional
play and becomes a very tactical game early on.
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e6 4. Nc3 exd5 5. cxd5 Bd6?! 6. Nf3 Bc7 7. d6 Ba5 8. Bg5
Qb6 9. Bxf6 Qxb2

The Modern Benoni

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6
The idea here is to play exd5 cxd5 d6, which gives a semi open e-file. Because e5 isn’t
occupied, the a1-h8 diagonal is clear, making a fianchetto possible. 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5
d6 6.e4 g6 7.f4! is the Taimanov Attack, and has actually made the Modern Benoni
unsound. For this reason, a better way to play this opening is 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5.
2…e6 threatens a transposition to the Nimzo-Indian defense if white plays Nc3. If white
plays 3.g3 the game can transpose into a Catalan, but this is much less common. Unlike
most Benoni lines, the modern focuses on queenside counterplay, because the pieces
are supported by the bishop on g7. The b7-b5 pawn push is essential for this reason.
This is easily supportable by a5-a6 and the pawn on c5 should be supported by a knight
on d7. The rooks should be placed on c8 and e8, the rook on e8 controlling the
kingside, and the rook on c8 supporting the advance of the c pawn. This opening is
incredibly sharp and tactics usually involve sacrifices, often to create passed pawns on
the queenside.
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 c5 4. d5 exd5 5. cxd5 d6

The Blumenfeld Gambit

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nf3 b5
This is pretty much a “Modern Benko Gambit” and usually transposes into one or the
other if declined. In the Blumenfeld Gambit Accepted, the bishops belong on b7 and d6,
and the intent is to place a pawn on d5 by removing the c4 pawn as a defender and
supporting the capture of the pawn on d5 with the knight and bishop, giving black a
powerful center.

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e6 4. Nf3 b5Possible continuation 5. dxe6 fxe6 6. Bg5 bxc4

7. Nc3 d5 8. g3 Bb7 9. Bg2 Bd6 10. O-O

The English Opening, Anti-Benoni Formation

1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4
3…e6 or 3…g6 will transpose into a Modern if white plays d5, but there is a much better
move available to black. 3…cxd4. If this is your intent, I recommend 2…g6 and 4. Nxd4
Nc6 5.e4, transposing into the hyper-accelerated dragon.
1. c4 c5 2. Nf3 Nf6(2... g6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc65. Nc3 Nf6) 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6
Transpositions

A good Benoni player should be familiar with the Tarrasch Defense, as the Benoni can
often transpose to a slight variation of this if white plays 2. e4. Knowing the Sicilian
Dragon, especially the accelerated variations, can also be useful because
transpositions are often possible and can lead to strong positions for black when white
isn’t ready for this sudden change in position. The Benoni is a response to 1.d4, so you
can’t play it if white plays 1.e4. But luckily for us Benoni players, the French defense is
typically met with 2.d4, and responding with 2…c5 leads to the Franco-Sicilian, which is
almost always transposable to the Modern Benoni. The Nimzo-Indian defense is a
common transposition in the Modern Benoni (occurring in nearly half of all games
played with that opening), and is essential for any Modern Benoni player to know well.
The King’s Indian Defense shares many characteristics with the Benoni and
transpositions between lines are common.
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. Nc3 e6 4. Nf3d5

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 c5 3. e4 cxd44. Nxd4 d6 5. Nc3 g6

1. e4 e6 2. d4 c5 3. Nf3 d6 4. Nc3e5 5. d5 Nf6

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4(3... c5? 4. d5 exd5 5. cxd5 d66. e4! g6 7. f4 Bg7 8. Bb

5+)

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e6 4. Nc3exd5 5. cxd5 g6

Disclaimers
The Benoni is an advanced opening that requires players to constantly be aware of the
potential of all pieces, especially the threat of pawn breaks. Players who don’t have a
strong knowledge of positional setups that rely heavily on pawn structure should avoid
this opening until they have more experience. However, the Old Benoni should be
playable by less skilled players. Also, don’t complain about the lack of detail, because
this is a basic guide that is only meant to familiarize players with the absolute basics of
the opening.

Modern Benoni Defense

for aggressive Players

The Benoni defense is a closed chess opening and belongs to the family of indian
openings and is sometimes called Benoni-Indian Defense.

The Modern Benoni Defense starts usually with the moves:

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5

White plays d5 to gain space in the center.

If Black plays c5 right away like 1.d4 c5 2.d5 then this is the Old-Ben-Oni
Defense, which has the same pawn structure, just the knight move is delayed.
White does not capture the pawn on c5 because Black would regain it later by
playing 2...e6 or 2...Qa5+.

If Black plays the modern Benoni 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 and then 3...b5 now,
which is a pawn sacrifice, we are entering the realms of the Benko Gambit,
where Black seizes the initiative on the queenside. This opening is
recommended if you are an attacking player.
If Black continues quietly with 3...d6, 3...e6 or 3...g6 then this leads to the
Benoni main lines.

Modern Benoni main lines:

Fianchetto - variation 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.Nf3 g6 7.g3

Nimzowitsch - Variation 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.Nf3 g6 7.Nd2 (with

the idea: Nf3-d2-c4 to stop the c5-pawn and to attack d6 with Bf4)

Classical Variation 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Be2

Three Pawn Attack 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.f4 Bg7 8.Nf3

Taimanov Variation 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.f4 Bg7 8.Bb5+

Schmid Benoni The german chess grandmaster Lothar Schmid practiced in

the 60th the setup 1.d4 c5 2.d5 d6 3.e4 Nf6 4.Nc3 g6 which is called Schmid
Benoni now.

Czech Benoni Another setup leads to the Czech Benoni: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5
3.d5 e5 - Black has played e5 and locked up the center. Future play will be
expected on the wings.
In the modern Benoni White has space advantage in the center but Black
gains active piece play. White plays for the center break e5 and Black tries to
expand with ...b5 on the queenside and blocks white's e5 center-break in
putting up pressure against the e4 pawn with Re8 and exercising control of e5
using his knights to make the e5 break of White impossible. Black has a very
active bishop on g7. It is not blocked by a black pawn on e5 like in the kings-
indian defense.

As the position in the Modern Benoni is asymmetrical, it is the right setup for chess
players who play an agressive game and play for a win. Players who like a quiet
positional game should avoid this opening. This can be done by playing 3.Nf3 which
leads to a quieter positional game.

Tip: If you play White, then play the Taimanov variation, which is pretty hard to handle
for Black. Taimanov Variation: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6
7.f4 Bg7 8 Bb5+ Nbd7? (correct move is 8...Nfd7) 9.e5!
If you have Black and want to play the Benoni Defense, then avoid the Taimanov
Variation by varying the move sequence. Play 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6(not 2...c5) 3.Nf3
c5 because white has a knight on f3 now and cannot move the f-pawn. This makes the
center break 9.e5 later on impossible. If White plays 3.Nc3 (not 3.Nf3) instead you play
3...Bb4, which is the Nimzo-Indian Defense.

Benko Gambit

The Benko Gambit (or Volga Gambit) is a chess opening characterised by the move 3...b5 in
the Benoni Defense arising after:

1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 c5
3. d5 b5

The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO) has three codes for the Benko Gambit:[1]

 A57 3...b5
 A58 3...b5 4.cxb5 a6 5.bxa6
 A59 3...b5 4.cxb5 a6 5.bxa6 Bxa6 6.Nc3 d6 7.e4

Origin and predecessors

The idea of sacrificing a pawn with ...b5 and ...a6 is quite old. Karel Opočenský applied
the idea against, among others, Gideon Ståhlberg at Poděbrady 1936,[2] Paul
Keres atPärnu 1937,[3] Erich Eliskases at Prague 1937, and Theo van Scheltinga at
the Buenos Aires Chess Olympiad 1939.[4] Later the Mark Taimanov versus David
Bronstein game at the Candidates Tournament, Zürich 1953, drew attention.[5] Most of
these games began as a King's Indian, with Black only later playing ...c5 and ...b5.
Possibly the first to use the now-standard move order 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 was
Thorvaldsson–Vaitonis, Munich Olympiad 1936.[6]
In many countries, particularly in the Eastern Bloc, the opening is known as the Volga
Gambit. This name is derived from the Volga River after an article about 3...b5!? by B.
Argunow written in Kuibyshev (Samara since 1991), Russia, that was published in the
second 1946 issue of the magazine Shakhmaty v SSSR.
Beginning in the late 1960s, this opening idea was also promoted by Pal Benko,
a Hungarian-American Grandmaster, who provided many new suggestions and
published his bookThe Benko Gambit in 1974. The name Benko Gambit stuck and is
particularly used in English-speaking countries.
In his 1974 book, Benko drew a distinction between the Benko Gambit and the Volga
Gambit: "Volga Gambit" referred to the move 3...b5 (sometimes followed by an early
...e6), while the "Benko Gambit" consisted of the moves 3...b5 4.cxb5 a6, which is now
considered the main line.[7] Now the terms are synonyms and are used interchangeably
or joined together with a hyphen (Volga–Benko Gambit)
Theory
The main line continues with the moves 4. cxb5 a6 5. bxa6 Bxa6 followed by
Black fianchettoing the f8-bishop. (Black players leery of the double-fianchetto system,
where White plays g3 and b3, and fianchettos both bishops, have preferred 5...g6
intending 6.b3 Bg7 7.Bb2 Nxa6! The point is that it is awkward for White to meet the
threat of ...Nb4, hitting d5 and a2, when Nc3 may often be met by ...Nfxd5 because of
the latent pin down the long diagonal.) Black's compensation for the pawn takes several
forms. First, White, who is already behind in development, must solve the problem of
developing the f1-bishop. After 6. Nc3 d6, if White plays 7.e4, then Black will play
7...Bxf1, and after recapturing with the king, White will have to spend time castling
artificially with g3 and Kg2, as in the line 7...Bxf1 8.Kxf1 g6 9.g3 Bg7 10.Kg2. If White
avoids this by fianchettoing the bishop, it will be in a rather passive position, being
blocked by White's own pawn on d5.
Apart from this, Black also obtains fast development and good control of the a1–h8
diagonal and can exert pressure down the half-open a- and b-files. These are benefits
which can last well into the endgame and so, unusually for a gambit, Black does not
generally mind if queens are exchanged; indeed, exchanging queens can often remove
the sting from a kingside attack by White.
Although the main line of the Benko is considered acceptable for White, there are
various alternatives which avoid some of the problems entailed in the main line. The
simplest is to just decline the gambit with 4.Nf3. Other possible moves are 4.Nd2, 4.a4,
and 4.Qc2. Another idea, popular at the grandmaster level as of 2004, is to accept the
pawn but then immediately return it with 4.cxb5 a6 5.b6. Another popular alternative is
5.e3.

Use[edit]
The gambit's most notable practitioner has been its eponym, Pal Benko. Many of the
world's strongest players have used it at one time or another, including former world
champions Viswanathan Anand, Garry Kasparov, Veselin Topalov and Mikhail Tal, and
Grandmasters Vassily Ivanchuk, Michael Adams, Alexei Shirov, Boris Gelfand,
and Evgeny Bareev. It is a very popular opening at amateur level, where it is considered
to offer Black good practical chances of playing for a win.

Benko Gambit
The Benko Gambit is one of the most well respected gambits in chess. For this reason it
is one of the main lines stemming from the Benoni Defense.
White can either accept the gambit or decline this gambit with Nf3. Although some
players may prefer to decline the gambit if they are unfamiliar you will amost always see
white accept with cxb5.
Black’s entire goal is to give up a pawn early on to give himself a big advantage on the
queen side. Black will continue to try to give white another pawn with a6. Many players
don’t mind playing down a pawn as black because of the great attacking lines that stem
from the queen side attack in the benko gambit.
If you play as white in the Benko Gambit and you don’t want to get into the main line,
defending your queen side all game, it is common practice to give back the pawn
material advantage and focus on building up your central control.
This opening is not for the faint of heart. It’s a very aggressive opening and should be
played accordingly.

Tarrasch Defense
The Tarrasch Defense is a chess opening characterized by the moves:

1. d4 d5
2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 c5

The Tarrasch is a variation of the Queen's Gambit Declined.

With his third move, Black makes an aggressive bid for central space. After White plays
cxd5 and dxc5, Black will be left with anisolated pawn on d5. Such a pawn may be
weak, since it can no longer be defended by other pawns, but it grants Black a foothold
in the center, and Black's bishops will have unobstructed lines for development.
The opening was advocated by the German master Siegbert Tarrasch, who contended
that the increased mobility Black enjoys is well worth the inherent weakness of the
isolated center pawn. Although many other masters, after the teachings of Wilhelm
Steinitz, rejected the Tarrasch Defense out of hand because of the pawn weakness,
Tarrasch continued to play his opening while rejecting other variations of the Queen's
Gambit, even to the point of putting question marks on routine moves in all variations
except the Tarrasch (which he awarded an exclamation mark) in his book Die moderne
Schachpartie. (See chess punctuation.)
The Tarrasch Defense is considered sound. Even if Black fails to make use of his
mobility and winds up in an inferior endgame, tied to the defense of his isolated pawn,
he may be able to hold the draw if he defends accurately.
In the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, the Tarrasch Defense has codes D32 through
D34.

Main line: 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.g3 Nf6

In the main line, White will isolate Black's queen pawn with 4.cxd5 exd5 and attempt to
exploit its weakness. The most common setup is tofianchetto his king's bishop in order
to put pressure on the isolated d5-pawn, as 3...c5 has relinquished the possibility of
protecting the point d5 by means of ...c6.
After 4.cxd5, Black may offer the Hennig-Schara Gambit with 4...cxd4. While this was
once essayed by Alexander Alekhine, it has never achieved popularity at master level
and is considered good for White.
On his third move White often plays 3.Nf3 instead (in part to avoid the Hennig-Schara),
which after 3...c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nc3 transposes to the main line.
7. Bg2 Be7 8. 0-0 0-0
In modern praxis, 9.Bg5 is most frequently played here, though there are other ideas of
note, 9.dxc5 and 9.b3 being the main alternatives. (Other lines are 9.Be3, 9.Bf4, and
9.a3.)

Swedish Variation
The Swedish Variation (also called the Folkestone Variation) is a sharp line
beginning 6...c4. Black now has a four to three queenside pawnmajority, and will try to
expand with ...b5, with White aiming for a central break with e4. The line is considered
somewhat dubious and is rarely seen nowadays.
The Swedish Variation has ECO code D33.

Review: The Tarrasch Defence

The Tarrasch Defence is a great opening. It is both solid and active, it has a rich history
and it has been endorsed by numerous world class players, including Garry Kasparov.
Dr. Siegbert Tarrasch himself gave the good example when he wrote, more than a
hundred years ago, of ‘his’ 3…c5: “All along I instinctively recognized this move as the
right antidote to the Queen’s Gambit.”

I’ve played the Tarrasch myself for over 10 years, and with tremendous results. It’s fair
to say that if FIDE had only counted my games with this opening for their rating
calculation, I would have had 200 points more than I have now. The only reason I
recently stopped playing it is because I believe (stupidly, no doubt) that it’s necessary to
vary one’s openings from time to time for fear of getting utterly bored with chess.

Another interesting fact is that despite my excellent results, I’ve never felt the slightest
need to read an opening book on the Tarrasch Defence – often Black’s moves are so
natural that there really seems no point. This is a huge difference with other openings,
such as the King’s Indian or the Benoni Defence, where a lack of theoretical knowledge
is likely to result in an endless bunch of duck-eggs.

But a new book by Jacob Aagaard and Nikolaos Ntirlis, The Tarrasch Defence,
published by Quality Chess, has made me change my mind. The two authors (though I
got the impression Ntirlis did most of the original work) present so many fresh and
fascinating ideas in this old opening that it’s impossible to put down. It’s also a very
objective and sensible book, in which the old opening is both treated with respect and is
challenged to defend itself against computer-age scrutiny and rigour.

Although The Tarrasch Defence is extremely useful for White players (I’ll tell you why
further down), it is mainly aimed at players who want to employ this opening with Black.
Thus, the old main line with 9…cxd4 is only mentioned as part of the introduction, and in
general the authors waste no time analyzing black alternatives that they regard as
inferior to the ones they’re suggesting.

Instead, Aagaard and Ntirlis spend most of the book on what they call the ‘Modern
Treatment’:

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.g3 Nf6 7.Bg2 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Bg5
c4! 10.Ne5 Be6
11.b3 h6! The “early h6”-theme recurs time and again in this book. Here, the authors
confidently write:

In fact the only attention the move gets is in the introduction, where the authors mention
German IM Blauert’s well-known shock novelty 12.Qd2! Rad8 13.bxc4 Nxd4!!N
(Pedersen-Blauert, Gausdal 2004) and amazingly, Black seems fine in all lines.
However, after the more prudent 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.Rfd1 Bb4 15.Rfc1! (as mentioned by
Schandorf in his 2009 book Playing the Queen’s Gambit) Black, according to Aagaard
and Ntirlis,
12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.bxc4 dxc4 15.e3 Qa5

The authors don’t stop here but go on to analyze the subsequent positions in great detail. The same is
true for other cases where 11…h6! proves to be surprisingly strong (such as after 11.f4, 11.e3 and
11.Rc1). Although this gives the book it’s a very ‘personal’ touch, I also found it somewhat disappointing
that all these lines I came to love so much, like 11.e3 Nd7 (which is also not bad for Black) and 11.f4
Ng4!? (very exciting as well), are hardly looked at in this book.

But then again: tough luck for me! If Black has more promising ways to play – and Aagaard and Ntirlis
make a convincing case for it – then I should be prepared to kill my darlings and start looking at the new
kids on the block. No boring old theory, but exciting new territory!

And I soon discovered I might actually be better off after all. What to think of the following crazy and
almost completely unknown line?

11.f4 h6! 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.f5 Bxe5! 14.dxe5 Qb6+ 15.Kh1 Qxb2!

Every true Tarrasch player should just love this stuff, which gets its own chapter. The
only problem, of course, is that there’s so much new material here that improvements
are probably just around the corner (although my Rybka and me couldn’t find them so
far). That’s only natural, but it does require a little soberness from the reader from time
to time.

So unless you’re a pro, my advice is to just sort of browse through these pages and
then simply go play the position – much more fun than trying to memorize all these
unlikely moves that Tarrasch himself wouldn’t have found behind the board either…

Despite such spectacular outbursts, I felt the book’s real asset is its excellent treatment
of various endgames where Black can or cannot achieve perfect equality. Playing the
Tarrasch has taught me to try and correctly evaluate certain highly typical endgames,
for instance with an isolated d-pawn or with doubled c-pawns. These endgames are
often not as bad as they look, and they are always very difficult to play for both sides.
Despite this, the authors are very clear about what’s at stake:

They go on to discuss the endgame with doubled c-pawns. The following fragment is
worth quoting in full:

11.b3 h6 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.bxc4 dxc4 15.e3 Qa5 16.Rc1! Rac8 17.Qa4!
Qxa4 18.Nxa4 Be7 19.Nb2! Ba3 20.Rc2 Bxb2 21.Rxb2 Rc7!

I find such fragments irresistible, and in fact this is only the beginning of the discussion
of this particular endgame, which goes on for no less than 6 more pages.

I could go on and on about the many beautiful variations in this book, but the truth is
that it is crammed with fantastic stuff - really too much to mention in one review. So let
 me just say that the authors treat the ever-important Timman Variation (9.dxc5 Bxc5
10.Bg5 d4 11.Bxf6 Qxf6 12.Nd5) with due adoration and skepticism (I’ve always felt the
line to be both overestimated and underestimated at the same time!). Here, too, they
improve existing theory as they go along in many crucial lines.

Even more interesting is the authors’ “big discovery” that a ‘minor’ deviation in this
opening turns out to be so dangerous it’s worth two separate chapters:

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.dxc5!

This is one of those simple-looking lines I myself have never dared to look at closely
(and has fortunately never been played against me!). The problem for Black, which is of
course well-known, is that after 6…d4 7.Na4 Bxc5 8.Nxc5 Qa5+ Black will regain the
piece but White will have the two bishops. Yes, you’ll say, but isn’t Black terribly active
now?

Well, that’s what I always thought too, but the authors forced me to evaluate the
endgame that Black gets after:

9.Bd2 Qxc5 10.Rc1 Qb6 11.e3 Nf6 12.Bc4 dxe3 13.Bxe3 Qb4+ 14.Qd2 Qxd2+
15.Kxd2 Be6 16.Bxe6 fxe6

Jacob Aagaard and Nikolaos Ntirlis invite their readers to think about these positions for
themselves, rather than to just memorize what they prescribe. Would you mind playing
this position as Black? If you don’t, then you’ve got what it takes to become a real
Tarrasch player – not scared of isolated pawns, bishops or your engine indicating
+0.41. The Tarrasch Defence invites you to be scared of nothing.

D32: Queen's Gambit Declined, Tarrasch defence

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5

D32 Sub-variants:

 Queen's Gambit Declined, Tarrasch defence

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5
 Queen's Gambit Declined, Tarrasch, von Hennig-Schara gambit
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. cxd5 cxd4
 Queen's Gambit Declined, Tarrasch defence, 4.cd ed
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. cxd5 exd5
 Queen's Gambit Declined, Tarrasch defence, Tarrasch gambit
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. cxd5 exd5 5. dxc5 d4 6. Na4 b5
 Queen's Gambit Declined, Tarrasch defence, Marshall gambit
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. cxd5 exd5 5. e4
 Queen's Gambit Declined, Tarrasch defence
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Nf3
Possible continuations:
4. cxd5 5315 40.4 % 34.1 % 25.5 %

4. e3 1180 34.3 % 34.5 % 31.2 %

4. Nf3 500 34.2 % 27 % 38.8 %

4. dxc5 104 29.8 % 23.1 % 47.1 %

4. Bf4 5 40 % 60 %

4. e4 3 33.3 % 66.7 %

Dutch Defence
The Dutch Defence is a chess opening characterised by the moves:
1. d4 f5
Black's 1... f5 stakes a serious claim to the e4-square and envisions an attack in
the middlegame on White's kingside; however, it also weakens Black's kingside some
(especially the e8–h5 diagonal)[1] and contributes nothing to Black's development. Like
its 1.e4 counterpart, the Sicilian Defence, the Dutch is an aggressive and unbalancing
opening, resulting in the lowest percentage of draws among the most common replies to
1.d4.[2] Through the ages White has tried all sorts of methods to exploit the kingside
weaknesses, such as the Staunton Gambit (2.e4) and Korchnoi Attack (2.h3 and 3.g4),
but Black's resources seem just about adequate.
The Dutch has never been a main line against 1.d4 and is rarely seen at high level,
although a number of top players, includingAlexander Alekhine, Bent Larsen, Paul
Morphy and Miguel Najdorf, have used it with success. Perhaps its high-water mark
occurred in 1951 when both World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik and his
challenger, David Bronstein, played it in their 1951 World Championship match. Among
the world's top 10 players today, only Hikaru Nakamura is a consistent practitioner.

History[edit]
Elias Stein (1748–1812), an Alsatian who settled in The Hague, recommended the
defence as the best reply to 1.d4 in his 1789 book Nouvel essai sur le jeu des échecs,
avec des réflexions militaires relatives à ce jeu.
Siegbert Tarrasch rejected the opening as unsound in his 1931 work The Game of
Chess, arguing that White should reply with the Staunton Gambit, with White being
better after 2.e4 fxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 c6 5.f3! exf3

Theory[edit]
White most often fianchettoes his king's bishop with g3 and Bg2. Black also sometimes
fianchettoes his king's bishop with ...g6 and ...Bg7 (the Leningrad Dutch), but may
instead develop his bishop to Be7, d6 (after ...d5), or b4 (the latter is most often seen if
White plays c4 before castling). Play often runs 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.Nf3 (4.Nh3!? is
also possible, intending Nf4–d3 to control the e5-square if Black plays the Stonewall
Variation) Be7 5.0-0 0-0 6.c4 and now Black chooses between 6...d5 (the characteristic
move of the Stonewall), 6...d6, the Ilyin–Zhenevsky System (less popular today), or
Alekhine's move 6...Ne4!? retaining the option of moving the d-pawn either one or two
squares.
The Stonewall Dutch enjoyed a resurgence of interest in the 1980s and 1990s, when
leading grandmasters Artur Yusupov, Sergey Dolmatov, Nigel Short and Simen
Agdesteinhelped develop the system where Black plays an earlier ...d5 and places his
dark-squared bishop on d6.[4] Termed the Modern Stonewall, this setup has remained
more popular than the traditional early ...Be7.
The opening's attacking potential is shown in the Polish Immortal, in which Miguel
Najdorf, using the Stonewall Variation, sacrificed all of his minor pieces to win
by checkmate.

