Tango!

A dynamic answer to 1 d4
by Richard Palliser
First published in 2005 by Gloucester Publishers pic (formerly Everyman Publishers
pic), Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V OAT

Copyright © 2005 Richard Palliser

The right of Richard Palliser to be identified as the author of this work has been
asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic
tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN 1 85744 388 8

Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480,
246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480.

All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Northburgh House,
10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V OAT
tel: 020 7253 7887 fax: 020 7490 3708
email: [email protected]
website: www.everymanchess.com

Everyman is the registered trade mark of Random House Inc. and is used in this
work under license from Random House Inc.

EVERYMAN CHESS SERIES (formerly Cadogan Chess)

Chief advisor: Garry Kasparov
Commissioning editor: Byron Jacobs
General editor: John Emms

Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton.

Cover design by Horatio Monteverde.
Production by Navigator Guides.
Printed and bound in the US by Versa Press.
 CONTENTS I

Bibliography 4
Acknowledgements 5
Introduction 7

1 d4 tt::lf6 2 c4 tt::lc 6

1 The Dark-squared Centre: White Develops Classically 11

2 The Dark-squared Centre: White Counters Dynamically 32
3 The Lunge: An Ambitious Early Advance 55
4 The Menagerie: Offbeat Tries for White 72
5 Reaching a Nimzo: Utilising the c6-knight 92
6 The Zurich Variation: An Underrated Nimzo Line 109
7 The Zurich Variation: 6 a3 � xc3+ 7 'ilxc3 133
8 The Fianchetto: Countering the Catalan � 159
9 The Flexible King's Indian: Countering the Crafty 4 a3 176

Index of Variations 191

 BIBLIOGRAPHY I

Books
Beating the Indian Difences, Graham Burgess & Steffen Pedersen (Batsford 1997)
Beating tbe King's I11dian and the Beno11i D�fonses with the 5 i.d3! Variation, Andrew Soltis (Chess
Digest 1993)
En0'clopaedia of Chess Openings Volume A (4th edition, Sahovski Informator 2000)
En0'clopaedia ofChess Openings Volume E (3rd edition, Sahovski Informator 1998)
English . e5, Alex Raetsky & Maxim Chetverik (Everyman 2003)
..

King's Indian and Griinfe/d· Fianchetto Unes, LashaJanjgava (Gambit 2003)

Modem Practice: 1 .. /1:Jc6!?, Igor Berdichevsky (Russian Chess House 2004)
Ne1v Ideas in the Nimzo-Indian Difence, Tony Kosten (Batsford 1994)
Nimzo,Indian D�fonce: Classical Variation, Ivan Sokolov (Cadogan 1995)
Nimzo-Indian Kasparov Variation, Chris Ward (Everyman 2003)
Nunn's Chess Qbenings,John Nunn, Graham Burgess,John Emms & Joe Gallagher (Everyman 1999)
Opening.for White According to Kram11ik, Volume 2, Alexander Khalifman, (Chess Stars 2001)
P/qy 1 d4!, Richard Palliser (Batsford 2003)
The Black Knight.r' Tango, Georgi Orlov (Batsford 1998)
The Catalan, Alex Raetsky & Maxim Chetverik (Everyman 2004)
The Gambit Guide to the Bogo-Indian, Steffen Pedersen (Gambit 1998)
The Ga111bit Guide to the English Opening: 1 . . e5, Carsten Hansen (Gambit 1999)
.

The Main Une King's Indian,John Nunn & Graham Burgess (Batsford 1996)
The Ni�t�zo-Indian: 4 e3, Carsten Hansen (Gambit 2002)
The O>ford Companion to Chess, David Hooper & Kenneth Whyld (2nd edition, OUP 1992)

Periodicals and Electronic

Good use was made of CHESS, Chess Informant, New in Chess Magai}ne and New in Ches.r Year­
book. I was also ably assisted by ChessBase's Mega Database as well as by their Fritz and Hiarcs
engines. Tim Harding's Mega ColT 3 supplied some key correspondence games, while recent
games were drawn from Mark Crowther's website, Tbe Week in Che.rs.
I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I

Many people related their Tango experiences or offered their views on certain critical posi­
tions, and I'm especially grateful for the help given by Keith Arkell, John Cox, Chris Duggan,
Carsten Hansen, Paul Hopwood, Harald Keilhack, David Palliser, Kieran Smallbone, Norman
Stephenson, Mike Twyble, Chris Ward and Peter Wells. Of course this work wouldn't have
occurred without the excellent team at E11eryman, and thanks must go to Byron Jacobs for
commissioning this work and especially to John Emms for all his editing, advice and support.
 INTRODUCTION I

1 d4 tt::lf6 2 c4 tt::lc6 struggle in the early stages, having been taken

The Tango is an active opening; Black tends out of their usual favoured set-ups. Some
to gain fast and easy development, and with­ may play aggressively, such as with the 3 dS
out having to make too many concessions. If of Chapter 3, whilst others will stick to classi­
White is canny he may invest time early on to cal development, which is especially easy to
gain the bishop pair, but as the centre re­ handle as Chapter 1 reveals. Indeed, even a
mains fairly closed that isn't a big problem women's world champion can struggle:
and it is rare that he can force any kind of
structural weakness. The li:lc3 and h4 lines Zhu Chen-Christiansen
do, however, make Black compromise his US-China Summit, Seattle 2001
kingside although, as Chapter 2 shows, they
are far from a refutation and Black should 1 d4 tt::lf6 2 c4 tt::lc6 3 tt::lc3 e5 4 d5 tt::le 7
enjoy fighting in the resulting obscure posi­ 5 g3!? tt::lg6 6 i.g2 i.c5 7 e3
tions. But we're rather jumping the gun; why White wasn't rated as high as 2538 for
does White feel the need to play h4? nothing; she's met Black's dark-squared set­
up by cleverly aiming to limit the scope of
Taking White out of his comfort zone the key dark-squared bishop and the g6-
The Tango is an ideal opening at club level, knight.
not so much because it contains some well­ 7 ... 0-0 8 tt::lge2 a6!
hidden traps early on in the game but mainly An important concept: Black preserves
because it doesn't require memorising oodles the bishop from being exchanged after ... d7-
of theory. Black needs to know a little in d6 (with li:la4), and will now look to utilise
places, but a good general understanding, the eS-bridgehead and his knights to expand
allied with constantly aiming for activity, is on the kingside.
much more important, as should become 9 0-0 d6 10 i.d2 i.d7 11 .U.b1 b5!
clear from the strategic examples throughout 8...a6 wasn't just a defensive measure, as it
this work. also supports this thrust which rather breaks
It isn't so easy for poor White, however, up White's natural queenside advance with
and not only because the Tango remains b4 and cS. Christiansen has handled the
quite a surprise. Players under 2000 often opening actively and well, and already White

7
Tango! A Dynamic Answer to 1 d4

is starting to struggle. Having sensibly rejected the exchange to

keep the initiative, Black begins to hone in on
White's relatively undefended kingside. In­
deed, as is often the case in the Tango, the
attack is very fast, while White struggles to
make any further inroads on the other flank.
22 .te3 l2:\xe3 23 fxe3

12 b4 .tb6 13 a4?
No doubt White thought that she should
be much better on the queenside but, com­
pared with a King's Indian, Black's dark­
squared bishop is playing a key role outside
the pawn chain. This pawn sacrifice is simply
too ambitious, although even after 1 3 'tlib3 23...h5! 24 i.f1 h4 25 .txd3 cxd3 26
'ile7 1 4 a4 bxc4 1 5 'ilxc4 aS!, and only then Wg2 hxg3 27 hxg3 d2 28 .:e2 'i'g4!
...lLle8 and .. . fS, Black would still have had a In the blink of an eye, the white mon­
pretty reasonable position. arch's defences have been blown away and
13. . . bxc4 14 a5 .ta7 15 b5 axb5 16 Christiansen comes in for the kill.
l2:\xb5 .tf5! 17 .l:: a1 .tc5 29 .l::h 1
Preventing 29 ... lLlh4+, but unsurprisingly
Black now has a neat finish.
29 . . . l2:\f4+ ! 30 exf4 exf4 31 .:xd2
'i'xg3+ 32 Wf1 'l'f3+ 33 'it;e1 'i'xh1+
0-1

So what do most Grandmasters do?

3 lL:lf3 is White's best try to reach a queen's
pawn opening with which he is to some ex­
tent familiar, and is the option chosen by
most strong players (although they may have
played 2 lL:lf3 e6 3 c4 and thus already had
their options reduced). The Tango may be an
Like all Tango players strive to do, ideal weapon at club level and in 'swiss'
Christiansen is accurately responding to the events, but it is also theoretically acceptable
downsides of White's plan. The position has against all levels of opposition. Those few
now opened up for his bishops, although the who are prepared for the Tango, realising
kingside remains the overall target. that quiet development doesn't lead to any
1 8 l2:\ec3 �d3 1 9 e4 �d7 ! 20 .l::e1 .l:tfb8 sort of advantage, will often counter in quite
21 'it'a4 l2:\g4 creative ways: either with 3 tt::lc 3 e5 4 d5 li:Je7

8
 Introduction

and then a quick h4, or with 3 tiJ£3 e6 4 a3, the .. fS break has also gained in strength.
.

preventing Black's intended development However, even 10 'i'c2!? �g4 11 0-0-0 �x£3
with 4 ...�b4(+). Neither of these, however, 12 gx£3 tiJhS would have left White a litdc
are the refutations they've sometimes been worse.
made out to be. Indeed, Black can gain an 10...tiJh5 11 a3?! ..txc3 12 ..txc3 ltJhf4
unbalanced position against both and on a 13 ..tc2??
fairly level pla)�ng field. Black already enjoyed good chances on
me kingside, but White had no time to pre­
The key dark-squared centre serve the bishop for now Black can even
The Tango has been criticised as it forces omit ...fS as the pin is crushing.
Black to be prepared to transpose into a 13. . . .ig4! 14 h3 .ih5 15 �h2!?
number of different openings, but is rl1at
really so, especially as Black's position usually
revolves around a dark-squared centre with
pawns on eS and d6? 3 tiJ£3 e6 4 a3 d6 is like
a King's Indian but certainly doesn't trans­
pose to any theoretical main lines, although 3
tiJ£3 e6 4 g3 does actually lead play into a
Bogo or Catalan. We'll concentrate on the
latter here, aiming for a sharp, unbalanced
position, and this approach of Chapter 8 is a
litde different in that Black doesn't construct
the dark-squared centre wiili ...d6 and ...eS.
A good understanding of this dark­
squared structure will take the reader far, 15...ltJxg2!
even if White aims for a Nimzo with 3 tiJ£3 Preventing 16 g4 and decisively ripping
c6 4 t2Jc3 i.b4. Only through 5 'i'c2 (Chap­ open the kingside.
ters 6-7) docs play transpose to normal and 16 ..t>xg2 'ir'f6 17 'it>h2 'ir'f4 + ! ?
fairly theoretical lines; otherwise even strong This maintains the attack and picks up a
and experienced players can struggle: couple of pawns, whereas 17...t2Jh4 18 tDxh4!
'iVf4+ 19 'iti>g2 'iVgS+ 20 'ith2 i.xd1 21
Sowray-Palliser l:taxd1 'iixh4 might have encouraged White
Oxford 2003 to resist for a little as Black must find a way
to safely arrange ... fS.
1 d4 ltJf6 2 c4 ltJc6 3 ltJf3 e6 4 ltJc3 18 �g1 .ixf3 19 'ir'd2 'ii'h4 20 .id1
..tb4 5 e3 0-0 6 ..td3 d6 7 .id2 e5 8 d5 'i!t'xh3 21 .ixf3 'ii'xf3 22 'ii' e3 il'g4+ 23
tiJe7 9 e4? 1 il'g3 'ii'xe4
Already White's set-up wasn't too chal­ A third pawn drops off and already White,
lenging, but the pawn was fairly useful back who has had no counterplay all game, could
on e3. There it prevented the black knights easily resign.
from accessing the f4-square, and it should 24 f4 exf4 25 l:l.ae1 fxg3 26 l:l.xe4 l:l.fe8
only have advanced in response to an un­ 27 l:l.fe1 l:l.xe4 28 l:l.xe4 f5 29 l:l.e6 f4 30
dermining ...c6. lti>g2l:l.f8 31 .id4 ltJh4 + 32 'ito>h3 Q\f5 0-1
9 . . . ltJg6 10 0-0
Now Black gains a simple but strong at­ So where's the Tango from?
rack as .)Llf4 has become an option, whilst According to the definitive O>ford Companion

9
Tango! A Dynamic Answer to 1 d4

to Chess, 1 d4 tiJf6 2 c4 tt'lc6 is categorised as Following Orlov's lead, Joel Benjamin and
the 'Kevitz-Trajkovic Defence', named after Alex Yerrnolinsky have used the Tango with
two of its early practitioners: the American much success on the cut-and-thrust of thy
Alexander Kevitz and the Yugoslav Mihailo American circuit from the early 1990's on­
Trajkovic. The opening had, however, ini­ wards and, while some Tango lines remain
tially been labelled 'the Mexican Defence' for relatively unexplored, in others theory has
it was Carlos Torre who first employed it in progressed a fair way since 1998.
an international tournament game. This all This work aims to examine these new ideas,
rather begs the question, 'why the Tango?' as well as to explore further some of the old
Well, that was the catchy name given by the ones. And not just ideas from Benjamin and
respected Moldovan trainer Vecheslav Che­ Orlov, but also from the leading Tango practi­
banenko, and it's rather caught on, although tioner and Russian master, Nikolai Vlassov;
whether one wants to call the opening 'the the Tango's leading exponent, GM Viorel
Two Knights' Tango', 'the Black Knights' Bologan; and from the correspondence world,
Tango' or just simply 'the Tango' doesn't in which the Dutch player Joop Simmelink's
seem to matter. contribution especially stand out.
Keep an eye out for recent games from
Who plays the Tango? the above-mentioned players, and do enjoy
Chebanenko's pupils have done much to your Tango experiences, especially as you will
popularise the opening, especially IM Georgi frequently understand the opening and key
Orlov who, following his move to the US, rniddlegame plans much better than your
produced first a pamphlet on the opening opponent.
and then an excellent book in 1998, featuring Happy Tangoing!
a wealth of his own games and analysis.
However, since then the popularity of the Richard Palliser,
Tango has continued to expand, although it Harrogate,
still takes quite strong opponents by surprise. April2005

10
 CHAPTER ONE I
The Dark -squared Centre:
White Develops Classically

1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 lt:lc6 3 lt:lc3 e5 4 d5 lt:le7 Kalantarian-H. Hagesaether

5 e4 lLlg6 Linares Open 2000
White has developed classically, just as he
might against the King's Indian. However, Black has just thematically broken with
Black is actually playing a turbo-charged 12...f5! and already f2 is under fire, while
King's Indian; the queen's knight is already 13 .. .f4 is a large threat.
well placed on g6 for a kingside attack, while 13 exf5 .txf5
the dark-squared bishop will play an active
role from cS. As we will see, finding a good
plan for White is not easy. Thus many strong
players prefer to follow up 3 lt:lc3 eS 4 dS by
aiming to counter on the kingside. Chapter
Two explores such approaches in which
White either erects a solid fianchetto or aims
to push back the g6-knight with h4-h5.

The power of the dark-squared bishop

14 i.e3?!
Lacking a good plan of his own and under
pressure on the kingside, White panics de­
spite out-rating his opponent by more than
200 points. This simply creates further weak­
nesses, but Black was already slightly better.
He intended ...�f6 after which the kingside
pressure can be increased by ...hS and ...'il'd7,
whilst also possible is the ...e4 advance. That
does cede the d4-sq uare, but Black may well

11
Tango! A Dynamic Answer to 1 d4

judge the arrival of a knight on eS, eyeing up on g2, while the b4-bishop is in some danger.
d3, f3 and c4, to more than compensate for Black manages to preserve it, but at some
that. cost to his position.
14 . . ..be3 15 fxe3 �g5! 16 e4 'ii'e 3+ 17 1o . . c6 11 a3 i.a5 12 b4 i.c7 13 ltlac3
.

'iti>h2 i.d7 18 l:f.xf8+ 'iti>xf8 19 'ii'f1 + ltlt6 cxd5 14 cxd5 ltle8 15 g3 f5 16 exf5!
It may appear that White has forced ex­ i.xf5 17 ..txf5 l:.xf5 18 tLle4
changes and pushed Black backwards, but
that is far from the full picture. Black's queen
is very useful at exploiting the holes in
\XI'hite's position, whilst the kingsidc attack
can quickly be recommenced.
20 'iif3 'ii'd2 21 l:.d1 'ili'h6 22 l:.f1 lii>g8
23 ltld1 l:.f8
Simple chess - now Black's attack ensures
a winning breakthrough.
24 'ili'd3 i.xh3! 25 ..txh3 tLlg4+ 26 �g2
l:.xf1 27 �xf1 1Vxh3+
and, still with a strong attack, Black shortly
went on to win.
and White controls the key e4-square
Preparing a retreat for the key prelate which, together with his superior minor
pieces, grants him control of the position.

Which retreat? ... a6 versus ...aS

D.Gurevich-Dzindzichashvili
US Ch., Bloomington 1993

White has developed sensibly so far, espe­ N .Smith-Palliser

cially by ruling out a deadly ...tt:\g4. Now, as Bradford 2000
we will sec, Black should prepare a retreat
square for his key bishop with 8.. a6.
. Black should preserve his dark-squared
D7.ind7.ichashvili, however, understandably bishop, but there are two ways to do so. The
thought that he could first castle, but that ran more traditional concept is ...aS, not just
into a creative and strong idea. clearing the a7-square, but also holding up
8 . . . 0-0?! 9 lZJa4! �b4+ 10 'it>f1! \'(!bite's queenside advance with b4. That idea
The point: White's king will reach safery is usually valid, but Black often actually pre-

12
 The Dark-squared Centre: White Develops Classically

fers ...a6 instead. After ...aS, White continues through c5, but now Black's dark-squared
with l::tb1, a3 (or b3 first if Black can usefully bishop begins to make a nuisance of itself.
clamp the queenside with ...a4) and b4; sig­ 1 5 ... .i.d4!? 1 6 i.d3 .bc3 17 'ilt'xc3 lLlh5
nificantly he is then the side most likely to
benefit from an open a-file in the long run.
By opting instead for ...a6, Black allows
White to easily arrange b4, but he will then
aim to hold up the key c5-push. Further­
more, ...b5 may well throw an irritating span­
ner in the works, as in Zhu Chen­
Christiansen.
Here I opted for the latter plan and after
9 . . . a6 10 .i.g5?! h6 11 .id2 i.d7 1 2 'iic 2
l:!:b8!? my opponent became concerned that
I might be about to gain the queenside initia­
tive, before turning my attention to the other
flank. Giving up the powerful bishop is not
something to be done lightly, but here it was
set to be exchanged anyhow. Furthermore,
White was preparing to cover the f4-square
with lLle2. Now, however, the d2-bishop
lacks a good role, bar being able to exchange
itself for a knight on f4, whilst Black's king­
side play is already quite dangerous. White
can force open the c-flle, but then it is not
easy for him to continue his gueenside play,
partly due to his lacking a knight on that side
of the board.
1 8 �h2 tLlhf4

Thus there followed 1 3 a3!, when 13 ...b5

is possible, although after 14 cxb5! axb5 15
b4 ..ta7 it's not such good news for Black: c7
and b5 are vulnerable, whilst the a4 break is
on the cards. Black should be able to defend
the queenside for some time (a4 can be met
by a double exchange on a4, for example,
after which the dark-squared bishop can go
to b6), but instead I preferred to keep ...b5 in
reserve, whilst holding up c5.
13. . .'i'e7! 14 b4 .i.a7 15 'i'c1
Already a typical sign of White's difficul­
ties after developing classically. Smith was 1 9 .l:.g1? !
loath to weaken his structure, and also sig­ Panicking in an already inferior position.
nificandy the g3-square, with 15 i..e3 �xe3 This doesn't really shore up the kingside,
16 fxc3. White must find a way to force although it does demonstrate the power that

13
 Tango! A Dynamic Answer to 1 d4

the black knights exert. White was indeed and ...l:tfdB up next, Black is also quite com­
already concerned about sacrifices on h3 and fortable. Still, that was probably Kadimova's
g2, as well as the other knight leaping to h4 best chance as after White's next move Black
to increase the pressure. is well placed to exploit any opening of the d­
19 . . . ltJxd31 20 'ifxd3 f5 file.
and Black had seized the initiative and 15 c5? ! lld8! 16 'ii'b 3 lLlhf4 17 ltJxf4
some useful light-squared play, leaving him ltJxf4 18 .bf4 'ii'xf4 19 llc3 a5!
with good chances on the kingside and in the White has removed the two black knights
centre. at some cost on the dark squares and now
hopes to defend along the third. However,
Responding in the centre the a7-bishop is far from dead and immedi­
ately Shabalov makes excellent use of its
power.
20 a3

Kadimova-Shabalov
Cappelle Ia Grande 1995

Recognising the danger to her kingside, 20 ... a4?

White has aimed to shore it up, and also to Tempting, as White won't be able to hold
take the sting out of ...lbhf4 or ...lbgh4, by c5, but stronger was 20...dxc5! 21 bxc5 a4,
retreating her knight to el. However, White's netting a pawn such as after 22 'ifc4 cxd5 23
pieces are now rather grouped together in an exd5 'ifxc4 24 i.xc4 .i.xc5. Perhaps Shaba­
unthreatening clump and so Shabalov de­ lov feared his bishop's being entombed after
cides to ensure his a7-bishop of an open 21 b5!?, but then there is 21...cxd5 22 exdS a4
diagonal. when d5 is weak, whilst 23 'ifa2 can be met
14. . . c6! ? by 23...i.b6 or even 23 ...e4!?.
Before making kingside progress Black in­ 21 'ii'a2 cxd5 22 'ifxd5 'iff6 23 c6?
tends to exchange on d5, not fearing the A bad mistake, underestimating the dan­
open c-filc which W'hitc's pieces arc generally ger to her queen. Instead White could have
too passive to exploit. Recapturing with the kept the game very much alive with 23 cxd6!
c-pawn would also end any chance of a dan­ when 23...i.b8!? 24 .l:.xc8! .l:txc8 25 d7 .l:.d8
gerous c5, blunting the a7-bishop. Further­ 26 i.bS gives her pretty dangerous compen­
more, it is also quite possible that, with White sation for the exchange. 23 ...'ifxd6 24 'ifxd6
quite cramped, Black could be the one to l:txd6 is also possible, but then 25 lt::lf3 f6 26
take the c-file after ...�d7 and ....l:.ac8. Mean­ i.c4+! �£8 27 �dS prevents Black from
while after 15 dxc6 bxc6, with ...�e6 and exploiting his bishop pair.

14
 The Dark-squared Centre: White Develops Classically

23. . . .te6 24 'iib 5 bxc6 down the h-file, but after 21...'ifi>h8! 22 d6
and White suddenly resigned. 25 l:xc6 (the only way to prevent 22...l::tg6) 22...g6 23
loses the exchange, whilst after 25 'ifb7 ..td7 tL\g3 l:txd6 White is still losing due to 24 .l:td1
Black is a very useful pawn ahead and has the l:tfd8 (threatening 25...l:txd3 26 llxd3 l::txd3
white queen fatally trapped. 27 1i'xd3 1i'h2+ 28 'ifi>fl1i'xf2 mate) 25 .:tb2
.l:tf6 when the white kingside collapses.
Simply attacking 14 .. Ji'f6 15 'ilid2 h6

Firth-Palliser Naturally keeping the queens on. Suddenly

Yorkshire League 2000 White can't hold g2.
16 'iWd1 'ilig6 17 g4 f5!
White hasn't handled the opening particu­ Keeping up the pressure and allowing no
larly well and is already behind in develop­ respite.
ment. With there being no immediate danger 18 exf5 .txf5 19 .ixf5 l:l.xf5 20 .te3?!
on the queenside, Black simply launches a Preventing 20...l:taf8, but now White col­
strong attack. lapses on the light squares.
12 ... ti:lh5! 13 ti:le2 ti:lh4 14 ti:lh2?! 20 . . . .txe3 21 fxe3 l:l.xf1 + 22 �xf1
Not a move one would want to make, but Or 221i'xf1 .l:tf8 231i'e11i'e4, whilst after
already White is under some pressure. 14 22lbxf1 there is again 22...1i'e4!.
tLle1 was probably best, but after 14...f5 22 . . . 'i'e4 0-1
Black is already in the driving seat. White That was that as 23 gxh5 'ilfhl+ 24 tLlg1
must be very careful, especially not to further 1i'xh2 is devastating.
weaken his kingside, 15 g3? going down sim­
ply after 15...fxe4! 16 ..txe4 ..txh3 17 gxh4 Theory
i.xfl 18 i.xh7+ Wh8 19 <ti>xfl l:txf2+. An­ 1 d4 ti:lf6 2 c4 ti:lc6 3 ti:lc3 e5 4 d5 ti:le7
other option was 14 tLlxh41i'xh4, but bring­ Now White usually continues with 5 e4
ing the black queen further into the attack is but also reasonable is 5 tL\£3, when 5...d6
risky. Indeed after 15 a3?! there is already intending 6...g6, 7 ...i.g7 and 8...0-0, transpos­
15 .....txh3! 16 gxh3 1i'xh3 when White is ing to the King's Indian, is possible. For
rather powerless against ...ti::lf6-g4. The c5- those who employ that defence, that can be a
bishop can be exchanged, but after 17 i..e3 useful option to have, especially with White
tLlf6 18 i..xc5 tt::lg4 19 .l:tfcl dxcS 20 .!Dg3 here being forced into a Fianchetto or Classi­
there is 20....l:!a6!- a deadly rook lift reminis­ cal variation. Fortunately for the rest of us,
cent of the Budapest. 21 ti::lf5 prevents mate there is nothing wrong with the Tango move

15
 Tango! A Dynamic Answer to 1 d4

5 ...ctJg6 after which 6 e4 transposes to Line Protecting e4 is normal, but sometimes

A. Also possible arc 6 g3 and 6 h4, which will White immediately worries about the g4-
be considered in the next chapter, whilst 6 a3 square. However, 7 h3?! docs not really im­
is Line D below. press after 7...0-0 and now:
a) 8 i.d3 d6 9 0-0 aS (9...a6 is also possi­
ble, but White's pieces don't combine well
and so Black doesn't need to worry as much
as usual about the quccnsidc) 10 l:tb1 .id7
11 b3 'ile7 12 'ilc2 lLlh5! 13ctJe2ctJh4! wid1,
as we've already seen, a useful kingside initia­
tive, Firth-Palliser, Yorkshire League 2000.
b) 8 .ic2 d6 9 0-0 a6! 10 .igS?! h6 11
.id2 .id7 12 'il'c2 l:tb8 13 a3 'ile7! with a
good position, as we've seen before
(N.Smith-Palliser, Bradford 2000).
7 .ie2 is the alternative for the bishop.
Now Black should avoid the tactical motif
Now White must decide on a set-up: 7 ...d6 8 b4!, even if that may not be too dan­
gerous here. Instead 7...0-0 8 0-0 d6 9 a3 a6
@ 5 e4 lLlg6 6 lLlf3 should be perfectly acceptable, but also pos­
@:)5 e4 lLlg6 6 i.d3 sible is 9...a5. Then C.Gonzalez-Bekefi, To­
(C� e4 lLlg6 6 a3 ronto 1995 continued 10 .igS (the point
"""'\
o;•5 ttJt3 lLlg6 6 a3!? behind this manoeuvre rather escapes me
-ti: 5 e4 lLlg6 6 lLlge2 and Orlov's 10 l:tb1 looks much more logi­
F: 5 e4 lLlg6 6 f3?! cal) 10...h6 11 .id2 i.d7 12 l:tcl?! a4! which
G: 5 i.g5 was very pleasant for Black, who had man­
H: 5 e4 lLlg6 6 i.e3! aged to clamp 'White's queenside. After 13
'ilc2 lLlh7!? 14 .ie3 b6 15 .ixcS bxcS 16
AI 5 e4 lLlg6 6 lLlf3 l:tfe1ctJg5

Now Black can continue positionally with 17 'iVd2ctJf4 Black was already much bet­
6...i.b4, but instead the a7-gl diagonal is ter due to his strong attack, whilst White
usually too tempting a home for the bishop. lacked any counterplay.
6 i.c5 7 i.d3
... 7 0-0
...

16
 The Dark-squared Centre: White Develops Classically

Sensibly taking care to keep the active ward lLlgS, when Black is rather vulnerable
bishop for the time being - 7...d6?! 8 b4! on the light squares afterlLle6.
i..b6 9 lLla4 forces its exchange. However, 12 b4 i.. a7 13 :c1 -.fs 14 tt.Je1 c6!?
even here White must be careful not to en­ Black had good counterplay, as we've
courage Black on the kingside. In Jakubiec­ noted, in Kadimova-Shabalov, Cappelle Ia
Miton, Warsaw 2004 he did just that, when Gra�de 1995.
9 ...0-0 10 h3?! i.d7 11 .!t::lxb6 axb6 12 i..c2
'ife8 13 i..gS?! .!t:JhS! 14 i..e3 .!t:Jhf4 15 0-0 fS B) 5 e4 ltJg6 6 i..d3 i..c5
gave Black reasonable counterplay.
8 0-0 a6!
Again 8...d6 9 .!t::la4! is not really what
Black wants. Now, though, with a retreat
square secured, Black can complete his de­
velopment and then look to seize the initia­
tive.

This is often met by simply 7 liJ£3, trans­

posing into Line A. However, White can also
aim for a set-up with the knight corning to
e2.
7 h3!?
Sensibly preventing 7...lLlg4 and thus fa­
cilitating liJge2.
9 h3?! 7 i..e3?! doesn't really convince. 7...JJ.xe3
Once more this simply appears to weaken 8 fxe3 d6 gives Black the better structure and
White's kinbrside in the long term as now he control of g4, and even queenside castling
must beware of sacrifices after ....!t::lf4. How­ doesn't really help White: 9 'ii'd2 0-0 10 0-0-0
ever, if a 2370 player was already concerned cS (not minding the backward d-pawn after
about the g4-square and unable to find a 11 dxc6 bxc6 as then another queenside file
good plan, the position already bodes well is opened, but perhaps White should try that
for Black. Instead 9lLla4!? Jl.a7 10 cS was the as now his attack gets nowhere) 11 h4 hS! 12
logical attempt to block out the bishop, but liJ£3 a6 13 lLlgS i..d7 14 'ii'e1 'ii'aS 15 'iii>b 1
then 10...d6 11 b4 (11 'fic2 also has its draw­ bS left only Black attacking, Miskei-Karcol,
backs after 11...i..g4! - Orlov - when 12 Slovakia 1998 .
.!t::le1 .!t::lh5 13 i.e3 'ii'h4 sees Black building Also possible is 7 a3, transposing to 6 a3
up strongly on the kingside) 11...i..d7! breaks (see Line C), but much worse is 7 liJge2??
the blockade, and of course 12 i..e3 still isn't (adopting a set-up which Seirawan has done
really an option due to 12...tt.'lg 4. much to popularise against the King's Indian,
9 ... d6 10 �d2 ll'lh5 11 ll'le2 h6! but this is a Tango!) 7...ltJg4!.
Pacilitating ...'iVf6 and also usefully ensur­ A trap every Tango player should be
ing that a later ...f5 won't run into an awk- aware of. So far its highest casualty has been

17
Tango! A Dynamic Answer to 1 d4

a player rated 2280, but there may well be Cl 5 e4 l!Jg6 6 a3

stronger victims out there! Although Black usually places his bishop
on the a7-g1 diagonal, some players do worry
about the possibility of a pin after ...i.b4.
White may also hope to gain a queenside
initiative with a quick b4.
6 . . . i..c5

Now 8 i.e3 is very grim, but relatively

best, whereas 8 0-0 (or 8 b4 tLlxf2 9 'Wb3
tLlxd3+ and White resigned before 10...tLlxb4
in P.Collier-Yermolinsky, New York 1993)
8...1i'h4 9 h3 tLlxf2 10 l:txf2 1i'xf2+ doesn't
just win an exchange and a pawn, but also 7 g3
leaves Black with a strong attack. Sensibly strengthening the kingside in a
7 d6 8 ltlge2
. . . bid to make some use of the light-squared
bishop, whilst also hoping to reduce Black's
attacking chances. White does well to avoid 7
tLl£3? tLlg4, but he can still choose from a
number of other approaches:
a) 7 i.d3 is similar to 6 i.d3, and here a3
is quite useful as it helps prepare both b4 and
tLla4. Now:
at) 7...d6 has been the usual choice, but
it's not fully clear what Black should do after
8 tLla4! (8 h3 a6 9 tLl£3 0-0 10 'ife2!?, as in
Kofidis-Raptis, Panormo 1998, is less threat­
ening after 10...tLlh5! when 11 tLlxeS? obvi­
ously fails as d3 hangs at the end). Perhaps he
B... a6! can get away with 8.....id4 (instead 8...i.g4 9
Instead 8 ...0-0?! 9 tLla4 ..ib4+ 10 �f1! was f3 i.xg1 10 l:r.xg1 i.d7 11 tLlc3 appears to
seen in D.Gurevich-Dzindzichashvili, US Ch. favour White, who will castle long) 9 t"De2
1993, but after the text move Black should (simply threatening 10 tLlxd4, 11 i.c2 and 12
be fine. 'ii'xd4) 9...tLlh4!? 10 0-0 i.g4 11 ..igS i.xe2!
9 b4 i.. a7 10 0-0 l!Jh5! 12 'ii'xe2 tLlg6 when the d4-bishop is a mon­
(Orlov) Black already has a promising po­ ster and the pin not really dangerous. Should
sition. He even threatens an irrunediate the g5-bishop be exchanged, the g6-knight
11...'ifh4 and once again White lacks suffi­ will conquer f4.
cient counterplay. a2) 7...a6!? 8 b4 i..a7

18
 The Dark-squared Centre: White Develops Classically

16 lL!b6 it's not clear how Black's queenside

can develop despite the extra rook) 14 .i.b6
.i.c3+ 15 �f1 bxa4 16 .i.xd8 �xd8 17 'ii'xa4
aS! 18 bS .i.b4 when Black's rook and two
minor pieces outweighed the queen in
Schleifer-Linskiy, Quebec 1997.
b) 7 .i.e3?! again doesn't impress: 7 ...i.xe3
.

8 fxe3 d6 9 .i.e2 c6! 10 h4?! (fully ceding the

g4-square which Black is happy to accept as
that furthers his dark-squared pressure)
10...h5 11 lD£3 lL!g4 12 'ii'd2 'ii'b6 left Black
on top and with a strong initiative in Zirin­
Vlassov, St Petersburg 1995. In general it
9 d6!? (Black was intending to develop appears that after .i.e3 the damage to White's
with 9...d6 and 10...0-0, but this positional structure, and also the fact that Black still
pawn sacrifice rather cuts across his plans; 9 retains the better dark-squared chances, is
'i!f£3 has also been seen, but 9...h6 10 lL!ge2 too high a price to pay for eliminating Black's
d6 11 h3 - L.Garcia-Bermejo Arruego, Ma­ dangerous bishop.
drid 2000- 11...lDh4! 12 'Wg3 lL!hS 13 'Wh2 c) 7 £3?! further weakens White's dark
'ii'f 6 sidelines White's queen and leaves Black squares: 7...a5 8 lL!ge2 d6 9 .i.gS h6 10 .i.d2
better) 9...c5! (fighting back on the dark c6 11 lL!c1 0-0 12 lDd3 .i.d4! 13 lL!e2 .i.a7
squares and now a fascinating struggle en­ left White's pieces in a bit of a mess, and
sues, but it's not clear that 9...cxd6!? would Black prepared to increase the pressure with
have been so bad as Black intends ...dS! and 14...b5 in Kludacz-Miroshnichenko, Warsaw
then ...d6 to liberate the c8-bishop) 10 lL!a4! 1997.
cxb4 11 axb4 .td4 12 lD£3!? (a very enter­ d) 7 b4? is the move White would like to
prising rook sacrifice which aims to keep make work, but there is a tactical drawback:
Black's queenside bottled up; 12 l:.a2 bS! 13 7....i.d4 8lL!ge2
lDcS bxc4 14 .txc4 'ii'b6 should be fine for
Black as the c8-bishop can later come to b7,
whilst d6 is dropping off) 12....i.xa1 13 .i.e3

8...lL!xe4! 9 lL!xe4 .txa1 10 .i.gS f6 and

now:
d1) 11 .i.xf6 gxf6 12 'iVxa1 fS (Orlov),
13...b5! (now it's Black's turn to sacrifice; pushing back the well-placed knight, before
after 13....itd414 tt:lxd4 exd4 15 .i.xd4 0-0 Black develops with 13 . .d6 and 14...0-0.
.

19
 Tango! A Dynamic Answer to 1 d4

d2) 11 �e3 �d4 12 ctJxd4 exd4 13 �xd4

0-0 14 �d3 saw White's pressure having
been easily neutralised in Reilly-Speck, Mel­
bourne 1999, and after 14... £5! 15 li::lg3 'ii'e7+
16 'it>fl d6 17'Llh5lt::le5 Black shordy won.
e) 7 h3 d6 8 li::lf3 a6! is similar to the com­
fortable lines already considered for Black.
7 . . 0-0 8 �g2 a6! 9 b4 i.a7 10l0ge2 d6
.

7 . .. i.c5!?
Stubbornly bringing the bishop to its fa­
voured diagonal, but should this fail then it's
not clear that 7...d6 8 e4 �e7 is the end of
the world for Black. As we have seen so far
in this chapter, White's queenside play is
rarely too dangerous and here, although
Black would prefer the bishop to be on a7, 9
11 h3l0e8! i.e2 0-0 10 b4 axb4 11 axb4 .ig4 12 .ie3
With ...lt::lh5-f4 ruled out and 11...li::lh5 12 li::lhS! still gave him sufficient counterplay in
0-0 fS? met by 13 exfS �xfS 14 g4, the Rhine-Nagle, Chicago 1997. However,
knight retreats to facilitate the key ...fS break. 7...e4?! sadly doesn't quite work: after 8 lt::lg5
12 0-0 f5 13 exf5 .bf5 d6 9 lt::lcxe4 lt::lxe4 10 ctJxe4 �fS White may
Black already stands better, as we saw earlier, be vulnerable down the light-squared diago­
in Kalantarian-H.Hagesaether, linares Open nal, but he has time to solve his problems
2000. beginning with the cool 11 'ii'c2! threatening
12 li::lxd6+.
D) 5 l0f3l0g6 6 a317 8 b4 axb4 9 axb4 i.a7
Unlike after 5 e4 ctJg6 6 a3, here 6...�c5 is Now Black should reach a reasonable po­
impossible as White has d4 covered and so sition if he is allowed to develop with 1o...d6
can simply respond with 7 b4. and 11...0-0, but it's \Vhite's go.
6 ... a5 7 :b1! 1 0 d6!?
Fighting to prevent Black from simply de­ 10 li::l b5!? is also a concern, although
veloping his bishop. 7 h3?! is less challenging: Tango players usually thrive in such unbal­
7...�c5 8 �g5 h6 9 .ixf6 'ii'xf6 10 lt::le4 'ii'e7 anced and unusual positions. Then 10...i.b8
11 lt::lxc5 'ii'xcS (White may not have lost the 11 d6 c6 12 li::lc3 b6! may appear somewhat
bishop pair this time after the exchange on ridiculous, but it does hope to show that
f6, but he remains rather stymied on the White is rather overextended. Indeed, White
queenside as Black builds up on the other must find a way to support his pawn wedge
flank) 12 e3 0-0 13 �e2 f5 14 0-0 .!:f.a6! 15 b3 quickly and to counter Black's plan - there is
.!:f.af6 left Black well massed on the kingside no time for 13 e3 0-0 14 �e2?1 due to
and threatening 16...e4 followed by 17...f4 in 14...ctJe8 15 c5 bxc5 16 bxc5 'iVaS when cS
Radoja-Meszaros, Neum 2002. drops off.

20
 The Dark-squared Centre: White Develops Classically

1 0 . . . 0-0! 5 tt::if3 tt::lg6 6 a3 aS 7 :b1 may have only

Ignoring \Vhite's demonstration in the been played once, but it certainly leads to a
centre and reaching a critical position. Allow­ fascinating struggle if Black persists, as he
ing d5-d6 is normally a big problem for definitely appears to be able to, with
Black, but here \Vhite is lagging somewhat in 7...�c5!?.
development.
11 c5?! El 5 e4 tLlg6 6 tLlge2
Aiming to keep Black's queenside bottled
up, but this is very ambitious. However, 11
dxc7 'Wxc7 doesn't help W'hite at all as c4 is
en prise, whilst the liberating and dangerous
12...d5! is also threatened. Perhaps \Vhite
should simply aim to develop with 11 e3, but
after 11...i.b8! 12 dxc7 �xc7 Black threatens
to finally advance with 13...e4. Then 13 e4 d6
looks like a reasonable Sicilian for Black, who
should gain counterplay on the kingside. 13
.td3?! runs into the awkward 13...d5! with
the tactical point 14 �xg6 fxt,r6 15 lDxdS
tt::ixdS 16 1r'xd5+ "ifxdS 17 cxdS i.f5 when
Black enjoys a very strong initiative due to Like 6 �d3, this is a dangerous system
his bishop pair and lead in development - he against the King's Indian, and here Black
will at least regain the d-pawn. must beware of the knight causing a certain
1 1 ... b61 1 2 tLlb5 �b8 13 dxc7 �xc7 14 amount of disruption by coming to f5.
li'Jxc7 'i'xc7 6 . . ..tc5 7 tLlg3
.

This is a logical culmination of the ambi­ 7 h3!? aiming for a fianchetto has also
tious plan initaited by the moves 10 d6 and been tried, when 7...c6 8 'iib3! d6 9 g3 hS?!
11 cS. 'W'hite has gained the bishop pair but 10 �g2 a6 11 i.gS h4 12 0-0-0! was messy
at too large a cost in development. Now 15 but probably favoured \Vhite somewhat in
cxb6 'ii xb6 would leave b4 weak and allow Rclange-Chevallier, Cannes 1994. Thus Black
Black to follow up with 16 ...d5, but after 15 should instead prefer 7 .. 0-0 8 g3 a6 9 j.g2
.

.ie3 ttJe4! Black's initiative is beginning to d6, intending ...ttJe8 and ...fS, along the lines
grow. of Kalantarian-Hagesaether.

21
 Tango! A Dynamic Answer to 1 d4

7 . . . d6 8 i.e2 h5! improvement of 12...hxg4!? may just about

Instead 8...0-0 9 0-0 is rather awkward as work due to 13 lLlfS lD6hS! 14 'i!ixg4 g6 15
Black lacks his usual kingside play, the g3- lDe3 f6! 16 �xf4 lLlxf4 with reasonable
knight doing an excellent job of preventing compensation. The cS monster bishop re­
...lLlhS and restraining ...fS. The text move mains, whilst White must also be careful with
aims to show that White's whole concept is the h-file semi-open. Furthermore, even if
too ambitious and hopes for 9 h4 lLlg4!, the queens come off, Black will still find it
while 9 lLlxhS? is impossible due to 9...lLlxhS much easier than White to generate play,
10 �xhS 'iih4 with a double attack. such as with ...fS.
9 i.g5 liJf4 10 i.f3! 13 'ifxg4 hxg4
Defending f3 and preparing to utilise the The kingside danger might appear to be
strong pin along the h4-d8 diagonal. Instead over for White with the queens off, but now
10 i.xf4 exf4 11 lLlfS is less challenging: 14 lt:lfS is met by 14...lD6hS. Thus if he
11...�f8!? is an option, but Black should also wants to exchange it must be now or never.
be fine after 11...�xf5 12 exfS 'ii'd7 13 'ii'c2 14 i.xf6 gxf6 15 liJf5 a6
0-0-0. The strong cS-bishop remains, and A fairly unusual position, but Black is do­
White cannot castle long himself due to £2. ing reasonably well. The fS-knight may be a
However, if he has to go short then Black's monster, but it's not so hard to play around
attack should be the more potent: he enjoys it. Meanwhile Black has two excellent pieces
the better bishop and is ready with ...lLlg4. of his own, and he also intends to simply
10 . . .i.g4 double rooks against h2.
Maintaining the kingside pressure. After
10...h4?! 11 lLlge2 lLlxe2 12 'ii'xe2 Black's Fl 5 e4 liJg6 6 f37!
play has ground to a halt, leaving him to be Protecting e4, preventing an annoying
pushed back slowly on the queenside, whilst ...lt:lg4 and preparing 7 i.e3, but this is sim­
the pin remains very strong. ply too time-consuming and weakening.
1 1 0-0 �d7 6...i.c5

12 ..txg4 �xg4! Now White usually tries to push the

Perhaps not what Black intended, but in­ bishop backwards on the queenside, al­
stead 12...lLlxg4?! 13 'ii'f3! h4? 14 lLlfS effec­ though that isn't too difficult for Black to
tively refuted Black's whole concept in prevent.
Brandhorst-Shipman, correspondence 1994. 7 a3
However, Brandhorst's alternative suggested 7 liJge2 has also been seen, but already it

22
 The Dark-squared Centre: White Develops Classically

is apparent that it will take White a lot longer b) Likewise 6 e4, hoping for 6...i.c5 7
than Black to fully mobilise his forces. 7...d6 'it'f3!?, can simply be met by 6...h6. Then 7
8 .i.d2 a6 9 'iVc2 0-0 10 ltJcl?! ltJhS! was .i.d2 .i.cS 8 i.d3 0-0!? transposes to
already pretty good for Black in Schulze­ P.Watson-Palliser, Yorkshire League 2004 (I
Huber, Aschach 2002. had played 6...i.c5!? instead of the more
7 . a5
.. sensible 6...h6) when 9 ltJa4!? (taking the
and we've transposed to a position already opportunity to unbalance the struggle)
considered under Line C after 5 e4ltJg6 6 a3 9....i.d4! 10ltJe2 d6 11ltJxd4 exd4 led to an
i.cS 7 f3?! aS - Black is of course very much interesting position, with Black's pressure
OK here. against e4 and use of the eS-square, along
with the offside a4-knight, at least compen­
Gl 5 i.g5 sating for the bishop pair. White must now
castle short for after 12 'iVc2 i.d7 13 0-0-0?
ltJeS! my opponent was already in huge trou­
ble. He was forced to play 14 b3 to save the
offside knight but then simply 14....i.xa4 15
bxa4 'it'e8 was excellent for Black.
After 6 h4, Black should probably respond
here with the untested 6 ... h6! rather than
6...h5 after which White doesn't have to
transpose to Line C of Section 2 in Chapter 2
with 7ltJf3. Instead the flexible 7 e3 i.e7 8
.i.d3 d6 9 'iVc2 ltJf8 10 f3! ltJBd7 11 ltJge2
gave him an edge in Raheb-Khaziyeva,
Montreal 2000.
This perhaps deserves to be classified in the After 6...h6, 7 i.d2 can be met by 7...h5,
next chapter as a dynamic try, although usu­ but even better is 7....i.c5 which is why the
ally the move is rather tamely followed up. advance of the h-pawn after 5 .i.gS appears
After 5...ll'lg6 only really 6 h4!? can hope too slow. That advance is designed to disrupt
to cause Black any problems. Instead: Black's kingside development and coordina­
a) 6 e3 h6! 7 .i.xf6 'iVxf6 and now: tion, but here 8 hSltJe7! is too late for White
a1) 8 .i.d3 .i.b4 9ltJge2ltJh4! gave Black as the f8-bishop is already out. Thus White
a reasonable position in Tuovinen-Paronen, might try 7 ..txf6 'Wxf6 8 h5
Hdsinki 2002.
a2) 8 a3!? might be more challenging as af­
ter 8...a5 9 ltJf3 i.cS there is 10 ltJe4!, but
this actually does little more than regain the
bishop pair: 10...'iVb6 11ltJxcS 'iVxcS intends
12...d6 and then probably ...0-0 and .. .fS,
whilst 12 i.d3 d6 13 .i.xg6 fxg6 isn't really
challenging for Black as c4 is weak and
... i.g4 also threatened. White might hope
that 14 ltJh4? leads somewhere, but after
14...'iVxc4 15 ltJxg6 l:.g8 the knight is in
),>rave danger of being trapped, and after 16
1i'h5 Black has at least 16...'ir'g4.

23
 Tango! A Dynamic Answer to 1 d4

but then Black has at least 8 i.c5 9 e3 (9

... becomes like a Nimzo to an extent as Black
lZ'le4 i.b4+! is the tactic which underpins will double White's c-pawns, hoping to later
8 ...i.c5) 9 ltJe7 10 ltJe4 'ii'b6 with com­
... undermine them or, having stymied any
fortable equality. queenside chances for White, to later simply
press ahead on the kingside.

White's kingside expansion

However, also possible is 8...lZ'le7!? 9 e4

lZ'lgB!, reminding White just who controls the
dark squares and simply intending ....i.cS,
...'ile7 and ...ll:lf6, whilst White struggles to Karpov-Chevallier
exploit his small lead in development. French League 1993

The Samisch Centre White's chances lie on the kingside, but

1 d4 ltJf6 2 c4 ltJc6 3 ltJc3 e5 4 d5 ltJe7 Black too hopes to gain the initiative there
5 e4 ltJg6 6 i.e3! through the .. £5 break, hence Karpov's next.
.

Thus far we have seen White struggle time 10 h4!

and time again, both for a plan and against Typical, fine prophylaxis from the twelfth
Black's powerful dark-squared bishop. Pre­ world champion. Now Black doesn't want to
venting its arrival on cS is thus very sensible. allow the h-pawn to advance too far, thereby
However, after 6...i.b4, crippling his kingside, but neither can it be
held up by 10... h5?!. Then .. fS would become
.

very hard to achieve due to the weakness of

gS, which 11 g3! followed by 12ll:lh3 (Orlov)
immediately highlights. Note that here Black
could try 11...ll:lc5 12 ll:lh3 i.xh3, but
conceding a second bishop is a little too
much in this position. After 13 i.xh3 White's
light-S()Uared bishop is very strong, and both
bishops are well placed to support a kingside
pawn advance.
1o h6 11 g3 b6 12 tt:lh3 tt:lc5 13 lLlf2
...

'ifd7
Continuing in positional Nimzo style, al­
placing some pressure on White's centre, though this may appear a little slow. How­
the bishop still fulfils a useful role. Play now ever, 13... f5?! had been prevented by Kar-

24
 The Dark-squared Centre: White Develops Classica lly

pov's fine kingside play, as here \XIhite has in the centre, but \XIhite has several weak
the strong 1 4 exfS! .i.xfS 1 5 .i.xcS! bxcS 1 6 pawns and a not entirely happy king of his
..td3 (Orlov) when \XIhite controls the key own. Indeed with a rook coming to the b-flle
e4-square. Indeed Black is much worse and and the black queen and knight combining
cannot gain any counterplay, e.g. 1 6...0-0 1 7 well, White must already proceed quite accu­
.:b1 1i'f6 doesn't work for after 1 8 0-0 .i.xd3 rately.
1 9 1i'xd3, 19 ... 1i'xf3? is impossible as then That variation saw some rather direct play
the already rather powerless and misplaced from White after 1 4 ... 1i'a4!?, but no doubt
g6-knight hangs. Karpov would have advanced slightly more
1 4 l:tb1 slowly and accurately. The option of f4
should probably ensure that there is some
way for W'hite to gain an advantage, although
Black would certainly have much more play
than Chevalier ever managed.
15 f41 exf4 16 gxf4 'i'e7 17 i.xc5! bxc5
1 8 h5 lLlf8 19 l:g1 f6 20 i.d3
White is well on top due to his extra space
and much greater freedom to manoeuvre. A
pity for Chevallier who undoubtedly de­
served a better position having played a fit­
ting opening; 'chevalier' is French for
'knight'!

1 4. . . a5?! Taking the queenside initiative

Too slow, but Karpov's previous move
prepared to meet 1 4... .i.a6 (Orlov) with 1 5
l:tb4!, preventing ...'ifa4 and keeping c4 cov­
ered. Then Black's play would have come to
an end and \XIhite would advance on the
kin�TSide. Bearing that in mind Black should
have tried the brave 1 4 ... 'ifa4!? when the
queen cannot be trapped. Indeed, after 1 5
.l:tb4 'ii'a3 Black intends to pressurise c4 with
16 ... a5, 1 7 ... ..ta6 and 1 8 ... 'ii'a4, while 1 5 hS
tiJf8! 1 6 f4 lL!d7 keeps eS protected.
\XIhite could try the dangerous 1 5 f4!?, but
the pos1t1on remains unbalanced after
1 5 ... ..ta6 1 6 hS lL!f8!. Then, having ensured Spiller-Orlov
that Black cannot recapture on eS with a US Open, Los Angeles 1 991
knight, 17 fxeS!? dxeS 1 8 �xeS bxcS 19 ltJd3
is a logical continuation, although Black can \XIhite has just made the typical mistake of
�till very much fight after 1 9 ...lL!d7 20 i..h3?! advancing his frontal c-pawn in a bid to im­
(too ambitious; preventing Black from cas­ prove his structure. Otherwise Black would
tling is far from the end of the story) have increased the gueenside pressure with
20 ... lL!f6! 21 lL!xcS 'ili'xc4 22 ll\xa6 'ii'xa6 23 ... ltJd7-c5 and then ... b6 and ... i.. a6, but that
i.. ft 'ii'd 6 24 .i.bS+ �e7. Black's king may be was still the lesser of the evils. With cS White

25
 Tango! A Dynamic Answer to 1 d4

has merely managed to open lines to acceler­ reached in Brudno-Benjamin, US Open,

ate Black's queenside play, whilst Black con­ Frarnlingham 2001 where White grovelled on
tinues to control a number of important with 19 (well it was actually move 21 in that
queenside squares. game) l:.e1, but after 19...'ii'c4 the result was
9 . 0-0 10 g3?! tLld7!
. . never in doubt and Black shordy won.
White's previous move, aiming to restrict 19 .:b1 ? 'ii'xb1 + ! 0-1
the g6-knight, was perhaps a little ambitious,
but in any case Black was fine. The ...f5 break Theory
will increase the pressure on White's centre, HI 5 e4 lLlg6 6 .te3! .tb4
and there are also good prospects down the Now White must decide how to defend
soon-to-be-opened c-ftle. e4:
11 cxd6 cxd6 12 .td3 'ii'a5 13 lLle2 lLlc5
Black has developed simply and strongly H1: 7 .i.d3
thus far and already White is in trouble. Tak­ H2: 7 f3
ing on cS would surrender too many dark­
squares but, with ... f5 on its way, Spiller was H1) 7 .td3 .txc3+!
presumably concerned that after ...l2Jxd3+ he
would be vulnerable on the light squares,
especially due to the weakening g3.
14 .tc2 f5 15 0-0 fxe4 16 fxe4 .th3! 17
l:txf8+ .:xt8 18 _.d2?
However, it turns out that White is too
vulnerable on the light squares in any case.
White now had to block the f-ftle with 18
..i£2, although Black then remains much
better after 18...i.g4. It's very impressive as
to how Black, without having done anything
amazing, already has such a good position.

Ensuring that \Vh.ite's structure will be

weakened. 7...0-0 might also be possible as
then 8 £3 (intending 9 l2Jge2 so as to be able
to recapture on c3 with a piece) 8...i.xc3+
transposes, although in that case \Vh.ite could
also consider 8 l:.c1 !?. However, Black must
be careful not to prefer 7...d6?? when 8
'it'a4+! is rather embarrassing.
8 bxc3 d6 9 f3
Preventing 9...l2Jg4, although White can
also opt to do that with 9 h3!? 0-0 and now:
a) 10 g4?! l2Jci7! left White a little overex­
18 . . . -.xa2! tended on the kingside and without too
Oops! The queen is immune due to the much chance of gaining an attack in
mate on f1 , but, no doubt played in a state of Urushadze-Velicka, European Ch. 2002.
shock, Spiller's next doesn't really help. There followed 1 1 'ifd2 tt:::lc S 12 �c2 b6 1 3
Amazingly this same position was later �gS?! (again this achieves little bar to mis-

26
 The Dark-squared Centre: White Develops Classically

place the bishop) 13...'ii'e8 14 .i.e3 .i.a6 slow, but evidently White considered the cS­
when White had already found Black's pres­ knight too strong to be ignored) 12...0-0 13
sure to be so strong that he was forced to ti:Jb3 lt:Jxd3+! (Black doesn't mind an ex­
t:xchange on cS. However, that was far from change on cS if that gains him White's dark­
the end of his problems as Black immediately squared bishop and thus access to the king­
began to exploit White's weakened kingside side dark squares, but he'd prefer not to sim­
with 15 .i.xcS bxcS 16 .ib3 'ii'e7 17 lt:Je2 ply exchange knights and so instead weakens
'ii'f6! 18 'ii'e3 ti:Jh4. White on the light squares) 14 'ii'xd3 f5 15
b) More restrained and superior was the ti:Jd2 ti:Jh4 16 .!:tg1 'ii'e8!,
10 g3 of Reilly-Depasquale, Australian Ch.
2004, when Black demonstrated another way
to gain queenside pressure: 10....i.d7 11 'ii'c2
c6!? 12 lt:Je2 'WaS! (now Black will bring the
king's rook to the c-ft!e when ...cxdS is the
usual way to further his queenside play, al­
though ...bS!? may also be possible to destroy
W'hite's centre and to open queenside lines)
1 3 .l:lb1 .!:tabS 14 �fl .l:lfc8 15 i.gS?! (this
drives Black's bishop and knight to where
they want to go, although after 15 'ii?g2, as
well as the plan Depasquale now implements,
W'hite may well have feared 15...b5!? 16 dxc6
.ixc6 17 cxbS .i.xbS 18 .ixbS .l:lxbS 19 intending 17 ...'ii'a4, left Black much better
.l:lxbS 'ii'xbS when he remains under some in Hovmoller-El Kher, Copenhagen 2000.
pressure on the queenside and in the centre) 1 0 li:le2
15...cxd5 16 cxdS i.a4! 17 'ii'd2 ti:Jd7 with an Again Black shouldn't mind White un­
t:xcellent position for Black due to his queen­ doubting his pawns with 10 cS when
side pressure, whilst 18...tt:Jc5 is next up. 10...ti:Jd7! 11 cxd6 cxd6 12 g3?! 'ii'aS! would
actually transpose to Spiller-Orlov. Instead
Brudno-Benjamin, US Open 2001 witnessed
12 lt:Je2 'ii'aS! (again bringing the queen to its
most active square) 13 0-0 lt:JcS 14 i.c4 i.d7
15 i.b3 :ac8 when Black was already more
than comfortable. Indeed, White could find
nothing better than 16 g3 f5 17 i.c2, still
transposing to Spiller-Orlov!
1o ... li:ld7 1 1 -.d2
This isn't essential, but Black hardly fears
11 0-0 either. 11...ti:Jc5 12 ti:Jcl b6 13 ti:Jb3
was the course of Karl-Velicka, Bern 1998.
Now Black should have copied El-Kher by
9 . 0-0
. . attacking on the light squares, beginning with
Simply getting the king to safety before 13...ll'lxd3! 14 'ii'xd3 fS.
beginning queenside operations, although 1 1. . .b6 1 2 ..tg5?!
also possible is 9... ti:Jd7!?. For example, 10 Provoking ...f6 is hardly an achievement as
4Je2 b6 11 'ii'd2 ll'lcS 12 lbc1?! (this is rather Black intended to play . . fS at some point
.

27
 Ta n g o ! A D yn amic A ns we r to 1 d4

anyhow, but already White is at a loss for a 1 7 lbxf4 exf4 1 8 'Wc2!

plan. Standing worse on the queenside, his Covering e4 and preparing to go long,
logical outlet is the kingside, but advancing whilst of course the pawn was immune due
there doesn't really help either. Indeed 1 2 g3 to 1 8 'iixf4? fxe4 when 1 9 'iixe4? runs into
t!Llc5 1 3 h4 fS! 1 4 .txc5 bxc5 1 5 h5 t!L\e7 1 6 1 9 ... J:e8. Also possible is 1 8 exf5 i.xfS 1 9
h 6 g6 didn't lead anywhere in Remlinger­ i.xf5 .!:txfS 2 0 0-0-0, but here Black has a
Orlov, San Francisco 1 991 as Black is simply pleasant choice between queenside play with
too solid on the kingside. After 17 'iig5?! 20 ... 'iid7, intending 21...'iia4, or still bringing
Orlov transposed to a very favourable ending the queen to g5.
(h6 will also now be vulnerable) with 1 8 . . .'Wg5! 1 9 0-0-0 fxe4 20 �xe4 �f5!
1 7 .. .fxe4 1 8 fxe4 t!Llc6! 1 9 'iixd8 (the queen Dao Thien Hai-Silman, Budapest 1 994.
could also retreat, but then 1 9 ... t!Lla5! and Swapping off the bishops leaves Black better,
... .ta6 - Orlov - sees White undermined on as he intends to either take the e-f.tle or to
the light squares) 19 ... t!Llxd8. win the h5-pawn.
1 2 . . . f6 1 3 �e3 lbc5 14 .txc5
Again Black wins back the dark-squared H21 7 f3
bishop as White prefers not to have to pas­
sively defend c4 with 1 4 .tc2 .ta6 1 5 .tb3.
1 4 . . . bxc5 1 5 h4!?
Easy to criticise, but to sit still and try to
defend in a slightly worse position like this is
far from easy, especially as it's simple for
Black to increase the pressure on both the
queenside and also the kingside beginning
with ...fS.
1 5 . f5 16 h5 lbf4!
. .

7 . . . .txc3+ !
White's careful handling of the opening in
Karpov-Chevallier impressed many, with
Burgess in NCO concluding that 6 i.e3
promises White an edge. However, it's not
clear that 9 'iVd2 really is such a dangerous
move and Black can improve immediately
with 9...0-0, Chevallier's plan of delaying
casding being a little suspect.
For a time Black players aimed to avoid
Following the h-pawn's advance, Silman the position after 9 'iid 2 and so Neved­
realises that White's king isn't too happy and nichy's 7 ...0-0!? was explored. However, sev­
so goes on the offensive. Instead 1 6 ... t!Lle7?! eral strong players still usc 7...i.xc3+, and
17 exfS! t!Llxf5 18 ..txf5 i.xfS 19 t!L\g3 allows 7 ... 0-0 only really works after 8l'Llge2 d6 9 a3
White to exchange a pair of pieces, whilst his i.c5!. The dark-squared bishops are then
knight is well placed on g3, hassling the black exchanged, after which Black gains counter­
bishop and also hoping to come to e4. play with ... c6 or ... l'LlhS. However, if �'hitc

28
 Th e D a rk - s q ua r e d Cen tre: Wh ite D e velops Cla ssic a lly

omits a3 then Black's play looks a little slow. 13 i.xc8 'it'xc8 14 tLle2 'it'a6 Black's queen
One crushing example was Zhu Chen­ was well placed on a6 against White's weak­
l(linova, Yerevan Women's Olympiad 1996, ened queenside in Leskiewicz-Lazovic, Bled
which progressed 8 'it'd2 d6 9 tLlge2 tLld7 10 1999, 1S l:tbS fS! increasing the pressure.
h4! .i.cS 11 hS .i.xe3 12 'it'xe3 tLle7 13 g4 c) 9 g4?! again aims to cramp Black on the
when White's attack was well underway, kingside, but 9...0-0 10 'ii'd2 c6! is a key break
whilst Black lacked any counterplay. The to gain counterplay. An exchange on c6 is
game continued impressively 13...c6 14 0-0-0 possible, but then the opening of the b-ftle
cxdS 1S cxdS 'Wb6!? 16 'it'd2!? aS 17 tLlg3 and White's doubled c-pawns outweigh the
tLlcS 18 .i.bS! a4 19 �b1 l:taS 20 tLlfS! lLlxfS weakness of d6. Instead Vujovic-Lukic, cor­
21 gxfS l:txbS 22 tLlxbS 'it'xbS 23 f6! respondence 1980 continued 11 i.gS?! (hop­
ing to provoke a weakness to attack, but even
here this idea is too slow) 11...cxdS 12 cxdS
h6! 13 .i.e3 when Black capitalised on his
lead in development with 13...i.xg4! 14 fxg4
tLlxe4 1S 'ii' c2 'ii'h4+ 16 .i.f2 tLlxf2 17 'it'xf2
'it'xg4, gaining three pawns for the piece and
with a good position to boot.
d) 9 cS 0-0 10 g3?! tLld7 11 cxd6 cxd6 12
.i.d3 'iVaS didn't impress in Spiller-Orlov;
evidently White mustn't rush to exchange on
d6 but should aim to be less obliging, for
example:
d1) One challenging continuation is 10
with a crushing attack. Orlov offers .i.bS!? i.d7 (avoiding the intended 10...tLld7
16...tLlcS 17 tLlg3 f6, intending 18 tLlfS !tf7, 11 c6!) 11 i.c4 'ii'e7 12 'Wb3, hoping to
as an improvement, but that still looks too clamp Black's queenside after 12...b6? 13 c6!.
slow. White has already made much progress However, instead 12....l:.fb8 is possible as is
on the kingside, and the position is also simi­ simply 12...i.c8!?, asking White just what his
lar to a Siimisch King's Indian in which Black queen and light-squared bishop are really
can often land up being worse on the queen­ doing and intending ...tLld7 and ...b6 after 13
side. After say 18 'iti>b1 and maybe 19 l:tct, cxd6 cxd6. As we have seen, following £3
any black attack looks too slow, and White White must beware of piece sacrifices with
can always trade pieces on the queenside. his monarch still on e1, and 13 'it'a3?! tLlxe4!
Bearing that in mind, White must also have 14 fxe4 'ii'h4+ 1S 'ifi>d2 'Wxe4 gave Black
been very tempted to exchange queens on good compensation for the knight in Deak­
move 16, her extra space then granting her a Berkes, Hungary 1998. The white king is
favourable ending. misplaced, and ...tLlf4 and/or ...i.£5 will in­
8 bxc3 d6 9 'ilrd2 crease the pressure. With g2 set to fall, Black
Karpov's choice, but others have aimed to will gain at least three pawns for the piece.
cause Black difficulties with a number of d2) 10 h4?! is also possible, logically at­
different approaches: tacking on the kingside and hoping for
a) 9 .i.d3 transposes to H1. 10...h5, ceding control of gS. However,
b) 9 g3 0-0 10 .i.h3!? aims to frustrate 10...tiJhS! 11 .i.f2 c6! 12 g4 tiJhf4 13 hS tLle7
Black's pieces on the kingsi<;ie a Ia Karpov, then saw White's centre being seriously un­
but after 10...tLld7! 11 ..d2 b6 12 l:tb1 tLlcS dermined in I.Jelen-Dizdarevic, Ljubljana

29
 Ta n g o ! A D yn a m ic A ns we r to 1 d4

1992. White attempted to prop it up, but l:.b1, although then Black had to try
only made matters worse after 14 cxd6?! 14...'it'a4!?. Also, Orlov has suggested
'it'xd6 15 c4?! cxdS 16 cxdS 12.....ta6!?, intending ....l:f.c8 and ...c6.
1 0 .id3
Simply developing as now 10 h4 would be
met by 10...tiJhS!, as in Jelen-Dizdarevic
above. Again 10 cS is possible, and after
10...ttJd7 11 cxd6 cxd6 12 i.d3 there is noth­
ing wrong with the standard 12...'i'a5, but
also interesting is 12...ttJf4!? 13 i.xf4 exf4
(Anuszkiewicz-Miroshnichenko, Polanica
Zdroj 2000). This fine positional pawn sacri­
fice gives Black the initiative and good play
on the dark squares after 14 'ii'xf4 tlJcS and
15...f5, whilst 14 tlJh3 'iih4+! 15 tlJ£2 tlJeS 16
0-0 l:.e8 17 i.bS l:.e7 was also very reason­
16.....txg4!, netting a key pawn due to 17 able for him in the game. He controlled eS,
fxg4 'it'M+, 18...'it'xe4+ and 19...'it'xhl. while the f4-pawn exerted a strong cramping
d3) 10 tlJe2 is more sensible, when effect and Black later broke with a well-timed
10...ttJd7 11 cxd6 cxd6 12 'it'd2 b6?! 13 h4! ...fS.
was even a little awkward in Trevelyan-Bigg,
British League 2000. Black should instead
copy Orlov's lead with 12...'it'a5! or even aim
to exploit the weak c4-square with
12...ttJb6!?.
Nothing too scary in those alternatives
then, but can 9 'it'd2 really be so threatening?

