Christian Bauer the Phllidor files EVERYMAN CHESS Gloucester

Publishers pic www.everymanchess.com

First published in 2006 by Gloucester Publishers pic (formerly Everyman

Publishers pic), Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V
OAT Copyright © 2006 Christian Bauer The right of Christian Bauer 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
4361 1SBN13: 978 1 85744 4360 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 licence from Random
House Inc. EVERYMAN CHESS SERIES (formerly Cadogan Chess) Chief
advisor: Byron Jacobs Commissioning editor: John Emms Assistant editor:
Richard Palliser 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 y 'if | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Introduction Part 1:1 e4 e5 2

£>f 3 d6 Early Deviations 3 d4 exd4: Introduction and Larsen's Variation
Antoshin's Variation: Introduction Antoshin's Variation: 6 Af4 Part2:le4d6
2d4^f6 Early Deviations and 3 f3 3£d3 3 £>c3 e5 3 £>c3 £>bd7:
Introduction and 4 f4 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 g4 Part 3: The Philidor Hanham
Variation (1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £tc3 £>bd7 4 £>f 3 e5) Introduction and 5 g4
5 £.c4: Introduction and £.xf7+ Lines Main Line: 7 We2 and 7 a4 Main
Line: 8 Bel without 8...b6 Main Line: 8 flel b6 5 10 44 83 109 132 147 164
175 197 207 218 232 247 280 Final Thoughts Index of Variations 299 301
Introduction zmmmmm mm ±i± m Jk^M-jm IB, m fm— , In the 18th
Century, chess strategy was at its very beginning. Direct attacks against the
enemy king were common and romantic players didn't care about material,
particularly about little pawns. The Italian school, whose most famous
names are Ponziani and Lolli, excelled in this ultra-sharp style. At that time,
the young Andre Danican, known as Philidor, regularly played chess at the
Cafe de la Regence, building his reputation around Paris. He soon became
an established figure worldwide and, when around 1750 he exposed his new
ideas, he provoked a real chess revolution. The proverb we remember from
him, 'Pawns are the soul of chess', reflects exactly his way of thinking:
never neglect the positioning of the infantrymen and never sacrifice them
rashly. In other words, a game can be valued on the basis of the pawn
structure, and if this is unhealthy, the whole position can suffer. We can
recognize Philidor's principles in the defence named after him. At first sight
this opening looks passive, but in fact it's very flexible and it can offer
several different pawn structures. Unlike openings such as the Petroff, the
Caro-Kann or the Scandinavian, the pawn structure is not set in stone from
the beginning; it's potentially changeable. Therefore, it's important to study
carefully these different structures which influence the rest of the game. The
Philidor Defence has a extensive history, but for a long time it fell into a
period of obsolescence, supplanted by the numerous lines of the Spanish
Opening which, in theory, promise more chances for Black to level the
game. Nevertheless, it is a solid opening rich in ideas. Maybe this is the
reason why the Philidor has enjoyed a revival in recent years, being used
notably by great names such as Azmaiparashvili, Beliavsky, Nisipeanu and
Hamdouchi - the final Grandmaster even reaching a winning position
against Shirov! 5

The Philidor Files A Question of Move Order If the Philidor is making a

comeback, one of the reasons for this is the move order Black is employing.
Indeed, the move order 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 (or 3...e5) has
taken over little by little from the classical 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 £>f6 (or
3...£>d7), which posed Black some problems. So the main variations that
worried Black have disappeared, even if this has meant mastering new ones.
I invite you to discover and to explore the particularities of the different
move orders, as well as, of course, the main lines of this opening. Frequent
Pawn Structures Here's a brief summary of the characteristic pawn
structures arising in the Philidor Defence. Apart from structures 'A' and 'B',
this is mainly related to Part 3 of the book. A) Symmetrical or quasi-
symmetrical This structure appears almost exclusively from the variation 1
e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 £>f6. It is of course equal if the black c-pawn is still
on its original square, but in the event of the common ...c6, the d6-square is
weakened. The superior activity of the white pieces is often a major concern
for Black. B) Structure after a pawn exchange on This structure occurs
throughout the book. Black achieves counterplay by attacking the e4-pawn,
while the b-, c- and d-pawns are mobile. This is true both in the event of
opposite-side castling (as in the main line of the Larsen Variation, Chapter
2) and both sides castling short. The ...d5 push, or even the pseudo-
combination ...£>f6xe4; £>c3xe4, ...d5, forking the knight on e4 and bishop
on c4, sometimes allows Black to equalize in the centre. The dynamism of
the pieces, as with structure 'A', will then decide whether White stands
better or not. White's attacking prospects are often based on £>d4-f5, #dl-f3
etc. if both sides have castled short. This same £>f5 6

Introduction is a thematic way to open the g-file if White has castled long in
the Larsen Variation. C) Sicilian structure arising from the main line of the
Philidor Hanham, when White plays d4-d5 and the d-pawn is exchanged for
Black's c-pawn. This structure means a weak pawn on d6 for Black, but
counterplay linked with the c-file and the possibility of ...f5. The e4-pawn is
also a target, and protecting it often slows White down in his quest for his
strategical goal, the exploitation of the d5 outpost. 0) Structure arising from
the previous example after a further exchange of one or two minor pieces
on d5, with White recapturing with the e-pawn. (see following diagram)
This structure favours Black: the weakness on d6 is masked, and Black's
play on the kingside (with ...f5) is normally faster than White's on the other
wing. E) Closed structure after d5 and ...c5- White has an outpost on c4 and
tries to open lines on the queenside by arranging the advance b2-b4.
Possibilities of Black counterplay exist with the plan ...£le8, ...g6 and ...f5
(but not ...f5 directly since White would then gain e4 for his knight after
exf5) or, more rarely, on the queenside with ...£>f6-e8-c7 (and/or ...fla8-b8)
followed by ...b5. F) Structure after dxeS, ...dxeS. This structure offers
equal chances unless something concrete is happening. In some cases Black
may seize the 7
The Philidor Files initiative on the queenside thanks to his mobile pawns.
White, on the other hand, often gains the ascendancy if he succeeds in
bringing his knight from f3 via h4 to f5. An Early Encounter As an
appetizer, here's one of the first games featuring the Philidor Defence,
admittedly under quite an unusual form. Playing Black was the great
Philidor himself, who quickly seized the initiative as a consequence of his
opponent's timid play. Comte de Bruhl-Philidor London 1792 1 e4 e5 2 £c4
Even at this time some players were so scared they avoided the real Philidor
Defence! 2...C6 3 We2?! 3 £if3!, contesting the centre, was more
appropriate. 3...d6 4 C3?! f5! Philidor's original idea. If 2...d6 (or here 2...c6
followed by 3...d6) can be interpreted as the armament of the spring, then
4...f5 is the gremlin that jumps out of the hat! 5 d3 £tf6 6 exf 5 ixf 5 7 d4 e4
White's insipid play has enabled his revolutionary rival to grab the centre.
After five pawn moves out of seven, Black is already in the driving seat! 8
ig5 d5 9 £b3 £d6 10 £>d2 £>bd7 11 h3 h6 12 ie3 We7 13 U h5! Preventing
any kind of counterplay based on g4. Black dominates the entire board. 14
C4 a6 15 cxd5 cxd5 16 #f2 0-0 17 £>e2 b5 18 0-0 £>b6 19 £>g3 g6 20 Sad
&C4 21 &xf5 gxf5 22 #g3+ *g7 23 #xg7+ *xg7 24 £xc4 bxc4 25 g3 2ab8 8

Introduction 26 b3 £a3 27 2c2 cxb3 28 axb3 flfc8 29 2xc8 2xc8 30 Sal £b4
312xa6 flc3 32 *f2 2d3 33 2a2 £xd2 34 2xd2 2xb3 35 2c2h4! Destroying
White's structure before devouring the pawns. 36 flc7+ *g6 37 gxh4 £>h5
38 fld7 £>xf4 39 £xf4 2f3+ 40 *g2 Hxf4 41 flxd5 flf3 42 2d8 2d3 43 d5 f4
44 d6 fld2+ 45 *f 1 *f7 46 h5 e3 47 h6 f3 0-1 Black's ambitious play in the
opening, initiated by 4...15, was completely correct. What followed was a
one-sided encounter in which White remained powerless while Black
reinforced his position. This particular form of the Philidor Defence worked
very well for Black. In Chapter 1 we will come across a similar possibility
involving ...f5 which is still quite virulent but certainly less sound. The
Philidor Defence enables Black to 'save energy' by playing his initial moves
almost automatically, whereas White can more easily go wrong. Indeed, his
space advantage and the apparent slowness of Black's counterplay may lull
White into a false sense of security. Even though the Philidor leads to
quieter positions than most other openings, notably the Sicilian, this doesn't
mean that White can be content with routine moves. To gain an advantage,
he must take a certain amount of risk. Then the position becomes more
lively and the Philidor can become quite bloodthirsty! These arguments,
along with the avoidance of long theoretical lines, encouraged me to
employ this opening. Along with numerous other players, initially I
wrongly considered the Philidor to be passive, but then I used it against
very strong grandmasters (for example, versus Onischuk and Leko) and
obtained dynamic and very playable games. True, I lost those two games in
question, but this is quite a common phenomenon when the opponent is
stronger! When the opposite is true, one can avoid a 'recital of theory' from
one's opponent, and postpone the battle from the opening into the mid-
dlegame. 1 hope you enjoy reading the book and have lots of success with
your new weapon! Christian Bauer Montpellier, France December 2006 9

Chapter One Early Deviations WiH! r/ ^ r/ v3%-Wkr/ Third Move

Alternatives for White The subject of this section is the possible White
divergences at move 3. As we will see, only 3 Ac4 presents any real
interest. 1 e4 e5 2 £>f 3 <J6 3 £c4 3 £.c4 leads to positions similar to the
ones arising from the Bishop's Opening (1 e4 e5 2 £.c4) or the Italian Game
(1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £>c6 3 £c4). The main point is to avoid 3 d4 exd4. Its
drawback is that it hardly causes Black any opening problems, and that the
second player has a wide range of playable set-ups. Moves other than 3 Ac4
and 3 d4 are legal, but all inferior. Indeed, basic chess principles tell us to
occupy (or control) the centre. These very same principles also advise quick
development. 3 £>c3 obeys these two notions, but White can't delay the d4-
push for long. 3 c4?! would already be faulty in my opinion, as 3...f5 gives
Black an excellent version of the Latvian Gambit (imagine White
answering 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 f5 with 3 c4!!). 3...c5 would also be adequate,
because Black prevents d2- d4 while keeping the option of ...f5. As for 3 c3,
with the idea of building up a pawn centre after 4 d4, it's a very optimistic
move! White's plan is indeed idealistic because of 3...£>f6, and, once again,
the more 'Philidorian' ...f5. 3...£e7 seta! mtm This sometimes transposes
into the variation 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 10

1 e4 e$ 2 g>/3 d6 - Early Deviations £>xd4 £>f6 5 £>c3 £e7, otherwise the

position is similar to those that result from 3...£g4. Alternatively: a)
3...£e6?! 4 £xe6 fxe6 5 d4 exd4 6 £>xd4 and White has the easier game, as
he can try to implement the simple plan of f4-f5. b) 3...£.g4!? is a perfectly
valid alternative. Play traditionally continues 4 d3 £>f6 5 0-0 £>bd7 6
£>bd2 £e7 7 flel c6 8 c3 0-0, which was equal in Howell- Barua, British
Championship 1983. The attempt at refutation with 4 c3!? £k6 (4...c6 is
also good) 5 #b3?! clearly backfires: 5...#d7 6 £xf7+? (or 6 £>g5 £>d8 and
everything is under control - and the invader on g5 will soon be repelled by
...h6) 6...#xf7 7 #xb7 *d7 8 #xa8 £xf3 9 gxf3 #xf3 10 flfl #xe4+ 11 *dl #f3+
12 *el. Black already has a draw in the hand, but by continuing with 12...e4
(or I2...£>f6) he retains a strong initiative. c) 3...f5?! 4 d4 transposes into 3
d4 f5 4 Ac4, which is treated later on. d) 3...£>f6?! 4 £>g5 d5 5 exd5 h6
(5...£>xd5? 6 #f3 #xg5 7 £xd5 and the double hit on f7 and b7 costs Black a
pawn) 6 £>f3 e4 7 #e2 £e7 8 £>e5 and White hangs on to his Moot'. e)
3...£>c6?! returns to an inferior line of the Italian Game (1 e4 e5 2 £>f3
£>c6 3 £.c4 d6) and is therefore outside the scope of this book. 4 0-0 £>f6 S
flel 5 d3 doesn't promise more. 5...0-0 6 c3 £>bd7 7 d4 c6 The presence of a
pawn on c3 rather than a knight gives the position a more quiet character.
As a consequence Black has more latitude to manoeuvre and has no real
worries. Third Move Alternatives for Black 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 We will
now examine variations arising after 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4. This move
order was for quite a while the only one used in order to reach the basic
position of the Philidor Defence, commonly named the Philidor Han- ham
(see Part 3 of the book). Nowadays, however, lines of this chapter are
considered to be of secondary importance. Indeed, White can profit from his
opponent's move order and favourably avoid the position from Part 3. By so
doing, White usually gains a risk-free advantage, like in the variation 1 e4
e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 £>f6 4 dxe5, or he is drawn into favourable
complications, as after 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 f5. The only other option for
Black is releasing the central tension by 3...exd4, which is not to everyone's
taste. That said, even quiet lines require accuracy to maintain (and increase)
the 11

The Philidor Files white advantage, while the cluster of tactical variations
are full of hidden traps. We will look at: A: 3...£>c6?! B: 3...ig4?! C:
3...*e7!? D: 3...£>d7?! E: 3...f5?! F: 3».^f6 A) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4
£>c6?! This is a Scotch Game where Black would have contented himself
with the too passive 3...d6. If there is no direct refutation to be found,
3...£k6 is essentially condemnable because it gives White a pleasant choice
between: a) 4 Ab5 which transposes into the Steinitz Variation of the Ruy
Lopez, reputedly solid but rather passive; this seems to be the 'normal'
choice for 1 e4 players. b) In the event of 4 d5 £ke7 5 c4 g6 6 £>c3 £g7 7
£e2 £>f6 8 0-0 0-0 play would reach a classical position from the King's
Indian. However, it seems to me that White can more easily deviate (after 5
c4 g6) than his opponent. c) 4 dxe5 £>xe5 (4...dxe5?! 5 #xd8+ "i'xdS 6
.&b5, with the idea of spoiling the black pawn structure by means of £.xc6,
confers White a pleasant edge) 5 £e2 (5 £>xe5 dxe5 6 #xd8+ *xd8 would
be less annoying now that the c- pawn has recovered its freedom. In this
eventuality White's advantage, if it exists, would be the tiniest. 5 £>c3 will
transpose to 5 jLe2) 5...£>f6 6 £>c3 with a slight plus for White thanks to
his spatial advantage. To conclude, 3...£k6 is playable, but it concedes an
edge without fighting. B) 1 e4 e5 2 £tf3 d6 3 d4 £g4?! 4 dxeS £kd7
4...Axf3?! cedes the pair of bishops for nothing, and after 5 #xf3 dxe5 6
£.c4 Black has several continuations at his disposal, but none of them is
particularly attractive: a) 6...1'd7 (the queen will have to move again when a
white rook appears on dl) 7 0-0 £>f6 8 £g5! and there is no satisfactory
answer to the threat of 9 12

l e4 eS 2 g>/3 d6 - Early Deviations £xf6, as 8...#g4 and 8..Ae7 both fail to

9#b3!. b) 6...£>f6? 7 m>3. c) 6...#f6 7 #b3 b6 8 £>c3 c6 9 £g5! #g6 (taking
the bishop would of course have run into 10 Axf7+ <&>d8 11 Hdl+and
12ixg8) lOadl. Nearly all of White's forces are out and he is about to score
the point: 10...£>f6 11 £xf6 gxf6; or ll...Wxf6 and now both 12 fld3 and 12
£>d5! give White a clear plus. 7...&.c5 doesn't improve Black's situation: 8
0-0 b6 (or 8...£b6 9 a4 a5 10 £>c3 £>e7 11 £e3 0-0 12 fladl and Black finds
it difficult to move without losing material! The second player also has to
reckon with 8 #xb7 #xf2+ 9 *dl, when it is unclear whether Black has
enough play for the sacrificed rook) 9 £>c3 c6 (9...£>e7?! 10 £>b5!) 10 £e3
with a clear advantage. 4...£k6 provides Black with extra possibilities in
case his opponent reacts in the same manner as against 4...£kl7, but has got
its own drawbacks. 5 exd6 £xd6 6 £b5! (the correct idea, as 6 £>c3 #e7 7
£e2? [7 £b5!l 7...0-0-0 is fully satisfactorily for Black) 6...£>ge7 7 JLe3 a6
8 Ae2 and Black no longer has any compensation for the pawn, Kramnik-
Molignier, Lyon (simul) 2001. In comparison with 4...Axf3, the knight
move at least gives Black practical chances. The compensation for the pawn
isn't sufficient, but play takes on a double-edged character. 5exd6 5 Ae2 sets
a small trap: 5...dxe5?! 6 £>xe5 and White snatches a pawn. However, after
5...£xf3 6 £xf3 £>xe5 (or 6...dxe5) he has to be satisfied with the two
bishops. 5...£xd6 6 £>c3 6 Ae2 £>gf6 7 £>c3 is a more common move
order, but it makes no difference. If Black speeds up long castling by
playing 6...#e7 7 £>c3 0-0-0, then the very same 8 £>d4 of the main line
also yields White a clear edge. 6... ^gf6 7 ie2 We 7 8 £>d4! Thanks to this
move White enjoys a nice advantage. 8 £g5 h6! (after 8...0-0-0?! 9 £>d4
White has kept his extra pawn under favourable circumstances and his ad-
13

The Philidor Files vantage is quite evident) 9 Ah4 g5 10 £g3 and now
10...£xg3 11 hxg3 0-0-0 isn't bad for Black. In return for the sacrificed
pawn he enjoys a lead in development and direct threats, such as ...£>xe4
and ...£>c5. After the plausible 12 £>d2, 12...£e6 would follow, when the
white pieces aren't too well coordinated. 8...£xe2 8...£>xe4? 9 £>xe4 #xe4
10 f3 is the tactical point that justifies White's 8th move. Things aren't as
simple as they look, but after 10...#e7 11 fxg4 Wh4+ 12 ^fl too few black
pieces can join the assault against the white king, so the extra piece should
tell. 9Wxe2 ...with a healthy extra pawn that White can support with f3, if
needed. White can choose where to hide his king, depending on where the
danger comes. Finally, Black has to deal with the immediate threat of the
knight- jump to f5. C) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 <J6 3 d4 We7!? This move presents
similarities to the line 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £>c6 3.£c4 £>f6 4 d3 h6 of the Italian
Game. Indeed, in this variation Black's set-up usually consists of ...d6,
...We7, ...g6, ...Ag7, ...0-0 and so on. In our position White has managed the
push d2-d4 in one go, but the possibility to play ...c7-c6 is a trump for
Black. This way of protecting the e-pawn is rather constraining for Black: it
more or less implies that the dark-squared bishop will be fianchettoed.
Black should also refrain from the swap ...exd4 in many cases, as then the
queen could prove to be misplaced. 4&C3 4 £.c4!? is an alternative of a
similar strength. White retains the possibility of a c3, £>bd2 development,
while he is ready to counter 4...c6 with the customary 5 a4. 4».c6 5ig5 The
beginning of a bad plan, even if the move by itself is not to blame.
Alternatively: a) 5 £c4?! b5 6 £b3 h6 (or 6...£g4) when pushing the b-pawn
'with tempo' (contrary to the line 5 Ae2 b5?!) 14

1 e4 eS 2 £)/3 d6 - Early Deviations has given Black extra possibilities. b) 5

a4 deserves attention. The idea is to develop the light-squared bishop on its
best square, c4. The drawback of such a move is that a subsequent ••••&g4
will put indirect pressure on the d4 spot, inducing White to play the
unfavourable swap dxe5. c) 5 Ae2 and now: cl) With 5...b5?! Black is
neither exerting any pressure on the e4-pawn, nor is he threatening ...b4. As
a consequence this move is erroneous here. White could just ignore it, by 6
0-0 and Bel, but he has a stronger continuation at his disposal: 6 a4 b4 7
£>bl and the knight will bounce back on the first- class c4-square. c2)
5...£>f6 6 a4. Now that the enemy knight has appeared on 16, the ...b5-push
makes sense. White has slightly the better position here. Indeed, he enjoys
more space and after castling he can consider b3 and Aa3, trying to profit
from the awkward placement of the queen at e7. As for Black, he will
probably try to finish his kingside development by means of ...g6, ...Ag7,
...0-0, or even the more ambitious ...h6, ...g5, ...Ag7. In the latter case,
though, the aforementioned manoeuvre b3, Aa3 could prove quite fast and
pretty nasty. Finally, one may note that 6...exd4? doesn't match the
position's demands at all. White could then both recapture with his queen or
gambit his e-pawn: 6...exd4 7 £>xd4 £>xe4 8 £>xe4 #xe4 9 0-0 when
Black's position is very suspicious, to say the least. 5...£>f6 6 Wd2 ig4 7
£e2 £>bd7 8 0-0-0? 8 h3 with a roughly equal game would have avoided
the debacle that comes next. 8...h6 9 £h4 g5 10 £g3 £xf3 11 £xf3?? After 11
gxf3 White doesn't lose a piece, but the g3-bishop could well be entombed
for a while. Il...h5 12 h3 £h613 *bl g4 ...was Galdunts-Guseinov, Azov
1991. Why this game here? Because taken one by one White's moves seem
natural to me. The other reason is that I also fell for this trap (at around the
IS

The Philidor Files same period, if my memory serves me) in a blitz game
versus Jacques Elbilia! D) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 <J6 3 d4 £>d7?! 3...<SW allows
White to delay £>bl- c3 in favour of stronger possibilities. 4ic4 4 c4!?
would most likely transpose into an 'Indian' Defence. After the moves
4...£>gf6 5 £>c3 g6 6 £e2 £g7 7 0-0 0-0 we have a King's Indian, while
5...c6 6 £e2 £e7 7 0-0 0-0 leads to the Old Indian Defence. If 4 £>c3 £>gf6
we are back to Part 3, whereas 4 c3?! and 4 dxe5?! both let the advantage
slip. The former is too quiet, while the latter releases the central tension too
early. As a consequence the f8- bishop is free to land on c5 or b4. 4...C6
There are many alternatives here: a) 4...£>gf6? 5 £>g5! forces ...d5 and thus
wins a pawn. b) Equally faulty would be 4...£.e7? 5 dxe5! £>xe5
(5...dxe5?? 6 #d5 is even worse as f7 can't be efficiently protected) 6 £>xe5
dxe5 7 Wi5 and the simultaneous attack of f7 and e5 picks up a pawn. c)
After 4...ffe7!? Black has a worse version of 3...We7 since he has deprived
himself of the possibility of -Ag4. d) 4...h6? is a radical way of preventing
the intrusion of the white knight at g5. Unfortunately for Black, this little
pawn move seriously weakens the g6-square and calls for a brutal
refutation. Besides, if White calmly continues developing, ...h6 doesn't
always fit Black's plans. 5 dxe5 dxe5 6 £xf7+! *xf7 7 £>xe5+ *f6 (7...*e8?!
8 Wh5+, or 7...*e7?! 8 £>g6+ *f6 9 #f3+ would give White even fewer
chances to go wrong) 8 £>c3! 8...*xe5?! 9 #d5+ *f6 10 #f5+ *e7 11 £>d5+
<&d6 12 £f4+ *c6 13 #e6+ £d6 14 £>b4+ *b5 15 a4+ *a5 16 #c4 and it's
mate in six - you can check it! A little help: on 16...c6, White continues 17
£>d5!. e) 4...£>b6?!. Even if not really bad, this move can't be
recommended. Black repels the enemy bishop, but by doing so he misplaces
his own knight. 5 Ab3 exd4 6 #xd4 (6 £>xd4?? c5 and 7...c4 is 16

l e4 e$ 2 g>/3 d6 - Early Deviations the trap White must avoid). After 6

Wxd4 her majesty is well posted, as she can't be efficiently removed. White
enjoys more space and thus a lasting edge. f) 4...exd4!? 5 £>xd4 (5 #xd4
deserves the attention too, and also gives White the upper hand. In this case
White can consider a plan involving long castling and a quick e5 if
possible) 5...£>gf6 (or 5...£>b6 6 £e2 £>f6 7 £>c3 when the knight on b6
again stands badly and White has a spatial plus) 6 0-0 g6 7 £>c3 £g7 8 flel.
White has more space, but his opponent's position is quite solid. g) 4...g6 is
provocative: gl) 5 £>g5!? £>h6 6 £xf7+ £>xf7 7 £te6 Wh4 and the counter-
attack on e4 makes the position messy. 8 £>xc7+ *d8 9 £>xa8 #xe4+ 10
#e2 with chances for both sides, or 8 £>c3 Sb8 9 £>xc7+ <&>d8 when
White has some compensation for the piece, with two pawns and the
initiative, but not more. g2) 5 £>c3 is a quiet continuation that yields White
a slight plus: 5...h6 6 dxe5 dxe5 7 £e3 (7 #d5 #e7 8 £>b5? c6 and White
simply loses a piece) when the pawn on h6 renders ...0-0 problematic; for
instance 7...£>gf6 8 h3 £g7 9 Wd2. 5...£g7? is rudely refuted: 6 £xf7+! *xf7
7 £>g5+ *e8 8 £>e6 We7 (8...Wh4 9 Ag5 is even worse) 9 £>xc7+ <&>d8
10 £>3d5 #f7 (here, too, 10...Wh4?! 11 Ag5+ WxgS 12 £>e6+ loses more
material) 11 £>xa8 with a decisive material superiority. 5 0-0! Or: a) 5
£>g5!? is objectively not as good as 5 0-0, but a lot more efficient in
practice! Rather than a pleasant endgame, White is looking for a direct KO:
5...£>h6 6 a4 (preventing the threat of ...b5 while in the same time setting a
trap...) and now: al)6...£e7?7£xf7+!! Showing the venom in White's
previous move; the a-pawn will play a key role in the following sequence,
enabling White to trap the enemy queen: 7...Qxf7 8 £>e6 #a5+ (8...#b6 9 a5
«b4+ 10 c3 #c4 11 £>c7+ *d8 12 b3 also traps the queen and gives a
decisive advan- 17

The Philidor Files tag e) 9 £d2 #b6 10 a5 #xb2 11 £c3 #xal 12 Axal and
White is winning. a2) 6...exd4! is the correct reaction. After 7 Wxd4 £>e5
one may note a certain analogy with my game against Vaisser (see Chapter
9, Line A), though circumstances here are less bright for Black, because the
e5-knight is not untouchable in the centre. After 8 £a2 £e7 9 f4, taking on
e5 may not be a threat, as g5 is also hanging. So Black can choose between
9...0-0 and 9...£>eg4 with a perfectly playable game: for example, 9...£leg4
10 h3 (10 #xg7?? £f6 11 £xf7+ *e7 winning the queen) 10...£>f6 with ...d5
coming soon and an unclear position. a3) 6...Wi6 is interesting, too, but
probably less sound, as the queen is exposed to the opening of the f-file: 7
c3 (White naturally wishes to maintain a pawn on d4) 7..Ae7 8 0-0 £>b6 (a
useful move; the bishop's diagonal isn't shut anymore, and that can be of
considerable importance in some cases) 9 £.a2 Wg6 with mutual chances in
the game Leonhardt-Nimzowitsch, Hamburg (match) 1911. White can by
now follow up with either of the moves 10 a5 or 10 f4. b) 5 dxe5?! dxe5
(5...£>xe5?? 6 £>xe5 dxe5 7 £.xf7+ wins a pawn while depriving Black of
his castling rights) 6 £>g5 £>h6 suits Black more than the immediate 5
£>g5, because the f8- bishop has a broader horizon: 7 0-0 £c5 is equal; not
7 £xf7+?? £>xf7 8 £>e6 #b6 and the extra piece will decide the game. c) 5
£>c3?! comes to roughly the same thing as 5 0-0, with some nuances that
seem to be in Black's favour. Indeed, if White keeps the option of castling
both sides, his knight may prove to be misplaced in some lines: 5...Ae7
(5...b5?! 6 £b3 £e7?! 7 dxe5 dxe5 8 £>xb5! and the knight is taboo due to
the reply 9 #d5, so White has snatched a pawn for nothing, Jarreton-Loukili,
Massy 1993) 6 dxe5 dxe5 7 £>g5 £xg5 8 Wh5 8...#e7 (the best; 8...g6 and
8...#f6 give terrible endings with no prospects of counterplay, cf. 5 0-0) 9
#xg5 (9 £xg5?! £>gf6 10 Wh4 [or 10 #e2 b5 11 £d3 0-0, which is equal)
10...b5! 11 18

1 e4 e$ 2 g>/3 d6 - Early Deviations £b3?! [if 11 £e2 £>c5 followed by

12...b4 or 12...^e6-d4J ll...£>c5 [threatening ...b4 and ...£>cxe4] 12 f3 a5 13
a4 b4 14 £>bl £>xb3 15 cxb3 £a6 and Black even enjoyed some initiative in
the game Magem Badals-Strikovic, Zaragoza 1994) 9...#xg5 10 £xg5 with a
small edge to White, though his knight would be better on d2, aiming at c4
and d6. Instead of 7...Axg5, 7...£>h6!? is playable this time. The reason is
that White would need to open the f-file in some variations, in order to
checkmate. With his rook still stuck on its initial square, however, the
assault is not decisive. Play might continue 8 £>e6 fxe6 9 £xh6 £>b6 10
Wh5+ 10...*f8 (10...g6? 11 #e2 is better for White because of the black
king's situation and the sad c8-bishop) 11 Ae2 gxh6 12 fldl Jid7l The
following moves are compulsory: 13 #xh6+ ^8 14 fld3 £f6 15 flg3+ *f7 16
f4 *e7 (16...exf4? 17 £h5+ *e7 18 e5! and Black is in bad shape, as
18...£.xe5 runs into 19 #g5+ *d6 [or 19...£f6 20 #c5 mate] 20 £>e4+) 17
fxe5 £xe5 18 #g5+ <&>d6 19 fld3+ £>d5 and the position is unclear;
Black's king doesn't feel too bad on d6, while the pair of bishops is
important. \2...Wc7V. is suspicious but may be playable. The conclusion of
Van der Wiel-Van Maarten, Rotterdam 1977, was quite fantastic: 13 #xh6+
*g8 14 fld3 £f8 15 flg3+ £g7 16 0-0 #e7 (Black's pieces are completely
unable to rescue their monarch; 16...<&>f8 17 Wh4 and then f4 would
come to the same thing) 17 f4 17...£>d7? (17...exf4? 18 flxf4 e5 [prevents
19 flfg4J 19 flff3 with the double threat of 20 flxg7+ #xg7 21 flg3 and 20
£>a4, in order to give a lethal check on c4; but 17...£.d7! would still be
unclear: 18 fxe5 [18 f5? exf5 19 exf5 *f8 and Black remains a piece up,
even if he must still take care over f6 and £>e4j 18...flf8 19 flf6 and now
after 19...£e8! 20 fixe6 #c5+ 21 *hl £g6 White has three pawns for the
piece, but the black king is now safely guarded) 18 f5 #f6 (what else?) 19
fxe6!! #xh6 20 e7 and mate in five thanks to the double threat
ofe8#+andAc4+. 19

The Philidor Files d) 5 c3?! doesn't promise much: 5...£>gf6! 6 #b3 (6 dxe5
£>xe4 [with the idea ...d5J 7 exd6 £>xd6 is equal; as is 6 £>g5?! d5) 6...#e7
7 dxe5 £>xe5 (7...dxe5? is punished by 8 £>g5, when f7 can't be defended
anymore) 8 <SW5 dxe5 was equal in Em.Lasker-Alekhine, Diisseldorf
1908. Black will continue either ...b5, ...Ae6 and so on or ...Wc7, ...£.c5,
depending on what his opponent does. e) 5 a4?!. Black doesn't threaten ...b5
for the time being. Moreover, the text move deprives White of a key
manoeuvre: 5..Ae7 6 dxe5?! dxe5 7 £>g5? £xg5 8 Wh5 #a5+ followed by
9...£f6 when Black retains his extra piece. The best for White after 5...JLe7
is to permit a 'normal' Philidor by 6 £\c3 £>gf6 7 0-0 0-0, but in this case he
hasn't gained the maximum benefit from Black's dubious move order.
5...£e7 A natural move that, however, fails to solve all problems, but the
alternatives fail too: a) 5...h6? neglects development, and logically calls for
a tactical refutation. The insertion of the moves 5 0-0 and ...c6 favours
White; it is true that the black king now has the c7-square at his disposal,
but the king's rook coming into play is a major factor: 6 dxe5 dxe5
(6...£>xe5 7 £>xe5 dxe5 8 £xf7+) 7 £xf7+! *xf7 8 £>xe5+ *f6 9 #f3+ *xe5
10#f7!!. Rather than harassing the enemy king with a series of checks,
White deprives it of the squares where it could have hidden. This example
is all the more instructive, as White's two next moves also are quite calm.
10...£>gf6 11 fldl £c5 12 £\d2 £xf2+ 13 *xf2 £>xe4+ 14 £>xe4 flf8 15 £f4+
*xe4 16 flel+ *d4 17 £e3+ *e5 18 £c5 mate, Kr.Georgiev-Pelitov,
Pazardzhik 1974. b) 5...£>gf6? 6 dxe5! (on the hurried 6 £>g5?! Black has
the saving 6...d5) 6...£>xe5 (6...dxe5 7 £>g5 and f7 is no longer defensible;
6...£>xe4 is hardly better: 7 exd6 <5}b6 [after any recapture on d6 the same
8 Bel is annoying) 8 Bel with a clear advantage) 7 £>xe5 dxe5 8 £.xf7+
with a clear advantage. c) 5...b5?!. A rare case where realizing this push
with a gain of tempo is 20

1 e4 eS 2 g>/3 d6 - Early Deviations erroneous. Indeed, Black's priority is

to take care of his king's wing, and notably to deal with the threat of £>g5.
Therefore he won't be able to maintain a pawn on b5 without generating
weaknesses when a timely a2-a4 comes: 6 Ab3 Ae7 (on 6...£.b7, which
aims to meet 7 a4 with 7...a6, the right way to proceed is 7 £>g5 £>h6 8 c3
and White is visibly better: f4 is imminent, while the h6-knight makes a odd
impression) 7 a4! b4 (the least of all evils; allowing axb5 cxb5 would
weaken the d5 spot, while ...bxa4 would leave the a-pawn isolated) 8 dxe5
dxe5 9 £>g5 and play transposes into the main line: 5...£.e7 6 dxe5 dxe5 7
£>g5, except that the black queenside has already been damaged by the
preceding moves. This fact should emphasize White's advantage. d)
5...Wc7\? is an acceptable move which avoids direct refutations based on
£>g5. Indeed, Black could meet this with ...£>h6; for example 6 a4 Ae7 7
dxe5?! (7 £>c3! - see Part 3) 7...dxe5 8 £>g5 £>h6 and the pseudo-
combination 9 £>e6?? fxe6 10 £xh6 gxh6 11 Wh5+ "£^8+ doesn't work.
The drawback of the queen's move is that it can lead to a worse version of
the Philidor Hanham. 6 dxe5! This good move exploits the poor placement
of the enemy pieces. a) 6 £>c3 £>gf6 7 a4 transposes 'only' into a normal
Philidor. The same goes for all of White's sensible alternatives: 6 fiel, 6
We2 or 6 a4. These moves present no independent interest, since a
transposition into the Philidor Hanham (Part 3) is virtually unavoidable.
The move 6 dxe5, on the other hand, guarantees White the pair of bishops,
and the enduring advantage that is usually attached to it. b) 6 c3?! £>gf6 7
flel 0-0, with approximate equality, reaches a position discussed via 3 £.c4.
6...dxe5 6...£>xe5? 7 £>xe5 dxe5 8 Wfh5 wins a pawn for White. 7 £>g5
£xg5 7...£>h6? loses to 8 £>e6! fxe6 9 £xh6 gxh6 (or 9...£>b6 10 #h5+ *f8
11 f4 and Black's final moments are being counted) 10 Wh5+ *f8 11 £xe6
and it's mate next. 21

The Philidor Files 8Wh5«e7 a) 8...g6?! accepts a little weakness. If Black

can cope without it, why make such a concession? 9 WxgS WxgS 10 £.xg5
is an unpleasant endgame for Black. The assessment of the position
oscillates between a slight and a clear edge for White, but in any case a
lasting one. b) 8...#f6 9 £xg5 #g6 10 #h4 £>gf6 is a small plus for White. Or
there's 10 #xg6!? hxg6. Having opened the h-file is of course an
achievement for Black, but this doesn't bring anything tangible for the
moment and the pair of bishops gives White the upper hand. 9£xg5 Or 9
#xg5!? #xg5 10 £xg5 £>gf6 (or 10...£>c5 11 f3 £e6 12 £e2 £>f6 13 £>d2
with an edge, Anand-Ivanchuk, Monaco (rapid) 1996; a surprising choice
by the Ukrainian who on this occasion managed to draw) 11 f3 with a small
advantage. 11 £>d2?! is inaccurate: ll...h6 12 £h4 (or 12 £e3 £>g4)
12...g513£g3£>h5. 9...^gf6l0We2 10 Wh4!?/?! is less accurate: for
example, 10...h6 (or 10...£>f8 11 £>d2 £>g6 12 #g3 h6 13 £e3 £>h5
[13...£>g4J 14 #f3 £>hf4 and the black knights play an active role; or
10...0-0) 11 £>d2 flh7 12 £xf6 is equal; or 12 £e3 g5 13 #g3 £>f8, while
13...£>h5!? 14 #f3 £>f4 is also worth consideration. After 10 #e2 Black has
ceded the two bishops for nothing in return. If he tries to capture one bishop
back, by means of 10...h6 11 £d2 b5 12 £d3 £>c5 13 b4 £>xd3 14 cxd3 0-0
15 flcl £b7 16 Ae3 (as in Roos-Trevelyan, Cesenatico 2001) the position
remains in White's favour, Both sides have backward pawns, at d3 and c6
respectively, but the white bishop is stronger than its counterpart. The white
knight, too, has a potentially brighter future than the black one, as it can aim
for c5 or a5. E)le4e52^f3d63d4f5?l In the following section Black tries to
seize the centre with the impulsive 3...F5. This approach constitutes the
original idea of the great Philidor, as was seen in the introductory game by
the master. This variation suits tacti- 22

1 e4 eS 2 g>/3 d6 - Early Deviations cally-gifted players well but, as

practice has shown, remains difficult to handle. 3...f5 appeared for the first
time in the encounter Atwood-Bruhl, London 1792: 4 dxe5 fxe4 5 £>g5 d5
6 e6 £>h6 7 g3 c6 8 £h3 £>a6 9 0-0 £>c7 10 f4 £c5+ 11 *g2 0-0 12 f5 #f6
13 c3 *h8 14 g4 £>g8 15 £f4 £>e8 16 £>f7+ flxf7+ 17 exf7 #xf7+ 18 £e5
£d7 19 g5 We7 20 £f4 £>d6 21 £cl flf8 22 f6 £xh3+ 23 *xh3 gxf6 24 gxf6
#e6+ 25 *g2 flxf6 26 £f4 flg6+ 27 £g3 £>f5 28 #el £>xg3 29 hxg3 Ad6 and
White resigned. I thought any comments here would be superfluous. One
may just note that Count Bruhl learned a great strategical lesson about the
importance of the centre from his game against Philidor! After Black's third
move, his opponent has four sensible continuations: El: 4 -&X4 E2:4 dxe5
E3:4 exf5 E4:4 £>c3! El) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 <J6 3 d4 f5 4 £c4 This
continuation doesn't set Black serious problems, even if the ensuing
positions remain sharp. 4...exd4 Or: a) 4...fxe4? is a mistake because of 5
£>xe5! d5 (5...dxe5 is even worse: 6 Wh5+ *d7 7 #f5+ *c6 8 #xe5 and
White's attack outweighs the sacrificed piece) 6 Wh5+ g6 7 £>xg6 £>f6 8
#e5+ £e7 9 £>xh8 dxc4 10 £>c3 £>c6 11 #g5 when an extra exchange,
combined with the precarious situation of Black's monarch, makes the
position clearly in White's favour. b) 4...c6? is also wrong, since after 5 exf5
e4 (5...d5 6 £>xe5! and the bishop is immune because of the devastating
Wh5+: 6...£xf5 7 £d3 with a safe extra pawn) 6 £>g5, the double threat of 7
£>f7 and 7 Wh5+ causes Black a headache. c) 4...£>f6? 5 dxe5 £>xe4 6 #d5
#e7 is mentioned in Line F, albeit by another move order. (7 0-0 c6 8 exd6
gives White a marked plus.) d) Black can't keep the central tension by
4...£k6? in view of 5 dxe5! and: 23

The Philidor Files dl) 5...£>xe5 6 £>xe5 dxe5. White is at a crossroads:

should he play for an attack by 7 £f7+ *e7 8 £g5+ £>f6 9 Wh5, with the
idea £>c3, fldl (or 0-0-0 if the move becomes legal) and scalp the enemy
king, or choose the more positional approach 7 #xd8+ *xd8 8 £g5+ (or 8
£>c3) £e7 9 £xe7+ *xe7 10 £>c3 - ? In the second case an isolani is likely
to appear on e5, which should guarantee a small but stable edge. Myself, I
would go for the first line, which is wild and a lot more fun to play. d2)
5...fxe4? 6 #d5 #d7 (if 6...#e7? 7 £g5 and Black has to play 7...#d7 anyway)
7 #xe4 with an extra pawn and a lead in development for White, which
means an already close-to- winning position! (7 e6? Wxe6 exploits the fact
that the f3-knight is en prise.) d3) 5...dxe5 6 #xd8+ *xd8 (or 6...£>xd8?! 7
£>xe5 fxe4 8 £>c3 and Black has a weak pawn, is behind in development
and has to worry about his king - good luck!) 7 £>c3 when White will
combine play against the enemy king and the future isolani on e5. If Black
decides on closing the f-file by playing 7...f4, then 8 g3 may embarrass him
very quickly. In any case White enjoys a clear plus. 5£>xd4 A rare guest in
practice, but worth consideration. Others: a) After the inaccurate 5 #xd4?!
Black is in the driving seat: 5...£>c6 6 #d5 (other options aren't any better: 6
£b5 #e7 followed by ...£>f6 or ..±67; 6 #e3 fxe4 7 #xe4+ £>ge7 with the
ideas ...d5 and ..±i5, ...#d7, ...0-0-0) 6...#e7. In all three cases Black can
claim a slight edge as the e4-pawn is a concern for White. b) 5 £>g5!? £>h6
and now: bl) 6 0-0 £>c6 7 exf5 (if 7 flel f4! - Black must keep the e-file
closed at any cost - 8 £.xf4 1% when the game is unclear: Black is ready for
...£.d7 and ...0-0-0 followed by a kingside assault) 7...Axf5 8 flel+ *d7 9
£e6+ £xe6 10 <SW6 Wh4 with mutual chances. (see following diagram)
White will collect back the d4- pawn, thus restoring the material bal- 24

1 e4 eS 2 g>/3 d6 - Early Deviations ance. The black king isn't in danger as

it can't be attacked for the time being. b2) 6 £>xh7?! is met by 6...£>g4! 7
£>xf8 *xf8. This position is unclear, as Black's inactive pieces will soon
join the battle (...£>c6, ...Wh4 etc). Having lost the right to castle isn't a
tragedy here. Indeed, White will certainly not castle short, and may not find
time to hide his king on the other wing. The game Sorokin-Maljutin, USSR
Championship 1991, finished abruptly: 8 #xd4 £>c6 9 #d5 #e8 10 £>c3
£>f6 11 #dl £>xe4 12 £>e2? (12 0-0 £>xc3 13 bxc3 #e5 14 h3 #xc3 15 #d5
£>d8 [or 15...#f6 16 £g5!J 16 Ad2 with an initiative for the sacrificed pawn
was much better) 12...£te5 13 £d3 £>g4 14 £xe4 fxe4 15 £f4 #g6 16 #d2
£d7 17 £>d4 *g8 18 0-0-0 flf8 19 h3? #f7 20 g3 #xa2 21 £>b3 £>f6 22 #c3
£e6 23 #xc7? £xb3 and White resigned as 24 cxb3 would be answered by
...*h7!. 5...fxe4 6 £>c3 6 Wh5+ g6 7 #d5 #e7 8 £g5 £>f6 9 £.xf6 #xf6 is
okay for Black because the queens won't stay on the board much longer: 10
#xe4+ (10 £>c3 c6 11 #xe4+ We7 would come to nearly the same) 10...1'e7
is equal. 6...£>f6 7 *e2! 7 £g5?! c6 8 £>xe4 #a5+ 9 #d2 (forced, since 9
£d2?? #e5+ loses a piece) 9...#xd2+ 10 £>xd2 d5 and Black has nothing to
fear. 7...C6 8 £>xe4 £>xe4 9 #xe4+ We7 10 #xe7+ £xe7 110-0 d5 12 Bel!
*f7 12...dxc4? 13 £g5 0-0 14 £xe7 with a nice advantage for White. 13£d3
£>f5 is coming, which means that Black may have to concede the two
bishops. 25

The Philidor Files E2) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 f5 4 dxe5 Ceding the centre

in return for tactical motives: the e-pawn will be a nuisance in Black's
camp. 4...fxe4 5 £>g5 d5 6 e6 £>f6! Or: a) 6...£c5?! 7 £>c3 (apparently
better than 7 £>xe4 dxe4 8 Wh5+ g6 9 #xc5 £.xe6 with an edge as Black
has no good developing move at his disposal; or 7 £>f7? #f6 8 £e3 [if 8
#d2?! £xe6 9 £>xh8 £>h6 with an initiative comparable to the one Black
gets in certain lines of the Latvian Gambit] 8...d4 with unfathomable
complications) 7...Wi6 (7...c6? 8 £>f7! - one more white piece is developed
and the picture is radically different! - 8...#f6 9 £e3 d4 10 Wh5 dxe3 11
£>d6+ *d8 12 #e8+ wins) 8 £>gxe4 dxe4 9 Wh5+ and here White's
advantage is significant. b) 6...£.b4+ is rather better than 6...£.c5 since it
forces White to content himself with 7 c3 £c5 8 £>xe4 dxe4 9 Wh5+ g6 10
#xc5 £xe6 with a risk-free and lasting edge due to the pair of bishops and
the weak e4-pawn. c) 6...£>h6?! 7 £>c3 c6 8 £>gxe4! dxe4 9 #h5+ g6 10
#e5 flg8 11 £g5... ...and now the struggle lasted 18 more moves in the game
Wells-Henris, Antwerp 1995: ll...Ag7 (an improvement over ll...Wd6? 12
fldl! #xe6 13 £.c4! and White won in Steinitz-Rainer, New York 1885; some
people complain because they have to wait for several years to show their
novelty...) 12 e7 #d5 (12...#d7?! runs into the nasty 13 #f4 with the threat of
fldl-d8+, when Black is probably forced to play 13...^4, giving back a piece
as in the game) 13 #xd5 £.xc3+ (once again the best try; 13...cxd5? 14
£>xd5 and it is 26

1 e4 eS 2 g>/3 d6 - Early Deviations difficult to come up with something

clever against £>c7+ and A.xh6 followed by £>f6+) 14 bxc3 cxd5 15 £xh6
*xe7 (the public enemy number one has vanished but the ensuing ending
remains pleasant for White) 16 0-0-0 £e6 17 c4 dxc4 18 fld4 flc8 19 flxe4
flc5? (19...£>d7! 20 £g5+ *f7 21 £e2 flc5 gave better chances to survive) 20
Ae3 flc6 21 £g5+ *f7 22 £e2 £>a6 23 Af3 *g7 24 flhel fle8 25 Bh4 flc7 26
£h6+ *h8 27 £d5 Af7 28 flxe8+ £xe8 29 flf4 and Black resigned. 7 £>f7 *e7
8 £>xh8 ixe6 Black has a lead in development and a strong centre in
exchange for his material deficit. This line hasn't been tested much in
practice and needs further investigations. The game Novak- Janousek,
Czech League 1995, continued... 9 C3 £>c6 10 £b5 £d7?! 11 £f4 0-0-012
£>d2 g6 13 £>b3 ...and bit by bit Black's compensation for the exchange
disappeared. 10...0-0-0, 10...Qg4 and 10...#c5 are three possible
improvements on Black's play. E3) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 f5 4 exf5
Together with 4 Ac4, this move could well justify Black's risky strategy. It
seems, however, that the edge remains White's. 4...e4 5 £>g5 Other
continuations aren't dangerous for Black: a) 5 £>fd2 £xf5 6 £>c4 £>f6 7
£>e3 Ag6 is no problem for Black. b) 5 We2 (targeting e4 and also b5 in
some cases) 5...»e7 (5...d5?! 6 £>e5!) 6 £>g5 £>f6 (6...4.xf5? 7 #b5+) 7
£>c3 d5 8 £>e6 £xe6 9 fxe6 #xe6 10 #b5+ #c6 was equal in A.Ivanov-
Belokoskov, Russia 2001. 7...£>c6?! is more dynamic but also less sound: 8
d5 £>d4 9 #dl £>xf5 10 £b5+ *d8 (10...4.d7?! allows the g5-knight to
penetrate e6) 11 0-0 a6 12 Ad3!! profits from the poor position of Black's
royal couple: 12...exd3 13 Bel dxc2 14 #d2 with a clear advantage, Vujovic-
Destrebecq, La Grande- Mottel981. 5...£xf5 Black has seized the centre.
The evaluation of this position depends on White's capacity to undermine
the cen- 27

The Philidor Files tre with f3. If White succeeds in favourable

circumstances, he will stand better, otherwise his opponent will equalize.
Instead: 5...£>f6 6 f3 #e7 (6...£xf5 7 fxe4 £>xe4 8 £>xe4 £xe4 9 £>c3 is
better for White too) 7 £e2 exf3? 8 £>xf3 £xf5 9 0-0 #d7 10 d5 £e7 11 £>d4
£g4 and here two games deviate: a) 12 flxf6 £xe2 13 #xe2 gxf6 14 Wh5+
*d8 15 £>e6+ *c8 with great play for the invested exchange in Vito- linsh-
Arkhipkin, USSR 1975. b) 12 c4 £xe2 13 #xe2 0-0 14 £>c3 with a clear
edge to White due to the imminent invasion of e6 in Dvoirys- West, New
York 2000. White's 12th move saw two different concepts. Should one
sacrifice the exchange or not? Black is suffering anyway (and there was - is
- no beauty prize awarded at the New York Open), so Dvoirys decided on
the negative. 6f3 Kosten only discussed 6 £k3 d5 7 f3 e3!?, estimating that
after 8 £xe3 h6 9 £>h3 (9 g4 hxg5 10 gxf5 £d6) 9...£xh3 10 gxh3 Ae7...
.s.fmAmIIm ...Black's game is acceptable. This is partially true. While
Black's position is playable, White nevertheless has an edge owing to his
pair of bishops and extra pawn. 6...£>f6 6...#e7!? is tricky: a) 7 fxe4?! £>f6!
followed by either ...h6 or ...£>xe4 (7...h6? is the correct idea but executed
too hastily: 8 Wh5+ g6 9 We2 and White hangs on to his goodies). b) 7
£>c3! (difficult to find!) 7...£>f6 reaches the main text. 7...e3? simply loses
a pawn after 8 £>ge4; while 7...exf3+? is far too risky: 8 *f2 with the
threats of 9 Ab5+ and Bel, as well as 9 #xf3 when White's advantage is
already close to decisive. 7£>c3#e7 Now a logical continuation seems to
be... 8 ie2 exf 3 9 £>xf 3 £>bd7 ...when White's edge has been kept to
bearable proportions. White will more easily finish his development, while
his king is likely to be safer on the kingside than its counterpart on the other
wing. 28

1 e4 eS 2 g>/3 d6 - Early Deviations 9...£>c6?! is less good: 10 0-0 0-0-0

(10...£>b4 11 £b5+ *d8 - else flel leads to heavy material losses - 12 Aa4
and Black also finds himself in trouble) 11 d5 £>b4 (ll...£>e5 12 £>xe5
#xe5 13 £f4 #e8 14 £g5! #g6 15 £xf6 £h3 [the obvious threat was 2xf5!) 16
2f2 gxf6 17 &d3 #g7 18 #f3 and 19 #xf6 snatches a pawn) 12 £>el £d7 13
£g5 h6 14 £xf6 gxf6 15 a3 £>a6 16 £xa6 bxa6 17 Wd4. Black's pawn
structure is damaged and the manoeuvre £>d3-b4- c6 will prove pretty
unpleasant. E4) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 f5 4 £>c3! This is the most critical
test regarding the viability of 3...f5. 4.-fxe4 Black lacks decent alternatives:
a) 4...£>f6 5 dxe5 £>xe4 6 £>xe4 fxe4 7 £>g5 d5 (if 7...Af5?!, 8 #d5 is
cunning: White simultaneously threatens mate, while attacking both b7 and
e4; there is no satisfactory defence) 8 e6 and play has transposed into a
position similar to one arising in the 4 dxe5 line, with the difference that
both the bl- and g8- knights have vanished. This diminishes Black's
aggressive potential in the main line of the above- mentioned variation. And
as secondary lines of 4 dxe5 are not improved by the absence of the two
knights, the present position should be assessed as clearly in White's favour.
b) 4...exd4 is not attractive either: for example, 5 #xd4 (5 £>xd4 is good
too; after 5...exd4 fxe4 6 £>xe4 White enjoys an indisputable advantage: he
has a lead in development and can contemplate possibilities such as £>g5,
Ag5, and Wh5+, or simply move his fl- bishop and castle) 5...fxe4?! 6 £g5
£>f6 7£>xe4£e7 8 0-0-0 0-0. 29

The Philidor Files Black is ready to repel the centralized queen by means of
...£k:6, now that the knight can't be pinned anymore. This will, however,
prove to be too slow, as events now develop with an astonishing rapidity: 9
£>xf6+ £.xf6 10 £c4+ *h8 11 £xf6 #xf6 (swapping queens eases Black's
defence, as it considerably slows down White's attack; on ll...flxf6, 12 £>g5
would be nasty) 12 Wx(6 gxf6 (directed against the invasion of the seventh
rank by White's rooks) 13 £>d4 (having in mind £>b5, which would force
...£>a6 and thus paralyze Black) 13...£d7 14 fihel £>c6 15 <&xc6 Axc6 16
Be7 (White's play is simple but efficient, and his edge continues to grow)
16...Axg2?! (accelerating defeat; the passive 16...Sac8 was more stubborn)
17 flgl (White is about to double his rooks on the seventh rank, and the rest
needs no comment) 17...d5 18 Ad3 £e4 19 £xe4 dxe4 20 flgg7 flfe8 21
Hxh7+ *g8 22 fleg7+ *f8 23 flxc7 1-0, Tseshkovsky-Inkiov, Minsk 1982.
From a pleasant endgame White scored a flashy victory. After move 13,
Black's prospects already looked pretty grim! Black has also tried the
immediate 5...£>c6 6 £b5 £>f6 7 e5 dxe5 8 £xc6+ bxc6 9 #xd8+ *xd8 10
£>xe5 *e8 11 £g5 £d6 12 £xf6 gxf6 13 £>d3, when Boris Spassky himself
couldn't defeat Destrebecq in their encounter in Lyon, 1983. Black's
position looks ruined - all his pawns are isolated and weak - but the pair of
bishops provides counter- chances. The two opponents shared the point
some 13 moves later, after White obviously missed his chances. I doubt that
5...£>c6 could totally rehabilitate the line for Black. 5£>xe4 5...d5?! An
attempt to improve on the game Tseshkovsky-Inkiov. We've already seen
that 5...exd4, doesn't solve Black's problems. White can quickly mobilize
his forces, and any recapture on d4 is good for him. If 5...£>f6?! 6 £>xf6+!
(6 £g5?! £e7 7 £.xf6 gxf6 is unclear) 6...gxf6 (after 6...#xf6 7 dxe5 dxe5 8
Ag5 #d6 9 £c4 Black lags behind in development and suffers from an
isolani at e5) 7 Ad3. The area surrounding the black king is weakened and
White's plan (0-0, £>h4- f5, Wh5) is clear. As a consequence White has an
obvious plus. 6&eg5! a) 6 £>xe5?! only offers Black what he wished for: a
wild tactical skirmish! 6...dxe4 7 #h5+ g6 8 £>xg6 hxg6! (not 8...£>f6? 9
#e5+ *f7 10 £c4+ [10 £>xh8+? *g8J 10...*g7 11 £h6+ *xh6 12 £>xh8 £b4+
13 c3 Wxh8 14 cxb4 when the rook and two pawns plus the 'naked' black
king should outweigh the 30

l e4 e$ 2 g>/3 d6 - Early Deviations enemy knights) 9 #xg6+ *d7 10 #f5+

*e8 11 #e5+ (11 #g6+ is a draw by perpetual check if White wants it) ll...
£e6! 12 #xh8 (12 #xe6+!? £>e7 13 #e5 flg8 14 £c4 £>bc6 15 Wh5+ flg6 16
Ae3 kept some initiative and three pawns for the piece in Zelcic-Doric, Pula
1995) 12...£>c6. The material balance clearly favours White, but Black has
dynamic compensation, with ...0-0-0 next on his agenda. White's prospects
seem better to me, but I also think that Black's activity shouldn't be
underestimated. b) 6 £>g3?! leads to a game with better prospects for
White, but his edge is reduced in comparison with 6 £>eg5. After 6...e4 7
£>e5 £>f6 8 f3! (8 £g5?! £d6 9 f3 0-0 10 fxe4 c5 led to chaos in Bezemer-
Kamstra, Enschede 1993) 8...£d6 9 fxe4 0-0 and here, instead of 10 Ag5
transposing into Bezemer- Kamstra, White could claim an edge by 10 exd5
(but not 10 Ae2?! £>xe4 11 £>xe4 dxe4 12 £c4+ *h8 13 £>f7+? flxf7 14
£xf7 Wh4+ and Black seizes the upper hand) 10...£>bd7 11 £>f3 (or 11
£>c4). Black will regain one pawn, but it is uncertain whether he has
enough for the other one he sacrificed. The text move, on the other hand,
'softly' refutes the dubious idea initiated by Black's 3rd move. 6...h6 6...e4 7
£>e5 £>h6 8 £>xh7! highlights the weakness of g6 in another way. 8...£>g4
9 £>xf8 £>xe5 10 dxe5 *xf8 11 c4 d4 12 #d2 and White won only 9 moves
later, after destroying Black's pride: his centre! (Hautot-Stork, Belgian
Team Ch. 1997) 7 £>f7! *xf7 8 £>xe5+ All White needs now is accuracy in
the conversion of his clear advantage. 8...*e6 9 Wg4+ *e7 10 £>g6+ *e8 11
We2+£>e7l2£>xh8 The h8-knight will escape, despite all of Black's efforts
to prevent it. 12...if5 13 g4 ie4 14 f3 £h7 15 g5 hxg5 16 ih3 £>bc6 17 c3
#d6 18 #e6 Wxe6+ 19 ixe6 £>d8 20 ig4 g6 Black is at last ready to 'pluck'
the knight, but... 21 h4 ig7 22 hxg5 £g8 23 £f4 C5 24 dxc5 d4 25 cxd4 £xd4
26 0-0-0 £xc5 27 flhel *f8 28 id6 31

The Philidor Files ...and White wins. 200 years after Philidor's brilliant
victory over Count Briihl, opening theory seems to have evolved, and
followers of the French pioneer are now having a hard time of things. The
following section shows how to deal with the characteristics of 3..Af6. A
recurring theme here is the greater activity of White's pieces, which often
leads to either the capture of the two bishops or material gain. F) 1 e4 e5 2
£>f3 <J6 3 M £>f6 4 dxe5 £>xe4 4...dxe5?? would obviously be a bad
error: 5 #xd8+ *xd8 6 £>xe5 with a safe extra pawn. 5*d5 After other
moves Black experiences no problems; for example: a) 5 £>bd2 £>xd2 6
£xd2 £e7 is equal. The pawn structure is symmetrical and White's slight
lead in development will evaporate. As a consequence, this position has
quite a drawish character. b) 5 £c4 (threatening 6 #d5 and 6 £xf7+ *xf7 7
#d5+) 5...c6 (with the idea ...d5) 6 0-0 d5 7 £d3 £>c5 and Black isn't facing
any problems, while 6 exd6 £>xd6 (or 6...Axd6) equalizes without
difficulty. 5...£.e6?! is much less healthy. After 6 Axe6 fxe6 Bernstein
found the refutation of Black's opening in his game against Tartakower,
Paris 1937. He then unfortunately (for him, not for us!) erred, to suffer an
undeserved miniature: 7 #e2! d5 (7...Qc5 8 exd6! aiming at isolating the e6-
pawn; 8...cxd6 9 b4! #f6 10 bxc5 #xal 11 Wxe6+ is very dangerous)
8#b5+!. 32

1 e4 eS 2 £)/3 d6 - Early Deviations Going pawn-fishing so early is seldom

advisable. It was not too late for a natural development, by 0-0 and £>bd2,
but paradoxically White's move is excellent! A rare exception to one of the
fundamental principles. The game continued 8...£>c6 9 £>d4? (9 #xb7!
represented the right implementation of White's brilliant strategy: after the
logical sequence 9...£>b4 10 #b5+ c6 11 #e2 Black's compensation for the
pawn is illusory) 9...#d7?! (the stronger 9...a6! 10 £>xc6 axb5 11 £>xd8
flxd8, with an excellent game for Black, would have deprived us of the
beautiful conclusion that now arises) 10 Wxb7? (overstepping the point of
no return; 10 £>xc6 still gave mutual chances) 10...Ab4+ 11 c3 (11 £>c3,
11 £>d2, or even 11 *fl would run into the same thing) ll...£>xd4! 12
#xa8+*f713#xh8#b5 and White resigned as mate in four is unavoidable. In
spite of the reciprocal mistakes, quite an interesting 'little evergreen'!
5...&C5 5...f5!? contains the idea of ...c6, and ...d5. If Black succeeds in
cementing his knight on e4 without risking his king's security too much, he
will get a very comfortable game. 6 £c4 We7 7 0-0 c6 sees Black trying to
implement the plan. As White's purpose is to open the position by exd6,
there is nothing stronger here than 8 exd6! when White retains his
advantage. Indeed, he has a quantitatively and qualitatively superior
development. Furthermore, Black's king will find it difficult to find a safe
place. 8...#xd6 (8...£>xd6 9 #d4 and flel is coming soon) 9 #xd6 £xd6 10
£>bd2 with an edge: the e4-knight must either exchange itself or retreat,
which will leave Black behind in development and with an exposed
monarch. 6ig5 Now Black has: Fl: 6...Wd7 F2:6...£e7 6...f6?! (or !?) is ugly,
but maybe not as bad as it looks. 7 exf6 gxf6 8 Ae3 was De la Riva-
Campora, Canete 1994, and the damaged black pawn structure insures
White of an edge. 33

The Philidor Files Fl) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 £>f6 4 dxe5 &xe4 5 Wd5 &c5
6 ig5 #d7 This odd move temporarily blocks the c8-bishop's diagonal.
Black, however, still tries to carry out the plan of ...c6 and ...d5, and can
quickly remove his queen. This variation aims at recapturing on d6 directly
with the bishop and, unlike 6...£.e7, doesn't imply a trade of queens. 7exd6
Else ...c6 and ...d5 is okay. White must open the game to emphasize his
superior development. 7...£xd6 8 £>c3 ...and now: Fll: 8...We6+ F12:8...0-0
9 0-0-0 £>c6? F13:8...0-0 9 0-0-0 a6! Fll) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 £>f6 4
dxe5 £>xe4 5 Wd5 £>C5 6 ig5 #d7 7 exd6 ixd6 8 £>c3 *e6+ 9 £e3 #xd5 10
£>xd5 Threatening both £>xc7+ and £.xc5, which explains Black's next.
The following moves also seem sensible, and I don't see where Black could
have deviated before the position after the 13th move. io...£>e6
10...£>ba6?! would parry the double threat, but placing the knight on the
edge isn't a smart choice. 110-0-0 £>c6 12 £>d2! £d7 13 £>e4 We are
following the game Chan- dler-Gulto, Reykjavik 1991- The pawn structure
is symmetrical and White has the more active pieces. In such a situation,
one's edge can either vanish, after the swap of pieces, or increase. As
exchanges which would ease Black's position are impossible here, we find
ourselves in the latter case. 13...£e7 14 £e2 With the idea of flhel and f2-f4,
further increasing White's space advantage. 14...0-0-0 Losing a pawn, but
Black had no valid alternative: if 14...a6 15 f4! or 14...£.d8 15 fihel and the
difference in activity between the two camps speaks for itself; while after
14...f5 15 £h5+ g6 16 £>df6+ £xf6 17 £>xf6+ *e7 18 £>xd7 34

l e4 e$ 2 g>/3 d6 - Early Deviations gxh5 19 flhel, the damaged pawn

structure and exposed king render Black's situation undesirable. 15 £xa7! f5
If 15...b6? 16 £a6 mate; or 15...£>xa7 16 £>xe7+ and White remains a safe
pawn up. 16 £>xe7+ £>xe7 17 £>c3 The game now enters the technical
phase and Chandler's resolve proves to be excellent. 17«.£>f4 Or
17...£>c6!? 18 £e3 f4 19 £d2 and with a good extra pawn and the two
bishops, White is winning. 18 £d4 £>xe2+ 19 £>xe2 2hg8 20 £>f4 ic6 21 f3
Sd7 22 Bhel £>d5 23 £>d3 fle7 24 c4 flxel 25 Bxel 2d8 26 M2 26 £xg7?!
£>b6 27 £>e5 flg8 would allow some counterplay. 26...£tf6 27 *c2 h6 28
He5 £e8 29 *c3 £f7 30 Has 2e8 31 Bxf5 £g6 32 fle5 2d8 33 £>f4 £bl 34 a3
fldl 35 Bel fixel 36 Axel *d7 37 *d4 £c2 38 b4 £>e8 39 £>d3 £>d6 40 ^c5+
*c8 41 £>e6 £>f5+ 42 *c3 £dl 43 *d3 h5 44 h4 b6 45 £>f41-0 A very
strong performance by Chandler, who gave his opponent not the slightest
chance of survival. F12) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 £>f6 4 dxe5 £>xe4 5 #d5
£>c5 6 ig5 #d7 7 exd6 £xd6 8 £>c3 0-0 9 0-0-0 £>c6? After 9...h6!? 10 £e3
#e7 Black's position is obviously inferior, but it remains very defendable. If
he were to move, Black would likely continue ...$Le6 or ...£>c6, so 11 £>d4
is logical for White. Then ll...£>c6!? (anyway!) looks interesting to me, in
order to accelerate development and get the b-file semi- open, in the event
of 12 £>xc6 bxc6 13 #xc6 £b714 m>5 flab8. Another less sharp
continuation is 12 £>f5 £xf5 13 #xf5 when White certainly has slightly
better prospects. In this latter case, however, Black's development is
finished and his position remains solid. 10£kb5! A theoretical novelty
according to Tiviakov, but the move had in fact already been tested before!
Liberzon- Najdorf, Buenos Aires 1979, had seen 10...#g4 11 £>xd6 cxd6 12
#c4? £>e4 13 35

The Philidor Files h3 #f5 14 £e3 £e6 15 #b5 d5 16 £d3 flfc8 17 *bl #f6 18
£xe4 and the two grandmasters signed peace agreements. Alternatively: a)
10 £b5?! a6 11 £xc6 bxc6 12 #d2 flb8 with enough counterplay, Palac-
Kosten, Amantea 1992. b) 10 £e3?! £>e7 11 #d4 (11 #xc5?? £xc5 12 flxd7
£xe3+ [check!] and an exchange is gone) 11...b6 12 £le4 £>xe4 13 #xe4 #c6
14 £d3 #xe4 15 £xe4 flb8 when White's edge, linked with pieces being
better placed, is only symbolic. Black will follow up with ...Af5 or ...jLb7,
preceded by the prophylactic ...a6 in the event of 16 £>d4. 10...#g4 Strange
looking, but motivated by seeking counterplay. For this purpose, Black
would like to bring the c8-bishop out and shift a rook in its place.
Retreating from the knight's aggression wasn't a solution either, as the
following variation witnesses: 10...Ae7 11 #xd7 £xd7 12 £>xc7 £xg5+ (or
12...2ac8 13 £f4!? with a safe extra pawn) 13 £>xg5 flac8 14 fld5 b6 15
£>a6 and White's extra pawn prevails over his unusual piece placement. 11
£>xd6 cxd6 12 £e3! 12 #xd6? is met by I2...£>e4!. The outcome of the
opening is that White has obtained the pair of bishops and created an
isolated pawn on d6. If he 'only' had the edge of the bishops, with the pawn
structure being symmetrical White's plus would be clear. Here, the
imbalance due to the d6- pawn gives Black attacking chances along the c-
file, as well as a strongpoint for his knight on c5. In the present case this is
insufficient compensation, but in general 'collecting' pluses can be double-
edged. We now follow the game Tiviakov-Barbero, Imperia 1993 12...£e6?!
This accelerates the end by desperately trying to generate some play. Other
continuations were more tenacious, but equally hopeless in the long run: a)
12...£>b4 13 #c4. b) 12...£>e4 13 £d3!?, or 13 h3 and Ad3 next, with a clear
plus. c) 12...#a4 13 #c4! #xc4 (forced; if 36
1 e4 eS 2 £&f3 d6 - Early Deviations 13...#a5 14 flxd6, or 13...£>b4 14 a3
with a decisive advantage in both cases) 14 £.xc4. Without queens the
strength of the bishops is easier to emphasize, while the handicap of the
weak d-pawn becomes greater. d) 12...fld8 13 £>g5 (13 £>d4!? also
suffices) 13...£e6 (or 13...£>e6 14 h3 with the idea 14...#a4 15 £b5 and the
harassed queen doesn't have a good square at its disposal; after running
away to h4, White can safely cash in by taking twice on c6) 14 £>xe6 fxe6
15 #c4. The pair of bishops and the fewer pawn islands promises White a
clear advantage. 13Wxd6^e414Wa3&fd8 If 14...a5 (to counter 15 £d3 with
...£>b4) 15 £>d4! threatens a fork with f3 and maintains a significant plus.
15id3 White has finished his development and has kept his extra pawn. The
rest is rather easy... 15...£>f6 15...a5 16 h3 #g6 (16...#f5 17 £>g5 £d5 18 f3
is winning for White) 17 £>h4 #f6 18 Axe4 #xh4 with a clear advantage. 16
ig5! £>b4?! After 16...£d5! 17 £xf6 (17 h3? #xg2 18 Axf6 #xf3 19 £xd8
#f4+ 20 *bl £xhl is messy) 17...#f4+ 18 *bl #xf6 19 £e2 Black can still fight
with 19...a5, having in mind 20...£>b4. White, however, seems to have a
better reply to his rival's 16th move, namely the aesthetic (and cybernetic!)
17 fihgl, keeping all the pluses of the position. 17h3!Wxg2?! Suicide.
Black's last chance was 17...£>xd3+ 18 flxd3 flxd3 19 #xd3 #a4
(19...1'xg2?? would lose a piece to 20 flgl and &xf6) 20 a3 and White has
an extra pawn for nothing. 18 Bhgl l8...Wxf2 None of the other captures
would change the outcome of the game: 18...#xf3 19 £xh7+ £>xh7 20
flxd8+ flxd8 21 #xf3 £>xa2+ 22 *bl £>xg5 23 flxg5 and dl is controlled;
18...£>xd3+ 19 2xd3 and £.xf6 strangely reminds me of 17...£>xd3+; and
finally 18...flxd3 19 flxd3!. 19 £xf6 #e3+ 20 *bl £xa2+ 21 *al Wb6 22
flxg7+ *f8 23 flxh7 1-0 37

The Philidor Files F13) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 £>f6 4 dxe5 £>xe4 5 Wd5

£>C5 6 ig5 #d7 7 exd6 ixd6 8 £>C3 0-0 9 0-0-0 a6! 10 ie3 Wc6 llHi5
White wisely declines the trade of queens and instead starts an attack
against the enemy king. Il...£tbd7 Reinforcements arrive! 12 id4 if4+ 13 *bl
Wi6 A decision guided by good sense: the white queen is too threatening
and Black must therefore eliminate it. 14 Wxh6 ixh6 15 £>d5 £>e6 16
£>e7+ *h817 £>xc8 2axc818 £x3 18 £c4?! was Van der Werf- Cifuentes
Parada, Wijk aan Zee 1993. This move is a tacit draw offer (and in fact the
game did stop here), as after the obvious 18...£>xd4 the position is dead
equal. After the superior 18 £.c3, White has the pair of bishops and the
slight edge that is usually associated with it. Black's task is to activate his
knights while trying at the same time to swap one enemy bishop. Thus
18...£>dc5 seems to perfectly fulfil this demand. F2) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4
£>f6 4 dxe5 £>xe4 5 Wd5 £>C5 6 ig5 £e7 The alternative to 6...Wd7.
Unfortunately for Black, this variation doesn't bring him more success.
7exd6Wxd6 8£kc3 Developing with gain of time. Now we will consider:
F21:8...We6+ F22:8...£>e6 F23:8...others Even though White keeps the
possibility of £>b5 in the line 8 #xd6 £xd6 9 £>c3, the move 8 #xd6 helps
Black finish his development. The game 38

1 e4 eS 2 g>/3 d6 - Early Deviations Korneev-Yandemirov, Moscow 1996,

continued 9...£>e6 10 £d2 £>c6 11 0-0-0 £d7 12 £>b5 £e7 13 £e3 a6 14
£>c3 0-0-0 and the position was gradually levelled. F21) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6
3 d4 £>f6 4 dxe5 £>xe4 5 Wd5 £>c5 6 ig5 ie7 7 exd6 Wxd6 8 £>c3 We6+
9 £e3 c6 The alternative 9...1i'xd5? would considerably ease White's task.
After 10 £>xd5 £te6 11 £>xe7 *xe7 12 0-0-0 White has gained the two
bishops, and the king on e7 might soon feel uncomfortable. 10144 0-011
£.C4 H...#g4 Or ll...#g6 12 0-0-0 with the idea of £>e5. 12 0-0-0 b5 The
whole white army is out, while Black's queenside is still stuck at home. No
wonder then that the ensuing tactical complications favour the first player.
After 12...#xd4 13 £xd4 £>ba6 14 fihel £e6 15 £xc5 £>xc5 16 £xe6 Black
must either allow the rook to access 'seventh heaven', or accept a weak
pawn on e6. In the latter case, nothing prevents White from continuing
16...fxe6 17 b4 £>a6 18 a3 threatening both 2xe6 and 2d7. 13 We5! This
centralization is a very strong move. 13 £>xb5? was tempting but the
following tactical ramifications demonstrate that Black is then very much
alive: 13...cxb5 14 £d5 #xd4 15 £>xd4 (15 £xd4 £>b7 16 flhel £f6! 17 £xf6
gxf6 18 fle7 a5! 19 £xb7 fla7 and White loses an exchange, after which the
game is rather balanced) 15...£>b7 16 39

The Philidor Files £>xb5 £>a6 17 £>xa7 £>b4! (the saving counter-attack!)
18 £xb7 £xb7 19 fld7 £>xa2+ 20 *bl £>c3+ 21 bxc3 £xg2 22 flgl flfb8+ 23
*cl flb7 24 flxe7 flxe7 25 flxg2 flxe3 26 fxe3 flxa7 and this rook ending
should result in a draw. Going back, 18 £>xc8? would turn the tables
completely: 18...flfxc8 19 £xb7 flxc2+ 20 *bl flxa2 21 id4 £f6 22 flhel
flcxb2+! 23 *cl (23 £xb2? flxb2+ and mate follows) 23...£.g5+ 24 f4!
(necessary in order to lure the bishop onto a square from where it doesn't
control d8 anymore; instead 24 £e3? flc2+ 25 *bl flab2+ 26 "fell flb3 and
the combination of threats ...fia2 mate and ...£.f6+ leads to a mate in three)
24...£xf4+ 25 &e3 £xe3+ 26 flxe3 g6 and Black stands much better thanks
to his rooks doubled on the second rank, and of course his extra pawn.
13...Wxc4?! Keeping the defensive bishop would not have saved Black:
13...£>e6 14 £d3!? £>d7 15 #e4 £>f6 16 #xc6 £d7 17 #a6 #xg2 18 £>e5
when White is clearly more active. He threatens at once to win a piece with
19 £ixd7 £>xd7 20 Ae4. Also the b5-pawn is en prise, while an offensive
down the g-file is looming. A logical and rather forced follow-up would be
18...£>c5 19 Axc5 £xc5 20 £>xd7 £>xd7 21 £e4 #g5+ 22 *bl flad8 23 fld5
and #xb5. 14#xe7£>b7 Or 14...£>bd7 15 £xc5 £>xc5 (lS.-.WxcS 16 flxd7
wins a piece and the game) 16 fld4 and after the likely retreat of her majesty
to e6, the horse remains unprotected. Running away with 14...£>cd7 would
leave Black with a terrible endgame after 15 fld4 #e6 (15...#c5?? 16 flxd7)
16 #xe6 fxe6 17 flhdl. All the white forces are well developed, whereas
their counterparts are still on the starting blocks. The pawns on e6 and c6
are weak, as well as their surrounding squares (d6, e5, c5). 15 &g5! With
the idea of £>xh7! (or 15...h6 16 £>h7), so Black's next move is forced.
15...Wh4 16 fld4 Wh5 17 flhdl White pieces are perfectly coordinated to
take part in the final assault. 17-£>d7 40

1 e4 eS 2 g>/3 d6 - Early Deviations If 17...h6?! 18 £>h7! and White cashes

an exchange, gaining a decisive plus. 18 flxd7 £xd7 19 #xd7 White now
enjoys a stable material advantage and the rest is easy: 19...b4 20 g4!? #xh2
21 £>ce4 £>a5 22 #f5 £>c4 23 £c5 flad8 24 #xf7+! *h8 25 £xf8 1-0,
Rublevsky-Abramovic, Yugoslav Team Ch. 1996. This game had a much
wilder character than Chandler-Gulko, but was still in White's favour. F22)
1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 £>f6 4 dxe5 £>xe4 5 WdS £>C5 6 ig5 ie7 7 exd6
Wxd6 8^c3^e6 Letting White keep the queens on the board, which surely
helps him to maintain the initiative. 9 £xe7 Wxe710 0-0-0 10...0-0
10...£>c6!? led to a flashy White victory in the game lonov-Yandemirov,
Russian Championship 1994, which followed some analysis of Moiseev's:
11 #e4 #b4 12 £c4 0-0 13 £>d5 #c5 14 Wh4 fld8? (a serious mistake;
14...b5 15 Ad3 f5 with an unclear position was better) 15 flhel b5 16 £b3
£b7? (16...a5? would have given birth to pretty tactical possibilities: 17
£>e5! £>xe5 [17...a4 18 £>xc6 axb3 19 #xd8+! £>xd8 20 fle8+ #f8 21
£>ce7+ *h8 22 flxf8 mate) 18 flxe5 #f8 19 £>e7+ *h8 20 #xh7+!! *xh7 21
flh5 mate; 16...£.d7, though sad, was necessary). After 16...£b7 White
finished things off with panache: 17 flxe6! a5 (17...fxe6 18 £>g5 h6 19
£>xe6 is decisive) 18 £>g5 h6 19 2xh6 and Black threw in the towel. 11
We4 Wf6 12 £>d5 Wh6+ 13 &bl £>d7 14 ic4 £>f6 15 £>xf6+ Wxf6 16
Bhel £>f4 17 *e7 Wxe7 18 flxe7 £e6 19 fixc7 2ad8 20 2xd8 2xd8 21 b3
£xc4 22 flxc4 £>xg2 23 flc7 ...and White brought the point home on move
55 (Pap-Markus, Subotica 2001). Black can probably defend better, but my
feeling is that White has a persistent initiative. F23) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4
£>f6 4 dxe5 £>xe4 5 Wd5 £>c5 6 ig5 ie7 7 exd6 Wxd6 8£>c3c6
Weakening the d6 spot while depriving the b8-knight of its natural square.
41

The Philidor Files If 8...h6 9 Ae3 keeps an edge, for instance 9...c6
(conceding the pair of bishops by 9...#xd5 10 £>xd5 £>e6 11 £>xe7 *xe7
12 £>d4 fle8 13 0-0-0 £>xd4 14 £.xd4 ^(8 may give better chances to hold)
10 #xd6 £xd6 11 0-0-0 £e7 12 £c4 £>ba6 13 flhel £e6 14 £xe6 £>xe6 15
£>d4 and White is pressing. In Rublevsky's game above, Black tried not to
cede the two bishops and to avoid creating weaknesses. The price to pay for
this is a considerable loss of time. Here follows a game, Davis-Buck,
correspondence 1938, which is quite typical for this line: 9 Wxd6 ixd6 10
0-0-0 ic7 10...£e7?! 11 £c4 £e6 12 flhel and Black's prospects look grim: his
opponent will likely create a weak pawn, by means of Axe7 <&>xe7, Axe6
(or £>d4 directly) ...£>xe6, £>d4 and £>xe6. Generally speaking, one may
note that all White's pieces are efficiently placed, which gives the first
player a virtual lead of three tempi. 11 £x4?! 11 £e3!, with the idea ll...£>e6
12 £te4 and £>d6, is interesting and probably critical. The same goes for 11
£>d2, aiming to jump to c4 (or e4) and then d6. These two plans underline
the main drawback of 8...c6. The text move, although quite normal, doesn't
cause too much trouble in the long run. Il...£e6 On ll...£le6?! White can
advantageously (and very temporarily!) concede the bishop pair by playing
12 £xe6 £xe6 13 £>d4, when Black is left with no choice but to allow the
capture on e6, as retreating the bishop would allow the crushing flhel+. 12
Bhel 0-013 £e7 £xc414 £xc5 2c8 The only move; but now if White doesn't
act quickly he won't manage to draw any benefit from the strange
configuration of his opponent's pieces. 15 2d4 15 Be7 is a double-edged
move, since a subsequent ...Ae6 will keep the rook locked in. Here's a
sample variation: 15...£>a6 16 £d6 £e6 17 £>g5 £xd6 18 flxd6 £>c5 19
£>ce4 *f8 20 £>xe6+ fxe6 21 flxg7 *xg7 (21...£>xe4?! 42