White continuations
The traditional move order involves White playing 2.c4. More commonly, White will start
with 2.g3. Some common variations are: c4 is played after g3 and Bg2; c4 is played
after Nf3; and c4 is played after 0-0.
Examples:

 traditional: 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 d6

common: 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.0-0 0-0 6.c4 d6 (diagram)

Other second moves[edit]

White has various more aggressive alternatives to the standard moves, including

 2.Nc3 Nf6 (or d5) 3.Bg5;

 2.Bg5;
 2.e4!?, the Staunton Gambit, named after Howard Staunton, who introduced it in his
match against Bernhard Horwitz.[5][6] The Staunton Gambit was once a feared
attacking line,[7] but it has been out of favor for over 80 years.[8] Grandmaster Larry
Christiansen and International Master Jeremy Silman have opined that it "offers
White equality at best."[9]
 Carl Mayet introduced a completely different gambit approach to the Dutch in 1839
against von der Lasa, playing 2.h3 followed by 3.g4.[10] Von der Lasa later published
analysis of this line in the first edition of the Handbuch des Schachspiels.[11][12] Viktor
Korchnoi, one of the world's leading players, reintroduced the line into tournament
practice in Korchnoi–Känel, Biel 1979.[13] GM Christiansen later concluded, as von
der Lasa and Staunton had done over 140 years earlier, that Black could get a good
game by declining the gambit with 2...Nf6 3.g4 d5![14]
Black sometimes starts with the move-order 1...e6 to avoid these lines although then
Black must be ready to play the French Defense if White plays 2.e4 and Black can no
longer play the Leningrad Dutch.
ECO[edit]
The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO) has twenty codes for the Dutch Defence, A80 through
A99.
 A80: 1.d4 f5
 A81: 1.d4 f5 2.g3
 A82: 1.d4 f5 2.e4 (Staunton Gambit)
 A83: 1.d4 f5 2.e4 fxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 (Staunton Gambit)
 A84: 1.d4 f5 2.c4
 A85: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 (Rubinstein Variation)
 A86: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3
 A87: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nf3 (Leningrad Dutch)
 A88: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 d6 7.Nc3 c6 (Leningrad Dutch)
 A89: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 d6 7.Nc3 Nc6 (Leningrad Dutch)
 A90: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2
 A91: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7
 A92: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0
 A93: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 d5 7.b3 (Botvinnik Variation)
 A94: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 d5 7.b3 c6 8.Ba3 (Stonewall)
 A95: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 d5 7.Nc3 c6 (Stonewall)
 A96: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 d6
 A97: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 d6 7.Nc3 Qe8 (Ilyin–Genevsky
Variation)
 A98: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 d6 7.Nc3 Qe8 8.Qc2 (Ilyin–Genevsky
Variation)
 A99: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 d6 7.Nc3 Qe8 8.b3 (Ilyin–Genevsky
Variation)

Dutch Defense
The Dutch Defense is a very active defense in chess against 1.d4. Black looks to
control the e4-square while completely unbalancing the position. Later on in the chess
game, black will look to future his attack on white’s kingside. One of the key concepts is
that the weak f7 square that black has becomes even more a target for white and many
times white will focus exclusively on targeting this weakness. In return, black will have
very active pieces that are not cramped and should provide for some exciting game
play.
White usually fianchettoes his king’s bishop onto g2 to add support on the e4 square
that black is attacking. Black also might fianchetto his bishop in the kingside to add
pressure on the dark squares. As both sides have very different strategies, most games
with the Dutch Defense become very lively and active.
For those players that encounter 1.d4 often and don’t like playing the Queen’s Gambit
line, the Dutch Defense gives lots of great counterattacking for black and is a very good
alternative.
Watch the video below to watch more detailed explanations of the opening, multiple
variations, and extended lines.
The Dutch Defence 1.d4 f5
a Chess SetUp for Black versus 1.d4

Use the Dutch as a surprize weapon as it is not quite sound and not played at
top level chess.

The Dutch Defence is a closed chess opening. It starts with the moves:

1.d4 f5

Stonewall Variation See above - Black should try to activate his dead bishop
on c8 and play it to h5 and exchange it, or place it to b7 and then prepare the
c-pawn push to c5. This set up is not very flexible for Black, but Black will not
get overrun at the kingside because it is highly unlikely that White will be able
to organize a kingside attack due to the blocked pawn structure f5,e6,d5.

Most popular in the beginning was the Stonewall variation (see above), but
the Leningrad Dutch variation has become more popular nowadays where
Black plays his bishop to g7. (called: Fianchetto)

Some top chess players have played it in earlier times like Alexander
Alekhine, Bent Larsen and Paul Morphy. It was played in the 1951
championship match between Mikhail Botvinnik and David Bronstein.

However the Dutch is seldom played in top level chess nowadays as it is

suspected to be not quite sound.

With the move f5 Black wants to control e4 to place a knight there later on in
the game. This idea will be combined with an attack on the white king at the
kingside. But this opening move weakens the black kingside and does not
develop a piece. And it often leads to blocked and unflexible positions.

White tries to open up the center with e2-e4 or d4-d5 and combines this with
an attack at the queenside.

A81: Dutch defence

1. d4 f5 2. g3
DUTCH DEFENCE

A81 Sub-variants:

 Dutch defence
1. d4 f5 2. g3
 Dutch defence, Blackburne variation
1. d4 f5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 e6 4. Nh3
 Dutch defence
1. d4 f5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 g6
 Dutch, Leningrad, Basman system
1. d4 f5 2. g3 g6 3. Bg2 Bg7 4. Nf3 c6 5. O-O Nh6
 Dutch, Leningrad, Karlsbad variation
1. d4 f5 2. g3 g6 3. Bg2 Bg7 4. Nh3

Budapest Gambit
The Budapest Gambit (or Budapest Defence) is a chess opening that begins with the
moves:
1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 e5
Despite an early debut in 1896, the Budapest Gambit received attention from leading
players only after a win as Black byGrandmaster Milan Vidmar over Akiba Rubinstein in
1918.[1] It enjoyed a rise in popularity in the early 1920s, but nowadays is rarely played
at the top level. It experiences a lower percentage of draws than other main lines, but
also a lower overall performance for Black.
After 3.dxe5 Black can try the Fajarowicz variation 3...Ne4 which concentrates on the
rapid development of pieces, but the most common move is 3...Ng4 with three main
possibilities for White. The Adler variation 4.Nf3 sees White seeking a spatial
advantage in the centre with his pieces, notably the important d5-square. The Alekhine
variation 4.e4 gives White an important spatial advantage and a strong pawn centre.
The Rubinstein variation 4.Bf4 leads to an important choice for White, after 4...Nc6
5.Nf3 Bb4+, between 6.Nbd2 and 6.Nc3. The reply 6.Nbd2 brings a positional game in
which White enjoys the bishop pair and tries to break through on thequeenside, while
6.Nc3 keeps the material advantage of a pawn at the cost of a weakening of the
white pawn structure. Black usually looks to have an aggressive game (many lines can
shock opponents that do not know the theory) or cripple White's pawn structure.
The Budapest Gambit contains several specific strategic themes. After 3.dxe5 Ng4,
there is a battle over White's extra pawn on e5, which Black typically attacks with ...Nc6
and (after ...Bc5 or ...Bb4+) ...Qe7, while White often defends it with Bf4, Nf3, and
sometimes Qd5. In the 4.Nf3 variation the game can evolve either with Black attacking
White's kingside with manoeuvres of rook lifts, or with White attacking Black's kingside
with the push f2–f4, in which case Black reacts in the centre against the e3-pawn. In
numerous variations the move c4–c5 allows White to gain space and to open prospects
for his light-square bishop. For Black, the check Bf8–b4+ often allows rapid
development.
History[edit]
In a Chess Notes feature article, Edward Winter showed that the origins of this opening
are not yet entirely elucidated.[1] The first known game with the Budapest Gambit is
Adler–Maróczy (played in Budapest in 1896). This game already featured some key
aspects of the gambit, such as active play for the black pieces, and White making the
typical mistake of moving the queen too early. As the player of the white pieces was not
a strong player, the new opening went unnoticed apart from the local experts who had
witnessed the game. The Hungarians István Abonyi, Zsigmond Barász and Gyula
Breyer further developed the opening. Abonyi played it in 1916 against the Dutch
surgeon Johannes Esserin a small tournament in Budapest. The Austrian player Josef
Emil Krejcik played it against Helmer in Vienna in 1917. Carl Schlechter published an
optimistic analysis of the gambit in the Deutsche Schachzeitung.[2][3][4]

The first use of the opening against a world-class player was at Berlin in April 1918, a
double round-robin tournament with four players: Akiba Rubinstein, Carl
Schlechter, Jacques Mieses and Milan Vidmar. Vidmar had to play Black in the first
round against Rubinstein, then ranked the fourth best player in the world with a
very positional style.[5] At a loss for what to play, he sought advice from his friend
Abonyi, who showed him the Budapest Gambit and the main ideas the Hungarian
players had found. Vidmar followed Abonyi's advice and beat Rubinstein convincingly in
just 24 moves.[6] This victory so heartened Vidmar that he went on to win the
tournament, while Rubinstein was so demoralised by this defeat that he lost another
game against Mieses and drew a third one against Schlechter in the same opening.[2][7]
After this tournament, the gambit finally began to be taken seriously. Top players
like Savielly Tartakower and Siegbert Tarrasch started to play it. Schlechter published in
1918 the monograph Die budapester Verteidigung des Damengambits,[8] which can be
considered the first book on this opening. The gambit reached its peak of popularity
(around five Budapest Gambits for every thousand games played) around 1920, [9] so
much so that many White players adopted the move-order 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 to avoid
it.[10][11]
The leading exponents of 1.d4 started to look for reliable antidotes. Alexander
Alekhine showed how White could get a strong attack with 4.e4 in his games
against Ilya Rabinovich (Baden-Baden 1925) and Adolf Seitz (Hastings 1925–26). But a
few weeks later a theme tournament on the Budapest Gambit was held, in Budapest,
and the result was 14½–21½ in Black's favor. Another tournament in Semmering the
same year saw Alekhine losing to Karl Gilg in his pet line with White against the gambit,
so that the e4-line had a mixed reputation.[10] Meanwhile, more positional plans were
also developed for White. Rubinstein showed how White could get a small positional
advantage with 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2, an assessment still valid today. The
possibility 6.Nc3 was also considered attractive, as structural weaknesses were not
valued as much as a material advantage of one pawn in those days. By the end of the
1920s, despite the invention of the highly original Fajarowicz variation 3...Ne4 in 1928,
the Budapest Gambit was considered theoretically dubious.[12]
This assessment was left unchanged for decades, as few players at the highest level
used the Budapest Gambit and information about games from lesser players could not
easily be found. During that time, various responses were developed against the 4.Bf4
line; these included 4...g5, invented by István Abonyi, further developed by the masters
Bakonyi and Drimer. The master Kaposztas showed that even when White succeeded
in his positional plan, it only meant for Black a worse endgame with drawish
tendencies.[notes 1] Two pawn sacrifices were also introduced in the variation with 6.Nbd2
(still in the 4.Bf4 line), based on pawn pushes d7–d6 or f7–f6 and a quick attack against
b2.[13]
The Budapest Gambit saw a short-lived revival in 1984–85 when Chess
Informant included three games (as many as in the previous fifteen years), all played at
a high level of competition, and all won by Black.[14] But White players found
reinforcements and even invented a line with 4.e3 and 5.Nh3. [15] In the 21st century,
despite Shakhriyar Mamedyarov's successful efforts to rehabilitate the line 4.Bf4 g5, the
Budapest Gambit almost never appears at the highest level. [16][17] Its most recent
appearance was whenRichárd Rapport defeated Boris Gelfand with Black using the
opening in round 2 of the 2014 Tata Steel Chess competition.[18]

Performance[edit]
In the database of the website ChessGames.com, the Budapest Gambit scores 28.9%
Black wins, 44.1% White wins and 27.1% draws. The percentage of draws is especially
low compared to mainstream alternatives such as 2...e6 (43.7% draws) or 2...g6 (37%
draws). This opening gives more chance to win for both opponents, although the
percentage of Black wins is still lower than the alternative 2...c5. In the main line 3.dxe5
Ng4 4.Bf4 the percentage of Black wins already falls to 21.1%, lower than the main lines
after 2...e6 or 2...g6.[19]
The Budapest Gambit has never been widely used as Black by the top-ten
chessplayers. Richard Réti used it five times in the period 1919–26 when he was
among the ten best players in the world,[20] but he scored only 1½ points.[21] Savielly
Tartakower used it four times in 1928 when he was the eighth-best player in the
world,[22] including thrice in one tournament (Bad Kissingen 1928) but he scored only ½
point against world-class opposition: Bogoljubov then ranked number four in the
world,[23] Capablanca ranked number two,[24] and Rubinstein ranked number
seven.[5][25] Rudolf Spielmann used it thrice in 1922–23 when he was about number 9–
12 in the world,[26] with a win against Euwe but defeats
[27]
against Yates and Sämisch. Nigel Short played the gambit twice in the years 1992–
93 when he was number 7–11,[28] scoring only ½ points against Karpov (then ranked
number two[29]) and Ivanchuk (then ranked number
[30] [31]
three ). Recently, Mamedyarov used it twice in 2004 (scoring 1½ with a win
against Van Wely) when he was not already among the top-players, and six times in
2008 when he was about number 6–14; he scored five points with wins against former
world champion Kramnik (then ranked number three[32]), and
grandmasters Tkachiev and Eljanov, but all six games took place
in rapid or blitz events. [33]

Nicolas Giffard summarises the modern assessment of the Budapest Gambit:[34]

[It is] an old opening, seldom used by champions without having fallen in disgrace.
While White has several methods to get a small advantage, this defence is strategically
sound. Black gets a good pawn structure and possibilities of attack on the kingside. His
problems generally come from the white pressure on the d-column and a lack of space
to manoeuvre his pieces.
Boris Avrukh writes, "The Budapest Gambit is almost a respectable opening; I doubt
there is a refutation. Even in the lines where White manages to keep an extra pawn,
Black always has a lot of play for it."[35]

Strategic and tactical themes

White builds up an imposing pawn centre
In the Alekhine variation White does not try to defend his e5-pawn and keep his material advantage,
but instead he concentrates on building an imposing pawn centre. This brings him good prospects of
a space advantage that may serve as a basis for a future attack on the kingside. However, the
extended pawn centre has its drawbacks, as Lalic explains: "White must invest some valuable tempi
in protecting his pawn structure, which allows Black to seize the best squares for his minor pieces
with excellent prospects for counterplay against the white centre."[36]

Hence in this variation Black lets White build his pawn centre only to undermine it later, a playing
philosophy espoused in the teachings of the hypermodern school. The strategic themes are similar
to the ones that can be found in other openings like the Four Pawns Attack, the Alekhine Defence or
the Grünfeld Defence.[36]

Budapest rook[edit]
The "Budapest rook" is a manoeuvre, introduced by the IM Dolfi Drimer in 1968,[37] with
which Black develops the a8 rook aggressively along the sixth rank using the moves
a7–a5 and the rook lift Ra8–a6–h6.[38] For example, this can happen in the Adler
variation after the move sequence 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3 Nc6
6.Be2 Ngxe5 7.Nxe5 Nxe5 8.a3 a5 9.0-0 0-0 10.Nc3 Ra6 11.b3 Rh6.
The rook is then used to support a piece attack against White's castled King.[39] Black
can easily get several pieces around the white king, notably a rook to h6, a queen to h4
and a knight on g4. The queen's arrival on the h4-square is facilitated by the absence of
a white knight on the f3-square (that would otherwise cover the h4-square) and of a
black knight on the f6-square (that would block the way for the black queen). [39] If White
tries to defend with h2–h3, this may allow the Bc8 to be sacrificed at h3 in order to open
the h-file.[39]
The Bc5 may not seem particularly useful in this attack, but by eyeing e3 it makes it
difficult for White to play f4 to chase away the black knight; [40] furthermore, the attack on
e3 is sometimes intensified with major pieces doubling on the e-file. Besides, the Bc5
can sometimes be recycled to the b8–h2 diagonal via Bc5–a7–b8, to apply still more
pressure on h2.[41] It can also stay on the a7–g1 diagonal to put pressure on f2, if White
pushes e3–e4 at some stage.
The "Budapest rook" was an invigorating innovation of the 1980s, and gave the gambit
new life. However, inconveniences arise from delaying d7–d6 in order to allow the lift:
the light-square bishop has to wait a long time to develop, and any attack on the Bc5 is
potentially annoying for Black (since it means either closing the sixth rank with
...d6/...b6, abandoning the active a7–g1 diagonal, or blocking the rook when deployed
to a7). This, in addition to the risk of awkwardness in the king side (a knight on f5 will
fork the Rh6 and the Qh4) and the single-mindedness of Black's plan (with nothing to
fall back on if the direct attack is repelled), has made some revisit the old lines, where it
is instead the king's rook that is developed to h6. The queen's rook can then be retained
on the queenside, and will be well-placed if the b-file opens as a result of Black's Bc5
being exchanged and recaptured with a b6 pawn.
Advantages of ...Bb4+
In most variations Black has the opportunity to play Bb4+, a move whose advisability
depends on White's possible answers. If White blocks the check with Nb1–c3 then
Black should capture the knight only if White is forced to take back with the pawn, after
which theisolated, doubled pawns are a positional advantage for Black that fully
compensates the loss of the bishop pair, and even the gambitted pawn. Due to its
immunity to pawn attacks, the c5-square may be used by Black as a stronghold for his
pieces. Piece exchanges can be good for Black even if he is a pawn down, as he can
hope to exploit the crippled pawn structure in the ending. [42] On the other hand, if White
can recapture with a piece, the trade on c3 typically concedes the bishop pair for
insufficient compensation.
If White is compelled to play Nb1–d2, it is sometimes a minuscule positional
concession, as it makes it harder for this knight to reach its ideal square d5. [43] However,
if Black is later compelled to exchange Bxd2, that is advantageous to White who
thereby gains the bishop pair.[43] Besides, in some situations the Bb4 could be as
misplaced as the Nd2.[43] Finally, if White has to play Bd2, then Black should exchange
the bishops only if White is forced to recapture with the Nb1, as a recapture by the Qd1
would still allow the Nb1 to reach the d5-square through Nb1–c3–d5.
For example in the Alekhine variation, after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e4 Nxe5 5.f4
Ng6 6.Nf3, the move 6...Bb4+ (see diagram at right) is good because White has no
good reply apart from 7.Nc3. Indeed, 7.Nbd2? just loses a pawn after 7...Nxf4 whereas
7.Bd2?! Qe7! causes White great problems: both the pawn f4 and e4 pawns are
attacked, and 8.Bxb4 Qxb4+ results in a double attack against b2 and f4. [44] After 7.Nc3
Black can either answer with 7...Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 or with 7...Qf6, simultaneously attacking
c3 and f4.[notes 2]
Pressure against the e4-square and the e3-pawn
In the Adler variation 3...Ng4 4.Nf3, after White has moved f2–f4, the e3-pawn becomes
a backward pawn on an open file. Black can then apply pressure on the e-file in
general, against the e3-pawn and the e4-square in particular. Typical moves in this plan
would include the manoeuvre Ne5–d7–f6, followed by putting the heavy pieces on the
e-file with Rf8–e8 and Qd8–e7 (see diagram at right).[45] The Bc5 is already well placed
to pressure the e3-pawn. Depending on circumstances, the Bc8 may be involved either
on b7 or on f5, in both cases to assert control over the central e4-square.
This plan is viable only if certain conditions are met. The d7-square must be available
for the Ne5, so that it can later transfer to f6. White should also not be able to easily
advance the e3-pawn to e4, where it would be adequately defended by the Nc3 and a
possible Bf3.[45]Finally, White should not have the time to launch a quick attack on
Black's castled position with the pawn thrust f4–f5–f6.
Breakthrough with the c4–c5 push
In the main lines the pawn push c4–c5 often brings positional gains to White. In
the Rubinstein variation 3...Ng4 4.Bf4 with 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.a3, after
7...Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.e3 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 (see diagram at right) White gets
the bishop pair and a space advantage. In order to build up on these potential
advantages, the most common plan is to perform a minority attack on the queenside,
with the goal of performing the pawn advance c4–c5 in favourable conditions.[46] This
push can yield several advantages to White: it enhances the prospects of the light-
square bishop, it creates a half-open file to attack with the rooks, and it creates
an isolated,backward pawn on d6 after the exchange c5xd6.[46]
For example, in the diagram on the right, after the natural but mistaken 10...0-0?! White
can immediately realise his strategic goal with 11.c5![47] Then if Black accepts the
temporary sacrifice after 11...Qxc5 12.Rc1 Qd6 13.Qxd6 cxd6 14.Rd1 White gets his
pawn back and has created a weak pawn in d7, while if Black declines the pawn he has
difficulties in developing his queenside (for example 11...d6 might be followed by
12.cxd6 Qxd6 13.Qxd6 cxd6 and the pawn on d6 is weak).[47] Therefore Black generally
tries to hinder the c4–c5 push with moves like d7–d6, b7–b6 or Rf8–d8 (if this creates a
hidden vis-à-vis between the Rd8 and the Qd2).[46]
Similarly, in the Rubinstein variation 3...Ng4 4.Bf4 with 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nc3, after
6...Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 White is saddled with doubled pawns in c3 and c4 that limit the scope
of his bishop pair. Hence the push c4–c5 can be used to free the light-squared bishop
and disrupt Black's position.[48]
In the Adler variation 3...Ng4 4.Nf3, after 4...Bc5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Be2 0-0 7.0-0 Re8 8.Nc3
Ngxe5 9.b3 a5 10.Bb2 Nxf3+ Bxf3 Ne5 12.Be2 Ra6 13.Qd5 Qe7 14.Ne4 Ba7 White has
good reasons to push 15.c5.[49] This move would close the diagonal of the Ba7. It would
make it harder for Black to develop the Bc8 as pawn pushes like b7–b6 or d7–d6 may
be answered respectively by cxb6 or cxd6, creating a weak pawn for Black. Also, the
prospects of the Be2 would be enhanced.

Kieninger Trap
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.a3 Ngxe5 8.axb4
Nd3#
The Kieninger Trap is named after Georg Kieninger who used it in an offhand game
against Godai at Vienna in 1925.[50] It occurs in theRubinstein variation 3...Ng4
4.Bf4 with 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.a3. The Bb4 is attacked but Black does not
have to move it for the moment, and instead both regains the gambit pawn and sets
a trap with 7...Ngxe5 (see diagram at right). Superficially, White seems to win a piece
with 8.axb4??, but that would be falling into the Kieninger Trap because it would allow
8...Nd3 mate; even after the exchange 8.Nxe5 Nxe5, the threat of ...Nd3 mate remains
and indirectly defends the Bb4 from capture.
A rare variant has also occurred in a miniature in the Fajarowicz variation, after the
moves 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ne4 4.Qc2 Bb4+ 5.Nd2 d5 6.exd6 Bf5 7.Qa4+ Nc6 8.a3
Nc5 9.dxc7 Qe7! when White, trying to save his queen, fell into 10.Qd1 Nd3 mate. [51]
Adler variation 3...Ng4 4.Nf3

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3

The Adler variation is named after the game Adler–Maróczy, played at the 1896 Budapest
tournament.[52][53] White is ready to return the e5-pawn in order to develop his pieces on their best
squares, i.e. the d5-square for the Nb1, the f3-square for the Ng1 and the a1–h8 diagonal for the
Bc1.