10 li::lh 5!
...

Sharp and critical, but due to the insertion

of i.d3 and 0-0, 10...liJd7!? is also playable
because of 11 h4 tlJcS 12 hS tlJxd3+ 13
'ii'xd3 tlJf4!. Instead White can copy Karpov
and drive Black backwards with 12 i.xcS!?
dxcS 13 g3 h6! 14 hS lLlh8 as in Delabaca­
9 .. . 0-0! Boudre, Cannes 1993. The knight looks a
Simply castling before deciding whether to little silly on h8 but, just as in certain lines of
gain counterplay with ... ttJd7, ...tiJhS or ... c6. the Advance French, it will emerge after
Instead as we have seen 9 ... liJd7 was rather 15.. .f6 and 16...liJf7 when, with it set for the
committal in Karpov-Chevallier after 10 h4 beautiful d6-square, Black shouldn't have any
h6 11 g3 b6 12 lLlh3 tLlcS 13 liJ£2 'it'd7 14 problems.

30
 The Dark -s q u a r e d Cen tre : Wh ite D e velops Cla s sically

1 1 lt:le2 f5! 12 exf5 .i.xf5 13 .i.xf5 llxf5 The only way to stay on the board.
1 4 g4?! 1 7 . . . "ili'xc2+ 1 8 'Otxc2 llxe3 1 9 �d2
Winning a piece but at a large cost in llxe2+ 20 �xe2 lt:lf4+ 21 �3 lt:lxh5
rcrms of king safety and Black's activity. with good compensation for the exchange
Readers may well notice the similarity with in T.Taylor-V.West, Los Angeles 2004. Black
the superb game Beliavsky-Nunn, Wijk aan has two healthy pawns for the exchange but
:lee 1985, and here too Black has excellent must be careful not to let White's king and
compensation. Play now followed the fairly rooks become too active. In the game White
forced line actually tried a c5 sacrifice which, after an
1 4 . . .llxf3 1 5 gxh5 "ilt'h4+ 1 6 'Otd1 'l'e4 inaccuracy from Black, won the eS-pawn
when the position was rather unclear. With
careful play, though, Black should be better
due to his superior structure.
Black has had quite an easy time of it in
this chapter, which shows why the Tango is
such a deadly weapon at club level. There
White often develops simply as he does
against other openings, and indeed Black can
quickly be better against these classical set­
ups. It does also appear that Black is in a
perfectly acceptable shape after 5 e4 tt:lg6 6
.i.e3 �b4, although he may well have to play
a little more positionally here than he has to
1 7 "ili'c2! elsewhere.

31
 CHAPTER TWO I
The Dark -squared Centre:
White Counters Dynamically

1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 ll:\c6 3 lbc3 e5 4 d5 ll:\e7 White takes over the queenside

Throughout the previous chapter we
found White struggling both to find a satis­
factory plan and to gain any real play of his
own. Furthermore, he frequently ran into
trouble on the kingside as the black knights
leapt forward, heralding a dangerous attack.
In this chapter we will consider approaches
from White in which he aims to either re­
strict Black on the kingside or even to push
him backwards on that side of the board.
Faced with g3 and/ or h4, Black must remain
flexible and react according to the needs of
the position. Overall these lines are quite
challenging, although Black still develops Janocha-Ostrowski
good counterplay and appears to be fine Polish Team Ch. 1995
from a theoretical perspective. White can also
consider ideas other than g3 and h4 to dy­ As we saw from the game Kalantarian­
namically counter Black's dark-squared strat­ Hagesaether in Chapter 1, even after fi­
egy, but neither 5 d6?! nor 5 f4?! really con­ anchettoing White can still struggle for a
vince. The former allows 5...cxd6 6 'Wxd6 plan. Ideally he will aim for queenside pro­
tt:'lc6 and 7.....tb4 when Black is already quite gress, although with Black fairly active on the
active, whilst the latter weakens the a7-g1 other flank, that is usually quite hard to im­
diagonal and can be simply exploited by plement.
5... exf4 6 ..txf4lt:lg6 7 ..tg3 ..tc5. Sometimes Black opts for a quick ...c6 to
increase the pressure on the a7-g 1 diagonal
1 ) White fianchettoes after ...'ftb6, but opening lines on the queen­
By fianchettoing White strengthens his king­ side is a double-edged business. Black can at
side and restricts the role of the knight on g6, times gain some useful space with .. .a6 and
which can no longer go to h4 or f4. ... b5, but here he has had to play ... aS to pre-

32
 Th e D a rk -s q u a r e d C e n tre: Wh ite C oun ters D yn a m ically

vent b4, when he was no doubt regretting

having chosen not to play on the kingside.
Now 20 ltlb5! exploited the vulnerable bS­
square, and after 20 . . . ltle8 21 a4! ltle7 22
lbc4 lla6 23 .:ec1 White's strong light­
squared control left Black under some pres­
sure.

Breaking down the fianchetto

Georges-Boog
Swiss Team Ch. 1993

1 5 f4! now causes Black serious difficul­

ties. He would like to respond with 15... f5?,
but then 16 exfS! is strong as 16 ....i.xf5 runs
into 17 d6!, whilst 16 ... exf4 17 ixf4 tt:lxf4 18
tt:lxf4 also strongly exploits Black's light­
squared weaknesses. In the game 1 5 . . . f6 1 6
Conover-Vermolinsky f5! lLlhS 1 7 g4 led to a very strong kingside
US Open, Philadelphia 1993 attack, whilst Black lacked any real counter­
play. Here f4 was pretty powerful as Black's
Black was already quite happy, having ru­ pieces weren't well placed to meet it. Black
ined White's queenside structure, but now can usually meet it much more effectively,
rurned his attention to the other flank with such as with ... exf4 and then ...fS.
1 7 . . . 'i'g5! 1 8 f3 ltlf4 when White was un­
der some pressure. Then 1 9 'ii'd 2 �xe4! 20
fxe4 'i'g4 was a strong exchange, leaving e4
\veak, whilst Black was also well placed to
exploit the open f-file. After 21 'it>h1 ltlh5
22 'l'e3 llf6 23 l:txf6 ltlxf6 24 <Lld2 'i'h5
25 lle1 l:tfS he was somewhat better, not
least because all endings favoured him due to
his superior strucrure.

The f4 break

See following diagram

Black carelessly allowed W'hite to win his Nixon-Bigg

dark-squared bishop mid then, whilst pushing Ron Banwell Memorial, London 2000
his a-pawn to the positionally desirable a4-
SCJUare , forgot that it was only White left with 16... f4 was threatened and probably now
a d -pawn. 16 exfS was the les se r of the evils, but instead

33
 Tang o! A D yn a m ic A n s we r t o 1 d4

White aimed to counter with 1 6 f4?!. Per- but sometimes he first prefers another devel-
haps that would have been possible with the oping move.
h-pawn back on h2, but now 1 6 . . .fxe4! 1 7
.i.xe4 .i.h3 reminded White of his weakened
kingside. Then 1 8 .:l:f2 'ifd7 1 9 'ifd3 h6 20
c5!? saw White attempting to gain some
play, but Bigg sensibly ignored it when
20 . . .'ifg4! 21 �h 1 itJf5 22 ..txf5 .:l:xf5
completed Black's conquest of the kingside
light squares.

Seizing the queenside in Benko style

A : 5 e4 ltJg6 6 g3
B: 5 itJf3 ltJg6 6 g3
C: 5 g3 ltJg6 6 .i.g2

A) 5 e4 ltJg6 6 g3

Budinsky-Cvek
Moravian Team Ch. 1 999

If Black is going to play on the queenside

then, as we have witnessed, he should usually
advance with ...bS after ...a6. Sometimes,
however, that' can even be played as a pawn
sacrifice, and here 9 . . . b5! 1 0 cxb5 axb5 1 1
ltJxb5 .i.a6 1 2 lDbc3 'ifb8 gave Black ex­
cellent Benko-style compensation. Not only Deciding that his light-squared bishop will
was there pressure against White's queenside, do little on d3 or e2, White elects to fi­
but both black bishops were raking, whilst anchetto it. Indeed, as seen in some lines of
White lacked any play of pis own. After 1 3 the Fianchetto King's Indian, fianchettoed
0-0 Black increased th� pressure with bishops can support a large centre quite well.
1 3 . . . h5! when 1 4 �h1 h -4; 1 5 g4 'ifa7 l eft Here, however, Black is already quite active
him with strong pressure �cross the whole and can gain good play with 6 . . . .i.b4 which,
board. due to W'hite's inability to cover both c3 and
e4, ensures that Black can damage \XIhite's
Theory qucenside structure.
1 d4lt:\f6 2 c4lt:\c6 3lt:\c3 e5 4 d5 Ci:Je7 However, the slightly less popular
Whi te can now fianchetto immediately, 6...�c5!?, again immediately utilising the

34
 Th e D a rk - s q u a r e d C e n tre : White C oun ters D yn a m ically

weakened a7-g1 diagonal, is a very tempting with c4-c5xd6. White is now struggling to
alternative which should also grant Black utilise his bishops and Black should be quite
easy play. Then 7 �g2 d6 8 tt:lf3 (Janocha­ comfortable providing he keeps an eye out
( )strowski, Polish Team Ch. 1995) 8...a6 9 h3 for f4 and c5 breaks. An immediate 9...b6!? is
0-0 10 0-0 tt:le8, intends ...fS with good coun­ also possible when 10 0-0 0-0 11 �g5 h6 12
terplay along the lines of Kalantarian­ .i.xf6 (an admission that White lacks a plan
H.Hagesaether. Also tempting is 7...0-0 8 in general and cannot find a good role for
h3?! a6!? 9 tt:lge2 b5! 10 cxb5 axb5 11 tt:lxb5 this bishop) 12...1i'xf6 13 tt:lct 1i'e7 14 tt:lb3
(the pawn must be accepted as otherwise fS! 15 exf5 �xfS 161i'e2 l:tae8 17 i.e41i'g5!
Black would gain good queenside play at no saw Black beginning to exploit his advantage
cost) 11...�a6 12 tt:lbc3 'ii'b8 13 0-0 h5!, with by pushing forwards on the kingside in
excellent play for Black, Budinsky-Cvek, Conover-Yermolinsky, US Open 1993.
Moravian Team Ch. 2000. However, 8 h3?!, 1 0 0-0
albeit slightly surprisingly, turned out to be
rather weakening - 8...tt:lg4 wasn't yet a
threat. Thus White should prefer 8 tt:lge2
w·hen 8...a6 9 0-0 b5!? is still possible, Black
gaining some compensation due to his strong
bishops and b-f!le pressure after 10 cxb5
axb5 11 tt:lxb5 �a6 12 tt:lbc3 'Wb8. How­
ever, he must then take into account 13
l:b1!, intending 14 b4! and also 14 �g5.
Now the disruptive 13...�d4!? might well
provoke an exchange sacrifice with 14 tt:lxd4!
..txfl 15 �xfl exd4 16 'ili'xd4 (rather than 14
lite1 �b6 15 h31i'a7 16 .l:tfl h5Q.
7 �g2 .ixc3 + ! 8 bxc3 d6 9 lLle2 Realising the problems he faces finding a
good plan after castling, White has also tried
10 h4!?. Here, however, compared to the h4
lines which we will consider later in the chap­
ter, Black no longer has a problem dark­
squared bishop and so isn't at all cramped by
the h-pawn's advance: 10...tt:ld7 11 h5 tt:le7
12 .i.g5 f6 13 �e3 f5 14 1i'd3 (or 14 h6 g6
15 �g5 tt:lc5 when 16 exfS �xfS gives Black
good light-squared play, whilst . .l:t7 and
.

...1i'e8-a4 will break the annoying pin) 14...h6!

15 0-0-0?! (again underestimating the signifi­
cance of losing control of g4, although 15
f4!? exf4 16 gxf4 - or 16 ltlxf4 tt:le5 17 1i'e2
9 ...0-0 fxe4 18 �xe4 .i.g4 - 16...fxe4 17 �xe4 tt:lf6
1\lready th e damage to his queenside is 18 �d4 tt:lxe4 19 1i'xe4 tt:lfS also fails to
soml!thin
g of a nuisance for White, who had trouble Black) 15...tt:lf6 16 f3 fxe4! 17 fxe4
hopl!d to use his space advantage to push �g4 left Black much better in Laurain­
for wards on that flank in true King's Indian Linskiy, Montreal 1 999 - White was tied
styk, intending to eventually open the c-ftle down on the kingside, and later Black

35
 Tang o! A D yn a m ic A ns we r t o 1 d4

opened some key lines with ... c6. more to trade the dark-squared bishops than
1 0 . . . ti:ld7 1 1 i.e3 b6 1 2 ti:lc 1 ! to prevent ... b5, although that remains an
Preparing to challenge the knight as soon option; however, after 9 h3 b5!? 1 0 cxb5
as it arrives on c5, although it can then opt to axb5 1 1 ll:\xb5 i.a6 1 2 ll:\c3 Black's counter­
retreat, preparing ... fS. play isn't as strong as in Buclinsky-Cvek be­
1 2 . . .ti:lc5 1 3 ti:lb3 ti:lb7!? 1 4 h4?! cause the e-pawn is still on e2, and so he
Too weakening, but a typical reaction should probably prefer with 9...d6, intending
from a player unhappy with their opening 10 ...ll:\e8 and ... fS) 9 ... d6 10 e4 h6 (a useful
and frustrated for a plan. An immediate 1 4 waiting move if Black can get in ....!tJg4 with
f4! had to b e tried, when 1 4... exf4 1 5 i.xf4! tempo, but here it's a little slow) 1 1 i.e3
(1 5 gxf4?! f5! 1 6 'i*'c2 'ilt'h4 leaves f4 under �xe3 1 2 'i*'xe3 ll:\g4 1 3 'i*'e2 f5 14 exf5!
some pressure, whilst ... i.d7 and ..Jiae8 will �xfS 1 5ll:\d2 'i*'d7 1 6ll:\dc4
shortly follow) 15 . ..ltJxf4 1 6 .l:.xf4 'ilt'g5
should be fine for Black, although White also
shouldn't be worse as he has d4 for the
knight. Black should, however, easily be able
to prevent ll:\e6 from being devastating and
will hope to arrange the manoeuvre (after
.. .f6) ...ll:\b7-d8-f7-e5.
1 4 . . . f5! 1 5 h5 ti:Je7
with a good position for Black, T.Nixon­
Bigg, London 2000, especially after the
weakening 1 6 f4?! as we saw above.

Bl 5 ti:Jf3 ti:Jg6 6 g3
(Lehtivaara-Paronen, Jyvaskyla 2001 ) is
not the sort of position Black wants: tile e4-
knight rather dominates the board and Black
must resort to careful defence, although per­
haps the position isn't too bad as at least
Black is fairly solid.
Lehtivaara's 'i'd3 plan was rather strong
and so Black should probably forget about
.. .f5 for the time being, preferring 1 0... c6!? to
gain counterplay. Certainly then 1 1 �e3
i.xe3 12 'i*'xe3 cxd5 13 cxd5 .i.d7, intending·
1 4...'i'a5 and 1 5 ....l:.fc8, should be fine for
him as ... b5 will increase the queenside pres­
Fianchettoing here is less common than sure and keep a white knight away fro111 c4.
doing so immediately or after 5 e4 ll:\g6, but Perhaps 1 1 dxc6!? is more challenging, al­
it remains a valid option. though after 1 1 ...bxc6 12 b3 i.g4, fighting
6 . . . ,;,b4 for the key d4-square, it is far from easy for
Again hoping to weaken White's queen­ White to exploit d6, whilst Black will hope to
side, altil<)Ugh here the doubled pawns can be redeploy the g6-knight with ...'We7, . ..l1fd8,
prevented. 6 . . . .i.c5!? is still a valid alternative: ....!tJf8 and ...lbe6.
7 il..g2 0-0 8 0-0 a6 9 'i*'d 3! (intending rather 7 Wb3 i.xc3+

36
 Th e D a rk - s q u a r e d Cen tre: Wh ite C oun ters D yn a mically

Even though it doesn't double W'hite's Cl 5 g3 ltlg6 6 i.g2

pawns here, Black is happy to trade off his
dark-st1uared bishop, reasoning that it lacks a
good role and asking W'hite as to just how
useful his own is. However, I would prefer to
first play the useful 7...'ii'e7!? (not fearing 8
�gS aS!) followed by ...h6. W'hite can still
win d1e bishop pair with 8 a3 J.xc3+ 9 'ii' xc3,
but then 9...0-0 10 i..g2 lt:Je4! 11 'ii' d3 f5

The most flexible and probably also the

best way to fianchetto. White delays playing
either tt:J£3 or e4, awaiting Black's plans and
thus reserving the option to develop with e3
and lt:Jgc2. Black can still gain good counter­
play even after that as Christiansen has
shown, but some may also wish to consider
meeting s g3 with s . .d6!? when White is
.

gives Black good counterplay: Black will forced into a Fianchetto King's Indian with
continue with ...aS �nd ...tt:JcS, and White which he may not be too familiar.
must beware of ...e4 forks. 6... ..tb4!?
8 'ii'xc3 d6 9 i.g2 i .g4 1 0 0-0 h5!? Yermolinsky has been successful with this,
An interesting idea to utilise the fact he but some players don't like to concede their
has yet to casde. 11 J.gS isn't a problem due bishop so easily and actually here 6...i..cS is
to 11...lt:Je4! 12 i..xd8 lt:Jxc3 13 i..xc7 tt:Jxe2+ the most popular continuation. Now:
14 'iii>hl 'iti>d7, intending ...l:tac8 and ...fS and a) 7 lt:JB transposes to Line B.
usually meeting l:tel with ...J.xf3 followed by b) 7 a3 d6 8 tt:Ja4! hunted down the
...tt:Jd4. bishop and forced a structural weakness to
1 1 'i'c2! h4 1 2 ltlg5 boot in Georges-Boog, Swiss Team Ch.
It's tempting to exploit the gS-square like 1993. Black should prefer 7...a5 when in
this, but here 12 i..gS! would have been more Forintos-Quigley, London 1978 White con­
problematic. Then objectively it's not clear tinued with a typical thrust after ilie fi­
whether Black's attack after 12...'ii'd7 13 anchetto, namely 8 h4!?. The game continued
�xf6 gxf6 14 cS! is enough, although White 8...hS?! 9 i..gS! c6?! 10 e3! cxdS 11 i..xd.S
may well have feared being mated in true tt:Je7 12 J.xf6 gxf6 13 J.f3 tt:JfS 14 lt:JdS,
Yugoslav Attack style after ...J.h3. which was already horrendous for Black.
1 2 . . .'ii'e 7 1 3 a3 a5 1 4 b3 ltlfB! 1 5 :b1 Instead Black should prevent the h-pawn
ltl6h 7 16 ltle4 f5 1 7 ltlc3 ltlf6 from causing too much damage wid1 8...h6!.
Black has evicted the g5-knight and is cer­ c) Krasenkow-Vlassov, St Petersburg 1994
tainly well massed on the kingside, leaving demonstrated the correct antidote to an im­
the posltlon unclear m Milovanovic­ mediate 7 h4?! after 7 . . h6! 8 hS tlJe7 9 t:LJ£3
.

And.Zontakh, Tivat 1997. d6, when it wasn't fully clear as to what the

37
 Tang o! A D yn a m ic A ns we r t o 1 d4

advance of the h-pawn had actually achieved. 13..lt:Je8

. and then ...fS) 1 0...�d7 11 l:r.b1 bS!
The knight was now well placed on e7 to 12 b4 .i.b6 successfully held up White on the
support ...c6, whilst Black also threatened to gueenside in Zhu Chen-Christiansen, Seattle
simply pick up the h-pawn with ...�g4. 2001, as we saw in the Introduction.
Krasenkow thus decided that he had to d2) Black can also opt for 8...d6, when 9
quickly sharpen the struggle, although after lt:Ja4 i.b4+ 10 'it>ft doesn't fully convince
10 b4 �b6 11 cS!? dxcS 12 lDxeS cxb4 13 here; the bishop prevents the king from com­
'ii'a4+, 13...c6! was a strong riposte. Follow­ ing to g2, whilst Black wants to play ...c6 in
ing 14 dxc6 0-0 any case. Instead 9 �d2 aS 10 'ii'c2 i.d7 11
h3 c6! saw Black getting in the key break and
12 'it'd3 lDe7 13 0-0 cxdS 14 cxdS bS 1S e4
'ifb6 gave him good play on the queenside in
Ionov-Vlassov, St Petersburg 1994.
7 'ifc2

1S 0-0 (1S cxb7? reveals the tactical point

behind 13 ...c6!: 1S...�xb7 16 �xb7 'ii'c7
forks three pieces and, as ...'it'xc3+ must be
prevented, the b7-bishop will drop off when
White will be struggling) 1S...lt:Jxc6 16 lDxc6
bxc6 17 'ii'xb4 lDxhS Black had emerged a Preventing the doubled pawns, but White
pawn ahead. White's bishops are set to exert can also do that with 7 'ifb3 'ii'e7 and now:
strong pressure from g2 and a3, but Black a) 8 a3 .i.xc3+ 9 'ii'xc3 0-0 10 e4 d6 11
has good chances of a kingside attack. lt:Je2 c6! (Yermolinsky) and Black should gain
It is clear that the whole h4 plan appears counterplay down the c-ftle unless White
rather misguided. The g6-knight has already prefers 12 dxc6 bxc6 13 0-0. Then 13...aS!?,
been sidelined by g3, preventing its hopping challenging White on the queenside, should
forwards, and h4-hS only serves to kick it be fine for Black, who hopes to bring the g6-
back into play. knight to e6. The move ....i.g4, forcing f3, is
d) 7 e3 aims to blunt the bishop. Play con- also a useful option - after ...�e6 the ...dS
tinues 7...0-0 8lt:Jge2 and now: break is on the cards.
d1) 8...a6 (preparing a retreat square and b) 8 i..gS aS! (taking some useful\ space
also possibly intending to hold White up on and defending the bishop) 9 a3 �xc3+ 10
the queenside with ...bS) 9 0-0 d6 10 .i.d2 'ii'xc3 d6! should be fine for Black who in­
(Benjamin has suggested that the bishop tends to meet 11 'it'f3 with 11...e4!. Black also
might be better placed on b2, although 10 hopes to get in ...a4 and ...b6 to clamp
a3!? i.d7 11 b4 i..a7 12 .i.b2 bS!? 13 'ii'd3 White's queenside, whilst 11 ..ixf6!? 'ii'xf6 12
l:tbB still holds White up on the gueenside, cS shouldn't be a problem as after 12...0-0
whilst Black could also choose 12...'ii'e7 , Black will be d1e first to take me c-file fol-

38
 Th e Dark -s q u a re d C e n tre : Wh ite C o un ters D yn a m ic a lly

lowing 13 cxd6 cxd6. Otherwise White must We are following Giorgadze-Yermolinsky,

watch out for ...e4, such as after 13 lLlf3 World Open 1991. White had played rather
dxcS!? 14 'ii'xcS i.fS. optimistically thus far, but was probably hop­
The simple 7 .i.d2 is also possible, but ap­ ing to be able to attack on the kingside after
pears rather unthreatening. Then 7...0-0 8 e3 0-0-0. However, Yermolinsky now instruc­
d6 9 lLlge2 aS! (gaining some useful queen­ tively countered with 11...bS!,
side space and also intending to frustrate
White's plan to recapture on c3 with the
knight by meeting 10 a3 with 10...i.cS!?;
probably White should still have played that
as now Black quickly gains a pretty pleasant
position) 10 0-0 lLld7 11 e4 lLlcS (now 12
a3?! is impossible due to 12...i.xc3 13 lLlxc3
a4!, clamping the queenside; then Black's
knight can exploit the b3-square, whilst
White will also lack any queenside play as
Black presses ahead on the kingside with
...fS) 12 .i.e3 f5 13 exfS .i.xf5 and Black al­
ready had a strong and active position, with
the knight set to hop into d3, in Savchenko­ dashing White's hopes and giving Black an
Ycrmolinsky, World Open 1991. improved Benko. After 12 cxb5 (or 12 b3 bxc4
7 ... 0-0 13 bxc4 lLld7 and ...fS) 12...lLlfxd5 13 lLl£3
lLlxc3 14 'ii'xc3 l:tb8 15 a4 a6 Black is better.

2) The h-pawn advance

For the ambitious White player, pushing
back the g6-knight with the h-pawn is a
tempting plan - it disrupts Black's develop­
ment and gains some useful space.

The kingside clamp

8 i.d2?!
I .osing too much time. White had to be
consistent with 8 a3 .i.xc3+ 9 'ii'xc3 d6, al­
though then it's not easy for him to develop.
10 lLlf3 allows ...lLle4 and ...f5, whilst 10 e4 aS
11 b3 c6! also grants Black reasonable play,
such as 1 2 lLle2 cxdS 13 exdS!? lLld7 and ...f5,
or 13 cxdS a4! (Orlov) an instructive idea,
-

preparing to take over the (tUeenside with 14

b4 .i.d7, intending ...ii.bS and ..l:.cB.
. Prokopchuk-Bologan
a . . . d6 9 h4?! l:i:Je7 10 a3 i.xc3 11 i..xc3 Krasnodar 1997

39
Ta n g o ! A D yn a m ic A n s we r to 1 d4

Black has ambitiously, but erroneously, .tb7 1 7 b5! still leaving White well on top.
decided not to block the h-pawn's advance. Black's queenside and centre is under pres­
Now, rather than the game's 8 'iif3!?, 8 h6! sure and his kingside vulnerable should he try
g6 9 'iVf3! ltJfgS 1 0 .tg5 (Hologan) would and castle, whilst his minor pieces are all
have left Black in serious trouble on the inferior to White's.
kingside due to White's clamp and to his
control of the dark squares there.

The g5 outpost

Ward-Palliser
Isle of Man 2000

White already enjoys the more pleasant

Rooms-Simmelink position due to his extra space and occupa­
Correspondence 2000 tion of gS. Now I was hoping to be able to
free my position to some extent with
This time Black correctly prevented the h­ 1O...ll:lg4, but instead Ward grabbed the ini­
pawn's advance, but then gave up his dark­ tiative with 1 0 c5!. Now 10 .. .dxc5 11 tl:lxeS
squared bishop too easily. White's knight has tl:lxdS?? is impossible as the queen hangs
just leapt into the tempting gS-square after after 12 ll:lxdS 'iixdS 13 �bS+, so play con­
which Black struggles to gain any counter­ tinued 1 0 . . .ltJ8d7 1 1 cxd6 cxd6 1 2 .l:!.c1
play, with even 1 0 . . . d6 1 1 .td3 ltJfS 1 2 l2Jc5 13 .tb5+ .td7
'ifc2 ltJ8d7 1 3 b4!

14 .txf6! .txf6 1 5 b4 �a6 1 6 'i\Va4 when

1 3 . . . c6!? 1 4 dxc6 bxc6 1 5 a3 d5 1 6 0-0 Black was still pretty solid. I eventually hl'ld

40
 Th e D a rk - s q uared Cen tre: Wh ite C o un ters D yn a m ically

after a long defence, although there was no 1 1 lt:lxg5 lt:le7! was fmc for Black due to
doubting White's advantage due to his con­ White's vulnerability down the aS-el diago­
trol of e4 and queenside play. nal, as we shall see in the theory section.

The g4-square

Anagnostopoulos-Williams
Isle of Man 1994
Crouch-Palliser
South Wales Masters 2001 White already enjoys a knight on gS and
so Williams could now see no reason not to
This time White is yet to play �gS and so follow suit with 1 0 . . .lt:lg4!, thereby making
decided to immediately exploit the g4- good use of the cS-bishop. After 1 1 lt:lce4
SlJUare (something which was never allowed .tb4+ 1 2 � 1 ! play, as well as being very
to happen in Ward-Palliser). After 7 . . . lt:lg4! original, quickly became rather sharp:
8 .tg5! .te7 White might have prevented
Black's dark-sguared bishop from being ac­
tin:ly deployed but, with . .d6 and ...fS the
.

plan, Black is hardly unhappy.

1 2 . . . f5 1 3 a3 0-0! 1 4 axb4 fxe4 1 5

.i.xe4 .U.xf2 + ! (not 15 ...lLlxf2? 1 6 �xg6
lt'lxh1+ 17 �g2 �f6 18 �e3! when the er­
rant knight is trapped leaving Black in serious
Black �-,rains just as much as White from trouble on the kingside) 1 6 �e1 lt:le7 led to
rhe h-pawns' advance, with ... e4 and ...CLJ6e5 a messy position. Now 17...�£5 to increase
one idea. Crouch cut across such hopes with the pressure is one idea, so \"Vhite decided to
9 d6!?, but then 9 cxd6 1 0 lLld5 .txg5
... try and undermine the £2-rook. However, 1 7

41
 Ta n g o ! A D yn a m ic A ns we r to 1 d4

i.f3! i.f5 18 'it'b3 'iff8 1 9 i.e3 llxf3 20 g6-knight. This can be easily parried, but
exf3 tt::lxe3 21 'i'xe3 axb4 gave Black White has also gained the h3-square for his
compensation for the exchange: White's king minor pieces.
was far fr�m safe, whilst Black hoped to 6 . . . h5
make good use of the a-ftle and to bring his Best, as 6... ..icS 7 hS l:iJe7 8 h6! wrecks
knight to fS. the Black kingside, whilst 6...e4? 7 hS l:iJeS 8
'i'd4 simply lost a pawn in Krasenkow­
Theory Chevallier, Metz 1994.
1 d4 tt::lt6 2 c4 tt::lc6 3 tt::lc3 e5 4 d5 tt::le 7 7 ..th3
As we have seen, even on g2 the bishop
doesn't perform a great role and so White
simply swaps it off. However, he has a num­
ber of other challenging plans to choose
from:
a) 7 I:£Jh3!? aims to rush the knight straight
to the vacant gS-square:
a1) 7.....icS 8 l:iJgS aS 9 J.. g2 d6 10 'ir'c2
ltJg4 led to a very complex position in Anag­
nostopoulos-Williams, Isle of Man 1994,
although Black had to be prepared to give up
material. It is of course possible to follow
that, but simply 8 ...d6!? also seems possible.
Now there are a number of ways to pro­ Orlov then suggests 9 b4!?, but 9.....id4 10
ceed: J..b2 aS! 11 a3 0-0 should be acceptable for
Black, who can exploit the g4-square with
A : 5 g3 tt::lg 6 6 h4 either a bishop or knight. Now 12 e3 forces
B: 5 e4 tt::lg 6 6 h4 off the dark-squared bishop, but after
C: 5 tt::lf3 tt::lg 6 6 h4 12...J..xc3+ 13 J..xc3 axb4 14 axb4 l:.xa1 1S
D: 5 h4!? 'ir'xa1 ..ifS 16 ..ie2, hoping to tie the f6-
knight to hS, 16... bS! undermines White's
AI 5 g3 tt::lg6 6 h4 queenside and assures Black of counterplay.
a2) 7 .....ib4!? is also possible: 8 'Wb3 aS.
(refusing to give up the bishop immediately
as 8. ...ixc3+ 9 'Wxc3 d6 10 J..g2 makes it
.

hard for Black to gain early counterplay with

...c6) 9ltJgS 'We7 seems acceptable for Black.
1o.. a4 is a threat, whilst 10 ..id2 d6 11 ..ig2
.

0-0 intends to gain counterplay with the f­

pawn after ...lbg4.
b) 7 .i.g2!? sees White fianchettoing once
Black is committed to ... hS. Then Szyrnczak­
Berezjuk, Frydek Mistek 1996 continued
7...J..e7 8 ctJf3 d6 91:£JgS with a small edge to
White. Finding an improvement is not, how­
Rather than complete the fianchetto, ever, so easy for now copying Yermolinsky in
White immediately hopes to drive back the our main line doesn't work so well. After

42
 Th e D a rk-s q u a r e d C e n tre : White C o un ters D yn amically

7...i.b4 8 'it'b3 i.xc3+ 9 'ii'xc3 d6 10 i.gS pin with 10...i.xh3 11 lLlxh3

the c8-bishop lacks a good square. 10...i.g4
11li:lf3 'ii' d7 12 i.xf6 gxf6 13li:ld2! leaves it
rather stranded and prevents 13...f5?? in view
of 14 f3. Meanwhile ?...i.cS 8 ..tgS d6 9
lt:le4! i.b4+ 10 �fl! cuts across Black's plans
to get in ... li:le? and ...c6. Probably Black
should continue with 7 ...lt:lg4!?, when 8 li:lh3
can be met by an active deployment of the
bishop to cS or b4. Black hopes that 8 f3
would turn out to be too weakening (Black
could then break any pin along the h4-d8
diagonal with ...c6 and ...'it'b6). 8 i.gS must
be critical when 8...i.e7 9li:lf3 d6 10 0-0 0-0
11...'ii'd7!. Of course White could now
double Black's f-pawns, but then Yer­
molinsky wouldn't have been too unhappy.
The h3-knight isn't wonderfully placed at all,
preventing White from castling short, whilst
Black may well later find the ...f5-f4 break
quite useful. However, after 12 i.xf6 gxf6 13
0-0-0 followed by 14 lt:lg1 White shouldn't
be worse. Black certainly wasn't in any trou­
ble in the game after 12 f3 c6 13 dxc6 bxc6
14 e4 dS!.

Bl 5 e4 t'Llg6 6 h4
leads to quite an unusual and unclear posi­
tion. Who has gained most on the kingside is
not clear, but Black may well still continue
with . . fS!?, even at the cost of the gS-square.
.

I .ess riskily, Black can also consider, such as

after 11 !k1, 11.....txg5!? 12 lLlxgS 'ile7,
intending 13...f6 (so long as 14 lt:le6 can be
mt:t bv 14.....txe6 15 dxe6 c6 and then
... �xeG).
c) An immediate 7 ..tgS is also possible
\\"hen play will probably transpose to the
prt:\'ious note after 7.....te7 8 i.g2lt:lg4!.
7 . . �b4!
.

A.s usual, if the dark-squared bishop can Having decided to target the g6-knight,
be ac ti vely employed it should be, and here White reasons that there isn't any need to
Black isn't too worried about the pin after also restrict it with g3. However, it's not clear
�gS. Gual Pascual-Yermolinsky, London that opting instead for e4 is so useful as
1994 continued logically with 8 'ilb3 ..txc3+ Black can once more gain counterplay along
9 'ifxc3 d6 10 ..tgS, but now Black broke the the a7-g1 diagonal.

43
 Ta n g o ! A D yn a mic A n s wer to 1 d4

6 . . h5
.
quite accurate. Instead 7. . .i.b4?! 8 .l:.c1 ! aS?! 9
Again this is essential; Bologan's 6 ... i.b4? .i.e2! simply targeted the weak hS-pawn and
7 hS &i:Je7 8 h6! g6 9 �f3 ti:lfg8 10 i.gS left White much better in Chetverik-Reiss,
pretty much refutes the whole concept of Budapest 2002.
allowing the h-pawn to advance. It might 8 ..ie2
seem better to simply capture the pawn once This was critical when Orlov wrote back
it reaches h6, but even that is far from the in 1 998, but has surprisingly not been tested
solution to Black's problems. In Blokh­ again since then. However, White doesn't
Vlassov, correspondence 1 992 Black did just have to be quite so direct and can instead
that, and 6 ... i.c5? 7 hS ti:lf8 8 h6! gxh6!? 9 develop in some other ways:
i.xh6 .:tg8 didn't appear so bad for him as a) 8 ctJge2 c6 9 ctJcl !? intends to neutralise
he was quite active. However, with some ...'iib6 by bolstering f2 and has scored well in
active moves W'hite neutralised Black's play practice. Probably Black should immediately
and was left in control after 1 0 ctJh3! ctJg4 1 1 aim to disrupt White's structure with
i.d2 d6 1 2 'ir'e2!, intending 1 3 0-0-0 and 9... ..td4!? when 10 ti:lb3 .i.xc3+ 1 1 bxc3 d6
then to push Black backwards, beginning saw Black intending to meet 1 2 ..i.e2 with
with £3, and meeting 1 2... f5 with 1 3 g3. 1 2 ... ctJf4 and also threatening to seal the
7 .tg5 queenside with ... cS in Stuart-Simmelink,
Immediately pinning is the most natural correspondence 1 994. Thus there followed
idea, although 7 g3!?, which is rather similar the dangerous-looking 1 2 cS!?, but after
to Line A, has also been seen. However, it's 1 2...dxc5 1 3 dxc6 �c7! 1 4 cxb7 .i.xb7 1 5
not clear that g3 and e4 work so well to­ i..x f6 gxf6 it wasn't easy for White to defend
gether. Now 7 ...-tcS prepares to meet 8 i.gS e4. 1 6 i.d3? runs into 16 ... c4, whilst in the
with 8...c6!. Instead 8 ..td3 a6 9 �e2 d6 1 0 game 16 'iV£3 �c6 1 7 .l:.d1 ctJf4 kept up the
.i.gS c6! 1 1 a3 ctJe7! (not fearing the doubled pressure and left Black fine in an unclear
pawns as then ... fS would increase the pres­ position.
sure on W'hite's centre) 1 2 .l:tc1 cxdS 1 3 cxdS b) 8 g3!? d6 9 .i.h3 (Tomescu-lordach­
i.d7 14 �fl ctJg4! 1 5 ctJh3 'a'b6 16 ctJd1 f6 escu, Bucharest 1 993) was rather similar to
1 7 .i.d2 f5 gave Black good counterplay in Gual Pascual-Yermolinsky in that Black
Milov-Ramesh, Biel 2001 . should have gained counterplay with
7 ... .tc5! 9 ... .i.xh3 1 0 ti:lxh3 .i.d4!. Having marginal­
ized W'hite's kingside knight, Black intends to
break the pin with .. .'iid7 and to exchange
off the dark-squared bishop if necessary. In a
short but pretty good introductory set of
articles on the Tango for wJVJvjeromysilman.com,_
Joel Benjamin also examined this position
and his 9 ... tt:Je7!? 10 i.xf6 gxf6 1 1 �d3
i.xh3, intending to castle long, also seems
quite playable for Black.
c) 8 ctJh3?! is a little indecisive as White
cannot have both the bishop and the knight
on gS! Indeed 8...d6 9 J.e2 .tg4! (reducing
the pressure against hS) 10 a3 .txe2 11 'iVxe2
Having decided that he can activate his a6 12 g3 'iVe7 saw White attempt to im prov�::
bishop in this instance, Black must still be the knight in Durao-Baptista, Lisbon 2002

44
 Th e D a rk - s q u a red Cen tre: Wh ite C o u n ters D yn a m ic ally

with 13 lbg1!?. However, then the instructive academic as Black has 1O...llxh5! 11 'fixh5
13...lbf8! 14 lbf3 lLl8h7 broke the pin and (forced as 11 i.xf6? 'ifxf6 12 'ifxh5 ..i.xh3!
left the position fairly egual after 15 i.e3 wins as Black threatens to capture on f2;
..i.xe3 16 'ii'xe3 lbg4 17 'iWd3lL\hf6. castling either side doesn't save \Wllte partly
.
8 . . c6! due to his dangerously offside gueen)
11...lbxh5 12 i.xd8 �d8, which is just like
9 ..i.xh5 l:xh5! 10 'ifxh5 lbxh5 11 i.xd8
'itxd8 - again Black should be happy to fight
with his bishop pair against \Wllte's rook and
pawn.
1 0 . . . .td4!

9 lLih37!
Prophylactically covering f2 so that
9...'�ib6 isn't a threat. However, now the
knight isn't well placed on h3 and so \Wllt e
should have preferred 9 lbf3 followed by 0-0
as then 9...'ii'b6 could be met by 10 lba4!.
Capturing on h5 is impossible: 9 ..txh5? A key motif: by attacking c3 Black pre­
l:!.xh5! 10 i.xf6?? (10 'ii'xh5 has to be played, vents 11 0-0-0 (due to 11...i.xc3 12 'ifxc3
although then 10...lbxh5 11 ..i.xd8 <.Pxd8 is lLlxe4!) and forces \Wllte to further weaken
n:ry pleasant for Black with two pieces and his dark sguares.
lots of dark sguares against a rook and pawn) 1 1 f3 a5 1 2 0-0-0 'ifb6 1 3 lLia4 'i'a7 1 4
10.....Wxf6 11 'iix}:t5 'iixf2+. Here Orlov �b1
\
'{l
thought that Black as fair compensation, Black has played very powerfully and well
but he had clearly missed the strength of the thus far on the dark squares. In Martinez
capture on b2. Indeed 12 �dl 'iixb2 13 .:.c1 Martin-Berescu, Minorca 1996, 14.....td7?!
i.e3 is devastating as then 14 .:.c2 'ifal+ 15 allowed \Wllte back into the game with 15
'it>e2 lLlf4+ picks up \Wllte's errant gueen. dxc6 bxc6 16 c5!. However, instead 14...cxd5!
9 . .. d6 10 'ifd2 15 cxd5 (15 exd5!? i.d7 16 lbc3 'iib6 -
\'V'hite is right to avoid exchanging on c6 - Orlov - also keeps up the pressure and still
Black would usefully gain a half-open b-file intends ... a5-a4, but \Wll te probably
as well as the option of cementing his bishop shouldn't open the c-file) 15.....i.d7 16 lbc3
on d4 with ... c5 at some point. 1i'b6 (Orlov) would have maintained Black's
With the text \Wllte gives up on h5 in or­ advantage. \Wllte lacks counterplay, but must
der to castle long. However, 10 i.xh5?! re­ try and find a way to defend. 17 g3?! hopes to
mains critical when Berdichcvsky has ana­ get in f4 and could just be met by 17 ... a4, but
lrsed 1o.....txh3 1 1 ..i.xg6! .i.xg2 1 2 .l:th2 fxg6 even stronger is 17...tt::lh7! to eliminate the
13 .l:.xg2, wh ich he assesses as unclear. White dark-squared bishop (note how for once
tnay actually be slightly better, but this is \Wllte has been trying to avoid having to

45
 Tan g o ! A D yn a m ic A n s wer to 1 d4

exchange on f6) when 18 f4 lLlxgS 19 hxg5 g3. Instead 8 �g5 �e7 should be fine for
l:tc8 is very awk"Ward for White. The c3- Black after 9 e3 d6 10 �d3 liJf8 as he then
knight cannot be defended by 20 .l:.c1 due to threatens to trap the bishop after 11...f6 12
20... �e3. However, neither does 20 'it>a1 �g6+ lLlxg6 13 'ii'xg6+ 'ifi>f8. Thus White
save White due to 20... a4! when 21 a3 �xc3 must exchange on e7, but after 11 i.xe7
22 bxc3 'iVb3 is devastating. 'ii'xe7 12 0-0 Black is quite solid and has a
reasonable position. Perhaps even immedi­
C) 5 lLlf3 lLlg6 6 h4 ately advancing with 12...g6!? 13 b4 f5, hop­
ing to get in ... e4, is best. White can't counter
with 14 lt:\gS?! due to 14...lt:\h7!, reminding
him of the weakness of h4.
Instead of 9 e3, White has again tried the
tempting 9 d6!? in this position, although it's
surprising how rarely this causes Black any
real difficulties. Certainly here he is fine after
9...cxd6 10 lLldS �xg5 11lt:\xg5lt:\e7!,

This advance again forces Black to re­

spond accurately; in fact this may well be the
optimum moment for it. It isn't clear that 5
g3 is really necessary if White intends 6 h4,
whilst 5 e4 before 6 h4 rather weakens the
a7-g1 diagonal. liJ£3 is, however, a useful
developing move and the knight may even
jump into the g5-square. White avoids creat­
ing weaknesses, making it harder for Black to immediately undennining the strong d5-
gain counterplay. steed. Then 12 'ii'd2 can just be met by
6 ... h5 12...lt:\xd5 13 'ii'xd5 0-0, intending 14 e3 lLlf6
Again this is essential; instead 6...e4?! 7 h5 15 'ii'xd6 'ii'a5+ 16 'i'd2 ifxd2+ 17 'it;xd2 dS,
lLlxhS 8 lLlxe4 liJf6 9 ifd4! lLlxe4 10 'ii'xe4+ whilst 12...0-0!? is probably even stronger
'ii'e7 11 ifc2 tLleS 12 lLlxeS "ii'xe5 13 �d2 d6 when 13 'it'd3!? can be met by 13... g6 14 .l:!.d1
14 �c3 gave White a very pleasant position lt:\xd5 15 'ii' xdS 'iVb6!, reminding White of
in Stephenson-C.Beckett, Hove 1997. Black's own g-ftle knight and White's dark­
7 .i.g5 squared weaknesses. However, 12 lt:\e4
Immediately establishing a pin is again a lLlxdS 13 cxd5 (or 13lt:\xd6+? 'iti>e7 14 lLlf5+
dangerous way to exploit the g5-square, but 'iii>f6 and Black wins a piece due to the strong
White has some crafty alternatives: check on aS) 13...'ii'a5+ 14 'ii'd 2 'i'xd2+ 15
a) 7 'ii'c2 hopes to target the g6-knight af­ lt:\xd2 b6 didn't really cause Black any prob­
ter e3 and ..id3 but doesn't appear too criti­ lems in Crouch-Palliser, South Wales Masters
cal. Indeed 7 ...tLlg4 cuts across White's plans 2001, even if 16 e4 i.b7 17 a4! gave White
as 8 e3 i.e7 will force White to sacrifice his some compensation for his pawn.
h-pawn or to weaken his light squares with 9 b) 7 e3!? �b4 (7...i.e7?! is too slow; after

46
 Th e D a rk - s q u a r e d Cen tre : White C o u n ters D yn a m ically

8 i.d3 the g6-knight cannot move as eS 10... d6 11 i.d3 f5 12 i.xe4 (or 12 lbgS
would hang) 8 i.d2 is surprisingly venomous lbxh4!) 12... fxe4 13 lbd2 i.g4! 14 'ilic2
and may well be White's best line. He intends lbxh4 netted Black a pawn for some com­
to take the bishop pair after which his bish­ pensation in Simmelink-Sveinsson, corre­
ops will be well placed on c3 and d3, whilst spondence 2000. After 1S :h2 'ilie7 16 cS!
the knight can go to gS. We saw the strength (and not 16 lbxe4? i.f3 17 Wfl lbxg2! 18
of that plan in Rooms-Simmelink and so �xg2 'ilfh4) 16...i.f5 17 0-0-0 aS 18 .i.c3
Black must respond accurately. 8...0-0 is a lbg6 19 lbxe4 Black should have kept the
sensible start (Simmelink went 8...i.xc3?! 9 kingside relatively closed with 19...h4!, when
i.xc3 'ilie7 and was always worse after 10 the position remains tense but the pin on the
tLlgS!) and now: e4-knight is guite strong.
b1) 9 i.d3 i.xc3 10 i.xc3 e4! isn't so c) 7 a3 reached a superior version of
clear after 11 i.xf6 'ii'xf6 12 i.xe4 'ii'xb2. Crouch-Palliser after 7...lbg4?! 8 i.gS il..e7 9
White can now force a structural weakness, d6! (De Santis-Vancini, Bratto 2001) as the
but after 13 i.xg6 'ii'c3+! 14 lbd2 fxg6 1S 0-0 gueen was still on the d-file. Instead Black
d6 the black gueen is very active, whilst should play as in the main line with 7...d6 8
White's kingside appears to be the more vul­ il..gS i.e?.
nerable of the rwo.
b2) Taking control of e4 with 9 'ii'c2 d6
10 i.d3 makes sense, but after 10 ... lbe7 the
knight is well placed to support counterplay
with ...c6 or... bS. After 11 tLlgS

7 . . . i.e7
This might appear a little passive, but here
the bishop is needed to break the pin. In­
stead 7...i.cS?! 8 e3 leaves it without a good
role, whilst 7...i.b4?! 8 'Wb3 'iWe7 9 lbd2! aS
the move 11...c6 immediately destroys 10 a3 i.xc3 11 'iWxc3 a4 12 e3 d6 13 i.d3 left
\'V'hite's centre (as White doesn't really want Black under pressure with 14 lbe4 next up in
to block the diagonal with e4) after which Kantsler-Orlov, Podolsk 1989.
Black will hope to get in ...dS. However, also However, delaying ...i.e7 with 7...d6!? 8
possible is 11...i.xc3!? 12 i.xc3 bS because e3 i.fS is an interesting alternative that de­
13 cxbS?! lbexdS 14 i.h7+ Wh8 1S i.e4 is serves further tests. Black immediately pre­
simply met by 1S...i.b7 when 16 0-0 lbxe4 vents an annoying i.d3 and 'ilic2 set-up, and
17 'iixe4 f5 18 'iff3 'iie8 covers all the light he doesn't mind 9 e4 as then the b1-h7 di­
sguares and leaves Black better. agonal is closed and lLle4 options are ruled
b3) Sirrunelink , this time on the white side, out. Instead in Nikitin-Belozerov, Seversk
tried 9 ti:le4!? lLl xe4! 1 0 �xb4, but then 1997 White logically aimed to prove that the

47
 Tan g o ! A D yn a m ic A ns wer to 1 d4

bishop was needed on the queenside, when 9 gain an attack should White casde long.
'i'a4+ ,.d7 10 'Wb3 (10 .txf6 'i'xa4 1 1 liJxa4 However, going short, whilst probably a bet­
gxf6 1 2 lLlc3 �d7 and ... fS gives Black good ter choice, is also hardly great for White as
play) 1 0.. Ji'c8 defended b7 and again en­ then Black will gain some attacking chances
couraged White to take on f6. As in a with ... 0-0 and ... fS, when White must beware
Sveshnikov, the doubled f-pawns would then of his vulnerability down the f-flle as well as
have quickly become mobile, whilst White on h4.
could lack a good plan of his own. Instead b) 1 1 dxc6 bxc6 1 2 �xe7 liJxe7, so that
Nikitin played on the queenside with 1 1 ... g6 can defend h5 in the event of liJh2, also
liJd2!? �e7 1 2 .l:lct , but then 1 2...c5! seems acceptable for Black. Then 1 3 ..d2
0-0 1 4 0-0 (intending to target d6; 1 4 .l:ld1 is
more direct, but then Black has 1 4... .l:lb8! 1 5
b 3 'ifb6 1 6 0-0 .l:ld8 when 1 7 c5? can simply
be met by 1 7 .. .'ifxc5 now that 1 8 liJa4
doesn't trap the queen - the reason why
Black inserted ....l:lb8) 1 4... f5! gains counter­
play just in time and continues to make good
use of the strong g4-knight. 1 5 .l:lad1 ensures
that 1 5 .. .f4 will be too slow, but instead
1 5 .. .fxe4 1 6 lLlxe4 d5

was a strong counter (12 ...liJd7 would

have left the light-squared bishop short of
sguares) and after 1 3 dxc6!? (tempting, but
probably too ambitious) 1 3. ..bxc6 1 4 .txf6
�xf6 1 5 liJde4 .te7 1 6 c5 Black gained a
good position with 1 6 ... .te6 1 7 'i'a3 dxc5! 1 8
�a6 'Wbs 1 9 liJg5 .txg5 20 hxg5 'Wb4!.
8 e3
Again intending �d3, but White can still
opt for 8 g3 when 8 ... d6 9 e4 liJg4! 1 0 �e2
lLlffi 1 1 .txe7 'i'xe7 12 liJh2 liJxh2 1 3 .l:lxh2 leaves Black active and with a useful cen­
g6 14 'i'd2 liJd7 1 5 0-0-0 left Black very solid tre, although it's true he has incurred some
but also slighdy worse in Ionescu­ positional weaknesses en route to this unclear
Iordachescu, Odorheiu Secuiesc 1 993. position.
1 0 ...0-0 appears less good as then h5 is vul­ 8 . . . d6
nerable, a fact which 1 1 'ifd2 and then 1 2 Again it is not so easy for Black to equalise
liJh2 aims to exploit. Here 1 1 ...f6?! 1 2 .te3 here which further suggests that the 7 ... d6
liJxe3 1 3 'i'xe3 f5 doesn't save Black due to move order deserves attention. 8 ... lLlg4?!, for
1 4 exfS! �xfS 1 5 lLld2 with an excellent posi­ example, isn't yet possible as here 9 �d3
tion for White. lLlffi 10 d6! is very strong - 1 o ... cxd6 1 1
Thus Black should consider 10...c5!? and .txe7 'ifxe7 1 2 lLldS ..dB 1 3 lLlgS lLlf6 1 4
now: i..e2 is horrendous for Black due to his crip­
a) 1 1 'ii'd2 f6 1 2 i..e3 a6, preparing ...b5 to pled structure and lack of development.

48
 Th e D a rk - s q ua r e d C e n tre: White C o u n ters D yn amically

9 i.d3 i.d7 14 �g2

Now 14...'Wc8, preparing ... fS, left Black
no more than fractionally worse in Andersen­
Gudbrandsen, Trondheim 1997.

0) 5 h4!?

9 ll:lg4
.. .

Brave, but Black must allow the exchange

on g6 if he wishes to fight. As we have seen,
9...'�Jf8 10 cS! li'l8d7 11 cxd6 cxd6 12 .l:tc1
gave White a pleasant edge, although Black
remained very solid in Ward-Palliser, Isle of Thus far White has targeted the black
Man 2000. knight once it's on g6, but here White at­
However, if Black is going to have to de­ tempts to disrupt the black camp by not even
lay ... li:J£8 and all�w ..ixg6 then 9... ..ig4!? letting it settle there at all.
might well be a better way of doing so as 5 ll:leg8!
...

after 101 ..ixg6 fxg6 it will not be so easy for Chebanenko's move, which rather swns
White 1�o castle short due to the pin. Fur­ up the Tango spirit of adventure and creativ­
thermore, the gS-bishop cannot exchange ity. Black intends to develop the bishop after
itself in the hope of leaving Black with a bad which the knight will return to e7, or, better
bishop as Ward achieved, for then ... gxf6 still, go to f6 after ...li'lg4 and ...fS.
would iron out Black's structure. White Certainly Black should avoid S ... li:JfS?! 6
might target g6 and go long with 11 'ii'c2 'iid 3! g6 7 li'lf3 li'lg4!? (or 7 ...d6 when 8 hS! ­
.i.fS 12 e4 ..ig4 13 li'lh2 ..id7 14 0-0-0, but Stohl - keeps up the kingside pressure) 8 hS
Black is not too unhappy here. 14...c5 intend­ ..icS 9 e3 d6 10 a3! aS 11 li'le4 ..tb6 12 hxg6
ing ... a6 and ... bS is possible, whilst he can fxg6 13 i.e2 which favoured White, due to
alw still play on the kingside by 14...li'lh7!? his control of e4, in Goldin-Vlassov, St Pe­
15 ..ixe7 'ii'xe7 16 g3 0-0 v.�th counterplay tersburg 1994. Likewise S...hS?! 6 ..igS li'lg6 7
down the f-f!le and 17...g5 next up. e3 and ..ie2 is also pretty good for White.
1 0 "ifc2 However, Orlov's suggestion of S...g6!? de­
Now the knight can retreat as eS is cov­ serves further testing. Black hopes to reach a
ered, thereby preventing cS in response. King's Indian with White committed to h4,
'X'hite should have preferred 10 ..ixg6! fxg6 an unusual move but also dangerous if he
1 1 i.xe7 it'xe7 12 tt:lgS 0-0 13 0-0 when he attacks quickly. Now:
can still advance on the quccnsidc, while it is a) 6 e4!? d6 7 ..ic2! hS! 8 i..gS ..ig7 9 'it'd2
not at all clear that Black can do anything is rather sharp, but Black may well be OK
active, thus leaving him worse. after Orlov's 9...0-0 10 i..h6 c6! 11 dxc6
1 o lLlfB 1 1 e4 l2:\g6! 1 2 g3 o-o 1 3 '1Pf1
. . . tLlxc6 1 2 0-0-0 (or 12 ltJ£3 i.g4! and Black

49
 Ta n g o ! A D yn am ic A ns we r to 1 d4

intends to take the d4-square) 12.)t)d4 13 edge despite White's having played h4)
J.xg7 �xg7. The d4-knight is a monster and 13 ...liJxd5 14 :txdS d6 Black is vulnerable
Black may well be able to gain good counter­ down the d-file, but crucially White's kingside
play on the queenside, e.g. 14 liJ£3! lDx£3 1 5 development isn't brilliant. Then 15 c5 (too
J.xf3 i.e6 1 6 b 3 'ii'aS 1 7 lt:lbS �6!, con­ ambitious, although after 15 'iVd1!? there is
tinuing to irritate on the dark-squares and still 15...i..e6 16 :txd6 'l'aS+ and 17...'ii'xa2)
creating a strong pin down the d-ftle in the 15 ...'tWa5+ 16 .i.d2 'ifxa2 17 J.b5+ 'iti>fB isn't
event of 18 lt:lxd6 llfd8. so clear as 18 cxd6 can be met by 18....i.e6
b) 6 .i.gS! J.g7 (6...li:Jf5 7 e4! li:Jd4 8 lt:lge2 19 :tcS :td8!, rounding up the key d-pawn.
lt:lxe2 9 J.xe2 favours White as Play 1 d4! Perhaps a way will be found to make
observes) 7 d6! li:JfS and now: 5...g61? work despite 6 .i.gS!, but there is also
b1) 8 dxc7 isn't challenging: 8...'ili'xc7 9 plenty of fertile, and probably more prosper­
.i.xf6 J.xf6 10 li:JdS 'iVd8 (Orlov) gives Black ous, ground to analyse after s ...lt:leg8!.
some dark-squared play after say 11 lt:lxf6+?! We will look at White's two main tries
'ii'xf6 12 g3 e4!. here:
b2) 8 e4 is critical and after 8...lt:Jd4 9 li:Jf3
(Efimov & Yakovich) Black must be very 0 1 : 6 lbf3
careful and needs a good move. 9 ...c5? simply 02: 6 a3
loses a piece to 10 lt:lxd4! cxd4 11 li:Jd5,
while 9...lt:lxf3+ 10 'ifxf3 c6 11 h5 clearly Alternatively:
favoured White in Sveinsson-Elburg, corre­ a) White has also tried to irrunediately tie
spondence 2000. Instead 9...h6 improves Black down to g7 with 6 'iVd3 h6 7 'ii'g3, but
when 10 .i.e3! (but not 10 lt:lxd4 exd4 11 then 7...d6 8 e4 li:JhS! 9 'iWd3 lt:Jgf6 10 J.e2
lt:lb5? hxg5! 12 lt:lxc7+ �fB 13 lt:lxa8 lt:lxe4 g6 11 lt::l£3 i..g7 gave Black a good King's
with excellent compensation) 10...li:Jxf3+ 1 1 Indian with the knights eyeing up g4 and
'ti'xf3, crucially f4 in Sveinsson-J ohnsrud, corre­
spondence 2000.
b) 6 'iWa4!? is, however, a very interesting
way to further cause Black problems
developing. Black should go 6...i..c5, not
minding having to exchange the bishop for
the knight after 7 b4 i..d4 8 .i.b2 and e3
(6...a5 7 lt::l£3 e4 didn't work out so well in
Basagic-Cebalo, Bled 2000; after 8 lt:JgS .i.b4
9 .i.d2, 9...'ilfe7? 10 lt:lcxe4! was a surprising
oversight from a strong grandmaster, but the
weakness of aS would also have been ap­
parent after the line 9 ...i..xc3 10 .i.xc3 h6 11

which is where I stopped in Pltry\

'4!, is
lt:lh3, leaving White better). After 6....i.c5, 7
e3 (7 lt::l£3 is again met by 7...lt:Jg4) 7...a5 now
critical to the future of 5...g6!?.
White does have excellent compensation,
��
th gh seems like good timing. Then 8 .i.d3 lDe7 9
lt:Jge2 0-0 10 lt:Jg3 d6, intending ...c6, looks
things might not be so grim for Black. The quite playable for Black.
sacrifice must be accepted and then 11 ... cxd6
12 .l:.d1 dS! looks like the only try. After 13 0 1 1 6 lt:lf3
lt:lxdS!? (13 cxdS should preserve a pleasant

50
 Th e D a rk - s quared Cen tre : Whi t e C o u n ters D yn amically

excellent compensation due to his well­

placed steed and very active queen.
a2) 9 i.d2! (the queen is already well
placed on c2, whilst the bishop will add to
the pressure from c3) 9 ...i.xc3 10 i.xc3 h6
1 1 t'bh3 and now 1 1 ...e3 1 2 'ii'd3! only really
appears to help White. However, 1 1 ...d6
(thus far Orlov's analysis) 12 e3 still leaves it
problematic for Black to develop the king­
side. 1 2...lt:Jh5? 1 3 i.e2 lt:Jgf6? drops a piece
to 14 'ii'd 1 !, whilst 12 ...i.g4 1 3 i.e2 hS 14
lt:Jf4 gives White a pleasant edge. Probably
Black should thus further unbalance the posi­
This is a perfectly valid alternative to 6 a3. tion \\lith 1 2...i.xh3!? 1 3 .l:.xh3 hS 1 4 .l:.g3
6 . .. e4!? c.1i>f8 when the two bishops look quite useful.
Orlov's critical suggestion, which still On the other hand, 1 5 i.e2 li:Jh6 16 0-0-0
needs testing. (and not 1 6 .i.xf6 'ii'xf6 1 7 .i.xhS? lt:Jf5)
6...lt:Jg4, logically making immediate use of 1 6...lt:Jhg4 shows the strength of the knights.
the e4-square, has been the move preferred Perhaps White is a little better, but a knight is
in practice: 7 lt:Jg5 (or 7 .i.gS lt:J8f6 8 g3 .i.cS coming to eS and then Black can consider
9 e3 0-0 10 li:Jd2 and now 10 ...h6? 1 1 i.xf6 gaining some play \\lith ... aS and ... c6.
lbxf6 12 g4! gave White a strong attack in b) 7 lt:Jd2 i.b4 8 'fic2 'fie7 is less chal­
I.Torre-Hassan, correspondence 1 999, but lenging for Black: 9 a3 i.xc3 10 'ii'xc3 d6
10 ... d6 1 1 .i.e2 'ii'd7 improves and prepares (but not Orlov's 10 ... lt:Jh6? due to 1 1 lbxe4!
... h6 nqw that Black controls the g4-square) lbxe4 - or 1 1 ...'fixe4 12 i.xh6 gxh6 1 3 'iixf6
7... h6 � lbge4 li:J8f6 (having played ... h6, - 1 2 'fixg7 :g8 1 3 'ii'xh7!) 1 1 b4 liJhS (Black
Black must be careful about playing ... f5 as would like 1 1 ...lbh6!? to work as then 12 e3
that would further weaken his kingside; lt:Jhg4 - Orlov- again gives him no worries
hence Webster's sensible decision to develop as he exploits the downside to 5 h4, but he
ftrst) 9 lt:Jg3 .i.cS 10 e3 0-0 1 1 i.e2 d6 12 hS! needs to find something against 12 lbxe4!
'ii'd7! 13 .i.d3 'ii'd8 14 i.e2 'ii'd7, intending lbxe4 13 'iixg7 ltg8 14 'iixh6 'fieS 15 :tb1 !
... .l:.e8 and ...e4 (as well as ... a6 if necessary to when 1 S ... lt:Jx£2 1 6 .l:.b3! exploits having the
keep the dark-squared bishop), gave Black a pawn on b4 and not on b3) 1 2 e3 f5 1 3 .i.e2
fully acceptable, unclear position in Dao lbgfp develops the kingside satisfactorily.
Thien Hai-Webster, Calcutta 2000. 7 ... .tb4 8 .td2
7 ltJd4 As Orlov observes, 8 lt:Jf5?! fails to
Utilising the available central square, but 8...i.xc3+ 9 bxc3 d6 when the knight would
White can also decide to hit the e4-pawn: just be trapped if it grabs on e7. However, 8
a) 7 lt:Jg5 .i.b4 8 'ii'c2 'fie7 and now: 1i'c2!? i.xc3+ 9 1i'xc3 d6 10 .i.f4 might be a
at) 9 a3 i.xc3+ 10 'fixc3 d6 1 1 b3 lbh6! bit more challenging. Black does have
12 i.b2 lt:Jhg4 (Orlov) is very comfortable 10 ... lbh5 here, but also possible is 10 ...lbe7
for Black as the knight on g4 ties White 1 1 hS h6! when 12 1i'g3 liJfS 13 lt:JxfS i.xf5
down to f2, whilst it can always retreat to eS 14 e3 (avoiding 14 't1Vxg7?? l:tg8 15 't1Vxh6
to block the long diagonal if necessary. 1 2 lbg4) may well force 1 4.. .'it>f8, but Black
t'bxe4? doesn't yet work a s then 1 2...l2Jxe4 1 3 appears fine here. His king is pretty safe on
'ii'xg7 l:g8 1 4 'i!i'xh6 ifeS should give Black f8, whilst the white CJUeen may well turn out

51
 Tan g o ! A D yn a m ic A n s we r to 1 d4

to be �idelined on g3, especially once Black to make it difficult for Black to develop.
gets in .. .lt::le8 and ... c6.

6 . . . a6!
8 .. . .txc3 9 .txc3 d6 1 0 e3 ttlh6 Preparing a retreat square for the bishop
(Orlov) But not the ambitious 10 ... ltJe7 1 1 once it reaches cS. Black could also do this
.i.e2 cS?! due to 1 2 dxc6 bxc6 1 3 lDb3!, with 6 ... a5!?; indeed it may well be useful to
unleashing the power of the c3-bishop. gain some queenside space like this and cer­
1 1 .te2 ttlhg4! tainly White will take longer to get in b4.
And not 11...liJf5? 12 ltJxfS IJ-xfS 13 g4!, However, White may well benefit in the long
winning material. term from an open a-file, whilst the weakness
of both the aS-pawn and the bS-square
should not be underestimated, especially after
something like 7 ltJf3 ltJg4 8 e3 fS 9 .:.b 1 !.
Here the bishop might well become a tactical
liability down the a-file after 9 ... .i.cS 1 0 b4
axb4 1 1 axb4 IJ-a7, but 9. ..i.e7 10 b4 axb4
.

1 1 axb4 e4?! 12 ltJd4 IJ-xh4 1 3 g3 .i.f6 1 4

ltJxe4! also favoured White in Carlstrom­
Snarheim, Hallsberg 1999.
7 lbf3!

/
Heading straight for gS. 7 'i!Vd3 (Roques-
/�
� · � - � �
� Schrancz, correspondence 2001) shouldn't be
too challenging after 7 ... h6 8 'ii'g3 d6, intend-
The sterling tour (b8-c6-e7-g8-h6-g4!) of ing ... ltJhS and ...g6. However, 7 _.c2 IJ-cS 8
the queen's knight again gives Black a good b4 IJ-a7 9 ltJf3 is similar to the main line and
position. 12 ltJe6!? hopes to cut across after 9 ... d6 10 e3 ltJg4! 1 1 .i.d3 h6 Black is
Black's plans, but White generally does better fine. White is quite slow on the queenside,
to keep pieces on as now 12 ... fxe6 13 .i.xg4 whilst the h4-weakness will be a permanent
exdS 1 4 .i.xc8 l:.xc8 1 5 cxdS 0-0 gives Black thorn in his side. Certainly 1 2 0-0 !De7 13 a4
the edge. White will struggle to go short, but f5 14 .i.e2 0-0 1 5 ltJd1 ltJg6 1 6 g3 e4!
1 6 'ifd2 ltJg4! prevents him from going long.
See following diagram

02) 6 a3!? gave Black good attacking chances in He i-

Preventing ... ..ib4 and thereby continuing big-Simmelink, correspondence 1 999.