1 e4 eS 2 £)/3 d6 - Early Deviations 22 fldd7 is dangerous for Black) 22

£>xc5. A second pawn is bound to fall, when material parity will be
restored. 15...£ta6 16 £>e4 £d5 17 £>f6+ gxf6 18 2g4+ *h8 19 £d4 h5 20
£xf6+ *h7 21 2g7+ *h6 22 £>h4 £e6 23 2xe6 fxe6 24 2g6+*h7Vi-Vi ...and
White had to content himself with perpetual check. Conclusion Nearly all
the variations studied in this chapter lead to difficult positions for Black.
Some options are practically losing, or at least dubious (3...f5?! and
3...Ag4?!, for instance). Others, like 3...£>f6 4 dxe5 £>xe4, result in terrible
endings for Black (but ones that can probably be held if the second player
defends accurately). We have realized through numerous examples that
Black has a really tough task equalizing in the line 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4
£>f6 4 dxe5 £>xe4 5 #d5. This surely explains why so few players are keen
on defending the Black cause here and instead look for new horizons. 43

Chapter Two 3 d4 exd4: Introduction and Larsen's Variation wmMmmsmB?

mm mtm 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 With Black experiencing many
difficulties with 3...£}f6, Philidor advocates have turned to an alternative
line in 3...exd4 to rescue Black's hopes. This natural capture actually came
before 3...£>f6 in practice and has never been totally abandoned. White's
two main moves are: A:4«xd4 B:4£kxd4 on playing in gambit-style with 5
Ad3 isn't great, because after 5...dxc3 6 £>xc3 etc. the bishop would be
better posted at c4. If White plays differently with 5 £g5 (5 #xd4 £>c6 is
equal as the c3-pawn occupies the knight's place) 5...Ae7 6 £xf6 (or 6 #xd4
£>c6) 6...£xf6 7 cxd4 0-0 then next up is ...c5 and/or ...Ag4 with good
counterplay for Black. Accepting the offer by playing 4...dxc3 is of course
possible too, but not without risks: Before examining the two possible
recaptures, let's take a brief look at White's other attempts. 4ic4 4 c3?! is a
sacrifice analogous to the Scotch Gambit, 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £>c6 3 d4 exd4 4
c3, with the nuance that the safest line for Black now is 4...£}f6 rather than
4...d5. In the Scotch Gambit this reply would be erroneous in view of 5 e5,
which is senseless here. In fact 4...£>f6 is annoying for White. Carrying a)
5 £>xc3 £rt6 (5...£>c6 would this 44
l e4 eS 2 £)/3 d6 - 3 d4 exd4: Introduction and Larsen's Variation time really
transpose into a theoretical position of the Scotch Gambit) 6 £.c4 Ae7 7 0-0
0-0 and White has compensation for the pawn, but not more. b) 5 £.c4!? is
in the spirit of the Danish Gambit, 1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 c3 dxc3. Black can
once more be greedy (but the danger increases!) or wiser. Thus if he calmly
continues his development with 5...£>c6 followed by ...£>f6, ..Ae7 etc., he
will virtually force White to recapture the pawn by £>xc3. 4...£kf6! a)
4...£>c6?! gives White a chance to extract an opening advantage with 5
£>xd4, reaching an excellent version of the Scotch Game. b) 4...£g4?!
allows 5 c3! with the ideas 6 #b3 and of course 6 cxd4. In this event White
gets an advantage, for example 5...dxc3 6 #b3 £e6 7 £xe6 fxe6 8 #xe6+ £e7
9 £>xc3 with better development for White and a black king which is a bit
airy. c) 4...Ae7 5 #xd4 (5 c3?! £>f6 presents White with similar problems to
4 c3 £>f6; while 5 £>xd4 £>f6 6 £>c3 is Chapter 3) 5...£>f6 followed by ...
£>c6, ...0-0 etc., reaches an equal position. 5 0-0 5 e5?! yields nothing but a
pawn deficit: 5...dxe5 (5...d5!?) 6 £>xe5 £e6 7 £xe6 fxe6 followed by
...#d5, ...£d6 and ...0-0, and Black stands better. 5...£e7 Naturally,
5...£}xe4?! is a perilous continuation: a) 6 fiel f5 (not 6...d5? 7 £xd5 #xd5 8
£>c3 #d8 9 flxe4+ &e7 10 flxd4 and the imminent pin along the d-file will
cause Black problems) 7 £>g5 d5 8 #xd4 dxc4! (other moves don't
complicate, and they leave White with a clear edge) 9 #xd8+ *xd8 10 £>f7+
*e8 11 £>xh8. The h8-knight is in trouble, but so is the black one - the
situation is unclear. b) 6 #xd4 banks on a lead in development rather than on
the knight's pin: 6...£>f6 7 flel+ £e7 8 £g5 0-0 9 £>c3 £>c6 10 Wh4 with
good compensation for a mere pawn. The threats are Bxe7 and, above all,
Ad3. On the provocative 10...h6, there could follow 11 £xh6 (11 flxe7? is
too much! Il...hxg5 12 £>xg5 £>xe7 13 £>ce4 £f5 wins) 45

The Philidor Files ll...d5! (Il...gxh6? 12 #xh6 and the black kingside is
decisively weakened) 12 £xg7 *xg7 13 #g5+ *h8 with perpetual check, or
else excellent compensation for the piece after the brave 14 Wh6+ £>h7 15
£>xd5 #d6 16 Wh5. 6Wxd4 6 £>xd4?! 0-0?! 7 £>c3 transposes to the line 1
e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5 £k:3 £e7; in this case White has
avoided 4...g6, but has had to choose the c4-square for his bishop. However,
instead of 6...0-0, Black can seize the upper hand without much risk by
playing 6...£>xe4. 6...£>c6 White has nothing from the opening. The
position after 6...£>c6 could also have arisen from 4 #xd4, with White
following up with solid but insipid play. As a conclusion we can state that
attempts other than 4 #xd4 and 4 £>xd4 don't promise any opening edge.
Black equalizes easily by means of 4...£>f6 followed by classical
development with ...Ae7, ...0-0 and ...£>c6. A) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4
4 Wxd4 These days 4 Wxd4 is a rare guest in tournament practice. White
tries to maintain his queen in the centre and accelerate 0-0-0, often at the
price of the two bishops. An early queen sortie is usually not advisable. In
the present case, however, two important factors speak in White's favour:
her majesty can't be easily dislodged, and the white pieces can be brought
out quite quickly. We will now study: Al: 4...£>f6 A2:4».a6!? 46

l e4 es 2 g>/3 d6 - 3 d4 exd4: Introduction and Larsen's Variation First, a

quick look at alternatives: 4...£>c6 Or: a) 4...£d7 5 £g5 £>c6 6 #e3 is very
slightly better for White. 6 #d2!? is similar to 6 We3 albeit with one or two
differences: on e3 the queen vacates the d-file and following £>c3 and 0-0-0
White's rook and Black's queen are face to face on the same file - a situation
favourable to White; on d2, on the other hand, the queen isn't subject to an
attack by the knight sally ...£>f6-g4. 5 £f4 and 5 £e3 are playable
alternatives but don't fundamentally alter the character of the position. The
latter is less logical, though, since it doesn't help to prepare the e4-e5 push.
Furthermore, Black can gain a tempo by the attack ...£>f6-g4 in certain
cases. Curiously, I couldn't find any game played later than 1954 with that
move! As for 5 Ac4 and 5 c4, they more or less imply short castling. After
Black's traditional development for this kind of position, ...£>c6, ...£>f6,
..Ae7, the game is balanced. b) 4...c5? is a serious strategical error. Black
accepts chronic weaknesses at d6 and d5 just to chase the enemy queen
from its dominant outpost. After 5 #dl followed by £>c3, £c4, 0-0, White
enjoys a clear superiority. c) 4...£.g4!? doesn't really threaten ...£.xf3, as
there would be several arguments in White's favour: the pair of bishops;
mobile e- and f-pawns; the semi-open g-file that would suit the white rook
in the eventuality of Black castling short. 4...£.g4 should in fact be
considered as a useful developing move. Black keeps the option of
exchanging on f3 if the circumstances make this swap favourable, but this
isn't a priority: 5 £k3 (5 Ag5 only 'seems' to gain time; after 5...Wd7 Black
is ready to repel the white queen and continue with ...Ae7) and now on
5...£>f6 (the most logical, isn't it?) 6 e5 dxe5 7 #xd8+ *xd8 8 £>xe5 Ae6
White has won a whole tempo in comparison with 4...£>f6 5 e5 etc., which
is, in my opinion, only of psychological relevance! Black will hide his king
on c8 in the event of 0-0-0, and try to dry up the position by means of
exchanges (...£>bd7). This ending resembles a slightly better version (for
White) of those that result from 4...£>f6, but White's supremacy is still only
symbolic. 5ib5 It's worth noting that this is in fact a transposition to the
Steinitz Variation of the Ruy Lopez usually reached via 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 £>c6
3 £b5 d6 4 d4 exd4 5 #xd4. 5...id7 6 ixc6 ixc6 7 £>C3 £kf6 47

The Philidor Files 8ig5 8 0-0 is equally playable, as in the famous game that
follows: 8...£.e7 9 £>d5 £xd5 10 exd5 0-0 11 £g5 c6 12 c4 cxd5 13 cxd5
Se8 14 flfel a5 15 fle2 flc8? 16 flael #d7 17 £xf6! £xf6 18 #g4! «b5 19 #c4!!
#d7 20 #c7!! #b5 21 a4! (21 #xb7? #xe2 22 flxe2 Bcl+) 2l...#xa4 22 fle4
#b5 23 #xb7! 1-0 E.Adams-Torre Repetto, New Orleans 1920. A great
example of the themes of deflection and back rank mate! 8...£e7 9 0-0-0
White has been allowed to achieve his goals and he is left with the easier
position. Al) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 *xd4 £>f6 A playable move
that, however, permits the e5 push if White wishes to play it. In that case
Black must be ready to enter a dull endgame. All the same, 5 e5 dxe5 6
#xd8+ *xd8 7 £>xe5 £e6 is just equal. The fact that Black has lost the right
to castle isn't enough for his opponent to claim an edge. 5 £tc3 ie7 This line
gives mutual chances. The game should roughly follow the footsteps of
Kotronias-Skembris (see Line A2): White will develop his queen's bishop
on e3, f4 or even g5; he will then castle long and retreat his queen to d2 or
e3 when it is attacked by ...£>c6. Black will castle short and finish his
development by means of ...£>c6, ...Ae6 or ...Ag4, and ...Be8. Even though
the position is in equilibrium, it nevertheless remains complicated and
requires accurate handling. Here's a rather recent illustration of this system:
6 ig5 0-0 7 0-0-0 £tc6 8 Wd2 ie6 9 h4 An inaccuracy which bears heavy
consequences. 9...a6, preparing ...b5 while preventing White's next move,
was better. 10 £b5! a6 11 £xc6 bxc612 £>d4 Now White's plan becomes
crystal clear: f3-g4 and a kingside attack. 12...£d7 12...c5 13 £>xe6 fxe6 14
e5 obviously wasn't to Black's taste: 14...dxe5 15 #e3 with a clear plus. 13
f3 h6?! 48

1 e4 eS 2 £)/3 d6 - 3 d4 exd4: Introduction and Larsen's Variation Again a

dubious decision since this move will create the eventuality of a lever (g4-
g5). 13...#b8, with the idea ...#b4 (or ...#b6) and ...flab8 was preferable and
possibly holdable for Black. 14 £e3 d5 15 exd5 £>xd5 Or 15...cxd5 16
£>b3 when White will combine play on the dark-squared complex d4/c5
with his kingside assault. 16 £>xc6! ixc617 £>xd5 ixd5 18 #xd5 ixh419
*xd8 ixd8 20 i-f4 ...was Rozentalis-GIek, Budapest 1996. White has a nice
edge due to his opponent's dislocated pawns on the queenside. A2) 1 e4 e5
2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 #xd4 a6!? 5 ig5 5 £.f4 is less aggressive than 5 £.g5
but follows the same goal: if the queen retreats, its natural square is d2.
From there it will neither disturb the bl- knight (bound for c3), nor al-rook
(bound for dl), nor finally the cl- bishop if this has already left its initial
home. After 5...£>c6 6 #d2 £>f6 7 £>c3 £e7 8 0-0-0 0-0 the chances are
level. In this final position one may note that the queen would stand better
on e3, as e4-e5 would then exploit the fldl/Wd8 connection. If it had
previously withdrawn to that square, however, White would have had to
take into account the possibilities of —£>g4 or ...£>h5. 5 Ac4 once again
doesn't cause trouble to Black's development. In contrast to 4..Ad7 5 £c4,
the second player can even move his bishop to e6 or g4 without losing a
tempo. After 5...Qc6 6 #d3 £>f6 7 h3 £e7 was equal in Z.Almasi-
Nevednichy, European Championship, Ohrid 2001. 5...£>c6 6 We3l? Or: a)
6 #c3 £>f6 7 £>bd2 £e7 8 0-0-0 0-0 is equal; the formation of White's
pieces is too artificial for the first player to claim an advantage. Also, after 7
£xf6 #xf6 8 #xf6 gxf6 9 £>c3 f5... ...White must take care in this ending, as
the black bishops could soon dictate events. b) For 6 #d2 see my comments
after 4...£d7 5 £g5 £>c6 6 #d2. The a-pawn is general better placed on a6
than on 49

The Philidor Files a7, whereas the c8-bishop can be more ambitiously
deployed than on d7. This means that 4...a6 should be a trifle stronger than
4...£.d7. c) 6 £xd8 £>xd4 7 £>xd4 *xd8 8 £c4 £>h6 (8...*e8? 9 £>c3 £>f6
10 0-0-0 and the plan of flhel followed by e5 is difficult to meet) 9 £>c3 c6
10 f3. The two bishops should guarantee Black an easy life in this endgame.
Even though the encounter Rozentalis-Agdestein, Groningen 1993, ended
with a White victory, I don't believe Black has anything to fear here after
10..&c7; he may even have an edge. 6...£e7 7 £>c3 £>f6 The game I've
chosen to follow is Kotronias-Skembris, Agios Nikolaos 1995. 7...£.xg5!?
is equal according to Kotronias, an opinion 1 share; swapping pieces is
generally desirable for the side who has less space, as with Black in the
present situation. The continuation chosen by Skembris, however, is not
inferior and keeps the game more complex. 8h3! Not 8 0-0-0?! £>g4 and
the queen is overloaded - the drawback of placing the queen on e3. 8...ie6!
Precise timing is important. On the routine move 8...0-0?! then 9 0-0-0 with
the idea e5 is strong. The following game convincingly illustrates this idea:
9...£e6 10 e5 £>e8 11 h4 #c8 12 £d3 f6 13 #e4 f5 14 #e2 dxe5 15 £>xe5
£>xe5 16 £xe7 £>xd3+ 17 flxd3 £c4 18 £xf8 *xf8 19 flel *g8 20 £>d5 £xd3
21 #xd3 *h8 22 £>e7 #d8 23 #xf5 £>d6 24 #e5 #f8 25 f3 #f7 26 b3 fld8 27
h5 flf8 28 c4 b6 29 *c2 a5 30 #d5 #f4 31 flhl £>f7 32 fldl #f6 33 flel £>d6
34 #e6 #g5 35 g4 flxf3 36 #g8 mate, L.Langner-I.Novak, Marianske Lazne
1989. 9 0-0-0 £>d7 10 ±f4l? Both players seem to tacitly agree to keep a
maximum number of pieces on the board, and thus a maximum complexity
to the game. 10 Axe7 Wxe7 (with the idea of ...0-0-0) 11 £>d5!? was also
worth consideration according to Kotronias, and I agree. 10...0-0 11 *bl 11
£>d5!? was still a valid option. 50

1 e4 e5 2 £)/3 d6 - 3 d4 exd4: Introduction and Larsen's Variation ll...if6!?

Going for the e6-bishop is mistaken. The swap will provide Black with a
semi-open f-file for kingside operations and £>d5 will be prevented forever.
Thus 12 g4!? with the idea of g5, h4- h5 etc., was more to the point. In that
event Black would have had to look for counterplay on the queenside or on
the centre without much hesitation. 12...We7 13 g4 2ae8 14 £>xe6 fxe6
Covering the d5-square with a pawn while opening the f-file. This will be
more useful to Black than the e-file was before. 15ig3 Freeing the path for
the f-pawn, while at the same time parrying the threat of ...£xc3. 15...£kC5!
16 £>e2 If 16 f3, 16...£xc3!? 17 #xc3 e5 and Black plays against the
weakness on f3. 16...£h4!? 17 £xh4?! After this move White will cede
important squares for nothing in return. 17 f4!? was the best choice. The
strategy Black uses in the game would backfire: 17...£xg3 18 £>xg3 g5?
(18...#f7 is balanced) 19 fxg5 £>e5 20 kel and 4&h5-f6+ leads to a disaster
for Black. 17...Wxh4l8f4g5! A fantastic hammer-blow. Black takes control
of the vital e5-square, while the weakening of his king is very relative.
Indeed, none of the white pieces can approach the enemy monarch, which is
anyway surrounded by its whole army. 19fxg5?! 19 f5? loses after 19...exf5
20 gxf5 2xe4. 19 Ag2 was correct. A possible follow-up is 19...gxf4 20
£>xf4 #g5 21 Si
The Philidor Files flhfl e5 22 £>d5 #xe3 23 £>xe3 £>d4 and £>e6-f4, when
I believe the position is slightly in Black's favour. 19...£>e5 20£td4? 20
£>c3?! would also turn out badly for White after 20...£>xg4 21 hxg4 #xhl
22 £b5 #xdl+ 23 £>xdl axb5, when the two rooks are stronger than the
queen. Moreover, the white pawns on e4, g4 and g5 are easy targets. 20
#g3! was forced: 20...#xg5 21 Ag2 £k4 gives Black an edge since the g2-
bishop looks silly and the dark squares in White's camp are weak.
20...£txg4 21 Wei The only move. Now 21...£>f2 22 flh2 #xe4?? loses to 23
flxf2. 21...Wxel 22 Hxel £>f2 23 flh2 £>fxe4 24 h4 e5 25 £rt>3 2f4 26
£>xc5 £>xc5 27 b3 *g7 28 *b2 as 29 a3 2ef8 30 £c4 2g4 31 Be3 &ff4 32
2eh3 c6?! 32...h6!? would have increased Black's advantage, for the reason
given after move 39. 33 £e2 2gl 34 C4 £>e6 35 b4 Bd4 36 2d3 2xd3 37
£xd3 £>f4 38 £f5 axb4 39 axb4 52 39».d5?! The pawn duo had to be
dislocated with 39...h6 in order to deprive White of any kind of counter-
chances, something that he now cleverly finds. 40 cxd5 cxd5 41 &C2 5g2
Or else the rook invades the 7th rank. 42 2xg2 £>xg2 43 h5 h6 Black's
winning chances do not increase much after 43...£>e3 44 h6+ *h8 45 £c8
b6 46 *c3 £>g2 47 *d2 £>f4 48 &e3 - the king is out of play, and if the
knight moves then Ae6 forces the d- pawn's advance, leaving Black's
central duo vulnerable. 44 g6 Forced. 44...£tf4 45 £g4 e4 46 *c3 e3 This is
played with the idea of ...d4, winning. 47 b5! This move keeps White out of
danger. Not 47 *d4?? e2 48 &xe2 £>xe2+ 49 <&xd5 £>f4+ 50 *c5 £>xh5
51 *b6 £>f6 52 *xb7 £>d5 53 b5 £>c3 54 b6 £>a4 55 *c6 £>xb6 56
<&>xb6 h5 and the pawn promotes.

l e4 e5 2 £)/3 d6 - 3 d4 exd4: Introduction and Larsen's Variation 47...e2??

is obviously bad due to 48 *d2, while after 47...d4+!? 48 *xd4 e2 49 £xe2
£>xe2+ 50 *c5 White has enough counterplay to save half a point. The best
winning attempt is 47...<&>f6! and now: a) 48 *c2?? d4 and Black wins. b)
48 b6? <&e7! 49 g7 (or 49 £c8 d4+ and wins) 49...*f7 50 *d4 e2 51 £xe2
£>xe2+ 52 *xd5 £>cl!! 53 *d6 £>b3 54 <&>c7 £>a5 wins. c) 48 <&>d4!.
The white king must play an active role in the ending, even if White has to
sacrifice his bishop for the two black pawns. The reason Black can't win
this endgame is that his king has to deal with the passed g-pawn and cannot
become active. After 48...e2 49 £xe2 £>xe2+ 50 *xd5 the most probable
outcome is a draw. 48 *d4! e2 49 £xe2 £>xe2+ 50 *xd5 The players agreed
on peace due to the possible lines 50...£>c3+ 51 *c6 £>a4 52 *c7, and
50...£>f4+ 51 *c6 £>xg6 52 hxg6. An instructive strategic lesson from
Skembris, unfortunately spoiled by some inaccuracies. His dark-squared
concept, even at the cost of some minor weakening, should have brought
him victory, if only he had found the break 32...h6or39...h6. B) 1 e4 e5 2
£tf3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 Now we will concentrate on the more natural
recapture on d4 with the knight. Black has a choice between a development
including a fianchettoed dark-squared bishop and the more modest ...Ae7.
4...g6 53

The Philidor Files This variation, named after Danish Grandmaster Bent
Larsen who promoted it in the late 1960s, has almost disappeared from
practice. The position reached after the bishop has been fianchettoed is
similar to the Sicilian Dragon, 1 e4 c5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5
£>c3 g6. The difference lies in the fact that the e-file is semi-open rather
than the c-file. This seems to greatly favour White, who doesn't need to fear
an attack along the c-file once he has castled long. However, Black, in
return, can use his c-pawn for the assault against the enemy king. Before
studying 4...g6 in depth, let's take a look at Black's marginal attempts to
deviate at move 4. These secondary lines can't be 'refuted', but some
common sense shows us they are inferior: a) 4...£.d7?! prepares 4...£k6
without allowing the pawns to be doubled after 5 £>xc6. The drawback of
such a move is the waste of time to parry a threat that isn't really a threat!
Indeed, the doubled c- pawns would control the centre well and wouldn't
constitute a real handicap. The half-open b-file could also benefit Black,
who would exert nasty pressure on b2 after ...Bb8. b) In comparison with
the line 4...£>f6 5 £>c3 £e7, which we will discuss later on, 4...Ae7?!
permits the insertion of 5 c4. The resulting position is similar to the Old
Indian (1 d4 £>f6 2 c4 d6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 e4 e5 5 £>f3 Ae7), where Black
has prematurely exchanged on d4. As a consequence White has a larger
spatial advantage than with the pawn on c2. In return, one might argue that
Black has gained the option of 5...£.f6 and 6...£te7, but such a scheme of
development seems somewhat artificial to me. c) 4...d5?! tries to equalize in
the centre, but such a move can't work! After 5 exd5 #xd5 6 #e2+! (6 £>c3
£b4 doesn't yield anything tangible) 6...£.e7 7 £>b5 £>a6 8 £>lc3 #e6 9 £f4
c6 10 £>d6+£xd611 £xd6... (see following diagram) ...White has a clear
advantage due to the pair of bishops and the knight on a6 being out of play.
54
1 e4 eS 2 g>/3 d6 - 3 d4 exd4: Introduction and Larsen's Variation d)
4...£>c6 transposes to the Scotch where Black would have chosen 4...d6. It
is, however, unanimously assumed that the developing moves 4...Ac5 and
4...£>f6 are more active and stronger in the Scotch Game. Here, 5 £>c3, 5
c4 and, finally, 5 £.c4 are all in White's favour. In conclusion, tries other
than 4...g6 or 4...£>f6 give White an easy plus. Black increases his
opponent's options by playing 4...£.d7, 4..Ae7 or 4...£>c6, allowing, for
instance, 5 c4. The problem with 4...d5?! is of another nature: Black is
under-developed and badly prepared for this 'central equalization'. Back to
4...g6. 5£>c3 This is the main continuation, but let's see how White can
deviate from 5 £>c3 as there are many possibilities: a) 5 h4?!/!?. The choice
of the coffeehouse player. The exchange sacrifice after 5...£>f6 6 £>c3 £g7
7 h5 £>xh5 8 flxh5 gxh5 is a bit optimistic, but I don't really see how to
continue after Black's 6th move. On the other hand, after the insertion of 5
£k3 £>h6!? (eccentric, but Black wishes to answer Ae3 with ...£>g4, while
leaving his f-pawn unblocked) the move 6 h4 would be entirely justified. b)
5 £.c4 initiates a quieter plan than the one based on queenside castling.
Black can finish his development without hindrance: 5...£.g7 6 0-0 £>c6 (or
6...£>f6, or even 6...£te7 with mutual prospects; every way White deals
with the question of his centralized knight leads to a comfortable game for
Black) 7 £>xc6 (7 £e3 £>f6 finishes development while attacking e4 and
threatening 8...£>g4; while 7 c3 takes the natural 55

The Philidor Files square from the bl-knight and Black just needs to avoid
7...£}f6?! 8 ^xc6 bxc6 9 e5 by playing 7...£>ge7) 7...bxc6 gives Black good
prospects of counter- play along the b-file. c) 5 c4!? (the c2-c4 push
constitutes the major alternative to 5 £>c3) 5...£.g7 6 £>c3 £>c6 7 £e3
£>ge7 would transpose to a position that normally arises from a King's
Indian, with the knight on e7 rather than f6. This system gives Black
counterplay based on a quick ...15, but it's objectively inferior to the
classical development and is thus much less common. Here's a brief
example that illustrates a positional trap it contains: 8 Ae2 (8 h4! is the
strongest continuation according to theory) 8...0-0 9 0-0 f5 10 exf5?! (10
#d2!) 10...£xd4! 11 £xd4 £>xf5 12 £e3 £>xe3 13 fxe3 flxfl+ 14 #xfl £e6 and
Black was slightly better in Tal-Azmaiparashvili, Albena 1984. It should be
noted, however, that for those who find 5 c4 annoying, there is no
disadvantage in starting with 4...£>f6 5 £>c3 and only then 5...g6!. d) 5 g3
will transpose, after 5...£.g7 6 Ag2 £if6, into a Pirc Defence with a white
kingside fianchetto, something that Black has to bear in mind when playing
4...g6. Other 5th moves for White are possible, but they restrict his future
options and have no real interest. This is true for 5 c3, which makes no
sense right now, or for 5 Ae2 and 5 Ad3, this final move placing the bishop
on an inferior square. 5...£g7 We will now look at: Bl: 6 if4!? B2:6 £e3
Firstly, a brief summary of the alternatives: 6ic4 An inferior, but quite
playable way to avoid 6 Ae3. White decides to castle short and places his
bishop on its most active square. As for Black, he has two satisfactory ways
to react: the aggressive 6...£>c6 and the more restrained 6...£>f6. Or: 56

l e4 eS 2 £)/3 d6 - 3 d4 exd4: Introduction and Larsen's Variation a) 6 g3

£>c6 7 £e3 £>f6 8 h3 0-0 (not 8...d5?! 9 £b5!) 9 £g2... ...leads to a Pirc
Defence that promises reciprocal chances. b) 6 A.e2?! is too mild to keep
the initiative: 6...£>c6 7 £e3 £>f6 8 0-0 0-0 9 flel (on 9 #d2, 9...fle8 10 f3 d5
should equalize, while 9 f4?! allows the pseudo-sacrifice 9...£>xe4 10
£>xe4 We7 when, thanks to the traffic-jam along the e-file, only Black can
stand better: 11 A.B f5 12 #d3 fxe4 13 £xe4 £>b4 14 #b3+ *h8 15 £f3 c5
with an edge for Black, Yu Shaoteng-Ye Rongguang, Beijing 1995) 9...fle8
10 £>xc6 bxc6 11 £f3£>d7... ...was equal in Karpov-Keene, Bad Lauterberg
1977. c) For 6 h4?! £>f6 see note 'a' to White's fifth move. 6...£>c6 White
must either retreat or consent to opening the b-file. The third option, 7 £e3,
reaches 6 £e3 £>f6 7 £c4, which tends to equality. The alternative, 6...£>f6,
speeds up Black's castling process before initiating more active operations
(6...£>e7?! seems less good; true, the f-pawn remains free, but the knight -
and often a concealed ...Be8 - doesn't exert pressure on e4). After 6...£tf6
play usually goes this way: 7 0-0 0-0 8 £g5 £>c6 (Meijers-GIek, German
League 2001) or 8...h6 9 £h4 c6 (Blees-Reinderman, Wijk aan Zee 1998)
with mutual chances in either case. It's worth noting that the insertion of the
moves ...h6 and A.h4 is 'neutral'. It doesn't favour either side, and as the
bishop's retreat at h4 is 'automatic', it can be executed at any moment. 7
£>xc6 bxc6 8 0-0 57

The Philidor Files Here Black has three moves at his disposal (to avoid
8...£>f6? 9 e5! dxe5 10 #xd8+ *xd8 11 £xf7 when his pawn- structure is
ruined). These are 8...£te7, 8...flb8, and the less ordinary 8...Wh4. In all
cases chances are shared equally. Bl) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4
g6 5 £>C3 Ag7 6 £f4!? This secondary line contains an interesting idea
which is revealed if Black treats the position like the main line (B2). On the
other hand, the bishop doesn't defend its colleague on d4, so 6...£>c6
becomes critical. 6...£>c6! 6...£>f6!? 7 #d2 0-0 8 0-0-0 fle8 9 f3 £>c6
(threatening ...£>xe4) 10 £>xc6 bxc6 11 e5 is the above-mentioned nuance.
As the capture is forbidden and ll...£>h5?! 12 Ag5 not very appetizing,
there only remains ll...£>d5 12 £>xd5 cxd5, which is double-edged. Black
will use the b-file for his attack, while after the e-pawn has vanished, the
long diagonal is cleared for the beast on g7. Black is probably going to have
to invest a pawn or two, but he will gain decent compensation. 7£>xc6
Consistent, but compromising. The doubled pawns will be no handicap
because they are mobile and control the neighbouring squares well. The
opening of the b-file clearly benefits Black, and the following example
shows how to best utilize this: 7...bxc6 8 ic4 flb8 9 Wcl?! 9 £b3 was better.
9...d5 10 exd5 2b4 11 £b3 We7+ 12 ie3 ia6 Preventing 0-0. In return for his
pawn(s), Black can firmly seize command. 13 Wd2? This accelerates the
debacle by losing two tempi. A better test of Black's gambit consisted of 13
dxc6 £>f6 14 #dl, with the idea of #f3 and 0-0-0, or Hdl if the second
enemy rook appears ond8. 13..J2d4 14 *cl £>f6 15 f3?! Losing, but good
advice is expensive here. 15...ih6 16 *f2 £>g4+ 17 fxg4 Wf6+ 18 *gl 58

l e4 eS 2 £)/3 d6 - 3 d4 exd4: Introduction and Larsen's Variation 18 *el

We5 19 £>dl fle4 doesn't change anything. I8...2dl+H ...and mate follows
(Hazai-Sax, Hungary 1971). B2) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 g6 5
£>c3 ig7 6 ie3 £>f6 a) 6...£le7?! invites and strengthens the h4-advance in
the event of opposite-side castling. Black isn't ready for ...d5 or ...15, and
doesn't exert pressure on the e4 spot, as we have already seen before: 7 #d2
£>bc6 (not 7...d5? 8 0-0-0 dxe4 [or 8...c6 9 exd5 £>xd5 10 £>db5! followed
by the capture on d5] 9 £>xe4 0-0 10 £>b5 and White will soon gain
material on the queenside) 8 0-0-0 0-0 9 h4 with a solid White edge, Ivkov-
Fallone, Moscow Olympiad 1956. b) 6...£>c6 most often transposes to the
main line with 6...£>f6. For purists, since I don't see any real drawback to
6...£>f6, I would say that 6...£>c6 is less precise. Indeed, Black loses the
possibility of playing with ...c6 in some (rare) cases, whereas ...£>f6 is
almost compulsory. 7#d2 a) 7 £.c4?! is dubious because Black will then
gain several tempi by attacking the bishop, especially in the event of White
castling long. One should also bear in mind the simplifying threat of ...
£>xe4 followed by ...d5, as well as the immediate 7...£>g4. b) 7 Ae2?!
suffers from a serious lack of ambition: 7...0-0 8 0-0 (8 #d2?! fle8 9 f3 d5 is
at least equal for Black) 8...fle8 9 £f3 (or 9 f3?! d5 when the double threat
of ...c5/...d4 and ...dxe4 already gives Black the upper hand) 9...£>bd7.
Black is fully equal here: White's 59

The Philidor Files light-squared bishop occupies an uncomfortable square,

while Black enjoys free piece play and will continue with either ...£k5 or ...
£te5. c) 7 f3?! often transposes to the main line, but although f2-f3 is
compulsory, the timing of it is important and Black can profit from the
inversion of moves: 7...0-0 8 #d2 (8 £c4 £>c6 - or 8...c6 - is pleasant for
Black; the bishop is going to be harassed by Black's foot soldiers, which as
a consequence will speed up his counterplay) 8...d5! (obviously the routine
moves 8...£>c6 and 8...fle8 lead us back to the 'right track', for White that
is!). Had White already castled long, he would have been able to answer
9...d5 with 9 £tf>3, gaining a big advantage. Clearly this is no longer the
case, and instead White must choose 9 e5 (if 9 exd5 £>xd5 10 £>xd5 #xd5
with an edge for Black; or 9 0-0-0 dxe4 10 fxe4 c6 11 h3 £>bd7 and again
Black is slightly better, Renet-A.David, Clichy 1995) 9...£>fd7 (threatening
the fork ...c5, ...d4) and then: a) 10 £>xd5 £>xe5 11 £rt>5? (11 £>c3! is
almost Ciocaltea-Keene, below) 11...C6 12 £>dc7 Wh4+ 13 £f2 We7 14 0-
0-0 cxb5 15 £>xa8 £>bc6 was clearly better for Black in Jacek-Bakalarz,
Ceske Budejovice 1995. 13 #f2 would have been stronger, as although the
horse remains imprisoned after 13...#e7 14 £>xa8 cxb5 15 0-0-0 b6, at least
it will sell its skin for a higher price! Even so, Black's position should still
be preferable. b) 10 e6 £>e5 11 e7 #xe7 12 £>xd5 #h4+ 13 £f2 #d8 14 £>c3
was equal in Ciocaltea-Keene, Wijk aan Zee 1974. 1 was rather recently
confronted by 13 #f2!? #d8 14 £>c3 c5 15 £>b3 b6 16 fldl (Tirard-Bauer,
French League 2002). Here, instead of 16...£>bd7?! 17 £e2 when White
stood a bit better, 16..Wc7 or \6...We7 was to be preferred. The knight sally
to d5 doesn't bring much due to ...Wb7, and Black will roll on with ...
£>bc6, ...Ae6 and ...Bad8 with a comfortable game. 7...0-0 8 0-0-0 For 8
f3?! see 7 f3. After 8 0-0-0 Black's only two real options are: 60

l e4 eS 2 g>/3 d6 - 3 d4 exd4: Introduction and Larsen's Variation

B21:8...£>c6 B22:8...2e8 In contrast with a comparable position in the
Sicilian Dragon, 8...£>g4?! would be wrong here on account of 9 Ag5,
when all of Black's replies are unsatisfactory. B21) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 fa
exd4 4 £>xd4 g6 5 £>c3 ig7 6 ie3 £>f6 7 Wd2 0-0 8 0-0-0 £>c6 The aim of
the text move, in comparison with the richer 8...fle8 which we will examine
later on, is to simplify the position with a knight swap. Black plans ...
£>xd4, generally followed by ...c5 and ...#a5. 9f3 Not 9 £>xc6?! (why open
the b-file?) 9...bxc6 10 £h6 £xh6 11 Wxh6 flb8 12 f3 #e7 13 h4 d5! 14 h5
*b4 (or 14...flxb2!? 15 *xb2 *b4+ 16 *cl #xc3 with sufficient counterplay
for Black) 15 e5 was Filipenko-Vorotnikov, Yur- mala 1980, and here
15...#xb2+ 16 *d2 Af5! would have led to an unclear position. 9...£>xd4
Black can also transpose to Line B22 with 9...fle8. 10 £xd4 The bishop has
replaced the knight at d4. From here it neutralizes the g7- bishop and all
White needs to do is to push his kingside pawns. io...£e6 Played both in
order to prevent £.c4 and to be ready to trade this bishop for White's knight
if it appears on d5. White should, at present, either parry his opponent's plan
by playing 11 Ae3, or decide which pawns to advance: B211:11 £e3
B212:11 h4?! B213:11 *bl B214:11 g4 B211) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4
£>xd4 g6 5 £>c3 ig7 6 ie3 £>f6 7 Wd2 0-0 8 0-0-0 £>c6 9 f3 £>xd4 10
£xd4 £e611 £e3 Much less popular than the three alternatives, this follow-
up nevertheless 61

The Philidor Files contains some venom. Black must play accurately in
order to survive. To keep the fianchettoed bishop, but in order to do this
Black must make some concessions. Alternatively: a) 11...a6 12 £h6 £xh6
13 #xh6 #e7 14 h4 £>d7 with an edge for White, V.Gurevich-Klovans,
German League 1996. Black is ready to meet h5 with ...g5; his position,
albeit a bit inferior, remains quite defensible. b) 11...c6!? is a little
suspicious, but the consequences of 12 Wxd6 #a5 13 #c5 b5 deserve a more
thorough examination. One may note that had Black pushed his c-pawn one
square further, this would have vanished! The game A.David-Pachow,
Pardubice 1999, quickly ended after 14 a3 £>d7 15 #xc6 flfc8 16 #xb5 #c7
17 #a4 Sab8 18 Aa6, when peace was agreed even though 18...flxb2 would
have been decisive. Maybe 17 Ad4 was a better way to consolidate the
material advantage: 17...flab8 18 #d3 #b7 19 b4 (19 b3? loses to 19...£xb3
20 £xg7 £>c5 21 #d6 £xc2) 19...£xd4 20 #xd4 #c7 21 £a6 (protecting the
knight by 21 <&>b2 or 21 <i>d2 inspires less confidence) 2l...Wx<3 22
ixc8 #xc8 although Black still has compensation (but not 22...1'xa3+? 23
*d2! flxc8 24 Sal and White wins). 12£h6 12...£xh6! After the alternative
12...£.h8, 13 Ag5! threatens e5, a general trade on d8, and £te4 which
would win an exchange. Then 13...#c8 (13...#d7!?) 14 g4 a6 15 h4 b5 16 h5
and White's attack was faster in the game Isupov- Vorotnikov, Vladivostok
1990. 13 *xh6 We7 14 h4 #f8 15 Wg5 Wg7 16 g4 a6 (Pedzich-Klovans,
Pardubice 1995). Black's queen defends well and carrying on the attack for
White isn't an easy job. The position is roughly equal. B212) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3
d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 g6 5 £>c3 ig7 6 ie3 £>f6 7 Wd2 0-0 8 0-0-0 £>c6 9
f3 £>xd4 10 £xd4 ie6 11 h4?! It's a random choice at first sight, but the
advances of the g- and h-pawns 62

l e4 eS 2 £)/3 d6 - 3 d4 exd4: Introduction and Larsen's Variation both have

their pros and cons. Pushing the h-pawn weakens the g3-square and allows
...h5. Moving the g-pawn leaves f3 vulnerable. This wouldn't matter so
much if many variations weren't leading to endings after a continuation
such as ...#a5, £>d5 ...#xd2, flxd2. After a queen trade a wild attack is out
of the question and weaknesses such as this might gain in relevance. The
main continuation - as well as the sub-variations - of the illustrative game
Nicht-Van de Weijer, correspondence 1991/ tend to demonstrate that 11 g4
is more precise. 11...C5 Conceding a target on d6 for the sake of chasing the
d4-bishop from its ideal outpost. This seemingly suicidal move is motivated
by emergency: if Black couldn't dislodge the dominant bishop at once, the
white attack would be much quicker than Black's. Il...h5 would probably
call for the reply 12 £>d5 fle8, after which White is going to prepare the
break g4, while if 12...£.xd5 13 exd5 then the second white bishop will take
part in the assault from d3; in either case White has an edge. 12£e3 12
£.xf6? would be a criminal act of greed. To win the d6-pawn White cedes
all the dark squares and will no longer have anything to oppose to the
mighty g7-bishop. Demonstrating a Black win from that position is of
course impossible, but good luck to the fools who wish to defend the White
side! 12...Wa5 13 Wxd6? 13 ^bl is a more positional treatment, threatening
at any moment to kill Black's aggressive inclinations with a knight jump to
d5; but then 13...2fd8 14 £>d5 #xd2 15 £>xf6+ £xf6 16 flxd2 d5! equalizes
- the reason why 11 g4 should have been selected. (Instead, White keeps an
edge after 16...b6?! 17 c4 a6 18 a4.) After 13 a3? the ...b5-b4 push will
cause more damage: for example, 13...flfd8 14 £g5 a6 15 g4 b5 16 *bl?
(walking into the bombs!) 16...b4 17 £>d5 £xd5 18 exd5 fldb8 19 a4 £>d7...
63
The Philidor Files ...with a clear advantage to Black in Petruschin-
Kimelfeld, USSR 1979; he is reaching his goal whereas White's counter-
attack has only just begun. The moves ...Wxa^ ...Ac3 and ...£tt>6xa4 are all
looming, with a devastating attack. With the text move White wins a pawn,
but generates tactical complications that, in view of his lead in
development, favour Black. 13...£wJ7? Opening the bishop's diagonal,
while at the same time defending c5. However, Black has a much stronger
option in 13...£>xe4!!. That such an opportunity escaped the attention of
two correspondence players is extraordinary. This knight move achieves the
same purpose as 13...£>d7, but in a much more efficient way! For example:
a) 14 £>xe4? flfd8 and White has to face up to giving up his queen, as 15
#xc5 £xb2+ 16 *xb2 #xa2+ 17 *c3 flxdl, with the threats ...Sc8 or ...l'al+, is
hopeless. b) After 14 fxe4 £.xc3 the bishop is taboo in view of 15 bxc3
#a3+ 16 *d2 Bad8. Black, moreover, threatens ...1i'xa2 and ...£.xb2+ and
enjoys a clear advantage. One should also note the possibility of
13...£.xa2!?, profiting from the immunity of the c5-pawn because of ...£h6+.
14Wd2 14 Ad2? is too artificial, as the following variation illustrates:
14...Ae5! 15 #d3 c4 16 #e3 b5 17 h5 b4 18 hxg6 fxg6 and Black's attack
proceeds unabated. (Instead 18...bxc3?! 19 gxh7+ *h8 20 £xc3 £xc3 21
#xc3+ #xc3 22 bxc3 isn't so clear.) 14».b5 15 ih6! 15 a3?! is a move
designed to slow down Black's attack. Its drawback is that it creates a hook
and can actually have a reverse effect, e.g. 15...b4 16 £>d5 flfb8 17 £f4?
£xb2+ 18 *xb2 #xa3+ 19 *bl b3 20 c3 b2 21 £xb8 flxb8 22 kel £>e5 when
White's king cannot run away via d3 and succumbs. 15..i-d4!? A
speculative sacrifice in order to keep the 'monster' bishop. Instead,
15...£.h8? is bad on account 64

l e4 eS 2 £)/3 d6 - 3 d4 exd4: Introduction and Larsen's Variation of 16

£>d5!, but the greedy 15...b4! would have restored the material balance: 16
£>bl flfd8! (16...£xa2?! passes the initiative to White after 17 £xg7 *xg7 18
h5) 17 £xg7 *xg7 18 h5 £>f8 19 #f4 fixdl+ 20 *xdl *g8 and Black isn't
worse; he will soon take on a2 and White's pieces are strangely placed
(although not 20...#xa2?? 21 h6+ <&g8 22 #f6). 16 ixb5? 16 £.xf8! was
better than opening the b-file. Black would have had compensation in this
case, but I don't see any forced win. 16...flxf8 17 a3 b4 18 £>bl holds for
White, who of course has an extra exchange for his suffering. After 18...2b8
Black dominates the dark squares and won't be worried by an enemy attack.
Following 19 b3 (19 c3 bxc3 20 £>xc3 flb3) 19...#c7 he certainly has some
play, but is it enough? 16...2fb8 16...£xc3? 17 #xc3 #xb5?? allows 18 #g7
mate. 17 34 17 £xd7? loses to 17...*b4. 17...a6 17...flxb5? 18 £>xb5 #xa4
19 c3 £b3 20 £>a3 gives White a large plus. 18ixd7Wb4?! This is an
inaccuracy which fortunately doesn't spoil very much. Instead, Black can
win by playing 18...flxb2! and now: a) 19 *xb2 #b4+. b) 19 £xe6 fxe6 20
£>e2? (20 *xb2 *b4+ 21 *a2 £xc3 wins) 20...2bl+ 21 <&xbl Wb6+ and
mate in four. c) 19 £>d5 doesn't save White: 19...flbl+ 20 *xbl Sb8+ 21 *a2
£xd5+ 22 exd5 flb2+ 23 *a3 (or 23 *al £c3! 24 #xc3 #xc3 25 fld3 #xc2 26
fla3 flb4 etc.) 23...£c3 24 #f4 *b4+ 25 #xb4 cxb4. An amusing mate, isn't it!
19 £b5 axb5 19...flxb5?? would allow White to escape after 20 axb5 axb5
21 #g5! (21 *bl? #a5! 22 £>a4 #xa4 23 c3 £b3! and 21 #f4? £xc3 22 bxc3
#xc3 would win for Black) 21...f6 22 flxd4 Sal+ 23 £>bl. 20 Wf4! bxa4 21
flxd4! #xb2+ 22 id2l? Or 22 *dl #xc3! 23 fld3! fld8! (it was still possible to
go wrong: 65

The Philidor Files 23...flbl+ 24 *e2 #xc2+ 25 fld2 #c4+ 26 *G flxhl 27 #f6
#fl+ 28 *g3! #el+ 29 flf2 #al 30 e5 and mate is unavoidable) 24 #d2 flxd3
25 cxd3 (25 #xd3 Wa\+ 26 £cl a3 with an imminent promotion) 25...#al+ 26
Wei #d4 and the a-pawn is a monster. 22...cxd4 23£>dl 23 #f6? loses to
23...#xc3+ 24 *cl #b2+ 25 *dl d3!, covering g7! 23-..Wb4+24 *e2 After 24
*cl? Black wins with 24...d3!! 25 #f6 d2+ 26 £xd2 #bl mate. 24..-SaS?!
24...f5?! 25 h5 allows some swindling chances, but 24...£c4+! 25 *f2 #b6
would have simplified Black's task. 25«f6Wb5+26id2 Or 26 *f2?! #e5 27
#xe5 flxe5 28 £f4 2eb5 29 £xb8 2xb8+ with a similar end to the game.
26...We5 26...,irb4+? yields only a draw by repetition after 27 *cl! #bl+ 28
*d2 *b4+ (but not 27 c3? dxc3+ 28 £>xc3 #d6+ 29 £>d5 flxd5+ 30 exd5
#xd5+ 31 *e2 #a2+ 32 *e3 flb3+ 33 *f4 #d2+ 34 *g3 #xh6 and Black wins).
27 #xe5 fixes 28 £f4 2eb5 29 £xb8 2xb8 30 *d3? After 30 £>f2 a3 31 flal a2
32 *cl the paralyzed rook leaves little hope of salvation. 30...a3 0-1 B213) 1
e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 g6 5 £>c3 ig7 6 £e3 £>« 7 #d2 0-0 8 0-
0-0 £>c6 9 f3 £>xd4 10 £xd4 £e611 *bl Another possibility that deserves a
mention. White considers that his opponent can't do without ...c5 and thus
decides on a useful move that doesn't weaken anything. 11...C5 12 ie3 Wa5
13 £>d5! 13 h4?! is illogical: 13...h5!? (13...b5?! 14 £>d5! #xd2 15 £>xf6+
£xf6 16 flxd2 flfd8 17 £f4! gives White an edge, but 13...flfd8! equalizes -
cf. Line B214) 14 £h6 flfd8? (14...*h7 15 £xg7 *xg7 16 £e2 flad8 17 #f4! is
slightly better for White according to Prandstetter, but why should Black
waste a tempo on 14...*h7 - ? Instead 14...flfb8, planning ...b5, seems more
to the point) 15 Ag5! 66

l e4 eS 2 £)/3 d6 - 3 d4 exd4: Introduction and Larsen's Variation fld7 16

£xf6 £xf6 17 £>d5 #d8 18 £b5! £xd5 19 £xd7 £xa2+ 20 *xa2 #xd7 21 #xd6
#a4+ 22 *bl £d4 23 fld3 #b5 24 flb3 #e2 25 #g3 Af2 26 #g5 b5 27 fld3 £d4
28 #d2! #xd2 29 flxd2 and White won in Prandstetter-Plachetka, Tren-
cianske Teplice 1985. Move inversions are common here; 13 g4 transposes
to note 'a' to White's 13th in Line B214. 13...Wxd2 14 £>xf6+ ixf6 15 flxd2
2fd816 ie2 If 16 c4 then 16...a6 with the idea of ...b5 and counterplay. The
differences between this position after 16 Ae2 and the one where the bishop
is still located on fl and the white pawn is on h4 are clear: the h- pawn isn't
hanging in some cases and, above all, the theme of the back-rank mate has
disappeared. Black can't free himself by ...d5 (c5 drops) and is thus saddled
with a backward pawn on d6. B214) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4
g6 5 £>c3 £g7 6 ie3 £>f6 7 Wd2 0-0 8 0-0-0 £>c6 9 f3 £>xd4 10 £xd4
£e611 g4 We've reached the most severe test for the variation 8...£>c6 and
9...£>xd4. In our featured game in this line, White will bravely advance his
king towards the centre, where it will be safe and even manage to join the
assault against its counterpart! 11...C5 12 £e3 Was 13 ih6! Or: a) 13 ^bl
Bfd8? (losing precious time; 13...b5! with the idea 14 £>d5 #a6 and Black
is fine) 14 £e2 b5 15 £>d5!? #a4 16 £>c3 #a5 17 h4 b4 18 £>d5 £xd5 19
exd5 £>d7 20 h5 gave White a clear plus in Ernst-Plachetka, Gausdal 1985.
67

The Philidor Files Compare this with the game Petruschin-Kimelfeld

(quoted in the notes to Line B212) This time White's attack is by far the
more menacing. b) 13 a3!? also deserves attention: 13...flfd8 (13...flfe8?!
doesn't meet the demands of the position; after 14 £tf>5 White was much
better in Nisipeanu- Djuric, FIDE World Chv Las Vegas 1999) 14 g5 £>e8
(or 14...£>d7?! 15 £>b5 Wb6 16 #xd6 £>e5 17 #xb6 axb6 18 flxd8+ flxd8
19 £>c7! - giving back the pawn in order to extinguish Black's activity -
19...£>xf3 20 £>xe6 fxe6 21 c3 with a nice edge in the ending, due to the
pair of bishops and the possibility of a later king march on the queenside:
c2- b3-c4-b5!) 15 £>d5 and now: bl) In view of his backward d-pawn - and
the strongpoint on d5 associated with it - Black should avoid 15...1'xd2+ 16
Bxd2, after which a possible continuation is 16...£xd5 17 flxd5 £>c7 18 fld2
d5 (or I8...£>e6 19 c3 £e5 20 £c4) 19 £xc5 dxe4 20 flxd8+ flxd8 21 fxe4
£>e6 22 £xa7 £>xg5 23 £g2 with a large edge for White. 19...£>e6 20 £e7
fle8 21 exd5 Bxe7 22 dxe6 represents a lesser evil, but White has still won a
pawn. b2) 15...#a4! 16 c3 £xd5! (preventing #c2, as White obviously
wishes to recapture with a piece on d5) 17 #xd5 b5 and Black's (counter)
play seems quite decent to me. 13...£xh6 The inferior 13...flfd8 leads to
trouble for Black: 14 £xg7 *xg7 15 h4 h5 16 gxh5! £>xh5 17 flgl b5 18 #g5
b4 19 £>bl with a big advantage to White, Yurtaev-Gulko, Frunze 1985.
14Wxh6 14...b5!? If 14...£xa2?! 15 h4! Ae6 16 h5 with the idea of 17 hxg6
fxg6 18 g5 £>h5 19 flxh5!. With 14...b5!? we are following the game
Tseshkovsky-Vorotnikov, Aktju- binsk 1985: 15 ixb5 2ab8 16 Wf4! £>e8
17 £xe8 flfxe8 I8 2xd6! Tseshkovsky thought that 18 #f6 was better:
18...#b4 (18...£xa2 19 flxd6 transposes to the game with White having
avoided 18...flxb2) 19 £>e2! £.xa2 20 £>f4. The winner of the game 68

1 e4 eS 2 £)/3 d6 - 3 d4 exd4: Introduction and Larsen's Variation concludes

that White has a large advantage, but if one carries on the analysis it
transpires that Black is okay: 20...fle5! 21 £>d3 #d4 (with ideas of ...c4,
...Ac4 or even ...flxe4) 22 £>xe5 (other moves are worse) 22...1'xb2+ 23
*d2 dxe5... ...when a pawn and a wandering white monarch provide enough
compensation for the exchange. I8...£xa2?! Better is 18...flxb2 19 <&xb2
*b4+ 20 *cl #xc3 21 flhdl c4! 22 e5 (22 g5?! Af5 23 exf5? #al+ 24 *d2
c3+) 22...h5 (to play ...Af5 in case White captures on h5) 23 #d4 Wxf3 24
gxh5, although the advantage is still White's. 19«f6 After this point an
improvement for Black is difficult to find. 19...£e6 19...£c4 20 flhdl #al+ 21
*d2 #xb2 22 flbl #a3 23 flxb8 flxb8 24 h4 and the white king is safe
whereas its counterpart can see imminent danger. 20ahdiWal+2iid2Wa5
After 21...#xb2? 22 flbl #a3 23 flxb8 flxb8 24 flxe6 fxe6 25 #xe6+ a check
on e5 or d6 will net the b8-rook. 22 *e3! 22...C4 Or 22...flxb2 23 flxe6! and
the rook landing on d7 or d8 will be decisive. 23 h4! flxb2 24 *f4 But not
24 flxe6? #c5+ 25 *f4 fxe6 26 fld7 #f8 when Black has the advantage.
24...flb6 Or 24...#c7 25 e5 We7 26 £>e4. Even without queens White has
mating ideas. 25 Sd8 Sb8 26 flxb8 flxb8 27 h5 gxh5 28 gxh5 fle8 Mate is
looming after 28...#xh5 29 69
The Philidor Files flgl+ *f8 30 £>d5! Wh2+ 31 flg3 #d2+ 32 *e5!. 29 h6
*f8 30 Bgl Wc7+ 31 e5 1-0 ...and Black resigned. This convincing
demonstration seems to spell the end of 9...£>xd4. Black players should
thus probably come back to 9...fle8 if they want to persist with the
fianchetto variation. B22) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 g6 5 £>c3
ig7 6 ie3 £>f6 7 #d2 0-0 8 0-0-0 2e8 This move forces f2-f3 - which of
course was part of White's intentions in any case, while it could be said that
Black could do without ...Be8. That is probably why the Czech
Grandmaster Blatny criticized 8...fle8 in his annotations to the encounter
Van Mil- Reinderman. Nevertheless, the move does still make sense, as we
will see later on. 9f3 9 £.g5!? is an original idea tried with success by
Hicham Hamdouchi versus yours truly: 9...£>c6 10 £>de2 b5 11 £>g3 and
now 11...b4 (instead of my ll...a6?) 12 £>d5 flb8 13 h4 £e6 14 h5 £.xd5 15
exd5 £le5 is unclear. After 9 f3 we will look at: B221:9...a6 B222:9..^c6 In
Van Mil-Reinderman, Sonnevanck 1993, Black deviated with... 9...d5? An
idea borrowed from the Dragon Sicilian, where the position is almost
identical (there is a black pawn on e7 rather than c7), but also radically
different! Here the c-file is closed and so White's king will never be
worried. Instead, 9...h5? is a drastic way to 70

l e4 eS 2 g>/3 d6 - 3 d4 exd4: Introduction and Larsen's Variation prevent

g4, but the remedy is worse than the illness. White can now react by
playing 10 h3, having in mind g4 (anyway) and £>d5. Once the f6-knight is
eliminated, the capture on h5 will cause damage. 10 £>b3 c611 ih6 ih8
Revealing an idea behind 8...2e8: Black can decline the disadvantageous
trade of bishops. Unfortunately for him, the attack won't come along the h-
file. 12 exdS cxd5 13 £>xd5 13 Ac4!? profits from the pin, but the game
continuation is convincing enough. 13...&C6 Or 13...£>xd5 14 #xd5 #xd5
15 flxd5 flel+ 16 *d2 fle8 17 £b5 £k:6 18 "^cl with a clear advantage.
14£>c3 White has simply netted a pawn for nothing. Moreover, Black's
back rank is weak and the game finished abruptly: 14...#b6 15 £c4 £>e5 16
£b5 £d7 17 £xd7 £>fxd7 18 Shel (not 18 f4? £>g4) 18...£>f8 19 £>d5 #a6
20 *bl flac8 21 #b4 #c6?? (but 2l...£>c6 22 Wh4 flxel 23 flxel £>e6 would
only have prolonged the agony) 22 #xf8+! flxf8 23 Zhe7 mate. B221) 1 e4
e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 g6 5 £>c3 ig7 6 ie3 £>f6 7 Wd2 0-0 8 0-0-
0 2e8 9 f3 a6 10 g4 10 h4 b5?! (10...£>c6!) is dubious, as the following
demonstrates: 11 Ah6 £h8 12 £g5 Jib7 13 h5 £>bd7 14 g3 £g7 15 hxg6
fxg6 16 £h3 £>f8 17 £>d5, as given by Khalifman and Semkov in Opening
for White According to Anand (Vol.1), when White is much better.
10...b5?! 10...^c6! transposes back to the main line of 8...fle8 (see B2223
below). Ilig5 11 Ah6! is stronger than the text because the future sacrifice
£>f5 gains in force. Indeed, after ...gxf5; gxf5, the threat of flgl+ will be
lethal. Il...£.h8 is practically forced if Black wishes to resist the assault,
after which 12 Ag5 gives White a superior version of the Moingt-Levitt
game below. Il...£b7 12 h4 £>bd7 13 h5 C5 From this position, two
practical examples diverge. In the main text we 71

The Philidor Files are following the game Moingt-Levitt, Clichy 1986.
14£>f5?! Or 14 £>b3 b4 and now: a) 15 £>bl?! £>e5 16 Wxd6 (after 16 £e2
c4 17 £>d4 c3 18 bxc3 bxc3 19 £>xc3 White has grabbed a pawn at the cost
of a vulnerable king; following ...WaS or ...flc8 Black has excellent
compensation) 16...£>xf3 17 #xd8 (or 17 #f4? flxe4!! 18 flxd8+ flxd8 when
the threat of ...flel+ wins back the queen, leaving Black with the
advantageous endgame) 17...flaxd8 18 flxd8 flxd8 19 £>xc5 £>xg5 20
£>xb7 2d4 and Black will regain his pawn and stand a bit better. b) 15
£>d5!? £xd5 16 exd5 £>b6 (16...£>e5? 17 #f4 and Black can't move a
single muscle) 17 hxg6 fxg6! and the position is messy. This adds weight to
the argument for 15 hxg6, when 15...fxg6 is met by 16 Ac4+. c) 15 hxg6 is
a sacrifice that deserves attention. If Black rejects it with 15...hxg6, then 16
£>d5 will see the White attack reach its goal first. Instead 15...bxc3 16
gxf7+ *xf7 17 bxc3 was Joksic-Lehman, Plovdiv 1975. The position
remains sharp, and even a queen swap, after say \7...We7 18 #xd6 #xd6 19
flxd6, wouldn't guarantee Black an easy life: White would have three pawns
and threats such as Ac4+ and ^xc5. As well as 17 bxc3, both 17 #xd6!?
cxb2+ 18 *bl £>e5 19 £>xc5 #xd6 20 flxd6 £c8 and 17 #xc3!? were worth
considering. In each case White has reasonable compensation for the small
material deficit. 14...gxf5 15 gxf5 15...*h8?! After 15...b4! 16 #g2 *h8 17
h6 £f8 18 £le2 d5 White doesn't have enough for the invested piece. 72

l e4 eS 2 £)/3 d6 - 3 d4 exd4: Introduction and Larsen's Variation 16 Wxd6

b417 h6 if818 Wf4 #a5? 18...Ae7! was still winning. 19«h4i-e7? 19...1Brb6
was required, when the position remains unclear. 20 e5?? 20 Bxd7! would
have turned the tables: 20...£>xd7 21 £xe7 #b6 22 £>a4 #c6 23 £>xc5! and
this time it is White who wins! 20...bxc3 0-1 B222) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4
exd4 4 £>xd4 g6 5 £>c3 ig7 6 ie3 £>f6 7 Wd2 0-0 8 0-0-0 2e8 9 f3 £>c6
and now: B2221:10 g4 introduction B2222:10 g4 £>e5?! B2223:10 g4 a6!
B2224:10 h4 Firstly, a look at other possibilities for White. Joachim-Bauer,
Bad Zwesten 2002, continued... lO&bl Alternatively: a) 10 £>xc6?!. This
move has already been examined without the inclusion of f3 and ...Be8, and
it is still erroneous here to open the b-file. Black has an easier game, as he
can continue ...Ae6, ...flab8 or ...#b8-b4, and eventually even ...d5. An
example: 10...bxc6 11 ih6 ih8 12 ic4 ie6 13 ixe6 flxe6 14 fihel Wb8 15 b3
#b4 and Black seized the initiative in Vega Holm-Barbero, Spanish Team
Ch. 1993. b) 10 jLc4?!. We have already seen that Ac4 doesn't meet the
demands of the position. The bishop will be a target for the enemy pieces
and pawns (10...£>e5), and thus a catalyst for the black attack. I0...a6 ll h4
73

The Philidor Files ll...d5!, contrary to the ...d5-thrust in Van Mil-

Reinderman, here levels the game. Indeed, the queen is protected well
enough this time, so 12...dxe4 is possible on 12 £>b3. 12ig5 The only way
to conduct the assault on the kingside. After 12 Ae2 the move Qbl would be
a pure waste of time. 12...b5? I disliked the pin after 12...h5 13 #f4, but
following 13...C6 White is deprived of the d5-square and Black, who can
consider ...b5-b4, ...c5 and so on, isn't worse. 13 h5 C514 £>b3 c4 15 h6! A
finesse that escaped my attention. This little guy won't be hanging anymore
when White grabs on d6. 15...£h8 If 15...£f8? 16 £>d5 £>ed7 17 £>c5!!
...and Black's position falls apart. l6Wxd6? 16 £>c5! would have given
White a superior ending after 16...b4 17 £>d5 dxc5 18 £>xf6+ £xf6 19 #xd8
flxd8 20 flxd8+ £xd8 21 £xd8. Attempts by Black to deviate are even
worse. 16...Wxd617 flxd6 cxb3 18 flxf6 This wasn't my opponent's original
intention, but 18 £xf6 £xf6 19 flxf6 bxc2+ 20 *xc2 £e6 followed by ...£>d7
and ...g5 traps the rook! I8...£xf6 19 £xf6 bxc2+ 20 *xc2 £b7 ...with an
edge that I managed to convert. Actually, my opponent had started with 6 f3
when, shame on me, I didn't equalize at once with an early ...d5!. To my
credit, I should say that my book wasn't finished, and I thus didn't have the
opportunity to consult it! 74

l e4 eS 2 £)/3 d6 - 3 d4 exd4: Introduction and Larsen's Variation B2221) 1

e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 g6 5 £>c3 ig7 6 ie3 £>f6 7 Wd2 0-0 8
0-0-0 2e8 9 f3 £>c610 g4 White's most popular choice. 10...£>xd4?!
10...d5!? is interesting: 11 g5! (11 £b5!? £>xd4 12 £xd4 c6 13 g5 £>h5 14
£xg7 £>xg7 15 £>xd5 cxd5 16 £xe8 #xe8 17 exd5 was unclear in Rasmus-
sen-F.Andersen, correspondence 2000) ll...£>h5 12 £>xd5 £>xd4 13 £xd4
£xd4 14 #xd4 #xg5+ 15 #d2! (15 f4 Wh4 16 We3 Ag4 was messy in
Pirttimaki- Vorotnikov, Lvov 1983) 15...#d8 (or 15...#e5 16 f4 #xe4 17 £b5
£e6 18 £xe8 £xd5 19 #xd5 #xd5 20 flxd5 and White won in Kallmeyer-
F.Andersen, correspondence 2000 - Black's position is hopeless for a
correspondence game!) 16 Wfh6 Wd6 17 flgl (17 £c4!?) 17...£>f6 (maybe
17...c6 puts up more resistance, e.g. 18 £>b6 #c5, or 18 #xh5 cxd5 19 flxd5
#f4+ 20 *bl £e6 with some play) 18 £b5 tte5 19 £c4 £>xd5 20 £xd5 #f8 21
flxg6+! hxg6 22 #xg6+ *h8 23 £xf7 with a large advantage for White,
Dvoirys-Vorotnikov, Moscow 1985. 11 £xd4 ll...£e6 ll...c5?! condemns the
d6-pawn for the sake of generating counterplay: 12 £f2! #a5 13 #xd6 £>d7
14 #d2 £>b6 15 *bl £e6 16 £>d5 (Nisipeanu- Negulescu, Romania 1995)
gives White a clear plus according to Nisipeanu and Stoica, an opinion that
I share. 12 g5 Rajskij-Kagan, Minsk 1985, is an illustration of Black's
chances in this line: 12 h4 c5 13 4.f2 a6 14 #xd6 £>d7 15 #d2 #a5 16 a3 b5
17 £>d5 b4 18 *bl Sab8 19 £g3 £xd5 20 £xb8 flxb8 21 #xd5 bxa3 22 £c4
flxb2+ 23 *cl flxc2+ and White resigned. 12...£kh5 13 £xg7 £>xg7 14 h4
14...We7 Or: a) 14...£>h5? is senseless. White plays 15 flgl followed by f4
and Ae2, after which the knight has to withdraw. b) 14...c6!? is interesting.
Black plans ...b5-b4, followed by the freeing ...d5, so the obvious 15 #xd6
is practically forced. After 15...#a5 16 a3 Had8 17 #b4 flxdl+ 18 £>xdl #c7
Black has 75

The Philidor Files some compensation for the sacrificed pawn. 16 #a3!? is
also possible. The ending resulting from ^...WxaS 17 bxa3 flad8 (or
17...£>h5) is a bit better for White, but Black has fair chances to hold; and
there's an alternative in 16...11)6, in order to probe White's kingside via e3
or f2. 15f4c6 16 ie2! 16 #xd6?! #xd6 17 flxd6 £>h5 is okay for Black.
16..J2ad817 if3 f6 The sharper 17...b5 also favours White: 18 f5 b4 19 £>e2
gxf5 (or 19...d5 20 f6 #c5 21 £>f4) 20 exf5 £>xf5 21 £xc6 with a solid plus
in both cases. 18 h5 White has a clear advantage, Rodin- Meister, Podolsk
1992. B2222) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 g6 5 £>C3 ig7 6 ie3
£>f6 7 Wd2 0-0 8 0-0-0 2e8 9 f3 £>c6 10 g4 £>e5?! 11 £e2 a6 This was
considered a very sharp and critical variation until the game Rytshagov-
Meijers dismissed it completely (see the next note). In the main text we are
following the game Sax- Adorjan, Hungarian Ch. 1970. I2ig5 Or: a) 12 g5!
is a good move: 12...£>h5 (or 12...£>fd7 13 f4 £>c6 14 h4 with a strong
attack, Arkhipov-Klovans, Mun- ster 1993) 13 f4! £>g4 14 £gl c5 15 £>b3
£xc3 16 bxc3 (not 16 #xc3? £>xf4!) 16...flxe4 17 h3 £>g3 18 A.B Ba4
(18...fle7 wouldn't have brought much relief: 19 hxg4 £>xhl 20 £h2, or 19
£xc5 £>xhl 20 hxg4 £>g3 21 £xd6 with a large advantage to White) 19
Axc5 £>xhl 20 £xhl flxa2 21 *bl fla4 22 #xd6! (22 £d5 brought White a win
on move 49 in Rytshagov-Meijers, Mezez- ers 2000) 22...#xd6 23 flxd6...
...is winning for White. b) 12 £h6! £h8 13 £g5 is more accurate than the text
move for reasons we've already discussed. The straightforward 13 h4 is
playable as well: 13...b5 14 h5 c5 15 £>f5 b4! 16 £>d5 £>xd5 17 #xd5 £e6
18 #xd6 #f6 (with the threat of 19...£>d3) and the position is unclear. A
game Cherniaev- 76

1 e4 e5 2 £*/3 d6 - 3 d4 exd4: Introduction and Larsen's Variation

Vorotnikov, Moscow 1996, continued 19 g5 £>d3+ 20 *d2 #d8 (20...#xb2??
21 #f8+! flxf8 22 £>e7 mate) 21 #xd8 flaxd8 22 cxd3 gxf5. White's bishop
is blocked in on h6 whereas its counterpart fires down on the queenside.
Black is certainly not worse. c) 12 h4 b5 13 £h6 transposes to Cherniaev-
Vorotnikov above. Conducting the assault with only pawns lacks punch: 13
h5?! c5 14 £>b3 c4 15 £>d4 b4 followed by 16...c3 and Black's attack is
already well advanced. There's also 12...c5 13 £>b3 c4 14 £>d4 b5 when
Black's counterplay is again taking shape. 12...b5 13 h4 £b7 14 h5 C5 15
£>f5!? Again we see this sacrifice. Although its worth is hard to evaluate, it
at least has the merit of taking the initiative over to White. 15...gxf 5 16 gxf
5 *h8 16...b4! gives Black the edge: 17 £>a4 Ac6 18 h6 and now: a)
18...£xa4? 19 hxg7 £b5 20 Sh6 £>ed7 21 Sxh7!! £>xh7 (not 21...*xh7?? 22
£xb5 - threatening 23 Wh2+ *xg7 24 Wh6+ *g8 25 £xf6 and 26 flgl+ -
22...*xg7 23 flgl and White wins) 22 ixd8 ixe2 23 #xe2 flaxd8 24 flxd6 with
a clear plus to White, as Black's pieces can't coordinate efficiently. b)
18...£h8 19 flhgl *f8 20 £>b6 Axe4!! (in order to cover d6 when taking the
knight) 21 £>xa8 £xf3!. The knight on a8 can't escape and Black will get
two minor pieces for the rook, with his king being rather secure. 17 Shgl
17...Hg8?! 17...Af8! was more apt way to defend, as you can verify
yourself! After the inferior text move White has the better of it. 18 f4 b4 19
£>a4 £>xe4 20 £xd8 £>xd2 21 h6! 2axd8 22 hxg7+ flxg7 23 flxg7 *xg7 24
f6+! *h6 25 2xd2? The alternative capture 25 fxe5! was superior, since after
25...£le4 26 Af3 £>c3, White can win by means of 27 flxd6 £xf3 28 flxd8
£>xa4 29 e6 <&g6 30 e7 £c6 31 e8# £xe8 32 flxe8 etc. (and if 32...*xf6??
33 fla8). 25...£>f3 26 £xf3 i.xf3 27 £>xc5 fle8 28 flh2+ *g6 29 £>xa6 2e4
30 flf2? 30 *d2 h5 31 c3 bxc3+ 32 *xc3 flxf4 77

The Philidor Files 33 b4 gave better chances of salvation. It seems in the

game that only Black's time trouble prevented White from losing. 30...£g4
31 *d2 h5 32 c3 bxc3+ 33 *xc3 h4 34 b4 *f 5? A serious mistake. Black
should have played 34...h3 - the passed pawn is very dangerous and must be
pushed as soon as possible. In this case the result would probably have been
reversed: after 35 b5 fle2 36 b6 (or 36 flfl h2) 36...flxf2 37 b7 h2 38 b8# hl#
39 #g8+ *f5 40 #g5+ *e4 Black escapes checks and wins. 35 b5 flxf4 36 b6
flf3+! 37 *c4 flxf2 38 b7 flxa2?? The final error. 38...flc2+! would have
saved the draw after 39 ^3! (not 39 *b5?? £e2+ 40 *a4 Hxa2+ 41 *b3 flal
42 *b2 h3 43 b8# h2 and Black should win!) 39...flcl 40 *a3 h3 41 b8# h2
42 #b5+ *f4 43 #b4+ *f5 44 #b5+ when a draw by repetition is an
appropriate conclusion to this hard- fought game. 39 £>b4 Ba5 40 b8W
flc5+ 41 *d4 2e5 ...and White won. B2223) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4
£>xd4 g6 5 £>c3 ig7 6 ie3 £>f6 7 Wd2 0-0 8 0-0-0 2e8 9 f 3 £>c6 10 g4 a6!
The only way I have found to repair the whole Black system. Now if...
Il£e2 ...then Black continues with... Il...£txd412 £xd4 £e6 ...intending ...b5
and/or ...c5, which looks playable for Black. (12...c5? drops a pawn to 13
£xc5 £xg4 14 #xd6.) For example: 13 g5 £>h5 14 Axg7 £>xg7 15 h4 b5 16
f4 If 16 a3 #b8!?. I6...b4 17 £>d5 £xd5 18 exd5 The alternative 18 #xd5
deserves consideration, even though Black seems to obtain a decent
position in all lines: 18...#e7 19 £c4 (19 h5 £>xh5 20 £xh5 gxh5, or 19 £f3
#e6) 19...c6 20 #xc6 flac8 21 Wd5 flc5 22 Wd3 Wxe4 23 Wxe4 flxe4 24
ixa6 flxf4 25 flxd6 £>f5 with counterplay against White's kingside pawns.
l8...We7 19 fidel #e3 20 ig4 Wg3 Or 20...1'c5, when White may be a bit
better, but probably no more. 78

l e4 e5 2 ffl/3 d6 - 3 d4 exd4: Introduction and Larsen's Variation B2224) 1

e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 g6 5 £>c3 £g7 6 ie3 £>f6 7 Wd2 0-0 8
0-0-0 2e8 9 f 3 £>c610 h4 10 h4 represents the alternative way to start
hostilities. Essentially White wants to open the h-file, but having g4- g5 at
his disposal may prove helpful. However, beginning with g4 prevents
defences based on ...h5. io...£>e5 Black has some alternatives here: a)
10...h5!? would be an improved version of 9...h5. Stopping the h-pawn in
this way would, however, still be far from ideal: al) 11 £g5 (with the idea of
£>d5; this motif doesn't appear in the Sicilian Dragon because, with a black
pawn still on e7, the f6-knight isn't pinned) U..Ad7 12 #f4 #e7 with an
apparently playable game after, for example: 13 £c4 £>xd4 14 flxd4 #e5, 13
£>d5 £>xd5 14 exd5 f6 15 dxc6 fxg5 16 £c4+ *h7 17 hxg5 bxc6, or 13
£>db5!?. a2) Another common theme is the breakthrough with g2-g4, but
here 11 g4? hxg4 12 h5 fails, as White isn't well enough prepared after
12...£>xh5. b) 10...£>xd4?! is a swap that doesn't fit in well with ...Be8.
Indeed, after the follow-up ...Ae6 and ...c5 that this simplification induces,
the rook would prove more useful on d8. After 11 £.xd4 £e6 12 h5 c5 13
£e3 White retains an edge: for example, 13...£>xh5 14 £b5 followed by g4
or #xd6, while after 13...#a5 there's 14 hxg6 fxg6 15 £b5 with the idea of
We2 and Lc4 which helps to exploit the d5 outpost. c) There is no drawback
to playing 10...a6 before ...£>e5 given the fact that Black doesn't fear a
swap on c6. Another point of 10...a6 is to avoid the immediate £.h6, which
is crucial for the viability of the system. After 11 g4 £le5 12 Ae2 one
arrives back to a position treated in Line B222 (see note 'c' to White's 12th
move). llir.6 The critical continuation, against which no remedy has yet
been found. 11 ^bl is a prophylactic move that is not really required here,
but even so, it's worth checking out the game Hardicsay-Prinz, Boblingen
1985, which provides much excitement: ll...a6 12 79

The Philidor Files £g5! b5 13 h5 £b7 14 hxg6 hxg6?! (14...fxg6 was to be

preferred, so that the h-file remains only half-open; perhaps Black feared 15
£>d5, but 15...c6 16 £>xf6+ £xf6 seems acceptable) 15 £>b3! (with the idea
of £>a5!) 15...b4 16 £>d5 £xd5 17 exd5 #b8 (17...a5?! would allow £b5 and
#f4-h4) 18 #f4 (White has a clear plus) 18...£>ed7 19 £c4 #b6 (Black's
counterplay is far too slow, a bad sign in opposite-side castling situations)
20 £h6 £h8 21 £>d4?! (21 Wh4! was stronger, with the threat of Ae3)
21...a5? (here 2l...#c5!? was required, and after 22 £>f5! £>h7!? [if 22...fle5
23 £f8!! wins, as does 22...Qe5 23 £g7!! £>h5 24 Wh6 £xg7 25 £>xg7
£>xc4 26 £>xh5 £>a3+ 27 bxa3 #c3 28 a4 b3 29 axb3 flab8 30 #d21 then
23 £g7! ...is the most efficient way to eliminate the h8-bishop! But after
23...£xg7 24 £>xg7 #e3 25 Wh4 *xg7 26 #xh7+ &16, thanks to his good
control over the dark squares, Black manages to survive) 22 £>f5! and now:
a) 22...gxf5 23 #g5+ *h7 24 £f8+ and White wins. b) 22...£>h7 23 £g7!
£xg7 24 £>xg7 80 #e3 25 Wh4 *xg7 26 #xh7+ *f6 (this is similar to the
line with 21...1'c5, but there's a nuance...) 27 Wh4+ *g7 28 fldel #d2
(28...#c5 allows mate in 12. Fasten your seat belt and let's go! 29 Wh6+ *f6
30 #f4+ *g7 31 flh7+! *xh7 32 #xf7+ *h6 33 flhl+ *g5 34 f4+ *g4 35
#xg6+ &xf4 36 flh4+ <&e3 37 #g3+ *d2 38 #d3+ <&el 39 #fl+ *d2 40 Wcl
mate!) 29 flxe8 flxe8 30 £b5 and White wins (the difference!). c) 22...Wt2
(the game continuation) 23 £f8!. This pretty move threatens Bxh8+,
destroying the main guardian of Black's king. White is winning now:
23...£>g4 (23...£>xf8 24 flxh8+, 23...£>h5 24 £>h6+) 24 £e7 £g7 25 £>xg7
*xg7 26 flh7+ *xh7 27 #xf7+ and Black resigned. Il...£h8 12 £g5! With 12
h5 £>xh5 13 g4 £>g3 14 Bh3 £>xfl 15 flxfl we are following the games
Korongy-Tolnai, Budapest 1972, and Emms-Summerscale, London 1997.
The logical, if not obligatory sequence continues 15...c5 16 £>f5 £>c4 17
#d3 Ae6 and now the games split: a) The Korongy-Tolnai encounter

l e4 eS 2 £)/3 d6 - 3 d4 exd4: Introduction and Larsen's Variation continued

18 b3 #a5 19 bxc4 £xc3 20 f4 £xf5? 21 gxf5 £d4 22 fxg6 fxg6 23 f5 (here
23 c3!, with the idea #d5+ if the bishop withdraws, was better, with a nice
advantage for White) 23...gxf5 24 flg3+ *h8 25 c3 £e5 26 £g5 fxe4?!
(26...#xa2!) 27 #xe4 £xc3?? (27...flf8! and Black is still doing well) 28 £f6+
£xf6 29 Wxh7+\\ and mate next move. Black can improve on this with
20...£h8!, with the idea 21 £>xd6 flad8 22 f5 flxd6 23 #xd6 £xc4, and the
game is messy after 24 fxg6 hxg6 25 flfhl #xa2. Instead 25 £d2??...
...intends flxh8, ^.c3+ and a quick mate on the dark squares, but Black
strikes first: 25...£.b2+!!, winning after either 26 *dl #xa2 or 26 *xb2 #xa2+
27*c3Axfl. b) Emms preferred 18 £f4 #b6 19 b3 *be5 20 #d2 £xf5? (the
same unfortunate move as in the Hungarian encounter; 20...#a6 21 flfhl h5
would have led to a double-edged position) 21 gxf5 Wb4? 22 flxh7!! (a nice
shot that clarifies the situation) 22...*xh7 23 flhl+ *g8 24 flxh8+ and Black
resigned on account of 24...*xh8 25 £xe5+ followed by Wh6+ and f6 with
unavoidable mate. 12...a613 h5 b5 14 Wei! Instead, 14 #f4 b4 15 £>d5
£>xd5 16 exd5 f6 isn't clear; while 14 *bl?! (Santo-Roman-Kosten,
Mandelieu la Napoule 1992) allows Black some breathing space, and then
14...£.b7 is also unclear. 14-£b7 If 14....&g7 (planning to counter 15 Wh4
with ...h6) 15 hxg6 fxg6 16 Wh4 with a powerful attack. 15«h4 ...and Black
is in trouble. 81
The Philidor Files Black has more chances with 3...exd4 than with the
options considered in Chapter 1. Firstly, 4 #xd4 is insufficient to claim an
advantage. That said, White is able to lead the game into complex battles
which include opposite-side castling. Recapturing with the queen thus suits
tactically-oriented players. After the more popular 4 £>xd4, the kingside
fianchetto offers Black dynamic counterplay, but is quite difficult to handle
and probably fundamentally suspicious. Black has two ways to play the
position: the simplifying swap ...£>xd4 followed, if White allows it, by ...c5
and ...WaS; and the more complex ...£>e5, beginning a race of pawn storms
against the kings on opposites sides of the board. Both possibilities are
experiencing tough times, as illustrated by the games Tseshkovsky-
Vorotnikov (Line B214) and Rytshagov-Meijers (Line B2222). 82