Black can try the minor line 4...Nc6 that delays the development of its dark-square bishop, to
develop it along the a1–h8 diagonal instead of the a3–f8 diagonal, depending on the circumstances.
But the main line is 4...Bc5 to attack the f2-pawn, forcing 5.e3, blocking in White's bishop on c1, so
that after 5...Nc6 White will not have enough pieces to protect his e5-pawn in the long run. Placing
the bishop on the c5-square also has subtler points, as Tseitlin explains:[54]

At first sight the bishop on c5 lacks prospects, being held at bay by the pawn on e3, and is insecure
in view of the threat to exchange it by Nc3–a4/e4. In reality, posting the bishop here has a deep
strategic significance. It holds up the advance of the e- and the f-pawns (assuming the white bishop
will go to b2), and thereby secures e5 as a future knight outpost, which in turn restricts the activity of
both White's bishops. As to the exchanging threat, the bishop may conveniently retreat on a7 or f8,
or even in some cases remain on c5 with support from a pawn on b6.

An important theoretical decision for White is to choose whether to play a2–a3. While this move
protects the b4 square and threatens the pawn advance b2–b4, it encourages Black's rook lift Ra8–
a6–h6. As Lalic puts it:

It was not so long ago that 8.a3, with the obvious intention of expanding with b2–b4, was the
standard move. However, after Black responds with the logical a7–a5, it became apparent in
tournament practice that the inclusion of these moves is in fact in Black's favour, as it gives his
queen's rook access into play via the a6-square.

Line 4...Bc5 with a2–a3[edit]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3 Nc6 6.a3
The opinion of the move 6.a3 has gradually shifted from being the main continuation to
being a possible continuation, then down to its present status of being considered a
mistake. The threat to push b2–b4 must be taken seriously by Black, who typically
answers 6...a5. But in the 1980s it was discovered that the push a7–a5 was actually a
very useful one for Black, as it allows the Ra8 to be developed along the sixth rank.
Meanwhile, the push a2–a3 is less useful for White, as he will not be able to easily push
b2–b4. As Tseitlin puts it, "the point is that 6...a5 fits into the plan of attacking White's
kingside, whereas 6.a3 does little in the way of defending it".[55] Thus if White does not
find a clear way to make good use of his move a2–a3, it may turn out to be a critical
waste of tempo.[56][57]
After the topical moves 7.b3 0-0 8.Bb2 Re8 9.Nc3 Ngxe5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Be2 Black
has regained the invested pawn. White has a space advantage in the centre and can
initiate pressure here or on the queenside by pawn pushes like b3–b4 and c4–c5
(possibly supported by a knight on the d5-square). Meanwhile, the white king lacks
defenders so Black can start a pieces-driven attack with therook lift 11...Ra6 (see
section "Budapest rook"). The stem game continued with 12.Nd5 Rh6 13.Bd4 d6
14.Ra2 Bf5 15.Bxc5 dxc5 and Black won in 26 moves.[58] To avoid such an
unfavourable development, White players have changed the move-order to keep the
Bc1 on its original square as long as possible, so that it can help the defence. Thus, the
typical move-order became 7.b3 0-0 8.Nc3 Re8 9.Be2 Ngxe5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.0-0
when 11...Ra6 would be met with 12.Nd5 Rh6 13.e4 immediately attacking the maveric
rook. So Black usually opts for 11...d6, forgetting about the Ra8–a6–h6 manoeuvre.
After 12.Bb2 ECO considers the situation as favourable to White, but Tseitlin thinks
Black still has a lot of possibilities (e.g. the other rook lift Re8–e6–h6), so that "the
struggle still lies ahead".[59]

Line 4...Bc5 without a2–a3[edit]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3 Nc6
By refraining from the advance a2-a3 White tries to gain a tempo on the lines of the
previous section, making it more difficult for Black to initiate the Re8–e6–h6 or Ra8–a6–
h6 lifts. After the moves 6.Be2 0-0 7.0-0 Re8 8.Nc3 Ngxe5 9.Nxe5 Nxe5 White has
tried two different plans.
The older one sees White attack in the centre with moves like b2–b3, Bc1–b2, Qd1–d5,
Nc3–e4 and c4–c5. White gets an important space advantage in the centre, but Black
can attack the kingside with rook lifts. After 10.b3 a5 White can try to capture the Bc5
with 11.Na4 or 11.Ne4, one point being that the retreat 11...Ba7 would lock the Ra8
because Black has not played Ra8–a6 already. Lalic still thinks 11...Ba7 is the right
move after 11.Ne4 due to the importance of the a7–g1 diagonal, but Black can also
reroute the bishop with 11...Bf8 and "White has no obvious path to even a minute
advantage".[60] After 11.Na4 Black can also simply react by 11...b6 when the loss of the
bishop pair is compensated by the semi-open b-file and improved control of the central
squares.[61] Tseitlin considers that after the exchange on c5 Black has the better
position.[62] Hence the main continuation is 11.Bb2, keeping the knight jumps for later.
Then the most common plan for Black is a rook lift: the plan Ra8–a6–h6 was tried in the
much-commented game Åkesson–Tagnon (Berlin Open 1984). Black duly won, but
after the game continuation 11...Ra6 12.Qd5! Qe7 13.Ne4 Ba7 14.c5 Rg6 15.Rac1 Bb8
16.f4 authors do not agree on which side had the advantage. Borik and Tseitlin both
consider White to have a positional advantage, with Tseitlin recommending instead
15...Nc6!, with dangerous threats.[63][64] However Lalic writes of 15...Bb8, "it is true that
the bishop pair looks a bit pathetic lined up on the back rank just now, but there is no
way to stop them breaking out later".[41]
The second plan for White, unveiled by Spassky in 1990, aims at a
kingside blitzkrieg with moves like Kg1–h1, f2–f4, Be2–d3 and Qd1–h5. In the original
game Black did not fathom White's idea, so that after 10.Kh1 a5?! 11.f4 Nc6 12.Bd3 d6
13.Qh5! h6 14.Rf3 Black's pieces were ill-placed to counter White's attack.[65] A more
principled plan for Black is to react in the centre, specifically targeting the backward e3-
pawn and e4-square. After 10.Kh1 d6 11.f4 Nd7! 12.Bd3 Nf6 13.Qf3 Ng4 14.Nd1 f5!
and Black has succeeded in inhibiting White's e3–e4 expansion .[66] As Black was doing
fine with the 11.f4 move-order, White has been searching for a new path with 10.Kh1 d6
11.Na4!? b6! 12.Bd2 a5 13.Nxc5 bxc5 14.f4 Nd7 15.Bf3 when Jeremy Silman prefers
White.[67] White has even dared the immediate 10.f4 Nc6 11.Bd3 when it is extremely
dangerous for Black to take the offered e3-pawn, as White gets a fierce kingside attack
for free.[57]

Rubinstein variation 3...Ng4 4.Bf4

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4
This move sequence is called the "Rubinstein variation" in reference to the famous
game Rubinstein–Vidmar (Berlin 1918) when 4.Bf4 was first employed.[53][68] Various
authors consider this move to be the most dangerous for Black.[57] It aims to answer
4...Bc5 with 5.e3 without blocking the Bc1, contrary to what happens in the Adler
variation 4.Nf3. Another point is that in the Adler variation White faces the risk of a
strong attack against his kingside (see section "Budapest rook"), while in the 4.Bf4
variation this is seldom the case because the Bf4 is well placed to protect White's
kingside. On the other hand, the early development of the bishop means that White is
more vulnerable to the check Bf8–b4+, the b2-pawn is not defended, and in some rare
cases the Bf4 can become subject to attack.
Apart from the sideline 4...g5, the main line continues with both players developing their
pieces around the e5-pawn with 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ when White has an important
choice between the moves 6.Nc3 and 6.Nbd2, each leading to extremely different play.
With 6.Nc3 White acquiesces to the breakup of his queenside pawns in return for a
material advantage of one pawn, the bishop pair and active play in the centre. With
6.Nbd2 White gives back the gambited pawn to keep a healthy pawn structure and
acquire the bishop pair. After 6.Nbd2 Qe7 White generally plays 7.a3 to force the
immediate exchange of bishop for knight, gaining the bishop pair, a spatial advantage
and chances for a minority attack on the queenside. White can also try 6.Nbd2 Qe7
7.e3 to win a tempo over the 7.a3 variation, though he may end up with the exchange at
d2 made in less favourable circumstances, or not at all. The maverick gambit 6...f6 also
exists.[69]

Sideline 4...g5
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 g5
The sideline 4...g5!? was not well regarded at the end of the 20th century. [notes 3] It
weakens several squares—particularly f5 and h5—as they cannot be covered by the g-
pawn any more. White can try to exploit these weaknesses with the manoeuvres Bf4–
d2–c3 (pressure along the diagonal a1–h8), Ng1–e2–g3–h5 (pressure against the
squares f6 and g7) and h2–h4 (to open the h-file). Nonetheless, the 4...g5 line has
found new supporters in recent years thanks to black wins against both 5.Bg3 and
5.Bd2.[70][71]
For years, the reaction 5.Bg3 was not well considered, because the retreat does not
make the most out of Black's provocative fourth move; as Tseitlin points out, "the bishop
is in danger of staying out of play for a long time".[72] But later Lalic found that 5.Bg3 was
"just as effective" as 5.Bd2.[73] Black concentrates on capturing the e5-pawn while White
tries to get an advantage from the weakening of the black kingside. After the typical
moves 5...Bg7 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Nc3 Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.e3 d6 Lalic considers the best try
to be 10.c5!, sacrificing a pawn to weaken Black's control on the e5-square and expose
the black king further. White has also tried to quickly open the h-file with 7.h4 Ngxe5
8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.e3 but after 9...g4! Black succeeds in keeping the file closed.[74]
The alternative to 5.Bg3 is 5.Bd2 to place the bishop on the wide-open diagonal a1–h8,
after which "White can expect a safe advantage".[73] Then according to Lalic, delaying
the recapture with 5...Bg7 6.Bc3 Nc6 7.e3 Ngxe5 is not correct as White can gain an
advantage by 8.h4 or 8.Qh5,[75] so the immediate 5...Nxe5 is better. For some time
6.Bc3 was well considered because Black had problems dealing with various positional
threats, but the correct way for Black was found in 5...Nxe5 6.Bc3 Qe7 7.e3 Rg8! 8.Nf3
Nbc6 9.Be2 d6 10.Nd4 Bd7 11.b4 g4 with good counterplay for Black on the
kingside.[76] White's efforts then switched to 6.Nf3 to open the e-file, something that
Black cannot really avoid, as 6...Bg7 7.Nxe5 Bxe5 8.Bc3 would leave an advantage to
White.[75] For example 8...Qe7 9.Bxe5 Qxe5 10.Nc3 d6 11.e3 and Black is at a loss for
an equalising line,[77] White's advantage consisting in his ability to install his knight on
the strong d5-square and to attack the weakened Black's kingside with the advance h2–
h4. It is better for Black to continue with 6...Nxf3+ 7.exf3 when both 7...h5? and 7...Bg7
would fail to 8.Qe2+, so Black must try 7...d6 8.Qe2+ Be6 instead.[75]
Line 6.Nc3[edit]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nc3
This is the only important line in the Budapest where Black is not ensured of regaining
his sacrificed pawn. Black does best to immediately exchange the Nc3 with 6...Bxc3+
7.bxc3 as otherwise White gets a small positional advantage simply by avoiding the
doubled pawns (see the section "Advantages of ...Bb4+").[78][79] Then Black can put
pressure on the e5-pawn with 7...Qe7 when White's only possibility to keep the pawn
is 8.Qd5. White threatens to ease the pressure with the move h2–h3 that would force
the Ng4 to the unfavourable square h6, so Black's only possibilities to sustain the
initiative are 8...Qa3 and 8...f6.
The line 8...Qa3 puts pressure on the white queenside pawns, pressure that may later
be intensified with Nf6–e4. The black queen also gains access to the a5-square, from
where it puts pressure on the e1–a5 diagonal aimed towards the white king. After 9.Rc1
f6 10.exf6 Nxf6 11.Qd2 d6 12.Nd4 0-0 we reach the position of the famous game
between Rubinstein and Vidmar, when Rubinstein erred with 13.e3? and later
lost.[80] After the better 13.f3 the correct method for Black is to target the c4-pawn with
the regrouping Ne5/Qc5.[81] Hence Lalic thinks 11.Qd2 is inappropriate and gives Black
excellent counterplay, and prefers 11.Qd3 or even 11.Qd1!? After 11.Qd3 0-0 12.g3 d6
13.Bg2 Black should switch to a materialistic mode with 13...Qxa2. [82]
In the other line 8...f6 Black does not want to decentralise his queen and prefers to
concentrate on active piece play in the centre. After9.exf6 Nxf6, 10.Qd1, 10.Qd2 and
10.Qd3 are all possible, but each has its drawbacks: on d1 the queen is not developed,
on d3 it is exposed to Bc8–f5 and on d2 it is exposed to Nf6–e4. Lalic considers 10.Qd3
to be the main move, qualifies 10.Qd1 as a "respectable option", but considers 10.Qd2
as "inaccurate". Meanwhile, Black will try to create counterplay by attacking either the
weak c4-pawn, or the kingside with g7–g5 and h7–h5. In both cases a key possibility is
the move Nf6–e4 that centralises the knight, attacks the weak c3-pawn, controls the c5-
square and supports the g7–g5 thrust.
Line 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.a3[edit]
On the way till 10...d6[edit]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.a3
The Bb4 is attacked but Black can play 7...Ngxe5 to get the gambitted pawn back, as
8.axb4?? would allow the Kieninger trap 8...Nd3 mate (see the section "Kieninger trap").
Now White is more or less forced to exchange a pair of knights with 8.Nxe5 Nxe5.[notes
4] White still cannot win a piece with 9.axb4?? Nd3# or 9.Bxe5?! Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 Qxe5,

so he usually plays 9.e3 in order to protect the c4-pawn and defuse the mating threat,
so that now Black is obliged to move his Bb4. As 9...Bd6 would misplace the bishop and
9...Ba5?? would lose the bishop to 10.b4 Bb6 11.c5, Black usually plays 9...Bxd2+
10.Qxd2.[notes 5]
After 10.Qxd2, Tseitlin explains that "opening manuals assess this position as
favourable to White on the basis of the bishop pair. However, considering the closed
nature of the position, White faces substantial difficulties in the realisation of this
nominal advantage."[83] Black has not a lot of things to be proud of as there are no
targets in White's camp, but can put up a lot of resistance thanks to small assets.
Black's Ne5 is strongly centralised, attacks the c4-pawn, and restricts the Bf1 from
moving to the natural squares d3 and f3. Moreover, exchanging the knight with Bxe5 is
not appealing for White, since that would mean losing the advantage of the bishop pair.
Also, the Bc8 can sometimes become better than its counterpart the Bf1, if it makes it to
the good squares b7 or c6 while the Bf1 remains restricted by the Ne5.
This explains the most natural plans for both sides. White will try a minority attack on
the queenside, in order to increase its space advantage and to create some
weaknesses in the black pawns (e.g. an isolated pawn or a backward pawn). So White
will try to use the advances b2–b4 or c4–c5 in good conditions, supported by the queen
and the rooks on the c-file and the d-file. On the other hand, Black will try to keep the
position closed, most importantly by keeping the c4-pawn where it is in order to keep
the Bf1 at bay. This can be achieved by moves like b7–b6 and d7–d6, and sometimes
the manoeuvre Ne5–d7–f8–e6. The first move by Black has to be 10...d6! because
otherwise White plays 11.c5! and gets a clear advantage immediately. For example
10...b6? loses a pawn to 11.Qd5 Nc6 12.Bxc7, and 10...0-0?! is bad because of 11.c5!
Qxc5? 12.Rc1 Qe7 13.Rxc7 and White is winning already.[47]
International Master Timothy Taylor has suggested an alternative for Black on move 9.
He regards 9...Bxd2+ as inferior, arguing that "the strong black bishop is traded for the
inoffensive knight, and white gets the long-term advantage of the two bishops in a semi-
open game".[84] Taylor instead advocates 9...Bc5, when Black stands well after 10.b4
Bd4! (11.exd4?? Nd3#) 11.Rb1 d6 12.Be2 Bf5 13.Rb3 Ng6 14.Bg3 (14.exd4 Nxf4
15.Re3? Nxg2+ wins; 14.Bxd6 exd6 15.exd4 Nf4 16.g3 Bc2! wins material) Bf6; 10.Ne4
Ng6; 10.Nb3 Bd6; or 10.Be2 d6.[85]
Battle for the push c4–c5[edit]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.a3 Ngxe5 8.Nxe5
Nxe5 9.e3 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 d6
After 10...d6! White can try (and has tried) about any move that supports the
aforementioned plan. In particular, White has to choose if he wants to start active
operations on the queenside immediately (e.g. Rc1, Qc3, c5), or if he wants to finish his
development first (with Be2 and 0-0). The immediate 11.c5!? is a possible pawn
sacrifice in order to open some diagonals for the bishops. As Lalic points out, "after
11...dxc5 Black's knight on e5 has lost its support and therefore all tactical motifs based
on Qd5 and Bb5+ must be carefully checked".[86] White gets a powerful attack for his
pawn but nothing decisive. The same idea can be tried with the preparatory 11.Rc1, and
after 11...0-0 12.c5!? dxc5 13.Qd5 Ng6 14.Bg3 White should be reminded that he has
not finished his development with 14...Qf6! and a counter-attack on the b2-
pawn.[87][88] Playing Black, Svidler chose a different path with 11...b6 but his
opponent Lesiègenevertheless sacrificed the pawn with 12.c5! bxc5 13.b4 0-0 14.bxc5
Bb7 15.f3 and Svilder chose to destroy his own pawn structure with 15...dxc5!? to
activate his pieces and make use of the d-file.[89] The most popular move is 11.Be2,
where White delays his queenside play until he has achieved castling. [90] It also gives
Black more time to organise a defence on the queenside with b7–b6, either now or after
11...0-0.
Line 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.e3
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.e3
In this variation White tries to avoid the move a2–a3 in order to gain a tempo over the
7.a3 variation. After the standard moves 7...Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.Be2 followed by
10.0-0 it is Black's last chance to exchange the Bb4 for the Nd2. The game will take an
entirely different structure depending on whether Black gives up the bishop pair or tries
to keep it.
Lalic thinks the strategies in which Black gives up the bishop pair (by exchanging its
Bb4 for the Nd2) for nothing are a mistake. He does not like the strategy to retreat the
Bb4 in d6 either, because they are too drawish. He recommends the strategy to retreat
the bishop in c5, and maintain its position there with the help of the a7–a5 pawn
advance.[91]
Black gives up the bishop pair[edit]
When Black opts for 10...Bxd2, he runs the risk to end up a tempo down over the 7.a3
variation and to be soon unable to meet White's positional threats on the queenside.
White can avoid the push a2–a3 and continue with the standard plans of the 7.a3
variation.[92]However, everything is not that bad for Black. First, to implement his plan
White has to concentrate on development (9.Be2, 10.0-0) before he turns his attention
to the queenside. That means Black has more time to organise his play than in the 7.a3
variation, notably to attempt a blockade of the c5-square. Moreover, as White does not
put immediate pressure on Black's position, Black is not compelled to castle rapidly and
he can keep his king in the centre for a longer time, or even castle queenside. Hence
Lalic note that "White has not wasted time with a2–a3, but in fact it is not so easy to
capitalise on this extra tempo."[93]
A possibility for Black is to develop his light-square bishop rapidly, by prioritising the
moves b7–b6 and Bc8–b7 over castling and d7–d6. The game Solozhenkin–Stiazhkin
(Leningrad 1990) continued with 9...b6 10.0-0 Bxd2 11.Qxd2 Bb7 12.c5 bxc5 13.Qa5 d6
14.Bxe5 dxe5 15.Rfc1 and Moskalenko assesses this position as better for
White;[94] Lalic suggests that 13...Ng6 is an improvement.[95] In the game Gausel–Reite
(Norwegian Team Championship 1991), after the same 9.Be2 b6 10.0-0 Bxd2 11.Qxd2
Bb7 Black introduced a highly original plan by avoiding the natural advance d7–d6, and
instead blocked a white c5-push by playing ...c5 himself. The game continued 12.Qc3 f6
13.b4 c5!? and Lalic was "deeply impressed by this plan, which really spoils all of
White's fun". The c4-pawn is never allowed to advance, so that the Be2 is durably
restricted. The Bf4 is obstructed by the Ne5, that cannot be easily removed. The
weakness of the d7-pawn is not a worry as it can be protected by Bb7–c6 if
necessary.[93]
Black keeps the bishop pair
After 9.Be2 0-0 10.0-0 Black can avoid the immediate exchange of his Bb4 against the
Nd2 in several ways. The first one, resurrected and elaborated by the
grandmaster Pavel Blatny, is to exchange the Bb4 for the Bf4. This can be achieved via
10...Ng6 11.Bg3 (11.Bxc7?? d6 loses a piece) 11...Bd6 12.Bxd6 Qxd6. White still has
possibilities to play for an advantage due to his more advanced development, his space
advantage on the queenside and the possibility to install his knight on the good square
d5. Taylor considers this Black's best line, stating that Black has not given White the
bishop pair, nor weakened his pawn structure, and should be able to gradually
equalize.[96]
The other possibility for Black is to keep his Bb4 as long as possible, exchanging it
against the white knight only in favourable circumstances. A couple of attempts have
been done with this in mind, with subtle variations along the moves a7–a5, b7–b6 and
d7–d6. Against the mundane 10...d6 White can continue with 11.Nb3 (see diagram at
right) to play on the queenside against the exposed Bb4, or 11.Nb1 to recycle the knight
on the ideal d5-square. Another idea is the immediate 10...a5, to have the d6-square for
the bishop, inhibit the b2–b4 push and have the possible a5–a4 pawn advance if the
white knight moves to b3. In the game Mikhalevski–Chabanon (Bad Endbach
1995)[97] Black kept the bishop with 11.Nb3 a4 12.a3 Bd6 13.Nd4 Bc5 14.Nb5 d6
15.Nc3 Ng6 16.Bg3 f5 and had dynamic play.[98]

Gambits 5.Nbd2 d6 and 6.Nbd2 f6

With 4...Bb4+ 5.Nbd2 d6 (see diagram at right) Black wants to open the diagonal a1–h8
for his queen. After 6.exd6 Qf6 White can react to the attack on his Bf4 in several ways,
the best one being 7.Nh3 to develop a piece and protect both the Bf4 and the f2-pawn.
It also helps that the Bf4 is still guarding the Nd2, so that after 7...Qxb2? there is not the
threat of winning the exchange (8...Bxd2+ would be answered by 9.Bxd2) and White
can repel Black's attack with 8.Rb1 Qa3 9.Rb3 Qa5 10.dxc7 Nc6 11.a3! Be7
12.e3.[99] Instead, Black must play energetically with 7...Nxf2 8.Kxf2 Bxh3 9.g3 Bxf1
10.dxc7!? Nc6 11.Rxf1 and here Lalic recommends 11...0-0 12.Kg2 Rfe8.[100]
The other gambit, 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 f6 7.exf6 Qxf6, is much riskier, as Black
weakens his kingside and does not open a diagonal for his Bc8. Black tries to take
advantage of the fact White has moved his dark-squared bishop away from the
queenside, leaving the b2-pawn without protection. The correct plan for White was
shown by Gleizerov who played 8.e3 Qxb2 9.Be2 d6 10.0-0 0-0 11.Nb3 Qf6 12.c5! to
open the a2–g8 diagonal that was weakened precisely by the gambit move 6...f6. The
move 11.Nb3 is not only useful to support the c4–c5 push, but also to exchange the
knight against Black's dark-squared bishop after a possible a2–a3 forcing the retreat
Bb4–c5.[101] As Lalic puts it, "I doubt if Black has a satisfactory answer to White's play in
this game".[102]