52
 Th e D a rk - s q ua r e d Cen tre: Wh ite Co un ters D yn am ically

d6! ensures that the bishop must now stay

within the pawn chain, so play continues
8 ... f5 9 i.e2 (or 9 'ii'c2 - Elburg-Beyer, cor­
respondence 2000 - when 9 ... d6 is not too
bad, but 9 ...liJ8h6!?, keeping open the option
of ... i.cS, may well improve) 9 ... liJ8f6 1 0
'ii'c2! forces Black to block in the £8-bishop.
Now:
a) 1 0 ... g6!? might be a flexible move order
as then Orlov's 1 1 hS!? ltJxhS 1 2 :xhS gxhS
13 'il'xfS doesn't appear to give \Vhite more
than reasonable compensation after 1 3...'ii'f6!
14 'ii'xhS+ 'Wg6, and perhaps not even that.
7 e3 i..c S 8 b4 i..a7 9 tLlf3 d6 (Sedrakian­ b) 1 0 ... d6 1 1 ltJgS 'ii'e7
Sosonkin, USSR 1 986) could easily transpose
to 7 'ii'c2 after 1 0 'ii'c2 d6. Interestingly, the

respected theoretician Stohl has already as­

sessed this position in Black's favour. He
recognised that ... tLlg4, .. .fS �d ... tL!Bf6 will
easily complete Black's develop � ent, whilst
Orlov is also correct to point out that
White's king may well land up lacking a safe
home.
7 . . . 'Llg4!

was assessed by Orlov as being slightly in

\Vhite's favour. Perhaps objectively it is, but
Black's position is certainly very playable,
even without the bishop being active on a7
(holding up cS and f3). Castling short will
allow Black kingside play, but neither is 1 2
i..d2!? g6 1 3 f3 liJh6 1 4 0-0-0 i..g7 1 5 �b 1
so worrying for Black. The e6-sc1uare remains
under control and ... ltJf7 will challenge the
gS-knight. Meanwhile Black is quite solid and
8 'Llg5 it won't be at all easy for White to break
Avoiding 8 e4? i..c S. From Black's down his King's Indian strucn1re on the
perspective the knight is annoyingly placed kingside.
on gS, for kicking it away with ... h6 isn't so \Vhite may well have to opt for a risky at­
easy if it can then re trea t to h3, when it hopes tacking line like lldgl , hS as a sacrifice and
to come to a stro ng f4-square in the event of then g4, although the key g7-bishop usually
... e4. does an excellent job of holding the kingside
8 e3!? may appear less challenging but is together. Perhaps still playing for cS is a bet­
also dangerous. N ow 8 . ..-tc S?! 9 b4 ..i.a7 1 0 ter choice, although Black will hope to chal-

53
 Tan g o ! A D yn am ic A n s wer to 1 d4

lenge on any open c-file. Black for his part to develop it to h6. From there it usefully
may well aim for counterplay with ... c6 (when defends f5 and can also challenge the g5-
e4 is not such a simple reply as then . ..ltJh5- knight from fl, whilst it's not so easy for
g3 or ...l2Jh5-f4 becomes possible) as well as W'hite to push back the g4-knight with £3.
to unleash the g7-bishop with ... �d7, ... .:fe8 1 1 i.e2 lb8h6 1 2 b4 i.a 7
and ... e4. Practical tests are required, but it
does seem that Black is in reasonable shape
here.
a . f5
..

Instead 8 ... h6?! 9 lt:lge4 £5 is too weaken­

ing. After 1 0 e3! lt:l8f6 1 1 lt:lg3 crucially the
g4-knight lacks a retreat square.
9 'i'c2

This unclear position appears to be play­

able for Black, who intends ...ile7 and ...0-0
and will aim for counterplay against which­
ever side W'hite castles. The weakness of e6
isn't easy to exploit, for example 1 3 �xg4
lt:lxg4 1 4 lLle6 �xe6 1 5 dxe6 e4! and 1 6 ... c6;
or 1 3 lLle6?! �xe6 14 dxe6 c6! (14 ... 0-0 1 5 f3
lLlf6 isn't so clear due to 1 6 lt:ld5 .l:[e8 1 7
9 i.c5! ?
.. �d3! c 6 1 8 e 7 'i'd7 1 9 lt:lxf6+ gxf6 when
Keeping the bishop active, but simply W'hite gains good COJllpensation due to
9 ... d6!? 10 e3 lt:l8f6 1 1 �e2 'ii'e7 would Black's . weakened kingside) 1 5 �xg4! (oth­
transpose to 8 e3 £5. erwise Black simply has 1 5 ... 0-0, to cover f4,
10 e3 d6!? 1 6...'ilie7 and 1 7 ...'ilixe6) 1 5 .. .fxg4 1 6 ltJe4 0-0

�
Instead 1 0 ...lt:le7 1 1 �e2 lLlf6 1 2 b4 �a7 1 7 lt:lg5 lLl£5!, intending 1 8... h6 and then to
13 �b2 (De Groot-Simmelink, correspon­ pick up the e6-pawn.
dence 1 996) has been assessed as slig tly The fianchetto systems don't appear par­
better for W'hite in both NCO and in Pl. 1 ticularly challenging, so long as Black ensures
d4!. Perhaps that's so, although the me that he has some form of counterplay, such
certainly wasn't so clear after 1 3 ... h6 14 f3 as with ... c6. However, as well as putting the
d6 as W'hite lacked a clear plan and no doubt dark-squared bishop on c5, going to b4 is a
wished that the h-pawn was back on h2. 1 5 good option. The h4 systems are, though,
l:ld1 , preparing c5, is now best as instead 1 5 quite dangerous, especially lines C and D
c5?! e4! 1 6 cxd6 'iixd6 1 7 lt:ld2 0-0 1 8 .l:[d1 where Black certainly has to handle the open­
b5 left the d5-pawn set to drop off and so ing carefully to emerge with a playable posi­
forced White into immense and unclear tion. However, there is always a way to do
complications arising after 19 .txb5!. this, especially if Black remembers that some­
However, the e7-knight does slightly clog times having the bishop inside the pawn
up Black's camp and so it may well be better chain isn't actually so bad at all.

54
[ CHAPTER THREE I
The Lunge:
An Ambitious Early Advance

1 d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 lt:lc6 3 d5 Development vs. the colossal centre

�
fvfuch less � on than 3 ltJc3, this
thrust is often used b}1Jlayers hoping to im­
mediately refute the Tango, especially those
to whom 2 .. .'�Jc6 comes as a large surprise.
\'{lhite may even hope that the c6-knight is
being kicked backwards, but it should of
course leap forwards with 3 . . . lt:le5!. Then
the c4-pawn is already under fire, and it's
clear th1lt the active knights have a good
chance of being able to cause a fair amount
of central mayhem.
Perhaps it would be kinder to label 3 dS
'the Advance variation', but to my mind the
move really is a lunge. White lurches for­ Elburg-Simmelink
wards, but the strike is far from powerful and Correspondence 1 999
also creates a somewhat cumbersome centre
which then needs to be defended. Possibly White has copied the Four Pawns Attack
\'{'bite is playing by analogy with 1 e4 liJf6 variation of the Alekhine by constructing a
\Vhen 2 eS is definitely best, but here the huge centre. However, this is incredibly am­
development of the second knight assists bitious against the Tango and Black now
Black's central counterplay. Furthermore, c4 struck back strongly on the dark squares with
isn't especially useful, not least due to the B . . . 'ii'h4 + ! 9 g3 .i.b4+ 1 0 .i.d2 (here 10
resultant weakening of the a5-e1 diagonal; liJc3 is probably an improvement of sorts as
this often allows Black to develop with we shall see below in line F) 10 . . lt:lxg3 1 1
.

tempo with the move ...�b4+. Indeed Black lt:lf3 lt:lxf4 ! ! . Elburg had perhaps thought
should aim to strike back with fast and active that the g-pawn was taboo as Black's queen
piece play, not allowi ng his oppone nt the lacked a good square, but instead she can be
chance to consolidate. his centre and spatial sacrificed for now 12 tt::lxh4 tt::lxd3 is mate;
advantage. the ultimate dance of the black knights'

55
 Ta n g o ! A D yn a m ic A ns we r to 1 d4

Tango! Instead White responded well with after 1 o . . . exd5 1 1 exd5 i.g4 1 2 'ifg3 a6
1 2 i.f1 ! i.xd2+ 1 3 lt:lbxd2, but was then 1 3 i.d4! White had fully exploited his space
hit by a further beautiful queen sacrifice in advantage to generate very strong pressure
1 3 . . .'ilfh3!, from his c1ueen and raking bishop pair
against the black kingside.

The . . . c5 counter

again exploiting the white king's lack of

pawn cover. After 14 l:g 1 lt:lxf1 1 5 lt:lxf1
b6 1 6 l:g3 'iff5 Black was two pawns ahead
and still enjoyed strong attacking chances. Petit-Meszaros
Cannes 1 997
The dangers of conceding
too much space Here White has aimed to quickly consoli­
date his centre, and no doubt wondered as to
just how Black would exploit his lead in de­
velopment, wid1out any access to d1e g4-
square, after 8 . J.c5 9 'ir'dt . Instead Black
..

struck strongly with 8 c5! 9 'ifd2 b5!,

. . .

giving him an excellent version of the Blu­

menfeld Gambit (1 d4 tt:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 tt:lf3 cS
4 dS bS!?) due to the extra pressure created
by the eS-steed and the b4-prelate.

McKenzie-Scott
Correspondence 2000

Here Black has carelessly failed to exploit

the chance to actively develop his dark­
squared bishop, thereby allowing White to
consolidate his centre. Despite trying to free
his position by chipping away at dS with ... c6,
Black remained cramped and worse, and

56
 Th e L un g e : A n A mb itio us Early A d va n c e

After 1 0 cxb5 exd5 1 1 exd5 .l:.eB haps aiming to refute Black's entire opening
White was left struggling to develop, and 1 2 concept at the same time:
<M 1 .i.b7 1 3 a3 .i.a5 1 4 f4 tt::leg4 did little
to curb Black's strong initiative.

Utilising Black's activity

A: 4 tt::lc3
B: 4 'i'c2
C: 4 1kd4
D: 4 b3? !
Shemeakin-Shilin; E: 4 f4!?
Mariupol 200Y F: 4 e4

It's not so unusual for Black to gain good A) 4 tt::lc3

play down the e-flle , which here White was
trying to prevent from fully opening. Thus he
met 9 . . . c6! with 1 0 dxc6, but was probably
then shocked by 1 0 . . .d5!?, aiming to rapidly
open the position against White's uncastled
king and intending to increase the pressure
against e4, and indirectly g2, after 1 1 cxb7
i.xb7. Instead there came 1 1 tt::lf3 d4 when
the pressure evidently got to the 2360-rated
\'\lhite player. His bid to return the pawn with
1 2 c 7??, keeping lines closed and hoping to
play tt:lbS witl1 gain of tempo, lost a whole
piece to 1 2 . . .tt::lxf3+ 1 3 gxf3 1kxc7 due to
the pin down the c-flle. Even so, it was al­ 4 . . . e6
read�· a rather unpleasant position for White Sensibly developing and beginning to put
·- 12 tt:lxeS .l:.xeS 13 tt:lbS 'ii'a S keeps up the pressure on dS, which will be increased by
pressure. ...�b4, exploiting one of the downsides to
White's natural last move. Instead 4...tt:lxc4?
Theory concedes far too much space and time: 5 e4
1 d4 tt::lf6 2 c4 ll:lc6 3 d5 ll:le5 tt:lb6 (S...CLieS 6 f4 tt:\g6 7 eS tt:lgB is also very
Now White must decide how to consoli­ grim for Black when it is not at all clear how
date his centre and to develop. However, he he can develop his pieces) 6 eS lt:\gB 7 lt:\f3
may first try to take eve n more space, per- d6 8 ..i.bS+ ..i.d7 9 e6! fxe6 1 0 dxe6 ..i.xbS 1 1

57
 Tan g o ! A D yn a m ic A ns we r to 1 d4

tt.Jxb5 c6 12 tt.Jbd4, intending only now tt.Jg5, good game) 7 ...'fie7 created some nasty dark­
was excellent for White due to the huge squared threats Gust because the bishop has
cramping effect exerted by the e6-pawn in gone to b4 doesn't mean that it cannot still
Goregliad-Sten7.el, Nassau 2000. go to c51) in Gravagna-Delchev, Bastia
5 e4 (rapid) 1 999. Now Black would have been
5 dxe6 fxe6 6 e4 is also possible when comfortable after 8 i.. f4, but instead 8 lt:lf3?
Black can continue to pressurise White's lt:leg4! forced the win of a pawn after 9 i..e3
centre with 6...i..b4, after which he may be lt:lxe3 1 0 fxe3 "ii'xe4.
able to get in a quick ... 0-0 and ... d5. 6 ... i..c 5!? Orlov's 6...i..c 5!? also deserves attention,
is also tempting, when 7 i.. e2! should be met when his 7 i..e2 d6 8 lt:lf3 lt:lfg4!? maintains a
by 7 ...d5! (immediately seizing the initiative; knight on e5, whilst the dark-squared bishop
7 ... 0-0? 8 f4 lt.Jg6 9 e5 lt.Je8 10 g3! success­ is quite well placed, and leads to an unbal­
fully eliminated Black's counterplay, leaving anced and unclear position, such as after 9
his knights misplaced, in Fugulyan-Schmid, lt:lxe5 lt:lxe5 10 b4 i..b6 1 1 0-0 'fih4!.
Miercurea Ciuc 2002) 8 cxd5 exd5 9 exd5 6 'i'c2
(now 9 f4 is met by 9 ... tt.Jeg4) 9 ... 0-0 with a Defending e4 and hoping not to expose
strong initiative for the pawn. Then f2 is very the queen to attack, but White has tried to
vulnerable, whilst 1 0 lt.Jf3! tt.Jxf3+ (1 0...tt.Jfg4 develop, albeit without much success, in a
1 1 lt:le4! appears to defend) 1 1 ..ixf3 .l:.e8+ number of other ways:
1 2 'iti>f1 i.. fS gives Black compensation for a) 6 lt.Jf3? is far too ambitious as here,
the pawn due to his well placed bishops and unlike after 4 e4 tt.Jxe4?, the tactics favoured
the misplaced white king. Black in Pouladi-Gupta, Tehran 2004 after
the forcing 6... tt.Jxe4 7 tt.Jxe5 lt.Jxc3! 8 'Wb3
lt.Jxd5+ 9 'iti>d1 i..d6! whereupon 1 0 tt.Jxfl
�x£7 1 1 cxd5 c6 left Black a clear pawn
ahead.
b) 6 i.d3 i.xc3+!? (doubling the pawns
before lt.Jge2 defends c3) 7 bxc3 0-0 8 lt.Je2
l:le8! (intending to play on the light squares;
such as with ... b6 and ...i..a6) 9 i..gS h6 1 0
i..xf6 (forced as 1 0 i..h4?! would have simply
lost a pawn to 1 0 ... exd5 1 1 cxd5 tt.Jxd3+ 1 2
'it'xd3 g5! 1 3 i..g3 lt.Jxe4) 1 0. . .'it'xf6 1 1 0-0 b 6 .

5 . .. ..tb4
Increasing the pressure, but Black can also
first flick in 5 ... exd5 which is by no means
bad, even if the option of a ... b5 sacrifice to
blast open further lines has gone: 6 cxd5
i..b4 7 'it'd4 (trying to take advantage of the
early exchange on d5; 7 f4 lt.Jg6 would leave
c4 potentially vulnerable after ... 0-0, ... d6 and
...lte8 - 8 e5!? is possible, but 8...tt.Je4 9 'i!ff3
fS!, securing the knight unless White wishes
to give up his centre, appears to give Black a

58
 Th e L un g e : A n A m b itio us Early A dv a n c e

gave Black good pressure against White's Back to 6 'Wc2.

w·cakened structure in Hug-Lelong, corre­ 6 . . . exd5 7 cxd5
spondence 1996. Then 1 2 f4?! ltJxd3 1 3
..Wxd3 .ia6 14 ltJd4 exd5 1 5 e5!? didn't really
convince, but 1 5 exd5 'ii'e7, threatening both
t 6...'ii'e4 and 1 6...'ii'c 5, would also have left
l3lack much better.
c) 6 'ii'd4 attacks e5 whilst trying to defend
everything, but then 6 ... d6 7 .i.e2 0-0 8 f3?!
c5! 9 'ii'd2 b5! 1 0 cxb5 (1 0 dxe6 bxc4 1 1
cxf7+ .l:txf7 also leaves White struggling for a
move) 10 ...exd5 1 1 exdS .l:te8 gave Black, as
we saw above, excellent compensation in
Petit-Meszaros, Cannes 1 997. Or 7 f4 c5!
(Orlov), whilst 7 h3?! 0-0 8 .i.e2 .i.c5 9 'iWd2
cxd5 10 cxdS c6! already favoured Black due 7 . . . 0-0
to his better development in Szabolcsi­ 7 ...'i/e7 is similar when 8 .i.d2 0-0 9 f3 c6!
Bliumberg, Budapest 1 994, although 8 ... c5!? shows that the gueen may well become vul­
would also have been pretty useful. nerable down the c-file. Then 1 0 0-0-0 cxd5
d) 6 f4 1 1 exd5 d6 1 2 g4 b5!? 1 3 g5 itJfd7, with the
knight en route to c5 or to b6, gave Black
good compensation in Kolas-H.Hagesaether,
Oslo 2002.
8 .id2 l:l.e8 9 .ie2 c6! 1 0 dxc6
10 f4 ltJg6 1 1 dxc6 .i.xc3 12 bxc3 ltJxe4
doesn't help as Black is much better, whilst
10 ltJ£3 ftlx£3+ 1 1 .i.x£3 cxdS simply nets a
pawn.

6...itJg6! (sadly 6...tt:Jxe4?! is unconvincing

due to 7 'iWd4! �4+ 8 g3 ltJxg3 9 hxg31
'ii'xh1 10 fxe5) 7 .i.d3 exd5 8 cxd5 0-0 (once
again avoiding 8 ... d6?? 9 'iWa4+!) and Black
has a good position for White may well re­
gret weakening the a7-g1 diagonal, whilst 9
ltJB?! .l:te8 highlights the weakness of e4. 7
e S!? is perhaps the best chance White ever
has for this advance, although still 7 ... tt:Je4 1 0 . . . d5!? .
(< h-lov) 8 'Wd3 exdS 9 cxdS and then 9 ... f5, The simple a��. Iess flashy 1 0 ... ftlxc6 was
or 9 .. .'�Jxc3 1 0 bxc3 �cS 1 1 .te3 �xe3 1 2 also strong when 11 ...ltJd4 would have been
'i'xe3 0-0 and . . .d6, secures adequate coun­ a large threat, whilst 1 1 t'Llf3 does nothing to
tcrchances. defend the en prise e-pawn.
.\
(-'
' '

59
 Tan g o ! A D yn am ic A n s wer to 1 d4

1 1 lLlf3!
White must develop as 1 1 exdS ctJxdS! 1 2
cxb7 i.xb7 only helps Black with 1 3 Wf1
ctJxc3! 14 .i.xc3 'iid S then increasing the
pressure.
11 d4. . .

As we have seen, Black already enjoyed a

strong initiative and good compensation
before White's awful blunder in Shemeakin­
Shilin, Mariupol 2003.

B) 4 'ii'c2

a1) 1 0 f4?! may well walk into a tactic with

1 0 ... ltJxe4! as then 1 1 fxeS d4 (Orlov) creates
the threats of 12 ... 'iih4+ and 12 ... dxc3. White
appears to be powerless to meet both, e.g. 1 2
it'a4 'iih4+ 1 3 g3 lLlxc3! 1 4 'i!Vxb4 'iVe4+
wins the exchange.
a2) 1 0 exdS exdS 1 1 i.d2 d4 (Orlov) gives
Black a strong initiative, when 1 2 ltJe4 lLlxe4
1 3 .i.xb4 'iih4+? fails to 1 4 g3 lLlxg3 1 5 hxg3
'ifxh1 1 6 'iixc7!, but instead the zwischenzug
1 3... d3! appears to allow Black to grab the
exchange safely on the next move.
Once again White uses the queen to de­ a3) 10 .i.f4!? must be critical: 1 O ...ltJg6 1 1
fend some key central squares (e4, c4 and i.g5 0-0! (but not 1 1 ...h6? 1 2 exdS!) and
also possibly c3) but, just as in Une A, such a Black retains good compensation, although
strategy is a litde slow. whether he has more than enough is not so
4 .. . e6 5 e4 apparent.
5 f4?! ltJg6 6 e4 is far too ambitious here, b) 9 .i.d2!? also gives Black compensation
and 6 ... .i.c5! already prepares a deadly after 9 ..0-0, although this may well be
.

7 ... ltJg4. Even 7 .i.e2 can be met by 7 ... ltJg4, White's best bet.
due to the check on h4, but that is better
than 7 'iie2?! 0-0 8 e5?! exdS 9 cxdS ltJxdS!
when 10 'iVc4 .i.xg1 left Black a pawn up and
with a great position in Dondis-Sheppard,
Bermuda 2003.
5 . . . i.b4+
Sensible, but adventurous players may well
wish to explore Orlov's still virtually untested
5 ... b5!?. Play continues 6 dxe6 fxe6 7 cxbS
.i.b7 8 ltJc3 .i.b4 and now:
a) 9 f3 (dlis appears weakening) 9 ... d5 sees
Black eager to further open the position to
favour his better development, for example:

60
 Th e L un g e : A n A m bitio us Early A dv a n c e

Then 1 0 £3 ! (avoiding the developing 1 0 immediately or after 14 ... 0-0, assures Black of
i.e2? which runs into the vicious 1 o. . .�xc3! good counterplay in the centre.
1 1 'ti'xc3 lDxe4! 1 2 1i'xe5 l:.£5, nearly exploit­ 7 . . . exd5 8 cxd5
ing the queen's lack of retreat squares after Yermolinsky has suggested 8 exdS as an
1 3 'ili'd4 lDxd2 when 1 4 'ili'xd2 �xg2 picks improvement, but this appears at least as
up material) 1 O ... dS! (Black must continue to risky for after 8 ... 0-0 (8 ... �c5!?, hoping for 9
play direcdy as 1 0 ... 1i'e7?! 1 1 a3! already left lDh3?! d6 1 0 lDf4 lDfg4!, is also tempting)
him worse, even before 1 1 ...�c5 1 2 lDh3 White is struggling to develop his kingside.
dS?! 1 3 lDa4! �d6 14 f4 won a piece for in­ For example, 9 lDh3?! i.xd2+ 10 lDxd2 d6
sufficient compensation in van der Griendt­ forces the king's knight to move again. Then
Palliser, London 2004) 1 1 exdS (now 1 1 a3 1 1 lDf4 lDg6! 1 2 lDxg6 fxg6
..taS! doesn't really help \'V'hite, bar weaken
his gueenside before he goes long) 1 1 ... exd5
12 0-0-0 cS! maintains Black's good compen­
sation, although the position is objectively
unclear after 1 3 bxc6 .txc6 14 'ittb 1 'ilfb6, or
1 3 a3 �xc3! 1 4 �xc3 d4 and Black usefully
gains the dS-square and will look to further
ad\'ance his central pawns.
6 .id2!
6 lDc3 transposes to Line A, but \'V'hite is
keen to exchange off some of Black's active
pieces.
6 . . .'i'e7
creates a very strong pin down the e-ftle
which 1 3 lDfl doesn't really break due to
1 3 ... lLJg4 14 f3 'ii'h4+! 1 5 g3 'ili'h3 when 1 6
fxg4? li'g2 wins the exchange, whilst 1 6 l:g1
.:te8 1 7 0-0-0 li'h6+ 1 8 f4 lD£2 1 9 l:.e1 �£5
maintains Black's grip on the position. 9
�xb4 'ii'xb4+ 1 0 'ii'c3 'ii'e7 1 1 liJd2 does
not, however, fully solve \'V'hite's difficulties
for then 1 1 ...d6 1 2 0-0-0 �£5 highlights
\'V'hite's weakened gueenside, whilst even 1 3
liJg£3 lDx£3 1 4 i.x£3 l:.fe8 should maintain
an edge for Black.
8 . . . 0-0 9 ltJc3 d6 10 0-0-0 ! ?
7 �e2 Radically solving the problem of how to
Or 7 �xb4 'ii'xb4+ 8 'ii'c3 (now the develop the g1-knight. 1 0 lD£3 lDx£3+ forces
LjUcens must come off, although Black will \'V'hite to weaken his structure as 1 1 ..i.x£3?
still hope to prove that \'V'hite's centre is i.xc3 and 1 2...lDxd5 picks up a pawn.
overextended) 8 ... 'ili'xc3+ 9 lDxc3 d6 1 0 f4 1 0 . . . c61
ltJg6 1 1 g3 exdS! 1 2 lDxd5! (again eliminating Immediately opening queenside lines for
pieces and alw pressure against e4) an attack.
1 2...liJxd5 1 3 cxdS �d7 1 4 �d2 (Munukka­ 1 1 h3 cxd5 1 2 exd5 �d7
Paronen, Helsinki 1 999) and now ... c6, either This favoured Black in Maki-Yermolinsky,

61
 Ta ng o ! A D yn am ic A n s wer to 1 d4

Las Vegas 1 993, when 1 3 f4?! 'Llg6 14 g3

J..xc3! 1 5 J..xc3 lDe4 won material.
± The only move considered by Orlov, but
ere have been a number of other tries since
e rly 1998:
a) 5 'Ll£3!? prevents S ...eS and intends to
simply develop some pieces. S ... e6 and now:
at) 6 'Llc3 b6! (not just allowing the £8-
bishop to be developed actively, but also
intending to create some pressure with the
light-squared prelate) 7 a3 J..cS 8 'il'dt aS 9
g3?! i.a6 1 0 b3 exdS 1 1 cxdS 0-0 1 2 i.g2
'il'e7

Cl 4 'ifd4

left White under pressure in Rotariu-Van

Geet, correspondence 1 986.
a2) 6 g3 i.b4+ (a�:,>ain 6 ... b6!? looks like a
sensible alternative) 7 i.d2 cS!? 8 'ii'd3 (8
dxc6 i.xd2+ 9 lDbxd2 must be critical, al­
We've already met this concept and will though then Black hopes that g3 may not be
do so again in this chapter; the queen de­ so useful, especially after 9... bxc6 1 0 e4!? dS!)
fends c4, also covers e4 and hopes to gain 8 ... i.xd2+ 9 'Llbxd2 exdS 10 cxdS d6 1 1 i.g2
time by attacking the e5-knight. However, 0-0 1 2 0-0 .l:r.e8 gave Black a reasonable Be­
she does appear a little misplaced in the mid­ noni-type position due to his control of eS
dle of the board so early, and can often be and queenside majority in Dobos-Husari,
quickly targeted. Balatonlelle 2003.
4 .. . lLlg6 b) 5 i.gS hopes to be disruptive, but then
Retreating appears stronger than blocking S ... eS leaves White's queen without a good
in the important dark-squared bishop with square (6 dxe6 fxe6 7 'Ll£3 h6! isn't a problem
4...d6 when, for example, 5 e4 c5 6 'ii'e3 e6 7 as then the bishop lacks a good retreat
l2Jc3 i.e7 (Keevil-Palliser, South Wales square), whilst Black intends to gain a good
Open 2001) 8 f4 'Llg6 9 liJ£3 0-0 10 i.d3 dark-squared centre position with ... h6 and
(Orlov) gives White an edge due to his strong ....tcs.
centre and to Black's lack of effective coun­ c) Likewise 5 lbc3 eS 6 'iVd3 (Dudas­
terplay. Ferencz, Budapest 1 998) doesn't impress as
5 e4 then 6... i.c5 simply leaves Black a tempo

62
 Th e L un g e : A n A mb itio us Early A dv a n c e

ahead o f lines considered i n the first two problematic for him for he can easily stand
chapters. worse after ... e5 and ...c6 (after which ...ltJd7-
d) 5 h4!? borrows an idea from those c5 or ...ltJ£8-e6-d4 become possible) unless
chapters, and after 5 ...e5 6 'ilid3 Black can he gains activity, such as by unbalancing the
perhaps even do without 6... h5. Instead position with a kingside pawn advance.
6 ... .i.b4+!? 7 .i.d2 .i.xd2+ 8 ltJxd2 d6 9 g3 h5 6 . . . i.c5 7 i.e3 'ife7! ?
(now 10 h5 was finally a threat with ... ltJf4 Now the queen reaches an active square,
ruled out in response) 1 0 ltJgf3 c6! began but 7 ... .i.xe3 8 'fixe3 0-0 is also possible
counterplay in Osmolnyi-Pitkanen, Joensuu when 9 ltJc3 d6 1 0 g3 c6 1 1 .i.g2 b5!? (very
2000, but even stronger appears to be creative when one expected Black to play
6 ... .i.c5! 7 e3 e4 and then ... ltJe5. more simply on the queenside, such as with
5 . . . e5 1 1 ...cxd5 1 2 cxd5 'i'a5 and then ... .i.d7 and
...%:tfc8) 1 2 dxc6 bxc4 1 3 ltJd5 .i.e6

6 'iVd3
Now Black can construct a good dark­ was pretty complex in Svela-Efimov,
squared centre position and so Orlov instead Gausdal 1 99 1 . However, White then imme­
focused upon the critical (but again still un­ diately lost his way when 1 4 b4?! .i.xd5! 1 5
tested) 6 dxe6!? .i.b4+ and now: exd5 e4! created the strong twin threats of
a) 7 ltJc3 dxe6! 8 'Wxd8+ �xd8 9 f3 when 16...ltJxd5xb4 and 1 6...ltJe5-d3+.
just 9 .. .':Ji;e7, intending ... c6 and ... e5, is 8 i.xc5 'i'xc5 9 f3 d6 1 0 lll c3 0-0 1 1 g3
tempting but so too is unbalancing the posi­ c6!
tion with Orlov's 9... .i.xc3+!? 1 0 bxc3 c5 Exploiting the active queen to play on the
which looks like a good Nimzo ending for queenside.
Hlack as the white bishops will find it hard to 1 2 i.h3!
find good roles. Exchanging his bad bishop and intending
b) 7 .i.d2 .i.xd2+ 8 ltJxd2 dxe6 9 'fixd8+ to be able to castle after 1 2 ... .i.xh3 1 3 ltJxh3
c;i;>xd8 1 0 0-0-0 �e7 (Orlov) does indeed and 1 4 ltJf2.
seem fine for Black. Some may worry that 12 . . .cxd5 13 cxd5 llld 7 1 4 lllge2 'i'b6! ?
with the queens off Black's activity is over, 1 4...ltJb6, eyeing u p the c4-square, was
but this strikes me as an ending with reason­ also strong, but instead Black allows his op­
able winning chances against weaker opposi­ ponent to castle in return for then pushing
tion. The knights may well hassle the white him bad.:wards on the queenside
kingside, whilst White must also be careful in 1 5 'iVb5 'tlfc7! 1 6 0-0 a6 1 7 'Mt'b4 b5 1 8
the centre. There the d4-sljuare is especially "'92?! .:ba

63
 Tan g o ! A D yn a m ic A n s wer to 1 d4

lead in development and so keeping the

queens on \\lith 9 ... 'iic5 is logical; then 1 0
tt:lc3 0-0 1 1 e3 b6! keeps up the pressure.
Meanwhile 5 tt:lf3? allowed Black to utilise a
not uncommon Tango tactical motif \\lith
5.)L!xf3+ 6 gxf3 exd5 7 cxd5 i.b4+, winning
the d-pawn, in Balmazi-Orlov, World Open
(rapid) 1 99 1 .
5 . i.b4+ 6 i.c3!
. .

Wisely giving up on the idea of enjoying a

fianchettoed bishop as here 6 tt:ldZ"?? tt:le4 7
i.cl (or 7 tt:lgf3 tt:lxf3+) 7 ... 'i'f6

Now Huguet-Sulava, Saint Affrique 1 998

continued 1 9 .i.xd7 (not ideal, but otherwise
the knight would have been very strong on
c5) 1 9 ... a5 20 �3 'ii'xd7 and Black was bet­
ter due to his queenside initiative and the
option to break \\lith .. .f5.

D) 4 b3?!

is simply crushing, and forces instant res­

ignation - this occurred in an offhand trans­
atlantic game Marshall-Torre, on board SS
Antonia in 1 925! Instead 6 tt:lc3 is nowhere
near as fatal, although 6...tt:le4! 7 ir'd4 tt:lxc3
8 .i.xc3 .i.xc3+ 9 'i'xc3 'iif6 (Orlov) is still
fine for Black. After 10 l::tc l 0-0 White must
probably accept doubled f-pawns with 1 1
tt:lf3 as he is behind in development, whilst
This ambitiously hopes to drive back the 1 1 e3?! d6 1 2 i.e2 'i'g6! begins to exploit
e5-knight and to establish a strong bishop on Black's better development.
the long diagonal, but it is simply too slow. 6 . . . a�! ?
Not only does White fall further behind in Advancing the a-pawn is tempting after
development, but his queenside dark squares the weakening b3, but 6 ... 'ife7 (Orlov) also
are crucially further weakened. looks quite strong when White may well
4 . . . e6 5 .tb2 come under pressure down the e-ftle, \\lith
White can also first flick in an exchange 7 ... exd5 8 cxd5 'ii'c5 but one threat.
with 5 dxe6 fxe6, but then 6 .i.b2 .i.b4+ 7 7 a3 �xc3+ 8 t2Jxc3 0-0 9 d6!?
.ic3 'ife7 8 i.xb4 'ii'xb4+ 9 'ii'd2 was still Black is very comfortable and so \'Vhite .
very comfortable for Black in Szonyi-Varad.i, aims to prevent him from quickly completing
Hungarian Team Ch. 1 998. Black enjoys a his development.

64
 Th e L un g e : A n A m b itio us Early A dv a n c e

and so the pawn should probably be ac­

cepted. However, also possible is simply
4 ...li:lg6 5 e4 (otherwise ... e6 will still give
Black good play) 5 ... e6, transposing to Line
F.
5 e4 lLlb6 6 a4 a5 7 lLlc3 e6!
This improvement of Orlov's casts doubt
on White's sacrifice, but Black docs have to
be accurate here. Instead 7 ... c6?! (weakening
the queenside and not really assisting Black's
development) 8 ..i.e3! d6 9 'i'b3 li:lbd7 1 0
li:l f3 cxd5 1 1 .i.b5 gave White fair compen­
sation in Tate-Orlov, Chicago 1 995 when
9 . . . a4!? 1 1 ...dxe4? 1 2 li:lg5 d5 1 3 fS! was horrendous
A deep and imptessive exchange sacrifice, for Black.
although playing on the weakened dark
squares with 9 ...cxd6 10 'ii'xd6 lDfg4! and
then 1 1 ...'ii'f6 is also quite tempting. After
9 ... a4 the game Bjornsson-Vlassov, Reykjavik
(rapid) 2003 continued 1 0 lDxa4 .l:.xa4 1 1
bxa4 cxd6 1 2 li:lf3 li:le4! 1 3 li:ld2! 'i'a5, giving
Black goocL compensation for the exchange
due to his activity, White's weakened struc­
ture (at least a4 will drop off) and that the
bishop will quickly become active via b7.

E) 4 f4!?

8 dxe6
Hoping to develop quickly after 8 .. .fxe6 9
.i.d3, but already a sign that White is strug­
gling.
Instead 8 d6 is tempting, but then Black
can simply break out with 8 ... cxd6 9 ..i.e3 d5!.
Now 10 'i'd4 li:lc4 11 i.. xc4 dxc4 12 'i'xc4
may regain a pawn, but Black isn't too far
behind in development and here has the
strong central strike 12 ... d5!. However, even
after 8 li:lf3 White is still struggling for com­
pensation; Black lacks weaknesses and will
3 d 5 was an aggressive move, but this is gain counterplay with .....tb4. In fact, the
l:Vc n more so: White shows himself prepared immediate 8 ... .i.b4 is possible, when again
t o sacrifice the c4-pawn for a strong cen tre . White's centre is in trouble. Then 9 .i.d2?! is
4 . . . tL\xc4! simply met by 9 ... exd5 10 e5 li:le4, again with
Unlike after 4 li:lc3 tt:Jxc4? 5 e4, White a great game for Black.
doesn't now gain an overwhelming position 8 . . . dxe6! 9 'ifxd8 +

65
 Tan g o ! A D yn a m ic A ns wer to 1 d4

White would prefer to avoid

: �d� ..tc5 he is also in danger
�� - but after
f losing the
ing the white centre immediately with 4 . . . e6
and now we shall consider:
truuauve.
9 . �xd8 1 0 .b3 i.b4
..

(Orlov) leaves White really struggling for

compensation. Not only is e4 weak, but
Black intends to develop simply with .. .rJ;;e7
and then ... .i.d7-c6. Then 1 1 0-0-0+ .i.d7

F1 : 5 f4 li:lg6 6 i.d3
F2: 5 f4 lt:lg6 6 e5!?

However, White doesn't have to be so

committal, for example:
a) 5 lt:Jf3 .ib4+ (5 ... lt:Jxf3+ 6 _.xf3 .i.b4+
12 .1xb6!? cxb6 13 .tb5 hopes to exploit should transpose) and now:
the weakened b5-square, but Black can sim­
ply respond with 13 ... .i.xc3! 14 bxc3 ri;e7,
leaving him with a clear plus.

FJ 4 e4

a 1) 6 lt:Jd2 lt:Jxf3+ 7 'li'xf3 7 lt:Jd2 exd5 8

cxd5 'li'e7 9 .id3 0-0 10 0-0 l:te8 (10 ... c6!?,
hoping that d5 will turn out to be weak, is an
alternative plan) 1 1 a3 .i.c5 (with e4 well
defended, Black begins to probe on the dark
Exploiting the e-pawn's being taboo squares) 1 2 b4!? .id4 1 3 :a2 d6 1 4 :cz lt:Jg4
(4. ..ll:lxe4?? 5 'li'd4!) to advance in the centre. was roughly level in Kotov-Kevitz, Moscow
Now in the first ever Tango tournament 1 955.
game (Samisch-Torre, Baden-Baden 1 925) a2) 6 .i.d2 lt:Jxf3+ 7 'ii'x f3 'ii'e7 (defending
Black retreated with 4.)Llg6, but was quickly the bishop and indirecdy preventing 8 eS) 8
in trouble. Thus it is better to start undermin- .ixb4 (this is sensible as 8 .ie2 exdS 9 exd5

66
 Th e L un g e : A n A m b itio u s Earl y A dvan c e

CLJe4! allows Black to immediately increase 1999) 10 ...ti:lxf4! (after this Black will castle
his dark-squared play) 8 ...'�xb4+ 9 'ifc3 'iie7 by hand, but 1o... fxe6 would have allowed
10 dxe6 dxe6 (intending 11...e5; 10 ...'Wxe6!? White to consolidate his centre with 11 g3)
is also possible, but after 11 .id3 Black must 11 exf7+ 'iti>xf7 12 0-0-0 l:e8 13 'ii'g3 ltJg6 14
challenge White's bind slowly, such as with lbgf3 �g8 left d6 vulnerable, but that was
. ..d6, ... 0-0 and then ...'!:2Jd7-c5, as 1t...tt:lxe4? slightly outweighed by the weakness of e4
1 2 'i'xg7! only senres to help White - Black's and especially by Black's control of e5, in
king turns out to be the more exposed) 11 e5 Campos Moreno-De Ia Riva Aguado, Barce­
tt:le4 12 'iic2 lona 1991.

1 2...'iVg5!? (12...'�b4+ is the solid ap­ F1 I 5 f4 tt:lg6 6 i.d3

proach: 13 tiJd2 ltJxd2 14 'iVxd2 was Husari­
Kadhi, Yerevan Olympiad 1996 when
14 ...'iixd2+ 15 �xd2 �d7 and ....ic6 would
have completely equalised) 13 tt:lc3 (13
'itxe4? 'iic1+ wins tl1t: exchange on a1)
1 3 .. tt:lc5! may well force 14 'ii'e2 when after
.

1 4....id7 Black is fine. 14 tt:lb5? doesn't con-

\'ince due to 14...'ifxe5+ 15 'ii'e2 'ifxe2+ 16
�xe2 lDa6 with 17...c6 next up, when White
lacks any real compensation for the pawn.
b) 5 'ii d4 is a standard idea, but Black
doesn't have to retreat to g6. Instead
5 ... �b4+! 6 .id2 .ixd2+ 7 lDxd2 d6 8 f4 c5!
(the thematic counter strike when 9 dxc6 Bringing some support to his large centre,
tt.:lxc6 gives Black useful control of d4) 9 although after
'i'c3 tt:lg6 6 . . . exd5
White must still decide what to do with it.
see follo wing diagram
7 e5?!
1 0 dxe6!? (altering the structure and hop­ Tempting, but this turns out to be too
i ng to contain Black's initiative, whereas 1 0 ambitious. The immediate 7 cxdS doesn't
e5? dxe5 11 fxe5 ltJg4 1 2 ti:lgf3 exdS 1 3 cxdS give Black such strong and active counter­
0-0! left White's centre very overextended play. Black continues with 7.. .ib4+ and now:
.

and vulnerable in D.Paulsen-Lorenz, Berlin a) 8 .id2? loses a pawn after 8 .. .'�e7! with

67
 Ta n g o ! A D yn a m ic A n s wer to 1 d4

threats to d5, e4 and f4. I

fvit
b) Orlov's suggestion of 8 f1 !? 0-0 9 e5
also tempting is 1 4...'ii'xb2!?, which looks like
quite a useful grab due to the neat tactical
h
tLle8 deserves attention, altho gh he appears trick 1 5 tLla4 tLld3+! when 1 6 ..ixd3? 'i'ixg2
to have been correct to conclude here that wins the exchange. Instead 1 6 �fl 'i'id4 1 7
White's ambitious play isn't especially con­ ..ixd3 lbxe4 1 8 i..xe4 'ii'xe4 picks up three
vincing. The knight may have been driven pawns, leaving White poorly coordinated and
back to e8, but ... d6 will leave White's centre Black with good compensation for the piece.
rather vulnerable, such as after 1 0 t2Jf3 d6 1 1 Instead of 1 0 fS?!, 10 h3 should probably
a3 ..ic5 1 2 b4?! (White is loath to give Black be preferred. Then 1 0... ..ic5 is well met by 1 1
a pleasant edge after 1 2 exd6 tLlxd6 and then tLla4, but Black could consider the ambitious
... tLlf5) 12 ... ..ib6 1 3 tLlc3 (to defend d5) 1 O.)t:lh5!? 1 1 0-0 'ii'h4, hoping to get in ... fS .
13 ... dxe5 1 4 fxe5 and now 14 ...J.g4 under­ Instead, however, 1 O ...c6 also should give
mines e5, but even stronger here is good counterplay as White doesn't want a
1 4...lbxe5!, exploiting the loose pieces down weak d-pawn and weaknesses down the e-ftle
the h8-a 1 diagonal. after ... cxd5, but 1 1 dxc6 bxc6 1 2 0-0 l:te8
c) 8 tLlc3 0-0 gives Black counterplay and gives Black sufficient activity in this unclear
a reasonable position. White is a little weak position.
on the kingside (... lbg4 and ... ..ic5 is one 7 exd5?! also hopes to limit Black's coun­
strong possibility) whilst, as Orlov points out, terplay, but now the weakening f4 sticks out
9 e5? tLlxd5 10 i..xg6 backfires after like a sore thumb.
1 0...tLlxc3!. Instead 9 tLlge2 d6 1 0 f5?! (possi­
bly worried about castling kingside, White
attempts to change the course of the game)
1 0... lbe5 1 1 ..ig5 c6! (of course it's essential
to break out and thus increase Black's dark­
squared play) 12 a3 ..ixc3+ 13 tLlxc3 'i'b6 1 4
..ie2

An immediate 7...i.c5 is tempting but is

well met by 8 'ii'e2+! tLle7 9 i.e3 ..ixe3 1 0
'ii'xe3 0-0 1 1 t2Jge2!. However, 7 ... ..ib4+! 8 .
..id2 (or 8 tLlc3 0-0 9 tLlge2 l:te8 with a good
game for Black, such as after 1 0 0-0 ..ic5+ 1 1
�h1 tLlg4) 8...'il'e7+ exploits tl1e weakness of :
f4 (9 tLlge2? l2Jxf4 or 9 'il'e2? i..xd2+ and •
and now 1 4....l:te8 1 5 ..ixf6 gxf6 1 6 'ii'd2 1 0.. .'�Jxf4) when 9 'ifi>fl 0-0!? (Orlov's :
..ixfS!? was an interesting piece sacrifice, 9 ... i..xd2 1 0 'ii'xd2 l2Je4 is also possible, al- ':
aimed against the central white monarch and though tl1en 1 1 .i.xe4! 'ii'xe4 1 2 'ir'c2 'ir'xe2+ :
White's poor coordination, in Pomar Sala­ 1 3 tLlxe2 doesn't seem so clear; Black has a '
manca-Van Geet, Beverwijk 1 967. However, bishop, but a strong white knight is going to .
.
Black doesn't have to play so ambitiously; settle on d4) 10 'ir'e2 (10 ll\£3? ll\g4! itnmedi-

68
 Th e L un g e : A n A mb itio us Ea rl y A d van c e

ately highlights the vulnerability o f the e3- Cracking under pressure. The king is un­
square) 1 0 ... 'ifd6! favours Black. For exam­ able to move, for then 1 o ...CDxg3 would
ple, 1 1 g3 1:te8 1 2 ..i.xb4 'ifxb4 1 3 'ifd2 'ifc5 come with check. Also losing is 1 0 lLld2?
lt:Jxg3 when 1 1 CDgf3 lLlxf4! is crushing as
the queen is immune due to the mate threat
on d3. However, 1 0 tt::\c3! isn't so bad when
1 0 ... tt::\xc3! (again simpler than 1 0...tt::\xg3!? 1 1
tt::\ £3 'ifh3 1 2 .:tg1 ! when 1 2... tt::\ fS!? 1 3 .ifl !
drives the queen back to h6, whilst 1 2...tt::\h 5
13 ..i.fl 'ii'f5 14 ..i.d3 forces a repetition after
1 4...'ifh3 1 5 ..i.fl) 1 1 bxc3 (1 1 gxh4?! tt::\xdl+
1 2 �xd 1 tt::\xh4 leaves Black a clear pawn up
in the ending) 1 1 .....i.xc3+ 12 ..i.d2 i..xd2+ 1 3
'ii'xd2 'i!Ve7 1 4 tt::\ S d6 (Orlov) at least gives
\Vhite some practical chances for the pawn
after 1 5 ..i.b5+!. However, Black is still quite
keeps the strong initiative going. solid and is successfully undermining e5:
7 . . .lbe4 a cxd5 1 5 .. .'�f8 1 6 'iWc3 i..g4 17 0-0 i..x f3 18 .:txf3
W'hite hopes that the ensuing complica­ dxe5 19 .l:.e 1! e4!? 20 f5 tt::\e5 21 .:f.f4 regains
tions are in his favour. In any case, it's too one of the pawns but leaves the knight se­
late to back out, for example 8 ..i.xe4?! dxe4 9 curely cemented on e5 after 21 ...f6 22 .l:.fxe4
CDc3 d6! retains the extra pawn and leaves 'i!fd6. Here Black should be able to complete
Black much be r. � his development with .. .cJ;fl as 23 .:tel .l:tc8
a . . :iVh4+ s 93 ..tb4+ ! " keeps c7 covered.
This not only hopes for some very pretty 1 0 . . . l2Jxg3! 1 1 liJf3
mates, but is also probably strongest. Instead
9... CDxg3!? 1 0 lt:Je 'ifh3 1 1 .l:tg1 lDfS 1 2 ..tfl
�h6 (C.Collins-Sveinsson, correspondence
2000) doesn't seem so clear as the black
c1ueen may well turn out to be misplaced on
h6, although she does still control d1e impor­
tant h4- and f4-squares from there.

1 1 . . .liJxf4!
Picturesque, but Black can also prefer the
move order 1 1 ...i..xd2+ 1 2 tt::\bxd2 (or 1 2
'ifxd2 'ifxf4 1 3 .:tg1 'ifxf3 14 .l:txg3 tt::\xe5!,
netting a third extra pawn) 1 2 ... lt::lx f4 13 ..tf1
'ii'h3!, transposing to move 1 3 in the main
line.
1 0 ..td2? 1 2 .ltf1 !

69
 stead 1 4 .l:tg1 lt.Jxfl JUSt left Black two Pawns
0

up, as we've seen' in Elburg-Simmelink, cor-

respondenc e 1 9990

"" g 6
F2) 5 f4 "Z.l
The beautiful lines for Black m the last
0 0

0 0
vartatlon may have put White players off 6
..td3, but he can also aim to control the key
e4-square with
6 e5!?

1 3 . . . 'ifh3!
w;m "'' k. ,, pomt tha t after 1 4 lt.JgS
0

. llnmun< 0
'iig2!, the queen remruns
= .
the was qu10te a crafty Iodea m Torres-Silman,
light squares. due to the amazing knight pmr - 'Wr
p,�d=a 1 9920 Then 1 1 ..0 e7 1 2 .:tb 1 0-0
:�:�_:_�
0

0 0
)
a delightful pt ece oJ ff a nalys t s by c rlov In
- �
(1 2. . o d6? 1 3 "l...l e2 traps the• bisho p
ll ue to
o
.
------- __

70
 Th e L un g e : A n A mb itio us Early A d va n c e

1 3 ...i.a5 1 4 'ifa4+) was immediately agreed his compensation. Benjamin later supplied
drawn, presumably because Black was rightly light notes to the game as part of a series of
worried about 1 3 d6!. Thus he should proba­ pretty reasonable introductory articles on the
bly have preferred 1 1 ...'ii'd 8!? 1 2 .l:lb1 exdS Tango for WII'IIJjeremysilman.com, and he cer­
1 3 cxdS 0-0 when the bishop can retreat to tainly believes in Black's central counterplay
aS when necessary, whilst ... d6 will break here.
down 'White's centre. However, 1 4 d6! re­ 1 1 . . . d6 1 2 ltlf3 .i.a5!
mains possible, although now 14 ... cxd6 1 5 Wisely removing the bishop from poten­
i.a3 (1 5 exd6 _.f6! 1 6 i.e4 .l:le8 shouldn't tially hanging and thus facilitating central
give 'White enough compensation as Black exchanges. Benjamin mentions 1 2 ... 'ilfe7 1 3
can always, if necessary, unravel with ...l:tb8 a3! i.aS 1 4 b4 i.b6 1 5 lLlc3 when 'White gets
and ...b6) 1 5 ... dxe5! looks like a good ex­ to support his centre, unlike in the game.
change sacrifice. For example, 1 6 lLle2 i.aS
1 7 i.xf8 'ilfxf8 leaves Black with a solid posi­
tion and three pawns for the exchange, whilst
White's king remains a little shaky.

Now the game continued 1 3 lLlc3 dxeS 1 4

fxeS exdS 1 5 cxdS i.fS 1 6 _.d4 (not the ideal
square, but 1 6 _.c4 i.xc3! 1 7 bxc3 i.e6
would have regained the pawn, leaving Black
7 . . . .i.b4+ 8 �d1 f5 9 .i.d3 0-0! ? still with a strong initiative) 1 6 ... c5! (blasting
This pawn sacrifice appears to give Black open further lines for the attack at the cost of
fully adequate compensation. a second pawn) 1 7 'ilfxcS .l:c8 18 'ilfd4 i.xc3!
1 0 .i.xe4 fxe4 1 1 'ifxe4 19 bxc3 1!t'a5 when Black had excellent com­
Popescu-Tomescu, Bucharest 1 995 sadly pensation due to 'White's centralised king and
ended in a draw here, but in R.Potter­ many holes. After 20 i.d2 �5!? 21 d6 .:tc4!
'
Bcnjamin, World Open 2003 Black showed he began''�t successful infiltration on the light
I
much more spirit by continuing and proving squares.

71
 CHAPTER FOUR I
The Menagerie :
Offbeat Tries for White

1 d4 l2Jf6 2 c4 l0c6 1 ) 3 g3 et al
Surprised by the Tango, White players can 1 d4 lt.Jf6 2 c4 l0f6 3 g3
react in a variety of ways. Some will wish to
deny Black the sort of dark-squared centre
position he is after, and here we will consider
such schemes. The variations considered
below are less popular than the main lines,
but are not aU harmless. Thus to dismiss
them as 'White's miscellaneous tries' doesn't
seem quite right, as that conjures up an image
of a number of dull, non-critical lines. Some
of those below arc quite solid, whereas oth­
ers are rather sharp, and thus taken together
they remind one rather of a small and varied
?.oo or menagerie.
Now we will consider the following three Just as he can do after 2 ... e6 and 2 ... g6,
methods for White to counter the Tango that White opts for a solid fianchetto set-up. Al­
avoid the main lines: ternatively:
1) The fianchetto with 3 g3 and �1lite's a) 3 e3 is less testing after 3... e5, intending
other third moves. to reach a reasonable dark-squared centre
2) 3 liJc3 e5 where White avoids closing position after 4 d5. Instead 4 tbc3 reaches a
the centre with 4 d5, with a transposition to position considered below in Section 2 after
the English Four Knights after 4 liJf3 the 3 tbc3 e5 4 e3.
main alternative. Then 4... exd4 is the com­ b) 3 i.f4!? is, however, quite challenging
plex main line, but the simpler 4... e4, which is as it aims to prevent ... e5. Now 3... d5 4 lLif3!
also in good theoretical shape, will be our (but not 4 e3 dxc4! 5 �xc4 e5!) leads to an
choice. unusual form of the Chigorin. Instead Black
3) 3 liJf3 e(> when White plumps for should be able to gain a good position with
something other than the three main moves 3 ... d6 4 lbf3 (or 4 d5 e5!) 4 ... lbh5!, forcing
(4 tbc3, 4 g3 and 4 a3). through ... e5 - 5 i..g5 h6 6 i..h4 g5 7 �g3

72
 The Menagerie : O ffb ea t Tries for Wh ite

�g7 may well already favour Black as he will develop freely after ...lbe7 as the knight no
shortly have an extra, and pretty effective, longer has to go to g6. This seems best, al­
dark-squared bishop. However, Black can though 4 ... t'Lle7!? is also possible, keeping
also consider 3 ...e5!? (anyway!) when 4 i.xe5 ... i.b4+ in reserve and hoping to transpose to
tDxe5 5 dxe5 looks like a reasonable Buda­ Chapter Two such as after 5 i.g2 lbg6 6 lbc3.
pest, and then 5 ...i.b4+ 6 tiJd2 ttJg4 7 ttJgf3
1We7 regains the pawn with equality. Instead
4 dxe5 t'Lle4!? leads to a very rare line of the
Fajarowicz (1 d4 t'Llf6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 t'Lle4).
Then 5 t'Llf3?! i.c5! seems pretty reasonable
for Black and after 6 e3 i.b4+ 7 t'Llbd2 g5! 8
i.g3 h5 9 h3 t'Llxg3 10 fxg3 1We7 he was al­
ready better in Panagopolous-Steiner, Du­
brovnik Olympiad 1 950 (by transposition). 5
a3!? must be critical, but then 5 .....tc5 6 e3
g5!? may well be playable.
c) 3 i.g5 hopes to disrupt Black's devel­

opment as after 3 ... e5 4 d5 i.b4+ 5 t'Lld2!, the

knight must really retreat to b8, although 5 i.d2
Black's position is still quite playable. How­ 5 t'Lld2!? is more ambitious, although
ever, it's not clear as to what is wrong with Black doesn't mind conceding the bishop
3 . ..lbe4! �hen it's hard to believe that c4 can pair once the position is closed, whilst he "vill
possibly be a more useful move than ... t'Llc6 also now gain a useful small lead in develop­
in the Trompowsky. Now 4 i.h4 g5!? hunts ment. Then 5 ... t'Lle7 6 lbg£3?! e4 (White was
down the bishop pair, but White should hoping, as 6 ...d6 would be the usual blunder,
probably prefer that to 4 i.f4?! e5! to force Black to defend e5 with 6 ... t'Llg6,

which is also playable but less dynamic) 7

t'Lld4 (7 t'Llg5?! h6 8 lbh3 e3! 9 fxe3 t'Ll£5 is
rather awkward for White) 7 ...c6!

5 dxe5 i.b4+ 6 t'Lld2 (6 i..d2 t'Llxd2 7

tDxd2 t'Llxe5 is also very pleasant for Black)
6 . .. lbxc5! when Black is already better due to
both his activity and to his threats (both gives Black strong play in the centre and
7 ...lbxc4 and .. .'ili'f6 arc on the cards). White must be careful. Then 8 dxc6 solves
3 . . .e5 4 d5 i.b4+ the problem of the d-pawn, but doesn't really
Swapping off the bishop so that Black can help White after 8 ... dxc6 9 a3 i.. a S! 1 0 lb4b3

73
 Tan g o ! A D yn a m ic A n s we r to 1 d4

I e3. This is excellent for Black after, e.g. 1 1 6 . . . lLle7

fxe3 J.b6 1 2 c5 li:lfS 1 3 lt:lc4 'ii'xdl+ 14 From here the knight supports both .. .f5
'ifi>xd 1 i.e6 1 5 cxb6 J.xc4 1 6 li:ld4 li:ld6 17 and ... c6, although in Pupols-Orlov, Oregon
bxa7 c5, with superb compensation against Open 1991, Black preferred the slightly
'White's exposed king and crippled structure. slower but also quite playable 6... li:lb8, bring­
6 a3 is perhaps more thematic after 5 ing the knight to pressurise e4 after ...lt:la6-
li:ld2. Then 6 ... i.xd2+ 7 J.xd2 d6 8 J.g2 0-0 c5.
9 llJ£3 lt:le4! 10 0-0 should be fine for Black 7 �g2 d6 8 lLlgf3 0-0 9 0-0 c6!?
who can inunediately exploit the knight's Striking out in the centre before 'White can
being on e7, rather than on g6, to break in fully coordinate, although Orlov's 9...a5 also
the centre with 1 O... c6. However, Orlov's deserves attention. Then 1 0 b3! prepares b4
more direct 1 O.. .f5, planning 1 1 J.e 1 !? g5! and leaves 'White slightly better, although
with attacking chances, is also quite playable. Black still has his own chances on the king­
side after 10 ...li:ld7 1 1 a3 h6 1 2 b4 f5.

5 bd2+ 6 lL!xd2
. . ..

Instead 6 '1Wxd2 li:le7 7 li:lc3 d6 8 i.g2 0-0 1 0 dxc6

9 e4 lt:le8 1 0 lt:lge2 f5 1 1 exfS i.xfS 1 2 0-0 After 10 e4 cxd5 1 1 cxd5 J.d7 Black will
li:lf6 13 f4! left 'White a touch better in aim to seize the queenside initiative, such as
Schleifer-Pineault, Quebec 1998. However, with 1 2 '1Wb.3 '1Wa5! 1 3 li:lc4 (probably a touch
Orlov's 9 ...li:ld7!?, bringing the knight first to premature) 1 3...'1Wa6 14 li:lfd2 b5!.
c5 after 10 ... a5, is a better way to get in ... fS. 1 0 . . . lLlxc6!
Black can often prefer to cover some key
squares with 10 ... bxc6, but here 1 1 c5! J.e6
12 cxd6 '1Wxd6 1 3 'ii'c2 would give 'White a
small edge. Instead 1 0 ... lt:lxc6! 1 1 '1Wc2 J.e6
seems fine for Black, who threatens 1 2 ... d5.

2) Preferring an English with 3 lt:lc3

Here we consider 3 lt:lc3 e5 where 'White
avoids closing the centre with 4 dS, a trans­
position to the English Four Knigh ts after 4
li:l£3 being the main alternative. As men­
tioned in the introduction to this chapter, we
will concentrate on 4... c4 here.

74
 Th e M e n ag erie : O ffb e a t Tries fo r Wh ite

Exploiting the vulnerable white queenside As we shall see in Line C, Black should
now defend e4 with 1 O... .tf5. Instead
1 0 . . . exf3 1 1 i..xf3! prepared to advance
White's centre. 1 1 .. .l%xe3 1 2 lbb3 .l:l.xc3!
was critical, but then

Krause-Salinas
Dortmund 1 976

White has played a misguided 'ii'a4 and

now 9 b6! not only defended the knight
. . . 1 3 i.. g 5 gave White good compensation
but also prepared to increase the pressure on for the pawns in the shape of a strong initia­
c4 with ....ta6. Then 1 0 lbh3? 'ifc5! 1 1 tive and a useful bishop pair. After 1 3 . . .lbe7
ti'b4 lbxc4 1 2 e3 .lta6 simply won the c­ 1 4 ti'd2 .l:l.xc4 1 5 i..xf6 gxf6 1 6 .lte2 the
pawn whilst also fatally weakening dS. 1 0 bishop pair and pin had gone, but White
�h3 i s too slow, but having to defend c4 instead enjoyed good attacking chances
with 1 0 .l:tb1 'ii'cS 1 1 .:.b4 (and not 1 1 l:tbS? against Black's vulnerable kingside.
'ii'xc4 12 :xaS 'ilfxc3+ 13 .td2 'ii'a 1+!) is
hardly ideal - 1 1 ...i.a6 1 2 e3 c6! (exploiting Restricting the white bishops
the offside gS-knight) 1 3 'ii'c2 'We7 and then
... cS still favours Black.

White's mobile centre and activity

Christiansen-Lobron
Bundesliga 1 996

Black has chosen to undouble White's c­

Adamski-Knaak pawns so as to overprotect e4 and to be able
East Germany-Poland, Zinnowitz 1 973 to develop quickly. However, he must be

75
 Ta n g o ! A D yn a m ic A n s wer to 1 d4

careful not to allow White's bishops to be­ i s also possible when s ....ib4 6 ..td2 0-0 7 a3
come active, which was successfully achieved .ie7! (wisely preventing White from freeing
with 1 3 . . .lUa5! 1 4 a4 l:.feS 1 5 h5 (unfor­ his position with exchanges and also usefully
tunately for White this is essential as 1 5 0-0? acquiring the bishop pair on an open board)
gS simply traps the knight) 1 5 . . .l:.ad8 1 6 8 'Ll£3 d6 9 .ie2 i.e6 1 0 b3 lLlx£3+ 1 1 .ix£3
0-0 c5! (fully exploiting Black's lead in de­ dS! fully equalised in Seirawan-Orlov, Seatde
velopment) 1 7 i.e3 c4 1 8 l:.b 1 lUb3, leav­ (rapid) 1 991 . For those who want an unbal­
ing Black with a large positional advantage. anced position rather than equality then
Even now 1 9 l:.xb3 cxb3 20 �xb3 failed s ... g6!? 6 b3 ..tg7 7 i.b2 d6 8 .ie2 0-0 9 'Llf3
to generate enough play for the exchange. 'Llfg4!? 1 0 'LlxeS 'LlxeS 1 1 0-0 a6! 1 2 1'id2
i.e6 13 lLldS l:b8 (Schaefer-Cebalo, Valle
Theory d'Aosta 2000) seems like a good alternative.
3 lUc3 e5 .
4 . . e4!?
White's choice of fourth move suggests
that he may know at least something about
the 4 d4 variation of the English Four
Knights. The main lines of that lead to rich
but also quite complex and unusual posi­
tions, and so by avoiding 4 ... exd4 Black
hopes to fight on at least a level playing field.
Furthermore, R.aetsky and Chetverik (in their
excellent book English ... e5) were quite possi­
bly correct to claim here that 'the easiest
route to equality is probably the lesser known
...e4!?'. Furthermore, as we saw above,
White's structure is now often compromised
4 lUf3 early on, leading to unbalanced positions,
Transposing to a posmon normally . whilst 4 ... e4 has been the choice of Alekhine,
reached via 1 c4 eS 2 lLlc3 'Llf6 3 'Ll£3 'Llc6 4 Euwe, Flohr and Keres, as well as more re­
d4, but White also has two rather unambi­ cendy the respected theoretician Tiviakov
tious tries: '\ d the very talented McShane.
a) 4 e3 .ib4 (4...exd4!? 5 exd4 dS, transpos­
ing tp the 4 c4 variation of the French Ex­
change, is also possible) sees Black happy to
reach a dark-squared centre position after 5 dS
'Lle7 with White already committed to e3,
whilst S 'Ll£3 e4 6 'Lld2 transposes to Line C.
b) 4 dxeS 'LlxeS also does litde to chal­
lenge Black who after 5 'Ll£3 'Llx£3+ 6 ex£3
.ib4 7 i.d2 0-0 8 i.e2 aS! (again ... dS is the
key break to get in) 9 0-0 dS 1 0 cxdS 'LlxdS
1 1 'LlxdS 1'ixd5 12 .if4 1'ixd1 1 3 .l:tfxd1 c6
went on to exploit his superior structure in
Thetis-Palliser, Cappelle Ia Grande 2001.
Instead 5 e4?! gives Black a pleasant Now we will consider, in ascending order
choice between 5 ... .ic5 and 5 ... �b4, but 5 e3 of popularity:

76
 Th e Menag erie: O ffb e a t Tries fo r White

A: 5 lt:le5 rums out that it is not so hard to break it.

B: 5 lt:lg5 Instead 6 e3 leaves both white bishops fairly
C: 5 lt:ld2 inactive. Then 6 ...0-0 7 .i.d2 :e8! (Black
wants to recapture on c6 with the d-pawn so
5 d5 is also possible, but isn't at all chal­ as to gain an extra ... c5 lever against White's
lenging: 5 ... exf3 6 dxc6 fxg2 7 cxd7+ �xd7!? centre) 8 lDxc6 dxc6 9 �e2 .i.d6 1 0 'iic2 c5!
(hoping to prove that White will regret his 1 1 dxc5! (1 1 d5 ..tf5 gives Black easy devel­
fragmented kingside in the middlegame) 8 opment and a strong attack should White go
�xg2 c6 9 �g5 'i'a5! 10 ..d2 .i.b4 1 1 0-0 short, but 12 0-0-0 c6! keeps White botded
0-0-0 gave Black a small edge due to his up and opens some key lines to attack down)
greater activity and kingside chances in Bien­ 1 1 .....txc5 1 2 0-0-0 c6 left Black at least equal
inda-Rabiega, Dresden 2000. As well as this, due to his spatial advantage in Janosevic­
7...'ti'xd7 8 'iVxd7+ �xd7 9 .i.xg2 c6 1 0 S.Nikolic, Sarajevo 1 967.
�gS?! �e6! 1 1 b3 �b4 1 2 :c1 h 6 gave However, 6 lDxc6!? is a valid alternative
Black a small edge in Apsenieks-Tartakower, when it is Black who has the doubled c­
Folkestone Olympiad 1 933. After 1 3 .i.xf6 pawns for once, but the e4-bridgehead and
gxf6 Black controls dS and possesses a useful his free development easily compensate for
bishop pair, especially the strong dark­ that after 6 ...dxc6! 7 .i.gS h6 and now:
squared prelate.