Chapter Three Antoshin's Variation: Introduction jmjukmi m tiiii mtmt "w&

Wt ''<*&. ■am. m m m m 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5 £>c3
ie7 I ml This variation is named after the Russian Grandmaster Vladimir
Anto- shin, who popularized it as early as the mid 1950s. Instead of putting
the bishop where it would be most active, on the long diagonal, Black
chooses a more solid, but less ambitious set-up. In return for this he
increases his chances of successfully achieving the ...d5 advance (after
...$Le7 his queen is defended twice, so tactics down the d- file are more
favourable for Black than in the 4...g6 line). One other positive feature of
this system is that, with no pawn on g6 to act as a lever, White finds it
significantly harder to open a front on the kingside. White has a wide choice
at move 6. In this chapter we will examine: A:6£kde2 B: 6 £.C4 C: 6 ie2
D:6g3 6 £.f4, seen traditionally as the main line, has a chapter of its own.
Apart from these five options, few other moves make sense. Indeed, after 6
f3?! 0-0, Black will easily manage ...d5 and achieve a good position. 6 Ad3
is not to be feared either, since after 6...0-0 7 0-0 £>c6 or 7...£>bd7-c5 (or
e5), Black will either gain a tempo on the bishop or obtain a semi-open b-
file. There only remains the original... 83

The Philidor Files 6Wf3 ...which aims to play £>f5 without being forced to
recapture with the pawn in the event of ...£.xf5. 6...£kbd7 After 6...0-0 7
£>f5 £xf5 (7...fie8 is a decent alternative) 8 #xf5 £>c6 Black has a lead in
development to compensate for the enemy bishops. Dell'Agosti- Schmidt
Schaeffer, Swiss Team Ch. 2005, continued 9 £e3 £>e5 (9...#c8?! 10 Wxc8
flaxc8 11 &e2 is not disastrous for Black, but no picnic either) 10 jk.e2 c6
11 0-0 (11 0-0-0!?) Il...b5 12 f4?? (anything else was better, as now comes
the brilliant trick...) 12...£>fg4!! 13 £xg4 (13 fxe5 £>xe3 leaves even fewer
chances to muddy the waters) 13...g6 14 fxe5 gxf5 15 flxf5 dxe5 with a
sizeable advantage to Black, though some caution is still needed.
7^f5^e5!8Wf4 8 £>xg7+? loses to 8...*f8 9 #g3 £>fg4 and then 10...Ah4.
8...0-0 ...and Black had no real problems in Zelcic-Scalcione, Saint Vincent
2003 (8...£>h5!? is also possible). A) 1 e4 e5 2 £rf3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4
£>f6 5 £>c3 ie7 6 £>de2 Pursuing the same goal as 6 g3, but without
allowing the freeing ...d5. The price for this is quite obvious: White loses a
whole tempo to place his wonderful knight on an inferior square. Black has
three major replies: Al: 6...0-0 A2: 6...C6!? A3:6...£>C6 Al) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3
d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5 £>c3 £e7 6 £>de2 0-0 7 g3 7...2e8 84

1 e4 eS 2 g>/3 d6 - Antoshin's Variation: Introduction a) 7...b5 is an

interesting attempt to show the drawbacks of White's set-up: al) 8 £>xb5?!
£b7! and now if White hangs on to his pawn by playing 9 f3, then 9...d5
opens up the game and Black's lead in development gives him sufficient
compensation for a mere pawn. Note that 8...£>xe4?! is suspicious in view
of 9 #d5 c6 (9...£>c5? 10 #xa8 Jib7 11 #xa7 £xhl 12 #xc7 and two black
pawns are missing) 10 #xe4 d5 11 #d3 cxb5, although even here ...£>a6-c5
provides the opportunity to complicate matters. a2) 8 £g2 Jib7 9 0-0 b4 (the
most principled continuation; on 9...c6 White should avoid the 10 e5?! dxe5
11 #xd8 Sxd8 12 £>xb5 £>a6 from Marinkovic- Nevednichy, Petrovac
2004, and prefer the simple 10 a3 #c7 11 £>d4 fle8 12 £>f5 £f8 13 £f4 with
a clear plus, Kovalev-Stevic, Calvia Olympiad 2004) 10 £>d5 £>xd5 11
exd5 £f6 12 a3 a5 13 axb4 axb4 14 flxa8 £xa8 15 £>f4 £>d7 when White
was only marginally better in Milu-Nevednichy, Romania 2004. b) 7...£>a6
often comes to the same thing as the main text, and 8 Ag2 fle8 9 0-0 4.f8!
10 flel £>c5 11 £>d4 £g4! 12 f3 £d7 13 £e3 c6 14 a4 a5 gave roughly equal
chances in Bruzon-Nisipeanu, Decameron 2003. Players wishing to use this
set-up as Black would be well advised to avoid 9...c6?!, which enables
White to reach his best formation after 10 h3 £f8 11 g4 (Baklan-Payen,
Paris 2004): the knight now goes to g3, while the rook can be used on the f-
file for a kingside assault. 8 ig2 if8 9 0-0 £>bd7 Or9...£>a6. 10 Bel ...with a
likely transposition to the Bruzon-Nisipeanu game (see above). If White
isn't happy with this, he can try either 10 ^f4 (Baklan-Sandipan, Paris 2004)
or even 10 £e3 £>g4 11 £f4 is possible (Dreev-Tseshkovsky, Russian Ch.,
Moscow 2004). A2) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5 £>c3 ie7 6
£>de2 c6!? 7 g3 7 a4?! is inaccurate, as it allows Black to push with ...d5
and achieve a nice position: 7..Ae6 8 £>d4 0-0 9 £e2 d5 (Timofeev-Bacrot,
Moscow 2004) and Black can be satisfied with the outcome of the opening.
7...b5 7...£>a6 8 £g2 £>c7 is a sound alternative: 9 £>f4 0-0 10 0-0 and now
either 10...b5 or 10...fle8. Instead, 9 £>d4 (Fe- dorchuk-Urban Lubniewice
2005) doesn't really deal with Black's equalizing threat: 9...d5! 10 e5 £>g4
11 f4 and here either ll...f6 or 11...0-0 is fully okay for Black. 85

The Philidor Files 8ig2 If White wishes to avoid the following

complications, then 8 a3!? (Velicka- Ramik, Tatranske Zruby 2005) is
called for. As Black easily gains a good position after 8 £.g2, this lazy little
pawn move may well be best. 8...b4 8...£.b7 seems less logical than 8...b4,
though improvements do exist later on in the following sequence: 9 0-0 b4
10 £>a4 0-0 (if 10...c5 White should refrain from the tempting 11 e5?!,
which fails to ll...£xg2 12 exf6 £xfl 13 fxe7 #d7, but simply continue 11
£>f4, when the e-pawn is taboo) 11 flel fle8 12 £>d4 £f8 13 £>f5 c5 14 £g5
£>c6 15 f4 fle6 16 e5 dxe5 17 fxe5 #xdl 18 flaxdl flae8 19 £>xg7 £xg7 20
£>xc5 flxe5 21 flxe5 flxe5 22 £>xb7 Sxg5 23 £xc6 (Naid- itsch-Bacrot,
Mainz rapid 2005) with a solid extra pawn that White duly converted.
9£>b5 9 £>a4!? deserves further tests: 9...0-0 (or 9...#a5 10 c3) 10 0-0
£>bd7 (10...£a6!?) 11 £>d4 #c7 12 £>f5 £>e5 13 f4 (here 13 £>xe7+ #xe7
14 a3 is safer) 13...£.xf5 14 fxe5 leads to a rare material balance rendering
the position unclear after 14...£g4 15 exf6 Axdl 16 fxe7 #xe7 17 flxdl flad8
18 £f4. 9...0-0 ...with an equal position. (9...£.b7 10 £>bd4 g6! 11 £h6 £>g4
is unclear.) A3) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5 £>c3 ie7 6
£>de2 £>c6 7 g3 0-0 More 'spirited' attempts are also more hazardous, for
example: a) 7...£d7?! 8 £g2 #c8 9 £>f4 (Brkic- Pavasovic, Rabac 2004).
Black's manoeuvre was visibly artificial and White's pieces are better
placed. 9 h3!? is also possible. b) 7...h5?! 8 h3 £>e5 9 £g2 and, apart from
weakening his own camp, it's unclear what Black has achieved. c) 7...d5?! 8
exd5 £>b4 9 £g2 Af5 10 £>d4 £g4 11 f3?! £h5!? (Il...£c8 is equal) 12 £>f5
0-0 13 a3 £>bxd5 14 £>xd5 £>xd5 15 c4 (not 15 #xd5? £b4+! 16 axb4
fle8+ 17 #e4 flxe4+ 18 fxe4 #dl+ 19 *f2 #xc2+ 20 *gl #dl+ 21 £fl Af3 22
£>e3 #el 23 £>g2 #xb4 and the lack of coor- 86
l e4 eS 2 Zbf3 dination between White's pieces promises Black a huge
advantage). With 15 c4 we are following the internet game Timofeev-
Fridman, 2004. Here 15...£>b6 would have been normal, but the Latvian
was rewarded for his gambling: 15...£g6!? 16 #xd5 £xf5 17 #xf5 #d4 (the
white king is stuck in the centre - a hopeless situation in a blitz game!) 18
#d5 Wb6 19 #b5 #d4 20 #d5 Wb6 21 f4 flad8 22 #f3 flfe8 23 *fl £c5 24
b4?? (White's only mistake, but a decisive one; 24 £h3! £e3 25 £xe3 flxe3
26 #f2 and White should manage to digest the piece without too much
stomach pain) 24...1'f6 25 fla2 #c3!! (a bolt from the blue!) 26 £d2 #xc4+0-
l. Going back, 11 £>ce2! looks more to the point, as after ll...£>bxd5 12 c4
£>b4 13 £.xb7 it's unclear whether Black has enough for his pawn. 8 ig2
fle8 9 h3 flb810 f4 £>d7 10...b5?? of course loses to 11 e5. 110-0 b5 12
£>d5 £f8 We have been following the game Naiditsch-Nisipeanu, German
League 2004. Here Huzman indicates 13 £e3 > - Antoshin's Variation:
Introduction £>f6 14 £>xf6+ #xf6 15 £>c3 b4 16 £>d5 with a nice edge for
White. B) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 M exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5 £>c3 £e7 6 £c4 0-0 7
0-0 7 Ab3 avoids the pseudo-sacrifice that follows, but runs into the reply
7...£>a6 with the obvious intention of 8...£>c5. Now we will consider: Bl:
7».a6 B2: 7...C6 a) 7...fle8 is also sensible, for example 8 flel £f8 (or first
8...£>bd7) 9 £g5 c6 10 a4 (10 a3!?) 10...a5 with reciprocal chances. b)
7...£>c6 8 h3 fle8 9 flel h6 10 a4 £f8 11 £>f3 £e6 12 £>d5 £>d7 (as in To-
dorovic-S.Nikolic, Pancevo 1987) is unclear and interesting too. Black
keeps a compact position and firm control of the e5-square. He will
continue with ...g6 and ..Ag7. Black doesn't quite manage to equalize by
playing... 7...£>xe4 8 £>xe4 d5 9 £d3 dxe4 10 ixe4 if6 87

The Philidor Files 11 c3 11 £e3 (Dlugy-Alburt, US Championship,

Jacksonville 1990) is interesting, too, and probably sufficient to claim an
edge: after ll...fle8 12 #d3 g6 then instead of 13 fladl?! £>d7, I would
suggest 13 c3 £>d7 14 #c2, planning 14...£>c5 15 Af3 or 14...£>e5 15 fladl,
with some pressure. Il...£>d7?! Il...£.xd4 12 cxd4 <SW was worth attention.
12 if4 £>b6 12...£>c5 gives Black compensation for the pawn after 13
£xh7+ *xh7 14 Wh5+ *g8 15 #xc5 £xd4 16 cxd4 c6 followed by ....&e6-d5.
The opposite- coloured bishops complicate the realization of White's
advantage, but there is no doubt the advantage exists. 13WC2 13-.g6 Or: a)
13...£>d5?! 14 £g3 (14 &xh7+?! ^8, with the double threat of ...g6 and ...
£>xf4)14...£xd4 15 fladl!. b) 13...£xd4?! 14 fladl #f6 15 flxd4 c5 16 £xh7+
*h8 17 fle4 and Black can't profit from his opponent's far- flung pieces.
White will continue with Ae3 or Ag3 and eventually retreat the h7-bishop
without any problems, remaining a safe pawn ahead. 14 fladl We7 15 flfel
Black's harassed queen has no satisfactory square and White is clearly on
top, Lautier-I.Sokolov, Cap d'Agde (rapid) 1996. Bl) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4
exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5 £>c3 £e7 6 £c4 0-0 7 0-0 a6 8 a4 Prompted by the
desire to prevent ...b5. Indeed, if Black succeeded in achieving this push, he
would solve his opening problems by gaining play on the queenside.
8...£>xe4 a) 8...c5?! 9 £>de2 £>c6 10 £>f4 and Black has no real
counterplay in exchange for the weakening of d5. b) 8...£>c6 9 flel £>b4 10
£>d5 £>fxd5 11 exd5 (White is playing simultaneously for a space
advantage, and against the knight on b4) ll...£.f6 (threatening the obvious ...
£.xd4, which Black plays even after 12 c3) 12 £e3 88

1 e4 eS 2 £)/3 d6 - Antoshin's Variation: Introduction c5!? (sooner or later

compulsory, as retreating the horse by playing 12...a5 13 c3 £>a6 is a bit
passive; but 12...fle8 first, was a reasonable alternative: 13 #d2 c5 14 dxc6
£>xc6 15 £>xc6 bxc6 16 £b6! flxel+ 17 flxel #f8 with a similar assessment
to the game) 13 dxc6 £>xc6 14 c3 d5 15 £e2 and White stood slightly better
in Rogic-Morrison, Ohrid2001. 9 £>xe4 d5 10£d3 10 Wd3!? would be
interesting, since if Black captures on c4 the knight pair would restrain the
mobility of the enemy pieces. For example: 10...dxc4 11 #xc4 <SW 12 £f4
£>b6 13 #xc7 #xd4 14 #xe7 Af5 15 £e3 #xe4 16 #xe4 £.xe4 17 £.xb6 £.xc2
is equal, as is 14...£>d5 15 fladl #c4 (15...#xdl? loses a pawn after 16 #xf8+
*xf8 17 £d6+ *g8 18 flxdl) 16 #e5 £>xf4 17 #xf4 #xc2. 10...dxe411 £xe4
£f6 Comparing this to the analogous position from the previous section, the
inclusion of the moves 7...a6 8 a4 has favoured Black: the b5-square is
covered, which prevents a knight sally, while the b4-square is quite a
weakness in White's camp. Nevertheless, Black must be careful in order to
achieve full equality. Il...£>d7 is met by 12 c3, intending £c2, #d3, £h6 with
an edge. 12ie3 12 c3 £.xd4, intending ...£k6 or ...£>d7, equalizes, as the pair
of bishops is counterbalanced by the isolani. 12...£>d7! After 12...C5? 13
£>b3 £xb2 14 flbl White will recapture on c5 and exert heavy pressure on
the queenside. 13 c3 Se8 Intending 14...£le5 or 14...£>c5. 14*c2g6 15
flfel!? After 15 fladl!? We7 16 flfel! #f8 17 h3 Black still experiences some
difficulties finishing his development. If he manages ...£k5, ...Ad7, ...flad8
and ...Ac8 he will solve his opening problems, but White won't contemplate
this without acting! 15...£g7! 16 fladl c5! White wins after 16...*rh4?! 17
g3! 89

The Philidor Files #xe4? 18 £d2, and maintains significant pressure after
16...c6 17 Af4. 17 £>e2l? Black meets 17 £>f3 with 17...#c7 followed by ...
£>f6, ...c4, ...Af5 gaining counterplay; while 17 £>b3 doesn't prevent Black
from developing similarly with 17...#c7. 17...#c7! After 17...#e7 White
plays 18 £>g3 with the idea of Af3 and £>e4, aiming at the weaknesses on
c5 and d6. I8£>f4 Or 18 £f4!? £>e5!? 19 £g3 followed by £>f4 with the
initiative. I8...£tf6 Preventing £>d5 was a must. 19<£>d5 The inaccurate 19
Af3?! allows Black to equalize with 19...£>g4 or 19...£g4 20 #e2 £xf3.
19-.^xd5 20 2xd5 We have been following the game Yudasin-Adams, Dos
Hermanas 1993 (some of my comments have been based on the exhaustive
notes by Yudasin in Chess Informant). White still enjoys a small but
persistent initiative due to his more active pieces and slightly better
structure. B2) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 <J6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5 £>c3 £e7 6 £c4
0-0 7 0-0 c6 8 Bel A rare case where allowing ...b5 isn't such a big
concession. There are numerous reasons for this: 1) White would directly
threaten a2- a4. 2) Black can't follow up with ...c5, as the b5-pawn would be
en prise. 3) Black's c-pawn requires protection and this renders his
development a bit problematic. As a matter of fact, after saying 'A' Black
must say 'B' and expand as much as possible on the queenside, chasing
White's pieces while gaining space, but also accepting weaknesses in his
own camp. Alternatives for White include: a) 8 a3!? fle8 9 £a2 £f8 10 £g5
£>bd7 (in the event of the risky 10...h6 11 £h4 g5?! 12 £g3 £>xe4 13 £>xe4
90

1 e4 eS 2 £)/3 d6 - Antoshin's Variation: Introduction Bxe4 14 c3 White

obtains excellent compensation for the pawn, threatening notably to set up
the battery Abl- #d3 and open the kingside by f2-f4) 11 f4 £>c5 (ll...#b6!)
12 #f3 £>e6?! (the tactical 12...£.g4!? was worth consideration), and now
instead of 13 £>f5 d5! 14 exd5 £>c7 (Najer-Mamedyarov, Khanty
Mansyisk rapid 2005) White could fight for an edge with 13 Axe6 £xe6 14
£>xe6 flxe6 15 *hl. b) 8 a4, the traditional way to deal with the ...b5 idea, is
equally viable: 8...£>xe4 9 £>xe4 d5 10 £d3 dxe4 11 £.xe4 £>a6 with near,
but not quite complete equality after 12 c3 £>c5 13 £c2. c) 8 £b3?! £>a6! 9
#f3 (after the less cautious 9 f4?! £>c5! 10 #f3 fle8 Black seizes the
advantage) 9...£>c5 10 £>f5 £xf5! (more precise than 10...b5?! 11 £e3, and
here 11...b4? 12 £xc5 bxc3 13 £d4 yields White a clear plus) 11 #xf5 b5 12
£e3 #c8! was equal in Gui- darelli-Bacrot, Aix les Bains 2003. 8...b5 8...a5
9 a4 £>a6 10 h3 £>c5 11 £f4 IW 12 b3 gave White a slight edge in Hracek-
Piket, Moscow Olympiad 1994. 9£flb4 Otherwise I don't see how to follow
up, whereas White's plan is crystal clear: #f3, £>f5, etc. The text move
concedes the c4-square in return for activity. 10£ta4 10 £>bl!? c5 11 £>f5
(11 £>b3 £b7 12 £>ld2) ll...Axf5 12 exf5 £>c6 is unclear: Black has an
extra pawn in the centre, but White has the two bishops and possible
aggressive intentions linked with g4-g5. 10...C5 The most logical now that
Black has weakened his light squares. After 11 £>f3 £b7 (ll...£d7!?) 12 £d3
£>bd7 Black has nothing to complain about. Il...£xf5 12 exf 5 £>c6 A
possible improvement over 12...d5 (Zapata-Nisipeanu, Bled Olympiad
2002), although Black was fine in that game too: 13 c4 £>c6 (13...bxc3!? 14
£>xc3 £>c6) 14 £e3 d4 15 £g5 and now in place of 15...£.d6?! 16 b3 etc.,
which was the beginning of the Romanian GM's problems, 15...#d6! 16 #f3
flfe8 would have kept the equilibrium. 91

The Philidor Files 13g3d514i-g2Wd7 Possibly 14...C4!?. 15i-g5Wxf5?!

15...flad8! 16 £xf6 £xf6 17 £>xc5 #xf5 18 £>d3 Hfe8 is level. 16 ixf6
Wxf617 Wxd5 2ac8 Now 18 c3?! flfd8 was equal in M.Adams-Bacrot,
European Ch. Internet final (blitz) 2003. White can improve with 18 fladl!
flfd8?? 19 #xc6! or, in reply to other Black moves, 19 VHd7 with some
pressure. C) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5 £>c3 £e7 6 £e2
Quiet, but perhaps sufficient to claim a tiny plus. 6...0-0 6...d5?! looks too
simple to be good: 7 e5 (7 exd5?! doesn't bring much after 7...£>xd5 8
£>xd5 #xd5 9 £>b5 #xdl+ 10 *xdl - or 10 Axdl - 10...£>a6 11 £f4 c6 12
£>d6+ £xd6 13 £xd6 Af5, when Black's dynamism compensates for the loss
of the bishop pair) 7...£>e4 8 £>xe4 dxe4 9 £c4 and White stands a little
better thanks to his more active pieces and the possibility of e5-e6 in some
circumstances, for instance 9...0-0 10 e6 fxe6 11 £>xe6 #xdl+ 12 *xdl £xe6
13 A.xe6+*h814*e2. 7 0-0 The immediate 7 f4, as well as the hyper-
aggressive 7 g4?!, invites the central reply 7...d5!. After 7 0-0, with both
sides having finished development on the kingside, Black now faces the
question of how to continue. He has several options, with 7...c5 and 7...fle8
being the most critical in my opinion. Indeed, apart from the direct attempt
to equalize by playing 7...d5, the other attempts (namely 7...£>c6, 7...c6,
7...a6, and 7...£>bd7) don't really distract White from the standard plan of
f4, A.f3 and so on. It should be noted that many transpositions are possible
when Black chooses a set-up with ...c6, ...A.f8, ...£>bd7-c5, etc. As there is
no point in analysing Black's wide range of possibilities at every move, I
will try to present the pros and cons for each decent set-up. We will look at:
92

1 e4 e5 2 £)/3 66 - Antoshin's Variation: Introduction CI: 7-..C5!? C2:

7».2e8 Or: 7...d5 As with 6...d5, this hasty push fails to achieve its goal.
This time, however, the reason why is different: 8exd5 8 e5 £>e4 9 £>xe4
dxe4 10 £f4 (Mate- jov-Kikinder, Slovakia 2004) is less convincing (maybe
10...Ag5!?). 8...£>xd5 9 £>xd5 Wxd5 10 if3 ...followed by something like
Af4 and £>b5, when White's lead in development enables him to exert
unpleasant pressure on the queenside. CI) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4
£>xd4 £>f6 5 £>c3 £e7 6 £e2 0-0 7 0-0 c5l? Black accepts a weakness on
d5 in order to ward off the knight. From now on the strategical battle
centres around this square. 8£>b3! The best reply, as 8 £>f3 and 8 £>f5
pose no problems for Black: a) 8 £>f3 £>c6 9 £f4 (the most sensible)
9...£e6 (Akmentin-Tal, Riga 1954) and Black equalizes with 10...d5. b) 8
£>f5 £xf5 (not 8...£>xe4?! 9 £>xe7+ #xe7 10 £>d5 #d8 11 £d3 with
tremendous compensation, as after a subsequent ...£tf6, then Ag5 is nasty,
while ll...f5 is met by 12 f3) 9 exf5 £>c6 (stronger than 9...#d7?! 10 g4 h6
11 f4, which puts Black on the defensive) and now: bl) 10 £>d5 £>xd5 11
#xd5 with a roughly equal game in Cheparinov- Pavasovic, Plovdiv 2003.
b2) 10 Af3 #d7 11 g4 h6 12 £>d5 £>xd5(12...flfe8!)13£xd5 13...£>b4?!
(another step in the wrong direction) 14 Ag2 flad8 15 c3 when White had
succeeded in preventing ...d5 and was clearly better in Boyd-Varrambier,
Hyeres 1992. 13...£.f6 was more to the point: 14 c3 £>e7 15 £g2 d5 16 f4
#d6 17 g5 hxg5 18 fxg5 £e5 19 f6!? gxf6 20 gxf6 £xf6 21 #g4+ £g7 22 £f4
with enough play for the sacrificed pawn, but perhaps no more than that.
b3) 10 g4?! d5 11 g5 (or 11 Af3 d4 12 £te4 Be8 and Black is absolutely 93

The Philidor Files fine, too) ll...£>e4 12 f4 £>d4 13 £g4 fle8 14 £>xe4 dxe4
15 £e3 Wta 16 c3 (Salaun-Nepeina Leconte, St Lorrain 2001)16...flad8!.
8...£>c6 In the event of 8...£.e6, 9 f4 parries the threat of the freeing ...d5,
and Black has nothing better than 9...£>c6. 9f4 9 £f4 is interesting: 9...£e6
10 £>d5 £xd5?! 11 exd5 £>b4 12 c4 £>e8 13 a3 £>a6 (Karjakin-Tratar,
Vienna 2003) and now instead of 14 £>d2?! £g5, White should have
preferred 14 Ad3! with Wh5 up his sleeve. But 10...£>xe4! is stronger: 11
£>xe7+ £>xe7 12 f3 £>f6 13 94 #xd6 (13 £xd6? c4! 14 £>c5 £d5 and the
c5-knight is unstable) 13...b6 when White has two bishops, but Black's
knights have some nice squares so the game is balanced. 9-a5!? 9...fle8
should be compared to 7...fle8 and transpositions are likely. 10 a4 This guy
must be blocked! Black has compromised himself even more, but for the
moment his knight is ensured of a beautiful outpost. 10...£kb411 £f3 11
Ae3!? is an interesting alternative. ll...Wb6 ...with level chances, Sakelsek-
Sebenik, Maribor 2004. C2) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5
£>c3 £e7 6 £e2 0-0 7 0-0 2e8 The most frequently seen continuation,
allowing the rook to attack the white e-pawn without delay. For the moment
Black keeps his queenside flexible. Now White can play:

1 e4 eS 2 £)/3 66 - Antoshin's Variation: Introduction C21:8 Bel C22:8f4

C21) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5 £>c3 £e7 6 £e2 0-0 7 0-0
2e8 8 Bel This normally leads to slower play and fewer tactics than 8 f4.
8...if8 Alternatively: a) 8...c5?! 9 £>f3! £>c6 10 £f4 £e6 11 £>g5 d5?! 12
£>b5 (underlining the difference between the current situation and the one
where the rooks are still on fl and f8; 12 exd5 £.xd5 seems to be less
efficient) 12...flc8 13 exd5 £xd5 (or 13...£>xd5 14 £>xe6 fxe6 15 £g3) 14
c4 followed by 15 £>xe6 (or £>xe4) with a large advantage for White. b)
8...£>bd7 with a further split: bl) 9 b3 £f8 10 £fl £>c5! 11 f3 d5! and now
12 exd5 flxel 13 #xel £>xd5 14 £>xd5 #xd5 was level in the clash
M.Adams-Bacrot, European Ch. Internet final (blitz) 2003, while 12 e5
£>fd7 13 f4 c6 led to unclear play in Wang Hao-Predojevic, Calvia
Olympiad 2004. b2) 9 £fl £f8 10 g3 £>e5 (or 10...£>c5!? 11 £g2 with an
edge for White, Baramidze-Thinius, Bad Zwesten 2006) 11 £g2 (11 h3!?)
Il...£g4 12 f3 c5!? (more dynamic than the retreat to d7) when nearly all the
knight sallies, as well as the bishop's capture, result in double-edged
positions: b21) 13 fxg4 cxd4 14 #xd4 d5! (stronger than 14...£>exg4?! 15
h3 £>e5 16 #f2 with the idea of £e3-d4) 15 h3 (the d-pawn is immune due
to the fork on f3; many White moves would be answered the same way)
15...flc8 16 *hl £c5, followed by ...d4-d3, when all Black's pieces are well
placed. b22) 13 £>b3 £e6 14 h3, followed by f4. b23) 13 £>db5 £e6 14 £g5
a6 15 £xf6 gxf6 16 £>a3 b5 17 £>d5 b4 18 £>bl £g7 (or 18...£>c4). Black's
pawn structure is damaged, but after ...f5 his dark- squared bishop will be
powerful. b24) 13 £>f5 £xf5 14 exf5 d5 was equal in Gouliev-Bacrot,
Mulhouse 2005. Indeed, the obvious 15 f4?! is faulty as White can't win his
opponent's d-pawn: 15...£>c4 16 flxe8 #xe8 17 £>xd5 £>xd5 18 #xd5 (18
£xd5? 95

The Philidor Files fld8) 18...#el+ 19 £fl £>e3 with some advantage to Black.
9 £fl c6 9...a6, 9...£>bd7 and 9...c5 are again valid candidate moves. In the
final case, if Black wishes to follow the traditional ...£>c6 and ...Ae6, to
carry out the ...d5 push, he will probably have to throw in ...h6 in order to
prevent Ag5. 10 a4 as 11 h3 Or immediately 11 b3. Il...£tbd7 12 g3 h6 13
£g2 £>e5 14 b3 id715ace2Wb6l6i.b2 ...and a draw was agreed in this
balanced middlegame, Dgebuadze- Nevednichy, La Fere 2002. C22) 1 e4
e5 2 £rf3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5 £>c3 £e7 6 £e2 0-0 7 0-0 2e8 8 f4if8
8...£>c6 9 £e3 £f8 10 A.B is slightly in White's favour. 9^f3 9-.C5
Alternatively: a) 9...c6 10 a4 (10 £e3?! allows 10...£>xe4 11 £xe4 d5 12
£xh7+ *xh7 with an equal position, Frolov-Yurtaev, Podolsk 1989) 10...a5
11 b3 and after the typical continuation ll...£>a6 12 £b2 #b6 13 *hl £d7 etc.,
White has a small plus. b) 9...£>bd7 10 flel (the clever 10 £>b3 was well
met by 10...£>b6 in Buenermann-Guehne, German League 1992: both
knights are rather misplaced, but the black one prevents the cl-bishop's
development because ...£>c4 would follow) 10...£>c5 11 £>b3 (or 11 b3 g6
12 £b2 £g7 13 #d2 with a small edge for White - if 13...£g4?? 14 e5!) Il...
£>xb3 12 axb3 and again White's position is to be preferred, even if Black
has no weaknesses (Unzicker- Dely, Bari 1970). 96

1 e4 eS 2 ffl/3 d6 - Antoshin's Variation: Introduction c) 9...a5!? follows the

same goal as the straightforward 9...£>a6, 9...£>bd7 or 9...c6; i.e. 10 a4
£>a6 and so on. Black will increase the pressure on e4 by playing ...£k5,
and if he finds enough time to complete his development by means of ...c6,
...Hfb6, ...Ad7 and ...Bad8 he won't have too many headaches. 10 £tde2!
More elastic than 10 £>f5?! £xf5 11 exf5 £k6, which reveals itself to be
insufficient to claim any advantage after 12 g4 d5! 13 g5 d4. And grabbing
the pawn with 13 £>xd5 gives Black enough play following 13...^xd5 14
#xd5 (or 14 £xd5 #f6) 14...£>d4 (or 14...Wh4). 10 £tt>3!? is an interesting
alternative. Play continues 10...£k6 and now: a) 11 *hl a5 12 a4 £e6, as
played more than once, reaches a complex position. b) 11 £e3 d5! (a
powerful strike) 12 exd5 flxe3 13 dxc6 IW 14 #d2 flxf3 15 flxf3 (or 15 gxf3
#xc6 with enough compensation for the exchange) 15...c4+ 16 £k!4 £.c5
and Black wasn't worse in Smirin-G.Kuzmin, Leningrad 1990. According
to my database, Kuzmin has met both 11 *hl and 11 £e3 with some success
(two points from three games). c) 11 Sel a5 12 a4 £>b4 (12...d5?! is
premature: 13 e5 d4 14 £>b5 £>d7 15 c3 dxc3 16 bxc3 and Black was in
bad shape in the game Yurtaev-Payen, Calcutta 2000) 13 £e3 £d7 14 Af2
£c6 15 #d2 with an edge for White, Santo Roman-Marcelin, French League
1999. 10...£>c6 Or 10...£g4!? 11 £>g3 £xf3 12 #xf3 £k6, Alcazar Jimenez-
Pakleza, Chalkidiki 2003. 11 h3! 97

The Philidor Files 11 <&>hl?! eases Black's defence by giving him an

improved version of 10...£g4 after ll...Ag4 12 £>g3 £xf3 13 Wxi3 £>d4
etc., as in Grigoriants- Tischbierek, Stepanakert 2005. As well as the main
11 h3, White has the interesting 11 f5!? at his disposal. The move 11 b3, on
the other hand, doesn't trouble Black: ll...a5 12 £b2 a4 13 e5 a3 with a
messy game which White eventually won in Felgaer- Nisipeanu, Calvia
Olympiad 2004. Il...£d7 After ll...#b6 12 b3 £d7 13 £e3 (T.L.Petrosian-
Tischbierek, Stepanakert 2005), White's position looks easier to play. 13
Ab2!? is also possible. 12£e3 This is sounder than 12 g4 (Renet- Fressinet,
Clichy rapid 2001) when 12...b5! is a good reply: 13 g5 b4 14 £g2 (14
gxf6!?) 14...bxc3 15 £>xc3 £>xe4 with unclear play. 12...b5 13 £>g3 I
dislike 13 e5?! (Boidman-Seel, German League 2004), since instead of the
game's 13...flb8?! Black has two stronger options: 13...b4 and, even better,
13...dxe5! 14 fxe5 £>xe5 (14...fixe5!?) 15 £xa8 #xa8 with great play and a
pawn for the exchange. 13-Wb6 14 £>h5 £>xh5 15 £xh5 £>e7
16f5£c617f6£kg6 ...and Black was more or less okay in K.Lahno-
Tischbierek, Stepanakert 2005. D) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4
£>f6 5 £>C3 ie7 6 g3 White wishes to play a position that could arise via
the move order 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 g3 e5 5 £>ge2 (see
Chapter 8) 5...exd4 6 £>xd4 £e7. In that case the move 5...exd4 gives up the
centre and is condemnable. To avoid such a transposition, Black must keep
away from standard moves and act promptly: 6...d5! This move highlights
the drawback of g3: Black is able to 'equalize' in the centre. We shall
consider the moves: Dl: 7 exd5 D2: 7 e5 98

l e4 eS 2 £)/3 d6 - Antoshin's Variation: Introduction Dl) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6

3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5 £>c3 £e7 6 g3 d5 7 exd5 This is harmless for
Black provided that he reacts adequately. 7~£>xd5 Now none of the
numerous White attempts have proven problematic: 8id2 Or: a) 8 £>db5
£>xc3 9 #xd8+ Axd8 10 £>xc3 £f5 (10...0-0 might be good enough as well)
11 Ag2 £>c6! was equal in Spassky-Fressinet, Paris (rapid) 2001. But not
11...C6?! 12 £>e4 (Kacirek-Payen, Pardubice 1998) when Black will have
to choose between two evils: tolerating the knight on d6 or eliminating it at
the cost of the two bishops. b) After 8 £g2?! £>xc3 9 bxc3 0-0 10 0-0 £>a6
(Sveshnikov-Gabdrakhmanov, Nabereznye Chelny 1988) White has some
compensation for his damaged pawn structure, but he can hardly hope for
more than equality. 10...c5!? is possible too. 8...£>b4! Getting rid of the
dominant d4- knight before castling seems the most precise. The main
alternative is 8...0-0 9 Ag2 and now: a) 9...£f6 10 £>xd5 £xd4 11 0-0! £xb2
12 flbl £a3 13 £f4 £>a6 (13...£d6? runs into the devilish 14 £>xc7!! £xc7 15
#xd8 £xd8 16 flxb7 and White nets a pawn, e.g. 16...£>d7 17 flxd7 £xd7 18
£xa8) 14 £>xc7 £>xc7 15 #xd8 flxd8 16 £xc7 with a difficult endgame for
Black, Teske-Ekstroem, Montecatini Terme 1997. b) 9...£>xc3 10 £xc3 £f6
11 0-0 c6 12 #d3 when White has a lead in development and good chances
to exploit the weakened d6 spot, Spraggett-Tratar, Andorra 2005. c)
9...£>b6! 10 £f4 (more active than 10 £.e3, when 10...£k4 gave Black good
play in Popchev-Chiburdanidze, Sochi 1989) 10...c6 (on 10...£f6, 11 £>db5
seems promising for White: 11...We7+ 12 #e2 fle8 13 #xe7 flxe7+ 14 £>e4!
Axb2 15 flbl with favourable complications) and now, instead of 11 0-0 Af6
as in Horvath-Sedlak, Sibenik 2005, White could have kept a slight plus
withll#d3. In the game Tompa-Pavasovic, Austrian League 2004, the bold
8...£>c6!? 9 £>xc6 bxc6 saw Black maintain dynamic equality. In return for
the doubled pawns he had a strong knight in the centre, coupled with the
possibility of pressurizing the queenside by means of ...flb8 and ...£f6. 9ie3
9Af4??losesto9...1*xd4!. 9...C5!? 9...£>d5?! is a flawed return to d5
(Vlassov prefers both 9...c5 and the ob- 99

The Philidor Files vious 9...0-0) and then: a) The artificial 10 £b5+?! fails
'logically' to 10...c6 11 £>xc6? bxc6 12 #xd5 £d7 13 #f3 cxb5 14 #xa8 £c6.
b) 10 #d3 0-0 11 0-0-0 £>xe3 12 Wxe3 and White has some activity to
counteract the pair of bishops in McShane-Bacrot, Lausanne 2003. c) 10
£>xd5! (the reason why 9...£>d5 is dubious) 10...Wxd5 11 £>b5! #xhl (both
ll...Vc6 12 #d5! and ll...#xdl+ 12 flxdl leave White with a clear plus) 12
£>xc7+ *f8 13 £>xa8 £h3 (13...#c6!? 14 #d4!, with the ideas 0-0-0, #xa7
and #c4, also leaves White on top) 14 #d3 b6 (or 14...£xfl 15 #xfl #c6 16 0-
0-0 with a clear advantage to White, as the a8-knight will escape - thanks to
Wh\, if needed!) 15 f3 #xh2 16 0-0-0 and White enjoys a powerful
initiative. Instead, the natural 9...0-0 deserves consideration, when 10 Ag2
c5!? promises level chances. 10£.b5+&f8! 10...£d7?! 11 £>f5 is a bit better
for White. 11 £>b3 #xdl+12 *xdl if 5 ...with equality. D2) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6
3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5 £>C3 Ae7 6 g3 d5 7 e5 £>g4 Now White's two
main options are: D21: 8 £g2!? D22: 8 if4 Alternatively: a) 8 f4 c5 followed
by 9...d4 with a slight initiative for Black, for instance 9 £>f3 d4 10 £>e2
f5, Spassky-Fressinet, Paris (rapid) 2001. b) 8 e6 £>f6 9 exf7+ *xf7,
followed by ...fle8, ...c6 and so on. Black will castle by hand, and with an
extra pawn in the centre, he has achieved equality. c) 8 £>f3 £>c6 9 #xd5
Af5 10 £c4 #xd5 11 £>xd5 £>gxe5! 12 £>xe5 £>xe5 13 £>xe7 *xe7 14 £d5
c6 15 £f4 cxd5 16 £xe5 f6 17 JLd4 £xc2 and a draw was agreed in
Grischuk-Fressinet, En- ghien-les-Bains 2001. In the final position Black
stands a bit better without any risk of losing, and should thus have
continued the fight. D21) l e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5 £>c3
£e7 6 g3 d5 7 e5 £>g4 100

1 e4 es 2 £)/3 d6 - Antoshin's Variation: Introduction 8 ig2!? c6 So far this

move hasn't been tested in practice. It may, however, supersede the more
natural 8...£>xe5, after which Black doesn't seem to fully equalize: a) 9
£>xd5!? £d6 (9...0-0!?, intending 10 £>b5 c6 or 10 £>xe7+ #xe7 11 0-0
fld8) 10 £>b5 0-0 (not 10...c6? 11 £>f6+ *e7 12 £>xd6 #xd6 13 #xd6+ *xd6
14 £>e4+ *c7 15 £f4 f6 16 0-0-0 with a large plus for White, Ivanisevic-
Tratar, Ljubljana 2004) 11 £>xd6 #xd6, when White has the two bishops
but his opponent's piece play is quite free and harmonious (...£k6,
...Af5/...Ag4, ...flad8, etc.). b) 9 #e2 9...£>ec6 (or 9...£>bc6!? 10 £>xc6
£>xc6 11 £>xd5 when the minimum White can do is to grab the bishop pair
and stand slightly better: ll...Ae6 12 0-0 0-0 13 Sdl, Anand-Aronian,
Monaco [blindfold rapid 1 2006) 10 £e3 0-0 (Black can't hold his booty, as
10...Ae6 11 1135! simultaneously attacks d5 and b7, while 10...£>xd4 11
£xd4 £>c6 12 £xg7 flg8 13 £f6 also favours White) 11 £>xd5 £>xd4 12
Axd4 Ab4+! (Black's best bet, keeping White's edge within bearable
proportions; 12...Ag5?! 13 Ae5 £>a6 14 fldl, and 12...£d6?! 13 0-0-0 £>c6
14 £c3 Af5 15 #b5!, Hracek- Abeln, Saint Vincent 2005, are less resilient)
13 £>xb4 #xd4 14 c3 #d8 (14...#c5?! 15 £>d5 £e6 16 b4 #d6 17 Sdl £xd5
18 £xd5 was clearly better for White in Timofeev-Nisipeanu. Denmark
2005, owing to his strong bishop and more active heavy pieces) 15 fldl
£>d7 (15...#e8?! 16 £>d5 with a clear advantage, Palac-Stevic, Zagreb
2004) 16 0-0 c6 17 flfel! (after 17 £h3?! Black successfully solved his
problems after 17...fle8 18 #d3 Wa5 19 £xd7 fld8 with equality, Landa-
Fridman, Dutch League 2005). After 17 flfel Black still must be careful in
order to equalize. Indeed, despite the awkwardly-placed knight on b4,
White is still clearly more active. Two more tries for Black: a) 8...c5?! 9
£>db5 a6 10 £>d6+ £xd6 11 exd6 gave White a clear edge, thanks to his
two bishops and Black's weaknesses on the queenside in Smagin-Antoshin,
Moscow 1982. 101

The Philidor Files b) 8...0-0 was Nisipeanu's latest try, but he again failed to
achieve equality: 9 0-0 £>xe5 10 £>xd5 £c5 11 c3 (in order not to be
worried by a later ...Ag4, to which 11133 now becomes a good reply; 11
£>b5?! is highly suspicious after 11...C6 12 £>dc7 We7 13 £>xa8 cxb5
followed by ...£>bc6 and ...£g4) H...c6 12 £>e3 £>bd7 13 b4 £b6 14 b5
cxb5 15 £>xb5 with a White initiative, Shirov- Nisipeanu, Foros 2006. 9f4
Supporting the e-pawn this way seems logical, now that Black's central
reaction ...c5 and ...d4 is less effective. 9 £f4!? g5 (9...#b6 comes into
consideration) 10 h3 £>xf2 11 *xf2 gxf4 gives a position similar to those
arising after 8 Af4 g5. It is unclear to me whether the insertion of Ag2 and
...c6 favours one camp or the other. I would thus label this position as
unclear and recommend further analysis! After 9 f4 Black has many
interesting continuations, namely 9...1ilfb6, 9...£>h6, 9...c5, and 9...0-0. It is
unclear to me whether he can gain complete parity, but I believe Black
retains better winning chances than after 8...£>xe5. a) 9...#b6 10 h3 (10 0-
0?! £c5 11 £>ce2 f6 is less precise) 10...£>h6 11 £>ce2 0-0 12 0-0 £>f5 13
*h2 and White will try to roll down the kingside by playing g4, f5 etc. b)
9...£>h6 10 0-0 #b6 (trying to disturb White's plan) 11 <&hl £g4 12 #d3
£>d7 13 £>a4 #a5 14 b3 and White seems on top. c) 9...c5!? (anyway!) 10
£>db5 a6 11 £>d6+ £xd6 12 exd6 d4 (12...0-0?! 13 #xd5 fle8+ 14 *fl
shouldn't give Black enough compensation, though I'd rather refrain from a
final verdict on this position) 13 #e2+ *f8 14 £>e4 (14 £>d5!? #xd6 15 f5)
14...f5 15Qxc5 Wxd6 with a messy position. d) 9...0-0 10 0-0 f5, followed
by ...£>a6-c7. This drastic way of preventing f4-f5 appeals to me more than
10...fle8 11 h3 £>h6, intending 12 f5 Ag5. Finally, 10...f6?! is wrong on
account of the obvious 11 e6!. D22) 1 e4 es 2 £>f3 <J6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4
£>f6 5 £>c3 £e7 6 g3 d5 7 e5 £>g4 8 if4 102

1 e4 es 2 £>/? d6 - Antoshin's Variation: Introduction ...and now:

D221:8...0-0?! D222:8...C5?! D223:8...g5 9 h3?! D224:8...g5 9 e6! D221) 1
e4 e5 2 £rf3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5 £>c3 £e7 6 g3 d5 7 e5 £>g4 8
&.H O-O? 9 h3 £>xe5 9...£>h6 10 £xh6 is too ugly. 10 £xe5 2e8 11 £e2 £b4
12 £f4 c5 13 £>db5 d4 14 0-0?! Stronger was 14 £>c7! g5 (or 14...dxc3 15
b3 #e7 16 £>xa8 £>c6 17 *fl £>d4 18 £d3 when White's king is safe enough
and his extra material should tell) 15 £>xe8 gxf4 16 0-0 and Black has
sacrificed too much material. 14...£xh3 14...dxc3 would lose after 15 #xd8
flxd8 16 £>c7 £xh3 17 bxc3 £xc3 18 £>xa8, when White is going to be a
piece up for only two pawns. 15 £>a4 £>c616 £>d6 flxe2? This was
unnecessary. The natural 16...£.xfl was called for, presenting White with
realistic chances to err: 17 £.xfl!! (the two others recaptures leave Black
well alive thanks to the resource 17...g5, e.g. 17 *xfl? g5 18 £>xe8 gxf4 19
a3 £a5 20 £>xc5 #xe8) 17...flel 18 Wh5! (18 #xel?? Axel 19 flxel #a5 wins
for Black!) 18...flxal 19 #xf7+ *h8 20 #xb7... ...and in this chaotic position
White is two exchanges down but his threats of £>f7+ and #xc6 prevail. All
in all, he stands much better. 17 #xe2 c4 18 #h5 ixfl 19 #xf7+ *h8 20 £>xb7
...and Black resigned, Smirin- G.Kuzmin, Lvov 1990. D222) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3
d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5 £>c3 £e7 6 g3 d5 7 e5 £>g4 8if4c5?! This
central counter-attack deserves further investigation, even though it may be
dubious. 9£kdb5d410£kd5 10 e6!?, as in Sedina-Vasilevich, German
League 2002, may be stronger. 10...0-0 and now: a) 11 Ac4? was the game
continua- 103

The Philidor Files tion: ll...dxc3 12 £>c7 cxb2 13 flbl #xdl+ 14 flxdl £xe6
15 £>xe6 (no better was 15 £xe6 fxe6 16 £>xa8 e5 17 £e3 £>a6 and the
knight is lost) 15...fxe6 16 £xe6+ *h8 17 £xg4 £>c6 18 0-0 flad8 19 c3 £f6
20 Ad6 (a blunder, but the 'b' passer was too strong anyway) 20...bl# 21
flxbl flxd6 and White resigned. White should have played one of the
following: b) 11 exf7+ *h8 (ll...flxf7? is bad in view of 12 £c4 dxc3 13
Wxd8+ £xd8 14 ^d6, when White wins an exchange for only one pawn and
stands clearly better) 12 £>c7 dxc3 13 #xd8 £xd8 14 £>xa8 cxb2 15 flbl
£a5+ 16 £d2 £xd2+ 17*xd2. I believe White should be able to extract the
knight from the corner and end up with an extra exchange for just one
pawn. c) 11 £>c7 dxc3 12 #xg4, or even 12 b3!? £xe6 13 £>xa8 £d5 14 flgl
(not 14 f3? £g5! and Black wins) 14...£>xh2 15 £g2. 10...0-0 11 £g2! The
obvious 11 £>bc7 wins material, but with the white king remaining in the
centre Black has full compensation. The following sequence is forced:
11...Qc6 12 £>xe7+ #xe7 13 £>xa8 £>gxe5 14 £g2 £g4 15 f3. Now both
15...£>xf3+ 16 *f2 £>fe5 and 15...£>d3+ 16 *fl £>xf4 17 fxg4 (but not 17
gxf4? Af5 with an ugly position for White, Marrero-Krivec, Calvia
Olympiad 2004) 17...£>xg2 18 *xg2 #e4+ 19 *h3 flxa8 leave Black okay. If
instead 11 £>dc7!? a6 12 £>xa8 axb5 13 £e2 £>h6! (this looks like the
correct answer; if 13...£>xe5?! 14 £.xe5 #d5 15 0-0 £h3 [15...#xe5 16
£>b6J 16 Af3 #xe5 17 flel #d6 18 £xb7 and with either #f3 or a4-(a5) to
follow, the extra exchange should tell), and now both 14 £xh6 gxh6 and 14
a4 bxa4 15 £.xh6 gxh6 16 flxa4 £>a6 are murky, but 1 wouldn't mind being
Black. 11...£k6 ll...#a5+?? loses to 12 £d2 #xb5 13 £>xe7+ *h8 14 £>xc8.
12#e2g5 12...£g5?! 13 £xg5 #xg5 14 f4 (Deiko-Antoshin, Minsk 1986)
gives White fewer chances to err. 104

l e4 eS 2 £)/3 66 - Antoshin's Variation: Introduction 13 £>bc7? 13 h3!

apparently leads to a big White advantage, as the following lines suggest:
13...£>xf2 14 *xf2! (not 14 #xf2? gxf4 15 £>xe7+ #xe7 16 gxf4 f6 when
Black acquires adequate coun- terplay) 14...gxf4 15 gxf4, and although this
present position still looks pretty messy, it transpires that Black's king is too
vulnerable: 15...*h8 16 Wh5 f6 17 exf6 £xf6 18 £e4 Wd7 19 £>bc7 flb8 20
£le6 and Black will have to offload some material; or 15...£.e6 16 £>dc7
flc8 17 Wh5 £h4+ (17...flxc7? loses on the spot to 18 £>xc7 #xc7 19 £xc6
#xc6 20 flhgl+ *h8 21 Wh6) 18 *gl *h8 19 *h2 with £e4 and/or flhgl to
follow. 13...gxf4! 14 £>xa8 d3 15 Wxd3 £>gxe5 l6We4f317i-xf3 17 M\
doesn't save White after 17...f5 18 £>xe7+ #xe7 19 Wh4 #f7. 17...MS\\ This
clever tactic is already the decisive blow. 18 WxfS £>d4 19 £>xe7+ #xe7
20 Wh$ Ijexf 3+21 i-f 1 We2+ ...and White resigned in Nikolenko-
Antoshin, Moscow 1986. D223) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6
5 £>c3 ie7 6 g3 d5 7 e5 £>g4 8 if4 g5 9 h3?! This is nowhere near as good
as the powerful 9 e6!, as is shown by the following analysis, the majority of
which is extracted from Huzman's annotations. 9-^xf2 10 *xf2 gxf4 11 #h5
If 11 gxf4, then ll...Ac5 planning ...Wh4+ in some cases. The white king is
the more exposed and the edge is with Black. We have been following
Topalov- Bacrot, Cap d'Agde (rapid) 2003. Bacrot continued with
ll...Ac5?!, but 11...c6! looks stronger. For example, 12 e6 (12 gxf4 is no
better: 12...#b6 13 £>ce2 £c5 14 c3 #xb2 when White has no attack, and
thus no compensation at all for the lost pawn) 12...flf8 13 gxf4 #b6 14 fldl
£f6 15 exf7+ flxf7 16 flel+ Ae7. White can't conveniently cover the pinned
knight, whereas his own pins on the black pieces are quite bearable. As a
consequence Black holds a marked advantage, even though the position is
still complex. 105

The Philidor Files D224) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5 £>c3

ie7 6 g3 d5 7 e5 £>g4 8 if4 g5 9 e6! h5 9...£>xf2?! looks very suspicious. In
the only game in which this move was tried Black got crushed quite
effectively: 10 Wh5 0-0 11 *xf2 fxe6 12 £d3 flf7 13 £>f3 gxf4 14 gxf4
(nearly all White's pieces join the assault and the imminent landing of a
rook on gl will spell the end for the black king) 14...£>c6 (if 14...flg7, 15
&e2 avoids ...£.c5+ before continuing with flagl) 15 flhgl+ *f8 16 Wh6+
*e8 17 flg8+ £f8 18 Wh5 #f6 19 £>g5 and White was winning in Gasanov-
A.Ivanov, Kharkov 2001. After 9...h5 there's one final split to make:
D2241:10 exf7+ D2242:10 h3 D2241) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4
£>f6 5 £>c3 ie7 6 g3 d5 7 e5 £>g4 8 £f4 g5 9 e6 h5 10 exf7+ *xf7 10...^8?
makes no sense here, as Black deprives himself of the important ...fle8+.
Then 11 £cl £>c6 12 £g2 £c5 13 £e3 £>xe3 14 fxe3 proved much better for
White in the encounter L.Dominguez-Luther, Havana 2004. 11 £xl £x5
Here are three White options from this position: a) 12 £e2 £>c6 (Black must
seek activity; in the event of the seemingly more solid approach 12...1% 13
£e3 c6, White seizes the initiative by means of 14 0-0 *g8 15 £>a4,
intending to open up the game with c4) 13 Ae3 £>xe3 14 fxe3 h4 with a
double-edged position. b) 12 £g2 £>c6! (the intermediate check 12...fle8+ is
less appropriate: 13 £>ce2 £>c6 14 0-0, or 13...c6 14 0-0 #f6 15 c3 or 15
f4!?, and in all cases White retains an edge due to Black's rather unsafe
king) 13 £e3 (13 £xd5+ *g7 would be perilous for White) 13...£.xd4 (after
13...£>xe3 14 fxe3 Black should capture on d4; indeed 14...£>xd4 15 exd4
fle8+ 16 £>e2 £b6 17 #d3 *g7 18 0-0 Ag4 gives fair chances of equalizing)
14 £xd4 Be8+, and now both 15 £>e2 £>xd4 16 #xd4 c6 and 15 *fl £>xd4
16 #xd4 c6 are equal. 106

1 e4 eS 2 g>/3 66 - Antoshin's Variation: Introduction c) 12 Ae3!?,

preparing long castling, is perhaps the best choice here. After 12...£>xe3 13
fxe3 c6 14 #d2 White's chances are a tad better because of the somewhat
exposed black king. D2242) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5
£>c3 ie7 6 g3 d5 7 e5 £>g4 8 £f4 g5 9 e6 h5 10 h3 £>xf2 Or 10...fxe6!? 11
hxg4 gxf4 12 #d3 fxg3 13 #g6+ (13 fxg3 is probably more promising)
13...^8 14 fxg3, and now instead of 14...#e8 15 £>xe6+ £xe6 16 #xe6 with a
edge for White (Palkovi- M.Stangl, Balatonbereny 1996), Black should
have tried 14...£f6. 11 #f3!? Alternatively: a) 11 exf7+ *f8 (ll...*xf7 12 #f3
transposes to 11 #f3 gxf4 12 exf7+ <&xf7) 12 £xc7 (12 *xf2 gxf4 13 gxf4
is playable too, and gives a balanced position) 12...#xc7 (if I2...£>xdl 13
£xd8 £>xc3 14 £xe7+ *xe7 15 bxc3 *xf7 16 0-0-0) 13 *xf2 £c5 (13...h4!?)
14 #d3? (14 £>a4) 14...£>c6 15 £>cb5 #e5 16 c3 Af5 with an edge to
Black, Michielsen- Abeln, Haarlem 2005. b) 11 *xf2?! is wrong: ll...gxf4
12 Ae2 (it is not too late to insert 12 exf7+ *xf7 13 #f3, which reduces
Black's edge to its minimum) 12...c5 13 £>f5 £xe6 14 £>g7+ *f8 15
£>xe6+ fxe6 (De- labaca-Seel, Cannes 2001) and Black is going to be an
healthy pawn up. Il...gxf4 This is compulsory. Indeed, both ll...£.xe6 and
ll...£>xhl lead to defeat, as shown by the following lines: a) ll...£xe6? 12
£e5 £>xhl 13 £xh8 and White is going to win the beast in the corner. b)ll...
£>xhl?12£e5!... ...and here, despite his extra rook, Black is lost: bl) 12...flh7
13 £>xd5 *f8 14 Ad3 g4 15 #xhl fxe6 16 £>xe7 flxe7 17 hxg4, followed by
#xh5 and/or 0-0-0, when the attack is decisive. b2) 12...flf8 13 £>xd5 fxe6
14 £>xc7+ #xc7 (on 14...*d7, 15 £b5+ mates) 15 #xh5+ *d8 16 0-0-0 £d6
17 £>b5 when White regains the invested material with interest and is
winning (or more directly, 16 £xc7+ *xc7 17 Wh7 tte8 18 #e4 £>xg3 19
#e5+ £d6 20 £>b5+). 107

The Philidor Files b3) 12...f6 13 £>xd5 g4 14 #e4 and Black has no
satisfactory reply to both £>xc7+ and #g6+. 12 exf7+! A logical and
necessary intermezzo. On the immediate 12 #xf2?, Black would simply take
the e-pawn, when he is not only a pawn up, his king is also safer than after
12.exf7+. For example, 12...fxe6 13 0-0-0 fxg3 14 #xg3 #d6 and Black
slowly but surely converted his extra pawn in Lupulescu- Nevednichy,
Targoviste 2001. 12„.*f8 12...*xf7!? is playable as well: 13 #xf2 £f6, or 13
#xf4+ *g7 14 #xf2 flf8 15 We2 offers chances for both sides, though Black's
open king may not be to everyone's taste. 13 *xf2 fxg3+ Enemy pawns can
serve as a shelter, and both camps rightfully keep them alive. 14*g2£>c6!
The right way to proceed. 14...c6? leads to an uncomfortable, if not yet lost
position after the cunning manoeuvre 15 £>ce2! h4 16 £>f4 flh6 17 flel #d6
18 £d3 £>a6 19 Af5! #f6 20 #g4 *xf7 21flhfl. 15 ^xc6 bxc6 16 id3 In this
obscure position White has compensation for the pawn. Conclusion White
has several ways to fight against the Antoshin Variation. Besides the main
line, 6 Af4 (see the following chapter), it transpires through recent games
that both 6 g3 d5 7 e5 £>g4 8 £g2 and the seemingly modest 6 Ae2 allow
White to battle for an opening edge. The retreat 6 £>de2 and the 'more
active' 6 Ac4 also lead to complex positions, but it seems to me that Black's
counterplay is more apparent in these lines. 108

Chapter Four Antoshin's Variation 6±f4 111 Alt! m m ■ ^ ?. ^ # H§ HI . w,

%$ m m SMSfSlI .ill 2^11 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5
£>c3 £e7 6 &U This move traditionally leads to a plan involving a quick 0-
0-0. Black must react actively or else he will end up with an inferior
position. 6...0-0 7 Wd2 HPQH Bin mi in li IP IP iMtmT^m & m SI Now we
will consider: A: 6...C6 B: 6...a6 C: 6...£>c6 D: 6...d5 A) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6
3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5 £>c3 ie7 6 if4 0-0 7 Wd2 c6 8 0-0-0 HJUIIJHNI
mimmmt \tm...m HI &j 2 £h£ i W ^ 9 9 iLmiLm miLm 8...b5 8...d5 induces
simplifications that turn out better for White: 9 exd5! (without doubt the
best here; 9 £>f5?! £xf5 10 exf5 #a5, Lebedev-Ganiev, Kolontaevo 1997,
and 9 e5 £>e8, Zay- chuk-Butsenko, Odessa 2003, only give Black
undeserved counterchances!) 9...£>xd5 10 £>xd5 #xd5 11 *bl (probably the
strongest continuation; 109

The Philidor Files 11 c4!? #c5 12 £d3 brought White a win in Coleman-
Rayner, London 1993, but the weakened queenside may prove a nuisance in
the future; and 11 £>b3 seems too early: after ll...l'xd2+ 12 2xd2 £>d7 two
recent games of the Russian IM Mikhail Zaitsev prove that the White edge
is only tiny). Back to 11 *bl, Black has tried several moves in this given
position but none has enabled him to equalize: a) ll...a5 12 £e2, followed by
Af3 and fiael, ideally directing all the white forces towards the centre.
Grabbing the g2-pawn would be suicidal: 12...#xg2? 13 fihgl #xf2 14 £h6
g6 (14...£f6?? 15 £xg7 £xg7 16 #g5 and wins) 15 fldfl #xh2 16 £f4 Wh4 17
Shi and White gets back the material with interest. b) ll...fld8 12 £e2 £f6
(after 12...#xg2?, this time 13 #e3! £f8 14 £>f3 is strong) 13 £>b3 #xd2 14
£>xd2 (Simmelink-PIukker, correspondence 1997). White has an improved
version of 11 £>b3 #xd2: his knight is ready to jump to d6, via either c4 or
e4. 9f3b4 10 £>bl! Or: a) 10 £>ce2 c5! and now: al) 11 £>b5? leads to
disaster after ll...#a5. a2) 11 £>b3!? c4 12 £>bd4 #a5 13 &b\ and the
situation remains unclear. a3) 11 £>f5 £xf5 12 exf5 d5! (12...£>c6?! gave
White the initiative after 13 g4 #a5 14 *bl £>e5 15 £>g3! in Rodriguez
Cespedes-Conquest, Cien- fuegos 1996; I2...#a5, on the other hand, is
worth a try: 13 Obi [F.Nielsen- C.Hansen, correspondence 1994) and here
maybe ...c4-c3) 13 g4 d4, vacating d4 for the knight, with level chances.
110

1 e4 e5 2 &/3 d6 - Antoshin's Variation: 6 £/4 b) 10 £>a4 £d7 11 b3 (11

#xb4? loses to 11...C5 12 #b7 cxd4 13 #xa8 Wc7\, White having to sacrifice
material in order to rescue his trapped queen) ll...d5 12 £>f5 £xf5 13 exf5
(Kovalev- Sizykh, Alushta 1997). Again it is difficult to come to a firm
verdict on the position, and this remains the case after some more moves:
13...£>bd7 14 g4 £>b6 15 £>b2 a5 16 g5 £>h5 17 f6 etc. White strikes first,
but his attack isn't that dangerous yet. 10...as Black has two other options
here: a) 10...Wb6 (having in mind ...d5, which was prohibited on this move
due to £.xb8) 11 g4 and now: al) ll...fld8?! 12 h4 (White judges that he isn't
in a hurry to jump to f5 and thus prefers this useful move; 12 g5 is possible
too: 12...£>h5 13 £e3 c5 14 £>f5 £xf5 15 exf5 d5 16 f6 [on 16 #g2 #a5 17
f4 #xa2 18 £e2 Black has the cunning 18...£>f6!, when grabbing the knight
isn't advisable] 16...gxf6 17 gxf6 £xf6 18 #g2+ *h8 19 Wh3 #e6 and Black
was okay in Bindrich- Pakleza, Czech Team Ch. 2005) I2...c5 (an admission
of failure) 13 £>f5 £.xf5 14 gxf5 £>c6 15 #g2 £>d4 16 £h6 £>e8 17 £g5 (17
flgl £f6 18 £c4 is also possible) when White stood much better and went on
to win in Lanka-Bosboom, Amsterdam 1994. a2) ll...c5? would merely
invite the knight to where it belongs: 12 £>f5 £xf5 13 gxf5 £>c6 14 flgl
(Crouan-Gouret, Mans 2001) and White was clearly in the driving seat. a3)
ll...d5 12 e5 £>e8 13 £>f5 (if 13 Ad3!? f6 14 flhel, and on account of his
well-centralized forces, White stood better in Copie-I.Jensen,
correspondence 1992; or l^.-WaS?! [Black is wasting time in order to grab
the rather unimportant a-pawn] 14 £>f5 £xf5?! [14...Ac5J 15 gxf5 f6 16 e6
#xa2 17 flhgl £>a6 18 flg4 £>c5 19 #g2 - of course the last few moves
weren't compulsory, but they do show the danger Black is under: White's
attack is already decisive here) 13...£c5 14 flel (on 14 h4 Black could well
consider 14...f6) 14...a5 15 h4 £>a6 (here, or on the next move, 15...a4 was
more to the point, while the sacrifice 15...b3 also deserved attention) 16 h5
ill

The Philidor Files £>ac7?! 17 £g5 (A.Poulsen-I.Jensen, correspondence

1984), and with ideas such as h6 g6; £>e7+ *h8; #f4, White has seized the
initiative. b) 10...c5!? looks like a very decent alternative. After 11 £>b5
Black has two playable continuations at his disposal: bl) ll...Wa5 12 £xd6!
(12 £>xd6!? £e6 [definitely not 12...#xa2?? 13 £c4 #al 14 £>xf7 flxf7 15
#d8+ and it's curtains!) 13 e5 £>e8 14 £d3 £>xd6 15 exd6 £f6 16 £g5 <SW
and in return for the pawn, Black has an attack) 12...£.xd6 13 £>xd6 £e6 14
a3 and White should stand a bit better. b2) ll...£e6 12 £xd6 (12 £>xd6 #a5
13 e5 transposes to ll...#a5 12 £>xd6 etc.; or if instead 12...£>c6?! 13 £>f5
£xf5 14 Wxd8 flfxd8 15 flxd8+ flxd8 16 exf5 and the extra pawn combined
with the pair of bishops should outweigh the temporary activity of Black's
pieces) 12...£>e8 (if 12...£xd6!? 13 £>xd6 with a slight edge to White;
taking back with the knight is stronger than 13 #xd6?! #a5 14 £>c7 £>e8 15
£>xe8 flxe8 with ample compensation for a mere pawn - a2 is hanging and
White's pieces are anything but impressive; or 14 a3 £>a6! with ideas such
as ...2fd8 and ...bxa3 £>xa3 £>b4; but not 14...a6?! 15 axb4! cxb4 16 £>d4)
13 £xe7 #xe7 14 £>d6 £>c6 (Al Modiahki-Belkhodja, Casablanca 2002).
Black has some compensation for his pawn, but White's game should be
somewhat preferable. White also keeps an edge after 14...£xa2 15 £>f5 #e5
(or 15...#b7?! 16 b3 Axbl 17 *xbl with a clear advantage) 16 #d8!. 11 g4 a4
ll...#b6?! is now illogical. White was clearly better after 12 g5 £>h5 13 £e3
c5 14 £>f5 £xf5 15 exf5 in Arakhamia-Orr, Grangemouth 2000. 12 a3
Opening lines in front of one's own king may look peculiar, but White's
choice is reasonable. Moreover, he probably wasn't convinced that the
customary 12 £>f5 was any better. Indeed, Black would have gained
sufficient counterplay after 12...£xf5 (12...d5!?) 13 gxf5 b3. The alternative,
13 exf5?, would be suspicious to say the least, 112

l e4 e5 2 &/3 d6 - Antoshin's Variation: 6 A/4 after 13...£>d5 14 £g3 a3,

then 15 b3? £.f6 is an immediate disaster, so White must reconcile himself
to the unappealing 15 bxa3. 12...bxa3 13 £>xa3 Wb6 ...with a complex
position, Maze- E.Moser, Zemplinska Sirava 2004. And 13...fle8!? is
another possibility. B) 1 e4 e5 2 £rf3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5 £>c3 ie7
6 if4 0-0 7 #d2 a6 8 0-0-0 Now Black can play: Bl: 8...d5 B2:8...b5 After
8...c5? 9 £>f5 £xf5 10 exf5 the d-pawn is bound to fall. Bl) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3
d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5 £>c3 ie7 6 if4 0-0 7 #d2 a6 8 0-0-0 d5 9exd5
9 e5 is not as 'clean'. After 9...£>h5 10 £e3 c5 11 £>b3 d4 12 #e2 the game
is a mess. 9...£>xd5 10 £>xd5! 10 £>f5!? leads either to a programmed
draw, or a symbolic White edge: 10...£>xf4 (10...£xf5? 11 £>xd5 Ad6 12
£.xd6 and Black must recapture sadly with the pawn, since 12...1i'xd6? 13
#g5! wins) and now: a)ll#e3Ag5!! 12 flxd8 flxd8 13 #e4 £>e2+ 14 *bl
£>xc3+ 15 bxc3 fidl+ 16 *b2 £cl+ 17 *b3 £e6+ 18 £c4 £>d7 (not
18...flxhl?? 19 #d4! £xc4+ 20 *xc4 f6 21 #d5+ *f8 22 Wxb7 - the
materialistic approach, even if it is probably possible to deliver mate!) 19
#xe6!! <Sk5+ 20 *b4 £>xe6 21 flxdl (we have been following the game
Gipslis-Antoshin, Moscow 1972) 21...£f4 and Black should hold.
13...£>d3+ isn't bad either: 14 *bl £>xf2 15 #e5 £xf5 16 #xf5 £>xhl 17
#xg5 £>c6 18 £e2 (White's task, in order to stay alive, is to prevent the
errant horse from arriving back home) 18...fle8 19 #c5 fle5 20 #gl flae8 21
g4 (if 21 #xhl? £>d4 wins) 21...fle3 22 #xhl flxc3 23 bxc3 flxe2, and while
Black can hardly lose this endgame, I'm not sure how realistic any winning
chances are. 113

The Philidor Files b) 11 £>xe7+! #xe7 12 #xf4 £e6 13 Ad3 with an edge
(S.Marjanovic- L.Kalashian, Kirovakan 1978). 10...Wxd5 Nearly the same
position can occur if Black opts for 7...c6 8 0-0-0 d5 and so on. In that case
a pawn stands on c6 rather than a6, and I would recommend playing 11 ^bl.
Here, however, this doesn't bring much in my opinion, whereas 11 £>b3 is
critical because the c7-pawn often hangs. Il£>b3 11 *bl c5 12 £>b3 #xd2 13
flxd2 £>c6 (Trois-Parente, Brasilia 1969) is more or less okay for Black.
ll...Wc6 ll...#xd2+ 12 flxd2 c6 13 £d3 leads to a White edge. This ending
isn't a worry for Black in the line 7...c6 8 0-0-0 d5 etc., but here he has had
to consent to a lost tempo. Against the natural 13...£e6 there would follow
14 £>d4. I2£e2 12 £d3 is also good. 12...fb413 *bl Or even 13 &.xc7
(Kholmov-Garcia Martinez, Havana 1968), since after 13...#xa2 14 #a5
White trades queens and maintains a lasting pressure. 13...C5 14 £d6 £xd6
14...fld8?! would accelerate Black's downfall: 15 £>xc5! #c6 16 £xe7 flxd2
17 flxd2 h6 18 fld8+ *h7 19 £d3+ f5 20 flel (or 20 £.c4), when Black's
pieces are still parked in the garage and are unable to assist their monarch.
15 Wxd6 ie6 16 if3 £>c6 17 £xc6 bxc6 18 Wxc5 ...with a healthy extra
pawn. B2) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5 £>c3 ie7 6 if4 0-0 7
Wd2 a6 8 0-0-0 b5 8...c5? 9 £>f5 (9 £>b3 is good too) 9...£.xf5 10 exf5 and
the d-pawn is bound to fall. 9f3 9 £>d5 (Kupreichik-L.Kalashian,
Kirovakan 1978) may be good enough to claim a small edge. If Black gets
rid of the knight, then f3, g4 will be on his opponent's agenda, and perhaps
also £>f5 given the right circumstances. If he doesn't, then White can
simply swap on e7. 114

l e4 eS 2 Z&f3 d6 - Antoshin's Variation: 6 A/4 9...C5 a) After 9...d5 10

£>xd5 £>xd5 11 exd5 #xd5 12 £i>3 #xd2+ 13 flxd2 the inclusion of f3 and
...b5 doesn't really help Black; for instance 13...£.f5 14 £>d4 Ag6 15 £.xc7
(Ermenkov-Lechtynsky, Berlin 1982), or 13...c5 14 £d3 £e6 15 Ae4 fla7 16
flhdl; in both cases the White position is superior. b) 9...b4 10 £>d5 £>xd5
11 exd5 a5 and after 12 £.c4 (Kholmov-Antoshin, Havana 1968) or 12 g4
(Liberzon- Antoshin, USSR 1971) White is dictating events. N)£>f5 Or: a)
10 £>de2?! b4! 11 £>d5 £>xd5 12 exd5 (12 #xd5 isn't any better: I2...fla7
13 *bl £e6 with fine play) 12...£>d7 13 c4 bxc3 14 £>xc3 flb8 (Brkic-
Tratar, Ra- bac 2004) and Black is in the ascendancy. If I'm not mistaken
10...£>c6?! doesn't give enough compensation for the loss of the d-pawn: 11
£xd6 b4 12 £>a4 #a5 13 £xe7 £>xe7 14 b3 £d7 15 e5 £>fd5 16 c4 £xa4
(16...flac8!? intending 17 cxd5 c4) 17 cxd5, although Black now has two
ways to add fuel to the fire: 17...£>xd5 18 #xd5 (if 18 bxa4? 2ad8 'with a
raging attack for the piece', to quote Nikolai Vlassov, with whom I can only
agree) 18...2fd8 19 #c4!; and 17...£xb3 18 axb3 #al+ 19 *c2 #a2+ 20 *d3
#xb3+ 21 *e4. The computer is very happy with White's position here, but
what about you? b) 10 £>b3?! c4! (but not 10...b4? since both 11 £>d5
£>xd5 12 #xd5 Sa7 13 £>xc5! and 11 £>bl £e6 [or ll...fla7 12 £>xc5] 12
£xd6 net a pawn for nothing) 11 £>d4 b4 12 £>d5 £>xd5 13 exd5 c3 14
bxc3 bxc3 15 #xc3 £g5 (Mar- torelli-Scalcione, Massafra 2005). For the
invested pawn, White's king is going to be permanently vulnerable.
10...£xf5 11 exf5 £>c6 ll...b4?! proved to be too hasty after 12 £>e4 in
Nestorovic-Ragger, Urgup 2004. After ll...£>c6 White is at a crossroads.
Out of his four seemingly reasonable options: 12 £xd6; 12 £>e4; 12 •^bl;
and 12 g4, only two are interesting in my opinion. 225

The Philidor Files 12 g4 Or: a) 12 £xd6 #a5 13 £xe7 (on 13 #f4, then
13...£xd6 14 flxd6 £>b4 15 a3 [or 15 *bl flad8] 15...£>bd5 is very
acceptable for Black) 13...Qxe7 14 *bl flad8 15 Wc\ £>xf5 with at least an
equal game, Damia-Scalcione, San Martino di Castrozza 2003. b) 12 £>e4?
d5! 13 £>xf6+ £xf6 14 #xd5 Wb6 15 c3 (15 £e3? Had8 saw Black win a
miniature in Mrdja- Scalcione, Reggio Emilia 2003) 15...b4 with a powerful
initiative, Vitoux- Payen, Val d'Isere 2004. c) 12 tebl £>d4 with sufficient
coun- terplay in Slaby-Luther, Deizisau 2004. 12...b4 12...£>d4 was
playable too, but 12...#a5?! is suspicious: 13 g5 b4 14 gxf6 bxc3 15 #xc3!
#xc3 16 bxc3 £xf6 17 2xd6 with a clear advantage to White, mainly due to
the weak black pawns on the queenside. 15...£>b4 doesn't change the
assessment much: 16 £c4 £xf6 17 Wa3 and d6 will drop. Instead, after 16
fxe7?! £>xa2+ 17 *d2 £>xc3 18 exf8#+ flxf8 19 bxc3 d5 White has a
nominal material advantage, but with his shattered pawn structure and
above all his wandering king, I suspect that he can hardly stand better.
13£ke4£kd414£txf6+ After 14 g5!? £>xf3 15 £>xf6+ gxf6 (not 15...£xf6?
16 Wd5 £>xg5 17 h4) 16 #d5 fxg5 17 #xf3 gxf4 White has compensation
for his pawn(s), but no real target. 14...£xf6 15 g5 £e5 16 £xe5 dxe5 17 f6
gxf6 18 ic4 *h819 #e3 #d6 ...and in this more or less balanced position a
draw was agreed in Jakic- Z.Jovanovic, Zadar 2003. C) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3
d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5 £>c3 £e7 6 if4 0-0 7 Wd2 £>c6 8 0-0-0 £>xd4 a)
8...£>e5?! is dubious because the knight becomes a target for the enemy
soldiers: 9 £g3 £>h5 (or 9...fle8 10 f4 £>g6 11 £e2 £f8 12 Af3, Fedorchuk-
A.Ivanov, Kharkov 2001, planning h4- h5) 10 £e2 £>xg3 11 hxg3 and the
half- open h-file outweighs the two bishops, Arkhipov-Vorotnikov, Moscow
1995. b) 8...a6 9 f3 £>d7?! (returning to 116

l e4 eS 2 Z&f3 d6 - Antoshin's Variation: 6 kf4 8...£>xd4 with 9...£>xd4

was wiser) 10 £>f5 with a clear edge for White, Papp- Vajda, Budapest
2004. 9#xd4 ...and now: CI: 9...£e6 C2:9...a6!? CI) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4
exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5 £>c3 ie7 6 if4 0-0 7 Wd2 £>c6 8 0-0-0 £>xd4 9 *xd4
Ae6 Black has tried knight moves, but each time there follows £k!5 and
White robs Black of the pair of bishops, securing a lasting edge. 10 f 3
Initiating a kingside offensive without using the f-pawn seems less powerful
to me: 10 Ae2 a6 (here or on the next move 10...£>g4 is perfectly viable
too) 11 #e3 (threatening e5) ll...£>d7 12 h4 £f6 13 h5 (on 13 £>d5 Black
obtains a sufficient counterplay by means of 13...£xd5 14 flxd5 #e7 15 f3
flfe8 16 g4 £>b6 17 fld2 d5, but 13 g4!? was a worthy alternative) 13...h6
with complicated play, Acs-Nevednichy, Paks 2004. However, the
prophylactic 10 #d2 has some point, as White discourages his opponent
from playing ...c5 (d6 would fall): 10...£>d7 (10...fle8 has been tried as
well: 11 f3 a6 12 g4 £>d7 13 g5 b5 14 h4 £>e5 15 #g2 #b8 16 £>d5 with a
slight edge for White in Doroshkievich- Lein, Sochi 1964; 10...a6!?) 11 *bl
f5!? (Black assesses that queenside action would be too slow and thus
decides on seeking counterplay on the other wing) 12 exf5 £xf5 13 g3 £>b6
14 £d3 £xd3 (14...Wd7\ was a bit more precise) 15 #xd3 £g5 16 £>d5 £xf4
17 £>xf4 #d7 18 #b3+ <&h8 19 h4 #f7 20 #f3 (the ending after 20 #xf7
flxf7 21 flhel doesn't promise much: 21...£>c4! with the idea of 22...Qe5)
20...d5 21 h5 *g8 22 #c3 c6 23 h6 g6 24 £>e6 flfe8 25 £>g5 #f8 26 fld4 #f6
27 f4 fle7?? (Black surely missed his opponent's witty reply; 27...fle2! was
far stronger, keeping the balance) 28 2e4!!. A pretty shot! a) 28...#d6 29
fle6 d4 30 flxe7! dxc3 31 flg7+ *f8 32 Bel and Black resigned, Rublevsky-
Kolasinski, Chelia-binsk 1991. 117

The Philidor Files b) 28...#f8 29 flxe7 #xe7 30 flel #d7 31 #f6 flf8 32 #e7
with a decisive advantage. c) The 'obvious' 28...1'xc3 was in fact the most
stubborn: 29 flxe7 Wl6 30 flhel £>c4 (30...flf8? 31 £>xh7 and Black must
give up the queen in order to prevent £>xf8 followed by h7) 31 fle8+ flxe8
32 flxe8+ #f8 33 flxf8+ *xf8 34 £>xh7+ *f7 35 b4!? £>e3 36 *b2 £>f5 37
£>g5+ *g8 38 h7+ *h8 39 *c3 and the white monarch will penetrate the
queenside and cause havoc. 10...a6 If 10...£>d7 11 #e3!? (here 11 g4?!
would play into Black's hands due to ll...Ag5!; instead, the move 11 £>d5 is
enough to claim a small edge, due to the pair of bishops after ll...£>b6, or
the space advantage in the event of ll...£g5 12 £xg5 #xg5+ 13 f4 #d8; with
the ambitious 11 #e3, however, White is looking for more) ll...£.f6 (the
highly imaginative ll...Wb8... ...was seen in Volokitin-Harikrishna,
Lausanne 2005; the young Ukrainian wasn't impressed and gained a solid
plus in the endgame after the sequence 12 g4 £>e5 13 h4 c6 14 g5 b5 15
£g3 1T?6 16 #xb6 axb6 17 f4 £>g4 18 f5 ixa2 19 ixd6 ixd6 20 flxd6) 12 g4
a6 (if 12...£.e5 then 13 £g3 with the idea £e2, f4 etc.) 13 g5 £e5 14 h4 was
Lau- tier-Dorfman, Val d'Isere 2002. Now 14...We7 was a mistake
according to Lautier, who correctly answered 15 Ah2! and firmly held the
initiative later on. Although his suggestion of 14...f6!? is indeed interesting,
I believe the move actually played was not bad either. An improvement was
possible a couple of moves later, namely 15...£.xh2 16 Bxh2 flae8!,
intending 17 f4 £>b6, followed by ...f5. But let's return to 14...f6!?. White
now has three decent options, all leading to a balanced position:
a)15g6hxg616£h3. b) 15 £>e2 #e7 16 flgl!? #f7. c) 15 £h2 fxg5 16 hxg5
£xc3 17 #xc3 #xg5+ 18 f4 and here, instead of 18...flxf4?! 19 £xf4 #xf4+ 20
*bl £>c5 21 £.c4 (Ovetchkin-Kodinets, Internet 2004) with better prospects
for White, Black should prefer 18...#c5 19 £h3 £.xh3 20 #xh3 which
remains unclear. 118

1 e4 eS 2 *bf3 d6 - Antoshin's Variation: 6 kf4 Finally, 10...c5 11 #d2 #a5

12 *bl (Mosquera-Barle, Bled Olympiad 2002) is slightly better for White.
11 g4 b5 Or 11...C5 12 #d2 b5 and, since accepting the challenge by playing
13 £xd6 Axd6 14 #xd6 #a5 isn't without risks, White's safest is 13 *bl. 12
h4 After 12 #d2, numerous examples from Italian FM Scalcione show that
the position remains very sharp and with mutual chances: I2...b4 13 £»d5
£xd5 14 exd5 Wb8 15 h4 a5 16 h5 a4 17 g5 £>d7 18 h6! (18 g6?! b3 saw
White's attack running out of gas, while Black's was becoming more and
more potent in Brancaleoni-Scalcione, Italy 2001) 18...g6 19 Bel! (19 #d4
was less precise after 19...f6 20 £h3 £>e5 in Isonzo-Scalcione, Genoa 2001)
19...£d8 20 £h3 £k:5 (Guido-Scalcione, Genoa 2001) and now after 21 Ae3
White has the upper hand. 12...C513 Wd2 b414 £>d5 (see following
diagram) Now both captures give White an slight edge: 14...£>xd5 15 exd5
£d7 16 *bl b4 17 £>d5 (Korneev-P.Roberts, Guernsey 2005) or 14...£xd5 15
exd5 £>d7 16 g5 (T.Sorensen-Granberg, correspondence 1982). C2) 1 e4 e5
2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5 £>c3 ie7 6 if4 0-0 7 Wd2 £>c6 8 0-0-0
£>xd4 9 *xd4 a6!? 10 f3 b5 11 g4 C5 Or ll...flb8!? 12 e5 b4 (Manakova-
Olarasu, Antalya 2002). 12 We3 b413 £>d5 £>xd5 14 exd5 £d7 14...fle8!?
is another possibility. (D.Stern-lngerslev, correspondence 1985). Black has
saved an important tempo in comparison to lines arising after 9...£.e6, and
thus his position is very playable. 119

The Philidor Files D) 1 e4 e5 2 <2tf3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5 £>c3

£e7 6 if4 0-0 7 Wd2 d5 This advance is carried out before White has a
chance to castle long. In order to continue fighting for an advantage White
must enter into huge complications. The two main moves in this position
are: Dl: 8 exd5 D2:8£kdb5 8e5?! ...is dubious. 8...£kh5 8...£>e4?! 9 £>xe4
dxe4 10 0-0-0 was better for White in E.Paehtz-Vasilevich, Internet (blitz)
2004. 9ig3 9 £>f3 £>xf4 10 #xf4 (Leko-Svidler, Monaco rapid 2004)
doesn't cause too much trouble either. 9-.C5 Or9...f6!?. 10 £kb3 d4 ...with
the initiative, Yurtaev- Antoshin, Frunze 1979. Dl) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4
exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5 £>C3 ie7 6 if4 0-0 7 Wd2 d5 8 exd5 £>xd5! 8...£b4?!
9 0-0-0 £xc3 (if 9...£>e4?! 10 #e3 £>xc3 11 bxc3 £a3+ 12 *bl #xd5 13 c4
#a5 14 £>b5 with an advantage) 10 #xc3 £>xd5 11 #g3 £>xf4 12 Wx(4 was
played in Kotronias- Gelashvili, Korinthos 1997. White's pieces are more
actively posted, and he therefore stands better. 9£>xd5Wxd510£>b5 An old
line that tries to profit from Black's queenside still being asleep. 10..J2e8!!
A brilliant discovery that was unearthed in the correspondence encounter
Talving-L.Karasek, 1990. This unexpected move promises approximate
equality, even though it deserves more. \0...We4+l? is interesting too, but
more risky: 11 kel #xg2! (not ll...£>a6?! 12 0-0 when White had a very
pleasant game due to his far better pieces, Van den Doel-Kovacevic, Leon
2001) 12 0-0-0 £>a6 13 fihgl #xf2 (13...#c6?! 14 £>c3 is worse: White
plans £>d5 and has more than enough 120

1 e4 eS 2 *hf3 d6 - Antoshin's Variation: 6 &.f4 for the sacrificed pawn) 14

Ah6 g6 15 £.xf8 £.xf8. Black has two pawns and the pair of bishops for the
exchange, but he is behind in development - the situation is unclear. Il£e2
Of course not 11 #xd5?? £b4+ 12 ^dl flel mate, but 11 £.e3 deserves
consideration: ll...#e5 12 0-0-0 £>c6 13 £f4 #e6 (Boros-Thinius, Budapest
2005) and now 14 #d5!. ll...£.b4H Il...#xg2!? 12 0-0-0 looks like it should
lead to a rapid victory for White, but the reality is somewhat different, and
12...£>a6 13 #e3 #c6 14 £>d4 Wb6 leads to unclear consequences. The text
move temporarily sacrifices a piece to make use of the pin on the e2-bishop.
12Wxb4^c6l3Wc3 13 #b3?! is worse. Black plays 13...#xg2 and now: a) 14
0-0-0 flxe2 15 £>xc7 (or the catastrophic 15 flhgl?! #e4 16 £h6 AS! 17 f3?
#xc2+ 0-1 Monteau- Cornette, French League 2002) 15...£f5 and Black
organizes a mighty counterattack, for instance 16 £>xa8 flxc2+ 17 #xc2
ixc2 18 flhel ie4. b) 14 flfl a6 and if the knight withdraws, its counterpart
rushes to d4. Instead, 15 0-0-0 #e4 (15...axb5 is equally satisfactory) 16
£xc7 #xe2 17 £>d6 fle7 leads to a complicated game. 13...Wxb514i-e3Wb4
(O.De la Riva Aguado-G.Kuzmin, Ubeda 1998). In this final position the
activity of Black's pieces compensates for the loss of the two bishops.
White must consent to a disruption of his pawn structure after the swap of
queens on c3, as 15 #xb4 £>xb4 would be too perilous. D2) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3
<J6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5 £*3 ie7 6 if4 0-0 7 Wd2 d5 8 &db5 The
critical move, against which Black has two options: D21: 8...£b4?!
D22:8...C6! D21) 1 e4 eS 2 £rf3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £kxd4 £>f6 5 £>c3 ie7 6
if4 0-0 7 Wd2 d5 8ljdb5i.b4?! 121

The Philidor Files 9 0-0-01 The best reaction. Others: a) 9 exd5?! He8+ 10
£e2 £>e4 (Fili- penko-Antoshin, Togliatti 1985) with adequate play for the
pawn. b) 9 f3 Aa5 or 9...£>a6 (Czebe-Urban, Budapest 1993) is okay for
Black. c) 9 £>xc7?! d4! (9...£>xe4?! leads to an unappetizing ending after
10 #xd5 £>xc3 [10...£xc3+ 11 bxc3 #xd5 12 £>xd5 and 10...#xd5 11
£>7xd5 £a5 12 £d3 are also insufficient] 11 Wxd8 flxd8 12 a3 £a5 13 £>xa8
£>d5+ 14 b4 £>xf4 15 bxa5 and Black had nothing for the exchange in
J.Cuartas-Rohl Montes, Medellin 2003) 10 0-0-0 £>c6 11 £>xa8 #a5
(Kolker-Podolsky, correspondence 1977) with a messy game in which it is
Black who will have the fun! 9...C6 9...£>xe4 10 #xd5 is out of the
question, while 9...£.a5 doesn't solve Black's problems either: 10 exd5 a6 11
£>d4 £xc3 (if ll...£>xd5 12 £>b3 #f6 13 £>xa5 £>xf4 14 g3, or ll...£>e4?!
12 #e3 £>xc3 13 bxc3 with the idea 13...#xd5? 14 £>b3 winning) 12 #xc3
£>xd5 13 #g3 £>xf4 14 Wxf4 with some annoying pressure for White in
Istratescu- Gelashvili, Patras 2001 (the position is virtually identical to the
earlier Kotronias-Gelashvili - see the note to Black's 8th move in Line Dl).
10£>c7£>xe41lWe3 Black now has a wide choice, but nothing really
works. Il...£.xc3 Neither ll...£>xc3 12 bxc3 £a3+ 13 *bl £>a6 14 £>xa8 b5
15 #g3 £>c5 16 £d3, nor ll...£c5 12 #xe4 #xc7 13 $Lxc7 dxe4 14 £>xe4
improves the situation for Black. 12 bxc3 g5 An attempt to improve on
12...We7 13 *b2 g5 14 £g3 f5 15 £>xa8 f4 16 #el fxg3 17 f3 £>a6 18 £xa6
bxa6 19 fxe4 (Shabanov-Vorotnikov, Krasnodar 1991) when Black lacked
compensation for his material deficit. 13ig3 13 £>xa8? gxf4 14 #xa7 £>a6
(D.Pedersen-Seel, German League 2002) was not as good, and indeed
Black won quite quickly, but 13 #xe4 #xc7 14 #xh7+ *xh7 15 £xc7
(Gyimesi- Nevednichy, Nova Gorica 2004) should 122

1 e4 eS 2 Z&f3 d6 - Antoshin's Variation: 6 A/4 be a bit better for White.