Alekhine variation 3...Ng4 4.e4

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e4
This variation is named after Alekhine thanks to his wins in the games Alekhine–
Rabinovic (Baden Baden, 1925) and Alekhine–Seitz (Hastings, 1926).[53][103][notes 6] White
does not try to keep its material advantage (the e5-pawn) and concentrates on
establishing a strong pawn center and space advantage. A controversial point is
whether the typical black manoeuvre Bf8–b4–xc3 is advantageous for Black (as it
saddles White with doubled pawns) or for White (as it reinforces his centre). Lalic thinks
both, considering 6...Bb4+ to be a bad move after 4...Nxe5 5.f4 Nec6 6.Nf3, [104] but a
good one after 4...Nxe5 5.f4 Nec6 6.Be3.[105] After 4.e4 the main line
is4...Nxe5 5.f4 when Black has an important choice to make about where to move the
Ne5. The retreat to the queenside with 5...Nec6 is considered best,[106] while the retreat
to the kingside with 5...Ng6 is probably playable.[107]
Taylor considers 4...Nxe5 inferior, recommending instead a rarely played idea of
Richard Réti, 4...h5! (Taylor's exclamation point). Then 5.Nf3 would allow 5...Bc5, while
Taylor suggests meeting 5.Be2 with 5...Nc6! and 5.f4 with 5...Bc5 with quick
development compensating for the lost pawn. He considers the main line to be 4...h5
5.h3 Nxe5 6.Be3 Bb4+, with good play for Black.[108]

Line 5...Nec6
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e4 Nxe5 5.f4 Nec6
The Knight on c6 is safer than on g6, and is well-placed as part of a general strategy to
control the central dark squares. It can go to d4 while the other Knight can go to c5 via
a6 or d7. After 6.Nf3 Bc5 White has difficulties castling short, because the plan to
exchange the dark-squared bishops with Bd3/Qe2/Be3 can be met by Bg4/Nd4 to
muddy the waters.[109] As Lalic points out:[110]
White can no longer castle kingside and will usually have to go the other way. However,
this is rather slow and gives Black time to try to undermine the white centre. To this end
Bc8–g4 often comes in handy, in order to pin the white knight on f3 against the white
queen. Note that Black should wait until his opponent has wasted a tempo with Qe2.
The main continuation 6.Be3 controls the a7–g1 diagonal and is considered to be the
best reply.[111] If Black wants to contest the c5-square for his Bf8 he can try
6...Na6,[112] but most games continue with 6...Bb4+. Here the best reply for White is
controversial.[notes 7]
After 7.Nc3 Black has the zwischenzug 7...Qh4+ 8.g3 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Qe7 so that the
diagonal a8–h1 is weakened before Black develops the Bc8 to the b7-square. The
queen on the e7-square is well placed to pressure the e4-pawn. However, as most of
Black's pieces are on the queenside, continuing with pawn pushes like f7–f5 is probably
too weakening, as Alekhine demonstrated in his game against Seitz in 1925. [113] So
Black does best to attack with pieces, possibly with the setup b6/Nc5/Bb7/0-0-0.[114] In
that case Tseitlin considers that with a knight on c5 the move d7–d6 should be avoided
if Black has to respond to the capture Bxc5 by dxc5, because the white pawns in e4 and
f4 would have too much leeway.[115]
After 7.Nd2 Qe7 8.a3 Lalic considers 8...Qxe4 should be avoided, e.g. the continuation
9.Kf2 Bxd2 10.Qxd2 0-0 11.Nf3 d6 12.Re1 gives White several tempi against the black
queen.[116] After the better 8...Bc5 9.Bxc5 Qxc5 10.Qf3 Lalic recommends
10...a5.[117] The introduction of the intermediate 7...Qh4+ 8.g3 Qe7 does not change
Lalic's opinion, as after 9.Bg2 Na6 10.a3 Bc5 11.Bxc5 Nxc5 12.b4 Ne6 the bishop was
well placed on g2 and Black experienced difficulties developing the Bc8. [118] But Lalic
does not mention the game Pomar–Heidenfeld cited by Borik, in which Black played the
advance a7–a5 to restrict the white advance b2–b4, and achieved equality after 9.Bg2
a5 10.Ne2 Na6.[119]Instead, he recommends 7...d6 8.Nf3 0-0 9.Bd3 and now the same
development as in Pomar's game:[120]
9...a5 and 10...Na6 deserves attention, when White's movements on the queenside are
more restricted and the black knight will be able to settle on the c5-square without being
kicked by the thematic b2–b4. It may appear that we have reached the same position
elaborated in previous games a tempo down for Black, since he has committed his
bishop to b4 and will later drop back to the c5-square instead of heading there at once.
However, the white knight is less actively placed on d2 and in fact this fully
compensates Black for the slight loss of time.

Line 5...Ng6
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e4 Nxe5 5.f4 Ng6
The Knight on g6 puts the f4-pawn under pressure, but may be embarrassed later by
the pawn thrust f4–f5. Now 6.a3, an attempt to deny squares from the Bf8 by continuing
with b2–b4 or Bc1–e3, does not achieve its goal after 6...Bc5! 7.b4?! Bxg1! 8.Rxg1 0-0!
9.Qf3 d6 10.g4 a5 11.b5 Nd7 12.Ra2 Nc5 when Black's superior pawn structure and
well-positioned Nc5 gives him the advantage.[121] That leaves White with the choice
between 6.Nf3 and 6.Be3.
The move 6.Nf3 controls the e5-square in order to prepare the push f4–f5. Unlike after
5...Nec6, White does not have to fear 6...Bc5?!, which encounters difficulties after 7.f5!
Nh4 8.Ng5!, when the black knight is already in danger of being lost to Qd1–g4 or Qd1–
h5.[122]Instead Black must react quickly with 6...Bb4+ 7.Nc3 when he can adopt a
normal setup with d6/0-0/Nc6/b6 or act boldly with 7...Qf6 threatening both the Nc3 and
the f4-pawn.[123] One point in favour of 7...Qf6 is that after 8.e5 Qb6 the black queen
prevents White from castling short and is well placed if White castles long.[124]
The move 6.Be3 takes the a7–g1 diagonal from Black's Bf8 and may in some lines
prepare the long castle. After the mandatory 6...Bb4+ White can opt for 7.Nd2 to avoid
having doubled pawns, but he must be prepared to sacrifice a pawn after 7...Qe7
8.Kf2!? Bxd2 9.Qxd2 Qxe4 10.Bd3 with piece activity for the pawn deficit, [125] because
the normal defence 8.Bd3? runs into 8...Qd6! and both the Bd3 and the f4-pawn are
attacked.[126] White does not need, however, bother too much about the doubled pawns
and after 7.Nc3 Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 a peaceful black player might choose the quiet 8...b6!?
followed by a normal development with d6/0-0/Bb7/Nd7/Re8/Nc5.[107] Instead of 8...b6 a
more adventurous black player could choose 8...Qe7 9.Bd3 f5!? as indicated by Borik,
Tseitlin and Lalic,[107][127][128] but in his more recent book Moskalenko thinks "this move
complicates the game too much".[129] If the black player is neither peaceful nor
aggressive, Lalic proposes an alternative with 8...Qe7 9.Bd3 0-0 10.Qd2 and only now
that Black has his king safe shall he unleash 10...f5!?, when "it is not so easy for White
to meet [10...f5] as the two main responses, 11.e5 and 11.exf5, allow Black promising
chances with 11...d6 and 11...Nxf4 respectively".

Fajarowicz variation 3...Ne4

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ne4
The Fajarowicz variation is said to have its origins in the chess circles from Leipzig, with
the first important game being H.Steiner–Fajarowicz at the
1928 Wiesbaden tournament. [130][131] In this variation, Black makes no immediate effort
to regain the gambit pawn, preferring to concentrate on active piece play and tactical
tricks.[notes 8]
The move 4.a3 allows White to avoid the annoying bishop check on b4, the also
annoying knight jump to b4, and prepares Qc2 to undermine Black's knight. Both Lalic
and de Firmian consider it to be White's best move,[132] with de Firmian assessing it as
leading to a large advantage for White.[133] Lalic considers 4...b6!? to be the best
answer, one point being that Qd1–c2, so effective in most of the other lines, can be met
by Bc8–b7. After 5.Nd2 Bb7 6.Qc2 Lalic gives 6...Nxd2 7.Bxd2 a5! when the black
bishops will be excellently placed on the b7- and c5-squares.[134] Lalic recommends
6.Nf3 instead,[135] while de Firmian continues by 5.Nf3 Bb7 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.Qc2 with a
large advantage for White.[133][136]
The move 4.Nf3 develops a piece and covers the sensitive d2-square. After 4...Bb4+
5.Nbd2 Nc6 6.a3 Black can easily get confused by the move-order. The natural 6...Nxd2
7.Bxd2 Bxd2+ 8.Qxd2 Qe7 9.Qc3 transposes in the same position as after 5.Bd2, but
White can also try 6...Nxd2 7.axb4! Nxf3+ 8.gxf3 Nxe5 9.Rg1 Qe7 10.Ra3! with a strong
initiative.[137] White can even retain his bishop with 6...Nxd2 7.Nxd2 and now Borik
recommends 7...Bf8 with difficult play for Black as he is not certain to gain his pawn
back.[138] To avoid these possibilities Lalic advises the move-order 6...Bxd2+ 7.Bxd2
Nxd2 8.Qxd2 Qe7, but does not mention the possibility of White answering 6...Bxd2+
with 7.Nxd2. A possible improvement for Black (after 4...Bb4+ 5.Nbd2) would be 5...d5
with compensation for the pawn in all lines.[139]
The line 4.Qc2 immediately attacks the Ne4, as a retreat by Black would effectively
surrender his temporary lead in development, which is the compensation for the
sacrificed pawn. Black must continue to develop while trying to keep the Ne4 on its
square, but that is by no means easy. Borik thinks 4.Qc2 is the move "that gives Black
the most problems to solve",[140] but Lalic does not agree at all, stating that the reply
"4...Bb4+ [....] followed by d7–d5 ensures Black a rapid development and plenty of
counterplay. It is for this reason that 4.Qc2 is not on the danger list".[141] The reply
4...Bb4+ (see diagram at right) pins the white pieces before deciding what to do with the
Ne4. White cannot reply 5.Bd2 as he would lose the bishop pair and Black would easily
regain the e5-pawn with Nc6/Qe7/0-0/Re8. After 5.Nd2 this knight would be misplaced
and would block the Bc1, so Black could open the game with 5...d5 in favourable
circumstances. Best for White is 5.Nc3 d5 6.exd6 Bf5 7.Bd2 Nxd6 8.e4! Bxc3 9.Bxc3
Bxe4 when Black has regained his pawn but White has the bishop pair and possibilities
of an attack on the kingside.[142]

Other possibilities
Line 3...Ng4 4.e3
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e3
Apart from the main lines 4.Bf4, 4.Nf3 and 4.e4, the only significant other fourth move
is 4.e3 to continue by 4...Nxe5 5.Nh3 (or the other move-order 4.Nh3 and 5.e3) so that
the white knight starts the journey Ng1–h3–f4–d5 reach its ideal d5-square.[143] The idea
with 4.e3 and 5.Nh3 was favorite of a leading Soviet coach and writer Mikhail
Shereshevsky, who wrote in his 1994 book The Soviet Chess Conveyor that the line
was first shown to him by a strong correspondence player Donatas Lapienis.[144] Black
has tried to prevent White's idea by the suitably strange-looking move 5...Ng6, taking
the f4-square from the Nh3. Then White can develop along various setups, the most
active being 6.Qh5 with the possibility Nh3–g5 in store to recycle the knight towards a
more central position.[145] Black can also ignore White's intentions and concentrate on
his own play by placing the Nb8 on c5, in order to put pressure on the d3-square. After
5...g6 6.Nf4 Bg7 7.Be2 0-0 8.0-0 d6 9.Nc3 Nbd7 10.Qd2 a5 11.b3 Nc5 the position of
Black's knights is secured and Black's position is similar to the Leningrad variation of
the Dutch Defence (once he has played f7–f5).[146] White has no reason, however, to
abandon the a1–h8 diagonal to Black, and he can try 5...g6 6.Bd2 d6 7.Nf4 Bg7 8.Bc3
0-0 9.Be2 Nbd7 10.Nd2 b6 and in one game White gained a minimal edge. [147]
Other fourth moves after 3...Ng4
A few other lines have been tried, with the outcome varying from an immediate equality
to a clear advantage for Black. The cooling 4.e6avoids complications and heads for an
equal endgame with 4...dxe6 5.Qxd8+ Kxd8, Black's loss of the right to castle being of
no great importance since queens have been traded. If Black wants to avoid this early
endgame, he can try 4...Bb4+ 5.Nc3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 dxe6 and now the exchange of
queens would give a plus to Black, as the white queenside pawns are isolated and
doubled.[148] The greedy4.f4 is weak because White neglects his development and
weakens the a7–g1 diagonal.[149][150][151][152] Black can immediately exploit this with
4...Bc5, which threatens a fork on f2 and forbids White's castling; Black may later push
d7–d6 to open the centre, e.g. 5.Nh3 0-0 6.Nc3 d6 7.exd6 cxd6 when Black has good
squares for its pieces while White's castling is delayed.
Another reasonable-looking move is 4.Qd4 as it protects the e5-pawn and attacks the
Ng4. However, "the problem for White in the Budapest is that natural moves often lead
to disaster".[153] Best for Black is the gambit 4...d6 5.exd6 Nc6! 6.Qd1 Bxd6, when the
natural 7.Nf3?? is an error because of 7...Nxf2! 8.Kxf2 Bg3+ winning the
queen.[154] White must develop quietly with moves like Nc3/Nf3/e3/Be2, allowing Black
to find active positions for his pieces with 0-0/Be6/Qe7/Rfd8, and preparing several
sacrificial ideas on e3 or f2, with excellent attacking possibilities.[155] Similar to 4.Qd4
is 4.Qd5 when after 4...Nc6 White can seize the last opportunity to return to calm waters
with 5.Bf4 Bb4+ 6.Nc3 which will transpose in the Rubinstein line,[156] or he can try 5.Nf3
d6 6.exd6 Be6 7.d7+ Bxd7 when Black's lead in development compensates for the
pawn.[157]
Declining the gambit[edit]
Declining the gambit is almost never seen in master play because it promises White
equality at best. After 3.d5?! Bc5 White has prematurely blocked the central position,
giving the a7–g1 diagonal to Black for his bishop. In this variation Black can either play
on the queenside with a plan like b5/Nb6/Bd7, or on the kingside with a plan like
Ne8/g6/Ng7/f5.[158] The shy 3.e3?! exd4 4.exd4 transposes into a line of the Exchange
Variation of the French Defence with 4...d5, but Black can also develop rapidly with
4...Bb4+ 5.Bd2 Bxd2+ 6.Nxd2 0-0.[159][160] After 3.e4? Black gains a crushing attack via
3...Nxe4 4.dxe5 Bc5 5.Nh3 d6 6.Qe2 f5 7.exf6 0-0! 8.fxg7 Re8 9.Be3 Bxe3 10.fxe3
Bxh3 11.gxh3 Qh4+.[161][162] After 3.Bg5?! the game Ladmann–
Tartakower (Scarborough 1929) continued with 3...exd4 4.Qxd4 Be7 5.Nf3 Nc6
6.Qd1 Ne4 7.Bxe7 Qxe7 8.a3 d6 9.e3 0-0 10.Be2 Qf6 11.Nbd2 Bf5 when both Tseitlin
and Borik assess the position as favourable for Black.[159][163] After 3.Nf3?! the game
Menchik–Tartakower (Paris 1929)[164] continued with 3...e4 4.Nfd2 d5 5.cxd5?! Qxd5
6.e3 Bb4 7.Nc3 Bxc3 8.bxc3 0-0 and White has problems developing his kingside
because of the potential weakness of g2.[163]

Illustrative games[edit]
Wu Shaobin–Nadanian, Singapore 2006[edit]
The following game was played between the Chinese GM Wu Shaobin (White) and Armenian
IM Ashot Nadanian (Black) at Singapore 2006
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Be2 Ncxe5 7.Nxe5 Nxe5 8.0-0 0-0
9.b3 Re8 10.Bb2 a5 Preparing Dolfi Drimer's rook manoeuvre Ra8–a6–h6. Nadanian
calls the pawn advance a7–a5 "the soul of the Budapest Gambit".[165] 11.Nc3 Ra6
12.Ne4 Ba7 13.Ng3 Qh4 14.Nf5 Qg5!?This was a new move, before 14...Qe4 had
been played. 15.Nd4 Rg6 16.g3 d5?! 18...Qh6 was stronger. 17.cxd5? White should
have played 17.Nb5! 17...Bh3! 18.Re1 Ng4 19.Nf3 Qxe3! Karolyi writes, "This shows
Kasparov-like aggression and ingenuity." 20.Bd4 Qxf2+!! 21.Bxf2 Bxf2+ 22.Kh1 Bb6
23.Qb1? White should have defended with 23.Rf1! After 23...Ne3 24.Qd3 Bg2+ 25.Kg1
Bh3 White can either repeat moves with 26.Kh1, or try 26.Nd4. 23...Nf2+ 24.Kg1
Rf6! Black has time to increase the pressure. 25.b4! If 25.Qc2?, then 25...Ng4+ 26.Kh1
Bg2+! winning the queen. 25...a4!But not 25...Rxf3? 26.bxa5. 26.Ng5 Black can now
force mate in 8 moves. 26...Ng4+! 27.Kh1 Bg2+!!"This is a marvellous move, and it
must have been such a thrill to play it on the board." (Karolyi).28.Kxg2 Rf2+ 29.Kh3
Rxh2+ 30.Kxg4 h5+ 31.Kf4 Be3+ 0–1[166]
Budapest Gambit
The Budapest Gambit is one of the least common gambits but still offers black a lot of
interesting play. In the main line for example, white can easily fall into a trap that ends in
checkmate very early in the game.
In the second move, black looks to give up his pawn on e5 but then starts to develop of
his pieces to add pressure on the e5 pawn. White will be unable to hold onto the extra
pawn and therefore many times will just give back the pawn and continue to develop
pieces and not worry about the pawn advantage.
In most gambits, the side giving up material will dictate how the game continues, in the
budapest gambit it is usually white that decides how the game will continue. In the main
line it is white that can decide whether to stay up in material and have doubled pawns or
to give back the pawn and have a double bishop pair. This is not to say it is still not
playable for black, but white does have more options in the budapest than in other
gambits.

Openings for Tactical Players: Budapest Gambit

The Budapest Gambit is a rare case of a gambit which is popular amongst both
amateurs and top professionals. Amateurs and club players really like the variety of
opening traps there. Here is one of the most popular traps. Even though it is very well
known, it still keeps claiming new victims. (Please remember that you can always
replay the whole game from the first move if you click "Solution" and then "Move list").

Ivanova, Marianna vs. Belokopyt, Boris

EU-ch Seniors 07th | Hockenheim | Round 2 | 3 Jun 2007 | ECO: A52 | 0-1

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. Nf3 Nc65. Bf4 Bb4+ 6. Nbd2 Qe7 7. a3 Ngxe58. ax
b4?? Nd3#!

The Budapest gambit's appeal to top GMs can be explained by the next story. GM Milan
Vidmar was supposed to play Black against legendary Akiba Rubinstein in the first round of
a big international tournament. He was at a loss what to play against the "great Akiba", who
was feared for his dry, positional style of play. To beat Rubinstein with the Black pieces was
almost an impossible task. Vidmar asked his friend Istvan Abonyi for advice. Abonyi, the
developer of the Budapest Gambit, showed his invention and recommended to give it a
try. The next day Vidmar managed to beat Rubinstein in less than 25 moves!! He was so
inspired by this win, that he went on to win the whole tournament, and so the official life of
the Budapest Gambit started. Here is the game:

Rubinstein, Akiba vs. Vidmar, Milan Sr

Berlin | Berlin | 1918 | ECO: A52 | 0-1
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. Bf4 Nc65. Nf3 Bb4+ 6. Nc3 Qe7 7. Qd5 Bxc3+8. bx
c3 Qa3 9. Rc1 f6 10. exf6 Nxf611. Qd2 d6 12. Nd4 O-
O 13. e3 Nxd414. cxd4 Ne4 15. Qc2 Qa5+ 16. Ke2Rxf4!Black opens the 'e' file against
White King and gets a winning
attack! 17. exf4 Bf518. Qb2 Re8 19. Kf3 Nd2+(19... h5!threatening
Bg4+ 20. h3h4!Theratening Nd2+ was stronger. But Vidmar decides to repeat moves
first...) 20. Kg3 Ne4+ 21. Kh4?!21. Kf3 would lead to a desisive attack after 21...h5! as
explained after Black's 19th move. Still it was a better choice since now White gets
checkmated by force! 21... Re6! 22. Be2Rh6+ 23. Bh5 Rxh5+! 24. Kxh5 Bg6+and Qh5
checkmate follows

The Budapest Gambit has many tricky variations and traps, so if you decide to include it
in your opening repertoire, you need to do some research. Today I want to show one
venomous idea which is very dangerous even when your opponent knows what to
do. But against the players who never saw it before, this line scores close to 100%! I
am talking about the tricky line in the main variation of the Budapest gambit, where
Black plays a7-a5 and then lifts his Rook to a6 and then to h6. Coupled with a potential
Qh4 move Black attacks becomes very dangerous. See how then young Vladimir
Kramnik annihilated his opponent:.

Odesskij, Ilia vs. Kramnik, Vladimir

URS-chT U16 | Samtredia | 1987 | ECO: A52 | 0-1

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. Nf3 Bc55. e3 Nc6 6. Nc3 O-O 7. Be2 Ngxe5 8. O-
ONxf3+ 9. Bxf3 Ne5 10. Be2 Re8 11. b3 a5!12. Bb2 Ra6!and the Rook is ready to join
the
attack! 13. Qd5 Ba7 14. Ne4 Rae6 15. Ng3 d616. Qxa5 Bb6 17. Qc3 Rh6 18. Rfd1 Qh
419. Nf1 Rg6 20. b4 Bg4 21. Bxg4 Rxg4 22. c5Nf3+ 23. Kh1 Qxf2 24. Ng3 Nxh2 25.
Qe1Nf3!!due to the Rh4 checkmate threat White resigned!

Karolyi, Tibor Jr (2445) vs. Hector, Jonny (2295)

Politiken Cup 07th | Copenhagen | Round 9 | 1985 | ECO: A52 | 0-1

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. Nc3 Bc5 6. e3 Ngxe5 7. Be2 O-O 8. O-O
a5 9. b3 Nxf3+ 10. Bxf3 Ne5 11. Be4 Ra6 12. g3 Rh6 13. Na4 Ba7 14. Bg2 d6 15. Qe2
Re8 16. f3 Qg5 17. Nc3 Qh5 18. Bh1 Nxc4!!White resigned here due to the next forced
line: 19. bxc4 Rxe3!! 20. Bxe3 Bxe3+ 21. Rf2 Qxh2+ 22. Kf1 Qxh1#

Skembris, Spyridon (2455) vs. Legky, Nikolay A (2420)

Vrnjacka Banja | Vrnjacka Banja | 1989 | ECO: A52 | 0-1

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. Nf3 Bc5 5. e3 Nc6 6. Be2 Ngxe5 7. Nxe5 Nxe5 8. O-
O O-O 9. Nc3 Re8 10. b3 a5 11. Bb2 Ra6 12. Qd5 Ba7 13. Rad1 Rg6 14. Kh1 c6 15.
Qd2 Qh4 16. f4 Rh6! 17. h3 Qg3! 18. Qe1
(18. fxe5? Rxh3+! 19. gxh3 Qxh3+ 20. Kg1 Bxe3+wins)
18... Rxh3+!! 19. gxh3 Qxh3+ 20. Kg1 Re6!with a deadly threat of Rg6 21. Bh5 Qxh5
22. fxe5 Rg6+ 23. Kf2 Qh2+ 24. Kf3 Qg2+ 25. Kf4 Qg4#

Reitz, Robert vs. Legky, Nikolay A (2465)

St Ingbert op | St Ingbert | Round 1 | 1989 | ECO: A52 | 0-1

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. Nf3 Bc5 5. e3 Nc6 6. Nc3 O-O 7. Be2 Ncxe5 8. O-O
Nxf3+ 9. Bxf3 Ne5 10. Be2 Re8 11. a3 a5 12. b3 Ra6 13. Bb2 Rh6 14. h3 d6 15. Ne4
Bxh3!! 16. Nxc5
(16. gxh3 Qh4!and Black attack should win quickly)
16... Bxg2!! 17. Bxe5 Qh4! 18. f4 Qg3!checkmate is inevitable, so White resigned
 The Budapest Gambit is a very dangerous weapon, so if you like to attack, you can include it
in your opening repertoire, or at least give it a try in one of your games and see if your
opponent can withstand the assault.