AI 5 lt:le5

a) Kamishov-Flohr, Moscow Ch. 1 945

continued 8 �xf6 'iixf6 9 e3 0-0 1 0 1Wc2
:e8 1 1 .i.e2 cS! 12 0-0! cxd4! 1 3 lDd5 (White
l ·:xploiting the slight weakness of the e4- was no doubt relying on this tactical defence
pawn (5 .. .'�Jxe5? 6 dxeS ltJg4 7 'iVd4) to jump to solve his difficulties, but Flohr had seen
forwards, although Black is easily able to further) 13 ...'iVg6 1 4 exd4 (14 'iia4 appears to
ignore the eS-knight for the time being. fork two pieces, but after 1 4... c6 1 5 lDxb4?
5 . . . .ib4 ..th3 1 6 g3 d3 White is in huge trouble on
Preparing to take the pressure off e4 and the light squares as 17 ..td 1 �xfl 1 8 �xfl aS
to spoil \'V'hite's structure with a trade on c3, traps the knight on b4, leaving Black with an
whilst Black doesn't mind his development extra exchange and a crushing position)
being accelerated by 6 'Dxc6. 14 ... .i.d6 1 5 �h 1 c6, giving Black the edge
6 .tg 5 due to his bishop pair and attacking chances.
Hoping to make use of the active e5- b) White must concede the bishop as 8
knight by creating a strong pin, although it ..th4?! e3! 9 fxe3 g5! 10 ..tf2 'De4 1 1 'ii'b3

77
 Ta n g o ! A D ynamic A n s wer to 1 d4

'We7 left him horribly cramped and Black complex, but roughly equal. Black, however,
very active with excellent compensation in is well placed to meet W'hite's main break of
Maier-Kraut, Bundesliga 1 999. Then 12 g3 aS 1 3 f3!? with 1 3 ... gS! when 14 i.g3 exf3 1 S
:xf3 .tg4 or 1 4 fxe4 'Wxe4 1 S i. £2 .i.g4
weakens W'hite's light squares and prepares
to increase the pressure on e3.
7 . . . 'ii'xf6 8 .!Dxc6 e3!
Again this strong pawn sacrifice, which is
here even better than 8...dxc6 transposing to
Kamishov-Flohr (note 'a' to W'hite's 6th
move).
9 fxe3 dxc6 1 0 'ifb3 'it'h4+ 1 1 �d2 c5!

1 3 a3?? didn't effectively swap off an at­

tacking piece because 1 3 ...i.xc3+ 1 4 bxc3
'Wf6 1 S i.g1 'Wxfl+! won material due to the
b3-queen then being undefended.
6 . . . h6
Again immediately breaking the pin and
quickly gaining a good game.

This left W'hite under pressure on the dark

squares in Bigelow-Aiekhine, Bradley Beach
1 929. The world champion then forced a
much better ending with 12 g3 'figS 1 3 dxcS
'fixeS 1 4 a3 .i.xc3+ 1 S 'ifxc3 0-0 1 6 .i.g2
.l:td8+ 17 'iti>c2 .i.fS+ 1 8 e4 .:ld4!.

Bl 5 .!Dg5

7 .i.xf6?!
Once more W'hite isn't careful enough.
Here, due to his not yet having exchanged on
c6, 7 .th4 is the right move, although still
7 .. Wke7 8 lLlxc6 (McCambridge-Denker,
.

Lone Pine 1 979) £. .. dxc6! 9 e3 cS (9 ... .tf5!?

1 0 .i.e2 gS 11 .i.g3 0-0-0 looks like a valid
and unclear alternative) gives Black good play
in the centre, when 1 0 .i.e2 0-0 1 1 0-0 .i.xc3
1 2 bxc3 .i.fS (Raetsky and Chetverik) is

78
 Th e Menag erie : O ffb ea t Tries fo r Wh it e

A relatively aggressive choice: not only Krause-Balinas, Dortmund 1976. 8 e3 im­

does White immediately attack e4 but he may proves when Black should now avoid 8...'i'c5
well also be happy to enter some fairly com­ due to 9 ..id2! when 9 ...lt:lxc4? 10 ..ixc4
plex positions. 'i'xc4 loses a piece for insufficient compen-
5 . �b4!
. .
sation to 11 a3!. However, 8.....ixc3+ 9 bxc3
Again a simple, but effective riposte, b6, intending 10...0-0 and 11.....ia6, still looks
which is also much easier to play than the like a good Nimzo for Black as here an im­
rather sharp s...h6!?. mediate 10 ..ia3? is impossible due to
6 d5!? 10...'iVeS.
Gaining space and hoping to exploit the 7 'ifd4 is also possible, although then
knight's being on gS, but White has also 7...'i'e7 8 e3 d6 is rather comfortable for
played more simply: Black as White has been unable to get in cS
a) 6 g3 dS! 7 a3 (parrying the pressure on himself, whilst ...cS is on the cards as well as
his centre, although Black can shortly ftx simply exploiting the offside gS-knight.
some targets) 7.....ixc3+ 8 bxc3 0-0 9 ..ig2 h6
(now after 10 lDh3, with e4 secure, Black can
capture on c4) 10 cxdS _.xdS 11 lDh3 ..ifS
12 lDf4 'i'd7 13 h4 lDaS!, exploited White's
queenside weaknesses to good effect, as we
have seen, m Christiansen-Lobron,
Bundesliga 1996.
b) 6 a3 ..ixc3+ 7 bxc3 h6 8 lDh3 gives
Black a pleasant choice between the active
j
8... d5!? and 8... 0-0, intending to pressurise c4
with ... b6, ...liJaS and .....ia6.
c) 6 ..id2 breaks the pin and prepares to
meet 6...'i'e7 with 7 dS!. Black can secure
equality with 6...lDxd4 7 lt:lgxe4 lLlxe4 8 7 . . . tt:lxc4 8 ltlgxe4 tt:lxe4 9 tt:lxe4
lLlxe4 \i'e7, but also possible is 6.....ixc3!? 7 Now 9...'iVe7 10 a3 ..ixd2+ 11 lLlxd2 lLlb6
..ixc3 h6 8 lLlh3 dS when 9 lLlf4 is critical as 12 'iWb3 0-0 soon led to a quick draw in Cy­
9 cxdS lLlxdS 10 g3?! ..ie6! 11 ..ig2 'iVd7 12 borowski-Turov, European Ch. 2001, but
lLlf4 lLlxf4 13 gxf4 fS gave Black the edge in Black should probably have been more ambi­
Laux-Heuer, Leipzig 1998. tious with 9...lt:lxd2! 10lt:lxd2 'iff6
6 . tt:la5!
..

Immediately targeting c4 is best as on

6.....ixc3+ 7 bxc3 lLlaS, White has the option
of 8 'ifd4 'iVe7 9 cS! when 9...0-0 10 d6 cxd6
1 1 cxd6 'f*'e8 12 ..if4 gave him the better
chances in Zagema-P.Larsen, Hinnerup 1979.
7 �d2
Again aiming for simplification, but this
does rather suggest that 5 lLlgS isn't particu­
larly good. However, at least White does now
avoid any structural damage.
Instead, as we have seen, 7 'ii'a4?! 'it'e7 8
a3?1 J.xc3+ 9 bxc3 b6 was good for Black in

79
 D ynamic A ns we r t o 1 d4
Ta n g o .1 A

\vhe n he i
s active and enjoys the long-term Then 7 e3 (or 7 �gS e3! 8 �xe3 dxc4 9 f3
1 . lt't"c of the two bishops. One can easily .t£5 - intending 10 �f2 i.xb1 1 1 .l:txb1
aov�u �
�

pict ure Black attac �g on the kingside with tiJdS 12 .l:l.c1 'ir'gS! - and this unclear posi­
... 'i:Vg6, . .0-0
. and, In response to e4, .. .fS. tion was agreed drawn in Kovacevic-Sax,
J-10\n:n:r, he can also play for more at once Ljubljana 2001) 7 ...dxc4! 8 .ixc4 0-0 in­
with 1 1 'ifc2 (and not 1 1 a3? �cS when 12 tended to retreat the bishop to d6 beginning
ctJc4 'i'xb2! picks up a couple of free pawns) a strong attack should White have now cas­
1 J .J /Nd4!? when 12 l:.d1 'ii'xdS 1 3 'ii'xc7 0-0 tled in Dizdar-Loginov, Ljubljana 1995.
looks good for Black as the bishop pair However, 9 b3 tiJdS 10 i.d2 lLlxc3 1 1 lLlxc3
should prove strong on the open board. 'i'gS! also created strong kingside pressure in
the game.
C) 5 ltld2 6 . . . .txc3 7 bxc3 0-0

Attacking e4 without risking leaving the 8 .te2

knight out on a limb on gS, although this Rapidly developing the kingside, although
retreat does rather clog up White's position. White has also tried a couple of other plans
5 . . . .tb4 6 e3 here:
'W'hite has also tried 6 lLldb1!?, covering c3 a) 8 g3?! d6 9 .tg2 .l:te8 10 0-0 i.g4! (hon­
and hoping to develop with a3 and �gS, but ing in on White's weakened light squares) 1 1
this does appear rather optimistic, especially 'ir'c2 i.e2 1 2 .!:tel i.d3 left Black slightly
after the strong counter 6... d5!. better in Cafferty-A.H.Williams, Cambridge
1971.
\
b) 8 i.a3 .l:te8 9 'ir'c2 d6 10 cS dS! (refus­
ing. to immediately undouble the pawns as
now after c4 and a pawn exchange, Black can
usually exploit the dS-square) 1 1 h3 .ie6 1 2
�e2 'iVd7 was roughly equal in Steinmeyer­
Benko, US Open 1 959.
8 . . .l:te8 9 0-0 d6 10 f3!
'W'hite must open some lines for his
pieces, as instead wavering with 1 0 .l:::tb 1 ?! in
Lacasse-Hebert, Montreal 1 978 saw him
come under a strong attack after 1 0 . .lLle7! 1 1
.

liJb3 c6 1 2 .i.d2 aS!? (hoping to h>ain some

80
 Th e Menag erie: O ffb e a t Tries fo r Wh ite

useful space) 1 3 a4 lt:Jg6 1 4 cS dS 15 c4 dxc4

16 �xc4 tt:lh4! 17 i.e2 lDdS 1 8 g3 'iVgS.
In general forcing through cS doesn't
cause Black too many problems and 10 lt:Jb3
tDe7 1 1 cS dS 1 2 c4?! i.e6 simply helped to
create useful possibilities for Black's pieces in
Averbakh-Geenen, Thessaloniki Olympiad
1 988. Here 1 3 tt:laS?! b6! 14 cxb6 axb6 1 5
cxdS lt:JfxdS 16 lt:Jc4 lt:Jc3 left Black well on
his way to an impressive victory.

(Raetsky and Chetverik) with excellent

compensation. 1 8 'Wc2 lt:Ja6!? 1 9 lt:Jft 'li'h3
20 .l:th2 'WfS 21 lt:Jg3 'Wd7 sees White having
succeeded in escaping from a deadly ... e3
push as well as in having driven back the
black queen. However, Black has three
pawns for the piece as well as the better
strucrure, whilst ... lt:Jc5-d3 is threatened, re­
newing Black's initiative.
11 . . . ttlxe4
10 . . . i.f5!
As we saw above, Black must try and con­
tain White's activity for 1 o.. . ex£3 1 1 i.x£3!
l:txe3 12 lt:Jb3 .l:txc3! 13 i.gS leaves Black
under heavy pressure, although he was
probably just about clinging on with accurate
defence, in Adamski-Knaak, Zinnowitz 1 973.
1 1 fxe4
Opening lines immediately, whilst in the
only practical test of 1 o ..i.£5 so far, 1 1 lt:Jb3
.

1i'd7 1 2 cS ex£3 13 gx£3 dS 14 �hl aS! was

fine for Black in Van de Weijer-De Wit, cor­
respondence 1 990, although the ambitious
1 3 ... lt:Jd5!? might have been even better. 1 2 ttlxe4
White can also close the centre with 1 1 The tactical point behind 1 0... i.f5 is re­
f4!?, hoping to restrict Black's pieces and vealed after 12 .l:txfS? lt:Jxc3 13 'Wft lt:Jxe2+
then to drive Black backwards on the king­ 14 1i'xe2 tt:lxd4! 1 5 1i'd3 lt:JxfS 1 6 'li'xfS
side. Then 1 1 ...'�c8! takes control of g4 for .l:txe3 (Raetsky and Chetverik) when Black
the time being when 1 2 dS lt:Jb8 1 3 h3 pre­ has three pawns and a rook for the two
vents ...�g4 and persists with White's plan pieces, as well as control of the e-file. Per­
but does allow 1 3 ... �xh3! 14 gxh3 'ii'xh3 1 5 haps White can generate some pressure
'it>£2 (or 1 5 .:t£2 '1Vg3+ 1 6 'it>f1 'li'xe3) against the black kingside, but then . .'IV£8 or
.

1 5 .. .'i'r'h2+ 1 6 'it>e1 'ii'g3+ 1 7 l:.f2 '1Vxe3 ... f6 will defend quite easily.

81
 Ta n g o ! A D yn am ic A n s we r to 1 d4

1 2 . . ..txe4 1 3 .td3 'iie 7 bishop to b4, when i t i s almost always ex­

(Raetsky and Chetverik) is about equal, al­ changed off, before claiming some central
though White must be careful not to be left space with ...d6 and ... e5. Then he hopes to
with a bad bishop. 1 4 l:tf4 then challenges gain counterplay with his active knights
Black's control of e4 and can be met by should the centre remain open, whilst after
14 ... f5, although even 14 ... .i.xd3 1 5 'ilixd3 d5 he has a reasonable form of the familiar
isn't so bad for Black after 1 5 ... liJdB! 1 6 e4 dark-squared centre, with the ... fS and ...c6
liJe6 1 7 .l:t£2 liJg5 1 8 i.xg5 'ilixg5 1 9 l:tfS breaks to aim for.
'ii'g6, preparing to double on the e-ftle. Now we will consider:

31 3 liJf3 e6 sidelines A: 4 e3
1 d4 ltJf6 2 c4 ltJc6 3 ltJf3 B: 4 .tg5
C: 4 .tf4
0: 4 d51?

A) 4 e3

3 liJf3 is White's most popular move

which, rather than challenge Black on his
home turf after 3 liJc3 e5 4 d5 or 3 d5, sees
him playing for a small edge. He hopes to
prove that the c6-knight is misplaced and With this White shows that he is happy to
also to reach a much more usual queen's simply but quickly develop his pieces, while
pawn position, such as some sort of Nimzo, not minding transposing to an unusual form
than those which we've considered so far. of the Bogo. He hopes to prove that ... liJc6 is
'\
3 . . . e6 a little premature and too committal. How-
Black's main choice, although he can also ever, g3, rather than e3, is the best way to
opt for a kind of Old Indian with 3 ...d6. develop light-squared bishop in the Bogo.
However, here the knight is committed to c6 4 . . . .tb4+
a little early, and 4 liJc3 (4 d5!? liJe5 5 lDxe5 Sticking to the plan of developing the
dxe5 6 g3 should also grant White the edge) bishop and then arranging to play ... e5, but
4...e5 5 g3! slightly favours White. Black there is an interesting alternative available in
might well wish that his knight was still on bB the shape of 4 ... d6!?, which has been used by
so that it could come to the more useful c5- Bologan. Black intends to demonstrate that
square (after ... exd4 and ... liJbd7) as he lacks e3 is a rather slow move against a King's
counterplay against White's space advantage Indian set-up, although White can still ad­
with it on c6. vance the e-pawn another square.
After 3 ..e6 Black intends to develop his
. a) 5 lt::!c3 g6 6 e4 Jl..g7 7 i.e2 0-0

82
 Th e M e n a g erie : O ffb e a t Tries fo r Whi t e

the CJUiet 6... ..tg7 7 0-0 0-0 8 b3 (to 8 e4)

after which Sulava's 8...b6!? is still possible,
although the more usual 8 ... e5 break led to
easy equality after 9 dxeS lLlxeS! 10 lLlxeS
dxeS 1 1 ..ta3 .l:.e8 12 �xd8 l:txd8 1 3 .l:.fd1
.ie6. Instead after 9 dS?! lLle7 Black may
have lost a move with ... e7-e6-e5 but he
stands well in this King's Indian position:
both White's e- and b-pawns would like to be
a square further advanced.
5 i.d2
Instead 5 lLlc3 would transpose to Line A
of the next chapter, whilst White can also
and now: aim to gain the bishop pair with 5 lL!bd2.
a1) 8 0-0 eS led straight into a sharp main However, this isn't as strong as after 2 ... e6 3
line Classical King's Indian, albeit with both c4 ..tb4+ 4 lL!bd2!. Following 5 ... 0-0
sides having spent an extra move to reach it,
in Ehlvest-Gurgenidze, Sverdlovsk 1 984.
However, non King's Indian players need\
not worry for also possible is 8 ... l:te8!? in- \
tending 9 .i.e3 eS 1 0 dS lL!d4! - like the main ·

line of Chapter 9 but without White having

the extra move a3 which we will see he en­
joys there. Of course this is a King's Indian
position, but these days 1 d4 lL!f6 2 c4 g6 3
lLlc3 .i.g7 4 e4 d6 5 lLI£3 0-0 6 ..te2 eS 7 0-0
lLlc6 8 .i.e3 is rather unusual as 8....l:.e8 se­
cures equality. Those interested should com­
pare this with the positions we'll consider in
Chapter 9. White can play:
a2) 8 dS!? (Sakaev-Bologan, Elista 1 998) is a) 6 .i.d3 d6 7 0-0 (or 7 e4!? eS 8 dS lLle7
also critical when 8 ... exd5 9 cxdS lLle7 10 0-0 9 a3 .i.xd2+ 1 0 ..txd2 lLlg6 1 1 h3 lLlf4!? and
c6 1 1 dxc6! bxc6 1 2 .i.gS gave White an Black gained reasonable counterplay in Akes­
edge. However, by analogy with Chapter 9, son-Yemelin, Hafnarfjordur 1 998) 7 ... ..txd2!
Black should consider instead 8 ... lL!e5!?, not (but not 7 ... e5?! 8 lLle4!, leaving the b4-
fearing an exchange of knights as then he can bishop dangerously offside) 8 lLlxd2 eS 9 dS
arrange counterplay with ... fS. lLle7 10 Wc2!? (instead 10 e4 lLlg6 1 1 g3!? ­
b) 5 ..te2 g6 6 lLlc3 (6 b3 .i.g7 7 .i.b2 0-0 Yusupov - tries to limit Black's kingside ac-
8 0-0 b6!? - Black treats the position as a tivity, but Orlov appears right that 1 1 ... ..th3
Hippo and asks White what his plan is - 9 12 .l:.el aS 13 lLlfl lLld7!, intending ... lL!cS
lLlc3 .i.b7 10 'ii'd2 lLle7! 1 1 l:tfd1 h6 12 b4! and . . fS, gives Black good counterplay as
.

�5 13 'ii'c2 lLlh7! 14 a4 f5 produced a race White's own play appears rather slow here)
situation in which Black wasn't doing badly 1 0... c6!? (yet another break at Black's dis­
in Jankovic-Sulava, Croatian Team Ch. 2002) posal; perhaps Yermolinsky rejected 10 ... tLlg6
is an alternative move order, but in Leitao­ as then the g6-knight cannot leap to f4,
Bologan, Poikovsky 2001 White preferred whilst White might well go f4 himself, espe-

83
 Ta n g o ! A D ynam ic A ns wer to 1 d4

cially after 1 1 b3 tt:le8) 1 1 dxc6 bxc6 12 b3 side after 21 i.fl!) 14 ...i.xf5 15 'iVb2 liJg6 1 6
tt:lg6 1 3 i.b2 l:te8 14 l:.fd1 i.g4 1 5 £3 i.e6 b4?! liJd3! 1 7 i.xd3?! (the final inaccuracy
was roughly equal in Altanoch-Yermolinsky, although 1 7 'iVc3 liJdf4 would have left
Istanbul Olympiad 2000, although it was White under heavy very pressure - 1 8 i.xf4
hard for either side to undertake active op­ liJxf4 1 9 'ii'e3?! wouldn't have defended due
erations as Black could easily defend his only to 1 9 ... liJxe2+! 20 'i'xe2 i.g4) 17 ... i.xd3 1 8
weakness of d6. .!:f.fc1
b) 6 a3 immediately wins the bishop. Now
].Burnett-Palliser, Durham 2002 continued
6 ... i.xd2+ 7 i.xd2 aS 8 'i'c2 d6 9 i.e2 (9
0-0-0!? deserves attention, although this
doesn't seem too dangerous providing Black
doesn't panic; 9 ... 'i'e7 1 0 i.d3 a4! 1 1 �b1
i.d7 should be fine for him Black intends
-

counterplay after ... tt:laS such as with ... lUeS

and ... cS, whilst of course ... eS remains a use­
ful option) 9 ... e5 1 0 dS liJe7 1 1 e4 (probably
Burnett should have kept the pawn back on
e3 so as to restrain Black's kingside counter­
play, preferring instead 1 1 b3 - else there is
1 1 ...a4! - 1 2 0-0 and then 13 b4, although 18 .. Jh£3! (removing the kingside's sole
Black would still have been fine after either defender after which the floodgates open) 1 9
1 1 ...liJd7 and ... fS or even 1 1 ...c6!?) 1 1 ...liJd7! gx£3 liJh4 20 'iVc3 'iVd7! and White resigned
(presumably White hoped for 1 1 ...a4?! which as 21 'i'xd3 'iVh3 22 'iVft liJx£3+ mates.
would then have been met by 1 2 cS!, exploit­ 5 bd2+ 6 •xd2
. . ..

ing Black's inability to capture when eS 6 liJbxd2 is probably slightly inferior as

would hang) 1 2 b3 liJcS 13 0-0 fS the knight can easily become a little passive:
6 ... 0-0 7 i.d3 d6 8 0-0 eS

1 4 exfS?! (rather underestimating Black's

attacking chances; 1 4 ltlg5! tt:lg6! 1 5 b4 axb4 and now:
16 axb4 l::txa1 1 7 l:.xa 1 ltlxe4 1 8 tt:lxe4 fxe4 a) 9 tt:le4!? recognises the knight's lack of
1 9 'iVxe4 i.fS 20 'ii'e3 tt:lf4 is also comfort­ influence: 9...i.g4! 10 dS tt:lxe4 1 1 dxc6!?
able for Black, but this is roughly equal as (otherwise Black will simply move the knight
White should be able to defend on the king- and play .. . fS) 1 t ...tt:lc5 1 2 cxb7 l:tb8 13 i.c2

84
 Th e Menag erie: O ffb e a t Tries fo r White

llxb7 1 4 llb1 ? and now 1 4...-tx£3!? 1S i.xf3 dS), but with Black already committed to
e4, intending 16 .te2 aS! when the knight is .. .'�Jc6. Then 7 ti:Jc3 0-0 8 .td3 'ike7 9 0-0
well placed on cS, gave Black the advantage dxc4! 1 0 ..txc4 .:f.d8, intending l l ... eS, ap­
in Bognar-Janssen, World Junior Ch, Yere­ pears to equalise comfortably. 9 cxdS exdS 1 0
van 1 999, but even stronger is the retreat h3!?, preventing 10... .tg4, must be critical,
14 ...-tfS!, picking up the b-pawn. although 1 0 ...ti:Jb4!? 1 1 .tb1 aS! 1 2 a3 ti:Ja6
b) 9 dS tt:Je7 1 0 'ii'c2 aS (but not 10 ... c6?! doesn't seem like such a bad version of an
here due to 1 1 dxc6 bxc6 12 cS!) 1 1 b3 ti:Jg6 Exchange QGD for Black.
1 2 a3 'ii'e7 1 3 b4 .tg4! (instead the under­ 7 lDc3 0-0 8 i.e2
mining 1 3 ... bS doesn't quite work due to the Continuing to develop quietly, but the ag­
weakness of c7 after 1 4 cxbS tlJxdS 1 S i.x�-,r6! gressive 8 0-0-0!? (Orlov) is more challeng­
hxg6 1 6 'ii'c6 .te6 17 bxaS l:txaS 1 8 .:f.fct) 1 4 ing, although then it is not at all clear that
..txg6 fxg6!? (sharpening the struggle a s now 8... .td7! 9 l:g1 eS (classically meeting the
Black is committed to a kingside attack) 1 S flank attack with a central strike) is so bad for
h3 ..t fS 1 6 e4 ..td7 1 7 c S tiJhS 1 8 cxd6 cxd6 Black. After 1 0 dS tlJe7 1 1 ..te2 a6 Black's
19 bxaS attacking chances appear at least as good as
White's. White can also keep the central ten­
sion, such as with 1 0 h3, when 1 0 ... e4 is one
option but also tempting is 1 o. .exd4 1 1 exd4
.

dS!?.
8 l:d1 has also been seen when 8...'ii'e7 9
.te2 aS 1 0 0-0 .td7 1 1 a3?! was sufficient to
tempt Black away from ... eS. Instead 1 1 ...a4!
12 'ii'c 2 tlJaS 13 ti:Jd2 l:fc8 14 f4?! dS! 15 .l:£3
cS left White with no real attacking chances
but with an under-fire centre to somehow
defend in D.Pritchard-Milner-Barry, British
Ch. 1 963.
8 . . . e5
(Seery-Palliser, Lancaster 2001) and now
13lack could have simply opted for 1 9 ... ti:Jf4
20 l:fb1 .tc8, intending 21 .:f.bS? 'ii'd 7.
However, the game's 19 ...llxaS! 20 'i!lc7 l:tcS
21 'ii'xb7 ti:Jf4, threatening 22...ti:Jxg2, gave
Black excellent compensation and attacking
chances. 22 Afb1 would have been met by
22 ... llc2 23 Ab2 l:txdzr-24 llxd2 when
24...tlJxg2! 2S l:c2 (or 2S �xg2? ..txh3+! 26
'it>xh3 'ir'xb7) 2S ...ti:Jf4 leaves White in huge
trouble - 26 l:r.c7 tlJxh3+ 27 'itth2 .l:txf3 28
l:txd7 'Wh4! is decisive.
6 . . . d6
Still aiming for a dark-Slluared centre, al­ 9 0-0
though Orlov's 6 ... d5!? is also possible when This whole line is perhaps a little dull from
play is similir to a very solid line of the Bogo Black's perspective if he is determined to win
(3...i.b4+ 4 �d2 i.xd2 5 �xd2 0-0 6 tLlc3 at all costs, which perhaps explains the inter-

85
Ta ngo ! A D yn a m ic A n s wer to 1 d4

est in 4...d6!?. However, after 9 dxe5 tt::lxe5 problematic, although here it can be broken
10 tt::lxe5 dxe5 1 1 'ti'xd8 :xd8 12 0-0 c6! surprisingly easily.
Black was again fully equal, and Kestler­ 4 . . . h6 5 i.xf6
Hecht, Bad Aibling 1965 was indeed later Rather tamely giving up the bishop pair
drawn. without a fight. The critical 5 .i.h4 .i.b4+ 6
9 . . . exd4 tt::lc3 g5 7 .i.g3 transposes to Line D of the
This fails to lure White into making the next chapter, while 6 tt::lbd2? is an inferior
struggle more interesting and so Black should way to block the check as then 6...g5 7 .i.g3
consider 9... .i.g4!? g4!

10 h3 .i.h5 1 1 d5 tt::le7 12 b4 tt::ld7! (pre­ wins a pawn: 8 a3 .i.xd2+ 9 tt::lxd2 tt::lxd4

paring to attack on the kingside), which was 10 e3 tt::lf5 1 1 .i.e5 d6 12 .i.c3 e5 blunted out
unclear in Pytel-Horras, St Ingbert 1 990. the bishop and left Black much better in
After 9 ... exd4 10 exd4 :e8 1 1 .l:.fe 1 a6 1 2 Simon-Benjamin, New York 2000; or 8 d5?
h3 .i.f5 1 3 .i.d3 'ti'd7 all the rooks were gxf3! 9 dxc6 tt::l e4 10 .i.f4 'ii'f6 and White
swapped off and a draw was agreed in Dumi­ was crushed in Nyback-Pitkanen, Espoo
trache-Nevednichy, Creon 2002. 1 999 - 1 1 cxd7+ .i.xd7 12 exf3 'ti'xf4! 1 3
fxe4 'ti'xe4+ 1 4 'ii'e2 'ii'c2 would have given
8) 4 i.g5 Black a huge attack with 1 5...0-0-0 next up.
5 . . . 'ii'xf6

Just as in both the Nimzo and Queen's

Indians, White hopes that the pin will be 6 it:lc3

86
 Th e Menag erie: O ffb e a t Tries for Wh ite

An immediate 6 e3 has also been tried 12 ..tg2 �4! (beginning to probe on the
when Black has must choose between rapidly dark squares and to exploit his strong bish­
completing his development, but losing back ops) 1 3 'Wd3 i.c5,
his extra bishop, with 6 ... i.b4+ or fianchetto­
ing with 6 ... g6!?. Then 7 ll'lc3 i.g7 8 i.d3 0-0
9 0-0 d6 (this is a good King's Indian for
Black as White cannot advance in the centre
for fearing of unleashing the g7-bishop, but
without being able to do that his queenside
play becomes much less effective) 10 a3 e5
1 1 d5 ll'ld8! 12 h3?! 'ike7 13 ll'ld2 f5 14 e4
ll'lf7 1 5 .l:r.c1 ll'lg5

leaving White in some trouble, as 14 e3

.l:r.fe8 15 0-0 i.d6! sees Black's queen infil­
trate to h2.
7 e3 i.g7 8 i.d3 d6 9 0-0 i.d7
9 ...e5? isn't so easy to arrange here as if the
pawn were back on g6, when play would
transpose to Gebejes-Certic above. Now it
concedes too many light squares - here 10 d5
ll'lb8 1 1 'ikc2! leaves Black lacking counter­
gave Black good chances on the kingside, play, whilst b4 and c5 arrives. However,
whilst White lacked any real play of his own, Black's position isn't at all bad after 9 ...i.d7,
in Gebejes-Certic, Senta 2002. just a little more tricky to handle than the
6 . . . g5!? fairly pleasant positions arising from 6...g6!.
Seizing space and intending to punish
White's early exchange by keeping his dark­
squared bishop. This seems like a logical and
strong concept, although in his lnjo17llant
notes to the game Goldin suggested that
Black should be more restrained with 6 ...g6!.
There is also a solid alternative available in
6 ... i.b4. Then Cebalo-Godena, Genoa 1998
continued 7 .l:r.ct (preserving his structure)
7...e5! (avoiding being pushed into a slightly
worse Bogo position by 7...0-0 8 a3 i.xc3+ 9
l:txc3 d6 1 0 g3!) 8 d5 e4!? (sacrificing a pawn
for activity) 9 dxc6 exf3 1 0 cxb7 i.xb7 1 1
!-,'Xf3?! (1 1 exf3 'it'g6 1 2 'i*'b3 ..txc3+ 1 3 l:hc3 10 a3 0-0 1 1 l:l.c1 'ifdB 1 2 d5!7
0-0-0! was presumably a worry for White Gaining some play of his own before
when his king would have been caught in the Black advances, in Leningrad Dutch fashion
centre, but he should have tried this) 1 1 ... 0-0 after 12 ... f5, on the kingside and possibly also

87
Ta n g o ! A D yn a m ic A ns we r to 1 d4

in the centre with ... e5. ally work due to a strong tactic. However,
12 . . . lt:le7! that a world-class grandmaster hoped that it
Bringing the knight towards the kingside, would, and was keen to prevent Black from
but unlike after 12 ... ltJe5?! when Goldin and gaining a pleasant position after ... e5, is just
Ycrmolinsky's 1 3 ltJxe5! i.xe5 1 4 f4! gives another reminder of the problems that the
\X'hite good attacking chances, Black avoids Tango can set very early on.
le tting White exploit his advanced kingside. 4 . . ...tb4+ 5 lL'lbd2
1 3 dxe6 fxe6 1 4 ..tb1 ..teB! 5 ltJc3 also wouldn't alter the fact that
i.f4 seems misguided as after 5 ... d6 6 e3 0-0,
the f4-bishop is blunted and Black will get in
... e5 with tempo after ..."fke7.
5 . . . d6 6 e3 e5! 7 ..tg5
Readjusting and sensibly avoiding 7 dxe5?
dxe5 8 ltJxe5? ltJe4! 9 lt:Je£3 i.g4 (Orlov),
winning a piece.
7 . . h6 8 ..txf6 'Wi'xf6 9 d5
.

Now Black was fairly comfortable after

9...i.xd2+ 1 0 lt:Jxd2 lt:Jb8 1 1 i.d3 0-0 1 2 0-0
lt:Ja6 in Seirawan-Orlov, Seattle Rapidplay
1 99 1 . However, he could have aimed to ex­
ploit his currently possessing an extra dark­
Comfortably parrying the threats along the squared bishop with 9... e4!.
long diabronal - now Black has a good
Hippo-type position with White lacking a
plan. After 1 5 ltJd4 'i!Vd7 1 6 ltJce2 i.g6 Black
had at least equalised in Janjgava-Goldin,
Philadelphia 1991. His extra dark-squared
bishop remains pretty useful, whilst he can
choose between playing on the kingside or
even in the centre.

C) 4 �f4

Now 10 a3 (or 10 ltJd4 lt:Jxd4 1 1 exd4 0-0

12 a3 i.xd2+ 1 3 "fkxd2 1i'g6! and Black is
already better; neither does 10 dxc6 ex£3 1 1
cxb7 i.xd2+ - again avoiding letting the
bishop hang on b4 - 12 'it'xd2 i.xb7 solve
White's difficulties) 10 ... exf3 1 1 axb4 fxg2 1 2
i.xg2 lt:Je5 (Orlov) gives Black a good game
and useful pressure on the light-squares, such
as after 1 3 0-0 'ii'g6 1 4 'it>hl 0-0 when
1 5.....1£5 and then something to d3 is the
This attempt to prevent ... e5 doesn't acn1- plan, whilst 1 5 f4?! lbg4! just leaves White's

88
 Th e Menag e rie: O ffb e a t Tries for Wh ite

kingside looking even more vulnerable. 'ikc4 bS! and \X-'hite had to resign in Hasani­
0) 4 d5!? Femandez Gil, European Club Cup, lzmir
2004) 8...tLlxc3 (simplest as the bishop pair
had to go in any case, but now the knight
reaches a better and more stable square) 9
'Wxb4 tLlce4 10 i.. f4 aS 1 1 'i!Vc4 c6! 1 2 'i'd4
0-0 1 3 e3 l:.e8 14 i..e2 dS simply left Black a
clear pawn ahead and with a good position in
Garza Marco-De Ia Villa Garcia, Spanish
Team Ch. 2001.

A dangerous sacrifice which aims to refute

the whole ...tLlc6 concept, although Black can
secure a good position if he knows what he's
doing. It's also worth pointing out that this
move is often actually just a 'blunder', with
White overlooking the strength of a key
check.
4 . . . exd5 5 cxd5 ..tb4+ ! 6 tt:\c3
Instead 6 i.d2 lDxdS immediately picks 7 . . . tt:\xe4!
up the pawn. After 7 i.xb4 lDdxb4 8 a3 tLla6 Critical, but interestingly when confronted
9 b4!?, simplest appears to be Orlov's by this gambit, Bologan preferred 7...0-0,
9 ...tDab8! with a clear extra pawn as Black perhaps due to surprise and because he
will be able to smoothly develop after ... d6. feared home preparation. However, then 8
6 . . .tt:\e7 .td3 tLlg6 9 0-0 l:te8 10 :tel c6!? 1 1 'i!Vb3!
i..d6 1 2 h3 bS 1 3 a3 left White slightly better
in in Geo.Timoshenko-Bologan, Romanian
Team Ch. 1 998.
8 'i'd4 ..txc3+ 9 bxc3 lLlf6

7 e4!
The only really testing line as alternatives
fail to impress. The immediate 7 'ifd4?!
tL'lexdS 8 �d2 (or 8 e4?! 'iYe7 9 �d3? cS! 1 0

89
 1 d4
Ta n g o ! A D yn a m ic A n s wer to

10 d6 ! ? .l:txc8 does give W'hite two bishops against

Continuing to energetically challenge two knights. However, Black, who is still a
Blac k's development, but W'hite has also pawn up, is much better here with pressure
preferred to play more slowly with 10 c4 down the c-ftle and also good squares, like
when 10 ... 0-0 1 1 J.d3 d6 1 2 0-0 .i.f5 13 .i.b2 e4, available for his knights.
.i.xd3 1 4 'ii'xd3 tLlg6 1 5 .l:tae1 saw W'hite's 1 1 . . . d5!?
strong bishop and extra space give him some, Recognising that he must come under
but not enough, compensation in Czerwon­ some pressure in any case, Black decides that
ski-Poluljahov, Bydgoszcz 1 999. 1 2 ... c5!? he might as well hold onto the second pawn.
(Nesterov-Sosonkin, Minsk 1986) might even Forcing the queens off with 1 1 ...tLlc6 has
be stronger; this reduces the pressure down also been tried when 12 'ii'xd6 'ii'e7+ 13
the diagonal and gives Black a choice after 1 3 'ii'xe7+ �xe7 1 4 .i.a3+ d6 1 5 0-0-0 gives
'ii'c3 between 1 3 .. .b5!? and just 1 3.. ..i.f5, W'hite good practical compensation and
when the gain of queenside space can only Black must defend well. After 1 5 ... J.e6 1 6
help him. .l:the1 (1 6 J.a6? doesn't quite work as then
1 0 J.g5 has also been seen when Black 16 ... bxa6 17 .l:txd6 lLld8! leaves W'hite with­
should prefer the simple developing 10 ..tLlf5! out a good discovered check) 1 6 ... .l:tac8! 1 7
to the overly greedy 10 ...lLlexd5? 1 1 0-0-0 h6 J. f5 tLle8 1 8 tLlgS tiJd8! Black has managed
12 .l:tel+ 'iPf8 13 J.h4, which gave W'hite to successfully parry all of W'hite's threats
excellent compensation in Krutov-Lloyd, and should then be able to carefully begin to
correspondence 200 1 . Then 13 ... g5? 14 unravel after 1 9 'iti>b2 h6 20 tiJ£3 tLlc6,
lLlxg5! hxg5 15 .i.xg5 led to an early resigna­ intending 21...'it>d7-c7.
tion due to the deadly pin.
1 0 . . . cxd6

1 2 i.g5
1 2 0-0!? aims for an .improved version of
1 1 i.d3 the main line:
1 1 'ii'xd6?! regaining one pawn is also pos­ a) After 12 ... d6 1 3 J.g5 tLlc6 14 'ii'h4 .i.e6
sible, but it does rather reduce the pressure 15 l:tab 1 ! 'ii'e7 16 tLld4 Black should still try
and Black can play 1 1 ...'ii'a 5! preparing to 1 6 ... tiJxd4! (1 6 ... liJeS? 1 7 .i.b5+ <it>f8 1 8 f4!
castle. It's true that 12 'ii'e5 'ii'xe5+ 13 lLlxeS won a piece in Kekelidze-Gurgenidzc, Geor­
0-0 1 4 J.a3 .l:te8 1 5 0-0-0 (Zimmerman­ gian Ch. 2002) 1 7 'ii'xd4 0-0, asking W'hite
Berescu, Szombathely 2003) 1 5... tLlc6! (rather how he intends to increase the pressure after
than the game's 1 5 ... tt:Jed5? 1 6 tl:lx£7! 'it.'x£7 1 8 f4 b6 1 9 f5 ..i.d7 20 l::tfe1 'iVd8 Black .

1 7 ..i.c4) 1 6 tLlc4 d5 1 7 tLld6 .l:e5 1 8 lUxeS remains solid and intends 21 ...lle8 to swap

90
 Th e Menag erie: O ffb e a t Tries for Whi t e

off one pair of rooks, although White clearly shall (rapid) 1 995. Now, rather than the
has an improved version of the main line, game's 1 7 ... h6, Yermolinsky suggested that
with both rooks active. Black should bite the bullet with 1 7 ...0-0!? 1 8
b) 1 2... 0-0!? f4 'iWdB 1 9 £5 J.d7 when White has pushed
Black backwards and enjoys some compensa­
tion, but not quite two pawns' worth. It is
not easy for him to increase the pressure,
whilst Black's rooks will quickly come to the
e- and c-ftles.

1 3 �g5 tLle4 looks like a good way to try

and return one pawn to eliminate one of the
dangerous bishops, after which 1 4 J.xe7 (14
�h4!? tLl£5! 15 'ii'xd5 tLlxh4 16 'ii'xe4 lLlxf3+
17 'ii'xf3 only gives White some compensa­
tion) 14 ...'ii'xe7 1 5 l:tfe 1 ! (1 5 'ii'xd5?! lLlf6! We've seen many different systems from
comfortably defends on the kingside), threat­ White in this chapter. This just shows that
ening 1 6 c4, is critical and certainly 1 5 ...'iWf6 many opponents feel that Black is rather
1 6 �xe4 'ii'xd4 1 7 J.xh7+! �xh7 1 8 tLlxd4 comfortable once he's constructed a dark­
d6 19 l:te7 gives White excellent compensa­ squared centre. However, White's attempts
tion. to prevent it don't overly trouble Black pro­
1 2 . . . tt:lc6 1 3 Wh4 'ire7+ 1 4 'itf1 d6 1 5 viding he responds well and actively. Fur­
:e1 i.e6 1 6 tt:ld4 tt:lxd4 1 7 Wxd4 thermore, 3 tLlc3 e5 4 tiJ£3 e4!? appears to be
quite strong, and slightly under-rated, no
see following diagram
matter where the knight then moves to.
This was Fedorowicz-Yermolinsky, Mar
 CHAPTER FIVE I
Reaching a Nimzo :
Utilising the c6-knight

1 d4 lL\t6 2 c4 lLic6 3 lLif3 e6 4 lLic3 ence should W'hite opt, for example, for a
This is White's most popular reply to the fianchetto set-up, and the c6-knight also
Tango; he threatens 5 e4 and after 4 . . . i.b4 proves its worth in the i.g5 lines.
the game has transposed to a Nimzo-Indian. Here we will consider W'hite's alternatives
No ordinary Nimzo though; after 1 d4 ltJ f6 2 to the theoretical 5 'i'c2. They all rarely arise
c4 e6 3 ltJc3 .tb4 4 ltJ f3, the move 4 ... ltJc6 is from a pure Nimzo move order, although
a rare response compared to the theoretical they do all bear similarities to certain Nimzo
and fairly fashionable 4...b6 5 .tg5 and 4... c5 systems:
5 g3. Thus White may not have reached a
position he's fully familiar with, unless he's a A: 5 e3
4 'i'c2 Nimzo player. Indeed W'hite's most B: 5 g3
popular continuation is 5 'i'c2, transposing C: 5 a3
to a 4 'ii'c2 Nimzo, and we will examine the 0: 5 i.g5
resulting Zurich Variation in Chapters 6-7.
A) 5 e3

Non-'iVc2 Nimzo players may try a variety

of s.vstems here. However, the inclusion of W'hite treats the position a little like a
ctJf3 and ... ctJc6 makes a siJ,mificant differ- Rubinstein Nim7.o, hoping to develop with

92
 R e a c h ing a Nim z o : U tilising t h e c 6- k n igh t

i.d3 and 0-0 before advancing in the centre gueenside castling had been effectively ruled
with e4. However, after 1 d4 lt:Jf6 2 c4 e6 3 out, whilst Black's chances in any race situa­
lt:Jc3 i.b4 4 e3, the move 4...lt:Jc6 is rather tion had improved. The b-ftle is open, but
rare. In that case 5 .i.d3 and 6 lt:Jge2!, avoid­ without his b-pawn it's harder for \m-tite to
ing any ... e4 forks and also preventing the c­ force through cS, whilst Black's knight can
pawns being doubled, gives White the edge. also occupy that important square.
Here, however, an advantage is much harder
to achieve as Black is ready to break in the

centre with ... d6 and ... eS, after which his

minor pieces tend to quickly become active.

The undermining . . . b5

After 1 3 0-0 f5 1 4 ti::ld2 ti::lg 6 1 5 ltb1

'i'g5 Simmelink began a kingside attack.

Advancing on the kingside

J.Lund-Simmelink
Correspondence 2000

Here Bl_ack could have simply continued

with 1 o ...lt:Jg6, but he was probably con­
cerned that he might be a little slow in any
race scenario. Again we see that the white e­
pawn's being back on e3, rather than on e4,
helps to slow down any kingside attack. Fur­
thermore, White could consider 1 1 'il'c2 and
12 0-0-0!?.
However, Simmelink realised that it was Tukmakov-Rashkovsky
by no means all doom and gloom, as signifi­ USSR Championship 1966
cantly the c3-pawn doesn't defend dS.
10 b5!
. . . Black had successfully exploited White's
This idea, which we've met before, actu­ failure to control e4 by leaping into that
ally fits well here into the long-term plan of square with his knight and playing ... fS. Now
advancing on the kingside, as it slows White 1 6 . . . ti::lg 5! increased the kingside pressure.
down on the other flank. Now 1 1 cxbS 1 7 lt:JxgS '*'xgS and 1 8. ..lt'lh4 would have
ltJexdS decimates White's centre, but after forced a kingside weakness. However, 1 7
the game's 1 1 b3 bxc4 1 2 bxc4 ti::ld 7 ti::ld 2?! f4 was ,1,>u0d for Black:

93
 Tan g o ! A D yn am ic A n s wer to 1 d4

Theory
Returning to the position after 5 e3. Now
5 . . . d6

1 8 exf4?! (or 1 8 e4 lt:lh4 1 9 f3 lt:lh3+! ­

the Tango knights often come into their own
when Black gets to attack like this - 20 gxh3,
when Black can either play on with is the most flexible move, intending 6 ... 0-0
20 ...'i'g5+!? 21 �f2 'i'g2+ 22 �e1 'i'xh2 23 and 7 ... e5 .
.l:!£2 lt:lg2+ 24 l:r.xg2 'i'xg2 or force a draw 6 �d2
with 20 ... i.xh3 21 �f2 lt:lf5! 22 �e1 lt:le3 23 Refusing to allow Black the option of in­
'ti'c3 'iih4+ 24 .l:!£2 lt:lg2+ 25 'it>fl lt:le3+ 26 flicting doubled pawns, but White has also
'it>e 1 lt:lg2+) 1 8 ltJxf4 1 9 lL!e4 lL!xe4 20
. . . opted for some other set-ups:
'il'xe4 'ifg5! 2 1 g3. Now in the game a) 6 i.e2 (White wants to casde, but rea­
2t ...i.f5 regained control of the e4-square, sons that the bishop is better placed here to
but stronger is 2 1 ...lt:lh3+ 22 �g2 li'lxf2!, avoid any potential ... e5-e4 forks) 6 ... 0-0 and:
al) 7 0-0 i.xc3! (and not 7 ... e5? 8 lt'ld5!
leaving the b4-bishop woefully misplaced) 8
bxc3 e5 9 li'ld2! (wisely intending f3; 9 .l:!bt
.l:!e8 10 i.a3 .l:!b8 1 1 ir'c2 .i..g4 12 l:!.fe 1 'ii'd7
1 3 .l:!bdl e4! - having completed his devel­
opment, Black turns his attention to the
kingside - 14 li'ld2 .i.xe2 1 5 .l:!xe2 1i'g4 1 6
.l:!eel li'le7, bringing the knight to h4, left
Black with an attack in Movsziszian-Speck,
Seville 2004) 9 ... ir'e7!? 10 d5 (1 0 f3? can be
met by 1 0... exd4! 1 1 exd4 'ii'e3+ 1 2 'it>ht
'ifxc3 when 13 li'lb3 i.fS ensures the queen
of an escape route) 10 ... li'lb8 1 1 e4 li'la6 12 f3
completing a lightning attack. Just seven .i.d7 1 3 :f2 c6! (intending to gain some
aggressive moves have fully demolished pressure down the c-f.tle, although breaking
White's kingside. White is routed after 23 with ... fS still is by no means ruled out) 1 4
.l:!xf2 i.h3+ 24 '8t>xh3 (or 24 �gl 'Wet+) dxc6!? .i.xc6 1 5 li'lf1 lt:Jc5 was comfortable
24 ... lhf2 as the black rook is far too active. for Black in Farago-Gostisa, Slovenian Team
For example, 25 ..i.d3 'i'h5+ 26 'ir'h4 ir'xh4+! Ch. 1 995.
27 �xh4 .l:!xh2+ 28 �g4 l:ta2 wins one of a2) It's a bit too late for 7 'ii'c2 to be effec­
the bishops after 29 .i.c3 �a3. tive. Then 7 ... e5 8 0-0 ..i.xc3!? intends to

94
 R e a c h ing a Nim z o : U tilising t h e c 6- k n igh t

meet 9 ifxc3 with 9 . ..ltJe4!? 10 ifc2 f5 al­ - ensuring that the centre will open, but
though 9 ....i.g4 would also be quite rea�on­ Black can now switch to a light-squared
able. White should, however, go in for that as strategy - 1 1 ...exd4 12 exd4 l:le8 1 3 c!i:Jb3 d5!
9 bxc3?! 'i'e7 1 0 .i.a3 e4! (closing the posi­ aimed to gain control of e4 and c4 in Clavijo­
tion against the bishops) 1 1 c!i:Jd2 .:le8 1 2 Yermolinsky, New York 2000 when 14 cxdS
.:lab1 b 6 leaves him without a plan, with ifxd5 1 5 c4 ifd6 would have left White's
even the c5 break not achieving much here. centre under pressure with 1 6...c!i:Jb4 also a
Then 1 3 .:lfe1 .i.b7 1 4 f3 c!i:Ja5!, threat) 9 ....:le8 10 f3! b6 1 1 c!i:Jb3 c!i:Je7 12 c5
c!i:Jg6 1 3 cxd6 (undoubting White's pawns,
but...) 1 3...cxd6 1 4 e4 h6 1 5 c4 i.a6 1 6 i.e3
exd4! 17 c!t:Jxd4 c!t:Je5

unleashing the powerful bishop and also

preparing to blockade White's c-pawns with
... c5, gave Black the edge in Zuttis-L.Webb,
Vladivostok 1 995. gave Black sufficient play in lbragimov­
b) The more ambitious 6 i.d3 is slightly Bologan, Koszalin 1 999. It may appear a little
more popular. Black plays 6 ...0-0 and now: strange to exchange on d4, but that does gain
b1) 7 ifc2 e5 8 d5 (closing the centre too the black knights some important squares (c5
quickly rarely benefits White; he should pre­ and e5), whilst c4 remains more vulnerable
fer 8 0-0, although 8 ... i.g4 keeps up the pres­ than d6 and the white bishops still lack
sure and Black's rapid development) 8 ...c!i:Je7 scope.
9 0-0 .i.xc3 (already exploiting the potential b4) 7 .i.d2 (the main move) 7 ... e5 8 d5
fork to force a structural weakness) 1 0 bxc3 c!i:Je7 9 'i'c2 (instead 9 e4?! c!i:Jg6 10 0-0 c!i:Jh5!
l:Ie8 1 1 .l:.b1?? e4! forced instant resignation led to a brutal attack, as the Introduction
in Tverdovski-Berezin, Alushta 1 999 as 1 2 showed, in Sowray-Palliser, Oxford 2003,
i.xe4 c!t:Jxe4 1 3 'ii'xe4 i.fS skewers queen whilst 9 a3 .i.xc3 10 i.xc3 b5! 1 1 b3 bxc4 1 2
and rook; a nice illustration of the dangers of bxc4 c!i:Jd7 took control o f c5, a s we saw
a i.d3 set-up. above, in Lund-Simmelink, correspondence
b2) Another, not uncommon, ... e4 trick 2000) 9 ... c6!? (exploiting White's lack of e4 to
arises should White play c5 too soon, for open the centre for counterplay, although
example 7 e4 eS 8 dS .i.xc3+ 9 bxc3 c!t:Je7 1 0 9 ... i.g4 was also possible, intending ...i.xf3
cS? c!t:JexdS! 1 1 exdS e 4 left Black much bet­ as well as also ....i.h5-g6 to neutralise the
ter in Colpe-Hebbinghaus, Hamburg 2003. pressure along the diagonal; here 1 0 lt:JgS!?
b3) 7 0-0 .i.xc3! (doubling the pawns h6 seems fine for Black as White lacks a dan­
rather than allmving 7...e5?! 8 tt::le4!) 8 bxc3 gerous follow-up) 10 dxc6 (or 10 e4?! lt:Jg6
eS 9 li:Jd2 (or 9 'ifc2 h6!? 1 0 ltJd2 b6 1 1 f4!? 1 1 h3 ltJd7 1 2 g3?1 - covering f4, but weak-

95
 Ta n g o ! A D yn a m ic A n s wer to 1 d4

ening h3 and so preventing White from go­ .txc3 he might be able to delay or even omit
ing short - 1 2... tL'lcS! 1 3 0-0-0 f5 left Black 'ii'c2, and after 8 ... tL'le4!? 9 'ii'c2 tL'lxc3 1 0
active and much better in Asabri-Mansour, 'ii'xc3 he holds the edge. Black is still to get
Doha 2002) 1 0 ... bxc6 1 1 0-0 .tg4 in ... eS, whilst he could do with having the
other knight should he wish to play for a
kingside attack rather than just wait solidly.
6 . . . e5!? 7 d5
Now 7 a3 can be met by 7....txc3 8 .txc3
e4! when 9 lbd2 'it'e7 10 'ii'c2 .tfS 1 1 .te2
0-0 12 h3 %:tfe8 1 3 lL'lf1! a6!, preparing coun­
terplay against White's kingside designs, led
to an interesting and unbalanced, but not
inferior, position for Black in Stenborg-Van
Scheltinga, Dublin 1 9S7 - his kingside looks
pretty resilient.
7 . . .. bc3 8 ..txc3 f:l:Je7 9 f:i:Jd2 0-0 1 0
..te2
1 2 tL'le4!? (preventing doubled f-pawns, al­ 1 0 .td3 is also possible when lO ... aS 1 1
though the resulting exchanges aren't unfa­ 0-0 lL'ld7 1 2 'ii'c2 tL'lg6 and 1 3. ..tL'lcS should
vourable for Black) 1 2 ... tL'lxe4 1 3 .txb4 .ixf3 give Black a reasonable position, although
14 .txe4 .txe4 1 S 'ii'xe4 l:tb8 1 6 a3 aS! was copying Portisch-Berkes with 1 0...c6!? also
unclear in F.Portisch-Berkes, Harkany 1 997 seems sensible.
as White enjoys the bishop but Black the 1 0 . . . a5!
mobile centre (either .. .f6 and ... dS or ... f5-f4 Holding up b4 and gaining cS for the
will occur). knight.
c) 6 'ii'c2 0-0 is a transposition to Line A of 1 1 0-0 f:i:Jd7
Chapter 7 (S 'ii'c2 d6 6 a3 .txc3+ 7 'ii'xc3 aS 8
e3 0-0) after 7 a3 .txc3+ 8 'ii'xc3 aS, while 7
.td2 aS 8 a3 .txc3 9 .txc3 Wle7 transposes to
Line A1 1 of Chapter 6 (S 'ii'c2 d6 6 .td2 0-0 7
a3 .txc3 8 .txc3 'ii'e7 9 e3 aS).

1 2 -.e1 !?
A new concept that prevents 1 2 ...tL'lcS?
due to 13 tL'lb3! when 13 ...tL'lxb3 14 axb3 b6
1S b4 exploits the pin down the a-file to
good effect. Meanwhile, after 12 ... f5 1 3 f4!
Returning to the immediate 6 .td2, the queen might well be useful on the king­
White's idea is that after 6...0-0 7 a3 .txc3 8 side. So Nogueiras sensibly decides to wait,

96
 R e a c h ing a Nim z o : U tilising th e c 6 - knigh t

seeing just how well placed the queen is. With a Catalan or Bogo�Indian ruled out,
1 2 .. Jle8! ? 1 3 f3 b6 White's fianchetto becomes a little more
Intending 14 ... lt:Jc5 15 lt:Jb3 a4! 1 5 tt:\xc5 ambitious as he must now accept a queenside
bxc5 with a grip on the queenside. Now weakness in return for the two bishops. Play
White begins to struggle for a useful plan. can easily become quite complex, along the
14 .i.d1 tt:lc5 lines of the 4 g3 Nimzo, a sideline to which
our main line transposes. However, Black has
two simple but effective plans available: to
attack the weakness of c4, which is no longer
protected by the light-squared bishop, with
...b6 and ... lt:Ja5; and to break in the centre
with ... e5, hoping to shut out the g2-bishop
with ... e4.
5 d6
. . .

Continuing to build a dark-squared centre,

but an immediate 5....i.xc3+!? also deserves
attention: 6 bxc3 b6! (taking immediate aim
at c4, whilst also preparing to challenge on
the long diagonal)
1 5 tt:le4! ?
Presumably White had intended 1 5 ..i.c2
but then became concerned about Black
gaining counterplay with 1 5 ... b5!. White's
choice, however, fails to cause any problems,
although it does make it hard for Black to
ever really break with ... fS.
1 5 tt:lxe4 1 6 fxe4 l:tfS 1 7 i.c2 tt:lg6 1 8
. . .

b3 i.d7 1 9 a3 1i'g5
This shortly led to a draw in R.Vera­
Nogueiras, Cuban Ch. 2002 as it was very
hard for either side to do anything.

8) 5 g3 7 lt:Jd2 .i.b7 8 ..i.g2 0-0 9 lt:Jb3 (the knight

does little here, but finding a better plan isn't
easy as e4 always blocks the g2-bishop, and
then ... e5 is usually a useful response) 9 ...lt:Ja5
10 .i.xb7 lt:Jxb7 1 1 0-0 d5! (1 1 ...d6, intending
... cS, was also possible, but fighting for the
light squares is also strong; now White can­
not really exchange on dS as then he would
lose control of e4 and c4) 1 2 ..i.a3 :es 1 3
'iid3 lt:Jd6 1 4 .i.xd6 'li'xd6 1 5 c S 'ii'c6 1 6 a4
li:ld7!, preparing to break with ... eS, left Black
slightly better in C.Nielsen-Nilsson, Farum
1 993.
7 ..ig2!? must be more critical when Black

97
 Tango ! A D yn a m ic A ns we r to 1 d4

could just continue with ... l:tb8, intending the case of ... e5. So it makes sense for Black
... li:laS and then ... �a6 or ... i.b7. However, to change plans with 8 ... l:tb8! 9 0-0 b6 1 0
Orlov's exchange sacrifice 7....i.b7!? 8 li:leS! li:ld2 li:la5 1 1 i.b4 (preventing the intended
(otherwise Black simply plays 8 ... li:la5 with a ... c5 and ... i.a6 for the time being) 1 t ...li:lb7
good game) 8...li:lxe5! 9 �xb7 li:lxc4 1 0 12 e4 c5 1 3 i.a3 'ii'c7, intending to return
.i.xa8 'ii'xa8 also deserves attention. The the knight to �. gave Black useful queenside
knight on c4 is a monster and that, together pressure in Zhukova-Graf, Skopje 2002.
with the pawn and White's light-squared Meanwhile 8 'ii'd3 e5 9 li:ld2! 'ii'e7 1 0 0-0
problems, t,>ives Black fair compensation. 1 1 Ae8 1 1 e4 prevents ... e4 but does block in
f3 should probably be met by 1 1 ...'ii'c6, keep­ the g2-bishop and rather commits White to a
ing ... d5 in reserve. kingside attack. However, it's not so easy to
6 .i.g2 break down Black's centre or kingside, and
White can also try to delay this with 6 Van Laatum-Chuchelov, Belgian League
W'b3!?, but then 6...a5! (gaining a useful 1 997 continued 1 1 ...b6! 1 2 �a3 i.a6 1 3 f4
clamp on the white queenside) 7 a3 a4 is a 'ii'd7!, threatening 1 4...li:la5 and then
strong counter. Now 8 'ii'c2 �xc3+ 9 'ii'xc3 1 5 ... 'ii'a4 or even 1 5 ...li:lxc4, and forcing
0-0 10 i.g2 Ae8 1 1 .i.f4 'ii'e7 12 0-0 e5 1 3 White into action. However, 1 4 fxe5 dxe5 1 5
dxe5 dxe5 led to equality in Piskov-Malaniuk, d 5 'Lla5 1 6 i.b4 'Llb7 1 7 Axf6?! didn't give
Alushta 1 992, White no doubt wishing that White enough for the exchange after
he could play for b4 without that splitting his 1 7...gxf6 1 8 'fi'f1 c5! 1 9 i.h3 'ii'e7 20 i.a3
queenside pawns. li:ld6.
6 .. . ..txc3+ 7 bxc3 0-0 a . . . e5

Play has now transposed to the Nimzo 9 c5?!

line 4 g3 0-0 5 .i.g2 d6 6 li:J£3 .i.xc3 7 bxc3 Attempting to undouble his c-pawns, but
li:lc6 which, despite having been used by a once more this fails to really impress. Instead
number of strong grandmasters like Gulko 9 Ac 1 %le8 10 e4 exd4 1 1 cxd4! (1 1 'Llxd4?
and Sakaev, remains quite unusual, probably 'Lla5 12 'ii'a4 b6! - a fine exchange sacrifice
because instead both 4... d5 and 4 ... c5 have to end the pressure - 1 3 e5 i.d7 14 'iVdt
worked out well in practice. dxe5 1 5 i.xa8 'ifxa8 16 'Llc2 'Llxc4 gave
8 0-0 Black more than enough compensation in
\'\!hire can also immediately show a bit I.Sokolov-Kurajica, Sarajevo 1 987) 1 1 ... li:lxe4
more ambition with 8 i.a3!? when the 1 2 i.b2 (Kurajica) must be critical when
bishop, supporting cS, wiU be well placed in White has some compensation for the pawn

98
 R e a c h ing a Nim z o : U tilising t h e c 6 - k n igh t

in the shape of his bishop pair and strong 10 lLJe1

centre. However, Black doesn't have any 10 tt:ld2 is also unimpressive due to
weaknesses and can even consider 1 2...d5!? 10 ... d5! when Black has a number of tempt­
with the idea that 13 cxdS 'iixdS 14 tt:ld2 fS! ing plans, such as building up for a kingside
defends the knight and leaves d4 looking a attack with ....i.f5 and ...�d7 or playing on
little weak. the queenside after ... l:teB with ... b6. How­
9 tt:le1 !? has also been tried in a bid to ever, the immediate 1 1 c4? doesn't solve
make ...e4 relatively useless with the knight White's difficulties when 1 1 ...tt:lxd4 1 2 cxd5
here en route to e3. Then 9...�e7 1 0 tt:lc2 �xd5 13 tt:lxe4 tt:lxe4 14 e3 'i'xcS 15 exd4
tt:laS 1 1 tt:le3 cS! (shutting out the extra dark­ 'i'fS left Black a clear pawn ahead in Le­
squared bishop) 1 2 'ii'a4 'i'c7 ontxo-Rohde, London 1 984.

1 3 dxeS dxe5 1 4 tt:ld5! (otherwise White 1 0 . . . dxc51

would stand worse after 1 4....i.e6 due to the Seizing the Jruttanve and not allowing
weakness of c4) 1 4... tt:lxd5 1 5 cxd5 .i.d7 was White time to manoeuvre his knight to e3.
agreed drawn in Miladinovic-Sakaev, Yugo­ 1 1 ..ta3 .l:eB 1 2 ..txc5 b6 1 3 ..ta3 lLJa5
slav Team Ch. 1995. Black is certainly no
worse here with his knight heading to d6
after . .l:tadB (or perhaps ...l:taeB!? if Black
.

wants to play ... fS), ...b6 and ...tt:lb7.

9 . . . e4

Now the game Barrett-Webster, British

League 2002 continued 1 4 f3!? (desperately
trying to gain some play, but this fails to
break Black's control of the position)
1 4.)Dc4 15 i.cl e3! with an excellent posi-

99
 Ta ngo ! A D yn a mic A n s we r to 1 d4

tion for Black, with White's pieces lacking lt'!fd7 as an h4-riposte is no longer danger-
any real scope. ous. Thus White might try 1 3 �£2!?, but then
after 13 ... 0-0 Black doesn't at all mind the
Cl 5 a3 exchange on c5 as he is going ...lt'!e8 in any
case (to prepare ... fS) when the knight would
be delighted to be able to come to d6.
7 e3 d6 8 llld 2
Not terribly threatening, but then it's not
clear that there was anything stronger.
8 . . . e5

Forcing the exchange on c3, although

Black isn't unhappy to have to make it. Now
we have a strange kind of Samisch Nimzo­
Indian, against which an early ... lt'!c6 is very
rare, but were it played then White would
almost certainly not wish to block his f-pawn.
5 . . . ..txc3+ 6 bxc3 h6!? · Black has a fme dark-squared centre. Now
6 ... d6 allows White an active square for his I.Horvath-Sirnmelink, correspondence 1 991
dark-squared bishop. By preventing that continued 9 d5 lt'le7 1 0 e4 lt'!g6 11 g3 0-0 1 2
Black challenges White to find a good plan, ..tg2 lt'!h7! (beginning counterplay) 1 3 0-0
as here he lacks the option of f3 and e4. and then 13 ... f5 14 exf5 (White must prevent
However, aiming to restrict the bishop ...f4) 1 4 ... ..txf5 1 5 lt'!e4 lt'!f6 challenged
pair is rather ambitious and 6 ... d6 isn't so White's control of e4 and left Black at least
bad: 7 ..tg5 h6 8 ..i.h4 and now 8 ... g5 9 ..tg3 equal.
lt'!e4 1 0 lt'!d2! lt'!xd2 1 1 'ili'xd2 fS 1 2 f3 'iWf6
1 3 e3 favoured White in Kozomara­ D) 5 ..ig5
.Janosevic, Yugoslav Ch. 1 951 . Thus Black
should probably be more restrained with
8...'ii'e 7!? 9 lt'!d2 e5 1 0 d5 lt'!b8 1 1 e4 lt'!bd7
1 2 f3 when Orlov suggests that \Xi'hite may
have a small edge, but this doesn't seem like a
bad position for Black compared with similar
positions which arise in the Nimzo after 4
liJ£3 b6 5 ..tg5. Here Black has managed to
avoid having his bishop misplaced (at least
once the centre becomes blocked) on b7, and
12 . ..li:lc5 1 3 ..te2 ..td7 intends to activate the
bishop on a4. Now should White castle
Black can go 14 ... �a4 1 5 'iYb 1 g5! 16 �£2

1 00
 R e a c h ing a Nimzo : U tilising t h e c 6- k n igh t

White reasons that this move is quite dan­ est. 1 6 .te2 ex£3 favoured Black after 1 7
gerous after both 2 ... e6 3 l2Jc3 .tb4 4 lLJ£3 b6 gxf3, but 1 7 .ltx£3 l:te8+ 1 8 .i.e2 'iVe7 would
and 4. .0-0, but here the c6-knight is very
. have been even more awkward from White's
useful, especially as it covers the key eS­ perspective.
square and thus allows Black to follow up 6 .i.xf6 also fails to convince when Black
... h6 and ... gS with ... dS. could flick in 6 ... .txc3+, whilst 6 ...'ii'x f6
5 . . . h6 transposes to a position which we considered
after 4 .tg5 h6 5 .txf6 'ii'x f6 6 l2Jc3 .tb4
(see Line B in the third section of Chapter 4).
6 . . . g5 7 i.g3 ii:le4

6 ..th4
The only critical move; instead 6 .i.d2 was
hardly challenging for Black in Haener­
Velicka, Basic 2004. Indeed ... h6, ruling out a Now we will consider:
later pin or aggressive .tgS, is quite a useful
move, and 6...0-0 7 e3 d6 8 .td3 eS 9 d5 l2Je7 01 : 8 'ii'c 2
would have been fine for Black and similar to 02: 8 'i'd3
the lines considered after 5 e3 (see Line A), 03: 8 l:.c1
although the game's 9...l2Jb8 10 e4 l2Ja6 1 1 a3
.txc3 12 .txc3 lLlcS 13 'il'c2?! was not with­ 0 1 1 8 'ii'c 2
out interest.

Attacking the irritant on e4 but loosening

Here Black opted for 13 ...lofxe4! 1 4 ..txe4 the defence of d4 which Black can now ex­
f5 1 5 .ltd3 e4, regaining the piece with inter- ploit.