13...f514£>xa8f4 15 £xf4! 15 #xa7?! fxg3 is playable for Black, for
instance 16 £d3 (16 #xb8? loses to 16...#a5!) 16...£>xf2 17 #xb8 £>xdl 18
flxdl £g4 19 #xg3 £xdl 20 *xdl (Yagupov-M.Kozlov, Tula 2000) and here
20...flf7! is even much better for Black. 15-.gxf4 16 Wxa7 £>a6 17 Bel #a5
18 2xe4 dxe419 £c4+ *g7 20 *b2 White stands slightly better. D22) 1 e4 eS
2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5 £>c3 ie7 6 if4 0-0 7 Wd2 d5
8^db5c6!9^c7 White has almost crossed the point of no return: his position
can either be excellent or simply losing. One can imagine the difficulties
that the Ukrainian GM Brodsky experienced when he was confronted with
the novelty 8...c6 in the stem game against Nisipeanu (see Line D222).
Instead, 9 exd5!? is a very fresh try: 9...cxb5 10 d6 £xd6 (perhaps 10...fle8
11 dxe7 #xe7+, though 12 £e2 b4 13 £>b5 also seems to favour White) 11
#xd6 #a5 12 0-0-0 £e6 (12...b4 13 £>d5 isn't any better) 13 £xb5 £xa2 14
£e5 a6 15 £xf6 axb5 16 £xg7 *xg7 17 fld3 £>d7 18 #xd7 £c4 19 flg3+ *h8
20 #g4 and Black resigned, Kristjansson-Le Roux, Hastings 2005/06.
9...d4! Now we shall consider the following: D221:10 0-0-0 D222:10
£>e2?! D223:10 £>xa8! 10 fldl?! has been employed only once to my
knowledge, and shouldn't have too many followers: 10...dxc3 11 #xc3
£>bd7 12 £>xa8 £>xe4 13 #c4?! (13 #d3 was better: 13...#a5+ 14 c3 £>df6
15 f3 £>xc3 16 bxc3 Af5 followed by 17...flxa8 with fine play for Black)
13...#a5+ 14 c3 £>df6 15 f3 £e6 16 #d4? (16 #d3 would have limited the
damage after 16...£>c5 17 #d2 flxa8 18 b4 #xa2 19 #xa2 £xa2 20 bxc5
£xc5) 16...£c5 17 3ic7 #xa2 0-1 E.Moser- I.Schneider, Boblingen 2004. 123

The Philidor Files D221) 1 e4 e5 2 £tf3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5 £>c3

ie7 6 if4 0-0 7 Wd2 d5 8 £>db5 c6 9 £>C7 d410 0-0-0 £>h5 Not
10...dxc3?! 11 #xc3! (11 #xd8? turns the tables: ll...£.xd8 12 £>xa8 [12
flxd8? gives fewer chances for Black to go wrong: 12...flxd8 13 £>xa8
fldl+! 14 *xdl cxb2 winning) 12...£>xe4 13 £e3 [or 13 £xb8 £>xf2J
13...cxb2+ 14 *xb2 £f6+ 15 *a3 b5! 16 £xa7 [16 £>c7 Ae5[ 16...£>a6 and
in all these lines Black is clearly on top) ll...£>bd7 12 £>xa8 £>xe4 13 #e3
£>ef6 14 £c4 (or maybe even 14 #xa7), when White has the upper hand.
Il£e5 If 11 £>xa8 £>xf4 12 #xd4 #xd4 13 Bxd4 £>e6 14 Hdl b5 - the
recurring theme is the trapped knight on a8 and White's material superiority
may not last very long; while 11 #xd4!? £>xf4 12 #xd8 £xd8 13 £>xa8 b6
14 g3 £>g6 (or 14...£te6) is unclear. Il...£g5 a) ll...dxc3?! 12 #xd8! (12
#e2!?) 12...flxd8 13 flxd8+ Axd8 14 £>xa8 with a large edge. b) ll...£>d7?!
12 #xd4 flb8 13 £d6 £xd6 14 #xd6 and White should win. 12f4dxc3!? Or
12...£>xf4! 13 £xf4 #xc7 (theme: the pin!) 14 £xc7 (14 £xg5 dxc3 15 #xc3
is close to equal, as the isolani counterbalances the pair of bishops)
14...£xd2+ 15 *xd2 dxc3+ 16 *xc3 £>d7 (or 16...£g4 first) and Black
should hold. With 12...dxc3!? we are following the game Pavasovic-
Nisipeanu, Ljubljana 2002. Nisipeanu's move complicates matters, but in
White's favour. 13 *xd8 cxb2+ 13...Axd8!? was perhaps more appropriate.
Here's a sample of the analysis published in Chess Informant which shows
Black's hidden resources (of course not everything is forced): 14 £>xa8 £g4
15 fld3 (15 fld4) 15...£>d7! 16 £d6 (if 16 £xc3 £>xf4 17 flg3 h5 18 £d2 £g5
19 £>c7 fld8 20 h3 [20 fle3 £>e5 21 h3 £>xh3 22 flhxh3 £xh3 23 gxh3 £>f3
and Black wins) 20...£>c5 21 Se3 £>xh3 22 flhxh3 £xh3 23 gxh3 flc8 with
a clear plus for Black) 16...fle8 17 2xc3 2xe4 with an unclear position.
14*bl 124

1 e4 eS 2 *bf3 d6 - Antoshin's Variation: 6 kf4 At first sight, a reflex move

in this kind of position. The b2-pawn can in some cases protect the white
king, but with the queens off 14 <i>xb2 looks normal (the white monarch
may play an active role in this ending). White, however, anticipates that the
king may be misplaced in some specific variations, where a pin on the long
diagonal occurs: 14 *xb2 £xd8 15 £>xa8 £g4 (not 15...£f6? 16 £xf6 £>xf6
17 fld4 with a clear plus) 16 fld4 (16 fld3 £>d7 or 16...^a6 is also messy)
16...Ae7 (16...£>d7?! 17 £d6 £f6 18 e5 flxa8 19 exf6 £>hxf6 is clearly
better for White) 17 h3 (17 f5 c5 18 fld6!?) 17...£>g3 18 flgl k.el\ is equal.
14...£xd8 15 £>xa8 15...ig4 15...£>d7 was no better: 16 £d6 fle8 17 £>c7
(or 17 £d3!?) 17...flxe4 18 £d3 fla4 19 flhel £>df6 20 £e2! g6 21 £xh5 gxh5
22 Ae5 and White enjoys a big advantage. 16 2d3 £>a617 h3 17 fle3!? or
17 £d6 fle8 18 fla3! were also possible. The correct idea consists of getting
rid of the knight on a6, the guardian of the c7-square. Once it has
disappeared, its white counterpart will manage to escape from the corner
and the extra exchange will tell. 17...£e6l8f5?! It wasn't too late for 18 Be3!
(preceded or not by 16 £d6 fle8). White will keep the exchange and a clear
ascendancy after 18...£a5 19 f5, or 18...f6 19 £d6, or 18...£f6 19 £xf6 £>xf6
20 £xa6 bxa6 21 £>c7. Now, however, Black stays alive. 18...&C4 19 2xd8
2xd8 20 £xc4 2xa8 21fldl 21 g4! was still promising for White: 21...£>f6 22
£xa6 bxa6 23 £xf6 gxf6 24 Hdl with a superior rook ending. 21...£>c5 If
21...b5? 22 £e2 £>f6 23 £xf6 gxf6 24 fld6. 22 g4 22...b5 The bishop must
be kicked off the a2-g8 diagonal. On 22...£>f6?! 23 g5 £>fd7 (23...£>fxe4
24 g6 is nasty too) 24 £xb2 £>b6 25 £b3 White remains better, for instance
25...g6 26 fxg6 hxg6 27 fld6 *f8 28 £a3 £>xb3 29 axb3 *e8 30 125

The Philidor Files e5 £>d5 31 e6 fxe6 32 flxe6+ *f7 33 fld6. 23 gxh5 bxc4
...and the players agreed a draw. Play could continue 24 Hgl g6 25 hxg6
hxg6 26 fxg6 fle8 (or 26...£>a4!?) with simplifications and sufficient
counter- play for Black. D222) 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5
£>c3 £e7 6 if4 0-0 7 Wd2 d5 8 £>db5 c6 9 £>c7 d410 £>e2?! The move
chosen in the stem game, M.Brodsky-Nisipeanu, Bucharest 2001, which we
shall now follow. 10...g5! Luring the bishop to e5, which will enable the b8-
knight to develop with tempo. Il£e5 The alternative is 11 ^xa8 and then: a)
ll...£>xe4!? is worth a try, when 12 £c7 #e8 13 #a5 (13 #xd4? invites the
obvious 13...£c5) 13...b6 14 £>xb6 (worse is 14 #xa7? £b4+ 15 c3 dxc3 16
bxc3 £>xc3 17 a3 £>b5+ 18 axb4 £>xa7 19 2xa7 We4!, and although the
material balance is approximately even, the lack of harmony in White's
pieces makes his position hopeless) 14...axb6 15 £xb6 c5... ...with pretty
good compensation (even though the computer disagrees!): White's queen
and b6-bishop are out of play, while most of his other pieces still occupy
their initial squares. b) ll...gxf4 and now: bl) 12 #xf4 £>a6 13 £>g3 £>b4 14
0-0-0 £>fd5! 15 #f3 £>xa2+ 16 *bl £>dc3+ 17 bxc3 £>xc3+ 18 #xc3 dxc3
19 Hxd8 £xd8, followed by ...b5, ...Ab7xa8 and a resulting edge; or 13 0-0-
0 c5 14 £>g3 £>g4 15 <&bl £d6 (Varga-Bacrot, Mainz rapid 2004), when
Black will sooner or later have two minor pieces for a rook and a pawn -
even though he still has a tough task ahead, Black should gradually be able
to convert his advantage. b2) 12 f3 c5 13 #xf4 £>a6 14 £>g3 £>b4 and
Black's compensation is easy to see: the a8-knight's days are numbered, the
dark squares in White's camp are seriously weakened, and finally the direct
threat of ...£>xc2+ is difficult to parry. ll...£tbd7! 126

1 e4 eS ll...£>xe4?! 12 #xd4 £>d7 13 Wxe4! (not 13 0-0-0?, which turns out

badly after the long sequence 13...£>xe5 14 #xe5 £f6! 15 flxd8 £xe5 16
flxf8+ <&xf8 17 £>xa8 £>xf2 18 flgl £xh2 19 g3 Axgl 20 £>xgl *e7)
13...£>xe5 14 £>xa8 #a5+ 15 c3 f5 16 #c2 is clearly better for White. I
think that he will find time to regroup while his opponent rounds up the
knight on a8, and then he will be an exchange up for not too much
compensation. 12ixf6! This is stronger than 12 £>xa8 £>xe4!? (here the
safe 12...£>xe5 avoids complications while keeping the advantage after 13
£>g3 £e6 14 Wxg5+ £>g6) 13 £c7 #e8 14 #a5 b6 15 #a4 £f6 16 #xa7 (or 16
#xc6 d3! 17 cxd3 £>dc5 18 #xe8 £>xd3+ 19 *dl flxe8 with a clear plus)
16...d3 17 cxd3 Axb2 18 £>xb6 #e7! 19 dxe4 *b4+ 20 *dl Axal. Once again
the position is chaotic and White's pieces are not well placed to rescue their
king. The initiative counts for more than the material deficit. If instead 12
#xg5+ *h8 13 £>xa8 (13 0-0-0?! is even worse: 13...£>xe5 14 ffl/3 d6 -
Antoshin's Variation: 6 JL/4 #xe5 [or 14 £>xa8 £>fg4!] 14...£d6 15 #xd4
$Lxc7 and suddenly it is Black who gains material) 13...#a5+ 14 #d2 #xd2+
15 *xd2 £>xe5 16 £>g3 £d7 17 f4 £>g6 and Black has an edge as the a8-
knight is lost. 12...£kxf6 13 Wxg5+ After 13 £>xa8 £>xe4 14 #xd4 #a5+ 15
c3 Af5 Black has ideas of ..A<5, ...2d8 and ...2xa8 and firmly holds the
initiative. 14...1i'xd4?, on the other hand, seems to fail to 15 £>xd4 £b4+ 16
c3 £>xc3 17 a3 Se8+18 *d2 £>e4+19 *c2. 13...*h8l4^xa8ae8! We have
reached the second critical phase of the game. If White still has a chance to
escape, it is now or never! 15 f3? A mistake. Out of the alternatives, option
'e' looks like the best bet. a) 15 e5? (underdeveloped, White can't afford a
pawn move) 15...£>e4 16 #f4 #a5+ 17 c3 (17 *dl?! £g5) 17...dxc3 18 bxc3
£>xc3 19 #d2 £b4 and heavy material losses are unavoidable, for instance
20 a3 £>xe2 21 #xb4 #xe5 and Black wins. b) 15 a3? (the previous
comment also 127

The Philidor Files applies here) 15...£>xe4 16 #e5+ £f6 17 #c7 #d5 (White's
pieces completely lack any harmony; the threat is ...d3) 18 f3 £>d6 19 0-0-0
(19 #b8 d3!) 19...£f5 (Black's whole army is concentrated in direction of the
enemy king) 20 £>f4 (otherwise ...d3 and the monarch gets slaughtered)
20...£.g5 21 g3 flc8... ...winning the queen and the game. c) 15 0-0-0?!
£>xe4 16 Wh5 £>xf2 17 flxd4 (not 17 £>xd4? £g4 18 #e5+ £f6 and Black
wins; or 17 h4? £g4 18 #e5+ £f6 19 #f4 £>xdl 20 #xg4 £>f2 21 #f3 £>xhl
0-1 Karolyi-Ellenbroek, Apel- doorn rapid 2001) 17...£g5+ 18 *bl Wxd4
(her majesty is taboo, but this isn't the end of the story) 19 #xg5 I'd 1+ 20
£>cl £>e4! (20...£>xhl? 21 #f6+ *g8 22 #g5+ *f8 23 Wh6+ *e7 24 #g5+
*d6 25 #f4+ is a draw by perpetual check) 21 £d3 #xd3 22 £>xd3 (22 #f4
calls for the 'iron refutation', or the royal march, if you prefer: 22...£>d2+
23 *al #xc2 24 #f6+ *g8 25 #g5+ *f8 26 Wh6+ *e7 27 flel+ <&d7 28
Wh3+ f5 29 #xh7+ *d6 30 #g6+ *d5 31 £>c7+ *c4! 32 b3+ *c5 33 £>d3+
#xd3 34 flcl+ *b6 35 £>a8+ *a5 with a trivial win!) 22...£>xg5 and White
will have to be creative to solve the question of the a8-knight. d) 15 £>g3
£>xe4 16 #e5+ £f6 17 #xe4 Af5 18 #xe8+ #xe8+ 19 *dl isn't clear.
Optically I find the position really disgusting from White's point of view,
but my assessment is probably subjective. He will certainly lose the a8-
knight, with Black thus restoring the material balance. During this time
White's task must be to coordinate his forces. e) 15 #d2! £>xe4 16 #xd4+
#xd4 17 £>xd4 £b4+ (17...£c5 doesn't work: 18 £>c7 fle7 19 £>ce6! £xe6
[or 19...fxe6 20 f3J 20 £>xe6 £xf2+ 21 *e2 flxe6 22 *f3 and the extra
exchange should tell) 18 *e2 £>g3+ (18...£c5?! 19 £>b3!) 19 *f3 £>xhl 20
£c4 b5 21 £>c7 fle7 22 £b3 £c5! (22...£>xf2?! is wrong due to 23 £>cxb5,
while 22...flxc7 23 flxhl is given by Khalifman and Semkov in Opening for
White According to Anand - Black doesn't have enough for the pawn) 23
flxhl £xd4 24 fldl £b7! 25 £>d5 c5 26 c3 fle6! intending 27 cxd4 c4 28 £c2
£.xd5+ when I think Black should 128

l e4 eS 2 Z&f3 d6 - Antoshin's Variation: 6 JL/4 eventually equalize.

I5...£>xe416#e5+*g8 Black now has a clear advantage (but not 16...£f6??
which loses to 17 »c7»d518fxe4). 17 *xd4 17 #xe4 £b4+ 18 c3 flxe4 19
fxe4 dxc3 20 bxc3 £.c5 is similar to the game and equally bad for White, as
is 17 #f4 id6. 17...ic5l8Wxe4 Or 18 #xd8 £f2+ 19 *dl flxd8+ 20 £>d4 £.xd4
and Black enjoys a great advantage. I8...2xe4 19 fxe4 £e3 20 Bdl £f2+ 21
*xf2 Wxdl The motif of the entire game is again apparent. After the
recapture of the stranded knight White will only have a rook and a knight
for the queen. 22 C3 Wd2 23 g3 Wxb2 24 £g2 ig4 25 if3 ixf3 26 *xf3 *d2!
27 Bfl Or 27 *f2 #d8. 27...Wd3+ 28 *f2 Wxe4 29 £>d4 #e8 30 £>c7 #d7 31
£>a6 bxa6 32 Bbl C5 33 flb8+ ig7 34 £>e2 Wd2 35 Bc8 #xa2 36 2xc5 a5
37 *f3 a4 38 £>d4 a3 39 £>f5+ &f6 40£>d6H>10-l An impressive game
and superb preparation from Nisipeanu. This game perfectly illustrates the
risks White is running when he tries to keep an opening advantage. It has,
of course, been thoroughly analysed and various improvements for White
have been found. Finding the right path over the board, however, was
'mission impossible'. D223) 1 e4 e5 2 <2tf3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5
£>C3 ie7 6 if4 0-0 7 Wd2 dS 8 £>db5 c6 9 £>c7 d410 £>xa8 The most
efficient way to proceed. By eliminating the majority of Black's pieces,
notably the queen, White reduces the handicap of his poor development.
10...dxc311#xd8flxd8 ll...£.xd8?! seems to fall short after 12 b3!, intending
12...£>bd7 13 f3, when I believe in a big advantage for White, as the knight
should escape. 12 £.xb8?, on the other hand, is unsound: 12...cxb2 13 flbl
£a5+ 14 *e2 £g4+ 15 f3 £>xe4 16 £e5 fle8! (or 16...flxa8) with a large plus
to Black this time. 129

The Philidor Files 12 bxc3 12 b3, which remains to be tested, might

altogether refute Black's concept. But 12 £.xb8? is not recommended:
12...cxb2 13 flbl £b4+ 14 *e2 £>xe4 15 flxb2 £.c5 and despite a whole extra
rook, White is in bad shape. 12...£ixe4 13id3 This leads to a more artistic
position than 13 £.xb8, but also one that is more difficult to evaluate. After
13 Axb8, as in numerous other lines, White has an extra rook which he will
try to consolidate: 13...£.f6 14 £d3 £xc3+ (14...£f5!?) 15 *e2 Af5 16 fladl
(White can't afford too much ambition here, as the following variations
witness: 16 flabl? flxb8 17 f3 £>d6 with a Black advantage; or 16 £c7? fle8!
17 flacl £>d2+ 18 *dl £g4+ 19 f3 £>xf3 20 £e2 £>gl [funny, isn't it?) 21 flbl
flxe2 0-1 Korneev-Milla de Marco, Campillos 2005; and finally the more
reasonable 16 ixa7 flxa8 17 ie3 ixal 18 flxal £>c3+ 19 *d2 £xd3 20 *xc3,
which was equal in L'Ami-Pavasovic, Mari- bor 2004) 16...flxb8 17 f3 and
now: a) 17...flxa8! (the most precise move) 18 £.xe4 £.e6 and Black looks
safe enough as 19 flbl runs into 19...f5 20 £d3 b5. b) 17...£>d6 is inferior
and leaves White with an edge: for example, 18 £xf5 £>xf5 19 £>c7 £e5 20
fld7 flc8 21 g4 £>h4 (or 21...£>d4+ 22 *d3 £>xf3 23 *e4) 22 flhdl 'if8 23
fld8+ flxd8 24 flxd8+ *e7 25 fle8+ *d6 (25...*f6? 26 g5+ <&>f5 27 fle7
with a clear advantage) 26 £>a8 followed by flb8 and White is in no danger
of losing; on the contrary, it is Black who has to battle to save the draw. 130

1 e4 e5 2 &/3 66 - Antoshin's Variation: 6 A/4 13...£d6 13...£>d6 14 0-0-0

gives a clear advantage to White. 14 £xd6 The alternative 14 £.e3!? may be
even stronger. 14...£>xd6 15 0-0-0 15».*f8 15...b6 has been tried in
practice, but without success: 16 flhel *f8 17 £k7 g6 (17...fld7 only
prolongs the agony: 18 £f5 flxc7 19 flxd6 £d7 20 £xh7 g6 21 £xg6 fxg6 22
flxg6 £e8 23 flxe8+ 1-0 Bindrich-Lorscheid, Budapest 2005) 18 £fl 1-0
Martorelli-Di Caro, Rome 2005, since 2xd6 followed by fle8+, winning a
piece, is unstoppable. 16 Bhel £>d7 White is an exchange up, but the knight
on a8 is still a concern. 17 C4! Not 17 £xh7?! £>f6 18 £d3 £>fe8! followed
by ..Ad7 and ...flxa8. 17«.£>c5 18 £>c7 The animal is alive, even if it still
can't get out! The position, albeit confusing, seems more suspicious for
Black, because I can't really figure out how he will round up the knight on
c7. Conclusion Nisipeanu's 8...c6 is the move upon which the entire
assessment of 7...d5 depends. If Black stands well, then the development of
Af4, #d2 is harmless; otherwise, as seems to be the case, White enjoys a
certain advantage. White enjoys a clearer plus in the other lines, although
9...a6 in Line C2 is worth further investigation. 131
Chapter Five Early Deviations and 3 f3 Because of the difficulties Black
has experienced with the lines treated in the first four chapters, another
move order to reach the Philidor Defence has arisen in practice. By playing
1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £tt>d7 Black avoids having to accept a persistent
disadvantage or a wild but risky position. This move order also has an
independent significance, as White isn't obliged to go for 4 £>f3. Black thus
needs to be aware of the secondary lines 4 g4, 4 f4, and 4 Ae3 with a plan
based on 0-0-0, which are still rather unexplored. Deviations at move 3 are
also possible for White, mainly with either 3 £d3 or 3 f3, and these two
moves are the subjects of Chapters 5 and 6. As for Black, he can also opt
for 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 e5!? (Chapter 7), the ending resulting from 4
dxe5 dxe5 5 #xd8+ *xd8 being fully playable. Before entering into the heart
of 132 our subject, let's have a quick look at deviations prior to 3...^f6.
Second Move Alternatives l e4 <J6 2 d4 2 £>c3 avoids the Philidor - for
those who have understood how strong this opening is! Now 2...c5 is a
Sicilian Defence; 2...e5 3 f4 a King's Gambit; and finally 2...£>f6 3 f4 g6 4
d4 £g7 5 £>f3 transposes into the Austrian Attack of the Pi re Defence.
2...e5 2...£>d7 3 £>f3 e5 transposes to Chapter 1. Instead 3...£>gf6?! 4 e5 is
unhealthy for Black: the position resembles Alekhine's Defence where the
d7-knight would be misplaced. This gives White attacking prospects based
on e6 ...fxe6; £}g5, but also a good game if he continues more calmly:
4...£>d5 5 c4 £>5b6 6 £>c3 etc. 3dxe5 3 £>f3(!) transposes back to 1 e4 e5
2

l e4 d6 2 d4 ^f6 - Early deviations and 3 f3 Qf3 d6 3 d4. 3...dxeS 4 Wxd8+

*xd8 5 ic4 f6 6 ie3 C6 7^d2^d7 8^b3! 8 £>e2 and 8 0-0-0 are other sensible
continuations. In all cases the position oscillates between a slight edge to
White and equality. 8...g6 8...£>b6 9 £e2 £>a4 10 0-0-0+ *c7 11 £>f3 £e6
12 £>fd2 g6 13 f4 £d6 14 g3 left White with a slight edge in Rezaei-
Ardeshi, Tehran 2001. 9 h4 ih6 10 ixh6 £>xh6 11 £>f3 *e7 12 a4 as 13
£>fd2 £>f7?! Or 13...£>b6 14 £d3... ...with a small plus for White (the
knight on h6 is badly placed, and there's a possibility of playing £>b3-c5)
but it is one that should evaporate against precise defence from Black. 14
£xf7! *xf7 15 £>c4 b6 16 0-0-0 ...with a clear advantage to White,
Al.Moreno-Moreira Romero, Latacunga 2000, as Black will experience
problems finishing his development. In conclusion, the endgames resulting
from an early dxe5 dxe5; #xd8+ •i'xdS aren't to be feared by Black in
general. White's slight initiative should evaporate bit by bit, leaving the
position roughly equal. I thus recommend avoiding these endings by
playing 3 £>f3 (unless White is an endgame expert or not averse to a draw).
Black Plays 2...£>f6 Ie4d6 2d4£tf6 Now we will consider: A: 3 £>d2 B:3f3
A)le4d6 2d4£tf6 3£kd2 133

The Philidor Files This insipid move doesn't pose Black real problems.
Indeed, compared to 3 £>c3 many drawbacks are apparent: White's control
of the centre is diminished (d5 is beyond the knight's horizon); the cl-bishop
is blocked in; and the queen's development options are limited. Now either
3...g6 or 3...e5 should equalize. Here's a rather recent example, Esquivel-
Bauer, taken from FIDE's Internet qualifications for the World
Championship: 3...e5 4c3g6 4...£.e7 offers similarities to 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6
3 £c4 £e7, seen in Chapter 1. 5 £>gf 3 £>bd7 5...£k6!? is another option. 6
£d3 £g7 7 0-0 0-0 8 a4 a5 9 Bel £>h5 10 £>c4 h6 11 ie3 Wf6 12 Wd2 12...
<&>h7?! A loss of time (12...g5!), and moreover the relationship between
the d3- bishop and the king on h7 is a bit uncomfortable. 13 b3?! Returning
the favour with a senseless move. 134 13...2e8 14 Hadl £>f8 15 h3 g5 If
15...£xh3?! 16 dxe5 dxe5 17 £>fxe5 and the tactics end in White's favour.
16 *hl £>g6 17 £>h2 £>hf4 18 £c2 h5 19 £>a3! Seeking play before the
Black attack on the other wing becomes too strong. 19».g4 20 £>b5 #e7 21
hxg4 hxg4 22 dxe5 dxe5 22...£xe5 23 £>d4! followed by £>f5 is annoying.
23 g3 flh8?! Optimistic, but 23...£>h5 24 #e2 £>f6 25 Ag5 didn't appeal to
me. 24 gxf4 exf4 25 £xf4 25 Ad4! was stronger, when either 25...Wh4 or
25...g3 is probably insufficient. 25...£>xf4 26 Wxf4 ie5 27 #d2 Sg7 At this
point the whole remaining six minutes of my opponent's time passed away.
He probably didn't manage to reconnect and lost on time! The final position
is complex and offers level chances. For example, 28 f4 g3 (28...gxf3? 29
flgl+ <&f8 30 #d8+ #e8 31 #xe8+ *xe8 32 fld2 and White wins) 29 fle2
(not 29 flgl? £xf4!)

l e4 d6 2 d4 ^f6 - Early deviations and 3 f3 29...£g4 30 #e3 £xe2 31 #xg3+

*f8 with an unclear position. In conclusion, by choosing 3 £>d2 White can't
really expect an opening edge. But this sub-variation shouldn't be neglected.
It leads to rather flexible and often complex positions, as few pieces get
traded at an early stage. B)le4d6 2d4^f6 3f3 This moves relies on the spatial
advantage White usually gains in several of the ensuing variations. The
most frequent Black reply consists of 3...e5 (Line B2), or 3...£>bd7
followed by ...e5 (Line B3). One of Black's strategical goals is then to swap
the dark-squared bishops with the manoeuvre ...Ae7, ...£>h5 and ...£g5.
From the diagrammed position we will look at the following moves: Bl:
3.»d5 B2: 3 .e5 B3: 3».£>bd7 3...c5 and 3...g6 are playable continuations
too, their drawback being the vast choice of options they leave White. 3...c5
may lead to an Alapin Sicilian after 4 c3, or a Benoni after 4 d5 e6 5 c4
exd5 6 cxd5. While after 3...g6 Black must be ready to transpose into a
King's Indian Samisch in the event of 4 c4 £g7 5 £>c3 0-0 etc. Bl)le4d6
2d4£>f6 3f3d5 4e5 Now Black must make a decision: Bll: 4...£>g8l?
B12:4...£>fd7 Bll) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 f3 d5 4 e5 £>g8!? Intending to
reroute the knight to f5, via e7 or h6. 5id3 Aiming to prevent the
development of the c8-bishop while Black hasn't touched his e-pawn (after
...e7-e6 it won't be able to develop on its best diagonal, c8-h3). Instead, 5 c3
c5 6 f4 cxd4 7 cxd4 ^>c6 8 ^>c3 ^>h6, followed by ...£>f5 and ...e6, is a
good version of the French Advance for Black. 135

The Philidor Files 5...C5 6 c3 £>c6 7£>e2 7 Ae3 isn't enough to claim an
edge either, because of 7...#b6 8 #d2 cxd4 9 cxd4 £>b4, when Black either
grabs the pair of bishops or manages to develop his 'bad' bishop on f5.
7...Wb6 8dxc5 It was difficult for White to maintain the tension. 8...Wxc5
9b4 Setting up a possible b4-b5 push. 9...Wb6l0f4a6 ...with an original and
unclear position, Zsinka-Beim, Oberwart 1996. The more typical 10...e6
also deserves consideration, with 11 b5 £>a5 or ll...£>b8!? offering level
chances. B12) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 f3 d5 4 e5 £>fd7 5c4 5 f4 c5 6 £>f3 e6
comes back to a French Defence. 5...dxc4 6 £xc4 e6 6...£>b6 7 £b3 £>c6 8
£>e2 Af5 would this time transpose to a line of the Queen's Gambit
Accepted, but where the f-pawn usually stands at f2. Korchnoi-Bauer, Swiss
Team Ch. 2005, continued 9 £>bc3 e6 10 0-0 #d7 11 Ae3, and now Black
could have benefited from the above-mentioned nuance by means of ll...
£>a5 12 £c2 £>ac4 13 £cl £xc2 14 #xc2 c5!. 7f4c5 8^f3 8 dxc5 was the
King's preference in the encounter Kasparov-Cu.Hansen, Svendborg
(match) 1990. There followed 8...£xc5 9 £>f3 a6 10 £>c3 b5 11 £d3 £b7 12
a3 £>c6 and Black should be okay. Note that 9...#b6?! is a loss of time
because after 10 £>c3!, 10...Af2+ 11 Pel causes Black more problems than
136
l e4 d6 2 d4 £)/6 - Early deviations and 3 f3 his opponent: then £>e4,
targeting d6, will gain time by attacking the bishop, and the white king,
surrounded by its own pieces, can't be seriously harassed. 8...£>c6 With
counterplay. On the hasty 9 d5?!, for example, Black could already claim an
edge on account of 9...£>b6!. B2) Ie4d6 2d4£>f6 3f3e5 ...and now:
B21:4£te2 B22:4d5 The dry 4 dxe5 dxe5 5 #xd8+ *xd8 6 £c4 *e8...
...followed by ...£>bd7, ...£.c5 and so on, doesn't cause Black the slightest
problem (except how to win!). The position is similar to 3 £>c3 e5 4 dxe5
dxe5 5 #xd8+ *xd8, with the difference that f3 is occupied by a pawn rather
than a knight. As a consequence, White doesn't attack e5, leaving his
opponent with much more time to arrange his pieces effectively. B21) 1 e4
d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 f3 e5 4 £>e2 This move avoids both the boring 4 dxe5 and
the main line 4 d5. Black can either opt for similar development as after 4
d5, or try to achieve the ...d5 push under favourable conditions. 4...exd4
5^xd4d5! The real test of White's system. Instead 5...£.e7?! enables the first
player to set up the bind e4/c4, after which he can count on a persistent plus
owing to his space advantage: 6 c4 0-0 7 £k3 c6 8 £e3 (or 8 £e2 fle8 9 £>c2
£>bd7 10 0-0 Af8 11 <&>hl with an easier game for White in Lautier-
Degraeve, Aix les Bains 2003) 8...fle8 9 #d2 d5 (if 9...£f8!? then 10 0-0-0
should be the way to proceed [10 Ae2?! allows the freeing 10...d5J as after
10...d5?! 11 £>c2 a pawn drops) 10 cxd5 cxd5 11 Ab5! (better than 11 e5
£c5! 12 exf6 £xd4 13 #xd4 £>c6 14 #f4 d4 when Black should be more or
less okay) ll...Ad7 12 e5 £xb5 (12...£c5?! doesn't work so well this time: 13
exf6 £xd4 14 #xd4 £xb5 15 0-0-0 £>c6 16 #f4 with a tangible advantage)
13 £>dxb5 a6 14 £>d4 when White was better and won a nice 137

The Philidor Files game in Anand-Nisipeanu, German League 2004. 6 e5

£>fd7 7 f4 In this position Black has three continuations, each of which
gives fair equalizing prospects in my opinion. 7...£>c6 With the idea of ...
£>dxe5; fxe5 ...Wh4+ and ...#xd4. Alternatively: a) 7...c5 8 £>f3 £>b6 9 c3
£>c6 10 £d3 d4 (10...£g4?! is worse: 11 h3 £xf3 12 #xf3 c4 13 £c2 d4 14
£e4 flc8 15 0-0 £c5 16 *h2 and White stands better) 11 £>a3 dxc3 12 bxc3
£e6 13 #e2 £>a4 with a mess, Piket-Shirazi, Antwerp 1998. b) 7...£>b6 8
£>c3?! (or 8 a4!? c5, Movsesian-Fridman, Internet blitz 2005) 8...£b4 9 £d2
0-0 10 £e2 f6 and the initiative passed to Black in W.Rosen- G.Braun,
German Senior Team Ch. 1994. 8£>xc6 Or 8 £>f3 £>b6 9 £d3 (9 a4!?)
9...£>b4! 10 £e2 (10 0-0!? £>xd3 11 #xd3 is unclear) 10...£f5 11 £>a3 (not
11 £>d4? Ae4 and ...c5 is coming) ll...£>c4! and Black was fine in
G.Livshits- V.Golod, Israeli Team Ch. 2005. 8...bxc6 9 id3 Wh4+ 10 g3 #h3
11 #f3 £.C5 12 £e3 0-013 £>d2 Or 13 £xc5!? £>xc5 14 £>c3. 13...f6 14
exf6 If 14 £xc5 £>xc5 15 #e3 £>xd3+ 16 cxd3 fxe5 17 fxe5 £g4!. 14...2e8
15 £>fl 15...£>xf6! The tempting 15...£xe3? 16 £>xe3 d4 would lead to a
debacle after 17 0-0-0 dxe3 18 #xc6 flb8 19 #d5+ *h8 20 fxg7+ <&>xg7 21
£c4 etc. 16 id2 ig4 17 *f2 d4 18 ixd4 fle2+ 19 £xe2 £>e4+ ...and White
resigned, Rauzer-Ilyin 138

l e4 d6 2 d4 £)/6 - Early deviations and 3 f3 Zhenevsky, USSR Ch., Tbilisi

1937. An impressive miniature, in which it is not obvious what White did
wrong. B22) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 f3 e5 4 d5 The most principled
continuation, and perhaps the only viable try to gain an opening advantage.
4...£e7 5 £e3 0-0 From this position we will examine: B221:6 £d3 B222:6
C4 B221) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 f3 e5 4 d5 £e7 5 £e3 0-0 6 £d3 c6 7 c4 b$\1
An ambitious plan that aims to undermine White's centre. Black's concept is
partly justified by the white king still being stuck in the middle. 8£>c3 8
£te2 would have rendered the option 8...b4 less appropriate than in the
game, and practically forced Black to take on c4. In this case, however,
Black would have enjoyed extra possibilities, as the following variations
demonstrate: 8...bxc4 9 £xc4 cxd5 (9...£b7 10 £>bc3 would transpose to 8
£k3; this is a better option than 10 dxc6?! £>xc6 11 £>bc3 £>a5 when
Black is ready for the freeing ...d5, or if 12 £d5?! £>xd5 13 £>xd5 £>c4
with a strong initiative) 10 £xd5 £>xd5 11 #xd5 #d7! (a trick that renders
Black's position playable) 12 #xa8 (or 12 £>bc3 £b7 13 #d2 £>a6 14 0-0
£>c7 and here, too, the ...d5 push is in the air) 12...£>c6 13 £>bc3 £a6 14
#xf8+ £xf8 and now: a) 15 0-0 £>d4 16 £>xd4 exd4 17 £xd4 Axfl 18 flxfl,
and with rook, knight and one pawn for her majesty, White isn't worse. This
is all the more true because the knight will occupy a wonderful square on
d5, and also because the pawns on a7 and d6 are weak. Judging whether
White has any realistic chances to win, however, is another debate. b) 15 0-
0-0!? £>b4 16 fld2 #c6 17 *bl (or 17 a3 £xe2 18 axb4 £c4 19 flhdl a6!?)
17...£d3+ 18 flxd3 (or 18 *al £>c2+ 19 flxc2 £xc2 20 flcl £d3 21 £>d5 with
full compensation for the queen) 18...£>xd3 19 fldl #a6 20 fld2 is similar to
the previous note. 139
The Philidor Files Again White doesn't risk much: the 'bad' bishop on f8
and the beautiful d5 outpost provide excellent compensation for the small
material deficit. 8...bxc4 Black can also play 8...b4!? 9 £>ce2 (9 £>a4 c5 10
a3 £>a6 or 10...a5!? leads to a complex game as well) 9...a5 (9..Ah5? would
be pointless: after 10 g4 the sacrifice 10...£>f4 11 £>xf4 exf4 12 £xf4 is
dubious, while the kingside expansion with 10 g4 improves White's
position) 10 £>g3 £>a6 which is unclear. Black has kept intact the
possibility of opening the c-file (by playing a later ...cxd5) and has thus
retained potential counter- play. Closing the queenside completely would of
course be a strategical mistake, since White would be free to attack on the
other wing. 9 £xc4 £b7 The whole game now revolves around the key
square d5. White will try to occupy it with a piece (after the exchange
...cxd5), while simultaneously neutralizing his opponent's activity. 10Wb3!
Or 10 £>ge2 £>bd7 11 dxc6 £xc6 and: a) 12 £>d5 £>xd5 13 £xd5 £xd5 14
#xd5 £>f6 is equal, as ...d5 is next on the agenda. b) 12 #d3 £>b6 13 £b5
£xb5 (13...#d7!?) 14 #xb5 d5 15 £xb6 axb6 and ...2a5 follows. c) 12 #d2
£>b6 13 £b3 a5 14 a3 d5 15 £xb6 #xb6 16 £xd5 £>xd5 17 exd5 Bfd8!? and
with the pair of bishops and the enemy king stuck in the centre Black has
nothing to complain about. 10...WC7 11 £>ge2 11 flcl £>bd7 12 £>ge2
transposes to the text, while 12 dxc6 £.xc6 is comfortable for Black: for
example, 13 £>b5?! #b7 or 13...#a5+ 14 £d2 1T?6. Instead, ll...cxd5 12
£>xd5 £>xd5 13 £xd5 #a5+ 14 £d2 £xd5 15 exd5 is a rare case where the
recapture on d5 by a pawn isn't bad, the reasons being the weak c6-square
and Black's lack of development; after 15...#a6 16 £>e2 flc8 (or 16...-SW!?)
17 flxc8+ #xc8 18 *f2 chances are level. Or if 15 #xd5 #xd5 16 exd5 £>d7
(or 16...£>a6!?) 17 flc7 flfd8 18 £>e2 *f8, planning a knight move, and
Black should be okay. ll...£>bd7 12 2d! 140

1 e4 d6 2 d4 ^f6 - Early deviations and 3 f3 12...2fb8 12...c5!? was an

interesting option, leaving both light-squared bishops misplaced. Black
could then slowly prepare the ...f5 thrust. 13 dxc6 ixc6 14 £xf7+ *f8 15 #c4
flxb2 Black had a worthy alternative in 15...£>b6!?, bringing huge tactical
complications: 16 £.xb6 (16 £>b5? nets an exchange but is wrong:
16...£>xc4 17 £>xc7 £>xe3 18 flxc6 *xf7 19 £>xa8 £>xg2+ 20 *f2 £>f4 21
£>xf4 exf4 22 £>c7 flxb2+ and it's Black who ends up better) 16...#xb6 17
£e6 £b7 18 £>a4! (probably the best way to consolidate the extra pawn;
other attempts would give Black more play, for instance: 18 #b3?! #e3, 18
flc2 a5, or 18 b4?! d5! 19 £xd5 [or 19 exd5 £xb4] 19...£>xd5 20 £>xd5
£xd5 21 exd5 £xb4+ 22 *fl #e3 in all cases with an unclear position)
18...#a5+ (on 18...#e3? 19 flc3 #g5 20 0-0 White succeeds in solving his
main problem, i.e. evacuating his king, and stands much better) 19 *f2
19...£a6 (the tactical 19...£xe4?! is insufficient after 20 fxe4 flb4 21 #c6
£>xe4+ 22 *gl when, thanks to the attack on the a8-rook, White keeps his
extra piece; 19...d5 20 exd5 £>xd5 21 £>c5 is also in White's favour) 20
#c2 2b4 21 b3 and it seems that Black doesn't have quite enough
compensation for the pawn. 16 £d5 £>C5 Or 16...flc8 17 #xc6 #xc6 18 £xc6
flxc6 19 Axa7 with an extra pawn for which Black's activity doesn't fully
compensate. 17 0-0 17 £xc6!? #xc6 (17...flb4? loses to 18 #xb4 £>d3+ 19
*fl £>xb4 20 £xa8) 18 0-0 flab8 19 a3 a5 20 f4 #a6 21 #xa6 £>xa6 is equal,
as is 19 flbl flxbl 20 flxbl flxbl+ 21 £>xbl d5. 17...2ab818 »3 With the idea
of f4. I8...£xd5 19 £>xd5! 19 exd5 is met by 19...£>e6!. 19...£>xd5 20 exd5
We have been following the game Gelfand-M.Adams, Tilburg 1996, a tense
strategical and tactical struggle in which Black sought active counterplay
from the very beginning by undermin- 141

The Philidor Files ing White's centre, and in doing so obtained a complex
game with level chances. Here Adams erred with 20...#a5?! 21 f4 e4 22 £d4
fl2b3?, the first real mistake from the Englishman. Instead, after 22...£f6!?
23 £xb2 (or 23 £xf6 gxf6 with the idea of ...#d2) 23...flxb2 24 flc2 #xa3, the
passed pawn supported by the mighty f6-bishop provides adequate
compensation for the exchange. Also, 20...B8b3! was stronger, since after
Gelfand's suggestion of 21 £>c3 (or 21 flc3 #a5) 21...flxa3 22 f4 e4 23 Ad4
'with compensation', Black has the nasty 23...1^5!, with the idea of ...Ib4.
B222) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 f3 e5 4 d5 £e7 5 £e3 0-0 6 c4 6 #d2 usually
comes to the same thing, as White can't really do without both moves. lirfttl
6...c6 Or 6...a5!? (with the idea, as in the King's Indian, of establishing a
knight on c5) 7 £>c3 £>fd7 8 £d3 £h4+ 9 g3 £g5 10 M2 with an edge for
White in C.Lutz-A.Sokolovs, Moscow Olympiad 1994. 7 £>C3 cxd5?!
With 7...a6 8 #d2 b5 Black tries to undermine his opponent's centre and
generate counterplay on the queenside, where he will soon open lines: 9 fldl
b4 10 £>ce2 a5 11 £>g3 £>a6 12 £>le2 cxd5 13 cxd5 £d7 14 £>cl #b8 15
£>b3 a4 16 £>a5 (Sakaev-Svidler, Yugoslav Team Ch. 1995) and a draw
was agreed in a position still full of life! 7...cxd5?! was played in the game
Sakaev-Nevednichy, European Ch., Ohrid 2001, which we shall now
follow. Nevednichy probably feared an improvement over the Svidler game
and thus decided to deviate first. 8cxd5 ,-rrrrrf. ..,,""*'',7^^,"""',,. ,, ,-rrrrm
mS§m A King's Indian position with the significant nuance that the bishop
stands on e7 rather than g7. Black gains the possibility of a future ...Ag5,
but traditional counterplay based on ...f5 is slowed down. 8...£>h5 9 g3 g6
9...£g5 doesn't help Black after 10 142

l e4 d6 2 d4 fof6 - Early deviations and 3 f3 $Lt2, threatening to grab a

piece by playing 11 f4. 10 #d2 f5 11 exf5 gxf 5 12 0-0-0 £d7 Strange, as
12...£kl7 seemed quite natural. After 13 f4, however, White would enjoy a
pleasant position anyway. 13f4£f614£kf3 14 fxe5!? dxe5 would have been
unclear (but not 14...£xe5?! 15 £>f3). 14...&H815 £e2 £>g7 16 h4 Stronger
was central play with 16 fxe5! dxe5 17 flhel, when the pressure on e5 would
have caused Black serious problems. I6...b5? Here 16...e4! 17 £>d4 £>a6
led to a complex game, with reciprocal chances. The Romanian's move is
too optimistic (indeed, Black will never see this pawn again!). 17 £>xb5
£xb5 18 £xb5 £>d7 19 £c6 The bishop is solidly cemented on c6 and grants
White an advantage. Black will still fight, but without real hope of
salvation. 19...2b8 20 b3 a5 21 h5 £>e8 22 2h2 Sb4 23 #C2 2e4 24 £d2 exf4
25 gxf4 £>C5 26 £>g5 Wb6 27 £>xe4 £>xe4 28 2e2 £>g7 29 h6 £>h5 30
2xe4 fxe4 31 Wxe4 With two extra pawns, White is winning and the rest
requires no comment - though Sakaev took his time. 31...WC5+ 32 ibl Wf2
33 #e3 #h4 34 Wf3 Wi2 35 *e3 Wh4 36 We6 Wf2 37 id Wf3 38 2d2 Wxf4
39 #e2 £>g3 40 Wf2 We4+ 41 2c2 Oft 42 Wf4 #d3 43 ib5 Wxd5 44 ic4 #e5
45 Wxe5 dxe5 46 id3 £>d6 47 £a3 2d8 48 flf2 ih4 49 flfl £>c8 50 if8 £>b6
51 £g7+ *g8 52 £f5 *f7 53 £xh7+ *e7 54 £g6 £>d5 55 h7 £>f4 56 fixf41-0
C) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 f 3 £>bd7 This way Black avoids the dull 3...e5 4
dxe5, but purists may find Black's third move to be inaccurate. 4 £e3 e5 5
d5 £e7 6 c4 £>h5 A manoeuvre which aims to exchange the 'bad' e7-bishop.
In contrast to the Sakaev-Nevednichy game (Line B222), Black doesn't mix
actions on both flanks (...c6 and ...£>h5), and this seems sounder. We will
follow the game Baklan-Galdunts, Metz 2000. 143

The Philidor Files 7 £«2!? 7 #d2 allows 7...h6 and ...£g5. If White insists on
preventing the swap with 8 g3 £g5 9 f4?!, then 9...exf4 10 gxf4 £h4+ 11 £f2
#f6 seizes the initiative. 7...£g5 8 £f2 White withdraws his bishop, but its
black counterpart is more active at present. 8...g6 Planning a future ...f5.
Black obviously wishes to recapture on f5 with a pawn, so as not to concede
an outpost on e4 to an enemy knight. 9 £>bc3 as If 9...0-0 10 g3 (10 h4!?
implies that White won't castle short, but the advantages of this move don't
spring to mind after the retreat 10...£h6) 10...f5 11 £g2 £>df6 12 h3
(parrying I2...fxe4 13 fxe4 £>g4) when White has a firm grip on the
position and enjoys a long- term space advantage. 10 g3 £>c5 11 h4?! After
this White will have to worry about his king. This is the reason why 11 £g2
f5 12 0-0 0-0 13 exf5 gxf5 14 f4!, with an edge, was to be preferred. Il...ih6
12 ih3 White also had his bad bishop to get rid of! 12...ixh3 13 Bxh3 Wd7
14 g4 After 14 fihl f5 15 #c2 0-0 Black's prospects are slightly better, and
he can consider doubling his rooks on the f-file. 14...£>f4 15 £>xf4 £xf4 16
h5 16...f5?! A sacrifice designed to exploit the vulnerability of White's king,
but 16...0-0 17 *e2 *g7 18 #c2 and 16...0-0-0! 17 a3 f5 18 b4 £>a6 were
better options. 144

1 e4 d6 2 d4 &/6 - Early deviations and 3 f3 17 hxg6 fxg418 fxg4 0-0-019

flxh7 After 19 gxh7 fldf8, the h7-pawn falling and the white king stuck in
the centre offer decent compensation. 19...2xh7 20 gxh7 Wxh7 20...flf8 21
#f3 £d2+? simply drops a piece to 22 *xd2 flxf3 23 h8#+. 21 Wf3 Sh8 Or
21...flf8 22 *e2 £h6 23 #g2 £g5 24 £xc5 dxc5 25 flfl £f4 and the extra pawn
is not easy to convert. 22 *e2 Wh2 23 flgl £>d3? After 23...fih3 24 #g2
#xg2 (or 24...£>d3!? 25 #xh2 flxh2 26 *xd3 flxf2 27 £>e2 £g5) 25 flxg2
£g5 the g-pawn is blocked for the moment and White finds it pretty hard to
realize his edge. On the other hand, only he has any winning chances.
24Wxd3 2h3 25 Wc2?! Instead 25 WdV. would have opened the doors to
victory, as the following variations demonstrate: 25...fle3+ (not 25...£e3??
26 #fl) 26 *fl Wh3+ 27 flg2 fld3! (27...#hl+? 28 £gl £g3 29 g5! [passed
pawns must be pushed!) 29...*d8 30 g6 <&e7 31 g7 *f7 32 g8#+ *xg8 33
#g4+ *h8 34 £>e2 and White wins) 28 #a4 b5 (to avoid a later #e8 mate) 29
#xa5 (29 #xb5?? allows a surprising mate in four: 29...fldl+!! 30 £>xdl
#d3+ 31 *gl #xdl+ 32 £el #xel mate) 29...Whl+ 30 £gl flf3+ 31 flf2 £g3 32
*e2! (32 £>dl? spoils everything by enabling Black to save half a point:
32...£xf2 33 £>xf2 #h3+ 34 *e2 fle3+ 35 *d2 #f3 36 *cl #g2 when White
must take the draw: 37 #a8+ *d7 38 #c6+ *d8 39 #a8+ *e7 40 #c6 #xgl+ 41
£>dl and the black monarch can't escape perpetual check) 32...£xf2 33 £xf2
#g2 34 £>dl #xg4 35 *d2 #xe4 36 #a8+ *d7 37 #c6+ *d8 38 £e3. White has
consolidated and enjoys a decisive material plus. Furthermore, he threatens
to deliver a quick mate starting with Ag5+. 25...ie3! 26 *ff 1?! After 26 flfl
£xf2 27 *dl (not 27 flxf2?? #xf2+ 28 *xf2 flh2+ 29 *g3 flxc2 and Black
wins) 27..JU3 28 #e2 (28 #a4 *d8 is unclear) 28...#g3 29 *c2 2f4 30 g5,
White is still a pawn up, but for how long? 26...2f3 27 £>dl 245

The Philidor Files 27...#h3+? The losing move. Black still had enough
compensation after 27...Axf2! 28 £>xf2 Wh3+ 29 *e2 (29 flg2 Whl+ 30 flgl
Wh3+) 29...fle3+ 30 *d2 #f3 31 *cl fle2 32 #a4 #e3+ (or 32...b5 33 #xb5
#xf2 34 #e8+ *b7 35 #b5+) 33 *bl flxb2+ 34 *xb2 #xf2+ draws, as long as
Black avoids We8 mate. 28 *e2! 28 flg2?? £xf2 29 £>xf2 Whl goes back to
the previous note. 28...ixf2 29 Bfl Wxg4 30 £>xf2 Wh5 31 Wdl a4 32 2hl
flh3+ 33 *d2 Wg5+ 34 SC2 flg3 35 flh8+ *d7 36 #h5 1-0 It transpires from
the analysis that Black's sacrifices on moves 16 and 22 were dubious.
16...0-0-0 was to be preferred, offering level chances. After move 16,
despite his few inaccuracies, only White could foster realistic hopes of
winning. Conclusion One can conclude through the numerous examples in
this chapter that 3 f3 is no 'small affair'. This move usually leads to closed
positions, and is thus probably suited to 1 d4 players. Given the variety of
positions reached, Black's 3rd move is already crucial: 3...d5 should be
played by French Defence exponents; 3...e5 (or alternatives) by other
players. After 3...e5 White traditionally bases his play on the spatial
advantage he gets after d4-d5. 146

Chapter Six 3±d3 Ie4d6 2d4£kf6 3£d3 This bishop move is less natural than
3 £>c3, but also has its merits. The main advantages, in my view, are that
the c-pawn remains free, and White can castle more quickly. 3...e5 Black
has a wide range of possible replies. Apart from this central thrust, 3...g6
and 3...c5 seem to be the most interesting options. 4c3 Logical, since 4 £le2
exd4 5 £>xd4 £>bd7 or 5...g6 is already satisfactory for Black. 4...d5! This
thrust, disturbing White's plan of £>e2 and f4, is certainly the best option
here. 5 dxe5! The most challenging. 5 exd5 #xd5 6 dxe5 #xe5+ or 6...#xg2
7 #f3 #xf3 8 £ixf3 is roughly equal and not very exciting. After 5 dxe5
Black has a choice of captures on e4: 147

The Philidor Files A: 5».dxe4 B: 5...£kxe4 A) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £d3 e5 4

c3 d5 5 dxe5 dxe4!? This capture is objectively less sound than the main
move, 5...£>xe4, but it looks playable. 6ib5+ ...and now: Al: 6...C6
A2:6...£d7 6...£>fd7? loses outright to 7 e6 fxe6 8 Wh5+ *e7 (8...g6?! 9
#e5) 9 £g5+ £>f6 10 £>d2 when Black lasted only five more moves in
H.Hansen-Eikseth, Norwegian Team Ch. 1993. Al) 6...C6 Wxd8+ i xd8 8
exf6! 8 £c4?! £>d5 or 8...£>g4 is nothing for White. 8...cxb5 The e4-pawn
is weak and Black's pawn structure is compromised. The bishop pair isn't
enough to compensate for that, but White must take care to maintain his
edge. 9 £g5!? 9 £>d2 Af5 (or 9...e3!?) 10 £>e2 g6 11 £>g3 £d6 12 £>gxe4
fle8 13 f3 h5!? gives Black a decent position, as f6 is bound to fall. After 9
Ag5 Black has three options: 9...*c7 Alternatively: a) 9...g6 10 £>d2 £f5 (or
10...h6!?, E.Campos-Malmstig, Sollentuna 1995) 11 £>e2 £>d7 12 £>g3 h6
13 £e3 £>xf6 14 £d4 £g7 15 £>dxe4 with a small plus for White. b) 9...flg8
10 £>d2 (10 fxg7+?! £e7 is a bit worse) 10...Af5 11 £>e2 with an edge for
White, Rabiega-C.Bauer, Dresden 2003 (it wasn't me, honest!). Or 10...gxf6
11 £xf6+ *c7 (on ll...*e8, 12 &H! defends g2 while enabling flel) 12 ^xe4
flxg2 13 Ae5+ (trapping the rook is wrong: 13 £>g3? <SW 14 £d4 b6)
13...*c6 14 £>f3 and don't ask me why, but the computer is quite happy
with White's position! 10£kd2 10...£kd7! 10...Af5 11 £te2 gives an edge.
148

1 e4 d6 2 d4 Zbf6 - 3 &d3 11 £>xe4 £>xf6 12 £>xf6 gxf6 13 £xf6 ...with

good compensation for the pawn, Rabiega-Polzin, Dresden 1996. A2) 1 e4
d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £d3 e5 4 c3 d5 5 dxe5 dxe4!? 6 £b5+ £d7 7 £c4 Instead, 7
£xd7+?! £>fxd7 8 e6 fxe6 9 £>h3 £>c5 is fine for Black, but 7 #e2!?
deserves attention. For example: a) 7...£xb5 8 #xb5+ £>fd7 9 #xb7 (more
ambitious, but also more perilous than 9 £e3 £>c6, or 9 e6 fxe6 10 £>h3
£>c6 11 £g5 £e7 12 £xe7 £>xe7 13 0-0 with a microscopic plus, Sharif-
M.Gurevich, Marseilles 1988) 9...c6 and: al) After 10 £>e2 £>c5 11 #xa8
£>d3+ 12 *fl £>xcl 13 £>d2 £>xe2 14 *xe2 #d3+ 15 *el Wb5 White's royal
couple was in dire straits in Sedina-Di Donna, Turin 1996. a2) 10 e6!? fxe6
11 #xa8 #c7 (perhaps ll...£>c5) 12 £>h3, intending 12...£>b6 13 £f4 e5 14
£xe5 #xe5 15 #xa7. a3) 10 #xa8 #c7, with the idea of meeting 11 Ae3 by
ll...Ac5, needs investigation. b) 7...£>d5 (a novelty!) 8 £xd7+ £>xd7 9 #xe4
£>c5 10 #c2 (or 10 #d4 £>b4! 11 #xd8+ flxd8 12 cxb4 £>d3+) 10...£>f4 11
£xf4 £>d3+ 12 *fl £>xf4 with good compensation. Note that 13 #a4+?! c6
14 #xf4?? is met by 14...#dl mate. 7...£>g4 8 £xf7+ *xf7 9 e6+ *xe6 10
Wxg4+ *f7 11 *h5+ g6 12 Wd5+ *g7 13£>e2 After 13 £g5 £e7 14 #e5+ £f6
15 £xf6+ #xf6 16 #xc7 flf8 17 #g3 e3! (much better than I7...£>a6?! 18 #e3
with an edge for White, Hamdouchi- Chabanon, Lyon 1993) 18 £>f3 exf2+
19 #xf2 fle8+ 20 *dl £>c6, the white king will never reach safety. 13...£>c6
...with an unclear position, Dolma- tov-Karasev, Severodonetsk 1982. B) 1
e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £d3 e5 4 C3 d5 5 dxe5 £>xe4 The most popular
recapture. 6£>f3 6 £xe4?! dxe4 7 Wa4+ £d7 8 #xe4 £c6 9 #g4 h5 gives
Black more than enough compensation for a mere 149

The Philidor Files pawn: 10 #h3 #d7 11 f3 and here, for instance, ll...£.d5;
and 10 #g3 h4 11 Wh3 Wd7 is even worse, since Black has ...Bh5 in store.
The unusual 6 #e2!?, immediately questioning the knight and keeping f2- f4
as an option, needs a closer look: 6...£>c5 (if 6...£>d7 7 £>f3! £>dc5 8 £c2
intending both b4 and 0-0, £>d4, f3-f4) 7 £c2 and here Black has two
different ways to try to benefit from his opponent's ambitious set-up: 7...b6
8 b4 £a6, and the sacrifice 7...&c6 8 b4 £>e4 9 £xe4 dxe4 10 #xe4 £e6. The
immediate 6...£k5 avoids the option 8 £b5 (as in Line B221). Play continues
7 £c2 £g4 8 0-0 £e7 9 flel £>c6 10 £>bd2 #d7 11 £>fl d4! (11...0-0?! would
be less appropriate and leads to an inferior game after 12 £>e3 or 12 b4!?)
12 b4 (12 cxd4?! £xf3 13 #xf3 £>xd4 14 #c3 £>xc2 15 #xc2 #d3! is already
a bit better for Black because of the exposed e5-pawn) 12...£>e6 13 b5
£>cd8 14 £b2 dxc3 (if 14...c5?! 15 cxd4 cxd4 16 a4 0-0 17 h3 and White
will either grab the bishop pair or establish a knight on f5 via g3; Black
would like to bring the beast on d8 into play by ...£k5 and ...£>de6, but he
may not have time for it) 15 #xd7+ *xd7 16 £xc3 £xf3 17 gxf3 a6 (Smirin-
Dorfman, Tilburg rapid 1993) and Black soon got the better of things, even
if the game ended peacefully. The position after 6...£>c6 resembles an Open
Lopez, where Black hasn't 'compromised' his queenside by playing ...a6 and
...b5. As for White, having his bishop directly on d3, without needing the
Ruy Lopez recycling Ab5-a4-b3- c2, definitely speaks in his favour. Now
we will look at: Bl: 7 *e2 B2: 7 £>bd2 7 Af4!? is interesting, but leaves
Black with many satisfactory continuations. Apart from 7...&.e7, he can
consider 7..Ac5 or 7...f6. Bl) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £d3 e5 4 c3 d5 5 dxes
£>xe4 6 £>f3 d5 7 We2 £>C5 8 £c2 Or 8 £b5 £e7 etc. ISO

1 e4 d6 2 d4 Zbf6 - 3 &d3 8...ig4 9 £.f4? d4! gives Black the upper hand.
9...Wd7 Black has a major alternative in 9...£e7!?, e.g.: 10 fldl a5 (securing
the knight against b4; if 10...0-0?! 11 b4 £>e6 12 £b3, while 10...£xf3 11
#xf3 £>xe5 12 #xd5 #xd5 13 flxd5 and the pair of bishops grants White a
slight plus) 11 £>bd2 and now: a) 11...a4 12 h3 £h5 13 £>fl £>e6 14 £>g3
(14 £e4!? fla5) 14...£xf3 (14...£g6 15 £>f5 with nasty pressure) 15 #xf3
£>xe5 16 #h5?! (16 #f5! £f6 17 £>h5 was the correct way to proceed)
16...Af6 17 f4 g6 18 #e2 £>c4 19 f5 gxf5 20 £xf5 c6, which was
complicated, but objectively not worse for Black in Ibragi- mov-Agrest, St
Petersburg 1993. b)ll...Wd7! and then: bl) 12 £>fl was seen in R.Mainka-
V.Malaniuk, Koszalin 1998: 12...0-0 13 £>e3 (13 h3!?) 13...£>xe5 14
flxd5? (14 £>xg4! £>xg4 15 c4 c6 16 cxd5 cxd5 17 £>d4 gave reasonable
compensation) 14...#e6 15 £xh7+ *xh7 16 #c2+ £>g6 17 fle5 #d7 18 £>xg4
f5 19 fle2. And now instead of 19...flad8? Black could have secured a large
advantage with 19...fxg4!, e.g. 20 £>e5 (or 20 #xg6+ *xg6 21 £>e5+ *f6 22
£>xd7+ £>xd7 ... 1-2-3, 1-2-3-4: one white piece is missing!) 20...#f5 21
#xf5 flxf5 22 £>xg6 fld8 23 g3 fldl+ 24 *g2 *xg6 25 Hxe7 £>d3 and it's
curtains. b2) 12 £>b3 £>e6! (a venomous move; instead 12...a4 13 £>xc5
Axc5 14 h.3 £.h5 15 £.(4 revealed itself as only slightly better for White in
A.Sokolovs- Fridman, Riga 1995, while the greedy 15 Ae4?! runs the risk
of indigestion: 15...fla5 16 #d2 £b6 17 £xd5 0-0 when White's piece
placement doesn't inspire confidence) 13 £e4 a4 14 flxd5 #c8 and Black's
devilish 12th move has netted an exchange: 15 £>bd4 (if 15 £>bd2 £>f4)
15...£>cxd4 16 flxd4 (or 16 cxd4 c6) 16...£>xd4 17 cxd4 c6 with some
advantage to Black. lOHdl Or 10 h3 £h5 11 £>bd2!? (not 11 flel? d4! and
Black seized the initiative in Bastian-Lobron, German Ch. 2001; 151

The Philidor Files but 11 b4!? and 11 fidl!? are possible) ll...d4 12 #c4 d3
13 £bl 0-0-0 14 b4 £te6 with a messy position. 10...0-0-0! 11 b4 £>e6 12
£b3 £xf3 13 Wxf3^xe514We3 On 14 #xd5!?, both 14...£d6 and 14...#xd5
are okay for Black. 14...£d6! 15#xa7 15 flxd5!? c6 16 fldl *b8 is roughly
level too, but 16...£>g4?! would be a shot in the dark. After 17 #e2, the
Impawn is taboo: 17...£>xh2 (17...£.xh2+? 18 *fl is even worse) 18 f4 h5 19
*xh2 £>xf4 20 £xf4 £xf4+ 21 *gl and Black hasn't enough compensation.
15...C6 ...with equal chances, Psakhis-Cher- nin, Irkutsk 1983. B2) 1 e4 d6
2 d4£kf6 3 £d3 e5 4 c3 d5 5 dxe5 £>xe4 6 £>f3 £>c6 7 £>bd2 Now we will
consider: B21: 7...£g4 B22: 7».^C5 B21) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £d3 e5 4 c3
d5 5 dxe5 £>xe4 6 £>f3 £>c6 7 £>bd2 £g4 8 0-0 8 £>xe4 may be a simpler
path to a small, but risk-free advantage: 8...dxe4 9 £xe4 #xdl+ 10 *xdl 0-0-
0+ 11 *c2 £xf3 12 £xf3 £>xe5 13 £e2 £c5 14 f4 £>g615£g4+*b816£d2...
...when the two bishops give White the better prospects. 8...£>xd2?!
8...£>c5 was stronger, as the text move eases White's development. 9 £xd2
£e7 10 Bel 0-0 After 10...#d7 11 #c2! £xf3 12 Af5 #d8 13 gxf3, White's
kingside pawn structure is damaged, but the dynamic factors are more
important. Queenside castling is impossible for Black, and after a
continuation like 13...g6 14 Ah3 0-0 15 f4 f5 16 exf6 flxf6 17 £e6+ White
would keep the initiative. 10...£h5 11 #c2 £g6 12 £xg6 hxg6 13 e6 isn't
satisfactory either. llWc2ixf312gxf3 The doubled pawns don't represent a
handicap here either, as White can get rid of them by playing f4-f5-f6.
Moreover, the g-file and the bishops 152

1 e4 d6 2 d4 2>f6 - 3 &d3 pointing at the enemy king augur well for a

powerful attack. 12...g613 f4 ic5 14 Wdl! f6 14...Wh4 is met by 15 #f3 - the
point of 14 #dl. 15 b4 £b616 C4 dxc4 16...fxe5? seems attractive, but in fact
it simply loses a piece after 17 c5 e4 18 £e2 £>d4 19 £e3 £>xe2+ 20 #xe2.
17^.xc4+*g7l8b5 Inviting the knight to a square coveted by the queen.
I8...£>d419 a4 £>f 5 Here 19...fxe5 20 flxe5 £>f5 21 £c3 id4 22 ixd4 Wxd4
23 #xd4 £>xd4 24 fle7+ was a bit uncomfortable, but probably holdable
after 24...<&>h6 25 flxc7 flac8 26 flxc8 flxc8. 20£b4fxe5 A worthy
practical choice: for the exchange Black gets good play on the dark squares.
21 ixf8+ Wxf8 22 2xe5 £>d6 The alternative 22...£>h4?! 23 #g4 would be
worse. 23 We2 Wxf4 24 Be7+ *h6 25 Ad3 flf8 26ihlWg5 26...#xf2? loses
to 27 flxh7+ *xh7 28 Wh5+. 27 f3 We have been following Smirin-
Huzman, Wijk aan Zee 1993. Now, instead of the game's 27...£>f5?, Black
should have played 27...flf4!. Then after 28 a5 £d4 29 flfl flh4 White keeps
a better position, but there is still all to play for. B22) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3
£d3 e5 4 c3 d5 5 dxes £>xe4 6 £>f3 £>c6 7 £>bd2 £>c5 ...and now: B221:8
£b5 B222:8 £*2 B223:8£.bl£.g4 9b4 B224: 8 £bl £g4 9 h3 White normally
moves the bishop, but it can be left on d3: 8^b3i-g4 8...£>xd3+ 9 #xd3 £e7
10 0-0 0-0 11 £f4 £e6 (Lalic-Bauer, Lausanne 2001) should be okay as well.
9 0-0 #d7 10 Bel 0-0-0 Despite opposite castling, the game keeps a mainly
positional character. 153

The Philidor Files 11 £>xc5 £xc5 12 b4 £b6 13 a4 as 14 b5 Closing this

wing plays into Black's hands, but White judges that maintaining the
tension wouldn't bring him any benefit. As his opponent is still far away
from any serious attack on the kingside, this decision proves to be correct.
14».£te7 15 £e3 £xe3 16 2xe3 *b8 17 Welixf3 To avoid having to
accommodate a knight on d4. 18 flxf 3 £>g6 19 fldl We6 20 2e3 flhe8 21
£xg6 Played only now that the rook has left its initial post. This swap
eliminates one attacker of e5 and keeps the equilibrium. 21...hxg6 22 h3 g5
23 2d4 #f5 24 *h2 ...and a draw was agreed in the game Yusupov-
M.Adams, Hastings 1989/90. B221) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £d3 e5 4 c3 d5 5
dxe5 £>xe4 6 £>f3 £>c6 7 £>bd2 £>c5 8ib5 This move reinforces White's
control over d4, but loosens the control over e4. You can't have your cake
and eat it too! 8...id7 a) 8..Ae7 9 b4 £>e6 10 £>b3 gives good control of d4
and, with the bishop still on c8, White can be satisfied with his opening. b)
8...£.g4 is more active. In this case White would have a choice between
fighting for an edge with either 9 h3 or 9 b4, or levelling the position by
playing 9 £>b3. Thus 9 h3 £h5 10 g4 £g6 11 £>d4 Wd7 and 9 b4 £>e6 10
£xc6+ bxc6 11 #a4 #d7 both lead to unbalanced positions, while 9 £>b3 a6
10 £.xc6+ bxc6 11 £>xc5 £xc5 12 #a4 Wd7 offers 154

1 e4 d6 2 d4 &f6 - 3 &d3 equal chances, for example 13 £>d4 0-0 14 0-0

£b6 15 #xc6 £xd4 16 #xd7 Axf2+17flxf2Axd7. 9#e2 After 9 0-0?! £>xe5
10 #e2 £xb5 11 #xb5+ £>ed7 12 flel+ £e7 Black is a pawn up for nothing.
9».a6! If he is going to lose the battle for d4, Black should at least console
himself with the pair of bishops! 9...£>e6?! lets White organize himself at
leisure. After 10 £>b3 £e7 11 £e3 a6 12 Ad3 White has a firm grip over d4
and it's easy to understand that something has gone wrong for the second
player. A.Fedorov-A.Gubanov, St Petersburg 1994, continued 12...£>g5 13
£>xg5 £xg5 14 f4 £h4+ 15 g3 £e7 16 0-0-0 and White held a clear
advantage. Black lacks a tempo to extricate himself with ..Ae6 and ...#d7.
10 £xc6 £xc6 11 £>d4 £d7 12 0-0 £>e6 13fldl Or 13 a4 c5 14 £>xe6 £xe6
15 f4 #d7 (Smirin-Chernin, Groningen 1993), and now 16 #f2 would have
led to reciprocal chances after 16...£f5 17 £>f3 £e7 18 £e3. 13...C5 14
£>xe6 £xe615 c4 d4 15...£.e7 16 £le4 d4 would come to the same thing. 16
£>e4 £e7 17 a4 After 17 b4!? cxb4 (17...b6 also offers mutual chances after
18 bxc5 bxc5) 18 £b2 0-0 19 flxd4 #c7 20 £>d6 the monster on d6
counterbalances the pair of bishops. Moreover, capturing it would awaken
the bishop on b2, which would then eye g7. 17...Wc7l8if4 On 18 f4 #c6 19
b3 h5 threatens ...Ag4 while preventing an appearance of an enemy pawn
on this very same square. Black has everything under control and stands a
bit better. l8...Wc619^d6+ Eliminating the black pair of bishops. Instead, 19
b3 0-0 would give Black an edge. 19...£xd6 20 exd6 as! Depriving White of
the b4 break. Now Black's king will be perfectly safe in the centre. 212a3
*d7 22 2b3 Bhe8 23 #d3 b6 24 Hb5 155

The Philidor Files An indirect (and rather peculiar!) way to protect the a4-
pawn. Even with this rook temporarily immobilized, the position remains
difficult to unbalance. 24...g6 25 f3 h5 26 #b3 2ab8 27 flel f6 ...and here the
point was split in A.Fedorov-Korotylev, St Petersburg 1994. (Note that
27...£xc4?? loses to 28 flxe8 £xb3 29 flxb8.) B222) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £d3
e5 4 c3 d5 5 dxe5 £>xe4 6 £>f3 £>c6 7 £>bd2 £>c5 8 £c2 £g4 9 0-0 d4 An
uncompromising move. (9...£.e7 is a quieter option.) 10 Wei! Played in the
game Slobodjan- Beliavsky, German League 2000, which we shall now
follow. 10 flel dxc3 11 bxc3 £>d3 (or ll...£e7), and 10 h3 £h5 11 £>b3 dxc3
12 bxc3 #xdl 13 flxdl £g6 had been tested before, but without much success
for White. After Slobodjan's move, however, Black is facing a hard task to
equalize. 10...dxc3?! The alternative 10...d3!? is usually not to be
recommended, as the d-pawn becomes weak, but I don't see where Black
could have equalized after Be- liavsky's apparently safer 10...dxc3. After
10...d3!? 11 £bl #d7 12 #e3 fld8 13 b4 £>e6 is unclear... 14 £>e4 is met by
14...£.xf3 and 15...£>xe5, while 14 b5? £>a5 15 #xa7 b6 is dubious for
White, to say the least. 11 bxc3 #d7 U..Ae7 12 #e3 0-0 13 £>b3 doesn't
solve all of Black's problems either, while ll...£>d3? is a pawn-fishing move
that unsurprisingly leads to trouble after 12 #e4 £>xcl 13 #xg4 £k?2+ 14
*hl £>xc3 15 flfel or 15 #c4 £>d5 16 £b3 £>ce7 17 £te4, in both cases with
tremendous compensation for the pawn. 12 We3 0-0-0 I2...£>e6?! gives up
the control of e4, for the sake of preparing ...£.c5 and ...Ah5-g6: 13 £>e4!
(13 flbl?! would be inadequate after 13...0-0-0 or 13...£.c5 14 #e4 £h5 15
flxb7?! £g6 16 #a4 £xc2 17 #xc2 £b6 with a clear plus for Black) 13...£xf3
14 #xf3 £>xe5 15 #g3 £>c6 16 fldl #e7 17 Obi with a mighty initiative for
White. 256