A52: Budapest defence

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4

BUDAPEST DEFENCE
A52 Sub-variants:
 Budapest defence
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4
 Budapest, Adler variation
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. Nf3
 Budapest, Rubinstein variation
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. Bf4
 Budapest, Alekhine variation
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. e4
 Budapest, Alekhine, Abonyi variation
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. e4 Nxe5 5. f4 Nec6
 Budapest, Alekhine variation, Balogh gambit
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. e4 d6

Budapest Gambit
Chess Opening Surprise for Black versus d4 c4 Setup

The Budapest Gambit (Budapest Defense) is not often played among chess
grandmasters. It is more or less a surprise weapon on lower levels of chess.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5

Black offers his e-pawn which he will regain later on.

It starts with the following moves:

1.d2-d4 Ng8-f6 2.c2-c4 e7-e5 3.d4xe5 Nf6-g4

White can return the pawn and usually keeps a small advantage without risks.
This opening can lead to sharp tactical games.

Main variations are:

4.Bc1-f4 Nb8-c6 5.Ng1-f3 Bf8-b4+ 6.Nb1-d2 Qd8-e7 7.e2-e3 (Karpow)
4.e2-e4 (Aljechin)
4.Bc1-f4 Nb8-c6 5.Ng1-f3 Bf8-b4+ 6.Nb1-c3 Qd8-e7 7.Qd1-d5 (protect the
pawn)
4.Bc1-f4 Nb8-c6 5.Ng1-f3 Bf8-b4+ 6.Nb1-c3 BxNc3 7.bxc3 Qd8-e7 8.Qd5 f6
9.exf6 Nxf6 etc.
4.Ng1-f3 Bf8-c5 5.e2-e3 Nb8-c6
Play this opening to train your tactical abilities, but study the typical variations
first.

Bogo-Indian Defence
The Bogo-Indian Defence is a chess opening characterised by the moves:

1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 e6
3. Nf3 Bb4+

The position arising after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 is common. The traditional move for White here is 3.Nc3,
threatening to set up a big pawn centre with 4.e4. However, 3.Nf3 is often played instead as a way
of avoiding the Nimzo-Indian Defence (which would follow after 3.Nc3 Bb4). After 3.Nf3, Black
usually plays 3...b6 (the Queen's Indian Defence) or 3...d5 (leading to the Queen's Gambit
Declined), but can instead play 3...Bb4+, the Bogo-Indian, named after Efim Bogoljubov. This
opening is not as popular as the Queen's Indian, but is seen occasionally at all levels.

The Bogo-Indian is classified as E11 by the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO).

Variations[edit]
White has three viable moves to meet the check. 4.Nc3 is a transposition to the
Kasparov Variation of the Nimzo-Indian, therefore the main independent variations are
4.Bd2 and 4.Nbd2.
4.Bd2[edit]
4.Bd2 is the most common line, the bishop on b4 is now threatened and Black needs to
decide what to do about it.

 The simplest is to trade off the bishop by means of 4...Bxd2+; this line is not
particularly popular, but has been played frequently by the Swedish grandmaster Ulf
Andersson, often as a drawing line.[1]
 4...Qe7 This is called Nimzovich variation, defending the bishop, and deferring the
decision of what to do until later is the most common. 5. g3 Nc6 and the Nimzovich
variation main line continues 6. Nc3 Bxc3 7. Bxc3 Ne4 8. Rc1 0-0 9. Bg2 d6 10. d5
Nd8 11. dxe6 Nxe6 and the position is equal. Another alternative is 6. Bg2 Bxd2+ 7.
Nbxd2 d6 8. 0-0 a5 9. e4 e5 10. d5 Nb8 11. Ne1 0-0 12. Nd3 Na6 and the position is
equal.
 David Bronstein tried the sharper alternative 4...a5 grabbing space on the queenside
at the cost of structural weaknesses.
 A more modern line is 4...c5, after 5.Bxb4 cxb4, Black's pawns are doubled, and a
pawn has been pulled away from the centre, but the b4 pawn can also be annoying
for White since it takes the c3-square away from the knight. In fact, one of White's
major alternatives is 6.a3, trading off this pawn at once.
 Simply retreating the bishop by means of 4...Be7 is also possible; Black benefits
from losing a tempo since White's dark-square bishop is misplaced at d2. The line is
somewhat passive, but solid.
4.Nbd2[edit]
4.Nbd2 is an alternative aiming to acquire the bishop for the knight or forcing Black's
bishop to retreat. The downside is that the knight is developed to a square where it
blocks the bishop, and d2 is a less active square than c3. The line is described in
the Gambit Guide as "ambitious". Black's most common replies are 4...b6, 4...0-0, and
4...d5.
Monticelli Trap[edit]
This opening gives rise to the Monticelli Trap.

Bogo Indian Defence by GM Magesh and GM Arun

This week we shall study the Bogo Indian Defence. Recently, the Catalan has become one of
the most played systems and the specialty of this system is that White keeps playing for a
win without any risk. For many players to play against the Catalan is a nightmare. Hence we
decided to write an idea against the Catalan which has recently come up at the top level.

This idea was employed extensively by Ulf Andersson in the late 80's. He even managed to
hold his own against some of the chess greats like Karpov, Spassky etc. Black's idea in this
opening is simple: exchange the dark-squared bishop and then just keep playing like the
Queen's Indian Defence. It is basically a mixture of both Bogo Indian and Queen's Indian.
Jobava Baadur in his game against Sasikiran employed this opening and even came close to
snatching a full point.

Sasikiran, K. (2681) vs. Jobava, Ba (2710)

39th Olympiad Men | Khanty-Mansiysk RUS | Round 11.10 | 3 Oct 2010 | ECO: E11 | 1/2-1/2

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 Bb4+ 4. Bd2Bxd2+It is always good to exchange one or more

minor pieces for the Black side, since having all the minor pieces on the board will lead
to cramped positions when there is no space 5. Qxd2(5. Nxd2!?Is also
playable) 5... d5(5... O-O 6. Bg2 d5Transposes to the main line)(5... d6 6. Bg2 O-
O 7. Nc3 Nbd7 8. Nf3e5Black has also tried these structures but in most of the lines
White had a pleasant edge) 6. Bg2 c6 7. Nf3 Nbd7 8. O-O O-O 9. Rc1(9. Qc2was also
tried by several strong grandmasters) 9... b6 10. Qf4White wants to get the central
break e2-e4, hence the queen on f4 not only supports the e4-break but also keeps a
watch on Black's Kingside plans(10. b4Topalov's move against Carlsen we shall see in
our next game) 10... Bb7Black has completed the development without any problem
and his position is pretty solid and is not easy for White to
breakthrough 11. Nbd2 Re812. b4White should have gone with his more natural e2-e4
break. There is no need to change directions at this
point(12. e4 dxe4 13. Nxe4 Nxe4 14. Qxe4 Qc715. Ne5 Nxe5 16. dxe5 Red8 17. Rd1
Rxd1+18. Rxd1 Rd8 19. Rd4With slight pressure for
White) 12... a5 13. a3 axb4 14. axb4 c5 15. bxc5(15. Rxa8 Qxa8 16. bxc5 bxc5 17. Q
d6 cxd418. Nxd4 dxc4 19. Bxb7 Qxb7 20. Rxc4The position is just
equal) 15... Rxa1 16. Rxa1 bxc5 17. Qd6White could not tolerate Black equalizing so
easily and took some drastic measures to create an imbalance in the
position 17... e518. cxd5?(18. Bh3 exd4 19. Ra7 Qb8 20. Qxb8 Rxb821. cxd5) 18... e
xd4 19. Ng5 Re5?Black misses his chance to seize the
advantage(19... h6! 20. Nge4 Bxd5 21. Nxf6+ Nxf622. Qxd8 Rxd8 23. Bxd5 Rxd5Blac
k has clear winning
chances) 20. Ne6 fxe6 21. dxe6 Bxg2(21... Qf8!? 22. Qxf8+ Nxf8 23. Bxb7 Rxe224. N
b3 Nxe6 25. Bc8 c4 26. Bxe6+ Rxe627. Nxd4 Rd6 28. Nb5 Rb6 29. Nc3Rb3Should
be a draw but Black will try with his passed
pawn) 22. exd7 Rxe2(22... Nxd7 23. Kxg2 Qe7 24. Ra8+ Nf825. Qxe7 Rxe7 26. Kf1) 2
3. Kxg2?This gives some chances for Black to fight for
advantage(23. Qxc5 Qxd7 24. Qc4+ Qe6 25. Qxe6+Rxe6 26. Kxg2More or less
equal) 23... Rxd2 24. Ra7(24. Qe6+ Kf8 25. Ra7 Rb2 26. Qd6+ Kf727. Qxc5 Rxf2+ 28.
Kg1 Rb2 29. Qc8 Rb830. Rb7 Rxb7 31. Qxd8 Rxd7 32. Qa5 d333. Qd2) 24... h5?!Bl
ack misses his
chances(24... Rxf2+! 25. Kg1 (25. Kxf2 Ne4+)25... Rc2 26. Ra8 Rc1+ 27. Kf2 Qxa828.
d8=Q+ Qxd8 29. Qxd8+ Kf7 30. Qc7+Kg6 31. Qf4 Rc2+ 32. Ke1 Rxh2 33. g4Rh1+ 3
4. Ke2 d3+ 35. Kxd3 Rd1+ 36. Ke2Rd5Black will win the g4-pawn next and then only
Black can play for a win. White has to fight for a draw but it is not easy, since Black
does not have the risk of
losing)(24... Kf7 25. Qxc5 Rxf2+ 26. Kg1 Rb227. Qc8 Rb8 28. Rb7 Rxb7 29. Qxd8 Rx
d730. Qa5 d3 31. Qd2Again only Black is trying and White has to play for a draw
only) 25. Qxc5 Rxf2+ 26. Kg1(26. Kxf2 Ne4+) 26... Kh7 27. Qa5A forced draw
follows27... Qe7 28. d8=Q Rg2+ 29. Kxg2 Qe2+30. Kg1 Qd1+ 31. Kg2

White really never got any chance in this game. It was black who actually had some chances
when white took on unnecessary risk. Our next game is between Topalov and Carlsen,
Nanjing 2010. Topalov had some edge after the opening, but soon misplayed his position
and lost his way.
Topalov, V. (2803) vs. Carlsen, M. (2826)
3rd Pearl Spring | Nanjing CHN | Round 9 | 29 Oct 2010 | ECO: E00 | 0-1

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 Bb4+ 4. Bd2 Bxd2+5. Qxd2 d5 6. Bg2 c6 7. Nf3 Nbd7 8. O-

Ob6 9. Rc1 O-O 10. b4In the previous round Wang Yue opted for 10.cxd5 but did not
get any advantage. But Topalov's move should be a better choice for
White(10. cxd5 cxd5 11. Nc3 Ba6 12. a4 Rc813. Nb5 Ne4 14. Qf4 Qe7 (14... Rxc1+15
. Rxc1 (15. Qxc1 Qb8) 15... Qe7 16. Rc7Qb4) 15. Rc7 Bxb5 16. axb5 Nd6 17. Qc1Rx
c7 18. Qxc7 Rc8 (18... Rd8 19. Qxa7Nxb5 20. Qa4 Nd6A slight edge for White due to
the presence of the light-squared bishop. But Black should hold pretty
easily)19. Qxa7 Qd8 (19... Nxb5 20. Qa6 Nd621. Ne5 Rc7 22. Nxd7 Qxd7 23. Qxb6)2
0. Qa4 h6 21. Qb4 Qf8 22. b3? (22. e3 Nc423. Qb3 Na5 24. Qa3 Rc2 25. b4 Nc426. Q
a7) 22... Ne4 23. Qxf8+ Kxf8 24. Ne5Nxe5 25. Bxe4 dxe4 26. dxe5 Rc5 27. Ra8+Ke7
28. Ra7+ Kf81/2-1/2 Wang Yue (2732)-Carlsen,M (2826)/Nanjing CHN
2010) 10... Bb7 11. Qb2 Rb8A new move in this position. The point is simple, Black
aims for c6-c5 sooner or
later(11... a5 12. b5!? (12. cxd5 cxd5 13. b5 Qe714. Rc7 Rab8 15. Qa3 Qxa3 16. Nxa
3 Rfc817. Rac1 Ne8 18. Rxc8 Rxc8 19. Rxc8Bxc81/2-1/2 Atalik,S (2592) -Shanava,K
(2519)/Kocaeli
2008) 12... c5 13. cxd5 exd514. dxc5 bxc5 (14... Nxc5 15. Nbd2 Re816. Nd4) 15. e3
Ne4 16. Nc3 f5 17. Rd1 Qf618. Rac1)(11... Qe7 12. Nbd2 Rfb8 13. a4 a5 14. b5c5 15.
dxc5 bxc5 16. Qa3 Kf8 17. e3 Rc818. Ne1 Nb6 19. Ra2 Rc7 20. Nd3 Rac821. Rac2 N
e4 22. cxd5 exd5 23. Nxe4 dxe424. Nxc5 Kg8 25. Bh3 Rd8 26. Qa1 Bd527. Ne61-0
Bischoff,K (2555) -Tereick,B (2155)/Bad Zwesten 2005/CBM 104
ext) 12. Nbd2 Qe7 13. e3 Rfc8 14. Rc2 c515. bxc5 bxc5 16. Qa3 Rc6 17. Rac1Both
sides have completed their development and are ready to execute their
plans17... Ra6 18. Qd3 h6Both sides have to maintain the pressure in the center,
exchanges are to be avoided for the time
being(18... dxc4 19. Qxc4 Rc8 (19... cxd420. Nxd4Black is facing problems because of
the misplaced rook on
a6) 20. Qe2!(20. Ne5 cxd4 21. Qxd4 Rxc2 22. Rxc2 Bxg223. Kxg2 Nxe5 24. Qxe5 Q
b7+ 25. e4)20... Ra3 21. Qd1 Bd5 22. Ne5With pressure along the c-
file) 19. Qe2(19. cxd5 Nxd5 20. Rb2 Rb6 21. Rb3 cxd422. Qxd4 Nb4)(19. dxc5 Nxc5
20. Qe2 Rd6 21. Ne5 Ba6) 19... dxc4 20. Qxc4 cxd4?!After the opening of central files
White's pieces are much better placed and coordinated to face the complications
ahead(20... Rc8! 21. Qd3 Nd5 22. dxc5 Rxc523. Rxc5 Nxc5 24. Qb5 Na4) 21. Nxd4 R
b6 22. Bxb7 R8xb7 23. Kg2?!(23. Qf1! Rb2 24. Rc8+ Nf8 (24... Kh725. Qd3+ g6 26.
Nc6) 25. Nc6 Qd7 26. Rd8Qc7 27. a4Black will soon lose
material) 23... Ne5 24. Qc5?After this move it is Black who is
better 24... Qxc5 25. Rxc5 Rb226. R1c2 Nd3Suddenly the situation has changed and
the Black pieces are coordinated and on the offensive 27. Rc8+Kh7 28. N4f3 a5?!Not a
bad move exactly but Black has a better choice(28... Ng4!Winning the f2-
pawn) 29. h3 a4 30. a3 g5 31. Rxb2 Rxb232. Rc3?The final blunder. White enjoyed a
slight edge a few moves before and when he got into a bad position suddenly it was
very difficult for him to handle it psychologically, even for a player of Topalov's
caliber. 32... Nxf2 33. Rc7 N2e4

Black could have equalized pretty easily with 20...Rc8 and only after 20...cxd4 white got
some chances to fight for an advantage. Topalov was not in his best form and soon he lost
all his advantage and managed to lose in the end. Basically black's system is pretty solid and
his ideas are simple. He just needs to simplify the position after the central break c6-c5 and
keep waiting for the opponent to commit any errors or sign the truce. Hence, for the time
being this idea is working very well for black and it is white's turn to find a new idea against
this super solid system.
E11: Bogo-Indian defence
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Bb4+

Bogo indian defence

E11 Sub-variants:
 Bogo-Indian defence
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Bb4+
 Bogo-Indian defence, Gruenfeld variation
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Bb4+ 4. Nbd2
 Bogo-Indian defence, Nimzovich variation
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Bb4+ 4. Bd2 Qe7
 Bogo-Indian defence, Monticelli trap
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Bb4+ 4. Bd2 Bxd2+ 5. Qxd2 b6 6. g3 Bb7 7. Bg2 O-O 8. Nc3 Ne4 9. Qc2
Nxc3 10. Ng5
Bogo Indian Defense
Chess Variations for Black

The Bogo Indian Defence is a good chess defense for Black versus d4, c4, Nf3 setup.
Just observe if White develops his kingside knight to f3, then you can play this opening
line.

The chess variations of the Bogo Indian Defence are solid but also dynamic enough to
give winning opportunities.

1.d4 Nf6
2.c4 e6
3.Nf3 Bb4+

Hint: If White plays 3.Nf3 instead of 3.Nc3 you can play the Bogo Indian Defence.

This is the common position. White has not played the usual 3.Nc3 to control e4 and
planning to play 4.e4 as this would enable Black to play the Nimzo-Indian defense
3...Bb4. 3.Nf3 is sometimes played instead to avoid the Nimzo Indian.

Now after 3.Nf3, Black usually plays 3...b6 which is the Queen's Indian Defence or
3...d5 which leads to the Queen's Gambit Declined.

However Black can play 3...Bb4+ now, which is called the Bogo Indiannamed after
Efim Bogoljubov. This variation is not so popular but is played on all levels of chess.

The following moves can be played:

4.Bd2

4. Bd2 is the most popular line and Black has to decide what to do. Trade off the bishop
by 4...Bxd2+ which is not popular or play the popular 4...Qe7 which defends the bishop.

A sharper alternative is 4...a5 which grabs some space on the queenside but creates
some structural weaknesses.

The modern line is 4...c5 and after 5.Bxb4 cxb4, Black's pawns are doubled and the c-
pawn has been pulled away from the centre but the b4 pawn controls the c3-square and
hinders the development of the white knight to c3 which is the natural square for it.

Black can also simply retreat the bishop playing 4...Be7 as the loss of tempo is
compensated by the inactive development of the white bishop to d2.
4.Nbd2

4.Nbd2 is an alternative to 4.Bd2 intending to trade off the bishop for the knight or
chasing the Black's bishop away later on. But the knight is not developed to c3 which
would be the natural and active square for the knight. It sits now on d2 where it is
somewhat passively placed and it blocks the bishop on c1. Black's most common
moves now are 4...b6, 4...0-0 or 4...d5.

Key Idea

Exchange your bishop on b4 eventually. After that move your pawns in the center
to black squares! This will bring your bishop on c8 to life and willlimit the activity of
the white enemy bishop on g2 because the white pawns are blocked on white squares.

The English Opening

a Positional Chess Battle

The English Opening is a flank opening and belongs to the closed chess opening
systems. It is recommended for the experienced positional chess player.

The English starts with 1.c4 which is the fourth popular opening move. The aim is to
control the center square d5. See below

The English is named after the English grandmaster Howard Staunton. He played it
1843 in his match with Saint-Amant and in the first international tournament in London
1851. Howard Staunton researched and developed this opening and played it on a
regular basis.

English is a very flexible opening which can transpose into other openings like Queens-
Gambit, Gruenfeld and Kings-Indian.

With his first move 1.c4 White controls the center square d5. The English chess opening
is solid and has a good reputation. It was played in various world championship
matches by Botvinnik, Bobby Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov. Nowadays it is quite
popular and often played.

Main Lines are:

1...Nf6 can transpose into the Indian Defense.
1...e5 This is called the Reversed-Sicilian as White plays the Sicilian defense, but with a
move up.
1...e6 2.Nc3 d5 3.d4 can transpose to Queen's Gambit Declined. (White usually plays
2.Nf3 or 2.g3 here, not 2.Nc3)
1...c5 (the Symmetrical Variation)
1...g6 leads to Modern Defense or after 1...d6 and 2...Nf6 to a set up of the King's
Indian Defence.
1...c6 2.d4 d5 transposes to the Slav Defense
1...b6 The English Defence. Black fianchettoes the queenside bishop after playing
2...e6 first, followed by moves like f5 and Qh4 later.

If you are a beginner (black colour) answer 1.c4 with 1...e5 and after that I
recommend the following set-up for you, where your pieces are placed on natural
squares. (or play the bishop to c5 in similar situations, if possible.)

Tomashevsky, E. - Svidler, P. 1-0

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e5 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. g3 Bb4 5. Nd5 Bc5 6. Bg2 O-O 7. O-

O d6 8. e3 a69. d3 Ba7 10. Bd2 Nd5 11. cd5 Ne7 12. Qb3 c6 13. dc6 Nc6 14. Bc3 Rb8
15. d4 e416. Nd2 d5 17. f3 ef3 18. Nf3 Be6 19. Kh1 Re8 20. Rf2 b5 21. Bd2 Bf5 22. Raf
1 Be423. Ne1 Rb7 24. Be4 Re4 25. Nd3 Rd7 26. a4 ba4 27. Qa4 Re6 28. Rc1 Rc7 29.
Nf4Rd6 30. Ba5 Na5 31. Rc7 Bb6 32. Rc3 h6 33. Qc2 Qe8 34. Qf5 g6 35. Qd3 Kg736.
Kg2 Nc6 37. Qe2 a5 38. Qf3 Ne7 39. Qg4 Kh7 40. Qf3 a4 41. g4 Rf6 42. Qh3 Kg743. Q
g3 Ba5 44. Rc1 Rb6 45. Nd3

Black Repertoire: 1. c4 e5
Dear reader,

I'm pleased to present you today a complete repertoire after 1. c4. I've
chosen e5 as an answer by process of elimination. And my conclusion is that
the reversed sicilian is maybe black's soundest and most logical answer to 1.
c4

Black contests the center in a classical way and seeks strong and powerful
central play. It looks like it's a sicilian defence with one tempo less, but
some particularities that it does not lead to a big advantage for white as we
might suppose. Why? Because black has more information. It is a very
important feature in reversed openings.

They were amazing match-ups featuring this openings and it gives chances
for black to win, which is rare against the English Opening.