101
 Ta n g o ! A D yn a mic A n s we r to 1 d4

a . . . tt'lxg3 better in Roca-Nevednichy, Yerevan Olym­

Simple and effective. 8 ... f5!? is also possi­ piad 1 996. Perhaps 12 e3 is better when
ble, but then 9 d5!, whilst unclear, leads to a 1 2...tLlc6 13 lLlxg4 f5 14 lLlh2 d6 1 5 ..ie2
tricky position in which Black must be care­ ..ie6 1 6 ..ih5+ 'iii>d 7 is roughly equal. Black
ful not to leave himself too overextended. can castle by hand should he wish with
9 hxg3 g4! 1 0 d5 ...'iff6, ... l:tad8 and ... �c8, although his king
Initiating exchanges and showing himself is fairly safe in the centre and keeping it there
happy to allow easy equality. Instead: does allow ...a6 and ...b5 in the event of
a) 10 tLle5 lLlxe5 1 1 dxe5 'ii'g5 12 a3? (over­ White going long. Furthermore, the h-pawn
looking a neat switch-back) may be isolated, but it is hard to attack, whilst
Black's e- and f-pawns are quite useful, con­
trolling key central squares and enjoying the
option of advancing.
b2) 1 1 'itd3 is also possible, as I discov­
ered after writing this chapter. Then 1 1 ...e5
12 e3 tLlc6 13 lLlxg4 d6! 14 l:xh6?! led to a
miscalculation, and 14 ... l:xh6? 1 5 lLlxh6 ..ie6
1 6 'iib7 was very good for White in
S.Williams-Palliser, British Rapidplay Ch.
2004. However, 1 4 ... ..ixc3+ 1 5 bxc3 �e7!
would have been rather awkward for White
as the material-winning 1 6... f5 is threatened.
16 l:xh8 'i'xh8 forces the rather ugly 1 7 f3,
1 2... ..if8! (a fairly common trap; now 1 3 whilst 16 .ie2! 'i'£8! 17 l:th3 '¥1/g7 18 '¥1id1
'i'e4 ..ig7 ensures the win o f the e5-pawn) 1 3 ..ifS leaves Black with excellent compensa­
lLle4 'ifxe5 1 4 l:.h5 fS ! 1 5 tLlc3 c 6 1 6 e4 d5 tion for the pawn.
17 ..id3 dxe4 18 ..ixe4 'iff6 left Black much 1 0 . . . gxf3 1 1 dxc6
better in Fronczek-Gurgenidze, Bad Wildbad
1993. 1 2 'ii'e4 is stronger, but 1 2... f5!? 1 3
'i!fd4 (or 1 3 exf6 'ifxf6 1 4 l:ct l:.£8!? 1 5 'ile3
'iVfS and the threat of 1 6 ... ..ic5 forces White
to move the f-pawn) 1 3...b6 1 4 l:.d1 'ii'g7 1 5
a3 ..ic5! was also fme for Black in Morawiec­
Kurylonek, Sopot 1 997 due to her strong
bishops. White must be careful as 1 6 'ilf4 a6
17 b4 ..ie7 1 8 'ifd4? c5! was excellent for
Black.
b) 10 lLlh2!?, trying to keep a fair amount
of tension in the position, has also been tried.
After 10 ... lLlxd4 we have:
b1) 1 1 'ild2 e5!? (trying to stay active) 1 2 1 1 . . . fxe2
lLlxg4 d 6 13 tLle3 (avoiding having the knight Now the bishop will come to the useful
dan�-,rcrously stranded on h6, but this ex­ c6-square, whilst after 1 1 ...bxc6 12 gxf3 'iVf6 ·
changing retreat costs time) 1 3... c6! 1 4 tLlc2 13 f4 l:tb8 14 e3 all the weaknesses roughly
lLlxc2+ 1 5 'ii'xc2 'ii'a5 left Black, who could balanced each other out and a draw was
break on the queenside with ...b5, slightly agreed in Nikcevic-Nevednichy, Niksic 2000.

1 02
 R e a c h in g a Nim z o : U tilising t h e c 6 - kn igh t

sure in Steinbacher-Brenke, Germany 2003.

Probably better is the 1 5 .!:thS!? .id4 1 6
tZ:lbS o f Ubilava-Orlov, Belgrade 1 988, al­
though now Black should have tried 1 6 ....ig7
17 .!:td1 'ile7 1 8 .if3 .ixf3 1 9 gxf3 a6 (Or­
lov) when 20 'lli'a4?! 0-0! 21 ltJd4 .!:tad8 would
have favoured him, whilst 20 ltJc3 .!:td8 21
l:txd8+ 'iPxd8 and 22.. .'�c8 should also
slightly favour him, if anyone, due to his
strong bishop. Instead 1 5 ltJe4 .ixe4 1 6
'ilxe4 'ii'd4! was prematurely agreed drawn in
Ryskin-Nevednichy, Nikolaev 1 993. The
opposite-coloured bishops make progress
1 2 cxd7+ tough, but on d4 Black's bishop would have
Instead after 12 .ixe2?! bxc6 13 a3 .i£8! been very well placed and then ... c5 would
(the bishop will, as it so often does, do a have cemented it.
great job of holding the kingside together
from g7) 14 .!:td1 .l:tb8 1 5 ltJe4 .ig7 16 b4 0-0
White didn't have sufficient compensation in
Tjomsland-P.Hagesaether, Oslo 1 996.
1 2 . . ..i.xd7 1 3 .i.xe2 .i.c6 14 .i.f3!?
White has also kicked the bishop with 1 4
a3 when i t can reroute to g7, via £8 , as Orlov
suggests, although the bishop is also quite
well placed after 1 4....ic5.

1 4 . . . .i.xf3 1 5 gxf3 'i'd7

Remaining alert to the check, large as ever,
on a4.
1 6 l:[d1 'i'c6

Then 15 .if3?! (White wishes to exchange

off the c6-prelate, but this creates a weakness
on f3 which Black is quick to exploit)
15 ....ixf3 1 6 gxf3 'it'f6! 1 7 f4 0-0-0 (now
White must be careful that the position
doesn't open up against his king after ... .i.d4
and ... eS) 1 8 tt::le4 'ii'fS 1 9 fie2 hS 20 'it>fl
il.. e7, preparing ... h4, ).,>ave Black strong pres-

1 03
 Tan go ! A D yn a m ic A n s we r to 1 d4

Now Sokourinski-Orlov, Vancouver 1 999 For example:

con rinued 1 7 0-0 ..i.£8!, bringing the bishop a) 1 0 cxd5 exd5 1 1 t'Lld2!? f5!? (brave,
to g7 before castling, and Black was fine. forcing and probably good , although the
simple 1 1 ...lilxd2 1 2 'ifi>xd2 h4 1 3 i.c5 t'Llxe5
02) 8 'ilrd3 14 dxe5 c6, hoping to put the bishop pair to
good use, is also tempting) 1 2 t'Lldxe4 fxe4 1 3
'Wb5 h4 1 4 �e5 a6 1 5 'il'a4 0-0! 1 6 h3
..i.xc3+ 17 bxc3 t'Llxe5 1 8 dxe5 'ifc7 when
Black soon rounded up the e5-pawn, al­
though his own structure was then a little
vulnerable, in McCorry-Simmelink, corre­
spondence 1 999.
b) 10 t'Lle5 hopes to win the e5-square for
the bishop. Then 1 0 ... ..id7 1 1 f3! t'Llxg3 1 2
hxg3 'We7 1 3 0-0-0 ..i.xc3 1 4 'Wxc3 0-0-0 was
unclear in Hrivnak-Berezjuk, Czech Team
Ch. 1 996, but Black could also consider
10 ... h4!? 1 1 t'Llxc6 ..i.xc3+ 12 bxc3 'il'f6! (a
Again hitting the knight, but also keeping temporary piece sacrifice, taking aim at the
d4 protected. important £2-square) when 13 �f4 gxf4 14
8 .. . d5! cxd5 exd5 1 5 t'Lle5
Instead 8... �xc3+ 9 bxc3 t'Llxg3 1 0 hxg3
'Wf6 followed by ...d6, .....i.d7 and ...0-0-0
should be fine for Black, who is quite solid,
but that is a less challenging option. By sup­
porting tl1e e4-knight, Black interferes with
White's development and also prepares to
target the g3-bishop with ... h5-h4.
9 a3
Preventing Black from enjoying the
bishop pair but at the cost of a developing
move. However, 9 e3 h5 also gives Black
good play.

15 ... h3!? keeps up the kingside pressure -

16 c4? runs into the strong switch 16 ...'il'a6!,
maintaining the attack.
c) 10 h4 holds up the black h-pawn's ad­
vance: 10 ...g4 (preparing to target g3 with the
queen, although 10 ...t'Llxg3!? 1 1 fxg3 i.d6
also deserves attention; then 1 2 0-0-0 g4 1 3
t'Lle5 - ilie only way to save a pawn -
13 ... t'Llxe5 14 dxe5 ..i.xe5 15 cxdS 0-0 16 e4
'Wf6 was messy but probably a bit better for
Black in Vezzosi-Godena, Saint Vincent
1 999, despite White's pressure down the f-

1 04
 R e a c h ing a Nim z o : U tilising t h e c 6- k n ig h t

file compensating to some extent for the White's centre begins to collapse) 1 5 ...
strong black bishops) 1 1 liJd2 (or 1 1 ltJeS .i.xd2!? 16 'ii'xd2
when Black can transpose to Ve7.:wsi­
Godena after 1 1 ...�xc3+ 12 bxc3 lLlxg3 or
emerge a useful pawn ahead in an ending
after 1 1 ...i.xc3+! 1 2 bxc3 lLlxg3 1 3 fxg3 'it'd6
14 c5!? ltJxeS 1 5 cxd6 liJxd3+ 1 6 i.xd3 cxd6)
1 1 ...liJxg3 1 2 fxg3 'ifd6.

and now 1 6... exd4?! 17 exd4 dxc4 1 8 'iii>h2

�fS 19 dS! 0-0-0 20 'Wg5 left Black a pawn
up but White enjoyed excellent compensa­
tion due to his much safer king and better
coordination in Hilwani-Gupta, Dubai 2004.
Thus Black should have kept more lines
13 �£2! (heading for safety on h2; instead closed with 1 6 ...dxc4! when 17 'iii>h2 doesn't
White was in big trouble after 13 0-0-0?! convince due to 17 ...i.e6 or even 17 .. .f5!?. So
�xc3 1 4 'ii'xc3 'ifxg3 15 cxd5 exdS 1 6 �d3 White could try 17 lLlc3!? exd4 18 tiJbS
�e6 17 e4 0-0-0!, leaving Black a pawn up in 'ifxg3 when the position remains messy, but
Moussa-Small, Los Angeles 2003, whilst 1 3 is probably quite good for Black, e.g. 1 9 exd4
lLle2?! dxc4! 14 'ii'xc4 �xd2+ 1 5 �xd2 e5 l:l£6 20 dS a6 21 .!:tel+ 'ifi>f8 22 lLlc3? tLle5!
gave Black a strong initiative, as we saw neatly exploits the white king being trapped
above, in Wachtel-Yermolinsky, Philadelphia on g1 to win the exchange.
1 993) 1 3. .. l:th6! 14 tLle2! (the best try as the c2) 1 5 cxdS!? 'ii'x dS 1 6 tiJc3! is rather un­
knight aims to stem the tide from f4) 14 ... e5 clear and doesn't seem so bad for White af­
with a further split: ter, for example, 1 6 ... 'ii'd 8!? 17 dS (but not 1 7
a3?! exd4! 1 8 axb4 'iff6+ 19 �g1 dxc3 20
bxc3 'ili'eS, taking aim at g3, e3 and c3)
17 ... .i.f5 1 8 'ifc4 �xc3 19 bxc3 l:tf6 20 �g1
when the king will reach safety. Even so,
20...tLla5! 21 'ii'a4+ c6 22 e4 �d7 still leaves
Black a little better.
9 0-0-0?! is a radical way of breaking the
pin, but comes at too high a cost in king
safety. Then 9 ... .i.xc3 1 0 bxc3 'ii'e7! 1 1 �bl
'it'a3 12 .!:tel tLla5 already left Black much
better in Kuznetsov-Maleichi k, Kiev 2000.
9 . . . �xc3+ 1 0 bxc3 h5 1 1 l2Je5!
Playing for exchanges is definitely best,
cl) 1 5 'it>g1?! (sticking to his plan, but now whereas 1 1 h3 ll:lxg3 12 fxg3 dxc4! (targeting

1 05
 Ta ng o ! A D yn a mic A n s we r to 1 d4

g3 and also preventing 13 e4) 13 'il'xc4 'Wd6 1 2 ...liJxg3! 1 3 'il'xg3 lDxeS 1 4 'IWxeS f6 1 5
14 'it>f2 h4 1 5 g4 ..td7 16 e3 'Wg3+ 17 'ite2 f6 'il'g3 g4 1 6 e3 .i.c6
1 H l:!:b1 a6! left Black a bit better in Tracht­
mann-Velicka, Germany 1 998 due to his
safer king and the ... eS and .. .fS breaks. How­
ever, that was stronger than allowing ...g4
with 1 1 h4?! ltJxg3 1 2 fxg3 when 1 2...g4! 1 3
ltJeS ltJxeS 1 4 dxeS b6 (it's not just g3 which
can be weak as the bishop aims to tie White
down to g2) 1 5 cxdS 'il'xdS 1 6 l:!:d1 ..tb7 left
Black with a clear plus in Garcia Cortes­
Uobel Correll, Valencia 2001, for if 17 'il'xdS
exdS then Black soon rounds up the eS­
pawn.

was, after some accurate play from White,

roughly equal in Crouch-Palliser, Hampstead
2001 .

031 8 .l:l.c1

11 . . . .id7
Black would like to play 1 1 ...h4, but then a
fine point behind 1 1 liJeS! is revealed: 1 2
lDxc6 'il'f6 1 3 cxdS! hxg3 1 4 'il'xe4 'il'x£2+ 1 5
�d2 neatly takes advantage o f the pawn's
still being on e2 and not on e3 - 1 S ...lhh2
1 6 .:txh2 gxh2 17 'il'h7 stops and wins the h­ Keeping c3 and d4 covered, but this js less
pawn. common than either queen move, perhaps
The bishop is well placed on c6 but because it doesn't put any pressure on the e4-
1 1 ... ltJxeS!?, leading to a ruck in the centre knight.
after 12 �xeS f6 13 f3 fxeS 1 4 fxe4, also 8 . . . d5
deserved attention. Black is at least fine there, Playing as Black does after 8 'it'd3, albeit
such as after 1 4 ... dxc4 1 5 'il'xc4 'il'f6. without the knight being attacked, but
1 2 h4! 8...1Wf6!? is also possible when 9 e3 �xc3+
.r Another accurate move preparing an es­ 1 0 bxc3 ltJxg3 1 1 hxg3 b6 seems like a
cape square in the event of 12 ...liJxe5 1 3 reasonable version of the Nimzo line 4 tiJf3
i.xe5 f6 when 1 4 �h2 gxh4 1 5 f3 liJg3 1 6 b6 5 i.gS .i.b7 6 e3 h6 7 .i.h4 gS etc - Black
�xg3 hxg3 1 7 'ii'g6+ � £8 gives \X!hite the hopes to make good use of hi s ad vanced
choice of tl1e h-or g-pawns to capture. Now kingside pawns. Then:

1 06
 Rea c h ing a Nim z o : U tilising t h e c 6- k n igh t

a) 1 2 li'a4?! .i.b7 1 3 .i.e2 liJa5! (opening good play, even if White is holding on after
the bishop and putting a little pressure on c4) 1 5 'ife1 !) 1 0... JLxc3+!? (Orlov's suggested
14 liJe5 0-0-0 1 5 JL£3 d6 1 6 liJc6 liJxc6 17 improvement on Rohde-Orlov, World Open
JLxc6 'iVg6! left Black slightly better in Johns­ 1991, although that wasn't at all bad for
rud-Simrnelink, correspondence 2001 . Now Black after 1 0 ...liJxg3 1 1 fxg3 JLd6 1 2 'ifi>£2
1 8 0-0? has to be avoided for then 1 8 ... h5! h4 1 3 g4 i.g3+ 1 4 'iti>g1 a6) 1 1 bxc3 liJxg3 1 2
begins a strong attack. fxg3 ii'd6 13 � £2 and now 1 3. . .f6 (Orlov) is
b) 12 JLd3 JLb7 1 3 c5! (not so much un­ fine for Black, but even stronger is the fur­
doubting the pawns as beginning some ther weakening of White's kingside with
queenside pressure) 1 3...g4 1 4 liJd2 h5 1 5 e4 1 3... h4!.
d6! 1 6 'it'a4 'itf8 was unclear, but roughly
equal, in Vaisser-Shchekachev, Corsica 1 998.

9 . . . .td7
Simply developing. Instead 9 ... liJxg3?! 1 0
9 llJe5!? t'bxc6 bxc6 1 1 hxg3 i.d7 1 2 e 3 'iff6 1 3 a3
Wisely exchanging knights before Black's gave White an edge in Moiseenko-Bologan,
h-pawn gets moving. Instead 9 e3 h5 FIDE World Ch, rapidplay play-off, Tripoli
2004, which turned into a strong initiative
after 13 ... JLe7 1 4 i.e2 llb8 1 5 'Wc2 e5?! 1 6
cxd5 exd4 1 7 exd4 'i'xd4 1 8 0-0!. Likewise
9 ...h5?! doesn't fully impress, especially after
White's previous move, although 1 0 lbxc6
bxc6 1 1 'i'a4! i.xc3+ 1 2 bxc3 h4 1 3 i.e5 f6
1 4 f3 fxe5 1 5 fxe4 exd4 16 cxd4 0-0 1 7 e5
still left White only a little better in an unbal­
anced position in P.Littlewood-Lammens,
Ghent 2001.
Orlov's suggestion of 9 ...JLxc3+!?, how­
ever, deserves testing when 1 0 bxc3 liJxe5 1 1
i.xe5 f6 1 2 f3 (1 2 .i.g3 h5! - Orlov - forces
1 0 h3 (not forced, but 10 lDe5? again al­ the usual kingside weakness) 12 ... fxe5 13 fxe4
lows the strong intermezzo 1 0... h4 1 1 liJxc6 isn't clear, but Black may well be able to ex­
j,xc3+ 1 2 bxc3 li'f6! - Orlov - whilst 1 0 h4 ploit the open f-flle. One idea is 1 3 ... dxe4!?
.i.xc3+ 1 1 bxc3 liJxg3 1 2 fxg3 g4 1 3 liJd2 when certainly 1 4 dxe5 (the 'Irish' pawns
'it'd6 14 'it£2 .l:.h6 once more gives Black were hardly a permanent fixture of the posi-

107
Tan g o ! A D yn a mic A n s we r to 1 d4

ci on in any case with 1 4 e3 exd4 15 cxd4 0-0 open the position with ...e5 or ... h5-h4.
1 6 .ie2 c5! opening the position to Black's 1 0 . . . exd5 1 1 'iVb3 .i.xc3+ 1 2 bxc3 lt:lxg3
advantage) 14 .. .'ii'x d1+ 1 5 .l:f.xd1 .id7 ap­ 1 3 lt:lxc6 .i.xc6 1 4 hxg3 f5!
pt:ars to give Black the better ending as e5
may well be weaker than e4, whilst of course
Black also enjoys the superior queenside
structure.

Now 15 e3 1i'f6 gave Black a good game

in Yennolinsky-Chernov, USSR 1 984.
Should White opt to transpose to the
Nimzo against the Tango then it appears that
1 0 cxd5! he should really choose 5 'ii'c2 if he wants to
Sensibly keeping the h1 -a8 diagonal closed have any chance of an advantage. As this
as 10 fi'b3 ..txc3+ 1 1 bxc3 lllxg3 12 fllxc6 chapter has shown, 5 e3 d6 is quite comfort­
..txc6 1 3 hxg3 dxc4! 1 4 �xc4 'ii'd 6 (Orlov) able for Black, whilst after 5 i..g5, the c6-
leaves White struggling to develop the fl ­ knight again proves its worth and it's often
bishop. After 1 5 e3 0-0-0 Black intends to White who is left struggling to equalise.

1 08
 CHAPTER SIX I
The Zurich Variation:
An Underrated Nimzo Line

1 d4 ti:lf6 2 c4 ti:lc6 3 ti:lf3 e6 4 ti:lc3 easy way for White to exploit his bishop pair.
i.b4 5 'ifc2 After 5 d6 we will consider two, at least by
. . .

5 li'c2 prevents the doubling of the pawns Tango standards, fairly theoretical options:
and transposes to the Zurich variation of the
Nimzo-Indian (4 'iVc2 tLlc6). This was ini­ 1) White's recapturing on c3 with the
tially named after its inventor, Sir Stuart bishop after 6 ..td2 0-0 7 a3 i.xc3 8 .i.xc3
Milner-Barry, but then appears to have be­ (or 6 i.gS h6 7 ..td2 0-0 8 a3 i.xc3 9 ..txc3).
come popular after the Zurich tournament of 2) Recapturing with the queen with 6 a3
1 934 even though, intriguingly, the variation �xc3+ 7 1i'xc3 - see Chapter 7.
didn't feature in any games from the main
tournament there. The Zurich variation was The queenside clamp
popular in the 1 930s, when it was used most
notably by Alekhine and Nimzowitsch, but
by the 1 960s it had fallen out of favour as
other continuations became fashionable. To
this day 4 ... 0-0, 4...d5 and 4... c5 remain more
popular against the 4 'iVc2 Nimzo and so,
whether it arises from a Nimzo or from a
Tango, the Zurich has a fair amount of sur­
prise value and l3lack may well know it better
than White.
Partly due to its use by Morm:evich in the
mid 1 990s, and of course also by Orlov, the
Zurich has recently been used by a number
of grandmasters, both within the Tango and A. Talbot-Palliser
from a Nimzo move order. Black aims to set Crewe Open 2001
up his favoured dark-squared centre, and will
often then look to attack on the kingside or White had carelessly allowed Black's a­
to advance in the centre. Once again Black's pawn to advance on from aS. Now he was
position is also fairly solid, and there is no struggling to do anything, whilst Black in-

1 09
Ta ngo ! A D yna m ic A n s wer to 1 d4

tended ...'Lla6-c5, ... 'Llfe4 and then ... fS. Thus Indeed after 1 5 exf5 e4 (the point be­
White decided that he still had to try for cS, hind 14 .. .f5 as now White had to be careful
even at some cost to his queenside structure. not to lose down the e-file) 1 6 i.e2 lL\df6
However, 1 3 b4?! axb3 1 4 'i'xb3 lLla6 1 5 1 7 0-0! (sensible; after the greedy 1 7 .:tg1 ?,
i.b4 lLle4! confirmed the hold on cS. After 1 7 .....txfS! - regardless! - 1 8 g4 e3 1 9 'fixfS
1 6 lLld2?! lLlxb4! 1 7 lLlxe4 lLla6 Black was ex£2+ 20 'fixf2 'Llf4 regains the piece with
already a bit better with 1 8... f5 and 1 9...'Llc5 interest) 1 7 . . . i.xf5 1 8 :te 1 'i'f7 1 9 lLlf1
next up, and even the move played, 1 8 c5!?, lLlg4 White was rather vulnerable on the
only led to an inferior ending for White. kingside light squares, which Black exploited
to win a fine game.
Kingside play
Advancing in a semi-open centre

Fine-Reynolds
Ostend 1 937 Paschaii-Koneru
Budapest 2001
Despite having kicked Black's knight back
to b8, White doesn't have a lead in develop­ White had aimed to actively develop his
ment. Now Reynolds's 1 3 . . . lL!h5 simply bishop on d3, but was now forced to counter
eyed up the f4-square, but that wasn't the the threat of 13 ... e4. After 1 3 lLld2 Black
only purpose behind the move as 1 4 g3?! sensibly gained some useful space and pre­
f5! already gave Black good kingside play. vented 1 4 'Lle4 with 1 3 . . . e4!.

1 10
 Th e Zurich Varia tio n : A n Un derra t e d Nim z o L in e

Now 1 4 .i.e2 (not 14 .ixf6? exd3 1 5 Opening the c-file

.ixe7 dxc2 1 6 .ih4 .ifS when the protected
passed c2-pawn gives Black a large advantage)
1 4 . . .i.f5 1 5 l:l.fd 1 ? ! a4! gave Kom:ru the
edge as her knights enjoyed some good
squares - .. .l'Llf6-d7-c5, to exploit the weak­
ened b3- and d3- squares, is Black's main plan.

Countering on the queenside

Ward-Palliser
British Championship, Scarborough 2001

I had just attempted to slow down White's

lJUeenside play with 1 1 ...a5?!, but all that ac­
tually did here was to strengthen White's
queenside advance. Now 1 2 c5! exploited
my lack of a knight on d7 after which
Graves-Orlov 1 2 . . . l'Llbd7 1 3 cxd6 cxd6 1 4 l'Lld2! (eyeing
Tacoma 1 991 up the weaknesses of b6 and d6) 1 4 . . .l'Llc5
1 5 b4 axb4 1 6 axb4 J:l.xa1 + 1 7 i.xa1
It might appear that Black is in trouble, as l'Lla6 18 'iiVb 1 .i.d7 19 0-0 left White much
preparing .. .f5 with 1 3 ...lt::le8 allows White to better. Black lacked counterplay, whilst
advance with 1 4 c5!. Furthermore, 1 3... lt::lbd7 White enjoyed good queenside chances and
1 4 lt::lh4! sees White exploiting his decision to could also increase the pressure with f4.
provoke ...h6. However, Black doesn't always
have to play on the kingside, especially when Exploiting the bishop pair
the e-pawn isn't on e4. Thus the game's
1 3 . . . c6! 1 4 dxc6 was quite logical. Now
14... bxc6 1 5 c5! would have favoured White,
and so Orlov caught up in development with
1 4 . . .l'Llxc6 1 5 0-0 .i.g4. Black was rea­
sonably active and the position roughly equal,
whilst it wasn't so easy for White to carry out
his natural queenside advance. After 1 6 b4?!
J:l.fc8! 1 7 .l:.fd1 'ii'e6 White's queenside is
actually the weaker as Black has good chan­
ces to exploit the vulnerability of c4 ( ... e4 or
... ..tx£3 both aim to remove its main de­
fender). Furthermore, the c-pawn can't ad­
vance, whilst the b-pawn is also stuck as it is M.Gurevich-Timman
needed to control the important c5-sguare. Rotterdam 1 990

1 1 1
 Tan g o ! A D yn am ic A n s wer to 1 d4

Black needs to play ... fS so as to bring the his more active rooks, but ama7.ingly ECO
dB-knight back into play via f7. Unfortu­ and other analysts have assessed this position
nately for Timman his last move, actively as equal! Perhaps after 23 .l:f2 .l:d1 +
developing the bishop, didn't really assist .. .fS
and now 1 2 lt'lh4! made it extremely diffi­
cult to implement, for 1 2.. .lbd7 1 3 0-0 fS?
would have been simply refuted by 1 4 h3.
However, the 1 2 . . . c6 1 3 0-0 cxd5 1 4
cxd5 'i'd7 1 5 f4! o f the game, opening up
the c3-bishop and leaving the dB-knight woe­
fully misplaced, was also painful for Black.

lt'lg5 ideas

24 .l:f1 they felt that Black had no more

than a draw. Unfortunately for Morozevich
his inexplicable 24... lt'ld4?? didn't even lead
to that after 25 l:tfxdl cxdl'iW+ 26 .l:.xd1
lt'lxf5 27 .l:.dS lt'le3 28 .l:.xgS. However, as
Dautov's excellent notes for ChessBase point
out, Black could have won with 24...l:.d3!,
intending 25 ... lt'ld4 26 i..xd4 l:.xd4 and
27...l:tdd2. White appears powerless to pre­
vent that with, e.g. 25 l:tf2 lt'ld4 26 .i.xd4
Se .lvanov-Morozevich being strongly met by 26 ....l:.d1+! 27 .l:.f1
Russian Championship, Elista 1 995 l:txd4 leading to an easy win after 28 ...l:tdd2
or 28 llf2 l:td 1+ 29 .l:.f1 l:txcl 30 llxcl l:td2.
By following up lOgS with 14 i.d3 White
intended to gain control of the light squares, Theory
and especially fS and dS, after 1 4 ... h6 1 5 lt'le4 1 d4 lt'lf6 2 c4 lt:\c6 3 lt'lf3 e6 4 lt:\c3
lt'lxe4 1 6 i..xe4. Then Black would lack i.b4 5 'iWc2 d6
counterplay and so Moro7.evich correctly
realised that the ideal advance could be, and
had to be, played. After 1 4 e41 1 5 i.xf6
. . .

(White had to try this as 1 5 .i.e2 i.. f5 and

then ... h6 would have left the gS-knight nus­
placed) 1 5 . . .exd3 1 6 i.xe 7 dxc2 1 7 i.b4
�g4 1 8 f3? (preventing the scary 1 8 ... i.. d 1,
but overlooking that the bishop isn't really
bfing driven backwards; instead Wlute had to
avoid panic and aim to keep lines closed with
Dautov's 1 8 l:tfc l ! �d1 1 9 lb£3) 1 8 . . . �f5
1 9 e4 h6! 20 exf5 hxg5 21 ..llc3 .:!.adS
22 .l:ac1 .:!.e2 Black was a lot better due to

1 12
 Th e Zurich Varia tio n : A n Un derra t e d Nimzo L in e

I n this chapter we will concentrate on the eS and so opting for active piece play. Black
following: intends ...i.g4 or a quick ... dS, whilst 1 1 l:iJdS
i.xd2+ 12 tt:Jxd2! Wh81? also doesn't seem so
A: 6 i.d2 bad after 13 I:£Jxf6 I:£Jb4! 14 �3 I:£Jxd3+ 1 5
B: 6 .i.g5 h6 7 .i.d2 'ili'xd3 'ili'xf6 (intending 1 6 1:£Je4 �f5).
b) 6 e4 is an aggressive approach, but for­
With �d2 White reasons that his dark­ gets that one idea of 5 'ifc2 was to prevent
squared bishop won't be too effective on gS the doubled pawns. However, in the Nimzo
and so hopes that its influence will grow on 4 'ifc2 0-0 5 e4!? has recently gained some
c3 - from there it at least creates some pres­ attention, and so this may not be so bad.
sure against Black's standard ...eS break. This Even so, Black can continue with 6 ... i.xc3+!?
system is thought of reasonably highly by 7 bxc3 eS!, otherwise eS from White can
theory, with Emms preferring it over 6 a3 in leave Black a little cramped.
NCO, whilst Pedersen recommended it (in­
cluding against the pure Tango move order)
in his, and Burgess's, Beating the Indian De­
fences.
However, it is worth observing that 6
i.d2 and 6 a3 aren't White's only options in
the position, although the alternatives do
generally give Bl�ck a pretty easy time:
a) 6 e3 0-0 t i.d2 (hoping to transpose
back to 6 i.d2; instead both 7 i.d3 eS 8 dS
I:£Je7 - Tverdo�ski-Berezin - and 7 i.e2 eS 8
0-0 i.xc3! - Zuttis-Webb - give Black easy
equality as we saw in Line A of the previous
chapter, whilst 7 a3 �xc3+ 8 'ili'xc3 aS trans­ and now:
poses to Chapter 7) b1) 8 dS 1:£Jb8 9 h3 1:£Jbd7 1 0 �e3 b6 1 1
i.e2 1:£Jf8!? (delaying castling and treating the
position like a Hubner Nimzo) 12 CDd2!
(White must generate some play quickly on
the kingside to avoid being without a plan
and worse) 1 2... h6! 1 3 f4 exf4 14 �xf4 I:£Jg6
and Black retained control of the key eS­
square in M.Green-Reshevsky, US Ch. 1 940.
b2) 8 i.e3 'ii'e7 9 dS I:£Jb8 1 0 �e2 0-0 1 1
I:£Jd2 was no more than roughly equal in
Manion-Goldin, World Open 1 994, where­
upon Black sensibly gained some queenside
play and pressure down the c-file with
1 1 ...c6!.
and now Black can transpose to Line c) 6 .i.f4?! merely encourages ... eS, and
A141 with 7 .. .'�e7 8 a3 i.xc3 9 �xc3 aS or 6...'1We7 7 e3 0-0 8 i.e2 eS 9 dxcS dxeS 1 0
try 7... e5!? 8 dS I:£Je7 9 ..i.d3. Here, however, i.g3 �g4 1 1 0-0 was already pretty pleasant
he should opt for either 9.. .lt:Jg6 or for 9... c6 for Black in Nathani-Orlov, Canadian Ope n,
1 0 dxc6 li:Jxc6!?, recognising the weakness of Richmond 1 999 with 1 1 ...�xc3! then prepar-

1 13
 Tan g o ! A D yn a m ic A n s we r to 1 d4

ing to seize the e4-square after 12 'iixc3. when 7 ... �xc3+ 8 'iVxc3 lLle7 9 �g2 lt::le4!
d) 6 g3!? is a superior version of 5 g3 as 10 'i'c2 f5 1 1 lLlh4! lLlf6 gave Black his share
now Black cannot inflict doubled c-pawns, of the chances in an unclear position in Bot­
although he should still be fine after breaking vinnik-Eliskases, Moscow 1 936, but Ward's
with 6... e5. Then we have: 7 ... e4!? 8 dxc6 ex£3 9 cxb7 ..1xc3+! 10 'iVxc3
dl) 7 dxe5 dxe5 8 �g2 0-0 9 0-0 �xc3! �xb7 also deserves attention. 1 1 ex£3 then
(preventing White from gaining the initiative leaves White a pawn ahead, but Black can
with l2Jd5) 1 0 1i'xc3 'iie7 (fully developing point to his pressure on the long diagonal as
before considering advancing in the centre) well as to the e-fl.le for compensation. This
1 1 b3 �g4 1 2 �b2 l:f.fe8 may well be a playable sacrifice, although
Black needs an improvement on the seem­
ingly natural 1 1 ...1i'e7+ 12 �e2 0-0 1 3 �e31
lLlg4! 14 0-0! when 1 4 ...l:fe8 1 5 l:fel lLlxe3
1 6 �ft !? 1i'g5 17 f4 'i'c5 is at least equal for
Black, but 1 5 fxg4! 'ii'e4 1 6 f3 'ii'xe3+ 1 7
'i'xe3 .:lxe3 1 8 �£2 retains the extra pawn
for insufficient compensation.

A1 6 i.d2

saw Black containing both fianchettoed

bishops quite well and hoping to exploit the
e4- and d4-squares for counterplay in Stoltz­
Nimzowitsch, Copenhagen 1 934. Then 1 3 h3
�fS 1 4 lt::lh4 drove the bishop bacl-.-wards,
but after 14 ... �d7 1 5 'iii>h2 .:ladS 1 6 .:lad1 e4!
Black remained solid and had prevented the
h4-knight from easily returning to play,
whilst the g2-bishop remained blunted.
d2) 7 d5 is the alternative 6 . . . 0-0
Black is going to need to casde at some
point, and it seems most flexible and sensible
to do so immediately. Instead 6 ...e5 is also
playable, but removes the central tension too
early. The problem is that after 7 a3! �xc3 8
�xc3 'iVe7 9 d5 tLlb8 White has been able to
effectively close the centre and can then con­
tinue with 1 0 e4 . In the two lines considered
below we'll see that by delaying ... e5, Black
forces White to first commit some of his
pieces and then closing the centre with dS is
not so strong. Indeed W'hite is often reluc­
tant to play e4 and then dS as . l2Jd4! ca n
. .

1 14
 Th e Zurich Varia tio n : A n Un derra t e d Nim z o L in e

easily be strong. Of course, the current posi- A 1 I 8 . . .'i!Ve7

cion isn't so bad for Black (counterplay is
coming by ... fS or ...c6), but \Vhite has gained
space quickly and achieved a favourable ver­
sion of the lines arising from 6...0-0.
7 a3
Forcing the exchange on c3, although the
rather ambitious 7 e4?! e5 8 dxe5 (or 8 d5
lt::ld4!, echoing the point above) 8... dxe5 9
0-0-0!? has also been seen, but still failed to
disguise the weakness of d4 and Black was
quickly much better after 9... ..ig4! 1 0 h3?!
lLld4 1 1 'i!Vd3 lLlxf3 12 hxg4 'ii'xd3 13 i.xd3
lLlxd2 14 .l:.xd2 lLlxg4 in Jovan-Berkes,
Zalakaros 2000. Now we will look at:
7 . . . i.xc3 8 ..txc3
A1 1 : 9 b4!?
A1 2: 9 g3
A 1 3: 9 e4
A14: 9 e3 (the most popular move)

9 l:td1 is not dangerous. Black could play

9...e5 or delay with 9 ... a5!?. Then 10 b4?!
axb4 1 1 axb4 b5! was an excellent sacrifice to
exploit Black's lead in development in Ritson
Morry-Batik, correspondence 1 954. 12 cxb5
lt::la7 13 e4 ..id7 1 4 ..id3 tLlxb5 regained the
pawn and should be equal after 1 5 0-0, but
instead 1 5 i.b2? dS! 1 6 e5 'ii'xb4+ 17 .l:.d2
Now we will consider two options to pre­ lt::le4 1 8 ..ixe4 dxe4 1 9 'ii'xe4 fS 20 exf6 lt::ld 6!
pare ... e5: gave a strong initiative.

A1 : 8 .. .'i'e7 A 1 1 I 9 b4!? e5
A2: 8 . . J:[e8

8 ... 'i!Ve7 is traditionally more popular, but

8 ... .l:f.e8 has become quite fashionable since
the mid 1990s after its use by Morozevich
and Piket.
Striking out on the queenside with 8... a5?!
may often a good idea in the Zurich, but here
is a little slow: 9 e4 'i1Ve7 1 0 eS! tLld7 1 1 i.d3
h6 12 exd6 'it'xd6 13 0-0 b6 1 4 .l:.fd l gave
\Vhite a pleasant edge due to his central con­
trol and to the potential of the bishop pair in
Palliser-Townsend, Yorkshire League 1 999.

1 15
 Ta n g o ! A D yn a mic A n s wer to
1 d4

10 d5 that Black will struggle for counterplay

10 dxeS is also a sensible option and re- against his e3 and f3 centre, so it is time to
veals that 9 b4 didn't just gain space in gen­ act quickly) 1 5 f4
eral as !31ack must avoid 1 0...dxe5?! 1 1 bS!.
Instead Black plays 1 O...lDxeS and now:
a) 1 1 tZ:lxeS dxeS 1 2 e3 when 1 2.....1g4
transposes to 1 1 e3 .ig4 1 2 tZ:lxeS dxeS. In
Gladyszev-Orlov, St Petersburg 2000 Black
preferred to ambitiously claim some space
with 12 ... e4!? when 1 3 .ie2 .ifS 14 0-0 tt::ld7
1 5 !!fd 1 .l::t fe8 16 l:.dS, preventing ...tt::l e5,
appeared to slightly favour White, although
in the game Black's attacking potential on the
kingside actually outweighed White's control
o f the d-file.
b) 1 1 e3
and now 1 5 ...lt:le8!? 1 6 0-0 t2Jd6 1 7 c5!
tZ:lfS is rather ambitious and led to a sharp
struggle, especially after 1 8 ..1b2!? ife6 1 9 g4,
in Ippolito-Palliser, Witley 2001 . However,
1 5...t2Jg4! is a simpler, and quite possibly,
stronger choice: 1 6 .ixg4 ifh4+ 1 7 'iWf2
..xg4 appears to be fine for Black, and in­
deed after 18 0-0 l:tad8 1 9 fS f6!, slowing
down any kingside initiative, White must be
careful not to become overextended (d3 and
his kingside are both potentially vulnerable).
10 . . . lDb8

with a further split:

b1) 1 1 .....1g4 appears quite reasonable
\\·hen 1 2 tt::lxe5 dxe5 1 3 f3 .ih5 (Orlov) pre­
pares to challenge on the b1 -h7 diagonal.
Then 14 e4 isn't too effective a response
a fter 14 ...tt::ld 7!, intending ...l:.fe8, .. .f6 and
... tt::lf8-e6 which should give Black a good
game. However, 1 2 ..1e2 .:!.feB! (wisely refus­
ing to open the g-ftle for an attack and forc­
ing exchanges should White wish to castle)
1 3 tZ:lxeS ..1xe2 14 ifxe2 dxe5 1 5 0-0 tt::le4
was fine1for Black and actually agreed drawn
here in Chekhov-Vlassov, Moscow 1995. 1 1 e4
b2) 1 1 ...b6!? (exploiting having a knight on As recommended in Beali11,g the l11dit111 De­
eS to generate pressure down the long diago­ fences. Instead 1 1 e3 (Salov-Vyzmanavin,
nal) 1 2 ..1e2 J..b7 1 3 lt:lxe5 dxe5 14 f3 e4! USSR Ch. 1 984) led to a very interesting
(White has prevented ...lt:lc4 and now hopes pawn sacrifice to break down White's t]ueen-

1 16
 Th e Zurich Varia tio n : A n Underra t e d Nim z o L in e

side play, and after 1 1 ...a5!? 1 2 bxa5 lL!a6 1 3 . . .fxe4 1 4 'i'xe4

(having stymied White on the queenside, Now 1 4... �£5 1 5 _.e3 lL!f6 1 6 lL!h4 ..th3!
L31ack turns his attention to the kingside) 1 3 prevented White from castling and led to a
lL!d2! lL!g4! sharp struggle in Goldin-Yermolinsky, Chi­
cago 2002, but in his Informant notes Yer­
molinsky preferred 1 4 ... lL!f6 1 5 'it'c2 ..ig4 .

1 4 h3 'ii'h4 1 5 lL!f3 �6 1 6 l:lg1 f5!, Black

gained good counterplay in this rather un­
clear position. Then Black appears to be able to gain
1 1 . . . lLlh5! good counterplay, such as after 1 6 lL!g5 (or
Exploiting the downside to White's last 1 6 h3 ..txf3! 1 7 ..txf3 e4) 1 6 ... ..txe2 1 7 'ii'xe2
move. 1 1 ... a5?! is too slow for, as Yer­ c6! (preventing lL!e6) 1 B dxc6 lL!xc6 when
molinsky's notes show, 12 bxa5 lL!a6 1 3 White might well later regret the slight weak­
..tb4! lL!c5 1 4 lL!d2 soon breaks the queen­ ening to his kingside.
side blockade as Black cannot maintain a
knight on c5. A 1 2) 9 g3
1 2 g3 f5 This sees White hoping that his light­
squared bishop will exert more influence
after being fianchettoed,
9 . . . e5
Flicking in 9 ... a5!? deserves attention.
1 0 d5
Both Kosten and Sokolov have assessed
this position as being in White's favour due
to the too ambitious tO . .lL:JdB?! 1 1 ..ig2
.

..tg4?! 1 2 tt:\h4! of M.Gurevich-Timman (see

the introduction).
10 dxe5 dxe5 1 1 �g2 l:ld8 12 0-0 ttJd4!
(an idea worth noting against the fianchetto;
Black gains some space and also play against
13 .i.e2! e2) 1 3 ..txd4 exd4 1 4 c5 (otherwise Black
Defending the knight so as to lessen the would play this, but now Benjamin can easily
impact of .. .f4 and intending to meet active his forces) 14 ... l:.d5! 1 5 .t:f.acl �fS 1 6
1 3 ...lL:Jf6? with 14 exfS! lL:Jg4 1 5 tt:lh4 (Yer­ 'ii'a4 �e4! was about equal i n D.Gurevich­
molinsky). l3enjamin, New York 1 994.

1 17
 Ta ngo ! A D yn a m ic A n s wer to 1 d4

1 0 . . . tt:lb8 ing here as Black has 1 8 ...l2Jg4 when the

rather unnatural-looking 1 9 .l:t£3 g6 20 liJh4
allows Black to choose between 20.. .f5 and
20...b5 with a reasonable game in both cases.
1 9 fxe5!? i.xfS 20 'ii'xfS liJe3 gives White
some compensation but certainly not more
than enough for the exchange - the pressure
down the c-f!le is problematic for him, and if
21 'ii'd 3 lLlxf1 22 .!:txf1 then Black can im­
prove his position and lessen the pressure
with 22 ... liJc5 23 'ii'e3 dxeS!.

This seems perfectly playable for Black, al­

though objectively White might hold an edge.
For those who would prefer something
sharper then playing a Ia M.Gurevich-Torre
(see Une B) is possible with 1 0...e4!?. Then
1 1 lDg5 lDe5 1 2 lDe4 �f5 1 3 tDxf6+ 'ii'x f6
certainly gives Black some compensation,
such as after 1 4 'ii'b3 i.e4 when 1 5 £3? fails
to 1 5...lDx£3! 1 6 ex£3 ifxf3, or 1 4 e4?! lD£3+!
1 5 �d1 l2Jd4.
1 1 .tg2 a5 1 2 . . . a4
Taking as much space as possible. With
the bishop on c3 securely defended, 1 2...c6?!
no longer convinces: 13 liJh4! cxd5 14 cxdS
'ii'd 8 15 e4 liJa6 16 .:r.aet i.d7 1 7 f4 exf4 1 8
lhf4! lLlg4 1 9 liJfS left White much better in
Bareev-Gofshtein, European Club Cup,
Panormo 2001 .
1 3 tt:lh4!
Again preparing f4 by also keeping an eye
on the fS-square seems best. Instead 1 3 e4
liJbd7 1 4 liJd2 lLlc5 1 5 l:tae1 lLlh5! prepared
.. .fS in Toth-Solomunovic, Baden 2002,
when 16 f4!? exf4 17 gxf4 'ii'h4 left f4 rather
1 2 0-0 vulnerable - 1 8 f5 lLlf4 1 9 .l:.e3! .l:e8 20 l:tf£3
1 2 b3 prevented ... a4 in M.Gurevich­ liJd7! 21 l:tg3 liJf6 wasn't clear, but saw
j.Hall, �ermany 1 998, but as well as the Black's queen and knights perform a good
game's 12 ... lDbd7, Black can consider aiming job of both exploiting the holes in White's
for counterplay with 1 2 ... c6!? when 1 3 lDh4! position and of restraining White's pressure.
cxd5 14 cxd5 ..id7!? 1 5 0-0 .l:tc8 gives Black 1 3 . . . g6 1 4 e4 tt:lbd7 1 5 l:ae1
reasonable play on the queenside. Then 1 6 Now after 15 f4, 1 5...exf4! 1 6 gxf4 lLlg4
.l:.ac1 lLla6 1 7 lLlfS 'it'f8! 1 8 f4 isn't devastat- attacks both the h4-knight and threatens to

1 18
 Th e Zurich Varia tio n : A n Underra t e d Nimzo L in e

...vin the exchange. pecially as here 10 ...tLld4 doesn't convince

1 5 . . .lLlh5! due to 1 1 lLlxd4 exd4 12 JLxd4 lLlxe4 1 3
0-0-0 JL fS 14 JLd3. Thus Black must go
backwards.
10 . . .lLlbB 1 1 �e2
Or 1 1 g3 aS 12 b3 c6! 13 tLld2 'iVc7 1 4
JLg2 cxdS 1 5 exdS! (attempting to limit
Black's queenside counterplay and intending
0-0 and f4) 1 5... b5! and now:
a) 1 6 0-0 JLa6 1 7 cxbS JLxbS 1 8 �fcl �c8
and Black had his fair share of the queenside
play in Jakobsen-Djuric, Gausdal 1 989.
b) Black also gains good play after 1 6 cxbS
JLb7 (or even 1 6 ... liJbd7!? 17 tLlc4 JLb7 1 8
�d1 a4! 1 9 JLb4 tLlb6) 1 7 'ii'd3 lLlbd7 when
16 'ii'd 2! lLlc5 17 f4 f6! the knight is coming to the useful cS-square,
But not 17 ...exf4? 18 'iVd4!. 17 .. .£6 was whilst dS is pretty weak and 1 8 0-0 tLlcS 1 9
part of an instructive defence from Black in 'i'c4 is well met b y 1 9. . .liJfd7! and ...tLlb6.
Glenne-P.Hagesaether, Norwegian Team Ch.
2002. It may appear that Black is under some
pressure, but he is actually very solid and it is
far from easy for White to make progress.
Black has ideas of . ..liJb3 when ... exf4, gxf4
fS might well become possible, whilst block­
ing the kingside also doesn't lead anywhere
for White, although neither did 1 8 fxeS fxeS
cause Black any real problems in the game.
Black may well thus be able to gain a reason­
able position and to slowly equalise with
careful play after 9 g3 eS 10 dS tLlb8.

A 1 31 9 e4 e5 10 d5 1 1 . . . lLlh5!?
Immediately beginning kingside play, al­
though 1 1 ... JLg4 (intending ...tLlhS) is also
possible. Then 1 2 h3 should be met by
1 2...JLh5 1 3 0-0 JLg6! 1 4 tLld2 lLlbd7 1 5 b4
lllh S, intending ...lllf4 and fS.
Black should remember that it's too late
for 1 1 ...a5?! as then 1 2 cS! tLlbd7 1 3 cxd6
cxd6 14 lLld2 tLlcS 1 5 b4!, as we saw above,
favoured White in Ward-Palliser, British Ch.
2001
1 2 lLlxe5!?
Sharpening the struggle whereas 12 0-0
,

li:lf4 1 3 cS .i.g4! 1 4 cxd6 cxd6 gives Black

This is surprisingly not more popular, es- good play due to his kingside pressure and

1 19
 Tan g o ! A D yn a m ic A ns we r to 1 d4

threat of ... fS followed by .. .'�Jxe2+. 12 0-0-0

should also be met by 12 ... lLlf4 and then ... c6
or ... fS, when the e2-bishop cannot easily be
kept as 13 i.f1 ?! i.g4! prevents 1 4 g3 and
thereby strengthens the f4-knight - 1 4 ... i.xf3
is next up.
1 2 . . . ti:lf4 1 3 ti:lf3 ti:lxg2 + 14 �d2 ti:lf4 1 5
l:l.hg1 f6!
Blunting the attack, after which the posi­
tion is unclear; White will hope to use the g­
file, but his own king isn't fully safe and
Black should be able to gain good play
against his centre.
Now Black must choose between holding
White up with 9 . . . a5!? (A 1 4 1 1 and the
older 9 . . . e5 (A1 42).

A 1 4 1 1 9 . . . a5!?
Holding White up on the queenside be­
fore striking back in the centre, and waiting
to see where White wants to develop his
king's bishop to. It's worth knowing that this
position can also arise from 8... a5 9 e3 'We7.
10 ..td3
The most aggressive response, but some­
times White prefers:
1 6 ti:ld4 a) 1 0 i.e2 and now:
Trying to exploit his central space advan­ a1) 1 0... e5 1 1 0-0 and now Black should
tage before Black fully develops, but 1 6 probably transpose to 1 0 ... a4 with 1 1 ...a4 as
.l:.g3!? i s more direct; Black should avoid 1 1 ....i.g4 1 2 b4! exd4 1 3 tt'lxd4 lLlxd4 14
1 6...�f5? 1 7 .:.ag1 g6 1 8 �d3! lLlxd3 1 9 exfS, i.xd4 �xe2 1 5 'Wxe2 gave White an edge, as
but instead 16 ....l:.e8! 17 e5!? dxe5 18 .l:.ag1 Emms points out (in NCO), in Marovic­
lLlg6 appears to defend and places the onus Hecht, Amsterdam 1 972.
on White to justify his sacrifice as, for exam­ a2) After the immediate 1 O ... a4!? White is
ple, the continuation 19 h4?! e4! 20 tt'lh2 �fS less keen to castle long with the bishop more
21 �3 lLld7 sees Black taking over the ini­ passively placed on e2 rather than d3. So 1 1
tiative. 0-0 e5 with a further split:
1 6 . . . c5! a21) 1 2 dxe5 hopes to gain the d-fl.le.
Refusing to let the knight settle. After 17 Then 12 ... dxe5 1 3 .l:.ad1 �g4! 14 .:.d2 .l:.fe8
dxc6 tt'lxc6 Black will gain good, central 1 5 .:.fd1 did indeed give \Vhite the d-flle but
counterplay with White's king not particularly no clear way to exploit it in Elsness­
well placed. Gudbrandsen, Oslo 1 999 - here Black
should probably have re-routed his bishop
A 1 41 9 e3 with 1 5 ... �h5. Instead 14 l:tfe1 l:tfe8 1 5
White's usual response. lLlgS?! (tempting, but premarure) 1 S... .i.xc2
1 6 l:f.xc2 'ii'cS! (hitting c4 and also threaten-

1 20
 Th e Zurich Varia tio n : A n Un derra t e d Nimzo L in e

ing 17 ...e4) 1 7 lt:Je4 'ifxc4 1 8 li:Jxf6+ gxf6 1 9 b1) 1 1 d5 li:Jb8 1 2 h3 (Drasko-Ostojic,

�d7 .=.e7 20 .:ed2 l:tae8! didn't give White Niksic 1996) 12 ... c6! 1 3 dxc6 lt:Jxc6 should be
enough compensation in Bouwmeester­ acceptable for Black.
Johannsson, Copenhagen 1 956. b2) 1 1 dxe5 doesn't impress after
a22) 12 d5 li:Jb8 1 1 ...dxe5 12 ..te2 ..tg4 1 3 0-0 :t.fe8 1 4 h3
i.h5! 1 5 b4!? (preventing ... i.g6, followed by
...lt:Je4-c5) 1 5 ... axb4 1 6 axb4 :t.xa1 1 7 J:ha1
i.x£3!? (changing plans and liquidating now
that the c5-square isn't available) 1 8 i.x£3 e4
19 i.e2 lt:Jxb4 20 'ifb2 c5, and although
White soon won the pawn back on b4 he
could then make no progress in Ragozin­
Botvinnik, Leningrad 1940.
b3) 1 1 ..te2 with a further branch:
b31) 1 1 ...i.g4 1 2 d5

1 3 b4?! (13 li:Jd2 li:Jbd7 14 .:ae1 e4! 1 5 i.d1

c6 16 dxc6 bxc6 17 f3 :t.e8 18 fxe4 c5! gave
Black good compensation due to his control
of e5 and pressure against e4 in Ruzele­
Ostojic, Budapest 1 996; 1 4 e4 has been sug­
gested as an improvement, although then
14 ...lt:Jc5 1 5 f4 exf4! 1 6 l:txf4 li:Jfd7 gives
Black control of e5) 1 3. .. axb3 14 'ifxb3 lt:Ja6
1 5 i.b4 lt:Je4! and, as we saw in the introduc­
tion, Black already enjoyed the edge in
A.Talbot-Palliser, Crewe 200 1 . 1 2...li:Jb8 (correctly avoiding 1 2...i.xf3?!,
b) Sometimes White wants to castle short not due to 13 i.x£3 li:Jd4, but rather due to
but without allowing ...a4 and so he selects 1 3 gxf:l! li:Jb8 1 4 'iVfS c6 1 5 dxc6 bxc6 16 f4!
1 0 b3. Play continues 1 0...e5 exf4 17 'ii'xf4 'i!Ve4 1 8 :t.g1 when White's
bishop pair was too strong in Bohm-G.Lee,
Wijk aan Zee 1 981) 1 3 0-0 li:Jbd7 1 4 :t.fe1 (or
1 4 b4 axb4 1 5 axb4 b5!) 14 ...i.h5 1 5 li:Jd2
i.g6 1 6 e4 c6 gave Black sufficient counter­
play in A.Talbot-Palliser, Southend 2002 -
after 1 7 i.d3 li:Jh5 18 g3?! lt:Jc5 19 b4 axb4
20 axb4 lt:Jxd3 21 'ifxd3 l:.xa1 22 :t.xa1 f5
Black held the advantage due to his kingside
pressure.
b32) 1 1 ...e4!? also deserves attention when
1 2 li:Jd2 d5 1 3 i.b2 (and not 13 cxd5 li:Jxd5
1 4 li:Jxe4? due to 14 ... i.. f5 1 5 i..d3 lt:Jxc3 1 6
ctJxc3 lt:Jxd4) 1 3. .i.. f5 1 4 .l:c1 llad8 1 5 h3
.

and now: l:tfeH 16 'iVc3 hS led to a tough, unclear

121
 Tan g o ! A D yn a m ic A ns wer to 1 d4

struggle in Quan Zhe-Hutters, Kitchener Black due to his extra central pawn, but
2003 although in the game Black's play with W'h.ite should try that or 13 0-0!?.
.. .f5-f4 proved the stronger. 1 3 e4?1 ll'lh5
1 0 . . . e5 1 1 d5
Again W'h.ite doesn't have to close the
centre, but 1 1 dxe5 dxe5 still doesn't give
Black anything to fear when 12 0-0 (Ta.i­
manov suggested 12 lDg5!?, intending 1 2... h6
1 3 lDe4, as an improvement, but instead
Black should block with Orlov's 1 2 ...g6, in­
tending ...lDd7 and .. .f5) 12 ... lte8 13 .if'S!?
(avoiding 13 lDd2 e4! 14 .i.e2 .i.f5 15 ltfd1
a4 with a good game for Black, as we saw
above in Paschall-Koneru, Budapest 2001)
13 ... ..ixf5 14 ii'xf5

Now 14 0-0 lt:lf4 is clearly pretty comfort­

able for Black, but in Pelletier-Bologan, Biel
1 999 W'h.ite's aggressive choice failed to im­
press, and after 14 g3 .i.h3 1 5 .i.e2 lDf6 1 6
0-0-0?! b5! W'h.ite's centre was fully under­
mined.

A1 421 9 . . . e5

14 .. Ji'e6!? (ensuring equality, although

1 4... g6!? 1 5 ii'c2 lDd7 was a reasonable alter­
native) 1 5 ii'xe6 l:txe6 1 6 b4?! lDe4 17 .i.b2
f6! 1 8 b5 lDe7 left Black slightly better as his
knights were well placed to target the weak­
ened white queenside, in Euwe-Reshevsky,
The Hague/Moscow 1 948.
1 1 . . .ll'lbB 1 2 ll'ld2
White can again aim to exchange the l.ight­
St]Uared bishops, when 1 2 .if'S!? ..ixf5 1 3 Striking back immediately in the centre.
ii'xf5 lDbd7 1 4 0-0 a4 1 5 lDd2 g6 1 6 ii'g5? 1 0 dxe5
blundered a pawn to 16 ...lDxd5 in F.Smith­ With this move W'h.ite attempts to get in a
Palliser, C,:rewe 2001, although Black should guick b4.
be fine in any case, such as after 1 6 ii'c2 lDc5 1 0 ..ie2 ..ig4! is less challenging: 1 1 0-0 e4
17 f4! lDg4! 18 .U.ae1 f5 19 h3 lt:lf6. 12 lDe1 ..ixe2 13 'ifxe2 a6 1 4 lt:lc2 dS (Black
1 2 . . . c6! can easily hold eS and will look to play on the
Exploiting the usual downside to lDd2. kingside, such as with .. lt:lc6-e7-g6) 1 5 ltJb4
.

Now 13 dxc6 bxc6 is guite comfortable for 'ii'e6 1 6 b3 lt:le7 gave White no advantage in

1 22
 Th e Zurich Varia tio n : A n Underra t e d Nimz o L in e

l .Sokolov-Yermolinsky, Wijk aan Zee (blitz) equal in Euwe-Alekhine, World Ch. (Game
1 999 - he cannot really exchange on d5 as 22), Holland 1 935.
this would leave him with a bad bishop c) 1 1 h3!? should perhaps be met by
against a strong d5-knight. However, 10 d5 1 1 ...c6!?, intending 12 e4 t'Llh5! 13 g3?! £5!, as
gives White chances for an edge, although 1 1 ...a5 12 b3 t'Llbd7 13 t'Lld2! c6 14 e4 cxd5
Sokolov's suggested 1 0 .. .ltJb8 15 cxd5 t'Llc5 16 b4 left White a little better
due to his extra queenside space in Miles­
Yermolinsky, Los Angeles 1 99 1 .
d ) 1 1 t'Lld2 (the main option) 1 1 ...c6! (cor­
rectly countering on the queenside with
White quite flexible and the e-pawn not yet
on e4) 1 2 e4 t'Lla6 1 3 .ie2 ..td7 1 4 0-0 cxd5
15 cxd5 t'Llc5 was fine for Black after 16 b4
t'Lla4 in A.Kuzmin-Narciso Dublan, Andorra
2004.
1 0 . . . dxe5
Now White gets in 1 1 b4, but 10 ... t'Llxe5
isn't the solution to Black's problems as then
1 1 t'Lld4! c51? 1 2 t'Ll£5 'iie6 13 t'Llg3 ..td7 1 4
looks reasonable, for example: ..te2 .t.c6 1 5 0-0 favoured White due t o her
a) 1 1 .t.e2 i.g4 (this appears to give Black bishop pair and Black's lack of effective
sufficient counterplay and so it's not surpris­ counterplay in Sheldon-M.Anderton, Hamp­
ing that White should aim to prevent the stead 1 999.
bishop from being actively deployed) 1 2 h3 1 1 b4!
.ih5 1 3 e4 .ig6 1 4 t'Lld2 c6! 1 5 .id3 lt:lbd7
was fine for Black in Wiley-Chabanon,
Cannes 1 999.
b) 1 1 i.d3 t'Llbd7 12 t'LlgS g6! (again the
best way to defend h7 as 1 2...h6?! 1 3 h4! is
dangerous) 1 3 t'Lle4 t'Llxe4 14 .ixe4 lt:lc5

1 1 . . .e4!
Black must counter quickly and accurately
as 1 1 ....ig4 1 2 b5 .ix£3 1 3 gxf3 li:ld4 14
'iid 1! c5!? 1 5 i.b2 lt:J£5 1 6 'li'c2 li:lh4 1 7
0-0-0! gave White fair attacking chances in
Pohlers- Kliesch, correspondence 1990, al­
15 0-0! (instead the greedy 15 i.. f3?! 1!i'h4! though again it wasn't so easy to break down
16 e4 f5 gives Black the initiative) 1 S ... lbxe4 Black's defences.
16 'it'xe4 i.. f5 1 7 'it'f3 1i'h4 1 8 'iie2 was 1 2 b5 exf3 1 3 bxc6 ll:Je4! 1 4 gxf3 ll:Jxc3

1 23
 Ta n g o ! A D yn a mic A ns wer to 1 d4

1 5 'ifxc3 of dS. Now White's most common choices

arc:

A21 : 9 e3 (simply developing)

A22: 9 l:d1 (preventing 9 ... e5)

However, White has also ttied some other

ideas:
a) 9 e4 eS 1 0 dS

Now 1 5 .. J:�d8!? was roughly equal (16

l:tg1 f6 defends, whilst White's own king is
not entirely safe in the centte) and was agreed
drawn here in Blokh-Borwell, correspon­
dence 1 997. Borwell presumably didn't fear
1 6 cxb7 �xb7 when Black has the more
active bishop and the pressure against f3 is
especially useful if White hopes to hide his
king on e2. However, 1 5...bxc6 has also been can now be met simply by 1 0. ..ltJc7 1 1
seen when 1 6 h4 :b8 17 �d3 �cS 1 8 hS h6 �e2 ttlg6, but also possible, due to the
1 9 We2 �fS! 20 �xfS 'i!VxfS 21 :ag1 f6 was rook's being the major black piece on the c­
roughly equal in Geruscl-Malich, Leipzig fllc, is 1 o.. .tt:ld4!? when:
1 975. White has some pressure, but it's hard a 1) 1 1 ttlxd4!? must still be critical, al­
to increase, whilst Black hopes for good though after 1 1 ...exd4 12 �xd4 tt:lxe4 1 3
counterplay down the open b- and d-flles. 0-0-0 Black can play 1 3. . .'ifg5+ 1 4 �e3 (or
1 4 �b1 tt:lcS 1 5 �xeS �fS 1 6 �d3 �xd3
A2) 8 . . . .1:.e8 17 'Wxd3 dxcS with equality) 14 ... �e5 1 5
�d3 �fS! as White doesn't appear to be able
to do anything down the e-ftle; for example,
Black can meet 1 6 :del with 1 6...�g6 1 7
� b1 cS 1 8 dxc6 bxc6 1 9 f3 tt:lcS.
a2) 1 1 �xd4 exd4 12 �d3 �fS! 13 0-0
.1xe4 14 'Llxd4 �d7 15 f3 �xd3 1 6 �xd3
:es was pretty equal - White may have had
more space, but Black controlled eS and had
no weaknesses - in Stepa-Chernov, Kishnev
200 1 .
b) 9 g3 i s also somewhat less powerful
than after 8. ..�e7 for now 9 . . e5 10 d S can be
.

· well met by 1 0. ..li:le7. Then the knight not

Supporting ... eS, but without taking away only supports .. c6 but also gives key protec­
.

the e7 retreat from the c6-knight in the event tion to the fS-sguare and thus makes any

1 24
 Th e Zurich Varia tio n : A n Underra t e d Nim z o L in e

ltJh4 much less effective. However, 1 0 dxeS make use of the eS-knight by fianchettoing)
ltJxeS 1 1 ltJxeS dxeS 1 2 .l:td 1 'ii'e7 1 3 .ig2
aS! 1 4 0-0 'ii'cS was also fine for Black, giving
him good counterplay against c4, in Walter­
Becker, Teplitz-Schoenau 1 937.
c) 9 0-0-0!? is the aggressive choice when
Black should still reply with 9 ...'ii'e7 10 e3 eS

1 2 ltJxeS (or 1 2 i.e2 i.b7 1 3 .:td1 'ii'e7 1 4

0-0 cS! - Orlov - with reasonable counter-
play, one idea being ... .!i:tac8 and then possibly
...ltJx£3+ and ... dS) 1 2... dxe5 1 3 i.e2 .ib7 14
0-0 'ii'e7 15 l::tfd1 cS! (again preparing coun­
terplay against White's queenside) 1 6 bS a6!?
and now: 17 a4 aS 1 8 f3 l:tad8, intending if necessary to
c1) 1 1 dS ltJb8 1 2 h3 ltJa6 1 3 ltJd2 c6! further solidify with ... ltJd7, .. .f6 and ...ltJ£B­
(gaining counterplay as quickly as possible) e6, gave Black equality in Zlender-Pineault,
14 dxc6 bxc6 1 S g4 dS 1 6 ltJ£3 ltJd7 was far correspondence 1 996.
from clear in Lazarev-Kluss, Cannes 1 996.
After 17 h4! l:.b8 1 8 ltJgS ltJf6 19 cxdS cxdS A21 1 9 e3
20 l:hdS, rather than 20... i.b7? 21 l:txeS,
Black has to try 20 ...'iVb7 when 21 e4 ltJxdS
picks up the exchange for not quite enough
compensation, whilst 21 i.g2?! is well met by
21 ... ltJc7! when 22 i.xeS ltJcxdS 23 i.xb8
.ixg4 24 i.d6 .l:.cS all works out fairly well
for Black.
c2) 1 1 dxeS dxeS 12 ltJgS h6 1 3 h4!? aS 1 4
.id3 e4! (the key b1 -h7 diagonal must be
kept closed) 1 S i.e2 hxgS 1 6 hxgS ltJg4 1 7
.ixg4 i.xg4 1 8 f3 ltJb4! returned the piece to
open the a-file, leaving Black much better in
Dobrov-Berescu, Kavala 2003.
d) 9 b4!? is probably the best of \X'hite's Simply developing, but doing nothing to
alternatives to his two main moves. Then prevent Black's central counter.
9 ...eS 1 0 dxeS ltJxeS! (10...dxe5?! 1 1 b5! is 9 . . . e5
now very good for White who has saved a Rightly not fearing 10 dxeS dxeS 1 1 b4.
move, in comparison with 8. . .'ii'e7 9 e3 eS 10 However, 9 ... a5!? is again an option:
dxeS dxeS 11 b4, as the e-pawn is still use­ a) After 10 l:td1 Black should probably
fully at home) 1 1 e3 b6!? (again trying to transpose to Line A22 (9 l:.dt 'ii'c7 10 e3 aS)

1 25
Ta n g o ! A D yn a m ic A n s wer to 1 d4

with 10 .. .'i'e7 as 1 0 ... a4 1 1 d5! tLlb8 1 2 dxe6 and now:

i.xe6 13 i.e2 tLlbd7 14 tLld4! gave White a a) 1 1 i.d3 c6!? (probably the best way to
pleasant edge in Mohr-Moor, Zurich 1 997. gain counterplay as 1 1 ...tt:\g6 1 2 h4! i.g4 1 3
b) Also challenging is 10 i.d3 when tt:\g5 i s rather dangerous) 12 dxc6 bxc6 (Ben­
10 ...e5 1 1 d5 lLlb8 1 2 tLld2! a4! 1 3 0-0 liJbd7 jamin's 12 ... tt:lxc6!? also deserves attention,
14 f4 appeared to give White an edge in Kiri­ but then 13 tt:\g5! h6 14 tt:le4 .te6 1 5 tt:lxf6+
akov-Gasymov, J urmala 1 992, although that 'i'xf6 1 6 0-0 may well promise White an edge
was soon neutralised after 1 4.. .'i'e7 1 5 .l:.ael due to his bishop pair) 1 3 0-0 tt:l!:,r6 14 h3
g6!, intending 16 ... exf4 and 16 f5 rk;g7.

and now 1 4.. .'i'e7 1 5 i.xg6 hxg6 16 c5!