1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 - 3 -idj 13 £a3 £>e6 13...£>d3? was less resilient: 14 £xf8

flhxf8 15 £a4 *b8 16 £>d4 and the capture on c6 will do harm to Black's
position. 14 ixf8 2hxf8 15 £e4! 15 Aa4? would be faulty in view of
15...#d3! 16 £xc6 #xe3 17 £xb7+ *xb7 18 fxe3 fld3, when Black collects
back his pawn and remains on top with the better pawn structure. 15...b6 I
don't like this move as it weakens Black's castled king, but on lS.-.'&bS, 16
flabl, followed by £>b3 etc., is no joy either. 16 £>b3 Preventing ...£k:5.
16...£>e7 17 a4 if 518 £>bd4 18...£>C5?! Instead, 18...£xe4 19 #xe4 #d5
deserved serious attention, as after 20 #g4 or 20 #e2, then 20...*b8 seems to
hold. 19 £>xf5 £>xf5 20 Wf4 £>xe4 21 #xe4 ib8 22 as Wd3 23 #b4 flfe8 24
axb6 cxb6 25Wa4Wd7 25...fle7?losesto26flfdl. 26 Wf4 We6 27 £>g5 Wxe5
28 #xe5+ fixes 29 £>xf7 2de8 30 £>xe5 Bxe5 31 flfdl White is winning
now and even such a strong defender as Beliavsky succumbs little by little.
31...2e7 32 fld5 g6 33 f4 *b7 34 *f2 h5 35 2adl <&c6 36 He5 as 37 Bxe7
£>xe7 38 flel £>d5 39 Be6+ *c5 40 2xg6 a4 41 f5 a3 42 2g8 £>xc3 43 fia8
*b4 44 *f3 £>d5 45 g4 hxg4+ 46 *xg4 b5 47 *g5 *b3 48 f6 £>xf6 49 *xf6
b4 50 h4 *c4 51 h5 b3 52 fla4+! 1-0 If 52...*b5, 53 flxa3 b2 54 fla8 decides.
A nice game from Slobodjan. 257

The Philidor Files B223) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £d3 e5 4 c3 d5 5 dxe5 £>xe4

6 £>f3 £>c6 7 £>bd2 £>c5 8ibl A more frequent reply than 8 Ac2, 8 £b5 or
8 £>b3. I don't really see the advantage of the text move over 8 &.&, apart
from maybe that Black won't win a tempo on the bishop after ...d4-d3.
Fedorov seems to have shifted to 8 Abl from his former favourite 8 £.b5.
8...ig4 The customary reaction to 8 £.c2, which is equally appropriate here.
9b4 This is Fedorov's idea, and we now follow the game A.Fedorov-
E.Agrest, European Ch., Ohrid 2001. 9...£>d7 The other retreat is 9...£le6!?.
Now the game A.Fedorov-Khalifman, Maikop 1998, continued 10 #a4 £h5
11 0-0 Ae7? (after this move White reaches his goal; instead U...Wd7 [with
the idea of ...£>xe5] 12 b5 £>e7 13 #h4 £g6 and Black is okay, while
ll...a6!? questions the queen's placement and with it White's whole concept)
12 b5 £>b8 13 £>d4£>d714f4. Even though White's means seem a bit
artificial, he has managed to realize his plan: the f4-push. All his queenside
operations in fact constituted a decoy in order to expand on the other wing:
14...£c5 15 £b2 £>b6 16 #c2 £e2 (it was to late to retreat; Black has to face
the ensuing complications) 17 2f2 £xb5 18 f5! £a4 (18...£>xd4?! 19 cxd4
£e7 20 f6 gxf6 21 exf6 £xf6 22 #f5 £>d7 23 #xd5 and for a mere pawn
Black is left in a perilous situation: his king is stuck in the centre (though he
wouldn't feel any happier after ...0-0) and all the white pieces will converge
in his direction) 19 #d3 £>g5 20 #g3 (White has a clear advantage) 20...1'e7
21 f6 gxf6 22 exf6 #el+ 23 £>fl £>e4 24 £xe4 #xe4 25 £>d2 #g6 26 #xc7
flc8 27 flel+ <&f8 28 #xb7 #g4 29 £>2b3 £xb3 30 axb3 #d7 31 #a6 h5 32
£a3 #d6 33 flfe2 *g8 (or 33...£xa3 34 #xc8+ £>xc8 35 fle8 mate) 34 fle8+
and Black resigned. The end could have been 34...fixe8 35 flxe8+ *h7 36
#d3+ *h6 37 £cl+ #f4 38 £xf4 mate. Black found himself in trouble quite
early on, all due to his faulty 11th move. 158

1 e4 d6 2 d4 Zbf6 - 3 &d3 10 o-o £e7 10...£kxe5!? seems dangerous, but

perhaps not that much according to the following analysis, 11 h3 and now:
a) ll...£h5 12 g4 (or 12 #el £xf3 [12...#e7? 13 £>xe5 £>xe5 14 f4 and g4, f5
locks the bishop in] 13 £>xf3 #e7 but here Black survives, for instance 14
£>xe5 £>xe5 15 f4 £>c4 16 #f2 #f6 and Black is even better here!)
12...£>xf3+ (12...£g6 13 £>xe5 £>xe5 14 flel wins) 13 £>xf3 £g6 14 #xd5
c6 15 #d4 £>f6 16 flel+ £e7 17 £g5 0-0 18 £xg6 fxg6 (18...hxg6 is playable
too) 19 fladl with an edge for White. b) ll...£>xf3+ 12 £>xf3 £e6 (or if
12...£xf3 13 #xf3 with compensation thanks to the pair of bishops and lead
in development) 13 £>d4 (13 £>g5 #f6 isn't clear either) 13...#f6 14 f4 £>b6
15 f5 £d7. llWa4^b6 12#c2 White again intends b5, followed by £>d4 and
f4. 12...36 13 Bel Wd7?! Avoiding 13...£.h5 14 e6 was probably the
justification for 13...1U7, but this shouldn't have been feared (better would
be 14 Wi5 transferring the queen to the side where the black king is going
to take refuge). After 14...fxe6! 15 Bxe6 #d7, intending ...£g6xbl and ...0-0,
I slightly prefer Black; even more so after 16 #f5?! g6 17 Wh3 0-0, since
the white pieces badly lack coordination. 14 a3! £h5 IS £>d4 £>xd4 16
cxd4 £g6 17*c3i-xbll8axbl Without counterplay but also with no real
weakness, Black stands a bit worse. 18...0-0 19 2b3 2ae8 20 f4 £d8 21 h3 f5
22 *h2 2e6 23 figl h5 Possibly 23...£>c8!?, or 23...£>a8!? in order to
reroute the knight to e6, after ...c6, ...£>c7. 24 £>f3 £>C4 25 ie3 ie7 26 if2
Wd8 27 Wei Preventing ...h4. On the other hand, White now has to tolerate
a knight on e4. 27...£kd6 28 £h4 £xh4 29 £>xh4 £>e4 30^f3&c6
3lWe3Wd7 Perhaps 31...fle8!?, with the idea of meeting 32 flcl by
32...flee6. 32 Bel Hxcl 33 Wxcl 2e8 34 flb2 2e6 259

The Philidor Files 35£c2c6 36a4 Slowly but surely the black fortress breaks
down. White has all the levers (b4-b5 and g2-g4), and Black is reduced to
waiting. 36...*h7?! 37 £>g5+! £>xg5 38 fxg5 #e7 39 #d2 Sg8 40 2b2 h4 41
#f4 Bg6 42 Wxh4 Wxg5 43 «f2 f4 44 Bb3 #f5 45 flf3«e4 46 Wd2! 46
Bxf4?? would spoil all the good work: 46...flxg2+ 47 #xg2 #xf4+. 46...b6
47 *xf4 #xf4+ 48 flxf4 c5 49 dxc5 bxc5 50 bxc5 Bc6 51 *g3 fixes 52 2b4
*f7 53 *f4 as 54 Sb7+ *e6 55 flb6+ *e7 56 *f5 d4 57 flb7+ *d8 58 *e4 g5
59 * xd4 White has two extra pawns, so the rest is a matter of technique.
59...&C2 60 g4 5a2 61 e6 Sxa4+ 62 <&>e5 Sa3 63 2h7 flf3 64 fla7 flxh3 65
2xa5 flf3 66 *d6 fld3+ 67 fld5 fle3 68 2xg5 2a3 69 *e5 *e7 70 2g7+ *f8 71
2f7+ *g8 72 g5 Sal 73 2d7 *f8 74 g6 flel+ 75 *d5 fldl+ 76 *c4 Sgl 77
2f7+1-0 This game wasn't spectacular, but the way Fedorov always kept
pressing is instructive. B224) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £d3 e5 4 c3 d5 5 dxe5
£>xe4 6 <2tf3 £>c6 7 £>bd2 £>c5 8 £bl £g4 9 h3 £h5 10 0-0 10...£e7 In
connection with Black's plans of long castling, in my opinion it seems more
relevant to begin with lO.-Wd?, as this bishop move isn't compulsory. 11
Bel Contemplating £>fl, g4 and £>g3 in the event of Black castling short.
We now follow the game Rabiega-Ftacnik, German League 2000.
H...d412We2Wd7 After n.-.WdS her majesty would exert more influence in
the centre, but would also be more exposed to enemy attacks. 13 £>b3 dxc3
13...d3? 14 £>xc5 dxe2 15 £>xd7 £xf3 16 gxf3 *xd7 17 flxe2 is clearly
better for White. However, 13...£>xb3 14 axb3 fld8 15 ie4 d3 16 #d2 is
unclear: the d3-pawn is surrounded but also annoying for White. 14 bxc3
£>a415 Wc4 Based on Ftacnik's annotations to the rest of the game, 15 Ad
2! was to be 160

1 e4 d6 2 d4 Q>f6 - 3 &d3 preferred because the white queen is going to be

harassed on c4. After 15 £d2, both 15...fld8 16 £e4 £>b6 17 fladl and 15...0-
0-0!? 16 £e4 £>b6 17 fladl lead to a White edge. 15...£kb6 If 15...£>xc3?!
16 #xc3 £b4 17 e6!? fxe6 18 #c4 Axel 19 £>xel 0-0 20 £e4 with a small
plus for White; or 17 #b2 £xf3 18 £d2 £xd2 19 £>xd2 £h5 20 Ae4 with
good compensation for the pawn. 16Wf4^d517Wg3^xc3! The justification
of Black's previous play. The game now takes a very tactical turn, where
only calculation counts. I8£x2 18 #xg7? is suspicious: 18...0-0-0 19 e6 (the
point; 19 £>bd2 £>xbl 20 flxbl flhg8 21 Wh6 #xh3 and Black wins)
19...fxe6 20 Wxc3 £b4 21 #e3 £xf3 22 flfl (or 22 gxf3 flhg8+ 23 *fl Axel 24
Wxel £>d4 when White has a material advantage, but his king won't
survive) 22...Ad5 with a large plus for Black. 18...0-0-019 &b2 £>b4 20 e6!
After 20 flacl £>xc2 21 flxc2 £>d5 22 £>fd4 #a4 Black has the pair of
bishops and an extra pawn, while White has no real threat. 20...Wd5!
20...fxe6? would lose to 21 *he5 £>e2+ 22 flxe2 #b5 23 fle4 £>xc2 24 flcl
fldl+ 25 flxdl £xdl 26 #xg7 #e8 27 £>c6 bxc6 28 #xh8. 21 £xc3 Following
21 fle5? £d6! 22 £xc3 (if 22 flxd5 £>e2+) 22...£xe5 23 #xe5 £>xc2 24 e7
£>xal 25 exd8#+ Hxd8, the queen swap is imminent, when the rook and
two pawns will prove much stronger than the two minor pieces. 21...£kxc2
22 2e5 161

The Philidor Files Again the lesser evil. 22 fladl? £>xel! 23 flxd5 £>xf3+ 24
gxf3 flxd5 was 22...Wd3 Compared with 21 Be5? above, the circumstances
after the continuation 22...Wc4 23 £>fd2 Wd3 24 Hxh5 Wxg3 25 fxg3 ^xal
26 Axal are clearly less favourable for Black. Moreover, he only has a rook
and one pawn for White's two knights. 23&xh5Wxc3 24&clfxe6 Not
24...&a3? 25 exf7 and the rook is immune due to 2c5. 25«g4?! Inserting 25
fla5! *b8, and then 26 Wg4 would have maintained parity. 25...ia3 26
Wxe6+ ib8 27 Wbl WneS 28Wg4 28 fld5!? £d6! 29 Wf5 was possible too,
as long as White watches out for the ...£h2+ and ...flxd5 threat. 28...^el! 29
£>a5! £>xf3+ 30 Wxf3 flel+ 30...Wxf3?! was objectively inferior, even if a
reasonable choice in time trouble: 31 gxf3 *c8 and now either 32 flxh7 or
32 flxb7, when Black's advantage has decreased. 31flxel Wxel+ 32 *h2
£d6+ 32...Wb4? 33 flc5! a6 34 £>xb7! is just equal. 33 g3 c6? Wasting the
advantage, which could have been increased with 33...Wbl, or else
33...Wb4 34 Bf5 (34 flxh7 is no better: 34...flf8! 35 Wg2 flxf2 36 Wxf2
Wxh7)34...g6 35flf7Wb5. 34Hb5H A bolt from the blue! 34...Hf8 35 flxb7+
*a8 36 flf7! The sacrifice 36 Bb8+? doesn't work after 36...*xb8 37 Wb3+
*c7 38 Wb7+ *d8 39 £>xc6+ *e8 40 Wc8+ *f7 and the black king escapes.
162

1 e4 d6 2 d4 Zbf6 - 3 &d3 H up—?&—w m V^'.'/A 111 W,, jmbc^v*?',.

***"■*' 9m mm m '/a : ■ w ■ vJSbmP''''mP>'vJh m Ml „i • « ^ Ammmm H
HI Wm^W, 36...2xf7 Or 36...£xg3+ 37 *xg3 flxf7 38 #xf7 #xa5 39 #xg7
with a likely draw. 37 *xc6+ <&b8 38 Wxd6+ ic8 38...flc7 39 #d8+ flc8 40
#d6+ leads to perpetual check. 39#c6+*d8 39...<&>b8 wouldn't alter the
outcome: 40 #b5+ *c8 41 #c4+ flc7 42 #g8+ *d7 43 #xg7+ *e6 44 #g8+
with a draw. 40 £>b7+ &xb7 41 Wxb7 Wxf2+ 42 ihl #fl+ ...and the players
agreed a draw. A nice balancing act! Conclusion Variations with 3 Ad3 lead
to rich positions. Furthermore, chances to extract an opening advantage for
White are quite reasonable. The debate frequently centres on the d4-square
and Black's push with ...d5-d4. If Black doesn't lose its control, his
prospects are generally satisfactory. 163
Ie4d6 2d4£kf6 3£>c3e5 After 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 Black has two
move orders at his disposal in order to try and reach the Philidor Hanham
variation: 3...e5, intending 4 £>f3 £>bd7; and 3...£>bd7, with the idea of
meeting 4 £>f3 with 4...e5. In this chapter we will concentrate on the first
move order. Playing 3...e5 implies that Black doesn't fear the ending
resulting from 4 dxe5 dxe5 5 #xd8+ *xd8, which constitutes the main
'drawback' of this move order. We will see that Black faces only minor
problems here, even though from a practical viewpoint this kind of position
is not everyone's cup of tea! Now we shall consider: A:4f4 B: 4 £>ge2 C: 4
dxe5 4 £>f3 is the subject of Chapters 10- 14, while White has also played:
a) 4 f3 exd4! (this continuation seems to equalize, as the gl-knight is
deprived of its favourite square; 4...£.e7 would 'only' transpose to 1 e4 d6 2
d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £e3 e5 5 f3, leading to tense positions - see
Chapter 8, Line B) 5 #xd4 £>c6 6 £b5 £e7 is equal... ...as Black finishes his
development without fearing the doubled pawns. 6..Ad7 7 £.xc6 £.xc6 is
also level, and the drawback of f2-f3 is highlighted by the gross trick 8 £g5
£e7 9 0-0-0 0-0 10 164

1 e4 d6 2 d4 Q>f6 - 3 &c3 eS £>ge2? £>xe4 11 £xe7 £>xc3 when Black

won a pawn, and later on the game, in Pirrot-Schmidt Schaeffer, German
Chv Bad Wildbad 1993. b) 4 d5?! (this advance is only efficient if the c-
pawn stands on c4, or if it's capable of reaching this square) 4...c6! and
Black equalizes by eating away at White's centre. White has no real plan to
follow, and the position is easier to play from Black's side. Indeed, the
second player can contemplate ...Ae7, ...0-0, ...£>bd7- c5 and ...a5, whereas
for White only the manoeuvre £>f3-d2-c4 (linked with a4) comes to mind.
A)le4d6 2d4£>f6 3£>c3e5 4f4£g4 4...£>bd7 transposes to 3...£>bd7 4 f4 e5
(see Chapter 8). Black can also play 4...exd4 5 Wxd4 £>c6 6 £b5 (or 6 #f2
immediately) 6..Ad7 (6...£e7!? 7 £>f3 0-0 8 £xc6 bxc6 9 0-0 c5, followed
by 10...£b7, gave Black fine play in Hodgson-Collinson, British Rapidplay
Ch. 1994) 7 #f2 (7 £.xc6?! would be suspicious this time, since the cl-
bishop wouldn't reach g5, and e4 would become a target after 7...£xc6)
7...g6 8 £>f3 £g7 9 £d2 0-0 10 0-0-0 with mutual chances, Kotronias-
Jansa, Gausdal 1995. 5iLe2exd4 6Wxd4^c6 Now 7 Ab5 Ad7 would rejoin
Kotronias-Jansa, while 7 #f2 £xe2 8 £>gxe2 g6 is equal. B) 1 e4 d6 2 d4
£>f6 3 £>c3 e5 4 £>ge2!? An interesting alternative to the usual 4 dxe5 and
4 £>f3. Now Black has a broad choice of how to develop, notably with
respect to his b8-knight and f8-bishop. 4...£>c6 The three other valid
moves, 4...£>bd7, 4...c6 and 4...£.e7, are more 'Philidorian'. There is no
significant difference between them, although 4...£.e7 is the least flexible,
since Black deprives himself of the ...g6 possibility (but as he intended to
play a Philidor Defence anyway...). After 4...£>bd7 5 f3 one reaches a
position similar to that examined via 3...£>bd7 4 £e3 e5 5 f3 (see Chapter
8). Instead, 5 g3 will transpose to a Pirc if 165

The Philidor Files Black opts for 5...g6, or a Philidor in the event of 5...Ae7
(for which see Chapter 8 again). 5f3 5 h3?! seems imprecise because, with
5...exd4 6 £}xd4 g6, Black could reach the Larsen Variation where h2-h3 is
not particularly helpful to White. Closing the centre with 5 d5?! doesn't
bother Black. He will withdraw his horse to e7 or b8, and then undermine
the centre by playing ...c6, as after 4 d5?!. 5...£e7?! Here, 5...exd4 6 £>xd4
g6 7 £e3 £g7 (see Chapter 2) is more dynamic. 6 £e3 0-0 7 ds Played only
now Black has castled, thus creating a target. 7...£kb8 8 Wd2 c6 9 g4 cxd5
10 exd5 ...with a nice edge to White, Svidler- A.Hoffman, FIDE World Ch.,
Moscow 2001. To summarize, if White wants to avoid playing 4 dxe5 or 4
£>f3, then only 4 £>ge2 gives him chances to gain an opening advantage. 4
h3 followed by 5 g4, or 4 f3 and then Ae3 may transpose into variations we
will discuss later on, but Black can look for more. C) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3
£>c3 e5 4 dxe5 Again, 4 £tf3(!) is probably a better try for an opening
advantage. 4...dxe5 5«xd8+ixd8 With such a symmetrical pawn structure
only the relative activity of the pieces can disturb the balance. This is
especially true here, since White can hardly change the structure to his
advantage. Indeed, using his only lever, f2-f4, causes him more problems
than anything, as we will see. Finally, having lost the right to castle
constitutes a small inconvenience for Black, but a quite bearable one in
these given circumstances. Now White's two main moves are: CI: 6 £g5
C2:6 £.C4 Alternatives are not to be recommended: a) The hasty advance 6
f4?! is not advisable. Indeed, White is less active 166

1 e4 d6 2 d4 Q>f6 - 3 &c3 eS here than in the line 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3

£>bd7 4 f4 e5 5 dxe5 dxe5 6 fxe5 £>xe5 7 #xd8+ *xd8 (see Chapter 8),
which is already fully satisfactory for After 6...£b4 or 6...£d6, I already
prefer Black's position. b) On the imprecise 6 £>f3?! Black equalizes easily
with 6...£.d6 7 Ag5 (or 7 £c4 £e6 8 £xe6 fxe6 9 £e3 £>c6 when Black has
obtained an improved version of the critical line 6 £.c4 Ae6) 7...£.e6. In
comparison with many lines, Black doesn't need to waste time by playing ...
<&>d8-e8. CI) 1 e4 <J6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 e5 4 dxe5 dxe5 5 Wxd8+ ixd8 6
ig5 ie6! The most reliable reply, which is indeed Black's main choice
according to the statistics. Black can now place his knight on d7 without
blocking his bishop. Other possibilities include 6...£d6, 6...c6, and finally
6..Ae7, with a plausible continuation 7 0-0-0+ £>bd7 8 £>f3 £>g4 9 £xe7+
*xe7 10 £>d5+ *d8 11 £>g5 £>h6, followed by ...c6, ...*e7, ...f6 etc. 7 0-0-
0+ Alternatively: a) 7 f4 exf4 8 £>ge2 is interesting (but not 8 e5? h6 9 £xf4
£>g4 10 h3 g5! and Black already held the upper hand in De Firmian-
Ubilava, Moscow 1989). An appropriate reply, recommended by Stohl, is
8..Ae7 9 £>xf4 £>g4 10 £>xe6+ fxe6 11 £f4 flf8, when the activity of
Black's pieces compensates for the loss of the two bishops. b) There are two
ideas behind 7 g3: creating a pawn duo after 8 f4 (with the idea of meeting
...exf4 with 9 gxf4), and swapping bishops with Afl-h3. The game may
continue as follows: bl) 7...*c8 8 £xf6 gxf6 9 £>d5 £W 10 Ah3 c6 with
equality, Rozentalis- Gavrikov, Suhrl991. b2) 7...£>bd7 8 f4 h6 9 £xf6+
£>xf6 10 0-0-0+ *c8 11 £>f3 exf4 12 gxf4 g6 13 f5!? gxf5 14 exf5 £xf5 15
£>e5 (Santo Roman-Chabanon, French Ch., Nantes 1993) when, instead of
the blunder 15...£e6?? 16 £>xf7 £xf7 17 £h3+ and White wins, Black
should have played 15...Ac5 with equality. 7~£>bd7 8f4 167

The Philidor Files After 8 £>f3 *c8 White lacks targets and the position
should be considered as roughly level. 8...exf49^f3 9 e5?! wouldn't bring
anything tangible, other than the weakening of this pawn, and after 9...h6 10
£xf4 £>g4 Black is in the ascendancy. 9...H610 £xf4 c611 £xJ4 The loss of
castling rights counterbalances the isolani on e4, but White can't claim any
edge. Black should play ll...Ab4!, for example: 12 e5 (White cannot hesitate
any longer as ...£.xc3, followed by ...£>xe4, was threatened) 12...£>g4 13
£>xe6+ fxe6 14 £c4 *e7 15 flhel (a self-pin, but it's the only way to cover
e5) 15...flhf8 16 £g3 flf5 (16...£xc3 17 bxc3 flf5 18 fld6 £>c5 with equality
was possible at once, but there is no hurry) 17 Bd6! £>c5 (the rook was
taboo: 17...£xd6? 18 exd6+ *d8 19 £.xe6 and Black's position collapses like
an house of cards) 18 fld4 £>f2 (18...£xc3! 19 bxc3 £>f2 isn't clear, as the
knight doesn't run any real risks once ...Baf8 arrives; the e4-square may also
become available if the d4-rook withdraws) 19 Be3 (Svidler-Bologan,
Novgorod 1995), and now instead of Bologan's 19...£a5?, 19...£xc3! (the
last chance this time!) keeps the balance after 20 bxc3 or 20 flxc3 £>fe4.
The game Degraeve-S.Kasparov, Be- thune 2001, on the other hand, is an
illustration of unsuitable play by Black: ll...£x5? 12 £e2 2e813 £f3 White
patiently strengthens his position before engaging in more concrete
operations. 13...&C8 13...g5 14 Ag3 doesn't fundamentally alter the
position. 14 e5! 168

1 e4 d6 2 d4 fo/6 - 3 &c3 e5 14...£xd4 14...£>h7 15 £>xe6 fxe6 (15...flxe6?

16 Ag4 Be7 17 £>e4) 16 £le4 was no improvement. 15 2xd4 £>h7 16 £>e4
*c7 17 £>d6 fle7 18 flhdl £>hf8 19 £g3 Prophylaxis directed against ...
£>g6. 19...a5?! More resilient is 19...£>g6 20 £h5 £>gxe5!? (or 20...£>df8
and Black is suffering) 21 £>xf7! £xf7 22 flxd7+ flxd7 23 £xe5+ *b6 24
flxd7 £xh5 25 flxg7 with a clear White advantage, but also with chances of
salvation for Black, due to the presence of opposite-coloured bishops. 20 h4
£>b6?! 21 £>f5! A crushing move! 21...2d7 I'll let you guess the fate which
awaits Black in the event of the capture... 22 £>xg7 2xd4 23 2xd4 fld8 24
2f4 ...and Black threw in the towel C2) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 e5 4 dxeS
dxe5 5#xd8+ixd8 6i.c4 After this bishop move, Black has three possible
ways to deal with the attack on his f-pawn: C21:6...£e6 C22:6...£b4
C23:6...*e8 6...<&>e7? is inferior as it would block the bishop on f8 and
invite £>d5+ in some lines. C21) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 e5 4 dxe5 dxe5
5 Wxd8+ *xd8 6 ic4 ie6 7 £xe6 fxe6 8f3 8 Ae3 doesn't really change the
assessment of this ending: White stands a trifle better, but converting his
edge into a full point is a hard task. Here's an example where Black
managed to hold without much difficulty: 8...£.d6 (or 8...£b4 9 0-0-0+ *e7
10 £>ge2 £>c6 11 a3 £d6 12 f3) 9 f3 £>c6 10 0-0-0 *e7 11 £>h3 a6 12 £>f2
h6 13 £>a4 Bhd8 14 fld2 (14 £>d3!? is interesting, but after 14...£>d7
Black remains more or less okay) 14...£.b4 (Black doesn't mind some
simplification) 15 &xd8 2xd8 16 £k5 (after this the advantage becomes
symbolic) 16...b6 17 £>xa6 £d6 18 a3 169

The Philidor Files (White has to give back his pawn in order to rescue the
knight) 18...fla8 19 £>b4 £>xb4 20 axb4 £xb4 with equality, Marciano-
Maiwald, Austrian Team Championship 1999. 16 £.c5+ would probably
have given better chances of maintaining a slight plus: 16...£xc5 17 £>xc5
£>d7 (or 17...flb8!? 18 fldl [with the idea 19 £>g4, to access the seventh
rank after the knight swap) 18...h5 19 £>h3 a5 20 £>g5 £>d8 and Black has
made some concessions, though after ...b6 and ...£ktf> his position remains
acceptable) 18 £>fd3 flb8 19 £>xd7 *xd7 20 fldl "£^6 and White has no
dangerous discovered check, so Black's game should still be in order.
8...£c5 Schandorff-V.Georgiev, Nordic Ch., Bergen 2001, continued instead
8...a6 9 £e3 £b4 10 0-0-0+ (in order to install a knight on d3 as soon as
possible, while avoiding doubled pawns) \0..&e7 11 £ibl flc8 (weird; Black
wishes to expand on the queenside, but this pseudo-active plan will
backfire, and the classical defence ...Ad6, ...£>c6, ...£>d7 was more to the
point) 12 £>h3 c5?! 13 c3 £a5 14 fld2 c4 15 flhdl £>bd7 16 £>f2 b5?
(16...£>f8 was more stubborn) 17 £>g4! flc6 (or 17...flc7 18 £g5 and Black
cannot get rid of the pin easily: 18...h6? 19 £xf6+ and either h6 or e5 drops)
18 £g5 flc7 19 f4 h6 20 £h4 *e8 21 £>xe5 £>xe5 22 fxe5 £>d7 (if
22...£>xe4?! 23 fld8+ flxd8 24 £xd8 wins) 23 fld6 g5 24 flxe6+ *f7 25 flxh6
gxh4 26 e6+ *g7 27 exd7 *xh6 28 d8# and White won. 9 £>a4 £d6
9...Ab4+!?, provoking c3 or an exchange of White's stronger bishop, has its
merits. After 10 c3 £d6 11 £e3 ^bd7 12 b3, however, White remains a tad
better. 10£.e3 White's superior pawn structure promises a very slight edge.
One understands here why 6 £>f3 was imprecise: it is preferable to cover
the e4-pawn by its colleague on f3, so that the knight can freely frolic. The
most successful plan for White is to put a knight on d3, usually with the
manoeuvre £>h3-f2- d3. From here this piece exerts pressure on e5, while
simultaneously controlling the important squares c5 and f4. Next up is to
open the queenside, and c2-c4 (threatening c5 if the king stands on e7)
forces Black to react. As for White's other pieces: the bishop is ideally
placed on e3; the other knight is not bad on a4 - if it is chased, it will leap
into c5. There are two different plans involving the king and rooks: firstly,
the king on e2 and rooks free to support queenside action (the 170

l e4 d6 2 d4 2>f6 - 3 2>c3 eS most promising plan in my opinion); and

secondly, queenside castling. In the latter case the presence of the king on
the queen's flank may be a source of counterplay for Black, while the rooks
also have fewer prospects, since only the d-file is open (see Schandorff-
Georgiev above for a good example). From Black's point of view it is usual
to expand on the queenside, by playing ...a6, ...b5 etc. The most common
formation consists of ...<&e7, ...£>c6, ...£k!7, and ...Ad6. The rooks, as
with their counterparts, have no well-defined posts. Black will have to await
further developments before deciding upon their best placement. Here's an
example of the difficulties Black may experience: 10...£>fd7 11 £>h3 *e7
12 £>f2 £>c6 13 £>d3 £>b4 The knight on d3 is ideally placed, so it is
justifiable to get rid of it. 14 £>xb4 £xb4+15 #e2 b5l? The less
compromising 15...a6 16 flhdl and 15...£>b6 16 £c5+ £xc5 17 £>xc5 £>d7
don't completely solve Black's problems either. 16 a3 £d6 16...£a5!? 17
£>c5 £b6 was probably better, as now White seizes the initiative on the
queenside. 17 £>c3 a618 a4 c619 Shell 2ad8?! 19...flhd8 was better, even
though the immediate 20 axb5 axb5 21 fla7 2a8 doesn't bring White much.
20 2d3 h6 21 b3 £b4 22 £>a2 £a5 23 b4 £c7 24 2c3 24...£b6 Giving up the
c-pawn, but 24...^b8 25 £kl wasn't appealing either. 25 2xc6 £xe3 26 *xe3
fic8 27 fixc8 2xc8 28 *d3 Black has nothing for the pawn deficit and White
went on to win in Vaisser-Epishin, Novosibirsk 1993. C22) 1 e4 d6 2 d4
£>f6 3 £>c3 e5 4 dxe5 dxe5 5 Wxd8+ &xd8 6 ic4 i-b4 Not a frequent reply,
but frankly I don't see why. 7id2 After 7 £xf7?! flf8 8 £c4 £>xe4 9 £>ge2 it
seems that Black can enter the complications arising after 9...£>xf2, for
instance: 10 flfl (10 0-0? £c5) 10...£>g4 171

The Philidor Files 11 £g5+ *e8 12 Bxf8+ £xf8 13 fidl £d6 14 £>b5 h6,
followed by ...*e7 (or if 15 £h4?? «te3!). 7...*e7 If 7...£.e6 8 £xe6 fxe6 the
position is similar to 6...£.e6. 8 £>f 3 £>bd7 ...followed by ...c6 and ...Ad6,
when the game tends towards equality. If White allows 7...£xc3+ 8 bxc3,
for example with 7 Ag5 or 7 f3, Black isn't troubled either. He can then
accept a deterioration of his pawn structure by playing 8...£e6 9 £xe6 fxe6.
C23) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 e5 4 dxe5 dxe5 5 #xd8+ *xd8 6 ic4 *e8
Nowhere near as common as 6...£.e6, but this move has the merit of being
less committal. If White can't find a way to add pressure, his opponent will
gradually equalize. 6...<&>e8 is a specialty of the Georgian Grandmaster
Azmaiparashvili, and with this move he has scored a flattering 3/4, versus
no lesser players than Hodgson, Godena, Bareev and Greenfeld! 7&f3
Forcing Black's next move, due to the double threat of £>xe5 and £>g5.
7...£d6 8 £g5 £>bd7 The first crossroads. Apart from the text move, Black
has also tried: a) 8...£e6 9 £>d2!? (9 £xe6 fxe6 10 0-0-0 £>c6 is a better
version - for Black - of 6...£e6 7 £xe6 fxe6; Black has solved his opening
problems here: for example, 11 £>d2 a6 12 £>b3 £>g4 13 fldfl h6 14 f3
hxg5 V4-V4 Karjakin- V.Georgiev, Chalkidiki 2002) 9...£>bd7 10 0-0-0 h6
(on 10...*e7 White keeps a slight plus after 11 £>d5+ £xd5 12 £.xd5 as the
attempt to regain the pair of bishops fails: 12...c6 13 £c4 h6 14 £h4 g5 15
£g3 £>h5 16 £xf7! *xf7 17 £>c4) 11 £h4 *e7 12 £xe6 fxe6 (or 12...*xe6!?)
13 £>c4 £>b6 (perhaps 13...£b4) 14 £>xb6 (14 £>a5? is wrong on account
of 14...£.b4! 15 £>xb7 flab8) 14...axb6 15 f3 and White converted his
permanent structural edge into a full point in Rublevsky-G.Hernandez,
French League 2004. b) 8...c6 9 0-0-0 £c7 (A.Kuzmin- Damljanovic, Brena
Baja rapid 2005) 172

1 e4 d6 2 d4 2>f6 - 3 2>c3 eS needs further investigation, but should be

okay provided that White can't exploit the weakened d6-square (and I can't
see how he is able to). 9h3!? After the more usual 9 £>d2 and 9 0-0-0, the
assessment of the position oscillates between a slight edge to White and
equality. For example, 9 0-0-0 a6... ...and now: a) 10 flhel h6 11 £h4 flb8
(ll...£>b6 may be inaccurate: 12 £b3 £g4 13 fld3 £lfd7 14 h3 £xf3 [an
unhappy trade but the following sequence wasn't appealing either: 14...£.h5
15 g4 £g6 16 £g3 f6 17 £>h4 £h7 18 £>f5 £xf5 19 exf5 £>c5 20 fld2
£>xb3+ 21 axb3 with £>e4 and/or f4 to follow) 15 flxf3 and again White
has obtained something concrete: the two bishops, Greenfeld-
Azmaiparashvili, European Ch., Neum 2000; however, the drastic ll...g5!?
12 £g3 £>h5 seems playable) 12 £b3 £>h5 13 £>d5 £>c5 14 £>e3 g5 15
£g3 f6 etc., Kunte-Wang Rui, Asian Championship, Hyderabad 2005. b) 10
a4 h6 (10...£>b6 11 £b3 £g4 12 h3 Axf3 13 gxf3 gave White some pressure
after 13...£>bd7 14 flhgl *f8 [14...g6!?J 15 a5 in Karjakin-Pikula, Biel
2003; while 10...b6?! [M.Adams-Azmai- parashvili, Cap d'Agde rapid
2003J allows 11 £xf6! gxf6 [or ll...£>xf6?! 12 £>g5! flf8 13 £>d5 wins
material) 12 £d5 followed by £c6, £>h4-f5 and so on) 11 £h4 b6 12 flhel
£b7... ...with a balanced position, Kar- jakin-McShane, Tiayuan 2005.
9..h610 £e3! The idea of 9 h3 becomes clear: Black can't continue ...£>g4.
Also prohibited is 10...£.c5 as the e5-pawn would be hanging. 173

The Philidor Files After 10 £.e3, the game Illescas Cordoba-

Azmaiparashvili, Dos Her- manas2001, continued 10...AM?!... when White
could have achieved an advantage with 11 £d2 £xc3 12 £xc3 £>xe4 13 £xe5
£>xe5 14 £>xe5 £>d6 15 £.b3: long castling and flhel are next on the
agenda, when the black king may feel unsafe. Instead of Azmaiparashvili's
move, Black should have played 10...c6, intending to meet 11 0-0-0 with
U..Ac7. Black will slowly catch up in development and obtain a decent
position. Conclusion From the few analysed examples of the ending
reached after 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 e5 4 dxe5 dxe5 5 #xd8+ *xd8, one
can conclude that White stands a trifle better. However, provided he plays
accurately, Black doesn't have much to fear. Following 6 £.c4, by choosing
any of the three valid replies, 6...<&>e8, 6...£.b4 or 6...Ae6 7 Axe6 fxe6,
his position remains a hard nut to crack. 174

Chapter Eight 3 ^c3 £ibd7: Introduction and 4 f4 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>C3

£>bd7 3...£>bd7 is the move Black plays if he wishes to avoid the endgame
arising after 3...e5 4 dxe5 dxe5 5 #xd8+ *xd8 (see the previous chapter). If
White now plays 4 £>f3 then 4...e5 leads us to Chapters 10-14. In this
chapter and the following one, we'll have a look at the independent paths
that White can take. 4 g4 is the subject of Chapter 9, while here we will
study: A:4g3 B: 4 ie3 C:4f4 Before diving into critical variations, let's
browse the harmless lines induced by White's less important 4th moves. a) 4
f3 should be followed up by $Le3, reaching Line B; it makes no sense if
White castles short. b) White has no reason to limit his bishop by playing 4
Ae2?! (this applies also to 4 £.d3). A logical continuation is 4...e5 5 £rf3
£e7 (see Chapter 10), which causes Black no problems. c) 4 Ag5?! (if
White is probably going to castle kingside, it is more to the point to develop
pieces from this wing; 4 £g5 isn't bad in itself, but White loses all hope of
an edge) 4...e5 5 £>f3 (after 5 f4?! h6 White must give up the bishop for the
knight or lose f4 for nothing) 5...£.e7 and the position is level, provided that
White avoids the trap 6 #d2 h6 7 £h4? £>xe4!, which costs him a pawn. d)
4 .&c4 is interesting, but after 4...e5 White would be forced to make
concessions in order to persist in an original way! It would be wiser to
rejoin the trodden paths by playing 5 £tf3. Black has the extra possibility of
4...c6!? threatening ...b5-b4, or 5...d5 6 exd5 £>b6, or even 5...^xe4
followed by 6...d5. Finally, let's go back to 4 £>f3. Instead of the usual
4...e5 Black could try 4...c6!?. 175

The Philidor Files This is unusual, but there is no direct refutation. White
can reach normal lines after 5 a4 e5 6 £.c4 etc., or attempt to punish Black
by means of 5 e5 £>d5 (5...dxe5? 6 dxe5 £>g4 7 e6 fxe6 8 £>g5 gives
White a clear advantage) 6 £>xd5 cxd5 7 e6 fxe6 8 £>g5 #a5+! (8...£>f6? 9
Ab5+ £d7 10 £>xe6 #a5+ 11 Ad2 was much better for White in
Damljanovic- Udovcic, Yugoslavia 1974) 9 £d2 #b6, but the position after
10 £c3 £>f6 11 Ad3 g6 (Prie-Chabanon, Aix les Bains 1991) is messy. A) 1
e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 g3 e5 5 £>ge2 c6 5...b5!? should be
compared to Line B2 in the next chapter, where White's g-pawn stands one
square further forward. 6a4 It makes sense to hinder the thematic ...b5 push.
After 6 Ag2?! b5 7 d5 (7 a3 a5 or 7..Ab7 wouldn't change much) 7...$Lb7
Black's counterplay arrives faster than in the main text. 6...£e7 7 £.g2 0-0 8
0-0 2e8! Better than 8...Wc7?! 9 h3 fle8 10 g4, when White has obtained
the optimal configuration for this system. With 8...fle8 we are following the
game Gallagher-Bauer, German League 2000: 9 h3 £f8 10 Bel 10 g4, as
chosen by Grischuk several months later, seems more logical to me: 10...h6
11 £e3 b6 12 £>g3 Jib7 13 flel (the immediate 13 f4 was possible too:
13...a6 14 g5 hxg5 15 fxg5 exd4 16 £xd4 £>h7 with mutual chances) 13...a6
14 f4 b5 15 #d3... 15...b4? (15...#c7 would have kept the position unclear
and rich in possibilities; Black isn't ready for the text 176

1 e4 d6 2 d4 Q>f6 - 3 Q>c3 ^bd7: Introduction and 4 f4 move as the

pressure against e4 isn't strong enough) 16 £>dl exf4 17 £.xf4 c5 18 c3!
(White obviously maintains a pawn on d4, in order to keep control of the
important e5-square) 18...a5 19 £>f2 bxc3 20 bxc3 cxd4 21 cxd4 £>b6
(erroneous, as the knight will be needed on the other side) 22 g5! £>h7
(22...hxg5?! 23 £xg5 £>bd7 24 £>g4 with a nasty initiative) 23 gxh6 g6 24
£>g4 £a6 25 #f3 flc8 26 e5 d5 27 e6 flxe6 28 flxe6 fxe6 29 flel #e8 30 h4
£>d7 (better 30...£b4!) 31 £d2 (and here 31 #e3! £c4 [but not 31...flc6?? 32
£xd5J 32 #xe6+ Wxe6 33 flxe6 *f7 34 flel) 31...#f7 32 £xa5 £d6 33 #xf7+?
*xf7 34 £>fl? flc4 '/2-'/2 Grischuk-Bauer, French League 2001. Here, while
assessing my position as superior (we both had about 1 minute and 30
seconds left), I offered a draw, but regretted it instantly! This was the only
position Grischuk spoiled that weekend; his overall score was 3!/2/4.
10...b6 10...a5!? is another option. 11 £e3 £b7 ll...a6?! 12 g4! h6 13 £>g3
gave White an edge in H.Schumacher-Van de Plassche, Belgian Team Ch.
1997. 12#d2 Or 12 g4?! exd4! 13 £>xd4 c5 and e4 falls. 12...a6 13 g4
exd414 £>xd4 b$! White wins after 14...c5?! 15 £>f5 £>xe4? 16 £>xe4
£xe4 17 £g5. 15 axb5 axb5 16 flxa8 Wxa8 17 g5 b4! 18 gxf6 bxc3 19 *xc3
£>xf6 20 £g5 £>d7 21 £>f5 fle6! 22 fle3 c5 23 Sg3 £*5 24 &h6? The ugly-
looking move 24 f3! would have enabled White to stay in the game.
24...2g6 25 £xg7 £xg7 26 £>xg7 £xe4 27 £xe4 Wxe4 28 £>e8 *f8 29 £>c7
*e7? In time-trouble, I had simply forgotten that 29...£>f3+! 30 *fl £>d4
prevented Wh8+ in my calculations! Now White is alive again. 30 flxg6
hxg6 31 &fl *d7 32 £>b5 *c6 33 £>a3 £>f3 34 We3 Wxe3 35 fxe3 £>d2+
36 *e2 £>e4 37 *f3 d5 38 h4 f6 39 C3 *d6 40 £>C2 £>d2+ 41 *e2 £>c4 42
177

The Philidor Files b3 £>a5 43 b4 £>c6 44 *d3 £>e5+ 45 *e2 £>c6 46 *d3
£>e5+ 47 *e2 £>c6 48 *d3 yi-yi In this game the respective operations (on
the queenside for Black; on the kingside for White) led to a lively and
balanced game. Had White played 24 f3!, the position would have remained
unclear. B) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £e3 e5 5f3 5 #d2 doesn't
change anything, as sooner or later f2-f3 will be compulsory, while 5...£>g4
6 Ag5 suits White quite well. 5...C6 6 #d2 £e7 7 0-0-0 0-0 7...b5? 8 d5! b4
9 dxc6 bxc3 10 cxd7+ (check!) 10...£xd7 11 #xc3 leaves White with a clear
advantage. 8 g4 b5 9 *bl £>b6 9...exd4? is a premature reaction: 10 £xd4 b4
11 £>ce2 c5 12 £e3 £>e5 13 £>f4 (as a result of his 9th move, Black's
attack has reached a dead end and he has conceded the d5-square) 13...flb8
14 g5 £>xf3?! (this gives only a semblance of an initiative, although it is
true that the alternative 14...£>fd7 15 £>d5 wasn't a delightful prospect) 15
£>xf3 £>xe4 16 Wc\ £g4 17 £e2 is the end of Black's initiative! He could
now grab a third pawn for his sacrificed piece, by means of ...£xf3 and ...
£>xg5, but this wouldn't solve his problems. Black therefore adds some
more fuel to the fire by another speculative sacrifice - a correct choice for a
practical game: 17...£>c3+!? 18 bxc3 bxc3+ 19 *al #a5 20 £>d5 flb2
(otherwise fld3 and it's goodbye to the c3-pawn) 21 £>xe7+ <&>h8 22
#xb2 cxb2+ 23 *bl. White enjoys a huge material advantage and is
obviously winning here (though in Boudre- Mensch, French League 2001,
he made some mistakes and ended up losing). 10 Wei Directed against
10...b4 11 £ke2 £>c4 and ...£>xe3. We are following the game J.Polgar-
Bauer, World Cup of Rapid Chess, Cannes 2001: 10...b4?l Here 10...£ifd7!
deserved serious attention. The idea of g4-g5 is parried and the horse may
be rerouted to e5 after a 178

l e4 d6 2 d4 ^f6 - 3 £>c3 Z&bd7: Introduction and 4 f4 follow-up such as

ll...exd4 12 £.xd4 b4 13 £>ce2 c5 14 £e3 £>e5. On the other hand,
10...exd4?! 11 £xd4 b4 12 £>ce2 d5 13 £>g3 would again be erroneous. 11
£>ce2 £>c412 £xl d5? A gross mistake. 12...Wb6 was called for, even
though the edge would have remained with White after 13 g5! £le8 (if
13...d5 14 gxf6 £>a3+ 15 bxa3 bxa3+ 16 <&>al flb8 17 £>c3 wins, as does
13...flb8? 14 b3) 14 £>g3. 13 b3 £>a3+14 £xa3 bxa3 15 dxe5 £>d7 16 f4
£>c5 17 £g2 £xg4 18 exd5 cxd5 19 £xd5 2c8 20 h3 20 £xf7+ *xf7 21 flxd8
flfxd8 was what I was hoping for during the game. Black will continue
...M5, ...£>a6 (or ...£>e4), and ...Ab4 (or ...£>b4), though it seems that
Black's compensation is still a bit light after 22 £>c3. 20...if5 21 £>c3 Was
22 £>ge2 £>a6?! Visually it appears that Black has some play. If only the
e7-bishop could jump over that knight... 23 £e4 £xe4 24 £>xe4 *c7 25 c4
£b4 26 Wg3 Wb7 27 £>f6+ *h8 28 Bhgl g6 29 «h4 h5 30 Wg5 *g7 31 Bd7
Bc7 32 #xg6+ 1-0 An abrupt end. C) 1 e4d6 2 d4^f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4f4
Together with 4 g4, this is a real test of Black's move order. It certainly
looks sensible to include the f-pawn in the battle for the centre. 4-.e5 5 £>f3
a) 5 dxe5 (or 5 fxe5) is a harmless follow-up, as long as Black pays
attention over the next few moves: 5...dxe5 6 fxe5 £>xe5 7 #xd8+ *xd8...
...and now, for instance, after 8 Af4 £d6 9 0-0-0 *e7 (threatening ...£>d3+)
White could soon end up worse. 179

The Philidor Files Other White continuations are obviously possible at

move 8, such as 8 £>f3 or 8 £g5. But Black has nothing to complain about
as long as he keeps controlling e5. For instance: al) 8 £>f3 £d6 9 £g5 c6 10
0-0-0 *c7 11 £>d4 £d7 (ll...£>e8!?) 12 £>f5 £xf5 13 exf5 £>eg4 14 £c4! h6
(if 14...£>f2 15 Hxd6 <&>xd6 16 fifl with compensation) 15 flxd6 (15 £xf6
gxf6) 15...hxg5 (15...*xd6?! 16 Af4+) 16 fld2 £>e5 with an equal position,
Sedina-Bauer, Swiss Team Ch. 2006. a2) 8 £g5 £e7!? (8...c6 9 0-0-0+ *c7 is
valid too) 9 0-0-0+ £>fd7 10 £xe7+ *xe7 11 h3?! (useless) 11...c6 with an
edge to Black in Braeuner-Schmidt Schaeffer, Triberg (rapid) 1991. White
had no compensation for his isolani. b) 5 Ae3!?, to recapture with the
bishop in case Black takes on d4, is quite interesting. The drawback lies in
the eventuality of a timely ...£>g4, gaining a tempo. Black can either react
by playing ...g6, or ...c6 intending ...b5 and After 5 £>f3 Black's three main
moves are: CI: 5...£e7?! C2: 5..C6 C3: 5».exd4 5...We71 obstructs the
bishop and therefore isn't advisable. After 6 Ac4 £tt>6 7 Ab3 White enjoys
the more harmonious development and a central supremacy. CI) 1 e4 d6 2
d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 f4 e5 5 £>f3 £e7?! Following the same goal as
5...c6, but the e7-bishop will have to be redeployed. Basically, controlling
d5 is important, which makes 5...Ae7 inferior to moving the c-pawn. The
encounter Conquest-Hodgson, London 1991, continued: 6 dxe5 dxe5 7 fxe5
£>g4 8 £f4 £c5 9 ig5 ie7 Forced, which means that White can already
repeat moves if he wishes. 10 £f4 £c5 11 £c4 0-012 #e2 12 e6! seriously
deserved consideration. The two plausible Black replies lead to
complications that seem to favour White: 180

l e4 d6 2 d4 *bf6 - 3 &c3 &bd7: Introduction and 4 f4 a) 12...fxe6 13 £xe6+

*h8 14 £xg4 2xf4 15 £.f5 locks the rook in, which induces the following
weakening of Black's castled king: 15...g6 (15...#e8 16 £>e2!) 16 £>d5!?
flxf3 17 #xf3 gxf5 18 #c3+ *g8 19 #g3+, followed by £>xc7 and then 0-0-0
or exf5 with a powerful initiative. b) 12...£>f2 13 exd7 £>xdl 14 dxc8#
#xc8 15 fixdl. The three minor pieces would 'normally' be stronger than the
queen, but as the c5-bishop is forbidding White to castle, matters are not as
clear cut here: 15...#g4 16 £g3 £b4 (placing a rook on d8 or e8 may be
better) 17 0-0 £xc3 18 bxc3 #xe4 19 £>e5 and White, with his pieces
coordinated against f7 and the black king, should have an edge. 12...#e8 13
0-0-0 £>gxe5 14 £b3 a6 15 flhfl£d6l6*bl*h8 The assessment is unclear at
present. 17 h3 f618 g4 £>C5 19 £d5! c6 20 £b3 White has destabilized the
d6- bishop, and the weakness of d6 will play a role later on. 20...£x7 21 £e3
£>xb3 22 axb3 22...b6?! 22...£>xf3 23 #xf3 £e6 would have been decent for
Black. 23 £>xe5 fxe5 24 2xf8+ #xf8 25 #c4 We8 26^d5!cxd5 27Wxc7
Opposite-coloured bishops have appeared, but Black's pawns are weak and
his pieces lack good squares. 27...d4 28 £gl £e6 Otherwise £h2 and White
still collects the pawns. 29«xe5 Black could have saved himself the
following few moves. 29...Wg6 30 2xd4 fle8 31 Bd6 Wf7 32 £d4 as 33 *b5
a4 34 bxa4 2c8 35 ixg7+ *g8 36 ic3 h6 37 flxb6 id7 38 Wd5 1-0 C2) 1 e4
d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 f4 e5 5 £rf3 c6 6 dxe5 dxe5 7fxes Or: a) 7
£>xe5!?/! £>xe5 8 #xd8+ *xd8 9 fxe5 £>g4 10 £f4 £c5 11 £c4 and now: al)
ll...<£e7 12 Hfl b5 (alternatives are not satisfactory either: I2...£.e6?! is well
met by 13 £>d5+! cxd5 14 exd5 fol- 181

The Philidor Files lowed by d6+; 12...flf8 13 £>dl £d4 14 Ae2! and e5 is
immune: 14...£>xe5? 15 c3 or 14...£xe5 15 £xg4) 13 £xf7 (13 £b3 flf8)
13...£f2+ 14 flxf2 £>xf2 15 £b3 (or 15 e6) 15...£>g4 16 £g5+ and White
stands much better. a2) ll...*e8 12 flfl flf8 13 h3 (if 13 fldl?! £e3 14 £g3 £c5
and there seems to be nothing better than repeating moves; but 13 £>dl!?, as
in the lines with ...<&e7, may be stronger) 13...£>e3 14 £xe3 £xe3 15 fldl
*e7 and White stands slightly better on account of his extra pawn. The
pawn, however, is a doubled and isolated one; furthermore, Black has the
pair of bishops, so he should manage to hold this ending. b) Out of the three
sensible possibilities for White, 7 £c4?! is the least good. Black must now
refrain from 7...£.c5? 8 £>xe5 when he doesn't have enough for the pawn
after either 8...0-0 or 8...£>xe5 9 #xd8+ *xd8 10 fxe5 £>g4 11 £xf7 £>xe5
12 £h5. Instead, 7...£b4 equalizes easily. 7...&g4 8e6!? The classical recipe
in this kind of situation. Rather than ending up with a weak, isolated pawn
on e4, White gives back the pawn in a favourable way. The alternative is 8
Af4?!/!? &c5 9 £.c4 and now: a)9...£>f2! 10#e2£>xhl 11 0-0-0... All the
white pieces are out and ready to bite. The compensation for the rook is
obvious, but still probably insufficient after ll...£>f2!. White can try 11
£xf7+ *xf7 12 e6+ *e8 13 0-0-0 too, but the verdict remains the same:
13...£>f2 14 exd7+ £xd7 and the extra material should prevail. b) 9...#e7 10
e6 fxe6 11 £g5 Wf7 12 flfl #g6 13 #d2 h6 14 £f4 e5 15 £g3 £>e3 16 £>h4
£>xfl 17 £>xg6 £>xd2 18 *xd2 flf8 19 £>xf8 £xf8 20 flfl V4-V4 A.Graf-
Ermenkov, Dubai 2000: and now 20...£e7 21 £f7+ <&d8, followed by ...Af6
and ...<$e7 (Ermenkov) would be equal. 8...fxe6 9 £>g5 £>de5 9...£>ge5?
is completely wrong: 10 £>xe6 Wh4+ 11 g3 #f6 12 £>c7+ and White wins
material after every move: 12...*d8 13 £g5, 12...*e7 13 £>7d5+, or 12...*f7
13 £e2 with the double threat 182

l e4 d6 2 d4 *hf6 - 3 &c3 &bd7: Introduction and 4 f4 of flf 1 and £>xa8.

10Wxd8+ixd8 A rather tricky endgame has arisen. At first sight White
stands much better, for he has more space, can still castle, and Black's c8-
bishop also looks grim. But Black's prospects shouldn't be underestimated.
His king will stand well on e7 and he has a classy outpost on e5. Moreover,
d5 is well controlled and the weakness of d6 should not be that relevant. 11
h3! Forcing the knight to the edge is best. After the less energetic 11 Ae2
*e8 or 11 £f4 h6 (not ll...£.c5? 12 h3! flf8 13 g3) 12 Hdl+ *e7 13 £>f3
£>xf3+ 14 gxf3 e5 15 £cl £>f6, Black gains equality. Il...£kh612£f4£khf7
The unsound 12...£.d6?? is punished immediately after 13 0-0-0 *e7 14
flxd6 *xd6 15 £>f3 (or 15 £e2) 15...£>hf7 16 kel when the pin is fatal,
A.Gomez-M.Ostertag, France 1994. 12...£>g6 is the alternative, the
assessment of which depends on the follow-up: 13 0-0-0+*e8 14 £>b5!?
£>xf4 (Black was smashed after 14...cxb5? 15 £xb5+ *e7 16 £c7 <i>f6 17
h4 in N.Ong-Oaker, correspondence 2004 - the black king has a bad time of
it here) 15 £>c7+ *e7 16 £>xa8 g6 17 g3 £>h5 18 fld3, defending g3 while
preparing Ba3. This messy position needs further analysis. 14 £c7 and 14
£e3 are less wild but also give reasonable chances: 14 £.c7 £c5! (stronger
than 14...£e7 15 £>f3 £d7 [on 15...flf8 16 £c4, intending £>d4, while if
15...£>f7 then 16 e5 or 16 h4!?J 16 e5!, vacating e4 for his knight, gives
White the better game, Golod- J.Hodgson, Forli 1992) 15 fld8+ *e7 16
flxh8 £e3+ 17 *bl £>xh8 18 £>f3 (18 £>xh7 £>8f7) 18...£>g6, as in
J.Nielsen- Oortwijn, correspondence 1997. 13 0-0-0+ On 13 £c4 *e7 (or
even 13...£>xg5 14 £xe5 £>f7 15 0-0-0+ <&e8) 14 £>xf7 (or 14 £b3 g6)
14...£>xf7 15 0-0 g6 16 fladl £g7 (Sumets-Pichugin, Odessa 1995) looks
playable for Black. 13...*e7 This is better in my view than 13...<&>e8,
which allows White to keep a 183

The Philidor Files small plus with 14 £>xf7 £>xf7 15 £c4 (after 15 e5 g5 16
£e3 £g7 17 £>e4 £xe5 18 £>xg5 £>xg5 19 £xg5 White had all the fun in
Storani-Geus, correspondence 2000) 15...£b4! (15...£c5 16 e5! g5 17 £d2
£>xe5 18 £e2 [Hallen- gren-Mary, correspondence 2004] intending a
combination of £>e4, £.c3, flhfl and Ah5+ with ample compensation; or
15...g5!? and 16...£g7) 16 fld3 <&e7?! (now or on the next move 16...b5
should probably have been tried: 17 £b3 a6 with the idea of ...c5-c4, or 17
£>xb5!? cxb5 18 £xb5+ *e7 19 £c6 e5 with unclear consequences) 17 fihdl
e5 18 £d2 (L.Arnold-Jonitz, Brno 1995) and White has a clear advantage
due to the unpleasant threat £k!5+. 14 £>xf7 £>xf7 15 e5 g5 16 £e3 b6 17
£>e4 h6 18 £>d6 £>xe5 18...£g7 19 £>xf7 *xf7 was a trifle better for White
in E.Prie-J.Shaw, Oakham 1994. 19 £>xc8+ 2xc8 20 £a6 2d8 21 2xd8 *xd8
22 £d4 £g7 23 flel What else? 23...£kd3+ 24 £xd3 £xd4 25 2xe6 c5 The
position is equal. C3) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 U e5 5^f3exd4
6Wxd4 Or 6 £>xd4 and now: a) 6...£>c5!? was an oversight from yours
truly before I consulted Janssen and Van Rekom's The Lion: al) If 7 #f3
Black can consider 7...£>fxe4 8 £>xe4 #e7 9 £b5+ £d7 10 £xd7+ *xd7 11
£e3 £>xe4 12 0-0-0 fle8 13 Wh3+!? *d8, which is unclear. a2) With 7 £d3
White gladly allows the swap of his bishop for the knight, when he would
recapture with the c- pawn, reinforcing e4, and have nice attacking
prospects on the kingside; while after 7...£g4 8 #d2!, the bishop is going to
be repelled by h2-h3, when the queen can be rerouted and White can claim
a little something in my view. Instead, 8 £>f3?! h5?! etc., is the weird main
line suggested in The Lion, with the statement that Black equalizes. Make
up your own mind! b) 6...£.e7?! was chosen by the great Aaron
Nimzowitsch, in his encounter versus Behting, Riga 1910. It is a bit
passive, however, and gives White an edge. The position is similar to the
one 184

1 e4 d6 2 d4 fo/6 - 3 £>c3 Zbbd7: Introduction and 4 f4 arising after 1 e4 e5

2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5 £>c3 £e7, which was treated in
Chapters 3-4. In that line it would be unusual to continue with 6...£>bd7,
which limits Black's future choices. c) Events take a very satisfactory turn
for Black after 6...g6, e.g. 7 £d3 £g7 8 0-0 0-0 followed by ...fle8 and ...
£>c5, with counterplay against e4. After 61i'xd4 we shall consider:
C31:6...£>C5 C32:6...C6 6...g6? is a bit of an overkill if Black wishes to
provoke his opponent! 7 e5! (7 £c4?!, intending 7...£g7? 8 e5 £>g4 [or
8...#e7 9 0-0J 9 £xf7+ *xf7 10 £>g5+ *e8 11 £>e6 We7 12 £>d5, fails to the
intermezzo 7...£>b6) 7...dxe5 8 fxe5 £.c5 9 Wa4 (we will see later on in this
chapter that a twin variation exists, with a black pawn on c6 rather than g6;
in that case the d7-knight isn't pinned and the correct continuation for White
is 9 Wh4) 9...£>h5 (if 9...#e7? 10 £g5 0-0 11 £>d5 wins) 10 £h6 followed
by 0-0-0 and Black's position is vulnerable. That leaves... 6...£e7? ...but this
leads to a quick debacle for various reasons: 7 e5 dxe5 8 fxe5 Ac5 9 Wa4
Again this pin! Alternatively, there is 9 #c4!? #e7?! (after this the following
sequence is forced, but withdrawing the horse to its stable is not a happy
prospect) 10 #e2 £>g4 11 £>d5 £f2+ 12 #xf2 £>xf2 13 £>xe7 £>xhl 14
£>d5 and White was winning in Martin Gonzalez-Ortega Ruiz, Spanish
Ch., Linares 1998: Black can't defend c7 properly, but above all he will lose
his errant knight on hi. 9-..£>h5 10 £g5 10 g4! wins a piece immediately.
White may have feared 10...0-0 11 gxh5 £>xe5 12 £>xe5 fle8 13 £f4 Wh4+
14 ^2, but Black hardly has enough here. 10...f6 11 exf6 £khxf6 12 0-0-0 0-
0 13 Wc4+ * h814 Oxd7 £xd7 15 #xc5 White has a decisive advantage,
F.Castaldo-V.Colin, Mitropa Cup, Ay- mavilles 2000. 185

The Philidor Files C31) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 f4 e5 5 £>f3

exd4 6 #xd4 £>c5 This line, which includes the idea of 7...£>fxe4 8 £>xe4
#e7, is still rather unexplored. Beliavsky assesses 6...£k5 as dubious in the
annotations to his game with Ponomariov in Chess Informant (see Line
C312). But curiously, he indicates no moment where he may have stood
worse later on! White's two main options are: C311: 7 -&C4 C312: 7 £e3
Or: 7e5 7 f5?! may be playable, but after either 7...We7 or 7...£>cxe4 8
£>xe4 We7 9 Ad3 d5, Black has nothing to worry about. 7...£>e6 8 Wc4
After 8 #d3 £>c5 9 #d4 £>e6 a draw was agreed in Prie-Okhotnik, Laragne-
Monteglin 2001. White can of course deviate, but it is questionable whether
he stands any better. 8...dxe5 9 fxe5 £>d7 10 £e3 (I.Cosma-Ianov, Bijeljina
2001) and now 10...£>b6 11 £xb6 axb6 12 fldl Ad7 looks fine for Black. In
the game White had some pressure after 10...£.c5 11 £xc5 £>dxc5 12 fldl
<SW 13 *b4 #e7 14 #xe7+ *xe7 15 £>d5+ etc. C311) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3
£>c3 £>bd7 4 f4 e5 5 £tf3 exd4 6 #xd4 £>C5 7 £c4 This is probably
sufficient to claim a small plus. 7...£e7 Or 7...£e6 8 0-0 £e7 (8...c6!?) and
now: a) White was successful with 9 £xe6 £>xe6 10 #c4 c6 11 £>g5 in the
game Wells-Gonzalez Zamora, Oviedo (rapid) 1993. After ll...d5!? 12 exd5
£>xd5 (not 12...£>xg5? 13 fxg5 £>xd5 14 £>xd5 #xd5 15 #xd5 cxd5 16
£e3, followed by fladl, flf5, and d5 is lost) 13 £>xe6 fxe6 14 flel #d6, e6 is
weak but the knight is excellently placed. b) 9 £>g5!? (LSudakova-
Mirzoeva, Kolontaevo 1998) is interesting. c) 9 b4 £xc4 (9...£>a6 10 £xe6
fxe6 11 b5 £>c5 12 £a3 b6 13 fladl was more pleasant for White in Milliet-
A.Muller, 186

1 e4 d6 2 d4 <&f6 - 3 Q>c3 thbdy. Introduction and 4 f4 Val d'Isere 2004)

10 #xc4 £>cd7 11 e5 £tt>6 (ll...dxe5 is more precise as White had the
option of 13 fldl later on) 12 #e2 dxe5 13 fxe5 £>fd5 and Black was okay in
Dishman-A.Salem, British Ch., Eastbourne 1991. 8e5! This energetic
approach maintains some pressure; whereas 8 0-0?! eases Black's task:
8...0-0 9 e5 (or 9 b4?! £>cxe4 10 £>xe4 d5, Luckis-P.Trifunovic, Mar del
Plata 1950) 9...dxe5 10 fxe5 #xd4+ 11 £>xd4 £>g4 12 £>f3 £e6 (it's equal)
13 £xe6 £>xe6 14 £>e4 f5 15 exf6 £>xf6 16 £>xf6+ £xf6 17 £e3 ViM
Weitzer- M.Shvartz, German League 2001. 8...dxe5 9#xd8+ 9 fxe5 #xd4 10
£>xd4 £>fd7! 11 £f4 c6 12 0-0-0 £>b6 is approximately level. But not
10...£>g4?! 11 £>f3 16 (ll...£>d7 doesn't solve all Black's problems after 12
£>b5 £d8 13 e6 fxe6 14 £xe6 £>b6 15 Axc8 £>xc8 16 £.g5), which was
played in J.Campbell-N.Grant, corres-pondence 1985, and here 12 £>b5
£d8 13 exf6 £>xf6 14 0-0 would have been no joy for Black. 9...£xd8 10
fxe5 £>fe4 11 £>xe4 £>xe4 12 0-0 Threatening £.xf7+ ...*xf7; £>g5+. 12
flfl!? was also possible. 12...2f813 £e3 White has a slight, but enduring
edge. C312) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 f4 e5 5 £>f3 exd4 6 #xd4
£>c5 7 £e3 The critical set-up. By accelerating long castling, White
threatens to lay down the law. 7...g6 Other continuations are, frankly, either
bad or not to be recommended as they leave White with an easy game: a)
7...#e7?! 8 e5 dxe5 9 fxe5 £>g4 10 £g5. b) 7...£>e6?! 8 #d2. c) 7...C6 8 0-0-
0 #c7 9 h3 £e7 10 g4 (C.Sanchez-Perelman, Buenos Aires 1996) with a
one-sided position. d) 7..Ae7 8 0-0-0 0-0 9 e5 (or 9 h3 when White plans
either e5 or g4, Spangenberg-Tempone, Buenos Aires 1999) 9...£>g4 10 £gl
£e6 11 h3 £>h6 12 g4. The White attack is well on its way 187

The Philidor Files and the knight on h6 looks pretty grim, Brailsford-
Jaworowski, correspon-dence 1998. 8 0-0-0! Just as in Prie-Okhotnik, 8 e5
seems to be too hasty after 8...£>e6 (if 8...dxe5? 9 #xd8+ [9 Wxe5+ £>e6 is
less convincing, but maybe 9 fxe5!?J 9...*xd8 10 0-0-0+ <&e8 11 £>xe5 or
11 fxe5 £>g4 12 Agl with not a very appetizing position for Black in both
cases) and now: a) After 9 #c4!? the position remains balanced. Black can
choose between 9...dxe5, 9...d5 and 9...£>g4, and I would be surprised if
none of these is satisfactory! b) 9 #d2 £>g4 10 £gl £h6! (10...dxe5?! 11
#xd8+ £>xd8 12 h3 £>f6 13 fxe5 proved uncomfortable for Black in
R.Sultanov-Khokhoev, Dagomys 2004) 11 g3 £>xe5 12 £>xe5 dxe5 13
#xd8+ <&>xd8 14 fxe5 is roughly even. c)9#a4+£d710.&.b5£>g4 11
.&xd7+ (the ending is level after this cautious choice; following 11 Agl c6
the game remains complicated, but then Black may end up being better)
ll...#xd7 12 #xd7+ *xd7 13 £d2 f5 (13...C6? 14 h3 £>h6 15 £>e4 is bad for
Black) 14 h3 £>h6 15 0-0-0 c6! 16 £>e2 (16 exd6 £xd6 17 £>e5+ *c7
doesn't bring much either) 16...£>f7 (16...d5?! 17 £>ed4) 17 £e3 (or 17
£>ed4 dxe5 18 fxe5 £c5) I7...*c7 (not 17...d5? 18 c4 and Black is in serious
trouble, for instance 18...£>c7 19 £>c3 *e6 20 cxd5+ £>xd5 21 £>xd5 cxd5
22 £>d4+ <&e7 23 £>b5) 18 £>ed4 fle8 19 £>xe6+ flxe6 20 £d4 (not 20
£>d4?! fle8 21 e6 £>d8 and the e- pawn has a reprieve) 20...flg8 21 flhel
dxe5 22 £>xe5 £>xe5 23 Hxe5 flxe5 24 £xe5+ *c8 25 c4 £c5 26 *c2 fld8 27
2d3 Vi-Vi was Ponomariov-Beliavsky, Slovenian Team Ch. 1999. It seems
that the balance was never broken, and splitting the point was thus a fair
outcome. 8...£g7 9 e5 £>g410 £gl £>h6 10...0-0 was stronger, but even so
White retains the upper hand after 11 h3 £>h6 12 g4, etc. ll Wb4 as 12 Wa3
£>e6 13 exd6 0-0 14 dxc7 Wxc7 15 £>d5 The agony is brief for Black.
15-.Wb8 16 £>b6 £>xf4 17 £>xa8 Wxa8 18 £d4 b5 19 £xg7 *xg7 20 #c3+
*g8 188

1 e4 d6 2 d4 <&f6 - 3 &c3 Q>bd7: Introduction and 4 f4 21#e3#b8 22fld4

1-0 Y.Yakovich-J.Johansson, Stockholm 1996. C32) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3
£>c3 £>bd7 4 f4 e5 5^f3exd4 6Wxd4c6 This is Black's main move. Now
we will look at: C321:7 e5 C322: 7 £d2 C323:7^e3d5 8e5 C324:7 £e3 d5 8
exd5 Alternatively: a) 7 £c4?! d5 8 exd5 £c5 9 #d3 0-0 and, with the white
king having to stay in the middle, Black has more than enough
compensation for the pawn. b) With 7 £e2?! the transparent idea is to castle
kingside. Black has two valid options at his disposal: bl) 7...#b6 8 #xb6?!
(this exchange is anything but forced and rather favours Black) 8...axb6 9
£>d4 b5 10 £f3 g6 and Black already stood better in S.Djuric-Peyrat,
French League 1993. b2) 7...d5 8 exd5 (or 8 e5) 8...&c5 9 #d3 cxd5 (after
9...0-0!? 10 dxc6 bxc6 11 A.d2 White achieves 0-0-0 more easily than in
the line 7 £.c4?!, but following 11...a5 and 12...A.a6 the position remains
unclear) 10 £>xd5 0-0 with good compensation for the pawn. Indeed, the
white king is stuck in the centre and the squares around it have been
weakened. c) 7 a4?! (White is mistaken about his opponent's intentions:
Black was threatening ...d5, not ...b5, and this move only creates
weaknesses) 7...d5! (7...Qc5!?) 8 e5 £c5 9 #d3 £>g4 10 £>dl We7\ (to
continue ...f6 or profit from the pin after 11 h3 £>gf6) 11 £>e3 £xe3 12
£xe3 £>xe3 (12...f6! with an edge) 13 #xe3 Wb4+ 14 *f2 £>c5 (or
14...#xb2!? 15 £d3 with compensation) 15 #d4. Now the game was level,
until our reciprocal blindness: 15...£>e4+ 16 "^gl #e7 17 £d3 Af5 18 a5 0-0
19 h3 £>g3 20 £xf5?? £>xf5?? (20...£>e2+!) 21 #d3 (Bo- logan-Bauer,
Bastia rapid 1999) and Viorel eventually, as usual, won the game. d) In my
opinion the idea of 7 f5 is rather dubious, since White concedes 189

The Philidor Files the important e5-square. His space advantage and the
weak d6-pawn should, however, keep the position balanced. dl) The
thematic 7...d5!? is the best move if 8 e5 doesn't work: 8 e5 (8 exd5?! Ac5
is an even worse - yes, it is possible! - version of 7 £.c4) 8...£.c5 9 Wf4
£>h5 (9...We7? 10 £e2 £>h5 11 Wg5! Wxg5 12 £>xg5 underlines the
awkward placement of the knight) 10 Wg4 g6 with a messy position. d2)
7...Wb6 is safer and quite satisfactory, and 8 Ae2 Ae7 is equal. C321) 1 e4
d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>C3 £>bd7 4 f4 e5 5 £>f3 exd4 6 Wxd4 c6 7 e5 This direct
play doesn't promise White much. 7...dxe5 8fxe5ic5 9Wh4 9 Wf4! We7 10
£e2 £>d5, with mutual chances, seems better. 9...We7 10 if4 ib4! 10...£>g4,
mentioned in The Lion, is okay as well: 11 Wxe7+ *xe7 12 £>e4 £e3 with
equality; while 11 Wxg4?? loses on the spot to ll...£>xe5 12 Wxc8+ (12
Wxg7? £>xf3+ 13 *dl Wei mate) 12...flxc813£xe5f6. White also
experiences some difficulties after 11 £c4 £>e4 12 Wxe7+ *xe7, Jaenig-
Bauer, Metz 2000. Il...£xc3 12 exf6 £xf6 13 Wg3 0-0 14
£d6We3+15*blWb6! 15...fld8?! 16 £c7 flf8 17 £d6 is only a draw. 16 b3
Be8 ...and Black has a healthy extra pawn. C322) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3
£>bd7 4 f4 e5 5 £tf3 exd4 6 Wxd4 c6 7 £d2!? Wb6 The dominant white
queen is annoying for Black, and it is therefore quite natural to get rid of it,
if possible. The advance 7...d5? would this time miss the target, as White is
ready for long castling: 8 exd5 £c5 9 Wd3 0-0 (9...£>g4 10 £te4!) 10 0-0-0
when Black's compensation for the pawn is rather meagre. 8 0-0-0 Wxd4 9
£>xd4 g6 Black plays this more to protect himself against £>f5 than to
fianchetto the bishop. 190

1 e4 d6 2 d4 fo/6 - 3 &c3 Q>bd7: Introduction and 4 f4 N)£>f3 10 Ae3

following the same goal, i.e. attacking d6, is valid too: 10...£>c5 11 flel Ae7
and White may be a tad better. On the other hand, rushing with 10 e5? fails
after 10...dxe5 11 fxe5 £>xe5 12 flel £>fd7 13 £>db5 cxb5 14 £>xb5 *d8
and Black wins. 10...£h6! An important intermediate move, since on the
careless 10...Ag7 White has 11 £e3. 11 g3 Here 11 £e3? is met by ll...£>g4!,
demonstrating the point of 10...Ah6: f4 is hanging if the bishop moves off
the cl-h6 diagonal. 11...0-0 Now Black will find time to counterattack e4,
e.g. 12 £e3 2e8. C323) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 f4 e5 5 £>f3 exd4
6 Wxd4 c6 7 £e3 d5 7...£.e7?! is too passive, as the game Shirov-Ftacnik,
European Club Cup 1998, illustrates: 8 g4! d5 9 g5 £c5 10 #d3 dxe4 11
£>xe4 £>xe4 12 #xe4+ We7 13 #xe7+ *xe7 14 £d4! £xd4 15 £>xd4 with a
clear plus for White, due to his space advantage and the insecure black
king. 7...1fb6?! is also inadvisable. After 8 0-0-0 #xd4 9 £xd4 White has all
the trumps. 8 e5 £>g4 9 £gl £>h6 A prophylactic retreat. 9...Wb6?! 10 #xb6
axb6 (10...£>xb6 is no better) 11 h3 £>h6 12 g4 (Wells- Oratovsky,
European Club Cup 1999) gives White a clear advantage. 9...£c5?! is too
greedy! After 10 #d2 £xgl 11 flxgl Wb6 12 0-0-0 £>xh2, both 13 £e2 and
13 £>d4 offer a tangible initiative for White. 10Wd2 Or: a) 10 h3?! would
miss the mark, on account of 10...£>f5 and ...£>g3. Generally, if Black
manages to stabilize his knight on f5, by means of ...h5, he will be fine. b)
10 0-0-0 #a5 11 *bl £>b6 (ll...£>f5!? was unclear in Lobzhanidze-
Summerscale, Koop Tjuchem 1996) 12 a3 £g4 13 #d2 £xf3 14 gxf3 £e7.
191
The Philidor Files Black has the better pawn structure, White the bishop
pair and the g-file. Dynamic play is thus required from White in order to
compensate for the long-term weaknesses. We are following W.Watson-
Bauer, German League 1996, which now becomes entertaining: 15 £d3 g6
16 £d4 (16 h4!? was worth considering, but 16...0-0-0 17 h5 £>c4 passes
the initiative to Black) 16...c5 17 £f2 (17 £b5+?! *f8 18 k(2 d4 would lose a
piece) 17...fld8 18 f5! (the tactical stage begins) 18...£>xf5 19 £xf5 gxf5 20
#h6 d4 21 e6! flf8! (21...dxc3? 22 exf7+ <&>xf7 23 Wh5+ with a decisive
assault) 22 flhgl! £>c4 (22...dxc3? would once again be suicidal: 23 exf7+
flxf7 24 flg8+ Jit8 25 #e6+ fle7 26 flxf8+ *xf8 27 flxd8+ *g7 28 flg8 mate;
the text move combines attack and defence) 23 exf7+ flxf7 24 flg8+ *d7 25
flxd8+ #xd8 26 £>d5 #f8 27 #h5 *c6 28 £>f4 £d6 29 £>e6 We8 30 Sel #d7
31 £g3 etc. White soon overstepped the time- limit in a slightly inferior
position. 10...£b4 10...#a5, followed by ...£>b6 or ...£k5, is possible too.
192 11 a3 #a5 12 0-0-0 12 Ad4?!/!? is seemingly a suspicious move. Both
12...£>f5 13 0-0-0 £>xd4 14 axb4 #al+ 15 £>bl £>xf3 16 gxf3, and
12...c5!? 13 #dl! cxd4 14 axb4 #xb4 15 fla4!? (15 £>xd4) 15...#xb2 16
£>xd5 0-0 lead to positions with unclear consequences. 12...ixc3 13 *xc3
Wxc3 14 bxc3 £>b6 I replayed the same ending some years later. The game
in question was blitz (3 minutes each) versus Boris Gel- fand. I knew the
position, he probably didn't, but that didn't prevent him from crushing me!
15*d2 Here 15 h3! £>f5 16 £f2 h5 17 £d3 leads to an edge to White, who is
ready to play g4. 15...£k4+16 £xc4 dxc4 In this equal position, White
should play 17 h3!. In J.Koch-Bauer, French Ch., Auxerre 1996, White,
looking for a plan, erred with 17 £>d4?! and after \7..Ad7 18 flel 0-0-0 19
*cl c5 20 £>f3 White's pieces hadn't progressed, whereas Black had
completed his development and now stood slightly better.

l e4 d6 2 d4 Q>f6 - 3 £>c3 Q>bd7: Introduction and 4 f4 C324) 1 e4 d6 2

d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 f4 e5 5 £>f3 exd4 6 #xd4 c6 7 £e3 d5 8 exd5 After
8 0-0-0!? £c5 9 #d3 #e7 10 e5 <5}g4 the position remains balanced. And 9
#d2 £b4 10 exd5 £>xd5 is also equal: ...0-0 or ...WaS will come soon, when
Black has solved his opening problems. 8...i.c5 9«d3! 9 #d2 looks
suspicious, but matters aren't so clear: 9...We7 10 £>d4 £>g4 (10...£>xd5 11
£>xd5 cxd5 and here 12 £>f5 should be slightly better for White) 11 0-0-0!
#xe3 (ll...£>xe3!? 12 flel 0-0 13 flxe3 #f6) 12 flel £xd4 13 £>dl #xel 14
#xel+ and now 14...*d8 15 dxc6 bxc6 16 #a5+ £b6 17 #g5+ £>gf6 18 #xg7,
or 14...*f8 15 dxc6 (15 d6!?) 15...bxc6 16 We4. In both cases Black has
rook, bishop and knight versus queen and two pawns, but he experiences
difficulties coordinating his forces. 9...#e7 9...cxd5?! would lose dynamism
and concede the advantage without a fight; But 9...0-0?! also seems
insufficient. This move is actually considered to be the main line by Janssen
and Van Rekom in The Lion, who attached a question mark to 9...#e7. After
9...0-0, 10 0-0-0?! is the only continuation examined in the above-
mentioned book, concluding that 10...#b6! 11 £xc5 £>xc5 12 #d4 cxd5 is
okay for Black, which is true. However, I don't clearly sense Black's
compensation after 10 dxc6! fle8 (10...bxc6 11 £xc5 £>xc5 12 #xd8 flxd8
13 £>e5 with a sound extra pawn; or 10...£.xe3 11 cxd7 Wb6 12 dxc8#
flaxc8 13 £>dl when Black certainly has some compensation for the piece,
but I doubt it's enough) 11 £>e5 £xe3 12 cxd7 £xf4 13 dxe8#+ #xe8 14 £e2
£xe5 15 0-0 and White's extra exchange should slowly decide the outcome.
H>£kd4 10 *d2?! is risky after 10...£b4 (\0...Wxe3+?, reaching a dreadful
ending after 11 #xe3+ £xe3+ 12 *xe3 cxd5 13 ^4, would be a sign of
surrender) II dxc6 (11 flel?! £>e4+ 12 *dl £xc3 13 bxc3 cxd5 is excellent
for Black) ll...£.xc3+ 12bxc3£>e4+!... ...preventing flel and keeping the
initiative. 193