Specialists of this line include Anatoly Karpov, Michael Adams, Nigel

Short, Paul Keres and Vasily Smyslov

I will use as main reference 'Gambit Guide to the English Opening with ...e5'
May this repertoire serve you well in your own games,

LibertyJack

After <1. c4 e5>, white has a few choices which leads to different kinds of
position. Pawn structure is an extremly important aspect of the position

I) The stereotypical g3 development <1. c4 e5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 c6!>

II) The Reversed Sicilian Four Knights <1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6>

III) The Odd 2. Nf3 line <1. c4 e5 2. Nf3 e4 3. Nd4 Nc6>

Eugenio Torre vs Vasily Smyslov

Buenos Aires (Clarin) (1978), Buenos Aires ARG, rd 11, Nov-28
English Opening: King's English. Four Knights Variation Quiet Line (A28) · 0-1

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. e3 Bb4 5. Qc2 O-O 6. d3 Re8 7. Bd2 Bc3 8. Bc3 d5 9.
cd5 Nd5 10. Be2 Qd6 11. O-O Ncb4 12. Qb1 Bf5 13. Rd1 Rad8 14. Be1 Nb6 15. a3
N4d5 16. b4 h6 17. Qa2 Be6 18. Qc2 Bd7 19. Rdc1 Ba4 20. Qc5 c6 21. Qa5 Bb5 22.
Rc5 Na4 23. Rb5 cb5 24. d4 a6 25. de5 Qb8 26. Nd4 Qe5 27. Bf3 Nc7 28. Bb7 Rd4 29.
Rc1 Rd7 30. Bc6 Qb2

Andrei Kharlov vs Sergey Volkov

Aeroflot Open (2006), Moscow RUS, rd 3, Feb-10
English Opening: King's English. Two Knights' Variation Smyslov System (A22) · 0-1

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e5 3. g3 Bb4 4. Bg2 O-O 5. e4 Bc3 6. bc3 c6 7. Qb3 Na6 8. Ba3 Re8
9. Ne2 d6 10. O-O Nc5 11. Qc2 Qa5 12. Bb4 Qa6 13. d3 Nce4 14. de4 c5 15. Qb2 cb4
16. cb4 Qc4 17. Rfd1 Qa6 18. Rd2 Be6 19. Rad1 Rac8 20. h3 h5 21. Kh2 Rc7 22. a3
Rec8 23. Rd6 Rc2 24. Qc2 Rc2 25. Ra6 ba6 26. Re1 Ra2 27. Nc3 Ra3 28. Nd5 a5 29.
ba5 Ra5 30. Nf6 gf6 31. Bf3 Ra2 32. Kg2 a5 33. Bh5 a4 34. Bg4 Bb3 35. Bd1 Be6 36.
Bg4 Bc4 37. Rc1 Bd3 38. Kf3 Bc2 39. Bd7 Ra3 40. Kg4 Be4 41. Rc4 Bf3 42. Kf5 Kg7
43. Ra4 Rd3 44. Bb5 Rd2 45. Bc4 Bd1 46. Ra2 Bc2

Rein Toomas Etruk vs Vasily Smyslov

ch, USSR 6/62 (1968), Riga LAT, Dec-??
English Opening: King's English. Two Knights' Variation Smyslov System (A22) · 0-1

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. g3 Bb4 4. Bg2 O-O 5. Nf3 Re8 6. O-O Nc6 7. d3 h6 8. e4 a5 9.

h3 Bc5 10. Kh2 d6 11. a3 Bd7 12. Rb1 Nh7 13. Bd2 Nf8 14. Ne2 a4 15. Ne1 Na5 16. f4
Nb3 17. Bc3 b5 18. Nf3 bc4 19. fe5 cd3 20. Nf4 Bb5 21. ed6 Bd6 22. e5 Bc5 23. Nd2
Nd2 24. Qd2 c6 25. Rfd1 Ra7 26. Be4 Rd7 27. Bd3 Bd3 28. Nd3 Bd4 29. Qc2 Ng6 30.
Bd4 Rd4 31. Nc5 Ne5 32. Na4 Nf3 33. Kg2 Ne1
Fridrik Olafsson vs Vasily Smyslov
Bled-Zagreb-Belgrade Candidates (1959), Bled, Zagreb & Belgrade YUG, rd 27, Oct-26
English Opening: King's English. Two Knights' Variation Smyslov System (A22) · 0-1

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. g3 Bb4 4. Bg2 O-O 5. Nf3 Re8 6. O-O e4 7. Nd4 Nc6 8. Nc2 Bc3
9. dc3 Ne5 10. b3 d6 11. Bg5 Ned7 12. Qd4 h6 13. Bf6 Nf6 14. Ne3 Qe7 15. Rae1 Bd7
16. f4 ef3 17. ef3 Bc6 18. Nc2 Qd7 19. Nb4 Re7 20. Qf2 Re1 21. Re1 a5 22. Nc6 bc6
23. c5 dc5 24. f4 a4 25. Qc5 ab3 26. ab3 Qd2 27. Qe3 Qb2 28. h3 Ra2 29. Qf3 c5 30.
g4 g6 31. c4 Kg7 32. Rd1 Qc2 33. Re1 Rb2 34. Re3 h5 35. g5 Nh7 36. Rc3 Qb1 37.
Bf1 Nf8 38. Qe3 Ne6 39. h4 Qd1 40. Qe5 Kh7 41. f5 Rb1

Mikhail Botvinnik vs Vasily Smyslov

Russia (1965), Ch URS, Moscow
English Opening: King's English. Two Knights' Variation Smyslov System (A22) · 0-1

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. g3 Bb4 4. Bg2 O-O 5. d3 Nc6 6. Bd2 Re8 7. e4 Nd4 8. a3 Bc5 9.
b4 Bf8 10. Nge2 Ne2 11. Ne2 c6 12. O-O d5 13. ed5 cd5 14. Bg5 Be6 15. cd5 Bd5 16.
Bf6 gf6 17. Bd5 Qd5 18. Nc3 Qe6 19. Qf3 Rad8 20. Rfd1 b6 21. g4 Bh6 22. Qf5 Rd4
23. Ne4 Qf5 24. gf5 Red8 25. Kf1 Rd3 26. Ke2 R3d4 27. Rd4 Rd4 28. f3 Bf4 29. Rg1
Kf8 30. h3 b5 31. Rd1 Rd1 32. Kd1 Kg7 33. Nc3 a6 34. Ne4 Be3 35. Kc2 Bd4 36. Nd6
Kh6 37. Ne4 Kh5 38. Nf6 Kg5 39. Nh7 Kf5 40. h4 Be3 41. Nf8

Loek van Wely vs Maxime Vachier-Lagrave

Aeroflot Open (2010), Moscow RUS, rd 7, Feb-15
English Opening: King's English. Two Knights' Variation Smyslov System (A22) · 0-1

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e5 3. g3 Bb4 4. Bg2 O-O 5. Nf3 Re8 6. O-O c6 7. Qb3 Na6 8. d3 Bc3
9. Qc3 d5 10. cd5 Nd5 11. Qc2 Bg4 12. h3 Bf3 13. Bf3 Nac7 14. a3 Ne6 15. e3 f5 16.
Bg2 f4 17. Qc4 Kh8 18. Re1 Nb6 19. Qc2 fg3 20. fg3 Qd6 21. Rd1 Rad8 22. Kh2 Rf8
23. b4 Ng5 24. Qe2 e4 25. Qg4 Nf3 26. Bf3 Rf3 27. Ra2 Nc4 28. Rg2 Qd5 29. dc4 Qd1
30. Bb2 Rf7 31. Qe4 Rf1 32. g4 Rh1 33. Kg3 Qe1 34. Kf4 Qh4 35. Qe5 Rf1 36. Ke4
Qh6 37. Qh5 Qe6 38. Be5 Qc4 39. Bd4 Qe6 40. Be5 Qd5

Julian Michael Hodgson vs Michael Adams

Redbus KO (2001), Southend ENG, rd 4, Apr-16
English Opening: King's English. Four Knights Variation Fianchetto Lines (A29) · 0-1

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e5 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. g3 Bc5 5. Bg2 d6 6. d3 h6 7. O-O a6 8. e3 Ba7 9. b3

O-O 10. h3 Re8 11. Kh2 Rb8 12. Bb2 b5 13. Rc1 Ne7 14. Qc2 bc4 15. dc4 Bf5 16. Qe2
Ng6 17. Rfd1 h5 18. Nd2 Nf8 19. Nde4 N8d7 20. Bf3 Qc8 21. Rh1 Ne4 22. Ne4 Bg6 23.
Nc3 Nf6 24. Nd5 Re6 25. Bg2 Bc5 26. Rhf1 Nd5 27. cd5 Re7 28. Rc4 f5 29. Rc5 dc5
30. Rc1 Rb5 31. Qd2 Qd8 32. Bf1 Rb6 33. Rc5 h4 34. gh4 Qd6 35. Rc1 e4 36. Kh1 Bh5
37. Bg2 Rb5 38. Rg1 Rd5 39. Qc3 Rd1 40. Qc4 Kh7 41. Bd4
Bogdan Sliwa vs Vasily Smyslov
Rubinstein Memorial 4th (1966), Polanica-Zdroj POL, rd 8, Aug-??
English Opening: King's English. Four Knights Variation Fianchetto Lines (A29) · 0-1

1. c4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. g3 Bb4 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O e4 7. Ng5 Bc3 8. bc3 Re8
9. f3 ef3 10. Nf3 d5 11. cd5 Nd5 12. c4 Nb6 13. d3 Bg4 14. Rb1 Qe7 15. e3 Rad8 16.
Qb3 h6 17. Rb2 Qd7 18. c5 Nd5 19. d4 b6 20. cb6 ab6 21. Re2 Na5 22. Qc2 Nb4 23.
Qb1 c5 24. h3 Bh3 25. Ne5 Re5 26. de5 Bg2 27. Rg2 Nc4 28. a3 Nd3 29. Qb3 Nde5
30. Bb2 Qd3 31. Qd3 Rd3 32. Be5 Ne5 33. Rb1 Ra3 34. Rb6 Re3 35. Rb8 Kh7 36. Kf2
Ra3 37. Re8 f6 38. Rg1 c4 39. Ke2 h5 40. Kf2 g5 41. Rb1 Kg6 42. Rb6 Kf5

Garry Kasparov vs Anatoly Karpov

Kasparov - Karpov World Championship Match (1987), Seville ESP, rd 2, Oct-14
English Opening: King's English. Four Knights Variation Fianchetto Lines (A29) · 0-1

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. g3 Bb4 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O e4 7. Ng5 Bc3 8. bc3 Re8
9. f3 e3 10. d3 d5 11. Qb3 Na5 12. Qa3 c6 13. cd5 cd5 14. f4 Nc6 15. Rb1 Qc7 16. Bb2
Bg4 17. c4 dc4 18. Bf6 gf6 19. Ne4 Kg7 20. dc4 Rad8 21. Rb3 Nd4 22. Re3 Qc4 23.
Kh1 Nf5 24. Rd3 Be2 25. Rd8 Rd8 26. Re1 Re8 27. Qa5 b5 28. Nd2 Qd3 29. Nb3 Bf3
30. Bf3 Qf3 31. Kg1 Re1 32. Qe1 Ne3

Carlos Bielicki vs Vasily Smyslov

Havana (1964), Havana CUB
English Opening: King's English. Four Knights Variation Quiet Line (A28) · 0-1

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. e3 Bb4 5. Qc2 O-O 6. b3 Bc3 7. Qc3 Re8 8. d3 d5 9.
cd5 Qd5 10. Be2 e4 11. de4 Ne4 12. Qc4 Qf5 13. O-O Be6 14. Qc2 Bd5 15. b4 Qe6 16.
Bb2 a6 17. Nd4 Nd4 18. Bd4 c6 19. Bd3 h6 20. Be4 Be4 21. Qc3 Bg2 22. Kg2 Qg4 23.
Kh1 Qf3 24. Kg1 Re4 25. Be5 h5 26. Rfe1 Rd8 27. Bg3 h4 28. Qc2 h3 29. Kf1 Rc4 30.
Qb2 Rg4

Heinz Wirthensohn vs Vasily Smyslov

02, Graz (1984)
English Opening: King's English. Four Knights Variation Flexible Line (A28) · 0-1

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. d3 g6 5. g3 Bg7 6. Bg2 O-O 7. O-O Re8 8. Bg5 h6 9.
Bf6 Qf6 10. Rb1 a5 11. a3 Qd8 12. b4 ab4 13. ab4 Ne7 14. Nd2 d6 15. Qb3 c6 16. b5
Be6 17. Rfc1 f5 18. bc6 bc6 19. Qc2 Qc7 20. Rb3 Reb8 21. Rcb1 Rb3 22. Qb3 Ra7 23.
h4 Bf6 24. Qb8 Qb8 25. Rb8 Kf7 26. Rb6 e4 27. Ncb1 ed3 28. ed3 Bd4 29. Rb8 Ra2
30. Kf1 d5 31. cd5 Nd5 32. Bf3 c5 33. Be2 Nb4 34. Rb7 Kf6 35. Rb6 Rb2 36. g4 Ke7
37. Rb7 Kd8 38. gf5 gf5 39. Rh7 Ba2 40. Rh6 Bb1

English Opening
The English Opening is a chess opening that begins with the move:
1. c4
A flank opening, it is the fourth most popular[1][2] and, according to various databases,
anywhere from one of the two most successful[1] to the fourth most successful[3] of
White's twenty possible first moves. White begins the fight for the centre by staking a
claim to the d5 square from the wing, in hypermodern style. Although many lines of the
English have a distinct character, the opening is often used as a transpositional device
in much the same way as 1.Nf3 – to avoid such highly regarded responses to 1.d4 as
theNimzo-Indian and Grünfeld defences, and is considered reliable and flexible.[4]
The English derives its name from the English (unofficial) world champion, Howard
Staunton, who played it during his 1843 match withSaint-Amant and at London 1851,
the first international tournament.[5] It did not inspire Staunton's contemporaries, and
only caught on in the twentieth century.[5] It is now recognised as a solid opening that
may be used to reach both classical and hypermodern positions. Mikhail
Botvinnik, Tigran Petrosian, Anatoly Karpov, Garry Kasparov and Magnus
Carlsen employed it during their world championship matches. Bobby Fischer created a
stir when he switched to it from his customary 1.e4 late in his career, employing it
against Lev Polugaevsky and Oscar Panno at the Palma de Mallorca Interzonal in 1970,
and in his world championship match againstBoris Spassky.

Taxonomy[edit]

Opening theoreticians who write on the English Opening break the opening down into
three broad categories, generally determined by Black's choice of defensive setups.
Symmetrical Defense: 1...c5 [edit]
The Symmetrical Defense (classified A30–39 in ECO), which is 1...c5, and is so named
because both of the c-pawns are advanced two squares, maintaining symmetry. Note
that Black can reach the Symmetrical Defense through many move orders by deferring
...c5, and often does. For example, 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 (or 2.Nf3) c5 is a Symmetrical
Defense even though Black played ...Nf6 before ...c5.
There are several types of positions that can arise from the Symmetrical Defense.
Among the ideas are:[6]

 The Hedgehog system[7] involves a solid but flexible defence where Black develops
by b6, e6, Bb7, and Be7, before controlling the fifth rank with moves such as a6 and
d6. The game typically involves extended maneuvering, but both players need to be
on the lookout for favorable pawn advances and pawn breaks.
 The double fianchetto defence involves Black developing both bishops by fianchetto
to g7 and b7. The line is fairly solid and difficult to defeat at the grandmaster level.
Some lines are considered highly drawish, for instance if White's bishops are also
fianchettoed to g2 and b2 there may be many simplifications leading to a simplified
and equal position.
Either player may make an early break in the centre with the d-pawn.

 An early d2–d4 for White can arise in 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4. Since this position is
often reached after the transposition 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nf3, where White avoided
theBenoni Defense that would arise after 3.d5, this line is often called the Anti-
Benoni. The games can give a large variety of positional and tactical ideas. Games
usually continue with 3...cxd4 4.Nxd4 when Black can choose between the sharp
4...e5 or more sedate moves like the Hedgehog-like 4...b6 or the more common
4...e6.
 A typical line of play where Black plays an early d5 is 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 d5,
when White usually trades off in the centre 4.cxd5 Nxd5. White can either challenge
 the centre with 5.d4 or 5.e4 or allow Black a space advantage in the centre with
5.g3. In the latter case, Black can play 5...Nc6 6.Bg2 Nc7 followed by 7...e5,
reaching a reversed Maróczy Bind position called the Rubinstein System.
Reversed Sicilian: 1...e5 [edit]
The Reversed Sicilian (classified A20–29 in ECO) is another broad category of defence, introduced
by the response 1...e5. Note again, that Black can delay playing ...e5, for example 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3
Nc6 3.Nf3 e5 whereupon even though ...e5 has been delayed, once it is played the defence is
classified as a Reversed Sicilian.

 1...e5 White has Black's position in the Sicilian but with an extra tempo. This is often called the
Reversed Sicilian,[8] though others call it the King's English.[9] Bruce Leverett, writing the English
chapter in MCO-14, stated, "It is natural to treat the English as a Sicilian reversed, but the
results are often surprising—main lines in the Sicilian Defense correspond to obscure side
variations in the English, and vice versa."
Other variations[edit]
The third broad category are the non-...e5 and non-...c5 responses, classified A10–19
in ECO. Most often these defences consist of ...Nf6, ...e6, and ...d5 or ...Bb4 systemic
responses by Black, or a Slav-like system consisting of ...c6 and ...d5, a direct King's
Indian Defense setup with ...Nf6, ...g6, ...Bg7, ...0-0, after which ...c5 and ...e5 are
eschewed, or 1...f5, which usually transposes to a Dutch Defense once White plays d4.
All irregular responses such as 1...b6 and 1...g5 are also lumped into this third broad
category.
Common responses include:[1]

 1...Nf6
The most common response to 1.c4, often played to arrive at an Indian Defence. However, more
than half the time, Black subsequently elects to transpose into either a Symmetrical Defense with
...c5, or a Reversed Sicilian with ...e5.

 1...e6
Can lead to a Queen's Gambit Declined after 2.Nc3 d5 3.d4, but White often prefers 2.Nf3, which
may lead to a variety of openings.

 1...f5
Leads to a Dutch Defense when White follows up with d4. Other choices for White are 2.Nc3, 2.Nf3,
and 2.g3, where Black usually plays ...Nf6.

 1...g6
May lead to a Modern Defense or after Nf6 and d6 or d5 to the King's Indian Defence or
the Grünfeld Defence, respectively, or stay within English lines. Often dubbed the Great Snake
variation.

 1...c6
Can lead to a Slav Defence after 2.d4 d5, but White will often prefer a Caro–Kann Defence with
2.e4 d5, or a Réti Opening after 2.Nf3 d5 3.b3.
 1...b6
The English Defence. This setup involves the fianchetto of the queenside bishop and 2...e6. Often
Black will defer the move ....Nf6, choosing to attack the centre with ...f5 and/or ...Qh4. The
English grandmasters Tony Miles and Jonathan Speelman have successfully used this opening.

 1...g5
An eccentric response known as Myers' Defense after Hugh Myers' advocacy of it in print and
actual play.[10][11][12] It is intended as an improved Grob's Attack; after 2.d4, Black will put pressure
on the d4 square with moves such as ...Bg7, ...c5, and ...Qb6.[11][13] According to Nunn's Chess
Openings, White obtains a small advantage after 2.d4 Bg7 (offering a Grob-like gambit: 3.Bxg5
c5) 3.Nc3 h6 4.e4.[14] Myers recommended 3...c5 (instead of 3...h6); in response, Joel
Benjamin advocates 4.dxc5! [11]

 1...b5
Called the Jaenisch gambit after Carl Jaenisch,[15] and dubbed the Halibut Gambit by Eric Schiller
"because it belongs at the bottom of the sea." Black obtains no compensation for the sacrificed
pawn.[16]

Transposition potential[edit]
If White plays an early d4, the game will usually transpose into either the Queen's
Gambit or an Indian Defence. For example, after 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6 3.d4 d5 the game
has transposed into the Grünfeld Defence, usually reached by the move order 1.d4 Nf6
2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5.
Note, however, that White can also play 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6 3.e4, making it impossible
for Black to reach a Grünfeld, instead more or less forcing him into lines of the King's
Indian Defence with 3...d6. Black also cannot force a Grünfeld with 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5,
since White can deviate with 3.cxd5 Nxd5 4.g3, a line played several times by Mikhail
Botvinnik in 1958, in his final match for the world championship with Vasily Smyslov.
Instead of playing an early d4, White can also play Nf3
and fianchetto the king's bishop (g3 and Bg2), transposing into a Réti Opening.
Also, after 1.c4 c6, White can transpose into the Polish Opening, Outflank Variation, by
playing 2.b4!?, which can be used as a surprise weapon if Black does not know very
much about the Polish Opening.[17]
The many different transpositional possibilities available to White make the English a
slippery opening for Black to defend against, and make it necessary for him to consider
carefully what move order to employ. For instance, if Black would like to play a Queen's
Gambit Declined, the most accurate move order to do so is 1...e6 2.d4 d5. (Of course,
White can again play the Reti instead with 2.Nf3 d5 3.b3.) If Black plays instead 1...Nf6
2.Nc3 e6, White can avoid the QGD by playing 3.e4, the Flohr–Mikenas Attack.
ECO[edit]

The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings has classified the English Opening under the codes A10
through A39:
 A10 1.c4
 A11 1.c4 c6
 A12 1.c4 c6 2.Nf3 d5 3.b3
 A13 1.c4 e6
 A14 1.c4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.0-0
 A15 1.c4 Nf6
 A16 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3
 A17 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6
 A18 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.e4 (Mikenas–Carls Variation)
 A19 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.e4 c5
 A20 1.c4 e5
 A21 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3
 A22 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6
 A23 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 c6 (Bremen System, Keres Variation)
 A24 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 g6 (Bremen System with ...g6)
 A25 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6
 A26 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 d6
 A27 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 (Three Knights System)
 A28 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 Nf6
 A29 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3 (Four Knights, Kingside Fianchetto)
 A30 1.c4 c5 (Symmetrical Variation)
 A31 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 (Symmetrical, Benoni Formation)
 A32 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6
 A33 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3 Nc6
 A34 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3
 A35 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6
 A36 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3
 A37 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nf3
 A38 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nf3 Nf6
 A39 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.0-0 0-0 7.d4

Depiction in cinema[edit]
The English Opening is used by Professor Moriarty in the film Sherlock Holmes: A
Game of Shadows as he and Holmes discuss their competing plans over a game of
chess. Both Holmes and Moriarty eventually play the final moves blindfolded by citing
out the last moves in descriptive notation (rather than algebraic, as the former was
contemporary in the late 19th century), ending in Holmes checkmating Moriarty, just
as Watson foils Moriarty's plans.
1.c4 is also used in Pawn Sacrifice by Bobby Fischer in the climactic game six of
the 1972 World Chess Championship versus Boris Spassky.

Try to Avoid English Opening 1.c4 d5!?

The move 1...d7-d5 is a universal move that can be played against any first move by
White. The only real challenges are the two moves where White plays a pawn to e4 or
c4 intending to capture the d5-pawn on move two. The first option is 1.e4 d5 2.exd5
called the Scandinavian Defence (also called the Center Counter Defence).
After the second option 1.c4, White can increase pressure on d5 by
Nc3/g3+Bg2/Qb3/e4 etc. Black can fight for d5 with pawns by first playing 1...e6 or
1...c6 (heading for a Slav Defence after 2.d4 d5). The weakness of 1.c4 is that it does
not counter other central squares available for Black's focus, such as c5, d4, e5 and e4.
Black can play 1...c5, 1...e5, 1...Nf6 or 1...f5 (Dutch Defence). Sometimes I also play
1...Nc6 intending 2...e5, 2...d5 or 2...Nf6 depending on what White chooses and what
Black prefers.

Some books on the English Opening hardly mention 1.c4 d5!? at all. The obvious
positive plus about this line is that if Black already knows a line after 2.d4, then does not
have to learn much that is unique to the English Opening after 1.c4. It is common for
such books to be a summary of how top players handle the opening. Top players rarely
play 1.c4 d5. Chess database game collections are heavily weighted by grandmaster
and master games. Club players make it into databases much less often.

The average rating for players in my large database with millions of games is about
2300. The rating for players as Black in the opening 1.c4 d5 is in the 1900s and occurs
about one out of every 300 games. In my experience as White after 1.c4 I faced 1...d5
once every 20 games; the average player who played 1.c4 d5 vs me was rated in the
1600s. Compare that to the most common move that I have faced from Black after 1.c4
which is 1...Nf6 (over 200 times) where Black was rated on average 2109.

Today's MaryDawson-Sawyer game saw me play my prepared line after 1.c4 d5 2.cxd5
Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6! 4.Nf3 e5. Clearly White has a lead in development, but Black is not
dead. There are good chances for Black to complete his development. For the fun of it,
in the notes I have added a simultaneous exhibition game were the world champion
Emanuel Lasker lost to an unknown opponent in this line 100 years ago.
MaryDawson (1958) - Sawyer (2094), ICC 3 0 Internet Chess Club, 19.03.2011
begins1.c4 d5 2.cxd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 4.Nf3 e5 5.g3 a6 6.Bg2 Nf6 7.d3 Be7 8.0-0 0-
0 9.Bg5 Nc6 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.Ne4 Qd8 12.Nxf6+ Qxf6 13.a3 Be6 14.Rc1 Bd5 15.b4
Rac8 16.Qd2 Rfd8 17.Rfd1 Nd4 18.Nxd4 exd4 19.Bh3 Be6 20.Bg2 Bd5 21.f3 Bb3
22.Re1 b5 23.Rc5 c6 24.Qc1 Bd5 25.h4 g6 26.Kh2 Qd6 27.e4 dxe3 28.Rxe3 Re8
29.Qe1 Kf8 30.Rxe8+ Rxe8 31.Qc3 Qe5 32.d4 Qe3 33.Qxe3 Rxe3 34.g4 Rxa3
35.Kg3 Rb3 36.h5 Rxb4 37.hxg6 hxg6 38.f4 Rc4 39.Bxd5 Rxc5 40.dxc5 cxd5 41.Kf3
a5 42.Ke3 a4 43.Kd3 a3 44.Kc2 b4 45.Kb3 Ke7 46.f5 gxf5 47.gxf5 Kd7 48.f6 Kc6
49.Kxb4 a2 50.Kb3 a1Q 51.Kc2 Qa3 52.Kd2 Kxc5 White resigns 0-1
I am terrible against the English Opening (self.chess)
submitted 2 years ago * by wesleycrush3r1800 USCF - Gruenfeld Defense

I feel quite confident against d4 and e4 since I play against them quite often, and Nf3
usually transposes. The one opening I still feel lost against as Black is the English, 1 c4.
Currently I play 1...Nf6 hoping to get a Grunfeld or Slav-type position (the Grunfeld is
singularly responsible for me feeling comfortable against 1 d4). Much to my chagrin, my
opponents almost always go for the slow, positional setup with Nc3, g3, Bg2, etc. No
matter how hard I try, I can never get a position that I like. The main problem I have is
that after 1 c4 Nf6 2 Nc3, I would like to play ...g6, angling for a Grunfeld, but that
leaves the door open for 3 e4, forcing me into a King's Indian, which I have not studied
at all and do not want to spend the effort learning (it seems like a major endeavor). So I
play 2...e5, but I don't really like playing the Sicilian a tempo down. Can anyone point
me to some good resources or other good options?