1 0 dxa5 gave White a small, but clear edge in Laurier­
Even though the knight doesn't have to Piker. Thus the forcing 1 4... e4!? deserves
retreat to the back rank, 1 0 d5 remains an serious attention when 1 5 i.xf6 exd3 1 6
important option and was chosen in Lautier­ i.xd8 dxc2 1 7 i.c7 (so far Dautov) 1 7...tt:le5!
Piket, Groningen 1 995. White's play, which 18 tt:lxe5 dxe5 intends the dangerous
gained him an edge although Black held the 1 9 ... i.f5-d3. However, after 1 9 e4 (or 1 9 £31?
draw without too much difficulty, was en­ i.a6 20 l:Hcl l:tac8 21 i.a5 e4! and a draw
dorsed in Beating the Indian Difences, although must be the most likely result) 1 9 ... i.e6 20
somewhat surprisingly nobody particularly .l:.fcl (after 20 b3, 20 ...l:.ac8 is effective,
strong has yet repeated it. Play continues meeting 21 i.xe5 with 21 ... i.xc4 and then 21
1 0...lLle7 i.d6 l:.cd8 drives the bishop away from con­
trolling b8, allowing Black to hit b3)
20... .txc4 21 l:xc2 i.d3 Black secures equal­
ity.
b) 1 1 e4 is also an option but Black ap­
pears to have time to return his rook, now
slightly misplaced, with 1 1 ...l:tffi when 1 2
i.d3 tt:lh5 1 3 g3 f5 14 ex£5 i.xf5 1 5 tt:lg5
'i'd7 1 6 f4!? (very aggressive, although oth­
erwise Black was quite comfortable; 1 6 i.x£5
'i'xf5 17 'i'x£5 .l:xf5 18 tt:le6 exploits the
tempting square, but then 1 8...tLlf6 indirectly
defends c7 and leaves the e6-knight in danger
of being trapped after ... c6, undermining d5)

126
 Th e Zurich Varia tio n : A n Un derra t e d Nimzo L in e

1 6... exf4 1 7 0-0-0 lL!g6 and the e6-s<.juare

gave White some compensation in
M.Gurevich-Winants, Belgium Team Ch.
2004. However, this was accurately neutral­
ised, leaving Black better.
1 0 . . . dxe5

1 3 ltJg5?!
Now Black gets to play ...a4 effectively, al­
though it was also quite playable last move.
Instead White should prefer 1 3 b3, even if
Black is fine after 1 3...i.g4, whilst in Ip­
polito-Christiansen, New York 1 994, White
The natural recapture, although Black can showed that ...a4 didn't have to be so crip­
also remove some tension from the position pling. That game continued 1 3 h3!? a4 1 4
with 10 ... lL!xe5 when 1 1 tbxe5 dxe5 12 ..i.e2 l:tfd1 lL!d7 1 5 l:td5!, preventing 1 5. . .tbc5 and
c5! holds White up on the queenside. Quan making use of the downside to 13 ... a4 after
Zhe-Stevens, Canadian Ch. 2004 continued 1 5 .. .f6 with 1 6 i.b4. Then 1 6 ...lL!xb4 1 7 axb4
13 ..i.f3!? l:tb8! 14 0-0 b6 1 5 l:tad1 'fic7 16 h3 'i*'xb4 1 8 l:tb5 'ille7 1 9 l:txa4 l:txa4 20 'ii'xa4
i.e6 1 7 ..i.d5 l:tbd8 when Black was very lLJ£8 was roughly equal.
solid and White again got nowhere despite 1 3 . . . a4 1 4 i.. d3 e4!
controlling the d-ftle. 13 0-0 'ille7 1 4 l:tae1!? The complications give Black at least
might be a better try for an edge t,when Black equality, as we've seen, in Se.Ivanov­
should strongly consider 1 4 ... ..i.g4!?, intend­ Morozevich, Russian Ch. 1 995.
ing 1 5 f3 ..i.h5 or 1 5 ..i.xg4 lLJ�g4 16 f4?!
exf4! 17 exf4 'fih4, as 14 ...b6 15 f4 favoured A221 9 .l:l.d 1
White in the game Euwe-Najdorf, Gronin­
gen 1 946.
1 1 i.. e2
Sokolov's suggested 1 1 b4!? is now much
less dangerous than after 8 ... 'ille7 and indeed
Black has time for 1 1 ...i.g4, meeting 1 2 b5?!
with 12 ... lLJd4!. However, Black is comfort­
able in any case, and 1 2 i.e2 e4! 1 3 lL!d4
lL!e5 left d3 looking rather weak in Reichen­
bacher-K.Jensen, correspondence 1 992. Af­
ter 1 4 f3!? exf3 1 5 gxf3 ..i.hS! 1 6 .l:d 1 ..i.g6 1 7
'fic1 'ii'c B Black had good play against
White's exposed monarch.
1 1 . . . a5 1 2 0-0 -.!fe7 Preventing ... eS and thereby forcing Black to

127
 Tan g o ! A D yn am ic A n s wer to 1 d4

play 9 . . 'ii'e7 anyway, although now Black

. c) 10 dS!? is the logical and agL,rressive fol­
willhope to show that the rook may well not low-up to 9 .l:!.d1 when 10 ... tt:lb8 1 1 dxe6
belong on d 1 . .i.xe6 (1 1 ... fxe6 12 e4 eS 1 3 cS! favours
1 0 b4 White) 12 e3 'Llbd7 1 3 .ie2 .1i.g4 14 b3 �eS
Taking the available queenside space once 1 5 .1i.b2 .l:tad8 1 6 .l:!.d4 .i.hS! (refu sing to ex­
more, although White has also tried: change until White casdes) 17 tLlxeS dxeS led
a) 10 e3 eS 1 1 dS �b8 12 �d2 (or 12 to equality in Bischoff-Hecht, Munich 1 988.
�e2 when Black could go 1 2...c6, although However, even better is Orl<>V's 12 ...�g4!,
1 2...�bd7 1 3 b4 �b6!? 1 4 0-0 .i.d7! 1 5 l:.c1 intending 1 3. ..�e4 and, if 13 h3, then
.1i.a4 1 6 'ilfb 1 c6 was a creative and effective 1 3. ..�h5 and ....ig6.
solution for Black in Alvarez Villar­ Returning to 1 0 b4!?, incidentally a move
Simmelink, correspondence 1 997) 12 ...�bd7 first suggested by Timman after his encoun­
(again with the knight on d2 and the pawn ter with Morozevich:
on e3, 12 ...c6!? deserved attention) 1 3 e4?! 1 0 . . . e5 1 1 d5 tt:lb8 1 2 e4
�hS! and Black, as we saw earlier, prepared
good counterplay in Fine-Reynolds, Ostend
1 937.
b) 10 g3 is now less dangerous than usual
due to tO ... eS

1 2 . . . .tg4
The best way to develop as 1 2 ... �h5 1 3
g3 l:t f8 14 i.e2 fS?! i s strongly met by 1 5
�h4!, exploiting the loose knight on hS.
1 3 .te2 tt:lbd7
1 1 dS?! (Orlov's 1 1 dxeS dxeS 12 .i.g2 aS!
1 3 0-0 a4 is also fine for Black) 1 1 ...e4! 1 2
�gS and now i n Timman-Morozevich, Am­
sterdam 1 995 Black attempted to utilise his
doubling of major pieces on the e-file with
1 2... e3, but then White managed to equalise
after 13 f4! h6 14 �f3. Instead Timman's
12 ... �e5!? is better when 13 �xe4 (even
worse is 1 3 �g2 �d3+!) 1 3. .. .i.f5 1 4 �g2
'it>f8! leaves White stuck in a strong pin -
Black will regain the pawn with a good posi­
tion. However, if instead 14 �xf6+ then 1 4...
..xf6 15 .i.xeS .i.xc2 16 .i.xf6 ..ixdl wins
the exchange. 14 tt:lh4!?

1 28
 Th e Zurich Varia tio n : A n Underra t e d Nim zo L in e

An interesting and ambitious plan to bring It may just seem that Black has gained the
the knight to e3. Instead after 1 4 0-0, Tim­ useful ... h6 (lt:JgS has been fully ruled out),
man's notes in NenJ i11 Che.rs reveal that he had but it's not so simple for \Vhite can now
intended 14... a5! when 1 5 bxaS? lt:JcS, further hope to attack on the kingside. However, the
attacking e4, highlights the strength of alternatives don't impress:
Black's pressure down the h5-d1 diagonal. a) 7 i.xf6 'ii'x f6 8 e3 (or 8 a3 i.xc3+ 9
14 be2 1 5 lLlfS 'i'fB 1 6 'it>xe2
. . .. 'ii'xc3 eS 10 dxeS dxeS 1 1 e3 Jtg4 12 Jte2
Keeping e4 defended so that the knight when Black was already comfortable in
doesn't have to retreat to the less effective Claassen-Rashkovsky, Oberwart 2002, and
g3-square. can now choose 1 2... 0-0-0!? 1 3 0-0 'i'g6 1 4
l:tfd1 hS!, intending 1 5...e4 with useful king­
side pressure) 8... 0-0 9 i.d3 eS 1 0 0-0 i.xc3!
1 1 bxc3?! (1 1 'i'xc3 i.g4 12 dxeS tt:lxeS!? 1 3
lt:JxeS dxeS 1 4 i.e4 c 6 maintains equality)
1 1 ...'fie7 12 i. fS JtxfS 1 3 'fixfS :fe8 1 4
:ab1 b6! and 1 5. . .lt:Ja5 gave Black an edge in
Ortega Ruiz-Estremera Panos, Linares 2000.
b) Worse, albeit also quite sharp, is 7
i.h4?! gS! 8 i.g3 g4,

16 .. . lLlh5!
and Black, who intended either ...li:Jf4+ or
to push through .. .fS with ...g6 and ...lt:Jg7,
had his fair share of the chances in a roughly
level position, and later went on to win a fine
game in Bareev-Timman, Wijk aan Zee 2004.

8) 6 i.g5

picking up a pawn for insufficient com­

pensation:
b1) 9 tt:ld2 li:Jxd4 10 'fid3 tt:lfS 1 1 h3 .l:.g8
1 2 0-0-0 i.d7 left Black much better in
Korotylev-Najer, Moscow 1 996
b2) Euwe-Alexander, The Hague 1 939
continued 9 tt:\h4 tt:lxd4 1 0 'ii'd3 eS! 1 1 0-0-0
li:Je6 which left Black better, although W'hite
retained some tactical chances after 1 2
li:Jb 1 !?. However, that such a strong player
and theoretician as Euwe struggled after
7 ...g5 suggests that the gambit should be
Creating a pin, but. .. unsound, providing Black defends carefuUy
6 . . . h6 7 i.d2!? and sensibly.

1 29
 Tan g o ! A D yn a m ic A n s wer to 1 d4

b3) 9 d5!? (probably the best try) 9 ... exd5 8 g3 has also been tried, but then 8 ... e5 9
10 cxd5 ll:lxd5 1 1 ..ih4 'it'd7 12 l:d1 'it'e6 dxe5 dxe5 1 0 a3?! i.e7! exploited White's
and after 1 3 e4 i.xc3+ 1 4 bxc3 gx£3 Black rather slow play, and also that ll:lg5 was ruled
managed to consolidate his extra pawn in out, to seize the initiative in Dzevlan-Ostojic,
Buddensiek-Unzicker, Moscow 1 99 1 . Ivan Yugoslav Ch. 1 99 1 after 1 1 i.g2 i.e6 1 2 b3
Sokolov has suggested that 1 3 ll:ld4!? might e4!
be a better try, although after 1 3...'ii'e5 1 4
ll:ldb5 ll:lxc3 1 5 ll:lxc3 i.f5 1 6 'ii'd 2 q.,d7
Black appears to have sufficient time to castle
by hand, and 'White has rather run out of
counterplay.
7 .. . 0-0

when 'White was in some trouble; for ex­

ample, 1 3 lllxe4 is well met by 1 3 ... ..tf5 1 4
lllh4 ll:ld4! (Kosten). However, 1 3 lllg1 ?!
failed to solve White's problems in the game
when 1 3... i.c5 1 4 b4?! (allowing a neat tactic,
but 14 e3 was also very unpleasant for White
Again this is best. Most 7 i.d2 adherents after 1 4...i.f5! - 1 5 ll:lge2 llle5 1 6 0-0? loses
are probably secretly hoping for 7 ... e5 8 a3! a piece after 1 6 ... lll f3+) 1 4.....txf2+! 1 5 �x£2
..ixc3 9 i.xc3 as in M.Gurevich-Benjamin, e3+ was superb for Black.
New York 1 989, after which 6 i.g5 became 8 . . . i.xc3 9 i.xc3
relatively popular for a while. It continued
9 ... 'iVe7 1 0 d5 ll:lb8 1 1 e4 0-0 1 2 i.e2 when
Benjamin tried to get in .. fS, but 1 2...lllh7!?
.

was well met by 13 g3!, intending 1 3... f5 1 4

lllh4! to exploit the weakness created by
6... h6. Then 13 ... i.h3 1 4 .l:[g1 ! i.d7 1 5 lllh4
c6 1 6 f4 left 'White with a strong initiative
and just the sort of position he was hoping
for after provoking ... h6.
8 a3
Again this is critical and probably best,
and Black shou}d once more be fine if White
delays this. For example, 8 e3 e5 9 d5 ll:le7 1 0
a3 i.xc3 1 1 i.xc3 i.f5!, preparing ...ll:le4, 9 'ife7
. . .

was fine for Black in Milov-Yermolinsky, 9 ... .l:.e8 remruns a valid alternative, al­
FIDE World Ch. (rapid play-off), Moscow though then 10 0-0-0!?, intending to directly
2001 . exploit the weakening of Black's kingsidc, is

1 30
 The Zurich Varia tio n : A n Underra t e d Nim z o L in e

quite potent. Certainly Black must now de­

fend well and 10 .....e7 1 1 e3 eS 12 dS tt:lb8
13 h3 tt:lbd7 14 g4 appeared to give White a
dangerous attack in Varga-Bologan, Bern
1998. Indeed after 1 4 ... lLlcS 1 5 . b4!? Black
was forced to give up two pieces for a rook,
but then 15 ...lLlce4 1 6 J.b2 c6! 1 7 dxc6 bxc6
1 8 .td3 cS! 19 J.xe4 ft:lxe4 20 'ii'xe4 J.b7
wasn't so bad for him and was actually rather
unclear after 21 .l:tdS cxb4 22 axb4 l:.ec8 23
�b1 aS! 24 bS .!:r.cS.

was quite unclear in Finegold-Benjamin,

US Ch. 1 994. Benjamin then responded well
to the challenge with 1 4...ft:lfd7! (so as to
keep lines relatively closed after 1 5 gS hS) 1 5
0-0-0 t'LlcS 1 6 lldg1 g6 ! 1 7 t'Lld2 (preparing to
meet gS, ... i.fS with e4) 1 7 ... t'Llba6 1 8 h4
.td7 1 9 gS hS 20 e4 c6! when, understanda­
bly frustrated by the kingside having being
blocked, White struck out with 21 f4?, but
then 21 ...cxd5 22 cxdS lLlb3+! 23 t'Llxb3 axb3
saw Black having gained the initiative and
1 0 g3 strong attacking chances.
Again 1 0 e3 is also possible and then:
a) l O...eS 1 1 dS lLlb8 12 lLld2! (12 i.e2
lLlbd7 13 0-0 bS! gave Black good counter­
play in Sundararajan-Venkatesh, Indian Ch.
2003) 1 2... c6! (again the best response to e3
and lLld2) 13 e4 (Dao Thien Hai-Loginov,
Budapest 1 994) 1 3 ...lLlh5 (Orlov) 14 g3 fS!
(but not 1 4...cxd5 15 cxdS fS?! due to 16 .te2
ft:lf6 17 exfS!) 1 5 J.e2 ,.fl, retaining control
of f5 and giving Black counterplay.
b) 1 0 ... a5 and now:
b1) 1 1 b3 eS 1 2 dS lLlb8 1 3 .te2 (or 1 3
ft:ld2 c 6 1 4 e 4 bS! with enough play in Mohr­
Reeh, Bundesliga 1 995, such as after 1 5 dxc6 10 . . . e5
bxc4 16 lLlxc4 lLlxc6 17 .l:td1 J.e6!) 1 3. ..c6 14 Due to Black's strong follow-up this ap­
dxc6 ft:lxc6 1 5 0-0 J.g4 was roughly equal, as pears better here than 1 O ... aS when 1 1 .tg2
we've seen, in Graves-Orlov, Tacoma 1 99 1 . eS 1 2 dS t'Llb8 1 3 0-0 ltJbd7 1 4 e4 ltJcS oc­
b2) 1 1 i.e2!? (not minding his queenside curred in Christiansen-Orlov, US Ch. 1 994
being clamped as White has designs on the and then Orlov's 1 5 ltJh4! a4 16 l::tae1 , fol­
other wing) 1 1 ...a4 12 h3 eS 13 dS tt:lb8 14 lowed by fS, would have left White slightly
g4!? better.

131
Tan g o ! A D yn a m ic A ns wer to 1 d4

1 1 d5 e4!
This strong counter exploits \X!hite's in­
ability to respond liJg5. Otherwise, Black is
probably a little worse, but still with a very
playable position (as we saw in Line A12).
1 2 liJd2

1 6 liJf3! liJfd7 !
and Black had good compensation due to
his control of e5, which rather restricted both
white bishops, and pressure down the e-file,
in M.Gurevich-E.Torre, Jakarta 1 996.
This has been a rather long, but important
1 2 . . . e3!? chapter; not just due to our having trans­
A strong sacrifice which secures the e5- posed to a 'ii'c2 Nimzo, but because 3 tt::\ £3
square, although 1 2 ... liJe5 13 tt::lxe4 i.fS! was e6 4 liJc3 .i.b4 5 'ii'c2 is one of \X!hite's best
also possible when 1 4 liJxf6+ (or 1 4 .i.g2 and most popular lines against the Tango.
'iii>h 8!? with compensation due to the pin a Ia Black appears to gain a reasonable and fairly
Timman-Morozevich - see Line A22) easy-to-play position with good chances for
14...'ifxf6 (M.Gurevich) gives Black reason­ counterplay after 5 ... d6 6 .i.d2 0-0 7 a3 i.xc3
able compensation, especially after 1 5 e4? 8 i.xc3 when both 8 ...'ii'e7 and 8 ...1le8 re­
tt::l £3+ 1 6 'ifi>e2 tt::ld4+ 1 7 .i.xd4 i.g4+ 1 8 'iii>e 1 main fully viable options. However, the 6
'ifxd4 19 i.g2 fS. i.g5 h6 7 i.d2 move order is no longer so
13 fxe3 fashionable and Black should be fine there so
Gurevich's excellent notes reveal that long as he responds actively. furthermore, in
Black is also fine after 1 3 dxc6 exd2+ 1 4 that line we saw one of \X!hite's better plans,
i.xd2 bxc6 1 5 .i.g2 l:le8 1 6 0-0 tt::le4!. with the kingside fianchetto, being well coun­
1 3 . . . lt:le5 1 4 e4 i.g4 1 5 i.g2 c6 tered by an ...e5-e4-e3 thrust.

1 32
 CHAPTER SEVEN I
The Zurich Variation:
6 a3 ..txc3 + 7 1i'xc3

1 d4 _lLlf6 2 c4 lLlc6 3 lLlf3 e6 4 lLlc3 is much harder to arrange (the ... e4 fork be­
.i.b4 5 'ifc2 d6 6 a3 .bc3+ 7 'i'xc3 ing rather problematic) and so it often in­
In this chapter we look at White recaptur­ stead goes to e2. Here Velicka had exploited
ing on c3 with the queen. This is \X!hite's that to take the h7-b1 diagonal for his
usual recapture in the Classical Nimzo and bishop. Following 14 . . .lLle4 ! , 1 5 'iib3 Jlad8
here this is just as common as 6 i.d2. One 16 0-0? was impossible due to 1 6 .. 'Lld2!,
.

major point is that White reserves the option winning the exchange. However, 1 5 'i'c1
of where his dark-squared bishop should go a5! showed that the white yueenside can
to. easily become overextended, and 1 6 b5
J:l.adB 1 7 0-0 lLlc5 le ft Black better due to
Utilising Black's control of e4 his control of d3 (... i.d3, exchanging the
bishops, and then ...'Lld3 and ... e4 was one
strong plan).

Controlling e4 with . . . .i.g4-h5-g6

H .Ernst-Velicka
Bern 2000

Semi-open centres (with the d-filc open)

arise a fter 6 a3 as well as after 6 ..id2. How­ Dreev-Orlov
ever, after 'ii'xc3 developing the bishop to d3 New York 1 990

1 33
Tan g o ! A D yn a mic A n s wer to 1 d4

Here 1 1 . . ..i.g4! not only increased the White sufficient time to develop and to get in
pressure on White's centre but also prepared b4, possibly securing a small edge. However,
to challenge for control of the b1-h7 diago­ again b8 was the better retreat square for
nal. After 1 2 d5 lLlb8 1 3 .te2 lba6 1 4 0-0 after 9 . lbd8? 1 1 0 .tg2 0-0 1 1 .tg5 cap­
. .

the bishop had fulfilled its immediate task on turing on dS still didn't lead to anything fa­
g4 of getting White to close the centre vourable, whilst 1 1 . . . e5 1 2 c5! i.f5 1 3
(which should restrict the white bishops) and 0-0 h6 1 4 .txf6 'i'xf6 1 5 lLld2 left White
so Orlov now redeployed it. exploiting his edge and extra space to in­
crease the pressure on Black's vulnerable
gueenside.

14 . . . .th5! 1 5 .i.c3 lbc5 1 6 b4 .tg6 1 7

'ifd1 lLlfe4 1 8 .tb2 lba6 then gave Black a
good game; kingside expansion with . f5 is
.. Donner-Reshevsky
the next mini-plan. Amsterdam 1 950

The d4-d5 break White had delayed his kingside develop­

ment to get in the advance 1 1 d5!?, but after
the simple retreat 1 1 . . .lbb8! he realised that
Black would unravel fairly easily after ...eS,
when the gueen's rook might well not be so
well placed on dl. However, 1 2 dxe6 fxe6!
also didn't cause Black any real difficulties for
he was, as usual in the Zi.irich variation,
pretty solid. Now 1 3 g3 b6! 1 4 .i.g2 .tb7
prevented White from enjoying two effective
fianchettoed bishops. Although one should
be careful not to underestimate it, White's
build-up on the a1 -h8 diagonal wasn't all that
threatening here, whilst the b8-knight was en
Ne�terov-Vlassov route to cS. 1 5 0-0 lbbd7 1 6 lbe 1 .txg2
Moscow 1 994 1 7 lbxg2 lLlc5 1 8 f3 kept Black's knights
away from the e4-Slluare , but now 1 8...d5!
Black hadn't handled the opening in quite would have been fine for Black due to his
the most accurate way and now 9 d5! drove central control, with even ...:adB and . e5 ..

the knight backwards, thereby allowing one plan.

1 34
 Th e Zurich Varia tio n : 6 a3 � x c 3 + 7 'ii x c 3

Trading the e-pawn for the initiative Theory

1 d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 lt:lc6 3 lt:lf3 e6 4 lt:lc3
i.b4 5 'fic2 d6 6 a3 i.xc3+ 7 'fixc3

Browne-Orlov
US Championship, Modesto 1 995
Now we will consider:
Orlov had just played his favoured ...eS A: 7 a5 (restraining White on the queen­
. . .

pawn sacrifice and already Black enjoyed side)

clear compensation: he had good pressure B: 7 0-0!? (intending to break out with a
. . .

down the central flies, a lead in development sacrifice after 8 b4 eS!)

and White's queenside might well be shown
up to be overextended. Black has also tried 7 ... ike7, but this seems
After 1 2 'i'b2 lt:lg4! the knight was en inferior to the other two options. 8 g3 is one
route to the annoying eS-square, before 1 3 slight difficulty, but more problematic is 8
'i'c3! ? a5! revealed another of Black's plans, b4! (exploiting the c6-knight's lack of a re­
namely to gain some queenside pressure, treat square on e7) 8...e5 9 dxeS lDxeS (or
whilst also facilitating a rook lift into the 9 ...dxe5?! 1 0 bS!) when Black might be able
attack via a6. White responded well with 1 4 to slowly equalise after 1 0 lL!xeS dxeS 1 1
i.b2 'i'g5 i.b2 lDd7 and .. .f6. However, 1 0 i.b2!? is
also possible, and then 1 O.)Llfd7 1 1 cS! f6?!
12 cxd6 cxd6 13 lDd4 gave White a large
advantage in Mrva-Blatny, Krynica 1 998.

A) 7 . . . a5
Black reasons that his development is
good enough to be able to play this popular
move, preventing a rapid b4-b5 and also
threatening to fully clamp the queenside with
...a4.
8 b3
Wisely preventing the blockading 8...a4, al­
though occasionally W'hite is happy to allow
1 5 h4! 'fih6, but Black retained good it:
compensation for the pawn sacrifice, as we a) 8 e3 0-0 tends to reach Line A 1 after 9
will see below. b3, but there appears to be nothing wrong

1 35
 Tan g o ! A D yn a m ic A ns wer to 1 d4

with 8 ... a4 9 ii.d3 0-0 10 0-0 e5! (exploiting

the bishop's being on d3) 1 1 l2Jd2 'ii'e7 and
Black, who threatens 1 2 ... e4 and then ...J.fS
and probably ...d5, was fine in Fontana Soler­
Eslon, Valencia 1 990, even before \1Vhite
blundered with 1 2 £3? allowing 12 ...exd4 1 3
exd4 'ii'e3+ 1 4 �h1 'ii'xd4.
b) 8 g3 is a reasonable approach, but
should only be played after 8 b3. Now 8 ... a4
should probably have been played immedi­
ately, whereas 8 ... 0-0 9 ii.g2 a4!

10 ... l2Jxe4! 1 1 'ii'xg7 l:tg8, for example 1 2

'ii'd4 (or 1 2 'ii'xh7!? .i.f5 1 3 'ii'h4 tDxd5 14
'ii'xd8+ 'itxd8 - Ward - with a strong initia­
tive for Black, e.g. 1 5 l2Jd4 i.d7 1 6 f3 lDcS
17 i.c4? is well met by 17 ...l:txg2! 1 8 J.xd5
l2Jd3+ when 1 9 �d1 loses the h1 -rook, but
even worse is 1 9 �f1 i.h3!) 12 ...l2Jc5 1 3
i.g5 l2Jf5 1 4 J.xd8 l2Jxd4 1 5 l2Jxd4 Wxd8 1 6
l:td1 a4! favoured Black in Ward-Quinn, Isle
of Man 2000 when d5 was very weak. 1 4
'ii'c3!? i s probably a better try when 14. . .l2Je4
occurred in Bondarevsky-Keres, USSR 1 5 .i.xd8 l2Jxc3 1 6 bxc3 Wxd8 (Ward) still
Ch. 1 940. There is some debate about what seems fairly pleasant for Black, but may well
happened next: 1 0 J.f4 would surely have be fairly equal as now d5 will be a lot easier
been met by 1 0 ... 'ii'e7 and then ... e5, rather to defend.
than 1 0... b6?, allowing 1 1 l2Je5! dxe5 1 2 dxe5 d) 8 i.g5 hopes to lure Black's kingside
i.b7 13 exf6. Thus Orlov's move order of 1 0 forwards and then to castle long:
0-0 lDa5!? 1 1 .i.f4 b6 12 l2Jd2 ..tb7 1 3 e4
l2Jd7 is probably correct, reaching a position
all the sources agree on. Black is solid here
and should be able to gain good play in the
centre. After 14 l:.fe1, as well as the game's
14 ... e5 1 5 J.e3 'ii'e7 1 6 d5, it was also worth
considering waiting with 1 4...'ii'e7!?, seeing
what \1Vhite was up to and meeting 1 5 d5
with 1 5...l2Jc5.
c) 8 d5!? is critical, but Black appears to be
able to reach a gqod position after the accu­
rate 8 ... exd5! (and not the submissive
8 ... t2Jb8?! 9 dxe6 i.xe6 to b3 tiJbd7 1 1 i.b2
0-0 1 2 e3 with a pleasant edge for \1Vhite in 8... h6 9 ..llh4 (less testing is 9 ii.xf6 'ii'x f6
Baburin-El Kher, Copenhagen 2000) 9 cxd5 1 0 e3 0-0 1 1 ii.c2 e5 1 2 dxeS dxe5 1 3 0-0
tLle7 10 e4 3i.g4, with easy eLJUality for Black, ! .asker-

1 36
 Th e Zurich Varia tio n : 6 a 3 � x c 3 + 7 'ik x c 3

Alekhine, Nottingham 1 936, whilst Browne's .1g5 favoured White due to his strong
suggestion of 9 d5!? hxg5 10 dxc6 bxc6 1 1 bishop pair and initiative in the line's only
tt:Jxg5 doesn't seem so bad for Black after test so far, Zubov-Markos, Balatonlelle 2000.
1 1 ...c5!, clamping down on b2 and preparing Returning to 8 b3:
to meet 1 2 g3 with 1 2...i.b7) 8 . . . 0-0

9 ... 'ife7! (getting on with ... e5 as the pin Now we will consider:
can always be broken later when Black is
ready to do so; 9 ... g5 10 d5! might well be a A 1 : 9 .i.b2 and e3 set-ups
bit annoying) 10 e3 e5 1 1 h3? (or 1 1 d5 tt:Jb8 A2: 9 .i.b2 and g3 set-ups
12 ..te2 tt:Jbd7 1 3 0-0?! - White has gone A3: 9 g3 without an early .i.b2
short, although it's not clear what else he
should do - 1 3 ... a4! 1 4 .tdl lt:Jc5 15 .tc2 g5! However, practice has also seen:
1 6 i.g3 tt:Jfe4 1 7 1i'b4 h5! led to a strong a) 9 e3 usually just transposes to Line Al
kingside attack, whilst White lacked counter­ after .ib2, but in Myhre-Reshevsky, Du­
play in Borowski-Sliwa, Sopot 1 946; 1 1 dxe5 brovnik Olympiad 1 950 White tried to omit
dxe5 12 .te2 i.f5 13 0-0? g5 14 i.g3 lL!e4 1 5 that, albeit without any success, after 9...�e8
'Wet h5! was also pretty useful in Seirawan­ 10 ..te2 e5 1 1 dxe5 dxe5 12 0-0 i.g4 13 l:ta2
Benjamin, World Open [blitz] 1 989) 1 1 ... g5! lt:Je4! 1 4 'ii'c2 lt:Jc5.
(now that White has weakened the defence b) 9 ..tg5 'ii'e7 (Black can also be more
of the g3-square and not addressed Black's ambitious with 9... h6!? 1 0 i.h4 g5 1 1 .ig3
main threat) 1 2 .ig3 lt:Je4 13 'ifc2 exd4 14 tt:Je4 1 2 'ifc2 fS! 1 3 e3 'ti'f6 which was un­
0-0-0 tt:Jxg3 1 5 fxg3 dxe3 was excellent for clear, but roughly equal, in Marcin-Speelman,
Black in Dive-Be.Martin, Sydney 1 990. Hastings 1 983/84) 10 e3 e5 1 1 dxe5 dxe5 1 2
e) 8 g4!? implements a fashionable idea in .ie2 h 6 1 3 i.xf6 (not wanting the bishop to
general and should probably be met by 8 ... h6 be rather penned in on g3, but this isn't too
or by a change of tack with 8 ... d5!?. Then g4 challenging either) 1 3...'ii'x f6 14 0-0 .1g4 1 5
can easily land up looking rather strange h3 .ihS! 1 6 .tdl l:fd8 1 7 lt:Jd2 .ig6 with
unless White goes 9 g5, when 9... tt:Je4 ap­ equality in Urushadze-Nikolishvili, Tbilisi
pears acceptable for Black who can gain play 2002.
of his own, such as with 1 0 'ii"c2 lt:Jd6!? 1 1 c5
ti:lfS 1 2 e3 f6 ! 1 3 gxf6 'ifxf6 and then ...e5. A1 1 9 �b2
However, 8.. .tt:lxg4 9 l:.gl e5 10 dxe5 tt:lgxeS As we've seen, Black i sn't too worried by
1 1 tt:lxeS dxeS 12 .!:.xg7 'iVf6 1 3 .l:.g3! ..tfS 1 4 the pin should the bishop come to gS and so

137
 Ta n g o ! A D yn am ic A n s we r to 1 d4

b2 seems the most sensible square for it. compensation due to his kingside pressure)
Now there's nothing wrong with 9 ...'i/ie7 in 1 5 �e2 (with the black kingside covered, it's
response, but more flexible is very hard for White to do anything; 1 5 �xf6
1i'xf6 1 6 c5 fails to impress with 1 6 ... d5 one
promising reply) 1 5 ... e5 1 6 0-0 lt:Jbd7 1 7 b4
axb4 1 8 axb4 b6 and, with the b2-bishop
blunted, White lacked any real compensation
for the pawn in DeGiorgis-G.Evans, corre­
spondence 1 998.
10 . . . e5

9 ..l:l.e8 1 0 e3
..

White can also try the ambitious 1 0 l:.d1 !?,

intending 10 ...'ii'e7 1 1 d5. Black should
though be fine after 1 1 ... lt:Jb8 1 2 dxe6 fxe6!
(the half-open e-file was unlikely to be too
advantageous here and so Black retains the
option of a c7-e5 pawn chain)
1 1 dxeS
White hopes that his battery on the a1-h8
diagonal will have some effect. Alternatively:
a) 1 1 'ii'c2 (escaping from being hit by
... lt:Je4, but the queen isn't so well placed here
either) 1 1 ....i.g4 1 2 d5?! ( 1 2 �e2 .ixf3!? 1 3
.i.xf3 exd4 1 4 .i.xc6 bxc6 1 5 .ixd4 lt:Je4 1 6
0-0 c5! - Orlov - fixes b3 and gives Black a
reasonable position) 12 ... lt:Jb8 13 .ie2 lt:Ja6
1 4 0-0 �h5! 1 5 .ic3 lt:Jc5! (it's worth allow­
ing b4 to get the king's knight into e4, whilst
White's queenside advance can sometimes be
a little loosening) 16 b4 .ig6 17 1i'd1 lt:Jfe4
1 3 e4?! (or 1 3 g3 b6 1 4 �g2 �b7 and 1 8 �b2 lt:Ja6 1 9 'ii'b3 .ih5! (its job done on
Black has equalised, as we saw before, in g6, the bishop returns to create a strong pin,
Donner-Reshevsky, Amsterdam 1 950) whilst White also isn't helped by his queen
1 3...lt:Jxe4! (Orlov's suggested improvement defending b4) 20 1i'c2 f5 and, having handled
over his 1 3... e5? 1,4 c5! lt:Jc6 1 5 .i.c4+ �f8 1 6 the early middlegame in model fashion, Black
cxd6 cxd6 1 7 lt:Jg5 which was very good for enjoyed the advantage in Dreev-Orlov, New
White in Browne-Orlov, Reno 1 992) 1 4 'ii'c2 York 1 990.
lLlf6! (Orlov's 1 4 ... lLlc5!? is also possible, but b) 1 1 d5 lL:le7 12 lLld2 is a stronger way of
then 1 5 b4 axb4 1 6 axb4 lL:la4 1 7 .l:l.a1 ! lL:lb6 closing the centre, but Black still gained good
18 .l:l.xa8 tL:lxa8 1 9 ..ltd3 gives White some counte rplay after 1 2... c6 1 3 e4?! cxdS 1 4 cxdS

1 38
 Th e Zurich Varia tio n : 6 a3 il. x c 3 + 7 'ik x c 3

i.d7 15 a4! (preventing an early black queen­

side initiative with ... bS, but Black can still
play on the other flank) 1 5 ....l:.c8 16 �d3
lLlg6 17 g3 :f8!, preparing the standard and
strong ...fS break in Lafuente-Gonzalez Gar­
cia, Havana 2004.
1 1 . . . dxe5 1 2 l:d 1 'ire7

1 8 'it'b2 tt::Jc 5
This was fine for Black in Agrest­
Gofshtein, Auberville (rapid) 2001. Lacking a
good plan, White realised that he had noth­
ing better than repeating moves.

A2l 9 il.b2 .l:l.e8 1 0 g3

1 3 il.e2
Not contesting the b1 -h7 diagonal, but
White has also tried 13 'ifc2 .i.g4 1 4 .i.e2
i.hS! 1 5 lLlh4!, preventing 1 S ...i.g6 and thus
not rendering 'Wc2 useless. However, this
approach is fairly slow and 1 S ... i.xe2 1 6
'ii'xe2 1i'e6 1 7 lLl £3 'iffS 1 8 0-0 h6 1 9 h3!?
was roughly equal in Berthold-Seul, Bad
Zwesten 1 999, when Black decided to gain
some kingside pressure with the continuation
19 ... .l:.a6!? 20 .l:.b1 e4 21 tLld4 lLlxd4 22 i.xd4
hS.
1 3 . . . i.f5
13 ...i.g4 is also quite playable, but it is Once again we have seen that developing
logical to seize the b1 -h7 diagonal as Black the king's bishop to e2 (d3 is rather an un­
does often have to go ... ..tg4-h5-g6 to con­ usual square in the 'ifxc3 lines as White can
trol it. rarely prevent ...e4) gives Black a fairly com­
1 4 0-0 tt::Je4 1 5 'ifc1 tt::Jc 5 1 6 'ifc3! fortable position, and so it's no surprise to
Keeping things solid as an earlier Gof­ learn that several grandmasters have also
shtein game had shown 16 lLlxeS?! to be tried fianchettoing.
mistaken due to 1 6 ...lLlxe5 1 7 .i.xeS lLlxb3 If 1 0 �d1 !? �e7 1 1 g3 eS 1 2 dS the knight
1 8 'iib2 �xeS 19 'ifxb3 .i.e4! 20 l:d7 �gS, cannot go to e7, but after 1 2... tLlb8 1 3 .i.g2
forcing the g-pawn to move when Black c6 1 4 dxc6 ltJxc6 1 5 0-0 h6 White lacked an
enjoyed the advantage 111 Thallinger­ effective plan in Kishnev-Winants, Belgium
Gofshtein, Zillertal 1 993. Team Ch. 2003 and Black drew fairly com­
1 6 . . . f6 1 7 il.a 1 ll:le4 fortably after 1 6 'ifc2 'ire? 1 7 liJh4 liJe7!.

1 39
Tan g o ! A D yn a mic A n s w er to 1 d4

1 0 . . . e5 the b2-bishop isn't great, whilst here

1 8.....i.g4! keeps Black's counterplay rolling.
1 1 . . . dxe5 1 2 i.g2 i.g4

1 1 dxe5
1 1 d5!? also forces an accurate response:
1 1 ...lt:le7 1 2 i.g2 lt:le4!? 13 'it'c2 (or 13 'ii'e3 1 3 0-0
f5 14 0-0 lt:lg6 1 5 h4?! - very radical, but 1 3 l:d1 'ii'e7 1 4 0-0 'i'c5! held up b4 and
Black was threatening to continue the attack prepared to use the d4-St]Uare in l<raidman­
with 1 5 ...lt:lc5 and 1 6 .. .f4 - 1 5...'ii'f6 1 6 b4 f4! Mastrovasilis, Antalya 2001.
1 7 gxf4 exf4 1 8 'ii'd4 'ii'xd4 1 9 �xd4 ..i.g4 After 1 3 0-0 Black can try 13 .....i.xf3!?,
and Black's play against White's weakened creatively giving up the second bishop to
kingside gave her the advantage in V.lone­ fight with the knights. However, after look­
scu-Sheremetieva, Bucharest 1 993) 13 ... f5 1 4 ing at the critical 1 4 'ii'x £3 lt:ld4 1 5 ..i.xd4
lt:ld2 lt:lf6 1 5 0-0 and now Black should con­ exd4 1 6 'i'xb7! I've concluded that Black
tinue on the kingside with 1 5 ... lt:lg6!? doesn't appear to have quite enough play.
(1 5 ...l:b8 16 .!:tfd 1 b5!? 17 a4! b4 1 8 c5! was a However, there are a couple of alterna­
fine, temporary pawn sacrifice to open the tives: Black can play 1 3...'ii'e7 intending
centre in C.Horvath-Kiuss, Budapest 1 990) ...'it'c5 a la Mastrovasilis with a reasonable
position. Meanwhile, Ward has shown that
the aggressive alternative 1 3 ...e4 may have
been unfairly criticised: 14 .!:tfd1 'iic8! (Black
wants to attack on the kingside) 1 5 lt:ld4 lt:le5

1 6 c5 f4 when 17 liJe4 ..i.fS prevents

\XIhite from enjoying e4 and, although 1 7
cxd6 cxd6 1 8 l:lacl does double on the open
c-file, the position still appears rather unclear:

1 40
 Th e Zurich Variatio n : 6 a 3 il. x c 3 + 7 'ik x c 3

16 l:.e1 (Panno-Slipak, Buenos Aires 1 988) native at this point in 9 ...e5!? which has some
when Ward's 16 ... .th3!? leads to an unclear similarities with the gambit 7...0-0 8 b4 e5
position in which Black certainly enjoys some (sec Line B2) as Black strives to exploit his
attacking chances. 14 l:.adl!? may be the better development at the cost of a pawn.
reason to prefer 13 ...'ii'e7 as then 14 ...1t'c8 1 5 Play continues 1 0 dxe5 dxe5
liJg5! .i.xe2 1 6 liJxe4 'ifi'e6 1 7 lL'lxf6+ 'ifi'xf6
1 8 'ii'x f6 gxf6 1 9 .i.xf6 .i.xft 20 'iii>xfl sees
the bishop pair give White good compensa­
tion for the exchange.

A31 9 g3
Here we look at g3 lines where White de­
lays or omits ..ib2.

and now:
a) Declining with 1 1 .i.g2 leads back to
more normal fianchetto type positions. Here
...�e8 is quite playable but, with the exchange
on e5 already having been made and thus
with d5 ruled out, 1 1 ...'ii'e7 is also fine, for
example 1 2 i.b2 �e8 1 3 0-0 ..ig4 1 4 h3 (Bal­
parda-Trompowsky, Carrasco 1938) and now
9 l:l.e8
.. . Black should increase his control of e4 with
Probably again the best way to prepare 14... i.f5 when, as well as ...lLld4, .....ie4
...e5, although 9...'ii'e7 remains a valid alter­ aiming to exchange the light-squared bishops
native. However, after 10 ..ig2 e5 1 1 d5! enters the equation, thus easing the pressure
lL'lb8 1 2 lL'ld2!?, the tempting 1 2.....ig4?! 13 f3 along the h1-a8 diagonal and slightly weaken­
..id7 14 e4 c6 1 5 0-0 b5!? turned out to be ing White's kingside.
too ambitious here, as White is quite flexible b) 1 1 liJxe5 (critical) 1 1 ...liJxe5 12 'ii'xe5
and especially enjoys a mobile f-pawn. After
1 6 ..ib2 cxd5 (or 1 6... bxc4 1 7 bxc4 cxd5 1 8
exd5! lL'la6 1 9 f4!) 1 7 exd5 bxc4 1 8 lL'lxc4
i.b5 1 9 f4! White was much better in Palus­
Palliser, London 2002. Instead of 12 ... ..ig4,
Black should opt for counterplay with
12 ... c6!? 13 e4 cxd5 14 cxd5 ..id7 1 5 0-0 ..ib5
1 6 tLlc4 lL'lbd7, intending 1 7...�fc8 with
some quecnsidc pressure. 14 exd5!? is a bet­
ter try for an edge, although Black is ctuitc
solid and intends countcrplay based around
...lL'lc5 after 1 4 ..�f5 1 5 0-0 lL'lbd7.
.

Black docs have a pretty interesting alter-

14 1
 Tan g o ! A D yn a m ic A ns wer to 1 d4

12 ...l:te8 13 'ii'c3!? (tempting the knight to the equal of the white bishop pair. Also pos­
e4 to lessen the pressure against e2) 1 3... l2Je4 sible is 1 7 cxd5 ..i.xd5 when 1 8 l:td1 is well
14 'Wb2 a4! (a key move; the extra counter­ met by 1 8...l2Jd4!, whilst 1 8 ..i.xd5 'ii'xd5 1 9
play against c4 proves very useful) 1 5 b4 0-0 .:ted8 leaves Black quite active and cer­
tainly no worse as the knight will exploit the
d4-square.
1 2 . . . lt:Je4!
1 2 ... c6!? is also possible but, with the cen­
tre closed, launching a kingside attack is both
tempting and fairly strong.
1 3 1i'c2 f5

Now 1 5 ... .ie6?! 1 6 f3! l2Jd6 1 7 c5 lLJfS 1 8

i.f4 ..i.b3 1 9 � £2 didn't really get anywhere
for Black in Doroshkievich-Barczay, Buda­
pest 1 967, so Black should investigate
1 5 ... i.g4!? 1 6 ..i.e3 (blocking the e-f!le and
preparing ..i.g2 as 1 6 ..i.g2? rather walks into
1 6... ..i.xe2! 1 7 'ii'xe2 l2Jc3) 1 6 ...l2Jd6! (target­
ing c4 and not allowing White any time to Now Kelly-Danner, Bled Olympiad 2002
consolidate) 1 7 .:tel .ie6 when he appears to continued 1 4 ..i.b2 g51? (holding getting on
have good compensation. Furthermore, after with the attack) 1 5 c5 l2Jg6 1 6 cxd6 cxd6 1 7
1 8 'ii'd4 there is the amazing 1 B...lDxc4! 1 9 l:tacl ..i.d7 1 8 l2Jd2! l:tc8 1 9 'ii'd 1 l2Jc5!, cor­
l:txc4 'ii'd 5, forking both rooks, although reedy keeping the knights on so that the f­
White can save material with the equally cute and e-pawns could advance, and giving Black
20 ..i.h6!. Even so, 20...gxh6 21 'ifxd5 i.xd5 a promising, active position.
22 l:tg4+ ..t£8 23 .:tg1 .:tad8 is fine for Black
as his wrecked kingside is offset by White's Bl 7 . . . 0-0!?
ongoing developmental difficulties.
1 0 ..tg2 e5 1 1 d5
Preparing to advance on the queenside. 1 1
· dxe5 would lead to the sort of position in
which Black is fairly comfortable, considered
above after 9 ... e5 10 dxe5 dxe5 1 1 ..i.g2.
1 1 . . . lt:Je7 1 2 0-0
Taking control qf e4 with 1 2 lDd2 has also
been tried, but 12 ... c6! 13 dxc6 l2Jxc6 t 4 l2Je4
..i.c6 15 .ie3 l2Jxe4 1 6 ..i.xe4 d5! equalised in
O'Kelly de Galway-Reshevsky, New York
1951. After 17 l:td1 !? d4 1 8 'ii'c2 h6 19 0-0
'iVc7 20 �cl 'ii'c 5 Black's centre was at least

1 42
 Th e Zurich Varia tio n : 6 a 3 J&. x c 3 + 7 'W x c 3

Simply getting on with playing ...eS as .txf6 'fi'xf6 1 1 dxeS dxeS. Then 1 2 .l:f.d1 ?!
quickly as possible when Black hopes to en­ .tg4 1 3 .tg2 .l:f.ad8 1 4 .l:f.xd8 .=.xd8 1 5 h3
joy some early activity and a slight lead in
development. Now we will chiefly consider
White's attempts to exploit Black's immedi­
ate castling:

8 1 : 8 �g5
82: 8 b4!?

8 ..i.gS hopes that the pin will be annoying

and ... h6 followed by ...gS too weakening
with Black already castled. 8 b4!? gains as
much queenside space as possible, exploiting
the omission of 7 ... aS.
White can also develop less critically, such 1 5 ... ..i.xf3! 1 6 ..i.x£3 'ft'fS 1 7 0-0 ti:Jd4 fully
as with 8 g3 when 8...a5 9 b3 transposes to exploited the d4-square and left Black better
Line A3. However, Black doesn't have to in Djukic-Vukovic, Yugoslav Team Ch. 2000.
hurry with that, and can instead play 8 ... e5! d) 9 dxeS dxeS 1 0 lLlxeS? (critical, but now
(sticking to the plan of opening the position the queen will suffer from the lack of a re­
as quickly as possible, although both 8.. Jie8 treat square on b2, unlike after 7 ... 0-0 8 b4
and 8 ... 'ft'e7 are also possible) eS) 1 0...tt:Jxe5 1 1 'ft'xeS lle8 1 2 'ft'c3 tl:Je4 1 3
'ft'e3 (far from the ideal square, but 1 3 'it'b3?
walks into 13 ... ti:Jc5 and 1 4 ... ti:Jd3+, whilst 1 3
ii'c2 ..i. fS also gives Black a very strong ini­
tiative) 13 ....tg4! (Increasing White's woes
down the e-file and preparing to meet 1 4
.tg2 with 14. . .tLlc5!) 1 4 h 3 'it'd7! (neatly high­
lighting the weakness of d1)

and now:
a) After 9 dS ti:Je7 Black has successfully
omitted ...:e8 and so should definitely aim
for a quick ... fS.
b) 9 .tg2 e4! 1 0 ti:Jd2 dS 1 1 e3 tLle7! left
White unwilling to exchange on dS and thus
gave Black a strong knight on that square,
but in any case Black intended to build up on 1 5 ..td2 (or 1 5 hxg4 .l:.ad8 1 6 'il'd3 'ifa4
the kingside in Gadalinski-Sliwa, Sopot 1 95 1 . 1 7 b3 'ifaS+ 1 8 b4 'iia4! and the white queen
c) 9 ..tgS has also been tried but cannot is lost) 1 5 ....:.ad8 1 6 .1i.c3 (now White is
give White more than equality after 9 ...h6 1 0 routed, but neither was 16 0-0-0 'ir'a4 the

1 43
 Tan g o ! A D yn a m ic A n s wer to 1 d4

solution to his troubles) 16 ...lL:lxc3 17 'ii'xc3 13 ... h5 14 cxd6 cxd6

i.e 18 .Ug1 l:te4! 1 9 b3 .Ud4 20 �cl l:.d2,
threatening 21...�d4, 22 ... .Ud1+ and
23 ...'ii'c3+, forced mate to complete a beauti­
ful game in Makarczyk-Sliwa, Polish Ch.
1 952.
8 e3 is also possible when it seems sensi­
ble to flick in 8 ... a5, transposing to Une At
after 9 b3 l:.e8 1 0 i.b2. However, 8...l:.e8!? is
also possible when 9 b4 e5 10 .i.b2 lL:le4 1 1
'ii'c2 exd4 1 2 .i.d3! i.f5 1 3 b5 lL:lb8 t 4 lL:lxd4
left White a bit better in Lobo-Silman, San
Francisco 1 995, although Black could have
instead tried 1 0...J.g4 1 1 dxe5 lL:lxe5 1 2 .i.e2
lL:le4 or even 10 ...e4!?. 1 5 h4! (saving the bishop and fixing
Black's advancing kingside pawns) 1 5...g4 1 6
8 1 ) 8 i.g5 lL:ld2 wasn't particularly clear in Kacheishvili­
Mastrovasilis, European Ch. 2003. However,
1 6...lL:lxd2!? 1 7 'i'xd2 e5 1 8 d5 f4!? 1 9 dxc6
fxg3 20 i.c4+ .ie6 21 i.xe6+ 'i'xe6 22 fxg3
bxc6 wasn't as comfortable for Black as it
might at first appear for after 23 e4! he al-.
ways had his exposed kingside to worry
about.
9 e3
Or 9 d5!? and now:
a) 9 ... lL:lb8 1 0 i.xf6 'i'xf6 1 1 'i'xf6 gxf6
12 e3 f5 seems quite playable despite the
doubled pawns. As long as they don't be­
come fixed, they may later be usefully mobile
8 . . .l:l.e8 along the lines of the Sveshnikov. Black also
The most solid move, ignoring the pin to enjoys reasonable central control and intends
play ... e5. However, Titov's favoured 8 ... h6!? ... lL:ld7 and then ... lL:lc5 or even ...lL:lf6, pres­
9 .i.h4 g5 10 .ig3 lL:le4, whilst allowing surising d5, whilst White may well struggle
White what he hopes for after 8 i.g5, may for a good plan.
not be so bad and certainly unbalances the b) 9 ... exd5!? (an ambitious counter to an
position after 1 1 'ifc2 f5 1 2 e3 'ii'f6, intend­ almost untested but ambitious idea) 1 0 .ixf6
ing ... e5. Then 1 3 c5!? (very sharp, but open­ (and not 10 cxd5? lL:lxd5!) is critical and cer­
ing some useful lines, especially the a2-g8 tainly weakens Black's structure, although d5
diagonal in the event of ... e5; however, the may tu rn out to be rather weak and after
simpler 1 3 0-0-0 appeared to give White a 1 0...gxf6 1 1 cxd5 lL:le5 12 lL:ld4 lL:lg6! (cor­
small edge after 13 ... e5 14 dxe5 dxe5 1 5 c5! rectly playing very actively and preparing to
.ie6 16 .ib5 lL:lxg3 17 hxg3 g4 18 lL:ld2 in target d5) 1 3 lL:lb5!? (or 1 3 l:tcl i.d7 1 4
Hertneck-Titov, Moscow Olympiad 1 994, 'ii'xc7 'ii'e7 when White is dangerously be­
although now Black should perhaps have hind in development and both 1 5 ...lL:lf4 and
kept his t]Ueenside intact with 1 8....id5) 1 5....l:.ac8 are threatened) 1 3....id7 1 4 e3

1 44
 The Zurich Varia tio n : 6 a3 i.. x c 3 + 7 'ik x c 3

i.xb5! 15 i.xb5 l:te5 light-squared bishop and then 1 2...a5 1 3 b3

h6 1 4 i.h4 tt:l£8! 1 5 i.e2 tt:lg6 1 6 i.g3 tt:lh5
was fine for Black in Lilienthal-Eliskases,
Moscow 1 936.

1 6 'ifb3 f5 1 7 0-0 f4! Black enjoyed good

play on the kingside in R.Costa-Tortoza,
correspondence 1 99 1 .
9 e5 10 d5
. . . 1 1 . . . c6!?
Closing the centre appears to b e the best Ambitiously advancing in the centre in a
way to hope to exploit the pin as after 1 0 bid to counter the bishop pair although
dxe5 dxe5 White must b e prepared for ...h6 1 1 ...a5!?, intending ...a4 and ...tt:lbd7, also
and ...g5 as soon as he goes short. Then 1 1 deserves attention. Then 1 2 b4?! is strongly
h3 i.f5 1 2 i.e2 'ife7 met by 12 ...tt:lxd5!, but Black could also an­
swer 1 2 b3 with 1 2...tt:lxd5!? when 1 3 i.xd8
tt:lxc3 14 i.xc7 dS! may just be rather unclear
so long as the c3-knight can be maintained
after something like 1 5 i.d3 tt:lc6 1 6 l:tct d4.
1 2 dxc6 bxc6 1 3 i.d3 d5 1 4 0-0 lLlbd7
1 5 b4 h6

1 3 tt:lh2 h6!? 1 4 i.xf6 (or 1 4 i.h4 tt:le4! ­

now that the bishop is undefended after tt:lh2
- 1 5 i.xe7 llJxc3 1 6 i.h4 llJxe2 17 'ifi>xe2 gS
1 8 i.g3 l:tad8 with a good game for Black as
the g3-bishop '>Vill take some time to re-enter
the play) 14 ...'ifxf6 gave Black easy equality
in Euwe-Um:icker, Holland 1 954. 16 i.. h4
1 o .. .tbba 1 1 lt:\d2 Now 1 6 ... d4!? led to a sharp struggle be­
White wants to keep the e4-square free, tween Black's centre and White's superior
whereas 1 1 'ti'c2 flJbd7 12 e4 blocks in the chances on both flanks in Y ermolinsky-

145
 Ta n g o ! A D yn a mic A ns we r to 1 d4

Kacheishvili, Stratton Mountain 1 999. How­ 1 9 .l:tf2 'ii'e7 20 .ift .ifS 21 .l:te1 lLlf4 isn't
ever, this is all rather ambitious and \lVhite clear, but Black certainly has pressure down
may well be a bit better here, so Black could the e-flle and on the kingside.
also consider something simpler on move 1 1 , However, 9 dS is less testing because
such as 1 1...a5!?. Black has got in ... eS without having to move
a major piece to the e-flle. After 9 ...tLle7 1 0
821 8 b4!? e5! tLld2 lLlg6 1 1 e3 lLle8! (making good use of
Refusing to be driven backwards by bS, the rook's still being on £8) 12 .ib2 f5 1 3
Black decides that it's well worth a pawn to �e2 lLlf6 1 4 f3 c6!? Black had a reasonable
blast open the position. position in Platz-Shipman, US Ch. 1 948.
9 dxe5
\lVhite has also tried to decline the pawn
by setting up his battery immediately with 9
�b2 when in Volkov-Bologan, Kstovo 1 997
Black refused to defend eS and thus let
White catch up in development by playing
9...e4!. After 1 0 lLld2 dS 1 1 e3 tLle7! (prepar­
ing to defend dS with the c-pawn, although
for now Black wouldn't mind having a strong
knight on that square, whilst the knight is
also en route to the kingside where Black's
space advantage indicates he should attack)
1 2 bS!? c6 1 3 a4 :es 14 :ct .ie6 1 5 .ie2
tLlg6 1 6 0-0 Now we will consider three possibilities
for Black:

821 : 9 . . . dxe5
822: 9 . . . lL!e4!?
823: 9 ... lL!xe5 (the main move)

821 1 9 . . . dxe51 7
Even though 9. . .tLlxe5 i s the usual recap­
ture, this is also possible and may transpose
to Line B23 after 1 0 iLlxeS lLlxeS 1 1 'it'xeS.
It's a move order used by both Cebalo and
Voitsekhovsky and may not be inferior to
9 ... tt::lxe5, although if \lVhite now doesn't grab
an unbalanced and unclear position had the pawn then he does retain the annoying
arisen. Here Black can consider Stohl's bS threat.
1 6 ... �g4!? as the reversed Advance French 1 0 e3!?
ending arising after 1 7 .ixg4 tLlxg4 1 8 cxdS 10 �b2 has been suggested by Orlov, but
cxdS 1 9 'ii'c7 .l:te7 should be fine for Black now 1 0 ...:e8 appears to leave \lVhite with
despite \lVhite's control of the c-fl.le as \lVhite nothing better than 1 1 e3, transposing to 1 0
still has a bad bishop, whilst Black has a king­ e3. Instead 1 1 g3 could still be met by
side space advantage and can advance the f­ 1 1 ... e4!?, whilst the immediate 1 o.. e4!? 1 1
.

pawn. Meanwhile 1 7 f3!? exf3 1 8 gxf3 �h3 ltJeS tt:lxeS 1 2 ...xeS l:.e8 1 3 'ii'gS e3! 1 4 fxe3

146
\ Th e Zurich Varia tio n : 6 a3 � x c 3 + 7 Wk x c 3
\
h6 also deserves attention - Black retains Novosibirsk 1 989 continued 1 7 .l:td1 'ii'xc6
good compensation even after 1 5 .i.xf6 hxg5 1 8 h5 .l:txe3+! 19 fxe3 £2+ 20 'iii>e2 'iVxh 1 21
1 6 .i.xd8 J:hd8 when 1 7 ... a5 is one idea. hxg6 hxg6, which gave Black good compen­
1 0 . . . :es 1 1 �b2 sation due to his £2-pawn and White's ex­
posed king. However, 1 7 cxb7!? might well
been more problematic: after 1 7 ....l:tad8 1 8 h5
.l:txe3+ White has 1 9 'ifxe3! lDxg4 20 cS!
when Black may well just be busted as
20 ... 'ii'd 5 21 'ii'd4 'ii'e6+ 22 'ito>d2 .l:txd4+ 23
.i.xd4 wins the queen but still loses due to
the strength of the b7-pawn.
If 1 7 cxb7 really is good then Grafs whole
plan appears to have been called into ques­
tion and Black must look much earlier for an
improvement, such as at move 1 1 , or just
instead play 9 ...tLlxe5 (or 9 ...tLle4!?).

1 1 . . . .ig4! ? 8221 9 . tbe4!?

. .

Very interesting, but if this turns out to be

a mistake then 1 1 ...i.f5!? preparing ...tLle4
deserves attention. Then 1 2 l::td 1 'ille7 13 b5
can be met by 1 3...tLle4 14 'ii'c l lDaS when
the white queen is a litde low on squares.
1 2 b5! e4!
And not 1 2 ... i.xf3 1 3 gx£3 tLld4?? 1 4
0-0-0!.
1 3 bxc6 exf3 1 4 h3 ..th5 1 5 g4 .ig6 1 6
h4!
White continues in an aggressive vein.
Now 1 6 ... .i.e4 17 g5 tiJhS 1 8 i.h3! f5 1 9
J::td 1 'ii'e7 20 l::td7 is very good for White.
1 6 . . . 11Vd6!? Black doesn't automatically have to recap­
ture on e5, and 9...ltJe4 has perhaps been
unfairly condemned.
1 0 'it'e3
Attacking e4 and so hoping to gain time as
White will mosdy likely fianchetto in any
case. However, 1 0 'i'b2 has also been tried:
10 ...tLlxe5 1 1 lDxeS dxe5 12 ifxe5 (critical
and probably best as 1 2 g3 'ii'f6 13 i.e3
tiJd6! undermined c4, and then 1 4 c5 lDfS 1 5
'ifc3 'ii'c6 1 6 £3 aS! left Black slighdy better .
and with the initiative in Hage-Sorensen,
Danish Ch. 1 938) 1 2... .l:te8 1 3 'iVb2

Now the complex game Baburin-Graf,

147
 Tan g o ! A D yn a mic A n s we r to 1 d4

1 1 exf6?! is really asking for it and unsur­

prisingly hasn't yet been played. Then
1 1 ...ifxf6 1 2 �a2 �fS, followed by ... 1:.ae8
(Orlov), leaves Black with a dangerous initia­
tive.

13 ....\tg4 (pressurising e2, but Taimanov's

1 3... �4!? also deserves attention, especially
if 1 3...�g4 14 �f4 turns out to be problem­
atic; again Black has some lasting compensa­
tion, such as after 1 4 g3 'fills 1 S .if4! .ig4
1 6 h3 tt::ld6 1 7 .ixd6 cxd6 1 8 �d1 .if3!
when White still has to find a way to com­ 11 . . . a5!?
plete his kingside development) 14 .if4! (im­ A recent try. Alternatively:
proving over the 1 4 .ie3 tt::ld6 1 S l:td1 tt::lxc4! a) The main reason for 9...tt::le4's being
16 �xd8 tt::lxb2 when Black enjoyed at least condemned is 1 1 ...ii'e7?! 1 2 exd6 ifxd6 1 3
equality in Cruz-Sorenson, Buenos Aires l:tct ! (prophylactically covering c4) 1 3. . .�e6
Olympiad 1 939) 1 4... 'iih4!? 1 S g3 (and not 14 g3 l:tad8 1S .i.h3!, meeting 1S ... .ixc4 with
now 1S e3? due to 1S ... �ad8 with the hard­ 1 6 .i.xfS, when White was much better in
to-meet threat of ...�d2) 1 S ...'ifhS 1 6 h3 Baburin-Becker, Berlin 1 99 1 .
l:tad8 b) However, the immediate 1 1 ...tt::lxeS may
be a playable alternative, intending 1 2 tt::lxeS
dxeS 13 .ixeS �e7 1 4 �b2 aS! 1S 'iib3 l:l:d8
with good compensation due to Black's
queenside threats. Instead 13 g3 .i.e6 14 f3
tt::ld6 1S ifxeS

1 7 l:!.g1 .i.e6 and B,lack has good compen­

sation; ... tl:JgS, eyeing up both f3 and also the
provoked h3-wcakness, has become an op­
tion, whilst White remains quite vulnerable
on c4.
10 . . . f5 1 1 �b2 1 S...'il'e7 1 6 e3 'ii'f7 1 7 cS tlJc4 1 8 �xc4

148
\I Th e Zurich Varia tio n : 6 a 3 � x c 3 + 7 �xc3

.i.xc4 1 9 'it>£2 didn't give Black quite enough nesses induced by ... aS; e.g. 1 6 i.xeS l::tad8 1 7
compensation even after 1 9 ... .tb3 in Fine­ .i.g2 i s met by 1 7....i.xc4! 1 8 f3 lLld2.
Alexander, Margate 1 937. Thus Black must 1 6 . . . lLld6
be a bit quicker and so could try 1S ...'iVd7!?
when 1 6 cS is forced to save the extra pawn,
but then 1 6. ..lbc4 17 'iVc3 aS! gives Black
reasonable compensation and it's not so easy
for White to unravel; 1 8 l:.d1 'Wc7 1 9 e3
axb4 20 axb4 lLlxb2 21 fixb2, for instance,
doesn't just allow 21 ...l::ta2 but also 21 ... f4!,
regaining the pawn.
1 2 b5
12 exd6?! is very risky as then 1 2...axb4 13
dxc7 'il'xc7 14 axb4 lLlxb4 leaves Black very
active and with excellent compensation; for
example, 1S fkb3? simply runs into
1 S ... .:r.xa1+ 1 6 i..x a1 'WaS. We are following the game Zivanic­
1 2 .. .lt:lxe5 1 3 lLlxe5 dxe5 Vukovic, Yugoslav Team Ch. 2001. White
had responded well thus far to 1 1 ...aS!? but
now underestimated how vulnerable c4 is;
after 17 'i'd3? e4! 1 8 'i'd4 'i'£7, thanks to the
weakening caused by 1 1 ...aS!?, Black regained
the pawn with the better position.
17 .i.xeS! has to be tried, although Black
can then at least go in for the rather unclear
17 ...lLlxc4 1 8 'ii'd4 1i'xd4 1 9 .txd4 .:r.fd8 20 e3
c6! 21 bxc6 bxc6 when the advantage of the
bishop pair is offset by the weakness of
White's a-pawn or, should it be exchanged for
c6, by Black's outside passed rook's pawn.