The Philidor Files And 12...bxc6!? (Geo.Timoshenko- Oratovsky, Cappelle

la Grande 2000) is reasonable too: 13 flel 0-0 14 £d4 #a3 15 c4 #a5+ 16 #c3
#f5 17 g3 c5 (not 17...£le4+?, which runs into 18 flxe4 #xe4 19 £d3 and
£xg7 with a huge attack) 18 £xf6 £>xf6 19 £d3 Wh3 or 19...Wd7, with full
compensation. 10...£>b6 Boudre-Belkhodja, Creon 2000, saw 10...£>xd5!?
11 £>xd5 cxd5 when White stood a bit better, but not more: 12 0-0-0 0-0
(12...£>f6!?) 13 Qf5 #f6 14 g3 £>b6 15 £>h6+ gxh6 (or 15...#xh6 16 £xc5
Sd8 17 £e2) 16 £xc5 Af5 17 #d4 #c6 18 c3?! (stronger was 18 £d3! £xd3 19
flxd3 flfc8 20 flc3 with an edge: if 20...£>a4? 21 £f8!) 18...flfc8 19 £a3
£>c4 20 £xc4 dxc4 21 flhel fle8 22 #c5 Ag4 23 #xc6 bxc6 24 flxe8+ flxe8
25 fld6 flel+ 26 *c2 fle2+ and peace was agreed. 11 dxc6! One who says 'A',
must say 'B'. 11 0-0-0?! (Sax-Bauer, European Club Cup 2000) is
inconsistent and Black was better after ll...£*bxd5 12 £>xd5 £>xd5 13 £d2
0-0. Here, with more than one hour spent (against 15 minutes) and with an
inferior position, my opponent generously offered a draw! The game
continued 14 £>b3 £b6 15 #g3 (or 15 c4 £>b4 16 #e2 Af5!, threatening ...
£>xa2 mate and forcing 17 £.xb4 #xb4 when Black has the two bishops,
while a draught remains around White's king) 15...£f5 16 £d3 Wf6 17 £xf5
#xf5 18 Wf3 flfe8 19 flhel (19 g4?! #e4 and Black has good chances to
benefit from White's kingside weaknesses) 19...h5! (preventing g2-g4) 20
c4? (20 g3) 20...£>f6 21 £c3 £>g4 22 h3 £>e3 (the drawbacks of White's
position begin to tell) 23 Sd2 Sad8 24 g4 hxg4 25 hxg4 £>xg4 26 flxe8+
flxe8 27 flg2 £e3+ 28 £>d2 £xf4! 29 b3 £xd2+ 0-1. ll...bxc612 £e2 12 0-0-
0!? would temporarily sacrifice material after 12...£a6 13 #d2 £.xfl, but
White has a card up his sleeve: a) 14 flhxfl? £>c4 15 #d3 #xe3+ 16 #xe3+
£>xe3 17 flfel 0-0-0! wins for Black. b) 14 £>f5!?... 194

1 e4 d6 2 d4 <&f6 - 3 &c3 £>bd7: Introduction and 4 f4 ...is playable:

14...£k4!! (the acrobatics continue; not 14...£.xe3? 15 £>xe3 and, because
of the double threat of £>f5 and fihel, Black will have to give back material:
15...£>c4 16 £>xc4 Axc4 17 flhel £e6 18 f5 and White is much better) 15
£xc5 #xc5 16 #d4 (the best; not 16 #el+? *f8 17 #xfl *b4 18 £>a4 [forced)
18...»xa4 19 fld4 #b5 [the final point: f5 is still hanging!] 20 Wxc4 #xf5 21
#xc6 flc8 with only two pawns for the knight) 16...#xd4 17 flxd4 c5 18
flxc4 £xc4 19 £>d6+ *e7 20 £>xc4 and Black stands slightly better, even if
his opponent has fair chances to draw. b) 14 £.f2!!, threatening simply Bel
and flxf 1. 14...£>c4 (14...£.xd4?! is worse: 15 £xd4 £c4 16 flhel £e6 17 f5
with a sizeable plus) 15 Wei £xd4 (if 15...£xg2? 16 £>f5! wins) 16 #xe7+
<&>xe7 17 Bxd4 c5 (to avoid having the knight remain en prise) 18 fldl
^.xg2 19 £xc5+ *e6 20 flhgl (or 20 flhel+) and Black is walking on a
tightrope here, but I believe he should hold. 12...£a6 12...0-0?! 13 £gl! #c7
14 g3 (14 £>e6!? £xe6 15 £xc5 flfd8 16 #g3 was better for White in
Stefanova-Jobava, Saraybahce 2002, but possibly still playable for Black
after 16...£>bd5!) 14...fld8! (14...£h3?! 15 £>e6! gains the bishop pair while
solving the problem of ...£g2; after 15...fxe6 16 £xc5 flfd8 17 Ad4 the pin
was temporary, thanks to the resource Ae5, and White had a clear plus in
J.Howell-Jansa, Lazne Bohdanec 1995; but 14...£>bd5!?, as in Z.Erdelyi-
Mensch, Budapest 2001, also deserves attention) 15 0-0-0. A very similar
position was reached in the miniature J.Polgar-Rivas Pastor, Dos Hermanas
1993, with the significant difference that the bishop stood on fl and White
had the move. Polgar's opponent had erred with 11...0-0 12 0-0-0 bxc6 13
£gl #c7 14 g3 fld8?? and Judit didn't miss (of course!) the decisive 15
£>db5!. (see following diagram) In the position after 15 0-0-0, Black can
improve on that game by playing l5..Ab7. He threatens to take on d4 (which
previously failed to 15...Axd4? 195

The Philidor Files 16 £xd4 c5 17 £e5) and after 16 #f5, 16...Ab4 offers
adequate compensation, mainly due to the x-ray Ab7-flhl. 13 Wd2 £>g4l?
13...£>bd5 14 £>xd5 £>xd5 15 £>f5 £xe3 16 £>xe7 £xd2+ 17 *xd2 *xe7
18 £xa6 £>xf4 19 flhel+ £>e6 20 £c4 was Fressinet-Belkhodja, French Ch.,
Marseilles 2001. Black eventually held this grim ending, but as he is facing
a tough task without winning chances, I'd rather suggest 13...£>g4. 14 £xg4
14 £gl £>c4 15 Qf5 £xgl! 16 flxgl #c5 17 #d4 #xf5 is unclear after 18 0-0-
0!; and note that 18 #xg7? loses 18...#xf4!. Instead, 18 £xc4? fld8 19 0-0-0!
flxd4 20 flgel+ was played in Santo Roman-Bauer, Narbonne 2003, when,
rather than the game continuation 20...*f8 21 flxd4 g6 22 £xa6 £>xh2 with
only a small Black plus, I missed the gorgeous 20...1'e5!!. 14-..£>C4 15
£>f5! 15 £>xc6? £xe3 16 #e2 #c5 is bad for White. 15...ixe3 16 #d3 Or 16
#e2. I6...£d2+17 *f2 Now both 17...#c7 and 17...#c5+ 18 ^3 need tests. This
position is not for the faint-hearted!. Conclusion The main line 4 f4 (along
with 4 g4 of the following chapter) offers tactical complications and
double-edged games. This is also true for the plan £e3, f3, #d2, which often
leads to opposite-side castling and assaults on the kings. 4 g3 is quieter, but
Black seems to have time for completing his development by playing
...Ae7, ...0-0, ...Be8, ...Af8 on the kingside, and ...b6 (or ...b5) and ...$Lb7
on the queenside. He then sometimes threatens the capture with ...exd4,
followed by ...c5, putting pressure on the e4-pawn. In that case White
would rather have his pawn on g4, enabling him to continue with £>g3. As
a general rule I would like to stress that Black should refrain from an early
capture ...exd4, if that doesn't give him anything tangible (such as a quick
...c5, winning e4). 196

Chapter Nine 3 £tc3 "hbdl 4 g4 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £rf6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 g4

White's most aggressive option here. 4...h6 It makes sense to prevent g4-g5,
as 4...e5?! concedes too much space. After 5 g5, both 5...£>g8 and 5...exd4
6 #xd4 £>g4 7 h3 (7 f4!?) 7...£>ge5 8 f4 are equally bad for Black. After
4...h6 we shall look at: A: 5 £>f 3 B: 5 £e3 C:5h3 Alternatives are not as
promising: a) 5 g5?! hxg5 6 Axg5 c6! intends ...#b6/...#a5 and ...e5. Black's
pawn structure already guarantees him a slight edge, for example: 7 f4 HW
8 e5 (8 flbl e5 is fine for Black) 8...#xb2 9 £>ge2 £>d5 10 £>xd5 cxd5
(threatening f6!) 11 e6?! fxe6 12 flbl #a3 and White had nowhere enough
compensation for the two pawns, Berend-Bauer, Dude- lange (rapid) 1997.
6...c5?! is much worse: 7 d5 #a5 8 £d2 a6 9 f4 #c7 10 a4 £>h5 11 #f3 when
Black was lacking space and was gradually outplayed Santo Roman-
G.Grimberg, French Ch., Toulouse 1995. 6...e5 followed by ...Ae7, on the
other hand, is acceptable. b) 5 h4?! intends to recapture on g5 with the
pawn after Ag2, but for this privilege White must use up at least one tempo.
As a consequence this move doesn't really make sense: 5...e5 6 £e3 (for 6
g5 hxg5 7 £xg5, cf. 5 g5?! with h2-h4 played instead of a developing move)
6...c6 7 Ag2 1^6!, 197

The Philidor Files oping move) 6...c6 7 Ag2 1H?6!, intending to meet 8 flbl
with 8...£>xg4! 9 #xg4 exd4. A) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 g4 h6
5&f3 Almost a novelty! This move had been tried once only before, in the
encounter Dementiev-Sergievsky, Moscow 1966. In the main text we are
following the game Vaisser-Bauer, French Ch., Besancon 1999- 5..e5 I
quickly rejected ..Axg4 as being too dangerous, which is confirmed by the
following continuation: 5...£>xg4? 6 h3 £>gf6 7 e5 £>h7 8 e6 fxe6 9 £d3. I
stopped here, assuming that my position was 'not cool'! Oratovsky carries
on a bit with 9...*f7 (9...£>df6?? 10 £g6+ *d7 11 £>e5+) 10 £>h4 £>df6 11
£>g6 2g8 12 flgl with the nasty threat of £>e5+ (or £>h8+) and £g6 mate.
White has obviously compromised himself and there is no way back. For 6
Hgl see Chapter 10. 6...hxg5 7 £>xg5 exd4 8 #xd4 c6 9 £f4 9 £c4?! £>e5 10
£b3? £>h7 deflects the knight from its defensive function, the control of f3.
9-..£>g4 Profiting from the immunity of d6, since the g5-knight is hanging.
Black plans to transfer a knight to e5 before repelling the enemy pieces.
io£e2 If 10 0-0-0 #b6 11 #xb6 (11 £c4 £>de5 12 f3 #xd4 13 flxd4 £>xc4 14
flxc4 £>e5 followed by ...f6) ll...axb6 12 fld2 £>de5 13 f3 f6 is slightly
better for Black. 10...Wb6 Black has two pawn islands; his opponent has
three. White should thus look for tactics and can't be too happy with the
trade of queens. llBdl Or 11 #xb6 £>xb6 (covering g4) 12 £.xg4 (to prevent
the knight from becoming a 'monster' on e5) 12...Axg4 13 flgl £.h5! and
Black keeps an edge. ll...Wxd4 12 2xd4 £>de5 13 £g3 f6 14 £>f3 £e615 0-0
15 £k!2!?, intending to chase the knights by playing f3 and/or f4, was 198

1 e4 d6 2 d4 2>f6 - 3 &c3 &bd7 4 g4 probably a better defence than the

game continuation, since Black's knights can't occupy e5 simultaneously.
15-.g5! Securing the outpost on e5. 16 flfdl Now, or at move 20, it was
necessary to improve the knight's prospects by carrying out the manoeuvre
£>c3- dl-e3. 16...£txf3+ 17 £xf3 £>e5 18 £e2 £e7 19 a4 as 20 b4? Seeking
counterplay, but White falls out of the frying pan and into the fire. Seeing
that he had blundered, my opponent offered to split the point! Instead, 20
flel, with the idea £>dl- e3, was stronger. 20...axb4 21 2xb4 £x8! 22 2bd4
2a 5 23 £>bl 2c5 This manoeuvre was designed to prevent the activation of
the white knight. After 23...*d8!? 24 £>d2 I had the feeling that White
would gain counter-chances by playing £>b3, a5, c4-c5, but this is
deceptive and following 24...*c7 25 £>b3 fla7 26 a5 £e6 Black has a large
advantage. 24 c4 2a5 25 £>c3 Now that the knight was stuck covering a4, I
was able to transfer the king to c7 and attack the weakness on c4. 25...*d8
26 f3 *c7 27 £el 2a8 28 as £e6 29 £>a4 Losing a pawn. 29 flbl was more
tenacious. 29...C5 30 &4d2 £xc4 31 £>b6 If 31 £xc4 £>xc4 32 fla2 £>xa5
33 £>c3 (or 33 £>xc5 dxc5 34 flxa5 flxa5 35 £xa5+ *c6 and Black wins)
33...&C6 34 £>d5 £d8 35 fldal b6 with a clear advantage. 31...£xe2 32
£>xa8+ 2xa8 33 &xe2 £>xf3+ 34 *g2 £>xel+ 35 fiexel 2xa5 199

The Philidor Files With three pawns for the exchange, the rest isn't too
difficult. 36 Hal 2b5 37 Bebl Bxbl 38 fixbl *c6 39 *f3 C4 40 *e3 b5 41 2fl
£d8 42 *d4 £b6+ 43 *c3 £a5+ 44 *C2 b4 45 2xf6 b3+ 46 *b2 *c5 47 *a3 Or
47 flf5+ *b4 48 flxg5 c3+ 49 *bl £b6 50 flg3 £d4 51 h4 c2+ 52 *cl <&a3.
47...£d2 48 2f5+ *d4 49 fld5+ *C3 50 2xd6 £cl+ 51 *a4 b2 52 2b6 £e3 53
2b5 £c5 54 e5 £e7 0-1 The transition from the opening to the queenless
middlegame was brief and in Black's favour. With such an animal on e5
Black was fine, and he was able to profit from the g-pawn's advance. B) 1
e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 g4 h6 5£e3 A clever move order if White
intends to continue aggressively with the f3, #d2, 0-0-0 set-up. Indeed,
White has provoked ...h6, which will help him open files on the kingside.
5...C6 5...e5 first is more common: a) After 6 f3 c6 7 #d2 £e7 8 £>ge2 Wd7
9 0-0-0 b5 the position was tense and offered chances for both sides in
Hamdouchi-Campora, Santo Antonio 1999. b) 6 h3 c6 7 a4 and now: bl)
7..Ae7 8 £>ge2 d5! (the passive 8...£>f8?! 9 f4 £>e6 10 f5 £>g5 11 £g2 was
clearly better for White in Kasimdzhanov-J.Petrov, World Junior Ch., Halle
1995) 9 exd5 cxd5 10 dxe5 £>xe5 with level chances. b2) In comparison
with the standard position (Ag2 instead of Ae3), Black has an extra option
in 7...d5!?. After 8 exd5 cxd5 9 dxe5 £>xe5 he has to accept an isolated
pawn, but the moves a4 and g4 have generated weaknesses in White's
camp. 6 £g2 e5 7 h3 b5 8 a3! £b7 9 £>ge2 a5 I0£>g3 10...exd4? Bad
timing: Black doesn't attack e4 sufficiently and thus isn't ready for this
exchange. Instead, he should play either 10...g6! with the idea 11 0-0 h5, or
10...b4!?. llWxd4c512Wd2b4? 12...£c6 13 0-0 g6 doesn't lose by 200

1 e4 d6 2 d4 *hf6 - 3 &c3 £>bd7 4 g4 force, but Black's prospects are pretty

grim! 13 £>b5 £>e5 14 b3 Wb6 15 a4 0-0-0 16 C4g6 The alternative
16...h5 17 g5 h4 18 gxf6 hxg3 19 fxg3 gxf6 20 0-0 is clearly better for
White. 17 0-0 h5 18 g5 £«819 f4 £>c6 20 Badl Black is now lost from a
strategical point of view: he lacks space and has no satisfactory means of
creating coun- terplay. 20...ig7 21 Wf2 £>b8 22 h4 £>a6 23 2d3 f6 24 f5!
fxg5 25 ixg5 £>f6 26 Wf4 d5 27 exd5 Bhe8 28 fxg6 £>g4 29 £>xh5 £>e5
30 £h3+ *b8 31 £>xg7 1-0 (Eliet-Philippe, French League 2000) This was a
massacre, due mainly to Black's erroneous 10th move. He prematurely
released the central tension and in doing so lost any hope of coun- terplay.
C) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 g4 h6 5h3 Covering g4 so that White
can develop the gl-knight. 5...e5 Now White can play: Cl: 6 £g2 C2:6
£>ge2 Cl) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £tf6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 g4 h6 5 h3 e5 6 £g2 Preventing
the idea of 6...b5, and offering Black an opportunity to go wrong! 6...C6
6...exd4?! again releases the central tension too early, as the white queen
will be ideally placed. Topalov-Izeta Txabarri, Madrid 1993, continued 7
#xd4 g6 8 £e3 £g7 9 #d2! (preventing ...0-0, which would suit Black well)
9...£>b6 10 b3 d5 11 fldl c6 12 £>ge2 £e6 13 £>f4 g5?! (in order not to lose
d5 or enter an inferior endgame after 13...dxe4 14 #xd8+ flxd8 15 flxd8+
*xd8 16 £>xe6+ fxe6 17 £>xe4 which, given the turn of events, was the
lesser evil) 14 £>xe6 fxe6 15 0-0 #e7 (15...#d7 intends ...0-0-0, but 16 a4!
forbids this due to 16...0-0-0? 17 a5 £>a8 18 £xa7) 16 exd5 £>bxd5 17
£>xd5 £>xd5 (17...cxd5 18 f4! with a powerful attack was also a 201

The Philidor Files disaster for Black) 18 c4 £>xe3 19 fxe3!. In this almost
symmetrical position Black is lost on account of his weak king. There
followed 19...Sf8 20 #d3 flf6 21 flxf6 Axf6 22 #g6+ #f7 23 #xf7+ *xf7 24
fld7+ £e7 25 flxb7 fld8 26 £xc6 fldl+ 27 *g2 fld2+ 28 *f3 flxa2 29 *e4 if6
30 ie8 fla5 31 b4 fla3 32 c5 a5 33 c6 flc3 34 bxa5 £c5 35 flf7+ *g6 36 flf5+
*g7 37 flxc5 flxc5 38 a6 1- 0. 7 £>ge2 b5 8 a3! 8 £>g3 g6 9 Ae3 £b7 10 0-
0?! (this was the last chance to play a3) 10...h5 11 g5 £>h7 12 h4 f6 13
£>xh5 b4 (the reason why I would have preferred to insert the move pair a3,
...a5, as in the main text, becomes apparent: White would have played axb4
...axb4, flxa8, forbidding long castling...) 14 dxe5 dxe5 15 £>a4 fxg5 16
hxg5 £>xg5 17 £>g3 #f6 18 #g4 £>f7 19 flfdl £c8 (...and making this
impossible) 20 #f3 Wh4 21 £>fl £>f6 22 #g3 Wh5 23 fld2 £e7 24 WK2
#xh2+ 25 £>xh2 £>d6 26 fle2 £a6 27 fleel £b5 28 b3 £xa4 29 bxa4 £>c4 30
£cl £c5 31 M\ £>d6 32 fle2 £>dxe4 and Black won a few moves later in
A.Ivanov-Kacheishvili, Philadelphia 1998. 8...£b7 9 0-0 a5 10 £>g3 10...g6
10...#c7 11 £e3 (11 £>ce2!?) Il...g6 12 f4 h5?! (customary in this type of
position, but inappropriate here; better was 12...exd4 13 #xd4 £g7 with
mutual chances) 13 g5 h4 14 gxf6? (14 £>ge2! was much stronger, leading
to a clear plus for White after 14...£>h5 (14...£>h7!?l 15 d5 or 15 f5)
14...hxg3 15 fxe5 dxe5 16 d5 £>b6! 17 #f3 £>c4 18 £cl £c5+ 19 *hl £f2!
and Black seized the initiative in Fernandez Romero-Bauer, San Sebastian
2006. 10...g6 seems a tad better, as Black can hardly do without this move
in the long run. Il£e3 11 f4!? needs further tests and could well reveal itself
to be more effective: U..Ag7 (ll...exd4?! is tempting, but 12 #xd4 d5 13 *h2
£c5 14 #dl d4 15 £>ce2, and 13 #f2 d4 14 £>ce2 c5 15 fldl are probably in
White's favour) 12 Ae3 exd4 (12...#e7) 13 £xd4 0-0 with a complex game,
in which Black is ready 202

1 e4 d6 2 d4 fo/6 - 3 &c3 £>bd7 4 g4 to meet the breakthrough 14 e5 with

14...dxe515fxe5£>e8. Il...h5! Forcing White to weaken his king- side,
before opening it up. The game Fontaine-Mensch, French League 2001,
continued as follows: 12 g5 Otherwise 12...hxg4 13 hxg4 £>h7, followed by
...Wh4. 12...£>h7 13 h4 f614 dxe5 Or immediately 14 £>xh5, which doesn't
seem to change much. 14...dxe5 15 £>xh5 fxg5 16 £h3 £x8 16...Wc7,
planning to castle long, was worth considering, but the text move is correct.
Here is Mensch's analysis: (16...#c7) 17 £xg5 £>xg5 18 Wxd7+ (keeping
queens on the board would be dangerous for White: i.e. 18 £xd7+? <&>e7
19 hxg5 flxh5 and the white monarch is exposed) \8...Wxd7 19 £xd7+ *xd7
(or 19...*e7!?) 20 £>f6+ &e6 21 hxg5 Ae7 with an equal position.
17#f3gxh4?? A decisive mistake in a balanced position. Stronger is
\7...We7\ 18 £xg5 £>xg5 19 £xd7+ *d8! 20 hxg5 #xg5+ 21 #g3 #xg3+!
(21...#xh5 22 *g2 £xd7 23 fihl £h3+ 24 flxh3 #xh3+ 25 #xh3 flxh3 26 *xh3
would also be adequate) 22 £>xg3 £xd7 with an edge for Black. l8Wg4!
l8...We7 After 18...gxh5? the swift 19 #g6+ <&>e7 20 1^6 mate would
have shortened the agony. 19 #xg6+ Wf7 20 #xc6 Wxh5 21 Wxa8 *d8 22
£xd7 *xd7 23 fladl+ £d6 24 ih2 £>f6 25 f3 Bg8 26 £>xb5 £>e8 27 £>xd6
£>xd6 28 Hxd6+ *e7 29 Wa7+ *xd6 30 ic5+ *C6 31 *b6+ 1-0 C2) 1 e4 d6
2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 g4 h6 5 h3 e5 6 £>ge2 Delaying Ag2 and playing
for d4- d5. 6...C6 6...b5!? profits from the fact that e4 is not covered by a
bishop on g2: 7 Ag2 Jib7 8 a3 c6 5 h3 e5 6 £>ge2 b5 and Black has avoided
the line with 7 a4. And 7 £>xb5 £>xe4 is more or less okay for Black: if 8
dxe5 £>xe5 9 #d5?? £>f3+10*dl£>xf2mate... 203

The Philidor Files ...is amusing, isn't it? 7...£.b7?!, on the other hand, is
probably dubious on account of 8 f3 d5 (after 8...£>xe4? 9 fxe4 #h4+ 10
*d2 £.xe4 11 Hgl and Black has no real compensation for the sacrificed
piece) 9 exd5! £xd5 10 £g2 with the same diagnosis as after 8.. Axe4. 7 a4
slows down Black's counter- play on the queenside, thus gaining time for
operations on the other wing. I don't think there is much difference between
playing a4 now, or waiting for Black's ...b5 and answering with a3; White
must move his a-pawn sooner or later: a) 7...a5?! 8 £g2 £e7 9 £e3 £>h7 10
0-0 Ag5 11 f4 was clearly better for White in Damaso-Strikovic, Dos Her-
manas (online blitz) 2004. b) 7...d5?! 8 exd5 cxd5 9 dxe5 £>xe5 10 £g2 is
slightly better for White. c) 7..±e7V. 8 £g2 0-0 (or 8...Qf8 9 f4 £>g6 10 0-0
with an edge for White) 9 0-0 fle8 10 £e3 with a slight plus for White, who
has an improved version of a g3 system (Shengelia-Chibukhchian, Batumi
2001). d) 7...b6 is more urgent than 7...$Le7, even though with the latter
move Black can consider the manoeuvre ...£>f8-g6, preceded or not by
...g5: 8 £g2 (8 £e3 £b7 9 £g2 #c7 10 0-0 a6 11 #d2 g5 was unclear in
P.Herb-Schrepp, German League 1998) 8...£b7 with a similar position to
Ivanov-Kacheishvili and Fontaine-Mensch. 7...b5 8 a3 £b7 9£>g3 Hector-
Bauer, European Team Ch., Leon 2001, continued 9 £g2 a5 10 d5 b4 (I
rejected 10...#b8 due to 11 b4, fearing that b5 might become a concern after
0-0, #d3, dxc6 etc.) 11 dxc6 £xc6 12 £>d5 #b8 (this is identical to the main
text, except that the knight stands on e2 and the bishop on g2, rather than g3
and fl respectively: on one hand White can castle more quickly, but on the
other he would have preferred his bishop to be on c4) 13 #d2 bxa3! (logical,
but I don't see an alternative anyway) 14 bxa3 (a surprise, as I expected 14
b3 a4 15 b4 £>xd5 16 exd5 Ab5 when everything is in order for Black;
Hector's move aims 204
1 e4 d6 2 d4 *hf6 - 3 &c3 &bd7 4 g4 at exploiting the open b-file at the cost
of a shattered pawn structure) 14...£.xd5 15 exd5 £e7 16 0-0 (here 16 £>g3
seemed critical to me: 16...£d817 £>f5 *f8 18 0-0 £b619 flabl #c7... ...and
Black has nothing to complain about: after the bishop swap the d7- knight
may jump to c5, while the f5- knight can be driven back by...g6) 16...0-0 17
£>g3 flc8 18 £xh6!? (enough for a draw but not more) 18...gxh6 19 #xh6
flc4 (19...£f8? keeps the extra piece but the white attack is too dangerous:
20 #g5+ *h8 21 Wh4+ £>h7 22 £e4 £>df6 23 £d3 with threats £>e4 and g5)
20 £>f5? (20 #g5+ *h8 [20...*f8 21 #h6+ *e8? - 21...*g8! - 22 g5 £>g8 23
#g7 with a big edge] 21 1^4+!, and as 21...£>h7? drops the e7-bishop,
Black has to consent to a draw with 21...<&g8) 20...£f8 21 #g5+ *h8 22
flfbl #a7 (eyeing f2) 23 flb5 flb8 24 if 1 flf4 and I converted my advantage
on move 40. 9...a5 10 d5 b4 11 dxc6 £xc6 12 £>d5 Wb8! 12...£>xd5?! is
usually a desirable swap (compare pawn structures), but it's realized in
unfavourable circumstances here, and 13 exd5 £b7 14 £b5 offers an edge to
White; or 12...Axd5? 13exd5#b814a4. 13 34 Black was intending ...bxa3.
White's choice keeps the game more complicated than 13 axb4!? axb4 14
flxa8 £.xa8 15 $Ld, reaching a simplified position in which Black must still
be precise: 15...£>xd5 (15...g6?! 16 £>xf6+ £>xf6 17 #f3 £e7 18 g5 hxg5
19 £xg5 #d8 20 £xf6 £xf6 21 #b3 and a pawn falls, although Black gains
some play in return) 16 £xd5 £>f6 17 £xa8 #xa8 18 #d3 #c6 19 0-0 h5 20
Sal hxg4 21 fla6 #b7 22 fla7 #c6 and White should perhaps repeat moves,
even if he looks better. (23 #b3!? d5 24 hxg4 £d6 would be double-edged.)
13-.Wb7 13...£xd5?! 14 exd5 #b7 is met by 15 £.c4 with the idea of
embedding the bishop on c6, after having overpro- tected d5 by means of
#d3 and fldl. 14 £c4 g6 Removing f5 from the white knight and preparing
...Ag7. The position is level and will remain so for a while. 205

The Philidor Files The game Dgebuadze-Belkhodja, Cap- pelle la Grande

2001, continued: 15 Wd3 ixd5 16 £xd5 £>xd5 17 exd5 Oft 18 Bdl ig7 19
Wd2 Wd7 20 b3 h5 21 g5 £>g8 22 £>e4 £>e7 23 Wd3 Both camps have
carried out their manoeuvres. The position is rather closed and has a
drawish character. 23».£kf5 24 &d2 0-0 25 *Cl 2tc8 26 ibl 2ab8 27 We2
We7 28 fld3 flb7 29 flcl Wd7 30 Wfl ih8 31 We2 if8 32 £>f6 Wd8 33 flgl
£g7 34 £>e4 fle7 35 2dWd7 36Wfl^d4 ...and Black takes his chance! 37
£xd4 exd4 38 Wg2 2e5 39 f4 flee8 40 2cdlWe7 4l£td2 Or 41 flxd4!? £xd4
42 flxd4 with compensation. 41...*g8 42 Wf3 2c3 43 flxc3 bxc3 44 £>C4
Wc7 45 f5 Bb8 46 *a2 2b4 47 &a3 ie5 48 fxg6 fxg6 49 £>b5 We7 50 h4
ig7 51 Wd3 *h7 52 flfl We5 53 £>c7 2b7 54£*6Wxd5 55£>f4 Here 55
£>xg7! flxg7 (55...*xg7?? 56 flf6) 56 flf4, followed by 57 flxd4, would have
favoured White because of the weak c3- and d6-pawns. 55...Wf5 56 Wxf5
gxf5 57 £>xh5 d3 58 cxd3 £e5 59 £>f4 2b4 60 £>g2 *g6 Now White's
pieces are bound to passivity, rendering the defence tough. 61 £>el 2xh4 62
£>f3 flb4 63 flcl £g7 64 d4 ixd4 65 £>xd4 flxd4 66 Hxc3 *xg5 67 flc8 f4 68
flg8+ *f5 69 *b2 f3 70 2f8+ *g4 71 2g8+ *h3 72 2h8+ *g3 73 &C3 f2 74
*xd4 flW 75 2g8+ <&h4 76 flh8+ ig5 77 flb8 Wa6 78 *d5 *f6 79 2f8+ *e7
80 2b8 *d7 0-1 Conclusion The aggressive approach with 4 g4, profiting
from the temporarily closed c8-h3 diagonal, usually leads to complex
positions with few early exchanges. After Black's best move, 4...h6, White
should objectively refrain from sacrificing his g-pawn, a la Shirov, and
instead opt for a more flexible set-up with h3, £g2, £>ge2-g3, £e3 etc. In
general Black is well advised not to release the central tension with ...exd4,
unless he has a good reason and a concrete follow-up. In summary,
Chapters 8 and 9 have shown that Black finds adequate coun- terplay in the
lines arising after 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7. 206

Chapter Ten Introduction and 5 g4 r*j m m m m mmm i M m...,m&m m m

izj i... _ , mm m±m 1 e4 <J6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 The third
and final section of this book deals with the main position of the Philidor
Defence, which can be reached via the various move orders from Parts 1
and 2: 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 £>f6 4 £>c3 £>d7, or 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3
£>c3 e5 4 £>f3 £>bd7, or 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5. The
overwhelmingly popular choice for White from this position is 5 Ac4,
which is the subject of Chapters 11-14. In this chapter we will take a look at
the less common moves, including the dangerous 5 g4. White can play:
A:5g3 B:5g4 Alternatives do not hit really the target: a) 5 Ae2?! is too mild
to give White a chance to fight for an edge. Why should he restrict his
bishop to e2 when it is obviously better placed on c4 - ? The same remark
applies to 5 Ad3. b) 5 dxe5?! prematurely releases the central tension, thus
losing any chance to claim an edge. 5...dxe5 6 Ac4 Ab4 7 0-0 c6 is fine for
Black. 7...0-0 is equally sufficient to equalize, but is less ambitious! c) 5
Ag5?! is a falsely aggressive move that has no strategic foundation. Black
equalizes by simply finishing his development, e.g. 5...Ae7, ...c6, ...0-0, etc.
Here's an example where he even quickly takes the ascendancy: 5...c6 6 #d2
£e7 7 a4 0-0 8 £c4 exd4 9 #xd4 £k:5 10 e5 dxe5 11 #xe5 (11 #xd8 flxd8 12
£>xe5 Ae6, with an equal position, was better) ll...Ae6 12 £xf6 £xf6 13
#xc5 £e7 14 #d4 #xd4 15 £>xd4 £xc4 and the pair of bishops dictated in
S.Rocha-Oratovsky, Lisbon 2000. d) 5 d5?! would be excellent if White
could follow up with c2-c4. Indeed, after ...c6 and a subsequent ...cxd5, it
would be desirable to recapture with cxd5. Here, however, while Black
continues 207

The Philidor Files with ...c6, ..Ae7 and ...0-0 (and then ...£>c5 or ...cxd5,
depending on the situation), White doesn't have any real plan. A) 1 e4 d6 2
d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5g3 This is almost an inaccuracy, given
that the fianchetto is less effective with a knight placed on the f3-square
rather than e2. 5...£e7 The creative 5...b6!? was tested in Telljohann-Kosten,
German League 1997. Weakening c6 looks unsound at first sight, but it
seems that White can't benefit from this. There followed 6 dxe5 dxe5 7 £b5
£d6 (7...£b4!? 8 £>xe5 #e7 is unclear) 8 £c6 £a6!? (an exchange sacrifice
that suits Kosten's active style well) 9 Ag5 (cautious; taking up the gauntlet
would have forced White to switch to defence after 9 Axa8 #xa8 10 £>d2 0-
0 or 10...£b4!?, when Black's pieces are very active) 9...0-0 10 £xd7 #xd7
11 £xf6 gxf6 12 £>h4 with an unclear position, the game eventually ending
in a draw. 6 ig2 0-0 7 0-0 C6 8 34 #C7?! This was foolish. The automatic
...Be8 and ...Af8 was, of course, more to the point, aiming to put pressure
on e4 in some cases. Black would then have a comfortable game, since the
white f-pawn can't move. 9 h3 b610 ie3 2e8 11 £>d2! Planning to jump to
c4 in the right circumstances, but above all to allow the f4-push. Il...a6 12
g4 h6 13 f4 £b7 14 £>e2 White keeps some flexibility in his position. The
direct 14 g5 doesn't succeed, but only if Black remains very careful: a)
After 14...exd4? 15 £xd4 (not 15 gxf6? £xf6) 15...hxg5 16 fxg5 £>h7 Black
has gained the important square e5. He is ready to install a knight there,
while leading the White attack isn't that easy. Nevertheless, White is
practically winning here! 17 Wh5 £>xg5 18 h4 c5 19 hxg5 cxd4 20 #xf7+
*h8 21 £>d5 £xd5 22 Wh5+ *g8 23 exd5 and £e4 is going to cause
devastation. Note that 17...g6? is met by... 208

The Philidor Han ...18 #xh7+!! *xh7 19 flxf7+ *g8 20 flg7+*f8 21flfl+. b)
14...exf4!? 15 £xf4 hxg5 16 £xg5 and now 16...c5!, aiming to gain the e5-
square, is a vital move, after which Black is okay. c) 14...hxg5 15 fxg5
£>h7 16 Wh5 g6 with a double-edged position. 14...£f8 15 £>g3 exd4 16
£xd4 C5 17 if2 2ad8? A mistake which will enable White to prevent the
...d5-thrust forever. Instead, 17...d5 18 e5 £>h7 is messy: Black will get rid
of the e-pawn by playing ...f6, while the pile of white pieces on the kingside
isn't that frightening. 18 c4! £>b8 19 Bel £>c6 20 £>bl £>a5 21 #C2 g6 22
b3 £g7 23 £>C3 This is like a Benoni (White having a pawn on c4 rather
than d5) that has gone wrong for Black. White's prospects are better both in
the centre (d5 is weak) and on the kingside. Galdunts- Bauer, Bischwiller
1997, continued: 23...£>c6 24 fladl Wb8 25 £>ge2 £>b4 26 Wbl Wa8 27
ih4 fld7 28 &d5 £xd5 29 cxd5 b5 30 axb5 axb5 31 £>c3 Wb8 32 am
Variation - Introduction and 5 g4 32...C4? Black should play 32...fla7, with
the idea of exchanging knights with ...£>a2. This would diminish the
pressure on b5 and simultaneously increase the pressure on e4. 33 bxc4
bxc4 34 ifl Wc8 35 £f2 flde7 36 £>b5 *b8 After 36...£>xe4 37 flxe4 flxe4
38 £ixd6, the c4-pawn falls, leaving White with an extra passed pawn. 37
£>xd6 Wxd6 38 e5 Wb8 39 exf6 Bxel 40 ixel ixf6 41 #xc4 £>xd5 A
practical decision, but Sergey was up the task. 42 #xd5 Wxf4 43 Wd2 We5
44 £f2 ig7 45 Wd6 h5 46 #xe5 2xe5 47 *g2 hxg4 48 hxg4 Has 49 Bd7 2a4
50 £e2 £e5 51 £dl 2b4 52 £.C5 flf4 53 Bd5 ■&X3 54 *g3 2e4 55 2d7 £e5+
56 *f3 2f4+ 57 *e3 flfl 58 £b3 £b2 59 £c4 2f6 60 *e4 £c3 61 flb7 £al 62 £e3
£c3 63 £g5 2f2 64 £f4 g5 65 £e3 flb2 66axf7+*g6 67nf51-0 My error on
move eight led to an unappealing position. My opponent found the correct
plan (11 £>d2 and 13 f4), and never let the advantage slip. 209

The Philidor Files B) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5g4 A wild

attempt to disturb Black's serene set-up. As is usually the case in similar
circumstances, Black has the choice between taking up the gauntlet
(5...£>xg4), a solid alternative (5...h6), and... panic (the rest)! We shall
consider: Bl: 5..h6 B2: 5...g6!? B3: 5~£>xg4!? Or: 5...exd4?! Giving up the
centre isn't an advisable reaction to White's aggressive move. Forecasting
g4-g5, Black hurries to make d7 available for the f6-knight, but this passive
approach cedes the initiative without a fight. 6£kxd4 6 #xd4?! (Kochetkova-
Chelushkina, Saint Vincent 2005) is unjustified. After 6...£>xg4, followed
by ...£>de5 or ...£>ge5, White has absolutely nothing for the sacrificed
pawn. 6...£>c5 7 g5 Logical, but 7 £b5+!? and 7 f3 are interesting too; for
example, 7 f3 £>xg4!?/?! 8 fxg4 Wh4+ 9 <&d2 #g5+ 10 *e2 £xg4+ 11 £>f3
with an edge. 7-£>fd7 7...£>fxe4?! leads to at least a pleasant ending for
White after 8 #e2 d5 (8...#e7? 9 £>d5 loses on the spot) 9 f3 £>e6! 10
£>xe6 £>xc3 11 £>xg7+ *d7 12 #e5! #e7 13 £h3+ *d8 14 #xe7+ *xe7
15£>f5+£xf516.fc.xf5. 8ie3 This was played in Gongora Reyes- Moldovan,
Marin 2004.1 don't see how Black will manage to generate counter-
chances. Bl) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5g4 It's worth
noticing that the move order 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 g4 h6 5
£>f3 e5 leads to the same position but forces Black into the 5...h6 line.
5-..h6 6 g5 On 6 flgl, Black should play the useful 6...c6!, rather than
6...exd4?!. 6...hxg5 7 £>xg5 210

The Philidor Hanham Variation - Introduction and 5 g4 7 £xg5!? £e7 8 #d2

c6 (8...exd4?! is again misguided: 9 £>xd4 £>c5 10 f3 and here the
combination 10...£>fxe4 11 £xe7 £>xd2 12 £xd8 £>xfl 13 £xc7 culminates
in a White edge) 9 0-0-0 b5 (D.Recuero Guerra-F.Remoli Sargues,
Mondariz 2004), and now White could have netted a pawn with 10 £.xf6
£.xf6 11 d5! b4 12 dxc6 bxc3 13 cxd7+ £xd7 14 #xc3, although the position
would remain unclear. Instead 9...1i'a5 or 9...Wc7 is more solid and gives a
roughly equal position. After 7 £>xg5, I believe 7...exd4! 8 #xd4 c6 (cf.
Vaisser-Bauer, Chapter 9, Line A) to be the best reply, but 7...c6 looks fairly
acceptable as well: 8 dxe5 £>xe5 9 f4 (RJames-I.Heppell, Paignton 2004),
and here 9...£>h7! is a powerful resource: 10 £>f3 (not 10 £>xh7?? Wh4+)
10...£>xf3+ 11 #xf3 Wh4+ 12 #g3 £>f6 with fine play for Black. But
7..Ae7? (B.Filipovic-A.Jurkovic, Zadar 2003) is probably too risky: 8 £c4
0-0 9 flgl c6 10 d5 b5 11 £b3 b4 12 dxc6 bxc3 13 cxd7 cxb2 (13...£xd7) 14
dxc8# bxcl* and here 15 £xf7+! would have won on the spot. B2) 1 e4 d6 2
d4 £>f6 3 £>C3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5g4g6!? A reasonable move, even though
it is probably not the best reply to 5 g4. Black is mixing prophylaxis (the
knight won't be hanging on h5) and constructive development (putting the
bishop on g7). 6g5 6 h3 and 6 £.c4 are interesting, if less logical options.
For example, 6 Ac4 and now: a) 6...£.g7?! gives White realistic chances to
emerge out of the opening with an edge: 7 dxe5 dxe5 8 g5 £>h5 9 £e3; or 8
£e3 (N.Ristic-V.Rabrenovic, Serbian Team Ch. 2004), with the idea
8...£>xg4 9 £xf7+ *xf7 10 £>g5+. b) 6...exd4! 7 #xd4 (7 £>xd4 £>e5)
7..±g7 8 £xf7+? (P.Roth-C.Weiss, Austrian Ch., Hartberg 2004) is wrong,
since after 8...<&xf7 9 £>g5+ *e8 10 £>e6 £>e5 Black keeps his extra
piece. 6...£>h5 7 £e3 £g7 8 Wd2 0-0 9 0-0-0 f5?! If 9...c6? 10 dxe5! dxe5
11 #d6 (but not 11 £h3? #a5 12 £xd7 fld8 and suddenly Black's game is
acceptable) 211

The Philidor Files ll...#a5 12 £>d2 and White was much better, mainly
because the enemy queen had no suitable square, in Abergel- Beudaert,
Evry 2005. A sounder option, crucial for the validity of 5...g6, is 9...£>b6!
intending 10 dxe5 £g4 11 £e2. Now both ll...£>c4 12 £xc4 £xf3 13 exd6
and ll...£.xf3 12 £xf3 £>c4 13 #e2 £>xe3 14 #xe3 £xe5 15 £xh5 £xc3 look
playable for Black. lOexfs 10...2xf5 10...gxf5?! is clearly inadequate after
11 dxe5 dxe5 (or ll...£>xe5 12 £>xe5 £xe5 13 £c4+ *h8 14 f4 £g7 15 £e2
and Black faces major problems) 12 £c4+ *h8 13 £e6 We7 14 £xd7, when
both 14...f4 15 £xc8 fxe3 16 #xe3 and 14...fld8 15 £>d5 #xd7 16 £>xc7 are
equally disastrous for Black. Il£e2 The simplest but 11 dxe5 (Lastin-
Azmaiparashvili, FIDE World Ch., Tripoli [rapid] 2004) was no picnic for
Black either: ll...£*xe5 12 £>xe5 £xe5 13 £c4+ *h8 14 *bl (14 £>e2!?)
14...£d7 (here 14...£>f4! was probably stronger: 15 £>d5 £>xd5 16 £xd5 c6
17 £e4 Hf7 18 £d4 and then 18...#c7, 18...#e7 or 18...#f8 may be tenable)
15 flhel £c6 (or 15...£>f4 16 £d4!, intending 16...#xg5 17 £>e4 We7 18
£>g3 with a clear plus) 16 Ae6 flf3! (otherwise f2- f4 comes with great
effect) 17 Ag4 flxe3 (a nice exchange sacrifice, dictated by necessity) 18
#xe3 £>f4 19 A.B *xg5 20 £>d5 (20 £xc6! bxc6 21 #e4 would still have left
White on top) 20...£xd5! 21 £xd5 c6 22 £hl #f6 and so on. Il...£>f412 £xf4
2xf4 12...exf4 13 h4 £>f8 14 h5 isn't glorious for Black either. Even without
his dark-squared bishop, White can create serious attacking chances. 13
dxe5 dxe5 \3...Wi8 is no improvement because of 14 e6! (not 14 £>d5?
Bxf3 15 £>xc7 £.xe5 with complications) 14...£.xc3 15 bxc3! (the queen
should focus on the f4-rook; not 15 #xc3? £>c5) 15...Sxf3 16 e7 #xe7 17
£xf3 and Black can resign. 14 We 3 White enjoys great superiority in this
position. Indeed, Black has big problems finishing his development, and his
king is quite vulnerable. 212

The Philidor Hanham Variation - Introduction and 5 g4 B3) 1 e4 d6 2 d4

£>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5g4^xg4!?6agl 6 £.c4? is bad on account of
the simple 6...exd4 (Sanchez Dolado- Galzagorri Uli, Erandio 2003), when
7 £xf7+? fails to 7...*xf7 8 £>g5+ *g8 9 #xg4 £>f6 or 9...£>e5. 6...£kgf6 In
the event of 6...exd4!?, White gets sufficient compensation for the pawn
after 7 £>xd4 (or even 7 #xd4!? £>ge5 8 £e2 £>xf3+ 9 £xf3 £>e5 10 £e2
when White is ready for £e3, 0-0-0 and then f4 or £>d5, Garcia Benavides-
Suuronen, Calvia 2004) and now: a) 7...£>ge5? leads to unnecessary
problems for Black after 8 £.g5, with a further split: al) 8...f6? 9 £>e6 #e7
10 £>d5 wins. a2) 8...£>f6 9 £xf6 gxf6 (ugly, but forced, as 9...#xf6? allows
10 £>d5 #d8 11 £>b5) 10 fltf or 10 f4, and it is obvious that White's
position is to be preferred. a3) 8...£e7 9 £xe7 #xe7 10 £>d5 #d8 11 £>b5 0-
0 12 £>bxc7 flb8, and now 13 #e2 followed by 0-0-0 looks promising; b)
7...£>gf6 8 £g5 (8 £e3 g6 9 #d2 £k?5 10 £e2 £g7 11 0-0-0, B.Vujic-
R.Appel, German League 2004, also deserves consideration) 8...g6 9 £>d5
c6 10 £>xf6+ £>xf6 11 #f3 £e7 12 0-0-0 £>h5 13 Ae3! with a strong
initiative (rather than 13 £xe7?! #xe7, which made Black's life much easier
in Topchess2- Strikovic, playchess.com blitz 2004). c) 7...£>de5 8 h3 and
now: cl) 8...£>f6 9 f4 (9 £e3!?) 9...£>g6 (or 9...£>c6 10 &e3 Ad7 11 #f3,
Pitl-Kunin, Bad Worishofen 2004) 10 £e3 £d7 11 #f3 was played in
Renteria Becerra- Campora, Calvia 2004. The f3-square is the best place for
her majesty: 11 #d2?! c5 12 Qf3 £c6 13 £c4 (M.LIaneza Vega-Iglesias
Valle, Oviedo 2004) allowed Black the opportunity of 13...£>xe4! 14 £>xe4
d5. c2) 8...c5 is playable too, although I personally wouldn't be keen on
weakening the d5-square for no particular reason. Then 9 hxg4 cxd4 10
£>d5! is unclear, whereas 10 £>b5?! (Moranda- Lubczynski, Krakow 2005)
is well met by 10...d5! intending 11 exd5? #e7. 213

The Philidor Files In conclusion, we can state that after 6...exd4 Black's
game becomes quite cramped in all lines. 7£c4 7...h6 The other way to
parry £>g5 is once more the central swap. After 7...exd4 8 #xd4 £>b6 9 e5
#e7 (9...£>xc4!? is good too) 10 £e3 dxe5 11 £>xe5 £>xc4 12 £>xc4 $Le6
Black had a clear edge in S.Solovjov-Kirillova, St Petersburg 2004. 9 £>g5!
is more appropriate and analysed in detail by Solovjov: 9...£>xc4
(9...d5!?/?! is possible too, though there is no need to give back the pawn)
10 #xc4 #e7 (10...#d7!? 11 £>d5! £>xd5 12 exd5 h6 13 £>f3 - or 13 £k?4!?
- with some compensation, but I doubt Black can be worse) and now: a) 11
£e3?! c6 12 0-0-0 h6 (after 12...£>g4!? 13 #e2 £>xe3 14 #xe3 White's
activity and big lead in development provide him with some compensation,
but I prefer Black here) 13 Qf3 £e6 14 #a4!? £g4! (14...a5 is less cautious:
15 £>d4 b5 [15...£d7] 16 £>cxb5 cxb5 17 £>xb5 Jid7 18 flxd6, and it
transpires that White has at least enough for the piece here) 15 e5 £.xf3 16
exf6 #xf6 17 fld4 g5 18 h4. In this position Solovjov claims that White has
compensation for the two pawns, but after 18...£e7 19 hxg5 hxg5 20 £xg5
#g6! he is in fact in dire straits. b) 11 £>b5! leads to wild complications
that, apparently, should peter out into a drawish ending after 11...c6 12
£>xd6+ #xd6 13 #xf7+ *d8 14 £e3 (14 £d2? 3id7 15 0-0-0 *c8 enables
Black to sit on his extra material) 14...£.d7! 15 fldl #e7 and now: bl) 16
£c5? is erroneous: 16...#xf7 17 £>xf7+ *c7 (after 17...*e8? White can turn
the tables and, following 18 £>xh8 £xc5 19 flxg7, it is Black who must fight
for a draw) 18 £d4 £b4+ 19 c3 flhe8 20 £e5+ flxe5 21 £>xe5 £f8 when, with
two minor pieces for rook and pawn, Black is in the driver's seat. b2) 16 e5!
£>d5 17 e6 £e8 (17...£c8!?) 18 #xe7+ *xe7 19 £c5+ *f6 20 £xf8 £h5 21
£>e4+ *xe6 22 £xg7 £xdl 23 £>c5+ *f5 24 £xh8 £xc2 with equality is a
long sequence, but it's unclear whether either side can beneficially deviate
at any point. 214

The Philidor Hanham Variation - Introduction and 5 g4 8 £e3 c6 9 dxe5

Alternatively: a) 9 #e2?! b5 10 £b3 #a5! (10...a5 11 0-0-0 VHc7 was also
adequate in O.Boguslavsky-Mietzner, Dresden 2004) 11 d5? (11 0-0-0 was
a tad better, but no picnic for White either after ll...£.a6 12 £>blc5)ll...b4
...with a huge advantage to Black in CBalogh-Gyimesi, Hungarian
Championship, Budapest 2004. b) White's first attempt in this position was
9 #d3?!, as played in Shirov- Azmaiparashvili, Bled Olympiad 2002:
9...#c7?! 10 0-0-0 b5 (maybe Black can afford the preparatory 10...a6!?;
after 11 dxe5 £>xe5 12 £>xe5 dxe5 13 £>a4 [L.Perez Rodriguez-Moldovan,
Ponte- vedra 2004] Black should have gone for 13...b5! with obscure
consequences after 14 £>b6 flb8 15 £>xc8 or 14 £b6 #e7, but not 14...bxc4?
15 #xc4!) 11 £xb5! (an opportunity that Shirov doesn't miss!) Il...cxb5 12
dxe5 (12 £>xb5 comes to the same) 12...dxe5 (12...£>xe5? loses to 13
£>xe5 dxe5 14 £>xb5 #a5 15 #c4!) 13 £>xb5 #a5 14 #c4 flb8 15 a4! #b4!
16 £>xe5! (16 #c7 would have brought a neat draw by repetition after
16...#xa4 17 #xe5+ £e7 [17...£>xe5?? 18 £>c7+ <&e7 19 £c5 mate] 18
flxd7! £>xd7 19 £>d6+ *d8 20 £>xf7+ *e8) 16...#xc4 17 £>xc4 when, with
soon three pawns and the initiative for the piece, White was better. Going
back to move nine, however, analysis has shown that inserting ...b5 is a
clever idea: 9...b5! bl) 10 £xf7+? *xf7 11 dxe5 dxe5 12 £>xe5+ £>xe5
(12...*g8 13 £>xc6 #c7 14 #xb5 looks less convincing) 13 #xd8 £>f3+ 14
*dl (not 14 *e2? £>xgl+ 15 flxgl £g4+) 14...£>xgl, and if White 225
The Philidor Files doesn't find anything concrete quickly, the rook, bishop
and knight will prove to be superior to the queen and pawn. b2) 10 Ab3 #c7
(rushing with 10...a5? is suicide: 11 dxe5 dxe5 12 a4 b4 13 #c4 We7 14
#xc6 and White stood much better in M.Markovic- Runic, Serbian Team
Ch. 2004) 11 0-0-0 a5 and Black is clearly better. 9...dxe510Wd3^h5
Planning ...Wfb followed, at some point, by ...£>f4, ...£k5 and/or ...b5. The
nonchalant lO...!^? was severely punished in Shirov-M.KIinova, Gibraltar
2006: 11 £xf7+! *xf7 12 #c4+ *e7 13 £>h4 £>b6 (or 13...flg8 14 £>g6+ *d8
15 0-0-0 #a5 16 f4 with a raging attack) 14 £>g6+ *e8 15 &xb6 axb6 16
£>xh8 g5 17 £>g6 £c5 18 0-0-0 and Black resigned. However, 10...b5! (cf.
9 Wd3 b5) looks stronger and could well refute this whole line. With
10...£>h5 we are following the game Shirov-J.Shaw, Gibraltar 2005. White
had to react urgently, and Shirov obliged with... 11 £xf7+! *xf7 12 £>xe5+
£>xe5! Forced, but excellent. 12...*e8? 13 £>g6, followed by 0-0-0, leaves
Black with a hard defensive task. 13#xd8&f3+ 14*dl 14 *e2? £>xgl+ 15
flxgl £g4+. 14...^xgl 15 *cl £>h3 16 f4 £c5! 17#C7+ 17 #xh8? &xe3+ 18
*bl £>3xf4. 17...£e7 18 £c5 fle819 f 5 *f8 19...£>g5!?. 20 £xe7+ 2xe7 21
#d8+ *f7 22 b3 22 #d6?! is worse because the following sacrifice enables
Black to free himself: 22...£xf5! 23 exf5 flel+ 24 £>dl £>f2 25 #d7+ (if 25
#c7+ *e8! 26 *d2 fle7, or 25 #g6+ *g8 26 *d2 £>f4! or 26 216

The Philidor Hanham Variation - Introduction and 5 g4 #xh5? fld8!)

25...*g8 26 *d2 flee8! 27 £>xf2 flad8 28 #xd8 flxd8+ 29 £>d3 £>f4 and the
f-pawn will fall. 22...£kf6 23 *D2 £>g5 24 Sgl Preparing h2-h4 followed by
flxg7+. 24...&d7 If first 24...b6? then 25 e5! flxe5 26 h4 £>f3 27 flg3 flxf5
28 #c7+ £d7 29 £>e4! £>e5 30 £>d6+ *e6 31 £>xf5 *xf5 32 flxg7 is good
for White. 25«h8 Intending h4 or e5 and wins. 25-..2e7 Threatening to trap
the queen, and leading to a repetition of moves. 26 Wd8 2d7 27 #h8 fle7 Vi-
Vi Conclusion The gambit 5 g4, tried several times by Shirov, looks
basically unsound to me. It artificially livens up the game, but analysis has
shown that Black can achieve a good position by declining the challenge,
with 5...h6, and also with the principled 5...£}xg4. The idea of 5...g6, on the
other hand, doesn't seem suitable and rather justifies White's play. 217

Chapter Eleven 5 Ac4: Introduction and iLxf7+ Lines 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3

£>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 ic4 ie7 This natural bishop move, preparing short
castling, is played in the vast majority of games after 5 £.c4. It's easy to see
why, as alternatives are unappealing: a) 5...c6? loses material after 6 dxe5
£>xe5 (or 6...dxe5 7 £>g5) 7 £>xe5 dxe5 8 £xf7+. b) 5...£>b6?! 6 £b3 is
good for White (compare this with a similar position from Chapter 1 where
the c3- and f6- knights are still at home). c) Giving up the centre by playing
5...exd4?! 6 £>xd4 is on principle dubious. In comparison with the
variations examined in Chapter 1, Black has lost the active possibility of ...
£k6. d) 5...h6?! is possible, as the complications resulting from 6 dxe5 dxe5
7 £xf7+ *xf7 8 £>xe5+ *g8 aren't necessarily unfavourable for Black.
However, 5...§Le7 develops a piece and (as I was told when I was a
beginner!) is therefore stronger. Furthermore, the bishop move is
'compulsory', whereas Black can usually do without ...h6. After 5...£.e7,
White normally castles short, and this is the subject of Chapters 12-14. In
this chapter, we will take a look at sharp lines involving an early £.xf7+.
White can play: A: 6 £xf7+?! B: 6 dxe5 dxes 7 £xf7+ C: 6 £>g5 0-0 7 £xf
7+ 218

The Philidor Hanham Variation - 5 $Lc4: Introduction and $Lxf7+ Lines

The unforced retreat with 6 Ab3?! is imprecise. After 6...exd4 7 Wxd4 (or 7
£>xd4 £>c5) 7...£>c5, the best White has is 8 £.c4, when he has lost
precious time. In these circumstances (and in contrast to 5...exd4?!),
releasing the central tension is justified for Black and the position after
8...0-0 is equal. A) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 £c4 £e7 6
£xf7+?! Trying to refute Black's opening in this way isn't justified. 6...*xf7
7 £>g5+ 7...*g8! Venturing the king to g6 is inadvisable and above all
unnecessary, since 7...<&>g8 is an excellent move. But note that going to
g6 is possible if White exchanges on e5 first (see Line B). 8 £>e6 We8 9
£>xc7 Wg610 £>xa8? Stronger is 10 0-0! when, after 10...Sb8, White has
two pawns and some initiative for the piece. Nevertheless, by playing
correctly Black has nothing to fear and should even stand a bit better.
10...Wxg2 llflfl 11 Pel is even worse: ll...exd4! 12 flgl (or 12 #xd4 £>e5
and, as with 11 flfl, this key move enables the knight and bishop to join the
attack; White already cannot avoid heavy material losses) 12...#xh2! (but
not 12...Wh3? 13 #xd4 £>e5 14 #e3 £g4+ 15 flxg4 #xg4+ 16 f3) 13 #xd4
£>e5 14 flg3 £>h5 15 flf3 h6 16 £>d5 £g4 17 £>xe7+ *h7 and Black wins.
ll...exd4! 12 Wxd4 On 12 #e2?! the punishment would be even more
severe: 12...dxc3! 13 #c4+ d5 14 #xc8+ *f7 15 #xb7 (15 #xh8?! 219
The Philidor Files leaves the queen further from the action) 15...#xe4+ 16
£e3 flb8 17 #xa7 cxb2 18 *d2 *b4+ 19 c3 £>e4+ 20 *e2 £>xc3+ 21 *B
#e4+ 22 *g3 £>e2+ 23 *h3 #f3 mate, I.Rabinovich-IIyin Zhenevsky,
Moscow 1922. White could, of course, have defended more tenaciously, but
the final outcome was always clear. 12...£>e5 13 f4 £>fg4 With the nasty
threat of ...Ah4+ (and not 13...£>f3+??, which loses to 14 flxf3 #xf3 15
#c4+). 14Wd5+^f715Wc4 Keeping an eye on the fl-rook. 15...ih4+ 16 *dl
ie6 17 #e2 Orl7«b5Ad718l'e2etc. 17~£>f2+ 17...£>e3+? seems attractive,
but it enables White to gain some counter- play after 18 £xe3 £g4 19 flgl
£xe2+ 20 £>xe2 #xe4 21 £d4. I8 2xf2±xf2 19f5 Else ...Ag4 comes with
great effect! 19-.Wgl+ 20 *d2 £>e5 21 £>dl £el+ 22 Wxel Wd4+ 0-1
W.Heidenfeld-J.Wolpert, Johannesburg 1955. B) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3
£>bd7 4 £>f3 es 5 £*4 £e7 6 dxe5 This move tries to improve on the
variations arising after 6 £.xf7+ or 6 <5}g5. Although Black loses the
option of ...exd4 followed by ...£le5, he acquires other defensive resources.
6...dxe5 6...£>xe5 is of course valid too, and after 7 Ae2 White's edge is
symbolic. 7£xf7+ 7 £>g5 is analogous to 6 £>g5, with new possibilities for
Black: 7...0-0 8 £xf7+ flxf7 9 £>e6 #e8 10 £>xc7 #d8 11 £>xa8 b5 or
ll...Ab4!?, with a decent game for Black in both cases. 7...*xf 7 8 £>g5+
8...ig6! More ambitious than 8...sfrg8 9 £>e6 #e8 10 £>xc7 #g6 11 £>xa8
#xg2 12 flfl £>c5 13 #e2 £h3 14 £e3 #xfl+ 15 #xfl Axfl 16 *xfl *f7 (or
16...£>g4), when Black will regain the pawn in a roughly level ending. In
comparison with 6 £.xf7+ <&>xf7 7 £>g5+ <&>g6, Black has moves like
...£>c5, ...Ad6, and ...Ac5 at his disposal. This radically alters the deal in his
favour. 220

The Philidor Hanham Variation - 5 $Lc4: Introduction and $Lxf7+ Lines

9f4 9 h4?! is condemned both by Kos- ten and Van Rekom/Janssen. Old
analysis by Voronov and Keres, given in the books of the aforementioned
authors, runs as follows: 9...h5 10 f4 exf4 11 £>e2 £d6 12 e5 £>xe5 13
£>xf4+ *h6 14 £>f7+ £>xf7 15 £>e6+ *h7 16 £>xd8 flxd8 and Black has a
winning advantage. I see no reason to dispute this verdict. In this position
the three minor pieces are much stronger than the white queen; they will
unite to cause White's king all kinds of problems! 9...exf410 £>e6 Wg811
£>xc7 £>e5! Returning material for the sake of the initiative, which would
remain in White's hands after the passive ll...flb8. 12 £>xa8 ig413 Wd4
£>c6! 14 #f2 #C4 This is stronger than the immediate capture of the knight.
Black is planning to play ...Ac5 or ...Ab4 and allows his opponent no
respite. He has a clearly superior position, as you could easily verify by
trying to defend the White side! C) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £kbd7 4 £tf3
e5 5£c4£e7 6£>g5!? This is much more interesting than 6 £.xf7+. White
will win material by force, but at the cost of falling behind in development,
so Black must play dynamically in order not to let his opponent consolidate.
As a general rule, Black should try to avoid entering an endgame and
concentrate his pieces for an assault against the white king. 6...0-0 After the
erroneous 6...d5?, White has a pleasant choice between 7 £>xd5 £>xd5 8
£xd5 £xg5 9 #h5 etc., when he will emerge with the bishop pair, 221

The Philidor Files and the probably even stronger 7 exd5, which wins at
least a pawn: 7...0-0 8 0-0 £>b6 9 dxe5 £>e8?! 10 Wh5 h6 11 £>xf7 flxf7
12 £b3, followed by d6. 7 ixf7+ flxf7 8 £>e6 We8 9 £>xc7 #d8 10 £>xa8
After this forced sequence of moves, White is an exchange and two pawns
up, but his knight on a8 is bound to be devoured. Black has three sensible
tries: CI: 10...b6!? C2:10...exd4?! C3:10...b5 CI) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3
£>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 ic4 ie7 6 £>g5!? 0-0 7 £xf7+ Hxf7 8 £*6 We8 9 £>xc7
#d810 £>xa8 b6!? This move follows the same objective as 10...b5, with
the drawback that White will grab the pawn before his knight dies. White
now should continue with either 11 Ae3 or 11 dxe5, and we will look at:
Cll: 11 £e3 C12:11 dxe5 £>xes C13:11 dxe5 dxe5 Firstly, let's briefly check
out the alternatives: a) 11 £>xb6? #xb6 (Jdaesen- Vandevoort, Ghent 1989)
merely helps Black to activate his queen. b) 11 0-0?! is also inaccurate,
since after ll...£.a6 Black gains an important tempo by attacking the rook. c)
Finally, 11 £>b5?! is a suspicious attempt to rescue the other knight. Black
can now virtually force a draw, though it's unclear whether he stands better:
cl) 11...a6 12 £>ac7 axb5 13 £>e6 We8 14 £k7 is the aforementioned draw,
while 12...£>f8!? 13 dxe5 £>xe4 represents a valid try to carry on the battle.
c2) ll...£>xe4!? 12 0-0 (12 f3?! £h4+ 13 g3 £>xg3 14 hxg3 £xg3+, followed
by 15...£.b7, is perilous for White) 12...a6 (not 12...£b7? 13 £>ac7!) 13
£>ac7 is similar to ll...a6. Cll) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5
£c4 £e7 6 £>g5!? 0-0 7 Axf7+ flxf7 8 £>e6 We8 9 £>xc7 Wd8 10 £>xa8
b611 £e3 222

The Philidor Hanham Variation - 5 £.c4: Introduction and Ax/7+ Lines ll...
£a6 ll...Ab7!? seems playable as well, although preventing 0-0 looks more
to the point than attacking e4: 12 ^xb6 (if 12 d5 #xa8 13 f3 then 13...£>h5
is a good way to initiate play) ^...Wxr^ (maybe 12...axb6!? 13 f3 and now
either 13...d5 or 13...Aa6 with decent compensation for the material) 13 0-
0! #xb2 (Black's best bet; worse was 13...£>xe4? 14 £>xe4 £.xe4 15 dxe5,
as in R.Ryan- Kujovic, Parsippany 2004, when in view of the threat e5-e6,
White was able to consolidate) 14 flbl #xc3 15 flxb7 with an edge to White.
Note in this line that the tempting 13 dxe5 doesn't bring White much after
13...#xb2 14 £d2 (or 14 e6 #xc3+ 15 £d2 #c4 16 exf7+ *xf7 when Black is
active and much better developed; he will surely collect one or two pawns,
restoring the material balance, especially as 17 f3? is met by 17...£>xe4 18
fxe4 £h4+) 14...£>xe4 15 flbl #a3 16 flxb7 (16 £>xe4 is no improvement:
after 16...£xe4 17 e6 flf5 18 exd7 £xg2 Black has plenty of play for the
exchange) 16...£>xc3 17 #g4 #c5 18 £e3 £>xe5 19 £xc5 £>xg4 20 £xa7
£>xa2 with approximate equality. 12 £>xb6 12 d5!? #xa8 13 a4 was unclear
in S.Sulskis-Abbasifar, Dubai 2002. Or 12 dxe5 and now: a) 12...dxe5 13
£>xb6 axb6 14 f3 (14 #d2 £>g4) 14...£b4 15 #d2 #f8! (stronger than
15...#c8 16 a3 £f8 17 0-0-0, A.Lavrov-Lunev, Lipetsk 1993, which was
probably better for White, but still quite complex) 16 0-0-0 £c4 17 *bl #a8!
18 a3 £xa3 19 bxa3 #xa3... ...and here White's wisest seems 20 #cl! #xc3 21
£d2 #d4 22 £e3 with a draw by repetition. b) 12...£>xe5 also deserves
attention: 13 £>xb6 axb6 14 Wd4 (14 £d4?! was seen in S.Grun-J.Kappler,
German League 1993, when instead of 14...#a8, Black could have gained
the upper hand by playing 14...£>fg4!) 14...£>c4 15 h3 £>xe3 16 fxe3?!
(VS-Vi Velcheva- N.Kostic, Bucharest 1999) 16...£>d7! with a small
advantage for Black. In place of 16 fxe3?!, critical was 16 Wxe3 d5 17 0-0-
0 £c5, followed by ...d4. 12...Wxb6 223

The Philidor Files 13&bl 13 dxe5? is bad due to 13...#xb2 14 e6 #xc3+ (but
not 14...flf8? 15 £d4, as in Von Kiedrowski-Deuker, German League 1994,
when the threat of 16 £k!5 Wb7 17 flbl wins material) 15 £d2 #e5 16 exf7+
<&xf7 with a fine game for Black. 13...#C7 (C.Ludwig-JJohansen,
correspondence 2001). In the final position White stands much better from a
materialistic point of view, but being unable to castle is a serious concern.
C12) 1 e4 <J6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>C3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 &C4 £e7 6 £>g5l? 0-0
7 £xf7+ flxf7 8 £>e6 We8 9 £>xc7 #d8 10 £>xa8 b611 dxe5 At this point
Black has an important choice to make, as both recaptures have their pros
and cons. Indeed, taking the pawn back with the knight looks more
dynamic, as a further jump to g4 is then in the air. On the other hand, Black
could also increase his e7- bishop's scope and get rid of the backward pawn
on d6. Let's look more closely at how play can develop: ll...£>xe5 The
alternative ll...dxe5 is seen in Line CI 3 below. Now it is White's turn to
choose between several possibilities, amongst which developing the cl-
bishop is best: 12£f4 12 £>xb6?! #xb6 (as in M.Ursic- A.Srebrnic, Bled
2004) and 12 £>d5?! only help Black to activate his pieces. After the latter
move, 12...£>xd5 13 #xd5 £h4, followed by ..Ab7, reaches a position in
which Black can already count on some advantage. 12 f4?!, weakening the
kingside, 224

The Philidor Hanham Variation - 5 kc4: Introduction and Jixf7+ Lines

doesn't look good either: 12...£k6 13 £>d5 £>xd5 14 exd5 £>a5 and Black
is fine. Regarding other options for White, that leaves 12 £e3 and 12 £g5
£b7 (or 12...£.a6!?, Kalaitzoglou-Hadziman-olis, Athens 2004) 13 f3 (13
f4? is still inadvisable on account of 13...£>xe4! 14 £>xe4 £xe4 15 k\e7
flxe7 16 fxe5 £xg2 when White was in serious trouble in CEvans-Dobrin,
correspondence 2000) 13...£xa8 14 #d4 with unclear play. White stands a
trifle better from a materialistic point of view, but Black can hope to
generate some play, for instance after 14...Wc8, intending 15 0-0-0?!
£>xe4!. 12...£d7 12...£>g6!? is a valid option too, for example: a) 13 £g3
£b7 14 f3 £xa8 15 #d4 £>h5, or 15...d5 16 0-0-0 £c5 17 #a4 which was
assessed as unclear by Lalic and Okhotnik in Carpathian Warrior. b) 13 £e3
£b7 (13...£a6 also leads to a position that is difficult to assess after 14
£>xb6 axb6 15 #d4 £>h4 16 0-0-0 £>xg2 17 #xb6 #c8, Karaklajic-
Andonov, Belgrade 1991) 14 £>xb6 axb6 15 f3 d5 16 0-0 £d6 with
attacking prospects for Black on the kingside. 13Wd4Wxa8l4 0-0Wc6 This
analysis is taken from Carpathian Warrior. Lalic and Okhotnik continue a
bit further, stating that Black is okay, and 1 fully agree with this conclusion.
C13) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 £c4 &e7 6 £>g5!? 0-0 7
£xf7+ Sxf7 8 £>e6 We8 9 £>xc7 #d8 10 £>xa8 b611 dxe5 dxe5 12 £>d5 12
f4 is justified for tactical reasons because Black can hardly avoid the
ensuing swap of queens: 12...Ab7 13 fxe5 £>xe5 14 #xd8+ £xd8 15 £f4
£>fd7 16 £>xb6 £xb6 17 £xe5 £>xe5 18 0-0-0 2f2 when Black's activity
compensates for his material deficit, leaving a balanced endgame.
12...£>xd5 a) 12...£c5!? (Prie-F.Saez, Laragne 2002) is interesting too: 13
£e3 £>xe4 (in the event of 13...£xe3 14 £>xe3 £a6 15 f3 #xa8 16 #d6,
White can count on a slight edge) 14 #e2... 225

The Philidor Files ...and now instead of 14...WH.4?? 15 0-0, which left
White well ahead on material for no compensation, Black should have
preferred 14...£>df6 15 £>xf6+ £>xf6 16 £xc5 bxc5 17 0-0 e4!, followed by
the knight recapture while White grabs on c5. Despite White's nominal
material edge, Black's active pieces should guarantee a roughly level
position. b) 12...£>xe4 13 £>xe7+ (if 13 £e3 Black can transpose to Prie-
Saez by playing 13...£c5 or opt for 13...£d6) 13...#xe7 14 0-0 (14 £e3 is also
quite comfortable for Black: 14...£>dc5 15 b4 £>e6 [15...£>a4!l 16 0-0 Jib7
17 £>xb6 axb6 and Black was by no means worse in S.Faccia-A.Bianchi,
Venice 2005) 14...£.a6! (a little, and rather obvious, finesse over 14...Ab7?
15 £>c7, which quickly ended in a White victory in Genius 4-Borsavolgyi,
Debrecen 1997) 15 flel £b7 16 f3 (16...£>xf2 can't be allowed) 16...£>ef6
17 £>xb6 (17 £>c7? #c5+) 17...axb6 and, as in Faccia- Bianchi, Black can
be satisfied with the outcome of the opening. 13 *xd5 ia6 Preventing 0-0
again. The following ten move sequence is sensible, if not forced: 14 ie3
H>8 15 0-0-0 £>f6 16 Wc6 ib7 17 Wc7 Wxa8 18 f3 i-C5 19 Bd8+ £>e8 20
2xa8 £xe3+ 21 *dl flxc7 22 2xe8+ *f7 23 Sxe5 For the moment White has a
rook and three pawns for the enemy pair of bishops. The problem is that his
rook is sort of trapped in the middle of the board, and if White has to give it
up for one of the bishops, he will stand worse. Thus 23...g6 is at least equal
for Black, who was in fact successful in a practical game with 23...fld7+
(Computer Gandalf-Cifuentes Parada, AEGON tournament, The Hague
1995). C2) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 £x4 £e7 6 £>g5!?
0-0 7 £xf7+ 0xf7 8 £>e6 We8 9 £>xc7 #d8 10 £>xa8 exd4?! A
recommendation by the authors of The Lion, already proposed by Tony
Kosten in Winning with the Philidor. The idea consists of quickly attacking
f2. According to both sources a logical 226

The Philidor Hanham Variation - 5 $Lc4: Introduction and Lxf7+ Lines

course of events now seems to be: llWxd4^g4 Clearing the path to c5 for
the e7- bishop by playing ll...d5? would be a nice freeing move.
Unfortunately, White easily copes with the assault and gets a decisive
advantage: 12 £>xd5 £c5 (or 12...£>xd5 13 #xd5) 13 £>xf6+ flxf6 14 #d5+
*h8 15 0-0 (M.Sadeghi- I.Badjarani, Tehran 2005). Il...£>e5? (Busic-
M.Miiller, German League 1997) is probably too slow, and White can even
afford to spend some time rescuing the horse with 12 Wxa7. After
12...£>fg4 13 0-0 £h4 14 f3, I see no effective way for Black to continue his
attack. After the knight sally, ll...£>g4, White has a broad choice of
candidate moves. Apart from the obvious main line, 12 0-0, three other
moves deserve thorough analysis, namely: a) 12 £>dl, b) 12 #xa7 and c) 12
£e3. Even if these options can be dismissed as inferior to 12 0-0, being
respectively: a) passive, b) very greedy, c) an invitation for a future ...
£>xe3, their consequences remain unclear. 12 f3?, on the other hand, is
quite bad due to 12...£.h4+ 13 g3 £>xh2! and Black seizes the advantage.
12 0-0! Or: a) 12 £>dl £>c5 13 0-0 (13 £>e3!? is playable too: 13...£>xf2
14 0-0 £f6 15 *b4 £>fxe4 16 £>d5 £e6 17 £>ac7 flxc7 18 £>xc7 #xc7 and
Black's activity compensates for his small material deficit) 13...£f6 14 #c4
£e6 15 #e2 £e5 (15...#xa8 is also fine) 16 h3 (Therkildsen-Depyl, French
League 2002) and now instead of 16...Wh4?!, something like 16...£>h2 17
Sel £xh3 18 f4 Ag4 19 #f2 £>e6 would have resulted in a complete mess. b)
12 Wxa7 was seen in P.Fabri-Van Reem, correspondence 2000. As
12...£h4?! 13 g3 flxf2 14 fifl Hxh2 15 £f4 £f6 16 0-0-0 left White very
much on top, Black should probably have tried 12...d5!, when the following
lines illustrate his attacking potential: 13 £>xd5 £c5 14 #a4 £xf2+ 15 *e2
£>c5 16 £g5 £>f6 17 £xf6 £g4+ 18 *fl £h4 19 #c4 £>xe4 20 #xe4 flxf6+ 21
£>f4 #d2 with mate to follow shortly; or 13 f3 £c5 14 #a4 £f2+ 15 *e2 £>c5
227

The Philidor Files 16 #b4 dxe4. c) 12 £e3 £f6 (Whitaker-Chajes,

Philadelphia 1923, saw Black rushing to swap I2...£>xe3? 13 #xe3 and then
13...£g5 14 #xa7 £>e5, but despite his flash victory, I doubt Black would
have enough compensation after the strong 15 £>d5! when White stops
...Af4, and simply threatens 0-0 followed by f4) 13 #xd6 (13 #d3?! £>de5
14 #d5 £>xe3 15 fxe3 was L.Owens-Schalkwijk, correspondence 2001, and
now after 15...£d7!, intending ...£c6 and ...#xa8, Black has a pleasant
position) 13...£>xe3 14 fxe3 £e5 (14...£xc3+? 15 bxc3 »h4+ 16 #g3 #xe4 17
0-0-0 is better for White, as the second player lacks adequate
compensation) 15 #d5 Wh4+ 16 *d2 £xc3+! (16...#f2+?! looks inaccurate,
since after 17 £>e2 £>f6 18 #xe5 fld7+ 19 *cl #xe3+ 20 *bl #xe2 21 b3 the
white monarch will feel safe 'in fianchetto') 17 bxc3 £>f6. I believe Black
has enough for the exchange and two pawns here. Indeed, several factors
speak in his favour, such as the vulnerable enemy king, the cornered knight
and White's temporary lack of piece coordination. That said, further
investigation is needed in order to assess this position definitively. 12...b6
12...£.f6 also fails to equalize. White now has 13 #dl, 13 #c4, and 13
Wxa7\7, the first two being sounder and good enough for a stable edge: a)
13 #dl £xc3 14 #xg4 £f6 15 #dl £>f8 16 £e3 (16 f4) 16...£e6 17 £xa7 #xa8
18 £d4 etc., Salmon- Pupols, Seattle 1986. b) 13 #c4 £>c5 (after
13...£>de5?! 14 #b3! White is ready to repel the knight by means of f3,
while he still has the option of #xb7 in the event of ..Ad7) 14 £>d5 £e6 15
f3 £>e5 16 £>xf6+ flxf6 17 Wd4 and Black will have to jettison another
pawn, namely d6, in order to capture the knight and avoid the pin Ag5.
With a rook and three pawns for a pair of minor pieces, White's material
advantage will then be decisive. 13 £kb5! 13 h3?! is less striking, and leads
somewhat logically to an endgame: 13...£>ge5 14 £>d5 £a6 15 £>xe7+
flxe7 16 fldl #xa8 17 #xd6 #xe4 18 #d5+ 228

The Philidor Hanham Variation - 5 £.c4: Introduction and §Lxf7+ Lines

#xd5 19 flxd5. Even though Black can hold this final position, it does seem
obvious to me that White is on top. 13...£>c5 13...£.a6?? is met by 14
£>ac7. 14f3^e515b4 15...£*6 The alternative \5...M(> brings tactical
complications which are, however, in White's favour: 16 #dl £a6 17 £>ac7
flxc7 18 £>xc7 etc., and White will end up with at least one or two extra
pawns. 16#d2&e617fldl ...and d6 drops, leaving White with a rook and
three pawns for knight and bishop - again a technically winning position.
C3) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 £c4 &e7 6 £>g5«? 0-0 7
£xf7+ flxf7 8 £>e6 We8 9 £>xc7 #d8 10 £>xa8 b5 A much more dynamic
approach than 10...b6. Black acquires the additional option of ...b4 and
intends to regain the a8-knight 'for free' (White can't grab the b- pawn). In
some lines, though, when White plays 0-0, Black can't win a tempo with
...Aa6. 11 dxe5 As was the case after 10...b6, White has several options at
this juncture: a) 11 a3 £b7 12 d5 £xa8 13 #e2 a6 14 0-0 and the game was in
equilibrium, S.Jackson-Rellstab, London 1979. 12...Wxa8 is a bit better, as
the bishop eventually has to come back to b7 anyway, while the queen may
find a more useful post than d8 (perhaps c8 or f8). b) 11 £>xb5? is simply
bad. After ll...#a5+ 12 £>c3 £>xe4 13 0-0 £>xc3 14 bxc3 $Lb7 (Gunina-
M.Fominykh, Smolensk 2001), because of White's spoiled pawn structure,
Black's minor pieces are stronger than the rook and two pawns. Or 13 £d2
£>xf2 14 £>e4 #d5 15 £>xf2 #xg2 (M.Snuverink-G.Van Vliet, Hengelo
2002) and White's position collapses, as the bishops can join the attack from
h4 and a6 respectively. c) 11 0-0 £b7 (not 11...b4?!, when the knight comes
to rescue its colleague after 12 £>b5) 12 £>xb5 £xa8 13 f3 (if 13 d5 £>xe4)
and now both 13...d5 and the al- 229