[–]ceomoses 4 points 2 years ago

In one of Roman Dzindzichashvili's instructional videos, he states that whenever white
plays c4, you should play c6. This was a video about the QGD Slav, but I've began
doing this with the English and many times, the position transposes to a QGD Slav
anyways.

[–]wesleycrush3r1800 USCF - Gruenfeld Defense[S] 2 points 2 years ago

I looked at 1...c6, but if White plays 2 e4 then you're getting a Caro-Kann, not a Slav.
That isn't the end of the world, of course, but I have no experience playing that as Black.

[–]d_ahura 3 points 2 years ago

It's a very different kind of Caro-Kann you get after 2. .. d5. You'll have to play against
the IQP sometime. I'd say just go for it.

[–]obvnotlupus3400 with stockfish 6 points 2 years ago

I'm 1900 chess.com standard and have no idea about openings, I couldn't even tell you
what Grunfeld is... I look up & learn about openings frequently but I cannot retain
anything at all and immediately forget about them.
In the position you mentioned (1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3) I would play e6, then moves like Nc6,
c5, Be7, maybe d6/d5 and Bd7 or b6 and Bb7. This is what I do against e4 as well (c5,
e6, Be7. Some sort of Taimanov I believe).
Against d4 I again go for some type of Benoni which again involves Nf6, e6 and c5. Or
is that not Benoni?

[–]samtheman66 1 point 2 years ago

The modern Benoni is 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 usually followed by 3.d5

[–]obvnotlupus3400 with stockfish 1 point 2 years ago

Hmm. I usually play e6 before I play c5.

[–]samtheman66 1 point 2 years ago

I see a lot of e6 played after c5 in both the closed benoni and the Benko.
[–]obvnotlupus3400 with stockfish 1 point 2 years ago
I'm sure first e6 and then c5 could transpose into a known Benoni position but if c5 is
usually played first there must be a reason.

[–]samtheman66 1 point 2 years ago

If you play ...c5 then d5 is a great response. If you play ...e6 then d5 is a terrible
response.

[–]obvnotlupus3400 with stockfish 1 point 2 years ago

That's why I play e6 first but in modern Benoni you just go Nf6 and c5, right? I'm not
sure if I like d5 after that, like you said.

[–]samtheman66 1 point 2 years ago*

Yeah advancing the d pawn is a great response to your pawn being attacked, throwing
your d pawn into the fire leaves black better after ...exd5 cxd5 and after Bb4+ that
advanced pawn is difficult to defend.

[–]Taokan 1 point 2 years ago

I play King's Indian defense mostly against d4, but it holds up ok against c4 too. You're
very often making the same position, going for e5/f5, sometimes with more or less
opposition depending how each side sets up. But like you, while I mostly open with the
English I see very few people play it that I'd be on the black side too often.

[–]Kaluki 3 points 2 years ago

Most Grunfeld players I know play the Rubinstein against the English: 1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3
c5 3. g3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. Bg2 Nc7 where Black gets an active enough position. You
basically play a reverse Maroczy Bind.

[–]tronsight 3 points 2 years ago

You can still play like a grunfeld: 1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 and pretty much g6 on whatever
move white chooses next. Inserting cxd Nxd5 doesn't change much. The downside to
playing like this is that white can withhold playing d4 and instead play in sicilian dragon
fashion with g3/Bg2/Nf3/d3 and the position feels much different than a grunfeld. Black
is still fine here of course, but it's more positional and less about active piece play as
most grunfelds are.
As an english player, I feel meeting 1. c4 with c6 is a stronger reply, if you know white is
likely to go g3 soon (as most english-only players do). Playing 1. d4 I'd rather face the
slav than the grunfeld. :)
Playing with e5 and Nf6 is also completely fine, there are several good systems with or
without d5 which are very solid. The "karpov" system with 1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 Nf6
4. Bg2 Bc5 and d6/h6/a6 or a5/Be6/f5/g4 is one which is easy to play for black and is
not like an open sicilian at all, you must be quite an expert in the line to feel the weight
of a single tempo here. A quick summary of black's ideas would be to develop his
pieces in a way that gears up for Bh3, the Bc5 will get kicked back to a7, and then
perform a manouver such as Nc6-e7-g6 which brings another attacker towards white's
king, and allows the Ba7 (perhaps now shut in by an e3-d4-c5 pawn chain) to return to
the game by Bb8 and c6. White will probably try to take more space in the
center/queenside, shut the Bc5/a7 out of the game as it dangerous left looking at the f2
and g1 squares, establish a knight on d5, and take back if capture with the c-pawn to
have some play down the c-file.

[–][deleted] 2 points 2 years ago

My advice is to just accept that 1. c4 is not 1. d4, and that 1. c4 players know that
people hate facing it and are not going to transpose to a 1. d4 opening system since
they know you'd prefer that.
Therefore, study the theory on 1. ...c5, 1. ...e5, 1. ...c6, 1. ...e6, 1. ...Nf6, 1. ...g6 or 1.
...f5, and learn that theory good. In other words, pick one of the responses, and study all
you can find on it. You only need to focus on one, and it isn't that much heavy theory on
it anyway.
I'm a King's Indian player myself so I don't think I mind it too much, but I plan on
learning the 1. ...e5 response eventually since I'm also a Sicilian player (both as white
and black).

[–]AtoqsaykuchiFIDE 2100 2 points 2 years ago

Kaufman in his Repertoire for Black and White (which recommends the Gruenfeld
against 1.d4) recommends 1.c4 g6 intending 2.Nc3 c5 or 2.e4 e5 (these also work if the
moves 2.Nf3 Bg7 are inserted), and Black either gets a comfortable Symmetrical
English or a somewhat offbeat but dynamic position in the case of the ...e5 lines.

[–]Nyxisto 1 point 2 years ago

you can also start with e6 and d5 and you'll transpose into a QGD. (or a Catalan if White
goes for g3)

[–]wesleycrush3r1800 USCF - Gruenfeld Defense[S] 2 points 2 years ago

The problem is I don't like QGD from either side. I hated playing against d4 until I found
the Grunfeld. Now it might well be impossible to find a similar antidote to c4, but there's
gotta be something more to my tastes than going into a QGD.

[–]Lewan72 1 point 2 years ago

I just try to transition into a Queen's gambit opening.

[–]smaug88 1 point 2 years ago

I do well against the english since I started playing the great snake variation (1. c4 g6).
The idea I think is to use the a1-h8 diagonal that is weakened by white's c pawn move. I
usually get a very strong king bishop as black playing that way, attacking white's d pawn
to make sure that it doesn't stay on d4. If white's queen bishop moves, the b pawn and
the rook become vulnerable.

[–]thehideoushog~1800 ICC ~2100 lichess ~2100 Elo 1 point 2 years ago

Against the English, I like the Rubinstein setup. For example 1.c4 c5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 d5
4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.Nc3 Nc7 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.0-0 e5. Black usually makes the moves f6, Be7, 0-
0 quite soon. Look out so you don't lose the c-pawn or run into some tactics on the h1-
a8-diagonal and you usually get a very nice game.
[–]syriangiraffe 1 point 2 years ago
Well, 1...e5 is pretty standard. You could play a setup with Nf6, Bb4, Nc6, and kingside
castling. I've never had any problems playing this way. You can also try making a c6-d5-
e4 structure against the fianchetto if you want (though after d3/f3 you might have to play
an IQP structure), you could also stick with an e5-d6 structure and a bishop on c5, and
you can play a6 to tuck your bishop incase of Na4. Black has too many options, I'm sure
you'll eventually find something easy to play against the english, even if it doesn't fit
exactly with the rest of your repertoire.

[–][deleted] 1 point 2 years ago

I'm pretty sure you typically want to do things like play c5, fianchetto the bishop that
would point at a1, and theres a couple other pawn moves that are really common

[–]Au_Contrarian 1 point 2 years ago

System response: c6, d5, Bf5, e6.

Chess Opening Theory/1. c4

English Opening[edit]
1. c4[edit]
This opening is very flexible. It can transpose into many others:

1...e5 is a "reversed" Sicilian Defence.

1...c6 will usually either transpose into the Caro-Kann Defence or the Slav Defence.
1...e6 will probably end up in a Queen's Gambit Declined.
1...Nf6 or 1...g6 are likely to transpose into an Indian Defence.
1...d5 is seldom played but may transpose into the Queen's Gambit.
1...f5, the Anglo-Dutch Defence, leads to sharp tactical lines for black, but can open a
powerful kingside attack.
1...b5 normally gives good chances for black, even though the Halibut Gambit is considered
unsound at the professional level.
Most "pure" English lines come from the Symmetrical Variation (1...c5) and are quite hard to play
and to understand.

Statistics[edit]
Approximately chances: White win 37%, Draw 34%, Black win 29%
Estimated next move popularity: Nf6 31%, e5 23%, e6 13%, c5 12%, g6 8%, c6 6%, f5 4% other
moves less than 2%
Theory table[edit]
For explanation of theory tables see theory table and for notation see algebraic notation

1.c4

1 2 3 4 5

c4 Nc3 e4 e5 Nf3
∞
Nf6 e6 c5 Ng8 Nc6

... Nc3 Nf3 g3 cxd5

∞
e5 Nc6 Nf6 d5 Nxd5

Symmetrical ... Nf3 g3 Bg2 O-O

=
Variation c5 Nf6 b6 Bb7 g6

... Nf3 g3 Bg2 O-O

∞
c6 d5 Nf6 dxc4 Nbd7

... e4 d4 dxe5 Bd3

∞
g6 e5 Nf6 Nxe4 Nc5

... Nc3 Qb3 Nf3 a3

∞
e6 Bb4 Nc6 Nf6 Bxc3

... Nf3 g3 Bg2 O-O

∞
f5 Nf6 g6 Bg7 O-O

... cxd5 Nc3

+=
d5 Qxd5 Qa5

... cxb5 bxa6

+=
b5 a6 Bxa6

... d4 Nc3
Myers Defence e4 +=
g5 Bg7 h6

When contributing to this Wikibook, please follow the Conventions for organization.

References[edit]
 Modern Chess Openings: MCO-14. 1999. Nick de Firmian, Walter Korn. ISBN 0-8129-3084-3.
 Batsford Chess Openings 2 (1989, 1994). Garry Kasparov, Raymond Keene. ISBN 0-8050-
3409-9.
 Chess Openings

1. e4 e5 Open Game · King's Gambit · Bishop's Opening · Vienna · Petrov · Latvian Gambit · Scotch · Giuoco Piano · Two Knights · Ruy Lopez ·

1. e4 c5 Sicilian Defence · Closed Sicilian · Taimanov · Sveshnikov · Kan Sicilian · Sicilian Dragon · Scheveningen · Najdorf · Alapin

1.
French Defence · Caro-Kann Defence · Pirc Defence · Alekhine Defence · Modern · Scandinavian · Nimzowitsch
e4other

1. d4 Nf6 Indian Defence · King's Indian · Nimzo-Indian · Queen's Indian · Grünfeld · Benoni · Budapest · Catalan

1. d4 d5 Closed Game · Queen's Gambit · Queen's Gambit Accepted · Queen's Gambit Declined · Chigorin · Slav · Semi-Slav · Marshall

1.
Dutch Defence · Old Benoni Defence · Englund Gambit · English Defence · King's Indian Attack · Reti Opening
d4other

1. a3 · Na3 · a4 · b3 · b4 · c3 · Nc3 · c4 · d3 · d4 · e3 · e4 · f3 · Nf3 · f4 · g3 · g4 · h3 · Nh3 · h4

Indian Defence
in the game of chess, Indian defence is a broad term for a group
of openings characterised by the moves:
1. d4 Nf6[1]
They are all to varying degrees hypermodern defences, where Black invites White to
establish an imposing presence in the centre with the plan of undermining and
ultimately destroying it. Although the Indian defences were championed in the 1920s by
players in the hypermodern school, they were not fully accepted until Russian players
showed in the late 1940s that these systems are sound for Black. Since then, the Indian
defences have become a popular way for Black to respond to 1.d4 because they often
offer an unbalanced game with winning chances for both sides. Transpositions are
important and many variations can be reached by several move orders. It is also
possible to transpose into classical openings such as the Queen's Gambit and the Slav
Defence; these are not considered "Indian" openings.
The usual White second move is 2.c4, grabbing a larger share of the centre and
allowing the move Nc3, to prepare for moving the e-pawn to e4 without blocking the c-
pawn with the knight. Black's most popular replies are

 2...e6, freeing the king's bishop and leading into the Nimzo-Indian
Defence, Queen's Indian Defence, Bogo-Indian Defence,Modern
Benoni, Catalan Opening, or regular lines of the Queen's Gambit Declined,
 2...g6, preparing a fianchetto of the king's bishop and entering the King's Indian
Defence or Grünfeld Defence, and
 2...c5, the Benoni Defense, with an immediate counter-punch in the centre,

but other moves are played as detailed below.

Instead of 2.c4, White often plays 2.Nf3. Then Black may play 2...d5 which may
transpose to a Queen's Gambit after 3.c4. Or Black may play 2...e6 which retains
possibilities of transposing to a Queen's Gambit or Queen's Indian Defence.
Alternatively 2...g6 may transpose to a King's Indian Defence or Grünfeld Defence,
while 2...c5 invites transposition to a Benoni. White can deny Black any of these
transpositions by refraining from c2–c4 over the next several moves.
On the second move, White can also play 2.Bg5, the Trompowsky Attack. Black can
respond 2...Ne4 (see 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4), or 2...e6 (see 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 e6), among
other moves. A third alternative for White is the rarer 2.Nc3. Then Black may play 2...d5,
after which 3.Bg5 is the Richter-Veresov Attack (D01, see 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5). Black
may also play 2...g6 (see 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6).

Historical background[edit]

The earliest known use of the term "Indian Defence" was in 1884, and the name was
attributed to the opening's use by the Indian player Moheschunder
Bannerjee against John Cochrane.[2] Philip W. Sergeant describes Moheschunder as
having been as of 1848 "a Brahman in the Mofussil—up country, as we might say—who
had never been beaten at chess!"[3] Sergeant wrote in 1934 (substituting algebraic
notation for his descriptive notation):[4]
The Indian Defences by g6 coupled with d6, or b6 coupled with e6, were largely taught
to European players by the example of Moheschunder and other Indians, to whom the
fianchetto developments were a natural legacy from their own game. The fondness for
them of the present Indian champion of British chess, Mir Sultan Khan, is well known.
But they are now so widely popular that Dr. S. G. Tartakover was able to declare, some
years ago, that "to-day fianchettos are trumps." A sequel hardly to have been
anticipated from the discovery of Moheschunder in the Mofussil!
In the following game, Moheschunder (Black) plays the Grünfeld Defence against
Cochrane in 1855—some 38 years before Ernst Grünfeld was born.
John Cochrane–Moheschunder Bannerjee, May 1855:
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. e3 Bg7 5. Nf3 0-0 6. cxd5 Nxd5 7. Be2 Nxc3 8.
bxc3 c5 9. 0-0 cxd4 10. cxd4 Nc6 11. Bb2 Bg4 12. Rc1 Rc8 13. Ba3 Qa5 14.
Qb3 Rfe8 15. Rc5 Qb6 16. Rb5 Qd8 17. Ng5 Bxe2 18. Nxf7 Na5 and
White mates in three (19.Nh6+ double check Kh8 20.Qg8+ Rxg8 21.Nf7#).[5][6]
Another of the games between these players transposed to what would today be called
the Four Pawns Attack against the King's Indian Defence. This time Moheschunder, as
Black, won after some enterprising (and perhaps dubious) sacrificial play:
1. e4 d6 2. d4 g6 3. c4 Bg7 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. f4 0-0 6. Nf3 Bg4 7. Bd3? e5! 8. fxe5
dxe5 9. d5 Nxe4!? 10. Nxe4 f5 11. Neg5 e4 12. Ne6 exf3! 13. Nxd8?! fxg2 14.
Rg1 Bxd1 15. Ne6 Bg4 16. Nxf8 Kxf8 17. Rxg2 Nd7 18. Bf4 Nc5 19. Kd2 Rc8
20. Kc2 Bf3 21. Rf2 Nxd3 22. Kxd3 Be4+ 23. Ke3 b5 24. cxb5 Bxd5 25. Rd2
Bc4 26. Rad1 Bf6 27. Bh6+ Kg8 28. Kf4 Re8 29. b3 Bxb5 30. Rc1 Be2! 31.
Re1 Re4+ 32. Kg3 Bh4+ 0–1[7]
The term "Indian Defence" was popularized by Savielly Tartakower in the early 1920s.
In his 1924 book Die hypermoderne Schachpartie, Tartakower classifies the Indian
Defences under the broad headings "Old Indian" (...d6 and eventual ...g6) and "Neo-
Indian" (...e6 and eventual ...b6). Under the heading "Old Indian", he considers the
openings now known as the King's Indian and Grünfeld Defences. He also proposes the
names "Proto-Indian" for 1.d4 d6, "Pseudo-Indian" for 1.d4 c5, "Semi-Indian" for 1.d4
Nf6 2.Nc3 and "Three Quarter Indian" for 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nd2, none of which came into
wider use.[8]
The modern names "King's Indian Defence", "Queen's Indian Defence", "Old Indian
Defence" and "King's Indian Attack" were attributed by Richard Reti to Hans Kmoch,
though Reti himself did not approve of these terms. Reti also attributed to Kmoch the
terms "All Indian Defence" (where Black fianchettoes both bishops after 1.d4 Nf6) and
"Queen's Indian Attack" (where White opens 1.Nf3 and 2.b3) but these did not come
into general use.[9]

Main lines beginning 2.c4

2...e6
Nimzo-Indian Defence: 3.Nc3 Bb4
Advocated by Nimzowitsch as early as 1913, the Nimzo-Indian Defence was the first of
the Indian systems to gain full acceptance. It remains one of the most popular and well-
respected defences to 1.d4, and White often chooses move orders designed to avoid it.
Black attacks the centre with pieces and is prepared to trade a bishop for a knight to
weaken White's queenside with doubled pawns.

Queen's Indian Defence: 3.Nf3 b6

The Queen's Indian Defence is considered solid, safe, and perhaps somewhat drawish.
Black often chooses the Queen's Indian when White avoids the Nimzo-Indian by playing
3.Nf3 instead of 3.Nc3. Black constructs a sound position that makes no positional
concessions, although sometimes it is difficult for Black to obtain good winning
chances. Karpov is a leading expert in this opening. Many Queen's Indian Defence
players also play the Nimzo-Indian Defence, and in fact the line 4.Nf3 b6 5.Nc3 Bb4 is
sometimes called the "Nimzo/Queen's Indian Hybrid" or similar, and could be classified
under either opening.

Bogo-Indian Defence: 3.Nf3 Bb4+ [edit]

The Bogo-Indian Defence is a solid alternative to the Queen's Indian, into which it
sometimes transposes. It is less popular than that opening, however, perhaps because
many players are loath to surrender the bishop pair (particularly without doubling
White's pawns), as Black often ends up doing after 4.Nbd2. The classical 4.Bd2 Qe7 is
also often seen, although more recently 4...a5!? and even 4...c5!? have emerged as
alternatives. Transposition to the Nimzo-Indian with 4.Nc3 is perfectly playable but
rarely seen, since most players who play 3.Nf3 do so in order to avoid that opening.
Blumenfeld Gambit: 3.Nf3 c5 4.d5 b5 [edit]
The Blumenfeld Gambit (or Countergambit) bears a superficial but misleading
resemblance to the Benko Gambit, as Black's goals are very different. Black gambits a
wing pawn in an attempt to build a strong centre. White can either accept the gambit or
decline it to maintain a small positional advantage. Although the Blumenfeld is playable
for Black it is not very popular.
Catalan Opening: 3.g3 [edit]
The Catalan Opening features a quick fianchetto of White's king's bishop.
Others[edit]

 3.Nf3 b5 Polish Defence

 3.Nf3 Ne4 Döry Defence (see 1.d4 Nf6 sidelines)
 3.Bg5 Neo-Indian Attack (see 1.d4 Nf6 sidelines)
 3.a3?! Australian Attack

2...g6[edit]
Grünfeld Defence: 3.Nc3 d5
Ernst Grünfeld debuted the Grünfeld Defence in 1922. Distinguished by the move
3...d5, Grünfeld intended it as an improvement to the King's Indian which was not
considered entirely satisfactory at that time. The Grünfeld has been adopted by World
Champions Smyslov,Fischer, and Kasparov.
King's Indian Defence: 3.Nc3 Bg7
The King's Indian Defence is aggressive and somewhat risky, and generally indicates
that Black will not be satisfied with a draw. Although it was played occasionally as early
as the late 19th century, the King's Indian was considered inferior until the 1940s when
it was featured in the games of Bronstein, Boleslavsky,
and Reshevsky. Fischer's favoured defence to 1.d4, its popularity faded in the mid-
1970s. Kasparov'ssuccesses with the defence restored the King's Indian to prominence
in the 1980s.
2...c5[edit]
Benoni Defence
The Benoni Defense is a risky attempt by Black to unbalance the position and gain
active piece play at the cost of allowing White a pawn wedge at d5 and a central
majority. The most common Benoni line is the Modern Benoni (3.d5 e6
4.Nc3). Tal popularised the defence in the 1960s by winning several brilliant games with
it, and Bobby Fischer occasionally adopted it, with good results, including a win in
his 1972 World Championship match against Boris Spassky. Often Black adopts a
slightly different move order, playing 2...e6 before 3...c5 in order to avoid the sharpest
lines for White.
Benko Gambit (or Volga Gambit): 3.d5 b5

The Benko Gambit (known as the Volga Gambit in Russia and Eastern Europe) is one
of Black's most popular ways of meeting 1.d4, though it is less common at elite level.
Black plays to open lines on the queenside where White will be subject to considerable
pressure. If White accepts the gambit, Black's compensation is positional rather than
tactical, and his initiative can last even after many piece exchanges and well into
the endgame. White often chooses instead either to decline the gambit pawn or return
it.

Other 2nd moves for Black[edit]

Old Indian Defence: 2...d6 3.Nc3 e5 [edit]

The Old Indian Defence was introduced by Tarrasch in 1902, but it is more commonly
associated with Chigorin who adopted it five years later. It is similar to the King's Indian
in that both feature a ...d6 and ...e5 pawn centre, but in the Old Indian Black's king
bishop is developed to e7 rather than being fianchettoed on g7. The Old Indian is solid,
but Black's position is usually cramped and it lacks the dynamic possibilities found in the
King's Indian.
Budapest Gambit: 2...e5 [edit]
The Budapest Gambit is rarely played in grandmaster games, but more often adopted
by amateurs. Although it is a gambit, White cannot hold on to his extra pawn without
making compromises in the deployment of his pieces, so he often chooses to return the
pawn and retain the initiative.
Others[edit]

 2...b6 Accelerated Queen's Indian Defence

The Accelerated Queen's Indian Defence is playable, however it is considered
less accurate than the standard Queen's Indian move order (2...e6 3 Nf3 b6) due
to the possibility of 3.Nc3 Bb7 4.Qc2 d5 (otherwise e4 will follow) 5.cxd5 Nxd5
6.Nf3! and White was better in Alekhine-König, Vienna 1922.[10] James
Plaskett and Raymond Keeneanalyse this line in their 1987 book on the English
Defence.