1 4 g3 823) 9 . . . lLlxe5
14 .i.xeS!? is critical, albeit far from tempt­
ing over the board. Then 14 ... 1\Ve7 gives
Black good compensation, such as with 1S
i.b2 i.e6 1 6 llc1 :adS! 17 g3 .l:.d2 1 8 i.c3
l::ta2 when the active rook is rather powerful.
14 . . .i.e6 1 5 llc1
Copying fine with 1S f3 is also possible,
but here White's queenside has been further
weakened and then 1S ... liJd6 1 6 'fixeS ..d7!
17 cS lLlc4 1 8 'iVc3 lLlxb2 19 'i'xb2 .l:.ad8,
preparing ... f4 as well as to hit cS, gives Black
sufficient play.
1 5 .. .'ii'd 7 1 6 �g 2
White must be careful due to the weak- 1 0 tt:lxe5

149
 Ta n g o ! A D yn a m ic A n s we r to 1 d4

Critical, but White might well duck the cl) White has tried 12 l:td1 , but then
challenge over the board. Then 1 0 .i.gS 12 ... 'i'e7 1 3 e3 aS 1 4 i.d3 b6! (without a
doesn't fit together too well with b4 and knight on £3, ... .i.g4 achieves little and so, in
Black should be fine after 1 0 ... h6 1 1 .i.h4 the absence of a c6-knight, Black sensibly
l:te8 1 2 lt:lxeS dxeS 13 e3 (or 13 l:td1 'ii'e7 14 fianchettoes) 1 S 0-0 .i.b7 1 6 i.c2 axb4 1 7
e3 lt:\e4! 1S .i.xe7 lt:\xc3 - Orlov - and Black axb4 lt:\e4 equalised i n Umezinwa-Orlov,
equalises) 1 3 ... .i.f5, waiting for White to cas­ New York Open 1 994.
tle before going ...gS as then Black's own c2) A more successful try was 12 g3 .i.g4
king will not be attacked so easily. Further­ 13 .i.g2 c6 1 4 h3 i.hS 1 S 0-0!, and in the
more, ...lt:\e4 remains a strong idea; for ex­ absence of a pair of knights on f3 and c6,
ample, 14 .i.e2 aS! is a little awkward for then White's light-squared bishop was even better
1 S 0-0?? lt:\e4! exploits the undefended white placed than usual to support White's queen­
bishops to win a piece. side advance in Riemersma-Roobol, Dutch
1 0 .i.b2!? (or 1 0 lt:lxcS dxeS 1 1 i.b2 l:te8, Ch. 1 994. Black should thus instead aim for
transposing) brings the bishop to a better counterplay via the e4-square with either
square and has actually been White's most 1 2....i.fS 1 3 .i.g2 c6, retaining the option of
popular move in practice. After 1 0...l:te8 which minor piece to move to e4, or with
Orlov's active and creative 1 2...lt:\e4!?, meet-
ing 13 'i'cl strongly with 13 ...1Vf6 and in-
tending 1 3 'ii'e3 lt:\d6!? (again, with the light­
squared bishop not defending it, c4 is the
target) 1 4 l:.c1 aS 1 S i.g2 axb4 1 6 axb4 lt:\f5
followed by ...lt:\d4 with counterplay (al­
though ...l:ta4 is also an interesting option).
c3) 1 2 e3 .tfS

we have the following options:

a) 1 1 e3 lt:\e4 (Orlov's 1 1 ...b6!? plan,
intending to restrain White on the queenside,
also deserves attention here) 1 2 'i'd4 .i.fS 1 3
.1e2 (Gereben-Najdorf, Budapest 1 936)
1 3 ... cS!? 1 4 'ii'd S ft:\f6 merits attention when
White's best bet might be to acquiesce to a
repetition with 1 S 'i'd2 'i'b6! 16 0-0 lt:\e4 1 7
'i'ds lt:lf6. 13 £3!? (this would have been a strong re­
b) 1 1 'ii'c2?! aS! 1 2 e3 axb4 1 3 axb4 l:txal+ sponse to 1 2... b6, but now Black's better
14 i.xa1 cS! alreadyiieft Black with a useful development allows him to force a weakness)
initiative in H.Mueller-Eliskases, Vienna 1 939 1 3...lt:\hS!? 1 4 g3 .i.g6 1 S i.e2 aS 1 6 bxaS c6
which then continued to grow after 1 S lt:\xeS 17 l:.d1 'i'c7 1 8 0-0 ft:\f6, followed by
dxeS 1 6 bS?! .i.fS! 17 'i'cl lt:\e4. ...l::txaS, and Black was solid and the position
c) 1 1 lt:\xeS (the main move and probably roughly level in Farago-Motwani, Forti 1 99 1 .
best) 1 1 ... dxe5 with a further split: 10 . . . dxe5

1 50
 Th e Zurich Varia tio n : 6 a 3 j,. x c 3 + 7 'ik x c 3

poses to 9 ... lt:le4 1 0 'i'b2 lLlxeS 1 1 tt:lxeS

dxeS 1 2 'Wxe5 l:te8 13 'ifh2.
12 . . . lbg4!
Orlov's choice and probably best; the
knight is not only a menace in some lines by
attacking f2 and e3 but it also often comes to
eS, preparing a strong check on d3 as well as
attacking c4. Instead 1 2.. .'ii'd3 also leads to
rather complex positions, but may not be too
good, although there is still much to explore
after it. Then:
a) 1 3 ..ig5!? lL!g4

1 1 -.�e5
It's still not too late to duck out of the
challenge and here 1 1 i.b2 l:.e8 transposes
to the previous note with 1 0 i.b2. White has
also tried 1 1 g3 (Menghi-Simmelink, corre­
spondence 1998) when Black should surely
be trying to exploit his better development.
Thus 1 1 ... a5!? springs to mind as well as
1 1 ...lLie4!?, meeting 1 2 'We3 with 1 2 ... lL!d6!.
So White should probably grab with 1 2
'ifxe5 l:.e8 1 3 'i'b2 when, compared with the
9...lL!e4 1 0 'Wb2 lines, White has gained g3
but Black is still not without counterplay, 1 4 £3! (14 e3 'WfS 1 5 ..ih4 'We4 16 0-0-0
such as after 1 3...i.e6 1 4 c5 i.d5!, preventing c5! gave Black counterplay as White's mon­
1 5 i.g2? due to 1 5.)tJxc5!. arch was rather exposed in Fine-Van den
11 .:1.e8
... Bosch, Amsterdam 1 936) 14 ... 'it'f5!?
(14 ... lL!eS? 1 5 exd3! lL!xd3+ 16 �d2 tt:lxb2 1 7
a4 - Browne - traps the errant knight) 1 5
'Wcl lLie5 1 6 �£2 (Lilienthal-Levitas, Lenin­
grad 1 938) and now 1 6... h6!? 1 7 ..if4 g5 18
..ixe5 'i'xeS (as suggested in Netv ilt Chess
Yearbook 39) still appears to leave Black short
after the simple 1 9 e3.
b) Fine suggested that 1 3 e3 'i'i'g6 14 £3
i.fS 1 5 �f2 should favour White, as indeed
it appears to after 1 5 ... i.d3!? (or 1 5 ...l:lad8 1 6
e4! which looks rather good for White as
after 1 6 ... i.xe4? 1 7 fxe4 lt:lxe4+ 1 8 �g1
Black lacks any real follow-up with, for ex­
1 2 'ikb2 ample, 18 ... lt:lg5 19 ..ixgS 'ii'xgS 20 'ir'£2 l:td2
Probably best as White prevents the 21 l:.e1 ! l:r.ed8 22 .i.e2 consolidating rather
knight from leaping forwards with tempo, easily) 16 e4! (accurate, albeit risky, and
whilst 12 'ii'c3 lt:le4 13 'W'b2 actually trans- probably best as 1 6 .i.xd3 ii'xd3 17 'ir'e2

151
Ta n g o ! A D yn a m ic A n s wer to 1 d4

'it'£5 maintains sufficient activity to be annoy­ This was White's big idea in Browne­
ing, whilst 1 6 �e2? is well met by 1 6...liJe4+ Orlov, US Ch. 1 995, a game which spawned
as then the a 1 -rook hangs after 17 fxe4? somewhat of a debate in Nm' i11 Cbe.r.r. Ycar­
i.xe2 1 8 'i'xe2 'i'f6+) book 39 featured an article by Sosonko with
Browne-Orlov as its main game. Browne
annotated that and his notes suggested that
White was better after 1 3 'i'c3, which cast
doubt on the whole viability of 7 ... 0-01?. Or­
lov, however, hit back later that year (1 996)
in Yearbook 41 with his own survey on the
Tango, including his own annotations of that
same clash! He felt that Black could improve
and that 1 3 'i'c3 was no refutation of
7 ... 0-0!?, writing 'I will gladly play the Tango
against Walter Browne in our next encounter,
although I must admit he's been one tough
customer for me so far.' Sadly the world is
1 6...l:ad8 (Black needs an improvement still awaiting another Browne-Orlov clash
here to resurrect 12 ... 'i'd3, but 1 6 ... liJxe4+ here, but for the time being mack appears to
also sadly appears to fall just short as then 1 7 have sufficient compensation after 1 3 'ii'c3,
fxe4 lhe4 1 8 i.d2! l:xc4 1 9 i.xd3 'i'xd3 20 although much fertile ground remains to be
.::r.h cl defends, leaving White a piece ahead) explored.
1 7 i.xd3 l:xd3 1 8 .::r.c 1 ! when Black has However, 13 'i'c3 isn't the only way for
rather run out of threats and counterplay. White to handle the position:
On the other hand, 1 2 ... liJe4? doesn't at a) 13 e3
all convince, and 13 i.f4 �f5 14 f3! g5!? (this
already smacks of desperation, but 14 . ..ltJd6
would here have achieved little, such as after
1 5 c5 liJc4 1 6 'i'c3) 1 5 �ell liJd6 1 6 'i'c3 f6
17 i.b2 Wg7 1 8 0-0-0 was already objectively
almost winning for White in Pine - Milner­
Barry, London 1 932.

has been suggested, but still needs a prac­

tical test. Then:
al) 13...liJe5 14 'it'c3 (14 'it'c2!? also covers
d3 but, as well as 1 4 ...i.g4, Black can consider
14 ... 'i'f6!? 1 5 i.b2 i.£5 16 'it'b3 ...g6 when
it's not clear how White will develop his king­
side, and 1 7 0-0-0 is rather risky after 1 7. a5 ..

1 3 �c3!? when Black is c1uitc well placed for the attack)

1 52
 Th e Zurich Varia tio n : 6 a3 i.. x c 3 + 7 fi x c 3

1 4....tg4 transposes to B232 (13 ii'c3 tt'le5 1 4 White from unravelling) 20 �xd3 l:i.xd3 21
e 3 �g4). ii'c2 ..e6! 22 c5 'ii'c4 when Black still has
a2) Weakening \Vh.ite's queenside first some compensation due to his bind and be­
with 1 3 ... a5!? 14 b5!? (or 14 �e2 l:i.a6! - Or­ cause \Vh.ite's pieces remain quite passive,
lov - rapidly swinging the inactive aS-rook but probably not enough as his kingside re­
into play) 1 4...tt'le5 also deserves attention. mains vulnerable.
b) 1 3 �f4! has, however, now been tried b2) 1 5 .tg3 fS! 1 6 h3 f4 may also be quite
in practice. good for \Vh.ite:

Lunev-Voitsekhovsky, Russian Ch. (Mos­ 1 7 hxg4! (1 7 �xf4?! lLlxf2! 1 8 'ifi>xf2 gxf4

cow) 1 999 continued 1 3 ... g5!? (pretty radical, 1 9 'ii'd4 is much less clear after 1 9....tg4!
but Black feels he must do something before when 20 l:i.d3 avoids losing material down
\Vh.ite simply consolidates with e3 and i.e2, the d-ftle, but then Black can choose between
whilst an immediate idea is 1 4 h3, driving the 20... l:tad8!? and allowing a perpetual with
knight back to f6) 1 4 l:r.dl ..e7 and now: 20... .txe2 21 'ifd5+ ..ti>h8 22 'ii'd4+) 1 7 ... fxg3
b1) 1 5 i.ct !? (the game continuation; 1 8 £3 'iie3 was assessed as giving Black com­
'White's retreats now that the queen's rook pensation in Yearbook 39. However, Black's
has been developed to keep the bishop free own kingside is something of a problem and
from harassment) 1 5 ... .tf5 1 6 e3 l:.ad8 the white monarch can always run west­
wards. Now 19 'iid4 ..xa3 20 'ii'd 2 'ii'e3 21
..xe3 lhe3 22 l:r.d5 .te6! (preparing to cover
h7 from g8) 23 l:r.xgS+ 'iti>h8 24 'iti>d2 l:i.b3!
isn't so clear as Black has some counterplay
on the queenside, but 19 'ii'f6!?, threatening
20 .l:.h5, is much more problematic -
1 9 ..... f2+ 20 'iti>d2 ..e3+ 21 �c2! only helps
White.
Such a kingside thrust with 1 3 ...g5 is very
committal and so Black should explore the
alternatives here. One idea is 1 3...'ii'e7, in­
tending to only now meet 14 e3 with 14 ...g5!,
but White can do much better with 1 4 l:td1 !,
1 7 l:i.xd8 .l:txd8 1 8 i.e2 tt'le5 1 9 0-0 .td3! preparing h3, when 14 ....tf5 1 5 e3 l:.ad8?! 1 6
(Black must exploit the c4-square to prevent �c21 l:hd1+ 17 .txd1 'i!Ve4 1 8 0-0 'i!Vxc4 1 9

1 53
Ta n g o ! A D yn a m ic A n s we r to 1 d4

.tb3 certainly leaves him clearly better. Per­ ticipating. Then 17 'ifd2 (attempting to gain
haps Black can't thus do anything about 1 4 time by offering a queen swap as 17 e3 axb4
h3 and so should aim for queenside counter­ 1 8 axb4 i.b7 still keeps White's Icing's
play with 1 3... a5!?. Now 14 h3 lDf6 1 5 l:d1 bishop stuck on f1 , and if the ambitious 1 7
flie7 16 .tgS axb4 17 axb4 l:ta6! avoids any 'ii'£3 !? then 1 7...l2Je4! 1 8 l:tdS?! doesn't really
doubling of his pawns and swings the rook inconvenience Black at aU with White being
into play, leaving Black with some compensa­ the side being driven backwards after 1 8... £5
tion such as after 1 8 e3 h6 19 �xf6 l:hf6 20 19 g3 axb4 20 axb4 flie7 21 flib3 �e6)
�e2 l:tg6 when White still cannot easily cas­ 1 7...'ii'xd2+!? is even possible - White is still
tle. some moves away from fully developing and
Back to 1 3 'ii'c3. so Black retains good compensation even
without the queens on, such as after 1 8 l:hd2
a.xb4 19 a.xb4 l2Je4 20 l:td1 l:ta4!.
1 5 . . .'i'h6
Sensibly not changing the structure as
1 5 ... a.xb4?! 1 6 hxg5 bxc3 17 �xc3 l:ta4 1 8 e3
ltJeS 19 l:th4! (Browne) only helps to open
lines for White's now quite active pieces to
operate on, leaving Black struggling for com­
pensation.

Now Black can try:

823 1 : 1 3 . . . a5
8232: 1 3 . . .l2Je5

823 1 ) 1 3 . . . &5
This is very playable and deserves both
more testing and more analysis.
1 4 �b2 'i'g5 1 5 h4
Realising that his king must survive in the 1 6 lld 1 axb4 1 7 axb4 lla6!
centre for some time, White forces the black Lifting the rook into the attack, but with
queen to a slightly less active square whilst White preparing to develop with 1 8 g3 Yer­
also introducing the possibility of a rook lift. molinsky's suggestion of 1 7 ... b6!? also de­
Instead Browne felt that 1 5 l:td1 b6! (from serves attention. However, then 18 e3! is
b7 the bishop will further add to White's possible, again because of Black's back rank
difficulties in developing his kingside, but after 1 8... lDxe3? 1 9 fxe3 l:txe3+ 20 'iii>£2 when
Black must avoid 1 5.�.l2Je5?? due to 1 6 f4! the queen is immune due to the mate threat.
flixf4 17 flixe5! - Browne - neatly exploiting Thus Black should try 1 8...-tb7 1 9 .te2 lDe5!
Black's back rank) 1 6 h3 l2Jf6 gives Black (but not 19 ... l2Jf6?! 20 �£3! �x£3 21 gx£3
sufficient compensation and this seems about 'ii'g6 22 'it>fl when Black is starting to strug­
right it's hard for White to untangle, whilst
- gle and may weU run into problems down the
here he sriU has two kingside pieces not par- g-flle) 20 f3 cS (preventing White from 1-,>nin-

1 54
 Th e Zurich Varia tio n : 6 a 3 .i.. x c 3 + 7 'ikx c 3

ing any threats after c5, although 20. ..f5!? However, having pushed his h-pawn
immediately might still be possible) 21 'it>f2 White is fairly committed to doing something
fS, fixing e3 as a weakness and still leaving on the kingside and instead 1 9 e3? can be
White to try and fmd a way to consolidate. met by 1 9 ... liJxf2! (now that the white queen
Black for his part intends either 21...f4 when cannot defend from g3) 20 'it>xf2 i..xh3 21
22 e4 'ii'g6 hones in on the newly gained g3- gxh3 'i'xh4+, stripping away the white king's
square or 21...l:te7, covering g7 and thus defences and giving the black major pieces
facilitating 21...liJg6 (now that l:td7 in reply is good attacking chances.
impossible) after which the queen will also be 19 . . . 'ii'f4!
able to move.
1 8 llh3

Black has reasonable counterplay and

White must take care not to land up overex­
Intending in some lines to target d8 with tended. Now, as Orlov observes, 20 .:t£3 is
l:r.hd3. well met by 20...'i'h2! when White must re­
18 .. . f6 peat with 21 l:th3 'i'f4, but it's not fully clear
Orlov' suggestion to block the battery and that he has anything better. One try is 20
thus free the queen for active operations. 'iVd4!? but again Black doesn't have to run
Instead 1 8 ... liJxf2? runs into 1 9 l:te3!, from a queen exchange and can go for
whilst in Browne-Orlov 1 8. ..l:tf6? was im­ 20 ... 'iVf5!? (Orlov), hoping to further weaken
pressively met by 1 9 .i.el ! 'i'h5 when 20 £3 White's structure before exchanging. After 21
ltJe5 21 g4! all worked out well for White as 'iid5+ 'fi'xd5 22 cxd5 l:r.a2 23 l:tb3 (or 23
none of Black's sacrifices fully sufficed. He .i.d4 .i.d7 24 l:td2 l:r.ea8 25 l:r.xa2 l:txa2 when
was soon a lot worse after 21 ...ltJxg4!? 22 the active rook maintains Black's compensa­
fxg4 .i.xg4 23 l:r.e3! 'ii'xh4+ 24 'it>d2, when tion) 23 ... ..tf5! both d5 and c2 are quite vul­
White's monarch was heading off for safety nerable and Black has sufficient activity for
on the queenside after which Browne soon the pawn. Then 24 l:tel ?! .i.e4 25 l:txc7?!
made good use of his extra piece. .i.xd5 26 l:td3 fails to the reply 26...l:txb2 27
1 9 h5!? .l:txd5 l:r.bl+! 28 'iti>d2 ttJxf2 29 l:r.dd7 l:r.dl+
Keeping up the queenside pressure as now 30 'it>c2 l:r.xd7 31 l:r.xd7 ttJg4, leaving Black
1 9 ..i.el 'ii'h 5 20 £3 lLle5 21 g4 doesn't fully standing better as his knight is much stronger
convince due to 2t...'ii'f7! (Orlov), preparing than the vulnerable and still immobile f1 -
to target c4 and e2, whilst the white king's bishop.
rook cannot now swing across and White
may well later regret his kingside expansion. 82321 1 3 . . . l1Je5

1 55
 Ta n g o ! A D yn a m ic A n s wer to 1 d4

Before White can even complete it, Black b) 1 6 'iVd4!? (trying to fight his way out of
blocks any battery down the long diagonal, trouble) 1 6 ... l:ad8! (Orlov's alternative
whilst also d1reatening a large check. 1 6... 'ti'h6!? 1 7 h3 b6, intending only then
1 4 .i.e3!? . .. .l:.ad8 is also pretty useful, but the text
Black cannot be unhappy to see White move is more direct and even stronger) 1 7
obstructing his development thus, although 'iVf4 (keeping e3 covered as 1 7 'ii'xa7?? lt::lc 6!
1 4 e3 also gives him good compensation. 18 'iVc5 b6 runs e3 out of defenders and then
Then 14 ... .1Lg4! (or 1 4 ... 'ii'h4 when 1 5 i.e2 1 9 g3 'iVh6 20 'iVb5 l:xe3+ forces mate)
i.g4! exploits the vulnerability of c4, whilst 1 7 ...lt::lg6! 1 8 'ii'g3 1i'h5
1 5 i.b2 i.g4 transposes) 1 5 i.b2 'ii'h4!?
intends to increase the pressure with
1 6....l:.ad8, whilst White is struggling to de­
velop his kingside as g3 would just weaken
his light squares too much. For example:
a) 1 6 i.d3 is well met by 16 ... ltad8 1 7
.i.c2 f6!, closing the diagonal and d1Us threat­
ening 1 8...lt:Jd3+ 1 9 i.xd3 .l:.xe3+. Now 1 8 e4
(1 8 0-0?? walks into mate after 1 8... lt:Jf3+! 1 9
!.,1Xf.3 i.x£3) 1 8 ...i.e6 intends to regain the
pawn on c4 with a good game after 1 9 0-0
lt::lxc4, but White must try and equalise that
way as 1 9 c5? i.c4!
maintains Black's strong initiative and
meets the very greedy 1 9 'ii'xc7 with an inva­
sion on c2 after 1 9...'ii'f5 (which still occurs
after 20 .l:.ct ? due to Black's control of d1 Q.
White appears to be badly lacking a good
idea here; he can hardly move anything and
so he might well try 1 9 h3, but then
1 9 ...i.d1 ! again asks what's next. Black's ini­
tiative is now very strong and I doubt anyone
would enjoy being White here, e.g. 20 'iVxc7
(grabbing a pawn and seeing what Black's
worst is) runs into 20 ...'ti'h4! 21 'iVg3! (me
best try as 21 i.e2 i.xe2 22 'ifi>xe2 lt::l f4+ 23
is absolutely crushing, with the \Vhite �ft lt:Jd3 wins a piece for then 24 g3 leaves
monarch helplessly stuck in the centre. This the hl -rook hanging after 24 ...'iVe4) 2t ...'ii'e4!
can be nearly exploited after 20 'iVg3 by 22 .l:.ct (desperately trying to cover c2 as 22
20... lt:Jd3+!! 21 i.xd3 l:xe4+! 22 'ifi>f1 (or 22 l:xd 1 goes down to 22...l:xd 1+ 23 Wxd 1
1Lxe4 'ii'xe4+ 23 �e3 �xg2 and again White 'iVbt+ 24 �e2 'ii'xb2+ when 25 'itte 1 l:d8 is
is crushed) 22... l:xd3 when White is well and an easy win; the king surely cannot escape up
truly routed. Or 20 l:d1 'ii'g4, whilst 20 h3 the board wiili 25 W£3 - 25...lt:Je5+ 26 �f4
also fails due to 20...lt:Jd3+! 21 i.xd3 l:xe4+! 'iVd2! might well be best and appears to force
when 22 i.xe4 'ii'xe4+ 23 'ii'e3 't!Vxg2 wins at the win with the immediate threat being
the very least both white . rooks as the c4- 27...ll:lg6+ 28 'it?f3 't!Vdt+) 22... i.h5!
prelate is such a strong piece.

1 56
 The Zurich Varia tio n : 6 a 3 i.. x c 3 + 7 'il x c 3

1 6...tt:ld3+! 1 7 l:hd3 i.xd3 1 8 'i'xd3 .l:tad8

(Orlov) when the bishop cannot be saved
and so Black emerges the exchange ahead
and still with a strong initiative. Furthermore,
1 6 l:td4? may be an aggressive rook move,
but is definitely not the best as Black can
strongly retreat with 1 6 ...'i'f6!, threatening
17 ...tt:lc6 as Orlov indicated. Taking the
analysis further reveals that White is really
struggling here:
a) After 1 7 c5 .!:tad8 White is almost in
zugzwang: 18 .!:txd8? loses to 18 ...tt:lf3+! but
so too docs 1 8 g3 as after 18 ...tt:lf3+ 1 9 exf3
renews the threat (23...'ii'c2) against which .!:txd4 White loses the exchange due to the
White has no effective defence. Also 23 f4 is pin down the e-filc, whilst 1 8 'i'd2 tt:lc4! is
well met by 23 ... l:td3! 24 i..xd3 'i'xd3 25 'ift£2 also very good for Black. Thus White has to
'i'd2+ 26 'it>f1 'i'xb2, retaining the strong try something like 1 8 h3!? when 1 8 ... a5!? is
attack whilst picking up two very useful tempting but 1 8 ... tt:lc6 19 l:tc4 'i'e6, increas­
pieces for the rook. ing the pressure by preparing to doubling on
1 4 . . ...tf5! the d-ft!e, is also quite strong.
The best square for the prelate as now 1 5 b) 1 7 'i'd2 tt:lc6 1 8 .!:td5 i.e6!
g3 can be met by the disruptive 1 5...i.e4,
whilst in general Black intends to rapidly and
strongly complete his development with
1 5...'ifb4 (hitting c4) and 16 ... .l:.ad8.
1 5 l:ld 1 'i'h4!?

1 9 l:.c5 l:.ad8 when White's pieces have

become even more misplaced and he is in
some trouble, e.g. 20 i..g5? fails to the neat
20 ... 'i'a1+ 21 'i'cl tt:ld4!.
Probably the best of White's alternatives is
16 l:ld5! 1 6 'i'd4 after which 1 6 ... 'i'f6 is again quite
This is best; White now meets 16 ... f6 with possible, meeting 1 7 'ii'f4 with 17 ... .!:tad8 1 8
1 7 l:.d4! (when Black would like to have the l:.xd8 :xd8 when White still cannot develop
f6-squarc available for his queen) and wisely and 1 9 f3!? 'ii'c6 begins to go after his queen­
encourages Black to take the repetition which side. However, 16 ...tt:lg4!?, meeting 17 h3
Orlov mentioned in Yearbook 41. with 17 ....!:l:e4!, is also tempting, although
Instead 16 i.d4?? loses material after White might well be happy to give up his

157
Ta n g o ! A D yn a m ic A n s we r to 1 d4

ineffective h 1 -rook for an active minor piece. the inunediate threats have come to an end
However, 1 8 hxg4 'ii'xh1 1 9 'i!VdS .l:.xe3 20 and White can finally begin to develop with
gxfS llee8 21 'i!Vxb7 'i!Vh4! still favours Black, 1 8 .i.d2! 'iVf6 1 9 e3 when Black still has a bit
despite White currently having two pawns of compensation, but certainly no longer at
for the exchange, as he remains better devel­ least enough.
oped and can easily target fS, the white 1 8 l:.d1 ..e4 1 9 l:d4 'iVb1 +
queenside and of course the monarch stuck and, as neither side had a good way to de­
on el. viate from the repetition, a draw was agreed
16 . . .-.e4! here in Panman-Simmelink, correspondence
Continuing to use the initiative, but this is 1 997.
probably also best as there's no other good This chapter has shown that 6 a3 .txc3+ 7
way of defending the knight. · 'iixc3 remains a reasonable choice for White.
1 7 l:ld4! It is not surprising that 7...a5 has been popu­
lar with several grandmasters in recent years:
Black holds up the dangerous b4-advance
and secures a good game without needing to
know too much theory. However, 7... 0-0!? 8
b4 eS remains a fascinating gambit and there
is much unexplored territory - those who
choose to explore its rich complications
should be rewarded. Currently Black could
do with an improvement in the 9 dxeS ltJxeS
main line due to 1 3 .i.f4! (but not due to
Browne's 1 3 'ii'c 3!?). However, there may
well be one there for elsewhere Black is ac­
tive and in good shape once White grabs the
1 7 . . ..b1 + pawn, and, furthermore, 9... ltJe4!? is also still
1 7 ... 'iic6!? could perhaps be tried, but now far from refuted.

1 58
 CHAPTER EIGHT I
The Fianchetto:
Countering the Catalan

1 d4 tt::lf6 2 c4 tt::lc6 3 tt::lf3 e6 4 g3 can sometimes counter on the queenside

An unpretentious move; \Vh.ite decides with... c6, although White's set-up is some­
that the bishop is best off being fianchettoed, what more harmonious than in the Nimzo
while he prefers to leave his queenside devel­ lines we considered earlier as he hasn't had to
opment alone, waiting to see how Black will misplace any pieces recapturing on c3. Fur­
react. thermore, the f4 break is often a problem,
4 . . . d5!? especially if Black isn't looking forward to a
This is the most combative approach. Re­ solid defence.
garding 4 g3, I was asked by a certain grand­ By all means play the Bogo approach if
master: 'What's the point of playing the you are happy with the resulting solid posi­
Tango? You might as well play the Bogo tions, in which patient handling can easily see
seeing that White can now force one!' Cer­ White overextend, and for coverage of those
tainly many Tango exponents, like Orlov, do lines do see Orlov's work or Pedersen's The
choose a Bogo-Indian with 4...�b4+, but the Gambit Guide to the Bogo-Indian. 4 ... d5 will,
likes of Benjamin, Christiansen and however, come as a shock to 4 g3 exponents
Simmelink have also opted for the sharper looking forward to a pleasant edge. Now
Catalan at this juncture. White is best advised to transpose into one
There's nothing too wrong with the Bogo of the sharpest Open Catalan lines, and also
approach and Black docs then get to erect his one of the best from Black's perspective,
favourite dark-squared centre. However, not namely 1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 g3 dS 4 ltJ£3 dxc4
only can it be a little passive, but it is here 5 �g2 lLlc6.
where many club players struggle with their
See following diagram
Tango. After 4 ...�b4+ 5 ..td2 'iVe7, 6 lLlc3
may well be enough for an edge, but the '5 i.g2
main practical problem appears to be 6 �g2 The main move - White looks for the
..txd2+ 7 ltJbxd2 d6 8 0-0 aS 9 e4 eS 10 dS bishop to enjoy a useful role on the diagonal
ltJb8 1 1 lLle 1 ! 0-0 12 lLld3. Quite possibly after S ... dxc4. However, \X1hite may well try
White holds a small edge, but even more something else here, especially if he either
important is that Black must react rather doesn't know the Catalan particularly well or
accurately and also often quite patiently. He if he feels that...dS and ...lLlc6 shouldn't com-

1 59
Ta n g o ! A D yn a m ic A n s we r to 1 d4

bine well, as Black has blocked his c-pawn threatening... a4 and to simply develop
for the time being: with.....tf6 and then ... ..tfS, or perhaps
even.....tg4 beginning to pressurise d4, was
fine for Black in Appleberry-Orlov, Seattle
1 99 1 . In this line 7 ...i.xd2+ 8 lt:lbxd2 0-0 9
0-0 ..tfS 1 0 'ii'b3 'ii'd 6! 1 1 .!:fcl l:tb8 1 2 e3
lt:le7! 1 3 lt:leS aS 1 4 lt:ld3 c6 was also fine for
Black who, having defended his gueenside,
now started to rurn his attention to the other
flank in Johannessen-Christiansen, Reykjavik
2000.
c) s lt:lbd2 can now be tnet by s ... i.b4,
pretty much forcing White into the unclear
gambit 6 i.g2 dxc4 7 0-0 c3!? as 6 'i'c2 dxc4!
7 'it'xc4 'it'dS is very comfortable for Black,
a) S cS aims to block in the f8-bishop, but such as after 8 'i'd3?! 0-0 9 ..tg2 l:[d8 1 0 e3
allows Black good, active play with' S ... eS! 6 eS! (Orlov). However, Black can also prefer
lt:lxeS lt:lxeS 7 dxeS lt:lg4, as in Fahrbach­ the unbalancing S ... dxc4 6 lt:\xc4 bS!? when 7
Simmelink, correspondence 2000. lt:le3 l:b8 8 ..tg2 i.e7 9 0-0 0-0 was rather
b) S cxdS exdS 6 ..tg2 would favour White unclear in Itkis-Vukovic, Bucharest 2000.
were his bishops on gS and d3, but here the Black was a little weak on cS, but the white
g2-bishop bites against granite, whilst the c6- knights weren't yet near that square, whilst
knight can always be redeployed via e7 or b4. Black intended to develop with....l:b6, ...i.b7,
Now 6 ... ..tb4+ 7 ..td2 (or 7 lt:lbd2 aS! 8 0-0 ...'i'a8 and then ... l:[d8, witl1 pressure against
0-0 9 a3 ..td6 10 b3 .l:e8 1 1 ..tb2 ..tg4 and d4 and down the long diagonal.
Black had sufficient coordination in Halkias­ d) S 'fi"c2?! lt:lb4! 6 'fi"b3 dxc4 7 'i'xc4
Mastrovasilis, Greek Ch. 1 999, which was
a!,>reed drawn here) 7 ... aS!? (a useful concept
which prevents White from easily expanding
on the queenside with a minority attack) 8
0-0 0-0 9 ..tf4 lt:\e4!? (immediately exploiting
his conu·ol of e4 and preparing to regroup
with ...lt:\e7-g6 and...c6) 1 0 a3 i.e7,

costs White too much time and allows

Black a pleasant choice between 7 ...'i'dS and
7 ... eS!? 8 'fi"hS+ c6 9 'fi"xeS+ i.e6 1 0 lt:la3
..td6 11 'ii"gS (Pelletier-Sulava, Charleville
2000) when one tempting option is 1 1 ... h6!?
1 2 'i'e3 'i'aS 13 ..td2 'i'xa3! 1 4 'ir'xa3 lbc2+
1 5 �d1 lbxa3 1 6 bxa3 Jtxa3, intend-

1 60
 Th e Fia n c h e t t o : C o un tering the Ca tala n

ing. . O-O,. tLle4 and ....l:!.fd8 with good chances

. .. e3 e5! (essentially freeing the light-squared
to exploit White's centralised king. prelate) 1 8 dxe5 �xe5 1 9 li:la4 .i.e6 White
5 . . . dxc4 might have retained a grip on c5, but Black
Now we will consider two options: was much better due to his very strong
White's regaining the pawn with 6 'ti'a4 and bishop in this open position.
the enterprising gambit 6 0-0!?, whose
mainline runs 6...l:tb8 7 tLlc3 (or the alterna­ Activating the black forces
tive move order 6 tLlc3 l:.b8 7 0-0).

1 ) 6 'ti'a4, regaining the pawn

This is an apparently safe option for those
not wishing to gambit the c-pawn.

Accepting a structural disadvantage

Grabliauskas-Benjamin
New York 2000

White has again regained the c4-pawn, but

this has cost him some time with his queen.
Benjamin now opened the position for his
pieces with 1 0 . . . e5! and after 1 1 .i.xb4
Stajcic-Luther li:lxb4 1 2 'ird2 a5 1 3 a3 e4!? he had
Kecskemet 1 993 seized the initiative. Now the £3-knight can­
not easily move and so there followed 1 4
Sometimes Black allows his structure to axb4 li:lc4! after which White should proba­
be weakened by exchanges on c6 in return bly have tried 1 5 1i'f4 ex£3 1 6 �x£3 "ile7 1 7
for accelerating his development. Immedi­ tLlc3 "ilxb4 1 8 0-0 "ilxb2 1 9 tLld5! (Benjamin)
ately here 1 2 . . .J:I.bS! makes good use of the with sufficient compensation to soon win
semi-open b-file, especially as b2 is awk-ward back the pawn, albeit only with equality. In­
to defend with 1 3 b3 running into 1 3...�a6!. stead there followed 1 5 �c1 ? ! exf3 1 6
Instead 1 3 0-0 J:l.xb2 14 li:lc3 saw White .i.xf3 �xd4 1 7 li:ld2 li:le5! 1 8 bxa5 .i.h3
hoping to exploit his better structure and to when Black enjoyed strong attacking chances
be left with the superior minor piece, espe­ for the pawn, with the white king stuck in the
cially if the knight could reach c5. Black must centre for some time to come.
not allow such a scenario and so Luther con­
tinued actively with 1 4 . . .�d6!, preventing Theory
1 5 tLla4? due to 1 5 ....l:!.b4 and meeting 1 5 6 'iVa4 .i.b4+
tLle4?! with 1 5 ...'ti'd5! 1 6 1i'd3 e5. However, Instead 6.. .'�Jd7!? 7 "ilxc4 ltJb6 became
Stajcic was unable to keep the position closed fashionable in the nineties, but our active
and after 1 5 J:l.ab1 l:tb6 1 6 J:l.fc 1 l:tdS 1 7 choice remains the main line and prevents

161
 Ta n g o ! A D yn a m ic A n s wer to 1 d4

\Vhite from easily regaining the pawn.

8 . . . 0-0!?
7 .id2 lLld5! Rapidly developing, whereas the alterna­
Now \Vhite usually prefers to avoid tive 8....i.xd2+ 9 liJbxd2 c3 1 0 bxc3 llJxc3 1 1
Black's intended 8...liJb6 with one of the 'i'd3 liJd5 1 2 0-0 0-0 1 3 e4 gives \Vhite good
following: compensation; he enjoys a strong centre
while Black is passive and lacks necessary
A: 8 'i'b5 counterplay.
8: 8 ..txb4 (this is much more popular) 9 'i'xc4
Slightly surprisingly 6 ... i.b4+ is only fea­
However, practice has also seen the fol­ tured in NCO as a footnote, bj.Jt there Bur­
lowing: gess suggests that \Vhite should: consider ftrst
a) 8 0-0 i.xd2 9 liJbxd2 liJb6 1 0 'ii'a3 strengthening his centre with ,9 i.c3!?. Then
l'iJxd4! (otherwise \Vhite will simply regain we have 9 ... e5!? (Black's / main counter,
the pawn on c4 and stand better) 1 1 liJxd4 whereas 9....i.xc3+ 10 llJxc3 ltJxc3 1 1 bxc3
'i'xd4 1 2 :fd1 'i'd6 when \Vhite had suffi­ 'ii'd 5 12 :b1 a6 1 3 'ii'b2 f6! 1 4 0-0 'i'd7 1 5
cient compensation, due to his strong bishop liJd2!, whilst playable, did give \Vhite good
and as Black was a little passive, but no more compensation in Stancl-Kuchynka,
than that in Hiibner-Luther, Bundesliga correspondence 1 998) and now:
1 993. a) White mustn't delay as 1 0 0-0? a6 1 1
b) Slobodjan's favoured 8 'iVc2!? also de­ 'iVxc4 e4! favours Black, due to his large
serves further exploration, although it's not threat of 1 2...liJa5, after 1 2 i.xb4 exf3 1 3
impossible that Black can get away with .i.xfB fxg2 1 4 �xg2 .i.e6! (Raetsky and Chet­
8... b5!? here, meeting 9 a4 with 9 ... i.xd2+ 1 0 verik) with a useful two pieces for the rook
liJbxd2 liJcb4 1 1 'i'b1 c6. However, more and pawn in the middlegame. \Vhite cannot
simply 8 ... liJb6 9 i.c3 0-0 1 0 liJbd2 'iie7 1 1 force the queens off for 1 5 'iic 5 is well met
a3 .i.d6! (preparing to strike back in the cen­ by 1 5 ... b6! 16 'iia3 'iid7.
tre) 12 e4 e5 13 d5 liJb8 1 4 i.a5 liJ8d7 left b) 10 dxe5! i.e6 1 1 0-0 a6 12 'ii'a4 was
Black quite solid, with the knight coming to Romanishin-Brodsky, Nikolaev 1 995. Then
c5, and was roughly equal in Slobodjan­ Black was in too much of a hurry to return
Dittmar, Arco 2001. the extra pawn, albeit understandably against
such a creative opponent, with 12 ...i.f5 1 3
A) 8 'i'b5 lt:lh4! i.xb 1 ?! when 14 .l:!.axb1 i.xc3 1 5
'ffxc4 i.xe5 1 6 i.xd5 gave White a pretty

1 62
 Th e Fia n c h e t t o : C o u n tering t h e Ca talan

pleasant position. Instead one dynamic idea Sensibly avoiding 13 lLlxe5?! 'ii'xd4! and
is 12 ... b5!? 13 'ii'c2 i..c 5! 14 l:td1 '¥ke7 when also 13 dxe5 'ii'xd2+ 14 'it>xd2 i.. fS 15 ltJc3
Black intends to exploit the b4-square and l:lad8+ (thus far Benjamin) 16 �cl lLlc4 with
his queenside majority, whilst there appears the initiative and good compensation for
to be no way for White to exploit his pres­ Black. After 1 3 a3, 13 ... e4!? created some
sure down the h 1 -a8 diagonal. difficulties in Grabliauskas-Benjamin, New
9 . . . tt:lb6 1 0 'i!fd3 e5! York Open 2000, as we saw above. How­
Immediately freeing Black's posltlon, al­ ever, Black can also be less adventurous with
though 10 ... i..xd2+ 1 1 lZJbxd2 e5! (this must 1 3... ltJc6 when 1 4 dxe5 '¥ke7 1 5 'ii'f4 a4! re­
be played now to avoid being horribly vealed another point behind 12...a5! - ...l:!.a5,
cramped) 1 2 lZJxe5 lZJb4 1 3 'irb1 'ii'xd4 14 regaining the pawn. Following 16 0-0 l:la5 17
lLld£3 'ii'd 8 also didn't cause Black any diffi­ lZJc3 lLlxe5 a draw was agreed in Konopka­
culties in De Boer-Zso.Polgar, Dutch Team Grabliauskas, Litomysl Open 1 996.
Ch. 1 996.
81 8 ..txb4 tt:ldxb4

1 1 ..txb4!?
A little risky, although after 1 1 dxe5 'ii'xd3 Now we will consider:
12 exd3, 1 2 ... i.. f5 !? is an idea, whilst 12 .. .l:ld8
13 0-0 saw White acknowledging that Black 81 : 9 tt:le5
was very comfortable here by offering a draw 82: 9 0-0 (White's main move)
in Donaldson-Benen, World Open 2003. 83: 9 a3!? (enterprising and very sharp)
Instead White can, and perhaps should,
reach equality with 1 1 lLlxe5 i..xd2+ 12 81 1 9 tt:le5
ltJxd2 liJb4, transposing to De Boer-Polgar, This is an alternative positional option to
although White went on to be outplayed in 9 0-0.
that game, just as he did in Chabanon­ 9 . . . 0-0!
Lautier, French Ch. 2003 after 12 ...lZJxd4 13 Again Black aims for speedy development.
e3 ltJe6 1 4 'ii'xdB l:txdB 1 5 'it>e2?! f6 1 6 lL'ld3 1 0 tt:lxc6
i.d7 when, as well as his useful queenside 1 0 i..xc6?! lL'lxc6 1 1 lL'lxc6 bxc6 wrecks
majority, Black also enjoyed the initiative. Black's structure and hopes to be left with
1 1 . . .tll xb4 1 2 'ifd2 a5! the better minor piece. However, as we've
Giving some useful support to the aggres­ seen after 1 2 'i¥xc4 l:!.bB!, Black's activity is
sively placed knight. the most important feature of the position
1 3 a3! and forceful play left him better in Stajcic-

1 63
 Ta n g o ! A D yn a m ic A n s wer to 1 d4

Luther, Kecskemet 1 993. 16 ....l:.b8 when White also continues to miss

1 o . . . lLlxc6 1 1 e3! his important Catalan bishop.
The best way to defend the d-pawn. 1 1 After 15 'it'xc4, the continuation 1 S ... .i.e6
Si.xc6?! not only lets Black transpose to 1 0 16 'iibs l:tb8 17 0-0 a6 18 'ifcS 'it'e7 saw
.i.xc6 with 1 1 ...bxc6, but also allows him the Black equalise in Filippov-Shabalov, Las Ve­
option of 1 1 ...'ii'xd4!?. Now 1 2 ll:ld2 bxc6 1 3 gas 2003.
t:Llxc4 eS! again opens up the bishop and
favours Black who won quickly after 14 :d1 81 ) 9 0-0
'iWcS 15 0-0 .i.h3 16 l:.fe1 �ab8 17 b3?? �b4!
0-1 in Hetey-Soffer, Groningen Open 1 995 -
1 8 'iia6 i.c8 forces the queen to a3 or aS
after which 1 9 ...l:txc4! wins a whole piece.
1 1 . . . e5!
Not just forcing the diagonal to be
blocked but also activating Black's own
bishop.
1 2 d5 lLle7

9 . . . l:l.b8
Threatening to hold on to the extra pawn.
1 0 lLlc3
Instead 1 0 ll:la3!? is a fairly recent way to
fight for control of bS and c4. Play continues
10 ... 0-0! and now:
a) 1 1 e3? a6! 12 ll:leS bS 1 3 ll:lxc6 lt::lxc6 1 4
'iic2 .i.b7 1 5 b3 cxb3 1 6 axb3 lt::le 7! didn't
give White anywhere near enough compensa­
1 3 lLlc3 tion in Polovnikova-Lahno, FIDE Women's
An immediate 13 'fixc4 has also been seen World Ch. (blitz play-off), Elista 2004.
when 13 ... ll:lf5! (bringing the knight to an b) 1 1 'iibs b6 is a sensible way to develop
excellent blockading square) 14 0-0 ll:ld6 1 5 the bishop and to gain some counterplay.
'it'c3 :e8 1 6 ll:ld2 .i. fS 1 7 l:tacl :c8 1 8 l:tfd1 Then 1 2 'fixc4 .i.a6 1 3 lt::lbS 'it'dS 14 'ii'x dS
'fid7 was fine for Black, who was very solid lt::lx dS!, remaining active, was fine for Black
and could look to play on the kingside, in after 1 5 a4 lt::laS 16 lt::le S :bd8 1 7 :ac1 lt::lb3
Mochalov-Korneev, Minsk 1 995. 18 :cd �
b4 if. Wpjtkie1;Kicz-Yuneev, Yere­
1 3 . . . c6!? van 1 996. => 1 e. ��b (A Vl v ��)
1 3 ...ll:lf5 was still possible, but this suc­ 10 lt::leS? may be a typical Catalan motif,
cessfully neutralises White's strong dS-point. but it doesn't work here: 1 0... 'il'xd4! 1 1 lt::lxc6
1 4 dxc6 lLlxc6 1 5 'ilf'xc4 lt::lxc6 12 i.xc6+ bxc6 13 'iixc6+ i.d7 1 4
15 �xc6?! bxc6 1 6 'ifxc6 is too greedy. 'il'xc7 0-0 was much better for Black i n Mar­
Black has a pleasant choice between gaining a chand-Inkiov, Evry 2002.
strong initiative after 16 ... .i.h3, with White 1 0 . . . a6 1 1 lLle5!
again unable to castle, and targeting b2 witl1 White has gained a superior version of the

1 64
 The Fia n c h e t t o : C o u n tering t h e Ca talan

9 lLleS line, but Black still has sufficient re­ improving his knight again appears best.
sources. White has also tried some other Instead 14 ... l:txb2 1 S l:tab1 l:tb6 1 6 'ii'cS!
approaches: 1 1 l:tfcl!? 0-0 12 li'd1 bS 13 b3 clamps down strongly on Black's position
gave him some compensation in Nedobora­ (not just on the cS-square, but also eS and aS)
Sjodahl, La Coruna 1 993, but 1 1 .:tact?! 0-0 and gave White the edge in G.Flear­
12 'ii'a3 b6! (controlling cS; not 12 ... bS?! 1 3 Marciano, Toulouse 1 996.
lt:Je4!) 1 3 .l:.fd1 li'e7 left him struggling in
Romanishin-Sosonko, Polanica Zdroj 1 993.
11 .. . 0-0
This again seems best.
1 2 lt:lxc6 lt:lxc6 1 3 ..txc6 bxc6

1 5 lt:le4!?
White decides that Black's previous move
didn't actually prevent him from moving the
knight. This is critical, although other lines
are not so clear:
14 'i'xc4 a) 1 S e3 l:txb2 1 6 .l:.ab 1 l:tb6 1 7 f4!?
And this is critical. Instead 1 4 'ifxc6 gives (clamping down on the...eS-break, whereas
Black an easier time after 1 4 ...'iVxd4 1 S l:tfd 1 after 1 7 .=.rc t Raetsky and Chetverik have
li'e S 1 6 .:td2 .:tb4! 1 7 .l:.ad 1 (or 1 7 !:tel i. b7 shown that Black should try 1 7 ... eS! 1 8 dxeS
1 8 li'd7 li'cS 19 a3 .l:.b3 and Black was a 'fixeS 1 9 .l:.xb6 cxb6 20 'ii'xc6 'fi'aS with suf­
touch better in D.Gurevich-Wojtkiewicz, ficient activity) 1 7 ... aS 1 8 'ii'a4 i.a6 1 9 l:tfd 1
Geneva 1 996) 1 7...i.b7 1 8 'ii'd7 'fi'cS when cS! (actively forcing a perpetual) 20 lt:Je4 'fi'dS
both c-pawns are defended and White must 21 l:txb6 (but not 21 lLlxcS? li'£3 when
start thinking about equality, such as with 1 9 White's king is very weak and the light­
'ifd4! 'ii'xd4 20 l:txd4 .l:.xb2 2 1 l:txc4 squared bishop set to play an important role)
(Rashkovsky-Se.Ivanov, Russian Ch. 1 99S). 21 ...'fi'xe4 and now 22 .l:.xa6! avoided a disas­
Now Black should content himself with a ter on the light squares and was agreed drawn
draw after 21 ...i.dS as 21 ...c6? 22 .l:.d7 turned here in Filippov-Rausis, Dubai 1 999.
out to be too ambitious in the game. b) 1S b3 isn't especially threatening -
Thus with accurate play White can often 1 S ... l:tb4! 1 6 lt:Je4 (Mittelman-Zifroni, Tel
force a draw after 9 0-0, but then all openings Aviv 2001) gives Black the option of
have their drawish lines. Black shouldn't de­ 1 6...'ii'xd4!? 1 7 'ii'xd4 l:txd4 1 8 ltJcS l:tfd8.
spair in this line though, as the structural im­ The knight may be strong, but Black
balance will always help him to create some shouldn't be worse due to his control of the
winning chances against a weaker opponent. d-ftle and because, as well as the idea
14 . . . 'i'd61 of... l:td2, he can - and should - advance the
Actively aiming to prevent \Xihite fmm a- and e-pawns.

1 65
Ta n g o ! A D yn a m ic A n s we r to 1 d4

c) 1 5 'iVcS also gave Black an easy life after This is best - White shows himself happy
1 S... l:txb2 1 6 l:tab1 l1d2! 1 7 llfd 1 .l:lxdl+ 1 8 to give up the exchange as the knight will be
.l:f.xd1 'ii'xcS 1 9 dxcS eS in Ilincic-Marjanovic, trapped on a 1. The key question is how
Budva 2003. much counterplay can Black gain before it is
1 5 . . . 'i!fd5 1 6 'ifc2 e5!? rounded up.
This appears promising but needs another Instead 1 0 J'dt fails to impress: 1 0...lLldS
test. It is also possible to grab the pawn, but 1 1 e4 (or l1 a4 b4 12 aS l1b8 13 'ii'c2 .i.a6!
16 ...'ii'xd4 1 7 b3 .l:lbS 1 8 l1fd 1 'ii'e S 1 9 lL!c3! 14 0-0 0-0 1 5 .l:f.d1 'it'e7 and Black was well
lieS 20 .l:f.d3 gave White a small edge in coordinated and ready to exploit his ad­
Kamenets-Mohrlok, correspondence 1 999. vanced queenside pawns in Zagorskis­
Black can, however, leave his bishop on c8 Ruzele, Lithuanian Ch. 1 994) 1 1 ...lL!b6 1 2
whilst playing actively with 17 ... f5!? 1 8 lL!cS lL!c3 a6 1 3 0-0 0-0 14 'ili'd2 .i.b7 gave White
.l:l:bS 1 9 l1ac1 eS when 20 l:r.fd 1 'ii'g4! gave some compensation in Karpov-Kramnik,
him counterplay on the kingside in Svirjov­ Monaco (blindfold) 1 999, although Black did
Rausis, Alushta 2004. Now 21 f3!? 'iVgS 22 have some pressure against White's centre
'ii'c4+ �h8 23 f4 exf4 24 'ifxf4 'ii'e7 saw and could gain play of his own with ... b4.
White ensure that his kingside remained safe, 1 0 . . . lt:lc2+ 1 1 �d2
but he lacked a good plan and the game was The king can become a target here, but 1 1
shortly drawn. 'it>fl .i.d7 1 2 l1a2 looks rather artificial and
1 7 dxe5 'i!fxe5 1 2... ltJ6xd4 1 3 'ii'cS (best as 1 3 'ii'xc4?? .i.bS
Now b2 is under ftre and ... i.fS threat­ is disastrous for White) 1 3 ...ltJf5!? 1 4 lL!eS
ened, and so the knight must scuttle back­ .l:.b8 1 5 lL!c3 .l:.b6 wasn't clear in Karpov­
wards, and not forwards as White had been Van Wely, Dubai (rapid) 2002. Certainly ex­
hoping for. After 1 8 lL!c3 l:r.e8 1 9 l:r.fe1 a traditing the a2-rook is far from easy.
draw was agreed in Harding-Pinheiro, corre­
spondence 2002.

82) 9 a3!?

1 1 . . . .i.d7 1 ?
Unusual, but by defending the knight
Black forces White to give up his queen. The
very theoretical main line is 1 1 ...lL!xa1 1 2
Of course if this worked then Black's 'ii'xc6+ ..id7 1 3 'ifxc4 cS, although 1 3 ...l1b8
whole concept with 6 ...i.b4+ and 7 ...ltJdS is also possible. That leads to rather complex
would be rather called into question, but positions, while interestingly Kasparov was
Black has a strong riposte ready. happy to try this as White against Adams at
9 . . . b5! 1 0 'ii'x b5! Wijk aan Zee in 2001 .

1 66
 Th e Fia n ch e t to : C o un tering t h e Ca talan

12 �xc2 ttJxd4+ 13 ttJxd4 �xb5 1 4 23 ...'ii'c 5 24 l:.d7 'ilfx£2+ 25 l:td2 'ilfc5 26 Ad7
ttJxb5 for now Black can come in on the other
Ribli has assessed this position as being flank with 26 ... 'iWb5. Perhaps \Vhite must try
slighdy better for \Vhite but, like Raetsky and the risky 22 e5!? but after 22 ... 'ilib3+ 23 <li'c1
Chetverik, I'm not sure that the queen is at c3 24 bxc3 'ilfxc3+ 25 �b1 Black has at least
all inferior to the minor pieces, which \Vhite a draw and can also try for more with
must work hard to keep coordinated. 25...�h8, intending....l:.a8.
1 4 . . .l:.b8 1 5 . . .<.Pf8

1 5 �c6 + ! ? 1 6 ttJ 1 c3
Preventing Black from casding, although Instead 16 l:d1 'iff6, attacking f2, can't be
now the slighdy loose bishop on c6 can be­ bad. Then 1 7 f4 l:b6 1 8 t'Lld4 We7! is rather
come a liability. However, neither does 1 5 awkward for \Vhite, and 1 9 t'Llc3? .l:.d8 cost
t'Ll1c3 fully impress after 1 5 ...0-0 1 6 .l:.ad1 him material due to the loose bishop in
and now: Rizzo-Oates, correspondence 2001. Even the
a) 1 6...'ilff6! (direct and strong) 1 7 t'Lle4! stronger 1 9 .i.e4! l:lhb8 20 l:a2 'iti>£8 21 t'Llc3
(keeping things defended for the time being; .l:.d8 doesn't seem too bad for Black, espe­
Chetverik analysed 1 7 f4? in his Chess bifor­ cially with one rook offside on a2.
mant notes, but appears to have missed 1 6 . . .'i'e7!
17 ... l:.xb5! 1 8 t'Llxb5 'ilffS+ and 19 ... 'ifxb5) Preparing to exploit the currendy rather
1 7...'ilfe5 1 8 t'Lld4!? (actively blocking the tangled white pieces.
threat, whereas after 1 8 t'Llbc3 fS 1 9 t'Lld2 1 7 :l.hd1 !? Wc5 1 8 :l.d7?
'ifd4 Black remains the side creating threats Presumably this over-ambitious move was
and is better) 1 8...l:.b6, preparing to attack on based on a serious oversight; instead \Vhite
the queenside while the white pieces are still must play 1 8 .i£3 when the position is rather
to really achieve anything. unclear. Then Black can try 1 8...a6 (but not
b) Raetsky and Chctverik's suggestion of 1 8...'�e7 19 lDd4!, although Raetsky and
1 6 ... 'ife7!? may also be promising. They as­ Chetverik suggest that Black can also play
sessed 1 7 lDxa7 1i'c5 1 8 t'Llc6 llb6! 1 9 t'Lla4 ambitiously with 1 8...l:xb5!? 1 9 l:d8+ We7
'iffS+ 20 e4 'ilib5 as being unclear, but \Vhite 20 l:xh8 .l:.b3 when he may well have suffi­
must again be rather careful here. After 21 cient activity, whilst it's then White who has
t'Llxb6 'ii'xb6 the knight is very vulnerable, the more problematic king position) 1 9 lbd4
whilst b2 and £2 are weak. Then 22 lbe7+ 'ifb6 when 20 lba4 might well leave neither
<li'h8 23 lld2 doesn't lead to a repetition after side with anything better than a repetition.

167
Tan g o ! A D yn a m ic A n s wer to 1 d4

R.'letsky and Chetverik suggest 20 b4!? cxb3+ exerts rather a cramping effect on the white
21 'it>b2 to safeguard \Vhite's king before queenside. Thus 1 0 b3! is quite a common
targeting its counterpart, but Black can also idea; \Vhite hopes that his pressure down the
play actively here. 21 ...e5!? appears logical a- and c-flles, as well as his centre, will fully
when 22 ti'lc6 l:!.e8 23 .!:tacl (taking the sting compensate for the extra pawn; However,
out of 23...e4) 23 ... h5!? isn't clear. 24 l:!.d7 Black shouldn't panic for he isn't behind in
l:!.h6 25 �d5! (and not 25 ti'ld5? 'ii'xf2 26 development and can aim to exploit his con­
ti'lxc7 e4! 27 ti'lxe8 exf3 28 .:f.d8 .:f.xc6! when trol of the b4-square. Rogozenko now con­
Black wins) 25 ....:f.f6 26 ti'le4 l:!.f5 gives \Vhite tinued instructively with 1 0 . . . cxb3 1 1 axb3
a strong grip on the position, although it's a6 1 2 e4?! (aggressive, but an immediate
not so easy for him to make any further pro­ advance in the centre doesn't blow Black
gress. Even so, instead of 21 ...e5 Black away, whilst continuing less forcefully with
should probably first safeguard his king and 1 2 .ib2 has proven harder to meet in prac­
activate the h8-rook with 21...g6. tice) 1 2. . . �b7 1 3 i.f4 l!Jb4! when Black's
1 8 .. .'�xc6 1 9 Axc7 'i'b6 20 l:l.d1 'ii'xf2 active play had given him the advantage.
21 lldd7 r;t9ar 22 l!Jde .:ta \Vhite lacks any real queenside pressure,
and Black comfortably defended before whilst the extra pawn is looking pretty useful,
converting his material advantage in Chet­ and after 1 4 l!Jc3 Ac8 1 5 l!Je5 'i'e8! Black
verik-Grabliauskas, Martin 1 996. intended to fully free his position with
1 6 ... c5, leaving \Vhite struggling.
2) Gambiting with 6 0-0 ! ?
Although not quite as popular as 6 'ii'a4, this Exploiting Black's control of d3
gambit does lead to positions rich in possi­
bilities and Black must respond accurately.
However, he doesn't have to just passively
defend and can usually gain some active
counterplay.

The b3 break

Yevseev-Brodsky
Russian Cup, Nizhnij Novgorod 1 998

\Vhite has here elected to quickly push

forwards in the centre, but that has come at a
price for again Black has made good use of
the b4-square. Now 1 1 l!Jd4! defended d5
Tukmakov-Rogozenko by targeting b5 and c6, but then the active
MK Cafe Cup, Koszalin 1 998 1 1 . . . ..tg4! 1 2 'ir'd2 .i.d7 1 3 b3 0-0! gave
Black a good game (1 3...cxb3 1 4 axb3 a6 1 5
Not only is the c4-pawn extra, but it also ii.a3! and 1 6 l:.fcl would have given White

1 68
 Th e Fia n c h e t t o : C o un tering t h e Ca talan

good compensation). Then 14 a4 a6 1 5 lt.Jb6 1 5 ..te3 �a3! favoured Black in De

axb5 axb5 1 6 bxc4 bxc4 1 7 'We2 �c5 Saegher-Rogozenko, Dieren 2001) 1 1 ...b5 1 2
1 8 ..te3 ltld3, exploiting the extra c4-pawn a4 b4 1 3 tt.:le4 ..tb7 1 4 tt.:ld2!, which gave
to get the knight right into the white camp, White some compensation in I.Rogers­
favoured Black, although the position re­ Barsov, Hoogeveen 1 997. Nevertheless, now
mained unclear. 1 4...c3!? is worth consideration, intending 1 5
bxc3 bxc3 1 6 tt.:lc4 c2 when the extra c-pawn
Theory is a fair bit of a nuisance.
6 0-0!? b) 7 'i'c2?! bS 8 ..td2 doesn't cause any
immediate problems for Black who was defi­
nitely better in Br.Thorfinnsson-Zelcic,
European Ch. 2001 after 8 ... ..tb7 9 .l:.d1 li..e7
1 0 a4 a6 1 1 axbS axbS 1 2 tt.:lc3 tt.:lb4! 1 3 'ii'b 1
0-0. White didn't even have a strong centre
as compensation for 14 e4 would have been
simply met by 1 4 ... lt.Jd3.
c) 7 Ji..gS is rarely seen these days ever
since D.Gurevich-1\.dams, Biel 1 993, which
continued 7 ... i.e7 8 e3 0-0 9 tt.:lfd2?! (so that
9 ...b5 is impossible, but Adams now struck
back in the centre) 9 ... e5! 1 0 ..txf6 i.xf6 1 1
d5 e4! 1 2 lLlxc4 bS! when Black's very active
6 .. Jib8 handling of the opening left him better. Ad­
Black prepares to quickly support the c4- ams's suggestion of 12 'i!Vct !? 'ii'xd5 1 3 tt.:lxe4
pawn with ... bS. 6 ... a6 is the big alternative, is probably a better try, although after
but Black can also aim to do without that 1 3... 'i!Ve6! White still has to find a way to
move for the time being. equalise as 1 4 tt.:lxf6+ 'ifxf6 1 5 tLld2 bS!?,
Now we will chiefly consider: intending 1 6 ... lt.Je5, hangs on to the extra
pawn.
A: 7 a4
B: 7 e3!? Al 7 a4
C: 7 ltlc3 This move prevents Black from support­
ing c4 with ...bS.
\XIhite has tried a number of other ap­
proaches, although none of them should
cause Black too many problems so long as he
defends c4 when necessary:
a) After 7 tt.:leS Black shouldn't object to
the simplification with 7 ... tt.Jxe5 8 dxeS 'ii'xd 1
9 l:.xd l . However, it's not clear as to why
Black has been avoiding 9 ... lt.Jd5!?. White
doesn't really want to exchange on dS, but
after 1 0 lt.Jd2 there is 1 O ... c3. Instead practice
has seen 9 ... lt::ld7 1 0 lt::lc3 a6 1 1 f4 (this ap­
pears more challenging than 1 1 �f4?! when
1 1 .....te7 1 2 lt::le4 0-0 13 l:.ac1 bS 1 4 b3!?

1 69
 Ta n g o ! A D yn a m ic A ns we r to 1 d4

7 . .. tDa5!? force his way out of trouble, but after 1 2

With 7...b5 ruled out, Black has often tLlxeS? 'ii'x eS 1 3 li:lxc4 tLlxc4 1 4 i.f4 'ifh s 1 5
gone 7 ...b6 here, but immediately exploiting i.xb8 tLlg4 1 6 h3 tLlge3! the tactics were
the weakened b3-square, while also freeing significantly in Black's favour.
the c7-pawn, appears both logical and fairly 10 . . . c3 1 1 bxc3 0-0 1 2 'iic 2 'iic7 1 3
promising. tDd3 ..td6 1 4 c4 e5
8 lDbd2 gave Black a good game in Chashev­
Covering b3, although 8 tLlc3!? is more ac­ Raetsky, Makhachkala 1 987.
tive. Then perhaps Black should delay...ltJb3,
preferring 8 ...i.e7, intending...0-0 and ... cS. Bl 7 e3!?
However, 8...tLlb3 can't be so bad: 9 l::tb 1
tLlxcl 1 0 l::tx cl cS 11 dxcS i.xcS 12 tLld2 0-0
13 tLlxc4 'ille7 was roughly equal in Inkiov­
Van der Wiel, European Team Ch, Plovdiv
1 983 as Black couldn't easily exploit his
bishop pair.
8 . .. c5

If White is struggling in the main line after

7 tLlc3 bS then this alternative gambit ap­
proach may gain some more attention. White
threatens to regain the pawn with 8 tLlfd2,
whilst the extra defence of d4 cannot do any
harm. Blocking the bishop with e3 isn't a
problem as White intends to develop the
9 dxc5 bishop to b2.
Speeding up Black's development Like this 7 . . . b5 8 'iie 2
does not impress, so perhaps White should The queen will be well placed here, eyeing
prefer the 9 'ilfc2!? of Ga7.arek-Galic, Croa­ up the bS weakness after b3, but White has
tian Team Ch. 1 995. Then 9 ...cxd4 10 tLlxc4 also opted to open the a-ftle. Then 8 a4 a6 9
d3!? may well be the only good way to exploit axbS axbS 1 0 b3 cxb3 1 1 li:lbd2 i.e? 1 2
the d3-pawn, leading to an unclear position tLlxb3 0-0 1 3 i.a3 i.xa3 1 4 l::txa3 'ii'd 6 gave
after 1 1 exd3 tLldS. The ciS-steed is pretty him the cS-square in Steckner-Tonov, Dort­
strong and d3 is isolated, but White enjoys mund 1 992, although Black wasn't too un­
the better development. happy as he had retained his extra pawn and
9 . . . ..txc5 1 0 tDe5 intended to gain counterplay with ... eS or
Regaining the pawn, albeit at a Little cost ... tLle4.
to his structure, but this appears superior to White can also choose the move order 8
the 10 1Wc2? 'ii'c7! (perhaps White had b3 cxb3 9 axb3 a6 10 i.b2 i.e?, when 1 1
missed this tactic) 1 1 e4 eS of Gorodilov­ ii'e2 should transpose to our main line and is
Raetsky, Vladimir 1 987. White attempted to probably best as 1 1 lbbd2 0-0 12 1Wh1?!

1 70
 Th e Fia n c h e t t o : C o u n tering t h e Ca talan

lLlb4!, prepares to seize the initiative get in his ideal break with 1 5 ...c5. Now 1 6
with... cS. Then 13 ltJeS lLld7 1 4 lLlxd7 'ii'xd7 dxcS tLld7 would have comfortably regained
1 5 lLlf3 f6!, depriving the white knight of a the pawn, but 1 6 eS!? also left White strug­
good square, left White struggling for com­ gling after 1 6...lLld7 1 7 lLle4 �xe4! (eliminat­
pensation in Kozul-Todorovic, Novi Sad ing a key attacker) 1 8 'ii'xe4 cxd4 1 9 .l:r.xd4 aS
1 992. - White's bishops didn't particularly help any
8 . .te7 9 b3!
. . kingside attack, whilst the black knights en­
Preparing to complete his development joyed excellent, stable squares on b4, cS and
and gaining some pressure on the queenside. dS.
This appears more challenging than a rapid 1 3 . . . .ib7 14 e4
central advance with 9 .:td1 �b7 1 0 e4 0-0 Having developed his forces White must
1 1 lLlc3 (Kachiani Gersinska-Rabiega, Binz now step up the pace as Black to set to break
1 995) when, as well as the forcing 1 1 ...b4, with ... cS.
1 1 ... a6!? intending...tLlb4 would also have 1 4 . . . c5 1 5 e51
offered Black a reasonable position. Now 15 ...lLlfd5 16 dxcS �xeS 17 tLle4
9 . . . cxb3 1 0 axb3 0-0 1 1 lld 1 a6! . ..i.e7 1 8 h4! 'ii'e8? (1 8 ... h6 would have been a
Sensibly shoring up bS so that the bishop much better defensive try) 1 9 lLlfgS h6 20
can go to b7, whilst once again Black will 'ii'g4! gave White excellent attacking chances
also hope for counterplay with ... liJb4. in Rustemov-Sax, Bundesliga 2000.
1 2 .tb2!? Although Black may well not have been
Continuing to build up slowly; the hasty worse at move 1 8 in that game, he should
1 2 e4 �b7 1 3 ..i.f4?! lLlb4 1 4 lLlc3 .:tc8 1 5 probably keep the dS-square free for his
lLleS 'ii'e8! didn't really lead anywhere at all other pieces, whilst not obstructing the light­
for White, as we considered above, in Tuk­ squared bishop, with 1 S...lLld7!. However,
makov-Rogozenko, Koszalin 1 998. after 1 6 lLle4 Black must avoid 1 6 ... ..i.xe4? as
1 2 . . .lLlb4 here is queen is still exposed down the d-flle
- 1 7 'ii'xe4 'ii'e8 1 8 dxcS! i.xcS 1 9 tLlgS!
leads to a strong attack. Instead Raetsky and
Chetverik's 1 6...�d5!, attacking b3 and also
usefully blocking the d-ftle, looks like a pretty
useful move. They assess this as 'giving
chances for both sides', but White may well
actually be struggling. Now, compared with
after 1 S...tLlfd5, it's very hard for him to
launch a strong attack as his centre is crum­
bling. Fallowing 17 dxcS lLlxcS 1 8 lLld4
'iib6! Black prepares to exchange pieces and
appears to be doing quite well.
Of course White could also try 1 6 dxcS,
1 3 lLlbd2 but then another key point behind 1 S ... liJd7
Completing his harmonious set-up while is demonstrated "vith 1 6 ... lLlxcS. That keeps
not obstructing the c-file and b2-bishop. 13 gS covered by the e7-bishop and after 1 7
tLlc3 �b7 14 e4 .e8! 1 5 l:.ac1?! (Ostojic­ tLle4 'ifb6 White again lacks a strong and
Abramovic, Yugoslav Team Ch. 1 998) was active plan.
too slow - White had to try playing as in the Rustemov may have beautifully defeated
main line with 1 5 eS - and allowed Black to Sax, but 1 S.)t:ld7 looks like a major im-

171
 Ta n g o ! A D yn a m ic A ns we r to 1 d4

provement which may well question White's ti:lge4 ..ie7 14 'ii'g4 g6 Black's kingside
whole quiet build-up after 7 e3. wasn't so easy to break down, whilst his
knights were well placed and gave him suffi­
Cl 7 lt'lc3 cient chances in this unclear position.