The Philidor Files ternative 13...HW give Black decent play, e.g. 13...#b6
14 c4 a6 15 £k3 exd4 16£>d5£>xd517cxd5£f6. d) On 11 #e2 or 11 #d3, the
simplest reply is ll...a6. (Il...b4?! 12 £>b5 is again erroneous.) e) The solid
11 f3 is best answered by ll...Aa6! (but not ll...Ab7? 12 £>xb5 £.xa8 13 d5!,
as in A.Ericson- W.Schoenmann, correspondence 1964, when White will
have time to consolidate with #e2, £>c3, and if needed flbl before he
castles). For example, 12 dxe5 £>xe5 13 £>d5 (13 f4 is no improvement
after 13...#xa8! 14 fxe5 £>xe4 when, due to the numerous threats of
...Ah4+, ...£>f2 and ...£>xc3, White is in major trouble) 13...£>xd5 14 #xd5
£h4+ 15 *dl £b7 16 #xb5 £c6 17 #b3 d5! and the white monarch was
struggling in Canneva- Leignel, French League 2003. Il...£>xe5 If Black
recaptures with ll...dxe5, the following lines are possible: a) 12 £g5 £b7 13
£xf6 £xf6 14 £>xb5 #a5+ 15 £>c3 £>c5 (not 15...£xe4? 16 £>c7! £xg2 17
flgl and White keeps his extra material, Negulescu-Shumia- kina, Bucharest
1993) 16 f3 £xa8 is unclear. b) 12 £>xb5? #a5+ 13 £>c3 £>xe4! 14 #d5 £c5
15 #xe4 £xf2+ 16 *dl £>f6 17 #c4 £g4+ 18 £>e2 #d8+ 19 £d2 #xa8 was
winning for Black in Brodda- Secula, correspondence 1996, as White is
powerless to prevent ...1i'xg2, collecting back the invested exchange with a
raging attack. c) 12 a4 £b7 13 axb5 £>xe4 14 £>xe4 £xe4 15 0-0 £c5, or
12...b4 13 £>b5 £>xe4 14 Ae3 a6 with a very acceptable position for Black
in either case. d) 12 f3?! £b7, intending to meet 13£>xb5... ...with
13...£>xe4! 14 fxe4 £b4+! and 15...Wh4, winning. e) 12 f4?! b4! 13 £>d5
£>xe4 14 £>ac7 £.c5 is good for Black. f) 12 £>d5 Ad6 with mutual
chances in Seelinger-Schmaltz, German League 1992. 12 0-0 Exploiting the
drawback of ...b7-b5. Apart from 12 f4?! £g4, and of course 12 £>xb5,
which clearly passes 230

The Philidor Hanham Variation - 5 £.c4: Introduction and &.xf7+ Lines the
initiative to Black, the alternatives are similar to those after 10...b6 and
offer chances for both sides: a) 12 £f4 £d7!. b) 12 £>d5 £>xd5 13 #xd5 £d7.
c) 12 £g5 £b7, Bessat-Leignel, Be- thune 2002 d) 12 £>xb5 #a5+ 13 £k:3
£>xe4 14 #d5 £>c5, D.Fricke-Velker, correspondence 1990. 12...£b7 13
£>xb5 13 f4?! is too committal: 13...£>ed7 14 £>xb5 (14 e5?! dxe5 15 fxe5
£c5+ 16 *hl #xa8, followed by ...£>xe5 and wins) 14...£xa8 15 £e3 #b8! 16
c4 a6 17 £>c3 £>xe4 gave Black a slight edge in Pilnik-Najdorf, Buenos
Aires 1941. 13...£xa8 14 f3 d5 Or 14...#b6+ 15 £>d4 and only then 15...d5.
15 exd5 So far we have been following A.Huber-Schmidt Schaeffer,
German League 1997. 15...£>xd5 White has a rook and three pawns for
only two minor pieces. Here, however, he is behind in development and
Black's pieces are very active, so I would assess this position as unclear.
Conclusion The only real test for Black in this chapter is 6 £>g5 0-0 7
£xf7+ (Line C). Black has a good score in the variation starting with
10...b6, because he often succeeds in finding worthwhile compensation for
the small material deficit. Looking at the alternatives, 10...b5 is unclear,
whereas 10...exd4?! seems inadequate to me. 231

Chapter Twelve Main Line: 7 #e2 and 7 a4 _ .Jr&JMi . 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3

£>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 £c4 £e7 6 0-0 With 6 0-0 we finally reach the main
line of the Philidor Hanham. Typically, after a dozen or so moves the
arising positions are still quite rich as, usually, all of the pieces have
remained on the board. Moreover, the pawn structure isn't yet fixed, so
several plans are possible because of this. Black essentially chooses
between a plan that aims to expand on the queen- side by means of ...b5,
and one that secures the c5-square for his knight. This second plan is
implemented by the move ...a5, preceded or not by the exchange ...exd4. As
for White, he can determine the pawn structure by playing either d5 or
dxe5, the latter usually being efficient only if the knight manoeuvre £>f3-
h4-f5 can follow. With the central swap dxe5 being a constant theme (White
can carry it out at any moment), I will mention it only when it's of particular
interest. The natural recapture is ...dxe5, 'levelling' the pawn structure. The
other capture, ...<5W5, is sometimes compulsory, notably to prevent the
manoeuvre £>f3- h4-f5. Its drawback, however, is to concede a spatial
advantage to White. The great flexibility of the Philidor Defence means that
there are many inversions of moves orders. It is often possible, for instance,
to start with the routine retreat Aa2, and then follow up with a developing
move, or vice-versa. The same goes with the moves a4-a5 from White
(when Black has neither played ...a5 himself, nor ...b6) and h2- h3. As these
inversions of moves aren't generally that relevant, and as it would be
tedious to examine them in detail, I will try in the following three chapters
to expose the hidden ideas, while avoid repetitions. 6...0-0 6...h6?!/!? is an
appropriate idea if Black doesn't rush to castle. Indeed, he 232

The Philidor Hanham Variation - Main Line: 7 We2 and 7 a4 can sometimes
consider a plan like ...c6, ...#c7, ...g5, followed ...£>f8-g6. But as the centre
isn't totally blocked, this kind of action seems suspicious to me. White
shouldn't try to refute Black's concept, but instead just play 'normal' moves
(such as Bel, a4, b3, Ab2). In a practical game I believe that Black can
foster reasonable hopes of success. What follows here, though, is an
example of Black mistreating the opening: 6...h6 7 dxe5 dxe5 8 #e2 c6 9 a4
#c7 10 £>h4 10...g6?! (10...£>b6!?, followed by ll...a5, was much safer) 11
f4 exf4? (on ll...£>h7!? White should refrain from playing the tempting 12
Axf7+?, which seems to lead only to a draw after 12...*xf7 13 fxe5+ *g7 14
£>xg6 *xg6 15 #g4+ £>g5 16 #f5+ *g7 17 £xg5 flf8 18 £xh6+ <&xh6 19
»h3+ <&g7 20 #g4+ with perpetual check; instead 12 £>f3 exf4 13 Axf4!,
intending 13...#xf4 14 ^d4, remains favourable for White) 12 £xf4 £>e5 (if
12...#b6+? 13 *hl #xb2 14 e5 #xc3 15 exf6 #xf6 16 £g3 and Black is dead
meat) 13 £>f3 £d6 14 £xe5 £xe5 15 £>xe5 #xe5 16 #f2 *e7 17 flael! £e6 18
£>d5+ cxd5 19 exd5 £>e4 20 Wh4+ 1-0 D.Frolov-Borsavolgyi, Budapest
1996. After 6...0-0 White's main move is 7 Bel, which is dealt with in
Chapters 13 and 14. Here we will look at White's two chief alternatives:
A:7a4 B:7«e2 Other options are unappealing: a) 7 £g5?! h6 8 £h4 c6 9 a4
£>h5 was equal in Philippe-Shirazi, Paris 1999. Black eases his game by
swapping the bishops, gaining in the process the squares f4 for his knight
and f6 for his queen. b) 7 h3?! (Nisipeanu-Bauer, Bastia 2001) is a rare
example of such an early inaccuracy from the Romanian GM, probably
caused by the exhausting schedule of the tournament: 7...c6 8 a4 £>xe4! 9
£xf7+ (if 9 £>xe4 d5 10 £>xe5 £>xe5 11 dxe5 dxe4 or ll...dxc4 12 £>d6
with a level position) 9...flxf7 10 £>xe4 exd4 11 £>fg5 (otherwise White
could end up worse) ll...£.xg5 12 £xg5 #f8 233

The Philidor Files 13 #xd4 d5 with equality. 7 £e3?! would allow the same
'trick'. A) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 £c4 £e7 6 0-0 0-0 7
a4 This move usually leads to a transposition to either 7 #e2 or 7 Bel. White
avoids the line 7 #e2 exd4, but does allow the same idea with the inclusion
of a4 and ...c6. As Black's best replies here are 7...a5 or 7...c6, and because
White can hardly do without #e2 or Bel, 7 a4 has no real independent
significance. 7.«c6 This offers a transposition to the main lines. In the event
of 7...a6, 8 a5 deserves consideration. After 8...exd4, 9 #xd4! favours
White, as in the encounters Topalov-Rivas Pastor, Dos Hermanas 1994 and
Emms-R.Hartoch, Isle of Man 1996. 9 £>xd4?!, on the other hand, would
be unsuitable on account of 9...£>e5 10 £a2 c5 followed by ll...£>c6,
11...Ae6 or ...Axf5, depending where the knight retreats. The weak a5-pawn
ensures Black of a comfortable game. The only drawback of 7...a5 is that it
implies Black won't be following the plan including ...b6. 8ia2 Black can
now answer 8 a5?! with 8...flb8, with the idea of ...b5. For example, 9 #e2
b5 10 axb6 axb6 11 d5 £b7 12 fldl (12 dxc6 £xc6 threatens ...b5 when, if
White captures, Black can regain the pawn by taking on e4) 12...b5 and
...b4 equalizes. 8...£>xe4 is analogous to 7 h3 c6 8 a4 £>xe4. The
difference, white pawns on a5 and h2 in one case, on a4 and h3 in the other,
is not important. 8...a5 8...b6!? also deserves consideration, as the thematic
9 dxe5?! dxe5 10 £>h4 fails to bring White anything concrete. Black can
then choose between 10...£k5 11 #f3 £>e6 12 £>f5 £>d4, and even
10...£>xe4 11 ^>xe4 Axh4. In the latter case, 12 Wh5 £e7 13 fldl offers
decent compensation for the sacrificed pawn, but not more. 9«e2 9 flel
transposes to Line D2 ot Chapter 13. 234

The Philidor Hanham Variation - Main Line: 7 We2 and 7 a4 9...exd410

£>xd4 £>C5! We are following the recent game Yu Shaoteng-Bauer,
France-China match, Paris 2006. Several weeks earlier I chose the
inaccurate 10...Be8?! and suffered a 'clean' loss after 11 £e3 £f8 12 f3 £>e5
(12...d5 fails to 13 exd5 £c5 14 fladl or 14 #f2 and White retains the edge)
13 *hl (Ulibin-Bauer, Bienne 2006). White enjoys a space advantage and
can slowly reinforce his position without worrying about any kind of
counter- play from Black. 112dl! The immediate 11 h3?! fle8 12 #f3 keb 13
£>xe6 fxe6 left Black with a comfortable equality in Kazhgaleyev- Elbilia,
Paris 2006. ll...Wb6 12 h3 In the event of 12 e5?! dxe5 13 #xe5 fle8 14
£>f5 £xf5 15 #xf5 flad8, the activity of Black's pieces outweighs White's
pair of bishops. I2...£e6? 12...fle8! was to be preferred, with a balanced
position after 13 #f3 £d8 or 13...Ae6. Indeed, White now missed an
opportunity to claim a noticeable advantage. 13 £>xe6?! 13 Ae3! was the
move I feared during the game, and 13...Axa2 14 Bxa2 Wc7 15 £>f5 flfe8
16 £g5 promises a pleasant plus for White. But 13...£.xa2 is the lesser evil
since 13...1i'xb2?! 14 £>xe6 is pretty annoying: 14...£>xe6? 15 £xe6 #xc3
16 £d4 or 15...fxe6 16 #d3 and the queen is trapped, while after 14...fxe6 15
£d4 Wb6 16 £xe6+ *h8 17 flabl Wa7 Black's position might still be
holdable, but it looks quite grim. 13...fxe614 e5 14 £e3 d5 15 £d4 also led
to an equal game. 14...£>d5 15 exd6 £xd6 16 £>xd5 If 16 £e3!? £>xc3 17
bxc3 #c7 or 16...£>xe3!?. 16...exd5 17 C4 2ae818 £e3 £f4 19 £xc5 Both my
opponent and I thought 19 cxd5!? to be erroneous, but in fact it's another
path to a draw: 19...£.xe3 20 d6+ (not 20 dxc6+? *h8 21 fxe3 £>b3!
intending 22 £.xb3 2xe3 with a deadly discovered check to follow), and
now 235

The Philidor Files 20...*h8? is bad in view of 21 fxe3 £>b3 22 67 flxe3 23

d8W flxd8 24 flxd8+ Wxd8 25 Wxe3! £>xal 26 Wc5, when the cornered
knight is bound to be devoured. Correct is 20...£>b3! 21 Wc4+ (or 21
£xb3+ *h8 22 *hl £d4 23 Wd3 c5) 2l...*h8 22 Wxb3 flxf2 23 *hl Wxb3 24
Axb3 Bd8 with a probable draw. 19...Wxc5 20Wd3d4 20...£.e3 gets Black
nowhere after 21 cxd5flxf2 22*hl. 21 g3? The fatal mistake. 21 flel? Wb4!
would not have solved White's problems either, but the far from obvious 21
flfl! would have pushed any danger away. White would then continue with
aaelandibl. 21...£e3H 22 flfl flxf2 22...Wg5 worked as well, contrary to
what I figured during our mutual time- trouble: 23 *g2 (or 23 c5+ *h8 24
fxe3 Wxg3+ 25 *hl Wxh3+ 26 *gl Wg3+ 27 *hl flf3!) 23...£xf2 24 c5+ *h8
25 £bl g6 26 flxf2 Wd5+! was the move I missed; instead 26...flxf2+?? 27
*xf2 Se3? 28 Wxd4+ would allow White to turn the tables. 23 Sxf2 ixf2+
24 *xf2 fle3 25 Wfl We5 White's monarch is too weak and succumbs to the
assault. 26 C5+ *h8 27 *g2 &xg3+ 28 *hl We4+ 29 *h2 Sf3 30 Wei 2e3 31
Wfl fle2+ 32 *g3 We5+ 0-1 B) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5
-&C4 £e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 We2 Now we will consider: Bl: 7».exd4 B2: 7.C6 Bl)
1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 £c4 £e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 We2 exd4
8 £>xd4£>e5 8...fle8?? would lose on the spot: 9 £xf7+! *xf7 10 £>e6!!
<&xe6 11 Wc4+ d5 12 exd5+ *f7 (12...*f5 13 Wd3+ <&>e5 14 Bel+
<&>d6 15 £f4+ is even worse, or if 12...£>xd5 13 £>xd5 with a deadly
discovery check to follow) 13 d6+ ^8 14 dxc7. The queen is captured
meaning that White will have an overwhelming material advantage. 9 ib3
C5 236
The Philidor Hanham The critical follow-up, which justifies Black's
decision to release the central tension. 10£>f5 10 £>f3?! £g4 isn't that bad
for White, but his opponent has no reason to complain either. 10...ixf5 11
exf5 #d7 A controversial position: if it turns out to be good for Black, then
7 We2 deserves a question mark and 7...exd4 is its refutation. 12 f4! 12
£>d5 flae8 and 12 £f4 £>c6 are totally satisfactory for Black, notably
because of the weak f5-pawn. 12...£>c6 13 g4 d5 14 g5 c4 15 gxf6 ixf6 16
ia4 This is the critical position: Black has sacrificed a piece for two pawns
and the initiative. Meanwhile White's kingside is weakened, his bishop is
out of play on a4, and finishing development will not be easy for him.
Kosten considered this position to be favourable for Black, but practice
doesn't reflect this judgement. 16...Wxf5 Variation - Main Line: 7 We2 and
7 a4 17 Wg2! Stronger than both 17 £xc6 and 17 Bel, the only moves
examined by the British Grandmaster. 17 Wt3?\ is a worse version of
White's main queen move: 17...£te7! (17...flad8? 18 £>e2 b5 19 £xb5 £>d4
20 £>xd4 £xd4+ 21 *hl #xc2 22 f5 and Black's compensation soon vanished
in Nisipeanu-Miltner, German League 1996; 17...a6!?) 18 £>dl b5 19 £xb5
flfb8 and now the greedy 20 £.a4 Hb4 21 #a3 leaves the white king too
lonely after 21...#g6+ 22 *f2 £h4+ 23 *e2 £>f5! with a very dangerous
initiative: if 24 #xb4? £>d4+ 25 *d2 #g2+ wins. I7».£>e7 18 £>dl With the
idea of c3 and £c2, but Black strikes first. I8...b5 19 £xb5 flfb8 Regaining
the piece. 20 a4 20 £a4? is worse: 20...Ob4 21 £>e3 #e6 22 f5 #d6. 20...a6
21 £>e3 £d4 22 *hl £xe3 23 £xe3 axb5 24 axb5 ...was unclear in Bezemer-
Rebers, Dutch League 2001. 237

The Philidor Files B2) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f 3 e5 5 £c4

£e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 We2 c6 8 a4 8 fldl seems more precise because the ...b5
push is prevented anyway. Indeed, after 8...b5 9 dxe5 dxe5 (or 9...bxc4 10
exd6 with a clear advantage) 10 £>xe5 bxc4 11 £>xc6 #e8 12 e5... ...White
regains the piece with a sound extra pawn. In the majority of games with 8
fldl, Black plays 8...#c7 but he can try the more ambitious 8...exd4 9 £>xd4
(9 flxd4? b5, followed by ...c5-c4) 9...fle8, when it is doubtful whether the
rook belongs on dl. After 8 a4 we will look at the following options for
Black: B2l: Black avoids ...exd4 B22:8...exd4 9 £>xd4 without 9...fle8
B23:8...exd4 9 £>xd4 fle8 B21) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5
5 ic4 ie7 6 0-0 0-0 7 We2 c6 8 a4b6 Just like ...a7-a5, this is a routine move
in the Philidor. 8...h6 and 8...#c7 represent other possibilities, but they offer
White the opportunity to play a4- a5. Therefore 8...a5, followed by either
...h6 or ...Wc7, restricts White's choice and is more accurate. Here's an
illustration: 9 fldl #e8!? (9...#c7 is more common) 10 h3 (directed against ...
£>b6 and ...£g4) 10...£d8 11 £e3 (11 b3!?) Il...#e7 12 fla3 (peculiar, but
Black had no problems anyway) 12...exd4 13 £xd4 £>e5 14 £>xe5 dxe5 15
£e3 £c7 with an equal position, Hamdouchi- Manouck, French League
1993. 9fldlWc7 10 d5 10 h3 and 10 JLg5 would both call for the answer
10...a6, which enables Black to react to d4-d5 by playing ...c5. 10...cxd5
238

The Philidor Hanham 10...c5?! 11 £>h4 a6 12 £>f5 fle8 13 fld3!? £>f8 14

flg3 £>g6 15 £g5 h6 16 £>xe7+ #xe7 17 £d2 £>f4 18 #fl #b7 19 Obi £d7 20
b4 cxb4 21 flxb4 flec8 was unclear in J.Polgar-Izeta Txabarri, Dos
Hermanas 1993. All the pawns on the queenside are weak at present! The
most vulnerable seems to be b6, but the c-file provides Black with
counterplay. 11 a5! is a more positional treatment which ensures White
better prospects (but it is well known that Judit has an inclination for the
direct attack!), for example ll...bxa5 12 £>b5 #b6 13 £d2 etc., or U..±b7 12
a6! £c8 13 £b5... ...when the threat of £.c6 and £>b5 forces the retreat ...
£>b8 and White has a noticeable spatial plus. 10...Ab7!? is equally possible,
but after 11 dxc6 £xc6 12 £>b5 #b7 13 £>xd6 £xd6 14 flxd6 £xe4 15 £g5
the edge remains with White. 11 £>xd5 £>xd5 12 ixd5 flb8?! 12...£b7! 13
a5 £xd5 14 flxd5 is slightly better for White according to Donev; this seems
a superficial assessment to me, since after \l..MdA 15 fldl flfc8 16 c3 £>c5
17 £>d2 Ag5 Black has Variation - Main Line-. 7 We2 and 7 a4 enough
counterplay. 14...£>f6?!, on the other hand, is too hasty, and after 15 fldl
#c6 16 £g5! White's position is obviously superior. 12...flb8?! was played in
Izeta-Seret, Pampelune 1993, which continued: 13 fla3 £>f6 White keeps an
edge after 13...£k5 14 £e3, or 14 flc3 a5 15 b3, with the idea 15...£a6? 16
flxc5! £xe2 17 flxc7 £.xdl 18 flxe7 and White is winning. 14 flc3 Wd8
I5^b3 15 £c6 £d7 16 £xd7 £>xd7 17 b3 flc8 18 flxc8 #xc8 19 £a3 £>c5 20
£>d2 20 Axc5!?, aiming for a 'good knight 239

The Philidor Files versus bad bishop' position, is also interesting. 15...£b7
After 15...£g4 16 h3 £xf3 17 #xf3 White keeps a small plus thanks to the
pair of bishops. Or if 15...#e8 16 £g5 and once again White will firmly
control the crucial d5-square. 16 £>xe5 £>xe4 16...#e8 17 £>f3 £xe4 18 fle3
£xf3 19 #xf3 can be compared to 15...£g4. 17 £>c6 £xc6 After 17...£>xc3?
18 £>xe7+ *h8 19 bxc3 fle8 20 flel d5 21 £a3 White will keep the two
pieces for the rook. The pin along the e-file is temporary, and anyway,
Black can't attack the knight enough times. 18 flxc6 £\c5 18...£>f6?! 19 £g5
fle8 20 #c4 d5 is much better for White. 19£d5 19 £f4 flb7 and only then 20
£d5 was possible too, but not 20 £xd6? fld7 21 #e5 £>b7. 19-..Wd7
19...£>xa4 20 #a6 £>c5 21 #xa7 flb7 22 Wa3 is again slightly better for
White, who has the pair of bishops and targets on b6 and d6. One may note
that the c6-rook, though temporarily trapped, is paradoxically well placed:
it puts pressure on the b- and d-pawns, while it can't be effectively attacked.
20 b3 *h8 21 £b2 f 5 If 21...flbe8!? 22 #f3 or 22 Wh5 maintains White's
supremacy. 22 if3 Hbd8?! 23 a 5! Creating a second weakness in Black's
camp and thus increasing the advantage. 23...if6?! 23...bxa5? loses to 24
flxc5 dxc5 25 flxd7 flxd7 26 £c6!. Instead, the move 23...flb8! would have
kept material, if not positional, parity. 24 £xf6 flxf6 25 axb6 axb6 26 2xb6
g5?! Here 26...fle6 27 #d2 £>e4 28 #d4 would, at least, not have exposed
Black's king. 27 h3 27..J2g8? 27...fle6 28 #d2 #e7 was more tenacious but a
pawn is missing anyway. 28 2dxd6! 1-0 240

The Philidor Hanham Variation - Main Line: 7 We2 and 7 a4 In this game
White took control of the d5-square and never let it slip. Black, for his part,
didn't find enough activity to compensate for both his weak d-pawn and the
opponent's pair of bishops. B22) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5
5 ic4 ie7 6 0-0 0-0 7 *e2 c6 8 a4 exd4 9 £>xd4 £>c5l? Intending
10...£>cxe4 11 £>xe4 d5 12 £>xf6+ £.xf6. The drawback of this move is
that White's queen can move to f3 without being dislodged by a subsequent
...£>e5. Alternatively: a) 9...£>xe4?! is tricky, but bad after 10 £>xe4 (10
#xe4!? d5 11 £xd5 [not 11 £>xd5?? cxd5 12 #xd5 £>b6 13 #xd8 2xd8 and
Black nets a piece] ll...£>f6 12 £xf7+ flxf7 13 #d3 £>g4 with some
compensation for the pawn, but not more) 10...d5 11 £>f5 and now we
have: al) ll...dxe4 12 fldl £f6 13 #xe4 with nasty pressure for White. a2)
ll...dxc4? 12 &h6! £>f6 (if 12...gxh6 13 #g4+ £g5 14 £>xh6+ *g7 15 £>f5+
*g6 16 fladl and the attack decides, for instance: 16...fle8 17 £teg3, or
16...£>e5 17 fld6+! £e6 18 #g3 *xf5 19 flxd8 £xd8 20 #g7) 13 £>eg3 £xf5
14 £>xf5 gxh6 15 £>xe7+ *g7 16 #e5 #b8 17 £>f5+ *g6 18 £>d6 <&g7 19
flfel fld8 20 fladl fld7 21 fld4 #c7 22 flg4+ 1-0 Tseshkovsky-Lutikov, USSR
Ch, Alma Ata 1962. b) 9.. .£te5?! and now: bl) 10 £b3?! c5 11 £>db5 a6 12
£>a3 Ae6 is unclear. White can also play 11 £>f5 (the sister line of 7 #e2
exd4 8 £>xd4 £>e5 9 £b3 c5 10 £>f5) and this remains double-edged and
difficult to assess: ll...£xf5 12 exf5 #d7 13 f4 (13 £>d5 is possible too)
13...£>c6 14 g4 d5 (14...£>d4? 15 #g2 £>xb3 16 cxb3 is better for White)
15 g5 c4 16 gxf6 £xf6 17 Aa2 #xf5 with two pawns and a mighty initiative
for the piece. b2) 10 £a2! is similar to 10 £b3, but with some nuances that
favour White: for example, 10...c5 11 £>f5 £xf5 12 exf5 and White has the
better of it. Black can't afford to sacrifice a knight, as in the line with 10
Ab3?!, since he won't have the crucial tempo ...c5-c4 at his disposal. 241

The Philidor Files io£.a2 10 f3 and 10 fid 1 are worthy of consideration too.

10...a51lWf3Wb612lJb3 12 £>f5!? £xf5 13 #xf5 was the alternative.
12...£>a6 13 ie3 #c7 14 £>d2 Or 14 £>d4!?. 14...£kb415 £b3 £e6 Black has
solved his opening problems, M.Kaminski-Cifuentes Parada, Polanica
Zdroj 1992. B23) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 e5 4 £>f3 £>bd7 5 ic4 £e7 6 0-0
0-0 7 #e2 c6 8 a4 exd4 9 £>xd4 2e8 lo£a2 White has some alternatives
here: a) In contrast to 9 £.xf7+ in Line Bl, 10 £.xf7+?? fails after the
inclusion of the moves a4 and ...c6: 10...*xf7 11 £>e6 (or 11 #c4+ d5 12
exd5 £>b6+ and White only has one pawn for the piece) ll...*xe6 12 #c4+
d5 13 exd5+ cxd5 14 flel+ *f7 15 £>xd5 £>xd5 16 #xd5+ *f8 and two
pieces are missing! b) 10 a5?! is poor after 10...£f8 (10...d5!? 11 exd5 £c5
12 Wdl £>e5 13 £e2 £>xd5 14 £>xd5 #xd5 was equal in Inkiov-Garrel,
Toulouse 2000) 11 a6 £k:5 (ll...d5!?) 12 axb7 £xb7 13 #f3 (Zelcic-
Malaniuk, Katowice 1992). At this stage Black could simply have picked
up the e4-pawn, whereas the game took quite a different turn: 13...#d7?! 14
£>f5 £>cxe4 15 £>xe4 flxe4 16 £d3 fle5 17 £g5 £e7?? (17...£>d5! is still
better for Black) 18 Wh3 (the threats on h7 and the queen - £.xf6 and
£>h6+ - are already decisive) 18...Ac8 19 £>xe7+ #xe7 (19...Sxe7 20 Wh4
wasn't too appealing either) 20 £.xf6 #xf6 21 flxa7! and Black resigned.
Other continuations allow immediate equalization: 10 #dl d5 11 exd5 £>b6
and 12...£>bxd5; or 10 £g5 £>d5 11 £xe7 £>xc3 12 £xd8 £>xe2+ 13 £xe2
flxd8; or finally 10 £f4 £f8 11 #f3 £>e5 12 £xe5 dxe5 (12...flxe5!?) 13 £>f5
£xf5 14 #xf5 #d7. 10...£f8 Practice has seen Black obtaining good results in
this given position. Black is now considering ...d5 or ...£>c5, which
explains what follows. llWf3 242
The Philidor Hanham Luring the knight to e5, which will diminish the
pressure on e4. 11 f3 obviously allows 11...d5, but things aren't that clear-
cut after 12 #f2. If Black then captures on e4, White will obtain a semi-open
f-file, and above all the a2-bishop will be woken up. Instead 12 *hl c5 13
£>f5 d4 14 £>dl £>e5 15 £>g3 £e6 16 £xe6 flxe6 17 b3 was P.Enders-
Beckemeyer, German League 1996, and now instead of 17...c4!?, the
simplest was 17...d3 18 cxd3 #xd3 with a slight edge to Black because of
his opponent's weakened queenside. Il...£>e5 This is normal, but ll...£k5!?,
precisely the move that White discouraged his opponent from playing, is
okay too: 12 £g5 (or 12 flel d5!) 12...h6 13 £xf6 (if 13 Ah4? g5 14 £g3 £g4
15 #e3 £>fxe4) 13...#xf6 14 #xf6 gxf6 is unclear. The damaged kingside
pawn structure is counterbalanced by Black's pair of bishops. 12#dl 12 #g3
£»h5 13 #e3 is another possibility, but her majesty may feel un- Variation -
Main Line: 7 We2 and 7 a4 comfortable on e3. A repetition of moves by
13...£>f6 (13...Wh4!?) 14 #g3 is then quite logical. 12...as! On the direct
\2...Wo& White would reply 13 a5, when the pawn is taboo in view of
Axf7+. 13 flel?! Or: a) Black meets 13 h3 with 13...#b6!, impeding White's
development (the cl- bishop must defend b2 for the time being), while
preparing to connect the rooks. If Black finds time to play ...kd>7, ...flad8,
...£c8, all his pieces will be harmoniously placed. 243

The Philidor Files Play could continue: al) 14 f4 £>g6 15 flel d5! with the
initiative. a2) 14 flel? £xh3! (another cool effect of 13...#b6!) 15 gxh3 #xd4.
a3) 14 £e3 #b4! (not 14...#xb2? 15 £>de2! intending flbl-b3). a4) 14 £>de2
£>ed7 (the reciprocal knight manoeuvre keeps the balance; 14...£.e6!?, with
a level position, also had its merits) 15 £>g3 £>c5 16 £g5!, and now
16...£kxe4!? 17 £}gxe4 ^xe4 18 £>xe4 flxe4 19 £xf7+ *h8! just about kept
the balance in Wedberg- V.Nevednichy, Manila Olympiad 1992. 19...<i,xf7?
leads, as one may suspect, to a quick defeat: 20 #f3+ *g6 21 #xe4+ *xg5 22
h4+ *f6 23 #f4+ *e7 24 flfel+ £e6 25 #f5. Going back to move sixteen,
Black could have played 16...1i'xb2!, providing an exception to the rule
stating that one should not to be too greedy. While apparently risky, this
move is in fact quite correct, as the following variations demonstrate: a41)
17 £xf6 gxf6 18 #f3 fle5 (not 18...f5? [intending ..±&] 19 exf5! d5 20 £>h5
*h8 21 £>f6 fle7 22 £b3!, followed by fla2, trapping the queen) 19 £>h5
£e7 20 h4!? (20 £>xf6+ £xf6 21 #xf6 £e6 is complex too) 20...£e6 21 #g3+
*f8 22 #g7+ *e8 is unclear. a42) 17 #f3!? £e7 (not 17...#xc2?? 18 £c4 and
the threat of 19 Sa2 is unstoppable) 18 £>h5 (18 flfbl!? #xc2 19 £c4 £e6 20
Scl [not 20 fla2? #xbl+ 21 £>xbl £xc4J 20...#b2 21 flcbl #c2 is equal; if
instead 21...#xal?! 22 flxal £.xc4 23 £>f5 and White is worse materially
speaking, but his activity on the kingside compensates for this deficit)
18...£>cd7 19 flfbl #xc2! and the position is unclear because Black has the
resource ...£>e5 to give the queen the d3-square. For example, 20 flcl #b2
(not 20...£>e5?! 21 £>xf6+ £xf6 22 £xf7+! £>xf7 23 flxc2) 21 flcbl with a
draw by repetition. b) 13 f4?! would be desirable for White, even though it
makes e4-pawn vulnerable. The problem is that it seems to fail tactically:
13...#b6! 14 *hl (14 fxe5 is even worse: 14...dxe5 15 Ae3 [or 15 flxf6 gxf6J
15...£.c5 with a clear advantage for Black; while 14 h3 reaches 13 h3 Wb6
14 f4) 14...£>eg4 15 #d3 (or 15 h3 £>xe4!) 15...d5 16 e5 £c5 with an
advantage to Black. 16 exd5 generates more complications, but again in
Black's favour: for example, 16...flel 17 "^gl £c5 18 £>ce2 £f5, or 18 flxel
£xd4+ 19 <&t\ Axc3 and Black should win. c) 13 Ag5!? is suggested by
Glek. Returning to 13 flel?!, a move that allows Black to claim an edge,
Clek- Bologan, Moscow 1991, continued as follows: 244

The Philidor Hanham Variation - Main Line: 7 We2 and 7 04 13...Wb6! 14

Ag5!? Or 14 h3? £xh3!. The move 14 flbl doesn't solve the problem either,
as Black seizes the initiative with 14...d5! 15 exd5 £g4!. Now 16 #d2 or 16
£>ce2 is answered by 16...2ad8, while both 16 £>de2 £c5 and 16 f3 £xf3
are disastrous for White. 14...Wxb2 15 Wd2 Wb4! 16 ixf6 gxf6 17 2abl
Black's kingside is destroyed, but the edge remains with him anyway,
despite White's positional compensation for the pawn. 17 fle3 *h8 18 flg3
#c5 was also slightly better for Black in Oral- Neuman, Czech League
2001. 17...WC5 18 £>ce2 £>g6 19 £>g3 Wg5 20 2e3!? Missing a first
opportunity to get back into the game with 20 #dl £>f4 21 Be3 h5 22 h4!.
The pawn is indirectly protected in view of £>gf5 and Bg3, winning the
black queen; while on the normal follow-up 22...#g4 23 #xg4+ hxg4 24
£>df5 fle5! 25 c4, Black's advantage is reduced. 20...h5?! Played in order to
deny the white rook the g3-square after ...h5-h4, but the strange-looking
20...£>h4!, controlling f5 while keeping an eye on g2, was much stronger.
2lWdl?! Here 21 £>f3! profits from the unfortunate placement of Black's
queen, and 21...Wh6 (not 21...#c5?? 22 flc3 #a7 23 £>xh5) 22 Qf5 £xf5 23
exf5 flxe3 24 fxe3 £>e5 25 £>xe5 fxe5 26 flxb7 d5 is unclear. 21...h4 22
£>gf5 d5! Black now has an obvious advantage. 245
The Philidor Files 23 £>f3 *f4!? Or 23...Wh5!? 24 £>3xh4 #xdl+ 25 flxdl
£>xh4 26 £>xh4 dxe4, with an extra pawn and the pair of bishops. 24
£>3xh4!? 24...2xe4?! 24...£>xh4! was stronger: 25 g3! (not 25 flg3+? £>g6
26 Wh5 £xf5 27 exf5 #e4! followed by 28...fle5, winning) 25...#c7 (or
25...#g5!? 26 f4 #xf5 27 exf5 £c5 28 gxh4 Axf5 and Black will have a
bishop and a rook for the queen, as well as positional trumps: the a2- bishop
is out of play and the white king is quite weak) 26 gxh4 Axf5 27 exf5 flxe3
28 fxe3 £c5 with a better position for Black. 25 £>xg6 Wxf5 26 fixe4 Wxe4
27 £>xf8 Sxf8 28Wd2?! 28 c4!? would have provided more active
counterplay, but after 28...d4!? (or 28...dxc4 29 Wc\ b5 30 axb5 cxb5 31
flxb5 £e6) 29 #d2 c5!? 30 Wh6+ *e7 Black stays on top. 28...ig7 29 flel?!
*xa4 30 c4 Wb4 31 #e3 £f5 32 cxd5 cxd5 33 &xd5 2d8 34 ia2 2d3 35 *cl
2d2 36 ic4 flc2 0-1 Conclusion Black should treat the rare 7 a4 in a similar
way to the main line, i.e. 7 Bel c6 8 a4, which we will discuss in the final
two chapters. After 7...c6 White can still try to lure his opponent onto rather
unexplored territory by playing 8 Aa2, but if Black answers 8...a5, or even
8...b6, then moving a major piece to the e-file becomes the only sensible
continuation. I believe Black equalizes then by playing ...exd4 followed by
...£>c5, which leads to the conclusion that 8 £a2 is inferior to 8 b3 (cf. 7 flel
c6 8 a4 a5 9 b3). By choosing 7 We2 White intends to bring his rook to dl.
As we have seen, Black has two possible ways to react. The first option is
the straightforward ...exd4, preceded (or not) by 7...c6 8 a4. Black then
finds himself at another junction: he can either carry on by playing ...Be8,
intending to exploit the placement of the white queen on e2, or use a quite
specific method of counter- play with ...£>e5 and, after the retreat Ab3,
continuing with ...c5. The other way to handle the position is more common
for the Philidor Hanham. Black continues 'normally' with ...c6, ...b6, and
...Wc7 when White plays fldl. While the first reaction is more active, in my
opinion both seem in order and offer mutual chances. 246

Chapter Thirteen Main Line: 8 lei without 8...b6 HSwb n mm m 1 e4 d6 2

<J4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 £c4 £e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 Bel ^ ^k ags' p „ IP
^Xl 39i: i ^f « fjat mt 7 Bel is the best move here. White parries the
equalizing threat of 7...c6 8 a4 £>xe4 followed by ...d5, while placing his
rook on a more useful square. Developing the cl-bishop may look more
natural, but one soon realizes that it has no useful post at the moment.
7...C6 Black intends to acquire space on the queenside by playing ...b5. At
the same time, pushing the c-pawn vacates c7 for the queen and controls d5.
Alternatively: a) The extremely rare 7...b6 is less logical, but quite valid
too. Indeed, Black loses a tempo if his opponent allows him to play the
desirable ...a6 and ...b6-b5, but I don't see how White can profit from this.
In other lines, Black solves his opening problems if he achieves the ...b5
push, and here White should still attempt to prevent it, tempo loss or no
tempo loss. Here's an original example and a nice display by Black: 7...b6 8
a4 (or 8 £>d5!? £b7 9 £>xe7+ #xe7 10 d5 c6) 8...a6 9 b3 £b7 10 £a3
(closing the centre by playing d4-d5 is another option, but in comparison
with the Leko-Bauer game - Chapter 14, Line Dl - White will find it
significantly harder to open lines on the queenside) 10...h6 11 #d2 fle8 12
fladl £f8 (12...b5!?) 13 dxe5 (13 d5 was also possible: ...exd4 was becoming
a threat, since the b7-bishop is, 247

The Philidor Files for once, not blocked by the c-pawn; one should also
note that d6 is not weakened here) 13...£>xe5 14 £>xe5 dxe5 15 #e3
15...jb<a3! (a very good practical decision; Black doesn't risk anything and
can play for a win at leisure) 16 Hxd8 flaxd8 17 £>d5 £xd5 18 exd5 a5 19
#g3?! (White starts to err around here; 19 fldl £c5 20 #e2 fle7 21 g3 e4 22
"£^2 looked like a better set-up) 19...£d6 20 fle2 e4 21 #c3 fle5 22 #el £c5
23 c3 £>xd5 24 Hxe4 flxe4 25 #xe4 £>xc3 26 #f3 fldl+ 27 £fl fld2 28 h3
flxf2 29 #a8+ *h7 30 £d3+ g6 when Black was much better and eventually
converted his advantage in Blees- Landa, Leeuwarden 1997. b) 7...a6!?
follows the same objective and merely represents an inversion of move
order. However, this move does imply that Black won't play a line that
includes ...a5. Also, after 8 a4 c6?! (if 8...b6 9 d5!?) White can play 9 a5!,
when the 9...b5 push would now leave a weak pawn on a6 after the en
passant capture 10 axb6. 8a4 Preventing the aforementioned expansion on
the queenside. Generally speaking, if Black succeeds in pushing with ...b5,
he solves all his problems, as shown by the following example: 8 £b3?! b5
9 d5 (9 a3 is better) 9...b4 10 dxc6 bxc3 11 cxd7 £b7! 12 #d3 cxb2 13 Axb2
Wxd7 when Black has two pawns islands versus three, giving him a slight
structural advantage. After 8 a4 we will concentrate on the following
moves: A: 8...exd4 B: 8...ae8 C: 8...#c7 D: 8...a5 Black's most common
move, 8...b6, is the subject of Chapter 14. 8...#e8?!, attributed to the
English analyst L.M.Pickett, prepares a very aesthetic manoeuvre that aims
to transfer the dark-squared bishop to a better diagonal via ..Ad8-c7 or
...Ad8-b6. Its drawback is rather obvious: Black remains passive, and after
9 h3 Ad8 10 a5 £.c7 11 d5 White has a clear plus. My 248

The Philidor Hanham Variation - Main Line: 8 Hel without 8...b6

suggestion is that 8...We8 should be used with moderation and preferably
for rapidplay games! That just leaves: 8...h6 A rare move which seems
designed to prepare ...<5}h7-g5, while its drawback consists of allowing an
eventual £>h4-g6. The most common White follow-ups are 9 Aa2, 9 b3 and
9 a5, and in my opinion White can count on an advantage after any of them.
For example: 9 £a2 £>h710 £>e2 £>g5 11 £>xg5 Axg5 ll...hxg5!? accepts a
slight ruining of the pawn structure in order to prevent f2-f4. B.Filipovic-
V.Spasov, Becici 1994, continued 12 c3 £f6 13 £e3 #e7 14 £>g3 g6 15 d5
with an edge for White. 12 f4 exf413 £>xf4 White has a small plus,
Slobodjan- Federau, Berlin 1997. A) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>C3 £>bd7 4
£>f3 e5 5 £c4 £e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 a4 c6 8 Bel exd4!?/?! This swap is
traditionally preceded by 8...a5, but does it really make a difference? 9
£>xd4 £>C5 If 9...d5!? 10 exd5 £>b6 11 £b3 £>bxd5 12 £>xd5 £>xd5 13
£xd5 cxd5 14 Af4 gives White a slight, but risk-free advantage thanks to
Black's isolated pawn. 10 as! The attempt to refute Black's move order. As
...a5 can hardly be postponed for long, it is possible to transpose to Line D
by either 10 b3 or 10 h3. It should also be noted that 10 £a2 a5 11 #f3 Wb6
12 £>b3 £>xb3 13 £xb3 Ae6 would be analogous to the encounter Ye-
Hamdouchi (see Line Dll), with the queen on f3 instead of the pawn on h3.
This favours White a bit, but not enough to claim an edge, as the game
Slobodjan-Oratovsky, Fuerth 1998, demonstrates: 14 £e3 #c7 15 £a2?! (15
£xe6 fxe6 16 Wh3) 15...£xa2 16 Hxa2 £>d7 17 #e2 £f6 18 #c4 flfe8 19 f3
(or 19 £>d5 #d8 20 £>xf6+ £>xf6 followed by ...d5 with an edge for Black
- the presence of the rook on a2 is a serious 249

The Philidor Files handicap for White) 19...£e5 20 g3? d5 21 exd5 £xg3!
and Black won about 20 moves later. 10...WC7 11 h3 fle812 ig5 h6 13 ih4
(Z.IIincic-Denoth, Budapest 1990). White holds a lasting advantage, and
above all his opponent lacks a constructive plan. B) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3
£>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 £c4 £e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 a4 c6 8 Bel 2e8 9 as 9 £.xf7+
is worth considering, but is less devastating than usual! The position after
9...*xf7 10 £>g5+ *g8 11 £>e6 #a5 12 £d2 £d8 (on 12...£>f8?! White seems
to gain the upper hand, though it is not trivial: 13 £>d5 cxd5 14 £xa5 £xe6
15 exd5 £xd5 16 dxe5 dxe5 17 flxe5 £c6 18 #d4 and the queen and two
pawns should outweigh the three minor pieces) 13 £>d5 cxd5 14 Axa5 £xa5
15 b4 Hxe6 16 exd5 £>xd5 17 bxa5 £>7f6 or 17...£>f4 is unclear. 9-.i.f8!?
An interesting innovation in place of the customary 9...h6. 9...flb8 (??) is a
typical reaction if White plays a4-a5 before Black has touched his b-pawn.
Unfortunately for Black, the above-mentioned combination now becomes
crystal-clear: 10 £xf7+! *xf7 11 £>g5+ *g8 12 £>e6 and the queen is
trapped. 10 d5 b5!? A dynamic measure is needed to avoid drifting into
passivity. The game Ivanchuk-Azmaiparashvili, Montecatini Terme 2000,
continued: ll£.b3 After 11 £a2 b4 12 dxc6 bxc3 13 £>g5 £>c5 14 £>xf7 #c7
15 £>xd6+ £e6 16£>xe8flxe8... ...White has a rook and three pawns for the
two knights, but c6 is bound to fall and Black's pieces are quite active. All
in all, the position is messy. Il...cxd5 12 £>xd5 12 £xd5!? flb8 13 £>g5 (13
b4!?) 13...£>xd5 14 #xd5 #f6 15 £>xb5 £b7 16 #d2 h6 17 £>f3 £xe4 18
flxe4 flxb5 offered mutual chances. 12...h613 C3 White can also play 13
£g5!? (Ivan- chuk's idea, according to his oppo- 250

The Philidor Hanham Variation - Main Line: 8 BeJ without 8...b6 nent's
comments in Chess Informant) 13...hxg5 14 £>xg5 fle6! 15 #f3 and now
15...£.e7!, freeing the f8-square for the knight (or for the king, if it needs to
run away at some stage), or 15...£k5 16 Wh3 £e7 17 £a2, with unclear
consequences in both cases. 13...a6? This is too slow, and White could have
gained a clear plus, as indicated by Azmaiparashvili on move 18. 13...£b7
14 a6 £c6 15 £>b4 £xe4?! 16 flxe4 £>xe4 17 #d5 £>df6 18 #xf7+ *h8 19
£>h4 (19 £>d5!?) gives White a dangerous attack. 15...Wc7, with just a
small edge for White, is more solid. 14 ie3 ib7 15 ib6 £>xb6 16 £>xb6
ab8l7Wd3i-c6l8^h4?! Here White should play 18 £>d2!, preparing £>fl, f2-
f3 and £>e3. I8...£td7 19 *f 3 Wf6 20 £>xd7 20 £d5 #xf3 21 £>xf3 £>xb6
22 £xc6 2ec8 23 axb6 flxc6 24 2xa6 Bcxb6 is still better for White, but
probably holdable for Black, as the white knight is far away from reaching
the dominant d 5 outpost. 20...£.xd7! Instead, 20...#xf3? is met by... ...21
£>xb8!! (a very nice intermezzo) 21...#f6 22 £>xc6 #xh4 23 £d5. Black
position is problematic: he has no targets to attack; his bishop is very bad;
and White can hit a6 with £>b4, and f7 with fle3-f3. 21 Wxf6 gxf6 22 ids
2ec8 23 fledl £e7?! 23...b4 24 c4 b3, followed by ...£e6, would have created
some counterplay. 24 2d3 b4? 25 c4 After 25 £>g6! £f8 26 flg3 Black must
give up f7 by playing 26...<&>h7. 25...&C5?! Better was 25...£d8. 251
The Philidor Files 26 b3? Instead, 26 £>g6 £f8 27 flg3 £g7 and Black's
defensive task remains grim, even following 28 £>e7+ *f8 29 £>f5 £xf5 30
exf5 when the difference in activity between the two bishops is clear to see.
White can consider Bb3, fla4xb4, followed by flb7xf7. After 26 b3 Black is
able to erect a kind of fortress. 26...£d8 27 Bd2 2xa5 28 2xa5 £xa5 29 2a2
£M 30 2xa6 £c5 31 *fl *g7 32 *e2 2c8 Vi-V: C) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>C3
£>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 £x4 £e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 Bel c6 8 a4 #C7 Moving her majesty
so early isn't always necessary, and this is why 8...Wc7 is less popular than
either 8...a5 or8...b6. We will now consider the following moves for White:
CI: 9 b3 C2:9 £a2 C3:9a5 C4:9 h3 9 Ag5?! is not a great move. As so often
in the Philidor Defence, a hasty development of the dark-squared bishop
doesn't bring White much joy. Black can react in two ways: the first option
is 9...£>b6 10 £b3 £g4 when the pressure on d4 forces simplifications after
11 dxe5 or 11 a5 £>bd7 12 d5 £>c5; the second approach is 9...h6 10 Ah4
fle8, with the idea of ...£>f8-g6. In this case, too, both sides have their
chances. CI) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 £c4 £e7 6 0-0 0-0
7 Bel c6 8 a4 Wc7 9 b3 b6 If Black is reluctant to weaken the squares d5
and c6, 9...£>b6!? is a reasonably valid alternative (this is probably the
reason why White usually chooses 9 h3). After 10 kel (to meet 10...a5 with
11 h3) ll...Ag4, the game is approximately level. 10 d5 10...cxd5!? 10...c5
11 a5! offers White a definite initiative on the queenside. 11 £xd5! If 11
£>xd5 £>xd5 12 £xd5 Sb8, fol- 252

The Philidor Hanham Vari lowed by ...£tf6 and ...£.b7, offers reciprocal
chances. Il...£b7 \\...Wxc37? loses an exchange to the obvious 12 £d2.
12^b5 Freeing the path of the c-pawn. 12...Wb8 13 ixb7 Wxb714 i-g5 Bfe8!
Now the threat to e4 is real because the bishop on e7 is protected. 14...^6?
15 c4 would be much better for White. 15 h3 White should probably play
15 £>xd6! £xd6 16 #xd6 £>xe4 17 flxe4 #xe418#xd7l'xc2. In this particular
position the two minor pieces are only marginally superior to the rook and
pawn. Indeed, b3 is weak and Black can get active by playing ...f6 and
...Bad8. White should stand a trifle better, but probably not more. 15».
£>xe416 £xe7 2xe7 17 2xe4 17 £>xd6 £>xd6 18 #xd6 fle6 is equal.
17...Wxe418 Wxd6 2ae819 £>c7 This position was reached in Moro-
zevich-Tischbierek, German League tion - Main Line: 8 BeJ without 8...b6
2000. Now 19...£>c5! 20 £>xe8 flxe8 21 flel Wxc2 22 2xe5 2f8 is equal
according to Tischbierek, an opinion that I share. C2) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3
£>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 £c4 £e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 Bel c6 8 a4 WC7 9 i-32 b6
9...fle8 is possible; White probably continues with 10 h3 (cf. Line C4).
10£kh4?! A dubious idea which doesn't work; 10 h3 and 10 Ag5,
completing development, are more natural. With the bishop on a2, the move
10 d5?! is also unsuitable. After 10..Ab7 11 dxc6 £.xc6 12 Ag5 a6,
counterplay based on ...b5 is imminent, as shown in the encounter
Kruszynski-O.Eismont, Berlin 1997: 13 #e2 b5 14 axb5 axb5 15 £>xb5 #b7
16 £>c3 #xb2 17 #c4 #b7 and Black could be satisfied with the outcome of
the opening. With 10 £ih4?! we are following Hjartarson-Malaniuk, Tilburg
1993- 10...exd411 Wxd4 11 £>f5!? dxc3 12 £>xe7+ *h8 is unclear. 253

The Philidor Files ll...£tcs! 12 b4?! After 12 h3!? a5 13 £>f3 it becomes

apparent that White has spent all these tempi to encourage his opponent to
play 10...exd4. Black has thus obtained an improved version of Line Dll, in
which he voluntarily releases the tension in the centre. Indeed, in that case
the white knight usually occupies the d4-square (where it eyes f5) and the
queen usually stands on f3, a much more effective placement. After
13...£>fd7 14 £f4 £>e6 15 £xe6 fxe6 16 £g3 £>c5 (16...e5?? 17 #c4+ *h8
18 £>d5) 17 e5 d5 White had no constructive plan, and Black stood better
in Smirin-Dorfman (played during the same tournament as our main
game!). 12...£\g4! The drawbacks of the impetuous 12 b4 are underlined:
White has problems on the al-h8 diagonal. 13£>f3 Or 13 bxc5?? dxc5 and
h2 explodes! 13...£f6 13...£>xa4!? 14 £>xa4 (if 14 £xf7+ flxf7 15 flxa4
£>e5 16 £>xe5 dxe5 17 #c4 b5 18 £>xb5 #b6 is winning for Black) 14...£f6
15 e5 £>xe5 16 £>xe5 £xe5 17 flxe5 dxe5 18 #e4 *h8 was less accurate.
Black stands better positionally, and the easiest way to emphasize the
advantage is to keep the material 'balanced'. 14 Wd2 £>xa4 15 £xf7+ #xf7
16 2xa4 £>e5! 17 £>xe5 £xe5 The smoke clears, with Black enjoying the
bishop pair and attacking prospects on the kingside. Furthermore, White's
pieces lack coordination. l8£tdlHi519g3£h3 Not 19...flf3?! 20 #g5 as the
trade of queens would greatly ease White's defence. 20 2a3 After 20 f4 the
best way to exploit White's lack of king cover is with 20...#f3! 21 £k?3 (if
21 fla3 £d4+ wins; or 21 fxe5?? #fl+ 22 flxfl flxfl mate; but 21 c3!? -
controlling d4 - 21...£xf4 22 gxf4 flxf4 remains complicated on account of
the resource 23 1^2+ flf7 24 £>e3) 21...£xf4 22 gxf4 flxf4 23 #e2 #xe4,
when Black already has three pawns for the piece and White's king is
disastrously exposed. 254
The Philidor Hanham Variation - Main Line: 8 Bel without 8...b6 20...2f3
21 We2 flafS 22 flxa7 b5 23 c3 Or 23 fla3 £g4. 23...H6?! Instead, 23...#g6!
24 fla8 flxg3+ regains the pawn, while keeping the positional trumps. 24
£e3 ig4 And here 24...#g6! 25 £d4 h5, followed by ...h4, maintains
attacking chances. After 24...£.g4 White starts to gain the upper hand. 25
Wd2 Sh7 26 £>b2! Wi3 27 £>d3 B8f6 28i.d4Wh5 29ne7i.e6 30 £xe5 30
fle3! was better: 30...flxe3 31 #xe3 flf3 (if 31...#dl+ 32 £>el [not 32 *g2??
£c4 33 £>el £e2] 32...£c4 33 f4 £xf4 34 flxg7+! *xg7 35 gxf4 with a clear
advantage to White in view of his extra pawn) 32 #d2 £xd4 33 cxd4 £c4 34
£>b2 when Black has compensation for the pawn, but objectively he can
only hope for a draw. Also 34 £>el Wh3 would not be winning for Black, as
indicated by Malaniuk, because the simple 35 £>g2 avoids mate. 30...dxe5
31 h4 #g4 32 fle3 32 £>xe5?? flxg3+ 33 fxg3 #xg3+ 34 ^hl 2f2 is a decisive
attack for Black. 32...2xe3 33 #xe3 Bf3 34 #d2 Wxe4 35 £>c5?? 35 flxe6
flxd3 36 flxe5 flxg3+ 37 fxg3 Wxe5 would have been equal. 35-..Wbl+ 36
Sh2 id5 0-1 The white monarch succumbs. C3) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3
£>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 £c4 £e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 Bel c6 8 a4 Wc7 9a5!? This is
probably sufficient to fight for an opening advantage. 9-2b8 10 d5 10 Ag5?!
is, like the same idea one move earlier, ineffective. The inclusion of 9 a5
Bb8 eliminates the possibility of ...£>b6, but the other Black reply (10...h6)
remains quite satisfactory: a) 10...b5?! 11 axb6 axb6 (ll...£>xb6 looks
better) 12 d5 b5 13 dxc6 #xc6 (13...bxc4 14 cxd7 £xd7 15 £xf6 £xf6 16
£>d5 isn't appealing) 14 £>d5 £d8 15 Ab3 with a decent edge for White. b)
10...h6 11 £h4 fle8 12 £g3 (preventing the manoeuvre ...£>f8-g6 due to the
pressure exerted on e5) 12...b5 (12...£>h5? runs into 13 dxe5 £>xg3 14 e6
255

The Philidor Files fxe6 15 £xe6+ *h8 16 hxg3 with a clear plus for White;
13...dxe5? is even worse: 14 £xf7+ *xf7 15 £>xe5+ £>xe5 16 #xh5+ *f6 17
f4 and White wins) 13 axb6 axb6 with approximate equality, since 14 d5?!
has become harmless because of 14...b5 15 dxc6 bxc4 16 cxd7 Axd7 with
an edge for Black. 10...b5 An energetic counter-attack aimed at giving
Black some breathing space; notl0...cxd5?!ll£xd5. Ilaxb6£txb6 12 £fl! After
12 £b3? cxd5, given that White can't insist on ending up with a piece on d5,
he should recapture with the e-pawn as soon as possible. Indeed, trading a
pair of knights would let Black's f-pawn roll. But 13 £>xd5 £>fxd5 14 £xd5
£>xd5 15 #xd5 #xc2 16 flxa7 Ae6 is at least equal for Black, while 13 exd5
Ad7 gives Black a small advantage, as the b3-bishop bites on granite.
12...cxd5 13 exd5 13 £>b5!? (Nevednichy-Vatter, Bad Worishofen 2000) is
possible too. The position resulting from 13...1^8 14 exd5 £>bxd5 15 £>xa7
£d7 or 15...£b7 is, however, unclear. 13-..a6 13...£d7 is valid too, but
13...#b7 14 fla5 £g4?! 15 h3 £h5 16 g4 £g6 17 £}h4 led to trouble for Black
in Ye Ji- angchuan-Cifuentes Parada, Tilburg 14ig5 14 £.xa6?! is punished
by the pinning 14...fla8, and after the forced sequence 15 #d3 #a7 16 £>b5
£xa6 17 £>xa7 £xd3 18 cxd3 £>fxd5, Black has no reason to complain.
14».£>bd7 (Mkrtchian-Gelashvili, Batumi 2001). Now 15 Ba2 seems to be
slightly in White's favour. C4) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5
£c4 £e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 Bel c6 8 a4 Wc7 9h3 White's most popular choice. Now
we will consider: C41:9».2e8 C42:9».h6 C43:9...b6 256

The Philidor Hanham Variation - Main Line: 8 Hel without 8...b6 Despite
quite acceptable results for Black, I dislike 9...exd4?!. Indeed, the queen
isn't optimally placed on c7, and a move such as ...a5 would have been
more useful: 10 £>xd4 fle8 (or 10...a5 11 £}f5 and White robs Black of the
bishop pair) 11 £f4 or 11 a5!? and White keeps an edge. C4) 1 e4 d6 2 d4
£>f6 3 £>C3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 £x4 £e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 flel c6 8 a4 Wc7 9 h3
Be8 A rare continuation, but a quite playable one. 10 a5 White has this
extra possibility when Black avoids playing ...a5 or ...b6. The drawback of
such a move is that the pawn itself may become weak, and that it allows the
plan of ...Bb8 followed by ...b5. After 10 £>g5 flf8 White can repeat moves,
by playing 11 £>f3, or wait until the knight gets expelled with ...h6. The
small risk of such a strategy is that Black may manage to do without ...h6
and the knight may become misplaced. 11 £a2 h6 12 £>f3 is slightly better
for White, but ll...exd4!? 12 #xd4 £>c5 is interesting. As usual, the moves
10 b3!? and 10 £.a2 are possible and maintain a small plus. 10...i.f8 Or
10...flb8!? 11 d5 b5 12 axb6 £>xb6 13 £fl with an edge for White. 11 &g5 It
may be a clever idea to provoke ...h6, so that White has the manoeuvre
£>f3-h4-g6 at his disposal. 11...2e7 12 £e3 Owing to his spatial advantage
White stands better, but Black's position is solid. C42) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £rf6 3
£>c3 £kbd7 4 £tf3 e5 S £c4 Le7 6 0-0 0-0 7 Bel c6 8 34Wc7 9h3h6 The
weakness of g6 created by 9...h6 doesn't call for a direct refutation. White
has the choice between two different approaches: a) To continue normally
with his development, by playing 10 Ae3, 10 a5 or even 10 Aa2. These
three sensible continuations are of equal value and 257
The Philidor Files promise White a slight plus. One example: 10 £e3 fle8 11
a5 £f8 12 d5 £>c5 13 £>d2 £d7 14 b4 cxd5 15 £>xd5 £>xd5 16 Axd5 £>e6
17 c4 £>f4 18 £xf4 exf4 19 a6 £c6 20 axb7 £xb7 21 £xb7 #xb7 22 flbl g5
23 h4 fle6 24 Wh5 flg6 25 hxg5 hxg5 26 e5 Se8 27 exd6 flxel + 28 flxel
#xb4 29 d7 #d6 30 £>e4... ...and Black resigned in Kramnik- Zvjaginsev,
USSR Junior Ch., Leningrad 1990, in view of 30...#xd7 31 #xg6+ fxg6 32
£>f6+. b) To try to profit from the above- mentioned weakening, either by
playing the move in the main text below, or by 10 £>h4. In the latter case,
10...fle8 (10...exd4 11 #xd4 £le5 deserves attention too) 11 dxe5 (11 £>g6
£d8 is unclear) ll...£>xe5 12 Aa2 offers reciprocal chances. 10 dxe5 £>xe5!
This is stronger than 10...dxe5?! 11 £>h4 £>c5 and now: a) 12 £>g6?! fld8
13 £>xe7+ #xe7 14 #f3 £>e6! (14...£e6?! 15 £fl is better for White: the
black knight is less active on c5 than on d4, and the pair of bishops isn't
totally counterbalanced) 15 1^3 £>f4! 16 £.xf4 £>h5 with an equal position.
b) 12 #f3! £>e6 (or 12...£e6 13 £xe6 £>xe6 14 £>f5, Keres-Penrose,
Hastings 1957/58, and now 14...*h7 15 £e3 with an edge, or 14...£>d4?! 15
#g3 £>h5 [if 15...£>xf5 16 exf5 nets e5 or h6] 16 #g4 and the complications
favour White) 13 13...£>d4 14 £>xd4! (14 #g3!? leads to obscure
complications after 14...Axf5 15 exf5 £>xc2 16 £xh6 £>h5 17 #g6 £>xel!
[not 17...£>xal? 18 #xh5 #d6 19 £xg7! *xg7 20 fle4 Wh6 21 f6+! #xf6 22
flg4+ and White wins] 18 #xh5 #d6 19 £xg7 *xg7 20 flxel) 14...exd4 15
£>e2 and White has the better prospects. Il£a2 After 11 £>xe5 dxe5 Black
has no worries as he has avoided a knight's incursion into f5. Tatai-
Dominguez Rueda, El Corte Ingles 1990, continued 11 £fl fld8 (lining up
the ...d5 thrust) 12 #e2 fle8 13 £>d4 d5 14 £f4 Ac5 15 £>f3?! (15 £>b3 is
equal) 15...£d6 16 £>xe5 Axe5 17 Axe5 and a draw was 258

The Philidor Hanham Variation - Main Line: 8 Hel without 8...b6 agreed,
though 17...flxe5 gives Black the edge here. Il...mf3+ 12 Wxf3 ie6 The
position is level. C43) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 £c4 £e7
6 0-0 0-0 7 Bel c6 8 34Wc7 9h3b6 10ig5 White has many alternatives here:
a) 10 d5 i.b7 11 dxc6 (after the prophylactic 11 Be2!?, the queen isn't tied
down to protecting c2, and thus in the event of a mass swap on d5 White
would always be able to recapture with a piece) ll...£.xc6 12 £.g5 £.xe4 (as
in the game Morozevich-Tischbierek [see Line CI J, Black uses tactical
measures to hold the balance) 13 Bxe4 £>xe4 14 £>xe4 #xc4 15 £xe7 #xe4
16 #xd6 £>c5 17 £xf8 flxf8 18 #d2 f619 a5 b5 20 fldl a6 21 #c3 #c4 and a
draw was agreed in J.Benjamin-L.Christiansen, US Championship,
Chandler 1997. b) 10 We2 a6 11 £a2 flb8! 12 dxe5 dxe5 13 £>h4 £>c5 was
level in Leko- Tischbierek, Munich 1992. c) With 10 £a2 White is intending
to exchange on e5 without allowing ...£>xe5xf3 and ...Ae6. He then plans
the traditional transportation of his knight to f5. Now Black can play: cl)
10...Ab7?!. As in the variation where the black queen stays on its initial
square, which we will examine later on, the move ...Ab7 is dubious. Here's
why: 11 dxe5 dxe5 (or ll...£>xe5 12 £>d4, threatening £>f5 and f4, when
White stands much better) 12 £>h4 £>c5 13£>f5 13...£>e6 14 &e3 (directed
against ...£>d4, but 14 #f3! £>d4 15 £>xd4 exd4 16 £f4 #c8 17 £>e2 c5 18
£>g3 was surely stronger) 14...flad8 15 #f3 £>d4 16 £xd4 exd4 17 £>e2
c5?? (17...£b4! would have enabled Black to stay in the game) 18 #g3! 1-0
Mahdi-Palatnik, Cattolica 1993. c2) 10...a6 11 £>h4 exd4! 12 £>f5 (12
#xd4!? *be5 13 f4 £>g6 offers mutual chances) 12...dxc3 13 £>xe7+ *h8
with an unclear position. Alternatively, 11 dxe5 dxe5 12 £>h4 doesn't
promise much: after either ...£>c5 or ...g6, intending 13 £h6 Bd8 14 £>f3
£>c5, Black will prevent £>g5 and equalize. 259

The Philidor Files d) If White chooses to continue with 10 b3 then h3 is

useless. The position is level after \0..Ab7 11 £b2 a6 12 £d3 (with the idea
of £>e2-g3) 12...flfe8 followed by ..Ai8, ...g6 and ...Ag7. e) 10 £e3?! is
inferior to 10 £g5. The e4-pawn is not covered by the rook anymore, which
means that a later ...b5-b4 will gain in strength. Moreover, provoking the
weakening ...h6 with Ag5 may prove to be useful. With 10 Ag5 we are
following Akopian-Lima, Biel Interzonal 1993, which continued: 10...£b7
Or 10...a6 11 d5 £b7 (ll...c5!? 12 £>h4 should be compared to Polgar- Izeta,
Line B21 in Chapter 12) 12 dxc6 £.xc6 13 VHe2 when in comparison with
Benjamin-Christiansen (see the previous note), the c4-bishop is protected
and thus the tactical simplifications don't work anymore. After 13....&b7 14
fladl flfc8 15 b3 White stood a bit better in Piket-Ree, Dutch Ch.,
Hilversum 1990. The move couple 10...h6 11 &h4 can be inserted if Black
doesn't fear 11 &xf6!?£>xf612d5. Finally, there is 10...fle8!?, after which
the critical follow-up again seems to be 11 d5. In comparison to 10...a6, the
e7-bishop is defended, but b5 isn't controlled, but then again the a6-pawn
isn't hanging after We2, but... but... In brief, 10...Be8!? is interesting! llWe2
11 d5!? must be a consideration here; while in the event of 11 dxe5, ll...
£>xe5! is the correct reply. Indeed, the bishop isn't covering f5, so
ll...dxe5?! 12 £>h4 is annoying. Trust me, the correct recapture on e5 will
become a reflex action! Il...a6 12 dxes! dxe5?! Akopian assesses
12...£>xe5! 13 £>d4 as with an edge for White, but practice has seen two
examples that invalidate this judgement: 13...b5 14 £a2 b4 (and 14...h6 15
£h4 flfe8 16 Qf5 flad8 17 #e3 £c8 18 £>xe7+ #xe7 19 #b6 £xh3! was
agreed drawn in V.Potkin-Zablotsky, St Petersburg 2001, just when the
game was becoming entertaining!) 15 £>bl h6 16 Acl (undeveloping all the
pieces!) 260

The Philidor Hanham Vari 16...2fe8 and Black quickly took over the
initiative in Yagupov-Hasangatin, Russian Team Ch., Moscow 1994.
Instead of 13 £>d4 White has tried two other moves, but without much
success in either case: 13 £>xe5 dxe5 14 fladl b5 with equality, Vehi Bach-
Cifuentes Parada, Platja d'Aro 1994; and 13 £b3 £>xf3+ (13...b5; 13...flfe8)
14 #xf3 flae8 15 £f4 £>d7 with maybe even an edge for Black, A.Moroz-
Sufiyarov, Decin 1997. 13 £>h4! Now Black will have to endure the typical
irritation linked with the intrusion of a knight on f5. 13...b5 13...g6? 14 £h6
flfe8 15 £xf7+! <&xf7 16 #c4+ is a recurrent tactical motif with the bishop
on c4 or a2. Black can't even defend effectively by giving back the piece
with 16...£>d5, since the queen is misplaced after 17£>xd5. 14 £>f5 £d8 15
ia2 With the idea of fladl and £>d6. 15..g6 15...b4 is met by 16 £>bl,
intending £>d2. Another defensive plan is tion - Main Line: 8 flei without
8...b6 15...£k5, when Black is considering both ...£le6, and ...b4 followed
by ...£>xe4. 16 £>h6+ <&g7 17 Badl £>g8 The only move according to
Akopian, although 17...b4 18 £>bl £>c5 seems interesting to me as well.
l8Wg4! I8...£>c5? A mistake, after which Black is lost. He should look to
note 'c' for an improvement: a) 18...£>df6 19 Wh4 and Black is almost
paralyzed. b) 18...£>xh6 19 £xh6+ *xh6 20 flxd7 and f7 drops, not to
mention the problems with the black king. c) 18...&xg5! (compulsory) 19
£>xg8! (not 19 £>xf7? flxf7 20 £xf7 £>df6! 21 #xg5 &x(7 and the white
rooks have no square on which to penetrate along the d-file, so Black stands
a bit better; while if 19 flxd7 £>xh6 20 flxc7 £>xg4 21 flxb7 £>f6 22 fldl
flab8! with an equal position; or if in this second line 21 hxg4 flab8 22 fldl
£d8! 23 flcd7 £a5!, followed by ...£.c8 chasing the rook, and gaining an
edge due to the two 261
The Philidor Files bishops) 19...£>c5! (the best, although 19...£>b6 isn't
that clear-cut after 20 a5 £d8 or 20...h6, or 20 Wxg5 *xg8 21 a5; but
19...flad8?! 20 Wxg5 *xg8 21 We7 is very good for White) 20 b4 (20 Wxg5
flxg8) 20...£d8 21 bxc5 £c8 22 Wg3 flxg8 23 fld6 2e8 24 fledl when the
possession of the d-file grants White a strong initiative. Going back a bit,
20...£>xa4 seems stronger given the following variation: 21 £>xa4 bxa4
(21...*xg8? allows White to direct his forces towards the enemy king: 22
£>c5 £d8 23 fld7 £c8 24 fledl! £xd7 25 flxd7 Wc8 26 Wf3 *h8 27 flxf7 £h4
28 £>e6 flxf7 29 Wxf7 Wg8 30 Wc7 £f6 31 £>g5 and White wins) 22 fld7
£c8 or 22...Wc8!? and the position is very murky. 19 £>f 5+! 19...*h8
19...gxf5? loses to 20 £xd8+ fxg4 21 £xc7 gxh3 22 £xe5+ f6 23 £d6. 20
£>d6 b4 21 £e3! bxc3 22 £xc5 £e7 23#g3!cxb2 After 23...flad8 24 Wxc3
£xd6 25 flxd6 flxd6 26 Wxe5+ White will have two extra pawns. 24 Wxe5+
if6 25 Wg3 £c8 26 e5 ig7 27Wb3i-e6 Or 27...flb8 28 £>xf7+ flxf7 29 Wxf7
Wxf7 30 £xf7 £xe5 (30...£f5 31 £b3) 31 flxe5 blW 32 flxbl flxbl+ 33 *h2
and £.d4 will finish the job. 28 Wxb2 Sab8 29 Wa3 flfd8 30 as We7 31 ixe6
Wxe6 32 Wf3 £>h6 33 Wxc6 £>f5 34#c71-0 D) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3
£>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 £c4 £e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 flel c6 8 a4 as This treatment of the
position radically differs from that after 8...b6. Black renounces his
counterplay based on ...b5 in order to ensure a stable square on c5 for his
d7-knight after a capture on d4. He will continue his development with a
plan such as ...£>c5, ...fle8, ...£f8, ...Wb6, and subsequently ..Ad7, ...flad8,
...£c8. The most effective way for White to counter this idea consists of
fianchetto- ing the dark-squared bishop and then attacking on the kingside
by means of Wf3(-g3) and £>f5. After 8...a5 we will concentrate on the
replies: 262

The Philidor Hanham Variation - Main Line: 8 BeJ without 8...b6 Dl: 9 h3
D2:9 £a2 D3:9 b3 Firstly, let's look at less frequent alternatives: 9#e2 Or: a)
9 .&b3?! constitutes a loss of time as the bishop will be attacked after
9...exd410£>xd4£>c5... ...when White has nothing better than to return with
11 £.c4, and now ll...Wb6 is equal. b) 9 £g5?! h6 10 £h4 (or 10 £e3 £>g4)
10...£>h5 11 £xe7 #xe7 doesn't cause Black any particular problems,
especially after 12 £>xe5?! dxe5 13 #xh5 exd4. Going back to 9 We2, with
the white rook already standing on el, the queen move doesn't appear very
logical. Black has two ways to deal with it: maintain the tension with
9...Wc7 (or even 9...h6 or 9...fle8); or release it to reach a position similar to
the one that arose in Glek-Bologan (Chapter 12, Line B23), by playing...
9...exd410 £>xd4 2e8 ...followed by ll...Af8, ...£>c5 etc. The inclusion of
Bel and ...a5 hasn't changed much. The sacrifice 11 £xf7+?? *xf7 12 £>e6...
...is still faulty, because of 12...#b6, winning for Black. But not 12...
<&>xe6?? 13 #c4+ d5 14 exd5+ (double check this time!) 14...*f7 15
dxc6+ *g6 16 c7 #xc7 17 #xc7 £d6 (a lucky point that avoids immediate
defeat) 18 Hxe8 £.xc7 with a definite advantage for White. Dl) 1 e4 d6 2 d4
£>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 £x4 £e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 Bel c6 8 a4 as 9 h3
exd4 Or: a) 9...#e8, although playable, suffers from the same drawback as
when played one move earlier. 10 Aa2 Ad8 11 £>h4!? (targeting f5 and
then d6; 11 £.e3 and 11 £.g5 are also natural and good) ll...exd4 12 #xd4
#e5 13 £>f3 #xd4 14 £>xd4 with an edge for White in Van Riemsdijk-
Agdamus, Brazilian Ch., Americana 1995. b) 9...£>b6, followed by
10...£>fd7, has been employed lately. 263

The Philidor Files One recent example continued with the sequence 10 £d3
£>fd7 11 £e3 fle8 12 #d2 (Baramidze-Bezold, Pulver- muehle 2006) when
White has more space and has slightly the better position. c) 9...h6 10 £e3
fle8 11 #bl!? (an original plan, which is duly rewarded; 11 d5!? £>b6 12
£b3 cxd5 13 £xb6 #xb6 14 £>xd5 £>xd5 15 #xd5 £e6 16 #d3 flac8 17 Had
1 flc6 was between unclear and slightly better for White in Mi.Tseitlin-
Shirazi, Bagneux 1994) ll...£>h7 12 #a2 flf8 13 fladl #c7 14 £>e2 £>g5 15
£>xg5 Axg5 16 £>g3 £xe3 17 flxe3 with a small plus for White, due to his
more space and better posted pieces, Rytshagov-Nevednichy, Moscow
Olympiad 1994. After 9...exd4 White has a choice of recaptures: Dll: 10
£>xd4 Dl2:10Wxd4 Dll) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 £c4
£e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 Sel c6 8 a4 as 9 h3 exd410 £>xd4 £>C5 ll£.f4 This is the
main line of the 9 h3 system. Alternatively: a) 11 Aa2?! is an unfortunate
mix of two ideas, and it deprives White of the possibility b3, Ab2, because
the bishop would then be ridiculous on a2. For example, ll...Wb6 (ll...£e6!?)
12 £>b3 £>xb3 13 £xb3 £e6 14 £e3 (14 £>d5 is equal) 14...#c7 15 £xe6?!
fxe6... ...and Black converted his advantage on move 55 in Ye Jiangchuan-
Hamdouchi, Cannes (rapid) 2001. The direct 12 e5! may be more to the
point: 12...dxe5 13 flxe5 id6 14 Sel fld8 15 #f3 (on 15 £g5?! Black can
consent 264
The Philidor Hanham Vari to the ruining of his pawn structure for the sake
of dynamism: 15...£te6 16 £.xf6 gxf6 17 #g4+ [otherwise White is going to
lose material] 17...£>g5 18 £>f5 #xb2 19 £>e4 £xf5 20 #xf5 £>xe4 21 #xe4
Ab4! 22 Axf7+ *g7 and Black is fine) 15...£.xa4 16 £>xa4 #xd4 17 £g5; or
15...£>cd7 16 £>f5 £>e5 17 £>h6+ *f8 18 Bxe5 .fi.xe5 19 £>xf7, in both
cases with an strong initiative for White. Black can probably improve after
12 e5, but he is clearly on the defensive. b) For 11 b3 see Line D32. c) 11
#f3 £e6 (the pseudo-sacrifice ll...£kxe4!? seems to equalize at once: 12
£>xe4 d5 13 £>xf6+ £xf6 14 £d3 [14 fldl?! is dubious: 14...dxc4 15 £te6
£xe6 16 2xd8 flaxd8 and Black stands better) 14....fixd4 15 Axh7+ *xh7 16
#d3+; but Black's prospects are no worse after the more complex ll...£.e6)
12 £fl d5 (12...#b6!?) 13 exd5 £>xd5 with equality, since 14 £>xe6 fxe6 15
#g4 .fi.d6 provides Black with enough dynamism. d) Even the peculiar 11
_fi.fl, seen in Anand-J.Costa, Biel 1988, deserves consideration. White's
idea seems to be to discourage ..._fi.e6, as well as the possible equalizer ...
£}xe4 and ...d5. After ll...fle8 12 #f3 (or 12 b3!? _fi.f8 13 f3) 12...#b6 13 b3
*b4 (13...£>cxe4?! 14 flxe4 £>xe4 15 #xe4 £xh3 16 £d3 g6 17 Wi4 should
be somewhat better for White) 14 _fi.c4 £>cd7!, Black keeps the balance.
U..Ae6\ Black has tried various methods of counterplay, amongst which
ll....fi.e6 is the most popular. However, Black has tion - Main Line: 8 Hel
without 8...b6 a wide choice here, and we will first deal with his less
standard replies: a) H...Wb6!? 12 b3 (12 #d2!? £d7 13 £>b3 may be a trifle
better for White, whereas 12 Wi3 allowed Black a comfortable equalization
after 12....fi.e6 13 .fifl d5 14 exd5 £>xd5 15 £e5 £>d7 16 £>f5 £>xe5 17
£,xe7+ £>xe7 18 flxe5 £>g6 in Dervishi-V.Georgiev, Durres 2001) 12...fle8
(and 12....fie6!? 13 £fl flad8, I.Vitic-O.Biti, Croatian Team Ch. 2003, is
interesting too) and now: al) 13 #f3 £>cd7 14 £>f5 £>e5 15 Axe5 dxe5 16
£>xe7+ flxe7 17 fladl Ae6 18 .fi.xe6 (Hracek-Piket, Moscow Olympiad
1994) 18...flxe6 is level. a2) 13 £.f3?! £e6 14 £>d2 flad8 is also level,
Dreev-Arizmendi Martinez, Albox (rapid) 2003. a3) 13 e5 dxe5 14 £xe5 (or
14 flxe5 £>cd7 15 fle3 £>f8 16 #d2 £>g6) 14...£>cd7 15 £g3 (worse is 15
£>f5?! £}xe5 16 Bxe5 .fi.b4 with a small edge to Black in S.Ahmed-
Magem Badals, Dhaka 2003) 15...Qf8 16 Wd3 £>g6, when the white pieces
are bit better placed, but Black should be able to equalize soon. 265