 2...c6
This normally transposes into the Slav Defence if Black subsequently plays ...d5,
however it may also transpose into the Old Indian or even the King's Indian if
Black instead follows up with ...d6. One of the few independent lines is the
offbeat 2...c6 3.Nf3 b5!?, sometimes called the Kudischewitsch gambit after the
Israeli IM David Kudischewitsch.

 2...Nc6 Black Knights' Tango

The Black Knights' Tango or Mexican Defence introduced by Carlos Torre in 1925
in Baden-Baden shares similarities with Alekhine's Defence as Black attempts to
induce a premature advance of the white pawns. It may transpose into many other
defences.

 2...d6 3.Nc3 Bf5 Janowski Indian Defence

 2...d5?! Marshall Defence
The Marshall Defence (normally reached via the Queen's Gambit after 1.d4 d5 2.c4
Nf6?!) is better for White.

1.d4 Nf6 sidelines[edit]

 2.Nf3 h6 3.c4 g5 Nadanian Attack

The Nadanian Attack is an aggressive attempt by Black to unbalance the
position. The early 2...h6 and 3...g5 are designed to deal with drawish variations
such as Colle System, London System and Torre Attack. The line was introduced
in 2005 by Ashot Nadanian, but has never enjoyed widespread popularity among
top-flight players.

 2.c4 e6 3.Bg5 Neo-Indian Attack

 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5 Torre Attack
 2.Bg5 Trompowsky Attack
The Neo-Indian Attack, Torre Attack, and Trompowsky Attack are White anti-Indian
variations. Related to the Richter-Veresov Attack, they feature an early Bg5 by White
and avoid much of the detailed theory of other queen's pawn openings.

 2.Nf3 g6 East Indian Defence

 2.Nf3 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bf4 Bg7 5.e3 0-0 6.Be2 Barry Attack
Another option is the Barry Attack, popular with club players. White usually follows up
with Ne5 and h2–h4–h5, a direct attack on the black king. The Barry Attack has
also been tried out at grandmaster level by Mark Hebden and Julian Hodgson.

 2.Nf3 Ne4 Döry Defence

The Döry Defence (2.Nf3 Ne4 or 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Ne4) is uncommon, but was the subject
of a theme tournament (won by Paul Keres) in Vienna in 1937. It will sometimes
transpose into a variation of the Queen's Indian Defence but there are also
independent lines.

Catalan Opening
The Catalan is a chess opening where White adopts a combination of the Queen's
Gambit and Réti Opening: White plays d4 and c4 and fianchettoes the white bishop on
g2. A common opening sequence is 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3, although the opening can
arise from a large number of move orders (see transposition). ECO codes E01–E09 are
for lines with 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2, and others are part of E00.
Black has two main approaches to choose between: in the Open Catalan he plays
...dxc4 and can either try to hold on to the pawn with ...b5 or give it back for extra time
to free his game. In the Closed Catalan, Black does not capture on c4; his game can be
somewhat cramped for a while, but is quite solid.
The Catalan is generally seen as a safe way for White to get a small advantage.

History[edit]
The Catalan derives its name from Catalonia, after tournament organisers at the
1929 Barcelona tournament asked Savielly Tartakower to create a new variation in
homage to the area's chess history. It had been played a few times before Tartakower's
usage in the tournament, however:Réti–Leonhardt, Berlin 1928, for
instance, transposed into an Open Catalan.
The Catalan came to prominence at the top level when both Garry Kasparov and Viktor
Korchnoi played it in their Candidates Semifinal match in London in 1983: five games of
the eleven-game match were Catalans.
In 2004, Ruben Felgaer won a tournament celebrating the 75th anniversary
of Barcelona 1929 and the birth of the Catalan Opening, ahead of Grandmasters Viktor
Korchnoi,Mihail Marin, Lluis Comas and Viktor Moskalenko and International
Master Manel Granados. Each game in the tournament, which was also held in
Barcelona, began with the moves 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.g3 Nf6.
With its use by Vladimir Kramnik, the Catalan has recently gained a good deal of
attention by high-level GMs. Kramnik played the opening three times in the World
Chess Championship 2006. The Catalan was also played four times by Viswanathan
Anand in the World Chess Championship 2010; in both instances the opponent
was Veselin Topalov, and in each instance White scored two more points than Black.

Open Catalan, Classical Line

The Open Catalan, Classical line begins 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 dxc4 5.Nf3
Be7. White trades the pawn for a lead in development. Without the d5 pawn,
White's kingside bishop hinders Black's queenside development. The Open Catalan line
here has been a favorite of Anatoly Karpov and Efim Geller as Black and Oleg
Romanishin with the white pieces. Usually, white will recover the pawn with Qc2 and a4,
Ne5, or Qa4. In order to hold the pawn, Black will have to seriously weaken the
queenside with ...a6 and ...b5. The ECO code is E05.

Illustrative games[edit]

 Kramnik–Anand, Wijk aan Zee chess tournament, 2007

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 dxc4 7.Qc2 a6 8.Qxc4 b5 9.Qc2
Bb7 10.Bd2 Ra7 11.Rc1 Be4 12.Qb3 Nc6 13.e3 Qa8 14.Qd1 Nb8 15.Ba5 Rc8 16.a3
Bd6 17.Nbd2 Bd5 18.Qf1 Nbd7 19.b4 e5 20.dxe5 Bxe5 21.Nxe5 Nxe5 22.f3 Nc4
23.Nxc4 Bxc4 24.Qf2 Re8 25.e4 c6 26.Rd1 Rd7 27.Rxd7 Nxd7 28.Rd1 Qb7 29.Rd6
f6 30.f4 Re6 31.Rd2 Re7 32.Qd4 Nf8 33.Qd8 Rd7 34.Rxd7 Qxd7 35.Qxd7 Nxd7
36.e5 fxe5 37.Bxc6 Nf6 38.Bb7 exf4 39.gxf4 Nd5 40.Kf2 Nxf4 41.Ke3 g5 42.Bxa6
Kf7 43.a4 Ke7 44.Bxb5 Bxb5 45.axb5 Kd7 46.Ke4 Ne2 47.Bb6 g4 48.Bf2 Nc3
49.Kf5 Nxb5 50.Kxg4 Ke6 51.Kg5 Kf7 52.Kf5 Ke7 53.Bc5 1–0[1]

 Kramnik–Carlsen, Dortmund Sparkassen Chess Meeting, 2007

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.d4 Be7 5.Bg2 0-0 6.0-0 dxc4 7.Qc2 a6 8.Qxc4 b5 9.Qc2
Bb7 10.Bd2 Nc6 11.e3 Nb4 12.Bxb4 Bxb4 13.a3 Be7 14.Nbd2 Rc8 15.b4 a5 16.Ne5
Nd5 17.Nb3 axb4 18.Na5 Ba8 19.Nac6 Bxc6 20.Nxc6 Qd7 21.Bxd5 exd5 22.axb4
Rfe8 23.Ra5 Bf8 24.Ne5 Qe6 25.Rxb5 Rb8 26.Rxb8 Rxb8 27.Qxc7 Bd6 28.Qa5
Bxb4 29.Rb1 Qd6 30.Qa4 1–0[2]

Playing The Catalan System, Part 1: Basic Principles and Main

Variations

The Catalan opening system is becoming one of the most popular setups for White in
tournament play.
Used extensively by Vladimir Kramnik during the World Chess Championships of 2006,
2007, and 2008, along with Gerry Kasparov and Victor Korchnoi at the London
Canidates Tournament in 1983, the Catalan is easily one of the most flexibe openings
available; it can transpose from a Queen's Gambit (either accepted or declined), a Ruy
Lopez, or even a King's Indian Attack, all of which aim to fianchetto the light-squared
bishop and begin adding tremendous pressure on the quuenside.
But how do you play the Catalan? Well, like I said, the Catalan system can arise from
many openings. However, in this article, we will be reviewing the main line, which
transposes from the Queen's Gambit Declined.
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 d54. Nf3This is the Classical Variation of the Catalan.

The light-squared bishop is definitely the most powerful minor piece in this opening, so
much to the extent that now this bishop is known as the Catalan bishop.
Let's review some basic principles for the Catalan. Obviously, because we are
fianchttoing our bishop on the kingside, and naturally because we are playing the
Queen's Gambit, we will usually focus on attacking the queenside. As for King safety,
we will generally focus on castling kingside, mainly because the Catalan is sub-
characterized by thematic pawn breaks from the queenside.
In the Catalan, White sidestepps several aggresive ideas by Black and instead focuses
on development, where you can play for an edge for little risk. The safe bishop on g2
can carve along the board, which usually can frusterate Black and push him into making
a mistake.
Keep in mind, though, that we are willingly sacrificing the c4 pawn for a small
advantage. The Catalan diverges from the Queen's Gambit in the fact that the pawn on
c4 becomes a sacrifice, instead of a gambit, because our bishop has been removed
from the f1 square, and we will not be able to recapture using the traditional e3,
assuming that White decides to leave the pawn in exchange for extra initiative, which is,
of the two, the best option. However, Black will find it increasingly difficult to hold on to
this material, and if he attempts to, White will gain a lead in development and a more
connected pawn chain than that of Black's.
Before I continue, let's look at a game I played using the Catalan. Try to imagine why I
played each move. Stuck? Look at the notes bar to see my commentary.

Scorpio797 (1345) vs. mistermist (1409)

1-0

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 d54. Nf3Again, this is the basic Catalan. Make sure that,
before you play it, you completely understand these lines and why every move is
made. 4... Be75. Bg2This is the characterizing move. Later in the game, this bishop
gives me an overwhelming position. 5... O-O6. O-OI recommend the castling here.
Some players may try something like 6. e3 or 6. Bg5, but it is important to establish King
safety first. 6... c67. Nbd2In the Catalan, you will almost always develop your Queen's
bishop to d2 instead of c3. 7... b6 8. Qc2This is also a move you will commonly play in
the Catalan. 8... Ba6 9. b3I play this just to solidify my pawn
structure. 9... Nbd7 10. Bb2 Rc811. Rac1To combat Black's play on the vital c-
file. 11... c512. Qb1Hmm... Probably could have played something a little more
constructing, but I guess I was waiting for Black to take the first bite of the
center. 12... dxc413. Nxc4 b5 14. Nce5 Qb615. Ng5I begin to transition my attack to
the kingside, where Black's monarch lays. I will pass the rest of the game without
commentary, but note how I use the bishop to win the queen in a dangerous Ne7+
trap. 15... g616. dxc5 Nxc5 17. b4 Ncd718. Nc6 Bd6 19. Bd4 Qb720. Ne7+Here is the
trap.20... Bxe7 21. Bxb7 Bxb722. Rxc8 Bxc8 23. Rc1 Nb624. Ne4My opponent
resigns. I have material superiority, and Black has almost no compensation for that, as I
have a easily workable position and I still control the initiative.
See how my light-squared bishop, my Catalan bishop, helped in the trap of the Black
Queen? I chose this game in particular because it shows just how powerful a single
minor piece can be in the right position.
Anyway, this concludes the first article in our Catalan series. In the second article, I will
go deep into the analysis of a few GM games using the Catalan, as well as some other
main lines and objectives for both Black and White. Hope to see you there!
Grischuk, Alexander (2764) vs. Aronian, Levon (2809)
Wch Candidates | London | Round 13 | 31 Mar 2013 | ECO: D11 | 1/2-1/2

1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 c6 3. d4 Nf6 4. g3dxc4 5. Bg2 Nbd7 6. Qc2 Nb67. Nbd2 g6 8. O-

O Bg7 9. Nxc4 Bf510. Qc3 Nxc4 11. Qxc4 O-
O12. Rd1 a5 13. Qb3 Qd6 14. Ne5Nd7 15. Nc4 Qb4 16. Ne3 Qxb317. axb3 Be6 18. d
5 cxd5 19. Nxd5Nc5 20. Ra3 Bxd5 21. Rxd5 Rac822. Bg5 e6 23. Rd6 Bxb2 24. Rxa5
Bc1 25. Bf6 Nxb3 26. Rb5 Nd227. Rd3 b6 28. e3 Nc4 29. Bf1 Ba330. Rd1 Rfe8 31. R
d7 Bf8 32. Bxc4Rxc4 33. Rxb6 Bg7 34. Be7 Rcc835. Kg2 Rb8 36. Rc6 Rbc8 37. Rb6
Rb8 38. Rc6

5 Best Chess Games on Catalan

Catalan is an opening which combines Queen’s gambit and Reti in one. Catalan was
employed by many strong players including ex-world champions Vladimir Kramnik as
well as Vishy Anand. It is also popular on club level, and maybe a good opening choice
for many. Here are some of the best games on Catalan Opening.

Alexander Alekhine vs Braslav Rabar

MunichMunich GER24 Sep 19421-0

1. d4 Notes by AlekhineNf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 d5 4. Bg2 dxc4 5. Qa4+ Bd7 6. Qxc4 Bc6 7.

Nf3 Bd5 Black loses too many tempi with these bishop moves. Better is 7...Nbd7 and if
8 Nc3 then 8...Nb6 9 Qd3 Bb4, as it was played in the game Junge-Alekhine in the
same tournament.8. Qd3 c5 9. Nc3 Bc6 If 9...cxd4 there would follow 10 Nxd5 Qxd5 11
O-O with the strong threat of 12 Nxd4.10. O-O Nbd7 11. Rd1 cxd4 If 11...Be7 then 12
e4 and White with the threat of 13 d5, would practically force the exchange at d4, which
would guarantee him the advantage of the bishop pair.12. Nxd4 Bxg2 13. Kxg2 Be7 14.
Qf3 The queen now exerts strong pressure on the enemy queen's side.Qb6 this move
will be refuted by energetic combinative play. but 14...Qb8 15 Nb3 with the threat of 16
Bf4 would be equally unsatisfactory.15. Be3 ! The consequences of this move are not
very difficult to calculate, but it is interesting to prove that from this moment onwards
Black already lacks any satisfactory defence. Against 15 Qxb2 White replies 16 Ncb5
and if 15...Ne5 there would follow 16 Ndb5!O-O 16. Nf5 Bc5 This apparent salvation will
be refuted by a well-concealed combination. Nor would the alternative 16...Qd8 17
Nxe7+ Qxe7 18 Qxb7 Rfb8 19 Qc7 Rxb2 20 Bd4 have saved the game.17. Na4 Qa5
18. Nxc5 Nxc5 19. Nxg7 ! This wins at least a pawn and leads to a simply won ending.
The only reply - excluding the text - would be 19...Nce4, against which White would first
have forced the black queen to abandon the fifth rank and would then have occupied
the long diagonal with the bishop, with decisive effect: 20 b4! Qe5 21 Bf4 Qb5 (or
21...Qc3 22 Nh5!!) 22 a4! Qxb4 23 Be5 etc.Kxg7 20. Bd4 The strength of this move lies
mainly in the fact that after 20...Nd7 White simply plays 21 Bc3, with the unavoidable
threat of 22 Rxd7.Ne4 21. Qxe4 Qf5 The endgame that follows is without any technical
difficulties.22. Qxf5 exf5 23. Rac1 Rfe8 24. Rc7 Rxe2 25. Rxb7 Kg6 26. Bxf6 Kxf6 27.
Rd6+ If 27...Kg7 there follows 28 Rdd7 Rf8 29 Kf3 Rc2 30 Rdc7 Rd2 31 Ke3.
Harry Golombek vs Max Euwe
Paignton Intl TournamentPaignton
ENG19511-0

1. d4 Notes by Professor Nathan Divinsky.Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 d5 4. Bg2 dxc4 5. Nf3 a6

6. a4 ? Correct is Ne5c5 7. O-O Nc6 8. Nbd2 cxd4 9. Nxc4 Bc5 10. Nfe5 Nxe5 11. Nxe5
O-O 12. Qc2 Ba7 13. Rd1 Nd5 14. Qc4 Qd6 15. Nf3 e5 16. Ng5 Be6 17. Qd3 f5 18. Bd2
e4 19. Qb3 h6 20. Nxe6 Qxe6 21. Rac1 Rf7 22. Kh1 Re8 23. a5 Qe5 ? Better is g5 with
a clearly won position24. f3 Qe6 25. fxe4 fxe4 26. Rf1 Nf6 27. Qxe6 Rxe6 28. Bh3 Re8
29. Bf5 e3 30. Bb4 Ne4 31. Bh7+ Kxh7 32. Rxf7 d3 33. exd3 Nf2+ 34. Kg2 Nxd3 35.
Bc3 Kg6 36. Rcf1 Nf2 37. Rxb7 Bc5 38. Rxg7+ Kf5 39. Rc7 Bd6 40. Rc6 Be5 41. Rc5

Vladimir Kramnik vs Deep Fritz (Computer)

Kramnik vs Deep FritzBonn
GER25 Nov 20061/2-1/2

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 d5 4. Bg2 dxc4 5. Qa4+ Nbd7 6. Qxc4 a6 7. Qd3 c5 8. dxc5

Bxc5 9. Nf3 O-O 10. O-O Qe7 11. Nc3 b6 12. Ne4 Nxe4 13. Qxe4 Nf6 14. Qh4 Bb7 15.
Bg5 Rfd8 16. Bxf6 Qxf6 17. Qxf6 gxf6 18. Rfd1 Kf8 19. Ne1 Bxg2 20. Kxg2 f5 21.
Rxd8+ Rxd8 22. Nd3 Bd4 23. Rc1 e5 24. Rc2 Rd5 25. Nb4 Rb5 26. Nxa6 Rxb2 27.
Rxb2 Bxb2 28. Nb4 Kg7 29. Nd5 Bd4 30. a4 Missing the direct path to victory. After:
30.e3! Bc5 31.Kf3!, the win is as clear as a sunny sky. White's King is making a beeline
to the b5-square, where the b6-pawn is captured and the a-pawn is escorted to
coronation. -- SeirawanBc5 31. h3 This is a real groaner. I think the text throws away
most of the winning chances that were left. I was still wildly optimistic about White's
chances after 31.Kf3! One point is to trick the computer into playing an innocuous move
like: 31...Kg6? After which White plays: 32.e3!, and he is back in business as his King
goes to the b5-square. -- Seirawanf6 32. f3 Kg6 33. e4 h5 34. g4 hxg4 35. hxg4 fxe4 36.
fxe4 Kg5 37. Kf3 Kg6 38. Ke2 Kg5 39. Kd3 Bg1 40. Kc4 Bf2 41. Kb5 Kxg4 42. Nxf6+
Kf3 43. Kc6 Bh4 44. Nd7 Kxe4 45. Kxb6 Bf2+ 46. Kc6 Be1 47. Nxe5

Vladimir Kramnik vs Veselin Topalov

WCC Match 2006Elista RUS23 Sep 20061-0

1. d4 Notes by various authors, as indicated.Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. g3 dxc4 5. Bg2

Bb4+ 6. Bd2 a5 Something of a sideline which has been played by Grischuk and
Efimenko. -- Malcolm Pein7. Qc2 The calmest move which ensures the regain of the c4
pawn. Of the other moves; 7.O-O is sound; 7.a3 wastes time; 7.Bxb4 doesn't seem right
but has been played, 7.Nc3 gambits a pawn for decent compensation and is not how
Kramnik wants to play against Topalov in game one. 7.Qc1 was played by Jan
Gustafsson against Efimenko and there is also 7.Na3!? when 7...Bxa3 8.bxa3 is also
reasonable compensation. -- Malcom PeinBxd2+ 8. Qxd2 c6 9. a4 b5 10. axb5 cxb5 11.
Qg5 O-O 12. Qxb5 Ba6 13. Qa4 If instead 13 Qxa5 Black replies 13 ... Bb7 14 Qxd8
Rxa1 and now a safe move is 15 Qxf8+. However it is tempting to try 15 Qb6 Rxb1+ 16
Kd2 which looks good for White. For the refutation see the (Times) puzzle. -- KeeneQb6
14. O-O Qxb2 15. Nbd2 Bb5 16. Nxc4 Bxa4 17. Nxb2 Bb5 18. Ne5 Ra7 19. Bf3 Nbd7
20. Nec4 Rb8 21. Rfb1 g5 A great move from Topalov, typically aggressive. Kramnik
needs to play e2-e3 and Topalov has worked out he can exploit the f3 square. --
Malcom Pein22. e3 g4 23. Bd1 Bc6 24. Rc1 Be4 25. Na4 Rb4 26. Nd6 Bf3 27. Bxf3
gxf3 28. Nc8 Ra8 29. Ne7+ Kg7 30. Nc6 Rb3 31. Nc5 Rb5 32. h3 Nxc5 33. Rxc5 Rb2
34. Rg5+ Kh6 35. Rgxa5 Rxa5 36. Nxa5 Ne4 37. Rf1 Nd2 38. Rc1 Ne4 39. Rf1 Having
sacrificed a pawn, Topalov could have forced a draw here by repeating the position.
Instead, he boldly sought to extract the win but went a step too far. -- Keenef6 40. Nc6
Nd2 41. Rd1 Ne4 42. Rf1 Kg6 43. Nd8 ! Played after a long thought. It is essential to tie
one black piece down otherwise he will have a completely free hand. -- Malcolm
PeinRb6 44. Rc1 h5 45. Ra1 h4 46. gxh4 Kh5 47. Ra2 Kxh4 48. Kh2 Kh5 49. Rc2 Kh6
50. Ra2 Kg6 51. Rc2 Kf5 Now white is given an opportunity to change the course of the
 fight - 52.Nc6 Rb7 53.d5 e5 54.h4 Kg4 55.Rc4 Kf5 56.Rc2 and black can choose
between the repetition after 56...Kg4 and double-edged 56...Nd6, rekindling the fire on
the board: 56...Nd6 57.Kh3 Ke4 Probably it's safer not to make extra movements and
choose calm 52.Ra2. -- Sakaev52. Ra2 Rb5 53. Nc6 Rb7 54. Ra5+ Kg6 55. Ra2 Kh5
56. d5 e5 If instead 56 ... Rg7 then White replies 57 dxe6 Rg2+ 58 Kh1 Nxf2+ (58 ...
Kg6 59 Nd8 keeps the black king out and wins) 59 Rxf2 Rxf2 60 e7 Rf1+ 61 Kh2 Rf2+
62 Kg3 Rg2+ 63 Kxf3 Rg8 64 Ke4 with a winning position. -- Keene57. Ra4 f5 "The
losing blunder. Black must play 57 Nxf2 58 Kg3 e4 59 Kxf2 Rb2+ with a draw by
perpetual. If White attempts to evade this the black f-pawn will promote." -- Keene; "A
big mistake. Black could be fixed at draw, for example by 57.Nf2 58.Kg3 e4 59.Kf2 Rb2
with perpetual check, cause f pawn will promote otherwise." -- Inarkiev58. Nxe5 Rb2 59.
Nd3 Rb7 60. Rd4 Rb6 61. d6 Nxd6 62. Kg3 Ne4+ 63. Kxf3 Kg5 64. h4+ Kf6 65. Rd5
Nc3 66. Rd8 Rb1 67. Rf8+ Ke6 68. Nf4+ Ke5 69. Re8+ Kf6 70. Nh5+ Kg6 71. Ng3 Rb2
72. h5+ Kf7 73. Re5 Nd1 74. Ne2 Kf6 75. Rd5

Mikhail Botvinnik vs Emanuel Lasker

MoscowMoscow URS27 May 19361-0

1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 e6 3. g3 Nf6 4. Bg2 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. d4 Nbd7 7. Nc3 dxc4 8. e4 c6 9.

a4 a5 10. Qe2 Nb6 11. Rd1 Bb4 12. Ne5 Qe7 13. Be3 Bd7 14. Nxc4 Nxc4 15. Qxc4 b5
16. Qe2 Rab8 17. axb5 cxb5 18. e5 Ne8 19. d5 exd5 20. Nxd5 Qxe5 21. Nxb4

With this we conclude our survey on Fischer’s play in the Spanish opening. We hope our
readers liked it and learned some valuable lessons from the games explained above.
If you want to improve your chess level, you need to have a clear study plan. If you aim for
a dramatic improvement at chess you need to work on all of the elements of the game in
a systematic way:
 tactics
 positional play
 attacking skills
 endgame technique
 classical games analysis
 psychological preparation
 and much more