C1 ) 8 e4

White aims for rapid development. Now

Black often continues in Nimzo style with
7 ... i.b4, but he doesn't have to shy away Taking over the centre and preparing to
from 7 b5!?, which offers him reasonable
... meet 8...b4 with 9 tt:le2 tt:lxe4?! 1 0 tt:ld2.
chances in a very unbalanced position. Now Black should thus first catch up in develop­
White usually opts for one of the following: ment and keep...b4 in reserve, whilst he may
well also want to use that square for a knight.
81 : 8 e4 a . . . .te7 9 d5!?
82: 8 lt'le5!? The logical follow-up to White's two pre­
vious moves, gaining some useful space. Sev­
Occasionally he tries something else: eral slightly slower alternatives have, how­
a) 8 ..igS still doesn't impress. 8 ... ..i.e7 9 e3 ever, also been seen, although Black doesn't
(or 9 e4 b4 10 i.xf6!? ..ixf6 1 1 tt:le2 0-0 1 2 appear too troubled in general by the e4-e5
e S i..e7 1 3 'ii'c2 tt:laS 1 4 l:.fd1 ..i.b7 when the advance:
knights weren't as good as the bishops and a) 9 ..i.e3 0-0 10 a3 tt:laS 1 1 'ii'c2 ..i.b7 1 2
extra pawn in Ksieski-Maksimcnko, Bern l:.ad1 a6 saw both sides develop sensibly in
1 994) 9 ...0-0 1 0 'ii'e2 tt:ldS! (freeing his posi­ Filippov-K.iriakov, Moscow 1 995, after
tion with exchanges, whilst the knight docs a which White had to decide how to advance.
good job of holding White up from dS and The game's 1 3 dS had certain similarities to 9
can always go to b4) 1 1 i.xe7 'ii'xe7 1 2 tt:ld2 dS, when 1 3... exd5 14 exdS tt:lb3 1 S li:Je5 and
tt:lcb4 left Black slightly better in Hulak­ 1 6 tt:lc6 gave White compensation. So per­
Popchev, Sarajevo 1 988, as White lacked haps Black should have kept the knight cov­
sufficient counterplay to compensate for the ering c6 for the time being, such as with
weakness on d3. 1 4....�e8!?.
b) 8 tt:lgS!? prepares to quickly press for­ b) 9 eS!? swaps harmonious central devel­
wards in the centre. Now 8...ti:lb4! 9 a4 a6 1 0 opment for early kingside pressure, altl1ough
axbS axbS 1 1 e4 h6 12 eS! gave White some after 9 ... lt:Jd5 1 0 lt:Jc4 h6! (not allowing White
compensation in Ulibin-I<rasenkow, Las to come any closer, such as wiili tLlfgS and
Palmas 1 993. However, after 1 2 . ti:lfd5 1 3
. . 'ii'hS) 1 1 h4 Black doesn't have to castle into

1 72
 Th e Fia n c h e t t o : C o un t e ring th e Ca talan

any attack and can prepare counterplay. Then 1 1 lt.Je51

1 1 ...�a6!? 1 2 a3 lLla5 1 3 lLlfd2 h5! (prevent­ The alternative 1 1 l2Jd4 does target c6 and
ing 1 4 'ii'g4) 14 lZlg5 (1 4 l2Jf3, to occupy g5, b5, but doesn't cover g4. Then 1 1 .....tg4 1 2
is rather too slow after 1 4...l2Jb3, but exploit­ 'ii'd 2 ..td7 1 3 b 3 0-0! gave Black a good posi­
ing g5 immediately isn't too troublesome as tion, as we noted earlier, in Yevseev-Brodsky,
White cannot recapture on g5 with a piece) Nizhnij Novgorod 1 998.
1 4...�xg5 1 5 hxg5 l2:le7! prevented 16 g6 and 1 1 . . . ..td61
left Black better in Maki Uuro-Kokkila, Fin­ A strong counter which aims to force the
nish Ch. 1 996; d4 was weak while Black con­ knight to c6 before Black loses time play­
trolled some key light squares. ing...�b7, for now he can exchange knights
c) 9 'ii'e2 can be met by 9...0-0, but Black on c6 without his bishop then being attacked.
may also flrst wish to advance his queenside 1 2 lt.Jc6
play, such as with the 9 ... b4!? 10 l2:la4 �a6 1 1 Rogozenko points out that White doesn't
e5 l2Jd5 1 2 'i'e4 c3! of Ulibin-Kogan, Cap­ have to follow Black's plan, but after 12 f4!?
pelle Ia Grande 1 995. Then 1 3 l:r.e1 0-0 1 4 �c5+! 13 '11i>h 1 �fS both black bishops are
l2:lc5 ..tb5 1 5 h4! brave White some chances very well placed and that appears to slightly
on the kingside, but Black wasn't at all objec­ outweigh the weakness of c6.
tively worse here and enjoyed counterplay on 1 2 . . . 4Jxc6 1 3 dxc6 b4!?
the other flank, especially with the c3- and Returning the pawn to fully develop. After
c4-squares available for his knights. 1 3 ...0-0 Rogozenko offers 1 4 a4! a6 1 5 axb5
d) 9 l:.e 1 could be met by a queenside axb5 1 6 l:ta5 b4 1 7 l2Jb5 when the c6-pawn is
move, but Black shouldn't overly worry starting to become a serious nuisance.
about any kingside chances for White. 9... 0-0 1 4 lt.Jd5 lt.Jxd51 1 5 ..txd5 0-0 1 6 ..txc4
1 0 e5?! lLld5 1 1 l2:le4 l2:lcb4! left Black's ..th3 1 7 :e 1 'i'f6 1 8 'i'h5
knights very usefully placed in Kavalek­ With Black having successfully developed
Geller, Wijk aan Zee 1 977. It also wasn't so and with White certainly not better, the play­
easy for White to attack on the kingside here: ers agreed a draw in Rogozenko-Nisipeanu,
1 2 lLlfg5 was the usual way to start, but then Romanian Team Ch. 2000.
1 2... h6! 1 3 l2Jh3 lZld3 was already good for
Black who, after the unconvincing 1 4 �xh6? C21 8 lt.Je5!?
gxh6 1 5 'ii'g4+ 'it>h7 16 f4 f5!, went on to
beat off the rather desperate attack.
9 . . . exd5 1 0 exd5 lt.Jb4

8 e4 may appear the natural follow-up to 7

l2Jc3, but it doesn't seem to cause Black too
many problems. Thus White players have

1 73
 Tan g o ! A D yn a mic A n s wer to 1 d4

realised that they must attempt to exploit lLle4 tt:lxe5 White's control of the open files
their superior development in a different gives him some compensation, but Black is
way, and this dangerous move prepares to probably better and certainly has time to be
quickly utilise the c6-square. able to castle.
8 .. . ltlxe5 9 dxe5 ltld7 b) 10 ... c5 has been the usual choice in
8 ltJe5!? doesn't refute our whole concept practice:
of transposing into the Catalan, but here b1) 1 1 'iVg4 b4!? 1 2 ltJe4 ltJxe5 1 3 �5
especially Black must know what he's doing. ltJg6 14 ltJxc5 'iVc7 15 �e3 ..ie7! saw White
Instead of this retreat, 9...'iVxd1 ? 1 0 l:txd1 regain the pawn after 1 6 l:tacl 0-0 1 7 l:txc4
liJd7 1 1 �c6 creates a rather strong pin, 'ii'a5 in Karner-Zelcic, Austrian Team Ch.
whilst a4 will open further lines. 2004, but the pin along the fifth and his
queenside pressure gave Black enough play
to hold the balance.
b2) 1 1 'iVf4!? 'iVc7 12 l:td1 l:lb6 1 3 a4! b4
1 4 liJb5 was rather unpleasant for Black in
Prakken-lppolito, Ubeda 2000. Thus Black
should probably bite the bullet here with
1 2...liJxe5!? when Raetsky and Chetverik
suggest 1 3 a4. Then their 1 3...a6 1 4 axb5
axb5 1 5 �c6+ 'iVxc6 1 6 'iVxe5 is indeed
rather awkward for Black - 1 6 ... 1:tb7 can be
well met by 1 7 �g5!. Thus Black should keep
the a-f.tle closed with the anti-positional
1 3 ... bxa4! after which he appears to have
1 0 .tee time to develop. White can recapture on a4
The main move, although our main line whenever he wants and will gain some useful
(Gleizerov-Werle) appears to be have put queenside pressure, but Black shouldn't be
some players off it, most notably Gleizerov worse. Instead 14 ..ic6+!? is more direct, but
himself who now prefers 6 'iVa4. Instead Black isn't without his resources here -
Raetsky's 1 0 'iVd4!? is becoming popular and 14 ... 'iVxc6 1 5 'iVxe5 l:tb7 1 6 l:lxa4 f61 1 7
certainly deserves further exploration. Then: 'iVhS+ g6 1 8 �4 � f7 leaves Black's king
a) 10 ... i.b7!? (Black usually tries to do fairly safe on f7 behind a wall of pawns,
without this, although it's far from clear that whilst Black has his own useful pressure
this natural move is bad) 1 1 l:td1 (Raetsky down the b-f.tle and potential threats on the
and Chetverik observe that although 1 1 light squares.
'iVxa7? regains the pawn, it costs the initia­ 10 ..if4!? has also been tried when at least
tive; certainly their 1 1 ...i.c5 12 'iVa5 �xg2 1 3 e5 won't drop off. Then 1 0 ... ..ib7 1 1 ..ixb7
�xg2 'iVc8! 14 £3 � 7 looks rather pleasant .:lxb7 12 'iVc2! (12 a4 c6 13 lLle4 ltJc5! began
for Black who is fine on the queenside, whilst some useful exchanges in M.lvanov­
e5 will become weak) 1 1 ...�xg2 12 �xg2 Cu.Hansen, Aars 1 995) 1 2.....ie7 13 l:tfd1 'iVc8
'ii'c8 13 a4! a6 1 4 axb5 axb5 1 5 £3 �e7 1 6 14 'iVe4 forced 14 ... c6 when White's control of
l:.a5 left White in control in Raetsky­ d6 gave him some compensation in Gleize­
Kelecevic, Silvaplana 1 997, but Black should rov-Rustemov, Bydgoszcz 2000. However,
continue more actively with 1 1 ...c5! 1 2 'iVf4 Black remains solid and can easily blockade
.lii.xg2 1 3 �xg2 'iVc7, which is a clear im­ any d6-passer, whilst hoping to press ahead on
provement. After 1 4 a4! a6! 1 5 axbS axbS 1 6 the queenside or even in the centre.

1 74
 Th e Fia n c h e t t o : C o un tering th e Ca tala n

1 o . . . a6 1 1 "ir'd4 some compensation for the piece, but not

really enough, and Black went on to win
1 5 . . .'�1'c6
Sensibly preventing 1 6 ll:le4.
1 6 f3
Sticking to his plan whereas m
Krasenkow-Se.Ivanov, Slupsk Open 1 992, 1 6
e4?! h5! 1 7 'il' £3 � e7 1 8 h4 g6 blocked the
kingside - now that White's knight cannot
easily exploit the resulting weakness - and
favoured Black. Then Ivanov was again able
to exploit his material advantage after 1 9
liJd5?! exd5 20 exd5 'ii'c8 2 1 .l:te1 0-0.
1 6 . . . f5!
1 1 . . . .tb7! Continuing to carry the fight to White.
Exchanging off White's strong light­ 1 6...h5 doesn't convince due to 1 7 'ii'g5 g6 1 8
squared bishop, whereas 1 1 ...1:lb6?! 1 2 'ii'e4 1i'h4! and then 1 9 ll:le4 (but not 1 8 ll:le4
.ic5 1 3 �xd7+! .ixd7 1 4 "ii'g4 forced Black, "ifxe4! 1 9 fxe4 .ie7) .
who lacked any real play, to compromise his 1 7 exf6 tLlxf6 1 8 'jfgS .te7!
kingside, leaving White better in Kaidanov­ Trying to seize the initiative. In general
Serper, Gausdal 1 99 1 . holding on to the pawn should not force
After 1 1 ...�b7 White must play actively Black to undertake a long and passive de­
whilst trying to hinder Black's development. fence, so long as he always counters actively.
Certainly Black was rather happy after 1 2 1 9 "ir'xg7 l:.gB 20 'l'h6 .l:l.g6 21 'i'h3 b4
�g5?! .ie7 1 3 �xe7 "ii'xe7 1 4 .ixd7+ 'ifxd7 This was rather unclear in Gleizerov­
1 5 'ifg4 "ii'c6! 1 6 f3 "ifcS+ 1 7 'iii>g2 "ifxe5 in Werle, Hoogeveen 2000, although after 22
Groenewold-Gidd.ins, Essent 2004. ll:lb1 .:f.d7 Black was rewarded for his fight­
1 2 .i.xb7 .l:l.xb7 1 3 .l:l.d1 ing play with the initiative and he went on to
White has also tried 1 3 1i'e4 but this is exploit his queenside majority.
rather slow and 1 3 ..."iWc8 1 4 .l:td1 c5 1 5 a3?! 4 g3 is an interesting approach, but ac­
b4! (it will cost White too much time to re­ cepting the Catalan pawn appears to give
deploy the knight) 1 6 lDb 1 i.e7 1 7 liJd2 c3 Black just as much fun as White. The 6 'ii'a4
1 8 bxc3 0-0! favoured Black due to his lines give him plenty of scope to respond
queenside initiative in Pros Heras-De Ia Ro­ actively, and he certainly appears to gain a
cha, Spanish Team Ch. 2001 . good game by winning the white queen after
1 3 ... c5 1 4 "ir'g4 "ir'c7 1 5 .i.f4 9 a3!?. The gambit lines with 6 0-0 are per­
Again this is the best way to defend d5 as haps more challenging in practice, for Black
1 5 f4?! "iWc61 makes it very tricky for White to must take care not to allow White too much
bring any more pieces to the kingside. Then control. However, he appears to have good
in Vasilchenko-Se.Ivanov, Russian Team Ch. chances due to his queenside counterplay
1 992, 1 6 e4 b4 forced White into 1 7 liJdS!? after 8 e4, and because of his counterplay
exd5 1 8 exd5 'ii'g6 19 "iW£3 h5! when he had against e5 after the dangerous 8 liJe5!?.

1 75
 CHAPTER NINE I
The Flexible King 's Indian:
Countering the Crafty 4 a3

1 d4 ltlf6 2 c4 ltlc6 3 ltlf3 e6 4 a3 Black intends to play in King's Indian style,

A critical test of the Tango; by preventing although with an important twist in that ...eS
...Ji.b4, White hopes to be able to develop will not be the prelude to a kingside attack.
without disruption with ltJc3 and then e4 or Indeed there arc no direct transpositions to
Ji.gS. 4 a3 may appear a little slow at ftrst any very theoretical King's Indian lines and so
sight, but it is well worth a tempo for Wbite White players should not feel too at home
if he can prevent Black from gaining his after S ...g6, even if they are used to facing the
usual active Tango counterplay. This varia­ King's Indian and especially to countering it
tion is especially common at grandmaster with the Classical or Fianchetto systems.
level, having even received Kasparov's stamp Black does have an important alternative to
of approval, whilst also gaining Khalifman's 4 ... d6 available in 4 ... d5. However, this does
nod in his Opening .for White according to Kram­ look rather like a Chigorin, and that's not the
nik series. best of openings, especially when the light­
However, worry not, 4 a3 does not refute squared bishop is trapped within the pawn
the Tango and Black can still gain good chain. Furthermore, White may well, in true
counterplay with 4 . . . d6! 5 ltlc3 g6, as has QGD minority attack style, want to play b4 at
been championed by Bologan. some point when a3 is far from useless. After
5 ltJc3, the creative s ...g6 simply looks too
risky, whilst S ...Ji.e7 6 �f4! (but not 6 i.gS h6
7 Ji.h4 ltJe4!, intending 8 i..xe7 ltJxe7! when
the knight has been effectively rerouted) also
grants White a pleasant edge. Probably S ...a6!?
is Black's best, although after 6 cxdS! exdS 7
i.gS i.e7 8 e3 h6 9 Ji.h4 0-0 10 i..d3 play has
reached an Exchange QGD in which the c6-
knight may well be a little misplaced and
White holds a small but clear ed1-,rc as in, for
example, Kasparov-Ycrmolinsky, Yerevan
Olympiad 1 996. 4 ... d5 ha s lost some of its
popularity in recent years, whilst it may be

1 76
 Th e Flexible King 's In dia n : C o un tering the Cra ft y 4 a 3

worth noting that Black has scored only 36% After 1 1 tLlxd4 exd4 1 2 i..xd4 tLlxe4
with 4 ... d5 on my database, as opposed to an 1 3 i..x g7 'it>xg7 14 tLlxe4 llxe4 Black en­
impressive 54% after 4 ... d6 S liJc3 g6. joys comfortable equality and indeed White
has often struggled from this position due to
The e-file X-ray Black's control of the e-ftle. Then 1 S llc1 ! ?
'ii'f6 1 6 'ii'c2 lieS 1 7 i..f3 .itS 1 8 'li'd2
llae8 consolidates the black position and
White must be careful that c4 doesn't be­
come fixed and weak in an ending. Ivanov
thus opted to play on the queenside, but even
after 1 9 cS hS! 20 cxd6 cxd6 21 llc7
ll8e7 22 llfc1 'li'gS! White couldn't exploit
his control of the c-flle and Bologan then
advanced further on the kingside, going on
to win the ending after forcing a favourable
queen exchange.

Utilising the black knights

Se .lvanov-Bologan
Chigorin Memorial, St Petersburg 1 996

Now 8 ... e5 would be a direct transposition

to a Classical King's Indian, but with one im­
portant difference in that White has gained the
useful move a3, which can but assist his
queenside play. Thus Black must be more
crafty, whilst exploiting his e-pawn's being on
e6 with 8 . . .l:!.e8!? when 9 dS can be met by
9 ...ltJe7 or by an immediate 9 . exd5, making
..

good use of the rook's being on e8. Instead 9

i..e3 is a natural developing move and White's
main choice but then 9 . . . e5 1 0 dS tLld4! Hahn-Bologan
reveals the main point of Black's 8th move. World Open 1 999

Black has immediately broken the pin

along the h4-d8 diagonal and here opened up
his own strong dark-squared bishop with
1 1 . . . tLlhS. Then d4 was vulnerable, but after
1 2 dS tLle7 the second knight was en route
to the kingside. 1 3 l:f.c 1 tLlg6 1 4 tLle 1 tLlhf4
1 S tLld3 tLlxe2 + ! saw Black exchange off
one of his very useful knights, but after 1 6
tLlxe2 e5 the other knight was \veil placed,
and 1 7 c5 f5 1 8 exf5 .ixf5 gave Black
good play and left White potentially weak on
the light squares.

1 77
 Tango ! A D yn a m ic A n s we r to 1 d4

Remaining flexible vealed after 1 4 . . .t'Lle 7! 1 5 t'Llb3 h6 1 6 i.d2

itJfdS 1 7 e4 lt:\b6.

Theory
1 d4 liltS 2 c4 lt:\c6 3 lt:\f3 e6 4 a3 d6 5
lt:\c3
White almost always plays this, although if
he wishes to choose a fianchetto set-up then
li'lc3 can be delayed for a couple of moves
after 5 g3.
5 . . . g6

Bonin-Benjamin
Saratoga 2000

Against a fianchetto set-up Black can con­

sider 8 ... e5, but once more 8 . . Jle8!7 is a
useful move, meeting 9 e4 with 9 . ..e5 1 0 d5
tt'ld4!. Thus Bonin tried a sensible waiting
move in 9 h3, but here Black isn't commit­
ted to ... e5. Instead Benjamin prepared to
play on the queenside in Panno style with
9 . . a6! 1 0 i.e3 l:b8.
. Now we will consider:

A: 6 i.g5
B: 6 g3
C: 6 d5!?
D : 6 e4

AI 6 i.g5
White has sometimes tried to develop his
dark-squared bishop, albeit without much
success. Instead 6 ..tf4 looks a little strange
for the bishop is a target for both ...e5 and
... tt'lh5, but it has been played by Avrukh.
However, after 6...i..g7 7 e3 0-0 8 i..e2
Now 1 1 d5 is often a strong answer to (Avrukh-Ramesh, Biel 2001) Black should
... tt'lc6 in the King's Indian, but here the e­ probably settle for 8 ...1i'e7 9 d5 exd5 10 cxd5
pawn is placed usefully on e6, not e7, and so tt'le5 with a reasonable position. There is no
1 1 ...tt'le7 is fine for Black when d5 may well need to fear an exchange of knights on e5 for
become weak. Instead 1 1 l:tc 1 i.d7 1 2 b4 then one option is ... ltJe8-d6, when the
b5 1 3 cxb5 axb5 1 4 lt:\d2 :;;aw White bring knight is well placed and . . fS a useful plan.
.

another piece to the queenside, but Black's 6 . . . h6!

knights also had good prospects as was re- Usefully driving the bishop backwards

1 78
 Th e Flexible King 's In dia n : C o un tering t h e Cra f t y 4 a 3

whereas 6...i.g7 7 lDe4! (capitalising o n the l2Jf4 0-0-0 was unbalanced, but Black en-
pin) 7 ...h6 8 i.xf6 i.xf6 9 lDxf6+ 'ifxf6 1 0 e4 joyed good chances to utilise his bishops.
eS 1 1 dS lDb8 (1 1 ...liJd4!? 1 2 lDxd4 exd4 1 3
i.d3 0-0 1 4 'iVd2 �g7 1 5 f4 also gives White B) 6 g3
an advantage) 1 2 'itcl ! l2Jd7 1 3 b4 favoured
White in Wang Yue-Deepan Chakkravarthy,
Heraklio 2002.
7 i.h4 g5!?
Chasing down White's dark-squared
bishop in true dynamic Tango style, although
7 ...�g7 is also possible when 8 e3 lDe7 (once
more making good use of the e7-square) 9
i.d3 liJfS 1 0 i.xf6 'ii'x f6 1 1 0-0 0-0 was
roughly balanced in Pecorelli Garcia­
Delgado, Varadero 2000. White will gain
space on the queenside, but Black is solid,
enjoys the two bishops and will aim to ex­
ploit his extra dark-squared bishop with ...cS. Declining a confrontation i n the main
8 i.g3 g4 9 ttlg1 ttlh5 1 0 e3 ttlxg3 1 1 lines, White simply develops and hopes to
hxg3 h5 gain a positional edge along the lines of the
Fianchetto King's Indian.
6 ... i.g7 7 i.g2 0-0 8 0-0
Standard, but 8 b4!? was tried in Jankovic­
Sulava, Croatian Team Ch. 2004. Now Black
could try to dissuade b5 with 8 ... a6, but in­
stead 8 ... d5!? intended to bring the knight to
aS or to fS, via e7, in the event of bS. After 9
c5 b6! 10 cxb6 (10 bS lDe7 1 1 c6 a6! breaks
up White's bind just in time) 1 0 ... axb6 1 1
�gS h6 1 2 �xf6 �xf6 1 3 0-0 �g7 1 4 e3
lDe7! (Black must break with ...cS to avoid
being clamped on the queenside) 1 5 bS c5 1 6
bxc6 lDxc6 1 7 'iVb 1 lDa5 1 8 lDd2 i.a6 Black
This gave Black a good position in Sa­ had : .his .fair share of the chances on the
.

shikiran-Bologan, Linares 1 999. Black's king­ queenside.

side shr.mldn't be too weak so long as he is B . . . l:e8!?
careful, and this looks like an improved Persisting with Black's main idea against 4
Nimzo. Already White's dark-squared bishop a3: now 9 e4 will be strongly countered by
has been gained, whilst Black's can quickly 9 ...e5 1 0 dS lDd4. Instead 8...e5 is also possi­
come to its optimum g7-square, rather than ble, transposing to a Fianchetto King's In­
being stuck out on b4. After 1 2 i.d3 i.g7 1 3 dian where the extra a3 is less useful for
l2Jge2 Bologan sensibly exploited his dark­ White than when he adopts a Classical set­
squared presence with 1 3...e5 when 14 dxeS up. That approach seems playable, although
lDxeS! (but not 14 ... dxe5?! 15 i.e4! when the White may well hold a small edge and readers
g7-bishop is blocked in, while White enjoys a should consult Janjgava's work on the open­
central grip) 1 5 'ii'c2 i.d7 1 6 0-0-0 'iVg5 1 7 ing for further details.

1 79
Tan g o ! A D yn a m ic A ns wer to 1 d4

9 .:le1 !? should probably wait with 1 0 ... ..id7!?, intend­

Persevering with playing e4, but hoping ing to play ... bS a Ia Benjamin, whilst 1 1 bS?!
that Black will now go 9 ...e5 when 1 0 dS lbaS! leaves White looking rather overex­
cannot be effectively answered by 10...lbd4 tended on the queenside, with 1 2 'ii'd 3 dS
as the white e-pawn is not on e4. However, just one idea.
in this still rather unexplored position, White d) Benjamin of course met 9 h3 with the
has also opted for a number of different set­ Panno style (the Panna being a good way to
ups: meet the Fianchetto King's Indian; namely 1
a) 9 e3 is rather solid and could be met by d4 lbf6 2 c4 g6 3 lbf3 ..tg7 4 g3 0-0 5 i.g2
9...a6!? and ... .!:[b8, but instead Black pre­ d6 6 0-0 lbc6 7 lbc3 a6!?) 9 ...a6 1 0 i.e3 l:tb8
ferred to prevent White from gaining too 1 1 .!:[cl ..td7 12 b4 bS! in Bonin-Benjamin,
much queenside space with 9 ...a5 1 0 ..td2 Saratoga 2000, which we considered above.
.!:[b8 1 1 .!:[cl b6 in Sorokin-Poluljahov, Nov­
gorod 1 999. Black remains quite flexible and
can even consider gaining counterplay with
...i.a6, ...lbe7 and ... cS. Instead Sorokin de­
cided that he must do something and after 1 2
d S lbe7 1 3 lbd4 ..ta6! 1 4 dxe6 ..txc4 1 5
ext7+ ..txt7 the position was unclear, but
with Black enjoying sufficient central control.
b) 9 e4 eS 1 0 dS lbd4! rather plays into
Black's hands as White must leave the knight
on d4 - 1 1 lbxd4? exd4 1 2 'ii'xd4 lbxe4!
gives Black a comfortable edge. However, 1 1
i.gS h6 1 2 i.d2 cS! (supporting the d4-
knight and not fearing an exchange of pawns 9 . . . a6
on c6 for then Black controls dS and can also Still hoping to play on the queenside, but
gain play on the queenside) 1 3 lbe1 a6 1 4 a4 Black can again exploit the e-pawn's not be­
..td7 1 5 lbc2 .!:[b8!? 1 6 lbe3! (1 6 aS bS 17 ing on e7 with 9 ... d5!?, also usefully here rul­
axb6 l:hb6 1 8 l:ta2 'ii'b8 gives Black a useful ing out 10 e4. This approach looks like a very
queenside initiative) 16 ... h5! (White's previ­ valid alternative and certainly 10 b3 (sensibly
ous move prepared to meet 1 6...b5 with ex­ maintaining his centre) 10 ...dxc4! 1 1 bxc4
changes when the knight could come to the lbg4 1 2 e3 eS, meeting 13 dS with 1 3...e4!,
strong c4-square, but now White isn't too brave Black good counterplay in Mauro­
active and so Black turns his attention to the Schrancz, correspondence 200 1 .
kingside for the time being) 1 7 f3 (17 f4?! 1 0 e4 e5!
exf4 1 8 gxf4 lt:Jg4! leaves White's centre White has decided that he cannot wait any
looking much more vulnerable than strong, longer with e4, but Black must still react in
whilst 1 9...lli'h4 has also become an idea) the centre-immediately as 1 O ... h6?! 1 1 h3! cS
1 7... i.h6 left Black better with possibilities 12 ..te3 exd4 13 lbxd4 just gave White a
on both flanks (...h4 and ...lbhS is one good typically pleasant g3 King's Indian edge in
way to increase the pressure) in Kretner­ Tregubov-Chevallier, French Team Ch. 2001.
Chernov, Lampertheimer 2002. 1 1 d5
c) 9 b4 is a logical way to exploit a3 and Now White has no time for 1 1 .i.e3 due
then 9...a6 10 ..tb2 was ·seen in Kiese­ to 1 1 ...lbg4, but he could try 1 1 dxeS!?. Then
Oorebeek, correspondence 1 999. Now Black Black should probably aim to exchange a pair

1 80
 Th e Flexible King 's In dia n : C o u n tering t h e Cra f t y 4 a 3

o f pieces with 1 1 ...lt:Jxe5!? (1 1 ...dxe5 1 2 i.g7 9 i.e2 0-0 1 0 0-0 exd5 1 1 cxd5 it:Je8! 1 2
ii'xd8 it:Jxd8 1 3 i.g5 c6 1 4 lt:Ja4! gives White i.e3 it:Jd6 1 3 l:tct a6 - preventing White
a bind on the position) 1 2 lt:Jxe5 dxe5 1 3 from exchanging knights and targeting c7 -
ii'xd8 l:txd8 1 4 i.g5 c 6 which seems playable 14 ...c2 i.d7 1 5 a4 f5 gave Black good coun­
for him. A dangerous it:Jd5 has been pre­ terplay in Guedon-Simmelink, correspon­
vented, while 1 5 lt:Ja4 and a queenside clamp dence 2001) 8...exdS 9 cxdS i.g7 1 0 i.g2 0-0
doesn't seem too dangerous here for after 1 1 0-0 lt:Je8 1 2 ii'b3 White enjoyed an edge
1 5...l:.b8 the active ...b5 is one possibility, in Vaingorten-Palliser, World Junior Ch.
whilst the c8-bishop can be developed to e6 2001 . Perhaps Black should now try 12 ... a6!?
when ...h6 and ...it:Jd7 is one idea. when 1 3 f4!? is one response, although the
11 . . . lt::ld4 1 2...it:Jd6 1 3 it:Jb5 f5 1 4 i.d2 .l:f.f7 1 5 !tact f4
Now 1 2 ... c5 is next up, whilst White of the game, intending 1 6...i.f8 and 1 7 ...g5,
doesn't seem to be able to exploit his extra wasn't too bad.
control of e4 with 1 2 it:Jxd4 exd4 1 3 lt:Je2 for 7 e4
then 1 3. .. lt:Jxe4 1 4 lt:Jxd4 ii'f6 is still quite With White committed to d5, the fi­
comfortable for Black, with ... a6 performing anchetto isn't a problem and after 7 g3
the useful duty of preventing it:Jb5. there's no need for ...l:.e8. Indeed 7 ...i.g7 8
i.g2 0-0 9 0-0 a6! prepared effective coun­
C) 6 d5!? terplay in Nakamura-Benen, World Open
2003 when 1 0 lt:Je1?! l:tb8 1 1 e4 cS! 1 2 f4 bS
13 e5 lt:Je8 14 i.e3 it:JfS left White's centre
rather over-extended, and Black went on to
score a notable upset.
7 . . . i.g7 8 i.e2 0-0 9 0-0
Again White should avoid being too ambi­
tious for after 9 dxe6?! fxe6 1 0 e5 Black can
gain good activity with the 1 O . . lt:Jh5 1 1 exd6
.

cxd6 12 'i'd3 dS! of Khurtsidze-Vlassov,

Ukraine 1 999.
9 . . .exd5 10 cxd5 c6!
White has prevented the e7-knight from
coming to fS and so Black must chip away at
A critical test of Black's set-up as White dS, hoping to gain the fS-square whilst leav­
attempts to show that Black's early moves ing dS weak after a pawn exchange there.
have been too ambitious. However, d5 is 1 1 dxc6 bxc6
rad1er c9mmittal and still allows Black to gain Keeping control of dS and even preparing
good counterplay. . .. dS depending on how White responds, but
6 .. . lt::le 7 instead 1 1 ...lt:Jxc6!? 12 i.g5 h6 1 3 i.h4 l:.e8
Preparing to gain counterplay against the 14 'i'd3?! g5 1 5 i.g3 lt:Jxe4! 16 lt:Jxe4 i.fS
d5-point, but Orlov's 6 ...lt:Je5!? also deserves worked out well for Black in Rupp­
attention. However, after 7 lt:Jxe5 (as Orlov Christiansen, Deizisau 2000. However, 1 2
observes, 7 lt:Jd4 c5! 8 dxc6 bxc6 9 e4 c5 i.f4! is much more critical when Black might
should give Black sufficient central play and well have to go 1 2...lt:Je8, for here he lacks a
control) 7 ... dxe5 8 g3! (Black wants to be fully convincing pawn sacrifice for activity.
breaking with ...lt:Je8-d6 and . f5, so a fi­
. . 1 2 'Mi'c2 d5! 1 3 lld1 tt:lxe4!
anchetto set-up seems sensible whereas 8 e4 Utilising the pin to equalise.

181
 Tan g o ! A D yn a m ic A ns wer to 1 d4

.i.d3 is rather ambitious. After 9 d5 tl:Je7

Black threatens 10 ... tl:Jg4 followed by ... fS,
whilst 10 h3 is well met by 10 ...ti:Jh5! .

01 I 7 ..td3 0-0 8 0-0 e5 9 d5 lLld4!?

Again Black can leap forwards here, trying
to avoid a King's Indian race scenario.
1 0 ltJxd4 exd4
Play has now transposed, bar the differ­
ence in the a-pawn's position, to the King's
Indian line 1 d4 ti:Jf6 2 c4 g6 3 ti:Jc3 .i.g7 4 e4
d6 5 .td3 0-0 6 tl:Jge2 ti:Jc6 7 0-0 e5 8 d5
llld4 9 lllxd4 exd4. However, here the inclu­
1 4 ltJxe4 �f5 1 5 ltJfg5 'ilc7 1 6 �d3 sion of a3 doesn't appear to help White: ll:lb5
dxe4 1 7 .be4 l:ab8 is now a much more risky choice with the
and Black's pressure against b2 fully com­ knight lacking a retreat square on a3, whilst
pensated for his split queenside in Dizdar­ when White does play b4 in the King's In­
Sulava, Pula 1 997. dian line, usually only after ... c5, he normally
does so only intending to exchange on c5.
D) 6 e4 1 1 ltJe2
1 1 tt:lb5!? is very ambitious and untried
here for the knight lacks a retreat square and
White doesn't really want to lose time with a4
just to have to retreat it to a3 in any case.
Then 1 1 ...tt:le8!? has been used by Tkachiev
to defeat Bareev (in the 5 .1d3 King's Indian
line) when White must fight not to retreat the
knight with the aggressive 12 .1c2 'ii'f6 1 3
f4!. However, then 13. . .c6!? (1 3. . .a 6 1 4 e5
dxe5 1 5 fxe5 'ii'h6 16 tt:lxd4 .1xe5 17 i.e3
'ii'd 6 is another possible option) 14 e5 dxe5
1 5 fxe5 'ii'xe5 16 .1f4 'ii'e7 doesn't seem at
all bad for Black, such as after 1 7 dxc6 bxc6
White's main choice which yes him tak­ 1 8 tt:lxd4 i.b7 when Black may well shortly
ing over the centre for the time being in true be able to exploit his superior bishops.
Classical King's Indian style. 1 1 . . .l:e8 1 2 f3
6 . ..tg7
.. Shoring up e4 after which White usually
and now White's main options are: intends to play on the queenside. However,
he can also try 1 2 'ii'c2 when 1 2...'ii'e7 looks
0 1 : 7 �d3 like a sensible reply, followed by 13 .. .'�Jd7 or
02: 7 h3!? 13 ...ti:Jh5 as in our main line. Instead 12 ...a5?!
03: 7 ..te2 13 .i.g5 h6 14 .i.d2 c5!? 1 5 dxc6! bxc6 1 6
lllxd4 'ii'b6 1 7 .i.c3 ti:Jd7 probably shouldn't
Instead 7 d5 transposes to 6 d5, whilst 7 have given Black quite enough compensation
.i.e3 0-0 8 .i.d3 e5 gives Black a good King's in Bunzmann-Bologan, Biel 1999.
Indian position as playing both .i.e3 and 1 2 . . . ltJd7

1 82
 Th e Flexible King 's In dia n : C o u n tering t h e Cra f t y 4 a 3

Improving the knight as the game enters a 1 5 ltJg3?! (preparing 1 6 f4, for 1 5 f4? runs
manoeuvring stage, although 12 ... ltJhS!? also into 1 5...ltJxd3 1 6 'fkxd3 rz.xe4! 1 7 'iixe4 �fS
merits attention when 13 g4! ltJf6 14 �gS and 1 8....ixb 1) 1 5...b5!, taking over the initia-
'Wd7 1 5 ltJg3 h6 1 6 .id2 'fke7 17 'Wet 'iti>h7 tive, is quite awkward.
1 8 b4 ltJd7 1 9 'ii'c2 ltJeS gave White a small 1 5 . . . dxc5
edge in a very unbalanced position in Knott­ Here Black has a good position (this was
Palliser, Southend 2002. reached in Yrjola-Rantanen, Finnish Team
Ch. 1 992 but with the pawn on a2): he has
ideas of ... fS or even ... bS, and enjoys some
useful central dark-squared control. White,
however, lacks a good plan and must again
beware advancing his f-pawn due to the tac­
tics down the b1 -h7 diagonal.

02) 7 h3!?

1 3 llb1 ! ?
This has been recommended with the
pawn on a2 whereas 1 3 .ic2 ltJeS! 1 4 ltJxd4
ltJxc4 1 5 �b3 ltJaS followed by ... cS appears
to give Black good counterplay thanks to his
strong g7-prelate. White could though also
play an immediate 1 3 b4 when now 1 3 ... a5
doesn't cause any serious problems after 1 4
�d2. However, Black should hold White up A crafty waiting move; White prepares to
on the queenside, whilst overprotecting d4, play .ie3 and then hopes to develop without
with 13 ... c5 when it's not clear that White has allowing Black to play an effective ... ltJd4.
a better plan than 14 bxcS. Then, however, Black can still gain counterplay, but in this
1 4...ltJxc5! is an active response when 1 5 �b2 line especially he must play both accurately
'figS 16 f4 transposes to Skembris-Banikas, and creatively. Bologan has faced this critical
Greek Ch. (Athens) 1 997 (except that the idea three times thus far and although the
pawn was on a2 there) when Skembris rec­ idea hasn't fully caught on yet - possibly
ommends 1 6...'fkh4!?, followed by 1 7 ... ltJxe4 if because play quickly becomes quite sharp,
allowed, as giving Black sufficient counterplay. whilst White must also know his theory - it
1 3 . . . c5 1 4 b4 li:le5! may well soon, especially having now been
Again Black can play actively, whereas recommended by Khalifman as his Tango
14 ... b6 1 5 f4 gave White an edge, albeit with antidote.
the pawn on a2, in Piskov-Nunn, Bundesliga 7 . . 0-0 8 .llg 5!?
.

1 992. A clever idea of the ever creative Stuart

1 5 bxc5 Conquest; by provoking ...h6 White hopes to
With his pawn on a3 White might well gain an improved version of the immediate 8
want to avoid this, but unfortunately for him .i.e3, although that remains quite playable.

1 83
 Ta n g o ! A D yn a mic A n s wer to 1 d4

Then Black should respond with 8...l:te8! 9 Black still enjoyed the initiative, whilst White
.i.d3! (sensibly overprotecting e4 whereas 9 was vulnerable on h3 and c4, and Bologan
went on to win a fine game.
i.e2 allows Black to equalise with 9 ... e5 1 0
d5 ltJd4! 1 1 ltJxd4 exd4 12 .i.xd4 ltJxe4 - 8 ... h6 9 i.e3
Bologan - whilst 9 e5!? dxe5 1 0 dxe5 ltJd7 1 1
i.g5 ltJe7 1 2 ltJe4 appears dangerous, but e5
is weak and 12...h6 13 i.f6 i.xf6! 14 exf6
ltJfS 1 5 c5 e5 1 6 i.c4 ltJd4 gave Black good
counterplay in Juergens-Ma.ier, Salzburg
2001) 9... ltJd7 (but not 9... e5? 1 0 d5 ltJd4 1 1
ltJxd4 exd4 1 2 i.xd4 when e4 is no longer en
prise) 1 0 i.e2!? (continuing to try and pre­
vent ...ltJd4, whereas 1 0 0-0 e5 1 1 .i.g5 f6 1 2
i.e3 exd4! 1 3 ltJxd4 ltJde5 14 lbxc6 bxc6 1 5
i.e2 f5 was unclear, but quite playable for
Black, in M.Walker-Palliser, Leeds 2001,
whilst 1 0 .i.c2 allows counterplay with
1 O ... ltJa5! 1 1 b3 a6 12 0-0 c5 - Bologan) 9 ... .:ea
1 0...e5 1 1 d5 ltJd4!. Bologan's choice, although the even more
creative 9 .. .'it>h8!? was seen in Wagner­
Sulava, French League 2004. Black intends to
gain counterplay along Hippo lines with
...ltJg8 and ... fS, whilst 1 0 g4!? ltJg8 1 1 g5 h5
1 2 i.e2 e5 1 3 d5 ltJd4! 1 4 ltJxd4 exd4 1 5
.i.xd4 'ii'xg5 continued to be rather unclear
in the game.
1 0 i.d3 lLld7 1 1 i.c2
Bologan doesn't appear to have be too
impressed by this choice of Conquest's
(which was also followed by Krasenkow)
against him. The most recent game in this
line saw 1 1 ltJe2!?, but 1 1 ...e5 1 2 d5 ltJd4! 1 3
An excellent sacrific�-tb--activate Black's ltJfxd4 exd4 1 4 .i.xd4 .i.xd4 1 5 lDxd4 ltJc5
remaining pieces. After 12 ltJxd4 exd4 1 3 worked out well for Black in Driessens­
.i.xd4 i.xd4 14 'ii'xd4 ltJc5, e4 and b 3 were S.Ernst, Dutch Ch. 2004. Now 1 6 "ii'c2 "ii'f6
both weak in Sadler-Bologan, Enghien les gives Black lots of play, but after 1 6 0-0
Bains 1 999. White also lacked sufficient time ltJxe4 17 .i.xe4 l:txe4 1 8 l:te 1 l:txe 1+ 1 9
to consolidate, although after 1 5 %lei 1 'iVg5! 'ii'xe 1 .i.d7 20 'iVd2 "ii'f6! he was solid and
Black still had to continue to play actively. had equalis� in the game.
The game continued 1 6 .i.£3 f5 17 0-0 when Bologan has suggested that White should
Sadler had managed to casde, but then
17 .. .f4! retained sufficient compensation. game wi � !i�t
instead play al��_g . the lines of his Sadler
� en he feels that
1 1 ...ltJb6 1sY play?, Bttr with c4 de-
Black's control of and use of the e5-square
may well even outweigh the .extra e4-pawn as fended here that White keeps an edge. In­
White lacks counterplay, and after 1 8 �h2 stead Black could also try 1 1 ... f5!? (1 1 ...e5?!
ltJd7 1 9 i.g4 t'i:le5 20 i.xc8 £3! 21 g3 .!:taxeS 12 dS t'i:ld4 13 t'i:lxd4 cxd4 14 i.xd4 i.xd4 1 5

1 84
 Th e Flexible Kin g 's I n dia n : C o u n tering t h e Cra f t y 4 a 3

'iVxd4 ltJc5 is almost the same as Sadler­ ..txg7 <tixg7 1 9 dxe5 ltJxe5 the position is
Bologan, but here W'h.ite has the annoying 1 6 about equal as, although W'h.ite is a pawn up,
'iVe3! - Bologan - hitting the weak h6-pawn his a-pawns are rather weak.
whilst avoiding 1 6...ltJb3) 1 2 0-0 fxe4 (or the 1 4 . . . axb3 1 5 .ixb3 ll::!a 5 1 6 �xg7 �xg7
more ambitious 1 2...e5!? when 1 3 exf5 gxf5 1 7 'iVa2
1 4 dxe5 ltJdxe5 1 5 ltJxe5 :txe5 1 6 ifd2 -
Orlov - may also be playable, although
W'h.ite certainly enjoys a pleasant edge here)
1 3 ltJxe4 e5 1 4 d5 ltJe7 1 5 b4 ltJf5 when
\X'h.ite controls e4, but ... ltJf6 will help Black
to challenge that, whilst the f5-knight gives
him some counterplay. Even so, W'h.ite may
well retain slightly the better chances here.
1 1 ..te2 is thus a critical test and deserves
further analysis and testing. Tango players
should though be happy to fight with 1 1 ...f5
12 0-0 fxe4, but some may also prefer to still
continue with 1 1 ...ltJb6 a Ia Bologan.
1 1 . . . ll::!b 6! Khalifman has rather optimistically as­
Unable to hop a knight into d4, Black in­ sessed this position as 'a clear advantage to
stead realises that it must be on the queenside W'h.ite', but after
that he will gain his counterplay. 1 7 . . . e5!
1 2 b3 a5 1 3 'iVd2 Black appears to gain good counterplay
and objectively W'h.ite doesn't hold any more
than a small edge at best.

1 3 . . . a4!
1 3 .. .'ith7 14 h4! (Khalifman) begins a
strong attack and so Black should ignore h6 1 8 dxe5!
and continue quickly on the queenside. Refusing to fully block the bishop in,
1 4 �xh6 whilst 18 d5 can also be met strongly by
The best way to accept another fine pawn 18 ... :th8! when 19 0-0? is ruled out due to
sacrifice from Bologan as 1 4 ltJxa4?! ltJxa4 19 ... 'iVf6 20 ltJh2 �xh3! 21 gxh3 .:f.xh3 (Eo-
1 5 bxa4 t.Da5 1 6 ..txh6 ltJxc4 1 7 'iVc1 e5! logan) with a winning attack.
(Bologan) gives Black good compensation. 1 8 . . . dxe5 19 tt:\d5
W'h.ite can now force exchanges, but after 1 8 Krasenkow's choice, although amazingly

1 85
 Tan g o ! A D yn a mic A n s wer to 7 d4

this had all been seen before in Conquest­

Bologan, European Ch. 2001. That had con­ C31 7 ..te2
tinued 19 cS!? (ensuring that the bishop
won't be rendered useless on b3) 1 9 ...ltlxb3
20 �xb3 ltld7 21 �4 c6!, intending to
round up the cS-pawn after 22 ... �a5, but
Conquest's 22 ltld2 ltlb8! 23 �2 ltla6 24
ltla4 �aS didn't really reduce Black's initia­
tive; 2S ...l:r.d8-d4 was threatened when the c­
pawn should drop off, leaving Black better.
Interestingly in their next Tango encounter
(Warsaw 2004), even the very creative Con­
quest avoided the critical 7 h3!? in favour of a
quieter life with 6 g3.
19 . . . c6!
Following Black's pawn sacrifice White The sharp positions arising from 7 h3!?
often struggles to find time to effectively aren't to everyone's taste and this classical
castle, but after 19 ... ltld7?! 20 .i.c2 b6 his developing move remains White's most
king isn't so badly placed on e1, and then 21 popular choice.
h4! left Black struggling in Krasenkow­ 7 . . 0-0 8 0-0
.

Bologan, Shanghai 2001 . Bologan's 19th Probably best as 8 dS ltleS 9 ltlxeS trans­
move was though a little slow as rerouting poses to 6 dS ltleS but with White commit­
the knight to cS takes too long; hence his ted to a classical set-up, and after 9 ... dxe5 the
simple suggested improvement of 19 ... c6. plan of ... ltle8-d6 followed by . . fS should
.

give Black good play. However, instead 9

ltld4!? cS! 1 0 dxc6 ltlxc6 leaves Black threat­
ening to equalise with 1 1 ...d5, whilst 1 1
ltldbS ltle8! doesn't lead anywhere for White
as then 1 2 i.f4? eS! (Orlov) wins a piece as
the bS-knight is trapped.
8 . . .l:l.e8!? 9 i.e3
Simply developing, but some White play­
ers have preferred not to allow Black to get
in his intended 9 ... e5 10 dS ltld4, which is
also a good counter to 9 l:r.e 1 as well as to 9
i.e3. �te has thus tried a wide range of
alternatives:
Now Bologan's analysis runs 20 ltlxb6 (he a) 9 dS!? is similar to 6 dS and was tried by
also mentions 20 ltle3 �d3! 21 ltld2 l:td8 22 Miles, when 9... exd5 aims to make use of
l:tb1 .i.e6 when Black has excellent compen­ Black's having played ...l:l.e8. However,
sation as White is very tied down, whilst a3 9 ...ltlb8, bringing the knight to cS or eS, has
and c4 remain weak) 20 ...�xb6 21 i.c2!? (or also done quite reasonably in practice, whilst
21 l:r.b1 �cS! regaining the pawn) 21...�c5 9 ...ltle7 is also possible when 10 �c2 exdS
22 ..i.d3 .i.e6 when Black will win back the c­ 1 1 cxdS c6! 12 dxc6 bxc6 13 l:tdl dS! saw
pawn as 23 ... b5 can follow if necessary, leav­ Black refusing to allow White to target d6 in
ing a3 weak and Black a little better. Shulman-Berezjuk, Ostrava 1 998. Getting

1 86
 Th e Flexible Kin g 's In dia n : C o u n tering the Cra f t y 4 a 3

back to 9...exd5, White can play: when Black doesn't mind 14 l2Jxc6 bxc6 as
that increases his central control, whilst 1 4 f4
ltJxd4! 1 5 ..txd4 ltJc6 1 6 ..te3 f5 also seems
fine for him.
d) 9 'it'c2 e5 10 .l:td1 ?! isn't a particularly
convincing way of maintaining the central
tension and then 1 o ... exd4! 1 1 ltJxd4 ltJxd4
12 l:xd4 ltJg4 1 3 .l:d1 �4 14 ..txg4 .ixg4
1 5 £3 .ie6 already slightly favoured Black due
to his strong bishop pair in J.Ferguson­
Orlov, Vancouver 2001 .
e) 9 .ig5!? threatens the rather brutal 1 0
eS, but Black can gain good counterplay by
responding in kind with the aggressive 9 ... h6
a1) 1 0 exd5 removes the target on e4 but 10 .ih4 gS 1 1 .ig3 ltJh5! 12 d5 ltJe7
still leaves the e8-rook well placed when
1 0... ltJe7!? 1 1 ltJd4 ltJ£5 1 2 ltJxfS .ix£5 was
very comfortable for Black in Zugic­
Rozentalis, Montreal 2001. After 1 3 .ie3, as
well as Rozentalis's dynamic 1 3....l:txe3!? 1 4
fxe3 'it'e7, simply 1 3.. .ltJe4 1 4 ltJxe4 .ixe4 1 5
'lib3 b 6 followed b y 1 6...1Wf6 would have left
Black at least egual.
a2) 1 0 cxdS!? ltJe5 1 1 ltJxeS .l:txeS 1 2 ..tf4
(1 2 £3!? was tried in Cebalo-Quinn, Genoa
1 998 when Black should probably still open
up the g7-bishop whilst improving the knight
with 1 2 ... ltJd7!?) 12 ...l:e8 1 3 'ii'c2 a6! (wisely
preventing an annoying ltJbS and thus allow­ and now:
ing alack to strongly re-group with ...ltJd7) e 1) 1 3 dxe6 .ixe6 1 4 ltJd4 ltJxg3 1 5 hxg3
1 4 .l:tfe1 ltJd7 1 5 ..tf1 ltJe5 1 6 'ii'd2 i.d7 was .id7! (not just preserving the bishop but also
about egual in Baburin-Orlov, Seattle 1 997, preparing to exploit the undefended d4-
although after 17 .ig5?! Black was able to knight) 1 6 f4?! gxf4 1 7 gxf4 ltJc6 1 8 lbxc6
seize the initiative with some typically ener­ .ixc6 when White's centre was in some
getic Tango play after 1 7 .. .f6 1 8 .ih4 g5! 1 9 trouble in C.Collins-Simmelink, correspon­
.ig3 £5. dence 2000.
b) 9 h3 can still be met by 9...e5 1 0 dS e2) 1 3 ltJd4 ltJxg3 1 4 fxg3 (Sidenko­
ltJd4 when 1 1 .id3 c5! 12 b4 b6 13 l:e1 Simmelink, correspondence 2000) when, as
ltJh5 gave Black sufficient activity and poten­ well as the game's 1 4 ... l2Jg6 bringing the
tial kingside play in Epishin-Quinn, Schwar­ knight to eS, 1 4...c5!? deserves attention.
zach 1 998. e3) 1 3 l:tcl ltJg6 1 4 l2Je1 l2Jhf4 and
c) 9 ..tf4 has twice been played abrainst Black's powerful knights give him a ,good
Simmelink and intends to meet 9...'it'e7 with game, as we've seen, in Hahn-Bologan,
1 0 e5!?. However, instead 9 .. .'!iJd7!? should World Open 1 999.
give Black counterplay, such as after 1 0 'li'd2 Returning to 9 �e3:
e5 1 1 i.g5 f6 1 2 .i.e3 exd4! 1 3 l2Jxd4 l2Jde5 9 . e5
. .

187
 Ta n g o ! A D yn a m ic A n s wer to 1 d4

attacking chances, in Van der Sterren­

Gelfand, Biel 1 993.
1 1 cS!? has also been tried without the a­
pawn being moved when 1 1 ...i.g4!, fighting
for control of the key d4-square, is a good
counter. Then 1 2 .i.bS (here 12 b4 does ex­
ploit the a3-pawn, but then 1 2...l'Lld4! should
be fine for Black) 12 ... t'Llh5!? 13 h3 (or 1 3
t'LldS .l:e6! 1 4 h 3 i.xf3 1 5 'if'xf3 ctJd4 which
gave Black active counterplay - albeit with
the pawn on a2 - in Belov-Vepkhvishvili,
Stare Mesto 1 992) 13 ... 'if'xd1 14 .!:fxd 1 .i.xf3
1 5 gxf3 l'Llf4 16 �h2 .!:ed8 is unclear, but
Now play is very similar to the Classical Black is quite happy here for a knight may
King's Indian line 1 d4 l'Llf6 2 c4 g6 3 l'Llc3 well reach d4. Furthermore, White may well
.i.g7 4 e4 d6 S t'Llf3 0-0 6 .i.e2 eS 7 0-0 l'Llc6 not want to capture either black knight; tak­
8 i.e3 l:le8 which isn't too popular for White ing on f4 opens up a monster prelate, whilst
these days. Black is very solid whilst, unlike if exchanging on c6 ends any hopes of White's
Black had chosen 8...e5?!, the extra move a3 using the important ciS-square.
shouldn't be particularly useful. Now we will 1 1 . . .lbxd8!
consider: This is the simplest and probably also the
best recapture. Now ... c6 will cover dS, whilst
C21 : 1 0 dxe5 Black hopes to bring the d8-knight to d4 and
C22: 1 0 d5 so White cannot respond too slowly.

10 dxeS is White's main choice with the

pawn on a2 but, perhaps a little surprisingly,
1 0 dS is how players tend to continue in the
Tango. Possibly they just don't want to ex­
change queens, although few White- players
probably know the equivalent King's Indian
line too well.

C21 ) 1 0 dxe5
The positional approach; White hopes to
extinguish any Black aspirations of activity
(although once again this isn't fully possible
in the Tango) and to play on the queenside. 1 2 lDb5!
1O . . . dxe5 1 1 if'xdB Trying to exploit his better development
The only move tried thus far in this exact to target a7 and c7, whereas 1 2 l'LldS!? l'Lle6
position, although with the pawn back on a2 13 t'LlgS l'LlxdS! 14 cxdS t'Lld4 1 5 .i.xd4 exd4
1 1 h3!? has also been seen when 1 1 ... i.e6 12 16 i.d3 i.d7 17 f4 c6! gave Black enough
cS t'LlhS! (quickly gaining counterplay on the play in Kalesis-Kotrotsos, Kalithea 2002.
kingside) 1 3 t'LlgS l'Llf4 14 l'Llxe6 t'Dxe6 1 5 1 2 . . . �e6 1 3 �g5 .l:e7
.i.bS l:tf8 1 6 i.xc6 bxc6 1 7 'it'a4 'il'e8! 1 8 This is essential as 1 3 .. t'Dxg5? is just a trap
.

l:lad 1 fS was unclear, but Black enjoyed good which badly backfires. 14 0.xc7? t'De6 is

1 88
 Th e Flexible King 's In dia n : C o u n tering th e Cra f t y 4 a 3

clearly good for Black, but instead 1 4 ..txgS! (Bologan) and Black has good compensa­
.l:!:e7 1 5 .l:!:ad1 h6 (or 1 S ... ..te6 1 6 f4!) 1 6 tion due to his superior minor pieces and
l:.d8+ 'ith7 1 7 ..txf6 ..txf6 1 8 ..tg4! was passed d-pawn, whilst White is rather pas­
crushing in Portisch-Xie Jun, Roquebrune sive.
1 998 (with the pawn's being on a2 making no
difference at all). C22) 1 0 d5 4.:Jd4!
1 4 l::tfd 1
White's usual move, whereas 1 4 lt:Jxa7
lt:Jf4! 1 5 ..txf4 exf4 1 6 lt:Jxc8 l:txc8 1 7 f3
lt:Jd7 gives Black excellent compensation due
to his superb dark-square control.
1 4 . . . c6!?
A reasonable attempt to sharpen the
struggle, although the solid and more com­
mon 14 ... b6 is also absolutely fine for Black.
However, he should avoid the 1 4 ... lt:Jxg5?! 1 5
..txgS ..te6 of Sammalvuo-Bologan, Elista
Olympiad 1 998 when 1 6 f4! (Bologan) would
have been quite dangerous.
1 5 4.:Jxa7 1 1 l::te 1 ! ?
Accepting the challenge, but 1 5 lt:Jxe6 Refusing to allow Black easy equality,
i.xe6 1 6 lt:Jc3 l:td7 is also possible, although White still hopes to exploit a3 by pressing
(with the a-pawn back on a2) this was abso­ ahead on the queenside. Instead Black has
lutely fine for Black in Reshevsky-Fischer, scored well after 1 1 lt:Jxd4 exd4 1 2 ..txd4
New York/Los Angeles 1 96 1 . lt:Jxe4 1 3 ..txg7 rl;xg7 despite the early sim­
1 5 . . .4.:Jd4! ? plifications. Then 1 4 lt:Jxe4 (or 14 'i'd4+ 'i'f6
1 5 'iixf6+ 'it.'xf6 1 6 ltJbS l:.e7 1 7 l:.fe1 a6 1 8
lt:Jd4 ..tf5! 1 9 ltJxfS gxfS 20 i.d3 l:.ae8 21
l:tad1 h6 22 i.f1 lt:Jc5 and Black's more ac­
tive king and superior minor piece helped
him to victory in Ku7.ubov-Gupta, Kuala
Lumpur 2002) 1 4 .. Jhe4 1 5 i.d3 (instead 1 5
l:tct 'i'f6 1 6 'ir'c2 l:teS 1 7 i.f3 i.fS didn't
lead anywhere for White, as we've seen, in
Se.Ivanov-Bologan, St Petersburg 1 996,
whilst 15 f3 should probably be met by
1 5...l:te8) 1 5...l:te8 16 'iib3 (Black doesn't
mind having to advance his b-pawn for that
will fix the c-pawn on the same colour as the
Again Black is strong on the dark squares bishops and so White should probably prefer
and so doesn't fear exchanges, although in 1 6 l:te1 !? l:txel+ 1 7 'li'xe1 i.d7 1 8 �4 aS!?
the pure King's Indian position Fischer sug­ 19 'i'd2 'i'f6 20 l:te1 which was enough for
gested 1 5 .....td7 1 6 lt:Jxe6 ..txc6 17 f3 l:.d7!, equality in Chovanec-Simmclink, correspon­
intending 18 ...l:td4, which is a reasonable dence 2000) 1 6...b6 1 7 l:.fe1 ..td7 1 8 'i'c3+?!
alternative here. 'ii'f6 1 9 'i'xf6+ 'it>xf6 20 f4 ..tf5! (again trying
1 6 �xd4 exd4 1 7 tt:lxc8 .l:l.xc8 1 8 f3 tt:ld7 to exploit his active king) 21 ..tfl h6 22 'it>f2

1 89
 Ta n g o ! A D yn a m ic A ns we r to 1 d4

gS! gave Black the edge, and indeed he went 1 4 llc2 f5 1 5 f3 fxe4 1 6 lt:\xe4
on to eventually win once more, in Popov­
Bologan, Russian Team Ch. 2001.
1 1 . . . lt:\xe2+
Best; Black gains nothing by waiting and
indeed 1 1 ...i.d7?! 12 h3 aS 1 3 i.fl! ltJx£3+
1 4 'ii'x f3 cS 1 5 dxc6 bxc6 1 6 l:tad1 was rather
pleasant for White in Summerscale-Palliser,
British Ch. 2001.
1 2 llxe2
The rook is quite flexible on the second,
although 1 2 'ii'xe2 has also been seen when
1 2 ...ltJg4 1 3 i.gS f6 1 4 i.d2 fS! gave Black
good counterplay in Bennborn-Tarascio,
correspondence 2001. After 1 5 i.gS Black The position at move 1 5 was assessed as
could have considered 1 5 ...i.f6!?. slightly better for White in NCO, but it's only
really here that Black erred in L.Portisch­
Wilhelmi, Frankfurt (rapid) 1 997 when
1 6 ... b6?! 1 7 ltJd3 i.h6 1 8 'iti>h 1 left White in
control. Instead Black must challenge for
control of e4 with 1 6 ... i.f5!, exploiting the
fact that the knight is pinned: 1 7 'ii'd2 (in­
stead 1 7 cS? is too ambitious, 1 7 ...dxcS! 1 8
.l:.xcS b6 collecting the dS-pawn, whilst 1 7
ltJd3 i.xe4 1 8 fxe4 'iWh4 should also give
Black sufficient counterplay on the kingside)
1 7 ... i.xe4 1 8 fxe4 'iWh4! 1 9 ltJf3 'ii'g4 20 l:tf1
.l:.£8 and, with 21 ...i.h6 next up, Black ap­
pears to have sufficient play down the f-ftle
1 2 . . .lt:'!h5 1 3 lt:'!e1 lt:'!f4! ? and on the kingside to maintain the balance.
Ths whole line with 11 l:te1 !? was en­ 4 a3, like the ltJc3 and h4 lines, forces
dorsed in NCO, but Black doesn't have to Black to respond actively and well in the early
bring his knight immediately to f4. Instead stages of the game. Black does though appear
Bologan and Orlov's 1 3. .. £5! is a natural im­ to be able to generate sufficient activity as,
provement when their 14 f3 f4 1 5 i.f2 gS 1 6 for example, Bologan has demonstrated
cS g4 gives Black a good version o f the King's against 7 h3!?. That is not only White's
Indian. White cannot allow the pawn to g3, sharpest option, but probably also his best
but after 1 7 fxg4 i.xg4 Black's kingside play and so Black players should have it covered.
still appears more dangerous than White's on However, elsewhere in this chapter Black
the other flank. Instead 14 ex£5 i..x£5!? also hasn't had too tough a ride and it's remark­
looks fine for Black; White is again missing his able how many players still respond classi­
light-squared bishop, whilst he doesn't enjoy a cally with 6 e4, 7 i.e2 and 8 0-0, allowing
dominating knight on e4 and must in fact be Black to 1,rain a comfortable position after
careful, with 1 5 ttJd3? 'iWh4! leaving Black very 8...l:te8!
.

active and c4 dropping off.

190
 INDEX OF VARIA TIONS I

1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 lLlc6 and now:

A: 3 lLlf3
B: 3 lLlc3
C: others

A) 3 lLlf3

3 . . . e6 4 lLlc3
4 e3 82
4 �g5 86
4 d5 89
4 . . . .tb4
5 e3 92
5 g3 97
5 a3 100
5 �g5 h6 6 �h4 (6 others 101) 6 ...g5 7 �g3 tt:le4 8 'ii'c2 101 (8 'ii'd3 104; 8 l:tct 106)
5 'i'c2 d6 6 .td2
6 i.g5 129
6 . . 0-0 7 a3 .txc3 8 .txc3
.

8 .'it'e7 9 e3 (9 b4 1 15; 9 g3 1 17; 9 e4 1 19) 9 . .a5 14 1 (9 ... e5 142)

.. .

8 ... .:.e8 9 e3 125 (9 others 124; 9 l:tdl 127)

6 a3 .txc3+ 7 �xc3
7...a5 8 b3 (8 others 1 H) 8 ... 0-0 9 �b2 137 (9 others 137; 9 g3 14 1)
7...0-0 8 b4 (8 others 143; 8 �g5 144) 8..e5 9 dxe5 tt:lxe5 149 (9 ... dxe5 146; 9 . tt:le4 147)
. .

4 g3 d5 5 .tg2
5 others 160
5 . . . dxc4
6 'il'a4 �b4+ 7 �d2 tLldS 8 �xb4 (8 ifbs 162) 8. ..tLlxb4 9 0-0 164 (9 lbe5 163, 9 a3 166)

191
 Ta ng o ! A D yn a m ic A n s we r to 1 d4

6 0-0 1:lb8 7 ti::lc3 (1 others 169, 7 e3 170) 7 b5 8 ti::leS 1 73 (8 e4 11:!)

...

4 a3 d6 5 e4 g6 6 e4
6 i.gS 1 78
6 g3 179
6 dS 181
6 . . . i.. g7 7 i.e2
7 h3 183
7 i..d3 182
1 . o-o a o-o :ea
. .

9 i.gS 187
9 dS 186
9 i..e3 e5 10 d5 189 (1 0 dxeS 188)

B) 3 lLlc3

3 . . . e5 4 d5
4 others 76
4 ti::l f3 76
4 . . . lLle7 5 e4
5 i..gs 23
5 ti::l £3 tt::lg6 6 h4 46 (6 g3 36; 6 a3 20)
5 g3 tt::lg6 6 h4 42 (6 i.g2 31)
5 h4 tt::leg8 6 ti::l f3 50 (6 a3 5Z)
5 . . . lLlg6 6 i.e3
6 h4 43
6 g3 34
6 tLlf3 16
6 i..d3 17
6 . . ..ib4 7 f 3 28
7 i.d3 26

C) 3 others

3 d5
3 g3 72
3 . . . lLle5 4 e4
4 ti::lc3 57
4 'ii'c2 60
4 'iVd4 62
4 . . . e6 5 f4 lLlg6 6 .id3 67
6 e5 70

1 92