The Philidor Files a4) 13 Ah2!? (possibly a clever semi- waiting move)
13...£f8 14 Wf3 was Kosteniuk-Strikovic, Dos Hermanas blitz 2004. White
stood better later on and went on to win, but perhaps 14...£>cd7 15 £>f5
£>e5 16 £xe5 flxe5 17 £>h6+ gxh6 18 #xf6 £e6 is alright for Black. After
any of the following, rather passive attempts, White should keep a slight
plus: b) ll...£>fd7?! 12 £>f5 £>e5 13 £>xe7+ #xe7 14 £fl (Sermek-
D.Novak, Croatian Team Ch. 2000) and White has the two bishops for
nothing. c) ll...fle8 12 #f3 £f8 13 fladl, Tukmakov-Planinec, Amsterdam
1974. d) ll...£>e8 12 #d2 £>e6 13 £e3 £>xd4 14 £xd4 £e6 15 £fl f5, Skrip-
chenko-O.Bartosik, Bratislava 1993. d) ll...£>e6 12 £h2 £>xd4 13 #xd4
£>e8 14 fladl £e6, Ganguly-Elbilia, Turin Olympiad 2006. Returning to 11.
..Ae6: 12 £>xe6 Or: a) 12 £fl #b6 (12...d5!?) 13 #f3 (13 b3 flad8 14 Wf3 d5
was equal in Kutu- zovic-Topalovic, Pula 2002) 13...d5 brings us back to
Dervishi-V.Georgiev (see ll...#b6), but 13...flad8 14 fladl WM
(Tseshkovsky-Jenetl, Krasnodar 2001) is a valid option as well. b) 12 £xe6
fxe6 13 e5 is not too demanding for Black: 13...£>d5 14 exd6 (14 £>xd5
exd5 15 £g3 Ah4 was equal in Baramidze-Belikov, Dortmund match 2003,
as is 15...dxe5 16 £xe5 £h4 17 £>f3; while after 15 #g4?! h5 16 #g3 £h4 or
15 exd6 £xd6 16 £xd6 #xd6, White even ends up worse) 14...£>xf4 (if
14...£xd6?! 15 £xd6 Wxd6 16 £>e4 £>xe4 17 flxe4 with an edge) 15 dxe7
#xe7 16 #g4. Now 16...flf6, intending ...flaf8, ...flg6, and 17 £>f5 #c7,
seems the most precise, but even \6...Wt6 or 16...flad8 is playable. 12...fxe6
13 e5 Or 13 #e2 #b6 (13...£>fd7 14 #e3 d5 was also fine for Black in
V.Karasev- Shabanov, Satka 2004) 14 e5 (14 #e3 d5 15 exd5 £>xd5 16
£xd5 exd5 17 #xe7 flxf4 was at least equal for Black in Be- liavsky-
Oratovsky, Bugojno 1999) 14...£>d5 15 £xd5 cxd5 16 exd6 £xd6 266

The Philidor Hanham Variation - Main Line: 8 Hel without 8...b6 17 £.xd6
#xd6 with a roughly equal game. 15...cxd5 is the most solid, but 15...exd5
16 exd6 £f6 17 flabl flad8 also deserves consideration. Black will continue
with ...Wb4 and maybe grab on c3. His pieces control many important
squares, though it is still unclear how he will deal with the d6-pawn. 13».d5
13...£>d5 leads to positions similar to those after 12 Axe6. The difference,
the survival of the c4-bishop rather than the d4-knight, doesn't alter the
assessment. After 14 exd6 £}xf4 (or 14...£xd6!? 15 £xd6 #xd6 16 £>e4
£>xe4 17 flxe4, Reeh-Miltner, German League 2005, and I don't think
White can claim an edge here, as the bishop is not as effective as a knight
on d4 would be) 15 dxe7 #xe7, Black has enough activity to compensate for
the weakness on e6. He will probably follow up by playing ...flf6, then
double on the f-file, and/or continue with ...flg6, ...Wg5 and so on. His
knight on d5 does a good job of blocking the bishop's attack on e6.
13...£>fd7!? is a possibility for Black which is unavailable after 12 £.xe6.
Following 14 exd6 flxf4 15 dxe7 #xe7 Black should be okay. The text move
is interesting, but also more dangerous for Black. 14exf6ixf6l5Wg4!
15£.e3d4 is equal. 15».h5! After the faulty 15...dxc4?, the right way is 16
fladl! Wb6 (or 16...#e8 17 £d6 £e7 18 #xc4 and the Philidor specialist was
quite lucky to escape against a much lower-rated opponent in Alford-
N.Mitkov, Mexico City 2006) 17 £e3! and Black experiences trouble in
every case, e.g. 17...#xb2 (or 17...£xc3 18 bxc3 flf5 19 fld7!) 18 £xc5 £xc3
19 #xe6+ *h8 20 flbl! #xc2 21 ixf8 ixel (if 21...flxf8 22 #f7!) 22 £xg7+
<&>xg7 23 flxb7+ and mate follows. l6Wf3 After 16 #g3 dxc4 17 fladl 1T?
6 (17...#e8?! 18 £d6 £e7 19 fle5 gave White a noticeable edge in Godena-
N.Mitkov, Calvia Olympiad 2004) 18 £e3 (or 18 £d6 flf7) 18...*b4,
intending 19 £>a2 £te4!, the position is unclear. 16 #xh5? is wrong:
16...£xc3 17 267

The Philidor Files bxc3 (or 17 £g5 flf5!) 17...flxf4 18 £d3 Wh4 with a great
advantage to Black, whose pawn structure is clearly favourable. 16...dxc417
#xh5 £xc3 18 bxc3 £>xa4 Maybe 18...flf5 19 #g4b5. 19 *g4 b5 20 Wxe6+
flf7 21 ie5 #d7 22Wg6 This looks promising for White, but after 22...£>b6
followed by ...£>d5, and ...W(5 if needed, Black also has his trumps. D12)
1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 £c4 £e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 Bel c6 8
a4 as 9 h3 exd410 #xd4 268 Under the present circumstances this is an
interesting alternative to 10 £>xd4. White can concentrate his forces
towards the d6 weakness thanks to his opponent's previous move, which at
least gives him an easy plan. 10...£>c5 After 10...Wb6?! I would rate
Black's equalizing chances much lower: 11 Ae3 (or 11 £f4) ll...*b4 12 £d2
#c5 13 £f4 £>e8 (or 13...#xd4 14 £>xd4 £>e5 15 ib3) 14 fladl Wxd4 15
£>xd4 and White enjoyed a persistent edge in Bo- logan-B.Damljanovic,
Calvia Olympiad 2004. In the event of 10...£>b6!?, to follow up with ...d5,
White's bishop would stay on the a2-g8 diagonal. Indeed, 11 £b3 d5 12
exd5 £>fxd5 13 £>xd5 £>xd5 14 Axd5 cxd5 is slightly better for White, as
the bishops don't fully compensate for the isolani. Il£f4 Aiming at d6, this is
the most consistent follow-up to 10 #xd4. Here are some other minor
options for White: a) 11 b3 £>cxe4!? (Il...£e6) 12 flxe4
The Philidor Hanham Variation - Main Line: 8 Hel without 8...b6 (12 <SW4
d5 is roughly equal after 13 £>ed2 dxc4 14 #xd8 £xd8 15 £>xc4)
12...£>xe4 13 £>xe4 d5 14 £b2 f6 15 fldl and now, rather than lS...!^? 16
flel #f7 (or 16...dxc4 17 £>d6) 17 £d3 with a quick White victory in
Arakhamia- Giertz, Geneva 1990, Black should have opted for either
15...*h8 16 £>eg5 £f5 17 £d3 £xd3 18 flxd3 c5, or 15...#c7 16 £d3 dxe4 17
#xe4 f5 with dynamical equilibrium in both cases. b) 11 £e3!? £e6 (ll...
£>cxe4?! was insufficient for equality in H.Bastian- Wahls, German League
1988, after 12 £>xe4 d5 13 £>xf6+ £xf6 14 #f4 dxc4 15 fladl We7 16 #xc4
£e6 17 £c5 £xc4 18 £.xe7, as Black faced the prospect of either conceding
the seventh rank or allowing his pawn structure to be damaged) 12 Sadl (or
12 £xe6!?, intending 12...fxe6 13 e5) I2...£>fd7 13 £xe6 fxe6 14 #c4 #e8 15
£>d4 d5 16 exd5 exd5 17 £>xd5 cxd5 18 #xd5+ ...and now instead of
18...*h8?! 19 £>f5 (Savic-Damljanovic, Herceg Novi 2002), 18...#f7 19
£>f5 £d8 would have been fine for Black. c) 11 e5?! brought White nothing
after ll...dxe5 12 #xe5 £e6 in Manca- N.Mitkov, Saint Vincent 2003. Il...£e6
Or: a) The seemingly passive ll...£te8 is playable, too. Black is intending
12...£>e6, when 13 £.xe6 fxe6 14 e5 d5 would be fine for him. Another plan
consists of ..."£+18 followed by ...f5, which explains White's next: 12 #e3!
£e6 13 £fl 1T?6 14 fladl fld8 (14...#xb2?? loses, of course, to 15 flbl #a3 16
£>d5, or 15...#xc2 16 £>d4) 15 b3 with a slight edge to White, Chebotarev-
Dudukin, Serpukhov 2004. b) ll...£>e6 12 £xe6 £xe6 (I2...fxe6? 13 e5
supplies an argument for ll...£le8; after 13...£>d5 14 exd6 £>xf4 15 dxe7
#xe7 16 fle3 White has a nice plus linked with the weak e-pawn and the bad
c8-bishop) 13 fladl d5 (or 13...£>e8 14 We3 #c7 15 fld2 fld8 16 fledl and
White was pressing in M.Pavlovic- Miltner, Biel 2003) 14 exd5 cxd5
(14...£>xd5 would not have solved the problems after 15 £e5, or 15
£>xd5!? with the tricky idea 15...£xd5?? 16 #e3) 269

The Philidor Files 15 £>g5 Af5 16 #e5 £xc2 17 #xe7 #xe7 18 flxe7 £xdl 19
£>xdl when Black had chances to hold, but obviously it was White who
was having all the fun in Kaidanov-V.Georgiev, Chicago 2002. 12 2adlW>6
12.. .£>e8 (Isonzo-N.Mitkov, Saint Vincent 2003) is probably worse, but it's
also more complicated! 13 £xe6 After 13 b3!? £xc4 14 #xc4 (as in Luther-
N.Mitkov, Plovdiv 2003) White may be a tad better, but not more.
13».fxe614 £xd6 Or 14 e5 dxe5 15 #xe5 (after 15 ixe5 2ad8 16 Wh4 #b4
Black was close to equality in Pikula-N.Mitkov, Pfaeffikon 2003) 15...£>d5
(15...#xb2? 16 £>d5! #xe5 17 £>xe7+ *f7 18 flxe5 and Black found it hard
to conveniently regain the piece in Battsetseg- Sheremetieva, Manila
Olympiad 1992) 16 £>xd5 exd5! and Black is okay. 14.-i.xd6 15 Wxd6
2ad816 We$\ 16 #e7 flde8 17 #d6 fld8 18 #e7 flde8 was agreed drawn in
Sermek- N.Mitkov, Bled Olympiad 2002. l6...1jfd717Wd4Wxb2 l8We3! 18
Obi #xc2 19 fle2 (19 fledl?! £>b3 was already in Black's favour in S.Cela-
A.Kizov, Bar 2006) 19...#d3 20 #xd3 £>xd3 21 flxb7 £>7c5 is equal.
l8...Wa3 After 18...#b6 19 fld6 (Korneev- Mietzner, Boblingen 2003) it is
difficult for Black to move, since his knights and queen are somewhat
tangled. 19&bl (Nedev-Tratar, European Ch., Istanbul 2003). Black's
position, though very playable, is more difficult to handle. D2) 1 e4 d6 2 d4
£>f6 3 £>C3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 £c4 £e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 Bel c6 8 a4 as 9-&a2
Now Black can play: D21:9».h6 D22:9-exd4 Or: 9».2e8 Black usually can't
manage without the preparatory ...h6 if he wishes to continue with this rook
move. The drawback of 9...Wb6?! is the 270

The Philidor Hanham Variation - Main Line: 8 BeJ without 8...b6

possibility of 10 h3 exd4 11 #xd4! #b4 (swapping queens provides White
with an easy position - compare with Bolo- gan-Damljanovic in Line D12)
12 Af4 £>e5 13 £xe5 dxe5 14 #xe5 and Black's compensation was missing
in Muk- hametov-Genba, Moscow 1996. 12...£>h5 leads to complications
that turn out well for White: 13 £e3 £f6 14 #d2 #xb2? (14...£>e5!) 15 £>d4
(the queen is trapped and must run away as quickly as possible) 15...#b4 16
flabl #c5 17 £>de2 £xc3 (if 17...#e5 18 g4 wins) 18 £>xe3 #e5 19 g4 £>hf6
20 £f4 with already a close-to-decisive advantage for White. The thematic
9...#c7 is possible, though. 10 &g5 White can keep an edge after 10 h3 £f8
(10...h6 would return to Yakovich- Genba, Line D21) 11 £e3 or 11 £>g5
fle7 12 £e3. 10...2f8 11 £e3 h6 12 £xf7+?! A suspicious attempt to exploit
Black's ninth move. Events now take a forced turn, but everything is okay
from Black standpoint. 12...Sxf7 13 £>e6 Wb6 14 dxe5 #xb2 15 exf6 ixf6
16 £d4 ixd4 17 Wxd4 £>e5 I8£>d8 2f6 The creative 18...flf3! 19 £>e2 #xd4
20 £>xd4 flf8 21 £»8e6 £xe6 22 £>xe6 flf6 23 £>d4 is slightly better for
Black, since he has fewer pawn islands. 19&ablWxc2 20&e2 20...£>f3+
This sacrifice forces a draw in spectacular fashion. Black could carry on the
struggle by playing 20...#d3!? 21 Wxd3 £>xd3 22 £>xb7, but the position
remains in equilibrium. 21 gxf3 flg6+ 22 ihl #xbl+ Or immediately
22...£.h3. 23 £>xbl ih3 24 *b6 JLg2+ '/i-Vi Kharlov-S.Pedersen, Aalborg
1993. D21) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 £x4 £e7 6 0-0 0-0
7 Bel c6 8 a4 as 9 £a2 h6 10 h3 fle8 11 £e3 £f8 12£>d2! We are following
Yakovich-Genba, Perm 1997. 12...#C7?! A mistake. 12...£>b6 13 #f3 (13
f4!?) 271

The Philidor Files 13...£e6 14 d5 cxd5 15 exd5 £d7, or 12...exd4!? 13 Axd4

£>c5 14 #f3 £e6 was better. 13 £>c4 exd4 14 £xd4 £>xe4? 15 £>xe4
d516Wh5?! 16 £>b6! would have won more quickly after 16...£>xb6 17
£>f6+. 16...2xe4 Two other possibilities couldn't save Black: if 16...g6 17
Wh4 dxe4 18 £>b6! £>xb6 19 Wf6 and White wins, while 16...dxe4 17
£k!6 is similar to the game continuation. 17 2xe4 dxe4 18 £>d6! Wxd6 19
#xf 7+ *h7 20 %8+ *g6 21 M7+\ *f5 Or 21...*g5 22 £xg7 £xg7 23 #xg7+
*f5 24 Ag6+! *e6 (24...#xg6 25 g4+ *g5 26 h4+) 25 #f7+ *e5 26 #f5+ *d4
27 fldl+ and White wins. 22Wh7+*g5 22...g6 is no improvement as after 23
£xg6+ #xg6 24 g4+ White wins the queen. 23 h4+ *xh4 24 #xe4+ *g5 25
f4+ *h4 26 £f2+1-0 Mate follows with 26...<&>g4 27 £h5+ *xh5 28 #f5+
g5 29 g4. D22) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 -&C4 £e7 6 0-
0 0-0 7 Bel c6 8 a4 a5 9 £a2 exd410 £>xd4 £>c5 After this common move
White is again at a crossroads. Apart from 11 £f4 and 11 #f3, he has tried
many unconvincing moves: 11 £>f5?!, 11 f3 and 11 Ag5 to name a few.
Il£f4 Or: a)Forllh3?!seeLineDll. b) With 11 #f3 White would like to bring
his knight to f5, but without having to recapture with the e-pawn in the
event of ...£.xf5. Indeed, Black would then continue by playing ...d5 and,
rather than his doubled pawns, it would be the bishop on a2 that would
cause a headache. Black can play: bl) ll...£e6?! 12 £>f5 (12 £e3 should also
guarantee a slight edge) 12...£.xf5 13 #xf5 when, in comparison with
ll...#b6 12 £>f5 etc., Black has lost a whole tempo, his queen being quite
annoying for White on b6. b2) In contrast to Sermek-D.Novak (see Line
Dll) ll...£>fd7!? is quite in- 272

The Philidor Hanham Variation - Main Line: 8 Hel without 8...b6 teresting
here. After 12 £>f5 £>e5 13 £>xe7+ #xe7 14 #g3 £e6 (as in RWata- nabe-
Scarella, Bariloche 1991) the difference is that White can't hide his bishop
on fl. b3) 11...11)6! is the best reply in my opinion: b31) 12 £g5 *h8
(12...*b4!?) 13 e5?! dxe5 14 flxe5 £g4 15 #f4 £>e6 16 £>xe6 fxe6 (Teran
Alvarez-Oratovsky, Man- cha Real 2000), and White experiences trouble
parrying the numerous threats (b2, f2 and ...£d6). b32) 12 £>b3 £>xb3 13
£xb3 £e6 14 Ae3 Wc7 transposes to Slobodjan- Oratovsky (Line A) and is
equal. b33) 12 £>f5 £xf5 13 #xf5 flae8 (M.Bilic-O.Biti, Croatian Ch.,
Zagreb 2002) and White can't finish his development properly since b2 is
hanging. This should give Black a kind of dynamic equality, provided that
he acts energetically (moves like ..Mb4, ...Ad8, ...Be5/...d5 come to mind).
c) On 11 Ag5 Black can consider H...Wb6orll....&e6!?. Returning to 11 £f4.
Il...ie6 Once more this move seems to be adequate. After ll...£te6?! (Asrian-
Doostkam, Dubai 2004) I would suggest the retreat 12 Ae3, when White
keeps an edge. Il...#b6 has also been played: 12 #d2 fle8 13 £>b3! (13 *hl
£>g4 [13...#b4!?] 14 f3 £>e5 was not too scary for Black in Daurelle-Piot,
Clichy 2001) 13...£f8 14 £>xc5 #xc5 15 £e3 Hi5 16 £d4 £>g4?! (16...#g6)
17 h3 £>e5 18 f4 with a pleasant edge for White, Rodriguez Cespedes-
L.Brunner, World Team Ch., Lucerne 1989. 12Wd2 In the event of 12
£>xe6 fxe6 13 e5 £>d5 14 £>xd5, Black should avoid 14...exd5? 15 exd6
£xd6 16 £xd5+ *h8 17 £xd6 #xd6 18 Af3 (Sprenger- Lobzhanidze, Belgian
League 2005) and rather opt for 14...cxd5, when his position is quite
acceptable. 12...Wd7 ...was roughly equal, Gaponenko- Mietzner, German
League 2005. D3) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f 3 e5 5 £c4 £e7 6
0-0 0-0 7 Bel c6 8 a4 a5 273

The Philidor Files 9b3 This quiet pawn move currently seems to be the
most promising continuation for White. 9...exd4 Or: a) 9...#c7?! 10 £b2 h6
(or 10...fle8 11 #d2 h6 12 £fl £>f8 13 h3 £>6h7 14 d5 g5 15 fladl £>g6 16
£>h2 h5 17 g3 with a small advantage) 11 h3 fle8 12 Wd2 £>f8 13 fladl
£>g6 14 d5! fld8 15 £a3 £>f4 16 £fl £>e8 (16...cxd5) 17 *h2 g5 18 g3 £>g6
(if 18...£>xh3 19 £xh3 g4 20 £g2 gxf3 21 £xf3 with a clear plus) 19 #e3
£>f6 20 £>d2 £d7 21 £>c4 c5 22 £>b5 £xb5 23 axb5 £>e8?! (23...b6) was
Shi- rov-Tischbierek, German League 1992, and now 24 b6! #d7 25 £b2 a4
26 flal leaves White with a clear advantage. b) 9...h6 10 £a3 fle8 11 h3 #c7
(ll...£>h7!?) 12 #d2 £>b6 13 £fl £e6 14 fladl £f8 (or 14...flad8 15 £>bl!
£>c8 16 c4 with an edge for White) 15 £>bl!? exd4 16 £>xd4 d5 17 exd5
£xd5 18 flxe8 £>xe8 19 £xf8 *xf8 20 c4 £e4 21 £>c3 £>f6 (Kundin-
Erenburg, Givataim 1998) and 22 £>xe4 £>xe4 23 #el! £>c5 24 £>f5 £>e6
25 #c3 #f4 26 £d3 keeps an edge. After 9...exd4 we will consider:
D31:10Wxd4 D32:10 £>xd4 £>C5 D33:10£kxd4£kb6 D31) 1 e4 d6 2 d4
£>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 £c4 £e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 a4 a 5 8 flel c6 9 b3
exd410 Wxd4 Although less natural, the recapture with the queen is
playable and gives White chances to obtain an opening advantage. 10...£
\e5! This knight sally, based on a tactical point, seems to solve all of Black's
problems. Alternatively: a) 10...£>g4 plans to install the e7- bishop on its
best diagonal. White can play: al) 11 h3 £>ge5 12 £>xe5 dxe5 is equal. 12
£e2?! is worse: 12...£>xf3+ 13 £xf3 £f6 14 #d2 £e5 and, with ...£>c5, ...f5,
and/or ...Wi6 arriving, Black was already slightly better in N.Medvegy-
Oratovsky, Budapest 1999. a2) 11 £b2 £>de5 12 £>xe5 dxe5 13 Wxd8 Sxd8
is again equal. 274

The Philidor Hanham Variation - Main Line: 8 lei without 8...b6 a3) 11 £a3!
£f6 12 #d2 £>de5 13 fladl! is astonishing! White allows both 13...£>xc4
and ...£>xf3+, but then his position would be better in both cases as d6
would fall. Instead, 13 £e2 #b6 14 flfl £>xf3+ 15 £xf3 #d4 16 #xd4 £xd4 17
£b2 £>e5 is equal, while after 13 £fl?! IW or 13 £>xe5?! £xe5 14 h3 #f6
(Leib- Oratovsky, Mondariz Balneario 2002) Black seizes the initiative.
Back to 13 fladl, and Hamdouchi- Oratovsky, Mancha Real 2000, continued
13...#b6 (13...£>xf3+?! loses d6 for nothing: 14 gxf3 £>e5 15 £e2; or
14...£e5? 15 fxg4 £xh2+ 16 *g2 and White won in Gutierrez Lopez-Milla
de Marco, Malaga 2004) 14 £>xe5! (or 14 £xd6!? fld8 15 fle2 [Kabisch-
Miltner, German League 2002) and after the computer-style 15...fld7! Black
holds the balance) 14...£xe5 15 h3 £>xf2 (worse is 15...£xc3?! 16 #xc3
#xf2+ [16...£>xf2? 17 #d4 #xd4 18 flxd4 and the knight is trapped) 17 *hl
Wh4 18 Ab2 and White collects the pawn back on d6 with excellent
attacking chances) 16 #xf2 #xf2+ 17 *xf2 £xc3 18 fle3 £f6 19 £xd6 fle8 20
£c7 when the ending was a bit unpleasant for Black. Swapping the light-
squared bishops would allow an invasion of the seventh rank, while the a5-
pawn requires constant protection. b) 10...£>b6!? 11 £fl d5 (Baron
Rodriguez-Comas Fabrego, Lorca 2005) offers mutual chances. c) The
automatic 10...£>c5?!, on the other hand, doesn't meet the demands of the
position, and White achieved a nice edge after 11 £b2 <&>h8 12 fladl in
Del Rio Angelis-Teran Alvarez, Spanish Team Ch. 2001. Il£a3 The most
recent try. After 11 £e2 £>fg4 12 h3 £>xf3+ 13 £xf3 £>e5 14 £e2 f5 Black
was by no means worse in Degraeve-N.Mitkov, Bled Olympiad 2002.
Instead 12 £b2 £f6 13 Wd2 #b6 (or 13...£>xf3+!? 14 £xf3 £e5) 14 flfl
£>xf3+ (14...£e6 and 14...fld8, Glavina Rossi-Oratovsky, Spanish Team Ch.
2004, are satisfactory too) 15 £xf3 £>e5 16 £e2 £e6 17 *hl (or 17 #xd6?!
flad8 18 #a3 fld2 and Black's activity is more than sufficient 275
The Philidor Files to compensate for the pawn) was played in Lahno-
Nedev, Istanbul 2003. Now instead of the hasty jump 17...£>c4?!, Black
should have played 17...flad8 first, when the game would have remained
roughly level. In the event of the obvious 11 £>xe5 dxe5 12 #xe5, Black has
slightly the upper hand: 12...£>g4 13 #f4 (not 13 #g3?? £h4) 13...£d6 14 e5
£>xe5 15 £a3! (15 flxe5? #c7 loses material) 15...£>xc4 and so on. Il...
£>xc4 The alternative is ll...£>xf3+!? 12 gxf3 and now: a) 12...fle8?! 13
fladl d5 14 £xe7 #xe7 15 exd5 #xel+ 16 flxel flxel+ 17 •£^2 and as moving
the bishop allows the nasty 18 1^6, it seems that Black is in trouble. b)
12...£e6?! 13 fladl £xc4 14 bxc4! c5 15 #e3 leads to a position where White
has more weaknesses than Black, but also many more active possibilities
(£>b5, £k!5, f4, etc.) so his prospects are very good. c) After 12...#c7! 13
fladl fld8, for the moment Black is on the defensive. In comparison with the
12...£.e6?! line, however, he has kept some elasticity, and, after 14...£.e6,
the freeing ...d5 thrust comes into the equation. 12 #xc4 ie613 #d3 In Jones-
M.Roos, Cork 2004, Black accepted an isolated pawn with 13...d5?! 14
£xe7 #xe7 15 exd5 flad8 16 £>g5 cxd5, and here White can enjoy a
persistent and risk-free advantage with 17 £tt>5!? or the game's 17 fle2.
Instead, 13...#c7 14 fladl flad8 15 £>d4 may be pleasant for White, owing to
his space advantage, but not more than that. D32) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £rf6 3 £>c3
£>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 £x4 £e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 Sel c6 8 a4 a 5 9 b3 exd410 £>xd4
£>C5 11 £b2 Or 11 h3!? fle8 12 £b2 £f8 13 #f3 £>cd7 14 £fl £>e5 15 #g3
£>h5 (previously 15...£>g6 was preferred) 16 #e3 £}f6 (a tacit peace offer,
but White was in a fighting mood) 17 fladl g6 18 f4 £>ed7 19 #f2 #c7 20 g4
£>c5 21 £g2 fla6 22 *hl £g7 23 £a3 £>fd7 24 #d2 #d8 25 £>de2 #h4 and
now the players agreed a draw, De Firmian-Gulko, US Ch., Seattle 2000.
276

The Philidor Hanham Variation - Main Line: 8 BeJ without 8...b6 11...2e8
The classical plan which targets the e4-pawn. ll...Ae6!? is another
possibility. I don't really understand the idea behind ll...*h8!?, but this
caused Shi- rov serious problems in his game against Hicham Hamdouchi:
12 #d2 (12 h3 £>fd7 13 £>f5 £>e5 14 £>xe7 £>xc4 was perhaps one of the
hidden points of ll...*h8) I2...£>g4 13 fladl #b6 14 Afl (prophylaxis against
...£te5) 14...£f6 15 h3 £>e5 16 #e3 (16 f4 £>e6! is equal; this is better than
16...£>ed3 17 £xd3 £xd4+ 18 *hl when White will continue with £>d5 or
£.c4) 16...^g6 was Shirov-Hamdouchi, Spanish Team Ch. 2000, and now
instead of Shirov's 17 £>f5?!, the move 17 £>db5! underlines the
drawbacks of Black's idea: 17...cxb5 18 £>d5 #d8 19 £>xf6 bxa4 (or
19...gxf6 20 #xc5 dxc5 21 flxd8 flxd8 22 £xf6+ *g8 23 Axd8 bxa4 24 £b6
with a big plus) 20 £>h5 f6 21 £>xf6! and Black's position becomes critical.
12 Wd2 if8 13 f3 «'b6 14 *hl id7 15 Badl 2ad8 Or 15...fle5!? 16 £>de2 (16
£>ce2? £>xa4 17 £al £>c5 18 £>f5? £>fxe4 19 fxe4 £>xe4) 16...flee8 17
£>f4 with an edge for White. After 15...flad8, White stands better, but
Black's position remains solid. Concrete operations now begin. 16 Wf4
£>e6 17 £>xe6 ixe6 18 ixe6 fxe6 18...flxe6?! 19 £>e2 d5?! (19...£>d7) 20
£>d4 flee8 21 £>f5 is very bad for Black. 19 e5 £>d5 (Shirov-Beliavsky,
German League 2000). After 20 £>xd5! cxd5 (or 20...exd5 21 e6 #c7 22
#g4, with the idea of f4- f5) 21 exd6 #xd6 22 £e5 #c6 23 fle2, Black has
three pawn islands against 277

The Philidor Files his opponent's two, but the backward pawn on e6
constitutes his only real weakness, and thus his position remains perfectly
defensible. D33) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 -&C4 £e7 6
0-0 0-0 7 Bel c6 8 a4 as 9 b3 exd410 £>xd4 £>b6 The latest trend for Black
in this complex variation. The text move aims for more activity than the old
jump to c5. It's true the knight often ends up misplaced on b6, but now
White must pay attention to the mobile c- and d- pawn duo. 11 £d3!
Practice has shown that the timid 11 £fl?! is insufficient: ll...d5 12 e5 (or 12
exd5 £>bxd5 13 £>xd5 £>xd5 with equality, N.Djukic-Damljanovic,
Herceg Novi 2002) 12...£>e8 (but 12...£>g4? is wrong: 13 h3 £b4 14 #d3
[14 #f3? is a mistake due to 14...£>xf2!, J.Pinheiro-Milla de Marco, Orense
2002J 14...c5 15 hxg4 cxd4 16 #xd4 and White was clearly better in
N.Kosintseva-Voiska, European Ch., Istanbul 2003; however, 12...£le4!?
should equalize too: 13 £>xe4 dxe4 14 £b2 f5 15 exf6 £xf6 16 flbl #d6, or
16...fle8!? 17 g3 £>d5, Y.Quezada-J.Maiwald, Havana 2004, with a roughly
level position in both cases) 13 £d3 (if 13 #h5 g6 14 #h6 £>g7 15 Ad3
Black is a tempo up compared to 11 £d3!, and 15...c5 16 £>f3 £>e6 gave
Black counterplay in De la Paz-Pecorelli Garcia, Havana 2003) 13...g6 14
Ah6 £>g7 15 £>ce2 with equal chances, Moreno Carnero-Bologan,
Pamplona 2001. Il...d5! Or: a) ll...£>g4 is interesting, if rather artificial: 12
£e2 £f6 13 £b2 (13 f3 £>e5 14 f4 £>g6 15 £e3 d5 looks fine for Black)
13...£e5 (13...£>xh2? 14 *xh2 £e5+ 15 *gl #f6 fails to 16 Af3 £xd4 17
£>d5!, when the lesser evil is 17...cxd5, as 17...Axf2+? 18 *xf2 Wh4+ 19
g3 Wh2+ 20 £g2 is curtains) 14 £xg4 £xg4 15 #xg4 £xd4 16 fladl c5 17
flxd4!? cxd4 18 £>b5 was Pavasovic-A.Maier, Salzburg 2004. White will
probably grab the two d-pawns and transfer his knight to f5, with plenty of
compensation for the exchange. 2 78

The Philidor Hanham Variation - Main Line: 8 Bel without 8...b6 b) ll...
£>fd7 would reach similar positions to those that result from 10...£>c5. For
example, 12 £fl £>c5 13 £a3! (after the less accurate 13 £b2?! Huzman
indicates how Black can gain counterplay: 13...fle8 14 #f3 £f6 15 fladl £e5,
or 14 #d2 &g5 15 f4 £f6 with the idea 16 fladl £g4) 13...fle8 14 #d2 £f8 (at
present the desirable 14...£g5!? runs into 15 f4 £f6 16 e5 £e7 17 #f2 when
Huzman asserts that White is clearly better; this assessment is questionable,
however, since after 17...dxe5 18 fxe5 #c7!? or 18 flxe5 £>bd7 19 fle2 £f8
Black doesn't seem to be in such a bad way) 15 fladl Ad7 (15...#f6!? 16 £b2
£d7 17 f3 is an edge for White) 16 £b2 #c7. Now instead of 17 Wf4, as in
Kas- parov-A.Huzman, Izmir 2004, Huzman suggests the improvement 17
g3. 12 e5 £>e8 12...£>g4? is inappropriate and led to a quick loss in
G.Feher-Rat, Zalakaros 2003, after 13 £>f5 £xf5 (if 13...£>xe5?! 14 HxeS
£f6 15 Wei) 14 ixf5 ib4 15 #xg4 £xc3 16 #h3 g6 17 #xc3 gxf5 18 #g3+
*h819£g5f6 20exf61-0. 13 Wh5 13 f4?! £b4 14 £d2 c5 (B.Muhren-
Bosboom Lanchava, Wijk aan Zee 2005) and 13 £b2 g6 14 *hl £>g7
(Zaragat- ski-Papa, Deizisau 2003) are less testing for Black. 13...g6 14
Wh6 £>g7 15 £>f3 Or 15 £>ce2!? (Felgaer-Strikovic, Santa Cruz de la
Palma 2005. 15...£>e6 16 £>e2 2e8 17 £b2 £>g5 18 £>ed4 £>xf 3+19
£>xf3 if8 20 Wf4 (Van den Heever-K.Solomon, South African Ch. 2005).
White is a bit better here, but there is plenty to play for. Conclusion
Positions in the final three chapters are characterized by a White space
advantage. The first player has more latitude, but also more chances to go
wrong! If Black plays with ...a7-a5, the most promising plan for White
includes the fianchetto of the dark-squared bishop. If Black delays the swap
with ...exd4 and confines himself to a defensive position (as for example, in
Shirov- Tischbierek - Line D3), then d4-d5 followed by pressure on d6
gives White a clear advantage. When Black exchanges on d4, the traditional
recapture is with the knight. After the swap of minor pieces on e6, White
usually tries to break Black's pawn structure by playing e4-e5. Some rather
recent examples have shown that 10 #xd4 may be sufficient to claim an
advantage against imprecise play by Black (see Hamdouchi- Oratovsky in
Line D31). 2 79

Chapter Fourteen Main Line: 8 lei b6 HA* M 1 SMlfll 111 P • JzJ «_ ftftH
Hill 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £rf6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 £x4 £e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 Bel c6
8 a4 b6 While 8...a5 aims to secure the c5- outpost for a knight, 8...b6
follows a much more ambitious plan in my view. Black believes in his
ability to 'hold' the centre and repel an eventual king- side attack from
White, while preparing counterplay on the queenside by means of ...a6 and
...b5. Now we will look at five different replies from White: A: 9 £a2 B:9h3
C: 9 £g5 D:9b3 E:9d5 A) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>C3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5
&.C4 £e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 Bel c6 8 a4 b6 9 £a2 A prophylactic move, designed
to avoid the loss of tempo entailed after dxe5 <5}xe5 (trading knights
would bring White nothing). 9—a6 m + mi m m mm m m mm%. m 10
£e3!? This is an idea of Glek's which deserves attention, but it shouldn't
scare Black. A more recent game continued 10 h3 flb8 11 £g5 b5 12 axb5
axb5 13 b4 fle8 14 flbl Wc7 15 £>h4 exd4 16 Wxd4 £>f8 17 #d3 £e6 18
£xe6 fxe6 with an equal position, G.Guseinov-P.EIjanov, Turin Olympiad
2006. 10...#C7 280

The Philidor Hanham Variation - Main Line: 8 BeJ b6 Or 10...£>g4!? 11

£d2 £b7 (against ll...£>gf6 GIek suggests the follow-up 12 dxe5 dxe5 13
£>h4, but here the simple 13...£>c5 looks equal to me) 12 £>e2! d5 13 £>g3
dxe4 14 flxe4 £>df6 15 flel (Glek-De Graaff, Holland 1998). The 16- knight
occupies its colleague's place, while White threatens not only to grab e5,
but also h2-h3 and/or £>f5. 11 £>h4 exd4 12 Axd4 £>e5 13 £>f5 £xf 5 14
exf 5 2fe8 This was played in Glek-Mensch, Paris 2000. Black, who will try
to play ...d5, is okay here. B) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5
£c4 £e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 Bel c6 8 a4 b6 9h3 9...a6 9...£.b7?! is inaccurate on
account of 10 £a2!, with the idea of 11 dxe5 and 12 £>h4. This motif will
appear again on next move. 10 dxe5?!, on the other hand, would return the
favour as Black could answer with 10...^xe5. io£a2 Or: a) 10 d5 c5 (after
10...cxd5?! 11 £>xd5 Ab7, the insertion of the moves h3 and ...a6 favours
White when compared to the 9 d5 cxd5 variation) and now: al) With 11 £fl
White is considering £id2-c4, followed by flbl and b4, to open the
queenside. From Black's perspective, he plans either play on the queenside,
by means of ...£>c7, ...Bb8 and ...b5, or, more ordinarily, on the kingside
with ...g6 and ...f5. a2) After 11 flbl Black started to implement the 'King's
Indian' idea in another way in Ye Jiangchuan-Cifuentes Parada, Koop
Tjuchem 1996: ll...*h8 12 Afl £>g8 13 £k!2, but then changed his mind by
281

The Philidor Files playing 13...&g5!? (13...g6 14 £>c4 f5 was the

alternative) 14 £k4 Axel 15 »xcl»<716b4... ...reaching a position in which
White enjoyed a slight initiative. b) 10 A.e3 is interesting, provided that
White maintains the central tension. The encounter R.Weill-Mensch, French
League 2000, continued \0..Ab7 11 dxe5?! (11 £>h4) ll...dxe5 12 £>h4?!
g6? (12...b5! 13 Ad3 [otherwise ...b4 and ...£}xe4j 13...£>c5 and Black has
no worries; 12...£>xe4!? deserves consideration too, even though White has
compensation after 13 £>xe4 £xh4 14 £>d6) 13 £h6 fle8 14 #f3 reaching a
position where Black was tied down. This explains why 10...Bb8! is an
adequate reply after 9 h3 a6 10 £a2. c) In the event of 10 £g5 £b7 11 dxe5
(11 £b3), safest is ll...£>xe5. Instead ll...dxe5 12 £>h4 b5 13 £a2!? provokes
complications after 13...h6 14 £e3 (14 £xf6 £xf6 15 Qf5 is level) 14...b4
(not 14...£>xe4? 15 £>xe4 £xh4 16 #g4 with too many threats: £.xh6, fladl,
£>d6) 15 £>bl £>xe4 16 £>g6 fle8 17 £xh6 £>df6 18 £>xe7+ #xe7 19 £e3
282 flad8 20 #e2 c5, when the activity of Black's pieces counterbalances the
pair of bishops. 10...2b8! A strange-looking move, the idea of which is
transparent: pushing with ...b5 while allowing the light-squared bishop to
control the square f5. In fact, alternatives show that 10...flb8 must be
played: a) 10...b5? would, of course, be a gross blunder: 11 axb5 axb5??
(but after ll...cxb5 White has a strong point on d5, as well as a sounder
pawn structure) 12 £.xf7+ and White wins. b) 10...£b7?! and now: bl) 11
£>h4!? brought White success in Kobalia-Plachetka, Cappelle la Grande
1999, after ll...exd4 12 #xd4 d5 13 e5 £c5 14 #d3 £>e4 15 £>xe4 dxe4? 16
flxe4 £xf2+ 17 *xf2 £>c5 18 #f3 £>xe4+ 19 #xe4 c5 20 #g4 £c8 21 #g3,
when the bishop and knight pairing was far superior to the rook and pawn.
However, 15...1i'xh4! gives Black excellent chances to equalize. b2) 11
dxe5! dxe5 (or ll...£>xe5 12

The Philidor Hanham Variation - Main Line: 8 BeJ b6 £>d4) 12 £>h4

£>xe4? 13 flxe4 £xh4 14 flxh4 #xh4 15 #xd7 with a large advantage for
White. Here are some options for White following 10...flb8: a) After 11
Ag5 White maintains his space advantage, but Black has avoided the nasty
manoeuvre £>h4-f5 and the position offers mutual chances. b) 11 #d3!?
(protecting e4, in order to redeploy the c3-knight) 11...b5 12 axb5 axb5 13
£>e2 c5 14 c3 exd4! (not 14...c4? 15 #c2 fla8 16 £>g3 £b7 17 b3 cxb3 18
#xb3 and White dominated in Hamdouchi-Bauer, Aubervilliers rapid 2000)
15 cxd4 c4 16 #c2 (16 #e3 is met by 16...Ab7, or 16...d5 with counterplay
in the centre) 16...d5 and Black is not worse. c) 11 dxe5?! dxe5 12 £>h4
£>c5 is equal. If the knight happens to land on f5 it will be eliminated,
while Black can himself prepare ...£>e6-d4. C) 1 e4 <J6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3
£>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 £c4 £e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 Bel c6 8 a4 b6 9 ig5 a6 9...£.b7?!
would again be an inaccuracy, in view of 10 £.xf6 £.xf6 11 d5 c5 12 a5.
Black can't answer by playing ...b5, and as a consequence he will either
have to accept a weak pawn on a6, after 12...a6 13 axb6, or the trade of
light- squared bishops after Wd3 and £.a6. Black must also be ready for the
closing of the queenside, should White play a6, which would possibly leave
the second player with a cramped position. 10£xf6 10 dxe5 £>xe5 11 £>xe5
dxe5, or 10 #e2 h6 11 £h4 £>h5, and 10 #d2 Jib7 11 Sadl b5 or ll...#c7, all
reach equal positions. 10...£xf6 11 d5 C5 In contrast to the note to Black's
ninth move, White has conceded the bishops in far less favourable
circumstances. Chances are level, with White planning to open the
queenside (with a later b4), while Black will find counter- play linked with
...g6, ...Ag7 and ...f5. 12l.fl After 12 £>bl!? g6 13 c3 £g7 14 £>bd2 f5 15 b4
(Kharlov-A.Panchenko, Rostov 1993)... 283

The Philidor Files ...each side is following his objective and chances remain
level. 12...ig5 13 g3 g6 14 £h3 ih6 The position is equal, A.Onischuk-
Bauer, European Team Ch., Batumi 1999. D) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3
£>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 &.C4 £e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 flel c6 8 a4 b6 9b3 This
continuation, less common than the direct 9 d5, doesn't lack interest. White
counts on his space advantage and intends to continue with Ab2, £d3, £>e2-
g3, and c2-c4. 9...a6 9...#c7?! is met by 10 d5!, but here 9...£.b7 is
interesting. Now 10 d5 cxd5 11 £ixd5 transposes to Line E31, whereas 10
a5 b5 11 a6 is not to be feared, as ll...bxc4 12 axb7 Bb8 is okay for Black.
The drawback of 9..Ab7 would be that the bishop is not covering f5 in the
event of £>h4-f5. However, this idea loses some punch with the bishop on
b2, so it seems to me that 9...£.b7 is superior to 9...a6. After 9...a6 White
normally chooses between: Dl: 10 d5 D2:10 £b2 After 10 £a3?! kb7 Black
threatens ll...b5, followed by 12...exd4 13 £>xd4 b4 14 Axb4 c5, winning.
Following 11 £fl b5 12 dxe5 dxe5 13 £d6 fle8 the position is equal. Dl) 1 e4
d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 £c4 £e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 Bel c6 8 a4 b6
9 b3 a610 d5 C5 11 flbl Logical, as White is preparing to open a front on
the queenside. This 284

The Philidor Hanham Variation - Main Line: 8 flej b6 novelty was

introduced in the game Leko-Bauer, FIDE World Ch., Us Vegas 1999,
which we shall now follow: ll...£te8 ll...*h8, with the plan of ...£>g8, ...g6
and ...f5, was playable too. 12l.fl 12...2b8?! This is not necessarily useful. I
was hoping to get ...b5 in after ...£>c7, but this was over-optimistic. 1
should have stuck to the plan of ...g6 and ...f5 without waiting any longer!
13 £>d2 g6 After 13...Qc7, 14 £>c4 b5 15 £>a5 would be bothersome. 14
b4 f5 15 £>C4 cxb4 15...£>ef6!? was the alternative. 16axb4Wc717ia3
White's forces on the queenside seem awkwardly placed, but how to exploit
this? 17...£>ef6 18 exf5 gxf5 19 #d2 £>c5 Forcing events by giving up the
protection of the b6-pawn. Instead, 19...*h8 followed by ...flg8, parrying the
threat of #g5+ and #xf5, deserved attention. 20 Bebl £>ce4 And here,
perhaps 20...£>fd7. 21 £>xe4 £>xe4 22 Wei White has made progress on
the queenside, whereas my counterplay on the other wing has reached a
dead end. White thus holds the advantage and a definite initiative. 22...D5
23 axb5 axb5 24 £>e3 Here 24 flxb5 Hxb5 25 flxb5 £a6 26 flb4 or 26 #a5
isn't so clear. Black has compensation for the pawn, but is it sufficient?
Leko's move is based on the principle that the b5-pawn is condemned
anyway, so it is more urgent to protect the kingside than grab it at this
precise point. 24...W37 Eyeing f2, as does my next move. 25 £cl £h4?! I
wanted to provoke g2-g3, so that a subsequent ...f4 would gain in strength.
The immediate 25...£.d8 (threatening ...Aa5), followed by ...Ab6 in case
White captures on b5, was most likely preferable. 26 £>dl! Wg7 27 2xb5
flxb5 28 flxb5 285

The Philidor Files White has finally gathered the first fruits of his superior
play. His advantage is clear, though not yet decisive. 28...£a6 What else? 29
WbA ixfl 30 Wxfl ig5 31 £xg5 £>xg5 I would have liked to manage without
the two preceding exchanges, but how then to achieve ...14? 32f3!Wa7+?!
32...1\:7 was stronger. 33 Wf2 Wa5 34 #d2 f4 35 h4 Gf7 36 £>f2 £>h6 37
g4 fxg3 38 2g4+?? This could have spoiled everything. Later Peter told me
that 38 #g5+ *h8 39 #xh6 gxf2+ and now 40 *h2!! fl£>+ 41 *hl £>g3+ 42
*g2 #a8 43 flb7! would have finished the job nicely. 38...£kxg4 39 *xa5
gxf2+ 40 *fl £>e3+?? A final mistake. After 40...£>h2+ 41 *xf2 £>xf3...
(see following diagram) ...White no longer has an easy win, as Black will
try to construct a fortress with the rook on f6 and the knight on f5. 286 41
*xf2 £>xc2 42 Wc7 £>d4 43 *xd6 2xf3+ 44 *el flf5 45 #c7 Bf7 46 #c8+
*g7 47 d6 flf8 48 d7 £>e6 49 We81-0 A tense and interesting game. D2) 1
e4 d6 2 d4 £tf6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 £c4 £e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 Bel c6 8 a4
b6 9 b3 a6 10 £b2 The other choice, of course, is to keep the tension with
Ab2, and play for a spatial advantage. 10...£b7 llWd2 Or: a) 11 £d3 fle8
(after ll...b5 12 £>e2 fle8 13 £>g3 £f8 14 c4 g6 the position

The Philidor Hanham Variation - Main Line: 8 BeJ b6 resembles something

from the Ruy Lopez, rich in possibilities for both sides) 12 £>e2 d5?!
(12...£f8 13 £>g3 #c7, Godena-Iordachescu, FIDE World Ch., New Delhi
2000, reduces White's edge to a minimum) 13 £>g3 dxe4 14 £>xe4 exd4
(14...£>xe4 15 £xe4 £>f6 16 dxe5 £>xe4 17 2xe4 and the extra pawn is
worth more than the pair of bishops, or 15...exd4 16 ^xd4 and the white
pieces are better placed) 15 £>xd4 £f8 16 £>f5 £>xe4 17 £xe4 £>e5 18
Wh5... ...and White was pulling the strings in F.Fiorito-Tempone, Argentine
Ch., Villa Martelli 1998. b) 11 £fl?! is too slow, and 11...b5 12 g3 fle8 13
£g2 £f8 gave me an edge in Zakurdjaeva-Bauer, Bad Zwesten 2002. Black
is threatening to win the e4- pawn with 14...exd4 15 £>xd4 b4 16 £>bl c5
and ...£.xe4, and it looks as if White has run out of ideas. Il...#c7
Alternatives are weaker: ll..Axe4? 12 £>xe4 d5 13 dxe5 dxc4 14 fladl £>c5
15 #e2 and #xc4 with a clear plus for White, or if ll...exd4? 12 £>xd4 d5 13
exd5 cxd5 14 £d3 £>c5 15 £>f5 fle8 16 #g5 with a crushing attack. 12 Badl
b5 13 £d3 flfe814 £>e2 Intending to jump to g3 and then f5. Now 14...d5?
is again premature: 15 dxe5 dxe4 (or 15...£>xe4 16 Axe4 dxe4 17 #xd7
#xd7 18 flxd7 exf3 19 flxb7 fxe2 20 flxe2) 16 £xe4! £>xe4 17 #xd7 #b6 18
£>ed4 c5 19 a5! with a decisive advantage. However, 14...bxa4!, makes
sense now that the rook has left its initial place: 15 bxa4 £f8 or 15...exd4!?
16 £>exd4 £k5. Returning to the position after 14 £te2, Henao-Campora,
Bogota 1991, continued: 14...if815 £>g3 g6 Or 15...exd4!? 16 £>xd4 c5 17
£>df5 c4 18 bxc4 bxc4 19 £fl £>xe4 20 £>xe4 £xe4 (not 20...flxe4? 21
flxe4 £xe4 22 £>h6+! gxh6 23 #d4 with a clear plus to White, since 23...c3
24 £xc3 £te5 25 #xe4 hits the a8-rook, so there is no time for ...#xc3) 21
£>xd6 #xd6 22 #xd6 £xd6 23 flxd6 £>c5 and Black should hold. 16 h4 h5?!
A weakening move. 16...Ag7 would have kept the balance after 17 h5 2ad8
287

The Philidor Files 18 hxg6 hxg6, while 16...bxa4 still looks desirable for
Black: in this case the a4- pawn would be weaker than its counterpart on a6.
17 axb5 axb5 18 C4! White enjoys a slight but pleasant initiative due to his
space advantage. I8...exd419 £>xd4 bxc4 20 £xc4 d5 Not 20...£>xe4? 21
£>xe4 d5 when 22 £>f5! is a killer, but 20...£>e5!? 21 £fl 2a2 was quite
bearable for Black. 21 exd5 flxel+ 22 flxel cxd5 23 £d3 All of White's
pieces now cluster together towards the black king, even though nothing
concrete is threatened as yet. 23...Wb6 24 £>e6!? Henao attaches an
optimistic '!!' to this move. 24...fxe6! If 24...£b4? 25 Wh6 fxe6 26 #xg6+
*f8 27 £xf6 wins. 25 Wg5 fla2?? Black should play 25...£.g7!. For example:
26 £xg6 (if 26 #xg6? £>f8 27 #g5 fla2! 28 £>f5 exf5 29 fle7 £>e6! and the
material surplus triumphs) 26...fla2! (26...#xb3? 27 £xf6 £>xf6 [or 27...£xf6
28 #xh5] 28 flbl #c4 29 flxb7 #g4 [29...flal+ 30 £bl!J 30 £xh5! #xg5 31
£f7+! and 32 hxg5 gives White a definite advantage) 27 £>f5 (threatening
Af7+) 27...exf5 28 fle7 #xf2+!! 29 *xf2 flxb2+ 30 *el flbl+ and now: a) 31
*f2? £>g4+ and Black wins. b) Henao stops his analysis after 31 *d2?
£>e4+ 32 flxe4 dxe4 33 #xf5, concluding that White stands much better.
With hindsight it appears that the contrary is true! i.e. 33...£>f6 34 #e6+ *h8
etc. c) 31 *e2!! saves White from defeat: 31...£a6+ 32 *d2 £>e4+ 33 flxe4
dxe4 34 #xf5 £h6+ (or 34...e3+ 35 *c2 flb2+ 36 *cl e2 37 #d5+ *h8 38
#xh5+ *g8 39 #d5+ with perpetual check) 35 *c3 £g7+ 36 *b4 £f8+ 37 *c3
and the game should logically finish with a repetition of moves. 26 Wxg6+
ig7 27 £>f5! 1-0 Black resigned, in view of 27...exf5 28 fle7. E) 1 e4 d6 2
d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 £c4 £e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 Sel c6 8 a4 b6 9d5
288

The Philidor Hanham Variation - Main Line: 8 flej b6 Now that the b-pawn
has made one step forward, this move makes sense. White tries to conquer
the d5-square, which would be used as a platform for his pieces. Previously
Black would always have been able to recapture with the b7-pawn in the
event of an exchange on c6, maintaining control of d5 with a foot soldier.
We shall now consider: El: 9...ib7?! E2:9...C5?! E3:9-..cxd5! El) 1 e4 d6 2
d4 £>f6 3 £>C3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 £x4 £e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 Bel c6 8 a4 b6
9d5ib7?! This is again imprecise. 10 dxc6 £xc611 £g5 11 £>d5?! is
premature: ll...flc8 12 2e2 (12 £.a6 seems a bit artificial, and after 12...flb8
13 b4 £>xd5 14 exd5 £b7 Black had obtained a welcome structure in
V.Dimitrov-Roesch, Wiesbaden 1990; or 12 c3 kb7 13 £b3 h6! and White
finds it hard to strengthen his position, G.Beikert-A.Sokolov, Viern- heim
1992) 12...£xd5 13 £xd5 £>xd5 14 #xd5 and now: a) 14...flc5 15 #d3 #c8
16 £e3 (16 c3 #c6, with the idea of ...flc4, is equal) 16...flc4 17 a5 #c6 18
axb6 axb6 19 fla7 2d8 and the White edge, if it exists, is quite symbolic. b)
14...£>f6 15 #dl d5?! would be an inferior version of the variation 9...cxd5
10 £>xd5 kb7 11 b3 flc8 etc. Indeed, White hasn't compromised himself by
playing b2-b3, so the c3-square, as well as the al-h8 diagonal, isn't
weakened (if a diagonal can be said to be weakened, that is!). Il...a6 ll...flc8
and ll...Wc7 12 b3 don't alter the assessment: an edge for White. 12 ixf6
£>xf6 13 £>d5 £>xd5 14 £xd5 White has a small but secure advantage,
Jansa-Mokry, Trnava 1987. E2) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5
5 £c4 £e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 Bel c6 8 a4 b6 9 d5 C5?! 10 as bxa5 Black can't keep
his pawn structure intact with 10...flb8 or \0..Ab7 for the same reasons
explained in the variation 289

The Philidor Files 9 £g5 £b7?!. In fact, if the queenside became closed, he
would be lacking even more space since, in contrast to the aforementioned
variation, no piece has been exchanged here. The game Miles-Gelashvili,
European Ch., Saint Vincent 2000, well illustrates the drawbacks of Black's
ninth move: ll£>d2 Threatening £>b3xa5. Il...£tb6 12 Hxas £>xc4 13 £>xc4
£>e8 14 f4! 14...exf4 Opening the game up for the pair of bishops. 14...f6 is
passive and no better. 15ixf4f6 Preventing the e5-lunge. 16 Wd2 Sf7 17
Seal if8 Black's position seems solid, but it is very passive. It is time to
make more progress on the queenside. 18 H532! Vacating the a5-square for
the manoeuvre £>a5-c6. I8...g5 An attempt to gain counterplay, which is
quickly suppressed. 19 £e3 h6 20 M2 Prophylaxis. On 20 £>a5, Miles
maybe feared ...f5, or he simply (and rightly!) thought that Black had no
useful move after 20 Af2. 20...£>g7?! The knight was required to protect
d6, as the game continuation proves. However, it is difficult to suggest an
improvement. 21 £>b5 a6 22 Was! An easy move for Miles who had a
predilection for queenless endings. After the exchange, White will not only
have his hands free for operations, but furthermore d6 will fall. 22...Wxa5
23 flxa5 £>e8 24 £g3 Bb8 25 £kbxd6 £xd6 26 £>xd6 £>xd6 27 £xd6 2xb2
28 2xc5 £b7 29 c4 Be2 30 Bbl *g7 30...flxe4 would have lost too: 31 £c7
£a8 (or 31...£c8 32 flb8 He8 33 £d6 £d7 34 flxe8+ £xe8 35 flc8) 32 flb8+
flf8 33 £d8! flee8 (33...£b7 comes to the same thing: 34 flc7 flel+ 35 *f2 flbl
36 flbxb7 flxb7 37 flxb7 flxd8 38 c5 and the c-pawn costs a rook) 34 flcc8
(a very amusing position!) 34...£.b7 35 flxb7 flxd8 36 flxd8 flxd8 37 c5. 290

The Philidor Hanham Variation - Main Line: 8 BeJ b6 31 2c7 2xc7 32 £xc7
£c8 33 2b8 £d7 34 ia5 ia4 35 c5 flxe4 36 c6 flc4 37 c7 id7 38 2d8 if 5 39
d61-0 E3) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 £c4 £e7 6 0-0 0-0 7
Bel c6 8 a4 b6 9 d5 cxd5! The move 9...cxd5 challenges for the possession
of the d5-square, by adding pressure to the e4-pawn. Indeed, practice has
shown that White finds it difficult to cover e4 while maintaining a piece on
d5. 10 £>xd5 10 £.xd5 has been employed, too, but it doesn't promise any
advantage: 10...£>xd5 11 £>xd5 (or 11 #xd5 flb8 followed by ...Ab7, ...
£>f6, or possibly ...f5) U..Ab7, followed by ...£>f6 to repel the undesirable
visitor. 10 exd5?, as played in K.Spraggett- Bauer, French League 2001,
accepts exactly the structure White is supposed to avoid! In mitigation, my
opponent had just come back from an exhausting tournament in Spain, and
realizing his mistake with 10 exd5, he committed no other for the rest of the
game! 10...Ab7 11 b3 £>e8 12 £b2 a6 13 £>d2 £>c7 14 £>dbl f5 15 £>a3
(what a trip to dissuade Black from pushing with ...b5!) 15...*h8 16 #e2 £f6
17 fladl e4 18 #d2 £e5 19 £fl and now 19...£>xd5! would have been the
correct way to proceed, but in the heat of the battle I wrongly feared 20
£>c4 or even 20 £}xd5 Jixbl 21 £>c4. In fact Black would have gained a
clear advantage. Returning to 10 £>xd5... ...we will consider the following
options for Black: E31:10...£b7 E32:10...£\xd5 E31) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3
£>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 £c4 £e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 Bel c6 8 a4 b6 9 d5 cxd5 10
£>xd5 £b7 11 b3 To develop the bishop on a3, from where it will pressure
d6. This move has the added benefit of supporting the other bishop on c4.
11 c3!?, avoiding any future nuisance over c2, deserves attention. The
manoeuvre ...flc8-c5, forcing the d5- 291

The Philidor Files knight to declare its intentions, seems an appropriate

response. 11 £>xe7+?! would gain White the two bishops only temporarily,
in view of the pressure on e4; \l...Wxe7 12 Ag5 h6 13 £xf6 £>xf6 is equal.
Il...flc8 12fle2 12 fla2?! fulfils the same function as 12 fle2, but in a more
awkward way. Glek-Bauer, Echternach (rapid) 1996, continued 12...£>xd5
13 £xd5 £xd5 14 #xd5 £>f6 15 #dl d5 16 exd5 e4 17 £>e5 £>xd5 18 c4
£>c3 19 #xd8 flfxd8 20 flc2 £b4 21 *fl? (21 flfl was the only move) 21...f6
22 £>g4 fld3? (spoiling Black's efforts - 22...£>bl! would have won) 23
£>e3 flcd8 24 g4 £>dl 25 flxdl flxdl+ 26 £>xdl flxdl + 27 *g2 g6 28 £e3 flbl
29 c5 bxc5 30 £xc5 £xc5 31 flxc5 flxb3 32 flc7 a5 33 fla7 fla3 34 flxa5 *g7
35 h4 h5 36 gxh5 gxh5 and a draw was agreed. After 12 £a3?! £>xd5 13
£xd5 £xd5 14 #xd5 flxc2 15 £xd6 £xd6 16 #xd6 £k5 (Yandemirov-
Abramovic, Ljubljana 1995) Black stands a bit better, thanks to his
infiltrating rook and White's weaknesses on the queenside. 12...£>xd5 The
positional sacrifice 12...flxc4? 13 bxc4 is strategically interesting but, in the
present case, insufficient. White will be able to jettison his a-pawn, by
playing a4-a5, thus creating weaknesses in Black's camp. But 12...flc5!? is
interesting, the idea being to force White to recapture with the pawn after
the swap on d5. 13 ixd5 ixd5 14 #xd5 £>f6 15«dl After the unfortunate 15
#d2?!, the thematic ...d5-push gains in strength: a) 15...d5! 16 exd5 e4 17
£>g5 £>xd5 18 £>xe4 f5 19 £>d6!! (already spotted by Blatny - plus my
computer! - in his annotations to the Vaisser-Degraeve game; 19 c4? is met
by 19...£>f4!) 19...1'xd6 20 £a3 and, amazingly, Black can't keep his extra
piece. For example, 20...£>b4 21 #el! #g6 22 £xb4 £xb4 23 #xb4 f4 24 f3
flxc2 with an equal position. b) 15...#c7!? is playable too, though White
may find a clever way to consolidate his space advantage: 292

The Philidor Hanham Variation - Main Line: 8 Hel b6 16 c4 a6 17 £a3 flfd8

18 h3 #b7 19 flael £f8 20 £b2 b5 21 cxb5 axb5 22 a5 d5? (the source of all
the future problems; after 22...b4!, followed by ...Ba8 and ...11)5, only
Black can stand better) 23 £>xe5 £>xe4 24 #f4 fla8 25 £>g4! (threatening
26 £>h6+ gxh6 27 flxe4 and a big check on the g-file) 25...fla6 26 fldl fle6?
(a final mistake in what had become a difficult position; Black should have
kept an eye on the d8- rook) 27 flxe4 flxe4 28 £>f6+ and Black resigned,
Vaisser-Degraeve, French Ch., Besancon 1999. 15...d5! An attempt to force
events and free Black's game at once. Black can also play in the same
fashion as in the previous note, but then he runs the risk of ending up in a
passive position. 16 exd5 16...Wxd5! Or: a) 16...£>xd5?? 17 fld2 £>c3 18
flxd8 flfxd8 19 #fl fldl 20 Qel, followed by Ab2, and White wins. b)
16...e4!? 17 £>g5 #xd5 (17...Qxd5 18 ^xe4 gave White a healthy extra
pawn in Kindermann-Schmaltz, German Ch., Gladenbach 1997; but not 18
fld2? £xg5! 19 flxd5 #xd5 20 #xd5 flfd8) 18 #xd5 £>xd5 19 £>xe4 f5! 20
c4! (otherwise ...Af6 comes) 20...fxe4 (20...£>b4? 21 £g5 was clearly better
for White in Khamatgaleev-Philippe, Budapest 1999) 21 cxd5 £c5!
(Macieja- Azmaiparashvili, European Team Ch., Plovdiv 2003), and now
Huzman indicates the following sequence as best: 22 £e3! £xe3 23 flxe3 (23
fxe3? flc3 is equal) 23...flc2 24 flfl Sd8 25 flxe4 flxd5 26 fle7 flb2 27 flxa7
flxb3 28 flel h6 29 g3 and Black has quite a bit of work to do before he
earns a draw. 293

The Philidor Files 17 Wxd5 £>xd5 18 £>xe5! 18 flxe5? is bad due to

18...£f6, but 18 c4 is a major alternative: a) After 18...£f6 19 £b2! £>f4 20
fle3 flfd8 21 £xe5 £xe5 22 £>xe5 Black doesn't have enough play for the
sacrificed pawn. b) 18...£>c3 19 fle3 and now: bl) 19...e4!? 20 £b2 Ac5 21
flxc3 exf3 22 Bxf3 flcd8 23 £c3 is given as clearly better for White by
Huzman in his notes to Macieja-Azmaiparashvili. A fresh example from the
advocate of this line seems to prove that Black still has enough defensive
resources: 23...a5 24 flel fld7 25 g3 f6 26 <&g2 *f7 27 h4 flfd8 28 h5 fld3
29 flcl *e6 30 flel+ *f7 31 flcl *e6 32 flel+ *f7 Vi-Vi Asrian-
Azmaiparashvili, Greek Team Ch. 2005. b2) 19...£>dl 20 flel flfd8 21 £>xe5
£c5 (21...£b4!? is possible too: 22 kdl flxd2 [not 22...£xd2? 23 flexdl £c3 24
£>c6!!] 23 flaxdl flb2 24 fle3 £c5 [24...f6!?l 25 flf3 fle8 26 £>d3 flxb3 27
£>xc5 flxf3 28 gxf3 bxc5 29 fld5 flc8 30 fld7 g6 31 flxa7 flb8 32 flc7 flb4
33 flxc5 flxa4 with a drawish rook ending) 22 fla2 f6 (the safest) 23 £>f3
fld3 and Black has full compensation here. I8...flfe8 18...£>c3!? 19 flel flfd8
20 £>c4 £f6 21 £b2 is slightly better for White. 19 C4 19...£>c3 Kasparov-
Azmaiparashvili, Crete (rapid match) 2003, continued 19...£.d6 20 £b2 Qf4
21 fleel k\A 22 fledl £>e2+ 23 *fl £>c3 24 fld3 £>e4 and here, instead of 25
fladl, White should have preferred 25 £d4! £>d2+ 26 *gl f6 27 Ae3 with a
big advantage. 20 flel £d6 21 £>f3 flxel+ 22 £>xel £e5 23 *fl fld8 24 as
£>e2 25 flbl £>c3 26 Sal £>e2 27 flbl £>c3 28 Sal V^-'/i Nevednichy-
Azmaiparashvili, Nova Gorica 2005. In conclusion, in this line where Black
gives up his e5-pawn, it looks pretty clear that he has excellent drawing
chances, but can't win. Therefore, for those looking for more than a point
split, I recommend trying their luck in the 10...£>xd5 11 £xd5 flb8 variation
that follows. E32) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £tf6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5 £c4 £e7 6 0-
0 0-0 7 flel c6 8 294

The Philidor Hanham Variation - Main Line: 8 BeJ b6 a4 b6 9 d5 cxdS 10

£>xd5 £>xd5 11 ixd5 flb8 At first sight Black's position doesn't inspire
much confidence, mainly because of the weakened d5-square. However,
certain dynamic resources exist, such as the pushes ...a6 and ...b5, or ...f5,
as well as ...£>f6 and ..Ab7. 12 Wd3! A multi-purpose move: White over-
protects e4 and prepares the transfer of his queen to g3, and the knight to e3
or g3, via d2 and fl. The position after ll...flb8 is very rich in possibilities
and, as well as the text move, White has tried no less than five sensible
alternatives: a) 12 b3 is an approach we are familiar with: White intends to
pressure the weakness on d6 by playing Aa3. For example: al) I2...a6 13
£>d2 £>f6 14 £>c4 £>xd5 15 #xd5 £b7 (15...£e6 is adequate too: 16 #d3
b5?! 17 axb5 axb5 18 £>e3 #c7 and White stood a bit better, Macieja-
A.Panchenko, Pardubice 1994, but 16...f5! is equal) 16 #d3 f5 17 exf5 e4
with reciprocal chances in Kulaots- Seeman, Estonian Ch., Tallinn 2005. If
White hangs on to the pawn with 18 Wfh3?\, then 18...d5 19 £>e3 d4 20
£>c4 b5 provides Black with considerable activity and ample
compensation. a2) 12...£>f6 with a further split: a2l) 13 £c4 £b7 14 £>d2
(14 £d3!?) and now 14..Axe4! followed by 15...d5 equalizes, but certainly
not 14...d5? 15 exd5 £>xd5 16 £b2 f6 (Y.Hernandez- S.Agrest, European
Ch., Warsaw 2001), when after 17 fle3! the pin on the d-file will be lethal.
a22) After 13 c4 £>xd5 14 #xd5 £b7 15 #d3 (O.Biti-E.Janev, Bosnjaci
2004) Black should carry out the ...f5-thrust, and the best way to prepare
this is with 15...#c8!? 16 £a3 #e6 17 fladl flbd8, etc. a23) 13 £a3 £>xd5 (or
13...a6!?) 14 #xd5 £b7 (14...£e6 is also good: 15 #d3 #c7 16 £>d2 flbd8 17
c4 #c6 18 ^bl f5 with fine play for Black, Krzesaj- Lubczynski, Leba 2004)
15 #d3 #c7 16 fladl flbd8 17 c4 #c8 etc., C.Berczes- Mensch, Budapest
2000. Renouncing plans for ...f5 in order to focus on the queenside may be
interesting too: 295

The Philidor Files 16...flfd8 17 c4 £c6 18 £>d2 a6 19 £>fl (Kyas-P. Hesse,

German League 1992) and here 19...b5 20 axb5 axb5 21 £>e3 would have
kept the position balanced. b) 12 c3 £>f6 13 £b3 £b7 14 #d3 h6 (Kaiumov-
A.Panchenko, Cheliabinsk 1993) is similar to the main text with 12 #d3!,
except that White has played 14 c3 instead of the more useful 14 £.d2 or
14£>d2. c) 12 a5 is probably too hasty: 12...£>f6 (12...b5 13 £e3 #c7, A.Za-
pata-A.Hoffman, Sao Paulo 2001, and 12...#c7 13 axb6 £>xb6 14 £b3 h6,
Hakki-Khairallah, Beirut 2004, look playable as well) 13 axb6 axb6 was
played in Neukirch-Teumer, German League 2002. Now the following
sequence seems rather logical: 14 Ab3 £b7 15 #d3 fla8 16 flxa8 #xa8 17
£g5 £xe4 18 flxe4 £>xe4 19 £xe7 fle8 20 £d5 #al+ 21 #fl #xb2 22 £xe4
flxe7 with approximate equality. d) 12 c4 and now: dl) 12...£>f6 13 a5 (13
£e3?! looks a bit slow, and after 13...£>xd5 14 cxd5 f5 15 exf5 £xf5 Black
already had the more pleasant position in Lemmers- Damljanovic, Andorra
2004) 13...£>xd5 14 cxd5 b5 15 £e3 a6 16 £b6 #e8, and ...f5 is next on the
agenda, W.Rosen- C.Fehmer, German League 2005. d2) The double-edged
12...a5!? (Bakre-Denoth, Pula 2002) weakens b5, but secures c5 for the
knight. Moreover, if White wants to make progress on the queenside, he
will have to play b2-b4, leaving himself with isolated pawns after ...axb4. e)
The semi-waiting move 12 h.3!? is also interesting: 12...£>f6 13 £b3 £b7 14
#d3 #c7 (14...d5 doesn't seem entirely satisfactory, as after 15 exd5 e4 16
flxe4 £>xe4 17 Wxe4 fle8 18 #d3 White has a definite advantage, but
14...h.6!? is worth consideration) and now instead of 15 £>h4?! d5! (Sosna-
I.Markovic, Moravian Team Ch. 2002) White could have retained a plus
with the positional 15 Ag5. 12...*h8 Black has other choices here: a) Black
shouldn't be able to solve his problems with 12...£}f6, as practice has
shown: 13 £b3 (13 Ac4!?, H.Hunt- Voiska, German League 2003, is
similar) 296

The Philidor Hanham Variation - Main Line: 8 BeJ b6 13...h6 (directed

against A.g5xf6, which would reinforce White's control over d5; 13...£b7
14 £g5 £>h5 15 Ad2 #c7 16 a5 gave White an edge in Chepari- nov-
C.Garcia Fernandez, Pamplona 2003) 14 £d2 (after 14 £>d2!? Jib7 15 £>fl
fle8 16 £>g3 [G.Shahade-Lakda- wala, San Francisco 2001] White has nice
attacking prospects on the kingside [£>f5, #g3 etc.] so the sacrifice 16...d5
17 exd5 £xd5 18 £xd5 #xd5 19 #xd5 £>xd5 20 flxe5 £>b4 looks like
Black's best chance in my view) 14...£.b7 15 fladl! (15 a5?!
d5,I.Khamrakulov- C.Garcia Fernandez, Spanish Team Ch. 2006, is also
better for White, but less clear) 15...#c7 16 £>h4 with a clear plus for
White. Other moves are also unappealing: 15...d5 16 £>xe5 (16 exd5!?)
16...£>xe4?! (16...dxe4 was the lesser evil) 17 £xh6! gxh6 18 flxe4 dxe4 19
#g3+ *h7 20 flxd8 flbxd8 21 Wg4 with a clear advantage in the game
Parmentier- Seret, French League 2005; or 15...flc8 16 Ab4 and d6 is bound
to fall, Reiss- Rebers, Budapest 2001. b) 12...#c7 13 £e3 (or 13 £d2)
13...£>f6 14 £b3 h6 15 £d2 with a slight, but persistent advantage for
White, Kindermann-Schmidt Schaeffer, Munich 1993. c) 12...£k5 and now:
cl) 13 #c4 a5 14 £e3 (C.Horvath- Okhotnik, Hungarian League 2000), when
instead of 14...£.a6, more logical seems to be 14...Ad7 15 b3 *h8, preparing
...f5 and intending to meet 16 £xf7 with 16...£>xe4. After 15...*h8 White
holds a small plus, but there is still plenty to play for. c2) 13 #e3 £e6 (or
13...a5 14 b3 *h8 15 £>g5 £>e6 16 £xe6 fxe6 17 Qf3, Pavasovic-Srebrnic,
Celje 2004, followed by the plan c4, A.a3, fladl, when White should stand
slightly better) 14 fldl £xd5 15 flxd5 #c7, and at this moment everything
seems under control from White's point of view. It will, however, prove
difficult to conveniently avoid any kind of coun- terplay, as seen after
ll...flb8 16 b3 £>d7 17 c4 £>f6 18 fld3 a6 19 £a3 b5 20 cxb5 axb5 21 flcl
#b7 22 £xd6 £xd6 23 flxd6 bxa4 24 bxa4 Wxe4 25 #xe4 £>xe4 26 fldc6 f6
in Lahno-S.Collas, Calvia Olympiad 2004. White was only 297

The Philidor Files marginally better thanks to her passed- pawn, and the
game eventually ended peacefully on move 39. 13 b3 £>c5 13...f5 14 exf5
£>c5 (14...£>f6?! 15 £e6 e4 16 Bxe4 £}xe4 17 Wxe4 favours White) 15
We2 £xf5 transposes to the main text. 14 *e2 f5 15 exf5 ixf5 We have been
following the game M.Neubauer-Lima, Brasilia 2003. This position has
hardly been tested and isn't easy to assess properly, but I think it offers
mutual chances. Conclusion White has more than one way to fight 8...b6.
There are three main scenarios: White tries to bring the f3-knight to f5, via
h4, in order to launch an attack against the black king. The retreat £.c4-a2 is
seen as preparation for the exchange on e5 without allowing the equalizing
...£>xe5. On dxe5, ...£>xe5, there would indeed follow £>d4, and soon after
f2-f4. Black should refrain from developing his light- squared bishop on b7
too early. From its initial square, it covers f5 and discourages the invasion
of a white knight. White obtains an outpost on d5, after d4-d5 followed by
dxc6 or ...cxd5 White can, in this situation, try to exchange a defender of d5
by playing £.cl-g5xf6. He will then look for a 'good knight against bad
bishop' type of position. For his part, Black should check to see whether
tactical resources can permit him to simplify the position, while the ...d5
thrust should also be considered (see Line E31). If Black doesn't find
himself in one of these two favourable scenarios, he will have to try to
avoid the 'good knight versus bad bishop'. The position becomes closed
when Black reacts to d4-d5 by playing ...C6-C5 There are two cases to
consider here: 1) Black's a-pawn still stands on a7. In this event a4-a5
usually gives White an indisputable advantage. 2) Black's a-pawn already
stands on a6. In this situation a4-a5 makes no sense anymore (Black would
answer with ...b6-b5) and White's play is based on opening the queenside
by means of b2-b4. Black's customary counterplay is based on the ...f5
push, prepared by ...£k?8 (or ...*h8, ...£>g8) and ...g6. 298

Final Thoughts We have seen throughout this book many qualities of the
Philidor: Its solidity and hidden dynamism In the past the Philidor has been
mistakenly considered to be somewhat passive. It's true that Black's
counter- play can be delayed for some time, but it does arrive. This apparent
tranquillity makes your opponent feel confident, but that is an illusion! Its
wealth of ideas Many plans can be considered (for both sides), and this
avoids the monotony of a stereotypical opening. Its elasticity The pawn and
piece placements are quite flexible. Another, similar feature is that it can be
difficult to get to grips with the nuances that exist between different move
orders. This may be particularly true for players who are too preoccupied
with opening theory. The Philidor Defence 'suffers' from underestimation,
as generally speaking White players study it rather superficially. Some
variations, such as the Larsen (Chapter 2) or those resulting from the old-
fashioned move order (1 e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 £>f6) have become rare birds
nowadays. They may be playable, but have proved too difficult to handle in
practical games. That said, an early inaccuracy from White often occurs.
Thus, when 1 employed the Larsen Variation in 2002, my opponents twice
made the mistake of playing f2-f3 before #d2 and 0-0-0 (I didn't exploit this
the first time by the way!). To be added to this is the fact that the position
often becomes very sharp fairly quickly, which will overthrow your
opponent in many cases! This was especially true in the game Brodsky-
Nisipeanu (Chapter 4, Line D222), in which White was drawn into the
abyss 299

The Philidor Files when he searched for an opening advantage. More recent
games featuring 5...£.e7 have demonstrated the validity of Black's concept,
making this old variation fashionable again. Positions from Part 2 of the
book are still rather fresh. New ideas may appear and a more thorough
examination may be necessary to determine where Black is facing
problems. As a final note, I can recommend the Philidor to players of a
'lazy' nature, those who attach more importance to the understanding of
strategic themes, rather than the memorization of variations. 300
Index of Variations Early Deviations 1 e4 e5 2 £sf3 d6 3 d4 3 Ac4 -10
3...£>f6 3...£g4 - 12 3...£>c6 - 12 3...#e7 -14 3...<SW-16 3...f5 4 £c4 - 23 4
dxe5 - 26 4 exf5 - 27 4 £>c3 - 29 4 dxe5 £>xe4 5 Wd5 £>C5 6 -ig5 &e7
6...#d7 7exd6^xd6 8^c3 8...#e6+-34 8...0-0 9 0-0-0 9...£>c6-35 9...a6-38 7
exd6 Wxd6 8 £>c3 We6+ - 39 8...£>e6-41 8...c6-41 Larsen's Variation 1 e4
e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 301

The Philidor Files 4 #xd4 £>f6 - 48 (4...a6 - 49) 4...g6 5 £>c3 &g7 6 &e3 6
£f4 - 58 6...£>f6 7 Wd2 0-0 8 0-0-0 Be8 8...£>c6 9 f3 £>xd4 10 £xd4 £e6
11 £e3- 61 11 h4-62 11 *bl-66 11 g4-67 9f3£>c6 9...a6-71 10 g4 10 h4 - 79
10...£>e5 - 76 10...a6- 78 10...£>xd4-75 Antoshin's Variation 1 e4 e5 2 £>f3
d6 3 d4 exd4 4 £>xd4 £>f6 5 £>c3 &e7 6 JiH 6 #f3 - 84 6 £>de2 0-0 - 84
(6...c6 - 85; 6...£>c6 - 86) 6 £c4 0-0 7 0-0 a6 - 88 (7...c6 - 90) 6 £e2 0-0 7 0-
0 fle8 (7...c5 - 93) 8 flel - 95 (8 f4 - 96) 6 g3 d5 7 e5 (7 exd5 - 99) 7...£>g4
8 £f4 - 102 (8 £g2 - 101) 6...0-0 7 Wd2 d5 7...c6-109 7...£>c6 8 0-0-0
£>xd4 9 Wxd4 £e6 - 117 (9...a6 - 119) 7...a6 8 0-0-0 8...b5-114 8...d5-113
8&db5 8 exd5 - 120 8 e5 -120 8...C6 8...&b4-121 9 £>c7 d410 £>xa8 - 129
10 0-0-0 -124 10 £>e2-126 10 fldl -123 302

Index of Variations 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6:3rd move alternatives for White l e4

d6 2 d4 £>f6 2...e5 -132 3&d3 3 £>d2 -133 3f3 3...£>bd7-143 3...d5 4 e5
£>fd7 - 136 (4...£>g8 - 135) 3...e5 4 £>e2 -137 4 dxe5 -137 4 d5 £e7 5 £e3
0-0 6 c4 6 c4 - 142 (6 £d3 - 139) 3...e5 4 c3 d5 5 dxe5 £>xe4 5...dxe4 6
£b5+ 6...£d7-149 6...c6- 148 6 £>f3 £>c6 7 £>bd2 £>c5 7...£g4 - 152 8ibl 8
£b5 - 154 8 £c2 - 156 8 £>b3 - 153 8...ig4 9 h3 - 160 9 b4 - 158 3 &c3
&bd7 and 3-.e5 1 e4 d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 £>bd7 3...e5 4 £>ge2 - 165 4 f4
-165 4 dxe5 dxe5 5 #xd8+ *xd8 - 4f4 4 g3-176 4£e3-178 4 g4 h6 5 h3 (5
£e3 - 200; 5 £>f3 - 4...e5 5 £>f3 exd4 5..Ae7-180 5...c6-181 6#xd4c6
6...£>c5 7 £e3 - 187 (7 £c4 - 186) 303 166 198) 5...e5 6 £>ge2 - 203 (6 £g2
- 201)

The Philidor Files 7&e3 7e5-290 7 £d2 -190 7...d5 8 exd5 - 293 8e5-291
Philidor Hanham Variation I e4 e5 2 £>f3 d6 3 d4 £>f6 4 £>c3 ^bd7 or 1 e4
d6 2 d4 £>f6 3 £>c3 ^bd7 4 £>f3 e5 5&C4 5 g3 - 208 5 g4 £>xg4 - 223
(5...g6 - 222; 5...h6 - 220) 5..Ae7 6 0-0 6£xf7+-229 6 dxe5- 220 6 £>g5 0-0
7 £xf7+ flxf7 8 £>e6 #e8 9 £>xc7 #d8 10 £>xa8 - 222 6...0-0 7 Bel 7 a4 -
234 7 We2 c6 (7...exd4 - 236) 8 a4 b6 - 238 (8...exd4 - 242) 7...C6 8 a4 b6
8...exd4-249; 8...fle8-250 8...#c7 9 h3 - 256 (9 b3- 252; 9 £a2 - 253; 9 a5 -
255) 8...a5 9 h3 exd4 10 £>xd4 - 264 (10 #xd4 - 268) 9 £a2 h6 - 272
(9...exd4 - 272) 9 b3 exd4 10 £>xd4 (10 #xd4 - 274) 10...£>b6 - 278
(10...£>c5 - 276) 9d5 9 £a2 - 280 9 h3 - 282 9 £g5 - 283 9b3a6 10 Ab2-286
10 d5 - 284 9».cxd5 9...c5-289 9...£b7-289 10 £>xd5 £>xd5 10...£b7-292 II
-ixd5 2b8 - 295 304